Board of Trustees, Boston University

A 45,000-Year-Old Open-Air Paleolithic Site at Riwat, Northern Pakistan

Author(s): Robin W. Dennell, Helen M. Rendell, Mohammad Halim and Eddie Moth
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 17-33
Published by: Boston University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530366 .
Accessed: 04/09/2012 06:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Boston University and Board of Trustees, Boston University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Journal of Field Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
 17

A 45,000-Year-Old
Open-air Paleolithic
Site at Riwat, Northern Pakistan

Robin W. Dennell
Ancient India and Iran Trust
Cambridge, United Kingdom

Helen M. Rendell
University of Sussex
Brighton, United Kingdom

Mohammad Halim
Department of Archaeology and Museums
Karachi, Pakistan

Eddie Moth
University of Sheffield
Sheffield, United Kingdom

Open-airPaleolithicsitesfrom the lastglaciation are bestknownfrom EasternEuropeand,

to a lesserextent, WesternEuropeand the Levant. This reportdescribesone, Site 55, from
northernPakistan, a regionthat has one of the bestpreservedloesslandscapesoutsideEast-
ern Europeand China. The site comprises an unusual mixtureof natural and artificial
features. Most of it lies on a tilted conglomeratesheetthat providedthe quartzite usedfor
making stone artifacts. Site 55 also containsa structurethat includesa low wallfooting, a
pit, and a stone-lined niche, all associatedwith afreshlyflaked stoneassemblagethat in-
cludedblades.Thermoluminescence (TL) dating of the overlyingloessindicatesthat this as-
semblage is at least 45, 000 years old, and thus couldbe regardedas "initial UpperPaleo-
lithic"in the senseusedin the Levant.Explanationsof the site are hinderedby an absence
of boneand charcoal.Its overallfeatures, however,conformmostcloselyto the typeof lithic
procurementsitesevidencedin westernRussia; an additionalobservationis that the site
may alsohave beenusedfor skin working.

Introduction fieldwork on these problems was undertaken by De Terra

As a result of the continental collision between India
and Asia, northern Pakistan possesses one of the most
spectacular Neogene landscapes in the world. During the
last two million years, this ongoing geological stress has
resulted in the folding and faulting of the thousands of
meters' thickness of Miocene to Pleistocene fluvial sedi-
ments that are deposited in the Himalayan foreland area.
These sediments are exposed across the Potwar Plateau in
the Rawalpindi area. A large part of the late Pleistocene
landscape of the Potwar is mantled, and effectively pre-
served, by a thin covering of wind-blown loess.
Since 1981, the British Archaeological Mission to Pak-
istan has been investigating the Pleistocene and Paleolithic
sequence of this area (see e.g. Rendell, Dennell, and Halim
1989). Such work is long overdue because the last major
and Paterson (1939), and although they accomplished
much in one field season in 1935, their interpretations
must now be discounted on geological and archaeological
grounds. The Mission's work began in a small part of the
Soan Valley, SE of Rawalpindi, and near where De Terra
and Paterson had worked more than 40 years previously.
Because the loess deposits could be dated by thermolu-
minescence (TL), these were investigated in some detail
with a view to calibrating the late Pleistocene landscape
and investigating its Paleolithic contents.
Site 55 was found in 1980 during a cursory inspection
of a low, gritstone outcrop protruding from the loess, and
in the middle of a shallow valley defined by two conglom-
erate ridges (FIG.1). Some conjoining pieces of flaked
quartzite were found on its dip-slope, and a further set of
18 Riwat/Dennell,Rendell,Halim, Moth

Rawalpindi
GTrro

Hos
USSR CHINA

Rawalpindi
94- *
S ,
areaenlarged o Riwat
`o, 330'

Karachi IIND IA 0 km 5
..

gritstone thinloess Siwalik conglomerate

, outcrop cover strata ridge

50m

290m
Figure 1. The location and geological setting of Site 55.

conjoining flakes and blades was found the following year
in a small gully section nearby. These finds led to a small-
scale excavation of the loess behind the outcrop in the
spring of 1981, and this resulted in the discovery of traces
of a stone structure and an associated blade and flake
assemblage. Further excavation in the spring and autumn
of 1982 eventually resulted in the exposure of a ca. 225
sq-m area.
The Excavation
Excavation techniques had to accommodate various lo-
cal problems. The workforce comprised Afghan refugees,
who were entirely unfamiliar with excavation techniques.
These had to be supervised single-handed for most of the
time, or even by two archaeologists. The weather was
often a problem during the excavation. When first ex-
posed, the loess was a delight to excavate, displaying sub-
tleties of texture and color. After an hour or so on dry,
hot days, it became hardened and bleached, but color and
texture could be regained by gentle use of a hand-spray;
often, however, the surface puddled instead. In contrast,
the site often flooded after heavy rains. An additional
problem was that much of the flaked stone assemblage lay
on a conglomerate stone surface, much of which had been
flaked naturally or deliberately. Recording with drawing
frames (and while supervising an unskilled workforce) was
clearly impracticable. In the final, 10-week excavation, a
specially designed photographic frame was used with
which a 2-m square could be recorded with four photo-
graphs. Once taken, these photographs were enlarged,
pieced together, and overlain with transparent paper on
which details of each stone could be plotted.
The Dating of Site 55
The TL datingof Site 55 posed a rangeof problemsin
sampling, analysis, and interpretation, and the primary
results of this work have already been presented (Rendell
and Dennell 1987). The loess cover was relatively thin
(<2m), and although this was advantageous as far as the

excavation was concerned, it posed problems for sample
dosimetry. In order to ensure that the environmental ra-
diation dose comes from materialof uniform composition,
samples need to be taken at least 0.3 m from the top or
base of the loess. Where the loess cover was thin, with
sampling restricted to the "ideal zone" for dosimetry, only
one dating sample could generally be taken from each
section. The sampling of Site 55 had therefore to be
spatially extensive rather than stratigraphicallyintensive.
The results are summarized in Figure 2.
A complex picture emerges from this dating exercise.
Two separate areas ofloess cover can be identified on the
basis of age. The first zone comprises the loess overlying
the dip-slope of the gritstone outcrop and the spread of
quartzite cobbles. The ages for this portion of the loess
cover range from 42 kya to 64 kya. These data indicate
that deposition rates were low at the edge of the loess
sheet. The presence of a small gully, running transversely
across the site, further complicates matters since some of
the loess sampled for the dating program may have been
reworked, older material. On the basis of these dates, a
minimum age of 45,000 b.p. was assigned to the loess
cover, thus providing a minimum age for the materials
excavated from Site 55.
The second area of loess cover lies immediately in front
of the small gritstone scarp. In this area, a much younger
loess cover is preserved, dating to the final phase ofloess
deposition in the Riwat area, 27-24 kya. This portion of
the loess is currently being eroded by a small gully, and it
appearsthat during the period 75-18 kya, when loess was
being actively deposited on exposed surfaces throughout
the Riwat area, the area in front of the outcrop continued
to be a focus of local drainage on the slope. Loess was
Figure 2. The TL dating of Site 55.
2- 2 5.59.
56.8ka ka
445.1ka
i-5 41.9ka 146.5ka . 3...
49 iiiiiii 456kK
iiiiiiPKXA5
PKXB3 PK553
PKS31
S31 S30 PKXCTB
PKS3PK552 PK5PKXCB51
0 jPK552
19, 1992 19
JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
preserved in this area only when surface run-off was less
active, and therefore when more arid conditions appear
to have prevailed.
The TL dates provide minimum age estimates for the
underlying stone assemblages. Although the artifacts
found on the conglomerate surface could date to any time
between the exposure of that surface and its final coverage
by loess, the age of many of the artifacts is likely to be
close to that of the loess. The key factor here is the pres-
ence of both artifactsand their associated debitage. If these
had been exposed for a long time prior to burial, the
debitage would have been dispersed and abraded by geo-
logic processes, or by other activities such as trampling by
animals. In the case of some of the flaked stone material
from Site 55, including the initial find of conjoining
pieces, this was clearly not the case. In addition, some of
the fresh stone assemblage discussed below was discovered
within the lower portion of the loess cover, rather than on
the underlying conglomerate surface. On the basis of the
TL dates, the stratigraphiccontext of the flaked stone, and
the presence of debitage, we therefore estimate that the
assemblage and the associated structural remains are ca.
45,000 years old.
Structural Remains at Site 55
The structural remains at Site 55 are shown in Figure
3. The gritstone outcrop dipped at ca. 10-20' into a
narrow and level area of loess. This contained a linear
feature of large cobbles and gritstone blocks that lay trans-
verse to the slope of the site, as well as a stone-lined pit,
and some possible post-sockets. There was also a circular
"niche"in the surface of the conglomerate sheet, and near
63.9ka 24.5ka +247ka
26.6ka
2.
PKTRBT
PK551
20 Riwat/Dennell,Rendell,Halim, Moth

D C B A

grltstofe outcrop %
2. 000 O32
o
$
a
0
i"
Go,0>3

01 o? 9 o
0 A , 'i '
t? " o o8oo
0 0 0 0
0 2
oQ oin-
o ol-.foot
0'wal
o Oo o
0 o 0 'O
RoD o 'niche ,f o
~900 cj00 ~18 o~
wall-footing' o0%<(7Ao
0
03'oo
(2 0()0 00(0
0
~ o9a / 00 0o
'~ oa oo 0•% oo
oC) 0
0 C)
C);~ 19
0

C"9
oo
0 &A0 o 02 (10
o C> o
OC?
OdBS Yoo
,oJo
0 00j
cJ Qo0 mere 5>
ot
•-0Ao0o o
~g ooB• o• o 69,
0 0 < Cb0 •
0oO<
o/
o o,... o s,-?< C)

Q>M00 og Oi~
0 0 0063

D
Q 690
0 000
Z_'_, 000000 012
CO0 ~n ODo
130 40C)
Ov00f 0-OD
iQ 0
C)
C 00 0
0
oo ) "

b 9o oB P'a $"O 0_0~J~ 50O

K> $o)o

oood/ c 0 0 'co 0-c(D

0
) C
d"

onglomerate surface'
z
C(%3? 0
l?O0a b oO
069 0

cr~Sb~aOC3
Do
C
o 2) '00
6_1
, o 0'(:
6'D' P 0
D0
'a
(
60 0

060 0(Z:),3 C>os

r3b Q)
Q

,0 v~0DC-~~o~o
0066 O 4 ,0

DC)D 800
16O1

C0 0
043 Sb 6o o 00 C)0 0
o q

0 BGi(:)o?)O~o,00
0
((get9 5 0

~ 00O0
6• 69s0
o80% o
o3
01691
00

00000
o(

00O O Oo
C)
O00

do 0CD
C,(68 0

C)
oC) (
o D()0 o o oc?
0 Cc)
0 DoO;o
Q)Q U? 0
6, 0

00
0 00000
0O 0 0 met
res5 01020

dD
Ooo
c~~O
( (:) C)
I-- 0
oo0 00

0C) 00•0

0000 CZ 0,
QOo

01 O0z
0O
<0
Figure 3. The spatial features of Site 55.

the level area of loess. This area of loess was devoid of taken towards the end of the excavation in 1982. The
artifacts, apart from one flake between the outcrop and linear feature included gritstone blocks that were separated
the linear feature, and two fresh quartzite blades that were from each other by thin (5-10 mm) horizontal and ver-
found on the other side of the linear feature. Some flaked tical cracksthat were filled with loess. When first exposed,
stone was found, however, on top of it, and in the base the edges of this feature could be isolated fairly easily from
of the pit. the surrounding loess. This feature widened towards its
The general appearance of the linear feature is shown base, which rested on a surface that was predominantly
in Figure 4, and a photomosaic of the eastern end of this silty but which became gritty and sandy in places, espe-
feature can be seen in Figure 5. This photomosaic was cially on the south side near the gritstone outcrop. It

Figure 4. The linear feature ("wall footing") at Site 55, looking sw.
should be noted that this feature is demonstrably within
the loess cover and does not rest directly on the dipping
surface of the gritstone outcrop.
In trying to assess whether the linear feature resulted
from fluvial activity, it is important to bear in mind the
geomorphological context of the site prior to 45,000 years
ago (see FIG. i). In particular, the distances required for
surface runoff to develop into channelled overland flow
need to be considered. Given that Site 55 is located on a
hill-side, we argue that prior to the development of the
extensive loess cover, streams capable of transporting large
pebbles and cobbles would not have flowed across the
site, but more or less at right angles to the general direc-
tion of the hill-slope. The present-day pattern of drainage
of the slopes above Site 55 also reinforces the case for a
non-fluvial origin for this linear feature. The main lines of
19, 1992 21
JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
drainage run downslope rather than across the slope. In
addition, the scale, shape, and structure of the linear fea-
ture do not suggest a fluvial origin. The top of the feature
dips eastwards at ca. 50, whereas the surface of the site
exposed by excavation dips northwards at 120. The inter-
nal structure of the linear feature shows none of the im-
brication that one might associate with a channel bar, nor
is there any evidence of a larger channel cut into the loess
at a level coinciding with the base of the feature. Its flat
upper surface and steep sides also suggest a nongeologic
origin. It is, however, too low to have been a wall, unless
it was carefully dismantled, which seems improbable. It
may have been a "wall footing" for a superstructure of,
for example, brushwood, or more likely, a way of diverting
rainwater flowing off the outcrop away from the main
activity area.
A pit (FIG. 6) was found between this feature and the
base of the gritstone outcrop. One edge was defined by a
gritstone slab, ca. 40 cm long, sloping at ca. 60-70,
protruding ca. 2-3 cm above the loess, and abutting a
roughly circular area of greenish-grey clay. Some core
fragments were found in its base, and these may have been
used to provide a firm base for a post. There were six
post-sockets on both sides of the "wall footing," each
showing as a circle of reddish clay ca. 10 cm in diameter.
One other interesting feature was a stone-lined circular
"niche" (FIG. 7) in and near the edge of the conglomerate.
This was filled with a reddish clay, and initially concealed
under a pile of other stones.
All these features were covered by loess and do not
appear to have been subsequently disturbed. A gully had
traversed the site diagonally and cut into the loess, but
had not incised to the archaeological level. In contrast to
the linear feature that we regard as man-made, this gully
was clearly fluvial in origin, because of its V-shaped cross-
section, and its coarsely sorted and loose fill. Stream flow
across and down the site when covered by loess is unsur-
prising in view of the topography of the valley once it had
filled with loess.
Archaeologists often interpret Paleolithic remains such
as "wall footings," pits, and post-sockets as evidence of a
structure, usually envisaged as some kind of hut, thus
lending credence to notions of "base camps" and "living
sites." We have resisted this temptation, however, given
recent doubts over the validity of "huts" claimed at sites
such as Terra Amata or Molodova (see for example, Gam-
ble 1984: 72-73; 1986: 250-268). The pit, circular
"niche," "wall footing," and the "post-sockets"may have
been part of some kind of shelter for sleeping and/or
working in, but there is insufficient evidence to warrant
this inference.
22 Riwat/Dennell,Rendell,Halim, Moth

Figure5. Photomosaicof partof the "wallfooting"at Site 55.

Figure 6. The pit at Site 55. The stone slab set into one side is clearly visible.

The Conglomerate Surface 1486 stones over 3 cm in length were recorded, and their
This surface covered most of the excavated area (FIG. flake scars counted. This surface is probably part of the
8) and extended downslope from the putative man-made same formation as the gritstone outcrop, and is likely to
features described above. With the photographic frame, have been tilted in the early Pleistocene (ca. 1.9 mya).
 JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
19, 1992 23

'10
AV-111-11?* Ilk

W.

vo.

%dV
me,

40

01
Com

Figure 8. A general view of the conglomerate surface at Site 5, looking NNE.

ft:~;top

i:~--iw
. .:
. . . . .
~
ls:- ;.: -:? : - ~-: : -:-:- .: : : :- :-;:- :

: .: -: : :-: : :~i-:l-~i: :- : -:::::IW

i~ ;i
*
ibr:il : -i -i-: : ~ ~ ~~:~~:: i~~
V.. :. :*i-:-:-;~:-- '- :*
:ai~ i~
-i:- :- 3~-: :i
i-:i i: i-:
:j : -:?-
i s~
24 Riwat/Dennell,Rendell,Halim, Moth

Table 1. Flaking attributes of stone on the conglomerate may have occurred under fluvial conditions before or dur-
surface of Site 55. ing the formation of the conglomerate. This hypothesis
Typeofstone Number % would explain the lack of clear, conchoidal flake scars on
Complete stone 700 47.3 most of the flaked pieces, and the low numbers of flakes
Stone with 1 flake removed 77 5.2 relative to the numbers of flake scars (TABLE2), as naturally
Stone with 2 flakes removed 83 5.6
Stone with 3 flakes removed 88 6.0
caused flakes are more likely than the heavier nodules to
Stone with 4 flakes removed 45 3.0 be comminuted or transported in a river channel. In a
Stone with 5 flakes removed 11 0.7 small proportion of cases, the flaking was clearly inten-
Cortical flake struck once 89 6.0 tional. Stones from this surface that had been flaked more
Cortical flake with 1 flake removed 31 2.1
Cortical flake with 2 flakes removed 26 1.8 than six times tended to have clear conchoidal scars im-
Cortical flake with 3 flakes removed 6 0.4 posed in several directions, and could be regarded as cores.
Cortical flake with 4 flakes removed 1 0.1 In other instances, the weathered stone was rare in grid
Stone split in half 201 13.6
12 0.8 squares with large numbers of freshly flaked pieces of
Split stone with one flake removed
Quartered stone 109 7.4 stone, and this may indicate that some of the latter were
Total 1479 100.0 flaked on the spot.

