283

High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos Egypt

Deborah I Olszewski

Harold L Dibble

Utsav A SchurmansUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia Pennsylvania

Shannon P McPherronMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzig Germany

Jennifer R SmithWashington UniversitySt Louis Missouri

In the winters of2000 and 2002-2003 we surveyed a portion of the high desert immediate-ly adjacent to the Nile Valley at Abydos) Egypt The initial field season assessedthe area)spotential to contribute to the existing database of Paleolithic landscapes Limited work doneprior to our initial survey indicated that such Paleolithic sites in this region) while present)were relatively infrequent Contrary to this expectation) wefound the desert landscapedensely littered with Paleolithic artifacts Our subsequent work documented the extent of thedistribution and the nature of Paleolithic artifacts The goal of this work is to develop mod-els of desert landscape use)particularly during the Middle Paleolithic) which can be inte-grated into those existing for the Nile Valley In doing this) we provide a more completepic-ture of hominid adaptations in a place and time period critical to our understanding of theorigins of modern human behaviors

IntroductionInvestigations along several sections of the Nile Valley

corridor particularly research conducted as part of theCombined Prehistoric Expedition (Close 1980 Wendorf1965 1968a Wendorf and Schild 1976 Wendorpound Schildand Close 1989a 1989b) and by the Belgian Middle EgyptPrehistoric Project (Vermeersch 2000 Vermeersch Paulis-sen and Gijselings 1977 Vermeersch et al 1984 1998)have yielded important insights into the archaeological re-mains from the Paleolithic record Our understanding ofthe landscape and the settlement systems along this impor-tant corridor however is far from complete In most re-spects our knowledge about the adaptations of the earlierPaleolithic - especially the Acheulian and Middle Paleolith -ic- in oases and large depressions of the Western Desert ismuch better informed than that in the Nile Valley itself(Caton-Thompson 1952 Churcher and Mills 1999

Haynes et al 2001 Hill 2001 McDonald 1980 19811982 Wendorf and Schild 1980 Wendorf Schild andClose 1993) In large part this is because Nile Valley sur-veys (eg Wendorf and Schild 1976) have been mainlyconfined to the low desert and remnant Nile Valley terraceswhere the probability of finding Paleolithic habitationseemed highest and where preservation conditions wouldbe most optimal Additionally research in the Nile Valleyhas been motivated by the need to recover information inareas impacted by the extension of irrigation agriculture orother construction activities (Vermeersch 2000 10)

Currently the Acheulian period in the Nile Valley ispoorly known since these assemblages are rarely found insitu Several locales in the Nubian region contain largenumbers of handaxes choppers chopping tools and deb-itage and are identified as quarries or workshops(Chmielewski 1968 Guichard and Guichard 1965 1968

284 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

Wendorf 1968b 1041) In Middle Egypt close to Aby-dos Acheulian artifacts are common in gravel deposits(Sandford 1934 63 Vermeersch Van Peer and Paulissen2000b 321-322) Excavations at Nag Ahmed el Ilthalifafor example revealed a redeposited Acheulian assemblagecharacterized by cordiform and preform handaxes with noLevallois technique present (Vermeersch et al 2000)Based on the morphological characteristics of the lithic as-semblage and the sites stratigraphic position the excava-tors suggest an age of about 350000 to 300000 bp forthis assemblage an age range that is not dissimilar to theEvolved or Upper Acheulian known from the WesternDesert (eg the Iltharga and Daldlleh oases) where esti-mates suggest an antiquity of greater than 400000 bp(I(1eindeinst 1999 91) A similar site (E6101) in the vicin-ity of Dandara further to the south has also been reported(Wendorf and Schild 1976 95-96) Based on collectionsdating to Petries work at Abydos now in the University ofPennsylvania Museum it was also clear that there were atleast some Acheulian style handaxes in the high desert ad-jacent to Abydos In addition the Belgian Middle EgyptPrehistoric Project identified a small surface lithic scatter(site 7634) with a handaxe at the edge of a plateau over-looking Abydos (Vermeersch Paulissen and Gijselings1977 119) This was the only known site in our surveyarea prior to our work In sum the data from the Nile Val-ley are sufficient to say that there was a late Acheulian pres-ence but it is not clear whether this pattern is related to thedifficulty of finding older sites or reflects a low intensity ofuse

Comparatively spealcing there are many more sites andin situ assemblages from the Middle Paleolithic of the NileValley Assemblages of this period in fact have beengrouped into an array of sometimes confusing chronolog-ical phases traditions and complexes and models havebeen suggested to explain their chronological and spatialdistribution Recently Van Peer (1991 1998) dividedMiddle Paleolithic remains into two major complexes theLower Nile ValleyComplex and the Nubian Complex TheNubian Complex shows evidence of point production us-ing the Nubian Levallois technique whereas the LowerNile Valley Complex includes only the standard Levalloistechnique with no evidence of point production NubianLevallois is a prepared core technique that produces apointed flake and has two variants Nubian 1 and 2 de-pending on whether the preparation flakes are struck fromthe distal end or from the sides (Guichard and Guichard1965 1968) Van Peer also argues that several types of re-touched pieces are exclusive to the Nubian Complex Theseinclude bifacial foliates Nubian endscrapers N azletIlthater points and truncated-facetted pieces The Lower

Nile Valley Complex on the other hand has little in theway of diagnostic pieces Aside from finely retouched Lev-allois flalzeswhich Van Peer (1991) callslaterized-Levalloisflakes the Lower Nile Valley Complex is characterizedmore by the absence of diagnostic features than by theirpresence

Van Peer (1998 2001) has further argued that thesetwo complexes represent two distinct behavioral adapta-tions to the Nile Valley landscape The Lower Nile ValleyComplex is thought to be a riverine adaptation and con-fmed to the Nile Valley corridor whereas the NubianComplex is found in both riverine and adjacent desert lo-cales The key difference between the two is that the Nu-bian Complex includes point production presumably forhunting and this would have allowed populations to ex-pand into a greater range of environments (Van Peer 1991142 1998 5122 5128) In fact the Nubian Complexsites do show a greater geographical distribution beingfound in northern Egypt and in the desert Given that theLower Nile Valley Complex is defined primarily by the lackof particular types and technologies however demonstrat-ing its absence is problematic Moreover the distributionof site types for the Nubian Complex is not fundamentallydifferent from that of the Lower Nile Valley ComplexBoth are primarily known from sites interpreted as quarriesand rare habitation sites in the Nile Valley (Van Peer 2001)Missing are the specialized task specific sites for the N u-bian Complex Van Peer (1998 S125) suggests that thesemay have been located closer to the Nile River and are thusmore difficult to find today Alternatively he suggests thatthey may be in the adjacent deserts based on his work atSodmein Cave in the Red Sea Mountains (Van Peer Ver-meersch and Moeyersons 1996) Our research in the highdesert west of the Nile Valley provides an opportunity totest these models

Sites of the Early Upper Paleolithic are uncommonthose that have been radiometrically dated are between35000 to 30000 bp (uncalibrated) and likely postdatethe technological transition from the Middle to the UpperPaleolithic The best known of these are the chert quarrysites of the Nile Valley low desert at N azlet Ilthater 4 and 7(Vermeersch et ale 1982 1984) Later Upper Paleolithicand Late Paleolithic industries (eg ShuwikhatianFakhurian and IZubbaniyan) dating from about 25000bp and younger are relatively common in contrast (Has-san 1974 Lubell 1974 Phillips 1973 Van Peer and Ver-meersch 1990 Vermeersch Paulissen and Van Peer 2000Vermeersch Van Peer and Paulissen 2000a Wendorf andSchild 1976 229-319 Wendorf Schild and Close1989b) They are found at sites used for floodplain re-source exploitation including fishing and hunting of wild

Journal ofField ArchaeologyVol 30) 2005 285

Abydos

- - - _- - -- - - -- - - -- -1- - - - - - - - - --

Number of artifacts per sample

o 1-10 0 10-25 0 more than 25 o 2km

Figure 1 Map of the project area showing the survey collection points their relative densities and the locations of the main sites mentioned in thetext A) Sites ASPS-46 ASPS-46A B) Site 49 Sites ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A are just NW of A

cattle and hartebeest as well as at probable chert extractionsites In general Upper Paleolithic use of the high desert isexpected to be relatively limited Finally sites of the Epi-paleolithicEarly Neolithic (ca 9800 to 7900 bp) charac-terized by bladelets geometries and micro burin tech-nique are present in the Nile Valley corridor and in thevicinity of seasonal playas in the high desert and oases dur-ing the early Holocene pluvial periods (Caton-Thompson1952 Close 1990 Hassan 1986 McDonald 1991 Schild2001 Wendorf and Schild 1976 Wendorf Schild andClose 1984)

The Project AreaAny effort to expand the Nile Valley site database faces

problems of limited visibility and accessibility to buriedsites and the impact of expanding irrigation agriculture onthe preservation of sites in the fluvial deposits of the NileIn contrast the high desert immediately adjacent to thevalley offers a completely different situation with very highvisibility immediate accessibility and potentially goodpreservation of archaeological remains especially lithic

assemblages Moreover the fact that the high desert is im-mediately adjacent to tlle Nile Valley means that the re-sulting data can be more easily integrated into existing NileValley models of landscape use With this in mind we de-signed a survey project for an area on the western edge ofthe Nile in Middle Egypt (FIG I)

Most of the project area lies within the geomorphicprovince known as the Libyan Plateau At Abydos theplateau is dissected by relatively mature deeply inciseddrainage systems Numerous more or less straight wadireaches often oriented either NW-SE or NE-SW suggest anunderlying tectonic control of regional drainage patternsThe amphitheater-like heads of many of the wadis indicatethat groundwater sapping has played an important role inthe headward erosion of the wadis (Luo et al 1997) Thealmost total lack of gravel terraces within the wadis sug-gests that fluvial sediments are routinely flushed out ofwadis during storm events thus stratified Paleolithic mate-rials are not likely to be found within the wadi systems Inaddition to these fluvial processes eolian activity hasplayed a major role in sculpting the plateau landscape as

286 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

1995) or being gradually lowered through deflationSome horizontal movement of pavement clasts has alsobeen demonstrated however experimental clearing ofsmall plots of desert pavement showed that over five years1-10 of the cleared area was resurfaced per year withbioturbation being a major factor in the movement ofclasts (Haff and Werner 1996) Stones moved into acleared patch of pavement are on average smaller thanthose that had been there originally Thus pavement stonesin a given area cannot be assumed to retain the same sizedistribution with time as bioturbation will work towardsan even distribution of smaller clasts over the pavementsurface Movement of individual clasts is likely to happenonly over a small scale however on the order of 10-30 cm(Haff and Werner 1996) while on the meter scale pave-ments should be fairly stable This indicates that the spatialdistribution of archaeological materials on desert pave-ments should be relatively intact with trampling being theprimary source of artifact movement The desert pavementsurface however is also likely to integrate multiple occu-pations as there is no burial of artifacts and thus no strati-graphic separation between successive habitation phases

Caves that offer the possibility of stratified deposits arealso present in the project area but the stratigraphic sec-

Figure 2 Photograph of site ASPS-46 illustrating the desert pavement typical of the project area

expected in a region that currently gets an average of 23mm of rainfall per year (Vose et ale 1992) While eolian ac-tivity is principally expressed in the formation of desertpavement (see below) and the abrasion of plateau bedrockthe blockage of several major vvadis by eolian depositionhas allowed for the formation of ephemeral ponds follow-ing rainfall events Though characterized by a low preser-vation potential due to their lack of induration and theirposition within the landscape the silty sediments deposit-ed in these ephemeral ponds could prove to be a source ofstratified archaeological material Existing dunes and pondsediments in the project area are probably Holocene in ageDunes likely existed in similar locations in earlier arid phas-es however since wind patterns have probably been rela-tively consistent in successive arid phases though differentin humid phases (IZutzbach and Liu 1997)

The surface of the plateau is primarily characterized bya desert pavement (FIG 2) Though desert pavements rep-resent relatively stable unchanging surfaces compared tothose in other geomorphic settings they exist in a dynam-ic equilibrium Vertical movement of the pavement surfaceis characteristic of its evolution with the surface eithergrowing up as eolian dust is incorporated into the stone-free layer beneath the pavement clasts (eg Wells et ale

tions of the caves visited do not appear to be very thickthough several of the caves had at least 3 m of sedimentThis implies that either the caves are flushed out by run-ning water relatively frequently in which case sedimentaryarchives are unlikely to exend as far back as the Paleolithicor that the sedimentation rates are very slow which wouldresult in little stratigraphic separation between temporallydistinct artifact horizons The lack of carbonate precipitateswithin the caves rules out the use of U-Th dating tech-niques on cave sediments and luminescence-based tech-niques can be used to date Pleistocene deposits directlyon-ly if teeth shells or bones are preserved within them

Survey Methods and ResultsIn the winters of 2000 and 2002-2003 we conducted

two surveys in the project area The first was a very brief re-connaissance designed to examine small sections of severaltopographic contexts-fluviatile sediments in the lowdesert sand dunes gravel terraces wadi systems drainingthe Libyan Plateau and the high desert area away fromwadis-to assess the potential for Paleolithic sites This ini-tial survey identified a large number of surface sites (Ol-szewski et al 2001) During a four-week period in the win-ter of 2002-2003 we undertook a second more intensivesystematic survey of one of the areas studied earlier thatsurrounding the Wadi Umm al-Qaab (FIG I) This surveygreatly improved our understanding of the nature and dis-tribution of Paleolithic occurrences there

MethodsThe survey across the Wadi Umm al-Qaab area was car-

ried out by one or two teams of three to four individualsspaced at approximately 3-4 m intervals Initially thesetransect lines crossed the landscape without regard totopography Later as patterns started to emerge transectlines focused on ridge tops and intermediate terrace fea-tures in the high desert A threshold of approximately 5 ar-tifacts per sq m defined high-density locales At such lo-cales which we call sites a datum was placed rougWy atthe center of the artifact scatter these datums were latersurveyed with a total station and given UTM coordinatesbased on a non-differential GPS A collection of materialfrom each site was made from aIm radius circle centeredon the datum Additionally and regardless of where a sitewas located survey teams also made similar collectionsevery 100 m At these locations aIm radius circlewas col-lected and the UTM coordinates of the point were record-ed with non-differential GPS A datum was not left at theselocations called sample units and they were not surveyedwith the total station

In addition to mapping the distribution of materials on

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 287

this surface we wanted a better understanding of the dis-tribution of materials within the sites the relationship be-tween the sites and artifact densities in the surroundinglandscape and the nature of the stone tool industries atthese locations Sites identified to address these goals in-clude ASPS-46 ASPS-46A and ASPS-49 At ASPS-46 a1 m grid was placed in the area of the highest concentra-tion and all artifacts were collected from the surface (FIG

3) This resulted in a large sample of the material from ad-jacent collection units At ASPS-46A all surface artifactswere point-provenienced with a total station and collectedFinally in the case of ASPS-49 circular units of 05 m ra-dius were placed radiating from the central point and allartifacts within the units were collected (FIG 4) At bothASPS-46 and ASPS-49 test excavations were conducted toassess the possibility of stratified deposits and at all sites adetailed topographic map was made using the total station

Survey ResultsIn the 2002-2003 season 196 sample units were col-

lected (FIG r) representing approximately 20 km of tran-sect survey Given that each transect surveyed an area ap-proximately 20 m wide the survey area comprised about40 hectares While the analysis of the data from these sam-ple units is still underway it is clear that the high desert isrich in traces of Paleolithic behavior Of the 196 units 148(75) contained at least one artifact Of these samples theaverage artifact density was 349 artifacts per sampling unit(slightly less than 1 sq m) and the highest density record-ed was 534 artifacts per unit In the process of surveyingthis area 62 sites were also identified and sampled The av-erage density at these locations was 2116 artifacts per unitwith a maximum density of 14483 per sq m

