 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Epipalaeolithic (Nile Valley, Western and Eastern Deserts)
Epipalaeolithic groups moved into Egypt during a period of post-glacial warming during the early Holocene, at the same time as significant changes towards a sedentary existence in the Near East where innovations in the Natufian and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B from around 9600-8000 BP were changing the face of the Levantine economy. Playa deposits appear to have been laid down from around 12,000bp, suggesting that humid conditions began at around this time. 10th millennum bp sites are known from a number of areas on Egypt and the eastern Sahara, including the southern Western Desert, Siwa, Farafra, the Gilf Kebir, the Libyan Acacus and the Air Massif in Niger (McDonald 2001, p.28). The Arkin Formation was composed of silty sediments and micaceous sands, “evidence for an increase in the Nile floods reaching a high point at around 9500-9000BP and then dropping down gradually by successive stages over the course of the next few millennia” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.77). The Arkinian is the most wide-ranging of North African Epipalaeolithic industries. “From a typological point of view, the Arkinian is part of the wide range of North African Epipalaeolithic industries, and the statistical analysis of the group of backed bladelets reveals similarities with the Iberomaurusian” (p.87). Additionally, toolkits “suggest connections with the north African Kermian industry.” Dibeira West 1 (DIW1) in northern Sudan has provided a radiocarbon 14 dated to 10,580 =/- 150 BP and comprises 13 concentrations with over 97,000 lithics. Raw materials used for manufacturing were chert, agate, jasper, igneous rock, fossil wood and ferruginous sandstone. Ouchtata retouch was conspicuous. The toolkit was largely microlithic with some scaled pieces, and grinding stones. No microburins were present. Subsistence was based on large mammals and included hartebeest, aurochs, gazelle, hippopotamus, Bos and fish. Elkab Although in his 1984 article Vermeersch designated Elkab “Late Palaeolithic”, more recently it has been suggested that it is Epipalaeolithic, including an article by Vermeersch et al in 2002 about the Tree Shelter (see below). The type-sites for the Elkabian were a series of well-preserved small sites at the pharaonic city of Elkab, 120km to the north of Aswan, embedded in Nile alluvium and located on the post-inundation beach of a narrow alluvial plain of a former branch of the Nile, in a wadi mouth area. Conditions were significantly wetter, and the wadi was still occasionally active. Occupation appears to have taken place in the late summer and autumn. Eight small concentrations (the largest, E-1 being only around 5m in diameter) date to around 8000BP (Vermeersch 1984). The lithic industry was based on rolled pebbles for manufacture, some of chert. The industry was microlithic with large numbers of elongated triangles, blades, bladelets, notches and denticulates (Vermeersch 1984), with a low number of geometrics and with an overall dominance of backed bladelets. There were some double-backed perforators, notches and denticulates. There were no burins, endscrapers, truncations. Ground stone implements are dominated by grinding stones which are fine-grained slabs, 6-9mm thick, made on fine-grained sandstone. Although the presence of grinding stones are often interpreted as evidence of cereal or tuber processing - in other words plant processing - in this case they were sometimes stained with red pigment (Vermeersch 1984) suggesting that the grinding of pigment may have been their true purpose - or at least a second purpose. Tools made on other raw materials include bone spatula burnishers and ostrich-eggshell disks. The occupants of Elkab used sophisticated fishing techniques, and hunted for a variety of mammal prey around the area of the wadi. The environment was grassy and wooded savanna and the floodplain was also occupied. Fish was clearly the mainstay of the economy - the main genera being Syndontis, Lates, and Caridae. Fishing activities were supplemented by hunting. Hunted species include aurochs (38%), dorcas gazelle (25%), small bovids/sheep (13%), soft-shelled tortoise (12%), hippopotami (9%), and to a smaller extent hartebeest, jackals and porcupines (Vermeersch 1984, p.138)). Gazelle were seasonal and catfish were probably exploited during the post-flood season. Settlements were temporary in nature. There was no evidence of food production during the Elkabian - and the natural conditions certainly would not have favoured it. The Elkabian sites were located on a narrow alluvial plain in the area of a wadi mouth (the wadi was still active occasionally), and occupation was in the late summer and autumn - not in the late winter and spring when agricultural activities would be expected. In addition there were none of the characteristic agricultural tools, including sickle blades and botanical species which would have been indicators of a cultivating way of life. In addition, faunal remains are exclusively wild species, as described above. It is clear that the Elkabian was still an essentially Palaeolithic lifestyle as opposed to “the earliest