Archives: Articles

Today there is great silence on the hilltop overlooking the Ansedonia promontory. Here lie the ruins of the ancient Roman town of Cosa. Looking down from this place, one sees the glistening Tyrrenian Sea, whose light breeze caresses the leaves of thousand-year-old olive trees and wafts up the smell of wild flowers. It isn’t easy to imagine how different this sanctuary of peace and meditation was many centuries ago. In fact, in the second century BCE this was a busy place, bustling with activity made possible by slave labor: wine-making, manufacturing amphorae, and wine shipping were its activities. Since before the eighth century BCE, the wine trade had been mainly a Greek and Etruscan business. But after Rome’s 241 BCE conquest of the so-called ‘Granary of Rome’—Sicily — the Romans had the chance to become wine-making entrepreneurs, cultivating a product much more profitable than that of the necessary, but less lucrative, wheat. The Greek wine business was small in comparison with what the Romans had in mind.

As a first step, Rome relocated the production zone to Tuscany from their highly praised vineyards around Naples. Cosa was some 200 miles further north, and had more fertile land, but it couldn’t produce wines that could compete with the full-bodied Falernian and its high alcohol content, which the home market demanded. Nevertheless, coastal Tuscany’s vineyards were deemed a good-enough quality. But above all, its output was enormously greater.

Cosa’s huge vineyards were owned by senatorial families, the most powerful of them being the Sestius family. However, the Sestius estate went well beyond growing grapes; it was a full-cycle organization. In addition to cultivating the vineyards and vinting the wine according to buyers’ tastes, a slave-run factory produced amphorae from local clay. These were then filled with wine, sealed, and transported to a nearby harbour of Etruscan origins—Portus Cosanus—with its new, complex canal system to keep it free of sand. There, hundreds of workers loaded ships with amphorae by the thousands.

___________________________________

 Cosa: South view of harbor. In the background: remains of Roman port. Photo by Ugo Venturoli

____________________________________

Port of Cosa from above: on the left Roman masonry, at center mouth of one of the Roman drain canals dug to avoid sanding of port. Photo by Ugo Venturoli

________________________________________

 Port of Cosa (Portus Cosanus): on the left the remains of Roman masonry. Photo by Ugo Venturoli

_____________________________________

The Sestius family was not only in business to vint wine and mass-produce amphorae, but to ship that wine to the consumer as well, by sea and by land. It’s not known if they used family owned ships, or simply contracted with maritime enterprises. Amphorae bearing SES on their necks, for SEStius, have been found all over Roman territory. But at least 70 percent of Roman wine from Cosa was bound to ports in what is now southern France. Researchers have calculated that from the beginning of the second to the early decades of the first century BCE, no less than 400,000 amphorae a year were exported to Gaul alone! Romans mainly used the Dressel type1 amphora for shipping by sea. That type had a 25-liter capacity (5 1/2  gallons), which means that, during that century Romans sent Gaul a billion liters of wine (264,172,000 gallons). These imposing numbers are estimates based on the 60 to 80 sunken mercantile wine shipwrecks discovered in the Mediterranean. Their loads are often almost undamaged, so it’s possible to have a precise idea of what this trade was like. The medium-tonnage wine ships weren’t small vessels; they were normally 40 meters or more in length. Each ship could carry up to 3,000 amphorae, piled in layers—a payload of 150 tons. These vessels had been designed purely for coastal navigation. So, when heavily laden, they were unable to withstand open ocean conditions. Their inability to sail safely in heavy seas is evident from the presence of multiple wrecks in relatively confined areas of the sometimes rough Mediterranean Sea, within the windiest reaches. Owing to their round keels and square rigging, they were unfit for sailing into the wind—a serious drawback for northbound ships facing northerly prevailing winds. The poorly suited coastal vessels couldn’t wait for southerly winds that would have enabled a fast broad reach. The south winds, called Vulturnus, occur on average only 4 to 6 days a month. So how did Roman wine get safely and handily across the dangerous Gulf of Lions off Southern France, carrying the incredible quantity of wine the Gauls were craving?

___________________________________

At center (left lower side covered by the net) Dressel type 1 amphora of Cosa manufacture. Very strong and thick; could be piled up to 5 layers on wine-carriers. Photo by Ugo Venturoli, exhibit at Cosa Museum

 _________________________________________________________

Section of Roman shipwreck, showing the Dressel type 1 amphorae load piled in layers. Note the amphorae handles positioned lengthwise to avoid breakage. Photo by Ugo Venturoli, image illustration at Cosa Museum. 

__________________________________________

In the decade after 1972 French archaeologists André Tchernia and Patrice Pomey had the opportunity to study the wreck of a previously unknown kind of wine-ship. Discovered in 1967 near Toulon by scuba divers of the Ecole de plongée de la Marine Nationale (National Navy Diving School), this shipwreck yielded a definitive answer regarding Rome’s ability to sail windward in the moderate gale conditions frequent in the Gulf of Lions. Named for its place of discovery, the “wreck of Madrague de Giens” lies beneath about 20 meters of water, and sank between about 75 and 50 BCE. Its 40–45-meter length and 500-ton displacement meant that it could carry 8,000 amphorae, in five layers: a payload of around 400 tons. This shipwreck’s discovery marked a turning point in the study of Roman nautical construction and seamanship. Since windward performance was a prime consideration in the Gulf of Lions, this new kind of ship was not only cleverly designed and sturdily built, but it also boasted design innovations meant specifically for the voyage to Gaul: a deep keel with a centerboard-like action for sailing closer to the wind, two masts with a large artemon sail (dolon) to make tacking easier, and a reverse sharp bow to improve sea-worthiness. Nonetheless, although ingeniously designed for the Gulf of Lion weather, this ship sank. Perhaps the sinking had nothing to do with its design. It may have been a simple mistake, perhaps while tacking in a strong gust: the boat heeled too much and was swamped.

The Mandrague de Giens wreck wasn’t connected with the Sestius family organization, but there is good reason to think that such vessels did make up part of the merchant fleet sailing out of Cosa. Whether or not ships of this kind were in the service of the Sestius family, the family shipped huge quantities to what is now southern France. Confirmation comes from a group of French diver-archaeologists, who for more than 25 years studied a different shipwreck, found in 1952 in the Gulf of Marseille, at a depth of 45 meters. It’s name is the “Wreck of Gran Conglué 2,” after the island of its discovery. A very complex archaeological site, it was eventually revealed to be two shipwrecks, one of which was loaded with more than 1,000 amphorae bearing the SES trademark from Roman Cosa.

