 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
“In both Pleistocene archaeology and polite society it is far safer to discuss the weather than our origins” (Dennell 1983, p.25). There are multiple theories about the origins of modern man, but within Africa itself, although there are arguments over the finer details, a basic framework of evolution has been agreed. Between 8 and 4 million years ago hominid fossils were very rare indeed, but between 4 and 3 million years ago there is evidence from Hadar and Laetoli that the first specie of hominid, the small, bipedal Australopithecines came into being (one million years before tool making). At around 2 million years ago the hominid lineage split into two
The next stage in human evolution in Africa was Homo erectus which appears in the palaeontological record at around 1.9 million years ago until around 200,000 years ago and was larger than Homo habilis with an even bigger cranial capacity. Archaic forms of Homo sapiens appeared on the scene from around 400,000 to c.130,000 years ago and full Homo sapiens sapiens appears from around 180,000 to around 150,000 years ago (Homo sapiens neandertalensis did not appear in Africa, but for reference dates to around 150,000 to c.32,000 years ago). The Prehistoric in Egypt is defined as the period between the earliest traces of occupation up until the end of the Epipalaeolithic. Although artefacts have been found in Egypt dating from the earliest Palaeolithic “it is impossible to discern any characteristics specific to Egypt as a cultural area at this time. Those characteristics emerge only in the late Palaeolithic” (Seidlmayer 1998). The Prehistoric in Egypt is defined as the period between the earliest traces of occupation up until the end of the Epipalaeolithic. One of the two popular theories of human evolution suggests that modern humans originated in Africa, and spread from there to the rest of the world. The two best routes out of Africa would have been either by crossing the Mediterranean at Gibraltar or, more credibly, via the Nile to access the rest of Asia via the Sinai: “If tropical Africa was the cradle of modern humans, how and why did Homo sapiens spread into Europe and Asia? The critical period was between 100,000 and 45,000 years ago, the date by which anatomically modern people were certainly living in southwest Asia . . . The Nile Valley was always habitable, even during periods of great aridity in the desert. Thus small groups of modern people could have hunted and foraged across the Sahara in to the Nile valley and southwest Asia as early as 100,000 years ago” (Fagan 1999, p.88). However, there is very little archaeological data to either support or deny this. According to Dennell (1983, p.39) there were almost certainly no land bridges across the Mediterranean, although the Dardanelles were probably dry (Dennell 1983, p29). There was no sign of the Aterian of North Africa and the Egyptian Western Desert anywhere in Europe (see Late Middle Palaeolithic below). There are some real issues with the use of the terms Palaeolithic, Mousterian and Levalloisian in North African contexts – mainly because they derive from Europe and specifically because their appearance in Europe is usually associated with the appearance of the Neanderthal (Homo sapiens neandertalensis) sub- specie of man. African contexts of the same period are referred to as Middle Stone Age. However because Egypt has been studied by Europeans and is close to Mediterranean sites, which are in some ways similar, the European terminology has been applied to Egyptian contexts. It is also true that North African contexts are distinct from those in the rest of Africa, possibly because of the availability of fine-grained stone that can be used for making finely worked artefacts.
Lower Palaeolithic (700/500,000-250,000 BP)
The earliest part of the Palaeolithic in Africa is defined by the first time when early forms human started to use and make tools. The first identifiable industry is the Oldowan tool assemblage, in eastern Africa: “incontrovertible archaeological evidence for the earliest recognizable stages of human culture comes almost exclusively from eastern Africa, and dates to between 3.0 and 2.0 million years ago” (Phillipson 1993, p.32). It is exclusive to Africa, but there are no undisputed signs that it was present in Egypt. As Midant-Reynes puts it: “Some prehistorians, such as Biberson, Coque and Debono, have suggested that the earliest cultural phase of all – the Oldowan – is attested by stone tools deeply embedded in the geological stratigraphy of the Theban massif . . . However, others scholars (including Paulissen, Vermeersch and Wendorf) argue that the identification of these tools are by no means certain” (1992/2000, p.25). It is likely that many items suggested to be artefacts representing the earliest Oldowan phase of tool manufacture have not been worked but are in fact naturally formed. The Acheulean Phenomenon The Lower Palaeolithic in Egypt is usually taken to start with the appearance of a traditional form, the Acheulean industry. The Acheulean assemblage is extraordinary – as Phillipson (1993, p.32) puts it, it is “one of the most remarkable and least understood phenomenon of world prehistory: the enormously wide distribution both in time and space of people who made stone tool industries of the type conventionally known to archaeologists as Acheulean.” Worldwide it lasted between around 1.5 million years ago and 100,000 years ago. The Acheulean toolkit usually appears in contexts with Homo erectus remains in Africa, and although no human remains have been found in context with Acheulean assemblages in Egypt or Nubia, it is generally accepted that there is a high probability that Homo erectus was the manufacturer of these tools. The first Acheulean sites known are in East Africa (Tanzania, Kenya and Southern Ethiopia), where they were made usually from lava boulders or quartzite. In a synthesis on the subject of the Lower Palaeolithic Schick and Toth (1993) describe how a number of sites are considered to be representative of an evolutionarily late form of Homo erectus. Although this conclusion is based largely on fossil remains, technological refinements are also considered to suggest improvements in adaptive behaviour and cognitive ability. One example cited is the use of flint in Egypt at Arkin in preference (or in the absence of) the preferred volcanic or quartzite raw materials used elsewhere in Africa for thousands of years – this implies a new adaptive approach which required new skills. Experimental work by Shick and Toth (1993) suggests the addition of soft tools to the tool kit in order to achieve the stone working results on the Arkin stone tools. The first signs that man left Africa and moved into Europe and Asia (around 1.8 million years ago) correspond to the Acheulean of the Lower Palaeolithic: “because of its geographical position, Egypt certainly served as an important conduit for early humans migrating from East Africa (Vermeersch and Hendrickx 2000, p.17). It would therefore be helpful to build up a clear picture of Egypt at this time. However, these early hominids are not well attested to in Egypt: “unfortunately, only very sparse evidence of this event is available and worse still, it cannot be dated” (Vermeersch and Hendrickx 2000, p.17). This migration (LYU) years after the first appearance of Homo erectus in Africa led to the dispersal of Acheulean remains over a wide area of the globe – from Iberian in the west, through France, the Near East and India as far as Java in the East. “This may well have been during a time when sea levels were low, exposing a substantial land-bridge in the area north of the Red Sea, between the Nile and Sinai peninsula (across Egypt, though where the present-day Suez canal runs” (Schick and Toth 1993, p.251). The earliest evidence for Acheulean remains outside Africa support this: the earliest site so far found is ‘Ubeidiya in the Jordan Valley. The uniformity of these artefacts over such a long distance has been the subject of considerable debate and is complicated by the fact that we have no direct way of observing or empathising with their makers, an earlier form of hominid: “The changelessness of the Acheulean has no real prototype in our world, and it probably has something to do with the cognitive and cultural capabilities of the hominids themselves. It seems that they may have depended heavily upon learning in their technology, but this may have been largely through imitation without much emphasis on innovation (Schick and Toth 1993, p.284). Phillipson (1993, p.34) suggests that “Despite the apparent uniformity of the Acheulian stone industries, there are good reasons to believe that this long period was one during which important human behavioural developments took place in the conceptual, linguistic, social and organisational fields.” Examples he cites are:
This is supported by Schick and Toth (1993) who observe that use of new raw materials in the fabrication of tools and new ways of working tools (i.e. with soft tools) indicate an advance towards the end of the Acheulean (Schick and Toth 1993)
The Acheulean in Egypt Midant-Reynes (1992/2000 p.30) suggests that manufacturers of Acheulean tools moved into the area during semi-arid periods to take advantage of river banks, springs and lakes: “carried along at the mercy of the seasons and climatic events, these small groups of hunter-gatherers were able to cover several hundred kilometres each year on the trail of the great herds, devoting themselves to the production of bifacial tools.” There are numerous scatters of Acheulean artefacts in the Nile Valley. Little is known of the Eastern Desert and Red Sea coast during the Lower Palaeolithic, although surface finds have been identified. Acheulean material has been known from the Western Desert since it was first discovered and analysed by Gertrude Caton-Thompson in the 1920s. Assemblages from Kharga and Dakhla, Bir Tarfawi and Bir Sahara in the Western Desert show distinctive characteristics. Many of them “are associated with fossil springs in the floor of oasis depressions in the playa deposits” (Shaw 2000 p.18). It is generally assumed that these desert sites were established during periods of more humid weather conditions which would have been attractive to visitors. Midant-Reynes suggests that “an early Acheulean phase would have been contemporary with the artesian springs at Kharga, which were active at that date” (1992/2000 p29) and goes on to say that contemporary evidence from the lacustrine sediments at Bar Sahara and Bir Tarfawi suggest semi-arid conditions at this time. Sites include Umm Shagir Site 8715, Arkin 8 in Nubia, Site 8817 in Dungul Oasis, Sai Island site 8-B-11 in Nubia and BS14 in Bir Sahara depression Site 8715 (Umm Shagir) was located on an eroded hilltop and covered an area 700x400m. Only 159 artefacts were found in a surface scatter, most of which were very abraded. The artefacts were fairly generic with no classic forms represented. Shallow pits were found containing fresh artefacts, which suggested to the excavators that the site was used for quartzite mining. Arkin 8 was excavated in the 1960s by Waldemar Chmielewski (Chimielewski and Wendorf 1968). Located near Wadi Halfa, not far from the Nile, the 64m2 excavated segment of the site produced 2754 artefacts. The site was no more than 25cm deep. At Arkin 8 the earliest known shelters in Egypt and the Sudan were found. One was a n oval pit around 30cm deep, measuring 1.8 by 1.2m and was partly lined and floored with flat sandstone slabs. Another was represented by a scatter of sandstone blocks in an irregular circle. These stone rings may have represented anchor stones for tented structures. There were also distinct artefact clusters. Site 8817 is located in Dungul Oasis and consists artefacts and a tufa stone-ring foundations, around 11m in diameter, again possibly for a tent type structure. Site 8-B-11 on Sai Island in northern Sudan are found in close proximity to Middle Stone Age (MSA) Sangoan assemblages. The lowest stratified layer is the late Acheulean which features large lanceolate handaxes, which are very fresh, and have a maximum age of 223,000+/-19,000BP (OSL dating). One of the interesting conclusions that the 2003 analysis of the sites comes to (Van Peer et al 2003) is that the Acheulean and MSA assemblages were actually contemporary, the differences being more behavioural than chronological. This is discussed in more detail in the Middle Palaeolithic section. An important Acheulean occupation has been found in the southwestern Western Desert, and provides the clearest opportunity to identify chronological relationships. The first occupation at Bir Sahara/ Bir Tarwafi dates to the Acheulean and tools are in good condition. The next level contains a more recent form of Acheulean toolkit (mainly handaxes) and the artefacts are very worn, possibly by exposure to the contemporary surface. The final Acheulean layer contains occasional handaxes and the occupation appears to have ended when the spring dried up. Site BS14 produces faunal remains include ostrich egg and the skeletal remains of a horse-like animal. Vermeersch and Paulissen, quoted in Midant-Reynes (1992/2000 p.29) suggest that the Acheulean remains at Nag Ahmed el-Khalifa were deposited during a semi-arid phase. Acheulean tools in Egypt were probably deposited by their owners during a more favourable climate for human occupation. Although the central Sahara is not directly associated with Egypt, and its assemblages are very different from those in the Nile Valley and the Western Desert, it is interesting to note that they were associated with remains of a savannah type fauna, again indicating more favourable living conditions in the area than those of today. Egyptian Acheulean tools are rarely found in a datable context: “the sporadic finds of Acheulean tools in the gravels running alongside the high plains of the Nile Valley are lacking in any real archaeological context” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.27). Many Acheulean tools are found in the gravel terraces running along the Nile in Upper Egypt. Due to processes like pedimentation and fluvatile erosion, Acheulean artefacts are often found lying on the modern surface. Hendrickx and Vermeersch (2000, p.18) say that groupings of artefacts have actually remained together, albeit out of their original contexts, hinting that they were once part of much larger sites (e.g. Nag Ahmed el-Khalifa, Abydos where tentative dates of 400,000-300,000BP have been assigned). There is considerable regional variation in the character of Acheulean assemblages in Egypt and neighbouring areas, meaning that Nile Valley, Nubian, Western Desert and Maghreb assemblages, for example, are all very distinct from one another. Midant-Reynes (1992/2002 p.30) puts this down to some or all of the following factors:
In Nubia, Acheulean artefacts have been found concentrated on inselbergs (eroded hilltops) which provided good raw material for the manufacture of tools in the form of ferruginous limestone. There is no means of applying an absolute date to these finds, and even typological studies have not produced undisputed chronologies. This is partly because there are no deeply stratified sites in Egypt. Although some attempts have been made to place the sites into a chronological framework, most writers do not attempt to do so. However, in the interests of providing a complete picture, some typological studies (e.g. Guichard and Guichard 1968) suggest that there is an early, middle and late Acheulean represented at these sites. Cleavers, so characteristic of other African sites, are entirely absent from Egyptian assemblages: “the characteristic cleavers of the African Acheulean, made from large flakes partly worked on both faces, are rarely found in the region from the Khartoum to the terraces of Abassia” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.27). Midant-Reynes (1992/2000 p.27), basing her comments on the work of the Guichards, describes the Nubian Acheulean as “an integral part of a complex stretching from Olduvai via Khartoum up to Abu Simbel”. Early sites include Arkin 8 (excavated by Chmielewski – Chmielewski 1968) and Wadi Halfa (excavated by J and G Guichard 1967). Overall the Egyptian Acheulean, although making up the greater part of our past as tool-makers, is still very poorly understood and much more work needs to take place before really useful information can be pulled together: “In order to document Acheulian occupation properly, we would need information about such factors as the original spatial distribution and associated faunal remains” (Shaw, 2000, p.18). Middle Palaeolithic (c.250,000-c.50,000BP)The Middle Palaeolithic follows the Lower Palaeolithic and sees the replacement of the relatively unvaried Acheulean industries with a much more varied tool set. Midant-Reynes refers to the Middle Palaeolithic as “The Beginnings of Cultural Diversity.” She suggests that “the end of the Acheulean corresponds to a gradual decline in activity and then the drying up of water sources.” Hendrickx and Shaw (2000 p.20) suggest that the Middle Palaeolithic dates back to around 250,000BP. They have proposed a chronology mainly based on information from Qena and the Western Desert which they describe as “tentative” and which may need to be revised as more material is discovered in dateable contexts. The chronology is as follows (Vermeersch and Hendrickx 2000, p.21):
Midant-Reynes proposed a different chronology in 1992, which is shown in Appendix A in a table which also shows the above proposal to allow comparison Phillipson (1993, p.91) describes the Mousterian as being best known from the Algerian and Moroccan Maghreb and suggests that it developed into the Aterian (of Vermeersch and Hendrickx’s 2000 Late Middle Palaeolithic). The Nile Valley differs even from the rest of North Africa: “The archaeological sequence of the Nile Valley, even at this early period, differs sufficiently from those of neighbouring areas to merit separate discussion” (Phillipson 1993, p.96). The Middle Palaeolithic industries are best represented in Nubian sections of the Nile – probably because further north, the finds have either been destroyed by the Nile floods or have been buried under Nile alluvium. There is no clear indication about the origin of the Middle Palaeolithic and the new industry: “it is difficult to know whether the replacement of the Lower Palaeolithic industries by those of the Middle Palaeolithic is a result of indigenous development or external influences. There is no stratified or transitional site that can explain the passing from one period to another” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.39). Phillipson believes that the industries of the Middle Stone Age “display a stone-tool-making technology which is clearly derived from that of the later Acheulian, being often based upon elaborations (eventually with reduced size) of the prepared-core or Levallois technique.” (Phillipson 1993, p.60). There is obviously some controversy in this context about using the term Mousterian, which implies a direct connection with the European Palaeolithic. Broadly, it is clear that “in many parts of the Old World there was a gradual technological shift away from the large handaxes and cleavers that characterized the Acheulean. This transition began between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago and later, in some regions. Handaxes, cleavers and other large core-tools virtually drop out of man’s toolkits, replaced by smaller tools, some of which had been struck by special types of prepared cores” (Shick and Toth 1993, p.289). The Middle Palaeolithic is characterized by an industry with conspicuously Mousterian features. The Mousterian is the name given to Middle Palaeolithic industries in Europe, West Asia and North Africa: “130,000 years ago, settlement again became widespread. The industry then prevailing is of the type known as Mousterian . . . after its closely similar and broadly contemporary counterpart.” (Phillipson 1993, p.90). The Mousterian was characterized by “the gradual abandonment of the bifacial tool at the same time as the increased use of flake tools, the obtention of which corresponds to a particular preparatory procedure” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.38). Specifically this consisted of the presence of handaxes, scrapers, notches and points and particularly by a specific core reduction technology usually referred to as “Levalloisian” after the French site at which it was first identified. Throughout the Middle Palaeolithic in Egypt there was a very high number of surface scatters suggesting that population density may have been quite high. Sites in the Western Desert favour side scrapers, points and denticulates. Different assemblages at different sites may reflect different activities being carried out, the availability of raw materials, climatic variations and environmental differences, to name but a few variables. Sites now found in fossil hydromorphic soils were probably used only during very dry years. Sites found in beach sands would have been accessible for more of the year. Midant-Reynes suggests that “the end of the Acheulean corresponds to a gradual decline in activity and then the drying up of water sources.” Environmental conditions throughout the Middle Palaeolithic appear to have fluctuated. Work in the Western Desert has helped build a picture of climatic conditions, which would have influenced settlement patterns: “the study of dozens of concentrations of Middle Palaeolithic material linked with the development of lakes has proved to be a very productive source of information concerning the inhabitants of these regions and provides the best demonstration of the climatic complexity of this period.” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000, p.37). Vermeersch and Hendrickx (2000, p.21) describe intervals of hyperaridity and lacustrine episodes. During more humid periods, when most of the occupation evidence is found, “there were permanent lakes in the Western Desert or, in some intervals, seasonal playas, fed by local rainfall of up to 500mm per annum . . . The area was abandoned during the periods of hyperaridity.” Midant-Reynes (1992/2000 p.42) suggests that the climate became increasingly arid across northern Africa during the Middle Palaeolithic (see below for details) and that as far as Egypt and Nubia were concerned this had the effect of turning the Nile valley into “the principal place of refuge until the Holocene pluvial, acting not only as a physical rallying point but probably also as a cultural melting point.” Sites from the period show considerable variation, perhaps due to different activities being carried out. For example, small rather ovate hand-axes are usually found with bos primigenius bones, implying that the tools were associated with the butchery. Occupation sites in the Western Desert have given some insight into human subsistence at the time. Floral remains have not survived but the faunal remains that were exploited suggest that people were both hunting and scavenging. Exploited species include “hare, porcupine, and wild cat, at one end of the size spectrum, and buffalo, rhinoceros , and giraffe, at the other end. Small gazelles, mainly the dorcas species, dominate the assemblage” (Vermeersch and Hendrickx 2000, p.21). At Wadi Sodmein Cave in the Red Sea Mountains there is evidence of repeated short-term occupation, with the remains of large hearths. Comparable sites have not been found in the Nile Valley, probably because they would have been located on the Nile’s floodplain and would almost certainly have been covered and hidden by recent alluvial deposits. Quarry sites like Nazlet Khater and Taramsa (dating to the Mid Middle Palaeolithic) give additional information, and the Nile Valley has provided information about the extraction of raw material for the manufacture of tools during the Middle Palaeolithic. Chert cobbles from terrace deposits were favoured. Although there are never many tools found at quarry sites (they were intended for export to occupation sites) enough survive to show that the methods of treating them varied according to the group involved (see Mid Middle Palaeolithic, below). No useful information has been derived from either the Eastern Desert or the Sinai Peninsula for this period. Establishing a chronology for the Middle Palaeolithic has not been easy because as Midant-Reynes puts it (1992/2000 p.39) “Given the absence of stratigraphy and the lack of sufficiently numerous or precise dates it is not surprising that it has proved so difficult to establish a chronological framework for the Middle Palaeolithic. The variations from one site to another and from group to group can be explained as much in terms of functional diversity as in chronological differences.” However, based on recent work Vermeersch and Hendrickx (2000) have suggested an early, mid and late sequence. A brief chronological account summarising their suggested sequence for the Middle Palaeolithic is provided as follows. The first signs of Levalloisian components, specifically bifacial foliates and the distinctive Nubian knapping method, start to appear in the Late Acheulean contexts of the Lower Palaeolithic in context with Acheulean handaxes. In Egypt and Nubia, a particular form of the Levalloisian evolved in the Early Middle Palaeolithic, called the Nubian Nubian Middle Palaeolithic, which is characterised by the Nubian Levalloisian technology. The Nubian Middle Palaeolithic is represented in both Egypt and Nubia, but the Egyptian finds so far discovered are not as well preserved as those in Nubia. Arkin 5 is a site that has been identified as Nubian Middle Palaeolithic (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000) and has been studied in some detail. Located on the west bank of the Nile on an area of ferruginous sandstone (which was used as the raw material for tool manufacture) Arkin 5 appears, from the large amounts of debitage and unfinished tools surviving, to have been a quarry site. One of the phases at Khor Musa is possibly contemporary with Arkin – an occupation site with a conspicuous amount of fish remains. Similarly, it is possible that one of the Khartoum sites dates to the same period, with large foliate points. Phillipson (1993) points to similarities with the African Lupemban industry. As with the Early Middle Palaeolithic, climate fluctuated. Crocodile and large mammal remains from Wadi Sodmein Cave in the Reed Sea Mountains, north west of Quseir has provided evidence of wet phases. A number of different groups appear to have occupied Egypt and Nubia at this time, each with distinctive assemblages and ways of manufacturing tools:
Work at Bir Tarfawi and Bir Sahara in the Western Desert has revealed well preserved sites of the Saharan Mousterian, which would have been occupied during relatively short wet phases. At Bir Sahara five Mousterian occupations were identified, each linked with lacustrine deposits.
The Sangoan has been the subject of a some debate. Traditionally an industry identified with the Congo and Kalambo Falls, its identification in Nubia did not meet with universal agreement. However, a 2003 study (Van Peer et al) concludes that it is a valid designation. On Sai Island in the northern Sudan, site 8-B-11 has contexts that date to the Late, Middle and early Upper Pleistocene, all in unusually good condition, with Lower Palaeolithic Acheulean layers stratified beneath three levels of Middle Palaeolithic (or MSA) Sangoan assemblages. The overall date range is c.220,000-150,000BP. These layers are in turn overlain by three levels of Nubian complex assemblages which have Lupemban features (Van Peer et al 2003). The site was based on the edge of a gully which was in turn located on the banks of a channel. The lowest Sangoan level, level 6, appears to coincide with a new fluvial phase and is characterized by a heavy duty toolkit with hammerstones, grinding stones, axes and cores. There are some rare flake tools, a worked sandstone slab and no handaxes. Lumps of red and yellow ochre were found. The middle level, level 5, was divided from level 6 by a thin layer of sand. Tools are more varied and include quartz core-axes of Khor Abu Anga type, two laceolate handaxes, one of chert and one of sandstone (possibly Acheulean) and flakes made on sandstone. Two slabs were found “forming part of a more or less circular arrangement with a radius of 2.5m” (Van Peer et al 2003, p.191) which may have been re-used as structural components. Microscopic analysis of quartzite cobble with warn surfaces identified residues suggesting that they were used to process plants and possibly grass seeds. The upper Sangoan levels were secondary contexts only, and are associated with an optical date of 152,000+/-10,000BP (Van Peer et al 2003). Van Peer et al (2003) suggest that the appearance of the MSA in north Africa could indicate a process of population replacement: “The early to Middle Stone Age transition at this site shows itself as an interstratification between Acheulean and Sangoan assemblages. These two material cultures were produced contemporaneously by groups who occupied the same land surfaces in the period around 200,000 years ago”. This important point suggests that the difference between the Acheulean and the Sangoan was not chronological but behavioural. Overall, Van Peer et al (2003) conclude that “In contrast to the Acheulean, the early MSA Sangoan level show sophisticated behaviours involving considerable technological and symbolic investment” (2003, p.187). New activities in the Sangoan include using quartzite pebbles to grind vegetable materials and use of mortars to grind red and yellow ochre. They suggest that the Sangoan at Sai Island demonstrates the first evidence of modern behaviour in Egypt and Nubia.
The Khormusan type sites are a group of 5 sites at Khor Musa near the 2nd Cataract. They had been covered by Nile silts and were found in undisturbed contexts. They are characterised by faunal remains (mostly in poor condition, so analysis has been tentative but shows the presence of large herbivores, rodents, fowl and to a lesser extent fish), some polished bone tools, grindstones and a Levallois assemblage with an emphasis on burins. Raw materials for tool manufacture include ferruginous sandstone, quartz, rhyolites, chalcedony, agate and fossilized wood, different types of raw material being favoured for specific tool forms. Phillipson describes it as a blade tool and burin industry “of the same general type as those in the Libyan Dabban industry” (1993, p.98) with which it was possibly contemporary.
Used the classical Levallois method as well as producing flakes from single and double platform cores
Most frequently used the Nubian Levallois method
During the Late Middle Palaeolithic the Nubian Levallois technique started to disappear from the material record. At the same time there is increasing diversification of local industries and a more restricted distribution (Phillipson 1993). A classic Levallois technique was used to produce thin Levallois flakes while flake and blade production from single and double platform cores continued to be employed. Occupation sites favoured burins, notches and denticulates. The climate had become drier (arid to hyper arid), meaning that desert locations (the Western and Eastern Deserts and the Sahara) were abandoned in favour of Nile valley sites. People only began to re-inhabit the Western Desert in around 9300BC. Midant-Reynes comments “Humans deserted the ancient oases, taking refuge in more favourable locations along river valleys and coasts” (1992/2000 p32). Material has been recovered from both quarry sites (e.g. Nazlet Safaha near Qena) and living sites (such as a number of sites near Edfu). The Halfan was mainly restricted to Nubia and is named after the Wadi Halfa area. According to Midant-Reynes (p.44 1992/2000) it was characterized by a microlithic industry identified at Wadi Halfan, which used Levallois core (with 2 platforms) working and blade preparation. The Edfuan, found in Upper Egypt, dates to roughly the same time as the Halfan, where a “blade technology accompanies a continuation of the Levallois technique” (Phillipson 1993, p.98). Characterised by the Levallois Idfuan technique (details to be added). The Aterian industry is very widespread and important in North Africa: “Aterian assemblages are encountered throughout the Sahara proper, from the Atlantic coast almost as far East as the Nile” (Phillipson 1993, p.92). The major characteristic of the Aterian tool kit is the presence of tanged tools - the tang was worked into the end of a flake or blade, and is thought to be an indication that the tools were hafted. Other tools in the kit were projectile points, scrapers and flakes (only some of which had been retouched). Phillipson (1993) points to similarities between the Aterian and other Late Mousterian industries, particularly I terms of bifacials, and tanged tools. The Aterian period is a particular enigma in Egyptian prehistoric studies (and in African studies as whole) because of its absence from the Nile Valley in Egypt or Nubia, even though it was present in a number of Western Desert locations. A lot of confusion surrounds the Aterian, named in the 1920s after the Algerian site of Bir el-Ater, which is not always accepted as an industry in its own right (it is sometimes seen as a subset of the European Mousterian or the eastern/central African Lupemban). Kleindiest (2001) has summarised the difficulties very succinctly: “poorly described, poorly dated and suffers in its interpretations from a number of misconceptions imposed by prehistorians since it was first designated as a separate stratigraphic unit by Regasse in 1921/22.” She goes on to point out that the there is not enough information to draw conclusions about typological/technological change, distribution, settlement patterns, human remains, or palaeo-environments. Likewise, the time range is “much in doubt” (p.6). However she suggests that “the Aterian may be younger than c.90,000 years ago and is probably older than 20,000 years ago” (p.7). Schon (1989) has identified an Aterian site on a low hill in the western part of Wadi Akhdar in the Gilf Kebir. Tools included bifacial points, Aterian points and small Levallois cores. At Bir Tarfawi in the Western Desert of south-western Egypt it is found at a location “where, perhaps 125,000 and 90,000 years ago, Aterians living beside a shallow lake where able to hunt a variety of animals including gazelle, warthog and ostrich” (Phillipson 1993, p.92). Kleindienst (2001) also identifies evidence of the Aterian at Dakhleh, Kharga and Dungul.
Summary Phillipson (1993) believes that in the Middle Palaeolithic in the Nile area (and following periods), the number of contemporary industries represent more than different activity areas, but “the presence of distinct groups. Perhaps, in the closely circumscribed habitat provided by the Nile Valley, pressure of numbers was already stimulating technological innovation as part of the competition for control of, or access to, group differentiation, identity and rivalry” (Phillipson 1993, p.98). The issue of the relationship between the Levalloisian tool industry and its makers is unresolved in Egypt. Although there have been important Neanderthal finds in the Levant, there have been none at all in Egypt or the rest of North Africa. On the other hand, there have been finds of Homo sapiens. It is difficult on the basis of the available evidence to come to any firm conclusions about which form of man made the Egyptian Mousterian tool kit, and Phillipson summarises the situation in North Africa as follows:” At least in North Africa it appears that the contemporary population also included individuals more akin to modern people than to the Neanderthalers who lived in Europe at this time” (Phillipson 1993, p.100). In social terms, the Middle Palaeolithic or Middle Stone Age clearly represents some sort of departure. Midant-Reynes refers to the Middle Palaeolithic as “The Beginnings of Cultural Diversity.”
Transitional Group (Tarmasan)During the Tarmasan “there was a clear tendency towards blade production from large cores, where, instead of obtaining a few Levallois flakes from each individual core, a virtually continuous process of blade production made it possible to create a large number of blades from each core” (Vermeersch and Hendrickx 2000, p.23). Taramsa-1 (near Dendera) which dates to this time and provides information about extraction of raw materials and the production of tools, clearly shows an increase in blade production (which became the main characteristic of the subsequent Upper Palaeolithic). A child burial was found at Taramsa-1 dating to this time (c.55,000BP): “The poorly preserved bones were those of a subadult ‘anatomically modern human’ similar in appearance to the Mechtoid populations of the north African Epipalaeolithic. The position of the body, as well as the depth of the pit in which it was found . . . suggest that the child had not died in this location but had been deliberately brought here to be buried” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.37). The Negev has produced comparable finds, particularly at the site of Boker Tachtit in around 45,000BP. The extraction sites are so well represented (some covering several square kilometres) that it has been possible to study extraction techniques. Vermeersch and Hendrickx (2000, p.24) describe them as “simple but well adapted to the natural chert occurrences.” Chert cobbles in the terrace deposits were extracted at depths up to 1.7m via trenches and pits, which could be between 1 and 2ms wide. “The search for good-quality chert and the use of specialized tool production demonstrate the complex organization of the inhabitants of the Nile Valley at that time” (Vermeersch and Hendrickx 2000, p.24).
Upper Palaeolithic / Late Upper Pleistocene (c.40,000 - 20,000bp)Vermeersch and Hendrix label this period the Upper Palaeolithic, to distinguish it from the Late Palaeolithic, and Wiseman (2001, p.15) refers to the broadly same time period as the Late Upper Pleistocene, which she sees extending to c.10,000bp. However it is named, it is a period of time during which many writers see an occupation hiatus. Only very few sites are represented in Egypt that date to this time. This fits in well with environmental and climatic data which points to a period of extensive desiccation in the eastern Sahara between c.60,000bp and 11,000bp, coinciding with the cold conditions of the last glaciation, and an extreme dry period identified at Dakhleh between 20,000 and 14,000bp on Saharan groundwater (Wiseman 2001, p.16). There are few Upper Palaeolithic sites in Egypt and Nubia, and most of these are restricted to the Nile valley. The oldest Upper Palaeolithic site is the quarry Nazlet Khater-4 (also known as NK4) near Boulder Hill, dating to between 35,000 and 30,000 BP. This was a more sophisticated site than the quarries of the Middle Palaeolithic. As well as trenches and pits, underground galleries were dug out from the vertical sections of the trenches or from pit walls. There are no traces of the Levallois technique. Instead single platforms were used to produce simple blades. Tools produced by this method included end-scrapers, burins, denticulates, bifacial foliates and bifacial axes. No other comparable sites exist so it is impossible to come to any conclusions about the nature of Egypt as a whole at this time. Next to the mine was a burial with a bifacial axe (consistent with those found at the quarry site) placed by the head. He was lying on his back with his head to the west. The grave was carved out of clay and was covered with large blocks of stone. The skeleton has “certain ‘archaic features’ including an unusually thick mandible” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.43) although in all other respects it appears to be anatomically modern. It had a cranial capacity of 1400cm3 with Negroid features. A second grave was found to the east, in very poor condition. It was lying on its back but its skull was missing and it was completely crushed. It was accompanied by some foetus bones and ostrich egg fragments. It is thought that the two burials are contemporary with the quarry. The Shuwikhatian industry is more recent than Nazlet Khater-4 and is represented at a number of sites near Qena and Esna. The Shuwikhatian was characterised by large blades struck from opposed platform cores accompanied by denticulated blades, burins and end-scrapers. Shuwikhat-1, dating to around 25,000BP and located on the floodplain of the Nile valley appears to have been used as a base for hunting and fishing. There were no Levallois components. Wiseman remarks (2001, p.17) that “In contradistinction to the neighbouring Levant . . . , whose blade technologies completely replace those based on the Levallois technology c.38,000bp, . . . technologies appear to co-exist in Egypt throughout much of the terminal Pleistocene”. The Western Desert was apparently not occupied at this time (probably due to the climate which was not wet enough to support occupation of desert areas). Outside Egypt there is data indicating that Sinai was occupied between 36,000 and 29,000bp, and that the Dabban industry of Cyrenaica dated to this time.
Late Palaeolithic (c.24,000-10,000BP)
The Late Palaeolithic is well represented in Egypt, but only in Upper Egypt where sites are dated to between 21,000 and 12,000 BP (Vermeersch and Hendrickx 2000, p.25). It is generally accepted that the changes represented by technology that appears in the Upper Palaeolithic are attributable to the appearance of Homo sapiens: “Change was barely perceptible in the well stratified sequences of East Africa dating from the Lower and Middle Pleistocene. The first notable acceleration began in association with the appearance of Homo sapiens during the latter half of the Upper Pleistocene” (G. Clarke 1982, p.70). Due to the high aridity in the headwaters of the Nile, the water level in the river Nile had begun to fall, and the amount of clay being transported began to increase in the water. As a consequence, very thick alluvia were deposited in Upper Egypt and the floodplain the resulted was much higher – Vermeersch and Hendrickx (2000, p.27) point out that in Nubia “the floodplain was 25030m higher than the modern one.” Sites probably existed in Lower and Middle Egypt but due to a different Nile profile are probably now covered in modern alluvial deposits. Because of the lack of any real information about the Upper Palaeolithic, the origins of the Late Palaeolithic are uncertain. The oldest phases of the Late Palaeolithic, the Fakhurian and the Kubbaniyan are both represented at Wadi Kubbaniya apparently connected with the creation of a temporary lake in the wadi of a temporary lake, which was maintained the water table. The sites were used by small hunter-gatherers who occupied the sites on an occasional basis each year for many years. The floral remains suggest that the sites were occupied on a seasonal basis. A large number of grinding stones were found, large amounts of fish were caught (catfish in one season, tilapia at another). “In addition to fishing, hunting for hartebeest, wild cattle and dorcas gazelle was an important aspect of the subsistence pattern” (Vermeersch and Hendrickx 2000). Stone tools were mainly bladelets struck from opposed platform cores. Rains returned at around 1400 BP and was followed by the Holocene wet phase during the period 12,000 to 7500 BP. Although during this period the Sahel and Sahara were re-occupied, the Nile valley gave up almost no traces of human occupation. Very high floods characterise this phase. Following this, the climate became hyperarid at around 11,500BP during which the flood levels sank and the amount of alluvial plain was reduced. Again, almost no human occupation traces were found between 12,000 and 8000 BP. It has been suggested on the one hand that alluvial silts simply covered all traces of human occupation, but another theory (Connor and Marks 1986) suggests that the lack of evidence is due to a lack of occupation. They put this down to an unsuccessful attempt to adapt to high-water environments. Site 117 of Jebel Sahaba which gave up evidence of violent deaths and may have been an indication of competition for resources at this time. There have been suggestions that some of the Egyptian rock art dates to this period from sites like Site XXXII at Abka in Nubia, and the el-Hosh fish-trap depictions south of Edfu. There is a large amount of variation between assemblage types in the Late Palaeolithic, but certain trends are visible: “All the data at our disposal suggest that the process of Nilotic adaptation favoured partial sedentism and encouraged food storage”. There is a general trend towards a reduction in the size of the toolkit with the appearance more bladelets and the introduction of microliths. Microliths represent a significant improvement in technological skill and efficiency. (Find a good description of microliths in terms of the improvements that they represent). Bladelet and microlith industries were not restricted to the Nile and have been found both in Africa and in the Near East. The following assemblage groupings do not represent cultural definitions – they are intended merely to describe identifiably different assemblages and could represent the same groups occupied in different activities as well as the presence of different groups.
The Fakhurian is the oldest Late Palaeolithic Industry, and is best represented at the butchery site E71K12 near Esna. It is also possible that the earliest phase at Wadi Kubbaniya (discussed in the next section) should also be included within the Fakhurian. E71K12 near Esna was next to a seasonal pond, maintained by groundwater during summer floods. It attracted animals that were driven away from the floodplain during the inundation and this in turn attracted hunter-gatherers who exploited the seasonal prey – hartebesest, wild cattle and gazelle. The major types of tools represented include a high frequency of Backed bladelets (some with Ouchtata retouch), retouched pieces, perforators, notches, denticulates, infrequent end-scrapers, and rare and poorly made truncations and denticulates. Two skeletons found also near Esna were apparently in association with Fakhurian material.
The Kubbaniyan has been named after the type-site Wadi Kubbaniya (near Aswan), but other sites have also been found at Esna and Edfu. Wadi Kubbaniya was one of the major wadis draining from the eastern Sahra to teh Nile Valley and interseades with teh Nile 25km north of Aswan (Close 1989). At one stage it contained a lake fed by Nile floods and, after it became isolated from the Nile, by the water table during the flood season. Wendorf and his team excavated in the late 1970s and 1980s, and identified 26 sites belonging to the Palaeolihtic, most multiple occupations dating from the Middle Palaeolithic to around 12,000BP. They obtained a good set of carbon 14 dates which indicates dates between 1900-1700NBP for the Kubbaniyan. The Kubbaniyan is represented by different phases.
The earliest phases visible in the Kubbaniyan are the sites named E81-3 and E81-4 and are characterized by use of quartz, single platform cores, backed bladelets (some possibly with Ouchtata retouch), perforators, notches, and denticulates. Carbon 14 dates are in the range 21000-19000BP. Although there are chronological problems, very strong typological similarities with the Fakhurian (see below) have led to suggestions that Early Kubbaniyan sites lie within the Fakhurian.
