Convergent Tools from the Mousterian Site of Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon: Use-Wear Evidence

Iranian Archaeology, No. 5

Convergent Tools from the Mousterian Site of Nahr Ibrahim,

Lebanon: Use-Wear Evidence

John Dockall1 Abstract Nahr Ibrahim (Asfourieh) Cave, Lebanon has yielded lithic assemblages identified as Tabun C and Tabun D of the Levantine Mousterian. Detailed microscopic use-wear analysis of a subsample of convergent flakes and pointed retouched tools from the Central and North Galleries has yielded evidence that these implements were employed in a variety of tasks such as butchery, hide preparation, and hunting. Specimens with distal fractures and hafting wear on the proximal ends are interpreted as elements of composite hunting weapons similar to those documented by other researchers from Levantine Mousterian and Zagros Mousterian sites. Specific aspects of technology and use-wear are used to discuss Middle Paleolithic hunting weapon design and use. Results from Nahr Ibrahim are briefly compared to other Levantine Mousterian sites in Israel and Jordan.

Keywords: Levantine Mousterian; Middle Paleolithic; Nahr Ibrahim; Lebanon; Points hunting weapon; impact fracture; use-wear; tool-design

1. Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Austin. [email protected]

Convergent Tools from the Mousterian Site of Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon…


Introduction Analysis of convergent tools from the Levantine Mousterian site of Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon documented the presence of distal fractures and associated wear types that compare favorably to wear traces previously interpreted as use of projectile points. Shea (1988a, 1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1991, 1997, 1998) has documented the use of stone projectile points at a number of other Levantine Mousterian sites, in particular, Hayonim, Kebara, Qafzeh, and Tabun in Israel and Tor Faraj in Jordan (see also Henry 1992). This paper provides a brief review of studies documenting hunting weaponry at a number of Lower and Middle Paleolithic sites and concludes with details of use wear characteristics on a sample of convergent tools from the North Gallery and Central Gallery at Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon. Additional discussion is devoted to specimens with distal impact damage.

A Brief Review of Hunting Weaponry in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic The suggestion that archaic Homo sapiens of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe and the Levant could have employed composite weapons in the organized pursuit and capture of game animals has polarized some researchers. The topic of hunting during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic has also become a critical part of hypotheses and interpretations of the cognitive abilities of these archaic Homo sapiens and has dramatically influenced how we interpret the archaeological record (see Adler et al. 2006; Binford 1979, 1985, 1989; Chase 1988, 1989, 1991; D’Errico 2003, Goren-Inbar and Belfer-Cohen 1998; Hayden 1993:114-115; Klein 1979; Lieberman 1993; Lieberman and Shea 1994; Loi and Brizzi 2011; Gowlett 1984:182-183; Laland 1998; Lazuen 2012; Mellars 1989a:356-357, 1989b:356-357, 1996:227-236; 2006; Montagu 1976; O’Connell et al. 2002; Ready 2010; Shea 1998, 2006; Toth and Schick 1993; Wynn 1991:60-61).

Mc Brearty and Brooks (2000) argued that traits representing modern behaviors include abstract thinking, planning depth, behavioral, economic, and technological innovation, and symbolic behaviors. The authors provide archaeological criteria or manifestations of these aspects of modern behavior. Important for this paper are those associated with technology. These include hafting, standardized tool forms, and special purpose tools such as projectile points. Shea (2006) and Shea and Sisk (2010:101) noted that projectile technology is part of

an overall strategy of “niche-broadening” that enabled early humans to exploit a far greater range of prey species.

The idea that various types of Lower and Middle Paleolithic convergent tools could have served as efficient hunting weapons is not a new concept (see for example Osborn 1936:250-252; Trinkaus and Shipman 1992:33-34) but early on was based loosely on morphological similarities of modern concepts of such implements. In addition to Shea’s (1991) data on projectile points in the Levantine Mousterian, good evidence has also been found at a number of European sites. For example, the sites of Clacton, England and Lehringen, Germany (Movius 1954; Oakley et al. 1977). The preserved yew wood spear from Clacton dates to roughly 350,000 B.P. (Mellars 1996: 227). The wood species for the Lehringen specimen remains unidentified but according to Mellars (1996: 227) dates to the last Interglacial. More recently are three spruce spears recovered at Shoningen in 1983 that have been given a tentative date of 350,000 years (see Bower 1997; Dennel 1997; Thieme 1997). Callow (1986) identified distal fractures on pointed tools from La Cotte de St. Brelade, Channel Islands.

Pointed flake blades from Middle Stone Age deposits at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa have been interpreted as projectile points by Singer and Wymer (1982: 60-64). A later study by Donahue and others (2004) have described use wear and impact damage on a small number of Middle Stone Age points from White Paintings Rockshelter, Botswana.

Additional evidence of technologically assisted hunting in the Middle Paleolithic may be present in the Mousterian lithic assemblages from the Crimea; specifically the assemblage from the Akkaiskaya industry that contains significant numbers of unifacial and bifacial leaf-shaped points (Kolosov 1990:53-60). Other industries with unifacial and bifacial points from the Crimean Middle Paleolithic include Kiik Koba, Starosele, and Kabasijskaya. An excellent functional study has been completed for a sample of stone tools from the sites of Starosele and Buran Kaya III in the Crimea (Hardy et al. 2001). The authors report that a number of convergent artifacts from Starosele exhibited microwear traces (polish and striations) that suggest their use as hafted points for thrown or thrusting weapons. As at Nahr Ibrahim, some of these specimens morphologically resembled other classic Bordes types such as scrapers. The lithic

Dockall


assemblages from Starosele are classified as various facies of the late Micoquian. Buran Kaya III has yielded an Early Streletskayan industry dominated by foliate bifacial points, endscrapers and bifacial geometric microliths. Hardy and colleagues (Hardy et al. 2001) indicated that hafting wear and impact traces were present on a number of the bifacial foliate points that were included in the use wear sample. At both sites, artifacts that exhibited hafting and impact traces also had wear attributed to cutting tasks.

Villa and others (2009) have documented the presence of Middle Paleolithic points bearing impact scars from the rock shelter site of Oscurusciuto in southern Italy. At the site, triangular flake blanks were grouped into two morphological categories: triangular flakes with broad bases and those with narrow bases. Six artifacts bearing impact damage have narrow bases. Although the sample is small and each varies in shape, all were produced by the Levallois technique and predetermined flake removals to achieve blank shape. Two of these points have basal thinning.

More recent evidence of technologically assisted hunting and projectile weaponry has been documented in central Iran at the Qaleh Bozi 3 rockshelter (Biglari et al. 2009; Claud et al. 2012). A similar technology has also been documented at the site of Mar-Tarik in Kermanshah, Iran (Jaubert et al. 2009). This is significant because it provides support for technologically assisted hunting as part of the Zagros Mousterian lithic industry.

Reinterpretations of some lithic implements from the Nubian-complex assemblages from Nazlet Khater, Kharga Oasis, Foum el Alba, and Bir Sahara (Van Peer 1998:S121-S122) suggest that hafted hunting weapons were part of the Middle Paleolithic tool kit. Middle Paleolithic researchers have identified evidence of bitumen hafting on some stone tools (Boeda et al. 1996:336-338) and the presence of a Levallois point fragment embedded in a vertebra of a wild ass (Boeda et al. 1999). More recently, tar-hafted implements have been recovered from middle Pleistocene deposits in association with the skeletal remains of a young adult female Elephus (Palaeoloxondon) antiquus and a variety of micromammals in Italy (Mazza et al. 2006). The style of tar hafting on these tools is reminiscent to that observed on ethnographic examples of Australian aboriginal stone tools.

