The Hargeisan revisited: Lithic industries from shelter 7 of Laas Geel, Somaliland and the...

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e16

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

The Hargeisan revisited: Lithic industries from shelter 7 of Laas Geel,Somaliland and the transition between the Middle and Late Stone Agein the Horn of Africa

Xavier Gutherz a, Amélie Diaz a,*, Clément Ménard b, François Bon b,c, Katja Douze d,e,Vanessa Léa b, Joséphine Lesur f, Dominique Sordoillet g

aUMR 5140 Archéologie des Sociétés Méditerranéennes, Université Paul Valéry, route de Mende, 34199 Montpellier Cedex 5, FrancebUMR 5608 TRACES, Maison de la Recherche, Université de Toulouse e le Mirail, 5 allées A. Machado, 31058 Toulouse Cedex 9, Francec School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South AfricadUMR 5199 PACEA, Université de Bordeaux 1, Bât. B8, Avenue des Facultés, 33405 Talence Cedex, Francee Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South AfricafUMR 7209 Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique: Sociétés, Pratiques et Environnements, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, C.P. 55, 55 rue Buffon,75005 Paris, FrancegUMR 6249 Chrono-Environnement, Inrap Grand Est sud, 5 rue Fernand Holweck, 21000 Dijon, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:Horn of AfricaLithic technologyMiddle Stone AgeLate Stone AgeHargeisanSomaliland Wilton

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X. Guth

(A. Diaz), [email protected] (C. Ménard),[email protected] (K. Douze), [email protected] (J. Lesur), dominique.sordoillet@univ-fcomte

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.0381040-6182/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Gutherz, Xtransition between the Middle and Latej.quaint.2014.04.038

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents the lithic analysis from the stratified deposits of one of the Laas Geel rock shelters inSomaliland (Shelter 7). This set of sites identified in 2002 is composed of around 20 rock shelters, mostfeaturing polychromic paintings attributed to the Holocene. Moreover, Shelter 7 yielded numerous re-mains that are divided into two major chono-cultural phases. Microlithic industries from the upper partof the deposit are ascribed to the Late Stone Age (LSA). In contrast, the industries from the lower part ofthe deposit feature an association of LSA characteristics (but quite different from the ones from the upperpart of the deposit) with technical traits that belong to the MSA, and especially the presence of a Levalloistechnology. This association reintroduces the question of the existence of an industry (or facies) oncelabeled “Hargeisan” and characterized by mixed features from the MSA and the LSA in this part of Africaat the end of the Pleistocene.

Our analysis of these industries culminates in a reconsideration of the definitions proposed by Clark inhis seminal book, “The Prehistory of the Horn of Africa” (1954). This study provides new typo-technological data from the upper part of the Laas Geel Shelter 7 deposit that contribute to refiningClark’s definition of the ‘Somaliland Wilton’ industry. In addition, the association of blade/bladeletproduction with typical Levallois production in the lower part of this site’s deposits supports a com-parison with the “Hargeisan Industry”. The industries recovered from Laas Geel Shelter 7 reintroducedebates on the existence of the “Hargeisan industry” and provide new data on the technological tran-sition between the MSA and the LSA in the Horn of Africa.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

erz), [email protected]@univ-tlse2.fr (F. Bon),

v-tlse2.fr (V. Léa), [email protected] (D. Sordoillet).

reserved.

., et al., The Hargeisan revisiStone Age in the Horn of

1. Introduction

Clark (1954) produced the first synthesis concerning the pre-history of the Horn of Africa. He characterized industries from theEarly Stone Age (Upper Acheulian, which was barely documentedin Somalia at the time) as well as the Middle Stone Age (Acheulio-Levalloisian, Levalloisian, Somaliland Stillbay) and the Late StoneAge (Doian, Somaliland Wilton). He described the archaeologicalpotential of Somalia and put it in a broader perspective, by makingcomparisons with Eastern Africa and the African continent as awhole. He also stressed the particularities of the prehistoric record

ted: Lithic industries from shelter 7 of Laas Geel, Somaliland and theAfrica, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

mailto:[email protected]









www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.038



Table 1Radiocarbon dates (AMS) from shelter 7 calibrated using OxCal v4.1.7; calibrationcurve from Reimer et al., 2011.

Lab reference Material Raw date SD Calibrated2s (Cal BP)

SU 705a Beta-206865 Bone 1160 40 1176e971SU 702 Beta-206863 Charcoal 4100 60 4825e4441SU 703 Beta-206864 Charcoal 4500 90 5446e4866SU 706 Beta-206866 Charcoal 3970 90 4808e4153SU 706 UBA-20231 Ostrich

eggshell (calcite)11,496 44 13,461e13,247

SU 708 UBA-20232 Ostricheggshell (calcite)

8171 39 9257e9015

SU 738(¼708)

UBA-20235 Ostricheggshell (calcite)

8404 36 9518e9308


10,620 41 12,673e12,432


37,344 577 42,980e41,315

X. Gutherz et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e162

of this region, notably with the description of some industries thatcombine Late Stone Age (LSA) and Middle Stone Age (MSA) fea-tures (Somaliland Magosian, Hargeisan), which he considered atransitional facies: “Transional between the Middle and the LateStone Age is the Somaliland variant of the Magosian and theintrusive blade and burin industries of the Hargeisan.” (Clark,1954, p. 156).

This issue was examined again by S.A. Brandt and T.H. Greshamwhen they resumed research in Somalia (Brandt and Brook, 1984;Gresham, 1984; Brandt, 1986; Brandt and Gresham, 1990). Thematerial collected during their fieldwork and a revision of theexisting data allowed these authors to clarify some of the defini-tions proposed by Clark for the LSA industries. They gave a moredetailed description of the Eibian (called Doian by Clark), intro-duced the Baardale and its different phases and strongly criticizedthe Somaliland Wilton. Finally, they were skeptical about the ex-istence of a transitional facies between the MSA and the LSA e andof the Hargeisan in particular, because of the paucity of excavatedand properly dated contexts.

