The Middle Palaeolithic of Arabia: implications for modern human origins, behaviour and dispersals. (Research).

Petraglia, Michael D. ; Alsharekh, Abdullah

Introduction

The Middle Palaeolithic record has a central role for understanding biocultural evolution and the origins of modern humans (e.g. Mellars & Stringer 1989; Trinkaus 1989). Recent palaeoanthropological syntheses indicate that the Middle Stone Age (MSA) of Africa may coincide with a variety of key evolutionary events, including the emergence of modern human morphology, the development of more complex adaptations, and the dispersal of modern humans outside of Africa (e.g. Foley & Lahr 1997; McBrearty & Brooks 2000). These syntheses propose that H. helmei and H. sapiens produced MSA assemblages in Africa, signalling a behavioural shift by c. 300-250 000 years ago. In West Asia, Levantine Mousterian assemblages are associated with Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, taken as evidence that human populations moved through the Levantine corridor during episodes of climatic deterioration and ameliorations (Bar-Yosef 1994). Various researchers have examined the timing and routes of modern human dispersals outside of Africa by examining patterns of morphological, genetic, and archaeological diversity (e.g. Lahr & Foley 1994, 1998; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Stringer 2000).

Despite its importance to understanding the emergence of modern humans and the evolution of behaviour, the Middle Palaeolithic record of the Arabian peninsula has been sidelined in palaeoanthropological syntheses, and this marginalisation of the Arabian record prevails to the present day despite its potentially crucial geographic position. At least three Out of Africa dispersal routes may be envisioned which have different evolutionary and behavioural implications. One is a northern route through north-east Africa via the Sinai peninsula towards the Levant, with subsequent movements into Arabia; a second is through the Horn of Africa across the Bab al Mandab Strait, spreading along coastlines and into inland zones; and a third is a coastal migration along the Arabian Sea margin towards southern and south-eastern Asia, some populations perhaps employing basic seafaring technology.

Although archaeological investigations on the Arabian Peninsula have lagged behind those of surrounding regions, preliminary surveys executed during the past twenty-five years have, in fact, resulted in the identification of a number of Palaeolithic sites (Figure 1). While serious problems remain in Arabian archaeology today, an aim of this review is to bring the Middle Palaeolithic record of the region into the fold of palaeoanthropological models, thereby providing for a more holistic treatment of biocultural and behavioural patterns across the Old World. As a consequence, the record of human occupation in the Arabian Peninsula assumes great importance in discussions about hominin biogeography, the pattern and route of hominin dispersals, and the use of coastal zones for movement.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Geography and environments

The Arabian Peninsula is demarcated by the modern-day countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Yemen. The landmass is large, measuring 2.3 million [km.sup.2] in total extent. The peninsula is bounded on three sides by the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Arabian Gulf. In contrast, the northern area is a vast open steppe that unrolls towards the Mediterranean with no major geographic obstructions, likely leading to a free exchange of hominin populations across a wide area.

In north-cast Africa, fluctuations in arid and humid phases have been documented, Middle Palaeolithic occupations corresponding to lake and spring deposits dating to between 175 000 and 70 000 BP (e.g. Wendorf et al. 1993; Van Peer 1998; McBrearty & Brooks 2000). Likewise, palaeoenvironmental scientists have observed marked changes in the Arabian palaeoenvironments. A pollen core from the Arabian Sea, ranging from the Holocene to more than 128 000 yrs, indicated that glacial periods produced low sea levels and saline littoral and arid and steppe inland conditions, while high sea-level corresponded with savannah-type vegetation (Van Campo et al. 1982). Terrestrial sedimentary deposits of the Arabian Peninsula were interpreted to reflect changes in climate, glaciation events, and prevailing wind systems (Glennie & Singhvi 2002). Arabia contains a diversity of geomorphic features and sedimentary deposits, ranging from alluvial fans to inland and coastal dunes and salt flats (Allison 1997). Moist intervals are indicated by the formation of lakes, travertines with fossil vegetation, and aggradation and resorting of deposits by local stream flows. Arid phases occurred throughout the course of the late Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene, today resulting in the formation of the vast desert known as the Empty Quartet (Rub' al-Khali). Controlled by global climatic and atmospheric conditions, the large inland depressions of the Rub' al-Khali in the south and the Nafud Desert in the north may have undergone a similar pattern of infilling. Analysis of the Lake Mundafan locality in the Rub' al-Khali showed deep lacustrine deposits underneath the windblown sands (McClure 1976, 1978). A total of 28 radiocarbon dates in upper levels indicated at least two episodes corresponding to periods of high water table, the earlier phase ranging from 36 000 to 17 000 BP. Palaeolithic occurrences associated with fluctuating lake and riverine conditions and aeolian deposits indicates that hominin populations had to cope with substantial environmental change.

Fossilised coralline plains are located along the Red Sea coast of Arabia. Palaeoclimatologists have related elevated coral reefs to interglacial phases and submerged fossil corals and tributaries to lowered sea levels during glacial periods (e.g. Lambeck & Chappell 2001; Lambeck et al. 2002). Examination of sea level fluctuations of the Red Sea indicate changes in water depth and distance between Africa and Arabia (e.g. Chapman 1971; Rohling 1994). Based on study of planktonic foraminifera, shallow sea levels are indicated in the Red Sea during Oxygen Isotope Stage 6, c. 135 000 B.P (Rohling et al 1998), increasing the likelihood for passage of hominins across the Bab al Mandab Strait, either through an overland route or across a much reduced waterway.

Current knowledge and problems in the Arabian Middle Palaeolithic

A number of methodological, environmental, and financial factors have been largely responsible for the slow growth of Palaeolithic studies in Arabia. The severe arid settings in which many sites occur has seriously hampered efforts to conduct Palaeolithic field studies in depth. In addition, most archaeological research in Arabia tends to focus on the study of historical periods, and concerted field efforts with interdisciplinary scientific teams are not undertaken.

Middle Palaeolithic industries of the Arabian Peninsula have traditionally been labelled as 'Mousterian' by most investigators. Mousterian industries were distinguished from Lower and Upper Palaeolithic assemblages based upon the relative frequency of technological and typological attributes (i.e. relative frequency of large bifaces, prepared cores, and blades). As is the problem in other regions, industrial designations are arbitrary, consisting of relative artefact proportions rather than absolute categories. Moreover, detailed technological studies and quantification of tool types and reduction techniques have not been performed, seriously inhibiting an understanding of temporal and spatial characteristics. Although the term Mousterian has been applied to the Arabian assemblages, questions remain about the degree to which these assemblages share temporal-spatial parallels with Levallois and discoidal industries in Europe, West Asia, and North Africa. For this reason, the term 'Mousterian' is reserved here to describe previously identified assemblages, whereas the term 'Middle Palaeolithic' is used here as a cultural stage without implying the presence of particular regional and stylistic features.

Exacerbating technological problems, few reliable age estimates have been recovered in Arabia. The poverty of chronological information is not, however, due to a dearth of localities that can potentially supply such information. Radiometric dating holds promise as appropriate environments exist for such studies, including associations between sites and deposits (e.g. volcanics, fossil corals, sediments). Caves, buried sites, and variations in basin wide deposits with Palaeolithic assemblages have been reported, although these have not been described in detail (e.g. Garrard et al. 1981; Zarins et al. 1981; Amirkhanov 1994). Seemingly well-preserved, and buried sites have been identified in alluvial situations and surveys indicate a high probability of finding buried sites near lakeshores.

Of the identified sites, differences exist in their level of observational recording by archaeologists, surface distributions often recorded in a qualitative fashion (e.g. "widely dispersed, light density artefact scatters", "highly clustered", "dense sites"). Although researchers working on Palaeolithic sites in West Asia have become aware of the role and influence of formation processes in creating patterning (e.g. Goren-lnbar et al 1992; Bar-Yosef 1993; Barton & Clark 1993), researchers in Arabia have not paid attention to natural and cultural processes, leading to uncertainty about the degree to which artefact distributions reflect hominin activities. Additionally, artefact recovery on desert floors present problems in understanding tool function, as edges have been modified and rounded by chemical weathering and wind abrasion.

On the whole, survey results have indicated that Middle Palaeolithic sites were more numerous in comparison to Acheulean and Upper Palaeolithic localities. However, the recovery of this larger sample of Middle Palaeolithic sites may be due to a number of conditions, including biases in site visibility, differences in preservation conditions, and mis-identification of later sites (presumed to be only blade-bearing industries), or it may be related to functional variations, such as occupation intensity and population size. Middle Palaeolithic sites are exclusively known from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and large areas of the peninsula remain devoid of sites. The Gulf States, including Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, either have no reported sites, or low numbers of temporally problematic sites. The lack of sites in the Gulf States may reflect variable occupation intensity in the peninsula, but it is also probable that sites are submerged along littoral zones, or buried under large sand tracts. The lack of sites in these areas may change if these further surveys are initiated.

An evaluation of the Arabian Middle Palaeolithic

Environmental records

Middle Palaeolithic sites were located in different ecological settings, including inland basins, coastal margins, and mountainous zones. Site locations ranged widely, and included sand dunes, rivers of different order, elevated areas and slopes overlooking valleys, lava fields, and littoral margins. The presence of sites in the interior of the Arabian Peninsula indicates that favourable conditions and resources must have been present. Sites are often noted to be associated with water sources, including rivers, streams, and lakes (e.g. Parr et al. 1978; McClure 1976, 1978; Zarins et al. 1980, 1981).

A particularly important set of sites was located along the Red Sea coastal plain and lava fields (Zarins et al. 1980, 1981) (Figure 2). At several localities, Levallois flakes, blades, cores, and other tool types produced from lava were recovered. Artefacts were situated at +2m above mean sea level and c. 75m from the sea, and in at least one case the tools were firmly embedded in a coralline beach terrace. Little other information is available about these sites, but their identification is of extreme importance in identifying coastal dispersals and potential subsistence practices of Middle Palaeolithic hominins, as recently argued for African sites located on the Red Sea (Walter et al 2000).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The Jubbah Basin sequence in the Great Nafud Desert of northern Saudi Arabia provides important information about changes in environment as seven major sedimentary units were identified in 26 metres of deposits (Garrard et al 1981) (Figure 3). Lacustrine conditions were thought to be represented in at least two periods of the Quaternary and Holocene. The earliest level, Deposit 6, was a clay, indicating accumulation under stillwater conditions over a long time interval. Deposit 5b was an evaporite, suggesting increased aridity. This was succeeded by Deposit 5a, a diatomite dated to 25 630 BP, indicating perennial water with either greater precipitation or less evaporation. Deposit 4 was an aeolian sand that was likely contemporary with the first advance of the Nafud Desert, thereby marking a period of greatly increased aridity. Two sites with Levallois elements (201-25a,b; 201-26a) were identified in the Jubbah Basin (Figure 4). Site 201-26a was located close to a mountainous summit, the site representing a quarry based on the exploitation of the ferruginous sandstone outcrop. Site 201-25a was on a lower sandstone platform and contained ferruginous sandstone and local quartzite artefacts. Geomorphic observations indicated the presence of a lake basin surrounded by dunes. A scatter of "Levalloiso-Mousterian" artefacts was found on the weathered surface of 201-25b (Deposit 5). Since Deposit 5 was radiocarbon dated to 25 630 BP, the investigators assumed that the artefacts were washed onto the surface.

[FIGURES 3-4 OMITTED]

The temporal sequence outlined for the Jubbah Basin in the north appears to overlap with the deposits identified in 24-metre long profiles established for Lake Mundafan in the Rub' al-Khali (McClure 1976, 1978). The fluctuations of wet and arid phases documented in the Jubbah and Lake Mundafan sedimentary sequences are likely tied to climatic changes occurring during the Quaternary. Although archaeological research has not been well-integrated with palaeoenvironmental studies, it is likely that climatic cycles heavily influenced the occupation history of Arabia. Study of such relationships is of profound importance as environmental stress and aridity have been considered to be important factors in conditioning hominin biogeography, dispersals, and adaptations (Lahr & Foley 1998; Walter et al. 2000).

Although only known from preliminary information, archaeological surveys in Arabia have indicated variations in site density and distribution. Survey results in certain parts of Arabia indicated that Middle Palaeolithic sites were not present or present in small numbers. In other cases, large numbers of sites were reported, such as the presence of 31 sites in a survey in northern Saudi Arabia (Gilmore et al. 1982). Indicative of activity variations, artefact densities ranged from small numbers of finds to thousands of artefacts per site, and in one survey, surface distributions were reported to range from 375 to 12 500 [m.sup.2] (e.g. Whalen & Pease 1992).

Technology and assemblage characteristics

Middle Palaeolithic core reduction methods of Arabia have been described as plain flake, discoidal, Levallois, and blade. Resultant artefact types include distinctive debitage and retouched tools (Figure 5). Researchers working in Arabia have repeatedly noted that "Levallois" core technology" was not as well represented as Levantine Mousterian industries, thereby indicative of technological variability. The meaning of typo-technological systematics have been interpreted as signatures of population movements and responses to climatic change (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1994) or the product of a host of adaptive options, such as raw material types and distributions, mobility strategies, and site duration (e.g. Clark 2000).

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

The traditional use of the term 'Mousterian' to describe Arabian assemblages implies that this region shares general stylistic affinities with those in Europe, western and central Asia, and North Africa. Yet, many assemblages classified as Mousterian in Arabia were noted to contain relatively low frequencies of Levallois cores or elements, apparently departing from particular areas of Europe and the Levant which show high frequencies of Levallois technology. Three particular variants of the Arabian Middle Palaeolithic were identified, classed as "Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition" (MAT), "pebble Mousterian", and "Aterian". Tool indices from Arabian sites were argued to correspond with MAT Type A assemblages found in other parts of Eurasia (Whalen etal. 1981: table 3). Another possibility is that small bifaces in prepared core assemblages may represent transitional assemblages across the Upper Acheulean and early Middle Palaeolithic (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1998; Petraglia et al. 2003). Although the pebble Mousterian was noted to be a particular technological variant (Parr et al. 1978), it is more likely that the resulting tool forms are related to clast size and form, such as found in the Pontinian (Kuhn 1995).

Of significance to understanding inter-regional trends, a single site on the south-west edge of the Rub' al-Khali was classified as Aterian (McClure 1994). A total of 300 tools was recovered across an area measuring 100 [m.sup.2.] The assemblage was characterised by large, unifacially worked, predominately tanged points and scrapers, as well as miscellaneous types (small bifacial foliates, scrapers, knives, awls, denticulates) that were tanged, and non-tanged (Figure 6). Tangs usually displayed retouch on the dorsal flake surface, although ventral working was occasionally applied. The tools were manufactured from the same type of tan-coloured flint, indicating reduction from a common source. The site was inferred to be associated with a well-watered grassland environment. The identification of an Aterian assemblage on the Arabian Peninsula represents a provocative case for potential geographic connections with populations in North Africa. The single Aterian example potentially extends the eastward range of this point technology outside of Africa. The point technology may also indicate similarities in adaptations over a broad area, signalling a shift to new forms of hunting tactics during periods of improved environmental conditions.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Apart from the three identified variants of the Middle Palaeolithic, the overall impression is that most stone tool assemblages of Arabia show flake and undifferentiated industries. Although broadly similar in core and flake technology, the Arabian "Mousterian" assemblages are not clear equivalents with the Levantine and Zagros Mousterian. In part, this may have to do with the fact that the character of the Arabian assemblages have not been adequately distinguished through systematic typological studies in chrono-stratigraphic contexts. Certain researchers have hypothesised that the Arabian Peninsula followed its own technological development, incorporating a different cultural stylistic tradition and representing a specific adaptation to particular environmental conditions (Whalen et al. 1981). Although technological and geographic heterogeneity is an intriguing idea, the degree to which the Arabian industries share technological features with outlying regions must remain an open question.

The presence of flake and blade elements in the Middle Palaeolithic of the Arabian Peninsula is of interest to typological systematics and adaptive behaviours. The presence of a blade component in Arabian Middle Palaeolithic assemblages is consistent with findings from Africa and the Levant, indicating that these technologies were used much earlier than previously surmised (e.g. Bar-Yosef & Kuhn 1999). The predominance of flake-based technologies over blade bearing industries later in time led certain researchers to remark that Mousterian toolkits may have a longer survivorship in the Arabian Peninsula (Zarins et al. 1980; Alsharekh 1995). In this view, the late occurrence of Middle Palaeolithic technology overshadows the rarer blade bearing industries of the Upper Palaeolithic. The Arabian situation may show a different Middle to Upper Palaeolithic trajectory from other regions, supporting the notion that a uniform and directional change from flake-to blade-based industries should not be expected.

With respect to procurement, Middle Palaeolithic assemblages consist of a wide range of raw materials derived from primary bedrock and secondary gravel sources. The favoured raw material was quartzite and flint, although other raw materials were heavily used in certain areas, including rhyolite, andesite, and basalt. Many Middle Palaeolithic sites are either directly associated with raw material outcrops or in close spatial proximity to them. Large "factory sites" were found along chert and ferruginous sandstone outcrops, the collections from such sites consisting of cores, flakes, and retouched flake tools (Figure 7). It is not known how far materials were transported, but most appear to be confined within basins and valleys, and not at great distances from sources, paralleling observations in other regions.

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

Hominin dispersals

Currently available evidence shows that the Arabian Peninsula was occupied by hominins employing Middle Palaeolithic technologies, thereby providing information about hominin colonisation and dispersal processes (Figure 8). The presence of Middle Palaeolithic sites in the peninsula complements the identification of Lower Palaeolithic sites, most of which are Acheulean (Petraglia 2003). It is uncertain, however, whether early Middle Palaeolithic technology developed from the Late Acheulean, as was found in other regions outside of Africa (e.g. Petraglia et al. 2003; White & Ashton 2003), or whether early Middle Palaeolithic technologies of Arabia were introduced as part of hominin dispersals. While there are uncertainties about the evolution of Middle Palaeolithic technologies, general observations indicate that there are gross similarities between Middle Palaeolithic industries in Africa, Arabia, and South Asia based on the presence of prepared core industries (Petraglia et al 2003). This geographic observation for prepared core industries stands in contrast to contemporaneous sites in eastern Asia, which are characterised by pebble core technology similar to reduction techniques used in the Lower Palaeolithic (e.g. Gao & Norton 2002). It is possible that inter-regional differences in assemblages reflect divergences in resource bases, hominin biogeography, and adaptations.

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

With respect to the hominins using Arabian technology, a few possibilities exist, as Middle Palaeolithic industries are thought to be associated with at least two, if not three species, including H. helmei, H. neanderthaknsis, and H. sapiens (e.g. Klein 1999; McBrearty & Brooks 2000; Lahr & Foley 2001). Although no human fossils have been recovered in Arabia, it is likely that Middle Palaeolithic assemblages were produced by early and later modern humans, potentially including H. helmei and H. sapiens. Another more remote possibility, in consideration of the close geographic proximity of the Levantine Mousterian and the Zagros Mousterian, is that the Arabian industries represent the southern extension of the Neanderthals.

The Out of Africa model for modern human origins and the eastward migration of hominin populations has been supported by fossil and genetic studies (e.g. Lahr & Foley 1998; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Stringer 2002). Although the Arabian assemblages share generic technological affinity with Middle Palaeolithic industries in Africa and the Levant, it is premature at this stage to infer population connections without detailed inter-assemblage comparisons. Yet, mapping of the Arabian sites does provide information that is relevant for examining dispersal processes. Site distributions support an argument that more than one route was taken by populations emerging out of Africa. One route may be from northern Africa into the Levant, simultaneously or subsequently leading to the occupation of Arabia. Once populations were present in Arabia, they may have underwent contraction during periods of aridity. Coastal migrations are suggested by the presence of archaeological sites along the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. Populations may have crossed the Bab al Mandab during lowstands or they may have employed boat technology to cross the Strait. Particularly intriguing is the presence of 25 Middle Palaeolithic sites near the Bab al Mandab (Whalen & Pease 1992). The Red Sea margin sites may relate to northward expansion of human populations. A second possibility is that the Red Sea sites may represent the spread of populations moving southwards. Evidence for sites along the Arabian Sea margin may represent the dispersal of populations expanding eastwards, moving along shorelines themselves, or possibly employing boats, as inferred for the colonisation of Australia by 60 000 BP (Stringer 2000). The use of coastal margins in Arabia may relate to evidence for marine adaptations in East Africa by 125 000 BP (Walter et al. 2000). Although connections between populations are difficult to prove from technological evidence alone, the presence of an Aterian site in Arabia provides a potential link, or at least an adaptive similarity with populations in northern Africa.

Conclusions

Archaeological research in Arabia has indisputably confirmed the presence of Middle Palaeolithic sites in a number of areas of the peninsula. Despite the importance of the Arabian Middle Palaeolithic to palaeoanthropological models, there has been no systematic attempt to examine how the Arabian industries compare with the Mousterian of West Asia and the MSA of Africa. Of course, chronometric dating and in-depth technological studies are critical for ascertaining how the Arabian record fits into inter-regional dispersal processes and evolutionary sequences. Based on the preliminary evidence, the Arabian Peninsula likely acted as a key route for dispersing populations given the identification of a number of sites in the region and the presence of sites along the Red Sea and Arabian Sea margins.

Given the marked environmental changes in the Arabian Peninsula and the presence of archaeological sites in different ecological settings, it is clear that the regional record can contribute valuable information about hominin responses to changing conditions. The record shows that Middle Palaeolithic occupations were associated with wet environments and favourable resources. A large unanswered question is how hominins coped with periods of environmental degradation, including increased aridity. The persistence and spatial distribution of Middle Palaeolithic assemblages in Arabia suggests that hominins may have had some cultural abilities to adjust to ecological challenges. Without further detailed analysis of palaeoecological and archaeological settings, it is difficult to ascertain the degree to which hominins adjusted to inhospitable conditions and whether populations contracted in size or became extinct.

Based on a review of the currently available literature, it is clear that the Middle Palaeolithic of the Arabian Peninsula offers unique opportunities to understand Pleistocene dispersals, adaptations, and behaviour. Current shortcomings in palaeoanthropological research will hopefully be rectified in the near future based upon new initiatives being undertaken jointly between the Department of Antiquities and Museums (Saudi Arabia) and UK universities. Recent support from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, University of Cambridge, provides the opportunity to develop collaborative efforts with the Saudi National Museum and King Saud University. Interdisciplinary teams are being formed to examine the chronology of human occupation, the impact of palaeoenvironmental changes on populations, and the dispersal of modern humans outside of Africa.

Acknowledgements

A Fulbright grant to Petraglia stimulated our collaborative research efforts. Numerous colleagues in Saudi Arabia have supported and facilitated our research, especially Prof. Saad Abdul-Aziz Al-Rashid, All S. al-Moghanam, Jamal-Saraj, and Saad M. Al-Mashari. Petraglia wishes to acknowledge the support and assistance of Lora Berg, Peter Lenthall, Paul Taylor, Peter Vincent, and Norman Whalen. We are grateful to Larry Barham, Nicole Boivin, Martin Carver, Marta Lahr, Preston Miracle and Yosuf El-Amin for comments on a draft of this article.

References

ALLISON, R.J. 1997. Middle East and Arabia, in: D.S.G. Thomas (ed.). Arid zone geomorphology: process, form and change in drylands: 507-521. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

ALSHAREKH, A. 1995. [The archaeology of central Saudi Arabia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge.

AMIRKHANOV, H. 1994. Research on the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of Hadhramaut and Mahra. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 5: 217-28.

BARTON, M.C. & G.A. CLARK. 1993. Cultural and natural formation processes in Late Quaternary cave and rockshelter sites of western Europe and the Near East, in E Goldberg, D.T. Nash & M.D. Petraglia (ed.). Formation processes in archaeological context: 33-52. Madison: Prehistory Press.

BAR-YOSEF, O. 1993. Site formation processes from a Levantine viewpoint, in E Goldberg, D.T. Nash & M.D. Petraglia (ed.). Formation processes in archaeological context. 13-32. Madison: Prehistory Press.

--1994. The contributions of Southwest Asia to the study of the origin of modern humans, in M.H. Nitecki & D.V. Nitecki (ed.). Origins of anatomically modern humans: 23-66. New York: Plenum Press.

