Excavations at Jebel Faya — The FAY-NE1 shelter sequence

Excavations at Jebel Faya — The FAY-NE1 shelter sequence

KNUT BRETZKE, NICHOLAS J. CONARD & HANS-PETER UERPMANN

Summary

an archaeological sequence excavated in the south-western part of site FAY-

NE1 at Jebel Faya in the Central Region of Sharjah Emirate. Work between 2009 and 2013 exposed six archaeological horizons

(AHs) and enabled a stratigraphic connection of AHs IV–VI from Faya Shelter with assemblages A, B, and C from the recently

published Faya Terrace sequence. No stratigraphic correlation with the terrace sequence is possible for AH I–AH III. While the

number of artefacts in AHs I and III is currently too small to gain meaningful characterizations of lithic assemblages, AHs II,

IV, V, and VI add important data to the record of Late Pleistocene archaeology in south-east Arabia. Lithic technology in AH II

with plain striking platforms using hard-hammer percussion. Striking characteristics of the lithic assemblage from AH V are the

centripetal Levallois and bifacial reduction. Flakes with large and unprepared striking platforms in addition to pronounced bulbs

of percussion indicate hard-hammer percussion. Archaeological assemblages from Faya Shelter indicate differences in the cultural

background of Jebel Faya’s inhabitants. Given that hunter-gatherer groups would not be able to settle at Faya during periods of

desiccation, the discontinuous cultural sequence from Faya Shelter indicates a complex pattern of connections between Faya and

adjacent regions in southern Arabia and outside Arabia.

Keywords: Palaeolithic, Late Pleistocene, south-east Arabia, lithic artefacts, UAE

Introduction

Although the central part of Sharjah Emirate is

characterized by a favourable geomorphological setting

with high potential for Palaeolithic research (Boucharlat et

al. 1997), it was long thought that this area lacks evidence

for Palaeolithic settlement. The discovery of Pleistocene

artefacts at Jebel Emalah in 2002 (United Arab Emirates

Yearbook 2003, p. 67; www.uaeyearbook.com), however,

began to whittle away this false perception. About four

artefacts from site FAY-NE1 at Jebel Faya established

that humans did indeed occupy the region during the

Pleistocene. Moreover, continuous excavations provided

evidence for repeated human presence in the region during

deposits and multiple layers of archaeological remains

covering a period of about 125,000 years (Armitage et

al. 2011). Despite important discoveries of Palaeolithic

remains from other parts of Arabia, including Yemen

(Amirkhanov 1991; Crassard 2009; Delagnes et al. 2012),

Oman (Rose & Usik 2009; Jagher & Pümpin 2010; Rose

et al. 2011), Saudi Arabia (Petraglia, Drake & Alsharekh

2009; Petraglia et al. 2011; 2012; Crassard & Hilbert

2013; Crassard et al. 2013) and UAE (Scott-Jackson,

Scott-Jackson & Rose 2009; Wahida et al. 2010), in

recent years, FAY-NE1 remains a key site for Palaeolithic

research in Arabia. Given the unique possibility for

dated deposits and the presence of rich archaeological

assemblages, Jebel Faya plays a critical role for building

an Arabian chrono-cultural stratigraphy. The aim of this

paper is to report on the ongoing excavations at Jebel Faya

lithic artefacts excavated under the present rock shelter.

Geographical setting

The archaeological site FAY-NE1 is located at the northern

end of Jebel Faya in the Central Region of the Emirate of

Sharjah, UAE (Fig. 1). Jebel Faya is part of a north–south

oriented anticline running parallel to the Hajar Mountains

Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 44 (2014): 69–82

to the east. This striking landscape feature is about 20

km long and composed of Upper Cretaceous limestone

covering a basis of metamorphic rocks.

A c.20 km-wide plain, often called the ‘Inland Basin’

or ‘Dhaid-Madam Plain’ after the two major towns of the

area, lies between the anticline and the Hajar Mountains.

