|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2019 17:43:54 GMT
For decades, archaeologists have exhumed ancient remains at megalithic sites, from Carnac in the Brittany region of France to Sweden’s Ale’s Stones. In recent years, researchers have managed to coax mitochondrial DNA from some skeletons, revealing links down the female line that shed light—not on familial relations—but on early migration patterns. (Mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mothers to their children.) Recent improvements to DNA sequencing technology and statistical and collection methods have made it possible to sequence ancient nuclear DNA, which can also reveal relationships between male relations. Paleogenomicist Federico Sánchez-Quinto from Uppsala University in Sweden used these techniques on dozens of remains from four megalithic tombs in Ireland, Scotland, and Sweden that were first uncovered years ago. He and his team sequenced the nuclear genomes of those remains—most of which have been dated to between 4500 B.C.E. and 3000 B.C.E. The remains represented 18 men and six women. When the researchers looked for strings of genetic code that would indicate how closely the buried individuals were related, they found close kinships among men at the Scottish and Swedish sites. And at one of two Irish sites, Primrose Grange on the country’s northwestern coast, at least six of the nine men, who spanned up to 12 generations, shared a genetic variant, suggesting they descended from the same paternal line. One man is likely the father of a 5500-year-old body found at another megalithic site just 2 kilometers to the west. Some anthropologists think burial in these monumental sites was likely a mark of high social status. The authors argue that, taken together, those results suggest European megalithic societies at the time were patrilineal, with social power invested in the male line across multiple generations, they report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The findings are intriguing, says Thomas Kador, an archaeologist at University College London. He notes that even though men were more commonly interred in these sites, the women there seem to have been given identical burials. That suggests to him that even if these societies were patrilineal, women still played significant roles. Kador’s team has also done a separate genome-wide analysis of ancient individuals at a different megalithic site in Ireland and found a notable lack of close kinship among the buried. It’s possible that different megalithic societies on the island had very different social structures and funerary practices, he says.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 27, 2019 18:12:04 GMT
Paleogenomic and archaeological studies show that Neolithic lifeways spread from the Fertile Crescent into Europe around 9000 BCE, reaching northwestern Europe by 4000 BCE. Starting around 4500 BCE, a new phenomenon of constructing megalithic monuments, particularly for funerary practices, emerged along the Atlantic façade. While it has been suggested that the emergence of megaliths was associated with the territories of farming communities, the origin and social structure of the groups that erected them has remained largely unknown. We generated genome sequence data from human remains, corresponding to 24 individuals from five megalithic burial sites, encompassing the widespread tradition of megalithic construction in northern and western Europe, and analyzed our results in relation to the existing European paleogenomic data. The various individuals buried in megaliths show genetic affinities with local farming groups within their different chronological contexts. Individuals buried in megaliths display (past) admixture with local hunter-gatherers, similar to that seen in other Neolithic individuals in Europe. In relation to the tomb populations, we find significantly more males than females buried in the megaliths of the British Isles. The genetic data show close kin relationships among the individuals buried within the megaliths, and for the Irish megaliths, we found a kin relation between individuals buried in different megaliths. We also see paternal continuity through time, including the same Y-chromosome haplotypes reoccurring. These observations suggest that the investigated funerary monuments were associated with patrilineal kindred groups. Our genomic investigation provides insight into the people associated with this long-standing megalith funerary tradition, including their social dynamics. Fig. 1. Map of Europe with megalithic burial sites (red squares) and nonmegalithic