Stone tool assemblages and models for the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa

Stone tool assemblages and models for the dispersal of Homo sapiensout of Africa

Huw S. Groucutt a, *, Eleanor M.L. Scerri a, b, Laura Lewis a, Laine Clark-Balzan a,James Blinkhorn c, Richard P. Jennings a, Ash Parton a, Michael D. Petraglia a

a School of Archaeology, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, New Barnett House, 28 Little Clarendon Street,

OX1 2HU, Oxford, UKb PACEA, Universit!e de Bordeaux, Batiment B19, Avenue des Facult!es, 33405, Talence Cedex, Francec McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, CB2 3ER, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Available online xxx

Keywords:

Homo sapiens

Out of AfricaDispersalLithicsMiddle PalaeolithicMicrolithic

a b s t r a c t

The dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa has been extensively researched across several disciplines.Here we review the evidence for spatial and temporal variability in lithic (stone tool) technologiesrelative to the predictions of two major hypotheses: 1) that a single successful dispersal occurred 60e50thousand years ago (ka), marked by a trail of geometric/microlithic technologies, and 2) that multipledispersals occurred, beginning much earlier (probably in Marine Isotope Stage [MIS] 5), associated withMiddle Palaeolithic technology in its early phase. Our results show that Late Pleistocene geometric/microlithic technologies exhibit significant temporal and regional differences between each other. Thesedifferences suggest independent, convergent origins for these technologies, which are likely to have beenrepeatedly re-invented. In contrast, we identify similarities between East African lithic technologies fromMIS 8 onwards and Middle Palaeolithic assemblages as far east as India by MIS 5. That this constellationof technological features e particularly an emphasis on centripetal Levallois reduction reflecting inter-changeable preferential and recurrent methods, along with particular retouched forms such as points etranscends ecologies and raw material types suggests that it is unlikely to entirely reflect technologicalconvergence (analogy). Our results indicate an early onset of multiple dispersals out of Africa. The hy-pothesis of an early onset to successful dispersal is entirely consistent with the possibility of furthersubsequent (post-MIS 5) dispersals out of Africa. Testing such hypotheses through quantified compar-ative lithic studies and interdisciplinary research is therefore likely to significantly advance under-standing of the earliest H. sapiens dispersals.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Most researchers accept that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa inthe late Middle Pleistocene, despite a still limited fossil record (e.g.McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; White et al., 2003; McDougall et al.,2005; Shea, 2011; Smith and Ahern, 2013; Stringer, 2014). Geneticanalyses have been widely cited in the competing models forsubsequent dispersals into Eurasia (e.g. Mellars et al., 2013). Whilesuch genetic analyses have typically been dominated by single lo-cus mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome based models,emerging whole-genome evidence is congruent with multiple

models for the dispersals of H. sapiens (Scally and Durbin, 2012;contra Mellars et al., 2013 and Clarkson, 2014).

Here we use lithic (stone tool) technology, by far the mostabundant form of evidence for hominin behaviour in the Pleisto-cene, to test two major models for the dispersal of H. sapiens out ofAfrica. The first of these is the hypothesis that there was a singledispersal ~60e50 ka, marked by a trail of microlithic/geometriclithics around the Indian Ocean Rim (Mellars, 2006; Mellars et al.,2013). Proponents of this model suggest that geometric micro-liths in assemblages from southern and eastern Africa and SouthAsia exhibit a high degree of morphological and typological simi-larity (Fig. 1). This similarity is argued to provide good evidence fordemographic connections and dispersal. Alternatively, the secondmodel proposes that successful dispersal out of Africa began muchearlier, probably during MIS 5 (~130e75 ka) and was associated

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (H.S. Groucutt).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.01.0391040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e23

Please cite this article in press as: Groucutt, H.S., et al., Stone tool assemblages and models for the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa,Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.01.039

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.01.039



Fig. 1. Examples of geometric microliths from South Africa and South Asia (illustrations modified from Kaplan, 1990; Deraniyagala, 1992; Deacon, 1995; Soriano et al., 2007; Wadleyand Mohapi, 2008; Clarkson et al., 2009; Wijeyapala, 1997).

H.S. Groucutt et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e232


with Middle Palaeolithic (synonymous with ‘Middle Stone Age’ inAfrica) technology during at least its early phase (SOM 1) (e.g.Petraglia, 2007; Petraglia et al., 2010; Armitage et al., 2011; Dennelland Petraglia, 2012; Boivin et al., 2013; Groucutt and Blinkhorn,2013; Blinkhorn and Petraglia, 2014; Groucutt and Petraglia,2014). The hypothesis of an early onset to multiple dispersals intoAsia is compatiblewith subsequent dispersals out of Africa, perhapsduring periods such as MIS 3.

The two models we evaluate were chosen over others in view ofthe fact that H. sapiens reached Australia by ~50 ka (SOM 2), whichis incongruous with the notion that successful dispersal out of Af-rica did not happen until less than 50 ka (e.g. Bar-Yosef, 2007; Klein,2009; for a recent review of models see Groucutt and Petraglia,2014). The emerging fossil record in southeast Asia also indicatesthe presence of H. sapiens before 50 ka (e.g. Mijares et al., 2010;Demeter et al., 2012).

A fundamental premise in our use of lithic data to elucidatehominin dispersals is that there are various influences on patternsof similarities and differences. The meaning of similarities anddifferences therefore depends on theorisation of the relationshipbetween these influences and the patterns observed. Therefore, akey point is that it is overly simplistic to invoke merely dispersaland cultural diffusion to explain similarities in lithic technology.Three major mechanisms can be posited to explain similarities inlithic technologies; 1) branching (i.e., descent and dispersal), 2)blending (i.e., cultural diffusion, including stimulus diffusion) pro-cesses, and 3) convergence (i.e., independent origins). Branchingand blending can together be seen as different forms of socialinteraction, in contrast to convergence where similarities do not

reflect such contacts. How to separate the process behind observedsimilarities has long troubled archaeologists (Kroeber, 1931;Binford, 1968; Clarke, 1968; O'Brien, 2010). Aside from the topicof this paper, numerous other debates revolve around dis-tinguishing diffusion/dispersal and convergence (e.g. Scerri, 2012;O'Brien et al., 2014). In attempting to differentiate between cul-tural contact/dispersal and convergence, a full and unbiasedassessment of technological similarities and differences is required,together with an understanding of their wider context. Morewidely, developing methodologies to distinguish forms of culturalinteraction from technological convergence is one of the most ur-gent tasks for archaeology.

At the outset it must also be emphasised that while in Europethe Middle Palaeolithic (or MP, used here synonymously with theAfricanist term ‘Middle Stone Age’) is associatedwith Neanderthals,in Africa it is associated with the origin and the majority of theexistence of H. sapiens. In Asia the situation does not neatlyresemble either Africa or Europe. The reasons proposed for vari-ability in Middle Palaeolithic lithic technology range from a heavyemphasis on raw material factors (e.g. Clark and Riel-Salvatore,2006; Klein, 2009) to a focus on cultural aspects (e.g. Rose et al.,2011). Variability in the Middle Palaeolithic is often described interms of ‘industries’ (technocomplexes, etc.). Such constructs canbe an aid to discussion, but are also often problematic. For example,industries are defined using variable and largely incompatiblecriteria. Key examples include the ‘Aterian’ and ‘Nubian Complex’ ofNorth Africa. The former is largely defined in terms of retouchedtool typology, with an emphasis on tanged/pedunculated tools. Incontrast the Nubian Complex is defined by the prevalence, at an

Fig. 2. Locations of the main Howiesons Poort Sites.

H.S. Groucutt et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e23 3


unspecified frequency, of a particular type of Levallois core reduc-tion method. However, as Scerri (2013a; Scerri et al., 2014a) hasdemonstrated, ‘Aterian’ assemblages in northeast Africa are moresimilar to local ‘Nubian’ assemblages than they are to Aterian as-semblages from northwest Africa (see also Dibble et al., 2013b;Shea, 2014). Such findings bring the reality and utility offrequently cited industrial nomenclatures into doubt.

With the above caveats in mind, our aim in the present paper isto evaluate Palaeolithic assemblages from Africa and southern Asiaand search for patterns of similarities and differences in particulartechnological traits (see also Tostevin, 2012; Scerri et al., 2014a). Inreviewing technological variability and whether certain assem-blages can be related to the dispersal of H. sapiens we both test thehypotheses presented above and construct new hypotheses to betested by interdisciplinary studies.

2. Geometric microliths in Africa

2.1. The Howiesons Poort

The Howiesons Poort (HP) variant of the southern AfricanMiddle Palaeolithic has been the subject of much recent discussion(e.g. Henshilwood, 2012). As shown in Fig. 2, HP sites are knownfrom across southern Africa, virtually all south of 25! S. Additionalsites, particularly from the interior, may be present, but this area isless intensively studied and so sites with possible HP material suchas Wonderwerk Cave are not included here. The HP is restricted tothe far south of the African continent, with even the most northerlysites being well over 4000 km from Asia, as the crow flies. Thedistribution of sites typically reflects areas of higher rainfall, whichin places includes areas close to the coast. This can be distinguishedfrom coastal adaptation as such. As discussed in SOM 3, despitebeing one of the most thoroughly researched elements of the Af-rican Palaeolithic record, the chronology of the Howiesons Poortremains unclear. Some scholars argue for a precise and shortchronology of ~65 to 60 ka (Jacobs et al., 2008), while others sug-gest that the HP might have begun much earlier, around 109 ka(Tribolo et al., 2013). Elsewhere, lithic technology that appearssimilar to the HP has been dated to several thousand years earlierthan suggested by the original Jacobs et al. (2008) chronology(Brown et al., 2012). The environmental context of the HowiesonsPoort is discussed in SOM 4.

Several studies document different methods of blank produc-tion in assemblages attributed to the HP (e.g. Stewart et al., 2013; dela Pe~na and Wadley, 2014). The specific ‘Howiesons Poort bladecores’ (Villa et al., 2010; Porraz et al., 2013) found at some sites arenot reported from outside South Africa. In terms of retouchedforms, backed tools are typically considerably larger than in theAfrican Late Palaeolithic (‘Late Stone Age’) (Lombard, 2005;Henshilwood, 2012) and South Asian Late Palaeolithic (Fig. 1). Infact, there is considerable variation even within the backed tools(e.g. Villa et al., 2010). More widely, it is important to note that theiconic backed geometric (particularly crescent-shaped) microlithsare not the dominant form of retouched tool in many HP assem-blages. Where backed tools are common, these are often not ofgeometric form. For example, of 421 backed tools in HowiesonsPoort levels at Klasies River, only 143 (34%) are geometric (Villaet al., 2010, Table 4). While in the case of Diepkloof, backed toolsconstitute 15%, 6% and 47% of the early, middle and late HP layersrespectively (Porraz et al., 2013) and 19% at Rose Cottage Cave(Lewis et al., 2014). In the early to middle Howiesons Poort atDiepkloof pi"eces esquill!ees and strangulated-notched pieces arethe dominant retouched forms (Porraz et al., 2013).

An additional important feature of the Howiesons Poort is theretention of more classically MP-like/mode 3 elements including

unifacial and bifacial points (Lombard et al., 2010) and Levallois/discoidal cores (Wurz, 2013). These features are not typically foundat other localities with backed technologies discussed below suchas the Naisiusiu Beds (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania) and microlithicsites in South Asia. The mixture of ‘primitive’ and ‘derived’ traits isfound at well-excavated sites with excellent stratigraphic resolu-tion (e.g. Soriano et al., 2007; Vogelsang et al., 2010; Porraz et al.,2013). The HP is neither a homogeneous entity nor an equivalentof the European Upper Palaeolithic.

2.2. East Africa

Turning to East Africa, Mellars et al. (2013) describe a number ofassemblages as being ‘Howiesons Poort-like’. In the present paperwe refer to East African MIS 3 ‘Late Palaeolithic’ sites, a terminologysubsuming more regionally specific terms such as Later Stone Age,Upper Palaeolithic, and South Asian Microlithic (James andPetraglia, 2005).

In Zimbabwe several assemblages combine MP technology withlaminar and backed crescentic artefacts. These assemblages areknown under a plethora of different industrial names, such as theUmguzan, Bambatan, Tshangulan, and Magosian. Willoughby(2007, pp. 292) suggests that most sites assigned to industriessuch as the ‘Magosian’ reflect palimpsests of different time periods.Mellars et al. (2013) cite locations such as Pomongwe Cave,Zimbabwe as supportive of their model. Our review of the literatureon this site suggests no evidence for HP-like material (Cooke, 1963;Willoughby, 2007). The deeper layers of the site (13be27a) areclassic MP, while layers 13a to 10 were initially described asMagosian. Published figures from the site do not show anythingthat looks HP-like sensu Mellars et al. (2013). The main retouchedtool types at Pomongwe Cave in theMagosian are semi-circular andcircular scrapers (Cooke, 1963). Following the ‘Magosian’, thearchaeological material continues into the Holocene. The evidencesuggests that the Magosian here belongs to the Late Palaeolithic,perhaps with some mixing of the sediments and lithics.

The recently excavated site of Mochena Borago in Ethiopiayielded three lithic assemblages, described here from oldest toyoungest (Brandt et al., 2012). The Lower T Group assemblage(>53 ka calBP) consists of a classic East African MP assemblage,with core reduction methods including Levallois and discoidal, andretouched points and scrapers as the most common tool types.There are no geometric microliths. The Upper T Group(~45 ka calBP) is described by the discoverers as being similar to theLower T group, in terms of proportions of artefact types, corereduction patterns, blank types, etc. (Brandt et al., 2012, pp. 47).Within this pattern of continuity a small number of backed tools(n ¼ 11) appear for the first time, the single complete specimenbeing a crescent. Finally the S-Group (~43 ka calBP), which “from atechnological and methodological perspective … differ little fromthe T-Group assemblages” (Brandt et al., 2012, pp. 48), features ahigher frequency of backed pieces. This sequence suggests anincreasing emphasis on backed technology through time from alocal origin, and nothing suggests an abrupt arrival of a radicallydifferent technology.

