Settlement Dynamics

of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age

Volume III

Edited by Nicholas J. Conard and Anne Delagnes

Kerns VerlagTübingen

Redaktion: Diane Kerns© 2010 by Kerns Verlag Alle rechte vorbehalten

Satz und Gestaltung: Kerns VerlagPostfach 210516, 72028 Tübingen

ISBN: 978-3-935751-10-0Printed in Germany

Tübingen Publications in Prehistory reflect the work of a cooperativeproject between the Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecologyof the University of Tübingen’s Institute for Pre- and Protohistory and Medieval Archaeology and Kerns Verlag to provide the results of currentresearch in prehistoric archaeology and all its allied fields to a broad inter-national audience. Inquiries about publications or orders can be directed to:

Kerns Verlag

Postfach 210516, 72028 Tübingen, GermanyFax: 49-7071-367641 Tel: 49-7071-367768

email: info@kernsverlag.comwww.kernsverlag.com

foreword 9Nicholas J. Conard and Anne Delagnes

11 Variability in Middle stone age faunal exploitation 11

and use of the physical and social landscapes

in the southwestern Cape, south africa

Jessica C. Thompson

22 How the geological record affects our reconstructions 39

of early Middle stone age settlement patterns:

The case of an alluvial fan setting for Koimilot

(Kapthurin formation), Kenya

Christian A. Tryon

33 a new relationship between Mousterian 67

and aterian in north africa

Luc Wengler

44 Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: 81

Theoretical and modeling frameworks using

high desert survey data from abydos, egypt

Deborah I. Olszewski, Harold L. Dibble, Utsav Schurmans, Shannon P. McPherron, Laurent Chiotti, Jennifer R. Smith

55 settlement dynamics of the early and levalloisian 103

Middle Paleolithic at open-air sites in the Khanasiri Region,

northern Jordan

Holger Dietl

66 Modeling Middle Paleolithic land use 123

in the Damascus Province, syria

Nicholas J. Conard, Mohamed Masri, Knut Bretzke, Hannes Napierale, Andrew W. Kandel

77 Variation in lower and Middle Paleolithic land use 145

strategies in the syrian Desert steppe:

The example of Hummal (el Kowm area)

Thomas Hauck, Dorota Wojtczak, Fabio Wegmüller, Jean-Marie Le Tensorer

Table of ConTenTs

8 8 Middle Paleolithic settlement and land use 163

in the altai Mountains, siberia

Patrick J. Wrinn

99 neanderthal subsistence tactics in the Crimean Micoquian 195

Thorsten Uthmeier, Victor P. Chabai

1010 settlement structure of the late Middle Palaeolithic 235

in the Cracow RegionAleksandra Zieba, Valéry Sitlivy, Krzysztof Sobczyk

1111 Paléoécologie et stratégies de subsistance 249

à l’abri du Molare de scario

(s. Giovanni a Piro – salerne – Italie du sud) :

niveaux Paléolithique moyen 44-49, données préliminaires

Annamaria Ronchitelli, Margherita Freguglia, Paolo Boscato

1212 activités de subsistance et exploitation des ressources de 265

l’environnement à s. Croce (bisceglie – bari – Italie du sud) :

les unités stratigraphiques 546 et 535 du Paléolithique moyen

Paolo Boscato, Jacopo Crezzini, Margherita Freguglia, Paolo Gambassini, Filomena Ranaldo, Annamaria Ronchitelli

1313 Regards croisés : la diffusion des jaspes de ligurie 283

orientale (Italie) et l’approvisionnement en matières premières

lithiques dans l’abri Pié lombard (Paléolithique moyen, france)

Guillaume Porraz

1414 Contraintes naturelles et implantations 307

moustériennes. l’exemple du bassin mosan (belgique)

Kévin Di Modica

1515 Reconstructing Middle Palaeolithic hominid 329

behaviour during oIs 5 in northern france

Jean-Luc Locht, Émilie Goval, Pierre Antoine

1616 l’apport des fouilles de grande superficie sur 357

la connaissance du Paléolithique moyen

Pascal Depaepe

1717 Du rôle structurant de la mobilité dans 373

les systèmes techniques du Paléolithique moyen

Anne Delagnes

1818 Circulation des matières premières et modalités 397

d’exploitation territoriale au Paléolithique moyen récent

dans le bassin de la Charente

Seong-Jin Park, Jehanne Féblot-Augustins

1919 economie de débitage et organisation de l’espace 427

technique sur le site du Paléolithique moyen

de plein-air de la Mouline (Dordogne, france)

Mila Folgado, Michel Brenet

2020 systèmes d’occupation, exploitation des ressources 455

et mobilité des néandertaliens de l’Hortus (Hérault, france)

Frederic Lebegue, Nicolas Boulbes, Sophie Gregoire, Anne-Marie Moigne

2121 Technical variability and changes in the pattern of settlement 485

at Roca dels bous (southeastern Pre-Pyrenees, spain)

Jorge Martínez-Moreno, Ignacio de la Torre, Rafael Mora, Joel Casanova

2222 The Palaeolithic occupation of the sado basin 509

(alentejo, Portugal): Preliminary results

Ariane Burke, Lilianne Meignen, Michael Bisson, Nuno Ferreira Bicho, Louis Gilbert, Carla Parslow

list of Contributors 527

81

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modelingframeworks using high desert surveydata from Abydos, Egypt

Deborah I. Olszewski, Harold L. Dibble, Utsav Schurmans, Shannon P.McPherron, Laurent Chiotti, Jennifer R. Smith

4

Abstract. In a paper published in a previous volume of this series, Van Peer proposed asettlement system model for the Egyptian Middle Paleolithic related to the movement ofmoderns from Africa in the late Pleistocene. The key entity is the Nubian Complex whichhe argues shows a radiating settlement system—which he claims exemplifies a modernbehavioral pattern with a division of labor. It includes quarry/base camps, quarry work-shops, hunting sites, and Khormusan base camps. Van Peer’s model is tested here usingsurvey data from the high desert immediately adjacent to the Nile Valley at Abdyos(Middle Egypt), followed by a presentation of alternative models. These alternative mod-els also are tested against the survey data. The results suggest that some type of circu-lating settlement system is likely to be more appropriate for the Nubian Complex in thehigh desert with, at present, no distinction between site types.

Résumé. Dans un article paru dans un volume antérieur de cette série, Van Peer propo-sait un modèle de peuplement pour le Paléolithique moyen égyptien, en rapport avec lesmouvements de populations modernes à partir de l’Afrique lors du Pléistocène récent.L’ensemble clé en est le complexe Nubien, à partir duquel il argumente l’existence d’unsystème de mobilité radiant, qu’il revendique comme démonstratif d’un ensemble decomportements modernes fondés sur une division du travail. Son modèle inclut descamps de base/sites d’extraction de la pierre, des ateliers de taille sur sites d’extraction,des haltes de chasse et des camps de base khormusiens. Le modèle de Van Peer esttesté ici en utilisant les données acquises dans le cadre de prospections, dans la régionde haut désert immédiatement adjacente à la vallée du Nil à Abydos (moyenne Egypte).Des modèles alternatifs testés à partir des mêmes données de prospection sont présen-tés. Les résultats acquis suggèrent que certains types de mobilité circulaires seraient plusappropriés pour le complexe Nubien dans le haut désert, avec à présent aucune distinc-tion évidente entre types de sites.

introduction

Over the past couple of decades, and on the basis of a variety of independent data, it has

become increasingly clear that the anatomical origin of modern humans is to be found on the

African continent, and that anatomically modern humans (AMH) are present there by about

195,000–160,000 years ago (Grine et al. 2007; McDougall et al. 2005; White et al. 2003).

