Archives: Articles

It all began some twenty-five years ago in the boiling-hot and humid basin of Kopais, a drained marshland in the region of Boeotia in Greece. In July of 1990, already a first-year graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, I was working as a sector supervisor at the archaeological excavation of the Mycenaean citadel of Glas under the direction of my mentor, the late Sp. Iakovidis. At the time, our work focused on the east wing (C) in the area of the so-called “Agora,” the largest of three central enclosures that were protected by the cyclopean fortification walls of the citadel. The finds were astonishing: my team was unearthing a long storage building with ramps (K), which was filled with a thick destruction layer of burnt soil and crops, and residential quarters (M) that yielded frescoes, bronze pivot sockets, the first (and so far the only) seal stone ever found at Glas, and pottery dating the destruction (advanced LH III B2 – ca. 1220 BC). During intervals and occasionally in the afternoons I would walk the site with the other sector supervisor, my friend Dimitris Chaniotis, an archaeologist of the Department of Underwater Antiquities: it made no sense to either of us that two thirds of the vast area of the citadel (ten times the size of Tiryns and seven times that of Mycenae) would have been left void of any structures, as Iakovidis believed and published it, or that three kilometers of massive cyclopean walls would have been built to protect empty space. The site was literally covered with Mycenaean pottery sherds and at places wall corners were partly emerging from the soil, as also noted by R.H. Simpson in his plans and descriptions of the citadel (Mycenaean Greece, 1982). We promised ourselves that one day we would return to the site to further explore it. Dimitris never made it – he died young after a routine dive.

Almost twenty years later, while I was excavating the newly discovered Lower Town of Mycenae under the direction of Iakovidis, I made up my mind to pursue my long-standing goal. The last weekend of July 2009, I drove back to Athens to chat with Iakovidis. After having a cup of coffee at his apartment in the city, I posed the critical question: would he object to a re-investigation of Glas so long after his final publication of the site? At first, he tried to discourage me: the rest of the citadel was most probably empty; it would be a certain waste of funds, time and energy; and in any case, I had more important work to do at Mycenae with him, he said. I disagreed, remarking rather audaciously that he did not believe that there was a Lower Town at Mycenae either, which we did find after all. I promised that I would continue excavating and publishing at Mycenae with him ceaselessly as I had done for the past twenty years, and reminded him that at my age he was conducting not two, but three excavations at a time. He paused and stared at me enigmatically; if there were anything else to be discovered at Glas, I added, who else had better find it, if not his own protégé? He then smiled and nodded affirmatively. One year later, he was impatiently pacing in the hall of the McCarthy House at Mycenae in anticipation of my preliminary survey results; I still remember vividly his astonishment when I unfolded the new map of Glas before his eyes…

_________________________________

Maps illustrating locations of Boeotia and Kopais. Credit: Iakovidis

___________________________

Description

A vast citadel, today known as “Gla(s)” or “Kastro” (castle), was built on top of an island-like, flat-topped bedrock outcrop rising 9.5-38 m above the plain below and encompassing an area of 20 ha or 49.5 acres or 200,000 square meters at the northeastern edge of the Kopais basin. The Mycenaean citadel of Glas was fortified by a massive cyclopean wall (5.50-5.80 m thick), which runs along the brow of the rocky natural platform for approximately 3 km, features four gates (including one double gate), and encompasses a cluster of three adjacent and intercommunicating central enclosures. (Image credit above: Antonia Stamos)

______________________________

General plan of the Glas site. Credit: Iakovidis

__________________________________________

The northern enclosure (II) (3.7 acres or 1.5 ha) surrounds an administrative and residential complex with two ‘twin’ long wings built at an angle on the summit of the rocky hill. Either wing contains a focal, single-storey megaron-like room (melathron) at its remote end, which was richly decorated with frescoes but lacks a throne or a fixed central hearth surrounded by interior columns. Both wings also contain several two-storey residential apartments communicating through two long corridors and a central staircase. The southern enclosure (III) (12.6 acres or 5.1 ha) encompasses two parallel, long (ca. 150 m.) storage buildings with a total capacity of ca. 2,000-2,500 metric tonnes, which were divided internally by cross-walls and were equipped with wide access ramps; other attached subsidiary rooms used as guard houses, personnel residential quarters, workshops, and kitchens (comprising totally ca. 660 sq. m.) were arranged quite symmetrically north and south of the storage facilities and were often decorated with frescoes (several rooms in E, Z, M, N, but also in A, H). The southern enclosure is connected with the south gate of the citadel via a road running through a central propylon on its southern peribolos wall, while another road connects the northern enclosure with the north gate of the citadel through a propylon on its eastern peribolos wall; the two adjacent enclosures communicate through a guarded internal gate. Another smaller enclosure is formed immediately east of the northern enclosure without any apparent entrance or visible ruins (I). Finally, an internal cross-wall running from the central tower of the southeast double gate to the north cyclopean wall separates and isolates the eastern sector of the citadel which was, thus, accessible only from the eastern entrance of the double gate (IV).

But what was the purpose of this vast Mycenaean citadel and how did it relate to its surrounding landscape? The Mycenaean palatial economy required specialized agricultural production to meet basic needs of a fast growing population and to afford surplus for exportation. However, the indigenous environmental circumscription and resource limitations of the Greek mainland eventually necessitated expansion and intensification of such surplus-geared specialized agricultural production. In the closing years of the 14^th century BC (LH IIIA2) a large-scale engineering project of gigantic proportions was realized in Boeotia, perhaps a joint venture of the neighboring palaces of Thebes and Orchomenos, which effectively transformed the Kopais basin (ca. 20,000 ha) into the most fertile plain on mainland Greece: the submerged marshland was artificially drained by means of an ingenious and complex drainage control system which involved course diversion of six rivers and streams (Kephissos, Melas, Herkyna flowing from the west, Phalaros, Triton, Lophis on the south) from the basin into two wide peripheral canals, the North and the South Canal. These artificial and possibly navigable canals converged in the northeastern edge of the Kopais basin, exactly where Glas is located. The canals were flanked by massive watertight embankments (2 m high and 30 m wide) which were reinforced in places with double Cyclopean revetments bearing roads on their crowns, and were supplied with underground drains and channels leading the water overflow into artificial polders, natural bedrock cavities and sinkholes, or to the bay of Larymna (see area map above). The Kopais drainage project was colossal by both ancient and modern standards: it is estimated that 2,000,000 cubic meters of earth were moved to build the extensive dykes and massive embankments running for many kilometers on the periphery of the basin, more than 250,000 cubic meters of stone were used to revet the embankments, and the water overflow of the main canal is estimated at 100 cubic meters per second. The area once named Arne was still remembered as ‘multi-vined’ in the Iliad (“polystaphylon Arne,” II 507) and Orchomenos as one of the richest kingdoms of the heroic past (Iliad I. 381-382), whose wealth and power was associated in the ancient literary sources with the cultivation of the drained lake (Strabo IX.2.40; Pausanias IX.17.2; Diodorus IV.18.7).

Understanding the dynamics of the monuments with the formation/deformation processes of their related landscape ecosystem and their relative environmental impact is essential for an integrated synthesis. Land development, soil and water management, roads and bridges facilitating circulation and access to farmland, spatial organization, property delineation, and protection of land resources are essential parameters of systematic intensification of agriculture necessitated by a centralized economy.  Such public works of grand scale can only be designed and realized by palatial authorities aiming to appropriate ownership and exert political power. Therefore, land development and water management are also means of property claim which effectively transfered ancestral family/clan/community property rights to palatial management, control, and eventually possession, thus transforming not only landscape but also the dynamics of the socio-economic structure (integrative to coercive).

Glas was, therefore, interpreted as the regional storage center of production and fortified administrative seat and residence of two local rulers who were probably appointed by the palaces of Thebes and Orchomenos to supervise and maintain the complex draining system, organize and regulate the agricultural production, manage taxation, central storage and redistribution of products (crops and wine), and control and defend the satellite peripheral settlements and populations.

_____________________________

A Brief History of Glas and the Mycenaean World

The first Greeks descended through the Balkans into mainland Greece in ca. 2300/2200 BC (beginning of the Early Helladic III). They settled down mainly in the fertile inland, formed villages and eventually small towns, organized egalitarian societies and developed a distinct regional culture (Middle Helladic) based on agricultural economy and limited trade contacts with the Cyclades and eventually Crete. Rising to power was a long process realized through trade, diplomatic contacts, and constant warfare abroad and at home during the formative Early Mycenaean period (Late Helladic I-IIA/B, ca. 1650-1420/1410 BC). The Mycenaeans proved to be meticulous students: through increasing contacts with Minoan Crete, their trade horizons gradually expanded from the Balkans and Northern Europe to Egypt, the Levant, Cyprus, and Asia Minor. This gradual expansion is documented in the multicultural amalgam of stylistic, iconographic, technical elements and materials of the exquisite finds in the royal Shaft Graves at Mycenae (Minoan, Egyptian, European/Balkan, Hittite, and Helladic influences), the extensive corpus of foreign imports in Greece (orientalia and aegyptiaca), and the increasing Mycenaean exports abroad. Contemporary iconographical evidence (e.g. flotilla fresco from Akrotiri at Thera, silver Siege Rhyton from Grave Circle A at Mycenae) illustrate some of the early military achievements of the rising new power abroad: raiding foreign exotic lands (Egypt?) jointly with the Minoan fleet, sieging and sacking foreign towns. The Mycenaeans were recorded as Ahhiya or Ahhiyawa (~Homeric Achai(w)oi/Achaeans) in Hittite diplomatic documents already by 1420/1400 BC (since the reign of Tudhaliya II) and as Danaja or Tanaja (~ Homeric Danaoi) in Egyptian tribute lists like those of Thutmose III (ca. 1450 BC) and Amenhotep III (Karnak, ca. 1380 BC), or on a statue-base from Kom-el-Hetan (ca. 1380 BC), where Mukanu or mki[n] (~Mycenae) was listed first among mainland sites. In the following decades, the Danaja references in Egyptian sources gradually replaced the earlier Keftiu accounts and depictions of Minoan embassies of the 15^th century BC, echoing contemporary archaeological evidence for drastic Mycenaean expansion and simultaneous reduction of Minoan presence abroad. This reversal of the political and military situation in the Aegean in the 14^th century BC was triggered by the gradual infiltration and, arguably, military presence of the Mycenaeans on Crete in 1420/1410-1370 BC (Late Helladic IIIA1), in the wake of a devastating earthquake which had leveled the Minoan palaces and left the Minoan world in disarray. The Mycenaean occupation of Crete marked for the Minoans the beginning of the end and for the Mycenaeans the end of the beginning.

The Mycenaean world and particularly Mycenae flourished in the following two centuries (ca. 1420/1410-1200/1175 BC), a period known as Palatial Mycenaean or Late Helladic IIIA/B. The Minoan palaces served as modus operandi for the sociopolitical and economic organization of the rising Mycenaean states. This period is marked by regional centralization of power, state formation, and advanced socio-economic organization, geared towards efficient surplus of local production and overseas trade, both coordinated and regulated by the palace administration and sustained by palatial bureaucracy (Linear B). At home, the Mycenaean palaces were fortified into citadels, large-scale public works were carried out (such as the Kopais drainage system, the Tiryns dam, the Pylos bay) and production was systematized. Abroad, the Mycenaeans assumed control over the Minoan colonies and trade outposts in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, and further expanded to the east and west, thus firmly establishing their own trade network and successfully succeeding the Minoans in the overseas trade (Mycenaean thalassocracy). A vital sector of the centralized palatial economy and sociopolitical structure, overseas trade required not only a tight network of island and coastal outposts, but also highly effective diplomacy. Diplomatic contacts involved exchange of royal letters and gifts, ambassadors, official royal visits, treaties and bilateral agreements. Certain Mycenaean palaces like Mycenae, Thebes, and Pylos maintained a protagonistic role in overseas trade of luxury/prestige goods and diplomatic contacts at the highest level. The organized trade of luxury/prestige goods which required a well-coordinated control mechanism for acquiring raw materials and producing artifacts or other products to be marketed in exchange, afforded luxury to the elite, while the king’s special access to external prestige goods reinforced royal image and authority. The exquisite artifacts found in tombs in the area of Mycenae, Pylos, and Thebes, as well as the great variety of precious materials recorded in palatial inventory lists and yielded in the archaeological contexts of palatial workshops further document privileged connections and constant contact with Egypt, Anatolia, and the Near East, closely following the successful Minoan archetype. The effective regulation of production and organization of the socio-economic life by the Mycenaean palatial administration was followed by a long period of prosperity and stability which led to population growth, as indicated by the rapid increase in the number and size of the Mycenaean settlements and cemeteries, and their geographical distribution in the homeland and abroad in the 13^th century BC.

In the course of the 12^th century BC, combined, rapid and dramatic changes in several socio-economic, political, and environmental variables affected a fragile balance and triggered a chain reaction of progressively magnified and multiplied cumulative effect, resulting inevitably in a catastrophic systems collapse which caused the decline and fall of the Mycenaean world. The latter half of the 13^th century BC was marked by intense and frequent seismic activity in certain regions of mainland Greece (two major destruction horizons were recorded in the Argolid in ca. 1240 BC and 1200/1180 BC). These ‘earthquake storms’ caused severe structural damage, local fires, disorganization and disarray, immediate allocation of manpower for costly and energy-consuming repairs, and hence disruption of economic life and trade. A typical example of a low-diversified surplus-geared economy without sufficient alternative resources to fall back to, Mycenaean economy could hardly withstand and recover from temporary setbacks or survive the combined impact of various factors, such as natural catastrophes (earthquakes, extensive fires, severe climatic conditions, droughts, crop failure), ecological overexploitation, and palatial military/financial overextension. Natural disasters may have acted as catalysts for a catastrophic system failure, inflicting the final blow to the system: they eliminated short-term food supplies, destroyed high-yield specialized agricultural production and livestock, and consequently upset dependent satellite industries (flax, textile, wine and oil industries), disrupted trade, damaged the infrastructure, and demoralized the population. Inevitably, civil unrest, internal wars and raids by starving populations on less affected regions followed, causing decentralization and political fragmentation, dissolution of the socioeconomic nexus, severe depopulation of vital areas, and emigration to the coasts, islands, and overseas.

The three major Boeotian palatial centers, Thebes, Orchomenos, and Glas were destroyed by fire slightly earlier than Pylos, sometime in the advanced LH III B2 (ca. 1220/1200 BC), most likely by enemy action; Thebes and Orchomenos continued to exist and were reoccupied on a smaller scale, whereas Glas and the Kopais drainage works were completely destroyed and abandoned. This regional destruction may be associated with internal conflicts between the Mycenaean palaces of Thebes and Orchomenos, or, alternatively, may be attributed to external aggression by Mycenaeans from the Argolid. Both versions have been well-preserved in mythology, literature, and folk memory: according to mythical tradition, Thebes attacked and destroyed Orchomenos, with Heracles blocking the sinkholes and flooding the lake (Strabo IX.2.40), and the Argives repeatedly campaigned against and finally besieged Thebes (Seven against Thebes, and the Epigonoi); accordingly, the palace of Thebes (Kadmeia) was not included among the Boeotians in the “Catalogue of Ships” (Iliad II.494-516), a separate and possibly much older poem later embodied in the Iliad, and the king (wanax) of Thebes did not participate in the Trojan War which allegedly took place shortly after the destruction of Thebes.

The movement of peoples (called “Sea People” in the Egyptian sources) and the subsequent widespread destructions in Asia Minor and the Levant in the beginning of the 12^th century BC led to the collapse of the Hittite Empire, but also eradicated the Mycenaean trade outposts and colonies in the East. The loss of their off-shore trade posts disrupted foreign trade and paralyzed the overseas sector of the centralized palatial economy, which, given the peripheral geopolitical location of Mycenaean Greece, depended on the contact with the main zone of exchange through intermediaries. That must have been another terrible blow to the already distressed and staggering palatial economy, forcing it to fall back on domestic production and isolation. In the course of the 12^th century BC many small settlements in several regions (i.e. Argolid, Achaia, Attica, Euboia, Thessaly, islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor) sustained continuity and achieved substantial revival with their limited production and trade capacity, despite the general decline and fragmentation; on the contrary, the citadels of Mycenae, Tiryns, and Thebes, though partially repaired and reoccupied, and despite attempts for economic revival, never fully recovered and were gradually abandoned. The deterioration of the same system that had strengthened central palatial authority through the coordination and regulation of political and socioeconomic life resulted inevitably in the dissolution of the palaces’ power, decentralization and fragmentation of Mycenaean Greece. It appears, therefore, that it was the Mycenaean elite and its diagnostic, key elements (palatial administration and writing, foreign contacts and luxury goods, monumental art and megalithic architecture) that suffered the most from the system meltdown, whereas at a lower level the impact was less direct, and the core of Mycenaean society changed more gradually (in terms of basic material culture and cultural practices) and evolved organically into the Early Iron Age Greece.

History of the Excavations

The citadel of Glas was partially excavated (central enclosures) by T.A. de Ridder (1893), I. Threpsiades (1955-1961) and Sp. Iakovidis (1981-1983, 1990-1991). The exemplary publication by Sp. Iakovidis (1989, 1998, 2001) of earlier and recent excavations in the Mycenaean citadel of Glas and the synthesis of archaeological, geoarchaeological, and historical evidence established the form, function, organization, importance and uniqueness of this archaeological site. Recently, however, the archaeological plan of Glas changed drastically as a result of a systematic geophysical survey (2010-2011) which was conducted under my direction and the auspices of the Athens Archaeological Society, and was generously funded by Dickinson College and the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP). The geophysical survey was carried out by a team of archaeologists, graduate and undergraduate students, and teams of specialists from INSTAP, led by Prof. A. Stamos, and the Exploration Geophysics Laboratory of the Univ. of Thessaloniki, led by Prof. Gr. Tsokas. The geophysical survey of Glas changed the archaeological picture of the site but also questioned the established interpretations of its function and purpose. The final results of the systematic geophysical survey are being currently prepared for publication in an international archaeological journal.

Posing the Problem: fort or fortified settlement?

The form and layout of the citadel of Glas, as published by Iakovidis, did present certain spatial peculiarities:

• only one third or less of the total area of the citadel (49.5 acres or 20 ha) was occupied by various buildings and structures, whereas no other ruins were traced anywhere else in the citadel (V);
• the northern and southern enclosures (II, III) surround and demarcate groups of buildings within the citadel, delineate their spatial arrangement, differentiate between storage areas and administrative or residential sectors, and isolate these sectors from the remaining (arguably empty) fortified area for some elusive reason;
• the northeastern enclosure (I) contains no visible ruins, bears no definite entrance (except perhaps a couple of gaps in the peribolos wall that may have provided access), and its use remained obscure;
• the eastern enclosure (IV) is separated and isolated from the remaining fortified area, being apparently accessible only from outside the walls through the eastern entrance of the double Southeast Gate, and its precise use –being arguably void of any visible ruins– remained unclear.

The systematic geophysical survey of the citadel of Glas focused mainly on unexplored sectors aiming to produce new architectural evidence and further define the topography, layout, and use of the citadel, as well as trace earlier occupation phases of the site. The project involved remote-sensing investigation of the following areas:

• the northern and southern enclosures (II, III) to trace potentially other Mycenaean buildings, subsidiary structures, storage areas, retaining walls, terraces, courtyards, and roads;
• the vast ‘void’ fortified area (V) to detect potentially a Mycenaean settlement within the citadel and/or earlier occupation remains on the hill of Glas (as suggested by scattered Neolithic pottery and stone tools);
• the northeastern enclosure (I) and the eastern enclosure of the citadel (IV) to detect potentially Mycenaean ruins or diagnostic geomagnetic traces of human activities related to the use of land (e.g. cultivation, extensive burning, metallurgy, walking surfaces and artificial terracing).

Re-discovering Glas: Methods and Results of the Geophysical Survey

Aside from certain areas of the citadel (plateaus or steep slopes) that have been severely eroded down to the natural bedrock, the natural fill of the hill is approximately 1 m deep or deeper, when it contains artificial fills, archaeological layers, and ruins. The geophysical remote-sensing survey was conducted with a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and a Fluxgate Gradiometer. Both types of equipment produce detailed images to a depth of 2 m. The portable geomagnetometer (Geoscan FM256 Fluxgate Gradiometer processed with Geoplot software) detects positive or negative anomalies in the magnetic field of the Earth and records them as dark grey or black features (positive magnetic anomalies potentially reflecting ditches, backfills, clay floors, intense firing, burnt mudbrick, metal finds) and light grey or white features (negative magnetic anomalies possibly indicating stone walls, pavements, stone piles). The fluxgate gradiometer offers several advantages, namely speed of geoprospection (on average one acre per day), portability, and use on irregular terrains or over low vegetation, as it does not involve any contact with the ground; on the down side, however, the gradiometer reproduces two-dimensional geoprospection images of the magnetic traces which are conflated and compressed on a single plane without any real indication of depth. On the other hand, the GPR (Subsurface Interface Radar or SIR-2000 with a 400MHz antenna) is considerably slower, as it is wheeled on the ground and, therefore, requires extensive preparatory work in the form of surface clearing; furthermore, it involves collection of data in two perpendicularly-oriented datasets with repeated passing on closely-spaced transects of an orthogonal grid to better detect subsurface features. The GPR, however, generates three-dimensional geoprospection images of the buried remains (stone walls and floors, rubble piles) with precise depth scale. The vast size of the citadel, the occasionally rough terrain and wild bush vegetation on the hill, and the need for time efficiency dictated a well-planned combination of both methods: at first, extensive and generalized use of the gradiometer for fast and immediate results, followed by targeted use of the GPR on select areas or sectors that present strong or diagnostic geomagnetic traces. Such combination of these two methods proved exceptionally successful and precise at Mycenae (2003-2013), where the systematic geophysical survey detected, recorded, and plotted extensive remains of the Lower Town outside the citadel.

Other geoprospection methods, such as Electrical Resistivity and Quickbird satellite panchromatic and multispectral imagery were also successfully employed at Glas. Geodetic measurements, the plotting of the survey grid, and the detailed mapping of all buried remains and features were done with the aid of Differential Global Positioning System (GPS) and Total Station. The topographical, archaeological, spatial, and geophysical data will be embedded in the G.I.S. database of Dickinson College and 3-D digital maps.

The geophysical survey focused on the two large northern enclosures (I, II), the western/central sector (V), and the eastern sector of the citadel (IV). The indications from the enclosures were rather poor due to severe ground erosion on the summit and the slopes. The results, however, from the western/central and eastern sectors of the citadel and the cyclopean fortification wall were impressive. Several buildings were detected, including three large, well-built complexes (D, F, J) consisting of long rectangular buildings with several large rooms. Clusters of walls, rooms, small buildings, and silos (E, G, K, N) were located between the large complexes, occasionally abutting on the inner face of the cyclopean wall.

In the northwestern part of the citadel lies the West Building (D) with an E-W orientation. This building complex consists of an oblong rectangular structure divided by at least four parallel partition walls into a row of five rooms, with the central two rooms being of equal size. Another parallel room and few wall remains were traced immediately south of the West Building and may belong to the same complex. A cluster of scattered rooms (E) were further explored in the vicinity of the West Gate, which may belong to a residential quarter, as indicated by their small size, simple plan, different orientation, and relatively poor construction. Among them, immediately north of the West Gate, lies a two-room (guard house?) abutting on the inner face of the western cyclopean wall (West Gate Building), while, farther south of this gate, four semi-circular rooms (silos?) were built against a recess of the western cyclopean wall.

The southwestern area of the citadel is accessible from both the West Gate and the South Gate, and is dominated by the plateau of a low hill, which is occupied by a large building complex and possibly enclosing other important structures as well (P, Q, R). The Southwest Complex (F) consists of at least three parallel, oblong rectangular wings of similar ground plan and same orientation as the West Building, divided by parallel partition walls into rows of large rooms. The complex has solid walls constructed of roughly dressed, large blocks. The size, construction and ground plan of the Southwest Complex and the West Building recall the two parallel, long storage buildings in the southern central enclosure (Sector III: B, C). Another cluster of scattered buildings, rooms, and wall remains (Southwest Cluster, G) were detected to the southeast of the Southwest Complex, which may belong to a residential quarter, as indicated by their relatively small size, simple plan, different orientation and construction.

_______________________________

The Glas site general plan. Credit: Antonia Stamos, after Iakovidis

_______________________________

In the southern sector of the cyclopean wall, approximately midway between the West and the South Gate, two sally ports were discovered, thus raising the number of gates in the citadel of Glas to six. The southwest sally port (H) is 3 m wide and gives access to a low terrace in front of the wall that affords unobstructed viewing of the plain to the south. The other sally port (I), located 60 m to the east, facilitates safe descent to the plain below via a narrow and steep staircase that was partly built and partly hewn out of the bedrock, providing access to a cave at the base of the rocky hill. Between the two sally ports were identified five narrow rectangular niches (1 m x 3 m) opening into the outer face of the wall with no access from within the citadel, but once accessible possibly through trapdoors from the upper part of the wall. These niches were likely sentry boxes associated with the guarding of the adjacent sally ports. Two more niches were located in the northern and western sectors of the cyclopean wall. Finally, traces of large rectangular rooms (casemates or towers) were detected within the thickness of the cyclopean wall in the western sector (100 m north of the west gate), in the northeastern sector (70 m east of the north gate), and in the southwestern sector (200 m west of the south gate and east of the sally ports).

The geophysical survey expanded eventually in the central and the eastern part of the citadel with equally impressive results. In the central area (Sector V) lies the South Complex (J), which consists of a large building with a NW-SE orientation, flanked by a parallel oblong rectangular wing. Farther to the northeast of this complex were detected a cluster of scattered buildings, rooms, and wall remains (Central Cluster, K).  This cluster includes a multi-room building (Central Building 1), an oblong rectangular wing of another building with an E-W orientation (Central Building 2), and a cyclopean cistern (L), partly built and partly hewn out of the bedrock, which is associated with a long retaining wall with a N-S orientation. The oblong wings of the central buildings, though smaller in size, are similar to those of the West Building and the Southwest Complex.

The eastern part of the citadel (between Sectors IV and V) preserves a surviving corner of the cross-wall that ran at an angle from the northeastern course of the cyclopean wall to the central tower of the double Southeast Gate.SE orientation, flanked by a parallel oblong rectangular wing. Farther to the northeast of this complex were detected a cluster of scattered buildings, rooms, and wall remains (Central Cluster, K).  This cluster includes a multi-room building (Central Building 1), an oblong rectangular wing of another building with an E-W orientation (Central Building 2), and a cyclopean cistern (L), partly built and partly hewn out of the bedrock, which is associated with a long retaining wall with a N-S orientation. The oblong wings of the central buildings, though smaller in size, are similar to those of the West Building and the Southwest Complex. This cross-wall separated and isolated the eastern part of the citadel (Sector IV) which was, thus, accessible only from the eastern entrance of the double Southeast Gate. This isolated eastern sector of the citadel contained scattered structures (East Cluster, N), including several retaining walls for terracing with an E-W orientation, walls and rooms of various buildings, and at least ten circular structures (2.5-3 m in diameter), possibly silos(?). Six of these circular structures are located in the center of the eastern sector, while four more were traced near the northeastern course of the cyclopean wall. Outside the eastern course of the cyclopean wall was found a built staircase (East Staircase, O); furthermore, several caves and sinkholes were located, mapped, and briefly surveyed at the foot of the rocky hill of Glas.

________________________________

Credit: Antonia Stamos

_______________________________

Credit: Antonia Stamos

__________________________________________

Credit: Antonia Stamos

__________________________________________

Credit: Antonia Stamos

__________________________________________

Credit: Antonia Stamos

_________________________________________

Caves at Glas. Credit: Antonia Stamos

 _________________________________________

Credit: Antonia Stamos

________________________________________

Credit: Iakovidis

_______________________________________

Credit: Antonia Stamos

_________________________________________

Assessing the Importance of Glas

The old archaeological picture of Glas changed drastically and, consequently, the traditional interpretation of the citadel as a fort is now being challenged. So far, the citadel of Glas presented the layout of a fort with enigmatic spatial peculiarities; our geophysical survey established that the citadel area was not left void of structures outside the central enclosures after all, but was apparently covered with many buildings of various uses, including several large, well-built complexes, extensive residential quarters and clusters of buildings stretching between these complexes, circular structures (silos?), a cistern, sally ports, staircases, retaining walls and terraces. Glas, therefore, may not have been merely a fort maintaining the drainage works and managing agricultural production; apparently, there is a whole city within the walls, whose identification raises interesting questions about Mycenaean political geography. The Homeric poems (Catalogue of Ships) and later literary sources list several important Mycenaean towns in the Kopais area (Arne among them); could Glas be identified with one of these towns? Alternatively, is it possible that Glas was a third, unknown so far, regional palatial center? If so, we would need to explore the dynamics between this regional administrative center and satellite peripheral settlements in the Kopais basin, and define the relations between the palatial centers of Glas, Orchomenos and Thebes in the framework of the Mycenaean political geography. Finally, a far more intriguing hypothesis: what if Glas is Orchomenos? Is it possible that the palatial authorities of Orchomenos moved their palace and settlement to the most strategically important and highly defensible location available after the draining of the marshland of Kopais in the 13^th century BC, while using the original site of Orchomenos mainly as an ancestral burial place?

Unfortunately, despite such astonishing discoveries and fascinating prospects, the state-approved, five-year, systematic geophysical survey of Glas was abruptly suspended by the Athens Archaeological Society in 2012 after only the first two years of operation, on grounds of complete lack of interest in further exploring the site. The systematic investigation of the Mycenaean citadel of Glas will hopefully continue and must intensify in the next few years to unearth convincing answers to all these intriguing questions. The geophysical survey and excavation of this monumental site can offer field training to hundreds of undergraduate and graduate students through the D.E.P.A.S. project of Dickinson College, great opportunities for faculty/student collaborative research, doctoral theses, interdisciplinary collaboration and leading scholarship for scholars and researchers from around the world.

_______________________________________________

For information, see the Project website: http://glas-excavations.org

Contact information to participate or donate to the project: contact Prof. Chr. Maggidis at [email protected] and (717) 245-1014

_______________________________________________

Did this article interest you? You can read more like this with a premium subscription to Popular Archaeology.

_______________________________________________

Above, as seen with naked eye on the structure wall, and below, the computer-enhanced version: The pinpeat or Khmer orchestral ensemble, consisting of various gongs and drums. The hanging gongs on the left are visible without enhancement. Courtesy Noel Hidalgo Tan and Antiquity Publications Ltd.

The computer-enhanced Buddha image. Courtesy Noel Hidalgo Tan and Antiquity Publications Ltd.

The Khmer orchestral ensemble (computer-enhanced). Courtesy Noel Hidalgo Tan and Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Pinpeat instruments in Siem Reap. Note the similarity of the kongvong (gongs set in a semi-circular frame) and roneat (metal or bamboo xylophones) to the forms in painting above. Courtesy Noel Hidalgo Tan and Antiquity Publications Ltd.

One of the known boat paintings on the outer wall of Angkor Wat. Note the red paint on the apsara carvings, which is commonly seen in similar carvings inside the temple. 

____________________________________________

Enhanced boat painting

Enhanced painting of elephants

Black drawing of a zoomorph with scales and multiple legs

Enhanced line painting of a figure with hands set in a praying position, possibly a preliminary sketch of an apsara

Black line drawing of Hanuman, the monkey king

Enhanced painting of a stepped pyramid structure, possibly a depiction of Angkor Wat itself. Note the mirror image of the building in the lower register, as if depicting a reflection on water. 

Possible depiction of a stupa

A pinpeat or Khmer orchestral ensemble, consisting of various gongs and drums. The hanging gongs on the left are visible without enhancement.

Elaborate scene featuring riders on horses travelling between two possible temple structures

Tulum, Quintana Roo, in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico — It was in May of 2007 when the divers approached it—a cenote deep inside the jungle. Cenotes, or water-filled sinkholes, are not uncommon in these parts. In fact, in the Yucatán, they exist by the thousands. Divers and archaeologists alike love them for the secrets they hide — secrets that could reveal much about a past human presence in a subtropical world that seemed to serve as an unlikely setting for one of the greatest of ancient civilizations, the Maya. Alberto Nava, who took the lead on this dive, is something of a veteran when it comes to such ventures. He is a professional diver with the Bay Area Underwater Explorers, a California-based nonprofit organization dedicated to exploration and conservation of the world’s underwater regions. With his two other diving companions, Alex Alvarez and Franco Attolini, he plunged into the cenote, an entry into an elaborate underwater cave system known as the Sac Actun. It was not unlike most any other dive — until they encountered an unexpected drop.

“We traveled through a flooded tunnel for about 1 mile before we reached the edge of this pit,” recounts Nava. “The floor disappeared under us, and we could not see across to the other side. We pointed our lights down and to the sides. All we could see was darkness. We felt as if our powerful underwater lights were being absorbed by this void, so we called it Black Hole, which in Spanish is Hoyo Negro.”

Nava and his colleagues could see that there was much more to this than they could absorb on a first dive. So they waited for another day.

“A couple of months later, we ventured deeper into this darkness and reached the floor of the pit at about 170 feet. It was a bell-shaped structure 200 feet in diameter. The center was littered with large boulders stacked on top of each other. As our eyes got accustomed to the environment, we started to notice large animal bones. The first one we found was a 3- foot-long femur resting against one of the boulders. My teammates started signaling in all directions as they pointed to animal remains that were resting at the bottom and on the walls of the pit. At that time, we were not sure what kind of bones we were looking at, but we knew they were old and big. All of the sudden, Alex pointed to a human skull resting on the top of a small ledge. It was a small cranium laying upside down with a perfect set of teeth and dark eye sockets looking back at us. The skull was resting on its humerus, and we could see the rest of the upper torso spread to the left and down on the ledge.”

As they usually did when encountering new finds, they began documenting the site. But they could see that this was a discovery that required more specialized attention.

“In 2009, we reported the site to archaeologist Pilar Luna from Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), and together we created the Hoyo Negro Consortium (www.hoyonegro.org ), a group of cave divers and researchers working to unravel the mysteries of Hoyo Negro.”

With this, the real scientific journey began at full throttle.

__________________________________

A broad view of Hoyo Negro, shot from the floor near the south edge, showing the immensity of the chamber and the complexity of the boulder-strewn bottom. One access tunnel can be seen near the ceiling at top left. This photo was taken by the “painting with light” method on a 30 second exposure. Text and photo credit: Roberto Chavez Arce

_________________________________________________

The skull as it was discovered in 2007, resting against the left humerus (upper arm bone).
Photo and text credit: Daniel Riordan Araujo

 ___________________________________________________

The skull as it appeared in December 2011, after rolling into a near-upright position.
Photo credit: Roberto Chavez Arce

_____________________________________________

The Cave and The Water Nymph

Under the auspices of the new consortium, the task now fell to an international interdisciplinary team of scientist-specialists to undertake the meticulous job of additional recording, recovery, examination, and analysis of the various finds — finds that would eventually lead to some headline-making conclusions.

For the anthropologists and archaeologists of the group, the greatest excitement naturally focused on the human remains, what was turning out to be a nearly complete skeleton. But before anyone could understand the age and significance of the skeleton, they needed to understand the context. This required the efforts of specialists with knowledge of things like geology and cave formation, paleontology, dating techniques, and genetics. 

Patricia Beddows of Northwestern University is one of those specialists. Her work has focused on cave systems formed by the dissolution of soluble carbonate rocks like limestone and dolomite, especially the flooded caves of the Yucatán Peninsula, including Hoyo Negro. She has logged countless hours diving into the cave systems. “Research in flooded caves is much like space exploration, with divers similar to astronauts reporting back to ‘mission control’ — a much larger scientific team at the surface,” said Beddows. “It all has to be done on SCUBA, which is our life support system.” Beddows’ studies have shown how the extensive Yucatán cave system has drained groundwater to the coast and how the water level in the caves has closely matched the sea level changes over time. “Using this knowledge, we understand how Hoyo Negro has changed over thousands of years,” she says. This has helped to date Hoyo Negro, once a drier cave chamber with lower water levels, to more than 12,000 years ago, when many of the bones or animals, including the human, had apparently fallen into or entered the cave. Her work with the re-crystalized rock sediments in the cave system also helped. The rocks and the bones in Hoyo Negro are coated with rock crystals, including a new form of crystal that Beddows calls “florets”. Using Uranium/Thorium dating analysis, scientists have been able to accurately and reliably date the bone. “An impressive aspect of this research is that we have dated the skeleton directly, but we also have supported these dates with additional dates on the florets,” Beddows said.

But narrowing down the dating has been very much a team effort, with a multi-pronged approach. To begin with, the cave-diving scientists knew that the human skeleton was found within the context of the skeletal remains of 26 large mammals, many of which were identified as the bones of long-extinct fauna, such as saber-toothed cats and gomphotheres (extinct relatives of mastodons). These are mammals that lived more than 11,000 years ago. The human skeleton was found near the bones of a gomphothere. Douglas Kennett, professor of environmental archaeology at Penn State, and Brendan J. Culleton, postdoctoral fellow in anthropology at Penn State, worked with colleagues to construct a geochronological framework for the skeleton by using a combination of methodologies that successfully constrained the age to the end of the Ice Age, the Late Pleistocene. Working with Yemane Asmerom and Victor Polyak from the University of New Mexico, they applied global sea level rise data to determine when the cave system filled with water. As the bones now lie about 130 feet below sea level, they estimated that sea level rise would have raised the groundwater level in the cave system and submerged the bones between 9,700 and 10,200 years ago. Thus, the latest animals and humans could have entered the cave system in a dry state was about 9,700 years ago.

In addition, enamel extracted from a tooth of the skeleton was radiocarbon dated to 12,900 years ago by Kennett’s lab.

“Unfortunately, we can’t rule out that the tooth enamel is contaminated with secondary carbonates from the cave system, but we removed potential contaminates using standard techniques and Tom Stafford, Stafford Research Laboratories, produced a comparable age,” said Kennett. “We consider this a maximum age and when combined with the uranium thorium dates from the adhering speleothems, we argue that the skeleton dates between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago. Well placed as a Paleoamerican.”

A Paleoamerican. This was something quite different than an ancient Mayan. The Maya, best known for the iconic monumental Mesoamerican cities like Chichen Itza, Tikal, and Copan, lived and dominated Central America from about 2000 B.C to about 1500 A.D. The Paleoamericans lived thousands of years earlier, inhabiting the American continents during the final glacial episodes of the late Pleistocene period, as far back as 15,000 years ago. The bones of this skeleton were dated to between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago. This represented one of the six oldest humans found in America. And it was certainly the most complete find for that time period. 

But there was more to the skeleton than age. After examination, the team determined that the skeleton belonged to a slightly-built, 4-foot-10-inch girl of between 15 and 16 years of age. A teenager. She may have fallen into the pit while searching for water more than 12,000 years ago, the team surmised. A plausible scenario, as there was no evidence that she had been attacked, killed and dragged into the cave chamber by another preying animal. Scientific teams like to give nick-names to their biggest finds, especially if they are human skeletons. So the Hoyo Negro team called this one Naia, a greek reference to a water nymph. The name stuck and, along with names like “Lucy”, “Turkana Boy” and “Kennewick Man”, “Naia” was soon becoming something of a household word among scientists and the public, alike.

More important to the scientists, however, was that her features were consistent with those often attributed to Paleoamericans based on previous excavations and studies. “The earliest human skeletons found in the Americas differ markedly from those of modern Native Americans in the shapes of their skulls, faces and teeth,” said Dr. James C. Chatters of Applied Paleoscience, lead author of a recently published study related to the Hoyo Negro finds. The 9,000+-year-old Kennewick Man, found near Kennewick in Washington State in 1996, and also examined by Chatters, was a prime example.

Deciphering the ancestry of the first people to populate the Americas has been a challenge. On the basis of some genetic studies, modern Native Americans are thought to descend from Siberians who moved into eastern Beringia (the landmass that anciently connected Asia and North America) between 26,000 and 18,000 years ago. These people, considered the earliest Americans, are suggested to have then spread southward and populated the rest of the continent. But despite widespread support for this idea, the ancestry of the earliest Americans is still debated because, among other things, the facial features of the oldest American skeletons don’t look much like those of modern Native Americans. Thus, in terms of the Native American origins debate, the Hoyo Negro story is significant. And to this, the genetics contingent of the team had something to say about Naia………….

Haplogroups and Beringia

As is often the case, interdisciplinary scientific teams often turn to the best technical experts when it comes to finding answers to their questions. So it was that the Consortium approached Applied Paleoscience founder and Director James Chatters, a forensic anthropologist, archaeologist, and paleontologist. It was Chatters who played the lead role in the study of the famous Kennewick Man, and it is Chatters who is now leading the examination and analysis of Naia’s remains, resulting in a recently-published study that has catapulted Naia front-and-center on the stage of Native American origins research. 

For the genetic examination component, Chatters recruited Brian Kemp of Washington State University to take the lead. Using the latest techniques, Kemp, a molecular anthropologist with expertise in the field of ancient human genetics, has sequenced DNA from ancient human remains found in both North and South America, including human coprolites — ancient excrement — from archaeological sites in Oregon and the American Southwest. His task was to tease out small amounts of Mitochodrial DNA (mtDNA), found in the energy-generating structures of cells, of one of Naia’s teeth. Isolating and sequencing mtDNA is common among studies of ancient human remains, as organisms contain many more copies of it than chromosomal DNA. And because it is inherited from the mother, one can determine maternal ancestry.

Extracting and analyzing Naia’s DNA was challenging, to say the least. “There is very little DNA preserved in a skeleton of such great antiquity,” said Kemp.

But because mtDNA is so much more plentiful than chromosomal DNA, and because scientists have now clocked years of experience sequencing mtDNA from ancient bones, it was a feasible undertaking. Using molecular biological techniques to amplify the DNA, Kemp was able to make hundreds of billions of copies of Naia’s original DNA material. “Once so many copies are made,” said Kemp, “it is pretty straightforward to study the DNA.”

The study results were enlightening. Kemp had determined that Naia shared a common ancestry with many of today’s Native Americans — a genetic signature that is derived from an Asian lineage but is only found in the Americas today. Called Haplogroup D1, it is found throughout North, Central and South America. It is thought that about 11% of Native Americans exhibit this haplogroup — especially in South America, where it shows up in about 29% of indigenous Chileans and Argentinians. Geneticists theorize that this lineage arose in Beringia after the ancient Beringian population separated from other Asian populations.

Kemp then asked two other expert colleagues to conduct similar tests on Naia’s tooth to verify his results. Deborah Bolnick, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin, came up with essentially the same results. University of Illinois anthropology and Institute for Genomic Biology professor Ripan Malhi, focusing on regions of the mitogenome that mutate more slowly than other parts of the genome (and thus could be more reliable markers of genetic relatedness through time), also corroberated Kemp’s results. 

Three separate labs had confirmed the same results. Naia, a Paleoamerican with physical characteristics distinctly different than today’s Native Americans, shared the same ancestry — an ancestry that pointed to ancient Beringia — and by extension to Asia.

The finding was not altogether startling. Previous studies have indicated similar results. But this is the first time that a nearly complete skeleton of this age has been genetically linked to today’s Native Americans, and protractively to Beringia and Asia. “Because she exhibits distinctive Paleoamerican skull and facial features,” says Bolnick, “the study shows for the first time that Paleoamericans with these distinctive features can have Beringia ancestry.”

Yet, what accounts for these different physical characteristics?

It could be evolution, suggests Bolnick and colleagues. “It seems likely that differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans of today are due to evolutionary changes that occurred in Beringia and the Americas over the last 9,000 years,” she says. To support her suggestion, Bolnick points to evolutionary changes that have occurred over the last 10,000 years in other populations — a comparatively short time period on the evolutionary time scale, traditionally measured in millions of years. “There have also been studies of the skeletal morphology in later remains discovered in the Americas over the last 10,000 years. We certainly do see changes in the skull shape, in the facial features over that period of time.”  She points additionally to Native American populations in South America who live at high altitudes, who evolved genetic and physical characteristics that have facilitated their survival in these regions.

____________________________________

The upper right third molar of Naia, which was used for both radiocarbon dating and DNA extraction. The tooth is held by ancient genetics expert Brian Kemp of Washington State University, who led the genetic research on the skeleton. Photo credit: James Chatters

________________________________________________

The 10,000-Year Homeland

The Naia story and its evolutionary element have important implications in connection with other recent studies related to Native American origins. Some of them revolve around one emerging theory that has drawn the focus and attention of researchers from all over the world. Known as the “Beringia Standstill” theory, it was first suggested by two Latin American geneticists in 1997 and then refined or corroborated by a University of Tartu research team in Estonia in 2007. From a sampling of mitrochondrial DNA from more than 600 Native Americans, they found that mutations in the DNA pointed to the likelihood that a group of their direct ancestors from Siberia was isolated from their Siberian origins for at least several thousand years, during the time period from 25,000 (if not earlier) to 15,000 years ago (when ice-free corridors developed), before their descendants moved into the Americas. Evidence from recent paleo-ecological research suggested that this isolation most likely occurred in Beringia, a land mass that once covered the present-day Bering Strait between northeast Asia and Alaska. 

“A number of supporting pieces have fallen in place during the last decade, including new evidence that central Beringia supported a shrub-tundra region with some trees during the last glacial maximum and was characterized by surprisingly mild temperatures, given the high latitude,” said John Hoffecker of CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, who is the lead author of a related Perspective article that appeared in the Feb. 28 issue of Science magazine. 

This is an important aspect within the overall geographic context of the area, as the last glacial maximum reached its peak about 21,000 years ago with the development of massive ice sheets across North America and Europe, essentially blocking access to North America from northeast Asia until about 15,000 years ago. Thus the ice sheet barrier, along with distance from Siberia, would have created a geographic basis for the gap suggested by the genetic data.

But combining the genetics with the recent paleoecological research, which involved analyzing fossil pollen, plant and insect material taken from sample sediment cores from the now submerged landscape, has been the key.

“The genetic record has been very clear for several years that the Native American genome must have arisen in an isolated population at least by 25,000 years ago, and the bulk of the migrants to the Americas really didn’t arrive south of the ice sheets until nearly 15,000 years ago,” said co-author and University of Utah anthropologist Dennis O’Rourke. “The paleoecological data, which I think most geneticists have not been familiar with, indicate that Beringia was not a uniform environment, and there was a shrub-tundra region, or refugium, that likely provided habitats conducive to continuous human habitation.” 

Scott Elias, an article co-author and a professor with the Department of Geography at Royal Holloway, elaborated: “We believe that these ancestors survived on the shrub tundra of the Bering Land Bridge because this was the only region of the Arctic where any woody plants were growing. They needed the wood for fuel to make camp fires in this bitterly cold region of the world. They would have used dwarf shrub wood to get a small fire going, then placed large mammal bones on top of the fire, to ignite the fats inside the bones. Once burning, large leg bones of ice-age mammals would have burned for hours, keeping people alive through Arctic winter nights.”

On the genetic side of things, the theory that humans inhabited Beringia for as much as 10,000 years “helps explain how a Native American genome (genetic blueprint) became separate from its Asian ancestor,” said O’Rourke.

“At some point, the genetic blueprint that defines Native American populations had to become distinct from that Asian ancestry,” he explains. “The only way to do that was for the population to be isolated. Most of us don’t believe that isolation took place in Siberia because we don’t see a place where a population could be sufficiently isolated. It would always have been in contact with other Asian groups on its periphery.”

“But if there were these shrub-tundra refugia in central Beringia, that [would have] provided a place where isolation could occur” due to distance from Siberia, O’Rourke says.

In contrast to the genetic and paleoenvironmental evidence, however, the archaeological record has been lacking. This would be explained by the suggestion that, according to a number of scholars, the archaeological evidence was submerged under the rising sea levels that resulted in today’s geography of the region. “These shrub-tundra areas were likely refugia for a population that would be invisible archaeologically, since the former Beringian lowlands are now submerged,” maintains O’Rourke. The suggestion that rising sea levels subsequently covered the evidence of human migration into the Americas has also been a long-standing theory among researchers studying the model that advances the notion that early Native Americans moved south along the Pacific coast as the glaciers receded and sea levels rose. 

In addition, Hoffecker suggests that the Beringia inhabitants during the last glacial maximum could have made successful hunting forays into the uninhabited steppe-tundra region to both the east and west of central Beringia, where drier conditions and more grass supported a plentiful array of large grazing animals, including steppe bison, horse and mammoth.

There is now solid evidence for humans in Beringia before the last glacial maximum, as geneticists first predicted in 1997, according to Hoffecker. After the maximum, there are two sets of archaeological remains dating to less than 15,000 years ago. “One represents a late migration from Asia into Alaska at that time,” he said. “The other has no obvious source outside Beringia and may represent the people who are thought to have sheltered on the land bridge during the glacial maximum. If we are looking for a place to put all of these people during the last glacial maximum, Beringia may be the only realistic option.”

Hoffecker, O’Rourke and colleagues say new archaeological sites must be found in Beringia if the long human layover there is to be confirmed. Although most such sites are presumed to be underwater, they are hopeful that some evidence of human habitation in shrub-tundra areas might remain above sea level in low-lying portions of Alaska and eastern Chukotka (in Russia).

_____________________________________

Map of ancient Beringia, showing the outlines of modern Siberia (left) and Alaska (right) with dashed lines. The area in dark green is the portion of Beringia (now submerged by the ocean) near the end of the last glacial maximum, a period that lasted from 28,000 to 18,000 years ago when sea levels were low and ice sheets extended south into what is now the northern part of the lower 48 states. Photo Credit: Wlliam Manley, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado. Illustration below: credit Julie McMahon

___________________________________________

______________________________________________

Moving Forward

Although the Hoyo Negro findings have added significant additional support for the Beringian origins theory, the scientists caution that there is much more work to do before any far-reaching conclusions can be drawn. After all, Naia has shown that she is related to only 11 percent of all Native Americans. What about the other 89 percent? The findings thus far suggest that at least some modern-day Native Americans can trace their roots to an ancient Beringian population. But scientists have learned, over and over again, that the more they discover about human prehistory, the more they realize they don’t know. Reconstructing the past often turns out to be far more complicated than we initially suppose. And this, the Hoyo Negro scientists would likely agree, makes the whole journey of discovery all the more exciting.

“The dating and genetic analysis of Naia is a first step in what we hope will be a long productive investigation of Hoyo Negro,” says Chatters, looking ahead. “Our next steps will focus on attempting to sequence Naia’s nuclear DNA, determining the ages and genetics of the cave’s other animal skeletons and reconstructing the environment in which they and Naia lived.”

But it will all take a village of experts, just as it has to this point, employing a variety of disciplines and skills to re-create the evolving picture. “Balancing all of these elements has been a wonderful challenge,” says Pilar Luna from INAH. “On the one hand, we have a large team of renowned scientists who have been extremely generous sharing their knowledge and experience to analyze, understand, and interpret the findings, in order to produce the knowledge we have gotten so far. On the other hand, there are the cave divers, who have taken specialized courses to gather data for archaeological purposes, to properly record the general context taking samples, measurements, photos, videos, etc., and following with extreme care all requests made by the experts, in spite of the complexities and dangers of the cave itself. Also, we have had the support from engineers and technicians who have developed extraordinary methods to be used in this project for the first time, with significant results, mainly in the fields of software and photography.”

The combined efforts will extend to protecting the cave itself from would-be looters and other environmental dangers, so that research can continue as long as possible. “We feel obligated to protect this incredible resource,” says Nava. “So we are working with INAH and other Mexican authorities to control site access and make sure Hoyo Negro is preserved for future generations.”

Time will tell the ultimate fate of the Black Hole. In the meantime, what is collected of Naia’s remains will rest enshrined within laboratory walls and, perhaps in time, behind museum glass. 

______________________________________________

 Article Supplement

Naia’s World of Gomphotheres

When University of Arizona archaeologist Vance Holliday and colleagues began uncovering large fossilized bones at the site of El Fin del Mundo in the Sonoran Desert of northwestern Mexico in 2007, they weren’t sure what kind of animal they were unearthing. 

“At first, just based on the size of the bone, we thought maybe it was a bison, because the extinct bison were a little bigger than our modern bison,” said Holliday, who has been researching geoarchaeology at Paleoindian sites across the U.S. for years.

Then, in 2008, they discovered something that clinched it for them.

“We finally found the mandible, and that’s what told the tale,” Holliday said.

It was a gomphothere.

Actually, two of them.

About the same size as a modern elephant, but smaller than their extinct cousins the mammoths, gomphotheres were once widespread in North America but were thought to have disappeared from the fossil record long before humans arrived in North America some 13,000 to 13,500 years ago.

Until now.

Radiocarbon dating of charcoal flecks and burned bone found within the context of the fossils indicated a reliable age of 13,390 years. This made these two gomphotheres the last known gomphotheres in North America.

________________________________

Gomphothere mandible in place, upside down, at El Fin del Mundo excavation site. The fossil was fully prepared at the INAH zooarchaeology lab in Mexico City. Image courtesy of Vance T. Holliday.

 ______________________________

The fully excavated and prepared gomphothere mandible. Courtesy Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales/Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia

_____________________________

These sculptures, made by Mexican artist Sergio de la Rosa, show three elephant ancestors: (from left to right) the mastodon, the mammoth and the gomphothere. Courtesy Sergio de la Rosa

_______________________________

But there was more.

As they excavated among the bones, they also uncovered human artifacts—Clovis artifacts, to be specific—including 7 projectile points, some stone cutting tools and 21 flint flakes from stone tool-making. The position and proximity of the Clovis fragments relative to the gomphothere bones at the site suggested that humans did in fact kill the two animals there. Of the seven points found at the site, four were in place among the bones, including one with bone and teeth fragments above and below. The other three points had eroded away from the bone bed and were found scattered nearby. This suggested that the gomphotheres were likely hunted and thus constituted a Clovis prey species, along with mammoths, mastodons, and bison, already known to have been hunted by the Clovis.

________________________________

A clear quartz Clovis point found near the bone bed at El Fin del Mundo. Although very difficult to shape into a tool, quartz was used by Clovis tool makers at several sites.  Courtesy INAH Sonora.

______________________________ 

“This is the first Clovis gomphothere, it’s the first archaeological gomphothere found in North America, it’s the first evidence that people were hunting gomphotheres in North America, and it adds another item to the Clovis menu,” Holliday said.

The Clovis culture, today considered the oldest clearly defined and recognized Paleoindian culture in the Americas, is characterized by its distinctive stone tools, particularly the fluted projectile points. The first examples of this culture were discovered by archaeologists near Clovis, New Mexico, in the 1930s. The El Fin del Mundo site, along with the Aubrey site in Texas, is now among two sites that show the earliest solid evidence of Clovis hunting in North America, indicating that the earliest widespread and recognizable group of hunter-gatherers were already in place 13,390 years ago in the North American Southwest.

Holliday and colleagues suggest that the finds support the model of an American southwestern origin for the Clovis material culture. As they conclude in the study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

“These data expand our understanding of the age range for Clovis, Clovis diet, raw material preference, and the late Pleistocene megafaunal assemblage of North America, and provide evidence for a southern origin of the Clovis technocomplex.”*

Holliday and the study team report that the radiocarbon ages from El Fin del Mundo were made based on testing the site’s charcoal, shell, and organic matter at the Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory.

____________________________________________

*Article #14-04546: “Human (Clovis)–gomphothere (Cuvieronius sp.) association ~13,390 calibrated yBP in Sonora, Mexico,” by Vance T. Holliday et al.

In addition to Holliday, authors of the PNAS paper include: lead author Guadalupe Sanchez, who has a doctorate in anthropology from the UA; UA alumni Edmund P. Gaines and Susan M. Mentzer; UA doctoral candidates Natalia Martínez-Tagüeña and Andrew Kowler; UA master’s student Ismael Sanchez-Morales; UA scientists Todd Lange and Gregory Hodgins; and Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales at the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

The dig at El Fin del Mundo, a joint effort between the U.S. and Mexico, was funded by the UA School of Anthropology’s Argonaut Archaeological Research Fund, the National Geographic Society, the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and The Center for Desert Archaeology in Tucson.

Source: Some material for this article was adapted and edited from a University of Arizona press release, Meet the gomphothere: UA archaeologist involved in discovery of bones of elephant ancestor

____________________________________________ 

Subscribe to Popular Archaeology Premium. Available on all laptops and mobile devices, and still the industry’s best value at only $9.00 annually.

___________________________________________

Travel and learn with Far Horizons.

____________________________________________

This richly illustrated issue includes the following stories: Recent findings shedding new light on the whereabouts of the remains of Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great; how an archaeologist-sculptor is bringing bones of the dead back to life; archaeologists uncovering town life at the dawn of civilization; an exclusive interview with internationally acclaimed archaeologist James M. Adovasio about what makes the Meadowcroft Rockshelter prominent in the ongoing search for the first Americans; what archaeologists are finding at the site of the ancient city of Gath, the home town of the biblical Philistine giant, Goliath; and how scientists are redrawing the picture of human evolution in Europe.  Find it on Amazon.com.

It is a cave within a cave, dark and silent.

But when the scientists are there, it is artificially lit, revealing a chamber just four meters wide, created by nature at the terminus of a natural vertical 13-meter subterranean karstic shaft. Spelunkers and scientists call it the “chimney”, and for good reason—it’s a bit like negotiating down the interior of a house chimney. Entering the shaft can only be done by traversing through yet another, much larger cave—Cueva Mayor—part of a larger karstic mountain complex in northern Spain called Atapuerca. Atapuerca is important because here in the caves of these mountains scientists have found fossils and stone tools of some of the earliest known humans in Western Europe, and this small cave at the end of the vertical shaft is arguably the star of the show. Here, over a period of 30 years, teams of archaeologists and other specialists have excavated nearly 7,000 human fossils of at least 28 individuals, individuals who lived more than 400,000 years ago. Aptly named Sima de los Huesos (“Sima”), or “Pit of Bones”, it is to date the largest single assembly of early human fossil remains ever found at any single location………

______________________________________

A team at work inside the cave: The Sima de los Huesos site. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

_________________________

Game of Thrones

For Juan Luis Arsuaga, it has been perhaps the quintessential journey of his career. Currently a professor in the Paleontology Department at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, since 1982 he has been a member of a research team investigating Pleistocene deposits in the Atapuerca Mountains. Most recently, the revelation precipitated by his most recent findings at the Sima de los Huesos (‘Sima’) site has stirred the scholarly world of human evolution studies. It centers on 17 skulls.

“An astonishing collection of skulls (up to 17) belonging to a single population, or paleo-deme, of a fossil hominin species has been recovered,” says Arsuaga. “This incredible discovery of skulls is unprecedented.” Dating to 430,000 years ago and among the most complete fossil skulls recovered from any site, “this unique collection has to be compared with the much more fragmentary and generally isolated remains yielded by other Middle Pleistocene sites in Europe and out of Europe.” 

It offered Arsuaga and his team a unique opportunity to study a scene on the stage of the evolution of Middle Pleistocene humans. These 17 skulls, according to Arsuaga and colleagues, represented a single population of a hominin (early human) species. Although some of them had been studied before, seven have been presented anew, and six are now more complete than ever before, after many hours of painstaking assemblage in the lab. With these mostly intact samples for study, the researchers have finally been able to more clearly define the common features of this population.

Most striking, the examiners found that the fossils exhibited a mosaic of physical characteristics that could not be wholly attributed to any single, recognized human species to date. The skull samples showed clear Neanderthal features in the face and teeth. The researchers suggested the ‘Neanderthal-derived’ features were functionally related to mastication, or chewing. “It seems these modifications had to do with an intensive use of the frontal teeth,” Arsuaga said. “The incisors show a great wear as if they had been used as a ‘third hand,” typical of Neanderthals.” But elsewhere, the skulls showed characteristics that diverged from the Neanderthal model. The braincase itself, for example, still showed features associated with more primitive hominins.

_________________________________

Professor Juan Luis Arsuaga holds newly excavated early human fossil inside Sima de los Huesos cave. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

_________________________________

Location of skull 17 at the Sima de los Huesos site. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

_________________________________

So what did these findings mean?

“Morphologically, the Sima de los Huesos skulls exhibit some (generally incipient) Neanderthal traits,” said Arsuaga. “These traits have been scrutinized to understand how the Neanderthal specializations developed……..and it is now clear that the full suite of Neanderthal characteristics did not evolve at the same pace.”

However, according to Arsuaga,”we think based on the morphology that the Sima people were part of the Neanderthal clade, although not necessarily direct ancestors to the classic Neanderthals.”

“One thing that surprised me about the skulls we analyzed,” Arsuaga continued, “is how similar the different individuals were. The other fossils of the same geological period are different and don’t fit in the Sima pattern. This means that there was a lot of diversity among different populations in the Middle Pleistocene.”

__________________________________

Reconstruction of skull 15. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

___________________________________

Reconstruction of skull 17. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

__________________________________

Reconstructed skull 9 of the 17 skulls found at the site. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

__________________________________

Skull 15. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

__________________________________

Skull 17. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

_________________________________

In other words, because other European Middle Pleistocene fossil specimens found in Europe have not exhibited the combination of features seen in this fossil group, the researchers have concluded that more than one evolutionary lineage appears to have coexisted during the European Middle Pleistocene, with that represented by the Sima sample being closer to the Neanderthals. 

“We propose what we call the “Game of Thrones theory” to explain hominin evolution in Europe and a part of Asia in the period known as the Middle Pleistocene (780,000 years ago to 130,000 years ago),” said Arsuaga. “According to this scenario, hominin evolution was not a peaceful and “boring” process of very slow change throughout time and across an immense land: the European continent and Western and Central Asia. There was not simply one kind of hominin living in that big territory and quietly evolving everywhere towards the “classic” (Late Pleistocene) Neanderthals.” This early human landscape, at least according to this team of scientists, featured something of a potpouri of morphologically and perhaps culturally distinct human groups or populations. To complicate the picture yet more, the team has found that a DNA study of a bone sample from Sima indicates that these humans shared a common ancestor with the Denisovans (another extinct archaic human species that likely lived in Asia) about 700,000 years ago. “The fact that the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) of the Sima de los Huesos hominin shares a common ancestor with Denisovan rather than Neanderthal mtDNAs is unexpected since its skeletal remains carry Neanderthal-derived features”, says Matthias Meyer, a key scientist with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who led the genetic study. Another possibility is that the Denisova genes were introduced from another group of hominins into the Sima hominin population, or their ancestors.

In any case, Arsuaga’s “Game of Thrones” scenario and the genetic study results didn’t fit neatly into the traditional picture of Neanderthal evolution. It shook the applecart—a model that long suggested that Neanderthal traits all evolved in somewhat linear fashion, in unison from an earlier single species, theorized to be Homo heidelbergensis.

____________________________________

The Sima de los Huesos team. Image courtesy Javier Trueba / Madrid Scientific Films

Changing Paradigms

For those who follow the paths of thinking about how humans became what they are today, the discoveries at Sima are among a number of recent developments in the field and in the labs that are effectuating a new pattern of making and remaking evolutionary paradigms and calling into question some long-standing constructs.

One case in point: Researching a Late Pleistocene site in China, researchers Xiu-Jie Wu, Wu Liu and Song Xing of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, Isabelle Crevecoeur of PACEA, Université de Bordeaux, France, and Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis, re-examined a circa 100,000-year-old archaic human skull originally found during excavations 35 years ago at the Xujiayao site in China’s Nihewan Basin. The skull belonged to a human species not classified as Neanderthal, but based on their micro-CT scans of the interior configuration of the temporal bone, they found that the inner-ear formation closely resembled the formation long identified exclusively with Neanderthals.

On the surface, this appears to be a small thing. But in the worlds of paleoanthropology and paleontology, especially as they relate to human evolution, the implications are significant, because the temporal labyrinth has been broadly considered a key characteristic that has set Neanderthals apart from earlier and modern humans.

“We were completely surprised,” Trinkaus said. “We fully expected the scan to reveal a temporal labyrinth that looked much like a modern human one, but what we saw was clearly typical of a Neandertal. This discovery places into question whether this arrangement of the semicircular canals is truly unique to the Neandertals.” Moreover, he said, “the discovery places into question a whole suite of scenarios of later Pleistocene human population dispersals and interconnections based on tracing isolated anatomical or genetic features in fragmentary fossils. It suggests, instead, that the later phases of human evolution were more of a labyrinth of biology and peoples than simple lines on maps would suggest……It shows that human populations in the real world don’t act in nice simple patterns.”

__________________________________

The Xujiayao 15 late archaic human temporal bone from northern China, with the extracted temporal labyrinth, superimposed on a view of the Xujiayao site. Courtesy Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Science

___________________________________________

The Dmanisi Illumination

David Lordkipanidze has been excavating at the site near the town of Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia for decades. He is a  paleoanthropologist and Director of the Georgian National Museum. He is best known for the news-making discoveries he has been making at the site, known now in the popular literature and press after its namesake town. It was here, in 1991, when he and his team of researchers first uncovered a remarkable fossilized mandible (the lower jaw). It appeared to be human—but quite different from a modern human mandible. It was more like what scientists had been finding for decades only in East and South Africa—fossils of what paleoanthropologists know to be some of the earliest members of our kind—genus Homo—the genus that includes modern humans and species closely related to them—human ancestors that lived between 1 million and 2 million years ago. Scientists began scratching their heads. Geographically, this fossil appeared to be several thousands of miles off course. And the associated stone tools resembled the earliest known stone tool technology, the Oldowan, found, until now, only in Africa.  It challenged the long-accepted models of a significantly later first exodus of early Homo out of Africa, more advanced Homo erectus groups who carried with them a more sophisticated technology, the Acheulean, a 1.5+ million-year-old tradition forged in Africa and best known for its hallmark, distinctive oval and pear-shaped handaxes.  

What followed was a series of incredible discoveries that, together, proved to shake up the world of human prehistory almost without parallel. Three other remarkably complete and well-preserved fossil skulls, including an assortment of other fossils, were unearthed and pieced together during the ensuing years.

But the latest find brought yet new surprises.

In 2005, Lordkipanidze and his team uncovered yet another well-preserved early Homo fossil. Designated as specimen ‘D4500′, it turned out to be the matching cranium to another fossil find uncovered 5 years earlier—a complete mandible they designated ‘D2600’. These two fossils were discovered alongside the remains of the four other early Homo fossil skulls, animal fossils, and the simple Oldowan-like stone tools. Designated Skull 5, the new cranium together with its mandible displayed a relatively small braincase with a long face and large teeth. Other similar early Homo fossils, all found in African contexts, were either incomplete, or adolescent or younger individuals. According to Lordkipanidze and his associates, this new find constituted “the most complete adult skull known from Early Pleistocene Homo.“* Moreover, like some of the other finds, it was associated with other parts of the body that exhibited characteristics akin to Homo erectus body engineering, which closely approximates that of modern human morphology. In other words, this species had a very human-like body.

___________________________________

The Dmanisi early Homo cranium (D4500) in situ. Courtesy Georgian National Museum

__________________________________

The Dmanisi D4500 early Homo cranium and a large rodent tooth in situ. Associated fauna, such as the tooth from a rodent species that lived 1.8 million years ago, helped to date the find. Courtesy Georgian National Museum

__________________________________

The Dmanisi D4500 early Homo cranium and ancient herbivore fossil remains in situ. Courtesy Georgian National Museum

__________________________________________

The complete Skull 5. Courtesy Guram Bumbiashvili, Georgian National Museum

_________________________________

Skull 5 was another first. But the biggest revelation came not with the latest fossil, but with what the fossils collectively had to say about human evolution. Now, with fossil finds that represented five distinct individuals, it was the first time that such an assembly of Early Pleistocene Homo fossils were found together within the same time and space context. No other site, in Africa or elsewhere, could boast of such a collection. The Dmanisi discoveries meant that scientists could study a range of variation in human species within the context of one place and time range, a relative mother lode of information that could potentially clarify, and perhaps even revolutionize, how we see these earliest of Homo human ancestors. 

The researchers set to work. And the result of their study was startling. Lordkipanidze and his colleagues summarize it well in the following words in a recent report published in Science: 

Geometric morphometric analysis and re-sampling statistics show that craniomandibular shape variation among the Dmanisi hominids is congruent with patterns and ranges of variation in chimpanzee and bonobo demes [a population of one species](Pan troglodytes troglodytes, P. t. verus, P. t. schweinfurthii, and P. paniscus) and in a global sample of H. sapiens. Within all groups, variation in cranial shape is mainly due to interindividual differences in size and orientation of the face relative to the braincase. The Dmanisi sample, including skull 5, thus represents normal within-deme variation, ranging from small-faced relatively orthognathic (typically female and/or subadult) individuals to large-faced relatively prognathic (typically male) individuals.*

In other words, after examining the remains, the research team concluded that the differences among these fossils vary no more than the differences between five modern humans or five chimpanzees. 

“Thanks to the relatively large Dmanisi sample, we see a lot of variation,” said Christoph Zollikofer from the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Zurich, Switzerland—a co-author of the Science report. “Had the braincase and the face of Skull 5 been found as separate fossils at different sites in Africa, they might have been attributed to different species.”

Historically, variations among Homo fossil finds in Africa and Asia have also been found, but these differences have normally not been found within the same spatial and time period context, and thus scientists have classified the various finds as belonging to separate species. But now, according to Lordkipanidze and his colleagues, what has previously been thought to be separate ancient human species — Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo ergaster, for example — may actually be variations or sub-species of one and the same species.

The upshot: Researchers now need to re-adjust their thinking and proceed more cautiously when determining how early Homo fossils are classified. 

____________________________________

Dmanisi Skulls 1-5 (left to right), showing the individual variations, and a Dmanisi landscape. Courtesy M. Ponce de León and Ch. Zollikofer, University of Zurich, Switzerland

____________________________________

Redefining the Ape/Human Transition

It was Raymond Dart who started it all. Back in 1925, publication of his findings in the journal Nature of the skull of a 3-year-old, now famously known as the Taung Child (named after its initial recovery from the Taung lime quarry in South Africa), led to a human fossil-hunting regime that has continued and expanded to this day. His discovery launched the worldwide effort to uncover the first ‘proto-human’ species, a genus that, for the evolutionists, stood somewhere between the apes and humans on the traditional time-line of evolutionary progression within the Primate Order. Dart assigned his find to a new genus, Australopithecus (“Southern Ape”).  Discoveries by other scientists at various sites across Africa followed, leading to new species classifications—Australopithecus (Au.) afarensis, Au. anamensis, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi. Scientists on the Australopithecus trail were beginning to come to some arguable consensus about what the direct ancestor to the Homo line would look like—until Malapa.

It dominated science headlines when the news was first released. The discovery of the remains of a new species of ancient hominin (human ancestor) revealed a candidate that sported a mosaic of features both ape-like and human — an unprecedented 2-million-year-old hybrid called Australopithecus sediba (Au. sediba). First stumbled upon in 2008 by Professor Lee Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand and his then 9-year-old son Matthew at the fossil bearing site of Malapa in South Africa, the finds, consisting of remarkably complete skeletal remains as well as other well-preserved fauna and flora, instantly became the subject of perhaps the most intense and thoroughly studied hominin fossils ever documented.

_____________________________________

Above, the Malapa site, September 4th, 2008, at the moment of the discovery of the fossilized female skeleton MH2. Photo courtesy of Lee Berger and the University of the Witwatersrand, under Creative Commons attribution license.

____________________________________

The U.W. 88-50 (MH 1) cranium. The cranium forms part of the holotype skeleton of Australopithecus sediba from the Malapa site, South Africa. This image relates to an article that appeared in the April 9, 2010, issue of Science, published by AAAS. The study, by Dr. L.R. Berger of University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, was titled, “Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-like Australopith from South Africa.” Photo by Brett Eloff courtesy of Lee Berger and the University of the Witwatersrand.

___________________________________

 SKELETAL LAYOUT OF MH1 AND MH2, the first two skeletal specimens unearthed at Malapa by Lee Berger and his team.; Image produced by Peter Schmid taken from Berger et al 2010. Australopithecus sediba: A new species of Homo-like australopith from South Africa, Science 320:195-204. 

___________________________________

The team, led by Berger and composed of South African and international scientists from the Evolutionary Studies Institute (ESI) at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) and 16 other global institutions (totalling more than 100 researchers from around the world), examined the anatomy of Au. sediba based on its skeletons catalogued as “MH1” (a juvenile skeleton) and “MH2” (an adult female skeleton), as well as an adult isolated tibia catalogued as “MH4”. Dispersed among separate studies, the examinations determined, more than any other Australopithecus findings to date, the essence of how this hominin looked, walked, chewed and moved, complicating and changing perspectives on the evolution of the australopith forerunner genus in human ancestry:

Au. sediba’s teeth

The first study, led by Professor Joel Irish from the Research Centre for Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology at Liverpool John Moores University in the United Kingdom, examined dental traits in the fossils.

In this study, Irish, Debbie Guatelli-Steinberg of the Ohio State University and their colleagues examined the teeth from sediba and compared them to eight other African hominin species, which include modern humans from Africa, and extinct species of Homo, Australopithecus, and Paranthropus. In all, the researchers examined more than 340 fossils and 4,571 recent specimens. They also examined teeth from 44 gorillas for comparison.

Based on the examination, Irish and his colleagues suggested that the species is distinct from east African australopiths, but is close to Au. africanus, thus forming a southern African australopith “clade” (a group consisting of an ancestor and all its descendants).

The latter, in turn, shares a number of derived states or physical characteristics with a clade comprising four fossil samples of the genus Homo. This surprising result has significant implications for our present understanding of hominin phylogeny (the evolution of the species), and alludes to the possibility that Au. sediba, and perhaps Au. africanus are not descendant from the Au. afarensis lineage, represented most prominently by the famous “Lucy” skeleton discovered by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974, as had been widely hypothesized.

“Our research on teeth can’t definitively settle if either sediba or africanus is more closely related to humans than the other species,” Guatelli-Steinberg said. “But our findings do suggest that both are closely related to each other and are more closely related to humans than afarensis.”

Irish noted that even though the results of this study were surprising and were bound to be viewed as controversial given the long held hypotheses relating to the origins of the genus Homo, the genus more directly ancestral to humans, he would have come to the same conclusion. “The extreme age and rarity of these fossils naturally draws enhanced interest in and scrutiny of any new findings”, he said. “Based on the evidence, I would have come up with the same conclusions whether the samples were three million or 30 years old.”

But the surprises were not over regarding the teeth. A later laser scanning study on the teeth by researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany and the University of *Colorado Boulder showed that sediba had a diet unlike other known early human ancestors. That study indicated that sediba ate harder foods than other early hominids, focusing on trees, bushes and fruits, in contrast to most  other ancient human ancestors fossils examined from Africa, including Paranthropus boisei, also known as “Nutcracker Man” because of its massive jaws and teeth, which targeted grasses and sedges.

___________________________________

Au. sediba skull showing teeth. Courtesy Paul Sandberg, University of Colorado

________________________________

Sediba’s jaw 

Professor Darryl de Ruiter of Texas A&M and the Evolutionary Studies Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand, and his colleagues, examined the mandibular (lower jaw) material from the Sediba MH2 individual.

The study concluded that the mandibular remains share similarities with other australopiths, but differ from Au. africanus in both size and shape, as well as in their growth trajectory.

“These results add further support to the claim that Au. sediba is taxonomically distinct from the temporally – and geographically – close species Au. africanus. Where the Au. sediba mandibles differ from those of Au. africanus, they appear most similar to representatives of early Homo,” says De Ruiter.

____________________________________

Reconstruction of the MH1 skull, highlighting lower jaw and teeth. Reconstruction by Kristian Carlson, courtsey of Lee R. Berger and the University of the Witwatersrand.

______________________________________

Sediba’s upper limbs 

Professor Steven Churchill of Duke University and the Evolutionary Studies Institute at University of the Witwatersrand examined the upper limb elements of Au. sediba. They noted that with the exception of the hand skeleton (which exhibited a suite of features that may signal enhanced manipulative capabilities compared to earlier australopiths), the upper limbs of Sediba were largely primitive in their morphology (physical characteristics). Au. sediba thus shared with other australopiths an upper limb that was well-suited for arboreal or other forms of climbing and possibly suspension, and perhaps even more than had been previously suggested for any other member of the australopith genus.

Churchill adds that “it is possible that the climbing features in the skeleton of Australopithecus sediba and other australopiths are functionally unimportant primitive traits retained from a more arboreal ancestor. Even so, it is curious that these features persist unchanged for several million years, only to abruptly disappear with the emergence of the genus Homo.”

That question perhaps awaits answers through future finds and research.

Sediba’s rib cage 

Dr. Peter Schmid and colleagues at the Evolutionary Studies Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Zurich studied the remains of Sediba’s thorax, or rib cage. Their findings revealed a narrow upper thorax, much like that of the large-bodied apes, and unlike the broad, cylindrical chest characteristic of humans. In conjunction with the largely complete remains of the shoulder girdle, Schmid notes that “the morphological picture that emerges is one of a conical thorax with a high shoulder joint that produces in Au. sediba an ape-like “shrugged” shoulder appearance, and thus a configuration that is perhaps uniquely australopith, and that would not have been conducive to human-like swinging of the arms during bipedal striding and running”.

Their research, however, showed that the less well-preserved elements of the lower rib cage suggested some degree of human-like narrowing to the lower thorax, a surprising feature that is not like that of Homo erectus or modern humans. 

The vertebral column 

Dr. Scott Williams of the Center for the Study of Human Origins at New York University and colleagues examined the vertebral column of Au. sediba. They described a remarkably articulated lumbar vertebral region that showed a human-like curvature of the lower back. Williams noted that “the adult female is the first early hominin skeleton that preserves an intact terminal thoracic region and this provides critical information on the transition in inter-vertebral joints, and, by inference, mobility of the lower back”.

The study also demonstrated that Au. sediba had the same number of lumbar vertebrae as modern humans, but possessed a functionally longer and more flexible lower back. In addition, the morphology of Sediba’s lumbar curvature suggested that Au. sediba was more similar to the Nariokotome Homo erectus (the famous “Turkana Boy“ discovered by Kamoya Kimeu and Richard Leakey) skeleton than to the australopiths.

Sediba’s gait 

Dr. Jeremy DeSilva and colleagues at Boston University and the Evolutionary Studies Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand examined the lower limb anatomy of Au. sediba. 

“The female Australopithecus sediba preserves a heel, ankle, knee, hip and lower back—all of the ingredients necessary to reconstruct how she walked with remarkable precision. Even the famous Lucy skeleton only preserves two of these five (ankle and hip)”, said DeSilva.

The combination of, and the individual anatomies of, the heel, mid-foot, knee, hip, and back are unique and curious, said the team. This defined an australopith that walked with a ‘hyper-pronating gait’ (compared to the modern human gait, feet that pronated or rotated differently during the gait cycle).

“The implications of this study are that multiple forms of bi-pedalism were once practiced by our early hominin ancestors,” added Berger about the DeSilva conclusions.

Sediba’s brain

The exceptionally well-preserved cranium of the MH-1 juvenile was scanned at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, the most powerful facility in the world for scanning fossils, under the direction of Dr. Kristian Carlson from the University of the Witwatersrand.  By doing this, he and his colleagues were able to develop a precise map or image of the impressions on the interior surface of the cranium, or brain case, producing an endocast (or 3-dimensional image) of the area where the brain, long decayed into nothing, would have been.

Said Carlson, “the actual brain residing within a cranium does not fossilize. Rather, by studying the impressions on the inside of a cranium, palaeontologists have an opportunity to estimate what the surface of a brain may have looked like. By quantifying how much volume is contained within a cranium, palaeontologists can estimate the size of a brain.”