With the Naisiusiu Beds of Olduvai Gorge the situation is againcomplex. At this locality the lithic assemblage consists of threecomponents (Leakey et al., 1972): 1) material excavated in the1930s, which was poorly recorded and only a selective sample ofwhich was kept, 2) material collected from the surface of the site, 3)material excavated in 1969. Given this, the ESR dates of ~60 ka e

which are possibly problematic given the sheetwash origin of therelevant sediments, as discussed in SOM 5 e can at most be relatedto the third category and not the whole assemblage. Given theabove caveats, Merrick (1975) likewise only studied the material



excavated in 1969 and describes the small numbers of backedlithics from this assemblage. There are only six complete microlithsfrom the excavation, and these are of varied morphologies. Theassemblage appears to be a local variant of a Late Palaeolithic in-dustry (Leakey et al., 1972).

Mumba rockshelter is one of the classic East African archaeo-logical sites. The recent dating of the lower part of Bed V throughsingle grain OSL demonstrates another example of early LatePalaeolithic technology in East Africa (Gliganic et al., 2012). Incontrast to Mehlman (1989) and Marks and Conard (2009), whosaw Bed V as ‘transitional’, recent analyses have regarded it at beingan early Late Palaeolithic manifestation (Diez-Martín et al., 2009;Eren et al., 2013). An important point, however, is that geometricmicroliths are not found in lower Bed V (aside from one possibleexample, Mehlman, 1989), but only in Upper Bed V (Diez-Martínet al., 2009), which Gliganic et al. (2012) dated to 49.1 ± 4.3 ka bysingle grain OSL dating of quartz and 47.6 ± 1.8 ka on feldspar. Asidefrom the presence of low numbers of geometric microliths in UpperBed V, there is otherwise technological continuity from lower downin Bed V. This again suggests that geometric microliths emergedwithin an existing Late Palaeolithic industry.

In the case of Enkyapune Ya Muto (Kenya) a similar process ofthe emergence of microlithic technology in East Africa from the MPoccurred (Ambrose, 1998, 2002). The early Late Palaeolithic ‘Saku-tiek’ industry at the site has small frequencies of backed microliths,with thumbnail scrapers and outils !ecaill!es (or ‘scaled pieces’)described as being the dominant retouched types (Ambrose, 1998).Alongside these forms, some more classic MP types including dis-coidal cores and flakes with faceted platforms were recovered.Beneath this a rather different sort of assemblage, described as the‘Nasampolai Industry’, was found, although it could not be directlydated. This is described as a unique assemblage, but with extremelylow artefact densities. In this case backed blades and geometricmicroliths are an important part of the assemblage, but the exca-vator specifically emphasises that it “does not closely resemble” theHowiesons Poort (Ambrose, 1998, pp. 383). Beneath this a flakebased MP assemblage was found. The recovery of two geometricmicroliths within this assemblage may indicate mixing, or rather itmay demonstrate the development of microlithic technology in anMP context.

The chronology of the East African Late Palaeolithic is describedfurther in SOM 5 and the environmental context in SOM 6. Insummary, available evidence suggests the in situ appearance of theLate Palaeolithic around 50e40 ka. To reiterate, H. sapiens were inAustralia by this point, so the emerging chronological data suggeststhat the Late Palaeolithic of East Africa probably tells us little aboutthe initial dispersal of H. sapiens out of Africa. As none of thetechnology predicted by the Mellars et al. (2013) model has beenfound over a vast area of southwest Asia (the environmental fluc-tuation of which is summarised in SOM 7), despite extensive sur-veys in some areas including those with very narrow coastalshelves such as southern Arabia, the third component of theirmodel relates to South Asia.

2.3. Microlithic technology in South Asia

MIS 3 saw the origin of the Late Palaeolithic in South Asia, whichhas been seen as either an in situ development or as the result ofdispersal into the area. To summarise, there is currently no evi-dence to suggest that the origin of the Late Palaeolithic in SouthAsia is characterised by a homogeneous transition of core reductionstrategies or the character of retouch (James and Petraglia, 2005).Instead an initial phase of blade and microblade production is fol-lowed by a proliferation of microlithic technology around 35 ka, aswould be expected with an in situ origin of the Late Palaeolithic.

Mellars et al. (2013) argue that earlier Late Palaeolithic sites havebeen concealed by rising sea levels.

Indian sites such as Patne and Jwalapuram 9 (JWP 9) illustrateincremental changes in lithic technology from the Middle Palae-olithic through to the Late Palaeolithic (LP) layers. James' (2011)technological analysis of lithics from the site of Patne one of thefew long stratified sequences in South Asia, supported the con-clusions of the excavators (Sali, 1989) that the LP industries can beseen as emerging locally and gradually out of the preceding MP.Discrete differences do occur between the oldest and youngest ofthe five horizons at the site, which can be dichotomised as MP andLP respectively. However, attribute analysis of the entire sequenceillustrates gradual changes in lithic technology between adjacenthorizons, rather than the sudden appearance of microlithic tech-nologies (James, 2011). Similarly, blade use appears to be acontinuation of MP technological practices elsewhere in South Asia(Misra and Bellwood, 1985). ‘Upper Palaeolithic’ tool types alsoappear in MP contexts; for example, burins, end-scrapers andmicroblades are found in MP layers at Bhimbetka (Misra andBellwood, 1985). Mellars et al. (2013, pp. 10699) argue that the“most remarkable feature” of the hypothesis of an early onset todispersal is the apparent claim of a rapid and abrupt origin ofmicrolithic technologies in South Asia. In fact, proponents of theearly onset hypothesis emphasise the gradual emergence of theLate Palaeolithic out of the preceding Middle Palaeolithic. Theproliferation of microlithic technology from ~35 ka can be seen as aresult of environmental deterioration and population increase(SOM 7) (Petraglia et al., 2009).

The recently excavated Middle and Late Palaeolithic sites atJwalapuram offer a critical case study that has been employeddifferently by the late and early onset dispersal models. Thiscomplex of sites includes the youngest MP sites known from SouthAsia JWP 20 (~34 ka), JWP 21 (38 ± 2 ka) and JWP 23 (<55 ka) andone of the oldest Late Palaeolithic sites (JWP 9 [35 ka]). Comparisonof these assemblages (Clarkson et al., 2012) demonstrates thepresence of blade and microblade technologies in the latest MPsites, and the occurrence of Levallois/discoidal reduction methodsin a Late Palaeolithic assemblage (JWP 9D). The presence of bipolarflaking in the late MP assemblages appears unprecedented in theearlier excavated assemblages at Jwalapuram, but continuity isexhibited with the younger Late Palaeolithic assemblages (JWP 9D-B). The ‘typologically distinct’ backed artefacts, critical to themicrolithic dispersal model, are lacking in the oldest assemblage atJWP 9, making their first appearance in JWP 9D. At Jwalapuram thebacking of blade blanks appears as a progression from the gradualdecline in blades >4 cm long and an increase in blades <4 cm longin MP and LP assemblages.

In the case of the site of Mehtakheri (Mishra et al., 2013), Mellarset al. (2013, pp. 10703) described the site as a “typical microbladeand backed-microlith industry”. The assemblage is indeed domi-nated by microblade production, but strikingly only two retouchedartefacts have been found. These consist of a backed blade ~40 mmlong, and another 25 mm long. In chronological terms the OSL es-timates extending to ~45 ka appear reasonably consistent withinerrors, although there are age/depth reversals, particularly in thevital Unit 2 (Section 1). The sediments are sandy silts/silty sandsthat have been deposited by fluvial processes. Mishra et al. (2013)do not report the size of the multigrain aliquots measured or ob-tained equivalent dose distributions, which makes it difficult forthe reader to evaluate the possibility of partial bleaching of thesesamples. De distributions are not provided for any samples, nor arethe size of the aliquots reported. The reader is therefore unable toevaluate the distributions for high skewness, which may indicatethat partial bleaching has occurred, and would therefore necessi-tate the use of the minimum age model for OSL age calculation. It



must be noted that the discoverers of the site, despite others' in-terpretations of the find, actually suggest a variant of the earlyonset model, with dispersals as far as East Asia in MIS 5 followed bya subsequent dispersal associated with microblade technology(Mishra et al., 2013).

Finally, it can be noted that the early Sri Lankan microlithic as-semblages, some of the earliest in South Asia, are generally non-geometric in form. At Batadomba-lena, only 25% of microlithictools are of geometric forms (Lewis et al., 2014). At Fa Hien, twoprogrammes of excavation have recovered just one geometric form(Deraniyagala, 1992; Perera et al., 2011).

3. The Middle Palaeolithic

A number of recent studies in southwest Asia have argued thatMiddle Palaeolithic lithic evidence supports particular models forthe dispersal of H. sapiens from Africa (SOM 1; for a wider consid-eration of the relationship between the Middle Palaeolithic andbehavioural evolution see SOM 8). Aside from making the generalpoint that dispersal is perhaps being overused in some recentnarratives, and that the possibility of independent, convergentsimilarities in similar environmental settings must be considered,we argue that the different models are not necessarily contradic-tory as our default expectation should be that there were repeatedpopulation dispersals when environmental conditions allowed it. Itis unlikely that the technology of dispersing populations wouldhave remained identical to that of the parent populations, a factorwhich both problematizes perceived differences between

assemblages in different regions and warns against the over-interpretation of superficial similarities (SOM 9).

Before considering in detail the evidence for the dispersal of H.sapiens out of Africa, an important feature of the MP record is thecontinuation of sites down to ~30 ka or younger (Fig. 3). These sitesare found across southern Africa, along the Rift Valley and in theMiddle East through to India. While some of the Middle Easternexamples are known to have been produced by Neanderthals, it isunlikely that all examples, in places like southern Africa, reflectarchaic hominins. If, as seems highly likely, many of these late MPsites reflect the presence ofH. sapiens, then the notion of a dramaticand irreversible change in human behaviour ~80e50 ka should bequestioned. The late persistence of the MP is congruent with amodel in which microlithic/geometric technologies emerged in situin various spatial and temporal contexts during the Late Pleisto-cene. The same applies to ‘Upper Palaeolithic’ variants of the LatePalaeolithic, which several Asian sites appear to clearly demon-strate emerging in situ from preceding MP assemblages. This ismost clear at sites such as Boker Tachtit (Volkman, 1989), andsimilar arguments have been made about sites including WarwasiCave, Iran (Tsanova, 2014).

4. The Middle Palaeolithic (Middle Stone Age) of Africa

4.1. The Middle Palaeolithic of South Africa

In recent years the description and interpretation of archaeo-logical sites in South Africa has generated considerable scientificinterest. Given that more than 5000 km separates many of these

Fig. 3. Location of key dated Late Middle Palaeolithic sites.



sites from the nearest point of Asia, South African sites are notdirectly relevant to understanding ‘out of Africa’ dispersals. How-ever, this is not to say that they are not of considerable importancefor understanding Late Pleistocene human behaviour. A number ofpublications describe the Late Pleistocene cultural sequence insouthern Africa (e.g. Porraz et al., 2013; Wurz, 2013; Mackay et al.,2014a). The key point to emerge from the South African data, dis-cussed below, is that it follows a unique cultural trajectory anddiffers from areas such as East Africa. For example, to Porraz et al.(2013) the long record of Diepkloof reflects local changes, with noevidence for major influxes of new populations. Wurz (2013) like-wise emphasises the localised nature of cultural evolutionary tra-jectories in South Africa. As described in SOM 1, Clarkson has usedDiscriminant Function Analysis to suggest similarities betweenSouth African and South Asian Middle Palaeolithic core forms(Petraglia et al., 2007; Clarkson et al., 2012). Given the huge dis-tance separating assemblages in these two areas, it is possible thatthe perceived similarities reflect convergent evolution or thatfurther assemblages from East Africa need to be included incomparisons.

In general, in South Africa during at least the earlier to middlepart of MIS 5 there seems to have been much more unidirectional/unidirectional convergent Levallois reduction, producing flakes andpoints, than in East Africa (e.g. Porraz et al., 2013; Wurz, 2013). Thisis at least the case for some of the well-known sites but, as Mackayet al. (2014a), discuss there is considerable spatial variability acrossSouth Africa, and these authors doubt the utility of technocomplexdefinitions across large areas given the technological heterogeneityobserved. The much discussed Howiesons Poort and Still Baytechnocomplexes are associated with late MIS 5 through to MIS 3(e.g. Henshilwood, 2012). The Still Bay is typified by bifacial foliatepoints. While in a sense reflecting the frequent African MiddlePalaeolithic focus on producing retouched points, the dominanceand particular characteristics of Still Bay points distinguishes themfrom those of assemblages in areas such as East Africa (e.g. Villaet al., 2009).

As discussed above, the Howiesons Poort reflects anotherunique technocomplex, combining Middle Palaeolithic forms withother features such as backed geometrics. But there is alsoincreasing evidence for variability within the Howiesons Poort.After the Howiesons Poort, more classically Middle Palaeolithicassemblages occur in South Africa (e.g. Will et al., 2014; Mackayet al., 2014b). These late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages aretechnologically varied and further research is needed to under-stand the spatial and temporal characteristics of this variability.

