26 A F R I C A P R A E H I S T O R I C A

Monographien zur Archäologie und Umwelt Afrikas

Monographs on African Archaeology and Environment

Monographies sur l’Archéologie et l’Environnement d’Afrique

Edited by Rudolph Kuper

K Ö L N 2 0 1 3

Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität zu Köln

Forschungsstelle Afrika

H E I N R I C H - B A R T H - I N S T I T U T

Rudolph Kuper

Wadi Sura – The Cave of Beasts

A rock art site in the Gilf Kebir (SW-Egypt)

In collaboration with

Franziska Bartz, Erik Büttner, Frank Darius, Frank Förster,

Lutz Hermsdorf-Knauth, Sabine Krause, Hans Leisen,

Heiko Riemer, Jürgen Seidel and András Zboray

© HEINRICH-BARTH-INSTITUT e. V., Köln 2013Jennerstraße 8, D–50823 Köln

http://www.hbi-ev.uni-koeln.de

This book is in copyright. No reproduction of anypart may take place without the written permissionof the publisher

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek

The Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in theDeutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographicdata are available on the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de

Photo documentation: Jürgen Seidel

3D laserscanning: Erik Büttner

Data processing: Reinhold Goss

Image rectification: Sabine KrauseMarie-Helen Scheid

Printed in Germany by Hans Kock GmbH, BielefeldTypeset and layout: Lutz Hermsdorf-Knauth, Heiko Riemer

ISSN 0947-2673ISBN 978-3-927688-40-7

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Part I Rudolph KuperFrom nowhere to Hollywood – The story of Wadi Sura .......................................................... 12

András ZborayWadi Sura in the context of regional rock art ............................................................................. 18

Frank Förster & Rudolph KuperCatching the Beasts – Myths and messages in rock art ............................................................ 24

Rudolph KuperThe Cologne Wadi Sura Project .................................................................................................... 28

Heiko Riemer & Franziska Bartz The archaeological survey: Landscape and context of Wadi Sura’s rock art ......................... 32

Heiko RiemerDating the rock art of Wadi Sura .................................................................................................. 38

Hans Leisen, Sabine Krause, Heiko Riemer, Jürgen Seidel & Erik BüttnerNew and integral approaches to rock art recording as means of analysis and preservation ............................................................................................. 42

Frank FörsterFiguring out: Computer-aided rock art recording and analysis ............................................. 50

Heiko RiemerRock shelters: Locations of rock art ............................................................................................. 54

Sabine Krause, Heiko Riemer & Hans LeisenPaints and pigments in the rock art of Wadi Sura ..................................................................... 58

Hans Leisen & Sabine KrauseConservation of rock art ‒ A holistic approach .......................................................................... 62

Rudolph KuperVisitors and vandals – The impact of desert tourism ................................................................ 66

Frank DariusWadi Sura in its environmental setting ....................................................................................... 70

Part II User’s guide ..................................................................................................................................... 82

Grid system of Panels A ‒ E .......................................................................................................... 83

Ortho view of the shelter ............................................................................................................... 84

Panel A ............................................................................................................................................. 86Panel B ............................................................................................................................................ 130 Panel C ........................................................................................................................................... 170Panel D ........................................................................................................................................... 254Panel E ............................................................................................................................................ 376

Selected scenes and figures ......................................................................................................... 488

Engravings ..................................................................................................................................... 512

References and photo credits ...................................................................................................... 538

András Zboray18

IntroductionThe great massifs of the central Libyan Desert wereknown to harbor numerous prehistoric rock art sites eversince their existence was revealed to the outside world inthe 1920s and 1930s (Kuper, this volume). Early explorersreported numerous engravings and paintings at JebelOuenat (Fig. 1), and sporadic further expeditions in the1960s, especially the 1968 Belgian Scientific Expeditionrevealed some further spectacular paintings at Jebel Oue-nat (VAN NOTEN 1978).

A common theme to most of the paintings discoveredand published up till twenty years ago were the innumer-able cattle depictions, suggesting that the principal pre-historic inhabitants of the area were nomadic cattlepastoralists, taking advantage of a humid interval some-time during the early to mid-Holocene. The only paint-ings not fitting into this pattern were those of the greatshelter of Wadi Sura (the ‘Cave of Swimmers’, WG 52*).The paintings show a high degree of abstraction, verymuch unlike the naturalistic representations of the cattlepastoralists seen elsewhere in the region (cf. RHOTERT

1952). Interpretation was made more difficult by the veryeroded nature of the shelter, with only a fraction of theoriginal painted surface remaining. MUZZOLINI (1995)observed a superficial resemblance to the “roundheadstyle“ of the central Sahara, but in the absence of any fur-ther analogies no meaningful comparisons or detailedanalyses could be made.

This picture started to slowly change in the lasttwenty years. The exploration of the vicinity of Wadi Surayielded more paintings with the same style and subjectmatter as the large shelter discovered by Almásy(GAUTHIER & NEGRO 1999; ZBORAY 2003a). The discov-ery of the ‘Cave of Beasts’ (WG 21) in 2002 provided aquantum leap in our understanding of the Wadi Surapaintings, showing the same type of humans and wildfauna, superimposed on a ‘wallpaper’ of negative handprints, in a good state of preservation. One partial dam-aged figure in the ‘Cave of Swimmers’ proved to be anexample of the strange ‘headless beast’, of which dozensof examples were depicted in the new site, together withsome of the characteristic ‘swimming’ figures and thou-sands of other human figures. These beasts and the‘swimming’ figures are key diagnostic features of theWadi Sura paintings (ZBORAY 2012).

The complete ensemble of figures points to a very dis-tinct, well definable entity with a very narrow geograph-ical range, present along a thirty kilometre stretch of landbelow the southern cliffs of the western Gilf Kebir. Con-sidering the large number of superimpositions at WG 21,

András Zboray

At the time of their discovery in 1933, the paintings of Wadi Sura were an oddity, not fitting in with the naturalisticstyle of cattle pastoralist paintings found throughout the region. In the last ten years systematic surveys revealedhundreds of new sites, including some that may be attributed to a number of pre-pastoralist cultures, demonstratinga clear cultural succession across the entire central Libyan Desert. The Wadi Sura paintings, now much better un-derstood from the ‘Cave of Beasts’, are clearly a part of this succession, with possible relationships and contempo-rarity with other rock art producing cultures of the region.

Wadi Sura in the context of regional rock art

this artistic tradition appears to have lasted for a signifi-cant period of time. Parallel to these discoveries nearWadi Sura, new finds at the more southerly massifs ofJebel Ouenat, Arkenu and the surrounding smaller hillsstarted to change our understanding of the cultural suc-cession in the central Libyan Desert (Eastern Sahara).

Systematic surveying of the Jebel Ouenat region re-sulted in the discovery of nearly a thousand new rock artsites (e.g., BORDA 2010; 2011a; 2011b; MENARDI

NOGUERA & ZBORAY 2011a; 2012; ZBORAY 2009; ZBORAY

& BORDA 2010), increasing the number of known sites inthe region by a magnitude of five. Many of the new findsdepicted human figures in a style clearly different fromthe cattle pastoralists. With this corpus of new data, anumber of previously unrecognised early cultural hori-zons may be identified in the environs of Jebel Ouenat,evidently all predating the cattle pastoral period. Whilethe Wadi Sura paintings remain distinct and well definedin their narrow geographical niche along the base of thecliffs of the western Gilf Kebir, there are a number of sim-ilarities to depictions of other painting styles in the JebelOuenat region, suggesting contemporarity and culturallinks across the region.

The known rock art sites of the Gilf Kebir-Jebel Oue-nat region are almost evenly balanced in the proportionof engravings to paintings. The last published count(ZBORAY 2009) presents 402 sites with engravings and456 sites with paintings. At Jebel Ouenat there is a verynoticeable pattern of engravings (with few paintings) ap-pearing at lower altitudes around the base of the moun-tain and in the lower courses of wadis, while paintingsare concentrated in the upper sections, reaching up to thehighest altitudes of the mountain. This pattern of geo-graphical distribution at present remains unexplained.

Unfortunately, with engravings the technique andmedium allows for much cruder execution than the detailobservable in paintings of the area, thus distinctions maybe made more on subject matter and overall executionthan any finer stylistic traits. It does appear that at leastin part the numerous engravings depicting cattle (morethan half of all engravings) are the work of the same peo-ple who made the paintings depicting pastoral themes.However, for the wild fauna depictions, of which thereare probably some pre-dating the cattle period, and somepost-dating, it is very hard to make meaningful and con-sistent distinctions. It will require much future effort tocategorise the various engravings into the currently es-tablished cultural and chronological framework; thispresent study only examines the regional styles and pos-sible interrelationships of the known paintings.

Based on the presently known corpus of sites, fourdistinct styles of hunter-gatherer paintings may be recog-nised aside those of Wadi Sura, superseded by the cattlepastoralist horizon.

Fig. 1 Gilf Kebir-JebelOuenat region:

1 Wadi Sura (Gilf Kebir)

2 Clayton’s Craters

3 Jebel Arkenu

4 Karkur Ibrahim(Jebel Ouenat)

5 Karkur Talh(Jebel Ouenat)

6 Wadi Wahesh(Jebel Ouenat)

* All references to individual sites in this paper use the numbering systemdeveloped and revised by the author (ZBORAY 2009) unless otherwise noted.All photographs in this article are by A. Zboray.

Wadi Sura in the context of regional rock art 19

Fig. 2 Typical Ouenat cattle pastoralist scene, showing a herd of cattlewith human figures (site KT 85/A), Karkur Talh, Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 4 Typical Ouenatcattle pastoralist pain-tings superimposed overWadi Sura type giraffes(site WG 35), near WadiSura, Gilf Kebir.

Fig. 3 Male figure holding a bow and wearing a characteristic ‘tailed’quiver cum utility bag not observed elsewhere among Saharan catte pasto-ralist paintings – a key defining element of the Ouenat cattle pastoralistpaintings (site KTW 26/B), upper Karkur Talh, Jebel Ouenat.

The Ouenat cattle pastoralistsThe vast majority of the paintings at Jebel Ouenat depictcattle and associated humans. Of 414 sites with paintings,337 contain figures which may be assigned to the cattlepastoralists. The predominant theme of the paintings iscattle, with some panels showing hundreds of them in agreat variety of form and colour (Fig. 2). Some paintingsshow goats, with or without cattle, but depicted in thesame characteristic body proportions, posture, and style.Many of the paintings contain human figures, commonlywith accessories like body decoration, waist pouches orloincloths, shoulder bags, footwear, bow and arrows.There are some variations in the style of depicting hu-

The ‘Ouenat roundhead’ styleThe first known ‘round head’ site (BH 4, Karkur Idriss)was instantly recognised as being distinctly differentfrom other known Jebel Ouenat paintings (VAN NOTEN

1978), however being an isolated example and lackingany superpositions, its true significance was not recog-nised. In the past ten years more than fifty further siteshave been found with these characteristic paintings, pro-viding a sufficiently large sample to define the style(“Uweinat roundhead style“, ZBORAY 2012):

The exclusive subjects of the paintings are human fig-ures. Sometimes only one is being depicted, but they aregenerally found in groups. The main defining feature isthe circular round head, exaggerated in size compared tonormal body proportions, and is completely void of facial

mans; however, body posture and proportions of cattle,as well as the standardised iconography of some personalaccessories clearly present a homogenous artistic tradi-tion (“Uweinat cattle pastoralists“, MENARDI NOGUERA

& ZBORAY 2011b) (Fig. 3).While cattle pastoralist paintings dominate the rock

art of Jebel Ouenat and the surrounding massifs, a num-ber of scattered rock art sites attributable to the same tra-dition may be found throughout the Gilf Kebir,providing conclusive evidence that the cattle pastoralistpeople roamed across the entire region encompassingJebel Ouenat, the surrounding smaller massifs, and theGilf Kebir Plateau (Fig. 4).

features (Figs. 5–7). The rest of the body is of normal pro-portions, with a triangular torso and narrow hips; thearms and legs are robust and proportionate; hands andfeet are drawn without digits (Fig. 5). Sometimes a sec-ondary white circle or oval is seen attached to, and par-tially overlapping the head. The figures are shown incontorted body positions which are being repeated acrossthe range of sites. The figures are mostly plain mono-chrome, but in some cases body decoration can be ob-served (Fig. 6). In rare examples some kind of dress isdiscernible, and some figures may be seen holding bowand arrows (Fig. 7). Despite the complete lack of any an-imals associated with the human figures, depicting bowsand arrows suggests hunting to be the primary means ofsubsistence.

Fig. 5 Typical ‘Ouenatroundhead’ figure (siteKTW 31), upper KarkurTalh, Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 7 ‘Ouenat round-head’ figure with body de-coration and loincloth,holding bow and arrows(site KTW 11/D), upperKarkur Talh, Jebel Ouenat(photo enhanced withDStretch#).

Fig. 6 ‘Ouenat round-head’ figure with excep-tional body decoration(site KTW 54), upperKarkur Talh, Jebel Ouenat(photo enhanced withDStretch#).

# DStretch is a soft-ware tool for the digitalenhancement of picto-graphs developed byJon Harman (cf. p. 57): www.dstretch.com.Photographs in thispaper manipulated byDStretch are shown ingreyscale.

András Zboray20

The ‘Elongated roundhead’ styleIn 1998, Le Quellec recorded (but did not publish at thattime) a number of rock art sites to the immediate southof Jebel Ouenat the paintings of which showed distinctround featureless heads, and bore some resemblance tosome human figures at Wadi Sura, and also to some ex-tent to the ‘Ouenat roundhead’ figures. Initially thesewere considered to be a variation of the “Uweinat round-head style“ (ZBORAY 2005a), or even assigned to the“Wadi Sura style“ (LE QUELLEC et al. 2005; LE QUELLEC

2009), greatly expanding the geographical range and thenarrow definition of the style. Fortunately several wellpreserved new sites were recorded recently containingpaintings of this peculiar style. The corpus of a total of 22sites at Jebel Ouenat, Jebel Arkenu and environs now per-mits the definition of a distinct style (ZBORAY 2012).

The theme of the paintings are exclusively human fig-ures, echoing the classic ‘Ouenat roundhead’ style, how-ever the depiction of the figures is markedly different.The head is completely round and mostly featureless, buthere the similarity ends. The head is small in comparisonto the rest of the body and is joined to the trunk by an un-naturally long neck (usually executed in white paintwhich in many cases disappeared) which is the maindefining characteristic of the style (Figs. 8; 9). The bodyis unnaturally thin and elongated, with legs being rela-

The Miniature styleThe first of these characteristic figures were observed byRHOTERT (1952) in a shelter in southern Karkur Talh(KTS 15/C), underlying several layers of cattle pastoralistpaintings. He called them “Miniaturstil”, aptly describ-ing their main feature. Rhotert could only work from asingle example, but finds of the past decade brought the

Fig. 8 Group of ‘Elon-gated roundhead’ figures(site AR 42/C), JebelArkenu.

Fig. 10 Group of Minia-ture style figures (siteKTN 31), Karkur Talh,Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 9 ‘Elongated round-head’ figures with bowsand arrows (site KTW27/G), upper Karkur Talh,Jebel Ouenat (photo en-hanced with DStretch).

tively thick and short in proportion to the rest of thebody. The arms are very disproportionate, short andstubby, sometimes just shown as a short featureless line.The figures often bear extensive body decoration, andsome hold bow and arrows, sometimes in a shooting pos-ture (Figs. 8; 9). Despite the complete absence of animaldepictions, they seem to have been produced by a hunt-ing society, like the ‘Ouenat roundheads’. The geograph-ical range of this style appears to overlap that of the‘Ouenat roundhead’ style, but the frequency of the sitesis less than half.