A number of researchers also have argued that behavioral modernity arose on the African

82

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

continent, quite probably through a mosaic pattern of cultural evolution beginning early dur-

ing the Middle Stone Age of sub-Saharan Africa (Henshilwood and Marean 2003; McBrearty

and Brooks 2000). From Africa, early AMHs (with or without modern behavioral patterns)

dispersed to the rest of the Old World; AMHs are present, for example, in the Levant by about

100,000 years ago (Grün and Stringer 1991), and most archaeologists would agree that mod-

ern human behaviors are documented in the archaeological record of the Old World outside

of Africa by about 60/40,000 years ago (e.g., Bar-Yosef 2002; Mellars 2004, 2006).

The dispersal routes from Africa in the late Pleistocene, however, are geographically con-

strained to three main possibilities (fig. 1). One of these—from North Africa (Morocco)

across the Strait of Gibraltar to Spain—required the use of rafts or boats, as it is a water cross-

ing (Straus 2001). Another is a very narrow water crossing—from the Horn of Africa (Eritrea,

Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia) to the Arabian Peninsula—over a much smaller strait during

periods of lowered sea levels, and could have been traversed using simple flotation devices

(Flemming 2004; Stringer 2000; Walter et al. 2000). The fully terrestrial route is from along

the Egyptian Nile Valley corridor and its surrounding desert areas to the Sinai and Negev in

the Levant (Van Peer 1998; Vermeersch 2001). Of the three potential routes, the Nile Valley

route in Egypt likely has seen the most intensive and extensive research, with previous work

represented by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition (Wendorf 1965, 1968; Wendorf and

Schild 1976) and the Belgian Middle Egypt Prehistoric Project (Vermeersch 2000, 2002;

Vermeersch et al. 1977; 1998). These projects, however, tended to target only locales with

potential to yield sites with buried deposits in the Nile Valley itself, and were not systematic

in their investigation of non-targeted areas in the valley or in the high desert landscape.

Fig. 1. Possible routes

out of Africa.

83

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

Besides investigating possible routes for the dispersal of AMHs from Africa, gaining more

understanding of early AMH behaviors in any of these areas is of some consequence for

assessing how “modern” behaviors might have been as AMHs began to leave the African

continent.

Research by the Abydos Survey for Paleolithic Sites (ASPS), which has been examining

the high desert adjacent to the Nile Valley corridor in Middle Egypt, is designed to address

some aspects of early AMH behaviors. The ASPS project area is in Middle Egypt, west of

the historic period site of Abydos, and covers a portion of the high desert to the west of the

Nile River from the escarpment to approximately 20 km into the desert (fig. 2). Over the past

several field seasons the ASPS team has been studying the settlement patterning and lithic

technological behavior of Middle Paleolithic hominins in the interval between about 140,000

to 70,000 years ago (Chiotti et al. 2007, 2009; Olszewski et al 2001, 2005) and this work is

now yielding results directly relevant to models of settlement patterning.

bAckground, contExt, And MEthodS oF thE ASPS ProjEct

The high desert area that is the focus for the ASPS project research lies within the geomor-

phic province known as the Libyan Plateau, which in the Abydos region is dissected by rel-

atively mature, deeply incised drainage systems, or wadis. Two portions of the project region

(Umm al-Qaab and Wadi Samhud areas, see fig. 2) were investigated in the 2002/03 and

2005/06 seasons (Chiotti et al. 2007; Olszewski et al. 2005; subsequent field seasons are

detailed in Chiotti et al. 2009a, 2009b.; Olszewski et al. n.d.). The principal geomorphic dif-

Fig. 2. Location of the ASPS project area. Each white circle represents a sample

location. the 2002/03 and 2005/06 data is shown.

84

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

ference between the two areas results from the relatively large portion of the Wadi Samhud

region underlain by chert-cobble and quartz-pebble gravels. Where landscapes are wholly

underlain by these gravels (generally the northern half to two thirds of the Wadi Samhud

area) rather than by competent limestones, the wadis have well developed braided streams

and are wider and more gently sloping, with interfluves that are narrower and more pointed

in profile (as opposed to flat-topped) (figs. 3 and 4). Most likely, rates of erosion are signif-

icantly higher when the landscape is underlain by gravels. Thus these portions of the land-

scape probably have undergone more change over the last few hundred thousand years than

those underlain by limestone.

The plateau surface is primarily covered by a desert pavement, or hamada. Although

desert pavements represent relatively stable, unchanging surfaces compared to those in other

geomorphic settings, desert pavements exist in a dynamic equilibrium. Vertical movement of

the pavement surface is characteristic of its evolution, with the surface either “growing” up

vertically as eolian dust is incorporated into the stone-free layer beneath the pavement clasts

(e.g., Wells et al. 1995), or being lowered through deflation. Some horizontal movement of

pavement clasts, however, also has been demonstrated, although only over a small scale (on

the order of 10 to 30 cm; Haff and Werner 1996). This indicates that the spatial distribution

of archaeological materials on desert pavements should be relatively intact, with trampling

being the primary source of artifact movement and damage.

The data presented here are based on pedestrian surveys involving teams of three to four

individuals spaced at approximately 5–10 meter intervals walking transect lines across the

Fig. 3. the Wadi umm al-Qaab area is underlain by competent limestones,

resulting in flat-topped interflueves.

85

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

landscape (McPherron et al. 2008). Previous work demonstrated that only the plateau con-

tains archaeology and thus the transect lines avoid wadis and focus instead on ridge tops and

intermediate terrace features in the high desert. Two kinds of data are collected. First, sample

collections are made every 100 meters regardless of artifact density. Second, if an area of rel-

atively high artifact density (a “site”) is encountered, it is collected separately and given a

separate ID. Each context (sample or site) is sampled using a one meter radius circle, from

which all lithic artifacts are recorded. The locations of all areas of collection were recorded

using either a total station or non-differential GPS. The surface sediment from the site circles

was screened through a 0.6 cm mesh. The 2002/03 and 2005/06 seasons resulted in 998 sam-

ple units and 133 site units that were collected, representing approximately 240 hectares (see

fig. 2). In addition, some locales (e.g., ASPS-46a, ASPS-49, and ASPS-4011) also were

examined in more detail to gain a better understanding of the distribution of materials within

these high density locations, the relationship between high density areas and artifact densities

in the surrounding landscape, the nature of the stone artifact industries at sites, and the poten-

tial for subsurface deposits.

Given the geological situation, the ASPS project is based almost exclusively on surface

contexts that generally can be dated only to large blocks of time, such as the Middle or Upper

Paleolithic. For the Middle Paleolithic period, which is the focus of this chapter, some lithic

tool types or technologies are known from radiometrically dated, excavated sites elsewhere

in Egypt, and these types and technologies can be used as markers for somewhat finer slices

in time. On the whole, however, the Egyptian record for much of the Paleolithic is marked

Fig. 4. the Wadi Samhud area is underlain by chert-cobble and

quartz-pebble gravels resulting in narrow interflueves.

86

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

by a paucity of retouched tools, which means that attribution of lithics recorded by the ASPS

team can only be made to relatively large blocks of time.

Although this is a coarse scale, the paleoenvironmental conditions of the high desert, in

conjunction with Paleolithic lithic assemblages from dated, excavated contexts, do allow

some parsing within this general period. For example, the Egyptian high desert Middle

Paleolithic most likely dates between ~140,000 to 70,000 BP, the period when the desert was

generally more habitable, rather than to the entire length of the Middle Paleolithic (240,000

to 38,000 BP) (Smith et al. 2004: 431; Van Peer 1998: S118). Paleoenvironmental and geo-

logical work indicates that the Pleistocene high desert was characterized by prevailing arid

to hyperarid conditions following the marine isotope stage 5 (MIS 5) pluvial event, which

peaked around 120,000/115,000 years ago (e.g., Crombie et al. 1997; Kleindeinst et al. 2008;

Smith et al. 2004; Sultan et al. 1997; Wendorf et al. 1993). Occasional dates on sediments

indicating humid conditions in central and southern Egypt occur ~80–70,000 years ago (e.g.,

Crombie et al. 1997; Szabo et al. 1995) and 50–40,000 years ago (Churcher et al. 1999;

Hamdan 2000; Smith et al. 2004), but the only evidence for significant rainfall occurs during

the Holocene (e.g., Hassan et al. 2001; Haynes 2001; Schild and Wendorf 2001).

Although more fine-grained chronological resolution is not currently possible in either

the high desert or from the various excavated sites, it is feasible to examine time averaged

behavior during the interval for which high desert habitation was possible for Middle

Paleolithic groups. More importantly, the hyperaridity of the Egyptian desert for much of the

past 70,000 years offers several advantages to archaeological work on settlement patterning

and artifact distributions in this context, including high visibility of surface remains, artifact

distributions that closely mirror where they were deposited, a near lack of post-Middle

Paleolithic cultural disturbances due to lack of occupation after the onset of desert hyperarid-

ity, and numerous lithic refits (e.g., Chiotti et al. 2007, 2009b) that allow “snapshots” into

individual behaviors which can then be used to interpret patterns seen across the larger land-

scape.

thE MiddLE PALEoLithic induStriES oF thE ASPS Study ArEA

Research in Egypt and Nubia on the Middle Paleolithic has identified a sequence divided into

Early, Mid-, and Late Middle Paleolithic (Van Peer 1998; Van Peer and Vermeersch 1990).

Lithic assemblages from Nubia and Upper Egypt are characterized by several types not found

elsewhere; as these regions are outside the scope of this chapter (which focuses on Middle

Egypt), we do not treat them further. Van Peer (1998: S118) notes that Middle Egypt does not

yield assemblages predating MIS 5 (that is, predating about 140,000 years ago). During

MIS 5 (140,000 to 70,000 years ago), however, the Middle Paleolithic is said to feature two

traditions, the Nubian Complex and the Lower Nile Valley Complex (Van Peer 1998: S120).

The Nubian Complex includes the use of both Nubian Levallois cores (said to be princi-

pally for point production) and classic (centripetal) Levallois cores (fig. 5). Tools are rare,

but can include Nazlet Khater points (made on Nubian Levallois points), truncated facetted

pieces, and occasional bifacial foliates. Nubian Levallois cores include two technologies that

are thought to be distinct: Type 1, which is characterized by preparatory removals struck from

the distal end of the core, and Type 2, in which the preparatory removals are struck from the

lateral edges of the core (Guichard and Guichard 1968).

87

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

The Lower Nile Valley Complex is more problematic, because it mainly is defined on the

absence of Nubian elements. That is, the Lower Nile Valley Complex does not yield evidence

for use of Nubian Levallois technology or points, but it does contain classic Levallois core

technology, as well as lateralized Levallois flakes (Van Peer 1991; 1998: S120). Van Peer and

Vermeersch (1990: 147) also have claimed that there are differences between the two com-

plexes in classical Levallois technology, including the average number of preparation scars

on cores, the length of flakes, and the width/thickness ratios of flakes. Nevertheless, because

the Lower Nile Valley Complex is defined in part by the absence of Nubian Levallois, there

are some issues concerning its validity (discussed below), an observation which is shared by

other researchers (e.g., Schild and Wendorf 2002: 456).

The ASPS project area appears to contain evidence of abundant Nubian Complex occu-

pations (used here to mean the N-group assemblages as in Van Peer 1998). It is difficult to

assess if the Lower Nile Valley Complex (assuming it is a valid designation) is present as

well. Some of the ASPS samples contain only classic Levallois elements but both Nubian and

Lower Nile Valley Complex yield these. Van Peer (1998: S131) has argued that the Lower

Nile Valley Complex is found mainly in the Nile River Valley but he leaves open the possi-

bility that forays into the high desert for lithic raw material might have occurred.

The picture that is emerging in the ASPS study area is that there are dense accumulations

of lithic artifacts, or what would traditionally be called sites. But there are also large portions

of the study area characterized by a low background scatter of artifacts consisting of isolated

Fig. 5. Examples of nubian

complex Levallois cores. a: nubian

type 1; b: nubian type 2;

c: nubian type 2; d: classic

Levallois (drawings by L. chiotti).

88

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

flakes or cores and sometimes evidence of core reduction sequences at sites, as well as in the

areas between high-density locales. These data allow the analysis of archaeological occur-

rences of varying density that can be studied within the context of a single, unified landscape.

Evidence for the Middle Paleolithic use of the landscape is abundant. Of the diagnostic

lithic assemblages from samples and high density areas from the 2002/03 and 2005/06 sea-

sons, there are 79 Middle Paleolithic sites (out of a total of 133 sites) and 177 Middle

Paleolithic samples—bearing in mind that 523 of 998 samples contain no artifacts. There are

localities with relatively high densities of prepared core technologies, including Nubian tech-

niques and associated flake debris, as well as isolated finds of Nubian and classic Levallois

cores, and bifacial foliates. In general, the frequency of Nubian and classic Levallois cores at

a particular location is correlated only with the overall artifact density at that location sug-

gesting that, at least in terms of settlement patterns, the use of these two technologies cannot

easily be distinguished.

EgyPtiAn SEttLEMEnt ModELS

Van Peer’s Models for the Lower nile Valley and nubian complexes

Settlement system models for the Lower Nile Valley and Nubian Complexes have been pro-

posed by Van Peer (1998, 2001). The model for the Lower Nile Valley Complex is only min-

imally developed. This complex is said to be characterized by an adaptation to the riverine

context of the Nile, and thus the majority of its sites should be in the Nile Valley (Van Peer

1998: S130). One difficulty is that the only known sites here are quarry sites; if the Lower

Nile Valley Complex existed, the majority of its habitation and activity sites either would be

deeply buried in the Nile floodplain (and thus inaccessible) or would have disappeared due

to erosion. There are thus few data with which to test this model. The information from

Lower Nile Valley Complex quarry sites, however, indicates that classic Levallois cores and

classic Levallois blanks likely were selected for transport to other locales in the landscape

(Van Peer 1998: S 124–125).

Van Peer’s (1998, 2001) reconstruction of the Nubian Complex settlement system, on the

other hand, is more developed. He sees the Nubian Complex as quite varied in its adaptations

compared to the Lower Nile Valley Complex, with Nubian Complex sites in the Nile Valley

corridor and near lakes or small streams in the desert oases and/or the Nile floodplain.

Because he does not have sites from the floodplain, he uses the cave site of Wadi Sodmein in

the Red Sea Mountains, and its proximity to a stream, as a proxy for now buried or eroded

Nile floodplain sites). Thus, Nubian Complex settlement includes quarry sites in the Nile

Valley, which also may have incorporated aspects of base camp habitations, along with

Khormusan base camps—which are classified as an entity within the Nubian Complex—near

the edge of the floodplain. Of some interest is his observation that the Nile Valley Nubian

quarry sites indicate that Nubian Levallois cores are discarded at the quarries while so-called

Nubian points (perhaps manufactured into Nazlet Khater points) are transported (Van Peer

198: 129; 2001: 53). The presence of Nubian Levallois point production leads Van Peer

(1998: S131) to the interpretation of specialized hunting, although where such hunting

occurred is not specified. Classic Levallois cores and blanks also are selected for transport

elsewhere, just as they are selected for transport from Lower Nile Valley Complex quarry

sites (Van Peer 2001: 51). Van Peer thus characterizes the Nubian Complex as a radiating set-

89

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

tlement system, one that exemplifies a modern behavioral pattern with a division of labor by

OIS 4 (Van Peer 2001: 58–60; Van Peer et al. 2008). It includes quarry/base camps, quarry

workshops, hunting sites, and Khormusan base camps.

