The prehistory of the Arabian peninsula: Deserts, dispersals, and

Evolutionary Anthropology 21:113–125 (2012)
ARTICLE
The Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula: Deserts,
Dispersals, and Demography
HUW S. GROUCUTT AND MICHAEL D. PETRAGLIA
As a geographic connection between Africa and the rest of Eurasia, the Arabian Peninsula occupies a central position in elucidating hominin evolution and
dispersals. Arabia has been characterized by extreme environmental fluctuation
in the Quaternary, with profound evolutionary and demographic consequences.
Despite the importance of the region, Arabia remains understudied. Recent
years, however, have seen major developments in environmental studies and archeology, revealing that the region contains important records that should play a
significant role in future paleoanthropological narratives.1–3 The emerging picture
of Arabia suggests that numerous dispersals of hominin populations into the
region occurred. Populations subsequently followed autochthonous trajectories,
creating a distinctive regional archeological record. Debates continue on the respective roles of regional hominin extinctions and population continuity, with the
latter suggesting adaptation to arid conditions.
There exists a striking imbalance
between the clear importance of Arabia and what is actually known
about the region. The incorrect perception of Arabia as an unchanging
Huw Groucutt is a doctoral candidate
at the School of Archaeology, University
of Oxford. His research focuses on the
Middle Paleolithic of Arabia and Late
Pleistocene hominin dispersals. He has
recently conducted excavations in Saudi
Arabia and is undertaking a comparative
analysis of lithic technology in Africa and
Southwestern Asia. Email: huw.groucutt@
rlaha.ox.ac.uk
Michael Petraglia is Professor of Human
Evolution and Prehistory, Senior Research
Fellow, and Co-Director of Centre for
Asian Archaeology, Art & Culture, School
of Archaeology, University of Oxford. He
is also a Senior Research Fellow, Linacre
College (Oxford), and a member of the
Human Origins Program, Smithsonian
Institution. Email: michael.petraglia@rla
ha.ox.ac.uk
Key words: Arabia; paleoenvironments;
Paleolithic; lithic technology; hominins
C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
V
DOI 10.1002/evan.21308
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
desert has certainly played a role in
the lack of serious research. In some
cases, cultural and political issues
have hampered research, as, for
example, in contemporary Yemen.
Numerous
archeological
surveys
have been conducted but, until
recently, these have been unsystematic. Most prehistoric sites consist
of lithic scatters from surface contexts. As a result, knowledge of Arabian prehistory often comes from
sites potentially, but not necessarily,
representing multiple phases of occupation, which lack absolute dates
and paleoenvironmental information.
Attribution to cultural phases has
typically reflected typological analyses of biased collections. The absence
of a pre-Holocene hominin fossil record in Arabia precludes definitive
identification of the manufacturers
of the widespread lithic industries.
These problems must be recognized
and used to guide future research.
Nevertheless, the Arabian record
constitutes an important and understudied dataset. The recent discovery
of stratified archeological sites in
Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and the
United Arab Emirates demonstrates
the research potential of the region,
as do increasingly detailed environmental records.
Early western explorers of Arabia
recognized stone tools, often in association with ancient lake beds.4 These
early findings were followed by the
discoveries of archeologists,5 which
significantly advanced from the 1970s
onward, with large-scale surveys such
as the Comprehensive Survey of the
Kingdom (1976-1981) in Saudi Arabia.6,7 Analogous developments took
place in southern Arabia.8–11 Over the
last decade, systematic surveys and
interdisciplinary excavations have
greatly increased our understanding
of prehistoric Arabia,2,3,12–14 as have
developments in paleoenvironmental
studies.15–17 Research is now extending to the coastal waters around Arabia18 and to the use of remote sensing
techniques.19
In the paleoanthropological literature, the Arabian Peninsula often
serves as a useful blank on the map
in which to draw hypothetical and
rather abstract dispersal arrows. This
has particularly reflected patterns of
global genetic variation.20,21 In such
models, the specific paleoenvironmental and biogeographical characteristics of Arabia have little role, yet
it is precisely such contexts that are
critical to defining patterns of hominin dispersal and adaptation. As
genetic studies of Arabian populations have increased in scale, they
reveal a complex pattern.22–25 Such
studies show that modern Arabian
populations are mostly derived from
Western Asia, reflecting dispersals
since the Last Glacial Maximum
(LGM). In some areas, however,
there are relatively high levels of
‘‘African’’ lineages, which have generally been attributed to historical
114 Groucutt and Petraglia
ARTICLE
Figure 1. Geography of the Arabian Peninsula. The locations of Pleistocene fossil localities and key sites for paleoenvironmental reconstruction are shown; note the southern and coastal concentration of the latter. Black lines depict major paleorivers.28 (Basemap courtesy of NASA’s Earth Observatory.) [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
processes
such
as
slavery.26,27
Genetic evidence, then, is poorly
placed to elucidate the position of
Arabia in the dispersal of hominin
populations. Likewise, the extinction
of regional populations means they
will not be represented in contemporary genetic structure. In this situation, archeology, in the context of
paleoenvironmental
fluctuation,
offers a key way to elucidate the dispersal of hominin populations into
Arabia and their subsequent evolutionary and cultural trajectories.
GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
The vast size of Arabia, at more
than 3 million km2, suggests that
hominin evolutionary processes have
been complex and regionally variable. The land mass consists of a
range of topographical and environmental settings, including highlands,
lowlands, a coastline some 7,000 km
long, and an interior with numerous
paleorivers and paleolakes (Fig. 1).
Understanding the variable topography, ecology, and geography of Arabia is therefore a necessary background to elucidate changes in hominin demography.28,29
To the north of Arabia there are no
fundamental barriers to hominin dispersal, given favorable paleoenvironmental
conditions.
The
Sinai
Peninsula offered a connection to
Africa.30 On the eastern edge of Arabia, the Persian Gulf today is a shallow sea but, for most of the Pleistocene, was a large river valley, leading
some to suggest that it formed an important population refugia.31 The possibility of hominins crossing the Bab
al Mandab has been much debated.32
Today the Red Sea here is less than 30
km wide with small islands, meaning
that the maximum single water crossing is less than 18 km. Isotopic studies
suggest that there has not been a land
bridge since the Miocene,33 but
during times of low sea level the gap
would
have
been
significantly
reduced. However, Arabia was concordantly arid during these times.
Consequently, some have stressed the
temporal lag between environmental
amelioration and sea level rise2;
others emphasize the hypothesis of a
significant role for ‘‘coastal oases.’’34
Modern observers are familiar with
the dry side of Arabia, most iconically demonstrated by the Rub’ al
Khali, which, at 600,000 km2,
forms the world’s largest sandy desert. In the east, the Wahiba Sands
area is of importance, having been
well studied in paleoenvironmental
terms.35,36 Contemporary Arabia,
however, has some areas, such as the
Asir-Yemen highlands and Oman’s
Dhofar, that receive considerably
more precipitation, The landscape of
Arabia reveals numerous signs of
more humid conditions in the past.
Groucutt and Petraglia 115
ARTICLE
Vast paleoriver systems cut across
the Peninsula, most starting in the
western highlands and extending
east to the Persian Gulf (Fig. 1). For
instance, the now dry Wadi al Batin
drained a large area of northern
Saudi Arabia and left a huge alluvial
fan around modern Kuwait, some
300 m deep and covering 190 by 130
km.28 Such paleorivers can clearly be
seen in satellite images.37 Paleolakes
of various sizes are found across Arabia, from the relatively small to the
vast, such as the 2,000 km2
Mudawwara paleolake on the border
of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.13,38,39
The environmental evolution of
Arabia primarily reflects the varying
contributions of precipitation from
two key weather systems: winter
rains from the Mediterranean and,
most importantly, the summer rains
of the Indian Ocean monsoon system. The latitudinal movement of the
Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone
(ITCZ), and with it the monsoonal
rains, is the single most important
environmental variable in Arabian
prehistory. As the ITCZ moved north,
Arabia sprang to life as lakes refilled
and rivers flowed. Paleoenvironmental scientists have made considerable
progress in elucidating this and
related processes.15–17,40
Environmental oscillation between
wet and dry periods can be studied
at two levels, first at a broad ‘‘glacial’’
(generally dry) and ‘‘interglacial’’
(with wet phases) level and second in
terms of more short-term change.
Figure 2 gives an overview of environmental change in Arabia and
related archeological evidence. At a
broad level, evidence indicates significant increases in precipitation in
each interglacial period back to MIS
11.41 However, most of our knowledge covers the last 350 kyr, and
primarily the younger half of this, as
shown in Figure 2.15,17 Glacial periods were often characterized by arid
conditions. There are, however, complications to this dichotomy. In MIS
6, for instance, recent evidence demonstrates at least short phases of
increased precipitation,15 which contrast with traditional views of this as
a hyperarid period.42 MIS 5, particularly MIS 5e, 5c, and 5a, has been
shown by various studies to have
been particularly wet, with extensive
speleothem, calcrete, and lake formation.13,17,43 A pronounced deterioration occurred with MIS 4; however,
few records are known for this period, so we are dealing primarily
with an absence of evidence (for
example, of speleothem formation).
MIS 3 has been labeled the ‘‘debated
pluvial.’’15 Many radiocarbon dates
had suggested a prolonged humid
period 30-25 ka,44,45 but this is not
The latitudinal
movement of the InterTropical Convergence
Zone (ITCZ), and with it
the monsoonal rains, is
the single most
important environmental
variable in Arabian
prehistory. As the ITCZ
moved north, Arabia
sprang to life as lakes
refilled and rivers
flowed.
reflected in records such as speleothems and probably reflects problems with the original radiocarbon
dates.15,46 A recent study of paleolakes demonstrated that some key
examples previously dated to MIS 3
actually date to MIS 5.16 MIS 2,
encompassing the LGM, seems to
have been
generally extremely
arid.35,47 The most recent major
humid period dates to 10-6 ka. This
‘‘Holocene wet phase’’48–51 is best
known from southern Arabia, where
most studies have been conducted, but
precipitation in northern Arabia was
more than 300% greater than at present.52 A period of aridification followed,
with evidence of abrupt drying.53
Several recent studies have demonstrated, within this broad pattern of
glacial-interglacial oscillation, the existence of short-term wet phases.
Presumably, some of the longer wet
periods also included short dry
phases. Recent studies in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates
demonstrate a short-lived wet phase
at 55 ka.39,54 Another short pluvial
period occurred 14 ka, not long after the LGM.55,56
Much progress has been made in
elucidating
paleoenvironmental
change in Arabia, but many questions remain. A key question concerns the relative contributions of
the two weather systems. This has
implications with regard to the opening of dispersal routes. Within interglacial periods, what were the dry
periods, such as MIS 5b and 5d, like?
And what was the impact of the
short, wet phases in terms of demography and dispersals? Only recently
has the chronology of these shortterm fluctuations begun to be understood. While records such as speleothems provide excellent overall
records, they seem to not be sensitive
enough to detect short-term pluvial
episodes.
FLORA AND FAUNA
Plants and animals provide information that is relevant to understanding hominin occupations. The
contemporary biome of Arabia
reflects its position as an interface
between biogeographical zones, particularly the Palearctic and Afrotropical. Changing environmental conditions increased the influence of one
or the other of these, with the resulting mix then filtered through arid
phases that gave a distinctly Arabian
character to many taxa. One particularly important example are the
baboons, Papio hamadryas, which
are found in southwestern Arabia.
These are the only wild baboons
found outside sub-Saharan Africa.
The most recent genetic study to
examine the timing of baboon dispersal into Arabia reported coalescence ages of 333 ka, 216 ka, and
105 ka.57 While such dates come
with rather wide error margins, they
significantly coincide with interglacial periods (Fig. 2). It has been
claimed that the northerly Arabian
populations are more genetically
similar to African populations,57 perhaps suggesting a Sinai dispersal
116 Groucutt and Petraglia
ARTICLE
Figure 2. Arabian environmental, faunal, and archeological records over the last 150 kyr.
Thick vertical blue lines represent key humid periods, thin grey lines represent short humid
episodes. Note the correlation of archeological assemblages with periods of increased
rainfall, with the possible exception of Assemblage A at Jebel Faya. Environmental information and figure structure adapted from Rosenberg and coworkers16; chronology of
baboon dispersal after Fernandes57; key archeological sites.2,3,13,14,92 [Color figure can be
viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
route. However, another study
observed the opposite pattern,58
although issues with sample size are
notable. Through such research, the
wider floral and faunal context of
hominin dispersals into and occupation of Arabia can be elucidated.
Arabia has a rich Miocene fossil
record,59 but few younger fossils are
known. Thomas and colleagues60 discovered Pleistocene fossils (n ¼ 139)
at three paleolake contexts in the An
Nafud desert. They suggested that
the fauna had an Afro-tropical character. Taxa represented include fish,
tortoise, carnivores (Crocuta crocuta,
Panthera cf. gombaszoegensis, Vulpes
cf. vulpes), elephant, horse, hippo
(Hexaprotodon sp.), and giant buffalo
(Pelorovis cf. oldowayensis). The represented taxa and isotopic values
from teeth indicate a savannah-like
environment around the lakes.60 The
oryx present at the An-Nafud fossil
localities has been described as a
specifically arid-adapted form,61 indi-
cating the potential survival of certain mammals in dry periods. The
discoverers’ suggestion of an Early
Pleistocene date must be taken with
caution, as it was not based on absolute dates; moreover, the three localities need not be synchronous.
McClure62 reported fossils of a variety of species, including gazelle, hippopotamus, oryx, ostrich, and buffalo from the area of the Mundafan
paleolake,
which
was
recently
redated to MIS 5.16 Many sites preserve Holocene faunal remains.63
THE LOWER PALEOLITHIC
Arabia has a rich Lower Paleolithic
record (Figs. 3 and 4).7 Southwestern
Saudi Arabia seems to have a particularly large number of Lower Paleolithic sites, although it is unclear to
what extent this reflects survey and
publication bias. In comparison to
younger Paleolithic sites, those of the
Lower Paleolithic appear to extend
further into the western and northwestern fringes of the Rub’ al Khali
desert, perhaps indicating the occurrence of more extended wet phases
in the earlier Pleistocene. The paleoenvironmental conditions of the Early
Pleistocene are unclear, but presumably followed a pattern of oscillation
similar to that seen more recently, but
this was probably less extreme in its
fluctuation. Unfortunately, few excavations have taken place, so that the
chronology and internal variability of
the Lower Paleolithic is essentially
unknown. Localities appear to be correlated with hilltops, ridges, and terraces, and are often located in close
proximity to raw material sources.
Several claims have been made for
‘‘Oldowan-like’’, or ‘‘Mode 1’’ assemblages in Arabia.64–69 For instance, at
201-49 near Shuwayhitiyah in northern Arabia, Whalen and colleagues
collected lithics from 16 localities.66
Their collection was dominated by
heavy-duty tools (choppers, polyhedrons, and such), with a fairly small
bifacial component (Fig. 3). Likewise, claims for ‘‘pre-Acheulean’’ sites
have been made in Yemen. From AlGuza Cave, Amirkhanov68 reports an
Oldowan ‘‘pebble industry’’ lacking a
bifacial component. However, as
with other purportedly Oldowan
assemblages, care needs to be taken
to differentiate artifacts from geofacts. Similarly, Jagher reports that
intensive efforts to relocate the dozens of purportedly Oldowan sites
around Huqf, Oman,70 did not result
in the discovery of any artifacts.71
Chauhan67 reports the discovery of
Oldowan-like lithics on Perim Island,
a small island on the Yemeni side of
the Bab al Mandab. If confirmed, this
may suggest the crossing of the Bab al
Mandab in the Early Pleistocene.
The presence of hominins using
Oldowan-like, or Mode 1, technology
in Arabia is certainly possible, given
the findings at sites such as Dmanisi
to the north. However, problems pervade the Arabian finds. To take the
example of the Shuwayhitiyah localities, the assemblages include lithics
that are clearly recent (probably Holocene); in addition, the collection
strategy of the discoverers is unclear,
and the use of quartz as a raw
material may be a significant factor
Groucutt and Petraglia 117
ARTICLE
Figure 3. Above: view from the top of the jebel at Dawādmi, looking west over Acheulean site 206-76 (where vehicles are located). This is the location of one of the first Paleolithic site excavations in Arabia. Acheulean sites and artifacts are distributed at the base
of the jebel (over a distance of ca. 10 km) and below the andesite dykes, which served
as raw material sources for stone tool manufacture. Below: selected handaxes from
Dawādmi, manufactured from andesite. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue,
which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
in determining artifact form. More
generally, arguments based solely on
typology carry many inherent limitations. Care needs to be taken to distinguish geofacts from artifacts. Also,
excavations are required to recover
chronometrically datable assemblages that can be placed in a paleoenvironmental context. If they are taken
at face value, it is significant that
more Oldowan-like sites are known in
Arabia than in North Africa, perhaps
indicating a significant role for Arabia
in the early hominin colonization of
Eurasia.72 While Whalen and colleagues believed that the Shuwayhitiyah collection is strongly reminiscent of the Developed Oldowan of
East Africa,66 comparative technological analysis is required to elucidate
the relationship of the Arabian
Lower Paleolithic to that of surrounding regions. Also, excavations
need to be done to clarify the demographic processes of populations in
the Peninsula.
We are on firmer ground with the
Acheulean, as sites have been identified across Arabia. Spectacular
‘‘Acheulean landscapes’’ are found at
Dawādmi and Wadi Fatimah, in central and western Saudi Arabia,
respectively. At Dawādmi, various
Acheulean sites were identified in
association with an andesite and rhyolite dyke.73 Two sites here, 206-76
and 207-68, were subsequently excavated.74,75 The discovers rather speculatively suggested distinct ‘‘functional activity areas,’’ supposedly
demonstrating eight different activities. Six uranium-thorium dates for
calcareous matter adhering to the
artifacts produced minimal ages of
201-61 ka.75:22 The surface collection
and excavation of these sites produced thousands of lithics, but there
have been no detailed technological
comparisons of these lithics to
assemblages
from
surrounding
regions. An important factor at the
Dawādmi sites is the presence of
abundant evidence of early stage
reduction. Giant cores demonstrate
procurement and reduction of raw
material along the dykes.7,76 The 32
Acheulean sites identified near the
Red
Sea
in
Wadi
Fatimah
appear,77,78 based on selective surface collections, to have a typological
structure similar to those excavated
at Dawādmi and also are located
close to sources of raw material. In
both cases, flakes are the dominant
type, with characteristic bifaces and
cleavers making up around 1% of the
assemblages (Fig. 3). Uranium-thorium dating of calcareous nodules at
site 210-351 produced an age ‘‘in the
range of 200,000 years.’’78:78
The Dawādmi and Wadi Fatimah
sites share similarities in technology
and landscape position, being close
to raw material sources and associated with riverine systems, which
presumably functioned as dispersal
corridors.76 The distinctive Acheulean bifaces and cleavers at these
sites are generally characterized by
deep flake scars; only rarely are they
highly symmetrical (Fig. 3). Measurements of biface elongation (length to
width ratio) comfortably place Arabian assemblages within the Acheulean, their mean elongations falling
between those of assemblages in
Africa and India.79 Whalen’s excavations revealed the presence of buried
Lower Paleolithic sites in Arabia.
Future excavations at these and
other localities are likely to be highly
informative. At present, the only
absolute dates available reflect minimum ages.75,78 Comparative designations, typically classifying the Arabian
material as ‘‘Middle Acheulean,’’74,75,78
are premature. Detailed statements on
the spatial and temporal relationships
of the Arabian assemblages to those of
surrounding regions require considerably more research.
118 Groucutt and Petraglia
ARTICLE
Figure 4. Lower and Middle Paleolithic sites of Arabia. Note that some points represent
groups of sites. (DEM data courtesy of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture37;
basemap image courtesy of Nick Drake and Paul Breeze, Kings College, London.) [Color
figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
THE MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC
This is the most well-represented
Paleolithic phase in Arabia (Fig. 4),
and its study has seen significant
recent advances. As in the Lower
Paleolithic, sites are often associated
with raw material sources and lacustrine and riverine systems, and are
located at strategic positions in the
landscape. Sites are found across
Arabia except within modern sandy
desert areas. The widespread surface
record guided initial conceptions of
Middle Paleolithic variability6 and
can now be anchored to stratified
sites excavated in the last five years.
Rose and colleagues’ systematic survey in Oman’s Dhofar reveals the
rich density of Middle Paleolithic
sites found when modern survey
techniques are applied.3
Traditionally, the Middle Paleolithic of Arabia has been viewed from
a Levantine and European perspective, with sites often described as
‘‘Mousterian.’’ This inappropriate
framework, combined with the traditional lack of stratified sites, made it
difficult to address spatial and temporal variability and hampered the
factoring of the Arabian record into
debates such as that on Out-of-Africa
dispersals. Nevertheless, important
information was gathered at the hundreds of surface sites identified.
These sites demonstrate the range of
typo-technological variability found
in the Arabian Middle Paleolithic
and give some insight into the way
hominins related to the landscape,
while stratified sites have the benefits
of a stronger chance of assemblage
contemporaneity and allow both
absolute dating and paleoenvironmental contextualization.
The Arabian record demonstrates
particular characteristics, including
the often somewhat irregular, multiplatform character of cores, which is
associated with features such as a
general paucity of platform preparation. A significant feature of the
Arabian Middle Paleolithic is the
widespread presence of a bifacial
component, which was confirmed
by the excavation of Jebel Faya
(Fig. 5).2 Rose80 has stressed the
significance of bifacial technology in
Oman, suggesting that it implies
Late Pleistocene population connections with sub-Saharan Africa. Surveys have shown significant regional
variation in Arabia. The production
of points, for instance, seems to be
variable, being common in Dhofar,
among other sites,3 but seemingly rare
in other areas. Zarins and coworkers,73
for example, perhaps reflecting their
Levantine-oriented expectations, found
the lack of points between Riyadh and
Jeddah ‘‘disconcerting.’’ Similarly, the
representation of Levallois technology
appears to be variable in Arabia,
although this, in part, reflects evolution
from typological to volumetric conceptions. For instance, as Crassard points
out, the ‘‘polyhedrons’’ and ‘‘discoids’’
illustrated by Whalen and Schatte81,82
are in fact recurrent centripetal Levallois cores. Various ‘‘industrial’’ designations have been proposed,6 but these
are problematic. For instance, the possibility that at the single site of Bani
Groucutt and Petraglia 119
ARTICLE
Figure 5. Selected Arabian Middle Paleolithic artifacts. 1) Levallois core from RASA 2004149-1, Yemen81; 2) and 3) Levallois cores from Jubbah, Saudi Arabia13; 4) unifacially
retouched point from Jubbah, Saudi Arabia13; 5) Levallois flake from assemblage C, FAYNE1, UAE2; 6) Levallois point from Aybyt Thania, Oman3; 7) Levallois point from Aybut
Auwal, Oman3; 8) bifacial foliate from FAY-NE1, UAE.2
Khatmah, an assemblage dominated
by tanged points and scrapers from the
western fringe of the Rub’ al Khali
relates to the otherwise North African
Aterian needs to be tested by excavations and comparative technological
analysis.83 A reanalysis of the Bani
Khatmah lithics suggests that the Arabian
‘‘Aterian’’ may date to the Holocene.84
A report on the Middle Paleolithic
site of Shi’bat Dihya 1 and others in
the Wadi Surdud of western Yemen
is to be published shortly.14 A key development is that this site is now
dated to 55 ka, in contrast to initial
estimates of 80-70 ka.12,85 More
than 5,000 lithics having lengths
greater than 2-cm, as well as faunal
remains, were excavated from a single thin layer covering 21 m2. Isotopic
and paleobotanical data indicate that
the site was occupied during relatively arid conditions. The timing of
occupation correlates with the short
wet phase previously mentioned at
55 ka (Fig. 2), which occurred
between more arid periods on either
side. The lithic technology reflects a
variety of reduction schemes for the
production of flakes, blades, and
points. Levallois technology is present, but not common. No immediate
parallels are found with contemporary African or Levantine assemblages. Other sites in Wadi Surdud are
dated to younger periods of MIS 3.
The overall picture is of a distinctive
regional variant, an autochthonous
development
from
a
presently
unknown ancestral population. Elsewhere in Yemen, more Levallois-oriented point production perhaps hints
at earlier connections with the Levant
or may reflect convergent evolution in
a similar habitat.11,81,86
At the site of Jebel Faya (FAYNE1), excavations uncovered stratified Paleolithic assemblages.2 Published information addresses the top
three Paleolithic assemblages (labeled A to C with increasing depth).
Assemblage C (500 lithics, see Fig.
5) is dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) to 95 6 13 ka, 123
6 10 ka, and 127 6 16 ka, although
the authors indicate that the latter
date may be problematic.2 This last
interglacial assemblage demonstrates
a variety of reduction strategies.
These include the production of volumetric blades and Levallois debitage,
as well as bifaces, and a variety of
retouched forms. Similar assemblages have been discovered nearby in
surface contexts,87,88 showing that
this technological package characterizes the Middle Paleolithic of the
Arabian side of the eastern Persian
Gulf, at least during MIS 5. While
the closest technological parallels are
found with northeast Africa, it is not
impossible that assemblage C represents an autochthonous development, or indeed a dispersal from, for
instance, the Indian subcontinent.89
In the overlying assemblages (A and
B), bifacial and Levallois reduction is
apparently absent except for a few
convergent flakes in B, which are similar to Levallois points.2 Neither
backed nor microlithic technologies
are represented. Assemblage B is
undated, but on stratigraphic grounds
was deposited between 90 and 40 ka,
while A is dated to 40.2 6 4.0 ka and
38.6 6 3.1 ka, confirming hominin
occupation of eastern Arabia in MIS
3. Both assemblages B and A are characterized by diverse reduction strategies, centered on the production of
flakes. In assemblage B, core types
include Kombewa and radial, which
are also found in assemblage A, which
is dominated by orthogonal multiplatform cores. Neither A nor B has a substantial retouched component.
A third spatially and temporally
specific Middle Paleolithic industry is
found in Dhofar, Oman. Rose and
colleagues3 identified 110 sites with
technology very similar to that of the
MIS 5 Nubian Complex in northeast-
120 Groucutt and Petraglia
ern Africa. Previously rare examples
of Nubian-like cores had been identified,86 but the new discoveries constitute a widespread and seemingly homogenous industry. The sites are
found exclusively on the Nejd Plateau
and have not been identified near the
coast. All of the sites take the form of
surface assemblages, with the exception of Aybut Auwal. Here a small
number of artifacts, including a diagnostic Type 1 Nubian core, were
found in situ, while many other
lithics appear to have eroded from
the same sediments onto the surface.
Two OSL samples from the same
stratigraphic unit as the excavated
lithics produced age estimates of
106 6 9 ka and 107 6 9 ka, correlating with MIS 5c. Lithics from Aybut
Auwal and three other sites were analyzed in detail. At all of the sites, Nubian Type 1 cores are dominant. The
core technology of the Dhofar Nubian
is remarkably similar to the diagnostic cores of the Nubian Complex in
North Africa. Debitage is dominated
by flakes, although blades are also
common. Aside from points, sidescrapers are the most numerous tool.
A bifacial component was not identified at any site.
In Oman, another industry, which
Rose10 labeled the ‘‘Nejd Leptolithic,’’
is widespread. This is characterized
by the production of large blades
from unidirectional cores with little
platform preparation. Blanks were
rarely retouched. An interesting feature of this industry is the frequent
presence of lipped platforms, which
are often taken as an indication of
the use of a soft hammer. Rose and
colleagues3 suggest, on geomorphological grounds, that the Nejd Leptolithic is younger than at least some
of the MIS 5 Nubian sites. These
assemblages appear similar to some
from Oman described by Jagher.71
We might see these large-blade
assemblages as a distinctive regional
post-MIS 5 development in Oman.
The situation in Saudi Arabia is
less clear than that in southern Arabia, where most recent research has
focused. The authors of this paper
are conducting research at the
Jubbah paleolake in northern Saudi
Arabia,13 an area highlighted by an
initial reconnaissance survey in the
ARTICLE
1970s.90 At the site of Jebel Qattar 1,
we identified a lithic assemblage
characterized by centripetal Levallois
and discoidal reduction, in association with a calcrete dated by OSL to
75 6 5.0 ka. As well as notches, denticulates, and scrapers, we found an
invasively retouched unifacial point
(Fig. 5). Field work in 2011 led to the
identification of several stratified
Middle Paleolithic sites around the
paleolake. Our analysis is ongoing
and promises to cast light on the
character of the Middle Paleolithic in
interior northern Arabia.
seen most clearly at Jebel Faya and
Wadi Surdud, and perhaps with other
examples such as the large blade
assemblages of Oman, the outlines of
post-MIS 5 regional autochthonous
trends are coming into focus. So far,
evidence of assemblages similar to the
Howiesons Poort and other precocious
facies of the MSA is absent in Arabia,
while the predominantly unidirectionalconvergent production of Levallois
points similar to that in the early and
late phases of the Levantine Middle
Paleolithic is known only from Yemen.
THE LATE PALEOLITHIC
As research gathers
pace in Arabia, we are
now beginning to be
able to correlate
paleoenvironmental and
archeological records
for the Middle Paleolithic
and move toward
comparisons with
surrounding regions.
As research gathers pace in Arabia,
we are now beginning to be able to
correlate paleoenvironmental and archeological records for the Middle
Paleolithic and move toward comparisons with surrounding regions. At a
broad level, features such as the presence of a bifacial component at many
Arabian Middle Paleolithic sites arguably orients the Peninsula toward
Africa, where a façonnage component
was frequent in the Middle Stone Age
(MSA).80 In contrast, the Levantine
Middle Paleolithic seems to lack any
evidence of façonnage technology.
This regional divergence took place
more than 200 kyr ago. The increasing
evidence of variability in the Arabian
Middle Paleolithic suggests that
multiple dispersals into the area
occurred, followed by regional autochthonous trajectories. Where enough
data are available, the Arabian
assemblages suggest connections to
Africa in MIS 5.2,3 Subsequently, as
Pre-Holocene evolutionary and cultural trajectories are poorly understood in Arabia. The character of the
Late Paleolithic, by which we mean
the period 40-10 ka, which elsewhere is typically associated with
blade-dominated
or
microlithic
assemblages and frequent evidence of
symbolism and other complex behaviors, is one of the great mysteries of
Arabian archeology. As discussed in a
recent review,91 such evidence is
ephemeral in Arabia. With the usual
caveats in mind, such as a general
reliance on surface sites, a generous
interpretation suggests a possible
Late Paleolithic component at a small
number of sites focused in northwestern Arabia (Fig. 6). It must be
stressed that such attributions are
problematic. The only excavated and
dated Late Paleolithic site, Al Hatab,
has lithics unlike those of the Epipaleolithic/Upper Paleolithic elsewhere,
and again appears to reflect an autochthonous southern Arabian development (Fig. 7).92
‘‘Upper Paleolithic’’ sites have been
defined by some on primarily typological grounds, emphasizing the presence of types such as burins and
blades64,73; others stress ‘‘intermediary’’ levels of ‘‘patination, materials,
and workmanship.’’ In Yemen, Amirkhanov9 used both of these perspectives to define a number of ‘‘Upper
Paleolithic’’ sites. These sites need
more study, particularly absolute dating and technological analysis. Superficially, many appear actually to be
compatible with a Middle Paleolithic
designation. One interesting assemblage is the material from Faw Well
Groucutt and Petraglia 121
ARTICLE
an autochthonous development of
laminar technologies extending back
to perhaps MIS 4.92 The assemblage
includes hard hammer blades, bifacial foliates, burins, and endscrapers.
The Arabian record seems to lack
specific features relating to lithic
technology and other features of the
African Late Stone Age. There are
possible hints at occasional contacts
with the laminar industries of the
Levantine Upper Paleolithic but, in
the absence of detailed technological
analyses, these are broad-scale comparisons. These features, such as the
assemblage from Faw Well, perhaps
suggest that dispersals from the Levant occurred during the short wet
phases of MIS 3. It is possible that
such populations survived through
the LGM in southern Arabia. This is
perhaps supported by the distinctively Arabian character of assemblages at sites like Al-Hatab, indicating regional autochthonous developments.92 It is possible that the sites
in southern Arabia represent a continuation of occupation from MIS 5.
Surface sites in the north and west
are poorly studied, and indeed may
even date to the Holocene.
INTO THE HOLOCENE
Figure 6. Late Paleolithic and Early/Middle Holocene sites of Arabia. Note that some points
represent groups of sites. (DEM data courtesy of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture37; basemap image courtesy of Nick Drake and Paul Breeze, Kings College, London.)
[Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
in southwestern Saudi Arabia. This
assemblage, which seems to be unlike
any other in Arabia, but lacks any
absolute dates, is characterized by
blade and microblade production.
Edens93 studied part of the assemblage and suggests possible similarities with the Upper Paleolithic
Ahmarian industry in the Levant.
More classically ‘‘Epipaleolithic-like’’
sites have a position similar to those
of the ‘‘Upper Paleolithic.’’ The more
convincing examples are located in
the far north of the Arabian Peninsula, perhaps indicating brief incursions from the Levant.64,94
The excavations at Al-Hatab in
Oman uncovered a lithic assemblage
dating to 13 ka and possibly
extending into the earliest Holocene.
That assemblage has typo-technological similarities to material from the
sites of Ras Aı̈n Noor and Dhanaqr,
which the discoverers suggest reflects
The early to middle Holocene of
Arabia has implications for general
patterns of occupation and dispersals
in Arabia, as well as adaptation to
arid environments.
Considerably
more detailed archeological and environmental records are available for
the Holocene than are for the Pleistocene. Many absolute dates are
available and at least 28 sites preserve faunal remains.63 Widespread
rock art provides new insights into
human behavior, although its study
would be helped by an evolution
from the stylistic to more systematic
and geographic information system
(GIS)-based analyses. In addition,
many of the key themes we have discussed in relation to the Paleolithic
also characterize debates such as
that about the origins of the ‘‘Neolithic’’ in Arabia.
The large number of early to middle Holocene sites probably demonstrates a substantial demographic
increase, associated in particular with
122 Groucutt and Petraglia
ARTICLE
Figure 7. Selected Arabian Late Paleolithic artifacts. 1) backed blade; 2) double platform
core; 3) single platform core, Faw Well, Saudi Arabia93; 4) blade; 5) blade core, Al Hatab,
Oman.92
the Holocene wet phase (Fig. 6). A
number of autochthonous developments can clearly be seen in Holocene
Arabia (Fig. 8). These include the development of new reduction strategies such as the ‘‘Wa’sha method’’ in
Yemen11,95 and the development of
other forms of projectile points in
the Neolithic,96 including ‘‘Fasad
points.’’97 Nonlithic developments
include the domestication of animals
and the development of seafaring.98
Debate continues on whether the
Holocene occupation of Arabia
reflects population dispersal into the
area,63,97 probably from the Levant,
or was a primarily indigenous development.31 In terms of lithic technology, for instance, the distinctive
Fasad points of southern Arabia have
been seen as a derivation from Levantine early Neolithic technology97
or as an autochthonous development
from Arabian terminal Pleistocene
traditions.92 The discovery of a single
Fasad point dating to 13 ka at Al
Hatab can be taken as supporting
the latter position,92 but it is debatable how much a single, unique example of anything can show. The presence of apparently closely pre-Neolithic sites in Yemen is intriguing
and again may also support the latter
perspective.99 This may be a rather
abstract dichotomy, as numerous demographic scenarios are possible,
including both population continuity
and population dispersals into the
area. In fact, genetic evidence seems
now to demonstrate clearly some
population continuity from the terminal Pleistocene into the Holocene,
with additional dispersals from the
Levant at 10 ka.22 The Neolithic in
Arabia has a distinctive character
that reflects adaptations to the arid
environment. The use of domesticated animals seems to have been of
considerably
greater
importance
than domesticated plants. Sometime
later, perhaps around the third millennium BCE, the domestication of
camels occurred in Arabia. Through
such adaptations to arid environments, people were able to survive in
extreme areas and began to transcend
the
ancient
correlation
between demography and environmental amelioration.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In recent years there has been a pronounced acceleration in the pace of
archeological research and discovery
in Arabia, yet the region remains
remarkably poorly understood. However, newly emerging information correlates the human and environmental
stories (Fig. 2). We hypothesize that
much of Arabian population history is
cyclical; that is, with increased precipitation, hominin populations repeatedly expanded into the area. They subsequently followed autochthonous
trajectories before becoming extinct,
at least until the Late Pleistocene/Holocene, when adaptations to arid conditions developed.
Given the severity of environmental fluctuation, which, as Figure 2
shows, is increasingly well understood, it is reasonable to assume that
there has not been long-term population continuity in Arabia at an evolutionary scale. This emphasizes the
need to understand the Arabian record in an interregional context. For
the Lower Paleolithic it is too early
to make definitive statements in this
regard, but Homo heidelbergensis and
Homo erectus probably played a role,
as possibly did early Homo. There
has been little focus on this phase in
recent years, as attention has focused
on modern humans, but there is
clearly great potential to elucidate
the Lower Paleolithic in Arabia.
The key development in recent
years has been the demonstration,
particularly in Dhofar and at Jebel
Faya,2,3 that Arabia contains Africanlike Middle Paleolithic assemblages
dating to MIS 5. This strongly suggests that dispersals took place at
this time, although fossil evidence
would help to substantiate this hypothesis. For example, the archeological evidence from Dhofar suggests
population dispersal from northeast
Africa by MIS 5c,3 a time when
baboons also seem to have dispersed
into Arabia,57 and when paleoenvironmental evidence demonstrates a
wet phase. This shows how an interdisciplinary perspective can elucidate
the Paleolithic occupation of Arabia
(Fig. 2). Further excavations are
needed to distinguish between different hypotheses. For instance, does
the occupation at Jebel Faya represent a continuous occupation of the
Persian Gulf area between 125 and
40 ka, as the discoverers suggest,2 or
does it rather indicate repeated dispersals into the area?
Groucutt and Petraglia 123
ARTICLE
Figure 8. Selected Arabian Early/Middle Holocene artifacts. 1) Neolithic arrowhead from
Jubbah, Saudi Arabia; 2) fluted point from Manayzah, Yemen11; 3) Fasad point from Nad
al-Thamam, UAE97; 4) Fasad point from FAY-NE1, UAE97; 5) Wa’shah core from HDOR 538,
Yemen95; 6) bifacial foliate from HDOR 538, Yemen11; 7-10) Neolithic points from Khuzmum, Yemen11; 11) Wa’shah point from HDOR 538, Yemen.95
In general, indications of possible
population connections to surrounding regions remain rather speculative, and this is compounded by the
absence of fossil evidence. We suggest, however, that the emerging picture suggests a general lack of connections between Africa and Arabia
after MIS 5, the last interglacial.
Instead, there are perhaps indications that Arabia sometimes saw
connections to the Levant. The modern Arabian genomic structure is
dominated by lineages reflecting
post-LGM population movements
from the north.22,23 These dispersing
populations mixed with existing populations in a manner that remains to
be firmly understood. The Middle
Paleolithic record is increasingly
demonstrating, probably in common
with other prehistoric phases, that
after dispersals into the area, environmental deterioration divided populations into refugia. These include
the Yemeni highlands and the Persian Gulf. The combination of
regionalization, an arid environmental setting, and small population
sizes will have all played a significant
role in determining the character of
human adaptations. To take the
lithic
evidence,
variability
will
express demographic, raw material,
functional, and cultural factors. The
balance between these remains to be
understood. Hence, relations to surrounding areas and between regions
within Arabia remain obscure. The
key point is that advances in empirical data need to be complemented by
theoretical developments such as
those of behavioral ecology, rather
than by a simplistic or ‘‘empiricist’’
perspective that merely compares the
basic morphology of lithic artifacts,
for instance, while ignoring their
context.
To conclude, we highlight the significance of the Arabian record in
casting light on the development of
adaptations to extreme environments. The Arabian record is, in fact,
uniquely positioned to elucidate such
developments, as populations dispersed into the Arabian Peninsula
from neighboring ‘‘hot spots’’ such as
East Africa and were trapped by the
desiccation of the routes they had
originally followed. Given widespread public and scholarly interest
in and concern about contemporary
climate
change,
the
long-term
records of human occupations and
environmental change in Arabia are
of great importance. With recent
advances, archeologists and our colleagues in related disciplines have
begun to outline the chapters of the
Arabian story. Now it is time to fill
in the pages.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank HRH Prince Sultan bin
Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud,
President of the Saudi Commission
for Tourism and Antiquities (SCTA),
and Professor Ali Al-Ghabban, Vice
President of SCTA, for permission to
124 Groucutt and Petraglia
conduct research in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. We acknowledge Abdullah Alsharekh for his unwavering support of our research, as well as Rémy
Crassard and Adrian Parker for discussions on the Arabian evidence, and
James Blinkhorn for commenting on
a draft of this paper. We acknowledge
the financial support of the Leakey
Foundation, the National Geographic
Society, and the Arts and Humanities
Research Council (UK, doctoral studentship to H.G.). We appreciate the
constructive comments of John Fleagle, John Shea, Frank Preusser, and
three anonymous reviewers.
REFERENCES
1 Petraglia MD, Rose JI, editors. 2009. The evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments prehistory and genetics. Netherlands: Springer.
2 Armitage SJ, Jasim SA, Marks AE, et al. 2011.
The southern route ‘‘out of Africa’’: evidence for
an early expansion of modern humans into Arabia. Science 331:453–456.
3 Rose JI, Usik VI, Marks AE, et al. 2011. The
Nubian complex of Dhofar, Oman: an African
Middle Stone Age industry in southern Arabia.
PLoS ONE 6:e28239.
4 Philby HSJ. 1933. Rub’ Al Khali: an account
of exploration in the Great South Desert of Arabia under the auspices and patronage of his
Majesty ‘Abdul’Aziz ibn Sa’ud, King of the
Hejaz and Nejd and its dependencies. Geogr J
81:1–21.
5 Caton-Thompson G, Gardner EW. 1939. Climate, irrigation, and early man in the Hadhramaut. Geogr J 93:18–35.
6 Petraglia MD, Alsharekh AM. 2003. The Middle Palaeolithic of Arabia: implications for
modern human origins, behaviour and dispersals. Antiquity 77:671–684.
7 Petraglia MD. 2003. The Lower Paleolithic of
the Arabian Peninsula: occupations, adaptations,
and dispersals. J World Prehist 17:141–179.
8 de Maigret A. 1986. Archaeological activities in
the Yemen Arab Republic, 1986, East West
36:376–470.
9 Amirkhanov H. 2006. Stone age of south Arabia. Moscow: Nauka.
10 Rose JI. 2006. Among Arabian sands: defining the Paleolithic of southern Arabia. Ph.D.
dissertation. Dallas:. Southern Methodist University.
11 Crassard R. 2008. La préhistoire du Yémen:
diffusions et diversités locales à travers l’étude
d’industries lithiques du Hadramawt. BAR,
1842. Oxford: Archaeopress.
12 Delagnes A, Macchiarelli R, Jaubert J. 2008.
Middle Paleolithic settlement in Arabia: first
evidence from a complex of stratified archaeological sites in western Yemen. Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Palaeoanthropology,
Vancouver.
13 Petraglia MD, Alsharekh AM, Crassard R,
et al. 2011. Middle Paleolithic occupation on a
Marine Isotope Stage 5 lakeshore in the Nefud
Desert, Saudi Arabia. Quaternary Sci Rev
30:1555–1559.
ARTICLE
14 Delagnes A, Brenet M, Crassard R, et al. n.d.
The Middle Paleolithic assemblage of Shi-bat
Dihya 1 (Wadi Surdud site complex, Yemen). J
Hum Evol. In review.
15 Parker AG. 2009. Pleistocene climate change
in Arabia: developing a framework for hominin
dispersal over the last 350 ka. In: Petraglia MD,
Rose JI, editors. The evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory
and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p 39–49.
16 Rosenberg TM, Preusser F, Fleitmann D,
et al. 2011. Humid periods in southern Arabia:
windows of opportunity for modern human dispersal. Geology 39:1115–1118.
17 Fleitmann D, Burns SJ, Pekala M, et al.
2011. Holocene and Pleistocene pluvial periods
in Yemen, southern Arabia. Quaternary Sci Rev
30:783–787.
18 Bailey GN, Flemming NC, King GCP, et al.
2007. Coastlines, submerged landscapes and
human evolution: the Red Sea Basin and the Farasan Islands. J Island Coastal Archeol 2:127–160.
19 Kenney D. 2011. The ‘‘works of the old men’’
in Arabia: remote sensing in interior Arabia. J
Archaeol Sci 38:3185–3203.
20 Quintana-Murci L, Semino O, Bandelt, HJ,
et al. 1999. Genetic evidence of an early exit of
Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa. Nat Genet 23:437–44.
21 Macaulay V, Hill C, Achilli A, et al. 2005.
Single, rapid coastal settlement of Asia revealed
by
analysis
of
complete mitochondrial
genomes. Science 308:1034–1036.
22 Černý V, Mulligan CJ, Fernandes V, et al.
2011. Internal diversification of Mitochondrial
Haplogroup R0a reveals post-Last Glacial Maximum demographic expansions in south Arabia.
Mol Biol Evol 28:71–78.
23 Abu-Amero K, Ali H, Gonzalez A, et al.
2009. Saudi Arabian Y-chromosome diversity
and its relationship with nearby regions. BMC
Genet 10:59.
24 Abu-Amero KK, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM,
et al. 2008. Mitochondrial DNA structure in the
Arabian Peninsula. BMC Evol Biol 8:45.
25 Rı́dl J, Edens CM, Černý V. 2009. Mitochondrial DNA structure of Yemeni population: regional differences and the implications for different migratory contributions. In: Petraglia
MD, Rose JI, editors. The evolution of human
populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p
69–78.
26 Abu-Amero KK, Gonzalez AM, Larruga JM,
et al. 2007. Eurasian and African mitochondrial
DNA influences in the Saudi Arabian population. BMC Evol Biol 7:32.
27 Richards M, Rengo C, Cruciani F, et al.
2003. Extensive female-mediated gene flow
from sub-Saharan Africa into near eastern Arab
populations. Am J Hum Genet 72:1058–1064.
28 Edgell HS. 2006. Arabian deserts: nature origin and evolution. Netherlands: Springer.
29 Vincent P. 2008. Saudi Arabia: an environmental overview. London: Taylor and Francis.
30 Waldmann N, Torfstein A, Stein M. 2010.
Northward intrusions of low- and mid-latitude
storms across the Saharo-Arabian belt during
past interglacials. Geology 38:567–570.
31 Rose JI. 2010. New light on human prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis. Curr
Anthropol 51:849–883.
32 Bailey G. 2009. The Red Sea, coastal landscapes, and hominin dispersals. In: Petraglia
MD, Rose JI, editors. The evolution of human
populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p
15–138.
33 Fernandes CA, Rohling EJ, Siddall M. 2006.
Absence of post-Miocene Red Sea land bridges:
biogeographic implications. J Biogeogr 33:961–
966.
34 Faure H, Walter RC, Grant DR. 2002. The
coastal oasis: Ice Age springs on emerged continental shelves. Global Planet Change 33:47–
56.
35 Preusser F, Radies D, Matter AA. 2002.
160,000-year record of dune development and
atmospheric circulation in southern Arabia.
Science 296:2018–2020.
36 Radies D, Preusser F, Matter A, et al. 2004.
Eustatic and climatic controls on the development of the Wahiba Sand Sea, Sultanate of
Oman. Sedimentology 51:1359–1385.
37 Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, et al. 2008.
Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
Available online at http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.
38 Petit-Maire N, Carbonel P, Reyss JL, et al.
2010. A vast Eemian palaeolake in southern Jordan (298N). Global Planet Change 72:368–373.
39 Parton A, Parker AG, Farrant AR, et al.
2010. An early MIS3 wet phase at palaeolake
Aqabah: preliminary interpretation of the
multi-proxy record. Proc Sem Arabian Studies
40:267–276.
40 Preusser F. 2009. Chronology of the impact
of Quaternary climate change on continental
environments in the Arabian Peninsula. C R
Geosci 341:621–632.
41 Blechschmidt I, Matter A, Preusser F, et al.
2009. Monsoon triggered formation of Quaternary alluvial megafans in the interior of Oman.
Geomorphology 110:128–139.
42 Anton D. 1984 Aspects of geomorphological
evolution: paleosols and dunes in Saudi Arabia.
In: Jado AR, Zötl JG, editors. Quaternary Period
in Saudi Arabia. II. Sedimentological, hydrogeological, hydrochemical, geomorphological,
and climatological investigations of western
Saudi Arabia. Vienna: Springer Verlag. p 275–
296.
43 Rosenberg TM, Preusser F, Blechschmidt I,
et al. 2012. Late Pleistocene palaeolake in the
interior of Oman: a potential key area for the
dispersal of anatomically modern humans outof-Africa? J Quaternary Sci 27:13–16.
44 McClure HA. 1976. Radiocarbon chronology
of late Quaternary lakes in the Arabian Desert.
Nature 263:755–756
45 Schulz E, Whitney JW. 1986. Upper Pleistocene and Holocene lakes in the An Nafud,
Saudi Arabia. Hydrobiologia 3:175–190.
46 Immenhauser A, Dublyansky YV, Verwer K,
et al. 2007. Textural, elemental, and isotopic
characteristics of Pleistocene phreatic cave
deposits (Jabal Madar, Oman). J Sediment Res
77:68–88.
47 Clark ID, Fontes JC. 1990. Paleoclimatic
reconstruction in northern Oman based on carbonates from hyperalkaline groundwaters. Quaternary Res 33:320–336.
48 Radies D, Hasiotis ST, Preusser F, et al.
2005. Paleoclimatic significance of Early Holocene faunal assemblages in wet interdune
deposits of the Wahiba Sand Sea, Sultanate of
Oman. J Arid Environ 62:109–125.
49 Neff U, Burns SJ, Mangini A, et al. 2001.
Strong coherence between solar variability and
the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr
ago. Nature 411:290–293.
50 Fleitmann D, Burns SJ, Mudelsee M, et al.
2003. Holocene forcing of the Indian monsoon
recorded in a stalagmite from southern Oman.
Science 300:1737–1739.
Groucutt and Petraglia 125
ARTICLE
51 Parker AG, Preston G, Walkington H, et al.
2006. Developing a framework of Holocene climatic change and landscape archaeology for
southeastern Arabia. Arab Archaeol Epigr
17:125–130.
52 Engel M, Brückner H, Pint A, et al. n.d. The
early Holocene humid period in NW Saudi Arabia: sediments, microfossils and palaeo-hydrological modelling. Quatern Int. In press.
53 Arz HW, Lamy F, Patzold J. 2006. A pronounced dry event recorded around 4.2 ka in
brine sediments from the northern Red Sea.
Quaternary Res 66:432–441.
54 McLaren SJ, Al-Juaidi F, Bateman MD, et al.
2009. First evidence for episodic flooding events
in the arid interior of central Saudi Arabia over
the last 60 ka. J Quaternary Sci 24:198–207.
55 Goudie AS, Colls A, Stokes S, et al. 2000. Latest
Pleistocene and Holocene dune construction at
the north-eastern edge of the Rub Al Khali, United
Arab Emirates. Sedimentology 47:1011–1021.
56 Ivanochko TS, Ganeshram RS, Brummer GJA,
et al. 2005. Variations in tropical convection as an
amplifier of global climate change at the millennial scale. Earth Planet Sci Lett 235:302–314.
57 Fernandes CA. 2009. Bayesian coalescent inference from mitochondrial DNA variation of the colonization time of Arabia by the hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas hamadryas). In: Petraglia
MD, Rose JI, editors. The evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory
and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p 89–102.
58 Winney BJ, Hammond RL, Macasero W,
et al. 2004. Crossing the Red Sea: phylogeography of the hamadryas baboon, Papio hamadryas
hamadryas. Mol Ecol 13:2819–2827.
59 Whybrow PJ, Hill A, editors. 1999. Fossil vertebrates of Arabia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
60 Thomas H, Geraads D, Janjou D, et al. 1998.
First Pleistocene faunas from the Arabian Peninsula: An Nafud Desert, Saudi Arabia. CR Acad
Sci IIA 326:145–152.
61 O’Regan HJ, Turner A, Bishop LC, et al.
2011. Hominins without fellow travellers? First
appearances and inferred dispersals of AfroEurasian large-mammals in the Plio-Pleistocene. Quaternary Sci Rev 30:1343–1352.
62 McClure HA. 1984. Late Quaternary paleoenvironments of the Rub al Khali. Ph.D. dissertation. London: University College London.
63 Drechsler P. 2009. The dispersal of the Neolithic over the Arabian Peninsula. BAR 1969.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
64 Parr PJ, Zarins J, Ibrahim M, et al. 1978. Preliminary report on the second phase of the Northern Province survey 1397/1977. Atlal 2:29–30.
65 Zarins J, Murad AJ, Al-Yish KS. 1981. The
comprehensive archaeological survey program.
The second preliminary report on the southwestern province. Atlal 5:9–42.
66 Whalen N, Ali J, Sindhi H, et al. 1986. A
Lower Pleistocene site near Shuwayhitiyah in
northern Saudi Arabia. Atlal 10:94–101.
67 Chauhan PR. 2009. Early Homo occupation
near the Gate of Tears: examining the paleoanthropological records of Djibouti and Yemen. In: Hovers
E, Braun DR, editors. Interdisciplinary approaches
to the Oldowan. Netherlands: Springer. p 49–59.
68 Amirkhanov H. 2008. Cave al-Guza the multilayer site of Oldowan in South Arabia. Moscow:
TAUS.
69 Whalen N, Davis P, Pease D. 1989. Early
Pleistocene migrations into Saudi Arabia. Atlal
12:59–75.
86 Inizan ML, Ortlieb L. 1987. Préhistoire dans
la région de Shabwa au Yemen du Sud (R.D.P.
Yemen). Paléorient 13:5–22.
70 Whalen N, Zoboroski M, Schubert K. 2002.
The Lower Palaeolithic in southwestern Oman.
Adumatu 5:27–34.
87 McBrearty S. 1999. Earliest stone tools from
the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In: Whybrow PJ, Hill A, editors. Fossil
vertebrates of Arabia. New Haven: Yale University Press. p 373–388.
71 Jagher R. 2009. The Central Oman Paleolithic Survey: recent research in southern Arabia and reflection on the prehistoric evidence.
In: Petraglia MD, Rose JI, editors. The evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p 139–150.
72 Lahr MM. 2010. Saharan corridors and their
role in the evolutionary geography of ‘‘Out of
Africa 1.’’ In: Fleagle JJ, Shea JJ, Grine FE,
Baden AL, Leakey RE, editors. Out of Africa 1:
the first hominin colonization of Eurasia. New
York: Springer. p 27–46.
73 Zarins J, Whalen N, Ibrahim M, et al.
1980. Comprehensive archaeological survey
program: preliminary report on the central
and southwestern provinces survey, 1979 Atlal
4:9–36.
74 Whalen N, Sindhi H, Wahida G, et al. 1983.
Excavation of Acheulean sites near Saffaqah in
al-Dawadami (1402/1982). Atlal 7:9–21.
75 Whalen N, Siraj- Ali J, Davies W. 1984.
Excavations of Acheulean sites near Saffaqah,
Saudi Arabia. Atlal 8:43–58.
76 Petraglia MD, Drake N, Alsharekh A. 2009.
Acheulean landscapes and large cutting tool
assemblages in the Arabian Peninsula. In: Petraglia MD, Rose JI, editors. The evolution of
human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Netherlands:
Springer. p 103–116.
77 Whalen N, Killick A, James N, et al. 1981.
Saudi Arabian archaeological reconnaissance
1980: preliminary report on the western province survey. Atlal 5:43–58.
78 Whalen N, Siraj-Ali J, Sindhi H, et al. 1988.
A complex of sites in the Jeddah-Wadi Fatima
Area. Atlal 11:77–87.
79 Shipton C, Petraglia MD. 2010 Inter-continental variation in Acheulean bifaces. In: Norton C, Braun R, editors. Asian palaeoanthropology. London: Springer. p 49–56.
80 Rose JI. 2004. The question of Upper Pleistocene connections between East Africa and
South Arabia. Curr Anthropol 45:551–555.
81 Crassard R. 2009. The Middle Paleolithic of
Arabia: the view from the Hadramawt region,
Yemen. In: Petraglia MD, Rose JI, editors. The
evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p 151–168.
82 Whalen N, Schatte K. 1997. Pleistocene sites
in southern Yemen. Arab Archaeol Epigr 8:1–10.
83 McClure HA. 1994. A new Arabian stone tool
assemblage and notes on the Aterian industry
of North Africa. Arab Archaeol Epigr 5:1–16.
84 Scerri E. n.d. The Aterian in Arabia: a reanalysis of the evidence. Proc Sem Arabian
Studies. In press.
85 Macchiarelli R. 2008. From Africa to Asia
through Arabia: models, predictions and witnesses of first phases of human settlement. Presented at the Conference on the First Great
Migrations of Peoples, UNESCO, Paris.
88 Rose JI, Petraglia MD. 2009. Tracking the
origin and evolution of human populations in
Arabia. In: Petraglia MD, Rose JI, editors. The
evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p 1–12.
89 Petraglia MD. 2011. Trailblazers across Arabia. Nature 470:50–51.
90 Garrard A, Harvey CPD, Switsur VR. 1981.
Environment and settlement during the Upper
Pleistocene and Holocene at Jubba in the
Great Nefud, Northern Arabia. Atlal 5:137–
148.
91 Maher LA. 2009. The Late Pleistocene of
Arabia in relation to the Levant. In: Petraglia MD,
Rose JI, editors. The evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory
and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p 187–202.
92 Rose JI, Usik VI. 2009. The ‘‘Upper Paleolithic’’ of south Arabia. In: Petraglia MD, Rose
JI, editors. The evolution of human populations
in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and
genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p 169–185.
93 Edens CA. 2001. A bladelet industry in
southwestern Saudi Arabia. Arab Archaeol
Epigr 12:137–142
94 Adams RM, Parr PJ, Ibrahim M, et al. 1977.
Saudi Arabian archaeological reconnaissance,
1976: preliminary report on the first phase of
the comprehensive archaeological survey program. Atlal 1:21–40.
95 Crassard R. 2008. The ‘‘Wa’shah method’’:
An original laminar debitage from Hadramawt, Yemen. Proc Sem Arabian Studies
38:3–14.
96 Charpentier V, Inizan ML. 2002. Fluting in
the Old World: the Neolithic projectile points of
Arabia. Lithic Tech 27:39–46.
97 Uerpmann HP, Potts DT, Uerpmann M.
2009. Holocene (re-)occupation of eastern
Arabia. In: Petraglia MD, Rose JI, editors. The
evolution of human populations in Arabia:
paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics.
Netherlands: Springer. p 205–214.
98 Boivin N, Blench R, Fuller DQ. 2009.
Archaeological, linguistic and historical sources
on ancient seafaring: a multidisciplinary approach
to the study of early maritime contact and
exchange in the Arabian Peninsula. In: Petraglia
MD, Rose JI, editors. The evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory
and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p 251–278.
99 Fedele FG. 2009. Early Holocene in the
highlands: data on the peopling of the Eastern Yemen plateau, with a note on the
Pleistocene evidence. In: Petraglia MD, Rose
JI, editors. The evolution of human populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Netherlands: Springer. p
215–236.
C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
V