Most interesting video-conference on Luwians, Troy and the Sea Peoples

All archaeogenetics and no archaeology makes people go mad. So let's spice this a bit with this absolutely enticing video of a conference by Dr. Eberhard Zangger, which I have watched thrice already, twice tonight alone.

I love the general outline of the exposition even if I know some details, like the outline of Lower Troy are controversial. 

I also did pose the following questions as commentary to the video:

1. How can the professor be so sure that all ancient Western Anatolian nations were Luwian and not from other diverse ethnicities? How that they were the only ones in the last Sea Peoples' wave? Just the same we see some non-Greeks in the Greek side of the Trojan war, I would expect some non-Luwians in the Trojan side as well, assuming the Trojans were Luwians and not Tyrsenians or something else. 
2. What about the Phrygians who show up in Anatolia, West and East (Armenians) after the Bronze Age collapse, out of nothing (they seem to originate in an obscure Paeonian tribe, the Bryges)? Not a single mention of them: I guess they would blurr the nice "Luwian" homogeneity. 
3. What about the Greeks (Danaoi, Denesh) and their Pelasgian (Peleset, Philistine) neighbors and often allies (Achilles himself and his Myrmidons were that)? They seem also involved in that late Sea Peoples wave and there is coincidence of cultural Hellenization (and not Luwianization) of Cyprus precisely in that period of the late Sea Peoples' attacks against Syria, Egypt and whatever else. Let's not forget that the Egyptians speak of the foreign peoples making a COALITION in their "islands", and I would say that this coalition involved peoples from all the Aegean, and not just the Asian side of it (although very good point about Evans' racism and his horrible influence on Aegean studies). 

But please don't let my nit-pickiness wrong what I think is a great conference dealing with a topic that has been way too neglected and even purposely ignored. There is a lot of good stuff in the video.

By the way, this is the Wikipedia map of Luwian inscriptions (unsure of what exactly the German legend says, "early" and "late" maybe?, but it's definitely about Luwian inscriptions):

Credit: Hendrik Tammen (CC-license)

A 14.000 year old human settlement in Argentina

Quickies

Although the paper claims this site as the signature of arrival of our species to the South Cone (southern region of South America), there is another site with quite apparently older dates: Monte Verde (Chile), that cannot be ignored. In any case, it is a quite interesting data point for the peopling of America and the oldest one known East of the Andes.

Gustavo G. Politis et al., The Arrival of Homo sapiens into the Southern Cone at 14,000 Years Ago. PLoS ONE, 2016. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162870]

Abstract

The Arroyo Seco 2 site contains a rich archaeological record, exceptional for South America, to explain the expansion of Homo sapiens into the Americas and their interaction with extinct Pleistocene mammals. The following paper provides a detailed overview of material remains found in the earliest cultural episodes at this multi-component site, dated between ca. 12,170 14C yrs B.P. (ca. 14,064 cal yrs B.P.) and 11,180 14C yrs B.P. (ca. 13,068 cal yrs B.P.). Evidence of early occupations includes the presence of lithic tools, a concentration of Pleistocene species remains, human-induced fractured animal bones, and a selection of skeletal parts of extinct fauna. The occurrence of hunter-gatherers in the Southern Cone at ca. 14,000 cal yrs B.P. is added to the growing list of American sites that indicate a human occupation earlier than the Clovis dispersal episode, but posterior to the onset of the deglaciation of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in the North America.

Gobero (Green Sahara key site) documentary

This site of Gobero (Niger) was news in the archaeology and anthropology circles a few years ago and today I stumbled on this quite nice video documentary on it that I believe will be of interest for many readers:

All the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Ireland in a single paper

This entry should be a "quickie" because I wouldn't even know where to begin in order to analyze this comprehensive synthesis and not at all because it is a lesser study, all the oposite. Just to say that the average reader of this blog will want to read it, much more if they are Irish.

However I think that the paper raises some interesting questions regarding the chronology of "modern genetic Irishness" and the arrival of the Y-DNA lineage R1b to the island, which I cast below for your insights.

T. Rowan McLaughling et al., The Changing Face of Neolithic and Bronze Age Ireland: A Big Data Approach to the Settlement and Burial Records. Journal of World Prehistory 2016. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1007/s10963-016-9093-0]

Abstract

This paper synthesizes and discusses the spatial and temporal patterns of archaeological sites in Ireland, spanning the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age transition (4300–1900 cal BC), in order to explore the timing and implications of the main changes that occurred in the archaeological record of that period. Large amounts of new data are sourced from unpublished developer-led excavations and combined with national archives, published excavations and online databases. Bayesian radiocarbon models and context- and sample-sensitive summed radiocarbon probabilities are used to examine the dataset. The study captures the scale and timing of the initial expansion of Early Neolithic settlement and the ensuing attenuation of all such activity—an apparent boom-and-bust cycle. The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods are characterised by a resurgence and diversification of activity. Contextualisation and spatial analysis of radiocarbon data reveals finer-scale patterning than is usually possible with summed-probability approaches: the boom-and-bust models of prehistoric populations may, in fact, be a misinterpretation of more subtle demographic changes occurring at the same time as cultural change and attendant differences in the archaeological record.

The study should be very useful to anyone trying to understand the prehistory of Ireland, not the least because of its many maps and this extremely cool sequential maps video from pre-Neolithic times (5th millennium BCE) to the gates of the Bronze Age (early 2nd millennium BCE). Notice that in the Isles they tend to call "Bronze Age" to the Chalcolithic (Copper and Stone Age) and hence the title, which is a bit misleading.

