early holocene pottery in the western desert of egypt: new data from nabta playa

Res

earc

h

Early Holocene pottery in the WesternDesert of Egypt: new data from NabtaPlayaMaciej Jordeczka1, Halina Krolik,2 Mirosław Masojc3

& Romuald Schild2

Dated and stratified potsherds excavated atNabta Playa belong to the earliest phase ofpottery-making in the Sahara — relativelysophisticated bowls decorated with a toothedwheel. The authors explore the origins of post-Pleistocene settlers in the Sahara and the NileValley and discuss what prompted them tomake pottery.

Keywords: Nile Valley, Nabta Playa, Early Holocene (10–9k BP), El Adam, pottery, ceramics

IntroductionThe region of Nabta Playa-Kiseiba, excavated by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition,occupies a significant place on the map of the eastern Sahara (Figure 1). It has providednumerous sites from the oldest settlement in the area, which occurred following a long,arid period at the end of the Pleistocene (Wendorf & Schild 1980, 1998, 2001a; Banks1984; Close 1987; Nelson et al. 2002). The pottery from the region plays an importantrole in understanding and defining the region’s cultural development in the Early Holocene.Many years of excavation combined with the study of pottery production technology and1 Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Branch Poznan, Rubiez Street 46, 61-612

Poznan, Poland (Email: [email protected])2 Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Al. Solidarnosci 105, 00-140 Warsaw,

Poland (Email: [email protected], [email protected])3 Institute of Archaeology, Wrocław University, Szewska Street 48, 50-139 Wrocław, Poland (Email:

[email protected])

Received: 12 November 2009; Revised: 2 June 2010; Accepted: 3 July 2010

ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 99–115 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0850099.htm

99

Early Holocene pottery in the Western Desert of Egypt: new data from Nabta Playa

its decoration have provided an abundance of data, while more than 100 radiocarbon dateshave enabled the determination of a fairly precise chronology (Schild & Wendorf 2001a:45–6, 2001b: 52–4, tab. 3.1).

The oldest ceramic types appear very early in the southern Western Desert of Egypt,within the Early Holocene El Adam phase (Nelson et al. 2002), which dates from c. 9800 BP

Figure 1. Location of Nabta Playa and Kiseiba.

(10 000–8750 cal BC at 1σ ) (at El AdamPlaya) to 8870 BP (8240–7750 cal BCat 1σ ) (at Site E-77-7, El Gebal El BeidPlaya). The El Adam ceramics are amongthe earliest examples of pottery productionin Africa, which from its first appearancepresents a technologically advanced form.The El Adam vessels, decorated with simpleimpression and simple rocker-stamp motifsbelong to a wide, early Saharan/Sudanesetradition of pottery manufacture, whichemerges in the Sahara and the northernSahel (Roset 1982, 1987a; Connor 1984;Barich 1998; Wendorf et al. 2001; Nelsonet al. 2002; Haour 2003; Jesse 2003a;Huysecom et al. 2009; Ozainne et al. 2009).

The El Adam pottery, however scant, isencountered at nearly all sites connectedwith this phase. The scarcity of potsherdsburied in situ has often raised doubts as tothe association of the ceramic vessels withthe early El Adam settlements. The latestexcavations in Nabta Playa, however, haveyielded new chronological data pertainingto the age of early pottery-making in the

southern region of the Western Desert of Egypt. We present here the discovery of thispottery in situ and discuss its context within the earliest pottery manufacture in Africa.

The Nabta Playa siteSite E-06–1, where excavation began in 2006, is located on the eastern shore of theEarly Holocene Nabta Playa lake (Figures 2 & 3). Although partially truncated by recentwind erosion, the site is embedded in dunes at the shoreline and overlapped by a massivelower–mid Holocene silt deposition which heralded a major arid phase (compare Schild& Wendorf 2001a). So far a dozen remains of dwellings, several dozen hearths and richartefact assemblages have been excavated, including nearly 20 000 stone artefacts and bonefragments, together with eight pottery sherds, five of which were embedded in the datedarchaeological features (Figure 4). Analysis of the material indicates that the huts belong

100

Res

earc

h

Maciej Jordeczka et al.