--1998. Early, colonizations and cultural continuities in the Lower Palaeolithic of Western Asia, in M.D. Petraglia & R. Korisettar (ed.) Early human behaviour in global context: 221-279. London: Routledge Press.

BAR-YOSEF:, O. & S.L. KUHN. 1999. The big deal about blades: laminar technologies and human evolution. American Anthropologist 101: 322-38.

CHAPMAN, R.W. 1971. Climatic changes and the evolution of landform in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Geological Society of America Bulletin 82: 2713-27.

CLARK, G. 2000. The Middle Paleolithic in the Wadi al-Hasa: an overview, in N.R. Coinman (ed.). The Archaeology of the Wadi al-Hasa, West-Central Jordan, Volume 2: Excavations at Middle', Upper and Epipaleolithic sites: 67-94. Arizona State University, Anthropological Research Papers No. 52.

DE MAIGRET, A. 1984. Archaeological activities in the Yemen Arab Republic, 1984. East and West 34: 439.

FIELD, H. 1960. North Arabian desert archeological survey, 1925-50. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. XLV, no. 2. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

FOLEY, R. & M. LAHR. 1997. Mode 3 technologies and the evolution of modern humans. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7:3-36.

GAO, X. & C.J. NORTON. 2002. A critique of the Chinese 'Middle Palaeolithic'. Antiquity 76: 397-412.

GARRARD, A.N., C.P.D. HARVEY & V.R. SWITSUR. 1981. b. Environment and settlement during the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene at Jubba in the Great Nefud, Northern Arabia. Atlal 5: 137-148.

GILMORE, M., M. AL-IBRAHIM, & A,S. MURAD. 1982. I--Preliminary report on the northwestern and northern region survey 1981 (1401). Atlal 6: 9-23.

GLENNIE, K.W. & A.K. SINGHVI. 2002. Event stratigraphy, paleoenvironment and chronology of SE Arabian deserts. Quaternary Science Reviews 21: 853-69.

GOREN-INBAR, N., S. BELITZKY, Y. GOREN, R. RABINOVICH & I. SARAGUSTI 1992. Gesher Benot Ya'aqov-the "bar": an Acheulian ,assemblage. Geoarchaeology 7:27-40.

KLEIHN, R.G. 1999. The Human Career. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

KUHN, S.L. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technolagy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

LAHR, M.M. & R. FOLEY. 1994. Multiple dispersals and modern human origins. Evolutionary Anthropology 3:48 60.

--1998. Towards a theory of modern human origins: geography, demography, and diversity in recent human evolution. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 41: 137-176.

--2001. Mode 3, Homo helmei, and the pattern of human evolution in the Middle Pleistocene, in L. Barham & K. Robson-Brown (ed.). Human roots: Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene: 23-39. Bristol: Western Academic & Specialist Press Limited.

LAMBECK, K. & J. CHAPPELL. 2001. Sea level change through the last glacial cycle. Science 292: 679-686.

LAMBECK, K., T.M. ESAT & E-K. POTTER. 2002. Links between climate and sea levels for the past three Million years. Nature 419: 199-206.

McBREARTY, S. & A.S. BROOKS. 2000. The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 39: 453-563.

McCLURE, H. 1976. Radiocarbon chronology of late Quaternary lakes in the Arabian desert. Nature 263: 755-56.

--1978. Al Rub' al-Khali, in S.S. Al Sayari & J.G. Zotl (ed.). Quaternary period in Saudi Arabia: 252-263. New York: Springer-Verlag.

--1994. A new Arabian stone tool assemblage and notes on the Aterian industry of North Africa. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 5:1-16.

MELLARS, P.A. & C. STRINGER (ed.). 1989. The human revolution. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

NAYEEM, M.A. 1990. Prehistory and protohistory of the Arabian peninsula, Saudi Arabia. Vol. 1. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers.

PARR, P.J., J. ZARINS, M. IBRAHIM, J. WAECHTER, A. GARRARD, C. CLARKE, M. BIDMEAD & H. AL-BADR. 1978. Preliminary report on the second phase of the northern province survey 1397/1977. Atlal 2: 29-50.

PETRAGLIA, M.D. 2003. The Lower Paleolithic of the Arabian Peninsula: occupations, adaptations, and dispersals. Journal of World Prehistory, 17: 141-179.

PETRAGLIA, M.D., J. SCHULDENREIN & R. KORISETTAR. 2003. Landscapes, activity, and the Acheulean to Middle Paleolithic transition in the Kaladgi Basin, India. Eurasian Prehistory, in press.

QUINTANA-MURCI, L., O. SEMINO, H-J. BANDELT, G. PASSARINO, K. MCELREAVEY & S. SANTACHIAIRA-BENERECETTI. 1999. Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa. Nature Genetics 23:437-441.

RHOTERT, H, (ed.). 1938. Transjordanien. Sturrgart: Vorqeschichtliche Forschungen.

ROHLING, E.J. 1994. Glacial conditions in the Red Sea. Paleoceanography 9: 653-660.

ROHLING, E.J., M. FENTON F.J. JORISSEN, P. BERTRAND, G. GANSSEN & J.P. CAULET. 1998. Magnitudes of sea-level lowstands of the past 500,000),ears. Nature 394: 162-165.

STRINGER, C. 2000. Coasting out of Africa. Nature 405:24-27.

--2002. Modern human origins: progress and prospects, Philosophical Transactions Royal Society of London 357: 563-579.

TRINKAUS, E. (ed.). 1989 The emergence of modern humans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

VAN CAMPO, E., J. DUPLESSY & M. ROSSIGNOL-STRICK. 1982. Climatic conditions deduced from a 150-kyr oxygen isotope-pollen record from the Arabian Sea. Nature 296: 56-59.

VAN PEER, P. 1998. The Nile corridor and the Out-of Africa model. Current Anthropology 39: S 115-140.

WALTER, R.C., R.T. BUFFLER, J.H. BRUGGEMANN, M.M.M. GUILLAUME, S.M. BERHE, B. NEGASSI, Y. LIBSEKAL, H. CHENG, R.L. EDWARDS, R. VON COSEC, D. NERAUDEAU & M. GAGNON. 2000. Early human occupation of the Red Sea coast of Eritrea during the last interglacial. Nature 405: 65-69.

WENDORF, E, R. SCHILD & A. CLOSE (eds.) 1993. Egypt during the Last Interglacial New York: Plenum.

WHALEN, N.M. & D.W. PLEASE. 1992. Archaeological survey in southwest Yemen, 1990. Paleorient 17/2: 129-33.

WHALEN, N., A. KILLICK, N. JAMES, G. MORSI & M. KAMAL. 1981. Saudi Arabian archaeological reconnaissance 1980: b. preliminary report on the western province survey. Atlal 5: 43-58.

WHALEN, N.M., J. SIRAJ-ALI, H.O. SINDI, D.W. PEASE & M.A. BADEIN. 1988. A complex of sites in the Jeddah--Wadi Fatimah area. Atlal 11: 77-85.

WHITE, M. & N. ASHTON. 2003. Lower Palaeolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois method in NW Europe. Current Anthropology, in press.

ZARINS, J., M. IBRAHIM, D. POTTS & C, EDENS. 1979. Saudi Arabian archaeological reconnaissance 1978: the preliminary report on the third phase of the comprehensive archaeological survey program--the central province. Atlal 3: 9-42.

ZARINS, J., N. WHALEN, M. IBRAHIM, A.A. JAWAD MURSI & M. KHAN. 1980. Comprehensive archaeological survey program, preliminary report on the central and southwestern provinces survey: 1979. Atlal 4: 9-36.

ZARINS, J., A. AL.-JAWAD MURAD & K.S. AL.-YISH. 1981. The comprehensive archaeological survey program. a. The second preliminary report on the southwestern province. Atlal 5: 9-42.

ZARINS, J, A.-A. RAHBINI & M. KAMAL. 1982. 2-Preliminary report on the archaeological survey of the Riyadh area. Atlal 6: 25-38.

Michael D. Petraglia (1)& Abdullah Alsharekh (2)

(1) Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge 6732 3DZ, England (Email: [email protected])

(2) Department of Archaeology and Museology, King Saud University 170. Box 2456, Riyadh 11451, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia