try (site 6-B-36; Hewes et al., 1964; Saxe, 1971; Greene and Armelagos, 1972). However, the most emblematic and widely cited example of early widespread violence is the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba. Early analyses of the skeletons by J. E. Anderson (1968) and B. Butler (1968) revealed evidence of interpersonal violence on the bones of at least half of the Jebel Sahaba individuals. In addition, abundant lithic artefacts that appear to be from the Qadan industry were discovered within the subsequently disappeared initial volumes of the bodies, where the soft tissues would have been, or directly embedded in the bones (Wendorf, 1968c).

The site of Jebel Sahaba (site 117), now submerged underneath the lake created by the Aswan High Dam, is located about 3 km north of the modern town of Wadi Halfa. While in use, the cemetery was located one kilo-

meter east of the ancient shore of the Nile (Wendorf, 1968c). The site was discovered as part of the UNES-CO-funded salvage campaigns of the sites that were to be flooded by the construction of the Aswan high dam (Wendorf, 1968c). R. Paepe and D. Perkins, part of the Columbia University Nubian Expedition, initially documented the site in 1962 (Solecki et al., 1963). The individuals associated with this first excavation are referred as JS C-1, JS C-2 and JS C-3 in the Jebel Sahaba collection (Wendorf, 1968a). In 1965, within the framework of the Southern Methodist University field season, F. Wendorf visited the site and further tested the areas immediately adjacent to the first excavation (Wendorf et al., 1966). The successful recovery of additional human remains led to a full-scale excavation and 49 skeletons (JS 1 to JS 49)

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 1** – Location of the Jebel Sahaba cemetery, site 117, in the Nile Valley and map of the excavated area and burials (modified following Wendorf, 1968c). Red dots, individuals exhibiting signs of violence and/or traumatic lesions (Anderson, 1968; Butler, 1968; Judd, 2002); orange dots, additional newly identified lesions in the latter individuals; green dots, individuals newly identified as showing signs of violence and/or traumatic lesions; large dots, individuals discussed in detail in the text.

**Fig. 1** – Localisation du cimetière de Jebel Sahaba, site 117, dans la vallée du Nil, et plan de la zone fouillée avec les sépultures (d'après Wendorf, 1968c). Points rouges, individus présentant des signes de violence et/ou des lésions traumatiques (Anderson, 1968; Butler, 1968; Judd, 2002) ; points orange, lésions supplémentaires nouvellement identifiées chez ces derniers individus ; points verts, individus nouvellement identifiés comme présentant des signes de violence et/ou des lésions traumatiques ; points élargis, individus discutés en détail dans le texte.
were uncovered in 1965, with an additional six excavated in 1966 (JS 100 to JS 107; Wendorf, 1968c; here: fig. 1).

The northern part of the cemetery was stripped by erosion, revealing disturbed and heavily cemented human remains. The rest of the cemetery consisted of well- preserved skeletons buried in oval pits cut into a weakly cemented sediment and covered by thin sandstone slabs (Wendorf, 1968c). Most were primary individual buri- als, with some double and multiple interments, as well as secondary deposits caused by later burials (Wendorf and Schild, 2004). In total, 61 skeletons were recovered, with most individuals carefully buried in contracted position on their left side, with the head toward the east, facing south. In most cases, the hands were positioned close to the face and the lower limb was flexed with the feet close to the pelvis (Wendorf, 1968a). Although no occupation deposits were found in the vicinity of the cemetery, more than 100 lithic artefacts were found inside or around the burials. They demonstrate strong resemblances with the Qadan lithic industry, particularly specific tool types such as crescent-like backed pieces described as “lunate” (see Wendorf, 1968c). Since all/most of these artefacts were found in the initial volume of the cadaver once occupied by the now decayed soft tissues or embedded in the bones, they cannot be considered as grave goods, nor can the Jebel Sahaba individuals be referred to as belonging to the Qadan population (Wendorf, 1968c). However, this lithic assemblage provides valuable information on the function of certain type of Qadan lithic artefacts and the chronology of the cemetery. Most pieces are unretouched

flakes and chips that would, in different context, be iden- tified as debitage artefacts rather than tools. In the case of Jebel Sahaba, their association to weaponry appears indis- putable and may stem from an opportunistic or planned use of the cutting edge, suggesting highly flexible cultural behaviors (Wendorf, 1968c; Becker and Wendorf, 1993). The Qadan sequence is documented in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia from the end of the Late Pleistocene (~ 18 kya) until the Holocene (Wendorf, 1968c; Schild and Wendorf, 2010). The antiquity of the site was con- firmed using 10 direct radiocarbon dates carried out on five individuals from Jebel Sahaba (table 1; Wendorf and Schild, 2004; Antoine et al., 2013; Zazzo, 2014).

The oldest date, 13740 ± 600 BP (Pta-116; 14979- 18568 cal. BP), is based on the analysis of bone collagen from the femur of JS 43 in 1988 (Wendorf and Schild, 2004). Due to the poor collagen preservation at the site, the original date had been challenged (e.g. Grine, 2016) or ignored (e.g. Lahr et al., 2016; Kissel and Kim, 2019) by some; and an additional nine dates were recently per- formed using bone, enamel and dentine bioapatite on four other individuals (JS 15, JS 22, JS 42 and JS 103; Antoine et al., 2013; Zazzo, 2014). The bioapatite results ranged from 7251 to 11660 BP, with the dates derived from the enamel being systematically younger (7251-9687 BP) than the ones obtained from bone and dentine apatite of the same individuals (10032-11660 BP; table 1). There is a higher risk of contamination when dating the min- eral fraction of bones and teeth due to possible isotopic exchanges between carbonate in bioapatite and dis-

<table><caption>**Table 1** – Results of the direct radiocarbon dates of the Jebel Sahaba individuals (1: Zazzo, 2014; 2: Wendorf and Schild, 2004). Calibration software: Oxcal version 4.4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). Calibration curve: IntCal 2020 (Reimer et al., 2020).</caption><thead><tr><th>Prep #</th><th>Sample #</th><th>Sample ID</th><th>Anatomical part</th><th>Fraction dated</th><th>14C age</th><th>Error</th><th>Target #</th><th>Calibrated range (cal BP, 95.4%)</th><th>Ref.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Muse103</td><td>DS-1</td><td>skeleton 15</td><td>lower right M3</td><td>enamel apatite</td><td>7251</td><td>31</td><td>UBA-20124</td><td>8170 7981</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Muse111</td><td>DS-9</td><td>skeleton 15</td><td>lower right M3</td><td>dentine+root apatite</td><td>11660</td><td>52</td><td>UBA-20132</td><td>13727 13362</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Muse110</td><td>DS-2</td><td>skeleton 15</td><td>long bone ffmt</td><td>bone apatite</td><td>11049</td><td>43</td><td>UBA-20125</td><td>13090 12843</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Muse104</td><td>DS-3</td><td>skeleton 22</td><td>upper left M3</td><td>enamel apatite</td><td>8512</td><td>40</td><td>UBA-20126</td><td>9544 9467</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Muse99</td><td>DS-4</td><td>skeleton 22</td><td>pelvis ffmt</td><td>bone apatite</td><td>11133</td><td>50</td><td>UBA-20127</td><td>13160 12911</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Muse105</td><td>DS-5</td><td>skeleton 42</td><td>lower right M3</td><td>enamel apatite</td><td>9043</td><td>45</td><td>UBA-20128</td><td>10285 9967</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Muse100</td><td>DS-6</td><td>skeleton 42</td><td>pelvis ffmt</td><td>bone apatite</td><td>11093</td><td>49</td><td>UBA-20129</td><td>13104 12850</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>skeleton 43</td><td>-</td><td>bone collagen</td><td>13740</td><td>600</td><td>Pta-116</td><td>18568 14979</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Muse102</td><td>DS-7</td><td>skeleton 103</td><td>upper right M2</td><td>enamel apatite</td><td>9687</td><td>55</td><td>UBA-20130</td><td>11229 10792</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Muse101</td><td>DS-8</td><td>skeleton 103</td><td>pelvis ffmt</td><td>bone apatite</td><td>10032</td><td>46</td><td>UBA-20131</td><td>11802 11319</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>**Tableau 1** – Résultats des datations directes au radiocarbone des individus de Jebel Sahaba (1 : Zazzo, 2014 ; 2 : Wendorf et Schild, 2004). Logiciel de calibration : Oxcal version 4.4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). Courbe de calibration : IntCal 2020 (Reimer et al., 2020).</caption>
solved inorganic carbon from the environment during
fossilization, especially when a precipitation of second-
ary carbonates occurs (Zazzo and Saliège, 2011). For
Jebel Sahaba, this phenomenon is well documented, with
calcified crust deposits over the grave pits, as well as on
some skeletal remains (Wendorf, 1968c). Contamination
usually results in the dates being too young (Zazzo and
Saliège, 2011). Consequently, the dentine date (UBA-
20132 11660 BP, 13362-13727 cal. BP) provides the
best apatite age estimate for the site and indirectly con-
firms the validity of the bone collagen date performed in
the 1980s (Zazzo, 2014). Broadly dated between 13400
and 18600 cal. BP, the Jebel Sahaba cemetery is the earli-
est known funerary complex from the Nile Valley.

Since its discovery and original publication by F. Wendorf (1968a), the Jebel Sahaba cemetery has been used as possible evidence of organized warfare triggered by territorial disputes (Keeley, 1996; Kelly, 2000; Thorpe, 2003; Guilaine and Zammit, 2005; Daković, 2014). Many elements of the original findings, particularly the timing, nature and extent of the violence, but also the lithic association, have been challenged since (e.g. Jurmain, 2001; Ferguson, 2013; Kissel and Kim, 2019; Usai, 2020). However, no integrative study of the traces of violence left on the human remains of the site has been undertaken to reassess this Prehistoric site (Thorpe, 2003). Several questions remain unanswered that would benefit from the latest interpretative anthropological forensic methods. Was the Jebel Sahaba cemetery the result of a single event, of sporadic episodes of interpersonal violence, or was it used as a place for the burial of specific individuals? Some traces or cutmarks on the bones seem to be the result of projectile penetration while other are described as deliberate cutting. Are they the result of specific funerary treatments or actual traces of violence? Finally, what can a reassessment of the lithic assemblage contribute to our understanding of the site?

A systematic macroscopic and microscopic reanaly-
sis of the human remains curated at the British Museum
was used to fully reevaluate and characterize the nature of
the osseous lesions. Combined with a reevaluation of the
lithic assemblage described by F. Wendorf in association
with the burials, as from the surface around the skeletons,
the new results offer a unique synthetic perspective on
human behaviors at the end of the Late Pleistocene.

# 1. MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 2001, F. Wendorf donated all of the archives, arte-
facts and skeletal remains from his 1965-1966 Nile
Valley excavations to the British Museum (Judd, 2007;
Antoine and Ambers, 2014). M. Judd's preliminary oste-
ological analysis noted discrepancies between field notes,
photographs and associated skeletal remains, including
the absence of three individuals, JS 1, JS 3 and JS 30,
as well as some of the bones with embedded lithic arte-
facts described by J. E. Anderson (1968; Judd, 2007).

As they were not a part of the British Museum donation,
their whereabouts remain uncertain and they were there-
fore not included in this reanalysis. Judd's survey of the
skeletal remains also noted the presence of bones or teeth
from additional individuals. Our reanalysis also found
supernumerary bones and teeth. Jebel Sahaba can now be
regarded as including the remains of at least 64 individu-
als, three of whom are missing from the British Museum
collection.

The analysis involved a full reevaluation of the age
and sex using the latest anthropological methods. In some
individuals, assessments were limited by the state of pres-
ervation of the skeletal remains. Biological sex was based
on the morphology and dimensions of the pelvis (Brůžek,
2002; Murail et al., 2005; Brůžek et al., 2017). When the
pelvis was not sufficiently complete, the cranium and
mandible were also used (after Buikstra and Uberlaker,
1994) to assign sex preceded by the letter “p” for “prob-
able” (i.e. pM = probable Male). Due to the requirements
of child birth, the pelvis is a more reliable indicator of bio-
logical sex and the dimorphic traits of the skull can vary
between populations. Moreover, the individuals from
Jebel Sahaba are characterized by a robust phenotype
which adds complexity to the interpretation of their cranial
features (Anderson, 1968; Greene and Armelagos, 1972).
Hence, when cranial morphology was the only method
available, a question mark was added to denote the limi-
tation of the approach (i.e. pM? = possible Male). Finally,
when the cranium and the pelvis were absent, individuals
are classified as undetermined (UND). The age-at-death
of the immature individuals is predominantly based on
the stage of dental development following C. F. Moorrees
et al. (1963a and 1963b). In the rare occasions where the
teeth were not present or preserved, the state of skeletal
growth and development were used (after Maresh, 1970;
Fazekas and Kosa, 1978; Scheuer and Black, 2000). In
adults, A. Schmitt (2005)'s method was employed to
score the remodeling of the iliac sacro-pelvic surface
(ISPS), allowing for a conservative diagnosis of mature
individuals whose population senescence characteristics
are unknown. Given the strong dependence of the senes-
cence processes on population, environmental and behav-
ioral factors (Brůžek et al., 2005), when the ISPS was not
preserved, we chose to cautiously assign the mature indi-
viduals into the following broad age groups based on the
level of dental wear ([> 20 years] = individual with dental
wear below category 4; [> 30 years] = individual with
dental wear above Molnar's category 3; Molnar, 1971). In
the rare instances for which dental remains were absent,
mature individuals were designated as adults [> 20 years]
if no sign of articular remodeling or entheseal changes
where observable. In all the other cases, the individual
was assigned to the age group [> 30]. In order to discuss
potential demographic characteristics of the Jebel Sahaba
cemetery, we grouped the individuals in six conventional
age cohorts ([0-< 1], [1-4], [5-9], [10-14], [15-19] and
[20-29 years]) that allow for comparisons with theoretical
mortality values of a population with a life expectancy
at birth of between 25 and 35 years (Ledermann, 1969).
Immature individuals falling into two cohorts based on age-at-death estimate standard deviations were assigned to the most probable one according to P. Sellier (1996).

Extensive and detailed microscopic analyses of all areas exhibiting taphonomic and/or anthropogenic traces were conducted using a digital microscope (Dino-Lite Premier) with a 5 Megapixels resolution, a polarizer and a 50x - 250x magnification range. Following the recommendations of M. J. Smith et al. (2007), each potential lesion was checked for embedded lithic fragments and described. Non-anthropogenic traces, mainly related to gnawing and termite activity, were differentiated using macroscopic and microscopic criteria (fig. 2; see Shipman and Rose, 1983; Backwell et al., 2012; Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews, 2016). Although trampling marks were unlikely, the Jebel Sahaba individuals having been buried in pits filled with sediment and covered by sandstone slabs, the diagnostic criteria from M. Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. (2009) were used to exclude such taphonomic changes.

Projectile Impacts Marks (PIMs) were characterized using projectile bone damage identification criteria derived from experimental archaeological research

(Morel, 2000; Pétillon and Letourneux, 2003; Smith et al., 2007; Castel, 2008; O'Driscoll and Thompson, 2014; Duches et al., 2016). Although based on the hunting of small and large ungulates, these experimental studies provide a clear system of projectile trauma classification that is often lacking in analyses of interpersonal violence (Smith et al., 2007). Although embedded lithic or bone artefact fragments are the most direct diagnostic features used to identify projectile impact marks, a growing number of studies are now available to support the classification and interpretation of cutmarks and other puncture or perforation wounds (Smith et al., 2007; O'Driscoll and Thompson, 2014; Duches et al., 2016). The terminology and classification used in this study are characterized by the level of hard tissue projectile penetration defined by C. A. O'Driscoll and J. C. Thompson (2014). The term "drag" denotes cut-like marks with internal parallel longitudinal microstriations at the bottom of the groove and on its borders (fig. 3 and fig. 4). They are characterized by straight and continuous trajectories similar to slicing cutmarks (Duches et al., 2016). However, they differ from the latter in that they are deeper, with a wide and flat groove floor, and an abrupt angle between its floor and lateral borders (Duches et al., 2016). They also display a range of specific secondary traits such as cracking, flaking, scraping and bisecting marks (O'Driscoll and Thompson, 2014; Duches et al., 2016). Bisecting marks are related to bouncing and the movement of the projectile when it comes into contact with bone (O'Driscoll and Thompson, 2014). The shoulder effects found in slicing cutmarks are less pronounced in PIMs, most probably due to the rapidity and singularity of the impact (Shipman and Rose, 1983; Duches et al., 2016; Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews, 2016). Finally, the anatomical location of the PIMs can also be used to differentiate them from slicing cutmarks (Morel, 2000; O'Driscoll and Thompson, 2014). When the cause of the cut could not be ascertained, the generic term of cutmark is used (Potts and Shipman, 1981). A projectile embedded in bone is defined as a "puncture" by C. A. O'Driscoll and J. C. Thompson (2014) and this type of impact can be associated with the crushing, beveling, flaking and splitting of bone (fig. 5 and fig. 6). When the projectile fully penetrates the bone, the term "perforation" is favored (Castel, 2008).

In a number of cases, the cause of the lesion could not be identified due to poor preservation and uncharacteristic changes, and the term “trauma” is used. This category also covers all the healed or unhealed bone fractures, blunt force trauma and perforations with no PIM signs. The term “fracture” is defined as a partial or complete break in the continuity of a bone (Lovell, 1997). Finally, the term “lesion” refers to an injury whose nature or interpersonal origin could not be determined (fig. 7). The presences of bone callus or abscesses were also recorded. Signs of new bone formation or remodeling linked to healing processes were carefully noted and classified as “healed”, implying a delay of at least three weeks between the injury and death (Lovell, 1997).

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** – Examples of taphonomic bone alteration and residue caused by termite activity. Left, right humerus from JS 4 showing borehole and sub-cortical galleries; right, right talus from JS 43 with surface residue.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 2** – Exemples d'altérations osseuses taphonomiques et de résidus causés par l'activité des termites. À gauche, humérus droit de JS 4, illustrant les perforations et les galeries sous-corticales ; à droite, talus droit de JS 43 avec résidu de surface.</caption>
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** – Illustration of the drag type of projectile impact marks (PIM) seen on the Jebel Sahaba individuals. Left, macroscopic view of the drag; right, composite microscopic image of the drag illustrating the flaking.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** – Illustration of the drag type of projectile impact marks (PIM) seen on the Jebel Sahaba individuals. Left, macroscopic view of the drag; right, composite microscopic image of the drag illustrating bisecting marks.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 4** – Illustration des types de marques d'impact de projectile (MIP) identifiés sur les individus de Jebel Sahaba. À gauche, vue macroscopique d'une éraflure ; à droite, image microscopique composite de l'éraflure avec les marques de bissection.</caption>
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** – Illustration of the puncture type of projectile impact marks (PIM) seen on the Jebel Sahaba individuals. Left, macroscopic view of the puncture with embedded artefact; right, microscopic image of the puncture.

**Fig. 5** – Illustration des types de marques d'impact de projectile (MIP) identifiés sur les individus de Jebel Sahaba. À gauche, vue macroscopique d'un percement avec fragment lithique fiché ; à droite, image microscopique du percement.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** – Illustration of the puncture type of projectile impact marks (PIM) seen on the Jebel Sahaba individuals. Left, macroscopic view of the puncture; right, composite microscopic image of puncture illustrating crushing fractures associated to the extraction of the projectile.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 6** – Illustration des types de marques d'impact de projectile (MIP) identifiés sur les individus de Jebel Sahaba. À gauche, vue macroscopique du percement ; à droite, image composite microscopique du percement illustrant les fractures d'écrasement associées à l'extraction du projectile.</caption>
<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** – Illustration of healed lesions recorded on the Jebel Sahaba individuals. Upper left quadrant, ovoid healed injury on the frontal bone; upper right quadrant, healed fracture of the distal extremity of the hand's second proximal phalanx; bottom, healed parry fracture of the ulna. Black bar = 1 cm.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 7** – Illustration des lésions cicatrisées documentées sur les individus de Jebel Sahaba. En haut à gauche, blessure ovoïde cicatrisée sur l'os frontal ; en haut à droite, fracture cicatrisée de l'extrémité distale de la deuxième phalange proximale de la main ; en bas, fracture cicatrisée de la diaphyse de l'ulna. Barre noire = 1 cm.</caption>

## 2. RESULTS

The individuals examined and the occurrence of healed and unhealed traumas and lesions are listed in the table S1. New analyses confirmed most of the lesions originally described by J. E. Anderson (1968) and B. Butler (1968), as well as the identification of a substantial number of additional traumas and lesions in new and previously identified individuals (fig. 1).

### 2.1 Reassessment of the evidence of interpersonal violence

Using new methods and interpretation models, a total of 106 previously unidentified lesions were observed, including 52 that can now be interpreted as PIMS. These have transformed our understanding of the site by revealing that a further 21 individuals had clear signs of inter-

personal trauma in addition to the 20 described by F. Wen-dorf (1968c) and J. E. Anderson (1968; here: fig. 1).