Roman wine wasn’t a cheap commodity in Gaul. Its consumption was evidently a status symbol. This is made clear by archaeological excavations in far away Corent—almost in the geographic center of France—near the ill-fated town of Gergovie (Gergouia), home of Vercigertorix, the chief of Gaul’s rebellion. Fragments of more than 40 tons of amphorae were used as a paving material for the houses of rich Gauls. This amphora pavement stands as material evidence of ostentation, a symbol of opulence, because of the volume and value of the wine consumed to have produced so many empty amphorae. Use of wine amphorae as paving material aslo gives us information about the inclination and economic power of the Gauls to allocate huge resources for a product of constantly increasing profitability for the Romans. Moreover, only the lure of vast profits can explain the presence of enterprising Roman wine traders in a hostile region, well beyond the protection that Roman legions provided in the occupied areas of southern Gaul.

In the monumental Bibliotheca historica about the habits of the Gauls, Greek historian Diodorus Siculus describes the relationship between wine and the Gauls:

They like beyond any reasonable measure the wine imported by merchants and they drink it straight[1] and they are so avid of this drink that they get drunk and fall asleep or assume insane and furious attitudes.

For this reason many merchants from Italy, with their usual lust for money, think that this Gauls propensity is a gift given to them by the God of commerce.

So, importing more wine on river waterways, or through the plains making use of vehicles, they make an incredible amount money: giving one amphora of wine they get in exchange a youth, a slave being so the compensation for the drink. [2]

With the manifold interests it involved, the Roman wine trade was a business unlike any other. Eventually, Rome’s merchant presence in Gaul came to an abrupt and brutal end. On February 13th, 53 BCE, in Cenabum, today’s Orléans, all the Roman merchants were massacred. Julius Caesar gives a brief report of the deed in his first-hand account of the Gallic Wars, Commentarii de Bello Gallico:

When that day arrived, the Carnutes . . . at a given signal fell upon Cenabum and killed the Roman citizens who had settled there for reasons of trade, . . . sacking their goods.[3]

Other than political motivations, Caesar says nothing about what else might have caused this extreme Gallic reaction to Roman mercantile penetration. Clearly, Caesar was well aware of the debilitating effects that strong Roman wine could have on populations—such as the Gauls—accustomed to a low-alcohol drink like beer.

In a less well-known passage of de Bello Gallico, Caesar writes about the Suebi:

They do not allow at all the importation of wine, because they think that, in order to endure hard work, it softens and effeminates men. [4]

With written evidence of a social backlash to wine’s negative effects, it seems reasonable to suppose that the massacre of Roman traders at Cenabum grew out of a hostile attitude on the part of influential Gauls towards the intoxicating and habit-forming properties of the Roman beverage.

Referring to the Gallic insurgency that began at Cenabum, French historian Fernand Braudel[5] dares this comment after quoting the Diodorus Siculus passage above:

Here we have something which calls to our mind the dope traffic which today brings so many benefits to the intermediaries, the transporters, the distributors and, finally, to the poppy cultivators in the Far East (1986).

After the Cenabum massacre, perhaps to continue imposing wine on a susceptible population, Caesar tightened the vise of his legions on the Gauls. In September, 52 BCE, in Alésia, today’s Alise St. Reine in the heart of Burgundy, the rebellion against the Romans was crushed, Vercingetorix surrendered and, brought to Rome as a prisoner, later executed.

The fight continued for some months, but before the end of 51 BCE, after seven years of intermittent war, the entire region of Gaul was pacified. This Pax Romana (Roman peace), according to Plutarch, cost Gaul over a million dead, and a million natives of both sexes reduced to slavery.

Roman wine traders could continue their profitable work.

The first commercial conquest in history was complete.

__________________________________________________

Photo Gallery

 A tunneled canal excavated in the rock to direct the evacuated sand to the sea. Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

Castings of neck markings of Sestius family amphoras. Symbols after letters SES indicate: provenance, type of wine, quality, price — much like labels today. Photo by Ugo Venturoli.Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

 Artist’s rendering of the ship known as the “wreck of Mandrague de Giens.” CREDIT: Water color by Jean Marie Gassend.

Cosa Capitolium north side. The temple was dedicated to the Capitoline Triad composed of the three supreme deities: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

 Cosa Forum remains. Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

Capitolium, south side. Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

Skeleton’s house (Roman masonry). Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

 Skeleton’s house, mosaic paving. Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

 Cosa town walls, north view and north town entryway. Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

___________________________________

Olive tree of Cosa hill, purported to be 1,000 years old. Photo by Ugo Venturoli.

Cover Photo, Top Left: Roman wine amphorae. Carole Raddato, Wikimedia Commons 

“Absolutely incredible” is a phrase repeated time and again as people gaze in awe at the majestic murals in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. Whether one is an archeologist, lawyer, accountant, teacher or student, these ancient paintings elicit a similar response. Among rock art scholars, the complexity and compositional intricacies of Lower Pecos rock art are considered unrivaled on the global stage. Renowned French archaeologist Dr. Jean Clottes says, “It is my considered opinion—after having seen rock art on all the continents—the Pecos River rock art is second to none and ranks among the top bodies of rock art anywhere in the world.” The intrinsic value of the artistic record left behind by hunters and gatherers of the Lower Pecos thousands of years ago is incalculable.

The rough, rocky, arid country referred to as the Lower Pecos Canyonlands is centered upon the confluence of the Pecos River with the Rio Grande. This region extends approximately 100 miles north and south of the United States–Mexico border, and approximately 50 miles east and west of the confluence. The landscape is incised by deep, narrow canyons that slice through masses of grayish white limestone rock, remnants of a huge inland sea that covered the region during the Cretaceous period 100 million years ago. Wind and water erosion acting on the limestone substrate produced hundreds of rockshelters that provided refuge for prehistoric inhabitants. Groups of hunters and gatherers periodically occupied the rockshelters throughout the Holocene, leaving behind one of the best-preserved and longest records of Native American lifeways—11,000 years ago to the time of European contact. This is considered one of the most significant archaeological regions in the world.

Map of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. (Map courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

________________________________________

Excavation of dry rockshelter deposits has yielded a wide assemblage of artifacts, such as wood and bone tools, matting, basketry, snares and the accumulated detritus of everyday living. Occasionally stone pipes and calcite crystals are found along with abundant chipped stone tools and grinding stones. Mobiliary art in the form of small painted pebbles and other painted objects such as wood, bone and snail shells are not uncommon in the dry shelters as are engraved stone plaquettes and freshwater mussel shells. Other artifacts include feather plumes, rasping sticks, fire-starting kits and medicinal and hallucinogenic plants such as peyote and datura.

Throughout prehistory, inhabitants of the Lower Pecos lived in small, mobile groups often referred to as bands. It isn’t unusual for people to think of these prehistoric hunters and gatherers as being vastly different from us, and in some ways they certainly were. They didn’t have agriculture, houses with central air and heat, cars, or the internet. They were, however, more like us than they were different. These were anatomically modern humans with the same cognitive capacity and capabilities as you and I today. They had the same brain that put a man on the moon. And, yes, they had a language—likely one with a vocabulary far richer than we can ever imagine to describe life, death, the land and the heavens. That they were socially well organized and intellectually capable is amply demonstrated in the archeological record, and the most compelling evidence comes from the elaborate, polychromatic murals painted on canyon and rockshelter walls (See the gallery at the end of this article).

