Arab. arch. epig. 2013: 24: 51–58 (2013) Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved
Khamseen rock shelter and the Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic transition in Dhofar This paper presents the archaeological site of Khamseen rock shelter, its stratigraphic succession, numeric ages and Early–Middle Holocene lithic assemblages. The site was discovered and excavated during the 2010 fieldwork campaign of the Dhofar Archaeological Project (DAP) in southern Oman. It is situated at the southern edge of the Nejd Plateau, strategically positioned adjacent to a major orographic barrier at the interface of the plateau and escarpment. Excavations revealed a succession of five archaeological horizons, each bearing technologically distinct lithic assemblages. The lowest level (GH.5) is attributed to the Khashabian industry, representing the final phase of the South Arabian Late Palaeolithic. Above that, in GH.4, a Neolithic assemblage was found with bifacial tool forms typical of the Middle Holocene. In light of the evidence found at Khamseen rock shelter and other coeval archaeological sites across southern Arabia, the Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic transition is considered. Keywords: Late Palaeolithic, Neolithic, transition, lithics, South Arabia
1. Introduction The Early (10–8 ka BP) (thousand years before the present) and Middle (8–5 ka BP) Holocene archaeological record of southern Arabia has been thoroughly studied over the past three decades (e.g. Tosi 1986; Uerpmann M. 1992; Zarins 2001; McCorriston et al. 2002; Crassard et al. 2006; Fedele 2008; Drechsler 2007; Charpentier 2008). Human occupation at this time corresponds with a northward migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone that triggered an increase in rainfall beginning around 11 ka BP, peaking at 8 ka BP and declining to current levels around 5 ka BP (e.g. Parker et al. 2006; Fleitmann et al. 2007; Fleitmann & Matter 2009; Preusser 2009). The Early Holocene archaeological record may be divided into three distinct regional facies: ‘Fasad,’ ‘Qatar B’ and ‘Pre-Neolithic.’ Where they are found in stratified contexts, Fasad points are accompanied by simple, unidirectional parallel blade production (e.g. Charpentier 2008; Uerpmann, Potts & Uerpmann 2009; Hilbert, Rose & Roberts 2012). Tools encompass burins on truncation, end scrapers, side scrapers, piercers and diverse informal retouched blades and flakes. These Fasad-bearing assemblages may be further divided into regional facies based
Yamand u H. Hilbert CNRS-Universite Lyon 2, UMR 5133, Maison de l’Orient et de la Mediterranee, Lyon, France
e-mail:
[email protected]
on typological analysis (Charpentier & Crassard, this volume). In Dhofar they are contained within the Nejd Leptolithic tradition, dated between 14 and 7 ka BP (Rose 2006; Rose & Usik 2009; Hilbert, Rose & Roberts 2012). In Yemen, a Pre-Neolithic assemblage presenting its own distinct techno-typological package has been identified (Fedele 2008). The toolkit lacks Fasad points, instead stout unifacial points are reported; additional implements such as foliates, burins, diverse scrapers and ‘segments’ complete the toolkit. Blank production is oriented towards the manufacture of both flakes and blades. Qatar B sites exhibit a bidirectional blade reduction sequence with complex core preparation and tanged projectile points often produced by pressure retouch (Inizan 1980), which are notably absent from other early Holocene assemblages in southern Arabia. The subsequent Neolithic period in South Arabia is marked by the introduction of animal husbandry, indicated by faunal remains excavated at Buhais 18, Manayzah and Wadi at Tayyilah 3 among other sites (Uerpmann & Uerpmann 2008; Martin, McCorriston & Crassard 2009; Fedele 2008). The material culture associated with these sites is characterised by a specific set of technologies and
51