Of the 61 individuals studied, 41 (67.2 %) exhibit at least one type of healed or unhealed lesion (lesions of unknown origin, traumas or projectile impact marks; table 2). This includes three-quarters of the adults (74.4%; n = 32), with only half of the non-adults affected (50%; n = 9). The difference, however, is not statistically significant: P (χ²) > 0.05. Our analyses also show that out of these 61 individuals, 27.9% (n = 17; value corrected from Crevecoeur et al., 2021) exhibited signs of perimortem traumas (unhealed traumas and/or PIMS), and 62.3% (n = 38) displayed healed and/or unhealed traumas.

Both sexes have the same percentage of healed and unhealed lesions. Among the adults with traces of injury, 36.6% (n = 15) display signs of both healed and unhealed lesions, with males (n = 8) and females (n = 8) similarly affected. Only one non-adult has both healed and unhealed lesions. Interestingly, this individual is an
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Total<br>(n = 61)</th><th colspan="2">Female<br>(n = 19)</th><th colspan="2">Male<br>(n = 20)</th><th colspan="2">Indeterminate<br>(n = 6)</th><th colspan="2">Mature<br>(n = 43)</th><th colspan="2">Immature<br>(n = 18)</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No lesion</td><td>20</td><td>32,8</td><td>5</td><td>26,3</td><td>5</td><td>25,0</td><td>1</td><td>16,7</td><td>11</td><td>25,6</td><td>9</td><td>50,0</td></tr><tr><td>Lesions</td><td>41</td><td>67,2</td><td>14</td><td>73,7</td><td>15</td><td>75,0</td><td>5</td><td>83,3</td><td>32</td><td>74,4</td><td>9</td><td>50,0</td></tr><tr><td>Healed lesions</td><td>37*</td><td>90.2*</td><td>14</td><td>100,0</td><td>15</td><td>100,0</td><td>5</td><td>100,0</td><td>32</td><td>100,0</td><td>5</td><td>55,6</td></tr><tr><td>Unhealed lesions</td><td>20*</td><td>48.7*</td><td>8</td><td>57,1</td><td>8</td><td>53,3</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>15</td><td>46,9</td><td>5</td><td>55,6</td></tr><tr><td>H&U lesions</td><td>16</td><td>39,0</td><td>8</td><td>57,1</td><td>8</td><td>53,3</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>15</td><td>46,9</td><td>1</td><td>11,1</td></tr><tr><td>1. Traumas & PIMs</td><td>38</td><td>92,7</td><td>14</td><td>100,0</td><td>15</td><td>100,0</td><td>3</td><td>60,0</td><td>30</td><td>93,8</td><td>8</td><td>88,9</td></tr><tr><td>Healed Traumas & PIMs</td><td>31*</td><td>81.6*</td><td>11</td><td>78,6</td><td>15</td><td>100,0</td><td>3</td><td>100,0</td><td>27</td><td>90,0</td><td>4</td><td>50,0</td></tr><tr><td>Unhealed Traumas & PIMs</td><td>17*</td><td>44.7*</td><td>7</td><td>50,0</td><td>6</td><td>40,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>12</td><td>40,0</td><td>5</td><td>62,5</td></tr><tr><td>H&U Traumas & PIMs</td><td>10</td><td>26,3</td><td>4</td><td>28,6</td><td>6</td><td>40,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>9</td><td>30,0</td><td>1</td><td>12,5</td></tr><tr><td>2. Fractures</td><td>22</td><td>36,1</td><td>9</td><td>47,4</td><td>11</td><td>55,0</td><td>2</td><td>33,3</td><td>21</td><td>48,8</td><td>1</td><td>5,6</td></tr><tr><td>3. PIMs</td><td>25</td><td>61,0</td><td>10</td><td>71,4</td><td>10</td><td>66,7</td><td>1</td><td>20,0</td><td>19</td><td>59,4</td><td>6</td><td>66,7</td></tr><tr><td>Healed PIMs</td><td>11*</td><td>44.0*</td><td>4</td><td>40,0</td><td>6</td><td>60,0</td><td>1</td><td>100,0</td><td>10</td><td>52,6</td><td>1</td><td>16,7</td></tr><tr><td>Unhealed PIMs</td><td>17*</td><td>68.0*</td><td>7</td><td>70,0</td><td>6</td><td>60,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>12</td><td>63,2</td><td>5</td><td>83,3</td></tr><tr><td>H&U PIMs</td><td>3</td><td>12,0</td><td>1</td><td>10,0</td><td>2</td><td>20,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>3</td><td>15,8</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td></tr><tr><td>4. Embedded lithic</td><td>11</td><td>26,8</td><td>3</td><td>21,4</td><td>6</td><td>40,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>9</td><td>28,1</td><td>2</td><td>22,2</td></tr><tr><td>Healed PIMs</td><td>4</td><td>36,4</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>4</td><td>66,7</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>4</td><td>44,4</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td></tr><tr><td>Unhealed PIMs</td><td>8</td><td>72,7</td><td>3</td><td>100,0</td><td>3</td><td>50,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>6</td><td>66,7</td><td>2</td><td>100,0</td></tr><tr><td>H&U PIMs</td><td>1</td><td>9,1</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>1</td><td>16,7</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>1</td><td>11,1</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table 2** – Number of individuals exhibiting at least one type of lesion grouped by age-at-death or sexual diagnosis. The percentage in the two first lines are calculated on the minimal number of individuals for each category, while the percentage in the numbered lines are computed based on the recorded number of individuals with lesions for each category. The percentage in the underlying lines represents the proportion of individuals with healed, unhealed and healed and unhealed lesion occurrence within the numbered line category. n = number; % = percentage; PIM = projectile impact marks; H&U = healed and unhealed; * = number corrected from Crevecoeur et al., 2021.

**Tableau 2** – Nombre d'individus présentant au moins un type de lésion, regroupés par sexe ou par âge au décès. Le pourcentage dans les deux premières lignes est calculé sur le nombre minimum d'individus pour chaque catégorie, tandis que le pourcentage dans les lignes numérotées est calculé sur la base du nombre d'individus présentant des lésions pour chaque catégorie. Le pourcentage dans les lignes sous-jacentes représente la proportion d'individus présentant des lésions cicatrisées, non cicatrisées, et cicatrisées et non cicatrisées dans la catégorie des lignes numérotées. n = nombre ; % = pourcentage ; PIM = marques d'impact de projectile ; H&U = cicatrisé et non cicatrisé ; * = nombre corrigé par rapport à Crevecoeur et al., 2021.

adolescent belonging to the oldest immature age cohort [15-19] (table 3). Most individuals with lesions (92.7%; n = 38) had some that were traumatic in origin, and over half of these individuals had a projectile impact (61.0%; n = 25). This percentage is similar in adults and non-adults, and between males and females. Embedded lithic fragments were recorded in the PIMs of 11 individuals (26.8%; n = 11), and with a higher proportion in males (n = 6).

The location of the lesions also reveals some patterning to the traumas or PIMs (table 4). First, the number of healed fractures are mainly concentrated on the upper limb and the shoulder girdle (84.8%; n = 28). Fifty percent of these upper limb fracture involve the hands, with both the proximal phalanges and the metacarpals affected, and one-third are located on the forearm. Of the latter, defensive parry fractures of the ulna are the most common (table 4 and fig. 7; Lovell, 1997). A significant difference – P(χ²) > 0.05 – between males and females was observed, with parry fractures of left and right sides,

without favoring a side, mostly found on female individuals (88.9%; n = 8). Although not significant, hand bone fractures are more frequent in male individuals (58%; n = 7).

Projectile impact marks are most commonly observed on the lower limb and on the pelvic girdle compared to other anatomical parts (44.3%; n = 70; table 4). Similarly, this anatomical region has the highest frequency of puncture PIMs and embedded lithic artefacts (respectively 50.0%; n = 12; and 55.0%; n = 11). The sex of the individual does not appear to have influenced the frequency of these marks on different parts of the body. Drag marks are present on both upper and lower part of the body, with lower limbs marks mostly found on the femur (94.1%; n = 16) and equally distributed across males and females, as well as well as the left and right sides. In the upper limbs, the clavicles and humeri exhibit the highest number of projectile marks (n = 11). The direction of the strike reveals no differences between males and females, with both displaying a similar number of projectile marks
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="2">Total (n=18)</th><th colspan="12">Demographic age-at-death classes</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">n</th><th rowspan="2">%</th><th colspan="2">[0-<1] (n=2)</th><th colspan="2">[1-4] (n=5)</th><th colspan="2">[5-9] (n=6)</th><th colspan="2">[10-14] (n=3)</th><th colspan="2">[15-19] (n=2)</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No lesion</td><td>9</td><td>50,0</td><td>2</td><td>100,0</td><td>3</td><td>60,0</td><td>4</td><td>66,7</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td></tr><tr><td>Lesions</td><td>9</td><td>50,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>2</td><td>40,0</td><td>2</td><td>33,3</td><td>3</td><td>100,0</td><td>2</td><td>100,0</td></tr><tr><td>Healed lesions</td><td>5</td><td>66,7</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>1</td><td>50,0</td><td>2</td><td>66,7</td><td>2</td><td>100,0</td></tr><tr><td>Unhealed lesions</td><td>5</td><td>44,4</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>2</td><td>100,0</td><td>1</td><td>50,0</td><td>1</td><td>33,3</td><td>1</td><td>50,0</td></tr><tr><td>H&amp;U lesions</td><td>1</td><td>11,1</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>1</td><td>50,0</td></tr><tr><td>Traumas &amp; PIMs</td><td>8</td><td>88,9</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>2</td><td>100,0</td><td>2</td><td>100,0</td><td>3</td><td>100,0</td><td>1</td><td>50,0</td></tr><tr><td>PIMs</td><td>6</td><td>66,7</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>2</td><td>100,0</td><td>1</td><td>50,0</td><td>2</td><td>66,7</td><td>1</td><td>50,0</td></tr><tr><td>Fractures</td><td>1</td><td>5,6</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>0</td><td>0,0</td><td>1</td><td>50,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table 3** – Detail of the type and number of lesions for the immature individuals in relation to the demographic age-at-death class. The percentage in the two first lines are calculated on the minimal number of individuals for each category, while the percentage in the underlying lines are computed based on the recorded number of individuals with lesions for each category. n = number; % = percentage; PIM = projectile impact marks; H&U = healed and unhealed.

**Tableau 3** – Détail du type et du nombre de lésions pour les individus immatures en fonction de la classe démographique d'âge au décès. Le pourcentage dans les deux premières lignes est calculé sur le nombre minimum d'individus pour chaque catégorie, tandis que le pourcentage dans les lignes sous-jacentes est calculé sur la base du nombre enregistré d'individus présentant des lésions pour chaque catégorie. n = nombre ; % = pourcentage ; PIM = marques d'impact de projectile ; H&U = cicatrisé et non cicatrisé.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="12">Traumas &amp; PIMs</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Traumas</th><th colspan="5">PIMs</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th><th rowspan="2">Total lesions</th></tr><tr><th>Fractures</th><th>Perforations/ BFT</th><th>Drags</th><th>Punctures</th><th>Perforations</th><th>Total</th><th>Embeded lithic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of Lesions</td><td>33</td><td>4</td><td>40</td><td>24</td><td>6</td><td>70</td><td>20</td><td>107</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>Number of individuals</td><td>22</td><td>4</td><td>17</td><td>14</td><td>3</td><td>25</td><td>11</td><td>38</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>% of individuals</td><td>36,1</td><td>6,6</td><td>27,9</td><td>23,0</td><td>4,9</td><td>41,0</td><td>18,0</td><td>62,3</td><td>67,2</td></tr><tr><td>Anatomical repartition</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Cranium (%)</td><td>3,0</td><td>100,0</td><td>20,0</td><td>25,0</td><td>66,7</td><td>25,7</td><td>15,0</td><td>21,5</td><td>20,9</td></tr><tr><td>% Frontal</td><td>-</td><td>75,0</td><td>50,0</td><td>50,0</td><td>25,0</td><td>44,4</td><td>33,3</td><td>47,8</td><td>48,3</td></tr><tr><td>% Parietal</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>33,3</td><td>50,0</td><td>22,2</td><td>66,7</td><td>17,4</td><td>13,8</td></tr><tr><td>% Temporal</td><td>-</td><td>25,0</td><td>12,5</td><td>16,7</td><td>-</td><td>11,1</td><td>0,0</td><td>13,0</td><td>13,8</td></tr><tr><td>% Occipital</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>25,0</td><td>5,6</td><td>0,0</td><td>4,3</td><td>10,3</td></tr><tr><td>2. Upper limb &amp; Shoulder girdle (%)</td><td>84,8</td><td>-</td><td>35,0</td><td>8,3</td><td>-</td><td>22,9</td><td>10,0</td><td>41,1</td><td>36,0</td></tr><tr><td>% Shoulder girdle</td><td>7,1</td><td>-</td><td>35,7</td><td>50,0</td><td>-</td><td>37,5</td><td>50,0</td><td>18,2</td><td>20,0</td></tr><tr><td>% Humerus</td><td>10,7</td><td>-</td><td>35,7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>31,3</td><td>50,0</td><td>18,2</td><td>18,0</td></tr><tr><td>% Ulna</td><td>28,6</td><td>-</td><td>14,3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>12,5</td><td>-</td><td>22,7</td><td>20,0</td></tr><tr><td>% Radius</td><td>3,6</td><td>-</td><td>14,3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>12,5</td><td>-</td><td>6,8</td><td>10,0</td></tr><tr><td>% Forearm</td><td>32,1</td><td>-</td><td>28,6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>25,0</td><td>-</td><td>29,5</td><td>30,0</td></tr><tr><td>% Hand bones</td><td>50,0</td><td>-</td><td>0,0</td><td>50,0</td><td>-</td><td>6,3</td><td>-</td><td>34,1</td><td>32,0</td></tr><tr><td>3. Trunk (%)</td><td>3,0</td><td>-</td><td>2,5</td><td>16,7</td><td>-</td><td>7,1</td><td>20,0</td><td>5,6</td><td>5,8</td></tr><tr><td>4. Lower limb and Pelvic girdle (%)</td><td>9,1</td><td>-</td><td>42,5</td><td>50,0</td><td>33,3</td><td>44,3</td><td>55,0</td><td>31,8</td><td>37,4</td></tr><tr><td>% Coxal</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>5,9</td><td>66,7</td><td>-</td><td>29,0</td><td>63,6</td><td>26,5</td><td>23,1</td></tr><tr><td>% Femur</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>94,1</td><td>25,0</td><td>-</td><td>61,3</td><td>27,3</td><td>55,9</td><td>53,8</td></tr><tr><td>% Tibia</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3,8</td></tr><tr><td>% Fibula</td><td>33,3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>8,3</td><td>-</td><td>3,2</td><td>9,1</td><td>5,9</td><td>5,8</td></tr><tr><td>% Foot bones</td><td>66,7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>100,0</td><td>6,5</td><td>-</td><td>11,8</td><td>13,5</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table 4** – Number and type of lesions recorded on the Jebel Sahaba individuals. Percentage of each of these lesions in relation to the anatomical parts, and percentage of infliction to specific bones. PIM = projectile impact marks; BFT = blunt force trauma; % = percentage.

**Tableau 4** – Nombre et type de lésions enregistrées sur les individus de Jebel Sahaba. Pourcentage de chacune de ces lésions par rapport aux parties anatomiques, et pourcentage d'affliction pour des ossements spécifiques. PIM = marques d'impact de projectile ; BFT = traumatisme par objet contondant ; % = pourcentage.
that had entered from the back or the front of the body. In the case of both sexes, several individuals (n = 6) were identified as exhibiting marks consistent with both posterior and anterior impacts. Finally, the analysis reveals that all types of traumas were observed on the cranium. Most of the perforations caused by blunt force traumas and/or projectile impacts are observed on the cranium of non-adults (87.5% of the perforations; n = 7).

Three cases best illustrate the complexity and range of lesions found in the Jebel Sahaba individuals regardless of their age-at-death, sex or burial type.

Case 1: the double burial of the children JS 13 and JS 14 was discovered approximately 25 cm below the surface without any slab covering. Individuals JS 13 was lying next to and facing the back of child JS 14. Both were placed on their left side, with their head oriented toward the east in a contracted position. Both individuals are under the age of 6 years old. JS 13 is estimated to have been approximately 5 years old (their dental remains demonstrate a development consistent with 4.7 years ± 1; Moorrees, 1963a). JS 14 is estimated as having been closer to 4 years old based on a post-cranial measurement (femoral length = 225 mm; Maresh, 1970). Five lithic artefacts were found in association with the two individuals (Wendorf, 1968c). According to F. Wendorf, a “distal truncated and retouched flake” (i.e. a backed asymmetrical mono-points with an oblique cutting edge; see our own typological classification below and examples) was found at the base of the skull of JS 13 and “a backed and straight oblique distal truncated flake” (i.e. backed symmetrical mono-points) was found in the infilling of the infra-cranium. With JS 14, a “partially backed flake” was located at the base of the skull and a “basal truncated and straight oblique distal truncated flake” was found at the back of the mouth (i.e. two other examples of backed symmetrical mono-points following our classification) and an unretouched microlith chip was discovered inside the skull.

No osseous lesion were visible on JS 13 but the cranium and post-cranium of JS 14 both have unhealed trauma caused by projectile impacts (fig. 8).

The majority of the lesions are located on the calvaria and none of them had previously been documented. The frontal bone exhibits a blunt force trauma at the level of the glabella based on the pattern of the fracture lines. Several drag marks and an oblong perforation are present on the left side of the frontal squama, as well as scraping drag marks close to the bregma. A puncture site with faulting and part of an embedded artifact is also visible approximately one centimeter above the left orbit (fig. 9). A perforation is also present on the right parietal and on the occipital. The frontal and occipital perforation exhibit internal bevelling consistent with projectile impacts (Smith et al., 2007). The edges of the parietal perforation are partly broken which complicates its characterization, but its traumatic nature is undeniable. A further set of marks is visible on the left femur, including two groups of drags on the antero-lateral border of the proximal part of the diaphysis. The first group has two subpar-

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8** – Location of the observed osseous lesions on JS 14. Grey parts represent preserved bones. Star, blunt force trauma; full star, unhealed puncture; open circle, perforations; yellow diamond, embedded artefact in a puncture; dash on the femur, drags traces of projectile impacts; line, cutmark.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 8** – Localisation des lésions osseuses observées sur JS 14. Les parties grises représentent les os conservés. Étoile, traumatisme par objet contondant ; étoile pleine, percement non cicatrisé ; cercle, perforations ; losange jaune, artefact fiché dans un percement ; tiret sur le fémur, éraflures liées au passage d'un projectile ; ligne, trace de coupure.</caption>

allel incisions with wide flat floors marked with parallel microstriations. Bone flaking is also present at the end of the trajectory. The second drag mark is located about one centimeter below the proximal one, and oriented slightly more anteriorly, with a bisecting pattern at its end. Based on these cutmark characteristics, the projectile most likely arrived from the medial side of the femoral diaphysis, in a downwards motion and towards the lateral side (fig. 10).

Case 2: skeleton JS 31 was buried approximately 30 cm below the surface and covered by sandstone slabs, with his right leg placed partially under JS 26 and over JS 36. The remains belong to a probable male most likely over 30 years old [> 30] based on the heavy dental wear as well as significant bone remodeling (osteoarthritis on the cervical vertebrae, right elbow and left talus). The posi-
<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 9** – Lesions of the frontal bone on JS 14. Left, superior view of the frontal bone with, below, the magnification in frontal view of the red box showing the blunt force trauma and the embedded lithic (white oval) with hinge fractures; right, left lateral view of the frontal bone displaying the projectile perforation. Red and white stars are reference points for the magnified area; a, hinge fractures at the level of the entrance of the projectile; b, crushing fractures on the border of the perforation; c, endocranial view of the internal beveling. Note the miss-glued piece of bone associated to the perforation, part of the original conservation works.

**Fig. 9** – Lésions sur l'os frontal de JS 14. À gauche, vue supérieure de l'os frontal avec, en bas, le grossissement en vue frontale du rectangle rouge montrant le traumatisme par objet contondant, l'artéfact lithique fiché (ovale blanc) et les lignes de fractures ; à droite, vue latérale gauche de l'os frontal montrant une perforation oblongue associée à la pénétration d'un projectile. Les étoiles rouge et blanche sont des points de référence pour situer la zone agrandie ; a, lignes de fractures au niveau de l'entrée du projectile ; b, fractures par écrasement au bord de la perforation ; c, vue endocrânienne du biseau interne. Notez le morceau d'os mal collé associé à la perforation, lié aux travaux de conservation d'origine.
<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 10** – Projectile impact marks on the left femur of JS 14. Left: Anterior view of the preserved part of the left femur; a, close up on the two sets of drag marks located on the antero-lateral side of the shaft; white star put as reference point for the magnified area; b, detailed view of the superior drag revealing the wide flat bottom of the groove and the parallel microstriations (magnification 245x).</figcaption></figure>

**Fig. 10** – Marques d'impact de projectile sur le fémur gauche de JS 14. À gauche : vue antérieure de la partie conservée du fémur gauche ; a, gros plan sur les deux séries d'éraflures situées sur le côté antéro-latéral de la diaphyse ; l'étoile blanche est un point de référence pour situer la zone agrandie ; b, vue détaillée de l'éraflure supérieure révélant la morphologie de fond de sillon, large et plat, et les microstriations parallèles (grossissement 245x).
tion of the body, laid on his back, with the head toward the northwest, the right upper limb extended alongside the torso and the left one across the stomach, differs from the associated group of multiple burials (JS 26, JS 27, JS 29, JS 30, JS 32 and JS 36; fig. 1).

