Introduction

Few words in Palaeolithic archaeology in recent years have caused as much contention as ‘Nubian’ (Blinkhorn et al., 2021, 2022; Groucutt, 2020; Hallinan et al., 2022a). Describing both a specific mode of lithic reduction—Nubian Levallois technology (Guichard & Guichard, 1965; Usik et al., 2013)—and a broad cultural entity—the Nubian Complex (Van Peer, 1998: 127)—much of the related controversy is rooted in issues of definition and taxonomy. At the core of the problem is that as research has progressed, these two separate ideas have become intertwined and, at times, problematically conflated (Groucutt, 2020). As acknowledged by a recent international workshop convened to address this problem (Hallinan et al., 2022b), these are important issues to break down and re-evaluate; however, the context in which these terms were originally conceived and subsequently evolved through academic discourse must also be considered with balance. Whilst other recent works have presented historical perspectives on North African Palaeolithic cultural taxonomy more broadly (e.g. Garcea, 2022; Leplongeon, 2022a, 2023), or more narrowly critiqued the Nubian Complex (Groucutt, 2020), we centre our review on the Nubian Campaign of the 1960s, in which one of us (A. Marks) participated. Serving as an introduction to the collection ‘The nature of Nubian: current global perspectives on Nubian Levallois technology and Middle Palaeolithic cultural dynamics’, this paper charts the origins and development of terminology and concepts associated with ‘Nubian’ in both technological and cultural terms, providing a background for the new research presented in the collection and the subsequent evolution of related debates.

The Nubian in Nubia

Even outside of its usage in deep prehistory, ‘Nubian’ has varied meanings with geographic, linguistic, demographic and historic connotations (Raue, 2019). The region of Nubia falls between the first cataract of the Nile, at Aswan in southern Egypt, and the confluence of the Blue and White Nile at Khartoum in central Sudan, extending across the deserts to the west and east. The association between the term ‘Nubian’ and a particular form of Levallois technology began with the Combined Prehistoric Expedition (CPE) in Lower Nubia, specifically the work of Jean and Geneviève Guichard (1965, 1968) and Anthony Marks (1968a).

The comprehensive Nubian rescue campaign aimed to record all Sudanese and Egyptian archaeological sites that would be submerged by the creation of Lake Nasser through the construction of the Aswan High Dam (Hassan, 2007; Wendorf, 1968a) (Fig. 1a). Concessions along the Nile were granted to different international teams, including the CPE which brought together various American, European and Egyptian partners, initially led by Ralph Solecki of Columbia University and then by Fred Wendorf of Southern Methodist University. The CPE was one of only two expeditions that focused specifically on prehistoric material, the other being the joint expedition of the Peabody Museum, Yale University, and the National Museum of Canada (Wendorf, 1968a). Very little was known of the Palaeolithic of the region at the time, and the frequent interpretation of prior work in Upper Egypt was that it had been culturally conservative and of limited significance in the wider story of human development (Wendorf, 1968a). However, this perception misrepresented the observations of Egyptian prehistoric specialists, such as Caton-Thompson (1946: 59), who regarded the Nile Valley Palaeolithic sequence as being of ‘capital importance’ to world prehistory (Caton-Thompson, 1946, 1952; Leplongeon, 2022b; Vignard, 1922, 1923). Owing to the strong influence of European Palaeolithic taxonomy at the time, the term ‘Middle Palaeolithic’ rather than the African ‘Middle Stone Age’ nomenclature was generally adopted, hence used in this review (cf. Bishop & Clark, 1967; Kleindienst, 2000, 2006; Van Peer & Vermeersch, 2007).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map showing a the location of the CPE study area in Nubia and b the location of Middle Palaeolithic sites near Wadi Halfa. a After Wendorf, 1968a, Fig. 1; b after Marks, 1968a, Fig. 6. Blue lines indicate the Nile channel prior to the flooding of Lake Nasser. Aerial imagery from NASA Landsat data, U.S. Geological Survey

Full size image

The CPE surveys and excavations along the Nile were carried out over three field seasons between 1960 and 1964, focusing mainly on a 120 km stretch of the Nile between Ineiba in Egypt and the second cataract near Wadi Halfa in Sudan (Wendorf, 1968a) (Fig. 1a). Despite the necessary prioritisation of the flood pool area, most Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites were located on inselbergs outside of the projected flood pool, where it was hard to justify dedicating time and attention (Marks, 1968a; Wendorf, 1968a) (Fig. 1b). The sites that were systematically studied and published by the CPE team represent only a small fraction of the Middle Palaeolithic sites in the area; therefore, it is unlikely that the variability of the region’s Middle Palaeolithic was fully captured during the campaign (Marks, 1968a).