An example of the very cool and highly informative maps and data you'll find in this study:

Fig. 3 - Map of Ireland showing Early Neolithic sites

 

Depopulation and resettlement? When?

An intriguing issue is the boom and bust cycles, particularly the almost total absence of signs of human activity around the end of the 4th millennium (3300-3000), suggesting maybe a depopulation after the first farmer colonization (?). There are clear booms around 4000, 3700, 3500, 2900, 2500 and since 2200 (Bell Beaker era). All this is something to chew about.

Particularly I'd raise the following question here: we know that a woman from c. 3400-3100 BCE (just at the depopulation gap?) was a typical Neolithic European, most similar to SE Spaniards and Sardinians, and that a man from c. 2200-1500 (Bell Beaker boom) was virtually identical to modern Irish and "British Celts" like Scots, Welsh and Cornish, carrying the common and controversial R1b patrilineage. 

The initial reading many of us made was that these new genetics may have arrived with Bell Beaker and that maybe Bell Beaker was more influential in terms demographic than we used to think, at least in Ireland. However, with this archaeological sequence on hand it seems at least reasonable to think that the major resettlement of an almost deserted Ireland happened after 3000 BCE but significantly earlier than the Bell Beaker phenomenon, which only reaches Northern Europe (Ireland included) c. 1500 BCE. What's your opinion?

Neolithic East Asians tamed leopard cats

Quickies

Leopard cat
(CC: F. Spangenberg - Der Irbis)

It's hard to say that cats are domestic at all, tamed is probably a better concept. Some would of course argue that it is cats who have tamed us humans, debatable I guess.

In any case this relationship has not been restricted to the common cat (Felis silvestris catus) but it has been known now that ancient East Asians managed to establish the same kind of relationship with a local feline of similar characteristics: the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis). However at some point the Western cat took over and nothing remains of that ancient domestication event.

Jean-Denis Vigne et al., Earliest “Domestic” Cats in China Identified as Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis). PLoS ONE 2015. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147295]

Abstract

The ancestor of all modern domestic cats is the wildcat, Felis silvestris lybica, with archaeological evidence indicating it was domesticated as early as 10,000 years ago in South-West Asia. A recent study, however, claims that cat domestication also occurred in China some 5,000 years ago and involved the same wildcat ancestor (F. silvestris). The application of geometric morphometric analyses to ancient small felid bones from China dating between 5,500 to 4,900 BP, instead reveal these and other remains to be that of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis). These data clearly indicate that the origins of a human-cat ‘domestic’ relationship in Neolithic China began independently from South-West Asia and involved a different wild felid species altogether. The leopard cat’s ‘domestic’ status, however, appears to have been short-lived—its apparent subsequent replacement shown by the fact that today all domestic cats in China are genetically related to F. silvestris.

Archaeologists studying Monte Verde claim an age of 18 Ka BP and add some detail

Quickies

I'm going in this and upcoming short entries through my backlog. You are warned.

New archaeology from Monte Verde (Chile) suggests a date of 18 Ka BP (slightly older than the oldest known North American site) and also that it was a transiting site for highly mobile peoples and not a main base, as they were not using superior local lithics but bringing their own.

Tom D. Dillehay et al. New Archaeological Evidence for an Early Human Presence at Monte Verde, Chile. PLoS ONE 2015. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141923]

Abstract

Questions surrounding the chronology, place, and character of the initial human colonization of the Americas are a long-standing focus of debate. Interdisciplinary debate continues over the timing of entry, the rapidity and direction of dispersion, the variety of human responses to diverse habitats, the criteria for evaluating the validity of early sites, and the differences and similarities between colonization in North and South America. Despite recent advances in our understanding of these issues, archaeology still faces challenges in defining interdisciplinary research problems, assessing the reliability of the data, and applying new interpretative models. As the debates and challenges continue, new studies take place and previous research reexamined. Here we discuss recent exploratory excavation at and interdisciplinary data from the Monte Verde area in Chile to further our understanding of the first peopling of the Americas. New evidence of stone artifacts, faunal remains, and burned areas suggests discrete horizons of ephemeral human activity in a sandur plain setting radiocarbon and luminescence dated between at least ~18,500 and 14,500 cal BP. Based on multiple lines of evidence, including sedimentary proxies and artifact analysis, we present the probable anthropogenic origins and wider implications of this evidence. In a non-glacial cold climate environment of the south-central Andes, which is challenging for human occupation and for the preservation of hunter-gatherer sites, these horizons provide insight into an earlier context of late Pleistocene human behavior in northern Patagonia.

Notice that Monte Verde is quite towards the south and, in Ice Age contexts, it was a rather extreme environment, barely outside of the glaciers. I wonder what they looked for in such a remote place, even if they probably only went there in summer.

>100 Ka old tools found in Sulawesi

Quickies

Flake type tools dated to approx. 118,000 years ago have been found in Sulawesi (Indonesia). They imply that some species of human was making them but it is unclear which one. Homo floresiensis (alias The Hobbit) is maybe the first one that comes to mind but actually there are other possibilities: on one hand the significant H. heidelbergensis (alias Denisovan) admixture found in Australasian aboriginals would be consistent with its presence somewhere in SE Asia, Wallacea even, but another serious possibility is that they are in fact made by H. sapiens, whose presence in other parts of Asia soon after this date (or even before in the case of West Asia) is well known by now.