Seventeen lithic artefacts found *in situ* were in direct association with his remains, with two embedded in the bone and 15 within the physical space of the body. Some were found inside the rib cage, close to the vertebral column, in the joint of the right scapula and humerus, next to the proximal end of the left humerus, and between the left tibia and the fibula, as well as on the right ilium (Wendorf, 1968c, p. 973-974). The artefacts are one “J-shaped geometric” (i.e. crescent-like backed piece in our own typological classification), retouched or unremented microlith flakes and chips, “backed, convex backed and backed and basal truncated flakes” (each of them belonging to one of these three types illustrated below: crescent-like backed piece; backed symmetrical mono-points; backed asymmetrical mono-points with an oblique or transverse cutting edge). F. Wendorf also originally recorded the two embedded chips, with one initially interpreted as in a thoracic vertebra and the other in the right pubic symphysis. However, J. E. Anderson (1968) revised their identification as the lower cervical vertebra and left pubis, with the bone around both lithics showing severe reactive changes (in Anderson, 1968, fig. 15C; in Wendorf, 1968c, fig. 36). These two bones are, unfortunately, not part of the collection donated to the British Museum and their whereabouts are unknown. A previously unnoticed lithic artefact logged in the right femoral diaphysis was also identified during this reanalysis, bringing the total to three embedded lithics (fig. 11).

The lesions observed on JS 31 are located on the post-cranial skeleton. The reanalysis of the skeletal remains revealed previously unidentified healed and unhealed projectile impact marks, as well as healed lesions that are most likely the result of earlier interpersonal injuries. In addition to the embedded lithic artefacts in the now lost seventh cervical vertebra and the left pubic symphysis, several unhealed PIMs were identified including a puncture with crushing, faulting and flaking of the bone surface on the anterior surface of the left scapula. An incision was also observed on the subscapular fossa, about 2 cm below the scapular notch (fig. 12) and a deep V-shaped drag 2 cm in length is present halfway up the humerus on the posterior-medial side. Another long cutmark on the posterior-lateral face of the left ilium is harder to interpret and may not have been caused by a projectile. JS 31 also has a healed fracture of the distal extremity of the right first metacarpal. The right femur offers further evidence of healed lesions, with the presence of a bone callus on the lateral side of the proximal part of the shaft, and of a healed projectile wound on the anterior side at midshaft. Three previously unidentified embedded lithic chips are trapped in the healing bulge of the latter (fig. 13). The lesion on the proximal part of the diaphysis may relate to the healing of a partial fracture.

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 11** – Location of the observed osseous lesions on JS 31. Grey parts represent preserved bones; striped areas are missing bones; full star, unhealed puncture; dash, drags traces of projectile impacts; line, cutmark; plus sign, healed lesions; time sign, healed fracture; full circle, healed puncture; yellow diamond, embedded artefact in a puncture; orange diamond, embedded artefact in lost bone.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 11** – *Localisation des lésions osseuses observées sur JS 31. Les parties grises représentent les os conservés ; les zones hachurées représentent des os ou fragments d'os manquants. Étoile pleine, percement non cicatrisé ; tiret, éraflures liées au passage d'un projectile ; ligne, trace de coupure ; signe plus, lésions cicatrisées ; signe multiplié, fracture cicatrisée ; cercle plein, percement cicatrisé ; losange jaune, artefact fiché dans un percement ; losange orange, artefact fiché dans un os perdu.*</caption>

Case 3: JS 44, a possible female individual that appears to have been older than 30 years, was buried about 35 cm below the surface and covered by sandstone slabs. The remains were found in close proximity to JS 45 and JS 46, both of whom were buried deeper than JS 44. Excavated by the Finnish expedition, it remains unclear if these individuals were interred at the same time. Like most of the Jebel Sahaba individuals, JS 44 was buried on her left side, in a contracted position with her head toward the east. Twenty-one lithic artefacts were found in close association with the skeleton, one of which was embedded in the fourth rib, close to the vertebra. The others are located close to the mandible, in the pelvis and rib cage, against the distal end of the right femur, and between lumbar ver-
<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 12** – Projectile impact puncture on the left scapula of JS 31: a, red rectangle close up on the subscapular fossa showing the puncture associated with flaking and faulting; b, composite microscopic image of the puncture displaying the crushing of the bone in the lower border of the puncture (magnification 40x).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 13** – **Healed** lesions on the right femur of JS 31. Red rectangle, healed projectile lesion; black ellipse, bone callus; a, red rectangle close up of the healed projectile injury with red and white stars as reference points for the magnified area b and c; b, microscopic view of the three embedded lithic chips marked by arrows; c, microscopic view of a bony bridge separating two geometric marks indicating the presence of two lost lithic chips (magnification 50x).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 13** – **Lésions** cicatrisées sur le fémur droit de JS 31. Rectangle rouge, lésion cicatrisée liée à un projectile ; ellipse noire, cal osseux ; a, gros plan du rectangle rouge illustrant la lésion cicatrisée liée à un projectile avec des étoiles rouge et blanche comme points de référence pour situer les zones agrandies b et c ; b, vue microscopique des trois éclats lithiques fichés dans l'os et marqués par des flèches ; c, vue microscopique d'un pont osseux séparant deux marques géométriques indiquant la présence de deux éclats lithiques perdus (grossissement 50x).</caption>
tebras (Wendorf, 1968c, p. 978). According to F. Wendorf (1968c), the artefacts include two “J-shaped geometrics” (corresponding to two different categories in our own typological classification, i.e. a crescent-like backed piece and a backed symmetrical mono-points), unretouched flakes and chips, and “backed, convex backed, backed and straight oblique distal truncated, and straight basal truncated flakes” (each of them belonging to one of the same three types illustrated below: crescent-like backed piece; backed symmetrical mono-points; backed asymmetrical mono-points with an oblique or transverse cutting edge). F. Wendorf also noted two cases of chip and/or flake alignments during the excavation which were interpreted as evidence of composite projectile use (Wendorf, 1968c). The fourth rib with embedded “backed flake” is, unfortunately, also not present in the British Museum Wendorf collection, and could therefore not be reassessed.

As with JS 31, all the lesions observed on JS 44 are located in the post-cranial skeleton (fig. 14), with healed fractures present on the left clavicle, right ulna and radius, and one left rib. The fracture of the left clavicle shaft is located on the acromial end of the diaphysis, revealing a slight torsion and a displacement of the bone fragments. The right forearm healed fracture is oblique, with a displacement (translation and rotation) of the two broken pieces (fig. 15). The trauma broke the proximal part of the ulna's diaphysis and the distal part of the radius shaft. The clavicle and forearm fractures most probably occurred during the same event. Given the oblique nature in the forearm and acromial involvement in the clavicle, they might be the result of an indirect trauma, such as a bad fall, rather than a defensive parry fracture (see Lovell, 1997).

The other lesions, however, are clearly the result of projectile impacts. A triangular notch on the lateral face of the ilium, about 1 cm from the greater sciatic notch, has a lithic fragment embedded in the incision. The laminated aspect of the bone overlying the flake suggests there was an attempt to extract the projectile (fig. 16). The morphology of the mark also indicates the projectile travelled from the postero-medial to the antero-lateral side of the left pelvic bone, which suggest the projectile was travelling back to front. In addition to the now missing fourth rib, PIMs were also observed on right femur. Two parallel drags less 1 cm long and approximately 2 cm from each other are visible on the posterior side of the diaphysis. These two drags exhibit a flat bottom with parallel microstriations. The most distal one shows flaking marks on the proximal border (fig. 17). It is worth noting that the angle of penetration into the bone differs for both drags, the most proximal one being more tangential. These drag marks reflect a projectile trajectory that came from the disto-lateral to the proximo-medial part of the bone. An upward direction suggest that the individual was hit while running or that the projectile was drawn from a lower position. In addition, the spacing between these two drags and their morphology are consistent with penetration from a single composite projectile. This hypothesis is strengthened by F. Wendorf's field observation of *in situ* lithic alignments associated with JS 44.

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 14** – Location of the observed osseous lesions on JS 44. Grey parts represent preserved bones; striped area is a missing bone; crisscross area is a rib whose exact anatomical position is unknown. Full star, unhealed puncture; dash, drags traces of projectile impacts; time sign, healed fracture; yellow diamond, embedded artefact in a puncture; orange diamond, embedded artefact in lost bone.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 14** – Localisation des lésions osseuses observées sur JS 44. Les parties grises représentent les os conservés ; la zone rayée représente un os manquant ; la zone quadrillée est un fragment de côte dont le rang n'est pas certain. Étoile pleine, percement non cicatrisé ; tiret, éraflure liée au passage d'un projectile ; signe multiplié, fracture cicatrisée ; losange jaune, artefact fiché dans un percement ; losange orange, artefact fiché dans un os perdu.</caption>

## 2.2 Burial selection and mortality profile

In view of the high number of individuals with evidence of interpersonal violence, the frequency of projectile impact marks, and the presence of several double or multiple burials, the site's mortality profile was analyzed to investigate possible patterns in burial selection (see Sellier, 1996; Castex et al., 2009). Should the cemetery reflect a single “warfare” event, an unbalanced demographic profile (e.g. the overrepresentation of a certain sex or age class less likely to die otherwise) is probable (see Bridges, 1996). At Jebel Sahaba, the individuals that could be sexed (n = 39) revealed no bias, with 48.7% females and 51.3% males. The age distri-
<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 15** – Healed fractures on JS 44. From top to bottom, left clavicle superior view, right radius anterior view and right ulna anterior view.

**Fig. 15** – Fractures cicatrisées sur JS 44. De haut en bas, vue supérieure de la clavicule gauche, vue antérieure du radius droit et vue antérieure de l'ulna droit.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 16** – Lateral view of the left pelvis of JS 44 with a projectile impact puncture with an embedded lithic flake. a, red rectangle close up of the PMI with white star as reference point for the magnified area b; b, microscopic view of the puncture showing the laminated aspect of the superior border and the lithic artefact inside the puncture indicated by the red arrow (magnification 30x).</figcaption></figure>

**Fig. 16** – Vue latérale du coxal gauche de JS 44 avec un percement lié à un impact de projectile contenant un éclat lithique toujours fiché dans l'os. a, Gros plan du rectangle rouge centré sur la MIP avec l'étoile blanche comme point de référence pour la zone agrandie b ; b, vue microscopique du percement montrant l'aspect feuilleté du bord supérieur, l'artefact lithique fiché dans le percement est indiqué par la flèche rouge (grossissement 30x).
<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 17** – Parallel drags on JS 44 located on the posterior surface of the right femur diaphysis, at the level where the lateral supracondylar line, which delimitates the lateral part of the popliteal plane, meets to lateral side of the femoral diaphysis. a, red rectangle close up showing the two parallel drags and the direction of the projectile with the arrows; white star as reference point for the magnified area b; b, microscopic close up on the distal drag showing the flaking of the superior border at the origin of the drag; red star as reference point for the magnified area c (magnification 45x); c, composite microscopic view of the proximal part of the distal drag displaying the wide flat bottom of the groove and the parallel microstriations (magnification 235x).

**Fig. 17** – Éraflures parallèles présentes sur JS 44 au niveau de la face postérieure de la diaphyse fémorale droite, à l'endroit où la ligne supra-condylaire latérale, qui délimite la partie latérale du plan poplité, rejoint la face latérale de la diaphyse fémorale. A, gros plan du rectangle rouge montrant les deux traînées parallèles, la direction du projectile est indiqué par le sens des flèches, et l'étoile blanche marque le point de référence pour la zone agrandie b ; b, vue microscopique de l'éraflure distale montrant l'écaillage du bord supérieur à l'origine l'éraflure ; l'étoile rouge marque le point de référence pour la zone agrandie c (grossissement 45x) ; c, vue microscopique composite de la partie proximale de la traînée distale révélant la morphologie de fond de sillon, large et plat, et les microstriations parallèles (grossissement 235x).
bution shows a clear underrepresentation of non-adults ($[< 20] = 29.5\%$) compared to the theoretical percentage ($[<20] = 54.5\% \pm 9.5\%$) for a population with a life expectancy at birth of between 25 and 35 years (Ledermann, 1969). However, this imbalance is mostly due to the lack of perinates, neonates and young children (age classes [0-1] and [1-4]) whose mortality quotient stands outside the lower limits of the theoretical values (fig. 18).

As with the young adults, the remaining non-adults do not exhibit any unusual distribution, and neither category is overrepresented at the site. Interestingly, the small proportion of very young children is not unusual in pre-Neolithic funeral assemblages and could relate to demographic factors, cultural behaviors such as the separate burial of young infants, or poor preservation (Saxe, 1971; Bocquet-Appel, 2002; Bocquet-Appel and Naji, 2006). In the case of Jebel Sahaba, differential preservation does not appear to have been a factor as a majority of the non-adults remains are well-preserved.

## 2.3 Reassessment of the lithic assemblage

With the exception of a few flakes and points, the surface artefacts (i.e. found into the fill surrounding the burials) differ in term of typology and raw material from the ones found inside the burials and within the physical space of the skeletons. According to F. Wendorf and R. Schild (2004), 116 pieces were found in direct association with 24 individuals. This number, however, differs from the

number of listed artefacts in their tables (n = 112), as well as those described in the original publication (n = 118; Wendorf, 1968c). Their 2004 paper does not appear to include burials JS C-1, JS C-2 and JS C-3, excavated by the Columbia Expedition, and the lithic artefact found with JS 41 was not reported in F. Wendorf and R. Schild (2004) as its exact position in the deposit was noted as unknown in F. Wendorf (1968c).

Of F. Wendorf's 1968c publication, 118 artefacts, including seven embedded ones, were found directly associated with 27 individuals. Our reassessment has led to the identification of a further 13 pieces embedded in the bones. We counted the multiple fragments found in one PIM as one artefact (table S2). Based on these findings, a new total of 132 artefacts were found in direct association with 28 individuals. In addition to the lithic assemblage from the surface (n = 72), our reassessment included 115 pieces from the original collection. The three pieces from burials JS 25, JS 45 and JS 47 are not in the British Museum collection. A supplementary piece was, however, found associated to burial JS 26. This piece was mixed with the surface material, probably from the beginning, which could explain its absence in F. Wendorf's inventory (although the piece was drawn in Wendorf, 1968c, fig. 34dd). We also included five pieces found near burials JS 101 to JS 107. Although not directly in contact with the skeletons, their association to the individuals in this multiple burial is suggested by F. Wendorf (1968c, p. 988). We have taken into account these artefacts in our reassessment.

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 18** – Mortality quotients by age class at Jebel Sahaba compared to the theoretical mortality rates of S. Ledermann (1969) for a population with a life expectancy at birth of between 25 and 35 years.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 18** – Quotient de mortalité par classe d'âge à Jebel Sahaba comparé aux taux de mortalité théoriques de S. Ledermann (1969) pour une population préindustrielle ayant une espérance de vie à la naissance comprise entre 25 et 35 ans.</caption>
sessment, but we remained cautious as to their association with the burials. Our reexamination confirms the diversity of shape of the artefacts with a tendency toward small size pieces. Despite a strong typological variability, most lithic artifacts found inside the burials can be identified as projectiles or armature elements, including the unretouched parts. This industry, however, is hard to characteristics and compare to other from the same period as it is based on an assemblage consisting of elements that mostly relate to a single function: the manufacture of weapons. However, technological and typological elements fit well with the definition of the Qadan industry (Shiner, 1968). The current reassessment also revealed strong similarities to the Tushka area B industry previously attributed to the Qadan (Albritton and Wendorf, 1968; Wendorf, 1968b; Becker and Wendorf, 1993). In Jebel Sahaba burials, as in Tushka area B, the lithic artefacts were mainly produced using a bipolar technique on anvil with small flint nodules or small pebbles. This kind of knapping generates flakes with very diverse morphologies. However, certain intentions are discernable, particularly a desire to obtain elongated flakes with asymmetrical sections. Another method, however less represented, enters into Levallois production sensu lato. On the other hand, no blades or bladelets productions are identified in this assemblage.

Our reassessment of the 115 lithic artefacts revealed 62 points (see below), 43 unretouched flakes and microchips, and seven undetermined pieces (fig. 19 and fig. 20). In addition, one Levallois core (fig. 19c), one scraper (fig. 19d) and one burin (fig. 19e) were noted. However, it should be underlined that the association of the Levallois core and the burin with the skeletons is described as less certain by F. Wendorf, compared to the others artefacts mentioned in associated with the burials. Among the points, three main morphologies can be distinguished: backed asymmetrical mono-points with an oblique or transverse distal cutting edge (n = 22; fig. 19, q to v), backed symmetrical mono-points (n = 16; fig. 19, f to l) and crescent-like backed pieces (n = 9; fig. 19, m to p). In addition, there are indeterminate points (n = 10; mostly fragments which could belong to one of the previous categories). There are also unretouched symmetrical mono-points (n = 5; fig. 19, a and b), some of which are the only ones that can be tentatively assigned to Levallois industry. On the other hand, we note the absence of elongated bi-points corresponding to “typical” lunate. The range in size is fairly diverse, with most points microlithic (around 2-2.5 cm long), while others are more robust (3 to 4 cm long). This is especially the case among the backed symmetrical mono-points and the unretouched symmetrical mono-points. Significantly, preliminary functional analysis shows that some artefacts bear impact fractures.

Morphological diversity co-occurs within burials. Of the 21 pieces found in association to burial JS 44, for example, six are micro- and three unretouched flakes, five are backed symmetrical mono-points, three backed mono-points with an oblique or transverse distal cutting edge, three crescent-like backed pieces and one is an indeterminate point.

Based on this reanalysis, almost half of the elements used as weapons are unretouched flakes and microflakes, that would have been missed in any other context (fig. 20), as noticed by F. Wendorf (1968c). Most appear to be laterally shafted composite elements used as part of projectiles. The points would have been mounted at the end of shafts, with crescents laterally shafted. Their diversity in both size and shape suggests the use of several types of weapons, particularly light arrows but also much heavier arrows or spears. Finally, the use of points with oblique or transverse distal cutting edges appears to indicate that one of the main lethal properties sought is to slash and cause blood loss. The fact that many were found inside the volume of the skeleton indicates their efficiency at penetrating the body. Those found are likely to be the ones that had detached themselves from their shaft and were not successfully removed prior to burial.

Finally, a remark is necessary regarding the artefacts within the fill of the surrounding burials. In a recent paper, D. Usaï (2020) uses their existence as a basis for questioning the association of all the artefacts discovered at Jebel Sahaba with the burials. Her hypothesis is that the excavation of the burials in older archaeological levels would have fortuitously mixed all these artefacts with the contents of the tombs. The counter-argument to this hypothesis is based on two categories of information: 1) the clear spatial correlation that exists between many of the lithic remains previously described and the numerous traces of impact that a majority of the bodies bears; 2) the fact that the remains found in direct association with the bodies form an assemblage that is completely different from the one collected from within the fill surrounding the burials. Within this latter assemblage, a large part of the pieces is composed of varieties of rock not represented in the lithic industry explicitly associated with the skeletons. These pieces are notably in silicified wood, quartz or quartzite (29 out of 71 pieces studied). Finally, a careful examination shows that only about 10% of these elements are similar to the artefacts explicitly associated with the skeletons, underlining that these assemblages are of different origins. Moreover, and contrary to what D. Usaï (2020) asserts, the number of pieces associated with the bodies in the burials that are not compatible with weapon remains is very small: a scraper (JS 29), a Levallois core (JS 41), and a burin (JS 110). Besides, the core is noted as “found in fill adjacent to skeleton, exact position unknown” (Wendorf, 1968, p. 977) and the burin is described as “found with or near burials” (Wendorf, 1968, p. 988). This leads us to conclude that there is no artefact, or very few, that could be seen as grave goods, but that most if not all of the artefacts found in direct association with the skeletons do indeed belong to the weapons used to wound them. The comparison we were able to make between the artefacts found in direct association with the burials and the assemblage of Tushka B, unanimously attributed to Qadan, allows us to maintain this cultural attribution not only for the lithic components but also for the burials that deliver its elements.
<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 19** – Jebel Sahaba, lithic industry sample (modified following Wendorf, 1968c): a-b, unretouched symmetrical mono-points (assimilated with caution to Levallois points); c, Levallois core; d, scraper; e, burin; f to l, backed symmetrical mono-points; m to p, crescent-like backed pieces; q to v, backed asymmetrical mono-points with an oblique or transverse distal cutting edge. Burials JS 14 (g-h); JS 21 (i, m, v); JS 29 (d); JS 31 (q-r); JS 33 (s); JS 34 (n); JS 35 (a, t); JS 41 (c); JS 44 (f, j to l, p, u); JS 103 (b), with or near JS 110 (e), JS-C1-3 (o).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 19** : Jebel Sahaba, échantillon de l'industrie lithique (d'après Wendorf, 1968c) : a-b, mono-pointes symétriques non retouchées (hypothétiques pointes Levallois) ; c, nucléus Levallois ; d, grattoir ; e, burin ; f à l, mono-pointes symétriques à dos ; m à p, pièces à dos assimilables à des géométriques de type de croissant ; q à v, mono-pointes asymétriques à dos avec un tranchant distal oblique ou transversal. Tombes JS 14 (g-h) ; JS 21 (i, m, v) ; JS 29 (d) ; JS 31 (q-r) ; JS 33 (s) ; JS 34 (n) ; JS 35 (a, t) ; JS 41 (c) ; JS 44 (f, j à l, p, u) ; JS 103 (b), avec ou près de JS 110 (e), JS-C1-3 (o).</caption>

### 3. DISCUSSION

Since its discovery in the 1960's, the Jebel Sahaba cemetery has been regarded as the oldest evidence of organized warfare caused by environmental constrains (e.g. Thorpe, 2003; Guilaine and Zammit, 2005; Daković, 2014). However, the lesions observed on the Jebel Sahaba skeletons and the nature of the funerary complex had not been reassessed (or benefited from the use of modern anthropological methods) since F. Wendord's 1968a publication.