Figure 2. Map of the Nabta Playa-Kiseiba area showing the locations of major playas, modern waterholes and El Adam sites(map by Applegate, after Wendorf & Schild 2001a: 3, updated).

to the El Adam phase and were inhabited by a small group of people. The uncalibratedradiocarbon dates indicate an occupation between 9200–9000 BP.

The potteryThe El Adam variant of pottery is known in the Nabta Playa-Kiseiba basins from six sites(Figure 2): E-75-9 (Wendorf & Schild 2001b: 109, 13(?) fragments); E-77-7 (Close &Wendorf 2001: 68, 1 fragment); E-79-8 (Connor 1984: 239–44, 6(?) fragments); E-80-4 (Close 1984: 346, 5 fragments); E-91-3 (Close 2001: 79, 7 fragments); and E-06-1 (8fragments) (Figures 5–9). All of the excavated vessel fragments represent a high technologicallevel. Extensive studies of the production technology of pottery in the Nabta Playa-Kiseibaregion were carried out by Zedeno (2002). Zedeno found that the Early Holocene potteryfrom the Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba basins was made from locally available material. Claywas acquired at the edge of the playa, while easily available granite temper could come fromeroding igneous rocks present on the surface (Nelson 2002a: 3). Sometimes sand with anadmixture of mica was used for temper. Generally, the exterior colour of the vessel is slightlygrey, while the core’s colour ranges from grey to black. The pottery from Site E-06–1 ischaracterised by the reddish colour of the exterior and the high proportion (30–50 per cent)of relatively coarse mineral temper (see below).

101


Figure 3. Map of the Nabta Playa area showing the locations of the sites studied (temporary lakes are shown in blue).

102

Res

earc

h


Figure 4. Site E-06-1: northern wall of squares BB-B/14; cross-section of El Adam huts.

Figure 5. Bir Kiseiba, Site E-79-8; El Adam sherds (after Connor 1984: fig. 11.15).

103


Figure 6. El Adam sherds: 1–4) Nabta Playa, Site E-75-9 (after Nelson 2002b: fig. 3.3); 5) El Beid Playa, Site E-77-7(after Close & Wendorf 2001: fig. 4.7).

Forms of vesselsForms of Early Holocene vessels from the southern region of Egypt’s Western Desert are verystandardised, e.g. they are solely bowls of various size and depth with varying thickness ofwalls, from 4.5–10mm, usually c. 6mm (Nelson 2002a: 2). In the case of El Adam pottery,considerable fragmentation prevents any more precise analysis of vessel shapes. Only threerims were found. The bowl from E-06-1 was c. 38cm in diameter (Figure 9), while the sizeof the vessel from E-79-8 was determined by Connor as exceeding 40cm (1984: 240; Figure5). For the same reason it is difficult to replicate production techniques. However, all theEarly Holocene vessels were made in the same way: they were constructed by coiling or acombination of padding and coiling; their surface was smoothed. When a formed vesselstarted to dry, decoration began (Nelson 2002a: 3).

Surface treatmentNelson observed two types of decoration on the pottery from the oldest phase: simpleimpression (S1) and simple rocker-stamp (R1). Decoration of the S1 type could be appliedusing a comb with a few rectangular- or round-tipped teeth. The tool was pushed intowet clay, lifted and pressed in again in another place (Nelson 2002a). A classic example ofthis type of ornament was found at Site E-79-8 (Figure 5, nos. 1–3), where three potteryfragments found in situ are decorated by bands composed of slightly curved lines impressedwith a comb (Connor 1984: 239–44). Such an object could have been made from a fragmentof an ostrich eggshell with a notched edge. The pottery was made from clay tempered withsand with a slight admixture of mica.

The same site also provided three different sherds. In one case, it is a motif of the S1type, probably made by comb impressions, but this time it consists of straight, rather than

104

Res

earc

h


Figure 7. Nabta Playa, Site E-06-1, wheel-stamped pottery (photograph: M. Jordeczka).

wavy lines (Figure 5, no. 4). The remaining two sherds (Figure 5, nos. 5 & 6) displaya motif which Connor describes as a linear mat pattern (Connor 1984: 243). A verysimilar motif (R1 in Nelson’s terminology) comes from well-dated El Adam sites E-75-9,E-77-7 and E-06-1.