Y. H. HILBERT diagnostic tool types. Bifacial implements and pressureretouched projectiles are diagnostic of the ‘Neolithic’ typological package (e.g. Edens & Wilkinson 1998; Crassard et al. 2006; Charpentier 2008). Although blades sometimes occur, the blank production systems are oriented towards the manufacture of flakes from multiple platform and radial cores. While multiple platform cores are reduced in a unidirectional manner across more than two plains of removal (the part of the core from where blanks are produced), radial cores exhibit two plains of removal used alternatively and reduced in a centripetal manner (towards the centre of the core working plain). Little is known of the process of Neolithisation in southern Arabia; although surface occurrences were reported over the past decades (e.g. Charpentier 2008; Uerpmann M. 1992) sites presenting human occupations that precede the Neolithic have only recently been unearthed (e.g. Cremaschi & Negrino 2002; Fedele 2008; Rose & Usik 2009; Uerpmann, Potts & Uerpmann 2009; Hilbert, Rose & Roberts 2012). Buried sites spanning the Early to mid-
Holocene, the time frame in which this shift took place, are rare and shed little light on the process of cultural transformation or replacement (e.g. Crassard et al. 2006; Fedele 2008; Rose et al. 2011; Hilbert, Rose & Roberts 2012). The stratigraphic succession and associated material culture unearthed at Khamseen rock shelter are presented here. The sequence from Khamseen rock shelter dates back to the Early and mid-Holocene periods and provides an additional point of reference for the shift from the Late Palaeolithic to the Neolithic in Dhofar. Using the data obtained from excavations at the rock shelter, this paper assesses whether the technological changes witnessed in Dhofar during the Early–Middle Holocene are the result of demographic replacement or autochthonous development.
2. Site location and sampling strategy Khamseen rock shelter (OM.JA.TH.50) is located in southern Oman, in the governorate of Dhofar. This region is characterised by four distinct eco-zones (Zarins 2001),
Fig. 1. Khamseen rock shelter: 1. map of the Arabian Peninsula showing the location of the site; 2. topographic image of the site showing the position of the test pits; 3. schematic drawing of the east section from Area 1 showing the stratigraphic succession and position of fireplaces; 4. panoramic photograph of the site taken during the DAP 2010 field campaign.
52
KHAMSEEN ROCK SHELTER including: a) the Salalah coastal plain; b) the Jebel QaraJebel Samhan escarpment; c) the Nejd Plateau; and d) the Rub al Khali desert. Khamseen rock shelter is located at the southern edge of the Nejd Plateau, at the interface of the plateau and escarpment (Fig. 1). Two test pits were excavated at different parts of the talus slope. Area 1 was placed in the northern section of the shelter, while Area 2 was dug in the southern section higher up the slope. Both test pits have yielded comparable lithic assemblages in similar stratigraphic successions. Excavations were conducted in 1 m2 units following the identified geological horizons; all sediment were sieved through a 5 mm mesh screen. The talus sediments were composed of aeolian material, hydro-clastic shatter, medium- to large-sized boulders (from the back or roof of the shelter) and both chert artefacts and geofacts. Five geological horizons (GH) are defined in the Area 1 stratigraphic profile (Fig. 1/3). GH.1 to GH.3b predominantly comprised small angular clasts mixed with a desiccated organic
fraction (i.e. dried goat dung). GH.4a and 4b are marked by larger- to medium-sized rocks; GH.4 sediments were slightly concreted. GH.5a and 5b are marked by the increase in aeolian material. Two optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) age estimates obtained from GH.5a and 5b indicate the sediments were last exposed to sunlight respectively at 7.1 0.4 and 9.4 0.8 ka BP (OSL ages are presented as uncalibrated BP). The OSL dates should therefore be viewed as minimum dates for the archaeological material retrieved from the lower GH. One radiocarbon AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) date on ash remains from a hearth in the overlying GH.4b provides a date of 5000 to 4800 cal BC (2d) (calibrated BP 6950 and uncalibrated 6740 to 6010 40 BP) (Beta281544) for the Neolithic levels. Aside from the sedimentary differences, the sampled stratigraphic units were discerned based on the identification of discrete occupational levels marked by the hearths seen in the profile (Fig. 1/3).
Table 1. Artefact count: the columns on the left side of the table refer to the samples retrieved from the Neolithic levels excavated at both areas within the rock shelter. The right side refers to the Late Palaeolithic samples. NEOLITHIC
Blank Type Flake Blade Bladelet Cortical flake Cortical blade Debordant flake Debordant blade BFT Chip Core Type Single-platform convergent Single-platform parallel Opposed platform Two unopposed platform Multiple platform Tool Type Informally retouched blank Piercer Fasad point Biface Burin Pressure-retouched projectile Carinated-like scraper End scraper Side scraper Drill Total
LATE PALAEOLITHIC
Area 2
Area1
Area1
Total
Area 2
Area1
Area1
Total
GH 2b 83 24 0 7 9 2 6 114 392 _ 0 0 0 1 4 _ 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 646
GH 4a 35 10 0 10 4 0 1 46 36 _ 0 1 0 0 2 _ 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 _ 153
GH 4b 23 25 4 0 0 0 1 28 34 _ 0 1 0 1 1 _ 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 _ 122
141 59 4 17 13 2 8 188 462 _ 0 2 0 2 7 _ 5 0 0 6 0 1 1 1 1 1 _ 921
GH 2c 48 43 53 15 5 1 7 2 57 _ 2 5 0 2 0 _ 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 244
GH 5a 42 32 16 10 3 6 10 0 272 _ 0 8 1 1 2 _ 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 406
GH 5b 39 10 5 13 4 6 3 0 28 _ 1 2 0 0 2 _ 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 116
129 85 74 38 12 13 20 2 357 _ 3 15 1 3 4 _ 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 766
53
Y. H. HILBERT
3. Lithic analysis As such, lithic production is transmitted from generation to generation within a cultural unit. Different cultures are therefore expected to present different technological and typological packages. These packages are identifiable through lithic analysis following diverse lines of evidence (e.g. Inizan et al. 1995; Andrefsky 2005). Of importance for the reconstruction of the cultural package is the reconstruction of the chaîne operatoire (Bar-Yosef & Van Peer 2009). This is primarily achieved by identifying stages within the stone-tool production process. Depending on certain attributes observed on each individual lithic artefact, its position and function within the chaîne operatoire can be recognised. In addition to attribute analysis, refitting studies have been undertaken. The act of puzzling together cores and blanks enables the reconstruction of the
technical steps made by the flint-knapper during production processes, aiding the crystallisation of local lithic industries (sensu Kleindienst 2006). Over 5000 artefacts were excavated from Areas 1 and 2, consisting primarily of knapping debitage. The results of the technological attribute analysis are summarised in Table 1. The results of the lithic analysis and the refitting studies done on the Khamseen samples are used to highlight technological and typological patterns. Once these patterns are known comparisons between different samples may help to differentiate distinct lithic industries. The excavated artefacts were made on two distinct raw material types. High-quality chert nodules from the Gahit geological member, and lower-quality Aybut member chert, were found available in small- to medium-sized blocks. Gahit chert nodules vary greatly in size and mor-
Fig. 2. Debitage and cores from the Nejd Leptolithic levels of Khumseen rock shelter: 1–14. small blades and bladelets; 15–16. debordant blades; 17. blade; 18–20. single platform unidirectional blade and bladelet cores.
54
KHAMSEEN ROCK SHELTER phology; raw material blocks ranging between 5 and 50 cm in maximum diameter were observed outcropping in primary context on the plateau immediately above the shelter. Aybut chert tends to be heavily fractured from post-depositional displacement; raw material chunks typically measure between 8 and 15 cm in diameter. Artefacts made on both raw material types show different degrees of weathering and patination within the stratigraphic sequence. Artefacts from the lower levels exhibit a uniform white discoloration, while patination becomes less marked within the upper levels.