sites (red circles) from this study, and comparative published data from megalithic sites (black squares) sequenced to date in Europe (Dataset S1.3). The date range represents the 95% CI of available samples from these sites, except for La Mina in Spain. Blue shading represents the estimated distribution of early megalithic burials. Bold italic type indicates dates (95% CI) estimated for the start of dolmens and passage grave monuments, based on samples from these contexts. Regular text indicates time interval associated with the earliest cultural material in the megaliths (27, 45). Investigations of the genetic relationships among humans from multiple Neolithic sites across western Eurasia have shown that Neolithic lifeways dispersed across Europe via a large-scale process of migration (1⇓⇓⇓⇓–6) starting from Anatolia and the areas of the Aegean at ca. 7000–6500 (cal) BCE (7⇓⇓–10). In Europe, migrating people and Neolithic lifeways dispersed along two main routes: an inland route (partly along the Danube River) and a route along Mediterranean coastal areas (11⇓–13). Around 4000 BCE, Neolithic farming communities reached the northwestern fringes of Europe, including the British Isles (14, 15) and Scandinavia (1, 2, 16, 17). A marked hunter-gatherer (HG) admixture has been observed in the later farmer groups compared with the Early Neolithic farmers on the continent (2, 10, 12). During this period of important social and demographic change, a new phenomenon of constructing megalithic monuments emerged, starting around 4500 BCE in France (18), 3700 BCE in the British Isles (14, 19⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–26), and 3600 in Scandinavia (16, 27). These Neolithic megalithic tombs are concentrated along the Atlantic coastal areas, stretching from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia, including the British Isles and regions in the northern European plain (28), but also in southern France, northern Italy, and on the Islands of Corsica and Sardinia (Fig. 1) (19, 27). The emergence of these megaliths was closely associated with the development of farming communities (14, 23, 25, 27, 29), but the origin and the social structure of the groups are largely unknown. The similarities in the construction and design of some types of megaliths (i.e., dolmens and passage graves) from Iberia to southern Scandinavia, Britain, and Ireland is compelling. Interregional interaction has been evidenced in the same period from the dispersal of domesticated resources, raw materials, and artifacts, possibly reflecting shared social and cultural systems as well as shared cosmology of the groups (21, 27, 28, 30). Although it is clear that many megaliths were used for collective burials (27, 29, 31), it has been difficult to evaluate which members of the communities were buried in the tombs. Some assemblages include males, females, juveniles, and children, implying familial burials. Many tombs have poorly preserved human remains and also show secondary usage in later times, complicating assessments. The use of megaliths as burial grounds for the community as a whole would imply some level of shared ideology over vast geographical areas (31, 32). However, it has also been argued that the monumental burials and associated rich material culture reflect the emergence of social differentiation or stratification (33⇓⇓–36; see ref. 37 on segmentally structured societies), with the monuments perhaps symbolizing status and territorial markers (37⇓⇓–40). Some scholars hypothesize that the people buried in the megalithic structures were kin related (41⇓–43). Analyses of mitochondrial data (mtDNA) from megalithic burials at Falbygden and Gotland in modern-day Sweden have revealed a large lineage variation, and thus the groups did not seem to have been organized matrilineally (44, 45; however, contra ref. 43). Genomic data are necessary to provide deeper information on kin relations and the social dynamics and general social structure of the societies or groups. However, as genomic data have been available from only a few individuals from megalithic burials, the origin and dispersal dynamics of the funerary practices, as well as the population history of the people that used the burial constructions, have also remained uncertain. In the present study, we investigated the genetic structure and demographic affinities of people buried within megaliths to shed light on this burial phenomenon, the social dynamics of the people buried in the monuments, and their demographic history. We generated and examined genome sequence data from 24 individuals from five megalith burial sites located in Ireland, the Orkney Isles, and the Island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea dated between ca. 3800 and 2600 cal BCE encompassing wide-ranging examples from the megalithic tradition in northern Europe. The study also incorporated three individuals from nonmegalith contexts from mainland Scotland (3370–3100 cal BCE) and the Czech Republic (4825–4555 cal BCE) (Table 1).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 28, 2019 18:29:14 GMT