The Painted Landscape

Pictographs are the most abundant form of rock art found in the Lower Pecos. These polychromatic paintings and drawings are made with mineral pigments and other natural ingredients, such as animal fat and plant juices. The paintings were applied to the rock surface using brushes made from animal hair, plant fibers, feathers, or fingers. Dry-applied pictographs are drawn on rock surfaces using pigment crayons or charcoal. Pictographs in the Lower Pecos have been categorized into five styles or classifications in a chronological sequence—Historic, Red Monochrome, Bold Line Geometric, Red Linear, and Pecos River.

Historic Period Rock Art

From northern Mexico to the canyons of Utah, artists of the Historic period captured initial contact with European culture in pictographic form. The rock art produced during this period demonstrated a preoccupation with domesticated animals, such as horses and cattle, churches, and the clothing and accoutrements of Spaniards. With the arrival of the Plains Indians into the region, such as the Apache, Kiowa, and Comanche, pictographs were executed in their Ceremonial and Early Biographical styles. Common themes include bison hunting, individual and group combat, weaponry, thunderbirds, dancing, horses, and figures with elaborate headdresses.

Red Monochrome Style

The Red Monochrome style began to be produced in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands sometime around 900 A.D. It is characterized by life-size images of humans and animals painted in varying shades of red. Rigid, human forms are solidly painted and portrayed frontally with their arms bent at the elbow, forearms raised, and legs apart. Red Monochrome animals are typically painted in profile and include realistic depictions of mountain lions, deer, turkeys, rabbits, dogs, and aquatic life, such as turtles and catfish. One of the most distinguishing characteristics of the Red Monochrome style is the portrayal of bows and arrows, an attribute that reinforces the placement of this style within the Late Prehistoric.

Bold Line Geometric

The least represented of the pictograph styles is referred to as Bold Line Geometric. It is characterized by bold, geometric designs, including zigzag, lattice, and herringbone patterns. Small human- and insect-like forms painted in deep red are the only figures that are not the characteristic geometric forms. It has been tentatively dated to the Late Prehistoric.

Red Linear Style

Red Linear style is typically characterized by animated, small, fine-lined figures of animals and humans. Most are only about 2 to 4 inches in length; some are as small as one-half inch. Their diminutive size has resulted in an under-appreciation for these intriguing paintings, as well as an under-estimation of the number of sites containing them.

There is tremendous diversity within the corpus of Red Linear imagery. Although some figures are rigid and static, others are quite fluid, evoking a sense of movement as humans engage in group activities, such as dancing, hunting, and possibly conflict. In addition to humans, pictographic elements include geometrics and animals, such as deer, canines, and rabbits. Both humans and animals are portrayed holding atlatls and fending sticks.

This style was believed to have been produced during the Late Archaic around 1,280 years ago after the Pecos River style, but prior to the Red Monochrome. Recently, however, we have identified numerous examples of Pecos River style rock art superimposing Red Linear style pictographs.

Pecos River Style

The vast majority of the rock art in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands, and that which sets it apart from all other rock art in the world, is referred to as Pecos River style. It is the most abundant, complex, and sophisticated of the regional rock art styles. In the early 1990s, chemists began collecting paint samples from seriously deteriorated Pecos River paintings for experimental radiocarbon dating. The dates obtained range from 4200±90 to 2750±50 RCYBP (radiocarbon years before present). If accurate, the 4200 year-old painting is the oldest dated pictograph in North America. In calendar years, this translates to approximately 2700 BCE.

Exquisite in detail and masterful in execution, the Pecos River style murals document myths, histories, and rituals of people living in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands thousands of years ago. They represent the oldest known “books” in North America. Artists of these paintings used an array of earth colors to create elaborate murals that are impressive in the level of skill required to produce them, as well as sheer size and complexity. Some of the panels are massive, spanning over 100 feet in length and 30 feet in height—dimensions requiring significant planning and construction of scaffolding and ladders. Other panels are quite small, tucked away in secluded alcoves high above the canyon floor.

It was long believed that these murals represented numerous painting episodes executed by different artists over hundreds or even thousands of years. Although over-painting exists, through detailed analysis of these panels, we now know that most are not a random collection of images painted over the course of time, but rather well-ordered compositions, planned arrangements of elements in a work of art to communicate an idea. Lower Pecos artists used pigment crayons or pieces of ochre to sketch out and organize the elements of their compositions. Vestiges of these preliminary sketches still can be seen today.

The artistic merit and compositional quality of the panels were noted by the early pioneers in Lower Pecos rock art recording. Forrest Kirkland observed that the rock art “communicates a sense of color harmony unsurpassed by painters of our own time” and arranged so perfectly on the wall that “to move a single important element would seriously injure their delicate balance and detract from their artistic merit.”

The geographic boundaries of the Pecos River style, although not clearly defined, appear to center on the confluence of the Pecos River with the Rio Grande and extend about 100 miles in all directions. In Texas, most are located along the Pecos, Devils, and Rio Grande canyons and their tributary systems. Sites in Coahuila, Mexico, are also predominantly confined to well-watered canyons and their tributaries.

Pictographic elements included in the Pecos River style murals include anthropomorphs or human-like figures, animals, a wide range of geometric imagery, and enigmatic, fantastic creatures that are not identifiable as human or animal. Anthropomorphs are by far the most frequently depicted element. Although these figures share many common characteristics, such as elongated, rectangular bodies with disproportionally short arms and legs, there is an incredible amount of diversity within what is called “Pecos River style anthropomorphs.”

Although most anthropomorphs range in size between 3 to 7 feet, some are monumental, towering over 20 feet in height. Others are pocket-sized; the smallest recorded Pecos River style anthropomorph is only 3 inches tall. These fascinating figures are often finely executed in red, yellow, black, and white. Yet, many are painted in only one color and far less elaborate. Not only is there variability in the form and color of these figures, but also in the accoutrements and paraphernalia depicted with them. Headdresses of varying types, clusters of feathers at the waist, and wrist or elbow tassels often adorn these human-like figures. Generally the artists portray anthropomorphs wielding paraphernalia, such as atlatls, spears, and staffs. The atlatl and spear are usually linked to the right hand of the figure; feathered darts, rabbit sticks, and staffs are linked to the left hand. But sometimes none of these items are present or they are associated with the opposite hand.

Animals are portrayed in the Pecos River style paintings. Deer and felines are the most common; birds and canines to a lesser degree. Some imagery resembles insects, such as caterpillars, dragonflies, and moths or butterflies. Sinuous, snake-like figures are also portrayed in the rock art. 

Understanding the Meaning and Process

Why did artists thousands of years ago spend time, energy, and resources in the production of these enigmatic panels? 

Beginning in the 1950s, researchers suggested that perhaps the art represented a hunting cult or medicine society. Shortly after, the elaborately portrayed anthropomorphic figures were identified as shamans, the intermediaries between the human and spirit world. It wasn’t long before the term “shaman” became a catchall for all Pecos River anthropomorphs. By the late 1980s, it was generally accepted that any attempt to interpret Pecos River rock art, beyond shamanism, would be at best speculative. The obstacles faced by archaeologists attempting to interpret the art seemed almost insurmountable. The mantra heard time and again was that “the meaning of the art was lost with the people who produced it.”

Patterns………..

Although the artists of the Lower Pecos are gone, their myths and belief systems have endured in the shared symbolic language of the native peoples living today. Actors and details may change, but basic story lines and concepts persist. This shared symbolic world is exemplified in the ancient rock art of the Lower Pecos, and the key to unlocking these visual texts is not lost. Just as forensic detectives look for patterns to solve crimes and cryptologists look for patterns to break secret codes, archeologists look for patterns to interpret rock art. We begin by documenting the rock art panel in detail, capturing each pictographic element, the attributes of that element, and its contextual relationship to other imagery in the panel. This allows us to identify variation and consistency in artistic styles, recurring patterns, and anomalies in the art.

One of the most ubiquitous patterns we have identified combines antlered anthropomorphs with dots on the tips of their antler tines; spear-impaled deer, and dots or circles that also are impaled. To understand the meaning of this pattern, we compared patterns in the rock art with similar patterns in myths and iconographies of many Mesoamerican groups. Almost immediately we found notable parallels with the myths of the Huichol Indians of Mexico, as well as other Uto-Aztecan speaking peoples. This pattern led us to the identification of not only ritual practices involving the use of the sacred peyote cactus, but to mythological characters and deities associated with the origins of peyote and the birth of the Sun. Ultimately, we were led to identifying one of the most famous murals in the region—White Shaman Shelter—as a pictorial creation narrative, perhaps the oldest in North America. But how could we know that this 24-foot-long rock art panel was painted as a single composition?

…………and Process

Patterns provide clues to “what” the rock art means. But to get at the “how” requires an examination of the technical history of a rock art panel—how the mural was painted. Through documentation and analysis of the sequential ordering of motifs, we have begun to gain insights into deeper layers of meaning—the artistic and cognitive processes that led to the creation of the art.

Our most recent discoveries about the operational sequence of the art was truly groundbreaking and, frankly, mind-boggling. We began producing layered, digital illustrations of Pecos River style murals using Adobe Photoshop and a Wacom Cintiq Interactive Pen Display. Using a digitizing stylus directly on the Cintiq screen, we digitally applied the paint layer by layer to reproduce the original painting sequence. The challenge, however, was identifying the paint layers. Hand lenses, macro photography, and magnifiers proved inadequate. We needed greater magnification, and we needed to be able to photograph what we were seeing at that level of magnification. I shared our frustration with a colleague, Mark Willis, who has an uncanny ability to find cost effective solutions to technological problems. Sure enough, this was no exception. He introduced us to the Dino-Lite Pro handheld digital microscope with 20X to 220X magnification.

With this tool we returned to the field to capture digital images of microscopic areas within Pecos River murals. And much to our surprise and delight, we were able to confidently and objectively identify painting sequences for almost all figures in the panels. The results were startling. At the sites studied thus far, we could see that the mural artists painted all black imagery first, followed by red, then yellow, then white. Strict rules governed the order in which the paint was applied. Black superimposed black. Red superimposed black. Yellow superimposed red and black, while white superimposed all colors. Identifying the order in which the artist applied paint, color-by-color, figure-by-figure, provided irrefutable evidence that the murals analyzed were indeed single compositions, pictorial narratives.

As an artist and an archaeologist, I have long recognized the extraordinary complexity of Pecos River style rock art. When I first began studying the rock art of the Lower Pecos 20 years  ago, my goal was to see if it was even possible to talk about its “meaning” in a meaningful context. However, I have come to realize that the true significance of the art does not exist independently of its organizing structure. Our greatest challenge is not in deciphering the meaning of rock art; it is in recognizing the overriding principles that provided the framework for understanding its meaning and governing its production.

Our analysis confirmed that the murals in many cases, if not all, were planned compositions with rules governing not only the portrayal of symbolic forms, but also the sequencing of colors. Complex images painted in black, red, yellow, and white were woven together to form intricate pictorial narratives. As with the Mesoamerican codices, everything has inherent meaning. Nothing is arbitrary or random, including the order in which the paint is applied. That inherent meaning is part of a larger structural meaning directly relating to and arising out of an earlier culture and fits into a broader continuum that persisted into later cultures in Mesoamerica and the American Southwest. It is a continuum that has led to our interpretation of the murals as visual narratives detailing stories of creation, the birth of the sun and beginning of time.

Guided tours to some of the region’s most spectacular rock art sites are provided by Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site (www.tpwd.state.tx.us/state-parks/seminole-canyon) and the Rock Art Foundation (www.rockart.org).

____________________________

For those interested in learning more about the Lower Pecos story, a new publication entitled Painters in Prehistory: Archaeology and Art of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands, edited by Harry J. Shafer, can be obtained at http://tupress.org/books/painters-in-prehistory.

Recommended Reading

Boyd, C. E. 2003 Rock Art of the Lower Pecos.  Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Kirkland, F. and W. W. Newcomb 1967 The Rock Art of Texas Indians. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Shafer, H. J. 1986 Ancient Texans. Texas Monthly Press, Austin.

Painters in Prehistory: Archaeology and Art of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands, 2013 edited by Harry J. Shafer. Trinity University Press, San Antonio.

Zintgraff, J., and S. A. Turpin 1991 Pecos River Rock Art: A Photographic Essay. Sandy McPherson Publishing Company, San Antonio, Texas.

Supplement

Studying and Documenting the Pecos River Record

First Encounters

In 1849, Captain S.G. French reported seeing Indian paintings near the mouth of the Pecos River, but it was not until the 1930s that serious efforts at recording and studying the art of the region began. These early recording efforts were undertaken by truly remarkable individuals. In 1931, two adventurous women, Emma Gutzeit and Mary Virginia Carson from the Witte Museum in San Antonio, recorded 18 rock art sites, producing watercolor renderings of what they saw.

A few years later, Kirkland, a commercial draftsman, and his wife, Lula, began producing detailed and incredibly accurate watercolor renderings of the major sites in Texas. It was the realization that many of the paintings were being “mutilated and destroyed” that prompted the couple to begin this massive undertaking. Before Kirkland’s untimely death in 1942, he managed to copy 43 rock art panels in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. Twenty-five years after Kirkland’s death, W. W. Newcomb wrote The Rock Art of Texas Indians, showcasing Kirkland’s beautiful illustrations and acknowledging the contribution made by Kirkland: “He had attempted what no one else had dared, and he had succeeded beyond the dreams of any. He had copied most of the rock art then known in Texas. His heroic, self-imposed task was completed.”