All the vessel fragments acquired so far from Nabta Playa Site E-06-1 display the surfacetreatment discussed above. The patterns consist of lines, parallel to the rim and located atthe same distance to one another (c. 6–9mm measuring from the centre of the line), whichdiffer in composition and shape of impressions. Bigger sherds show that the impressionpattern repeats itself every four lines, which may mean that the potter had at his disposalat least four tools for making impressions (Figures 7–10). An almost identical character ofpattern is visible on a pottery sherd from Site E-77-7 at El Gebal El Beid Playa (Close &Wendorf 2001: 68). It belongs to the El Adam phase, which is substantiated by both flintartefact collection and the radiocarbon date of 8875+−75 BP (ETH-8583) on a charcoalfragment excavated in close proximity to the pottery found in situ (Figure 6, no. 5).

Site E-75-9 produced 13 potsherds. Precise assignment of the first nine constitutes aproblem as they come from excavations carried out in the 1970s, when they were foundon the surface and were then determined to be a later admixture (Wendorf & Schild

105


Figure 8. Nabta Playa, Site E-06-1, wheel-stamped pottery (photograph: M. Jordeczka).

Figure 9. Nabta Playa, Site E-06-1, wheel-stamped pottery (drawing: M. Puszkarski).

2001b: 109). After 15 years, excavations at the site were resumed with the aim to provethe occurrence of the pottery from the period of El Adam settlement. Another four potteryfragments were found, including one in situ. It was decorated with lines, parallel to therim, of deep, tightly packed, stamped rectangular impressions (Figure 6, nos. 1–4). Thepaste used for their production was tempered with a mineral, probably granite, admixture(Wendorf & Schild 2001b: 109).

Roulette diskThe pottery from Site E-75-9 discussed above includes an interesting object — the oldestknown example of a disk cut out from a vessel fragment (Figure 6, no. 4). It is small (27 ×26 × 5mm) and its outer rim was formed by chipping. The pattern preserved on its exterior

106

Res

earc

h


Figure 10. Nabta Playa pottery disks: 1–4), Site E-91-1; 5) Site E-92-7; 6) Site E-00-1 (after Nelson 2002b, drawing: M.Puszkarski).

is the same as that shown on the remaining sherds from this site. Similar objects have beenexcavated in several sites in the Nabta Playa-Kiseiba area, though in their majority theycome from slightly younger phases of the Early Neolithic (Gatto 2002; Nelson 2002b).Made from fragments of broken vessels, they are of relatively standardised sizes (usually c.4.5–6cm in diameter) and of regular, circular shape. Their perimeter is frequently polishedand additionally notched, forming a serrated edge with the tops of the prongs square oroval. The centre of each disk displayed a bored hole. It is interesting that the traces of theornament preserved on the exteriors of the disks (Figures 10 & 11) nearly always exhibitthe S1/R1 motif and that they were found on sites that produced pottery decorated in thisway. Some disks bear traces of considerable wear (Nelson 2002b).

107


A close examination of the motif on the El Adam pottery from Site E-06-1 reveals that anindividual vessel frequently displays several types of lines (Figures 7–9). In numerous cases

Figure 11. Nabta Playa, Site E-92-7: Al Jerar pottery disk(photograph by M. Jordeczka).

these various lines are nearly ideally paralleland evenly spaced, forming wider structuressometimes composed of several lines. Thisarrangement may suggest that a set ofseveral rotating toothed disks of the samediameter was used in producing the motifs.

The experiments carried out to verify theassumptions above (Figure 12) confirmedthe possibility of quick application ofdecorations of this type (wheel stamp) byusing toothed disks. Two aspects shouldbe emphasised here. When one disk isused, the depth of the ornament is undercomplete control, but when several objectsare used concurrently, it is necessary tomatch the diameters of all the disksprecisely.

A different type of motif was encoun-tered on Site E-91-3 also from the El Adamphase. Nelson identifies the motif observedon five pottery fragments as the R1 type(Figure 13). It was made with a small,thin, arch-like tool without serrated edges.A series of diagonal, wavy, tightly packed

imprints of 10mm in length running slightly diagonal to the rim were probably made with arocker-stamp (Nelson 2002b: 21). The vessel’s interior was smoothed and, like the exterior,was yellow-brown in colour. Sand grains and crushed granite were used as a temper. As allthe sherds from Site E-91-3 were found on the surface, categorical assignment of this typeof motif, found on this site alone, to the El Adam phase is uncertain (Close 2001: 79).

The wider picture: Nabta Playa-Kiseiba and the early pottery in AfricaThe discoveries made in the last decades indicate that pottery was independently invented innumerous places in the world. The oldest examples (c. 15 000 cal BP) probably come fromeastern Asia (Kuzmin 2006). In Africa, this groundbreaking invention probably occurredlater, though it is difficult to determine exactly where and when. In recent years the numberof radiocarbon dates from African sites with early pottery has been growing fast and nowthe Sahara is considered one of the oldest centres of pottery introduction (Figure 14).

Excluding Site E-79-8 at El Adam Playa (Connor 1984), the oldest known examplesof pottery production in the Sahara come from Mali (a complex of Early Holocene sitesin Ounjougou, dated to the period preceding 9400 cal BC: Huysecom et al. 2009: 911;Ozainne et al. 2009: 39, 41). At Ravin de la Mouche, Ounjougou, however, redeposited

108

Res

earc

h


Figure 12. Experiments (photograph: M. Jordeczka).

Figure 13. Nabta Playa, Site E-91-3: simple rocker-stamp pottery (after Nelson 2002b).

pottery appears already in the two oldest strata, HA1 and HAO, deposited before 9400 calBC (Huysecom et al. 2009: 909). On the other hand, the earliest assay from Site E-79-8of 9820+−380 BP (SMU-858) (Connor 1984: 39) carries a very large standard deviationthat may place the age of the sample between about 10 000 and 8800 cal BC (at 1σ ). Thepresence of rare, but quite specific pottery in the El Adam cultural environment has beendemonstrated at the oldest sites. The same type of pottery continues until the disappearanceof the El Adam traditions from Egypt’s Western Desert, i.e. in the subsequent hyper-aridphase.

109


Figure 14. Radiocarbon ages of sites with early ceramics in North Africa (after Jesse 2003b, updated). Key: WL = wavyline; DWL = dotted wavy line; IWL = incised wavy line: S1/R1 = simple impression/simple rocker-stamp.

The earliest pottery dates scatter along the southern and central Sahara, northern Sahel andthe south-eastern fringes of the desert (Figures 15). This ancient African pottery emerges inlargely differing cultural units, presenting diverse surface treatments and decoration motifs(types), implying that these areas are not necessarily regions of its origin. According toHuysecom, pottery may have been invented in the present-day Sahel-Sudanese belt, fromwhere it expanded to the central Sahara, where it was already known in the ninth millenniumBC (Huysecom et al. 2009: 915). For Close (1995), on the other hand, pottery appeared insocieties depending on aquatic resources and cereals, probably in a region spread between theNile and the Hoggar Massif. Haaland (2007: 170) prefers to see its origin in the Nile Valley,while Jesse (2003a: 35) favours the southern Sahara, Sahel and the Hoggar mountains.

It seems that our current understanding of the appearance of ceramics in the EarlyHolocene Sahara and northern Sahel is a history of pottery-container adoption rather thaninvention. While factors leading to pottery invention might have been drastically variableand certainly extremely murky, as suggested by the sudden appearance of ceramics indiverse areas, periods and eco-zones of the world, its subsequent inclusion in the toolkitof a particular ecology and culture seems easier to explain. Huysecom et al. (2009: 915)link the use of ceramics with the development of a new technological complex emerging

110

Res

earc

h


Figure 15. Major sites with early pottery in North Africa (after Jesse 2003b).

with the spread of grasslands invading the former desert areas after the northward shift ofthe monsoon front in the Early Holocene. Pottery containers would be a response to theneeds of a new food processing technology involving the boiling of ground Panicoidae grassseeds. Food boiling, however, was not invented in the Sahel at the turn of Pleistocene andHolocene, just near the end of the Last Termination. Ground and boiled, and therefore notpoisonous, tubers of nut-grass and club-rush were most probably processed (Jones 1989:265; Roubet 1989) already in the early Late Palaeolithic in Wadi Kubbaniya, just below thefirst Nile cataract, in around 20 000 cal BC (Hillman et al. 1989: 184).