There are several problematic aspects to Van Peer’s (1998, 2001) formulations of the

Nubian Complex settlement system. First, as he describes them, each of the sites he uses for

the formulation of his model is ultimately multifunctional. For example, Taramsa I in the Nile

Valley, a workshop, is also a temporary base camp; similarly, Wadi Sodmein, a cave in the

Red Sea Mountains, is both a specialized hunting camp and a temporary base camp associ-

ated with a workshop (Van Peer 2001: 51–55). Multifunctionality, while possibly an accurate

portrayal of hominin behavior, does not lend itself easily to assessment of the proposed geo-

graphical sets of Nubian Complex sites: Nile Valley vs. proximity to lakes or small streams.

Second, the Khormusan base camps (which are in Nubia) that are used by Van Peer are said

to reflect Nubian Complex occupations away from the Nubian quarry/workshops (Van Peer

2001: 53–54), but are quite different from other assemblages representing the Nubian

Complex. In fact, the Khormusan (see Marks 1968) contains virtually no evidence of Nubian

Levallois technology and instead is mainly a centripetal Levallois technology, one that is in

many ways distinct from the Nubian centripetal Levallois technology. Third, there is no overt

reason to accept that Nubian Levallois points (or Nazlet Khater points) are indicative of hunt-

ing activities, since “point” morphology can be related to other activities as well (Garrard and

Byrd 1992: 56); moreover, questions also can be raised as to whether or not Levallois points

were frequent products of Nubian Levallois core technology (see discussion below). Finally,

Van Peer’s (1998, 2001) modeling of Nubian Complex settlement uses five sites that are, in

some cases, geographically separated by ca. 600 km. While these sites might be useful as

general proxies for different site types and for the parameters of lithic assemblages that char-

acterize each site type, it is difficult to see how individual sites in widely separated regions

can be used as evidence for his preferred interpretation of a radiating settlement system

(Van Peer 2001: 59).

the ASPS nile Valley and desert Models

Building on Van Peer’s work, the work by ASPS in the high desert led to the development of

two contrasting Middle Paleolithic Nubian Complex settlement models, one called the Nile

Valley model and, the other, the Desert model. Each of these models has a set of expectations

for various lithic artifact type and density distributions on both a local and regional scale, and

both have potential for testing with the high desert data from the ASPS project area.

The Nile Valley model, which incorporates several of the assumptions made by Van Peer

(1998, 2001), postulates that the main subsistence region is in the Nile Valley. Hunter-gath-

erer base camps are located here, while only ephemeral and special-purpose activities take

place in the low and high deserts. This model uses Van Peer’s (2001) notion of Nubian

Complex settlement as reflecting a radiating pattern with a relatively low degree of mobility.

Unlike his model, however, the Nile Valley model suggests that base camps were larger liv-

ing locales or central places in resource-rich areas of the Nile floodplain (which are now inac-

cessible due to burial or erosion). Locations outside the floodplain would then represent

task-specific activities focused on the extraction of targeted resources, such as raw

material, e.g., the Taramsa and Nazlet Khater sites on the terraces of the low desert

(Vermeersch 2002). Raw material extraction only is expected in the high desert when raw

90

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

materials in the low desert became insufficient or not as easily accessed. Such high desert

extraction locales will have large amounts of lithic debris reflecting the early stages of reduc-

tion, with numerous cortical flakes and an under-representation of cores. Evidence for tool

production and maintenance will be extremely limited or completely absent. The other spe-

cialized high desert locales are those that might have been used for hunting. These will be

characterized by evidence for the manufacture of functionally specific tool types, such as

Nubian points or perhaps bifacial foliates, and by evidence of tool maintenance—in either

case, such activities would generally produce low lithic densities. On the other hand, loca-

tions that reflect the full range of lithic production and use, as expected for base camps, will

be absent in the high desert. The Nile Valley model thus predicts that trips into the high desert

were highly specialized and that the artifacts that entered the archaeological record there will

show restricted variation in terms of typology and stage of manufacture/reduction intensity.

Another implication is that as one moves farther away from the Nile, artifact density will

become increasingly low.

The Desert model provides an important contrast to the Nile Valley one. Kleindienst

(2000) has suggested that wadi systems and high desert areas may have been preferred over

the Nile Valley during periods when heavy vegetation in the valley would have limited the

duration of habitation and ease of negotiating the terrain. Thus, the Desert model views the

high desert as more central to Nubian Complex adaptations and the Nile Valley as either of

peripheral importance or as a more or less independent adaptation. The Desert model predicts

that the high desert functions as a viable area for general hunter-gatherer habitation and a full

range of activities, rather than just specialized and/or ephemeral ones. Given this, the assem-

blages present in the high desert should be varied, with base camps representing prolonged

use of particular locations on the landscape, although specialized locales will also be present.

Base camps should contain a full range of tools and technological reduction processes and be

characterized by relatively high artifact densities (Nelson 1991: 78–84). Because raw mate-

rial outcrops occur frequently on the plateau, the associated technologies should primarily

reflect provisioning strategies, and be represented by sites analogous to what Kuhn (1995)

has called supplying locations, although in this case they are the result of natural, not human,

agents. Overall, this should result in a technological system in which raw material conserva-

tion is not the primary concern, and this will yield a pattern of less tool reduction and more

expedient blank reduction sequences. Most importantly, lithic densities and activity types

will be independent of absolute distance from the Nile Valley. In this model, hunter-gatherer

landscape use in the high desert is expected to match more closely those of higher mobility

“foragers” than those of “collectors” (Binford 1980, 2001), although the presence of different

types of sites still allies the Desert Model to a modified version of a radiating settlement

system.

tESting thE niLE VALLEy And dESErt ModELS

There is little doubt that the majority of the known low terrace sites for the Nubian Complex

in Middle Egypt are quarries (Vermeersch 2002), and thus represent the kind of specialized

activity locales expected in the Nile Valley model. Beyond this, however, surveying the val-

ley bottom for other kinds of sites, such as the base camps predicted by the Nile Valley

model, is virtually impossible due to burial or erosion. Fortunately, however, both the Nile

Valley and Desert models have clear and contrasting expectations for the high desert, and

91

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

thus research in this area alone can be used to assess the validity of each model. If central

places (base camps), as well as raw material extraction and other specialized locales (perhaps

hunting sites), are found in the high desert, then Nubian Complex adaptations include sys-

tems that are based on high desert strategies. Conversely, in the Nile Valley model, the high

desert should contain evidence only of specialized activities.

Because of the nature of preservation on the desert surface, only lithic artifacts can be

used as the primary source of evidence for Middle Paleolithic settlement systems. In this con-

text, Svoboda (2004) has made some useful observations on Middle Paleolithic site types and

distributions in the desert. He identifies three site contexts—cumulative settlements at

playas, workshops at the tops of mountains, and strategic hunting locales characterized by

good overviews of the surrounding region. There are also isolated artifacts. Levallois cores

are transported from workshops to both the playa settlements and hunting stations; such cores

are either rare (as at the playa sites) or much smaller in size (as at the hunting overlooks).

These size differences speak both to transport costs to and from the mountaintop

workshops/raw material sources, and to the resulting economizing of lithic resources repre-

sented by cores worked down to remnants at playa sites and hunting overlooks. Interestingly,

cores also occur as isolated artifacts in the landscape. Studies in both the Levant (Marks

1988; Marks et al. 1991) and Egypt (Svoboda 2004; Van Peer 1998, 2001) indicate that cores

are an important item transported from raw material sources to other places in the landscape.

