Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:49:49.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Oued Beht, Morocco: a complex early farming society in north-west Africa and its implications for western Mediterranean interaction during later prehistory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2024

Cyprian Broodbank*
Affiliation:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UK
Giulio Lucarini*
Affiliation:
Institute of Heritage Science, National Research Council of Italy (CNR-ISPC), Rome, Italy International Association for Mediterranean and Oriental Studies (ISMEO), Rome, Italy
Youssef Bokbot
Affiliation:
National Institute of Archaeology and Heritage (INSAP), Rabat, Morocco
Hamza Benattia
Affiliation:
Department of History and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, Spain
Aïcha Bigoulimen
Affiliation:
National Institute of Archaeology and Heritage (INSAP), Rabat, Morocco
Lucy Farr
Affiliation:
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, University of Cambridge, UK
Arnau Garcia-Molsosa
Affiliation:
Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology, Tarragona, Spain
Hassan Hachami
Affiliation:
National Institute of Archaeology and Heritage (INSAP), Rabat, Morocco
Rafael Laoutari
Affiliation:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UK
Lorena Lombardi
Affiliation:
Institute of Heritage Science, National Research Council of Italy (CNR-ISPC), Rome, Italy Department of Civilisations and Forms of Knowledge, University of Pisa, Italy
Adelaide Marsilio
Affiliation:
Institute of Heritage Science, National Research Council of Italy (CNR-ISPC), Rome, Italy Department of Humanistic Research and Innovation, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy
Louise Martin
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, University College London, UK
Jacob Morales
Affiliation:
Department of Historical Sciences, University of Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, Spain
Moad Radi
Affiliation:
National Institute of Archaeology and Heritage (INSAP), Rabat, Morocco
Francesco Michele Rega
Affiliation:
International Association for Mediterranean and Oriental Studies (ISMEO), Rome, Italy
Toby Wilkinson
Affiliation:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UK
*
*Authors for correspondence ✉ [email protected] & [email protected]
*Authors for correspondence ✉ [email protected] & [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Maghreb (north-west Africa) played an important role during the Palaeolithic and later in connecting the western Mediterranean from the Phoenician to Islamic periods. Yet, knowledge of its later prehistory is limited, particularly between c. 4000 and 1000 BC. Here, the authors present the first results of investigations at Oued Beht, Morocco, revealing a hitherto unknown farming society dated to c. 3400–2900 BC. This is currently the earliest and largest agricultural complex in Africa beyond the Nile corridor. Pottery and lithics, together with numerous pits, point to a community that brings the Maghreb into dialogue with contemporaneous wider western Mediterranean developments.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd

Introduction

The Maghreb combines an immense Saharan interface with a Mediterranean environmental zone as large as Iberia's and the shortest maritime crossings between Africa and southern Europe. The region's credentials as a location for major cultural developments and inter-continental connections in the past are therefore exceptional. Research has shown that this potential was realised during the Palaeolithic (Hublin et al. Reference Hublin2017; Barton et al. Reference Barton, Bouzouggar, Collcutt and Humphrey2020; Sehasseh et al. Reference Sehasseh2021) and from the Phoenician Iron Age to Islamic times (Papi Reference Papi, Quinn and Vella2014; Mederos Martín Reference Mederos Martín, López-Ruiz and Doak2019; Bokbot Reference Bokbot, Sterry and Mattingly2020; Fenwick Reference Fenwick2020). Yet the intervening nine millennia of Holocene prehistory remain far less explored—in particular the period c. 4000–1000 BC. For the earlier Holocene, a spectrum of hunting and foraging societies (exemplified by the Capsian of the eastern Maghreb) have been identified, followed in the sixth to fifth millennia BC by expansions of pastoralism from the east and elements of a Mediterranean agro-pastoral Neolithic in the north-west, closely linked to developments across the Gibraltar strait (see Broodbank & Lucarini Reference Broodbank and Lucarini2019; Carríon Marco et al. Reference Carrión Marco, Pérez-Jordà, Kherbouche and Peña-Chocarro2022). After this, however, there is a lacuna, both in terms of reliable data and interpretative models (Lucarini et al. Reference Lucarini, Bokbot and Broodbank2021). It is implausible that this reflects a genuine lack of activity, particularly given the contemporaneous emergence in north-east Africa of pharaonic Egypt, as well as the dynamic, interconnected Copper and Bronze Age societies of the Levant, Aegean, Central Mediterranean and Iberia (Broodbank Reference Broodbank2013: 257–444). Critically, this gap in the evidence also leaves the role of north-west Africa in the emergence of Mediterranean and wider African long-term history untested and potentially radically underestimated.

In this article, we present results of new fieldwork in Morocco, demonstrating that one part of the Maghreb does provide remarkable evidence for farming, aggregation, long-range connectivity and, probably, storage within this timeframe, attributes that collectively suggest complex social relationships. The north-west Maghreb's position between the Atlantic and Mediterranean weather systems, together with its proximity to the Atlas mountain range, ensures adequate rainfall and significantly ameliorated the aridification observed over much of northern Africa from the fourth millennium BC onwards (Roberts et al. Reference Roberts, Woodbridge, Palmisano, Bevan, Fyfe and Shennan2019), enabling it to remain fully viable for agriculture. Here, moreover, among other isolated, poorly dated finds, a long-known distribution of mid- to late-third-millennium BC pottery and metalwork of south-west European Beaker types, together with numerous finds of African ivory and ostrich eggshell in Copper Age Iberia, manifestly demand wider investigation (Bokbot Reference Bokbot, Guerra, Garrido-Pena and García-Martinez de Lagrán2005; Schuhmacher et al. Reference Schuhmacher, Cardoso and Banerjee2009; Schuhmacher Reference Schuhmacher2016). Recently, this scant archaeological evidence has been complemented by genetic analyses revealing a mixed population ancestry of local hunter-gatherers, Neolithic Iberian farmers and Saharan pastoralists (Fregel et al. Reference Fregel2018; Simões et al. Reference Simões2023), while also identifying an individual of African descent buried at the Late Copper Age (Beaker period) site of Camino de las Yeseras in the Iberian interior (Olalde et al. Reference Olalde2019). So far missing, however, has been any substantive understanding of the Maghrebian societies involved. To date, most information derives from caves and cemeteries with problematic dating; prioritising open living sites has the potential to transform this situation.

Oued Beht (Khémisset province, Morocco)

The site of Oued Beht occupies a limestone, marl and conglomerate ridge 170–210m above sea level on the rolling Zemmour plateau, overlooking the eponymous perennial river (Figure 1). It lies in a Mediterranean-type, semi-arid bioclimatic zone (Hilmi et al. Reference Hilmi, Mahamoud, Aziz el Agbani and Qninba2022), currently extensively farmed for cereals. Today the site is approximately 100km inland but maritime access may once have been closer, as it is likely that the Gharb drainage to the north formed an indented embayment or estuarine wetland during later prehistory.

Figure 1. a) The north-western Maghreb, showing Oued Beht and other locations mentioned; b) the Oued Beht ridge and river, from the south-east (map and photograph by Toby Wilkinson).

The site first came to attention in the 1930s, when colonial French building work revealed a prodigious number of polished stone axes/adzes and macrolithic grinding artefacts, as well as nearby large linear features taken to be the walls of a prehistoric fortified enclosure (Ruhlmann Reference Ruhlmann1936). Ever since, the site has been associated with an abundance of such axes/adzes (Souville Reference Souville1973: 156–60). At least 1388 examples are currently curated in Rabat, at the Musée de l'Histoire et des Civilisations (hereafter Rabat Museum) and the Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine (INSAP), while many more are rumoured to have left Morocco via colonially sanctioned or subsequent illicit collection. Archaeological investigation was initiated in 2005 (by Youssef Bokbot), with an initial focus on Ifri n'Amr o'Moussa cave at the ridge's southern tip. There, levels associated with Epipalaeolithic, Early to Middle Neolithic (including burials and a radiocarbon date of 5210–4952 BC on domesticated barley), Beaker period and much later activity have been revealed (Bokbot Reference Bokbot, Guerra, Garrido-Pena and García-Martinez de Lagrán2005; Ben-Ncer et al. Reference Ben-Ncer, Bokbot, Amani, Ouachi, Sahnouni, Semaw and Garaizar2017). In 2013 a French-Moroccan team shifted attention to open areas beyond the cave and in 2016–2017 excavations were opened within the zone of abundant lithic surface finds, after which this collaboration ceased; the results remain unpublished.

Since 2021 the British-Italian-Moroccan Oued Beht Archaeological Project (OBAP) has undertaken new fieldwork, with four aims: to establish temporal and spatial patterns of activity through radiocarbon dating and intensive surface survey, complemented by drone-based photogrammetry; to understand the nature of the sub-surface archaeology, through excavation and geophysical prospection; to identify indicators of subsistence including faunal and macrobotanical remains; and to obtain a quantifiable sample of material culture sufficient for morphological, chronological, functional and materials analysis. Given how little is otherwise known about how people lived in this time and place, in combining the results of these strands, we place a strong emphasis on inference-building from the data up. Comparison with other societies of the Mediterranean and Africa remains an important goal, but one that also presents dangers of premature explanation by analogy.

Dating and extent

So far, we have generated 13 radiocarbon dates, all on charcoal or seeds recovered from our own excavations, OBAP's cleaning of earlier trenches and from material recovered by the earlier French-Moroccan excavations (provided by Youssef Bokbot) (Table 1). Most of the samples derive from deep pits that are widely encountered in trenches across the northern half of the ridge. The dates, from widely separated pits, consistently indicate a range of 3400–2900 BC (at 95.4% confidence), with the exception of two earlier fourth-millennium BC dates, and one with a slightly later end date (c. 2700 BC). This result matches the stylistic homogeneity of much of the prehistoric pottery recovered from the site. Given these dates and distinctive associated cultural traits, as well as uncertainties around the definition of the antecedent regional Middle and Late Neolithics (Linstädter Reference Linstädter, Reindel, Bartl, Lüth and Benecke2016; Martínez Sánchez et al. Reference Martínez Sánchez, Rodríguez, Peña-Chocarro, Bokbot, Pérez Jordà and Pardo-Gordó2018), we propose that this phase of activity at Oued Beht be referred to as a regional Final Neolithic, thereby filling one of the hitherto most obscure phases of Maghrebian prehistory.

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Oued Beht (calibration curve IntCal 20).

During intensive surface survey in 2022 we collected pottery, chipped stone, axes/adzes and macrolithics at a 10 × 10m resolution over 19.5ha, generating the first fine-grained definition of the extent of the site and the distribution of material classes within it (Figures 2–5). The resultant total of 19 626 finds comprises 16 258 pottery fragments, 2947 chipped stone pieces, 50 axes/adzes and 371 macrolithics. The main focus of Final Neolithic activity emerges as a 9–10ha zone of high artefact density across the north of the site, with convincingly delineated edges save for losses to cliff erosion in the east. The extent of surface material is compatible with the currently known distribution of pits (Figure 2), though somewhat smaller than a previously published estimate prior to OBAP's fieldwork (Lucarini et al. Reference Lucarini, Bokbot and Broodbank2021: 152). A smaller discrete concentration of prehistoric material near the large built features (OBAP's Walls B1, B2 and C) to the south also appears to be of Final Neolithic and/or slightly broader prehistoric date (possibly including the Beaker period). The concentration of pottery and lithics at Oued Beht is of a size unprecedented at this date on the African continent outside the Nile corridor and its immediate vicinity, and is also exceptional in Mediterranean terms.

Figure 2. Plan of Oued Beht, showing known pits and linear structures (figure by Toby Wilkinson).

Figure 3. Distribution of prehistoric pottery and Final Neolithic painted sherds (figure by Toby Wilkinson).

Figure 4. Distribution of macrolithic tools by function (figure by Toby Wilkinson).

Figure 5. Distribution of polished axes/adzes and chipped stone tools (figure by Toby Wilkinson).

Subsurface archaeology and evidence of domesticates

Small-scale targeted excavations in 2021–2022 prioritised cleaning and extending the French-Moroccan trenches within the Final Neolithic site. OBAP's trenches 1 and 2 revealed a shallow stratigraphy in the first 0.1–0.4m, comprising activity surfaces, postholes and other features, fragments of structural daub, and the typically narrow mouths of deep pits (of approximately 1–2m3 capacity), whose bellying, roughly bell-shaped form is exposed in the deeper sections. The associated cultural material relates overwhelmingly to the Final Neolithic. The pits were encountered in every trench and average approximately one per 10m2; should this density prove typical across the entire site—a question for upcoming geophysics and test trenching—there are significant volumetric consequences. The constricted mouths of the pits may suggest an initial use as storage silos, potentially for crops (a traditional North African practice until recently; Morales et al. Reference Morales, Rodríguez-Rodríguez, González-Marrero, Martín-Rodríguez, Henríquez-Valido and del-Pino-Curbelo2014), although this hypothesis requires further investigation given that the pits’ fills probably do not reflect their primary use but, instead, formal or informal waste disposal (see below). This issue finds parallels in the debate around the storage, refuse and/or ritual functions of similarly shaped and numerous pits in contemporaneous southern Iberia, a resonance to which we will return (Jiménez-Jáimez & Suárez-Padilla Reference Jiménez-Jáimez and Suárez-Padilla2020; Armenteros-Lojo & Jiménez-Jáimez Reference Armenteros-Lojo and Jiménez-Jáimez2024).

One strategic aim in 2022 was to obtain an initial insight into Final Neolithic subsistence practices. Pit 222 in trench 2 was accordingly excavated, revealing a rapidly deposited lower fill containing large sherds of fine Final Neolithic vessels and fragmented grinding tools, and upper fills from gradual natural processes, with pottery of comparable date and no later intrusions (Figure 6). Wet-sieving of the pit's contents produced charred seeds of domesticated naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum) and, more rarely, wheat (Triticum sp.) and pea (Pisum sativum), alongside wild olive (Olea europaea subsp. oleaster) and pistachio (Pistacia atlantica/terebinthus), probably representing food-processing residues (Table S1 in online supplementary material (OSM), Figure 7). Samples of the first three species have been radiocarbon dated (Table 1). Analysis of faunal remains confirms the presence of domestic goats, alongside sheep, cattle, pig and a single equid tooth, with all the main carcass parts represented (except for equids) and cut marks suggestive of butchery on site (Figure 8). These results match initial observations of the site's overall faunal profile, which is dominated by domesticated rather than wild species (although given that wild bovids and suids were indigenous to the Holocene Maghreb, some diversity of status within these taxa cannot at present be ruled out). The untapped potential of Maghrebian later prehistory is exemplified within this one modestly sized pit, which has alone produced the most reliable evidence for agriculture in the region for almost two millennia on either side of the site's late-fourth-millennium floruit.

Figure 6. Section profile from trench 2 showing pit 222, stratigraphic units and associated radiocarbon dates (drawing by Alessia Brucato & Lucy Farr).

Figure 7. Plant macro-remains from trench 2, pit 222: a) Hordeum vulgare var. nudum, naked barley; b) Triticum sp., wheat; c) Pisum sativum, pea; d) Pistacia atlantica/terebinthus, wild pistachio; e) Olea europaea subsp. oleaster, wild olive. Scale bar = 1mm (photographs by Jacob Morales).

Figure 8. Faunal remains from trenches 1 and 2: a) relative proportion (percentage number of identified specimens) of the total identified mammals; b) caprine mandibular condyle fragment with cut marks, and close-up detail (trench 2, pit 222, context 201.08); c) caprine astragalus with cut marks, and close-up detail (trench 2, pit 222, context 201.16) (photographs by Hassan Hachami).