It remained unclear if the site was the result of a single conflict, a specific burial place for individuals who died a violent death or evidence of sustained interpersonal violence in Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer groups (Wendorf and Schild, 2004).

F. Wendorf (1968c) and J. E. Anderson (1968) had highlighted the projectile nature of several lesions, particularly those bearing embedded lithic artefacts. Here, macroscopic and microscopic methods were used to distinguish projectile injuries from slicing cutmarks and taphonomical modifications (see Shipman and Rose,
1983; Morel, 2000; Pétillon and Letourneux, 2003; Smith et al., 2007; Castel, 2008; Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009; Backwell et al., 2012; O'Driscoll and Thompson, 2014; Duches et al., 2016; Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews, 2016). More than half of the injured individuals buried at Jebel Sahaba exhibit clear projectile impact marks (61.0%; n = 25), with most showing signs of trauma (92.7%; n = 38). Irrespective of age and sex, the majority have clear signs of interpersonal violence involving projectile weapons. The number of individuals with both healed and unhealed traumas also increases with age from adolescence (n = 1), to young adults (n = 2) and adults (n = 13). Importantly, the co-occurrence of ante-mortem and perimortem lesions on several Jebel Sahaba individuals had not previously been noted and indicates that acts of interpersonal violence occurred repeatedly within their lifetime.

As with experimental studies on ungulates (Castel, 2008; Duches et al., 2016), drag marks are the most frequent PIMs observed at Jebel Sahaba. In ungulates, these are usually followed by punctures, particularly on the appendicular skeleton (Castel, 2008; Duches et al., 2016), which was also the case at Jebel Sahaba. As underlined by M. J. Smith et al. (2007), microscopic fragments of the actual weapons also often end up embedded in the bones, either at impact or while attempting to remove the weapon. J.-C. Castel (2008) experimental work also reveals that 45.0% of ungulates PIMs include at least one small embedded lithic fragment. At Jebel Sahaba, artefacts were found in one third of the drag and puncture

impact marks (31.3%; n = 20). Of these, the great majority were in puncture marks (70.8%; n = 17).

The PIMs patterns support the use of composite weapons made of shafted retouched and unretouched flakes, including light and heavy projectiles. This is corroborated by the alignment of flakes and chips within the physical space of the skeletons, the reassessment of the lithic assemblage and cases of parallel drags less than 2 cm apart consistent with ethnographical and experimental spear and arrow shaft diameters (Dias-Meirinho, 2011; Pétillon et al., 2011; Duches et al., 2016).

Identifying interpersonal violence on skeletal remains is not always straightforward and often depends on the type of trauma and the archaeological context (Walker, 2001; Jackes, 2004). Clear examples of fatal interpersonal blunt (e.g. Sima de Los Huesos SH17; Sala et al., 2015) and sharp force trauma (e.g. Shanidar 3; Trinkaus, 1983) go as far back as the Middle Paleolithic. The oldest Palaeolithic projectile trauma date to the Epigravettian period (~31-26 kya; Fu et al., 2016), with an example of an embedded point in the second thoracic vertebra of a child from Grimaldi (Henry-Gambier, 2001) and an incision on the first thoracic vertebra of Sunghir 1 caused by a projectile or a hand-held blade (Trinkaus and Buzhilova, 2012). Based on the available evidence, the number of projectile injuries appears to increase over time and cases of fatal trauma in Europe become more frequent during the Mesolithic (Estabrook, 2014). During this period, burial assemblages containing multiple individuals with perimortem trauma also begin to appear, with famous

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 20** – Unretouched flakes and microflakes (complete or fragmented; modified following Wendorf, 1968c) samples from Burials JS 21 (c), JS 23 (e), JS 29 (a), JS 31 (b), JS 33(d), JS 44 (f to k).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 20** Échantillons d'éclats et de micro-éclats non retouchés (entiers ou fragmentés, d'après Wendorf, 1968c) des sépultures JS 21 (c), JS 23 (e), JS 29 (a), JS 31 (b), JS 33(d), JS 44 (f à k).</caption>
examples at Ofnet in Germany (Frayer, 1997) and the Vasilyevka III burial ground in the Dnieper rapids region of the Ukraine (Lillie, 2004). These examples, however, differ from Jebel Sahaba. At Ofnet (circa 9 kya), females and children dominate the group and skull trauma is more frequently found in adult males (Frayer, 1997; Orschiedt, 2005). Although the interpersonal nature of the bludgeoning identified on six cranium is clear and was probably caused by warlike conflict, the deliberate grouping of 34 selected skulls and associated cervical vertebra, likely from decapitated individuals, with pierced red deer teeth in two multiple burials reflects a specific mortuary behavior (Orschiedt, 2005). The cemetery from Vasilyevka III (circa 12 kya), however, shares some similarities with Jebel Sahaba. Around 60 individuals in single, double or multiple burials were found mainly in flexed positions. Five adults were identified with single or multiple embedded microliths associated with composite projectiles (arrow and spear) including three females, one male and one undetermined individual (Lillie, 2004). In the case of Ofnet, although all individuals seem to have been subjected to a violent death, only 18% of them show clear signs of trauma on the bones selected for burial. Of the lesions observed at Jebel Sahaba, only 13.1% of the individuals have unhealed trauma to the cranium and cervical vertebrae. Similarly, at Vasilyevka III, only 8% of individuals have at least one embedded lithic compared to 18% at Jebel Sahaba. In all cases, detectable lesions and lithics only reveal part of the story.

The site of Nataruk provides the closest parallel of interpersonal violence to Jebel Sahaba (Lahr et al., 2016). Situated west of lake Turkana and dating to around 10.5-9.5 kya, the individuals found in Nataruk appear to exhibit signs of violent death through projectile impact marks (punctures and perforation), sharp and blunt force trauma, as well as fractures. Lesions mainly located on the skulls, cervical vertebrae, lower limbs and hand are described (Lahr et al., 2016), although some researchers have made a case against this being a massacre site, arguing that the burials are not contemporaneous and that the cranial damage is inconsistent with blunt force trauma (Stojanowski et al., 2016). The Nataruk example also differs from Jebel Sahaba in that there is no clear pattern of deliberate burial, no signs of trauma on children and a lack of healed trauma in the adults.

Violent behavior in past and present hunter-gatherer societies appears to vary, in part reflecting the period, culture and the level of organization of mobile and semi-sedentary societies (e.g. Keeley, 1996; Kelly, 2000; Thorpe, 2003; Guilaine and Zammit, 2005; Allen and Jones, 2014). If semantic and ideological debates still surround the use of the term warfare for Prehistoric conflicts (Boul estin, 2020), ethno-archaeological examples suggest that the concept of warfare can encompass all form of antagonistic relationships from feuds, individual murders, ambush attacks, raids and trophy taking to bloody clashes and larger armed conflicts (cf. Keeley, 1996; Kelly, 2000; Guilaine and Zammit, 2005; Allen, 2014; Allen and Jones, 2014; Leblanc, 2014; Darmangeat, 2019).

The level of warfare can vary, with some conflicts being all-encompassing, constant and deadly, while others are episodic events of various intensity that occur sporadically (Jones and Allen, 2014; Leblanc, 2014). Irrespective of time and space, some similarities are nevertheless observable. Many reported cases from Australia, Africa, North and South America reveal differences in the frequency and type of trauma between males and females, and acts of violence on non-adults are rare. Often, young males show higher levels of trauma, while females more frequently exhibit parry fractures (e.g. Standen and Arriaza, 2000; Chatters, 2014; Pilloud et al., 2014; Schwitalla et al., 2014; Gordón, 2015; Allen et al., 2016; Pfeiffer, 2016). Cranial injuries on the frontal and parietal bones are common, although the type of weapon used and the nature of the conflict clearly influences the nature, located and distribution of the lesions (e.g. Standen and Arriaza 2000; Chatters, 2014; Pardoe, 2014; Pilloud et al., 2014; Schwitalla et al., 2014; Allen et al., 2016). Comparisons with Jebel Sahaba, although tentative in view of the large timescale and regions involved, reveal some interesting differences. In other ethno-archaeological cases, healed traumas are the most common occurrence, while archaeological examples from Ofnet or Nataruk appear to display mostly perimortem lesions. At Jebel Sahaba, the co-occurrence of healed and unhealed lesions strongly supports sporadic, though recurrent, episodes of interpersonal violence between Nile Valley groups at the end of the Late Pleistocene. The projectile nature of at least half of the lesions suggests inter-group attacks, rather than intra-group or domestic conflicts, and the frequency of healed wounds confirms that these events were not always lethal and could occur several times during the life of an individual. A catastrophic single mass burial is highly unlikely and is not supported by the archaeological evidence or the demographic analysis. With the exception of a higher percentage of parry fractures in females, there appears to be no patterning in the distribution of trauma or PIMs by either age of sex. Based on the lesions, the projectile direction also reveals an equal number of posterior and anterior strikes that do not support face-to-face battles. Rather, the involvement of a range of ages and both sexes, with primary (n = 26), double (n = 4) and multiple (n = 4) burials, including some with evidence of disturbance due to the addition of later individuals (Wendorf, 1968c), indicates small episodes of recurring violent events such as raids or ambushes against this community. This appears to have taken place within a brief timespan given the homogeneity of burial location and practices.

Designated special burial locations for the victims of violence are documented in ethnological and historical records (Kamp, 1998; Jackes, 2004). At Jebel Sahaba, the percentage of individuals with traces of perimortem traumas and/or lithic artefacts found within the physical space of the skeleton is 54%. If multiple burials are treated as simultaneous deaths and individuals without detectable signs of a violent death, but buried in direct association with others that are included, the percentage is closer to 64%. The nearby and possibly contemporaneous
neous burial sites at Tuskha (site 8905; Wendorf, 1968b) and Wadi Halfa (site 6-B-36; Hewes et al., 1964) do not seem to document comparable level of evidence for violence but a careful review of the data may suggest otherwise. In Tushka, 19 human skeletons from different periods were uncovered. Among them, 12 individuals buried in contracted position on their left side are thought to be dated between 15-11 kya based on geological and archaeological data, taphonomic observations and several radiocarbon dates (Albritton and Wendorf, 1968). Two double burials are present, the remaining individuals are in single burials, and no direct association of lithic artefact was noted during the excavation. Unfortunately, the surface of the cortical bone cannot be analyzed due to its poor state of preservation. The site of Wadi Halfa (6-B-36), also associated with Qadan lithic industry, displays some similarity with Jebel Sahaba, including burial practices (Saxe, 1971). Out of the 36 individuals buried at the site, seven have healed fractures of the ulna (three parry fractures), hand bones (two phalanges and one metacarpal) and lower limb (one fibula), as well as of healed trauma to the cranium (one frontal and one parietal; see Greene and Armelagos, 1972). An additional individual also shows evidence of an unhealed projectile trauma with an embedded stone point in a cervical vertebra (Greene and Armelagos, 1972). These lesions are only present on adult individuals regardless of the sex (4 males, 4 females). D. L. Greene and G. L. Armelagos (1972) also reported some new bone formation associated with longitudinal grooves on two humeri belonging to two of the individuals with signs of trauma. A. Saxe (1971) suggested that the differential mortality rates between males and females of adult age (defined here as the [25-30] age class) in the Wadi Halfa cemetery could indicate that males were engaging in warfare more than female individuals. The percentage of individuals with traumas at Wadi Halfa (22.2%; n = 8) is much lower than at Jebel Sahaba (62.3%; n = 38). However, some projectile impact marks may not have been recognized during the analysis of the human remains. The frequency of the more easily visible healed parry fractures is similar at both sites (8.3%, n = 3, for Wadi Halfa; and 9%, n = 6, for Jebel Sahaba). In both, fractures of the upper limb also dominate (84.8%, n = 28, for JS; and 85.7%, n = 6, for Wadi Halfa in ulnas and hand bones). Finally, there is little doubt that the individuals in the Jebel Sahaba cemetery were carefully buried by the members of their own community. Individual associations are likely to mirror their relationship during life with, for example, several examples of females and children in three out of the four double burials and one of the multiple burials (JS 100, JS 103) with the remains of two women and three children. If Jebel Sahaba was indeed a special burial place, this applied to all members of the community and followed expected demographic patterns. Therefore, it is most likely that the level of interpersonal violence observed in the site reflects broader inter-group behavioral relationships in the Nile Valley at the end of the Late Pleistocene rather than specific funerary practices.

Finally, the high level of interpersonal violence observed at the site may, in part, have been driven by the climatic changes associated with the beginning of the African Humid Period. The erratic and severe flooding of the Nile caused by an overflow of lake Victoria around 15-14 kya most certainly impacted settlements and the subsidence strategies of human populations all the way up to Egypt prior to the more stable monsoon conditions that emerged at the beginning of the Holocene (Williams et al., 2006). During the Last Glacial Maximal, few human remains have been recovered in the Nile Valley. This is mirrored by a drastic reduction in the archaeological, record with little evidence for the presence of humans along the lower Nile from Marine Isotopic Stage 4 (~71 kya) to the Last Glacial Maximum (Vermeersch and Van Neer, 2015). During this time period, the survival of small groups in the fewer sustainable areas in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia is supported by the unusual phenotypic diversity, probably related to population fragmentation and isolation, found in the Late Pleistocene fossils of this region (e.g. Anderson, 1968; Greene and Armelagos, 1972; Irish, 2005; Crevecoeur, 2008; Pagani and Crevecoeur, 2019; Leplongeon, 2021). With variation of lithic industries noted at the end of the Late Pleistocene indicating different cultural traditions and the co-occurrence of large cemetery spaces suggesting some level of sedentism (Schild and Wendorf, 2010), severe territorial competition between the region's hunter-fisher-gatherer groups is likely to have occurred when faced with forced adaptation to such drastic environmental changes (e.g. Lillie, 2004; Jones and Allen, 2014; Schwitalla et al., 2014; Allen et al., 2016). Climate change is most likely to have been a driving force behind violent competition for resources over time.

## 4. CONCLUSIONS

For the first time since F. Wendorf's (1968a) original publication, a complete reassessment of the Jebel Sahaba cemetery, often considered to be the oldest evidence of organized warfare, was used to clarify the nature, extent and dating of the violence experienced by the individuals buried at the site. Using modern approaches and methods, the reappraisal undeniably supports the interpersonal nature of the lesions and confirms the projectile origin of most of the trauma. The reassessment of the lithic artefacts associated with each burial reveals that most were elements of composite projectile weapons. Our analyses also show that out of 61 individuals, 27.9% had signs of perimortem traumas and 62.3% displayed healed and/or unhealed traumas (excluding here undiagnosed lesions) regardless of the age-at-death or sex, including children as young as 4 years old. Although double and multiple burials with up to four individuals are present, probably indicating simultaneous deaths, several burials exhibit signs of later disturbance caused by subsequent interments. Furthermore, the data
does not support a single catastrophic event. In addition, the demographic profile of the Jebel Sahaba cemetery is inconsistent with a mass burial. While acknowledging the possibility that the Jebel Sahaba cemetery may have been a specific place designated for the burial of victims of violence, the presence of numerous healed traumas and the reuse of the funerary space both support the occurrence of recurrent episodes of small-scale, sporadic interpersonal violence at the end of the Pleistocene. Most are likely to have been the result of skirmishes, raids or ambushes. Territorial and environmental pressures triggered by climate changes at the end of this period are most likely responsible for the frequent conflicts between culturally distinct Nile Valley semi-sedentary hunter-fisher-gatherers groups. New direct radiocarbon dates also confirm the antiquity of the site, and suggest that it is at least 13.4 kya old (or comprised between 13.4-18.2 kya), thus making Jebel Sahaba the oldest cemetery in the Nile Valley and one of the earliest sites displaying extensive interpersonal violence in the world.

The early inhabitants of the Nile Valley appear to have lived in an environment where violence was a regular part of both life and human behavior. Unlike many examples of early warfare and interpersonal violence (see review in Kissel and Kim, 2019), the violence at Jebel Sahaba differs in that it was clearly frequent, extensive and intense, with many skeletons displaying

multiple lesions. It also appears to have been indiscriminate of age and sex, involving both younger children and women. The broader significance of what happened at Jebel Sahaba can be hard to contextualize in view of the vagaries of the archaeological record, with the cemetery only representing one side of the story. Our limited understanding of the Nile Valley social and cultural diversity during the Pleistocene also hinders more complex interpretations. As argued by M. Kissel and N. C. Kim (2019), outbreaks of interpersonal violence are unlikely to simply be reactive outcomes to environmental conditions or social signals, but must also be grounded in culturally constituted motivations for violence. It is also unclear how, if at all, the individuals buried at the site acted towards other groups and whether recurrent episodes of small scale sporadic violence can truly be viewed as warfare. What remains clear, however, is that Late Pleistocene groups were capable of repeated acts of extensive and indiscriminate violence towards most, if not all, members of a community.

**Acknowledgments:** This study was supported by the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société in Toulouse (MSHS-T), the University Toulouse - Jean-Jaurès, the CNRS and the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-14-CE31 BIG DRY). Images courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Individual</th><th colspan="4">Biological identity</th><th colspan="4">Healed</th><th colspan="4">Unhealed</th></tr><tr><th>Sexual diagnosis</th><th>Mature/ Immature</th><th>Age-at-death estimates</th><th>Demographic class</th><th>Lesions</th><th>Traumas</th><th>PIMs</th><th>Embedded lithic</th><th>Lesions</th><th>Traumas</th><th>PIMs</th><th>Embedded lithic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>JS 2</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[5-9]/[10-14]</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 4</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[15-19]/[20-30]</td><td>[15-19]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 5</td><td>pM</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-49]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 6</td><td>M</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 40]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 7</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 8</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 9</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[1-4]/[5-9]</td><td>[1-4]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 10</td><td>pM?</td><td>MA</td><td>[25-39]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 11A</td><td>pM?</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-35]</td><td>[20-29]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 11B</td><td>UND</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 11C</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[0]/[0<1]</td><td>[0-<1]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 12</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[5-9]</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 13</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[1-4]/[5-9]</td><td>[1-4]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 14</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[1-4]</td><td>[1-4]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 15</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-35]</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 16</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 17</td><td>pM?</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-35]</td><td>[20-29]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 18</td><td>pM</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 50]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 19</td><td>M</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 20</td><td>pM?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 21</td><td>pF</td><td>MA</td><td>[30-49]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 22</td><td>M</td><td>MA</td><td>[25-39]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 23</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 24</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[5-9]</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 25</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 50]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 26</td><td>F</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-49]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 27</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[0-1]/[1-4]</td><td>[1-4]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 28</td><td>pF</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-49]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 29</td><td>M</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-49]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 31</td><td>pM</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 32</td><td>UND</td><td>MA</td><td>[25-35]</td><td>[20-29]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 32b</td><td>UND</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 33</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[25-35]</td><td>[20-29]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 34</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-49]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 35</td><td>UND</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-35]</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 36</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 37</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 37b</td><td>M</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 38</td><td>M</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 39</td><td>pM</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 40</td><td>pM</td><td>MA</td><td>[15-19]/[20-25]</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 41</td><td>pF</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 42</td><td>pM</td><td>MA</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Individual</th><th colspan="4">Biological identity</th><th colspan="4">Healed</th><th colspan="4">Unhealed</th></tr><tr><th>Sexual diagnosis</th><th>Mature/Immature</th><th>Age-at-death estimates</th><th>Demographic class</th><th>Lesions</th><th>Traumas</th><th>PIMs</th><th>Embedded lithic</th><th>Lesions</th><th>Traumas</th><th>PIMs</th><th>Embedded lithic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>JS 43</td><td>UND</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 50]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 44</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 45</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 46</td><td>pM</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 47</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[5-9]</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 48</td><td>pM</td><td>IMM</td><td>[15-19]</td><td>[15-19]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 49</td><td>pF</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS C1</td><td>M</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 50]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS C2</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[1-4]/[5-9]</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS C3</td><td>UND</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 100</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[1-4]/[5-9]</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 100 extra</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[0-<1]</td><td>[0-<1]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 101A-B</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[1-4]</td><td>[1-4]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 102</td><td>pF</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 103</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[10-14]</td><td>[10-14]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>JS 104-107</td><td>pF?</td><td>MA</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 105</td><td>UND</td><td>IMM</td><td>[10-14]/[15-19]</td><td>[10-14]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 106</td><td>M</td><td>IMM</td><td>[10-14]/[15-19]</td><td>[10-14]</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table S1** - Inventory of Jebel Sahaba individuals showing their biological identity (sexual diagnosis and age-at-death estimates) and the type of lesions recorded for each of them. Lesions are separated in two main columns for healed and unhealed injuries. Each column is subdivided by type of lesions – lesions (when the origin is unknown); traumas (for bone fracture, blunt force traumas and perforations whose projectile origin is not ascertained) and PIMs (for projectile impact marks). The presence of embedded lithic artefacts in association to PIMs is also listed. UND = undeterminate; M = male; pM = probable male; pM? = possible male; F = female; pF = probable female; pF? = possible female; MA = mature; IMM = immature.

**Tableau S1** – Inventaire des individus du Jebel Sahaba, montrant leur identité biologique (diagnostic sexuel et estimation de l'âge au décès) et le type de lésions enregistrées pour chacun d'eux. Les lésions sont séparées en deux colonnes principales pour les blessures cicatrisées et non cicatrisées. Chaque colonne est subdivisée par type de lésions : lésions (lorsque l'origine est inconnue) ; traumatismes (pour les fractures osseuses, les traumatismes par objet contondant et les perforations dont l'origine par projectile n'est pas déterminée) et les PIM (pour marques d'impact de projectile). La présence d'artefacts lithiques fichés dans les ossements en association avec des MIPs est également répertoriée. UND = indéterminé ; M = homme ; pM = probable homme ; pM ? = possible homme ; F = femme ; pF = probable femme ; pF? = possible femme ; MA = mature ; IMM = immature.
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Individual</th><th rowspan="2">Sex</th><th rowspan="2">Demographic age class</th><th rowspan="2">Presence of lesions</th><th rowspan="2">Burial</th><th colspan="2">Grave pit</th><th colspan="2">Artefact associated (Wendorf, 1968)</th><th rowspan="2">New embedded artefacts (this study)</th></tr><tr><th>Depth</th><th>Cover</th><th>Volume of the body</th><th>Embedded</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>JS 2</td><td>UND</td><td>[5-9]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td>At surface</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 4</td><td>UND</td><td>[15-19]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td>15 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 5</td><td>pM</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>10 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 6</td><td>M</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td>10 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>JS 7</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>25 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 8</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Double</td><td>30 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 9</td><td>UND</td><td>[1-4]</td><td>x</td><td>Double</td><td>30 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 10</td><td>pM?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Individual</td><td>30 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 11A</td><td>pM?</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td>10 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 11B</td><td>UND</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td>10 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 11C</td><td>UND</td><td>[0-<1]</td><td></td><td>Disturbed</td><td>10 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 12</td><td>UND</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td>Individual</td><td>10 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 13</td><td>UND</td><td>[1-4]</td><td></td><td>Double</td><td>25 cm</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 14</td><td>UND</td><td>[1-4]</td><td>x</td><td>Double</td><td>25 cm</td><td></td><td>3</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>JS 15</td><td>pF?</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>35 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 16</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>35 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 17</td><td>pM?</td><td>[20-29]</td><td></td><td>Individual</td><td>35 cm</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 18</td><td>pM</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Individual</td><td>30 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 19</td><td>M</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 20</td><td>pM?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Double</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>JS 21</td><td>pF</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Double</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>17</td><td>2¤</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>JS 22</td><td>M</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>JS 23</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Double</td><td>10-20 cm</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>1¤</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 24</td><td>UND</td><td>[5-9]</td><td>x</td><td>Double</td><td>40 cm</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 25</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Multiple</td><td>45 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1¤</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 26</td><td>F</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Multiple</td><td>30 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>5 (+1*)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 27</td><td>UND</td><td>[1-4]</td><td></td><td>Disturbed</td><td>20 cm</td><td>On slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 28</td><td>pF</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Multiple</td><td>20 cm</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 29</td><td>M</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Multiple</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>7</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 31</td><td>pM</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>30 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>15</td><td>2¤</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>JS 32</td><td>UND</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td>60 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 32b</td><td>UND</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 33</td><td>pF?</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>60 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>8</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 34</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Multiple</td><td>60 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 35</td><td>UND</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td>50 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 36</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Individual</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 37</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Multiple</td><td>60 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 37b</td><td>M</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Multiple</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 38</td><td>M</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>60 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 39</td><td>pM</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>70 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 40</td><td>pM</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>70 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 41</td><td>pF</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 42</td><td>pM</td><td>[20-29]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>35 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 43</td><td>UND</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>35 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Individual</th><th rowspan="2">Sex</th><th rowspan="2">Demographic age class</th><th rowspan="2">Presence of lesions</th><th rowspan="2">Burial</th><th colspan="2">Grave pit</th><th colspan="2">Artefact associated (Wendorf, 1968)</th><th rowspan="2">New embedded artefacts (this study)</th></tr><tr><th>Depth</th><th>Cover</th><th>Volume of the body</th><th>Embedded</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>JS 44</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>35 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>20</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>JS 45</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Individual</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 46</td><td>pM</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Disturbed</td><td>40 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 47</td><td>UND</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td>Individual</td><td>35 cm</td><td>On slabs</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 48</td><td>pM</td><td>[15-19]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>50 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 49</td><td>pF</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Individual</td><td>45 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS C1</td><td>M</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Multiple</td><td>At surface</td><td>Slabs</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>JS C2</td><td>UND</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td>Multiple</td><td>At surface</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS C3</td><td>UND</td><td>[> 30]</td><td></td><td>Multiple</td><td>At surface</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 100</td><td>UND</td><td>[5-9]</td><td></td><td>Multiple</td><td>70 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 100 extra</td><td>UND</td><td>[0-<1]</td><td></td><td>Multiple</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 101A-B</td><td>UND</td><td>[1-4]</td><td></td><td>Multiple</td><td>70 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 102</td><td>pF</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Multiple</td><td>70 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 103</td><td>UND</td><td>[10-14]</td><td>x</td><td>Multiple</td><td>65 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 104 &amp; JS 107</td><td>pF?</td><td>[> 30]</td><td>x</td><td>Disturbed</td><td>70-90 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 105</td><td>UND</td><td>[10-14]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>90 cm</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JS 106</td><td>M</td><td>[10-14]</td><td>x</td><td>Individual</td><td>60 cm</td><td>Slabs</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table S2** – Inventory of Jebel Sahaba individuals with the burial characteristics and associated artefacts. UND = undeterminate; M = male; pM = probable male; pF = probable female; pF? = possible female. □) Artefact absent from the British Museum collection; *) additional artefact compared to the original publication.

**Tableau S2** – Inventaire des individus de Jebel Sahaba avec les caractéristiques funéraires et les artefacts associés aux tombes.
UND = indéterminé ; M = homme ; pM = probable homme ; pF = probable femme ; pF? = possible femme. □) artefact absent de la collection du British Museum ; *) artefact supplémentaire par rapport à la publication originale.
REFERENCES

ALBRITTON C. C., WENDORF F. (1968) – Geology of the Tushka Site: 8905, in F. Wendorf (ed.), *The Prehistory of Nubia*, vol. 2, Dallas, Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist University Press, p. 856-953.

ALLEN M. W. (2014) – Hunter-Gatherer Violence and Warfare in Australia, in M. W. Allen and T. L. Jones (eds.), *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, p. 97-111.

ALLEN M. W., JONES T. L. (2014) – *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, 391 p.

ALLEN M. W., BETTINGER R. L., CODDING B. F., JONES T. J., SCHWITALLA A. W. (2016) – Resource Scarcity Drives Lethal Aggression among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers in Central California, *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 113, p. 12120-12125.

ANDERSON J. E. (1968) – Late Paleolithic Skeletal Remains from Nubia, in F. Wendorf (ed.), *The Prehistory of Nubia*, vol. 2, Dallas, Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist University Press, p. 996-1040.

ANGEL J. L., KELLEY J. O. (1986) – Description and Comparison of the Skeleton, in A. E. Close (ed.), *The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya*, vol. 1, Dallas, Southern Methodist University, p. 53-70.

ANTOINE D., AMBERS J. (2014) – The Scientific Analysis of Human Remains from the British Museum Collection. Research Potential and Examples from the Nile Valley, in A. Fletcher, D. Antoine and J. D. Hill (eds.), *Regarding the Dead: Human Remains in the British Museum*, London, The British Museum, p. 20-30.

ANTOINE D., ZAZZO A., FREIDMAN R. (2013) – Revisiting Jebel Sahaba: New Apatite Radiocarbon Dates for One of the Nile Valley’s Earliest Cemeteries, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, S56, p. 68.

BACKWELL L. R., PARKINSON A. H., ROBERTS E. M., D'ERRICO F., HUCHET J-B. (2012) – Criteria for Identifying Bone Modification by Termites in the Fossil Record, *Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology*, 337-338, p. 72-87.

BATTARBEE R. W., GASSE F., STICKLEY C. E. (2004) – *Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa*, Dordrecht, Springer (Developments in Paleoenvironmental Research, 6), 638 p.

BECKER M., WENDORF F. (1993) – A Microwear Study of a Late Pleistocene Qadan Assemblage from Southern Egypt, *Journal of Field Archaeology*, 20, 4, p. 389-398.

BOCQUET-APPEL J.-P. (2002) – Paleoanthropological Traces of a Neolithic Demographic Transition, *Current Anthropology*, 43, p. 637-650.

BOCQUET-APPEL J.-P., NAJI S. (2006) – Testing the Hypothesis of a Worldwide Neolithic Demographic Transition, *Current Anthropology*, 47, 2, p. 341-365.

BOULESTIN B. (2020) – Ceci n’est pas une guerre (mais ça y ressemble) : entre doctrine et sémantique, comment aborder la question de la guerre préhistorique ?, *Paléo*, 30, 2, p. 36-56.

BRIDGES P. S. (1996) – Warfare and Mortality at Koger’s Island, Alabama, *International Journal of Osteoarchaeology*, 6, p. 66-75.

BRONK RAMSEY C. (2009) – Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates, *Radiocarbon*, 51, 1, p. 337-360.

BRŮŽEK J. (2002) – A Method for Visual Determination of Sex, Using the Human Hip Bone, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 117, 2, p. 157-168.

BRŮŽEK J., SCHMITT A., MURAIL P. (2005) – Identification biologique individuelle en paléoanthropologie. Détermination du sexe, de l’âge au décès à partir du squelette, in O. Dutour, J.-J. Hublin and B. Vandermeersch (eds.), *Objets et méthodes en paléoanthropologie*, Paris, éditions du CTHS, p. 217-245.

BRŮŽEK J., SANTOS F., DUTAILLY B., MURAIL P., CUNHA E. (2017) – Validation and Reliability of the Sex Estimation of the Human Os Coxae Using Freely Available DSP2 Software for Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 164, 2, p. 440-449.

BUIKSTRA J. E., UBELAKER D. (1994) – *Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains*, Fayetteville, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, 218 p.

BUTLER B. (1968) – Appendix II: Cut Marks on Bones, in F. Wendorf (ed.), *The Prehistory of Nubia*, vol. 2, Dallas, Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist University Press, p. 1038-1040.

CASTEL J.-C. (2008) – Identification des impacts de projectiles sur le squelette des grands ongulés, *Annales de paléontologie*, 94, p. 103-118.

CASTEX D., GEORGES P., BLANCHARD P. (2009) – Complémentation et discordances entre sources textuelles et sources archéo-anthropologiques en contexte de crises de mortalité par épidémie. Études de cas, *Revue archéologique du centre de la France*, 47/2008, http://journals.openedition.org/racf/1218

CHATTERS J. C. (2014) – Wild-Type Colonizers and High Levels of Violence among Paleoamericans, in M. W. Allen and T. L. Jones (eds.), *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, p. 70-96.

CREVECOEUR I. (2008) – *Étude anthropologique du squelette du Paléolithique supérieur de Nazlet Khater 2 (Égypte). Apport à la compréhension de la variabilité passée des hommes modernes*, Leuven, Leuven University Press (Egyptian Prehistory Monographs, 8), 318 p.

CREVECOEUR I., DIAS-MEIRINHO M.-H., ZAZZO A., ANTOINE D., BON F. (2021) – New Insights on Interpersonal Violence in the Late Pleistocene Based on the Nile Valley Cemetery of Jebel Sahaba, *Scientific Reports*, 11, 9991.

DAKOVIĆ G. (2014) – War and Violence among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers, in T. Link and H. Peter-Röcher (eds.), *Gewalt und Gesellschaft. Dimensionen der Gewalt in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit*, Bonn, Dr Rudolf Habelt Verlag (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, 259), p. 287-297.
DARMANGEAT C. (2019) – Vanished Wars of Australia: The Archaeological Invisibility of Aboriginal Collective Conflicts, *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, 26, p. 1556-1590.

DEMENOCAL P., ORTIZ J., GUILDERSON T., ADKINS J., SARNTHEIN M., BAKER L., YARUSINSKY M. (2000) – Abrupt Onset and Termination of the African Humid Period: Rapid Climate Responses to Gradual Insolation Forcing, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 19, p. 347-361.

DIAS-MEIRINHO M.-H. (2011) – *Des armes et des hommes. L'archerie à la transition entre la fin du Néolithique et l'âge du Bronze en Europe occidentale*, doctoral thesis, université Toulouse 2-le Mirail, Toulouse, 692 p.

DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGO M., DE JUANA S., GALA A. B., RODRIGUEZ M. (2009) – A New Protocol to Differentiate Trampling Marks from Butchery Cut Marks, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 36, p. 2643-2654.

DUCHES R., NANNINI N., ROMANDINI M., BOSCHIN F., CREZZINI J., PERESANI M. (2016) – Identification of Late Epigravettian Hunting Injuries: Descriptive and 3D Analysis of Experimental Projectile Impact Marks on Bone, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 66, p. 88-102.

ESTABROOK V. H. (2014) – Violence and Warfare in the European Mesolithic and Paleolithic, in M. W. Allen and T. L. Jones (eds.), *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, p. 49-69.

FAZEKAS I. G., KOSA F. (1978) – *Forensic fetal osteology*, Budapest, Akademiai Kiado, 413 p.

FERGUSON R. B. (2013) – Pinker’s List, in D. P. Fry (ed.), *War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views*, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 112-131.

FERNANDEZ-JALVO Y., ANDREWS P. (2016) – *Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications. 1001+ Images of Fossil and Recent Mammal Bone Modification*, Dordrecht, Springer, 359 p.

FRAYER D. W. (1997) – Ofnet: Evidence for a Mesolithic Massacre, in D. L. Martin and D. W. Frayer (eds.), *Troubled Times. Violence and Warfare in the Past*, Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach, p. 181-216.

FU Q., POSTH C., HAJDINJAK M., PETR M., MALLICK S., FERNANDES D., FURTWÄNGLER A., HAAK W., MEYER M., MITTNIK A., NICKEL B., PELTZER A., ROHLAND N., SLON V., TALAMO S., LAZARIDIS I., LIPSON M., MATHIESON I., SCHIFFELS S., SKOGLUND P., DEREVIANKO A.P., DROZDOV N., SLAVINSKY V., TSYBANKOV A., GRIFONI CREMONESI R., MALLEGNI F., GÉLY B., VACCA E., GONZÁLEZ MORALES M.R., STRAUS L.G., NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH C., TESCHLER-NICOLA M., CONSTANTIN S., MOLDOVAN O.T., BENAZZI S., PERESANI M., COPPOLA D., LARI M., RICCI S., RONCHITELLI A., VALENTIN F., THEVENET C., WEHRBERGER K., GRIGORESCU D., ROUGIER H., CREVECOEUR I., FLAS D., SEMAL P., MANNINO M.A., CUPILLARD C., BOCHERENS H., CONARD N.J., HARVATI K., MOISEYEV V., DRUCKER D.G., SVOBODA J., RICHARDS M.P., CARAMELLI D., PINHASI R., KELSO J., PATTERSON N., KRAUSE J., PÄÄBO S., REICH D. (2016) – The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe, *Nature*, 534, p. 200-205.

GASSE F. (2000) – Hydrological Changes in the African Tropics since the Last Glacial Maximum, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 19, p. 189-211.

GORDÓN F. (2015) – Bioarchaeological Patterns of Violence in North Patagonia (Argentina) during the Late Holocene. Implications for the Study of Population Dynamics, *International Journal of Osteoarchaeology*, 25, p. 625-636.

GREENE D. L., ARMELAGOS G. L. (1972) – *The Wadi Halfa Mesolithic Population*, Amherst, University of Massachusetts, 146 p.

GRINE F. E. (2016) – The Late Quaternary Hominins of Africa: The Skeletal Evidence from MIS 6-2, in S. C. Jones and B. A. Stewart (eds.), *Africa from MIS 6-2: Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments*, Dordrecht, Springer, p. 323-381.

GUILAINE J., ZAMMIT J. (2005) – *Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory*, Maiden, Blackwell Publishing, 282 p.

HENRY-GAMBIER D. (2001) – *La sépulture des enfants de Grimaldi (Baoussé-Roussé, Italie). Anthropologie et palethnologie funéraire des populations de la fin du Paléolithique supérieur*, Paris, éditions du CTHS, 177 p.

HEWES G. W., IRWIN H., PAPWORTH M., SAXE A. (1964) – A New Fossil Human Population from the Wadi Halfa Area, Sudan, *Nature*, 4943, p. 341-343.

IRISH J. D. (2005) – Population Continuity vs Discontinuity Revisited: Dental Affinities Among Late Paleolithic Through Christian-Era Nubians, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 128, p. 520-535.

JACKES M. K. (2004) – Osteological Evidence for Mesolithic and Neolithic Violence: Problems of Interpretation, in M. Roksandic (ed.), *Violent Interactions in the Mesolithic. Evidence and Meaning*, Oxford, Archaeopress (BAR International Series, 1237), p. 23-29.

JONES T. L., ALLEN M. W. (2014) – The Prehistory of Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers, in M. W. Allen and T. L. Jones (eds.), *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, p. 353-371.

JUDD M. (2002) – *Osteological Assessment-Sahaba Site 117*, London, The British Museum-Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan (unpublished).

JUDD M. (2007) – Jebel Sahaba Revisited, in K. Kroeger, M. Chlodnicki and M. Kobusiewicz (eds.), *Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa*, Poznań, Poznań Archaeological Museum, p. 153-166.

JURMAIN R. (2001) – Paleoepidemiological Patterns of Trauma in a Prehistoric Population from Central California, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 115, p. 13-23.

KAMP K. A. (1998) – Social Hierarchy and Burial Treatments: A Comparative Assessment, *Cross-Cultural Research*, 32, p. 79-115.

KEELEY L. (1996) – *War Before Civilization*, New York, Alfred A. Knopf., 245 p.

KELLY R. C. (2000) – *Warless Societies and the Origin of War*, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press, 192 p.

KISSEL M., KIM N. C. (2019) – The Emergence of Human Warfare: Current Perspectives, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 168, S67, p. 141-163.

KUPER R., KRÖPELIN S. (2006) – Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s Evolution, *Science*, 313, p. 803-807.
LAHR M. M., RIVERA F., POWER R. K., MOUNIER A., COPSEY B., CRIVELLARO F., EDUNG J. E., MAILLO FERNANDEZ J. M., KIARIE C., LAWRENCE J., LEAKEY A., MBUA E., MILLER H., MUIGAI A., MUKHONGO D. M., VAN BAELEN A., WOOD R., SCHWENNINGER J.-L., GRÜN R., ACHYUTHAN H., WILSHAW A., FOLEY R. A. (2016) – Inter-Group Violence among Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherers of West Turkana, Kenya, *Nature*, 529, p. 394-398.

LEBLANC S. A. (2014) – Forager Warfare and Our Evolutionary Past, in M. W. Allen and T. L. Jones (eds.), *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, p. 26-46.

LEDERMANN S. (1969) – *Nouvelles tableaux-types de mortalités*, Paris, Ined, 260 p.

LEPLONGEON A. (2021) – The Main Nile Valley at the End of the Pleistocene (28-15ka): Dispersal Corridor or Environmental Refugium?, *Frontiers in Earth Science*, 8, 607183.

LILLIE M. C. (2004) – Fighting for Your Life? Violence at the Late-Glacial to Holocene Transition in Ukraine, in M. Roksandic (ed.), *Violent Interactions in the Mesolithic. Evidence and Meaning*, Oxford, Archaeopress (BAR International Series, 1237), p. 89-96.

LOVELL N. C. (1997) – Trauma Analysis in Paleopathology, *Yearbook of Physical Anthropology*, 40, p. 139-170.

LUBELL D. (1974) – *The Fakhurian. A Late Paleolithic Industry from Upper Egypt*, Cairo, Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Wealth, Geological Survey of Egypt-Mining Authority (Paper, 58), 193 p.

MARESH M. M. (1970) – Measurements from Roentgenograms, in R. W. McCammon (ed.), *Human Growth and Development*, Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas, p. 157-200.

MOLNAR S. (1971), Human Tooth Wear, Tooth Function and Cultural Variability, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 34, p. 175-190.

MOORREES C. F. A., FANNING A., HUNT E. E. (1963a) – Age Variation of Formation Stages for Ten Permanent Teeth, *Journal of Dental Research*, 42, p. 1490-1502.

MOORREES C. F. A., FANNING A., HUNT E. E. (1963b) – Formation and Resorption of Three Deciduous Teeth in Children, *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 21, p. 205-213.

MOREL P. (2000) – Impacts de chasse et archéozoologie : quelques observations expérimentales, in C. Bellier, P. Cattelain et M. Otte (eds.), *La chasse dans la Préhistoire*, Liège, université de Liège (ÉRAUL, 51), p. 54-59.

MURAIL P., BRÜZEK J., HOUËT F., CUNHA E. (2005) – DSP: A Tool for Probabilistic Sex Diagnosis Using Worldwide Variability in Hip-Bone Measurements, *Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris*, 17, 3-4, p. 167-176.

NICOLL K. (2004) – Recent Environmental Change and Prehistoric Human Activity in Egypt and Northern Sudan, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 23, 5-6, p. 561-580.

O'DRISCOLL C. A., THOMPSON J. C. (2014) – Experimental Projectile Impact Marks on Bone: Implications for Identifying the Origins of Projectile Technology, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 49, p. 398-413.

ORSCHIEDT J. (2005) – The Head Burials from Ofnet Cave: An Example of Warlike Conflict in the Mesolithic, in: M. Parker Pearson, I. J. Thorpe (eds.), *Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory*, Oxford, Archaeopress (BAR International series, 1374), p. 67-73.

PAGANI L., CREVECOEUR I. (2019) – What Is Africa? A Human Perspective, in Y. Sahle, H. Reyes-Centeno and C. Bentz (eds.), *Modern Human Origins and Dispersal, Words, Bones, Genes, Tools*, Tübingen, Kerns Verlag (DFG Center for Advanced Studies Series), p. 15-24.

PARDOE C. (2014) – Conflict and Interpersonal Violence in Holocene Hunter-Gatherer Populations from South America, in M. W. Allen and T. L. Jones (eds.), *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, p. 112-132.

PAULISSEN E., VERMEERSCH P. M. (1987) – Earth, Man and Climate in the Egyptian Nile Valley during the Pleistocene, in A. Close (ed.), *Prehistory of Arid North Africa*, Dallas, SMU Press, p. 29-67.

PÉTILLON J.-M., LETOURNEUX C. (2003) – Au retour de la chasse..., *Préhistories méditerranéennes*, 12, p. 173-188.

PÉTILLON J.-M., BIGNON O., BODU P., CATTELAIN P., DEBOUT G., LANGLAIS M., LAROULANDIE V., PLISSON H., VALENTIN B. (2011) – Hard Core and Cutting Edge: Experimental Manufacture and Use of Magdalenian Composite Projectile Tips, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 38, 6, p. 1266-1283.

PFEIFFER S. (2016) – An Exploration of Interpersonal Violence among Holocene Foragers of Southern Africa, *International Journal of Paleopathology*, 13, p. 27-38.

PILLOUD M. A., SCHWITALLA A. W., JONES T. J. (2014) – The Bioarchaeological Record of Craniofacial Trauma in Central California, in M. W. Allen and T. L. Jones (eds.), *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, p. 257-272.

POTTS R., SHIPMAN P. (1981) – Cutmarks Made by Stone Tools on Bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, *Nature*, 291, p. 577-580.

REIMER P., AUSTIN W., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BLACKWELL P., BRONK RAMSEY C., BUTZIN M., CHENG H., EDWARDS R., FRIEDRICH M.GROOTES P. M., GUILDERSON T. P., HAJDAS I., HEATON T. J., HOGG A. G., HUGHEN K. A., KROMER B., MANNING S. W., MUSCHELER R., PALMER J. G., PEARSON C., VAN DER PLICHT J., REIMER R. W., RICHARDS D. A., SCOTT E. M., SOUTHON J. R., TURNEY C. S. M., WACKER L., ADOLPHI F., BÜNTGEN U., CAPANO M., FAHRNI S. M., FOGTMANN-SCHULZ A., FRIEDRICH R., KÖHLER P., KUDSK S., MIYAKE F., OLSEN, J., REINIG F., SAKAMOTO M., SOOKDEO A., TALAMO S. (2020) – The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0-55 cal kBP), *Radiocarbon* 62, 4, p. 725-757.

SALA N., ARSUAGA J. L., PANTOJA-PÉREZ A., PABLOS A., MARTÍNEZ I., QUAM R. M., GÓMEZ-OLIVENCIA A., BERMÚDEZ DE CASTRO J. M., CARBONEL E. (2015) – Lethal Interpersonal Violence in the Middle Pleistocene, *PLoS ONE*, 10, 5, e0126589.

SAXE A. A. (1971) – Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in a Mesolithic Population from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, *Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology*, 25, p. 39-57.
SCHEUER L., BLACK S. (2000) – *Developmental Juvenile Osteology*, Academic Press, 587 p.

SCHILD R., WENDORF F. (2010) – Late Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Nile Valley of Nubia and Upper Egypt, in E. A. A. Garcea (ed.), *South-Eastern Mediterranean Peoples Between 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago*, Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books, p. 89-125.

SCHMITT A. (2005) – Une nouvelle méthode pour estimer l’âge au décès des adultes à partir de la surface sacro-pelvienne iliaque, *Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris*, 17, p. 89-101.

SCHWITALLA A. W., JONES T. L., WIBERG R. S., PILLOUD M. A., CODDING B. F., STROTHER E. C. (2014) – Archaic Violence in Western North America: The Bioarchaeological Record of Dismemberment, Human Bone Artifacts, and Trophy Skulls from Central California, in M. W. Allen and T. L. Jones (eds.), *Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers*, Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, p. 273-295.

SELLIER P. (1996) – La mise en évidence d’anomalies démo-graphiques et leur interprétation population, recrutement et pratiques funéraires du tumulus de Courtesoult, in J.-F. Pin-ingre (ed.), *Nécropoles et société au premier âge du Fer. Le tumulus de Courte-soult (Haute-Saône)*, Paris, éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme (Documents d’archéol-ogie française), p. 188-202.

SHINER J. L. (1968) – The Cataract Tradition, in F. Wendorf (ed.), *The Prehistory of Nubia*, vol. 2, Dallas, Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist University Press, p. 535-629.

SHIPMAN P., ROSE J. (1983) – Early Hominid Hunting, Butcher-ing, and Carcass-Processing Behaviors: Approaches to the Fossil Record, *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, 2, p. 57-98.

SMITH M. J., BRICKLEY M. B., LEACH S. L. (2007) – Experimental Evidence for Lithic Projectile Injuries: Improving Iden-tification of an Under-Recognised Phenomenon, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 34, p. 540-553.

SOLECKI R., DE HEINZELIN J., STIGLER R. L., MARKS A. E., PAEPE R., GUICHARD J. (1963) – Preliminary Statement of the Prehistoric Investigations of the Columbia University Nubian Expedition in Sudan, 1961-1962, *Kush*, 11, p. 70-92.

STANDEN V. G., ARRIAZA B. T. (2000) – Trauma in the Preceramic Coastal Populations of Northern Chile: Violence or Occupa-tional Hazards?, *American Journal of Physical Anthropol-ogy*, 112, p. 239-249.

STOJANOWSKI C. M., SEIDEL A. C., FULGINITI L. C., JOHNSON K. M., BUIKSTRA J. E. (2016) – Contesting the Massacre at Nataruk, *Nature*, 539, E8-E10.

THORPE I. J. N. (2003) – Anthropology, Archaeology, and the Origin of Warfare, *World Archaeology*, 35, 1, p. 145-165.

TRINKAUS E., BUZHILOVA A. P. (2012) – The Death and Burial of Sunghir 1, *International Journal of Osteoarchaeology*, 22, p. 655-666.

TRINKAUS E. (1983) – *The Shanidar Neandertals*, New York, Academic Press, 502 p.

USAI D. (2020) – The Qadan, the Jebel Sahaba Cemetery and the Lithic Collection, *Archaeologia Polona*, 58, p. 99-119.

VERMEERSCH P. M. (2010) – Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in the Egyptian Nile Valley, in E. A. A. Garcea (ed.), *South-eastern Mediterranean Peoples Between 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago*, Oxford-Oakville, Oxbow Books, p. 66-88.

VERMEERSCH P. M., VAN NEER W. (2015) – Nile Behaviour and Late Palaeolithic Humans in Upper Egypt during the Late Pleistocene, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 130, p. 155-167.

WALKER F. L. (2001) – A Bioarchaeological Perpective on the History of Violence, *Annual Review of Anthropology*, 30, p. 573-596.

WENDORF F. (1968a) – *The Prehistory of Nubia*, vol. 1 and 2, Dallas, Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Meth-odist University Press, 1084 p.

WENDORF F. (1968b) – The Late Paleolithic Sites in Egyptian Nubia, in F. Wendorf (ed.), *The Prehistory of Nubia*, vol. 2, Dallas, Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Meth-odist University Press, p. 791-953.

WENDORF F. (1968c) – Site 117: A Nubian Final Paleolithic Graveyard Near Jebel Sahaba, Sudan, in F. Wendorf (ed.), *The Prehistory of Nubia*, vol. 2, Dallas, Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist University Press, p. 954-995.

WENDORF F., SCHILD R. (1986) – The Wadi Kubbaniya Skele-ton: A Late Paleolithic Burial from Southern Egypt, in A. E. Close (ed.), *The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya*, vol. 2, Dallas. Southern Methodist University, p. 1-85.

WENDORF F., SCHILD R. (2004) – Late Paleolithic Warfare in Nubia: The Evidence and Causes, *Aduma*, 10, p. 7-28.

WENDORF F., SCHILD R., CLOSE A. E. (1989) – *The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya*, vol. 2 and 3, Dallas, Southern Methodist University, 291 p.

WENDORF F., SHINER J. L., MARKS A. E., DE HEINZELIN J., CHMIELEWSKI W., SCHILD R. (1966) – The 1965 Field Season of the Southern Methodist University, *Kush*, 14, p. 16-24.

WILLIAMS M., TALBOT M., AHARON P., ABDL SALAAM Y., WIL-LIAMS F., BRENDELAND K. I. (2006) – Abrupt Return of the Summer Monsoon 15,000 Years Ago: New Supporting Evi-dence from the lower White Nile Valley and Lake Albert, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 25, p. 2651-2665.

AZZO A. (2014), Bone and Enamel Carbonate Diagenesis: A Radiocarbon Prospective, *Palaeogeography, Palaeoclima-tology, Palaeoecology*, 416, p. 168-178.

AZZO A., SALIÉGE J.-F. (2011) – Radiocarbon Dating of Biolog-ical Apatites: A Review, *Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatol-ogy, Palaeoecology*, 310, p. 52-61.
**Isabelle CREVECOEUR**

UMR 5199-PACEA, CNRS, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
isabelle.crevecœur@u-bordeaux.fr

**Marie-Hélène DIAS-MEIRINHO**

UMR 5608-TRACES, université de Toulouse
Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France

**Antoine ZAZZO**

UMR 7209-AASPE, CNRS, MNHN,
Paris, France

**Daniel ANTOINE**

Institute for Bioarchaeology, Department
of Egypt and Sudan, The British Museum,
London, UK

**François BON**

UMR 5608-TRACES, université de Toulouse
Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France
<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>
Du Big Dry à l'Holocène en Afrique de l'Est et au-delà
From the Big Dry to the Holocene in Eastern Africa and beyond
Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Toulouse (septembre 2019)
Textes publiés sous la direction de Joséphine Lesur, Jessie Cauliez, Lamya Khalidi, Laurent Bruxelles, Isabelle Crevecoeur, David Pleurdeau, Chantal Tribolo et François Bon Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2023
(Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 20), p. 131-142
www.prehistoire.org
ISSN : 2263-3847 – ISBN : 2-913745-93-8

# A Singular Story between Deserts and the Nile
## The Egyptian Path toward Food Production

Une histoire singulière entre déserts et Nil

La trajectoire égyptienne vers l'économie de production

Béatrix MIDANT-REYNES, François BRIOIS, Tiphaine DACHY

**Abstract:** Intensive research in recent decades has shed new light on Holocene Prehistory in northeastern Africa, particularly on the areas of the Nile Valley and adjacent deserts. Located at the northeast of the African continent, at the intersection with the Middle East, Egypt (valley and deserts) has followed a particular path between these two poles, from the end of the Big Dry to the emergence of food production during the 6th millennium and its establishment in the 5th millennium. If the Nile Valley is not very prolific until the end of the 5th millennium, partly for taphonomic reasons, the major surveys carried out in the western desert between the 1980s and the early 2000s made it possible to set up more and more complete regional chrono-cultural sequences and to develop scenarios involving economic and cultural dynamics linked with the dramatic climate changes of that period. The first populations to reoccupy the area that the Big Dry had completely emptied at the end of the Pleistocene, and which became again dwelling areas upon return to wet conditions, are Epipalaeolithic hunter-gatherers, whose economy was based on the exploitation of wild resources. Aurochs, bubals, gazelles, hares and ostriches invested around many water spots, a grassy savannah that substituted the desert thanks to the northward progression of monsoon rains. Plants adapted to this regime grew abundantly on the shores of lakes. As evidenced by the numerous grinding stones found on sites, they respond to the food needs of human groups, which are distributed throughout the African geographical area where the Nile flows. In the north, neither the sea nor the Sinai Peninsula have ever constituted any insuperable hurdles as shown by the occurrence in Heluan and Wadi Araba (eastern desert) of groups of hunters belonging to the PPNA/PPNB traditions. The transition toward new lifestyles, marked by the adoption of food production, took place over a long period of time, against the backdrop of a climate crisis that witnessed the development of Saharan hunter-gatherers within an autonomous economic and social space on one side and the mobility of pastoralists and then farmers from the Levant on the other side.

**Keywords:** Neolithic, Egypt, food production, domestication, climatic change, Nilotic adaptation.

**Résumé** : Les recherches intensives menées durant ces dernières décennies ont jeté une lumière nouvelle sur la Préhistoire holocène du nord-est africain, et plus particulièrement sur les espaces constitués par la vallée du Nil et les déserts adjacents. Localisée au nord-est du continent africain, au carrefour avec le Proche-Orient, l'Égypte (vallée et déserts) a suivi, entre ces deux pôles, un parcours particulier depuis la fin du Big Dry jusqu'aux formes nouvelles de production de nourriture, qui s'amorcent dès le VIe millénaire et se mettent en place au Ve millénaire. Si la vallée du Nil est peu prolixe jusqu'à la fin du Ve millénaire, pour des raisons en partie taphonomiques, les grands sondages opérés dans le désert occidental entre les années 1980 et le début des années 2000 ont permis la mise en place de séquences chrono-culturelles régionales de plus en plus complètes et l'élaboration de scénarios mettant en jeu des dynamiques économiques et culturelles en lien avec les évolutions climatiques drastiques de cette période. Les premières populations à réoccuper les espaces que le Big Dry de la fin du Pléistocène avait totalement vidés et que le retour des conditions humides a rendu de nouveau habitables sont des chasseurs-cueilleurs épipaléolithiques, dont l'économie est fondée sur l'exploitation des ressources sauvages. Autour de nombreux points d'eau, aurochs, bubales, gazelles, lièvres, autruches investissent une savane herbeuse que la remontée vers le nord des pluies de mousson a substituée au désert. Adaptées à ce régime, des plantes croissent à profusion sur les rivages des lacs, répondant, comme l'atteste l'abondant matériel de broyage retrouvé sur les sites, aux besoins alimentaires de groupes humains, qui se répartissent dans l'espace géographique africain où coule le Nil. Cependant, au nord, ni la mer ni la péninsule du Sinaï
n'ont jamais constitué d'obstacles infranchissables et la présence de groupes de chasseurs levantins du PPNA/PPNB est attestée dans la région d'Hélouan et au Wadi Araba, dans le désert oriental. La transition vers des formes de vie nouvelles, marquées par l'adoption des économies de production, s'opère sur un temps long mettant en jeu et en interaction sur fond de crise climatique le développement des uns, les chasseurs-cueilleurs sahariens, au sein d'un espace autonome économique et social, et la mobilité des autres, pasteurs puis agriculteurs levantins.

**Mots-clés** : Néolithique, Égypte, économie de production, domestication, changement climatique, adaptation nilotique.

Intensive research in recent decades shed new light on Holocene Prehistory in northeastern Africa. Egypt is a gateway at the crossroad of the African and Asian continents, a geographic position that has been crucial in the transfer of people and ideas in and out of Africa. In this framework, this region has followed a singular path toward food production.

The earliest evidence of plant and animal domestication goes back as far as the 10th millennium in the Near and Middle-East with the “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” (Miller and Wetterstrom, 2000; Zeder, 2011), but the first traces of animal domestication in the deserts bordering the Nile Valley only appear at the very end of the 7th millennium BC (Linseele et al., 2014 and 2016). From 6700 BC onwards, all the near East populations have long adopted a sedentary agropastoral way of life, whereas populations living on the banks of the Nile and in the adjacent deserts conserved a way of life based on fishing, hunting and gathering.

The notion that Egypt was “late” implies that things should have happened at an expected time, as if the prevailing social structures and production modes in South-Western Asian regions in the 7th millennium, which were themselves derived from an evolution spanning several millennia (Vigne, 2011, p. 178), were a reference, and that, in comparison, other populations were in advance, or late, if they could not be in time. The diffusion of the food production economy starting from the innovation core of the Levant has been particularly studied on the islands and the northern shore of the Mediterranean. If one could previously think that the main vector of this “neolithization” was the rapid and continuous physical movement of groups of settlers (Childe, 1949; Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984), all recent research tends to show that it was an extremely complex, long-lasting and arrhythmic process (Guilaine, 2000).

The southern shore of the Mediterranean has been less studied, but in the present state of knowledge, it seems that resistance to the diffusion phenomenon was clearly stronger.

One of the reasons advanced to explain this delay is what we called “Nilotic adaptation”, with reference to the exceptional ecosystem of the Nile Valley, which formed during Late Palaeolithic (Vermeersch, 2004; Vermeersch and Van Neer, 2015). In spite of climatic variations and the “Wild Nile” crisis around 12000 BP (Butzer, 1998, p. 161-163), life on the banks of the Nile in the Early Holocene may not have been fundamentally different to life at the end of the Palaeolithic (Wetterstrom, 1996a). The only site of Elkab (Vermeersch, 1978) records

this period, which is otherwise well documented in the deserts. The annual flood cycle marked out the rhythm of life, prefiguring the three seasons of Ancient Egypt. Fishing was practicable all year round depending on fish behaviour according to the hydrological regime of the river (Van Neer, 2004). The high-water period left time for harvesting the fruits of the Doum palm tree and the acacia. It was propitious to hunting large game (aurochs, hartebeest, etc.) in the grassy savanna of the low desert, when animals approached the river banks for water. The slow withdrawal of the waters provided access to *Cyperus* rhizomes and to a wide range of marsh plants (rushes, asphodels, lotus, reeds, etc.). Populations were mobile in a restricted area, living a semi-sedentary life paced by the eternal rhythm of the river cycles. In this “paradisiac” environment, no seasons or periods of the year brought shortages and suffering; only the irregular rhythm of floods could entail hardships. Prolonged flooding submerged the vegetation, which could not regenerate, whereas short flooding seasons gave rise to terrible droughts. However, overall, the system was sufficiently stable to ensure its sustainability year in year out for nearly eight millennia. At the beginning of the Holocene, the material culture of Egyptian sites was then relatively homogeneous. This lithic industry shows a laminar and lamellar soft stone debitage with large notched blades probably intended for plant work and microlithic tools used for composite hunting projectile points. This type of industry is known in the deserts and the oases where it receives different names according to local variability, among the best known are the cultures of El Adam and El Ghorab in Nabta Playa (Wendorf and Schild, 2001). On the banks of the Nile, a very similar industry dating from the 8th millennium BC has been highlighted on the site of hunter-fisher-gatherers of El Kab (Vermeersch, 1978). Beyond Egypt, laminar debitage and microliths are found throughout North Africa as far as the Maghreb (Tixier, 1963) testifying to a common cultural background from one bank to the other of the continent.

However, identifying the specific Egyptian development towards the adoption of a production economy comes up against a cruel absence of data in the Nile Valley for the 6th and 5th millennia, in spite of the huge fields of knowledge opened up by major surveys in the Eastern Sahara over the past decades. For over a century, we have been prone to circular reasoning based on data from three main sites, all located in the northern part of Egypt: Merimde Beni Salâme, west of the Delta, El Omari, near Cairo and Fayum, a huge oasis, formerly linked to the Nile by the Bahr Youssef, an arm of the river. Some new
data have emerged recently from the deltaic area itself (Saïs: Wilson et al., 2014; Samara: Guyot et al., 2022). The reason for this lack of data can probably be explained by the progressive accumulation of the sedimentary deposits that buried the sites below several metres of silts, as a response to climate change and sea level oscillations (Stanley and Warne, 1993).

# 1. CHANGES AND EXPERIMENTS

Around the 7th millennium BC, a humid oscillation took place within the African Humid Period, a double rain system (winter and summer) reached a large part of Egypt, filling numerous lakes in the Eastern Sahara. The populations of hunter-gatherers could then roam largely in the Eastern Sahara. In the most favorable places, they adopted an increased sedentary lifestyle: settlements were built near the seasonal lakes playas with an internal stratigraphy showing successive phases of abandonment and reoccupation according to the fluctuations of the neighboring lakes. Circular huts of a few square metres made of stone or perishable materials are attested in Farafra, Dakhla and on the plateau bordering Kharga (McDonald, 2009; Barich et al., 2014). Wild african cereals, especially *Sorghum*, were processed thanks to abundant grinding equipment and subject to management like the long-term storage in silos attested in Nabta Playa (Wendorf and Schild, 2002). The pottery, decorated with impression in the autochthonous African tradition begins to be widely in use. However, in the lack of evidence for the essential Neolithic traits as food production or at least a pastoral component, we do not use the term “Neolithic”.

# 2. THE FIRST DOMESTICATED SPECIES IN EGYPT

The first domesticated species to appear in Egypt at the very end of the 7th millennium are animal. The earliest evidence for caprines have been found at Sodmein Cave and at the Hidden Valley site in Farafra, both dated between 6200 and 6000 cal. BC (Linseele et al., 2016). In the Fayum, the western desert (oases and plateaux) and in the eastern desert, bordering the Red Sea (Linseele, 2013), remains have been dated from the beginning of the 6th millennium BC. Our knowledge of what happened at that time in the Delta and the Nile Valley is far from complete. The domesticated animals were mostly caprines (*Ovis aries* and *Capra hircus*), but also some cattle in Fayum and Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba, although the question of the time of domestication of African cattle is still controversial (Lesur, 2017, p. 66-78). We must not imagine a surge of domestic animals, as only very small quantities of such remains have been found. At Sodmein Cave, for example, only 13 remains of domestic

animals were recovered from a stratigraphic sequence of several metres (Vermeersch et al., 2015).

Therefore, the adoption of domesticates is not an upheaval, but an adjustment, as no fundamental change in lifestyle occurs. Groups of hunter-gatherers who had been crossing the Sahara for several millennia and who were already familiar with pottery (hunter-gatherer-potters) brought several goats and sheep with them to supplement subsistence, by providing stocks of meat, milk, wool and hide. In a semi-arid environment, with wetter periods and a seasonality mainly based on the monsoon system, these groups could travel over long distances depending on water availability. As H. Riemer (2007) asked: Are they really pastoralists? Domestic fauna is derisory compared to wild fauna, and the numerous arrowheads point towards an economy based on hunting and gathering, as showed by the abundant material for grinding. In all these Middle Holocene sites, we note the importance of wild plant species, and in particular of local African cereals, such as sorghum and millet, found in abundance in silos at Nabta Playa (Wendorf and Schild, 2002). G. Lucarini (2014) also highlights the role played by wild African cereals in the oasis of Farafra, at that time.

Where do these first domestic animals come from? Leaving aside the tricky case of cattle (Brass, 2017), sheep and goat have no wild ancestors in Africa, and thus come from elsewhere. The neighbouring Near East, where we find the wild species and where their domestication occurs at an early stage, is obviously an unrivalled candidate (Lesur, 2017, p. 56-61). Considering the sparse proof for this period, it is difficult to define the paths domestication took. Is it even pertinent to define these pathways? Once we know that these animals reached the west, and the same is true for the following period, they may have taken all the available routes: by the Delta, and from there down the valley, along the route of the oases, turning westwards towards the Maghreb or along the Sinai bordering or crossing the Red Sea. The Mediterranean is another possible route, by coastal trade (Zeder, 2018; Broodbank and Lucarini, 2019).

But the animals did not come alone. They were accompanied by humans who passed them on to the Nilo-Saharan hunter-gatherers with whom they were in contact, probably via the Sinai Peninsula, which would later become “the way of Horus”, the overland route between Egypt and Canaan. This arrival coincides with a period of climatic deterioration in the Near East, around 6900-6300 cal. BC (Sanlaville, 1996), which marked the end of the PPNB, although it is not the cause, or at least not the exclusive cause. Neolithic activities then moved towards the edges of the Levantine corridor, to the east or the south, where populations who had become nomadic again were in contact with the Nilo-Saharan hunter-gatherers. Between 5500 and 5000 cal. BC, pastoralism appeared to be well established in the Sinai, based on faunal remains and the presence of enclosure type structures (Goring-Morris, 1993). These contacts between populations continued over a very long period
and provided the opportunity for the Nilo-Saharans to take what they needed without changing their way of life.

This adoption of Asian domesticates is synchronous with radical technological changes in the material culture. The lithic industry is no more based on laminar debitage but on flakes and natural thermoclastic blanks with facial and bifacial retouching. An Asian influence has been hypothesized (Shirai, 2016) but the origin of this technology is not yet determined with certainty due to the lack of reliable dates. It could as well find its source on the Egyptian limestone plateau, where the “bifacial technocomplex” is well established in the Middle Holocene (Riemer, 2007). The ceramic material as well is totally renewed with the appearance of a new type of locally made plain pottery. But things were about to change.

### 3. THE 5TH MILLENNIUM: THE FIRST PRODUCTION ECONOMIES

After 5300 cal. BC, the retreat of monsoon rains towards the south considerably accentuated aridity (Kuper and Kröpelin, 2006), making it progressively impossible for nomadic Saharan hunter-gatherers to continue their traditional way of life (Riemer, 2007). As a consequence, they moved towards the permanent water zones of oases, the Nile Valley and the mountainous masses of the Sahara, creating a major population influx in these regions. This is reflected in the emergence of new sites in Egypt, whereas the desert emptied (fig. 1). In Fayum, Neolithic settlement peaked between 4600 and 4300 cal. BC, at a time when sites became rare in the Eastern Sahara (Phillips et al., 2012, fig. 2).

The main event of the 5th millennium BC is the appearance of the first domesticated plants and again, we must turn towards Fayum, where their presence has been confirmed.

#### 3.1. Fayum in the 5th millennium: First domesticated plants

The excavation carried out by G. Caton-Thompson in the 1930s (Caton-Thompson and Gardner, 1934) brought to light two main sites, Kom W and Kom K, on the northern shore of Lake Qarun. These include a series of storage structures, large silo pits lined with basketry, which provided some of the earliest domesticated cereal seeds known in Egypt: wheat (*Triticum turgidum* L. subsp. *dicoccum*), barley (*Hordeum vulgare* subsp. *vulgare*) and seeds of *Polygonum* and *linum*. Bifacial flint sickles were found in association with this first evidence of agriculture (for the flint industry in Fayum, see Shirai, 2010). This silo technology allowed for long-term storage and is compatible with mobility (Dachy, 2014).

Previous faunal studies have shown that faunal samples are predominantly composed of fish and lake-related species. However, cattle, sheep and goats, which were present in low numbers during the previous period,

increase in number. A newcomer also joins the party: the pig. It goes on to play an important role in the farming activities of the following periods.

In the early 2000s, a mission organised by the University of California retraced G. Caton-Thompson's steps and undertook new excavations in Fayum North shore (Holdaway and Wendrich, 2017). The renewed studies provided the opportunity to gather more C14 dates, establish a reliable chronological framework and compare the site with the abundant data from the Eastern Sahara (Wendrich et al., 2009; Phillips et al., 2012). The new radiocarbon dates show that the revisited sites were occupied over the period between 4600 and 4300 cal. BC (for a discussion of the radiocarbon dates, see Holdaway and Wendrich, 2017, p. 215-218).

No traces of villages at Fayum point to eastern-type settlement. These first lakeshore Neolithic populations were relatively mobile. They mainly practised fishing, used pottery and hunted, as shown by the abundant bifacial arrowheads (Shirai, 2010). This settlement system has been classified as a “low-level food producers’ economy” (Holdaway et al., 2010 and 2015), a multi-component subsistence strategy.

#### 3.2. Merimde Beni-Salâme, El Omari, the delta

Merimde Beni-Salâme and El Omari are currently the two oldest known Neolithic villages in Egypt. And this state of affairs may not be ready to change as no site of similar scope has been discovered since their excavation. They are situated in the northern part of the country, one west of the delta, the other at its southern extremity, near the present-day town of Cairo.

Merimde Beni-Salâme was discovered and excavated by H. Junker at the beginning of the 20th century, then the study was resumed in the 1980s (Eiwanger, 1984, 1988 and 1992) and investigations restarted recently (Rowland and Bertini, 2016). The site is located on a desertic plateau, west of the delta, and extends over nearly 24 ha, with several settlement phases from around 5000 to 4100 cal. BC, over a 2.5 m-thick stratigraphy. It is easy to imagine how difficult it is to understand such a site and the extent to which early excavations deteriorated the potential for site interpretation. During the early phase, the *Urschicht* (Eiwanger, 1984), the first cultivated plants appeared in the Nile Valley: emmer wheat, six-row barley, lentils and peas, and in smaller quantities, vetches and flax (Wetterstrom, 1993 and 1996b; Cappers, 2013). The faunal spectrum is dominated by wild species (fish, antelopes, hippopotami, crocodiles, molluscs, etc.), but also comprises goats, sheep and cattle, as well as pigs (Lesur, 2013). However, there are no traces of sedentarism or storage. The domestic structures consist of large shallow pits. Domesticated species only play a limited role in an economy still rooted in ancestral Nilotic adaptation. In the following levels, populations became increasingly sedentary, as shown by increased investment in developing storage structures and a rise in the proportion of
<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1 – Localization of mentioned areas.
Fig. 1 – Localisation des lieux mentionnés.</figcaption></figure>
pigs. In the last level (level V), oval dwellings in raw earth, associated with silos, constitute the first Neolithic village in Egypt.

El Omari consists of several localities spaced out along the edge of a terrace overlooking the Wadi Hof, near Helouan. Only two out of seven localities were excavated (Debono and Mortensen, 1990). Like at Merimde, the evolution of the settlement shows the transition from mobile Neolithic groups, where domestic species (plants and animals) only play a secondary role, to a sedentary community where subsistence relies more heavily on agriculture and livestock (Wetterstrom, 1996b).

In the delta, this first Neolithic is in all probability present everywhere, although almost invisible. It is only revealed when opportunities arise, in very deep test pits cutting through the deposited silts. It is important to point out that the delta is a recent geological formation and its current morphology only formed during the 6th millennium (Stanley and Warne, 1993; Butzer, 2002), when the rising sea level reduced the slope of the rivers and favoured the accumulation of silts over an average thickness of 11 m. All that was left of the former topography were small sandy mounds called “Gezira”, which were flooded a little more each year by annual flows. Neolithic populations settled on the edges of these mounds and found refuge on top of them during flooding. The Neolithic levels of the pharaonic site of Saïs (Wilson et al., 2014) were unexpectedly discovered, in a 5 x 5 m test pit, down to the water table, where the deepest levels were clearly sealed by a sandy layer that could correspond to a phase of abandonment. The numerous pottery sherds point to contemporaneity with the final phases of Merimde Beni-Salâme. No domestic structure was identified. However, carbonised remains of fauna and flora show that the occupant of this settlement practised husbandry and farming. The faunal spectrum is dominated by pigs. We also find cattle, goats and sheep, as well as the donkey, which may have been used as a pack animal (for the domestication of the donkey in Africa, see Rossel et al., 2008).

There are thus few sites, and they are all in the northern part of the country; the southernmost site is located at the point of the delta. All show a progressive transition towards a production economy similar to the eastern model. The populations geographically nearest the Levantine corridor, in direct connection with the Sinai Peninsula, progressively incorporated domestic species into their semi-sedentary way of life. For millennia, they became accustomed to juggling with the complementary resources offered by an ecosystem blessed by the gods. First of all, as a supplement, then as an essential component, until domestic species became their economic staple.

However, the diffusion of farming in the Nile Valley had to respond to more complex adaptation processes. Indeed, we observe that the occupation of Neolithic settlements in the Fayum ceased suddenly around 4300 cal. BC, suggesting that cereal cultivation was only possible during the Neolithic under certain conditions (Holdaway and Wendrich, 2017, p. 220). Among the hypotheses advanced, recent data converge towards what

we will call the Mediterranean option, namely, that the plants cultivated at Fayum were winter crops dependent on rains from November to April. The retreat of Mediterranean rains towards the northern latitude marked the end of Neolithic farming at Fayum (Phillips et al., 2012). But agriculture continued successfully in the valley. In order to do so, it had to make drastic changes to adapt to a totally new environment: the rising and receding of the river in a hyper arid environment. The adaptation of eastern crops to flood-recession agriculture constituted considerable progress and undoubtedly steered Egypt towards an unexpected destiny in the following millennium.

### 3.3. The 5th millennium in the Eastern Sahara: around the oases

During the 6th millennium BC, the projectors were directed towards the deserts and the whole valley was left in the shade. It sprung back to life during the 5th millennium, when desert populations fleeing aridity settled in the oases spread out like an arc, to the west, in parallel to the Nile Valley: Baharia, Farafra (Barich et al., 2014), Dakhla (McDonald, 2008 and 2013), Kharga (Dachy et al., 2018). Nomadic pastors moved around, but also beyond, sources and artesian wells, in a territory delimited by water supplies, as shown by the presence of exogeneous products in the archaeological material. Domestic fauna constitutes a significant part of the assemblages. We find abundant goats, sheep and cattle, whereas the pig is restricted to wet and marshy zones. Do the emmer wheat seeds found at the site of KS43, in the south of the Douch Basin indicate contacts with cultivators from the valley (Briois et al., 2012), the seasonal movement of these valley peasants in the oases or autochtonous farming practices rendered possible on an occasional basis by exceptional rains (Barnard and Wendrich, 2008, p. 514)?

### 3.4. Upper Egypt: Badari

Apart from the site of El Tarif, with lithic material probably dating to the beginning of the 5th millennium (Ginter et al., 1979), the oldest 5th millennium human settlement in the valley, outside the delta, is in Middle Egypt, south of the present-day town of Asyut, in the region of Badari. It is there, to the north of Upper Egypt, that about a hundred cemeteries and settlement sites were found at the beginning of the 20th century (Brunton and Caton-Thompson, 1928), spread out over nearly 30 km along the eastern bank of the river. In this zone, the very narrow valley is dominated by the steep slopes of limestone massifs. The remains of the first Neolithic culture of Upper Egypt, the Badarian, were found on the edges of deep wadis. The culture is better illustrated by cemeteries than settlements as archaeologists were mainly interested in the former. A tomb is more attractive to archaeologists in that it constitutes an enclosed complex, that can be interpreted at first glance, with intact or well-preserved funerary material, in contrast with dwelling zones with fragmented material, almost always brutally reworked by
subsequent settlement. In this way, the region of Badari was settled until the end of the predynastic period and for more than a millennium, the original occupations were trampled by the following generations. In spite of good archaeological practices for that time, the dwelling areas did not receive the same attention as cemeteries. Only G. Caton-Thompson excavated El Hemamieh in stratiography (Brunton and Caton-Thompson, 1928, p. 69-78) and confirmed the pertinence of the succession of main phases determined by F. Petrie. In her Memoirs, she wrote: "Brunton's style of excavation with a large labour force [...] was not geared to humdrum digs of predynastic villages or encampments" (cited by Holmes, 1989, vol. 1, p. 95). Due to the lack of attention paid to the excavation of dwellings, we have very few data on domesticated species. Prospections carried out by D. Holmes and R. Friedman in the 1980s did not bring any new elements in this regard (Holmes and Friedman, 1994). We have to go further south, to the site of Maghar-Dendera, where a rescue excavation was carried out in 1987, to obtain the first faunal spectrum of a Badarian settlement site (Hendrickx et al., 2001, p. 91-102). The occupants were installed on a plateau above the Nile flood level and lived mainly from fishing, to a lesser extent from husbandry and the collection of molluscs. We have no indications on the flora. In his book, *The Badarian Civilisation*, G. Brunton evokes the presence of cereals, but with no further details (Brunton and Caton-Thompson, 1928, p. 40). W. Wetterstrom (1993) highlights the problematic nature of the botanical record (see also Cappers and Hamdy, 2007). Among the main elements of the lithic assemblage, the bifacial sickle blade and bifacial arrowheads are similar to those found at Fayum (Holmes, 1989, p. 106; Shirai, 2010, p. 307). From a chronological point of view, there are few radiometric dates. They place the Badarian at the very end of the 5th millennium, between 4400 and 4000 cal. BC (Hendrickx, 1999; Hendrickx et al., 2001, p. 89-90). The recent new assessment program of radiometric dates (Shortland and Bronk Ramsey, 2013) extends that timescale to the beginning of the 4th millennium, between 4400 and 3800 cal. BC (Dee et al., 2013).

The origin of these first farmers of Upper Egypt is a debate beyond the scope of this paper. Our focus naturally turns towards the west and south, towards regions from where mobile pottery-using people mainly came after the arid episode of the end of the 7th millennium (see Wengrow et al., 2014). Indeed, the material from the valley tombs presents clear similarities with goods from the cemeteries of final Neolithic desert populations, discovered in particular at Gebel Ramlah (Kobusiewicz et al., 2010), and dated between 4500 and 4400 cal. BC.

## CONCLUSION

The socio-economic transformations in Southwest Asia which led to the emergence of farming lasted for at least four or five millennia. Rather than a revolution, it

was a slow innovation process which took place at different times in different ecosystems (Zeder, 2011). North Africa and Egypt in particular followed another path. At the beginning of the Holocene, nomadic hunter-gatherers, who already used pottery, followed the movement of monsoon rains towards the north. For several millennia, these communities of African origin crossed the Eastern Sahara and undoubtedly entered the Nile Valley. There, they were in contact with populations with the same lifestyle based on the intensive exploitation of wild resources in a contained territory, but also with the same vision of social life and relationships between individuals. During this long period of time, local plants, including sorghum, were intensively used, and early experiments with animal husbandry very probably took place. We must keep in mind that everywhere in the world, the birth of domestication does not start when changes in bone morphologies are visible, but results from a long process involving the intensification of relationships between animals, plants and human societies (Vigne, 2011).

Things changed after the arid phase of the end of the 7th millennium when the spotlight focused on the Levant. The deltaic plain, at the crossroads between Africa and the East, became an actor in the anthropization of the landscape. The history of the first livestock in Egypt very probably lies under several meters of Delta silt.

Saharan hunter-gatherer-foragers added a few goats, sheep and cattle to their way of life, which followed them in their seasonal displacements. This new form of subsistence cannot be classified under the dualistic model of hunter-fisher-foragers vs agriculturalists-pastoralists. It gave way to the concept of "middle ground" or "low-level-food producing society" that developed around the Mediterranean during the Mid-Holocene (Smith, 2001; Phillips et al., 2012). This means that, although the domesticated species do indeed originate in South-Western Asia, the process of domestication as part of the technical, social and symbolic system (Vigne, 2011) is local, parallel but independent of the East.

The 5th millennium witnessed the widespread adoption of domesticated livestock and the gradual evolution of herding societies. The shift in the monsoonal summer rain belt towards the south entailed the aridification of the Sahara and the retreat of populations towards permanent water zones. From that time onwards, the saga was played out on different stages. In Egypt, the major change came from the introduction of domesticated plants in areas with a Mediterranean rainfall regime. For Fayum, it was a one-way story. Whereas, in the valley, the adaptation of these plants of Mediterranean origin to receding-water agriculture constituted the starting point of a new adventure. The adoption of a farming-based economy, which was the case in the 5th millennium and in particular after 3500 cal. BC, is not a mere technical adjustment, however intelligent it is. It indicates profound underlying social and spiritual transformations, some of which undoubtedly predated it (Cauvin, 2000). Egyptian civilisation is probably at an embryonic stage somewhere between these two main trends, which are different from a biological, technical, social and cultural
point of view; one formed according to an eastern model, the other immersed in the African universe of nomadic pastoralists. Is it a coincidence that the oldest known crops in the Nile Valley are situated to the north of Upper Egypt, at the junction of the north-south east-west routes?

In this respect, we need to address a final point, namely the role played by demography. Did successive waves of Saharan nomads boost Nilotic demography and contribute to the adoption and the development of agriculture? Or, on the contrary, was the transition to farming responsible for the demographic explosion recorded everywhere in the world when agriculture was adopted? This phenomenon has been called Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT; Bocquet-Appel and Bar-Yosef, 2008).

The succession of arid episodes during the course of the Holocene engendered a concentration of the population around permanent water zones and, consequently, a demographic increase in these places. But we cannot

speak of an influx. It is more of a progressive infusion that did not fundamentally destabilize ways of life. On the other hand, the transition towards agriculture, and the accompanying sedentarism, gave rise to a multiplication of sites corresponding to the NDT model. Recent studies (Boquet-Appel, 2008) have shown the major role played by sedentarism vs mobility in the increase in female fertility, and list the demographic increase as a consequence and not as one of the causes of the transition to agriculture. The return to a homeostatic balance, that is when the mortality rate counterbalances the natality rate, occurs in a second stage by the emergence of new pathogens linked to domestication and their diffusion in denser village units (Boquet-Appel, 2005, p. 18). The tuberculosis peak in the children's cemetery of the Predynastic site of Adaïma, in upper Egypt, is undoubtedly an illustration of this (Crubezy, 2017 and 2018). But we are already in the antechamber of pharaonic history.

## REFERENCES

AMMERMAN A. J., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. (1984) – *The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe*, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 176 p.

BARICH B., LUCARINI G., HAMDAN M., HASSAN F. (2014) – *From Lake to Sand, the Archaeology of the Farafra Oasis Western Desert, Egypt*, Sapienza University, Roma, 503 p.

BARNARD H., WENDRICH W. (2008) – *The Archaeology of Mobility, Old World and New World Nomadism*, Los Angeles, UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology (Cotsen Advanced Seminars, 4), 603 p.

BOQUET-APPEL J.-P. (2005) – La transition démographique néolithique, in J. Guilaine (ed.), *Populations néolithiques et environnement*, Paris, Errance (séminaire du Collège de France), p. 9-20.

BOQUET-APPEL J.-P. (2008) – The Neolithic Demographic Transition, Population Pressure and Cultural Change, *Comparative Civilisations Review*, 58, 58, article 6, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol58/iss58/6?utm_source=scholarsarchive.byu.edu%2fccr%2fvo158%2fiss58%2f6&utm_medium=pdf&utm_campaign=pdfcoverpages

BOQUET-APPEL J.-P., BAR-YOSEF O. (2008) – *The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences*, Dordrecht, Springer, 542 p.

BRASS M. (2017) – Early North African Cattle Domestication and its Ecological Setting: A Reassessment, *Journal of World Prehistory*, p. 1-35.

BRIOIS F., MIDANT-REYNES B., MARCHAND S., TRISTANT Y., WUTTMANN M., DE DAPPER M., LESUR J., NEWTON C. (2012) – Neolithic Occupation of an Artesian Spring: KS043 in the Kharga Oasis, Egypt, *Journal of Field Archaeology*, 37, 3, p. 178-191.

BROODBANK C., LUCARINI G. (2019) – The Dynamics of Mediterranean Africa, ca 9600-1000 BC, an Interpretative Synthesis

of Knowns and Unknowns, *Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology*, 32, 2, p. 195-267.

BRUNTON G., CATON-THOMPSON G. (1928) – *The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari*, London, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian (Research Account, 46), 126 p.

BUTZER K. (1998) – Late Quaternary Problems of the Egyptian Nile: Stratigraphy, Environments and Prehistory, *Paléorient*, 23, 2, p. 151-173.

BUTZER K. (2002) – Geoarchaeological Implications of Recent Research in the Nile Delta, in E. C. M. Van Den Brink and T. E. Levy (eds.), *Egypt and Levant, Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millenium BCE*, London, New York, Leicester University Press, p. 83-97.

CAPPERS R. (2013) – Modelling Cereal Selection in Neolithic Egypt: An Evaluation of Economic Criteria, in N. Shirai (ed.), *Neolithisation of Northeastern Africa*, Berlin, Ex Oriente (Studies in Early near Eastern, Production, Sustainability and Environment, 16), p. 109-120.

CAPPERS R., HAMDI R. (2007) – Plant Remains in the Agricultural Museum (Dokki, Cairo), in R. Cappers (ed.), *Fields of Change: Progress in African Archaeobotany*, Cham, Springer, p. 157-214.

CATON-THOMPSON G., GARDNER E. (1934) – *The Desert Fayum*, London, the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 167 p.

CAUVIN J. (2000) – *The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press New (New Studies in Archaeology), 259 p.

CHILDE V. G. (1949) – The Origin of Neolithic Culture in Northern Europe, *Antiquity*, 23, 91, p. 129-135.

CRUBÉZY É. (2017) – *Adaïma 3. Demographic and Epidemiological Transitions Before the Pharaohs*, Le Caire, Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 134 p.
CRUBÉZY É. (2018) – Évolution humaine, tuberculose et démo-
graphie : Adaïma et le phénomène « NDT », *Archéo-Nil*,
28, p. 31-42.

DACHY T. (2014) – Réflexions sur le stockage alimentaire en Égypte, de la préhistoire aux premières dynasties, *Archéo-Nil*, 24, p. 31-46.

DACHY T., BRIOIS F., MARCHAND S., MINOTTI M., LESUR J., WUTTMANN M. (2018) – Living in an Egyptian Oasis: Reconstruction of the Holocene Archaeological Sequence in Kharga, *African Archaeological Review*, 35, p. 531-566.

DEBONO F., MORTENSEN B. (1990) – *El Omari, a Neolithic Settlement and Other Sites in the Vicinity of Wadi Hof, Helwan*, Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, 82), 154 p.

DEE M., WENGROW D., SHORTLAND A., STEVENSON A., BROCK F., GIRDLAND FLINK L., BRONK RAMSEY C. (2013) – An Absolute Chronology for Early Egypt Using Radiocarbon Dating and Bayesian Statistical Modelling, *Proceedings of the Royal Society, A* 469: 20130395, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2013.0395

EIWANGER J. (1984) – *Merimde-Benisalame*, vol. 1 *Die Funde der Urschicht*, Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, 47), 127 p.

EIWANGER J. (1988) – *Merimde-Benisalame*, vol. 2 *Die Funde der Mittleren Merimde-Kultur*, Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, 51), 113 p.

EIWANGER J. (1992) – *Merimde-Benisalame*, vol. 3 *Die Funde der Jungeren Merimde-Kultur*, Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, 59), 143 p.

GINTER B., KOZLOWSKI J., DROBNIEWICZ B. (1979) – *Silexindus-trien von el Târif, ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung des prädy-nastischen Kulturen in Oberägypten*, Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, 26), 78 p.

GORING-MORRIS A. N. (1993) – From Oraging to Herding in the Negev and Sinai: The Early to Late Neolithic Transition, *Paléorient*, 19,1, p. 65-89.

GUILAINE J. (2000) – La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe : une hypothèse arythmique, *Zephyrus: revista de prehistoria y arqueologia*, 53-54, p. 267-272.

GUYOT F., LESUR J., MIDANT-REYNES B., PETIT C., ABDEL AZIM M. (2022) – Insights on the Late Prehistory of the Nile Delta, the Early and Late Neolithic settlement of tell el-Samara, *BIFAO*, 122, p. 309-400.

HENDRICKX S. (1999) – La chronologie de la préhistoire tar-dive et des débuts de l’histoire de l’Égypte, *Archéo-Nil*, 9, p. 13-81.

HENDRICKX S., MIDANT-REYNES B., VAN NEER W. (2001) – *Maghar Dendera 2 (Haute-Égypte). Un site d'occupation badarien*, Leuven, Leuven University Press (Egyptian Prehistory Monographs), 109 p.

HOLDAWAY S., WENDRICH W. (2017) – *The Desert Fayum Rein-vestigated, the Early Mid-Holocene Landscape of the Fayum North Shore, Egypt*, Los Angeles, UCLA Cotsen Insti-tute of Archaeology Press (Monumenta Archaeologica, 39), 266 p.

HOLDAWAY S., WENDRICH W., PHILLIPS R. (2010) – Identifying Low-Level Food Producers: Detecting Mobility from Lithics, *Antiquity*, 84, p. 185-194.

HOLDAWAY S., PHILLIPS R., EMMIT J., WENDRICH W. (2015) – The Fayum Revisited: Reconsidering the Role of the Neolithic Package, Fayum North Shore, Egypt, *Quaternary International*, 470, 29, p. 173-180.

HOLMES D. (1989) – *The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt*, Oxford, British Archeological Report (International Series, 469-Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology, 33), 496 p.

HOLMES D., FRIEDMAN R. (1994) – Survey and Test Excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt, *Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society*, 60, p. 105-142.

KOBUSIEWICZ M., KABACINSZI J., SCHILD R., IRISH J., GATTO M., WENDORF F. (2010) – *Gebel Ramlah, Final Neolithic Ceme-teries from the Western desert of Egypt*, Poznan, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 276 p.

KUPER R., KRÖPELIN S. (2006) – Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s Evolution, *Science*, 313, p. 803-807.

LESUR J. (2013) – Des animaux et des hommes en Égypte au Néolithique et Prédynastique : les apports de l’archéozoologie, *Archéo-Nil*, 23, p. 33-54.

LESUR J. (2017) – *Et la gazelle devint chèvre, pré-histoires africaines d’hommes et d’animaux*, Toulouse, Presses universitaires du Midi, Paris, Publications scientifiques du Museum national d’histoire naturelle, 205 p.

LINSEELE V. (2013) – Early Stock Keeping in Northeastern Africa: Near Eastern Influences and Local Developments, in N. Shirai (ed.), *Neolithisation of Northeastern Africa*, Berlin, Ex Oriente (Studies in Early Near Eastern, Production, Subsistence and Environment, 16), p. 97-108.

LINSEELE V., VAN NEER W., THYS S., PHILLIPS R., CAPPERS R., WENDRICH W., HOLDAWAY S. (2014) – New Archaeological Data from the Fayum “Neolithic” with a Critical Assessment of the Evidence for Early Stock Keeping in Egypt, *Plos One*, 9, 10, e108517, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108517

LINSEELE V., HOLDAWAY S., WENDRICH W. (2016) – The Earliest Phase of Introduction of Southwest Asian Domesticated Animals, New Evidence from the Fayum Oasis in Egypt and its Implications, *Quaternary International*, 30, p. 1-11.

LUCARINI G. (2014) – Exploitation and Management of Wild Grasses at Hidden Valley, Farafra Oasis, in B. Barich, G. Lucarini, M. Hamdan and F. Hassan (eds.) – *From Lake to Sand, the Archaeology of the Farafra Oasis Western Desert, Egypt*, Sapienza University, Roma, p. 345-366.

MCDONALD M. (2008) – Emerging Social Complexity in the Mid-Holocene Egyptian Western Desert: Site 270 and its Neighbours in Southeastern Dakhleh Oasis, in M. F. Wise-man and B. E. Parr (eds.), *The Oasis Papers*, vol. 2, Oxford, Oxbow (Dakhleh Oasis Project, 12), p. 83-106.

MCDONALD M. (2009) – Increased Sedentism in the Central Oases of the Egyptian Western Desert in the Early to Mid-Holocene: Evidence from the Peripheries, *African Archaeological Review*, 26, p. 3-43.
MCDONALD M. (2013) – Whence the Neolithic of Northeastern Africa? Evidence from the Central Western Desert of Egypt, in N. Shirai (ed.), *Neolithisation of Northeastern Africa*, Berlin, Ex Oriente (Studies in Early Near Eastern, Production, Subsistence and Environment, 16), p. 175-192.

MILLER N., WETTERSTRÖM W. (2000) - The Beginnings of Agriculture: The Ancient Near East and North Africa, in K. F. Kiel and K. C. Ornelas (eds.), *The Cambridge History of Food*, vol. 2, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 1123-1139, https://doi.org/10.1017/chol9780521402156.003

PHILLIPS R., HOLDAWAY S., WENDRICH W. (2012) – Mid-Holocene Occupation of Egypt and Global Climatic Change, *Quaternary International*, 251, p. 64-76.

RIEMER H. (2007) – When Hunters Started Herding: Pasto-Foragers and the Complexity of Holocene Economic Change in the Western Desert of Egypt, in M. Bolling, O. Bubenzer, R. Vogelsang and H. P. Wotzka (eds.), *Aridity, Change, and Conflict in Africa*, Köln, Heinrich Barth Institute, p. 105-144.

ROSSEL S., MARSHALL F., PETERS J., PILGRAM T., ADAMS M., O'CONNOR D. (2008) – Domestication of the Donkey: Timing, Processes and Indicators, PNSA, 105, 10, p. 3715-3720.

ROWLAND J., BERTINI L. (2016) – The Neolithic within the Context of Northern Egypt: New Results and Perspectives from Merimde Beni Salame, *Quaternary International*, 410, p. 160-172.

SANLAVILLE P. (1996) – Changements climatiques dans la région levantine à la fin du Pleistocène supérieur et au début de l’Holocène. Leurs relations avec l’évolution des sociétés humaines, *Paléorient*, 22, 1, p. 7-30.

SHIRAI N. (2010) – *The Archaeology of First Farmer-Herders in Egypt, New Insights into the Fayum Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic*, Leiden, Leiden University Press (Archaeological Studies Leiden University, 21), 388 p.

SHIRAI N. (2016) – Establishing a Neolithic Farming Life in Egypt: A View from the Lithic Study at Fayum Neolithic Sites, *Quaternary International*, 412, p. 22-35.

SHORTLAND A. J., BRONK RAMSEY C. (2013) – *Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt*, Oxford, Oxbow Book, 286 p.

SMITH B. D. (2001) – Low-Level-Food Production, *Journal of Archaeological Research*, 9, 1, p. 1-43.

STANLEY D. J., WARNE A. G. (1993) – Sea Level and Initiation of Predynastic Culture in the Nile Delta, *Nature*, 363, p. 435-438.

TIXIER J. (1963) – *Typologie de l’épipaléolithique du Maghreb, Paris, Arts et métiers graphiques (Mémoires du Centre de recherches anthropologiques, préhistoriques et ethnographiques, 2)*, 209 p.

VAN NEER W. (2004) – La pêche dans le Nil égyptien durant la préhistoire, *Archéo-Nil*, 4, p. 17-25.

VERMEERSCH P. (1978) – *Elkab II. L’Elkabien, Épipaléolithique de la vallée du Nil égyptien, Bruxelles, Fondation égyptologique reine Elisabeth (Publications du Comité des fouilles belges en Égypte)*, 157 p.

VERMEERSCH P. (2004) – L’homme et le Nil au Paléolithique final, *Archéo-Nil*, 4, p. 5-16.

VERMEERSCH P. M., VAN NEER W. (2015) – Nile Behaviour and Late Palaeolithic Humans in Upper Egypt during the Late Pleistocene, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 130, p. 155-167.

VERMEERSCH P., LINSEELE V., MARINOVA E., VAN NEER W., MOEYERSONS J., RETHEMEYER J. (2015) – Early and Middle Holocene Human Occupation of the Egyptian Eastern Desert: Sodmein Cave, *African Archaeological Review*, 32, p. 465-503.

VIGNE J.-D. (2011) – The Origins of Animal Domestication and Husbandry: A Major Change in the History of Humanity and the Biosphere, *C.R. Biologies*, 334, p. 171-181.

WENDORF F., SCHILD R. (2001) – *Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara, vol. 1 The Archaeology of Nabta Playa*, Dordrecht, New York, Kluwer Academic-Plenum Publishers, 707 p.

WENDORF F., SCHILD R. (2002) – The Role of Storage in the Neolithic of the Egyptian Sahara, in T. Lenssen-Erz and U. Tegmeir (eds.), *Tides of the Desert. Gezeiten der Wüste, Contribution to the Archaeology and Environmental History of Aafrica in Honor of Rudolph Kuper*, Köln, Heinrich Barth Institute (Africa Praehistorica, 14), p. 41-49.

WENDRICH W., TAYLOR R. E., SOUTHON J. (2009) – Dating Stratified Settlement Sites at Kom K and Kom W: Fifth Millenium BCE Radiocarbon Ages for the Fayum Neolithic, *Nuclear-Instruments and Methods in Physic Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms*, 268, 7-8, p. 999-1002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2009.10.083

WENGROW D., DEE M., FOSTER S., STEVENSON A., BRONK RAMSEY C. (2014) – Cultural Convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: A Prehistoric Perspective on Egypt’s Place in Africa, *Antiquity*, 88, p. 95-111.

WETTERSTROM W. (1993) – Foraging and Farming in Egypt. The transition from Hunting and Gathering to Horticulture in the Nile Valley, in T. Shaw, P. Sinclair, B. Andah and A. Okpoko (eds.), *The Archaeology of Africa. Food, Metals and Towns*, London, Routledge (One World Archaeology, 20), p. 165-226.

WETTERSTROM W. (1996a) – La chasse-cueillette et l’agriculture en Égypte : la transition de la chasse et de la cueillette à l’horticulture dans la vallée du Nil, *Archéo-Nil*, 6, p. 29-51.

WETTERSTROM W. (1996b) – L’apparition de l’agriculture en Égypte, *Archéo-Nil*, 6, p. 53-77.

WILSON P., GILBERT G., TASSIE J. (2014) – *Sais II, The Prehistoric Period at Sa el-Hagar*, London, Egypt Exploration Society (EES Excavation Memoir, 107), 280 p.

ZEDER M. (2011) – The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East, *Current Anthropology*, 52, 4, p. 221-235.

ZEDER M. (2018) – Domestication and Early Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, Diffusion and Impact, PNAS, 105, 33, p. 11597-11604.
**Béatrix MIDANT-REYNES**

UMR 5608-TRACES, université de Toulouse
Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France
bmidantreynes@yahoo.fr

**François BRIOIS**

EHESS

UMR 5608-TRACES, université de Toulouse
Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France
francois.briois@ehess.fr

**Tiphaine DACHY**

UMR 5608-TRACES, université de Toulouse
Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France
tiphaine.dachy@gmail.com
<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>
Du Big Dry à l'Holocène en Afrique de l'Est et au-delà
From the Big Dry to the Holocene in Eastern Africa and beyond

Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Toulouse (septembre 2019)
Textes publiés sous la direction de Joséphine Lesur, Jessie Cauliez, Lamya Khalidi, Laurent Bruxelles, Isabelle Crevecoeur, David Pleurdeau, Chantal Tribolo et François Bon

Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2023
(Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 20), p. 143-158

www.prehistoire.org

ISSN : 2263-3847 – ISBN : 2-913745-93-8

# Challenges and Opportunities during the Last Glacial Maximum at the Forest Margins in Central Africa

## Défis et opportunités aux abords de la forêt tropicale à la fin du Pléistocène en Afrique centrale

Els CORNELISSEN

**Abstract:** The environmental impact of The Big Dry (TBD) in Central Africa is mainly addressed with reference to the better documented dry phases of the Late Holocene. For its impact on the people, previous archaeological research shows the presence before, during and after TBD of two large technological traditions. The first bifacial tradition concerns the Lupemban and Tshitolian industries and the second that of microlithic industries on quartz. The characteristics of the latter correspond to the definition of miniaturization. This overview focuses on the Democratic Republic of Congo including the heartland of Lupemban and Tshitolian industries at the southwestern rim of the equatorial forest. However, at least for the Holocene, miniaturized industries in quartz are now documented here as well. They remain the only tradition found on dated Late Pleistocene and Holocene sites on the northwestern and northeastern edges of the forest.

Apart from the reassessment of lithic industries from older excavations, new perspectives on population history come from the reexamination of human remains of these excavations. Such a detailed analysis has shown that the Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer-fishers from Ishango have more in common with their contemporaries in and outside of Africa than with people living in the area today. This agrees well with genetic evidence for increasing diversity in the Late Pleistocene *Homo sapiens* population in Africa. Ancient DNA from two Holocene burial phases in the rock shelter of Shum Laka (NW Cameroon) has revealed their deep shared past with Central African forest hunter-gatherers.

**Keywords:** Central Africa, equatorial forest, Lupemban, Tshitolian, microlithic and miniaturized quartz industries, Ishango, Shum Laka.

**Résumé** : L'impact environnemental du Big Dry en Afrique centrale est principalement abordé en référence aux phases sèches les mieux documentées de l'Holocène supérieur. Les recherches archéologiques antérieures montrent la présence avant, pendant et après cette grande sécheresse de deux grandes traditions technologiques. La première tradition dite bifaciale concerne les industries lupembiennes et tshitioliennes ; et la seconde, celle des industries microlithiques sur quartz. Les caractéristiques de ces dernières correspondent à la définition de la miniaturisation. Ce survol se centre sur la République démocratique du Congo, pays où se situe à la lisière sud-ouest de la forêt équatoriale la région de référence pour la séquence du Lupembien au Tshitolien. Les industries miniaturisées sur quartz y sont aussi documentées pour l'Holocène. Elles restent en revanche la seule tradition trouvée sur les sites datés du Pléistocène supérieur et de l'Holocène aux lisières nord-ouest et nord-est de la forêt.

Outre la réévaluation des industries lithiques issues de fouilles plus anciennes, de nouvelles perspectives sur l'histoire de la population proviennent du réexamen des restes humains de ces fouilles. Une analyse détaillée a montré que les chasseurs-cueilleurs-pêcheurs du Pléistocène tardif d'Ishango ont plus en commun avec d'autres populations contemporaines en Afrique et ailleurs qu'avec celles vivant dans la région aujourd'hui. Cela concorde avec les résultats génétiques d'une diversité au sein de la population d'*Homo sapiens* au Pléistocène tardif en Afrique. Les analyses ADN de deux phases d'inhumation holocènes dans l'abri sous roche de Shum Laka au Cameroun ont révélé leur longue interaction dans le passé avec les chasseurs-cueilleurs de la forêt d'Afrique centrale.

**Mots-clés** : Afrique centrale, forêt équatoriale, Lupembien, Tshitolien, industrie sur quartz, microlithique, miniaturisation, Ishango, Shum Laka.