Most sites were in surface contexts, although some represented buried single layer deposits at the base of inselbergs. Only one site, 1033, had two layers (Marks, 1968a). Sampling of surface sites involved systematic collections from areas ranging from four to 100 square metres depending on the density of artefacts (Wendorf et al., 1965; Wendorf, 1968a). Middle Palaeolithic assemblages were described in accordance with the French framework of the time, the standardised classification system of Bordes (1950, 1961), which up to that time had not been applied outside of France and the Levant. Whilst typologies were being developed for other parts of North Africa (e.g. de Heinzelin, 1962; Tixier, 1963), that of Bordes was the most comprehensive. The tool type-list, along with various technological and typological indices, formed the basis for measuring similarities and differences between sites both within and between regions (Bordes, 1950, 1953; Guichard & Guichard, 1965; Marks, 1968a). Where artefact forms appeared to be ‘peculiar to Nubia or existing in that country in greater quantities than anywhere else’, they were provisionally called ‘Nubian’ (Guichard & Guichard, 1965: 67): Nubian biface, Nubian side-scraper and Nubian cores Type 1 and Type 2. In accordance with Bordesian systematic principles, a type was based on recognisably different morphology so that Nubian cores Type 1 and 2 had no implied typological or technological relationships.

These assemblages were grouped according to their varying characteristics and designated with industry type names which underwent several revisions between the 1965 and 1968 publications, as work was still in progress. Three industries were defined: Nubian Middle Palaeolithic, with two groups and three facies recognised by Guichard and Guichard (1965, 1968), and Nubian Mousterian (two facies: Type A without bifaces and Type B with bifaces) and Denticulate Mousterian identified by Marks (1968a; Wendorf, 1968b) (Table 1). These industries were classified by a standardised tool list and technological measures, after Bordes’ practice for the French Mousterian. They were directly compared with the Middle Palaeolithic in Europe and the Levant and suggested to show close parallels (Marks, 1986a; Wendorf, 1968b).

Table 1 Features of the three Middle Palaeolithic industries defined in Nubia (Guichard & Guichard, 1965; Marks, 1968a)
Full size table

It is important to note some contextual differences between the Middle Palaeolithic assemblages studied by each CPE team and attributed to separate industries. The Guichards were particularly interested in the Lower Palaeolithic, so their study focused on assemblages containing Acheulean handaxes. They concentrated on sites in the Eastern Desert, around 7 to 10 km east of the Nile, whereas Marks and colleagues focused on assemblages closer to the east bank of the Nile, without handaxes but with more formal tools (Wendorf et al., 1965). The context of the sites studied by the Guichards was mainly workshops and quarries, whilst these settings were avoided by Marks to ensure higher frequencies of tools for typological comparisons (Marks, 1968a: 296). Only one assemblage was studied by both teams, Jebel Brinikol, which was accidentally split during transport, creating two random samples of the systematic collection. It was characterised both as Nubian Middle Palaeolithic and Nubian Mousterian Type B and, as such, was regarded as a ‘problem’, though ultimately assigned to the latter (Marks, 1968a: 297).

The Nubian Middle Palaeolithic industry was defined on the basis of three kinds of artefact: ‘Nubian’ cores (Types 1 and 2), ‘Nubian’ side-scrapers, and bifacial foliates, which were described as ‘leading’ rather than type fossils (Guichard & Guichard, 1965: 98) (Table 1). These ‘leading’ artefacts were not associated in an identical manner between sites, but their co-occurrence was regarded as significant, with all Nubian Middle Palaeolithic sites possessing at least two of these types (Marks, 1968a). A key technological characteristic of the Nubian Mousterian was that cores were predominantly Levallois, but Nubian cores may or not be present (Marks, 1968a). Bifacial foliates and Nubian scrapers were absent from Nubian Mousterian sites, and the bifaces of Type B were small and more refined than Acheulean handaxes. Instead, the associated formal tools were mainly ‘Upper Palaeolithic’ types (after Bordes, 1953), such as end-scrapers, burins and borers (Table 1).

