Showing posts with label Arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arabia. Show all posts

Thursday, 18 June 2026

An alternative hypothesis on the origin of Hominins and African Apes.

The ancestors of Humans are commonly thought to have evolved on the savannas of Africa, a theory which was originally proposed by Charles Darwin. This original proposition was based upon the fact that our closest ancestors, the African Apes, lived in the forests of Africa, and that our upright walking behaviour seemed like an adaption to open grasslands, rather than any fossil evidence available at the time. This is a plausible hypothesis, and much subsequent palaeoarchaeological evidence uncovered in Africa has appeared to support it. However, a number of recent discoveries have been hard to reconcile with this scenario, leading to the emergence of alternative ideas on Human origins.

There are a number of things about Human anatomy which appear to be inconsistent with an origin on the African Savannas. We have a furless body, a layer of subcutaneous white fat, feet much flatter than other primates, run slowly, and sweat heavily when hot or exercising, leading to the loss of fluids and minerals (our water consumption needs are high compared to other Primates even when not doing this).

For a long time it was hypothesised that knuckle-walking African forest Apes migrated onto the open grasslands, where they evolved into upright Australophithecenes, and subsequently into Humans. Over time, this theory has been modified as we have come to understand more about the environments favoured by Australopithecenes, they are now seen as inhabitants of mosaic woodlands who moved from a partially bipedal lifestyle to an obligate bipedal one to facilitate crossing more open areas, although why this should be the case remains unclear.

Another puzzle is the apparent absence of fossils ascribed to either the genera Pan (Chimpanzees) or Gorilla, despite the long lineage of fossil Human-ancestors dating back into the Pliocene. The genera Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus, have all been classified as Hominins, more closely related to modern Humans than either Pan or Gorilla. This is in contradiction to what would be expected, as genetic studies suggest modern Chimpanzee and Gorilla populations have diverged from large ancestral populations, while Humans apparently descend from a lineage with consistently small population sizes and repeated genetic bottlenecks. It has been suggested that this has come about because the ancestors of Chimpanzees and Gorillas lived in acidic forests, where there is lower potential for remains to become fossilised. However, this environment is more favoured by Orangutans, which do have a fossil record, than it is by Chimpanzees, which do not.

'Mrs Ples' a 2.1 million-year-old skull assigned to the species Australopithecus africanus in the collection of the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History. José Braga/Didier Descouens/Wikimedia Commons.

In a review article published in the journal Academia Biology on 10 June 2026, Marc Verhaegen of the Anthropology Study Center in Putte, Belgium, Stephen Munro of the National Museum of Australia, Kathelijne Bonne of GondwanaTalks in Madrid, Spain, Frances Mansfield, an independent researcher from Volos in Greece, and Mario Vaneechoutte of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Ghent University, present a new hypothesis on the origins of both Humans and African Apes, in which they argue that the Australopithecenes were not, in fact the ancestors of Humans but rather of modern Gorillas and Chimpanzees. 

Verhaegen et al. not that genomic studies have found that the ancestors of modern Gorillas and Chimpanzees were infected with the Endoretroviruses PtERV1 (CERV1) and PtERV2 (CERV2) between 3 and 4 million years ago (Endoretroviruses are fragments of ancient viral DNA which have been inserted into the hosts genome), but Humans and Asian Apes show no signs of any such infections in their past. Since Humans are not immune to the effects of these Viruses, the most likely explanation is that our ancestors were geographically isolated from the epidemic. It has been suggested that Human ancestors may have moved out of Africa during much of the Miocene Epoch, when the Viruses were circulating, but Verhaegen et al. suggest that a more likely scenario is that they did not arrive in Africa at all until the Early Pleistocene. Few, if any, Animals are thought to have migrated from Africa to Europe during the Pliocene, while a range of European Animals migrated into Africa, driven by the hyper-arid climate that emerged in southern Europe at this time. 

Furthermore, Verhaegen et al. consider that the Australopithecines found in Africa during the Pliocene were not closely related to modern Humans, but rather that their smaller brains, short legs, and long arms indicate that they were related, or even ancestral, to modern African Apes. The evolution of Australopithecenes has often been seen as confusing, as earlier species often have more Human-like traits, seen as 'advanced', while later forms are often more Ape-like, or 'primitive', leading to speculation about undiscovered ghost lineages connecting earlier species to Humans. 

This distinction vanishes if Australopithecines are considered to be the ancestors of African Apes. For example, the Miocene Ardipithecus ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago, had small canine teeth, similar to those seen in modern Humans, whereas the Pliocene Australopithecus africanus had much larger canines, comparable to a modern Ape. Other examples are the Miocene Orrorin tugenensis, which lived about 6 million years ago, had femurs more closely resembling those of Humans that any Pliocene Australopithecene, and the Early Pliocene Australopithecus anamensis, which lived about 4.2 million years ago, had a modified talar trochlea which would have enabled it to swing its leg forward during upright locomotion, something which is absent in subsequent members of the genus. Furthermore, later Austalopithecenes such as the Early Pleistocene Australopithecus sediba, which lived about 1.8 million years ago, appear better adapted to an arboreal lifestyle than earlier members of the group.

A cast of a skull of Ardipithecus ramidus from the Miocene of Ethiopia, in the collection of the Royal Tyrrell Museum. Chris Woodrich/Wikimedia Commons.

Other than an early adaptation to bipedalism, Verhaegen et al. see Australopithecenes as consistently more Ape-like than they are Human-like, in particular noting that Australopithecus afarensis appears more Gorilla-like and Australopithecus africanus appears more Chimpanzee-like.

Verhaegen et al. do not see Homo habilis, the smallest and earliest member of the genus Homo, which appeared in the Early Pleistocene, about 2.58 million years ago, to be a true member of the genus Homo, noting that the species shares a small brain, short leg, and long arm morphology with Australopithecenes and Apes, and in particular that the morphology of the enamel–dentine junction in this species is also more Australopithecene-like. The later, but equally small, Homo naledi is also considered to be an Australopithecene. 

In Verhaegen et al.'s view, the last common ancestor of all Australopithecenes, living Apes, and Humans, would have been an upright Miocene Ape, capable of bipedal locomotion, climbing trees, and wading in shallow water. They describe a scenario in which these Apes led a lifestyle they describe as 'aquaborealism', living in forests which were at least seasonally flooded, with a lifestyle which involved wading in waters on the forest floor, climbing trees in a vertical position, and swinging beneath branches (branchiating). From this ancestral state the Hyobatids (Gibbons and Siamangs) evolved into small, fast branchiating Apes living in the tree canopy, Orangutans into larger, slower, branchiating forms, Gorillas and Chimpanzees (separately) into knuckle-walking forms, and Humans into bipedal walkers.

They give two potential scenarios from which modern African Apes could descend from Australopithecenes; either Chimpanzees descended directly from earlier, more gracile Australopithecenes, such as Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus, while Gorillas arose from later, more robust forms such as Paranthropus boisei and Paranthropus robustus, or they went through separate but parallel evolutionary paths, running something like Australopithecus africanus-Paranthropus robustus-Chimpanzees and Australopithecus afarensis-Paranthropus boisei-Gorillas, in response to similar environmental changes.

A skull reconstruction assigned to Paranthropus robustus in the collection of the National Natural History Museum of China. Erlend Bjørtvedt/Wikimedia Commons.

Verhaegen et al. believe that the view of the common ancestor of Apes and Humans as being Ape-like, and Apes therefore as the 'primitive' state, has distorted our view of Hominid evolution for over a century. They argue that while Australopithecenes do have some Human-like traits, these are indicators that Australopithecenes are ancestral to Humans, but rather that they share some traits derived from a mutual common ancestor that frequently adopted an upright bipedal posture as an adaptation to life in flooded forests. 

The analysis presented by Verhaegen et al. suggests two distinct phases of Human evolution associated with wet environments; an initial aquaboreal phase in flooded Miocene forests, followed by a littoral (beach dwelling) phase, which may have involved frequent shallow diving to access food, which probably continued into the Early Pleistocene.

Apes differ from Old World Monkeys in a number of ways, the most obvious of which is their much larger size. This appears likely to have been a trait found in the last common ancestor of all Apes; even the relatively small Hylobatids are thought to have evolved from a larger ancestor, due to their long gestation period, which is unusual in such a small Primate, and is thought to be a hangover from a larger ancestor. Another notable trait is the absence of a tail in Apes. This has become much reduced, and forms a part of the 'pelvic cup'; a modification of the pelvis which helps to support the intestines when in an upright position. There is no comparable tail loss in any other Primate to which this can be compared, but the idea that this was an adaptation to an upright posture while engaged in vertical climbing and branchiating seems reasonable. Furthermore, if these ancestral Apes were spending a lot of time in wading in water, then a tail might have been disadvantageous, prone to heat loss, adding to the friction of the Apes when moving through the water, and prone to infections or attacks by predators. 

Verhaegen et al. note that quadruped Animals returning to the water tend to evolve in one of two ways. Those that use spinal flexation as the main means of propulsion and the tail as the driving organ, such as Whales and Sirenians, tend to lose their hind limbs, whereas those that use their limbs for propulsion, such as Seals, Bears, Penguins, and Hippos, tend to lose their tails. An exception can be seen in Animals such as Otters and Beavers, which use their tails for propulsion but make extensive use of their limbs for foraging and movement on land. Apes, which use their limbs to swim when they enter the water, have lost their tails.

The lumbar spine of Apes is stiffer and further from their dorsal surface than is the case in most Mammals, and their forelimbs (arms) are notably long, adaptations which seems favourable to climbing in an upright position and hanging below branches. They also have wide hips compared to other Primates, and a flatter pelvis, facilitating lateral leg movements, as well as a broader sternum and thorax, which pushes their scapulas into a more dorsal position, facilitating lateral and upward arm movements. 

Fossils of Miocene Apes are often found in what have been interpreted as warm, wet, forest environments, which has led to the suggestion that they may have been aquaborreal in nature, spending their time wading through flooded forests or climbing in the branches above with their arms. Such behaviour is known in extant Apes, for example Gorillas have been observed entering forest swamps to forage for Sedges, Bonobos will wade through water to obtain Waterlilies, and Orangutans have been observed wading in shallow water in Borneo.

Bipedal Gorilla, wading. Female Gorilla with a walking stick, while crossing bipedally an Elephant pool at Mbeli Bai, Republic of Congo. Thomas Breuer & Emma Stokes in Verhaegen et al. (2011).

Verhaegen et al. propose that all modern Apes derived from this initial aquaboreal Miocene Ape, with Gibbons adopting a fast branchiating motion, Orangutans a slower branchiating movement combined with knuckle walking, Gorillas and Chimpanzees separately developing a knuckle walking gait, and the ancestors of Humans going through a distinct litoral (coast dwelling) phase.

A number of lines of evidence have pointed towards Early Pleistocene members of the genus Homo may have engaged in regular wading, swimming, and even diving. Homo erectus has been observed to have a pachyosteoscletotic skeleton (i.e. unusually dense bones), something associated with slow-moving, shallow-diving Tetrapods such as Sireneans, as well as the earliest Whales and Seals. The dense skeleton can help such Animals maintain their position in the water, particularly in saltwater environments (where the body is more buoyant). The occipital bones of Homo erectus are roughly twice as thick as those of comparably sized Apes, making the interpretation of the species as a swift bipedal predator chasing down prey hard to sustain. 

Furthermore, the low positioning of the braincase, receding forehead, absence of a chin, and forward projecting face of Homo eructus appear to be an adaptation to frequent shallow water diving, and possibly floating on their backs. The forward pointing face and paranasal sinuses of Homo eructus may indicate a habit of surfacing nose first, with the nostrils above water and the heavy occipital area at the back of the head beneath the water, something which would have worked well in a back-floating position. The basicranial flexation of modern Humans holds our face in a ventral, forward facing position. In contrast, Homo erectus would have tended to look upwards, in what would be a forward position when swimming or diving (Neanderthals are somewhere between these positions). This has been suggested to be an adaptation to foraging in coastal waters, where the easy availability of coastal food sources would compensate for the lack of stability associated with a bipedal gait on land.

Several skulls of Homo erectus have been shown to have bony growths in the inner ear called aural exotoses (or surfer's ear) which is caused by chronic exposure to cold water. This has also been observed in about half of all Neanderthals. Verhaegen et al. observe that this directly contradicts the frequent claim that there is no direct palaeontological support for the coastal Ape hypothesis.

At the same time, Human-ancestors underwent both an increase in both overall body size, and relative brain size. This is a common adaptation to moving from a terrestrial to an aquatic lifestyle, seen for example in Whales and Dolphins, but is not typical when non-aquatic Mammals increase in size; for example, the largest Apes, Gorillas, do not have relatively large brains. Homo erectus underwent a significant increase in brain size, with later specimens had a brain twice as large as that of an equivalent-sized Ape. This may have benefited from the higher proportion of nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid, folic acid, selenium, taurine, and iodine, in aquatic-derived foods, all of which are needed for brain-growth. Such disproportionate brain growth is not seen in terrestrial carnivores, and therefore seems unlikely in a Hominin chasing prey in open grassland. Notably, Australopithicenes never showed any notable increase in brain size over their two-million-year history. Verhaegen et al. take this as evidence that early Homo did not evolve from such ancestors on the African grasslands, since there seems no good reason that our brains should have started to grow rapidly while remaining in the same environment.

There is also considerable evidence that Homo erectus did consume aquatic foods. Fossils of Homo erectus from Mojokerto on Java were found in association with numerous marine Bivalve shells, while those at Trinil on the same island, were found with the shells of  freshwater Bivalves, such as Pseudodon and Elongaria, including specimens engraved with geometric patterns. Furthermore, palaeoarchaeological remains from the Koobi Fora Formation in the Turkana Basin of northern Kenya have yielded stone tools from a Oldowan technology alongside the remains of aquatic Animals including Fish, Turtles, and even Crocodiles. Early Homo specimens from a variety of locations have dental wear associated with grit and the oral processing of marine Molluscs. Archaic members of the genus Homo are known to have reached Sulawesi by one million years ago, despite this island never being connected to the Eurasian mainland, suggesting an early ability to cross open water.

A Pseudodon shell with geometric engravings from the Trinil archaeological site in East Java, dated to about 500 000 years ago. The shell was excavated by Dutch palaeoarchaeologist Eugène Dubois in the 1880s and taken to the Netherlands. It was returned to Indonesia by the Naturalis Biodiversity Center in 2025. Naturalis Biodiversity Center/Wikimedia Commons.

The genus Homo first appeared around the beginning of the Pleistocene, with the first evidence of the consumption of aquatic foodstuffs appearing about two million years ago, across the tropical and temperate regions of the Old World. This has led to the suggestion that Homo was able to spread across this area rapidly by following coasts and rivers, wading and diving for food. There is also increasing evidence for the consumption of aquatic foods by Neanderthals across their range, as well as Modern Humans across the world, and from their earliest appearance. 

Humans differentiate from the standard morphology and physiology of Primates, and indeed terrestrial Mammals in general, in several ways. We have fleshy outward lips, a small oral opening, a closed tooth row, a more globular tongue, a descended larynx, and an external nose that still today some individuals can partially close, using nasal muscles. We also have a distinct 'Cupid's bow' to our upper lips (technically the philtrum) to our upper lips, another feature which some modern individuals can use to close their nasal airway. All of these are adaptations which enable us to regulate breathing and seal our airways better, and which may have been more pronounced in Homo erectus.

Feeding on shellfish would also have required adaptations which required improved abilities to control the sucking and swallowing of food, particularly if this was done in the water. Adaptations which improved fine control over the lips, jaw, tongue, glottis, and larynx, would also have acted as pre-adaptations for the later evolution of speech. Hunting for foodstuffs underwater, particularly if we were doing this blind (by touch alone) is also likely to have improved both our manual dexterity and the sense of touch in our fingers, something also seen in Raccoons and Otters.

In Humans, the connective tissues, tendons, ligaments, and muscles of the human foot are aligned with the hallux to form a longitudinal arch. This is unlike the foot of any other Primate, and is a good adaption to walking, and acts as a shock-absorber when running. However, it is also a particularly good adaptation to swimming, particularly as our feet are relatively larger and more paddle-shaped, and makes us particularly sure-footed on wet or infirm terrain, where other Mammals often struggle. Humans are able to swim using axial undulation, a coordinated wave of motion from trunk to hips to legs, something other Primates are unable to do. Our feet can be seen as a trade-off between something useful for swimming and something useful on land. Notably, we are less efficient runners than most other Mammals, which directly contradicts the idea that we evolved to chase large prey across grasslands.

Notably, Humans have a layer of white fat beneath our skins (the adipose layer) considerably thicker than found in any other Primate, as well as an overall fat content which is also distinctively high. In a healthy male Human, between 12% and 23% of the body mass is fat, while in a female it is between 25% and 35%. In Chimpanzees and Bonobos body fat typically makes up less than 5% of the body mass of males, and less than 8% of the bodymass of females. Thus even the leanest of Humans have a significantly higher proportion of fat than healthy Chimpanzees. This suggests that Humans have undergone a significant ecological shift after our ancestors split from those of Chimpanzees, and one which decoupled the fat content of our bodies from the its use as an energy store. Such a change is again typical of aquatic and semi-aquatic Mammals, where fat has an important role both as an insulator and as a buoyancy aid. Such a layer provides no particular role during activities such as sustained running, and may be disadvantageous, as it can hamper the dissipation of heat.

Verhaegen et al. believe that plate tectonics played an important role in the evolution of Hominoids, Hominids, and Hominins, and in particular the formation of the Red Sea and the African Rift. Until about 30 million years ago (Early Oligocene), Africa and Arabia were a single island continent, separated from Eurasia by the Tethys Ocean. Over time, this continent drifted northward, the Tethys Ocean narrowed, and a series of islands and archipelagos formed between the two continents.

Between about 30 million years ago and about 20 million years ago (during the Oligocene and Early Miocene), an episode of plume volcanism beneath the Afar Triangle led to uplift, basalt volcanism, and the formation of a triple junction rift system. The three branches of this rift would go on to form the Gulf of Aden to the east, the Red Sea to the northwest, and the Ethiopian Rift to the south. At this time Eurasia and Africa-Arabia were still separated, although the Mesopotamian Seaway, which separated Arabia from what would become Mesopotamia and Persia, was becoming increasingly narrow.

Between about 20 million years ago and about 14 million years ago (Early-Middle Miocene) the Mesopotamian Seaway slowly closed, leading to the formation of a connection called the Gomphotherium Landbridge (Gomphotherium being a type of early Elephant that migrated out of Africa across this landbridge), leading to faunal exchange between Africa-Arabia to the south and Eurasia to the north. forming the first wave of the 'Great Old World Biotic Interchange', while the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean became isolated from one-another. This also led to uplift and mountain formation along the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone, and the development of the Dead Sea Transform and Aqaba faults in response to the added tectonic stress. At this time the Red Sea had opened, and was connected to the Mediterranean by by the Gulf of Suez, but a land bridge at Bab-al-Mandeb, connecting Arabia to Africa, separated it from the Gulf of Aden.

Between about 14 million years ago and about six million years ago (Late Miocene), movement on the Dead Sea Transform Fault, combined with the mass of sediments around the Nile Delta, closed off the connection between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean at the Gulf of Suez. Following this, the Red Sea underwent a desiccation crisis, drying up and leaving vast salt deposits, albeit with occasional marine incursions.

Between about 5.9 and 5.33 million years ago (latest Miocene), the Gulf of Gibraltar also closed, cutting off the inflow of water from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean, and triggering the Messinian Salinity Crisis, in which the Mediterranean largely dried up, leaving a vast and inhospitable salt plain. 

After about 5.33 million years ago (Pliocene), the straits of Bab-al-Mandeb opened up allowing the Red Sea to flood from the Gulf of Aden, and the Strait of Gibraltar reopened, allowing the Mediterranean to refill from the Atlantic (the Zanclean Megaflood). Around this time the Gulf of Suez reconnected to the Mediterranean, cutting off Africa from the Red Sea until the beginning of the Pleistocene, when a land bridge formed across the Sinai again.

Simplified tectonic and palaeogeographic evolution of the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Peninsula, with key marine connections between Africa, Arabia, and Eurasia (details of European and Paratethys geographies not given). (1) Before 30 million years ago (until the Rupelian, Oligocene); (2) 30–20 million years ago (Rupelian–Burdigalian); (3) 20–14 million years ago (Burdigalian–Langhian); (4) 14–6 million years ago; (5) From about 5.9 to 5.33 million years ago: the Strait of Gibraltar closed due to plate tectonics; (6) From 5.33 million years ago onwards. Red circle in (2): Afar plume basalt eruptions; brown line in (3): uplifting mountain front at the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone; red line in (3) and (4): active Dead Sea Transform Fault; pale orange in (4) and (5): desiccated marine domains; blue arrows in (6): marine gateways and direction of filling of basins. Verhaegen et al. (2026).

Verhaegen et al. suggest two alternative scenarios for the emergence of the first Apes. One scenario sees a group of Early Miocene Primates living in coastal forests and islands along the Mesopotamian Seaway, which gave rise to both the Apes and the Old World Monkeys. The other sees these ancestors living in coastal forests in East Africa, which migrated northward along the Red Sea Rift as it opened, migrating into the Arabian Peninsula and then eventually into Eurasia. This latter scenario is supported by the presence of the possible Ape Morotopithecus in Uganda about 20.6 million years ago, although the exact status of this fossil is unclear.

In either scenario, Early Apes increased in size rapidly after splitting from the Old World Monkeys, at the same time developing a very broad and strong sternum in a broad thorax, a somewhat shorter lumbar spine with only five lower and more centrally placed lumbar vertebrae (indicative of a vertical body posture), an enlarged sacrum equipped with a coccyx in a broad pelvis (cup form, supporting the intestines), external tail loss, relatively longer legs (indicative of wading), and longer arms (indicative of below-branch hanging). These early Apes are thought to have lived in (probably coastal) swamp forests, hanging beneath branches, practising aquarbourism, and developing to an upright bipedal stance. 

These early Apes probably spread along the northern coast of the Tethys Ocean, with different groups splitting off and going their own way, beginning with the Gibbons. Between 22.4 and 16 million years ago the ancestors of the Orangutans had split from those of the African Apes, moving eastward towards the coastal forests of Southeast Asia, while the proto-African Apes colonised forests along the Western Tethys (what would become the Mediterranean). 

There is a surprising absence of Ape or Hominid fossils from the Middle Miocene of Africa (between about 13 and 10 million years ago). At the same time, Eurasia has an abundance of both, particularly in southern Europe and Anatolia, with many forms looking like plausible ancestors for African Apes. Verhaegen et al. cite this as support for the idea that the ancestors of modern Humans and African Apes were not in Africa during this time, but instead in southwestern Eurasia. At this time much of southern Europe was covered by  inland seas, mega-lakes, swamps, and coastal forests, and home to Dryopithecine Apes such as Dryopithecus, Pierolapithecus, Danuvius, and Rudapithecus, which are potentially ancestral to modern Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Humans.

A partial skull of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a Dryopithecine Ape from the Middle Miocene of Spain. Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont.

During the Vallesian Crisis (between about 11.6 and 8.7 million years ago) the climate of southern Europe became much drier and the extensive forests shrank, being replaced by open grasslands. Many of the Apes there died out, while surviving forms, such as Ouranopithecus and Graecopithecus adapted to the new environment by becoming more bipedal, and foraging in mixed woodlands and river valleys. These Apes could potentially be ancestral to later Australopithecenes and African Ape (one Turkish Ape from this period, Anadoluvius turkae, has been suggested as an offshoot from the line which led to Gorillas).

The scenario envisaged by Verhaegen et al. has a group of Dryopithecine Apes taking advantage of the closure of the Mesopotamian Sea, and migrating to the swamp forests surrounding the early Red Sea. The ancestors of Orangutans must have split from these western Apes before 14 million years ago, when the Badenian Transgression would have blocked migration between Europe and East Asia. The lineage which led to Gorillas probably split off next, migrating from Europe, where taxa such as Ouranopithecus remained, while closer ancestors such as Anadoluvius turkae migrated through Anatolia, and on to Africa, where they gave rise to Gorilla-like African Apes such as Chororapithecus and Sahelanthropus, then eventually the East African Australopithecenes and modern Gorillas.

At the same time, Graecopithecus and similar species around the Mediterranean could provide plausible ancestors for Chimpanzees and Humans, explaining the Hominid-like footprints seen at Trachilos on Crete about six millions of years ago (long before the earliest such footprints in Africa). The lineage which led to Humans and Chimpanzees must also have migrated southward, at latest during the onset of the Messinian Salinity Crisis about 5.9 million years ago, which would have made the Mediterranean Basin uninhabitable. The route from Europe into Africa across the Sinai Peninsula would have been cut off during the Zanclean Megaflood (5.33 million years ago), which filled the Mediterranean and over-spilled into the Red Sea, filling that too. The final connection between Arabia and Africa was lost about 5 million years ago, when the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait opened, connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

Verhaegen et al. suggest that some of these Apes crossed into Africa before 5 million years ago, giving rise to the Southern African Australopithecines and eventually modern Chimpanzees. Another group remained on the southern shore of Arabia, where they were forced to turn increasingly to the littoral environment for survival, as the land became increasingly arid and hostile.

Around 2.8 million years ago the Earth's climate cooled sharply, leading sealevels to drop abruptly. At this time early Homo migrated from Arabia into Africa and Eurasia, leading to the sudden appearance of Homo erectus across the Old World. 

A reconstruction of the skull of Homo erectus in the collection of the University of Michigan Museum of Natural History. Thomas Roche/Wikimedia Commons.

Under this scenario, the genus Homo is absent from Africa until the Early Pleistocene appearance of Homo erectus/Homo eregastor, with the Pliocene Australopithecines not being ancestral to Modern Humans, but instead relatives of Chimpanzees and Gorillas. This view is broadly in-line with several recent cladistic analyses of Human origins, which suggest African Apes and Humans are derived from Eurasian Apes, and that there were multiple crossings from Eurasia into Africa. 

Verhaegen et al. take the view that East and Southern African Australopitecines largely evolved in parallel, in response to similar ecological pressures. Thus the gracile forms, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus, appeared in the Pliocene, when they were able to live in forest, and in particular swamp forest, environments, whereas the more robust Early Pleistocene forms, Paranthropus boisei and Paranthropus robustus, evolved in response to cooler, drier conditions, although generally sticking close to large bodies of water, such as Papyrus swamps. Eventually the modern African Apes adopted to a life on dry forest floors.

It is possible that the Southern African Australopithecines were more omnivorous, whereas the East African forms adapted to the processing of tougher plant materials, something which is reflected in the diets of modern Chimpanzees and Gorillas. 

This later arrival of Human-ancestors into Africa provides an explanation for the absence of any trace of the Endoretroviruses PtERV1 (CERV1) and PtERV2 (CERV2) in our genomes, while the ancestors of Gorillas and Chimpanzees were affected. The potential littoral phase also explains the many morphological adaptations which set Humans apart from other Apes, as well as behavioural traits such as a fondness for water and sea coasts. 

Verhaegen et al. believe that the earliest members of the genus Homo were shelfish divers, something which would have provided them with the resources for accelerated brain growth, as well as adaptions such as an external nose and pachyosteosclerotic skeleton. As supporting evidence for this, they cite the frequent occurrence of ear exostoses (surfer's ear) in early Homo, as well as tooth wear associated with a shellfish diet, the early arrival of Homo on remote islands such as Flores and Sulawesi, and the co-occurrence of their fossils and tools with shells, and even engraved shells.

See also...

Saturday, 27 December 2025

Nineteen cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infection reported in 2025.

Nineteen cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infection have been reported in 2025 till 21 December, according to a press release issued by the World Health Organization on 24 December. Seventeen of these cases have been reported from Saudi Arabia, and two from France. There have been two fatalities attributed to the disease this year, both in Saudi Arabia. Both cases reported in France were individuals who had recently returned from the Arabian Peninsula. 

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus was first reported in Jordan in 2012, since when there have been 2635 cases reported from 27 countries in all six of the World Heath Organization's regions (Africa, the Americas, Southeast Asia, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Western Pacific), with 964 associated fatalities (a case fatality ratio of 37%). However, 84% of these countries (2224 individual infections) have been reported from a single country, Saudi Arabia.

The epidemic curve of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infections (2635) and deaths (964) reported globally between 2012 and 2025. World Health Organization.

Of the seventeen cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infection reported in 2025, ten were reported in Riyadh Province, three from the city of Tiaf, two from Najran Province, one from Hail Province, and one from the city of Hafr Al-Batin. Details of the French cases, other than that they occurred in individuals who had recently returned from the Arabian Peninsula, are not available.

Geographical distribution of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infections between 1 January and 21 December 2025. World Health Organization.

Both of the infections reported in France were in the month of December and are still under investigation. These cases bring the total number of reported cases in France to four, with two previous cases in 2013, also in individuals who had recently returned from the Arabian Peninsula.

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome is a viral respiratory infection caused by the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, a form of positive sense single-strand RNA Virus. Approximately 36% of patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome have died, though this may be an overestimate of the true mortality rate, as mild cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus may be missed by existing surveillance systems, and the case fatality ratio is calculated based only on laboratory-confirmed cases.

Structure and genomic organisation of a Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viron. Bleibtreu et al. (2020). 

Humans are infected with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus from direct or indirect contact with Dromedary Camels, which are the natural host and zoonotic source of the Virus. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus has demonstrated the ability to transmit between Humans. So far, non-sustained Human-to-Human transmission has occurred among close contacts and in healthcare settings and outside of the healthcare setting, there has been limited Human-to-Human transmission.

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infections range from showing no symptoms (asymptomatic) or mild respiratory symptoms, to severe acute respiratory disease and death. A typical presentation of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome disease is fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Pneumonia is a common finding, but not always present. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including diarrhoea, have also been reported. Severe illness can cause respiratory failure that requires mechanical ventilation and support in an intensive care unit. The virus appears to cause more severe disease in older people, persons with weakened immune systems, and those with co-morbidities or chronic diseases such as renal disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, and diabetes.

No vaccine or specific treatment is currently available, although several Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-specific vaccines and therapeutics are in development. Treatment is supportive and based on the patient’s clinical condition and symptoms.

See also...



Sunday, 15 June 2025

Asio otus: A Long-eared Owl spotted in Abu Dhabi for the first time in over two decades.

Nine species of Owls have been recorded in the United Arab Emirates, although only six of these are considered to by indigenous. Long-eared Owls, Asio otus, are a migratory species found across temperate regions of Europe, Asia, and North America. In the Middle East they have been recorded to breed in northernmost Syria, Israel, Lebanon, and the northwestern part of Iran. They are also occasional visitors to other parts of the region, including the United Arab Emirates, where they are considered to be vagrant and extremely rare. Between 1971 and 2013, there were sixteen recorded sightings of Long-eared Owls in the United Arab Emirates, although the species has not been recorded since.

In a paper published in the Journal of Threatened Taxa on 26 May 2025, Shakeel Ahmed and Sálim Javed of the Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, report the sighting of a Long-eared Owl in the Al Wathba Wetland Reserve in Abu Dhabi on 1 January 2022.

The 1 January 2022 sighting is the first recording of a Long-eared Owl in Abu Dhabi since October 1999, when another Owl was spotted in the Al Wathba Wetland Reserve. The Owl was spotted at about 6.30 am on the northern part of the reserve. The previous day the area had been hit by a storm, with high winds and heavy rain lasting all day.

An  adult  Long-eared Owl, Asio otus, roosting on a tree in Al Wathba Wetland Reserve. Muhammad Maqsood in Ahmed & Javed (2025).

Long-eared Owls are classified as being of Least Concern under the terms of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened species. Nevertheless, the global population of the species is known to be declining, which, among other things, means that sightings on the fringes of the species range are becoming rarer.

See also...

Tuesday, 16 January 2024

Investigating the walled oasis at Khaybar, Northwest Arabia.

Walled oases appear to have been a key part of the development of early settled societies on the Arabian Peninsula. Unlike other defensive systems, such as isolated towers, fortresses, or even walled cities, walled oases comprised an extensive system of defences enclosing an entire agricultural system, and marking a boundary between this managed farmland and the surrounding desert. Two such walled oases, Tayma and Qurayyah, have been familiar to archaeologists for a long time, and been the subject of numerous studies. However, recent examination of satellite images of the region has exposed a series of previously unknown walls around other oases, including Khaybar, Huwayyit, Dumat al-Jandal, Hait, Al-Wadi, Al-Ayn, and al-Tibq. This process of urbanization and oasis protection appears to have begun during the Bronze Age and persisted into the Iron Age, paying a major role in the appearance of the  caravan kingdoms.

Khaybar has a pre-Islamic period fortress located on a mesa at the centre of the great wadis which dominate the site, but a wall enclosing the entire oasis had not previously been observed or even suspected. The walls are spread over a wide area, and for the most part have been dismantled to the point at which they are hard to recognise. The area is rugged, and made up largely of basalt rock with almost zero sedimentation, so that any and all archaeological remains sit on the surface. This has created a lunar landscape, dotted with archaeological remains from a wide range of periods, including desert kites, mustatils, funerary avenues and dense necropolises, encampments, forts, plot walls, a range of less identifiable structures. To date, about 16 000 such structures have been counted within the 56 km² of land which constitutes the oasis. Determining that dismantled and fragmentary walls scattered over a wide area formed part of a single original structure requires extensive fieldwork and careful examination of the components.

In a paper published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports on 10 January 2024, Guillaume Charloux, Shadi Shabo, Guillaume Chung-To, and Bruno Depreux of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, independent researcher François Guermont, Kévin Guadagnini, also of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Thomas Therasse and  Mylène Bussy, also independent researchers, Saifa Alshilali of the Royal Commission for AlUla, Diaa Albukaai and Rémy Crassard, again of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, and Munirah AlMushawh, another independent researcher, demonstrate the presence of a defence wall around the entire Khaybar Oasis, as well as providing dating information on its construction and use.

Location map of the Khaybar walled oasis (red and white circle) and other major sites in north-western Arabia. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Six seasons of fieldwork were carried out between October 2020 and March 2023, as part of the Khaybar Longue Durée Archaeological Project. Khaybar is about 670 m above sealevel, and is located in the Hijaz Region of Saudi Arabia, between Medina and AlUla. It was an important agricultural centre in the Early Islamic Period, with the entire oasis measuring about 8 km by 7 km. The oasis is at the confluence of three alluvial valleys, Wadi al-Suwayr/Halhal, Wadi al-Zaidiyyah, and Wadi al-Sulamah, which merge on the western side of the oasis to form the Wadi Khaybar. The wadis are cut into the surrounding Neogene-Quaternary basalt plateau, and contain a series of perched sediment beds. The first (brief) archaeological survey of the oasis was carried out in 2015. This was followed by an aerial survey by the Aerial Archaeology in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia project in 2018, with the Khaybar Longue Durée Archaeological Project beginning in 2020.

Aerial views of the dry-stone basement of the outer rampart: (A) Segment KH00911 facing south; (B) Segment KH01130 facing north; (C) Segments KH00904-KH00905 and KH00906 facing south; (D) segment KH00922. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Charloux et al. used ArcGIS mapping software to combine aerial photography with high resolution geological maps and e architectural, archaeological and geomorphological surveys of the oasis to build up a map of the wall network. They also dug 19 test pits into sections of the remaining ramparts. 

Map of the main ramparts of Khaybar, with identification of main segment walls and location of bastions and soundings in 2021–2023. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Charloux et al. discovered 5.9 km of previously unknown wall, 5.9 km of which are interpreted as being part of a network which once enclosed the entire oasis. There were 146 large wall segments remaining, ranging in length from a few metres to several hundred metres. The discovered walls were placed into five groups. Group A comprised aligned accretion walls 2.4-4.5 m thick, with both bastions and towers, and without any obvious discontinuity, which formed part of the enclosure surrounding the al-Natah Site. Group B walls comprised two exterior faces with a rubble in-fill, 1.4-2.4 m thick, with bastions, forming part of an inner enclosure wall. Group C walls were similar to Group B walls, but formed part of the outer perimeter enclosing the entire oasis. Group D walls are made from multiple types of masonry, are between 50 cm and 4 m thick, lack bastions, and again form part of an inner enclosure. Group E walls were smaller segments, similar in construction to Group D walls, which did not form part of any obvious larger structure.

View of the ramparts KH00905-KH00906 and a bastion KH00974 during excavation, looking west. Kévin Guadagnini in Charloux et al. (2024).

The remaining outer wall around the Khaybar oasis has a length of 5912.78 m, which is thought to represent 41% of an original wall which would have measured 14.5 km, enclosing an area of 11.8 km². The wall is interrupted by a variety of newer roads, buildings, gardens, etc., making it difficult to reconstruct the entire shape of the perimeter boundary, particularly on the southern side. 

Rampart KH00909, looking north. Charloux et al. (2024).

Seventy four bastions are still present on this outer wall, wall facing out towards the desert rather than in towards the oasis, which Charloux et al. consider to be strong evidence for the entire enclosure to have been built in a single phase of construction, albeit one which would have taken some time and been subject to subsequent additions and alterations.

Rampart KH00911 situated on the crest (right on the picture), looking east. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

The walls of the outer perimeter are also very similar throughout their extent, most being rubble-filled, double-faced dry-stone walls, between 1.8 m and 2.4 m thick, which again supports a single interval of wall building. The walls appear to have been built in separate segments, with the thinnest section on the slopes and summits of Jabal Mushaqqar, where it is only 1.1 m thick and built of simple drystone masonry, which was apparently acceptable to the builders for this s high position along a ridge on the top of a rhyolite mountain. Earlier stone structures in the region appear to have been raided extensively for building stone.

View of the currently preserved masonry of the outer enclosure wall (rampart KH01130) facing north. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

The majority of the wall is made up of curvilinear sections which for the most part follow the contours of the plateau, with connections between these long sections crossing valleys at their narrowest points. Ramparts are between 120 m and 250 m from the cliff edge, apparently built at this distance to avoid the topological irregularities associated with the cliff. Building the wall in this way would have given good visibility over both the oasis and the surrounding desert, while enclosing the minimum amount without encroaching on the agricultural land.

Rampart KH00911 on top of the cliff, looking north. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

The height of the original walls is impossible to determine; only the stone bases of the walls remain, but there are traces of mud bricks in places, which suggests a brick superstructure existed on top of the stone wall. The highest remaining section of wall is 3 m tall, at Makidah on the southern section. Charloux et al. suggest another 2 m of brick wall may have existed on top of this, possibly with a walkway. The walls at the Tayma Oasis, have been estimated at 6 m high, with an inner enclosure which might have been 14 m high, while the walls at Dumat al-Jandal have been estimated at 6.5 m, and a section of walkway has been identified.

Rampart KH00919, with dismantled infilling, looking northeast. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

There are no contemporaneous structures attached to the outer wall, which is made of basalt and has been heavily eroded by the desert winds and runoff from the annual rains, as well as depletion due to raiding by later builders of other structures, all of which tend to make dating of any structure difficult. However, the wall is built over several older pendant tombs, some of which were also raided for stone by the wall builders. These tombs have been dated to the middle of the third millennium BC, which makes it impossible for the wall to have been built before about 2600-2200 BC. 

Rampart KH00918, looking northeast. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Charloux et al. were able to obtain radiocarbon dates from eight charcoal samples obtained from five test pits sunk into the remaining wall segments. The oldest of these come from beneath the wall, providing a maximum age for the overlying wall segment. Other samples come from layers abutting the rampart or in the immediate vicinity of its foundation, suggesting they provide a time for the construction or first use of the wall, while other pieces come from the wall infill, which again makes it most likely they date from the time of wall construction. Finally, sone charcoal pieces come from beneath what appear to be gates in the wall, and could therefore have been deposited while the wall was in use.

Rampart KH00918, looking southwest. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Based upon these radiocarbon dates, Charloux et al. suggest that the outer perimeter wall at Khaybar Oasis was built after 2279 BC, and probably after 2139 BC, but probably before 2201 BC and definitely before 1980 BC. The wall appears to have still been in use as late as 1741 BC and 1542 BC.

Location of dating samples on rampart KH00905 (plan on orthophotography and sections). Section 1: KH00906.002 and KH00906.004 are filling layers above ash area KH00906.005 on top of construction floor KH00906.006; Section 2: KH00905.002 is a collapse layer above a thin ash dump above fills KH00905.003 and KH00905.005 above possible construction floor KH00905.004. Guillaume Charloux, François Guermont & Kévin Guadagnini in Charloux et al. (2024).

This suggests that the Khaybar Oasis, one of the largest in Arabia, was enclosed by a perimeter wall in the Bronze Age, around 2000 BC. The appearance of such walled oases is thought to have been a key step in the evolution of urbanization in the region. The walls presumably offered protection against raids from the desert, a danger to settlements on the Arabian Peninsula in the pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Periods, but one for which evidence has been absent in the Bronze Age until now, despite the presence of Bronze Age 'Warrior Burials' in northern Arabia. Such walls may have also plaid a role in controlling the environment within the oasis, helping to prevent soils from blowing away and helping to prevent flash floods from reaching crops. The walls would also have made a symbolic statement about the ownership of the oasis, clearly delimiting a boundary between the territory inside the wall and the open desert. This would have been a powerful symbol to any desert groups seeing it, and presented a clear social identity to those within.

Dismantled bastion at the front of rampart KH00918, looking southwest. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

The size of the surrounding wall suggests that a reasonably large workforce was involved, and that local political leadership was sufficiently organized to co-ordinate such a project. It has previously been assumed that large building works like this in Bronze Age societies would have required very large numbers of workers, but recent evaluations of workloads has suggested that much smaller numbers of people might have been able to undertake large projects. Constructing the outer wall to a height of 5 m would have required the movement of 164 000 m³ of stone, and/or bricks, which Charloux et al. would have required 170 000 working days. Whilst this seems a lot, a community of 500 people, in which half of the population could spend six months of each year on the project, would have been able to construct the outer wall in four years. Had half the population been able to work on the project full time, then only two years would be needed to construct the wall. Furthermore, while some degree of planning would no doubt have been needed to complete the project, many of the choices which would have had to be made are not complicated, so a large bureaucracy was probably not needed, again suggesting the task was within the grasp of a relatively small community.

Test pit in gate KH09039 on rampart KH01130 (plan on orthophotography and section), with location of dated samples. Outside the gate, KH09039.004 is a small layer of brown gravel laying directly on the substratum below the stone collapse. Inside the gate, the collapse was underlain by KH09039.009, an occupation level consisting of grey, coarse sandy sediment with some charcoal and animal bones. Below, a layer of brown gravel (KH09039.010) was laying on the bedrock. Guillaume Charloux, François Guermont & Kévin Guadagnini in Charloux et al. (2024).

Pastoralists from northwest Arabia, where local communities were already building walled and fortified settlements on the fringes of the desert in what is now southern Lebanon and Syria, are thought to have settled at Khaybar Oasis during the Early Bronze Age, building avenues of monumental funerary structures, as at other oasis in the region, and on the trails between them. The skill set needed to build these large funerary structures is not greatly different from the one that would have been needed to construct fortified ramparts around an oasis, so the construction of avenues of funerary monuments hay have been the first stage in a transition from a pastoralist, nomadic existence to a more settled farming one where strategic territories with good water supplies were enclosed and defended. The nature of such projects would have favoured the development of a more hierarchical society, leading in time to the development of more formal urban centres. This settling and enclosing of the oases may have been linked to a drying climate, which would have made wandering pastoralism more precarious and reliable sources of water more precious, although the history of the climate in the region is not well enough understood to make firm assertions about this.

Rampart KH01130, looking north. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Ramparts appear to have been erected around the entire oasis between about 2250 BC and 1950 BC, making these fortifications younger than the ones at Qurayyah, which were constructed in the first half of the third millennium BC, or and those at Tayma, built in the second half of the third millenium BC, but older than the Iron Age fortifications at Dûmat al-Jandal. This is interesting, as it shows a repeated process of oasis enclosure at different sites, over a lengthy period of time. Understanding why this happened would be a significant step in understanding the development of Bronze Age and Iron Age societies in Arabia, and the trajectory of urbanization followed there.

Reconstruction view of the northern part of walled oasis of Khaybar around 2000 BCE. Pending the results of definitive archaeobotanical analyses, the Plant cover at this stage is based on the identified species (Acacia, Tamarisk, Amaranth, cereals). Mylène Bussy & Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Charloux et al.'s field surveys and archaeological excavations have demonstrated that the Khaybar Oasis in Northwest Arabia was once enclosed by an immense surrounding wall, similar to that seen around other oases in the region. This dates from the late third millennium BC, and was probably constructed by a local pastoralist community settling and claiming the oasis as their territory. The walls appear to have remained in use for several centuries, before being partially dismantled and replaced with other structures. This marks out the oasis as an important stage in the development of urbanized communities in the region, and key part of the heritage of Arabia.

See also...