Was a transition to food production homogeneous along the circum-Mediterranean littoral? A...

Neolithisation of Northeastern Africa

edited by

Noriyuki Shirai

Studies in Early Near Eastern

Production, Subsistence, and Environment 16

Berlin, ex oriente (2013)

Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment (SENEPSE)

Editors-in-Chief: Hans Georg K. Gebel and Reinder Neef

The Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment are a reviewed series. Volume 16 is published with the support and advice of the following board of reviewers:

Marion Benz, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg Victor Černý, Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague Sumio Fujii, Kanazawa University Hans Georg K. Gebel, Freie Universität Berlin Matthias Lange, Kleve Reinder Neef, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin Luisa Pereira, Universidade do Porto Nadja Pöllath, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München Heiko Riemer, Universiät Köln Gary O. Rollefson, Whitman College, Walla Walla Steve A. Rosen, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva Romuald Schild, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw Klaus Schmidt, Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Berlin Marc Verhoeven, RAAP Archaeological Consultancy, Weert Pierre Vermeersch, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Trevor Watkins, University of Edinburgh Kai Wellbrock, Fachhochschule Lübeck

Organization of review process, assisting managing editor: Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow Managing editor, copy-editing and layout/design of this volume: Noriyuki Shirai Financial support for printing this volume: ex oriente e.V., Berlin

Book orders:

https://www.exoriente.org/bookshop/ or: ex oriente e.V., c/o Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Hüttenweg 7, 14195 Berlin, Germany, Fax 0049 30 98 311 246, Email [email protected]

A list of publications by ex oriente can be found at the end of this volume. © ex oriente e.V. Produktion, Subsistenz und Umwelt im frühen Vorderasien, Berlin. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. All rights reserved.

Printed in Germany by dbusiness, Berlin.

ISBN 978-3-944178-02-8 • ISSN 0947-0549

Contents

What makes the Neolithic in northeastern Africa? A new debate over an old issuefor eliminating neighbourly ignorance ...................................................................................................... 1Noriyuki Shirai

An appraisal of the terms ‘Neolithic’ and ‘Neolithisation’ for use in North Africain the 21st century ...................................................................................................................................... 5Andrew B. Smith

Reconsidering the ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ in Sudan ....................................................................... 23Azhari Mustafa Sadig

Continuity, change and material memory: Taking a temporal perspective on the Neolithisationin Northeastern Africa .............................................................................................................................. 43Annett Dittrich

Early Holocene palaeoclimate in North Africa: An overview ................................................................ 65Andrea Zerboni

Why are there very few archaeological sites of the Early Holocene in the Egyptian Nile Valley?Geological and geomorphological reasons ............................................................................................. 83Maciej Pawlikowski

Early stock keeping in northeastern Africa: Near Eastern influences and local developments ............. 97Veerle Linseele

Modelling cereal selection in Neolithic Egypt: An evaluation of economic criteria ........................... 109René T.J. Cappers

Unraveling the prehistoric ancestry of the present-day inhabitants of Northeast Africa:An archaeogenetic approach to Neolithisation ..................................................................................... 121Alison C. Smith

Was a transition to food production homogeneous along the circum-Mediterranean littoral?A perspective on Neolithization research from the Libyan coast ......................................................... 149Giulio Lucarini

Whence the Neolithic of Northeastern Africa? Evidence from the Central WesternDesert of Egypt ...................................................................................................................................... 175Mary M.A. McDonald

Rock art in Egypt: Visual communication in the Eastern Desert in the Early to Mid-Holocene ........ 193Rebecca Döhl

Was Neolithisation a struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest, or merely thesurvival of the luckiest? A case study of socioeconomic and cultural changes in Egyptin the Early-Middle Holocene ............................................................................................................... 213Noriyuki Shirai

Nile Valley-Levant interactions: An eclectic review............................................................................. 237Ofer Bar-Yosef

The Neolithisation of Northeastern Africa: Reflections on knowns, unknowns,and unknown unknowns ........................................................................................................................ 249Graeme Barker

149

Introduction

The begmnning of food production is one ofthe most significant events in North African pre-/proto-history. Research on this subject has so farput emphasis on the autonomous local developmentof North African communities, independent fromNear Eastern cultural dynamics (Barker 2006;Bellwood 2005; Krzyzaniak and Kobusiewicz1984; Smith 2005). This phenomenon deservesmore local investigations aimed at establishingdiachronic connections both within the region itselfand between the region and its surrounding areas.It is now commonly accepted that at the time ofthe North African and Saharan climatic changesin the Early and Mid Holocene (which broughtabout essentially humid phases) (Arz et al. 2003;Kuper and Kröpelin 2006), domesticated plantsand animals from the Near East (wheat, barley,sheep/goats and probably cattle) were introducedinto North Africa. In fact, in the Egyptian WesternDesert some of the domesticates came into contactand became part of the autochthonous subsistencesystem based on cattle raising and on the exploitationof local wild grasses such as sorghum and millet(Barakat and Fahmy 1999; Fahmy 2001; Lucarini2007; in press a; Thanheiser 2011; Wasylikowa2001). Yet, when and how the introduction ofindividual species took place in other regions ofNorth Africa, and particularly in the coastal region,remains extremely uncertain.

In light of this, the following questions arise.Which pathways did wheat, barley, cattle andcaprines follow as they spread, together orseparately, along the North African coast? Did theirspread in the coastal region occur through theterritorial expansion of farmer-herders comingfrom elsewhere, or through the adoption ofdomesticates by autochthonous foragers? If thelatter, under what climatic, environmental and

demographic conditions were the domesticatesadopted in this region? To what extent does thedevelopment of material technologies reflectinteractions between different groups of people?In an attempt to answer these questions, this paperwill summarize the present state of knowledgeabout the Neolithization of North Africa throughreviewing past research in the Maghreb anddescribing the ongoing fieldwork in the Libyanlittoral.

The Capsian and the Neolithic ofCapsian Tradition

The sporadic nature of the first appearanceof Near Eastern domesticates indicated by 14Cdates suggests a slow Neolithization process acrossNorth Africa rather than a Near Eastern-inspired‘Neolithic Revolution’ (Childe 1925; 1934). Thepicture emerging from current research in NorthAfrica is not however homogeneous. While theHolocene cultural sequence of the Egyptian WesternDesert is rather firmly established (Barich et al. inpress; Barich and Lucarini 2008; Kindermann 2010;Kuper and Kröpelin 2006; McDonald 2009;Riemer 2007a; Riemer and Kindermann 2008;Wendorf et al. 2001), the development of the‘Capsian’ and the ‘Neolithic of Capsian Tradition’along the Libyan coast and in the Tripolitaniaregion is far less clear.

This is also the outcome of a culture-historicalapproach which dominated research in the westernSahara and in particular in Algerian territory duringthe twentieth century (Camps 1974). This approachdid not attach adequate value to human–environmentinteractions and anthropological aspects of bothcultures. Its only focus was, in fact, on the typologicalanalysis of artefact classes.

Even regarding the use of the term ‘Neolithic’,French scholars, such as Camps (1974; 1982) and

Was a transition to food production homogeneousalong the circum-Mediterranean littoral?A perspective on Neolithization research

from the Libyan coast

Giulio Lucarini

Noriyuki Shirai (ed.), Neolithisation of Northeastern Africa.Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 16 (2013). Berlin: ex oriente

Giulio Lucarini

150

Aumassip (1986), have argued that pottery,polished axes, bifacial arrowheads and certainobjects of body ornament can be sufficient toidentify a site as ‘Neolithic’. This is useful as, atmost Saharan sites, preservation of faunal remainsand cereals is so poor that there is little physicalevidence of herding or agriculture.

The opposite position, defined by Klees(1993) as the ‘economic approach’, has been heldby Anglophone-dominated research tradition in theeastern Sahara. Clark (1967), Smith (1984) andClose (1980) were among the first exponents ofthis position according to which “Material cultureby itself without the direct proof of cultivatedplants and cereals, of domestic stock, or ofpermanent dwelling and settlement patterns is atbest ambiguous evidence on which to establish theexistence of fully, or even of incipient, food-producing cultures.” (Clark 1967: 621).

In line with the principles of the culture-history school, the first studies on Early–MidHolocene cultures of the Maghreb aimed at describingthe characteristics of different material cultures inthe region, defining their spatial distribution, andassigning many specific ‘Neolithic’ terms todifferences in the assemblages. The recognition ofnumerous local facies in different areas of theMaghreb resulted in a lot of publications conveyingthe idea of extreme cultural diversity, becauseauthors usually defined and named cultures basedexclusively on the typology of different classes ofartefacts, especially lithics. In these studies, all thecauses related to specific functional features,subsystems or processes of local adaptation, wereutterly disregarded.

The Maghreb Holocene Epipalaeolithic culture,defined on the basis of lithic technology andtypology, was subdivided into the Typical Capsianand Upper Capsian (de Morgan et al. 1910; Vaufrey1955). The relationship between these two wasuncertain, and the subsequent culture, whichretained Capsian elements but had new features,was named ‘Neolithic of Capsian Tradition’ (Vaufrey1933). At the beginning, this classification wasmerely based on typological considerations. Withinsuch a research tradition, it is worth emphasizingthe relevance of the work carried out by Lubelland colleagues (Jackes and Lubell 2008; Lubell1984; Lubell et al. 1984). They, insofar as easternMaghreb1 is concerned, were able to postulate a certaincontinuity, both cultural and palaeoanthropological,

from the end of the Pleistocene to the Early Holocene.They also attested a similar continuity from Typicalto Upper Capsian, despite a caesura around 6200BC as a consequence of the increasing aridity(Jackes and Lubell 2008: 42, 53; Rahmani 2003;2004) coinciding with the 8200 cal BP cold anddry event of North Atlantic origin (Alley et al.1997). The 8200 BP event had a major culturalimpact over different regions of North Africa (Huntet al. 2010: 23) and corresponds to the shift towardsthe Neolithic both in the Fezzan region (Cremaschiet al. 2010) and in the Haua Fteah cave.

The economy of Capsian groups was exclusivelyacquisitive and was based on the hunting-gatheringactivities of wild species along with a largeconsumption of terrestrial gastropods. One of thedifferences between the two spheres lies in thetypes of animals that were exploited: large herbivoresare mainly attested in the Typical Capsian contextsduring wet conditions, whereas smaller mammalscan be found in the Upper Capsian sites, after aridityincreased due to the 8200 cal BP event. Lubellinterpreted such cultural and economic variabilitybetween the two horizons as a consequence of aprocess of adaptations to different environments(Lubell et al. 1984). As for the occupational pattern,the technological analysis and the strategies of rawmaterial exploitation allow us to infer a certaindegree of mobility, especially regarding the UpperCapsian (Rahmani 2003; 2004). Despite suchmobility, the frequentation of seasonal ecologicalniches occurred repeatedly and within limitedregions. Some Capsian sites witness this prolongedand iterated exploitation of the same territories.Among these, the Algerian site of Medjez II,located in the El Eluma region, revealed a longperiod of occupation testified by a 4 m stratigraphicalsection (Camps-Fabrer 1975) and reinforced bythe finding of fifteen burials, seven of which meantfor infants (Aumassip 2001: 122). Also the Dra-Mta-el-Ma-el Abiod éscargotière, located at about30 km south of Tebessa, around 5000 years agowas populated on and off for about 300 years(Morel 1978). In this framework of prolonged stayin the territory, first attempts at some animalspecies management, such as the Bos primigenius,cannot be excluded (Barich 2010: 118), although

1. “Maghreb” refers to the modern territories of Algeria,Morocco and Tunisia.

Was a transition to food production homogeneous along the circum-Mediterranean littoral?A perspective on Neolithization research from the Libyan coast

151

data about exploitation of domestic species are notavailable. Also the discovery of particular tools,for example a sort of sickle prototypes made up offlint elements hafted on herbivore’s ribs, may berelated to particular practices of wild plantexploitation (Aumassip 2001: 116).