We present genome data from 27 individuals excavated from European Neolithic contexts, of whom 24 were buried in megaliths; Primrose Grange (n = 11) and Carrowmore (n = 1) in Ireland; Lairo (n = 1) and Midhowe (n = 2) in the Orkney Islands, Scotland; and Ansarve (n = 9) in the island of Gotland, Sweden (16, 45, 46) (Table 1 and SI Appendix, section S2). Individuals from the Scottish “short cist” burial Balintore (n = 1) and the Czech Republic Kolin Rondel site (n = 2) (46), associated with the Stroked Pottery culture, were also investigated. These individuals were all radiocarbon-dated to between 4825 and 2580 cal BCE (Table 1). We compared our data with genetic data previously generated from 36 individuals from 16 megalithic sites (Fig. 1 and Dataset S1.3), as well as with farmer groups of nonmegalithic contexts (Dataset S1.3), to investigate the population history of people buried in megaliths. The individuals buried in these megaliths from the British Isles and Scandinavia show an ancestry similar to other contemporaneous farmer groups (Fig. 2A), with a majority of their ancestry related to early Neolithic farmers and a partial admixture component related to European Mesolithic HGs (Fig. 2B) (1, 2, 5⇓–7, 10, 16, 46). Fig. 2. (A) PCA of 429 present-day west Europeans (gray dots) with previously published Western HG (WHGs), Atlantic coast and Central European Neolithic farmer samples (filled symbols), and the samples from the present study (shaded symbols) projected onto the first two principal components (more details in SI Appendix, Section S11.1). (B) Inferred ancestry components (assuming seven clusters) of ancient individuals (Methods and SI Appendix, Section S11.2). All individuals to the left of Yoruba are prehistoric individuals, all of which are shotgun-sequenced unless marked with “CP” for SNP capture data. In the label names, the following letters indicate an archaeological context: CA, Chalcolithic; EN, Early Neolithic; N, Neolithic; MN, Middle Neolithic; LN, Late Neolithic. The LN individuals from Portugal come from different sites (key provided in Dataset S1.3). To further explore the demographic history of the individuals buried in the megaliths, we investigated the genetic affinities among sets of individuals and groups, using an f3 outgroup test for groups of individuals buried in megalithic or nonmegalithic contexts, as well as between individuals from Atlantic coastal and inland Neolithic sites (SI Appendix, section S11.3 and Fig. S19). These analyses showed genetic associations between individuals from the same/similar geographic region and time period (Fig. 2A and SI Appendix, Figs. S16 and S17). However, some tests (SI Appendix, Fig. S19) indicated similar trends as shown in our principal component analysis (PCA) and previous studies (5, 11, 15, 47, 48) and suggested a demic connection among western European Neolithic groups to the exclusion of central European Neolithic groups, as well as a connection between the British Isles and Iberian groups (SI Appendix, section S11.4 and Figs. S20–S22). These results were not driven by greater levels of HG ancestry among the populations at the fringes of the Neolithic expansion (11, 12, 15, 16) (SI Appendix, section S11.4). Interestingly, we also found a significant farmer-specific genetic affinity between the British Isles Neolithic populations and the Scandinavian populations (Ansarve and Gökhem; Fig. 1) to the exclusion of central European farmers (SI Appendix, Figs. S21 and S22). This observation is compatible with a further migration of farming groups along the European Atlantic coast, as has been suggested by the archaeological record (21, 49, 50). We found greater macrohaplogroup mtDNA diversity than Y-chromosomal (YDNA) diversity. Whereas mtDNA lineages from megalith burials harbor haplogroups K, H, HV, V, U5b, T, and J (among others), males from megalith burials belong almost exclusively to YDNA haplogroup I, more specifically to the I2a sublineage, which has a time to most recent common ancestor of ∼15000 BCE (51). This pattern of uniparental marker diversity is found not only among individuals buried in megaliths, but also in other farmer groups from the fourth millennium BCE, which display similar patterns of uniparental marker diversity (SI Appendix, Figs. S6 and S23) (10, 15, 48, 52). Some mtDNA lineages appear to be overrepresented at megalithic sites, with information from more than six individuals, including Primrose (n = 11; K1a+195 and K1a4a1 at 36% and 18% frequency, respectively), Ansarve (n = 9; J1c5 and K2b1a at ∼20% frequency), and Isbister (n = 10; K1a+195 at 20% frequency). Males from the present study belonged to YDNA haplogroup I, and those who could be resolved beyond this level were characterized as belonging to the I2a2a or I2a1b branch. Four of the 10 Primrose/Carrowmore males (Primrose 9, 12, 13, and 16) could be further resolved to the former sublineage, while the two Scottish males and the four Ansarve males could be further placed in the latter branch (Table 1 and SI Appendix, section S7). Combining the YDNA lineages and the radiocarbon dates of the individuals, a possible scenario of paternal continuity is observed for the Primrose and Ansarve megaliths. From the Primrose site, Primrose 9, 13, and 16, separated in time by at least 1 generation and possibly up to 12 generations, display the I2a2a1a1a haplotype. In addition, the Primrose 3, 10, and 17 individuals were inferred to harbor variants common to the I2a2 lineage, although with low coverage support (SI Appendix, section S7). A similar scenario is observed for the Ansarve megalith, with the individuals Ansarve 8, 14, and 17, separated by at most a few generations, carrying haplotype I2a1b1a. Ansarve 16, dated to at least 100 y younger, shares variants along the I2a1b lineage (Table 1 and SI Appendix, section S7).The high frequency of the HG-derived I2a male lineages among megalith as well as nonmegalith individuals (SI Appendix, section S11.6) suggests a male sex-biased admixture process between the farmer and the HG groups (2, 12, 53, 54), but when this admixture occurred is unclear. To characterize the extent of sex-biased admixture between HGs and the individuals of the megalithic contexts, we assessed the affinity of all individuals buried in megaliths with sufficient genetic data, to an Early Neolithic farmer or a HG ancestry on the autosomes and the X chromosome using f4-statistics (SI Appendix, section S11.5). Higher levels of HG admixture on the autosomes than on the X chromosome implies a greater genetic contribution of male HGs than female HGs to these individuals, suggesting an HG male sex bias admixture. We find that in general, megalith groups do not harbor higher levels of HG ancestry on the autosomes compared with on the X chromosome (SI Appendix, Table S7 and Dataset S1.6), but the Scottish_MN farmers of this study showed a tendency toward an HG male-sex biased admixture in the recent past. The Scandinavian (Ansarve and Gökhem) individuals displayed an HG admixture for both the autosomes and the X chromosome (SI Appendix, Table S7), suggesting a scenario of more recent admixture with HGs in northern Europe. Fig. 3. Kinship relationships in the Primrose, Carrowmore, and Ansarve burials. Solid line, first degree; dashed line, second degree. Males are displayed in green; females, in orange. The MtDNA and YDNA haplogroups are presented to the right of the figures. Bars underneath figures represent calibrated dating, with 95% CI (details in Table 1 and SI Appendix, Table S1). Using READ (Relationship Estimation from Ancient DNA) software (55), we inferred six kin relationships among the megalith individuals of this study: five relations among the Irish megaliths (two first-degree and three second-degree connections) and a second-degree relation in the Ansarve tomb (Fig. 3 and SI Appendix, section S10). First-degree relationships are characterized by either parent-offspring or a full sibling relationship, second-degree kin connections are represented by half-siblings, grandparent-grandchild, aunt/uncle-niece/nephew, and double cousins. Combining the READ predictions, uniparental lineages, radiocarbon dating, and age at death if available for those individuals who could be assessed, we inferred the potential familial relationships (Fig. 3 and SI Appendix, sections S2, S6, S7, and S10). Among the Irish megaliths, we observed two potential familial structures (SI Appendix, Fig. S10). The first is composed of three individuals from Primrose Grange (Tomb 1; individuals Primrose 2, 17, and 18), which overlap broadly in time (Fig. 3). Primrose 2 and 17 were predicted to be related in the first degree, representing a father-daughter relationship. Primrose 17 and 18 were predicted to be second-degree relatives (harboring the same mtDNA lineage but with possibly different YDNA haplogroups) and thus could have been half-siblings or double cousins. However, the YDNA prediction is hindered by low coverage and few informative markers, and thus a grandfather-grandson or uncle-nephew relationship cannot be fully excluded. Within the Ansarve megalith, we identify a second-degree relationship between the contemporaneous males Ansarve 14 and Ansarve 17 (Fig. 3 and SI Appendix, section S10). Both males have the same YDNA haplotype but different mtDNA lineages, suggesting that they could be related through any second-degree paternal kin relationship. Morphologically, Ansarve 14 was predicted to be an adult, and Ansarve 17 was predicted to be a juvenile (SI Appendix, section S2). Such observations might favor a grandfather-grandson or uncle-nephew relatedness over half-siblings or double cousins; however, the latter alternatives are still compatible with the data (SI Appendix, Fig. S12). READ analyses from other megalith burials where genetic data from at least four individuals were available per site (Gökhem, La Mina, Isbister, and Holm of Papa Westray; Fig. 1) did not reveal any evidence of genetic kinship relations. However, such observations may be hindered by the limited number of individuals investigated or by low genome coverage, which decreases the power to infer kinship (SI Appendix, section S10). The I2 YDNA lineages that are very common among European Mesolithic HGs (2, 3, 15, 56, 57) are distinctly different from the YDNA lineages of the European Early Neolithic farmer groups (8⇓–10), but frequent in the farmer groups of the fourth millennium BCE (2, 3, 8⇓–10, 15, 56, 57), suggesting a male HG admixture over time. The megalith individuals do not show higher levels of HG ancestry on the autosomes than on the X chromosome, but the Scottish_MN group shows a tendency toward a male-biased HG admixture in farmer groups, similar to previous observations (58). For the Scandinavian farmer groups, in contrast to the other megalith groups, we found an HG admixture for both the autosomes and the X chromosome. When these findings are considered together, it appears as if the social dynamics between HGs and Neolithic farmer groups, and thus the genetic admixture with HGs, differed somewhat in different geographic regions—an observation consistent with a combination of previous male sex bias admixture events occurring on the continent and more recent regional encounters with HG groups with a less pronounced sex-biased admixture. A central topic of discussion concerning the megalithic phenomena relates to the character of the communities that erected and used them for funerary rituals (27, 31, 37, 41, 42). The distinction of specific paternal lineages among the megaliths, a greater fraction of males than females in some megaliths, and their kindred relationships suggest that people buried in the megalithic tombs belonged to patrilineal segments of the groups/societies rather than representing a random sample from a larger Neolithic farmer community living in close vicinity. The sex ratio in the Irish megaliths is also in line with this finding. If one of the main functions of the tombs was to contain the remains of the deceased of a patrilineal segment, this would explain the inclusion of more males than females in the tombs. However, the finding that three of the five kinship relationships in these megaliths involved females indicates that female kindred members were not excluded. The observation of paternal continuity across time at the Gotlandic Ansarve megalith and at the Irish megaliths is a strong indication that specific family groups used these stone constructions for burial and other funerary practices. Of course, the patterns that we observe could be unique to the Primrose, Carrowmore, and Ansarve burials, and future studies of other megaliths are needed to provide additional data that can inform us further about social organization in the Neolithic. PNAS first published April 15, 2019
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 16, 2019 17:55:56 GMT
The origin of the tin used in the Bronze Age has long been one of the greatest enigmas in archaeological research. Now researchers from Heidelberg University and the Curt Engelhorn Centre for Archaeometry in Mannheim have solved part of the puzzle. Using methods of the natural sciences, they examined the tin from the second millennium BCE found at archaeological sites in Israel, Turkey, and Greece. They were able to proof that this tin in form of ingots does not come from Central Asia, as previously assumed, but from tin deposits in Europe. The findings are proof that even in the Bronze Age complex and far-reaching trade routes must have existed between Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. Highly appreciated raw materials like tin as well as amber, glass, and copper were the driving forces of this early international trade network. Bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, was already being produced in the Middle East, Anatolia, and the Aegean in the late fourth and third millennia BCE. Knowledge on its production spread quickly across wide swaths of the Old World. "Bronze was used to make weapons, jewellery, and all types of daily objects, justifiably bequeathing its name to an entire epoch. The origin of tin has long been an enigma in archaeological research," explains Prof. Dr Ernst Pernicka, who until his retirement worked at both the Institute for Earth Sciences of Heidelberg University as well as the Curt Engelhorn Centre for Archaeometry. "Tin objects and deposits are rare in Europe and Asia. The Eastern Mediterranean region, where some of the objects we studied originated, had practically none of its own deposits. So the raw material in this region must have been imported," explained the researcher. Metals traded in ingot form are particularly valuable for research because questions of origin can be targeted specifically. Using lead and tin isotope data as well as trace element analysis, the Heidelberg-Mannheim research team led by Prof. Pernicka and Dr Daniel Berger examined the tin ingots found in Turkey, Israel, and Greece. This allowed them to verify that this tin really did derive from tin deposits in Europe. The tin artefacts from Israel, for example, largely match tin from Cornwall and Devon (Great Britain). "These results specifically identify the origin of tin metal for the first time and therefore give rise to new insights and questions for archaeological research," adds Dr Berger, who conducts research at the Curt Engelhorn Centre for Archaeometry. Daniel Berger, Jeffrey S. Soles, Alessandra R. Giumlia-Mair, Gerhard Brügmann, Ehud Galili, Nicole Lockhoff, Ernst Pernicka. Isotope systematics and chemical composition of tin ingots from Mochlos (Crete) and other Late Bronze Age sites in the eastern Mediterranean Sea: An ultimate key to tin provenance? PLOS ONE, 2019; 14 (6): e0218326 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218326
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 17, 2019 18:34:03 GMT
Tin objects are extremely rare in the archaeological record, and only very few are known from prehistoric contexts (for artefacts in the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East dating from before 1000 BCE see Fig 1; summary of Eurasian finds in [1]). This is probably due to a number of reasons. Unalloyed tin corrodes easily in a damp environment in which corrosion stimulators such as chlorides or sulphates are present (for example at the seaside) [2–4]. Deterioration may be enhanced at low temperatures, less than 13°C, when the crystal structure of tin changes, turning the white metal to a grey powder. This so-called tin pest is often stated in archaeological literature [5–8], but since its occurrence has not yet been confirmed on prehistoric artefacts its contribution to the problem is certainly small. Because of this and because corrosion does not make objects simply disappear, socio-economic factors and the predominant usage of tin for the production of bronze are the more likely explanations for the general rarity of ancient tin objects. Fig 1. Map of Eurasia showing the locations of the tin ingots mentioned in the text (green dots), other tin objects in the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East before 1000 BCE (yellow dots) and major and minor tin deposits. 1: Mochlos (Crete), Greece, 2: Uluburun, Turkey, 3: Gelidonya, Turkey, 4: Hishuley Carmel, Israel, 5: Kfar Samir south, Israel, 6: Haifa, Israel, 7: Thermi (Lesbos), Greece, 8: Athens, Greece, 9: Phylakopi (Milos), Greece, 10: Rethymno (Crete), Greece, 11: Knossos (Crete), Greece, 12: Kalydon (Crete), Greece, 13: Ialysos (Rhodos), Greece, 14: Salamis (Cyprus), Turkey, 15: Alaca Höyük, Turkey, 16: Tülintepe, Turkey, 17: Mycenae, Greece, 18: Dendra, Greece, 19: Abydos, Egypt, 20: Gurob, Egypt, 21: Tell Abraq, United Arab Emirates, 22: Tepe Yahya, Iran, 23: Salcombe, United Kingdom, 24: Erme Estuary, United Kingdom, 25: S’Arcu e is Forros, Sardinia, Italy, 26: Cornwall/Devon, United Kingdom, 27: Mourne Mountains, Down County, North Ireland (United Kingdom), 28: Brittany, France, 29: Massif Central, France, 