Material culture

The sample of material culture recovered from Oued Beht is substantial (Figures 9 & 10). Here, we report only the prehistoric material, though the surface survey (unlike the excavations) also retrieved considerable quantities of medieval and later pottery, along with rotary querns of volcanic stone. Some 1295 prehistoric sherds were recovered from stratified contexts in trenches 1 and 2. A range of round-based jars, bowls and other open shapes are mainly made of a buff-firing clay, variably (sometimes finely) levigated (Figure 9a), while shallow cooking plates are typically of a red-brown fabric (Figure 9b). Some vessels are large, with massive tunnel lugs or handles. Approximately 25 per cent of the pottery, mainly in the buff fabric, is slipped (red-brown or dark) and burnished, sometimes to a high lustre. In addition, dark-on-light painted pottery constitutes 1–7 per cent of counts per context (Figure 9c). This otherwise little-known type has rare, broadly contemporaneous parallels at Ghar Cahal in north-west Morocco (Becerra et al. Reference Becerra, Vijande-Vila, Ramos-Muñoz, El Idrissi, Gómez-Sánchez, Zouak, Fernández-Sánchez, Bernal-Casasola, Ramos Muñoz, Kbiri Alaoui, Tarradell-Font and Zouak2021), and at multiple sites in southern Iberia (Aranda Jiménez et al. Reference Aranda Jiménez2012: 49–55; Carrasco Rus et al. Reference Carrasco Rus, Pachón Romero and Jiménez2012; Mederos Martín et al. Reference Mederos Martín, Schuhmacher, Vargas Jiménez, Bashore Acero, Garvin Arcos and Brandherm2023a). Overall, the degree of ceramic technological sophistication is striking relative to other early Maghrebian pottery. The survey pottery complements this picture (Figure 3), confirming the extent of Final Neolithic material, including painted sherds, as well as adding hints of an earlier Neolithic presence in the north and patchy post-Final Neolithic activity to the north and south, near the linear built features.

Figure 9. Final Neolithic pottery from Oued Beht: a) buff fabric bowls, jar (with post-firing hole), large tunnel lugs and round base; b) red-brown fabric cooking vessels; c) painted sherds (scale bar = 50mm) (photographs by Rafael Laoutari, Rafael Martínez Sánchez & Moad Radi).

The macrolithic assemblage is overwhelmingly prehistoric. Most examples were collected by the surface survey (371 artefacts), with only 13 from excavation (including five grinding tools in pit 222). The vast majority (340) of the surface finds are associated with the Final Neolithic focus in the north (Figure 4); only 31 are from the south, mainly close to the built features. Most (53.6%) consist of grinding implements, probably for cereal processing (Figure 10a & b). Many tools were also reused as anvils (including some pierres à cupules; Figure 10c), which, together with those solely used for hammering, testify to extensive on-site manufacturing, including the first stages of lithic artefact knapping by bipolar percussion. Tools for pounding, abrading, burnishing and polishing, as well as possible palettes, are attested in smaller numbers. A single pick (pièce à gorge) parallels those previously reported at the site by Souville (Reference Souville1973: 157–60, figs. 77–80) and presently curated at Rabat Museum (Figure 10d). The prehistoric macrolithics are mostly made from sandstones and quartzitic sandstones, mainly sourced from cobbles and boulders locally available along the river bed or in the conglomerate exposures on the ridge. Rarer raw materials include basalt, schist, breccia, limestone and granitoid rocks. Traces of manufacture (knapping, pecking and grinding) can be detected on several artefacts, especially the grinding implements.

Figure 10. Stone tools from Oued Beht: a & b) lower grinding stones; c) upper grinder reused as anvil (pierre à cupule); d) pick (pièce à gorge); e & f) polished axes; g) axe/adze preform; h) serrated sickle element; i) rectilinear sickle element; j) circular endscraper; k) product from bipolar percussion (a & c = Aït Siberne authority office; b, d–f = Rabat Museum; g-k = OBAP 2022 survey. Scale bar: a–d = 200mm; e–k = 50mm) (photographs by Lorena Lombardi & Moad Radi).

Intriguingly, given Oued Beht's reputation as a provenance of axes and adzes, only 50 examples were recovered in 2021–2022, all as surface finds and almost all spatially associated with the main Final Neolithic site (Figure 5). This modest number compares to some 1388 from earlier, mostly twentieth-century, collections (Figure 10e & f). The discrepancy may be due to depletion of (near-)surface finds over decades of collection or could imply concentrations of such objects in contexts that we did not encounter. Most of the 50 examples are made from quarzitic sandstone or basalt. In form they are triangular or oval (or rarely trapezoidal or rectangular) and approximately 50–120mm in length. Most are finished or almost finished tools, some exhibiting traces of use, but others are apparently unused. Recovery of several pre-forms (Figure 10g) and numerous manufacturing flakes (the latter from survey (Figure 5) and excavation contexts) confirm on-site axe/adze production.

Chipped stone is abundant (3368 pieces, 2947 from the surface survey and 421 from stratified excavations), but only a small proportion are formal tools as opposed to expedient forms and flakes of low chronological diagnostic value. Most artefacts are of flint, followed by quartzite and, rarely, chalcedony, from locally exposed conglomerate nodules. The artefacts were knapped using both direct percussion, with a hard or soft hammerstone, and bipolar technique for splitting pebbles and detaching flakes (Figure 10k). A minority of the formal tools are manufactured using finer-grained flints. The most common type (19 examples) is a circular or arched front endscraper, mainly found in the north (Figures 5 & 10j). More chronologically informative, however, are eight flint sickle elements. Six are characterised by a serrated active edge and backing retouch, rendering the hafted edge semicircular or rectilinear in shape, and retaining traces of gloss from use (Figure 10h). These stand out as typologically similar to artefacts from the Beaker-period site of Nador Klalcha near Kenitra in north-west Morocco (Rodrigue Reference Rodrigue2012: 72, fig. 4, nos. 22 & 23) and also from sites from the later third to second millennia BC in Iberia (Early Bronze Age; Cabanilles Reference Cabanilles1985; Gibaja Bao Reference Gibaja Bao2003). The remaining two sickle elements are produced on blades and show a rectilinear working edge (Figure 10i). Most sickle elements were recovered from the south and north-west of the site (Figure 5), both areas with hints of possibly post-Final Neolithic pottery. In contrast to evidence for crop processing, consumption and potentially major storage, tools for harvesting are conspicuously lacking for the main Final Neolithic phase at Oued Beht. This could imply the use of a bare-handed technique, a traditional practice in arid regions (Lucarini Reference Lucarini, Barich, Lucarini, Hamdan and Hassan2014; Simm & Russell Reference Simm and Russell2018), or that primary harvesting and/or the curation of sickles was based elsewhere.

Interpreting Oued Beht in its broader context

What we have learnt and what we still do not understand about Oued Beht are now finely balanced. Over a minimum of five centuries around the later fourth to earliest third millennium BC (and probably a couple more centuries on either side), a major concentration of activity and investment of labour and resources developed across an area of at least 9–10ha, focused on the northern part of the ridge. This included the digging and use of numerous pits, as well as above-ground activities and structures of undetermined nature. Pottery for food preparation, consumption and storage, some of it elaborately decorated, were in use alongside a chipped stone tool industry and the large-scale provision of grinding stones and polished stone axes/adzes, at least some of which were made on site. Food from a typically Mediterranean Neolithic suite of domestic animals and crops was processed and consumed, and, in the case of the latter, possibly stored in bulk. By contrast, unambiguous signs of the gathering and hunting of wild resources are rare, suggesting an economy primarily reliant on food production. Anecdotal reports of previous finds of human remains may point to a further dimension of activity, currently under investigation by ongoing excavations.

It is tempting to bypass the uncertainties of interpretation and assume that Oued Beht was a large Final Neolithic village. Such may prove to be the case and, if so, its size, the abundance of grinding stones and the potential storage capacity of the site's pits, would suggest that it was a populous one. Such a community would be unprecedented in the Maghreb and indeed anywhere in non-Nilotic Africa until the Dhar Tichitt sites of the second-millennium BC Sahel (Linares-Matás Reference Linares-Matás2022). Along the northern flank of the later fourth- to third-millennium BC Mediterranean, Oued Beht is only significantly superseded in terms of extent by the extraordinary Iberian Copper Age mega-sites, themselves often studded with pits and of equally debated social significance (García Sanjuán et al. Reference García Sanjuán, Scarre and Wheatley2017). Of these, Valencina de la Concepción, near Seville, remains the most extreme example, at some 200ha during its third-millennium floruit (Mederos Martín et al. Reference Mederos Martín2023b: 280, fig. 30, 289, tab. 3), but more strictly contemporaneous comparisons are furnished by sites of the later fourth-millennium BC Iberian terminal Neolithic to Copper Age transition, notably La Loma (near Granada), of uncertain extent but possessing both numerous pits and painted pottery (Aranda Jiménez et al. Reference Aranda Jiménez2012), and the 20ha site of Perdigões in southern Portugal (Valera Reference Valera2018). Further east, Oued Beht compares favourably in size with Early Bronze Age Aegean sites such as Troy and others on Crete and the Greek mainland (Whitelaw Reference Whitelaw, Barrett and Halstead2004; Jablonka Reference Jablonka, Pernicka, Ünlüsöy and Blum2016), locations long at the heart of that region's ‘emergence of civilisation’ narrative (Renfrew Reference Renfrew1972).

However, given all that we still do not know, and the likely co-existence of farming and pastoralism across the wider Maghreb, we prefer to keep alternative models of aggregation constructively open, acknowledging the possibility of different, and less familiar, trajectories that could have resulted in the complex phenomenon that is Oued Beht. One consequence of shedding light on Oued Beht is that it emphasises, by contrast, the almost total lack of knowledge of its surrounding context. Temporally, we still know virtually nothing of the immediate background from which the site emerged and little about its succession, beyond a few hints of earlier Neolithic activity, and potentially a post-Final Neolithic presence, both suggestively matched at Ifri n'Amr o'Moussa cave at the southern end of the ridge. Spatially, aside from a handful of under-investigated prehistoric sites, and a probable salt mine, within a day's return walk (Ruhlmann Reference Ruhlmann1936, Reference Ruhlmann1937; Souville Reference Souville1991; Ben-Ncer et al. Reference Ben-Ncer, Bokbot, Amani, Ouachi, Sahnouni, Semaw and Garaizar2017), we know nothing of the wider social landscape. Bearing in mind the paucity of Final Neolithic harvesting tools, coupled with the fact that the potential storage capacity of perhaps hundreds of pits is likely to have exceeded the needs of any plausible resident group, it is conceivable that Oued Beht acted as a hub for a widespread, so far invisible population. In this context the presence or absence of donkeys (regionally likely by this date but locally still undetermined) may prove informative in terms of the ability to transport and mobilise crops and other goods (Lucarini et al. Reference Lucarini, Bokbot and Broodbank2021: 152–53). Extended survey in Oued Beht's vicinity is therefore vital, and at a more ambitious spatial scale might reveal how typical or exceptional this site is at a regional level.

Panning out further, the centuries either side of 3000 BC saw the emergence in southern Iberia of, at least superficially, similar large terminal Neolithic to Copper Age sites with many pits—the so-called ‘silo culture’ extending from western Andalusia to the Portuguese Alentejo (Márquez Romero & Jiménez Jáimez Reference Márquez Romero and Jiménez Jáimez2010; Martínez Romero Reference Martínez Romero2018). It is possible that travellers from across the sea will in future be identified at Oued Beht and their presence help to explain the thought-provoking parallels between the two regions. Yet it is also manifest that Africa has long endured a notorious colonial experience of exogenous explanation for supposedly unprecedented local developments. In this instance, the relatively early dates emerging from Oued Beht give pause for thought; it may ultimately prove impossible to explain fully Iberian Copper Age developments—not least the strengthening evidence for engagement in far-flung western Mediterranean exchange networks—without regard for contemporaneous north-west African agency. At present, for example, Oued Beht boasts the largest site-specific corpus of a painted pottery tradition, much of it plausibly locally produced, that is more thinly (if also more widely) attested north of the strait. Likewise, it remains to be established how far the axes manufactured at Oued Beht may have travelled. Ivory was worked in the north-west Maghreb long before its first, later fourth-millennium BC, appearance north of the strait (Schuhmacher Reference Schuhmacher2016) and, although there is as yet no evidence for ivory at Oued Beht, its surrounding region was still roamed by elephants (and probably ostriches) as late as the Roman period. Speculatively, the first Iberian donkeys (Bernáldez-Sánchez et al. Reference Bernáldez-Sánchez, García-Viñas, Sanguino, Villalón and Leonard2023) could constitute another Maghrebian import. It is therefore crucial to consider Oued Beht within a wider co-evolving and connective framework embracing peoples both sides of the Mediterranean-Atlantic gateway during the later fourth and third millennia BC—and, for all the likelihood of movement in both directions, to recognise it as a distinctively African-based community that contributed substantially to the shaping of that social world.

Conclusion

Addressing the long-known but little studied site of Oued Beht, through fieldwork and related analyses, produces both new insights into Maghrebian society and many further questions. Prominent among the former are the undeniable presence of an established farming lifestyle in the late fourth millennium BC Maghreb, and of complex local communities reciprocally engaged with their contemporaries in southern Iberia. Our hope is that, however challenging it may prove to resolve some of the outstanding questions, Oued Beht and the north-west Maghreb will henceforth occupy an integral and, in explanatory terms, profoundly revisionary place in the later prehistory of the Mediterranean and Africa that they so richly deserve, and that for far too many years has gone unrecognised.

Acknowledgements

We thank the following for support and advice: the Director, Abdeljalil Bouzouggar, and staff of INSAP, Barbara E. Barich, Alessia Brucato, Borja Legarra Herrero, David Lubell, Rafael Martínez Sánchez, Ilaria Mazzini, Alfredo Mederos Martín, Abdeslam Mikdad, Hector Orengo, Jacques Pelegrin and the anonymous reviewers. For details of author contributions, see OSM.

Funding statement

OBAP is funded from the UK by the British Institute for Libyan and Northern African Studies, a Cambridge University Humanities Research Grant and the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, and from Italy by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, the National Research Council of Italy, and the Ministry of University and Research, via the International Association for Mediterranean and Oriental Studies, Rome. Additional funding was provided by the Catalan Institute of Classical Archaeology, Tarragona.

Online supplementary materials (OSM)

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.101 and select the supplementary materials tab.