A number of authors have argued that the appearance of pottery in Africa was tightlylinked to the use of aquatic resources as well as to food preparation technologies involvingboiling soup and porridge (e.g. Sutton 1977; Halaand 2007), suggesting the Nile Valleywas the place where African pottery was invented (Haaland 2007: 170). This, obviously,is not the same ecological stage on which the El Adam gatherers-cattle keepers and smallgame hunters acted. They came to the southern Western Desert of Egypt in the El AdamHumid Interphase which is coeval with the Early Holocene. It was a relatively dry periodcharacterised by a weak summer rainfall and limited vegetation of oasis character, restrictedto seasonal basins (playas) and natural desert wells. Tamarix was the only tree present amongcharred floral macroremains recovered from occupation levels at Site E-77-7, El Gebal ElBeid Playa (Barakat 2001: 599–600). No traces of grass-use have been noted. It is believedthat the subsistence of the El Adam desert dwellers was largely based on cattle herding andhunting small game. It is only during the Holocene Climatic Maximum, at about 7000to 6000 cal BC in the El Nabta/Al Jerar Humid Interphase that various seeds, includingsorghum and millet, emerge in massive quantities in the upper Early Neolithic settlements

111


of Nabta Playa (Wasylikowa 2001) and slightly later at Farafra (Fahmy 2001), together withcommon storage facilities (Wendorf & Schild 2006) and numerous pottery vessels (Al Jerarvariant).

Searching for the rationale behind the adoption of pottery manufacture in Egypt’sWestern Desert, Nieves Zedeno (2002: 61) followed the theoretical approach of Mills(1992) concerning the socio-economic causes for adopting ceramics, and Bleed’s (1986)optimal design of tool system. She thus links the use of Early Neolithic ceramic containersin the Nabta Playa-Kiseiba areas with their inclusion into the sustainable tool kit of mobilehunter-gatherer-cattle keepers in an environment characterised by the limited availabilityof water and wild resources, which led to constraints in mobility. Limited mobility couldhave activated a demand for simple ceramic containers chiefly because of their low labourinvestment, multi-functional use and portability (see also Garcea 2004: 111).

ConclusionFinds of the earliest African pottery come from the south-eastern and southern fringes of theSahara as well as its central, mountainous regions, i.e. the areas of the Early Holocene reachof the summer rainfall, a consequence of the northward shift of monsoonal circulation. Theoldest African vessels from fired clay known so far represent a very high technological leveland a simple, very limited range of shapes.

It is obvious that Early Holocene colonisers of the Sahara came from regions that couldbe settled during the arid period of the late Pleistocene. This poses yet another problem —where were they situated? Could these regions also include the mountainous central Sahara(Jesse 2003a: 43)? Most of the central Sahara data, however, indicate the onset of humidconditions as late as the Early Holocene (compare summary in Wendorf et al. 2007: 197).In short, data presently to hand exclude the possibility of human survival in the centralSahara mountainous area during the Late Glacial or early Last Termination.

It is more than likely that the Early Holocene colonisers of the southern Western Desert,the El Adam hunter-gatherer-cattle keepers, came to the south-eastern fringes of the Saharafrom the Nile Valley. The El Adam technology and style is almost identical to that of theArkinian, a final Late Palaeolithic culture known from the flooded village of Arkin in LowerNubia, some 80km to the south-east of Nabta Playa (Schild et al. 1968). The oldest knownArkinian settlements have been securely dated to the early Younger Dryas, c. 10 900–10 400cal BC (Wendorf et al. 1979). Other sites, whilst clearly stratigraphically younger, have notyet been radiocarbon dated. Excavations of the early Arkinian occupations have not yieldedpottery; however, the areas opened were limited to only around 20m2 at the oldest in situcampsite — Dibeira West 1, Concentration A (Schild et al. 1968: 654; de Heinzelin 1968:fig. 41).

Here we should perhaps mention important possible parallels resulting from stratigraphiesof language in north-eastern Africa. The terminology associated with cattle raising in thenorthern Sudanic division of the Nilo-Saharan languages was established before 8500 BC,perhaps around the same time that the first pottery-making registered in the lexical data(Ehrer 2006: 1044). Where, then, were the most likely potential African pottery inventors

112

Res

earc

h


and pot-makers dwelling? Presumably also in the areas of natural occurrence of the extinctaurochs, in our case in the Nile Valley, in Lower Nubia, north of the tsetse fly line.

AcknowledgementsThe Combined Prehistoric Expedition is an international research body founded in 1962 and in recentyears jointly sponsored by the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, SouthernMethodist University, Dallas, Texas, and The Combined Prehistoric Expedition Foundation.

ReferencesBANKS, K.M. 1984. Climates, cultures and cattle: the

Holocene archaeology of the eastern Sahara. Dallas(TX): Department of Anthropology, Institute forthe Study of Earth and Man, Southern MethodistUniversity.

BARAKAT, H. 2001. Anthracological studies in theNeolithic sites of Nabta Playa, south Egypt, inF. Wendorf, R. Schild & associates (ed.) Holocenesettlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Volume 1: thearchaeology of Nabta Playa: 592–600. New York &London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

BARICH, B.E. 1998. People, water and grain: thebeginnings of domestication in the Sahara and theNile Valley. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

BLEED, P. 1986. The optimal design of huntingweapons: maintainability or reliability. AmericanAntiquity 51: 737–47.

CAMPS, G. 1969. Amekni: Neolithique ancien du Hoggar(Memoires du Centre de Recherchesanthropologiques, prehistoriques etethnographiques 10). Paris: Arts et metiersgraphiques.

CLOSE, A.E. 1984. Report on Site E-80–4, in A.E.Close (ed.) Cattle-keepers of the eastern Sahara: theNeolithic of Bir Kiseiba (assembled by F. Wendorf &R. Schild): 325–49. Dallas (TX): Department ofAnthropology, Institute for the Study of Earth andMan, Southern Methodist University.

– 1987. Preface, in A.E. Close (ed.) Prehistory of aridNorth Africa: essays in honour of Fred Wendorf:xi–xvi. Dallas (TX): Southern Methodist UniversityPress.

– 1995. Few and far between. Early ceramics in NorthAfrica, in W.K. Barnett & J.W. Hoopes (ed.) Theemergence of pottery: technology and innovation inancient societies: 23–37. Washington (DC):Smithsonian Institution Press.

– 2001. Sites E-91–3 and E-91–4: the Early Neolithicof El Adam type at Nabta Playa, in F. Wendorf, R.Schild & associates (ed.) Holocene settlement of theEgyptian Sahara, Volume 1: the archaeology of NabtaPlaya: 71–97. New York & London: KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

CLOSE, A.E. & F. WENDORF. 2001. Site E-77–7revisited: the Early Neolithic of El Adam type at ElGebal El Beid Playa, in F. Wendorf, R. Schild &associates (ed.) Holocene settlement of the EgyptianSahara, Volume 1: the archaeology of Nabta Playa:57–71. New York & London: KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

CONNOR, D.R. 1984. Report on Site E-79–8, in A.E.Close (ed.) Cattle-keepers of the eastern Sahara: theNeolithic of Bir Kiseiba (assembled by F. Wendorf &R. Schild): 217–50. Dallas (TX): Department ofAnthropology, Institute for the Study of Earth andMan, Southern Methodist University.

CREMASCHI, M. & S. DI LERNIA. 1999. The 1993 and1994 excavations: geomorphology, stratigraphiccontext and dates, in S. Di Lernia (ed.) The UanAfuda cave: hunter-gatherer societies of CentralSahara (Arid zone archaeology monographs 1):9–26. Florence: All’insegna del giglio.

EHRER, C. 2006. Linguistic stratigraphies and Holocenehistory in northeastern Africa, in K. Kroeper, M.Chłodnicki & M. Kobusiewicz (ed.) Archaeology ofearly Northeastern Africa: in memory of LechKrzyzaniak (Studies in African archaeology 9):1019–55. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum.

FAHMY, A.G.-E. 2001. Palaeoethnobotanical studies ofthe Neolithic settlement in Hidden Valley, FrafraOasis, Egypt. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany10: 235–46.

GARCEA, E.A.A. 1996. The long sequence at Uan Tabu(Libyan Sahara): Aterian and Holocene deposit, inG. Aumassip, J.D. Clark & F. Mori (ed.) Theprehistory of Africa (Series Colloquia 15): 183–94.Forli: A.B.A.C.O.

– 2004. An alternative way towards food production:the perspective from the Libyan Sahara. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 18: 107–54.