The Lithic Assemblage

Our paleoenvironmental investigations suggest that this The main source of raw materialsfor making stone tools
surface was last exposed during the last glaciation ca. 45 in the Soan Valley are quartzite cobbles that are found on
kya (see below). We have no clear evidence that it was numerous exposures of conglomerate, such as the one in
used as a source of raw material in the Middle Pleistocene. Site 55, or on the low ridges nearby. Quartzite is difficult
Two rolled and deeply patinated handaxes from this sur- to flake, since it does not fracture as cleanly as flint or
face, however, indicate the discard, rather than the man- obsidian. The shape of the stones also imposes tight con-
ufacturing, of artifacts and could have been introduced to straints on the types of tools that can be made. The usual
this surface by colluvial transport off the neighboring con- method of working quartzite cobbles appearsto have been
glomerate ridge. The stones on this surface were deeply as follows: once one was selected, one or both ends were
patinated, and ca. 50% had been flaked at least once (TA- trimmed. In the vast majority of cases at Site 55, core
BLE i). Most of this flaking was probably natural, and
preparation was minimal. The trimmed end could then be
used as a platform from which side-struck flakes could be
Table 2. Proportions of cores and flakes, and of the removed. Lateral and transverse flaking could detach fur-
number of flake scars on each. ther flakes until the core was worked out.
Number Both blades and flakes are present in the fresh assem-
Artifact ofspecimens
blage, although they tend to grade into each other, re-
Typeof core
cores with 1 flake removed 89 sulting in intermediate categories of flake-like blades and
cores with 2 flakes removed 83 blade-like flakes. As Figure 9 shows, some of the blades
cores with 3 flakes removed 88 are very small, and could be classed as microliths. Blades
cores with 4 flakes removed 45
cores with 5 flakes removed 11 and flakes were rarely retouched; this may have been be-
cores with 6 flakes removed 0 cause quartzite tools are best unsharpened (Jones 1979),
cores with 7 flakes removed 1 or because stone was so readily available here. One no-
Total no. of specimens 317 ticeable feature of the assemblage is that a very large pro-
Total no. of flake scars 761
portion (62%) of the blades were broken. This could
Typeofflake indicate breakage during use and/or that flakes were dis-
flakes with 1 flake removed 89
flakes with 2 flakes removed 31 carded rather than used as tools. Alternatively, flakes may
flakes with 3 flakes removed 26 have been used, but were less likely to snap because of
flakes with 4 flakes removed 6
flakes with 5 flakes removed 1 their shape.
Total no. of specimens 153
Particular attention was paid to the spatial distribution
Total no. of flake scars 258 of flakes, blades, and cores, and to identifying conjoining
pieces. What is interesting here is that most of the blades
Ratios: 153 flakes to 317 cores = 1:2.07 were found near the top of the conglomerate sheet and in
258 flake scars on flakes to 761 flake scars on cores =
the area of the wall-footing (FIG. 10), whereas flakes and
1:3.54
cores were distributed more randomly. This emphasizes
 19, 1992 25
JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.

210 239

1 -
307 1142

1247 1410

1153 1424B 1346

0 5 CM.

Figure 9. Some blades and bladelets from Site 55.

the importance of excavating as large an area as possible,
as otherwise the assemblage might have been mistakenly
seen as flake- or blade-dominated, depending on which
part of the site had been excavated. The concentration of
blades near the structural features may imply, first, that
this was the main activity area and, second, that many of
the flakes may have been waste byproducts of making
blades. The distribution of conjoining pieces (FIG. 11) is
consistent with these inferences. Both flakes and blades
were produced from the same cobble, and the distribution
26 Riwat/Dennell,Rendell,Halim, Moth

F E D C B A

~.
0

2o
% .*
o
*0

0?
0
0

oo o0
Ooo
So
0 0 00
0 4a o

v? 0
0
*-o 0

3 .%o ooo o
f./ 0 0v•
o 40 0o . ooo metr o
0
4
.. OO* 00o

I~
?o
00
o
a
0

a
?
o 0/ o o?
a , a a
a a0
*0

* 0 0
? o
-oo

00 *
0
00 0 p
O0 0 *
0 .* O . 0
*?
o0 o
- - O o

o0.
o

. ..
de
930 o o,
, .-.*?
0 o
?? .?
0 vo o ?? 00
0 00? o

0d 4
4 00 fo00 0e0
0f0a a 0 0'ao
oo
•~ o

o oo
?o

ao
o
o .o o ~ o flke o
0
o

o o
oo

8.
0
C,
0
1
o cores

ob o
o
oo0
o
o coo
o

Figure 10. The distribution of flakes, blades, and cores at Site 55.

of joining sets strongly suggests that the fresh assemblage because stone was so abundant that there was little point
was associated with the structure. It is very noticeable, in working out a nodule systematically.
however, that the conjoining pieces are not clustered, and In De Terra and Paterson's (1939) scheme, this assem-
there are only a small number per set (65 joins from 24 blage would be called "late Soan" on chronological
sets). This is in stark contrast to sites such as Fara (Gilead grounds. We suggest, however, that this term be aban-
1988), Les Tartarets (Gamble 1986: 255), Les Etiolles doned. Their late Soan (like their pre- and early Soan)
(Gamble 1986: 208), and Meer (Cahen, Keeley, and van remains largely undated and undatable; it was defined
Noten 1979), where dense concentrations of conjoining from surface collections, taken from conglomerate expo-
pieces suggest highly localized, individual knapping epi- sures that De Terra mistook for river terraces. Thus the
sodes. Site 55 suggests a more diffuse pattern, possibly late Soan lacks typological integrity, is probably a mixture,
 Journalof FieldArchaeologylVol.
19, 1992 27

F E D C B A

147
313

2225 337 136

1 117
4
2111
130Sa?21 1195
99 297
1290i-O12 \ 8D120 12784
1
1282
12021
1251160 1166
a Z/ -v11
64i3 1345
/118_4
?-18
S1185
13343

1356. a
1148 1134
111776-,1178
*1121
1410 978 L
a1400

91113
100\1103
11392
I 1350

#1402ulS
1119f #1093
1383

0 m et res
1405o
5
Smcores

a o core fragments
1412
flakes
?
1024 btades

8
t"?J

Figure 11. The distribution of conjoining pieces at Site 55.

and is undated (see, for example, Salim 1986). At present,
too little is known of the lithic assemblages from this
period in either Pakistan or India. The assemblage from
Site 55 is clearly not Mousterian, nor Upper Paleolithic
in the sense used, for example, with respect to the Bara-
dostian and Dabban of Iran and North Africa. We suggest
it could be called either "initial Upper Paleolithic," as
defined in the Levant (Marks and Reid Ferring 1988); or
"late Early Paleolithic," following Ikawa-Smith's (1978)
terminology for South and East Asia. At this stage, it is
perhaps more relevant to note that blades, some of which
were very small, were being used in northern Pakistan ca.
45 kya.
The Function of Site 55
Factors to Consider
One of the main lessons learned in Paleolithic studies
over the last decade is that most Paleolithic sites are pal-
impsests of several agencies and activities, of which human
ones may be the least important, even if the most inter-
esting. One way of assessing the quality of data from a
28 Riwat/Dennell,Rendell,Halim, Moth
Paleolithic (or for that matter, any prehistoric) site is to
consider its degree of resolution and integrity (Binford
1981: 19-20).
Resolutionrefers to the homogeneity of events and ac-
tivities that created the archaeological remains of a site. A
site with low resolution is one where individual activities
cannot be readily distinguished; in contrast, a site with
high resolution is one that (ideally) contains evidence of
only one activity, performed once. Integrity refers to the
variety of agencies involved in the formation of the assem-
blage. If integrity is low, numerous agents and agencies
were involved in the distribution and accumulation of
material;if high, only one agent was involved (see Binford
1981: 19-20; Gamble 1986: 23-24).
The combination of resolution and integrity allows a
measure to be made of the grain of a site. If the evidence
is coarse-grained,because either the degree of resolution,
or integrity, or both are low, "the correspondence between
an event and the archaeological record it generated is
poor" (Gamble 1986: 23). If the evidence is fine-grained,
"the materials deposited reflect more precisely the activi-
ties that were carried out at those locations and in relation
to the immediate environment" (Gamble 1986: 24). In
terms of inferring the function of a prehistoric site, it is
clearly the fine-grained sites, with both high resolution
and high integrity, that offer the most rewarding prospects
of inferring site function.
Site 55 appears to be a fine-grained site with both high
resolution and high integrity. There is little evidence over
most of the site for disturbance during and after the use
and discard of the fresh lithic assemblage. The evidence
suggests that humans, and not geological processes, were
the main agents responsible for the structural and artifac-
tual remains. The incidence of conjoining pieces linking
fresh stone material with the wall footing suggests that
this assemblage can be associated with a structure. All the
evidence suggests that the site was occupied for only a
short period, and not reoccupied later for a different set
of purposes. Accordingly, it seems worthwhile to attempt
to infer its role from its residues.
At this stage we need to consider the types of Paleolithic
sites that have been identified elsewhere. Most attempts
to classify them have been relatively simple, and drawn a
major distinction between residential and nonresidential
sites. Binford and Binford (1966), for example, suggested
that the archaeological record of hunter-gathererswould
include base camps,workcamps,and transient camps.Hole
and Flannery (1967) recognized seasonalbasecamps,butch-
ery sites, and transitorystations, while Isaac (1978) recog-
nized living sites, workshop,transitory, and butcherysites.
Price (1978) devised a more complex scheme based on
the area and density of artifacts as well as site contents,
and recognized small extraction camps, small base camps,
mediumshort-termbasecamps,mediumlong-termbasecamps,
and large aggregationcamps.
Although these schemes differ in terminology and often
overlap, they agree in some important respects. Most rest
on the assumption that the habitation site, or base camp,
is an inherent part of human and hominid behavior. While
this seems valid for the archaeological record after 30,000
years ago, doubts are now voiced about its applicability
to the earlier Paleolithic record (for example, Binford
1987), so this concept might not be valid for sites of the
age-range of Site 55. A second area of agreement lies in
the basic distinction between residentialand nonresidential
sites. Residence and function might not always have been
kept distinct, however. A site might have been nonresiden-
tial in the sense that it was used primarily for a specific
task or set of tasks, but while those tasks were being
performed, part or even all of a group might have stayed
there and created some of the archaeological detritus evi-
denced on residential sites. A third area of agreement in
these schemes is over so-called transit sites, although this
term is perhaps often used as a heuristic device to explain
why some sites have so little evidence. Like living sites,
they are perhaps more commonly assumed than demon-
strated. Finally, most discussions of Paleolithic sites as-
sume that they represent areas where artifacts were both
used and discarded: in other words, the spatial patterning
of discarded artifacts is supposed to reveal information as
to how they were used within the area of discard.
The central issue implicit in all these schemes is that
specific types of sites should leave specific archaeological
"signatures."Unfortunately, we are far from being able to
identify these at present. There is not even agreement as
to how many types of sites are, and were, left by hunter-
gatherers, and there is no ready equivalent of the Munsell
soil chart for identifying the function of a Paleolithic site
from its archaeological equivalents to color, chroma, and
hue. Interpretations of Paleolithic sites have often been
characterized by a combination of vivid imagination and
intellectual poverty: imaginative often, because of the de-
tail with which structures and activities materialize from
so little evidence; poverty-striken because so few investi-
gators break free from stereotypes of animal dismember-
ment on the one hand, and the domestic serenity of the
home base on the other. Increasingly, it seems likely that
our classificatory systems have yet to encompass the full
range of the localized residues of stone and bone debris
that constitute the recent and archaeological record of
hunter-gatherers.We need also to bear in mind that extinct
types of humans and hominids may have behaved very

differently from ourselves, and that pre-Upper Paleolithic
sites may have no direct equivalent today.
A beginning can be made by considering what Site 55
was probably not. The complete absence of animal remains
and evidence for hearths implies that the site was not a
"base camp" or "habitationsite." It is of course possible
that bone and charcoal were originally present at Site 55,
but have not been preserved. Both are found in similar
preservationalenvironments in loessic sites in the Ukraine,
however, so the absence of these from Site 55 may well
be genuine, and not simply a reflection of the site's geo-
chemistry. In addition, the artifactcount is low compared
with other paleolithic sites that are regarded as habitation
sites. This point is supported by even a cursory look at
those open-air Paleolithic sites that do seem to have been
base camps, such as Mezin in the Ukraine (Soffer 1985:
80-84, 124). The predominance of flakes and blades over
recognizably patterned core tools implies also that heavy
duty tasks such as butchering animals are not represented:
there is thus no reason to assume that Site 55 represents
a butchery site where the bones have not been preserved.
Also, there are no artifactsthat could be called projectiles,
unless one includes the small number of fragile (and usu-
ally) broken blade tips. Topographically, the site is not
well placed to serve as a game observatory, as Gamble
(1984: 72) has suggested for Molodova in western Russia
along the lines proposed by Binford (1978a) for the Mask
site in Alaska. If people wished to monitor game, they
could have done so much more easily and ably from the
top of the conglomerate ridge a few hundred meters to
the south. For obvious reasons, the site cannot be re-
garded as a burial place. Site 55 also seems to contain too
much debris for a transient camp; and in any case it is
hard to see why a group should prefer an overnight stop
on a sloping and stony surface, when there was so much
flat ground nearby.
If Site 55 was not a base camp, a butchery site, an
observation stand, a burial or ceremonial site, or a transit
site, other possibilities have to be explored. Three can be
considered: that the site is a discard area, a lithic procure-
ment site, and/or a skin-processing site. Each possibility
can be considered in turn.
DiscardZoneorActivityArea?
Site 55 might have been simply an area where material
from a site nearby was discarded. A good example is Clark
and Kurashina's (1981) account of a modern Ethiopian
skin-worker who still used obsidian tools. What was in-
teresting was that the area where he worked had very little
discard, and most of his debris from making artifacts as
well as domestic refuse was dumped elsewhere, on mid-
19, 1992 29
JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
dens. If, through time, the ash were blown away and the
more perishable organic materials decomposed, the re-
maining flaked stone and bone in such a midden could
easily be interpreted archaeologically as an activity area
where scrapers were used and discarded after processing
bone, the most commonly associated type of organic re-
mains. As Clark and Kurashina (1981: 315) noted: "From
Pleistocene times most of even this slender evidence would
not be available."Judging from the distribution of scrap-
ers in the midden surface that they plotted, artifactswere
clustered in one part of the midden. Although they did
not look for conjoining pieces, there seems to be no reason
why some should not be found under such circumstances.
Moreover, one would expect joining pieces to be dispersed
and there to be only a small number per set.
The function of Site 55 as a discard area could account
for the low number of conjoining flakes, blades, and cores
per set, as well as for the high proportion of broken blades.
The spatial distribution of these and other types of flaked
stone would obviously be viewed as fortuitous if one
employed this explanation. The fresh assemblage from Site
55 is associated with a structure, however, and it thus
seems unlikely that the flaked stone was used elsewhere
but then discarded on the site. This may have happened
if the flaked assemblage postdates the structure, but since
one flaked piece on the wall footing conjoined another
piece on the main surface, this seems unlikely. There also
seems no reason to infer that the site contains an assem-
blage-less structure and also a structure-less assemblage.
LithicProcurementSite?
As noted already, Paleolithic sites in the Soan Valley
tend to be found on conglomerate exposures, as these
were readily accessible sources of quartzite cobbles, the
material most commonly used for making stone tools. Site
55 might therefore represent an area primarily used for
that purpose.
It is useful at this point to consider some features of
lithic procurement sites in a well-documented area, such
as the Ukraine. Soffer (1985) suggests how these might
be identified, from broadly analogous open-air sites from
the loessic landscape of western Russia. As she (1985:
364) explains:
I suggest that we can anticipatelower blade-nucleiratios at
lithic workshopsand higherratiosat sites with a wider array
of maintenanceactivities.[Blade:coreratiosareconsideredlow
if <25:1.] I assume that blades are manufacturedat lithic
workshops,not used extensivelythere, and removedto other
typesof maintenancesites.At basecamps,on the otherhand,
the wide arrayof maintenanceactivitiesperformedshould
necessitatea far more extensiveuse of blades. We should
thereforeanticipatebladesin fargreaternumbersat this class
of sites.
30 Riwat/Dennell,Rendell,Halim, Moth
Soffer (1985: 388) further states:
I identify sites exhibitingthe presenceof only lithic assem-
blages,predominantlymade of locally availablematerials,as
well as high densitiesof nuclei, low blade-nucleiratios,and
low end-scraperand burindensities. .. as lithic workshops.
These sites lack grindingstones, exotic lithics and decorative
objects,workedbone, hearths,and smallpits.
An example cited is Pogon, where "generallow densities
of tools and end scrapersand burins, a high nuclei density,
a low proportion of nuclei, and a low blade-nuclei ratio
all indicate extractive activities associated with lithic pro-
curement" (Soffer 1985: 390-391). This site, however,
also contains exotic lithics, ochre, and bone charcoal, and
may therefore (like so many other sites) be a palimpsest
of several activities.
Site 55 accords with some of Soffer's criteria for a
Paleolithic open-air lithic procurement site. There is a low
ratio of blades and flakes to cores: at Site 55, the fresh
assemblage contained 399 flakes and 210 blades and blade
fragments, compared to 172 cores and core fragments.
The ratio, of 609 flakes and blades to 172 cores, is thus
only 3.54:1. The site also lacks evidence of hearths and
exotic items (apart from a few items made from white
quartzite that may have been brought there from nearby).
If the site was used for lithic procurement, there is no
reason to assume it was anything but small scale. It is most
unlikely that the quartzite at Site 55 was any different
from that easily obtained elsewhere in the Soan Valley,
and there is no reason to assume that it was valued further
afield.
It seems unlikely that Site 55 can be explained solely in
terms of lithic procurement, however. If it had been simply
a lithic workshop, it is hard to explain the following as-
pects of its evidence. Why retouch or damage the edges
of so many? Why import white quartzite nodules to make
stone tools when there were at least 3000 other quartzite
cobbles to choose from? Why were most of the blades
broken?Why build a structure that includes a wall footing,
a niche, and a stone-lined pit? Finally, one would expect
the patterning of conjoining pieces of flaked stone to show
distinct clusters where stone was worked, and a high num-
ber of joins per set. Instead, there is no evidence of clus-
tering, and the number of joins per set is generally very
low.
A Skin-processing
Site?
The area around Site 55 was largely loess-covered when
the site was used, and almost all the valley between the
conglomerate ridges on either side of the site was stone-
free. It is thus of interest why a sloping conglomerate
surface might have been attractive to those who used it.
We can start with the premises that stone tools may have
been made at Site 55 for immediate use, there or nearby;
and that the conglomerate surface itself was a major reason
for the use of the site. At this point, we can consider the
possibility that the conglomerate surface was a useful area
to dry animal skins.
Deer skins are in their best condition for making cloth-
ing in autumn and early winter. Spiess (1979: 29-30)
notes that reindeer skins are at their best in winter, and
their worst in summer during the annual moult. At end
of summer, warble flies hatch subcutaneously and eat their
way through the skin. Thereafter, the holes heal quickly.
The best time to procure reindeer skins is in the early
autumn, in September and October.
The preparation of deer (and most other types of her-
bivore) skin involves several stages. They have to be
cleaned of fat; depending on their intended usage, loose
hair may have to be scraped off (sometimes after soaking);
it may be important to make, or keep, them supple; and
they may also need to be carefully dried (see Reed 1972
for detailed discussion). While they are drying, it is often
the practice to hang them so that both sides can dry
simultaneously, or to let them dry on the ground, turning
them over repeatedly. Stony, uneven surfaces are attractive
for this because they heat up faster than flat, densely
packed and smooth surfaces during the day, and allow air
currents to circulate between the skin and the ground.
There are numerous and often lengthy accounts of non-
industrialized methods of skin preparation in the ethno-
graphic literature (for example Mason 1891 and Rogers
1973) which explain the variety of methods that can be
used to convert animal hide into bedding, clothing, and
other items. A good description of these processes is also
found in Clark (1952: 219), who suggested that hides
were often soaked before the hair was removed with scrap-
ers, and gives details of tanning sheepskins-using roots
of tormentil (Potentillasp.)-in the Faroe Islands in recent
centuries.
Some illuminating descriptions of skin processing are
also found in Binford's account of the Nunamiut Eskimo
in Alaska. He observed that: "Skins taken at that time of
year (i.e., later summer and fall) are frequently destined
for use as clothing. Such choice skins are placed on the
ground, hair side down, and weighted around the edges
with medium-sized stones to prevent their blowing away
and curling around the edges as they dry. In this manner
they are dried and therefore reduced in weight prior to
being rolled into bundles" (Binford 1978b: 285). One
skin processing site was Little Happy New Year, which
consisted of two hearths, a windbreak, and two small
circles of skin-weights where fall skins had been weighted

down for drying (Binford 1978b: 352). This site is also a
hunting-stand, so it contains more than one type of resi-
due. Other skin processing sites observed by Binford
lacked windbreaks. One was Kongumuvuk, another au-
tumn hunting stand where there were: "four 'eating'
hearths on the site as well as seven well-defined small stone
rings used in drying fall caribou skins" (1978b: 355).
Another illuminating pointer from this ethnographic
study is that rings of stones for drying hides are usually
found in association with scrapers and chipping debris
from sharpening scrapers (1978b: 402).
Another excellent description of reindeer skin working
is given by Gronmow, Meldegaard, and Nielsen (1983:
34), from their work on Eskimo sites in Greenland:
The skinsaretreatedin two differentways,accordingto what
they areto be used for. If they areto be bed skins,partof the
legs is first cut off and sewn to the head so [the skin] is
rectangular.The fat and things are scrapedoff with an ulo
[woman's knife], if that has not been done before. It is
stretchedout and washed.One day when it is dry,it is mois-
tenedandfolded.It is then scrapedwith a bluntulo andwhen
it is quite dry,rubbedand scrapedwith a stone. If the clothes
are to be made from caribouskin, you do not sew onto the
head. It is stretchedout and washed. When it is dry, it is
rubbedin the handsand treatedwith fine sand and a stone,
without moisture.
From these descriptions and from consideration of the
inherent properties of ungulate skins, some predictions
can be made as to the character of hunter-gatherer skin-
processing sites: 1) They do not need to be associated
with a habitation site, as skins can be processed while
other autumn activities take place. In fact, because skin
working could be undertaken almost anywhere, the loca-
tion of skin processing sites will probably have been de-
termined by other activities, such as the need to monitor
game, or obtain raw materials. 2) The primary artifacts
used in skin working are scrapers, and weights to keep
the skin from blowing away. Evidence for skin drying
facilities such as racks, and containers for water, powders,
pastes, and other chemicals is likely to be elusive, partic-
ularly on preindustrial sites. 3) It seems very unlikely that
a site would be used only for the processing of animal
skins. After all, watching skins dry must be the prehistoric
equivalent of watching paint dry, and usually some "bore-
dom component" should be evidenced, such as the servic-
ing and manufacturing of other tools, if only as a way of
passing the time.
Site 55 fits reasonably well with these descriptions of
skin processing. First, the structure is compatible with the
supposition that a small group may have spent some time
there engaged in a specific task. Second, the "niche"at the
top of the conglomerate surface can be seen as a way of
19, 1992 31
JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
storing water that may have been needed while processing
hides; third, this explanation accounts for the high pro-
portion of broken blades better than the suggestion that
the site may have been only a lithic procurement site.
Finally, skin processing explains why the conglomerate
surface was the main focus of attention at this site, rather
than the flatter, loessic surfaces nearby.
There are a number of weaknesses in this explanation,
however. The most obvious is that there is no positive
evidence that any of the fresh assemblage was used for
processing skins. There are two reasons for this. First, it
was not possible to have artifactssent abroad to have them
examined microscopically for edge damage and modifica-
tion. Even if it had been possible, it would have been very
difficult to find a person with the relevant experience in
quartzite wear analysis. This type of research may be
undertaken at some future date. A second weakness is that
the low ratio of cores to flakes and blades implies that
many of the latter items were discarded off the site; and
this in turn may imply that the site was also used as a
lithic procurement site in the sense defined by Soffer. Also,
if the "niche"was used for storing water, it is unclear how,
or from where, it could have been filled.
Conclusions
The primary emphasis in this study has been on the
function of a site, rather than the regional typological
affinities of its lithic assemblage. Nevertheless, the latter
is of interest in that it is one of the few excavated assem-
blages of its period in South Asia, particularly one that
clearly relates to a short period of use and discard. The
site is also interesting because of its unusually fine-grained
evidence that probably relates to one primary activity,
undertaken for only a short period of time. It does not
appear to have been a residential, butchery, ritual, or tran-
sit site; or an area where refuse was dumped from a neigh-
boring activity zone. The most obvious type of site to
which it can be compared are lithic procurement sites,
such as those identified by Soffer in a broadly analogous
area of western Russia. This explanation does not seem
wholly satisfactory, however, and consequently it is sug-
gested that it may also have been used as a location for
processing animal skins in the autumn, with the procure-
ment of flakes and blades as an ancillary activity.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Directors of the British Archae-
ological Mission to Pakistan, Bridget and Raymond All-
chin, and to Ishtiaq Khan, Director-General of Archae-
ology, Goverment of Pakistan during the time of the
excavations. TL dating was carried out at Sussex Univer-
 32 Riwat/Dennell,Rendell,Halim, Moth
sity, and we acknowledge the financial support of the
Science and Engineering Research Council/Science-Based
Archaeological Committee. We thank Linda Hurcombe
for references on skin working, and Lewis Binford for
comments on the manuscript.
Robin Dennell, a lecturerin prehistoryat SheffieldUniversity,
has workedon the Paleolithicsequenceof Pakistansince1981
and has beenDirectorof the BritishArchaeologicalMission
theresince1985. He is currentlyon secondmentto theAncient
India and Iran Trust, Cambridge,as a SeniorResearchFel-
low.Mailing address:DepartmentofArchaeologyand Prehis-
tory,UniversityofSheffield,SheffieldS10 2TN, United King-
dom.
Helen Rendell has a Ph.D. from the Universityof London
and is a readerin geologyat SussexUniversity.She has worked
in Pakistan since1979, particularlyon TL and paleo-mag-
netic dating problems.
MohammadHalim is agraduate ofLahoreUniversity,
withpostgraduatetraining in Paleolithicarchaeologyin
France.FormerlyDirectorof the National Museum,Karachi,
he is now a DeputyDirectorof the DepartmentofArchaeology
and Museumsin Karachi.
EddieMoth is an archaeology
graduate of SheffieldUniver-
sity and has worked in Pakistan with the otherauthorson sev-
eral occasionsas well as in Greece,Spain, Ireland, andJordan.
He is currentlyafreelance archaeologicaldraftsmanbasedin
Sheffield.
Binford, Lewis R.
1978a "DimensionalAnalysis of Behavior and Site Structure:
Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand,"American
Antiquity43: 330-361.
London: AcademicPress.
1978b Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology.
1981 Bones:Ancient Men and ModernMyths. London: Aca-
demic Press.
1987 "Searchingfor Camps and Missing the Evidence?An-
other Look at the Lower Palaeolithic,"in Olger Soffer,
ed., The PleistoceneOld World.New York and London:
Plenum, 17-31.
Binford, Lewis R., and Sally R. Binford
1966 "A PreliminaryAnalysisof FunctionalVariabilityin the
Mousterianof LevalloisFacies,"AmericanAnthropologist
68: 238-295.
Cahen, D., L. H. Keeley, and F. van Noten
1979 "Stone Tools, Tool-kits and Human Behaviorin Prehis-
tory,"CurrentAnthropology20: 661-683.
Clark,Graham
1952 PrehistoricEurope:TheEconomicBasis.Cambridge:Cam-
bridge University Press.
Clark,Desmond, and H. Kurashina
1981 "A Study of the Work of a Modern Tannerin Ethiopia
and its Relevancefor ArchaeologicalInterpretation,"in
Ronald A. Gould and Michael B. Schiffer,eds., Modern
Material Culture: The Archaeologyof Us. London: Aca-
demic Press, 303-321.
De Terra,Helmut, and Thomas T. Paterson
1939 Studies on the Ice Age in India and AssociatedHuman
Cultures.CarnegieInstitutePublication493. Washington,
D.C.
Gamble, Clive
1984 "Subsistenceand Societyin PalaeolithicEurope,"in Tim-
othy Champion, ed., PrehistoricEurope.London: Aca-
demic Press, 59-88.
1986 The PalaeolithicSettlementof Europe.Cambridge:Cam-
bridge University Press.
Gilead, I.
1988 "Le site mousterien de Fara II (Neguev spetentrional,
Israel)et le remontagede son industrie,"L'Anthropologie
92: 797-807.
Gronmow, Bjarne,Morten Meldgaard,and Jorn B. Nielsen
1983 "Aasivissuit-The Great SummerCamp. Archaeological,
Ethnographicaland Zoo-archaeologicalStudiesof a Car-
ibou-hunting Site in West Greenland,"Man and Society
5: 5-96.
Hole, Frank,and Kent V. Flannery
1967 'The Prehistory of South-western Iran: A Preliminary
Report," Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety33: 147-
206.
Ikawa-Smith,Frank
1978 "Introduction:The Early Palaeolithicof East Asia," in
Frank Ikawa-Smith,ed., Early Palaeolithicin Southand
EastAsia. The Hague: Mouton, 1-10.
Isaac, Glyn L.
1978 "The Food-sharing Behavior of Proto-human Homin-
ids," ScientificAmerican238: 90-118.
Jones, Peter
1979 "Effectsof Raw Materialson Biface Manufacture,"Sci-
ence204: 835-836.
Marks,Anthony E., and C. Reid Ferring
1988 "The Early Upper Palaeolithicof the Levant,"in J. E.
Hoffecker and C. A. Wolf, eds., TheEarlyUpperPalaeo-
lithic: Evidencefrom Europeand the Near East. BAR In-
ternationalSeries437. Oxford: B.A.R., 43-72.
Mason, O.
1891 "AboriginalSkin-dressing:A Study Basedon Materialin
the U.S. National Museum,"Annual Reportof theSmith-
sonianInstitutionfor 1889, 553-589.
Price, T. Douglas
1978 "MesolithicSettlement Systems in the Netherlands,"in
Paul M. Mellars, ed., The EarlyPostglacialSettlementof
NorthernEurope.London: Duckworth, 81-113.
Reed, R.
1972 Ancient Skins, Parchmentsand Leathers.London: Aca-
demic Press.
Rendell, Helen M., and Robin W. Dennell
1987 'ThermoluminescenceDating of an Upper Pleistocene
2: 63-67.
Site, Northern Pakistan,"Geoarchaeology
 JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
19, 1992 33

Rendell, Helen M., Robin W. Dennell, and MohammadHalim

1989 Pleistocene Investigationsin theSoanValley,
and Palaeolithic
NorthernPakistan.BAR InternationalSeries544. Oxford:
B.A.R.
Rogers, E. S.
1973 TheQuestfor Foodand Furs: The MistassiniCree, 1953-
1954. NationalMuseumof CanadaPublicationsin Ethnol-
ogy 5. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.
Salim, Mohammad
1986 TheMiddleStoneAge Culturesof NorthernPakistan.Isla-
mabad: Quaid-i-AzamUniversity.
Soffer, Olger
1985 The UpperPalaeolithicof the CentralRussianPlain. Lon-
don: AcademicPress.
Spiess, ArthurE.
1979 Reindeerand CaribouHunters.London: AcademicPress.