quote:The Main Nile Valley at the End of the Pleistocene (28–15 ka): Dispersal Corridor or Environmental Refugium?
Under present environmental conditions, the Nile Valley acts as a ‘natural’ route between Africa and Eurasia, and is often considered as a corridor for dispersals out of and back into Africa in the past. This review aims to address the role played by the Nile Valley at the end of the Pleistocene (28-15 ka) in the context of post-‘Out of Africa’ modern human dispersals. Genetic studies based on both modern and ancient DNA suggest pre-Holocene dispersals ‘back into Africa’ as well as genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and the Levant.
....
Palaeoenvironments in the Main Nile Valley and Neighboring Regions During MIS 2: Indirect Evidence for Environmental Refugia or Dispersal Corridor?
In order to consider the hypotheses of the main Nile Valley as an environmental refugium or corridor for dispersals during MIS 2, the palaeoenvironmental data from neighboring regions must also be considered (see Table 1). In particular, the available records from northern Egypt, the southern Levant, and the deserts adjacent to the Nile Valley will be reviewed below in order to discuss whether the Delta, Sinai and Negev or eastern Sahara could have been crossed by human populations at the end of the Pleistocene.
...
During MIS 2, the lowering of the sea level led to an incision of the Nile starting around Qena (nick point, Sandford, 1936; Wendorf and Schild, 1989). No archaeological evidence dated to MIS 2 is available from the northern part of Egypt (north of Dishna). Geological deposits from this period and associated archaeological remains are thus either absent or buried under several meters of sediments accumulated by the Nile in parallel with the rise of the sea level. One main issue when discussing whether the Nile Valley acted as a corridor during MIS 2 is whether the Nile Delta was habitable. However, it is important to consider that the sea shore during most of MIS 2 was several kilometres northwards, and up to 50 km to the north during the LGM and maximum sea low stand (Stanley and Warne, 1993). Late Pleistocene deposits dated to MIS 2 documented in what is today the Nile Delta, was thus located well upstream from the sea shore. They show evidence for Nile floods and the presence of seasonal ponds, but the evidence is limited for the LGM in particular (Chen and Stanley, 1993; Stanley and Warne, 1993). Based on the characteristics of the mud deposits and their distribution in the Nile Delta, Chen and Stanley (1993) and Stanley and Warne (1993) suggest that the region during the Late Pleistocene was mostly a minimally-vegetated plain with seasonally active braided channels and ephemeral ponds in a generally arid environment. In addition, the composition of the Late Pleistocene Nile deposits in the Delta are consistent with the hypothesis that the Delta constituted the primary source of sand for the Negev-Sinai erg (Muhs et al., 2013). Punctuated human occupation of what is now the Nile Delta in the Late Pleistocene may therefore have been possible but it remains to be confirmed, particularly during the LGM.
...
Archaeological Evidence for Human Occupation of the Nile Valley During MIS 2 General Data on the Late Palaeolithic of the Main Nile Valley
Numerous archaeological sites are dated to MIS 2 in the main Nile Valley, most of which are surface occurrences of bone fragments and lithic artefacts. Based on the characteristics of the lithic artefacts, i.e., the production of flakes and elongated products (blade/lets) of small dimensions associated with a toolkit including high proportions of backed tools, they are attributed to the Late Palaeolithic. The Late Palaeolithic (ca. 25-12 ka) in north-eastern Africa follows the Upper Palaeolithic (with scarce sites dated to ca. 50-25 ka), and precedes the Epipalaeolithic in the Egyptian Nile Valley and Egyptian Eastern Desert (with sites dated from ca. 9 ka cal BP, Vermeersch, 2012), the Early Neolithic in the Western and Eastern Desert of Egypt (from ca. 10 ka cal BP, Wendorf et al., 2001; Gatto, 2012) and the Mesolithic in the Sudan (from ca. 11 ka cal BP, Honegger, 2019). The Late Palaeolithic in north-eastern Africa is coeval with the Epipalaeolithic in the Levant, the Iberomaurusian/Later Stone Age in northern Africa and the Later Stone Age in other African regions. This constellation of terminologies and the use of the same terms to designate different periods in different regions make comparisons at the macro-regional scale difficult.
Late Palaeolithic sites in north-eastern Africa are located mostly in southern Egypt and Nubia. Most sites were discovered during prehistoric investigations as part of the Nubia Campaign which began in 1961–1962, (Schild and Wendorf, 2002) and archaeological expeditions that followed, until the end of the 1980s. This leads to a record biased toward certain geographical areas (in particular, the location of the Aswan Dam in northern Nubia), although geomorphological reasons also explain why virtually no Late Palaeolithic sites are known north of Qena (see also The Late Pleistocene main Nile in southern Egypt and Nubia section). The only possible occurrences of Late Palaeolithic assemblages in northern Egypt are in the region of Helwan, near Cairo, where P. Bovier-Lapierre at the beginning of the 20th century (Bovier-Lapierre, 1926) and F. Debono in 1936 (Debono, 1948; Debono and Mortensen, 1990, 9–11) noted several surface occurrences or ‘stations’ of material that they attribute to the end of the Palaeolithic. In a later reassessment of Debono’s surface collections, Schmidt (1996) attributed Debono site 7 ‘ostrich’ to the Late Upper Palaeolithic and published two dates on ostrich eggshell fragments of ca. 18 ka BP (or ca. 21–23 ka cal BP). Schmidt (1996) also mentions several localities with microlithic artefacts that he attributes to the Epipalaeolithic, although it is unclear whether this refers to the Epipalaeolithic or Late Palaeolithic. Recent research in the Nile Delta has also reported the presence of Epipalaeolithic assemblages (Rowland and Tassie, 2014; Tassie, 2014). However, with the exception of the two dates on ostrich eggshell fragments which must be considered with caution as these are surface finds, the Late Palaeolithic or Epipalaeolithic surface occurrences in the Nile Delta are poorly dated and may not in fact date to MIS 2 (see discussion below).