GATTO, M.C. 2002. Early Neolithic pottery of theNabta-Kiseiba area: stylistic attributes and regionalrelationships, in K. Nelson, M.C. Gatto, F. Jesse &M.N. Zedeno (ed.) Holocene settlement of theEgyptian Sahara, Volume 2: the pottery of NabtaPlaya: 65–79. New York & London: KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

113


GEHLEN, B., K. KINDERMAN, J. LINSTADTER & H.RIEMER. 2002. The Holocene occupation of theeastern Sahara: regional chronologies andsupra-regional developments in four areas in theabsolute desert, in Jennerstrasse 8 (ed.) Tides of thedesert: contributions to the archaeology andenvironmental history of Africa in honour of RudolphKuper/Gezeiten der Wuste: Beitrage zu Archaologieund Umweltgeschichte Afrikas zu Ehren von RudolphKuper: 85–117. Koln: Heinrich Barth Institut.

HAALAND, R. 2007. Porridge and pot, bread and oven:food ways and symbolism in Africa and the NearEast from the Neolithic to the present. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 17(2): 165–82.

HAOUR, A.C. 2003. One hundred years of archaeologyin Niger. Journal of World Prehistory 17(2):181–234.

DE HEINZELIN, J. 1968. Atlas, in F. Wendorf (ed.) Theprehistory of Nubia, Volume 3: atlas: figs. 1–82. Taos(NM): Fort Burgwin Research Center.

HILLMAN, G., E. MADEYSKA & J. HATHER. 1989. Wildplant foods and diet in Late Paleolithic WadiKubbaniya: the evidence from charred remains, inA.E. Close (ed.) The prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya,Volume 2: stratigraphy, paleoeconomy, andenvironment (assembled by F. Wendorf & R.Schild): 162–242. Dallas (TX): SouthernMethodist University Press.

HUYSECOM, E., M. RASSE, L. LESPEZ, K. NEUMANN, A.FAHMY, A. BALLOUCHE, S. OZAINNE, M. MAGETTII,CH, TRIBOLO & S. SORIANO. 2009. The emergenceof pottery in Africa during the tenth millennium calBC: new evidence from Ounjougou (Mali).Antiquity 83: 905–917.

JESSE, F. 2003a. Early ceramics in the Sahara and theNile Valley, in L. Krzyzaniak, K. Kroeper & M.Kobusiewicz (ed.) Cultural markers in the laterprehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research(Studies in African archaeology 8): 35–50. Poznan:Poznan Archaeological Museum.

– 2003b. Rahib 80/87: ein Wavy-Line-Fundplatz imWadi Howar und die fruheste Keramik in Nordafrika.Koln: Heinrich Barth Institut.

JONES, C.E.R. 1989. Archaeochemistry: facts or fancy,in A.E. Close (ed.) The prehistory of WadiKubbaniya, Volume 2: stratigraphy, paleoeconomy,and environment (assembled by F. Wendorf & R.Schild): 260–66. Dallas (TX): Southern MethodistUniversity.

KHABIR, A.R. 1987. New radiocarbon dates for Sarurab2 and the age of the Early Khartoum tradition.Current Anthropology 28: 377–80.

KUZMIN, Y.V. 2006. Chronology of the earliest potteryin East Asia: progress and pitfalls. Antiquity 80:362–71.

MILLS, B.K. 1992. Ceramic technology: expedientversus curated technologies. Paper presented at aSymposium in honour of Lewis R. Binford, 3–5November 1989, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.

NELSON, K. 2002a. Introduction, in K. Nelson, M.C.Gatto, F. Jesse & M.N. Zedeno (ed.) Holocenesettlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Volume 2: thepottery of Nabta Playa: 1–8. New York & London:Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

– 2002b. Ceramic assemblages of the Nabta-Kiseibaarea, in K. Nelson, M.C. Gatto, F. Jesse & M.N.Zedeno (ed.) Holocene settlement of the EgyptianSahara, Volume 2: the pottery of Nabta Playa: 21–50.New York & London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

NELSON, K., M.C. GATTO, F. JESSE & M.N. ZEDENO.2002. Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara,Volume 2: the pottery of Nabta Playa. New York &London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

OZAINNE, S., E. HUYSECOM, A. MAYOR, C.ROBION-BRUNNER & S. SORIANO. 2009. Unechronologie pour le peuplement et le climat du paysdogon: la sequence culturelle et environnementaledu gisement d’Ounjougou (Mali). Antropo 18:37–46.

