The “Upper Paleolithic” of South Arabia

Abstract

The practice of assigning names to archaeological periods in Arabia is inherently problematic. Just as the Arabian subcontinent is the geographic bridge between Africa and Eurasia; similarly, it is wedged between the bifurcation of Eurasian and African taxonomic schema. This distinction represents separate evolutionary trajectories as expressed in the development of regional lithic technologies. For instance, if we refer to the Arabian “Middle Paleolithic” (MP), we are using a Eurasian name and insinuating closer affinities to this part of the world between 250 and 40 ka, whereas the Arabian “Middle Stone Age” (MSA) presumes a connection to sub-Saharan Africa during a similar interval. This distinction is critical for evaluating the origin and expansion of early modern humans, which predicts linked stone tool technologies on either side of the Red Sea during the Middle and/or Late Stone Age (LSA).Hence, our use of the term Upper Paleolithic (UP) in reference to South Arabia is no accident. It is a deliberate attempt to highlight closer archaeological affinities with lithic industries found in North Africa and Southwest Asia, rather than sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, a similar connection has already been made based upon Middle and Upper Paleolithic discoveries in Yemen (Delagnes et al., 2008; Crassard, 2009) and the United Arab Emirates (Marks, 2009). For the purposes of this chapter, “Upper Paleolithic” should be considered an archaeological phase, however, since there is so little evidence from this period in Arabia, we cannot presume a temporal range. The apparently wide range of blade technologies in South Arabia (Amirkhanov, 1994, 2006; Delagnes et al., 2008; Crassard, 2009; Marks, 2009) suggests a long-term tradition of linked laminar technologies that spans at least MIS 4 through early MIS 1 (~75–8 ka).KeywordsDemographyDhofarPaleoclimateSouth Arabia