Cores on flakes and bladelet production, a question of recycling? The perspective from the Hummalian...

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International 361 (2015) 155e177

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Cores on flakes and bladelet production, a question of recycling?The perspective from the Hummalian industry of Hummal, CentralSyria

Dorota Wojtczak a, b, *

a Universit�e Nice Sophia Antipolis, SJA3 e CEPAM e UMR 7264 CNRS, Nice, Franceb University of Basel, IPAS, Basel, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 7 November 2014

Keywords:El KowmMiddle PalaeolithicHummalianBlade industryLithic industriesNahr Ibrahim

* Universit�e Nice Sophia Antipolis, SJA3 e CEPAMFrance.

E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.10.0211040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

a b s t r a c t

The excavation of the spring site at Hummal, located in the region of El Kowm (Central Syria) is areference site for the Palaeolithic in the interior Levant due to its archaeological sequence of depositsfrom the Lower to Upper Palaeolithic. This paper presents some principal data on the Hummalian culture,originating from the systematic excavation of in situ archaeological layers between 2001 and 2010.

While the Hummalian is synonymous for the primary production of large-sized blades, anotherinteresting feature that needs to be highlighted is the variation of reuse during on-site production. Thepractice is documented throughout Hummalian occupations and is observed through the recycling ofblanks and by-products of the main reduction strategy for production of secondary blanks, patinateditems for shaping new tools, using the Yabrudian scrapers as a cores and shaping exhausted cores for tooluse.

The main focus here will be on the presence of numerous core-burins and cores on flake includingtruncated-faceted pieces. The former are in the author's opinion the evidence of recycling and their endproducts, namely bladelets represent desired components supplementary to the repertoire of variousspecimens recovered from Hummalian layers and could suggest easily portable implements. The lattergroup, cores on flake, seems to represent a subdivision of the reduction system carried out on-site ratherthan a concept of recycling.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Ideally, every artefact during its life takes part in five processes:procurement, manufacture, use, maintenance, and discard. How-ever, many archaeologists state that not all lithic items seem tofollow this linear path through its life cycle, sometimes even beingredirected back through a stage which they have already passed.Many authors, with the seminal work of Schiffer (1972, 1976, 1977)at the forefront, have proposed definitions of varieties of reuseincluding the recycling process and its related terminology (Amick,2007; Camilli and Ebert, 1992; Baker, 2007). Regardless of the lackof common agreement as how to precisely define recycling, it isevident that the notion of recycling is a particular form of reuse and

e UMR 7264 CNRS, Nice,

reserved.

its role in prehistoric economies was a significant factor recognizedin many archaeological sites.

Some ethnological (e.g. Gould, 1977; Camilli and Ebert, 1992)and archaeological sources (e.g. Dibble and McPherron, 2006,Barkai et al., 2010; Vaquero, 2011), note the importance of lithicrecycling for ancient societies, even if the unequivocal identifica-tion of this action in archaeological context is often limited. Itsidentification can be crucial in the interpretation of mobility, siteoccupation pattern and procurement of lithic resources influencingthe prehistoric stone economies (Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Kuhn,1995).

The term recycling is also associated with curated technologies,as both seem to be influenced by procurement strategies and can beseen in the variety of technological traditions (McAnany, 1988).Furthermore, recycling along with maintenance, are regarded astwo aspects of lithic curation and may appear as a response to theshortage of available rawmaterial (Bamforth,1986). However, sincethe recycled item had to be discarded after the first use and thenselected again, both recycling and maintenance are very different

mailto:[email protected]

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2014.10.021&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.10.021



D. Wojtczak / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 155e177156

processes. The recycled specimen does not represent an extensionof the use-life of an artefact like the action of resharpening, but thebeginning of the new use-life after the first one has beencompleted.

The definition of curation has been a matter of discussionfrom the moment the term was coined by Binford in 1973.His concept has seen both extensive repetition and severe criti-cism (Bamforth, 1986, 1991; Shott, 1986, 1996; Andrefsky, 1994;Odell, 1996). Imprecision in his original description of theconcept has meant that researchers use it in their own way, andas a result curation now has many different definitions in thepublished literature. Shott (1996) proposed a new definition ofcuration, seeing it as a continuous variable and a property oftools, not of entire assemblages. In 2009 Binford defined‘curation:

“… the degree to which technology is maintained, the amount oflabour investment in the design and production of tools so as toensure them a long use life.” (Binford, 2009; 465).

The concept of recycling as a form of reuse was developed bySchiffer (1972,1976,1977) to emphasise stages of “life history” of anartefact and to establish the connection between human behav-ioural patterns and the archaeological framework. To avoid termi-nological confusion, the terms recycling and curation employed inthis study are defined thus:

Recycling is the process by which an artefact completing its firstuse-life is yet again selected for use, starting its second use-life. Itcan be perceived in archaeological records when:

1. An existing specimen (often exhausted or discarded) serves as acore for the manufacture of a usable item (or items) or ismodified for a new function in respond to new situation;

2. A lithic artefact is scavenged from different archaeological ho-rizon and reused, reshaped or used as a core.

In this study, curation is seen as a concept including productionof the implement and maintenance throughout its life, extendingthe use-life of the artefact.

The aim of this paper is to observe recycling and its importanceto the behavioural patterns originating from the Hummalianoccupation. It will mainly examine the presence of numerous coreson flake and core-burins as well as their end products, namelybladelets.

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of El-Kowm.

Reference will be made primarily to the results from lithicanalysis of the richer layers 6b and sand ah, but the observationsfrom other less rich layers have been also taken in account. Theestimated TL age for Hummalian is approximately 200 ka. Thecontext age assessment for the heated flints from layer ah give aminimum model of 190 ± 35 ka and a maximum model of210 ± 40 ka (Richter, 2006; Richter et al., 2011).

2. The site and its surroundings

Hummal, called also Bir Onusi, is one of five sites in the El Kowmarea in Central Syria where Hummalian artefacts were identified(Fig. 1). A systematic excavation of the Hummalian cultural horizonwas only undertaken on the artesian spring sites of Hummal.

Preliminary surveys at the site led to the discovery of severalarchaeological levels in the interior well deposits; within them anew culture labelled ‘Hummalian’was identified in the lowest layer(Hummal Ia) (Bucellatti and Buccellatti, 1967; Cauvin et al., 1979;Besançon et al., 1981; Besançon and Sanlaville, 1991). Between1982 and 1997, regular investigations of the site, its stratigraphyand the archaeological material were undertaken by researchers aspart of a French Permanent Mission in El-Kowm (Hours, 1982;Bergman and Ohnuma, 1983; Copeland, 1985) and since 1997 as aSyrio-Swiss archaeological project led by Jean-Marie Le Tensorerand Sultan Muhesen (Le Tensorer, 2004). Exploration primarilyconcentrated on the Hummalian material, describing it as a bladeculture prior to the Levallois-Mousterian.

The site of Hummal is one of the artesian spring sites related tofaults in the substratum, discovered in the El Kowm region (CentralSyria). 20% of the sites known in the area of El-Kowm are springsites, showing excellent preservation for Palaeolithic open-air sites.This is due to rapid build-up of fine sediments. Actions of springscombined with the wind action and human activity frequentlycaused the formation of a hillock around the spring. The currentinhabitants of El-Kowm often dig new wells on these raised points,which helped to identify several archaeological sites of thick stra-tigraphy, such as Hummal (Besançons et al., 1981, 1982; Le Tensoreret al., 2001). Other regional sites are mainly surface scatters of flinttools, providing little information on the settlement structure.

The site is in direct contact with the old artesian spring whichwas active for more than 780,000 years (the geological sequenceinvestigated paleomagnetically by J. J. Villalain from BarcelonaUniversity indicates the horizon of Brunhes-Matuyama for theLower Palaeolithic) until the early 1980s (oral communication J.M.Le Tensorer). It supplied water to a pool of variable size. The waterlevel varied according to the periods (wet and arid) and played a bigrole in the sediment formation of the site and the conservation ofarchaeological levels. The majority of the sediment containsmicritic loam, directly precipitated from the water. The sedimentbuilt up not only during the high water levels but also during thedecreasing water level when the depression of the dried pool andremaining plant cover around catch the loose wind driven sand,creating the considerable accumulations of aeolian sand which wassubsequently displaced in the centre of thewater (Le Tensorer et al.,2007). Humans settled continuously in the vicinity from Lower toUpper Palaeolithic, attracted by water, animals, and high qualityEocene flint.

Two main geological flint types were identified in the El-Kowmarea. In the south exists an Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) flinttype recognized in the Cretaceous formation of Palmyrides range(the north side of the Jebel Mqabra) and in the north, a Palaeoceneand Lower Eocene flint type documented in the Paleogene forma-tion of Jebal Bishri. These two horizons of flint have been formed onthe same open marine carbonate shelf and have a parallel geolog-ical genesis (Julig and Long, 2001). The deposits of the Paleogene

Fig. 2. Availability of flint raw material and site distribution in the region of El-Kowm. Grey circle: open-air sites; yellow circle: secondary outcrops, red square: primary outcrops.Cartography and underlying research: R. Jagher. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 3. Location of excavation surfaces (2000e2005 and 2009) covering the Humma-lian deposits at Hummal.

D. Wojtczak / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 155e177 157

are rich in high quality flint and emerge around the El-Kowm areawith a maximum distance of 15 km from the identified prehistoricsites (Fig. 2). The microfossil analyses indicate two types of supplyto the Paleogene: flint nodules that are in a primary deposit andweathered flint nodules transferred onto lower terraces by thewadis. This type of flint is very fine grained and excellent quality forknapping. Its colour varies from black to light brown with a white,sometimes red cortex. The nodule size fluctuates from a few cen-timetres up to tens of centimetres, and are very heterogeneous,forming both nodules and plates.

The Cretaceous flint deposits appear in the form of bands, lensesand nodules, which can be exposed by erosion of the parent rock.The bands of reddish-grey colour flint, without cortex, are usuallytectonically deformed, veined, and exhibit numerous breaks. Theyare of low quality for knapping tools. They are positioned at adistance of 10e15 km from the prehistoric sites. It appears that bothsources of flint were easily available, but the humans used mainlythe high quality Lower Eocene flint for tool making which seems tobe exploited consistently throughout the Palaeolithic.

The survey of the primary flint outcrops of the region and theirsurroundings demonstrated that all varieties of nodule types andcolours occur in all major outcrops. The mineralogical and micro-fossil composition of Eocene flint is very similar between the out-crops and thus it is not possible to define the local groups of diverseflint and set any precise place where the prehistoric peoplecollected their raw material. As a consequence it is problematicfrom the perspective of proving a possible provisioning strategy inthe region (Diethelm, 1996; Julig and Long, 2001). The otherpossible material for tool making is limestone, which can be foundwith Eocene flint outcrops. It can be well silicified and its largeblocks are appropriate for knapping. The origin of limestone used inHummal is unknown. The possible source of this material is thealluvial deposits uncovered from somewells in the area of Hummal.

The raw material used in Hummalian layers is approximately99% local Lower Eocene flint from the El Kowm area, the remainderbeing made from Cretaceous flint and limestone. The occurrence oflithic items which bear a weathered cortex or neocortex give

evidence of the use of flint gathered in secondary contexts. Thisstrategy is represented in differing proportions in all layers. In richassemblages, the amount of neocortex does not exceed 30% of allcortical items. An additional source of raw material apart from the


provisioning outside of Hummal was the flint found on site, left bythe previous occupants. This is noticeable in the presence of doublepatinated items, reuse of exhausted cores, broken blanks, debris,and flakes for secondary production.

3. Material and methods

3.1. Archaeological context

Surface excavations only began in 2001, continuing until 2005,and following a hiatus were restarted again in 2009 until 2010. Thefieldwork focused on the western, eastern and later, the southernpart of Hummal, an excavation area covering 28 m2 in total (Fig. 3).

Fig. 4. Profile 34 documenting the Hummalian s

Three separate stratigraphical sequences were documented andwere well correlated between each, exhibiting only minor differ-ences. The stratigraphic position of Hummalian between the Yab-rudian and Mousterian was confirmed in all sectors (Fig. 4).

The site was repeatedly occupied, but the density of thearchaeological remains between layers is variable (Table 1). This isconnected to the limited extent of the excavation and possiblydiffering intensities of occupation. During Hummalian occupations,the levels with high-density artefacts are related to the period ofwater regression and reduced spring activity and the low-densitylevels to periods of significant freshwater input, leading to a pro-longed lake system. These observations together with the resultsfrom the study of lithics suggest that the changing local

equence in the Western section of Hummal.


environment influenced the site function. The length of occupationin different layers in the Hummalian horizon is difficult to ascertain,but the high concentration of items in layer 6b and 6a seems to berelated to successive occupation episodes without clear interme-diate layers and the lower density of artefacts in layers 7a, 7c and6c2 corresponds to shorter-term occupations.

Table 1Density of artefacts in the Hummalian layers.

Layer 6a 6b 6c2 7a 7c

Excavated surface (m2) 10 14 2 14 18Density (item per m3) 241 2682 137 19 50Fauna (artefacts �2 cm) 6 51 6 13 29Lithics (artefacts �2 cm) 476 3704 186 41 332

The sequence also contains a massive sand deposit (ah) in theheart of the doline (Fig. 5). The geological observations show thatthis sand intercalates between the Yabroudian layer 8 and Hum-malian layers 7 (Le Tensorer, 2004; 229) and does not mix withother layers. This assemblage is homogenous and presents alltechnological features observed in the in situ layers, and thereforeappears to be of the same technological tradition (Wojtczak, 2014).The lithic analysis concerned 10,305 artefacts of which 7411 camefrom in situ layers and 2894 from the sandy layer ah (Table 2).

Table 2Inventory of analysed Hummalian assemblages.

Layers 6a 6b 6c2 7a 7c 6A1-2 6B ah

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Flakes 63 17% 252 8% 9 6% 4 12.9% 35 21.1% 6 14.0% 5 14.7% 153 9.3%Retouched flakes 73 2% 2 1% 1 3.2% 4 2.4% 3 7.0% 2 5.9% 44 2.7%Unretouched blades 221 60% 1422 45% 44 28% 12 38.7% 49 29.7% 16 37.2% 10 29.4% 545 33.1%Retouched blades 11 3% 275 9% 19 12% 1 3.2% 9 5.5% 6 14.0% 11 32.4% 323 19.6%Bladelets 17 5% 107 3% 11 7% 1 3.2% 16 9.7% 2 4.7% 100 6.1%Core Trimming Elements 54 15% 1021 32% 70 45% 12 38.7% 52 31.5% 10 23.3% 6 17.6% 484 29.4%Sum of debitage and shaped items 366 100% 3150 100% 155 100% 31 100% 165 100% 43 100% 34 100% 1649 100%Cores 4 196 7 2 5 5 7 89D�ebris >2 cm 106 342 4 6 84 215Chips �2 cm 13 20 143 84 30 13 462D�ebris <2 cm 816 1165 114 263 25 474Hammerstone 7 5 1 5Total 1292 4873 300 182 606 79 79 2894

4. Results

4.1. Characteristics of the Hummalian industry

The detailed technological analysis of Hummalian industry waspresented elsewhere (Wojtczak, 2011, 2014) and therefore only asummary of results will be offered here. The lithic assemblagesfrom all the Hummalian layers seem to represent similar techno-logical and typological features. The common flaking technique isdirect percussion with a hard hammer. The unidirectional flakingsystem dominates in all layers, but bidirectional is also well rep-resented. The goal of productionwas elongated blanks regardless oftheir size, with the mean length/width from 2.7 to 3. The manu-factured blank blades encompass a number of specimens withdifferent morphologies. They can have high triangular or trape-zoidal cross-sections or be flat, narrow or broad, thick or thin. Mostbutts are slightly faceted or plain, but several present a cautiouslyfaceted platform. These blanks, although looking morphologicallydifferent e either prismatic or Levallois e seem to be the result of asingle reduction strategy involving different kinds of core volume

management. These can be structured into two principal types:frontal and semi-rotating. Reduction begins often at the intersec-tion of one wide and narrow part of the nodule following a naturalridge. The flaking surface of such cores, usually arranged to thelength of the nodule, onto the convex, elongated and narrow face,could be expanded on its lateral sides during flaking. The differentorientations of the flaking surface on the cores leads to a produc-tion of morphologically different but always elongated blanks andat the same time it seems to be an adaptation relating to the shapeof the nodule or flake. Faceting was used for rejuvenation of thecore platform. Additionally, management of the flaking surface wasregularly attained by the removal of a flake edge along a natural orcortical ridge, and occasionally by secondary crested blades. Asblank production was carried out until exhaustion of the core, theassemblage includes blanks with a size scale ranging from blades tobladelets. However, there was also a separate production of bla-delets from core-burins, and bladelet cores and blanks of differentsize from truncated-faceted pieces. All these elements indicate alevel of complexity in blank production. Although blade reductionwas certainly dominant in the Hummalian industry primary flakingprocesses, the two additional reductions are also clearly identifi-able. The retouched tools, made mainly on blades and less often onflakes, seem to be quite standardised in their metrical and non-metrical attributes, both between the assemblages and the toolscategories. The tool-kit from all layers comprises of retouched

blades, often converging in the distal part and also frequentlypointed by retouch; that is, Mousterian tool-type scrapers andnotches/denticulate, and also Upper Palaeolithic types such as endscrapers. Hummalian assemblages also show various origins ofreuse of lithic artefacts at Hummal. An evaluation of this phe-nomenon follows.

4.2. Cores on flake

Habitually detached flake from a regular nodule core is regardedas end-product of reduction strategy. If the flake is transformed intocore, it becomes a source of raw material for manufacturinganother flake. Such cores on flake seem to fit the definition ofrecycling but this phenomenon requires special attention. It hasbeen demonstrated that cores on flake share the same concept ofcore reduction with nodule cores on many Palaeolithic sites andtherefore can be regarded as a part of single production process(Goren-Inbar, 1990; Bourguignon et al., 2004; Hovers, 2007; Hauck,2010), where products from primary reduction are secondarily

Fig. 5. Profile documenting the stratigraphical position of sand ah between layers 8and 7c (redrawn after Le Tensorer, 2002).


exploited in order to obtain other blanks. Such an action is a part ofthe strategy within the chaîne op�eratoire.

In total, 228 cores were discovered from in situ layers 6a, 6b, 6c2,7a, 7c, 6A1-2 and 6B, and 89 from sandy Layer ah (Table 3). Coresmade on flakes and debris are numerous in Hummalian layers, 52%in the case of Layer 6b and 55% of all cores in sand ah. Debris isconsidered here as chunks of lithic material removed from corewhich does not fit the definition of flake, having neither an iden-tifiable platform nor dorsal and ventral faces. Correspondingly flakeor debris which show one or more distinct negative left by a blankremoval was considered as core on flake. Some technologicalphenomena can cause an accidental removal of small flakes (Jelineket al. 1971; Dag and Goren-Inbar, 2001) and expand the number ofidentified ‘purposeful’ cores on flake. To reduce such errors, flakeswith only one negative visible on their surface were branded ascores on flake if a secondary flake were manufactured after astriking platform had been prepared, indicating intent. Further-more, the accidental removal of flake usually occurs in the bulbararea of flakes, and in the case of the Hummalian assemblages coreson flakes were exploited commonly on their dorsal face.

Table 3Frequency of cores categories in Hummalian layers.

Layer On block On flake Bladelet cores Core-burins Total

n % n % n % n %

6a 3 75% 1 0% 46b 94 48% 53 27% 8 4% 41 21% 1966c-2 2 29% 1 14% 2 29% 2 29% 77a 2 100% 27c 4 57% 3 43% 76A1-2 2 40% 2 40% 1 20% 56B 1 14% 5 71% 1 14% 7ah 40 45% 35 39% 14 16% 89

Three strategies were used to exploit flakes as cores. One isclassifiable as a Laminar method, when the management of coreson flake follow the technological concepts that were applied tonodule cores. A second uses the Nahr Ibrahim preparation, and athird is defined by the removal of a narrow bladelets, from the edgeof a flake or debris or from bladelet cores.

4.2.1. Laminar cores on flakeThe identified flaking methods showed that a portion of cores

on flake follow the reduction strategy observed on cores made onnodule (Laminar cores) and were classified as Laminar cores onflake. This group is well represented and was used to flake regularlarge and small blanks. The rather large and elongated flint itemswere manufactured on site, selected by the flintknapper and struckon their dorsal, or occasionally on the ventral face. The selectionseems to be determined by the thickness and overall morphology ofthe piece. The chosen items had regularly a triangular cross-section,with a convex flaking surface formed between the back and the sideof item. A comparison between Laminar cores on flake and regularLaminar cores made on nodule displays a remarkable similarityregarding their morphology, their minimum size, and the size ofthe last scars visible on their dorsal surfaces. Hence, Laminar coreson nodule and on flake present no differentiating metric featureswith respect to blankmanufacture at the end of their use life (Fig. 6)and are be regarded as a part of main reduction strategy under-taken on site. In this, they cannot be regarded as recycled items,because their production was a part of the main chaine op�eratoireexercised on site.

4.2.2. Cores on flake with Nahr Ibrahim preparationThe group contains items made of flake with a particular

preparation: the removal of small flakes on one face creates astriking platform for flake removals on the opposite face. Suchpreparation can appear on proximal and/or distal parts or infre-quently on the sides. They represent so called truncated-facetedpieces (Schroeder, 1969; 396e403) or using the techniquelabelled Nahr Ibrahim (NI) (Solecki and Solecki, 1979). There arethree hypotheses to consider these very characteristic specimens.The first perceives the retouch on the ventral face as made forfunctional purposes. Semenov (1964; 63, Fig. 65) proposed such aninterpretation after analysing Kostienki knives, and later Dibble(1984; 29) who studied the Mousterian industry of Bistun Cavedrew similar conclusions. The second assumption is that the NItechnique was used to thin the lithic specimen intended for hafting(Schroeder, 1969; 29, Crew, 1976; 109, No€el-Soriano et al., 2001; 24,Fig. 17). The latter hypothesis is that such modificationwas used forcore preparation and that these specimens are cores for flakeproduction (cf. Newcomer and Hivernel-Guerre, 1974; Nishiaki,1985; Goren-Inbar, 1988, 2007; Hovers, 2007; Hauck, 2010). Roseand Ralph Solecki proposed a typological list of NI pieces andsuggested that this kind of technique could be used for variouspurposes: for hafting or for core preparation when flint knapperwanted to strike a flake from another flake, hence this piece becamea core on flake (Solecki and Solecki, 1979).

Lack of traceological studies of truncated-faceted pieces fromHummal does not help in their interpretation. Consideringnumerous ethnographic examples (Clark, 1958; Gallagher, 1977;Rule and Evans, 1985) the pieces with sole proximal thinning,usually associated with bulbar removal, could be regarded as amorphological adaptation to fit a certain haft. However, the NIpreparation often (more than half of truncated-faceted pieces)occurs onmultiple edges of the same lithic item, and the hypothesisthat it is a hafting adaptation seems to be rather unreliable.

The truncated pieces presented in Hummalian layers occur onitems of different morphology (blades and flakes) but the majority

Fig. 6. Selected artefacts from Layer 6b. 1, 3 e Laminar cores on flake; 2, 4 e Laminar cores on nodule.


in sand ah is elongated. In the present study, these truncated-faceted specimens were classified as cores on flake with NI prep-aration. The metrical properties of all cores categories versus blankssuggested such a classification. Furthermore, their dorsal scarpattern seems to be dependent on the location of truncation. If thetruncation was set on the proximal part of blank, the reduction isunidirectional, scars coming from a single direction from truncationonto the dorsal face of the blank. If truncation has been accom-plished on the proximal and distal part of the item, the reduction isbidirectional.

The use of NI technique is visible in seven of the eight Hum-malian layers, which comprises 42 specimens. They were truncatedand then faceted on either the proximal or distal ends or both. Thetruncation set on side(s) of specimen is sporadic; only three itemsdemonstrate such configuration. The prepared edge serves as aplatform. In all pieces the faceted platform is situated on the ventralface, if applied to the proximal end, the faceting removed the bulb.The angle between prepared platform and dorsal face varies be-tween 105 and 130�. There are 23 bidirectional pieces and 19 uni-directional. There are six NI pieces made on retouched support anda couple clearly manufactured on previously discarded items asvisible thanks to their double patination (Fig. 7: 2). In all cases, thedorsal surface was used for blank production which seems to beoften relatedwith the presence of parallel ridges. Such guide-ridges

facilitate detachments of secondary blanks. However, recent refit-ting of a small workshop from Layer 7c (Wojtczak and Demidenkoin preparation) shows that aside from the main reduction strategy,the deliberate production of a series of small (between 1 and 2 cm)Janus/Kombewa specimens from other Janus flakes was also un-dertaken. These are very similar to the small, double ventral Janus/Kombewa flakes, discovered in Qesem Cave and described as hand-held cutting tools used in meat-processing (Barkai et al., 2010).

Comparing metrical data (length, width, thickness and index ofrelative thickness) of all core types and blanks with NI pieces fromLayers 6b and sand ah (Figs. 8 and 9), the source for manufacturingof NI, as well as core-burins and Laminar cores on flake were blanksfound on the site, completed in situ throughout the extensivereduction of cores on nodules (Wojtczak, 2014: 147e148). In bothlayers, themedian length of NI is bigger than of Laminar cores, core-burins and blank flakes, but smaller than of retouched blanks andblade blanks. The median width of NI in layer 6b is greater than allselected artefacts (Figs. 10 and 11) including retouched blanks. Insand ah, the median width of NI is smaller than Laminar cores andblank flakes, but larger than core-burins and retouched blanks. Themedian thickness of NI in both layers is smaller than other corescategories but larger than retouched and non-retouched blanks(Figs. 12 and 13). The index of relative thickness ((RT ¼ t/0.5*(L þW), the thickness was measured at the artefact's midpoint

Fig. 7. Selected recycled artefacts made on patinated items from Layers 6b and sandah. 1 e core made on flake; 2 e unidirectional NI made on blade fragment.

Fig. 9. Length of cores and blanks in sand ah.


and L and W are the artefact's length and width respectively, afterWeber, 1991) shows a very similar value in both layers for all coresmade on flakes (NI, Laminar and core-burins), and the cores neverattain the minimum value of index relative thickness of blanks. Asexpected, this value is the highest for cores on nodule (Figs. 14 and

Fig. 8. Length of cores and blanks in Layer 6b. Fig. 10. Width of cores and blanks in Layer 6b.

Table 4The mean number of negatives (�2 cm) visible on the upper face of completeLaminar cores and NI in layers 6b and sand ah (in parentheses the number of intactitems).

6b Laminar cores on nodule (69) Laminar cores on flake (34) NI (14)

Mean 4.0 3.5 3.0Median 4.0 3.0 3.0sd 1.1 1.0 0.8Max 9.0 6.0 4.0Min 3.0 2.0 2.0

Sand ah Laminar cores on nodule (40) Laminar cores on flake (17) NI (18)


Fig. 11. Width of cores and blanks in sand ah.Fig. 12. Thickness of cores and blanks in sand ah.


15). It appears the flintknapper sought relatively large and thickitems to set up truncation. The lower median length of Laminarcores versus NI can be explained by their extensive on site reduc-tion, and in any case at the end of their use-life they are still thickerthan NI. Looking at all metric properties, the smaller blanks interms of length and thickness (and in the case of layer 6b alsowidth) were avoided in the course of choosing specimens to beused for secondary production, with an exception of core-burins.

Another point of interest when comparing different type ofcores is the amount of cortex visible on their surfaces. As a rule, it isassumed to decrease as reduction progresses. The NI items arealmost totally deprived of cortical coverage in both collections.There are three pieces in Layer 6b and two in sand ah showinggenerally small amounts (less than 20%) of cortex on their dorsalface. Conversely, the Laminar cores made on nodules display asignificant percentage of cortex on their surfaces (from 25 to 75% ofsurface), especially on their ventral face, 85% in layer 6b and 75% insand ah. In Layer 6b, 57% of Laminar cores made on flake show thepresence of cortex. 27% carry small patches of cortex (covering lessthan 25% of their surface) on their dorsal face and 30% a largerproportion of cortex from 25 to 50% of their ventral surface. In sandah, almost 50% of Laminar cores on flake have small patches ofcortex (less than 25%) on their dorsal face, with only one exampleshowing larger patches of cortex on its ventral surface. It could beadvocated that blanks used in manufacturing of NI pieces wereselected not only in terms of metrical properties but also in terms ofabsence of cortex which could not be completely removedthroughout the short reduction cycles.

As flakes are usually thinner than the nodules, they are expectedto produce a limited number of blanks and to be discarded after theshort reduction sequence. The mean number of negatives longer orequal to 2 cm visible on the upper face of NI cores in both Hum-malian layers is lower than that from Laminar cores on flake and

nodule (Table 4). This data confirms that NI cores were less pro-ductive than cores reduced through the main reduction strategy,and demonstrates their different life history as well.

The principal final products of cores on flake, as well as cores onnodule in all analysed layers are elongated blank of varying size.Few show negatives of only flakes or flakes along with blades orbladelets. The median length of the last complete removal (Figs. 16and 17) produced from NI are similar to those from Laminar coresand greater than core-burins. This result together with metricalanalysis show that NI pieces could not be distinguished fromLaminar cores on the basis of final artefact dimensions (see alsoCrew,1976: 111; Goren-Inbar, 1988; Hovers,1997; Nishiaki, 1985) orby the size of the last removed specimen (Hovers, 1997: 70e75;Munday, 1977: 44; Nishiaki, 1985, Dibble and McPherron, 2006).

Table 6Length and width of the last complete negative visible on bladelet cores and core-burins and metric attributes of bladelets in layers 6b and sand ah (in parenthesesthe number of intact items).

Layer 6b Sand ah

Bladeletcores/core-

Bladelets 107 (8) Core-burins (14)

Bladelets: 100(10)


There is no direct correlation between scar length and core cate-gories, and there is a high degree of overlap between them.

As the large majority of cores from both assemblages seem to beexhausted (their cross-section became flat), it could be suggestedthat they were rejected when an average margin of thickness wasreached. The similarity of exhaustion index (core thickness dividedby core volume, Hovers, 2009; 179) between all corecategories (except core-burins), shows that their dimensions wereproportionally reduced to the same degree and all cores typespresent similar geometrical and morphological characteristic whendiscarded (Table 5). The lack of cortex on surfaces of NI specimens,their rather short life-use and restricted productivity determinedby their thickness, suggest the existence of two separate reductionsequences that diverge in their duration and intensity. As suggestedpreviously, there is one reduction sequence that is characteristic forLaminar cores either on flakes or nodule and another, separate onefor NI items. In view of this, the discrete reduction strategy of NIpieces, with all its similarities and dissimilarities to the mainreduction strategy, seems to be perfectly incorporated into thegeneral system of debitage and could be therefore regarded as apart of the main production system recognised on the site (Figs. 18and 19) rather than part of recycling strategy. However, there areexceptions to the above approach: NI pieces arranged on previouslypatinated items demonstrating a clear recycling of previously dis-carded pieces. Also, there are a few pieces that present retouch onone side. In the case of the latter group, it is impossible to deter-mine the order of production as the NI preparation and the nega-tives of detachments made from truncation are separate from thenegatives of retouch or vice versa. This means that it cannot bedetermined whether the NI preparation and detachment of sec-ondary blanks was undertaken on an already retouched piece, orthe retouching occurred after the initial preparation. Whicheverthe order of production, this is clear evidence of recycling, wherethe function of the item has changed: the core with NI preparationbecame a formal tool or the previously retouched tool was used as acore for secondary blank production. Additionally, it shows that atypologically similar lithic artefact could be multifunctional, beingsometimes the core, sometimes the tool, or both.

Table 5Index of exhaustion of cores in layers 6b and sand ah.

6b Laminar cores on nodule (69) Laminar cores on flake (34) NI (14)


Sand ah Laminar cores on nodule (40) Laminar cores on flake (17) NI (18)


burins (49)

Length Negatives Complete pieces Negatives Complete piecesMean 2.9 3.1 3.2 4.0Median 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.9sd 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.5Max 4.9 3.9 5.0 4.7Min 1.4 2.3 2.0 3.2WidthMean 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.1Median 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.2sd 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1Max 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2Min 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.9ThicknessMean 0.4 0.4Median 0.4 0.4sd 0.1 0.1Max 0.6 0.6Min 0.3 0.2

4.3. Bladelet cores and core-burins

The third group comprises two types of core for the productionof bladelets: one is typical Upper Palaeolithic bladelet cores in form,while the other is similar to typologically identifiable burins. Thelatter presents frequently multifaceted removal negatives and theyare considered in this study as core-burins. Additionally, there areoccasionally a combination of a bladelet core and a core-burinarising together on the same specimen. These were analysed as agroup, and henceforth all will be called core-burins. These were

documented in all Hummalian layers, followed by their end-product, bladelets.

Burins have long been considered as an engraving tool, andtheir types were renowned on the base of either manufacturingtechnique (Bordes, 1947; Laplace, 1957; Barton et al., 1998;111e113; Ronen, 1970) or morphology. The results of use-wearanalysis show that the burin was a multi-tasking tool ratherthan a single purpose object (Tomaskova, 2005). Additionally,some display the traces of use and others not. This has led somescholars to propose a burin was the rejuvenation of an edgerather than manufacture of a bevelled tip (Vaughan, 1985). It isalso advocated that burins that do not demonstrate evidence ofuse have served as cores for bladelet production (Beyries, 1993;60,; De Araujo-Igreya and Pesesse, 2006) and that there isfunctional diversity among stone artefacts reduced by burination(Barton et al., 2013). Unfortunately, no traceological analyseson items which would be typologically described as ‘burin’were undertaken on the Hummalian material. Therefore the ideathat core-burins were used as tools cannot be ruled out. None-theless, their morphology and the presence of bladelets in allanalysed layers suggest that these burins could be a source ofbladelets and thus all are considered here as cores for bladeletproduction. In all analysed layers, the bladelets and/or core-burins (Fig. 20: 3e10 and Fig. 21) and bladelets cores (Fig. 20:1e2) are present. The length and width of negatives visible onthe flaking surface of core-burins and bladelet cores are similarin both lithic complexes (Table 6). The metrical attributes ofintact bladelets indicate that they could be struck from analysedcore-burins.

In layer 6b, cores-burins and bladelet cores represent 25% ofall cores, whereas in sand ah this figure stands at 15%. Bladeletcores were not discovered in sand ah. In layer 6b they are lessnumerous than core-burins, but both groups are very similar intheir metrical aspects. The bladelet cores seem to be more pro-ductive than core-burins. The median number of negatives lefton flaking surfaces was 3.5, with only 2 from core-burins(Table 7).

Table 7Metric attributes of bladelet cores and core-burins in layers 6b and sand ah.

Layer 6b Sand ah

Bladelet cores (8) Core-burins (41) Core-burins (14)

LengthMean 4.5 4.7 6.3Median 4.7 4.4 5.6sd 1.1 1.4 2.0Max 6.6 8.6 10.2Min 2.7 2.0 3.5WidthMean 3.7 3.5 3.2Median 3.8 3.0 3.4sd 1.8 1.5 0.7Max 6.3 7.6 4.1Min 1.3 1.4 2.2ThicknessMean 1.6 1.6 1.3Median 1.6 1.6 1.2sd 0.5 0.4 0.5Max 2.3 2.8 2.7Min 1.0 0.8 0.7Number of negatives on flaking surfaceMean 3.5 2.4 2.6Median 3.5 2.0 2.0sd 0.5 1.3 1.7Max 4.0 7.0 7.0Min 3.0 1.0 1.0

Table 8 (continued )

Layer 6b ah

On debris On flake On debris On flake

Number 24 25 1 13

sd 1.6 7.2 0.7Max 7.6 1.3 4.1Min 1.4 1.6 2.2

Thickness Mean 1.7 1.7 1.0 1.3Median 1.7 1.4 1.2sd 0.5 4.5 0.6Max 2.8 0.6 2.7Min 1.0 0.9 0.7

Length/Width 1.3 1.8 1.4 2.1Width/Thickness 2.4 2.4 3.1 2.7Scars on upper face Mean 2.8 2.3 2.0 2.6

Max 7.0 4.0 7.0Min 1.0 1.0 1.0


Core-burins and bladelet cores were made on usually broken,sometimes intact, thick, lithic specimens (flake, blade or debris).The selected specimens are noticeably thicker than the overallretouched and non-retouched blanks population (Figs. 12 and 13).They were reduced mainly by a ‘burin-flaking’method, working onthe thickness of support. The flintknapper used the natural shape ofsupport and started to detach the blanks from its natural edge orbroken surface, and the edge of the flake serves as a guide-ridge. Ina few cases, the flaking started on one edge of the support andexpanded on to the other, not unlike the semi-rotating debitage.Metrical data of core-burins made on flake and on debris showsthat they are similar. Those made on flake tend to be longer, andthose made on debris are thicker. Both present between one toseven bladelet negatives on their flaking surface (Table 8). The vastmajority of these spalls were removed following the core-burinslong axis. Their striking platforms are plain or lightly prepared byone or two blows from the side.

The majority of cores for bladelet production in both assem-blages are unidirectional, with a few bidirectional. The bidirectionalcores do not represent a genuine bidirectional reduction, but rathertwo juxtaposed unidirectional reductions realised on the samecore, the succession of short sequences of two-three unidirectionalremovals before switching platform. Only a few bladelets presentbidirectional scars on their dorsal face.

Table 8Metrical data of core-burins made on debris and on flake.

Layer 6b ah

On debris On flake On debris On flake

Number 24 25 1 13

Length (cm) Mean 4.2 5.1 4.4 6.5Median 3.9 4.8 5.7sd 1.5 8.6 2.0Max 7.9 2.7 10.2Min 2.0 1.2 3.5

Width (cm) Mean 3.7 3.5 3.1 3.2Median 3.2 3.0 3.4

4.4. Bladelets as end-products of core-burins and bladelet cores

Bladelets are described in analysed assemblages as the smallblades whose width is equal or less than 1.2 cm and not more than5 cm in length (Fig. 23). They were uncovered in 7 of the 8 studiedlayers. Bladelets were not discovered in layer 6B but core-burinswhich show the negatives of small bladelets on their flaking sur-faces were found. Their percentage varies between layers: in as-semblages 6b and ah it is 3% and 7% of debitage respectively. Theyare frequently broken and only a few remain intact (Figs. 22 and23). The preserved bladelets from sand ah seem to be more elon-gated than those from layer 6b, and their length ranges from 3.2 to4.8 cm. The width and thickness of bladelets are similar in bothcomplexes (Table 6). The large majority of bladelets are unidirec-tional, but in every layer one or two pieces also present bidirec-tional reduction. Two or three previous scars can be observed on

Fig. 13. Thickness of cores and blanks in Layer 6b.

Fig. 16. The length of the longest complete removal on the dorsal face of Laminarcores, NI and core-burins in Layer 6b.

Fig. 14. Index of Relative thickness of cores categories and blanks from sand ah.


their upper surface advocating that the flaking process duringwhich they were produced was not very long, but still repetitive.Around half have a relatively bowed profile, and the rest arerectilinear. The intact striking platforms are frequently plain,

Fig. 15. Index of Relative thickness of cores categories and blanks from Layer 6b.Fig. 17. The length of the complete removals visible on the dorsal face of Laminarcores, NI and core-burins in sand ah.

Fig. 18. Selected NI pieces from layer 6b and sand ah. 1 e bipolar NI made on blade fragment; 2 e unidirectional NI made on blade fragment; 3, 6, 7 e bidirectional NI made onflake, 4, 5 e unidirectional NI with retouch made on blade fragment.


although slightly faceted, dihedral and cortical platforms are alsoobserved. Around 10% of items from each layer show a slightpreparation of the proximal end of the item by tiny removals fromthe platform into proximal part of upper surface. Such preparationof the proximal part of a lithic item is very characteristic of pro-duction of regular, large blades. Only a few have a small patch ofcortex on their upper surface, indicating that the knapping surfaceof the core was almost free of cortex.

Two types of spalls were produced. The naturally pointed bla-delets with triangular cross-section follow a central scar from theflaking surface. The second type consists of specimens with paralleledges with either flat or trapezoidal cross-section, sometimespresenting a natural back.

Additionally, the upper surface of thick blank blades could alsohave been a source of bladelets. Often a narrow, less than 5 cm, andconverging negative of a bladelet is visible along one or two ridges

at the proximal end of the upper surface of a blank. This, however,represents part of the maintenance of the proximal end of the core.The point of percussion was placed behind the main ridge of thelithic item. The removal follows the ridge from the upper surfacethat could even reach the midpoint. Such negatives are flat and theresultant bladelets had to be very thin. In five Hummalian layers,138 very thin bladelets were found in layers 6b, 6c2, 7a, and 7c, and37 in layer ah. Their sides always converge, as in the visible nega-tives on the upper face of the blank, and match perfectly to the flatnegatives. The length ranges between 2 and 5 cm and thickness lessthan 0.2 cm. The majority still show a tiny punctiform butt, pro-duced before the blank was detached from the core. The proximalpart of their scar is often cut by the negatives of small removalsstemming from the edge of the proximal end of cores. Alongsidethis, there was thinning of the proximal part of the large blank thatcould possibly be related to the specific mode of hafting. From a

Fig. 19. Selected NI pieces. 1 e bidirectional NI made on blade fragment from sand ah,2 e bidirectional NI made on flake from Layer 6b.


technological point of view, these tiny, elongated, convergingsubtractions prepared the proximal part of the flaking surface of thecore and thus should be viewed as by-products of blade production.Consequently, these specimens were not included in the bladeletcategory.

However, a similar production of tiny bladelets used in main-taining the cores flaking surface was recognised in Mousterianlevels III2a' and II at Umm el Tlel (Bo€eda and Bonilauri, 2006) andthe micro-wear analysis showed that they were used for workingmeat, bone and vegetal matter. Furthermore, they show haftingtraces (Bo€eda and Bonilauri, 2006; 86e91). Thus, in the case ofUmm el Tlel these bladelets were intentional end products, next totheir utility in maintaining core productivity.

Obviously, without traceological analysis, proving that unre-touched bladelets are intentional products is no simple task. It doesnot appear, in the Hummalian layers, that these small implementswere produced because the flintknappers were running out ofraw material. Collected items used in manufacturing of bladeletswere sensibly selected in terms of their thickness and aptmorphology to start the detachment of small spalls and createburin blows. So the question remains, could these be tools as well asa resource for production of anticipated blanks?

4.5. Transformation of exhausted cores for secondary utilisation

Only a couple of cores have been transformed for probable tooluse. Two exhausted cores from layer 6b and one from ah were

modified on one or more of their part by invasive, abrupt retouchand transformed into tools, after their reduction was accomplished(Fig. 24: 2, 3). Those cores confirm recycling as their usage changedfrom being a source of blanks into formal tools.

Reuse of exhausted cores for additional flaking of smaller sup-ports could be visible when one flaking event working on broaderface of cores finished, and a second flaking episode has been per-formed on the side or the ventral face on the same item. Thisusually involves a supplementary preparation, principally setting anew striking platform. The items are covered by the same patina-tion, but the second episode is clearly performed after the first wasfinished, as evidenced by the chronology of scar patterns visible onthe surface.

There are a few cores which were primarily unidirectional andwhen they become flat in cross section, a second striking platformwas set on the opposite end or on the side. Usually arranged on theopposite end, this additional platformwas exploiting the core on itsthickness (Fig. 25). The negatives coming from the second strikingplatform clearly crossed the negatives obtained from the firstplatform. The first, main knapping surface is redundant aftersetting the new striking platform. In some cases, the flintknappersucceeded in attaining only two bladelets from the narrow sidebecause the new platform was not re-orientated to the newknapping surface. Sometimes, the flintknapper used two or threeblows from the side of the core to re-orientate the new platformtowards the new knapping surface and successfully removed a fewblanks.

Several cores were clearly reused for bladelets production(Fig. 25: 3, 4, 5) and were exploited on their sides. Occasionally,cores were fragmented, and if the partition formed between the oldplatform and broken surface (perpendicular flaking plane) createdan apt angle, they were struck again. The flinknapper would obtainonly one or two blanks. Such a behavioural pattern seems to beopportunistic in nature.

4.6. Double patina

The practice of recycling is usually easy to recognize if the ar-tefacts show some kind of surface alteration permitting discrim-ination of two or more different chronological events, before andafter alteration. Double patinated specimens on which the sec-ondary modification can be distinguished from an older patinatedsurface seem to be one of the most consistent possibilities inidentifying recycling in Palaeolithic assemblages. It is usually notpossible to calculate the time spans between the creation of thefirst, second, or even third generation of patina. We can only seethe chronology of patina and of the use episodes. The reuse ofolder items for shaping new tools was recognized in four of sixHummalian layers: 6b, 6c2, 7c, and ah. It only occurs sporadicallyin layer 6b, 6c and 7c, but it is notable in the rich and well pre-served sandy layer ah (Fig. 26). In this deposit, 10% of all retouchedtools were completed on already patinated specimens. Severalcore-burins and truncated faceted pieces (six from 19) were alsomade on chemically altered items (Fig. 7: 1). In layers 6a and 6b,such observations were very limited, as all artefacts from bothassemblages are covered by thick white-grey patina because theyhave been weathered through a long period of exposure on thesurface.

4.7. Scavenging from preceding cultural horizons

Some of the Hummal archaeological material lay on the surfacefor a long period before being covered. This is true for someHummalian layers as well as previous cultural horizons. It can besupposed that lithic material from the Yabrudian horizon would be

Fig. 20. Core-burins and bladelet cores from assemblages 6b and sand ah. 1, 2 e bladelet cores; 3, 6, 7, 9 e core-burins made on debris; 4, 5, 8, 10 e core-burins made on flake.


visible and easily accessible for their descendants during theHummalian occupations. From an economic point of view, it seemsrational to use large scrapers which shows potential for furtherreduction. Three examples of cores made on Yabrudian scraperscoming from layer 6b, 6c, and 7c and additionally one edge flake inlayer 6b and three in sand ah which were clearly struck from theedge of Yabrudian scarpers were collected (Fig. 24: 1, 4). Thisconfirms that the procuring of lithic material from older occupa-tions also took place. There were probably more such scavengeditems which could have been easily reduced to an unrecognisableform. The lower face of Yabrudian scarpers becomes the flakingsurface, and the upper face, still covered by stepped retouch, theventral face of the core. As those artefacts were already covered bypatina when procured, the change in their function from tool intocore is easily identified, and thus they are doubtless examples ofrecycling.

4.8. Short-term recycling and curation

Short-term recycling (Baker, 2007) and curating technologycannot really be distinguished in the archaeological record.Evidently, both events are very different phenomena and havedifferent archaeological implications, but both can be sometimesexplained by similar factors associated with, for example, scarcityof lithic resources (Bamforth, 1986). As Baker (2007; 1) has stated:“… if one abandons an artifact on one day and chooses to recycle it thenext, how is the archaeologist going to recognise the difference?”.

Only if visibly different flake surfaces occur on the same spec-imen canwe state with any certainty that recycling occurred. If not,it will rather be described as a result of curation. Therefore, thecuration may be an indication of recycling.

The percentage of retouched artefacts varies between analysedassemblages from 23% of debitage in sand ah, to 11% in 6b. They

Fig. 22. Selected small blades and bladelets d

Fig. 21. Burins blow completed on blades.


were shapedmostly on thick blades, less commonly on flakes, and afew on debris. The large majority are elongated with an average L/W ratio greater than 2. The retouched tool assortment consists of ahigh percentage of elongated end-point or parallel products fash-ioned by intense retouching. Themajority of them are covered fromthe proximal to the distal part by invasive, semi-abrupt retouching.The metrical data from both layers indicates a choice of longer andbroader supports for shaping the retouched tools, especially if theoriginal size of many was reduced through repeated use andretouching (Wojtczak, 2014). Following the idea of the “Frison ef-fect” (Jelinek, 1976) and the suggestion of scraper transformationthrough re-sharpening and reduction put forward by Dibble (1987),the simple lateral scrapers exhibit the least reduction, and theconverging scrapers which exhibit the most. The heavily retouchedspecimens could be considered in the maintained tool category,indicating numerous re-sharpening events and thus a longer use-life.

8% of blades in layer 6b and 14% in sand ah are covered byinvasive retouch and are considered as curated tools. As suggestedby Baker (2007), they could also be regarded as the result of short-term recycling (Fig. 27) which happens over the period of an in-dividual lifetime. As Hummal is located in a lithic-rich region, it iseasy to imagine that there was no reason to keep a lithic implement

iscovered in Layers 6a, 6b and sand ah.

Fig. 23. Fragments of bladelets from Layer 6b.


after it accomplished its design task. The specimen was discardedand when a new tool was required, it could be easily shaped fromcore or a previously discarded (on site) tool was recycled back intouse.

5. Discussion

The evidence of recycling and reuse of previously employedlithic artefacts is evident within the Hummalian horizon. There aredouble patinated specimens scavenged from the same or oldercultural horizons. There are also examples of cores transformedinto tools. There are exhausted cores which were reused for sec-ondary production and core-burins produced on broken items anddebris. There are also blades covered by invasive retouch, defined ascurated tools, which can be also interpreted as the result of short-term recycling andmay possibly indicate controlled use of the lithicresources (Shott, 1989). All those elements show that Hummalianinhabitants did not avoid reusing lithic items, blanks, cores anddebris if they were appropriate and to hand.

Usually, archaeologists are unable to determine the time spanbetween different use-events of an artefact. The presence of pati-nation and its intensity on flint implements is not always a goodassessment of the time that has passed since its burial (Burroniet al., 2002), but undoubtedly indicate recycling activities. Thedevelopment of patina seems to be a complex process dependingon many factors, for example the flints' mineralogical composition

and the degree of moisture (B€asemann, 1987). The observationsmade in El-Kowm reveal that the changes in the surface of Paleo-gene flint commonly used by Palaeolithic flintknappers can alreadybe perceived after just a fewweeks lying on the surface. The usuallyblack, very fine flints became slowly covered by a white vein andlost its shiny black aspect. In contrast, Baker assumed that the timeneeded to affect the changes to the rock surface; “… is not measuredin days or years, but in hundreds of years and more likely thousands ofyears.” (Baker, 2007; 2).

The geomorphological investigations show that Hummalianlayer 6a and 6b lay exposed on the surface for a long time, creatingthe possibility of a scenario of lithics from overlapping occupationsand activities. Flint artefacts recovered from these layers arecovered by a very thick white grey patina, and double patinateditems are rare. However, it is not hard to imagine that scavenging oflithics scattered on the surface took place, but it is not possible toprecisely recognise the amount of effectively recycled material.Ethnographic investigations and studies of other Hummaliancomplexes suggest that the collecting of lithics dispersed on thesurface from an earlier or current occupation were oftenundertaken.

The occurrence of cores on flakes, and the phenomenon of bladeand bladelet production within Middle Palaeolithic context iswidely recognized. There are numerous sites in Europe, Near East,and Africa, where varied reduction strategies for the manufactureof blades and bladelets were recognised (e.g., Bosinski, 1967;

Fig. 24. Selected artefacts from Hummalian layers.1 e edge blade knapped from Yabrudian scraper; 2 e core-tool, scraper made on exhausted bladelet core; 3 e exhausted coretransformed into tool (core-tool); 4 e core made on Yabrudian scraper.


Conard, 1992; R�evillion and Tuffreau, 1994; Conard et al., 1995; Bar-Yosef and Kuhn, 1999; Maillo-Fernandez et al., 2004; Slimak andLucas, 2005; Pastoors, 2009; Meignen, 2011). However, we couldask why were bladelets made? They remained merely one type ofblank amongst several others. Their production is not veryconsistent when compared to the Upper Palaeolithic bladelet pro-duction. The manufacturing of bladelets in the Middle Palaeolithichorizon can be interpreted in different ways. Some researchersperceive it as the indication for the transmission of specific tech-nological knowledge (Cabrera Vald�es et al., 2006; Maillo-Fernandezet al., 2004; Bernaldo de Quiros and Maillo Fernandez, 2009);others as a part of the general spectrum of technological knowledgewithin the entire Middle Palaeolithic.

Hummal seems to be an excellent example for Middle Palae-olithic bladelet production. The best represented is the unidirec-tional method used on the lateral edges of different stonespecimens (blanks as well as debris) as guiding ridges. The strikingplatforms seem to be used ad hoc without preparation, or onlyfaintly adjusted. No additional preparation of the lateral and distalconvexity was detected. Similarly, the production of bladelets from

the side of discarded cores with no or little investment in pre-knapping adjustment of striking platform of selected items isobserved. Evidently there is a sort of pre-planning, because theflintknapper searched for thick specimens to detach bladelets. Theinvestment was small, and thus the return was also usually smallwith only a couple of implements obtained. When the flintknapperchose appropriate items and prepared the striking platform of afuture core, his profit was also greater as can be seen on a fewexamples of bladelet cores. The configuration of producing thebladelets on the spot or with little preparation, on often brokenspecimens or debris, where there is a broad spectrum of lithicimplements coming from more sophisticated reduction strategy,could be perceived as an opportunistic process. However, it couldalso be seen as an attempt to maximize the productivity of the flintresource, whereby the flinknapper uses waste or by-products ofmain reduction strategy found on site, as cores for production ofsecondary blanks. Thus the use of core-burins becomes part of arecycling strategy and the obtained end-products, namely blade-lets, as a desired, supplementary element to the implementsmanufactured by the main reduction strategy. It seems that

Fig. 25. Exhausted cores from Layer 6b reused for secondary production (paint in grey); frontal debitage on one of their sides, working on the thickness of artefacts.


Hummalian inhabitants produced these micro-blades on the spot,on available and apt stone items found on site. In this context, theappearance of bladelets is a manifestation of human requirementsat a specific time, linkedmost probably to the site-function. As bothcore-burins and their end-products are repetitively present in allHummalian layers, this need must have been recurrent and doesnot seem to be related to any provisioning strategy (Kuhn, 1995). Itmay be possible that these bladelets were intended to be used fortasks that could not be undertaken with larger blanks, but it is alsopossible that they represent just one end of a continuum of bladesizes that were commonly convenient. Restricted access to flintsources is certainly a pertinent reason for recycling, but other fac-tors such as accumulation of raw material from previous

occupations, the paucity of raw material in the vicinity of the site,and the site function have to also be taken in to consideration.

The example of reuse, including recycling, visible within theHummalian deposits does not seem to correlate with raw materialscarcity, as its availability is not seen as a critical factor in theobserved lithic organization. However, large, non-exhausted coresare very rare in Hummalian layers, and the presence of large blanksis explained by successive reduction of large cores into small cores(not including NI items). This can imply a raw material shortage inthe direct vicinity of site, indicating thatmany small specimens wereprobably by-products of large blank production, and only some ofthem were intentionally produced toward the end of the reductionsystem. At the same time, the Hummal site was repetitively visited

Fig. 26. Selected recycled artefacts made on patinated items from sand ah.


by humans, and each successive occupation left knapping wastebehind which could be considered as a constant, easy to obtain, andreliable source of rawmaterial. It has been suggested by Elston (1992in Amick, 2007) that the procuring of flint scattered on the surface ismore efficient in terms of time and energy than quarry extraction.However, the possible profits would probably be lower as flintexposed on surface tends to be weathered and poorer in quality.Apparently the lithic remnants gathered on or nearby the site weregood enough and correctly sized for Hummalian residents, as couldbe seen by the recognised recycling and reuse activities. From thisperspective, the flint found on site was perceived as a valuablesupply to hand which may have reduced the number and impor-tance of trips to primary outcrops in the nearby landscape.

The presence of rich archaeological literature describing thefrequent occurrences of cores on flake in different chronologicaland regional contexts attests to the complexity of this concept andits significance in an archaeological framework whilst at the same

time remaining a subject of ongoing discussion (e.g. Newcomer andHivernel-Guerre, 1974; Goren-Inbar, 1988; Geneste and Plisson,1999; Bourguignon and Turq, 2003; Bourguignon et al., 2004;Hovers, 2007, 2009; McPherron, 2007; Park, 2008; Hauck, 2010). Atfirst glance, it seems that the bulk of cores on flakes found inHummalian assemblages can be interpreted as a result of therecycling process in which the stone specimens manufacturedduring the main reduction strategy were recycled to produce coreson flake. This can be an indication of an economic strategy trying toincrease the efficiency of the raw material. Looking closer at theirmorphology, their metrical properties and dorsal scar pattern, itcan be recognized that they seem to be well integrated into thegeneral knapping system exercised at the site, forming part of acomplete chaîne op�eratoire. Firstly all cores on flake were accom-plished from the blanks produced on site. Furthermore, the flin-knapper selected specimens in terms of their dimensions, probablypresence or lack of cortex and suitability for different reductionstrategies. The thickness, as expected, seems to be the most perti-nent component in their choice. In addition, as shown earlier usingmetrical analysis, both Laminar cores either on flake or nodule andNI pieces at the end of their use-life have produced items similar inlength and when discarded (cores), they reached the samethreshold in respect to their overall geometry. Themajority of thesecores were aimed at the production of elongated items, with fewexceptions targeting small flakes.

It seems that the selection and planning are important featuresin the on-site general knapping organization undertaken byHummalian flinknappers. Therefore it is not a recycling strategyand should rather be seen as similar to the idea of ramification(Bourguignon et al., 2004), when flakes are selected to be used ascores, and when cores on nodule and on flake have the sameobjective, sometimes creating divergent by-products, for exampletruncated-faceted pieces.

6. Conclusions

Some archaeologists presumed that lithic recycling increaseswhen the lithic resources are scarce (Hayden et al., 1996), whilstothers (Baker, 2007) argue that long term recycling is morefrequent in the areas rich in lithic material. As the site function ofHummal during the Hummalian cultural horizon is not yet clearlyidentified (Le Tensorer et al., 2007; Hauck et al., 2010; Wojtczak,2014) and was possibly different in successive layers, it is difficultto discuss its affinities in a wider framework. During Hummalianoccupations, humans reused or recycled, but this phenomenondoes not seem to be pertinent in terms of the economy as the site islocated in a lithic-rich region. This has appeared throughout theHummalian occupation and seems to be more a result of oppor-tunism. At the same time, the end-products of such behaviour hadto be anticipated implements within the tool-kits of humans. Fromthis perspective, the reuse and recycling of lithic artefacts previ-ously discarded on site exercised by Hummalian occupants appearsto be an intended activity to reduce transportation costs. Further-more, the appearance of cores on flake either Laminar or with NIpreparation in Hummalian layers seems to represent a subdivisionof the reduction system carried out on-site rather than a concept ofrecycling. At first glance, the use of blanks from primary reductionto accomplish the core can be seen as recycling, when the blank istransformed into the core for secondary production. However, thisprocess aims at a similar end-product as those produced throughthe main reduction system, and fits perfectly into knapping systemcarried out on the site. Consequently, it is not seen as an element ofrecycling undertaken on site.

Additionally, the procedure of using a blank produced on siteduring the main reduction strategy for core manufacture, had to

Fig. 27. Selected retouched tools recovered from sand ah and Layer 6b.


reduce the overall dimensions of raw material and consequentlythe size of detached products. As a result, the lithic assemblagesfrom Hummalian horizon contain blanks of different sizes from 2to 16 cm in length, and it seems that bladelet production isassociated with the production of blades. There was also a clearneed to produce small implements outside the main reductionsystem, suggesting easily portable implements. All these ele-ments show the complexity of Hummalian lithic assemblagesand the broad-based approach to lithic resources of ancienthumans. Such behaviour can also suggest division and manage-ment of time and space activities, hence a pronounced antici-pation of needs.

Finally, because of the lack of traceological analysis undertakenon Hummalian assemblages, it is important to point out that if

some truncated-faceted pieces or core-burins have generated us-able blanks, othersmay also have been used as tools. It also could bethat these items were sometimes tools and at other times used tomanufacture functional blanks. The two positions need not beviewed as mutually exclusive. A multiplicity of purposes mightexist within a single typological category and behaviours impli-cated in making, using and recycling of stone artefacts may havebeen diverse.

Acknowledgments

I thank Cristina Lemorini, Ran Barkai and Manuel Vaquero fortheir invitation to participate in the workshop ‘The Origins ofRecycling: A Paleolithic Perspective’ held at Tel-Aviv University,


Israel in October, 2013, that led to this contribution. I am grateful toElla Assaf, Yoni Parush and Agam Aviad for their helpfulnessthroughout the meeting. The workshop was kindly supported bythe Israel Science Foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. Ithank also CNRS/Nice for covering my travel expenses.

I would like to show my appreciation to all the colleagues,students and co-workers who assisted me in the field work,without whose cooperation this work would have been impossible.I wish to express my special thanks to all members of the El-KowmArchaeological Project. The excavations at Hummal were supportedby the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Tell AridaFoundation. I am grateful to Richard Frosdick for help in correctingmy English.

References

Amick, D.S., 2007. Behavioral causes and archaeological effects of lithic artifactrecycling. In: McPherron, S. (Ed.), Tools versus Cores: Alternative Approaches toStone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publications, Newcastle, pp. 223e252.

Andrefsky Jr., W., 1994. Raw material availability and the organization of technol-ogy. American Antiquity 59, 21e34.

Baker, T., 2007. Recycling. Electronic Document. http://www.ele.net/recycling/diffsurf.htm.

Bamforth, D.B., 1986. Technological efficiency and stone tool curation. AmericanAntiquity 51, 38e50.

Bamforth, D.B., 1991. Technological organization and hunteregatherer land use: aCalifornia example. American Antiquity 56, 216e234.

Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., 2010. Palaeolithic cutlery 400 000e200 000years ago: tiny meat-cutting tools from Qesem Cave, Israel. Antiquity 84 (325).

Barton, H., Torrence, R., Fullagar, R., 1998. Clues to stone tool function re-examined:comparing starch grain frequencies on used and unused obsidian artefacts.Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 1231e1238.

Barton, M., Olszewski, D., Coinman, N., 2013. Beyond the Graver: reconsideringburin function. Journal of Field Archaeology 23 (1), 111e125.

Bar-Yosef, O., Kuhn, S.L., 1999. The big deal about blades. Laminar technologies andhuman evolution. American Anthropologist 101, 322e338.

B€asemann, R., 1987. Umweltabh€angige Strukturver€anderungen an Steinartefakten.Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M.

Bergman, C.A., Ohnuma, K., 1983. Technological notes on some blades from HummalIa, El-Kowm, Syria. Qu€artar 33 (34), 171e180.

Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., Maíllo Fern�andez, J.M., 2009. The transitional Aurignacienand the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition model on Cantabrian Iberia. In:Camps, M., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions. Methods,Theories, and Interpretations. Springer, New York, pp. 341e359. Dordrecht,Heidelberg, London.

Besançon, J., Copeland, L., Hours, F., Muhesen, S., Sanlaville, P., 1981. Le pal�eolithiqued'El kowm. Rapport pr�eliminaire. Pal�eorient 7 (1), 33e55.

Besançon, L., Copeland, L., Hours, F., Muhesen, S., Sanlaville, P., 1982. Prospectiong�eographique et pr�ehistorique dans le bassin d'El Kowm (Syrie); rapportpr�eliminaire. Cahiers de l'Euphrate 3, 9e26.

Besançon, J., Sanlaville, P., 1991. Une oasis dans la steppe aride syrienne: la cuvetted'El Kowm au Quaternaire. Cahier de l’Eufrat 5 (6), 47e92.

Beyries, S., 1993. Analyse fonctionnelle de l’industrie lithique du niveau CA: rapportpr�eliminaire et directions de recherche. In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), Riencourt-l�es-Bapaume, Pas-de-Calais: un gisement du Pal�eolithique moyen. Maison de sci-ences de l’Homme, Paris, pp. 53e61.

Binford, L.,R., 1973. Inter assemblage variability e the Mousterian and the “func-tional” argument. In: Renfrew, C. (Ed.), The Explanation of Culture ChangeModels in Prehistory. Duckworth, London, pp. 227e253.

Binford, L.,R., 2009. Debating Archaeology. Left Coast Press.Bo€eda, E., Bonilauri, S., 2006. The Intermediate Paleolithic: the first bladelet pro-

duction 40,000 years ago. Anthropologie XLIV (1), 75e92.Bordes, F., 1947. Etude comparative des diff�erentes techniques de taille du silex et

des roches dures. L'Anthropologie 51, 1e29.Bosinski, G., 1967. Die mittelpal€aolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa.

B€ohlau, K€oln.Bourguignon, L., Turq, A., 2003. Une chaîne op�eratoire de d�ebitage discoïde sur �eclat

du Moust�erien �a denticules aquitain : les exemples de Champ Bossuet et deCombe-Grenal c.14. In: Peresani, M. (Ed.), Discoid Lithic Technology: Advancesand Implications. Arch�eopress, Oxford, pp. 131e152.

Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P., Turq, A., 2004. Ramification des chaîne op�eratoires:Une sp�ecificit�e du Moust�erien? Pal�eo 16, 37e48.

Buccellati, G., Buccellati, M., 1967. Archaeological survey of the Palmyrene and theJebel Bishri. Archaeology 20, 305.

Burroni, D., Donahue, R.E., Mussi, M., Pollard, A.M., 2002. The surface alterationfeatures of flint artefacts as a record of environmental processes. Journal ofArchaeological Science 29, 1277e1287.