The Middle Paleolithic site of Saltzgitter-Lebenstedt in Germany had yielded an impressive array of bone tools including a triangular bone

point with abraded distal edges and notching of the basal edge (Gaudzinski 1999:134). The shaping of this implement produced morphology much like a Levallois point or other convergent tool. Although this implement has been regarded as evidence of a temporally later intrusion at the site, the stratigraphic and geomorphic context does not indicate such an intrusion (Gaudzinski 1999: 134). Other similar bone points have been reported from the Late Middle Paleolithic site of Grosse Grotte in southern Germany (in Riek 1934: plate XXXVI as cited in Guadzinski 1999: 140). Yellen, Brooks, and others (Brooks et al. 1995; Yellen et al. 1995) have reported the presence of shaped bone harpoon points from Middle Stone Age deposits at three sites in Katanda, Zaire that have been dated in excess of 89,000 years ago.

Other lines of evidence indicate that Middle Paleolithic hominids were efficient and organized predators. In example, a study of stable isotopes and diet of the Vindija Neanderthals (Richards et al. 2000) and associated faunal assemblages noted that a significant portion of hominid dietary protein was from animal resources. The resulting isotope values from Vindija are comparable to those obtained by other researchers on Neanderthal remains from Marillac, France and Scladina Cave in Belgium (Richards et al. 2000: Table 2). More recently, a reanalysis of the pathological rib of the Shanidar 3 Neandertal (see Churchill et al. 2009) is interpreted as evidence of use of either a hafted thrusting spear or knife or as a low-mass, low kinetic energy projectile weapon.

The functional and technological data available thus far indicate that Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age hominids possessed several key aspects that McBrearty and Brooks (2000) considered as evidence of “modern” behaviors. It is the primary goal of this paper to take functional data recorded for convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon and compare distal damage and accessory wear to similar wear types that have been interpreted as evidence of impact fractures.

Technologically, the designs of these early weapons appear to have centered on ease of replacement rather than maintenance and curation of weapons tips. These basic design concepts also appear to have been carried over into Middle Paleolithic implement design. The Site of Nahr Ibrahim Also known as Asfourieh Cave (Solecki 1975: 283), the site was located along the eastern Mediterranean



coast north of Beirut, Lebonon (Figure 1). Also shown in Figure 1 are locations of other Middle Paleolithic sites in the Near East. The cave was situated within the Halat village district near Byblos along the highway from Beirut to Tripoli and sits at 14m above seal level (at the cave sill) and is 73 m back from the sea. The Nahr Ibrahim River is 900 m north (Solecki 1970:98, 1975: 283). Highway construction later destroyed the site. Figure 1. Location of Nahr Ibrahim and other Middle Paleolithic sites in the Near East. (1) El Kowm, (2) Douara, (3) Jerf Ajla, (4) *.0Keoue, (5) Nahr Ibrahim, (6) Yabrud, (7) Ksar Akil, (8) Adlun, (9) Hayonim, (10) El Wad, Tabun, Skhul, (11) Kebara, (12) Quneitra, (13) Amud, Emireh, Zuttiyeh, (14) Qafzeh, (15) Shukbah, (16) Fara II, (17) Ain Difla, (18) Rosh Ein Mor, (19) Ein Aqev, (20) Tor Faraj, (21) Tor Sabiha, (22) Tulul Defaai, (23) Mchairfet el Samouk, (24) Bir el Hummal (Base map adapted from Bar-Yosef et al. 1992: Figure 1)

The cave formed within a region of karsted

terrain comprised of Cenomanian limestone with bands of chert. The region is also known as the Adonis Ravine or Nahr Ibrahim Valley. Nahr Ibrahim formed part of a promontory or limestone arch that created a constriction in which all road traffic was forced to travel between the base of the promontory (cave entrance) and the sea (Solecki 1970: 98, 1975:283).

Nahr Ibrahim was characterized by three main galleries or chambers (Figure 2). The general plan of the cave is in the shape of an N (Stearns 1970: 129) and the galleries from north to south are identified as North, Central, Main, and South. The North, Central and Main galleries are interconnected. The South Gallery had at one time been connected to the Main Gallery via a passage that was plugged with breccia at the time of excavation giving the appearance that the South Gallery was an isolated nearby cave. The south Gallery was not excavated (Solecki 1975:283). The cave galleries followed a joint system within the limestone and trended in a west-northwest direction. The south wall of the North and South galleries also followed a small fault (Stearns 1970:129).

Figure 2. Planview of Nahr Ibrahim showing gallery locations

The distance between the openings of the

South and North Gallery was approximately 30 m. If the South Gallery is not included, then the main portion of the cave mouth was 25 m. Solecki (1970: 99) estimated that the area of habitable living space was about 200 msq behind the dripline. This measurement included the areas within the Main, Central, and North galleries. A total estimated population of 20 to 25 individuals could have inhabited this area of the cave (Solecki 1970:99; 1975: 283). The deepest habitable cave portion was located in the Main Gallery at about 16 m (Soleck 1975: 283).

Dockall


An unknown extent of the cave also lay beneath a massive area of rockfall to the northeast of the entrance. At the time of excavation, this rockfall area was utilized as a small garden by local residents. Estimations were that another ca. 40 sq. m of area could have been added to the overall area of the cave (Solecki 1975: 283).

According to Stearns (979: 129) the original solution cavities were filled with sediments that were partly removed at some time in the past. Remnants of brecciated sediment were noted on cave walls in the 1969 season that indicated what cave deposits had been thicker. The ground surface in each of the excavated galleries was not the original deposition surface. Stearns also noted that cave openings (sills) in the limestone cliff face were heavily encrusted with breccia. For greater detail and discussion regarding the geology and specific stratigraphic information for each Gallery, the reader is referred to Dockall (1997a) and Solecki (1970, 1975).

History of Investigations Nahr Ibrahim or Asfourieh Cave was the location of three separate seasons of investigations by Columbia University: 1969, 1970, and 1973. The cave had been known for a long while, being briefly visited during the 19th century by such individuals as P.E. Botta, an Italian prehistorian, and Louis Lartet, the father of French prehistory (Solecki 1970:98). In 1890, the Jesuit Father G. Zumoffen made an inspection of the cave and with some preliminary excavations, produced profile drawings, and illustrated some artifacts from the site (Zumoffen 1900).

The Lithic Assemblages and Chronology All three major galleries at Nahr Ibrahim yielded Levantine Mousterian lithic assemblages from their deposits. During the three seasons of investigations at the site, over 325,000 lithic artifacts were retrieved (Solecki 1975: 293). A proportion of the total recovery was obtained from secondary or derived contexts. This includes a large percentage of material from the interior of the Main Gallery, a smaller amount from the previous excavations of Zumoffen, and additional material taken from parts of the deflated deposits of the North Gallery (upper portion).

Ralph Solecki had made general comparisons based on technology with the assemblage from Ras el Kelb, which had also yielded a single C-14 date in excess of 52,000 years (GrN 2556). He

used the general technological similarities between the sites to infer a similar age for the Nahr Ibrahim material (Solecki 1975:293).

Solecki (1970:120) noted an abundance of side scrapers of several morphologies as a component of the Central Gallery lithic assemblage. Other less common tools consisted of notches, denticulates and naturally backed knives. Levallois points occurred in small numbers near the bottom of the excavations but increased in number dramatically near the top of the deposits in the Central Gallery. Mousterian points and burins were present but not numerous. Levallois cores and flakes were common throughout the assemblage.

For the North Gallery, Solecki (1970:122) noted a distinct difference in the character of this lithic assemblage compared to lithic material recovered from the Main and Central Galleries. The most striking difference was the very common presence of blades and burins manufactured from broad blades in the North Gallery assemblage. The technology and typology of the North Gallery assemblage was reminiscent of an Upper Paleolithic assemblage. Tool types that were recovered included elongate Mousterian points, burins, knives (backed and naturally backed) and a variety of side scraper or racloirs. Solecki identified the technology as Levallois with a predominance of long narrow triangular points made on blades and flakeblades” (Solecki 1970: 122).

A pair of chronometric dates was produced for the deposits at Nahr Ibrahim (Porat and Schwartz 1991). These dates were derived by application of signal subtraction methods of the electron spin resonance (ESR) technique. The resulting dates were from burned flints from the basal levels (Layer 4) of the Central Gallery and range between 80-90,000 B.P. The Central Gallery was also associated with a Tabun C-type lithic industry. The dates are as follows:

Sample No. k=0.1 k=0.5

89191 75+/-27 84+/-30 89191a 66+/-22 74+/-25 89192 92+/-23 110+/-128

These dates were obtained from two flint

samples, one of which was duplicated. Small sediment samples that were removed from the flints may not truly represent the sediments that contributed to the total dose used to derive the



ages. The ages of the two samples lie within each other’s standard error. Porat and Schwartz (1991: 211) noted that the resulting dates are comparable with other ESR dates from other Levantine Mousterian sites and with U-Series dates of cave formations from Nahr Ibrahim

Farrand (1994) noted that a number of Levantine sites have produced chronometric dates on the order of 80-90,000 B.P. The Levantine Mousterian coastal site of Naame has a Tabun C-type industry stratified between marine deposits U-Series dated between 90-92,000 B.P. (Farrand 1994: 44).

The dates from Naame and other Levantine Mousterian assemblages that have been dated on the order of 90,000 B.P. are in good agreement with other thermoluminescence (TL) and ESR dates from Skhul and Qafzeh, as well as the preliminary dates from Nahr Ibrahim. Farrand also noted that the Lebanese data are comparable with other C-14 and amino acid racemization (AAR) dates for Tabun D deposts at Tabun (Farrand 1994: 44). It is perhaps important to recall that Tabun D. industries occur primarily in areas of the Southern Levant such as the Negev and in the Syrian Desert with only a few other exceptions: Nahr Ibrahim (North Gallery), Tabun D, Hayonim, and Bezez. Even with some general agreement among the chronometric dates for Levantine Mousterian industries, it is still difficult to establish a general sequence for Middle Paleolithic industries in the Near East. Following Farrand’s caution (1994: 44) it is possible that there may have been contemporaneous Tabun C-type and D-type industries in the Near East. Regional literature seems to confirm this observation (see Clark and Lindly 1989; Lindly and Clark 1990). The Study Sample, Selection Criteria, and Sample Condition The material analyzed by Dockall (1997a) was selected from the North and Central galleries. The selection of convergent tools involved a complete inspection of all pieces from both galleries. All material was systematically examined by Lot # and Gallery and those meeting selection criteria were set aside for analysis.

Sample selection was based on a series of criteria used to define convergent tools. These were: (1) Distal convergence of lateral edges. (2) Convergence may be either a property of the flake or blade tool blank, a product of retouch, or both. Also, one lateral edge may be modified distally by retouch and the other can be unmodified.

(3) Convergent tools are generally broader at the proximal than the distal end. An exception may be a blade in which the medial and proximal width may be roughly equal or a flake or blade in which the medial width is greatest.

Established type names and criteria of identification that have been established for Lower and Middle Paleolithic tools (Bordes 1961, 1972; Debenath and Dibble 1993) were also employed in sample selection. Additional criteria were used to distinguish blades and flakes and Levallois and non-Levallois pieces. Blades were identified as having a width/length index of .50 or less (see Crew 1976: 83). Ronen (1992: 222) noted that the majority of Middle Paleolithic blades have facetted platforms and fewer dorsal scars than Upper Paleolithic blades. Middle Paleolithic blades are also typically distally convergent and were manufactured by identical techniques used to produce flakes. Distinctions between Levallois and non-Levallois pieces follows Bordes (1961).

The condition of each Gallery sample was a limiting factor on both use wear and technology but to varying degrees. Implements from the Central Gallery were in much better condition than the majority of the North Gallery material. Both galleries had relatively similar proportions of unburned convergent tools: 81.3 percent for the Central and 83.3 percent for the North Gallery. The Central Gallery had a slightly higher proportion of burned convergent tools at 17.3 percent compared to the North Gallery at 11.1 percent.

Surface patination was more intensive and extensive on pieces from the North Gallery. A total of 38.8 percent of analyzed tools from the North Gallery were patinated compared to 18.7 percent from the Central Gallery. The effect of patina as a variable precluding use wear observation was considered minimal for the Central Gallery with only 8 percent considered too patinated or desilicified for analysis. However, 34.3 percent of the analyzed sample from the North Gallery was too patinated and desilicified for use-wear analysis. Specimens were considered unsatisfactory for use wear analysis if they had been sufficiently altered microtopographically such that areas of high and low relief were equally weathered and pitted (as in the case of dehydrated specimens). The discrepancy between the North and Central galleries is explained by the in-situ leaching and removal of sediments from the North Gallery (Solecki 1970:122). Table 1 provides the sample structure included in the original study by Dockall (1997a).

Dockall


Tool Type Central North Levallois Point 20 16 Retouched Levallois Point 7 9 Pseudo-Levallois Point 3 8 Atypical Levallois Point 2 2 Mousterian Point 6 7 Elongated Mousterian Point 0 4 Converging Flake 10 15 Converging Levallois Flake 2 6 Converging Blade 5 12 Converging Levallois Blade 1 43 Converging Sidescraper 8 4 Double Convex Sidescraper 2 0 Single Convex Sidescraper 4 5 Percoir 0 4 Proximal Fragments 6 5

Totals 75 108

Table 1. Totals of different convergent artifact types form the Central and North Galleries of Nahr Ibrahim

Of the 23 convergent implements from the

Nahr Ibrahim sample (Dockall 1997a) having distal impact traces, 10 (43.7 percent) have modified edges of various forms. This retouch is typically located on the tip region and appears to have been done to achieve tip sharpness and suggests only one or two episodes of retouch. Points and blades presented a higher proportion of lateral edge asymmetry in the presence of wear than oval flakes. Ratios of Levallois to non-Levallois tools (LV/NLV) and point and oval flakes to blades from selected Levantine Mousterian sites illustrate selection preferences (Table 2).

The convergent tool sample from Nahr Ibrahim included technologically variable specimens that served a limited array of functions. Convergent flakes and points were employed as hafted hunting weapons and exhibit microwear associated with projectile impact and hafting. A majority of specimens were utilized as hafted and unhafted cutting tools for butchery and light-duty woodworking. A smaller number of implements were used in a variety of tasks that required a very pointed tip for drilling or awling. Another common use of convergent tools was scraping. Table 3 provides the total numbers of employed units attributed to select wear patterns at Nahr Ibrahim.

Analysis Methods The methods and techniques of use wear analysis used by Dockall (1997a) were based on a program of recording and documentation developed by Odell (1977, 1979) and applied by Shea (1991) to

an array of Levantine Mousterian lithic assemblages. This method considers the attribute to be the fundamental analytical unit (Odell 1979:334-335) and is based on the spatial location of use wear on a tool. A polar coordinate (PC) graph (Figure 3) was used to subdivide each tool into eight spatial segments. With only minor modifications, the protocol for use wear documentation used by Dockall (1997a) followed Shea (1991) and emphasized abrasive and microscarring (microfracture) wear types. Each polar coordinate can be used to document a particular tool function and it is also possible and very useful to combine multiple coordinates into employable units. The concept of an EU or employable unit was developed by Knudson (1973) and is defined as “those portions of an implement (edges or projections) deemed appropriate in performing specific tasks”. Polar coordinates can be translated into conventional flake/tool morphological landmarks. For example, PCs 8 and 1 represent the distal end and 4 and 5 the proximal end. PCs 2-3 and 6-7 represent the right and left lateral edges, respectively.

Site or Assemblage LV/NLV

ratio PO/B ratio

Hayonim E 2.4 10.3 Kebara X 2.1 11.1 Kebara IX 1.6 --- Kebara XD 3.4 19.0 Kebara XI 2.7 7.2 Kebara XII 4.6 8.3 Kebara XIII 4.6 8.3

Nahr Ibrahim Central Gallery 1.7 5.6 Nahr Ibrahim North Gallery 1.0 1.6

Qafzeh XV 4.7 6.3 Qafzeh XVII 1.0 --- Qafzeh XVIII 1.5 --- Shanidar 0.2 16.0 Tabun IB 4.0 --- Tabun IC 1.8 2.6 Tabun II 4.5 2.6 Tabun IX 1.9 6.0 Tor Faraj C 2.9 12.0

Table 2. Ratios of Levallois to non-Levallois convergent tools (LV/NLV) and points-oval flakes to blades (PO/B) for sites included in the functional analysis. All data calculated from Shea (1991) except for Nahr Ibrahim and Shanidar

The microscopic use wear analysis detailed in

this paper was conducted by the author as part of dissertation research on the convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim (Dockall 1997a). All tools had to be cleaned prior to microscopic analysis. Cleansing ranged from light rinsing in water to a bath (between



10 and 30 minutes) in a 10 percent solution of HCL and water. The light acid bath was immediately followed by immersion in plain water, then a rinse in a mild detergent solution, followed by a final water rinse. The acid bath was necessary to remove dense cave breccia and carbonate deposits. Before microscopic analysis, each tool edge and surface was lightly cleaned with ethanol (ETOH) to remove any remaining material.

All artifacts in this study were initially scanned for use wear with a Nikon Stereomicroscope with a magnification range of 7-30X. Final functional interpretations and photography were accomplished using a WILD Heerbrugg Stereomicroscope with a magnification range of 6-100X. An Erinreich MkII fiber optic light source was used with both microscopes. All tool margins and surfaces were examined for use wear.

Assemblage Levallois

EU Non-Levallois EU

Total Ratio

Scraping Central 13 15 28 .86 North 2 16 18 .12 Cutting Central 54 21 75 2.57 North 54 46 100 1.17 Distal Impact Central 9 4 13 2.25 North 8 5 13 1.60 Proximal Hafting Central 26 6 32 4.33 North 10 17 37 .58 Awling Central 3 --- 3 --- North 1 1 2 1.00

Table 3. Number of employable units (EU) of convergent tools utilized in different tool motions from the Central and North Galleries of Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon Figure 3. Polar coordinate template for recording use-wear

Evidence of Hafted Spear Points at Nahr Ibrahim Cave Convergent tools from the Central and North galleries that exhibit use wear evidence of hafting and projectile impact include both retouched and unmodified specimens (Table 4). Classic Mousterian tool types that exhibited these wear traces include Levallois points, Mousterian points, convergent scrapers and distally convergent flakes (Figures 4, 5, and 6).

Tool Type Central

Gallery North Gallery

Levallois Point 3 3 Retouched Levallois Point --- 2 Pseudo Levallois Point 1 --- Atypical Levallois Point 1 --- Mousterian Point 1 --- Converging Flake 2 1 Retouched Converging LevalloisFlake

--- 1

Converging Blade --- 1 Converging Sidescraper 1 --- Double Convex Sidescraper 1 --- Proximal Levallois Point Fragment

3 ---

Retouched Converging Non-Levallois Flake

2 ---

Totals 13 10

Table 4. Totals of different convergent tool types from the Central and North galleries with distal damage traces

Figure 4. Unretouched convergent tools from the Central Gallery with impact damage

Dockall


Figure 5. Retouched convergent tools from the Central Gallery with impact damage

Figure 6. Retouched and unretouched convergent tools from the North Gallery with impact damage



Dockall (1997a) identified three major tool motions associated with convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim. These included cutting, projectile impact, and hafting. Hafting is included here because of the unique characteristics of the wear pattern. Shea (1991:141-145) initially confirmed the use of convergent tools as hafted hunting weapons for the Levantine Mousterian. Impact damage is associated with 8.1 percent of all EU on convergent tools in the Central Gallery and 6.9 percent of all similar EU from the North Gallery at Nahr Ibrahim.

Distal Impact Traces Impact wear was identified by a distinctive variety of fractures (Dockall 1997a, 1997b). These fracture/wear types have been identified as indication of projectile impact on later prehistoric (Paleo-American, Archaic, Late Prehistoric) bifacial artifacts and flakes (see Caspar and de Bie 1996; Fischer et al. 1984; Odell and Cowan 1986; Patterson 1994; Rots and Plisson 2014). Characteristic damage traces include distal macrofracture and/or distal crushing (Figure 7A-B and Figure 8A). Macrofractures are usually greater than 5 mm in length and may propogate along a lateral edge or longitudinally down the dorsal or ventral face of the point. Occasional accessory wear traces include spin-off fractures (Figure 8B) and linear polishes (Figure 9). Each of these has been identified by experimental and archaeological studies (Caspar and de Bie 1996:442; Dockall1997b; Fischer et al. 1984; Rots and Plisson 2014). Proximal damage was identified on some specimens from Nahr Ibrahim with associated distal impact traces. Proximal damage resulted upon impact as the shaft of the spear was forcibly seated against the point base or as the point moved within the haft element. Identical wear traces have been identified on unmodified flakes and bifaces used as projectile points (Odell and Cowan 1986).

A previous functional study of retouched implements from the Nahr Ibrahim Central Gallery (Panagopolou 1985: 138, 285-286) identified two specimens that were interpreted as evidence of projectile use. Damage traces consisted of bifacial scarring, scarring transverse to the cutting edge, edge abrasion and crushing, and “burin- and flute-like impact fractures on tip and lateral edges (Panagopolou 1985:138).

Hafting Traces Hafting wear and impact traces were consistently associated at Nahr Ibrahim. Shea (1991) noted a

consistent positive correlation between the presence of hafting wear and distal damage at other Levantine Mousterian sites. Anderson-Gerfaud (1981) recognized haft wear on virtually all convergent scrapers from the French Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition at Corbiac. Several sidescrapers from Biache St. Vast also exhibited haft wear suggestive of a skin and wood haft element (Beyries 1988). Hafting wear generally includes an array of damage types that include microscarring, abrasion, bright spots (Rots 2003, 2011). Patterns of hafting wear are influenced by hafting modes and components. Clusters of microscars with feather, hinge, or step terminations characterize proximal hafting wear traces at Nahr Ibrahim (Figure 10). Occasionally, abrasion or polish of dorsal ridges and lateral edges accompanies this wear (Figure 11). Some scrapers from Nahr Ibrahim were also associated with haft wear (Panagopolou 1985).

Figure 7. Microphotographs of projectile impact damage. (A) Longitudinal macrofracture on a transverse break on NI 426-61 (width of field 35 mm). (B) Lateral macrofracture on NI 612-66 (width of field 35 mm)

Hafting traces on convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim (Dockall 1997a; Panagopolou 1985) and other Levantine Mousterian sites (Shea 1991) are similar

Dockall


among all tool functions such as cutting, scraping, or projectile tips. This suggests broadly similar patterns of hafting among different tool types. The handle portion of the tool could have been either bone or wood and bindings could have been sinew or fiber with or without mastic. Hafting is often associated with curation of stone tools and is effort expended beyond the manufacture of the stone tool and is meant to enhance tool performance. Specific techniques for hafting these implements is not currently known but based on hafting wear traces (Anderson-Gerfaud 1990; Dockall 1997a; Shea 1991) it is thought that simple wrap hafts composed of wood with sinew or fiber bindings. Virtually identical patterns of hafting could have been used for spear points or hafted cutting and scraping tools. There were no significant differences in haft wear on projectile points, scrapers, or cutting/butchery tools at Nahr Ibrahim (Dockall 1997a).

Figure 8. Microphotographs of additional types of projectile impact damage. (A) Distal crushing and step fractures on NI 426-63 (width of field 35 mm). (B) Spin-off fractures originating from a transverse fracture on NI 426-61 (width of field 35 mm)

Figure 9. Microphotograph of linear impact polish on polar coordinates 810 of NI 475-29. A lateral macrofracture runs along the left edge (width of field 35 mm)

Figure 10. Microphotographs of hafting wear. (A) Clustered perpendicular unifacial feather and step terminated microscars along edge of NI 426-60 (width of field 35 mm). (B) Clustered perpendicular and overlapping feather-terminated microscars with matte polish along edge of NI 475-29 (width of field 35 mm)



Figure 11. Bright dorsal ridge polish from contact with wooden portion of haft on NI 475-29 (width of field 35 mm)

Specific Attributes of Distal Wear The functional analysis of convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim focused on the detailed observation and recording of specific wear traits: abrasion location, dulling, luster/polish reflectivity, striation orientation, location and distribution of microfractures, microfracture termination, size, and propogation direction. These attributes provided a distinct wear profile for the distal and lateral edges of each implement. There were specific associations of wear traits that support inferences of use as hafted weapons (Table 5). The general associations of various wear types are interesting for what is and what is not represented among EU worn by distal impact. Fewer convergent implements from Nahr Ibrahim with impact damage had traces of surface or edge abrasion or dulling and any type of polish or striations. Fracture wear was characterized by transverse macrofractures identified as macrobreaks (in excess of 5-mm maximum length) propagating perpendicular to the edge (across the blade) or a mix of perpendicular and parallel to the

edge (initiating across the blade and propagating down an edge or down a blade face).

When present, the most common location of surface abrasion was on either the dorsal or ventral surface more than 5 mm from the nearest lateral edge. Admittedly, this is in contrast to some studies of projectile impact that have documented edge/surface abrasion on virtually every projectile that had been in contact with bone, soil, and stones (Odell and Cowan 1986:204). However, Odell and Cowan and other researchers (Keeley 1974; Nance 1971; Sheets 1973) warned against the exclusive use of abrasive wear as evidence of projectile impact and that it could be indicative of other functions. One possibility is that the scarcity of abrasive wear on points from Nahr Ibrahim may be related to use more as hand held thrusting weapons rather than propelled weapons. The sample of distally damaged specimens from Nahr Ibrahim is too small to examine differences between galleries. A second possibility is that the magnifications used in the analysis were not refined enough to detect finer abrasive wear traces.

Size Uniformity of Hafted Spear Points from Nahr Ibrahim Although Levalllois and non-Levallois convergent flakes and tools appear to have only occasionally served as stone weapon tips at Nahr Ibrahim, a degree of size uniformity among minimally damaged specimens could indicate a distinct functional category. Metrical analysis of bifacial darts, spears, and arrow points have demonstrated the importance of size as a distinguishing variable related to weapon function, design, technology, and style (Christenson 1986; Geneste and Maury 1997, Rondeau 1997; Shea 2006; Shott 1997 for example).

Metric variability for whole minimally damaged convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim shows some uniformity (Table 6). Even when examined by Gallery, there is still size uniformity among specimens from both areas although with minor metric differences between convergent tools/flakes produced by the Levallois versus non-Levallois techniques (Dockall 1997a: 148). Some of this unity may be related to technological properties of a distinct class of implements but also a result of blank selection for a specific function. Although Levantine Mousterian convergent tools are not characterized by a process of manufacture like bifaces and are considered an expedient flake technology, size still appears to have been an important variable.

Dockall


A variety of studies have emphasized the importance of dimensions on projectile point design and function. Projectile width is related to sharpness, point penetration, and the size of the resulting wound. Cross-sectional thickness and morphology are related to wound size and point strength. Total size is correlated with penetration efficiency, repair, and use life of the point (see Nelson 1997:377). Ultimately, these properties are also related to weapon effectiveness in incapacitating the hunted animal.

Wear Attribute Total PercentAbrasion Location

Edge-bifacial 1 4.3Point/projection-1 facet 1 4.3 Surface>5 mm from edge 4 17.4 Edge-bifacial asymmetrical 1 4.3 Absent 16 69.7

Dulling Absent 17 73.8 Roughened 5 21.7 Rounded 1 4.3 Luster/polish reflectivity Absent 14 60.9 Matte 7 30.4 Bright 2 8.7

Striation orientation Absent 19 82.6 Parallel to edge 1 4.3 Sets of parallel straie>5 mm from edge 3 13

Microfracture location One facet of point/projection 6 26.1 Opposed facets 2 8.7 Surface>5 mm from edge 1 4.3 Transverse macrofracture 10 43.5 Transverse/lateral macrofracture 3 13 Lateral 1 4.3

Microfracture distribution Alternating, bifacial, clumped 5 21.7 Macro-break 18 78.3

Microfracture termination Feather-defined finial 1 4.3 Feather-indistinct finial 1 4.3 Hinge 4 17.4 Step 4 17.4 Shear/macro/torsion/fracture 14 60.9 Hinge and step 1 4.3

Microfracture size Large>2 mm but <5 mm 3 13 Macrofracture>5 mm 20 87

Microfracture trajectory Perpendicular to edge 12 52.2 Edge-perpendicular and edge-oblique 2 8.7 Perpendicular and parallel to edge 9 39.1

Table 5. Specific wear traits among convergent tools with distal damage from North and Central galleries (combined) at Nahr Ibrahim. Values in cells refer to the number of EU (employed units) that exhibited wear

These arguments provide another possible interpretation for the scarcity of intensive retouch on distally damaged convergent implements from Nahr Ibrahim. Dimension data on these specimens probably reflects size tolerances for effective usage. Size, shape, and weight are critical variable influencing the effective performance of hafted projectile and thrusting implements.

Metric and technological data on convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim (Dockall 1997a) indicated that these specimens were not specifically designed for intensive repair or extended use-life. This appears to be in keeping with an expedient technology and a reflection of flexibility within Levantine Mousterian lithic technology (for example see Goren-Inbar and Belfer-Cohen 1998:207) and in contrast to other types of Middle Paleolithic implements such as scrapers and bifaces that often exhibit intensive retouch.

Sample

Length/ Width

Length/ Thickness

Width/ Thickness

All complete (n-14)

1.7 6.2 3.6

Central Gallery (n=7)

1.7 8.5 4.5

North Gallery (n=7)

1.7 7.7 4.6

Table 6. Technological indices of minimally-damaged convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim emloyed as hafted weapons. Levallois and non-Levallois combined

Tip Cross-Sectional Area of Convergent Tools from Nahr Ibrahim The sample of convergent tools from Nahr Ibrahim was briefly analysed using the tip cross-sectional area (TCSA) as defined and applied by Shea (2006) following Hughes (1998). Hughes had earlier determined that the TCSA was an effective measurement for discriminating among different types of stone weapon tips. Shea (2006: 824) noted that the TCSA for lenticular and triangular points is calculated as: [(0.5 x maximum width in mm) x maximum thickness in mm]. Shea calculated the TCSA for a sample of 749 Levallois points from six Levantine Middle Paleolithic sites: Tabun Cave, Skhul Cave, Rosh Ein Mor, Kebara Cave, Tor Faraj, and Yabrud Rockshelter I (2006: 830-831). The overall mean TCSA for Levallois points from all of these sites combined was 114 mm2 (SD-44); a value



well in excess of arrow points and dart points. The pattern of TCSA variability among Levantine Middle Paleolithic Levallois points was interpreted as most consistent with their use as tips for hand thrown spears or thrusting spears rather than as projectile points (Shea 2006:831).

The TCSA for Levallois points from the Central and North Galleries was calculated following Shea (2006). The results indicate that both galleries are quite comparable in values. The values for Nahr Ibrahim were also similar to those calculated by Shea (2006:832, Figure 7) for the sites of Rosh Ein Mor, Tabun B, C and D, Skhul B, Kebara, Tor Faraj, and Yabrud. This indicates that the site of Nahr Ibrahim falls within the range of variability for hafted spear points from Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic sites. Each of these in turn is comparable to TCSA values for bifacial spear points (see Shea 2006: 832, Figure 8). The mean TCSA values for each of these sites are similar (Table 7) although both galleries from Nahr Ibrahim have lower means, probably due to much smaller sample sizes.

Table 7. Statistical data on total cross-sectional area of Levallois point samples. Comparative data from Shea (2006, Tables 3-5:828, 833-834) and Shea and Sisk (2010:Table 3:109). Nahr Ibrahim data calculated for this study. Other sites included as comparative data from referenced sources

The sample of impact-damaged tools from

both galleries at Nahr Ibrahim is comprised of a mix of different types of tool blanks. But of these, 17 were manufactured from flake blanks produced

by the Levallois method. Dockall (1997a) has argued that metric data for convergent tools at Nahr Ibrahim indicates that blank selection for specific tools may have been based on size and flake morphology more than production technology. If indeed this is the case then there should be some correspondence among a variety of flakes used as thrusting/throwing spears in the TCSA values. A total of 15 impact-damaged points from Nahr Ibrahim were complete enough to calculate the TCSA which ranged from 52.58 to 258.78 and a mean TCSA of 108.82. This value is similar to Levallois points from both galleries. Although sample size limits interpretations, a general similarity among Levallois points and the variable typologies represented among impact-damaged specimens from Nahr Ibrahim suggests that size and morphology were selection factors for weapons blanks at the site.

Conclusions Research on the Nahr Ibrahim assemblage indicates that some tools functioned as hafted/hand-held multi-functional implements for processing animal resources and that some of these were employed as hunting weapons. Studies of Levantine Mousterian, Middle Paleolithic, and Middle Stone Age lithic assemblages have consistently documented the presence of distal wear traces and fracture patterns observed on convergent implements strongly suggesting the use of these implements as hunting weapons (Callow 1986; Dockall 1997a; Lazuen 2012; Lee 1987; Shea 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1991, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2006; Singer and Wymer 1982). Traces of hafting and impact wear have also been observed in some European Middle Paleolithic assemblages (Villa et al. 2009). Similarly, patterns of wear are entirely consistent with traces that have been interpreted as hafting by a number of researchers (Caspar and de Bie 1996; Odell 1979, 1981; Odell and Cowan 1986; Rots 2003, 2011) including some Middle Paleolithic specialists (Anderson-Gerfaud 1981, 1990; Beyries 1988; Beyries and Plisson 1998; Dockall 1997a, b; Rots 2011; Shea 1991).

The co-occurrences of distal wear and hafting wear at Nahr Ibrahim is strong argument for the deliberate manufacture, use, and discard of stone weapon tips during the Levantine Mousterian. By extension, this also argues for the presence of a hunting component in the lithic technology and the organized design of such weapons. The method of hafting is not known but is inferred to have

Dockall


involved mastic or wrapping and sinew or fiber bindings.

The presence of impact damage indicates that these implements were designed with some degree of reliability but the distal convergence, short length, and increased proximal width meant that much of the proximal end of the tool was in the haft. This hafting technique appears to have also been a limiting factor on the amount of rejuvenation and repair that could be done to each point. Despite this design limitation, other technological features such as the dorsal ridge/scar pattern and broad proximal area may have meant increased tensile strength of the point and resistance to breakage during use. Weapons of this type and design were most likely employed in close-in or encounter hunting and defense situations. Given rapid ease of blank production and minimal pre-haft modification necessary, rejuvenation was probably not a significant part of overall tool design. This was also characteristic of earlier spears manufactured of wood.

Characteristics of European and Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic hunting and offensive/defensive weapons suggests a similar degree of complexity between the two regions that implies a similar level of cognitive development in terms of tool design concepts and manufacturing techniques. Patterns of use may have varied regionally. Design of hunting weapons at Nahr Ibrahim appears not to have included much latitude for repair of damaged points but instead seems to have emphasized replacement of broken tips with new flakes. In this sense, the design was limited, possibly expedient, and exhibits significant technological connections to techniques used to produce convergent flakes for tool use. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my wife Laurell for patience while I worked on the revisions for this manuscript. I would also like to heartily thank Dr. Fereidoun Biglari for the invitation to submit this paper to the Journal of Iranian Archaeology and for all of his efforts to see that this paper measures up to the journal’s standards. Lorrie Cozzens is thanked for her assistance on the figures. Gratitude is also extended to the editors of the Journal of Iranian Archaeology and to anonymous reviewers of this manuscript.

References Adler, Daniel S., Guy Bar-Oz, Anna Belfer-Cohen, and Ofer Bar-Yosef 1006 “Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper

Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus”, Current Anthropology 47 (1): 89-118.

Anderson, P.C. 1979 “A Microwear Analysis of Selected Flint

Artefacts from the Mousterian of Southwest France”, Lithic Technology 9:32

1980 “A Testimony of Prehistoric Tasks:

Diagnostic Residues on Stone Tool Working Edges”, World Archaeology 12:181-194.

Anderson-Gerfaud, P. 1981 Contribution Methodologique a l’Analyse des

Microtraces d’Utilisation sur les Outils Prehistoriques, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

1990 “Aspects of Behaviour in the Middle

Paleolithic: Functional Analysis of Stone Tools from Southwest France”, In The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, edited by P. Mellars, pp. 389-418, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Bar-Yosef, O., B. Vandermeersch, B.B. Arensberg, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg, H. Laville, L. Meignen, Y. Rak, J.D. Speth, E. Tchernov, A-Marie Tillier, and S Weiner 1992 “The Excavations at Kebara Cave, Mt.

Carmel”, Current Anthropology 33:497-550.

Beyries, S. 1987 Varibilite de l’Industrie Lithique au

Mousterien: Aproche Fonctionelle sur Quelques Gisements Francais, BAR International Series 328, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

1988 “Functional Variability of Lithic Sets in the

Middle Paleolithic”, In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, H.L. Dibble and A. Montet-White (eds.), pp. 213-223. University Museum Press, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Beyries, Sylvie, and Hugues Plisson 1998 “Pointes ou outils triangulaires? Donees

fonctionnelles dans le Mousterien levantin [suivi des] Commentaires de J. Shea, A. Marks, J-M Geneste et de la reponse des auteurs”, Paleorient 24(1): 5-24.



Biglari, Fereidoun, Mohsen Javeri, Marjan Mashkour, Mehdi Yazdi, Sonia Shidrang, Margareta Tengberg, Kamal Taheri, and Jamshid Darvish 2009 “Test Excavations at the Middle Paleolithic Sites

of Qaleh Bozi, Southwest of Central Iran, A Preliminary Report”, In Iran Palaeolithic, Marcel Otte, Fereidoun Biglari, and Jacques Jaubert (eds.), pp. 29-38, BAR International Series 1968, Oxford.

Binford, L.R. 1979 “Organization and Formation Processes:

Looking at Curated Technologies”, Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3): 255-273.

1989 “Isolating the Transition to Cultural

Adaptations: An Organizational Approach”, In The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene, edited by E. Trinkaus, pp. 18-41. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Boeda, E., J. Connan, D. Dessort, S. Muhesen, N. Mercier, H. Vallada, and N. Tisnerat 1996 “Bitumen as a Hafting Material on Middle

Paleolithic Artefacts”, Nature 380:28-29.

Boeda, E., J.M Geneste, and C. Griggo, with N. Mercier, S. Muhesen, J.L. Reyss, A. Taha, and H. Valladas 1999 “A Levallois Point Embedded in the Vertebra of

a Wild Ass (Equus africanus): Hafting, Projectiles, and Mousterian Hunting Weapons”, Antiquity 73:394-402.

Bordes, F. 1961 Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen, 2

Volumes. L’Institut de Prehistoire, Universite de Bordeaux, Memoire 1. Delmas, Bordeaux.

1972 A Tale of Two Caves, Harper & Row, New

York.

Bower, B. 1997 German Mine Yields Ancient Hunting Spears,

Science News Online (http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/3_I_97/fob2.html) accessed on January 17, 2000.

Brooks, A.S., D.M. Helgren, J.S. Cramer, A. Franklin, W. Hornyak, J.M. Keating, R.G. Klein, W.J. Rink, H. Schwarcz, J.N. Leith Smith, K. Stewart, N.E. Todd, J. Verniers, and J.E. Yellen 1995 “Dating and Context of Three Middle Stone

Age Sites with Bone Points in the Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire”, Science 268:548-552.

Callow, P. 1986 “The Flint Tools: In La Cotte de St. Brelade,

1967-1978: Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney”,

P. Callow and J.M. Cornford (eds.), 251-314. Geo Books, Norwich, England.

Caspar, J-Paul, and M. De Bie 1996 “Preparing for the Hunt in the Late Paleolithic

Camp at Rekem, Belgium”, Journal of Field Archaeology 23:437-460.

Chase, P.G. 1988 “Scavenging and Hunting in the Middle

Paleolithic: The Evidence from Europe”, In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, H.L. Dibble and A. Montet-White (eds.), 225-232, University Museum Press, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

1987 “How Different was Middle Paleolithic

Subsistence? A Perspective on the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition”, In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, edited by P. Mellars and C. Stringer, pp. 321-337, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

1991 “Symbols and Paleolithic Artifacts: Style,

Standardization, and the Imposition of Arbitrary Form”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:193-214.

Churchill, Steven E., Robert G. Franciscus, Hilary A. McKean-Peraza, Julie A. Daniel, and Brittany R. Warren 2009 “Shanidar 3 Neandertal Rib Puncture Wound

and Paleolithic Weaponry”, Journal of Human Evolution 57: 163-178.

Clark, G.A., and J.M. Lindly 1989 “The Case for Continuity: Observations on the

Biocultural Transition in Europe and Western Asia”, In the Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, edited by P. Mellars and C. Stringer, pp. 626-676. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Claud, Emilie, Fereidoun Biglari, and Jacques Jaubert 2012 “Preliminary Use-wear Analysis of Several

Middle Paleolithic Points from Qaleh Bozi 3 Rockshelter, Central Iran”, Journal of Iranian Archaeology 3:7-13.

Crew, H.L. 1976 “The Mousterian Site of Rosh Ein Mor”, In

Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Vol. 1, edited by A.E. Marks, pp. 75-112, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Debenath, A. and H.L. Dibble 1993 Handbook of Paleolithic Typology, Vol. 1,

Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe.

Dockall


University Museum Press, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dockall, John E. 1997a Technological and Functional Variability of

Convergent Tools from Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon: Behavioral Implications for Levantine Mousterian Technological Organization, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

1997b “Recognition of Wear Traces Associated with

Projectile Impact: A Survey of the Experimental and Archaeological Evidence”, Journal of Field Archaeology 24:321-331.

Donahue, R.E., M.L. Murphy, and L.H. Robbins 2004 “Lithic Microwear Analysis of Middle Stone

Age Artifacts from White Paintings Rock Shelter, Botswana”, Journal of Field Archaeology 29: 155-163.

Farrand, W.R. 1994 “Confrontation of Geological Stratigraphy

and Radiometric Dates from Upper Pleistocene Sites in the Levant”, In Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and R.S. Kra, pp. 33-53. Radiocarbon, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Fischer, A., P.V. Hansen and P. Rasmussen 1984 “Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic

Projectile Points”, Journal of Danish Archaeology 3:19-46.

Gaudzinski, S. 1999 “Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools from the Open-

Air Site Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany)”, Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 125-141.

Gowlett, J.A.J. 1984 “Mental Abilities of Early Man: A Look at

Some Hard Evidence”, In Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology, edited by R. Foley, pp. 167-192. Academic Press, New York.

Hayden, B. 1993 “The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals: A

Review and Re-Evaluation”, Journal of Human Evolution 24:113-146.

Henry, D.O. 1992 “Transhumance During the Late Levantine

Mousterian”, In The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, H.L. Dibble and P. Mellars (eds.), pp. 143-162, The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Hughes, S.S. 1996 “Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Changes in

Prehistoric Weaponry”, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:345-408.

Knudson, R. 1973 Organizational Variability in Late Paleo-

Indian Assemblages, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.

Jaubert, J., F. Biglari, V. Mourre, L. Bruxelles, J.-G. Bordes, S. Shidrang, R. Naderi, M. Mashkour, B. Maureille, J.-B. Mallye, Y. Quinif, W. Rendu, and V. Laroulandie 2009 “The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Mar-

Tarik, A New Zagros Mousterian Site in Bisotun Massif (Kermanshah, Iran)”, In Iran Palaeolithic, Marcel Otte, Fereidoun Biglari, and Jacques Jaubert, pp. 7-27, BAR International Series 1968, Oxford.

Kolosov, Y. 1990 “The Mousterian Leaf Points in Crimea:

Classification, Chronology, Origins”, In Les Industries a Pointes Foliacees du Paleolithique Superieur Europeen, Krakow 1989, E.R.A.U.L. No. 42, Liege.

Lazuen, Talia 2012 “European Neanderthal Stone Hunting Weapons

Reveal Complex Behaviour Long Before the Appearance of Modern Humans”, Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2304-2311.

Lee, C.M. 1987 A Functional Analysis of Levallois Points

from Two Middle Paleolithic Sites in South Jordan: Results and Interpretations, Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Lieberman, D.E. 1993 “The Rise and Fall of Seasonal Mobility Among

Hunter-Gatherers”, Current Anthropology 34(5): 599-631.

Lieberman, D.E., and J.J. Shea 1994 “Behavioral Differences between Archaic and

Modern Humans in the Levantine Mousterian”, American Anthropologist 96(2): 300-332.

Lindly, J.M., and G.A. Clark 1990 “Symbolism and Modern Human Origins”,

Current Anthropology 31(3): 233-261. Loi, Cinzia, and Vittoria Brizzi 2011 “New Approaches to the Experimentation on

the Impact of Lithic Projectile Points”, In



Experiments with Past Materialities, D. Gheorgiu and G. Children (eds.), BAR International Series 2302. Oxford.

Mazza, Peter Paul Anthony, Fabio Martini, Benedetto Sala, Maurizio Magi, Maria Perla Colombini, Gianna Giachi, Francesco Landucci, Cristina Lemorini, Francesca Modugno and Erika Ribechini 2006 “A New Paleolithic Discovery: Tar-hafted Stone

Tools in a European Mid-Pleistocene Bone-bearing Bed”, Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1310-1318.

Mellars, P. 1989a “Technological Changes Across the Middle-

Upper Paleolithic Transition: Economic, Social, and Cognitive Perspectives”, In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin of Modern Humans, P. Mellars and C. Stringer (eds.), pp. 338-365. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland.

1989b “Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern

Humans”, Current Anthropology 30(3): 349-385.

1996 Neanderthal Legacy, Princeton University

Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Montagu, A. 1976 “Toolmaking, Hunting, and the Origin of

Language”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280:266-274.

Movius, H.L., Jr. 1954 “A Wooden Spear of the Third Interglacial

Age from Lower Saxony”, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6: 139-142.

Oakley, K.P., L.H. Keeley, and J.D. Clark 1977 “A Reappraisal of the Clacton Spearpoint”,

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:13-30.

O’Connell, J.F., K. Hawkes, K.D. Lupo, N.G. Blurton Jones 2002 “Male Strategies and Plio-Pleistocene

Archaeology”, Journal of Human Evolution 43: 831-872.

Odell, G.H. 1977 The Application of Micro-Wear Analysis to the

Lithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems, and Functional Reconstructions\, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Boston. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

1979 “A New and Improved System for the Retrieval of Functional Information from Microscopic Observations of Chipped Stone Tools”, In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 329-383. Academic Press, New York.

Odell, G.H., and F. Cowan 1986 “Experimentation with Spears and Arrows

using Animal Targets”, Journal of Field Archaeology 13:195-212.

Panagopolou, H. 1985 Form Versus Function: Lithic Use-Wear

Analysis and Its Application to a Class of Levantine Mousterian Tools, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York.

Patterson, L.W. 1994 “Identification of Unifacial Arrow Points”,

Journal of the Houston Archeological Society 108:19-24.

Porat, N. and Schwartz, H.P. 1991 “Use of Signal Subtraction Methods in ESR

Dating of Burned Flint”, Nuclear Tracks Radiation Measurement 18(1-2): 203-212.

Ready, Elspeth 2010 “Neandertal Man the Hunter: A History of

Neandertal Subsistence”, Explorations in Anthropology 10(1): 58-80.

Ronen, A. 1992 “The Emergence of Blade Technology:

Cultural Affinities”, In The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia, T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and T. Kimura (eds.), pp. 217-228. Hokusen-Sha, Tokyo.

Rots, Veerle 2003 “Towards an Understanding of Hafting: the

Macro- and Microscopic Evidence”, Antiquity 77 (298): 805-815.

2011 “Tool Use and Hafting in the Western European Middle Paleolithic”, In Le Paleolithique Moyen En Belgique: Melanges Marguerite Ulrix-Closset. Bulletin des Chercheurs De La Wallonie, Hors-Serie No. 4: 277-287. Liege, Belgium.

Rots, Veerle, and Hugues Plisson 2014 “Projectiles and the Abuse of the Use-Wear

Method in a Search for Impact”, Journal of Archaeological Science 48:154-165.

Shea, John J. 1988a “Spear Points from the Middle Paleolithic of the

Levant”, Journal of Field Archaeology 15:441-450.

Dockall


1989a “A Functional Study of the Lithic Industries Associated with Hominid Fossils in the Kebara and Qafzeh Caves, Israel”, In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the origins of Modern Humans, P. Mellars and C. Stringer (eds.), pp. 611-625, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland.

1989b “Tool Use in the Levantine Mousterian of

Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel. Mitekufat Haeven”, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22:15-30.

1990 “A Further Note on Mousterian Spear Points”,

Journal of Field Archaeology 17:111-114.

1991 The Behavioral Significance of Levantine Mousterian Industrial Variability, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

1997 “Middle Paleolithic Spear Point Technology”,

In Projectile Technology, H. Knecht (ed.), pp. 79-106, Plenum Press, New York.

1998 “Neandertal and Early Modern Human

Behavioral Variability: A Regional-Scale Approach to Lithic Evidence for Hunting in the Levantine Mousterian”, Current Anthropology 39: S45-S78.

2006 “The Origins of Lithic Projectile Point

Technology: Evidence from Africa, the Levant and Europe”, Journal of Archaeological Science 33:823-846.

Singer, R., and J. Wymer 1979 The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth

in South Africa. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Solecki, R.S. 1970 “Summary Report of the Columbia University

Prehistoric Investigations in Lebanon, Season 1969”, Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth 23:95-128.

1975 “The Middle Paleolithic Site of Nahr Ibrahim

(Asfourieh Cave) in Lebanon”, In Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, edited by F. Wendorf and A. E. Marks, pp. 283-295, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.

Toth, N. and K.D. Schick 1986 “The First Million Years: The Archaeology of

Protohuman Culture”, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 9, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 1-96. Academic Press, New York.

Villa, Paola, Paolo Boscato, Filomena Ranaldo and Annamaria Ronchitelli 2009 “Stone Tools for the Hunt: Points with Impact

Scars from a Middle Paleolithic Site in Southern Italy”, Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 850-859.

Wynn, T.G. 1991 “Archaeological Evidence for Modern

Intelligence”, In The Origins of Human Behavior, edited by R.A. Foley, pp. 52-66. Unwin Hyman, Boston.

Yellen, J.E., A.S. Brooks, E. Cornelissen, M.J. Mehlman, and K. Stewart 1995 “A Middle Stone Age Worked Bone Industry

from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire”, Science 268:553-556.

Zumoffen, G. 1900 La Phenicie Avant Les Phenciens. L’Age de la

Pierre. Imprimerie Catholique, Beirut, Lebanon.

Convergent Tools from the Mousterian Site of Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon: Use-Wear Evidence

Documents

Transcript of Convergent Tools from the Mousterian Site of Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon: Use-Wear Evidence