Alert Iruña-Veleia: quite apparent new destruction of archaeological evidence

Tonight I got a most undesirable alert: the controversial archaeological site of Iruña-Veleia, has been again excavated with heavy machinery, with the very possible intent of destroying key evidence.

For background see here, here, here, here, here and here.

The area affected by the destructive excavation by the partisan director Julio Núñez is exactly within the bounds of the exceptional graffiti findings area that triggered all the controversy (conservative linguists and historians didn't like what was found, as it challenged their "theories", so they organized an Inquisition of sorts to condemn, hide and even destroy the evidence). The following map published at Ama Ata, shows the original situation of the ancient house upon the intervention by the institutions:

In red: the area of exceptional findings (texts)

Judging on J.M. Elexpuru's photos, the whole sector has been dug and then recovered with new earth, what is totally not what archaeologists usually do, much less with such a hurry:

The visual survey of the discard pile shows at least one piece of sigilata pottery and a broken millstone, as well as a common fossil. This is surely just the tip of the iceberg, as nobody by the perpetrators know where the rest of the materials extracted went and what they may have included.

The most likely motivation for this excavation is the throughout destruction of archaeological material, which is potential evidence in the languishing judiciary case against the previous archaeological team, based on nothing but made-up accusations. Not a single piece of actual evidence has been put against them, while their right to defense has been infringed once and again, with pitiful, if not crony, actuations on the side of all involved institutions: a powerless judge, police lab that wash their hands, governments that act in the hiding, manipulating evidence while reporting to no one, researchers that produce junk reports, and then this replacement "archaeologist" who took part in the inquisitorial "expert commission".

Dozens of studies support the authenticity of the findings precisely in this spot, now under destruction. Not a single paper other than those created ad hoc (and belatedly) for the inquisitorial commission, most of them linguists' opinions with zero probatory weight, support the hypothesis of falsehood. However an institutional conspiracy seems determined to do their worst, after all who cares about ancient archaeology and historical truth? Not the masses obviously.

Main responsible persons (currently), according to Euskararen Jatorria.
Left: Department of Archaeology (EHU-UPV), middle: Regional Government of Araba, right: top directors of EHU-UPV.

To the list above we must add all those who took part or impelled the inquisitorial commission, notably linguists Joseba Lakarra and Joaquín Gorrochategui and the former Deputy of Culture Lorena López de Lacalle, whose continuous presence (along with her Opus Dei patron R. Larreina and her sister) in the recent electoral lists of supposedly leftist and pro-transparency EH Bildu coalition is most worrisome. 

More details in the blogs linked in-text (Spanish and Basque languages).

More evidence supporting very old colonization of Asia by H. sapiens

Quickies

Quite worth mentioning:

Wu Liu et al., The earliest unequivocally modern humans in southern China. Nature 2015. Pay per view → LINK [doi:10.1038/nature15696]

Abstract

The hominin record from southern Asia for the early Late Pleistocene epoch is scarce. Well-dated and well-preserved fossils older than ~45,000 years that can be unequivocally attributed to Homo sapiens are lacking1, 2, 3, 4. Here we present evidence from the newly excavated Fuyan Cave in Daoxian (southern China). This site has provided 47 human teeth dated to more than 80,000 years old, and with an inferred maximum age of 120,000 years. The morphological and metric assessment of this sample supports its unequivocal assignment to H. sapiens. The Daoxian sample is more derived than any other anatomically modern humans, resembling middle-to-late Late Pleistocene specimens and even contemporary humans. Our study shows that fully modern morphologies were present in southern China 30,000–70,000 years earlier than in the Levant and Europe. Our data fill a chronological and geographical gap that is relevant for understanding when H. sapiens first appeared in southern Asia. The Daoxian teeth also support the hypothesis that during the same period, southern China was inhabited by more derived populations than central and northern China. This evidence is important for the study of dispersal routes of modern humans. Finally, our results are relevant to exploring the reasons for the relatively late entry of H. sapiens into Europe. Some studies have investigated how the competition with H. sapiens may have caused Neanderthals’ extinction (see ref. 8 and references therein). Notably, although fully modern humans were already present in southern China at least as early as ~80,000 years ago, there is no evidence that they entered Europe before ~45,000 years ago. This could indicate that H. neanderthalensis was indeed an additional ecological barrier for modern humans, who could only enter Europe when the demise of Neanderthals had already started.

When asked in private correspondence earlier today what did I think of this, I replied that María Martinón (second listed author) is a top expert in tooth morphology and that, if she says they are unmistakably H. sapiens, I have to believe it. 

I also replied a bit more extensively that this should be no surprise, that evidence in favor of a c. 100 Ka BP migration of H. sapiens into South and Southeast Asia has been piling up for some time already. Some of the most important pieces of evidence are the Zhirendong jaw (also from Southern China, dated to c. 100 Ka BP) and the African-like Katoati toolkits (NW India, dated to c. 96 Ka BP). These dates are roughly coincident with the end of the Abbassia Pluvial (c. 125-90 Ka BP), which is in turn coincident with the period of evidence for earliest H. sapiens presence in Arabia and Palestine. 

In other words, our ancestors crossed into Arabia and Palestine (and maybe other less well documented nearby regions of West Asia) around 125 millennia ago (with a second wave c. 90 Ka ago). The Neanderthal admixture episode probably happened soon after. Then they moved to South and SE Asia, quite possibly pressed by growingly arid conditions in Arabia, and this second migration took place around 100 millennia ago (earlier is not yet supported but can't be fully discarded). 

All this has major implications for molecular clock calibration, of course: mtDNA L3 should be c. 125 Ka old and M some 100 Ka old, similarly Y-DNA CF should be around 100 Ka old as well. This is the kind of stuff that makes genetics-oriented people skeptic but the molecular clock is a mere educated hunch, while the archaeological data is serious evidence that cannot be ignored.

Which is the correct date for the beginning of the SE Asian Bronze Age

Quickies

According to this new study of Thai sites, the SE Asian Bronze Age, whose dating has been controversial, began probably in the late 2nd millennium BCE and not before.

Charles F.W. Higham et al., A New Chronology for the Bronze Age of Northeastern Thailand and Its Implications for Southeast Asian Prehistory. PLoS ONE 2015. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137542]

Abstract

There are two models for the origins and timing of the Bronze Age in Southeast Asia. The first centres on the sites of Ban Chiang and Non Nok Tha in Northeast Thailand. It places the first evidence for bronze technology in about 2000 B.C., and identifies the origin by means of direct contact with specialists of the Seima Turbino metallurgical tradition of Central Eurasia. The second is based on the site of Ban Non Wat, 280 km southwest of Ban Chiang, where extensive radiocarbon dating places the transition into the Bronze Age in the 11th century B.C. with likely origins in a southward expansion of technological expertise rooted in the early states of the Yellow and Yangtze valleys, China. We have redated Ban Chiang and Non Nok Tha, as well as the sites of Ban Na Di and Ban Lum Khao, and here present 105 radiocarbon determinations that strongly support the latter model. The statistical analysis of the results using a Bayesian approach allows us to examine the data at a regional level, elucidate the timing of arrival of copper base technology in Southeast Asia and consider its social impact.

Fig 8. Bayesian probability functions (PDFs) for the beginning of the Bronze Age in Thailand.

Detailed analysis of South Iberian Solutrean

A new study has been published that reviews all the data on the Southern Iberian Solutrean, which (excepted probably Asturias) is a distinct autonomous facies relative to Franco-Cantabrian Solutrean.

João Cascalheira & Nuno Bicho, On the Chronological Structure of the Solutrean in Southern Iberia. PLoS ONE 2015. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137308]

Abstract

The Solutrean techno-complex has gained particular significance over time for representing a clear demographic and techno-typological deviation from the developments occurred during the course of the Upper Paleolithic in Western Europe. Some of Solutrean’s most relevant features are the diversity and techno-typological characteristics of the lithic armatures. These have been recurrently used as pivotal elements in numerous Solutrean-related debates, including the chronological organization of the techno-complex across Iberia and Southwestern France. In Southern Iberia, patterns of presence and/or absence of specific point types in stratified sequences tend to validate the classical ordering of the techno-complex into Lower, Middle and Upper phases, although some evidence, namely radiocarbon determinations, have not always been corroborative. Here we present the first comprehensive analysis of the currently available radiocarbon data for the Solutrean in Southern Iberia. We use a Bayesian statistical approach from 13 stratified sequences to compare the duration, and the start and end moments of each classic Solutrean phase across sites. We conclude that, based on the current data, the traditional organization of the Solutrean cannot be unquestionably confirmed for Southern Iberia, calling into doubt the status of the classically-defined type-fossils as precise temporal markers.

Mallaetes, but not nearby Parpalló, is confirmed as one of the oldest sites of the Southern Iberian Solutrean, but has to share the honor with Nerja and La Boja. In general this would support the old idea of rapid expansion from Southern France (Dordogne is slightly older for this culture than the oldest Iberian sites) along the Eastern Mediterranean coast, mimicking what happened before with Aurignacian and Gravettian and what would happen later with Magdalenian and Epipaleolithic cultures of Magdalenian derivation. 

The ulterior evolution is rather fast and does not fit too well the French chronology: Middle Solutrean is short-lasting (mostly affecting Central Portugal) and almost overlaps with Upper Solutrean (oldest in Southern Portugal) and Gravetto-Solutrean (oldest in El Bajoncillo, an inland site not involved in the previous phases). 

All the new phases do impact the core site of Mallaetes, which seems to be well connected.

Fig 5. Time slices for Southern Iberia between 26 and 20 ka cal BP showing the distribution of modelled ages of the classical Solutrean phases.

The size of the dots represents increasing and decreasing levels of the 95.4% probability ranges determined from the duration (date range) of each phase, as calculated by individual Bayesian site models (see Appendix A in S1 File). Dots with two colors indicate overlapping date range probabilities for two or more phases found at the same site.

The authors underline that:

Two clear tendencies can be outlined related to the distribution patterns of the Lower Solutrean and Solutreo-Gravettian type assemblages. In fact, these two components seem to be restricted to the Mediterranean region and totally absent from the Atlantic facade.

They conclude that:

... the main impacts of our analysis on the current knowledge of the LGM adaptations in Southern Iberia can be summarized as follow:

1. The call into doubt of the status of the traditionally-defined type-fossils as precise temporal markers for each Solutrean phase in Southern Iberia;
2. The confirmation of the presence of tanged “Parpalló-type” points at a much earlier time (c. 25 ka cal BP) than previously thought;
3. The potential contemporaneity at a very early moment (c. 25 ka cal BP) of the so-called Middle and Upper Solutrean/Solutreo-Gravettian phases (and thus should preferably be called facies)
4. The likely organization, from a broad chrono-cultural point of view, of the adaptive systems surrounding the LGM event in just two discrete contiguous entities, known as the Proto-Solutrean and the Solutrean.