References

Aranda Jiménez, G., et al. 2012. La Loma (Íllora, Granada). Un yacimiento de fosas del VI-IV milenios cal BC. Seville: Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
Armenteros-Lojo, M.J. & Jiménez-Jáimez, V.. 2024. Massive prehistoric pit sites in southern Iberia: challenges, opportunities and lessons learned. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 43: 222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, R.N.E., Bouzouggar, A., Collcutt, S.N. & Humphrey, L.T.. (ed.) 2020. Cemeteries and sedentism in the Later Stone Age of NW Africa: excavations at Grotte des Pigeons, Taforalt, Morocco (Monographien des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 147). Heidelberg: Propylaeum. https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeum.734Google Scholar
Becerra, S., Vijande-Vila, E., Ramos-Muñoz, J., El Idrissi, A., Gómez-Sánchez, M.L., Zouak, M. & Fernández-Sánchez, D.. 2021. Las cerámicas prehistóricas de Gar Cahal, in Bernal-Casasola, D.B., Ramos Muñoz, J., Kbiri Alaoui, M., Tarradell-Font, N. & Zouak, M. (ed.) Gar Cahal y Tamuda en el archivo Tarradell. Historiografía y arqueología en el norte de África Occidental: 207–22. Cadiz: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz and Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine.Google Scholar
Ben-Ncer, A., Bokbot, Y., Amani, F. & Ouachi, M.. 2017. La sépulture n°4 du site d'Ifri n'Amr ou Moussa (Aït Sibern, Khémisset, Maroc): étude archéo-anthropologique, in Sahnouni, M., Semaw, S. & Garaizar, J. Rios (ed.) Proceedings of the II meeting of African prehistory, Burgos, 15th–16th April 2015: 117–34. Burgos: Centro Nacional de Investigación Sobre la Evolución Humana.Google Scholar
Bernáldez-Sánchez, E., García-Viñas, E., Sanguino, F., Villalón, D. & Leonard, J.A.. 2023. Equids (Equus sp.) in southern Spain from the Palaeolithic to the Bronze Age. Journal of Quaternary Science 39: 261–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokbot, Y. 2005. La civilización del Vaso Campaniforme en Marruecos y la cuestión del sustrato Calcolítico precampaniforme, in Guerra, M.A. Rojo, Garrido-Pena, R. & García-Martinez de Lagrán, I. (ed.) El campaniforme en la península Ibérica y su contexto Europeo: 137–61. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
Bokbot, Y. 2020. The origins of urbanisation and structured political power in Morocco. Indigenous phenomenon or foreign colonisation?, in Sterry, M. & Mattingly, D.J. (ed.) Urbanisation and state formation in the ancient Sahara and beyond: 476–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108637978.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broodbank, C. 2013. The making of the middle sea: a history of the Mediterranean from the beginning to the emergence of the Classical world. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Broodbank, C. & Lucarini, G.. 2019. The dynamics of Mediterranean Africa, ca. 9600–1000 BC: an interpretative synthesis of knowns and unknowns. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 32: 195267. https://doi.org/10.1558/jma.40581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabanilles, J.J. 1985. La hoz de la Edad del Bronce del Mas de Menente (Alcoi, Alacant). Aproximación a su tecnología y contexto cultural. Lucentum 4: 3753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrasco Rus, J.L., Pachón Romero, J.A. & Jiménez, J. Gámiz. 2012. Las cerámicas neolíticas pintadas en Andalucía y sus contextos arqueológicos. Antiquitas 24: 1779.Google Scholar
Carrión Marco, Y., Pérez-Jordà, G., Kherbouche, F. & Peña-Chocarro, L.. 2022. Plant use and vegetation trends in Algeria from Late Glacial to Middle Holocene: charcoal and seeds from Gueldaman GLD 1 cave (Babors d'Akbou). Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2021.104562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, C. 2020. Early Islamic north Africa: a new perspective. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fregel, F. et al. 2018. Ancient genomes from North Africa evidence prehistoric migrations to the Maghreb from both the Levant and Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115: 6774–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800851115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Sanjuán, L., Scarre, C. & Wheatley, D.. 2017. The mega-site of Valencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain): debating settlement form, monumentality and aggregation in southern Iberian Copper Age societies. Journal of World Prehistory 30: 239–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-017-9107-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibaja Bao, J.F. 2003. Hoces líticas argáricas del sudeste peninsular. Revista Atlántica-Mediterránea de Prehistoria y Arquelogía Social 6: 115–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilmi, M., Mahamoud, A., Aziz el Agbani, M. & Qninba, A.. 2022. Biodiversity and ecological values of a part of the lower valley of Oued Beht located between the dams of El Kansera and Ouljet Essoltane (Province of Khemisset – Morocco). Bulletin de l'Institut Scientifique de Rabat, Section Science de la Vie 44: 717.Google Scholar
Hublin, J.-J. et al. 2017. New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens. Nature 546: 289–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonka, P. 2016. Beyond the citadel: a map of greater Early Bronze Age Troy, in Pernicka, E., Ünlüsöy, S. & Blum, S.W.E. (ed.) Early Bronze Age Troy: chronology, cultural development and interregional contacts (Studia Troica Monograph 8): 6174. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Jáimez, V. & Suárez-Padilla, J.. 2020. Understanding pit sites: storage, surplus and social complexity in prehistoric Western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 27: 799835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09429-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linares-Matás, G. 2022. Spatial organization and socio-economic differentiation at the Dhar Tichitt center of Dakhlet el Atrouss I (southeastern Mauritania). African Archaeological Review 39: 167–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-022-09479-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linstädter, J. 2016. Climate induced mobility and the missing Middle Neolithic of Morocco, in Reindel, M., Bartl, K., Lüth, F. & Benecke, N. (ed.) Palaeoenvironment and the development of early settlements: 6380. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.Google Scholar
Lucarini, G. 2014. Exploitation and management of wild grasses at Hidden Valley, Farafra Oasis, in Barich, B.E., Lucarini, G., Hamdan, A.M. & Hassan, F.A. (ed.) From lake to sand: the archaeology of Farafra Oasis, Western Desert, Egypt: 345–67. Florence: All'Insegna del Giglio.Google Scholar
Lucarini, G., Bokbot, Y. & Broodbank, C.. 2021. New light on the silent millennia: Mediterranean Africa, ca. 4000–900 BC. African Archaeological Review 38: 147–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09411-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Márquez Romero, J.E. & Jiménez Jáimez, V.. 2010. Recintos de fosos: genealogía y significado de una tradición en la prehistoria del suroeste de la península Ibérica (IV–III milenios AC). Málaga: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Málaga.Google Scholar
Martínez Romero, R. 2018. La cultura de los silos en Andalucía Occidental. Revisión teórica de la investigación. Albahri entre Oriente y Occidente. Revista Independiente de Estudios Históricos 4: 452.Google Scholar
Martínez Sánchez, R.M., Rodríguez, J.C. Vera, Peña-Chocarro, L., Bokbot, Y., Pérez Jordà, G. & Pardo-Gordó, S.. 2018. The Middle Neolithic of Morocco's north-western Atlantic strip: new evidence from the El-Khil caves (Tangier). African Archaeological Review 35: 417–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-018-9310-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mederos Martín, A. 2019. North Africa: from the Atlantic to Algeria, in López-Ruiz, C. & Doak, B.R. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean: 627–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mederos Martín, A., Schuhmacher, T.X., Vargas Jiménez, J.M., Bashore Acero, C. & Garvin Arcos, L.. 2023a. The painted pottery from the Chalcolithic mega-site of Valencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain) and its possible relationship with Gar Cahal, northern Morocco, in Brandherm, D. (ed.) Metal ages/Âges des métaux. Proceedings of the XIX UISPP World Congress. Volume 2 / General Session 5 (2–7 September 2021, Meknes, Morocco): 1439. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Mederos Martín, A. et al. 2023b. Valencina de la Concepción (Sevilla): secuencia del poblado Calcolítico y de los recintos de fosos. Campaña de 2019. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 33: 239–98. https://doi.org/10.30827/cpag.v33i0.28338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, J., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, A., González-Marrero, M., Martín-Rodríguez, E., Henríquez-Valido, P. & del-Pino-Curbelo, M.. 2014. The archaeobotany of long-term crop storage in northwest African communal granaries: a case study from pre-Hispanic Gran Canaria (cal. ad 1000–1500). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 23: 789804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-014-0444-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olalde, I. et al. 2019. The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years. Science 363: 1230–34. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papi, E. 2014. Punic Mauretania? in Quinn, J. Crawley & Vella, N.C. (ed.) The Punic Mediterranean. Identities and identification from Phoenician settlement to Roman rule : 202–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295193.014Google Scholar
Renfrew, A.C. 1972. The emergence of civilisation: the Cyclades and the Aegean in the third millennium BC. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Roberts, C.N., Woodbridge, J., Palmisano, A., Bevan, A., Fyfe, R. & Shennan, S.. 2019. Mediterranean landscape change during the Holocene: synthesis, comparison and regional trends in population, land cover and climate. The Holocene 29: 923–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683619826697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigue, A. 2012. Nador Klalcha (Gharb). Nouvelle station du Campaniforme au Maroc. Bulletin du Musée d'Anthropologie Préhistorique de Monaco 52: 6979.Google Scholar
Ruhlmann, A. 1936. Enceintes préhistoriques Marocains. Bulletin de la Société de Préhistoire du Maroc 10: 4167.Google Scholar
Ruhlmann, A. 1937. Une exploitation de sel à l’époque néolithique dans la vallée de l'Oued Beth. Bulletin de la Société de Préhistoire du Maroc 11: 330.Google Scholar
Schuhmacher, T.X. 2016. Elefanten und Elfenbein auf der Iberischen Halbinsel und in Nordwestafrika: interdisziplinäre Studien zu Austauschsystemen im 3. und der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jts. v. Chr (Iberia Archaeologica 16). Berlin: Wasmuth.Google Scholar
Schuhmacher, T.X., Cardoso, J.L. & Banerjee, A.. 2009. Sourcing African ivory in Chalcolithic Portugal. Antiquity 83: 983–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003598x00099294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sehasseh, E.M. et al. 2021. Early Middle Stone Age personal ornaments from Bizmoune Cave, Essaouira, Morocco. Science Advances 7. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi8620CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simm, S.R. & Russell, K.W.. 2018. Bedouin hand-harvesting of wheat and barley: implications for early cultivation in southwest Asia. Current Anthropology 38: 696702. https://doi.org/10.1086/204658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simões, L.G. et al. 2023. Northwest African Neolithic initiated by migrants from Iberia and Levant. Nature 618: 550–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06166-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Souville, G. 1973. Atlas préhistorique du Maroc, 1. Le Maroc Atlantique. Paris: CNRS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souville, G. 1991. Beth (Site et industries de l'oued), Maroc. Encyclopédie Berbère 10: 1480–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valera, A.C. (ed.) 2018. Os Perdigões Neolíticos. Génese e desenvolvimento: de meados do 4° aos inícios do 3° milénio a.C. (Perdigões Monográfica 1). Lisbon: NIA-ERA.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, T. 2004. Alternative pathways to complexity in the southern Aegean, in Barrett, J.C. & Halstead, P. (ed.) The emergence of civilisation revisited: 232–56. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. a) The north-western Maghreb, showing Oued Beht and other locations mentioned; b) the Oued Beht ridge and river, from the south-east (map and photograph by Toby Wilkinson).

Figure 1

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Oued Beht (calibration curve IntCal 20).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Plan of Oued Beht, showing known pits and linear structures (figure by Toby Wilkinson).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Distribution of prehistoric pottery and Final Neolithic painted sherds (figure by Toby Wilkinson).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Distribution of macrolithic tools by function (figure by Toby Wilkinson).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Distribution of polished axes/adzes and chipped stone tools (figure by Toby Wilkinson).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Section profile from trench 2 showing pit 222, stratigraphic units and associated radiocarbon dates (drawing by Alessia Brucato & Lucy Farr).

Figure 7

Figure 7. Plant macro-remains from trench 2, pit 222: a) Hordeum vulgare var. nudum, naked barley; b) Triticum sp., wheat; c) Pisum sativum, pea; d) Pistacia atlantica/terebinthus, wild pistachio; e) Olea europaea subsp. oleaster, wild olive. Scale bar = 1mm (photographs by Jacob Morales).

Figure 8

Figure 8. Faunal remains from trenches 1 and 2: a) relative proportion (percentage number of identified specimens) of the total identified mammals; b) caprine mandibular condyle fragment with cut marks, and close-up detail (trench 2, pit 222, context 201.08); c) caprine astragalus with cut marks, and close-up detail (trench 2, pit 222, context 201.16) (photographs by Hassan Hachami).

Figure 9

Figure 9. Final Neolithic pottery from Oued Beht: a) buff fabric bowls, jar (with post-firing hole), large tunnel lugs and round base; b) red-brown fabric cooking vessels; c) painted sherds (scale bar = 50mm) (photographs by Rafael Laoutari, Rafael Martínez Sánchez & Moad Radi).

Figure 10

Figure 10. Stone tools from Oued Beht: a & b) lower grinding stones; c) upper grinder reused as anvil (pierre à cupule); d) pick (pièce à gorge); e & f) polished axes; g) axe/adze preform; h) serrated sickle element; i) rectilinear sickle element; j) circular endscraper; k) product from bipolar percussion (a & c = Aït Siberne authority office; b, d–f = Rabat Museum; g-k = OBAP 2022 survey. Scale bar: a–d = 200mm; e–k = 50mm) (photographs by Lorena Lombardi & Moad Radi).

Supplementary material: File

Broodbank et al. supplementary material 1

Broodbank et al. supplementary material
Download Broodbank et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 12 KB
Supplementary material: File

Broodbank et al. supplementary material 2

Broodbank et al. supplementary material
Download Broodbank et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 14.7 KB