In southern Egypt and Nubia, where most Late Palaeolithic sites are found, the archaeological record shows evidence for variability in subsistence behaviors, which may correspond to different seasons of the year. Many sites document subsistence based on fishing, with numerous fish remains, mainly belonging to the Clariidae (e.g., Clarias sp.) and Cichlidae (e.g., tilapias) families that prefer shallow waters and could be fished at the beginning and end of the flood season, or even after the flood season when some fish can survive in residual pools that remain on the floodplain (Van Neer et al., 2000). A variety of fishing methods may have been used depending on the season, and in particular there is archaeological evidence for the use of small double-pointed bone hooks (Van Neer and Gautier, 1989; Van Neer et al., 2000). In addition, at Makhadma 4 (Van Neer et al., 2000), the association of high densities of fish bones with black archaeological layers showing an abundance of charcoal and the occurrence of post-holes may suggest the use of curing strategies such as fish smoking at the site. Other sites document subsistence based on large-game hunting. The most common hunted species are hartebeest, aurochs and (Dorcas) gazelles (Linseele and Van Neer, 2010; Coudert, 2013; Yeshurun, 2018). Occasionally, hippopotamus hunting is documented (e.g., on the Kom Ombo plain), and this high-risk hunting may have been related to activities other than strictly subsistence-based ones (Yeshurun, 2018). There is also archaeological evidence for plant (tubers) processing, through the use of grinding implements, e.g., at Wadi Kubbaniya (Roubet, 1989a; Roubet, 1989b).
Beyond subsistence-based behaviors, several rock art panels attributed to the Late Palaeolithic have been documented in localities near Kom Ombo, in Qurta and Abu Tanqura Bahari at el-Hosh (Huyge et al., 2007; Huyge et al., 2011; Huyge, 2009; Huyge and Claes, 2015) and near Aswan, in Wadi Abu Subeira (Storemyr et al., 2008; Kelany, 2012; Graff and Kelany, 2013; Kelany, 2014; Kelany et al., 2015). These rock art panels had previously been noticed in 1962–1963 by the Canadian Prehistoric Expedition (e.g., Smith, 1967; Smith et al., 1985) during the investigation of Late Palaeolithic sites on the Kom Ombo plain. Rock art at these localities comprises a very homogeneous group of panels characterized by the use of hammering and incision to represent large animal figures in a naturalistic style. Bovid (aurochs) figures are dominant, followed by birds, hippopotami, gazelle, fish and hartebeest. Highly stylized human figures are also present in Qurta and Abu Tanqura Bahari (Huyge, 2009; Huyge, 2018). Because these representations are very different in style from what is known for later periods (e.g., Huyge, 2005), and because they are characterized by a dark patina and rock varnish associated with intense weathering, a Late Pleistocene age was proposed (Huyge et al., 2007) and later confirmed by the OSL (Optically-Stimulated Luminescence) dating of sediments covering rock art panels at Qurta II (Huyge et al., 2011). These suggest a minimal age of 15 ka. Due to the vicinity of the Qurta localities to several Late Palaeolithic sites in the Kom Ombo area, Huyge and colleagues (2007, 2011) suggest an association with a particular entity of the Late Palaeolithic, the Ballanan-Silsilian (Table 2). It is also interesting to note that these sites are located not far (on the opposite bank of the Nile) from one of the main Late Palaeolithic site clusters, Wadi Kubbaniya (Wendorf et al., 1989).
....
Summary and Research Perspectives
Available palaeoenvironmental, human fossil, genetic and archaeological data all present their own limitations and offer contrasting views when considering the question of whether the Nile Valley acted as a corridor for dispersal or environmental refugium during MIS 2. Improved chronological and geographical resolution is needed in order to bring definitive support to one or the other hypothesis (or both). Nonetheless, the available evidence seems to suggest that the Nile Valley acted primarily as an environmental refugium during MIS 2. Indirect evidence from palaeoenvironmental data show that several locations at least in the Nile Valley were suitable for human occupation during MIS 2. This is supported by archaeological evidence showing human occupation during the driest episodes of MIS 2. Human occupation might also have been possible in some areas of the adjacent deserts, at least in an intermittent manner. Similarly, human fossil data suggest that human groups from the Nile Valley are different from adjacent regions, which is consistent with a scenario involving the isolation of human groups into environmental refugia (e.g., Pagani and Crevecoeur, 2019).
Begs the question of corridor or refugium for who? Are they seriously suggesting populations other than Africans were moving around and sheltering along the Upper Nile and Sahara 15,000 years ago? And they also use the term Nubia, but as a reference to what? What specifically is the point of using the term "Nubia" here? Can't they just say Northern Sudan or Southern Egypt? And the summary just reads like they are trying to find any kind of way to contradict the direct evidence that the evolution from Paleolithic to Mesolithic and then Neolithic along the Nile and history going back over 20,000 years was primarily an evolution of African cultural and material complexity. Also the ongoing distinction between "North" Africa and the rest of Africa in ancient times.
Study Area: Mostly between Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan. Also, note the location of Lake Nasser right smack in the middle of these sites.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic