Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros46 1-2ArticlesOn the diversity of the Palaeolit...

Articles

On the diversity of the Palaeolithic record and patterns of Pleistocene palaeoenvironmental conditions in Southeast Arabia

Knut Bretzke, Eisa Yousif, Sabah Jasim, Kira Raith et Adrian Parker
p. 15-30

Résumés

Le peuplement de l’Arabie du Sud-Est durant le Pléistocène supérieur est bien documenté dans la séquence enregistrée à Jebel Faya, émirat de Sharjah (Émirats arabes unis). Ces données archéologiques suggèrent que des vagues d’occupation ont eu lieu dans la région entre environ 125 000 et 10 000 ans. Les importantes lacunes chronologiques observées entre les phases de peuplement pourraient indiquer de longues périodes où des conditions climatiques rigoureuses durant le Pléistocène ont empêché toute occupation humaine. Cependant, des recherches paléoenvironnementales récentes ont révélé l’existence de courtes périodes potentiellement propices au peuplement de la région. Afin de tester le scénario d’occupations intermittentes, élaboré à partir de la séquence stratifiée de Jebel Faya, nous avons entrepris des sondages systématiques à Suhailah, une région située environ 50 km au nord de Jebel Faya. Nos résultats montrent qu’en plus de l’abondant matériel holocène, de nombreux assemblages caractéristiques du Pléistocène ont été identifiés. D’après les comparaisons avec le matériel archéologique de Jebel Faya, les données de Suhailah révèlent des phases d’occupation qui n’ont pas été enregistrées dans la séquence de Faya. Nous soutenons que la diversité accrue des données archéologiques, et peut-être les occupations plus fréquentes de la région centrale de Sharjah pendant le Pléistocène supérieur, impliquent que les brèves périodes de précipitations accrues identifiées récemment auraient pu jouer un rôle important pour le peuplement humain.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

We thank the Sharjah Archaeology Authority for permission and support to carry out the work at Suhailah. Knut Bretzke acknowledges financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant BR 5562/2-1) and the ROCEEH project of the Heidelberg Academy of Science and Humanities. He would also like to thank the survey team members Manuela, Till and Oskar for their commitment during the surveys under occasionally difficult conditions.

1Researchers argue that Southeast Arabia is a key region for understanding human expansion processes and the evolution of the human-environment relationship (Rose 2010; Armitage et al. 2011; Petraglia 2011; Rose et al. 2011). While there is a growing record of palaeoenvironmental information (Preusser et al. 2002; Parker 2009; Preusser 2009; Rosenberg et al. 2012; Parton et al. 2015), our knowledge about the occupation history of the region does not develop at a similar pace and remains limited. The main issue in Palaeolithic research in Southeast Arabia, if not the entirety of Arabia, is the lack of long archaeological sequences as known from neighbouring regions in Western Asia such as Tabun Cave, Ksar Akil, Yabroud or Shanidar (Garrod and Bate 1937; Ewing 1947; Rust 1950; Solecki 1963) and Olduvai Gorge, Mumba Cave and Kapthurin Formation in East Africa (Kohl-Larsen 1941; Leakey 1971; Tryon and McBrearty 2002; Tryon 2006). The best diachronic record in Southeast Arabia comes from Jebel Faya, a unique archaeological sequence with evidence for six periods of occupation during the Late Pleistocene (Armitage et al. 2011; Bretzke et al. 2014). The site’s diachronic occupation pattern has been described as reflecting climate driven pulses of occupation with brief episodes of settlement during favourable (wetter) climatic phases and long periods of human absence during times of climatically drier conditions (Bretzke et al. 2013; Bretzke and Conard 2017). Evidence from other parts in Arabia provides support for this model through archaeological finds that are associated with lacustrine deposits indicating the discard of lithic artefacts during periods of increased precipitation (Groucutt and Petraglia 2012; Crassard et al. 2013; Hilbert et al. 2014; Groucutt et al. 2015).

2Understanding changes in patterns and intensity of precipitation is critical for developing an environmental framework for human occupation in desert regions. Research over the past two decades has substantially developed our understanding of the palaeoclimatic history of Arabia (Burns et al. 1998; Preston et al. 2015; Jennings et al. 2016; Parton et al. 2018; Matter et al. 2016; Parker et al. 2016). A variety of archives and proxy records enriched the scientific debate and demonstrate the dynamic of past changes in the region’s climate and landscapes during the Pleistocene and Holocene periods. Humid conditions mostly develop during interglacial periods and led to the development of lakes, rivers and wetlands, alongside the expansion of vegetation and increased resource availability in the former desert environments. These developments are related to periods of orbital-scale insolation maxima. While they most likely have also occurred earlier, currently they are best known from Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11 through to 1, with a strong expression of the eccentricity (ca. 100 ka) component, and a weaker expression of the precessional (ca. 23 ka) component (Parton et al. 2015). Arid phases, on the other hand, are most pronounced during periods of global glacial conditions in higher latitudes and frequently led to the development of widespread hyper aridity.

3Dated speleothem and lacustrine records have been used to conclude that significant increases in humidity in Arabia occurred during interglacial periods such as MIS 5e (e.g., Burns et al. 2001; Fleitmann et al. 2003; Rosenberg et al. 2011). These periods were then often interpreted as windows of opportunity for human populations to expand into the Arabian Peninsula. Considering that archives such as speleothems often require >350 mm of rainfall to initiate growth (e.g., Vaks et al. 2010; Fleitmann et al. 2011), it is reasonable to assume that periods of lesser rainfall are absent from these records. Indeed, fluvial/alluvial records (e.g., Parton et al. 2015) appear to show greater sensitivity to climatic fluctuations and have been used to identify periods of increased rainfall during late MIS 6 (ca. 155 ka) and early MIS 3 (ca. 55 ka). Such records, however, while greatly advancing our knowledge of temporal palaeoclimatic variability, still fail to reflect the spatial heterogeneity of the southeast Arabian landscape. Today Southeast Arabia is characterised by steep rainfall gradients across a range of coastal, mountainous, desert and gravel plain geomorphic environments. Daqeeq in the northern Oman Mountains receives 175.4 mm mean annual rainfall, while desert foreland regions receive 74.9 mm (Kwarteng et al. 2009). In addition, all regions receive rainfall in excess of 300 mm per year over multidecadal cycles (Feulner 2006; Kwarteng et al. 2009). Such climatic and geomorphic variability has given rise to a diverse range of biogeographical distributions and centres of endemism, with the Western Hajar Mountains being one of the richest and most important floristic regions within the Arabian Peninsula (Patzelt 2014). The region is home to 24 endemic plants species featuring evergreen woodland communities indicative of a relict former continuous belt of xeromorphic woodlands (Patzelt 2014), while three species of freshwater fish are endemic to mountainous wadis and pools of the United Arab Emirates (Feulner 1998; Mallon 2011). Consequently, the notion of “windows of opportunity” could be misleading and inhibitive when assessing the viability of the landscape to support viable human populations over time. Palaeoenvironmental records are severely limited in their spatio-temporal resolution, while current biogeographical distributions reflect a rich and heterogeneous landscape of endemic species existing within relict Pleistocene refugia (e.g., Patzelt 2014; Borrell et al. 2019).

4In contrast to the scarcity of stratified archaeological material in Southeast Arabia, surface finds of likely Palaeolithic age are abundant in many areas of the region (Biagi 1994; Scott-Jackson et al. 2009; Wahida et al. 2009; Jagher et al. 2010; Bonilauri et al. 2015; Beshkani et al. 2017; Bretzke et al. 2018). The currently unique combination of a rich surface record and a deep chrono-cultural stratigraphy at Jebel Faya makes the central region of the Emirate of Sharjah a promising area to test models of prehistoric settlement patterns and the proposed bearing of climate change on human settlement in Arabia. Key to incorporate archaeological surface material into diachronic studies on human settlement dynamics is a detailed understanding of human behavioural diversity and related trends through time. To explore the diversity of the Palaeolithic record of the Sharjah Emirate, the Sharjah Archaeology Authority and the University of Tübingen initiated a joint project. Archaeologists collaborate with palaeoenvironment specialists from Oxford Brookes University and the University of Oxford to contextualise archaeological results and palaeoclimatic data. This paper presents the results of this collaboration and discusses the implications of these findings for our understanding of the occupation history of the region.

Material and methods

5To test the hypothesis of few chronologically deeply separated periods of human occupation of southeast Arabia’s interior during the Late Pleistocene; we conducted systematic survey in the Suhailah area of Sharjah Emirate. The area is located in the northern part of the Emirate about 60 km inland from the Gulf coast (fig. 1). Suhailah forms the northern end of the so-called Dhaid – Madam Plain, a ca. 65 km long and max. 15 km wide, relatively flat and well-watered gravel outwash plain about 5 km from the mountain front. Vegetation density is increased compared to the sand dune fields to the west and the barren, rocky areas of the al-Hajar Mountains to the east. This plain attracted settlement throughout human history. The rich archaeological record includes evidence for Palaeolithic (Scott-Jackson et al. 2009; Armitage et al. 2011; Bretzke et al. 2018), Neolithic (Uerpmann et al. 2013), Bronze Age (Jasim 2012), Iron Age (Córdoba 2003; Cerro and Córdoba 2018) as well as pre-Islamic and Islamic (Attaelmanan and Yousif 2012) settlements. Such a comprehensive archive of human settlement in an arid region that likely covers several hundred-thousand years of human history is scarce if not unique in Arabia.

Fig. 1 – Location of Suhailah and overview of surveyed area

Fig. 1 – Location of Suhailah and overview of surveyed area

Map K. Bretzke

6Suhailah is known for the occurrence of good quality lithic raw material including carnelian and other types of chalcedony (Uerpmann et al. 2008; Charpentier et al. 2017). After the discovery of Acheulean handaxes in Sharjah’s part of the area (Bretzke et al. 2018), the Sharjah Archaeology Authority fenced an area of 57 ha to protect the rich archaeological surface record. We conducted a systematic survey of the fenced area in 2017 and 2018.

7To document spatial patterns, we divided the area into 23 N-S oriented transects (labelled A-W), which were separated by 50 m (fig. 2). Normally two surveyors conducted the prospection keeping a distance of about 5 m from each other. Assuming a survey radius for each surveyor of about 2-3 m, surface material from a band of about 10 m width was documented. Loci were defined and documented at every place where at least three artefacts within a 5 m radius could be identified. We documented the density and typo-technological characteristics of all lithic scatter identified during the survey. In total, we walked 20 of the 23 defined transects. We avoided the last three (U-W) because massive reworking of the sediments was observed in this western part. The majority of loci were documented without collecting lithic artefacts. At these loci, all artefacts were left in their original position. At loci with assemblages featuring unknown typo-technological characteristic, we collected samples from areas of 10 by 10 m. All cores, tools and complete and cortex free artefacts from this area were collected by the survey team during a timed search of ten minutes. At the centre point of this area GPS coordinates were recorded to document the position of the collected samples. The collected artefacts were taken to the lab and studied following a standard protocol for typo-technological analysis of Palaeolithic stone artefacts. We documented technological and typological characteristics, including scar patterns, preparation characteristics, as well as tool and core types.

Fig. 2 – Map showing the surveyed area, survey tracks and location of find scatters

Fig. 2 – Map showing the surveyed area, survey tracks and location of find scatters

M1, N1 and Q6 are the scatters presented here

Map K. Bretzke

8To assess the potential chronology of the survey finds, we compare the latter with finds from the deeply-stratified site of Jebel Faya, where over the course of twelve campaigns two important sets of archaeological information have been documented. One comes from excavations mainly on the terrace in front of the rock shelter (Armitage et al. 2011; Bretzke et al. 2013), while a second set of data comes from the so-called “Faya Shelter sequence”, a sequence excavated under the present-day rock shelter (Bretzke et al. 2014). Pleistocene archaeological assemblages found in the terrace excavation were labelled Assemblage A to D with Assemblage A being the youngest and D the oldest from this excavation (Armitage et al. 2011). In contrast, archaeological layers in the Faya Shelter excavation were labelled archaeological horizon (AH) I to VII, with AH I being the stratigraphically youngest and AH VII the deepest and oldest layer in the shelter sequence (Bretzke et al. 2014). Excavations in both areas reached bedrock and hence contain the full range of archaeological material deposited in the respective areas. Terrace and shelter excavation can be linked through stratigraphic correlation of AH IV with Assemblage A, AH V with Assemblage B and AH VI with Assemblage C (Bretzke 2015). Assemblage A has been OSL dated to ~40 ka, while Assemblage C was dated to ~125 ka using OSL (Armitage et al. 2011).

Results

9During our systematic prospection of the fenced area, we covered a distance of 11.5 km along twenty transects and documented thirteen low density (<0.1 artefacts per m²), nineteen medium (>0.1 to one artefact per m2) and six high (one or more artefacts per m²) density scatter of lithic material. We classified material from thirteen localities as Palaeolithic, thirteen as Neolithic and twelve as undetermined. Site distribution reflects local topography with a tendency for those assemblages classified as Palaeolithic being located upslope (fig. 2). Not surprisingly, the density of finds in the low laying parts between the hills was significantly reduced compared to the situation on the slopes and on top of the hills. Many of these low-lying areas are connected to the nearby modern wadi and sediment deposition must have occurred in periods of wadi activity. Hence we must expect the current surface in these areas being formed very recently and Pleistocene finds, if there would be some at all, being buried under Holocene sediments. The few lithic scatters located in the low laying areas support this conclusion, given that all feature characteristics, which allow classifying them as Holocene material. Small scale test excavations never produced any material from stratified context, except in gully deposits where the material was redeposited.