While some elements of the body decoration and thedisproportionate small round head may be compared tohuman figures of the Wadi Sura shelters, there are somekey differences. Most importantly, none of the ‘WadiSura style’ human figures display the elongated whiteneck that joins the head to the upper body, while all thefigures attributable to this style do. Wadi Sura figures dis-play a wide range of body proportions, while the ones atJebel Ouenat always present the long neck and body withdisproportionately short arms. With the present body ofevidence, the two styles may confidently be consideredto be distinct and not directly related, though this doesnot rule out possible contemporarity and weaker culturallinks.

number of known sites to 28, including an excellentlypreserved large shelter (KTN 31, ZBORAY 2003b) whichallows the proper definition of the style.

The subject matter is human figures and wild fauna.The human figures are depicted on a very small scale,adults 8–15 centimetres, with tiny figures of children assmall as 2–3 centimetres. Family scenes are common,with mothers holding children in various but realisticallydepicted postures. This ‘mother with miniature child’scene is perhaps the best defining element of the style.Males and females are clearly distinguishable, femaleshaving prominent breasts and wear skirts, while maleswear loincloths, and frequently carry bow and arrows.Hunting scenes are common, with males shooting arrowsat very well drawn and proportioned giraffes. There isno hint of any domestication. Overall, the style has a veryhigh degree of realism (Fig. 10).

The geographical range of the style extends through-out Jebel Ouenat, with the main concentrations in KarkurTalh and Karkur Ibrahim, the style being conspiciouslyabsent from the southern part of the mountain. A recentfind by Mark BORDA (2010) extended their range to JebelArkenu.

Wadi Sura in the context of regional rock art 21

The Wadi Wahesh styleThe Wadi Wahesh style, named after the locality wheremost of the principal examples are located, was the lastdistinct style of paintings to be recognised at Jebel Oue-nat. Already in 1998, Le Quellec found some figures ofwild animals at southern Ouenat which did not appearto fit any of the known categories, but bore resemblanceto some of the paintings at Wadi Sura. In the absence ofany further analogies, these were assigned to the “WadiSura style“ (LE QUELLEC et al. 2005; LE QUELLEC 2009)together with the figures now recognised to be ‘Ouenatelongated roundheads’.

In March 2005, a group of large and well preservedsites were found in shelters located in the upper reachesof Wadi Wahesh (ZBORAY 2005b) which placed these iso-lated and mostly damaged earlier examples into context.A very distinct style was revealed, centered on the south-ern part of Jebel Ouenat, with a few isolated (and some-times doubtful) examples elsewhere. There are abouttwenty sites that may confidently be assigned to thisstyle, the majority of them in the very narrow geograph-ical confines of the upper Wadi Wahesh.

The style is not easy to define. If individual humanfigures are observed, many features are common to boththe Miniature style and to some of the Wadi Sura paint-ings. Perhaps the biggest set of commonalities are withWadi Sura, including similarities in body decoration, alldigits shown on the hands, and negative handprints un-derlying some of the paintings. Should some Wadi Surafigures be transplanted into Wadi Wahesh scenes (andvice versa) they would comfortably blend in with the restof the scene (Fig. 11).

The most conspicuous feature of the style is the fre-quent depiction of individual digits on the hands ofhuman figures, sometimes in an exaggerated manner(Fig. 12). However, these are intermingled in apparentlythe same or related compositions with figures lacking thedepiction of digits. The scale, posture and appearance ofsome of the depicted humans echo the Miniature style,suggesting some possible contact or relationship. How-ever, the key feature of the Miniature style, the familyscene of mother and child, is absent. There is the presenceof two conspicuous non-human elements also present atWadi Sura, but completely lacking from other Jebel Oue-nat painting styles: negative handprints and ostricheswithout body (Figs. 13; 14). In addition, a variety of wildfauna is shown (giraffes, various gazelles and antelopes),and there are numerous depictions of domesticated dogs,all features common with Wadi Sura. The depicted wildfauna (including a giraffe held by a tether tied to its neck)suggests a hunter-gatherer society.

The separate definition of the Wadi Wahesh style doesnot preclude a connection with the Wadi Sura people.The key defining features of Wadi Sura, the ‘headlessbeast’ and the ‘swimmers’ (and many other motifs) aremissing, however the large number of superimpositionsobservable in the ‘Cave of Beasts’ (WG 21) suggest thatthe Wadi Sura paintings may, with further study, be sub-divided into internal periods (cf. Förster, this volume). Itis not inconceivable that the Wadi Wahesh style will befound to correspond to one such subdivision, which lacksthe ‘headless beast’ and associated figures, but retainsother common elements. An alternate hypothesis couldbe the possible movement of the Wadi Sura people as

desiccation progressed from the arid western Gif Kebirto the relatively more favourable southern Ouenat envi-ronment.

One further clue supporting a possible link betweenWadi Sura and Wadi Wahesh was the recent finding of ashelter (CC12, BORDA 2009) at Clayton’s Craters, at aboutone third of the roughly 200 km distance between JebelOuenat and Wadi Sura. The shelter contains very weath-ered paintings, but it is possible to recognise several neg-ative handprints and small scale human figures, whichare identical to the more crudely executed ones at theprincipal Wadi Wahesh sites in every detail.

Fig. 11 Group of Wadi Wahesh style figures (site WW 52), Wadi Wahesh,Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 13 Wadi Waheshstyle figures associatedwith negative handprintsexecuted in yellow paint(site WW 52), Wadi Wa-hesh, Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 12 Wadi Waheshstyle figure with exagger-ated digits on the hand(site WW 52), Wadi Wa-hesh, Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 14 Ostrich with onlyhead, neck and legs shown(beneath cattle pastoralistpaintings, site WW 52),Wadi Wahesh, Jebel Oue-nat.

András Zboray22

also observable in one of the adjacent shelters. Moreover,there are a couple of ‘Elongated roundhead’ figures inthe same shelter, fortunately with a small overlap withone of the overlying Wadi Wahesh style figures. Thus the‘Elongated roundhead’ style predates the Wadi Waheshstyle, which in turn predates the Ouenat cattle pastoral-ists.

A fortuitous observation made recently at site EH 33provides the long sought link between the two sequences(ZBORAY 2012). Using image enhancement software, it ispossible to ascertain that a ‘Ouenat roundhead’ figurepartially overlaps several small ‘Elongated roundhead’figures, suggesting that the ‘Elongated roundhead’ styleis the earliest of the Ouenat cultural sequence.

The ‘Ouenat roundhead’ sites are consistently amongthe faintest and most weathered sites in the Jebel Ouenatarea, and essentially the same may be said of the ‘Elon-gated roundhead’ paintings. In contrast, the Wadi Wa-hesh and Miniature style paintings show a moderatedegree of additional weathering in comparison to the cat-tle pastoralist paintings, and some well protected sheltersshow very good preservation (comparable or better thanthat exhibited by the Wadi Sura paintings in morefavoured locations). Overall the relative weathering pat-terns support the conclusions derived from the superim-positions, and point towards a substantially greater agefor the ‘Ouenat roundheads’ and the ‘Elongated round-heads’ than for the cattle pastoralists. The Miniature andWadi Wahesh styles occupy a period in-between withtheir relative positions at present not clearly established.

There is no direct evidence linking the relativechronological position of the Wadi Sura paintings withany of the pre-pastoralist styles at Jebel Ouenat. How-ever, the circumstantial evidence suggests that the WadiSura paintings may temporally overlap or immediatelypre-date the Wadi Wahesh style, with the earlier phasesof Wadi Sura possibly extending back in time to the ‘Oue-nat roundhead’ and ‘Elongated roundhead’ styles (Fig.17).

