Archives: Articles

This is the example article

Up From The Ashes

Emma Johnston is currently studying for a PhD in Volcanology in the Department of Earth Sciences at Bristol University (U.K). With a background in Archaeology and an interest in the natural world and its interaction with human populations, she has been able to join her passion for the two subjects focusing her research on large-scale eruptions and their effects on ancient civilisations. Emma has worked on excavations in the U.K, Greece and Indonesia, including the 2011 Tambora excavations.  

Nothing captures the world’s attention like a natural disaster — particularly a cataclysmic volcanic eruption. These can be perceived as primordial and fatalistic, a response to the extraordinary power of volcanism and our powerlessness in controlling such gigantic forces. Human memory records impressive volcanic events such as the 1883 Krakatau eruption in Indonesia and the AD 79 Vesuvius eruption in Italy. By comparison, relatively few have heard of the 1815 eruption of the Tambora volcano on the island of Sumbawa, also in Indonesia. Ten times more powerful than the eruption of Krakatau, it is now recognised as the largest explosive volcanic event in recorded history. It blasted 100 cubic kilometres of gases, rock and ash into the atmosphere and onto the island of Sumbawa and the surrounding Indonesian islands. Much more than this, the eruption changed, at least for a time, world climate. How did such a catacysmic event get by most of us? The answer lies in part with the invention of the telegraph in 1830. When Krakatau erupted in 1883 news spread quickly, and it became the first worldwide news story. In contrast, word of the 1815 Tambora eruption travelled no faster than a sailing ship, limiting its notoriety. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Orbital photograph of Tambora volcano with the huge caldera (6 km diameter and 1,100 m deep). Today the crater floor is occupied by an ephemeral freshwater lake, recent sedimentary deposits, and minor lava flows and domes from the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. (Source: Earth Observatory, NASA).

  _______________________________

Before the eruption, Tambora volcano was around 4,000 meters high, but in 1815 it literally blew its top off and was reduced in size to 2,851 meters (see image left, Tambora volcano’s present flat-top profile), producing a crater 7 kilometers in diameter and 1,100 meters deep. 

A Disaster of Global Proportions

The volcano had never been active before in living memory, so the eruption was completely unexpected. In 1811, Java had fallen under British control, so we have contemporary reports of the eruption written by British resident agents, sea captains and army officers who were scattered along the East Indian Archipelago. These reports, in addition to modern-day volcanological and archaeological study, furnish fascinating insights into the nature and consequences of the eruption.

The great event began with ‘rumblings’ and a minor ash fall on April 5th, 1815. This was followed by a Plinian eruption column reaching heights of 33 kilometers, showering pumice and ash over the Island of Sumbawa, lasting for 2.8 hours. Between April 5th and 10th, the eruption became less intense, but the volcano continued to erupt and disperse small amounts of ash over the surrounding area. But this proved to be the “calm before the storm”. A larger, climactic eruptive phase began at 7 pm on April 10th with a 43 kilometer high Plinian column transporting material to a ‘great height’ and raining down ash and pumice on Sumbawa. This continued until around 10 pm when ‘violent winds’ were reported at Sangaar, a peninsula of Sumbawa, indicating a change in the eruptive style and marking the beginning of pyroclastic flows. These flows (a mixture of hot ash, dust and gas), affected the entire region around Tambora. They travelled down the volcano’s slopes at a rapid pace, destroying and killing everything, leaving deposits up to 20 m thick. (Carbonised tree trunks, rice and charred skeletons later recovered by excavators evidenced the high temperatures within these flows). Once they reached the sea, their impact generated a 4 meter high tsunami, which claimed lives along the northern cost of Sangaar before spreading out to areas of eastern Java.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

An artist’s depiction of people fleeing the 1815 Tambora eruption (Source: Greg Harlin)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

At the time of the eruption, there were an estimated 1800 settlements throughout the island of Sumbawa, all belonging to one of the six petty kingdoms or sultanates existing at the time (Sumbawa, Bima, Dompo, Sangaar, Pekat and Tambora).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) map of the Island of Sumbawa marked with the location of the excavation site (red star). The volcano’s location is identifiable by the crater. The six different kingdoms or sultanates are also highlighted (Data: 90m SRTM data)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The kingdom of Tambora was a small and wealthy sultanate with about 10,000 inhabitants, located in the Sangaar peninsula on the volcano’s western flanks. Settlements were located inland, near rivers and a safe distance from seagoing pirates, with buildings constructed out of wood and bamboo. The people made a living by growing rice, mung beans, maize, and by trading items such as coffee, horses, beeswax, pepper, timber, incense and red dye.

But this all came to an end when the volcano erupted. The consequences were monumentally disastrous. The kingdom, along with a neighboring kingdom known as Pekat to its south, was buried under the ashfall, with no survivors. The unique language that was spoken became extinct, and the rest of Sumbawa was affected by an immediate famine and a lack of clean water. Survivors were reduced to eating dry leaves and selling their children to obtain rice. They were even driven to scavenge from the dead, digging up personal grave goods to use them for barter in an attempt to survive. Reports made by British sea captains describe the remains as ‘horrifying’: corpses were left lying about on roads, rice fields and beaches. There were so many of them that they couldn’t all be buried fast enough, becoming prey for dogs, pigs and birds. Not only humans were affected: 75% of the island’s livestock were also killed, and bird and bee colonies were wiped out by the ash.

Large parts of the Indonesian Archipelago were plunged into darkness for days as a consequence of the vast amounts of ash released by the eruption (See map below). The sounds of the accompanying explosions were audible as far away as Sumatra (2600 km) and in many places mistaken for cannon reports. The neighbouring islands of Bali, Lombok and south Sulawesi were hit badly; ash fall of up to 20-30 cm thick caused the collapse of buildings, trapping and killing those inside. Secondary effects such as famine, plague and epidemics plunged these islands into an abyss of poverty and misery.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Isopach maps of the ash dispersal (Source: Oppenheimer, 2003: Fig 3b)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The eruption also had major global effects. It has been connected to the 1816 climactic phenomenon known as the `year without summer’. Fine ash particles and sulphate aerosols were carried high up into the atmosphere by the eruption column, where winds transported them around the globe. This veil of volcanic dust blocked out solar radiation, causing the earth to cool down. In the northern hemisphere, temperatures were abnormally low, causing a cold summer. This led to catastrophic flooding and famine worldwide. Many crops failed to ripen, and poor harvests led to famine, disease and socioeconomic problems. Europe was still recuperating from the Napoleonic Wars and already suffering from food shortages. The effects of the eruption exaggerated these problems further, leading to food riots in Britain and France. In Switzerland, the food crisis was so bad that people resorted to eating moss and cat flesh.

The months and years following the Tambora eruption were remembered in popular writing for the remarkable meteorological and optical phenomena produced by the spreading dust veil. In England, spectacular sunsets and orange, red, purple and pink twilights were observed. It is claimed that some of the paintings of J.M.W Turner, characterised by vivid oranges and red skies, were inspired by these volcanically induced stratospheric optics. It has been estimated that, overall, this eruption caused 11,000 deaths from direct volcanic effects and an additional 49,000 from famine and disease.

The Excavations

Despite the massive destruction caused by eruptions, volcanic disasters have a remarkable way of creating a lasting record of the things they ‘destroy’. This was no less true of the Tambora event. Like Mount Vesuvius and ancient Pompeii, Mount Tambora left a legacy of a people and the physical vestiges of their civilization intact, available for study and view for future generations. The scorching pyroclastic flows which had buried and otherwise dessimated the island kingdom of Tambora had also carbonised everything in their path, effectively ‘freezing’ both organic and inorganic forms in the moments of the disaster.  It is this legacy that is now being excavated by archaeologists.

In 1980, P.T Veneer Products (a commercial logging company), discovered what appeared to be a site of human settlement to the northwest of the village of Pancasila, near the Tambora volcano. According to reports, the finds included pottery fragments (late 18th Century south China Porcelain), other pot sherds and bones. Others found coins, brassware and charred timber in the same region, all buried beneath a thick layer of volcanic deposits.

Finds like this continued to be discovered by locals, and in 2004 Volcanologist Haraldur Sigurdsson (University of Rhode Island) embarked to investigate these reports in this ‘museum gully’ as it had become known, which lay deep in the jungle on the volcano’s western flank. By using Ground Penetrating Radar, Sigurdsson was able to identify a complete house buried under 2-3 metres of pyroclastic flow and surge deposits. Although entirely charred, its form was well preserved, making it possible to distinguish beams and bamboo floors. Artefacts found inside the structure included Chinese porcelain, iron tools and copper bowls. Two victims were also discovered; one complete skeleton was found by the hearth in the kitchen area and the second, which was very badly damaged, identifiable only by the leg and a vertebra, was found on the porch.

Official excavations began in 2006 and continue to the present day. They have revealed a settlement that follows a linear composition, with houses spaced roughly 20 m apart, facing what was presumably a path or road through the site. The houses are built in the same style today, so it is possible to fairly accurately imagine how the kingdom of Tambora would have appeared (See photo below).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Photograph of a modern-day Sumbawan house. The buildings of the old kingdom of Tambora were constructed using the same techniques and in the same style as today (Photograph: Made Wita)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 2008, a house was uncovered containing a male skeleton sitting upright, adorned with a copper tobacco box tied to his waist and a ceremonial spear at his side. He wore rings inlaid with precious stones, a bracelet on his wrist, and a large brass pendulum necklace around his neck. During the 2009 excavation season, another carbonised house was discovered, this time with a body lying just outside under the volcanic debris, with his left arm held up to his head perhaps in a (failed) attempt to protect himself from the falling pumice. In 2011, the remains of half of a house were identified, with a complete piece of the thatch wall remarkably well preserved. Some coarse-ware pottery and a tarsal bone from a goat were also found within the kitchen area.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

One victim who was discovered during the 2009 excavations. His left arm is held up to his head perhaps in a (failed) attempt to protect himself from falling pumice. The carbonised beams of the house are also shown (Photograph: Rik Stoetman)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The 2011 excavation trench (Photograph: Emma Johnston)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Excavating carbonised building beams (Photograph: Made Wita)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Based on the artefacts found, particularly the many bronze objects and jewels, evidence suggests the site was once inhabited by the wealthy or an elite who had grown prosperous through trade. Historical evidence supports this theory, as Tamborans historically were known in the East Indies for their honey, horses, red dye and sandalwood. The design and decoration of the artefacts suggest that the Tamboran culture was linked to Vietnam and Cambodia.

The excavations thus far have only scratched the surface. The rich finds suggest that there is much more waiting to be discovered at the site, now deservedly called ‘the Pompeii of the east’ (See table of finds, left). The excavations will continue in 2012 under the direction of Dr M. Geria of the Bali Institute for Archaeology.

Volcanic Deposits and Implications for Tambora

By examining the stratigraphy of the eruption deposits alongside the archaeological evidence, it is possible to identify the fateful events that took place at this site in April 1815 and brought an end to a thriving kingdom in the most horrific and deadly of circumstances.

The Tambora eruption deposits cover a greater spatial area compared to that of other Plinian eruptions. Nonetheless, the deposits are substantially thinner than has been noted for other, less explosive eruptions despite the proximity of the settlement to the volcano (at Tambora the pumice fall is 14-24 cm thick vs. Pompeii where the pumice reaches thicknesses of 280 cm). It is likely that this influenced the people of Tambora to stay rather than flee the site as was done during the AD 79 Vesuvius eruption. For the inhabitants, this light but persistent ash and pumice fall would have been confusing, but probably no more than a nuisance, hindering the chores of everyday life (See figure below, the eruption deposit stratigraphy recorded at the excavation location during the 2011 season. Photograph: Emma Johnston). 

However, they would not have been aware of the impending danger, and as night fell on April 10th, the intensity of the eruption would increase and larger pieces of pumice would begin to rain down more swiftly on the kingdom.

We know from the excavations and deposit stratigraphy that the houses were mostly inhabited when the accumulating pumice fall led to the collapse of the houses, trapping and killing those inside. The evidence uncovered so far indicates this was the fate of all victims identified so far.

However, some houses may have remained standing, their occupants seeking refuge inside. As night advanced, any survivors who sat in the darkness would have been unaware of what was coming next. The eruption’s intensity became too great to be sustained any longer: the eruption column collapsed and the pyroclastic flows swept down the sides of the volcano, destroying and burying anything in their path, including the kingdom of Tambora.

 

The kingdom of Tambora is particularly intriguing because very little is known about its residents, their language and their everyday lives. The remoteness of the site has kept it secret until recently. Now, with archaeological and volcanological research, a picture is beginning to emerge of the lives of the people who lived here and how they so quickly and dramatically came to an end one fateful night in April 1815.

For detailed information about the area and further inquiries, readers are directed to: http://visittambora.wordpress.com.

__________________________________________________

The table above left summarizes the main finds found to date in the Tambora excavations (Information courtesy of Made Geria)

__________________________________________________

Read about the most fascinating discoveries with a premium subscription to Popular Archaeology Magazine. Find out what Popular Archaeology Magazine is all about.

 

 NOW RELEASED

The first annual DISCOVERY edition of Popular Archaeology Magazine, a large collection of the best and most interesting premium quality feature articles and news articles published in Popular Archaeology over the past year. These stories cover some of the most fascinating and important discoveries and research made in archaeology and paleoanthropology within the last year and century. The publication will be FREE for current premium members, and a very affordable $5.75 for all others. Those who wish to subscribe to premium membership in Popular Archaeology Magazine after subscription to the Discovery edition may subscribe for the reduced rate of only $3.25.  

 



Probing the Secrets of Jerusalem’s Patio Tomb

William (Bill) Tarant is a sales manager with GE Inspection Technologies.

Bill Tarant was not an archaeologist. When in the spring of 2008 he received a call from Felix Golubev, the producer of the James Cameron/Simcha Jacabovici documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”, he knew it wasn’t a call for his archaeological insights.  It was about plans to make a second documentary, this time about another tomb located just a short distance from the now famous and somewhat controversial Talpiot Tomb, the subject of the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” documentary. This other tomb, known as the ‘Talpiot B’ Tomb, or more popularly as the ‘Patio Tomb’ because of its location securely beneath the patio of an apartment complex in the Talpiot neighborhood of southern Jerusalem, was already very familiar to Bill. In 2005, he, as a representatvie of GE Inspection Technologies (a company that sells remote visual cameras) was a member of the technical team instrumental in providing the camera resources and expertise to explore the tomb using a 7.5 meter long industrial Videoprobe and a Cazoom PTZ (Pan Tilt Zoom) camera.  Directed through a “soul pipe”, or long tubular opening reaching 25 feet down into the tomb beneath the patio surface, he and his colleagues, including Felix Golubev, investigating scholar James Tabor of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and filmmaker Simcha Jacabovici, were able to view and visually record the contents of the tomb without disturbing its sacred contents. The camera revealed burial niches and seven ossuaries (stone boxes containing the bones of the deceased), typical of many burials associated with the well-to-do Jewish inhabitants of 1st Century Jerusalem. Now, Felix was asking him to go back with the crew for a second probe.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The first image of the ‘Patio Tomb’ taken during the 2005 exploration, showing an ossuary resting within a stone-cut niche. This tomb was unearthed and mapped briefly by archaeologists in 1981, then sealed off after protests. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The “Patio Tomb” could be accessed only through a “soul pipe”, which led the remote camera system 25 feet below the apartment complex patio (built in modern times over the tomb location) to the tomb. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Above and below: Views of separate ossuaries within their niches inside the tomb as viewed during the 2005 exploration. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bill had questions about the necessity of this second trip. “We filmed it for 2 days, dropping the camera through the soul pipe and saw nothing of great interest,” he said to Felix. In 2005, these ossuaries appeared to be unremarkable. They were only seven among many hundreds of similar bone boxes commonly found throughout the Jerusalem area over the years.

But now producer Felix and the other members of the research team wanted to get a much closer look at the ossuaries……close enough to detect and read any possible inscriptions on their sides, anything that would tell them more about who’s bones may occupy the boxes and with what family or group the tomb may be associated.

This got Bill’s attention. But this new expedition posed some unique challenges, requiring innovative thinking and bringing to bear the full professional capabilities of the technical team put together to help explore the tomb. In his own words, he explains how they did it……….

 

We met for lunch and Felix explained that they wanted to use a camera to get closer to the ossuaries and search for inscriptions to see if they could determine who was buried inside. From the video shot in 2005, we knew a PTZ would not work. It would not fit into the gaps between the ossuaries and the walls. We considered using a Rover Crawler with a zoom camera, but there was too much rubble on the floor of the tomb and the gaps between the ossuaries and the walls of the niches were too small, even if we cold drive it up to the ossuaries. We needed to use a smaller Videoprobe, but had to find a method to transport it 3 meters across the tomb. The probe we used to explore the tomb before was flexible along its entire length, causing it to droop, like a wet noodle. We needed a stiff extension for the Videoprobe arrangement.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The narrow gaps between the ossuaries and the walls of the niches presented a major problem for a camera probe. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the past, for industrial applications, I used carbon fiber poles, painters poles, and metal tubes, but these were hand-held and never 3 meters long. For this application, whatever transported the probe would be required to first go down several meters, then be raised up to be parallel to the floor and then extend 3+ meters. Clearly we needed a custom solution.

Manufacturers and operators of high value assets can afford to contract with engineering companies to design and build highly automated and sophisticated tools, justifying the cost vs. savings. In our case there were no savings. The cost was to come out of the film shooting budget. This was not the Titanic or Mission Impossible. This was a project based on a hunch that there was something interesting inside the Patio Tomb.

Through a referral from a friend, Felix met Walter Klassen, an expert in two disciplines related to major motion pictures and TV. He is a special effects prop creator and a manufacturer of steady-cam equipment. His experience in remotely moving objects and expertise in cameras created a perfect match. His devotion to the movie business and love of a good challenge brought him on board. He would work within the limited budget to create a robotic arm that was crucial to the success of this venture.

Felix and I met with Walter at his studio in downtown Toronto. Felix brought out the tomb map, the building drawing and pictures of the patio and frame grabs from inside the tomb.  We discussed several key questions before coming up with a specification for the arm.

How were we going to get into the tomb?

Through the Soul Pipe

The Soul Pipe is 6” in diameter and 25 feet long, running inside a cement pylon and opening up near the roof of the tomb through a 90 degree elbow.

Walter stated that the 6” opening and 25-foot drop down to the tomb was feasible, but the elbow at the end of the soul pipe was problematic, for two reasons. The extension arm would have to be made of a material that could bend to negotiate the elbow, yet become rigid to support the cameras at the end. Secondly, the arm needed to rotate to cover the tomb, and the elbow would prevent any left/right movement.

There was another possible solution………

Drill a [new] core hole from the patio straight into the tomb.

From Walters perspective, this was possible, eliminating the incompatibility of the previous arrangement.  His concerns now were the extra weight of the extension poles required and the longer lengths of the necessary control cables.

From my perspective, using a larger PTZ camera would not be a problem as all of its functions were electrical. The pan, tilt, zoom, lights and focus were controlled through the single cable and that cable could be 600 feet long. However, the Videoprobe was a concern because of the length required to do the job. The 25 feet from the patio down to the tomb and the 15 feet needed in the tomb required a 40 foot probe. Though GE makes probes in lengths up to 100 feet, for this application I wanted to keep the length down to 25 feet. I needed as much light as possible to capture better images. Light travelling through glass fibers will attenuate, and the longer the probe, the less light. The color also changes — the longer the probe, the greener the light. I also wanted as much articulation as possible. The ability to move the camera head as much as 150 degrees (we actually went 180 degrees) would be needed to get into the tight places.

From Felix’s perspective, he had to find another way into the tomb. Even if he could drill the 25 feet, the cost would be high, and it would generate a lot of noise and vibration that would disturb the neighbors.

 

The next critical questions were:  How far did the arm have to reach? How high was the ceiling from the floor and how big will the access hole be?

The rough sketch of the tomb done in 1981 (when it was unearthed and mapped briefly by archaeologists in 1981, then sealed off after protests) showed it to be about 3 meters by 3 meters square. The 9 burial niches that were on the north, east and west side appeared to be just under 2 meters deep. It was agreed that if these measurements were close, the arm needed to extend to 3 meters. The insertion of the videoprobe into the niches would thus be accomplished by using a combination of a rigid tube, semi rigid tube and the probe itself.

Based on previous caves found and images taken from the video, the best guestimate was 1 meter high.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So it was agreed that the robotic arm would compact into a meter bend at the ceiling level and clear the floor when it was raised to a horizontal level. It would then extend as needed to a maximum of 3 meters. It would also be able to rotate 360 degrees with a 4-pound PTZ camera, cable and a 25-foot videoprobe at its distal end.

Walter had what he needed to get started. Felix was on his way back to Israel to find a better place to drill that was closer to the tomb. Using the soul pipe and support pylon as a reference, Felix, working with local civil engineers, overlaid the tomb map with the original drawings of the building.  They determined that only two locations would work. One was east of the pylon and one west of the pylon. The east spot was located inside a tenant’s storage locker, the west in the hallway outside the locker. The tenant did not want to cooperate, which left the hallway as the only spot to drill.

Felix hired a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) expert to survey the corridor to try to validate his best guess as to where to drill. The GPR indicated a void could be present at the end of the hall. Next, he contacted a local concrete drilling company to quote on drilling a 20 cm wide, two-meter deep hole. They determined a one meter long diamond tipped core bit was required to complete the job.

Measuring the Size of the Tomb

Before bringing Walter and the arm to Israel, the size of the tomb had to be confirmed. If the size of the tomb was even a half meter larger than the drawing, the arm would not reach. Modifying the arm in Israel was not an option. We had to measure the tomb from our entry point at the end of the hall.

Walter built a simple arm that we could lower into the tomb and raise the boom with the camera on the end. We rented a Cinetape ultrasonic range finder to attach to the PTZ camera. In June of 2010 I made the first of 3 trips to Israel. This trip had three objectives; get into the tomb, measure the tomb and find out if there was anything else we would need for the main shoot.

Drilling the first hole went well. The core bit slowly chewed through the limestone and reached 2 meters where Felix expected to break through into the tomb. The drillers continued. At 2.2 meters, no tomb. At 2.4 meters, no tomb. A decision was made to drill a second hole on an angle towards the tomb. At 2.4 meters, we were still drilling rock. All eyes were on Felix, wondering if he totally miscalculated and we were drilling in the wrong spot. We packed it in for the day.

After a tense meeting over dinner, we decided to drill a little bit deeper into the first hole. Even if we broke through in the wrong place, the camera would show us where we were on the map. At 8 a.m. the next morning we set up and the drillers began. At 2.5 meters the bit cut into the tomb. We were inside and Felix was right. He went from zero to hero as a result of 10 cm of limestone.

The measurement went according to plan and we confirmed that the size matched the drawing. As for the third objective, to determine what else was needed, we had some thoughts. From our new perspective, we got a better look at where the ossuaries were placed. Some were so close to the walls or to each other that I was concerned about getting the videoprobe, not closer, but further away in order to capture a wider view. I was also concerned about articulating the camera, should there not be enough room. When back in Toronto Felix, Walter and I planned to discuss some options.

 

We visited Walter soon after our return. The arm was 90% complete. Using the human arm as a reference to describe the robotic one, there were three sections. From the elbow to the shoulder were the metal poles at the top end of the arm. The elbow section articulated from 0 to 110 degrees. The ulna/radius from the elbow had four sections: The inner three would retract and extend into the outer section, fixed at the elbow. Two of the sliding parts were moved with a series of pulleys, controlled by a winch at the top. The third section was motor driven. This third section, in addition to moving in and out, could also move left and right. Finally, at the wrist there was an air cylinder that could move the camera from 0 to 90 degrees. The main reason for this was to allow Walter to increase the length of the arm and still clear the one meter ceiling to floor distance. (See photo illustration below of the entire apparatus)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The insertion sequence would go like this:

1               The arm fully retracted and the camera head at 0 degrees.

2               The total arm carried into the hallway, then inserted into the hole.

3               Walter to connect the seat, winches and air control panel.

4               From the second hole we insert another PTZ camera to watch the arm.

5               The arm is lowered until the camera clears the ceiling.

6               The camera is raised to 90 degrees as the arm is lowered to the elbow.

7               Once the elbow is clear, the arm is raised with the up-down winch.

8               The camera is then lowered to 0 degrees so as not to hit the ceiling.

9               The arm is raised to 90 degrees and the in-out winch extends the two sections.

10             The motor is activated and extends the last section.

 

Once inside the tomb, the boom could be rotated left and right by moving the poles that made up the humerus (upper arm). The ulna/radius could extend and contract, the section connected to the wrist could move left and right and the camera could tilt up and down from 0 to 90 degrees.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

View of arm articulated camera up inside the tomb. Image taken from HD monitor.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The arm aparatus set up at the end of the hall.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In addition to the range of motion of the robotic arm, the PTZ camera (pictured below) could rotate  + / – 177 degrees and tilt + / – 140 and optically zoom in 10 to 1 (see drawing). The XLG3 Videoprobe which ran from the surface to the end of the arm through a semi flexible tube also had full range of motion, extending out from the tube and being able to articulate in all directions. The G3 also had interchangeable lenses allowing for wide angle and close up views. 


 

More Challenges

We discussed a major concern I had about the lack of space between the wall and the ossuaries. Because we could not change to a smaller Videoprobe, we were left with one possible solution…….move the ossuaries. Unfortunately, the agreement the producers made with the relevant parties was that we could not touch or move anything. This became a moot point. However, there was a challenge on the table and Walter and I thought of ways to do it, if we could.

The arm would not have enough torque to move the ossuary, nor could it retract with enough force to pull the ossuary if we managed to get a grappling hook into it.  I proposed that we attach a large fish hook to a small steel cable that ran to the surface and pull on it. But Walter responded with a much more practical method. He proposed an air bladder that would attach to a small pneumatic piston. The flat bladder would be positioned between the wall and the ossuary and then inflated. The more air, the more it would move.

We thus had a solution and it would not cost more than a few dollars for the bladder, cylinder and an airline. Walter built it into the arm on the off chance that, if we needed it, we could ask permission to use it. If they said no, we were no worse off.

We did not get to use it. In some way, the Haredim (orthodox Jews) who were monitoring the investigation knew about it before we arrived.  This would not have been included in this narrative, except that it solved a different problem we had on the first day of the shoot.

Recall that we measured the tomb from the first drilled hole. From that vantage point, we could see most of the tomb, but the support pylon prevented us from seeing into the first niche on the east side of the tomb. When we went to look at niche 1 from the third hole we could not reach the ossuary with the Videoprobe. We were almost a meter short. The producers were very disappointed. All that measuring and extra expense, and we were still short. The problem was that the ossuary was set over a meter deep into the niche. Had it been where the map showed it, we would have been in a better position.

The producers called Walter and I aside, but still let the camera roll the tape and then later let us know how they felt. We asked for some time to come up with a way to extend the reach.

After thinking it through, we decided to use the space used by the bladder at the end of the piston and added a rigid plastic pipe to where the bladder was to have been. Coupled with the length of the piston, we added about .8 of a meter. That was enough to reach where we had to get in niche #1. This kluged solution actually gave us much more reach and control than we had before it was added.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

We spent a week in September of 2010 investigating every niche and ossuary and documented it all on tape. We discovered two significant and now very controversial ossuaries (which included the news-making “Jonah” ossuary). They were the last two we shot in niche 3. Both were difficult to reach and capture with the Videoprobe, as the distance between objects was small. What we saw could not have been discovered by a PTZ. Only by manipulating the camera into the spaces and taking shots at all possible angles were we able to see the Greek inscription clearly enough to read most if it without post enhancements (that is, not enhancing the images after the shot, but adjusting exposure, contrast etc.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Above and below: Views of the inscribed images discovered on the “Jonah Ossuary”, made possible through the robotic arm camera system devised by the team engineers.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Broadcasters were happy with what we shot, but complained that much of the story was shot inside the tomb, which was done in standard definition. They asked if it were possible to reshoot the tomb in HD. Felix asked me if there was anything I could do to make it happen.

Rising to the challenge, I called Kevin Bush, the engineer in charge of the PTZ product line. In his laid back central New York State manner, he said it was possible. That was all I needed to hear. I told Felix we could do it, but he would have to pay for Kevin to join us in Israel. My logic was twofold. One, it was a great incentive for Kevin to skunkwork the project and get it built, and two, if something happened to the camera while in Israel, he would be in a position to fix it. Felix agreed, Kevin agreed and another problem was solved.

One last technology item before this saga ends. Rami Arav, one of the archaeologists working on this project, asked for a way to measure the tomb, as this is a common practice on all archaeological digs.

The solution was simple. The PTZ had an optional laser measurement feature. A pair of red lasers with a 2” distance between them was used as a reference measurement on a captured, still image. We calibrated the screen by placing cursers on the laser dots and assigning the distance between them as 2”, as that distance is constant regardless of how far away the camera is. We could then place new cursers anywhere on the image and the computer would calculate the actual distance.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Taking the laser measurements

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

In conclusion, I feel fortunate that the success of the robotic arm and remote cameras was showcased in a documentary. But most importantly, this experience taught me that anything can be done if you get the right people on your team and believe in what you are doing. Fortunately, I did not have to interpret or justify the significance of the discoveries. My job was to help discover.

__________________________________________

*What is the controversy surrounding the Patio Tomb? Among other things, the cameras captured inscriptions and images that, according to the principal investigators, suggested possible examples of the earliest Christian art or symbolism, depicting the concept of a resurrection, a core belief of Christianity. Although the interpretation of the finds is steeped in dispute among scholars, the art could predate by at least 200 years the earliest Christian symbols now known to exist in the catacombs of Rome. See “The Resurrection Tomb” in this issue for more about the exploration and finds of the Patio Tomb.

__________________________________________

All photos credit William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

________________________________________________

Read about the most fascinating discoveries with a premium subscription to Popular Archaeology Magazine. Find out what Popular Archaeology Magazine is all about.



The Resurrection Tomb

It was exposed by a dynamite blast. At the time, the blast would not have been an unexpected sound in this part of Jerusalem where, in April of 1981, the Solel Boneh Construction company was preparing to construct a new condominium complex in the East Talpiot neighborhood, less than three kilometers south of the Old City. As in many cities with an ancient past, construction workers stumbled upon something ancient and buried. In this case, it appeared to be a tomb—also not surprising, as it was located within an area long known to feature a necropolis of ancient tombs. Construction work was halted and, as is required by law, Amos Kloner, a Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority, was immediately called in to investigate the tomb.  

He could enter the tomb only through a break in the ceiling. Its ancient square entrance was closed, sealed tight by a large “stopper” stone. What he first saw was a 3.5 by 3.5 meter rock-cut single square chamber. Cut into and along three of its sides were nine carved gabled burial niches in all (called kokhim in Hebrew), about 2 meters deep, three in each side. Each niche was sealed in front with a blocking stone. He suspected that inside the niches would be ossuaries, or bone boxes. For Kloner this would not be a surprising find, given the context. Ossuaries, or bone boxes, were commonly used by the wealthy Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem during the 1st Century B.C.E. up until 70 C.E. to permanently store the skeletal remains of deceased family members, often in a stone-cut family tomb. Kloner observed skeletal remains in the niches, with significant primary burial remains in four of them, meaning those skeletal remains had not yet been placed permanently into ossuaries. Also found were some cooking pots placed in three locations on the floor.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Bones found in situ within one of the niches of the tomb. Photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But Kloner wasn’t afforded much time to examine the tomb. Soon, he was forced to leave the tomb by protesting ultra-Orthodox Jews, determined to protect the sanctity of the tomb. But this was not before he was able to acquire one smaller ossuary for examination—a decorated ossuary with no inscription, fit for the remains of a child. He entrusted it to the custody of IAA authorities at their Rockefeller headquarters (The ossuary is now part of the State of Israel collections).  

Despite the protests, Kloner and the IAA were determined to investigate the find. Although he had to depart the country to fulfill another commitment, he entrusted two IAA archaeologists, the late Joseph Gath and Shlomo Gudovitch, to continue the investigation. Upon returning to the site, they were able to remove the blocking stones from the niches and examine ossuaries inside, a total of seven, taking photographs and recording their positions. All ossuaries but one were decorated and two were observed to have Greek inscriptions. They spent several days at the tomb location, removing the ossuaries from their niches and opening their lids for further examination. While preparing to raise the ossuaries up through the tomb ceiling to transport them to the IAA Rockefeller headquarters, they were again prevented from completing the task by a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish protesters. The seven remaining ossuaries were returned to their niches, albeit not all in their original positions. There they remain to this day.

 

Mission (Almost) Impossible

It was not until 2005, more than 25 years later, that a new archaeological team was assembled to take another look at the tomb (today known as the “Talpiot B” or “Patio” tomb) and its contents. This latest exploration was conducted by a team co-led by prominent biblical historian James D. Tabor of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and noted archaeologist Rami Arav of the University of Nebraska. The team included a comparatively eclectic mix of experts, including the well-known Canadian film producer and director Simcha Jacobovici, top Canadian film producer Felix Golubev, two key technical experts, Walter Klassen and William Tarant, and Dr. James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary as the team’s primary academic consultant. 

What prompted the new initiative was the proximity of the tomb to two other tombs, the first being the controversial, high-profile Talpiot or “Jesus Family Tomb” (also known as the “garden” tomb because of its proximity to a garden) discovered in 1980 and further investigated in 2005; and the second, a tomb mostly destroyed in 1980 by a dynamite blast during preparations for construction work. The “Jesus Family Tomb” or “garden” tomb, only 45 meters away from the subject Patio Tomb, contained nine ossuaries and a niche for a missing 10th, six of them inscribed with names: Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus, Son of Joseph), Maria (Mary), Yose (Joseph), Yehuda bar Yeshua (Jude, Son of Jesus), and Matya (thought to be a form for Matthew or Matthias), all in Aramaic, and Mariamenou Mara or Mariam kai Mara (Martha) in Greek. (It has been suggested by some that the controversial “James, Brother of Jesus” ossuary is the missing 10th.) The suggestion that this tomb could be connected to Jesus of Nazareth and his family opened a pandora’s box of scholarly dispute when, in 2007, it was brought into the public limelight.

“It was the proximity of these three tombs, and the possibility that they were clustered together on a wealthy estate in the 1st century CE that prompted us to request a permit to carry out further investigations,” reported Tabor in his Preliminary Report about the Patio Tomb exploration. The immediate vicinity of the three tombs also included the remains of a plastered ritual bath (or mikveh), water cisterns, and an ancient olive press. Joseph Gath, who surveyed the area, determined that they, including the tombs, belonged to a large, wealthy agricultural estate. They were likely the family tombs of the owner of the estate. “The object of our investigation was to determine whether the “patio” tomb, still intact, might contain names or other evidence that would provide for us further data that might conceivably shed light on the adjacent “garden” tomb with its intriguing cluster of names,” reported Tabor in a preliminary report of the findings. “Our stated intent in our proposal to the Israel Antiquities Authority was that we wanted to determine if further scientific information about these tombs and their possible relationship to one another might still be obtained 30 years after their initial exploration.”[1] 

The team knew that re-examining the tomb would, to say the very least, be difficult. The gravity of the challenge was enhanced by several factors. First, there was the challenge of obtaining permissions from four different sources, each of which had a different agenda and a different set of interests to consider and safeguard. They included the IAA, the condominium owners (as the tomb was located below the basement of the condominium complex), the municipal police, and finally, perhaps most sensitive of all, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups that objected to exploration of tombs. Permission was obtained from all, provided certain conditions were met.

Even with the administrative/logistical hurdles cleared, however, there was still the technical challenge of locating, accessing, and then moving remotely within the tomb to film and record what they needed to see. Given the underground, sealed location of the tomb 25 feet below the condominium complex, the requirement not to move the ossuaries to respect the sensitivities and conditions of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, the dimensions and configuration of the tomb, and the extremely limited clearance space around the ossuaries within the niches, it was a monumental task that seemed almost insurmountable. It had never been done before.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Remote camera view of one of the tomb niches containing ossuaries. The team could see that maneuvering cameras within the spaces would be a challenge, to say the least. Photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

View of niche with ossuary within the tomb, showing blocking stones. Photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Inside the Tomb

The only clue the team had regarding the precise location of the tomb was a “ritual vent” or “soul pipe”, the entry point of which was located on a patio about 25 feet above the tomb. By Jewish law, a soul pipe is required to be installed whenever construction is performed above a tomb. (The pipe allows an opening through which the soul of the deceased may escape from the tomb.) They knew that the pipe ran down directly into the tomb based on earlier preliminary investigatons, when they were able to successfully drop a small camera attached to the end of a flexible cable through the opening down into the tomb and shoot some video footage of the tomb features and contents. This aparatus, however, had no capability to maneuver about within the tomb to closely examine the contents. As one of the prime requirements was to approach close enough to the ossuaries to observe and record any markings or inscriptions that would tell them something about who was buried there and the ownership of the tomb, the team went to work to devise an innovative scheme and tool that could accomplish this. It would include a unique robotic arm and camera/video assembly specially designed for the task.*

With the specialized tools developed, the robotic arm investigation began in June of 2010. The plan was to explore the tomb systematically, working counterclockwise from the sealed entrance and going niche by niche. Not without roadblocks along the way, the team was able to obtain a more detailed view of the ossuaries, with some startling discoveries. What follows is what they discovered:

(1) Ossuary 1 was richly ornamented on its front side, including two carved rosettes, an elaborate frieze for a border, and a pillar or nephesh (a figure representing the soul) carved between the rosettes. Clear evidence of a reddish-rose paint was on the rosette petals. The rest of the ossuary was plain with no features or inscriptions, although it had deep horizontal scratches on the back. 

(2) Ossuary 2 was also richly ornamented on its front side with carved rosettes and a frieze border. There was an incised marking in the upper right corner, indistinguishable upon the first examination. The rest of this ossuary was plain. 

(3) Ossuary 3 featured a partial rosette with the name ‘Μapa’ faintly inscribed in Greek letters. Mapa, also written as ‘Mara’, is rarely seen on Jerusalem ossuaries of the 1st century. One of the few examples was found in the nearby Talpiot “Jesus Family Tomb” as Mariamenou Mara or Mariam kai Mara . It is often considered a version of the name ‘Martha’, found in the Gospels of the New Testament.

(4) Ossuary 4 was also ornamented, but because of its position inside its niche, including its closeness to the niche wall, the team was unable to study it closely. Its far end appeared to feature a name inscribed in Greek. 

(5) Ossuary 5 showed an ornamental front façade with twin rosettes and elaborate frieze border. Interestingly, between the rosettes was a four-line Greek inscription.

(6) Ossuary 6, originally (when explored by Kloner) in the first position closest to the tomb entrance, featured perhaps the most interesting markings. Its front (museum replica pictured right) showed what the team interpreted as the image of a fish, including tail, fins, and scales, with what appeared to be a stick-like human figure with a large head emerging from its mouth. Along the top border was a series of smaller, fish-shaped images. Incised on the left end was a bell-shaped circle that featured a cross inside. On the right end was an image that appeared to be a scaled body and tail of a fish, although only the lower portion of it is shown, upended. 

(7) Ossuary 7 was plain with no markings or decorations.

 

What Does It All Mean?

Of the finds in the tomb, the most striking and significant were the inscriptions found on ossuaries 3, 5 and 6.

As already related, ossuary 3 featured an inscription translated as ‘Mapa’ or ‘Mara’. It is considered significant for two reasons, the first being the rarity of the occurence of this name on any extant 1st century Jerusalem ossuary, and the second, the fact that the relatively rare name was found on an ossuary in a tomb only 45 meters away from the Talpiot A tomb, or famous “Jesus Family Tomb” described above, explored in 1980 and then again in detail in 2005. One might recall that the Talpiot A included, among the other names found in the tomb that were associated with Jesus in the Gospels, the name ‘Mariamenou Mara’, interpreted as another version of the name Martha.

These name interpretations and associations have been much disputed by other biblical scholars. To counter their arguments, Tabor, in making reference to the recent “Jeus Family Tomb” finds, advances these remarks in his February, 2012 Preliminary Report on the Patio tomb investigations: 

Other than theological objections, the response most often offered to any probable identification of this tomb with Jesus and his family is that “the names are common.” Subsequent research has definitely shown that is not the case, either from a statistical standpoint or even a practical observation—though one hears it endless[ly] repeated even from academics who should know better. There is not a single cluster of names ever found in any tomb in Jerusalem from this period, other than this one, out of the estimated 900 that have been exposed, that one could plausibly even make the argument of correspondence with Jesus and names associated with his family. This does not prove the tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family, but it does demonstrate that its probability should not be dismissed.[1]

 

Ossuary 5 carried the four-line inscription in Greek. The use of Greek would not necessarily be considered extraordinary. The translated text, however, reading as it were like an epitaph, was quite extraordinary under these circumstances. More unusual still was the use of the word for the name of God, Yahweh, written in Greek on a 1st century ossuary in what is clearly a tomb belonging to a Jewish family of the time, and words that expressed a raising up or resurrection (“rise up to God”, or “rise up to heaven”). As Tabor describes it in his Preliminary Report:

We are convinced that our inscription clearly makes some affirmation about either resurrection from the dead or lifting up to heaven…….Although it is true that ideas of resurrection of the dead and even ascent to heaven are found in a multiplicity of Jewish sources in the late 2nd Temple period, they do not appear as expressions in burial contexts unless we have an exception here in the Talpiot tomb. That, along with the unprecedented example of writing the divine name Yahweh in Greek letters in a Jewish tomb—a place of tum’a or ritual defilement—argues for a heterodox or sectarian context. The family buried in this tomb are Jews to be sure, and the style of the tomb, the ornamentations of the ossuaries, and everything else about it is nothing out of the ordinary— other than these semi-informal inscriptions of both epitaph and icon.[1]

 

Considering these finds alone, the Talpiot B or Patio tomb, like the Talpiot A or “Jesus Family Tomb”, stood out from all others of its kind, and there are about 900 discovered thus far. 

As though the other finds were not rare enough, Ossuary 6 with its fish inscriptions, perhaps the most sensational and most controversial discovery emerging from the tomb, was rarer still. This was, according to the investigative team interpretation, not only because they could be images of a fish, an animal, on a 1st century Jewish ossuary (something that would have been prohibited by 1st century Judaism), but because the imagery was similar to that seen within the 3rd and 4th century CE Christian tombs of the catacombs in Rome—the “sign of Jonah” (as in Jonah and the whale of the biblical account) images that symbolized the resurrection. As Tabor proposed in the Report:

We interpret this drawing as a presentation of the biblical story of Jonah and the “big fish.” In ancient Jewish art there are no attested representations of Jonah and the fish. Other biblical scenes are common such as Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, Noah and the ark, Moses and the burning bush, Daniel in the lion’s den, especially in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. In contrast, images of what is called the “Jonah cycle” occur over 100 times in early Christian art, most often in tombs, as a way of proclaiming and celebrating the resurrection of Jesus—and thus Christian resurrection hope more generally. [1] 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Focused view of the head/mouth of the fish image on ossuary 6. Photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Could the ‘Jonah’ or fish image actually be something else?

Other scholars have suggested so, and it has been one of the most hotly contested issues of the tomb discoveries. The most prominent interpretation advanced by others is that the fish-like images, particularly the largest image, actually represent amphorae or funerary nepheshes or pillars, images that are not uncommonly inscribed on ossuaries. To this Tabor has responded that his research team has “carefully examined all the extant examples of nephesh and amphora on ossuaries of this period and have not found anything that is even close” in appearance, despite the fact that the image was comparatively crudely drawn.  “It was clearly done by a family member, or someone associated with the family, who was not a professional engraver. It is nonetheless the most elaborately carved ossuary in the tomb, testifying to the importance of its individual and particular expression.”[1]

To this has recently been added the work of James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary, who announced the deciphering of a four letter inscription on the ossuary that spells out the name “Jonah” (the same as ‘Yonah’) in ancient Hebrew. Charlesworth is the George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton. He is a noted expert in the epigraphy of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Herodian script of the period to which the tomb is dated. Another well-known epigrapher, Robert Deutsch, has confirmed Charlesworth’s reading of YONAH, although his noted epigrapher colleague Haggai Misgav of Hebrew University reads the markings as ZOLAH rather than YONAH. Other epigraphers have been invited to examine and analyze the inscription for additional perspectives.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Closeup view of ossuary 6 with YONAH inscription highlighted. Background photo credit: William Tarant, GE Inspection Technologies and Associated Producers, Ltd.

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thus, put together, the most significant finds and their interpretation from the original investigative team’s perspective is summed up well in the words of Tabor:

“………..We are dealing here with a family or clan that is bold enough to write out the holy name of God in a tomb, with a declaration about “raising up” or resurrection—something totally unparalleled in any of the 900 tombs from the period known in Jerusalem. And further, this is a family that is willing to put an image of a fish and a human, both eschewed by pious Jews as “graven images” on the most prominent ossuary in this wealthy tomb— located at the front of the first niche on the right as one enters the tomb—and fill it with the bones of more than one family member…………..We are convinced that the best explanation for these unusual epigraphic features in the Talpiot “patio” tomb is its proximity to the Jesus family tomb less than 45 meters away. What we apparently have is a family connected to the Jesus movement who reaches beyond the standard burial norms of the Jewish culture of the period to express itself individually in these unique ways.” [1]

 

Other scholars have strongly disputed this interpretation. But it has raised some intriguing popular questions: Is the Patio tomb, together with the nearby “Jesus Family Tomb” and 3rd tomb (mostly destroyed during construction work), a cluster of tombs belonging to a wealthy family, perhaps even that of Joseph of Arimathea, the wealthy member of the Sanhedran who, according to the Gospels, donated a tomb for the burial of Jesus after Jesus‘ Crucifixion? Or, aside from the hypothetical association with Joseph of Arimathea or a wealthy Jewish family, was it associated with the early followers of Jesus, those that made up the initial “inner circle”, including family members? Or was it both? 

“Whether one might identify it as “Christian,” or, to be more historically precise, as associated with the early followers of Jesus, is another question,” writes Tabor. “I would strongly argue in the affirmative.”[1]

_______________________________________________

* The detailed account of how the technical team gained access and remotely moved about the tomb is presented in the article, Probing the Secrets of Jerusalem’s Patio Tomb, by team member William Tarant.

[1] A Preliminary Report of a Robotic Camera Exploration of a Sealed 1st Century Tomb in East Talpiot, Jerusalem.  James D. Tabor, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Some of the views expressed in this article are the views of the exploration team and do not necessarily represent the views of the Editor and staff of Popular Archaeology Magazine.

_______________________________________________

Read about the most fascinating discoveries with a premium subscription to Popular Archaeology Magazine. Find out what Popular Archaeology Magazine is all about.



Archaeological Digs

As Founder and Editor of Popular Archaeology Magazine, Dan is a freelance writer and journalist specializing in archaeology.  He studied anthropology and archaeology in undergraduate and graduate school and has been an active participant on archaeological excavations in the U.S. and abroad.  He is the creator and administrator of Archaeological Digs, a popular weblog about archaeological excavation and field school opportunities.  

There are archaeology field schools and research activities being conducted all over the world. Many excavations are conducted during the summer months; however, some are ongoing throughout the year, and some are being conducted even during the winter months in parts of the world where the climate is favorable. Click on each listing below to link to a  website:

 

 

1.  Archaeological Fieldwork Opportunities Bulletin

2. Dig List at Popular Archaeology

3.  Past Horizons

4.  Earthwatch Expeditions

5.  Biblical Archaeology Society

6.  Archaeologyfieldwork.com

7.  Passport in Time

8.  ShovelBums

The Hard Stuff of Culture: Oldowan Archaeology at Kanjera South, Kenya

The material culture of humanity litters our world.  The residues and trash of past civilizations fill up museums, and have provided the fodder for countless dissertations.  From an evolutionary perspective, much of the variation in human cultural practices is “noise;” it does not provide a significant adaptive advantage or disadvantage to the population in question.  But the capacity for culture, and the use of culturally derived technologies, behavioral practices, and social institutions to adapt to varying environmental circumstances has been a critical part of humanity’s success. 

Whereas other primates (e.g., the living great apes, and some populations of capuchin monkeys) may exhibit culture, and produce technologies that assist in foraging, humans are unique in being dependent on cultural practices for survival.  But how far back in time does this dependency on culture go?  The oldest evidence for material culture in the human family tree extends back to nearly 2.6 million years ago (Ma) in Africa.  Stone tools found at sites dated roughly between 2.6 and 1.6 million years ago are attributed to the Oldowan Industrial Complex, named after the type site of Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania (Plummer, 2004).  Oldowan archaeological sites are restricted to East Africa between 2.6 to 2.0 Ma, and thereafter are found in North and South Africa.  In the Oldowan, large pebbles, cobbles, or angular blocks of stone (cores) were struck with another rock (a hammerstone) to detach flakes that had sharp edges and could be used for a variety of cutting tasks (Fig. 1).  Large mammal butchery was one demonstrable use of the artifacts, as cut marked bones are coeval with the oldest stone tools, but they may have been used to work wood and process plant foods as well. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1.  Oldowan artifacts from Kanjera South made from red felsite.  A.  Hammerstone.  B.  Core showing flake release surfaces.  C.  Flake.  Photo credits:  Jim Oliver and Tom Plummer  

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One of the primary goals of my research is to investigate the adaptive significance of Oldowan tools.  Were stone tools a critical part of the foraging ecology of early humans, or were they only used incidentally, or seasonally, more akin to chimpanzee tool use?  It is likely that more than one species of early human used Oldowan tools, including two members of the human genus Homo, named Homo habilis (ca. 2.4 – 1.4 Ma) and Homo erectus (ca. 1.9 – 0.2 Ma).  Understanding how Oldowan stone tools were manufactured, transported, used, and discarded across the landscape will tell us something fundamental about the behavior and cognitive sophistication of the oldest stone tool makers, and the importance of tool use and manufacture to their lives.  Although not abundant, there are a growing number of Oldowan sites from Africa.  Here I will be describing on-going research from sites in roughly the middle of the timespan for the Oldowan, from the Homa Peninsula, southwestern Kenya.

 

The Oldowan Site of Kanjera South, Kenya

Since 1995 I have been co-directing research on the Homa Peninsula in southwestern Kenya with Dr. Richard Potts of the Human Origins Program of the Smithsonian Institution, working with an interdisciplinary team of paleontologists, archeologists, and geologists investigating the late Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits exposed there (Behrensmeyer et al., 1995; Bishop et al., 2006; Braun et al., 2008, 2009a,b; Ditchfield et al., 1999; Ferraro, 2007; Ferraro et al., ms; Plummer et al., 1999, 2009a,b).  The Homa Peninsula juts into the Winam Gulf of Lake Victoria.  Centrally located on the peninsula, the peaks of the Homa Mountain carbonatite complex are ringed by sediments deposited by streams and lakes as well as alluvial fans off the flanks of the mountain.  Fossil-bearing sediments extend back in time to at least 6 Ma, with the oldest well-dated archaeological occurrence being found at Kanjera South (Fig. 2). 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2.  Location of Kanjera South on the Homa Peninsula, Winam Gulf, southwestern Kenya.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Based on magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphy, the archaeological sites at Kanjera South are approximately 2 million years old.  Excavation through silts and fine sands from an ephemerally flowing system of small, shallow channels in the margins of an ancient lake has recovered multiple levels of stone artifacts and associated fauna through three beds (from oldest to youngest KS-1 through KS-3) spanning several meters of sediment (Fig. 3) (Plummer et al., 1999). 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3.  A.  Excavation 1.  B.  Artifacts and fossils being recovered during excavation.  C.  Composite stratigraphic log shows the basal three beds of the Southern Member of the Kanjera Formation (KS-1 to KS-3) and the base of KS-4.  Spatially associated artifacts and fossils are found as diffuse scatters and also in more vertically discrete concentrations from the top of KS-1 through KS-3, with KS-2 providing the bulk of the archaeological sample.  Photo credit:  Tom Plummer

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Except for several discontinuous conglomerate units, hominin activity was the primary agent of accumulation of the Kanjera archaeological materials (Plummer et al., 1999; Ferraro, 2007).  The 169 m2 Excavation 1 is the largest excavation to date, and has yielded approximately 3700 fossils and 2900 artifacts with 3D (N, E, and Z) coordinates from a one meter thick sequence, exclusive of materials from spit bags and sieving.  This represents one of the largest collections of Oldowan artifacts and fauna found thus far.

 

The Environmental Setting of Hominin Activities

The habitats that were available to hominins, and whether they preferred a specific habitat or utilized a range of habitats, are important to document to understand their adaptation.  Over larger timescales and geographic regions, patterns of environmental change can be related to patterns of hominin (living humans and related fossil species) evolution to investigate whether environmental change triggered evolutionary change (DeMenocal, 1995).  It seems likely, for example, that the spread of grassy environments played an important role in transformations in the human evolutionary tree through time.  Early in our excavation it became apparent that the faunal signal from Kanjera South was more “open” than is typically associated with early archaeological sites.  Antelopes whose living relatives are found in open settings today dominate the bovid sample, and fossil zebras are also common.  This fauna indicates that grassy habitats were well represented within the regional plant paleocommunity.  On a more local scale, analysis of the chemistry of soil carbonate nodules associated with the archeological horizons provides information about the vegetation cover (proportion of grasses using the C4 photosynthetic pathway versus plants such as bushes, shrubs, or trees using the C3 photosynthetic pathway) at the time that hominins were making, using and discarding stone tools at the site.  The Kanjera soil carbonates have  δ13C values indicative of a very grassy setting (> 75% grass) within the range of open habitats such as wooded grasslands to open grasslands today.  Stable carbon isotope analysis of enamel indicates that these taxa uniformly had a large amount of grass in their diets, reflecting the dominance of grass in the vegetation community (Fig. 4). 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 4.  Stable carbon isotopic composition of fossil mammal tooth enamel from KS-2 in Excavation 1.  The KS-2 fauna is supplemented by several taxa unique to KS-1 or KS-3, or found on the surface of the KS-1 to KS-3 sequence, to provide a more complete sense of the diet of the mammalian community during the deposition of the archeological levels.  The shading reflects the relative importance of C3 browse versus C4 grass in the diet, with δ13C values greater than -1 reflecting a diet with more than 75% C4 vegetation.  A probable ostrich (cf. Struthio) eggshell fragment was also analyzed.  Modified after Plummer et al. (2009), Figure 3.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is true even for taxa that normally have a C3-rich (fruit or browse) diet (e.g., tragelaphine antelopes and the monkey Cercopithecus sp.).  One of the two teeth from Deinotherium, an elephant-like creature that normally exclusively browsed, has the most positive δ13C value ever documented for this taxon indicating that it at least occasionally consumed C4 plants.  The strong C4 signal occurs across the spectrum of animals found at Kanjera South, including non-dispersing taxa such as monkeys, rhinos, tragelaphine bovids, and suids.  This confirms that the grassland dietary signal is not simply the result of dry season domination of the residential mammalian community by migratory grazers congregating near a permanent water source.

The ca. 2.0 Ma sediments at Kanjera South thus provide some of the best early evidence for a grassland dominated ecosystem during the time period of human evolution, and the first clear documentation of human ancestors forming archaeological sites in such a setting.  The presence of artifacts and archeological fauna both low and high in the KS-2 sequence and in the underlying KS-1 and overlying KS-3 indicates that hominins repeatedly visited this grass-rich area on the landscape for hundreds or even thousands of years.  This is significant for several reasons.  The open setting contrasts with the more wooded settings associated with other Oldowan sites.  This suggests that by 2 Ma, the hominins forming the Oldowan sites were utilizing a broad spectrum of habitats during their foraging.  Activities in open settings may have correlated with hominin utilization of plant or animal resources that were specific to those habitats.  Moreover, the formation of sites in an open setting provides one line of evidence that hominins, in at least some paleoecosystems, were able to compete effectively with large carnivores.  This is an important finding, as there is clear evidence that Oldowan hominins were consuming animal carcasses, and this dietary shift would have increased the frequency in which hominins and carnivores came into contact, perhaps in competition for the same carcass.

 

The Importance of Lithic Technology

We are very fortunate that the Homa Peninsula and its immediate environs has a geologically complex history, so that a diverse array of rocks are exposed in outcrops or as cobbles in conglomerates (Braun et al., 2008; 2009a, b).  This raw material diversity is reflected in the artifact assemblages at Kanjera South, which were made using a greater variety of raw materials than typically found at most other Oldowan sites (Fig. 5) (Plummer, 2004). 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 5.  Artifacts made from a representative sample of raw materials from Kanjera.  Photo credit:  Tom Plummer

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Extensive raw material surveys both on and off the Homa Peninsula combined with petrological and geochemical characterization of samples collected from primary outcrops and ancient stream and river conglomerates have been used to build a lithological data base for sourcing most of the rocks used in artifact manufacture.  We thus have a good idea of how far the artifacts were transported away from their sources prior to their discard at Kanjera South (Braun et al., 2008).  Moreover, these rocks vary in physical properties (e.g., hardness) that can be quantified, with the harder, and often more easily flaked raw materials being found in conglomerates off the Homa Peninsula, outside of the drainage system of Homa Mountain (Fig. 6).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 6.  The placement of Kanjera within the zone of the radial drainage system of the Homa Mountain carbonatite complex.  Non-local “high quality” raw materials are found in conglomerates at least 10-13 km away from Kanjera.  Image provided by David Braun.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hardness is an important variable, as experiments have shown that a flake of a hard raw material, like the quartzite found off of the Homa Peninsula 10 or more km away from the site, will maintain a sharp edge much longer than a flake of a soft raw material, such as limestone, that outcrops locally.  The geographic distribution of raw materials varying in their physical attributes provides an opportunity to assess aspects of hominin decision making in the selection, transport, and flaking of stone.  If stone tool manufacture was not a critical component of the foraging behavior of the hominins at Kanjera, there would be little pressure to transport stone, and one would expect the artifact assemblage to be overwhelmingly dominated by locally available raw materials from the conglomerates in the radial drainage system off of Homa Mountain.  What we found is that approximately 30% of the artifacts recovered from Kanjera were made from rocks that were transported to the site from conglomerates at least 10-13 km away (Braun et al., 2008).  Moreover, these nonlocal raw materials were more extensively flaked, and flaked more efficiently (generating more cutting edge per unit volume) than the local raw materials found on the peninsula (Braun et al., 2009a, b).  Flakes of some of the nonlocal, hard raw materials are occasionally retouched (the removal of tiny flakes from an artifact’s edge to resharpen it).  Retouching is uncommon in the Oldowan, and at Kanjera it was only carried out with the hard, non-local raw materials.  This again reflects the attention hominins paid to raw materials best suited for tool use.  The finding that there are not nearly enough cores to account for all of the flakes at the site further hints that the artifact sample at Kanjera was part of a larger transport system.  It appears that cores were being carried by hominins, for use to dispense flakes as needed for various cutting tasks.

The fact that hominins were investing energy in the transport of hard raw materials, and more efficiently reducing them, suggests that artifact manufacture was of great importance in their day-to-day lives.  But what was it that they were doing with these artifacts?  One certain use was animal butchery.  Hominins were predominantly acquiring small antelopes the size of Grants Gazelles or a bit larger (Ferraro et al., ms).  The representation of the different bones of the skeleton indicates that complete carcasses of these animals were brought to the site.  Analyses of dental eruption and long bone fusion indicate that many of these antelopes were immature when they died.  Damage to the fossils indicates that hominins were using stone tools to slice meat off of bones, and to break bones open for their fatty marrow.  Carnivore toothmarks are also found on bones, showing that they too were interested in the carcasses at the site.  But the carnivore damage largely follows the hominin damage, and appears to represent scavenging of the leftovers of the hominin meals. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 7.  A shaft fragment from an ungulate leg bone showing a single, deep stone tool cutmark and carnivore toothmarks.  One toothmark overlays the cutmark, indicating that the hominins had stripped meat off the bone prior to carnivore gnawing.  Photo credit:  Tom Plummer.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The overall pattern of hominin access to the complete carcasses of small antelopes may be the signal of hominin hunting.  If so, this would be the oldest evidence of hunting to date in the archaeological record.  There are bones from larger antelopes and other ungulates as well, but their skeletons are not as complete, and it is unclear whether the hominins were having access to fleshy carcasses of these animals, or whether larger bovids were sometimes acquired by scavenging carnivore kills.

Artifact use-wear analysis provides another avenue for assessing the range of activities carried out by ancient hominins.  We categorized the traces produced by working different materials (e.g., soft and hard wood, grass, wild tubers, animal skin and flesh) using an experimental collection of artifacts made using the same raw materials as those used by the Kanjera hominins.  This use-wear reference collection was then available for diagnosing what hominins were cutting and scraping based on the use-wear of the tools found at the archaeological site.  Thus far, the use-wear on the quartz and quartzite subsample of Kanjera artifacts confirms that animal butchery was conducted on-site, but also demonstrates the processing of a variety of plant tissues, including wood (for making wooden tools?) and tubers (Gibbons, 2009; Lemorini et al., 2009).  This is significant, because the processing of plant materials appears to have been quite important, but would otherwise have been archaeologically invisible.

 

Summary and Future Research

Research at Kanjera has informed us a great deal about the habitat use and behaviors of Oldowan hominins, and about the importance of stone technology to the lives of our ancestors living 2 million years ago.  Hominins were foraging in a variety of habitats, from grasslands to woodlands, and processing plant and animal foods with stone tools.  Tool use seems to have been adaptively significant, as hominins preferentially utilized and transported stones that were hard, and produced flakes that held a sharp edge for a long time.  Hominins consumed foods including animal carcasses and tubers that would have required stone tool use to acquire and/or process, were of high nutritional value, and came in packets large enough to be shared.

There is a great deal of more research to be carried out on the Homa Peninsula.  In addition to further research at Kanjera, the next round of excavations will include several new Oldowan sites to the west and south of the Homa Mountain carbonatite complex.  These sites will allow us to investigate how Oldowan hominin behavior and technology varied across different habitats, and with differential access to high quality raw material.

_______________________________

Literature Cited

Behrensmeyer, A.K., Potts, R., Plummer, T. W., Tauxe, L., Opdyke, N. & T. Jorstad (1995).  The Pleistocene locality of Kanjera, Western Kenya: stratigraphy, chronology and paleoenvironments.  Journal of Human Evolution  29:247-274.

Bishop, L., Plummer, T. W., Ferraro, J., Ditchfield, P., Braun, D., Hertel, F., Hicks, J. & R. B. Potts (2006).  Recent research into Oldowan hominin activities at Kanjera South, Western Kenya.  African Archaeological Review 26: 31-40.

Braun, D., Plummer, T. W., Ditchfield, P., Ferraro, J. V., Maina, D., Bishop, L. C., Potts, R. (2008) Oldowan Behavior and Raw Material Transport: Perspectives from the Kanjera Formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2329–2345.

Braun, D., Plummer, T. W., Ditchfield, P., Bishop, L. & J. Ferraro (2009a).  Oldowan technology and raw material variability at Kanjera South, Kenya.  In Hovers, E. & D. Braun (eds) Interdisciplinary Approaches to Understanding the Oldowan, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 99-110.

deMenocal, P.B.  (1995).  Plio-Pleistocene African climate. Science 270: 53-59.

Braun, D., Plummer, T. W., Ferraro, J., Ditchfield, P. & L. Bishop (2009b).  Raw material quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: Evidence from Kanjera South.  Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1605–1614

Ditchfield, P., Hicks, J., Plummer, T. W., Bishop, L. & R. Potts (1999).  Current research on the Plio-Pleistocene deposits north of Homa Mountain, Southwestern Kenya.  Journal of Human Evolution 36:123-150.

Ferraro JV (2007) Broken bones and shattered stones: on the foraging ecology of Oldowan hominins. PhD dissertation. University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

Ferraro, J.V., Plummer, T.W., Pobiner, B.L.,  Oliver, J.S., Bishop, L.C., Braun, D.R., Ditchfield, P.W., Seaman, J.W. III, Binetti, K.M., Seaman, J.W. Jr., Hertel, F. and R. Potts.  (manuscript) Earliest evidence of persistent hominin carnivory.

Gibbons, A.  (2009).  Of tools and tubers.  Science 324: 588-589.

Lemorini, C, Plummer, T, Braun, D, Crittenden, A, Marlowe, F, Schoeninger, & P. Ditchfield (2009).  Functional interpretation by use-wear analysis of 2 million-year-old Oldowan tools from Kanjera South, Kenya.  Presented at the annual meetings of the Paleoanthropology Society in Chicago, Illinois, March 31 & April 1.

Plummer, T. W., Bishop, L., Ditchfield, P. & J. Hicks  (1999).  Research on late Pliocene Oldowan sites at Kanjera South, Kenya.  Journal of Human Evolution 36:151-170.

Plummer, T. W. (2004).  Flaked stones and old bones: biological and cultural evolution at the dawn of technology.  Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 47: 118-164.

Plummer, T. W., Bishop, L., Ditchfield, P., Kingston, J., Ferraro, J., Hertel, F. & D. Braun (2009a).  The environmental context of Oldowan hominin activities at Kanjera South, Kenya.  In Hovers, E. & D. Braun (eds) Interdisciplinary Approaches to Understanding the Oldowan, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 149-160.

Plummer T. W., Ditchfield, P.W., Bishop, L. C., Kingston, J.D., Ferraro, J.V., Braun, D. Hertel, F. & R. B. Potts (2009b) Oldest Evidence of Toolmaking Hominins in a Grassland-Dominated Ecosystem. PLoS ONE 4(9): e7199, 1-8.

 

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the Office of the President of Kenya, and the National Museums of Kenya for permission to study the Kanjera fossils and artifacts.  The Homa Peninsula field research was conducted through the cooperative agreement between the National Museums of Kenya and the Smithsonian Institution.  Logistical support and funding was also provided by the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program.  Funding from the L. S. B. Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, and the Professional Staff Congress-City University of New York Research Award Program for Kanjera field work is gratefully acknowledged.  I thank the co-director of the Kanjera project, Laura Bishop, and Rick Potts and the Human Origins Program for support during all phases of the Kanjera research.  Collaborators on this project include Laura Bishop and Fritz Hertel (paleontology), David Braun (lithic technology), Peter Ditchfield and John Kingston (geology and geochemistry), Jennifer Parkinson, Jim Oliver, and Joe Ferraro (zooarcheology) and Rick Potts (archaeology, logistics).

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

About the Author

Tom Plummer is an Associate Professor in the Anthropology Department at Queens College, City University of New York, and a member of the CUNY graduate faculty and the New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology.  His research broadly focuses on late Pliocene and early Pleistocene hominin behavior and ecology, with a special interest in exploring the adaptive significance of the first stone tools.  He co-directs field research on the Homa Peninsula, Kenya with Richard Potts, where Plummer is focusing on late Pliocene and Pleistocene archeological and paleontological sites.   

______________________________________

Cover Photo, Top Left: View of excavations at Kanjera South. Photo credit: Tom Plummer

______________________________________________



New Clues to Early Pueblo Communities

For years, many Southwestern archaeologists working in the central Mesa Verde (Colorado) region of North America, including those at the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, have concentrated their research on the late thirteenth century A.D.—the end of ancestral Pueblo occupation in the area. This focus is understandable: learning about the abrupt depopulation of this region of North America can add to our knowledge of the complex interactions between humans and their environment. Unfortunately, however, this focus on the late thirteenth century has resulted in an unclear understanding of how Pueblo society formed here in the first place.

Long before the iconic cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde National Park were built, early Pueblo people were establishing a foothold throughout the Mesa Verde region. The time was the Basketmaker III period, which archaeologists date from about A.D. 500 to 750. It is clear that the period was a pivotal time in Pueblo history, with large population growth and the introduction of pottery, the bow and arrow, and cultivated beans. But many questions remained unanswered. Where did the population of the Mesa Verde region come from? How many people settled in the region and what role did population growth play in the formation of their society? How did they create communities? What was their impact on the environment?

This year, Crow Canyon embarked on a new research project, the Basketmaker Communities Project, at a site which may hold answers to these questions. Called the Dillard site, it is a ceremonial center dating from the 7th century A.D. and is located just a few miles from the Center’s campus in southwestern Colorado.

The Dillard site includes a “great kiva” (a room used by Pueblo Indians for ceremonies or other public events) measuring 10 meters in diameter and 1 meter deep, and at least several smaller structures called “pithouses” (a dwelling dug into the ground). Test excavations revealed the kiva to be one of the oldest public buildings in the Mesa Verde region. The site was first recorded during a survey in 1991 by Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants (WCAC) preliminary to the construction of a private residential community. That survey also revealed evidence of more than 120 other pithouses surrounding the core Dillard site, making the Dillard site and surrounding area one of the largest clusters of remains from this time period.

This year, during the first season at the Dillard site, Crow Canyon archaeologists were joined by more than a thousand students participating in school group programs, 73 teens taking part in camps, nearly 100 adults engaging in archaeology programs, and four higher education students serving as interns.

Excavations revealed some surprising finds and a wealth of data. Shanna Diederichs, supervisory archaeologist for the project, said: “This has been a fantastic year. Not only does the discovery of numerous habitation structures at the Dillard site suggest that we may have an early village on our hands, but this discovery would not have been possible without the help of so many great folks attending our research programs.”

 

The 2011 Field Season

Evidence of Masonry at the Great Kiva

At the great kiva, Crow Canyon archaeologists uncovered evidence of stone-and-mortar masonry that seems to have formed the upper wall of this large structure. This masonry now appears as a jumble of large unshaped sandstone rocks in a pinkish beige clay. The discovery is truly surprising because wet-laid, stacked masonry construction is almost unheard of in ancestral Pueblo sites until approximately A.D. 850, or 200 years later than the Dillard site. It’s a little premature to think about rewriting the textbooks, but suffice to say, we’re very excited about this find! 

By the end of the field season, this masonry was exposed across the entire northwest quadrant of the great kiva (see map below for locations of all structures). This is a huge accomplishment, given the size of the structure. Another portion of this same collapsed wall was exposed in a 1-meter-wide trench at the southern end of the great kiva. Excavation in the trench exposed up to six courses of stone that had fallen into nearly the center of the structure, 4 meters away. Some of the stones are about 80 centimeters wide and would have required the effort of more than one person to carry them to the site. We are currently mapping each individual stone and recording its angle of repose.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Life In and Around a Pithouse

Much progress was also made in Structure 205, a burned pithouse. Excavators reached the floor in this structure in very small exploratory test pits; otherwise, both the antechamber and main chamber of this pithouse were excavated to just 10 centimeters above the floor.

In this structure, Crow Canyon archaeologists and program participants excavated through layers of collapsed roof and wall material consisting of a combination of dense, caliche-streaked clay, charcoal fragments, and a few shaped stones. Interestingly, four pieces of animal bone awls were recovered from this material, suggesting that awls may have been stashed in the rafters of the pithouse when it was abandoned. To ascertain when the structure was built, we hope to collect burned timbers from the collapsed roof for tree-ring dating.

Excavations in areas surrounding this pithouse are beginning to help us understand the kinds of activities that were conducted outside of pithouses. A dense concentration of more than 200 gray ware sherds (some of them only lightly fired), a quartz crystal, and several pieces of hematite pigment and animal bone were found just north of the pithouse, suggesting that this may have been a favored outdoor work spot.

Excavators also found an area of compact, discolored soil east of the antechamber that may indicate a ramped entryway into the antechamber of the pithouse. Few doorways have been documented for Basketmaker III pithouses in the Mesa Verde region, so if this proves to be an entryway, researchers may have to reconsider their assumptions about roof entry into these structures.

A Surprise Find in a Midden

Of course, any excavation would not be complete without a surprise. In early October, a field intern was directed to finish off a 1-x-1-meter test unit in the “west midden,” located south of the great kiva (a midden is a concentration of refuse). At the base of the midden deposits, she did not find the expected bright red, culturally “sterile” silt that underlies the entire site. Instead, the sediment began to look more and more like structure fill, with clumps of clay and charcoal flecking. Sure enough, at 50 centimeters below the modern ground surface, she exposed the floor of a previously unaccounted-for pithouse, now referred to as Structure 212. There were no artifacts sitting directly on the surface—just ash and construction slabs. This discovery brings the count of probable pithouses at the Dillard site to 10 and pushes the site into the category of a small village.

As Crow Canyon said farewell to the season’s last program participants, blue skies gave way to a few days of much-needed rain rolling in from the west (for an incredible rainbow photo, see Crow Canyon’s Facebook page). It was a beautiful month highlighted by cottonwoods turning auburn and gold—a fitting end to the first year of the Basketmaker Communities Project.

 

Public Participation in the Basketmaker Communities Project

Only approximately 2 percent of human history has taken place since the advent of writing. Archaeology is the key to learning about the other 98 percent! Crow Canyon’s research brings to light the histories of peoples whose past would be otherwise unknown and helps us understand issues relevant to people today such as cultural diversity, human-environment interactions, and cultural change and continuity.

The public is encouraged to make a lasting contribution to archaeology and to the understanding of the Basketmaker III period by joining the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center for an archaeology program. At Crow Canyon, adults, families, educators, and students have the opportunity to work side-by-side with Crow Canyon archaeologists and educators in the field and lab, investigating this pivotal time in Pueblo history.

For more information about the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center and its archaeology programs for the public, visit www.crowcanyon.org or call 800-422-8975.

_________________________________________________

Photos courtesy Crow Canyon Archaeological Center


The Road Through Sicevo

Dr. Mirjana Roksandic is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Winnepeg. She conducts pioneering research in two distinct areas: the study of hominid fossils in Europe, and mortuary archaeology, with current fieldwork focusing on sites in Serbia, Portugal and Cuba. 

 

Historically, the road through Sicevo gorge was the main communication route from what is today Western Europe to Greece and further on to Anatolia (present-day Turkey). Set in the carstic hillsides of Southern Serbia, near the third largest town in the country, the gorge presents a natural crossroads between the North and the South and the West and the East. Any map of human migrations into Europe – of any given archaeological and historical period – will have at least one arrow placed loosely over this region. The Paleolithic period (2.6 million years to 10,000 years BP) is no exception to this rule. When megafauna (large animals) moved from Africa into Europe in the Early Pleistocene, this was the most likely corridor for their movement. The megafauna was followed by the “megafauna-chasing-hominins” – hunters or scavengers who must have used the same route in their early advancement into Europe.

The Balkans area in which the gorge is located is not only incredibly promising as a potential region for investigating early dispersal of humans into Europe, it is also a natural refuge for later populations of plants, animals and humans that were chased out of northern realms by advancing glaciers. What makes this glacial refuge different from the other two southern peninsulas of Europe (the Apennine and the Pyrenean), is the fact that it never experienced isolation from the rest of the world during glacial times. One, then, has to wonder why the Balkans in the Pleistocene has received so little attention in archaeological research. Could it be that the actual richness of archaeological remains in the region, that of the classical (both Greek and Roman) architecture and archaeology, and the rich Neolithic heritage and unique Mesolithic manifestations with sculptures and urban planning, precluded research into far less visible and far more difficult to access Pleistocene sites? It could well be so. The late 19th century findings of Pleistocene specimens, a skull of Neandertal from Belgrade and a Pleistocene mandible from the loesses in the vicinity of the same city, both Paleolithic artefacts of southern Serbia, were soon forgotten or lost during the turbulent first half of the 20th century.

Fortunately for us, a systematic reconnaissance of the Central Balkans is taking hold. In Serbia, it has been through the efforts of Professor Dusan Mihailovic of the University of Belgrade, and the Senior curator of prehistory at the National Museum of Belgrade, Bojana Mihailovic, that we now have archaeologically sound information about a number of sites in the region, and are slowly and painstakingly building the picture of human occupation of the Balkans during the Paleolithic. From the Pannonian basin all the way to Southern Serbia they have identified and excavated a number of very unique Mousterian sites, both open air and in caves. (The Mousterian was a stone tool industry or culture that was commonly produced and used by Neandertals). They are starting to discern different patterns of occupation and different tool kits. The possibility of reconstructing migrations of Paleolithic populations, and the way that different groups among them established contact, is slowly emerging. The large geographic and temporal scale and the lack of supporting faunal, geomorphological and paleoenvironmental analysis makes this task difficult but extremely rewarding. Every new find is significant and every new site is now telling a unique, previously unheard story of hominin migration, mode of life and interaction with the environment and other hominin groups in the region. 

 

In the Sicevo (pronounced Sichevo) and Jelasnica (Yelashnitza) gorges alone, we have identified and (to an extent) excavated four caves with definite Pleistocene remains and one open air site that was most likely used for raw material quarrying. When all of the sites in the region are taken together, the sequence possibly spreads over most of the Middle and Upper Pleistocene and covers the important time when Upper Paleolithic stone tool industries, usually associated with early modern humans, move into Europe to replace the Mousterian.

One of these sites has produced the first uncontestable Pleistocene hominin specimen from the region in 2008, and that is when Professor Mirjana Roksandic joined the field excavation as a paleoanthropologist. This specimen is a partial mandible found in the Pleistocene deposits of Mala Balanica (Balanitza) cave, about 1.5 meters below the Middle Paleolithic Mousterian artifacts. The site, as well as an adjoining larger cave and a number of other caves in the vicinity are being dated by ESR and U-series methods by Professor Jack Rink from McMaster University and through Thermoluminescence methods by Dr. Norbert Mersier from the University of Bordeaux.* Complementing the international team is the geomorphologist from Britain, Dr. Mike Morley from Oxford Brookes University.

The find is raising important questions about the spread of Neandertals and earlier hominins in the Central Balkans, as the mandible does not exhibit any of the traits characteristic of Neandertals, which are commonly considered to have been the only hominin group inhabiting Europe in the Middle and early Late Pleistocene. The mandible is relatively primitive in all aspects of its morphology. The initial impression is that it exhibits most of its similarities with the H. erectus morphology, especially with the famous specimen D211 from Dmanisi in Georgia. While primitive traits do not allow us to assign species designation to this specimen, it nevertheless appears to cluster well with the Early Pleistocene hominins. 

The absence of Neandertal traits in a specimen of this age is counter to the common assumption that Neandertals were the only hominin group in Europe during this time period, though the fragmentary nature of the mandible precludes any definite assignment to a particular species. (See update below)

Any new finds are bound to be extremely important as there is a dearth of information in this critical area related to human and animal movement into and out of Europe. The Balkans, by virtue of being one of the three Southern refugia during glaciations in Europe, and because it is the only one of the three which never experienced isolation, offers much to the research in the biogeography of both human and animal populations in the Pleistocene.

_______________________________________

partialmandible

Partiable mandible BH-1, discovered in the Mala Balanica Cave in 2008.  Rink WJ, Mercier N, Mihailovic´ D, Morley MW, Thompson JW, et al. (2013) New Radiometric Ages for the BH-1 Hominin from Balanica (Serbia): Implications for Understanding the Role of the Balkans in Middle Pleistocene Human Evolution. PLoS ONE 8(2): e54608. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054608  Credit Mirjana Roksandic

__________________________________________________________ 

Above: Excavation in Mala Balanica cave.

  _____________________________________________________________________

The research team conducts a field school every summer through the University of Winnipeg. More information about the school can be found at http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/anthro-field-school-index.  

Professor Mihailovic giving an improvised morning lecture to a group of undergraduate and graduate students.

______________________________________________________ 

*Update: According to the recent report on dating of the find, the mandible has been dated to between 395 and 525 Kya, a time period when Homo heidelbergensis is thought to have inhabited Western Europe.

_________________________________________


New Discoveries in Egypt

Professor Donald Redford is professor of classics and ancient Mediterranean Studies at the Pennsylvania State University and the director of the Mendes expedition.  He is a noted expert in the field of Egyptology and Biblical Studies and is the author of numerous books and articles, including The History of Ancient Egypt: Egyptian Civilization in Context, (Dubuque, 2005), and City of the Ram-man, the Story of Ancient Mendes,(Princeton, 2010).  Prof. Redford has been featured in numerous series and documentaries on A&E and the History Channel.

 

Dr. Susan Redford is faculty lecturer in the Dept. of Classics & Ancient Mediterranean Studies at the Pennsylvania State University and the director of the Theban Tomb Survey. Dr. Redford is the author of numerous articles and The Harem Conspiracy: The Murder of Ramesses III (Northern Illinois University Press, 2002). She has been featured in documentaries by National Geographic and the Discovery Channel.

For the past 36 years, from 1975 to the present, The Akhenaten Temple Project (A.T.P), a program initially created to study and reconstruct on paper the dismantled sun-temples of the heretic Pharaoh Akhenaten (14th Century B.C.), has undertaken archaeological work at four major sites in Egypt: At East Karnak (Luxor), where our excavations have uncovered the largest temple of this king; across the river in the Theban necropolis, where we initiated a tomb survey of burials and sepulchres including that of Akhenaten’s butler Parennefer;  at Tel el-rub’a in the eastern Nile delta, where we commenced excavation of the ancient city of Mendes; and in the Sinai, a New Kingdom fortress today known as Tel Kedwa.  The archaeological field work of the A.T.P. has made significant contributions to our knowledge of  all the major time periods of Ancient Egypt, and opened untold opportunities for student participation and training. From 1998, directors, Prof. Donald Redford and Dr. Susan Redford, have combined the work of the project with a field school run under the sponsorship of Penn State Education Abroad, which has been highly successful in training undergraduates, not only in history, but also in the mechanics of archaeological field methodology, epigraphy, recording of reliefs and artifacts, human osteology, paleobotany and conservation. Since field operations always involve native Egyptian labor, students move within the local native community and are obliged to learn a little Arabic. It has been a marvelous opportunity for undergraduates to come into close contact with another important world culture and the Islamic way of life.

 

The Theban Tomb Survey

One of the most famous antiquities sites in the world, and also among the best explored, is the Theban necropolis. This, Egypt’s second largest ancient burying ground, covers an area of approximately 5.5 square miles on the west bank of the Nile River, just opposite the modern town of Luxor (ancient Thebes) , and  encompasses not only tombs, but other substantial monuments such as temple and palace complexes, shrines, and the remains of domestic communities. An incomparable wealth of historic material has been retrieved and continues to be recovered and documented from its environs, providing us with an enormous compendium of information and invaluable insights into most of the major periods of the Ancient Egyptian civilization. The funerary structures themselves are a reflection of political, economic and social conditions of the time. The various cemeteries incorporated within the area range in date from the Old Kingdom through Greco-Roman times, and include those exclusively for royal interments, today known as the Valley of the Kings and the Valley of the Queens, as well as those of the aristocracy, the Valley of the Nobles.

It is the Valley of the Nobles that has been the site of my research for the past 20 plus years. In 1988, I was given a concession by the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities to clear, record and publish three tombs in the Valley of the Nobles, thereby officially inaugurating ‘The Theban Tomb Survey’. While all of the rock-carved sepulchers contracted to my research project were of historical importance, one tomb in particular has commanded the most attention and time and effort throughout my years of digging in the valley. The tomb, numbered 188 in the Theban Tomb registry, is that of the royal butler of the pharaoh, Akhenaten, whose name is Parennefer.

Parennefer’s burial monument is situated in a region of the ancient necropolis known as the Assasif, an area which lies adjacent to Queen Hatshepsut’s temple complex at Deir el-Bahri. Eight field seasons have been spent documenting the decorated walls of Parennefer’s tomb chapel, a task which involved producing facsimile drawings of the scenes and a photographic record, as well as conservation and stabilization of the paintings and structure itself. The monument also required meticulous clearing of five shafts and associated burial crypts that had been discovered within the confines of the tomb; but as anyone who works in the Theban necropolis can tell you, one’s single tomb concession can quite suddenly and unexpectedly broaden. The necropolis is a virtual rabbit’s warren of tomb shafts and ancient robbers’ tunnels that intersect with each other and communicate with unknown interments and often undiscovered tombs buried under slope debris. This turned out to be the case at my Assasif concession which has now expanded west well beyond the boundaries of Theban Tomb 188. The honeycombed shafts in Parennefer’s tomb have led to the discovery of four other previously unknown monuments.

The external entrances of this line of newly discovered tombs situated side-by-side along the cliff terrace, were once completely covered over by slope debris, but have been partly cleared through the efforts of my own team and that of the West Bank Antiquities Inspectorate (fig. 1 below). Much more, however, remains to be done. In cooperation with the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, the continuation of this clearance operation will be the focus of the Theban Tomb Survey’s 2012 summer expedition. The goal is to fully expose the ancient courtyards of these tombs by freeing the area of accumulated detritus as far as the dirt road on the valley floor (fig. 2 below), and given the expanse of space and some substantial depressions of the topography, undoubtedly more hidden tombs will be uncovered.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 1: Entrance and courtyard of one of the newly-discovered tombs of the Assasif concession.  

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 2: The slope of limestone debris which will be under excavation in the 2012 field season. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As in the past, the contents of the slope debris itself will yield important historical information and forensic data. Despite the systematic plundering of the Theban necropolis which continued up to modern times, there is still a tremendous quantity of artifacts from these ancient burials left to be retrieved, as well as human remains. The objects represent burial assemblages that ranged in date from the New Kingdom through to late Ptolemaic/early Roman times, a time period of about 1100 years. Among the types of items collected from our last field season, in which we initiated the clearance of the slope to the immediate west of Parennefer’s tomb, were canopic jars (which once held the organs of the deceased), fragments of painted coffins, pieces of stringed beaded nets and collars, numerous funerary cones inscribed with the names of the deceased, shawabtis (small Osiride figurines of the deceased), amulets, statue fragments and  decorated blocks removed from the walls of nearby tomb chapels. Two of the most exciting finds that were recovered were the remains of a cedar coffin with a finely-carved facial mask (fig. 3 below), and a beautiful, limestone relief showing the head and elaborate hairstyle of Parennefer’s wife which had been removed by robbers from the reveal of his tomb’s entrance passage (fig. 4 below).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 3: Remains of a carved cedar coffin discovered by slope clearance in the 2008 field season. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 4: A block of decorated relief depicting the tomb-owner’s wife removed by vandals from Parennefer’s tomb. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The success and important results of the Theban Tomb Survey have been very much due to a team effort that includes members of my technical staff of artists, photographers, architect, ceramicists, and osteologists,— not to mention the many students that have accompanied us! Besides the hands-on field training that these students have gained, the field school has provided the research project with productive field assistants. Students are involved in all aspects of the field work with tasks that include clearance in controlled excavation, object registration, sifting, osteological documentation, sorting and tabulation of ceramics, assistance with photography and site planning, and general site recording (fig. 5 above right, student sorting pottery “on the mats”). Over the years, students who have joined the expedition have come not only from Penn State, but from other universities across North America, including the University of Toronto, Princeton, Yale, UCLA, New York University, Boston University, University of California, and the University of Hawaii.  

                                                                                                                  Susan Redford                                                                                                                      

 

The Mendes Excavations

Although the average tourist to Egypt spends almost all of the time visiting the antiquities of Upper Egypt, the Nile Valley, scholarship has long since realized the equal, if not overriding importance of Lower Egypt, the Nile Delta, in ancient times. Here were situated many cities of political, cultural and religious importance, some of which functioned at certain periods of history as the capital of Egypt. Reduced today to ruin mounds of mud-brick rubble, they present a challenge, but also a reward to the diligent excavator. These cities give abundant evidence of Egypt’s relations, military, commercial and cultural, in ancient times with the external world of Phoenicia, Greece and Rome.

For 19 years I have been excavating one of these cities, ancient Mendes, lying in the center of the Nile Delta, midway between Cairo and the Mediterranean coast.  The city has been occupied for nearly 5,000 years, and even today could be said to continue to exist in the numerous villages around the ruin mound.  Our excavations have demonstrated the existence of human occupation from the prehistoric period, c. 4000 B.C., while the period of state creation, the advent of complex society and the invention of the hieroglyphic script c. 3100 B.C. is well represented. In fact, we have recovered a sequence of very early texts which illustrate the evolution of writing in Egypt.  The thousand years of the Pyramid Age, the Old Kingdom, is in abundant evidence with a faunal and palaeo-botanical record that chronicles types of plant cover, land use and faunal population over this uninterrupted time period. The city suffered an abrupt, though temporary, cessation of occupation shortly after 2200 B.C. (confirmed by Carbon-14 dating), when fire destroyed the local temple and a massacre of the inhabitants occurred.  When revived in the second millennium B.C. the city featured a large, processional temple, fronted by two pylons, with a long approach flanked by subsidiary temples (fig. 6 below).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 6: The Mendesian temple of the Ram-god as it looks today. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From remote antiquity the inhabitants of Mendes had worshiped a ram god and a fish goddess. The sacred rams had been embalmed and laid away at death in a special vault, each in its own diorite sarcophagus. Immature fish of the schilby species, sacred to the fish-goddess, had been placed in pottery vessels and buried in a special part of the city reserved for the purpose (fig. 7 below).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 7: One of many caches of pottery vessels, each containing the remains of a schilby fish.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Our excavations have identified several harbors at the site, communicating with the local branch of the Nile which provided ready access to the Mediterranean. Storehouses filled with pottery have provided evidence of foreign trade in perfumes (for which Mendes was famous throughout the classical world) and wine with the eastern and central Mediterranean.  Sometime approximately in the 7th Cent. B.C. Mendes became the eastern terminus of a new east-west canal, cut across the Delta from the city of Buto in the western Delta, to facilitate commerce and the transfer of troops in both directions. In 399 B.C. the thriving city was the location of a number of families of great political power, and for 20 years Mendes became the capital of Egypt. The tomb of the founder of this (29th) Dynasty, Neferites I (399-393 B.C.), was discovered by our expedition in 1993. Sadly, it was not intact. Neferites had been a Afreedom-fighter, instrumental in liberating Egypt from the yoke of the Persian empire; and when, in 343 B.C. the Persians succeeded in reconquering Egypt, they made a point of destroying his tomb.

After 205 B.C. Mendes began to decline. As the Mendesian branch of the Nile weakened and moved away to the east, the great harbour silted up, and with its demise the commercial basis of life in the city dwindled away. In the first cent. after Christ the city=s population began to diminish and its industry decline; and the town center moved south to what had earlier been a suburb of Mendes. By the 4th Cent. A.D. some of the older temples had been turned into churches.

Mendes is a cross section of Egyptian history. With no villages built over the ruins, it is completely open to our exploration. A fascinating agenda of investigation remains to be acted upon: urbanism in a Lower Egyptian setting, town planning, the distribution of economies, house lay-out.  All these themes beckon enticingly!

The expedition is housed in our archaeological institute of 20 rooms, including sleeping and eating quarters, a library, laboratories, draftsmen’s room and pottery work-shop (fig. 8 below). Our professional staff includes historians, palaeo-botanists, faunal experts, physical anthropologists, geologists, ceramicists, all of whom also provide hands-on training to our student participants (fig. 9 below). (Not all our researchers are on staff during a single season, being present when our program goals require their expertise). Areas of research this coming season of 2012 will include: (a) the clearance and partial restoration of a Temple built by Amasis (569-526 B.C.); and (b) excavation of houses of the period 2300-2200 B.C.

                                                                                                                    Donald Redford

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 8: The Mendes expedition house

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 9: The 2010 Mendes team.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

How You Can Help

Penn State’s Summer Abroad field school offers students six credits in the area of archaeology, ancient Mediterranean studies and international cultures toward their degree. Those who are interested in taking part in this exciting research and gaining a memorable cultural experience can submit an application on-line at www.outreach.psu.edu/summerabroad/study-egypt for the up-coming 2012 expeditions.


Blue Creek: Rise and Fall of a Maya Center

Dr. Thomas Guderjan is the President of MRP and Director of the Blue Creek project and a faculty member at the University of Texas at Tyler. His book, The Nature of an Ancient Maya City: Resources, Interaction and Power at Blue Creek, Belize. University of Alabama Press (2007), summarizes much of the work done at Blue Creek.

Colleen Hanratty is a doctoral candidate at Southern Methodist University. She has worked with the non-profit organization, the Maya Research Program, for the past 16 years. She has conducted archaeological research in the southeastern and southwestern USA, Mexico, Peru and Belize. Her doctoral research is on the collapse and abandonment of Blue Creek, Belize.

The Maya site of Blue Creek in northwestern Belize has been the focus of annual excavations and other investigations since 1992. This effort has produced a massive and important database for understanding the ancient Maya and for broader purposes in the field of archaeology. Most archaeological projects in Middle America are either focused on monumental architecture in the central area of an ancient city or deal with relatively small investigations of the settlement zone surrounding the central precinct of the site. This is generally a function of the limitations on time and funds available for fieldwork and data collection. By contrast, Blue Creek is an exceptional situation as the site has been the focus of on-going, multi-institutional, multi-national and multi-disciplinary research…and will continue to be so well into the future. 

Location of Blue Creek in Northwestern Belize

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blue Creek is a medium sized Maya center that was occupied from approximately 600BC until approximately AD 1000. Spatially, the “greater” Blue Creek area covers approximately 150 square kilometers. At first appearance, Blue Creek’ central precinct is unexceptional: surrounding its main plaza are 15 meter tall public buildings…but not large by Maya standards. However, just under the surface of Blue Creek, there are surprises to be found.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Blue Creek Site Core and Residential Zones

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blue Creek Central Precinct

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By the end of the Late Preclassic period (AD 150-250) and through the Early Classic period (AD 250-600), Blue Creek became a wealthy polity. To the Maya and to scholars who study the Maya, this means “jade”.  Jade, or more properly, jadeite and nephrite, were the most precious stones in the Maya world. The largest caches of jade in the Maya world come from one of the largest cities (Tikal and Calakmul), a city near the source (Copan), and a palace of one of the most powerful royal families (Cancuen). However, it was perplexing to discover that the Maya world’s 5th largest cache of jade came from the medium sized city of Blue Creek.

Deeper investigations revealed that Blue Creek’s wealth derived from two equally important factors. The first is the presence of some of the richest and most extensive agricultural soils in Central America. The Blue Creek community covered approximately 150 square kilometers and more than half was used for agriculture. We have found several kinds of agricultural systems at Blue Creek, ranging in size and importance from small, household kitchen gardens to very large scale production systems such as large scale upland non-irrigated farming and lowland drained field farming. Blue Creek could and did produce far more agricultural products than needed by its population.

The central precinct of Blue Creek straddles a 100 meter escarpment that divides the low coastal plain from the karstic hills of the uplands. Above and west of the escarpment, the terrain is a mixture of eroded limestone hills separated by large expanses of clayey soils that today are prized by modern large-scale farmers.  These “bajos” and “bajitos” range in size from 1 to 40 square kilometers. Moreover, below the escarpment are equally rich soils, but these were subject to seasonal inundation that could easily lead to complete crop losses. To prevent this, the Blue Creek Maya dug hundreds of kilometers of ditches to drain these fields. Our ongoing studies of these fields indicate that they were dug in the Early Classic period and maintained until the abandonment of Blue Creek in the Terminal Classic period. We also know that a wide variety of crops for food and other purposes were grown. For instance, there is considerable pollen and phytolith evidence for cultivation of fruit trees, including breadnut (Brosimum alicastrum), craboo or cha (Byrsonima species), caimito, agya, or sebul (Chrysophyllum species), chicle macho, chiquibul or chicle (Manilkara species), cacao (Theobroma cacao) or mountain cacao (T. bicolor), and avocado (Persia). At least one species of Marantaceae, probably platanillo (Pleiostachya pruinosa) or wild banana (Stromanthe hjalmarssonii), was also cultivated. Additionally, maize (Zea mays) and sweet potato (Ipomoea) pollen have been recovered.

Beyond Blue Creek’s ability to grow food and other agricultural products, the second factor for its economic success was its extraordinary access to other markets due to trade. Archaeologists have known for many years that Maya coastal trade in elite reinforcing exotic goods was active throughout the Classic period. We now believe that Maya trade canoes filled with food and other commodities virtually circumnavigated the Yucatan Peninsula and penetrated into the interior via rivers. Blue Creek is located at the terminus of the Rio Hondo, the northern-most river draining into the Caribbean Sea. Canoes filled with goods could reach the Caribbean in only three days. Then, goods could be loaded onto larger and deeper seagoing canoes bound for cities in the north that had less agricultural potential and higher risk of crop failure due to weather. Equally important, canoes coming from the Caribbean into the interior would have to stop at Blue Creek to off-load goods. From Blue Creek, these goods would be taken overland into the Petén sites such as Tikal and Uaxactun. Thus, Blue Creek’s economic success was also made possible because it was situated at a critical location on the trade network. Blue Creek’s gateway setting also facilitated the distribution of its own agricultural products. MRP has found a dock and related facilities at Blue Creek and similar features have also been found downstream at the site of Nohmul.

 

Sequence of Events at Blue Creek during the Classic Period

A distinct order had established itself at Blue Creek during the Early Classic period and was legitimized by the presence of innovative and symbolically charged forms of architecture. During the Early Classic, Plaza A was surrounded by ritual and multifunctional structures on three sides — leaving an open view of the agricultural fields and settlements off the escarpment to the east. Structure 1, the earliest documented columnated superstructure in the Southern Lowlands, dominates this plaza. In addition, a ballcourt was built on a separate platform immediately north of Plaza A.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Plan View of Blue Creek Site Core during the Early Classic

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the Early Classic, Plaza B is dominated by the royal palace and is flanked to the north and south by temple pyramids. The most notable is Structure 9, a typical Peten style temple with a single room superstructure positioned atop a steeply inclined substructure with a central staircase and stair-side outsets. In the Early Classic, the facade of Structure 9’s outset near its summit was adorned with a five paneled, medium relief stucco frieze depicting a set of ahau images. This popul na—an ascension house for rulership—was not only the geographical center of the site but also served as its axis mundi.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Structure 9 Masks

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blue Creek’s sociopolitical structure changed significantly during the sixth century. A massive caching event occurred at approximately A D 550 at Structure 4 on Plaza A. In preparation of the ritual, a large part of the penultimate stage of Structure 4 was removed and a masonry-lined shaft was constructed. Numerous caches were placed around this shaft, including more than 100 vessels. Within the shaft itself, the artifacts recovered included nearly 9 pounds of worked jades (the fifth largest cache of jade recovered in Meoamerica), shells, and a chert eccentric. The shaft was capped with a massive limestone banner stone and an uncarved stelae. After this event, the flow of jade and other imported items into Blue Creek decreases dramatically.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Jade Cache Event

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Late Classic political reorganization is reflected in the construction activities within the site core. In the early part of the Late Classic Structure 9 was razed and reoriented. This new phase of construction reoriented the structure 180 degrees and covered the Early Classic stucco frieze. Across the Main Plaza, the columnated superstructure of Structure 1 was razed and a flat superstructural platform was built to accommodate the tomb of an important member of the Blue Creek community. During this same period, Structures 2 and 3 were constructed, enclosing the eastern portion of Plaza A.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Structure 9 in the Late Classic

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Structure 19 Courtyard – the residence of one of Blue Creek’s most powerful elite families–was also expanded during the Late Classic. During the Early Classic, access to the courtyard was easily obtained from Plaza B by a direct and open route. However, after a series of Late Classic structural additions and alterations, access became quite tortuous and convoluted, requiring one to navigate a number of passageways and rooms before one could enter either courtyard. In its final Late Classic form, the complex consists of a low platform upon which are at least fourteen interconnected rooms and passageways surrounding two very private courtyards.

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Palaces in the Late Classic

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dramatically unlike the Structure 19 Courtyard, the Structure 13 Courtyard was not originally constructed as an elite residential group. Instead, its original, Early Classic function was as an open, public, triadic group. At the beginning of the Early Classic the group was composed of two temples: Structure 13 on the north side and Structure 12 on the east side. Later during the Early Classic, the plaza platform was expanded laterally to the west and Structure 10 was added to the complex. At the end of the Late Classic, Structures 12 and 14 were added. As a result, the plaza was transformed from sacred space to a secular, residential space.  

During the Late Classic period significant population growth is noted at Blue Creek. In addition to the expansion of the elite residences within the site core, it was during the Late Classic period that 85% of the construction activities occurred within Kin Tan—a series of 9 elite residences directly west of the site core. Such residential expansions, both above and below the escarpment, occurred in proximity to high quality agricultural lands. One notable exception is U Xulil Beh. This low status residential group was constructed solely in the Late Classic in a marginal agricultural setting with poor agricultural potential. It is likely that existing communities already held power over the more productive lands forcing the inhabitants of U Xulil Beh to occupy these less productive agricultural fields.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Residential Areas and Ditched Fields of Blue Creek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The amount of land under cultivation peaked during the Late Classic. The large ditched agricultural systems below the escarpment had been in place for several hundred years. However, growing platforms were built at the base of the escarpment near the ditched fields to expand the amount of productive land. West and above the escarpment, the bajos separating residential components had also been cultivated for generations. In the Late Classic, however, terracing and cross-drainage features were built to expand the amount of arable land. Despite the high energetic effort placed into the construction of these features, they expanded Blue Creek’s agricultural potential by less than five percent. The amount of arable land within Blue Creek—at least 40% of the site’s total 150 square km area- was more than adequate for subsistence agriculture—even for this growing population. However, recent research has revealed that one factor that may have contributed to the need for expansion was that significant productivity was being lost to soil erosion and the quality of the soils was declining.

By the Terminal Classic, Blue Creek’s political structure had been dramatically and negatively transformed. Construction activities within the site core and adjacent residential areas, such as Kin Tan, had come to an abrupt halt. Ultimately, the Terminal Classic is marked by the abandonment and termination of sacred structures – both within the site core and within its most elite residences.

In the central precinct, large quantities of broken ceramics and other portable goods were deposited on the front of a shrine associated with Structure 3. This represents the final cultural event within the site core and the central precinct was subsequently abandoned.

During this same period, large deposits of broken ceramics and broken portable objects such as manos, metates, obsidian blades, and bifaces were deposited against the baseline of buildings within the Structure 13 Courtyard. In addition, smaller terminal deposits have been recovered from the Structure 19 Courtyard. Again, these deposits mark the final cultural event within these palace complexes and these groups too were subsequently abandoned.

Also during the Terminal Classic, large amounts of broken ceramics and portable goods were deposited against the baselines of buildings within Kín Tan. Within the Structure 37 Plazuela, dense deposits were recovered from the baseline of 3 of the group’s 7 structures – including this group’s sacred ancestral shrine – Structure 34. The artifacts recovered included over 22,000 sherds – weighing 393 kilograms. Intermixed with these broken vessels were 203 special finds – such as broken bifaces, manos, metates, obsidian blades, and figurines.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Kin Tan Plan View

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Within the Structure 47 Courtyard, a large deposit was also recovered from its centrally placed ancestral shrine—Structure 50. All told over 15,000 sherds weighing 349 kilograms were recovered from the northwest corner of the shrine. Intermixed with these broken vessels were 28 special finds – such as broken bifaces, manos, metates, obsidian blades, and beads. In addition, a deposit was recovered from the J14 Courtyard and shares the same characteristics of the other residential deposits. As within Blue Creek’s central precinct and palace complexes -these deposits mark the final cultural event within Kin Tan and the residential group was subsequently abandoned.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Special Deposit from Structure 50

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

While construction activities within the site core and adjacent elite residences comes to a halt at the end of the Late Classic and are terminated and abandoned during the Terminal Classic, there are some small-scale construction activities approximately 3.5 kms northwest of the central precinct in the residential group known as Rosita.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Plan View of Rosita

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rosita consists of at least twenty structures built from Late Preclassic to the Classic. In one group, a residential room was razed during the Terminal Classic and replaced with a Yucatecan style shrine. However, this was a makeshift construction that involved stripping the masonry façade from the major building in the group. At approximately the same time, a set of rooms was added to the summit of Structure 6. Two Daylight Orange: Darknight Variety vessels were cached beneath the floor of this superstructure. In addition, a third Terminal Classic Daylight Orange cache was recovered in a bench in the nearby Structure 9. These caching events mark the final cultural event within this group. Soon thereafter, Rosita was abandoned as well.

Despite extensive testing throughout the settlement zone of Blue Creek over the past 20 years, we only have minor evidence of Postclassic occupation. Ceramics recovered from the surface of Structure U-5, at the base of the escarpment, and from the Rempel Group on the bank of the Rio Bravo, indicate that a small residual population still occupied the area (Figure 13: Postclassic at Blue Creek). These people may have exploited remnant orchards that would have survived with minimal human intervention in the nearby ditched field systems. However, evidence from the Birds of Paradise Fields indicate that by 1100 AD even this small residual population had abandoned the area and the ditched fields that had been maintained for generations had in-filled.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Postclassic at Blue Creek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

How You Can Participate at Blue Creek

The Maya Research Program (MRP) is a U.S.-based non-profit organization (501c3) that sponsors archaeological and ethnographic research in Middle America. Each summer since 1992, MRP has sponsored archaeological fieldwork at the ancient Maya site of Blue Creek in northwestern Belize and ethnographic research in the village of Yaxunah, Mexico. The Blue Creek Archaeological Project is an annual excavation that incorporates cost-sharing volunteers and students. In 2012, MRP continues to offer students and volunteers opportunities to participate in one of the major research efforts in Maya archaeology. The Blue Creek project is open to student and non-student participants, regardless of experience. Participants will receive training in both excavation and laboratory techniques and receive a “crash course” on the Maya and archaeological methodology. The Blue Creek field school is certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists

If you are interested joining the team in 2012 (or beyond), we offer four two-week sessions in each summer. We invite students and volunteers to participate in the Maya Research Program’s 21st year of our Blue Creek Archaeological Project in Belize.

2011 Students and Volunteers and Explorer’s Club Flag Expedition

 

2012 Field Season Dates:

Session 1: Monday May 28 – Sunday June 10;
Session 2: Monday June 11 – Sunday June 24 ;
Session 3: Monday July 2 – Sunday July 15;
Session 4: Monday July 16 – Sunday July 29

If you have any questions or would like additional information please contact the Maya Research Program:

www.mayaresearchprogram.org
1910 East Southeast Loop 323 #296
Tyler, Texas 75701
817-831-9011
[email protected]


From the Sands of Egypt

El-Behnesa, Egypt, 1896. There was little to see. It was a landscape of windblown sand surrounding a sleepy arab village. But for Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, young English scholars of classicism from the Queen’s College in Oxford, there was something about the place that screamed at them. Set astride a small river that anciently served as a canal of the Nile, they knew it was the location of two ancient cities, the more ancient called Per-Medjed, a capital of the Egyptian 19th Dynasty, and the younger called Oxyrhynchus Polis (meaning “City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish”), a Greco-Roman town initially under the Ptolemaic rulership of 3rd-1st century B.C. Egypt. But all that could be seen of them today was a lone, well-weathered Greek column and a few traces of stone-lines and banks of sand that only hinted at the city’s ancient presence. The site was nothing like the visual splendor that greeted explorers and adventurers at places like Luxor, Giza, and Abu Simbel. 

But Grenfell and Hunt (pictured right) were not interested in architecture. They were interested in researching ancient papyri, and having recently excavated in the Fayum area, the region surrounding the well-known ancient Egyptian site of Crocodilios, they had hopes that this new, relatively obscure site might yield something significant. 

The Motherlode

As it turned out, they were right……but far more than they had ever imagined.

Securing the help of 200 local men from the nearby village of El-Behnesa, they began digging into mounds that anciently served as garbage dumps for the refuse of centuries of succeeding human generations. For a thousand years, the inhabitants of ancient Oxyrhynchus had dumped their garbage in mounds outside the city, and for another thousand years, the intensely dry climate and winds of sand had covered them into oblivion.  

The digging was not easy.  Battling strong winds and blowing sand that stung the skin and threatened the eyes, they toiled undaunted through an Egyptian winter season, digging down inch by inch until their efforts were finally rewarded in January of 1897.

They found papyrus. It began as a trickle. Then the site generously yielded one papyrus fragment or bundle after another until the layers seemed to virtually flow with papyri.

The first major find to emerge from the sand was a papyrus that contained, in Greek script, what was later translated as the Gospel of Thomas, an apocryphal work that was never canonized into the New Testament of the Bible. Three manuscripts were unearthed.  They are to this day the only known manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas in Greek.  The only other manuscript was written in coptic, discovered later among the finds at Nag Hammadi, also in Egypt. A fragment of the Gospel of Matthew followed soon after. The finds were astonishing, not so much because of the biblical references, but because of the sheer mass of the discovery. By the time Grenfell and Hunt’s excavations had ended in 1907, there were enough papyri to fill 700 boxes, a total of 500,000 fragments that made their way back to Oxford, England, for preparation and study.

________________________________

Papyrus Digging at OxyrhynchusExcavating papyri at Oxyrhynchus. Courtesy Egypt Exploration Society

___________________________________________________

During the summers between seasons, Grenfell and Hunt labored over cleaning, sorting, identifying and deciphering the meaning of the hundreds of thousands of fragments uncovered. As scholars, they were hoping to acquire works, known, unknown, and lost, of classical Greek literature. They were not disappointed. They uncovered fragments of the works of the playwright Menander, Sophocles, Satyrus, Euclid, and latin works by Livy. More Christian texts, too, were among the major finds, including parts of Matthew, John, Mark, Romans, the Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and parts of the Old Testament.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the Gospel of Matthew. Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But only 10 percent of the finds were literary. Roughly 70 percent consisted of public and private documents such as codes, edicts, official correspondence, census returns, tax assessments, petitions, court records, bills of sales, leases, wills, inventories, and even horoscopes and private letters. Excavations continued by an Italian team from 1910 to 1934 added many more finds to the inventory. It was, most importantly and without question, the most detailed and intimate account of the lives and times of an ancient people of an ancient city. It was an unprecedented window into the past, unmatched by any other archaeological undertaking.

In 1898, Grenfell and Hunt published the first volume of the finds. They continued to translate and publish until 1934, when Hunt died after continuing the work with others following Grenfell’s death in 1920. Translation work has continued since the 1930s, and for more than twenty years the work has been performed under the supervision of Professor Peter Parsons of Oxford University. More than seventy five volumes of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri have thus far been published. The volume of finds was so great, however, that new volumes will continue to be published (at a rate of one volume a year), and translation of the many thousands of fragments left for study continue to promise work for scholars for years to come. Recently, a collaborative effort has been launched by a consortium of universities, museums, and scholars to expedite the translation work. Called the Ancient Lives Project, it is coordinated under the auspices of the Citizen Science Alliance and invites the public to get involved in the work through a web-based process at the Ancient Lives website. The documents, housed in the electronic database of Oxford University’s Imaging Papyri Project, can be viewed free of charge by anyone online.

_______________________________

Oxyrhynchus papyrus (P.Oxy. I 29) showing fragment of Euclid’s Elements. Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons

_______________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Private Lives

It has been estimated that over 70 percent of the world’s literary papyri come from Oxyrhynchus. For many, however, the greatest value lies in the numerous fragments and documents that detail the ordinary, even mundane, aspects of living in ancient Greco-Roman Egypt. More than any other group of papyrus finds, the Oxyrhynchus papyri have offered the world an intimate glimpse into the personal lives and business dealings of a people and culture long departed. For today’s scholars of history, anthropology, and history, and particularly for the rest of humanity living lives of little public consequence and notoriety, the papyri carry a meaning that transcends the traditional fascination or interest in the great people and events of conventional written history. This is realized in the volumes of recovered transactions, dealings, accounts and letters (example pictured right) that documented the everyday lives of the people of Oxyrhynchus Polis, lives that but for the papyri would have been lost and forgotten for posterity.  

Consider, for example, the following letter excerpt written by one named Hilarion to his wife. He is residing for a time in Alexandria, Egypt, while his wife remains at a distant location. He discusses a family matter of finance and pending childbirth, with an interesting cultural or personal twist that would be considered unthinkable for many in today’s modern culture:

 

Know that we are still even now in Alexandria. Do not worry if they all come back and I stay in Alexandria. I urge and beg you, be concerned about the child and if I receive my wages soon, I will send them to you.  If by chance you give birth, if it is a boy, let it be, if it is a girl, throw it out. You have said to Aphrodisias, “Do not forget me.” How can I forget you? So, I urge you not to worry. 

POxy 744, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri

 

And the following letter fragment, alluding to the activities of a one-eyed astrologer, makes one wonder what was done to Serenilla:

 

‘. . . I withdrew and went to sleep, and I sent the astrologer — the one-eyed one (monophthalmon) — to call you and he said that he could not find you. At lamp-lighting I returned and when I heard from Serenilla the things that you had done to her I was upset that you behaved in a way unworthy of you. So receive her kindly up there before the (end of the?) festival. And I would have been there already had I not been ‘dog-devoured’ (kunobrotos, i.e. bitten by a dog?) on the very day of the rise of the Dog star, the 25th, by a mad dog, and until now I . . . terribly . . .’.

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. LXI no. 4126

 

The following letter fragment about a meeting says something about the important role that astrology might have played (as is also alluded in the letter fragment above) in the every day thinking or lives of people in the Greco-Roman world:

 

‘Elis to his most esteemed Carpus, very many greetings. Don’t forget about the order for the three plates, two big ones and (one line missing here, perhaps ‘and one small one’));. … meet (or: make a contract with) your friend when the Moon is in Sagittarius, at the 4th hour; it arrives there on 12th Thoth; it is there again also on the 13th and 14th until the 7th hour. At these times meet (or: make a contract with) your friend. Farewell.’

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. LXV no. 4483

 

And the following repudiation of a betrothal by the potential bride’s father reminds us that fathers’ feelings for their daughters have never changed:

 

‘. . . eleventh indication. I John, father of Euphemia, my unemancipated daughter, do send this present deed of separation and dissolution to you, Phoebammon, my most honourable son-in-law, by the hand of the most illustrious advocate Anastasius of this city of Oxyrhynchus. It is as follows. Forasmuch as it has come to my ears that you are giving yourself over to lawless deeds, which are pleasing to neither God nor man, and are not fit to be put into writing, I think it well that the engagement between you and her, my daughter Euphemia, should be dissolved, seeing that, as is foresaid, I have heard you are giving yourself over to lawless deeds and that I wish my daughter to lead a peaceful and quiet life. …’

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vol 1, CXXXIX

 

It is easy to forget that history is made up of real people, complete with all of the foibles, issues, opinions, needs, and loves that color the lives of ordinary people everywhere, at every place and time in world history. The world, even over 2,000 years ago, had personality…….they were, in most respects, like us.

Biblica Non Grata

Among the most sensational finds of the Oxyrhynchus excavations were the fragments of biblical texts that were unearthed and subsequently translated and published for the world’s eager biblical scholars and lay person alike to study and peruse. Like the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scroll finds that followed later in the century, they grabbed headlines and the published volumes of text lined the bookshelves of those who were serious enough to absorb their content.  

More engaging and curious still, were the mysterious Gospel writings that opened additional windows on the man Jesus — the man who, for much of the global population, forever changed the world more than any man in history. 

Very early in the excavations the first such papyrus emerged and, once translated, captured the attention of scholars and, soon, a fascinated public. Grenfell and Hunt called it Logia Iesu or the “Sayings of Jesus” (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1, or POxy 1), because of the monologue clearly identifiable to that of Jesus of the canonized Gospels of the New Testament.  Fifty years later, nearly identical lines were found written in coptic among papyrus codices found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, this time in a complete copy of the Gospel of Thomas, a work that was hidden away by monks because the writings were considered heretical. Thus, unbeknownst to them at the time, Grenfell and Hunt were the first to discover the lost Gospel of Thomas. 

Equally intriguing was a find made by Grenfell and Hunt during their sixth season of excavations. It was a small parchment book containing writings from a gospel still unknown to this day. Known by scholars as POxy 840, it recounts a dialogue between Jesus and a Pharisaic priest upon entry of Jesus and his disciples into the sacred precinct of the Second Century Temple of Jerusalem:

And he took them [the disciples] and went into the place of purification itself and walked around in the Temple. And a certain Pharisee, a high priest named [ ] approached them and fell in with them and said to the savior, “Who allowed you to set foot in this place of purification and look upon these holy vessels when you have not bathed and your disciples have not even washed their feet? In spite of being unclean, you have set foot in this temple which is clean, in which no one may walk unless he has bathed and changed his clothes, nor dare to look at these holy vessels.”

And standing with his disciples, the savior answered him, “Then are you, being in the Temple, clean?”

He [the Pharisee] said to him, “I am clean, for I have bathed in the pool of David. I went down into it by one flight of stairs and came up out of it by another. Then I put on clean, white clothes. Only then did I come and view these holy vessels.”

The savior answered him, “Woe to the blind who cannot see! You have bathed in these gushing waters, in which dogs and pigs lie night and day! And you have washed and scraped the outer layer of skin, just where prostitutes and flute girls anoint, bathe, cleanse and adorn in order to arouse the desires of men—but they are filled with scorpions and all kinds of evil on the inside. But I and my disciples, whom you say have not washed, have been dipped in waters [   ]………

The Oyrhynchus Papyri, POxy 840

 

These exact lines and the mysterious gospel source from which they came have not been found in any other ancient context. The discovery is unique to Oxyrhynchus. 

__________________________________

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1. Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons

__________________________________

What Lies Beneath

The Greco-Roman city of Oxyrhynchus, and the older Egyptian city that lies beneath it, have never been extensively excavated because the modern town of el-Bahnasa has been built above it.  Any excavations would, therefore, be surgical in nature. If full-scale excavations could be conducted, there is little doubt that much would be uncovered as it was, during Hellenistic times, the third largest city in Egypt and served as a regional capital. After the introduction of Christianity, it became a prominent location for churches and monasteries and became the seat of a bishopric. It is therefore known to have featured a number of public buildings, including a hippodrome, a gymnasium, public baths, a theatre with a capacity for 11,000 people, and likely military buildings as it was a site for military garrisons stationed during the Roman and Byzantine periods. It was graced with an abundance of temples during the Greek and Roman periods, including temples to Demeter, Dionysus, Apollo, Hermes, Serapis, Osiris, Zeus-Amun, Hera-Isis, Mars, and Jupiter-Capitolinus.

A number of artifacts other than papyrus have been excavated from the surrounding ancient refuse mounds. The massive amount of work that remains to be done on the un-translated papyrus texts, however, and the potential archaeological bonanza that still lies beneath the modern town (if someday accessible), speaks volumes about the untapped knowledge and adventure of discovery that awaits future archaeologists, scholars, and a visiting public. If you read ancient Greek or Latin, you can play a direct personal role in that process by going to the Ancient Lives Project website. If you are an archaeologist or student of archaeology, you may one day play a part in uncovering more of the ancient city herself.

______________________________________________________

Cover Photo, Top Left: Excavators hard at work at the site of Oxyrhynchus. Courtesy Egypt Exploration Society.

Photo, Second from Top, Right: Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt. Public Domain 

Photo, Ninth from Top, Right: A papyrus private letter found at Oxyrhynchus. Public Domain.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Receive 30 days free access to the popular new CuriosityStream lineup of documentaries on science, history, nature, and technology as a new Popular Archaeology premium subscriber.

___________________________________________

Travel and learn with Far Horizons.

farhorizons1

____________________________________________

winter2016ebookcover

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.

 

 

 

 

 


El Pilar: Archaeology Under the Canopy

Anabel Ford is dedicated to decoding the ancient Maya landscape. While living in Guatemala in 1978, she learned from local people that the Maya forest was an edible garden when she mapped a 30-km transect between the Petén sites of Tikal and Yaxhá. In 1983, she discovered and later mapped the Maya city El Pilar. In 1993, after settlement survey and excavations, she launched a multidisciplinary program to understand the culture and nature of El Pilar. Ford’s publications are cited nationally and internationally as part of the foundation of Maya settlement pattern studies. Her archaeological themes are diverse, appearing in geological, ethnobiological, geographical, and botanical arenas and locally in Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico. Her concern for management of cultural monuments, in-situ conservation, and tourism appear in Getty publications.

Maggie Knapp is an Art History and Global Studies double major studying at UC Santa Barbara, currently working for the nonprofit ESP~Maya under the direction of Dr. Anabel Ford. Knapp plans to work with cultural patrimony and social development serving indigenous areas of the world such as that of the Maya. Knapp has authored articles in the areas of both art criticism and anthropology, researched aesthetic and social theory, and will be pursuing graduate work in art as a tool of cultural and economic development.

Walking through this place might be a puzzling, yet surprisingly delightful experience for the first-time visitor. Where are all the great stone pyramids, ball-courts, temples, and other monuments so often attributed to great ancient Maya centers? One sees a tropical landscape that is anything but flat. There is a jungle-shrouded mound here, another one over there. A well-planned walking path winds through what one could describe as the Maya version of the Garden of Eden. Like the very first 18th and 19th century explorers of the Maya world, one sees what could be ancient structures still hidden beneath their canopy shroud. Some of them have been partially exposed, betraying what might lie beneath and leaving the rest to the imagination.  Visitors soon acquire the impression that this place is very different than any other encountered in the Maya world………..     

 

The Maya Forest as a Garden 

In the midst of today’s globalizing forces, the traditional stewardship strategies that conserved the tropics and sustained the rural Maya for centuries are threatened with extinction. Contemporary conservation practices for tropical forest ecosystems have relied upon the western approach: removing the human element from the equation. Yet ecological, agricultural, and botanical research on the Maya forest demonstrates that it is in fact a variegated garden dominated by plants of economic value, and thus highly dependent on human interaction. The co-creation of the Maya and their forest environment is based on a strategy of resource management that resulted in a landscape called the Maya “forest garden.”

In fact, every facet of Maya culture is deeply intertwined with their terrain, betraying a relationship that extends far beyond mere subsistence. Even the Maya language demonstrates a long-embedded knowledge of forest ecology. But until recently, mainstream scholarship on the Maya did not take into account the multidisciplinary lines of evidence that inform this relationship. In his popular synthesis on societal collapse, Jared Diamond, for instance, posits that lowland Maya interactions with the surrounding forest were largely destructive in nature—in particular, deforestation associated with agriculture. Diamond concludes that this deforestation led to the detriment and ultimate ‘‘collapse’’ of the Classic Maya society around 1,000 years ago. Such conclusions are based upon inductive reasoning from a single line of reasoning, without embracing the remarkable sources of data that relate to the region from the fields of biology, botany, and agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Even the Maya language demonstrates a long-embedded knowledge of forest ecology. Photo courtesy Exploring Solutions Past~The Maya Forest Alliance

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ethnobiologists, economic botanists, and agroecologists working with the Maya today hold a different view of Maya interactions with their environment. Extensive evidence exists on the management of forest resources, the flora and fauna, and the subtleties of Maya ecological knowledge. Traditional practices of forest gardening support a model of long-term, sustainable management of natural resources by the Maya. This view acknowledges the Maya as managers rather than as destroyers, which is an essential step in understanding how to conserve theirs and other threatened tropical ecosystems today. Rather than casting the Maya as destructive – and their ancient ancestors as a “failed society” – the focus of forest gardening is on a responsible interaction with the local environment that can provide western audiences with a model of global sustainability.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The Maya were forest managers, not forest destroyers. Photo courtesy Exploring Solutions Past~The Maya Forest Alliance

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

El Pilar: Past Treasure, Future Blueprint

El Pilar is not your typical Maya archaeological site. It doesn’t wow visitors with exposed temples, plazas, ball courts, and palaces like those encountered at Palenque or Tikal. Yet, the site does boast imposing temples and expansive plazas wrapped in forest foliage, ranking it among the major ancient centers of the lowland Maya region. Straddling the border of Belize and Guatemala, El Pilar, a designated Archaeological Reserve and Monumento Cultural on its way to becoming a bi-national Peace Park, does not flaunt monumental prowess with cleanly exposed stone structures. In fact, most of the ancient structures still lie in shade under the forest canopy protected by vegetation, because El Pilar is the subject of a whole new kind of archaeological presentation. It will prove to be a model for projects to come, informing future solutions for how humanity can sustain itself and flourish by cooperating with nature instead of dominating and destroying it.

The research that underlies the principles of archaeology practiced at El Pilar is based upon the premise that the ancient Maya worked with their tropical environment, as opposed to transfiguring it, and by doing so created a flourishing civilization sustained by the natural rainforest ecosystem. Exploring this concept could answer some age-old questions about what contributed to the remarkable prosperity of the ancient Maya and, certainly, what may have contributed to their decline. By extension, in an age of increasing global environmental awareness this peaceful site serves at once as a living museum, classroom, and laboratory, drawing on what can be learned about ancient cultural practices to create a viable conservation model for the future of our own civilization.


The very recent discovery of El Pilar offers the opportunity to pursue a different kind of conservation strategy called Archaeology Under the Canopy, where the natural forest and surrounding environment of the monuments are maintained to protect the site’s fragile structures from the elements. Living biofilms attack the limestone where exposed, which rapidly deteriorates the vulnerable limestone facades. It is tree cover that reduces exposure to sunshine and rain and maintains an even temperature that will preserve the monuments. Experimentally, Archaeology Under the Canopy serves the needs of archaeologists while experientially furnishing the visitor a more conscientious encounter with the ancient Maya. El Pilar is a place for reflection and introspection, gently shaded by forest canopy and full of a palpable mystery that evokes its enigmatic past; it demonstrates an authentic archaeological discovery rather than a naked city.

When full archaeological investigations were launched at El Pilar in the early 1990s, tropical vegetation had overtaken the site’s temples, plazas, palaces, residential areas, and causeways. The feeling that immediately greeted one at the site is wondrous – it was such an overwhelmingly serene space, offering visitors a sense of personal discovery. Though the ancient site has since undergone extensive mapping and excavation, much of the disturbance has been recovered, and the archaeological team has backfilled their excavations. Visitors today, therefore, can encounter a similar setting and sensation to that felt by the first archaeologists to discover El Pilar. This style of tourism destination model is unique to the treatment of Maya archaeology.

Based on excavations exposures, several key locales at El Pilar have been consolidated for viewing under the forest canopy, while most have been preserved under a mantel of earth for later consideration. Partial exposures offer examples of the monumental architecture, while the covered temples can be compared with those exposed at other sites. The objective of Archaeology under the Canopy is to maintain architectural harmony and integrity and to give priority to the monuments at risk. The pursuit of Archaeology Under the Canopy maintains the holistic vision of the site and ensures stability of temperature, humidity, and precipitation – factors that can quickly erode delicate plaster walls and elaborate facades.

The ancient monuments of El Pilar are protected by their natural habitat from damaging wind, rain, and acid-producing bacteria. Unique in the entire Maya world, a fully excavated house site called Tzunu’un evokes everyday Maya life. The ancient house compound provides a tangible experience of the home, and is surrounded by its own forest garden. Visitors discover the only existing presentation of a Maya house preserved in its forest garden on the Lakin Trail, where they will encounter windows into the past through remains revealed in situ, and catch glimpses of resident animals in the verdant surrounding jungle.

The El pilar house site, Tzunu’un. 

Intrepid tourists today who choose to visit this ongoing project are captivated by the winding trails and mysterious complexes beneath fragrant boughs of the dominant plants of the Maya forest. One often hears the calls of howler monkeys in the canopy high above and the distinctive announcement of the toucan, smelling the fragrant blossoms of fruit trees wafting through the complexes.

The trail at El Pilar.

 

Exploring Solutions Past~The Maya Forest Alliance and the Future

Exploring Solutions Past~The Maya Forest Alliance (ESP~Maya), a decade-old nonprofit organization, has been charting the way to conserve the disappearing heritage of the Maya, their tangible ancient monuments and their intangible knowledge of sustainable forest gardening. The aim of ESP~Maya’s work is to showcase one of our world’s vital human landscapes: The Maya forest. To promote conservation, ESP~Maya identifies the sustainable history of the ancient Maya, educates the world on its intrinsic value to nature and culture, and demonstrates the critical expertise of the Maya forest gardeners. ESP~Maya combines international academic scholars with regional development and conservation specialists to promote the principles of Archaeology Under the Canopy and accredit still-thriving Maya conservation traditions. Based on multidisciplinary strategies of research, collaboration in the lab and field has defined the regional resources of the ancient Maya city of El Pilar, a sustainable visitor destination which bridges Belize and Guatemala. At El Pilar, ESP~Maya has created a living museum landscaped with the Maya forest gardeners, integrating traditional Maya forest garden knowledge into local education and international tourism with the experience of Archaeology Under the Canopy.

It has been nearly a century since the creation of the iconic Maya tourist model of Chichén Itzá, one that has sadly proven devastatingly destructive to the ancient Maya architecture. By exposing the limestone monuments to the elements, the strategies undertaken at Chichén privileged immediate viewing rather than long-term stability. Touted today as the most complete restoration of an archaeological site in the Maya region, Chichén Itzá was “restored” in the early 20th century according to a European perspective on the narrative of indigenous life: a subjugated populace and glamorous rituals. The tourist experience today has been fueled by the international tourism industry and the impression that such fanciful reconstructions are what bring international capital to the region. It has been an effective strategy in the past, but it cannot endure.

The presentation of authentic sites of humanity’s history is becoming increasingly valuable to contemporary visitors who are interested in getting more than a shallow impression of the Maya out of their experience. If the established narrative of Maya history is perpetuated, we risk threatening, discrediting, and devaluing the very thing from which we are trying to learn. Rather than weaving imaginative tales from a Eurocentric vision, the practice of Archaeology Under the Canopy pursues the clarification and illumination of our collective memory. To consider the validity of Archaeology Under the Canopy in the context of the Maya opens the door for alternatives to the Chichén model, giving way to fresh treatment and holistic stewardship of future Maya sites, preservation of their natural surroundings, and recognition of the neighboring communities which maintain and surround them.

Cultural Heritage as International Asset

The history of El Pilar is not linked to the great explorers of the 19th century, but emerges at the threshold of the 21st century – a time when we are coming to recognize that not only are our earth’s resources limited, but that those same scarce resources are the increasing focus of a growing tourism industry. By introducing the practice of Archaeology Under the Canopy to Maya sites, we can demonstrate the grandeur of the Maya, protect the monuments for posterity, and shade the visitors who will enjoy a personal experience in the forest garden just as the traditional Maya once did. As we experience the growing scarcity of our natural resources, understanding alternative strategies is vital to the management and cooperation of humanity and the natural world, let alone to our coveted tourist destinations.

Tourism today has a unique opportunity to acknowledge lost societies and civilizations such as those of the Maya. We also have the chance to embrace the gifts of the present-day communities of Maya descendants, who not only inform our understanding of how these ancient peoples lived, but how they have continued to thrive in their immensely rich and biodiverse habit. Tourism is a central means by which this unique population and their legacy can enter the world economy, featuring their historical, cultural, and environmental heritage. The success of the El Pilar model is dependent upon the results of integrated, collaborative, and multi-disciplinary programs and adaptive management strategies with full participation of the officials, the community, and the experts that are involved in maintaining the reserve on a long-term basis. The overarching vision for El Pilar is a responsibly managed site that benefits local populations, regional governments, and international tourists while promoting sustainable stewardship of the land for posterity. No one goal can be attained at the expense or neglect of another, and we can hardly pursue our objectives without weighing the demands of all parties who have a stake in history’s treasures.

Tourism is the only product where the consumer must journey to the source to appreciate it, and the most recent statistics demonstrate that tourism accounts for a growing proportion of income in the Central American region. Tourists are becoming ever more conscious of the unity of human values and coming to regard ancient monuments as part of our common cultural and human heritage. With this post-national appreciation will come the recognition of our common responsibility to safeguard these monuments for future generations (according to the 1964 ICOMOS Venice Charter). It is with these aims in mind that we see the El Pilar project as an opportunity to explore alternative strategies that can provide a unique educational experience for the visitor and a long-term solution to conservation. The model of Archaeology Under the Canopy practiced at El Pilar has attracted local involvement, student class visits, regional university interns, international permaculture enthusiasts, and worldwide environmental educators. With effective models based on the inherent value of a traditional people’s conservation strategies like those of the Maya, we see increasing acknowledgement that the preservation of living cultures and regional economic development are mutually dependent elements of sustainability. Cultural heritage is thus an asset that is indispensable to the achievement of a sustainable future.

All photos not attributable to Exploring Solutions Past~The Maya Forest Alliance are courtesy BRASS/El Pilar Project.  

Photo above: Plaza Jobo of the restricted northern H’Mena acropolis at El Pilar. Courtesy Adalaide Sadler, El Pilar Project.   

Photo below: Panoramic view of El Pilar region.


The Bones of Ol Pejeta: Clues to the Past

Briana Pobiner, the Science Outreach & Education Program Specialist for the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, has a BA in Evolutionary Studies from Bryn Mawr College, where she created her own major, and an MA and PhD in Anthropology from Rutgers University. Her research centers on the evolution of human diet (with a focus on meat-eating), but has included topics as diverse as cannibalism in the Cook Islands and chimpanzee carnivory. She has done fieldwork in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, and Indonesia and has been supported in her research by the Fulbright-Hays program, the Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, Rutgers University, the Society for American Archaeology, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. Her favorite field moments include falling asleep in a tent in the Serengeti in Tanzania while listening to the distant whoops of hyenas, watching a pride of lions eat a zebra carcass on the Kenyan equator, and discovering fossil bones that were last touched, butchered and eaten by one of her 1.5 million year old ancestors. She came to the Smithsonian in 2005 to help work on the upcoming Hall of Human Origins, got bitten by the “public understanding of science” bug and hasn’t looked back, continuing to do her research while leading the Human Origins Program’s education and outreach efforts. She currently manages the Human Origins Program’s public programs, website content, social media, and volunteer content training.

Kris “Fire” Kovarovic, PhD, is Lecturer in Human Evolution at Durham University, UK. Originally from Connecticut, Kris moved to Montréal, Canada where she attended McGill University to complete a BA in Anthropology and Religious Studies, followed by an MSc in Archaeology and a PhD in Anthropology from University College London, UK (UCL). Kris subsequently spent time as a postdoctoral researcher in the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History and then returned to UCL to take up a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship prior to moving to Durham. Her broad research interests include palaeoenvironmental reconstruction and faunal analysis, particularly at Plio-Pleistocene hominin sites in East Africa. Her current research programme continues to explore the ways in which mammalian communities are shaped by their environments and how this can inform our understanding of the past distribution of mammals and habitats, as well as investigating the differences in habitat signals provided by fossil bovid dentition and skeletal remains. She is most excited and inspired by her role as co-director of BONES with good friend and co-conspirator, Briana Pobiner.

 


Early in the morning in the Kenyan bush, the human and other mammalian residents and visitors of Ol Pejeta Conservancy (or “OPC”) are getting watered, fed and ready for a new day. There are numerous conservancy staff members and a handful of researchers: PhD students preparing for careers in animal behaviour and conservation, teams of Earthwatch volunteers and their leaders and other visiting scientists, all of whom are contributing to our knowledge about and welfare of the many mammal species who call this equatorial landscape home. And there we are thrown into the mix: Dr. Briana Pobiner (Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History) and Dr. Kris “Fire” Kovarovic (Durham University, UK). We aren’t conservationists and we aren’t often focused on the present. We can be variously described as archaeologists, paleoanthropologists, paleontologists, and paleoecologists; broadly speaking we are interested in human evolutionary history and how we evolved in the context of past environments.

We aren’t at OPC to study wildlife in the flesh; instead, we are interested in their bones that accumulate naturally on the ground after death. The objects of our study are often curiously regarded by the other researchers, if not considered somewhat inelegant by those who, rightly so, are awe-inspired and deeply committed to the living objects of their own study. We are not infrequently asked: “What are two people who study human prehistory doing looking at bones of dead animals?” That’s a good question, and the answer rests upon the connection drawn between modern bones on the ground and their fossil counterparts that are collected at palaeontological sites. If we can understand the processes that cause modern bones to deteriorate, accumulate and be buried in certain characteristic ways, or the taphonomy of these remains, we can interpret the same processes and their resultant patterns in assemblages of fossil bones. In 2007 we began our long-term project at OPC, BONES: Bones of Ol Pejeta: Neotaphonomic and Ecological Survey. Our aim is to understand the myriad ways in which a number of ecological characteristics condition bone accumulations.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A scatter of bones found by Drs. Pobiner and Kovarovic during the summer of 2011 at OPC. Photo credit: Dr. Briana Pobiner

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How we relate mammal bones to environments is, however, another question we are often asked. It’s an important question and one that bears upon a major line of inquiry in the study of human evolution, which is aimed at determining how our hominin ancestors responded to climate change (e.g. Potts 1996; Bobe et al. 2002) in terms of both behavioral and morphological adaptations. We can only understand this if we can accurately reconstruct the environments at sites where hominin, or early human, fossils are found in the first place. Basic ecological theory can help us understand one major way in which mammals are important in this regard: the characteristics of a habitat determine which animals can live there successfully. Therefore, if we know what animals once lived in a particular place, we can glean some idea of what their habitat was like. Any habitat is characterised by both abiotic and biotic factors, such as the soil type, drainage patterns, features of the terrain (abiotic) and the vegetation and animal life present (biotic). These factors combine to provide two broad niches for each species to exploit. The spatial niche is quite literally the space in which a species lives, sleeps and moves around; the trophic niche is essentially the dietary preference of a species. For example, a moist forest habitat will support a number of arboreal species that live and feed on fruits and leaves in the trees. In contrast, a grassland habitat will have fewer of these species because trees are not well represented in the vegetation — but open country, terrestrial, grass-grazing species will be abundant. From the perspective of the fossil record, bones and teeth are clearly relevant for an interpretation of the ecological niches exploited by fossil mammalian communities. The bones of arms and legs will provide information about how and where a species moved or locomoted, or the spatial niche, since limbs that are adapted for swinging about in the trees will look quite different from those adapted to running around on the ground. The teeth and jaws will tell us something about what the species ate, or what trophic niche(s) they exploited, as again those adapted for a diet of meat will look very different from those best adapted to eating plants. Fossils of non-hominin animals are abundant and often well-preserved at Plio-Pleistocene (5 – 1.8 million years ago) sites in Africa, providing ample opportunity to explore past environmental conditions through a study of their remains.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Grevy’s zebra with a warthog in the background, both in their “typical” habitat: open grasslands. Photo credit: Dr. Nick Walton.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We bring unique areas of scientific expertise to bear on the BONES project. One of us (Kovarovic) is an expert in understanding how the different species in a community exploit available niches, especially through the study of adaptive morphologies that can be linked specifically to the efficient exploitation of particular habitats, particularly in the mammalian family Bovidae (hooved, horned ungulates like gazelle, buffalo and related taxa). Evaluating such ecomorphologies is a routine method used in the reconstruction of paleoenvironments at hominin fossil sites (e.g. Kappelman 1991, Kappelman et al. 1997, Kovarovic & Andrews 2007). It has the advantage of not requiring identification of fossil mammal remains to the species or even genus level – what is important is not so much who the animals were, but for what they were adapted. Any fossil that retains ecomorphological information in an assemblage can be studied, so sample sizes tend to be large and therefore the statistical analyses more robust. The other of us (Pobiner) is a taphonomist, with a dual interest in how predator-prey relationships can be understood through an evaluation of the damage that carnivores do to the bones of their prey when they consume them as well as how bones naturally weather on the land surface. Tell-tale signs of carnivore activity, such as tooth punctures, pits and scores, as well as signs of gnawing, are used to determine overall predator pressure and in the fossil record contribute to our understanding of how and when hominins began competing with other carnivores for access to animal resources.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Drs. Kovarovic and Pobiner collecting data on a bone occurrence. Photo credit: Dr. Nick Walton.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OPC is an excellent place to situate our BONES project for several reasons. It is a research-friendly environment, hosting a number of projects including a well-established Earthwatch project documenting the ecology of black rhinos. This team collects annual abundance data on the entire living mammal community as well as details of the regional vegetation associations and habitat distributions. Earthwatch Project Director, Dr. Geoffrey Wahungu (Moi University, Kenya) and OPC’s Ecological Monitoring Manager, Nathan Gichohi share detailed GIS habitat maps with us, which allow us to confidently associate bone accumulations to specific habitat types. They also share long-term (decade-scale) data on mammalian abundances, critical information that allows us to correlate the proportions of live animals with information derived from bone accumulations, such as predation patterns that can be reconstructed from studies of carnivore damage. In turn, we share our data and analyses, which facilitate OPC and Earthwatch’s work in monitoring living communities. Finally, the conservancy has presented us with a unique situation: a fence that previously divided a smaller wildlife reserve (formerly Sweetwaters Game Reserve) from a large cattle ranch (formerly Ol Pejeta Ranch) was taken down in 2007, and the whole area became one large conservancy.  The wild animals living on both sides of the fence have been able to migrate to new areas and, as we’re not only interested in reconstructing environmental conditions at one time and place, but in tracing changes in such conditions, this provides us with an opportunity to see how quickly the “bone community” reflects known changes in the living animal community.

Each day in the field we follow an established protocol of walking along 1km transects looking for bones and documenting every one that we encounter (Behrensmeyer et al. 1979). We conduct these walking transects in each of the habitat types at OPC, collecting a variety of different types of data, including things like: (a) exact GPS location of every bone and bone scatter; (b) genus, species and body size of each bone occurrence, where possible; (c) weathering stage, which indicates how long the bone has been on the land surface (Behrensmeyer 1978), allowing us to establish a short term chronology of bone accumulation; (d) habitat information, including broad habitat type and local microenvironment; (e) indicators of carnivore damage which identify the predator species responsible for the kill (Haynes 1980, Pobiner & Blumenschine 2003, Pobiner 2007) and (f) ecomorphological data when the skeletal element is from a bovid (Kovarovic & Andrews 2007, Kovarovic unpublished). In the past, we’ve used old-fashioned paper and pencil to record our data, but this year our research colleague Dr. Nick Walton developed a fantastic digital data collection system tailored for our specific data types and research questions. Using iPaqs and bluetooth GPS units, we can now input all of our data directly into an electronic database while we are in the field, saving the time of later having to transcribe handwritten datasheets onto our computers. Each bone encounter that we record is automatically tagged with a date and time stamp and GPS location, so not only will mapping and spatial analyses be easier to conduct, but we can easily pull up details of the data we have collected each year, in each habitat or on each species.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Drs. Kovarovic and Pobiner walking a bone transect with their armed guard. Photo credit: Dr. Nick Walton.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Nick Walton teaching Dr. Briana Pobiner how to use the new digital data collection system. Photo credit: Dr. Kris “Fire” Kovarovic.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The data we collect will be used in numerous ecological analyses. The first of these is a “live-dead” analysis in which we test the hypothesis that the bone accumulations can accurately reconstruct the proportions of living species in the community. The habitat data also allows us to see if animals are dying in the habitats they’re adapted for and living in, and we’ll apply ecomorphological models to all bovid bone occurrences to predict the proportion of available habitat types and ecological niches in OPC. These results will be compared to the actual known habitat types to determine if ecomorphology provides a faithful environmental reconstruction or if it is biased against certain habitats.

A determination of the body size and predator involvement of each bone occurrence will then be used to investigate the correlations between these two potential biases and where they are responsible for similar patterns observed in the fossil record. If we find correlations between the proportion of undamaged bones and prey size or predator species, we will have identified a systematic pattern of bias that will result in an under- or over-representation of particular habitats in a palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Ecomorphological analyses of carnivore damaged fossil assemblages thus would be similarly biased. Large carnivores are known to cause damage to or destroy skeletal elements of prey of varying sizes while feeding on them, so it is likely that some degree of bias exists, but we are unclear to what extent it affects our analyses (e.g. Haynes 1980, Pobiner 2007). If we wish to contextualize hominin evolution at a finer temporal scale, an understanding of – and possible corrections for – this bias is critical to an accurate interpretation of environmental change in the past.

Our project is intended to be a longitudinal study, and it takes many years of fieldwork to acquire the sample sizes required for analysis. Each year that we collect data we record information from bones deposited at different times in the past; fortunately, these data can be stratified according to the time of deposition on the landscape by applying weathering stage models. Time is an important variable, especially where the fossil record is concerned, so it is important for us to determine if the bone accumulations correlate to known increases or decreases in the abundances of both predator and prey species over the past 10+ years (e.g. Miller & Behrensmeyer 2005, Faith & Behrensmeyer 2006, Western & Behrensmeyer 2009), as well as in ecomorphological representations of the available habitats. OPC welcomes this study as it will offer data on changes in carnivore- and habitat-specific predation pressure over time, which may in turn help to understand temporal and spatial shifts in the living mammal biodiversity. The unique and fruitful collaborations occurring under the auspices of BONES have shown that the linkages between past and present mammalian communities are relevant to our understanding of the modern world, while simultaneously aiding the development of models used in interpreting the fossil record and our evolutionary past.

________________________________________________________

Literature Cited

 

Behrensmeyer, A.K. (1978). Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4, 150-162.

Behrensmeyer, A.K., Western, D. & Dechant Boaz, D.E. (1979). New persepectives in vertebrate paleoecology from a recent bone assemblage. Paleobiology 5, 12-21.

Bobe, R., Behrensmeyer, A.K. & Chapman, R.E. (2002). Faunal change, environmental variability and late Pliocene hominin evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 42, 475-497.

Faith, J.T. & Behrensmeyer, A.K. (2006). Changing patterns of carnivore modification in a landscape bone assemblage, Amboseli Park, Kenya. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1718-1733.

Haynes, G. (1980). Prey bones and predators: potential ecologic information from analysis of bone sites. Ossa 7, 75-97.

Kappelman, J. (1991). The paleoenvironment of Kenyapithecus at Fort Ternan. Journal of Human Evolution 20, 95-129.

Kappelman, J., Plummer, T., Bishop, L., Duncan, A., & Appleton, S. (1997). Bovids as indicators of Plio-Pleistocene paleoenvironments in East Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 32, 229-256.

Kovarovic, K. & Andrews, P. (2007). Bovid psotcranial ecomorphological survey of the Laetoli palaeoenvironment. Journal of Human Evolution 52, 663-680.

Miller, J.H. & Behrensmeyer, A.K. (2005). Skeletal distributions across time: A multivariate approach to the changing taphonomy of Amboseli Park, Kenya. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25, 92A.

Pobiner, B. (2007). Hominin-Carnivore Interactions: Evidence from Modern Carnivore Bone Modification and Early Pleistocene Archaeofaunas (Koobi Fora, Kenya: Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.

Pobiner, B. & Blumenschine, R. (2003). A taphonomic perspective on the Oldowan hominid encroachment on the carnivoran palaeoguild. Journal of Taphonomy 1, 115-141.

Potts, R. (1996). Evolution and climate variability. Science 273, 922-923.

 

Western, D. & Behrensmeyer, A.K. (2009). Bone assemblages track animal community structure over 40 years in an African savanna ecosystem. Science 324, 1061-1064.


The Dedication of Roman Weapons and Armor in Water as a Religious Ritual

Brandon Olson is pursuing his Ph.D. in the department of archaeology at Boston University and has earned a bachelor’s degree in anthropology (Fort Lewis College) and graduate degrees in archaeology (Sheffield University), ancient history (University of North Dakota), and classics (Pennsylvania State University). His research interests include the archaeology and history of the Hellenistic and Roman east with particular focus on ancient warfare, epigraphy, ceramics, settlement, GIS applications to archaeology, and social history. He is currently involved with ongoing archaeological projects in the Eastern Mediterranean including the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project in southern Cyprus, the Mopsos Survey in southern Turkey, the Tel Akko excavations in northern Israel, the Polis Chrysochous excavations in southern Cyprus, and the excavations at Mendes in northern Egypt.

Through chance finds, formal excavations, looting, and dredging operations, several pieces of intact, fully functional Roman weapons and armor have been recovered from aquatic contexts in Gaul and Britain dating from the first century B.C.E to late first century C.E. Some scholars have attempted to explain the phenomenon as a series of accidental losses, while others allude to intentional deposition.[1]Although one cannot completely disregard accidental loss, the facts that military equipment was both expensive and heavily regulated and the veneration of water played an important role in Roman religion suggests that, in the majority of cases, gear found in water was a result of a conscious act, most likely of religious nature.

In Roman religion, the dedication of objects to gods took two forms: votive offerings, items dedicated to propitiate a god, and vows, objects dedicated to fulfill a contract with a deity. The religious rites were integral to the relationship between gods and mortals, as they provided a medium through which humans and the divine could interact. Roman religious practice prescribed a strong tradition of dedicating objects and a veneration of water; yet, few works, both ancient and modern, attest to a tradition of soldiers dedicating gear into water as a religious rite. It is the purpose of this investigation to argue that military equipment recovered from aquatic contexts in the western provinces cannot always be interpreted as accidental loss, but rather through emulation of a widespread Celtic practice, Roman soldiers dedicated weapons and armor into water as a religious rite.

Contextualizing the Assemblage

Examining religious praxis by way of military gear is problematic due to the difficulty encountered when attempting to link artifacts with specific behavior without proper archaeological context. Most equipment recovered from water lacks précis provenience, which is a direct result of recovery. Few formal excavations have been conducted in the major rivers and streams in Gaul and Britain, and several of the examples available for study are byproducts of dredging operations. Although the exact context of artifacts is essential for any study of material culture, understanding the manner in which military equipment became archaeological material helps bridge this gap. The following discussion of the processes of deposition will demonstrate that military arms and armor differed greatly from other material forms because they were never regarded as trash or discarded as such; thus, they entered the archaeological record in more specific and deliberate ways.         

Loosely following Schiffer’s life-cycle theory, there are two processes that transform Roman military gear into material culture: cultural deposition processes and depositional processes.[2] Cultural deposition occurred when accoutrements were deliberately discarded or ritually offered in the ground or other concealed places where recovery was difficult. In such cases, the items no longer functioned in their traditional behavioral systems and become incorporated into an archaeological context. These acts include burying gear to prevent others from utilizing it, hoarding, mortuary contexts, cross-cultural utilization and, as will be discussed later, religious dedication. Often, when a garrison stayed at a particular fort for a period of several years, soldiers and officers increased the quantity of their possessions. When it came time to abandon a fort, the army would take what they could and bury the rest, preventing non-Roman forces from utilizing whatever they left behind. During unsettled times, or when abandoning a fort, soldiers would, on occasion, bury valuable possessions in a hoard. For example, the Corbridge hoard in Britain, excavated in 1964, contained an assemblage of equipment that included several pieces of lorica segmentata (metal, plated body armor), spearheads, artillery bolts, nails, wax writing tablets, papyri fragments, iron alloy, copper alloy, and glass fragments.[3] The owner buried the gear inside of an iron-bounded chest covered with a piece of leather. The amount of care taken when interring the items and sheer value of this material demonstrates that the owner planned to reclaim it. In the event of a soldier’s death, a colleague returned his equipment to a repository, buried it with the soldier, or his items simply disappeared. During their service, many soldiers drafted a will indicating who would receive their possessions after death. In some cases gear is found in burial contexts, suggesting it was interred ex testamento (according to a will).[4] Cross-cultural discard occurred when Roman equipment acquired as war booty, tribute, mercenary equipment, and trade objects was deposited in a non-Roman region.[5] 

Depositional processes, on the other hand, constituted the accidental loss of fully functional items within a behavioral system. The transformation from the functional context of the gear to the archaeological context is, therefore, accidental. While on campaign, soldiers did, on occasion, lose their equipment. If a unit crossed a river or was suddenly ambushed, it was possible for soldiers to lose weapons and armor in the chaos. Although it is difficult to identify lost equipment archaeologically, Vegetius notes that accidental loss was a concern. He states, “the passages of rivers are very dangerous without great precaution. In crossing wide or rapid streams, the baggage, servants, and sometimes the most foolish soldiers are in danger of being lost.”[6] One must question, however, to what extent the current assemblage represents a traditional depositional process. As stated earlier, gear was expensive and regulated. Strict laws allowed officials to severely punish soldiers for mishandling their equipment. Legal works, such as the ex Ruffo Leges Militates, Corpus Juris Civilis, and the Strategica, preserve laws that forbade soldiers from losing and haphazardly disposing their gear.[7] If a soldier lost his sword, for example, an official could punish him twice, both for disarming himself and for potentially arming the enemy. Punishments for such an offense included, but were not limited to, flogging, a reduction in rank, and death.

Military equipment is unique as, unlike most other artifact types, arms and armor, in whatever condition, were never considered refuse at any point in their life-cycle, and entered the archaeological record in specific ways. Therefore, the processes of deposition are fairly predictable, and the exact context of the material is not entirely necessary for a discussion of the connection between military accoutrements and religion. 

Celtic Evidence

The Celtic and Roman traditions of depositing weapons and armor are very similar in practice, and will be compared later to discuss the nature of Roman religion in Gaul and Britain. Celtic religion was deeply rooted in a veneration of water as streams, rivers, lakes, wells, and bogs were sacred places for Celtic worship. Aquatic locations—with the exception of bogs—represented life, curative qualities, fertility, and well-being. Bogs were feared and associated with danger and treachery.[8] Rivers, lakes, and streams became places centered on votive behavior, whereas in bogs individuals made both offerings and sacrifice. It is through the classical sources, presence of Celtic water deities, and the archaeology that Celtic water veneration and the various religious practices associated with it emerge. 

In describing the destruction of Tolosa by Quintus Servilius Caepio, both Strabo and Justinus note how the Celtics ritually deposited valuables in sacred lakes.[9] In 105 B.C.E., the Roman proconsul Caepio went to southern Gaul and fought against the Tectosagi. At the siege of Tolosa, he seized a great treasure of gold and silver from a sacred lake, which was identified as the booty seized from Delphi by the Gauls in 279 B.C.E. Caepio committed a sacrilegious act, according to Strabo and Justinus, by draining the lake and taking the treasure. Later that year, Roman forces suffered a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Arausio and, according to Orosius, the Cimbri and Teutoni seized large quantities of booty. Orosius states:

The enemy, after gaining possession of both camps and great booty, by a certain strange and unusual bitterness completely destroyed all that they had captured; clothing was cut to pieces and thrown about, gold and silver were thrown into the river, corselets of men were cut up, trappings of horses were destroyed, the horses themselves were drowned in whirlpools, and men with fetters tied around their necks were hung from trees, so that the victor laid claim to no booty, and the conquered to no mercy.[10]  

The gold and silver may have been part of the booty seized by Caepio from Tolosa, given that he was a military leader at the battle. Caepio, after being prosecuted by Norbanus for stealing the Tolosa treasure, was exiled to Smyrna and died.

Classical accounts of Celtic water veneration are not restricted to Caepio. Caesar alludes to a deep respect for water when he describes the subjugation of Uxellodunum in 51 B.C.E.[11] Caesar notes that the inhabitants continued to resist his advance until troops fully blocked a spring running through the settlement. The inhabitants interpreted the dry stream as an inauspicious omen and quickly surrendered. Prudentius, a fifth-century C.E. Roman poet from Spain, describes in his Psychomachia the battle between Pudicitia (Chastity) and Libido (Lust). After Pudicitia defeated and killed Libido with her great sword, Pudicitia cleaned the sword in the Jordan River and deposited the victorious weapon into a religious space. Prudentius writes, “she dedicated it to the altar of the sacred spring in the Catholic temple, eternally shining there it shines with light.”[12] Writing in Gaul during the sixth century, Gregory of Tours offered yet another example of the Celts offering valuable items in water. Gregory writes:

In the territory of Javols there was a mountain named after Hilary that contained a large lake. At a fixed time a crowd of rustics went there and, as if offering libations to the lake, threw [into it] linen cloths and garments that served men as clothing. Some [threw] pelts of wool, many [threw] models of cheese and wax and bread as well as various [other] objects, each according to his own means, that I think would take too long to enumerate. They came with their wagons; they brought food and drink, sacrificed animals, and feasted for three days.[13]

The six classical accounts demonstrate clearly that the Celts and other groups dedicated valuable objects into water and that Roman culture had knowledge of the tradition.

Roman contact with Celtic groups initiated ideological reforms for both cultures. Prior to the Roman conquests of Gaul and Britain, the Celts did not wholly identify the divine physically. According to Green, Roman contact provided a catalyst for Celtic concepts of the divine to be freed from anonymity.[14] It is because of this contact that we can begin to identify specific Celtic water deities and classify them into two categories: those attached to a specific river and those attached to water features. The former category includes Verbia (goddess of the Wharfe River), Sequana (goddess of the Seine River), and Souconna (goddess of the Saone River). The latter includes Sulis (goddess of the springs at Bath among other things), Coventina (goddess of a spring at Carrawburgh), and Condantis (a goddess worshipped in Britain, whose name means “watersmeet”).[15] The deities mentioned above served many functions in Celtic religion, but they also played a role in Roman religious practices in Gaul and Britain.      

The Celtic tradition of tossing objects into water as a religious rite originates in the Bronze Age (Hallstatt culture) and lasts through the Roman periods (Le Tene Culture). The archeological evidence for this practice is abundant and extensively studied . Both Wait and Roymans have published comprehensive archaeological accounts of Celtic weapons discovered in water from Britain and Gaul.[16] Wait examines Celtic swords, helmets, and shields in his study of ritual and religion in Britain within three chronological periods: seventh century B.C., Middle Iron Age, and Late Iron Age. Since the focus of the present study is the relationship between Celtic and Roman religious ritual, the material from the Middle Iron and Late Iron ages will be discussed in detail. The Celtic periodization scheme in Britain interprets the La Tene period as beginning at the onset of the Iron Age and ending with the Roman conquest in the first century C.E. Of the 113 Celtic swords dating to the La Tene period discovered in Britain, 66% came from rivers and bogs, 9% came from burials, 1% from hoards, 15% from an archaeological site, and 9% were chance finds. Only three helmets from an aquatic context have been recovered in Britain dating to the La Tene period. Map 1 depicts sword and helmet densities in relation to major rivers in Britain.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Map 1 (after Wait 1985): Distribution of Le Tene period swords and helmets discovered in aquatic contexts in Britain. Satellite imagery courtesy of Bing.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Roymans adopted a similar approach in his study of Belgic Gaul. He identified and plotted all the Le Tene swords and helmets from his study area. The periodization scheme for Celtic Gaul differs from the British scheme, as the La Tene period began at the onset of the Iron Age, but ended with the Roman conquest in the first century B.C.E. Of the 15 Celtic helmets found in Belgic Gaul, 27% came from a grave, 40% came from a river, 13% from a cult place, and 20% are of unknown provenience. Of the 109 Celtic swords recovered, 48% are grave finds, 34% came from a river, 13% from a cult place, and 6% are of unknown provenience. Map 2 depicts sword and helmet densities from Roymans’ study area.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Map 2 (after Roymans 1996): Distribution of Le Tene period swords and helmets discovered in aquatic contexts in Belgic Gaul. Satellite imagery courtesy of Bing.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Based on classical accounts, the presence of several water deities, and the studies of Wait and Roymans, Celts groups from both the Hallstatt and Le Tene periods had a strong tradition of dedicating military equipment in water for hundreds of years. This tradition both predates and continues well after the Roman conquests of Gaul and Britain. Roman soldiers came into contact with a well-established religious ritual, which, as we will see, was incorporated into their religious system. 

Roman Evidence

There is no question that water held a religious significance in Roman culture. In discussing the importance of water in Roman religion during the Republican period, Edlund-Berry argues that, although the use of water figured greatly in religious practices, it was an unofficial, private affair.[17] Although the veneration of water was not an official state-sponsored ritual, it was practiced in the private realm. The sites of several Roman bridges show evidence of religious activity. Archaeologists excavating the intersection of the Via Appia and the Garigliano River at the site of ancient Minturnae uncovered several artifacts, including 4,918 coins deliberately tossed into the river.[18] Moreover, the Thames River within the urban confines of London also produced thousands of coins, demonstrating that offerings of valuable property were made into water.[19] There are, however, no classical accounts that attest to a Roman practice of depositing military gear or other valuables in water as a religious practice, nor are there water deities similar to those found in Celtic Britain and Gaul attested in the Roman pantheon. If, indeed, water veneration was an unofficial, private ritual, as Edlund-Berry argues, and water veneration among non-Roman groups was deemed abnormal as the aforementioned classical sources suggest, it is of little surprise that historical records do not attest to such a ritual within Roman culture. The archaeological record, however, does provide evidence supporting such a religious ritual.

In his study of Romanization in Belgic Gaul, Roymans also examines Roman military equipment. He categorized and investigated the Roman evidence in the same manner as the Celtic material. All Roman gear utilized in his study dates to the first century C.E. Of the 68 Roman swords discovered in Belgic Gaul, 51% are grave finds, 25% are river finds, 10% are from a cultic place, and 13% come from a military camp. Of the 51 Roman helmets from this region, 8% are grave finds, 69% are river finds, 2% are from a cult place, and 22% are from a military camp. Map 3 illustrates sword and helmet densities in relation to the major river systems in northwest Gaul. Unfortunately, Roymans’ study does not incorporate material from Britain. However, military equipment has been recovered from aquatic contexts at Newstead, possibly Corbridge, and the Thames River.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Map 3 (after Roymans 1996): Distribution of Roman swords and helmets discovered in aquatic contexts in Belgic Gaul. Satellite imagery courtesy of Bing.

________________________________________________________________________________________

It is clear that Roman culture adopted and adapted deities and religious practices from other groups. Mithraism, for example, had a strong following among the Roman army. The Persian god was sent to Earth to kill the sacred bull, whose blood symbolized life forces.[20] Several iconic representations from Britain and Gaul survived, depicting Mithras slaying the primeval bull with a serpent and scorpion trying to prevent the blood from reaching the fertile ground. When Rome expanded into new territories, cultural exchange occurred on both ends; Romanization was never a one-sided affair, and it certainly appears that Celtic culture left an indelible mark on Roman religion in the western provinces.   

At least three Roman deities were subjected to substantial Celtic influence while retaining a Roman identity.[21] For example, a goddess identified as Sulis Minerva, worshipped at the Roman site of Bath, attests to a dual cultural origin. The name is preserved in several inscriptions and lead curse tablets.[22] The combining of the Celtic goddess Sulis and the Roman goddess Minerva demonstrate a Romano-Celtic deity. Other hybrid deities include a Celtic Mars and a Romano-Celtic sky god from Britain. A statuette from Martlesham in England depicted a mounted warrior with an inscription dedicating it to Mars Cocidius. An altar from Chester possesses a dedicatory inscription to Jupiter Optimus Maximus Tanarus, who was a Celtic thunder deity from Gaul and Germany.[23]

Discussion and Conclusions

Classical accounts, the presence of specific water deities, and the archaeology of Celtic groups in Britain and Gaul suggest that soldiers stationed in the western Roman provinces witnessed and eventually adopted a strong religious tradition of water veneration, whereby individuals dedicated valuable military gear in water. Comparison of the density maps of the Le Tene and Roman material from Gaul (Map 2 and 3) and the pie charts in Figure 1 (below), provides evidence of a similar practice, though locations of deposition and types of military gear were different. Unlike the Celtic material, Roman helmets far exceed swords, and the highest concentration of Roman gear is found along the Rhine River, the frontier between Rome and Germany. Figure 1 depicts the specific artifact densities of swords and helmets from the Roman and Le Tene periods in Gaul. Despite subtle differences in preferred material types and depositional locales, the archaeology demonstrates a great degree of cultural exchange and continuity in the religious realms of the Celts and Romans.  

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1: Pie charts comparing the depositional practices of Le Tene and Roman period military equipment.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The hybrid Romano-Celtic deities and the similar practices in the deposition of arms and armor in water paints an interesting picture of Roman and Celtic religion and interaction from the first century B.C.E. to first century C.E. The religious practices of the Roman army did not take over and replace native Celtic forms nor did Celtic religion remain the same. The Roman practice of offering military gear in water was a result of Celtic interaction. The purpose and belief systems behind such a tradition varied across time and space. Celtic culture saw water as a life force, key to wellbeing and fertility. It is impossible to determine if Roman soldiers who dedicated their gear perceived water or their newly adopted ritual in the same way. Although generally, in practice, the Roman and Celtic traditions concerning water appears similar, different cultural and ideological backgrounds gave the ritual a distinctively different meaning.     

Cover Photo Top: Roman infantry soldiers. Courtesy David Fiel, Wikimedia Commons

__________________________________________

Works Cited

Alcock, Joan. “Celtic Water Cults in Roman Britain.” American Journal 122 (1965): 1-12.

 

Allason-Jones, Lindsay, and Mike Bishop. Excavations at Roman Corbridge: the Hoard. London: Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission for England, 1988.

 

Bishop, Mike, and J. C. N. Coulston. Roman Military Equipment: from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006.

 

Brand, C. E. Roman Military Law. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1969. 

 

Breeze, David, Joanna Close-Brooks, J. N. Graham Ritchie, Ian Scott, and A. Young. “Soldiers’ Burials at Camelon, Stirlingshire, 1922 and 1975.” Britannia 7 (1976): 73-95.

 

Czarnecka, Krystyna. “The Re-Use of Roman Military Equipment in Barbarian Contexts: A Chain-Mail Souvenir?” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 (1994): 245-253.

 

Edlund-Berry, Ingrid. “Hot, Cold, Smelly: The Power of Sacred Water in Roman Religion, 400-100 BCE.” In Religion in Republican Italy, Yale Classical Studies 33, edited by Celia Schultz and Paul Harvey Jr., 162-180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

 

Green, Miranda. The Gods of Roman Britain. Oxford: Shire Archaeology, 1983.

 

Green, Miranda. Celtic Myths. Austin: Texas University Press in cooperation with British Museum Press, 1993.

 

Klumbach, Hans. Romische Helme aus Niedermanien. Koln: Rheinland-Verlag, 1974.

 

Oldenstein, Jurgen. “Two Roman Helmets from Eich, Alzey-Worms District.” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1 (1990): 27-37.

 

Rald, Ulla. “The Roman Swords from Danish Bog Finds.” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 (1994): 227-241.

 

Rhodes, Michael. “The Roman Coinage from London Bridge and the Development of the City of Southwark.” Britannia 22 (1991): 179-190.

 

Robinson, H. Russell. The Armour of Imperial Rome. New York: Scribner, 1975.

 

Roymans, Nico. “The Sword or the Plough. Regional Dynamics in the Romanisation of Belgic Gaul and the Rhineland Area.” In From the Sword to the Plough: Three Studies on the Earliest Romanisation of Northern Gaul, edited by Nico Roymans, 9-126. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996.

 

Ruegg, S. Dominic. Underwater Investigations at Roman Minturnae. Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag, 1995.

 

Schiffer, Michael. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987.

 

Smith, Charles R. Illustrations of Roman London. London: Printed for the Subscribers and not Published, 1859.

 

Tomlin, R. S. O. Tabellae Sulis: Roman Inscribed Tablets of Tin and Lead from the Sacred Spring at Bath. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1988.

 

Wait, G. A. Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain, BAR British Series 149(i). Oxford: B.A.R., 1985.

 

Webster, Graham. Celtic Religion in Roman Britain. New Jersey: Barnes and Noble Books, 1986.

 


[1] For accidental loss, see Hans Klumbach, Romische Helme aus Niedermanien (Koln: Rheinland-Verlag, 1974); H. Russell Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (New York: Scribner, 1975) and Jurgen Oldenstein, “Two Roman Helmets from Eich, Alzey-Worms District,” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1 (1990): 27-37. See Mike Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment: from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006), 26-34 who tentatively suggest votive deposition.

[2] Michael Schiffer, Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987), 25-140.

[3] Lindsay Allason-Jones and Mike Bishop, Excavations at Roman Corbridge: the Hoard (London: Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission for England, 1988).

[4] David Breeze, Joanna Close-Brooks, J. N. Graham Ritchie, Ian Scott, and A. Young, “Soldiers’ Burials at Camelon, Stirlingshire, 1922 and 1975,” Britannia 7 (1976): 73-95.

[5] Ulla Rald, “The Roman Swords from Danish Bog Finds,” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 (1994): 227-241 and Krystyna Czarnecka, “The Re-Use of Roman Military Equipment in Barbarian Contexts: A Chain-Mail Souvenir?” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5 (1994): 245-253.

[6] Veg. Mil. 3.7.1. Translations are the author’s unless stated otherwise.

[7] All legal works are published in C. E. Brand, Roman Military Law (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1969). See ex Ruffo Leges Militares 29 and 59; Corpus Juris Civilis (Book XLIX, Title 16 Military Affairs): 3. Modestinus, Punishments, Book 4.3 and 14. Paulus, Military Punishments, Book 1.1 and Strategica (by Maurice) 7.

[8] Miranda Green, Celtic Myths (Austin: Texas University Press in cooperation with British Museum Press, 1993), 51-52.

[9] Strabo Geographica 4.1.13 and Justinus Epitome 32.3.

[10] Paulus Orosius Historium Adversum Paganos V.16 (Deferrari).

[11] Caesar De Bello Gallico VIII.43.4.

[12] Prudentius Psychomachia 106-108.

[13] Gregory of Tours In Gloria Confessorum 2 (Van Dam).

[14] Miranda Green, The Gods of Roman Britain (Oxford: Shire Archaeology, 1983), 12.

[15] For Celtic water deities see: Joan Alcock, “Celtic Water Cults in Roman Britain,” American Journal 122 (1965): 1-12; Green, Celtic Myths; and Graham Webster, Celtic Religion in Roman Britain (New Jersey: Barnes and Noble Books, 1986).

[16] G. A. Wait, Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain, BAR British Series 149(i) (Oxford: B.A.R., 1985) and Nico Roymans, “The Sword or the Plough. Regional Dynamics in the Romanisation of Belgic Gaul and the Rhineland Area,” in From the Sword to the Plough: Three Studies on the Earliest Romanisation of Northern Gaul, ed. Nico Roymans (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996), 9-126.

[17] Ingrid Edlund-Berry, “Hot, Cold, Smelly: The Power of Sacred Water in Roman Religion, 400-100 BCE,” in Religion in Republican Italy in Yale Classical Studies 33, eds. Celia Schultz and Paul Harvey Jr. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 180.

[18] S. Dominic Ruegg, Underwater Investigations at Roman Minturnae (Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag, 1995), 68.

[19] Charles R. Smith, Illustrations of Roman London (London: Printed for the Subscribers and not Published, 1859) and Michael Rhodes, “The Roman Coinage from London Bridge and the Development of the City of Southwark,” Britannia 22 (1991): 179-190.

[20] Green, The Gods.

[21] Green, The Gods, 43.

[22] R. S. O. Tomlin, Tabellae Sulis: Roman Inscribed Tablets of Tin and Lead from the Sacred Spring at Bath (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1988).

[23] Green, The Gods, 46.

 


The Minoan Connection

There is no question that the ancient Levant could be described as a major crossroads of civilization. Over and over again, dig sites throughout Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria have turned up artifacts left by the armies and settlers of one empire after another. Through this interview conducted by Popular Archaeology Magazine, Dr. Eric H. Cline, Co-Director of excavations at the site of Tel Kabri in northwest Israel, explains why this site stands out from the rest. The unfolding story of investigations at this site continue to intrigue scholars and the public alike………..   

 

Q: What brought your attention to this site [Tel Kabri] in the beginning?

A: I became involved because of its international relations 3,700 years ago. That’s my professional interest — international relations in the ancient world, particularly between Greece and the Near East. Kabri, which is a Canaanite palace, has Minoan wall and floor paintings in it.  So I was intrigued by the question: Why would a Canaanite ruler have a Minoan artist painting his walls and floors? And is there any evidence that there were Minoans living at the site, or Cycladic artisans, and what does it say about the ancient world?

We already knew about this site because Kabri had been excavated before by Kempinski and Niemeier from 1986 to 1993, and they found a painted floor and about 2,000 fragments of painted plaster.  

Q: Were they [the painted floor and fragments] recognized as possibly Minoan or Aegean at the time of the discovery?

A: Yes, absolutely. Niemeir [an expert in identifying Aegean/Minoan artwork] joined the project back then when they started to find these things, but their project was over in 1993 and the site then lay unexcavated.  

Assaf Yassur-Landau, the excavation Co-Director, excavated there as a volunteer in 1990 and thought at the time that he wanted to come back and dig there himself.  We [ Assaf and I] were both excavating at Megiddo, so we knew each other. He did some preliminary testing at Kabri in 2003 with some geophysical equipment and saw indications that the palace was perhaps as much as twice as big as Kempinski and Niemeier thought. So when I ran into him in 2004 he asked if I wanted to re-open the excavations at Kabri with him. I said yes.  In 2005 we did a very preliminary season of excavations just to see if the geophysical indications were correct:  Was the palace realy twice as big?  And was there anything worth a new multi-season excavation?  During the excavations, we found walls and floors at a good distance from the previous excavations. So the answer to both questions was yes.  

Before we really started to do any digging we needed to do a regional survey of the area.  In 2006 and 2007 we surveyed what we thought would have been the kingdom of Kabri and came up with some interesting data that indicated that it was probably a fairly large [Canaanite] kingdom, but that it only lasted for about 250 years. It apparently had a meteoric rise and just as meteoric a fall after the palace was destroyed by unknown people.

Q: Were the Aegean/Minoan paintings discovered previously by Kempinski and Niemeier dated to that 250-year time period? 

A: Yes. The palace was only occupied for about 250 years and it goes through about four phases. It looks like the paintings date to one of the middle phases. We believe they were up on the wall and on the floor, and then they were torn down during a renovation phase before the palace was destroyed. It seems that somebody liked them so they put them up. Then somebody didn’t like them and they took them down. Or they may have simply fallen off. 

It should be noted that there are only four other places [archaeological sites] in the Near East that have these kinds of paintings. One is Kabri, the only one in Israel. Another is Tel Dab’a in Egypt, and then in Turkey there is Alalakh which Sir Leonard Woolley excavated. Finally there is Qatna in Syria, which is being excavated right now by a German/Italian/Syrian team. 

Q: How does the Canaanite structure at Tel Kabri compare to the Canaanite structure found at Hazor, considered the largest known Canaanite site?

A: The one at Hazor is larger. In terms of size, Kabri is about the third largest in all of Israel. But it is dated only to the Middle Bronze period. 

We also have an interesting situation where the excavations at Hazor have shown that the temples for the same time period show a Syro-Mesopotamian influence. But Kabri appears to show a Western influence. We have published two articles attempting to explain that. The answer, we think, may be as simple as the fact that Hazor was larger and wealthier and could afford the goods and services from Mesopotamia. Perhaps Kabri could not afford that, so it looked elsewhere for innovation. Perhaps artisans from the Cyclades were cheaper. During our excavations in 2009 we found 100 more pieces of plaster at the site supporting this view to add to the Kempinski/Niemeier record. Sixty of these were painted fresco pieces.

Q: You went back to the site in December 2009/January 2010 to excavate. What emerged from that excavation?

A: There is a certain feature at Kabri that the previous excavators [Kempinski and Niemeier] had uncovered. They suggested that it was the bottom of a staircase. When we started excavating there, it became clear that it was not a staircase. It was a plastered corridor. In 2008 we started digging just to the east of it and we found what looked like a drain connected to it. So in the summer of 2009 we started excavating more to find out why there was a drain associated with it. It turned out that plaster, which is of the same time period as the painted floors, was on top of this ancient corridor. The corridor had pottery in it, strewn all at one depth, as if something sudden had happened. In the side of the corridor, hidden in the wall, was at least one entrance and perhaps as many as three entrances. One of the entrances had a cracked block that, had we been excavating in Greece, I would have said it was the lintel block to the entrance to a tomb. So we could see this cracked block with soil beneath it, in what was otherwise a solid stone wall. Next to it was another faint outline where the stones looked like they were horizontal and vertical, indicating the possibility of a blocked opening in the wall, and then another one [blocked opening] on the other side, as well. We didn’t know what this was. But it was in the middle of the palace, it was a hidden entrance in a wall, which one could not have seen unless one was actually in there.  This was interesting because at the site of Qatna in Syria they had just found similar openings in their palace.  Those openings led to a royal tomb.

In December 2009/January 2010 we returned to conduct some additional probes.  We took the top off of the associated wall, and found that the lintel block was just the first of seven. We could see that what we really had was a corbeled passageway that went directly through the wall.  It was a hidden passageway, but it didn’t lead to a tomb as at Qatna. It led into a room that we didn’t know existed, either in another part of the palace or outside the palace. The room to which it led is plastered with a very thick floor and the pottery there in that stratigraphy pushed the dating of the palace back by another 50 years.  It was an earlier part of the palace.  And although we had not found the entrance to a tomb [as at Qatna], we found something very peculiar, as it is a secret passageway made through a wall in the basement of the palace. We think it could have been a sally port [a secret back entrance] so that if the enemy is attacking the front gate, for example, defenders within the palace can go out the sally port at the back and come back around and destroy the attacking enemy.  Or, as a subterranean way to get from one part of the palace to another, could it have been used for secret purposes?  We have no idea.

The pottery in the corridor continues to be a mystery. It was at the entrance to this passageway. Does it represent some sort of ritual? Now we are thinking that when they filled in the corridor and plastered it over, they may have used it as a garbage dump before filling it in and plastering it. We will be investigating that further. So there may be another opening or two, but they are probably not connected to royal tombs.

[Another significant outcome of the December 2009/January 2010 excavations was the discovery that the palace was built some 150 years earlier than previously thought, making it one of the earliest Middle Bronze Age palaces found in Israel to date.]

Q: Getting back to the Aegean-style paintings: We know that the volcanic eruption at Santorini (ancient Thera) ocurred around 1628 B.C.E., and that it may have caused an exodus of people who then spread to other places in the Mediterranean area. Is there any possibility, given your Aegean-style fresco painting findings, that a group of Minoans escaping this eruption may have settled at Kabri?

A: There is no evidence so far that Minoans, or any other Aegean people, such as those in the Cyclades or mainland Greece, migrated to and settled at Kabri as a group. We don’t have enough Minoan pottery to support that. I suspect that, yes, the eruption at Santorini may have caused a migration of people from the island, including artisans who may have painted at Akrotiri or Knossos and were in need of employment, staying at Kabri temporarily. Certainly the paintings at Kabri look an awful lot like the ones on Santorini [ancient Thera].  So it may have been a refugee situation, but that would be mere speculation. The one thing we can support right now is that, if there was a group of Aegean people at Kabri, they were only living there temporarily.

But that does not discount the possibility that a group of ancient Minoans lived permanently at Kabri after an exodus and resettlement. Here is an interesting case in point:

Ancient tablets of Assyrian origin were found at the site of Kanesh in Turkey (ancient Anatolia). Back in the 19th century B.C.E. merchants from Assyria went and lived at Kanesh in Anatolia, trading textiles for silver and tin, and we would never had known that there were Assyrians there, if not for the tablets. The tablets record that they were there. When the Assyrians arrived at Kanesh, they completely adopted the Anatolian ways, so it may be that Minoan people migrated to Kabri and simply adopted Canaanite ways, in which case we would never know that they were there, except for the paintings.  

And here is another possibility: The one thing about pushing the timeline of the palace back earlier [as we discovered during the 2009/2010 excavations] is that it is conceivable, pending Carbon 14 datings, that the paintings at Kabri are a little older than we think. It was at one time thought that the paintings were 16th century (B.C.E.). We are now quite sure that they are 17th century. In fact, we think that the paintings we found may possibly be the oldest discovered in the Near East. Any date earlier than the 17th century would suggest that the influence had gone from east to west.

Q: Is there evidence at the site that might support that?

A: No. It is very unlikely that the Kabri frescoes are earlier than the late 17th century, but Sir Leonard Woolley had originally suggested that this technique of painting on fresco came from the East and went west to the Aegean. That was later discounted and determined that it went the other direction. But there is an outside chance that Woolley was right, and I would not rule out the possibility that it started in the East.  For example, the inlaid daggers found at Mycenae have also been found elsewhere, and their antecedents are at sites like Byblos in the Near East. The whole idea of inlaid metal is actually eastern that gets taken later to the Aegean. It is therefore possible that the fresco painting technique originated in the East and went west, as well. So there are all kinds of possibilities. And this would apply to explaining the Aegean influence at Kabri. 

Q: What is it about the frescoes/paintings that clearly identify them as Aegean or Cycladic in nature?

A: There are a couple of things: One is this whole technique of painting on the plaster wall while it is still wet. That is an Aegean technique. In the Near East, they more often painted after the plaster was dry. Second, there is a technique of using strings to help in the painting process. For example, the Minoans took a string and just tightened it so that it contacted the wet plaster and created a perfectly straight line. We have plaster at Kabri that shows that. The other thing they did was take string and dip it in, for example, red paint, and tighten it quickly against the plaster. The red paint thus makes a perfectly straight line. That is how the floor at Kabri was created. That is a Minoan technique.

Q: Have you found any symbols or designs, things or animals, etc. in the fresco paintings that would tell you that they are Cycladic or Aegean?

A: Yes and no.  The first excavators, Kempinski and Niemeier, found a floor with a pattern of red squares with flowers or vegetation in it. There is something that looks like an Iris and other floral motifs — maybe Aegean, maybe not. The 2,000 fresco fragments that they found, when placed together using ancient Santorini artwork as a model, does look very much like the miniature fresco at Santorini. Little pieces that look like ships and other pieces that look like architecture were found. There are a couple of pieces that look like they are part of the wing of a griffin.  In one of my lectures where I talk about Aegean style paintings I laugh a bit because other excavators at other sites have found bits and pieces of what they say come from a griffin. So imagine our surprise last season when we came up with 5 or 6 pieces of a fresco that have a deep rich blue background (a typical Aegean-style fresco color that has never been found in Israel before), with a figure in the foreground in white with black outlines (also typically Aegean), and as we are looking at it we are thinking that we have seen this before.

Q: What is it?

A: There are a number of possibilities. One could be the wing of a flying fish, like that found at Melos. It could also be a palm tree. It could be a woman’s white hand, but there are no fingernails. Compared to a griffin piece found at Mycenae, however, there is a close resemblance. We think we may have the wing of a griffin, in which case it is really funny that I have been making fun of everyone else about the griffin interpretation. There are another couple of pieces that add to the interpretation of it as part of a griffin. But the problem is that this griffin image type is dated to the 14th century B.C.E., and we are looking at 17th century fragments. A three-hundred year difference may be a little too large.  But if our find is a griffin, it is interesting to note that griffins are in both Near Eastern and Aegean cultures.

These fresco finds have told us something else that is important, however. Where we found them, and this is where it gets very interesting, was nowhere near where the original excavators [Kempinski and Niemeier] found theirs, so we are in a totally separate part of the palace. Their fragments were found used as packing material underneath a threshold. Ours were found face down on a white plaster floor and the only way that we realized they were there was when we were cleaning the floor. A white piece would pop up. And as we turned the white piece over to reveal the colored front, we could see that our wall painting had been ripped off the wall anciently and then used to patch the floor. And our wall fragments are completely different from the fragments that they found. Ours are in a different scale. This means we have a second wall painting. As we excavated the squares, we could see that one of these pieces was part-way into a balk [a section of an area that is left un-excavated for stratigraphic and other purposes], so we know that when we go back and take out that balk, there will be more pieces. There were also more pieces found to the east, and we did not excavate the square to the east. So we have high hopes that we will find more wall fresco fragments.  Moreover, one of the fragments was thicker than the others, which indicates that it was not a part of a wall. It must have been part of a floor. The original painted floor that Kempinski and Niemeier excavated is not missing any pieces, so our piece must be from another floor from somewhere else in the palace, reused as a patching piece on another [unpainted] floor. We are now looking for that other floor.

It is interesting to note that their [Kempinski and Niemeier’s] floor and wall painting discoveries and our floor and wall painting discoveries date from the same phase. So did some artist come and say, “Hey, I can redo your palace for you.”  Or, was there a succeeding king who wanted to redo it all?  We think there may be a whole Aegean theme throughout the whole palace.  Perhaps in this other part of the palace it is not as grand as in the first part. And, It may be that we will find Minoan pottery or other evidence of them actually being there. Answers to these questions await further excavation.

________________________________________________

Painted fresco fragments excavated at Tel Kabri.  Courtesy Tel Kabri Excavations.

________________________________________________

Painted fresco fragments excavated at Tel Kabri.  Courtesy Tel Kabri Excavations.

 

Painted fresco fragments excavated at Tel Kabri. Courtesy Tel Kabri Excavations.

________________________________________

Q: Based on what you have done so far, and your idea of how big this palace might be, what percentage would you say has been excavated thus far?

A:  Hard to say, until we find the limits. We found what we believe is the northern or enclosing wall, and a very strange road or walkway adjacent to it on the outside, so we know how far it goes on the north. We are not yet sure how far it extends on the east, nor do we know how far it extends on the south. We think we know how far it is to the west, and we are looking for that because that should be the entrance. So, because we don’t know how big it is, we can’t guess how much we’ve excavated. But I would be surprised if we have excavated any more than 10 to 20% of the palace site. There is a lot more to do.  And based on what they are finding at Qatna, which has similar dates, I think we still have some very interesting things to find, especially because our palace, like that at Qatna, ended in a fiery destruction. We may find some very interesting things that got caught in that destruction. So what was horrible for them may be a bonanza for us, and I think we have only begun to scratch the surface on the palace.

Then there is the rest of the site aside from the palace. We have not yet touched the fortifications. It had a huge mudbrick set of fortifications. Up on the acropolis of the mound, previous excavators have found evidence of Greek mercenaries from the Iron Age. The palace part was basically abandoned until the Iron Age and then it is only inhabited sporadically in our area. So at some point we want to go up and investigate the acropolis portion of the mound where they have found evidence for the presence of Greek mercenaries. Think of the coincidence — or is it a coincidence — that in the Middle Bronze Age we have Minoans painting the palace and then in the Iron Age we have Greek mercenaries at the site.  What is it about Kabri that the Greeks or Aegeans like so much?  

The other question I have is this: If this site was inhabited in the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age, why isn’t it inhabited in the Late Bronze Age, when there was so much contact with and influence from the Myceneans in this part of the world?  

Kabri is like no other site I have ever investigated, because it is so huge and because it was only occupied during the Middle Bronze Age, with a puzzling absence of occupation and then suddenly an Iron Age presence on the acropolis.  

Q: Do you think the MB palace at Kabri is considerably larger than the same at Megiddo?

A: Yes, the palace is probably larger than the one at Megiddo. But it depends upon what period we are talking about. For the Middle Bronze period, it is probably larger. It is interesting because when you are driving to the site, there is a little bump in the road, and that means you have just driven over the fortifications. So the palace, including the fortifications, is huge.  

Q: What are your plans for this coming dig season?

A: We want to reconstruct the history of the palace. If we can reconstruct the life-cycle of the palace in its 250-year history, including evidence of feasting and things like that, that would be good. Along the way, if we should happen to find more painted frescoes, then that would also be very good, and we are anticipating that we will find more. If we are able to investigate the other features in that mysterious corridor, that would be a plus, and we are planning to do that. And then, as I mentioned, outside the northern wall we see this very strange, intriguing stone feature that is only one level of stones thick. It zigzags, which is usually seen on Crete. It is either a walkway or the bottom of a wall. If it is a wall, then it is a protective wall going around the palace. I think it is a roadway and that the road may well be extending around the palace.  A similar roadway can be found at Knossos and elsewhere. If it is a roadway, and this is the northern perimeter of the palace, and the entrance is on the west, then what we see may indeed be turning a corner and headed to the entrance. So if we continue to excavate in that direction this coming season, it may lead us to the missing entrance to the palace. 

So what we are basically doing is making sure we understand not just the history of the palace but also its size and what is immediately happening outside of it.  

 

To summarize, the coming season should help us understand a bit more about the history, life-cycle and size of the palace, as well as uncover more painted plaster and define what is going on with the mysterious corridor. We also hope to see what is going on just outside the palace with the roadway or wall feature and whether or not we can locate the missing entrance. All of these things will also hopefully give us more insight into what is happening inside the palace.  

All in all, even though what we are doing is supplementing and expanding upon what the previous excavators have done, it turns out that there is much more to investigate than previously thought.

*Courtesy Tel Kabri Excavations. 

Top Cover Photo: Aerial view of Tel Kabri. Courtesy Tel Kabri Excavations.

Second photo from top: Excavating the corridor feature of the Middle Bronze Age Palace. Courtesy Tel Kabri Excavations.

Eighth photo from top: The curious “zigzag” structure excavated at Tel Kabri. Courtesy Tel Kabri Excavations.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

About Eric Cline

Dr. Eric H. Cline, a former Fulbright scholar, is an award-winning author, teacher, and advisor with degrees in Classical Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology, and Ancient History from Dartmouth College (1982), Yale University (1984), and the University of Pennsylvania (1991) respectively. He currently serves as Chair of the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Cline’s primary fields of study are the military history of the Mediterranean world from antiquity to present and the international connections between Greece, Egypt, and the Near East during the Late Bronze Age (1700-1100 BCE). He is an experienced field archaeologist, with 28 seasons of excavation and survey to his credit since 1980. He has worked in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Cyprus, Greece, Crete, and the United States, including eight seasons at the site of Megiddo (biblical Armageddon) in Israel, where he is currently the Associate Director (USA). He is also Co-Director of the new series of archaeological excavations at the site of Tel Kabri, also located in Israel.

A prolific researcher and author with ten books and nearly 100 articles to his credit, Dr. Cline is perhaps best known for his book, The Battles of Armageddon: Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley from the Bronze Age to the Nuclear Age (Ann Arbor 2000; paperback 2002), which received the 2001 Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) Publication Award for “Best Popular Book on Archaeology,” was a Main Selection of the Natural Science Book Club, sold out its first printing in less than four months, and has now been translated and published into Croatian (2005). 

Dr. Cline has been interviewed by syndicated national and international television and radio hosts including Robin Roberts and George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum on Fox New Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Fergus Nicoll on the BBC World Service/The World Today, Kojo Nnamdi on NPR’s “Public Interest” show, Michael Dresser on “The Michael Dresser” show, and Richard Sheehe on WRGW.

Born in Washington, DC (at GWU Hospital) and raised in California (San Francisco and Los Angeles), Dr. Cline is married and has several children, two cats, and varying numbers of fish.

 

 


The Archaeology of Montpelier’s Enslaved Community

Matthew Reeves is the Director of Archaeology at James Madison’s Montpelier in Orange, Virginia.  His specialty is sites of the African Diaspora including plantation and freedman period sites, and Civil War sites.  In his work over the past two decades, Reeves has maintained a focus with public archaeology, most especially involving descendent groups and involving the public with experiential learning.


Montpelier was the family home of former U.S. President James Madison and an enslaved community that, during the Madison ownership, boasted over four generations of enslaved families.  This enslaved community was sold and dispersed during the 10-year period prior to Dolley Madison (his surviving spouse) selling the home in 1844 after his death in 1836.  Following this sale, the homes of these slaves were abandoned and over the next five years were either razed or left to decay in place.  Despite the changes that occurred to the house in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the sites of these slave quarters remained undisturbed.  What this has left for archaeologists is a treasure trove of information related to the material world of the enslaved community at Montpelier.  Aside from one insurance plat dating to 1837, there is no documentary record for the location of these homes.  Archaeologists have relocated these structures through surveys and excavations and have discovered over a dozen slave quarter sites for field slaves, house slaves, and skilled artisans.  The diversity and preservation of these sites presents an unparalleled opportunity to examine the dynamics of an enslaved community and test commonly held generalizations concerning enslaved communities at large plantations. 

During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there is some consensus among scholars that both skilled workers (those employed in a specialty task such as the stable, gardens, or carpentry) and house slaves often had greater access to material goods such as clothing, household items, and “refined” housing.  This greater access to goods is in comparison to those enslaved workers who held roles in the field and often lived further from the main house and had limited contact with the owner.  Whether this greater abundance of goods reflects the owners providing these slaves with more household and personal items or these slaves having the economic means to purchase these items has not been fully explored.  Moreover, there is little comparative data to verify whether those slaves who worked in close association with the owners actually owned more household goods than those slaves who lived and worked farther from the owner (specifically field slaves). To test this hypothesis, the Montpelier archaeology department is conducting a three-year archaeological study of various slave quarters at James Madison’s Montpelier estate to reconstruct the material world of the 19th century slave community (Reeves 2010).  

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. Three sites for slave quarters overlain on the modern Montpelier landscape

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This information is especially relevant to Montpelier archaeologists today as the grounds and home of President Madison have witnessed a dramatic change through the restoration of Madison’s home back to its 1820s appearance (as it appeared during the Madisons’ retirement from the White House) and restoration of major parts of the mansion formal grounds.  From 2002-2007, Montpelier archaeologists conducted intensive archaeological studies of the mansion cellars, the formal landscape, and surrounding road networks.  During the restoration of the mansion (2002-2008) many of these areas were restored based on archaeological evidence.  In addition, multiple seasons were spent excavating trash deposits related to the Madison household.  These  trash deposits were analyzed to assist in the furnishing of the house, which is an ongoing project to this date.  All of these investigations provided an important context for not only returning the Madisons’ home to its early 19th century appearance, but for providing a larger context to understand the enslaved community who lived and worked within the mansion grounds.

What remains ‘invisible” today at Madison’s home is the plantation itself—the homes of the enslaved work force, the network of fields, work areas, and roads that gave Montpelier its character as a Virginia planter’s home.  The first step in understanding this lost plantation is in-depth research on the enslaved community that called Montpelier home.   While future work (2012 season) will encapsulate the quarters for field slaves, previous seasons (2008 and 2010) and this season (2011) will focus on examining those enslaved households that were directly associated with the Madison’s entertaining at the mansion.    A particular focus of these excavations has been the homes of those slaves who worked and lived in and adjacent to the mansion grounds.  These quarters were home for both house slaves (the South Yard) and those slaves who likely worked in either the stable or garden (the Stable Yard) (see Figure 2).  We begin our description of these enslaved homes with our most recent set of excavations.

 

Figure 2.  Early 19th century appearance of mansion grounds.  The area shown in light green is the formal boundary of the mansion grounds (curtilage) as defined from archaeological features and period descriptions.  The area of the South Yard shown in yellow while the Stable Yard is in orange.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discovery of the Home for an Enslaved Artisan

Our most recent excavations took place at the quarter for enslaved artisans—those individuals who either worked in the stable or nearby craftshops just up the hill from the mansion.  This site, known as the Stable Quarter, is located just outside of the formal grounds for the mansion in the area known as the Stable Yard.  Prior to our excavations and surveys in 2010, very little was known about this site aside from surveys that had located late 18th and early 19th century artifacts in this area. Previous excavations had located two ash-filled pits and linear features at the site.  Our surveys in 2010 revealed a craft complex in this area along with structures and work areas related to the stable and carriage house—which were related to the Madison’s constant flow of guests arriving at Montpelier during their retirement years.  These surveys also defined the extent of the site for a slave quarter located at the northern edge of the Stable Yard. 

Our excavations from June through December of 2010 revealed this site to be the location of a slave quarter dating from the 1790s-1844.  This site turned out to be remarkably well preserved as following abandonment in the 1840s, the structure was razed , and the site was incorporated into the larger mansion grounds.  For over 160 years, the site was covered in grass and was not subject to any disturbances beyond bioturbation.   What this allowed for was the preservation of a well-defined set of architectural and yard features relating to the log home that once sat at this location.

The most exciting aspect of the Stable Quarter was the rich architectural evidence recovered at the site for the size and form of the home.  The features and strata at the site reveal the slave home to be of log architecture with a stick-and-mud chimney.  Such log homes with non-masonry chimneys were quite common in early 19th century Viriginia.  One English traveler who visited Montpelier in the 1820s recounted from his travels in general for Virginia and Maryland:

The negro huts are built of logs, and the interstices stopped with mud, of which material also the floor is composed.  At one end is an enormous large chimney made of logs, which are of a large size at the bottom, and gradually smaller towards the top.  The lower part of the chimney, in the interior, is covered with earth or mud, to prevent its catching fire (Fitch 1820).

This description by Fitch seems to be a match for the structure we located at the Stable Quarter.

Some of the clues at the site that suggested such a structure were the complete absence of a masonry chimney base, the presence of an at-grade hearth, and multiple borrow pits across the site (Figure 3). 

 

Figure 3.  Overhead shot of excavations at Stable Quarter site, November 2010.  A+B=ash-filled borrow pit, C=sub-floor pit, D=large hearth, E=small hearth

 

The first set of architectural evidence we encountered at the Stable Quarter was a brick hearth.  This hearth was made up of bricks laid directly on the clay subsoil.  What was unmistakable about this hearth was the presence of scorched brick on the outside edge which suggested the location for the daily fire and by extension the chimney flue.  With no masonry chimney base existing to mark the fire box, this absence suggested the chimney consisted of stick and mud.  A second smaller hearth was located later in the season and this area not only contained the charred remains of the last log on the brick hearth but also intact portions of the bottom logs for the stick and mud chimney (Figure 4).  This incredible preservation was facilitated by a large amount of clay that lay atop this second hearth—likely the collapsed remains of the chimney lining that accumulated on this hearth following abandonment.  This second hearth not only confirmed the stick and mud construction present for both chimneys, but also served to book end the structure in terms of its size (20 ft in length).  In addition, the fact that both hearths were set at grade suggested the floor of this structure was a clay floor, not a wooden plank floor set on joists.

 

Figure 4.  Montpelier archaeologist cleaning remains of burnt log in hearth at the Stable Quarter.

The second aspect of the site that suggested not only stick and mud construction for the chimneys but also a mud daubed log home were the large borrow pits present at the site.  Located to the southeast of the hearth bases, we found two large oval-shaped pits that were filled with hearth ash and household trash.  These pits were originally found in the 1990s excavations but without the discovery of the associated structure, interpretation of their function was difficult.  However, once we realized we were dealing with a potential stick and mud chimney, the most obvious answer was that these pits started out life as borrow pits for the construction of the quarter (Figure 5).  The ceramics and nails from these pits evidenced a fill date of the mid to late 1790s.  Given that most of the other ceramics at the site typically range in the 1810s, this earlier date suggested that the pits were filled very early during the site occupation.  Combined with this early date, the size and depth of these pits pointed toward initial construction when the largest amount of clay would be needed for not only lining the chimney but also filling the cracks between the logs of the home.  The combined evidence of an absence of piers, the clay floor of the home, and the absence of post holes (that would suggest a post-in-ground architecture) pointed to the structure being built of log.  Three other shallower borrow pits were located to the east and contained later dating ceramics—these pits were likely the source for clay to repair daub between the logs and the clay chimney lining.  As repairs would not necessitate as much clay as initial construction, these pits were much shallower.

Figure 5.  Montpelier archaeologist beginning the excavation of the western half of the borrow pit at the Stable Quarter.  Notice gray ash deposits in the profile.

The fill from the larger borrow pits proved to contain a rich deposit of artifacts related to the foodways of the household residing at this site.  All of the soils from these features were waterscreened through window-screen or smaller mesh and then floated (Reeves 2007).  Large amounts of charred seeds, bone (fish along with wild and domesticate), egg shell,and artifacts (beads, straight pins, ceramics, and glass) were contained within these waterscreen samples.  Analysis of these remains will provide a wealth of information regarding the diet of the home’s inhabitants.  One additional feature, a sub-floor pit, located within the structure was also filled with ash and trash debris (Figure 6).  This feature contained ceramics dating to the mid period of occupation along with large amounts of food remains similar to those found in the large borrow pits.  This sub-floor pit was located adjacent to the hearth and is very similar in size and position to root cellars used during this period for storing sweet potatoes (Katz-Hyman and Rice 2010). 

Figure 6. Completed excavation of hearth and sub-floor pit at the Stable Quarter.

One of the more exciting aspects of these pits is that the associated artifacts provide a comparison through time of diet at the site from the 1790s and the 1810s and 20s.  Analysis of faunal materials recovered from the Madison table indicates that there was a notable shift from a mix of domesticated and wild animals to total dependence on domesticate cuts during this same time period for Dolley and James Madison’s diet (Pavao-Zuckerman 2008) and we are interested in determining if there is any parallel for the larger plantation community.  In the Fall of 2011, we will be sending this floral and faunal material off for analysis as soon as we have finished processing, cataloguing, and analyzing for our site reports.

In addition to the wonderfully preserved architectural features and features containing food remains, the site contained large broadcast scatters of trash throughout the yard.  Analysis of the spatial patterning of these trash deposits is underway, but the initial observed patterns reflect the typical patterning of trash being disposed of away from work areas.  In addition, a wide array of ceramics occurs in these deposits, including many ceramics whose origin appears to be from the Madison table.

Some of the pieces recovered from the Stable Quarter are the same pattern as found in trash deposits containing broken and discarded items from the Madison table.  In particular, we have located Chinese export porcelain that is not only an exact match for pieces recovered from the rear lawn of the mansion, but an actual mend to the same vessel (Figure 7).  Other pieces found at the Stable Quarter are from the massive dinner sets that the Madisons owned including a transfer printed ware known as Bamboo and Peony and pieces of French porcelain manufactured by the Nast porcelain factory.  The question arises, if these pieces are from the Madison table, how did the discarded fragments end up over 120 yards from the mansion?  Among the possible answers are that these pieces might have become chipped or cracked and the Madisons ordered the house slaves to remove them from the service.  The enslaved domestics would make the choice of either disposing of the vessel in the midden to the north of the house (Dolley’s Midden) or reusing the vessel back at their own home.  However, the platter fragments that mend with pieces recovered from the rear lawn suggest more than simply chipped pieces being brought back to the home, but that these vessels might have broken at the house, but for some reason were disposed of away from the house.  Before we jump to any explanation, we need to address the place of the residents of this home in relationship to the mansion and how this structure relates to those slave quarters closer to the mansion.

Figure 7.  Mended platter recovered from the mansion rear lawn (left side) and the Stable Quarter (right side).

 

Placing the Stable Quarter in the Context of the Larger Mansion Grounds

Excavations at the mansion grounds have shown the formal grounds were surrounded and defined by a picket fence, ha has (trenches used to keep animals out), and roads.  Inside this fence, the Madisons arranged the space surrounding the mansion in a formal ordered fashion with carefully contrived views through alleys of trees, formal gardens laid out in falling terraces, a large level lawn in the rear, and walks lined with rounded river gravel.  Amongst and within this formal enclosure are the homes of the enslaved domestics in the South Yard—or the work area directly south of the mansion that includes three duplex residences, two smokehouses, and a detached kitchen.  The homes within this space are in marked contrast with that seen at the Stable Quarter.  Archaeological excavations have revealed these homes to include masonry chimneys, glazed windows, raised wooden floors, and sills set on piers.  In addition, these structures are laid out on the same orientation as the mansion and are placed such that their walls align with the mansion walls (see Figure 8).   These homes were, in many ways, designed to be seen from the mansion as they were less than 50 feet from the mansion and in direct sight of the rear lawn where Dolley would hold her famous fetes and in direct sight of the terrace atop the one-story south wing (see Figure 9).

Figure 8.  2008 excavations in the South Yard showing exposed chimney base, fenceline and yard surface for the NorthEast duplex (#2).  White rectangles represent quarters with the area surrounding and between 1 & 2 being the focus of the proposed study during the 2011 field season. 

 

Figure 9.  3-D digital rendering of view into South Yard from the south terrace of the mansion.  From this view, it is obvious that Madison’s guests would have direct visual access into the houseyards of quarters for the mansion.  Image courtesy of University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities.

What is fascinating about this space is the fact that it was designed to be seen by Madison’s guests.  There are even period reminiscence by visitors who recall walking from the house to the quarters to bring the enslaved residents “scraps” from the breakfast table.   Seen in this light, it might come as little surprise that these spaces were potentially designed with the same care as the placement of the front fence and the terracing of the formal garden.  The combined documentary and archaeological evidence speaks to Madison being inspired to design the South Yard from landscape treatises of the late 18th century that illustrate idealized worker housing (Reeves 2010; Wulf 2011).  These texts suggest designing worker housing in duplexes where neighboring households can aide each other and creating tidy cottages with raised wooden floors, sashed windows with glass, masonry chimneys and space enough below structures to allow circulation of air (which would have a distinct disadvantage in the winter).  Such structure design can be seen directly in the spaces Madison provided for the enslaved residents of the South Yard.  What this formalized structure tends to emphasize is a space made for presentation of slaves’ daily life rather than an organic space designed for convenience of slaves’ daily lives.  This can be seen nowhere more clearly than in the contrast of the South Yard with the adjacent spaces of the Stable Yard.

The South yard represents a very different form of living space for slaves than the Stable Quarter located just on the other side of the fence from the formal grounds of the mansion and within 20 feet of the duplexes for the South Yard.  In contrast with the South Yard, the Stable Quarter residence is aligned with the orientation of the ridge on which it sits.  This would allow it to not only be positioned to take maximum advantage of the slope in the area for yard layout, but also maximize southern exposure during the winter.  The South Yard structures had very little surface area facing the south and would have been at an extreme disadvantage during the winter for warmth.  In addition, the orientation with the mansion positioned the homes in the South Yard such that level yard space was at a premium.  What is evident in the Stable Yard is much more space being available for daily activities and more flexibility for slaves in their arrangement of activities.

What are we to make of this contrast in placement of homes and differences in architectural style?  On one level, one might argue that the structures in the South Yard benefited from an overall high quality of architectural elements with glazed sashed windows, wooden floors, and masonry chimneys.  For the residents, however, these “benefits” were tempered by less advantageous arrangement of yard space, structural siting, and being positioned to be in direct surveillance from the mansion.  In addition, archaeological survey and excavations have located paths in the South Yard that link these structures directly with the cellars of the mansion where much of the daily tasks for the mansion took place.  These paths were stone and brick paved to reduce traffic of clay into the house.   The manner in which these paths link to the cellars speak to the orchestrated movements of house slaves from their homes to work areas.  Within the mansion, the movement of house slaves was even more carefully orchestrated through the use of service stairs and entries into first floor of the house that minimized the direct interaction of slaves and the Madison family and their guests.  Slaves would be always present to serve, but rendered to the background during the social occasions in which their services were needed.  This code of behavior likely influenced the home life of slaves in the South Yard—as this home life was set within the formalized structure of the mansion grounds. 

By contrast, those slaves living in the Stable Quarter resided in a space outside of the carefully contrived environment of the mansion grounds.  Their homes were set within the larger work spaces of the stables, carriage house, and craft complex to the south and outside of the formal fence space of the mansion grounds. While this area still served the needs of the Madisons and their guests, it was also quite separate from the formalized activities of the mansion and its associated formal grounds.  In the case of the stable and craft yards, enslaved artisans did not come in direct contact with the many guests who visited the Madisons.  However, they did come in direct contact with the personal slaves that accompanied guests and this contact brought the daily flow of activities and bustle of news into this service space.  As such, while activities in the Stable Yard was spatially distinct from the mansion grounds, this space was privy to the events that took place at the mansion and the opportunity for meeting new contacts from the outside world.

This brings us back to the presence of the broken platter in the Stable Quarter yard.  Was the yard of the stable quarter a zone in which actions of the enslaved could be screened from the Madisons?  Could the broken platter (and perhaps other dishes present in this yard) have been intentionally disposed of in the yard after breakage as a means to avoid discovery?  Was the space found in the Stable Quarter separate enough to allow evasion from the surveillance but close enough to serve as a informal harbor for activity?  Does the higher quantities and diversity of household goods of the Stable Quarter reflect this household’s ability to “profit” from the enhanced contact with outsiders and ability to network for social and economic advantages?  The answers to many of these questions rests with examining the Stable Quarter in relationship to the South Yard.  

In comparison with the Stable Yard, was the South Yard and its yards one of contested space frought with the tension of being caught within the surveillance of the Madisons?  How would households living in this space carve out a semblance of privacy within the controlled space of the Madisons?    It is by contrasting these two very distinct but linked spaces that we will bring to light the means by which slaves maneuvered within the rigid constraints established by chattel slavery.  What is more important in the context of Montpelier is the ability to rediscover the role that Madison held within this constantly negotiated and contested space.

 

As the architect of the Constitution, Madison was very concerned with establishing the ideals of citizenship that define American society to this day.  In Madison’s day, however, the rights of citizenship were limited to a select group of individuals—mainly white, male landowners.  The majority of the population who lived at his plantation home did not expect to see in their lifetime the application of the right to vote, legally own property, or even ensure the stability of their own family, much less the ability to control their own destiny.  As a slave owner, Madison was very concerned about the conflict inherent in owning humans as property.  While Madison never resolved this internal conflict on his own personal level, might he have sought out means of amelioration at his own home?  Were the conditions evident in the South Yard of applying idealized housing standards to a select group of slaves a way of showing his paternalistic patronage to a group of slaves closest to his household?  Or was the structure imposed on the residences in the South Yard simply a manner of situating the actions and lives of these enslaved residents into the ordered grounds of the mansion?  Addressing these questions through the archaeological record hold great potential for our understanding of Madison’s personal identity as a slave owner, as well as implications this had for the many enslaved households that called Montpelier home. This summer we hope to bring to light the answer to these questions and many others through the excavation of the southern duplexes whose residents were the immediate neighbors to the Stable Quarter. 

 

You Can Get Involved

During the 2011 season, the Montpelier Archaeology Department welcomes the help of individuals interested in helping us to explore and research the South Yard.  Montpelier hosts nine one-week long excavation sessions where the public can live on the property and work side-by-side with trained archaeological staff to rediscover the hidden minds and lives of the Montpelier enslaved community.  This unique experience provides participants a unique opportunity to experience history first hand and learn the techniques that archaeologists use in working at such an incredibly well preserved site as the South Yard. For more information, see the website at www.montpelier.org.

Photos courtesy Montpelier Archaeology Department 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

Reeves, Matthew

2010 A Community of Households: The Early 19th-Century Enslaved Community at James Madison’s Montpelier, In African Diaspora Archaeology Network 2010 (1).

 

Katz-Hyman, Martha B.  and Kym S. Rice

2010 World of  a Slave: Encyclopedia of the Material Life of Slaves in the United States.  Greenwood, Santa Barbara, California.

 

Wulf, Andrea

2011 Founding Gardeners: The Revolutionary Generation, Nature, and the Shaping of the American Nation.  Knopf Publishers, New York.

 

Pavao-Zuckerman, Barnet

2008 Preliminary Analysis of Zooarchaeological Remains from Dolley’s Midden, Montpelier Mansion (44OR249).  Stanley J. Olsen Laboratory of Zooarchaeology, Arizona State Museum.  Report on File at the Montpelier Archaeology Department