An archaeological scenario for Out of Arabia

Jeffrey Rose and Anthony Marks have a preprint in which he details an archaeological scenario for the emergence of the Emiran (arguably the best candidate for the ur-Upper Paleolithic at the moment) from Arabian progenitors who themselves had Northeast African Nubian Levallois progenitors. I proposed Out of Arabia a few years ago and followed research suggestive of such a trajectory of modern humans in various posts under the Out of Arabia label.

In a nutshell, it seems to me that the 50kya OoAfrica model is wrong, falsified by (i) the dating of Neandertal adixture (which precedes it and could only have happened outside of Africa), (ii) the dating of human mtDNA and NRY trees in numerous papers that show a split that precedes 50kya. This in itself proves that the Upper Paleolithic (which is attested in the post-50kya period and rapidly spreads across Eurasia in a genetic Big Bang of expansion leading to the full disappearance of Neandertals by ~40kya) must have local Eurasian origins rather than being an import from Africa.

If UP is not linked to the Out-of-Africa event, then two questions arise: (i) how did the UP arise in Eurasia, and (ii) when did the Out-of-Africa event take place? The increasing adoption of a "slow mutation rate", the discovery of a potential ~100kya layer of ancestry separating Europeans from East Asians, and, on the archaeology side, the proliferation of evidence against the "coastal migration route" all hint in OoAfrica taking place much earlier than the UP revolution in answer to question (ii).  Indeed, one of the few stumbling blocks of a much earlier Out-of-Africa (the date of L3~70kya) may actually be falling, if it turns out that African L3 is nested within Eurasian M+N and not vice versa. The new preprint by Rose snf Marks helps answer question (i) by proposing an archaeological scenario that derives the UP of the Levant from the MP of Arabia.

From the paper:

In sum, the tool assemblages of the early Emiran include a combination of both classic UP tool types and MP Levallois points; it cannot be accurately characterized as fully UP, rather, an amalgamation of MP and UP forms. Viewed solely within a Levantine context, the technological and typological patterning of the early Emiran might suggest it derived from local innovation without significant external demographic input. 

... 

So, with no clear cut antecedents in the Levant, do the three Emiran technological traits that have no deep Levantine ancestry (i.e., bidirectional core preparation, the use of cresting, and the presence of lateral modification on Levallois points), have  demonstrable origins elsewhere? Conversely, do those deeply rooted Levantine characteristics of the Emiran (i.e., elongated Levallois point production and UP tool  manufacture) have comparable analogues in adjacent areas? 

...  

Given these technological and typological considerations, we find no direct relationship between any northeast African MIS 5 industry and the early Emiran. The African data do suggest that the Emiran preferential bidirectional Levallois point production strategy ultimately arose in northeast Africa during late MIS 6. This reduction strategy became increasingly widespread during MIS 5, where it spread as far south as the Ethiopian Rift and east into the Arabian Peninsula. This wide distribution suggests extensive cultural contact, either direct or indirect, along the Nile Valley and across the Red Sea during the Last Interglacial, when climatic conditions were optimal. 

...  

By MIS 5.3 (~ 100 ka), perhaps, even as early as the Last Interglacial, the African Nubian Complex was widespread in Arabia, from the Yemeni Hadramawt to the eastern edge of the Nejd Plateau in southern Oman. Additional manifestations of this technocomplex have been found in the Rub' al Khali, central Saudi Arabia, and the Al Jawf basin of northern Saudi Arabia, less than 300 km southeast of ‘Ain Difla. Given the Nilotic origin of the Nubian Complex, its presence in Arabia may be firmly understood as a huntergatherer range expansion out of northeast Africa.  

...  

The techno-typological patterns we have observed point to an origin of the Emiran that was neither wholly rooted in the Levant nor the result of a complete demographic replacement from groups expanding out of Africa; rather, the Emiran combines elements of the Nubian Levallois system with typological elements from the southern Levantine Mousterian. This scenario envisions a zone stretching across the interface of northwestern Arabia and the southern Levant, where the territories of Levantine and Arabian huntergatherer populations overlapped during MIS 5. Bilateral exchange over time resulted in the incorporation of an Afro-Arabian core reduction strategy with a Levantine toolmaking tradition that extends back to the Early Mousterian. 

...  