Relative chronologies and possible interrelationsThe key to the establishment of a relative rock artchronology in the area is the existence of superimposi-tions, suggesting a temporal succession of identifiablestyles in a given geographical location. Different degreesof weathering of paintings of distinct styles at the samelocality may provide further evidence to confirm thatstyles were separated in time.

In the Wadi Sura area, four sites contain characteristicWadi Sura figures that are overpainted by Cattle Pastoral-ist figures (Fig. 15). While none of the sites have a figureof the ‘headless beast’ in a superimposition, the earlierpaintings are clearly of the Wadi Sura type, based onanalogies with the large key sites. Thus demonstrably theWadi Sura paintings predate those of the cattle pastoral-ists in the western Gilf Kebir. In all four mentioned ex-amples, the Wadi Sura type paintings are much moreweathered than the overlying cattle, and in general all ofthe Wadi Sura paintings in the area show much more in-tense weathering than the cattle pastoralist paintings(which in some cases appear extremely fresh). Appar-ently a considerable time period, perhaps thousands ofyears, elapsed between the Wadi Sura paintings andthose made by the cattle pastoralists.

At Jebel Ouenat there are several sites where cattlepastoralist paintings are found superimposed over olderscenes. The key site is KTW 21/A, where small red cattlepastoralist figures overlie a giraffe hunting scene attrib-utable to the Miniature style, which is yet over larger‘Ouenat roundhead’ figures (Fig. 16). There are severalother examples where the Miniature style and ‘Ouenatroundhead’ paintings are clearly under cattle pastoralistones. The combined evidence suggests that the ‘Ouenatroundhead’ style predates the Miniature style, which inturn predates the Ouenat cattle pastoralist paintings.

In the key site of the Wadi Wahesh style (WW 52),there are a number of superimpositions involving cattlepastoralist scenes over earlier Wadi Wahesh type figures,

Fig. 15 ‘Bird headed’archer of the cattle pas-toralists superimposed onfaint Wadi Sura type fig-ures and giraffe (site WG72), Wadi Sura environs,Gilf Kebir.

Fig. 16  The key to thechronology of the JebelOuenat paintings, aunique superimpositionsequence of the ‘Ouenatroundhead’, Miniatureand Cattle pastoralist(small red figures) styles(site KTN 21/A), KarkurTalh, Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 17 Chronology chart showing the relative sequence of rock art styles in the Jebel Ouenat–Gilf Kebir region. The solid lines indicate superimpositions;the dashed line refers to indications provided by relative weathering patterns.

‘Ouenat roundhead’

style

‘Elongated roundhead’

style

Miniature

styleWadi Wahesh

style

J E B E L   O U E N A T G I L F   K E B I R

early

late

Wadi Sura

Cattle pastoralists

Wadi Sura in the context of regional rock art 23

Felines in the regional rock art repertoireOne of the key diagnostic elements of the Wadi Surapaintings is the strange, apparently composite ‘headlessbeast’, practically all examples of which show an upwardcurving tail with a tuft at the end, characteristic of largefelines. In many examples the entire body of the animalappears distinctly feline (Fig. 18). Their prominent posi-tion in the Wadi Sura iconography (cf. Förster & Kuper,this volume) warrants an examination of other feline rep-resentations in the Gilf Kebir–Jebel Ouenat region forpossible analogies.

The four described pre-pastoral painting styles in theJebel Ouenat region, possibly contemporary with theWadi Sura paintings, have no comparable depictions. Theonly paintings clearly depicting large felines are seen inlater cattle pastoralist paintings. In two shelters oppositeeach other in the upper main valley of Karkur Talh, twoscenes appear to represent a lion hunt (KT 86/B & KT88/E). In both cases the hunted animals are very indis-tinct, but the curved tails are clearly indicative of largefelines, probably lions. In the first case the animal isdensely covered with arrows and surrounded by archers(Fig. 19). There is a third scene (KTW 27/A) with possiblesimilar interpretation; in this case the animal lacking ahead is in some way echoing the Wadi Sura beasts.

A unique scene at site HP 21/B on the top of the Has-sanein Plateau, one of the highest regions of Jebel Ouenat,requires special mention. It shows a difficult to identifyanimal with possible feline attributes, being suroundedand touched by small human figures (Fig. 20). There is asmaller less distinct adjacent scene with similar content.The cattle pastoralist nature of these depictons is con-firmed by a nearby panel with similar human figures ac-companied by goats. There are no analogies of any sortamong the hundreds of other known cattle pastoralistsites, however, this scene is eerily reminescent of themany scenes in the ‘Cave of Beasts’, where a number ofsmall figures surround and touch a headless beast (Fig.21). Naturally, a single example is insufficient to drawany meaningful conclusions, however, it is not inconceiv-able that some elements of the beliefs surrounding theabstract Wadi Sura iconography passed on to the suc-ceeding cattle pastoralist society.

The origins of ancient Egyptian religion?

It must be mentioned that certain authors (e.g., LE QUELLEC 2008, D’HUY & LE

QUELLEC 2009; BÁRTA 2010) compared some elements of the Wadi Sura paint-ings with elements of the dynastic Egyptian iconography, and professed to see theorigins of ancient Egyptian religion in the Wadi Sura paintings (cf. Förster &Kuper, this volume). However, the basis of such conclusions was the process oftaking isolated elements out of context from both cultures, and only treating thesimilarities, while ignoring the differences and the lack of any systemic relation-ship within the remaining corpus of evidence. To confirm such cultural link wouldrequire evidence for a systemic evolution of a number of cultural elements acrossthe whole chronological sequence, not just from one isolated and temporally fardisplaced sample. It is the firm opinion of the author that there is no demonstrablelink between Wadi Sura (or any of the discussed other prehistoric cultures of thecentral Libyan Desert) and the Nile Valley. This is not to say that such a link isentirely inconceivable; however, at present there is no evidence to support it.

Fig. 19 Lion hunt (siteKT 86/B), Karkur Talh,Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 20 Animal with pos-sible feline attributestouched by human figures(site HP 21/B), HassaneinPlateau, Jebel Ouenat.

Fig. 18 ‘Headless beast’ with a feline-like body over a negative handprint(note missing digit; site WG 45/A), near Wadi Sura, Gilf Kebir.

Fig. 21 ‘Headless beast’surrounded and touchedby human figures (siteWG 21, ‘Cave of Beasts’),Wadi Sura, Gilf Kebir.

References538

ABBAS KMALLY, H. (2011) Deterioration and Rates of Weathe-ring of the Monumental Rock Inscriptions at Wadi Hamma-mat, Egypt. E-Conservation Magazine 21: 66–78.<http://e-conservationline.com/content/view/1028> (accessedJuly 2013).

ALMÁSY, L.E. (1935) Az ismeretlen Szahara [“Unknown Sahara”](Budapest: Franklin).

— (1936) Récentes explorations dans le désert libyque (1932–1936). Publications de la Société Royale de Géographied’Égypte (Le Caire: Schindler).

— (1939) Unbekannte Sahara. Mit Flugzeug und Auto in derLibyschen Wüste (Leipzig: Brockhaus).

— (1997) Schwimmer in der Wüste. Auf der Suche nach derOase Zarzura (Innsbruck: Haymon) [reprint of “UnbekannteSahara” (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1939), with additional chaptersfrom the original Hungarian edition “Az ismeretlen Szahara”(Budapest: Franklin, 1935)].

ANSELIN, A. (2007) L’Avaleuse de Morts. Archéologie linguisti-que de la Vallée des Images. Cahiers Caribéens d’Égyptolo-gie 10: 59–97.

— (2011) Some Notes about an Early African Pool of Culturesfrom which Emerged the Egyptian Civilisation. In: K. Exell(ed.), Egypt in its African Context. Proceedings of the confe-rence held at The Manchester Museum, University of Man-chester, 2–4 October 2009. BAR International Series 2204(Oxford: Archaeopress) 43–53.

AUJOULAT, N. (2005) Lascaux. Visite de la grotte. <http://www.lascaux.culture.fr> (accessed July 2013).

BAGNOLD, R.A. (1935) Libyan Sands. Travel in a Dead World(London: Hodder and Stoughton).

— (1982) Foreword. In: F. El Baz & T.A. Maxwell (eds.), DesertLandforms of Southwest Egypt: A Basis for Comparisonwith Mars (Washington, DC: NASA).

BAGNOLD, R.A., O.H. MYERS, R.F. PEEL & H.A. WINKLER (1939)An Expedition to the Gilf Kebir and Uweinat, 1938. Geogra-phical Journal 93: 281–313.

BAHN, P.G. (1998) The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehis-toric Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

— (2010) Prehistoric Rock Art. Polemics and Progress (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press).

BÁRTA, M. (2010) Swimmers in the Sand. On the Neolithic Ori-gins of Ancient Egyptian Mythology and Symbolism (Prag:Dryada).

BARTHOLOMEW, J.C., J.H. CHRISTIE, A. EWINGTON, P.J.M.GEELAN, H.A.G. LEWIS, P. MIDDLETON & B. WINKLE-MAN, eds. (1990) The Times Atlas of the World (London:Times Books/Bartholomew).

BEDNARIK, R.G. (2007) Rock Art Science. The Scientific Study ofPalaeoart (New Delhi: Aryan Books International).

BERMANN, R. (1938) Zarzura, die Oase der kleinen Vögel. DieGeschichte einer Expedition in die Libysche Wüste (Zürich:Füssli).

BORDA, M. (2009) Survey of an unnamed plain in Egypt’s Wes-tern Desert. Sahara 20: 184–186.

References

— (2010) Observations concerning new rock art sites at JebelArkenu and comparisons with Uweinat. Sahara 21: 190–193.

— (2011a) New painted shelter at Jebel Arkenu (Libya). Sa-hara 22: 125–129.

— (2011b) Rock art finds at Garet Shezzu and an aardvark?Sahara 22: 130–133.

BRADLEY, R. (1997) Rock Art and the Prehistory of AtlanticEurope: Signing the land (London: Routledge).

BRADY, L.M. & R.G. GUNN (2012) Digital Enhancement of Dete-riorated and Superimposed Pigment Art: Methods and CaseStudies. In: J. McDonald & P. Veth (eds.), A Companion toRock Art. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology 18 (Ox-ford et al.: Wiley-Blackwell) 627–643.

BUBENZER, O., A. BOLTEN & F. DARIUS, eds. (2007) Atlas ofCultural and Environmental Change in Arid Africa. AfricaPraehistorica 21 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut).

CLAYTON, P.A. (1933) The Western Side of the Gilf Kebir. Geo-graphical Journal 81: 254–259.

CLOTTES, J. (1993) Paint Analyses from Several MagdalenianCaves in the Ariège Region of France. Journal of Archaeolo-gical Science 20: 223–235.

CHIPPINDALE, C. & G. NASH, eds. (2004) The Figured Landsca-pes of Rock Art. Looking at Pictures in Place (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).

DARIUS, F. & S. NUSSBAUM (2007) In search of the bloom –plants as witnesses to the humid past. In: O. Bubenzer, A.Bolten & F. Darius (eds.), Atlas of Cultural and Environmen-tal Change in Arid Africa. Africa Praehistorica 21 (Köln:Heinrich-Barth-Institut) 78–81.

— (2011) Late Holocene plant growth on the Libyan Plateau:The vegetal remains from El Kharafish 02/5. In: H. Riemer,El Kharafish. The archaeology of Sheikh Muftah pastoral no-mads in the desert around Dakhla Oasis (Egypt). AfricaPraehistorica 25 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut) 305–332.

D’HUY, J. (2009) New evidence for a closeness between the AbûRâ’s shelter (Eastern Sahara) and Egyptian beliefs. Sahara 20:125–126.

D’HUY, J. & J.-L. LE QUELLEC (2009) Du Sahara au Nil: la faiblereprésentation d’animaux dangereux dans l’art rupestre dudésert Libyque pourrait être liée à la crainte de leur anima-tion. Cahiers de l’Association des amis de l’art rupestre sa-harien 13: 85–98.

DI LERNIA, S. & M. GALLINARO (2010) The date and context ofNeolithic rock art in the Sahara: engravings and ceremonialmonuments from Messak Settafet (south-west Libya). Anti-quity 84: 954–974.

EL-HAKIM, S.F., J. FRYER & M. PICARD (2004) Modeling and vi-sualization of Aboriginal rock art in the Baiame Cave. In:Proceedings of the International Society for Photogrammetryand Remote Sensing (ISPRS), XXth Congress, Istanbul, Tur-key, July 12–23, Commission V, Working Group V/2. Inter-national Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensingand Spatial Information Sciences 35 (B5): 990–995.<http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXV/congress/comm5/papers/693.pdf> (accessed July 2013).

References 539

EL-HAKIM, S.F., J. FRYER, M. PICARD & E. WHITING (2005) Di-gital recording of Aboriginal rock art. In: H. Thwaites (ed.),VSMM 2004: Proceedings of the 10th International Confe-rence on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, Ogaki City, Japan,November 17–19, 2004 (Tokyo: Ohmsha) 344–353.

FITZNER, B. & R. KOWNATZKI (1997) Erfahrungen mit der Kar-tierung von Verwitterungsformen an Natursteinbauwerken.In: W. Leschnik & H. Venzmer (eds.), Bauwerksdiagnostikund Qualitätsbewertung. WTA-Schriftenreihe 13(Freiburg/Stuttgart: Aedificatio Verlag / Fraunhofer IRB Ver-lag) 157–172.

FITZNER, B., K. HEINRICHS, & R. KOWNATZKI (1995) Weathe-ring forms – classification and mapping. Verwitterungsfor-men – Klassifizierung und Kartierung. In: R. Snethlage (ed.),Denkmalpflege und Naturwissenschaft. Natursteinkonser-vierung 1 (Berlin: Ernst & Sohn) 41–88.

FÖRSTER, F., H. RIEMER & R. KUPER (2012) The ‘Cave of Beasts’(Gilf Kebir, SW Egypt) and its Chronological and CulturalAffiliation: Approaches and Preliminary Results of the WadiSura Project. In: D. Huyge, F. Van Noten & D. Swinne (eds.),The Signs of Which Times? Chronological and Palaeoenvi-ronmental Issues in the Rock Art of Northern Africa. Inter-national Colloquium Brussels, 3–5 June, 2010 (Brussels:Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences) 197–216.

FROBENIUS, L. (1921) Paideuma. Umrisse einer Kultur- und See-lenlehre (München: C.H. Beck).

GAUTHIER, Y. & G. NEGRO (1999) Nouveaux documents rupe-stres des environs du Wadi Sura (Gilf Kebir, S.-O. del’Egypte). Bulletin de la Société d’études et de recherchespréhistoriques 48: 62–79.

GEORGE, U. (2010) In der Höhle der Himmelsgöttin. GEO Ger-many 9/2010: 58–76.

GILLET, H. (1968) Le peuplement végétal du massif de l’Ennedi(Tchad). Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Na-turelle, Série B (Botanique), tome 17 (Paris: Muséum Natio-nal d’Histoire Naturelle).

GROSS, K., M. ROLKE & A. ZBORAY (2013) Operation Salam.László Almásy’s most daring Mission in the Desert War(München: Belleville).

HADDAD, N. & F. ISHAKAT (2007) 3D Laser Scanner and Re-flectorless Total Station: A Comparative Study of the Slots ofEl-Khazneh at Petra in Jordan. In: A. Georgopoulos (ed.),Proceedings of the XXIth International Conference CIPA:‘AntiCIPAting the Future of the Cultural Past’, 1–6 October2007, Athens. CIPA Heritage Documentation (InternationalCommittee for Documentation of Cultural Heritage).<http://cipa.icomos.org/fileadmin/template/doc/ATHENS/FP070.pdf> (accessed July 2013).

HALLER, D. (2005) Dtv-Atlas Ethnologie (München: DeutscherTaschenbuch Verlag).

HARMAN, J. (2005–2013) DStretch. Web Site for the DStretch plu-gin to ImageJ. A tool for the digital enhancement of picto-graphs. <http://www.dstretch.com> (accessed July 2013).

HASSANEIN BEY, A.M. (1924a) Crossing the Untraversed LibyanDesert. The Record of a 2,200-Mile Journey of Explorationwhich Resulted in the Discovery of Two Oases of StrategicImportance on the Southwestern Frontier of Egypt. The Na-tional Geographic Magazine 46/3: 232–277.

— (1924b) Through Kufra to Darfur. Geographical Journal 64:273–291; 353–366.

— (1925) The Lost Oases (London: Butterworth).

HELWIG, K. (2007) Iron Oxide Pigments: Natural and Synthetic.In: B.H. Berrie (ed.), Artists’ Pigments. A Handbook of TheirHistory and Characteristics, vol. 4 (Washington/London: Na-tional Gallery of Art / Archetype Publications) 39–109.

HENDRICKX, S. & M. EYCKERMAN (2010) Continuity andchange in the visual representations of Predynastic Egypt.In: F. Raffaele, M. Nuzzolo & I. Incordino (eds.), Recent dis-coveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings ofthe First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, Naples, June18th–20th 2008 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 121–144.

HENDRICKX, S. & M. EYCKERMAN (2012) Visual representationand state formation in Egypt. Archéo-Nil 22: 23–72.

HENDRICKX, S. & F. FÖRSTER (2010) Early Dynastic art and ico-nography. In: A.B. Lloyd (ed.), A companion to ancientEgypt. Blackwell Companions to the ancient World(Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell) 826–852.

ICOMOS (2003) Recommendations for the analysis, conservationand structural restoration of architectural heritage (South-ampton: Computational Mechanics Publications).

ICOMOS – ISCS (2010) Illustrated glossary on stone deteriorationpattern. Monuments and Sites 15 (Petersberg: ICOMOS / Mi-chael Imhof Verlag).

ILIFFE, J. (1995) Africans. The History of a Continent (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).

INGOLD, T. (1986) The appropriation of nature: essays on humanecology and social relations (Manchester: Manchester Uni-versity Press).

JONES, A.M, D. FREEDMAN, B. O’CONNOR, H. LAMDIN-WHY-MARK, R. TIPPING & A. WATSON (2011) The AnimateLandscape. Rock Art and the prehistory of Kilmartin, Argyll,Scotland (Oxford: Windgather Press).

KEMAL EL DINE, H. (1928) L’exploration du Desert libyque. LaGéographie 50: 171–183; 320–336.

KRAUS, K. (2007) Photogrammetry. Geometry from Images andLaser Scans. 2nd edition (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).

KRAUS, K., J. JANSA & H. KAGER (1997) Photogrammetry, vol.2: Advanced Methods and Applications. 4th edition (Bonn:Dümmler).

KRÖPELIN, S. (1989) Untersuchungen zum Sedimentationsmilieuvon Playas im Gilf Kebir (Südwest-Ägypten). In: R. Kuper(ed.), Forschungen zur Umweltgeschichte der Ostsahara.Africa Praehistorica 2 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut) 183–305.

KUPER, R. (1981) Untersuchungen zur Besiedlungsgeschichte deröstlichen Sahara. Vorbericht über die Expedition 1980. Bei-träge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 3:215–275.

References540

— (2006) An attempt at structuring the Holocene occupationof the Eastern Sahara. In: K. Kroeper, M. Chłodnicki & M.Kobusiewicz (eds.), Archaeology of Early NortheasternAfrica. In Memory of Lech Krzyżaniak. Studies in AfricanArchaeology 9 (Poznań: Poznań Archaeological Museum)261–272.

— (2007) Desert parks in the eastern Sahara. In: O. Bubenzer,A. Bolten & F. Darius (eds.), Atlas of Cultural and Environ-mental Change in Arid Africa. Africa Praehistorica 21 (Köln:Heinrich-Barth-Institut) 118–121.

— (2009) A Paradise off Rules? Sahara 20: 7–12.

— (2011) In der “Höhle der Bestien”. Spektrum der Wissen-schaft, Spezial 2/2011: 6–13.

KUPER, R. & S. KRÖPELIN (2006) Climate-Controlled HoloceneOccupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s Evolution. Sci-ence 313: 803–807.

KUPER, R. & H. RIEMER (2010) Archaeological survey at westernJebel Ouenat, SE Libya. Libya Antiqua N.S. 5: 189–199.

— (2013) Herders before Pastoralism: Prehistoric Prelude inthe Eastern Sahara. In: M. Bollig, M. Schnegg & H.-P. Wotzka(eds.), Pastoralism in Africa. Past, Present and Future (NewYork/Oxford: Berghahn) 31–65.

KUPER, R., H. LEISEN, H. RIEMER, F. FÖRSTER, S. KRAUSE & J.SEIDEL (2010) Report on the third field season of the WadiSura Project (Gilf Kebir, SW Egypt) in spring 2010.<www.wadisura.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/uploads/media/WADI_SURA_report_3_2010-1.pdf> (accessed July 2013).

LECLANT, J. & P. HUARD (1980) La culture des chasseurs du Nilet du Sahara. Mémoires du Centre de recherches anthropo-logiques, préhistoriques et ethnographiques 29 [2 vols.](Alger: Société nationale d’édition et de diffusion).

LEISEN, H., E. VON PLEHWE-LEISEN & S. WARRACK (2004)Success and limits for stone repair mortars based on TetraEthyl Silicate—Conservation of the reliefs at Angkor WatTemple, Cambodia. In: D. Kwiatkowski & R. Löfvendahl(eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on De-terioration and Conservation of Stone, Stockholm, 7 June–2July, vol. 1 (Stockholm: ICOMOS) 331–338.

LEISEN, H., E. VON PLEHWE-LEISEN, C. VERBEEK & S.BUCHER (2005) Erhaltung von Felsmalereien in Uruguay– das Projekt ICARU. In: Fachhochschule Köln, Institut fürTropentechnologie (ed.), Technology, Resource Managementand Development – 25 Years of Interdisciplinary Researchfor the Tropics and Subtropics. Schriftenreihe des ITT-FHKöln 3 (Köln: Fachhochschule Köln) 133–142.

LENSSEN-ERZ, T. (2001) Gemeinschaft – Gleichheit – Mobilität.Felsbilder im Brandberg, Namibia, und ihre Bedeutung.Grundlagen einer textuellen Felsbildarchäologie. AfricaPraehistorica 13 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut).

— (2002) Art for Art’s Sake in Rock Art Research – On the Et-hics of Archaeological Documentation. In: Jennerstraße 8(ed.), Tides of the Desert – Gezeiten der Wüste. Contributi-ons to the Archaeology and Environmental History of Africain Honour of Rudolph Kuper. Africa Praehistorica 14 (Köln:Heinrich-Barth-Institut) 549–558.

— (2006) Structure and Meaning of the Catalogue / Definiti-ons for the Analysis of Individual Figures / Definitions forthe Analysis of Scenes. In: H. Pager, The Rock Paintings ofthe Upper Brandberg. Part VI: Naib (B), Circus and DomGorges. Tome 2. Africa Praehistorica 20.2 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut) 465–478.

LÉONARD, J. (1997) Flore et Végétation du Jebel Uweinat (Désertde Libye: Libye, Egypte, Sudan). Première partie. Bulletin duJardin botanique national de Belgique 66: 223–340.

