Ancient Sand Dollars Reveal a Lost Caribbean Ecosystem: New Findings from South-Central Cuba

The fossil record offers glimpses into ancient worlds, and a new study on Clypeaster echinoids from Cuba’s Damují Formation provides valuable insights into the Caribbean’s past. These fossils, dating from the Late Eocene to Early Oligocene, represent some of the earliest known occurrences of this genus in the region.

The research, conducted in Rodas, south-central Cuba, extends the known temporal and geographical range of Clypeaster, a genus of sand dollars that still thrives in tropical and subtropical oceans today. While previous studies focused on Oligocene and Miocene specimens, these newly examined fossils fill a gap in our understanding of how echinoids evolved and dispersed during a critical period of climatic transition—the Eocene-Oligocene boundary.

The geological context of the Damují Formation suggests that Clypeaster lived in a diverse marine environment, alongside large foraminifera, corals, and small fish. The presence of these fossils indicates that warm, shallow-water reef systems persisted in the Caribbean despite global cooling trends at the time. This challenges previous assumptions that echinoid diversification in the region occurred later, during the Miocene.

The study also raises intriguing questions about the role of the Caribbean as a migration corridor for marine life during the Paleogene. Were these Clypeaster populations early colonizers, or did they represent a more ancient lineage persisting through climatic shifts? Future research, including detailed morphological analyses and comparisons with other fossil sites, may help unravel the evolutionary pathways of these echinoids.

By documenting these fossils, this study contributes to our understanding of past ecosystems and the biogeographical history of echinoids. It also underscores the importance of Cuba’s fossil record in reconstructing ancient marine environments and refining our models of species distribution during critical periods of Earth’s history.

This work was made possible through the contributions of coauthors Carlos Rafael Borges-Sellén, Alberto F. Arano-Ruiz, Johanset Orihuela, and Yasmani Ceballos-Izquierdo, whose efforts in fieldwork, analysis, and writing were fundamental to this research. The full paper is available for download here.

The study is published in POEYANA, a peer-reviewed open-access journal (ISSN: 2410-7492, RNPS: 2403) that has been a cornerstone of zoological research in Cuba, the Caribbean, and the Neotropics since its founding in 1964. Originally established at the former Institute of Zoology of the Cuban Academy of Sciences, POEYANA is now edited by the Institute of Ecology and Systematics under the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment (CITMA). With over 500 published articles spanning more than five decades, the journal continues to serve as a platform for scientific contributions from Cuban and international researchers in the field of natural sciences.

Fossil News! First Pliocene Land Vertebrate Fossils from Cuba

I’m thrilled to announce the publication of our latest research paper, "First Record of Terrestrial Vertebrates from a Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene Deposit in Cuba," which uncovers the first documented Pliocene land vertebrate fossils in Cuba’s history to date. Found at the El Abra outcrop in Matanzas, these fossils offer a rare glimpse into the prehistoric fauna of the Greater Antilles, hinting at unique evolutionary patterns and diversity, plus providing new insight into the biodiversity and biogeographic history of the Caribbean region.

While we recognize that possible land vertebrate fossils of older age may exist in the caves of Pinar del Río, these remain untested and are generally assumed to be Pleistocene, and even later in the Pleistocene, in age. As such, our findings from El Abra represent the earliest confirmed fossils within the Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene range, adding a new dimension to our understanding of Caribbean vertebrate evolution.

One particularly exciting aspect of this discovery includes previously undocumented remains of capromyine rodents (so called hutias or jutias), showcasing unique dental characteristics that hint at possible connections with species in Hispaniola. This find challenges and enriches our understanding of Caribbean vertebrate dispersal and diversification, underscoring the importance of examining overlooked fossil records or outcrop deposits to piece together new evolutionary histories.

I am immensely grateful to my colleagues and co-authors Yasmani Ceballos, Lazaro Viñola, Logel Lorenzo and Alberto Clark, who collaborated on this project, contributing their expertise and dedication to each step of this investigation. Further thanks are due to the friends and institutions, for logistics, conversations, sharing of ideas, knowledge, and collecting permits. 

For those interested, the paper is available for free for the next 50 days via this special access link: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1j-qA_KNqlgOGc.

Take a look and join us in exploring this new chapter of Cuba's fossil record and its broader implications for Caribbean paleontology!

Source: 

Orihuela, J., Viñola-Lopez, L. W., Lorenzo, L., Clark, A., & Ceballos-Izquierdo, Y. (2024). First Record of Terrestrial Vertebrates from a Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene deposit in Cuba. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 105200.

Forgotten Giants of the Cretaceous: New Fossil Discoveries Unearthed in Colombia’s La Luna Formation

Beneath the hills of Colombia’s Eastern Cordillera lies an ancient record, preserved in the layers of rock known as the La Luna Formation. Dating back to the Upper Cretaceous, about 90 million years ago, this formation provides a glimpse into vast marine ecosystems, when warm seas covered much of what is now South America. Yet, despite its potential, the fossil record from this period in Colombia has remained surprisingly sparse.

In a groundbreaking discovery, a team of researchers has unearthed fossilized remains of the extinct fish family Enchodontidae from the La Luna Formation in the municipality of Matanza, Santander Department. These fossils, which include jaw and skull fragments, represent the first comprehensive report of Enchodus, a genus within the Enchodontidae family, from this region. Enchodus was a predatory fish, easily recognized by its distinctive sharp teeth, which made it one of the dominant marine predators of its time.

The fossils collected from the field were embedded in calcareous mudstone and concretions. The team utilized morphological analyses, along with computed tomography (CT) scans, to study the specimens in detail. These scans revealed not only the external features of the fossils but also internal structures hidden within the rock matrix — features crucial for taxonomic classification.

One of the most exciting aspects of this discovery is its contribution to understanding the diversity and distribution of Enchodus. The genus was already known to have a wide geographic range, with fossils found across North America, Europe, and Africa, but records from South America, particularly Colombia, have been rare. These newly uncovered specimens, some of which show distinctive morphological features, may even point to the presence of new, yet undescribed species of Enchodus.

The fossils were found in the Galembo Member of the La Luna Formation, a sedimentary sequence rich in organic material and known for its preservation of marine life. The environment in which these fish lived was likely a shallow, oxygen-starved sea, contributing to the preservation of skeletal remains. Despite the disarticulated nature of the fossils — a sign of active sea-bottom conditions and scavenger activity — the bones and teeth of these ancient predators offer a fascinating look at marine ecosystems during the Late Cretaceous.

This discovery not only fills a gap in Colombia’s fossil record but also raises intriguing questions about the factors that influenced the preservation and fossilization of marine life in the region. Why, in a period known for rich marine biodiversity, are fossils from the Colombian Upper Cretaceous so hard to come by? The answers to these questions may lie in the geological and environmental conditions of the time, but further research is needed to unravel these mysteries.

The findings also highlight the potential for future discoveries in the La Luna Formation. As more specimens are uncovered and analyzed, we may uncover further evidence of marine vertebrate diversity in this region. Each fossil tells a story, and these new specimens of Enchodus are beginning to piece together a chapter of the evolutionary history of marine life in South America.

These findings are detailed in the recently published article:

Torres-Parada, J.M., Orihuela León, J., Patarroyo Camargo, G.D., Alarcón Gómez, C.M., Diaz Villamizar, J.S., Gómez-Coronado, J.S., Márquez Prada, J.J. (2024). Upper Cretaceous Enchodontidae (Actinopterygii: Aulopiformes) in the La Luna Formation, Eastern Cordillera, Colombia: A new report. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 148, 105160.

I extend warm thanks to Jose M. Torres-Parada for the opportunity to collaborate on this project. May many more come our way!

Matanzas Revisited: Unraveling Fact from Fiction in Cuba's Past

For centuries, the traditional narrative surrounding the name "Matanzas" has been accepted as historical fact. According to this widely held belief, the name, which translates to “massacre,” originated from a violent event in which indigenous people of Cuba supposedly drowned a group of Spanish survivors by overturning their canoes while crossing the Bay of Matanzas. This was followed by the hanging of the remaining survivors in a ceiba tree. But upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that this version of events may not be entirely accurate, or even true at all.

A critical reevaluation of historical sources, led by modern scholars, offers a compelling argument that the accepted story of Matanzas may be more myth than reality. Their work, based on an analysis of Diego Velázquez’s Carta de Relación—a letter written by the Spanish governor of Cuba in 1514—presents an alternative view of the events. While Velázquez's letter is by no means free from potential bias, it offers a primary source account that contradicts the violent narrative propagated by later chroniclers like Bartolomé de las Casas and Bernal Díaz del Castillo.

Velázquez’s Account: A Primary Source with a Different Story

Velázquez’s Carta de Relación stands as one of the earliest -and closest in time- accounts of the Spanish interactions with the indigenous people in Cuba. Written in April 1514, just a few years after the events it describes, the letter contains details about the pacification efforts of the Spanish in Cuba and the rescue of three Spanish survivors: García Mexía and two women who had been held by indigenous leaders of the western region of the island. Velázquez notably omits any mention of a massacre or violent confrontation with the indigenous people during this rescue operation.

However, Velázquez does refer to a different massacre, known as the Massacre of Caonao, which is a significant event in Cuban history. This massacre, part of the often violent interactions between Spanish conquistadors and the indigenous population, took place in central Cuba, far from the region where the name Matanzas was superposed. The confusion surrounding the naming of Matanzas may have arisen from later chroniclers conflating these two unrelated events.

In fact, the survivors whom Velázquez rescued were not connected to the area that would later become Matanzas. These individuals had shipwrecked in Guaniguanico, located in present-day Pinar del Río, after a failed expedition from Central America. They were not fleeing from or involved in a massacre in Matanzas. Velázquez’s rescue mission likely took place in the southern territory of what is now Havana, between late 1512 and early 1513. This critical distinction, overlooked or misinterpreted by later chroniclers like Las Casas, highlights that the events in the Bay of Matanzas may have been wrongly attributed to violence, when in reality, it was part of a more complex series of interchanges and interactions.

Questioning the Later Accounts

Bartolomé de las Casas and Bernal Díaz del Castillo are key figures in the perpetuation of the violent narrative associated with the naming of Matanzas. However, both of these chroniclers wrote their accounts decades after the events, and their motivations for shaping the narrative must be considered. Las Casas, in particular, was driven by a moral agenda to highlight the mistreatment of indigenous populations by the Spanish colonizers. His accounts, while influential, are also known for their exaggeration, particularly when it comes to emphasizing Spanish brutality.

In his Historia de las Indias, Las Casas details a massacre in which indigenous people are said to have drowned and hanged Spanish survivors. This story, however, was written long after the fact and cannot be corroborated by primary sources from the time. He himself mentions that he is not remembering these events clearly. Likewise, Díaz del Castillo’s account, written many years after the events, contains discrepancies regarding the number of survivors and the circumstances of their rescue, further complicating the narrative. The unquestionable and excessive use of these, and other chronicles who followed and copied, exacerbated and perpetuated the legend even still. 

The discrepancies between these later accounts and Velázquez’s primary source raise important questions about the reliability of the traditional narrative. While Las Casas and Díaz del Castillo have been influential in shaping the story of Matanzas, their works must be viewed with caution, particularly when they contradict earlier, more immediate accounts like Velázquez’s.

Velázquez’s Bias: A Reasonable Concern?

It is reasonable to question whether Velázquez himself may have been biased in his reporting. As the governor of Cuba and a key figure in the colonization efforts, Velázquez certainly had reasons to present himself and his actions in a positive light. His letter to the crown was meant to showcase his control over the island and the success of his efforts in pacifying the indigenous population. However, even with this potential bias in mind, the absence of any mention of a massacre in Matanzas is significant. If such an event had occurred, Velázquez would have had to address it in some form, if only to justify his actions or downplay the extent of the violence.

Moreover, Velázquez’s letter is not the only source used by Orihuela and Viera in their analysis. They also draw upon archaeological evidence and a study of the region’s toponymy—specifically, the names “Guanima” and “Yucayo,” which have been erroneously linked to the events surrounding the founding of Matanzas. Their research reveals inconsistencies in these place names and shows that the connection between the supposed massacre and the toponymy of the region is likely a later invention, further undermining the traditional narrative. In fact, the Matanzas (= in the form of "Matancas") does not appear in the charts and documents until after 1525. 

The Archaeological Evidence

Archaeological findings in the region provide additional support for Orihuela and Viera’s argument. To date, no physical evidence has been found that corroborates the story of a massacre in the Bay of Matanzas. Instead, the archaeological record suggests that the indigenous populations in the area had a significant and prolonged presence, with evidence of sustained interaction with the Spanish, rather than outright conflict. 

Additionally, the etymology of the name “Matanzas” may have more to do with the economic activities in the region, such as cattle slaughtering, than with a violent event. The term "matanza" was commonly used in Spanish colonies to refer to the killing of animals for food, and it is plausible that this is the true origin of the name, rather than a massacre of Spanish sailors.

The Silent Majority: The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Colonial History

This revised interpretation also sheds light on the often overlooked or minimized role of indigenous populations in the narratives of conquest and colonization. For centuries, indigenous peoples have been portrayed as either victims of violence or passive participants in the colonial process. However, new historiographical approaches are helping to recover the agency of these groups as active players in the history of the Caribbean and Latin America.

In particular, the indigenous peoples of Cuba, like those collectivelly called Taino, were not merely silent witnesses to their own demise. They engaged in complex interactions with the Spanish, negotiating, resisting, and sometimes cooperating with them, depending on the circumstances. The recovery of indigenous agency is an important trend in contemporary scholarship on the conquest of the Americas, and this reinterpretation of the Matanzas story is a part of that broader effort to understand the colonial past in a more nuanced way.

A Revisionist Perspective

In the end, Orihuela and Viera’s work is not merely about defending Velázquez’s account. It is about critically reassessing the evidence, questioning long-held assumptions, and separating myth from historical fact. By reexamining the available documentation, cross-referencing accounts, and considering archaeological data, they offer a revisionist perspective that challenges the traditional story of Matanzas’ naming.

Their approach invites us to rethink the way we understand the early encounters between the Spanish and indigenous people in Cuba. While the idea of a violent massacre may have been compelling to chroniclers like Las Casas, the evidence suggests a more nuanced and peaceful interaction, at least in this instance. It also serves as a reminder that history is often shaped by the interests and biases of those who record it, and that our understanding of the past must be constantly reevaluated in light of new evidence.

Conclusion

The traditional narrative of the massacre at Matanzas may have been a myth, woven together by chroniclers long after the events they described. Through careful analysis of primary sources like Velázquez’s Carta de Relación and a critical evaluation of archaeological and toponymic evidence, Orihuela and Viera provide a fresh interpretation of the events. While Velázquez may have had his biases, the absence of any significant mention of violence in his account, coupled with the lack of corroborating evidence from other sources, suggests that the true story of Matanzas may be far less violent than we’ve been led to believe.

This revisionist perspective encourages us to question the accuracy of historical myths and to seek out the truth behind the legends that have shaped our understanding of the past. As with any historical inquiry, the search for truth is ongoing, and Orihuela and Viera’s work is an important step in the ongoing effort to uncover the real story of Matanzas.

Referenced work:

---

Rethinking the origin of Matanzas: from myth to history

The traditional understanding of how the city of Matanzas got its name is often attributed to a historical event in which Spaniards were supposedly massacred by indigenous people while attempting to cross the Bay of Matanzas. This account is widely accepted, but the document "Matanza de Yucayo: Historia y Mito" by Johanset Orihuela León and Ricardo A. Viera Muñoz (2020) offers a critical analysis of this narrative and presents alternative explanations, suggesting that the name "Matanzas" may not be linked to a simple act of violence, as traditionally thought.

The term "Matanzas," which literally translates to "massacres" in Spanish, has long been believed to have originated from an event in which indigenous people drowned Spanish survivors of a shipwreck by overturning their canoes as they crossed the bay, with the remaining survivors later being hanged. This story is derived from a combination of historical accounts, primarily from Bartolomé de las Casas and Bernal Díaz del Castillo, both of whom chronicled, augmented, and elaborated on these events decades after they supposedly occurred, leading to questions about the reliability of their reports. These accounts, written from different perspectives, have propagated the idea that the city's name commemorates this violent incident.

However, Orihuela and Viera argue that the name "Matanzas" might not originate from such a massacre. Their work provides a comprehensive reexamination of Diego Velázquez’s Carta de Relación, an original primary source from 1514, which paints a different picture of these events. The Velázquez document describes the rescue of three Spanish survivors (García Mexía and two women) held by indigenous leaders, and notably the mention of an unrelated massacre is in another part of the island, and known in Cuban history as the "massacre of Caonao", which took place in central Cuba (not northwestern) as part of the conquest of the island after 1511. This critical mix up raises doubts about the veracity of the traditional narrative.

Velázquez’s letter details how the Spanish survivors were cared for by local indigenous leaders and were not subjected to the acts of violence that other historical accounts suggest. The focus of Velázquez’s narrative is on the peaceful recovery of these survivors rather than an indigenous rebellion. Furthermore, the rescue of these survivors, who were shipwrecked near the present-day region of Pinar del Rio, suggests a more complex relationship between the indigenous people and the Spaniards than one based on outright violence and hostility. This raises important questions about whether the massacre purported in Matanzas ever occurred or whether the story was later embellished by chroniclers like Las Casas and Díaz del Castillo, whose works were written long after the events transpired.

Another key point raised by Orihuela and Viera is the etymology of the word "Matanzas." In historical documents and maps, Matanzas is sometimes referenced not as a place of mass killing but rather as a location associated with "mataderos" or slaughterhouses, referring to the processing of animals. This indicates that the name might have been linked to economic activities such as cattle slaughter rather than a human massacre. The authors further explore how this interpretation of the name aligns with the early colonial economy in Cuba, which was heavily based on livestock, and who had personal interests in embellishing their chronicles.

Additionally, the historical toponymy of the area surrounding Matanzas, including references to "Yucayo" and "Guanima," complicates the narrative. These names, associated with indigenous villages, have been inaccurately linked to the city of Matanzas over time. The authors suggest that historical conflation between different indigenous sites and events contributed to the creation of a myth that merged various historical occurrences into a single, oversimplified story of violence. This myth-making was reinforced by 19th-century historians and has persisted into the present day.

The author's careful examination of historical and archaeological evidence challenges the accepted story of Matanzas’ naming. Their work points out inconsistencies in the accounts of Las Casas and Díaz del Castillo, and other chronicles, whose later writings likely reflected the biases of their time, especially in portraying the indigenous populations as either noble victims or brutal savages in need of evangelization. By contrast, Velázquez's original letter offers a more balanced and less sensationalized view of indigenous-Spanish interactions, which undermines the idea that the city's name is solely derived from a massacre.

In conclusion, the name Matanzas may not, as commonly believed, stem from a singular violent event involving the deaths of Spaniards at the hands of indigenous people. Instead, the name might be tied to the region’s role in colonial livestock processing or other economic activities, and the perpetuation of a myth over nautical charts. The conflation of different historical events and places over time, compounded by unreliable historical sources, likely played a significant role in the creation of the massacre myth. This revisionist perspective urges readers to reconsider the origins of Matanzas’ name and reflects a broader need to critically evaluate the sources that shape our understanding of history.

But why should we care? Why believe the primary sources of Velazquez?

It’s a valid and important question to ask whether Diego Velázquez, like any historical figure, might also have been biased in his recounting of events. Velázquez's Carta de Relación was, after all, a report to the Spanish crown, designed to showcase his success in pacifying and colonizing Cuba, which inherently could reflect his interests. Here’s why Orihuela's and Viera's interpretation, while based on Velázquez’s account, offers a strong argument:

1. Velázquez as a Primary Source: Velázquez’s Carta de Relación is a primary source, written in 1514, relatively soon after the events. This makes it chronologically closer to the actual occurrences compared to the accounts of Bartolomé de las Casas and Bernal Díaz del Castillo, who wrote much later, many decades after the fact, and whose faulty memory -as they themselves say in their chronicles- may have influenced their storytelling. The proximity of Velázquez's letter to the events gives it more immediate historical value, even if potentially biased.

2. Contradictions in Other Accounts: Las Casas and Díaz del Castillo’s versions (among other chronicles of the time), though popularized, contain notable contradictions and were written much later, influenced by their own agendas. Las Casas, for example, was deeply motivated by moral concerns about the treatment of indigenous peoples, which may have led to his emphasis on violence and mistreatment, sometimes to the point of exaggeration. Therefore, contrasting these later sources against a closer primary source like Velázquez’s account helps question their reliability.

3. Historical Revisionism: Orihuela and Viera’s work embodies the practice of historical revisionism—reexamining accepted narratives based on critical analysis of existing evidence. They explore not only Velázquez’s account but also archaeological and toponymic data from other original sources, bringing a multidisciplinary approach that challenges traditional legends such as the "matanza" and the origins of Matanzas' name. This revisionist approach is crucial in the field of history, as new interpretations often arise from reanalyzing sources long taken at face value.

4. Velázquez’s Motivation: While Velázquez certainly had reasons to present himself in a positive light, his Carta de Relación aimed to demonstrate effective governance and pacification, rather than an outright denial of conflict. If the massacre had been as significant as described by later chroniclers, it is plausible that he would have had to mention it (in fact mentions that of Caonao), even if to frame it in his favor. His omission of such a violent event suggests it may not have occurred as described by Las Casas and others.

5. Additional Evidence: Orihuela and Viera do not rely solely on Velázquez’s account. They supplement it with archaeological evidence and documentation analysis of toponyms like "Guanima" and "Yucayo," which reveal inconsistencies in the locations and events described by other chroniclers. Their argument is not just about trusting Velázquez but also about showing that other versions of the story do not align with available evidence.

In summary, while Velázquez may have been biased, Orihuela and Viera offer a thorough, evidence-based argument that scrutinizes multiple sources. By reassessing the historical context and cross-referencing documents, they present a reasoned case that challenges the traditional legend. As always, historical interpretation requires a critical eye, and Orihuela and Viera's work invites readers to question long-held beliefs based on careful analysis rather than myth.

Source: 

Orihuela, J & R. A. Viera (2020). Matanzas de Yucayo: Historia y Mito. Aspha Ediciones, Buenos Aires.