The plain inclines slightly to the west and drains surface

and underground water from the Hajar Mountains into

the Inland Basin. This leads to relatively wet conditions

and subsequently relatively well-developed vegetation

cover in the plain compared to surrounding areas. Under

current climatic conditions, the vegetation of the plain is

characterized by Acacia tortilis, Haloxylon salicornum,

, and

christi (Bretzke et al. 2013). The steep slopes of the

anticline with many deeply incised and winding valleys

add another component to the landscape and provide

from those in the plain. Thus, site FAY-NE1 is located in

an ecotone setting, which would be attractive to mobile

hunter-gatherer groups. The degree of attractiveness of the

Jebel Faya region, however, is coupled with the amount of

water available to plants, animals, and humans. Conditions

decreasing the amount of surface and subsurface water

running from the Hajar Mountains into the plain will

inevitably lead to decreasing biomass in the plain and

decreasing potential for human settlement. Bretzke et al.

(2013) have recently demonstrated that this relationship

exists for the Late Pleistocene occupation of the region,

where human settlement at Faya is limited to phases of

increased precipitation. Periods of desiccation, on the other

hand, lack evidence of human settlement at Jebel Faya.

Excavations at Jebel Faya

Excavations at FAY-NE1 began in 2003 and are continuously

conducted by a joint project of the Department of Early

Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology at the University of

Tübingen, Germany, and the Directorate of Antiquities of

Sharjah’s Department of Culture and Information. During

material. Palaeolithic assemblages include assemblages

A, B, C, D, and E (Armitage et al. 2011). Although

assemblages D and E are stratigraphically clearly separate

detailed discussion of them.

About 150 m2 were excavated with the help of

experienced workmen from Sharjah’s Department of

Antiquities (Fig. 2). The maximum depth of c.5 m under

the present surface was reached in the south-western

plotted using a Leica Total Station (TCR 407) and a

Available age estimations based on OSL indicate that

assemblage C was deposited about 125,000 years ago

FIGURE 1. A.

B. within the Central Region of the Emirate of Sharjah.

Knut Bretzke, Nicholas J. Conard & Hans-Peter Uerpmann70

and assemblage A about 40,000 years ago (Armitage et

al. 2011). No age estimations were currently available

for assemblage B. OSL dating of the sterile sand layer

covering sediments with assemblage A indicates that the

deposition of the sand occurred about 35,000 years ago

(Armitage et al. 2011).

The ‘Faya Shelter’ sequence

sequence of archaeological assemblages was excavated

in the south-western part of the FAY-NE1 excavation in

trenches 37, 39, 38, 42, and 24 (Fig. 2). Trenches 37, 39,

FIGURE 2.

Excavations at Jebel Faya — The FAY-NE1 shelter sequence 71

and 42 are located under the present roof while trench

24 is located on the terrace in front of the rock shelter.

Both areas are separated by large blocks. We present

Faya Shelter separately from ‘Faya Terrace’, the main

excavation in front of the present rock shelter, because

of differences in the depositional environment, changes

in excavation techniques and, probably most importantly,

because the number of archaeological assemblages is

different.

We started work in the Faya Shelter sequence in 2009

and will continue in this part in the coming years. To

gain more detailed information about site taphonomy and

archaeological (AH) and geological horizons (GH) during

excavation. We counted GH and AH independently,

because one GH may contain more than one or no AHs.

To distinguish GHs and AHs we followed the Tübingen

system and used Arabian numerals for geological layers

and roman numerals for archaeological layers. The

surface layer was recorded as GH

with archaeological remains was designated by AH I.

Numbers increase from top to bottom. We also began to

screen excavated sediments systematically through 6 and

3 mm meshes. Systematic screening was introduced to

gain data on the abundance of small and micro-debitage,

which informs us about knapping behaviour and post-

depositional processes.