We report new field research that renews previous dataconcerning the prehistory of the region, and particularly as aresult of new data available from the site of Laas Geel in Soma-liland (Fig. 1). This complex of rock shelters is located 80 km fromHargeisa (Somaliland) and is already known for its numerousrock paintings, which were described in 2002 (Gutherz et al.,2003a, 2003b; Gutherz and Jallot, 2011). Test excavations car-ried out in Shelter 7 allowed us to identify an important sedi-mentary deposit with stratified archaeological remains. Theanalysis of these deposits was first initiated to provide contextualdata for the site’s remarkable rock art. However, this analysis hasresulted in new issues which are developed in this paper, andwhich are mainly based on examination and interpretation of theexcavated lithic industries.

Our analysis of the lithic assemblage from excavations ofSondage 2 in Shelter 7 at Laas Geel enabled us to group the strat-igraphic units (hereafter SUs) into two main archaeological phases:1) the upper part of the sequence includes industries that we canundoubtedly assign to the LSA (SU 700e708); 2) by way of contrast,the stratigraphic units from the lower part of the sequence (SU709e711) feature an industry combining technological componentsthat are usually identified as both MSA and LSA. The lithic artifactsfrom Laas Geel therefore enable us to cross-examine some of thedefinitions proposed by Clark, namely the pertinence of “Hargei-san” and “Somaliland Wilton” labels, and to revisit the origins anddevelopments of the LSA in the Horn of Africa.

2. The complex of Laas Geel

Laas Geel is one of the few rocky hills within a large erodedgranitic peneplain halfway between Hargeisa and Berbera (Re-public of Somaliland). The hill, which has an approximate elevationof 1025 m asl, overlooks the confluence of two wadis, whose un-derground flow is exploited by nomadswho dig wells towater theirherds. The hill features twenty or so natural rock shelters, most ofwhich have wall paintings. Two shelters yielded preserved sedi-mentary deposits that were tested (shelters 7 and 13).

2.1. Shelter 7

Shelter 7 is located on the northwestern part of a hill, near itssummit. Its large entrance is oriented towards the northeast andoverlooks a flat area covered with huge blocks of rock collapsedfrom the ledge above the shelter. It is a medium-size shelter ofapproximately 15 m in length, 3 m in depth and almost 3 m inheight. The shelter is flanked by a very large collapsed boulder

Please cite this article in press as: Gutherz, X., et al., The Hargeisan revisitransition between the Middle and Late Stone Age in the Horn ofj.quaint.2014.04.038

which acted as an external protective wall (Fig. 2). The groundsurface of the shelter is extremely uneven and, is sloped or scat-tered with stones in certain areas.

2.2. Excavation and contextual data

Four distinct archaeological operations were carried out in thecentral part of the shelter. A first test excavation was performed in2003 in a small area ofw1m per 50 cm and 50 cm in depth, thoughit indicated the presence of stratified deposits and numerous stoneartifacts. In 2004, this first test pit (Sondage 1) was extended; itssize was doubled and the excavation was pursued until the sub-stratum was reached. We also conducted a second test excavationin 2004 (Sondage 2), ca. 1 m away and to the northwest of Sondage1 in order to explore a more substantial sedimentary deposit whichwe had previously identified thanks to the substratum slope ofSondage 1 (Fig. 3). This second test pit of w2.50 m2 (Sondage 2 or2A) gave us the opportunity to excavate stratified deposits up to1.20 m deep (Fig. 4). In 2007, we conducted a first extension ofSondage 2 towards the northwest. This sounding was 50 cm inwidth and was designated Sondage 2B. In 2010, a last 50 cm wideextension was made, also towards the northwest (Sondage 2C).

During the overall excavation carried out at Shelter 7 we iden-tified a dozen stratigraphic units (SU 700e711). The analysis of thesediments indicates that this sequence can be divided into twomain groups: 700e708 and 709e711, separated by a truncation.The lower part of the sequence (709e711) corresponds toremaining elements of the fill that were very likely truncated byerosion before the formation of the upper part of the sequence(700e708). The upper part was also affected by perturbation ofanthropogenic origin. For instance, a pit (SU 705) dug through units700e706 was filled by SU 705a (Fig. 4). SU 701 also corresponds toanother pit. These biases need to be taken into account from ataphonomic point a view: even if the lithic remains generally showa good state of preservation (only few artifacts show damage ofnatural origin) we cannot be certain of the homogeneity of eachassemblage. However, we can argue that the distinct typologicaland technological differences between the assemblages originatingfrom the upper and lower parts of the sequence indicate that verylittle contamination occurred between them.

The remains were collected during excavation and by sieving,according to their stratigraphic unit of origin but without recordingeach artifact’s precise location in space. It is quite noteworthy thatno ceramics were found in any layer. The dominant remainscollected were lithic artifacts (n ¼ 3012, including small artifacts;Table 2).


Table 2Sondage 2A: inventory of the flaked stone artifacts (fragments included) per stratigraphic unit.

SU 700 SU 702 SU 703 SU 704 SU 705a SU 706 SU 707 SU 708 SU 709 SU 710 SU 711

CoresFlake coresDiscoid e e 1 e e 1 e e e e e

Bipolar percussion on anvil 1 e e e e e e e 1 e e

Blade and bladelet coresUnipolar e 2 e e e 4 e 1 2 2 1Bipolar e e e e e 3 e e 3 3 3Levallois coresCentripetal e e e e e e e e 1 e 2Unipolar e e e e e e e 1 2 e e

Bipolar e e e e e e e e 1 e e

Undetermined cores 1 e e e e 2 e e 1 e 1

Total cores 1 2 1 0 0 8 0 2 10 5 6Shaped toolsMicrolithsCircle segments/lunates 1 1 2 3 11 13 e 5 1 e e

Backed bladelets e 1 e e e e e 4 3 2 4Pointed backed bladelets e 2 e e e 1 e 1 4 1 1Undetermined e e e e 1 1 e 1 e e

Total microliths 1 4 2 3 12 15 0 10 9 3 5EndscrapersMicro-endscrapers e e 1 e e 2 e e

Ensdscrapers on flakes e e e 2 e 1 e 5 1 e 1Endscraper on blades e e e e e e e 4 6 1 4Endscrapers on Levallois blanks e e e e e e e e 2 e 2

Total endscrapers 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 9 9 1 7Levallois productsLevallois point e e e e e 1 e e 3 e e

Micro-Levallois point e e e e e e e e 1 e e

Point with lateral retouch e e e e e e e e e 1 2Point with lateral retouches on both sides e e e e e e e e e 1 e

Retouched Levallois blanks e e e e e 1 e e 1 e e

Total Levallois products 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 2MiscellanousSidescrapers e e e e e e e e e e 1Denticulates e e e e e 1 e e e e e

Pieces ecaillees e e e e e e e e e e 2Retouched flakes e 1 e e e 1 e e 1 e e

Retouched blades e 1 e 1 1 e e e 1 e e

Total miscellaneous 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 3Total shaped tools 1 6 3 6 13 22 0 19 25 6 17Debitage 146 135 111 342 91 587 17 293 688 70 379Grand Total 148 143 115 348 104 617 17 314 723 81 402

X. Gutherz et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e16 3

Sondage 2 (A, B and C) provided a total of 743 faunal remains(Table 3). They present a very bad state of preservation with heavycorrosion processes affecting bone surfaces and strong fragmen-tation. As a result, less than 40% of the faunal collection could beidentified. Among the identified remains in both phases, 27%include mainly ostrich eggshells and shell fragments. Some of theostrich eggshell fragments are burnt suggesting that eggs werecooked or used as containers. Only 25 fragments were identifiedfrom the lower phase (SU 709e711). Except for two bones that wereindentified as hare, the rest of the assemblage pertained to thebovid family and included a medium-sized gazelle, beisa oryx andBovini (probably African buffalo). Among the collection from theupper phase (SU 700e708), we observe the presence of warthog,dik-dik, medium-sized gazelle, and Bovini. According to the dates ofthis phase (see 2.3) and the presence of the paintings representingcows, these remains could belong to cattle. However, they are toofragmented to confirm this hypothesis. On the question of thepresence of domesticates, a fragment of phalange which possibly


belongs to a sheep or goat, was found in SU 702. More bones areneeded to confirm this evidence but it could represent the oldestevidence for domesticates in the Horn of Africa. For the moment,the collection is not large enough to conduct a detailed analysis ofhunting or possible herding strategies and butchery practices.However, the presence of these few species illustrates the exploi-tation (during both phases) of savannah and desert environmentsthat still exist today.

2.3. Radiocarbon dates

Several radiocarbon dates were performed by AMS, both oncharcoal and on ostrich eggshell (calcite). The data available givesus a general chronological framework not satisfying yet. However,some of the SUs excavated in Sondage 2 that were radiometricallydated give us valuable cornerstones. Concerning the upper part ofthe sequence, SU 705a belongs to the Common Era; SU 702 and 703are dated between the 6the5th millennia cal BP; SU 708 and 738(which are coeval) are dated between the 10the9th millennia cal


Table 3Sondage 2 (including 2A, 2B and 2C): overall faunal spectrum according to the NISP(Number of the Identified Specimen Parts).

Taxa SU700

SU702

SU703

SU704

SU705a

SU706

SU708

SU709

SU710

SU711

Lepus capensis(Hare)

1 1 3

Phacochoerussp. (Warthog)

1

Madoqua sp.(Dik-dik)

1

Gazella sp.(Gazelle)

1 1 2 2 6

cf. Caprinae 1Medium-sized

Bovidae1 3 2 1 2 3

Oryx beisa(Beisa oryx)

1

Bovini 1 2 1Bovidae 1 3 2 29 8Ostrich eggshell 2 10 5 22 3 5 20 27 84 6Bivalve 1 1 1Gastropod 4 7 2 2Unidentified 5 36 13 62 61 36 107 75 49 17

Total 8 53 18 92 68 45 170 117 149 23

Table 4Sondage 2A: frequency and percentage of blades, bladelets and flakes for selectedstratigraphic units (SU 706e709e711), representing 58% of the overall debitage.

SU 706 Percentage SU 709 Percentage SU 711 Percentage

Flakes 162 28% 411 60% 241 64%Blades 21 4% 59 9% 22 6%Bladelets 273 47% 126 18% 33 9%Waste 131 22% 92 13% 83 22%

Total 587 688 379

Table 5Distribution of the lithic raw materials from sondage 2.

Chert Percentage Quartz Percentage Obsidian Percentage

SU 700 137 92% 12 8%SU 702 58 41% 85 59%SU 703 31 27% 84 73%SU 704 243 70% 105 30%SU 705 49 47% 55 53%SU 706 384 62% 235 38%SU 707 16 95% 1 5%SU 708 309 98.50% 5 1.50%SU 709 637 88% 87 12%SU 710 60 73.50% 21 26.50%SU 711 373 93% 28 7% 2 0.50%


BP. The 2 dates recovered from materials excavated in SU 706 areproblematic because one is younger than the overlying SU, whilethe other is older than the underlying SU.

The dates from the lower part of the sequence are also prob-lematic: one sample is dated to the 13th millennium cal BP (SU 710)and another one to around 40,000 BP (SU 711; Table 1). For the timebeing, it is impossible to provide a definitive interpretation of thesecontradictory results: does it indicate a very long-term tradition?Does it correspond to a mixing or a juxtaposition of differentcomponents? Did the later occupants collect ostrich eggshells fromolder deposits? Further analyses are needed to answer thesequestions. However, we can say with some certainty that the lowerpart of the sequence belongs to the end of the Pleistocene and theupper part to the Holocene, without any possibility of determiningtheir respective time spans at the moment.