4.2. The Middle Palaeolithic of East Africa

The oldest known fossils of H. sapiens come from East Africa (e.g.White et al., 2003; McDougall et al., 2005; Smith and Ahern, 2013;Stringer, 2014). Along with congruent biogeographical andarchaeological data, this has led to suggestions that this area had animportant role in the origin of our species (e.g. Basell, 2008; Shea,2008a). The key characteristic of the East African Middle Palae-olithic in comparison to the preceding Lower Palaeolithic and tocontemporaneous forms of MP assemblages is the character ofLevallois methods, and particularly high frequencies of the com-bination of recurrent centripetal and centripetally prepared pref-erential methods (SOM 10) (Fig. 4). MP preferential Levalloismethods in East Africa are generally focussed on the production ofovoid/rectangular Levallois flakes. Levallois methods of producingpoints were also used, but much less frequently. As Levalloistechnology occurs in certain Lower Palaeolithic contexts, it is thediversification of Levallois methods and largely the frequent use ofthe recurrent centripetal method which distinguishes the East

African MP (e.g. Tryon, 2006). Shea (2008a, pp. 473), in a detailedanalysis of East African MP technology, summarises core reductionin the studied assemblages as reflecting alternation betweenrecurrent centripetal and preferential reduction. These specificfeatures are lost when variability is grouped into general categoriessuch as ‘Levallois’, or ‘prepared core technology’. For instance,‘Levallois blade’ reduction found in areas such as South Africa ap-pears to be absent in East Africa (Tryon and Faith, 2013). Thedisparate ways in which recurrent centripetal Levallois reductionhas been understood (e.g. Bo€eda, 1994, 1995; Delagnes and Ropars,1996; contra Usik et al., 2013), mean that for the majority of sites inEast Africa its presence or absence is currently unknown (Tryon andFaith, 2013). Examples of recurrent centripetal Levallois cores havebeen described in the literature as discoidal cores, asymmetricdiscoidal cores, disc cores, radial cores, and other terms. Given suchfactors and the lack of good chronological resolution we are forcedto rely on a small number of dated and recently excavated sites toevaluate the character of the East African Middle Palaeolithic.

While there is variability, East African Middle Palaeolithicretouched tools are typically characterised by the dominance ofthree basic forms: side retouched flakes (forming ~30e60% of theretouched tools), denticulates (~10e30%) and retouched points(~1e30%) (Fig. 4). Given the lack of published attribute data onretouched tools (sensu e.g. Scerri, 2013a; Scerri et al., 2014a), ana-lysts are currently forced to rely on such published descriptions ofwhole tools. The frequencies of these forms at key sites in EastAfrica, and those argued to relate to dispersal from this area, areshown in SOM 11. The key point is not the exact frequency of thesetool forms, but the dominance of these basic types and the rarity ofothers. For instance, large bifaces, end retouched flakes (‘end-scrapers’) and burins are generally rare.

Despite the limitations of available data, a number of assem-blages in East Africa clearly demonstrate the presence of a similarset of typological and technological features, described above,beginning by MIS 8 and continuing through to MIS 5 and beyond(e.g. Wendorf and Schild, 1974; Clark, 1988; Tryon and McBrearty,2003; Tryon et al., 2005; Yellen et al., 2005; McBrearty and Tryon,2006; Onjala, 2006; Waweru, 2007; Basell, 2008; Tryon et al.,2008; Shea, 2008a; Sahle et al., 2013; Mussi et al., 2014). Previousauthors have highlighted the continuity of the Middle Palaeolithicin East Africa (e.g. Wendorf and Schild, 1974, pp. 154; Shea et al.,2007; Shea, 2008a). As further sites are discovered and additionalchronometric estimates become available the picture of continuitybecomes even more pronounced. For example, Shea (2008a) em-phasises the similarities between East African assemblages be-tween roughly 200 ka and 80 ka. The earlier and later ends of thisspectrum are represented by Gademotta and Porc Epic respectively,with recent research suggesting that the former may actually dateto as recently as ~40e30 ka (Assefa, 2006) and, rather more reliablygiven the ambiguities of the chronology of Porc Epic, the earliestsite at Gademotta dates to ~280e275 ka (Morgan and Renne, 2008;Sahle et al., 2014). Shea (2008a) suggests that the small differencesbetween the Omo Kibish sites he analysed and other, similar, as-semblages such as those from Aduma probably reflect rawmaterialdifferences. Wurz (2013, pp. 6900) repeats the point that this evi-dence “may indicate that H. sapiens populations used relativelysimilar technological strategies throughout southern and centralEthiopia between 80 and 200 ka”. In what follows we thereforereview evidence for the spatial and temporal distribution of lithicassemblages similar to those from East Africa as a possible proxy forpopulation movements (SOM 10 discusses the presence and im-plications of different forms of technological packages elsewhere).This distribution of sites is shown in Fig. 5. We emphasise that wedo not claim that such similarities prove the early onset model, butthey are certainly consistent with it.



4.3. The Middle Palaeolithic of Northeast Africa

As discussed above, increasing evidence suggests that the in-dustrial terms traditionally used to describe North African tech-nological variability are obfuscating important patterns ofsimilarity and difference. When viewed in terms of core reductionmethods, the basic characteristics of retouched tools and otherattributes, a number of North African assemblages demonstrateclear similarities with the East African Middle Palaeolithic. Along-side these, assemblages attributed to the Nubian Complex andAterian could be interpreted as localised adaptations to the specificecological conditions of North Africa, both developing from sub-Saharan backgrounds.

The technological diversity of northeast Africa (e.g. Marks,1968a,b; Van Peer et al., 2010; Scerri, 2013a; Scerri et al., 2014a,b)is predictable given that the area is proximal to the only land routeout of Africa and that dramatic environmental oscillations occurred(e.g. Blome et al., 2012; Drake et al., 2013). Recent attention hasfocussed on the ‘Nubian Complex’ (e.g. Van Peer, 1998; Rose et al.,2011), but the extent to which much of the archaeology of the

area can meaningfully be subsumed in such a technocomplex hasbeen debated (e.g. Kleindienst, 2006). Examples of problems withthe Nubian Complex include the frequent inclusion of locations atBir Tarfawi, one of the few localities with multiple dated sites innortheast Africa, in the ‘Nubian Complex’ (e.g. Rose et al., 2011;Wurz and Van Peer, 2012; Clarkson, 2014), despite no NubianLevallois reduction being identified there (Wendorf et al., 1993).

The early MP in northeast Africa is poorly understood. Hawkinset al. (2001) report a site (REF-4) at Kharga Oasis in Egypt dating to~220 ka. Likewise, the earliest MP at Bir Tarfawi is not well char-acterised (Wendorf et al., 1993). A clearer picture emerges fromsites dating to MIS 6 at ~175 ka, such as E-87-1, E-86-1 and E-87-4(Wendorf et al., 1993). This MIS 6 expansion correlates with a phaseof increased humidity (see e.g. Drake et al., 2013). These sites aretechnologically similar to those from East Africa, suggestingnorthwards expansions correlating with environmentalamelioration.

A number of northeast African MIS 5 sites continue to demon-strate similarities with the East African MP. Key examples comefrom the MIS 5 Bir Tarfawi and Bir Sahara palaeolakes of

Fig. 4. East African Middle Palaeolithic lithics. Examples from MIS 7 (~195 ka) and MIS 5 (~105 ka), Omo Kibish, Ethiopia, showing preferential Levallois flakes with centripetalpreparation (D,E,M), side retouched flakes (G,K), retouched points (F,L) and Levallois cores (B,C,H,I,J) including many showing a recurrent centripetal method (illustrations modifiedfrom Shea, 2008a).



southwestern Egypt (Fig. 6). As described and illustrated inconsiderable detail by Wendorf et al. (1993), these assemblagesfeature a combination of preferential and recurrent Levalloismethods and retouch focussed on producing side retouched flakes,denticulates and variable frequencies of points. It is important tonote that compared to the MP of East Africa, there is already aconsiderable reduction in the frequency of points, and this helpscontextualise the rarity of retouched points in areas such as theLevant. Some of this change in the specifics of retouched flake ty-pology may reflect the raw material available in areas such as BirTarfawi/Bir Sahara, consisting of coarse quartzitic sandstone. Asidefrom the influence of raw material on variability, these sites alsoserve as important reminders of the need to carefully considermobility and settlement patterns when comparing lithic assem-blages. At Bir Tarfawi/Bir Sahara cores were generally initiallyprepared elsewhere and subsequently transported close to theselakeside sites, where further knapping was conducted. Followingthis, many cores, Levallois flakes and retouched tools wereremoved, giving these assemblages distinctive characteristics suchas low frequencies of cores.

Other, more or less undated, assemblages in northeast Africa arealso similar to the East African MP. Examples include the site ofStation One (1013) in northern Sudan, which features a quartzassemblage rather different to most nearby sites, and exhibits both

the core reduction strategies and the retouched tool forms typicalof East Africa (Fig. 7). Rose (2004) who analysed the assemblagelikewise saw it as evidence for the northwards expansion of an EastAfrican population.

The Khormusan industry was discovered at several excavatedsites in northern Sudan (Marks, 1968b). As well as large lithic as-semblages (Fig. 7), these sites produced other finds including ochreand bone tools. Unfortunately the age of the Khormusan assem-blages is unclear, but Goder-Goldberger (2013) argues that theybegin in late MIS 5. In terms of the technological characteristics ofthe Khormusan, both preferential and recurrent centripetal Leval-lois methods occur at high frequencies alongside other methodssuch as the reduction of simple single platform cores (Goder-Goldberger, 2013). Both the debitage and retouched tools are like-wise similar to the East African MP. Such factors led Goder-Goldberger (2013) to describe the Khormusan as an ‘MSA East Af-rican industry in Nubia’. The younger Khormusan sites demonstratea process of localisation, with, for example, side retouched flakeslargely being replaced by burins. Sites such as 1035 (Fig. 7) mayrepresent a variant of the Khormusan located somewhat furtherfrom the Nile (Goder-Goldberger, 2013). Further south in Sudan,ongoing research is revealing lithic assemblages similar to both theKhormusan and the East African MP (Osypínski et al., 2011;Osypínski, 2012).

Fig. 5. Map of key sites with similarities to East African Middle Palaeolithic sites. A model of last interglacial precipitation is used to represent humid phases.



A final northeast African site of interest is that of Haua Fteah,Libya. Ongoing work is clarifying the nature of the lithic assem-blages at the site, but published illustrations appear to show lithicswith the same basic features we highlight as characterising the EastAfrican MP (e.g. McBurney, 1967, pp. 116, 122, 124). Reynolds (2013)suggests similarities of the Haua Fteah lithics to assemblages in theLevant and northeast Africa, rather than North African tech-nocomplexes such as the Aterian or the Nubian Complex, matchingScerri's (2013a) observation of the distinctiveness of Haua Fteahcompared to the other sampled sites. Available evidence suggeststhe absence of the type fossils of the Aterian and Nubian Complexfrom Haua Fteah. Douka et al. (2013) report a multi-techniquedating programme of the site, showing that the MP at the site ispresent by MIS 5 and extends through to MIS 3.

4.4. Northwest Africa

As our focus here is on dispersal out of Africa, space prevents athoroughdiscussionof thenorthwestAfrican record.Most research inthis area has addressed the Aterian technocomplex (e.g. Bouzouggarand Barton, 2012; Scerri, 2013a; Scerri et al., 2014a). Traditionalattention has focussed on the typology of retouched artefacts (e.g.Tixier,1967), particularly tanged tools, with recent interest extendingto bifacial foliates. Relatively little information is available on the corereduction strategies at most Aterian sites. Likewise, little informationis available on the technology of pre-Aterian MP sites such as JebelIrhoud. We acknowledge that it is quite possible that the Maghrebplayed an important role in the background to dispersal out of Africa,but it is hard to evaluate this with available data.

Fig. 6. Examples of lithics from several phases of occupation at Bir Tarfawi, Egypt. Preferential Levallois flakes with centripetal preparation (A,B,G,H,M), side retouched flakes (C, I),retouched points (D, J,N,O) and Levallois cores (E,F,K,L,P,Q) including many showing a recurrent centripetal method (illustrations modified from Wendorf et al., 1993).



One of the few sites where good information is available is thatof Ifri N'Ammar, which has been described in a detailed monograph(Nami and Moser, 2010). The earlier Middle Palaeolithic at the sitedates to MIS 6, and may reflect dispersal across the Sahara duringwet periods of this generally arid phase. Core reduction is heavily

Levallois and appears similar to that of East Africa, with bothpreferential and recurrent centripetal methods being well repre-sented. Moving beyond a traditional type fossil approach, it must beemphasised that ‘Mousterian points’ are far more abundant thantanged points at Ifri N'Ammar, and that the latter can be seen as a

Fig. 7. Examples of lithics from northeast African Middle Palaeolithic sites. AeH: 1035, Sudan. AeC: Levallois cores, DeF: Levallois flakes, G,H: side retouched flakes. IeP: StationOne, Sudan. I,J: Levallois cores. K,L: Levallois flakes; M: side retouched flake, NeP: retouched points. QeW: 34A, Sudan. Q,R: Levallois flakes, SeU: Levallois flakes, V,W: sideretouched flakes (illustrations modified from Marks, 1968a; Rose, 2004).



sub-type of a wider category of retouched points. Similar reductionand retouch characteristics also seem to characterise other Magh-rebian sites such as Contrabandiers (e.g. Dibble et al., 2013a). Giventhese technological similarities, it can be argued that the Aterian

represents a regional variant of a technological package first seen inEast Africa. Tanging can be seen as a particular form of haftingmodification (Scerri, 2013b), developing within an existing pool ofknowledge and techniques rooted in sub-Saharan Africa.

Fig. 9. Examples of lithics from S-20, Sinai Peninsula. AeD: Levallois cores, EeH: retouched points, IeJ: Levallois flakes, K,L: side retouched flakes (illustrations modified fromKobusiewicz, 1999).

Fig. 8. Lithics associated with a possible MIS 6 expansion of Homo sapiens into the Levant. All lithics from Nesher Ramla except B (Hayonim, Upper E). A,B: Levallois cores, C:Levallois flake, D: side retouched flake, E,F: retouched points (illustrations modified from Meignen, 1998; Zaidner et al., 2014).



