Nubian assemblages from the Negev

Nubian assemblages from the Levant are quite important because they provide an intermediate link (along land routes) between those from Africa and Arabia. It's also more difficult now to consider the Arabian finds as a limited event without broader implications about modern human dispersals. From the paper:

Mapping the earliest dated sites that contain a Nubian component does not permit an unequivocal identification of a region of origin for the Nubian Technology.

Quaternary International doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2016.02.008

“Diffusion with modifications”: Nubian assemblages in the central Negev highlands of Israel and their implications for Middle Paleolithic inter-regional interactions

Mae Goder-Goldberger, Natalia Gubenko, Erella Hovers

Nubian Levallois cores, now known from sites in eastern Africa, the Nile Valley and Arabia, have been used as a material culture marker for Upper Pleistocene dispersals of hominins out of Africa. The Levantine corridor, being the only land route connecting Africa to Eurasia, has been viewed as a possible dispersal route. We report here on lithic assemblages from the Negev highlands of Israel that contain both Levallois centripetal and Nubian-type cores. Wetter conditions over the Sahara and Negev deserts during MIS 6a–5e provided a generally continuous environmental corridor into the Levant that enabled the dispersal of hominin groups bearing the Nubian variant of prepared core technologies. The Negev assemblages draw renewed attention to the place of the Levant as one of the dispersal routes out of Africa during the Late Pleistocene and could suggest that processes of human dispersals and cultural diffusion resulted in the spread of Nubian technology across eastern Africa, the western Sahara and the Nile Valley, the southern Levant and Arabia.

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

Nubian complex site from central Arabia (Crassard & Hilbert 2013)

From the paper:

The palaeoclimatic record of Arabia indicates that three distinct wet phases occurred during MIS 5 [109]. The first of these wet phases occurred between 130 and 125 kya (MIS 5e) and precedes the presence of Nubian technology in Arabia. The two following wet phases, positioned around 100 kya (MIS 5c) and between 80 to 75 kya (MIS 5a) may be viewed as possible windows for the Nubian expansion into and across Arabia (Figure 11).

PLoS ONE 8(7): e69221. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069221

A Nubian Complex Site from Central Arabia: Implications for Levallois Taxonomy and Human Dispersals during the Upper Pleistocene

Rémy Crassard, Yamandú Hieronymus Hilbert

Archaeological survey undertaken in central Saudi Arabia has revealed 29 surface sites attributed to the Arabian Middle Paleolithic based on the presence of Levallois blank production methods. Technological analyses on cores retrieved from Al-Kharj 22 have revealed specific reduction modalities used to produce flakes with predetermined shapes. The identified modalities, which are anchored within the greater Levallois concept of core convexity preparation and exploitation, correspond with those utilized during the Middle Stone Age Nubian Complex of northeast Africa and southern Arabia. The discovery of Nubian technology at the Al-Kharj 22 site represents the first appearance of this blank production method in central Arabia. Here we demonstrate how a rigorous use of technological and taxonomic analysis may enable intra-regional comparisons across the Arabian Peninsula. The discovery of Al-Kharj 22 increases the complexity of the Arabian Middle Paleolithic archaeological record and suggests new dynamics of population movements between the southern and central regions of the Peninsula. This study also addresses the dichotomy within Nubian core typology (Types 1 and 2), which was originally defined for African assemblages.

Link

Nubian Complex reduction strategies in Dhofar, southern Oman (Usik et al. 2012)

From the paper:

If there was no Nubian Complex occupation in Egypt during the MIS 5de5b hiatus, from where did the Egyptian Late Nubian, dating no earlier than MIS 5a, come? Did it spread north from Sudan or was there an expansion of Arabian Nubian Complex toolmakers back into Africa? Certainly, the striking similarities between the Classic Dhofar Nubian and Egyptian Late Nubian, as compared with the Sudanese Late Nubian, might indicate such a scenario. Again, greater chronological resolution in African and Arabian Nubian assemblages is required to answer these questions.   

It seems overly simplistic to expect the expansion of Nubian Complex toolmakers into Arabia was a single migration or event; rather, it was more likely a process of recurring bidirectional movements across the Red Sea linked to consecutive phytogeographic range expansions and contractions. At the same time, the presence of technologically distinct, non-Nubian industries elsewhere in Arabia from MIS 5a to MIS 3 indicates separate, autochthonous culture groups and/or input from other adjacent regions (Marks, 2009; Armitage et al., 2011; Petraglia et al., 2011; Delagnes et al., 2012). In the case of the Wadi Surdud stratified assemblages in Yemen, dated tow60e40 ka BP (Delagnes et al., 2012), and Jebel Faya successive assemblages B and A, bracketed within MIS 3 (Armitage et al., 2011), both archaeological sequences are thought to be the products of local lithic traditions. Clearly, Late Pleistocene demography in Arabia was far more complex than one population emanating from a single source area.   

For now, it is clear that the Afro-Arabian Nubian Complex exhibits a robust archaeological signature on both sides of the Red Sea, in terms of site density, distribution, and long-term technological variability, always based on the core principal of opposed platform exploitation. This is likely the result of populations who were well and truly established in their respective regions for an extended period of time. Perhaps we have made too much of tracking routes of expansion and the timing of sea crossings into Arabia. The Red Sea may be more of a barrier for scholars today than it ever was for humans in the Middle Stone Age. 

Related comment (my emphasis):

Nubian technology has been found in association with a modern human child within occupation Phase 3 at the site of Taramsa 1 in Egypt. Science would suggest they're modern. Unless, of course, one is willing to propose an entirely new species that occupied NE Africa 100,000 years ago? 

Nubian technology has now been identified in central Arabia (article in press by Crassard and Hilbert) and seems to be spread across central and eastern Yemen as well. The Mudayyan Industry, published in Usik et al. 2012, falls sometime after the Nubian occupation of Dhofar and is clearly derived from Nubian Levallois technology. Moreover, this particular technology governed by bidirectional recurrent Levallois blank production is interpreted as the transition from Middle Palaeolithic Levallois to Upper Palaeolithic blade reduction as exemplified at Initial Upper Palaeolithic sites in the Levant such as Boker Tachtit and Ain Difla. Essentially, the Nubians in Arabia have provided the technological missing link for the MP-UP transition in the Levant. 

So, Nubians entered Arabia sometime between 130 - 100 ka and appear to have subsequently expanded northward during the early MIS 3 wet phase that would have facilitated north-south demographic exchange throughout the Peninsula. As for the Out of Arabia expansion eastward, this is still anyone's guess. We can be sure it wasn't related to Nubian Complex toolmakers.

Quaternary International doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.08.2111

Nubian Complex reduction strategies in Dhofar, southern Oman

Vitaly I. Usik et al.

Between 2010 and 2012, the Dhofar Archaeological Project has located and mapped 260 Nubian Complex occurrences across Dhofar, southern Oman. Many of these lithic assemblages are technologically homologous to the Late Nubian Industry found in Africa, while others may represent a local industry derived from classic Nubian Levallois technology. The purpose of this paper is to describe the various reduction strategies encountered at a sample of Nubian Complex sites from Dhofar, to explore inter-assemblage variability, and, ultimately, to begin to articulate technological units within the “Dhofar Nubian Tradition.” To achieve this aim, we have developed an analytical scheme with which to describe variability among Nubian Levallois reduction strategies. From our analysis, we are able to discern at least two distinct industries within a regional lithic tradition. Demographic implications of the enduring Dhofar Nubian Tradition are considered in light of new evidence found throughout the Arabian Peninsula.

Link