Volume I - All’Insegna del Giglio · Volume I SAND, STONES, AND BONES ... SAVINO DI LERNIA AND...

The Archaeology of Libyan Sahara

Volume I

SAND, STONES, AND BONESTHE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DEATH

IN THE WADI TANEZZUFT VALLEY (5000-2000 BP)

Edited bySAVINO DI LERNIA AND GIORGIO MANZI

Assembled by

FRANCESCA MERIGHI

A R I D Z O N E A R C H A E O L O G Y

M O N O G R A P H S 3

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA “LA SAPIENZA”

CENTRO INTERUNIVERSITARIO DI RICERCA SULLE CIVILTÀ EL’AMBIENTE DEL SAHARA ANTICO E DELLE ZONE ARIDE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ANTIQUITIES OF LIBYA

EDIZIONI ALL’INSEGNA DEL GIGLIO

2002

ARID ZONE ARCHAEOLOGY, MONOGRAPHS

Mario Liverani, Series Editor

This series collects original case studies dealing with ancient societies from the Late Pleistocenethroughout historical period. Focus is on cultural transformations, economic organisation, and

palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Area of interest is the arid belt stretching from North Africa(Sahara and Nile Valley, in particular) to the Arabic peninsula up to central Asia.

EDITORIAL BOARD

Mauro Cremaschi, Mario Liverani and Giorgio Manzi

ADVISORY BOARD

Guido Barbujani, University of FerraraIsabella Caneva, University of LecceAchilles Gautier, University of Gent

Yves Gauthier, Saint Martin Le VinouxAugustin Holl, University of Michigan

Mark Milburn, MoensheimKatharina Neumann, University of Frankfurt

François Paris, Setlas, TunisJohn Robb, University of Cambridge

John P. Wild, University of ManchesterDaniela Zampetti, University of Rome “La Sapienza”

LANGUAGE CONSULTANT

Maryanne Tafuri, Southampton

DRAWINGS

Leonarda De Ninno, Rome

TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS

Roberto Castelli, Rome

Volume pubblicato con contributo MIURMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (ex-MURST)

Cofinanziamento 2001 (n. 2001108755)Ambiente e Cultura. Sviluppi socio-politici in società complesse e l’origine dello stato nelle zone aride

ISBN 88-7814-281-6© 2002 – All’Insegna del Giglio s.a.s. - Via N. Piccinni 32, Firenze

www.edigiglio.itFinito di stampare nel dicembre 2002

– Firenze

The Archaeology of Libyan Sahara

Volume I

SAND, STONES, AND BONESTHE ARCHAEOLOGY OF DEATH

IN THE WADI TANEZZUFT VALLEY (5000-2000 BP)

Edited bySAVINO DI LERNIA AND GIORGIO MANZI

Assembled by

FRANCESCA MERIGHI

with contributions of

F. ALHAIQUE, B. ARRIGHETTI, E.S. AZZEBI, C. BABALINI,G.B. BERTOLANI, S.M. BORGOGNINI TARLI, E. BRUNER, S. BRUNI,

R. CASTELLI, C. CATTANEO, M. COTTINI, M. CREMASCHI,E. CRISTIANI, S. DI LERNIA, C. FORNAI, C. LEMORINI,J.A. LORENTE, M. LORENTE, A. LOVISOLO, G. MANZI,C. MARTINEZ-LABARGA, A. MASPERO †, F. MERIGHI,

A. PALOMBINI, P. PASSARELLO, B. REALE, F. RICCI, O. RICKARDS,M. ROTTOLI, S. SIVILLI, F. VECCHI

with foreword by M. LIVERANI and a comment by F. PARIS

A R I D Z O N E A R C H A E O L O G Y

M O N O G R A P H S 3

7

CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS AT UAN TABU FROM THE UPPER PLEISTOCENE TO THE LATE HOLOCENE

To the living and the dead of the Tanezzuft Valley,and to Alfio Maspero, unforgettable friend

8

ELENA A.A. GARCEA

TESTATA

C o n t e n t s

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIX

Foreword Mario Liverani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI

Commentary François Paris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII

Editorial Preface Savino di Lernia and Giorgio Manzi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXV

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIX

Chapter One The archaeology of death. Aspects, questions and problems inthe SaharaSavino di Lernia and Giorgio Manzi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter Two A territorial approach to the study area: landscape,geomorphology, and problemsMauro Cremaschi and Savino di Lernia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter Three A historical background: mortuary archaeology in the Saharabetween colonialism and modern researchSandra Sivilli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter Four A regional perspective: the surveysSavino di Lernia, Giovanni B. Bertolani, Roberto Castelli,Francesca Merighi and Augusto Palombini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter Five From regions to sites: the excavationsSavino di Lernia, Francesca Merighi, Francesca Ricci andSandra Sivilli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter Six Textiles and leather: raw materials and manufactureAlfio Maspero†, Silvia Bruni, Cristina Cattaneoand Annalisa Lovisolo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Chapter Seven Some information on archaeobotanical remainsMichela Cottini and Mauro Rottoli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Chapter Eight Archaeozoology of the funerary structuresFrancesca Alhaique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Chapter Nine Stones, bones and other grave goods in a techno-functionalperspectiveEmanuela Cristiani and Cristina Lemorini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Chapter Ten The human skeletal remains: inventory and inferencesFrancesca Ricci, Giorgio Manzi, Cinzia Fornai, Francesco Vecchiand Pietro Passarello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Chapter Eleven Faces from the ancient Fezzan: a geometric morphometric approachEmiliano Bruner, Francesca Ricci and Giorgio Manzi . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Chapter Twelve Skeletal markers of stress at Site 96/129Belinda Arrighetti, Bruna Reale, Francesca Ricci and SilvanaM. Borgognini Tarli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Chapter Thirteen Ancient DNA studies: first resultsCarla Babalini, Cristina Martínez-Labarga, Jose Antonio Lorente,Miguel Lorente and Olga Rickards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

TESTATA

Chapter Fourteen Cultural variability and human trajectories in later prehistoryof the Wadi TanezzuftSavino di Lernia, Giorgio Manzi and Francesca Merighi . . . . . . . . 281

Appendix I Description of the structures found during the Intensive SurveyFrancesca Merighi, Roberto Castelli and Augusto Palombini . . . . . 303

Appendix II Photographic inventory of human remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Colour Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

Arabic Summary Ebrahim Saleh Azzebi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

XI

CONTRIBUTORS

C o n t r i b u t o r s

Francesca Alhaique Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo, Università degli Studi diRoma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

Belinda Arrighetti Dipartimento di Etologia, Ecologia ed Evoluzione, Università di Pisa, ViaA.Volta 6, 56126 Pisa, Italy

Ebrahim Saleh Azzebi Department of the Antiquities, Tripoli, Libya

Carla Babalini Centro di Antropologia Molecolare per lo studio del Dna antico, Diparti-mento di Biologia, Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Via dellaRicerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Rome, Italy

Giovanni B. Bertolani Via Pietro Venturi 6, 00149 Rome, Italy

Silvana M. Borgognini Tarli Dipartimento di Etologia, Ecologia ed Evoluzione, Università di Pisa, ViaA.Volta 6, 56126 Pisa, Italy

Emiliano Bruner Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo, Università degli Studi diRoma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

Silvia Bruni Dipartimento di Chimica Inorganica, Metallorganica e Analitica, Universi-tà degli Studi di Milano, Via G. Venezian 21, 20133 Milan, Italy

Roberto Castelli Via Tor Paluzzi 39, 00040 Albano Laziale (RM), Italy

Cristina Cattaneo Laboratorio di Antropologia ed Odontologia Forense, Istituto di MedicinaLegale, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 37, 20133 Milan,Italy

Michela Cottini Laboratorio di Archeobiologia dei Musei Civici di Como, Piazza Medaglied’Oro 1, 22100 Como, Italy

Mauro Cremaschi CNR, Centro Geodinamica Alpina e Quaternaria, Via Mangiagalli 34, 23100Milan, Italy

Emanuela Cristiani Scuola di Specializzazione in Archeologia, Università degli Studi di Roma“La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

Savino di Lernia Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche, Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’An-tichità, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Via Palestro 63, 00185Rome, Italy, [email protected]

Cinzia Fornai Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo, Università degli Studi diRoma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

Cristina Lemorini Museo delle Origini, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Piazza-le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

Jose A. Lorente Departamento de Medicina Legal, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad deGranada, España

Miguel Lorente Departamento de Medicina Legal, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad deGranada, España

Annalisa Lovisolo Laboratorio di Antropologia ed Odontologia Forense, Istituto di MedicinaLegale, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 37, 20133 Milan,Italy

Giorgio Manzi Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo, Università degli Studi di Roma “LaSapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy, [email protected]

XII

CONTRIBUTORS

Cristina Martínez-Labarga Centro di Antropologia Molecolare per lo studio del Dna antico, Diparti-mento di Biologia, Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Via dellaRicerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Rome, Italy

Alfio Maspero† Laboratorio di Archeobiologia dei Musei Civici di Como, Piazza Medaglied’Oro 1, 22100 Como, Italy

Francesca Merighi Dottorato di Ricerca in Archeologia (Preistoria), Università degli Studi diRoma “La Sapienza”, Via Palestro 63, 00185 Rome, Italy

Augusto Palombini Dottorato di Ricerca in Africanistica, Laboratorio di Archeologia, IstitutoUniversitario Orientale di Napoli, Piazza S. Domenico Maggiore 14, 80134Naples, Italy

Pietro Passarello Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo, Università degli Studi diRoma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

Bruna Reale Dipartimento di Etologia, Ecologia ed Evoluzione, Università di Pisa, ViaA.Volta 6, 56126 Pisa, Italy

Francesca Ricci Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo, Università degli Studi diRoma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

Olga Rickards Centro di Antropologia Molecolare per lo studio del Dna antico, Diparti-mento di Biologia, Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Via dellaRicerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Rome, Italy

Mauro Rottoli Laboratorio di Archeobiologia dei Musei Civici di Como, Piazza Medaglied’Oro 1, 22100 Como, Italy

Sandra Sivilli Via dei Gracchi 278, 00192 Rome, Italy

Francesco Vecchi Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo, Università degli Studi diRoma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

XIII

ILLUSTRATIONS

I l l u s t r a t i o n s

Figure 1.1, p. 2 – Scattered human remains of Middle Pas-toral age at Site 00/13, located in the Erg Titersin.

Figure 1.2, p. 3 – Landsat image of the area licensed to theItalo-Libyan Joint Mission of the University of Rome“La Sapienza”.

Figure 1.3, p. 4 – The discovery in 1958 of the mummi-fied child at Uan Muhuggiag, by Angelo Pasa.

Figure 1.4, p. 5 – Ceramic container deposed as grave goodsin the burial of an adult male at In Habeter III(Messak Settafet).

Figure 2.1, p. 8 – Distribution of ancient populations ofLibya, according to Herodotus, in the interpreta-tion by Fantoli (1933).

Figure 2.2, p. 9 – Geological sketch of the Tanezzuft Val-ley and neighbouring regions.

Figure 2.3, p. 10 – Old excavations at the necropolis ofCocaman, near Ghat.

Figure 2.4, p. 10 – The Acacus scarp, and ephemeral pas-tures in the Tanezzuft Valley.

Figure 2.5, p. 11 – Satellite image of the Tanezzuft Valleyand Acacus massif.

Figure 2.6, p. 12 – Geomorphological map of WadiTanezzuft, with location of main regions.

Figure 2.7, p. 13 – View of a megalith site in dune envi-ronment.

Figure 2.8, p. 14 – The paleochannels of the Gara Oudaplaya.

Figure 3.1, p. 19 – Burial chamber typology (after Pace etal. 1951).

Figure 3.2, p. 23 – Distribution map of principal sites withstone structures in Eastern Africa and in central-east-ern Sahara, with relative 14C dates (expressed inhundreds of years).

Figure 3.3, p. 24 – Radiocarbon dates from Niger, by lati-tude (after A. Smith 2000, modified).

Figure 4.1, pp. 28-29 – Main architectural types locatedin the Tanezzuft Valley.

Figure 4.2, p. 32 – Mapping Site T32 with a differentialGPS.

Figure 4.3, p. 33 – The keyhole monument located on theMesa I, Eastern Tanezzuft area.

Figure 4.4, p. 36 – Distribution map of architectural typesin the Tanezzuft Valley.

Figure 4.5, p. 37 – View of Site 00/359, the only axle-shaped monument of the Tanezzuft Valley.

Figure 4.6, p. 38 – Polished stone artefacts from Site00/359.

Figure 4.7, p. 39 – 3D models of site quantity, accordingto size, in the Tanezzuft Valley, based on number offunerary sites in a 2’ squared grid.

Figure 4.8, p. 40 – Distribution map of stone tumuli in theTanezzuft, by size.

Figure 4.9, p. 41 – Factor analysis of the architectural fea-tures (source: extensive survey database).

Figure 4.10, p. 41 – Visualisation of structure clusteringby means of nearest neighbour analysis.

Figure 4.11, p. 42 – A stone platform on the Pleistoceneterrace (Site 01/69), bordering the Tanezzuft allu-vial plain.

Figure 4.12, p. 43 – Different density of funerary sites andsettlements in the Late Pastoral, according to theirgeographical distribution.

Figure 4.13, p. 45 – Plot of settlements and cemeteries fre-quencies’ relationships.

Figure 4.14, p. 46 – The corridor of Site 00/98, in the ErgTitersin.

Figure 4.15, p. 47 – Distribution map of the structureslocated in the Erg Titersin (Site 00/98).

Figure 4.16, p. 49 – Re-utilisation of a prehistoric monu-ment during Islamic times (Site 91).

Figure 4.17, p. 49 – View of Site 01/53.Figure 4.18, p. 51 – Distribution map of the structures

located in Western Tanezzuft.Figure 4.19, p. 52 – View of the isolated flatirons of the

Eastern Tanezzuft area.Figure 4.20, p. 52 – The crescent located in the Eastern

Tanezzuft area, located on the slope, east of Mesa I.Figure 4.21, p. 53 – Distribution map of the structures

located in Eastern Tanezzuft, with indication of the‘mesas’.

Figure 4.22, p. 56 – The Wadi In Aghelachem, seen fromthe flatiron top.

Figure 4.23, p. 57 – Distribution map of the structureslocated in the Wadi In Aghelachem.

Figure 4.24, p. 58 – Garamantian ceramics from the WadiIn Aghelachem area.

Figure 4.25, p. 61 – Seriation of tumuli’ stones of the West-ern (above) and Eastern Tanezzuft (below) samples.

Figure 4.26, p. 62 – Thiessen-Voronoi polygons applied tothe tumuli of the Western Tanezzuft sample.

Figure 4.27, p. 63 – Thiessen-Voronoi polygons applied tothe tumuli of the Eastern Tanezzuft sample.

Figure 4.28, p. 64 – Combining the analyses: aggregationof Western Tanezzuft stone structures.

Figure 4.29, p. 66 – Combining the analyses: aggregationof Eastern Tanezzuft stone structures.

Figure 5.1, p. 70 – Recording a stone platform at Site96/129.

Figure 5.2, p. 71 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98: photographicmosaic of Tumulus 1.

Figure 5.3, p. 72 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98: view of Tumu-lus 2 from north, before the excavation. The ‘right’arm of T1 is visible in the background.

Figure 5.4, p. 73 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98, Tumulus 2: a)the planimetry of the excavation and the squarenumbering; b) the stratigraphic section of the struc-ture, west/east oriented.

Figure 5.5, p. 73 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98: view of Tumu-lus 4 from south-west, before the excavation.

Figure 5.6, p. 74 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98, Tumulus 4: a)the planimetry of the excavation and the squarenumbering; b) the stratigraphic section of the struc-ture, north-west/south-east oriented.

Figure 5.7, p. 75 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98, Tumulus 4:orthorectification of the photographic mapping ofthe stone platform (Layer 4).

Figure 5.8, p. 76 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98, Tumulus 4:drawing of H1.

Figure 5.9, p. 76 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98, Tumulus 4: the‘pre-dynastic’ knife found under the left arm of H1.

Figure 5.10, p. 77 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98: view of Tu-mulus 6 from south-east, before the excavation.

Figure 5.11, p. 77 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98, Tumulus 6: a)the planimetry of the excavation and the squarenumbering; b) the stratigraphic section of the struc-ture, east/west oriented.

Figure 5.12, p. 79 – Tanezzuft Transect: orthorectificationof the Stone Platform T43, before the excavation.

XIV

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 5.13, p. 80 – Tanezzuft Transect, Stone PlatformT43: a) the planimetry of the excavation and thesquare numbering; b) the prospect and stratigraphicsequence of the structure, east/west oriented.

Figure 5.14, p. 81 – Tanezzuft Transect, Stone PlatformT43: zenithal view of the platform (Layer 5).

Figure 5.15, p. 82 – Tanezzuft Transect, Stone PlatformT43: drawing of H1.

Figure 5.16, p. 83 – Tanezzuft Transect, Stone PlatformT43: distribution and stratigraphic features of theceramic fragments belonging to a single, Late Pas-toral vessel.

Figure 5.17, p. 83 – Tanezzuft Transect, Stone PlatformT43: the restored Late Pastoral vessel.

Figure 5.18, p. 84 – Tanezzuft Transect, Stone Platform T43:shape and profile of the restored Late Pastoral vessel.

Figure 5.19, p. 85 – Lithic artefacts from different burials.Figure 5.20, p. 86 – Tanezzuft Transect: view of Tumulus 6

from east, before the excavation.Figure 5.21, p. 86 – Tanezzuft Transect, Tumulus 6: a) the

planimetry of the excavation and the square num-bering; b) the prospect and stratigraphic sequenceof the structure, north/south oriented.

Figure 5.22, p. 87 – Tanezzuft Transect, Tumulus 6: draw-ing of H1.

Figure 5.23, p. 88 – Tanezzuft Transect: photographicmosaic of Site 00/195, before the excavation.

Figure 5.24, p. 89 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: a) theplanimetry of the excavation and the square num-bering; b) the prospect and stratigraphic sequenceof the structure, east/west oriented.

Figure 5.25, p. 90 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: ze-nithal view of the platform (Layer 3). On the east-ern part, it is possible to see the ancient plundering.

Figure 5.26, p. 90 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: draw-ing of H1.

Figure 5.27, p. 91 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: dis-tribution of ceramic fragments scattered over thestone platform covering the burial pit.

Figure 5.28, p. 91 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: therestored vessel.

Figure 5.29, p. 92 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: shapeand profile of the restored vessel.

Figure 5.30, p. 93 – Tanezzuft Transect: photographicmosaic of Site 00/195bis, before the excavation.

Figure 5.31, p. 94 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195bis: a)the planimetry of the excavation and the squarenumbering; b) the prospect and stratigraphic se-quence of the structure, north/south oriented.

Figure 5.32, p. 96 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195bis:drawing of H1.

Figure 5.33, p. 96 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195bis:particular of the arms of individual H1 with long,intertwined rows of ostrich eggshell beads over theright humerus.

Figure 5.34, p. 97 –Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195bis: theburial of H1, with the indication of the bone frag-ments of equid.

Figure 5.35, p. 98 – In Aghelachem, view of Tumulus 1 fromnorth-west, at the beginning of the excavations.

Figure 5.36, p. 99 – In Aghelachem, Tumulus 1: a) theplanimetry of the excavation and the square num-bering; b) the prospect and stratigraphic sequenceof the structure, west/east oriented.

Figure 5.37, p. 100 – In Aghelachem, Tumulus 1: pano-ramic view of Layer 3.

Figure 5.38, p. 100 – In Aghelachem, Tumulus 1: recon-struction of the stone platform (Layer 3 bottom),related to the external stone ring (Layer 5) and thecentral burial lithic cist (Layer 4).

Figure 5.39, p. 101 – In Aghelachem, Tumulus 1: a) ze-nithal view of the lithic cist (Layer 4) before its dis-mantling; b) the corpse of H1 inside the cist.

Figure 5.40, p. 101 – In Aghelachem, Tumulus 1: drawingof H1.

Figure 5.41, p. 102 – In Aghelachem, Tumulus 1: the land-scape at the end of the excavations. The lithic cist,the stone ring and parts of the platform are still vis-ible.

Figure 5.42, p. 103 – In Aghelachem, panoramic view ofthe monumental Site 97/5 (‘Royal Tumulus’), fromwest.

Figure 5.43, p. 104 – In Aghelachem, map of the monu-mental Site 97/5, ‘Royal Tumulus’.

Figure 5.44, p. 105 – In Aghelachem, transversal prospectof the Site 97/5, ‘Royal Tumulus’ and facing fea-tures, from east to west.

Figure 5.45, p. 107 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’: prospect and stratigraphic sequence of theMain Structure, east/west oriented.

Figure 5.46, p. 108 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’: bronze bracelet found near the left scapulaof individual H1.

Figure 5.47, p. 109 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’: drawing of H2.

Figure 5.48, p. 109 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’: the bronze bracelet with iron rivets afterthe restoration.

Figure 5.49, p. 109 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’: wheel-made vase found in associationwith individual H2.

Figure 5.50, p. 110 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’: shape and profile of the wheel-made vasefound in association with individual H2.

Figure 5.51, p. 110 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’: view of U-Structure 2 from east, beforethe excavation.

Figure 5.52, p. 111 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’, U-Structure 2: a) the planimetry of theexcavation and the square numbering; b) the strati-graphic section.

Figure 5.53, p. 112 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘Royal Tu-mulus’: particular of the inner structure of U-Struc-ture 2.

Figure 5.54, p. 112 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘RoyalTumulus’: oblique view of U-Structure 2 after theexcavation (Layers 7 and 8), seen from east.

Figure 5.55, p. 113 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘Royal Tu-mulus’: the stratigraphic section of SF 9, Group 1.

Figure 5.56, p. 114 – In Aghelachem, Site RT2: zenithalphotomosaic, before the excavation.

Figure 5.57, p. 115 – In Aghelachem, Site RT2: the strati-graphic section of SF 3, north-west/south-east ori-ented.

Figure 5.58, p. 117 – Site 96/129: planimetry of the ne-cropolis with indication of the excavated structures.

Figure 5.59, p. 119 – Site 96/129: view of Tumuli 1 and 2from north-east, before the excavation.

Figure 5.60, p. 120 – Site 96/129, Tumuli 1 and 2: above,3D view of Tumuli 1 and 2; below, the square num-bering with the location of the A-B section.

Figure 5.61, p. 121 – Site 96/129, Tumuli 1 and 2: pros-pect and stratigraphic sequence of the structures,north-west/south-east oriented.

Figure 5.62, p. 121 – Site 96/129, Tumuli 1 and 2: view ofthe burial pits at the end of excavations.

Figure 5.63, p. 122 – Site 96/129, Tumuli 1 and 2: sche-matic 3D view of burials’ location and disposition.

Figure 5.64, p. 122 – Site 96/129: Tumulus 1: the stoneplatform covering the burial pit (2) of individual H8.

XV

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 5.65, p. 123 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 1: drawing ofH1.

Figure 5.66, p. 124 – Bone industry from different sites.Figure 5.67, p. 125 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 1: drawing of

H3.Figure 5.68, p. 125 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 1: drawing of

H5.Figure 5.69, p. 126 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 1: detail of the

multiple accumulation of human corpses in Pit 1(H6a, b, and c).

Figure 5.70, p. 127 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 1: drawing ofthe secondary deposition of three individuals, fromthe highest (H6a) to the lowest (H6c).




Figure 5.74, p. 130 – Beads made of different raw materi-als.

Figure 5.75, p. 131 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 2: drawing ofH2a and H3.


Figure 5.77, p. 132 – Rims and shapes of potsherds foundat Site 96/129.

Figure 5.78, p. 134 – Ceramic decoration from potsherdsfound at Site 96/129.

Figure 5.79, pp. 136-137 – Site 96/129, Tumuli 1 and 2,schematic reconstruction of the main phases of struc-ture life: a) horizontal distribution of burials accord-ing to hypothesised phasing; b) vertical reading ofthe tumuli’ evolution, highlighting the aggradingnature of the monuments.

Figure 5.80, p. 138 – Site 96/129: view of Tumulus 3 andStructure 3bis from north-east, before the excava-tion.

Figure 5.81, p. 139 – Site 96/129, Tumuli 3 and Structure3bis: above) 3D view of stone structures; below)the square numbering with the location of the A-A’section.

Figure 5.82, p. 140 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 3 and Struc-ture 3bis: the prospect and the stratigraphic sequenceof the structures, west/east oriented.

Figure 5.83, p. 141 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 3 and Struc-ture 3bis: zenithal view of the underlying platform(Layer 4).



Figure 5.86, p. 143 – Site 96/129, Structure T3bis: ze-nithal view of the structure after the removal of theplatform. It is visible the central stone ring encir-cling the burial pit.

Figure 5.87, p. 143 – Site 96/129, Structure T3bis: draw-ing of H1.

Figure 5.88, p. 145 – 96/129, Tumuli 3 and Structure 3bis.At the end of the excavations, the pits with an adultmale (T3 H2) and a young female (T3bis H1) arevisible, suggesting a possible ritual relationship.

Figure 5.89, p. 145 – Site 96/129: view of Tumulus 4 fromnorth-east, before the excavation.

Figure 5.90, p. 146 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 4: a) the plan-imetry of the excavation and the square number-ing; b) stratigraphic section of the structure, west/east oriented.


Figure 5.92, p. 148 – Site 96/129: view of Tumulus 10 andStone Ring 10bis from south-east, before the exca-vation.

Figure 5.93, p. 149 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 10 and StoneRing 10bis: a) the planimetry of the excavation andsquare numbering; b) the prospect and stratigraphicsequence of the structures, south-west/north-eastoriented.

Figure 5.94, p. 150 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 10: zenithalview of the underlying platform (Layer 6).

Figure 5.95, p. 151 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 10: drawing ofH1. A part of the underlying skeleton (H2) has beenalso represented.


Figure 5.97, p. 152 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 10: the deco-rated bowl associated with H2.


Figure 5.99, p. 153 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 10. Shape andprofile of the ceramic container associated with H2.

Figure 5.100, p. 154 – Site 96/129: zenithal view of Struc-ture 2, before the excavation.

Figure 5.101, p. 155 – Site 96/129, Structure 2: a) theplanimetry of the excavation; b) stratigraphic sec-tion of the structure, west/east oriented.

Figure 5.102, p. 156 – Site 96/129, Structure 2: drawingof H1.

Figure 6.1, p. 159 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 3: a) plant re-mains contained in a leather object, a ‘ knapsack’ ormore probably a ‘pillow’. It was deposed near theface of H1; b) leather remains of the container(stitching is visible on the leather).

Figure 6.2, p. 159 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 3: stitching on aleather fragment with three weathered stitches madeof a thin flat thong (diameter of some 1 mm).

Figure 6.3, p. 160 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 10: piece of aleather artefact. The biggest fragment shows stitch-ing on its lower edge.

Figure 6.4, p. 161 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 10: edge with asection of a stitch showing the thread and its pas-sage; it seems to sew up a hem. The thread is some0.5 mm wide and it is extremely weathered.

Figure 6.5, p. 162 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site T01, underMesa I. Camel hairs (Camelus dromedarius L.): a)graph showing the measurements of the fibres of abundle of hairs (c) that have the size range of camelhairs; b) graph showing the dimensions of the skinhairs with short plaits found in the ‘Royal Tumu-lus’; c) little bundle of camel hairs form the coarsefabric found at Site T01, under Mesa I, which hadbeen spun in the threads as it was attached to thecoarser hairs used to make the textile.

Figure 6.6, p. 163 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site T01, underMesa I: lack of relief of the scales in camel hairs(Camelus dromedarius L.).

Figure 6.7, p. 163 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: or-ganic materials from the filling of burial H1 (pit L6).

Figure 6.8, p. 164 –Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: a) frag-ment of the thin rope (diameter about 5 mm) foundin the filling of the burial pit (L6); b) the two holesof a stitch: where the sewing thread is absent thestitching can be detected thank to the presence ofparallel rows of little holes.

Figure 6.9, p. 165 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195: thecord, found under the chin, is made of thin leatherstrips.

Figure 6.10, p. 165 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195:little piece of about 2 cm of worked leather withparallel rows of little cuts (about 3 mm) on its sur-face.

XVI

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 6.11, p. 166 – Wadi In Aghelachem, ‘Royal Tumu-lus’: fragment of skin belonged to a wild animal ofthe order of arctyodactila, probably Bovidae.

Figure 6.12, p. 166 – Wadi In Aghelachem, ‘Royal Tumu-lus’: skin with hairs braided in short plaits.

Figure 6.13, p. 166 – Wadi In Aghelachem, ‘Royal Tumu-lus’: sheepskin or goatskin.

Figure 6.14, p. 166 – Wadi In Aghelachem, ‘Royal Tumu-lus’.

Figure 6.15, p. 166 – Wadi In Aghelachem, ‘Royal Tumu-lus’: distinct relief of the scale pattern with coronal,imbricate geometry of the cuticle in a non-pigmentedhair with round cross section; it is probably a sheephair.

Figure 6.16, p. 167 – Wadi In Aghelachem, ‘Royal Tumu-lus’, different wool textiles.

Figure 7.1, p. 171 – Poaceae indet. (Aristida-type, left: cary-opses, lenght 7 mm) from Tumulus 2, Erg Titersin.

Figure 7.2, p. 171 – Indet. (Libya 8 and Libya 11) fruits (?)from a woody plant (Tanezzuft Transect, 00/195Layer 6).

Figure 7.3, p. 172 – Two wooden shoe soles made ofFaidherbia albida from Site 00/195, TanezzuftTransect.

Figure 7.4, p. 173 – Spikelet of Sorghum sp. from Site 00/195bis, Tanezzuft Transect.

Figure 7.5, p. 176 – Panicoideae – Type 1 (Panicum sp.?)spikelets, from the ‘Royal Tumulus’.

Figure 7.6, p. 178 – Date stone (Phoenix dactylifera) fromthe ‘Royal Tumulus’, at Wadi In Aghelachem.

Figure 8.1, p. 184 – Site 96/129, Tumulus 10: distal femurfragment tentatively attributed to a youngOrycteropus afer.

Figure 8.2, p. 184 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195bis:distal femur fragment attributed to Equus sp.; a)lateral posterior view, b) medial view.

Figure 8.3, p. 185 – Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195bis:Equus distal femur in situ during the excavation ofthe burial.

Figure 8.4, p. 187 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘Royal Tu-mulus’: a) small carnivore coprolite; b) raptor pel-let with hair and microfaunal bones visible inside.

Figure 8.5, p. 187 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘Royal Tu-mulus’: Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) byskeletal element for the Small Ungulates

Figure 8.6, p. 188 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, ‘Royal Tu-mulus’: distal humerus of Gazella dorcas with cutmarks.

Figure 8.7, p. 190 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, Small Fea-ture 25: Standardised Minimum Number of Ele-ments (%MNE) for Gazella dorcas and ovicaprines.

Figure 8.8, p. 190 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5, Small Fea-tures Group 1: Minimum Number of Individuals(MNI) by skeletal element for the Small Ungulates.




Figure 9.1, p. 201 – 1) Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195bisH1; 2) Site 96/129, T2 H2; 3) Site 96/129, T2 H1:flint projectile points without any diagnostic use-wear. a) (referring to tool n. 2): ‘glossy appearance’alteration of the microsurface; 4) Site 96/129, T2H3: quartz end-scraper showing macro and microabrasions (b) from scraping medium hard material;the ventral surface of the end-scraper shows red

micro spots (c) which are not pigments residues butoxide naturally filling the micro fractures of thequartz matrix; 5) Site 96/129, T1 H5: flint scrapershowing macro-traces (d) from cutting soft mate-rial.

Figure 9.2, p. 202 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98, Tumulus 4:quartzite ‘pre-dynastic’ knife showing macro (a) andmicro use-wear (b, c, d) from cutting, scraping,smoothing medium hard materials.

Figure 9.3, p. 204 – Site 96/129, T1 H1: awl with flat-tened section.

Figure 9.4, p. 205 – 1-2) Tanezzuft Transect, Site 00/195,H1 and Site 96/129, T1 H6, square B4, Layer 4.Pointed and completely well finished artefacts on asmall ungulate long bone: (a) distal end of 00/195H1. The tip has been finished (re-shaped) by abra-sion: note quadrangular section of the tip caused bynon-rotating discontinuous movement of the abra-sion; (b) Site 00/195 H1: traces of manufacture leftby a lithic tool; (c) gnawing marks; (d) polish, stria-tions and depressions are indicative of a ‘linear’ con-tact with soft material (150×).

Figure 9.5, p. 206 – Site 96/129, T1 H6, square B4, Layer4: pointed artefact on small ungulate bone: (a) tracesof manufacture left by a lithic tool; (b) gnawingmarks.

Figure 9.6, p. 207 – Site 96/129, T2, carnelian beads: (a)SEM photo of chipping negatives; (b) macro-photoof grinding traces on the surface; (c) detachmentson the outer edges of the perforation; (d) drillingstriations on the internal walls; (e) internal walls ofan experimental perforation of hard stone using alithic drill tip and abrasives; (f) experimental perfo-ration on hard stone using a bow drill. Note thedetachments on the outer edges of the perforation;(g) polish on the surfaces of a carnelian bead (150×);(h) polish on the outer edges of the hole of acarnelian bead (150×).

Figure 9.7, p. 208 – Carnelian beads from different sites.Site 96/129, Tumulus 2: (a) Preferential polish onthe outer edges of the hole due to prolonged con-tact with the suspension system (150×). Site 00/195:(b-c) macro-photo of traces connected with chip-ping activity; (d-e) grinding striations on carnelianbeads. Site 00/195 and 97/5 ‘RT’: (f-g) cylindricalcross-section of the holes and smoothness of perfo-ration walls probably produced with a metallic drilltip. Site 00/195: (h) micro-photo of the outer edgesthe hole of the bead.

Figure 9.8, p. 210 – Soft stone beads from Site 96/129.Tumulus 10: (a-b) negatives of detachments not-com-pletely effaced by successive phases of finishing andconnected to a phase of ‘chipping’ of the roughout.Tumulus 1: (c) sawing traces localised on a smallarea of the outer edge of the bead. Tumulus 10 andTumulus 1: (d-e-f) traces of grinding of roughout,carried out by abrasion with stone or other abrasivematerial. Tumulus 10: (g) localised wear referred toa prolonged suspension.

Figure 9.9, p. 211 – Ostrich eggshell beads from differentsites. Tanezzuft Transect, Tumulus 6: (a) macro-photoof traces connected with chipping activity. Site 96/129, Tumulus 2: (b) detachments on the edges ofthe perforation. (c) experimental production of de-tachments on the outer edges of perforation; (d)Polishing: traces of abrasion carried out in order toround external detachments; (e-f) shallow ‘grooves’on the outer surface of perforation edges; (g-h) Saw-ing striations identified on the external edges.

Figure 9.10, p. 213 – Site 96/129, T2, ostrich eggshell bead:(a) polishing traces (abrasion with sandstone or othertype of abrasive stone). Site 96/129, T2 (square B9,Layer 3T), clay pendant: (b) wear due to a prolongedsuspension on the perforation edges. Site 96/129,

XVII

ILLUSTRATIONS

T10 (squares D7 and E7), faience beads: (c) smalldetachments along the perforation edges. TanezzuftTransect, Site T43: (d) sandstone artefact (cap-stone?). Site 96/129, T10, sandstone disk shapedobject: (e) the artefact; (f) macro traces of abrasionand yellow coloration on localised areas of the outeredges of the object.

Figure 9.11, p. 215 – Manufacture of hard stone beads:(a) inverse-indirect percussion employed in India forthe production of roughouts (particularly chal-cedony: after Vidale 1993). Egyptian wall paintingstestifying the use of bow drill for bead making dur-ing the 5th dynasty (b) and the 18th dynasty (c) fromthe tomb of Reikh-Mi.Re (ca. 1450 years BC). Thearrow shows a ‘cap stone’ placed on the top of theshaft (after Caneva 1970; Gorelick and Gwinnet1981a, b; Bulgarelli 1998).

Figure 10.1, p. 218 – Sexual dimorphism in the pelvic re-gion at Site 96/129: a-b) females (from burials T2H2 and T4 H1 respectively); c) male (T2 H1).

Figure 10.2, p. 219 – Schematic representation of meas-urements used to compare the shape of the cranialvault.

Figure 10.3, p. 227 – Lateral view of the cranium of 00/195, H1 from the Tanezzuft Transect, also referredto (see cranial analyses below and in Chapter 11)with the acronym TNZ (compare Fig. 5.26).

Figure 10.4, p. 227 – The mandible of 00/195 H1 fromthe Tanezzuft Transect (compare Figs. 5.26 and10.3).

Figure 10.5, p. 236 – Lateral view of the cranium of T3H1 from Site 96/129, also referred to (see cranialanalyses below and in Chapter 11) with the acro-nym TAH (compare Fig. 5.84).

Figure 10.6, p. 236 – The mandible of T3 H1 from Site96/129 (compare Figs. 5.84 and 10.5).

Figure 10.7, p. 237 – Partially healed intra-vitam lesionon a right parietal fragment from burial T3 H2 –Site 96/129.

Figure 10.8, p. 240 – Site 96/129: mortality distributionaccording to sex.

Figure 10.9, p. 240 – Mortality distribution in the 96/129sample and comparisons.

Figure 10.10, p. 241 – Example of a deep preauricularsulcus in a young adult female – T4 H1, from Site96/129.

Figure 10.11, p. 244 – Lateral view of the cranium 3319from the Garamantian sample of the Wadi Al Ajal(Pace et al. 1951).

Figure 10.12, p. 245 – Distribution of Libyan (individualvalues) vs comparative African and Eurasian (aver-age values) samples in the plane described by thefirst (27.63%) and second (21.14%) axes of the cor-respondence analysis, cumulatively explaining48.77% of the total variance.

Figure 10.13, p. 246 – Cranial superior (upper) and poste-rior (lower) views of the following specimens, fromleft to right: a) T3 H1 from Site 96/129; b) 00/195H1 from Tanezzuft Transect; c) 3319 of the Sergisample from the Wadi Al Ajal.

Figure 10.14, p. 248 – Femurs of different length and ro-bustness of adult individuals from Site 96/129 andIn Aghelachem.

Figure 10.15, p. 249 – Estimated statures in the Tanezzuftseries and comparisons, male samples.

Figure 10.16, p. 249 – Bucco-lingual diameter of man-dibular P4.

Figure 11.1, p. 252 – Facial views of the following crania:a) the female T3 H1 from Site 96/129, in this paperreferred to with the acronym TAH (see also Figs.10.5 and 10.13); b) the male 00/195 H1 from theTanezzuft Transect, referred to with the acronym

TNZ (see also Figs. 10.3 and 10.13); c) the male3319, extracted from the Garamantian sample ofthe Wadi Al Ajal.

Figure 11.2, p. 253 – Landmark points selected for geo-metric morphometric analysis of the facial skeleton.

Figure 11.3, p. 254 – Right lateral (above) and frontal (be-low) views of the morphological changes describedin the examined sample by PC1 vector of the prin-cipal component analysis carried out on the trans-formed landmark-based data, that is from the con-sensus configuration of landmarks (dotted line) to-wards extreme observed values (continuous line) ofthe same axis, from lower (a) to higher (b) scores.

Figure 11.4, p. 255 – Distribution of the samples (see textfor labels and acronyms) along PC1 (a), and rightlateral view of the morphological transformationobserved moving towards values of the axis lowerthan (i.e. external to) the variation actually observed(b) – it is comparable to a sub-Saharan pattern.

Figure 11.5, p. 256 – Distribution of the samples (see textfor labels and acronyms) according to centroid sizedimensions (a), and lateral view of the morphologi-cal transformation observed towards the highestvalues of the allometric vector (b).

Figure 11.6, p. 257 – Distribution of the samples (see textfor labels and acronyms) along a discriminant axiswhere the Sergi sample is opposed to the other se-ries and specimens considered in this study.

Figure 11.7, p. 257 – Distribution of the samples along adiscriminant axis where the Sergi sample plus thespecimens from TAH and TNZ (cumulatively re-ferred to as ‘ancient Fezzan’) are opposed to Northand East African series.

Figure 11.8, p. 258 – Right (a), frontal (b), and superior(c) views of the geometric transformation of mor-phologies moving towards the characterisation ofthe facial phenotype encountered among the ‘an-cient Fezzan’ group (Sergi sample plus TAH andTNZ), moving along the scores of the discriminantfunction reported in Fig. 7.

Figure 11.9, p. 259 – Right lateral views of the specimensTNZ (a) and TAH (b) superimposed to the respec-tive splines (deformation grids) on the average Ga-ramantian pattern, as described by the Sergi sam-ple.

Figure 12.1, p. 263 – Average degree of stress (weightedon the number of observable markers) in girdle andlimb bones.

Figure 12.2, p. 263 – Frequencies of stress markers relatedto compression (squares) and torsion and bending(circles) in the cervical segment (C), thoracic seg-ment (T) and lumbar segment (L).

Figure 12.3, p. 264 – Average degree of stress (weightedon the number of observable markers) in the threeage classes (20-30 years, 30-40 years, 40-50 years).

Figure 12.4, p. 264 – Frequencies of age related stressmarkers.

Figure 12.5, p. 264 – Average degree of stress (weightedon the number of observable markers) in girdle andlimb bones in men (M) and women (F).

Figure 12.6, p. 265 – T1 H1, male aged 40-50 years. Righttibia: eburnation of the medial condyle.

Figure 12.7, p. 266 – T1 H6a, male aged 20-25 years. Tho-racic vertebrae: Schmorl’s nodes.

Figure 12.8, p. 266 – T3 H2, male aged 30-40 years. Cer-vical vertebrae: signs of arthropathy.

Figure 12.9, p. 267 – Frequencies of stress markers in male(M) and female (F) different vertebral segments.

Figure 13.1, p. 272 – The human mtDNA map.Figure 13.2, p. 275 – RFLP strategy followed to classify

the T43 H1 mtDNA sequence.

XVIII

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 13.3, p. 276 – Phylogenetic position of the ancientsample T43 H1 in the schematic representation ofthe world mtDNA genealogy slightly modified fromRichards and Macaulay (2000).

Figure 13.4, p. 278 – Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresisof sex test PCR products of the three prehistoricsamples processed using the primer system amelo-genin A/B (Mannucci et al. 1994).

Figure 13.5, p. 279 – Genetic affinities between the pre-historic samples from the Wadi Tanezzuft Valley andextant populations from various African, Mediter-ranean and Near Eastern countries analysed formtDNA HVS-I variability.

Figure 14.1, p. 283 – Wadi Tanezzuft record. Calibratedradiocarbon determinations of excavated structures.

Figure 14.2, p. 287 – Wadi Tanezzuft record. Phases II-III:age and sex of the individuals.

Figure 14.3, p. 288 – Wadi Tanezzuft record. Phase II: ori-entation of the corpses.

Figure 14.4, p. 291 – Wadi Tanezzuft record. Phase III:orientation of the corpses.

Figure 14.5, p. 294 – Scene of taurokathapsia at Wadi TinEinessnis (Messak Settafet).

Figure 14.6, p. 297 – Hypothesis of oasis contraction inthe Wadi Tanezzuft, from around 5000 to 2500 yearsbp, on the basis of funerary sites’ distribution.

Figure 14.7, p. 300 – Sketch of main cultural transitionsin the recent prehistory and early historical peri-ods in south-western Fezzan, seen from the WadiTanezzuft.

Figure 14.8, p. 301 – Human settlements in south-westernFezzan at the beginning of the 20th century (afterScarin 1937).

XIX

CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS AT UAN TABU FROM THE UPPER PLEISTOCENE TO THE LATE HOLOCENE

T a b l e s

Table 2.I, p. 15 – Radiocarbon dates from the Tanezzuftregion (after Cremaschi 2001).

Table 4.I, p. 34-35 – List of the sites found during the1996-2001 extensive survey, and quantity of stonemonuments.

Table 4.II, p. 37 – Typology of structures located in theextensive survey of the Tanezzuft Valley (1996-2001).

Table 4.III, p. 37 – Frequencies of stone tumuli in theTanezzuft Valley, by size.

Table 4.IV, p. 46 – Main features of the structures mappedin the Erg Titersin.

Table 4.V, p. 50 – Main features of the structures mappedin the Western Tanezzuft.

Table 4.VI, pp. 54-55 – Main features of the structuresmapped in the Eastern Tanezzuft.

Table 4.VII, p. 59 – Main features of the structures mappedin Wadi In Aghelachem.

Table 4.VIII, p. 59 – Frequency of structures according totheir macro-geomorphological features, by studyareas.

Table 4.IX, p. 60 – Frequency of typological classes, bystudy areas.

Table 4.X, p. 60 – Frequency of different sizes of tumuli,by study areas.

Table 4.XI, p. 61 – Morphological distribution of differentstructure types.

Table 4.XII, p. 63 – Nearest Neighbour Clarke-Evanscoefficient and corresponding spatial pattern oftumuli located in the Western and Eastern Tanezzuftsamples, by size.

Table 4.XIII, p. 63 – Average distance of stone monumentsin the Western and Eastern Tanezzuft areas.

Table 4.XIV, p. 65 – Aggregation (Clusters) of stonestructures of Western Tanezzuft sample.

Table 4.XV, p. 65 – Grouping of stone structures of WesternTanezzuft sample.

Table 4.XVI, p. 67 – Aggregation (Clusters) of stonestructures of Eastern Tanezzuft sample.

Table 4.XVII, p. 67 – Grouping of stone structures ofEastern Tanezzuft sample.

Table 6.I, p. 158 – List of the examined sites, and theirspatial and chronological position.

Table 6.II, p. 158 – Site 96/129: artefacts of organic matter.Table 6.III, p. 161 – Tanezzuft Transect: artefacts of organic

matter from survey and excavations.Table 7.I, p. 170 – Archaeobotanical remains from the Erg

Titersin area.Table 7.II, p. 170 – Botanical materials from the Tanezzuft

Transect.Table 7.III, p. 171 – Seeds from the Tanezzuft Transect.Table 7.IV, p. 172 – Tanezzuft Transect: wood from Tumulus

6 and ‘V-type’ Stone Platform 00/195.Table 7.V, p. 173 – Botanical materials from Site 96/129,

near Tahala.Table 7.VI, p. 174 – Seed remains from the site 96/129,

near Tahala.Table 7.VII, p. 176 – Botanical materials from the Wadi In

Aghelachem area.Table 7.VIII, p. 177 – Seed remains from In Aghelachem.Table 7.IX, p. 178 – In Aghelachem: charcoal from the

Small Features of the ‘Royal Tumulus’.

Table 7.X, p. 178 – In Aghelachem: charcoal from U-St 2.Table 8.I, p. 182 – Erg Titersin, Site 00/98: number of

animal remains in Tumuli 2 and 4.Table 8.II, p. 182 – Site 96/129: number of animal remains

in Tumuli 1, 2, and 3.Table 8.III, p. 183 – Site 96/129: number of animal remains

in Tumulus 10.Table 8.IV, p. 184 – The Tanezzuft Transect: number of

animal remains in Sites 00/195 and 00/195bis.Table 8.V, p. 184 – The Tanezzuft Transect: number of

animal remains in Sites T6 and T43.Table 8.VI, p. 186 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5: number of

animal remains in Tumulus 1.Table 8.VII, p. 188 – In Aghelachem, site 97/5: number of

animal remains in the ‘Royal Tumulus’ and quantityof burned fragments.

Table 8.VIII, p. 189 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5: numberof Small Ungulate remains in the different structuresby skeletal element.

Table 8.IX, p. 189 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5: number ofanimal remains in the U-Structure 2 and number ofburned fragments.

Table 8.X, p. 189 – In Aghelachem, site 97/5: number ofanimal remains in the Small Features of Group 1and number of burned fragments.

Table 8.XI, p. 191 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5: number ofanimal remains in the Small Features of Group 2and number of burned fragments.

Table 8.XII, p. 192 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5: number ofanimal remains in the Small Features of Group 3and number of burned fragments.

Table 8.XII, p. 192 – In Aghelachem, Site 97/5: number ofanimal remains in the Small Features of Group 4and number of burned fragments.

Table 9.I, p. 200 – Site 96/129, T1 H5 near the rightscapula, specimens 2-6: trace analysis results in short.

Table 9.II, p. 200 – Trace analysis results in short.Table 10.I, p. 220 – List of individuals per site.Table 10.II, p. 220 – Site 96/129: list of sex and age at

death determinations per individual.Table 10.III, p. 221 – Recorded cranial measurements

(values in mm).Table 10.IV, p. 222 – Principal cranial indices.Table 10.V, p. 223 – Cranial characterisation of the

Tanezzuft skeletal samples.Table 10.VI, p. 223 – Principal cranial non-metric traits.Table 10.VIIa, p. 224 – Site 96/129: post-cranial meas-

urements recorded for the arms (values in mm).Table 10.VIIb, p. 225 – Sites 97/5 and Tnz 2001: postcranial

measurements recorded for the arms (values in mm).Table 10.VIIc, p. 226 – Site 96/129: postcranial meas-

urements recorded for the legs (values in mm).Table 10.VIId, p. 228 – Sites 97/5 and Tnz 2001:

postcranial measurements recorded for the legs(values in mm).

Table 10.VIII, p. 229 – Estimation of stature (cm) for malesand females.

Table 10.IX, p. 229 – Principal indices of body proportions.Table 10.Xa, p. 230 – Mesio-distal (MD) and bucco-lingual

(BL) dental crown diameters (anterior teeth, valuesin mm).

XX

ELENA A.A. GARCEA

Table 10.Xb, p. 231 – Mesio-distal (MD) and bucco-lingual(BL) dental crown diameters (posterior teeth, valuesin mm).

Table 12.I, p. 262 – The sample used in the study ofoccupational markers.

Table 12.II, p. 263 – Distribution of the adult specimensby age classes.

Table 13.I, p. 271 – Control region primers utilised for thePCR amplifications.

Table 13.II, p. 273 – PCR profiles and primers utilised inthe RFLP screening*.

Table 13.III, p. 274 – Mean pairwise sequence differences(MPSD) between the prehistoric Libyan mtDNAsequence (Individual T43 H1) and sequences fromcontemporary populations (see the Appendix).

Table 14.I, p. 282 – Radiocarbon determinations of WadiTanezzuft burials (uncalibrated years before present).

Table 14.II, p. 283 – Synthesis of bead technology.Table 14.III, p. 284 – Phase I (5th millennium bp): main

geomorphological and architectural features of Site97/5, Tumulus 1.

Table 14.IV, p. 285 – Phase I (5th millennium bp): gravegoods of Site 97/5, Tumulus 1.

Table 14.V, p. 286 – Phase II (first half of 4th millenniumbp): main geomorphological and architecturalfeatures of the excavated structures.

Table 14.VI, p. 289 – Phase II (first half of 4th millenniumbp): grave goods of the excavated structures.

Table 14.VII, p. 290 – Phase III (late 4th-3rd millenniumbp): main geomorphological and architecturalfeatures of excavated structures.

Table 14.VIII, p. 292 – Phase III (late 4th-3rd millenniumbp): grave goods from the excavated structures.

Volume I - All’Insegna del Giglio · Volume I SAND, STONES, AND BONES ... SAVINO DI LERNIA AND...

Documents

Transcript of Volume I - All’Insegna del Giglio · Volume I SAND, STONES, AND BONES ... SAVINO DI LERNIA AND...