Sites along possible routes between East and northwest Africa,such as Adrar Bous in Niger, demonstrate a similar constellation oflithic traits. The Adrar Bous MP assemblages combine recurrentcentripetal and preferential Levallois reduction methods, withretouch focussing on points and side retouched flakes (Clark et al.,2008).

5. The Middle Palaeolithic of southern Asia

5.1. The Middle Palaeolithic of the Levant

Most of our knowledge on prehistory in Southwest Asiacurrently comes from the Levant, which has a diverse MP record(e.g. Shea, 2003, 2013; Hovers, 2009; Groucutt, 2014), suggestingthat researchers should stop referring to different phases of theLevantine MP as having “the same type of Middle Palaeolithicassemblage” (Dennell and Porr, 2014, pp. 5). On the whole the earlyLevantineMP is not well understood, and fossil evidence to identifyits manufacturers is weak. The Middle (or ‘interglacial’) LevantineMiddle Palaeolithic is particularly associated with MIS 5, but alsowithMIS 6, and demonstrates technology similar to the East African

MP, and is found exclusively with fossils of H. sapiens. After MIS 5the Levantine Late Middle Palaeolithic is only found with Nean-derthal fossils, and appears to reflect the arrival of new populationsfrom the north, which were both biologically and culturallydifferent from the MIS 5 occupants. We see the Levantine LateMiddle Palaeolithic as a regional manifestation of what we label theSouthern Neanderthal Dispersal (SOM 10). An example of a siteattributed to this is that of Tor Faraj, Jordan (Henry, 2003; Groucutt,2014).

Zaidner et al. (2014) report an important new site (NesherRamla) from the Levant. The site appears to spanMIS 6 to lateMIS 5,although as the artefact bearing sediments at the site have beendeposited through processes such as slope wash there is a risk ofpartial bleaching of grains and age overestimation. While moreinformation on the site is needed, some basic patterns are ofimportance. In terms of Levallois flaking, the early assemblages aredominated by centripetal Levallois, while the younger assemblagesare dominated by unidirectional-convergent flaking. Along withsimilar chronologies and perhaps technologies from sites such asTabun and Hayonim Upper E (Mercier et al., 2007), the NesherRamla evidence may suggest an earlier (MIS 6) onset to the

Fig. 10. Lithics from Qafzeh Cave. AeD: Levallois cores, EeH: Levallois, I,J: side retouched flakes, K,L: retouched points/side retouched flakes (illustrations modified from Hovers,2009).



technological traits classically regarded as characterising MIS 5 inthe Levant (Fig. 8). The chronology of these sites matches the MIS 6wet phase that saw northwards expansions of populations in Africa(e.g. Wendorf et al., 1993; Drake et al., 2013).

Several Levantine assemblages dating to MIS 5 resemble theEast African MP, including some associated with H. sapiens fossils.Key sites include Qafzeh, Skhul, Naame, Tabun, Hayonim, Ras elKelb, Dourara, and Umm el Tlel (e.g. Shea, 2003, 2013; Hovers,2009). The site of S-20 (the ‘Split Rock Site’) from the Sinai Penin-sula appears to provide a land connection between similar Africanand Levantine assemblages (Kobusiewicz, 1999; Kobusiewicz et al.,2001). The site is rarely discussed in the literature, but from theperspective of the present paper is possibly a very important lo-cality. As elsewhere, its similarities with other sites are obscured byvariable nomenclatures. For instance, ‘discoidal’ cores are verycommon at the site. But from the illustrations in Kobusiewicz(1999) it is clear that at least some of them can actually bedescribed as Levallois cores. Forms of Levallois reduction presentinclude recurrent centripetal and preferential with centripetalpreparation (Fig. 9). Likewise, ‘perforators’ at the site can alterna-tively be seen as retouched points. Clearly more research is neededon the site and the assemblage, but it is certainly consistent withthe hypothesis proposed in this paper (Fig. 9). The buried lithics,with horizons dated to ~60 ka and ~80 ka (Kobusiewicz et al., 2001),had been redeposited down slope after the occupation so an MIS 5chronology seems parsimonious.

Qafzeh Cave, with its famous H. sapiens fossils, has been pub-lished in considerable detail (Hovers, 2009) and so will form thebasis of our discussion, while noting the basic similarity of lithicsfrom the site with many others from the area. Qafzeh dates to mid(electron spin resonance dates) to later (thermoluminescencedates) MIS 5 (Millard, 2008). With multiple layers, Qafzeh is a rareexample allowing the study of the nuances of change through timein a southwest Asian example of an assemblage similar to the EastAfrican MP (Figs. 10 and 11).

Levallois reduction dominates the Qafzeh Cave assemblages.Levallois cores are technologically and morphologically similar tocores from East Africa (Fig. 10). Recurrent and preferential cores atQafzeh are similar in basic size and shape features, indicating thatthe differences between them do not relate to reduction intensity(Hovers, 2009). As shown in Fig. 11 some interesting changes inretouched tool technology and morphology occurred over time atQafzeh. While there is some fluctuation due in part to variablesample sizes, three important trends can be seen with decreasingage at Qafzeh Cave; 1) the frequency of side retouched flakes(‘sidescrapers’) decreases, 2) the frequency of retouched pointsdecreases and 3) the frequency of notches/denticulates increases.The earlier assemblages at Qafzeh are therefore more similar to theEast African MP than the later ones are. An important transitionpoint seems to be around layer XIV/XV. This is when notches/denticulates generally become dominant over side retouchedflakes. Layer XV is also of interest as this is very unusual for Qafzehin having a large number of Levallois points, the frequency of whichrapidly increases and then rapidly decreases. This phase of pointproduction may correlate with an arid phase (cf. Shea, 1998) thatresulted in demographic changes affecting lithic technology, as wellas numerous other factors indicating changes in how the site wasused (Hovers, 2009, pp. 36e37). The technological changes largelyrelate to retouched tool typology, and in terms of core reductionstrategies there appears to be basic continuity. This suggests thatretouched typology may be more sensitive to local adaptation ordrift (Scerri et al., 2014a), as indicated above in terms of the in-crease in the frequency of burins in northeast Africa, and thedecrease in the frequency of retouched points away from East Af-rica, while core technology stays more constant.

A final point to be made in regards to the Levantine MIS 5 evi-dence relates to the geographical distribution of sites (Fig. 5). It iscommonly implied that H. sapiens in the Levant dispersed from Af-rica by the shortest possible straight line (see e.g. Stewart andStringer, 2012). While not an unreasonable hypothesis, this pattern

Fig. 11. Change through time in key lithic forms at Qafzeh Cave. Note general decline in side retouched flakes and retouched points, and increase in notches/denticulates (data fromHovers, 2009).



is not supported by the fact that ‘Tabun C’ or ‘Middle (MIS 5) MiddlePalaeolithic’ sites e i.e. those in the present paper which aredescribed as being similar to those from East Africa e are relativelycommon in the northern and central, but apparently rare in thesouthern, Levant. Likewise the presence of East African MP-like as-semblages in Syria at sites such as Douara, Hummal andUmmel Tlelmay suggest a connection of the Levantine occupation to theTigriseEuphrates river system. This may indicate that populationsleaving Africa primarily moved initially eastwards through Arabia,beforemoving northwards to the Levant along the TigriseEuphratesriver system. Given the persistence of arid areas even during peakinterglacials (Jennings et al., in this volume) such riverine corridorsmay have been crucial corridors through the Saharo-Arabian belt(Drake et al., 2011; Scerri et al., 2014a; Breeze et al., 2015).

5.2. The Middle Palaeolithic of Arabia

The rapid acceleration of research in Arabia allows this area tonow be factored into accounts of dispersal out of Africa (e.g.Groucutt and Petraglia, 2012, 2014; Scerri et al., 2014b). The firstphase of recent developments focussed on the southern andeastern extremities of the Peninsula. These revealed assemblagesinterpreted as either autochthonous developments (Armitage et al.,

2011; Delagnes et al., 2012), or as being broadly similar to the Af-rican MSA (Armitage et al., 2011), or to the ‘Nubian Complex’ (Usiket al., 2013). Research in Saudi Arabia being conducted by thePalaeodeserts Project is revealing a number of assemblages, datingto MIS 5 where they have been dated, which demonstrate simi-larities with the East African MP (Fig. 12).

The assemblages at Jebel Barakah in the western UAE appearfrom published illustrations to include high frequencies of recur-rent centripetal Levallois reduction and other features common inEast African MP assemblages (Fig. 12) (McBrearty, 1993; Wahidaet al., 2009). Similar assemblages are known from other surfacecontexts in the eastern UAE (Scott-Jackson et al., 2009), andperhaps from the excavations at Jebel Faya. In the case of Jebel Faya,the recent paper by Bretzke et al. (2014) supplements earlier de-scriptions of lithic technology at the site (Armitage et al., 2011) andallows for a more robust consideration of the site within the modelproposed here. Bretzke et al. (2014) report a series of six assem-blages. The oldest, VI (n ¼ 477), was deposited in MIS 5 and ischaracterised by centripetal Levallois reduction along with a bifa-cial reduction strategy. Illustrations show both recurrent centrip-etal and preferential with centripetal preparation core forms. Suchreduction methods, dating to MIS 5, are clearly congruent with thehypothesis of East African population expansion proposed here, but

Fig. 12. Examples of Middle Palaeolithic lithics from the Arabian Peninsula. AeD: Jubbah, northern Saudi Arabia. EeG: Mundafan, southwest Saudi Arabia. H,I: Jebel Barakah, UnitedArab Emirates, J: 212-46, central Saudi Arabia. A,B,E,F,H,I,J: Levallois cores; C: side retouched flake; D: retouched point; E: Levallois flake. Nb 212-46 is not to scale (scale not includedin original publication) (illustrations modified from Zarins et al., 1979; Wahida et al., 2009; Petraglia et al., 2011; Crassard et al., 2013).



the significance of the bifacial component requires further clarifi-cation. The younger (post-MIS 5) assemblages at Jebel Faya show adiversity of typo-technological features, congruent with populationfragmentation and complex demographic processes.

In Saudi Arabia, knowledge on vast areas is limited to rapidreconnaissance surveys conducted during the 1970's. The reports ofthese surveys hint at East African-like assemblages across SaudiArabia, as suggested by many of the illustrations of these surveyspublished in the journal Atlal. In particular, Zarins et al.'s (1979)survey of central Saudi Arabia revealed assemblages dominatedby what they referred to as the ‘discoidal core with flat back’. Manyof these appear to be recurrent centripetal Levallois cores (Fig. 12).

Some assemblages from Jubbah in the Nefud desert of northernSaudi Arabia likewise resemble the East African MP (Petraglia et al.,2011, 2012a). Several assemblages have been identified here whichdisplay considerable differences between each other, evenwithin asmall geographic area (Scerri et al., 2014b). The most importantassemblage for our present discussion is the site of Jebel Qattar-1.Here a small assemblage of only 114 lithics is associated with acalcrete/incipient palaeosol dating to ~75 ka (Petraglia et al., 2011,2012a). Core forms reflect centripetal reduction, including recur-rent centripetal Levallois, while retouched types include aretouched point and side retouched/denticulated flakes (Fig. 12).Preferential Levallois flakes are centripetally prepared and ovoid/rectangular in shape.

Many of the other sites at Jubbah relate mostly to raw materialprocurement, so have broadly unidirectional cores and fewretouched tools, making understanding their background difficult.Sites in this category include JKF-1 and JKF-12. These can be seen asrather different to most East African assemblages, but whether thisreflects cultural factors or represents raw material procurementand only an early stage of reduction remains to be fully understood.Scerri et al. (2014b) compared assemblages from Jubbah to as-semblages from the Nile Valley using a suite of multivariate sta-tistics. Their results demonstrate that the North African andArabian sites do not neatly separate into their respectivegeographical areas. This result indicates that lithic variabilitywithin the Saharo-Arabian belt does not match modern politicalstructures, and is congruent with a northeast African background ofthe makers of at least some of the Jubbah assemblages. The site ofJSM-1 is rather different to the other sites at Jubbah included in thisstudy, and along with JQ-1, provides the closest parallels to the EastAfrican MP (Petraglia et al., 2011, 2012a; Scerri et al., 2014b).

Ongoing work at the Mundafan Palaeolake in southwesternSaudi Arabia is revealing an abundantMiddle Palaeolithic record. Aninitial visit reported by Crassard et al. (2013) identified MP assem-blages characterised by both recurrent centripetal and preferentialcentripetal Levallois reduction (Fig.12). Rosenberget al. (2011) datedlake formation, with which the MP sites are associated, to MIS 5.Additional recent discoveries at Mundafan resulting from a longerperiod offieldwork are currently being analysed andwrittenup, andstrengthen the case for similarities with the East African MP.

Finally, as discussed by Scerri et al. (in this volume), MiddlePalaeolithic sites in the western Nefud desert also feature charac-teristics analogous to the East African MP. A particularly importantexample is found at the site of KAM-1, which was previously datedto MIS 5 by Rosenberg et al. (2013). The lithic assemblage at thissite, while again small, is dominated by the key forms also found inthe East African MP.

Other forms of the Middle Palaeolithic in Arabia representdistinctive phenomena, with unclear cultural ancestry (e.g.Armitage et al., 2011; Delagnes et al., 2012; Bretzke et al., 2014).Whether the ‘Nubian Complex’ sites of Arabia, which are essentiallyundated other than one minimum age estimate for redepositedlithics at one site (Rose et al., 2011), represent dispersal or are a

convergent local development remains to be tested. The rich, butundated, archaeological record of the Huqf area of Oman presentsanotherdistinctive variant of theArabianPalaeolithic (Jagher, 2009).The fast changing picture of the Arabian Middle Palaeolithic(Groucutt and Petraglia, 2012, 2014) therefore suggests repeateddispersals into the Peninsula, with subsequent aridification andcontraction to refugia leading to distinctive forms of technology.Within this patternwe emphasise the evidence for East AfricanMP-like technology, found in southwest, central and northern Arabia. Itsapparent absence from southeast Arabia may reflect the fact thatincreasing evidence suggests the amelioration of Arabia occurreddue to the incursion of the African rather than Indian OceanMonsoon (Jennings et al., in this volume). As a result, southeastArabia may have remained generally arid, with population move-ment focussed on the west to east trending rivers of central Arabia.

5.3. The Middle Palaeolithic of Iran

The Middle Palaeolithic of Iran remains poorly understood, butis another area of great importance where research is accelerating(e.g. Otte et al., 2009; Vahdati-Nasab, 2011; Vahdati-Nasab et al.,2013; Heydari-Guran, 2014; Speth, 2014). Changing conceptions ofthe MP of Iran include the recognition that some assemblagesinclude Levallois technology (Dibble, 1984; contra Skinner, 1965).The increasing knowledge of the Iranian MP is being matched by itsincreasing diversity. This diversity makes it unlikely that the wholeof the MP of Iran was produced by Neanderthals, as has tradition-ally been suggested (e.g. Smith, 1986). We consider a more parsi-monious explanation to be that the considerable MiddlePalaeolithic technological diversity in Iran reflects, at least in part, acomplex demographic history. Until recently, little was knownabout the MP outside the Zagros Mountains, and here analyseswere focussed on a Bordesian approach. Not much progress wasmade on clarifying either the variability within Iran, or how thisrelated to surrounding regions.

The sites of the more southern Zagros area, such as Kunji Cave,demonstrate technological traits similar to the East African MP(Fig. 13). Core technology is dominated by recurrent centripetalLevallois cores, while the presence of large ovoid preferentialLevallois flakes demonstrates preferential Levallois reduction.Around two-thirds of Levallois flakes exhibit centripetal scar pat-terns (Baumler and Speth, 1993). The dominant retouched compo-nent consists of sidescrapers, notches/denticulates and retouchedpoints (Baumler and Speth, 1993). Other sites such as Houmian(Bewley, 1984) and Bisitun Cave (Dibble, 1984) may reflect a similartechnological package. Others, such as Shanidar in closely neigh-bouring northern Iraq (Solecki and Solecki,1993) andWarwasi Cave,Iran (Dibble and Holdaway, 1993; Groucutt, in preparation) appearto demonstrate a ratherdifferent formof technology, attributedhereto the Southern Neanderthal Dispersal (SOM 10). The heavilyretouched character of the ZagrosMiddle Palaeolithic has tended todominate discussions, but considerable differences can be seen interms of factors such as core reduction strategies. In this sensetechnology at Warwasi is primarily characterised by a combinationof largely unidirectional reduction in the early phase followedby thereduction of discoidal cores and cores on flakes. The centripetalLevallois cores that dominate theKunji assemblageare all but absentfrom Warwasi. Understanding the character of this emerging tech-nological variability in Iran is currently limited by the paucity ofchronometric age estimates for Palaeolithic sites.

5.4. The Middle Palaeolithic of South Asia

South Asia has a long history of Palaeolithic research resulting inthe identification of a large number of surface Middle Palaeolithic



sites (e.g. Misra, 2001; James and Petraglia, 2005). Due to thelimited number of excavated sites, the chronology of the SouthAsian MP remains poorly resolved. The recently excavated site ofKatoati (Blinkhorn et al., 2013) presents the oldest dated MiddlePalaeolithic assemblage at ca. 96 ka, with further MIS 5 to MIS 3occupations evident at this site. Continued presence of MiddlePalaeolithic assemblages fromMIS 5 and intoMIS 3 is also observedat Jwalapuram (Clarkson et al., 2012; Petraglia et al., 2012b) and at a

number of sites in the Thar Desert (Blinkhorn et al., 2013;Blinkhorn, 2014). At these sites, Middle Palaeolithic assemblagescombine Levallois and discoidal debitage schemes with a widerange of retouch strategies and a focus on higher quality raw ma-terials that appear in smaller clast sizes than those exploited by LateAcheulean populations. The variability of point productionmethods is particularly notable, including both debitage (variousLevallois methods) and façonnage (uni- and bifacial retouching,

Fig. 13. Lithics from Kunji Cave, Iran. AeD: Levallois cores, EeH: Levallois flakes, IeL: points, MeP: side retouched flakes (illustrations modified from Baumler and Speth, 1993).



shouldering and tanging) approaches. As Blinkhorn et al. (in thisvolume) discuss, point technology is abundant in the Thar Desert,and this arguably parallels aspects of technology associated with H.sapiens to the west. Some forms of point core technologies in theThar Desert exhibit preparation of flaking surfaces similar toNubian Levallois technology as defined to thewest (Blinkhorn et al.,2013; Blinkhorn, 2014). The differences may reflect the use of lowerquality raw materials in the Thar Desert. Although the number ofwell dated sites currently prohibits an analysis of spatial diversitywithin theMiddle Palaeolithic of South Asia, evidence of diachronictrends, such as the emergence of blade production, are evident (e.g.Misra, 1982) particularly in MIS 3 dated contexts (Blinkhorn, 2014).

In the case of India, Middle Palaeolithic sites are abundant, buthave seen little chronometric dating, environmental contextuali-zation or comparative lithic analyses. Important sites include Jwa-lapuram 22 (JWP 22) (Haslam et al., 2012). This has produced areasonably large lithic assemblage securely stratified beneath the~74 ka tephra of the Youngest Toba Tuff (Fig. 14). Along with OSLestimates clustering around 85 ka from the archaeological layeritself, the occupation is well dated to MIS 5a. The technology at thissite is similar to the East African MP, with core types such asrecurrent centripetal Levallois cores being frequent (Clarkson et al.,2012). Other types, such as single platform cores, are the largestcore type at the site but may merely represent cores that were not

extensively reduced (Haslam et al., 2012), rather than representingparticular reduction methods as such. Discoidal cores at JWP 22appear to represent heavily reduced cores. Retouched types at JWP22 are dominated by side retouched/denticulated flakes, andseveral retouched points are present (Haslam et al., 2012). None ofthe features found in assemblages associated with either theSouthern Neanderthal Dispersal or the Northern NeanderthalDispersal (SOM 10) are found in Indian Middle Palaeolithic sites,suggesting that populations dispersed eastwards in a basicallylongitudinal manner. The current lack of evidence for Neanderthalsin monsoonal regions may, hypothetically, reflect the fact that thelighter build of H. sapiens may have been advantageous in hot andhumid settings.

The available evidence suggests a tendency away from EastAfrican-like features to more localised forms of technology, whichas discussed above, gave rise to the Late Palaeolithic of South Asia(e.g. James and Petraglia, 2005; Jones and Pal, 2009; Clarkson et al.,2012). This occurred after MIS 5, and the basic pattern of techno-logical continuity before and after the Toba eruption has beendescribed in several publications (Petraglia et al., 2007; Jones andPal, 2009; Haslam et al., 2012; Clarkson et al., 2012; Jones, 2012).At Jwalapuram “virtually identical” recurrent centripetal Levalloiscores are found at JWP 22 (below Toba ash) and JWP 3b and JWP 20(post Toba) (Clarkson et al., 2012, 170).

Fig. 14. Examples of lithics with similarities to the East African Middle Palaeolithic from India. All from Jwalapuram 22 (MIS 5a), except B (JWP-3b, MIS 3, shown as an example oftechnological continuity after the Toba eruption). A,B: recurrent centripetal Levallois cores; C: Levallois flake; D,E: retouched points; F, G; side retouched flakes (F on a Levalloisflake) (illustrations modified from Clarkson et al., 2012).



6. Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we have conducted the first detailed review oflithic evidence relating to two of the major models for the dispersalof H. sapiens out of Africa. Available evidence suggests that there isno lithic ‘smoking gun’ for dispersal out of Africa. There are, how-ever, patterns which can be used to construct hypotheses to betested by interdisciplinary studies. The identification of similaritiesbetween lithic assemblages does not provide automatic evidencefor dispersal, given the diverse factors which influence lithic tech-nology and morphology. Likewise, colonisation events are oftenmarked by radical changes in technology, so the detection of dif-ferences does not necessarily disprove demographic or culturalconnections.

Available evidence suggests that geometric and microlithictechnologies repeatedly developed independently. Beyond super-ficial similarities, differences are found in all aspects of microlithic/geometric technology from the core reduction methods employedto the character of the retouched component, as well as the chro-nology of when these technologies emerged. Both East Africa andSouth Asia present strong evidence for the in situ emergence of theLate Palaeolithic. In the case of South Asia, for instance, bladetechnology appears in Middle Palaeolithic contexts. The earliestSouth Asian microliths are non-geometric in form. One must ask,why, if there was a dispersal of microlith-using people from Africa,they apparently stopped making geometric microliths on theirmicroblades for the first few thousand years of their occupation ofSouth Asia. Problematically, the lithic methodology of Mellars et al.(2013) appears to be largely based on the superficial comparison ofone component of retouched tool forms, in contrast to the domi-nant trajectory in lithic analysis over the last 30 years. For example,their analysis is based on literature review and the comparison ofselected lithic illustrations, with the broadly similar shapes of theselected artefacts regarded as self-evidently demonstrating de-mographic or cultural connectivity. Such an approach ignores notonly recent research in areas such as South Africa and South Asiaalmost entirely, but also the large literature on microlithic tech-nologies in particular (e.g. Elston and Kuhn, 2002; Hiscock et al.,2011; Leplongeon, 2014). The hypothesis of technological conver-gence (analogy) rather than dispersal/cultural diffusion (homology)for the distribution of geometric and microlithic assemblages istestable, both by further fieldwork to recover excavated and datedassemblages and by detailed comparative studies.

Mellars et al. (2013) claim that key evidence in favour of theirmodel is underwater on now flooded coastal shelves. In Arabia andSouth Asia hominins were living inland at the time cited by Mellarset al. (2013), and interior areas were therefore demonstrablyhabitable (Groucutt and Petraglia, 2012; Parton et al., 2013). Like-wise, once people reached Sahul they rapidly expanded to a di-versity of landscapes from mountains to deserts (e.g. Clarkson,2014, pp. 83). Similarly, H. sapiens were far inland in Laos by~60e50 ka (Demeter et al., 2012). Given these findings, even iffuture discoveries suggest the dispersal of populations carryingmicrolithic and geometric technologies out of Africa ~60e50 ka thisis unlikely to reflect the initial colonisation of southern Asia by H.sapiens. Even if evidence is found to support such dispersals, theyare likely to merely represent one phase of repeated dispersals outof Africa, which we contend began byMIS 5. Likewise, if evidence isfound supporting coastal occupation, this will in no way be con-tradictory with the use of interior environments.

When we turn to the Middle Palaeolithic it is evident that thereis a need to move beyond purely typological foci and the reductionof variability to ‘industries’ defined by type fossils (e.g. Shea, 2014;Scerri et al., 2014a,b). Likewise, the notion that the Middle Palae-olithic is a broadly homogenous entity (Mellars et al., 2013), where

variability is primarily driven by raw material variation, finds littlesupport in comparative studies. Focussing on lithic attributes e theactual units of Middle Palaeolithic variabilitye reveals spatially andtemporally patterned variability, that offers great scope for clari-fying patterns such as adaptation and dispersal.

Our review of Middle Palaeolithic variation in Africa andsouthern Asia has identified the early origin of a particular com-bination of technological features in East Africa. These can bedistinguished from other forms of Middle Palaeolithic, such as themore unidirectional reduction associated with the ‘SouthernNeanderthal Dispersal’ (SND) and the emphasis on small bifacialtools in the ‘Northern Neanderthal Dispersal’ (NND) (SOM 10). Indistinguishing such spatialetemporal entities we must rely on thedominant technological trends, rather than presenceeabsence ofan individual feature which may occur at extremely low fre-quencies. The basic stability of the East African MP, from ~ MIS 8 to3, stands in stark contrast to other areas, such as South Africa (e.g.Porraz et al., 2013; Will et al., 2014; Mackay et al., 2014a), WestAfrica (e.g. Soriano et al., 2010), the Nile Valley (e.g. Marks, 1968a;Van Peer, 1998; Van Peer et al., 2010; Scerri, 2013a), the Levant (e.g.Shea, 2003, 2013; Hovers, 2009) and the Arabian Peninsula(Armitage et al., 2011; Groucutt and Petraglia, 2012; Bretzke et al.,2014). In all of these areas there is a significant diversity of Mid-dle Palaeolithic technologies through time. While we acknowledgethat there is some variability in the East African MP (Tryon andFaith, 2013), the evidence for dated sites suggests to us that it isrelatively limited, particularly for the pre ~50 ka period.

The reasons for the character of the East African Middle Palae-olithic, and the similar technological features found in many sitesacross the Saharo-Arabian belt and into India by MIS 5, are topics inneed of further research (see also e.g. Wallace and Shea, 2006;Meignen et al., 2009; Delagnes and Rendu, 2011; Eren and Lycett,2012). In part, the continuity presumably reflects demographicfactors and population continuity in the varied environments ofEast Africa, in contrast to other regions which saw repeated ex-tinctions (e.g. Shea, 2008b). It is possible that the similarities inbasic technological features we have identified partly reflectconvergent solutions to similar subsistence practices or some other‘practical’ factor. This, however, seems unlikely to be entirely thecase, as the ‘East African-like’ technological package is found on adiversity of raw materials, in different ecological situations and indifferent biomes.

By MIS 5 lithic assemblages similar to those of East Africa werefound across the Saharo-Arabian belt and into India. We hypothe-sise that the similarities highlighted in this paper corresponds withthe dispersal of H. sapiens into Asia, while recognising that severalmechanisms can produce similarities between lithic assemblages.This hypothesis, which clearly demonstrates that alternatives arepossible to the model of Mellars et al. (2013), needs to be tested bythe types of attribute analyses, which are proving useful elsewhere(e.g. Tostevin, 2012; Scerri, 2013a; Scerri et al., 2014a,b).

In parallel with evidence for dispersal, the archaeological recordreveals evidence for significant changes in behaviour. From MIS 5East African sites cease to be tightly tethered to rivers and lakes(Basell, 2008), perhaps indicating improved dispersal abilities (e.g.McBrearty and Brooks, 2000). After MIS 5, populations in manyareas appear to have contracted until MIS 3 in the face of climaticdeterioration. The Late Middle Palaeolithic is characterised by adiversification of technologies (Groucutt and Scerri, 2014), and thisprovides the background to the various ‘Late Palaeolithic’ industriesthat developed in MIS 3. The rapidly fluctuating climate of MIS 3also provided renewed windows of opportunity for interregionaldispersal.

In conclusion, we find little evidence from lithic technology thatthe successful dispersal of H. sapiens occurred as a single event



~60e50 ka, nor that it was only associated with geometric andmicrolithic technologies.We therefore cannot agree to the presenceof any similarities which are “effectively beyond dispute” (Mellarset al., 2013, pp. 10702). We highlight MIS 5 as a critical period forthe early dispersals of H. sapiens. This is fully congruent with sub-sequent dispersals taking place, perhaps including the frequentlyinvoked hypothesis of dispersals from northeast Africa to theLevant in MIS 3. Elucidating the nature of hominin demography inAfrica and southern Asia necessitates the continued developmentof interdisciplinary research, of which we have shown variability inlithic technology is an important aspect.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the EuropeanResearch Council (ERC) to M.D. Petraglia (Advanced Grant 295719‘PALAEODESERTS: Climate Change and Hominin Evolution in theArabian Desert: Life and Death at the Cross-roads of the OldWorld).J. Blinkhorn acknowledges the support of the McDonald Institutefor Archaeological Research (University of Cambridge) and theFondation Fyssen. E.M.L. Scerri acknowledges the support of theFondation Fyssen and the British Academy. We acknowledgefunding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (H. Grou-cutt, L. Lewis), the Boise Fund (University of Oxford) (H. Groucutt, L.Lewis) and the Wenner-Gren Foundation (L. Lewis). We wouldparticularly like to thank Chris Clarkson, R!emy Crassard and CeriShipton for previous discussions about lithic technology.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.01.039.

References

Ambrose, S.H., 1998. Chronology of the Later Stone Age and food production in EastAfrica. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 377e392.

Ambrose, S.H., 2002. Small things remembered: origins of early microlithic in-dustries in Subsaharan Africa. In: Elston, R., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), Thinking Small:Global Perspectives on Microlithic Technologies. Archaeological Papers of theAmerican Anthropological Association, Washington DC, pp. 9e29.

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, 453e456.

Assefa, Z., 2006. Faunal remains from Porc-Epic: paleoecological and zooarchaeo-logical investigations from a Middle Stone Age site in southeatern Ethiopia.Journal of Human Evolution 51, 50e75.

Bar-Yosef, O., 2007. The dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia: a cultural inter-pretation. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinkingthe Human Revolution. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cam-bridge, pp. 207e218.

Basell, L.S., 2008. Middle Stone Age (MSA) site distributions in eastern Africa andtheir relationship to Quaternary environmental change, refugia and the evo-lution of Homo sapiens. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2484e2498.

Baumler, M., Speth, J., 1993. A Middle Paleolithic assemblage from Kunji Cave, Iran.In: Olszewski, D., Dibble, H. (Eds.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, pp. 1e73.

Bewley, R., 1984. The Cambridge University Archaeological Expedition to Iran,(1969). Excavations in the Zagros Mountains, Houmian, Mir Malas, and BardeSpid. Iran 22, pp. 1e38.

Binford, L.R., 1968. Archaeological perspectives. In: Binford, S.R., Binford, L.R. (Eds.),New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago, pp. 5e32.

Blinkhorn, J., 2014. Late Middle Palaeolithic surface sites occurring on dated sedi-ment formations in the Thar Desert. Quaternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.01.027.

Blinkhorn, J., Achyuthan, H., Petraglia, M.D., Ditchfield, P., 2013. Middle Palaeolithicoccupation in the Thar Desert during the Upper Pleistocene: the signature of amodern human exit out of Africa? Quaternary Science Reviews 77, 233e238.

Blinkhorn, J., Petraglia, M.D., 2014. Assessing models for the dispersal of modernhumans to South Asia. In: Dennell, R., Porr, M. (Eds.), Southern Asia, Australiaand the Search for Human Origins. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 64e75.

Blinkhorn, J., Achyuthan, H., Ajithprasad, P., 2015. Middle Palaeolithic point tech-nologies in the Thar Desert, India. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Blome, M.W., Cohen, A.S., Tryon, C.A., Brooks, A.S., Russell, J., 2012. The environ-mental context of the origins of modern human diversity: a synthesis ofregional variability in African climate 150,000-30,000 years ago. Journal ofHuman Evolution 62, 563e592.

Bo€eda, E., 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilit!e des methods. In: Monographie duCRA, vol. 9. CNRS, Paris.

Bo€eda, E., 1995. Levallois: volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In:Dibble, H.L., Bar Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of LevalloisTechnology. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 41e68.

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, 32e47.

Bouzouggar, A., Barton, R.N.E., 2012. The identity and timing of the Aterian inMorocco. In: Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S. (Eds.), Modern Origins: a North AfricanPerspective. Springer, pp. 93e105.

Brandt, S.A., Fisher, E.C., Hildebrand, E.A., Vogelsand, R., Ambrose, S.H., Lesur, J.,Wang, H., 2012. Early MIS 3 occupation of Mochena Borago rockshelter,southwest Ethiopian highlands: implications for Late Pleistocene archaeology,paleoenvironments and modern human dispersals. Quaternary International274, 38e54.

Breeze, P.S., Drake, N.A., Groucutt, H.S., Parton, A., Jennings, R., Clark-Balzan, L.,Shipton, C., White, T., Scerri, E.M.L., Stimpson, C., Crassard, R., Hilbert, Y.,Alsharekh, A., Al-Omari, Abdulaziz, Petraglia, M.D., 2015. Remote sensing andGIS techniques for reconstructing Arabian palaeohydrology and identifying andcharacterising archaeological sites. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Bretzke, K., Conard, N.J., Uerpmann, H.P., 2014. Excavations at Jebel Faya e the FAY-NE1 shelter sequence. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 44, 69e82.

Brown, K.S., Marean, C.W., Jacobs, Z., Schoville, B.J., Oestmo, S., Fisher, E.C.,Bernatchez, J., Karkanas, P., Matthews, T., 2012. An early and enduring advancedtechnology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa. Nature 491, 590e593.

Clark, J.D., 1988. The Middle Stone Age of East Africa and the beginnings of regionalidentity. Journal of World Prehistory 2, 235e305.

Clark, G.A., Riel-Salvatore, J., 2006. Observations on systematics in Paleolithicarchaeology. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), Transitions Before the Transition:Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age.Springer, New York, pp. 29e56.

Clark, J.D., Schultz, D.U., Kroll, E.M., Freedman, E.E., Galloway, A., Batkin, J.,Kurashina, H., 2008. The Aterian of Adrar Bous and the Central Sahara. In:Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (Ed.), Adrar Bous, Archaeology of a Central SaharanGranitic Ring Complex in Niger. Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren,pp. 91e163.

Clarke, D.L., 1968. Analytical Archaeology. Metheun, Bristol.Clarkson, C., 2014. East of Eden: founder effects and the archaeological signature of

modern human dispersal. In: Dennell, R., Porr, M. (Eds.), Southern Asia,Australia and the Search for Human Origins. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 76e89.

Clarkson, C., Petraglia, M., Korisettar, R., Haslam, M., Boivin, N., Crowther, A.,Ditchfield, P., Fuller, D., Miracle, P., Harris, C., Connell, K., James, H., Koshy, J.,2009. The oldest and longest enduring microlithic sequence in India: 35,000years of modern human occupation at the Jwalapuram Locality 9 rockshelter.Antiquity 83, 326e348.

Clarkson, C., Jones, S., Harris, C., 2012. Continuity and change in the lithic industriesof the Jurreru Valley, India, before and after the Toba eruption. QuaternaryInternational 258, 165e179.

Cooke, C.K., 1963. Report on excavations at Pomongwe and Tshangula Caves,Matopo Hills, Southern Rhodesia. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 18(71), 73e151.

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., Schiettecatte,2013. Middle Palaeolithic and Neolithic occupations around Mundafan palae-olake, Saudi Arabia: implications for climate change and human dispersals.PLoS ONE 8 (7), e.69665.

de la Pe~na, P., Wadley, L., 2014. New knapping methods in the Howiesons Poort atSibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa). Quaternary International 350, 26e42.

Deacon, J., 1995. An unsolved mystery at the Howiesons Poort name site. The SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 50 (162), 110e120.

Delagnes, A., Rendu, W., 2011. Shifts in Neanderthal mobility, technology andsubsistence strategies in western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 38,1771e1783.

Delagnes, A., Ropars, A. (Eds.), 1996. Pal!eolithique moyen en pays de Caux (Haute-Normandie): Le Pucheul, Etouttevile: deux gisements de plein loessique. Mai-son des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.

Delagnes, A., Tribolo, C., Bertan, P., Brenet, M., Crassard, R., Jaubert, J., Khalidi, L.,Mercier, N., Nomade, S., Peign!e, 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, 452e474.

Demeter, F., Shackelford, L.L., Bacon, A.M., Duringer, P., Westaway, K.,Sayavongkhamdy, T., Braga, J., Sichanthongtip, P., Khamdalavong, P., Ponch, J.L.,Wang, H., Lundstrom, C., Patole-Edoumba, E., Karpoff, A.M., 2012. Anatomicallymodern humans in Southeast Asia (Laos) by 46 ka. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences USA 109 (36), 14375e14380.

Dennell, R., Petraglia, M.D., 2012. The dispersal of Homo sapiens across southernAsia: how early, how often, how complex? Quaternary Science Reviews 47,15e22.





http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(15)00062-2/sref1

































































































































































Dennell, R.W., Porr, M., 2014. The past and present of human origins in southernAsia and Australia. In: Dennell, R.W., Porr, M. (Eds.), Southern Asia, Australia andthe Search for Human Origins. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1e7.

Deraniyagala, S.U., 1992. The Prehistory of Sri Lanka: an Ecological Perspective.Department of Archaeological Survey, Government of Sri Lanka, Colombo.

Dibble, H.L., 1984. The Mousterian Industry from Bisitun Cave (Iran). Pal!eorient 10,323e334.

Dibble, H., Holdaway, S., 1993. The Middle Paleolithic of Warwasi Rockshelter. In:Olszewski, D., Dibble, H. (Eds.), The Palaeolithic Prehistory of the Zagros. Uni-versity Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 75e99.

Dibble, H.L., Aldeias, V., Alvarez-Fernandez, E., Blackwell, B., Hallet-Desguez, E.,Jacobs, Z., Goldberg, P., Lin, S.C., Morala, A., Meyer, M.C., Olszewski, D.I., Reed, K.,Reed, D., Rezek, Z., Richter, D., Roberts, R.G., Sandgathe, D., Schumans, U.,Skinner, A.R., Steele, T.E., El-Hajraoui, M., 2013a. New excavations at the site ofContrebandiers Cave, Morocco. Paleoanthropology 2012, 145e201.

Dibble, H.L., Aldeias, V., Jacobs, Z., Olszewski, D.I., Rezek, Z., Lin, C.A., Alvarez-Fernandez, E., Barshay-Szmidt, C.C., Hallet-Desguez, E., Reed, D., Reed, K.,Richter, D., Steele, T.E., Skinner, A., Blackwell, B., Doronicheva, E., El-Harjraoui, M., 2013b. On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mous-terian of the Maghreb. Journal of Human Evolution 64, 194e210.

Diez-Martín, F., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Sanchez, P., Mabulla, A., Tarri~no, A.,Barba, R., Prendergast, M., de Luque, L., 2009. The Middle to Later Stone Agetechnological transition in East Africa: new data from Mumba Rockshelter BedV and their implications for the origin of modern human behaviour. Journal ofAfrican Archaeology 7, 147e173.

Douka, K., Jacobs, Z., Lane, C., Grün, R., Farr, L., Hunt, C., Inglis, R.H., Reynolds, T.,Albert, P., Aubert, M., Cullen, V., Hill, E., Kinsley, L., Roberts, R.G., Tomlinson, E.L.,Wulf, S., Barker, G., 2013. The chronostratigraphy of the Haua Fteah cave(Cyrenaica, northeast Libya). Journal of Human Evolution 66, 39e63.

Drake, N.A., Blench, R.M., Armitage, S.J., Bristow, C.S., White, K.H., 2011. Ancientwatercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of thedesert. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108, 358e462.

Drake, N.E., Breeze, P., Parker, A., 2013. Palaeoclimate in the Saharan and ArabianDeserts during the Middle Palaeolithic and the potential for hominin dispersals.Quaternary International 300, 48e61.

Elston, R., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), 2002. Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Micro-lithization. American Anthropological Association, Arlington.

Eren, M.I., Lycett, S.J., 2012. Why Levallois? A morphometric comparison of exper-imental ‘preferential’ Levallois flakes versus debitage flakes. PLoS ONE 7,E29273.

Eren, M.I., Diez-Martin, F., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., 2013. An empirical test of therelative frequency of bipolar reduction in beds VI, V and III at Mumba Rock-shelter, Tanzania: implications for the East African Middle to Late Stone Agetransition. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 248e256.

Gliganic, L.A., Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Mabulla, A.Z.P., 2012.New ages for Middle and Later Stone Age deposits at Mumba rockshelter,Tanzania: optically stimulated luminescence dating of quartz and feldspargrains. Journal of Human Evolution 533e547.

Goder-Goldberger, M., 2013. The Khormusan: evidence for an MSA East Africanindustry in Nubia. Quaternary International 300, 182e194.

Groucutt, H.S., Petraglia, M.D., 2012. The prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula: de-serts, dispersals and demography. Evolutionary Anthropology 21, 113e125.

Groucutt, H.S., Blinkhorn, J., 2013. The Middle Palaeolithic in the desert and itsimplications for understanding hominin adaptation and dispersal. QuaternaryInternational 300, 1e12.

Groucutt, H.S., Petraglia, M.D., 2014. An Arabian perspective on the dispersal ofHomo sapiens out of Africa. In: Dennell, R., Porr, M. (Eds.), Southern Asia,Australia and the Search for Human Origins. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 51e63.

Groucutt, H.S., Scerri, E.M.L., 2014. Lithics of the late Middle Palaeolithic: post MIS 5technological variability and its implications. Quaternary International 350,1e6.

Groucutt, H.S., 2014. Middle Palaeolithic point technology, with a focus on the siteof Tor Faraj (Jordan, MIS 3). Quaternary International 350, 205e226.

Groucutt, H.S., 2015. The Middle Palaeolithic of Warwasi Cave, Iran (in preparation).Haslam, M., Clarkson, C., Roberts, R.G., Bora, J., Korisettar, R., Ditchfield, P.,

Chivas, A.R., Chivas, A.R., Harris, C., Smith, V., Oh, A., Eksambekar, S., Boivin, N.,Petraglia, M.D., 2012. A southern Indian Middle Palaeolithic occupation surfacesealed by the 74 ka Toba eruption: further evidence from Jwalapurum Locality22. Quaternary International 258, 148e164.

Hawkins, A.L., Smith, J.R., Giegengack, R., McDonald, M.M.A., Kleindienst, M.R.,Schwarcz, H.P., Churcher, C.S., Wiseman, M.F., Nicoll, K., 2001. New research onthe prehistory of the escarpment in Kharga Oasis, Egypt. Nyame Akuma 55,8e14.

Henry, D.O. (Ed.), 2003. Neanderthals in the Levant. Behavioral Organization andthe Beginnings of Human Settlement. Continuum, London.

Henshilwood, C.S., 2012. Late Pleistocene Techno-traditions in southern Africa: areview of the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort, c.75-59 ka. Journal of WorldPrehistory 25, 205e237.

Heydari-Guran, S., 2014. Paleolithic Landscapes of Iran. In: BAR International Series2586. Oxbow, Oxford.

Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., Mackay, A., 2011. Big debates over little tools: ongoingdisputes over microliths on three continents. World Archaeology 43 (4),653e664.

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

Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., Galbraith, R.F., Deacon, H.J., Grün, R., Mackay, A., Mitchell, P.,Vogelsang, R., Wadley, L., 2008. Ages for the Middle Stone Age of SouthernAfrica: implications for human behavior and dispersal. Science 322, 733e735.

Jagher, R., 2009. The Central Oman Paleolithic Survey: recent research in southernArabia and reflection on the prehistoric evidence. In: Petraglia, M.D., Rose, J.I.(Eds.), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments,Prehistory and Genetics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 139e150.

James, H.V.A., 2011. Becoming Human: the Emergence of Modern Human Behaviourin South Asia (Ph.D. thesis). University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

James, H.V.A., Petraglia, M., 2005. Modern human origins and the evolution ofbehavior in the later Pleistocene record of South Asia. Current Anthropology 46,S4eS27.

Jennings, R., Stone, E., Singarayer, J., Krebs-Kanzow, U., Khon, V., Parton, A.,Parker, A., Groucutt, H.S., Petraglia, M.D., 2015. The greening of Arabia: multipleclimate model simulations identify opportunities for human occupation in theArabian Peninsula during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. QuaternaryInternational (in this volume).

Jones, S.C., 2012. Local- and regional-scale impacts of the ~74 ka Toba supervolcaniceruption on hominin populations and habitats in India. Quaternary Interna-tional 258, 100e118.

Jones, S., Pal, J.N., 2009. The Palaeolithic of the Middle Son valley, north-centralIndia: changes in hominin lithic technology and behaviour during the UpperPleistocene. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 323e341.

Kaplan, J., 1990. The Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter sequence: 100,000 years of StoneAge history. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 2, 1e94.

Klein, R.G., 2009. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Uni-versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kleindienst, M.R., 2006. On naming things: behavioral changes in the Late Middle toEarlier Late Pleistocene, viewed from the Eastern Sahara. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.(Eds.), Evolution and Stability in the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age.Springer, New York, pp. 13e28.

Kobusiewicz, M., 1999. Excavations at Sinai-20, The Split Rock Site, Zarnoq Locality.In: Eddy, F.W., Wendorf, F., associates (Eds.), An Archaeological Investigation ofthe Central Sinai, Egypt. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado,pp. 193e207.

Kobusiewicz, M., Schild, R., Bluszcz, A., Wendorf, F., 2001. Reassessing chro-nostratigraphic position of the Split Rock Site, Sinai. In: Gehlen, B., Heinen, M.,Tillmann, A. (Eds.), Zeit-Raüme, Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Taute. DeutscheGesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Bonn, pp. 227e236.

Kroeber, A.L., 1931. Historical reconstruction of culture growths and organic evo-lution. American Anthropologist 33, 149e156.

Leakey, M.D., Hay, R.L., Thurber, D.L., Protsch, R., Berger, R., 1972. Stratigraphy,archaeology and age of the Ndutu and Naisiusiu beds, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.World Archaeology 3, 328e341.

Leplongeon, A., 2014. Microliths in the Middle and Later Stone Age of eastern Africa:new data from Porc-Epic and Goda Buticha cave sites, Ethiopia. QuaternaryInternational 343, 100e116.

Lewis, L., Perera, N., Petraglia, M.D., 2014. First technological comparison ofSouthern African Howiesons Poort and South Asian microlithic industries: anexploration of inter-regional variability in microlithic assemblages. QuaternaryInternational 350, 7e25.

Lombard, M., 2005. The Howiesons Poort of South Africa: what we know, what wethink we know, what we need to know. Southern African Humanities 17,33e55.

Lombard, M., Wadley, L., Jacobs, Z., Mohapi, M., Roberts, R.G., 2010. Still Bay andserrated points from Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa.Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1773e1784.

Mackay, A., Stewart, B.A., Chase, B.M., 2014a. Coalescence and fragmentation in thelate Pleistocene archaeology of southernmost Africa. Journal of Human Evolu-tion 72, 26e51.

Mackay, A., Sumner, A., Jacobs, Z., Marwick, B., Bluff, K., Shaw, M., 2014b. Putslaagte1 (PL1), the Doring River, and the later Middle Stone Age in southern Africa'sWinter Rainfall Zone. Quaternary International 350, 43e58.

Marks, A.E., 1968a. The Mousterian industries of Nubia. In: Wendorf, F. (Ed.), ThePrehistory of Nubia, vol. 1. Fort Burgwin Research Center and South MethodistUniversity Press, pp. 193e314.

Marks, A.E., 1968b. The Khormusan: an Upper Pleistocene industry in Nubia. In:Wendorf, F. (Ed.), The Prehistory of Nubia, vol. 1. Fort Burgwin Research Centerand South Methodist University Press, pp. 315e391.

Marks, A.E., Conard, N., 2009. Technology vs. typology: the case for and against atransition from the MSA to the LSA at Mumba Cave, Tanzania. In: Audry, T.,Almeida, F., Araujo, A., Tiffagom, M. (Eds.), Space and Time: Which Diachronies,Which Synchronies, Which Scales? Typology Versus Technology. Archaeopress,Oxford, pp. 123e131.

McBrearty, S., 1993. Lithic artefacts from Abu Dhabi's western region. Tribulus:Bulletin of the Emirates National History Group 3, 13e14.

McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation ofthe origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39,453e563.

McBrearty, S., Tryon, C.A., 2006. From Acheulian to Middle Stone Age in the Kap-thurin Formation, Kenya. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), Transitions Before theTransition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and the MiddleStone Age. Springer, New York, pp. 257e277.

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



























































































































































































































McDougall, I., Brown, F.H., Fleagle, J.G., 2005. Stratigraphic placement and age ofmodern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature 433, 733e736.

Meignen, L., Delagnes, A., Bourguignon, L., 2009. Patterns of lithic material pro-curement and transformation during the Middle Paleolithic in Western Europe.In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies.Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 15e25.

Meignen, L., 1998. Hayonim Cave lithic assemblages in the context of the NearEastern Middle Paleolithic: a preliminary report. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. PlenumPress, New York, pp. 165e180.

Mellars, P., 2006. Going East: new genetic and archaeological perspectives on themodern human colonization of Eurasia. Science 313, 796e800.

Mellars, P., Gori, K.C., Carr, M., Soares, P.A., Richards, M.B., 2013. Genetic andarchaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization ofsouthern Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110,10699e10704.

Mehlman, M.M., 1989. Later Quaternary Archaeological Sequences in NorthernTanzania (PhD thesis). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Froget, L., Joron, J.L., Reyss, J.L., Weiner, S., Goldberg, P.,Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Chech, M., Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C.,Tillier, A.M., Arensburg, B., Vandermeersch, B., 2007. Hayonim Cave: a TL-basedchronology for this Levantine Mousterian sequence. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 34, 1064e1077.

Merrick, H.V., 1975. Change in Later Pleistocene Lithic Industries in Eastern Africa(PhD thesis). University of California, Berkeley.

Mijares, A.S., D!etroit, F., Piper, P., Grün, P., Bellwood, P., Aubert, M., Champion, G.,Cuevas, N., De Leon, A., Dizon, E., 2010. New evidence for a 67,000-year-oldhuman presence at Callao Cave, Luzon, Philippines. Journal of Human Evolution59, 123e132.

Millard, A.R., 2008. A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominin fos-sils: I. Africa and the Near East 500-50 ka. Journal of Human Evolution 54,848e874.

Mishra, S., Chauhan, N., Singhvi, A.K., 2013. Continuity of Microblade technology inthe Indian subcontinent since 45ka: implications for the dispersal of modernhumans. PLoS ONE 8 (7), e69280.

Misra, V.N., 1982. Evolution of blade element in the stone industries of Rock-ShelterIII, 1-23, Bhimbetka. In: Sharma, R.K. (Ed.), Indian Archaeology: New Perspec-tives. Prachya Niketan, Bhopal, pp. 7e13.

Misra, S., 2001. Prehistoric human colonization of India. Journal of Bioscience 26,491e531.

Misra, V.N., Bellwood, P. (Eds.), 1985. Recent Advances Indo-Pacific Prehistory. IBH,New Delhi.

Morgan, L.E., Renne, P.R., 2008. Diachronous dawn of Africa's Middle Stone Age:new 40Ar/39Ar ages from the Ethiopian Rift. Geology 36, 967e970.

Mussi, M., Altamura, F., Macchiarelli, R., Melis, R.T., Spinapolice, E.E., 2014. Garba III(Melka Kunture, Ethiopia): a MSA site with archaic Homo sapiens remainsrevisited. Quaternary International 343, 28e39.

Nami, M., Moser, J., 2010. La Grotte d'Ifri n'Ammar Tome 2, le Paleolithique Moyen.Forschungren Zur Archaologie Aussereuropaischer Kulturen, Wiesbaden.

O'Brien, M.J., 2010. The future of Paleolithic studies: a view from New World. In:Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old Stones: AnalyticalApproaches to Paleolithic Technologies. Springer, New York, pp. 311e334.

O'Brien, M., Boulanger, M.T., Collard, M., Buchanan, B., Tarle, L., Straus, L.G.,Eren, M.I., 2014. Solutreanism. Antiquity 88, 622e624.

Onjala, I.O., 2006. East African Middle Stone Age Technology and the Emergence ofModern Human Behaviour (PhD thesis). University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Osypínski, P., Osypínski, M., Gautier, A., 2011. Affad 23, a late Middle Palaeolithic sitewith refitted lithics and animal remains in the southern Dongola reach, Sudan.Journal of African Archaeology 9, 177e188.

Osypínski, P., 2012. The lithic traditions of Late-Pleistocene settlement at Affad,Sudan. Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, New Ideas and Discoveries 11,213e221.

Otte, M., Biglari, F., Jaubert, J. (Eds.), 2009. Iran Paleolithic. British ArchaeologicalResearch International Series 1968. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Parton, A., Farrant, A.R., Leng, M.J., Schwenninger, J.L., Rose, J.I., Uerpmann, H.P.,Parker, A.G., 2013. An early MIS3 wet phase within southeast Arabia: climaticand archaeological implications. Quaternary International 300, 62e74.

Perera, N., Kourampas, N., Simpson, I.A., Deraniyagala, S.U., Bulbeck, D.,Kamminga, J., Perera, J., Fuller, D.Q., Szabo, K., Oliveira, N.V., 2011. People of theancient rainforest: Late Pleistocene foragers at the Batadomba-lena rockshelter,Sri Lanka. Journal of Human Evolution 61 (3), 254e269.

Petraglia, M.D., 2007. Mind the gap: factoring the Arabian Peninsula and the Indiansubcontinent and into out of Africa models. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 383e394.

Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R., Boivin, N., Clarkson, C., Ditchfield, P., Jones, J., Koshy, J.,Lahr, M.M., Oppenheimer, C., Pyle, D., Roberts, R., Schwenninger, J.L., Arnold, L.,White, K., 2007. Middle Paleolithic assemblages from the subcontinent beforeand after the Toba super-eruption. Science 317 (5834), 114e116.

Petraglia, M., Clarkson, C., Boivin, N., Haslam, M., Korisettar, R., Chaubey, G.,Ditchfield, P., Fuller, D., James, H., Jones, S., Kivisild, T., Koshy, J., Lahr, M.M.,Metspalu, M., Roberts, R., Arnold, L., 2009. Population increase and environ-mental deterioration correspond with microlithic innovations in South Asia ca.35,000 years ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106(30), 12261e12266.

Petraglia, M.D., Haslam, M., Fuller, D.Q., Boivin, N., Clarkson, C., 2010. Out of Africa:new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along theIndian Ocean rim. Human Biology 37, 288e311.

Petraglia, M.D., Alsharekh, A.M., Crassard, R., Drake, N.A., Groucutt, H., Parker, A.G.,Roberts, R.G., 2011. Middle Paleolithic occupation on a Marine Isotope Stage 5lakeshore in the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia. Quaternary Science Reviews 30,1555e1559.

Petraglia, M.D., Alsharekh, A., Breeze, P., Clarkson, C., Crassard, R., Drake, N.A.,Groucutt, H.S., Jennings, R., Parker, A.G., Parton, A., Roberts, R.G., Shipton, C.,Matheson, C., al-Omari, A., Veall, M.-A., 2012a. Hominin dispersal into the Nefuddesert and Middle Palaeolithic settlement along the Jubbah palaeolake,northern Arabia. PLoS ONE 7, e49840.

Petraglia, M.D., Ditchfield, P., Jones, S., Korisettar, R., Pal, J.N., 2012b. The Toba vol-canic super-eruption, environmental change, and hominin occupation historyin India over the last 140,000 years. Quaternary International 258, 119e134.

Porraz, G., Texier, P.J., Archer, W., Piboule, M., Rigaud, J.P., Tribolo, C., 2013. Techno-logical successions in the Middle Stone Age sequence of Diepkloof Rock Shelter,Western Cape, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 3376e3400.

Reynolds, T., 2013. The Middle Palaeolithic of Cyrenaica: is there an Aterian at theHaua Fteah and does it matter. Quaternary International 300, 171e181.

Rose, J.I., 2004. Evidence for the expansion of an Upper Pleistocene population outof East Africa, from the site of Station One, Northern Sudan. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 14, 205e216.

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.

Rosenberg, T.M., Preusser, F., Fleitmann, D., Schwalb, A., Penkman, K., Schmid, T.W.,Al-Shanti, M.A., Kadi, K., Matter, A., 2011. Late Pleistocene pluvial periods insouthern Arabia - windows of opportunity for modern human dispersal. Ge-ology 39, 1115e1118.

Rosenberg, T.M., Preusser, F., Risberg, J., Plikk, A., Khalid, K.A., Matter, A.,Fleitmann, D., 2013. Middle and Late Pleistocene humid periods recorded inpalaeolake deposits of the Nafud desert, Saudi Arabia. Quaternary Science Re-views 70, 109e123.

Sahle, Y., Hutchings, W.K., Braun, D.R., Sealy, J.C., Morgan, L.E., Negash, A., Atnafu, B.,2013. Earliest stone-tipped projectiles from the Ethiopian rift date to >279,000years ago. PLoS ONE 8, e78092.

Sahle, Y., Morgan, L.E., Braun, D.R., Atnafu, B., Hutcings, W.K., 2014. Chronologicaland behavioural contexts of the earliest Middle Stone Age in the GademottaFormation, Main Ethiopian Rift. Quaternary International 331, 6e19.

Sali, S., 1989. The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures of Maharashtra. Dec-can College Postgraduate Research Institute, Pune, India.

Scally, A., Durbin, R., 2012. Revising the human mutation rate: implications forunderstanding human evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics 13, 745e753.

Scerri, E.M.L., 2012. A new stone tool assemblage revisited: reconsidering the‘Aterian’ in Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42, 357e370.

Scerri, E.M.L., 2013a. The Aterian and its place in the North African Middle StoneAge. Quaternary International 300, 111e130.

Scerri, E.M.L., 2013b. On the spatial and technological organisation of haftingmodifications in the North African Middle Stone Age. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 40, 4234e4248.

Scerri, E.M.L., Breeze, P., Parton, A., Groucutt, H.S., Stimpson, C., Clark-Balzan, L.,Jennings, R., White, T., Alsharekh, A., Petraglia, M.D., 2015. Landscape archivesand Middle to Late Pleistocene human habitation in the Nefud Desert, SaudiArabia. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Scerri, E.M.L., Drake, N.A., Jennings, R., Groucutt, H.S., 2014a. Earliest evidence forthe structure of Homo sapiens populations in Africa. Quaternary Science Re-views 101, 207e216.

Scerri, E.M.L., Groucutt, H.S., Jennings, R.P., Petraglia, M.D., 2014b. Unexpectedtechnological heterogeneity in northern Arabia indicates complex Late Pleis-tocene demography at the gateway to Asia. Journal of Human Evolution 75,125e142.

Scott-Jackson, J., Scott-Jackson, W., Rose, J.I., 2009. Paleolithic stone tool assem-blages from Sharjah and Ras al Khaimah in the United Arab Emirates. In:Petraglia, M.D., Rose, J.I. (Eds.), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 125e138.

Shea, J., 2003. The Middle Palaeolithic of the East Mediterranean Levant. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 17, 313e394.

Shea, J.J., 2008a. The Middle Stone Age archaeology of the Lower Omo Valley Kibishformation: excavations, lithic assemblages, and inferred patterns of early Homosapiens behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 55 (3), 448e485.

Shea, J.J., 2008b. Transitions or turnovers? Climatically-forced extinctions of Homosapiens and Neanderthals in the east Mediterranean Levant. Quaternary ScienceReviews 27, 2253e2270.

Shea, J.J., 2011. Homo sapiens is as Homo sapiens was. Current Anthropology 52,1e35.

Shea, J.J., 2013. Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic of the Near East: a Guide.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Shea, J.J., Fleagle, J.G., Assefa, Z., 2007. Context and chronology of early Homo sapiensfossils from the Omo Kibish Formation, Ethiopia. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 153e162.

Shea, J.J., 2014. Sink the Mousterian? Named stone tool industries (NASTIES) asobstacles to investigating hominin evolutionary relationships in the LaterMiddle Paleolithic Levant. Quaternary International 350, 169e179.



























































































































































































































Shea, J.J., 1998. Neandertal and early modern human behavioural variability: aregional-scale approach to lithic evidence for hunting in the Levantine Mous-terian. Current Anthropology 39, S45eS78.

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

Smith, F.H., Ahern, J.C., 2013. The Origin of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered.Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.

Smith, P.E.L., 1986. Paleolithic Archaeology in Iran. University Museum, University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Solecki, R., Solecki, R., 1993. The pointed tools from the Mousterian occupations ofShanidar Cave, northern Iraq. In: Olszewski, D., Dibble, H. (Eds.), The PaleolithicPrehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. University Museum, University of Pennsylva-nia, Philadelphia, pp. 119e146.

Soriano, S., Rasse, M., Tribolo, C., Huysecom, E., 2010. Oujougou: a long Middle StoneAge sequence in the Dogon country (Mali). In: Allsworth-Jones, P. (Ed.), WestAfrican Archaeology: New Developments, New Perspectives. Archaeopress,Oxford, pp. 1e14.

Soriano, S., Villa, P., Wadley, L., 2007. Blade technology and tool forms in the MiddleStone Age of South Africa: the Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort atRose Cottage Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 681e703.

Speth, J.D., 2014. The importance of Iran's Paleolithic record for unravelling keyissues in human evolution. International Journal of the Society of Iranian Ar-chaeologists 1, 10e26.

Stewart, J.R., Stringer, C.B., 2012. Human evolution out of Africa: the role of refugiaand climate change. Science 335, 1317e1321.

Stewart, B.A., Dewar, G.I., Morley, M.W., Inglis, R.H., Wheeler, M., Jacobs, Z.,Roberts, R.G., 2013. Afromontane foragers of the Late Pleistocene: site forma-tion, chronology and occupational pulsing at Melikane rockshelter, Lesotho.Quaternary International 270, 40e60.

Stringer, C.B., 2014. Why we are not all multiregionalists now. Trends in Ecology andEvolution 29, 248e251.

Tixier, J., 1967. Pi"eces p!edoncul!ees at!erienne du Maghreb et du Sahara. Mus!eeNational d'Histoire, Paris.

Tostevin, G.B., 2012. Seeing Lithics: a Middle-range Theory for Testing CulturalTransmission in the Pleistocene. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Tribolo, C., Mercier, N., Douville, E., Joron, J.L., Reyness, J.L., Rufer, D., Cantin, N.,Lefrais, Y., Miller, C.E., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, P., Texier, J., 2013. OSLand TL dating of the Middle Stone Age sequence at Diepkloof Rock Shelter(South Africa): a clarification. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 3401e3411.

Tryon, C.A., 2006. “Early” Middle Stone Age lithic technology of the KapthurinFormation (Kenya). Current Anthropology 47, 367e375.

Tryon, C.A., McBrearty, S., 2002. Tephrostratigraphy and the Acheulian to MiddleStone Age transition in the Kapthurin Formation, Baringo, Kenya. Journal ofHuman Evolution 42, 211e235.

Tryon, C.A., McBrearty, S., Texier, P.J., 2005. Levallois lithic technology from theKapthurin Formation, Kenya: Acheulian origin and Middle Stone Age diversity.African Archaeological Review 22, 199e229.

Tryon, C.A., Roach, N.T., Logan, M.A.V., 2008. The Middle Stone Age of the northernKenyan Rift: age and context of new archaeological sites from the Kapedo Tuffs.Journal of Human Evolution 55, 652e664.

Tryon, C.A., Faith, J.T., 2013. Variability in the Middle Stone Age of eastern Africa.Current Anthropology 54, S234eS254.

Tsanova, T., 2014. The beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in the Iranian Zagros. Ataphonomic approach and techno-economic comparison of Early Baradostianassemblages from Warwasi and Yafteh (Iran). Journal of Human Evolution 65,39e64.

Usik, V.I., Rose, J.I., Hilbert, Y.H., Van Peer, P., Marks, A.E., 2013. Nubian Complexreduction strategies in Dhofar, southern Oman. Quaternary International 300,244e266.

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

Paleolithic site on the northern edge of the Iranian Central Desert (Dasht-eKavir). Quaternary International 300, 267e281.

Vahdati Nasab, H., 2011. Paleolithic archaeology in Iran. International Journal ofHumanities 18, 63e87.

Van Peer, P., 1998. The Nile corridor and the out of Africa model: an examination ofthe archaeological record. Current Anthropology 39, 115e140.

Van Peer, P., 2010. Chert Quarrying, Lithic Technology, and a Modern Human Burialat the Palaeolithic Site of Taramsa 1, Upper Egypt. Leuven University Press,Leuven.

Villa, P., Soressi, M., Henshilwood, C.S., Mourre, V., 2009. The Still Bay points ofBlombos Cave (South Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 441e460.

Villa, P., Soriano, S., Teyssandier, N., Wurz, S., 2010. The Howiesons Poort and MSA IIIat Klasies River main site, Cave 1A. Journal of Archaeological Science 37,630e655.

Vogelsang, R., Richter, J., Jacobs, Z., Eichorn, B., Linseele, V., Roberts, R., 2010. Newexcavations of Middle Stone Age deposits at Apollo 11 rockshelter, Namibia:stratigraphy, archaeology and past environments. Journal of African Archae-ology 8 (2), 185e218.

Volkman, P., 1989. Boker Tachtit: the Technological Shift from the Middle to theUpper Palaeolithic in the Central Negev, Israel (Ph.D. thesis). Southern Meth-odist University, Dallas.

Wadley, L., Mohapi, M., 2008. A segment is not a monolith: evidence from theHowiesons Poort of Sibudu, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 35,2594e2605.

Wahida, G., Al-Tikriti, W.Y., Beech, M.J., Al Meqbali, A., 2009. A Middle Paleolithicassemblage from Jebel Barakah, coastal Abu Dhabi Emirate. In: Petraglia, M.D.,Rose, J.I. (Eds.), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenviron-ments, Prehistory and Genetics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 117e124.

Wallace, I., Shea, J.J., 2006. Mobility patterns and core technologies in the MiddlePaleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1293e1309.

Waweru, W.N., 2007. Middle Stone Age Technology at Cartwright's Site, Kenya(Ph.D. thesis). University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Wendorf, F., Schild, R., 1974. A Middle Stone Age Sequence from the Central RiftValley, Ethiopia. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warwaw.

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.

White, T.D., Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G.D., Suwa, G., Howell, F.C.,2003. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423,742e747.

Wijeyapala, W., 1997. New Light on the Prehistory of Sri Lanka in the Context ofRecent Investigations of Cave Sites (PhD thesis). University of Peradeniya,Peradeniya.

Will, M., Bader, G.D., Conard, N.J., 2014. Characterizing the Late Pleistocene MSAlithic technology of Sibudu, KwaZulu eNatal, South Africa. PLoS ONE e98359.

Willoughby, P.R., 2007. The Evolution of Modern Humans in Africa: a Compre-hensive Guide. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Wurz, S., Van Peer, P., 2012. Out of Africa, the Nile Valley and the Northern Route.South African Archaeological Bulletin 67, 168e179.

Wurz, S., 2013. Technological trends in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa be-tween MIS 7 and MIS 3. Current Anthropology 54 (S8), S305eS319.

Yellen, J., Brooks, A., Helgren, D., Tappen, M., 2005. The archaeology of AdumaMiddle Stone Age sites in the Awash valley, Ethiopia. PaleoAnthropology 3,25e100.

Zaidner, Y., Frumkin, A., Porat, N., Tsatskin, A., Yeshurun, R., Weissbrod, L., 2014.A series of Mousterian occupations in a new type of site: the Nesher Ramlakarst depression, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 66, 1e17.

Zarins, J., Ibrahim, M., Potts, D., Edens, C., 1979. The preliminary report on the thirdphase of the Comprehensive Archaeological Survey Program e the centralprovince. Atlal 3, 9e42.


































































































































































Documents

Stone tool assemblages and models for the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa