# Early Arabian Neolithic agropastoral communities from Asifir, Northwestern Saudi Arabia

Rémy Crassard, Yamandú H Hilbert, Michèle Dinies, Hervé Monchot, Bruno Depreux, Samer Sahlah, Walid Al-Badaiwi, Guillaume Charloux

► To cite this version:

Rémy Crassard, Yamandú H Hilbert, Michèle Dinies, Hervé Monchot, Bruno Depreux, et al.. Early Arabian Neolithic agropastoral communities from Asifir, Northwestern Saudi Arabia. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2025, 17, pp.130. 10.1007/s12520-025-02234-2. hal-05084569

HAL Id: hal-05084569

https://hal.science/hal-05084569v1

Submitted on 26 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Early Arabian Neolithic agropastoral communities from Asifir, Northwestern Saudi Arabia

Rémy Crassard<fnref n="1" /> · Yamandú H. Hilbert<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" /> · Michèle Dinies<fnref n="5" /> · Hervé Monchot<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" /> · Bruno Depreux<fnref n="1" /> · Samer Sahlah<fnref n="8" /> · Walid Al-Badaiwi<fnref n="9" /> · Guillaume Charloux<fnref n="7" />

Received: 24 March 2025 / Accepted: 20 April 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

## Abstract

Discovered during the survey of ancient Madyan, in the modern Al-Badʻ oasis in north-western Saudi Arabia, the site of Asifir is distinguished by numerous surface concentrations of Neolithic artefacts. Low sediment mounds identified at the site indicated the possible preservation of in situ archaeological remains; one such mound was excavated in November 2019. Dated to the Early Arabian Neolithic period, Asifir is an open-air site located at the top of a conglomerate terrace along Wadi Ifal. The archaeology from the site is characterized by a high number of lithic artefacts, such as flakes, blades, and bladelets, as well as various lithic tools, including arrowheads, sickle blade insets, scrapers, borers, and grindstones. Personal ornaments such as small-sized worked shells and beads, are also present. The excavations have yielded a large hearth, with faunal (including mammals, birds and fish), malacological and botanical macro-remains. The archaeological evidence reveals the nature of the site as probably a dwelling place where domestic activities were performed. Presence of sickle blades with pronounced gloss represents a remarkable and unique find in Saudi Arabia, providing compelling evidence for cereal harvesting practices, possibly involving domesticated species such as *Hordeum vulgare* (barley). Asifir represents one of the rare sites in Saudi Arabia dating to this period, and one of the rare to indicate the use of agropastoral subsistence strategies in the region some 9000 years ago.

**Keywords** Neolithic · Lithics · Stratigraphy · Archaeobotany · Zooarchaeology · Saudi Arabia

## Introduction

The emergence of the Neolithic in Southwest Asia holds significance in the wider context of human societal developments and evolution, given that some of the earliest developments away from the hunter-gatherer way of life and towards a producing economy were identified in this part

of the world. It is widely regarded as a transformative phase that revolutionized the relationship between human groups and their environments, leading to unprecedented population growth, sedentary settlement patterns, and remarkable technological advancements. While considerable scholarly attention has been devoted to investigating the internal dynamics of the ‘neolithisation cradle’ of the Fertile

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Rémy Crassard
remy.cressard@cnrs.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">1 CNRS, Archéorient (UMR 5133), Université Lumière Lyon 2, Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Paleoanthropology, Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Archeology of Social Dynamics (ASD), CSIC, Institución Milá y Fontanals de Investigación en Humanidades, Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Institut für Geographische Wissenschaften - Physische Geographie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Centre de recherche archéologique Jaussen & Savignac, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 CNRS, Orient & Méditerranée (UMR 8167), Ivry-sur-Seine, France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 Department of Archaeology, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 Heritage Commission, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia</footnote>
Crescent for over a century of research (e.g. Braidwood 1973; Cauvin 1978; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2011), comparatively less emphasis has been placed on comprehending the dynamics and interactions between the core and peripheral regions, and in the case of the present study with the north of the Arabian Peninsula. Until now, the still exploratory nature of the research data available from northern Arabia has prevented us from reaching a comprehensive understanding of the temporal, spatial, and culturally variable aspects that characterized the origins of the Arabian Neolithic.

Currently, both the Upper Palaeolithic and the Epipalaeolithic of northern Arabia remain largely unknown, save for a few sites (Hilbert et al. 2014; Hilbert and Crassard 2020), causing our understanding of the Neolithic background to be schematic at best. While the origins and development of the Neolithic are somewhat better known in the southern regions of the Arabian Peninsula and along the Gulf, it remains difficult to establish a reliable chrono-cultural framework for this period (Crassard and Drechsler 2013; Magee 2014). In Saudi Arabia, archaeological research has gained from significant developments in recent years, but only a few Neolithic stratified sites have been excavated so far, and often from a chronological scope limited to the later phases of the Neolithic (e.g., Scerri et al. 2018; Guagnin et al. 2020, 2022; Munoz et al. 2020; Abu-Azizeh et al. 2022; Lucarini et al. 2023; McMahon et al. 2024).

The Neolithic of northern Arabia coincides with the Holocene Humid Period, which peaked between approximately 8000 and 4000 cal. BC in southern Arabia, due to the northward migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and subsequent monsoon rainfall belt (Burns et al. 1998; Fleitmann et al. 2007, 2011; Cremaschi et al. 2015). Both African and Indian summer monsoon rains are the main atmospheric sources for precipitation, although their temporal and spatial patterns have fluctuated (Jennings et al. 2015; Nicholson et al. 2020). Palaeoenvironmental studies, still scarce in the North of Arabia, confirm the existence of a humid period in the region at the end of the Early Holocene, albeit shorter than in the south, potentially influenced by the monsoon regime and by other atmospheric systems, including Mediterranean winter rains, the Red Sea Trough or winter tropical plumes (Engel et al. 2012; Hilbert et al. 2014; Dinies et al. 2015; Neugebauer et al. 2022). These favourable periods during humid phases certainly led to times when water fed a rather developed lacustrine and riverine landscape, with mangrove environments also developing along the coastline of southern Arabia, facilitating the presence and mobility of human groups (e.g. Berger et al. 2013; Crassard et al. 2013).

While studying the lithic industries in the southern Arabian Peninsula, specific local developments have been

established for the first phase of the Neolithic (Crassard 2009; Khalidi et al. 2012; Hilbert 2013, 2014; Crassard and Khalidi 2017; Crassard et al. 2020a, b; Parton and Bretzke 2020). Northern Arabia, however, show some typo-technological connections with the Levant, also exhibiting some local specificities (Crassard et al. 2013; Crassard and Hilbert 2020). Nevertheless, the number of discovered early Neolithic stratified sites in the north is extremely limited and insufficient for the establishment of a comprehensive occupational and subsistence model. Only two stratified sites from what we propose to call the “Early Arabian Neolithic” are known in Northwestern Saudi Arabia: Wadi Sharma 1 between Tabuk and the Red Sea coast (Fujii et al. 2021a) and AlUyaynah (or al-‘Aynah) north of Tabuk near the Jordanian border (Alasmari 2019). The sites are small villages, and their lithic industry bears significant similarities to contemporary sites in the southern Levant, the latter being associated to the “Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B” (PPNB) period. In this context, the discovery of Asifir, dated to the end of the 8th and to the first half of the 7th millennium BC, is an important addition that increments our comprehension of the origins of the Neolithic in northern Arabia.

## Materials and methods

### Site location and context

Asifir is located to the south of the modern town of Al-Bad‘ (Fig. 1), which is situated on the northern apex of the Ifal Depression, directly adjacent to the Hijaz Mountains in the northwest, north, and northeast directions. The Hijaz region comprises crystalline and metasedimentary rocks, alongside Palaeozoic and Cenozoic formations linked with the formation of the Red Sea (Brown 1970). The Ifal Depression, taking a triangular shape, extends approximately 50 km southward, with Wadi Ifal serving as the primary drainage channel from Jebel al-Shu‘aytiyah to Khuraybah. To the south, the Red Sea shores demarcate the boundary of the Ifal Depression. This triangular depression resulted from rifts and faults formed by the expansion of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. The low-lying area is characterized by the Red Sea graben system, while much of the sediment comes from the Raghama formation to the west (Ingraham et al. 1981; Briem and Blümel 1984; Hughes et al. 2000). In the vicinity of Al-Bad‘, alluvial terraces border the wadis that originate from the mountains. These alluvial deposits could potentially preserve buried lithic artefacts. The region is also susceptible to fine material deflation, resulting in clast pavements, a common occurrence in the arid environment of the area. Some Lower and Middle Palaeolithic lithic artefacts have been discovered in the immediate vicinity of
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Localisation of the Neolithic site of Asifir. A) localisation of the northwestern Arabian zone of interest for this study; B) localisation of Asifir in northwestern Arabia with main Early Arabian Neolithic sites</figcaption></figure>

cited in the text (red circles) and modern towns (black squares); C) geomorphological map of Asifir setting in Wadi Ifal region
Asifir, but only from unstratified surface sites (Crassard et al. 2020c).

The present-day vegetation of the coastal lowlands and the Hijaz mountains, with its northern highest mountain, Jabal Lawz, can be divided into several altitudinal belts: Open thorn woodlands with dominant umbrella thorn acacia (*Acacia/Vachellia tortilis*), together with *Retama raetam*, characterize the sandy and gravelly alluvial wadi fans of the lowland. In the following belt of gentle slopes up to about 650 m asl, acacia-dominated communities occur again, with locally important contributions from apple of Sodom (*Calotropis procera*) and *Maerua crassifolia*. On the upland plateau levels (about 650–850 m asl), desert riverine woodlands occur, formed by again umbrella thorn acacia, now associated with *Fagonia indica* in the understory. They alternate with partially nearly pure stands of *Zilla spinosa*. Wonderboom fig (*Ficus salicifolia*) is most abundant in the following belt (800–1000 m asl) of the Hijaz mountains, growing in a variety of habitats, including open woodlands, natural depressions and rock outcrops. This is consistent with the general pattern observed that the wadi flora of middle altitudes is rich in Sudanian vegetation elements, with at least eight different fig taxa occurring in the riparian forests. As these habitats are most suitable for irrigated fields, these gallery forests are now severely reduced and fragmented. The higher mountains (1000–1300 m asl) are covered by deciduous, very open woodlands with *Prunus*, pistachio and sumac trees (*Prunus korshinskyi*, *Pistacia atlantica*, *P. khinjuk*, *Rhus tripartita*) and *Retama raetam*. On the summits of the northern Hijaz mountains (1300–2200 m asl) finally, isolated stands of Phoenician juniper (*Juniperus phoenicea*) occur, supposed to be remnant woodlands of a formerly wider spread Mediterranean, evergreen needle-leaved woodland belt (Deil and al Gifri 1998; Abd El-Ghani 1996, 1997; Fisher et al. 1998; Kürschner 1998).

The site of Asifir is located on the western bank of the wadi Ifal, at the top of a Pleistocene conglomerate terrace made up of silt to cobbles, which was part of a large alluvial fan stretching across the entire width of the valley, formed at the outlet of the mountain corridor where it opens into the Ifal Depression (Fig. 1B). The terrace, which rises ca. 15 m above the current riverbed, was formed as a result of several aggradation-incision cycles of the wadi Ifal, as evidenced upstream by the more recent cut-and-fill alluvial terraces (Fig. 1C).

The site, identified by the presence of lithic artefacts on the surface, is located at the highest altitudes of the terrace, i.e. between 252 and 256 m asl. At this elevation, the micro-topography reveals a morphologically flattened area, eroded to the west by a tributary of wadi Ifal and by multiple secondary gullies. Within this area, a series of small hips can be distinguished, consisting of sedimentary infill of

anthropogenic origin, each measuring a few meters across (Fig. 2A). The terrace surface is characterized by the coarsest elements that have been locally reworked (loose pebbles to cobbles), while the depression zones, which have undergone erosion, accumulate fine runoff deposits (silt and sand, Fig. 2B).

Regarding the genesis of these hips, our initial hypothesis was that they were linked to architectural structures. However, this was refuted by our excavations, which failed to identify any drystone masonry or mudbrick walls at Asifir. The retained hypothesis is that they were formed through areal erosion and gullying, processes that have segmented this flattened area and isolated it into small hips. The only exception is the largest hip at 256 m asl, which remains uncertain and may have been human-shaped. The taphonomic evidence suggests that the site was once more extensive on this conglomeratic terrace, extending both north and south, but is currently undergoing dismantling due to active regressive erosion. The discovery of lithic artefacts on the site's surface, mainly associated with sand-filled depression zones located between the hips, support this hypothesis.

## Fieldwork methodology

The site was discovered during the first surveys of the Saudi-French Archaeological Project in Al-Badā' during the 2017 campaign and reassessed during two separate campaigns in 2019 (Charloux et al. 2021). A pedestrian survey of the area with a particular focus on the alluvial terrace was conducted by team members; archaeological localities were mapped using differential GPS on high-resolution aerial imagery. Cultural attribution of the finds was conducted by classifying the archaeological remains and attributing them to chrono-cultural periods. The collection of surface materials was conducted for documentation (photographs and illustrations) and analysis purposes. Based on the pedestrian survey, a sounding was excavated later on in November 2019 (Trench 1). Excavations were conducted using hand tools and all extracted sediments were dry sieved through a 4 mm mesh. Finds were assigned elevations and a specific archaeological locus, within stratigraphic units (SU) detected in the trench's sections. Charcoals and one charred seed were handpicked during excavation. Additionally, six sediment samples (0.3–0.7 l) were floated using a 0.250 mm mesh sieve for the light fraction containing the charred plant remains. The analysis of the exported samples was completed at the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. The seeds, fruits, and charred wood fragments were identified using the reference collection and manuals (Cappers et al. 2006; Neef et al. 2012; see also https://www.plantatlas.eu/), with a Nikon SMZ-U and a Leica reflected light microscope. For charcoal analysis, a minimum of ten representative
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** A) digital terrain model of the Asifir site, with surface artefact Scatters 90001 to 90006, and localisation of mound S127 sounding and Trench 1 excavation; B) oblique aerial view of Asifir, from south, with Trench 1 being excavated, and location of some artefact scatters on surface</figcaption></figure>

fragments per sample were identified; additional fragments are subsumed as Remaining Charcoal Fragments with weights. Selected seeds, fruits, and wood fragments were photographed.

## Lithic analysis

More than 1000 stone artefacts were recorded from the excavations, the majority of them are lithics produced by flaking, and a small assemblage of ground stone tools was also unearthed. Flaked artefacts were classified into cores, tools or debitage, the latter being further sorted into size grades. We also organized the assemblage by raw material,
including two categories comprising fine grained raw materials (chert, flint, rhyolite) and quartz/quartzite. Ground stone tools were classified as either upper or lower grinders based on previous reference work (Wright 1992). A pilot traceological study on the Asifir assemblage was conducted on a sample of 12 artefacts at the microscopy laboratories of the Archaeology of Social Dynamics Group IMF-CSIC in Barcelona, Spain. The identification of specific traces, including micro-polish, striations, micro fissures and negatives, abrasion and subsequent comparison with traces resulting from case specific replication experiments allows interpretations regarding tool function (Clemente-Conte 1997a; González-Urquijo and Ibañez-Estéves 1994; Mansur-Franchomme 1986; Semenov 1964; Vaughan 1981, 1985). Both high- and low-powered microscopy methods were used to analyse the Asifir artefacts. High-power magnifications were used (50x to 400x) to identify the various microscopic traces resulting from tool manufacture, use and post-depositional modifications on the surface and edges of the artefacts. A Leica MZ16 A stereo-microscope and a Leica DM 2500 M metallurgical upright microscope were used during the analysis. Prior to the microscopic analysis, the artefacts were cleaned with water and soap to remove any impurities. After the assessment of the post-deposition surface modifications (PDSM) on the lithics, all edges and surfaces were screened, and micro traces were recorded and plotted on the artefacts. Subsequent functional interpretations were bolstered by comparing the traces on the Asifir sample with the extensive comparative collection at the IMF-CSIC. All exported lithics were brought back to Saudi Arabia (Heritage Commission of the Ministry of Culture), after research.

# Results

## Surface lithic scatters at Asifir: results of the pedestrian survey and sampling (February 2019)

Survey activities were conducted in 2019 on a ten-kilometre-range around Al-Bad', in the northern part of the Ifal Depression, leading to the discovery of several Lower and Middle Palaeolithic surface sites (Crassard et al. 2020c), while a previous survey had been done in 2018 by another team in this same region (Inglis et al. 2019). Our regional survey has identified raw material outcrops in the vicinity of Asifir, to the south of the modern town of Al-Bad', especially silicified limestones and fine-grained cherts (sometimes found as large fully cortical rounded chert blocks) from the Lisan Formation. Artefacts found at Asifir are rarely made of the local chert from the neighbouring hills in south Al-Bad', but are rather produced using fine-grained translucent

cherts/flints (mainly brown, beige, grey in colour) of yet unknown provenance; possibly these raw materials come from secondary deposit within the gravel beds of Wadi Ifal. The use of quartz, as well as rock crystal, varies and can be abundant in some contexts.

During this first pedestrian survey, six surface artefacts scatters were recorded at Asifir (site numbers 90001 to 90006; Fig. 1). The six scatters potentially reflect a broadly contemporaneous occupation, from which lithic artefacts seem techno-typologically dated to the Neolithic period. Scatter 90001 is a flat stone-cleared area of about 4×8 m, rich in micro-debitage (micro-debris, micro-flakes), bladelets, and various tools, including small pressure-retouched arrowheads and arrowhead fragments. The density of lithics reaches 10 pieces per sq. m, and they are made on very fine-grained, unweathered cherts. The five other scatters have also the same setting, being flat areas interrupted by adjacent mounds. Scatter 90002 is a 20×5 m area and has notably more macrolithic elements (grinding artefacts in pink, red, beige fine sandstones). A small sounding of 35×35 cm has been made in this area, reaching 32 cm under the surface a stone layer that could be the geological substratum or an Early Holocene coarse alluvium. The stratigraphy observed in the sounding is made of a single accumulation of powdered horizontally micro-laminated yellow silts, resulting from run-off processes. Artefacts are rare within this accumulation, most of them coming from the actual surface. Scatter 90003 is also a 25×10 m continuation of the two previous ones, with identical archaeological material, although found in a lower density. Scatter 90004 is only a 3×3 m squared area with little lithics, as well as scatter 90005, which presents a series of small grinding stone fragments. Finally, scatter 90006 is slightly different, sitting at the top of a mound with much fewer artefacts across a circular surface of 8×8 m.

All six surface artefact scatters are in the immediate proximity of a small mound called S127, discovered in 2017. At S127, a first micro-sounding was done in February 2019 on what appeared to be a dark, ashy surface at the edge of a mound. The circular feature was 100×72 cm, and the excavation of the southern half of it revealed a 19 cm charcoal-rich dark silty layer, filling the basin-shaped hearth dug into the ground. Three sediment sub-samples have been collected for phytolith and pollen analyses, and the ca. 0.3 l remaining sediment floated and exported (see section: 2.2. Fieldwork methodology; samples 127-1a, -1b and -1c). A radiocarbon measurement on wood charcoal taken from this organically rich sediment gave an age of 7862±42 BP (7026–6595 cal. BC). This age falls into the Late PPNB and Late Neolithic of the South Levantine prehistory terminology.

The lithics collected on the surface of all these scatters are typologically consistent with this radiocarbon
age. A total of 30 lithics have been selected from the surface scatters for their informative value, and all are illustrated here (Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6). The presence of small Amuq-like arrowheads and arrowhead fragments are notably of great importance (Fig. 3). They are leaf-shaped, made on elongated flakes or blades, and pressure-retouched to fashion the tang (invasive on dorsal surface, and at the basal extremity only on the ventral surface). There are examples of regular and short retouched edges (direct and indirect retouch). There are also unifacially and bifacially invasive

pressure-retouched points, also leaf-shaped and particularly flat and thin (Fig. 4: 1–6), and some other elongated trihedral armatures, with a triangular section (Fig. 4: 7–8). The bladelets are a main aspect of the lithic industry at Asifir (Fig. 5), most of them being straight and regular, their dorsal surface presenting three bladelet scars, also with mostly unidirectional scar pattern, but the presence of bidirectional scar pattern is attested with possible indication of predetermined pointed blade production (Fig. 5: 2, from a naviform-core *chaîne opératoire*?).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Lithic arrowheads from surface scatters at Asifir (site number indicated for each artefact), all leaf-shaped and of a Amuq-like type (drawing C. Delluc)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Lithic projectiles (fragmentary or preforms) from surface scatters at Asifir (site number indicated for each artefact). All bifacially foliated, except from 90006 and 90004 which are with trihedral section (drawing C. Delluc)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5 Lithic bladelets from surface scatters at Asifir (site number indicated for each artefact) (drawing C. Delluc)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** Schist tools from surface scatters at Asifir (site number indicated for each artefact) (drawing C. Delluc)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
A series of schist artefacts of unknown function were found associated with Neolithic stone tools at Scatters 90002 (n=3) and 90003 (n=5) (Fig. 6). Given the absence of any evidence for later occupations at Asifir during proto-historic periods and the lack of older Palaeolithic finds these artefacts albeit out of stratigraphic contexts are tentatively attributed to the early Neolithic. Schist plaquettes have been modified into elongated tools with parallel or convergent edges by bifacial retouch along both edges and occasionally the distal and proximal portions, shaping tools that are around 12 cm and longer. Retouch is clearly intentional and has the purpose of shaping the active edge and makes use of the natural properties of the schist, which fractures somewhat conchoidal and allows for the articulation of staggered active edges. Schist, however, is by far more susceptible to abrasion due to its soft properties (4–5 on the Mohs scale). A set of four schist artefacts was selected for functional analysis (Fig. 7). Based on the semi transverse orientation of the micro polish, the distribution of micro negatives on both sides of the active edge and the different levels of abrasion edge, we can make some suggestions as to the way the tool was moved. The schist tools were likely used in semi-transverse pulling motion with an oblique angle of force between 35° and 20°, a cutting or stabbing tool motion can be excluded. Signs of use are mainly discernible along the staggered edges created by the retouch. Abraded edges and polished surfaces are indicative of contact with a soft and abrasive organic material. Shist was used as a raw material for the manufacture of personal ornaments in Neolithic to Early Bronze Age in Europe (Hamon et al. 2021), and shows repeated use as support for graphic activities from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in Europe (e.g. Bosinski 1979; Bueno Ramirez 1992) its use in Arabia as a mineral resource for tool manufacture has not, to the knowledge of the authors been demonstrated in the literature and may represent a local specificity.

## Stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating from trench 1 excavation (November 2019)

Due to the promising data provided by the previous analysis, additional excavation of a 5×1 m sounding (Trench 1) was conducted in November 2019. This trench was hand-excavated by square meter (Squares 1 to 5), and the excavated sediments were fully dry-sieved while three samples in stratigraphic units 11 and 19 were dedicated to flotation for retrieving botanical remains. All sampled and dated wood charcoals and a barley grain were hand-picked during excavation. Sediments throughout the excavated Trench 1 were generally composed of extremely loose sandy silts, almost permanent ashy dust that made difficult the differentiation of layers and features during excavation. Nevertheless, a clear

stratigraphy could be revealed, reaching approximately 50 cm in the deepest parts of the trench (Fig. 8). A series of 11 stratigraphic units (SU) have been identified from this section and are described here from top to bottom. Their equivalence with the loci identified during excavation (from locus 90007 to locus 90024) is proposed in Fig. 9.

An upper layer (SU5) is characterized by a yellowish loose dusty silt, with no evident banding and small inclusions of microcharcoals, bones, and lithics. On top of the mound from which Trench 1 was dug, a series of four layers have been identified (SU1 to 4), the extension of which is very limited by the sounding position. SU1 is a whitish indurated gypsic horizon, with little depth preservation and very few inclusions. It sits on SU2, a thin band of beige silts, which is on a silty moderately sorted layer (SU3) with small rounded pebbles sitting on top of SU4, a paved marl-like flat poorly sorted layer. This northern square 1 with a slightly different sediment accumulation than in the rest of Trench 1 would deserve to be extended in a future excavation in order to understand its exact nature, due to post-depositional processes or to a distinctive occupation zone in the site. The main occupational layer of Trench 1 is SU6, with ashy sediments slightly more compacted than SU5 and with a higher incidence of fist-sized pebbles and 1-to-5-cm small angular shattered rocks, as well as a few seeds and some picked charcoals. SU8 is very similar to SU6, while even looser, with SU7 separating them as a thin whitish gypsiferous indurated layer, of sediments with similar metrics as in SU6 and some charcoal dust. The presence of this indurated band could be post-depositional. SU11 is a southwestern continuation of SU8 in squares 4 and 5, with more angular shattered rocks. Some signs of bioturbation (essentially burrows) were found during the excavation throughout the stratigraphy. A large combustion structure (SU10) is a very ashy multilayered and multi-occupation hearth(s). SU10 has a general circular shape of about 1 m in diameter and was directly dug into SU8/11. It is also rich in charcoals and fire-cracked rocks. Its limits are well-defined, as the reddish surrounding sediments testify to burning and heating activities. The combustion feature sediments were sampled for botanical analyses, while one carbonized grain has been discovered and hand-picked in situ during excavation. Finally, SU9 is a beige rather indurated silty layer, less ashy and with angular shattered rocks. Excavation stopped on that layer while anthropogenic sediments seemed to end, also with almost no more archaeological artefacts to be found.

In addition to the radiocarbon date obtained from the first sounding in February 2019, three more radiocarbon dates were obtained from the excavated layers in Square 3 of Trench 1 (Table 1; Fig. 10). One was obtained from SU10 (locus 90019) from a grain identified as *Hordeum* sp. (barley) and gave a date of 7960±40 BP (7041–6697 cal. BC).
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** Schist artefacts from surface scatter 90002. Top: artefact 90002-02 with bilateral retouched edges, M1 and M2 show the abrasion and polish on staggered working edge, F1 and F2 show weak developed</figcaption></figure>

polish and abrasion of the edge. Bottom: artefact 90002-01. M1 shows retouched edge without abrasion and traces of use, and M2 shows regularized and abraded edge due to use (lithic drawing C. Delluc)

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8 SW-NE Section of Trench 1 at Asifir Neolithic site</figcaption></figure>

A second radiocarbon date on a *Tamarix* sp. charcoal at the bottom of SU10 (locus 90016) gave the exact same age. A third date from the bottom of SU10 (locus 90019) gave an age of 8070±40 BP (7175–6827 cal. BC). These results place the occupation of the site from the end of the 8th millennium to the first half of the 7th millennium BC. This confirms the site’s early age, placing it at the latest in the Late PPNB of the Levant. As a result, Asifir stands as one of the oldest known Neolithic sites in the Arabian Peninsula, likely linked to the origins of neolithisation in northern Arabia.

## Lithic assemblage description from trench 1 excavation

The lithic assemblage is mainly made on chert/flint and, to a lesser extent, quartz and quartzite raw materials. The variability in used mineral resources is high as shown by the differences in the quality of the quartz, which ranges from fully translucent and clear rock crystal to course and cloudy yet sharp variants. The chert and flints show a similar diversity of raw material knapping properties, albeit less pronounced than the quartz/quartzite materials (Table. 2).

The excavations at Asifir yielded more than 1000 lithics, including a small number of tools (n=30). Most of the sample is composed of small flakes, chips, blades and bladelet fragments. The sample is poorly preserved, and fractured pieces are common, as are burnt lithics. Cores are rare and make up less than 0.1% of the assemblage. The rare tools are mostly short flakes and blades with ad-hoc retouch along one side and face have been observed; a small sample (n=4) of *pièces esquillées* was also identified. Within the retouched pieces category, five specimens stand out as presenting macroscopically visible gloss on the active edges, these pieces were come from the contexts of SU10 and were associated with the radiocarbon dates; these pieces were subjected to traceological analysis (see Sect. 3.4.).

Eleven arrowheads (including two from the trench surface) constitute the primary type enabling techno-typological comparisons with neighbouring regions. These arrowheads are predominantly made on small, elongated flakes or bladelets, with a simple tang formed from their proximal end (Fig. 11). They mostly show the same characteristics as the points described from the surface scatters: Amuq-like points (Fig. 11: 8, 9, 11), foliated bifacial thin and flat points (Fig. 11: 5, and probable preforms: 3, 4, 6, 7), and points on trihedral elongated blank (Fig. 11: 10).

The closest known Levantine arrowhead type is the Amuq point (e.g. Gopher 1994); however, its definition has grown increasingly ambiguous over time. The points from Asifir could be typologically linked to various Levantine types, but it may be time to reconsider and reconstruct the Near Eastern typology of arrowheads. In recent decades,
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 9** Harris matrix of the stratigraphic context at Asifir Trench 1, with equivalence of excavated loci with stratigraphic units (SU) identified in Section SW-NE</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 1** Radiocarbon dating results from Asifir, on one undetermined and three determined wood charcoals. Calibration with oxcal v4.4.4, bronk Ramsey 2021; R:5 atmospheric data from Reimer et al. 2020</caption><thead><tr><th>Sample context (nature)</th><th>Lab. No.</th><th>Age <sup>14</sup>C BP</th><th>Age cal. BC (95.4%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Asifir St 127 R (undet. wood charcoal)</td><td>UBA-36388</td><td>7862±42 BP</td><td>7026-6595 cal. BC</td></tr><tr><td>Asifir locus 90016 (Tamarix sp.)</td><td>Poz-125354</td><td>7960±40 BP</td><td>7041-6697 cal. BC</td></tr><tr><td>Asifir locus 90019 (Hordeum sp.)</td><td>Poz-125965</td><td>7960±40 BP</td><td>7041-6697 cal. BC</td></tr><tr><td>Asifir locus 90019 (Tamarix sp.)</td><td>Poz-125353</td><td>8070±40 BP</td><td>7175-6827 cal. BC</td></tr></tbody></table>

discoveries beyond the Fertile Crescent have expanded significantly, rendering some aspects of typologies proposed thirty or forty years ago outdated, or simply not applicable to the Arabian Neolithic. Asifir is poised to play a crucial role in developing a new regional typology for these types of artifacts, pending the discovery of more dated retouched tools and arrowheads from other sites in northern Arabia.

## Traceological analysis on a lithic selection from trench 1 excavation

All 30 tools and additional 15 lamellar fragments from the excavations were subjected to an inspection using a
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 11** Complete and fragmentary arrowheads from Asifir Trench 1 excavation. 1: very small simple tanged arrowhead (#900014-1); 2: apical fragment of undetermined projectile point (#90015-2); 3: medial of a probable bifacial preform (#90015-1); 4: possible projectile preform (#90019-2); 5: medio-apical of a foliated bifacial flat arrowhead (#90007-1); 6: probable arrowhead preform on flake with fine pressure</figcaption></figure>

retouch (#90018-3); 7: probable arrowhead preform on bladelet (#90009-2); 8. Amuq-like arrowhead made on a bladelet (#90019-4); 9: baso-medial of an Amuq-like point made on a regular and straight bladelet (90019-3); 10: preform of a possible projectile on a trihedral bladelet (#90019-3); 11: damaged probable lozenge arrowhead (#90010-1) (drawing G. Devilder)

<table><caption>**Table 3** Summary of the traceological analysis on lithic artefacts presenting traces of use, from trench 1</caption><thead><tr><td>Artefacts</td><td>Class</td><td>Length</td><td>Width</td><td>Thickness</td><td>Motion</td><td>Hafting Wear</td><td>Polish</td><td>Striations</td><td>Material</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>90008-1</td><td>Ret. blade</td><td>33.13</td><td>12.24</td><td>3.81</td><td>Longitudinal</td><td>NO</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>Vegetal</td></tr><tr><td>90019-1</td><td>Ret. blade</td><td>25.08</td><td>12.03</td><td>2.44</td><td>Longitudinal</td><td>NO</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>Vegetal</td></tr><tr><td>90016-1</td><td>Ret. blade</td><td>40.39</td><td>12.89</td><td>4.41</td><td>Longitudinal</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>NO</td><td>Vegetal</td></tr><tr><td>90018-2</td><td>Ret. blade</td><td>26.95</td><td>12.97</td><td>3.42</td><td>Longitudinal</td><td>NO</td><td>YES</td><td>NO</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>90009-1</td><td>Ret. blade</td><td>28.34</td><td>15.32</td><td>2.92</td><td>Longitudinal</td><td>YES</td><td>NO</td><td>NO</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 12** Post-depositional surface modifications on Asifir lithics. F1: artefact from SU 90011 showing sediment polish on the eminences of the surface micro topography; F2: artefact 90018-2, bands of moderate</figcaption></figure>

lustre on the high portion of the wavering micro surface of the flint; F2 200x: magnification of area highlighted in F2

of the hafting mechanisms used. The characteristics of the gloss as observed under 200x magnification, albeit not identical, are comparable with those observed on artefact 90008-1, displaying the typical domed and intensely polished gloss with small comet-shaped pits and craters, indicating that comparable tasks have been performed with both objects despite the morphological discrepancies between the two sickle insets. Artefact 90016-1 was manufactured using a fine-grained greenish quartzite (Fig. 14). The blade shows little modification by direct percussion, except for the continuous micro denticulation along its working edge, which was executed in obverse and inverse fashion. The active working edge of the tool was placed on a cortical surface on the dorsal side of the blade, this influenced the development of the polish as such. The polish on this specimen appears less extensive, and patches of polish are less connected in comparison with the flint artefacts. Micro-negatives and working edge in general, however, are heavily rounded. Bright spots of flat and lustrous polish with tiny micro pits are dispersed on the elevated portions near the edges of the tool. The morphology of the surface polish is domed and generally present on the elevated portions of the micro topography of the tools surface, which speaks for the cutting of herbaceous vegetable material as the function.

The remaining artefacts 90009-1 and 90018-2 that present use-wear traces are blade fragments of similar dimensions (Fig. 15). Artefact 90018-2 was made on a brown translucent flint. An abrupt truncation was placed on the distal portion of the tool; while both edges show continuous retouching, negatives on the right side are slightly more invasive and larger than on the opposite side. A generic weak polish with undulating surfaces and medium levels of connectedness is observed opposite to the side with large and invasive negatives; these properties are typical for the initial stages of polish development and, as such, difficult to interpret. Intense bright polish spots with flat topography are observed on the negative ridges running perpendicular to the opposite side of the working surface. In experimental replications these traces form as a result of contact with a

hard substance, likely the haft of the tool. Artefact 90009-1 is a medial blade fragment made on brown translucent flint. The active edge of the tool shows fine circular negatives on both sides. Micro polish with undulating topography and low incidence of connectedness are primarily located on the edges of the micro negatives on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. The typical sickle polish, striations, micro-pits and comet tail striations are missing on both artefacts. Likely, these two specimens were not used enough to produce the developed polish needed to better address what substance has been processed.

**Other artefacts from trench 1 excavation: worked shells and coral, and ground stones**

A total of seventeen seashell beads were recovered from Trench 1, predominantly crafted from small *Conus* sp. shells, which most likely originate from the Red Sea coast (Fig. 16: 4–13). Other identified seashell species include: Dentaliidae (possibly *Antalis* sp.) (Fig. 16: 1–2) and *Ancilla* sp. (Fig. 16: 3). Additionally, a worked coral fragment belonging to the order *Scleractinia* was discovered in SU11 (Fig. 16: 14). This piece exhibits signs of partial polishing, suggesting it was originally part of a coral vessel, most likely a small container. Such objects have been documented at the Neo-lithic site of SM-10 on Masirah Island (Oman), although the example from Asifir appears to be significantly older (Charpentier et al. 2013; Fig. 6).

Furthermore, four small grindstones, fashioned from sandstone, were excavated from Trench 1. These implements display an elongated, flattened morphology, with an average length of approximately 15 cm. Their direct association with the combustion feature SU10 (Fig. 17) suggests they may have played a role in food processing or other activities related to fire-related contexts. The wear patterns and surface modifications on these grindstones could provide further insights into their specific functions within the site's broader technological and subsistence strategies.
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 13** Artefact 90008-1. F1: well-developed hard bright polish with fine striations, micro craters, comet-shaped pits and abrasion on the edge of the active portion of the tool; F1 200x: micrograph showing the polished described above; F2: resharpening of active edge shown</figcaption></figure>

by micro-negatives with subsequent polish development inside micro-negatives; F3: hard bright polish with craters at 200x; M1: dorsal left edge of the tool showing the indentations done by direct retouch; M2: ventral right side of the tool. (lithic drawing: G. Devilder)
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 14 A)** Artefact 90016-1, F1: micrograph showing the domed, bright and pitted polish on the dorsal face of the active edge; F2: micrograph showing the domed, bright and pitted polish on the ventral face of the active edge; F3, flat bright polish on the eminences of the micro-topography, abrasion and scratches, possible hafting wear.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**B)** Artefact 90019-1, F1: domed undulating polish on the eminences of the micro-topography of the piece, polish is bright and shows frequent pits and infrequent striations; F2: domed undulating polish on the eminences of the micro-topography of the piece, polish is bright and shows micro-pits (lithic drawing: G. Devilder)</caption>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 15** A) Artefact 90009-1, F1: micrograph taken at 100x of the active edge of the tool showing a weak developed generic polish on the edges of the micro negatives; F2: micrograph taken at 200x from the edge of a negative showing a bright undulating polish on the tops of the microtopography of the tool. B) Artefact 90018-2, F1: micrograph</figcaption></figure>

taken at 200x, showing bright and flat polished micro surfaces; F2: micrograph at 400x showing the distribution of the bright polish to be on the top portion of the micro topography, indicating the contact with a hard material (lithic drawing: G. Devilder)

## Botanical remains

Preservation of the botanical remains is mostly poor (Table 4; Fig. 18). Apart from the hand-picked cereal grain, seeds and fruits were only recovered from sediment samples that had been floated and sieved for the light fraction, as this method allows recovery of all plant remains larger than the 0.25 mm (mesh used), which mostly are not visible to the naked eye. As the subfossil seeds of *Aizoon canariense* are seemingly the result of contamination by today's plants, this taxon is excluded from further discussion. The very scarce archaeobotanical material do not allow a reconstruction of subsistence strategies based on it. Thus, the recorded plant taxa and their respective ecology are shortly presented. Subsistence strategies that may be related to the plant taxa recorded are referred to.

### *Woody Taxa*

Tamarisk (*Tamarix*) is the dominant taxon of the charcoal spectra. With groundwater as its main water source, which limits its distribution to wadis and wetlands, and its salinity tolerance, tamarisks are widespread in arid regions (e.g. Sher et al. 2010; Ghazanfar et al. 2019). A presence of tamarisks in the Ifal depression during the Early Holocene,

and even locally near the excavation site in the wadi bed and its terraces, is likely. The same is true for *acacia* (*Acacia/Vachellia*), recorded scarcely in one sample. Acacias are a prominent taxon in wadi formations in the lowlands, often together with boxthorn (*Lycium shawii*) (e.g. Abd El-Ghani 1996; Kürschner 1998). A local occurrence during the past thus is probable.

Several Amaranthaceae taxa are important constituents of the current vegetation, e.g. saxaul (*Haloxylon salicornicum*) dominating large parts of the central Arabian rock and gravel deserts, the harrahs and hamadas. *Haloxylon salicornicum* (syn. *Hammada elegans*) binds sand and forms moderate sized sand mounds (Abd El-Ghani 1996; Kürschner 1998: 78). However, other widespread taxa of the Amaranthaceae family, such as *Salsola*, *Suada* and *Aerva* may also be represented by the charcoal fragments, and the poorly preserved charred seed (fragments).

Although fig trees are mainly found in gallery forests at middle altitudes, as mentioned above, they are also constituents of riparian woodlands at lower altitudes, but are absent from the summit belts (e.g. Abd El-Ghani 1997). Thus, the few fig seeds recorded may indicate a local occurrence of fig trees in the Ifal depression, even more likely considering the
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 16** Seashell beads and a coral fragment from Asifir Trench 1, each with its locus number provided for contextual reference (drawing C. Delluc). 1–2: beads made of Dentaliidae (possibly *Antalis* sp.); 3: bead</figcaption></figure>

made of *Ancilla* sp.; 4–13: beads made of small *Conus* sp.; 14: fragment of a polish coral vessel

wetter conditions during the Early Holocene, or collected at middle altitudes (upland plateau).

For the juniper wood/branches, an exclusive harvest at higher altitudes is postulated. Today, *Juniperus phoeni-cea* bushlands grows at altitudes above 1300 m asl in the northern Hijaz (see above, Fisher et al. 1998). Even tak-ing into account a lowering of the vegetation belt due to wetter conditions during the Early Holocene and a wider distribution of Mediterranean juniper bushlands before land use intensification, it is unlikely that juniper grew in the Ifal

depression. A long-range mobility postulated in relation to the proven use of marine resources is supported by the archaeobotanical assemblage, indicating the exploration of the higher mountain belt, e.g. of the adjacent Jabal Lawz, distant some 30 km.

*Annuals*.

Only a few different taxa are recorded, mainly small-sized seeds of grasses (Poaceae) and of legumes (Fabaceae). The few other seeds are rock jasmine (*Androsace*) and adonis (*Adonis*). In today's southern Levantine weed
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 17** Ground stone tools from Asifir made on sandstone. Left: photograph of SU10 hearth during excavation with large charcoal sample and upper grinder (A). Right: (A) upper grinder with pecking on the</figcaption></figure>

assemblages and wild grassland stands different adonis species are common (Adonis dentata, A. macrocarpa and Adonis macrocarpa, respectively, Weide et al. 2023). Willcox et al. (2007) proposed that adonis (Adonis) is part of weed assemblages, proliferating under cultivation, and occurs with low frequencies in wild cereal stands as well. Androsace meanwhile grows near habitations on disturbed habitats.

Some of the small-sized legume-seeds can be assigned to the *Trigonella*-group, including the genera *Astragalus*, *Medicago*, *Melilotus* (at least). *Astragalus vogelii* is listed as prominent vegetation constituent in all belts of the Hijaz mountains, and *Trigonella stellata* and *Medicago laciniata* are widespread in the lowlands and on the slopes (Abd El-Ghani 1996). These few enumerations are just one example of the wide distribution of the recorded legume taxa today. A past occurrence at Asifir and its surroundings thus is probable. Alternatively, the small-seeded legumes may be associated with weed assemblages (Willcox et al. 2007).

Sample 127-1c contains some rachis fragments of grasses. A grass spikelet base fragment (about 2 mm at the level of the disarticulation scar) as well as of a glume base fragment are rather large. They could be interpreted as rachis fragments of cereals. The rather roundish disarticulation scar may speak in favour of *Triticum*. As Asifir lays outside of the (postulated) distribution area of wild *Triticum* taxa, a transfer from the north (Levant) must be assumed.

A charred, picked grain out of sample 90019 from SU10 in Trench 1 display the typical spindle shape of barley, *Hordeum vulgare*. Together with its length (5.25 mm) and breadth (3.6 mm) it may be addressed as domesticated barley. Yet, the non-shattering ears are considered the most reliable evidence of domestication in cereals (e.g. Tanno and Willcox 2011; Fuller 2007). Remains of this trait (spikelet

centre of the active surface, from locus 90016 (SU10); (B) fractured lower grinder from locus 90019 (SU10)

base fragments) are missing for barley in the few and small archaeobotanical assemblages of Asifir. Additionally, one single grain should not be overrated, but it must be recalled that this grain was directly AMS radiocarbon-dated.

Not further identified fragments of wild grasses (small seeds or rachis) are recorded in all three flotation samples (127-1, 90011, 90019), and in sample 127-1 additionally few grains of *Setaria/Panicum* (not *Panicum miliaceum*).

## Faunal remains

The faunal remains (n=1387) originate from well-defined occupation layers, which appear to have accumulated through frequent, potentially seasonal, revisits to the same location. Bone recovery was excellent, achieved through dry sieving with a 2 mm mesh, followed by flotation using a very fine net. A significant portion of the bone material is heavily burned (n=231, 16.6%), while a very small fraction shows signs of water wear. Most of the assemblage is highly fragmented, either due to human activities such as butchery or natural processes like trampling and weathering. The majority of the bones (n=993, 71.6%) measure less than two centimetres in length. Among the collected bone fragments, the majority could not be specifically identified. Only a small sample of 74 specimens, distributed across several SU, could be determined (Table 5).

Sheep and goat are represented by 51 remains and they could not be identified beyond the caprine category (Table 6). Moreover, it is difficult to ascertain whether the Asifir caprine bones come from wild or domestic populations. In some that show traces of combustion, no cutmarks were observed.

Among the other species, the gazelle (*Gazella* sp.) was identified from two distal extremities of first phalanx and a
<table><caption>**Table 4** The results of the charcoal and fruit and seed analyses are combined. The respective number (n) of charcoal or seed/fruit remains is indicated in the first column of the sample, in the second column for charcoals only the weight is indicated, in grams (g)</caption><thead><tr><th>Locus or Sample number</th><th>90008</th><th>90011</th><th>90011, SQ2</th><th>90013, SQ3</th><th>90014, SQ1</th><th>90016</th><th>90019</th><th>90019, SQ3</th><th>90019, SQ3</th><th>127-1c (bottom)</th><th>127-1b</th><th>127-1a (top)</th><th>T-127-2017</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>picking (dir)/floated (1)</td><td>dir</td><td>dir</td><td>0.3</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td></tr><tr><td>n (number), g (weight, in g)</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td><td>n g</td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Seeds & Fruits</strong></td></tr><tr><td><em>Adonis</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Aizoon canariense</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amaranthaceae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Androsace</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Ficus</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Hordeum vulgare</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poaceae, small seeds</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poaceae, rachis fragments</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cerealia, cf Triticum, rachis fragment</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Setaria/Panicum</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trigonella group</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fabaceae, small seeds</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Indeterminable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Other remains</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Pericarp fragments (cf nuts)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bud</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mouse droppings</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="14"><strong>Charcoals</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Acacia (Vachellia)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amaranthaceae</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Juniperus</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Tamarix</em></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tamarix cf</td><td>1</td><td>0.061</td><td>3</td><td>0.002</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>4</td><td>0.101</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Indeterminable</td><td>2</td><td>0.01</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Remaining charcoals</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.445</td><td></td><td>1.866</td><td></td><td>3.552</td><td>0.059</td><td>54.759</td><td>5.978</td><td>7.126</td><td>n.a.</td><td>6.56</td><td>0.22</td><td>1.3</td><td>0.76</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 18** Magnified photographs of seed, fruit, and wood remains from Asifir Trench 1 excavation (drawing of *Hordeum vulgare* grain by C. Delluc)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 5** Number of faunal remains of determined species from Asifir, according to the different locus. (LH=large herbivore, sh=small herbivore, TOT=total)</caption><thead><tr><th>Locus</th><th>Caprine</th><th>Gazelle</th><th>Cervid</th><th>Equid</th><th>Hare</th><th>Rodent</th><th>Ostrich</th><th>Aves</th><th>Fish</th><th>Shell</th><th>LH</th><th>SH</th><th>TOT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>90007</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td><td></td><td>20</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>90008</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>25</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>90009</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>95</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>90011</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>232</td><td>246</td></tr><tr><td>90012</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>27</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>90013</td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>103</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>90014</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>121</td><td>122</td></tr><tr><td>90015</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>195</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>90016</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>58</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>90017</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>17</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>90018</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>63</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>90019</td><td>11</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>236</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>90023</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>52</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>90024</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>55</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Sounding S127</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>51</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td>1310</td><td>1387</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 6** Inventory of the caprine bones</caption><thead><tr><th>Locus</th><th>N</th><th>Caprine teeth/bone identification</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>90007</td><td>1</td><td>Enamel fragment of tooth</td></tr><tr><td>90009</td><td>3</td><td>Two enamel fragments of teeth, one long bone shaft fragment (L = 40–50 cm)</td></tr><tr><td>90011</td><td>5</td><td>Two fragments of teeth, lower molar fragment, fragment of lumbar vertebra (burnt), fragment of proximal tibia (burnt)</td></tr><tr><td>90013</td><td>10</td><td>Five long bone shaft fragments (L=30, 40, 42, 45, 52), on skull fragment, on lumbar vertebra fragment, one vertebrate fragment, a lateral right proximal of a metacarpus</td></tr><tr><td>90015</td><td>3</td><td>Fragment of an incisor, two fragments of teeth</td></tr><tr><td>90016</td><td>6</td><td>Two rib fragments, one fragment of a scapula, one long bone shaft, left carpal 2+3 (capitate)</td></tr><tr><td>90017</td><td>2</td><td>Fragment of an incisor, a left large cuneiform</td></tr><tr><td>90018</td><td>4</td><td>Two vertebrae fragments, one long bone shaft, a, unfused head of a proximal femur</td></tr><tr><td>90019</td><td>11</td><td>Two teeth enamel fragments, a right incisor, proximal of phalanx 1 (Bp=13.1, Dp=15.2), a body rib fragment, two distal fragments of an unfused femur, a head of a fused proximal femur, a metatarsal proximal fragment, a body of a lumbar vertebra</td></tr><tr><td>90023</td><td>4</td><td>Fragment of an incisor, three fragments of teeth</td></tr><tr><td>Sounding S127</td><td>2</td><td>A body of a second phalanx burnt, a thoracic vertebra fragment burnt</td></tr></tbody></table>

dental fragment, while a fragment of a proximal end of first phalanx attests to the presence of an equid (*Equus* sp.) and a distal extremity of humerus belongs to a hare (*Lepus* sp.). A dental fragment belonging to a deer, whose genus cannot be specified (i.e. *Cervus*, *Capreolus* or *Dama*) is present in locus 90011. A rodent, whose species cannot be determined, is represented by an unfused femur. Alongside mammals, a proximal carpometacarpus belonging certainly to a partridge (*Alectoris* sp.) bird and a fragment of ostrich eggshell (*Struthio camelus*) were recognized in locus 90019. The presence of the latter raises many questions. Indeed, it is difficult to know if the eggs were eaten fresh, if they were used as containers (domestic ware) after consumption, or simply picked up on the sandy surface.

Finally, four fish vertebrae belonging to fusiliers (Cae-sionidae), a small fish (15 to 25 cm Standard Length) found frequently in the reefs of the Red Sea. Seashells are also present, such as a perforated cowrie (*Monetaria* sp., in test excavation), a cone (*Conus* sp., locus 90024) and four fragments of mother-of-pearl (*Pinctada* sp.). Finally, three land snails found in locus 90007 complete this faunal list.

Excepting the absence of large bovid in Asifir, these results are consistent with those described for Neolithic sites in north-west Arabia (Fujii et al. 2018; Alasmari 2019; McMahon et al. 2024). The constitution of this assemblage does not confirm the exploitation of domesticates as a main staple food, but a good exploitation of neighbouring wild terrestrial resources (hunting) or even marine (fishing and
shell picking). In conjunction with the presence of shattered bone in hearth deposits, this is a further indication that these remains can be considered dietary refuse.

Discussion

This study presents the results of the survey, excavation, and subsequent analysis of the archaeological remains from Asifir, located in northwestern Saudi Arabia. The site has yielded a diverse and well-preserved archaeological record, including a substantial assemblage of lithic artifacts, as well as faunal and botanical remains. These findings have provided a secure radiocarbon framework, anchoring human activity at Asifir to the late 8th and early 7th millennium cal. BC. The predominance of chipped lithic remains, coupled with the low frequency of cores and finished tools, suggests that blank production was one of the primary activities conducted near the combustion feature associated with mound S127. The high degree of lithic fragmentation and the frequent occurrence of thermal alterations on many artifacts (Clemente-Conte 1997b) further corroborate the link between the hearth, human activities, and the radiometric dating of the combustion feature. Among the relatively limited tool assemblage recovered from the excavations, nearly one-third have been identified as arrowheads. One specimen (#90010-1, Fig. 11: 11) exhibits a diagnostic impact fracture on the lateral portion of the tip, strongly indicating that it was used and likely fired as a projectile. This observation raises the possibility that retooling and maintenance of projectile weapons were among the tasks carried out at the site. The lithic assemblage, particularly the pressure-flaked Amuq-like arrowheads and foliated bifacial points, reflects strong technological and typological connections to Levantine traditions. However, Asifir's lithic industry also exhibits distinctive local adaptations, such as the production of schist tools. These findings indicate a complex interplay of cultural transmission and regional innovation, challenging earlier assumptions about the homogeneity of Neolithic industries across northern Arabia. Moreover, the identification of multiple chaînes opératoires for blade and bladelet production suggests a nuanced understanding of raw material selection and reduction strategies, which may reflect both functional requirements and symbolic considerations.

The discovery of three sickle blades with pronounced gloss represents a remarkable and unique find in Saudi Arabia, providing compelling evidence for cereal harvesting practices (possibly involving domesticated species) at the Al-Bad‘ oasis around 9,000 years ago. The well-developed microwear polish on these artifacts is characterized by a very regularized, massive, and invasive surface polish, indicative of sustained and repeated longitudinal cutting activities on

herbaceous plants, likely in a mature or ripe state (Ibáñez et al. 2014, 2016; Pichon 2017). Additionally, the polished surfaces consistently exhibit micro pits and comet-shaped striations, reinforcing their functional association with harvesting activities. The distribution of gloss, along with the distinct traces of hafting observed on the sickles, suggests the use of a straight handle and a specific hafting mechanism. Interestingly, this hafting configuration is also noted in the Early Bronze Age occupation at the site of Al-Rudaydah within the Al-Bad‘ oasis (Hilbert et al. 2024).

The few botanical remains excavated at Asifir provide further evidence on subsistence, palaeoenvironment, and possible human mobility patterns during the early Neolithic. The presence of barley, alongside wild grasses and legumes, aligns with agrarian practices observed in southern Levantine Late PPNB sites. In Basta, southern Jordan, at the end of Wadi Araba, charcoal fragments are the dominating plant remain type as well (Neef 2004a, b). Considering the cereals, barley rachis fragments used as temper point to wild barley (‘brittle rachis type’). These rachis fragments are also shown in the compilation of Arranz-Otaegui et al. 2016. Additionally, barley grains fitting the size and shape criteria (i.e. thickness of the grains) of domesticated barley are recorded at Basta. The occurrence of both, wild and domesticated barley remains, is interpreted as possibly evidencing the cultivation of domesticated barley, with wild barley as weed or as part of the surrounding steppe – still present today (Neef 2004a). Yet, the limited number plant remains – though larger than in the Asifir excavation – hampers a definite interpretation at Basta too. The slightly older occurrence of wild barley spikes (no evidence of articulated internodes typical for domesticated barley) and domesticated barley grains (large-sized, width-length ratio ca. 50) in the nearby Beidha is interpreted as ‘transitional crop’, and the more numerous barley and wheat remains as indicating of a settled ‘wheat-and-barley agriculture’ (Helbaek 1966: 64; Helbaek 1970). At both sites, Beidha and Basta, domesticated wheat taxa (Triticum dicoccum, T. monococcum, T. aestivum/durum) are documented. Small-seeded legumes (Basta: Astragalus, Melilotus/Trifolium, Ononis; Beidha: Medicago, Onobrychis) and some larger seeded (Basta: Pisum sativum, Lens culinaris, Vicia ervilia; at Beidha: Vicia narbonsensis) are also found at both sites. The assumption that these legumes were used during Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic, possibly even cultivated, is again presented in a recent compilation, stressing their possible multiple purposes as food, fodder, medicine, soil fertilizers etc. (Arranz-Otaegui and Roe 2023).

The few and small spectra of charred plant remains at Asifir with one *Hordeum vulgare* grain, perhaps one *Triticum* rachis fragment, some wild grass fragments (grains and rachis), and some small seeded legumes, show similarities
to the spectra at Basta and Beidha, and may therefore be interpreted similarly: a diverse agriculture based on cultivation of domesticated crops, and a cultivation and/or gathering of wild crops. The seed fragments of *Adonis*, a genus including typical weed taxa, may support the postulated cultivation. The importance of gathering may be underpinned by the observation that comparatively large number of small-grained grass seeds are observed in more northern/marginal sites of the Levant (e.g. Hallan Cemi, Demirköy), supposed to be inhabited primarily by gatherers (Weiss et al. 2004). The same may be indicated by the recorded *Setaria/Panicum* seeds at Asifir: Panicoids are evidenced more frequently where gathering is important (Willcox et al. 2007).

Additionally, the scarcity of large domesticated faunal remains, coupled with evidence of hunted gazelles and caprines, suggests a subsistence economy that had not fully transitioned to reliance on herding. The presence of fish remains and ostrich eggshell fragments adds further complexity to this picture, suggesting that Asifir's inhabitants employed a highly opportunistic and flexible approach to resource exploitation. The integration of plant and faunal resources in Asifir's subsistence strategy suggests that the site's inhabitants demonstrated considerable adaptability to their local environment. The evidence of crop cultivation (including domesticated barley) and the collection of wild plants underscores the dual role of agricultural innovation and foraging in the community's economy. This dynamic interplay may have enabled inhabitants to buffer against the unpredictable conditions of the arid landscape, providing a sustainable means of subsistence over an extended period.

The presence of crops (wild and domestic) and associated harvesting technologies is part of a highly diversified subsistence strategy, which is further reinforced by the hunting of wild fauna (gazelle and possibly caprids) and likely the maintenance of domesticated animals. Faunal remains also suggest close contact with maritime populations, evidenced by the presence of seashells, some of which were used as ornaments, and fragments of coral vessels. Additionally, fish appear to have been transported in preserved forms, likely salted or smoked. Juniper wood fragments support the assumed mobility, as juniper is supposed to have occurred at high altitudes similar to today, at least some 30 km away from the Ifal depression. These additional sources of nourishment excavated at Asifir hint at a wide mobility range that includes specific foraging trips to the coast, located approximately 20 km to the west of the oasis across the mountains or 40 km towards the south along Wadi Ifal under current conditions. Around 7000 cal. BC, the level of the Red Sea was at least 10 to 15 m lower than today, suggesting a greater distance from the coast at the time (Weil et al. 2022). However, it remains unclear to what extent the Early Holocene sea level rise (EHSLR), which occurred

as a result of the global deglaciation between 11,650 and 7000 BP (Hori and Saito 2007; Smith et al. 2011), may have altered the configuration of the Ifal Depression and caused the coastal setup to be altered. However it may be, the EHSLR likely caused the groundwater table within the Ifal Depression, possibly leading to more direct access to the water resource within it and around al-Bad, which would favour the Early Neolithic settlement of the area. The six surface scatters identified during the pedestrian survey are probably related to a homogeneous occupation dated to the same Arabian Early Neolithic period and seem to be related to the dated charcoal from one of the mounds at the site. It is likely that surface erosion and redeposition have altered the layout of the alluvial terrace to such an extent as to expose the archaeological remains associated with the Early Arabian Neolithic occupation at Asifir.

The archaeological findings at Asifir not only contribute to understanding localized activities but also underscore the broader cultural and environmental adaptations of Early Arabian Neolithic communities. The site's strategic location near the Red Sea and the Ifal Depression suggests its inhabitants engaged in diverse subsistence strategies, balancing potential agricultural practices with hunting, fishing, and gathering. The presence of marine resources, including seashells and coral vessel fragments, implies active interaction with coastal ecosystems. The discovery of juniper wood fragments hints at the degree of mobility of the Asifir inhabitants extending to the uplands of the Hijaz Mountains during resource exploitation or transhumance activities.

The question of the Levant's influence on the neolithisation of Arabia has been repeatedly addressed by numerous researchers (e.g. Inizan 1980; Zarins 1990; Cleuziou 2004; Drechsler 2009; Crassard et al. 2013; Crassard and Hilbert 2020). The majority of arguments in favour of a cultural connection have been made on the basis of either technological or typological comparisons between surface lithic occurrences, mainly focusing on the cooccurrence between bidirectional blade technology and specific types of arrowheads. At Asifir, however, a crop plant spectra similar to southern Levantine Late PPNB sites (e.g. Basta, Beidha, El-Hemmeh: Makarewicz et al. 2006; Wallace et al. 2019), relying on gathered (wild) and cultivated, probably domesticated and/or wild crops with associated weed taxa, harvesting and grain processing tools as well as probable domesticate animals indicate in addition a connectivity based on agrarian subsistence patterns. Notably, this fully agropastoral subsistence pattern is incremented by hunting of wild fauna and gathering of maritime resources.

Only two stratified sites from the Early Arabian Neolithic in northwestern Arabia are known to date (Fig. 1): Wadi Sharma 1 (Fujii et al. 2021a) and AlUyaynah (Alasmari 2019). Asifir significantly increases our still limited
knowledge of Recent/Late PPNB occupation in the region. Wadi Sharma 1 and AlUyaynah already bear some similarities to contemporary sites in the southern Levant. Wadi Sharma 1 dates from around 7500–7100 BC (Fujii et al. 2018, 2021a) and is represented by a small cluster of aggregated housing units where a laminar component industry and Amuq-type points have been found. AlUyaynah is a tell over two meters thick, with final PPNB levels dated around 7100–6800 BC featuring a significant laminar and lamellar component in the lithic assemblage, important faunal and architectural remains, as well as the unprecedented presence of over 200 small modelled clay objects (figurines?).

Both Wadi Sharma 1 and AlUyaynah sites share similar characteristics with sites in southern Jordan such as ‘Ayn Abu Nukhayla (Henry and Beaver 2014), Wadi Abu Tulayha (Fujii 2009a, b), Wadi Ghuwayr (Henry et al. 2003, 2014; Fujii et al. 2011), and Jebel Juhayra (Fujii 2015; Fujii et al. 2021b), as well as highlands in the Negev and Sinai like Abu Salem (Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998), Nahal Issaron (Goring-Morris and Gopher 1983; Gopher et al. 1994), Wadi Tbeik (Bar-Yosef 1981, 1982), Wadi Jibba I and II (Bar-Yosef 1981, 1984), and Ujrat el Mehed (Goring-Morris and Gopher 1983; Gopher et al. 1994).

Asifir represents a critical addition to the limited corpus of stratified Neolithic sites in northern Arabia. In comparison to other Early Arabian Neolithic sites, such as Wadi Sharma 1 and AlUyaynah, Asifir stands out for its diverse archaeological record and its implications for understanding the neolithisation process. The similarities between Asifir’s assemblage and those from southern Levantine sites point to a shared cultural and technological horizon, likely facilitated by long-distance interactions and the movement of people, goods, and ideas. However, Asifir also demonstrates that these interactions were not unidirectional; local environmental conditions and resource availability played a significant role in shaping the adaptive strategies of its inhabitants.

## Conclusion

The findings from Asifir provide significant insights into the Early Arabian Neolithic, establishing the site as a pivotal locus for understanding the neolithisation of northern Arabia. The well-dated radiocarbon framework places the site within the late 8th and early 7th millennium cal. BC, emphasizing its importance in the broader Neolithic narrative of the Arabian Peninsula. The archaeological record, including the diverse lithic assemblage, botanical remains, and faunal evidence, points to a highly diversified subsistence strategy that combined cereal cultivation, animal hunting and herding, and the exploitation of marine and terrestrial resources.

The radiocarbon dates from Asifir place it among the earliest Neolithic sites in Arabia, reinforcing its importance for regional chronology. This temporal framework supports the hypothesis that the neolithisation of northern Arabia was a gradual and multi-faceted process influenced by both South Levantine traditions and local developments. The integration of agricultural practices with hunting and gathering, as evidenced at Asifir, reflects a highly adaptable approach to environmental challenges and resource availability. This adaptability may have been a key factor in the successful establishment of Neolithic communities in the arid landscapes of northern Arabia.

The presence of sickle blades with pronounced gloss, indicative of cereal harvesting, aligns Asifir with agrarian practices observed in the Neolithic southern Levant, suggesting a shared cultural and technological heritage. Moreover, the site’s stratigraphy and lithic typology, particularly the prevalence of Amuq-like arrowheads, reinforce the connectivity between the Levant and northern Arabia during this period. These findings not only enhance our understanding of early agricultural practices in the region but also highlight continuity and technological traditions over millennia; they offer valuable insights into the functional and temporal dimensions of the activities performed at Asifir during the Early Arabian Neolithic period. Botanical and faunal remains provide further evidence of the site’s economic diversity. The presence of domesticated barley, alongside wild grasses and legumes, aligns with agrarian practices observed in southern Levantine Late PPNB sites. The cultivation of domesticated crops, supplemented by gathering wild plants, highlights a transitional phase in agricultural development.

Asifir’s contribution to regional typology, particularly through its lithic assemblage and unique findings such as schist tools and marine artifacts, underscores the site’s role as a critical node in the study of Arabian prehistory. Future investigations at Asifir and neighbouring sites will undoubtedly refine our understanding of the region’s role in Early Holocene human adaptation and cultural evolution.

**Acknowledgements** The Al-Bad‘ archaeological project (directed by GC and SS) is supported and funded by the Heritage Commission of the Saudi Ministry of Culture, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the French embassy in Riyadh, CNRS UMR 8167 Orient & Méditeranée (to GC) and the CEFREPA (to GC and RC). YHH is grateful for the financial support from German Academic exchange program (DAAD) for financial support in the form of a P.R.I.M.E. fellowship for the project ‘How did Human Behaviour change During the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene in South Arabia?’. During the preparation of this manuscript, YHH was funded in the frame of the project REVIVE by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement number 101001889, REVIVE). We warmly thank Clara Delluc and Gauthier Devilder (CNRS) for producing artefact drawings, as well as Ferran Borell (CSIC) and Frédéric Abbès (CNRS)
for discussions, and Kevin Lidour (DCT Abu Dhabi) for seashell identifications.

**Author contributions** Conceptualization: R.C., Y.H.H., G.C.; Excavation and lithic studies: R.C., Y.H.H.; Archaeobotany: M.D.; Geoarchaeology: B.D.; Traceology: Y.H.H.; Zooarchaeology: H.M.; Funding acquisition: G.C., S.S, R.C.; Writing – original draft: R.C., Y.H.H., M.D., H.M., B.D.; Writing – review & editing: all authors.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Université Lumière Lyon 2.

**Data availability** No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

## Declarations

**Competing interests** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

Abd El-Ghani M (1996) Vegetation along a transect in the Hijaz mountains (Saudi Arabia). J Arid Environ 32:289–304. https://doi.org/10.1006/jare.1996.0024

Abd El-Ghani M (1997) Vegetation analysis and species diversity along an altitudinal gradient in the central Hijaz mountains of Saudi Arabia. Arab Gulf J Sci Res 15(2):399–414

Abu-Azizeh W, Studer J, Alahmari S, Boyle A, Dausse L, Quatermaine J et al (2022) The Horn Chamber Mustatil: a Neolithic open-air sanctuary evidencing pastoral nomadic ritual activity in the north-western Arabian Desert (Al-‘Ulā). In: Foote R, Guagnin M, Périsse I, Karacic S (eds) Revealing cultural landscapes in north-west Arabia. (Supplement to volume 51 of the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies). Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 133–56

Alasmari KF (2019) Neolithic period, north-western Saudi Arabia. Dissertation, University of York

Arranz-Otaegui A, Roe J (2023) Revisiting the concept of the ‘neolithic founder crops’ in Southwest Asia. Veg History Archaeobotany 32:475–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-023-00917-1

Arranz-Otaeguia A, Colledge S, Zapata L, Teira-Mayolini L, Ibanez J (2016) Regional diversity on the timing for the initial appearance of cereal cultivation and domestication in Southwest Asia. PNAS 113(49):14001–14006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612797113

Bar-Yosef O (1981) The Pre-Pottery Neolithic period in the southern Levant. In: Cauvin J, Sanlaville P (eds) Préhistoire du Levant CNRS, Paris, pp 555–569

Bar-Yosef O (1982) Pre-Pottery neolithic sites in Southern Sinai. Bibliological Archaeologist 45(1):9–12

Bar-Yosef O (1984) Seasonality among neolithic hunter-gatherers in Southern Sinai. In: Clutton-Brock J, Grigson C (eds) Animals and archaeology 3. Early Herders and their Flocks, Oxford, pp 145–160

Bar-Yosef O, Belfer-Cohen A (1989) The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the levant. J World Prehistory 3:447–498

Berger JF, Charpentier V, Crassard R, Martin C, Davtian G, López-Sáez JA (2013) The dynamics of Mangrove ecosystems, changes in sea level and the strategies of neolithic settlements along the Coast of Oman (6000–3000 cal. BC). J Archaeol Sci 40(7):3087–3104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.004

Bosinski G (1979) Die ausgrabungen in Gönnersdorf 1968–1976 und die siedlungsbefunde der Grabung 1968 (Der Magdalénien-Fundplatz Gönnersdorf 3). Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden

Braidwood RJ (1973) The early village in Southwestern Asia. J Near East Stud 32:34–39

Briem E, Blümel WD (1984) Contributions to the quaternary geomorphology of the Ifal depression. In: Jado AR, Hötzl H (eds) Quaternary period in Saudi Arabia. Ii. Sedimentological, hydrogeological, hydrochemical, geomorphological, geochronological and Climatological investigations in Western Saudi Arabia. Springer-, Vienna, pp 47–60

Bronk Ramsey C (2021) OxCal v4. 4.4. Available at: https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal.html

Brown GF (1970) Eastern margin of the red sea and the coastal structure in Saudi Arabia. Philosophical Trans Royal Soc Lond A 267:75–87

Bueno Ramírez P (1992) Les plaques décorées Alentéjaines: approches de leur étude et analyse. L'Anthropologie 96(2-3):573–604

Burns SJ, Matter A, Frank N, Mangini A (1998) Speleothem-based paleoclimate record from Northern Oman. Geology 26:499–502

Cappers R, Bekker R, Jans J (2006) Digitale Zadenatlas Van Nederland. Groningen University Library, Groningen

Cauvin J (1978) Les premiers villages de Syrie-Palestine du IXᵉ Au VIIᵉ millénaire av. J.-C. MOM Éditions, Lyon

Cauvin MC, Coqueugniot E (1985) Chapitre IV. Traces d'utilisation Sur les outils de Pierre. In: Lichardus J (ed) La protohistoire de L'Europe. Nouvelle Clio, PUF, Paris, pp 614–621

Charloux G, Sahlah SA, Badaiwi WA (2021) Madian revealed? Assessing the history and archaeology of the Oasis of al-Bad'in north-western Arabia. Semitica Et Classica 14:97–142. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.SEC.5.129522

Charpentier V, Berger JF, Crassard R, Borgi F, Davtian G, Méry S, Phillips CS (2013) Conquering new territories: when the first black boats sailed to Masirah Island. Proc Seminar Arab Stud 43:85–98

Clemente-Conte I (1997a) Los instrumentos líticos Del túnel VII: Una Aproximación etnoarqueológica, Treballs d'etnoarqueologia II. CSIC UAB, Barcelona

Clemente-Conte I (1997b) Thermal alterations of Flint implements and the conservation of microwear Polish: preliminary experimental observations. In: Millan A, Bustillo MA (eds) Siliceous rocks and culture. Universidad de Granada, Granada, pp 525–535

Clemente-Conte I, Gibaja JF (1998) Working processes on cereals: an approach through microwear analysis. J Archaeol Sci 25:457–464. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1997.0214

Cleuziou S (2004) Pourquoi Si tard? Nous avons Pris Un Autre chemin. L'Arabie des chasseurs-cueilleurs de l'holocène Au début de l'age du bronze. In: Guilaine J (ed) Aux Marges des grands foyers du néolithique, périphéries débitrices Ou créatrices? Edition Errance, Paris, pp 123–148

Crassard R (2009) Modalities and characteristics of human occupations in Yemen during the Early/Mid-Holocene. CR Geosci 341:713–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2009.05.003

Crassard R, Drechsler P (2013) Towards new paradigms: multiple pathways for the Arabian neolithic. Arab Archaeol Epigr 24(1):3–8
Crassard R, Hilbert YH (2020) Bidirectional blade technology on naviform cores from Northern Arabia: new evidence of Arabian-Levantine interactions in the neolithic. *Arab Archaeol Epigr* 31:93–104

Crassard R, Khalidi L (2017) Dispersals, connectivity and indigeneity in Arabian prehistory. In: Boivin N, Crassard R, Petraglia MD (eds) Human dispersal and species movement: from prehistory to the present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 219–236

Crassard R, Petraglia MD, Parker AG, Parton A, Roberts RG, Jacobs Z et al (2013) Beyond the levant: first evidence of a Pre-Pottery neolithic incursion into the Nefud desert, Saudi Arabia. PLoS ONE 8(7):e68061. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068061

Crassard R, Charpentier V, McCorriston J, Vosges J, Bouzid S, Petraglia M (2020a) Fluted-point technology in neolithic Arabia: an independent invention Far from the Americas. PLoS ONE 15(8):e0236314. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236314

Crassard R, McCorriston J, Martin L, Dye T (2020b) Manayzah: A terminal Pleistocene - Early holocene rockshelter occupation. In: McCorriston J, Harrower MJ (eds) Landscape history of Hadramawt: the roots of agriculture in Southern Arabia (RASA) project 1998–2008. Monumenta Archaeologica Series, vol 43. UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 157–211

Crassard R, Hilbert YH, Charloux G, Sahlah SA, Badaiwi WA (2020c) New Paleolithic sites around Al-Bad', northwestern Saudi Arabia. In: Bretzke K, Crassard R, Hilbert YH (eds) Stone tools of prehistoric Arabia. (Supplement to volume 50 of the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies). Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 1–13

Cremaschi M, Zerboni A, Charpentier V, Crassard R, Isola I, Regattieri E, Zanchetta G (2015) Early-Middle holocene environmental changes and pre-Neolithic human occupations as recorded in the cavities of Jebel Qara (Dhofar, Southern Sultanate of Oman). Quatern Int 382:264–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.12.058

Deil U, Al Gifri AN (1998) Montane and Wadi vegetation. In: Fisher M, Ghazanfar S (eds) Vegetation of the Arabian Peninsula. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 125–174

Dinies M, Plessen B, Neef R, Kürschner H (2015) When the desert was green: grassland expansion during the early holocene in Northwestern Arabia. Quatern Int 382:293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.03.007

Drechsler P (2009) The dispersal of the neolithic over the Arabian Peninsula. BAR International Series, Archaeo, Oxford

Engel M, Brückner H, Pint A, Wellbrock K, Ginau A, Voss P, Grottker M, Klasen N, Frenzel P (2012) The early holocene humid period in NW Saudi Arabia – Sediments, microfossils and palaeo-hydrological modelling. Quatern Int 266:131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2011.04.028

Fisher M, Ghazanfar S, Chaudhary S, Seddon P, Robertson F, Omar S, Abbas J, Boer B (1998) Diversity and conservation. In: Fisher M, Ghazanfar S (eds) Vegetation of the Arabian Peninsula. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–302

Fleitmann D, Burns SJ, Mangini A, Mudelsee M, Kramers J, Villa I, Neff U, Al-Subbary AA, Buettner A, Hippler D, Matter A (2007) Holocene ITCZ and Indian monsoon dynamics recorded in stSlagmites from Oman and Yemen (Socotra). Q Sci Rev 26:170–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.04.012

Fleitmann D, Burns SJ, Pekala M, Mangini A, Al-Subbary A, Al-Aowah M, Kramers J, Matter A (2011) Holocene and pleistocene pluvial periods in Yemen, Southern Arabia. Q Sci Rev 30:783–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.01.004

Fujii S (2009a) Wadi Abu Tulayha. A preliminary report of the 2008 summer final field season of the Jafr basin prehistoric project, phase 2. Annual Department Antiquities Jordan 53:173–209

Fujii S (2009b) Flint bowlets. A comprehensive review from Wadi Abu Tulayha, Ma’an region. Neo-Lithics 2(2019):20–28

Fujii S (2015) Rescue excavations at Jabal Juhayra, a stratified neolithic settlement in the al-Jafr basin. Neo-Lithics 1(2015):24–33

Fujii S, Quintero LA, Wilke PJ (2011) Wadi Ghuwayr 17. A neolithic outpost in the Northeastern al-Jafr basin. Annual Department Antiquities Jordan 55:159–188

Fujii S, al-Mansoor AA, Adachi T, Al-Khalifa KA, Nagaya K, al-Anazi AS (2018) Preliminary excavation report of Wadi Sharma 1, a neolithic settlement in the Tabuk Province (2012–2013). Atlal 26:116–124

Fujii S, Al-Mansour AA, Adachi T, Al-Khalifah KA, Nagaya K (2021a) Excavations at Wadi Sharma 1: new insights into the Hijaz neolithic, North-Western Arabia. In: Luciani M (ed) The archaeology of the Arabian Peninsula 2: connecting the evidence. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, pp 15–42

Fujii S, Adachi T, Nagaya Y (2021b) Jabal Juhayra, 2015–2016. Excavations of the layer 3 (Pre-Pottery neolithic B) settlement. Annual Department Antiquities Jordan 60:675–707

Fuller D (2007) Contrasting patterns in crop domestication and domestication rates: recent archaeobotanical insights from the old world. Ann Botany 100:903–924. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm048

Ghazanfar S, Böer B, Al Khulaidi A, El-Keblawy A, Alateeqi S (2019) Plants of Sabkha ecosystems of the Arabian Peninsula. In: Gul B, Böer B, Khan M, Clüsener-Godt M, Hameed A (eds) Sabkha ecosystems. Tasks for vegetation science, vol 49. Springer, Cham, pp 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04417-6_5

González-Urquijo JE, Ibañez-Estéves JJ (1994) Metodología de análisis funcional de instruentos Tallados En silex. Cuadernos de arqueología. Universidad de Duesto, Bilbao

Gopher A (1994) Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant, A Seriation Analysis. American Schools of Oriental Research, Dissertation Series 10. Eisenbruns, Winona Lake

Gopher A, Goring-Morris AN (1998) Abu Salem. A Pre-Pottery neolithic B camp in the central Negev Highlands, Israel. Bull Am Schools Orient Res 312:1–20

Gopher A, Goring-Morris AN, Gordon D (1994) Nahal Issaron. The lithics of the later PPNB occupation. In: Gebel HG, Kozlowski SK (eds) Neolithic Chipped Lithic Industries of the Fertile Crescent, Berlin, pp 479–494

Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (2011) Neolithization processes in the levant: the outer envelope. Curr Anthropol 52:S195–S208. https://doi.org/10.1086/658860

Goring-Morris N, Gopher A (1983) Nahal Issaron: A neolithic settlement from the Southern Negev, Israel. A preliminary report of the 1980 excavations. Isr Explor J 33:149–162

Guagnin M, Breeze P, Shipton C, Ott F, Stewart M, Bateman M et al (2020) The holocene humid period in the Nefud desert: hunters and herders in the Jebel Oraf palaeolake basin, Saudi Arabia. J Arid Environ 178:104146

Guagnin M, Charloux G, Alsharekh A, Crassard R, Hilbert YH, Andreae MO, AlAmri A, Preusser F, Dubois F, Burgos F, Flohr P, Mora P, AlQaeed A, AlAli Y (2022) Life-sized neolithic camel sculptures in Arabia: A scientific assessment of the craftsmanship and age of the camel site reliefs. J Archaeol Science: Rep 42:103165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103165

Hamon C, Fromont N, Gaumé E, Germain-Vallée C (2021) From the quarry to the village: usewear analysis of the manufacture of schist bracelets in the early neolithic of north-western Europe. In: Beyries S, Hamon C, Maigrot Y (eds) Beyond use-wear traces: going from tools to people by means of archaeological wear and residue analyses. Sidestone, Leiden, pp 185–198

Helbaek H (1966) Appendix A: Pre-Pottery neolithic farming at Beidha. Palestine Explor Q 98:61–66

Helbaek H (1970) The plant husbandry of hacilar. A study of cultivation and domestication. In: Mellart J (ed) Excavations at hacilar, I. Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, pp 189–244
Henry DO, Beaver JE (2014) The sands of time. The desert neolithic settlement at Ayn Abu Nukhayla. Ex Oriente, Berlin

Henry DO, Cordova C, White JJ, Dean RM, Beaver JE, Ekstrom H, Kadowaki S, McCorriston J, Nowell A, Scott-Cummings L (2003) Early neolithic site of ‘ayn Abu Nukhayla, Southern Jordan. Bull Am Schools Orient Res 330:1–30

Henry DO, Nowell A, Mendez K, Peterson E, Senn M, Rockwell H (2014) The technotypology of chipped stone artifacts. In: Henry DO, Beaver JE (eds) The sands of time. The desert neolithic settlement at Ayn Abu Nukhayla. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp 145–170

Hilbert YH (2013) Khamseen rock shelter and the late Palaeolithic-Neolithic transition in Dhofar. Arab Archaeol Epigr 24:51–58

Hilbert YH (2014) Khashabian a late paleolithic industry from Dhofar, Southern Oman. Archaeo, Oxford

Hilbert YH, Crassard R (2020) Middle and Late Pleistocene lithic technology from the region of Dûmat al-Jandal, northern Saudi Arabia. In: Bretzke K, Crassard R, Hilbert YH (eds) Stone tools of prehistoric Arabia. (Supplement to volume 50 of the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies). Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 27–42

Hilbert YH, White TS, Parton A, Clark-Balzan L, Crassard R et al (2014) Epipaleolithic occupation and palaeoenvironments of the Southern Nefud desert, Saudi Arabia, during the terminal pleistocene and early holocene. J Archaeol Sci 50:460–474

Hilbert YH, Charloux G, Sahlah SA, Al-Oniri A (2024) An early bronze age stone tool assemblage from al-Bad‘ Oasis in Northern Arabia: a technological and functional analysis. Levant 56:1–21

Hori K, Saito Y (2007) An early holocene sea-level jump and delta initiation. Geophys Res Lett 34(18):L18401. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031029

Hughes GW, Perincek D, Abu-Bshait AJ, Jarad ARM (2000) Aspects of Midyan geology, Saudi Arabian red sea, vol 1999/2000. Saudi Aramco Journal of Technology, Winter, pp 12–42

Ibáñez JJ, González-Urquijo JE, Gibaja J (2014) Discriminating wild vs domestic cereal harvesting micropolish through laser confocal microscopy. J Archaeol Sci 48:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.012

Ibáñez JJ, Anderson PC, González-Urquijo J, Gibaja J (2016) Cereal cultivation and domestication as shown by microtexture analysis of sickle gloss through confocal microscopy. J Archaeol Sci 73:62–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.07.011

Inglis RH, Sinclair A, Alsharekh A, Scott C, Al Otaibi D (2019) The Palaeolithic of the northern Red Sea, new investigations in Tabuk and Al-Jawf provinces, Saudi Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 49:167–186

Ingraham ML, Johnson TD, Rihani B, Shatla I (1981) Saudi Arabia comprehensive survey program: preliminary report on a reconnaissance survey of the Northwestern Province (with a note on a brief survey of the Northern Province). Atlał 5:59–84

Inizan ML (1980) Sur les industries à lames de Qatar. Paléorient 6:233–236. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1980.4275

Jennings RP, Singarayer J, Stone EJ, Krebs-Kanzow U, Khon V, Nisancioglu KH et al (2015) The greening of Arabia: multiple opportunities for human occupation of the Arabian Peninsula during the late pleistocene inferred from an ensemble of climate model simulations. Quatern Int 382:181–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.01.006

Keeley LH (1980) Experimental determination of stone tool uses: a microwear analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Khalidi L, Lewis K, Gratuze B (2012) New perspectives on regional and interregional obsidian circulation in prehistoric and early historic Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42:1–22

Kürschner H (1998) Biogeography and introduction to vegetation. In: Fisher M, Ghazanfar S (eds) Vegetation of the Arabian Peninsula. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 63–98

Levi Sala I (1986) Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: A word of caution. J Archaeol Sci 13:229–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(86)90061-0

Lucarini G, Gagnin M, Shipton C, Radini A, Alsharekh AM et al (2023) Plant, pigment, and bone processing in the neolithic of Northern Arabia–New evidence from Use-wear analysis of grinding tools at Jebel Oraf. PLoS ONE 18(10):e0291085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291085

Magee P (2014) The archaeology of prehistoric Arabia adaptation and social formation from the neolithic to the Iron age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Makarewicz C, Goodale N, Rassmann P, White C, Miller H, Haroun J, Carlson E, Pantos A, Kroot M, Kadowaki S, Casson A, Williams JT, Austin AE, Fabre B (2006) El-Hemmeh: a multi-period Pre-Pottery neolithic site in the Wadi el-Hassa. Jordan Eurasian Prehistory 4(1–2):183–220

Mansur-Franchomme ME (1986) Microscopie du matériel lithique préhistorique: traces d'utilisation, altérations naturelles, accidentelles et technologiques - exemples de patagonie. CNRS Editions, Paris

Mazzucco N, Trenti F, Clemente-Conte I, Gibaja JF (2013) Chert taphonomical alterations: preliminary experiments. In: Palomo A, Piqué R, Terradas X (eds) Experimentación En arqueología: estudio y difusión Del Passado. Museu d'Arqueologia de Catalunya, Girona, pp 269–277

McMahon J, Stileman F, Shipton C, Strolin L, Nassr A, Porr M, AlBalawi Y, Kennedy M, Thomas H (2024) New evidence for neolithic occupation in north-west Arabia: standing stone circles on the Harrat ‘Uwayrid. Levant 56(2):185–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2024.2350826

Munoz O, Cotty M, Charloux G, Bouchaud C, Monchot H, Marquaire C, Zazzo A, Crassard R, Brunet O, Boschloos V, al-Malki T (2020) Marking the sacral landscape of a North Arabian Oasis: a sixth-millennium BC monumental stone platform and surrounding burials. Antiquity 94(375):601–621. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.81

Neef R (2004a) Vegetation and plant husbandry. In: Nissen HJ, Muheisen M, Gebel HG (eds) Basta I. The human ecology. Bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis & Yarmouk university, monograph of the faculty of archaeology and anthropology, vol 4. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp 187–2018

Neef R (2004b) Vegetation and climate. A comparison between PPNB Ain ghazal and Basta. In: Bienert H, Gebel HG, Neef R (eds) Central settlements in neolithic Jordan. Studies in early near Eastern production, subsistence, and environment, vol 5. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp 289–299

Neef R, Cappers R, Bekker R (2012) Digital atlas of economic plants in archaeology. Groningen Archaeol Studies 17:760

Neugebauer I, Dinies M, Plessen B, Dräger N, Brauer A, Brückner H, Frenzel P, Gleixner G, Hoelzmann P, Krahn KJ, Pint A, Schwab VF, Schwarz A, Tjallingii R, Engel M (2022) The unexpectedly short holocene humid period in Northern Arabia. Nat Commun Earth Environ 3:1–9

Nicholson SL, Pike AWG, Hosfield R, Roberts N, Sahy D, Woodhead J, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Affolter S, Leuenberger M, Burns SJ, Matter A, Fleitmann D (2020) Pluvial periods in Southern Arabia over the last 1.1 million-years. Quat Sci Rev 229:106112

Parton A, Bretzke K (2020) The palaeoenvironments and archaeological landscapes (PEARL) project: recent findings from neolithic sites in Northern Oman. Arab Archaeol Epigr 31(1):194–201

Pichon F (2017) Exploitation of the cereals during the Pre-pottery neolithic of Dja'de-el-Mughara: preliminary results of the functional study of the glossy blades. Quatern Int 427:138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.01.064

Reimer PJ, Austin WEN, Bard E et al (2020) The IntCal20 Northern hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP).
Radiocarbon 62(4):725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41

Scerri EML, Guagnin M, Groucutt HS, Armitage SJ, Parker LE, Drake N et al (2018) Neolithic pastoralism in marginal environments during the holocene humid period, Northern Saudi Arabia. Antiquity 92(365):1180–1194

Semenov SA (1964) Prehistoric technology: an experimental study of the oldest tools and artifacts from traces of manufacture and wear. Barnes and Noble, New York

Sher A, Wiegand K, Ward D (2010) Do Acacia and Tamarix trees compete for water in the Negev desert? J Arid Environ 74:338–343

Smith DE, Harrison S, Firth CR, Jordan JT (2011) The early holocene sea level rise. Q Sci Rev 30:1846–1860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.04.019

Tanno KI, Willcox G (2011) Distinguishing wild and domestic wheat and barley spikelets from early holocene sites in the near East. Veg History Archaeobotany. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-011-0316-0

Vaughan PC (1981) Lithic microwear experimentation and the functional analysis of a lower Magdalenian stone tool assemblage. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Vaughan PC (1985) Use-wear analysis of flaked stone tools. University of Arizona Press Tucson, Tucson

Wallace M, Jones G, Charles M, Forster E, Stillman E, Bonhomme V, Livarda A, Osborne CP, Rees M, Frenck G, Preece C (2019) Re-analysis of archaeobotanical remains from pre- and early agricultural sites provides no evidence for a narrowing of the wild plant food spectrum during the origins of agriculture in Southwest

Asia. Veg History Archaeobotany 28(4):449–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-018-0702-y

Weide A, Hodgson J, Leschner H, Dovrat G, Whitlam J, Manela N, Melamed Y, Osem Y, Bogaard A (2023) The association of arable weeds with modern wild cereal habitats: implications for reconstructing the origins of plant cultivation in the levant. Environ Archaeol 28(4):296–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2021.1882715

Weil N, Stein M, Shaked Y, Lazar B, Agnon A (2022) Holocene sea levels at the Gulf of Aqaba, Northern red sea. Q Sci Rev 277:107278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.107278

Weiss E, Wetterstorm W, Nadel D, Bar-Yosef O (2004) The broad spectrum revisited: evidence from plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(26):9551–9555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0402362101

Willcox G, Fornite S, Herveux L (2007) Early holocene cultivation before domestication in Northern Syria. Veg History Archaeobotany 17:313–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-007-0121-y

Witthoft J (1967) Glazed Polish on Flint tools. Am Antiq 32:383–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694666

Wright K (1992) A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric levant. Paléorient 18:53–81

Zarins J (1990) Early pastoral nomadism and the settlement of lower Mesopotamia. Bull Am Schools Orient Res 280:31–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1357309

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.