— (1999a) Flore et Végétation du Jebel Uweinat (Désert deLibye: Libye, Egypte, Sudan). Deuxième partie. Bulletin duJardin botanique national de Belgique 67: 123–216.

— (1999b) Flore et Végétation du Jebel Uweinat (Désert deLibye: Libye, Egypte, Sudan). Troisième partie. Systematicsand Geography of Plants 69: 215–264.

LE QUELLEC, J.-L. (2005) Une nouvelle approche des rapportsNil–Sahara d’après l’art rupestre. Archéo-Nil 15: 67–74.

— (2008) Can one ‘Read’ Rock Art? An Egyptian Example. In:P. Taylor (ed.), Iconography without Texts. Warburg InstituteColloquia 13 (London: Warburg Institute) 25–42.

— (2009) Les images rupestres du Jebel el-‘Uweynat. Archeo-Nil 19: 12–26.

— (2012) Iconoclasties rupestres au Sahara. Sahara 23: 59–73.

LE QUELLEC, J.-L., P. DE FLERS & Ph. DE FLERS (2005) Du Sa-hara au Nil. Peintures et gravures d’avant les pharaons. Étu-des d’égyptologie 7 (Paris: Soleb/Fayard).

LINSEELE, V., H. RIEMER, J. BAETEN, D. DE VOS, E. MARINOVA& C. OTTONI (2013) Species identification of archaeologi-cal dung remains: A critical review of potential methods.Journal of Environmental Archaeology 18 (1): 5–17.

LINSTÄDTER, J., ed. (2005) Wadi Bakht. Landschaftsarchäologieeiner Siedlungskammer im Gilf Kebir. Africa Praehistorica18 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut).

LINSTÄDTER, J. & S. KRÖPELIN (2004) Wadi Bakht revisited:Holocene climatic change and prehistoric occupation in theGilf Kebir region of the Eastern Sahara. Geoarchaeology 19:753–778.

LORBLANCHET, M. (1991) Spitting Images: Replicating the Spot-ted Horses of Pech Merle. Archaeology 44: 24–31.

— (1997) Höhlenmalerei. Ein Handbuch (Stuttgart: Thorbecke).

LORBLANCHET, M., M. LABEAU, J.L. VERNET, P. FITTE, H. VAL-LADAS, H. CACHIER & M. ARNOLD (1990) Palaeolithicpigments in the Quercy, France. Rock Art Research 7: 4–20.

LUTZ, R. & G. LUTZ (1995) Das Geheimnis der Wüste. Die Fels-kunst des Messak Sattafet und Messak Mellet – Libyen (Inns-bruck: Universitätsbuchhandlung Golf Verlag).

MARK, R. & E. BILLO (1999) A Stitch in Time: Digital Panoramasand Mosaics. American Indian Rock Art 25: 155–168.

— (2002) Application of Digital Image Enhancement in RockArt. American Indian Rock Art 28: 121–128.

— (2006) Computer-assisted photographic documentation ofrock art. Coalition 11: 10–14.

MELLER, H., ed. (2008) Der geschmiedete Himmel – die weiteWelt im Herzen Europas vor 3600 Jahren (Stuttgart: Theiss).

References 541

MENARDI NOGUERA, A. & A. ZBORAY (2011a) Rock art in thelandscape setting of the western Jebel Uweinat (Libya).Sahara 22: 85–116.

— (2011b) Containers, Bags, and other manmade Objects inthe Pastoral Paintings of the Jebel el-’Uweinat: a Review. Ca-hiers de l’Association des amis de l’art rupestre saharien 15:274–294.

— (2012) Elongated Round Heads, Oversized Cows and Te-thered Wild Animals from the Northern Jebel Arkenu(Libya). Sahara 23: 133–146.

MENARDI NOGUERA, A., S. LABERIO MINOZZI & M. SOFFIAN-TINI (2007) Old tracks and rock art sites on the EmeriHighland, Jebel Uweinat (Libya). Sahara 18: 47–68.

MINOLTA EUROPE (2001) 3D Digitizing. Altamira II, high-techcave reconstruction. <http://elracimo.net/almacen/docs/CaseStudy_Altamira.pdf> (accessed July 2013).

MONOD, T. (1995) Contribution à l’établissement d’une florule duGilf Kebir (S.-O. Egypte). Bulletin du Muséum nationald’histoire naturelle 17: 259–269.

MORI, F., R. PONTI, A. MESSINA, M. FLIEGER, V. HAVLICEK &M. SINIBALDI (2006) Chemical characterization and AMSradiocarbon dating of the binder of a prehistoric rock picto-graph at Tadrart Acacus, southern west Libya. Journal ofCultural Heritage 7: 344–349.

MUDGE, M., C. SCHROER, T. NOBLE, N. MATTHEWS, S. RUSIN-KIEWICZ & C. TOLER-FRANKLIN (2012) Robust andScientifically Reliable Rock Art Documentation from DigitalPhotographs. In: J. McDonald & P. Veth (eds.), A Companionto Rock Art. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology 18 (Ox-ford et al.: Wiley-Blackwell) 644–659.

MURAT, M. (1937) Végetation de la zone prédésertique en Afriquecentrale (région du Tchad). Bulletin de la Société d’HistoireNaturelle de l’Afrique du Nord 28: 19–83.

MUZZOLINI, A. (1995) Les images rupestres du Sahara. Préhis-toire du Sahara 1 (Toulouse: A. Muzzolini).

NEUMANN, K. (1989) Zur Vegetationsgeschichte der Ostsaharaim Holozän. Holzkohlen aus prähistorischen Fundstellen.In: R. Kuper (ed.), Forschungen zur Umweltgeschichte derOstsahara. Africa Praehistorica 2 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-In-stitut) 13–181.

PAGER, H. (1971) Ndedema. A documentation of the rock pain-tings of the Ndedema Gorge (Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlagsanstalt).

— (1989–2006) The Rock Paintings of the Upper Brandberg,parts I–VI. Africa Praehistorica 1; 4; 7; 10; 12; 20 (Köln: Hein-rich-Barth-Institut).

QUÉZEL, P. (1964) Carte internationale du tapis végétal, publiéepar le gouvernement du Tchad: Feuille de Largeau NE 34(Paris: Institut géographique national).

— (1978) Analysis of the flora of Mediterranean and SaharanAfrica. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 65: 479–534.

RAPIDFORM (2011) Altamira Cave: Digitizing History.<http://www.rapidform.com/success-stories/cultural-heri-tage/altamira-cave> (accessed July 2013).

RHOTERT, H. (1952) Libysche Felsbilder. Ergebnisse der XI. undXII. Deutschen Inner-Afrikanischen Forschungs-Expedition(DIAFE) 1933/1934/1935. Veröffentlichung des Frobenius-In-stituts an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frank-furt am Main (Darmstadt: L.C. Wittich).

RIEMER, H. (2007) When hunters started herding: Pastro-foragersand the complexity of Holocene economic change in theWestern Desert of Egypt. In: M. Bollig, O. Bubenzer, R. Vo-gelsang & H.-P. Wotzka (eds.), Aridity, Change and Conflictin Africa. Proceedings of an International ACACIA Confe-rence held at Königswinter, Germany, October 1–3, 2003.Colloquium Africanum 2 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut)105–144.

— (2009a) Prehistoric trap hunting in the eastern Saharan de-serts: A re-evaluation of the game trap structures. In: H. Rie-mer, F. Förster, M. Herb & N. Pöllath (eds.), Desert animalsin the eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cul-tural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdiscipli-nary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne,December 14–15, 2007. Colloquium Africanum 4 (Köln:Heinrich-Barth-Institut) 175–188.

— (2009b) Prehistoric Rock Art Research in the Western De-sert of Egypt. Archéo-Nil 19: 31–46.

— (2011) El Kharafish. The archaeology of Sheikh Muftahpastoral nomads in the desert around Dakhla Oasis (Egypt).Africa Praehistorica 25 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut).

— (2012) Archaeological Survey of Wadi Hamra, Gilf Kebir,Egypt. In: J. Kabaciński, M. Chłodnicki & M. Kobusiewicz(eds.), Prehistory of Northeastern Africa. New Ideas and Dis-coveries (Poznań: Poznań Archaeological Museum / PolishAcademy of Sciences) 323–348.

RIEMER, H. & F. JESSE (2006) When decoration made its way: thenorthern extent of Khartoum-style pottery in the eastern Sa-hara. In: I. Caneva & A. Roccati (eds.), Acta Nubica. Procee-dings of the X International Conference of Nubian Studies,Rome 9–14 September 2002 (Roma: Università di Roma “LaSapienza”) 63–72.

RIEMER, H. & R. KUPER (2012) Wadi Sura and the Gilf Kebir Na-tional Park – Challenge and chance for archaeology and con-servation in Egypt’s southwest. In: R.S. Bagnall, P. Davoli &C.A. Hope (eds.), Oasis Papers 6. Proceedings of the SixthInternational Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project.Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 15 (Oxford: Oxbow) 107–117.

RIEMER, H., F. BARTZ & S. KRAUSE (2013) New rock art sites inthe Gilf Kebir, SW Egypt. A review of recent results from theWadi Sura survey 2009–2011. Sahara 24: 7–26.

RODRIGUES, J.D., F.M.A. HENRIQUES & F. TELMO JEREMIAS,eds. (1992) Proceedings of the VIIth International Congresson Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, held in Lisbon,15–18 June 1992 (Lisbon: Laboratório National de Engenha-ria Civil).

ROHLFS, G. (1875) Drei Monate in der libyschen Wüste. Mit Bei-trägen von P. Ascherson, W. Jordan und K. Zittel (Cassel:Fischer) [reprint Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut, 1996].

References and photo credits542

RUDNER, I. (1983) Paints of the Khoisan rock artists. In: J.D.Lewis-Williams (ed.), New Approaches to Southern AfricanRock Art. Goodwin Series 4 (Cape Town: South African Ar-chaeological Society) 14–20.

SCHERBAUM, A. (2004) Albrecht Dürers “Marienleben”. Form –Gehalt – Funktion und sozialhistorischer Ort (Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz).

SCHNEIDER, T. (2011) Egypt and the Chad: Some Additional Re-marks. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 3/4:12–15.

SCHÖN, W. (1996) Ausgrabungen im Wadi el Akhdar, Gilf Kebir(SW-Ägypten). Africa Praehistorica 8 (Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut).

SVOBODA, J. (2009) Action, ritual, and myth in the rock art ofEgyptian Western Desert. Anthropologie 47/1–2: 137–145.

THORWEIHE, U. & M. HEINL (1998) Groundwater Resources ofthe Nubian Aquifer System. In: Aquifers of Major Basins –non-renewable Water Resource (Paris: Observatoire du Sa-hara et du Sahel) 1–29.

TUBIANA, J. & A. LE ROUVREUR (1971) Une saison sèche en En-nedi (1949–1950). Études rurales 42: 172–177.

USGS (2002) Map showing Geology, Oil and Gas Fields and Geo-logical Provinces of Africa. U.S. Geological Survey: Open FileReport 97-470A, version 2.0. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-470/OF97-470A/> (accessed July 2013).

VAN ALBADA, A. & A.-M. VAN ALBADA (2000) La montagnedes hommes-chiens: art rupestre du Messak libyen. Col-lection “Arts rupestres” (Paris: Seuil).

VAN NOTEN, F. (1978) The Rock Paintings of Jebel Uweinat(Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt).

VOZIKIS, G., A. HARING, E. VOZIKIS & K. KRAUS (2004) LaserScanning: A New Method for Recording and Documentationin Archaeology. In: FIG (Fédération Internationale des Géo-mètres / International Federation of Surveyors), FIG Wor-king Week 2004, Athens, Greece, May 22–27, 2004: 1–16.<http://www.fig.net/pub/athens/papers/wsa1/WSA1_4_Vozikis_et_al.pdf> (accessed July 2013).

WASKLEWICZ, T., D. STALEY, H. VOLKER & D. WHITLEY (2005)Terrestrial 3D Laser Scanning: A New Method for RecordingRock Art. International Newsletter on Rock Art 41: 16–25.

WATTS, I. (2010) The pigments from Pinnacle Point Cave 13B,Western Cape, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 59:392–411.

WENDLER, E., L. SATTLER, P. ZIMMERMANN, D.D. KLEMM &R. SNETHLAGE (1992) Protective Treatment of NaturalStone—Requirements and Limitations with Respect to theState of Damage. In: J.D. Rodrigues, F.M.A. Henriques & F.Telmo Jeremias (eds.), Proceedings of the VIIth InternationalCongress on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone, heldin Lisbon, 15–18 June 1992 (Lisbon: Laboratório National deEngenharia Civil) 1103–1113.

WENDORF, F., R. SCHILD & Associates (2001) Holocene settle-ment of the Egyptian Sahara, vol. 1: the archaeology of NabtaPlaya (New York/London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum).

WHITLEY, D.S. (2005) Introduction to Rock Art Research (WalnutCreek: Left Coast Press).

ZBORAY, A. (2003a) Some results of recent expeditions to the GilfKebir and Jebel Uweinat. Cahiers de l’Association des amisde l’art rupestre saharien 8: 97–104.

— (2003b) New rock art findings at Jebel Uweinat and the GilfKebir. Sahara 14: 111–127.

— (2005a) Rock Art of the Libyan Desert (Newbury: FliegelJezerniczky Expeditions) [DVD ROM].

— (2005b) Rock art finds in the Wadi Wahesh (Jebel Uweinat).Sahara 16: 165–168.

— (2009) Rock Art of the Libyan Desert. Second, expandededition (Newbury: Fliegel Jezerniczky Expeditions) [DVDROM].

— (2012) A Revision of the Identified Prehistoric Rock ArtStyles of the Central Libyan Desert (Eastern Sahara) and theirRelative Chronology. In: D. Huyge, F. Van Noten & D.Swinne (eds.), The Signs of Which Times? Chronological andPalaeoenvironmental Issues in the Rock Art of NorthernAfrica. International Colloquium Brussels, 3–5 June, 2010(Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences) 217–255.

ZBORAY, A. & M. BORDA (2010) Some recent results of the sur-vey of Jebel Uweinat. Sahara 21: 181–189.

Frobenius-Institut, Frankfurt: p. 13, fig. 3; p. 14, figs. 5, 6; p. 24,fig. 1,1 (copy DIAFE XII, 1935, slightly modified)

British Museum, London: p. 25, fig. 5 (BM 1852,0525.1.3 / AN753627,slightly modified)

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: p. 27, fig. 7 (photo onbottom left; MMA Rogers Fund, 1930: 30.3.24; reproducedfrom BÁRTA 2010: fig. 18/3, slightly modified)

Fantasy Records, San Francisco: p. 14, fig. 7, right

Massimo Foggini: p. 17, fig. 12

Karin Kindermann: p. 69, fig. 8

Beatrix Kuper: p. 27, fig. 8,2; p. 28, fig. 3; p. 29, fig. 4,1; p. 66, fig. 1

Jolana Malátková: p. 27, fig. 7 (drawing on top left; reproduced fromBÁRTA 2010: fig. 18/2)

Michael Turtle (www.timetravelturtle.com): p. 27, fig. 8,1

Lucie Vařeková: p. 26, fig. 6 (insert; reproduced from BÁRTA 2010:fig. 13)

Oliver Vogels: p. 68, fig. 6

Uffz. Wöhrmann: p. 14, fig. 7, left (cf. GROSS et al. 2013: 167)

Unless otherwise indicated in the captions, all remaining photo-graphs, drawings, etc. in this volume are by members of the WadiSura team.

Photo credits