African Nubian Complex toolmakers, at least, were modern humans. AMH specimens have been documented in North Africa from 150 ka onward (Smith et al., 2007; Hublin and McPherron, 2012), while no other species has yet been found there. An AMH child burial was excavated from an extraction pit associated with Activity Phase III at Taramsa Hill 1 (Vermeersch et al., 1998; Van Peer et al., 2010), with a terminus post quem of ca. 70 ka. Given the technological similarity of the Classic Dhofar Nubian and the Late Nubian Complex of the Middle Nile Valley in Egypt, as well as the fact that there is no evidence for prior MP human occupation in southern Oman, it is reasonable to associate the distribution of Nubian Complex sites with a population of AMHs spread across northeast Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The presence of Nubian Levallois technology in southern Arabia and the Horn of Africa (Clark, 1954; Kurashina, 1978; Clark, 1988; Beyin, 2013), as well as northern Arabia and in the Red Sea hills of Egypt, suggests that early human groups traveled to and from Africa via both the Arabian and Levantine Corridors.

It is unfortunate that Arabia is so poor (to wholly deficient?) in ancient human remains from this critical period. Nonetheless, it makes sense that if modern humans were present in Northeast Africa in association with Nubian Complex tools, they would be the ones who carried them to Arabia. The presence of AMH in the Levant (associated with Mousterian tools) was often dismissed until recently as the Out-of-Africa that failed, partly because the Shkul/Qafzeh hominins were the only pre-UP modern humans in Eurasia (making their extinction plausible) and partly because of the widespread view that Out-of-Africa happened ~70-50kya (which by definition would imply that the Mount Carmel hominins weren't the Out-of-Africa.

However, if AMH were also present in Arabia during the MP it is much more difficult to argue for extinction of Eurasian modern humans and later replacement by a "late" Out-of-Africa event: this would imply that both the Levantine and Arabian humans would disappear. Moreover, the genetics no longer requires a late Out-of-Africa event and the UP is no longer plausibly concurrent with the OoAfrica event. In short, a quite simple explanation is that one group of AMH (from Arabia) mixed with another group of AMH (from the Levant) and the UP arose in this population. The latter group (from the Levant) lived in proximity to Neandertals and thus the evidence for Neandertal admixture in non-Africans is easily explained (no need to invoke unattested Neandertals admixing with "coastal route" migrating humans).

"Out of Arabia" and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in the southern Levant 

Jeffrey I. Rose, Anthony E. Marks

Beginning some 50 thousand years ago, a technological transition spread across the Near East and into Eurasia, in the most general terms characterized by a shift from preferential, prepared core reduction systems to the serial production of elongated points via opposed platform cores. The earliest known occurrence of such a technological shift is the Emiran Industry, whose earliest manifestations are found in the southern Levant. The cultural and demographic source(s) of this industry, however, remain unresolved. Looking to archaeogenetic research, the emerging picture indicates a major dispersal of our species out of Africa between 100 and 50 thousand years ago. Ancient DNA evidence points to low levels of admixture between Neanderthal and these pioneering modern human populations, which some suggest occurred in the Near East between 60 and 40 thousand years ago. These propositions underscore the significance of the Emiran and beg a reassessment of its origins. In this paper, we ask whether the Emiran was a local development, a cultural/demographic replacement, or the fusion of indigenous and exogenous lithic traditions. Our analysis considers the techno-typological features of the early Emiran in relation to late Middle Palaeolithic and contemporaneous assemblages from adjacent territories in Northeast Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, in order to identify overlapping cultural features and potential antecedents. Parsimonious with the archaeogenetic scenario of admixture, the Emiran seems to represent a fusion of local southern Levantine Mousterian typological elements with the Afro-Arabian Nubian Levallois reduction strategy. We conclude that the Emiran is primarily rooted in the Early Nubian Complex of the Nile Valley, which spread into the Arabian Peninsula during the Last Interglacial and developed at the interface of these two contextual areas between 100 and 50 thousand years ago.

Link

Arabian origin of the Upper Paleolithic in the Levant

This is a very useful review of research on the origin of the Upper Paleolithic (Emiran) in the Levant, arguing against a recent (c. 50kya ) African origin and in favor of an Arabian one. The argument is mainly archaeological, although it is informed by genetic evidence. From the chapter:

After a century of research, the origins of the Levantine UP still remain an enigma. At this point, at least one thing is clear: the Emiran has no African progenitor. As such, there is a disconnect between the archaeological database and the Replacement paradigm, which necessitates that the earliest Levantine Upper Paleolithic must have come fully developed from northeast Africa. The Replacement model should have been a parsimonious prism through which to view the transition from the MP to the UP in the Levant. It was not.

The recent acceptance of: (i) a slower autosomal mutation rate, and (ii) evidence for interbreeding with Neandertals largely predating the c. 50kya mark, and (iii) coalescence of Eurasian mtDNA haplogroup N well before that time, have all but killed, in my opinion the idea of a 50kya spread of modern humans from Africa. Modern humans must have lived in Eurasia much earlier than that time, and what remains is to figure out how much earlier.

A century of research into the origins of the Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant

Anthony E. Marks and Jeffrey I. Rose

Link

ESHE 2013 abstracts

219 pages worth of abstracts from the upcoming meeting of the European Society for the study of Human Evolution (pdf).

I will post some excerpts:

Evolutionary History And Biological Diversity Of Homo Sapiens In Southeast Asia: Contour Shape Analysis Of Modern Human Upper Molars:

The evolutionary history and the pattern of biological diversity of modern humans in Southeast Asia has long been regarded as resulting of two major migrations waves. In this hypothesis it is generally considered that a first wave of migration (generally referred as “Australo-Melanesians”) reached Australia around 60000 BP while the second wave (often referred as “Mongoloids”) is correlated to a demic diffusion of the Neolithic from a Southeast China homeland which started around mid-Holocene. ... Our results also bring very interesting perspectives concerning the detection of the signature of a possible Denisovan admixture in the phenotype of modern human populations. Indeed, past and recent modern human groups which are hypothetically sharing Denisovan ancestry have closer phenetic affinities with each other than with other populations.

Podium Presentation: Session 9, Sa (14:20) A fine scale survey of the worldwide similarity between humans and archaic hominids and its implication on the proposed admixture scenario 

Since the publications of Green et al. 2010 and Reich et al. 2010, several investigations have followed suit addressing the question regarding anatomically modern human and archaic hominin admixture. The genetic analyses of the Neanderthal draft genome and the Denisova genome concluded that these archaic hominins made a 1-4% contribution to non-African populations and 4-6% contribution to Melanesian populations, respectively. The argument of whether the observed genetic similarity is consistent with admixture or ancient substructure is still under debate. While observations have been consistent with an admixture scenario of Neanderthals and the ancestors of non-Africans coming into contact 50 – 80 kya in the Middle East, the lack of power in these experiments falter in providing reliable results. Here we look at the relationship between AMH and these archaic hominins on a fine-scale level by using several methods (including revised D-statistic) on the Neanderthal draft genome, Denisova high-coverage genome, and a collection of published and unpublished genotype and sequence data. We use our findings to clarify the proposed admixture scenario as well as discuss new findings in newly analyzed comparisons of African, South Asian and American populations with archaic hominins, Neanderthal and Denisova. Our results shed light on understanding the observed genetic similarity within and between humans (African and non-African) and archaic hominins, particularly in relevance to the admixture versus ancient substructure scenarios. 

How ‘modern’ are the earliest Homo sapiens? 

Previous research (reviewed in Trinkaus, 2005) has suggested that the African and western Asian contemporaries of Neandertals, generally considered to be the earliest Homo sapiens, are not particularly ‘modern’ looking in their cranial anatomy. Here we test whether the dental morphological ‘signal’ agrees with this assessment. We examined and recorded dental morphological variation in the earliest H. sapiens and asked: how ‘modern’ are they dentally? We used a Bayesian statistical approach to classifying individuals into two possible groups based on dental non-metric traits. e classification was based on dental trait frequencies and sample sizes for two ’known’ samples of 120 Neandertals and 106 Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens individuals. A cross- validation test of these individuals resulted in a correct classification rate of 95%, which is even better than the results of a previous study using the same method based on fewer individuals (Bailey et al 2009). Our early H. sapiens sample included 41 individuals from Southern Africa (Die Kelders, Klasies River Mouth and Equus Cave), Northern Africa (Temara, El Harhoura, Dar es Soltan) and the Levant (Qafzeh, Skhul). We treated our early H. sapiens individuals as ‘unknown’ and calculated the probability that each belonged to either the Upper Paleolithic or Neandertal sample. While understanding that technically these individuals did not belong to either group, we hypothesized that if the earliest H. sapiens were already dentally modern then, when forced into a group, they should fall into the Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens group. We also hypothesized that if there had been significant admixture in the Levant during the initial dispersal out of Africa - as has been sometimes proposed based on paleontological - and more recently on genetic - evidence (Green et al 2010) that these samples would have the largest proportion of individuals classified as Neandertal. Our results indicated that this was not the case. While a surprising number (27%) of early H. sapiens did classify as Neandertal, the smallest proportion of these came from the Levant (7% - one out of 14 individuals). The African sample was more of a ‘mixed bag’. None of the individuals from Die Kelders or Klaises River Mouth classified as Neandertal, while four out of five of the individuals from Equus Cave did. Moreover, 6 out of 13 (46%) of the Northern African individuals were classified as Neandertal. An inspection of the individual specimens that classified as Neandertals revealed that in most cases it is the predominance of primitive features, rather than derived Neandertal traits, that is driving the classification. We conclude (1) by the time the earliest H. sapiens dispersed from Africa they had already attained a more-or-less ‘modern’ dental pattern; (2) in the past, as is the case today, Late Pleistocene Africans were not a homogeneous group, some retained primitive dental traits in higher proportions than others. Furthermore, we acknowledge that while our method is an excellent tool for discriminating between Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens and Neandertals, it may not be appropriate for testing Neandertal – H. sapiens admixture because all traits (primitive and derived) are weighed equally. 

The potential for catastrophic impact of the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) tephra on human evolution: new data from the Lower Danube loess steppe:

Here we investigate an unexpectedly thick CI tephra deposit at Urluia in the southeast Romanian loess steppe, 1200 km from the super-eruption vent in Italy. Existing models suggest that the CI tephra thickness might reach a maximum 5-10 cm in Eastern Europe; the Urluia ash deposit is up to 100 cm thick. Additional, recently discovered Lower Danube sites also reveal substantially thicker than modelled CI ash beds. 

Radiocarbon dating the extinction of European Neanderthals

The transitional industries and their makers:

The demonstration of modern settlements pre-dating the earliest Aurignacian in Europe has important implications (Hublin 2012). It is consistent with a patchy pattern of modern colonization, with some significant chronological overlap between Neandertals and modern humans on a continental scale. In this model innovations observed in the Neandertal world around or after 50 ka cal BP may have resulted from cultural diffusion triggered by these influxes of populations into western Eurasia.

The Upper Paleolithic of the Ikh Tulberin Gol (Northern Mongolia): new excavations at the Tolbor 16 open-air site:

Numerous questions remain regarding the timing and the context of Upper Paleolithic emergence in Northeast Asia. Available data allow the recognition of a form of Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) (Brantingham et al, 2001) documented in the Altai circa 45-40 ka uncal BP (Goebel et al., 1993, Derevianko et al, 2000, Zwyns et al., 2012), in the Cis- and Transbaikal around 40 ka uncal BP (Lbova, 2008) ...

New data on the radiocarbon chronology of the Stretleskayan at Kostenki (Voronezh, Central Russia) :

It concerns cultural layer III at Kostenki 12 and cultural layer V at Kostenki I, respectively previously dated 36,280±360 and 34,900 ±350 BP in Groningen (Damblon et al., 1996). ... Remaining material of the charcoal sample from cultural layer III at Kostenki 12, previously dated 36,280 ±250 BP, was also submitted for dating to Oxford with ABOx-SC pretreatment. the results show that the two Groningen dates and the three Oxford dates are in good agreement and fit within a time interval of 1 millennium, but provide ages several millennia older than the ages obtained previously. Taking into account this new chronology, the appearance of the Stretleskayan at Kostenki will be compared with the chronological background of the Early Aurignacian, Szeletian and Bohunician occurrences in the MiddleDanube sequence, also based on ABA and ABOx-SC cross-dating (Haesaerts et al., 2013). 

Two Waves of Paleolithic Settlers Migrations to North West Beringia in Pleistocene End (End of Karginsky Interstadial) :

Way of 1st wave is marked by sites Afontova Gora V, Ust-Kova on Angara, than along Lena river up to Central Ykut plain, turn Aldan (Ikhine I etc), than round Kolyma plain to Chukotka, where they left abt 30 Ka Orlovka II site in North of West and Kymyneykey site in North of East Chukotka. In Aldan basin migration slowly down. Its reason could be glaciation of Verkhoyansk and Chersky ranges. During this delay “technical re-equipment” happened of migrations. Orlovka II and Kymyney artefacts are clear Aldan. 2nd wave migration was abt 29-28 Ka during final karginsky (middle: würm, wisconsin) warming, when paleoclimate along all northern outskirts of Asia was like to recent or more warm (Drozdov and Laukhin, 2010). Migrants of 2nd wave went to Yana mouth and left here site. Artifacts of this site don’t have Aldanian traditions, but are very close to Yeniseisk. There were little of favorable niches to North of South Mountain Belt; and their demographic capacity were nor big. 

Modern human dispersal into Eurasia: Preliminary results of the multi-disciplinary project on the replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans (RNMH)

Both the chronometric dating and the geographic distribution of archaeological entities indicate that modern human populations equipped themselves with blade products based on the Levallois method, a technology that emerged in North Africa (Taramsan) around 60 ka and then dispersed into the Eastern Mediterranean Levant (Emiran) between 49 and 48 ka. Blade technology further expanded into Eastern and Central Europe (Bachokirian and Bohunician) between 48 and 45 ka and into Southern Siberia (Kara-Bom horizons 6 and 5) at around 47 ka. The rapid expansion of modern humans into Western and Eastern Eurasia followed by the demise of archaic populations in these regions may imply technological and cognitive advantages of modern humans. 

Early modern humans in Europe (Bohunician, Proto-Aurignacian, Aurignacian)

If it is confirmed by palaeoanthropology that modern humans were responsible for the Bohunician, this would push back the time of the earliest arrival of Europeans by a good 10ky+ or so. There is also a freely accessible paper online by Jiri Svoboda on the Bohunician and Emiran which should be useful for those interested in this topic.

The author of the present paper writes:

The earliest evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is currently dated to ≈48,000 cal BP and the beginning of the GI 12 warm interval. It is based on artifact assemblages (Bohunician) that are similar to an earlier industry in the Near East (Emiran) probably produced by modern humans. Bohunician sites are present in South-Central Europe (27, 29, 32) and possibly Eastern Europe as well, during this interval.

...

A possible second movement of modern humans into Europe may be represented by another group of artifact assemblages that date to as early as 45,000–44,000 cal BP and GS 11/GI 11. They vary significantly in composition and are sometimes referred to as Proto-Aurignacian (27, 43, 50, 64). Many are similar to a contemporaneous industry in the Near East (Ahmarian) manufactured by modern humans (1, 33). Proto-Aurignacian assemblages are found in Southwest and South-Central Europe and seem to be present in Eastern Europe at this time (50). Although the oldest known modern human skeletal remains in Europe date to this interval, they are not associated with artifacts (44).

...

Both the Bohunician and Proto-Aurignacian sites probably represent modern human population movements from the Near East into Europe via the Balkans.

...

After the onset of cold HE4 at ≈40,000 cal BP, a new industry (Aurignacian) possibly developed in South-Central Europe spread rapidly throughout the continent. Aurignacian assemblages are associated with the remains of modern humans in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe (1, 7, 10, 46, 52, 62).

There are currently no remains from the Bohunician, so the association with modern humans is still tentative:

Many paleoanthropologists will want to see this conclusion supported by discovery of modern human skeletal remains in these sites or at least in a context that may be dated to the same period.

Even the much later Aurignacian itself was considered by some to be an ambiguous case, although recent evidence from teeth seems to confirm that it was made by modern humans.

Thus, I don't anticipate that the acceptance of the Bohunician as modern human in origin will be without a fight by those who might see Neandertal involvement. Such things are hotly contested even when there are skulls associated with assemblages, so you can imagine how it will be when modern human involvement is only hinted by archaeological parallels, in this case with the Emiran, which also lacks associated human remains.

If Neandertals were behind the Emiran-Bohunician, this would suggest a previously unsuspected degree of vitality for late Neandertals, as it would see them undertake a colonization, or at least long-term cultural contacts across a substantial distance.

On the other hand, if modern humans are behind it, then this would suggest a much longer co-existence between moderns and Neandertals in the European continent, even though, possibly, not in the same part thereof. It would also dispel ideas about a fairly late colonization of Europe compared to Australasia that have been popularized by documentaries in recent years.

PNAS doi:10.1073/pnas.0903446106

The spread of modern humans in Europe

John F. Hoffecker

Abstract

The earliest credible evidence of Homo sapiens in Europe is an archaeological proxy in the form of several artifact assemblages (Bohunician) found in South-Central and possibly Eastern Europe, dating to ≤48,000 calibrated radiocarbon years before present (cal BP). They are similar to assemblages probably made by modern humans in the Levant (Emiran) at an earlier date and apparently represent a population movement into the Balkans during a warm climate interval [Greenland Interstadial 12 (GI 12)]. A second population movement may be represented by a diverse set of artifact assemblages (sometimes termed Proto-Aurignacian) found in the Balkans, parts of Southwest Europe, and probably in Eastern Europe, and dating to several brief interstadials (GI 11–GI 9) that preceded the beginning of cold Heinrich Event 4 (HE4) (≈40,000 cal BP). They are similar to contemporaneous assemblages made by modern humans in the Levant (Ahmarian). The earliest known human skeletal remains in Europe that may be unequivocally assigned to H. sapiens (Peçstera cu Oase, Romania) date to this time period (≈42,000 cal BP) but are not associated with artifacts. After the Campanian Ignimbrite volcanic eruption (40,000 cal BP) and the beginning of HE4, artifact assemblages assigned to the classic Aurignacian, an industry associated with modern human skeletal remains that seems to have developed in Europe, spread throughout the continent.

Link