The geological horizons (GH)

The surface layer (GH 1) under the rock shelter is 8–10

cm thick, dry, and loose (Fig. 3). According to the

Munsell colour chart, GH 1 is medium brown (10YR5/3)

in colour and is mainly composed of gravel-sized angular

I

occurs within the sediments of GH 1.

GH 2 is about 50 cm thick, light brown (10YR7/3) in

colour, compact, and well cemented. The layer is matrix-

fragments of sub-angular to sub-rounded shapes occur

within the matrix. No archaeological remains were

recovered in this layer.

GH 3 is 25 cm thick, pale brown (10YR 8/3) in colour,

well cemented, and very dry. This layer is nearly clast-

FIGURE 3.


sand with some silt. Gravel-sized limestone particles

dominate the layer and are often very fragmented. The

many pebbles 5–10 cm in size. The coarse component

is sub-rounded to sub-angular in shape. After the

archaeologically sterile GH 2, GH 3 contained artefacts,

which are assigned to AH II.

Large blocks cover the transition from the rock shelter

to the terrace making it impossible to determine the

stratigraphic relation between archaeological sequences

from both areas. To solve the problem of stratigraphic

correlation between Faya Shelter and Faya Terrace

we decided to invest in the time-consuming removal

of one large block. We used a highly expansive mortar

(FRACT.AG®) to break the massive block. This non-

explosive method allows large blocks to be removed

without destroying the stratigraphic integrity of adjacent

Parallel to the successive removal of the rock, we

continued excavating behind the block and removed

archaeologically sterile GH 4 with a thickness of about 25

cm. Similar to GH 3, GH 4 is again nearly clast-supported

with coarse gravel-sized limestone fragments in a matrix

8/9) in colour and very well cemented and dry. Boulders

between 20 and 30 cm in size occur at the base and mark

a relatively clear boundary to the next layer.

GH 5 is about 100 cm thick, reddish brown (7.5 YR

6/4) in colour, and more matrix-supported than GH 3 or

GH

sand and silt. Limestone fragments of gravel size are

plentiful but less apparent than in GH 3 or GH 4. The large

fraction consists of angular to sub-angular limestone.

GH 5 is dry and less well cemented compared to GH 3

and GH 4. One larger rockfall fragment marks the lower

boundary of GH 5. AH III occurs within GH 5.

The underlying layer GH

extends under the base of the removed block. Sediments

excavated here belong to trench 38 connecting trenches 39

and 24 (Fig. 2). This provides a stratigraphic connection

between Faya Shelter and Faya Terrace. GH 6 is about

35 cm thick and rests on bedrock in the western part of

trench 38. Toward the east, the thickness increases due to

a step in the bedrock (Fig. 3). Since macroscopic sediment

characteristics are homogeneous, no subdivision of

GH 6 is possible. The layer is mostly matrix, which is

some silt and medium sand. Gravel-sized clasts are sub-

angular in shape with a few larger clasts between 10 and

with increasing depth. This fact is well demonstrated by

the tools chosen to excavate. While all other GHs were

excavated using either trowels or picks, we were forced to

excavate GH 6 using hammers and chisels. GH 6 contains

three stratigraphically well-separated archaeological

layers (AH IV–VI).

The archaeological horizons (AH)

ongoing study of lithic technology of the archaeological

assemblages from Faya Shelter. None of the presented

assemblages is currently dated, but samples have been

collected from all layers to develop an independent

chronology using a variety of dating techniques, including

OSL and TL.

I) was discovered

in surface layer GH 1 (Fig. 3). The number of artefacts in

data for a typo-technological characterization.

After we excavated the archaeologically sterile

GH 2, we discovered AH II during excavation of GH 3

in trenches 38, 39, and 42. Lithic artefacts are abundant

(n = 1527) in this layer providing an excellent basis

for studying typo-technological characteristics. One

striking technological feature is the reduction from

opposed platforms (Fig. 4). Other key characteristics are

a relatively high proportion of blades, frequent facetted

platforms, and indications for soft-hammer percussion.

surfaces. One surface was exclusively used to produce

blanks, while the other one often remained unprepared

except in those areas where the opposing platforms were

prepared. Débordant

convexity was prepared by removals knapped parallel to

the direction of production at the lateral edge. Preparation

perpendicular to the main direction of reduction occurs

but only in a few cases. Volumetric reduction is evident

but is only a minor component. The tool assemblage is

dominated by simple lateral retouched pieces and end

scraper variants.

Below the archaeologically sterile GH 4, excavators

recovered the artefacts of AH III in the lower half of

GH 5. Since AH III was exposed in less than 2 m² behind

the large block (Fig. 3), the lithic assemblage currently

available is small (n = 48) and provides little data for a

meaningful characterization. One major goal of the next

excavation campaigns will be to increase the size of the

assemblage from AH III.


In the upper part of GH 6 we discovered a dense

scatter of lithic artefacts and assigned it to AH IV (n =

block in trench 38 and expands from the western end of

trench 39 to the eastern end of trench 24 (Fig. 3). AH

Faya Shelter and Faya Terrace. Main technological

multiplatform cores with plain striking platforms and

indications for the use of hard hammers (Fig. 5). Tools

occur relatively frequently and are dominated by notches,

end scrapers, and lateral retouched pieces.

Still within GH 6 but after removing about 30 cm

of archaeologically sterile sediments, lithics belonging

to AH V were discovered. Compared to overlaying AH

IV, lithic artefacts are loosely scattered (n = 755). This

being said, AH

also covering the entire excavated area between trenches

39 and 24. The lithic assemblage is characterized by

Although this tendency is clearly visible, there are no

would necessitate a specialized preparation of the

FIGURE 4. Examples of lithic artefacts from AH II: 1–4. 5. 6.

7. 8–11. cores.


FIGURE 5. Examples of lithic artefacts from AH IV: 1–3. 4–7. 8–11. cores.

indicating orthogonal reduction from two adjacent and

unfaceted platforms using hard hammer percussion. The

tool assemblage is small and does not provide enough

data to be characterized in detail. The tools mainly

include simple retouched pieces.

Currently the deepest layer from Faya Shelter is AH

VI. Similar to AHs IV and V, AH VI was embedded in

6. Excavations here were very

on experience from other parts of the site, this could

indicate that excavation is approaching bedrock. Lithic

technological characteristics of the assemblage from AH

VI (n = 477) include centripetal Levallois reduction from

cores with hierarchical surfaces and facetted platforms,


FIGURE 6. Examples of lithic artefacts from AH V: 1. blade; 2–4, 7.

5, 6, 9. retouched pieces; 8. core.


FIGURE 7. Examples of lithic artefacts from AH VI: 1, 5, 6. 2, 3. 4.

7–11. cores.


in addition to a second knapping strategy using bifacial

reduction. Large striking platforms, pronounced bulbs,

and the lack of lips indicate hard-hammer percussion for

both reduction strategies. The tool assemblage includes

bifacially retouched pieces, side scrapers, and lateral

retouched pieces (Fig. 7).

Discussion and conclusion

Excavations under the current rock shelter in the south-

western part of site FAY-NE1 between 2009 and 2013

uncovered a sequence with six archaeological layers. To

understand the relation of this sequence with previously

published assemblages from the terrace in front of

the rock shelter (Armitage et al. 2011), we opened a

connecting trench in 2010. This enabled a stratigraphic

correlation between AHs IV, V, and VI from Faya Shelter

with assemblage A, assemblage B, and assemblage C

from Faya Terrace. No stratigraphic correlation with the

terrace sequence is possible for AH I–AH III.

Given the stratigraphic position of AHs II and III

within the Faya Shelter sequence in addition to the dating

of assemblage A to c.40 ka BP (Armitage et al. 2011), we

argue that AHs II and III were deposited during late MIS

(Marine Isotope Stage) 3 or MIS 2. Contemporaneous

assemblages of southern Arabia are rare and include

1994) and al-Hatab Rockshelter in Oman (Rose & Usik

2009). AH II provides an excellent basis for comparative

studies with these regions, while the AH III assemblage

is currently too small to draw conclusions. Technological

characteristics of AH II include opposed reduction from

laminar products. This assemblage potentially links

Jebel Faya with Upper Palaeolithic assemblages from

Wadi al-Gabre. In contrast, level 2 assemblage from

al-Hatab rock shelter is characterized by unidirectional

reduction from volumetric cores, façonnage production,

and hard-hammer percussion (2009), characteristics that

do not dominate the technological repertoire in AH II.

This suggests that AH II from Faya Shelter and level 2

from al-Hatab rock shelter are unrelated assemblages.

A link between Jebel Faya and southern Oman might

opposed reduction of elongated artefacts and suggest a

possible relationship between Jebel Faya and Dhofar.

Age estimations using OSL for level 2 at al-Hatab rock

shelter indicate a deposition of this level c.13 ka BP.

Site TH.268 is a surface site and provides no material

for an absolute dating. The Upper Palaeolithic from

Wadi al-Gabre in Yemen is estimated to be younger than

31 ka ± 2000 BP (Amirkhanov 1994). Absolute dating

of the sequence for Faya Shelter is under way and will

add important data to the record of Late Pleistocene

archaeology in southern Arabia. With data from different

regions of South Arabia on hand, we will be able to study

spatial and chronological patterns of technological traits

and to draw conclusions about cultural connectivity of

part of the Late Pleistocene.

A stratigraphic connection of layers below AH III

with dated assemblages from Faya Terrace allows us to

conclude that AH IV was deposited about 40,000 years ago,

5e. Within Arabia, there are no other assemblages dated

traits similar to those found in AH VI are available. In

particular the centripetal Levallois reduction is distributed

over large parts of southern Arabia. Examples were found

in al-Kharj, central Saudi Arabia (Crassard & Hilbert

2013), at Lake Mundafan, south-western Saudi Arabia

2009), at Jebel Barakah, Abu Dhabi, UAE (Wahida et al.

2010), and in Ras al-Khaimah and Sharjah, UAE (Scott-

Jackson, Scott-Jackson & Rose 2009) in addition to Jebel

Faya.

While shared lithic technological traits do suggest a

degree of relationship, they do not necessarily provide

evidence that these assemblages are contemporaneous.

Given the dating of centripetal Levallois technologies at

Jebel Faya to MIS 5e, however, a widespread distribution

of this lithic technology is consistent with palaeoclimatic

data suggesting an intensive wet phase in Arabia at the

onset of the Last Interglacial (Burns et al. 1998; 2001).

Under such favourable climatic conditions habitats

useable by hunter-gatherer groups would expand over

large parts of South Arabia and provide the possibility

for a spatial expansion of human groups with a common

cultural background. During MIS 5e, Jebel Faya was

potentially connected to the rest of southern Arabia,

including regions in south-west Arabia.

In contrast to AH VI, technological traits evident

in the lithic assemblage of AH IV are so far unknown

elsewhere in Arabia. This might indicate that Jebel Faya

was disconnected from other parts in South Arabia, in

particular south-western Arabia, and probably reoccupied

from adjacent regions outside Arabia. Potential

candidates would be the so-called ‘Arabo-Persian Gulf

Oasis’ (Rose 2010) or the southern foothills of the


southern Zagros Mountains. Rose (2010) has suggested

that eustatic decreases in sea level related to glacial

periods expose land in the Persian Gulf basin that was

occupied by a sizeable human population between 74 ka

BP and 8 ka BP. The southern foothills of the Zagros

Mountain range, on the other hand, might have provided

good living conditions in glacial and interglacial periods.

Hunter-gatherer groups here could cope with variations

in climatic conditions by adjusting the altitude zone

they inhabited. Currently there is not enough evidence

available from both of these regions, thus the origin of

the inhabitants occupying Jebel Faya c.40 ka ago remains

an open question. Moreover, given a still patchy record of

Late Pleistocene archaeology in southern Arabia, the lack

of assemblages featuring technological characteristics of

AH IV from southern Arabia might also be due to the

short history of research rather than indicating culturally

disconnected regions.

The deep archaeological sequence at Jebel Faya

clearly demonstrates the attractiveness of the site’s

location throughout the Late Pleistocene. Despite

this, human occupation at Jebel Faya was limited to

humid periods (Bretzke et al. 2013). During periods of

desiccation humans were hardly able to settle at Jebel

Faya. Since climatic conditions in the region repeatedly

Atkinson et al. 2013; Parton et al. 2013), we expect

a settlement pattern at Jebel Faya characterized by

occupation, abandonment, and reoccupation. Data from

AH I–AH VI indicates cultural discontinuity in the

sequence of archaeological assemblages at Jebel Faya.

The different phases of reoccupation of the interior

of the Oman peninsula were thus probably related to

human populations with different cultural backgrounds

potentially originating from different regions outside the

Oman peninsula. Considering the few points on the map

the question of where these human groups came from is

a complex problem. This will be the next challenge of

Arabian Palaeolithic research after having successfully

evidence from the Palaeolithic during the last decades.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Department of Culture and

Information of the Emirate of Sharjah, the Directorate

of Antiquities, and especially our colleague Sabah Jasim

for permission and their generous support of our work

at Jebel Faya. We thank Andrew W. Kandel for helping

with the geological description, Elham Ghasidian for the

drawings of lithic artefacts, and Alexander Janas for his

technical support during the excavation. We would also

like to thank our colleagues Adrian Parker and Simon

Armitage for the productive collaboration in the context

of palaeoenvironmental research and dating at Faya.

This work was supported by the Heidelberg Academy of

Sciences and Humanities through the research unit ‘The

role of culture in early expansions of humans’.

References

Amirkhanov H.A.

1991. The Paleolithic of South Arabia. Moscow: Nauka.

1994. Research on the Paleolithic and Neolithic of Hadraumaut and Mahra. Arabian Archaeology and

Epigraphy 5: 217–228.

Armitage S.J., Jasim S.A., Marks A.E., Parker A.G. et al.

2011. The Southern Route ‘Out of Africa’: Evidence for an Early Expansion of Modern Humans in Arabia.

Science 331/6016: 453–456.

Atkinson O.A.C., Thomas D.S.G., Parker A.G. & Goudie A.S.

2013. Late Quaternary humidity and aridity dynamics in the northeast Rub’ al-Khali, United Arab Emirates:

Implications for early human dispersal and occupation of eastern Arabia. Quaternary International

300: 292–301.

Boucharlat R., Dalongeville R., Hesse A. & Sanlaville P.

1997. A survey in Sharjah Emirate — U.A.E. First report (March 5–14 1994). Sharjah Archaeology 1: 5–15.

Bretzke K., Armitage S.J., Parker A.G., Walkington H. & Uerpmann H-P.

2013. The environmental context of Paleolithic settlement at Jebel Faya, Emirate of Sharjah, UAE. Quaternary

International 300: 83–93.


Burns S.J., Matter A., Frank N. & Mangini A.

1998. Speleothem-based palaeoclimate record from northern Oman. Geology 26: 499–502.

Burns S.J., Fleitmann D., Matter A., Neff U. & Mangini A.

2001. Speleothem evidence from Oman for continental pluvial events during interglacial periods. Geology

29/7: 623–626.

Crassard R.

2009. The Middle Paleolithic of Arabia: The view from the Hadramawt region, Yemen. Pages 151–158 in

Petraglia & Rose 2009.

Crassard R. & Hilbert Y.H.

2013. A Nubian Complex Site from Central Arabia: Implications for Levallois Taxonomy and Human

Dispersals during the Upper Pleistocene. 8/7: e69221.

Crassard R., Petraglia M.D., Drake N.A., Breeze P. et al.

2013. Middle Palaeolithic and Neolithic Occupations around Mundafan Palaeolake, Saudi Arabia: Implications

for Climate Change and Human Dispersals. 8/7: e69665.

Delagnes A., Tribolo C., Bertran P., Brenet M. et al.

2012. Inland human settlement in southern Arabia 55,000 years ago. New evidence from the Wadi Surdud

Middle Paleolithic site complex, western Yemen. 63/3: 452–474.

Jagher R. & Pümpin C.

2010. A new approach to central Omani Prehistory. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40: 145–160.

Parker A.G.

2009. Pleistocene climate change in Arabia: developing a framework for hominin dispersal over the last 350

ka. Pages 39–49 in Petraglia & Rose 2009.

Parton A., Farrant A.R., Leng M.J., Schwenninger J-L. et al.

2013. An early MIS 3 pluvial phase in Southeast Arabia: Climatic and archaeological implications. Quaternary

International 300/0: 62–74.

Petraglia M.D. & Rose J.I. (eds).

2009. The evolution of human populations in Arabia. Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. London:

Springer.

Petraglia M.D., Drake N. & Alsharekh A.

2009. Acheulean landscapes and large cutting tool assemblages in the Arabian Peninsula. Pages 102–115 in


Petraglia M.D., Alsharekh A., Breeze P., Clarkson C. et al.

2012. Hominin Dispersal in the Nefud Desert and Middle Palaeolithic Settlement along the Jubbah Palaeolake,

Northern Arabia. 7/11: e49840.

Petraglia M.D., Alsharekh A.M., Crassard R., Drake N. et al.

2011. Middle Paleolithic occupation on a Marine Isotope Stage 5 lakeshore in the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia.

Quaternary Science Reviews 30/13–14: 1555–1559.

Rose J.I.

2010. New light on human prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis. Current Anthropology 51/6: 849–883.

Rose J.I. & Usik V.I.

2009. The ‘Upper Paleolithic’ in South Arabia. Pages 169–186 in Petraglia & Rose 2009.

Rose J.I., Usik V.I., Marks A.E., Hilbert Y.H. et al.

2011. The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: an African Middle Stone Age industry in southern Arabia.

6/11: e28239.

Scott-Jackson J., Scott-Jackson W. & Rose J.I.

2009. Paleolithic Stone Tool Assemblages from Sharjah and Ras al Khaimah in the United Arab Emirates.

Pages 125–138 in Petraglia & Rose 2009.

Usik V., Rose J.I., Hilbert Y.H., Van Peer P. & Marks A.E.

2013. Nubian Complex reduction strategies in Dhofar, Southern Oman. Quaternary International 300/24:

244–266.


Wahida G., Al-Tikriti W., Beech M. & al-Muqbali A.

2010. A middle Paleolithic Assemblage from Jebel Barakah, Costal Abu Dhabi Emirate. Pages 117–124 in


Authors’ addresses

Knut Bretzke, University of Tübingen, Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, Burgsteige 11, 72070

Tübingen, Germany and Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Research Unit ‘The role of culture in early

expansions of humans’, Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut, Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt, Germany.

e-mail [email protected]

Nicholas J. Conard, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des

Mittelalters and Tübingen-Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoecology, Schloss Hohentübingen,

D-72070 Tübingen, Germany.


Hans-Peter Uerpmann, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Naturwissenschaftliche

Archäologie, Rümelinstr. 19–23, D-72070 Tübingen, Germany.



Excavations at Jebel Faya — The FAY-NE1 shelter sequence

Documents

Transcript of Excavations at Jebel Faya — The FAY-NE1 shelter sequence