Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
    • PNAS Nexus
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
    • PNAS Nexus
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

A monumental cemetery built by eastern Africa’s first herders near Lake Turkana, Kenya

Elisabeth A. Hildebrand, Katherine M. Grillo, Elizabeth A. Sawchuk, Susan K. Pfeiffer, Lawrence B. Conyers, Steven T. Goldstein, Austin Chad Hill, Anneke Janzen, Carla E. Klehm, Mark Helper, Purity Kiura, Emmanuel Ndiema, Cecilia Ngugi, John J. Shea, and Hong Wang
  1. aDepartment of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364;
  2. bTurkana Basin Institute, 00502 Nairobi, Kenya;
  3. cDepartment of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611;
  4. dDepartment of Archaeology, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, 07745 Jena, Germany;
  5. eDepartment of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 2S2, Canada;
  6. fDepartment of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, 7701 Rondebosch, South Africa;
  7. gDepartment of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052;
  8. hCenter for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052;
  9. iDepartment of Anthropology, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208;
  10. jDepartment of Anthropology, Dartmouth University, Hanover, NH 03755;
  11. kDepartment of Anthropology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309;
  12. lJackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712;
  13. mNational Museums of Kenya, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya;
  14. nIllinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS September 4, 2018 115 (36) 8942-8947; first published August 20, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721975115
Elisabeth A. Hildebrand
aDepartment of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364;
bTurkana Basin Institute, 00502 Nairobi, Kenya;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: elisabeth.hildebrand@stonybrook.edu
Katherine M. Grillo
cDepartment of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth A. Sawchuk
aDepartment of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364;
dDepartment of Archaeology, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, 07745 Jena, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan K. Pfeiffer
eDepartment of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 2S2, Canada;
fDepartment of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, 7701 Rondebosch, South Africa;
gDepartment of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052;
hCenter for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lawrence B. Conyers
iDepartment of Anthropology, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven T. Goldstein
dDepartment of Archaeology, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, 07745 Jena, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Austin Chad Hill
jDepartment of Anthropology, Dartmouth University, Hanover, NH 03755;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anneke Janzen
dDepartment of Archaeology, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, 07745 Jena, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carla E. Klehm
kDepartment of Anthropology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Helper
lJackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Purity Kiura
mNational Museums of Kenya, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emmanuel Ndiema
mNational Museums of Kenya, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cecilia Ngugi
mNational Museums of Kenya, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John J. Shea
aDepartment of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364;
bTurkana Basin Institute, 00502 Nairobi, Kenya;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hong Wang
nIllinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Melinda A. Zeder, National Museum of Natural History, Santa Fe, NM, and approved June 6, 2018 (received for review December 18, 2017)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

Archaeologists have long sought monumental architecture’s origins among societies that were becoming populous, sedentary, and territorial. In sub-Saharan Africa, however, dispersed pastoralists pioneered monumental construction. Eastern Africa’s earliest monumental site was built by the region’s first herders ∼5,000–4,300 y ago as the African Humid Period ended and Lake Turkana’s shoreline receded. Lothagam North Pillar Site was a massive communal cemetery with megalithic pillars, stone circles, cairns, and a mounded platform accommodating an estimated several hundred burials. Its mortuary cavity held individuals of mixed ages/sexes, with diverse adornments. Burial placement and ornamentation do not suggest social hierarchy. Amidst profound landscape changes and the socioeconomic uncertainties of a moving pastoral frontier, monumentality was an important unifying force for eastern Africa’s first herders.

Abstract

Monumental architecture is a prime indicator of social complexity, because it requires many people to build a conspicuous structure commemorating shared beliefs. Examining monumentality in different environmental and economic settings can reveal diverse reasons for people to form larger social units and express unity through architectural display. In multiple areas of Africa, monumentality developed as mobile herders created large cemeteries and practiced other forms of commemoration. The motives for such behavior in sparsely populated, unpredictable landscapes may differ from well-studied cases of monumentality in predictable environments with sedentary populations. Here we report excavations and ground-penetrating radar surveys at the earliest and most massive monumental site in eastern Africa. Lothagam North Pillar Site was a communal cemetery near Lake Turkana (northwest Kenya) constructed 5,000 years ago by eastern Africa’s earliest pastoralists. Inside a platform ringed by boulders, a 119.5-m2 mortuary cavity accommodated an estimated minimum of 580 individuals. People of diverse ages and both sexes were buried, and ornaments accompanied most individuals. There is no evidence for social stratification. The uncertainties of living on a “moving frontier” of early herding—exacerbated by dramatic environmental shifts—may have spurred people to strengthen social networks that could provide information and assistance. Lothagam North Pillar Site would have served as both an arena for interaction and a tangible reminder of shared identity.

  • monumentality
  • pastoralism
  • Africa
  • Holocene
  • early food production

Monumentality—creating conspicuous landmarks or public structures that reinforce cultural memories, values, and identities (1)—is often invoked as either a cause or a symptom of major social change. Early research on monumentality emphasized settings where predictable resources supported high population densities and provided regular surpluses that fostered wealth accumulation and social stratification (2); as inequality increased, elites used monumental projects to advertise their power to command labor and ritual (3). Recent research on lower-density populations of hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists in rich, predictable environments has corroborated monumentality’s role in fostering hierarchies and corporate polities in such settings (4⇓–6). However, recognizing that social complexity originates in different contexts, develops through diverse processes, and includes heterarchical forms (7, 8), archaeologists are starting to consider monumentality’s possible role in alternative trajectories of social change (9). African examples of monumentality among mobile herders and hunter-gatherers may contribute new perspectives on the relations between commemorative expression, monumental construction, and social complexity (10). Some cases occur in contexts of environmental or social unpredictability: along cultural and economic frontiers, during dramatic environmental changes, or among populations using scattered, shifting resources. Monumentality is not always accompanied by evidence for social stratification.

Early in the African Humid Period (AHP)—which began 14,800–12,000 calibrated years before present (cal. BP) and ended 5,500–5,000 cal. BP (reviewed by refs. 11 and 12)—fisher-hunter-gatherers repopulated the Sahara (13), marked landscapes with rock art, and occasionally created cemeteries (14, 15). Later, as herding economies entered the Sahara (16), people began ritually interring cattle 7,400–6,500 cal. BP (17) and created other types of ceremonial sites with rock art, platforms, and/or standing stones (14, 18). Pastoralist cemeteries at el-Barga along the Nile (>100 burials, 8,000–7,500 cal. BP) and Gobero in the south-central Sahara (35 burials, ∼7,200–4,500 cal. BP) included personal adornments with some burials (15, 19). As herding spread south and east amid increasing aridity after 6,500 cal. BP (16), pastoralists built megalithic structures at Wadi Khashab in the Red Sea Hills (20) and established large cemeteries at Kadero, Kadruka, and R12 in the Nile Valley (21⇓–23). Elaborate mortuary traditions continued for >1,000 y at sites such as Jebel Moya, as agricultural lifeways and early states developed (24).

The initial spread of herding into eastern Africa coincided with the development of a distinctive monumental tradition centered around at least six “pillar sites” built ∼5,000–4,000 cal. BP near Lake Turkana, Kenya (Fig. 1) (25). Pillar sites likely served similar (commemorative) purposes as many of the Saharan ceremonial sites but exhibit architecturally distinct elements. People interred hundreds of their dead within massive platforms ≤30 m in diameter, which contained up to 500 m3 of fill and were marked with natural basalt and sandstone columns hauled from sources as much as 1 km away. At some sites, cairns and stone circles on or adjacent to the platform, and/or additional pillar clusters nearby, contributed to a monumental landscape.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Orthoimage of Lothagam North Pillar Site. The platform is the large, flat elliptical area on the west (left) side of the site; the surrounding boulder ring is eroding into gullies on the northwest side. Nine stone circles are visible to the east, on either side of the pathway. The six raised features south and east of the stone circles are cairns. The lower left inset shows locations of contemporaneous pillar sites around the middle Holocene paleo-shoreline of Lake Turkana: 1, Lothagam North Pillar Site (GeJi9); 2, Lothagam West Pillar Site (GeJi10); 3, Manemanya Pillar Site (GcJh5); 4, Kalokol Pillar Site (GcJh3); 5, Il Lokeridede Pillar Site (GaJi23); and 6, Jarigole Pillar Site (GbJj1). All locations are georeferenced except Il Lokeridede.

Construction occurred amid profound shifts in environment, economy, and material cultural expression. The end of the AHP 5,500–5,000 cal. BP (11, 12) triggered major changes in terrestrial and aquatic landscapes around Lake Turkana. Early Holocene high lake levels supported regular use of shoreline sites by fisher-hunter-gatherers (26⇓⇓⇓–30). From 5,300 to 4,000 cal. BP, Lake Turkana dropped by ∼55 m (31). As retreating shorelines disrupted fishing practices and exposed new habitats for herbivores, exchange and/or herder in-migration brought cattle and caprines into northwest Kenya, transforming economic strategies to include mobile herding (32, 33). As environment and subsistence changed, people created new technologies, social networks, and forms of cultural expression. Whereas early Holocene fishers used mainly local lithic raw materials (28, 29), middle Holocene herders preferred obsidian from a variety of local, distant, and island sources, some of which required extended exchange networks or boat travel (34, 35). Pottery production changed, from early Holocene ceramics with wavy-line motifs resembling Saharan traditions (27) to intricately decorated middle Holocene Nderit ware (SI Appendix, Fig. S1). People sculpted animal figurines from clay and stone (SI Appendix, Fig. S2) and placed them in pillar site mortuary fill together with broken ceramic fragments, tools, ornaments, and animal bones. Figurines and faunal remains at pillar sites include wild animals (e.g., hippo) and/or livestock (e.g., cattle and caprines).

Lothagam North Pillar Site

The largest pillar site, Lothagam North/GeJi9, lies between the two ridges of Lothagam’s uplifted fault block (36), which formed a prominent peninsula into middle Holocene Paleolake Turkana (27). Lothagam North has a 700-m2 platform; nine stone circles and six cairns cover an additional 700 m2 to the east. Data from excavations (Fig. 2A) and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) (SI Appendix, Fig. S3) reveal a construction plan that envisioned the platform’s dimensions from the outset. People first removed beach sands from a ∼120-m2 area down to sandstone bedrock, creating a large cavity shored up with sandstone slabs. They capped surrounding beach sands with a stone pavement ringed by boulders. Within the cavity, people dug closely spaced burial pits into the soft bedrock. After bedrock floor space was exhausted, corpses were added above the pits in a series of mostly individual inhumation events, partially filling the mortuary cavity. Rubble filled the remainder of the cavity until it reached the level of the peripheral stone pavement. The entire platform was then mounded with 30–50 cm of fill and capped with rounded, uniformly sized basalt pebbles. People brought natural columnar basalt “pillars” (≤1.5 m tall) across Lothagam’s western ridge and down to GeJi9, placed the pillars within fill on the platform’s east side, and surrounded the entire platform with basalt boulders.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Stratigraphy revealed by excavations at Lothagam North Pillar Site. (A) South profiles of three noncontiguous excavation units in the platform: eastern platform (1 × 1.6 m, E53-E51.4, 2009), central platform (2 × 2 m, E44-E42, 2012–2014), and western platform (1 × 5 m, E40-E35, 2012–2014). Profiles are positioned so their absolute elevations correspond; the central platform’s uppermost surface is significantly higher than the eastern and western margins. The mortuary cavity is absent in the eastern platform unit, fully present in the central platform unit, and just ending in the E40-E39 portion of the western platform unit. A dashed line indicates the approximate boundary between mortuary deposits and cap fill; however, the two have no obvious differences in sediment matrix and inclusions, and the upper limit of burials does not constitute a flat surface. (B) Photograph of 1- × 4-m excavation trench probing the largest cairn at the eastern edge of the Lothagam North Pillar Site. Sandstone slabs at the western (outer) edge had to have been placed before sandstone slabs nearer to the center; most sandstone slabs dip toward the center of the cairn. Central portions of the cairn fill have rounded boulders and cobbles of basalt or other volcanic rocks and appear to have been placed after the sandstone slabs were laid in.

Within Lothagam North’s platform, the mortuary cavity holds densely arranged skeletal remains of both sexes; ages at death range from neonates to elderly (SI Appendix, Table S1). In the center of the mortuary cavity, a 2- × 2-m excavation unit documented at least 36 individuals, some buried immediately after death with skeletons intact, and others with disorganization of the bones that suggests delayed burial. On the edge of the cavity, excavation revealed equally close positioning: Two primary burials lay next to a bundle burial containing three crania and disarticulated, commingled postcrania. Such high density required strategic corpse placement. Individual body position and orientation varied, as if to fit the maximum number of bodies in the space available. Most skeletons were in tightly flexed positions suggestive of being bound or wrapped and were marked by boulders on the skull, torso, and/or chest. Warping (distortion of bone shape without sharp breaks) suggests that some boulders were placed soon after death, while the bone was still fresh. Burials were rarely disturbed by later interment activities. Extrapolating from the 2- × 2-m excavation, we estimate the ∼120-m2 mortuary cavity eventually accommodated >580 individuals (Materials and Methods). Although radiocarbon dates suggest platform construction spanned about 450 (minimum) to 900 (maximum) years, mortuary deposits accumulated over a shorter period (Table 1; see also SI Appendix, Fig. S4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Radiocarbon age determinations for the Lothagam North Pillar Site (GeJi9)

Personal adornments occur with nearly all skeletons (Fig. 3). Many individuals had ostrich eggshell or stone beads around the necks, hips, and/or ankles. Others had hippo ivory finger rings or forearm bangles. Two burials had disintegrated headpieces with intricate latticed arrangements of mammal incisors: Burial 3’s headpiece had 405 teeth from ≥113 individual gerbils (cf. Gerbilliscus) and Burial 4’s head/neckpiece had 45 teeth from ≥25 individual hyraxes (cf. Heterohyrax). Another individual was buried with 12 perforated hippo tusks that may have been strung together and worn in life; the burial pit yielded isolated caprine remains, as well as a carved stone palette with a zoomorphic face resembling a cow. Adornments were not restricted to any age, sex, or interment type; beads were present with infants and within bundle burials. This suggests ornamentation was the norm, and its absence from a few skeletons may reflect unusual circumstances or poor preservation. More than 300 vibrantly colored stone and mineral beads were found, of which 173 were associated with 20 burials. Thirty-six raw material types include soft materials such as pink analcimes (45%), dark green talc (6.3%), and purple fluorite (3.3%), and harder minerals such as bright blue-green amazonite (32%) and chalcedony (5.7%, including some carnelian) (SI Appendix, Fig. S5). Many volcano-derived rocks (e.g., amygdaloidal and vesicular basalt, rhyolite, and phonolite) are available locally, whereas Precambrian sources for amazonite and talc lie farther afield but still within the Turkana Basin. Creative workmanship is evident in diverse forms: incomplete circles worn as earrings or on garments, ribbed pendants, and a curved pendant recycled from a broken round bead. Ornamentation was universal, time-intensive, and personalized.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Ornaments and palette recovered from mortuary contexts at Lothagam North. Counterclockwise from upper right. (A) Remnant of headpiece with latticed arrangement of teeth (incisors) from gerbils (cf. Gerbilliscus); portions of the individual’s cranium are visible to the left and upper right of the headpiece. (B) Stone palette with zoomorphic bovine carving. (C) Human finger bones with ivory rings still in place. (D) Cluster of perforated hippo tusks adjacent to cranium of primary burial. Additional secondary human remains, a caprine calcaneus, and the stone palette were found below the scale marker. (E) Detail of hippo tusk perforation; the largest tusk is ∼3 cm wide. (F) Sample of stone and mineral bead pendants and earrings. Pictured materials include amazonite, fluorite, zeolite, talc, hematite, and chalcedony; specific material identifications are given in SI Appendix, Fig. S5.

East of the platform, excavations probed one stone circle and one cairn. Lothagam North’s largest cairn (57 m2) has massive sandstone slabs dipping inward: Outermost slabs were placed first, defining its large dimensions from the outset (Fig. 2B). The stone circle, a 16-m2 low mound of disintegrating sandstone ringed by rounded basalt cobbles, covered a small, central bedrock pit. Within it, a bundle burial contained commingled elements from at least three persons of distinct ages. Perhaps locations or timings of death prevented immediate transport for primary burial. The stone circles’ tight spacing and uniform size echo the compact placement of pits and burials within the platform (Fig. 1).

Construction at Lothagam North and other pillar sites ceased by ∼4,100 cal. BP. All of Lothagam North’s architectural elements (cairns, stone circles, and platform cap) suggest orderly completion of a plan. This mortuary tradition is absent among later herding populations around Lake Turkana (25); changing social priorities, migrations, or other factors may have removed the impetus for large-scale construction and communal burial.

Discussion

Lothagam North’s initial creation and final closure required heavy labor, but during the intervening decades or centuries people assembled for hundreds of mortuary rituals that may have involved little toil. This behavior is inconsistent with nascent elites consolidating authority via recurring large-scale construction initiatives. Communal values were emphasized by placing deceased of diverse ages and both sexes in a single location, without spatial or artifactual patterning that would suggest social hierarchies. Near-universal yet idiosyncratic ornamentation also argues against sequestration of resources by a social subset. Absent other evidence, Lothagam North provides an example of monumentality that is not demonstrably linked to the emergence of hierarchy, forcing us to consider other narratives of social change.

The social systems that galvanized monumental construction emerged in a singular economic and ecological context. Pillar sites are spatially and temporally bounded within the “moving frontier” phase (37) of initial herding around Lake Turkana. Herders—experienced immigrants and/or novice locals—had to juggle the distinct needs of sheep, goats, and cattle in new environments with higher livestock disease risks (38). Relations between groups emphasizing herding vs. fishing may have been delicate, and social roles within groups adopting livestock may have been contested. All these challenges, which are intrinsic to a moving frontier on an ecological transition (37), would have been exacerbated by the sudden drop in regional rainfall as the AHP ended. Availability of terrestrial plants and animals may have become unpredictable. Lake Turkana’s retreating shoreline exposed new plains but demanded constant recalibration of fishing methods.

It is striking that amid all of these tensions people undertook construction of a massive communal cemetery where hundreds of individuals were buried over a span of a few centuries. In such a dynamic physical and social landscape, pillar sites may represent deliberate efforts to create stable landmarks or assembly points for dispersed, mobile people to express social unity and continuity through shared ritual. Regular congregation for mortuary events would have promoted information sharing that improved strategic planning of livestock movements across extended areas, or even fostered networks for long-distance exchange or risk sharing. The need to actively propagate such social connections would be strongest during initial stages of the moving frontier and dramatic environmental shifts (39), waning after herding became entrenched into a “static frontier” with routine networks of interaction, and once rainfall and shorelines stabilized at lower levels. The chronology of pillar site construction and closure matches these expectations, suggesting that monumentality around Lake Turkana helped mitigate social and economic uncertainties in a frontier situation.

Pan-African comparison shows that monumental mortuary expression in the Sahara, Sahel, Nile, and Turkana often coincided with the local advent of herding. However, Turkana pillar sites lack obvious material cultural links to monumental sites in other regions. Forms of expression vary: cattle burials in the central Sahara (17), megaliths in the eastern Sahara (18), aggregate cemeteries in the southern Sahara and along the Nile (15, 19, 21⇓–23), built mortuary spaces in the Red Sea Hills (20) and around Lake Turkana (described here), and cairn and cremation treatments linked to early pastoralism in central Kenya (40, 41). Together, these examples show that distinct forms of commemoration and mortuary treatment arose independently along the arc of herding’s spread through Africa, each stimulated by local conditions and needs. This emerging pattern requires additional investigation and careful comparison, to see whether (or how) similar socioeconomic circumstances may have prompted the emergence of monumentality in different parts of the continent.

Turkana pillar sites and other cases of African monumentality have potential to reshape global perspectives on the processes of social change. Together with central Asian pastoralist cases (42, 43), they prove monumentality can develop among mobile and/or dispersed populations. Pillar sites join a growing number of studies in diverse ecological and economic contexts that decouple monumentality from the emergence of hierarchical social forms (44⇓⇓–47). Because monumentality entails the cooperative mobilization of large groups to create durable reminders of shared history, ideals, and/or cultural memory (1), it is a reliable signifier of complex social forms. Discovering monumentality in these new settings—amid societies that are not hierarchical, and among mobile groups in unpredictable landscapes—opens the door to future research that may reveal alternative pathways to social complexity in many parts of the globe.

Materials and Methods

Methods for excavation and spatial data collection are described in SI Appendix, Supplementary Text.

GPR Interpretation.

Research followed standard protocol for GPR field data collection and processing (ref. 48; see also SI Appendix, Fig. S3). To correlate GPR signals with depositional elements, the reflection profile running nearest the N04 excavation gridline (SI Appendix, Fig. S3A) was compared with strata visible in the 2014 ongoing excavations in the western and central platform, and to records of 2009 test excavations in the eastern platform. For example, the depth of the Early Holocene beach sand visible in the western 1- × 5-m excavation trench was correlated directly to the reflections in adjacent GPR profiles to directly tie known stratigraphic horizons to radar reflections. This allowed for an accurate placement in true depth of the Early Holocene beach sand unit and the underlying sandstone bedrock visible between 80- and 100-cm depth.

These natural horizons were truncated when the pillar site builders created the mortuary cavity, visible in the middle of the reflection profile (SI Appendix, Fig. S3A). Vertical incisions cutting out these stratigraphic layers were observed in all reflection profiles across the grid. Reflection profiles were then resampled to derive reflection wave amplitudes from all profiles in the 20- × 22-m grid. Those amplitude values were averaged in a slice generated from between 80- to 120-cm depth and regridded to generate an image of the strength of the reflected waves, with pixels every 5 cm. A map-view image (SI Appendix, Fig. S3B) illustrates that the high-amplitude reflections are produced from the bedding layers where the sediments were undisturbed by burial activities. Where these sedimentary units were removed to create the mortuary cavity, and homogenized sediments were later placed in the ground during multiple burial episodes that eventually refilled the cavity, the map displays very low amplitude or no radar reflections at all, as there are no layers in those fill units within the mortuary cavity to reflect radar energy. Human remains that are known to be abundant in these homogenized fill units within the incision boundaries are too small to reflect energy and appear as areas of no or small-amplitude reflections. The total area in the grid where the strata were removed for burial is 119.5 m3 (SI Appendix, Fig. S3C).

Estimate of Number of Individuals Buried in the Mortuary Cavity.

Volumetric calculation of the mortuary cavity was precluded for two reasons. First, the base of the mortuary cavity is too deep for detection via GPR. Second, excavations showed that the burial pits made the base of the mortuary cavity highly irregular. Therefore, calculations instead focused on (i) defining the areal extent of the mortuary cavity (AMC) via GPR, (ii) determining the number of individuals typically buried within the mortuary cavity beneath a single square meter of the platform’s surface (ISQM) as revealed by excavation, and (iii) estimating the total number of people interred within the mortuary cavity (PMC) by solving the equation PMC = AMC(ISQM). GPR data established AMC as 119.5 m2. Excavation of a 4-m2 area within the perimeter of the mortuary cavity yielded numerous inhumations, for which bioarchaeological analysis provided two mechanisms for calculating ISQM. Dividing the number of dentitions recovered (n = 20) by the area excavated in the central platform (4 m2) suggests a conservative ISQM of 5. Dividing the minimum number of individuals, or MNI, (n = 36) by the area excavated in the central platform (4 m2) suggests a more liberal ISQM of 9. If PMC = AMC(ISQM), then the number of individuals buried within the Lothagam North’s mortuary cavity is estimated to range from 585 to 1,053. This range should itself be regarded as a minimum for two reasons. First, excavations in N04E39 identified additional burials outside the depositional incisions detected via GPR, so there may be substantial numbers of people outside the mortuary cavity. Second, while we can exclude the possibility of a shallower base anywhere in the mortuary cavity (because higher bedrock surfaces would have come within the range of GPR detection), mortuary cavity deposits may be deeper in some areas than those observed during excavation; these would be even further outside the range of GPR detection and might accommodate a greater number of individuals.

Radiocarbon Dating.

Eight samples (three charcoal and five ostrich eggshell) were submitted to the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign between 2009 and 2016. Specific information on radiocarbon sample collection, preparation, analysis, and date calibration is provided in SI Appendix, Fig. S4.

Bioarchaeological Field and Laboratory Methods.

Recovery and documentation of human remains followed standard protocols for exposure, mapping, and documentation, with special considerations for high-heat/high-UV recovery situations, high density of burials, state of bone preservation, and future sampling for aDNA, isotope, dental calculus, and other research. Detailed descriptions of these methods are given in SI Appendix, Table S1.

Mineral Identification.

Cataloging, classification, and preliminary identification of the bead assemblages from Lothagam North took place in August 2015 at the Turkana Basin Institute. Full procedures are described in SI Appendix, Fig. S5.

Acknowledgments

We thank the people of Turkana County, the National Museums of Kenya, and Kenya’s National Council of Science and Technology for permission to conduct research. Crew members S. Derbyshire, A. DeRenzis, E. Doyle, B. Kimeu, H. Duke, M. Ekaale, F. Ekai, J. Ekusi, A. Ekutaan, J. Etabo, L. Lowasa, Z. McKeeby, C. Ogola, S. Pilliard, M. Rizzo, H. Sale, A. Shoemaker, B. Smith, and C. Swoger contributed to field and laboratory research 2009–2014. Funding was provided by the Turkana Basin Institute (reconnaissance in 2007), the National Geographic Society (Grants W20-08 to J.J.S. in 2008, CRE8644-09 to E.A.H. in 2009, and CRE9473-14 to E.A.H. in 2014), the National Science Foundation (Grant BCS1124419 to E.A.H. 2012–2016), and the Wenner-Gren Foundation (Grant 58962 to C.E.K. in 2015). The Turkana Basin Institute gave crucial logistical support at all stages of research, and funded the costs of this publication.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: elisabeth.hildebrand{at}stonybrook.edu.
  • ↵2Present address: State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xian, Shaanxi 710061, P.R. China.

  • Author contributions: E.A.H. and K.M.G. designed research; E.A.H., K.M.G., E.A.S., S.K.P., L.B.C., S.T.G., A.C.H., A.J., C.E.K., M.H., P.K., E.N., C.N., J.J.S., and H.W. performed research; L.B.C. and A.C.H. contributed new analytic tools; E.A.H., K.M.G., E.A.S., S.K.P., L.B.C., S.T.G., A.C.H., A.J., C.E.K., and M.H. analyzed data; P.K., E.N., and C.N. performed site conservation; and E.A.H., K.M.G., and E.A.S. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1721975115/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Furholt M,
    2. Lüth F,
    3. Müller J
    1. Furholt M
    (2011) A virtual and a practiced Neolithic? Material culture symbolism, monumentality and identities in the Western Baltic region. Megaliths and Identities: Early Monuments and Neolithic Societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic, eds Furholt M, Lüth F, Müller J (Rudolf Habelt, Bonn), pp 107–119.
  2. ↵
    1. Renfrew AC
    1. Renfrew AC
    (1973) Social organization in Neolithic Wessex. The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, ed Renfrew AC (Univ of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh), pp 539–558.
  3. ↵
    1. Trigger BG
    (1990) Monumental architecture: A thermodynamic explanation of symbolic behaviour. World Archaeol 22:119–132.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Artursson M,
    2. Earle T,
    3. Brown J
    (2016) The construction of monumental landscapes in low-density societies: New evidence from the Early Neolithic of Southern Scandinavia (4000–3300 BC) in comparative perspective. J Anthropol Archaeol 41:1–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Gonçalves C,
    2. Cascalheira J,
    3. Bicho N
    (2014) Shellmiddens as landmarks: Visibility studies on the Mesolithic of the Muge valley (Central Portugal). J Anthropol Archaeol 36:130–139.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Iriarte J,
    2. Copé SM,
    3. Fradley M,
    4. Lockhart JJ,
    5. Gillam JC
    (2013) Sacred landscapes of the southern Brazilian highlands: Understanding southern proto-Jê mound and enclosure complexes. J Anthropol Archaeol 32:74–96.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Ehrenreich RM,
    2. Crumley C,
    3. Levy JE
    , eds (1995) Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 6 (Am Anthropological Assoc, Arlington, VA).
  8. ↵
    1. O’Reilly DJW
    (2003) Further evidence of heterarchy in Bronze Age Thailand. Curr Anthropol 44:300–306.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Burger R,
    2. Rosenzweig M
    , eds (2012) Early New World Monumentality (Univ Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL).
  10. ↵
    1. Hildebrand E
    (2013) Is monumentality in the eye of the beholder? Lessons from constructed spaces in Africa. Azania 48:155–172.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. deMenocal P, et al.
    (2000) Abrupt onset and termination of the African Humid Period: Rapid climate responses to gradual insolation forcing. Quat Sci Rev 19:347–361.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Costa K,
    2. Russell J,
    3. Konecky B,
    4. Lamb H
    (2014) Isotopic reconstruction of the African Humid Period and Congo Air Boundary migration at Lake Tana, Ethiopia. Quat Sci Rev 83:58–67.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Kuper R,
    2. Kröpelin S
    (2006) Climate-controlled Holocene occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s evolution. Science 313:803–807.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. di Lernia S
    (2013) Places, monuments, and landscape: Evidence from the Holocene central Sahara. Azania 48:173–192.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Garcea EAA
    , ed (2013) Gobero: The No-Return Frontier: Archaeology and Landscape at the Saharo-Sahelian Borderland (Africa Magna Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany).
  16. ↵
    1. Marshall F,
    2. Hildebrand E
    (2002) Cattle before crops: The beginnings of food production in Africa. J World Prehist 16:99–143.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. di Lernia S, et al.
    (2013) Inside the “African cattle complex”: Animal burials in the holocene central Sahara. PLoS One 8:e56879.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Wendorf F,
    2. Schild R
    , eds (2001) Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara (Springer, Boston), Vol 1.
  19. ↵
    1. Honegger M,
    2. Williams M
    (2015) Human occupations and environmental changes in the Nile valley during the Holocene: The case of Kerma in Upper Nubia (northern Sudan). Quat Sci Rev 130:141–154.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Osypiński P,
    2. Osypińska R
    (2016) The Wadi Khashab ceremonial complex: A manifestation of cattle keepers in the Eastern Desert of Egypt before the end of the fifth millennium BC. Azania 51:257–281.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Krzyżaniak L
    (1991) Early farming in the middle Nile Basin: Discoveries from Kadero. Antiquity 55:515–532.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Reinold J
    (2001) Kadruka and the Neolithic in the northern Dongola Reach. Sudan Nubia 5:2–10.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Salvatori S,
    2. Usai D
    , eds (2008) A Neolithic Cemetery in the Northern Dongola Reach: Excavations at Site R12 (Archaeopress, Oxford).
  24. ↵
    1. Brass M
    (2014) The southern frontier of the Meroitic state: The view from Jebel Moya. Afr Archaeol Rev 31:425–445.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Hildebrand E,
    2. Grillo K
    (2012) Early herders and monumental sites in eastern Africa: Dating and interpretation. Antiquity 86:338–352.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Owen RB,
    2. Barthelme JW,
    3. Renaut RW,
    4. Vincens A
    (1982) Palaeolimnology and archaeology of Holocene deposits north-east of Lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature 298:523–529.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Robbins LH
    (1972) Archeology in the Turkana district, Kenya. Science 176:359–366.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Robbins L
    (1974) The Lothagam Site, Michigan State University Museum Anthropological Series 1(2) (Michigan State Univ, East Lansing, MI).
  29. ↵
    1. Phillipson DW
    (1977) Lowasera. Azania 12:1–32.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Beyin A,
    2. Prendergast ME,
    3. Grillo KM,
    4. Wang H
    (2017) New radiocarbon dates for terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene settlements in West Turkana, northern Kenya. Quat Sci Rev 168:208–215.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Garcin Y,
    2. Melnick D,
    3. Strecker MR,
    4. Olago D,
    5. Tiercelin J-J
    (2012) East African mid-Holocene wet-dry transition recorded in palaeo-shorelines of Lake Turkana, northern Kenya Rift. Earth Planet Sci Lett 331–332:322–334.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Barthelme JW
    (1985) Fisher-Hunters and Neolithic Pastoralists in East Turkana, Kenya, BAR International Series (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford), Vol 254.
  33. ↵
    1. Marshall F,
    2. Stewart K,
    3. Barthelme J
    (1984) Early domestic stock at Dongodien in northern Kenya. Azania 19:120–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Nash B,
    2. Brown F,
    3. Merrick HV
    (2011) Obsidian types from Holocene sites around Lake Turkana, and other localities in northern Kenya. J Archaeol Sci 38:1371–1376.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Ndiema E,
    2. Dillian CD,
    3. Braun DR,
    4. Harris JWK,
    5. Kiura PW
    (2011) Transport and subsistence patterns at the transition to pastoralism, Koobi Fora, Kenya. Archaeometry 53:1085–1098.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. McDougall IAN,
    2. Feibel CS
    (1999) Numerical age control for the Miocene-Pliocene succession at Lothagam, a hominoid-bearing sequence in the northern Kenya Rift. J Geol Soc London 156:731–745.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Lane P
    (2004) The ‘moving frontier’ and the transition to food production in Kenya. Azania 39:243–264.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Gifford-Gonzalez D
    (2000) Animal disease challenges to the emergence of pastoralism in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr Archaeol Rev 17:95–139.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Gifford-Gonzalez D
    (1998) Early pastoralists in East Africa: Ecological and social dimensions. J Anthropol Archaeol 17:166–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Miller N,
    2. Moore K,
    3. Ryan K
    1. Marshall F,
    2. Grillo K,
    3. Arco L
    (2011) Prehistoric pastoralists and social responses to climatic risk in East Africa. Sustainable Lifeways: Cultural Persistence in an Ever-Changing Environment, eds Miller N, Moore K, Ryan K (Univ of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia), pp 39–74.
  41. ↵
    1. Clark JD,
    2. Brandt SA
    1. Ambrose S
    (1984) The introduction of pastoral adaptations into the highlands of East Africa. From Hunters to Farmers: Causes and Consequences of Food Production in Africa, eds Clark JD, Brandt SA (Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA), pp 212–239.
  42. ↵
    1. Wright J
    (2007) Organizational principles of Khirisguur monuments in the lower Egiin Gol valley, Mongolia. J Anthropol Archaeol 26:350–365.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Frachetti M
    (2012) Multiregional emergence of mobile pastoralism and nonuniform institutional complexity across Eurasia. Curr Anthropol 53:2–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Johansen PG
    (2004) Landscape, monumental architecture, and ritual: A reconsideration of south Indian ashmounds. J Anthropol Archaeol 23:309–330.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Burger R,
    2. Rosenzweig M
    1. Saunders J
    (2012) Early mounds in the lower Mississippi. Early New World Monumentality, eds Burger R, Rosenzweig M (Univ Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL), pp 25–52.
  46. ↵
    1. Burger R,
    2. Rosenzweig M
    1. Roosevelt A,
    2. Douglas J,
    3. Bevan B,
    4. Da Silviara MI,
    5. Brown L
    (2012) Early mounds and monumental art in ancient Amazonia: History, scale, function, and social ecology. Early New World Monumentality, eds Burger R, Rosenzweig M (Univ Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL), pp 255–288.
  47. ↵
    1. Burger R,
    2. Rosenzweig M
    1. Burger R,
    2. Salazar L
    (2012) Monumental public complexes and agricultural expansion on Peru’s central coast during the second millennium BC. Early New World Monumentality, eds Burger R, Rosenzweig M (Univ Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL), pp 399–430.
  48. ↵
    1. Conyers LB
    (2013) Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology (Alta Mira, Latham, MD), 3rd Ed.
    1. Bronk Ramsey C
    (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51:337–360.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Reimer PJ, et al.
    (2013) IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1869–1887.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A monumental cemetery built by eastern Africa’s first herders near Lake Turkana, Kenya
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A monumental cemetery built by eastern Africa’s first herders near Lake Turkana, Kenya
Elisabeth A. Hildebrand, Katherine M. Grillo, Elizabeth A. Sawchuk, Susan K. Pfeiffer, Lawrence B. Conyers, Steven T. Goldstein, Austin Chad Hill, Anneke Janzen, Carla E. Klehm, Mark Helper, Purity Kiura, Emmanuel Ndiema, Cecilia Ngugi, John J. Shea, Hong Wang
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2018, 115 (36) 8942-8947; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1721975115

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
A monumental cemetery built by eastern Africa’s first herders near Lake Turkana, Kenya
Elisabeth A. Hildebrand, Katherine M. Grillo, Elizabeth A. Sawchuk, Susan K. Pfeiffer, Lawrence B. Conyers, Steven T. Goldstein, Austin Chad Hill, Anneke Janzen, Carla E. Klehm, Mark Helper, Purity Kiura, Emmanuel Ndiema, Cecilia Ngugi, John J. Shea, Hong Wang
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2018, 115 (36) 8942-8947; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1721975115
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Anthropology
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 115 (36)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Lothagam North Pillar Site
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Plain-tailed wren.
Duet singing in plain-tailed wrens
Plain-tailed wrens coordinate with each other to sing duets by inhibiting motor circuits in the brain.
Image credit: Melissa J. Coleman.
Eurasian jay making a choice after observing a sleight-of-hand illusion.
How Eurasian jays respond to illusions
While humans and Eurasian jays are susceptible to illusions using fast movements, jays are more influenced by observable than expected motions.
Image credit: Elias Garcia-Pelegrin.
Magnolia warbler.
Bird collisions and urban light pollution
Minimizing building lighting at night could significantly reduce collision rates of nocturnally migrating birds.
Image credit: Ian Davies (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY).
A bird's eye view graphic of the Milky Way mapping stars, masers.
Inner Workings: Astronomers are redrawing our corner of the Milky Way
Contrary to some previous claims, recent research suggests that our solar system resides in a bright and vigorous tendril of stars called the Local Arm.
Image credit: Lucy Reading (artist).
Heart rate signal on a monitor.
Journal Club: When people listen closely to stories, their heart rates synchronize
This correlation of heart rates could one day lead to new tools for measuring attentiveness, both in the classroom and the clinic.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Alhovik.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490. PNAS is a partner of CHORUS, COPE, CrossRef, ORCID, and Research4Life.