3. The lithic industries of Laas Geel

Here, we present the results of our analysis of the excavatedassemblage from Sondage 2A alone, because the material fromSondage 2B and 2C is currently being processed. However, theanalysis of the lithic artifacts from Sondage 2A alone confirms theimportance and the potential of the Shelter 7 deposits and con-tributes to our understanding of the technological changes thatoccurred between the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning ofthe Holocene in the Horn of Africa.

The richness of the lithic assemblages collected from both theupper and the lower stratigraphic phases of Sondage 2 allows us toextensively describe the technical traditions represented at LaasGeel, even if the extension of the test pit was quite limited (2.50m2;Fig. 2). In order to describe and compare these industries, we fol-lowed a technological approach based on the chaîne opératoireconcept (Schlanger, 2005; Tixier, 2012), with a strong emphasis onthe description of the shaped tools (using terminology from Inizanet al., 1999) and the core reduction sequence (borrowing thedifferent flaking system definitions from European prehistory, e.g.Boëda et al., 1990; Boëda, 1994; Peresani, 2003). We did notperform systematic attempts of refits between artifacts fromdifferent SUs, which prevent us from clearly assessing the interre-lation of the different operative schemes and, more critically, from


discussing in detail the integrity of the different components (seemethods developed for stratigraphic purpose by Bordes, 2002).

The raw materials are dominated by chert and quartz (bothquartz crystal and vein quartz). Most of these materials could havea local origin, judging by the presence of cobbles of both chert andquartz in the surrounding area. Some varieties of chert featuringunrolled cortex must have been collected in primary position fromfarther afar, Burkitt and Barrington Brown (1931) described mate-rials of the same kind occuring in the Eocene limestones of theregion. The 2 pieces of obsidian recovered from the lower part ofthe sequenceweremost certainly collected a long distance from thesite, and possibly in the Afar region.

3.1. The lithic industries from the upper part of the sequence (SU700e708)

Industries from the upper part of Shelter 7 were made from agreat variety of raw materials; different kinds of chert wereexploited along with quartz in ratios ranging from 30 to 73%.Intensive flaking of quartz is observed in the upper sequence(Table 5). The exact provenance and the petrographic description ofthese materials are still under study though potential sources havebeen identified in the surrounding area. The different kinds of chertwere identified and separated during the analysis, but because theywere all used in similar operative schemes we decided to treat thechert assemblage as a whole.

Small nodules and large flakes were introduced on the site fortwo different kinds of in-situ production. Quartz was used to pro-duce small flakes, some quite elongated. Amore detailed analysis ofthe quartz industry is needed, but it seems that both Discoid andbipolar on anvil flaking systems coexisted. Chert was used in theproduction of quite irregular bladelets (Fig. 5). In addition to this,we identified a few laminar products and flake production on chert(apparently according to a Discoid operative scheme; Peresani,2003). Only a bigger sample would allow us to determine if thoseflake products are related to the bladelet reduction sequences, i.e.



result of the same chaîne opératoire (laminar by-products involvedin the shaping or management of the bladelet cores; exhaustedbladelet cores recycled for flake production).

Bladelet production, mostly using chert, is represented bynumerous products and cores. Their analysis indicates two differentkinds of volumetric management, both unipolar. The first indicatesan exploitation of the wide surfaces of small nodules while incontrast, the second indicates an exploitation of the side of nar-rower nodules or flakes. This last modality produced pieces thatmorphologically look like burins but are actually cores. Bothproducts and cores indicate the use of a hammerstone, probablyquite soft, in a direct percussion motion.

Retouched artifacts (n ¼ 70) were mostly made from chert, andinclude endscrapers (n ¼ 15), segments (n ¼ 36, including tworough-outs), backed pointed bladelets (n ¼ 4), backed bladelets(n ¼ 5, including two truncated ones) but also various undeter-mined microliths (n ¼ 2), retouched laminar blanks and bladelets(n ¼ 5, sometimes denticulated), sidescrapers and retouched flakes(n ¼ 2) and few splintered pieces (or outil écaillé). Microliths(geometric or not) dominate the assemblage (47 artifacts) alongwith endscrapers (Fig. 6 and Table 6). A retouched Levallois flakeand a Levallois point were collected from SU 706; their state ofalteration casts doubt on their provenance and confirms that thereare issues to resolve regarding the formation processes of SU 706(see 2.3 for the contradictory dates from this unit).

Table 6Sondage 2A: metrics of the different categories of microliths organized in chronological order.

SU 700 SU 705a SU 703 SU 704 SU 706 SU 708 SU 709 SU 710 SU 711 Overall

SegmentsLength Mean 23.53 17.25 27.35 22.17 23.28 19 22.74

n 10 2 2 7 5 1Width Mean 6.4 7.57 7.8 7.36 7.58 9.5 10 7.94

n 1 11 2 3 13 5 1Thickness Mean 3 3.41 2.5 2.87 2.75 3.38 2 3.03

n 1 11 2 3 13 5 1Backed bladeletsLength Mean 24.53 34.55 36 45 31.96

n 3 2 1 1Width Mean 15.5 7.85 6.43 6.4 8.03 8.11

n 1 4 3 2 4Thickness Mean 5.7 3.13 2.8 2.85 3.3 3.25

n 1 4 3 2 4Pointed backed bladeletsLength Mean 28 26.1 42.4 44 46 35.34

n 1 1 2 1 1Width Mean 11 4.9 8.88 8.2 7 8.21

n 1 1 4 1 1Thickness Mean 4 3.1 3.73 5.6 4 3.77

n 1 1 4 1 1

All of the material from the upper levels undoubtably belongs tothe same technical tradition. Nevertheless, material from SU 708can be differentiated from the overlying units (which is consistentwith older radiocarbon dates, see 2.3). These observations aresupported by typological differences in the tool-kits, and particu-larly among the endscrapers. The endscrapers from the base of thisunit (SU 708) were made from thick flakes or large blades; the onesfrom the overlying levels are mostly of small, sometimes evenmicrolithic dimensions (thumb-nail endscrapers). Anotherexample of the changes that occurred throughout the upper part ofthe sequence is the increasing amount of quartz in the youngerlevels. Almost inexistent in SU 708, quartz represents 38% in SU706, 30% in SU 704 and surpasses the chert in both SU 703 (73%)and SU 702 (59%). Forthcoming studies will focus on whether thisincrease in the proportion of quartz with time is related to different


goals, or if it corresponds more to an alternative way of producingsimilar tools as the ones from the lower levels, but in quartz insteadof chert. Finally, a last criterion of differentiation of the industriesfrom the SU 708 is the presence of elongated products that couldcorrespond to a blade production.

Those differences aside, the lithic assemblages from the uppersequence have a great deal in common with the definition of theSomaliland Wilton proposed by Clark (1954). His definition wasmostly based on observation of the lithic industries from GumburTodoballa, which is a stratified rock shelter near Mandera, andwhich lies north of Laas Geel, along the road between Hargeisa andBerbera. The Somaliland Wilton industry features the samemicrolithic characteristics, with circle segments produced by directand sometimes crossed retouch, backed bladelets, and micro end-scrapers (including thumb-nail ones) along with splintered pieces.We also noticed the same absence of the micro-burin technique atLaas Geel as was observed at Gumbur Todoballa. Bladelet produc-tion appears to correspond to the same schemes, with unipolarcores exploited on both wide and narrow surfaces. Strong doubtsabout the reliability of the sites attributed to the SomalilandWiltonarose during the 1980s (e.g. Brandt, 1986, p. 170) and the termwasabandoned. Although we agree with critiques of the previousreliability of Somaliland Wilton site contexts, the lithic industriesfrom the upper ensemble of Shelter 7 at Laas Geel represent a goodreference collection for a discussion of the chronology of the Ho-

locene industries of the region and especially given the radiocarbondates now available for the site and the diachronic changes iden-tified in the lithic analysis. At Laas Geel, the “Wilton” tradition(whether or not we accept the use of a term borrowed fromSouthern African contexts; see Kleindienst, 1967), is rooted in theearly Holocene and lasted at least 6 millennia (between the 10thand the 5th millennia cal BP), which constitutes a great advance-ment in our understanding of the late prehistory of the Horn ofAfrica.

3.2. The lithic industries from the lower part of the sequence (SU709e711)

The lithic materials excavated from the lower sequence are inmany ways different from the ones described above (see 3.1;


Fig. 1. Map of the Horn of Africa showing the archaeological sites mentioned in the text (windmills). Basemap modified after Geoatlas; borders of the Republic of Somaliland areindicative.


Tables 2 and 4). Firstly, the selection of raw materials is quitedifferent: the amount of quartz in this assemblage is much less thanin the upper sequence assemblage (Table 5). Secondly, the bladeletproduction provided blanks that are longer, more regular andstraighter than in the upper units, and corresponds to different and

Sondage 2

Sondage 1

overhang

2A

2B

2C

Fig. 2. Plan of shelter 7 (mo


more diversified operative schemes. Most importantly, the bladeletproduction is clearly linked here to a blade production with whichit is often combined. Thirdly, we note the presence of Levallois coresand products, which are virtually absent in the upper part of thesequence or suspected to be intrusive (see 3.1). Lastly, the tool-kit

Boulder

0 5 m

O E

S

N

dified after R. Bernard).


Fig. 3. Shelter 7 during excavation in 2004 (photo L. Jallot).


itself, characterized by the association of elongated backed blade-lets (pointed or not; Table 6), and unifacial points (sidescrapers onLevallois flakes) is radically different.

More precisely, amidst the laminar production, three differentoperative schemes were identified: 1) a unipolar on prismatic coremodality, with either parallel or convergent flaking surfaces (Fig. 8:2) a parallel bipolar modality on cores with two opposite strikingplatforms, producing thin and straight blades and bladelets (Fig. 7:3) a modality exploiting the side of large elongated flakes, startingon ridges that have been prepared by single or double-sided crests(i.e. burin-like cores). It seems that the production of blades andbladelets was made in continuity; this is notably supported by thepresence of striking platform rejuvenation flakes that are biggerthan the biggest bladelet core recovered. All these production


schemes were performed with a hammer-stone, probably rathersoft (according to Pelegrin, 2000; Soriano et al., 2007 criteria).

Along with the blade and bladelet production described above,this industry features a significant proportion of artifacts related toLevallois flaking systems. Levallois flakes (sometimes elongated)were produced from recurrent unipolar and bipolar cores andLevallois points were produced from preferential cores (Fig. 9). Allthese cores were shaped by lateral removals, often featuringfacetted striking platforms, and were knapped with hard ham-merstones only. Hard percussion is evidenced by technologicalobservations of the butts (Pelegrin, 2000) and by the presence of 1hard hammer-stone (in quartzite) in SU 709. It is of interest to notethat some of the blade cores previously mentioned show somesimilarities (volumetric management, striking platform


Fig. 4. Sondage 2A: Stratigraphic profile (modified after J.-M. Pène).


preparation modalities) with the Levallois ones, which tend toindicate they are not necessarily mixed components.

The tool-kit (48 pieces), mostly made of chert, is composed ofendscrapers on blades or flakes (n ¼ 17, including on Levalloisflakes), sidescrapers and retouched flakes (n ¼ 2), Levallois points(n ¼ 8, we include here 5 pieces that are unretouched), backedbladelets (n ¼ 9), pointed backed bladelets (n ¼ 6, including onepossible rough-out), and some splintered pieces (n ¼ 2). Only onecircle segment was recovered (SU 709), which is a possiblecontamination from the overlying unit (Figs. 10e12).

To summarize, the main objectives of the production in thislower sequence was to create unifacial points retouched on eitherone or two sides (Fig. 13), backed bladelets, and numerous scraperson a wide range of blanks (both flakes and blades). This industry isdramatically different from the one from the upper part of thesequence that we have attributed to Clark’s “Somaliland Wilton”(see Table 4). Interestingly, the association of the different com-ponents found in the lower sequence is somewhat reminiscent ofClark’s descriptions of the Hargeisan industry.

Fig. 5. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the upper ensemble: 1, 2 unipolar convergent blad


4. Discussion

4.1. Raiders of the lost Hargeisan

As stated above, in his synthesis on the prehistory of the Horn ofAfrica, Clark (1954) proposed the existence of a transitional facies(the Hargeisan) between typically MSA (Somaliland Stillbay) andtypically LSA (Somaliland Wilton) industries. The Hargeisan facies,whichwas distributedwithin the borders of the British Somalilands(nowadays the Republic of Somaliland) was characterized byLevallois productions (mostly oriented toward the production ofunifacially retouched points) associated with blade and bladeletproductions (particularly oriented towards the production of longbacked bladelets, retouched blades and burins). Clark was the firstto acknowledge the limits of the then available documentation fordefining this facies and, thus, its overall weakness. Clark’s de-scriptions were indeed based upon observations of natural sectionsof the right bank of the Marodijeh Tug (upstream of the town ofBerbera), from material he collected at 7 different localities and

elet cores (SU 706); 3 blade (SU 708); scale in centimeters; drawings A. Diaz.


Fig. 6. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the upper ensemble: 1e7 circle segments (1 from SU 708; 2, 4, 7 from SU 706; 3 from SU 704; 5 from SU 702; 6 from SU 703); 8 endscraper (SU708); 9, 10 endscrapers on blades (SU 706); 11e13 thumbnail endscrapers (11 from SU 706; 12, 13 from SU 704); scale in centimeters; drawings A. Diaz.


some surface collections previously made by British soldiers(particularly at Hormo).

A careful reading of Clark’s descriptions indicates that some ofthe sites should not be taken into consideration because the corpuscollected there was too limited, because we have evidence for themixing of different industries (H.2, Mandera North), or because theLevallois component is missing (at Hormo). However one of thesesites, that of H.12R, seems more reliable. There, Clark collectedmaterial belonging to a level located within alluvial formations thatwas well positioned within the general stratigraphy. The collectedmaterial comes from a rather well delimited erosion area of ca.6 square meters. Nonetheless, it is impossible to deny the proba-bility that there was mixing with older industries because most ofthe collection comes from the base of the deposits, which is incontact with an underlying gravel formation bearing numerous


Stillbay materials (MSA). Clark did actually mention the possibilitythat the Levallois points from his assemblage could be intrusive:“(Magosian-type points) are commonest at the south end of thesite, but may in part be derived from a late Stillbay site found here.”(Clark, 1954, p. 55). In spite of this reservation, Clark retained H.12Rto be the main reference site for the Hargeisan. According to thepublished inventories (Clark, 1954, p. 220) and the few availabledrawings (Clark, 1954, Pl. 20.), the Magosian points (which weinterpret as Levallois points) and the burins, that he considered asthe most characteristic features of the Hargeisan are actually littlerepresented. In the absence of radiometric data, it is also impossibleto assess the chronological context of the Hargeisan industries.However, thanks to their relative position above Stillbay depositsand the paleoclimatic correlations made by Clark, it is possible toposition them at the very end of the Pleistocene.


Fig. 7. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the lower ensemble: 1 bladelet core on flake’s ventral face with two opposite striking platforms (SU 710); 2, 4 bladelet cores with two oppositestriking platforms and parallel flaking surfaces (SU 709); 3 Blade core with two opposite striking platforms and parallel flaking surface (SU 710); scale in centimeters; drawings A.Diaz.


Please cite this article in press as: Gutherz, X., et al., The Hargeisan revisited: Lithic industries from shelter 7 of Laas Geel, Somaliland and thetransition between the Middle and Late Stone Age in the Horn of Africa, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.038

Fig. 8. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the lower ensemble: 1 unipolar convergent prismatic bladelet core (SU 709); 2 overhanging laminar flake (SU 711); 3, 4 striking platform reju-venation flakes (SU 709); scale in centimeters; drawings A. Diaz.


After Clark’s seminal work in the region, few data from newerexcavations were made available and critics, in particular Brandt(1986), remained skeptical of the actual existence of this transi-tional facies. In the 1980s, excavations at the site of Midishi 2 inSomalia (Brandt and Brook, 1984; Gresham, 1984) provided newevidence of an industry with the association of the same features(Levallois production, blades and microliths). This site was dated to18,790 � 340 BP allowing the continuation of the debate on thedefinition of Clark’s facies and the transition between the MSA andLSA (Brandt, 1986; Brandt and Gresham, 1990). Nonetheless, bothGresham (1984) during his analysis, and Brandt (1986, p. 61) raisedconcerns about the Midishi 2 context. For statistical reasons, lithicsfrom distinct stratigraphic units (lithographic stratigraphic units orLSU) were grouped into 3 units (cultural stratigraphic units or CSU)during the analysis (Gresham, 1984, p. 80): the lower one wascompared to the Stillbay and the two upper ones to the Hargeisan.The upper unit (CSU a) provided few artifacts (N ¼ 555) and veryfew Levallois products. We consider the intermediate unit (CSU b)to be the most interesting because it yielded the only assemblagethat was not the result of a stratigraphic reconstruction andbecause it provided a large number of lithic remains (N ¼ 3564)along with the radiocarbon date mentioned above (though wemust stress the unreliability of conventional dating on mixed


charcoals; Gresham, 1984, p. 66). Even this unit raises some strat-igraphic concerns (contact with the surface, presence of historicalelements). Despite this, it is the only unit of the three that shows aclear association of Levallois products (27 points and 10 out of 19cores; our interpretation of the published material) with a perti-nent microlithic component (9 out of the 10 microliths recovered atMidishi 2 come from the CSU b). Nevertheless, as Gresham states,“Of the nine [microliths] that occurred in CSU b, five were fromsurface levels (0e10 cm BS) while the other four were from 10 to20 cm BS. All were recovered from two test units largely outside ofthe cave (.)” (Gresham, 1984, p. 193). In addition, it seems to usthat the blade component described by Gresham (1984) couldactually correspond to Levallois by-products. The example of Mid-ishi 2, which is probably one of the best contexts for the Hargeisanindustry shows how much its very existence can be criticized.

4.2. Laas Geel: a lost-and-found with a Hargeisan industry?

In such a context, how should one deal with the material fromLaas Geel? We were able to identify two different archaeologicalfacies within Sondage 2 (SU 700e708 and 709e711). The faciesfrom the upper sequence, which we have attributed to the Soma-liland Wilton, yields a terminus ante quem for the lower part of the


Fig. 9. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the lower ensemble: 1, 2, 3, Levallois preferential cores (1 from SU 711; 2, 3 from SU 709); 4 “Levallois-like” blade core with two opposite strikingplatforms (SU 709); scale in centimeters; drawings A. Diaz.


sequence, where some technological features seem to link up withClark’s Hargeisan. Today, as a result of the information we havebeen able to extract from detailed techno-typological analysis ofassemblages within relatively secure stratigraphic sequences, weare inclined to consider Laas Geel to be the most relevant contextavailable with regards to terminal Pleistocene industries in thisregion.

The industry from the lower sequence of Sondage 2 is somehowdifferent from the Hargeisan one because the burin component ismissing (although the burin-like cores could correspond to it).However, the sample we have at hand is large enough to documentthe association between blade and bladelet productions, andLevallois flaking systems. What can we make of such an


association? There are several arguments that support Laas Geel’sindustries’ integrity: a stratigraphic continuity, an undisturbedsedimentary context in the lower sequence and a correspondingmaterial culture that is taphonomically homogeneous. Moreover,the base of the sequence shows no proper MSA level that couldhave contaminated the overlying deposits with a Levalloiscomponent. In addition to this, microliths from SU 709e711 arecompletely different from the ones from the upper sequence (seeTable 6): if both industries contain microliths, only those from theupper part of the sequence are true geometric ones. The microlithsfrom the lower sequence (pointed and elongated backed bladelets)are likely a chronological marker for this region (see similar ele-ments recovered from Goda Buticha in Eastern Ethiopia;


Fig. 10. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the lower ensemble: 1 endscraper on flake (SU 711); 2 endscraper on blade (SU 711); 3 double endscraper (SU 709); 4 endscraper on blade (SU709); 5 circle segments (SU 709); 6 modified laminar flake (SU 709); 7 distal fragment of pointed backed bladelets (SU 709); scale in centimeters; drawings A. Diaz.


Leplongeon, in this issue). Finally, some of the cores seem to havesimilar volumetric conceptions and management between Leval-lois flaking systems and the production of laminar blanks. Wetherefore consider the industries from Laas Geel’s lower sequenceto be homogeneous.

Another element that can add to the discussion is the pre-liminary observations we made on the material from Shelter 13 atLaas Geel. At Shelter 13 only a very limited sedimentary sequencewas identified and no radiocarbon dating could be performed.However, the industry at this site also features the association ofblade and Levallois production with elongated backed bladelets,and lacks both quartz production and other kinds of microliths(circle segments). This fact reinforces the possibility that Sondage20s lower sequence assemblages may correspond to an undisturbedindustry.

5. Conclusion

The analysis conducted and discussed here, reinforces the ex-istence of a very specific industry in the Horn of Africa at the end ofthe Pleistocene, which was originally identified and coined


Hargeisan by Clark (1954). While Clark’s Hargeisan facies is prob-lematic given the taphonomic and chronological issues present ontype-sites of this industry, his descriptions remain the closestexamplewe have to date of the industry from the lower sequence ofShelter 7 at Laas Geel and pertain to a facies that was identified inthe same region.

Most important, however, are the more detailed typological andtechnological attributes we have observed for these industries inthe context of the transitional period between theMSA and the LSA.Our study has demonstrated that our archaeological knowledge forthis period and in this region has considerably evolved since the1950s. For example, several sites in this region indicate the exis-tence of an industry that also features the association of Levallois,laminar, and microlithic technologies (e.g. Pleurdeau, 2005; Brandtet al., 2012; Leplongeon, 2013).

Despite the very limited documentation at hand, it is now clearthat a number of sites in the Horn of Africa have provided industrieswith the association of blade and bladelets products with Levalloisflaking systems during MIS 3 and 2. Whether it is the result of thesyncretism of different technological traditions or the autonomousevolution of industries in this region, it is of primary importance to


Fig. 11. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the lower ensemble: 1 point with alternating retouches and thinned base (SU 709); 2 double sidescraper on Levallois flake (SU 709); 3 Levalloispoint (SU 709); 4 blade with facetted butt (SU 709); scale in centimeters; drawings A. Diaz.

Fig. 12. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the lower ensemble: 1, 4- pointed backed bladelet (SU 711), 2- backed bladelet (SU 711); 3 below-crest bladelet (SU 709); 5e7 bladelets withdiscontinuous retouches (SU 711); scale in centimeters; drawings A. Diaz.


Fig. 13. Sondage 2A: Lithics from the lower ensemble: 1e3 unifacial points (1 from SU 710; 2, 3 from SU 711); drawings A. Diaz.




continue investigations into this aspect, or into this specificity ofthe archaeological record of the Horn of Africa at a site such as LaasGeel.

Acknowledgements

The missions conducted at Laas Geel between 2002 and 2011were made possible thanks to a warm and attentive welcome fromthe Republic of Somaliland’s higher authorities. The site of LaasGeel and the Somaliland Archaeological Heritage were managedsuccessively by the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Commerce,Industry and Tourism and are currently under the authority of theMinistry of Youth and Sports. We are thankful to the differentMinisters and their teams who have been supportive of archaeo-logical research and have been instrumental in the preservationand valorization of the Laas Geel site. Until 2007, resaerch at LaasGeel benefitted from a resaerch grant from the French Ministèredes Affaires Étrangères allocated to the program � Premièressociétés de production dans la Corne de l’Afrique. The last twomissions were funded by the Service de Coopération et d’ActionCulturelle of the Embassy of France in Djibouti and the FrenchInstitute Arthur Rimbaud. We particulary wish to thank DenisSoriot, Conseiller de Coopération et d’Action Culturelle and directorof the French Institute Arthur Rimbaud. We thank the organizers ofthe Paleoanthropology and Prehistory panel of the 18th ICES in DireDawa for having invited us to publish our study in this issue. Wealso thank Emily Hainsworth for her help with the English versionof the text. We are greatly indebted to the two anonymous re-viewers and to Steven Brandt for their comments which greatlyimproved this paper. We finally wish to thank Lamya Khalidi for hercriticism and for editing the English.

References

Boëda, E., 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilité des méthodes. In: Monographies duCRA. 9, CNRS Éditions, Paris.

Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., Meignen, L., 1990. Identification de chaines opératoireslithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo 2, 43e80.

Bordes, J.-G., 2002. Les interstratifications Châtelperronien/Aurignacien du Roc-de-Combe et du Piage (Lot, France) (Thèse de Doctorat). In: Analyse taphonomiquedes industries lithiques; implications archéologiques. Université Bordeaux 1,Bordeaux.

Brandt, S.A., 1986. The Upper Pleistocene and Early Holocene prehistory of the Hornof Africa. The African Archaeological Review 4, 41e82.

Brandt, S.A., Brook, G.A., 1984. Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental research inNorthern Somalia. Current Anthropology 25 (1), 119e121.


Brandt, S.A., Gresham, T.H., 1990. L’âge de la pierre en Somalie. L’Anthropologie 94(3), 459e482.

Brandt, S.A., Fisher, E.C., Hildebrand, E.A., Vogelsang, R., Ambrose, S.H., Lesur, J.,Wang, H., 2012. Early MIS 3 occupation of Mochena Borago Rockshelter,Southwest Ethiopian Highlands: implications for Late Pleistocene archaeology,paleoenvironments and modern human dispersals. Quaternary International274, 38e54.

Burkitt, M.C., Barrington Brown, C., 1931. Stone implements from British Somaliland.Man 31, 157e159.

Clark, J.D., 1954. The Prehistoric Cultures of the Horn of Africa. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge.

Gresham, T.H., 1984. An Investigation of an Upper Pleistocene Archaeological Site inNorthern Somalia (M.A. thesis). The University of Georgia, Athens.

Gutherz, X., Jallot, L., 2011. The Decorated Shelters of Laas Geel and the Rock Art ofSomaliland. Presses Universitaires de la Méditerranée, Montpellier.

Gutherz, X., Cros, J.P., Lesur, J., 2003a. The discovery of new rock paintings in theHorn of Africa: the rockshelters of Laas Geel (Republic of Somaliland). Journal ofAfrican Archaeology 1, 227e236.

Gutherz, X., Cros, J.P., Lesur, J., 2003b. Nouvelles découvertes de peintures rupestresdans la Corne de l’Afrique : les abris-sous-roche de Laas Geel, République duSomaliland. Annales d’Éthiopie XIX, 295e306.

Inizan, M.-L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J., 1999. Technology and Ter-minology of Knapped Stone. In: Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée, vol. 5. CREP,Nanterre.

Kleindienst, M.R., 1967. Questions of terminology of regard to the study Stone Ageindustries in Eastern Africa “Cultural stratigraphic units”. In: Bishop, W.W.,Clark, J.D. (Eds.), Background to Evolution in Africa. University of Chicago Press,Chicago, pp. 821e857.

Leplongeon, A., 2013. La transition Middle Stone Age/Later Stone Age en Afrique del’Est (Éthiopie) (Thèse de Doctorat). MuséumNational d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Leplongeon, A., 2014. Microliths in the Middle and Later Stone Age of Eastern Africa:new data from Porc-Epic and Goda Buticha cave sites, Ethiopia. QuaternaryInternational. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.002 (in this issue).

Pelegrin, J., 2000. Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: critères dediagnose et quelques réflexions. In: Valentin, B., Bodu, P., Christensen, M. (Eds.),L’Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire: confrontation des mod-èles régionaux de peuplement, actes de la table-ronde internationale deNemours. APRAIF, Nemours, pp. 73e86.

Peresani, M. (Ed.), 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology: Advances and Implications. BARInternational Series, 1120. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Pleurdeau, D., 2005. Human technical behavior in the African Middle Stone Age: theLithic assemblage of Porc-Epic Cave (Dire Dawa, Ethiopia). African Archaeo-logical Review 22, 177e197.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G.,Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M.,Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F.,Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A.,Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., Plicht van der, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E.,2011. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0e50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51, 1111e1150.

Schlanger, N., 2005. The chaîne opératoire. In: Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. (Eds.), Archae-ology, The Key concepts. Routledge, London-New-York, pp. 18e23.

Soriano, S., Villa, P., Wadley, L., 2007. Blade technology and tool forms in the MiddleStone Age of South Africa: the Howiensons Poort and post-Howiensons Poort atRose Cottage Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 681e703.

Tixier, J., 2012. A Method for the Study of Stone Tools. In: ArchéoLogiques, 4. MNHA,Luxembourg.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(14)00262-6/sref1

















































































The Hargeisan revisited: Lithic industries from shelter 7 of Laas Geel, Somaliland and the...

Documents

Transcript of The Hargeisan revisited: Lithic industries from shelter 7 of Laas Geel, Somaliland and the...