307

Middle Palaeolithic Lithic Technologyfrom the Western High Desertof Egypt

Laurent ChiottiMuseum National d'Historre NanrrelleAbri Paraud, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France

Harold L. Dibble

Deborah 1. OlszewskiUniversity ofPennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Shannon P. McPherronMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzig, Germany

Utsav A. SchurmansUniversity ofPennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Recent work in the high desert west ofAbydos in Egypt has fOcused on the Middle Palae­olithic technologies known as Nubian 1 and 2 types and classic Levallois, which are abun­dant and are fOund in virtually all stages ofproduction. Although these were originallydefined and treated as three discrete technologies, refitting and quantitative analyses showthat they are variants ofone technology. While this has direct implicatwnsfOr interpretinglithic technological variability in this region, the demonstratwn that a single technology canresult in seemingly discrete end products also has implications for all lithic technologicalstudies.

/

Introduction

The Abydos Survey for Palaeolithic Sites (ASPS) is fo­cused on the region west ofthe town ofAbydos in MiddleEgypt. Although a Belgian survey conducted in the 1970s(Vermeersch, Paulissen, and Gijselings 1977) had shownthat there was some Palaeolithic archaeological material onthe edge of the high desert escarpment, their work ~as

concentrated in the low desert (e.g., Vermeersch 2000,·2002). From 2000 to 2008, the present team began workin the area, concentrating on the high desert plateau (partof the Libyan Plateau) near the Nile Valley (FIG. r), sys­tematically surveying areas around the Wadi Umm al­Qaab, Wadi Sarnhud, Wadi al-Jir, and areas further west(Olszewski et al. 2001, 2005; Chiotti et al. 2007). Thedesert pavement characteristic of this area, combined with

the hyperaridity ofthe region, makes for a surface with veryhigh visibility and little to no postdepositional movementoflarge size (> 2 em) lithics. By far, the most common timeperiod represented on this landscape is the Middle Palae­olithic, and this survey generated data on nearly 22,000Iithics. These data are based in part on artribute analysisconducted in the course of surveying (McPherronandDibble 2003; McPherron, Dibble, and Olszewski 2000),on additional analysis of certain artifact types in the labo­ratory, and on ongoing refit studies ofmaterial specificallycollected for that purpose.

The High Desert Middle Palaeolithic ofAbydos: The Nubian Complex

Ir is clear that the Middle Palaeolithic material from thehigh desert ofAbydos (Olszewski et al. 2005; Olszewski et

308 Middle Palaeolithic Lithic Technology ofEgypt/Chiotti et al.

ASPSProject Area

Figure 1. Locations ofAbydos and the survey area in Egypt. The black areas on the image showsystematic collections in the areas surveyed.

/

al. in press) belongs to what Van Peer has defmed as theNubian Complex (Van Peet 1991a, 1998). The NubianComplex is found in both riverine and adjacent desert lo­cales, and Van Peer (2001) suggests that it represents anorthward expansion of anatomically modern hwnans; healso sees technological relationships between it and theAterian (Van Peer 1986). Both radial and Nubian Levalloistechniques characterize this complex, with a presumed em­phasis on Levallois point manufacture. Nubian cores in­clude the two types originally characterized by Guichardand Guichard (1965) as 'lYPe 1 (with distal preparation)and Type 2 (with lateral preparation) (FIG. 2). Resulting

.blanks are sometimes modified into Nazlet Khater points

in Middle Egypt and are interpreted as an indication of anemphasis on hunting (Van Peer 1991a, 1998). The NubianComplex includes the Nubian Middle Palaeolithic, the N­group (similar to the Nubian Mousterian), the Bir Tar­[nvi/Bir Sallara last interglacial industries, the Eastern Sa·haran Aterian, and the Khormusan (Van Peer 1998:S118-S125). The best known sites ofthe Nubian Complexin Middle Egypt are quarries or smaller raw material pro­curement sites in the low desert areas, such as Beit Khallaf1 and 3, Nazlet Khater 1 and 3, and Makhadma 6 (VanPeer 1991a, 2000; Vermeersch 2000, 2002).

All three major Nubian core types (including radial Lev­allois and Nubian Type 1 and Nubian Type 2 Levallois)

Journal ofFieldArchaeolog:yfVol. 34, 2009 309

a 3cm! ,

Figure 2. Cores from the ASPS project. A) Nubian Type 1; B) Nubian Type 2; C) Radial Levallois.

/

were found in the high desert by the ASPS project. Thesecore types, and their products, are all considered Levallois,although the total percentage of Levallois products is justOver 13% of the entire lithic assemblages (the rest of theflakes and cores are non-eliagnostic in terms ·of the under­lying technology). Retouched tools are extremely rare(much less than 1% of the entire collected assemblages).

The Discreteness of the Three Nubian CoreTypes: Quantitative Analyses

While Nubian Type 1, Nubian Type 2, and raelial Leval­lois cores are morphologically elistinct, our data provide ev­idence that these three Levallois core types are related andthus should not be interpreted as being eliscrete entities.

Overall, Nubian Type 1 and Nubian Type 2 cores aresimilar, especially in terms of their triangular plan view.What clistinguishes them is the fact that Nubian Type 1cores (FIG. 2A) exhibit elistal preparation of the core sur­face, usually through the removal of two flakes, one fromeach side of the core. These removals frequently originatefrom a platform sOOace that is relatively high on the coresOOace, and the two removals often are not elissirnilar fromlarge burin blows along the sides of the cores. These ,e­movals are oblique to the core sOOace, which results in thecreation of a convexity on that sOOace. Nubian Type 2

cores (FIG. 2B), on the other hand, create the necessary sur­face convexity through a series of removals from the later­al edges, which can lead to an almost centripetal prepara­tion. Raelial Levallois cores (FIG. 2C), which exhibit large­ly centripetal preparation, mostly resemble Nubian Type 2cores, although raelial Levallois cores differ from NubianType 2 cores in having a rounder, or more oval plan form.

These three core types appear to differ with respect tothree major charactetistics. The first elifference is evident intheir forms: Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 cores are triangn­lar, while raelial Levallois cores are more oval. Second, theydiffer in terms of the preparation of the core sOOace: Nu­bian Type 1 cores exhibit preparation from the elistal end,Nubian Type 2 cores exhibit preparation from the lateralmargins, and raelial Levallois cores have a centripetal pat­tern of preparation. Third, it is believed that the products

.derived from these cores also differ, presumably with Nu­bian cores ofboth types yielcling flakes that are more point­ed and raelial Levallois cores producing more oval flakes.There are, however, many aspects of all three types thatoverlap significantly.

Regarcling Nubian Type 1 and Type 2 cores, it is clearthat the criteria for elistinguishing between them do not re­sult in two mutnally exclusive types with either lateral orelistal preparation. Fully 46% of the Nubian cores recov-

310 Middle Palaeolithic Lithic Technology ofEgypt/Chiotti et al.

120

100El;

lao60

40

166

•

102

•

230

•

439

•

90

r 70jj

'"60

30

162

•

99

•

216

•

392

•1

Nubian 1 Nubian 2 "Nubian" Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 "Nubian" Levallois

40

162 99

216392

600

166

20

10

• • • •

400

ES 300:E

f200

100 •

102

•

228

•

440

•

Nubian 1 Nubian 2 "Nubian" Levallois Nubian 1 Nubian 2 "Nubian" Levallois

Figure 3. Box plots (mean, 1 standard deviation, and range) ofmetrics for the various core types.Samples sizes are shown above the bars. "Levallois" refers to radial Levallois cores.

/

ered during the ASPS surveys exhibit both distal and later­al preparation (in our analysis, these cores are assigned to

a category called "Nubian;' as opposed to Nubian Type 1or Nubian Type 2; this contrasts with previous analysesdone for the Nile Valley quarry sites where Nubian coresexhibiting both distal and latetal preparation on the samecore appear to have been assigned to Nubian Type 1 [e.g.,illustrations in Vermeersch 2002]). It is also the case (FIG.3) that all of these core forms (Nubian Type 1, NubianType 2, and the mixed ''Nubian'') are statistically indistin­guishable in terms of their overall dimensions (for length"F = 0.51, P = 0.60; width F = 0.29, P = 0.75; thicknessF = 0.38, P = 0.69; and weight F = 0.15, P = 0.86).

The Nubian types also overlap in the sense that neithertends to occur exclusively at particular locales across thelandscape. In other words, of the 64 low- or high-densitylocales that contain more than one Nubian core, ouly fourcontain exclusively Nubian Type 1 cores and ouly two oth­ers contain exclusively Nubian Type 2 cores. The remain­ing 90% of the collections contain a mix ofcores that wereprepared distally, laterally, or in both manners. Thus, thefact that these "types" are identical in size, co-occurthroughout the range ofthe ASPS study area, and often ex­hibit both kinds of characteristic preparation on the sameobject, argues strongly that they cannot be interpreted asbeing behaviorally distinctive, or as different types.

Journal ofFieldArchaeology;Vol. 34,2009 311

Figure 5. Measurement ofprimary scars on Levallois cores. Theratio of the distal 1/5 width to platform width yields a measure­ment ofpointedness for the removed flake.

Figure 4. Presence of both Nubian and radial Levallois cores as relatedto the total number of cores in a given pick-up circle. In samples con­taining only one core, only one type is represented, but when morethan one core is present, the percentage ofsamples containing bothtypes increases as a function ofsample size.

The situation is somewhat different when comparingNubian cores with radial Levallois cores (FIG. 2C) becauseradial Levallois cores look different, both in plan shape andin their centripetal preparation. The transformation from aNubian to a radial Levallois core, however, simply involvesthe removal of the distal (more pointed) end of a Nubian

core. In fact, a particular flake that reflects such a removalfrom a Nubian Type 1 core has already been identified byVan Peer (1991b) as a "Safaha flake;' wbich exhibits thenegative scarS ofthe distal portion ofa Nubian Type 1 core.By removing the distal end ofsuch a core, the originally tri­angular core immediately becomes more oval, and thus fa­cilitates further preparation from all around the perimeterofthe core. The result is a radial Levallois core. In terms oftheir metric comparisons, radial Levallois cores are slightlyshorter (F = 4.55, P < 0.001), wider (F = 3.26, P =0.02), and thinner (F = 10.44, P < 0.001), although notdifferent in weight (F = 0.18, P, = 0.91). While the differ­ences in dimensions are statistically significant, the ab­solute amount of difference (FIG. 3) is negligible.

Just as with the Nubian forms alone, there is no pat­terning suggesting that radial Levallois cores are spatiallysegregated from Nubian cores. Among ASPS collectionunits, when two or more cores are present, both radial Lev­aIlois and Nubian forms are included most of the time. Aswould be expected if this distribution were just a questionof chance, the degree of mixing between these two coreforms increases as the number of cores increases (FIG. 4).

It has been assumed that the triangular Nubian coreswere designed to produce flakes that were themselves tri­angular and thus suitable for use as points (Van Peer 1998:SI31). If so, such an intentional design would, in itself,demonstrate a meaningful distinction between Nubian andradial Levallois cores. Superficial examination of the nega­tive scars on Nubian cores does suggest some productionof pointed forms, but it does not, of course, actually indi­cate anything about how those products were used. More­over, it is not clear that "pointedness" was the intended re­sult for flakes struck from Nubian cores.

One way ofmeasuring the pointedness of the removalsis to compute a ratio of the width of the distal 1/5 of theflake scars to the width at the platfOrtll (FIG. 5). If this ra­tio is less than 1, then the flake edges converge; if it isgreater than 1, the flake edges diverge. Although this doesnot measure the actual pointedness ofthe flake itself, someconvergence of the lateral edges should be expected for anactual point.

As would be expected given their plan form, the scars ofthe principal flake removals from Nubian cores do expressaverage values of this ratio that are less than 1, or conver­gent, while the ptincipal flake scars from radial Levalloiscores are somewhat greater than 1, indicating that thoseflakes tend to diverge distally (FIG. 6). Importantly, how­ever, over 19% of the flake removals from Nubian cores-also diverge.' Tbis suggests some degree of inefficiency ifthe intended purpose of the Nubian cores was to producepointed flakes. Such a lack ofefficiency is also apparent on

>106-9

Levallois cores only

/4-53

Nubian cores only

~

2

Total number of cores in sample

Both Nubian andLevallois cores present

\40

20

80

60

I

/

312 Middle Palaeolithic Lithic Technology ofEgypt/Chiotti et al.

35

30

25

c~ 208'

15

10

5

+--- Converging edges

Nubian 2 "".

Nubian 1 1':':

~ 7/ \: \

Diverging edges ---------}o'

,

<0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 "2.5 2.6 <3

Pointedness ratio

Figure 6. Pointedness ratio (of scar tip to scar platform) ofprimary flake scars of both Nubian and radialLevallois cores. Pointedness values less than 1 indicate a convergent flake scar, while values greater than 1indicate a divergent scar.

/

the Nubian cores themselves, which often exhibit a distalend that is high relative to the rest of the core flaking sur­face (FIG. 7). Such a high spot on the distal end of the coreis likely responsible for a high percentage ofovershot flakes(see below; 5.1% ofall Levallois flakes). On the one hand,such details could reflect a kind of technological inefficien­cy, but on the other hand they could reflect the fact thatpointedness was not a compelling design feature ofNubiancores.

Regardless, all ofthese data indicate that there is a morefluid relationship among these different core types thanwas originally perceived, both in their defInition byGuichard and Guichard (1965), and in their subsequentinterpretive use (e.g., Van Peer 1991a, 1998). There is noquestion that the Nubian cores exhibit a distinct pattern intettns of their triangular shape, but it is clear that the dif­ferent ways of preparing the core surfaces are not particu­larly patterned-preparation can be distal, lateral, or evenboth. It is also clear that the ttansformation of a Nubiancore into a radial Levallois core (and presumably vice ver­sa) can be easily accomplished through the removal of oneSafaha flake. All of these core types are virtually indistin­guishable in overall size and their disttibutions across thelandscape overlap completely. While Nubian cores tend toproduce more pointed products, it is also ttue that they arenot very efficient at producing these forms, and again thereis a significant degree ofoverlap with radial Levallois cores.

Based on all of these data, the various core types-NubianType 1, Nubian Type 2, and radial Levallois-should beconsidered components of a multiple pathway reductionsequence, as shown in Figure 8. We do not suggest thatthere is a simple linear ttajectory from one type to anotherto a third. Rather, it seems that there are various optionsthat were exercised during core preparation and mainte­nance that resulted in the forms that were eventually dis­carded. Whether or not these options were taken deliber­ately (to produce a particular kind of end product), orwhether they represented more beuign alternatives remainsunknown.

The Discreteness of the Three Nubian CoreTypes: Refitting Analyses

Additional insights into these Nubian technologiescome from the refIts, although in general it appears asthough refits are more difficult to fmd in this period thanthey are for the Upper Palaeolithic collections. Two majorrefIt series come from sites ASPS-46A and ASPS-4011,and they include all three ofthe major Levallois core types.

ASPS-46A yielded several Levallois cores that refIt withtheir principal flakes; in most cases these "fmal" removalsare overshot. In a few cases, it was also possible to refItsome preparation flakes to the cores, which yielded infor­mation about the core preparation technique beyond whatcan be seen on the care itself This is especially ttue for the

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyjVol. 34,2009 313

o, 10cm,

Figure 7. Two Nubian cores. Each has distal preparation that left a ridge at that end whichis as high or higher than the rest of the core flaking surface. Such a high ridge results in anincreased number ofovershot flakes. Removing this distal end transforms a Nubian coreinto a radial Levallois core.

/

overshot Nubian cores, which in their discarded state (withonly lateral remnants of the original core surface remain­ing), are easily mistaken for radial Levallois cores. For ex­ample, core nucleus A46A-862 (FIG. 9) appears to be aLevallois core with a principal flake removal that had cov­ered most of the core's surface; however~ while the scarclearly extends to the distal end of the core, the degree towhich it overshot the core is not readily apparent by look­ing at the core alone. In fact, the principal flake (A46A­1428) (FIG. 9) is strongly overshot and had removed a sig­nificant portion of the core. When this flake is refit ontothe core, the distal Nubian preparation is quite apparent,with two large flakes removed along both edges to shapethe distal end; one ofthese distal flakes (A46A-1496) (FIG.

9) could be refit to the principal flake (A46A-1428). Thiscore (A46A-862) also shows that the: preparation was notonly on the distal end, but also on the proximal end. Corenucleus A46A-1S08 is another example of how the classi­fication ofa core can change because ofinformationgainedfron', refits. This is a small core that is, again, stronglyover­shot (FIG. 9). The core itself is easily classified as a classicLevallois core with radial preparation. The refit ofthe prin­cipal flake (A46A-377) (FIG. 9) shows again that it is Nu­bian in preparation. In'a few cases, such as with core nuw

cleus A46A-673, a refit of the principal flake (A46A-87S),again slightly overshot, confirms the classic radial nature ofthe preparation (FIG. 9).

At site ASPS-4011, three Nubian cores were refit withtheir principal flake removals; two ofthe cores were also re­fit with earlier preparation flakes. Core nucleus A4011-164(FIG. 10) is a mixed (Nubian Types 1 and 2) core, meaningthat it has evidence of both distal and lateral preparation.The distal preparation is on the left side, which continuedproximally about halfof the length of the core, leaving therest of the left edge cortical. The right side shows a shortpreparation flake taken first from the distal end, followedby the removal of a large flake ftom the medial side, againleaving a partially cortical edge. The principal removal(A4011-20) (FIG. 10) is a long flake that covers thelengthof the core, although it does not have the characteristicshape of a Nubian point.

Core nucleus A4011-122 (FIG. 10), in its discardedstate, is a Levallois core that exhibits the scar of the princi­pal removal overshooting the left edge and distal extremi­ty of the core. The refitting of the principal flake (A4011­94), on the ,other hand, clearly shows Nubian Type 1preparation.

Core nucleus A4011-1 (FIG. 10) is a typical NubianType 1 core. The principal removal (A4011-2) has a trian­gular form with only a small irregularity in the interior rip­ples at its distal end. Two refitted preparation flakes fromthe right and left sides of the core surface originated fromthe distal end. The one on the right (A4011-96) is quiteelongated and was detached prior to the preparation of the

314 Middle Palaeolithic Lithic Technology ofEgyptjChiotti et al.

Discard

t,,

Discard

Discard

Safaha flake r

btlb~

(J.-rJ. ~. Knapping of

Radial Lavallols Safaha flakeflake '" transformation tot radial Levallois core

(;) R'd'" ,".,,,, core

~

,'" very frequent accident,core and flake discard

Nubian Levallois core

Flake from core Flake from core resharpeningresharpenlng ~ transITion from Nubian IiNubian I 1 type to Nubian I type-@iv'·--·~·

C,,, ",h"O'"" ~~ Levallois Nubian I type core

t{;j+!J

,Nubian Levallois f1ak~

Nubian preparation f1akes~''" "Eclat debordant," .more or less cortical

~

Core preparationNubian I type

t ~ ~ Flake from

(J ~A." ~ core~~~I~~~~ =er:~ening

V, :. ;l) N;;;"~'

.:.-.,...- It(~()~

~~ ~~J.

Core resharpening

~:-if ····--rOvershot Overshot

Levallois Nubian type flake Nubian core

Knapping ofsafaha flake

'" transformation toradial Levallois core

Safaha flake

ba1~

(J.-rJ,

Radial Levallois'<k,

t

Discard

t ---Flake from resharpenlngcore resharpamng t Nubian II type

NCb""~ ~

~~~\:~.~@~

qJCore resharpenlng

Levallois Nubian type I, 1/11, or II

Discard

Figure 8. Reduction scheme integrating Nubian Type 1, Nubian Type 2, and radial Levallois corestrategies.

/

-------------------~-------~~~~~~~-~--

Journal ofFieldArchaeologyfVol. 34, 2009 315

Principal flake A46A-377

Distal flakeA46A-1496

Nucleus A46A-1508

Principal flake A46A-1428

o 10~LI_--'--_--'--_J.-_J.-_J.-_J.-_-'--_-'--_-L-_--"

Principal flake A46A-875

Nucleus A46A-862

Nucleus A46A-673

Figure 9. Refits from site ASPS-46A. The core, or nucleus, (darkest gray) is overlain by the (lighter gray)flakes that were removed. The lightest gray flake was removed first.

distal extremity of the core, and thus extended beyond thepresent end. The second one, A4011-178, was detachedmore laterally, some three-quarters down the length of thecore, but still removed material from almost the entirelength of the core edge. Two removals from the platformpreparation also are refitted: one large, lateral, cortical flakefrom the right of the core (A4011-77) and a small elon­gated flake (A4011-149) at the center of the platform.

In addition to their value for reconstructing the tech­nology underlying these cores, the refits also indicate theactivities that took place at the sites. For site ASPS-4011,the source of the raw material used was not in the imme­diate vicinity, and, with the exception of some very ittegu­lar and large nodules outcropping from a residual lime­srone butte immediately to the north of the site, there wasno suitable material available in the area. Thus, the utilizednodules were brought to this location on the plateau.

There were, however, a number of artifacts found (N =

190) and, interestingly, none of them correspond to theinitial phases of reduction. It is possible that the first fewreduction flakes were removed at the location where theraw material was originally found, although it is clear thatat least some final preparation of the core did take place atthe site, as shown by the presence of the refitted prepara­tion flakes. Thus, it would seem that the cores were initial­ly prepared elsewhere and then imported into the site fortheir fmal reduction.

In the same way, there is no raw material source atASPS-46A. At this site, a higher number of artifacts (N =195I) were found, and all phases of the reduction se­quence are present, including a large cortical flake that re­fits onto the rear part ofa Levallois core. Thus, in this caseit seems that raw nodules were brought onto the site andunderwent complete reduction on the spot. At site ASPS-

/

316 Middle Palaeolithic Lithic Technology o[Egypt/Chiotti et al.

Nucleus A4011-64

o 10cmL'-L-.-l--'_l-l-L--L--L-L-l'

Nucleus A4011-1~

Principal removal A4011-2

Platform preparation flakeA4011-77

Platform preparation flakeA4011-149

Figure 10. Refits from site ASPS4011. The core, or nucleus (darkest gray), is overlain by the lighter grayflakes that were removed from it.

/

46A, the refitted principal removals are mainly overshot,but what seem to us as "good quality" points and flakes arepresent in the assemblage.

Based on the refit evidence and general characterization. of the assemblages it is clear that the Middle Palaeolithicoccupations in the high desert do not conform to one pat­tern. Our data show that some sites have evidence that theentire reduction sequence took place on site, but in otherinstances initial preparation took place elsewhere, perhapswhere the raw materials were frrst collected.'

Conclusions

The primary drawback to all survey data is the lack ofchronological control over the material through stratigra­phy, and that is the case here. The advantage of this mate­rial, however, particularly in the hyperarid, desert pave­ment context, is that the high visibility and abundance ofarchaeological materials allows large collections to be gen­erated that are suitable for targeted attribute analysis. Ad­ditionally, we focused on several locations, which providedthe opportunity for extensive horiwntal collection to cre­ate assemblages suited for refit analysis. As we try to show

here, the combination of refit analysis and teclmologicallyfocused attribute analysis of limited classes ot MiddlePalaeolithic material can produce insights into the lithictechnologies represented and their relationship to thelandscape.

In the Middle Palaeolithic, Nubian teclmologies, in­cluding classic Levallois, are dominant. The attributeanalysis of a large sample of cores suggests that the typo­logical distinction between Nubian Type 1 and NubianType 2 cores is not clear, and this lack of distinctness isgreat enough that maintaining a separation between Nu­bian Type 1 and Nubian Type 2 is of questionable utility.Furthermore, it is unclear whether Nubian Type 1 andType 2 preparation is patterned in the archaeologicalrecord in a meaningful way. Thus, we suggest that the dis­tinction be dropped and that these two types of prepara­tion, lateral and distal, be considered part of a single Nu­bian core preparation teclmology.

Additionally, while we acknowledge that radial Leval­lois cores and Nubian cores are distinguishable based ontheir shapes, we question whether these are distinct corereduction strategies. Aside from the triangular shape of the

/

Nubian cores, the core preparation is essentially the same:cores of both types are nearly identical in size, produce fi­nal flakes that overlap to a large degree in shape, and enterthe archaeological record in similar spatial contexts. Withperhaps the exception of N azlet Khatar points, a type thatis extremely rare in the record generally and of which wefound only a single example in our sample, we cannotshow that the end products of Nubian cores were treateddifferently than the end products of radial Levallois cores.We do not suggest that there is a relationship between coretype and stage of reduction. Rather, both are part of thesame system of preparation and prehistoric knappers mayhave moved back and forth between these alternatives asneeds dictated (c£ Dibble 1995). This type of flexibility isapparent in some ofthe Nile Valley assemblages where thetechnology, as indicated by the flake debitage, is sometimesdifferent from that associated with the discarded cores(e.g" Vermeersch 2002).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Permanent Committee ofthe Supreme Council ofAntiquities and Zahi Hawass, Sec­retary General, for granting us permission to do this work,and Magdy El Ghandour of the Supreme Council of An­tiquities who greatly facilitated all our seasons ofwork. Wewould also like to thank Zein el Abdin Zaki, Director Gen­eral of Antiquities for Sohag, and Aziza El Sayed Hassan,Chief Inspector Balliana. Additionally, we extend ourwarm and appreciative thanks to Madame Amira of theAmerican Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) for all herhelp in malcing this project possible. We would like tothank Matthew Adams and David O'Connor of the Penn­Yale-IFA (Institute ofFineAtts) Expedition to Abydos andJanet Richards of the University of Michigan for facilitat­ing our work in the field house and in the desert. Finally,thanks are given to the Egyptian staff and the field crewsfor their efforts. Funding for the project was made possibleby grants from the National Science Foundation and theLeakey Foundation, as well as a generous contribution byA. Bruce Mainwaring and the University of PennsylvaniaMuseum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Support wasalso provided by the Max Planck Society. This is ASPSContribution No.5.

Laurent Chiotti (ph.D. 1999, Museum National d'HistoireNaturelle) is a Research Assistant. His research interests centeron lithic industries from both technokigical and typokigical per- .spectives, with afOcus on the Upper Palaeolithic. Mailing ad­dress: Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Abri Pataud,

Joumal ofFleldArchaeokigy/Vol. 34, 2009 317

20 rue duMoyenAge, 24620 Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France.E-mail: lchiotti@mnhnfr

Harold L. Dibble (ph.D. 1980, University ofArizona) isProfessor ofAnthropokigy. His primary research fOcuses on theMiddle Palaeolithic ofEurope, North Africa, and the Levant,lithic technokigy, andfield methods. Mailing acldress: Depart­ment ofAnthropokigy, University ofPennsylvania Museum,3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: hdib­ble@sas.upenn.edu

Deborah L Olszewski (ph.D. 1984, University ofArizona)isAdjunctAssociate Proftssor ofAnthropokigy. Her researchinterests includs the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic and Epi­palaeolithic ofthe Middle East and North Africa, chippedstone analysis, settlement systems, and the origins ofagricul­ture. Mailing acldress: Department ofAnthropokigy, Univer­sity ofPennsylvania Museum, 3260 South Street, Philadel­phia, PA 19104. E-mail: deboraho@sas.upenn.edu

Shannon P. McPherron (ph.D. 1994, University ofPenn­sylvania) is a Research Scientist. His research interests includeLower and Middle Palaeolithic lithic technokigies, computerapplications in archaeokigy, and site fOrmation processes. Mail­ing address: Department ofHuman Evolution, Max PlanckInstitute fOr Evolutionary Anthropokigy, Deutscher Platz 6,D-041-3, Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: mepherron@eva.mpg.de

Utsav A. Schurmans (ph.D. 2008, University ofPennsyl­vania) is a Lecturer and Research Associate. His interests in­clude the origins and development offully cultural behavior,the prehistory ofNorth Africa, lithic technokigy, and thegkibaldispersal ofHomo sapiens. Mailing address: University ofPennsylvania Museum, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA19104. E-mail: utsav.schurmans@gmail.com

Chiotti, Laurent, Deborah I. Olszewski, Harold L. Dibble, ShannonP. McPherron, Utsav A. Schurmans, and Jennifer R. Smith

2007 "Paleolithic Abydos: Reconstructing Individual BehaviorsAcross the High Desert Landscape;' in Zahi Hawass andJanet Richards, eds., The Archaeowgy and Art ofEgypt: Es­says in Honor ofDavid B. O'Connor. Cairo: Supreme Coun­cil ofAntiquities Press, 169-183.

Guichard, Jean, and Genvieve Guichard1965 "The Early and Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia: A Prelimi­

nary Report;' in Fred Wendorf, ed., Contributions to the Pre­history ofNubia. Dallas: Fort Burgwin Research Center andSouthern Methodist University Press, 57-116.

McPherrou, Shanuou P., and Harold L. Dibble2003 "Using Computers in Adverse Field Conditions: Tales

from the Egyptian Desert;' SAAArchaeowgicalRecord 3(5):28-32.

McPherron, Shannon R., Harold A. Dibble, and DeborahOlszewski

2008 "GPS Survey and Ou-Site Stoue Tool Analysis: EquippingTeams for Landscape Analysis in the Egyptian HighDesert;' in A. Posluschny, K. Lamberg, and I. Herzog, eds.,

/

318 Middle Palaeolithic Lithic Technology ofEgypt/Chiotti et al.

Layers ofPerception. Bonn: Dr. RudolfHabelt, CD supple­ment,l-6.

Olszewski, Deborah 1., Shannon P. McPherron, Harold L. Dibble,and Marie Soressi

2001 "Middle Egypt in Prehistory: A Search for the Origins ofModem Human Behavior and Hwnan Dispersal," Expedi­tion 43: 31-37.

Olszewski, Deborah 1., Harold L. Dibble, Utsav A. Schunnans,Shannon P. McPherron, and Jennifer R. Smith

2005 "High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos (Egypt): A Pre­liminary Report;'IournaJ ofFieldArchaeology 30: 283-303.

Olszewski, Deborah 1., Utsav A. Schurmans, Shannon P. McPher­ron, Harold L. Dibble, Laurent Chiotti, and Jennifer R. Smith

in press "Middle Paleolithic Settlement Systems: Theo-retical and Modeling Frameworks Using High Desert Sur­vey Data From Abydos, Egypt;' in Nicholas ]. Conard, andAnn Delagnes, eds., Settlement Systems of the Middle Pale­olithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. 3. Tiibingen: Kerns Ver­lag.

Van Peer, Philip1986 "Presence de la technique nubienne dans l'Aterien;' DAn~

thropologie 90: 321-324.1991a "Interassemblage Variability and Levallois Styles: The Case

ofthe NorthemMrican Middle Paleolithic,"Journal ofAn~ .thropologicaJArchaeology 10: 107-151.

1991b "New Observations About the Nile Valley Middle Palae­olithic: Safaha Method and Lateralization of LevalloisFlakes;' PaUrment 17: 133-140.

1998 "The Nile Corridor and the Our-of-Africa Model: An Ex­amination of the Archaeological Recor~" Current Anthro~pology 39: 115-140.

2000 "Makhadrna 6, a Nubian Complex Site;' in Pierre M. Ver~meersch, ed., Palaeolithic Living Sites in Upper and MiddleEgypt. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 91-103.

2001 "The Nubian Complex Settlement System in NortheastAfrica;' in Nicholas J. Conard, ed., Settlement Dynaf!1-ics ()fthe Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Tiibingen:Kerns Verlag, 45-63.

Vermeersch, Pierre M., editor2000 Palaeolithic Living Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt. Leuven:

Leuven University Press.2002 Palaeolithic Quarry Sites in Middle Egypt. Leuven: Leuven

University Press.Vermeersch, Pierre M., Etienne Paulissen, and Gilbert Gijselings

1977 "Prospection Prehistorique entre Asyut et Nag 'Hammadi(Egypte);' Bulletin de la SocietC Royale Befge d'Anthropologieet de Prehistoire 88: 117-124.