Several patterns of artifact distribution emerge from thedata The highest artifact densities appear to be on theridges adjacent to the central wadi system ofUmm al-Qaaband its tributaries Artifact densities are highest in the up-per reaches of the wadi system where accessto the wadi waseasiest in the lower reaches where the walls of the wadiare too steep to allow access to the ridges artifacts are lessnumerous Most transects to the west in the direction ofthe Wadi al-Jir yielded densities below 10 artifacts per col-lection unit Lower densities are typical also of the portionsof transects south of the head of the wadi as well as alongone of its main eastern tributaries The concentration ofhigher densities on the high desert to the east of the WadiUmm al-Qaab is particularly intriguing as most of thewadis in this area are relatively deeply entrenched makingaccess to the plateau more difficult

It appears that artifact densities are quite low at the edgeof the escarpment overlooking the Nile Valley itself at site

288 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

00 o

10I

20I

40 mI

tArtifactso 1 to 5o 6 to 50

51 to 100bull 100 to 320

Figure 3 Plot of the two separate collection strategies used at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46 In one area (upper) a grid of adjacent squares was collected For the rest of the site a transectof adjacent squares was laid out and every third square was collected Contours are 025 ffi

7634 known prior to our work the pattern found was theopposite of what was initially anticipated It was expectedthat artifact densities would be greatest at the valley edgeand would fall-off as one penetrated deeper into the highdesert This pattern may still hold true at a large scale butat the smaller scale in which our work was conducted mi-cro-topographic features away from the escarpment struc-ture the distribution of artifacts more than proximity to theNile itse1pound

Lower Paleolithic and UpperjEpipaleolithic artifacts arerelatively rare and show distinct spatial patterns Acheulianhandaxes are the only unambiguous marker of the LowerPaleolithic available to us and with one exception theseoccur as isolated finds The one exception site ASPS-20was characterized by multiple large thick and fairly crudehandaxes concentrated in an area overlooking the southern

embayment Isolated fmds consist of generally more re-fined handaxes but currently the sample size is too smallto determine if patterning exists in their distribution Wesuspect that handaxes were collected previously We knowthat Petrie did some collecting as did Sandford (1934)and there have been archaeological missions at the historicperiod sites of the Abydos area since the late 1960s Whilethese missions did not include the high desert as a researcharea it is clear that there have been numerous visits to theaccessible areas of the high desert especially the region ad-jacent to the Wadi Umm al-Qaab Large easily identifiableartifacts such as Acheulian handaxes are obviously at riskfor collection In future seasons we will survey less accessi-ble areas and areas more distant from the Nile Valley in or-der to test a number of hypotheses including whether in-formal collection has affected parts of the project area

oI

15t30

I

60 mI

Artifactso 1 to 5

6 to 5051 to 100

bull 101 to 230

Figure 4 Distribution of sample units at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-49 Here a system ofadjacent squares was employed along with systematic sampling in a radial pattern Contours are025 m Numbers of artifacts per unit are indicated

The distribution ofEpipaleolithic material shows a sim-ilar restricted and low-density pattern and the location ofthese sites on the landscape is quite different from the Low-er and Middle Paleolithic patterns Artifacts of this time pe-riod including blade cores endscrapers backed bladestruncated elements geometric microliths and burins are

Journal ofField ArchaeologyjVol 30~2005 289

found in high-density clusters rather than as isolates andthese high-density locations are relatively close to the NileValleyIn other words very specific locations on the land-scape attracted Epipaleolithic peoples There is little sup-porting evidence in the form of architecture or other fea-tures to suggest that these high -density locales were vil-

290 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydosy EgyptOlszewski et ale

o 2cm-==J

Figure 5 Typical Levallois flakes from the project area Site ASPS-17-6 (A17-6) Levallois point site ASPS-33-20 (A33-20) Leval-lois point site ASPS-22-1 (A22-1) Levallois flake and site ASPS-46A-805 (A46A-805) Levallois point

lages rather than temporary camps (eg Wendorf andSchild 1980 270 Wendorpound Schild and Close 1984 6-7)

Middle Paleolithic use of this landscape is the most ap-parent and potentially complex There are localities withrelatively high densities of material resulting from preparedcore technologies including Nubian techniques and asso-ciated flake debris (FIGS 5 6) There are also isolated fmdsof these cores and bifacial foliates In general the frequen-cy of Nubian and Levallois cores at a particular sample lo-cation appears to be correlated with the overall artifact den-sity at that location and Nubian and Levallois techniquesappear to vary independently What is less clear at presentis the degree to which the by-products of these technolo-gies are represented in the landscape Of particular interestare the various point forms that result from Nubian tech-nology If these represent a hafted projectile point technol-ogy related to hunting then we might expect to fmd clus-ters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting

858-1

o 2cm-==J

Figure 6 Typical Levallois and Nubian cores from the project areaSite ASPS-22-4 (A22-4) Nubian core site S92-1 Levallois coresite S58-1 Nubian core

stands where tool maintenance activities would have tal(enplace Thus far such locales have not been identified

Investigations at High-Density LocalesIn addition to the survey three locations were selected

for more intensive study because of their relatively highlithic densities attributable to either the Middle Paleolithicor Epipaleolithic Two of these ASPS-46 and -46A arecontiguous concentrations of relatively dense lithic scatterson a hilltop just west of the Wadi Umm al-Qaab The sur-face of ASPS-46 is a desert pavement of mixed limestoneand naturally occurring shattered flint with artifacts ofboth the Middle Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (FIG 2)

The Middle Paleolithic artifacts which are heavily desert-varnished tend to be scattered across the hilltop while theEpipaleolithic artifacts are more highly concentrated in thenorth and NE areas of the hilltop (FIG 3) ASPS-46A lo-cated on the southern portion of the hilltop contains Mid-

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

284 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

Wendorf 1968b 1041) In Middle Egypt close to Aby-dos Acheulian artifacts are common in gravel deposits(Sandford 1934 63 Vermeersch Van Peer and Paulissen2000b 321-322) Excavations at Nag Ahmed el Ilthalifafor example revealed a redeposited Acheulian assemblagecharacterized by cordiform and preform handaxes with noLevallois technique present (Vermeersch et al 2000)Based on the morphological characteristics of the lithic as-semblage and the sites stratigraphic position the excava-tors suggest an age of about 350000 to 300000 bp forthis assemblage an age range that is not dissimilar to theEvolved or Upper Acheulian known from the WesternDesert (eg the Iltharga and Daldlleh oases) where esti-mates suggest an antiquity of greater than 400000 bp(I(1eindeinst 1999 91) A similar site (E6101) in the vicin-ity of Dandara further to the south has also been reported(Wendorf and Schild 1976 95-96) Based on collectionsdating to Petries work at Abydos now in the University ofPennsylvania Museum it was also clear that there were atleast some Acheulian style handaxes in the high desert ad-jacent to Abydos In addition the Belgian Middle EgyptPrehistoric Project identified a small surface lithic scatter(site 7634) with a handaxe at the edge of a plateau over-looking Abydos (Vermeersch Paulissen and Gijselings1977 119) This was the only known site in our surveyarea prior to our work In sum the data from the Nile Val-ley are sufficient to say that there was a late Acheulian pres-ence but it is not clear whether this pattern is related to thedifficulty of finding older sites or reflects a low intensity ofuse

Comparatively spealcing there are many more sites andin situ assemblages from the Middle Paleolithic of the NileValley Assemblages of this period in fact have beengrouped into an array of sometimes confusing chronolog-ical phases traditions and complexes and models havebeen suggested to explain their chronological and spatialdistribution Recently Van Peer (1991 1998) dividedMiddle Paleolithic remains into two major complexes theLower Nile ValleyComplex and the Nubian Complex TheNubian Complex shows evidence of point production us-ing the Nubian Levallois technique whereas the LowerNile Valley Complex includes only the standard Levalloistechnique with no evidence of point production NubianLevallois is a prepared core technique that produces apointed flake and has two variants Nubian 1 and 2 de-pending on whether the preparation flakes are struck fromthe distal end or from the sides (Guichard and Guichard1965 1968) Van Peer also argues that several types of re-touched pieces are exclusive to the Nubian Complex Theseinclude bifacial foliates Nubian endscrapers N azletIlthater points and truncated-facetted pieces The Lower

Nile Valley Complex on the other hand has little in theway of diagnostic pieces Aside from finely retouched Lev-allois flalzeswhich Van Peer (1991) callslaterized-Levalloisflakes the Lower Nile Valley Complex is characterizedmore by the absence of diagnostic features than by theirpresence

Van Peer (1998 2001) has further argued that thesetwo complexes represent two distinct behavioral adapta-tions to the Nile Valley landscape The Lower Nile ValleyComplex is thought to be a riverine adaptation and con-fmed to the Nile Valley corridor whereas the NubianComplex is found in both riverine and adjacent desert lo-cales The key difference between the two is that the Nu-bian Complex includes point production presumably forhunting and this would have allowed populations to ex-pand into a greater range of environments (Van Peer 1991142 1998 5122 5128) In fact the Nubian Complexsites do show a greater geographical distribution beingfound in northern Egypt and in the desert Given that theLower Nile Valley Complex is defined primarily by the lackof particular types and technologies however demonstrat-ing its absence is problematic Moreover the distributionof site types for the Nubian Complex is not fundamentallydifferent from that of the Lower Nile Valley ComplexBoth are primarily known from sites interpreted as quarriesand rare habitation sites in the Nile Valley (Van Peer 2001)Missing are the specialized task specific sites for the N u-bian Complex Van Peer (1998 S125) suggests that thesemay have been located closer to the Nile River and are thusmore difficult to find today Alternatively he suggests thatthey may be in the adjacent deserts based on his work atSodmein Cave in the Red Sea Mountains (Van Peer Ver-meersch and Moeyersons 1996) Our research in the highdesert west of the Nile Valley provides an opportunity totest these models

Sites of the Early Upper Paleolithic are uncommonthose that have been radiometrically dated are between35000 to 30000 bp (uncalibrated) and likely postdatethe technological transition from the Middle to the UpperPaleolithic The best known of these are the chert quarrysites of the Nile Valley low desert at N azlet Ilthater 4 and 7(Vermeersch et ale 1982 1984) Later Upper Paleolithicand Late Paleolithic industries (eg ShuwikhatianFakhurian and IZubbaniyan) dating from about 25000bp and younger are relatively common in contrast (Has-san 1974 Lubell 1974 Phillips 1973 Van Peer and Ver-meersch 1990 Vermeersch Paulissen and Van Peer 2000Vermeersch Van Peer and Paulissen 2000a Wendorf andSchild 1976 229-319 Wendorf Schild and Close1989b) They are found at sites used for floodplain re-source exploitation including fishing and hunting of wild

Journal ofField ArchaeologyVol 30) 2005 285

Abydos

- - - _- - -- - - -- - - -- -1- - - - - - - - - --

Number of artifacts per sample

o 1-10 0 10-25 0 more than 25 o 2km

Figure 1 Map of the project area showing the survey collection points their relative densities and the locations of the main sites mentioned in thetext A) Sites ASPS-46 ASPS-46A B) Site 49 Sites ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A are just NW of A

cattle and hartebeest as well as at probable chert extractionsites In general Upper Paleolithic use of the high desert isexpected to be relatively limited Finally sites of the Epi-paleolithicEarly Neolithic (ca 9800 to 7900 bp) charac-terized by bladelets geometries and micro burin tech-nique are present in the Nile Valley corridor and in thevicinity of seasonal playas in the high desert and oases dur-ing the early Holocene pluvial periods (Caton-Thompson1952 Close 1990 Hassan 1986 McDonald 1991 Schild2001 Wendorf and Schild 1976 Wendorf Schild andClose 1984)

The Project AreaAny effort to expand the Nile Valley site database faces

problems of limited visibility and accessibility to buriedsites and the impact of expanding irrigation agriculture onthe preservation of sites in the fluvial deposits of the NileIn contrast the high desert immediately adjacent to thevalley offers a completely different situation with very highvisibility immediate accessibility and potentially goodpreservation of archaeological remains especially lithic

assemblages Moreover the fact that the high desert is im-mediately adjacent to tlle Nile Valley means that the re-sulting data can be more easily integrated into existing NileValley models of landscape use With this in mind we de-signed a survey project for an area on the western edge ofthe Nile in Middle Egypt (FIG I)

Most of the project area lies within the geomorphicprovince known as the Libyan Plateau At Abydos theplateau is dissected by relatively mature deeply inciseddrainage systems Numerous more or less straight wadireaches often oriented either NW-SE or NE-SW suggest anunderlying tectonic control of regional drainage patternsThe amphitheater-like heads of many of the wadis indicatethat groundwater sapping has played an important role inthe headward erosion of the wadis (Luo et al 1997) Thealmost total lack of gravel terraces within the wadis sug-gests that fluvial sediments are routinely flushed out ofwadis during storm events thus stratified Paleolithic mate-rials are not likely to be found within the wadi systems Inaddition to these fluvial processes eolian activity hasplayed a major role in sculpting the plateau landscape as

286 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

1995) or being gradually lowered through deflationSome horizontal movement of pavement clasts has alsobeen demonstrated however experimental clearing ofsmall plots of desert pavement showed that over five years1-10 of the cleared area was resurfaced per year withbioturbation being a major factor in the movement ofclasts (Haff and Werner 1996) Stones moved into acleared patch of pavement are on average smaller thanthose that had been there originally Thus pavement stonesin a given area cannot be assumed to retain the same sizedistribution with time as bioturbation will work towardsan even distribution of smaller clasts over the pavementsurface Movement of individual clasts is likely to happenonly over a small scale however on the order of 10-30 cm(Haff and Werner 1996) while on the meter scale pave-ments should be fairly stable This indicates that the spatialdistribution of archaeological materials on desert pave-ments should be relatively intact with trampling being theprimary source of artifact movement The desert pavementsurface however is also likely to integrate multiple occu-pations as there is no burial of artifacts and thus no strati-graphic separation between successive habitation phases

Caves that offer the possibility of stratified deposits arealso present in the project area but the stratigraphic sec-

Figure 2 Photograph of site ASPS-46 illustrating the desert pavement typical of the project area

expected in a region that currently gets an average of 23mm of rainfall per year (Vose et ale 1992) While eolian ac-tivity is principally expressed in the formation of desertpavement (see below) and the abrasion of plateau bedrockthe blockage of several major vvadis by eolian depositionhas allowed for the formation of ephemeral ponds follow-ing rainfall events Though characterized by a low preser-vation potential due to their lack of induration and theirposition within the landscape the silty sediments deposit-ed in these ephemeral ponds could prove to be a source ofstratified archaeological material Existing dunes and pondsediments in the project area are probably Holocene in ageDunes likely existed in similar locations in earlier arid phas-es however since wind patterns have probably been rela-tively consistent in successive arid phases though differentin humid phases (IZutzbach and Liu 1997)

The surface of the plateau is primarily characterized bya desert pavement (FIG 2) Though desert pavements rep-resent relatively stable unchanging surfaces compared tothose in other geomorphic settings they exist in a dynam-ic equilibrium Vertical movement of the pavement surfaceis characteristic of its evolution with the surface eithergrowing up as eolian dust is incorporated into the stone-free layer beneath the pavement clasts (eg Wells et ale

tions of the caves visited do not appear to be very thickthough several of the caves had at least 3 m of sedimentThis implies that either the caves are flushed out by run-ning water relatively frequently in which case sedimentaryarchives are unlikely to exend as far back as the Paleolithicor that the sedimentation rates are very slow which wouldresult in little stratigraphic separation between temporallydistinct artifact horizons The lack of carbonate precipitateswithin the caves rules out the use of U-Th dating tech-niques on cave sediments and luminescence-based tech-niques can be used to date Pleistocene deposits directlyon-ly if teeth shells or bones are preserved within them

Survey Methods and ResultsIn the winters of 2000 and 2002-2003 we conducted

two surveys in the project area The first was a very brief re-connaissance designed to examine small sections of severaltopographic contexts-fluviatile sediments in the lowdesert sand dunes gravel terraces wadi systems drainingthe Libyan Plateau and the high desert area away fromwadis-to assess the potential for Paleolithic sites This ini-tial survey identified a large number of surface sites (Ol-szewski et al 2001) During a four-week period in the win-ter of 2002-2003 we undertook a second more intensivesystematic survey of one of the areas studied earlier thatsurrounding the Wadi Umm al-Qaab (FIG I) This surveygreatly improved our understanding of the nature and dis-tribution of Paleolithic occurrences there

MethodsThe survey across the Wadi Umm al-Qaab area was car-

ried out by one or two teams of three to four individualsspaced at approximately 3-4 m intervals Initially thesetransect lines crossed the landscape without regard totopography Later as patterns started to emerge transectlines focused on ridge tops and intermediate terrace fea-tures in the high desert A threshold of approximately 5 ar-tifacts per sq m defined high-density locales At such lo-cales which we call sites a datum was placed rougWy atthe center of the artifact scatter these datums were latersurveyed with a total station and given UTM coordinatesbased on a non-differential GPS A collection of materialfrom each site was made from aIm radius circle centeredon the datum Additionally and regardless of where a sitewas located survey teams also made similar collectionsevery 100 m At these locations aIm radius circlewas col-lected and the UTM coordinates of the point were record-ed with non-differential GPS A datum was not left at theselocations called sample units and they were not surveyedwith the total station

In addition to mapping the distribution of materials on

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 287

this surface we wanted a better understanding of the dis-tribution of materials within the sites the relationship be-tween the sites and artifact densities in the surroundinglandscape and the nature of the stone tool industries atthese locations Sites identified to address these goals in-clude ASPS-46 ASPS-46A and ASPS-49 At ASPS-46 a1 m grid was placed in the area of the highest concentra-tion and all artifacts were collected from the surface (FIG

3) This resulted in a large sample of the material from ad-jacent collection units At ASPS-46A all surface artifactswere point-provenienced with a total station and collectedFinally in the case of ASPS-49 circular units of 05 m ra-dius were placed radiating from the central point and allartifacts within the units were collected (FIG 4) At bothASPS-46 and ASPS-49 test excavations were conducted toassess the possibility of stratified deposits and at all sites adetailed topographic map was made using the total station

Survey ResultsIn the 2002-2003 season 196 sample units were col-

lected (FIG r) representing approximately 20 km of tran-sect survey Given that each transect surveyed an area ap-proximately 20 m wide the survey area comprised about40 hectares While the analysis of the data from these sam-ple units is still underway it is clear that the high desert isrich in traces of Paleolithic behavior Of the 196 units 148(75) contained at least one artifact Of these samples theaverage artifact density was 349 artifacts per sampling unit(slightly less than 1 sq m) and the highest density record-ed was 534 artifacts per unit In the process of surveyingthis area 62 sites were also identified and sampled The av-erage density at these locations was 2116 artifacts per unitwith a maximum density of 14483 per sq m

Several patterns of artifact distribution emerge from thedata The highest artifact densities appear to be on theridges adjacent to the central wadi system ofUmm al-Qaaband its tributaries Artifact densities are highest in the up-per reaches of the wadi system where accessto the wadi waseasiest in the lower reaches where the walls of the wadiare too steep to allow access to the ridges artifacts are lessnumerous Most transects to the west in the direction ofthe Wadi al-Jir yielded densities below 10 artifacts per col-lection unit Lower densities are typical also of the portionsof transects south of the head of the wadi as well as alongone of its main eastern tributaries The concentration ofhigher densities on the high desert to the east of the WadiUmm al-Qaab is particularly intriguing as most of thewadis in this area are relatively deeply entrenched makingaccess to the plateau more difficult

It appears that artifact densities are quite low at the edgeof the escarpment overlooking the Nile Valley itself at site

288 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

00 o

10I

20I

40 mI

tArtifactso 1 to 5o 6 to 50

51 to 100bull 100 to 320

Figure 3 Plot of the two separate collection strategies used at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46 In one area (upper) a grid of adjacent squares was collected For the rest of the site a transectof adjacent squares was laid out and every third square was collected Contours are 025 ffi

7634 known prior to our work the pattern found was theopposite of what was initially anticipated It was expectedthat artifact densities would be greatest at the valley edgeand would fall-off as one penetrated deeper into the highdesert This pattern may still hold true at a large scale butat the smaller scale in which our work was conducted mi-cro-topographic features away from the escarpment struc-ture the distribution of artifacts more than proximity to theNile itse1pound

Lower Paleolithic and UpperjEpipaleolithic artifacts arerelatively rare and show distinct spatial patterns Acheulianhandaxes are the only unambiguous marker of the LowerPaleolithic available to us and with one exception theseoccur as isolated finds The one exception site ASPS-20was characterized by multiple large thick and fairly crudehandaxes concentrated in an area overlooking the southern

embayment Isolated fmds consist of generally more re-fined handaxes but currently the sample size is too smallto determine if patterning exists in their distribution Wesuspect that handaxes were collected previously We knowthat Petrie did some collecting as did Sandford (1934)and there have been archaeological missions at the historicperiod sites of the Abydos area since the late 1960s Whilethese missions did not include the high desert as a researcharea it is clear that there have been numerous visits to theaccessible areas of the high desert especially the region ad-jacent to the Wadi Umm al-Qaab Large easily identifiableartifacts such as Acheulian handaxes are obviously at riskfor collection In future seasons we will survey less accessi-ble areas and areas more distant from the Nile Valley in or-der to test a number of hypotheses including whether in-formal collection has affected parts of the project area

oI

15t30

I

60 mI

Artifactso 1 to 5

6 to 5051 to 100

bull 101 to 230

Figure 4 Distribution of sample units at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-49 Here a system ofadjacent squares was employed along with systematic sampling in a radial pattern Contours are025 m Numbers of artifacts per unit are indicated

The distribution ofEpipaleolithic material shows a sim-ilar restricted and low-density pattern and the location ofthese sites on the landscape is quite different from the Low-er and Middle Paleolithic patterns Artifacts of this time pe-riod including blade cores endscrapers backed bladestruncated elements geometric microliths and burins are

Journal ofField ArchaeologyjVol 30~2005 289

found in high-density clusters rather than as isolates andthese high-density locations are relatively close to the NileValleyIn other words very specific locations on the land-scape attracted Epipaleolithic peoples There is little sup-porting evidence in the form of architecture or other fea-tures to suggest that these high -density locales were vil-

290 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydosy EgyptOlszewski et ale

o 2cm-==J

Figure 5 Typical Levallois flakes from the project area Site ASPS-17-6 (A17-6) Levallois point site ASPS-33-20 (A33-20) Leval-lois point site ASPS-22-1 (A22-1) Levallois flake and site ASPS-46A-805 (A46A-805) Levallois point

lages rather than temporary camps (eg Wendorf andSchild 1980 270 Wendorpound Schild and Close 1984 6-7)

Middle Paleolithic use of this landscape is the most ap-parent and potentially complex There are localities withrelatively high densities of material resulting from preparedcore technologies including Nubian techniques and asso-ciated flake debris (FIGS 5 6) There are also isolated fmdsof these cores and bifacial foliates In general the frequen-cy of Nubian and Levallois cores at a particular sample lo-cation appears to be correlated with the overall artifact den-sity at that location and Nubian and Levallois techniquesappear to vary independently What is less clear at presentis the degree to which the by-products of these technolo-gies are represented in the landscape Of particular interestare the various point forms that result from Nubian tech-nology If these represent a hafted projectile point technol-ogy related to hunting then we might expect to fmd clus-ters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting

858-1

o 2cm-==J

Figure 6 Typical Levallois and Nubian cores from the project areaSite ASPS-22-4 (A22-4) Nubian core site S92-1 Levallois coresite S58-1 Nubian core

stands where tool maintenance activities would have tal(enplace Thus far such locales have not been identified

Investigations at High-Density LocalesIn addition to the survey three locations were selected

for more intensive study because of their relatively highlithic densities attributable to either the Middle Paleolithicor Epipaleolithic Two of these ASPS-46 and -46A arecontiguous concentrations of relatively dense lithic scatterson a hilltop just west of the Wadi Umm al-Qaab The sur-face of ASPS-46 is a desert pavement of mixed limestoneand naturally occurring shattered flint with artifacts ofboth the Middle Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (FIG 2)

The Middle Paleolithic artifacts which are heavily desert-varnished tend to be scattered across the hilltop while theEpipaleolithic artifacts are more highly concentrated in thenorth and NE areas of the hilltop (FIG 3) ASPS-46A lo-cated on the southern portion of the hilltop contains Mid-

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

Journal ofField ArchaeologyVol 30) 2005 285

Abydos

- - - _- - -- - - -- - - -- -1- - - - - - - - - --

Number of artifacts per sample

o 1-10 0 10-25 0 more than 25 o 2km

Figure 1 Map of the project area showing the survey collection points their relative densities and the locations of the main sites mentioned in thetext A) Sites ASPS-46 ASPS-46A B) Site 49 Sites ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A are just NW of A

cattle and hartebeest as well as at probable chert extractionsites In general Upper Paleolithic use of the high desert isexpected to be relatively limited Finally sites of the Epi-paleolithicEarly Neolithic (ca 9800 to 7900 bp) charac-terized by bladelets geometries and micro burin tech-nique are present in the Nile Valley corridor and in thevicinity of seasonal playas in the high desert and oases dur-ing the early Holocene pluvial periods (Caton-Thompson1952 Close 1990 Hassan 1986 McDonald 1991 Schild2001 Wendorf and Schild 1976 Wendorf Schild andClose 1984)

The Project AreaAny effort to expand the Nile Valley site database faces

problems of limited visibility and accessibility to buriedsites and the impact of expanding irrigation agriculture onthe preservation of sites in the fluvial deposits of the NileIn contrast the high desert immediately adjacent to thevalley offers a completely different situation with very highvisibility immediate accessibility and potentially goodpreservation of archaeological remains especially lithic

assemblages Moreover the fact that the high desert is im-mediately adjacent to tlle Nile Valley means that the re-sulting data can be more easily integrated into existing NileValley models of landscape use With this in mind we de-signed a survey project for an area on the western edge ofthe Nile in Middle Egypt (FIG I)

Most of the project area lies within the geomorphicprovince known as the Libyan Plateau At Abydos theplateau is dissected by relatively mature deeply inciseddrainage systems Numerous more or less straight wadireaches often oriented either NW-SE or NE-SW suggest anunderlying tectonic control of regional drainage patternsThe amphitheater-like heads of many of the wadis indicatethat groundwater sapping has played an important role inthe headward erosion of the wadis (Luo et al 1997) Thealmost total lack of gravel terraces within the wadis sug-gests that fluvial sediments are routinely flushed out ofwadis during storm events thus stratified Paleolithic mate-rials are not likely to be found within the wadi systems Inaddition to these fluvial processes eolian activity hasplayed a major role in sculpting the plateau landscape as

286 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

1995) or being gradually lowered through deflationSome horizontal movement of pavement clasts has alsobeen demonstrated however experimental clearing ofsmall plots of desert pavement showed that over five years1-10 of the cleared area was resurfaced per year withbioturbation being a major factor in the movement ofclasts (Haff and Werner 1996) Stones moved into acleared patch of pavement are on average smaller thanthose that had been there originally Thus pavement stonesin a given area cannot be assumed to retain the same sizedistribution with time as bioturbation will work towardsan even distribution of smaller clasts over the pavementsurface Movement of individual clasts is likely to happenonly over a small scale however on the order of 10-30 cm(Haff and Werner 1996) while on the meter scale pave-ments should be fairly stable This indicates that the spatialdistribution of archaeological materials on desert pave-ments should be relatively intact with trampling being theprimary source of artifact movement The desert pavementsurface however is also likely to integrate multiple occu-pations as there is no burial of artifacts and thus no strati-graphic separation between successive habitation phases

Caves that offer the possibility of stratified deposits arealso present in the project area but the stratigraphic sec-

Figure 2 Photograph of site ASPS-46 illustrating the desert pavement typical of the project area

expected in a region that currently gets an average of 23mm of rainfall per year (Vose et ale 1992) While eolian ac-tivity is principally expressed in the formation of desertpavement (see below) and the abrasion of plateau bedrockthe blockage of several major vvadis by eolian depositionhas allowed for the formation of ephemeral ponds follow-ing rainfall events Though characterized by a low preser-vation potential due to their lack of induration and theirposition within the landscape the silty sediments deposit-ed in these ephemeral ponds could prove to be a source ofstratified archaeological material Existing dunes and pondsediments in the project area are probably Holocene in ageDunes likely existed in similar locations in earlier arid phas-es however since wind patterns have probably been rela-tively consistent in successive arid phases though differentin humid phases (IZutzbach and Liu 1997)

The surface of the plateau is primarily characterized bya desert pavement (FIG 2) Though desert pavements rep-resent relatively stable unchanging surfaces compared tothose in other geomorphic settings they exist in a dynam-ic equilibrium Vertical movement of the pavement surfaceis characteristic of its evolution with the surface eithergrowing up as eolian dust is incorporated into the stone-free layer beneath the pavement clasts (eg Wells et ale

tions of the caves visited do not appear to be very thickthough several of the caves had at least 3 m of sedimentThis implies that either the caves are flushed out by run-ning water relatively frequently in which case sedimentaryarchives are unlikely to exend as far back as the Paleolithicor that the sedimentation rates are very slow which wouldresult in little stratigraphic separation between temporallydistinct artifact horizons The lack of carbonate precipitateswithin the caves rules out the use of U-Th dating tech-niques on cave sediments and luminescence-based tech-niques can be used to date Pleistocene deposits directlyon-ly if teeth shells or bones are preserved within them

Survey Methods and ResultsIn the winters of 2000 and 2002-2003 we conducted

two surveys in the project area The first was a very brief re-connaissance designed to examine small sections of severaltopographic contexts-fluviatile sediments in the lowdesert sand dunes gravel terraces wadi systems drainingthe Libyan Plateau and the high desert area away fromwadis-to assess the potential for Paleolithic sites This ini-tial survey identified a large number of surface sites (Ol-szewski et al 2001) During a four-week period in the win-ter of 2002-2003 we undertook a second more intensivesystematic survey of one of the areas studied earlier thatsurrounding the Wadi Umm al-Qaab (FIG I) This surveygreatly improved our understanding of the nature and dis-tribution of Paleolithic occurrences there

MethodsThe survey across the Wadi Umm al-Qaab area was car-

ried out by one or two teams of three to four individualsspaced at approximately 3-4 m intervals Initially thesetransect lines crossed the landscape without regard totopography Later as patterns started to emerge transectlines focused on ridge tops and intermediate terrace fea-tures in the high desert A threshold of approximately 5 ar-tifacts per sq m defined high-density locales At such lo-cales which we call sites a datum was placed rougWy atthe center of the artifact scatter these datums were latersurveyed with a total station and given UTM coordinatesbased on a non-differential GPS A collection of materialfrom each site was made from aIm radius circle centeredon the datum Additionally and regardless of where a sitewas located survey teams also made similar collectionsevery 100 m At these locations aIm radius circlewas col-lected and the UTM coordinates of the point were record-ed with non-differential GPS A datum was not left at theselocations called sample units and they were not surveyedwith the total station

In addition to mapping the distribution of materials on

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 287

this surface we wanted a better understanding of the dis-tribution of materials within the sites the relationship be-tween the sites and artifact densities in the surroundinglandscape and the nature of the stone tool industries atthese locations Sites identified to address these goals in-clude ASPS-46 ASPS-46A and ASPS-49 At ASPS-46 a1 m grid was placed in the area of the highest concentra-tion and all artifacts were collected from the surface (FIG

3) This resulted in a large sample of the material from ad-jacent collection units At ASPS-46A all surface artifactswere point-provenienced with a total station and collectedFinally in the case of ASPS-49 circular units of 05 m ra-dius were placed radiating from the central point and allartifacts within the units were collected (FIG 4) At bothASPS-46 and ASPS-49 test excavations were conducted toassess the possibility of stratified deposits and at all sites adetailed topographic map was made using the total station

Survey ResultsIn the 2002-2003 season 196 sample units were col-

lected (FIG r) representing approximately 20 km of tran-sect survey Given that each transect surveyed an area ap-proximately 20 m wide the survey area comprised about40 hectares While the analysis of the data from these sam-ple units is still underway it is clear that the high desert isrich in traces of Paleolithic behavior Of the 196 units 148(75) contained at least one artifact Of these samples theaverage artifact density was 349 artifacts per sampling unit(slightly less than 1 sq m) and the highest density record-ed was 534 artifacts per unit In the process of surveyingthis area 62 sites were also identified and sampled The av-erage density at these locations was 2116 artifacts per unitwith a maximum density of 14483 per sq m

Several patterns of artifact distribution emerge from thedata The highest artifact densities appear to be on theridges adjacent to the central wadi system ofUmm al-Qaaband its tributaries Artifact densities are highest in the up-per reaches of the wadi system where accessto the wadi waseasiest in the lower reaches where the walls of the wadiare too steep to allow access to the ridges artifacts are lessnumerous Most transects to the west in the direction ofthe Wadi al-Jir yielded densities below 10 artifacts per col-lection unit Lower densities are typical also of the portionsof transects south of the head of the wadi as well as alongone of its main eastern tributaries The concentration ofhigher densities on the high desert to the east of the WadiUmm al-Qaab is particularly intriguing as most of thewadis in this area are relatively deeply entrenched makingaccess to the plateau more difficult

It appears that artifact densities are quite low at the edgeof the escarpment overlooking the Nile Valley itself at site

288 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

00 o

10I

20I

40 mI

tArtifactso 1 to 5o 6 to 50

51 to 100bull 100 to 320

Figure 3 Plot of the two separate collection strategies used at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46 In one area (upper) a grid of adjacent squares was collected For the rest of the site a transectof adjacent squares was laid out and every third square was collected Contours are 025 ffi

7634 known prior to our work the pattern found was theopposite of what was initially anticipated It was expectedthat artifact densities would be greatest at the valley edgeand would fall-off as one penetrated deeper into the highdesert This pattern may still hold true at a large scale butat the smaller scale in which our work was conducted mi-cro-topographic features away from the escarpment struc-ture the distribution of artifacts more than proximity to theNile itse1pound

Lower Paleolithic and UpperjEpipaleolithic artifacts arerelatively rare and show distinct spatial patterns Acheulianhandaxes are the only unambiguous marker of the LowerPaleolithic available to us and with one exception theseoccur as isolated finds The one exception site ASPS-20was characterized by multiple large thick and fairly crudehandaxes concentrated in an area overlooking the southern

embayment Isolated fmds consist of generally more re-fined handaxes but currently the sample size is too smallto determine if patterning exists in their distribution Wesuspect that handaxes were collected previously We knowthat Petrie did some collecting as did Sandford (1934)and there have been archaeological missions at the historicperiod sites of the Abydos area since the late 1960s Whilethese missions did not include the high desert as a researcharea it is clear that there have been numerous visits to theaccessible areas of the high desert especially the region ad-jacent to the Wadi Umm al-Qaab Large easily identifiableartifacts such as Acheulian handaxes are obviously at riskfor collection In future seasons we will survey less accessi-ble areas and areas more distant from the Nile Valley in or-der to test a number of hypotheses including whether in-formal collection has affected parts of the project area

oI

15t30

I

60 mI

Artifactso 1 to 5

6 to 5051 to 100

bull 101 to 230

Figure 4 Distribution of sample units at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-49 Here a system ofadjacent squares was employed along with systematic sampling in a radial pattern Contours are025 m Numbers of artifacts per unit are indicated

The distribution ofEpipaleolithic material shows a sim-ilar restricted and low-density pattern and the location ofthese sites on the landscape is quite different from the Low-er and Middle Paleolithic patterns Artifacts of this time pe-riod including blade cores endscrapers backed bladestruncated elements geometric microliths and burins are

Journal ofField ArchaeologyjVol 30~2005 289

found in high-density clusters rather than as isolates andthese high-density locations are relatively close to the NileValleyIn other words very specific locations on the land-scape attracted Epipaleolithic peoples There is little sup-porting evidence in the form of architecture or other fea-tures to suggest that these high -density locales were vil-

290 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydosy EgyptOlszewski et ale

o 2cm-==J

Figure 5 Typical Levallois flakes from the project area Site ASPS-17-6 (A17-6) Levallois point site ASPS-33-20 (A33-20) Leval-lois point site ASPS-22-1 (A22-1) Levallois flake and site ASPS-46A-805 (A46A-805) Levallois point

lages rather than temporary camps (eg Wendorf andSchild 1980 270 Wendorpound Schild and Close 1984 6-7)

Middle Paleolithic use of this landscape is the most ap-parent and potentially complex There are localities withrelatively high densities of material resulting from preparedcore technologies including Nubian techniques and asso-ciated flake debris (FIGS 5 6) There are also isolated fmdsof these cores and bifacial foliates In general the frequen-cy of Nubian and Levallois cores at a particular sample lo-cation appears to be correlated with the overall artifact den-sity at that location and Nubian and Levallois techniquesappear to vary independently What is less clear at presentis the degree to which the by-products of these technolo-gies are represented in the landscape Of particular interestare the various point forms that result from Nubian tech-nology If these represent a hafted projectile point technol-ogy related to hunting then we might expect to fmd clus-ters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting

858-1

o 2cm-==J

Figure 6 Typical Levallois and Nubian cores from the project areaSite ASPS-22-4 (A22-4) Nubian core site S92-1 Levallois coresite S58-1 Nubian core

stands where tool maintenance activities would have tal(enplace Thus far such locales have not been identified

Investigations at High-Density LocalesIn addition to the survey three locations were selected

for more intensive study because of their relatively highlithic densities attributable to either the Middle Paleolithicor Epipaleolithic Two of these ASPS-46 and -46A arecontiguous concentrations of relatively dense lithic scatterson a hilltop just west of the Wadi Umm al-Qaab The sur-face of ASPS-46 is a desert pavement of mixed limestoneand naturally occurring shattered flint with artifacts ofboth the Middle Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (FIG 2)

The Middle Paleolithic artifacts which are heavily desert-varnished tend to be scattered across the hilltop while theEpipaleolithic artifacts are more highly concentrated in thenorth and NE areas of the hilltop (FIG 3) ASPS-46A lo-cated on the southern portion of the hilltop contains Mid-

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

286 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

1995) or being gradually lowered through deflationSome horizontal movement of pavement clasts has alsobeen demonstrated however experimental clearing ofsmall plots of desert pavement showed that over five years1-10 of the cleared area was resurfaced per year withbioturbation being a major factor in the movement ofclasts (Haff and Werner 1996) Stones moved into acleared patch of pavement are on average smaller thanthose that had been there originally Thus pavement stonesin a given area cannot be assumed to retain the same sizedistribution with time as bioturbation will work towardsan even distribution of smaller clasts over the pavementsurface Movement of individual clasts is likely to happenonly over a small scale however on the order of 10-30 cm(Haff and Werner 1996) while on the meter scale pave-ments should be fairly stable This indicates that the spatialdistribution of archaeological materials on desert pave-ments should be relatively intact with trampling being theprimary source of artifact movement The desert pavementsurface however is also likely to integrate multiple occu-pations as there is no burial of artifacts and thus no strati-graphic separation between successive habitation phases

Caves that offer the possibility of stratified deposits arealso present in the project area but the stratigraphic sec-

Figure 2 Photograph of site ASPS-46 illustrating the desert pavement typical of the project area

expected in a region that currently gets an average of 23mm of rainfall per year (Vose et ale 1992) While eolian ac-tivity is principally expressed in the formation of desertpavement (see below) and the abrasion of plateau bedrockthe blockage of several major vvadis by eolian depositionhas allowed for the formation of ephemeral ponds follow-ing rainfall events Though characterized by a low preser-vation potential due to their lack of induration and theirposition within the landscape the silty sediments deposit-ed in these ephemeral ponds could prove to be a source ofstratified archaeological material Existing dunes and pondsediments in the project area are probably Holocene in ageDunes likely existed in similar locations in earlier arid phas-es however since wind patterns have probably been rela-tively consistent in successive arid phases though differentin humid phases (IZutzbach and Liu 1997)

The surface of the plateau is primarily characterized bya desert pavement (FIG 2) Though desert pavements rep-resent relatively stable unchanging surfaces compared tothose in other geomorphic settings they exist in a dynam-ic equilibrium Vertical movement of the pavement surfaceis characteristic of its evolution with the surface eithergrowing up as eolian dust is incorporated into the stone-free layer beneath the pavement clasts (eg Wells et ale

tions of the caves visited do not appear to be very thickthough several of the caves had at least 3 m of sedimentThis implies that either the caves are flushed out by run-ning water relatively frequently in which case sedimentaryarchives are unlikely to exend as far back as the Paleolithicor that the sedimentation rates are very slow which wouldresult in little stratigraphic separation between temporallydistinct artifact horizons The lack of carbonate precipitateswithin the caves rules out the use of U-Th dating tech-niques on cave sediments and luminescence-based tech-niques can be used to date Pleistocene deposits directlyon-ly if teeth shells or bones are preserved within them

Survey Methods and ResultsIn the winters of 2000 and 2002-2003 we conducted

two surveys in the project area The first was a very brief re-connaissance designed to examine small sections of severaltopographic contexts-fluviatile sediments in the lowdesert sand dunes gravel terraces wadi systems drainingthe Libyan Plateau and the high desert area away fromwadis-to assess the potential for Paleolithic sites This ini-tial survey identified a large number of surface sites (Ol-szewski et al 2001) During a four-week period in the win-ter of 2002-2003 we undertook a second more intensivesystematic survey of one of the areas studied earlier thatsurrounding the Wadi Umm al-Qaab (FIG I) This surveygreatly improved our understanding of the nature and dis-tribution of Paleolithic occurrences there

MethodsThe survey across the Wadi Umm al-Qaab area was car-

ried out by one or two teams of three to four individualsspaced at approximately 3-4 m intervals Initially thesetransect lines crossed the landscape without regard totopography Later as patterns started to emerge transectlines focused on ridge tops and intermediate terrace fea-tures in the high desert A threshold of approximately 5 ar-tifacts per sq m defined high-density locales At such lo-cales which we call sites a datum was placed rougWy atthe center of the artifact scatter these datums were latersurveyed with a total station and given UTM coordinatesbased on a non-differential GPS A collection of materialfrom each site was made from aIm radius circle centeredon the datum Additionally and regardless of where a sitewas located survey teams also made similar collectionsevery 100 m At these locations aIm radius circlewas col-lected and the UTM coordinates of the point were record-ed with non-differential GPS A datum was not left at theselocations called sample units and they were not surveyedwith the total station

In addition to mapping the distribution of materials on

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 287

this surface we wanted a better understanding of the dis-tribution of materials within the sites the relationship be-tween the sites and artifact densities in the surroundinglandscape and the nature of the stone tool industries atthese locations Sites identified to address these goals in-clude ASPS-46 ASPS-46A and ASPS-49 At ASPS-46 a1 m grid was placed in the area of the highest concentra-tion and all artifacts were collected from the surface (FIG

3) This resulted in a large sample of the material from ad-jacent collection units At ASPS-46A all surface artifactswere point-provenienced with a total station and collectedFinally in the case of ASPS-49 circular units of 05 m ra-dius were placed radiating from the central point and allartifacts within the units were collected (FIG 4) At bothASPS-46 and ASPS-49 test excavations were conducted toassess the possibility of stratified deposits and at all sites adetailed topographic map was made using the total station

Survey ResultsIn the 2002-2003 season 196 sample units were col-

lected (FIG r) representing approximately 20 km of tran-sect survey Given that each transect surveyed an area ap-proximately 20 m wide the survey area comprised about40 hectares While the analysis of the data from these sam-ple units is still underway it is clear that the high desert isrich in traces of Paleolithic behavior Of the 196 units 148(75) contained at least one artifact Of these samples theaverage artifact density was 349 artifacts per sampling unit(slightly less than 1 sq m) and the highest density record-ed was 534 artifacts per unit In the process of surveyingthis area 62 sites were also identified and sampled The av-erage density at these locations was 2116 artifacts per unitwith a maximum density of 14483 per sq m

Several patterns of artifact distribution emerge from thedata The highest artifact densities appear to be on theridges adjacent to the central wadi system ofUmm al-Qaaband its tributaries Artifact densities are highest in the up-per reaches of the wadi system where accessto the wadi waseasiest in the lower reaches where the walls of the wadiare too steep to allow access to the ridges artifacts are lessnumerous Most transects to the west in the direction ofthe Wadi al-Jir yielded densities below 10 artifacts per col-lection unit Lower densities are typical also of the portionsof transects south of the head of the wadi as well as alongone of its main eastern tributaries The concentration ofhigher densities on the high desert to the east of the WadiUmm al-Qaab is particularly intriguing as most of thewadis in this area are relatively deeply entrenched makingaccess to the plateau more difficult

It appears that artifact densities are quite low at the edgeof the escarpment overlooking the Nile Valley itself at site

288 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

00 o

10I

20I

40 mI

tArtifactso 1 to 5o 6 to 50

51 to 100bull 100 to 320

Figure 3 Plot of the two separate collection strategies used at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46 In one area (upper) a grid of adjacent squares was collected For the rest of the site a transectof adjacent squares was laid out and every third square was collected Contours are 025 ffi

7634 known prior to our work the pattern found was theopposite of what was initially anticipated It was expectedthat artifact densities would be greatest at the valley edgeand would fall-off as one penetrated deeper into the highdesert This pattern may still hold true at a large scale butat the smaller scale in which our work was conducted mi-cro-topographic features away from the escarpment struc-ture the distribution of artifacts more than proximity to theNile itse1pound

Lower Paleolithic and UpperjEpipaleolithic artifacts arerelatively rare and show distinct spatial patterns Acheulianhandaxes are the only unambiguous marker of the LowerPaleolithic available to us and with one exception theseoccur as isolated finds The one exception site ASPS-20was characterized by multiple large thick and fairly crudehandaxes concentrated in an area overlooking the southern

embayment Isolated fmds consist of generally more re-fined handaxes but currently the sample size is too smallto determine if patterning exists in their distribution Wesuspect that handaxes were collected previously We knowthat Petrie did some collecting as did Sandford (1934)and there have been archaeological missions at the historicperiod sites of the Abydos area since the late 1960s Whilethese missions did not include the high desert as a researcharea it is clear that there have been numerous visits to theaccessible areas of the high desert especially the region ad-jacent to the Wadi Umm al-Qaab Large easily identifiableartifacts such as Acheulian handaxes are obviously at riskfor collection In future seasons we will survey less accessi-ble areas and areas more distant from the Nile Valley in or-der to test a number of hypotheses including whether in-formal collection has affected parts of the project area

oI

15t30

I

60 mI

Artifactso 1 to 5

6 to 5051 to 100

bull 101 to 230

Figure 4 Distribution of sample units at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-49 Here a system ofadjacent squares was employed along with systematic sampling in a radial pattern Contours are025 m Numbers of artifacts per unit are indicated

The distribution ofEpipaleolithic material shows a sim-ilar restricted and low-density pattern and the location ofthese sites on the landscape is quite different from the Low-er and Middle Paleolithic patterns Artifacts of this time pe-riod including blade cores endscrapers backed bladestruncated elements geometric microliths and burins are

Journal ofField ArchaeologyjVol 30~2005 289

found in high-density clusters rather than as isolates andthese high-density locations are relatively close to the NileValleyIn other words very specific locations on the land-scape attracted Epipaleolithic peoples There is little sup-porting evidence in the form of architecture or other fea-tures to suggest that these high -density locales were vil-

290 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydosy EgyptOlszewski et ale

o 2cm-==J

Figure 5 Typical Levallois flakes from the project area Site ASPS-17-6 (A17-6) Levallois point site ASPS-33-20 (A33-20) Leval-lois point site ASPS-22-1 (A22-1) Levallois flake and site ASPS-46A-805 (A46A-805) Levallois point

lages rather than temporary camps (eg Wendorf andSchild 1980 270 Wendorpound Schild and Close 1984 6-7)

Middle Paleolithic use of this landscape is the most ap-parent and potentially complex There are localities withrelatively high densities of material resulting from preparedcore technologies including Nubian techniques and asso-ciated flake debris (FIGS 5 6) There are also isolated fmdsof these cores and bifacial foliates In general the frequen-cy of Nubian and Levallois cores at a particular sample lo-cation appears to be correlated with the overall artifact den-sity at that location and Nubian and Levallois techniquesappear to vary independently What is less clear at presentis the degree to which the by-products of these technolo-gies are represented in the landscape Of particular interestare the various point forms that result from Nubian tech-nology If these represent a hafted projectile point technol-ogy related to hunting then we might expect to fmd clus-ters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting

858-1

o 2cm-==J

Figure 6 Typical Levallois and Nubian cores from the project areaSite ASPS-22-4 (A22-4) Nubian core site S92-1 Levallois coresite S58-1 Nubian core

stands where tool maintenance activities would have tal(enplace Thus far such locales have not been identified

Investigations at High-Density LocalesIn addition to the survey three locations were selected

for more intensive study because of their relatively highlithic densities attributable to either the Middle Paleolithicor Epipaleolithic Two of these ASPS-46 and -46A arecontiguous concentrations of relatively dense lithic scatterson a hilltop just west of the Wadi Umm al-Qaab The sur-face of ASPS-46 is a desert pavement of mixed limestoneand naturally occurring shattered flint with artifacts ofboth the Middle Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (FIG 2)

The Middle Paleolithic artifacts which are heavily desert-varnished tend to be scattered across the hilltop while theEpipaleolithic artifacts are more highly concentrated in thenorth and NE areas of the hilltop (FIG 3) ASPS-46A lo-cated on the southern portion of the hilltop contains Mid-

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

tions of the caves visited do not appear to be very thickthough several of the caves had at least 3 m of sedimentThis implies that either the caves are flushed out by run-ning water relatively frequently in which case sedimentaryarchives are unlikely to exend as far back as the Paleolithicor that the sedimentation rates are very slow which wouldresult in little stratigraphic separation between temporallydistinct artifact horizons The lack of carbonate precipitateswithin the caves rules out the use of U-Th dating tech-niques on cave sediments and luminescence-based tech-niques can be used to date Pleistocene deposits directlyon-ly if teeth shells or bones are preserved within them

Survey Methods and ResultsIn the winters of 2000 and 2002-2003 we conducted

two surveys in the project area The first was a very brief re-connaissance designed to examine small sections of severaltopographic contexts-fluviatile sediments in the lowdesert sand dunes gravel terraces wadi systems drainingthe Libyan Plateau and the high desert area away fromwadis-to assess the potential for Paleolithic sites This ini-tial survey identified a large number of surface sites (Ol-szewski et al 2001) During a four-week period in the win-ter of 2002-2003 we undertook a second more intensivesystematic survey of one of the areas studied earlier thatsurrounding the Wadi Umm al-Qaab (FIG I) This surveygreatly improved our understanding of the nature and dis-tribution of Paleolithic occurrences there

MethodsThe survey across the Wadi Umm al-Qaab area was car-

ried out by one or two teams of three to four individualsspaced at approximately 3-4 m intervals Initially thesetransect lines crossed the landscape without regard totopography Later as patterns started to emerge transectlines focused on ridge tops and intermediate terrace fea-tures in the high desert A threshold of approximately 5 ar-tifacts per sq m defined high-density locales At such lo-cales which we call sites a datum was placed rougWy atthe center of the artifact scatter these datums were latersurveyed with a total station and given UTM coordinatesbased on a non-differential GPS A collection of materialfrom each site was made from aIm radius circle centeredon the datum Additionally and regardless of where a sitewas located survey teams also made similar collectionsevery 100 m At these locations aIm radius circlewas col-lected and the UTM coordinates of the point were record-ed with non-differential GPS A datum was not left at theselocations called sample units and they were not surveyedwith the total station

In addition to mapping the distribution of materials on

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 287

this surface we wanted a better understanding of the dis-tribution of materials within the sites the relationship be-tween the sites and artifact densities in the surroundinglandscape and the nature of the stone tool industries atthese locations Sites identified to address these goals in-clude ASPS-46 ASPS-46A and ASPS-49 At ASPS-46 a1 m grid was placed in the area of the highest concentra-tion and all artifacts were collected from the surface (FIG

3) This resulted in a large sample of the material from ad-jacent collection units At ASPS-46A all surface artifactswere point-provenienced with a total station and collectedFinally in the case of ASPS-49 circular units of 05 m ra-dius were placed radiating from the central point and allartifacts within the units were collected (FIG 4) At bothASPS-46 and ASPS-49 test excavations were conducted toassess the possibility of stratified deposits and at all sites adetailed topographic map was made using the total station

Survey ResultsIn the 2002-2003 season 196 sample units were col-

lected (FIG r) representing approximately 20 km of tran-sect survey Given that each transect surveyed an area ap-proximately 20 m wide the survey area comprised about40 hectares While the analysis of the data from these sam-ple units is still underway it is clear that the high desert isrich in traces of Paleolithic behavior Of the 196 units 148(75) contained at least one artifact Of these samples theaverage artifact density was 349 artifacts per sampling unit(slightly less than 1 sq m) and the highest density record-ed was 534 artifacts per unit In the process of surveyingthis area 62 sites were also identified and sampled The av-erage density at these locations was 2116 artifacts per unitwith a maximum density of 14483 per sq m

Several patterns of artifact distribution emerge from thedata The highest artifact densities appear to be on theridges adjacent to the central wadi system ofUmm al-Qaaband its tributaries Artifact densities are highest in the up-per reaches of the wadi system where accessto the wadi waseasiest in the lower reaches where the walls of the wadiare too steep to allow access to the ridges artifacts are lessnumerous Most transects to the west in the direction ofthe Wadi al-Jir yielded densities below 10 artifacts per col-lection unit Lower densities are typical also of the portionsof transects south of the head of the wadi as well as alongone of its main eastern tributaries The concentration ofhigher densities on the high desert to the east of the WadiUmm al-Qaab is particularly intriguing as most of thewadis in this area are relatively deeply entrenched makingaccess to the plateau more difficult

It appears that artifact densities are quite low at the edgeof the escarpment overlooking the Nile Valley itself at site

288 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

00 o

10I

20I

40 mI

tArtifactso 1 to 5o 6 to 50

51 to 100bull 100 to 320

Figure 3 Plot of the two separate collection strategies used at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46 In one area (upper) a grid of adjacent squares was collected For the rest of the site a transectof adjacent squares was laid out and every third square was collected Contours are 025 ffi

7634 known prior to our work the pattern found was theopposite of what was initially anticipated It was expectedthat artifact densities would be greatest at the valley edgeand would fall-off as one penetrated deeper into the highdesert This pattern may still hold true at a large scale butat the smaller scale in which our work was conducted mi-cro-topographic features away from the escarpment struc-ture the distribution of artifacts more than proximity to theNile itse1pound

Lower Paleolithic and UpperjEpipaleolithic artifacts arerelatively rare and show distinct spatial patterns Acheulianhandaxes are the only unambiguous marker of the LowerPaleolithic available to us and with one exception theseoccur as isolated finds The one exception site ASPS-20was characterized by multiple large thick and fairly crudehandaxes concentrated in an area overlooking the southern

embayment Isolated fmds consist of generally more re-fined handaxes but currently the sample size is too smallto determine if patterning exists in their distribution Wesuspect that handaxes were collected previously We knowthat Petrie did some collecting as did Sandford (1934)and there have been archaeological missions at the historicperiod sites of the Abydos area since the late 1960s Whilethese missions did not include the high desert as a researcharea it is clear that there have been numerous visits to theaccessible areas of the high desert especially the region ad-jacent to the Wadi Umm al-Qaab Large easily identifiableartifacts such as Acheulian handaxes are obviously at riskfor collection In future seasons we will survey less accessi-ble areas and areas more distant from the Nile Valley in or-der to test a number of hypotheses including whether in-formal collection has affected parts of the project area

oI

15t30

I

60 mI

Artifactso 1 to 5

6 to 5051 to 100

bull 101 to 230

Figure 4 Distribution of sample units at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-49 Here a system ofadjacent squares was employed along with systematic sampling in a radial pattern Contours are025 m Numbers of artifacts per unit are indicated

The distribution ofEpipaleolithic material shows a sim-ilar restricted and low-density pattern and the location ofthese sites on the landscape is quite different from the Low-er and Middle Paleolithic patterns Artifacts of this time pe-riod including blade cores endscrapers backed bladestruncated elements geometric microliths and burins are

Journal ofField ArchaeologyjVol 30~2005 289

found in high-density clusters rather than as isolates andthese high-density locations are relatively close to the NileValleyIn other words very specific locations on the land-scape attracted Epipaleolithic peoples There is little sup-porting evidence in the form of architecture or other fea-tures to suggest that these high -density locales were vil-

290 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydosy EgyptOlszewski et ale

o 2cm-==J

Figure 5 Typical Levallois flakes from the project area Site ASPS-17-6 (A17-6) Levallois point site ASPS-33-20 (A33-20) Leval-lois point site ASPS-22-1 (A22-1) Levallois flake and site ASPS-46A-805 (A46A-805) Levallois point

lages rather than temporary camps (eg Wendorf andSchild 1980 270 Wendorpound Schild and Close 1984 6-7)

Middle Paleolithic use of this landscape is the most ap-parent and potentially complex There are localities withrelatively high densities of material resulting from preparedcore technologies including Nubian techniques and asso-ciated flake debris (FIGS 5 6) There are also isolated fmdsof these cores and bifacial foliates In general the frequen-cy of Nubian and Levallois cores at a particular sample lo-cation appears to be correlated with the overall artifact den-sity at that location and Nubian and Levallois techniquesappear to vary independently What is less clear at presentis the degree to which the by-products of these technolo-gies are represented in the landscape Of particular interestare the various point forms that result from Nubian tech-nology If these represent a hafted projectile point technol-ogy related to hunting then we might expect to fmd clus-ters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting

858-1

o 2cm-==J

Figure 6 Typical Levallois and Nubian cores from the project areaSite ASPS-22-4 (A22-4) Nubian core site S92-1 Levallois coresite S58-1 Nubian core

stands where tool maintenance activities would have tal(enplace Thus far such locales have not been identified

Investigations at High-Density LocalesIn addition to the survey three locations were selected

for more intensive study because of their relatively highlithic densities attributable to either the Middle Paleolithicor Epipaleolithic Two of these ASPS-46 and -46A arecontiguous concentrations of relatively dense lithic scatterson a hilltop just west of the Wadi Umm al-Qaab The sur-face of ASPS-46 is a desert pavement of mixed limestoneand naturally occurring shattered flint with artifacts ofboth the Middle Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (FIG 2)

The Middle Paleolithic artifacts which are heavily desert-varnished tend to be scattered across the hilltop while theEpipaleolithic artifacts are more highly concentrated in thenorth and NE areas of the hilltop (FIG 3) ASPS-46A lo-cated on the southern portion of the hilltop contains Mid-

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

288 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et ale

00 o

10I

20I

40 mI

tArtifactso 1 to 5o 6 to 50

51 to 100bull 100 to 320

Figure 3 Plot of the two separate collection strategies used at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46 In one area (upper) a grid of adjacent squares was collected For the rest of the site a transectof adjacent squares was laid out and every third square was collected Contours are 025 ffi

7634 known prior to our work the pattern found was theopposite of what was initially anticipated It was expectedthat artifact densities would be greatest at the valley edgeand would fall-off as one penetrated deeper into the highdesert This pattern may still hold true at a large scale butat the smaller scale in which our work was conducted mi-cro-topographic features away from the escarpment struc-ture the distribution of artifacts more than proximity to theNile itse1pound

Lower Paleolithic and UpperjEpipaleolithic artifacts arerelatively rare and show distinct spatial patterns Acheulianhandaxes are the only unambiguous marker of the LowerPaleolithic available to us and with one exception theseoccur as isolated finds The one exception site ASPS-20was characterized by multiple large thick and fairly crudehandaxes concentrated in an area overlooking the southern

embayment Isolated fmds consist of generally more re-fined handaxes but currently the sample size is too smallto determine if patterning exists in their distribution Wesuspect that handaxes were collected previously We knowthat Petrie did some collecting as did Sandford (1934)and there have been archaeological missions at the historicperiod sites of the Abydos area since the late 1960s Whilethese missions did not include the high desert as a researcharea it is clear that there have been numerous visits to theaccessible areas of the high desert especially the region ad-jacent to the Wadi Umm al-Qaab Large easily identifiableartifacts such as Acheulian handaxes are obviously at riskfor collection In future seasons we will survey less accessi-ble areas and areas more distant from the Nile Valley in or-der to test a number of hypotheses including whether in-formal collection has affected parts of the project area

oI

15t30

I

60 mI

Artifactso 1 to 5

6 to 5051 to 100

bull 101 to 230

Figure 4 Distribution of sample units at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-49 Here a system ofadjacent squares was employed along with systematic sampling in a radial pattern Contours are025 m Numbers of artifacts per unit are indicated

The distribution ofEpipaleolithic material shows a sim-ilar restricted and low-density pattern and the location ofthese sites on the landscape is quite different from the Low-er and Middle Paleolithic patterns Artifacts of this time pe-riod including blade cores endscrapers backed bladestruncated elements geometric microliths and burins are

Journal ofField ArchaeologyjVol 30~2005 289

found in high-density clusters rather than as isolates andthese high-density locations are relatively close to the NileValleyIn other words very specific locations on the land-scape attracted Epipaleolithic peoples There is little sup-porting evidence in the form of architecture or other fea-tures to suggest that these high -density locales were vil-

290 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydosy EgyptOlszewski et ale

o 2cm-==J

Figure 5 Typical Levallois flakes from the project area Site ASPS-17-6 (A17-6) Levallois point site ASPS-33-20 (A33-20) Leval-lois point site ASPS-22-1 (A22-1) Levallois flake and site ASPS-46A-805 (A46A-805) Levallois point

lages rather than temporary camps (eg Wendorf andSchild 1980 270 Wendorpound Schild and Close 1984 6-7)

Middle Paleolithic use of this landscape is the most ap-parent and potentially complex There are localities withrelatively high densities of material resulting from preparedcore technologies including Nubian techniques and asso-ciated flake debris (FIGS 5 6) There are also isolated fmdsof these cores and bifacial foliates In general the frequen-cy of Nubian and Levallois cores at a particular sample lo-cation appears to be correlated with the overall artifact den-sity at that location and Nubian and Levallois techniquesappear to vary independently What is less clear at presentis the degree to which the by-products of these technolo-gies are represented in the landscape Of particular interestare the various point forms that result from Nubian tech-nology If these represent a hafted projectile point technol-ogy related to hunting then we might expect to fmd clus-ters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting

858-1

o 2cm-==J

Figure 6 Typical Levallois and Nubian cores from the project areaSite ASPS-22-4 (A22-4) Nubian core site S92-1 Levallois coresite S58-1 Nubian core

stands where tool maintenance activities would have tal(enplace Thus far such locales have not been identified