30: North Portugal/Spain, 31: Erzgebirge province with the Bohemian-Saxon Erzgebirge, Vogtland, Fichtelgebirge, Kaiserwald (Slavkovský les), 32: Slovak Ore Mountains, Slovak Republic, 33: Mt. Cer, Serbia, 34: Mt. Bukulja, Serbia, 35: Monte Valerio, Italy, 36: Sardinia, Italy, 37: Kestel, Turkey, 38: Hisarcık, Turkey, 39: Eastern Desert, Egypt, 40: Deh Hosein, Iran, 41: Western Afghanistan (Herat and Farah provinces), 42: Central/north-eastern Afghanistan (Hindu Kush), 43: Karnab/Lapas/Čangali (Zeravšan valley), Uzbekistan, 44: Mušiston/Takfon (Hissar Mountains), Tadzhikistan, 45: Pamir, Tadzhikistan, 46: Kyrgyzstan, 47: Tosham, Bhiwani district, India, 48: Bastar district/Koraput district, India, 49 (not on the map): Kazakhstan. Size of green and yellow symbols on the inset map do not correlate with number of objects as on the main map (map: D. Berger, C. Frank using Natural Earth geo data and QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Development Team, 2019. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. . Tin ingots, the subject of this paper, are a special group of artefacts. They represent a specific type of trade goods, and a small number of them, dating from the Late Bronze Age (LBA), were discovered in the eastern Mediterranean area (Table 1 and Fig 1). One rare example, and to date the only one from a terrestrial context in the whole Mediterranean region, is the tin ingot from Mochlos (Fig 1). The Minoan settlement is located on a small island very close to the north-eastern coast of Crete. The island was connected to the Cretan mainland through a land bridge that was exposed until Hellenistic times. The site was an important commercial centre throughout the Bronze Age (BA), but in particular during the Neopalatial period (1700–1425 BCE). It had rich metal and pottery traditions, was an important trading port along the routes to and from Cyprus and the Levant, and was also a religious centre [7; 9]. It was destroyed by earthquakes in the Neopalatial period, especially at the time of the Santorini eruption (around 1530 BCE) when a large number of buildings had to be rebuilt and the metal and pottery workshops were moved to the coast of the Cretan mainland [10–11]. Fig 2. Map of part of the main settlement of Mochlos with the find location of the tin ingot in storeroom 1.7 (a). Details of the archaeological context inside the storeroom is shown in (b) and a section in north-south direction in (c) (images: modified and reprinted from [12] under a CC BY license, with permission from the INSTAP Academic Press, original copyright 2007). In 2004, during an excavation in the Mochlos settlement the tin ingot was unearthed in a storeroom belonging to the western wing of a large ceremonial building [7, 12–13]. This building–designated B.2 –had many rooms, and next to the storeroom (1.7) with the tin ingot was a large room (1.3), presumably used for a drinking ceremony (Fig 2A). On the opposite side, there was another space (1.4) in which six bronze basins were found [13]. Inside the storeroom 1.7 itself three pithoi were buried in the ground, so that their mouths were just above floor level, a common practice in Minoan houses to store food or beverages. Beneath the largest and innermost pithos, ca. 0.4 metres below ground level, the now completely disintegrated tin ingot was located next to a bronze trident (Fig 3). It had been placed together with the trident before the pithoi were positioned and the earth filled up to the original floor level (Fig 2B and 2C). The tin ingot belonged to a precious foundation deposit that was offered to the goddess to whom the building was dedicated and was protected by the trident. As part of a foundation deposit it was laid in place when the building was constructed at the beginning of the Late Minoan IB period, ca. 1530 BCE (terminus ante quem), and lay hidden when the building was destroyed a hundred years later. It is approximately 200 years older than the other ingots discussed in this paper (Table 1). Fig 3. The tin ingot from Mochlos on site (a) and close-up view (b) illustrating its disintegrated condition. The original shape of the ingot could only be reconstructed by the discoloration of the soil (photos: J.S. Soles). Tin ingots have been recovered more frequently from underwater contexts (Table 1). The best-known examples are the LBA finds from the wreck of the Uluburun ship discovered off the coast of Turkey in 1982 [14–17; 18], which sank shortly before 1318 BCE (Fig 1). In addition to 10 tons of copper ingots, the cargo contained glass ingots, faience and resin, objects made of gold, silver, ivory and amber and, strikingly, one ton of tin. Among the finds, there was also a bronze trident representing the closest typological parallel to the trident found at Mochlos [14]. The unique tin cargo itself comprises ca. 160 ingots of different shapes, including such of oxhide shape, and four finished tin artefacts. The tin ingots was most likely intended to be alloyed with the copper on board, but which port it was destined for and where the tin came from is still an unsolved problem. Pulak [18] argues for an east-west Mediterranean searoute with the homeport having been situated along the northern Israeli Carmel or southern Lebanon coast. A second shipwreck from around 1200 BCE with a large cargo had been discovered a few years earlier off Cape Gelidonya, Turkey (Fig 1). In addition to raw products, finished objects and a folded tin foil, Bass [19] documented several kilograms of a whitish material that was considered a corrosion product of tin by Dykstra [20]. However, Maddin et al. [21] and Charles [22] challenged this interpretation because the material contained mainly calcium (71% as CaCO3) and only a small amount of tin (ca. 14% as SnO). Therefore, some scholars hypothesised that the material might be cassiterite ore that was designed to be mixed with metallic copper [22]. Since then, no other analyses seem to have been carried out, so it is still not clear whether the Gelidonya ship actually carried tin or not. It is also unknown which route the ship took and where the goods came from. Fig 4. Metal cargos of the alleged ships that wrecked offshore the Israeli coast. (a) Tin ingots from Hishuley Carmel, part of them with Cypro-Minoan marks; numbering corresponds to the original sample designation in Table 3. (b) Three out of 30 tin ingots from Haifa with Cypro-Minoan inscriptions with their original label from the literature. Scale applies to all ingots on the figure (photos: E. Galili, Fig 4A modified and reprinted from [26] under a CC BY license, with permission from the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, original copyright 2013). The latter also applies to a group of 15 tin ingots recovered in four campaigns from an alleged shipwreck at the coast of Hishuley Carmel, Israel (Figs 1 and 4A), together with two oxhide copper ingots and several stone anchors [23–27]. Because the archaeological context was missing, the exact dating of the finds is uncertain, but ‘Cypro-Minoan’ symbols inscribed on the surface of several ingots suggest a LBA date of around 1300 BCE [23–24; 26]. For the same reason, Maddin et al. [21] and Stech-Wheeler et al. [28] assigned two rectangular tin ingots found off the Israeli coast near Haifa to the LBA (Fig 4B, 8251 and 8252). Their hypothesis was questioned by Artzy [29], however, who reported on two very similar ingots from Israel (in the literature the place where they were found is mistakenly called Dor or Atlit) with ‘Cypro-Minoan’ inscriptions (Fig 4B, CMS 6). The upper surface of one of the ingots carries the conjectured head of Arethusa (a Greek fountain goddess); therefore, in her opinion, all four objects should be dated to the 5th century BCE. However, careful inspection on the Arethusa head by one of the authors (EG) suggested that this image is a random metal spill and was not produced on purpose. In addition, recent investigations (unpublished information) proved the four ingots to belong to the same assemblage. They are the remains of a set of originally 30 rectangular tin ingots (with trapezoidal cross section) that was found in the 1970s by a fisherman (Adib Shehade) offshore Kfar Samir, Israel (Table 1) [30]. The ingots were later sold by the fisherman to a tinsmith who used the tin to repair car radiators. From the set, the surviving four ingots were bought from the tinsmith on behalf of the University of Haifa. Further inquiries revealed that the ingots were retrieved some 60 metres north of another underwater site (the Kfar Samir north), which yielded several broken copper (oxhide) and lead ingots [25]. However, although found relatively close to that site, the rectangular tin ingots may have belonged to a separate shipwreck. The exact context of the tin ingots is still uncertain though because the site was not surveyed with archaeological methods. In the literature, several find locations were specified for these ingots (Haifa, Dor, Atlit), and even though we are aware of the exact location now, we use ‘Haifa’ here so as not to produce further confusion by introducing a new location. Dor [31] and Atlit [32–33] lie farther south of Haifa and are definitely not the correct locations.
|
|