At both Nubian Middle Palaeolithic and Nubian Mousterian sites, the frequencies of Nubian cores are variable in both absolute numbers and in their proportional composition of the core assemblage (Guichard & Guichard, 1965; Marks, 1968a) (Table 2, Fig. 2). Nubian cores were present in eleven of the fifteen Middle Palaeolithic assemblages sampled by the Guichards; however, when sampling localities are grouped by site, Nubian cores occur at all six attributed to the Nubian Middle Palaeolithic industry, in accordance with its definition. At these sites, Nubian core proportions range between 1 and 23% of the identifiable core assemblage (Site 415: 0.9%; Site 439: 9.0%; Site 400: 12.4%; Abu Simbel: 15.4%; Site 420: 22.5%; Brinikol: incomplete sample). The Guichards also described a ‘non-Nubian’ Middle Palaeolithic at three sites—noting more than fifty others in the region—that had no Nubian cores, foliates or side-scrapers (Guichard & Guichard, 1965: 86; although one Nubian core is recorded in the inventory for 113A).

Table 2 Frequencies of Levallois cores in Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, and Early Palaeolithic and Khormusan industry sites containing Nubian cores. Data after Tables 1 and 4 in Guichard and Guichard (1965: 71, 87) and core typology lists in Marks (1968a, 1968b). Non-Levallois core types are grouped as ‘Other’. Only identifiable core types were included for percentage calculations, excluding Informal, Isolated flake, Fragmentary and Unidentifiable cores
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Composition of core assemblages at relevant Palaeolithic sites from the CPE expedition. Data after Tables 1 and 4 in Guichard and Guichard (1965: 71, 87) and core typology lists in Marks (1968a, 1968b) (see Table 2)

Full size image

Additionally, Nubian cores were observed in four of the twelve Early Palaeolithic assemblages, representing between 10 and 14% of the identifiable cores (Guichard & Guichard, 1965). At Arkin 5 on the east bank of the Nile, all of the 93 cores in the assemblage were identified as ‘Levalloisian’ and belonging to Nubian Type 1, with bifacial foliates also present (Chmielewski, 1968). Chmielewski (1968) likened the assemblage to sites 420 and Brinikol and draws tentative comparisons with the Sangoan industry, noting that within the Nile terraces stratigraphically it lies between Acheulean and Middle Palaeolithic sites. The Sangoan itself is a loosely defined entity associated with the early Middle Stone Age in Africa, and in Wendorf’s (1968b: 1044) overview, the Nubian Middle Palaeolithic industry is subtitled ‘Sangoan/Lupemban?’, even though it lacks certain characteristic artefact forms such as picks and core axes. Based on the Sudanese site of Saï 8-B-11, later work has also posited the origins of Nubian cores lie in earlier Sangoan and Lupemban technologies (Van Peer, 2016).

In the twelve Middle Palaeolithic assemblages studied by Marks (1968a), more than a third had no Nubian cores, including a third of the sites attributed to the Nubian Mousterian industry. Marks’ industry definitions were not dependent on the presence of Nubian cores, and the highest Nubian core frequencies out of all Middle Palaeolithic assemblages were at the Nubian Mousterian sites 1035 (30%) and 1038 (28%). Low numbers of Nubian cores occur at three of the five sites belonging to the Khormusan industry, also described by Marks (1968b), representing between 2 and 4% of identifiable cores. With a relatively strong presence of Levallois technology at Khormusan sites, it is regarded as dating to the later part of the Middle Palaeolithic (Goder-Goldberger, 2013; Marks, 1968b; Schild et al., 2020). Similarities are also noted with the Aterian (Guichard & Guichard, 1965, 1968), another North African late Middle Palaeolithic industry (generally dating to MIS 4) that has since been observed to contain Nubian cores at some sites (Cancellieri et al., 2016; Garcea, 2001; Van Peer, 1986).

As this overview shows, it was no understatement when Wendorf et al., (1965: xxii) described the Middle Palaeolithic of Nubia as ‘quite complex’; likewise, the Guichards (1968: 193) concluded that it was ‘more complex than anything which has been envisioned until now’. In the context of open-air surface sites, located in different landscape settings and made by mobile hunter-gatherers who did not leave all of the remnants of their stone knapping in one place, the variability between different assemblages is to be expected and is further compounded by the palimpsest effect that conflates artefacts from multiple episodes (e.g. Dibble et al., 2017; Turq et al., 2013). However, it presents a diverse array of Middle Palaeolithic techno-typological packages in the region, to which subsequent research in Nubia beyond the CPE study area has added further complexity (Ehlert et al., 2022; Masojć, 2018; Masojć et al., 2017; Osypińska et al., 2020; Osypiński & Osypińska, 2016; Osypiński et al., 2021). Although this new research has contributed important dates to the region’s Palaeolithic chronology, currently these attribute some of the youngest ages (MIS 3 or possibly MIS 2) to assemblages containing Nubian cores, which—given that they also occur in assemblages with handaxes—brings little clarity to their position in time.