3.1. The Late Palaeolithic assemblages The assemblages recovered from Area 1, GH.5 and Area 2, GH.2c are technologically equivalent; both belong to the Late Palaeolithic Khashabian industry. The term Late Palaeolithic (LP) is here chosen to represent lithic industries dating to the end of the Pleistocene and the Early Holocene. The denomination LP should be viewed as an umbrella for industries that precede the food-producing communities of the Neolithic and post-date the Middle Palaeolithic/Middle Stone Age of Arabia (Hilbert, Rose & Roberts 2012; Hilbert 2012). The Khashabian, which represents a lithic industry dating to the end of the LP, is characterised by the hard-hammer production of blade, bladelets and flakes. Blades are further sub-divided into debordant blades and blades with no cortex. Debordant blades are defined as technologically distinct elements that were removed from the lateral edges of a core’s working surface. The removal of such blades is common in simple recurrent unidirectional technologies, as a means of maintaining convexity during a serial process of volume exploitation. Cores were typically reduced using a unidirectional strategy, from an unprepared or simple faceted (no more than three faceting removals) platform. Based on attribute and refitting analysis, blades and bladelets were produced via the same set of reduction modalities, the latter simply representing an advanced stage of unidirectional core reduction. Multiple platform or unopposed platform cores are present but rare (Hilbert 2012) (Fig. 2). Three different reduction modalities have been identified within the Khashabian (Hilbert, Rose & Roberts 2012). Refit analysis attests that reduction of cortical free blades and bladelets is achieved by removing debordant elements to create a dihedral working surface that subsequently becomes recurrently exploited. Depending on the desired products of this reduction, both blades and flakes with parallel or convergent sides, different modalities where used. One of these modalities mirrors the Wha’sha
method identified in eastern Yemen (Crassard 2008a). Blanks have been modified into expedient and standardised tools; end scrapers, tanged projectiles and piercing implements have been identified (Fig. 3).
3.2. The Neolithic assemblages The artefacts retrieved from Area 2 GH.2b and Area 1 GH.4a and 4b are technologically equivalent, both attributed to the Neolithic based on 14C dates from an associated hearth as well as techno-typological similarities with other South Arabian Neolithic assemblages documented in Yemen and Oman (e.g. Edens 1988; Uerpmann M. 1992; Crassard et al. 2006; Charpentier 2008). The Neolithic assemblages at Khamseen rock shelter are composed primarily of bifacial thinning flakes (BTF) and flakes. BTF are diagnostic debitage that indicate bifacial tool manufacture. They are typically thin flakes with faceted striking platforms, complex dorsal scar patterns and often twisted or incurvate longitudinal cross sections. Bulbs of percussion are small to non-existent and striking platforms often exhibit a prominent lip. These features are
Fig. 3. Tools from the Nejd Leptolithic levels of Khamseen rock shelter: 1–4. retouched blades and flakes; 5–6. proximal fragments of tanged projectiles; 7. end scraper; 8–9. piercers.
55
Y. H. HILBERT the result of soft-hammer percussion using an organic hammer. Distinct bifacial implements have been manufactured at the site (Fig. 4). Small adze-like artefacts and thin foliated pieces manufactured on blanks have been identified. Also within the assemblage, bifacial preforms and axes made on nodules have been found. Technological features on the preforms suggest that the manufacture of axes and other heavy-duty tools underwent two distinct technical phases. Following the primary shaping of the nodules using a hard hammer, soft-hammer facßonnage provides the final moulding of the tool. A trihedral point fragment has been identified. These are here understood as elongated projectiles with triangular cross section made by pressure retouch (e.g. Charpentier 2008; Crassard 2008b). A scra-
per made on a circular cortical flake and a carinated-like scraper were recorded. While the carinated-like specimen has retouch along its entire periphery, the cortical scraper showed modification to its distal edge only.
4. Summary Through lithic attribute and refitting analysis, two technotypological packages were identified in the lower levels of Khamseen rock shelter. These can be attributed to two known archaeological entities. The Late Palaeolithic assemblage recovered from the basal layer is marked by direct hard-hammer blade production using a semitournant strategy and a toolkit composed of burins, diverse cutting and scraping implements and tanged pro-
Fig. 4. Tools from the Neolithic levels of Khumseen rock shelter: 1. biface pre-form; 2. adze; 3–4. bifacial thinning flakes; 5. retouched flake; 6. trihedral point fragment; 7. foliate; 8. scraper on circular flake; 9. carinated-like scraper.
56
KHAMSEEN ROCK SHELTER jectile points. It is attributed to the Khashabian industry, which is part of the apparently long-standing Nejd Leptolithic tradition. Comparable samples were excavated at KR-208 and KR-213, also situated in Dhofar, by Cremaschi and Negrino (2002). The techno-typological pattern presented by these industries and their associated Early Holocene age may indicate a connection to the Khashabian industry. While technological parallels have been identified in the Hadramawt (represented by the Waʿshah method), clear chronological relation with the Khashabian remains to be determined (whether contemporaneous or diachronic). The Neolithic assemblage is marked by the production of bifacial implements using both hard- and soft-hammer technique and pressure-retouched projectile points. Blank production is primarily flake-oriented and based on multiple platform cores. Analogous assemblages have been reported across Yemen, Oman and the Emirates (e.g. Uerpmann M. 1992; Zarins 2001; McCorriston et al. 2002; Charpentier 2008; Crassard 2008b). Based on the lithic evidence the transition from the LP to the Neolithic in Dhofar was not a linear process through which the Khashabian changed into the Neolithic. This discontinuity may represent either population replacement or admixture and subsequent acculturation. The genetic evidence for southern Arabia indicates that a majority of its modern-day inhabitants derive from an ancestral local population that has its geographic origin in the general Near Eastern area. These populations may have retracted within posited refugia across the Yemeni
Highlands before the Late Glacial Maximum and possibly expanded from there during the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary (Cerny et al. 2011; Al-Abri et al. 2012; Rose, Cerny & Bayoumi, this volume). OSL samples provide the Nejd Leptolithic assemblage from Al Hatab with a minimum burial age of 13 1.1 ka BP (Rose & Usik 2009), predating the climatic onset of the Early Holocene wet phase in Dhofar (between 10.6 and 9.7 ka BP) (Fleitmann et al. 2007). Provided that the connection between the Khashabian and the Nejd Leptolithic proposed here holds, it may be argued that Dhofar was populated prior to the onset of the Holocene and was therefore inhabited by an older population that has no descendants among modern populations. Consequently a replacement scenario is favoured over the possibility of admixture between the Khashabian and Neolithic populations.
Acknowledgements I am in great depth to the organisers of the ‘The Neolithic of Arabia: New paradigms and future perspectives’ explanatory workshop, Dr Remy Crassard and Dr Philipp Drechsler. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for suggestions and comments on this manuscript. Thanks also go to Dr Jeffrey Rose for edits and comments on this manuscript. This research was funded by an Early Career Research Grant from the UK Arts & Humanities Research Council awarded to Dr Jeffrey Rose. Finally I would like to thank Jeanne Marie Geiling for assembling the database used for this study and the Fondation Fyssen for financial support.
References Al-Abri, A., Podgorna, E., Rose, J.I, Pereira, L. et al. 2012. Pleistocene-Holocene Boundary in Southern Arabia From the Perspective of Human mtDNA Variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 149: 291–298. Andrefsky, W. 2005. Lithics. Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bar-Yosef, O. & VanPeer, P. 2009. The Chaîne Operatoire Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology. Current Anthropology 50/1: 103–129. y, V., Mulligan, C., Fernandes, V., Silva, Cern N.M. et al. 2011. Internal Diversification of Mitochondrial Haplogroup R0a Reveals Post-Last Glacial Maximum Demographic Expansions in South Arabia. Molecular Biology and Evolution 28/1: 71–78.
Charpentier, V. 2008. Hunter-gatherers of the ‘empty quarter of the early Holocene’ to the last Neolithic societies: chronology of the late prehistory of south-eastern Arabia (8000–3100 BC). PSAS 38: 93–115. Crassard, R. 2008a. The ‘Waʿshah method’: an original laminar debitage from Hadramawt, Yemen. PSAS 38: 3–14. Crassard, R. 2008b. La Prehistoire du Yemen. Diffusions et diversites locales, a travers l’etude d’industries lithiques du Hadramawt. (BAR International Series S1842). Oxford: Archaeopress. Crassard, R., McCorriston, J., Oches, E., Bin ‘Aqil, A. et al. 2006. Manayzah, early to mid-Holocene occupations in Wadi Sana (Hadramawt, Yemen). PSAS 36: 151–173. Cremaschi, M. & Negrino, F. 2002. The Frankincense of Sumhuram:
palaeoenvironmental and prehistorical background. Pages 325–363 in Avanzini, A. (ed.), Khor Rori report 1 (Pisa, Edizioni PLUS). Drechsler, P. 2007. Spreading the Neolithic over the Arabian Peninsula. PSAS 37: 93– 109. Edens, C. & Wilkinson, T. 1998. Southwestern Arabia during the Holocene: Recent archaeological developments. Journal of World Prehistory 12/1: 55–119. Fedele, F. 2008. Wadi at Tayyilah 3, a Neolithic and Pre-Neolithic occupation on the eastern Yemen Plateau, and its archaeofaunal information. PSAS 38: 153– 172. Fleitmann, D. & Matter, A. 2009. The speleothem Record of climate variability
57
Y. H. HILBERT in Southern Arabia. Comptes Rendus Geosciences 341/8–9: 633–642. Fleitmann, D., Burns, S., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M. et al. 2007. Holocene ITCZ and Indian monsoon dynamics recorded in stalagmites from Oman and Yemen (Socotra). Quaternary Science Reviews 26: 170–188. Hilbert, Y. 2012. An investigation of Late Palaeolithic stone tools Assemblages from the Nejd Plateau, Southern Oman. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham. (Unpublished.) Hilbert, Y., Rose, J. & Roberts, R. 2012. Late Palaeolithic core-reduction strategies in Dhofar, Oman. PSAS 42: 101–118. Inizan, M.L. 1980. Sur les industries a lames de Qatar. Paleorient 6: 233–236. Inizan, M.L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H. & Tixier, J. 1995. Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Prehistoire de la Pierre Taillee, vol. 5. Nanterre: CREP. Kleindienst, M.R. 2006. On Naming Things: Behavioral Changes in the Later Middle to Earlier Late Pleistocene, Viewed From the Eastern Sahara. Pages 13–28 in Hovers, E. & Kuhn, S. (eds.), Transition Before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age (New York, Springer).
58
McCorriston, J., Oches, E., Walter, D. & Cole, K.L. 2002. Holocene Paleoecology and Prehistory in Highland Southern Arabia. Paleorient 28/1: 61–88. Martin, L., McCorriston, J. & Crassard, R. 2009. Early Arabian pastoralism at Manayzah in Wadī Sana, Hadramawt. PSAS 39: 271–282. Parker, A., Goudie, A., Stokes, S., White, K. et al. 2006. A record of Holocene climate change from lake geochemical analysis in southwestern Arabia. Quarternary Research 65: 465–476. Preusser, F. 2009. Chronology of the impact of Quaternary climate change on continental environments in the Arabian Peninsula. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 341: 621–632. Rose, J. 2006. Among Arabian Sands: Defining the Palaeolithic of Southern Arabia. PhD thesis, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. (Unpublished.) Rose, J. & Usik, V. 2009. The ‘Upper Paleolithic’ of South Arabia. Pages 169– 185 in Petraglia, M. & Rose, J. (eds.), Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and Genetics (Dodrecht, Springer). Rose, J., Usik, V., al-Mahrooqi, A. & Angelucci, D. 2011. A Stratified Early/ Middle Holocene Site inside the Qarat al-
Dome. Journal of Oman Studies Kibrõt 17: 51–71. Tosi, M. 1986. The emerging picture of prehistoric Arabia. Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 461–490. Uerpmann, M. 1992. Structuring the Late Stone Age of Southwestern Arabia. AAE 3: 65–109. Uerpmann, M. & Uerpmann, H.-P. 2008. Neolithic faunal remains from al-Buhais 18 (Sharjah, UAE). Pages 97–132 in Uerpmann, H-P., Uerpmann, M. & Jasim, S.A. (eds.), The natural environment of Jebel al-Buhais: past and present. The archaeology of Jebel al-Buhais, vol. 2 (T€ ubingen, Kerns Verlag). Uerpmann, H.P., Potts, D. & Uerpmann, M. 2009. Holocene (Re-)Occupation of Eastern Arabia. Pages 205–214 in Petraglia, M. & Rose, J. (eds.), Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: paleoenvironments, prehistory and Genetics (Dordrecht, Springer). Zarins, J. 2001. The Land of Incense: Archaeological work in the Governorate of Dhofar, Sultanate of Oman, 1990–1995. Muscat: Sultan Qaboos University Publications.