Archaeologist and author A. T. Jackson also documented rock art sites in Texas in the 1930s. He referred to the Lower Pecos as the “premier pictograph area of the state.” Recognizing the incredible value of these paintings, he launched an intensive rock art documentation project. In his book,The Picture Writing of Texas Indians, he wrote “. . . the rapid destruction of these first works of art and specimens of early writing in Texas creates a crying need for action. . .” to document and preserve the art for future generations.

Recent Efforts

Recognizing the importance of the region and its resources, the Witte Museum of San Antonio, Texas initiated an interdisciplinary effort to study and publicize prehistoric art of the Lower Pecos region in the early 1980s. Drawing on the skills of not only archaeologists, but archaeobotanists, art historians, and social anthropologists, the Witte effort sought to interpret the material culture and investigate the lifestyle of the prehistoric hunter-gatherer inhabitants of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands.  Their endeavors resulted in the “Ancient Texans” exhibit at the Museum and the publication of Ancient Texans: Rock Art and Lifeways along the Lower Pecos by Harry Shafer and Jim Zintgraff.  It also led to a significant increase in public awareness of prehistoric art and a greater understanding of the hunting-gathering lifeways of the people who produced the art.  Out of this effort came the creation of the Rock Art Foundation to promote and preserve the region’s rock art.  The Witte’s commitment to stewardship of the region and its resources is ongoing.  Painters in Prehistory: Archaeology and Art of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands, edited by Harry Shafer, was recently published in association with the Witte Museum and will serve as the text accompanying their new Lower Pecos exhibition.

Two significant documentation projects also have been launched. A group of dedicated volunteers with The Texas Archeological Society formed a Rock Art Recording Task Force to document rock art sites across Texas. And, for more than a decade, Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center (www.shumla.org), a nonprofit organization located in the Lower Pecos, has been engaged in the most intensive rock art recording project undertaken in the region, the Lower Pecos Rock Art Preservation Initiative. The goal of this project, for which I am the Principal Investigator, is to create a permanent visual and textual archive for present and future generations and to promote rock art preservation through education.

In 1989, my first efforts to document the murals began with the simple tools of an artist. Now, after years of intensive field work with my colleagues at Shumla, I have incorporated into our investigations 3D laser mapping, SfM photography, portable X-ray fluorescence, Dino-Lite handheld microscopes, robotic total data stations, and Wacom Cintiq Interactive Pen Displays. As new technologies become available, we return to sites to capture more data, and each visit is rewarded with new discoveries.

                                                                                                                          Carolyn Boyd

__________________________________

GALLERY

ROCK ART OF THE LOWER PECOS CANYONLANDS

Above: The panel at Rattlesnake Canyon reveals the complexity of Pecos River style images and the challenges of recording and interpretation. (Photograph courtesy of Jean Clottes)

Large rock shelters such as this one above at Cedar Springs provided both refuge and limestone canvases for documenting pictographic narratives. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

Above: Eagle Nest Canyon in Langtry, Texas. (Photograph courtesy of Nataliya Chemayeva.)  

Above and below: Parida Cave is located along the Rio Grande and houses deeply stratified deposits, as well as Pecos River style rock art. In the late 1800s this site was referred to as Parida Cave Station and served as a railroad stop for passengers traveling across the country on the Southern Pacific Railroad. Although now only accessible by boat, once inside the shelter’s expansive interior visitors can take advantage of more than 300 feet of designated trails. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

Halo Shelter is located in tributary canyon of the Devils River. Pecos River style pictographs painted in red, yellow, black, and white span almost 100 feet along the wall of this shelter. This photograph represents the best preserved portion of the mural. (Photograph courtesy of Jean Clottes).

Vaquero Shelter is located in Seminole Canyon State Park and contains wonderful examples of Historic Period rock art. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

Anthropomorphs standing with their arms in a “stick ‘em up” position are characteristic of Red Monochrome paintings. This anthropomorph is wearing a single feather headdress and is wielding a recurved bow. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).  

DStretch, which uses decorrelation stretch, significantly enhances photographs of badly faded images. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center). 

Bold Line Geometric imagery is characterized by bold geometric lines forming zigzag patterns and small human and insect-like figures, as shown here from Parida Cave along the Rio Grande. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

Fluidly painted, tiny Red Linear style figures convey a sense of movement and ceremony in this panel located in Presa Canyon.  Each figure in this photograph is less than 5 inches tall. Males are portrayed with an erect phallus and women are sometimes portrayed wearing “skirts.” (Photograph courtesy of Rupestrian Cyberservices).

Most Pecos River style imagery is well beyond reach of the shelter floor. Use of scaffolding to paint the murals demonstrates a significant investment by ancient artists in time, effort and resources. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

This finely executed yellow and red Pecos River style anthropomorph from Halo Shelter is portrayed with a feather headdress and is wielding a staff.  The small halo-like arch located just above the head of this figure is characteristic of many anthropomorphs at this site.  Three vertical lines located on the forehead of the figure may represent tattooing.  Note the claw- or pincher-like hands.  Just below and to the right of this figure is an antlered anthropomorph with black dots on its antler tines.  This is a recurring motif in Pecos River rock art. (Photograph courtesy of Jean Clottes).

Pecos River style rock art contains a vast array of enigmatic imagery. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center). 

 At almost 20 feet in height, this Pecos River style anthropomorph is one of the tallest figures in the Lower Pecos. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

This large Pecos River style anthropomorph with a U-shaped head stands more than 10 feet in height and is portrayed with various accoutrements.  Associated with its right hand is an atlatl and spear and with its left hand spears, staff, and a datura power bundle.  The right wrist is depicted with some type of adornment and suspended from the left elbow is something resembling a pouch.  At its mid-section are waist tassels and at the hip are a cluster of possible feathers. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

White Pecos River style anthropomorphic figures are striking and this is no exception. It has a bird-like head and wrist adornment.  Red lines are interspersed within the white body and a wide black band runs vertically down its center.  This figure is especially interesting because it is holding two atlatls in its right hand and two staffs in its left.(Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

Halo Shelter houses an unusual two-legged Pecos River style feline with piloerection (hair standing on end).  The wavy lines coming out of its mouth may represent speech or breath.  The solid red line being emitted out of its nose may represent blood or a stream of mucous, both of which have been reported as a potential side-effect of trance states induced through extreme physical exertion or the use of some hallucinogenic plants. (Photograph courtesy of Jean Clottes).

The antler tines of many antlered anthropomorphs found in Pecos River style rock art are tipped with black dots.  The black dots represent the sacramental plant, peyote. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

Illustration of a Huichol yarn painting portraying the birth of peyote from the antlers and body of the Great Deer in Wirikúta.  In Huichol religion, peyote and deer are an inseparable sacred symbol.  Yarn painting by Chavelo González de la Cruz. (Illustration by Carolyn Boyd, courtesy of Texas A&M University Press).