This pattern also is known from the Aterian Middle Paleolithic in the Dakhleh Oasis of Egypt

(Hawkins 2004) and from the Middle Paleolithic (including the Aterian) in Morocco (e.g.,

Wengler 2001).

While cores may therefore be quite useful for testing these models, one critical issue is

the fact that these and virtually all models incorporating lithic attributes to assess site func-

tion and mobility are predicated on the assumption that retouched tools are present in some

number in at least certain types of assemblages. That the Nubian Complex contains only

extremely rare retouched tools regardless of where it is found means that assessment of tool

manufacture, tool maintenance, and tool use as measures indicating base camp, activity

locale, or quarry must be reformulated and/or abandoned. In the ASPS project area, for exam-

ple, there are only 97 retouched Middle Paleolithic tools identified in 16,215 Middle

Paleolithic lithics; similar rarity of retouched tools also characterizes Nubian Complex sites

in the Nile Valley.

the Effect of distance from the nile Valley

One of the basic differences between the Nile Valley and Desert models is that in the former

it is expected that distance from the Nile should structure the archaeological record in dis-

cernable ways. In the Nile Valley model, where most lithic production takes place in the val-

ley itself, overall lithic densities should decrease as one moves away from the valley. The

number of cores and their size should decrease as well if the primary sources for raw material

are the quarry sites of the Nile Valley. Likewise the percentage of cortex on the pieces should

decrease as distance increases with most primary reduction done closer to the valley. On the

other hand, in the Desert Model such patterns would not be the case and these attributes

would not relate to distance from the valley.

Although the position of the Nile River itself is constantly changing and therefore an

unreliable feature upon which to base distance measurements, the escarpment, which rises

92

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

abruptly some 200 m from the valley floor, forms a clear boundary between the valley and

the high desert. To test the effects of distance on the lithic assemblages, the sites and samples

were classified in 500 m intervals as measured by their distance from the escarpment.

It is clear in figure 6 that the density of Middle Paleolithic lithic remains is not easily cor-

related to distance from the Nile. Using the intervals defined above, the total number of

lithics per site or sample (fig. 7) shows no distance effect (F=1.04, P=0.40); there are several

locales within each interval that show very high lithic densities. Additionally, when we look

at lithic production standardized by the number of cores (fig. 8), these intervals show the

same intensity of lithic production across the landscape. Here, though, there are indications

that as one moves further away from the escarpment, the intensity of lithic reduction decreas-

es, although the total area surveyed at some distance from the escarpment is not yet large (see

also Chiotti et al. 2009a; Olszewski et al. n.d.). Examination of two other factors that reflect

reduction intensity—core size and percentage of cortex in the assemblages—shows patterns

that are generally the same, reflecting little differentiation across the landscape (figs. 9

and 10). The lack of differences in these two measures suggests that access to raw material

is not structured by distance to the Nile Valley quarries because the pattern is not what one

would expect if cores are being transported from the Nile Valley into the high desert. In that

case, as distance from the Nile Valley increases, both core size and cortex should decrease.

Thus, the data available so far do not support the Nile Valley model.

Evidence for high desert Extraction/Quarry Locales

ASPS survey in the high desert has shown that many portions of the region contain large

numbers of flint nodules of appropriate size and quality for lithic production (Chiotti et al.

2007, 2009b). In fact, hundreds of discrete flintknapping episodes have been found in asso-

ciation with the outcropping of one or another particular type of flint, as well as dozens of

Fig. 6. number of lithics larger than 25 mm

found per 1 m radius sample.

93

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

expedient core tests associated with a different source (flint cobbles that cover the ridge tops

of some areas). However, none of these discrete locales has evidence of Middle Paleolithic

(Levallois or otherwise) flintknapping activity.

Based on refitting studies, the situation at Middle Paleolithic high-density sites is vari-

able. Some sites (e.g., ASPS-49) have Levallois cores that were prepared and reduced on-site,

while other sites (e.g., ASPS-46A and ASPS-4011) have cores with refits showing only the

final sequence of removals, as if the cores were brought to the site already prepared (Chiotti

et al. 2007, 2009b). Nevertheless, none of these locations has raw material directly on site

and none of these locations can be characterized as raw material extraction or quarry locales

(but see Olszewski et al. n.d.).

According to Van Peer, Nubian Complex low desert quarries prepared particular products

for transport, including classic Levallois cores, classic Levallois flakes, and Nubian Levallois

points (Van Peer 2001; Vermeersch 2002), which could explain why they are less frequent at

those sites. On the other hand, Nubian Levallois cores are present at these quarries after hav-

Fig. 7. Lithics >25 mm per 1 m

radius sample by distance

from the escarpment.

Fig. 8. Flake to core ratios by

distance from the escarpment.

94

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

ing been discarded following the removal of the points (Van Peer 1998: S129). Thus, the pat-

tern expected in the Nile Valley model is that classic Levallois cores and flakes, and Nubian

points, should be found in higher frequencies in the high desert.

Examination of the high desert data shows that there are significant numbers of classic

Levallois cores, which may have been transported here, but there are even higher numbers of

Nubian Levallois cores. In fact, in collections from the systematically placed samples,

Nubian Levallois cores are far more frequent than classic Levallois cores (N=123 for Nubian

cores vs. 62 classic Levallois cores), and in the higher density sites the same general pattern

is true (N=212 and 185, respectively), although there is a somewhat higher frequency of clas-

sic Levallois cores in these contexts. The presence of numerous Nubian Levallois cores is not

consistent with the expectations of the Nile Valley model.

Fig. 9. Levallois and nubian

average core length by distance

from the escarpment.

Fig. 10. Average cortex on com-

plete flakes larger than 25 mm by

distance from the escarpment.

95

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

Evidence for high desert hunting Locales

As postulated by Van Peer (1998, 2001), the selective removal of Nubian Levallois point

blanks from low desert Nile Valley quarry sites, in addition to the occasional retouch of these

blanks into Nazlet Khater points, should be indicative of hunting activities. In this case, it

would be expected that clusters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting stands

where tool maintenance activities would have taken place should be present in the high

desert. This expectation, however, is not met in the ASPS survey area because true Levallois

points are quite rare across the high desert landscape (N=59 vs. 1,486 Levallois flakes), and

only one Nazlet Khater point has been identified. When Levallois points do occur at sites,

they are present among lithic assemblages representing activities more diverse than tool

maintenance at a specialized task site. Overall, the rarity of Levallois points in the high desert

suggests that they were not selected in any number for transport from quarry sites into the

high desert, nor do they form a major component of Levallois production in the high desert

itself, despite the presence of large numbers of Nubian Levallois cores.

Evidence for high desert base camp Locales

Base camps, whether short or long term, should display evidence for a variety of activities.

Given the low incidence of retouched tools in all Nubian Complex contexts, however, relying

on evidence of tool maintenance and tool resharpening is not particularly relevant to assess-

ing these kinds of sites. In fact, while tool diversity in the surveyed area is slightly greater at

locales identified as sites, which also is true for Nubian Complex sites in the Nile Valley, this

may simply reflect the effects of assemblage size on diversity, with higher density assem-

blages more likely to produce a great variety of tools. Site circles and/or intensively collected

sites, for example, yield rare sidescrapers, endscrapers, burins, and truncations. Both low

density samples and high density sites occasionally yield notches/denticulates, bifaces, and

truncated facetted pieces.

Transport costs from quarries to other locales should have included a consideration of the

weight of the materials carried (e.g., Beck et al. 2002). While it has just been noted that in

higher density sites classic centripetal Levallois cores seem to represent a higher proportion

of the total core types, there is also some patterning with respect to the core size (measured

in weight) of cores. In the high desert, high-density sites tend to have cores with lower

weights compared to those cores found discarded elsewhere in the landscape (mean weight

of site cores = 82.6 g, sample cores = 121.9 g, t=615, P<.001). These lower core weights at

the higher density sites suggest a more intense occupation in those locales as measured by

the amount of exploitation of the cores. That is, cores at the sites are more often reselected

for additional blank removals than are cores in areas less frequently visited or occupied.

A consideration of the ratios of types of Levallois blanks to types of Levallois cores indi-

cates that only a few Levallois blanks are struck on average from a Levallois core (table 1).

This pattern holds regardless of sample or site context, indicating that there is a limit to the

number of Levallois blanks that can be struck from any given Levallois core (classic or

Nubian). Perhaps the most striking pattern is the extremely low ratios for Levallois points to

Nubian Levallois cores in the high desert—not even one point per core. In contrast, the Nile

Valley quarries are said to have ratios of 2.3 to 2.9 for Levallois points to cores (Van Peer

1998: S123–S124).

96

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

Overall, data from the 2002/03 and 2005/06 seasons of survey are suggestive of minimal

differentiation of Middle Paleolithic activities across the high desert landscape, other than

relative densities of material. This also appears to be true despite distance from the Nile

Valley, for example, refits at sites such as ASPS-4011, which is about 10 km from the Nile

Valley escarpment, show that cores and their products (as well as preparation flakes) are

found in direct association with each other, just as they are at sites (and samples) in the high

desert closer to the Nile Valley—for example, there are three Levallois flakes that refit onto

their cores at ASPS-4011 (Chiotti et al. 2007). Two of these flakes could be classified as

points and yet they were discarded on-site, in association with their cores. ASPS has surveyed

in regions up to 20 km from the Nile Valley escarpment, with the pattern of similar assem-

blage structure continuing to characterize the locales. This may indicate that all of these high

desert locales are base camps in some sense of the word, with the high density (site) locales

merely reflecting a higher incidence of repeated visits compared to low density (sample)

locales. Presence of similar assemblage structure is a pattern often interpreted as representing

relatively high mobility in what might be described as a circulating (residential) settlement

system rather than a radiating (logistical) settlement system.

diScuSSion And concLuSionS

The current systematic survey of the high desert near Abydos has produced a wealth of data

integral to examining Nubian Complex Middle Paleolithic adaptations in the interval from

about 140,000 to 70,000 years ago. By employing a strategy that samples both high and low

density areas (site and non-site areas, respectively), it has been possible to collect data that

allow a more comprehensive depiction of the use of the landscape than methods that have

focused solely, or nearly so, on site-based surveys and/or excavations.

Van Peer’s model favors a radiating settlement pattern, not dissimilar to a pattern that

Binford (1980) described for “collectors.” That is, Nubian Complex settlements should be

Table 1. Levallois blank to Levallois core ratios in the high desert

(2002/03 and 2005/06 seasons).

Sample SiteASPS-46a ASPS-49

Circles Circles

Classic Levallois flake: classic core

(excluding atypical flakes)3:1 2.9:1 3.9:1 8.9:1

Classic Levallois flake: classic core

(including atypical flakes)3.9:1 4.2:1 4.8:1 10.9:1

Nubian Levallois point: Nubian

Levallois core0.06:1 0.2:1 0.2:1 0.4:1

All Levallois flake: all Levallois cores

(excluding atypical flakes)1:1 1.3:1 2:1 4.3:1

All Levallois flake: all Levallois core

(including atypical flakes)1.3:1 1.9:1 2.5:1 5.3:1

97

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

comprised of several site types, in which there are “long”-term base camps from which logis-

tical task groups disperse across the landscape. These task groups should leave archaeologi-

cal signatures of specialized activities, such as quarry, workshop, and hunting sites, which

contain assemblage structures that allow differentiation from the base camps. Unfortunately,

if such base camps once existed in the Nile Valley floodplain, they are no longer accessible

due to burial or erosion, although Van Peer (2001) has argued that the quarry sites have evi-

dence of base camp activities. In the Nile Valley itself, therefore, there is definite evidence

for only one type of specialized activity: quarries (Vermeersch 2002), and sometimes associ-

ated workshops (Van Peer 2001). The slightly greater diversity of tool types at the quarry

sites may indicate that Van Peer is correct in also attributing a base camp function to these

locales. The assumption that Nubian Levallois points are functional points means that spe-

cialized hunting locales should contain these distinctive elements. There are no such locales

known from the low desert, and it was an expectation (see above) that they could exist in the

high desert. However, the ASPS survey has shown that these locales are not present.

Two contrasting Nubian Complex settlement models were developed by ASPS. The Nile

Valley model is similar to Van Peer’s (1998, 2001) model, although the Nile Valley model

specifically predicts specialized hunting locales in the high desert, as well as occasional raw

material extraction activities there. Nubian Complex base camps would be confined to the

Nile Valley floodplain, and as in Van Peer’s model, such sites are currently unknown due to

burial or erosion. The high desert data collected by ASPS, however, have shown that no spe-

cialized sites of any type can be attributed to Middle Paleolithic occupation here. That is,

there are no sites with specialized hunting signatures, such as clusters of Levallois points, nor

is there any conclusive evidence for raw material extraction locales (but see Olszewski

et al. n.d.). Moreover, very similar Nubian Complex assemblages are found both close to

(<100 m) and distant from (>20 km) the Nile Valley escarpment, suggesting that forays into

the high desert likely were not limited to task-specific activities.

The Desert Model predicted a modified radiating settlement system, centered on the high

desert, for the Nubian Complex. The expectations of this model include base camps, hunting

locales, and raw material extraction locales. As discussed above, these expectations were not

met, as there is no conclusive evidence for distinctive specialized activity locales. In fact,

generally speaking, nearly all sample and site locales show similar assemblage structures.

This is a pattern consistent with high mobility, circulating settlement systems. Unlike some

characterizations of circulating systems, e.g., Henry (1995), the Desert Model circulating

system base camps are not characterized by tool maintenance/rejuvenation, but instead by

evidence of a wider variety of lithic production activities.

The high desert data indicate that the ASPS region was a focus of Nubian Complex set-

tlement. The originally proposed Desert model, however, has been revised to reflect that the

behavioral strategy more clearly represents high mobility rather than the lower mobility

strategies of radiating settlement systems. It does appear that Levallois cores were an impor-

tant element often transported across this landscape, however, contrary to the evidence from

the low desert quarries, transported Levallois cores in the high desert included both classic

and Nubian Levallois. The distances over which such cores were transported is not certain,

as raw material extraction locales have not been identified in the high desert (but see

Olszewski et al. n.d.). If Nubian Levallois cores are indeed discards at low desert Nile Valley

quarries, then the presence of such cores in the high desert suggests that they are being pre-

pared for transport at as yet undiscovered locales. If the Nile Valley low desert quarries were

98

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

the source for at least some of the classic Levallois cores, then these must have been only

minimally prepared prior to transport, given the considerable amounts of cortex on debitage

at various high desert locales. It also is possible that raw material sources in the high desert

were widespread and abundant, thus obviating the necessity for extensive core preparation at

sources—that is, flint cobbles simply may have been picked up from the plateau surface or

from wadis, minimally tested and prepared, and then transported to base camp locales for fur-

ther preparation and reduction. Such raw material extraction would not produce an assem-

blage structure stereotypical of a quarry site. While visibility and access to raw material

would have been somewhat more difficult during periods when the high desert was occupied

(as opposed to the hyperarid situation today), the ASPS survey work to date suggests that raw

materials were easily accessible, being typically located either very near to sites. Future

research will be aimed at explicating the Desert model (see Olszewski et al. n.d.).

