at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–12

Contents lists available

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Guest Editorial

The Middle Palaeolithic in the desert and its implications forunderstanding hominin adaptation and dispersal

1. Introduction: into the desert

Themid-latitude desert belt extending from the Atlantic coast ofNorth Africa, through the Middle East and deep into Asia is one ofthe fundamental environmental and biogeographical features ofthe modern world. Although today much of this region can onlybe inhabited as a result of complex cultural adaptations to thesearid environments (e.g. irrigation, camel domestication, etc.), arich variety of archaeological evidence attests to the occupationof the desert belt during the Pleistocene. The aim of this volumeof Quaternary International is to explore the Palaeolithic occupationof this desert belt, and highlight these regions as critical to under-standing changes in hominin behaviour and demography that haveoccurred during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene.

As several papers in this volume discuss, the mid-latitude desertbelt has undergone profound climatic and environmental changesin the Pleistocene, which continue in the Holocene. This dynamismis clearly one of the central features of this area. Deserts are typi-cally defined as regions receiving less than 250 mm mean annualrainfall, with semi-arid regions receiving between 250 and500 mm mean annual rainfall (MAR). Fig. 1 shows average modernrainfall values. However, behind such averages lies dramaticannual, decadal and centennial variability in rainfall that can haveprofound impacts upon contemporary occupants of these drylandsat a generational scale.

During the Middle and Upper Pleistocene, there was significantvariability in humidity at millennial timescales, somewhatremoved from the experience of the hominin inhabitants of theseregions. Within these broad scale variations finer scale fluctuationswould also have occurred. For the purposes of this introduction, werefer to those regions that experienced arid (<w250 mm MAR)conditions during the LGM as the ‘desert’ (e.g. Braconnot et al.,2003), although many now are characterised by semi-arid condi-tions. It must also of course be noted that we have a poor graspon past precipitation levels. Short and long term variability in hu-midity in these desert regions is likely to have played a drivingrole in the colonisation and occupation of the mid-latitude aridbelt by hominin populations, as well as, ultimately, their extirpa-tion. Previous publications on the archaeology of desert environ-ments include Barker and Gilbertson (2000), Veth et al. (2005)andMol and Sternberg (2012). Most previous research has focussedon the Holocene, and significant questions remain in relation to thePleistocene occupation of arid environments.

As the mid-latitude desert belt separates the African andEurasian landmasses, these landscapes are likely to have been the

1040-6182/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.03.043

location of major changes in hominin demography during the Pleis-tocene. These demographic changes relate to both the expansionand dispersal of hominin populations and changing patterns ofbehaviour and hence survivability. The dispersal of Homo sapiensfrom sub-Saharan Africa into Eurasia must have involved the colo-nisation and occupation of the mid-latitude arid belt. Given theanalogous environmental and climatic settings of North Africaand southern Asia, the binary opposition of Africa and Eurasia ap-pears to be an unproductive approach to understand how homininswere able to expand into new, diverse habitats. Rather than the cur-rent focus upon modern human dispersals ‘Out of Africa’, we sug-gest a reorientation towards understanding the dispersal ofhominins ‘Into the Saharo-Arabian Belt’.

It is important to recognise that the opportunities to exploit newresources made available in the deserts by the onset of enhancedhumidity were not solely the preserve of modern humans. Thecolonisation of these desert environments during periods of hu-midity did not only occur from Africa, but also from Eurasia, inwhat Dennell (2009, 2013) have characterised as the “scramblefor Asia”. It is within these desert landscapes that the earliest con-tact between modern humans and Neanderthals, including poten-tial interbreeding (e.g. Green et al., 2010), may have occurred. Giventhis situation the organisational heuristic of the ‘Middle Palaeo-lithic’ offers a more objective way to compare hominin behaviourin the desert belt than framing variation in terms of inter-speciescontrasts, when hominin fossil material is rare and spatially biased.Simple associations of forms of technology and particular homininspecies should be avoided.

The Middle Palaeolithic covers the period from around 300,000to 30,000 years ago. We use the term Middle Palaeolithic synony-mously with Middle Stone Age, in contrast to many recent debateson the use of these terms and the purportedly European character ofthe former and African character of the latter. Such dichotomies (e.g.Africa equals H. sapiens and Europe equals Neanderthals) are typi-cally formulated at the expense of Asia. They also downplay thecomplexity of the evolutionary process in areas like Africa. The cre-ation of the term ‘Middle Stone Age’ reflected the early 20th centurybelief that although broadly comparable to the Eurasian MiddlePalaeolithic the MSA was both younger and more short-lived.Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe (1929) are quite explicit in their claimthat theMSA reflected the dispersal of either ideas or populations of‘Mousterians’ from the north. Now that the initial premises for theseparation of theMSAhave been disproven, the distinction between‘Middle Stone Age’ and ‘Middle Palaeolithic’ is largely arbitrary, andthe latter term has taxonomic precedence, although we respect the

Fig. 1. Average annual rainfall between 1950 and 2000 (following Hijmans et al., 2005).

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–122

choice of scholars to use terminology of their own choosing. For thisreason in this introduction we often use the terminology the au-thors of the particular paper being discussed use.

Previous publications have addressed particularly regionswithin the desert belt, including North Africa (Hublin andMcPherron, 2012), North Africa and the Levant (Wendorf andMarks, 1975), and Arabia (Petraglia and Rose, 2009). More thematicconcerns have included the nature of Levallois technology (Dibbleand Bar-Yosef, 1995) and ‘transitions’ in the Middle Palaeolithic(Hovers and Kuhn, 2006). While our knowledge of the MiddlePalaeolithic has improved dramatically in recent years, a numberof significant biases remain. In spatial terms,most of our knowledgeof theMiddle Palaeolithic comes from Europe, the Levant and SouthAfrica. This volume contributes towards a partial restoration of thisbias. Likewise, much of our understanding comes fromdeeply strat-ified cave sites (e.g. Tabun). Open air and surface sites are commonparts of the record and all forms of material culture need to be stud-ied in order to understand the past.

This focus upon colonisation of desert landscapes by hominins,and the interaction of dispersals and behavioural evolution, has anumber of ramifications. Firstly, the directionality of hominin colo-nisation of the deserts will be linked to resource availability, ratherthan any pre-determined destination. As a result, the dispersal ofhuman populations to the Maghreb should be placed on equalfooting with their dispersal to the Thar Desert, particularly assimilar distances are covered from a potential East African area ofendemism. Developing a broader understanding of howPleistocenehominins were able to adapt to these environments will enable amore detailed assessment of particular hypotheses proposed by re-searchers (e.g. whether modern humans first passed through theSinai or crossed the Red Sea at the Bab-al-Mandab).

Secondly, as the availability of water is a limiting factor upon theoccupation of these desert landscapes, developing a more detailed,regional understanding of chronometrically constrained palaeoen-vironmental variability is critical. Orbital scale global climaticchanges form a coherent backdrop toMiddle and Upper Pleistocenepalaeoenvironmental variability, well characterised by 18O marineand ice cores such as SPECMAP. However, localised terrestrial prox-ies present evidence for how a particular region has responded tothese large-scale climate changes. Significantly, a millennium ofhumidity in the desert belt may not be apparent in records fromthe North Atlantic, but may have had dramatic impacts upon hom-inin demography, and the archaeological record for occupation ofthese regions.

Thirdly, the means to compare archaeological assemblages be-tween North Africa and southern Asia are paramount to the inves-tigation of hominin dispersal and evolution. The majority of thedesert belt, such as much of the Sahara, Arabia and Iranian Plateau,are known through rare excavations and a larger number ofdeflated surface assemblages. Any assessment of the archaeologicalrecord of the mid-latitude desert belt must transcend both thediverse nature of the archaeological record, and the terminologiesthat have been developed to describe it.

The key to addressing a number of these issues is to promoteengagement between archaeologists and palaeoenvironmental re-searchers working across the mid-latitude desert belt. This volumeof Quaternary International comprises the proceedings of the Mid-dle Palaeolithic in the Desert conference, held at Wolfson College,University of Oxford, on the 13th and 14th January 2012, with theaim of promoting such engagement. In total, 27 papers were pre-sented over two days at the conference, by teams based in 13different nations, andworking across the Sahara, Arabia, the Levant,

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–12 3

Iran and India. Other papers in this volume were provided by col-leagues whowere unable to attend the conference. In the followingsections, we will outline the main themes of the papers in this vol-ume under the titles of ‘Biogeography and environmental change’,‘North African Archaeology’ and ‘southern Asian Archaeology’,although the latter two sections are broadly contiguous as organ-ised fromwest to east. Following this the implications of the paperswill be discussed.