As for the Libyan western coast, the definitionof Libyco-Capsian culture, was provided byMcBurney (1967) keeping in mind the peculiartraits which distinguish it from the other MaghrebiCapsian contexts. Also Sheppard (Lubell et al. 1984)emphasized that only weak stylistic similaritiesexist between Libyan and Maghrebi Capsian lithicassemblages. As pointed out by Close (1986) andconfirmed by the analysis recently carried out byLucarini and Mutri on the Eastern Oranian andearly Libyco-Capsian lithic assemblages of theHaua Fteah cave (Barker et al. 2010: 72-74), thetechno-typological continuity between the twocomplexes seem to connote the Capsian phase asa local and further development of the Oranian.Close also suggested that the correspondencesbetween the Libyco-Capsian and the AlgerianIberomaurusian are stricter than those between theLibyco-Capsian and the Capsian of the Maghrebregions.

In the Algerian territories, around 5000 BCthe Capsian culture was replaced by the so-calledNeolithic of Capsian Tradition. As remarked byLindstädter (2008: 58), this transition, that stilldeserves thorough investigation, took place underthe influence of neighbouring Neolithic cultures– the Mediterranean Neolithic in the northwest andthe Saharan in the south. It is in this context thatthe first elements alien to Maghreb, that is to saythe domestic caprines found at Capéletti (Roubet1979) and Haua Fteah Caves (Klein and Scott1986), first appeared. Again, in this case, it is notpossible to assume that a population replacementtook place: the transformation may be due, instead,to a phenomenon of cultural diffusion. Some Capsiangroups may already have been pre-adapted to theintroduction of domestic species coming fromabroad because of their well-developed exploitationand management of some wild species and maythus have played a linking role with the followingNeolithic cultures.

Roubet’s research (1968; 1971; 1979) on theNeolithic of Capsian Tradition paid great attentionto the palaeoenvironmental and palaeoeconomicaspects of the Capéletti cave and Damous el Ahmar

site. It made a significant contribution to clearlyoutlining Mid Holocene economic and occupationalpatterns in the region of Aurès, northwesternAlgeria. No trace of domestic cereals was discoveredin these contexts, but only evidence of exploitationof wild species, such as grasses, bulbs, nuts andfruits. Nevertheless these sites yielded the firstclear evidence of pastoral economy in the Maghreb.In particular, the Capéletti cave was inhabited,between c.5500 and 3500 cal BC, by groups whoseeconomy was based on the exploitation of smalllivestock, especially sheep and goats and, to alesser extent, cattle. At this point, the connotationof food producing economy was added to the termNeolithic of Capsian Tradition.

The Neolithic of northern Libya andthe archaeology of the two coastalranges

Northern Libya must have functioned as oneof the most important links between the Neolithicof Capsian Tradition stricto sensu (northwesternAlgeria and Tunisia) in the west, and the Neolithicsphere of the Egyptian Western Desert and NileValley in the east. This paper focuses on two case-study areas, in order to investigate and compareherder-forager interactions and processes ofNeolithization in two northern Libyan regions: theJebel Gharbi and the Jefara plain to the west and theJebel Akhdar to the east (Fig. 1). Current fieldworkprogrammes carried out by two European teamshave already provided accurate palaeoclimatic andpalaeoenvironmental data. My paper is extensivelybased on the work of the Italian-Libyan Joint Missionin the Jebel Gharbi (University of Rome ‘Sapienza’and University of Cassino) and of the CyrenaicaPrehistory Project (University of Cambridge). Thefirst focuses on the Jebel Gharbi, situated at thenorthern border of the Tripolitanian plateau withits northern side facing the Jefara plain. The latteris working in the region of the Jebel Akhdar inCyrenaica and, in particular, re-excavating theHaua Fteah cave which was first investigated inthe 1950s by the Cambridge archaeologist CharlesMcBurney (McBurney 1960; 1967; McBurney andHey 1955).

Giulio Lucarini

152

Archaeological research in the Jebel Gharbiand Jefara region

Archaeological investigation in the JebelGharbi region was started at the beginning of the1990s by Barbara Barich (Sapienza University ofRome). Her research revealed important occupation,which appeared to have been particularly intenseonly during the Pleistocene (Barich 2007; Barichand Conati Barbaro 2003; Barich et al. 2006).When we restarted our research some years ago,little research had been done on the shift from thePleistocene to the Holocene and to the advancedphases of the latter, from palaeoclimatic andarchaeological points of view.

Over the last few years our research in theJefara territory, at the Shakshuk and El Joshvillages, has yielded the remains of campsitesrelated to transient presence of pastoral groups,which partly date back to the Holocene (6th

millennium BC). The data so far acquired do notallow us to associate this evidence either with theNeolithic layers (VIII-VI) of the Haua Fteah cave,or with the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition, strictosensu, especially considering the lack of pottery.Yet the peculiar traits of the lithic assemblage showsimilarities with the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition.

During the last excavation campaigns in the

Jebel Gharbi, several Holocene deposits werebrought to light in the area crossed by the roadconnecting Shakshuk and Nalut, at the southernborders of the Jefara plain, not far away from theslopes of the Jebel. Satellite images were used tohelp locate both river basins (whose presence istestified by fossil wadis which drain from the Jebeltowards the plain) and lake deposits sometimesdocumented by the formation of playa sediments.One of these areas, the Wadi Basina, runs throughthe alluvial plain from the Jebel escarpment to thesouthern border of the Jefara. The highest of thefour terraces overlooking the Wadi containsHolocene deposits covered by dune formations;these open-air sites show the presence of a greatnumber of lithic artefacts, grindstones, potterysherds and ostrich eggshell fragments. In particular,organic sediments from site SJ-00-59 were dated7030±50 bp / 6011-5795 BC (Beta-154551) and6370±40 bp / 5471-5231 BC (Beta-154552) (Barichand Lucarini 2004-2005).

Similarly, research carried out near the villageof Shakshuk, located immediately next to the Jebelescarpment (Fig. 2), found Holocene depositscharacterized by the presence of few but veryrepresentative lithic artefacts that are undoubtedlyattributed to the Neolithic. Also in this case, three

Fig. 1: General map of Libya showing the position of the archaeological sites and other locations mentioned in the text.


153

dates have been obtained, two (from charcoal) forthe site 67, located east of Shakshuk, 7290±60 bp/ 6333-6022 BC (Beta-167093) and 5400±40bp /4344-4071 BC (Beta-167092), and one for site 58,on the western side of the village, where organicsediment was dated 6120±100 bp / 5304-4801 BC(Beta-154540).

Over the last few years, archaeologicalinvestigation has continued to focus on Pleistocenetraces, mostly found on the top or at the foot ofthe Jebel – which led to the discovery of the mostimportant Late Palaeolithic site SJ-00-56, dated16,750±60 bp / 18,257-17,806 BC (Beta-157689)(Lucarini and Mutri 2010; Mutri and Lucarini2008). Yet, at the same time, research has beencarried out towards the southern borders of theJefara, a wide plain between the sides of the plateauand the Tripolitanian coast. Interestingly, the presenceof many Holocene deposits has been registerednot far from the El Josh village, located along theroad that runs from Shakshuk to Nalut. Field surveyand observation of satellite and radar imageshighlighted that old lake basins and marsh sedimentsare everywhere in this area but are often situatednear springs, many of which are still running today.

The first site, SJ-03-75, discovered immediatelywest of El Josh village, is located near one of thethree perennial springs surrounding the Wadi Ali.The site yielded about 8500 lithic artefacts, a small

number coming from surface collection, and therest from a c.2 m thick stratigraphy comprisingtwo layers of sandy-silty dark sediments interbeddedwith an aeolian sand layer (Giraudi et al. 2013:342). The site also yielded many ostrich eggshellsherds (some of them burnt), terrestrial gastropodshells and some animal bone fragments. The lithicassemblage now under investigation shows a highlaminar index, and among the few cores found,microlithic cores for bladelet production areprevalent. Among the retouched tools, backed andgeometric (triangles and segments) elements aswell as endscrapers on blades are the most frequenttypes. A notable find in the surficial layers of theexcavation is a bifacial tanged arrowhead, verysimilar to those of the Neolithic of CapsianTradition. One of the dates obtained from charcoal,5340±140 bp / 4459-3805 BC (GdA-1502), relatesto the latest period of occupation of the site. Twomore charcoal samples, from the oldest layers ofthe sequence, were dated 8210±110 bp / 7531-6841BC (GdA-1501) and 7140±240 bp / 6470-5617BC (Gd-30183), and can be correlated to the firstoccupation phases of the site.

On the northern edge of El Josh village, inthe Jefara plain, another Holocene occupation areawas detected. The oldest date, 7560±60 bp / 6530-6247 BC (Beta-188719), was obtained from organicsediment from an area west of the village. Two

Fig. 2: Jebel Gharbi (Libya). Map of the region showing the location of the sites under investigation.

Giulio Lucarini

154

other investigated sites, SJ-06-87 and SJ-06-88,are located northeast of El Josh about 200 m fromeach other. They lie within an area containing smallsprings and wetland vegetation. The sites arecharacterized by exposed palustrine and aeoliansediments. Among the six dates obtained, all fromorganic sediment, the two oldest ones are fromsite 87, 6930±25 bp / 5879-5738 BC (GdA-2319)and 5850±40 bp / 4827-4602 BC (GdA1786). Theremaining four dates form a homogeneous clusterspanning from the first half of the 4th millenniumto the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. In detail,sediments from site 87 were dated 4825±25 bp /3656-3530 BC (GdA-2317) and 4180±25 bp /2886-2671 BC (GdA-2318), whereas sedimentsfrom site 88 were dated 4545±50 bp / 3495-3090BC (GdC-321) and 4180±110 bp / 3079-2471 BC(GdS-1001). Lithic artefacts coming from these sitesare currently under study, but the presence ofbifacial tanged arrowheads is apparent even aftera preliminary analysis.

The El Batn area and the occupation of theJefara during the Holocene

Since the 2006 fieldwork, archaeologicalresearch carried out in the Jefara plain has focusedon the El Batn area, situated in the Bedr district atc.12 km west of El Josh village (Fig. 2). Site SJ-03-83 turned out to be crucial to our investigation,because of the large amount of archaeologicalevidence it yielded, especially surface hearths, richlithic assemblages, and numerous remains ofancient temporary campsites (Lucarini 2009).

Today, this area looks like a large strip of landraised above the adjacent countryside; delimitedby the two branches of the Wadi Serwis – anephemeral stream running from the Jebel Gharbi’sescarpment – and situated near three springs. Oneof these springs is close to the northern border ofthe area, whereas the other two are located at itssouthwestern edge. Owing to geomorphologicalprocesses, the area’s surface does not sit on aproper substratum. Instead, the whole site liesdirectly upon pre-Aterian highly cemented silt lakeformations, characterized by deep and visibledesiccation polygons. The same formations are alsotraceable in the Wadi Basina (Giraudi, pers. comm.2012).

The great availability of water, provided bythe two branches of the Wadi Serwis and by thethree perennial springs, must have made the whole

area a particularly attractive spot as early as theLate Pleistocene. This is apparent when oneconsiders the great number of surface hearths andconcentrations of lithic artefacts, grindstones,ostrich eggshell and pottery sherds.

The area now appears as a large deflationsurface, characterized by the presence of a verydiscontinuous surficial aeolian deposit lying uponthe silty sediment. The exposure following deflationupon this area has caused the induration of theoriginal strata. As the sediment that used to separatethe different layers disappeared, all strata movedonto the same level, especially where the site ismore exposed to wind.

Since the area is vast, the first systematicsurvey of the site in 2006 was conducted byemploying highly precise landscape investigationmethods that allow an accurate and rapid analysisof the area. A systematic topographical survey ofthe whole area (135 hectares) was performed withthe aid of a differential GPS receiver. A reconstructionof the ancient landscape was completed through thealtimetric analysis of the reliefs and the elaborationof a Digital Terrain Model. The survey located a totalof 223 Steinplätze or hearths, 11 areas of scatteredhearth stones (which are most probably ancienthearths now completely deflated) and 16 areas witha high concentration of archaeological artefacts,mostly lithic assemblages, and, in some case,clusters of ostrich eggshell sherds.

Analysis of the distribution and spatial densityof archaeological evidence (Fig. 3) showed thepresence of several micro-areas with a particularlyhigh concentration, where hearths and archaeologicalartefacts are clustered. In most cases, such micro-areas are situated between the two branches of theWadi Serwis, along the south–north direction thatruns parallel to the river’s major branch.

The strong wind deflation on this area is alsotestified by the state of the hearths found, whichare often considerably deflated and rarely havepreserved in fill deposits. The sampling strategyused to choose which structures to excavate tookinto consideration their stratigraphic position:some hearths were excavated directly from the stillpreserved upper silt deposits, but others werelocated directly upon the pre-Aterian substratum.The latter were in a bad state of preservation, sincethe original ash and charcoal had been removedand replaced in some cases by an aeolian deposit.Yet most hearths consist of burnt stones, visible


155

on the surface, and hence fit the definition ofSteinplatz provided by Gabriel (1977; 1984). Thestones are arranged in a circular or oval pattern,and centred by a pit, usually not very deep, andbear evident signs of rubification. The hearthfillings are made of carbonized stones and a depositrich in ash and charcoal. The dimension of thehearths ranges from less than c.1-6 sqm, and theirdiameter varies from c.40-260 cm. Three classeswere defined according to dimension: 0-2 sqm, 2-4 sqm, 4-6 sqm. Hearths larger than 6 sqm werenot classified. As already mentioned, they appearto be considerably damaged structures, in whichthe filling deposit is gone and the stones arescattered throughout an area much wider than theoriginal one. The class including the smallesthearths (from <1 to 2 sqm) is the most common,which indicates the extremely temporary anditinerant nature of the campsites set up on the area.

The localization of the hearths, comparedwith the dates obtained for some of them, clearlyindicates that the same areas were repeatedlydeployed and occupied in the course of severalmillennia. The only zone that provided two dates

corresponding to the same phase of occupation isthe southwestern corner of the surveyed area,which is also one of the most exploited spots. Ityielded one of the most representative lithicassemblages, altogether consistent with the datesfrom the 5th millennium BC obtained there. Insidethe hearth deposits extremely rare archaeologicalartefacts were discovered, although usually a greatnumber of lithic artefacts, grindstones and ostricheggshell sherds are concentrated in the areasurrounding the hearths.

The 14C dates clearly indicate five differentoccupation phases of the area between c.12,500and 1100 bp / c.13,000 BC - AD 1000. Only oneof the dates, obtained from ostrich eggshell,12,490±70 bp / 13,114-12,230 BC (Gd-11988), refersto the Late Pleistocene. It is from a central spot ofthe surveyed area (Area 1) and testifies for a LSAoccupation. This area also contains four hearths,and a rich cluster of lithic artefacts and grindstones,which suggests that the area was also subsequentlyexploited during the Neolithic. Among the lithicartefacts (Fig. 4), it is worth mentioning microlithicsingle platform cores, pointed backed bladelets, a

Fig. 3: El Batn (El Bedr district, Libya). Digital Terrain Model of the area with the position of the Steinplatz hearths.

Giulio Lucarini

156

bifacial tanged arrowhead and a large number ofbacked bladelets truncated on one or both ends,which are the product of a high manufacturingstandard. This area can be considered as a realworkshop aimed at manufacturing microlithicelements to be used as hunting tools. The examinationof the lithic complexes showed that chert wasbroadly used for this purpose, although a smallernumber of elements in quartzite is also present.The colour of the chert varies from purple to darkbrown and usually a whitish thick patina coversthe artefacts.

A second occupation phase of the area isproved by the date 9765±80 bp / 9436-8842 BC(Gd-19211), the only one ascribable to the EarlyHolocene. This date was obtained from charcoalof a small hearth located on the northern edge ofthe surveyed area and which did not yield any lithicartefacts.

A third set of three dates come respectivelyfrom: a) a small hearth found in the central-northern district of the surveyed area, wherecharcoal sample was dated 5765±80 bp / 4799-4450 BC (Gd-19211); b) two hearths, located near

the southwestern border of the surveyed area (Area3). Charcoal from the former was dated 5030±90bp / 3984-3648 BC (Gd-19214), whereas theostrich eggshell sample yielded from the latterdates back to 5960±490 bp / 5882-3804 BC (Gd-30186). The last of these three hearths, oval-shapedand very large, measures 215 x 180 cm, and itsbase has a diameter of c.130 cm. Although the dateis fairly uncertain, the hearth was found inproximity of a rich and diagnostic lithic assemblagein Area 3. This complex, which is characterizedby a high laminar index, yielded numerousbladelets that were manufactured from small singleplatform cores. These bladelets were most probablyused as blanks for the production of backedelements, also present in the area (Fig. 5). Thepresence of geometric tools, and especially anumber of crescents testify to the use of themicroburin technique. Among the hunting toolsfound in the same area are two arrowheads. Thefirst one is triangle-shaped and barbed, and showsa bifacial covering retouch (Fig. 5: 5). It is indeedidentical to the Algerian example from the JebelMarshel that Vaufrey (1955) defined as the Neolithic

Fig. 4: Area 1 (El Batn, Libya). Lithic artefacts (1, 2: microlithicsingle platform cores; 3: backed bladelet; 4, 5: backedbladelets with double truncation; 6: bifacial tanged arrowhead)(drawings by M. Pennacchioni).

Fig. 5: Area 3 (El Batn, Libya). Lithic artefacts (1: sidescraper;2: backed element; 3, 4: crescents; 5, 6: bifacial tangedarrowheads) (drawings by M. Pennacchioni).


157

of Capsian Tradition. The second arrowhead,fractured on the distal end, also shows bifacialretouch, which covers the long tang as well (Fig.5: 6). Scraping tools are also present, such assidescrapers; one of these types is characterizedby obverse bilateral semi-abrupt retouch.

Flint elements from the southwestern area ofthe site (Feature 8), which remain to be dated,show similar techno-typological characteristics(Fig. 6). There are both small and medium, usuallysingle platform cores, mostly used for the productionof bladelets. Among the retouched tools, backedelements are found, such as backed truncatedbladelets, endscrapers and sidescrapers. A verypeculiar circular scraper and several denticulateson blade are attested as well.

It is necessary to stress that among the largestone artefacts, the presence of several grindstoneelements, usually of small or medium size, maytestify to the exploitation of wild plants along thewadi. Among the numerous ostrich eggshell sherds,moreover, it is worth noting the presence of beads(one of them finished, others in a manufacturingstage). The production of ornament elements isalso proved by the presence of a pierced bivalveseashell. The presence of land snails in largenumbers is also worth noting. Some pottery sherds,including only a small number of diagnostic ones,equally relating to this occupation phase, werefound scattered throughout the site area. The

fragments have no decoration, and in most casesare 8 mm thick and made of rough, mineral-tempered fabric.

The general aspects of lithic production inthis occupation phase, the presence of pottery andgrindstones, along with the dates obtained (betweenabout 5000 and 4000 BC) correspond to theNeolithic of Capsian Tradition.

Although the Neolithic sites situated on theTripolitanian coast remain largely unknown, theMid Holocene complexes of the Jebel Gharbi canbe directly compared with the lithic assemblageof Sîlîn 18 located not far away from the LepcisMagna area (Munzi et al. 2004; 2004-2005). Thissite is still one of the rare prehistoric contexts sofar examined along the Tripolitanian coast. Someelements of the lithic complex in Sîlîn indeed showfeatures that strongly resemble the Neolithic ofCapsian Tradition.

The last two sets of dates, all obtained fromcharcoal, indicate the occupation of the area in ahistorical period. There are four recent dates; theoldest of them, 2720±230 bp / 1493-379 BC (Gd-30187), was obtained from a small hearth whichwas possibly used for a temporary campsite. Thecalibrated date, although quite uncertain, suggestsan epoch in which the area was one of the necessarystops for pastoral groups that travelled along thesides of the Jebel. If calibrated, each of the remainingthree dates – 1460±45 bp / AD 465-661 (GdS-793),1235±85 bp / AD 654-973 (Gd-19210) and 1150±60bp / AD 715-1016 (Gd-19205) – falls in the 1st

millennium AD, instead. The presence of suchmore recent structures is clear evidence that duringhistorical periods, the El Batn area continued to becrossed and repeatedly exploited during pastoraltranshumance movements from the Jebel and theNalut territory towards the coast. With this in mind,it is to be noted that where the slope of Jebel facesthe site there is a sort of natural opening, whichmust have functioned as an easy pathway betweenthe plateau and the plain. After 15,000 years thearea has still the same function. As clearly emergedfrom interviews with the present-day shepherds,the El Batn area is still considered one of the mostimportant transit and pasture areas along the waythat leads from Nalut and from the sides of theJebel towards the coast.

Fig. 6: Feature 8 (El Batn, Libya). Lithic artefacts (1: backedbladelet; 2: backed truncated bladelet; 3: sidescraper; 4, 5:endscrapers) (drawings by M. Pennacchioni).

Giulio Lucarini

158

The palaeoenvironmental reconstruction andeconomy of Mid Holocene groups

As for the palaeoclimate, the first occupationalphase of the El Batn area fully corresponds withthe third of the four arid phases indicated byGiraudi (2005), after 13,000 bp / 14,300-13,200BC (corresponding to the Younger Dryas). Thismay have determined a quite ephemeral occupation,limited only to areas where a certain amount ofwater could be kept.

On the contrary, 8th and 7th millennium BCdates obtained from site 75 near El Josh villagecorrespond to the so-called humid period JG-1.This was followed by a period of intense ariditycorresponding to the 8200 BP event characterized, inthe Jefara plain, by widespread aeolian sedimentation.The third period of intense exploitation of the ElBatn area (5th and 4th millennium BC) correspondsto the Mid Holocene. This was the most humidperiod of the region, which began around 5880-5735 BC, immediately after the moderately humidJG-2A phase (Giraudi et al. 2013: 349-350). Thesame climatic oscillations are also testified byblackish organic soils alternating with alluvial andaeolian deposits found in the nearby areas ofShakshuk and Wadi Basina (Giraudi 2009: 408). Thelast two sets of dates, between the 2nd millenniumBC and the 1st millennium AD, fall within the LateHolocene Arid (LHA) phase.

As for the palaeoeconomy, animal and plantremains are currently not available for site SJ-03-83,nor for any other Holocene complexes of the Jefara.However, palaeoenvironmental and archaeologicaldata available provide some information about thesubsistence pattern established during the MidHolocene. Such information depicts the emergingpattern as a broad-spectrum exploitation of theenvironment. Despite the scarcity of accurateinformation about the presence of particular plantspecies which may have been part of the diet, thescenario suggested by Giraudi (2009: 409) showsthat the environment was characterized by a certaindegree of geomorphological stability possiblyresulting from the uninterrupted presence ofvegetation cover. The whole area appears to havebeen very suitable for the exploitation of wildplants, which thrived thanks to the presence ofsurface and subsurface water in the wadi and ofthree perennial springs. This is also confirmed bythe presence of grindstones and particular lithictools in large numbers, such as denticulates that

may have been used to cut plants. The presence offine silt sediments, that can keep moisture, indeedmade this place one of the most suitable for thedevelopment of vegetation in the entire JebelGharbi region. Evidence of Poaceae and Cyperaceaein the region, which suggest grassland and wetlandvegetation, was confirmed by pollen analysis carriedout at the SJ-06-87 and SJ-06-88 sites in the ElJosh village, not far away from El Batn area(Giraudi et al. 2013: 348).

No direct data are available about theexploitation of animals, except for the certainpresence of ostriches and a large number of landsnails, which must have provided food for thegroups settled in the area during the Holocene. But,once again, precious information derives from theanalysis of lithic complexes. They testify to thepresence of types related to hunting activities inlarge numbers, such as arrowheads and microlithicbacked elements or geometric tools used for theproduction of hunting tools. As for the JebelAkhdar region, contemporary layers of the HauaFteah cave are characterized by domestic sheepand goats, whereas the presence of cattle remainsuncertain (Klein and Scott 1986).

The Neolithic of the Jebel Akhdar and CyrenaicaResearch in the Jebel Akhdar, the mountainous

plateau located in northeastern Libya, has mainlyfocused on the Haua Fteah, an enormous cavelocated c.200 km east of Benghazi. The first seriesof archaeological investigations of the site werecarried out by the British archaeologist CharlesMcBurney (University of Cambridge) during the1950s. In 2007, the same University, this time underthe scientific direction of Graeme Barker, resumedresearch in the cave. The results obtained so far haveconfirmed the importance of what is considered tobe the longest sequence of human occupation inNorth Africa throughout the last 100,000 years(Barker et al. 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010). In the JebelAkhdar, research now focuses not only on the HauaFteah cave itself, but also on other sites of themassif, such as Hagfet al-Gama, a small cave alsolocated on the coast and about 60 km west of theHaua Fteah. All these sites have provided newcritical data about the appearance of Near Easterndomesticates on the Cyrenaican littoral.

Information on the Neolithic occupation ofthe Haua Fteah cave comes from Layers VIII andVI. Within the stratigraphic sequence, these layers


159

correspond to the middle section of what wasdefined by McBurney as the Upper Trench. Thisis a wide trench (c.11 x 10 x 2.5 m) located in thesouthern area of the cave, whose deposit spansfrom the Roman period at the top to the Capsianat the base (Barker et al. 2007: 6). One of the firstaims of the renewed investigations of the cave wasthe removal of the backfill from the Upper andMiddle Trench in order to assess the limits ofMcBurney’s excavation in the 1950s. The UpperTrench cultural deposit shows a difference insediment deposition between the historic layer andthe Libyco-Capsian and Neolithic layers. Historicdeposits are mainly characterized by the presenceof burnt animal dung and by the input of sedimentresulting from cultivation activities performedoutside the cave. The Libyco-Capsian and Neolithicdeposits are characterized by a small-scale surfacewash of aeolian sand, rockfalls and debris, probablyderiving from the discard of domestic waste (Barkeret al. 2008: 187; Hunt et al. 2010).

The renewed research carried out in the HauaFteah cave has not yet provided further data onthe Neolithic stone artefact production. After theUpper Trench backfill was completely removed,during the 2007 field campaign, the exposed trenchwalls were cleaned, and data were recorded anddocumented, but no new trenches have beenopened in this section of the sequence. Given thislack of new data, we have to rely mainly on thestudy of the stone artefacts coming from LayersVIII and VI, as presented by McBurney (1967)and on the preliminary re-examination of the samematerials, which I had the opportunity to carry outin 2010.2

The eleven dates for the Neolithic layers (fromVIII to VI) of the Haua Fteah cave (4 obtained byMcBurney and 7 coming from the new research)span approximately between 6800 and 4800 bp /c.5800-3800 BC. The emergence of domesticsheep/goats is attested at the Haua Fteah from 5800BC onwards (Klein and Scott 1986). The cultivationof domestic wheat and barley, still unconfirmed,might be placed in the Neolithic levels, along withthe exploitation of a wide variety of wild plants(Barker et al. 2008; 2009; 2010). At the moment,there is no strong evidence of domesticated cereals

in the Neolithic layers of Haua Fteah. Pollen analysisseems to show only sparse cereal pollen grains(Hunt et al. 2011: 23). The same kind of analysis,however, has confirmed a more significant amountof domestic crops in the Neolithic layers of theHagfet al-Gama cave (Hunt, pers. comm. 2012).

The Neolithic artefacts found at Hagfet al-Gama were associated with faunal remains andshells; domestic sheep and goats were identifiedamong animal bone fragments (Barker et al. 2008:194). In Cyrenaica, the presence of domestic caprinesdating back to the beginning of the 6th millenniumBC is also attested for the Abou Tamsa site (DeFaucamberge 2009).

Comparing the data presented above withthose recently obtained for the Libyco-Capsianhorizon, the introduction of sheep and goats alongthe Libyan coast at the beginning of the 6th

millennium BC undoubtedly comes as a noveltyin the economic strategies of the groups occupyingthe region. At the Haua Fteah, this elementcoincides with the bottom of Layer VIII. For theLibyco-Capsian layers, Rabett had determined thepresence of wild species only – Barbary sheep(Ammotragus lervia), dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas),hartebeest (Alcelaphus sp.), tortoise (Testudo graecacyrenaica), and, to a lesser extent, snake/lizard,fish, crab and various species of birds. As for shells,Hunt reported the presence of marine molluscs,mainly rocky shoreline species (Osilinus turbinatusand Patella caerulea followed by Conus mediterraneusand Hexaplex trunculus), and terrestrial species(Helix melanostoma and Eobania sp. and, to a lesserextent, Trochoidea cretica and Rumina decollata),both probably collected as food. A wider exploitationof gastropods has been documented especially inthe most ancient phases of the Libyco-Capsian.The same gastropode species were also exploitedat Haua Fteah during the Neolithic (Barker et al.2009: 15; 2010: 71, 74-75; Hunt et al. 2010: Fig. 3).In addition, the palaeobotanical analysis carriedout on the floral assemblage of the Haua FteahTrench M, by Morales and van der Veen, testifiesto the presence of only wild species in the Libyco-Capsian layers – including Mediterranean shrubsor trees like myrtle (Myrtus communis), the Aleppopine (Pinus halepensis) and Mastic (Pistacialentiscus), as well as grasses (the Poaceae family)and vetches (the Vicia genus). In these layers, seedsof domesticated barley (Hordeum vulgare) andwheat (Triticum sp.) had also been detected.

2. The work was carried out at the Museum of Archaeologyand Anthropology (University of Cambridge).

Giulio Lucarini

160

However, direct AMS datings on some of thesespecimens (and on domesticated wheat and barleymacro-remains collected from the Hagfet al-GamaCapsian contexts) revealed that they are recentintrusions (Barker et al. 2008: 208; 2009: 30; 2010:76-78).

As for artefacts, Layers VIII-VI of the HauaFteah cave attest a transition towards a trueNeolithic tradition. Their features recall, but donot perfectly match the aspect typical of thewesternmost Neolithic of Capsian Tradition.Pottery with very simple shapes and decorationsmade by employing an impression technique wasfound in the cave starting from Layer VIII. Vesselswith hemispheric bases appear in Layer VI, incontrast with the conic ones, which are typical ofthe Neolithic of Capsian Tradition. McBurney (1967:312), highlighted various pottery characteristicswhich may be ascribed to the Neolithic of the NileValley and, in particular, to the site of Merimde inthe western Nile Delta.

It is not possible to find a perfect correspondencewith the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition in the lithicproduction, especially if one considers the differenttypes produced. It has to be stressed that elementsof continuity are present with the previous upperCapsian layer (Fig. 7), for example a flat core withtraces of cortex on one face. This might be due tothe exploitation of the same type of tabular flint.The dominant material throughout the sequenceis, indeed, a light brown and grey Eocene chert,found in tabular and semi-tabular bands in proximityto the cave. A finer pinkish-grey translucent chertwas also largely used, as shown by the materialsfound in the upper section of the Libyco-Capsianlayers.

Among retouched tools, especially fromLayer VIII, McBurney did not report substantialchanges from the previous Libyco-Capsian horizon(1967: 276). Backed blades and bladelets are againwidely attested. The common occurrence ofbacked elements and other lithic artefacts meantfor hunting activities seems to confirm what thescarce palaeoeconomic data have already suggested:a broad-spectrum economy for the groups thatinhabited the Cyrenaican littoral during the MidHolocene. Hunting and gathering co-existed withherding of domestic sheep and goats.

Moreover, backed microlithic elements,burins, borers and large trimmed blades arepresent. In addition, we should not ignore the rare

occurrence of geometrics, both in the Libyco-Capsian and in the Neolithic layers of the HauaFteah cave, especially in the form of crescents/lunates and some scalene bladelets. Among thelatter, I have detected the presence of a particulartype of scalene bladelet in the lower Libyco-Capsianlayers of the cave. These bladelets have a shortbacked side towards the proximal end (Barker etal. 2010: 73). Very similar tools, defined as broad ornarrow triangles, come from site 85/11, locatednorth of Sitra lake, southwest of Siwa Oasis(Cziesla 1993: 188, Fig. 2). The scarce presenceof geometrics in the Cyrenaican littoral has to beproperly accounted for, especially considering notonly the relevance of this kind of tools within theNeolithic of Capsian Tradition, but also theirpresence, mostly as crescents and triangles, in theHolocene contexts of the Jebel Gharbi (Lucarini2009: 435). The presence of geometric tools inCyrenaica is reported by Reynolds (Barker et al.2008: 194) also for the Hagfet al-Gama cave.These tools include above all lunates/crescents.They belong to the rich lithic assemblage, whichmay date back to the Neolithic occupation of thecave. Scalene bladelets, together with severaltruncations on flakes, are also present in theWMCS 57 site, located in the Libyan Marmarica(Hulin et al. 2009).

New types of tools, especially those meantfor scraping activities, mark a difference fromolder horizons. The number of endscrapers andsidescrapers, which had appeared for the first timein the upper Libyco-Capsian level, considerablyincreases in the Neolithic layers. Among newelements that appear in the lithic assemblage ofLayer VIII at the Haua Fteah, various classes oftools defined by McBurney (1967: 285) as “pressureflaked” are particularly important. He comparedthem to the bifacial lithic production of the FayumDepression and Siwa Oasis. Such tools, includingdifferent types of arrowheads (tanged, lens-shapedand round-based), scrapers, spearheads, knives,tools on side-blow flakes (mainly side-scrapers andknives) and gouges, were manufactured by meansof a facial or bifacial pressure-flaking techniqueand were often simply produced by retouchingnatural tabular chert.

Among the lithic artefacts which may inferpossible exchanges with the southwestern Levant,there is a tanged, bifacially retouched arrowheadwith binding notches (McBurney 1967: Fig. IX.15,


161

Fig. 7: Haua Fteah cave (Libya). Lithic artefacts from the upper Capsian layer (1, 9: crested blades; 2: blade with useretouch; 3, 5: endscrapers; 4: scraper/truncation; 6: denticulate; 7: microlithic endscraper; 8: backed flake; 10: fragmentof bladelet with Ouchtata retouch; 11, 12: pointed backed bladelets (drawings by G. Lucarini).

Giulio Lucarini

162

10). This type of point, observed also in the FayumOasis and in the Masara C and Bashendi A contextsof the Dakhla Oasis (McDonald, this volume), isvery similar to the Levantine Helwan point. Thespecimen found at Haua Fteah comes from LayerVI, which, according to recently obtained dates(Barker et al. 2009: 36), spans from c.5800 to 4800bp / 4900-3900 BC. This reveals that the presenceof this type of tool cannot be directly associatedwith the appearance of the first caprines in theHaua Fteah area because this took place at least1000 years earlier. Even Shirai (2010: 324) seemsto discount the connection of this element to theLevantine Helwan points. Considering the elongatedbody and well-made barbs, he concludes that thespecimen can be compared to those found at theEgyptian sites of Chufu and Eastpans. Anothertype of point is a short tanged and slightly concave-sided arrowhead (Fig. 8). This point recalls thePottery Neolithic Haparsa type (Gopher 1994: Fig.6) and its presence in the Fayum region isassociated by Shirai (2010: 327) to the secondwave of diffusion of Levantine materials in Egypt.However, since the context in which the HauaFteah specimen was found is always Layer VI,the same chronological considerations made aboutthe previous example still apply. Furthermore,considering the small number of these items, itcannot be excluded that these findings might beaccidental.

Insofar as harvesting tools are concerned, theHaua Fteah lithic complex did not yield anyspecimens except for two small gloss-bandedblades, which were interpreted as probable sickleelements (McBurney 1967: 298). The great numberof sickle elements on blades showing a bifacialcovering retouch and serrated working edge whichwere found in the Fayum area, and which Shirai(2010) parallels to similar tools belonging to thePottery Neolithic Lodian culture (c.5900-5600 calBC), are not present at Haua Fteah. The only item

that closely resembles the harvesting tools of theFayum or the Levantine Yarmukian/Lodian comesfrom the pre-Greek layers of the Dioscuri templelocated in the Agora Quarter of Cyrene. Here, abifacially retouched blade, showing pronouncedserrations on one edge, has been interpreted byConati Barbaro as a Neolithic sickle element (Luniet al. 2010: 592) (Fig. 9).

Among the rare flaked axes and gouges(McBurney 1967: Fig. IX.16, Fig. IX.19, 6, 9),there are no types that can parallel the types fromthe Levantine traditions. Specimens from HauaFteah, trapezoidal in shape, show a quite roughfacial or bifacial retouch mainly along their edges.Only one gouge (McBurney 1967: Fig. IX.16)shows a fine pressure flaking on its dorsal surface.As reported by McBurney (1967: 303), the HauaFteah axes find their best analogies in the Egyptianoases and at Siwa. The author also reports aboutparallels of a large core-type axe with Tunisianspecimens from Jaatcha published by Vaufrey(1955: Fig. 162, 17). Axes showing cortex on thehafting end (a typical trait of the Lodian culture),those with a tranchet scar (dating back to PPNAand early PPNB), and specimens with ground andpolished working edges (typical of the late PPNBand PN) (Bar-Yosef 1981; Barkai 2005) were notfound at Haua Fteah.

Among the knives, the concave-convex typemanufactured on side-blow flake (McBurney1967: Fig. IX.10, 4) correspond better to the mosttypical production of the Egyptian Western Desertrather than to influences from the Levant.

Fig. 8: Haua Fteah cave (Libya). Short tanged andslightly concave-sided arrowhead from Layer VI(drawing by G. Mutri).

Fig. 9: Dioscuri Temple area, Agora Quarter, Cyrene(Libya). Bifacially retouched and serrated bladeinterpreted as a Neolithic sickle element (drawing byG. Carboni).


163

The spread of pressure-flaked tooltradition

McBurney’s pressure-flaked tools bear greatsimilarity with those coming from other MidHolocene contexts of the Egyptian Western Desert,namely: the Farafra B-C phase (Fig. 10) (Lucarini2012; in press b); the Djara B phase of the AbuMuhariq Plateau (Gehlen et al. 2002; Kindermann2004; 2010); the Late Bashendi A and Bashendi Bof Dakhla Oasis (McDonald 1998); the Late BarisUnit of Kharga Oasis (McDonald 2007; 2009);Lobo and Chufu sites in the Great Sand Sea (Klees1989; Riemer 2007a); Siwa and Bahrein Oases(Cziesla 1989; 1993; Hassan 1976; Hassan andGross 1987). These tools are considered to belongto a distinct bifacial techno-complex (Riemer2007a). Along the Nile Valley, these tools aresimilar to Fayum Neolithic artefacts (Caton-Thompson and Gardner 1934; Shirai 2010; Wenkeet al. 1988). The presence of bifacial artefacts insmall numbers is also attested in the Nabta Playa/Bir Kiseiba region (Wendorf et al. 2001).

The spread of the bifacial tradition could beexplained in terms of human migration and/orexpansion of exchange networks induced bychanging rainfall regimes as well as availableresources (Riemer 2007a: 523). The Holocene rainregime was characterized by monsoonal summerrains especially in the southern Western Desert andMediterranean winter rains in the North. Duringthe Mid Holocene moist phase (c.6000-5300 BC),the two regimes had overlapped around the latitudeof Dakhla and Farafra Oases (Arz et al. 2003;Hassan et al. 2001; Neumann 1989a; 1989b; 1993).The distribution of the bifacial techno-complexgeographically corresponds to the northern eco-system, and it is mainly spread in the northernregions of the Egyptian Western Desert and alongthe Mediterranean coast.

Procurement areas and the availability ofparticular raw materials – in the case of pressureflaked tools, a fine, often tabular type of chert,mainly available on the Western Desert LimestonePlateau – could also affect the geographicaldistribution of the bifacial techno-typologicalcomplex (Shirai 2007: 362). All the above-mentionedareas were characterized by a remarkable quantityof this high-quality raw material. This kind ofstone, also present in the area of the Haua Fteahcave, prevails probably because it is particularly

suitable for bifacial pressure flaking. The exploitationof exotic materials, such as basalt, the presence ofwhich is testified by ground axes coming fromFarafra (Fig. 10: 5) (Lucarini in press b), is only rarelyattested in the Egyptian Western Desert.

Although primarily developed in the area ofFarafra, Dakhla and the Abu Muhariq Plateau atthe beginning of the 6th millennium BC, the bifacialtradition might have spread almost simultaneouslywestward where, after passing through Siwa andBahrein Oases, it reached the North African coastas far as Cyrenaica. Later it also spread eastward,where a similar tradition can be found in the FayumNeolithic complex.

The Holocene contexts of Siwa and BahreinOases yielded a lithic assemblage, which greatlyresembles the Haua Fteah Early Neolithic one.Here the lithic industry is mainly characterized notonly by a high laminar index but also by theabundance of backed bladelets, burins, notches anddenticulates. The quantity of bifacial tools should notbe disregarded either (Cziesla 1989; 1993; Hassanand Gross 1987). None of the sites investigated inSiwa Oasis yielded faunal or floral remains, butthis may depend on the extremely ephemeralnature of the few sites examined so far and on thesurficial nature of their stratigraphy. Site WMCS59 on the Marmarica coast, east of Tobruk, yieldedbarbless and tanged arrowheads with bifacialcovering retouch. Similar artefacts have beenpostulated both with the Neolithic of the Maghreband with the materials from Siwa Oasis and theFayum Neolithic (Hulin et al. 2009).

The first appearance of bifacial implementsin various areas of the Egyptian Western Desert(Dakhla, Farafra, the Abu Muhariq Plateau) seemsto be concurrent with the adoption of domesticatedcaprines (Barich and Lucarini 2002; Gehlen et al.2002; Kindermann 2004; 2010). This is also thecase with the Haua Fteah cave, where the transitionto Layer VIII of the sequence, the introduction ofdomestic sheep and goats, and the appearance of thefirst bifacial pressure-flaked tools are all attested sincec.6900/6800 bp / 5900 BC. Nonetheless, if the originof domesticated livestock from southwestern Asiais certain, the characteristic features of the bifacialtechno-complex of the Egyptian Western Desertmight be only partially attributed to Levantinetraditions (McDonald, this volume).

Giulio Lucarini

164

Fig. 10: Farafra Oasis (Egypt). (Bi)facial lithic tools (1: first stage in the manufacture of a bifacial knife on tabularchert; 2: bifacial knife; 3: sidescraper on side-blow flake; 4: circular scraper; 5: basalt ground axe; 6: plane; 7, 8: lens-shaped arrowheads; 9-10: tanged arrowheads) (drawings by M. Pennacchioni).


165

Food production and routes of diffusionon the westernmost coast of Maghreb

Among the regions of the western NorthAfrican coast, the Tangier region (Morocco) is theone that yielded the most ancient evidence ofdomesticated cereals. The presence of domesticatedemmer (Triticum dicoccum), einkorn (Triticummonococcum), bread/durum wheat (Triticum aestivum/turgidum) at the Kaf Taht el-Ghar site, was for thefirst time attributed, yet with no certainty, to theso-called “Néolithique ancien régional”, dated 10th

millennium BC (Daugas et al. 1998: 350). Subsequentpalaeobotanical analyses confirmed that theseplants dated to the “Cardial initial” c.7000-5450BC (Ballouche and Marinval 2003: 50). Grains ofTriticum dicoccum and, in a smaller quantity,Triticum aestivum/turgidum, have also been foundin the more recent layer Néolithique ancien Cardial(5450-4350 BC) (Ballouche and Marinval 2004:78), while a burnt grain was dated 6350±85 bp /5477-5078 BC) (ibid. 2003: 53). At Ifri Oudadane,a site recently excavated in the northeastern coastof Morocco (Lindstädter 2011; Lindstädter andKehl 2012), domesticated cereals and pulses havebeen identified in the Early Neolithic layers(Morales et al. 2013).

The introduction of domesticated animals canbe ascribed to the same period. Caprines (bothsheep and goats) are the first domesticated speciesto appear in Kaf Taht el-Ghar, followed by pigsand cattle (Ouchaou 2004; Ouchaou and Amani1997). In the Tingitan peninsula, domestic sheep,pig and cattle are also present in the Neolithiclayers of the Mugharet el Khail, Mugharet el’Aliya,Mugharet es Saifiya, Ghar-Khal and Bou-sariasites (Ouchaou 2004). In the Eastern Rif region,domestic sheep are attested in the Chafarinas Islands(Bellver Garrido and Bravo Nieto 2003: 82; Gibajaet al. 2012).

Different scenarios can be envisioned for thediffusion routes of the domesticates in the westernmostNorth African territories: an overland, coastal diffusionor a maritime Mediterranean one. As for goats’presence in Maghreb, the mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) analysis of goat breeds showed thatMoroccan lineages are not derived from Egyptianones, and an unidirectional east-west diffusiononly via land is not compatible with the high levelof diversity in the Maghrebi goat population(Pereira et al. 2009: 2770-2771). Therefore, it is

possible, in this case, to advance the hypothesisthat along with the diffusion via land, a diffusionby sea may also have occurred.

A further hypothesis is that domestic species,which were first introduced into the southernEuropean territories from the Near East, mighthave been brought to northern Africa along twodifferent routes: the so-called Iberian route, whichallowed the diffusion into Morocco through theGibraltar Strait, and the Italian maritime route,which connected the southern coasts of Sicily withnorthern Tunisia (Oliveira et al. 2011).

According to a study by Zilaho (2001; inpress), the Neolithic started earlier in eastern andsouthern Spain than in the western Maghreb. Datesand material culture indicate that, only afterdiffusing – probably via cabotage – along thecoasts of southern France, Spain and Portugal, theNeolithic spread into the Maghreb.

Conclusion

Located as it is at the midpoint of the NorthAfrican coast, the Libyan littoral is likely to havefunctioned as a crossroad for people and resourcescoming from the east, south and west. The JebelAkhdar in particular must have played a primaryrole as a link between the Neolithic of CapsianTradition, stricto sensu, and the Neolithic of theEgyptian Western Desert and Nile Valley.

The extent of the movements and exchangesbetween the regions involved have been consideredin this paper by examining the palaeoeconomicdata and the material culture, particularly lithicassemblages. From the data examined so far, thepresence of two different Neolithic cultural traditionsin northern Libya has appeared, although they areclosely related. As a matter of fact, both showaspects of continuity with the previous Capsiantradition. Regarding technology, however, whilethe oriental sphere shows influences from theEgyptian bifacial tradition, the same is completelymissing in northwestern Libya. To date, thisinfluence appears to be limited to the Marmaricaand Cyrenaica coast, and no clues of its presencehave appeared west of the Gulf of Sirte.

Further to the west, in the Jebel Gharbi andTripolitania, in the light of the available data, thelegacy of the Capsian culture might appear to bestronger (as happened for the western regions, suchas Tunisia and Algeria). This still justifies the

Giulio Lucarini

166

expression ‘Neolithic of Capsian Tradition’ whichgives the correct relevance to the elements ofcontinuity with the Capsian tradition from whichmost of the lithic types derive. While analyzingthe transition from the Capsian sphere to theNeolithic of Capsian Tradition, it is worth recallingwhat has been said already about the strongerpresence of some Capsian groups in the territoryand their intensive exploitation of local resources.Indeed, one might suggest that some Capsiangroups, already adapted to a more sedentary wayof life and whose economy was based on intensiveforaging strategies, may have functioned as anintermediary for the introduction of new techniquesfor the exploitation of resources coming fromabroad.

On the eastern front, a deeper analysis of thefindings from the Neolithic contexts of Haua Fteahand from the Marmarica coast sites (Hulin et al.2009; 2010), showed strong similarities with thematerial from the Egyptian Western Desert. So far,data from the Nile Valley have been largelycompared with those from the central Sahara(Arkell 1955; Camps 1974), but not with thecoastal regions of North Africa such as Libya. Thisdisregards the essential role that these territoriesmight have played in the diffusion of domesticatesalong the southern Mediterranean littoral.

The history of relations between the NileValley and Egyptian Western Desert attests anuninterrupted series of exchanges which took placeduring the Mid Holocene. Around 6200 BC, theseexchanges led to the introduction of domesticsheep and goats coming from the Red Sea coast(Close 2002; Linseele et al. 2010) or via the NileValley and Fayum (Riemer 2007b) into the oasesand other well-watered regions in the EgyptianWestern Desert. The numerous 6th-millennium BCcampsites documented by the Cologne Universityteam (Riemer and Kindermann 2008) are clearevidence of how cultural traits could circulatebetween the two eco-systems. Material culture datafrom the Early-Mid Holocene sites of Siwa andBahrein Oases (Cziesla 1989; 1993; Hassan andGross 1987) connote this region as a corridorbetween the Egyptian Western Desert and theNorth African coast. Another pathway of diffusionof Near Eastern domesticates towards Cyrenaicacould have been the Egyptian and then LibyanMarmarica. Among the domesticates, the oldestspecimens of wheat and barley found in northeastern

Africa date back to c.4600 cal BC, are currentlydocumented only in the Fayum Neolithic context(Wendrich et al. 2010). Although it should bestressed that without microwear and residueanalysis, ever more necessary in such contexts,we cannot assume that grinding stones were usedfor processing domestic cereals, the conspicuouspresence of such kind of tools and the two smallgloss-banded blades in the Haua Fteah couldindicate, at least, the existence of an early stage offarming activities. As McBurney also reports(1967: 298), it is nonetheless difficult to believethat agriculture on the Fayum-Merimde scale couldhave been practised. Far from being ascribable toa proper agricultural context, these activities were,however, associated to hunting-gathering andherding practices, within a broad-spectrumexploitation of the environment.

As for the North African coast as a whole,the only two contexts that have yielded clearevidence of domestic crops in Neolithic layers, theFayum Oasis to the east and the Tangier region tothe west, are located on the opposite ends of theNorth African coast and therefore have beenexposed to different influences. Thus, it is extremelydifficult to determine which of the differentdiffusion scenarios that have been suggested forthe southern Mediterranean coast would have beenthe most likely. Also the so-called phylogeographicapproach and the analysis of the existing landraces’mtDNA show some limits owing to the fact thatphylogeographic patterns may not reflect Neolithicevents but rather later migrations (Jones et al.2008; Oliveira et al. 2011)

This difficulty is even greater with respect tothe coastal regions of eastern Algeria and Tripolitania.Taking into consideration the different diffusionroutes, it is possible to notice that in all suggestedscenarios such territories can be considered as thepoint of confluence or at least a transit area of thearriving domesticated species. However, domesticcereals are clearly scarce in those areas. It mightdepend, especially in the case of Libya, on the stilllimited research, or on the inadequate techniquesfor the gathering of plant macro-remains. Neithercan be excluded because, as in the case of theNeolithic of Capsian Tradition stricto sensu, thisabsence might be the result of a precise preferencefor the exploitation of wild plant resources. Kuperand Kröpelin (2006: 806) report that cereal farmingdoes not seem to have been a constituent of the


167

Saharan Neolithic, given that the mid-Holocenesavannah still provided sufficient wild-growinggrains, fruits and tubers. The same could also havehappened in some coastal regions. In the case ofthe eastern Sahara oases, this preference for wildspecies must have been, to a certain extent, due tothe inadaptability of Near Eastern grains to amonsoonal climate. In the coastal area, it shouldcertainly be considered as a precise choice on thepart of the local groups. It appears that wild plantresources in Africa should not be considered asemergency resources, but their use, well-organizedand structured, could have an indisputable influenceon the social modelling and configuration of humangroups. Such communities applied the samegathering strategies used by similar groups ofhunters-gatherers who currently exploit the water-zone floras in African arid areas, such as the Dobe!Kung, the Kade San and the Hadza (Hillman etal. 1989: 220).

The introduction of domestic animals fromthe Near East must have meant a greater availabilityof protein resources, especially during phases ofheavy climatic stress, such as the one which startedin 5300 cal BC in the western Sahara after thesouthward shift of the monsoonal belt. It does notseem, however, that along the North African coastpastoral adaptation put an end to other experiences,whether or not legacies of a previous tradition, suchas hunting, gathering or the specialized exploitationof plants. Pastoral economy in North Africa doesnot appear, therefore, as an exclusive economicstrategy, but rather as one of the aspects of a broad-spectrum exploitation of the environment (Barichand Lucarini 2005: 56).

To conclude, at the current state of research,there seem to be few data that support thehypothesis of a demic diffusion of Near Easternelements along the North African coast. Given theavailable data, I think it is worth stressing first ofall that the ‘Neolithic package’ (if one may speakof package), does not appear to have entered NorthAfrican coastal regions as a whole. Moreover, evenaccepting the hypothesis of the arrival of migrantgroups from southwestern Asia, it is apparent that,unlike what happened to the domestic, especiallyanimal, prototypes, material culture componentswere only marginally moved to the littoral. It isclear from the information presented here, that thelocal character of the lithic assemblages along theLibyan coast, signal a precise cultural continuity,

attested at least during the course of the entireHolocene. With the exclusion of rare elements,such as the so-called Helwan point, the artefactswhich are more similar to the Levantine types arelimited to the lower Nile Valley and are ascribablein particular to the Fayum, Merimde and Buto-Maadi contexts (Eiwanger 1984; Schmidt 1993;Shirai 2010). Even assuming a Levantine originof the so-called bifacial techno-complex (Kuperand Kröpelin 2006: 805), it is evident that, althoughit represents an innovative trait in the assemblagesof the Neolithic layers in Haua Fteah, it co-existswith a still strong microlithic cultural substratumof Capsian matrix, therefore specifically African.

AcknowledgementsI am very grateful to Carlo Isola for his DGPS survey on theEl Batn Area and to Ulisse Fabiani for his elaboration oftopographical maps and satellite images. I would particularlylike to thank Lorena Lombardi, Giacoma Petrullo and IlariaVenir for their support during the 2007 and 2008 fieldworkin the El Batn area. I am also indebted to Barbara Barich,Cecilia Conati Barbaro and Elena Garcea, co-directors of theItalian-Libyan Joint Mission in the Jebel Gharbi and toGraeme Barker, director of the Cyrenaican Prehistory Project.My grateful thanks go to Barbara Barich, Graeme Barker,Carlo Giraudi, Chris Hunt, Mary McDonald, Jacob M.Morales, Noriyuki Shirai, Robert Wenke and the twoanonymous reviewers for their precious comments on the firstdraft of this paper, and to Dora Kemp and Giuliano Pascuccifor editing the English manuscript.

Giulio LucariniMcDonald Institute for

Archaeological ResearchUniversity of Cambridge

[email protected]

References

Alley, R.B., Mayewski, P.A., Sowers, T., Stuiver, M., Taylor,K.C., and Clark, P.U.1997. Holocene climatic instability: a prominent, widespreadevent 8200 years ago, Geology 25: 483-486.

Arkell, A.J.1955. The relations of the Nile Valley with the SouthernSahara in Neolithic times, in L. Balout (ed.), Actes du IIèmeCongrès Panafricain de Préhistoire d’Alger 1952: 345-346.Casablanca: Edita.

Giulio Lucarini

168

Arz, H.W., Lamy, F., Pätzold, J., Müller, P.J., and Prins, M.2003. Mediterranean Moisture Source for an Early-HoloceneHumid Period in the Northern Red Sea, Science 300: 118-121.

Aumassip, G.1986. Le Bas-Sahara dans la Préhistoire. Paris: Éditions duCNRS.2001. L’Algérie des premiers hommes. Paris: Maison dessciences de l’homme – Ibis Press.

Ballouche, A., and Marinval, P.2003. Données palynologiques et carpologiques su ladomestication des plantes et l’agriculture dans le Néolithiqueancien dans le Maroc septentrional (site de Kaf Taht el-Ghar),Revue d’Archéométrie 27: 49-54.2004. At the origin of agriculture in the Maghreb. Palynologicaland carpological data on the early Neolithic of NorthernMorocco, in K. Sanago and T. Togola (eds.), Acts of the XIth

Congress of Panafrican Association Prehistory and RelatedFields: 74-82. Bamako: Soro Print Color.

Barakat, H., and Fahmy, A.G.1999. Wild grasses as “Neolithic” food resources in theEastern Sahara. A review of the Evidence from Egypt, in M.van der Veen (ed.), The Exploitation of Plant Resources inAncient Africa: 33-46. New York: Kluwer Academic – PlenumPublishers.

Barich, B.E.2007. The archaeology of Jebel Gharbi. Contributions to theknowledge of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition in NorthernLibya, in K. Kroeper, M. Chlodnicki and M. Kobusiewicz(eds.), Archaeology of the Early Northeastern Africa. InMemory of Lech Krzyzaniak: 959-969. Poznan: PoznanArchaeological Museum.2010. Antica Africa. Roma. Alle Origini delle Società. Rome:L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Barich, B.E., and Conati Barbaro, C.2003. Ras el Wadi (Jebel Gharbi): New Data for the Study ofthe Epipalaeolithic Tradition in Northern Libya, Origini 25:75-146.

Barich, B.E., Garcea, E.A.A., and Giraudi, C.2006. Between the Mediterranean and the Sahara: Geo-archaeological reconnaissance in the Jebel Gharbi, Libya,Antiquity 80: 567-582.

Barich, B.E., Hassan, F.A., Lucarini, G., and Hamdan, M.A. (eds.)In press. From Lake to Sand. The Archaeology of FarafraOasis (Egypt). Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.

Barich, B.E., and Lucarini, G.2002. Archaeology of Farafra Oasis Western Desert, Egypt –A Survey of the Most Recent Research, Archéo-Nil 12: 101-108.

2004-2005. Gli ultimi cacciatori e l’origine dei siti pastoralinel Jebel Gharbi (Libia), Scienze dell’Antichità. Storia,Archeologia, Antropologia 12: 405-413.2005. L’interazione pastori/agricoltori e le dinamiche delDeserto Occidentale Egiziano, Origini 27: 51-77.2008. The Nile Valley seen from the oases: The contributionof Farafra, in B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristant (eds.), Egyptat its Origins 2: 567-582. Leuven: Peeters.

Barkai, R.2005. Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers: Socio-Economic Changes as Reflected in Holocene Flint Industriesof the Southern Levant. Berlin: ex oriente.

Barker, G.2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why didForagers become Farmers? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barker, G., Antoniadou, A., Armitage, S., Brooks, I., Candy,I., Connell, K., Douka, K., Drake, N., Farr, L., Hill, E., Hunt,C., Inglis, R., Jones, S., Lane, C., Lucarini, G., Meneely, J.,Morales, J., Mutri, G., Prendergast, A., Rabett, R., Reade, H.,Reynolds, T., Russell, N., Simpson, D., Smith, B., Stimpson,C., Twati, M., and White, K.2010. The Cyrenaican Prehistory Project 2010: the fourthseason of investigations of the Haua Fteah cave and itslandscape, and further results from the 2007-2009 fieldwork,Libyan Studies 41: 63-88.

Barker, G., Antoniadou, A., Barton, H., Brooks, I., Candy, I.,Drake, N., Farr, L., Hunt, C., Abdulsaid Abdulhamid, I., Inglis,R., Jones, S., Morales, J., Morley, I., Mutri, G., Rabett, R.,Reynolds, T., Simpson, D., Twati, M., and White, K.2009. The Cyrenaican Prehistory Project 2009: the thirdseason of investigations of the Haua Fteah cave and itslandscape, and further results from the 2007-2008 fieldwork,Libyan Studies 40: 55-94.

Barker, G., Basell, L., Brooks, I., Burn, L., Cartwright, C.,Cole, F., Davison, J., Farr, L., Grün, R., Hamilton, R., Hunt,C., Inglis, R., Jacobs, Z., Leitch, V., Morales, J., Morley, I.,Morley, M., Pawley, S., Pryor, A., Rabett, R., Reynolds, T.,El-Rishi, H., Roberts, R., Simpson, D., Stimpson, C., Touati,M., and van der Veen, M.2008. The Cyrenaican Prehistory Project 2008: the secondseason of investigations of the Haua Fteah cave and itslandscape, and further results from the initial (2007)fieldwork, Libyan Studies 39: 175-221.

Barker, G., Hunt, C., Reynolds, T., Brooks, I., and el-Rishi, H.2007. The Haua Fteah, Cyrenaica (NorthEast Libya): renewedinvestigations of the cave and its landscape, 2007, LibyanStudies 38: 2-22.


169

Bar-Yosef, O.1981. The ‘Pre Pottery Neolithic’ Period in the SouthernLevant, in J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville (eds.), Préhistoire duLevant: chronologie et organisation de l’espace depuis lesorigins jusqu’au VIe millénaire: 555-569. Paris: Editions duC.N.R.S.

Bellver Garrido, J.A., and Bravo Nieto, A.2003. Una estación neolitíca al aire libre en la Islas Chafarinas:El Zafrín. Primera datación radiocarbónica, Akros - la revistadel museo 2: 79-85.

Bellwood, P.2005. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societes.Malden: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

Camps, G.1974. Les civilisations préhistoriques de l’Afrique du Nordet du Sahara. Paris: Doin.1982. La Préhistoire: à la recherche du paradis perdu. Paris:Perrin.

Camps-Fabrer, H.1975. Un gisement capsien de facies setifien Medjez II, El-Eulma (Algerie). Paris: Editions du Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique.

Caton-Thompson, G., and Gardner, E.W.1934. The Desert Fayum. London: The Royal AnthropologicalInstitute of Great Britain and Ireland.

Childe, G.V.1925. The dawn of European civilization. London: KeganPaul, Trench, Trubner & Co.1934. New light on the most ancient East. London: KeganPaul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Clark, J.D.1967. The problem of Neolithic culture in sub-Saharan Africa,in W.W. Bishop and J.D. Clark (eds.), Background to Evolutionin Africa: 601-627. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Close, A.E.1980. Current research and recent radiocarbon dates fromNorthern Africa, Journal of African History 21: 145-167.1986. The place of the Haua Fteah in the Late Palaeolithic ofNorth Africa, in G.N. Bailey and P. Callow (eds.), Stone AgePrehistory: 169-180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2002. Sinai, Sahara, Sahel: The Introduction of DomesticCaprines to Africa, in Jennerstrasse 8 (ed.), Tides of the Desert– Gezeiten der Wüste, Contributions to the Archaeology andEnvironmental History of Africa in Honour of Rudolph Kuper:459-469. Köln: Heinrich Barth Institut.

Cremaschi, M., Zerboni, A., Spötl, C., and Felletti, F.2010. The calcareous tufa in the Tadrart Acacus Mt. (SWFezzan, Libya). An early Holocene palaeoclimate archive inthe central Sahara, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology 287: 81-94.

Cziesla, E.1989. Sitra and Related Sites at the Western Border of Egypt,in L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiewicz (eds.), Late Prehistoryof the Nile Basin and the Sahara: 205-214. Poznan: PoznanArchaeological Museum.1993. Investigations into the archaeology of the Sitra-Hatiyet,NorthWestern Egypt, in L. Krzyzaniak, M. Kobusiewicz andJ.A. Alexander (eds.), Environmental Change and HumanCulture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa until the SecondMillennium B.C: 185-197. Poznan: Poznan ArchaeologicalMuseum.

Daugas, J.-P., Raynal, J.-P., El Idrissi, A., Ousmoi, M., Fain,J., Miallier, D., Montret, M., Sanzelle, S., Pilleyre, T.,Occhietti, S., and Rhodes, E.-J.1998. Synthèse radiochronométrique concernant la séquencenéolithique au Maroc, in J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J.-P. Daugas,and J.F. Salles (eds.), Actes du Colloque «C14 et Archéologie»:349-353. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française.

De Faucamberge, E.2009. Abou Tamsa: étude d’un nouveau site Néolithique enCyrénaïque (Libye). Unpublished PhD thesis. Paris: Universitéde Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Eiwanger, J.1984. Merimde-Benisalâme I: Die Funde der Urschicht.Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Fahmy, A.G.2001. Palaeoethnobotanical studies of the Neolithic settlementin Hidden Valley, Farafra Oasis, Egypt, Vegetation History andArchaeobotany 10: 235-246.

Gabriel, B.1977. Zum ökologischen Wandel im Neolithikum der östlichenZentralsahara, Berliner Geographische Abhandlungen 27: 1-111.1984. Great plains and mountain areas as habitats for theNeolithic man in the Sahara, in L. Krzyzaniak and M.Kobusiewicz (eds.), Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa: 391-398. Poznan:Poznan Archaeological Museum.

Gehlen, B., Kindermann, K., Linstädter, J., and Riemer, H.2002. The Holocene Occupation of the Eastern Sahara:Regional Chronologies and Supra-regional Developments offour Areas in the Absolute Desert, in Jennerstrasse 8 (ed.),Tides of the Desert – Gezeiten der Wüste, Contributions to theArchaeology and Environmental History of Africa in Honour

Giulio Lucarini

170

of Rudolph Kuper: 85-116. Köln: Heinrich Barth Institut.

Gibaja, J.F., Carvalho, A.F., Rojo, M., Garrido, R., and García, I.2012. Production and subsistence strategies at El Zafrín(Chafarinas Islands, Spain): new data for the early Neolithicof North-West Africa, Journal of Archaeological Science 39:3095-3104.

Giraudi, C.2005. Aeolian sand in peridesert NorthWestern Libya andimplications for Late Pleistocene and Holocene Saharaexpansions, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology218: 161-173.2009. Le fasi umide del Pleistocene Superiore dell’Olocenenel Jebel Gharbi (Libia nord occidentale), Africa LXIV, 3-4:405-411.

Giraudi, C., Mercuri, A.M., and Esu, D.2013. Holocene palaeoclimate in the northern Sahara margin(Jefara Plain, northwestern Libya), The Holocene 23 (3): 339-352.

Gopher, A.1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant: A seriation analysis.Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Hassan, F.A.1976. Prehistoric Studies of the Siwa Oasis Region: PreliminaryReport, 1975 Season, Nyame Akuma 9: 18-34.

Hassan, F.A., Barich, B.E., Mahmoud, A.M., and Hamdan, M.A.2001. Holocene Playa Deposits of Farafra Oasis, Egypt, andtheir Palaeoclimatic and Geoarchaeological Significance,Geoarchaeology 161/1: 29-46.

Hassan, F.A., and Gross, G.T.1987. Resources and subsistence during the early Holoceneat Siwa Oasis, Northern Egypt, in A.E. Close (ed.), Prehistoryof Arid North Africa. Essays in Honour of Fred Wendorf: 85-103. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.

Hilmann, G., Madeyska, E., and Hather, J.1989. Wild Plant Foods and Diet at Late Paleolithic WadiKubbaniya: The Evidence from Charred Remains, in A.E.Close (ed.), The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya, Volume 2:162-242. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.

Hulin, L., Timby, J., Muftah, A.M., and Mutri, G.2010. The Western Marmarica Coastal Survey 2010: preliminaryreport, Libyan Studies 41: 155-162.

Hulin, L., Timby, J., and Mutri, G.2009. The Western Marmarica Coastal Survey 2009: preliminaryreport, Libyan Studies 40: 95-103.

Hunt, C., Davison, J., Inglis, R., Farr, L., Reynolds, T.,Simpson, D., el-Rishi, H., and Barker, G.2010. Site formation processes in caves: The Holocenesediments of the Haua Fteah, Cyrenaica, Libya, Journal ofArchaeological Science 37: 1600-1611.

Hunt, C.O., Reynolds, T.G., El-Rishi, H.A., Buzaian, A., Hill,E., and Barker, G.W.2011. Resource pressure and environmental change on theNorth African littoral: Epipalaeolithic to Roman gastropodsfrom Cyrenaica, Libya, Quaternary International 244: 15-26.

Jackes, M., and Lubell, D.2008. Early and Middle Holocene Environments and CapsianCultural Change: Evidence from the Télidjène Basin, EasternAlgeria, African Archaeological Review 25: 41-55.

Jones, H., Lister, D.L., Bower, M.A., Leigh, F.J., Smith, L.M.,and Jones, M.K.2008. Approaches and constraints of using existing landracesand extant plant material to understand agricultural spread inprehistory, Plant Genetic Resources 6 (2): 98-112.

Kindermann, K.2004. Djara: Excavations and surveys of the 1998-2002seasons, Archéo-Nil 14: 31-49.2010. Djara. Zur mittelholozänen Besiedlungsgeschichtezwischen Niltal und Oasen (Abu-Muharik-Plateau, Ägypten).Köln: Heinrich Barth Institut.

Klees, F.1989. Lobo: A contribution to the prehistory of the EasternSand Sea and the Egyptian oases, in L. Krzyzaniak and M.Kobusiewicz (eds.), Late prehistory of the Nile Basin and theSahara: 223-232. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum.1993. Zur Verwendung des Begriffs “Neolithikum” imBereich der holozänen Kulturen Nordafrikas, ArchäologischeInformationen 16 (1): 39-46.

Klein, R.G., and Scott, K.1986. Re-analysis of faunal assemblages from the Haua Fteahand other late Quaternary archaeological sites in CyrenaicanLibya, Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 515-542.

Krzyzaniak, L., and Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.)1984. Origin and Early Development of Food-ProducingCultures in North-Eastern Africa. Poznan: Poznan ArchaeologicalMuseum.

Kuper, R., and Kröpelin, S.2006. Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara:Motor of Africa’s Evolution, Science 313: 803-807.

Linseele, V., Marinova, E., Van Neer, W., and Vermeersch, P.M.2010. Sites with Holocene Dung Deposits in the Eastern Desert


171

of Egypt: Visited by Herders? Journal of Arid Environments 74:818-828.

Linstädter, J.2008. The Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic Transition in theMediterranean region of Northwest Africa, Quartär 55: 41-62.2011. The Epipalaeolithic Neolithic Transition in the EasternRif Mountains and the Lower Moulouya valley, Morocco,in J.F. Gibaja Bao, A.F. Carvalho and N.F. Bicho (eds.), Thelast hunter-gatherers and the first farming communities inthe south of the Iberian Peninsula and north of Morocco:Proceedings of the workshop Faro, 2-4 November 2009: 89-100. Faro: Universidade do Algarve.

Linstädter, J., and Kehl, M.2012. The Holocene archaeological sequence and siteformation processes at Ifri Oudadane, NE Morocco, Journalof Archaeological Science 39: 3306-3323.

Lubell, D.1984. Paleoenvironments and Epi-Paleolithic Economies inthe Maghreb (ca. 20,000 to 5000 BP), in J.D. Clark and S.A.Brandt (eds.), From Hunters to Farmers: 41-56. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Lubell, D., Sheppard, P.J., and Jackes, M.1984. Continuity in the Epipaleolithic of Northern Africa withEmphasis on the Maghreb, Advances in World Archaeology3: 143-191.

Lucarini, G.2007. The use and exploitation of plants at Farafra Oasis, inK. Kroeper, M. Chlodnicki and M. Kobusiewicz (eds.),Archaeology of the Early Northeastern Africa. In Memory ofLech Krzyzaniak: 463-478. Poznan: Poznan ArchaeologicalMuseum.2009. Percorsi tra la montagna e il mare. Nuovi dati suicomplessi olocenici della pianura della Gefara (Libia), AfricaLXIV, 3-4: 433-447.2012. Early Craftsmen of the Desert. Traces of PredynasticLithic Technology at Farafra during the Mid-Holocene, inR.S. Bagnall, P. Davoli and C.A. Hope (eds.), B.E. Parr (pr.ed.), The Oasis Papers 6. Proceedings of the Sixth InternationalConference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project: 87-98. Oxford:Oxbow Books.In press a. Exploitation and management of plants at HiddenValley, Farafra Oasis, in B.E. Barich, G. Lucarini, M.A. Hamdanand F.A. Hassan (eds.), From Lake to Sand. The Archaeologyof Farafra Oasis (Egypt). Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.In press b. The bifacial products from Hidden Valley andneighbouring areas in Wadi el Obeiyid, in B.E. Barich, G.Lucarini, M.A. Hamdan and F.A. Hassan (eds.), From Laketo Sand. The Archaeology of Farafra Oasis (Egypt). Florence:All’Insegna del Giglio.

Lucarini, G., and Mutri, G.2010. Site SJ-00-56: Débitage Analysis and FunctionalInterpretation of a Later Stone Age Campsite of Jebel Gharbi(Libya), Human Evolution 25: 155-165.

Luni, M., Mei, O., and Cardinali, C.2010. Cirene in Età Arcaica e Tracce dell’InsediamentoPregreco. Rendiconti Morali dell’Accademia dei Lincei, seriesIX, volume XXI: 569-605.

McBurney, C.B.M.1960. The Stone Age of Northern Africa. London: PenguinBooks.1967. The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of theSouth-East Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

McBurney, C.B.M., and Hey, R.W.1955. Prehistory and Pleistocene Geology in Cyrenaican Libya.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McDonald, M.M.A.1998. Early African pastoralism: View from Dakhleh Oasis(South Central Egypt), Journal of Anthropological Archaeology17: 124-142.2007. Holocene Prehistory of the Wady el Midauwara aboveKharga Oasis, Egypt, in K. Kroeper, M. Chlodnicki and M.Kobusiewicz (eds.), Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa.In Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak: 479-492. Poznan: PoznanArchaeological Museum.2009. Increased Sedentism in the Central Oases of theEgyptian Western Desert in the Early to Mid-Holocene:Evidences from the Peripheries, African ArchaeologicalReview 26: 3-43.

Morales, J., Pérez-Jordà, G., Peña-Chocarro, L., Zapata, L.,Ruíz-Alonsoa, M., López-Sáeza, J.A., and Linstädter, J.2013. The origins of agriculture in North-West Africa: macro-botanical remains from Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithiclevels of Ifri Oudadane (Morocco), Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 40 (6): 2659-2669.

Morel, J.1978. L’industrie lithique de l’escargotière de Dra-Mta-el-Ma-el Abiod dans le sud-est algerin. Sa composition. Sonévolution, L’Anthropologie 82 (3): 335-372.

Morgan, J. de, Capitan, L., and Boudy, P.1910. Etude sur les stations préhistoriques du Sud Tunisien,Revue de l’Ecole d’Anthropologie de Paris, 20: 105-136, 206-211, 267-386, 336-347; 21: 217-228.

Munzi, M., Felici, F., Cifani, G., Cirelli, E., Gaudiosi, E.,Lucarini, G., and Matug, J.2004. A Topographic Research Sample in the Territory of

Giulio Lucarini

172

Leptis Magna: Sîlîn, Libyan Studies 35: 11-66.

Munzi, M., Felici, F., Cifani, G., and Lucarini, G.2004-2005. Leptis Magna: città e campagna dall’origine allascomparsa del sistema sedentario antico, Scienze dell’Antichità.Storia, Archeologia, Antropologia 12: 433-471.

Mutri, G., and Lucarini, G.2008. New Data on the Late Pleistocene of the Shakshuk Area,Jebel Gharbi, Libya, African Archaeological Review 25: 99-107.

Neumann, K.1989a. Holocene vegetation of the Eastern Sahara: charcoalfrom prehistoric sites, African Archaeological Review 7: 97-116.1989b. Vegetationsgeschichte der Östsahara im HolozänHolzkohlen aus prähistorischen Fundstellen, in R. Kuper (ed.),Forschungen zur Umweltgeschichte der Östsahara: 130-181.Köln: Heinrich Barth Institut.1993. Holocene vegetation of the Eastern Sahara: charcoalfrom prehistoric sites, in L. Krzyzaniak, M. Kobusiewicz andJ.A. Alexander (eds.), Environmental Change and HumanCulture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa until the SecondMillennium B.C: 153-169. Poznan: Poznan ArchaeologicalMuseum.

Oliveira, H.R., Lister, D.L., and Jones, M.K.2011. Phylogeography of Cereal Landraces and the Spreadof Agriculture in NorthWest Africa: Review and Prospects,in A.G. Fahmy, S. Kahlheber and A.C. D’Andrea (eds.),Windows on the African Past: Current Approaches to AfricanArchaeobotany: 167-174. Frankfurt: Africa Magna Verlag.

Ouchaou, B.2004. Les mammifères des niveaux néolithiques et protohistoriquesdes gisements archéologiques de la péninsule tingitane, inM. Otte, A. Bouzouggar and J. Kozlowski (eds.), La Préhistoirede Tanger: 93-100. Liège: Centre Interfacultaire de RecherchesArchéologique.

Ouchaou, B., and Amani, F.1997. Etude préliminaire des grands Mammifères du gisementde Kaf Taht el-Ghar (Tétouan, Maroc), Préhistoire AnthropologieMéditerranéénnes 6: 53-60.

Pereira, F., Queirós, S., Gusmão, L., Nijman, I.J., Cuppen,E., Lenstra, J.A., Econogene Consortium, Davis, S.J.M.,Nejmeddine, F., and Amorim, A.2009. Tracing the History of Goat Pastoralism: New Cluesfrom Mitochondrial and Y Chromosome DNA in North Africa,Molecular Biology and Evolution 26 (1): 2765-2773.

Rahmani, N.2003. Le Capsien Typique et Le Capsien Supérieur: EvolutionOu Contemporanéité. Les Données Technologiques. Oxford:

Archaeopress.2004. Technological and Cultural Change among the LastHunter-Gatherers of the Maghreb: The Capsian (10000-6000BP), Journal of World Prehistory 18/1: 57-105.

Riemer, H.2007a. Out of Dakhla: Cultural diversity and mobility betweenthe Egyptian Oases and the Great Sand Sea during theHolocene humid phase, in K. Kroeper, M. Chlodnicki andM. Kobusiewicz (eds.), Archaeology of the Early NortheasternAfrica. In Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak: 493-526. Poznan:Poznan Archaeological Museum.2007b. When hunters started herding: Pastro-foragers and thecomplexity of Holocene economic change in the WesternDesert of Egypt, in M. Bollig, O. Bubenzer, R. Vogelsangand H.-P. Wotzka (eds.), Aridity, Change and Conflict inAfrica: 105-144. Köln: Heinrich Barth Institut.

Riemer, H., and Kindermann, K.2008. Contacts between the Oasis and the Nile: a Résumé ofthe Abu Muhariq Plateau Survey 1995-2002, in B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristant (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2: 609-633. Leuven: Peeters.

Roubet, C.1968. Le gisement du Damous el-Ahmar et sa place dans leNéolithique de tradition capsienne. Algiers: Travaux duCentre de Recherches Anthropologiques Préhistoriques etEthnographiques, Alger.1971. Sur la définition et la chronologie du Néolithique dutradition capsienne, L’Anthropologie 75: 553-574.1979. Économie Pastorale Préagricole en Algérie Orientale:le Néolithique de Tradition Capsienne. Paris: Édition duCNRS.

Schmidt, K.1993. Comments to the Lithic Industry of the Buto-MaadiCulture in Lower Egypt, in L. Krzyzaniak, M. Kobusiewiczand J. Alexander (eds.), Environmental Change and HumanCulture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa until the SecondMillennium B.C: 267-277. Poznan: Poznan ArchaeologicalMuseum.

Shirai, N.2007. Origins and development of bifacial stone tools andtheir implications for teh beginning of animal herding in theEgyptian Western Desert, in K. Kroeper, M. Chlodnicki andM. Kobusiewicz (eds.), Archaeology of Early NorthEasternAfrica. In Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak: 355-374. Poznan:Poznan Archaeological Museum.2010. The Archaeology of the First Farmer-Herders in Egypt:New insights into the Fayum Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic.Leiden: Leiden University Press.


173

Smith, A.B.1984. Origins of the Neolithic in the Sahara, in J.D. Clarkand S.A. Brandt (eds.), From Hunters to Farmers: 84-92.Berkeley: University of California Press.2005. African Herders: Emergence of Pastoral Tradition.Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Thanheiser, U.2011. Island of the Blessed: 8000 Years of Plant Exploitationin the Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt, in A.G. Fahmy, S. Kahlheberand A.C. D’Andrea (eds.), Windows on the African Past:Current Approaches to African Archaeobotany: 79-90.Frankfurt: Africa Magna Verlag.

Vaufrey, R.1933. Notes sur le Capsien, L’Anthropologie XLIII: 457-483.1955. Préhistoire de l’Afrique. Tome premier: Maghreb. Paris:Publication de l’Institute des Haute Etudes de Tunis 4.

Wasylikowa, K.2001. Site E-75-6: Vegetation and Subsistence of the EarlyNeolithic at Nabta Playa, Egypt, Reconstructed from CharredPlant Remains, in F. Wendorf, R. Schild and Associates (eds.),Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara. The Archaeologyof Nabta Playa. Volume I: 544-591. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Wendorf, F., Schild, R., and Associates2001. Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara. The Archaeologyof Nabta Playa. Volume I. New York: Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers.

Wendrich, W., Taylor, R.E., and Southon, J.2010. Dating stratified sites at Kom K and Kom W: Fifthmillennium BCE radiocarbon ages for Fayum Neolithic,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268,7-8: 999-1002.

Wenke, R.J., Long, J.E., and Buck, P.E.1988. Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic Subsistence and Settlementin the Fayyum Oasis of Egypt, Journal of Field Archaeology15: 29-51.

Zilhao, J.2001. Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonizationat the origins of farming in west Mediterranean Europe,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America 98: 14180-14185.In press. The “African Mirage” is a delusion indeed. Thedistribution of the obsidian from Pantelleria rejects a Maghrebroute for the neolithization of Iberia, Proceedings of the 5ºCongresso Do Neolítico Peninsular (Lisboa, 7-9 April 2011).

Was a transition to food production homogeneous along the circum-Mediterranean littoral? A...

Documents

Transcript of Was a transition to food production homogeneous along the circum-Mediterranean littoral? A...