As an example of a circulating settlement system, the Nubian Complex high desert pat-

tern is not conducive to analyses based on central place foraging (e.g., Beck et al. 2002;

Metcalfe and Barlow 1992; Orians and Peason 1979). Nonetheless, some optimization fac-

tors, such as transport costs associated with lithic raw materials, may still play a role in deci-

sions particularly with regard to when to abandon lithics in favor of the transport of other

resources, such as meat or plant foods. This is particularly true given that Levallois core

transport is a feature of Middle Paleolithic behaviors regardless of whether the settlement

system is based on a circulating pattern, as in the Egyptian high desert, or on a radiating sys-

tem, as suggested for the Negev in the Middle East (e.g., Marks and Friedel 1977).

AcknoWLEdgEMEntS

We would like to thank the Permanent Committee of the Supreme Council of Antiquities and

Dr. Zahi Hawass, Secretary General, for granting us permission to do this work, and Mr.

Magdy El Ghandour of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, who greatly facilitated all our

seasons of work. We would also like to thank Mr. Zein el Abdin Zaki, Director General of

Antiquities for Sohag, and Miss Aziza El Sayed Hassan, Chief Inspector Balliana.

Additionally, we extend our warm and appreciative thanks to Madame Amira of ARCE for

all her help in making this project possible. Lastly, we would like to thank Drs. Matthew

Adams and David O’Connor of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition to Abydos for facilitating our

work in the field house and in the desert. Finally, thanks to the Egyptian staff and the field

crews of 2000, 2002/03, 2005/06, 2006/07, and 2007/08 for their efforts. Funding for the

project was made possible by grants from the National Science Foundation and the Leakey

Foundation, as well as a generous contribution by Mr. A. Bruce Mainwaring, the University

of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, and the Max Planck Institute

for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig. This is ASPS Contribution No. 6.

99

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

rEFErEncES

bar-yosef, o. 2002. the upper Paleolithic revo-lution. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:363–393.

beck, c., A. k. taylor, g. t. jones, c. M. Fadem,c. r. cook, and S. A. Millward. 2002. rocksare heavy: transport costs and PaleoarchaicQuarry behavior in the great basin. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 21: 481–507.

binford, L. r. 1980. Willow Smoke and dogs’tails: hunter-gatherer Settlement Systemsand Archaeological Site Formation. American

Antiquity 45 (1): 4–20.

2001. Constructing Frames of Reference. An

Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory

Building Using Hunter-Gatherer and Environ-

mental Data Sets. berkeley: university of cali-fornia Press.

chiotti, L., h. L. dibble, S. P. McPherron, d. i. olszewski, and u. Schurmans. 2009a.Middle Paleolithic Lithic technology from theWestern high desert of Egypt. Journal of Field

Archaeology.

2009b. Prospections sur le plateaux désertiquesdu désert libyque égyptien (Abydos, MoyenneEgypte). Quelques exemples de technologieslithiques. l’Anthropologie 113: 341–355.

chiotti, L., d. i. olszewski, h. L. dibble, S. P. McPherron, u. Schurmans, and j. r. Smith. 2007. Paleolithic Abydos: recon-structing individual behaviors Across the highdesert Landscape. in The Archaeology and

Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of

David B. O’Connor, ed. by Z. hawass and j. richards, pp. 169–183. cairo: Supremecouncil of Antiquities Press (distributed byAmerican university in cairo Press).

churcher, c. S., M. r. kleindienst, and h. P.Schwarcz. 1999. Faunal remains from a Mid-dle Pleistocene Lacustrine Marl in dakhlehoasis, Egypt: Palaeoenvironmental recon-structions. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatol-

ogy, Palaeoecology 154: 301–312.

crombie, M. k., r. E. Arvidson, n. c. Sturchio, Z. E. Alfy, and k. A. Zeid. 1997. Age and isotopic constraints on Pleistocene PluvialEpisodes in the Western desert, Egypt.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,

Palaeoecology 130: 337–355.

Flemming, n. c. 2004. Submarine PrehistoricArchaeology of the indian continental Shelf: APotential resource. Current Science 86 (9):1225–1230.

garrard, A. n., and b. F. byrd. 1992. new dimen-sions to the Epipalaeolithic of the Wadi el-jilatin central jordan. Paléorient 18 (1): 47–62.

grine, F. E., r. M. bailey, k. harvati, r. P.nathan, A. g. Morris, g. M. henderson, i.ribot, and A. W. g. Pike. 2007. Late Pleis-tocene human Skull from hofmeyr, SouthAfrica, and Modern human origins. Science315: 226–229.

grün, r., and c. Stringer. 1991. Electron Spinresonance dating and the Evolution of Mod-ern humans. Archaeometry 33: 153–199.

guichard, j., and g. guichard. 1968. contribu-tions to the Study of the Early and MiddlePaleolithic of nubia. in The Prehistory ofNubia, vol. 1, ed. F. Wendorf, pp. 148–193.dallas: Southern Methodist university Press.

haff, P. k., and b. t. Werner. 1996. dynamicalProcesses on desert Pavements and thehealing of Surficial disturbances. QuaternaryResearch (new york) 45: 38–46.

hamdan, M. A. 2000. Quaternary travertines ofWadi Abu had-dib Area, Eastern desert,Egypt: Paleoenvironment through Field, Sedi-mentology, Age, and isotopic Study. Sedimen-tology of Egypt 8: 49–62.

hassan, F. A., b. barich, M. Mahmoud, and M. A.hemdan. 2001. holocene playa deposits ofFarafra oasis, Egypt, and their palaeoclimaticand geoarchaeological significance. Geoar-chaeology 16 (1): 29–46.

hawkins, A. L. 2004. A Model for Aterian usageof dakhleh oasis and the Surrounding region.in Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. II, ed. by n. j. conard, pp. 37–64. tübingen: kerns Verlag.

haynes, c. V. 2001. geochronology and climatechange of the Pleistocene-holocene transitionin the darb el Arba'in desert, Eastern Sahara.Geoarchaeology 16 (1): 119–141.

henry, d. o. 1995. Prehistoric Cultural Ecologyand Evolution. Insights from Southern Jordan.new york: Plenum Press.

100

olszewski, dibble, Schurmans, McPherron, chiotti, Smith

henshilwood, c. S., and c. W. Marean. 2003.the origin of Modern human behavior: cri-tique of the Models and their test implica-tions. Current Anthropology 44 (5): 627–651.

kleindienst, M. r. 2000. on the nile corrider andthe out-of-Africa Model. Current Anthropology

41: 107–108.

kleindienst, M. r., h. P. Schwarcz, k. nicoll, c.S. churcher, j. Frizano, r. giegengack, andM. F. Wiseman. 2008. Water in the desert:First report on uranium-series dating ofcaton-thompson's and gardner's "classic"Pleistocene Sequence at refuf Pass, khargaoasis. in Oasis Papers II: Proceedings of the

Second Dakhleh Oasis Project Research

Seminar, ed. by M. F. Wiseman, pp. 25–54.oxford: oxbow books.

kuhn, S. L. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology.Princeton: Princeton university Press.

Marks, A. E. 1968. the curation of Stone toolsduring the upper Pleistocene: A View from thecentral negev, israel. in Upper Pleistocene

Prehistory in Western Eurasia, ed. by h. dib-ble and A. Montet-White, pp. 275–285.Philadelphia, PA: the university Museum.

1988. the curation of Stone tools during theupper Pleistocene: A View from the centralnegev, israel. in Upper Pleistocene Prehistory

in Western Eurasia, ed. by h. dibble and A.Montet-White, pp. 275–285. Philadelphia, PA:the university Museum.

Marks, A. E., and d. Freidel. 1977. PrehistoricSettlement Patterns in the Avdat/Aqev Area. in Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the

Central Negev, vol. 2, ed. by A. E. Marks, pp. 131–159. dallas: Southern Methodist university Press.

Marks, A. E., j. Shokler, and j. Zilhão. 1991. rawMaterial usage in the Paleolithic. the Effectsof Local Availability on Selection and Econo-my. in Raw Material Economies among Pre-

historic Hunter-Gatherers, ed. by A. Montet-White and S. holen, pp. 127–139. Lawrence,kS: department of Anthropology, university ofkansa Publications in Anthropology 19.

Mcbrearty, S., and A. brooks. 2000. the revolu-tion that Wasn't: A new interpretation of theorigin of Modern human behavior. Journal of

Human Evolution 39: 453–563.

Mcdougall, i., F. h. brown, and j. g. Fleagle.2005. Stratigraphic Placement and age of

Modern humans from kibish, Ethiopia. Nature

433: 733–736.

Mellars, P. 2004. neandertals and the modernhuman colonization of Europe. Nature 432:461–465.

2006. going East: new genetic and Archaeo-logical Perspectives on the Modern humancolonization of Eurasia. Science 313: 796–800.

Metcalfe, d., and k. r. barlow. 1992. A Model forExploring the optimal trade-off between FieldProcessing and transport. American

Anthropologist 94(2): 340–356.

nelson, M. c. 1991. the Study of technologicalorganization. Advances in Archaeological

Method and Theory 3: 57–100.

olszewski, d. i., h. L. dibble, S. P. McPherron, u. Schurmans, L. chiotti, and j. Smith. n.d.nubian complex Strategies in the Egyptianhigh desert. Journal of Human Evolution. (in press)

olszewski, d. i., h. L. dibble, u. Schurmans, S. P. McPherron, and j. r. Smith. 2005. high desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos(Egypt): A Preliminary report. Journal of Field

Archaeology 30(3): 283–303.

olszewski, d. i., S. P. McPherron, h. L. dibble,and M. Soressi. 2001. Middle Egypt in Prehis-tory: A Search for the origins of Modernhuman behavior and human dispersal. Expedition 43: 31–37.

orians, g. h., and n. E. Pearson. 1979. on thetheory of central Place Foraging. in Analysis

of Ecological Systems, ed. by d. j. horn, b. r. Stairs, and r. d. Mitchell, pp. 155–177.columbus, oh: ohio State university Press.

Schild, r., and F. Wendorf. 2001. geoarchaeolo-gy of the holocene climatic optimum at nabta Playa, Southwestern desert, Egypt. Geoarchaeology 16 (1): 7–28.

2002-2004. Palaeolithic Living Sites in upperand Middle Egypt: A review Article. Journal of

Field Archaeology 29(3/4): 447–461.

Smith, j. r., r. giegengack, h. P. Schwarcz, M. M. A. Mcdonald, M. r. kleindienst, A. L. hawkins, and c. S. churcher. 2004. Areconstruction of Quaternary Pluvial Environ-ments and human occupations using Stratig-raphy and geochronology of Fossil-Spring

101

Middle Paleolithic settlement systems: theoretical and modeling frameworks from Egypt

tufas, kharga oasis, Egypt. Geoarchaeology

19(5): 407–439.

Straus, L. g. 2001. Africa and iberia in the Pleis-tocene. Quaternary International 75: 91–102.

Stringer, c. 2000. coasting out of Africa. Nature 405: 24–27.

Sultan, M., n. Sturchio, F. A. hassan, M. A. r.hamdan, A. M. Mahmood, Z. E. Alfy, and t. Stein. 1997. Precipitation Source inferredfrom Stable isotopic composition of Pleis-tocene groundwater and carbonate depositsin the Western desert of Egypt. Quaternary

Research 48: 29–37.

Svoboda, j. A. 2004. the Middle Paleolithic ofSouthern bahariya oasis, Western desert,Egypt. Anthropologie 42 (3): 253–267.

Szabo, b. j., c. V. j. haynes, and t. A. Maxwell.1995. Ages of Quaternary Pluvial Episodesdetermined by uranium-series and radiocar-bon dating of Lacustrine deposits of EasternSahara. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,

Palaeoecology 113: 227–242.

Van Peer, P. 1991. new observations About thenile Valley Middle Palaeolithic: Safaha Methodand Lateralization of Levallois Flakes. Paléorient 17 (2): 133–140.

1998. the nile corridor and the out-of-AfricaModel. current Anthropology 39 (suppl.):S115–S140.

2001. the nubian complex Settlement Systemin northeast Africa. in Settlement Dynamics of

the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age,ed. by n. j. conard, pp. 45–63. tübingen:kerns Verlag.

Van Peer, P., V. rots, and P. M. Vermeersch.2008. A Wasted Effort at the Quarry: WearAnalysis and interpretation of an MSA Lanceolate Point from taramsa-8, Egypt. PaleoAnthropology 2008: 234–250.

Van Peer, P., and P. M. Vermeersch. 1990. Middleto upper Palaeolithic transtion: the Evidencefor the nile Valley. in The Emergence of Mod-

ern Humans. An Archaeological Prespective,ed. by P. Mellars, pp. 139–159. ithaca, ny:cornell university Press.

Vermeersch, P. M., ed. 2000. Palaeolithic Living

Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt. Leuven:Leuven university Press.

2001. out of Africa' from an Egyptian Point ofView. Quaternary International 75:103–112.

ed. 2002. Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upperand Middle Egypt. Egyptian prehistory mono-graphs, 4. Leuven: Leuven university Press.

Vermeersch, P. M., E. Paulissen, and g. gijsel-ings. 1977. Prospection Préhistorique entreAsyut et nag’ hammadi (Egypte). Bulletin dela Societé Royale Belge d’Anthropologie et dePréhistoire 88: 117–124.

Vermeersch, P. M., E. Paulissen, S. Stokes, c. charlier, P. Van Peer, c. Stringer, and W. Lindsay. 1998. A Middle Palaeolithic burialof a Modern human at taramsa hill, Egypt. Antiquity 72: 475–484.

Walter, r. c., r. t. buffler, j. h. bruggemann, M. M. M. guillaume, S. M. berhe, b. negassi,y. Libsekal, h. cheng, r. L. Edwards, r. cosel, d. néraudeau, and M. gagnon.2000. Early human occupation of the red Seacoast of Eritrea during the Last interglacial.Nature 405: 65–69.

Wells, S. g., L. d. McFadden, j. Poths, and c. t. olinger. 1995. cosmogenic (super 3) heSurface-Exposure dating of Stone Pavements;implications for Landscape Evolution indeserts. Geology (boulder) 23: 613–616.

Wendorf, F., ed. 1965. Contributions to the Prehistory of Nubia. dallas: Fort burgwinresearch center and Southern Methodist university Press.

ed. 1968. The Prehistory of Nubia (2 volumesand atlas). dallas: Fort burgwin researchcenter and Southern Methodist universityPress.

Wendorf, F., and r. Schild. 1976. Prehistory ofthe Nile Valley. new york: Academic Press.

Wendorf, F., r. Schild, and A. E. close, eds.1993. Egypt During the Last Interglacial: TheMiddle Paleolithic of Bir Tarfawi and BirSahara East. new york: Plenum Press.

Wengler, L. 2001. Settlements during the MiddlePaleolithic of the Maghreb. in SettlementDynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and MiddleStone Age, ed. by n. j. conard, pp.65–89.tübingen: kerns Verlag.

White, t. d., b. Asfaw, d. degusta. h. gilbert, g. d. richards, and g. Suwa. 2003. Pleis-tocene homo sapiens from Middle Awash,Ethiopia. Nature 423: 742–747.