2. Biogeography and environmental change

Evidence for ancient climate change in today’s deserts andbordering semi-arid areas has long been recognised, and palaeo-lakes and palaeorivers are some of the characteristic features ofthe arid belt. However, it is only in recent times that techniquesto date (most of the Upper Pleistocene, let alone earlier times, liesbeyond reliable radiocarbon age) and analyse climatic and environ-mental change have been developed.

Dennell (2013) reviews the environmental history of Asian de-serts. Against a dynamic character of growth and contractionfrom well before the Pleistocene, there appears to have a strongtrend towards aridification from the Middle Pleistocene onwards.This was a driver of geographical isolation and therefore homininspeciation and cultural developments. Aside from summarisingtheir history and interaction with hominins, Dennell reminds usthat there is considerable variation between deserts. An examplerelates to winter temperatures.

Finlayson (2013) proposes the Water Optimisation Hypothesis,suggesting that Homo occupy an intermediate position on the hu-midity spectrum, preferring semi-arid to semi-humid environ-ments over either extreme. His analysis of 357 sites occupied byHomo between 200 and 10 ka indicate a number of hotspots for hu-man habitation.While noting interesting insights into the organisa-tion of settlement patterns across northern Eurasia, North Americaand the Pacific Rim, Finlayson (2013) highlights the mid-latitudearid belt as an optimal region for Pleistocene hominin occupations.The role of these desert landscapes is characterised as crucibles ofhuman evolution and central to Pleistocene hominin expansions,rather than corridors that were rapidly traversed. This analysis sug-gests H.s. sapiens and H.s. neanderthalensis addressed different con-texts in a similar manner, corroborating the suggestion that sharedrequirements for access to water resources exist at the genus level,although greater mobility in sapiens populations may havepermitted deeper penetration into the aridity gradient.

Boivin et al. (2013) focus on the possibility of a successful ‘Out ofAfrica’ dispersal of H. sapiens in Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5. Theydescribe the flora and fauna which hominins could have used todisperse through what is today desert. Their efforts make a contri-bution to the need to translate evidence for environmental changeto a human scale.With climatic amelioration theymodel a spread of‘Sahel’ type vegetation through areas such as Arabia, which wouldhave provided seeds, fruit, herbivores, etc. Along riverine corridorsadditional resources such as both larger and small game, as well asbirds, and fish and various plants, would have been available.Conversely, during more arid periods the desert expanded, andthis seems to have been an unlikely time for hominin dispersals.

Drake et al. (2013) present the first large scale comparison ofpalaeoenvironmental data from the Sahara and Arabia. They use aprobability density function (PDF) approach to understand thetemporal distribution of indicators of humid conditions andgeographical information system (GIS) analysis to understandspatial variation. While their analysis reveals a broad similarity be-tween Arabia and the Sahara, it also shows some interesting differ-ences. Both areas show evidence for an MIS 3 pluvial, but thisoccurred several thousand years later in the Sahara than Arabia.

While both the Sahara and Arabia show evidence for periodic hu-mid episodes in the glacial period of MIS 6, these also seem to occurat slightly different times. They relate these differences to the vary-ing responses of the weather systems involved. MIS 5 was wet inboth areas, and environmental change was broadly synchronousin this phase.

Parton et al. (2013) present the most detailed lacustrine evi-dence yet published on the MIS 3 pluvial in Arabia. In contrast totraditional dates putting this late in MIS 3 (w40–20 ka), their studyshows this occurred rather earlier (ca. 61–58 ka). Their evidencecomes from a multiproxy analysis of lake sediments in the SharjahEmirate of the United Arab Emirates. Other evidence for humiditybetween w60 and 50 ka in Arabia include alluvial deposition incentral Saudi Arabia (McLaren et al., 2009) and in Wadi Surdud,Yemen (Delagnes et al., 2012, 2013; Sitzia et al., 2012). Partonet al. (2013) suggest that a northern movement of monsoonal pre-cipitation led to repeated lake formation in early MIS 3.

Atkinson et al. (2013) describe Upper Pleistocene and early Ho-locene palaeoenvironmental change in the United Arab Emirates.Their evidence consists of sedimentary sequences from two sites,both dated by a suite of Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL)estimates. Humid conditions in the area, evidenced by featuressuch as the presence of river gravels, occurred in MIS 5e, 5a and 1(early Holocene). The Holocene Wet Phase in Arabia offers an anal-ogy for earlier, Pleistocene, pluvial episodes (see also e.g. Parker,2009; Groucutt and Petraglia, 2012). The MIS 5 evidence provideslandscape scale evidence for increased humidity and context foremerging evidence of hominin occupation in southern Arabia, atsites such as Jebel Faya (Armitage et al., 2011; Bretzke et al.,2013). Atkinson et al. (2013) offer a contribution towards under-standing palaeoenvironmental change at a landscape rather thansite level and demonstrates that areas such as the Rub’ al-Khaliwere transformed during periods of increased precipitation.

Bretzke et al. (2013) also focus on the environmental evolution ofsouth-eastern Arabia. They present an analysis of sedimentarysequence of the site of Jebel Faya, Sharjah Emirate, UAE. Jebel Fayapreserves evidence for hominin occupation in the Upper Pleisto-cene, with three layers producing archaeological material whichthe excavators argue demonstrates a dispersal ofH. sapiens fromAf-rica around the transition from MIS 6 to 5 followed by autochtho-nous evolution and the creation of a regionally distinctive materialculture (Armitage et al., 2011). Bretzke et al. (2013) demonstratevariation in particle size and phytolith assemblages to show thatAssemblage C, dating to MIS 5e, was deposited in sediments duringa time of increased precipitation and an environment characterisedby grasses and trees. The younger archaeological layers are associ-ated with decreasing levels of C3 grasses and increasing levels ofC4 grasses with decreasing age, indicating that the human occupa-tions were associated with conditions which became less wet in astepwise fashion. Archaeologically sterile layers at the site containsediments demonstrating an arid landscape and a paucity ofvegetation.

Finally, in terms of papers in the volume focussing on biogeo-graphical and environmental data, Cordova et al. (2013) present ageoarchaeological study of the Azraq Oasis, Jordan. Their study re-peats the evidence for environmental fluctuation in the mid lati-tude arid belt described in other publications, but offers twosignificant nuances. Firstly, they demonstrate that wet conditionsat Azraq are asynchronous with other environmental records and,secondly, that the area appears to have acted as a refugium forhominin populations when surrounding areas became arid. Giventhe location of the Azraq Oasis, as a nexus of South–West Asia, theirresults have implications for the understanding of cultural and de-mographic factors in the Middle Palaeolithic. As regional climatesdeteriorated it is logical to assume that hominin populations

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–124

contracted into areas which retained water and other critical re-sources. These refugia have typically been postulated rather thandemonstrated, andwhile muchmore research needs to be conduct-ed at Azraq, as elsewhere, its importance has clearly been demon-strated. It must also be remembered that alongside ‘classic refugia’it is probable that ‘cryptic refugia’ also played a role in determiningpatterns of hominin demography (Bennet and Provan, 2008).

3. North African archaeology

Several papers focus on the Middle Stone Age/Middle Palaeo-lithic of North Africa, offering analyses and descriptions of recentsurveys, collections and excavations as well as reinterpretationsand applications of novel methodologies. Several lithic techno-complexes have been described in North Africa, but how thesevary and relate to one another is poorly understood. The analysesof lithic technology offered by these papers complement recent ad-vances in our understanding of hominin fossil morphological vari-ability and arguments relating to ‘symbolic’ behaviour.

Scerri (2013) presents a comparative analysis of six North Afri-can lithic assemblages, which have previously been described as‘Aterian’, ‘Nubian Complex’ and ‘Middle Stone Age’. Her analysisboth seeks to cast light on the history and context by which theAterian was defined and then uses Principal Components and Cor-respondence Analyses to compare the selected assemblages. Shedemonstrates that lithic variability in North Africa does not neatlyarticulate with traditional named industries. For instance, theAterian in northeast Africa is more similar to the ‘Nubian Complex’in that area than it is to the Aterian in northwest Africa. From theresults of her multivariate analyses Scerri (2013) suggests that theNorth African Middle Stone Age record reflects aspects of popula-tion structure, which is both important in understanding demog-raphy in North Africa and in providing context to a possiblesource area of out of Africa dispersals. Her results contradict tradi-tional narratives, which she argues reflects an “interpretationbefore description” approach. Finally, Scerri’s paper illustrates theutility of quantitative methods comparing multiple measures ofsimilarities and differences and the power of these methods totranscend traditionally qualitative and overly regional analyses.

Arzarello et al. (2013) offer new data on recently discoveredMiddle Stone Age sites in the Tafilalt and Drâa Valley areas of theMoroccan Sahara. Their paper presents a description of thedifferent reduction sequences seen at the studied sites. Similarreduction schemes – Système par surface de débitage alterné (anopportunistic approach), Levallois, discoidal, core on flake andlaminar reductionmethodswere used at theMiddle Stone Age sitesin the Moroccan Sahara, but in varying frequencies. The Aterian as-semblages, for instance, feature low levels of discoidal debitage andrelatively high levels of laminar debitage, alongside the productionof distinctive ‘tanged’ (pedunculated) tools for which the Aterian ismost well-known. This study, along with several other papers inthis volume, shows the information which can be gathered fromsurface sites, which while lacking good chronological control,possess desirable features such as excellent spatial visibility.

Cancellieri and di Lernia (2013) describe and contextualise Mid-dle Stone Age sites of the Messak plateau in southwestern Libya.The sites are again from surface contexts, so precise chronology re-mains unclear. The spatial information of the surface record is againprominent, and by conducting systematic surveys Cancellieri and diLernia (2013) were able to discover hundreds of sites. Their clearand explicit methodology offers a good example of a survey meth-odology suitable to arid environments. As an example of the typo-technological diversity of the Messak area, Cancellieri and di Lernia(2013) describe the site of AU 10/578. With its features such as aNubian core, a bifacial foliate, and backed pieces, they describe it

as being similar to the Lupemban of sub-Saharan Africa. Other sitesinclude tanged artefacts and bifacial foliates, and are ascribed to theAterian. By extrapolation from sites such as Uan Tabu, they suggestthat the Aterian in their area dates to MIS 4.

Foley et al. (2013) describe the results of recent fieldwork in theUbari sand sea and Messak plateau areas of central Sahara (Libya),in the context of evolutionary and demographic processes of thewider AfricanMiddle Stone Age. North Africawas whereMSA adap-tations, hypothesised to have evolved in the East African centreof endemism forH. sapiens, were tested. A richMiddle Stone Age re-cord is present in their survey area, and indeed a majority of siteseither included or were exclusively MSA, including many withAterian characteristics. They describe the excavation of theMES11-T2 site. A number of different reduction strategies areattested. Large blade production and façonnage methods are foundin the Messak assemblages and are described in detail. Foley et al.(2013) suggest some similarities with Lupemban and Sangoan in-dustries found in Sub-Saharan Africa. The diversity of MSA assem-blages can be taken as indicating the adaptive and technologicalflexibility of hominins, but improved chronological control isneeded to substantiate such ideas.

Reynolds (2013) presents a discussion of the lithic assemblagesof Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica, Libya) (cf. McBurney, 1967). Reynolds(2013) presents both a re-evaluation of the McBurney lithic archiveand insights from the recent fieldwork of the Cyrenaica PrehistoryProject. Following, McBurney’s classification, the two major phasesof interest for the present volume are the ‘Pre-Aurignacian’ and‘Levalloiso-Mousterian’. The former is known from a small excava-tion into the deeper layers of the site. Reynolds (2013) argues thatthe typology and technology of the Pre-Aurignacian are actuallybroadly the same as those found in the younger Levalloiso-Mousterian, while features such as the presence of core manage-ment elements in the Pre-Aurignacian, but not in the Levalloiso-Mousterian, may indicate differences in how the sitewas used. Rey-nolds suggests that the Haua Fteah lithics are similar to ‘Tabun-C’type assemblages from the Levant, which may reflect the existenceof south–east Mediterranean biome/cultural area, or technologicalconvergence.

Goder-Goldberger (2013) presents the results of a detailed anal-ysis of the ‘Khormusan’ site of 1017, located near the Nile’s SecondCataract (see also Marks, 1968). As with other Khormusan sites,1017 is an excavated site in a region dominated by surface scatters.The chronology of the assemblage is, however, uncertain. Goder-Goldberger argues that the Dibeira-Jer formation in which 1017 oc-curs may date to around MIS 5a, somewhat older than previouslysuggested. Goder-Goldberger (2013) argues that 1017 and otherKhormusan sites demonstrate the use of a wider variety of rawma-terials than otherMiddle Palaeolithic industries in the area and thatthere is a correlation between raw material types and the forms oftechnology used.

Finally, in terms of North African Middle Stone Age sites, Beyin(2013) describes a new assemblage from coastal Eritrea, collectedfrom a site called Asfet. Diverse core morphologies are present,and the greater numbers of blade than discoidal cores or Leval-lois/prepared cores presents an interesting example of thetechno-typological variability of theMiddle Palaeolithic. Retouchedtools from Asfet include both larger bifaces and small points. Beyinsuggests that the evidence from Asfet indicates that the regionplayed a significant role as both a hominin refugium and part of adispersal corridor into southwest Asia. Clearly much more field-work needs to be conducted in areas like Eritrea, but with therecent discoveries described by Beyin (2013) the potential of thearea has been demonstrated and the Asfet assemblage can nowfeature in debates on typological and technological variability andtheir implications.

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–12 5

4. Southern Asian archaeology

In compiling this volume a major aim was to attempt toencourage a fusion of research in Africa and Asia, and for our basiccontextual units to be biogeographical rather than modern-political. Several papers in the volume present new informationon Asian sites. It is hoped that over time researchers in Africa andAsia will move towards adopting similar nomenclatures and meth-odologies, aiding comparisons through space and time.

Culley et al. (2013) present a major analysis of the ‘composi-tional integrity’ of the commonly discussed ‘B, C and D’ facies ofthe Levantine Middle Palaeolithic, defined in the mid-twentiethcentury by Dorothy Garrod (Garrod and Bate, 1937). In addition,the provision of their datasets as supplementary files constitutesan extremely useful resource for future scholars. The character ofthe Levantine facies has several implications for our understandingof hominin evolution in South–West Asia. The ‘C’ type assemblages(e.g. Hovers, 2009) are found with fossils attributed to H. sapiens atsites such as Skhul and Qafzeh. ‘B’ type assemblages have beenfound with Neanderthal fossils at sites such as Kebara and Amud.The idea of a neat distinction between the facies has, however,received criticism and it appears that diversity in the LevantineMiddle Palaeolithic is not merely temporal, but also spatial. AsGoren-Inbar and Belfer-Cohen (1998, 214) describe, almost theentire range of core variability is represented at most Levantinesites. In such a situation simple qualitative distinctions between as-semblages/facies are problematic, and the quantification of varia-tion assumes paramount importance. To Culley et al. (2013), theirresults indicate that the C and B facies cannot be separated ascoherent and discreet industries.

Delagnes et al. (2013) discuss the character and context of theMIS 3 (w55 ka) Middle Palaeolithic assemblages of Wadi Surdud,western Yemen, and particularly the site of Shi’bat Dihya 1. Thecharacter of faunal remains and the presence of gypsum precipita-tion and formation of calcretes both indicate that the environmentwas semi-arid to arid. The Yemen Highlands, often cited as apossible refugial area, are likely to have a critical role to play inhominin demographic processes in Arabia. Delagnes et al. (2013)discuss the wider picture of MIS 3 lithic technological variationacross the Saharo-Arabian arid belt in MIS 3, a time of populationcontraction in contrast to the expansion and dispersals of MIS 5.

Usik et al. (2013) analyse recently discovered Middle Palaeo-lithic assemblages from Dhofar, south-western Oman. Virtually allof the identified Pleistocene sites in Dhofar come exclusively fromsurface scatters. Usik et al. (2013) therefore focus their analysison particular assemblages which have good spatial integrity, asindicated by features such as the presence of refits, the similarityof weathering and homogenous technology. From their collectionsUsik et al. (2013) were able to identify numerous refitting constel-lations which, along with an analysis of particular morphologicaland technological features, they use to describe the main elementsof core reduction variability in the ‘Nubian Complex’ sites of Dhofar.To Usik et al. (2013) their assemblages fall within an “Afro-ArabianNubian Technocomplex” (cf. e.g. Guichard and Guichard, 1965; VanPeer, 1998; Rose et al., 2011). Within the Dhofar ‘Nubian Complex’Usik et al. (2013) argue for a distinction between ‘Classic Nubian’sites and an industry they define as the ‘Mudayyan’. The Mudayyanmaterial is both smaller, some very diminutive indeed, and featuressomemorphological and technological differences with the ‘classic’material, such as a flattening of debitage surfaces. They suggest thatthe Mudayyan is a younger, derived form of technology flowingfrom the earlier classic Nubian. The younger age is supported bythe consistently significantly reduced levels of weathering/patina-tion seen on the Mudayyan material, and on geomorphologicalgrounds as the sites are closer to eroding sources of raw material

(‘Leptolithic’ and Holocene assemblages are closer still, giving arelative chronology).

Vahdati Nasab et al. (2013) present an analysis of lithics from thesite of Mirak, central Iran. The Iranian Middle Palaeolithic is, alongwith the areas discussed above, poorly known. Most of what isknown is from the caves and rockshelters of the Zagros Mountainsarea. They describe the Mirak assemblage as being focussed onflake production and being highly Levallois and, as has been previ-ously described for Iranian sites, featuring high levels of retouch. Asmore recent work (e.g. Olszewski and Dibble, 1993; Otte et al.,2009; Vahdati Nasab, 2011) transcends earlier descriptions (e.g.Skinner, 1965), the variability of the Middle Palaeolithic in Iran isbecoming ever more apparent, and the information from Mirakadds another dimension to this. Although a surface site, VahdatiNasab and colleagues argue that Mirak has good spatial integrity.They argue for a ‘situational’ understanding of sites such as Mirak,particularly in relation to factors such as differences in mobility.Along with the distribution of other known sites, Vahdati Nasabet al. (2013) suggest that Mirak lies on a dispersal corridor acrossIran. This extends from the north of the Zagros Mountains andskirts the Alborz Mountains and central desert. Alongside a routesouth of the Zagros Mountains, this may have been a major routefor hominin dispersal across Iran.

Blinkhorn (2013) presents a reanalysis and contextualisation ofthe site of 16R Dune, from the Thar Desert of western India. TheThar Desert marks the eastern limit of the modern Saharo-Arabian biogeographic zone (e.g. Holt et al., 2013) and therefore azone of transition, and hence necessarily of hominin adaptation,to the ‘Oriental’ realm. The presence of the highland chain to thenorth is also likely to have channelled hominin dispersals in SouthAsia into the environs of the Thar Desert. During periods of climaticamelioration the Thar Desert would have acted as a gateway to themosaic environments of the Indian peninsula. 16R Dune is afrequently cited locality as one of the few examples of a South Asiansequence with multiple archaeological horizons and chronometricage estimates. Blinkhorn (2013) reviews and synthesises the sedi-mentary, archaeological and chronometric evidence from 16RDune. A significant point to emerge is that archaeological materialpreviously dated to 26 ka and previously referred to as ‘UpperPalaeolithic’ is actually of Middle Palaeolithic character, and datesto between 40 and 80 ka. Considering this against competing the-ories of hominin dispersals, Blinkhorn (2013) argues that evidencefrom 16R and elsewhere in the Thar Desert does not support theidea of a post MIS-5 dispersal of H. sapiens associated with backedand crescentic lithics and ‘symbolic’ material culture (Mellars,2006). In contrast the evidence is what would be predicted giventhe dispersal of H. sapiens through the ameliorated environmentsof south Asia in MIS 5 (see also Boivin et al., 2013).

5. Discussion

5.1. Scales of analysis and the environmental context of adaptationhypotheses

Developing our understanding of the relationship betweenenvironmental change and hominin behaviour, demography anddispersal necessitates advances in a number of fields, and as ever,the question of scale is key. Fig. 2 contrasts modelled estimates ofrainfall in MIS 5e and the Last Glacial Maximum. These demon-strate the significant differences in environmental characteristicsbetween arid and humid periods. With arid periods, for whichthe Last Glacial Maximum provides an example and analogue, thedesert regions expanded to their maximum extent. Conversely, dur-ing humid episodes such as the Last Interglacial, vast areas weretransformed into desirable habitats for hominins. It must be

Fig. 2. Maps indicating modelled annual rainfall: a) during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (above; following Braconnot et al., 2003); and b) during peak humidity of the LastInterglacial (Marine Isotope Stage 5e) (below; following Otto-Bliesner et al., 2006).

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–126

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–12 7

emphasised that the models shown in Fig. 2 only reflect precipita-tion in particular areas, and other sources of humidity, such asrivers from neighbouring regions of greater rainfall, will also haveplayed a role in environmental amelioration at a landscape level.These models offer only the broadest scale picture of change inthese regions over the timescale of a glacial–interglacial cycle;beyond the scale of hominin experience, but are valuable to appre-ciate the dramatic nature of environmental change.

There is a clear need to move beyond simplifications, such as theidea that ‘interglacials’ saw a uniform transformation of the desertinto a desirable humanhabitat, while ‘glacials’ led to regional extinc-tion.Within thousands of years of increased rainfall, whatwould theeffect of a few hundred years of climatic deterioration be? And howwould such a temporary trend appear in environmental records?Likewise, a few hundred years of increased humidity in a generallyarid period may not be much in palaeoenvironmental terms, but insuch a time a human population could undergo dramatic demo-graphic expansions and, in theory, disperse for thousands of miles.A significant limiting factor remains the coarse nature of our chrono-logical control, as error ranges of thousands of years make establish-ing clear links between environmental changes and hominindemographyproblematic. Similarly, there is clearevidence for spatialvariation in palaeoenvironmental records. This applies both at abroad scale (e.g. Drake et al., 2013), a medium scale (e.g. Cordovaet al., 2013) and at a localised level (e.g. Blinkhorn et al., 2012).

5.2. The archaeological context of hominin adaptation

From the archaeological papers in this volume, many commonthemes are evident in terms of how hominin behaviour and hence‘adaptation’ are understood. It is clear that a great proportion of thearchaeology of the desert occurs on the surface, reflecting afrequent dominance of erosional over depositional processes inarid zones. While this has clear downsides, such as a lack of precisechronological context, several papers also describe the benefitsincluding spatial visibility and the potential for refitting. It mustnot be forgotten that virtually all Palaeolithic archaeological mate-rial is initially deposited on the surface, and only some of it subse-quently buried after variable lengths of time and after being subjectto numerous natural and cultural modifications. Recent develop-ments in the archaeology of surface contexts show their great po-tential and the need to develop suitable methods (e.g. Fanninget al., 2008). Some buried assemblages are more promising forbehavioural reconstruction than others. In contrast to taphonomi-cally complex caves and rockshelters, sites such as those in WadiSurdud (Delagnes et al., 2013) appear to have been rapidly coveredin alluvium shortly after formation and therefore have excellentspatial preservation.

The example of the Wadi Surdud is also pertinent in terms ofresearch strategy. The choice to deliberately target the area be-tween the Yemeni highlands which are largely stripped of sedi-ments and the lowlands which are largely covered in Holocenesediments rewarded the discoverers well. A combination of sys-tematic surveys and collections of surface material, anchored interms of chronology and environmental contextualization offeredby nearby excavated sites offers the best way forward for the eluci-dation of the archaeology of the Middle Palaeolithic of the desert.The chronology of the Khormusan and the Iranian Middle Palaeo-lithic are examples of two key areas which urgently need to bedated, and it is clear that a lack of good chronological control iscurrently a major limiting factor on our understanding of MiddlePalaeolithic variability. Most of the papers in the volume dealwith lithic artefacts, and the diversity of approaches demonstratedshow the numerous ways in which they can be approached.

5.3. Hominin adaptation to arid environments

A key theme this volume sought to address was the notion ofhominin adaptation to arid environments In previous works onthe archaeology of desert areas, for example the chapters in Vethet al. (2005) and Barker and Gilbertson (2000), it has mostly beenargued that ‘adaptation’ to arid environments was essentially a Ho-locene phenomenon. Specialised technical solutions to the limitedavailability of water developed in Holocene societies, it has beensuggested, while in the Pleistocene it appears that hominins tendedto track favourable environments (Finlayson, 2013). There are, how-ever, complications to this narrative. As far back as the Early Pleis-tocene, the sites of Bizat Ruhama and Nahal Hesi in the Negev maydemonstrate occupation in open and semi-arid environments(Yeshurun et al., 2011). At the palaeolakes of Bir Tarfawi and BirSahara in southwest Egypt repeated lake formation during humidperiods of the Middle and Upper Pleistocene correlates with arich archaeological record (Wendorf et al., 1993). At the site of BirSahara-12 (BS-12) several features described as ‘water holes’ wereidentified, dug through several layers of sediment (Campbell,1992). Campbell (1992) argues against an explanation such as ani-mal burrowing on the grounds of the smooth sides of the features.The putatively human dug water holes were dug next to a basin inmarshy conditions, and may have acted as shallow wells to accessseasonally fluctuating water. To Campbell (1992) the findingsdemonstrate Middle Palaeolithic adaptation to arid conditions.Outside the area this volume focuses on, such as in Australia, de-bates continue on whether Pleistocene humans were occupyingarid areas (e.g. Smith, 1987, 2013) or rather largely inhabiting envi-ronmentally ameliorated landscapes (e.g. Hiscock and Wallis,2005). Even if the early human occupation of arid areas in Australiais firmly demonstrated, the specific characteristics of this area –

such as the character of the fauna there – mean that it is problem-atic to generalise to the mid latitude arid belt.

There are various ways in which ‘adaptation’ to aridity can beunderstood, and archaeologists should aim to be more precise intheir use of the term. The mere presence of hominins in an aridenvironment can be taken as an indication of adaptation, but as dis-cussed above the problem of the incongruence between the scalesof resolution of environmental changes and those of human soci-eties are currently hard to reconcile. We may see adaptation toaridity in other ways, such as in terms of technological change,either in terms of a single ‘transition’, or in terms of change overtime correlating with environmental variation. If there is a biolog-ical basis to the ability of hominins to occupy arid environments, itis perhaps more likely to be in terms of ‘pre-adaptation’ than adap-tation as such. The evolution of features such as extended workingmemory and larger social networks would have aided in the colo-nisation of arid environments. From such bases, contingent andrepeated processes of cultural adaptation occurred which builton, but did not automatically flow from, the derived social andcognitive features of hominins. Adaptation to aridity can be inter-preted both in terms of the ability to survive arid conditions, andto rapidly colonise them during periods of amelioration. The differ-ence between ‘adaptation’ in a ‘positive’ sense, i.e. an increase inthe frequency of fitness increasing traits, versus ‘change’ in aneutral or negative sense, perhaps flowing from the isolation ofpopulations and decreases in population density, needs to beconsidered. ‘Change’ reflecting post MIS-5 isolation can perhapsbe seen at Haua Fteah (Reynolds, 2013) and SD-1 (Delagnes et al.,2013).

Several papers in this volume address the question of homininadaptation to arid conditions. Dennell (2013), for instance, criti-cises the notion of ‘coastal adaptation’ in the Upper Pleistocene,instead seeing inland routes as being key, in part aided by the

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–128

light body frame of tropically evolved H. sapiens. This may havegiven H. sapiens a selective advantage over Neanderthals in mar-ginal habitats, but Dennell argues that for our species adaptationto deserts in a meaningful sense occurred in the Holocene, orperhaps the Terminal Pleistocene. Finlayson (2013) argues thatthe adaptation of H. sapiens needs to be understood in terms ofa wider Homo adaptation, and that proximity to water was akey part of this. The many similarities between the context andfeatures of sites occupied by H. sapiens and Neanderthals indicatea similar niche as water dependent omnivores (Finlayson, 2013).Like Dennell (2013), Finlayson (2013) and Boivin et al. (2013) crit-icise the recently popular idea of the special role of coasts in hu-man adaptation and dispersal (e.g. Stringer, 2000). Boivin et al.highlight both the paucity of empirical evidence for the specialrole of the coast, as well as theoretical reasons why it is likelyto have been overstated. Boivin et al. (2013) suggest that dis-persals out of Africa were associated with the expansion of terres-trial habitats to which H. sapiens were already adapted.

Several papers discuss the relationship of morpho-technologicalcharacteristics of lithics to adaptation. Arzarello et al. (2013), forinstance, see the continuation of the basic methods of lithic reduc-tion, albeit in different frequencies, in the Moroccan Sahara asperhaps indicating population continuity and technological changethrough time. Cancellieri and di Lernia (2013) suggest that Aterianassemblages in the Messak area of Libya may reflect an MIS 4contraction of hominins to highland areas. Foley et al. (2013) seethe desert belt as a testing ground for MSA lithic adaptations,although they also emphasise that dispersals into North Africamay represent range expansions in a similar habitat during humidperiods rather than adaption to desert as such. Industries such asthe Aterian, Foley et al. (2013) argue, must be seen within theMode 3 diversity of the Middle Stone Age. This diversity gave hom-inins flexibility, and in this sense any robust understanding of thelithic technology of the desert belt must be rooted in the technol-ogy of hominins in centres of endemism, such as East Africa.

Goder-Goldberger (2013) sees the Khormusan as an example ofan East African derived lithic adaptation where a greater correla-tion exists between raw material and lithic types compared tosome other Middle Palaeolithic industries. Along with the techno-logical variability of the Middle Palaeolithic, Goder-Goldberger re-minds us that understanding rawmaterial economy, is an aspect ofcasting light on hominin adaptation, when most recent work fo-cuses on reduction strategies. Scerri (2013) criticises the idea ofthe Aterian as an arid adaptation, and instead orientates its fea-tures more towards population structure and the role played byhafting in Middle Palaeolithic technology. Indeed, it could beargued that much of the character of the Middle Palaeolithic as awhole reflects a shift to hafting lithics, and that this compositetechnology would have aided the survival of its users. The preva-lence of ‘Nubian’ technology in Dhofar (Usik et al., 2013) canbe seen as a reflection of adaptation to a perhaps marginalenvironment.

We highlight in particular the importance of Delagnes et al.’s(2012, 2013) discoveries in Wadi Surdud, Yemen for discussionsof Middle Palaeolithic hominin adaptability. The context of the sitesin thick deposits of rapidly accumulated alluvium gives excellentinsights into the context of hominin occupation (see also Sitziaet al., 2012). Given the excellent spatial preservation and palaeoen-vironmental reconstruction, in the case of Wadi Surdud it is clearthat hominin occupation occurred in at least semi-arid conditions.This may be evidence for the increased survivability of MiddlePalaeolithic compared to earlier hominins, and perhaps such sur-vivability through dramatic environmental changes in part explainsthe ability of hominins to successfully disperse through south Asiain the Upper Pleistocene.

5.4. Hominin dispersals

The other central theme that many papers in the volumeaddress is the dispersal of hominin populations. With the rise ofthe ‘Out of Africa’ paradigm – particularly premised on genetic ev-idence, supplemented by fossil evidence and at least congruentwith archaeological findings – dispersals assumed a key role in un-derstanding hominin evolution in the Upper Pleistocene. Withrecent discoveries, including evidence for the interbreeding of H.sapiens and ‘archaic’ hominins, there is perhaps an emerging trendtowards a less narrow focus on dispersals in narratives of UpperPleistocene hominin evolution. While fossil and genetic evidencestill suggests that H. sapiens originated in Africa, and that thereforedispersals retain a fundamental importance in explaining the ori-gins of modern populations across the rest of the world, recent ad-vances in understandings of mutation rates have severelyproblematized many genetically derived ideas on dispersals. Asreviewed by Scally and Durbin (2012), direct measurement of mu-tation rates, in contrast to traditional very coarse estimates whichwere then extrapolated to make very precise archaeological claims,suggest that many of the hominin biological processes of the Mid-dle and Upper Pleistocene occurred rather earlier than often sug-gested. The timing of the dispersal of H. sapiens out of Africa isone area affected, and the new estimates are congruent with theidea that a phase of dispersal correlated with the climatic amelio-ration of MIS 5 rather than occurring subsequently when humanswould have had to pass through extremely arid environments.The latter might be taken as indicating a fundamentally different,‘modern’, type of human behaviour, while the movement throughfamiliar habitat types suggests a more ecologically ‘normal’ typeof dispersal process. Dispersals as a research theme are undevel-oped in the study of human origins (but see Gamble, 1993), andthe simplicity of many narratives has led to some criticism of dis-persals in archaeological narratives (e.g. Clark, 1994). The founda-tions of hominin dispersal are broadly the same as for biologicalorganisms as awhole (e.g. Clobert et al., 2012), while more researchis needed to cast light on the uniquely hominin elements ofdispersal. Given the global distribution of humans by the Holocene,an evolutionary process has clearly occurred in which homininswere able to disperse into various habitat types. Such ‘cosmopol-itan’ behaviour is rare in nature.

5.5. Beyond ‘Out of Africa 2’

Boivin et al. (2013) make the pertinent point that the fossil evi-dence of southern Asia, taken on face value, indicates that thedispersal of H. sapiens was from east to west. They make this pointas a reminder of the problems of pre-Holocene fossil evidence,which is rare over vast areas (e.g. Asia) and absent in many (e.g.Arabia). The distribution and characters of hominin fossils, likethe genetic evidence, is telling a story, but it is one which hasperhaps been interpreted too directly. Rather than being overlyempiricist – for instance, downplaying preservation biases in fossilrepresentation and demographic effects on genetic evidence –

more heavily modelled and theorised perspectives are needed. Arobust approach roots archaeological, fossil and genetic evidencesin terms of biogeography and palaeoenvironments, and uses the ev-idence from different disciplines to test hypotheses.

Many contributors to this volume associate dispersals throughthe mid-latitude arid belt with periods of climatic amelioration.As discussed above, the extent to which occupations of what aretoday arid areas reflect ‘adaptation’ is at present a poorly resolvedtopic. Marine Isotope Stage 5 has been, in particular, highlightedas a key time for dispersals in the mid latitude arid belt (e.g.Boivin et al., 2013; Delagnes et al., 2013; Usik et al., 2013), in

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–12 9

contrast to regional contraction and population separation post-MIS 5. This emphasis on MIS 5, however, is not incongruent withboth later (e.g. early MIS 3) and earlier dispersals, the latter perhapsoccurring in MIS 6 (e.g. Frumkin et al., 2011) and/or MIS 7 (e.g.Dennell and Roebroeks, 2005). Jones (2012), for instance, suggeststhat H. sapiens may have reached India by MIS 6. We sympathisewith views which argue that several dispersals of H. sapiens acrosssouthern Asia probably occurred (e.g. Dennell and Petraglia, 2012).Dispersals are likely to have occurred at a variety of spatial and tem-poral scales. The papers in this volume suggest the need to movebeyond the simplistic notion of ‘out of Africa’, or at least only touse this term in a loose and heuristic sense. In reality this processshould, at a minimum, be divided into two components: 1) “intothe Saharo-Arabian belt”, 2) “out of the Saharo-Arabian belt”/“into the Palaearctic/Oriental zones”.

Dennell (2009, 2013) emphasises the idea of a post-MIS 6“scramble for Asia”. Much attention for this has focussed on thedispersal of H. sapiens in MIS 5–3. He makes the significant pointthat Neanderthals were also dispersing into Asia to the extentthat late in their existence they were primarily an Asian species.This is a reminder of the complexity of the Upper Pleistoceneworld,and that both hominin anatomy and behaviour were spatially andtemporally diverse. This complexity must provide the frameworkfor the consideration of areas with little fossil evidence and diverselithic assemblages, such as Iran (e.g. Vahdati Nasab et al., 2013) andIndia (Blinkhorn, 2013).

The implications of the evidence from North Africa for under-standing population dispersal and continuity can be interpretedin different ways. To Arzarello et al. (2013) the common technolog-ical substrate of Middle Stone Age sites in Moroccan Saharaassigned to different techno-complexes indicates technological,and therefore presumably population, continuity. Cancellieri anddi Lernia (2013), argue for a pre-MIS 5 dispersal of hominins witha Lupemban type material culture (see also Foley et al., 2013) fol-lowed by, ultimately, contraction into upland areas by homininswith Aterian lithics in MIS 4. Goder-Goldberger (2013) also arguesfor a northwards dispersal of Sub-Saharan hominins. Such exam-ples highlight the likely complexity of the Middle and Upper Pleis-tocene in Africa, where dispersal and adaptation occurred. The roleof interaction between populations is also likely to emerge as a keytopic, and it is probable that increasing evidencewill emerge for thebiological and cultural diversity of Middle and Upper PleistoceneAfrican hominins.

The dispersal related interpretation of the Khormusan advancedby Goder-Goldberger (2013) is different to that previously statedwhich sees it as a phase of an evolving ‘Nubian Complex’ in north-east Africa (e.g. Van Peer, 1998; Usik et al., 2013). Such examplesdemonstrate the diverse ways in which the record can be inter-preted, and the varying results which spring from alternativemeth-odologies. Scerri’s (2013) interpretation of lithic variability in NorthAfrica indicates population structure in North Africa (see alsoReynolds, 2013) and it may be in such population structure thatpertinent factors relating to dispersals eastwards will be found.The analysis by Culley et al. (2013), and specifically their claimthat the ‘C’ and ‘B’ facies of the LevantineMiddle Palaeolithic shouldnot be separated also has implications for our understanding of dis-persals. These facies have been correlated with H. sapiens and Ne-anderthals respectively, so if Culley et al.’s results are accepted,they perhaps challenge the notion of repeated dispersals into theLevant associated with particular forms of technology. Alterna-tively, they may say more about the character of Bordesian system-atics. More widely Culley et al.’s work is a pertinent example of thevarious ways even the record of the small area of the Levant can beinterpreted. When this is considered, the clear complexity of Mid-dle and Upper Pleistocene hominin evolution across Africa and

Eurasia is evident. In the case of the Levant we suspect that manysurprises lay inwait. That the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins representa population dispersal from Africa in MIS 5, for instance, hasbecome an orthodoxy, but alternative narratives are possible andmust not be rejected out of hand.

Usik et al. (2013) interpret the Middle Palaeolithic assemblagesin Dhofar in terms of dispersals. To them the morphology and tech-nology of Nubian reduction are sufficient evidence to indicate pop-ulation connections between NE Africa and Arabia. The significanceof some distinctive features of the Dhofar material in contrast toother areas, such as the prevalence of ‘Dihedral Chapeau duGendarme’ striking platforms, remains to be understood. Nubiancores have been identified across a wide area (e.g. Beyin, 2013;Cancellieri and di Lernia, 2013; Foley et al., 2013; Goder-Goldberger, 2013; Scerri, 2013). Most authors in 2013 who discussNubian technology at least broadly support the interpretationmade by Rose et al. (2011) and Usik et al. (2013).

Boivin et al. (2013) criticise the notion of a single dispersal of onepopulation along the coast of Africa around 60 ka. They dispute theevidence for this model from a variety of disciplinary perspectivesand instead conclude that successful dispersal out of Africa prob-ably occurred earlier and by terrestrial routes. Rather than seeingthe occupation of the Levant as a fleeting and failed dispersal, asis often described, they see the tens of thousands of H. sapiens occu-pation of the area as a window into the early and long term occu-pation of southern Asia. In highlighting difficulties with fossil andgenetic evidence, Boivin et al. (2013) emphasise the importanceof archaeological data in multidisciplinary analyses of homininadaptation and dispersal. Vahdati Nasab et al. (2013) present anumber of potential continental dispersal routes across the IranianPlateau, supported by archaeological evidence that is currentlylacking for coastal routes. Blinkhorn (2013) describes evidencefrom India that is congruent with the early dispersal of H. sapiensout of Africa, while a young Middle Palaeolithic in South Asiadoes not fit neatly with the idea that a revolutionary chance in hu-man behaviour led to population dispersal around 70–60 ka.

Fig. 3 shows various examples of Middle Palaeolithic cores fromNorth Africa and the Middle East. All but one is Levallois cores, ofdifferent forms. How should such lithic variability be interpreted?Considerably more research needs to be done to clarify which fea-tures can be classed as indicating population dispersals, versusthose which reflect adaptation and drift. The connection betweenthe products of individual hominins and population wide techno-logical ‘concepts’, and how these relate to adaptation anddispersal, is not self evident. Idiosyncrasies are likely to offer evi-dence for dispersals, but to be robust these should be of a char-acter which is not a desirable trait in an engineering sense. It islikely that from a common (i.e. ‘Mode 3’) technological substrate,various forms of technology were repeatedly reinvented. Thosewhich gave a selective advantage, i.e. perhaps those which pro-duced blanks which were strong, suitable for hafting etc., mayhave become a focus of reduction. Caution is needed in makingclaims for dispersal and adaptation from lithic artefacts, but thepotential of their study also needs to emphasised. Robust insightswill be based on quantified approaches to spatially and temporallyrepresentative samples.

6. Closing remarks

In this introduction we have sought to both describe the papersin this volume and consider their relationship to the heuristicsof adaptation and dispersal. The volume highlights research whichbrings together palaeoenvironmental scientists and Palaeolithicarchaeologists. Considering the balance between adaptation(broadly change through time) and dispersal (broadly change

Fig. 3. Examples of variability in Middle Palaeolithic core technology from the desert belt. All photos by H. Groucutt except 6 (courtesy of E. Scerri). 1 – Warwasi Cave, Iran; 2 – TH-268; Oman; 3, 7 – Tor Faraj, Jordan; 4 – TH-205, Oman; 5 – TH-59, Oman; 6 – Garet Umm Ali, Algeria; 8 – 1010-8, Sudan; 9 – JSM-1, Saudi Arabia; 10 – JKF-1, Saudi Arabia.

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–1210

through space) remains a central task. From the papers in this vol-ume some common threads have been repeated. Contributors areagreed on the significance of environmental change on hominindemography and behaviour. The importance of lithic artefacts,which in arid environments often occur on the surface, has beenreinforced by several of the papers. On the whole it seems thatadaptation to aridity does primarily relate to the Holocene, butimproved survivability in at least semi-arid conditions and behav-ioural flexibility can perhaps be seen in terms of pre-adaptationand adaptation to semi-arid environments. The papers demon-strate a move towards understanding dispersals in biogeographicalterms, and an emphasis on interior over coastal routes. Consider-ably more survey and excavation needs to be undertaken in the

desert belt, and archaeological sites dated and situated in termsof palaeoenvironmental fluctuation. The mid latitude-arid belthas been established as a key zone for at least the later phasesof hominin evolution and dispersal. The need to move towards un-derstanding the past based on spatially and temporally represen-tative samples necessarily implies a move to greater researchinvestment in the desert, whose potential the papers in this vol-ume clearly demonstrate. The archaeology of the desert impelsus to move beyond simple notions of African versus non-African,and instead to see hominin behavioural change/adaptation andpopulation dispersal as two faces of the same evolutionary andcultural process in which the mid latitude arid belt played a crucialrole.

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–12 11

Acknowledgements

We thank the Editor-in-Chief, Norm Catto, for his assistancethroughout the production of this volume. We gratefully acknowl-edge the time and effort of the contributors and reviewers, as wellas the attendees who made the Middle Palaeolithic in the Desertconference in Oxford such a success. We owe particular thanks toMichael Petraglia. The conference was supported by funding fromthe Lorne Thyssen Research Fund for Ancient World Topics (Wolf-son College, University of Oxford) and the Oxford Centre for AsianArchaeology, Art and Culture (School of Archaeology, Universityof Oxford). We acknowledge funding from the Arts and HumanitiesResearch Council (Groucutt), European Research Council (Grou-cutt), the Kathleen Hardy Scholarship, St. Hugh’s College, Universityof Oxford (Blinkhorn), and the Fondation Fyssen (Blinkhorn).

References

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

Arzarello, M., Boudad, L., Guislain, S., 2013. Middle Paleolithic occupation of theMoroccan Sahara: open air sites of the Tafilalt. Quaternary International 300,131–141.

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

Barker, G., Gilbertson, D., 2000. The Archaeology of Drylands: Living at the Margin.Routledge, New York.

Bennet, K.D., Provan, J., 2008. What do we mean by ‘refugia’? Quaternary ScienceReviews 27, 2449–2455.

Beyin, A.E., 2013. A surface Middle Stone Age assemblage from the Red Sea coast ofEritrea: implications for Upper Pleistocene dispersals out of Africa. QuaternaryInternational 300, 195–212.

Blinkhorn, J., 2013. A new synthesis of evidence for the Upper Pleistocene occupa-tion of 16R Dune and its southern Asian context. Quaternary International 300,282–291.

Blinkhorn, J., Parker, A.G., Ditchfield, P., Haslam, M., Petraglia, M.D., 2012. Uncover-ing a landscape buried by the super-eruption of Toba, 74,000 years ago: a multi-proxy environmental reconstruction of landscape heterogeneity in the JurreruValley, south India. Quaternary International 258, 135–147.

Boivin, N., Fuller, D.Q., Dennell, R., Allaby, R., Petraglia, M.D., 2013. Human dispersalacross diverse environments of Asia during the Upper Pleistocene. QuaternaryInternational 300, 32–47.

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

Braconnot, P., Otto-Bliesner, B., Harrison, S., Joussaume, S., Peterchmitt, J.-Y., Abe-Ouchi, A., Crucifix, M., Driesschaert, E., Fichefet, Th., Hewitt, C.D.,Kageyama, M., Kitoh, A., Laîné, A., Loutre, M.-F., Marti, O., Merkel, U.,Ramstein, G., Valdes, P., Weber, S.L., Yu, Y., Zhao, Y., 2003. Results of PMIP2coupled simulations of the Mid-Holocene and Last Glacial Maximum – part1: experiments and large-scale features. Climate Past 3, 261–277.

Campbell, A.L., 1992. The significance of Middle Paleolithic water holes found at BirSahara in the Western Desert of Egypt. In: Dibble, H.L., Mellars, P. (Eds.), TheMiddle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability. University Museum,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 207–217.

Cancellieri, E., di Lernia, S., 2013. Middle Stone Age human occupation and dis-persals in the Messak plateau (SW Libya, central Sahara). Quaternary Interna-tional 300, 142–152.

Clark, G.A., 1994. Migration as an explanatory concept in Paleolithic archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 305–343.

Clobert, J., Baguette, M., Benton, T.G., Bullock, J.M., 2012. Dispersal Ecology and Evo-lution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cordova, C.E., Nowell, A., Bisson, M., Ames, C.J.H., Pokines, J., Chang, M., al-Nahar, M.,2013. Interglacial and glacial desert refugia and the Middle Paleolithic of theAzraq Oasis, Jordan. Quaternary International 300, 94–110.

Culley, E.V., Popescu, G., Clark, G.A., 2013. An analysis of the compositional integrityof the Levantine Mousterian facies. Quaternary International 300, 213–233.

Delagnes, A., Tribolo, C., Bertan, P., Brenet, M., Crassard, R., Jaubert, J., Khalidi, L.,Mercier, N., Nomade, S., Peigné, S., Sitzia, L., Tournepiche, J.-F., Al-Halibi, M.,Macchiarelli, R., 2012. Inland human settlement in southern Arabia 55,000years ago. New evidence from the Wadi Surdud Middle Paleolithic site complex,western Yemen. Journal of Human Evolution 63, 452–474.

Delagnes, A., Crassard, R., Bertran, P., Sitzia, L., 2013. Cultural and human dynamicsat the end of the Middle Paleolithic. Quaternary International 300, 234–243.

Dennell, R.W., 2009. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Dennell, R., 2013. Hominins, deserts and the colonisation and settlement of conti-nental Asia. Quaternary International 300, 13–21.

Dennell, R., Roebroeks, W., 2005. An Asian perspective on early human dispersalfrom Africa. Nature 438, 1099–1104.

Dennell, R., Petraglia, M.D., 2012. The dispersal ofHomo sapiens across southern Asia:how early, how often, how complex? Quaternary Science Reviews 47, 15–22.

Dibble, H.I., Bar-Yosef, O., 1995. The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Tech-nology. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Drake, N.A., Breeze, P., Parker, A., 2013. Palaeoclimate in the Saharan and Arabiandeserts during the Middle Paleolithic and the potential for hominin dispersals.Quaternary International 300, 48–61.

Fanning, P.C., Holdaway, S.J., Rhodes, E., 2008. A new geoarchaeology of aboriginalartefact deposits in western NSW, Australia: establishing spatial and temporalgeomorphic controls on the surface archaeological record. Geomorphology101, 526–532.

Finlayson, C., 2013. The water optimisation hypothesis and the human occupation ofthe mid-latitude belt in the Pleistocene. Quaternary International 300, 22–31.

Foley, R.A., Maíllo-Fernández, J.M., Mirazón Lahr, M., 2013. The Middle Stone Age ofthe Central Sahara: biogeographical opportunities and technological strategiesin later human evolution. Quaternary International 300, 153–170.

Frumkin, A., Bar-Yosef, O., Schwarcz, H.P., 2011. Possible paleohydrologic and paleo-climatic effects on hominin migration and occupation of the Levantine MiddlePaleolithic. Journal of Human Evolution 60, 437–451.

Gamble, C., 1993. Timewalkers: the Prehistory of Global Colonization. Harvard Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, M.A.

Garrod, D., Bate, D. (Eds.), 1937. The Stone Age Archaeology of Mount Carmel. Exca-vations in the Wady El-Mughara, vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Goder-Goldberger, M., 2013. The Khormusan: evidence for an MSA East African in-dustry in Nubia. Quaternary International 300, 182–194.

Goodwin, A.J.H., Van Riet Lowe, C., 1929. The stone age cultures of South Africa.Annals of the South African Museum 27, 1–289.

Goren-Inbar, A., Belfer-Cohen, A., 1998. The technological abilities of the LevantineMousterians. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neanderthals andModern Humans in Western Asia. Neanderthals and Modern Humans in West-ern Asia. Kluwer, New York, pp. 205–221.

Green, R.E., Krause, J., Briggs, A.W., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M., Patterson, N.,Li, H., Zhai, W., Hsi-Yang Fritz, M., Hansen, N.F., Durand, E.Y., Malaspinas, A.S.,Jensen, J.D., Marques-Bonet, T., Alkan, C., Prufer, K., Meyer, M., Burbano, H.A.,Good, J.M., Schultz, R., Aximu-Petri, A., Butthof, A., Hober, B., Hoffner, B.,Siegemund, M., Weihmann, A., Nusbaum, C., Lander, E.S., Russ, C., Novod, N.,Affourtit, J., Egholm, M., Verna, C., Rudan, P., Brajkovic, D., Kucan, Z., Gusic, I.,Doronichev, V.B., Golovanova, L.V., Lalueza-Fox, C., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J.,Rosas, A., Schmitz, R.W., Johnsno, P.L.F., Eichler, E.E., Falush, D., Birney, E.,Mullkin, J.C., Slatkin, M., Nielsen, R., Kelso, J., Lachmann, M., Reich, D., Paabo, S.,2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328, 710–722.

Groucutt, H.S., Petraglia, M.D., 2012. The prehistory of the Arabian Pensinsula: de-serts, dispersals and demography. Evolutionary Anthropology 21, 113–125.

Guichard, J., Guichard, G., 1965. The Early and Middle Paleolithic of Nubia: a prelim-inary report. In: Wendorf, F. (Ed.), Contributions to the Prehistory of Nubia. FortBurgwin and Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 57–116.

Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L., Jones, P.G., Jarvis, A., 2005. Very high resolu-tion interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal ofClimatology 25, 1965–1978.

Hiscock, P., Wallis, L.A., 2005. Pleistocene settlement of deserts from an Australianperspective. In: Veth, P., Smith, M., Hiscock, P. (Eds.), Desert Peoples: Archaeo-logical Perspectives. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 34–57.

Holt, B.G., Lessard, J.-P., Borregaard, M.K., Fritz, S.A., Araújo, M.B., Dimitrov, D.,Fabre, P.-H., Graham, C.H., Graves, G.R., Jønsson, K.A., Nogués-Bravo, D.,Wang, Z., Whittaker, R.J., Fjeldså, J., Rahbek, C., 2013. An update of Wallace’szoogeographic regions of the world. Science 339, 74–78.

Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford University Press,New York.

Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), 2006. Transitions Before the Transition: Evolution andStability in the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York.

Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S.P., 2012. Modern Origins: a North African Perspective.Springer, Dordrecht.

Jones, S.C., 2012. Local- and regional-scale impacts of the w74 ka Toba supervol-canic eruption on hominin populations and habitats in India. Quaternary Inter-national 258, 100–118.

Marks, A.E., 1968. The Khormusan: an Upper Pleistocene industry in Nubia. In:Wendorf, F. (Ed.), 1968. The Prehistory of Nubia, vol. 1. Fort Burgwin ResearchCenter and South Methodist University Press, pp. 315–391.

McBurney, C.B.M., 1967. The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of the SouthEast Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McLaren, S.J., Al-Juaidi, F., Bateman, M.D., Millington, A.C., 2009. First evidence forepisodic flooding events in the arid interior of central Saudi Arabia over thelast 60 ka. Journal of Quaternary Science 24, 198–207.

Mellars, P., 2006. Going East: new genetic and archaeological perspectives on themodern human colonization of Eurasia. Science 313, 796–800.

Mol, L., Sternberg, T. (Eds.), 2012. Changing Deserts: Integrating People and TheirEnvironments. The White Horse Press, Cambridge.

Olszewski, D., Dibble, H. (Eds.), 1993. The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Otte, M., Biglari, F., Jaubert, J. (Eds.), 2009. Iran Palaeolithic. BAR International Series1968. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Guest Editorial / Quaternary International 300 (2013) 1–1212

Otto-Bliesner, B.L., Marshall, S.J., Overpeck, J.T., Miller, G.H., Hu, A., 2006. SimulatingArctic climate warmth and icefield retreat in the last interglacial. Science 311,1751–1753.

Parker, A.G., 2009. Pleistocene climate change in Arabia: developing a frameworkfor hominin dispersal over the last 350 ka. In: Petraglia, M.D., Rose, J.I. (Eds.),The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistoryand Genetics. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 39–49.

Parton, A., Farrant, A.R., Leng, M.J., Schwenninger, J.-L., Rose, J.I., Uerpmann, H.-P.,Parker, A.G., 2013. An early MIS3 pluvial phase in southeast Arabia: climaticand archaeological implications. Quaternary International 300, 62–74.

Petraglia, M.D., Rose, J.I., 2009. The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Pale-oenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. Springer, Dordrecht.

Reynolds, T., 2013. The Middle Palaeolithic of Cyrenaica: is there an Aterian at theHaua Fteah and does it matter? Quaternary International 300, 171–181.

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

Scally, A., Durbin, R., 2012. Revising the human mutation rate: implications for un-derstanding human evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics 13, 745–753.

Scerri, E., 2013. The Aterian and its place in the North African Middle Stone Age.Quaternary International 300, 111–130.

Sitzia, L., Bertran, P., Boulogne, S., Brenet, M., Crassard, R., Delagnes, A., Frouin, M.,Hatté, C., Jaubert, J., Khalidi, L., Messager, E., Mercier, N., Meunier, A.,Peigné, S., Queffelec, A., Tribolo, C., Macchiarelli, R., 2012. The paleoenviron-ment and lithic taphonomy of Shi’Bat Dihya 1, a Middle Paleolithic site inWadi Surdud, Yemen. Geoarchaeology 27, 471–491.

Skinner, J., 1965. The Flake Industries of Southwest Asia: a Typological Study. PhDthesis. Columbia University, New York.

Smith, M.A., 1987. Pleistocene occupation in arid central Australia. Nature 328, 710–711.

Smith, M.A., 2013. The Archaeology of Australia’s Deserts. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Stringer, C., 2000. Coasting out of Africa. Nature 405, 24–27.Usik, V.I., Rose, J.I., Hilbert, Y.H., Van Peer, P., Marks, A.E., 2013. Nubian Complex

reduction strategies in Dhofar, southern Oman. Quaternary International 300,244–266.

Vahdati Nasab, H., Clark, G.A., Torkamandi, S., 2013. Late Pleistocene dispersal cor-ridors across the Iranian Plateau: a case study from Mirak, a Middle Paleolithic

site on the northern edge of the Iranian Central Desert (Dasht-e Kavir). Quater-nary International 300, 267–281.

Vahdati Nasab, H., 2011. Paleolithic archaeology in Iran. International Journal of Hu-manities 18, 63–87.

Van Peer, P., 1998. The Nile corridor and the out of Africa model: an examination ofthe archaeological record. Current Anthropology 39, 115–140.

Veth, P., Smith, M., Hiscock, P., 2005. Desert Peoples: Archaeological Perspectives.Blackwell, Oxford.

Wendorf, F., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), 1975. Problems of Prehistory: North Africa and theLevant. Fort Burgwin and Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Wendorf, F., Close, A.E., Schild, R., associates (Eds.), 1993. Egypt During the LastInterglacial: the Middle Paleolithic of Bir Tarfawi and Bir Sahara East. PlenumPress, New York.

Yeshurun, R., Zaidner, Y., Eisenmann, V., Martínez-Navarro, B., Bar-Oz, G., 2011.Lower Paleolithic hominin ecology at the fringe of the desert: faunal remainsfrom Bizat Ruhama and Nahal Hesi, Northern Negev, Israel. Journal of HumanEvolution 60, 492–507.

Huw S. Groucutt*School of Archaeology, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the

History of Art, University of Oxford, New Barnett House,28 Little Clare, Oxford OX1 2HU, UK

James BlinkhornPACEA, Université Bordeaux 1, Bâtiment B 18,

Avenue des Facultés, 33405 Talence Cedex, France

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: huw.groucutt@rlaha.ox.ac.uk

URL: http://rlaha.ox.ac.uk/ (H.S. Groucutt)

Available online 8 April 2013