villages, the first ceramics in the Sahara, and . . . their contemporaries in the Near East” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.81), and Vermeersch and Hendrickx (2000 p.35) suggest that “the Elkabians should be viewed as nomadic hunters, following east-west routes with wintertime fishing and hunting in the Nile Valley and exploitation of the desert during the wet summer.” Looking for similarities and connections with other north east African and Egyptian occupations, Vermeersch (1984) has ruled out connections with Nile industries and the Shamarkian, but says that there are similarities with the Dyke area represented by site E-72-5: “It seems . . . that there are clear technological and typological connections between Elkab in the Nile Valley and E-72-5 in the Dyke area” (Vermeersch 1984, p.139). Other sites with affinities are identified as E-76-6 at Kharga and E-77-6 at El Beid. Tree Shelter, Eastern Desert There is evidence of an Elkabian occupation at the Tree Shelter site at Wadi Sodmein near Quseir (Red Sea). The Tree Shelter is a small rock overhang at the southern site of a small wadi tributary of Wadi Sodmein, and the occupation covers an area of around 20m2. Stratigraphic studies suggest that there were three environmental phases and at least two occupation phases (Vermeersch et al 2002). The lowest level (the B-Sediment layer) is the one relevant the the final Palaeolithic; the other is a more recent Neolithic level and will be discussed later. The lower levels indicate a number of short occupations with hearths and charcoal concentrations. Dates from 8120+/-45BP to 7790+/-70BP give this phase a span of some 600 years. Lithics were made on a good quality reddish chert, which was procured 3km away. In all, there were 400 modified tools (Vermeersch et al 2002 p.125). Tools were fine bladelets, mainly on single platform cores. Some tools showed examples of ouchtata retouch. The exact breakdown is as follows:
Perforated ostrich shell beads were also found, as were molluscs from both the Nile and the Red Sea. There were no ceramics. Subsistence was probably based on hunting and hide preparation. There was no cattle, but there were goats - which makes sense, as goats are more tolerant to the arid conditions, inconsistent water supply and poor quality grazing which existed in the Eastern Desert.. The site of Sodmein Cave, dating to c.7800BP is probably closely related. Vermeersch et al (2002) have looked at comparative data and are confident that the Tree Shelter site “can be attributed tot he Elkabian, an Epipalaeolithic industry from the Nile Valley, dated to around 8000BP. Technology and typology of the Elkab assemblages and that of the Tree Shelter are nearly identical” (p.125). The only big differences are the presence at the Tree shelter of end-scrapers, and the lithic microwear analyses which suggest that whereas the Tree Shelter tools were used for hide-working and hunting, those at Elkab were used for wood-processing
In summary, Vermeersch (1984, p.142) concluded that “The subsistence of the Elkabian should be viewed as a nomadic-hunter subsistence with east-west routes of winter hunting in the Western Desert and summer hunting and fishing in the Nile Valley”. This picture has been further expanded by work in the Eastern Desert which suggests that these areas were used as additional hunting grounds (Vermeersch et al 2002). Vermeersch et al (2002) conclude that the industry and the chronology of the Elkabian “bears a strong likeness to the East-Saharan El Ghorab Neolithic, dated 8.5-8.2kaBP” (p.129), but without the presence of domesticated cattle, and no ceramics. For more much more detail about the Qarunian, visit this section on my sister site dedicated to the Faiyum. The following provides a brief summary: The Qarunian used to be called the Faiyum B, but due to misinterpretations of the Faiyum lake levels has now been renamed. Caton-Thompson and Gardner (1934) excavated in the Faiyum and on the assumption that the lake was reducing throughout time, suggested an earlier Faiyum A higher up the lake’s former edge and a later Faiyum B at a lower height corresponding to a less sophisticated industry. They suggested degeneration in social sophistication from Faiyum A to B. However, more recent work making use of carbon dating and studies of Faiyum geomorphology have made it clear that the level of Lake Qarun changed conspicuously over time and that in fact the Epipalaeolithic Faiyum B (Qarunian) predated the early Neolithic (now the Faiyumian). The sites were located on high ground overlooking Lake Moeris (in the Faiyum depression) and date to around 7050BC and consisted of “lakeside camps of people who made microlithic artefacts, mounted fish jaws as pints for arrows, and made their livelihood by a combination of hunting and fishing” (Phillipson 1985, 1993, p.34) p.105). Fishing conditions were good at this time in shallow waters and fish was the main constituent of the diet. Fishing was supplemented by hunting and gathering. A single burial has been found of a woman aged around 40. She was buried in a slightly contracted position, lying on her left side with her head to the east, facing south, and modern “negroid” in appearance. Later work by Wendorf during the 1970s uncovered further Epipalaeolithic sites in the Faiyum as the Qasr el-Sagha plateau. One of these sites. E29-H1 has a carbon 14 date of 8100+/- 130 BP. Raw materials in tool manufacture included chert pebbles deriving from the Oligocene conglomerates of the Gebel Qatrani. The toolkit was composed of 50% bladelets and backed bladelets, a relatively high number of notches and denticulates, some truncated bladelets and microburins. There were some Kvukowski types. Perforators are rare, as are endscrapers and there are no burins. Some harpoons were made out of catfish jaws. Faunal resources include a fishing based economy. Hunting of large mammals and plant gathering was secondary. The Faiyum Qarunian is consistent with the microlithic Elkabian and the Early Neolithic sites of the Western Desert.
Dakhleh Oasis is characterized by fossil spring terraces, artesian wells old playas , a sandstone ridge, a 300m high limestone-topped plateau and piedmont zones (McDonald 1991, p.85). Dakhleh is the largest of the Western Desert oases, around 70km long by 20km wide, and occupies the same depression that is also occupied by Kharga Oasis. Environmental conditions have been suggested by sediments, botanical and zoological remains and geomorphological data. McDonald’s (2001) analysis data from Dakhleh indicates that humidity and the date of the climatic optimum differ from other Western Desert areas. 9th millennium fauna from the Great Sand Sea, Abu Ballas and Napta/Kiseiba indicate desert or semi-desert conditions. There is poor sedimentological, botanical and faunal data from the 9th millennium in Dakhleh, but McDonald suggests that the little available data “might suggest a slightly richer fauna than found elsewhere in the Western Desert” (2001, p.31). Faunal species include gazelle, hartebeest, bovid (probably Bos), elephant and a fish vertebra, the only fish bone known in Dakhleh. Three Masara units have been identified, pre-dating the Bashendi phases. Fieldwork and radiocarbon dates suggest that the Masara units were more or less contemporaneous (McDonald 1991, p85). There is evidence in Dakhleh from two locations which suggests that humans arrived well after the wet period had started in the Western Desert - as indicated by the presence of sites situation on top of thick sediments which had built up as a result of fluvial and soil formation activities (McDonald 2001, p.28). The three units of the Masara are defined on the basis of site location, site features and aspects of lithic industries including raw materials used and tool types produced. The Masara A sites are concentrated on a sandstone ridge, the northern plateau and some isolated examples in the piedmont zone, as well as occurring in areas where the Masara C sites are also found. The technology is characterized by blade tools made on fresh flint, with blades, bladelets, notched and denticulated pieces and piercers. Grinding equipment is represented. Sites very in size from Site #224, with an area of around 5m, to Site #263 which measures roughly 800m by 200m. A more typical site is Site #85 which measures around 150m by 95m. Surface scatters are also represented, usually consisting of chipped stone, grinding tools and hearths. Site #83 was used as a quarry and to produce blades on honey-coloured chert or quartzite. Artefacts at site #85 included chipped stone, stone-capped hearths, grinding tools and some ostrich shells. The chert blades were fine-grained and obtained mainly from the limestone plateau. One or more hearths were usual. Sites were widely scattered across the oasis, but were mainly located on the fringes and on the northern plateau, with several associated with playa sediments. The Masara A lithics were made on the greatest range of raw materials, few of which were local to the sites at which they were found (some may have been obtained as far away as Kharga Oasis, possibly as part of normal ranging behaviour): “It would appear that these groups collected good raw material from various sources encountered on their normal rounds, producing some tools on the spot . . . but carrying most of it with them” (McDonald 1991, p.95). The Masara A seems to be the most mobile of the three units, and McDonald (2001) describes it is the most typically Epipalaeolithic of the three units. The Masara B unit is located mainly on the north of the sandstone ridge and is characterized by deflated surface scatters in shallow basins. The Masara B unit is very curious, as described by McDonald 1991 (p.90): “Chipped stoned artifacts manufactured by members of earlier oasis cultures. This mostly Middle Stone Age (MSA) material was systematically reworked by Masara B groups into a limited range of tool types constituting over 80% of some assemblages”. These sites are also accompanied by grinding equipment, and some ostrich eggshell, plus a sandstone-capped hearth. McDonald believes that these small sites had a particular purpose, with several associated with playa sediments, and most clustered on the southern border of the oasis. The Masara C unit is distinct from other other Masara units, or any other sites in the Western Desert. Sites are confined to the south east corner of the oasis, and none are associated with playa deposits. Most are on a “low sandstone ridge where they occupy shallow hollows” (McDonald 2001, p.31). Although they are away from the main oasis area, they lie at the end of a major wadi system that collected water from the top of the plateau. Unlike sites in the other units, circular stone structures are found in shallow hollows, which are probably hut circles. The sites are in general small – the largest is Site #264, which measures 50m by 25m, and at the largest concentrations stone rings number between twelve and twenty. Structures are simple, although some contain possible stone pavements, and it is possible that storage bins are represented. Expedient and opportunistic use of very local materials also suggests a much more circumscribed territory than in the Masara A. The toolkit associated includes grinding equipment, ostrich eggshell beads, sandstone-capped hearth fragments, and chert, quartzite and limestone stone tools. McDonald concludes that “In summary, there is not a great deal of variation bearing on the question of sedentism detectable on present evidence amount the tool kits of the Masara units . . . . The fact, however, that the Masara C toolkit appear to contain roughly twice as many types as those of Masara A and B may be an indication of greater sedentism in this unit” (McDonald 1991, p. 100). A number of raw materials were used for the manufacture of stone tools, including chert, quartzite, limestone and existing artefacts left by earlier societies which were re-worked. In her analysis of radiocarbon dates in 2001, McDonald observes that while the Masara falls mostly in the first half of the 8th millennium bp, most of the Western Desert dates fall within the later part of the 9th millennium bp (McDonald 2001), with the earliest occupation taking place at c.8700bp. She says that Kuper’s 1989 analysis of the 145 prehistoric dates for the Western Desert that were available in 1985, 40 dates cluster between 8200-7700bb. Thirteen of these were from Napta, and many were from the Gilf Kebir, but while these are therefore not representative of the Western Desert as a whole, they do indicate that Dakhleh was not temporally consistent with other occupations in the Western Desert. The late occupation of Dakhleh suggests to McDonald that Dakhleh may have been used as a refuge by desert dwellers during arid periods, which ties in with Hassan’s dry episode of 8800-8600 for southern Egypt (Hassan 1988). McDonald comments that it is unclear how to account for the fact that while late 9th millennium bp dates are found for occupations at Abu Ballas, Kharga, Farafra and Siwa, none are known from Dakhleh. In conclusion, McDonald (1991) sees three focal points in the location and nature of sites from all three units: procurement of raw materials, lithic manufacture and toolkit portability. He suggests that formal tools may indicate differing mobility patters within the Masara groups, a diversity of tool types, versatility of functionality and portability. The Epipalaeolithic sites in Farafra correspond to the Early Holocene moist phase. The oldest occupation is at Ain el-Raml and dates to 9650+/-190bp (R-1983). It was an ephemeral hunter-gatherer occupation with an Epipalaeolithic toolkit including blades, backed bladelets, and burin spalls (similar to El Ghorab facies). There was no pottery associated with the lithic assemblage. Barich and Lucarini (2002) believe that hunter-gatherer groups of the Early Holocene in the Western Desert (Farafra, Napta Neolithic and Dakhleh Bashendi) “mediated the first contacts with the Western Sahara”. Sites dating to this period at Farafra include Ain el-Ramal and Bahr Playa. The presence of an Epipalaeolithic phase in the Gilf Kebir is possible but by no means certain. “These tools let us assume that the Holocene settlement of the Wadi Bakht might have begun much earlier than in the Middle Neolithic (Lindstadter 2003, p.135). Schon’s investigations in the Wadi Akhdar (Schon 1989) found tools with features which had features usually associated with Epipalaeolithic occupations. These include long narrow regularly shaped blades, truncations, shuldered bladelets, long narrow triangles, and the use of a technique for not known elsewhere in the Gilf Kebir producing crested blades and core tablets. Most tools were less than 5cm long, and 99% were made on fine-grained quartz. Nothing within the context was dateable, but sand over one site produced a date of 5700bp suggesting a terminus ante quem for this industry (Schon 1989). From Lindstadter’s survey, he suggests that one of the characteristic implements that probably date to this time is the notched trapeze which is found elsewhere in the eastern Sahara (2003, p.135). At Djara, in the Western Desert, an area known mainly for its Neolithic occupation, an Epipalaeolithic presence was noted. However, “Even though some Epipalaeolithic sites were surveyed on the plateau (older than 7600BP, their number is quite low in comparison with other sites from the mid-Holocene” (Kindermann 2003, p.59). Epipalaeolithic sites were consistently much smaller than the following Neolithic ones. In the Eastern Desert/Red Sea area Majer states that the Epipalaeolithic area was occupied “by people who had some connection ot the Nile Valley” (Majer, J. FOLLOWERS, p.227).
Egypt 8000 – 6400BP and Nile Valley Hiatus 7000 – 5400 BCBetween c.8000 and 6500 BP there was a climatic change which saw the introduction of an arid phase forcing human populations to settle closer to water sources principally the oases of the western desert and probably the Nile. There is no information on human population in the Nile valley between 7000 and 5400BC. This is possibly because the level of the Nile was exceptionally low at this time and occupation remains along the edges of the river and the alluvial plain would have been destroyed by the annual floods of the next humid phase when the river levels would have been higher and flood impacts stronger and more recent Nile alluvium would have buried earlier layers: “most living sites, except those located on high ground or built, like the town of Kom Ombo, on tells formed by the debris of earlier villages have either been buried under more recent deposits of silt or washed away … It also appears that between 80000 and 5000BC the Egyptian floodplain was lower that it is today and the valley narrower; hence in most places even the cemeteries that were located along the margins of the flooded land at that time are now buried under more recent deposits of alluvium” (Trigger, 1983, p.10). In the Western Desert, while water levels and dunes advanced, tool technology changed and this is visible at a number of sites: Bir Kiseiba (E79-2, E79-4, E79-5A, E79-6, E79-7), Bir Murr 1, Lower Level at E75-8 at Nabta and from Kortein (E77-5 and E77-5A). In place of local stones and surrounding cherts and metamorphic rocks, Eocene limestones were imported in large quantities to fabricate retouched flakes, perforators, notches, denticulates, bifacial arrowheads, backed bladelets. Polished axes appear for the first time. Grinding stones are increasingly important and pottery is a standard feature of sites dating to this time in this area. Faunal remains have not changed and focus on dorcas gazelles and hares. At Bahariya blades and flakes were found, dominated by endscrapers, notches, burins, and denticulates. There are no microliths and few bifacials. At Kharga the industry is based on flake-tools including notches, endscrapers, retouched flakes and a few pointed bifacials. There are no microliths.
Khartoum MesolithicWhere the Blue and White Niles meet a vast settlement area from the 7th millennium BC onwards was identified and excavated by Arkell in the 1940s. Arkell named it “The Early Khartoum.” The site sat in a layer which was 2Ms deep at its thickest and was filled with quartz flakes and brown incised pottery, grind stones and fragments of shell. No earlier Pleistocene sites have been found which might have evolved into the Khartoum Mesolithic and at the moment its origins are a mystery. The inhabitants of Khartoum Mesolithic settlements were describes as hunter-fisher-potters. There is no sign of the domestication of plants or animals but the economy and technology had moved on from the Palaeolithic, so for convenience it has been designated Mesolithic. However, it should be clear that this should not be confused with the European Mesolithic and its cultural, technological and economic affiliations. It should be considered instead as a phase that sits between Egyptian/Sudanese Palaeolithic and Neolithic phases “In the game of definitions, the presence of pottery – especially in the African context – hardly ties in with the conventional idea of the Mesolithic . . . . For convenience, however, we retain . . . the term ‘Khartoum Mesolithic’ simply because it is now enshrined in the literature (while acknowledging, nevertheless, its trued Neolithicizing nature)” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000, p.93). Sites belonging typologically to the Khartoum Mesolithic (Arkell’s Early Khartoum) include Sorurab 1 and 2, Shabana, Shaqadud, Siggai, Abu Darbain and Anebis. Dates from these sites range between 9370+/-110 BP and 6408+/-80 BP. The environment, on the basis of the fauna, including porcupines, warthogs and buffaloes, was a humid savannah landscape. Tools were made of stone and bone. Lithics, made from local chert and quartz and distantly-located rhyolite (whose nearest sources was 80 km away) include quartz microlithic flakes, stone rings (with an average 10cm diameter) and pestles and mortars. Bone tools include barbed harpoons. Pottery was of two types, the first consisting of large bowls made from brown fabric which was well-fired and was decorated with wavy lines, the second decorated with dotted way lines. They were only polished on the interior. Burials were deposited in a contracted position and were accompanied with body jewellery made from ostrich shells. The settlement must have been inhabited on a seasonal basis, as it was located below the level of the annual inundation. Seventeen graves were found within the settlement. The economy was based on river animals (including crocodiles, turtles and hippos) with a high preponderance of fish. “The Khartoum Mesolithic evolved at a time when the Sahara was enjoying favourable climatic conditions in lacustrine environments; the representation of the harpoon is indicative of an economy based on fishing (along with hunting and gathering)” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.98). It is possible that there was more opportunity to live a semi sedentary lifestyle under the conditions that existed at this time: “The best evidence of increased sedentariness in Holocene times in the Nile Valley is the presumably pre-agricultural ‘Khartoum Mesolithic’ culture, whose type-site appears to have been inhabited, at least seasonally, for considerable periods of time” (Trigger 1983, p.16). The destructive or concealing processes of the annual inundation mean that the Nile Valley, where most research has been conducted, has been a relatively weak source for prehistoric artefacts still in context. A flavour of what went before is filled out by un-stratified and unprovenanced remains. However, it is clear that while Valley sites should continue to be looked for the oases of the Western Desert and the wadis of the Eastern Desert will be more fruitful, if not necessarily typical of Egypt as a whole. In the Nile Valley, after a hiatus in material remains, human occupation becomes visible at around 7000 BC (c.9000 BP). Flood plain deposits cover most sites, which means that finds have been rare. However, two separate assemblage types have been identified and are discussed by Vermeersch and Hendrickx (2000, p. 35): the Elkabian and the Qarunian. The wealth of the Nile provided a stable and independent economy based on fish, gazelles come to feed at watering points and exploitation of the savannah. Plants are also exploited extensively, and there are signs that food was stored. “Faced with . . . precocious developments to the east, the Nile valley continued with its traditions, retaining a way of life based on hunting, fishing and gathering (Arkinian, Elkabian and Qarunian) and the seasonal occupation of sites based around the regular, natural changes of this particular ecological zone, responding primarily to the annual Nile” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.87). Midant-Reynes summarizes the Nile Epipalaeolithic as follows (1992/2000 p. 89) “Up until the 10th millennium BC evolution along the Nile was influenced by local peculiarities but was not fundamentally different from that of neighbouring regions . . . .From the 10th to the 6th millennium BC the Nile valley continued its own Palaeolithic traditions, avoiding the formidable processes of change that affected the areas to the east and west and the explanation for this situation is probably to be found in the abundance of natural resources of nutrition.” In the Western Desert there is occupation evidence at around 9000bp (Friedman 2002 p.5), from Regenfeld (300km north of Bir Kiseiba). Epipalaeolithic concentrations of lithics (blades and bladelets, characterised by straight-backed pointed bladelets and geometric microliths) were found near playa lakes. A very coarse and undecorated pottery is associated with one concentration. There is no evidence for occupation in the Eastern Deserts at this time. The picture that emerges of pre-Neolithic prehistory, from the available evidence, is one that is quite consistent with prehistoric periods elsewhere in Africa and also in Europe. However, there are notable anomalies, as follows:
There are also important elements to consider re the varying environmental conditions at any one time, the effects of the last glaciations on the development of prehistoric societies, the effect of Ethiopian climatic conditions on Egypt, and the geo-alluvial past of the Nile Valley.
|
||||||||||
|
All text and images on this site are the copyright of Andrea Byrnes andie@easynet.co.uk 2003, 2004, 2005 unless otherwise stated |
||||||||||