____________________________________

3D photographic model produced using Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry of the mural at White Shaman Shelter. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

Using a Dino-Lite handheld digital microscope, Boyd photographs a small section of the White Shaman mural to determine the order in which the paint was applied. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

In this microscopic photograph of a pea-sized section of the mural, the yellow paint can be seen overlying both the red and black paint and the red is over the black. This painting sequence held true throughout the entire mural. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

The White Shaman illustration was produced digitally using Adobe Photoshop on a Wacom Cintiq Interactive Pen Display.  A separate layer was created in Photoshop for each figure and each color.  In other words, if a figure is composed of three colors, it was reproduced according to its original painting sequence in three separate layers.  The final rendering shown here is the combination of over 200 digital layers. (Illustration by Carolyn Boyd, courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center)

A winged, antlered anthropomorph with dots attached to its antler tines is part of a large, polychromatic composition at Fate Bell Shelter in Seminole Canyon State Park. (Photograph courtesy of Shumla Archaeological Research and Education Center).

_______________________________

Editor’s Note

Did you like this article? You may be interested in reading more about the White Shaman mural in Carolyn Boyd’s award-winning book, The White Shaman Mural. 

_______________________________

____________________________________________ 

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 was an almost desperate race against time. On one side was the ocean, its relentless incoming and outgoing tides beating and constantly reshaping the beach, as any ocean would do. On the opposite side were the overlying cliffs, the erosion of which through time helped to expose a series of small hollows, what appeared to be human footprints, on an ancient beach surface dated hundreds of thousands of years into the past. This team of scientists knew they had only a short window of time to observe and record them before the elements erased the hollows back into oblivion.

“When we first saw them, we were in a state of initial disbelief, but once we’d ruled out all the other possibilities we were utterly amazed that, first, they survived, and second, that we happened to be there during the few days that they were exposed,” said Nick Ashton, a curator with the British Museum for over 25 years. Ashton is also the Director of the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain Project (AHOB) funded by the Leverhulme Trust. He has been directing the oceanside Happisburgh Paleolithic excavations, where these footprint finds were located. The site has yielded evidence of a human presence as far back as 800,000 years ago, and the footprints tell a story of humans who may have walked this place even more anciently.

But Ashton and his team faced a serious challenge. Their task to initially examine and document them could only be measured in a few weeks, if not days. 

“The first problem was mobilizing a team to record them,” said Ashton. “But Sarah Duffy from York University stepped into the breach, coming down at short notice to record them using multi-image photogrammetry.” Duffy is an archaeologist with specialized expertise in digital imaging techniques as they apply to archaeology.

“The weather was foul,” he added. “We couldn’t get down to the beach until just after 5 pm just as it started to lash with rain. Heavy seas meant that there were only 3-4 hours in which to record them, but first we had to remove the beach sand that had accumulated since the last tide and remove the excess water from the hollows. As Sarah started the recording we were continually using sponges to remove the persistent rain-water. By this time the light was fading, despite being May and I really had little faith in the technique working. We eventually left the beach cold, wet and somewhat demoralized. However, the results were stunning.”

 Above and below: Area A (which includes the hollows/footprints) at Happisburgh from cliff top looking south. (Photo: Martin Bates).

The imaging showed that the hollows were elongated, like the shape of a foot, and the majority of them fell within the range previously determined through paleoanthropological research as juvenile to adult hominin foot sizes. “In many cases, the arch and front/ back of the foot can be identified and in one case the impression of toes can be seen,” write Ashton and colleagues in their more recent research report.*

Moreover, further study indicated that they were dealing not with just one individual, but a group of perhaps five individuals of mixed ages — perhaps an adult and several children. And whoever they were, they were apparently moving in a southerly direction along mudflats of an ancient estuary of a tidally-influenced river.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 Above and below: The footprint hollows in situ on the beach at Happisburgh. (Photos: Martin Bates). 

 Above: Detail of footprint surface. (Photo: Martin Bates)

Vertical image of Area A at Happisburgh with model of footprint surface produced from photogrammetric survey with enlarged photo of footprint 8 showing toe impressions. © Happisburgh Project

Enhanced 3D model of footprint surface produced from photogrammetric survey by using color to indicate depth. © Happisburgh Project

But perhaps the biggest find had to do with age. The ancient laminated silt layers in which the footprints were found were directly associated with ancient laminated silt layers and lag gravels that had already been dated nearby. Artifacts, flora and fauna found within those layers helped to pinpoint the age range.

“An artefact assemblage has been recovered from these lag gravels, consisting of flint flakes, flake tools and cores. The sediments also contain a rich assemblage of fauna and flora which suggest that the archaeological evidence can be attributed to the later part of an interglacial. This interglacial is dated on the basis of biostratigraphical and palaeomagnetic evidence to the latter part of the Early Pleistocene, perhaps MIS 21 or MIS 25,” reported Ashton and colleagues.* 

In other words, the footprints, according to Ashton and his research team, are dated to between ca. 1 and 0.78 million years ago.

The finding was astounding. This meant that this was the oldest known hominin footprint surface outside of Africa. It pushed the record of human occupation of northern Europe back by at least 350,000 years. 

The footprints have become a major a milestone in a series of discoveries beginning in 2000 at this location, named after the nearby village of Happisburgh on the coast of eastern England. 

“The first evidence of Palaeolithic archaeology was a handaxe found by a local person walking their dog (Mike Chambers),” said Ashton. “Although this dates to 500,000 years ago, it led to further fieldwork and the discovery of ‘Site 3’ dating to 800,000 years old and subsequently the footprints.”

Happisburgh has been found to feature a remarkable concentration of Early Stone Age, or Lower Palaeolithic, sites that were buried in time under glacial sediments and subsequently exposed in time as a result of coastal erosion. Thus far, excavations have revealed numerous artifacts as well as butchered large mammal bones and other biological remains across five identified sites, tell-tale signs of a human presence during a cool climatic period around 500,000 years ago and earlier. At “Site 3”, the location of the recently discovered footprints, about 80 stone tools have been uncovered during large scale excavations from 2005 to 2010. Studies have shown that this area was once the location of an ancient river channel. The river was the ancestral river of the current Thames which, hundreds of thousands of years ago, flowed into the North Sea 150 kilometres north of its present day estuary. 

Research on the plant and animal remains recovered from the site have afforded archaeologists and other scientists the opportunity to reconstruct the climate and environment of the area as it existed more than half a million years ago, at the time the artifact-bearing sediments were deposited. They found that these early humans occupied the area during a cooling period when a conifer woodland was predominant: 

From palynological analysis of adjoining sediments, the local vegetation consisted of a mosaic of open coniferous forest of pine (Pinus), spruce (Picea), with some birch (Betula). Alder (Alnus) was growing in wetter areas and there were patches of heath and grassland. This vegetation is characteristic of the cooler climate typically found at the beginning or end of an interglacial or during an interstadial period….*

To date, no human fossil bones have been excavated at Site 3 or any of the other four sites. But now, analysis of the footprints, combined with current knowledge about early human occupation of Europe, are providing some clues about who these people were and how they might fit into the developing landscape of the first humans in the European geographic arena.

_______________________________

 Reconstruction of Happisburgh, over 800,000 years ago. © John Sibbick

 _______________________________________

Measuring the Evidence

The researchers measured a total of 152 hollows/footprints, indicating a preponderance of elongated forms and shapes, form features and measurements that suggested they were made by perhaps 5 individual humans of varying size and age. Foot size yielded estimates of height. Most significantly, the dimensions seem to fit neatly into the range identified through previous studies and archaeological investigations as attributed to an early human form that is known to have occupied Europe during the Middle Pleistocene.

“Overall the estimated foot size, foot area and stature of the Happisburgh hominins correspond with the estimates for Homo antecessor,” report Ashton, et.al.*

Homo antecessor (or H. antecessor) — the name derives from landmark human fossil discoveries made at the archaeological cave sites of Gran Dolina and Sima del Elefante at the Sierra de Atapuerca mountain in northern Spain. There, archaeologists Eudald Carbonell, Juan Luis Arsuaga and J. M. Bermúdez de Castro discovered fossil evidence of an extinct human species that lived between  800,000 to 1.2 million years ago. Carbonell and his colleagues estimate that the adult H. antecessor stood about 1.6-1.8 m (5½-6 feet) tall, similar to the recent estimates from Happisburgh (ca. 0.93 for the juvenile and 1.73 m for the adult), and weighed roughly 90 kg (200 pounds). Their brain sizes are estimated to be 1,000–1,150 cm³, smaller than the 1,350 cm³ average for modern humans. But because the fossil evidence is comparatively scarce, little else is known about the physiology of this ancient human species. To date, these sites are the only locations where fossilized remains of the species have been found, but the finds have interjected a new chapter in the developing picture of human evolution and the advent of early humans (hominins) on the European subcontinent. 

So now, Happisburgh adds yet another discovery to the mix: H. antecessor, or something like it, occupied the northern parts of Europe, or at least the region today known as the UK, as much as 1 million years ago. 

Walking the Beach

The evidence thus far could present an intriguing, albeit incomplete picture of what could be going on in this place so long ago. Informed by the findings and what he already knows about the prehistory of the area and the interdisciplinary science thus far applied to human beginnings in this part of the world, Ashton paints a hypothetical picture:

“We appear to be dealing with a small family group walking along the muddy fringes of an estuary perhaps 10 to 15 miles from the coast. It would be nice to imagine that they’re pausing in their walk to collect shell fish, crabs and possibly seaweed. Around would have been the grassy floodplain, grazed by deer, horse and bison together with more exotic animals such as rhino, hippo and elephant. In the distance coniferous forest would have dominated the surrounding hills.”

With more work, this picture could become much larger with greater detail. But time is of the essence. As Ashton reports: 

The rarity of such evidence is equalled only by its fragility at Happisburgh, where severe coastal erosion is both revealing and rapidly destroying sites that are of international significance. The pre-glacial succession around Happisburgh has now revealed several archaeological locations of Early Pleistocene and early Middle Pleistocene age with evidence of flint artefacts, cut-marked bones and footprints. Importantly, the sites are associated with a rich environmental record of flora and fauna allowing detailed reconstructions of the human habitats and the potential for preservation of organic artefacts. Continuing erosion of the coastline will reveal further exposures of the HHF and new sites, which promise to transform our understanding of the earliest human occupation of northern latitudes.*

“We’ll be continuing to work in the area as new information is revealed every time we visit,” he says. “Over the years we have built up a team of local people who walk the beaches on a far more regular basis and are excellent at reporting back any new discoveries, whether these be new sediments, artifacts or fossil bones.”

Dr Nick Ashton, British Museum at the Happisburgh site. Dr Ashton is the Co-Director of the Happisburgh Project and the British Museum’s curator of the Palaeolithic collections. Photo: Happisburgh Project 

Prof. Chris Stringer, a key author of the study report on the Happisburgh footprints. © Trustees of NHM: Professor Chris Stringer © Trustees of Natural History Museum

______________________________

Did you like this? Find out more about Popular Archaeology and how you can subscribe for access to more premium articles.

______________________________

*Ashton N, Lewis SG, De Groote I, Duffy SM, Bates M, et al. (2014) Hominin Footprints from Early Pleistocene Deposits at Happisburgh, UK. PLoS ONE 9(2): e88329. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088329

Cover Photo, Top Left: Photograph of the footprint hollows in situ on the beach at Happisburgh, Norfolk. (Photo: Martin Bates).

___________________________________________________

On a clear day, standing on the summit of this mound, one can see as far as the hills of Nazareth and Mount Tabor to the west, and major parts of the East Bank in Jordan. Today, it is a place where visitors can catch a commanding view of the countryside. For the ancients, thousands of years ago, it was an ideal location, situated as it was at the crossroads of trade routes, nestled within a rich and fertile natural environment that afforded robust commerce and agricultural production. Thus it is no wonder that people settled here so long ago. The evidence of their lives in this place go back as far as 3200 B.C.E—perhaps even earlier.

Those familiar with the location call it Tell Abu al-Kharaz, which means “the Mound of the Father of the Beads”. No longer occupied, it is an archaeological site, about 4 km east of the Jordan river in the Central Jordan Valley. Sometimes identified as the biblical Jabesh Gilead and as the burial site of King Saul, it can be counted among many such sites found within the borders of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

But this one drew some special attention in the press. 

“We have evidence that culture from present Europe is represented in Tell Abu al-Kharaz,” stated excavations Director Peter Fischer of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, in a press release.* What he means, of course, is ANCIENT Europe, and more particularly the cultures of the Aegean, ancient Cyprus, and what historians have often referred to as the Sea Peoples—a people thought to have originated in either western Anatolia or southern Europe, and more specifically the Aegean Sea region, and who journeyed by sea across the eastern Mediterranean and colonized Anatolia, Syria, Canaan, Cyprus, and Egypt at the end of the Bronze Age, well over 3,000 years ago.

Fischer has been directing the excavations here since 1989, now accompanied by Assistant Director Teresa Bürge of the University of Vienna. Their team has thus far uncovered the remains of a city that reached florescence three times over 5,000 years, featuring numerous structures, city walls and artifacts that tell a story of a fortified settlement spanning periods in the Early Bronze Age (3200 – 2900 B.C.E.), some new evidence of the Middle Bronze Age (2100 – 1550 B.C.E.), the Late Bronze Age (1600 – 1300 B.C.E.), and into and beyond the Iron Age (1200 – 600 B.C.E.).  

“There is also evidence of post-Iron Age settlements, especially from Roman, Byzantine, Islamic and Mamluk periods,” report Fischer and Bürge.** But the comparatively sparse evidence for these later periods, to date, stand in stark contrast to that found for earlier periods.

View of Tell Abu al-Kharaz. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and the University of Gothenburg

________________________________

The Iron Age Compound

The most sensational discovery emerged in 2009, when they encountered something unexpected. While cleaning and consolidating city walls to create a 3-dimensional reconstruction of the city’s defense system,  

“the tops of the walls of an almost square structure, 4.4 by 4.2 meters in size (the outer dimensions), built on top of the Middle/Late Bronze Age city walls and protruding southwards, was exposed. This structure – later named Room 2 – turned out to be part of a particularly well-preserved architectural compound from the early Iron Age. The compound yielded numerous primary contexts, hundreds of complete pottery finds, tools, jewellery, and plenty of vessels containing well-preserved organic remains which were used for radiocarbon dating. As a result of these exceptional findings, the compound, which was destroyed during a catastrophic event, was further exposed from 2010 to 2012.”** 

What they eventually uncovered was a multi-roomed, two-storey compound structure incorporated into the Iron Age city wall and measuring 60 meters in length with some of the walls still standing as much as 2.5 meters high. Dated to about 1100 B.C.E., it featured cells of square, standardized rooms with 3 by 3 meter dimensions, with nine pairs of rooms connected by standardized .6 by .75 meter wide doorways preserved to about 1.25 meters in height. (See image below.) The excavation debris indicated that its now-collapsed upper storey was constructed of mudbrick reinforced with wooden beams, twigs and straw. Excavation showed clear evidence that the ancients used the older Early Bronze Age wall to help provide a foundation to support the later Early Iron Age construction of the compound.

Reconstruction of Iron Age I two-storey compound (total length 46 m; reconstructed by M. Al-Bataineh). Courtey Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

________________________________________

 The Iron Age I compound from above. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

______________________________________

The Iron Age I compound with 21 rooms exposed (46 m x 8 m). Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg. 

_________________________________________

Iron Age I pottery found in situ in one of the compound rooms. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg 

______________________________________

 An exposed room of the Iron Age I compound showing 2.5 m high walls preserved.  Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

________________________________________

Room 21 of the compound (the only room with a dividing wall) containing a clay-built grain silo. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

________________________________________

The Early Iron Age structures were built by the ancients upon the Early Bronze Age city wall (between red arrows). Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

_______________________________________

“The architectural layout of the stone-walled spaces,” write Fischer and Bürge in their report, “gives a strong impression of centrally supervised town planning because of the standardized size of the rooms and entrances.”** 

The compound, they report, is a unique find in two big ways. First of all, the architectural layout, particularly the curious cell plan of the structure, sets it apart from anything else they have found at the site. Moreover, “there is nothing like this structure in the immediately preceding Late Bronze Age Phase VIII or earlier Late Bronze Age phases at the site,” report Fischer and Bürge. “This specific architectural layout is also unique for the Transjordanian Jordan Valley or the remainder of Jordan in the early Iron Age.”** Secondly, a significant proportion of the artifacts found within the rooms, many of which were remarkably well-preserved, showed characteristics quite distinct from the standard Canaanite ware and assemblage that otherwise typified the site. 

Clues to Foreign Connections

Among the artifact assemblages found within the compound cells were objects, as Fischer and Bürge describe, “which are exotic in comparison to the standard early Iron Age Canaanite repertoire.”** Those objects included finds like white-slipped vessels, such as a Philistine-style bowl standing on three loop handles, Philistine-style pilgrim flasks with cup-mouths, smaller flasks and a bichrome-decorated jug with a double handle clearly from Phoenicia, double pyxis with false spouts and basket handles—a type of ware found in the Aegean—alabaster vessels made of raw material that was imported, and a beautifully decorated Aegean/Philistine-style jug.

______________________________________

Early Iron Age Aegean/Philistine-style jug. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg 

_____________________________________

 Early Iron Age Phoenician import. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

___________________________________

Early Iron Age pilgrim flask. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

_____________________________________

Phoenician-imported pilgrim flask. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg 

___________________________________

Were these finds made or brought by immigrants from Philistia, Phoenicia, or the Aegean?

Fischer and Bürge think it’s a real possibility, although they fully realize that there are other, equally tenable explanations.

“Even though the number of imports is considerable, all of these objects could be dismissed – if one insisted on doing so – on a variety of grounds as conventional imports which found their way to Tell Abu Kharaz by trade, and without their owners necessarily being associated with the homeland of these finds,” they state in their report.**

In the same breath, however, they point to other finds. “There are, however, groups of finds – unattractive as they may appear, but of vital importance to any society – which actualize the question of the ethnic origin of their owners, namely cooking pots, other plain-ware vessels used on a daily basis and textile production tools,” they write.** These were cooking pots of the characteristic closed-end style more typical of Philistia and the Aegean, and spool-shaped loom weights that are classic to the Aegean………..and their numbers were significant enough to reasonably suggest that this place may have been occupied, at least briefly, by a group of immigrants from the west — Sea Peoples who made their way across the Aegean and/or perhaps eastward from Philistia or southward from or through Phoenicia. They conclude:

“We put forward the possible scenario that people (females?) of Eastern Mediterranean or Philistine ethnicity arrived at Tell Abu Haraz in the course of intermarriage with indigenous people. This would explain the presence of both Aegean/Philistine- and Canaanite-related objects in the same compound. A consequence of these possible scenarios is that local people and foreigners lived in symbiosis. Another possibility could be that the Aegean/Philistine elements are related to mercenaries or craftsmen and their families who served and worked at the site. In this case it is also obvious that they lived in symbiosis with the local population because of the mixed find contexts from the same compound.”** 

 ___________________________________________

Aegean/Philistine-style cooking pot. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

__________________________________

 For comparison, Canaanite-style cooking pot. Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

________________________________

 Loom weights of unfired clay: standard Canaanite-typ (left); spool-shaped Aegean-type (right). Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

_______________________________________

For Fischer, it all has implications for developing a deeper understanding of the world that existed at this time in the ancient Levant. 

“What surprises me the most is that we have found so many objects from far away. This shows that people were very mobile already thousands of years ago,” he says.*

Mysteries remain, and much work needs to be done before a more conclusive assessment can be made about Tell Abu al-Kharaz in general. The 2013 excavations unearthed, for example, a curious vessel, bichrome-decorated in red and black with large vertical handles and a pointed base (see photo below). Their preliminary research has come up with no clear parallels thus far. But one thing is certain………it is an import.

_________________________________________

 Courtesy Peter M. Fischer and University of Gothenburg

______________________________________

More information about Tell Abu al-Kharaz can be found at the project website. 

______________________________________

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.