ROSET, J.P. 1982. Tagalagal: un site a ceramiques au Xemillenaire avant notre ere dans l’Aır (Niger).Comptes-rendus des seances de l’Academie desinscriptions et belles-lettres 126(3): 565–70.

– 1987a. Paleoclimatic and cultural conditions ofNeolithic development in the Early Holocene ofnorthern Niger (Aır and Tenere), in A.E. Close(ed.) Prehistory of arid North Africa: essays in honourof Fred Wendorf: 211–34. Dallas (TX): SouthernMethodist University Press.

– 1987b. Neolithisation, Neolithique etPost-Neolithique au Niger nord-oriental. Bulletinde l’Association francaise pour l’Etude du Quaternaire24: 203–214.

ROUBET, C. 1989. The grinding stones of Site E-78–3,Wadi Kubbaniya, in A.E. Close (ed.) The prehistoryof Wadi Kubbaniya, Volume 3: Late Palaeolithicarchaeology (assembled by F.Wendorf & R. Schild):473–89. Dallas (TX): Southern MethodistUniversity Press.

SCHILD, R. & F. WENDORF. 2001a. Geomorphology,lithostratigraphy, geochronology and taphonomy ofsites, in F. Wendorf, R. Schild & associates (ed.)Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Volume1: the archaeology of Nabta Playa: 11–50. New York& London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

114

Res

earc

h


– 2001b. Combined prehistoric expedition’sradiocarbon dates associated with Neolithicoccupations in the southern Western Desert ofEgypt, in F. Wendorf, R. Schild & associates (ed.)Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Volume1: the archaeology of Nabta Playa: 51–6. New York& London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

SCHILD, R., M. CHMIELEWSKA & H. WICKOWSKA.1968. The Arkinian and Shamarkian industries, inF. Wendorf (ed.) The prehistory of Nubia, Volume 2:651–767. Taos (NM): Fort Burgwin ResearchCenter.

SUTTON, J.E.G. 1977. The African Aqualithic.Antiquity 51: 25–33.

WASYLIKOWA, K. 2001. Site E-75–6: vegetation andsubsistence if the Early Neolithic at Nabta Playa,Egypt, reconstructed from charred plant remains, inF. Wendorf, R. Schild & associates (ed.) Holocenesettlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Volume 1: thearchaeology of Nabta Playa: 544–591. New York &London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

WENDORF, F. & R. SCHILD. 1980. Prehistory of theeastern Sahara. New York & London: AcademicPress.

– 1998. Nabta Playa and its role in northeastern Africanprehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology17: 97–123.

– 2001a. Introduction, in F. Wendorf, R. Schild &associates (ed.) Holocene settlement of the EgyptianSahara, Volume 1: the archaeology of Nabta Playa:1–10. New York & London: KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

– 2001b. Site E-75–9: the excavation of an El Adam (?)Early Neolithic settlement at Nabta Playa, in F.Wendorf, R. Schild & associates (ed.) Holocenesettlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Volume 1: thearchaeology of Nabta Playa: 97–110. New York &London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

– 2006. The emergence of village settlements duringthe Early Neolithic in the Western Desert of Egypt.Adumatu 14: 7–22.

WENDORF, F. R. SCHILD & H. HAAS. 1979. A newradiocarbon chronology for prehistoric sites inNubia. Journal of Field Archaeology 6: 219–23.

WENDORF, F., R. SCHILD & ASSOCIATES. 2001. Holocenesettlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Volume 1: thearchaeology of Nabta Playa. New York & London:Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

WENDORF, F. W. KARLEN & R. SCHILD. 2007. MiddleHolocene environments of North and East Africa,with special emphasis on the African Sahara, inD.G. Anderson, K.A. Maasch & D.H. Sandweiss(ed.) Climate change & cultural dynamics: a globalperspective on mid-Holocene transitions: 189–227.New York: Elsevier.

ZEDENO, M.N. 2002. Neolithic ceramic production inthe eastern Sahara of Egypt, in K. Nelson, M.C.Gatto, F. Jesse & M.N. Zedeno (ed.) HoloceneSettlement of the Egyptian Sahara Volume 2: thepottery of Nabta Playa: 51–64. New York &London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

115

early holocene pottery in the western desert of egypt: new data from nabta playa

Documents