Some further context (my elaboration)

The Iberian Solutrean (roughly coincident with the Last Glacial Maximum) was the most populous period of the Upper Paleolithic in that province, at least according to the research of Bocquet-Appel. 

It was maybe even more important for North Africa (Iberomaurusian culture), something not discussed in this study but that I am conscious interests many readers, as well as myself. For this reason I checked for a good reference on oldest calibrated dates for Taforalt's Iberomaurusian (alias Oranian) and found this 2013 study that states that it is as old as at least 21,160 Cal BP. 

That would correspond with the fifth map (22-21 Ka cal BP), in which we see an increase of the closest site to North Africa: Gorham's Cave. It would be indeed interesting if someone compared the specifics of Upper Solutrean and that cave with Taforalt, which is by all accounts the oldest Iberomaurusian site. 

The Iberomaurusian genesis, the first known Upper Paleolithic of NW Africa, surely carried a still very apparent Iberian-like genetic signature to across the strait, notably mtDNA haplogroups H1, H3, H4 and H7, and also maybe V. The H subclades were claimed to have an unmistakable Iberian origin by Cherni 2008, while the distribution of the H subhaplogroups in the region was researched by Enafaa & Cabrera 2009. Comparison with Álvarez-Iglesias 2009 suggests that H7 should rather be French than Iberian by origin however, as it is rare in the peninsula. It could still be a Solutrean founder effect anyhow. 

Another possible founder effect of this Paleolithic trans-Mediterranean connection might be mtDNA U6. This lineage has a most likely origin in Northern Morocco but also has a lot of basal diversity across the strait in Iberia. However it could also represent a, so far archaeologically invisible, Aurignacoid migration via NE Africa with re-expansion to Iberia (and also in North Africa) in this period maybe. This could also explain its apparent connection with Y-DNA E1b-M81, which seems very old in NW Africa and is distributed in a similar way to U6 in the Iberian Peninsula and Europe in general.

Revising the Aegean Neolithic genesis

Marnie's blog points today to a very interesting review of the Early Neolithic Aegean. It is from a few years ago and hence totally oblivious to the archaeogenetic information that we are now familiar with. It is however surprisingly consistent with it.

Agathe Reingruber. Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean. Documenta Prehistorica XXXVIII, 2011. Freely accessible PDF → LINK [doi:10.4312/dp.38.23]

ABSTRACT – The Neolithisation process is one of the major issues under debate in Aegean archaeology, since the description of the basal layers of Thessalian tell-settlements some fifty years ago. The pottery, figurines or stamps seemed to be of Anatolian origin, and were presumably brought to the region by colonists. The direct linking of the so-called ‘Neolithic Package’ with groups of people leaving Central Anatolia after the collapse of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B resulted in the colonisation model of the Aegean. This view is not supported by results obtained from natural sciences such as archaeobotany, radiocarbon analyses, and neutron activation on obsidian. When theories of social networks are brought into the discussion, the picture that emerges becomes much more differentiated and complex.

Fig. 9. First appearance of Neolithic sites in the Aegean.

The overall picture that the author defends, which needs of course not to be the last word but is indeed interesting and well argued, is that of a relatively gradual transition from Epipaleolithic to Neolithic via maritime influxes, which obviously imply partial colonization but quite apparently assimilation of at least some of the pre-existent hunter-gatherer peoples in Greece (no evidence so far of Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic in West Anatolia).

The oldest sites are in the Southern Aegean, with Crete and the Lake District, and date to the first half of the 7th millennium. They are followed by the Central Aegean sites in Thessaly and Western Anatolia, while the youngest sites were founded at the end of the 7th millennium in the Northern Aegean (Fig. 9). Astonishingly, in the Argolid, where there was a strong Mesolithic presence, long-lasting settlements appear comparatively late, around 6000 BC. The islands, as well as Crete, were (re)inhabited continuously only after 5500 BC.

After a detailed examination of both the material culture and 14C dates, the model of a wave of colonisation sweeping over the Aegean as a whole must be rejected: that is, sites appear there at different stages in different landscapes.

The author then argues that only Knossos (Crete), Argissa and Sesklo (Thessaly), Ulucak (West Anatolia) and Bademagacı (Lakes Region of SW Anatolia) remain as well dated Early Neolithic I sites in the whole region. Addint that: "interestingly, the sites in the Lake District are older the closer they lay to the sea", possibly supporting a coastal migration model. 

Therefore, the modelled 14C dates do not support the idea of direct colonisation from Central Anatolia, but testify to a marine-oriented population living in this area in the transition to the EN I.

Reingruber argues for Aegean networks originally dating to the Epipaleolithic (aka Mesolithic) and at least partial continuity from those pre-Neolithic peoples, something that would seem supported by the most up-to-date ancient genetic data, which suggests around 50% Paleo-European ancestry, possibly from the Balcans, in the "purest" early european farmers (EEF) such as samples from LBK or Starcevo, even before additional admixture happened towards the West.

With this concept of regional and supra-regional networks based on the mobility of prehistoric people I do not argue in favour an exclusively autochthonous Neolithisation model. The input of the Anatolian/Near Eastern way of life in the Aegean is obvious. Many of the products and also the items used in symbolic activities were of Anatolian origin. Nevertheless, as has been shown, the Aegean ‘Bauplan’ displayed other priorities, the material culture differing from region to region. What I wish to stress is interaction based on face-to-face contact, on integration and social competence. Also a precise examination of the 14C dates argue against a demic movement ignited by a catastrophe at the end of the PPNB (compare also Thissen 2010.278).

Worth very much a full read anyhow. I just can provide here a glimpse after all.

Pondering the Middle Paleolithic of South Africa

Quantity over quality series.

Sylvain Soriano et al. The Still Bay and Howiesons Poort at Sibudu and Blombos: Understanding Middle Stone Age Technologies. PLoS ONE 2015. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131127]

Abstract

The classification of archaeological assemblages in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa in terms of diversity and temporal continuity has significant implications with respect to recent cultural evolutionary models which propose either gradual accumulation or discontinuous, episodic processes for the emergence and diffusion of cultural traits. We present the results of a systematic technological and typological analysis of the Still Bay assemblages from Sibudu and Blombos. A similar approach is used in the analysis of the Howiesons Poort (HP) assemblages from Sibudu seen in comparison with broadly contemporaneous assemblages from Rose Cottage and Klasies River Cave 1A. Using our own and published data from other sites we report on the diversity between stone artifact assemblages and discuss to what extent they can be grouped into homogeneous lithic sets. The gradual evolution of debitage techniques within the Howiesons Poort sequence with a progressive abandonment of the HP technological style argues against the saltational model for its disappearance while the technological differences between the Sibudu and Blombos Still Bay artifacts considerably weaken an interpretation of similarities between the assemblages and their grouping into the same cultural unit. Limited sampling of a fragmented record may explain why simple models of cultural evolution do not seem to apply to a complex reality.

Large monolith found underwater near Pantellaria (Sicily)

A large human-made monolith has been discovered underwater in the Pantellaria shoal, submerged since the end of the Ice Age.

E. Lodolo & Z. Ben-Avraham. A submerged monolith in the Sicilian Channel (central Mediterranean Sea): Evidence for Mesolithic human activity. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2015. Freely accessible → LINK [doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.07.003]

Other source: Pileta de Prehistoria. 

While it is hard to argue that the monolith is not man-made, as it has three holes of the same size in non-random positions, I would take with a pinch of salt the claim that the would-be standing stone or menhir has been there since the 10th millennium BCE, when the shoal was flooded by seawater. 

Instead I would consider the following scenarios as plausible:

1. The land could have been at higher absolute altitude in the past and sunk because of local techtonics. It is, we must not forget, a very active geological area.
2. The monolith could have just sunk when being transported on a ship of some sort between islands. The ship, made of wood and ropes would leave no obvious trace.

So I'd rather imagine the stone to have been produced in the Chalcolithic Megalithic context that has some relevance in the area, very especially the fascinating case of Maltese Megalithism, which spans between 3600 and 700 BCE.

Iruña-Veleia documentary (English subtitles)

Found at Ama Ata:

There is another version with Italian subtitles. 

See also:

• Category Iruña-Veleia in this blog
• SOS Iruña-Veleia (dedicated site and association)
• Ama Ata (dedicated blog, usually in Spanish or Basque)

South Asian first Neolithic and its relation with West Asia

Informative compilation of dates for West and South Asian Neolithic sites.

Kavita Kangal et al., The Near-Eastern Roots of the Neolithic in South Asia. PLoS ONE 2014. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095714]

Abstract

The Fertile Crescent in the Near East is one of the independent origins of the Neolithic, the source from which farming and pottery-making spread across Europe from 9,000 to 6,000 years ago at an average rate of about 1 km/yr. There is also strong evidence for causal connections between the Near-Eastern Neolithic and that further east, up to the Indus Valley. The Neolithic in South Asia has been far less explored than its European counterpart, especially in terms of absolute (¹⁴C) dating; hence, there were no previous attempts to assess quantitatively its spread in Asia. We combine the available ¹⁴C data with the archaeological evidence for early Neolithic sites in South Asia to analyze the spatio-temporal continuity of the Neolithic dispersal from the Near East through the Middle East and to the Indian subcontinent. We reveal an approximately linear dependence between the age and the geodesic distance from the Near East, suggesting a systematic (but not necessarily uniform) spread at an average speed of about 0.65 km/yr.

We must be warned that the study dwells on statistical data, mostly ¹⁴C and other archaeological dates and not in pottery typology and such. So there are probably a lot of nuances to be added to what the authors conclude. However the study is a major effort to systematize West and South Asian Neolithic dates (details in the extensive supplementary materials) and that must be acknowledged as very useful on its own.

Fig. 2 synthesizes the findings of this study:

Figure 2. A linear envelope fit to the data using the weighted dates yields the average Neolithic dispersal speed km/yr.

The filled circles (red) and triangles (magenta) show the archaeologically dated sites from Iran and the Indus valley Civilization, respectively; filled circles (black) and open triangles represent sites with multiple and single ¹⁴C dates, respectively.

[Note: Gesher is one of the earliest PPNA sites, located in Northern Palestine].

The graph is a bit misleading because there are places in South Asia with ¹⁴C dates older than the apparent 7000 BP baseline (see Appendix in the study). Ayakagytma has several dates nearing 6000 BCE (i.e. ~8000 BP), while Merhgar is dated to as early as 8520 BCE (~10,500 BP), which overlaps the oldest sites of West Asia. These oldest Neolithic sites of South Asia are hardly recognizable in the graph, as they are shown as mere dots, whose only distinction is that they are ~3000 km away from Gesher. I had to investigate the Appendix to spot them.

The Merhgar ¹⁴C date is just one but it does not seem the authors felt compelled to discard it for any reason, so it should stand in principle.

Actually, rather than explain South Asian Neolithic as West Asian derived, the data in this study only offers an interesting overview of the dates but as such demonstrates nothing. Actually, if, as they argue, we are to consider always the oldest regional date (unless unreliable), then the expansion of Neolithic to South Asia was very fast. What was rather slow was its expansion within West Asia apparently.

Said that, there are many reasons to think that there was at least an important West Asian contribution to South Asian Neolithic, if nothing else because of the important presence of several important Western Y-DNA lineages (R1a, J), which seem somehow related to Neolithic spread, as well as the so-called "ANI" component, of clear West Asian affinity. Also many crops and animals were obviously imported from West Asia.

In this regard, a reader pointed to me weeks ago to a study that claims that sheep were independently domesticated in South Asia. However I found their conclusions far fetched so I never discussed it... until now.

Sachin Singh et al., Extensive Variation and Sub-Structuring in Lineage A mtDNA in Indian Sheep: Genetic Evidence for Domestication of Sheep in India. PLoS ONE 2013. Open access → LINK [doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077858]

What this study did find is a very specific founder effect of sheep lineages in India. However this cannot be accepted to be caused by an independent domestication but rather looks like a founder effect after domestication, which almost certainly owes to West Asia, where the ancestors of domestic sheep lives.

Figure 3. Neighbor-joining tree of domestic sheep based on 432 bp of control region mtDNA.
(A) Neighbor-joining tree of mtDNA sequences of Indian sheep (330) along with representative samples of five lineages (▲), namely; A, B, C, D & E. Indian sheep show three lineages, namely; A, B and C. (B) Neighbor-joining tree of mtDNA sequences of the Indian (330), Chinese (129), Central Asian, Caucasian and European (406), Portuguese (161), and West Balkan (60), sheep along with representative samples of five lineages (▲), namely; A, B, C, D & E . The sequences of wild Ovis species have been used as outgroups. MEGA 5 version 5.0.1.102 was used to construct the trees using Tamura-Nei model with 10,000 bootstrap. Numbers above a given branch represent bootstrap support for the branch as a percentage out of 10,000 re samplings.

Notice please how the root of the tree is at the bottom, where the various wild species of sheep are listed by their names. So the dominance of lineage A in South Asia surely owes to a founder effect and not local domestication.

Amesbury has Epipaleolithic roots

Old map of Avesbury and the nearby hillfort

Recent field work at the town of Amesbury, specifically in Blink Meadow, has resulted in it being proclaimed in the media as "the oldest town in Britain". What it really means is that the site was occupied and had ritual significance before the Neolithic, since c. 8820 BP.

A possible reason for the magnetism of this location is that a nearby spring has the "magical" effect of turning some types of flint to a bright pink or fuchsia color. This is caused by certain algae but it must have appeared miraculous to ancient peoples. 

The district now proclaimed oldest continuously inhabited town in Britain has a large complex of ritual sites dating to the Chalcolithic period ("Neolithic" in British archaeo-slang).

It also includes a large Iron Age hillfort of unusual shape, inadequately named as "Vespasian's Camp". This fort which continued in use in the Roman period is suspected by many to be the real Camelot.

Pink colored flint pieces from Amesbury

Sources and more details: The Archaeology News Network, Express.

British Chalcolithic? Indeed!

As you may know, in the continent we don't even bother anymore about copper or basic metallurgy to define the Chalcolithic (Copper and Stone Age). Much as happened with the concept of Neolithic, which initially meant polished stone tools, but ended up being all about farming and herding, the term Chalcolithic has evolved to mean an advanced and rather sophisticated form of Neolithic with long distance trade and growing social stratification, occasionally even the first civilizations. Not always copper is present and nobody really cares. 

But Britain is different: there they call the Chalcolithic "Late Neolithic". Why? Apparently because no copper artifacts have been found and they see no reason to establish correlation with continental Europe. So what in the mainland is Copper Age (with or without metallurgy) in the islands it is just more "Neolithic", no matter it is about the same thing.

However now thanks to the effort of an archaeological team led by Dr. George Nash, Britain may end up finally having to mold to the continental way. Because there is at least some copper in the "Late Neolithic" of the big island. 

This tiny piece of copper may change the name of an era

It is tiny, it is of unknown function (part of a bead?) but it is from a British (specifically Welsh) Chalcolithic ("Late Neolithic") site. And crucially it is copper, wow!

The site was described by Dr. Nash as the least known Neolithic chambered tomb, maybe just until now, and goes by the name of Perthi Duon (Anglesey).

The British confusion with all these categories is astonishing. Our source "explains" to their readers:

The Copper Age followed the Neolithic Era and is considered a part of  the Bronze Age. The period is  defined as a phase of the Bronze Age  in which metallurgists had not yet  discovered that bronze could be  made by adding tin to copper.

Well, no: the Chalcolithic or Copper Age is not part of the Bronze Age. The Bronze Age begins with bronze, what implies quite a greater mastery of metallurgic techniques, techniques that allow for the first time to replace stone tools and weapons with something else. Copper Age is about fashion (shiny but rather useless things) and not just about copper but also gold and silver metallurgy - among other quite more interesting things, like the first international trade networks, megaliths, fortified towns and almost certainly the first states worth that name. 

Copper Age is about the beginnings of civilization. The Incas for example were in the Copper Age when Pizarro ruined their day with steel, gunpowder and treachery. 

Bronze is about swords, spears and axes, much like Iron after it. 

Not that there was no conflict in the Chalcolithic but it was fought with stone weapons, regardless that they made shiny copper (or semi-precious stone) imitations for some burials.

That clarified, they continue with more meaningful stuff:

While a Copper Age has long been recognised in Europe, the question of whether Britain experienced such  a period is still debated by archaeologists.

Dr Nash said: “The big question in  archaeology at the moment is  whether there was a Copper Age in  Britain.

“Did copper come to Britain before bronze?

“This discovery helps to suggest  that we did have a Copper Age.”

The question, as I see it, is not if there was a Copper Age but if there was copper in that Copper and Stone Age, what is not really that important in itself.

For me there is certainly a British Chalcolithic largely defined by the erection of Stonehenge and many other similar monuments and all what they imply in the wider context of European Megalithism and later the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Of course it is not a clear cut definition but it is not either dependent on the mere presence of copper. Similarly, for contextual and continuity reasons, it is not likely that the Balcanic Chalcolithic will be redefined as Bronze Age any time soon just because widespread bronze metallurgy (tin bronze not that arsenic ersatz thing!) has been recently discovered.

Context does matter and Britain is not outside the wider European context at all. 

Source: Daily Post.

Polished axes in Australia are 35-30,000 years old

There was a time when "Neolithic" meant age of the polished stone. Not anymore thankfully. Otherwise we would have to write here that "Neolithic" began in Australia 25,000 years before anywhere else. But of course what began so early was the art of making polished stone tools, not farming.

Windjana polished axe fragment

From Science Network (excerpts):

Purposely sharpened or ‘retouched’ stone axes evolved in Australia thousands of years before they appeared in Europe according to researchers studying the south-east Asian archaeological record.

They found 30,000-year-old flakes from ground-edged axes at a site near Windjana Gorge in the central Kimberley.

“The suggestion that all innovation has to come from the Old World is not true because clearly ground-stone axes were created here,” Prof Balme says.

She notes that they were also made in Japan at a slightly later date, by people who would have had no contact with either Australian Aborigines or people in Africa and Europe.

Actually as, David at Prehistoria al Día[es] explains, the Japanese dates are not really more recent, ranging between 34,000 and 38,500 years BP.

Semi-polished edges at tool (scrapper?) from Arnhem Land

Japanese polished axes/adzes

He also includes a most interesting documentary in two videos on how modern Papuans make and use their polished axes (narration in French):

Iberian Chalcolithic: Perdigões ditch enclosure seen in its temporal context

The Perdigões Research Program blog mentions a new study where the structure is dissected through time, revealing it as a meeting area (with whatever ritual implications) for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic peoples of that area of the Alentejo near the Guadiana river.

A.C. Valera, A.M. Silva & J.E. Martínez Romero, THE TEMPORALITY OF PERDIGÕES ENCLOSURES: ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL PRACTICES. SPAL Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología, nº23, 2014. Freely accessible → LINK [doi:10.12795/spal.2014i23.01]

Abstract: Thirty five radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic ditched enclosure of Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz, Portugal) are presented. After a discussion of some of the problems of dating negative structures, a chronological sequence is presented for the ditch structures and for the social practices related to funerary behaviours and the manipulation of human remains. A clear Neolithic phase is identified, well separated chronologically from the Chalcolithic one. The possibility of the gradual and eventually interrupted development of the site, is discussed. Funerary contexts and the manipulation of human remains are present from the earliest phase of the site, but the practices became significantly diverse during the 3rd millennium by the end of which the site seems to decay and significant activity seems to stop. 

Fig. 5 (red highlights are mine)

To the right we can see fig. 5 of the paper ("Representation of the actual understanding of the chronological development of Perdigões"), just that I have highlighted with red paint the elements known to be active in each period, because I felt that black vs grey was not visible enough. 

Regarding the cromlech (stone ring, represented as a circle to the right), lead author Antonio Valera commented at the Perdigões Research Program blog that they are not yet 100% certain of its age, although he does believe it is from the earliest context. That's what I marked it with a dotted line instead of a continuous one.

This cromlech was one of the items that interested me the most because in other contexts, as happens with Pyrenean ones, they are historically known in some cases to have been reference sites for community meetings (the local constituent power), but here they are from the Iron Age. 

It is notable that, in the historical cases from the Pyrenees, the meetings did not take place inside the cromlechs themselves (usually too small and occasionally burial sites) but near them. Similarly in this case of Perdigões the meeting (and possibly ritual) area defined by the ditches is located by the cromlech, west of it specifically. 

Later on two tholoi (beehive tombs, typical of Chalcolithic South Iberia) were built near the cromlech, being eventually enclosed by the last and largest ditch.

The chronological pattern also suggests the idea of growth: if the structure was being made bigger and bigger, it seems logical to think that it was because the community using it was also growing, what should not be any surprise. 

The site was abandoned at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. At that time SW Iberia was experiencing significant changes with the abandonment of urban centers and other traditions like these Megalithic ones, and being replaced by a sequence of (seemingly intrusive) Bronze Age "horizons" dominated by burials in cist with a triangular bronze knife as most characteristic grave good and occasional "grabsystem" tombs, probably of princely character. These Bronze Age "horizons" expanded from the Algarve to the North and Northeast up to approximately the Tagus river at their apogee, being maybe ancestral to the mysterious Tartessian language, which spanned approximately the same area in the Iron Age.