The “classic” Kubbaniyan, which follows the early Kubbaniyan sites mentioned above, and consists of around 12 sites including some smaller sites and one specialized quarry site, E-82-1, used for the manufacture of grinding stones (Close 1989). Sites are found in three different contexts: dune, swale and wadi. Of the three settings, the dune sites are best represented by E-78-3, which was the most intensely occupied. Sites date to between 18,000 to 17,300BP, and were probably occupied during the Autumn/Winter. Animal, plant and fish, particularly catfish, were all exploited (Close 1989). Of the swale sites in the floodplain there were multiple occupations which were presumably located for the exploitation of catfish during the periods when the Nile was receding after the floods. There were no floral remains or grinding stones. Sites include E-78-7, E-83-1, E-83-2 and E-83-3. Only two dates were obtained (17,850+/-200BP [SMU 592] for E-78-7 and 16,660+/-370BP [SMU 1221] for E-83-2), which are not enough to provide a date range (Close 1989). The floodplain sites near the mouth of the Wadi could probably only be occupied at times when the Nile was low. Sites include E78-5 and E-78-9. Only one radiocarbon date was obtained, from E-78-9, on shell, which puts that site at 18,230+/-200BP (SMU 1226). The chipped stone industry is characterized by debitage from both single and opposed-platform cores, and by a toolkit of bladelets with Ouchtata retouch, end scrapers, notches, denticulates and a few burins. In a very few cases scaled pieces are very prominent. A number of different raw materials were used, of which 80% of surviving artefacts are made of chert. The remaining 20% are made of fossil wood, flint, chalcedony, agate, granite, jasper, sandstone and basalt. All were available locally except for Egyptian flint. Quartz was only used rarely (Close 1989). The flint elements appear to have been “brought in the form of prepared cores, intended for the manufacture of specific tools” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000, p.xx). Most of the sites produced grinding stones, and 32 pestles and 34 mortars were also found in occupation areas. Close’s 1989 analysis of raw material usage suggests that “the stratified sequence of Kubbaiyan sites in the Late Pleistocene dunefield of Wadi Kubbaniya enables us to trace a diachronically consistent development of the Kubbaniyan industry in this particular microniche” (Close 1989, p.124). She sees increasing typological complexity through time, increased numbers of pieces of grinding equipment, increased importance of Egyptian flint and an expansion into more northern areas, perhaps due to the importance of the Egyptian flint supply requirement. The society were well adapted to the regularly changing conditions of their ecological surroundings. They were semi-sedentary, occupying a number of sites, scattered at some distance from one another. The economy was based on hunting, fishing and plant collecting, with a number of botanical and faunal resources being exploited, including large mammals, birds, fish, and wild plants.
The Sisilian and Ballan were identified separately as different assemblage patterns, but they have been brought together recently due to conspicuous similarities. The Silsilian was first identified by P.E.L. Smith in the early 1960s from Wadi Shait, near Gebel el-Silsila (Kom Ombo Plain). Site GS-III had two sealed horizons, the earliest of which was microlithic (incorporating the microburin technique). It is so similar to Wendorf’s (1968: II, 831-55) Ballan industry identified at Wadi Halfa that the two are usually combined in archaeological references. Distinctive features of the industry are the debitage from single and opposed platform cores and the toolkit which is composed of triangular and trapezoid tools, burins, pointed and backed bladelets and truncated bladelets. There was also use of the microburin technique. Raw materials included chalcedony, agate, jasper and carnelian. Sites include GS2B-II on the Kom Ombo Plain, E71-K20 near Esna and Arab el-Sahaba (25km south of Nag Hammadi). Dates seem to huddle around the 16-15,000BP mark.
The Afian coincided with climatic changes at the end of the last Ice Age caused by conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, which resulted in very high floods in the Egyptian Nile. Sites include six concentrations of stone tools at Thomas Afia village (E71-K6B – K18A-E), site GS-2B-1 at Kom Ombo, and E83-4 at Wadi Kubbaniya. It is characterised by opposed platform type cores (some true Levallois, and some “bent”), producing elongated flakes, bladelets, microflakes, backed bladelets, geometric microliths (including scalene triangles and lunulates) and microburins. Dates cluser around 13,500-12,500BP (based on Makhadma 4 and Kom Ombo sites). Makhadma-4 was on the edge of the desert in an area caused by the joining of two wadis. Studies of the large amount of fish remains suggest that fishing was practised late in the post-flood season. It is possible (due to the presence of charcoal-filled pits) that fish were being preserved by smoking. The site appears to have been used repeatedly over a long period of time.
The Isnan industry has been identified in the Esna area at sites from Wadi Kubbaniya to the Dishna plain and at Naqada. It is dated to around 12,500 BP “only on the basis of associations between surface sites and the Sahaba-Durau formation” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.56). The characteristic assemblages consist of rough knapping techniques, big flakes, end -scrapers and occasional notches and denticulates made from large chert cobbles derived from the limestone formations of the Theban massive. Bladelets are few and far between. The Isnan economy is unclear. There are very few fish remains, and of the tools, very few have signs of sickle sheen which usually accompanies the harvesting of Gramineae. However, thre are some finds of grinding stones which generally indicate the processing of plant foods.
In the Kom Ombo plain, near the village of Menchia and in the region of Gebel el-Silisla toolkits similar to those of the Isnan were found: “they were remarkable for the abundance of the end-scrapers (56.6%) along with a set of non-microlithic blades and flakes” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.56). There has been no basic study of this material.
“A poorly defined occupation level above the Silsilian assemblage at GS-III” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.57).
In the Qena region the Makhadma sites have been researched extensively by a Belgian research project. There are five sites which are lie within Nile terraces and wadi deposits. Wendorf’s site E6104, more recently termed Makhadma 1, is the earliest of the sites, dating to the early Late Palaeolithic and featuring a very fresh lithic assemblage. The nearby sites of Makhadma 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all located on the lower part of a slope near the divide between a wad entrance and a scarp: “situated on a safe place as close as possible to the inundated area and on the contact between extreme environments” (Vermeersch et al 1989, p.108). They were investigated by the Belgian Middle Egyptian Prehistoric Project of Leuven University in 1983 and 1984, when Makhadma 2 and 4 were excavated (Vermeersch et al 1989, p.87). Makhadma 2 now covers 15m2, but this is probably a small percentage of the original area, which was destroyed by quarrying and erosion. Features include two hearths with charcoal and ashes containing burnt bone and stone and two post-holes measuring 40-50cm diameter and 80cm deep. Flints were scattered over the entire surface. However, there is no clear relationship between hearths, postholes and tools. Fish remains are also spread over the entire area - a few Tilapia and a large volume of Clarias. Around 2000 tools were found at Makhadma 2, and are treated by the excavators as a single occupation, although he states that this is mainly because it is impossible to separate it all out (Vermeersch et al 1989, p.93). Most of the Makhadma 2 tools were made on locally obtained chert with a preference shown for fine-grained light brown chert of good quality. Other materials used were basalt and limestone, apparently for flaking. Platform cores are the most frequently represented item, and both cores and tools demonstrate a very simply reduction technique to produce only a few tool types including short blades, end scrapers, burins, notches and denticulates (Vermeersch et at 1989). Makhadma 4 had a complex stratigraphy. !2m2 was excavated as well as some parallel trenches on the lower slope of the site. Lithics included a large number of single platform cores and as at Makhadma 2, a simple reduction technique was employed. Flakes and blades were produced in their 1000s, including short wide blades, backed bladelets, good quality end-scrapers, burins, notches and some geometric microliths. Bone tools included small double points probably employed for fishing. Faunal remains from Makhadma 4 support fishing as an activity with four species represented: Clarias, Barbus bynni, Synodontis and Lates Nilotics. Other species are birds, hare, small carnivores, hippopotamus, auroch and hartebeest as well as molluscs, frogs and toads. Seven radiocarbon dates were obtained for Makhadma 1, 2 and 4, and indicate a range of 13,380+/-770 - 12,060+/-280BP. Making Makhadma 1 the oldest of the sites. The range for Makhadma 2 and 4 alone is 13,330+/-170BP (GrN-12031) and 12,940+/-130BP (GrN-12034) to 12,060+/-80BP (GrN-12029) (Vermeersch et al 1989). In summary, Makhadma 2 and 4, both situated half way up the slopes of the deposits of a wadi both indicate that the inhabitants mainly exploited river fish including a predominance of catfish (Clarias) at Makhadma 2 and Tilapia at Makhadma 4 (suggesting seasonal occupation – Clarias preferring post-flood conditions while Tilapia would have preferred the highly oxygenated flood waters). Mammal remains indicate that they hunted, although this was a secondary part of the economy. Analysis of fish assemblages suggest that Makhadma 4 was occupied during the late post-flood period when spawning and basin-trapped fish could be caught with ease, but it is difficult to tell when Makhadma 2 was occupied. Finds of Engina mendicaria suggest contacts with the Red Sea. T he lithic technology was clearly Late Palaeolithic in form “but seems uncharacteristic” (Vermeersch et al 1989, p.112) with no Levallois or microburins, and few opposed platform cores(the norm for Late Palaeolithic contexts), and the authors believe that it cannot be comfortably correlated with other Nile industries. Some writers have seen close affinities with the Isnan and Afian (refs).
The Qadan industry is distributed between the second cataract and southern Egypt. The type-site is at Qada. Sixteen assemblages are located at Wadi Halfa featuring microlithic flake tools made from Nile pebbles. Timings are very unclear. Subsistence appears to have consisted of fishing, hunting (cattle and other large species) and the gathering of wild plants and grains. Assemblages consist of microlithic flakes (mostly lunates) and grindstones. The microliths had a rough straight cutting edge and sickle-sheen polish on their edges (which may indicate that they had been used to cut grasses). Phillipson (1985, 1993, p.102) suggests that the “variation in the percentage frequencies of the various microlithic tool types found at different sites reflects the varied activities carried out by the population.” Sites include three cemeteries at Gebel (or Jebel) Sahaba and Tushka. Gebel Sahaba produced 59 skeletons, all semi-contracted on their left sides (head orientated east, facing south). The graves are simple pits with sandstone capstones. Associated tools date the site to around 12,000 BP. 24 of the individuals appear to have met with a violent and unnatural death (chert points were embedded in bones and skulls, and severe cut-marks appear on some of the bones. Women and children represent around 50% of the cemetery. The features are mechtoid or “mechta-afalou” (Phillipson 1985, 1993, p.34). Dating relies mostly on typological associations. The toolkit includes burins, flakes, backed flakes, bladelets, end-scrapers and geometric microliths, and is very similar to and usually associated with the Qadan at around 1200 BP. Tushka is 250km south of Aswan. Site 8905 at Tushka is characterised by Qadan tools at the edge of a marshy area. 21 graves survived and represent at least two phases. The two phases appear to be separated by a considerable time period. The earlier graves are buried facing left in a contracted position poorly preserved but show morphological similarities to the Gebel Sahaba site. In graves 12, 13 and 18 the dead were buried with bovid horns at their heads, one of the earliest signs of grave goods and of the special relationship between men and oxen which was so predominant in prehistoric times. The Sebilian was first identified in 1920 by Edmund Vidnard on the Kom Ombo Plain (from surgface sites). Other sites have since been identified including: those in the Wadi Halfa region (by Anthony Marks), sites 8899 and 8898 at Ballana (10km north of Abu Simbel), and two sites near Qena in the Dishna plain, which form “an exclusively Nilotic industry between Wadi Halfa and Qena [which] is regarded as intrusive” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.50,51). The position of the Sebilian within the overall chronology of the Late Palaeolithic is unclear, and dating is very uncertain, as it “suffers from a severe lack of absolute dating evidence” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.50). It may be contemporary with the Qadan, although further to the north. It is, however, the most widespread industry in the Late Palaeolithic and extends form the second cataract to the north of Qena. Toolkits include:
No traces of human occupation have been found between 11,000 and 8000 BP apart from a small group of Arkinian sites located around the second cataract and dating to around 9400 BP. This may have been because the Nile’s floodplain was reduced over this period, damaging environmental conditions and limiting the value of the Nile for hunter-gatherers. However, it is unlikely that the Nile area was entirely abandoned and it is more likely that, as mentioned before, modern alluvial deposits have covered all traces of sites that existed on the narrow floodplain. (But see comment and next!). “A major climatic change now took place: the rains had returned in about 14,000 BP and these were followed by the great Holocene wet phase from 12,000 to 7500 BP. Groups of people were thus able gradually to reoccupy the zones of the Sahel and the Sahara that had until then been deserted (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.63). However, this marks the time of a hiatus in human occupation in the Nile Valley perhaps due to the abnormal flood levels that were a feature of this period: “Abnormal floods, reaching heights of 8 or 9 meters above the modern flood-plain and characterized by deposits of clayey silts, were detected by Butzer (1980), between 14,000 and 12,000 BP” (page 63). “The Nile Valley industries between 12000 and 8,000 years ago are poorly illustrated by the research that has so far been undertaken. Thereafter the Nubian stone industry is of the microlithic type known as Shamarkian, which includes small numbers of Ounanian points . . . such as also occur in Saharan industries” (Phillipson 1993 p.104).
|
|||||||||||||||
|
All text and images on this site are the copyright of Andrea Byrnes andie@easynet.co.uk 2003, 2004, 2005 unless otherwise stated |
|||||||||||||||
Page Contents