10We distinguished Holocene material from Palaeolithic material using size as well as typo-technological and preservation characteristics. Considering the established cultural-chronological framework for the Early to Mid-Holocene period in Southeast Arabia (Charpentier 2008; Uerpmann et al. 2013) we concluded from the occurrence of bladelets, small bifacial tools and small single and multiple platform cores that these assemblages reflect Holocene occupation. Secure Palaeolithic assemblages from the region are known from Jebel Faya (Armitage et al. 2011; Bretzke 2015). Stratified lithic assemblages from Jebel Faya feature marked differences compared to Holocene material. Their typo-technological composition, which often includes larger (> 5 cm) sized lithic artefacts, a dominance of flake production and lithic reduction strategies using a range of technological solutions such as Levallois, reduction from single platform cores and core-on-flake technology, point to marked behavioural differences compared to Holocene lithic production (Bretzke et al. 2014).

11This paper will focus on material from three lithic scatters from Suhailah, which contain Palaeolithic material of the unknown typo-technological composition. The remaining ten scatters with Palaeolithic material feature either artefact densities too low to draw meaningful conclusions or contain assemblages with typo-technological spectra known from the Jebel Faya sequence. We therefore excluded these scatters from this analysis. Prior to the systematic survey in Suhailah, Acheulean handaxes and associated cores and flakes have been found. Bretzke et al. published the details of these finds recently and we will use these results for our discussion (Bretzke et al. 2018).

12The first assemblage comes from locus M1 (fig. 3). This high density scatter is located on a medium steep, north facing slope at an elevation of 180 m a.s.l. Lithic artefacts cover an area of 30 by 20 m and form a well-developed distribution with clear edges. Two surveyors searched about half of this area for ten minutes and collected from a homogeneous assemblage 46 slightly rolled and medium patinated stone artefacts including cores, tools and complete blanks without cortex (table 1). No pieces with cortex and no broken artefacts were collected. Technologically the assemblage from locus M1 features flake production from centripetal Levallois cores and blade production from flat bi-directional cores (fig. 3). The distinction between Levallois and flat bi-directional cores is based on the presence of evidence for the preparation of distal and lateral convexities in the former and the lack thereof in the latter. Single platform blade cores with a reduction from the narrow face also occur but form a minority (table 2). Unretouched flakes and blades occur in similar frequencies. About half of the unretouched flakes and blades (n=8) have a pointed morphology with converging edges. Among all tools and blanks, only one flake features a faceted striking platform (table 3). About 2/3 of the tools were made on flakes while the remaining were made on blades. The tool assemblage from this collection shows a relatively strong bifacial component (44%), which includes bifacial points (n=3) and morphologically less distinct bifacial pieces (n=5). The numerically most dominant tool type, however, is the scraper (table 4).

Fig. 3 – Examples of lithic artifact from locus M1

Fig. 3 – Examples of lithic artifact from locus M1

1, 5-6. Bifacial point; 2-3. Sidescraper; 4. Unifacial point; 7. Kombewa core; 8-9. Bidirectional core; 10-12. Centripetal Levallois core

Photos K. Bretzke

Table 1 – Assemblage overview

Table 1 – Assemblage overview

Credits authors

Table 2 – Core types

Table 2 – Core types

Credits authors

Table 3 – Frequency of technological characteristics

Table 3 – Frequency of technological characteristics

Credits authors

Table 4 – Frequency of tool types

Table 4 – Frequency of tool types

Credits authors

13South of the peak elevation on track Q, we found on a small plateau a spatially well described high density scatter (Q6). Two team members surveyed an area of 10 by 10 m for ten minutes and collected 52 artefacts (table 1). This collection includes cores, tools and flakes (fig. 4). Again, only complete and cortex free flakes were collected while broken and cortex covered artefacts were left in their original position. The majority of cores show hierarchical organisation with one surface forming the striking platform while production exclusively occurred on the opposed surface (table 2). We distinguish here between Levallois and flat unidirectional cores. The latter show only one striking platform, lack preparation of the underside and lack signs of convexity preparation. In contrast, cores that we classified as Levallois provide evidence of the preparation of the underside as well as lateral and distal convexities. Unidirectional and radial scar patterns dominate on cores. Single platform cores (e.g., tournant), however, also occur. Levallois cores are classified as preferential (n=1), centripetal (n=2) and unidirectional recurrent (n=2). Points are the most frequently observed tool type in the Q6 assemblage, while scrapers, burins and bifacially retouched tools additionally occur in equal but smaller numbers (table 4). Two of the tools were produced on blades while the majority was made on flakes (table 3). Among the 26 collected blanks, however, blades (n=15) dominate over flakes (n=9). About half of the flakes feature converging edges, while except one, all blades have parallel edges. The faceting of the striking platform was observed on about 27% of the blanks (n=7).

Fig. 4 – Examples of lithic artifacts from locus Q6

Fig. 4 – Examples of lithic artifacts from locus Q6

1-7. Blades and flakes; 8-10. Burin; 11, 13. Bifacial point; 12, 14-15. Unifacial point; 16-18. Single platform core; 19-20. Centripetal Levallois core

Photos K. Bretzke

14Prospections along track N revealed a lithic scatter (N1) with marked typo-technological differences compared to Q6 and M1 (fig. 5). We encountered an assemblage almost exclusively composed of blades with a notable converging component (table 1) again on a north facing slope at an elevation of 177 m a.s.l. (fig. 2). This high density lithic scatter extends over an area of about 20 by 30 m. Two surveyors collected a sample of 42 artefacts during a ten-minute search from an area of 10 by 10 m. Artefacts are slightly rolled and lightly patinated. The collection of cores includes three single platform cores (e.g., semi-tourant), one flat unidirectional core and, most notably, three cores-on-flake (table 2). Blades dominate over flakes (table 1), with about 40% of the blades showing converging edges (table 3). All blanks and tools show plain striking platforms. Except one, all tools were made on blades. One blade features a partial crest, which provides evidence for the intentional production of blades and the presence of the early stages of blade production that includes the preparation of the core’s reduction surface. The tool assemblage of the collection at N1 is dominated by burins, endscrapers and truncations (table 4). The burin category includes two burins on truncation and one burin negative originating from the artefact’s striking platform. All endscrapers were produced on blades. One can be classified as shouldered, the other two feature small scraper caps at the thick distal end of a blade with converging edges. Truncations include two straight, one concave and one oblique variant.

Fig. 5 – Examples of lithic artifacts from locus N1

Fig. 5 – Examples of lithic artifacts from locus N1

1-3. Blade; 4, 8, 10-11. Burin; 5-6, 9. Endscraper; 7. Truncation; 12-13. Single platform core

Photos K. Bretzke

Discussion

15The first interesting observation made on the Suhailah survey record is the marked density of lithic scatters. We surveyed about 2.5% of the entire area (1.5 ha out of 57 ha in total) and identified six high density loci, which translates into about four high density scatters per 1 ha. Extrapolating our observations from the 10 m wide transects to the entire 57 ha, we concluded that likely more than two hundred high density scatters could be in the protected area. Hence Suhailah seems to have been a magnet area for Stone Age people. Potential causes include the availability of high quality lithic raw material (Uerpmann et al. 2008; Charpentier et al. 2017) and the vicinity to drainage channels which likely provided fresh water and/or sufficient biomass along its edges. Despite the current arid setting, freshwater channels are frequently active in the region, with the formation of perennial pools in the headwaters of Wadi Shawkah (ca. 10 km south of Suhailah) home to freshwater fish of the genus Garra (G. shawkahensis; Feulner 1998). The observed typo-technological diversity reveals that Suhailah was frequently visited throughout the Middle and Late Pleistocene as well as in the Early Holocene. Finds that likely represent the oldest evidence for hominin activity in the area are Acheulean hand axes (Bretzke et al. 2018). On the younger chronological end are finds such as small bifacial points, which indicate activities of Neolithic people most likely during the 5th millennium BC. Hence humans and their ancestors have repeatedly visited Suhailah over the last 250,000 to 500,000 years. The lack of evidence for post-Neolithic occupation in the surveyed area may indicate a significant change in land use during the preceding periods.

16A second striking observation is the typo-technological diversity among those lithic assemblages that have been classified as Palaeolithic. The spectrum ranges from Acheulean hand axes with Levallois cores (Bretzke et al. 2018), bifacial points with Levallois technology (loci M1, Q6) and blade technology with Upper Palaeolithic tool types (locus N1). These data suggest that during the Palaeolithic period groups with distinct stone tool production behaviours occupied Suhailah. Given these differences, the related occupation periods may be well-separated in time. Due to the lack of datable material, developing a chronology for the potentially different Palaeolithic occupation periods in Suhailah is difficult.

17Comparing the finds from Suhailah with the Faya assemblages reveals significant differences and only a few similarities. The co-occurrence of Levallois technology and bifacial reduction (façonnage) is one example of similarities. However, the bifacial reduction observed in Suhailah’s hand axe related assemblage and in M1 and Q6 is significantly different from bifacial reduction observed in assemblages from the Faya sequence. There are no Acheulean hand axes known from the Faya sequence. The bifacial tools in Faya from Assemblage C and AH VI are much smaller than the Suhailah handaxes and lack the typical morphological characteristics of Acheulean handaxes, namely a clear base opposed by a tip. We argue here that the Acheulean handaxes from our survey in Suhailah must pre-date the late Pleistocene Faya sequence. Unfortunately, the chronology of the Acheulean in Arabia is largely unknown. Two sites provided absolute age estimations for stratified assemblages with Acheulean handaxes in Arabia. One comes from Dawadmi, in central Saudi Arabia (Shipton et al. 2018). Here the Acheulean occupation was dated to MIS 7 (ca. 240-190 ka) using luminescence dating (Scerri et al. 2018). Its discoidal technological character and the production of large flakes (>10 cm; Shipton et al. 2018), however, clearly distinguish the Suhailah Acheulean assemblage from Dawadmi. A second site providing an absolute age is Meshhed III in Wadi Douan, Yemen. Here Amirkhanov (2018) correlates the Acheulean layer with an age of 450 ± 110 ka determined by thermoluminescence dating of stratigraphically related deposits about 40 m up the wadi. The assemblage is composed of handaxes, choppers and picks. Given that in Suhailah handaxes co-occur with Levallois technology, Bretzke et al. (2018) argue for a later Middle Pleistocene age of the Suhailah Acheulean probably dating to the time frame MIS 9 to 7 (ca. 340-190 ka). Whether the observed diversity in assemblages with Acheulean handaxes is related to spatial, chronological or cultural evolutionary factors must remain open at this stage of research given the small number of stratified and securely dated Acheulean assemblages in Arabia.

18The bifacial reduction observed in the assemblages from M1 and Q6 is strikingly different with regard to the assemblages from Jebel Faya. Critical in this respect is the presence of bifacial points in the former (fig. 3-4). None of the assemblages with bifacial technology from Jebel Faya (Assemblage C and AH VI) contain bifacial points. Instead, small handaxes form the bifacial component in Assemblage C and AH VI. Small bifacial points are a defining characteristic of the Arabian Neolithic (ca. 6-7 ka). The bifacial points from loci M1 and Q6 feature a number of characteristics that distinguish them from the Neolithic examples. First, M1 and Q6 bifacial points are larger than typical Neolithic bifacial points. Second, southeast Arabian Neolithic points are shaped using soft hammer percussion (Maiorano et al. 2019), which is not the case with the M1 and Q6 points, where deep scars indicate hard hammer percussion. Third, Neolithic assemblages with bifacial points regularly contain single and multiple platform cores and lack cores featuring characteristics of Levallois technology, as it is the case in Suhailah. Considering the Faya assemblages and the well-known Neolithic record of the region led us to conclude that assemblages from M1 and Q6 are related to so far unrecognised occupation periods. Besides arguing for a pre-Neolithic age, estimates for the older end of a potential time frame of the M1-Q6 occupation periods is difficult and requires more chronological data in particular from the later parts of the Faya sequence (AHs IV to II), which is currently not available.

19Typo-technological characteristics of the assemblage sampled from locus N1 provides additional evidence for occupation periods not captured in the Faya sequence. The strong blade component including related blade core technologies and cresting as well as the dominance of Upper Palaeolithic tool types such as burins and truncations separates this assemblage from all stratified assemblages of Jebel Faya. One characteristic in common, however, is the presence of cores-on-flake, which are continuously present in the Faya Shelter sequence from AH V to AH II. The only layer in Jebel Faya with an increased frequency of blades is AH II from the Shelter sequence (Bretzke et al. 2014). In contrast to N1, however, blades in AH II are associated with flat bidirectional cores, which often have faceted platforms. N1, on the other hand, provides true blades in terms of morphology and technology, given single platform blade cores with reduction on the narrow face and cresting technology. Assemblages of similar typo-technological characteristics are so far unknown from Sharjah’s interior plain.

20With regard to Southern Arabia, however, blade assemblages of potential Palaeolithic age are a known phenomenon (Pullar 1974; Biagi 1994; Amirkhanov 2006; Crassard 2008a; Jagher 2009; Hilbert 2013). Their chronology remains often unclear since most of the finds are surface finds. Rose (2006) suggests the term “Nejd Leptolithic” to describe these potentially related blade assemblages. Based on their extensive field work in Dhofar, Hilbert et al. (2012) distinguish an “Early Nejd Leptolithic” from a “Late Nejd Leptolithic”. In the early variant, unidirectional blade production is associated with bifacial reduction (façonnage), while the later entity is characterised by blade technology associated with small tanged points, so-called Fasad points (Charpentier and Crassard 2013). Hilbert et al. (2012) provide multiple 14C and OSL dates that indicate an age for the Early Nejd Leptolithic between 14 and 10 ka, while age estimates for the Late Nejd Leptolithic range between 10 and 7 ka. Evidence for cresting technology and the presence of cores-on-flake, as well as the lack of bifacial technology and Fasad points, clearly distinguish Suhailah’s N1 assemblage from the Nejd Leptolithic and other Holocene blade technologies, such as the Wa’shah method (Crassard 2008b) or blade production during the Suwayh facies of the southeast Arabian Neolithic between 7 and 6 ka (Charpentier 2008). Hence a final Pleistocene or early Holocene age for the N1 assemblage seems unlikely given currently available data.

21In their recent summary of their intensive fieldwork, mainly in southern Oman, Rose et al. (2018) provide data for two earlier blade dominated technological entities, the “Late Lower Palaeolithic large blade group” and an Upper Palaeolithic entity. The authors note that assemblages with Upper Palaeolithic characteristics are rare and tentatively suggest an age for the Upper Palaeolithic entity in Dhofar between 30 and 20 ka (Rose et al. 2018: 173). In addition to blade production from single and opposed platform cores, the Dhofar Upper Palaeolithic entity shows technological characteristics, such as cresting and core-on-flake technology, which is comparable to characteristics observed at the N1 assemblage. Rose et al. (2019) have recently provided new archaeological and chronometric data from site Matafah, which supports the presence of blade/bladelet technology and hence an Upper Palaeolithic entity in Southern Arabia by at least 30-33 ka. While we are aware that the situation in Dhofar, with its markedly different environmental and climatic setting, may not be used as a blue print for Southeast Arabia, we argue that the observed technological similarities allow the working hypothesis that N1 represents a terminal Pleistocene (ca. 40-12 ka) occupation of the region. Consequently, the N1 assemblage could provide evidence for a second period of Palaeolithic occupation that is not recorded in the Faya sequence.

22Given human presence in desert environments, being largely controlled by climatic conditions and in particular by changes in precipitation, the presence or absence of palaeoenvironmental evidence for favourable conditions could help to evaluate the probability of archaeologically identified and so far, unrecognised periods of human occupation in Southeast Arabia. The intensification of palaeoenvironmental research in Arabia over the past two decades provides increasingly detailed insights into climatic conditions of the Late Pleistocene and their mosaic pattern in the different parts of the peninsula. An emerging aspect of this is the increasing awareness of the potential for brief periods of more favourable conditions during periods such as MIS 3 and MIS 6 that were normally thought of being too dry and harsh to provide a suitable environment for human occupation.

23Considering Southeast Arabia, important palaeoclimatic data come from Hoti Cave (Burns et al. 2001), Al-Ain (Parton et al. 2015), Wadi Dhaid (Parker 2009; Atkinson et al. 2013), Remah (Farrant et al. 2012), Jebel Aqabah (Parton et al. 2010), and Wadi Mistal (Hoffmann et al. 2015). These sites provide evidence for increased precipitation and wadi flow activation during MIS 6 (ca. 160-150 ka), MIS 5 (ca. 130-88 ka) and early MIS 3 (ca. 55-45 ka). While a correlation of these wet phases with the human occupation of Southeast Arabia can be securely demonstrated for the relatively long period during MIS 5 through the stratified archaeological material from Jebel Faya (Armitage et al. 2011; Bretzke et al. 2014), there is no unequivocal evidence from the site with regard to the presumably much shorter periods during MIS 6 and early MIS 3.

24Assemblage D from Jebel Faya (Armitage et al. 2011, SOM), which underlies the ~125 ka Assemblage C possibly points to an occupation of the region during MIS 6. Unfortunately, no direct dating of this layer is currently available hence the possibility of Assemblage D being related to an earlier MIS 5e occupation cannot be ruled out. At this stage of research, the Jebel Faya sequence also provides no evidence for human occupation of the region during the early MIS 3 wet phase. Assemblage B of the Jebel Faya terrace sequence is currently not dated and more likely represents a MIS 5c or MIS 5a occupation rather than one during early MIS 3 (Armitage et al. 2011, SOM). Stratigraphically younger assemblages such as Assemblage A or AHs IV to II from the Faya Shelter sequence are too young given currently available dating evidence.

25One potential reason for brief wet periods not being represented in the archaeological record of Faya may lie in the nature of the water bodies that developed during these periods. It has been argued that the nature of sedimentation, in addition to observations of desiccation cracks, and the absence of any faunal remains suggest that water bodies developed at Wadi Mistal during early MIS 3 were rather an ephemeral than a substantial lake that existed for longer time (Hoffmann et al. 2015). The lack of Palaeolithic material securely associated with the fluvio-lacustrine deposits at Wadi Mistal may further support the notion that the brief period of increased precipitation during early MIS 3 was no significant factor with regard to human occupation of the region. We should keep in mind that so far no systematic archaeological exploration of the Wadi Mistal area has been carried out. Despite saying this, it is difficult to imagine that standing water in the desert did not attract animals and humans, even if it was potable for only a limited period of time. At least at Jebel Aqabah lithic artefacts have been found 150 m to the west of the fluvial-lacustrine sediments (Parton et al. 2013) potentially indicating a human presence in the region during the formation of these water bodies.

26Does the lack of unequivocal evidence for human occupation at Jebel Faya during MIS 6 and early MIS 3 necessarily mean that Southeast Arabia was unpopulated during these periods? Does absence of evidence mean evidence for absence? We conclude from our systematic surveys at Suhailah that this is unlikely. We argue that the two distinct technological entities documented at locus N1 and loci M1/Q6 in Suhailah provide evidence for a more complex occupation history of the region. Although our survey finds from Suhailah cannot be assigned to specific chronological periods, hence testing effects of brief periods of increased humidity on human occupation is difficult, we argue that a more complex human occupation history requires considering these brief periods to develop meaningful occupation models. Finally, given the current presence of endemic centres featuring evergreen woodland communities indicative of relict Pleistocene refugia, along with species of freshwater fish in mountainous wadis and pools, it is important to consider whether the notion of broad climatic “windows” should be rejected in favour of a more nuanced, regional perspective that reflects a highly localized geomorphic and biogeographical diversity.

Conclusion

27Systematic survey in Suhailah, Emirate of Sharjah (United Arab Emirates) revealed the presence of stone tool assemblages with characteristics unknown from the stratified Palaeolithic sequence at site FAY-NE1 at Jebel Faya. Levallois technology combined with bifacial points on the one hand and blade technology combined with core-on-flake reduction and Upper Palaeolithic tool types on the other characterise these two new entities. While the chronology of these entities remains unclear, their recovery implies that human occupation history in the area was more complex than previously thought. Our data indicates that the chronologically long occupation gaps observed at Jebel Faya may be a very local signal and not representative for the entire region. We argue that these two new technological entities indicate a more frequent occupation of this desert region. The lack of datable material in our survey data does not allow a precise correlation of archaeological finds with chronological periods. However, we argue that our evidence for diversity in the archaeological record and potentially more frequent occupations of the desert landscapes of the interior of modern-day Sharjah Emirate implies that relatively short periods of increased precipitation could have played an important role for human occupation. Such brief periods of climatically more favourable conditions are currently underrepresented in the prevailing models of human expansion and occupation in Arabia. The dominant view correlates human presence in Arabia almost exclusively with peak interglacial conditions. Intensive palaeoenvironmental research in the region has led to the identification of several short periods of increased precipitation, including periods during MIS 6 and early MIS 3. While this work provides some first hints to their importance, more interdisciplinary research is required to provide conclusive evidence for the role of brief wet phases for human occupation of Southeast Arabia. In addition, regionally specific biogeographical studies are required to elucidate the changing nature of the ecological landscape over time, and further deconstruct the current “wet versus dry” narrative that persists within both palaeoenvironmental and archaeological studies.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Amirkhanov H.A. 2006 – Stone age of South Arabia. Moscow: Nauka.

AmirkhanovH.A. 2018 – The Middle Acheulian site Meshhed III in Wadi Douan (Republic of Yemen). Paléorient 44,1: 7-17.

Armitage S.J., Jasim S.A., Marks A.E., Parker A.G., Usik V.I. and Uerpmann H.-P. 2011 – The southern route “out of Africa”: Evidence for an early expansion of modern humans into Arabia. Science 331,6016: 453-456.

Atkinson O.A.C., Thomas D.S.G., Parker A.G. and Goudie A.S. 2013 – Late Quaternary humidity and aridity dynamics in the northeast Rub’ al-Khali, United Arab Emirates: Implications for early human dispersal and occupation of eastern Arabia. Quaternary International 300: 292-301.

Attaelmanan A.G. and Yousif E.A. 2012 – EDXRF analysis of pigment used for the decoration of Mleiha pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 39,7: 2231-2237.

Beshkani A., Beuzen‐Waller T., Bonilauri S. and Gernez G. 2017 – Large Kombewa flake production in north Oman. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 28,2: 125-137.

Biagi P. 1994 – An Early Palaeolithic site near Saiwan (Sultanate of Oman). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 5,2: 81-88.

Bonilauri S., Beuzen-Waller T., Giraud J., Lemée M., Gernez G. and Fouache E. 2015 – Occupation during the Lower and Middle/Late Palaeolithic period in the Sufrat Valley (Adam region, Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar of Arabian Studies45: 21-34.

Borrell J.S., Al Issaey G., Lupton D.A., Starnes T., Al Hinai A., Al Hatmi S., Senior R.A., Wilkinson T., Milborrow J.L.H., Stokes-Rees A. and Patzelt A. 2019 – Islands in the desert: Environmental distribution modelling of endemic flora reveals the extent of Pleistocene tropical relict vegetation in southern Arabia. Annals of Botany 124,3: 411-422.

Bretzke K. 2015 – Palaeolithic assemblages from the central region of the Emirate of Sharjah (UAE) and implications for human settlement dynamics in southern Arabia. In: Conard N.J. and Delagnes A. (eds.), Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age: 105-125. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.

Bretzke K., Armitage S.J., Parker A.G., Walkington H. and Uerpmann H.-P. 2013 – The environmental context of Paleolithic settlement at Jebel Faya, Emirate Sharjah, UAE. Quaternary International 300: 83-93.

Bretzke K. and Conard N.J. 2017 – Not just a crossroad: Population dynamics and changing material culture in Southwestern Asia during the Late Pleistocene. Current Anthropology 58,17: S449-S462.

Bretzke K., Conard N.J. and Uerpmann H.-P. 2014 – Excavations at Jebel Faya — The FAY-NE1 shelter sequence. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 44: 69-82.

Bretzke K., Yousif E. and Jasim S. 2018 – Filling in the gap – The Acheulean site Suhailah 1 from the central region of the Emirate of Sharjah, UAE. Quaternary International 466,A: 23-32.

Burns S.J., Fleitmann D., Matter A., Neff U. and Mangini A. 2001 – Speleothem evidence from Oman for continental pluvial events during interglacial periods. Geology 29,7: 623-626.

Burns S.J., Matter A., Frank N. and Mangini A. 1998 – Speleothem-based paleoclimate record from northern Oman. Geology 26,6: 499-502.

Cerro C. del and Córdoba J.M. 2018 – Archaeology of a falaj in al Madam Plain (Sharjah, UAE); a study from the site. Water History 10: 85-98.

Charpentier V. 2008 – Hunter-gatherers of the “empty quarter of the early Holocene” to the last Neolithic societies: Chronology of the late Prehistory of south-eastern Arabia (8000-3100 BC). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38: 59–82.

Charpentier V., Brunet O., Méry S. and Velde C. 2017 – Carnelian, agate, and other types of chalcedony: The Prehistory of Jebel al-Ma’taradh and its semi-precious stones, Emirate of Ra’s al-Khaimah. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 28,2: 175-189.

Charpentier V. and Crassard R. 2013 – Back to Fasad… and the PPNB controversy. Questioning a Levantine origin for Arabian Early Holocene projectile points technology. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24,1: 28-36.

Córdoba J.M. 2003 – Village of shepherds in the Iron Age. The evidence of Al Madam (AM1 Thuqaibah, Sharjah, UAE.). In: Potts D.T., al-Naboodah H. and Hellyer P.(eds.), Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates. Proceedings of the first international conference on the Archaeology of the UAE: 173-180. London: Trident Press.

Crassard R. 2008a – La préhistoire du Yémen :diffusions et diversités locales, à travers l'étude d’industries lithiques du Hadramawt. Oxford: Archeopress (BAR Int. Ser. 1842).

Crassard R. 2008b – The “Wa‘shah method”: An original laminar debitage from Hadramawt, Yemen. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38: 3-14.

Crassard R., Petraglia M.D., Drake N.A., Breeze P., Gratuze B., Alsharekh A., Arbach M., Groucutt H.S., Khalidi L., Michelsen N., Robin C.J. and Schiettecatte J. 2013 – Middle Palaeolithic and Neolithic occupations around Mundafan Palaeolake, Saudi Arabia: Implications for climate change and human dispersals. PLoS ONE 8,7: e69665.

Ewing J.F. 1947 – Preliminary note on the excavations at the Palaeolithic site of Ksâr ’Akil, Republic of Lebanon. Antiquity 21,84: 186-196.

Farrant A.R., Ellison R.A., Thomas R.J., Pharaoh T.C., Newell A.J., Goodenough K.M., Lee  J.R. and Knox R.O. 2012 – The geology and geophysics of the United Arab Emirates. Vol. 6: Geology of the Western and Central United Arab Emirates. Nottingham: British Geological Survey.

Feulner G.R. 1998 – Wadi fish of the UAE. Tribulus 8,2: 16-22.

Feulner G.R. 2006 – Rainfall and climate records from Sharjah Airport: Historical data for the study of recent climatic periodicity in the UAE. Tribulus 16,1: 3-9.

Fleitmann D., Burns S.J., Neff U., Mangini A. and Matter A. 2003 – Changing moisture sources over the last 330,000 years in northern Oman from fluid-inclusion evidence in speleothems. Quaternary Research 60,2: 223-232.

Fleitmann D., Burns S.J., Pekala M., Mangini A., Al-Subbary A., Al-Aowah M., Kramers J. and Matter A. 2011 – Holocene and Pleistocene pluvial periods in Yemen, southern Arabia. Quaternary Science Reviews 30,7-8: 783-787.

Garrod D.A. and Bate D. 1937 – The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Groucutt H.S. and Petraglia M.D. 2012 – The Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula: Deserts, dispersals, and demography. Evolutionary Anthropology 21: 113-125.

Groucutt H.S., White T.S., Clark-Balzan L., Parton A., Crassard R., Shipton C., Jennings R.P., Parker A.G., Breeze P.S., Scerri E.M.L., Alsharekh A. and Petraglia M.D. 2015 – Human occupation of the Arabian Empty Quarter during MIS 5: Evidence from Mundafan Al-Buhayrah, Saudi Arabia. Quaternary Science Reviews 119: 116-135.

Hilbert Y.H., Rose J.I. and Roberts R. 2012 – Late Palaeolithic core-reduction strategies in Dhofar, Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42: 101-118.

Hilbert Y.H. 2013 – Khamseen rock shelter and the Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic transition in Dhofar. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy24: 51-58.

Hilbert Y.H., White T.S., Parton A., Clark-Balzan L., Crassard R., Groucutt H.S., Jennings R.P., Breeze P., Parker A., Shipton C., Al-Omari A., Alsharekh A.M. and Petraglia M.D. 2014 – Epipalaeolithic occupation and palaeoenvironments of the southern Nefud desert, Saudi Arabia, during the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Journal of Archaeological Science 50: 460-474.

Hoffmann G., Rupprechter M., Rahn M. and Preusser F. 2015 – Fluvio-lacustrine deposits reveal precipitation pattern in SE Arabia during early MIS 3. Quaternary International382: 145-153.

Jagher R. 2009 – The central Oman Paleolithic survey: Recent research in Southern Arabia and reflection on the Prehistoric evidence. In: Petraglia M.D. and Rose J.I. (eds.), The evolution of human populations in Arabia.Palaeoenvironments, Prehistory and genetics: 139-150. London: Springer.

Jagher R., Pümpin C., Wegmüller F. and Winet I. 2010 – Central Oman Palaeolithic survey, report of the 2007 season. Journal of Oman Studies 17: 15-50.

Jasim S.A. 2012 – The Necropolis of Jebel al-Buhais: Prehistoric discoveries in the Emirate of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. Sharjah: Department of Culture and Information, Government of Sharjah.

Jennings R.P., Parton A., Clark-Balzan L., White T.S., Groucutt H.S., Breeze P.S., Parker A.G., Drake N.A. and Petraglia M.D. 2016 – Human occupation of the northern Arabian interior during early Marine Isotope Stage 3.Journal of Quaternary Science31,8: e2920.

Kohl-Larsen L. 1941 – Meine Expedition in Deutsch-Ostafrika (1934-1936 und 1937-1939). Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 1941: 126-144.

Kwarteng A.Y., Dorvlo A.S. and Vijaya Kumar G.T. 2009 – Analysis of a 27‐year rainfall data (1977-2003) in the Sultanate of Oman. International Journal of Climatology29,4: 605-617.

Leakey M.D. 1971 – Olduvai Gorge. Vol. 3: Excavations in beds I and II, 1960-1963. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maiorano M.P., Crassard R., Charpentier V. and Bortolini E. 2019 – A quantitative approach to the study of Neolithic projectile points from south-eastern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy(early view, DOI: 10.1111/aae.12147).

Mallon D.P. 2011 – Global hotspots in the Arabian Peninsula. Zoology in the Middle East 54: 13-20.

Matter A., Mahjoub A., Neubert E., Preusser F., Schwalb A., Szidat S. and Wulf G. 2016 – Reactivation of the Pleistocene trans-Arabian Wadi ad Dawasir fluvial system (Saudi Arabia) during the Holocene humid phase. Geomorphology 270: 88-101.

Parker A.G. 2009 – Pleistocene climate change in Arabia: Developing a framework for hominin dispersal over the Last 350 ka. In: Petraglia M.D. and Rose J.I. (eds.), The evolution of human populations in Arabia.Palaeoenvironments, Prehistory and genetics: 39-49. London: Springer.

Parker A.G., Preston G.W., Parton A., Walkington H., Jardine P.E., Leng M.J. and Hodson M.J. 2016 – Low-latitude Holocene hydroclimate derived from lake sediment flux and geochemistry. Journal of Quaternary Science 31,4: 286-299.

Parton A., Clark-Balzan L., Parker A.G., Preston G.W., Sung W.W., Breeze P.S., Leng M.J., Groucutt H.S., White T.S., Alsharekh A. and Petraglia M.D. 2018 – Middle-late Quaternary palaeoclimate variability from lake and wetland deposits in the Nefud Desert, Northern Arabia. Quaternary Science Reviews 202: 78-97.

Parton A., Farrant A.R., Leng M.J., Telfer M.W., Groucutt H.S., Petraglia M.D. and Parker A.G. 2015 – Alluvial fan records from southeast Arabia reveal multiple windows for human dispersal. Geology 43,4: 295-298.

Parton A., Farrant A.R., Leng M.J., Schwenninger J.-L., Rose J.I., Uerpmann H.-P., Parker A.G. 2013 – An early MIS 3 pluvial phase in Southeast Arabia: Climatic and archaeological implications, Quaternary International 300: 62-74.

Parton A., Parker A.G., Farrant A.R., Leng M.J., Uerpmann H.-P., Schwenninger J.-L., Galletti C. and Wells J. 2010 – An early MIS3 wet phase at palaeolake ‘Aqabah: Preliminary interpretation of the multi-proxy record. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40: 267-276.

Patzelt A., Harrison T., Knees S.G. and Al Harthy L. 2014 – Studies in the flora of Arabia: XXXI. New records from the Sultanate of Oman. Edinburgh Journal of Botany 71,2: 161-180.

Petraglia M.D. 2011 – Trailblazers across Arabia. Nature 470: 50-51.

Preston G.W., Thomas D.S.G., Goudie A.S., Atkinson O.A.C., Leng M.J., Hodson M.J., Walkington H., Charpentier V., Méry S., Borgi F. and Parker A.G. 2015 – A multi-proxy analysis of the Holocene humid phase from the United Arab Emirates and its implications for southeast Arabia’s Neolithic populations. Quaternary International 382: 277-292.

Preusser F. 2009 – Chronology of the impact of Quaternary climate change on continental environments in the Arabian Peninsula. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 341,8-9: 621-632.

Preusser F., Radies D. and Matter A. 2002 – A 160,000-year record of dune development and atmospheric circulation in southern Arabia. Science 296,5575: 2018-2020.

Pullar J. 1974 – Harvard archaeological survey in Oman, 1973: I – Flint sites in Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 4: 33-48.

Rose J.I. 2006 – Among Arabian sands: Defining the Palaeolithic of Southern Arabia. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dallas: Southern Methodist University.

Rose J.I.2010 – New light on human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf oasis. Current Anthropology 51,6: 849-883.

Rose J.I., Hilbert Y.H., Usik V.I., Marks A.E., Jaboob M.M.A., Černý V., Crassard R. and Preusser F. 2019 – 30,000-year-old geometric microliths reveal glacial refugium in Dhofar, southern Oman. Journal of Palaeolithic Archaeology 2: 338-357.

Rose J.I., Hilbert Y.H., Marks A.E. and Usik V.I. 2018 – The first peoples of Oman. Palaeolithic archaeology of the Nejd plateau. Muscat: Ministry of Heritage and Culture Sultanate of Oman (The Archaeological Heritage of Oman).

Rose J.I., Usik V.I., Marks A.E., Hilbert Y.H., Galletti C.S., Parton A., Geiling J.M., Černý V., Morley M.W. and Roberts R.G. 2011 – The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age industry in southern Arabia. PLoS ONE 6: e28239.

Rosenberg T.M., Preusser F., Blechschmidt I., Fleitmann D., Jagher R. and Matter A. 2012 – Late Pleistocene palaeolake in the interior of Oman: A potential key area for the dispersal of anatomically modern humans out-of-Africa? Journal of Quaternary Science27,1: 13-16.

Rosenberg T.M., Preusser F., Fleitmann D., Schwalb A., Penkman K., Schmid T.W., Al-Shanti M.A., Kadi K. and Matter A. 2011 – Humid periods in southern Arabia: Windows of opportunity for modern human dispersal. Geology39,12: 1115-1118.

Rust A. 1950 – Die Höhlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). Neumünster: Karl Wachtholz Verlag.

Scerri E.M.L., Shipton C., Clark-Balzan L., Frouin M., Schwenninger J.-L., Groucutt H.S., Breeze P.S., Parton A., Blinkhorn J., Drake N.A., Jennings R., Cuthbertson P., Omari A.A., Alsharekh A.M. and Petraglia M.D. 2018 – The expansion of later Acheulean hominins into the Arabian Peninsula. Scientific Reports8: 17165.

Scott-Jackson J., Scott-Jackson W. and Rose J.I. 2009 – Palaeolithic stone tool assemblages from Sharjah and Ras al Khaimah in the United Arab Emirates.In: Petraglia M.D. and Rose J.I. (eds.), The evolution of Human populations in Arabia.Palaeoenvironments, Prehistory and genetics: 125-138. London: Springer.

Shipton C., Blinkhorn J., Breeze P.S., Cuthbertson P., Drake N., Groucutt H.S., Jennings R.P., Parton A., Scerri E.M.L., Alsharekh A. and Petraglia M.D. 2018 – Acheulean technology and landscape use at Dawadmi, central Arabia. PLoS ONE 13: e0200497.

Solecki R.S. 1963 – Prehistory in Shanidar Valley, Northern Iraq. Science 139,3551: 179-193.

Tryon C.A. 2006 – “Early” Middle Stone Age lithic technology of the Kapthurin Formation (Kenya). Current Anthropology47,2: 367-375.

Tryon C.A. and McBrearty S. 2002 – Tephrostatigraphy and the Acheulean to Middle Stone Age transition in the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution42,1-2: 211-235.

Uerpmann H.P., Uerpmann M., Kutterer A. and Jasim S.A. 2013 – The Neolithic period in the central region of the Emirate of Sharjah (UAE). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy24,1:102-108.

Uerpmann M., Uerpmann H.P. and Händel M. 2008 – Lithic resources and their procurement at and around Jebel al-Buhais and Jebel al-Faya. In: Uerpmann H.P., Uerpmann M. and Jasim S.A. (eds.), The natural environment of Jebel al-Buhais: Past and Present: 53-70. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.

Vaks A., Bar-Matthews M., Matthews A., Ayalon A. and Frumkin A. 2010 – Middle-Late Quaternary paleoclimate of northern margins of the Saharan-Arabian Desert: Reconstruction from speleothems of Negev Desert, Israel. Quaternary Science Reviews 29,19-20: 2647-2662.

Wahida G., Al-Tikriti W.Y., Beech M.J. and Al Meqbali A. 2009 – A Middle Palaeolithic assemblage from Jebel Barakah, coastal Abu Dhabi Emirate. In: Petraglia M.D. and Rose J.I. (eds.), The evolution of Human populations in Arabia.Palaeoenvironments, Prehistory and genetics: 117-124. London: Springer.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Location of Suhailah and overview of surveyed area
Crédits Map K. Bretzke
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/281/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 381k
Titre Fig. 2 – Map showing the surveyed area, survey tracks and location of find scatters
Légende M1, N1 and Q6 are the scatters presented here
Crédits Map K. Bretzke
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/281/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 292k
Titre Table 3 – Frequency of technological characteristics
Crédits Credits authors
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/281/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 654k
Titre Table 1 – Assemblage overview
Crédits Credits authors
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/281/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 72k
Titre Table 2 – Core types
Crédits Credits authors
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/281/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 101k
Titre Table 4 – Frequency of tool types
Crédits Credits authors
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/281/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 122k
Titre Fig. 4 – Examples of lithic artifacts from locus Q6
Légende 1-7. Blades and flakes; 8-10. Burin; 11, 13. Bifacial point; 12, 14-15. Unifacial point; 16-18. Single platform core; 19-20. Centripetal Levallois core
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/281/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 660k
Titre Fig. 5 – Examples of lithic artifacts from locus N1
Légende 1-3. Blade; 4, 8, 10-11. Burin; 5-6, 9. Endscraper; 7. Truncation; 12-13. Single platform core
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/281/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 558k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Knut Bretzke, Eisa Yousif, Sabah Jasim, Kira Raith et Adrian Parker, « On the diversity of the Palaeolithic record and patterns of Pleistocene palaeoenvironmental conditions in Southeast Arabia »Paléorient, 46 1-2 | 2020, 15-30.

Référence électronique

Knut Bretzke, Eisa Yousif, Sabah Jasim, Kira Raith et Adrian Parker, « On the diversity of the Palaeolithic record and patterns of Pleistocene palaeoenvironmental conditions in Southeast Arabia »Paléorient [En ligne], 46 1-2 | 2020, mis en ligne le 01 décembre 2021, consulté le 12 avril 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/281 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.281

Haut de page

Auteurs

Knut Bretzke

University of Tübingen, Dept. Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, Tübingen – Germany

Articles du même auteur

Eisa Yousif

Sharjah Archaeology Authority, Government of Sharjah, Sharjah – United Arab Emirates

Sabah Jasim

Sharjah Archaeology Authority, Government of Sharjah, Sharjah – United Arab Emirates

Kira Raith

Human Origins and Palaeoenvironments Research Group, Department of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford – United Kingdom

Adrian Parker

Human Origins and Palaeoenvironments Research Group, Department of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford – United Kingdom

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search