DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49270#0070
THE PALEOLITHS OF THE EASTERN DESERT
F. H. Sterns, Ph.D.
In 1914, G. W. Murray of the Egyptian Survey Department found in the Eastern
Desert of Egypt, in a region now entirely uninhabitable, a number of flint implements
of primitive types. His first collection he presented to London University; a subsequent
one he gave to the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. The specimens comprised
in this latter group were all found between the Nile and the Red sea in the vicinity,
roughly speaking, of the Kenah-Koseyr road. The sites represented are Rabah, Wasif,
Hammama, and Mahamid (see map). The implements in this region occur regularly
on the tops of the hills and not in the valleys, except in those instances where they have
through natural agencies found their way into the latter.
In discussing Mr. Murray’s collection x, I have deemed it advisable, for purposes of
comparison, to describe also certain implements found at Luxor by H. W. Haynes in
1877.1 2 (Figs. 59 to 120 represent these specimens.) The general discussion which follows
will, however, apply only to the collections from the Eastern Desert, unless explicit
reference is made to the Haynes collection.
The flint of the specimens from the Eastern Desert is somewhat varied in character,
but there seems to be no relationship between the kind of flint and the site from which
the implements came, nor between the kind of flint and the type of implement.
The patination shows great variation, but here again there is no correlation between
depth of patina and type of implement or site of origin. One variety of patination,
however, deserves special notice. It develops mainly in little depressions, in scratches,
under the aretes, and between the wave-like ridges on the side of the cones of percussion
away from the point of impact of the blow. From its resemblance in appearance to the
1 In the Peabody Museum collection are 57 specimens, divided between the sites as follows; from Rabah 34,
from Wasif 14, from Hammama 5, and from Mahamid 4. Of these, five (figs. 37, 39, 51, 52, and 56) may be purely
natural forms. Two of these are from Wasif, two from Hammama, and one from Mahamid. One specimen from
Hammama (fig. 49) may be a modern gun flint.
2 H. W. Haynes, ‘Discovery of palaeolithic flint implements in upper Egypt’ (Mem. Amer. Acad, of Arts and
Sci., N. S. vol. 10, pt. 2, Cambridge, 1882, p. 357-361). Haynes’s own copy of his work, with numerous valuable
annotations, is in the library of the Peabody Museum. His collection (here described) was bequeathed to the same
institution.
F. H. Sterns, Ph.D.
In 1914, G. W. Murray of the Egyptian Survey Department found in the Eastern
Desert of Egypt, in a region now entirely uninhabitable, a number of flint implements
of primitive types. His first collection he presented to London University; a subsequent
one he gave to the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. The specimens comprised
in this latter group were all found between the Nile and the Red sea in the vicinity,
roughly speaking, of the Kenah-Koseyr road. The sites represented are Rabah, Wasif,
Hammama, and Mahamid (see map). The implements in this region occur regularly
on the tops of the hills and not in the valleys, except in those instances where they have
through natural agencies found their way into the latter.
In discussing Mr. Murray’s collection x, I have deemed it advisable, for purposes of
comparison, to describe also certain implements found at Luxor by H. W. Haynes in
1877.1 2 (Figs. 59 to 120 represent these specimens.) The general discussion which follows
will, however, apply only to the collections from the Eastern Desert, unless explicit
reference is made to the Haynes collection.
The flint of the specimens from the Eastern Desert is somewhat varied in character,
but there seems to be no relationship between the kind of flint and the site from which
the implements came, nor between the kind of flint and the type of implement.
The patination shows great variation, but here again there is no correlation between
depth of patina and type of implement or site of origin. One variety of patination,
however, deserves special notice. It develops mainly in little depressions, in scratches,
under the aretes, and between the wave-like ridges on the side of the cones of percussion
away from the point of impact of the blow. From its resemblance in appearance to the
1 In the Peabody Museum collection are 57 specimens, divided between the sites as follows; from Rabah 34,
from Wasif 14, from Hammama 5, and from Mahamid 4. Of these, five (figs. 37, 39, 51, 52, and 56) may be purely
natural forms. Two of these are from Wasif, two from Hammama, and one from Mahamid. One specimen from
Hammama (fig. 49) may be a modern gun flint.
2 H. W. Haynes, ‘Discovery of palaeolithic flint implements in upper Egypt’ (Mem. Amer. Acad, of Arts and
Sci., N. S. vol. 10, pt. 2, Cambridge, 1882, p. 357-361). Haynes’s own copy of his work, with numerous valuable
annotations, is in the library of the Peabody Museum. His collection (here described) was bequeathed to the same
institution.