Whilst elsewhere the work of the CPE has been criticised as creating “a mass of confusing and undated ‘industries’” (Groucutt, 2020: 64), for the first time, it permitted a comparison of Middle Palaeolithic assemblages within and across regions, using the same framework for artefact classification and measures of variability. It is certainly true that the ‘industries’ were ‘undated’, but this was the case for all Middle Palaeolithic assemblages at the time, since in the early 1960s there was no way to accurately date anything beyond 50,000 BP and even that was questionable. Thus, the poorly resolved chronology was as much a major limiting factor then (Marks, 1968a) as it continues to be today.

What is clear from reviewing the ‘Nubian’ nomenclature in its historical context is that it is only in subsequent discourse that the term has become inextricably linked with this geographic area. Nubia itself neither has the highest representation of Nubian cores, nor likely represents the origin point of this reduction strategy; it was merely the place where it was first defined and named.

Defining Nubian Technology

Whilst not initially given the name ‘Nubian’, the distinctive type of Levallois core was first described by Seligman (1921a, 1921b) based on observations of artefacts from the Middle Nile Valley in Egypt. At a similar time, Vignard (1922: Plates XIV-XVII) acknowledged and illustrated the artefact type as a Levallois point core, describing its mode of distal preparation through two blade removals that guide the shape of the final removal. In contrast, Seligman interpreted the artefact form not as a core but as a tool, proposing the name ‘tortoise point’, ‘not so much because they occur on tortoise [centripetal Levallois] cores, but because this stout rather blunt point recalls the beak of a tortoise’ (Seligman, 1921a: 125). He associated them with a Levallois strategy and emphasised the crest or ridge, bounded by two longer, narrower facets on the upper face. However, he misunderstood both the production sequence, suggesting the distal platform (‘terminal facet’; Seligman, 1921a: 126) was installed after the ridge, and their function, describing their use as a ‘heavy drawing point’ (Seligman, 1921a: 127). He also highlighted that these artefacts were not commonly recognised in the European Palaeolithic record (Seligman, 1921b), although elsewhere similarities were noted by Vignard (1922: 88), referring to a Levallois core from northern France illustrated by Commont (1909: 126) that shows preparatory blade removals from the distal end. Gobert also observed similar forms in French Magdalenian and Neolithic contexts (Guichard & Guichard, 1965: 99). Drawing on Seligman’s idea (though not the name he actually used), a recent call has been made to replace the geographic term ‘Nubian’ with a morphological descriptor, ‘beaked core’ (Groucutt, 2020; Groucutt et al., 2015, 2019). The apparent lack of acceptance of this alternative term shows that the name is not the problem; rather, the issue lies with precisely how a Nubian core is defined and what this means in terms of technology and behaviour.

The first detailed characterisation of Nubian cores was by Jean and Geneviève Guichard (1965) who separated these into ‘Nubian Type 1’ and ‘Nubian Type 2’. In their original conception, there was no assumed relationship between the two types besides both producing pointed blanks and both being found in Nubia. Whilst Guichard and Guichard’s core type definitions are essentially typological, they described in detail the ‘special technique’ (1965: 68) that created the resultant core form. For Type 1 cores: ‘(a) flaking off the periphery of a plaquette to obtain an oval thick core; (b) at the distal (and pointed) end, the removal of two elongated flakes or Levallois blades with negative bulbs close to each other; the traces of removals of both blades are delineated by a short ridge approximately in the core symmetry axis; (c) towards the base, retouched starting from the denudation described in (b)…; (d) the preparation of a striking platform at the proximal end. At this stage, the core, seen from underneath, assumes an ogival shape, and sideways looks pyriform; (e) the removal of a Levallois point’ (Guichard & Guichard, 1965: 68–69). In their later report, the Guichards (1968: 184) revised the terminology for Levallois point cores, removing the descriptor ‘Nubian’ and defining three types: Type 1 (classic unidirectional convergent Levallois point), Type 2 (previously Nubian Type 1), and Type 3 (previously Nubian Type 2). However, the original Nubian core types, according to the 1965 definitions, have prevailed in subsequent usage.

When revisiting the Guichards’ description of Nubian Type 2 cores in Nubia, the distal ridge that is central to its modern definition is not prominent or not even present (Fig. 3). These cores produced products that are ‘not, in a strict sense, Levallois points because they are not debited along a ridge’, and preparation is such that unstruck cores ‘might recall a biface’ (Guichard & Guichard, 1965: 69). It was Bordes (1980) who emphasised the lateral (‘perpendicular’) preparation that creates the ridge to guide the preferential removal, forming the basis for more recent interpretations of the type. In fact, Bordes regarded Type 2 as warranting the name ‘Nubian core’ but suggested that Type 1 is a minor variation on the unidirectional convergent point production method, since both rely on Y-shaped dorsal scars to guide the point removal (Bordes, 1980). Even in the early usage of the Nubian Type terminology, Marks (1968a: 287) highlighted this point: ‘It must be remembered that the Nubian Core, Type 1, is really no more than a Levallois point core that has a slightly modified system of preparation.’ More recently, it has been argued that Nubian Levallois reduction does not represent a technological approach distinct from wider Levallois point production strategies (Blinkhorn et al., 2021).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Nubian cores from Nubia: a Type 1 core from Site 36–4; b Type 2 core from Site 420; c Type 1 core from Site 1038; d Type 2 core from Site 1038. a and b are redrawn from Guichard & Guichard, 1965, Fig. 22; c 3D scan of core illustrated in Marks, 1968a, Fig. 33; d 3D scan of core illustrated in Marks, 1968a, Fig. 32. Access to artefacts from Site 1038 courtesy of the British Museum, London. Artefact scan orientations were visualised using the software ‘Artifact3-D’ (Grosman et al., 2022)

Full size image

In the Guichards’ Nubian Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, Type 1 cores were more common than Type 2, whereas Marks’ Nubian Mousterian sites displayed the opposite pattern (Guichard & Guichard, 1965; Marks, 1968a). Re-examination of the cores from sites 1035 and 1038, and re-evaluation of illustrated point cores (Marks, 1968a: 228, 247, 273), suggests that there are more Type 2 cores present in these assemblages that were perhaps classified as (non-Nubian) ‘Levallois point cores’ (e.g. Figure 3d), as well as cores that would fall under a Type 1/2 classification, with both distal and lateral preparation (Marks, 1968a: 246; Usik et al., 2013). The core preparation recognised by the Guichards’ Type 2 in Nubia manifests slightly differently to assemblages outside of Nubia (Fig. 4). Subsequent research has questioned whether Type 2 cores with lateral preparation fall within the strict definition of Nubian, such as it is, or whether these should be considered to grade into ‘classical’ centripetal Levallois cores (Chiotti et al., 2007, 2009; Goder-Goldberger et al., 2016). Some assemblages show fluidity between the two types which both produce end-products of the same shape (Chiotti et al., 2009; Usik et al., 2013), whereas in others, they may represent different stages in the core reduction sequence (Hallinan & Shaw, 2020). Type 2 cores were uncommon in Nubian Mousterian assemblages (Marks, 1968a) and in Middle Egypt (Olszewski et al., 2010; Vermeersch et al., 2002), but occur more frequently in some assemblages from Arabia (Hilbert et al., 2017; Rose et al., 2011; Usik et al., 2013) and South Africa (Hallinan & Shaw, 2020). Whilst centripetal Levallois reduction occurs alongside Nubian reduction in some regions (Goder-Goldberger et al., 2016; Hallinan & Shaw, 2020; Marks, 1968a; Van Peer, 1992), it does not in others (Rose et al., 2011; Usik et al., 2013). Using fixed core types, in a typological sense, to characterise assemblages has the effect of masking more nuanced assemblage-level technological variability that reflects the dynamic nature of core reduction processes (e.g. Crassard & Hilbert, 2013; Crassard & Thiébaut, 2011). Therefore, it has been recommended that rather than simply using type names, greater emphasis should be placed on describing Nubian core distal ridge preparation explicitly in terms of distal and lateral scar patterns (Hallinan et al., 2022b).

Fig. 4
figure 4

3D scans of Nubian Type 2 cores with a bilaterally prepared distal ridge: a TH.571, Dhufār, Oman; b D40, Negev, Israel; c Nazlet Khater 1, Nile Valley, Egypt; d Tweefontein, Tankwa Karoo, South Africa. Artefact scan orientations were visualised using the software ‘Artifact3-D’ (Grosman et al., 2022)

Full size image

Given the various ambiguities associated with the typological definition of Nubian cores, an attribute list developed by Usik et al. (2013) has been employed in numerous studies to identify Nubian Levallois technology in its strictest sense (Goder-Goldberger et al., 2016; Hallinan & Shaw, 2020; Hilbert et al., 2017; Will et al., 2015). According to this system, the required attributes to designate a core as Nubian are (1) a steeply angled distal median ridge of < 120° and generally > 60°, (2) an opposed striking platform with angle of intersection to the exploitation surface varying from 50° to 90°, (3) a triangular or sub-triangular core shape, and (4) a faceted primary striking platform (Usik et al., 2013). However, the strict application of all of these criteria has not been universally and transparently applied (e.g. Blinkhorn et al., 2021; Hallinan et al., 2022a). Furthermore, in the time since these criteria were established, knowledge of and the driving questions behind understanding Nubian technology have shifted. In response to this, researchers working on assemblages from Africa, the Levant and Arabia have established a new set of criteria to further refine how Nubian cores are defined (Hallinan et al., 2022b). Nubian Levallois cores must (1) possess a steep ridge at the distal end of the core (the distal median ridge), of 90 degrees or narrower; (2) have a distal platform for preparation removals, serving a different role to the proximal platform from which preferential removals are struck; (3) show preparation of the distal ridge focused on the distal half to third of the core, with removals from the distal platform and/or steep lateral preparation; (4) have a pointed overall morphology; and (5) show reduction aimed at producing pointed end-products.

As a preferential Levallois strategy, the end-products of Nubian reduction must play a key role in its definition. However, a widespread problem is that very few assemblages with Nubian Levallois reduction contain high numbers of end-products—points or, more usually, pointed flakes. When considered within the framework of hunter-gatherer technological organisation, it is not unexpected that core reduction and the subsequent use of preferential products or tools took place in separate locations. Yet, as a result of their scarcity, Nubian end-products are only loosely defined in comparison to their cores. Van Peer (1992: 55) notes that on end-products resulting from Levallois methods, it is not always clear what mode of preparation was used, particularly if a flake terminates without preserving the distal ridge. Based on the unusually large end-product sample at Nazlet Khater 1, together with extensive refitting, Vermeersch et al. (2002) identified that Nubian end-products typically had more dorsal scars than centripetal products and were longer and thicker. In contrast with typical Levallois points produced through the unidirectional convergent method, Nubian products are not strictly triangular and are often elongated. Given the rarity of points, Olszewski et al. (2010) have suggested that archaeologists may be overemphasising the relationship between pointed products and Nubian cores. ‘Points’ hold a particular significance in discussions surrounding modern human behavioural complexity (McBrearty & Brooks, 2000) and subsistence adaptations, with Nubian points proposed to be a hunting specialisation (Van Peer, 1998). Whilst studies of Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age point technology have compared points from a wide range of assemblages and evaluated their use as projectiles (e.g. Brooks et al., 2006; Shea, 2006; Sisk & Shea, 2009), none have yet included Nubian Levallois points. Therefore, further research is needed on the intentionality, form and function of products resulting from Nubian Levallois reduction.

Re-evaluating the Term ‘Nubian Complex’

The concept of the Nubian Complex is the most controversial in current discussions of the topic (Groucutt, 2020). The term ‘Nubian Complex’ was first employed by Van Peer (1998) as a means of contrasting Middle Palaeolithic assemblages with notably different features in the Nile Valley. This distinguished between assemblages with and without Nubian Levallois technology, as well as other artefact forms and technologies. The foundation for this lay in the statistical comparison of Levallois products from 45 assemblages across North Africa, aiming to confront the ‘unwarranted fragmentation’ (Van Peer & Vermeersch, 2000: 47) of the North African Middle Palaeolithic record into regional industries (Van Peer, 1991, 1998). Thus, the Nubian Complex was originally intended to group assemblages with an overlapping constellation of techno-typological features at a higher taxonomic scale than industry, integrated as one technocomplex (sensu Clarke, 1968). The specific character of Nubian Complex assemblages involved the use of Nubian Levallois methods for points (pointed flakes) alongside the ‘classical’ Levallois method for flakes. In typological terms, bifacial foliates, Nubian end-scrapers, Nazlet Khater points and truncated-faceted pieces were observed in Nubian Complex assemblages, but not in the contemporaneous entity, the Lower Nile Valley Complex (Van Peer, 1998). Both complexes were argued to represent different behavioural adaptations in the Nile Valley and its adjacent deserts, reflecting alternative subsistence and mobility strategies. For the Nubian Complex, this involved high mobility, hunting specialisation and the flexibility to adapt to more varied environments (Van Peer, 1998). Concordant with the prevailing model of the time, the Nile Valley was considered to play a central role in the dispersal route of anatomically modern humans out of Africa. The origins and spread of populations whose technological traditions were encompassed by the Nubian Complex was therefore viewed in this framework of a northward expansion during the late Middle Pleistocene. In contrast, the Lower Nile Valley Complex was seen to have developed in situ, showing continuity with local Acheulean traditions (Van Peer, 1998).

The Nubian Complex met with problems from its outset, prompting concerns over its breadth (Garcea, 1998; Kleindienst, 2000), and the specific assemblages deemed to fall within it (Schild, 1998), compounded further by issues of chronology and different site functions. Although very few northeast African sites attributed to the Nubian Complex (or associated with Nubian Levallois cores) are securely dated, generally the tradition is associated with MIS 5, supported by ages from Egyptian sites in the Kharga Oasis (MD-10) at 124 ka (Smith et al., 2007), and Taramsa between 120 and 70 ka (Van Peer et al., 2010). Other dated sites sometimes included within the Nubian Complex are more controversial because, whilst they date to MIS 5, Nubian cores are not present, as at Bir Tarfawi and Bir Sahara (Wendorf et al., 1993). Later development of the Nubian Complex idea has addressed its chronology and environmental context more explicitly, identifying an Early Nubian Complex during MIS 6, a Late Nubian Complex in MIS 5, and revising the Lower Nile Valley Complex as a later, MIS 4, phenomenon (Van Peer, 2004, 2016; Van Peer & Vermeersch, 2007). Van Peer and Vermeersch (2000, 2007) also extended the geographic range of the Nubian Complex to include assemblages from East Africa (Clark, 1954, 1988; Kurashina, 1978) and the Arabian Peninsula (Inizan & Ortlieb, 1987). The increasing scope and complexity of the Nubian Complex have played a major role in more recent critiques that reject the term as a meaningful grouping because it conflates too much variability (e.g. Groucutt, 2020; Kleindienst, 2006; Scerri et al., 2014). However, Van Peer (2016) maintains that splitting assemblages into regionally specific units masks their wider technological similarities—such as those encompassed by the Nubian Complex—that are important for understanding early human population dynamics at a broad scale.

With the evolving paradigm of the ‘coasting out of Africa’ model (Stringer, 2000), Arabia came into greater focus for understanding early human dispersals. Surveys in the Dhufār region of Oman identified numerous Middle Palaeolithic assemblages where Nubian was the dominant mode of Levallois reduction (Rose et al., 2011, 2019, 2023; Usik et al., 2013). These assemblages were viewed as a regional manifestation of the Nubian Complex, in its broadest sense, given that this shared technological feature is observed across a contiguous biogeographic zone (Rose et al., 2011). The association between a buried Nubian core specimen and an MIS 5 age is similarly coherent with the broad temporal placement from the few dates across northeast Africa. The identification of Nubian Levallois technology in parts of central and northern Arabia is also important in demonstrating its wider presence (Crassard & Hilbert, 2013; Hilbert et al., 2016, 2017), in addition to examples to the west in Yemen (Crassard, 2009; Inizan & Ortlieb, 1987). However, the high density of Nubian core-rich assemblages is presently a feature unique to the Nejd Plateau region of Dhufār (Rose et al., 2019). It is worth bearing in mind that current research in the Arabian Peninsula faces the same limitations of spatial patchiness and low-temporal resolution that challenged CPE researchers in Nubia in the 1960s.

Nubian Levallois cores are also small but persistent assemblage components in certain areas of the Levant—a region renowned for its Middle Palaeolithic archaeological complexity. Specifically, in the Negev desert region, Nubian cores occur alongside centripetal and other Levallois core types in some assemblages, but notably do not occur in others (Crew, 1976; Munday, 1976; Goder-Goldberger et al., 2016, 2017; Avni et al., 2021; Barzilai et al., 2022). Taking into account these varying technological packages, scenarios of cultural interaction in this region have been conceptualised as ‘diffusion with modification’ (Goder-Goldberger et al., 2016) or as overlapping ‘contextual areas’ (Barzilai et al., 2022; sensu Richter et al., 2012). Absolute dates are rare but assemblages with Nubian cores are coherent with MIS 5 technologies (Goder-Goldberger et al., 2016) and associated with Negev fluvial terraces aged between 150 and 90 ka (Avni et al., 2021).

Beyond this Afro-Arabian landscape, a few cores and flakes with Nubian-like characteristics have been reported from the Thar Desert in India (Blinkhorn et al., 2013, 2015). Whilst these are described as ‘analogous’ to Nubian cores in Africa and Arabia, they diverge on a number of key morphological features and occur in a completely different technological context where Levallois (prepared) cores are rare (Blinkhorn et al., 2013, 2015: 239). Based on the current limited evidence, little more can be said about whether these reflect the extension of a Nubian Levallois tradition or are a convergent result of knapping points. The case for convergence as a cultural, rather than incidental, phenomenon is strongest in South Africa, where numerous Nubian cores occur in multiple nearby assemblages, attributed to MIS 3 (Hallinan & Shaw, 2015, 2020; Will et al., 2015). These all occur in what currently appears to be the restricted environmental context of the arid interior Karoo (Hallinan & Shaw, 2020). More recently, convergence has been posited for the presence of Nubian Levallois cores in a Neanderthal context at the Levantine site of Shukbah (Blinkhorn et al., 2021). The authors argue that Nubian cores are an expected by-product of employing other Levallois point production strategies. However, the identification of Nubian technology and its stratigraphic context at the site has been robustly contested on several grounds and an association between Neanderthals and Nubian Levallois technology has not yet been demonstrated (Hallinan et al., 2022a).

It is clear that the ‘Nubian Complex’ as a concept or archaeological unit requires reassessment given the emerging problems in this field, and, indeed, this reflects broader current concerns over the role of named taxonomic entities elsewhere (e.g. Riede et al., 2020; Shea, 2014; Wilkins, 2020). In the original sense of the term ‘technocomplex’ as proposed by Clarke (1968: 320), it was ‘intended to convey a certain gross artefact complex as the vector of particular sociocultural, technological, economic and environmental stances. The technocomplex is a larger and looser entity than the cultural group’. Thus, the ‘Nubian Complex’ in many of its uses is consistent with this idea (e.g. Rose et al., 2011; Van Peer, 1998). Human groups do not exist in social and cultural isolation, and in continuous adjacent regions, cultural transmission may be the most parsimonious explanation. However, when arguments have been put forward that position Nubian technology in any cultural or demographic framework (e.g. Goder-Goldberger et al., 2016; Rose et al., 2011), this has been inaccurately reduced by critics into a caricature: that ‘Nubian Complex simply equates with the presence of Nubian Levallois technology,’ (Groucutt, 2020: 65) or that it refers exclusively to MIS 5. If we are to advance our understanding of this technology and its role in human evolution, the key issue now is not arguing over the ‘reality or otherwise’ of the Nubian Complex (e.g. Groucutt, 2020), but rather refining what the nature of Nubian is in terms of human behaviour and cultural interaction. As exemplified elsewhere, explicit tests of artefact data (e.g. Sauer & Riede, 2019; Scerri, 2013; Tostevin, 2012), not rhetoric, are where the future of re-evaluating Palaeolithic cultural taxonomies lie.

Conclusion

The descriptor ‘Nubian’ encompasses multiple dimensions that make it a particularly complex case within the wider archaeological practice of naming artefact types, technologies and technocomplexes after iconic sites or regions. Whilst several attempts have been made to replace names with more neutral descriptors (e.g. Conard et al., 2004; Groucutt et al., 2015; Shea, 2014), these have rarely been taken up by the wider scientific community. Rejecting named entities in typology and taxonomy outright is not helpful, since it leaves archaeologists with a limited vocabulary with which to communicate patterns in the archaeological record (Lyman, 2021; Reynolds & Riede, 2019; Shea, 2019). Rather, realigning how we use these terms is a more productive way forward. With clear and careful definition of attributes (Hallinan et al., 2022b; Usik et al., 2013) and a bottom-up approach to identifying behavioural patterns (Barzilai et al., 2022; Goder-Goldberger et al., 2016), ‘Nubian’ can play a meaningful role in understanding Late Pleistocene technological adaptations and population dynamics.

A great deal of discourse up until now has centred on what we cannot say about ‘Nubian’—what it is, who made it, and what it means (e.g. Groucutt, 2020; Hallinan et al., 2022a). New research presented in this collection elaborates on what we can say, offering perspectives on diverse aspects of the Nubian technological strategy, its context in human evolution, and the application of new conceptual and analytical approaches. This collection marks a step towards unravelling the complexities that currently encumber this intriguing phenomenon in Middle Palaeolithic research.