Figure 5 - uploaded by Ralph Eshelman
Content may be subject to copyright.
Map showing the location of some of the Ohio Valley archaeological sites that have revealed fossil shark teeth.
Source publication
Fossil shark teeth were used by various prehistoric (pre-European) cultures in North America over the past 10,000 years. Archaeological data from the Chesapeake Bay region indicate that six different varieties of fossil shark teeth were collected, modified, and used by native cultures over the past 2,500 years. They include fossil teeth from the ex...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... fossil sharks' tooth cache from Wayne County, Ohio included a mix of C. megalodon, Galeocerdo cuvier, and possibly Negaprion eurybathrodon, I. desori, and C. egertoni. Site summaries by Hothem (1989) provided data from several burial mounds in Ohio that have revealed fossil shark teeth ( Figure 5). Data from additional sites in Ohio have been partially synthesized, but not yet published (Colvin personal communication 2011). ...
Context 2
... (2006:7-11) has presented comparable alteration data for shark teeth used by Pacific Islanders and Kozuch (1993:25) has noted similar alteration patterns on shark teeth for sites along Florida's Gulf Coast. However, along the Gulf Coast of Florida, preservation of wood and other perishable material within the peat and muck (Penders 2002: Figure 5.25) has provided researchers with a rare opportunity to understand how some shark teeth were being used. ...
Citations
... Shark teeth are found around the world in different archaeological contexts. Studies have identified their presence in littoral regions; for example, on the west and east coasts of North America (Betts et al. 2012;Colvin 2011Colvin , 2014Kozuch 1993Kozuch , 1998Kozuch and Fitzgerald 1989;Lowery et al. 2011;Rick et al. 2002), the Arabian Peninsula (Charpentier et al. 2016(Charpentier et al. , 2009Marrast et al. 2019), Australia (Wright et al. 2016), and Argentina (Cione and Bonomo 2003). ...
Shark remains are common in coastal archaeological sites in southern Brazil. Here we present an analysis of microwear visible on shark teeth found at the Rio do Meio site in Florianópolis, Brazil. It demonstrates that hafted shark teeth were used to work soft materials such as leather, as well as semihard materials such as wood and bone, whereas others probably functioned as arrowheads. The results also show a possible preference for tiger shark teeth use for woodworking. The identified technical motions include piercing, cutting, and scraping, as well as scaling and sawing. These findings allow us to question the common interpretation of shark teeth use as ornaments and as having symbolic value. Instead, shark teeth seem to have been used as tools and weapons in daily life.
... Archaeological data from north America indicate that pre-European native Americans collected fossil shark teeth over the past 10,000 years (Lowery et al. 2011;Colvin 2011Colvin , 2014Betts et al. 2012). These teeth, notably those of Otodus megalodon, have been found in mortuary and ritual contexts. ...
... Some of them are modified, notched, or drilled. Although most were probably used as projectile points, knives, or scraping tools, intentionally drilled holes on some fossil teeth indicate that a few were possibly used as ornaments (Lowery et al. 2011). otodontid teeth found in north America have been reported in publications since the early 18 th century (ray 2001;Brignon 2017). ...
In the second issue of Samuel Morton's "Synopsis of the organic remains of the Cretaceous group of the united States" published in June 1835, several otodontid shark teeth from Cenozoic formations of New Jersey are named with authorship of Louis Agassiz and meet the conditions of availability of the international Code of Zoological nomenclature. it has gone largely unnoticed that some of these names were introduced in this work before their publication in Agassiz's masterpiece "Recherches sur les poissons fossiles". The specimens presented by Morton were kept in the John Price Wetherill (1794-1853) collection that found its way into the paleontological collection of the Academy of natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, where most of them have been rediscovered. These teeth are part of the type series upon which Agassiz introduced Lamna obliqua Agassiz in Morton, 1835, Lamna lanceolata Agassiz in Morton, 1835, Carcharias lanceolatus Agassiz in Morton, 1835, Carcharias megalotis Agassiz, 1835 and Carcharias polygurus Agassiz in Morton, 1835, all of these species being referred to the genus Otodus in the present work. in order to secure the nomenclatural stability of the Otodontidae, it is established that Otodus lanceolatus is a junior synonym of Otodus obliquus, that "Carcharias" lanceolatus belongs to the genus Otodus Agassiz, 1838 and is invalid as a junior secondary homonym of Otodus lanceolatus, that Otodus megalotis is a junior synonym of Otodus auriculatus (Blainville, 1818), and that Otodus polygurus (Otodus polygyrus being an incorrect subsequent spelling) is a junior synonym of Otodus megalodon (Agassiz, 1835). Furthermore, it is shown that the date of publication of Otodus obliquus (Agassiz in Morton, 1835) is 1835 and not 1838 as previously thought.
... Shark teeth are found all around the world in different archaeological contexts. Previous studies have attested to their presence on the West and East coasts of North America (Betts et al., 2012;Colvin, 2014Colvin, , 2011Kozuch, 1998Kozuch, , 1993Kozuch and Fitzgerald, 1989;Lowery et al., 2011;Rick et al., 2002), in Argentina (Cione and Bonomo, 2003), Australia (Wright et al., 2016), the Arabian peninsula (Charpentier et al., 2016(Charpentier et al., , 2009Marrast et al., 2019), and Brazil (Borges, 2015;Cardoso, 2011Cardoso, , 2018Gilson and Lessa, 2019a;Gonzalez, 2005;Lopes et al., 2016;Mayer, 2017;Rohr, 1977;Souza, 2019;Gilson and Lessa, in press). This list is not exhaustive. ...
Archaeological and ethnographical artifacts made with shark teeth are found worldwide. However, no research has been undertaken to examine the processes used to extract teeth from shark jaws. During the processing of shark samples in preparation for a reference collection, we observed that shark teeth were easily removed. In order to more vigorously test this observation, six experiments were developed. We discuss in more detail the methods used by native groups to obtain shark teeth, as well as the presence of shark teeth in Brazilian archaeological sites. The experiments exposed shark jaws to heat using two techniques: immersion in hot water, and direct contact with flames from burning wood and coal. Results demonstrated that: a) both techniques are suitable for the task, although there are disadvantages to both; and b) the structural integrity of the teeth was compromised when they were exposed directly to fire. We believe that shark teeth were carefully treated by native groups, and their presence in archaeological contexts should be thought as the result of intentional behaviors based on pre-defined socio-cultural insights.
... Shark teeth are found around the world in different archaeological contexts. Studies have identified their presence in littoral regions; for example, on the west and east coasts of North America (Betts et al. 2012;Colvin 2011Colvin , 2014Kozuch 1993Kozuch , 1998Kozuch and Fitzgerald 1989;Lowery et al. 2011;Rick et al. 2002), the Arabian Peninsula (Charpentier et al. 2016(Charpentier et al. , 2009Marrast et al. 2019), Australia (Wright et al. 2016), and Argentina (Cione and Bonomo 2003). ...
The data obtained from the zooarchaeological remains of the Rio do Meio shallow site allowed for unprecedented discussions about the role of sharks in the lifestyle of fishermen-hunters-gatherers on the Southern Brazilian coast. These groups captured and processed sharks, using their body parts both as a food source and for other purposes, and the animals thus held great cultural significance for them. These data also provide a window for reflecting on the representativeness of different sampling methods and the difficulties of identification in the study of archaeological shark remains. In this respect, the difference between blue sharks (Prionace glauca) and the Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) is to be emphasized.
... During the Holocene, from the latest stages of Prehistory to Classical Antiquity, fossil collecting became widespread in both the Old and New Worlds (Oakley, 1975;Wright, 1994;Colvin, 2011;Fujita and Melgar, 2014;Ramundo, 2011;Todd, 2014;Crook, 2014, with references therein). The Mesoamerican Pre-Columbian populations being a paradigmatic case in point (Lowery et al., 2011;Jim enez, 2017). Evidence of the esteem that fossils reached among Mesoamerican societies is a ca. 1 m long femur, probably a proboscidean from the extinct North American megafauna, that captain Hern an Cort es received as a gift in Tlaxcala (Díaz del Castillo, 1632). ...
This paper constitutes the first comprehensive review of animal fossils retrieved in Iberian archaeological sites. Out of 633 items from 82 sites, 143 were analyzed and a further 13 assessed and their status clarified by us on 20 sites. Among others, this study is the first one in Iberia to assess the role played by fossil scaphopods and to carry out a systematic description of shark teeth. The relevance of those 156 fossils we assessed through a comparison with all the finds located in the Iberian literature. Failure to report fossils properly did not allow us to warrant such status for 352 items. We believe that the poor record of fossils in Iberian archaeological sites is the result of a combination of methodological and theoretical constraints. For that reason, we contend that the items herein reported probably represent a fraction, however substantial, of the evidence at hand. In light of the contrasted relevance of fossils for addressing cultural issues, some recommendations and a plea for a more systematic and rigorous search of archaeological specimens are made.
... The use of different teeth of species of fossil and living shark as tools, ornaments, and weapons by ancient human groups is rare but have been documented along America (Holmo, 1969;Cione and Bonomo, 2003); usually, in these teeth the roots are carved to make possible to tie them in the tip of long objects and get spearheads or arrows, or are perforated to include them in necklaces (López and Sánchez García, 2004;González, 2005;Lowery et al., 2011;Haines et al., 2008;Moyer and Bemis, 2017). Shark teeth and sting ray spines from Palenque referred here do not show these craft changes; however, the localized disturbance and the concave smooth altered profiles of these fossils clearly represent artificial features. ...
Since the end of the nineteenth century, different remains of fossilized fishes had been observed or recovered from the Mayan City of Palenque. Although some efforts had been made to identify these objects, their taxonomical nature and possible origin within the geological environment of this Archaeological site are poorly understood. In this work, we review these fossils recovered in Palenque and other two Mayan cities, Agua Clara and the El Lacandón, which are deposited into the collections of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (Mexico); we describe the morphological characteristics that allow us to identify them taxonomically. This research also reports the results of a paleontological exploration through the different Paleocene-Miocene sedimentary geological units in the surroundings of Palenque; the fossils thus collected belong to the same groups of those found within the archaeological Maya context. These results suggest that such geological units are the sources of all these fossils. In this exercise, three types of anthropogenic features produced by the Maya people were discovered on the fossils. Paint stains and plaster spots suggest that these fossils were painted. The pronounced differential wearing marks in some regions along the cutting edges of shark teeth and ray tail spines show that these fossils were used as cutting tools. Besides, the surfaces excavated around fossils preserved in slabs demonstrate that some Maya people intended on discovering and recognizing these objects, as modern paleontologists do.
... Florida, the Carolinas, and the Mid Atlantic Region are all possible sources of the tooth. However, as I noted in 2013, the C megalodon -dominated assemblage of fossil shark teeth species at Ohio Adena sites looks very much like that found at the Delmarva Adena Sandy Hill and West River sites as reported by Lowery et al. (2011). This information, as well as the presence of Ohio and Indiana flint at Delmarva Ad-ena sites, supports the supposition that the Chesapeake Bay area may have been the source of fossil shark teeth at Ohio Adena sites (Thomas, 1970). ...
In 1883 or 1884, Joseph Westenhaver conducted partial excavation of an Adena mound on his property in Pickaway County, Ohio. Among the material excavated by Westenhaver was a large fossil shark tooth (Figures 1 and 2). In addition to the other interesting and rare objects, the mound yielded an usually large amount of woven fabric, ideal for radiocarbon dating. Fabric from the mound is housed in both public and private
collections. Despite this, an absolute date has not been obtained for the mound. The purpose of this article is to document the presence of a shark tooth from an Adena mound in Ohio and to request from those with access to the fabric, the opportunity to obtain a sample for radiocarbon dating.
... Previous archaeological research in Fishing Bay includes a detailed shoreline survey of the Transquaking watershed (Lowery 2005) and systematic radiocarbon dating of shell middens in the vicinity (Rick et al. 2011). Paleoindian and Archaic occupation of Fishing Bay is documented by diagnostic projectile points (Jansen et al. 2015;Lowery 2005;Lowery et al. 2011). Rick et al. (2011) identified 11 shell midden sites spanning the period from AD 500 to 1800. ...
Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and is famous for its once extensive and now severely degraded eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) populations, along with a number of other important fisheries including crabs, rockfish, and menhaden. Here we explore the historical ecology of Native American subsistence and land use strategies in the Fishing Bay area of Maryland's Eastern Shore, building on our broader bay-wide analyses of oyster fisheries and human-environmental interactions. Archaeological analysis of faunal remains from shell middens dated between AD 500 to 1500, along with analysis of locally collected modern oysters, help reconstruct Fishing Bay's evolution during the late Holocene, and document shellfish harvest strategies and predation pressure. These data suggest a stable and sustainable prehistoric oyster fishery in Fishing Bay, likely due to: 1) seasonal harvest and local consumption; 2) intertidal harvest that allowed replenishment from subtidal populations; and 3) relatively low human population densities. When placed in the context of our broader bay-wide analysis, these data provide implications for managing the present day oyster fishery, lending support to increasing no-take zones and expanding oyster sanctuaries that can be rotated with areas actively being fished.
... La presencia de fósiles reelaborados procedentes de las rocas en las que se desarrollan yacimientos cuaternarios no es un hecho excepcional. Sin embargo, el enfoque con el que se estudian estos restos suele ser taxonómico (Jagt et al, 2006), y los escasos ejemplos en los que el estudio se centra en aspectos tafonómicos suele estar enfocado desde el punto de vista de las modificaciones de éstos como objetos arqueológicos (Lowery et al., 2011). Los sedimentos con registro arqueológico y paleontológico cuaternario de los yacimientos del Calvero de la Higuera (Valle del Lozoya) incluyen ocasionalmente fósiles marinos mesozoicos fundamentalmente braquiópodos y vertebrados (Hontecillas et al., 2015), que se recuperan junto con los fósiles pleistocenos en el procesado de los sedimentos mediante lavado-tamizado. ...
... This supports the notion that the sites of Fishing Bay and surrounding areas provided people with a rich abundance of natural resources. The recovery of a fossil shark tooth at Doctor's Creek Hummock (18DO127) also documents local transport or trade of marine artifacts and fossilized objects that were important in larger eastern North American interaction spheres and trade networks (see Lowery, 2012Lowery, , 2013Lowery et al., 2011b). ...
The archaeological record of the Middle Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay spans some 13,000 years and provides insight into a variety of cultural and environmental issues in eastern North America. In this article, we present an analysis of a diverse assemblage of stone, ceramic, and bone artifacts recovered from a series of radiocarbon (14C) dated Middle and Late Woodland shell middens on Fishing Bay, Maryland. Our analysis documents the technologies Native Americans used at Chesapeake Bay shell middens, illustrates congruence between 14C dates on eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) shell and associated artifacts technologies, and highlights the challenges posed by marine transgression for documenting and interpreting prehistory. Our work demonstrates the ways in which artifact analysis and 14C dating can improve archaeological interpretation of the antiquity, diversity, and evolution of human occupation of coastal archaeological sites.