Investigations at High-Density LocalesIn addition to the survey three locations were selected

for more intensive study because of their relatively highlithic densities attributable to either the Middle Paleolithicor Epipaleolithic Two of these ASPS-46 and -46A arecontiguous concentrations of relatively dense lithic scatterson a hilltop just west of the Wadi Umm al-Qaab The sur-face of ASPS-46 is a desert pavement of mixed limestoneand naturally occurring shattered flint with artifacts ofboth the Middle Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (FIG 2)

The Middle Paleolithic artifacts which are heavily desert-varnished tend to be scattered across the hilltop while theEpipaleolithic artifacts are more highly concentrated in thenorth and NE areas of the hilltop (FIG 3) ASPS-46A lo-cated on the southern portion of the hilltop contains Mid-

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

oI

15t30

I

60 mI

Artifactso 1 to 5

6 to 5051 to 100

bull 101 to 230

Figure 4 Distribution of sample units at the Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-49 Here a system ofadjacent squares was employed along with systematic sampling in a radial pattern Contours are025 m Numbers of artifacts per unit are indicated

The distribution ofEpipaleolithic material shows a sim-ilar restricted and low-density pattern and the location ofthese sites on the landscape is quite different from the Low-er and Middle Paleolithic patterns Artifacts of this time pe-riod including blade cores endscrapers backed bladestruncated elements geometric microliths and burins are

Journal ofField ArchaeologyjVol 30~2005 289

found in high-density clusters rather than as isolates andthese high-density locations are relatively close to the NileValleyIn other words very specific locations on the land-scape attracted Epipaleolithic peoples There is little sup-porting evidence in the form of architecture or other fea-tures to suggest that these high -density locales were vil-

290 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydosy EgyptOlszewski et ale

o 2cm-==J

Figure 5 Typical Levallois flakes from the project area Site ASPS-17-6 (A17-6) Levallois point site ASPS-33-20 (A33-20) Leval-lois point site ASPS-22-1 (A22-1) Levallois flake and site ASPS-46A-805 (A46A-805) Levallois point

lages rather than temporary camps (eg Wendorf andSchild 1980 270 Wendorpound Schild and Close 1984 6-7)

Middle Paleolithic use of this landscape is the most ap-parent and potentially complex There are localities withrelatively high densities of material resulting from preparedcore technologies including Nubian techniques and asso-ciated flake debris (FIGS 5 6) There are also isolated fmdsof these cores and bifacial foliates In general the frequen-cy of Nubian and Levallois cores at a particular sample lo-cation appears to be correlated with the overall artifact den-sity at that location and Nubian and Levallois techniquesappear to vary independently What is less clear at presentis the degree to which the by-products of these technolo-gies are represented in the landscape Of particular interestare the various point forms that result from Nubian tech-nology If these represent a hafted projectile point technol-ogy related to hunting then we might expect to fmd clus-ters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting

858-1

o 2cm-==J

Figure 6 Typical Levallois and Nubian cores from the project areaSite ASPS-22-4 (A22-4) Nubian core site S92-1 Levallois coresite S58-1 Nubian core

stands where tool maintenance activities would have tal(enplace Thus far such locales have not been identified

Investigations at High-Density LocalesIn addition to the survey three locations were selected

for more intensive study because of their relatively highlithic densities attributable to either the Middle Paleolithicor Epipaleolithic Two of these ASPS-46 and -46A arecontiguous concentrations of relatively dense lithic scatterson a hilltop just west of the Wadi Umm al-Qaab The sur-face of ASPS-46 is a desert pavement of mixed limestoneand naturally occurring shattered flint with artifacts ofboth the Middle Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (FIG 2)

The Middle Paleolithic artifacts which are heavily desert-varnished tend to be scattered across the hilltop while theEpipaleolithic artifacts are more highly concentrated in thenorth and NE areas of the hilltop (FIG 3) ASPS-46A lo-cated on the southern portion of the hilltop contains Mid-

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

290 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydosy EgyptOlszewski et ale

o 2cm-==J

Figure 5 Typical Levallois flakes from the project area Site ASPS-17-6 (A17-6) Levallois point site ASPS-33-20 (A33-20) Leval-lois point site ASPS-22-1 (A22-1) Levallois flake and site ASPS-46A-805 (A46A-805) Levallois point

lages rather than temporary camps (eg Wendorf andSchild 1980 270 Wendorpound Schild and Close 1984 6-7)

Middle Paleolithic use of this landscape is the most ap-parent and potentially complex There are localities withrelatively high densities of material resulting from preparedcore technologies including Nubian techniques and asso-ciated flake debris (FIGS 5 6) There are also isolated fmdsof these cores and bifacial foliates In general the frequen-cy of Nubian and Levallois cores at a particular sample lo-cation appears to be correlated with the overall artifact den-sity at that location and Nubian and Levallois techniquesappear to vary independently What is less clear at presentis the degree to which the by-products of these technolo-gies are represented in the landscape Of particular interestare the various point forms that result from Nubian tech-nology If these represent a hafted projectile point technol-ogy related to hunting then we might expect to fmd clus-ters of points and point manufacture debris at hunting

858-1

o 2cm-==J

Figure 6 Typical Levallois and Nubian cores from the project areaSite ASPS-22-4 (A22-4) Nubian core site S92-1 Levallois coresite S58-1 Nubian core

stands where tool maintenance activities would have tal(enplace Thus far such locales have not been identified

Investigations at High-Density LocalesIn addition to the survey three locations were selected

for more intensive study because of their relatively highlithic densities attributable to either the Middle Paleolithicor Epipaleolithic Two of these ASPS-46 and -46A arecontiguous concentrations of relatively dense lithic scatterson a hilltop just west of the Wadi Umm al-Qaab The sur-face of ASPS-46 is a desert pavement of mixed limestoneand naturally occurring shattered flint with artifacts ofboth the Middle Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (FIG 2)

The Middle Paleolithic artifacts which are heavily desert-varnished tend to be scattered across the hilltop while theEpipaleolithic artifacts are more highly concentrated in thenorth and NE areas of the hilltop (FIG 3) ASPS-46A lo-cated on the southern portion of the hilltop contains Mid-

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

Table 1 Typological and technological indices for MiddlePaleolithic sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-49

ASPS-46AN

ASPS-49NArtifact type

13571442671

19547175

Complete flakesLevallois flakes subset

Flake fragmentsTools

61941162070134836114493951282

CoresLevalloisNubian 1Nubian 2Nubian indeterminateOther

Ratio of complete flakes to cores126696

Table 2 Core data for Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

Core measurement Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 Other

LengthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 6493 6525 812 6668Standard deviation 1418 1495 1866 1827

WidthNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 5129 4838 6025 4807Standard deviation 922 1138 1593 1267

ThicknessNumber 45 17 5 82Mean (mm) 1948 1939 247 2463Standard deviation 547 729 1325 945

WeightNumber 46 17 5 121Mean (g) 8176 8794 144 8988Standard deviation 4035 5742 9639 7368

Table 3 Middle Paleolithic flale size by cortical stage at siteASPS-46A

Artifact type Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Weight (g)

Cortical 427 289 9 162Partly cortical 432 266 86 158Non-cortical 39 238 64 91

dle Paleolithic artifacts with less desert varnish These aredensely concentrated in sandy deposits found within a fieldof small limestone boulders

The third location ASPS-49 is on the eastern side ofWadi Umm al-Qaab It is closer to the Nile Valley escarp-ment than ASPS-46 and a bit further from Wadi Umm al-Qaab and its tributaries As with ASPS-46 it occupies thehigh ground in the immediate vicinity and artifact densitieswithin the site appear to be directly correlated withchanges in elevation (FIG 4) Also like ASPS-46 the sur-face is a desert pavement of naturally shattered flint Thestone artifacts are characterized by Middle Paleolithic ele-

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30y 2005 291

A0046A A0049

Figure 7 Percentage of cortical pieces in Middle Paleolithic sites ASPS-46A (A0046A) and ASPS-49 (A0049)

ments and the horizontal integrity of the assemblage is at-tested to by numerous instances of multiple refits encoun-tered during collection

Middle Paleolithic SitesThe Middle Paleolithic site of ASPS-46A is the only

high -density locale where a total collection was made andfor which all artifacts greater than 25 cm were point-provenienced In addition each artifact was analyzed indi-vidually including observations on cortex dimensionsand weight ASPS-49 on the other hand was sampledwith a systematic radial pattern wherein all lithic materialwas collected from circles of 05 m radius These individualcollections were each analyzed as an aggregate

The basic inventory of the two assemblages is shown inTables 1 and 2 The general lack of retouched tools at thesetwo sites reflects a pattern that is characteristic of EgyptianMiddle Paleolithic sites in general The tools that are pre-sent especially at ASPS-49 are notches This tool type andthe low frequency of tools overall are of little diagnosticvalue The Middle Paleolithic nature of the locales is indi-cated by the presence of Levallois and Nubian cores Thepercentage of Levallois flakes (calculated as a percentage oftotal complete flalces and including those removed fromNubian cores) is low and differs substantially between sites(106 at ASPS-46A and only 187 at ASPS-49) Thenumber ofLevallois flalcesper Levallois core (Levallois andNubian) is similar however (21 at ASPS-46A and 13 atASPS-49) These numbers are comparable to data report-ed by Van Peer (1998 S124) for quarry sites in the NileValleyWhat remains to be seen however is whether thesenumbers may change when points and point cores are con-sidered separately from traditional Levallois cores VanPeer (1998) has argued that Levallois cores and Nubianpoints were taken away from the site whereas Nubian cores

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-4040-45 45-50 50-5555--60 60-65 65-70 gt70

Weight in grams

292 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptjOlszeJvski et ale

270

252

234

216

198

180()~ 162g0 144ID0 126EJz 108

90

72

54

36

18

1-5

Figure 8 Distribution of artifact weights at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

and Levallois flakes were discarded at the site In our sam-ple Levallois cores are found far more frequently at thesesites than Nubian cores A more detailed analysis of theflaleesis underway and for the moment we cannot confi-dently linle the Levallois flaleesto either Levallois or Nu-bian reduction sequences It is interesting that in terms ofsize which can be an indicator of reduction intensity and aproxy for transport Levallois cores and Nubian Type 1cores at site ASPS-46A are similar in size while NubianType 2 cores are significantly larger Whether this is relatedto technological constraints of the Type 2 Nubian ap-proach or whether this indicates that these cores func-tioned differently in Middle Paleolithic technological orga-nizationsettlement systems is unclear Moreover in ouranalysis of the Nubian type cores the technological dis-tinction between Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 was generallyclear but cores frequently combined attributes of bothtypes

Overall the data suggest that site ASPS-49 which is byfar the larger and denser of the two sites exhibits evidencefor a somewhat higher degree of core reduction (Levalloisand non-Levallois) than does ASPS-46A The nUlnber ofblanles (complete and proximal flalees retouched or not)per core at ASPS-49 is nearly double that of ASPS-46AGiven this we expected that ASPS-49 would have morenon-cortical flaleesand this is the case (FIG 7) On the oth-er hand the data from ASPS-46A show the expected rela-tionship between flaleesize and cortex cortical flaleestendto be larger than partly cortical ones which are in turn larg-er than non-cortical ones (TABLE 3 Dibble 1995 Dibble etale2005) These data suggest that the assemblages at these

two locations represent in situ flintlmapping and have beenrelatively little affected by the import or export of artifacts

In terms of the integrity of these assemblages it wouldappear that they suffered little post-depositional winnow-ing In Figure 8 the distribution of flalee weights fromASPS-46A is what we expect from an intact assemblageThe cut-off for collection (25 em in maximum dimension)and lack of screening at the site means that the very small-est component is not represented On the other hand atboth sites there was a relatively high degree of edge dam-age probably the result of trampling

The point-provenienced data from ASPS-46A malee itpossible to further analyze the spatial patterning for be-havioral and taphonomic factors Spatially the approxi-mately 150 sq m location consists of a single rougWy cir-cular concentration of 1827 artifacts greater than 25 em insize (FIG 9) The quantity of artifacts is much greater thanwhat one expects from a reduction of a single or even a fewblock(s) of raw material assuming a single lmapping posi-tion (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980 Schick 1986 19911997) It is clear that the topography of the location ex-plains neither the overall artifact density (FIG lOA) nor theaverage weight distribution (FIG lOB) Indeed on a muchsmaller scale it is clear that artifacts are trapped topograph-ically between the medium -sized limestone blocks becausethe slope is not steep enough to have contributed to themovement of artifacts (Rick 1976) The average weightdensity map (FIG lOB) shows a pattern in which relativelyheavy items are found further downslope from the areas ofhighest artifact concentration a pattern that matches Bin-fords (1978) three-zone model which has been shown to

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 293

GO

o 00 0

o )0

clli OC

0

o Flakes and Flake Fragments

[] Tools

10746 I-----+---+---+---+---+--co-----+c bull-a-bull --+----+---+---+----+------+------l---l----l----l----+----I----l

-D4

Figure 9 Plan view of the distribution of artifacts at Middle Paleolithic site ASPS-46A

be applicable to archaeological sites (eg De Bie and Cas-par 2000 Stevenson 1991) In this particular case howev-er the areal extent of the distribution seems to be largerthan expected

A central area with high artifact density often character-izes the spatial distribution of lithic concentrationsAround this center are zones with lower densities Siteswith this spatial layout particularly ones with a central fea-ture such as a hearth have been investigated using thecommon center as a reference point to examine differencesbetween zones near and further away from the center (Sta-

pert 1989 1990 De Bie and Caspar 2000) Here we ap-ply a similar method using the average x and y coordinatesof all artifacts as our arbitrary center When the number ofartifacts in 50 em-wide circular bands emanating from thecenter is examined (FIG 1IA) the number of artifacts pre-sent in each circular band steadily decreases from the cen-ter Note that that this is true despite the larger area cov-ered by each consecutive circular zone The bimodal pat-tern said to accompany a typical drop and toss zone (Sta-pert 1989) is not present in ASPS-46A When the averageartifact mass is examined in this same manner (FIG IIB) it

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

294 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

I I Il I I - I I I I

d (J1 t ~10758 ()l ~- (j 0gt------ ltq lt~Ir ) gt- (Jl

0 0 j

~

)J

120

I10754 t

bullbull )

I 80I

Il

10750 40- It

bullbull-------- ------ 0bullbull --

107469716 9720 9724 9728 9732

A

10758 ---- bull bull 2400 ~

~ (j

~

180

-10754 --

120I

III

10750 I 60-------- bullbull

010746

9716 9720 9724 9728 9732B

Figure 10 The topography at site ASPS-46A A) Artifact counts B) Averageartifact weight (g) superimposed The numbers on the maps represent the rela-tive elevations in meters

is clear that only artifacts with smaller masses are foundaway from the common center with peaks in the 4 m and7m bands

These data indicate that sheet wash and local topogra-phy did not significantly influence the distribution of arti-facts at ASPS-46A The spatial patterns expected with ei-ther of these natural phenomena would not result in larg-er pieces being further away from the center of artifact den-sity On the other hand trampling could have contributedto this pattern While it is not possible to distinguish the

relative effect of each of these in the current scatter we canpoint to some elements that might help clarify the record-ed archaeological patterns

Based on experiments there is clear evidence that tram-piing affects the horizontal spatial distribution of artifactsbut that no significant correlation between size and dis-tance traveled has been established (Gifford-Gonzalez1985 Nielsen 1991 Villa and Courtin 1983) Theoreti-cally trampling might homogenize the distribution of var-ious artifact classes Likewise categories of lithic artifacts

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

C 200Joot5~

~

A

B

350

300

250

150

100

50

o0-05

1-15

5-55

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 295

6-65

7-75

2-25

3-35

4-45

Distance in meters from the common center

504540

3530252015105

o0-05

2-25

5-55

6-65

7-75

3-35

4-45

1-15

Distance in meters from the common center

Figure 11 Artifact density graphs A) Number of artifacts B) Average artifact weight in 05m-wide rings around the common center of all artifacts

such as cores Levallois flakes and broken flakes mighthave received differential treatment during flintknapping atASPS-46A resulting in a different spatial layout for eachcategory A good example of such patterning was observedat Rekem 15 a site interpreted as the result of a discretelmapping episode (De Bie and Caspar 2000) where corestools and debris were shown to have different horizontaldistributions One way to examine the spatial distribution

of such artifact classesaround a central point is a radar chart(FIG 12) As the figure shows there is very little differencebetween the overall distributions of artifact types in ASPS-46A however Perhaps then the relative homogeneity ofthe artifact distributions at our sites could be due to tram-pling or the action of different perhaps repeated flint-lmapping episodes that although overlapping did notneatly coincide with one another

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

296 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at AbydosJ EgyptOlszewski et ale

T--= =--_1

III

1

1

I

II11I

11~

4

2

Figure 12 Mean distance of all cores fragments or complete flakesfrom the common center of all artifacts from Middle Paleolithic siteASPS-46A computed for a total of eight 450 segments

Table 4 Epipaleolithic assemblages from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flakes 120 446 839 400 164 453Blades 42 156 351 168 83 229Bladelets 15 56 150 72 33 91Burin spalls - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburins - - 8 04 - -Fragments 75 279 576 275 64 177Flake cores 4 15 35 17 4 11Bladebladelet cores 3 11 59 28 3 08Mixed cores - - 1 lt01 - -Tested nodules - - 8 04 - -

Core fragments 1 04 26 12 1 03Tools 9 33 41 19 8 22Total 269 2095 362

In summary the lithic analysis indicates that multiplecores were reduced at ASPS-46A We do not knowwhether this represents one or multiple flintknappingepisodes Spatial analysis of the piece-provenienced arti-facts suggests that if the knapping episodes occurred at dif-ferent times they nevertheless took place in a similar albeitnot tightly defined area While further analysis is neces-sary the initial spatial analysis indicates that tramplingmight have played a role in the current distribution of ar-

Table 5 Details of Epipaleolithic debitage from sites ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Flake 477 435 474

Complete 81 322 624 324 139 401Proximal 14 56 79 41 19 55Small laquo25 mm) 25 99 132 68 3 09Core tablet - - 4 02 3 09

Blade 167 183 24Complete 24 96 240 125 64 185Proximal 18 71 105 55 19 55Platform blade - - 6 03 - -

Bladelet 59 78 95Complete 9 35 104 54 21 6Proximal 6 24 46 24 12 35

Medial blank 15 59 86 45 14 4Distal blank 60 238 490 255 50 144Burin spall - - 1 lt01 2 06Microburin 04

Regular - - 7 04 - -Krukowski - - 1 lt01 - -

Total 252 1925 346

tifacts within this area though other behavioral processesmay also be a factor When the spatial distribution of arti-facts is considered at the landscape scale however the dis-turbance of artifact locations is minimal

Epipaleolithic SitesThe surface of the third site ASPS-46 was collected us-

ing two strategies and a small test unit was also excavatedThe first surface collection consisted of intersecting lines ofcontiguous 1 x 1 m squares laid out across the site Theserun approximately N-S and E-W All of the units in the cen-tral portion of the perpendicular transects were collectedwith the approach shifting to collection of every third unitin each line beyond this central section (FIG 3) The secondstrategy involved selecting a portion of the site that ap-peared to contain high densities of Epipaleolithic artifactscreating a 5 x 5 m grid and collecting 100 of the arti-facts in each 1 x 1 m unit of the grid The assemblagesfrom these collections are presented here in conjunctionwith two similar sites with Epipaleolithic artifacts ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A ASPS-16A is immediately north ofASPS-46 and ASPS-55A is 250 m to the sw of ASPS-16AThe samples from these two sites each come from a single1 m-radius circle

An overview of the major components of the lithic as-semblages at each site is shown in Table 4 All artifacts wereanalyzed including pieces less than 25 cm in dimensionbecause such small artifacts such as microburins and mi-croliths can be important temporal indicators Not surpris-ingly there is a relatively close correspondence between the

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

Table 6 Details of Epipaleolithic cores and debitage from ASPS-16A-46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N ~ N Flake cores

Single platform 1 125 2 25Single surface 2 25 16 124Opposed platformMultiple platform 1 125 8 62 2 25Other 11 85

Bladebladelet coresSingle platform 34 264 2 25Opposed platform 3 375 20 155 1 125Prismatic 4 31Other 1 08

Mixed cores 1 08Core test 8 62Core fragments 1 125 26 201 1 125Total 8 129 8

Table 7 Epipaleolithic tools from ASPS-16A -46 and -55A

ASPS-16A ASPS-46 ASPS-55AArtifact type N N N Scrapers

Blade endscrapers 2 49Flal(e endscrapers 2 49

BurinsAngle dihedral 3 73 1 125Off natural edge 1 1l1 1 24Off truncation 1 1l1 1 24Flat 1 24

Backed piecesTrapeze-shaped 1 125

TruncationsTruncated blades 7 171 -Truncated flakes 1 1l1 1 125

Geometric microlithsScalene triangle 1 1l1 2 49

Nongeometric microlithsArched 1 125Pointed 5 122 -

Truncated 4 97Fragment 2 49 2 25

N otchdenticulatesNotch 1 1l1 4 97 2 25Denticulate 2 49

Retouched blades 4 444 5 122 -

Total 9 41 8

three sites with the largest collection (ASPS-46) exhibit-ing a slightly greater range of types including microburinsASPS-55A differs slightly in having a greater representa-tion of blade and bladelet debitage which is likely becausefewer fragmented pieces were collected from this site Pre-liminary observations of the raw materials used at thesethree sites suggest that the range of raw material is limitedto three separate types of stone

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 297

Examination of the flintlmappers debitage (TABLE 5)shows that ASPS-55A is somewhat different from the oth-er two sites The frequency in the percentage of distal frag-ments is about 10 lower tllere Whether this is due tosampling (the collection from ASPS-55A is small com-pared to ASPS-46 but of similar size to ASPS-16A) or todifferences in lithic reduction processes at the sites cannotbe presently determined The presence of a few core tabletsin the flalcedebitage and a few platform or ridge blades in-dicates that core platform rejuvenation occurred Theserepresent both refurbishment of the same platform (coretablets) and the creation of new platforms (platformblades) Metrics for debitage at ASPS-46 tlle largest sam-ple show that blades average 52 mm in length bladelets34 mm and flakes 38 mm Flalcestend to outweigh blades(flakes average 114 g and blades 72 g) indicating the gen-erally thicker nature of flakes compared to blades (an aver-age of78 mm for the former and 59 mm for the latter)

ASPS-46 yielded a good sample of cores (TABLE 6)These are weighted somewhat in favor of blade andbladelet cores (46) compared to flake cores (27) Thisresult is not unexpected given the tendency of Epipale-olithic assemblages to be based on blade technology Thepresence of tested nodules often with a single flake re-moved suggests that the source of raw material may beclose to the site The limited number of cores from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A precludes any detailed observations

Tool assemblages from ASPS-16A and ASPS-55A arelimited (TABLE 7) The presence of microliths both non-geometric and geometric forms serves as a temporal mark-er aligning these two occupations with that of ASPS-46The somewhat larger tool assemblage from ASPS-46 ischaracterized in decreasing order of frequency by mi-croliths truncations notch denticulates burins retouchedblades and endscrapers (FIG 13) The presence of scalenetriangles suggests that this assemblage is from the Epipale-olithic period perhaps dating to the interval between 9000and 7800 bp (Wendorf and Schild 1980 257-259) Be-cause pottery was not found at any of these locations it fur-ther suggests an Epipaleolithic affiliation rather than anEarly Neolithic one (Midant-Reynes 2000)

Finally to examine subsurface potential at high desertopen-air sites we excavated one 1 x 1 m unit (Test A) inthe northern portion of ASPS-46 where a relatively denseconcentration of Epipaleolithic artifacts is found All arti-facts from the surface and the excavation were point-prove-nienced using a total station Lithics were recovered to adepth of 10 em The generally small size of subsurface ar-tifacts (the median of which is 3 g in weight the mode 05g in weight but the average weight of 112 g is due to thepresence of one large flalceand two large cores in the im-

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

298 High Desert Paleolithic Survey atAbydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

o 3cm

B

F

J1

I

~c

A

o

E

Figure 13 Epipaleolithic artifacts from site ASPS-46 A) Burin B) Truncation C) Scalene triangleD) Microburin E-F) Bladejbladelet cores G) Endscraper

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

mediate subsurface) adds support to the desert pavementformation model discussed above wherein the surfacegrows upward There is some indication of minor pedo-genic activity and the sediment within the test unit belowthe first few centimeters is relatively compact The test unitwas excavated to just above bedrock approximately 30 cmbelow the surface

Discussion and ConclusionsSystematic survey of the high desert for Paleolithic oc-

currences has been rarely undertaken and then only on aquite limited scale (eg Mandel and Simmons 2001 Sim-mons and Mandel 1986) We have begun a much more ex-tensive program to document the Paleolithic landscape ofthe high desert by collecting information from both high-density and low density sites as well as exploring a muchlarger portion of this landscape resulting in investigationof the first of several sections in the high desert in the Aby-dos area Given the typological range of materials presentour results fit well with the overall pattern known from theNile Valleycorridor vith Middle Paleolithic artifacts beingthe most common in the landscape

The Middle PaleolithicIn Van Peers terminology it is clear at a minimum that

the Nubian Complex is present as evidenced primarily byNubian cores As noted in the introduction whether theLower Nile Valley Complex is also present is harder to de-termine given that it is primarily defined by the presence ofthe Levallois technique and the absence of other diagnos-tic types Levallois is certainly represented in the highdesert near Abydos but as Levallois occurs in both the Nu-bian Complex and Lower Nile Valley Complex its pres-ence cannot be used to discriminate between the two

In the context of Van Peers (1998 2001) settlementmodels particularly for the Nubian Complex the highdesert data include a surprising number of Nubian coresAccording to Van Peer Nubian cores are designed to pro-duce pointed flakes that may have been functionally specif-ic tools possibly used for hunting In this case one wouldexpect to find Nubian cores as waste products primarily atquarry and domestic sites and the points primarily at spe-cialized activity sites Furthermore in Van Peers modelquarry sites are located on Nile Valley terraces and domes-tic sites are either in the floodplain or on the terraces Thehigh desert if used at all would have been for specializedactivities Thus one would not expect to find Nubian coresbeing carried into the desert but our high desert data sug-gest that Nubian core reduction along with standard Lev-allois core reduction was talcing place there

Another interesting characteristic of these Middle Pale-

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 299

olithic assemblages is the almost complete lack of re-touched tools This is true not only for ASPS-46A andASPS-49 but is also apparent in the systematic 100 m col-lections and is a generally known pattern for this part ofEgypt Why retouched tools particularly scrapers are sorare especially in contrast to European Mousterian assem-blages from the same time period or even Middle StoneAge assemblages from sub-Saharan Mrica is an unresolvedquestion

The EpipaleolithicAlthough our high desert landscape contains mainly ar-

tifacts of Paleolithic age we also found occurrences datingto the Epipaleolithic The presence of these prehistoricgroups of the early Holocene in desert areas is linked else-where in Egypt to the occurrence of pluvial periods whenconditions in the deserts were somewhat more favorablethan they are today (Hassan and Gross 1987 McDonald1991) In some instances seasonal playas with prehistoricoccupations were present at some distance into the highdesert region (eg Wendorf Schild and Close 1984)

From our preliminary survey work in the Abydos re-gion the most strilcing aspects of our high-density Epi-paleolithic locales are their rarity and their highly clusteredpresence in the landscape All three known locales are cen-tered on or near a small tributary wadi to the Wadi Ummal-Qaab The mouth of this tributary is blocked by a mas-sive sand dune that has prevented the erosion of the sedi-ments within the tributary and has served to trap moisturein the sediments Even under the modern hyper-arid con-ditions where decades can pass without rainfall we ob-served a large area of cracked mud in this tributary andsmall shrubs all evidence of water Additionally althoughwe cannot be certain of its age because of the nearby pres-ence of later Roman structures there is a stone-built semi-circular structure at ASPS-16A that is similar to Epipale-olithic Masara C hut structures reported in McDonald(1991 87-89) These Masara C structures are interpretedas evidence for limited sedentism (McDonald 1991104-105)

Based on the presence of Epipaleolithic locales in thearea we surveyed in 2002-2003 it is evident that prehis-toric groups made use of the high desert during availableopportunities that were created by conditions that amelio-rated this landscape It is possible that such groups werenot dissimilar to modern desert nomads whose keen ob-servations of cloud patterns and highly localized rainfallevents allow them to traverse barren areas (Thesiger 1991)It is our expectation however that barring the discoveryof ancient playas in the high desert areas remaining to besurveyed Epipaleolithic locales will rarely if ever be en-

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

300 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

countered as we move farther away from the Nile corridorand into the high desert

Future WorkThe analysis of the collections to date is incomplete and

a number of questions remain to be answered by addition-al survey When the project started the question waswhether the study area contained evidence of Paleolithicactivities That question has been answered positively Thequestion now is to explain the high density of artifacts inthis area and to assess the limits of this pattern Based onour data the random placement of aIm circle on thislandscape has a ca 6000 chance of producing Paleolithicmaterials What is not clear is whether these odds hold asone moves further from the Nile Valley It is also not yetclear to what extent the accessprovided by the Wadi Ummal-Qaab structures the landscape data Preliminary datasuggest that artifact densities may decline as one movesaway from this wadi and subsequent field seasons will at-tempt to verify this The expanded survey area will also in-clude 42 sq km of spring carbonates (tufas) in the South-ern Embayment mapped by Iltlitszch List and Pohlmann(1987) Tufas in the Western Desert of Egypt are directlydatable paleoclimatic archives that occasionally preservestratified archaeological material (Caton-Thompson 1952Sultan et al 1997 Nicoll Giegengack and Iltleindienst1999 Smith Giegengack and Schwarcz 2004 Smith etal 2004 Iltleindienst et al in press) Thus evaluation ofthe potential of the Southern Embayment tufas will be ahigh priority

Fundamental to this work are continued geomorpho-logical studies focusing on understanding landscape for-mation and taphonomic processes affecting artifact accu-mulations on desert pavements One aspect of this will beto conduct GIS-based morphometric analyses of thedrainage pattern on the Libyan Plateau in order to assessthe maturity of the drainage systems and to understand theconditions that formed them Al-Farraj and Harvey (2000)collected data on desert pavement clasts and developed amaturity index for desert pavement based on clast sizesorting angularity and fracturing It may be possible touse this index as a guide to evaluate the disturbance of sitesLastly experimental data will be collected to evaluate therates magnitude and nature of processes affecting archae-ological material deposited on desert pavement These ex-periments will involve multi -year studies of areas cleared ofclasts of areas cleared and then seeded with lithic materialand of areas where lithic material is added to the existingdesert pavement It is anticipated that these experimentswill provide quantitative estimates of artifact transport thatare specific to the Libyan Plateau of Middle Egypt which

can then be used in evaluating other instances of observedartifact assemblages

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Supreme Council for An-

tiquities and Zahi Hawass Secretary General for permis-sion to do this work We also thank Zein elAbdin ZalciDi-rector General of Antiquities for Sohag Mohammed AbdEI Aziz Chief Inspector Balliana and Ashraf Sayeed Mah-moud Inspector of Antiquities We also extend our warmand appreciative thanks to Amira IZhattab of ARCE for allher help in malcing this project possible Lithics weredrawn by Laurent Chiotti for which we are very gratefulThis work was part of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition toAbydos and we thank Matthew Adams and David OCon-nor who helped greatly in facilitating our work Lastlythanks to the Egyptian staff and field crews for their effortsFunding was made possible in large part by a generouscontribution by A Bruce Mainwaring and the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolo-gy and by a grant from the Lealcey Foundation This isASPS Contribution No3

