when does archaeology become paleontology?

[Gelatinous squid]

I just stumbled across this hillariously bizarre story 

https://allthatsinteresting.com/ichthyosaurus-fossil?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

about a guy who dug up a fossil that had been buried by his creationist ancestors, which made me wonder, was this story about archaeology or palentology?

 

But more generally, when does archeology become paleontology? How far back do you have to go? Is it tools? Fire? Bipedalism? 

[connorp]

1850 is probably too young to fall in the realm of archaeology. Fossils are also (somewhat arbitrarily) defined to be older than 10,000 years. Make of that what you wish.

[DPS Ammonite]

The story is about both paleontology and archaeology. The study of the ichthyosaur outside of its context of being buried by humans is strictly paleontological. The story about an object being buried (a fossil) by modern humans is archeological.

 

I think that you are posing another question: going back in time, when does a human (or a forebearer) fossil go from the realm of archeology into the realm of paleontology? The boundary between paleontology and archeology is ill defined. There is probably considerable overlap between the two guided by definitions of archeology and paleontology. https://www.thoughtco.com/different-ways-to-describe-archaeology-169847

 

The definition of paleontology as the study of fossils excluding anatomically modern humans would include fossils up to 30 thousand years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens#Anatomical_modernity

The definition of archeology as the study of hominid fossils and culture would include fossils back to 14 million years ago.

 

Any human ancestors before 14 million years ago would be fully in the paleontology realm. The fossils from 14 million to 30 thousand years ago could be in the paleontology, archeology or both realms. Fossils newer than 30 thousand years are only in the archeology realm.

[Coco]

Hi,

 

In France, it is considered that the boundary between paleontology and archaeology is the appearance of man. Before man it is paleontology, from the appearance of man it is prehistory, even for bear teeth that would have lived in a cave at that time.

 

Coco

[Miocene_Mason]

Paleoanthropology is my favorite science as it intersects with almost every other science. Let’s be clear, archaeology typically has to do with material culture and dwellings. Bioarcheaology is the study of modern human remains. As to when Homo sapiens becomes “anatomically modern”, there really is no solid date. It’s usually assumed that upper Paleolithic remains are too late to be considered paleoanthropology. We assume that at that point we are behaviorally and anatomically modern, both of which are entirely arbitrary. 

 

Generally, paleoanthropology (or evolutionary anthropology) usually has to do with any remains after the split between chimps common ancestor and ours, basically the tribe Hominini. At present, this includes Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Orrorin, Homo, Paranthropus, and a few others depending on how you lump or split. Some include Sahelanthropus but I have a feeling that’s not gonna pan out (no pun intended, but if you get it kudos). Prior to that, you can have palaeontology (and it’s many subsets).

 

Paleoanthropology and archaeology both have many facets as well, and one could spend all day going into the semantics and technicalities. As long as we know what we are talking about, the terms are flexible. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by WhodamanHD
P.S. When I say “prior to that you can have paleontology” I mean phylogenetically, not temporally.

[DPS Ammonite]

1 hour ago, Coco said:

Hi,

 

In France, it is considered that the boundary between paleontology and archaeology is the appearance of man. Before man it is paleontology, from the appearance of man it is prehistory, even for bear teeth that would have lived in a cave at that time.

 

Coco

I agree that you gave one possible definition of the boundary between paleontology and archeology that depends on the definition of “man”. What definition of “man” should we use? When did man first appear? 

 

I think that that we can push back a possible boundary to the time of the oldest artifacts associated with our ancestors since the study of archeology includes the study of artifacts associated with our relatives. One study suggests that 3.3 million year old artifacts have been found. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32804177

 

I think that an exact boundary is not important. I think that there are fuzzy zones instead if boundries. What is important is that we need to properly describe and date our human and human ancestor finds. Since some of our extant primates use tools, I would not be surprised if we find tools older than 3.3 million years old. We may also find evidence of non primates using tools in the fossil record since animals other than primates use tools today.

 

@WhodamanHD  Pan is the genus of chimps.

“Some include Sahelanthropus but I have a feeling that’s not gonna pan out (no pun intended, but if you get it kudos).”

 

[Miocene_Mason]

54 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

@WhodamanHD  Pan is the genus of chimps.

“Some include Sahelanthropus but I have a feeling that’s not gonna pan out (no pun intended, but if you get it kudos).”

 

Kudos earned! Ironically, it may Pan out. As in it may end up closer to the genus Pan then those of the tribe Hominini.

 

 

Tools from capuchin monkeys have been dated to 3,000 years old in South America. If this was repeated in Africa, it may throw a literal monkey wrench into lower Paleolithic archaeology.

[Coco]

Hi,

 

8 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

I agree that you gave one possible definition of the boundary between paleontology and archeology that depends on the definition of “man”. What definition of “man” should we use? When did man first appear?

 

I just wanted to fuel the conversation by pointing out that the border is very different for an American who considers every living being over 10,000 years old to be fossil, compared to a Frenchman who thinks that fossils can't be more recent than the appearance of man.

 

That said, I agree with you that it is not easy to determine when man appeared on earth, and what kind of man. Toumaï (7 MYO), Ardi (4,4 MYO), Little foot (3,7 MYO), Lucy (3,18 MYO) ?

 

Coco

[erose]

Dates like 30K for "anatomically modern" humans are a subjective prejudice imposed by western anthropologists.  H.sapiens has been H. sapiens for a good long time as evidenced by finds from South and East Africa where evidence of art and culture suggest a fully modern brain. 

 

There is still much bias in the science today. 

[siteseer]

On 10/22/2019 at 8:40 AM, connorp said:

1850 is probably too young to fall in the realm of archaeology. Fossils are also (somewhat arbitrarily) defined to be older than 10,000 years. Make of that what you wish.

 

 

As has been said, it depends on how you define terms.  People who collect and study 100 year-old bottles and other items from the time have called themselves archaeologists though someone else might say they should call themselves "historians" instead.  I think archaeologists are people who study artifacts and their source cultures that are at least 1000 years old going back to about 10,000 years ago which is about the time the ice ages ended and human civilization began but that is just my ballpark figure in my own brain.  Archaeologists are historians but I don't think you'd call someone who studies King Tut's time a historian before you would say that person is an archaeologist.

 

Jess