The results revealed that the brain was human-like in shape, yet much smaller than brain volumes recorded in Homo species. In fact, the size was not significantly more than that of a modern chimpanzee. However, the orbito-frontal region of the brain, which is behind the eyes, showed characteristics of neural (nerve cell structure) reorganization. The researchers suggested that this indicated a “re-wiring” of the frontal lobe’s neural constitution to a pattern more human-like. This questioned the generally-accepted theory of brain enlargement during the transition from Australopithecus to Homo as the most essential consideration and supported the alternate theory that a neural reorganization in the orbitofrontal region made it possible for A. sediba to be more “human-like” with the smaller cranium. Thus, size may not matter more than brain tissue structure and organization.

_______________________________________

Image shows a reconstruction of the skull of MH1 (partially transparent) with the brain endocast depicted in green. Dentition also visible and the specimen is viewed from slightly above and anterolateral. Courtesy University of Witwatersrand and Kristian Carlson

________________________________________

Sediba’s hands for toolmaking  

Tracy Kivell of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and a team of colleagues studied the hand fossils of MH-2, the adult female Au. sediba. They determined that the hand exhibited a strong flexor capability, good for tree-climbing. However, the hand also featured a long thumb and short fingers, a clear requirement for precision gripping, or gripping that involves the more refined use of the thumb and fingers and not the palm. This suggested that Au. sediba had the mechanical capability to make tools.

According to Kivell:

“The hand is one of the very special features of the human lineage, as it’s very different from the hand of the apes. Apes have long fingers for grasping branches or for use in locomotion, and thus relatively short thumbs that make it very difficult for them to grasp like a human.

Au. sediba has, in contrast, a more human-like hand that has shortened fingers and a very long thumb. Although at the same time, it appears to have possessed very powerful muscles for grasping. Our team interpreted this as a hand capable of tool manufacture and use, but still in use for climbing and certainly capable of human-like precision grip.”

These findings pair Au. sediba with Homo habilis, the famous “handy man” Australopithecine discovered by Louis and Mary Leakey in the 1960’s, as a hominin or early human candidate capable of making tools. It also suggests that there were more than one ancient hominin species that may have produced tools, either during different time periods, overlapping time periods, or concurrently in time.   

To date, no stone tools have been found in association with the Malapa cave fossils. But excavations will continue, and it is anticipated that much more data will be forthcoming.

______________________________________

All of the right hand bones of Au. sediba rearticulated. Courtesy Peter Schmid

 ________________________________________________

Sediba’s pelvis

Dr. Job Kibii of the University of the Witwatersrand and associates examined the partial pelvis of MH-2 and found that it also exhibited features that combined primitive elements more akin to that of earlier hominins and apes along with elements more characteristic of humans. They observed that the size of the joint that connects the sacrum with the vertebral column and the length of the front portion of the pelvis is like that of earlier hominins and apes, but the overall shape of the pelvis is short and broad, creating a bowl shape like that of humans, with an s-shape along the top of the blades, another human characteristic. Indeed, simply placing the reconstructed pelvis next to that of an ape and an earlier hominin is very telling. The pelvis clearly appears more human-like than ape-like. 

Said Kibii, “It is surprising to discover such an advanced pelvis in such a small-brained creature because of previous ideas as to the origin of the shape of the human pelvis.”

The generally-accepted theory is that broader pelvises evolved, at least in part, in response to the enlarging brains of hominins, on the assumption that the more human-like pelvis shape more easily accommodated the larger-brained hominin infants in childbirth. The new findings turn this on its head, suggesting that there was another, perhaps more important evolutionary reason why the pelvis changed:

The change in the pelvic morphology accommodates a more bipedal, or erect, gait – a salient hallmark of being human. Says Steven Churchill of Duke University, one of the co-authors of the paper detailing the pelvis study, “What’s cool about sediba is their pelvises are already different from other australopiths, and yet they’re still small-brained… It’s hard to imagine that there’s no change in locomotion behind all this.”

_______________________________________

The reconstructed pelvis of MH2. Left side is a mirror image. Image created by Peter Schmid, courtesy Lee R. Berger and the University of the Witwatersrand

___________________________________________

Sediba’s feet and ankles

Dr. Bernhard Zipfel of the University of the Witwatersrand and colleagues examined the feet and ankle fossils of MH-1 and MH-2, finding them to consist of a mix of both primitive and modern characteristics unique to Au. sediba as a species. As the ankle fossils represented a very rare and opportune find in that they constituted one of the most complete hominin ankles ever found, and in an articulated position or association, it was feasible to perform a study and reach reasonably sound conclusions about the characteristics of the fossils and their implications. The ankle joint and foot bones were constructed much like a human’s, with some evidence for a human-like arch and a well-defined Achilles tendon. It was also clear that the distal tibia or leg bone had to contact the anklebone perpendicular to the vertical shaft of the leg bone. These are all requirements for habitual bipedal locomotion, or upright walking.

However, the heel and shin bone exhibited more ape-like qualities, suggesting that Au. sediba was also a tree-climber, much like its ape cousins. 

Their overall analysis suggested that Au. sediba likely practiced a unique form of upright walking, not quite like that of humans, along with some degree of tree climbing.

_______________________________________

Ankle of Australopithecus sediba. Red is adhering matrix. Image created by Kristian Carlson, courtesy of Lee R. Berger and the University of the Witwatersrand.

 _________________________________________________

The investigations at the Malapa site have seen the discovery of more than 300 early human ancestor remains, including parts of skeletons still encased in rock. Though there may be much more to come out of Malapa, the finds and their interpretation will likely have a salient impact on how human evolution, particularly at the transition from “ape-man” to Homo, or early human, actually unfolded.

“What these papers suggest is that sediba probably doesn’t come from the east African species that Lucy comes from, Australopithecus afarensis, and it may be considered the best candidate as an ancestor for the genus Homo“, said Malapa project leader Berger……”Such clear insight into the anatomy of an early hominin species will clearly have implications for interpreting the evolutionary processes that affected the mode and tempo of hominin evolution and the interpretation of the anatomy of less well preserved species.”

__________________________________

Composite reconstruction of Au. sediba based on recovered material from MH1, MH2 and MH4 and based upon the research presented above. As all individuals recovered to date are approximately the same size, size correction was not necessary. For comparison, small-bodied female modern H. sapiens on left, Male Pan troglodytes on right. Photo by Lee Berger, courtesy of the University of the Witwatersrand

__________________________________

The New Synthesis

Educated at Harvard University, paleoanthropologist Rick Potts has spent much of his career as an academic and administrator, having taught at Yale University and curated archaeological/anthropological materials at Yale’s Peabody Museum. He now serves as the director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program and curator of anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History.

But this is only part of his world. When he’s not attending to his program and curatorial duties, one would find him in the field, along with teams of other scientists, at locations in the East African Rift Valley or in southern and northern China. These are places where new evidence is now transforming an old paradigm of human evolution in a big way. 

In a recent study published in the journal Science, he and co-author colleagues Susan Antón, professor of anthropology at New York University, and Leslie Aiello, president of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, report results from comprehensive research on shifting paleoclimates, ancient stone tools, isotopes found in teeth, and cut marks found on animal bones in East Africa. The findings support an emerging new consensus that suggests a rethinking of long-held assumptions about human origins and evolution. 

It begins with questions surrounding early hominin diversity.

“Soon after our genus (Homo) first evolved by about 2.4-2.3 million years ago there were at least three different species of Homo walking the earth: Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and slightly later Homo erectus,” explains Briana Pobiner in an article published by the National Museum of Natural History. Pobiner is a Smithsonian paleoanthropologist and researcher who works closely with Potts. “In fact, these species overlapped in time with each other and even with Australopithecus and Paranthropus, two other genera of early humans. Some of their fossils have even been found at the same prehistoric sites. Anatomical traits and behaviors were mixed and matched, with some more human-like features found in some species, and others in different species, which according to the authors indicates that each species utilized a different strategy to survive.”**

In other words, the traits that made us human evolved at different times and in different places. From the beginning, if a clear beginning could be simply defined at all, there was no single evolving package and line of evolution. 

And climate variability was a key driver, maintains Potts. “Unstable climate conditions favored the evolution of the roots of human flexibility in our ancestors. The narrative of human evolution that arises from our analyses stresses the importance of adaptability to changing environments, rather than adaptation to any one environment, in the early success of the genus Homo.”***

It was therefore adaptability to change, not the long-held notion of specialization, that was the ultimate key to human evolution, say the researchers. Potts has called this the variability selection hypothesis, an idea he has actually been advancing for years. It challenges the long-held “savanna hypothesis”, which has suggested that our genus, Homo, emerged and evolved at least in part due to adaptations (such as walking upright, dietary change, a larger brain and body, and making tools) as a result of a major, gradual climate change from a warmer, wetter forest environment on the African continent to a cooler, drier one that resulted in the spread of a savanna grassland.

It has helped to define a new synthesis, at least according to these scientists, that explains a major engine of human evolution, one that ultimately revolves around the ability of our species to adapt, innovate, and even modify the world around us. And this, most scientists of human evolution can agree, is what Homo sapiens have done best, and why they are the lone survivor among an originally diverse line of hominins.

____________________________________

Between 2.1 and 1.8 million years ago, Homo, exhibited diverse traits. These genus included the Kenyan fossils KNM-ER 1470 (left) and KNM-ER 1813 (second from left). By 1.8 to 1.9 million years ago, Homo erectus evolved in Africa and spread to Eurasia. Early populations of this species are represented by the Kenyan fossil KNM- ER 3733 (right) and the Georgian fossil Dmanisi Skull 5 (second from right). The three lineages — the 1470 group, the 1813 group, and Homo erectus — overlapped in time for several hundred thousand years. From press release of the Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian scientist and collaborators revise timeline of human origins, 3 July 2014 Credits: Kenyan fossil casts – Chip Clark, Smithsonian Human Origins Program; Dmanisi Skull 5 – Guram Bumbiashvili, Georgian National Museum

________________________________________________

Hominin evolution from 3.0 to 1.5 Ma. Green: Australopithecus, Yellow: Paranthropus, Red: Homo. The icons indicate from the bottom the first appearance of stone tools at ~2.6 Ma, the dispersal of Homo to Eurasia at ~1.85 Ma, and the appearance of the Acheulean technology at ~1.76 Ma. The number of contemporaneous hominin taxa during this period reflects different strategies of adaptation to habitat variability. The cultural milestones do not correlate with the known first appearances of any of the currently recognized Homo taxa. Text and Image courtesy of Antón et al., Science/AAAS 2014 and related press release.

____________________________________

Evolutionary timeline of important anatomical, behavioral and life history characteristics that
were once thought to be associated with the origin of the genus Homo or earliest H. erectus. Image courtesy of Antón et al., Science/AAAS 2014

__________________________________

Going forward, Potts and his colleagues know that nothing stays the same when it comes to building theories and models—with each new discovery, a new twist can be introduced, or an entire theory can be called into question. But in science, everything is open to question. It is the “nature of the beast”, so to speak. 

In any case, what they are finding may have implications for the present and the future of human survival. Global warming comes to mind, here. Potts and his colleagues at the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program have eloquently summarized the challenge well:  

The question ahead is how well our sources of resilience as a species will succeed as our alterations of the landscape, atmosphere, and water interact with the tendency of Earth’s environment to shift all on its own. This is an ‘experiment’ just now unfolding, one that has never occurred before. The intensity of environmental change seems likely to create entirely new survival challenges for the lone hominin species on the planet, and many other organisms as well.****

__________________________________________________

* David Lordkipanidze, et al., A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo, Science 342:326-331, 2013.

** Pobiner, Briana, The traits that make us human evolved at different times, Unearthed, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (website page)

*** From a press release of the Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian scientist and collaborators revise timeline of human origins, 3 July 2014

****From Climate Effects on Human Evolution, the Smithsonian Human Origins Program website: What does it mean to be human?