Deborah I Olszewski) Adjunct Associate Professor in the De-partment ofAnthropology and Research Associate at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum ofAnthropology and Archae-ology)specializes in Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic archaeologyof the Middle East and Egypt Mailing address DepartmentofAnthropology) University Museum) 3260 South Street)Philadelphia) PA 19104

Harold L Dibble) Professor ofAnthropology at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania) has excavated a number of sites in Eu-rope and published numerous studies of collectionsfrom theNear Ea5ty as well as on topics ofgeneral lithic method andtheory Mailing address Department ofAnthropology) Uni-versity Museum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Utsav A Schurmans is a graduate student in the PhDprogram in the Department ofAnthropology at the Universityof Pennsylvania His interests include the relationship betweenthe Middle Paleolithic of the Near East and North AfricaMailing address Department ofAnthropology) UniversityMuseum) 3260 South Streety Philadelphia) PA 19104

Shannon P McPherron) Research Scientist at the MaxPlanck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) is an archae-ologist interested in human evolution He works on Lower andMiddle Paleolithic sites in East Africa) North Africa) and swFrance Mailing address Department of Human Evolution)Deutscher Platz 6) 04103 Leipzig) Germany

Jennifer R Smith) Assistant Professor of Earth and Plane-tary Sciences at Washington University in St Louis) is ageoarchaeologist interested in climate and landscape recon-

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

struction in desert and karst regionsMailing address Wash-ington University) Campus Box 1169) 1 Brookings Drive) StLouis) MO 63130

Al-Farraj Asma and Adrian M Harvey2000 Desert Pavement Characteristics on Wadi Terrace and Al-

luvial Fan Surfaces Wadi Al-Bih UAE and Oman Geo-morphology 35 279-297

Binford Lewis1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behaviour and Site Structure

Learning From an Eskimo Hunting Stand American An-tiquity 43 330-361

Caton-Thompson Gertrude1952 J(hallJa Oasis in Prehistory London Athlone Press

Chmielewski Waldemar1968 Early and Middle Paleolithic Sites near Arkin Sudan in

Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory of Nubia 1 Dallas FortBurgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press 110-147

Churcher Charles S and Anthony J Mills editors1999 Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987 Ox-

ford Oxbow Books

Close Angela E editor1980 Loaves and Fishes The Prehistory of the Wadi J(ubbaniya Dal-

las Department of Anthropology Institute for the Studyof Earth and Man Southern Methodist University

1990 Living on the Edge Neolithic Herders in the Eastern Sa-hara Antiquity 64 79-96

De Bie Marc and Jean-Paul Caspar2000 Rekem A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank 1 Leu-

ven Leuven University Press

Dibble Harold L1995 Biache-Saint-Vaast Level Ira A Comparison of Ap-

proaches in Harold L Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef edsThe Definition and Jnterpretation of Levallois VariabilityMadison Prehistory Press 93-116

Dibble Harold L Ustav A Schurmans Radu P Iovita and Michaelv McLaughlin

2005 The Measurement and Interpretation of Cortex in LithicAssemblages American Antiquity 70 545-560

Gifford-Gonzalez Diane1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure An Experiment in

Trampling and Vertical Dispersal American Antiquity 50803-818

Guichard Jean and Genevieve Guichard1965 The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia A Prelimi-

nary Report in Fred Wendorf ed Contributions to the Pre-history of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press 57-116

1968 Contributions to the Study of the Early and Middle Pale-olithic of Nubia in Fred Wendorf ed The Prehistory ofNubia Dallas Fort Burgwin Research Center and South-ern Methodist University Press 148-193

Haff Peter K and B T Werner1996 Dynamical Processes on Desert Pavements and the Heal-

ing of Surficial Disturbances Quaternary Research 4538-46

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVol 30) 2005 301

Hassan Fekri A1974 The Archaeology of the Dishna Plain The Geological Survey of

Egypt Paper 59 Cairo The Geological Survey of Egypt

1986 Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of theWestern Fayum Journal of Archaeological Science 13483-501

Hassan Fekri A and G Timothy Gross1987 Resources and Subsistence During the Early Holocene at

Siwa Oasis Northern Egypt in Angela Close ed Prehis-tory of Arid North Africa Essays in Honor of Fred WendoifDallas Southern Methodist University 85-103

Haynes C Vance Jr T A Maxwell D L Johnson and Ali Kilani2001 Research Note Acheulian Sites near Bir Kiseiba in the

Darb el Arbain Desert Egypt New Data Geoarchaeology16 143-150

Hill Christopher L2001 Geologic Contexts of the Acheulian (Middle Pleistocene)

in the Eastern Sahara Geoarchaeology 16 65-94Kleindeinst Maxine R

1999 Pleistocene Archaeology and Geoarchaeology of theDakhleh Oasis A Status Report in C S Churcher and AJ Mills eds Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis1977-1987 Oxford Oxbow Books 83-115

Kleindienst Maxine R Henry P Schwarcz Kathleen Nicoll CharlesS Churcher Jaqueline Frizano Robert Giegengack and Marcia FWiseman

in press Water in the Desert First Report on Uranium-series Dat-ing of Caton-Thompsons and Gardners classic Pleis-tocene Sequence at Refuf Pass Kharga Oasis in M FWiseman ed Oasis Papers II Proceedings of the SecondDakhleh Oasis Project Research Seminar Oxford OxbowBooks

Klitzsch Eberhard Franz List and Gerhard Pohlmann1987 GeologicalMap of Egypt NG36NW Asyut Cairo Conoco-

EGPCKutzbach J and Z Liu

1997 Response of the Mrican Monsoon to Orbital Forcing andOcean Feedbacks in the Middle Holocene Science 278440-443

Lubell David1974 The Fakhurian A Late Paleolithic Jndustry from Upper Egypt

The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper No 58 Cairo The Ge-ological Survey of Egypt

Luo Wei Raymond E Arvidson Mohamed Sultan Richard BeckerMary K Crombie Neil Sturchio and Zeinhorn E AlfY

1997 Ground-water Sapping Processes Western DesertEgypt GSA Bulletin 109(1) 43-62

McDonald Mary M A1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-

dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 10 315-329

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project Second Preliminary Report onLithic Industries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Soci-ety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 225-231

1982 Dakhleh Oasis Project Preliminary Report on Lithic In-dustries in the Dakhleh Oasis Journal of the Society for theStudy of Egyptian Antiquities 12 115-138

1991 Technological Organization and Sedentism in the Epi-palaeolithic of Daldlleh Oasis Egypt African Archaeologi-cal Review 9 81-109

302 High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos) EgyptOlszewski et al

Mandel Rolfe D and Alan H Simmons2001 Prehistoric Occupation of Late Quaternary Landscapes

near Iltharga Oasis Western Desert of Egypt Geoarchaeol-ogy 16 95-117

Midant-Reynes Beatrix2000 The Prehistory of Egypt From the First Egyptians to the First

Pharoahs) 1 Shaw trans Oxford Blackwell Publishers

Newcomer Mark and Gale de G Sieveking1980 Experimental Flake Scatter-Patterns A New Interpreta-

tive Technique Journal of Field Archaeology 7 345-352

Nicoll Kathleen Robert Giegengack and Maxine Kleindienst1999 Petrogenesis of Artifact-bearing Fossil-spring Tufa De-

posits from Kharga Oasis Egypt Geoarchaeology 14849-863

Nielsen Axel E1991 Trampling the Archaeological Record An Experimental

Study American Antiquity 56 483-503

Olszewski Deborah I Shannon l McPherron Harold L Dibbleand Mari Soressi

2001 Middle Egypt in Prehistory A Search for the Origins ofModern Human Behavior and Human Dispersal Expedi-tion 43(2) 31-37

Phillips James L1973 Two Final Paleolithic Sites in the Nile Valley and their Exter-

nal Relations The Geological Survey of Egypt Paper 57 CairoThe Geological Survey of Egypt

Rick John W1976 Downslope Movement and Archaeological Intrasite Spa-

tial Analysis American Antiquity 41 133-144

Sandford Kenneth S1934 Paleolithic Man and the Nile Valley in Middle and Upper

Egypt Oriental Institute Publications 18Chicago Universi-ty of Chicago

Schick Kathy D1986 Stone Age Sites in the Making Experiments in the Formation

and Transformation of Archaeological Occurrences BAR In-ternational Series 319 Oxford BAR

1991 On Making Behavioral Inferences from Early Archaeo-logical Sites in J D Clark ed Cultural Beginnings Ap-proaches to Understanding Early Hominid Lift-Ways in theAfrican Savanna Rnmisch-Germaniches ZentralmuseumMonographien Band 19 Bonn Romisch-GermanichesZentralmuseum 79-107

1997 Experimental Studies of Site-Formation Processes in GL Isaac and B Isaac eds I(oobi Fora Research Project Ox-ford Clarendon Press 244-256

Schild Romuald editor2001 The Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara New York

Kluwer

Simmons Alan H and Rolfe D Mandel editors1986 Prehistoric Occupation of a Matginal Environment An Ar-

chaeological Survey near I(hatga Oasis in the 1iVesternDesert ofEgypt BAR International Series 303 Oxford BAR

Smith Jennifer R Robert Giegengack and Henry P Schwarcz2004 Constraints on Pleistocene Pluvial Climates through Sta-

ble-isotope Analysis of Fossil-spring Tufas and AssociatedGastropods Iltharga Oasis Egypt Palaeogeography) Palaeo-climatology) Palaeoecology 206 (1-2) 157-179

Smith Jennifer R Robert Giegengack Henry P Schwarcz Mary MA McDonald Maxine R Kleindienst Alicia L Hawkins andCharles S Churcher

2004 A Reconstruction of Quaternary Pluvial Environmentsand Human Occupations Using Stratigraphy andGeochronology of Fossil-Spring Tufas Kharga OasisEgypt Geoarchaeology 19 407-439

Stapert Dick1989 The Ring and Sector Method Intrasite Spatial Analysis of

Stone Age Sites with Special Reference to PinceventPalaeohistoria 31 1-57

1990 Middle Palaeolithic Dwellings Fact or Fiction Some Ap-plications of the Ring and Sector Method Palaeohistoria32 1-19

Stevenson Mari1991 Beyond the Formation of Hearth-Associated Artifact As-

semblages in E M Kroll and T D Price eds The Inter-pretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning Interdiscipli-nary Contributions to Archaeology New York Plenum Press269-299

Sultan Mohamed Neil Sturchio Fekri A Hassan Mohamed A RHamdan Abdel Moneim Mahmood Zeinhom E Alfy and TomStein

1997 Precipitation source inferred from stable isotopic compo-sition of Pleistocene groundwater and carbonate depositsin the Western Desert of Egypt Quaternary Research 4829-37

Thesiger WIlfred1991 Arabian Sands New York Penguin Books

Van Peer Philip1991 Interassemblage Variability and Levallois Styles The Case

of the Northern Mrican Middle Palaeolithic Journal ofAn-thropologicalArchaeology 10 107-15l

1998 The Nile Corridor and the Out of Africa Model An Ex-amination of the Archaeological Record Current Anthro-pology 39 (supplement) Sl15-S140

2001 The Nubian Complex Settlement System in NortheastAfrica in N J Conard ed Settlement Dynamics of the Mid-die Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age Tiibingen Kerns Ver-lag 45-63

Van Peer Philip and Pierre M Vermeersch1990 Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition The Evidence for

the Nile Valley in P Mellars ed The Emetgence ofModemHumans An Archaeological Perspective Edinburgh Edin-burgh University Press 139-159

Van Peer Philip Pierre M Vermeersch and Jan Moeyersons1996 Palaeolithic Stratigraphy of Sodmein Cave (Red Sea

Mountains Egypt) Geo-Eco-Trop 20 61-7l

Vermeersch Pierre M editor2000 Palaeolithic Living Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt Leuven

Leuven University Press

Vermeersch Pierre M Etienne Paulissen and Gilbert Gijselings1977 Prospection Prehistorique entre Asyut et Nag Hammadi

(Egypte ) Bulletin de la Societe Rnyale Beige d~nthropologieet de Prehistoire 88 117-124

Vermeersch Pierre M Etienne Paulissen and Philip Van Peer2000 Shuwildlat 1 an Upper Palaeolithic Site in Pierre M

Vermeersch ed Palaeolithic Living Sites in Upper and Mid-dle Egypt Leuven Leuven University Press 111-158

Vermeersch Pierre M Philip Van Peer and Etienne Paulissen2000a EI Abadiya a Shuwikhatian Site in Pierre M Vermeer-

sch ed Palaeolithic Living Sites in Upper and Middle EgyptLeuven Leuven University Press 159-199

2000b Conclusions in Pierre M Vermeersch ed PalaeolithicLiving Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt Leuven LeuvenUniversity Press 321-326

Vermeersch Pierre M Etienne Paulissen Marcel Oue and GilbertGijselings

2000 N ag Ahmed el Khalifa an Acheulean Site in P M Ver-meersch ed Palaeolithic Living Sites in Upper and MiddleEgypt Leuven Leuven University Press 57-73

Vermeersch Pierre M Marcel Oue Etienne Gilot Etienne Paulis-sen Gilbert Gijselings and D Drappier

1982 Blade Technology in the Egyptian Nile Valley Some NewEvidence Science216 626-628

Vermeersch Pierre M Etienne Paulissen Gilbert Gijselings MarcelOtte A Thoma Philip Van Peer and R Lauwers

1984 33000-year Old Chert Mining Site and Related Homo inthe Egyptian Nile Valley Nature 309 342-344

Vermeersch Pierre M Etienne Paulissen S Stokes C CharlierPhilip Van Peer Chris Stringer and W Lindsay

1998 A Middle Palaeolithic Burial of a Modern Human atTaramsa Hill Egypt Antiquity 72 475-484

Villa Paola and Jean Courtin1983 The Interpretation of Stratified Sites A View from Un-

derground Journal ofArchaeological Science 10 267-281Vose R S R L Schmoyer P M Steurer T C Peterson R HeimT R Karl and J Eischeid

1992 Global Historical Climatology Network 1753-1990unpublished data set (httpwwwdaacornlgov) Oak RidgeTN Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed ActiveArchive Center

Wells Steven G Leslie D McFadden Jane Poths and Chad TOlinger

1995 Cosmogenic (Super 3) He Surface-Exposure Dating ofStone Pavements Implications for Landscape Evolution inDeserts Geology (Boulder) 23 613-616

Wendorf Fred1968b Summary of Nubian Prehistory in Fred Wendorf ed

The Prehistory of Nubia) Vol 2 Dallas Fort Burgwin Re-search Center and Southern Methodist University Press1041-1059

Wendorf Fred editor1965 Contributions to the Prehistory of Nubia Dallas Fort Burg-

win Research Center and Southern Methodist UniversityPress

1968a The Prehistory of Nubia Dallas Fort Burgwin ResearchCenter and Southern Methodist University Press

Wendorf Fred and Romuald Schild1976 Prehistory of the Nile Valley New York Academic Press1980 Prehistory of the Eastern Sahara New York Academic Press

Wendorf Fred Romuald Schild and Angela E Close editors1984 Cattle-I(eepers of the Eastern Sahara The Neolithic of Bir I(i-

seiba New Delhi Pauls Press1989a The Prehistory of the Wadi I(ubbaniya 2 Stratigraphy) Paleo-

economy) and Environment Dallas Southern MethodistUniversity Press

1989b The Prehistory of the Wadi I(ubbaniya 3 Late PaleolithicAr-chaeologyDallas Southern Methodist University Press

Journal of Field ArchaeologyjVOl 30) 2005 303

1993 Egypt During the Last Inte1lJlacial The Middle Paleolithic ofBir Taifawi and Bir Sahara East New York Plenum Press