Cabrera Vald�es, V., Maíllo Fern�andez, J.M., Pike-Tay, A., Garralda Benajes, M.D.,Bernaldo de Quir�os, F., 2006. A Cantabrian perspective on late Neanderthals. In:

Conard, N. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Kerns, Tübin-gen, pp. 441e466.

Cauvin, J., Cauvin, M.-C., Stordeur, D., 1979. Recherches pr�ehistoriques �a El Kowm(Syrie). Premi�ere campagne 1978. Cahiers de l'Euphrate 2, 80e117.

Camilli, E.L., Ebert, J.I., 1992. Artifact reuse and Recyclingin continuous surfacedistributions and implications for interpreting land Use patterns. In:Rossignol, J., Wandsnider, L.A. (Eds.), Space, Time and Archaeological Land-scapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 113e136.

Clark, J.,D., 1958. Some Stone Age wood-working tools in southern Africa. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 13 (52), 144e151.

Conard, N.J., 1992. T€onchesberg and its Position in the Paleolithic Prehistory ofNorthern Europe. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.

Conard, N.J., Adler, D.S., Forrest, D.T., Kaszas, P.J., 1995. Preliminary archaeologicalresults from the 1991e1993 excavations in Wallertheim. Arch€aologisches Kor-respondenzblatt 25, 13e27.

Copeland, L., 1985. The pointed tools of Hummal Ia (El Kowm, Syria). Cahiers del'Euphrate 4, 177e189.

Crew, H.,L., 1976. The Mousterian site of Rosh Ein Mor. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Pre-history and Paleoenvironment in the Central Neguev (Isra€el). Southern Meth-odist University Press, Dallas, pp. 75e112.

Dag, D., Goren-Inbar, N., 2001. An actualistic study of dorsally plain flakes: atechnological note. Lithic Technology 26 (2), 105e117.

De Araujo-Igreya, M., Pesesse, D., 2006. Entre modalit�e techniques et objectifefonctionnels: le burin de l’unit�e OP10 de La Vigne Brun (Villerest, Loire, France).Arch�eologique 2, Luxembourg, pp. 165e196. Burin pr�ehistorique : formes,fonctionnements, fonctiona.

Dibble, H.L., 1984. The Mousterian industry from Bisitun Cave (Iran). Pal�eorient 10(2), 23e34.

Dibble, H.L., 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology.American Antiquity 52 (1), 109e117.

Dibble, H.L., Mc Pherron, S.P., 2006. The missing Mousterian. Current Anthropology47 (5), 777e803.

Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.P., 2007. Truncated-faceted pieces: hafting modification,retouch, or cores? In: McPherron, S.P. (Ed.), Tools versus Cores: AlternativeApproaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle,pp. 75e90.

Diethelm, I., 1996. The silex raw material of the Acheulean site Nadaouiyeh AïnAskar in the El Kowm Basin, Syria e mineralogical preliminary report. Travauxde la Mission Arch�eologique Syro-Suisse d’El Kowm 1, 82e84.

Gallagher, J.,P., 1977. Contemporary stone tools in Ethiopia: implications forarchaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4, 407e414.

Geneste, J.-M., Plisson, H., 1999. Production et utilisation de l'outillage lithique dansle Moust�erien du Sud-ouest de la France: Les Tares �a Sourzac, vall�ee de l'Isle,Dordogne. In: Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S. (Eds.), Reduction Processes (“chaînesop�eratoires”) for the European Mousterian. Quaternaria Nova VI, pp. 343e368.

Goren-Inbar, N., 1988. Too small to be true? Re-evaluation of core on flakes inLevantine Mousterian assemblages. Lithic Technology 17, 37e44.

Goren-Inbar, N., 1990. Quneitra e a Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights (Qedem31). Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Gould, R.A., 1977. Some current problems in ethnoarchaeology. In: Ingersoll, D.,Yellen, J.E., MacDonald, W. (Eds.), Experimental Archaeology. Columbia Uni-versity Press, New York, pp. 359e377.

Hauck, T.C., 2010. The Mousterian Sequence of Hummal (Syria). PhD-thesis. BaselUniversity.

Hauck, Th, Wojtczak, D., Wegmüller, F., Le Tensorer, J.-M., 2010. Variation in Lowerand Middle Paleolithic land use strategies in the Syrian Desert steppe: theexample of Hummal (El Kowm area). In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamicsof the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen.

Hayden, B., Franco, N., Spafford, J., 1996. Evaluating lithic strategies and designcriteria. In: Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into HumanPrehistory. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 9e45.

Hours, F., 1982. Une nouvelle industrie en Syrie entre l'Acheul�een sup�erieur et leLevalloiso-Moust�erien. In: de l’Orient, Maison (Ed.), Arch�eologie du LevantRecueil Roger Saidah. Maison de l'Orient, Lyon, pp. 33e46.

Hovers, E., 1997. Variability of Lithic Assemblages and Settlement Patterns in theLevantine Middle Palaeolithic: Implications for the Development of HumanBehavior (PhD. dissertation). The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Hovers, E., 2007. The many faces of cores-on-flakes: a perspective from the LevantineMousterian. In: McPherron, S. (Ed.), Tools versus Cores: Alternative Approachesto Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 42e74.

Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Jelinek, A.,J., Bradley, B., Huckell, B., 1971. The production of secondary multipleflakes. American Antiquity 36 (2), 198e200.

Jelinek, A.J., 1976. Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. In: Cleland, C.E. (Ed.),Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin. Ac-ademic Press, New York, pp. 19e33.

Julig, P., Long, G.F., 2001. Flint sourcing in Central steppe Desert region, Syria. In:Fortin, M. (Ed.), Canadian Research on Ancient Syria. Mus�ee de la Civilisation,Qu�ebec, pp. 19e31.

Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. An Ecological Perspective. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton.

Laplace-Jauretche, G., 1957. Typologie analytique. Application d’une nouvellem�ethode d’�etudedes formes et des structures aux industries �a lames etlamelles. Quaternaria IV, 133e164. Princeton University Press, Princeton (N.J.).

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(14)00768-X/sref1







http://www.ele.net/recycling/diffsurf.htm

http://www.ele.net/recycling/diffsurf.htm


























































































































































































































































Le Tensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R., Muhesen, S., 2001. Paleolithic settlement dynamics inthe El Kowm area (Central Syria). In: Conard, N. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics ofthe Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen,pp. 101e122.

Le Tensorer, J.-M., 2004. Nouvelles fouilles �a Hummal (El Kowm, Syrie Centrale).Premiers r�esultats (1997e2001). In: Aurenche, O., Le Mi�ere, M., Sanlaville, P.(Eds.), From the River to the Sea. The Palaeolithic and the Neolithic on theEuphrates and in the Northern Levant, Studies in Honour of Lorraine Copeland,pp. 223e239. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Le Tensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R., Rentzel, P., Hauck, T., Ismail-Meyer, K., Pümpin, C.,Wojtczak, D., 2007. Long-term site formation processes at the natural springsNadaouiyeh and Hummal in the El Kowm Oasis, Central Syria. Geoarchaeology22 (6), 621e640.

Maillo-Fernandez, J.M., Cabrera Valdes, V., Bernaldode Quiros, F., 2004. Le d�ebitagelamellaire dans le Moust�erien final de Cantabrie (Espagne): le cas de El Castilloet Cueva Morin. L'Anthropologie 108, 367e393.

McAnany, P.,A., 1988. The effects of lithic procurement strategies on tool curationand recycling. Lithic Technology 17, 3e11.

McPherron, S.P., 2007. Tools Versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone ToolAnalysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.

Meignen, L., 2011. The contribution of Hayonim cave assemblages to the under-standing of the so-called Early Levantine Mousterian. The Lower and MiddlePalaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions. In: ERAUL 126,pp. 85e100.

Munday, F., 1977. Nahal Aqev (D35): a stratified, open-air Mousterian occupation inthe Avdat/Aqev area. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), The Avdat/Aqev Area Part 2, and theHar Harif, Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev Israel, vol. II.Southern Methodist University (SMU) Press, Dallas, pp. 35e60.

Newcomer, M.H., Hivernel-Guerre, F., 1974. Nucl�eus sur �eclat: T�echnologie et uti-lisation par diff�erentes cultures pr�ehistoriques. Bulletin de la Soci�et�ePr�ehistorique Française 71, 119e128.

Nishiaki, Y., 1985. Truncated-faceted Flakes from Levantine Mousterian Assem-blages. University of Tokyo Bulletin 4, pp. 215e226.

No€el-Soriano, S., Bo€eda, E., Griggo, C., 2001. Diff�erents modes d'occupation du sited'Umm El Tlel au cours du Pal�eolithique moyen (El Kowm, Syrie Centrale).Pal�eorient 27 (2), 13e28.

Odell, G.H., 1996. Economizing behavior and the concept of “curation”. In:Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory.Plenum Press, New York, pp. 51e80.

Park, S.-J., 2008. R�esum�e de th�ese. Syst�emes de production lithique et circulationdes mati�eres premi�eres au Pal�eolithique moyen r�ecent et final: Une approchetechno�economique �a partir de l'�etude des industries lithiques de la Quina.Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française 105 (3), 625e634.

Pastoors, A., 2009. Blades? e Thanks, no interest! Neanderthals in Salzgitter-Leb-enstedt. Quart€ar 56, 105e118.

R�evillion, S., Tuffreau, A., 1994. Valeur et signification du d�ebitage laminaire dugisement Pal�eolithique moyen de Seclin (Nord). In: R�evillion, S., Tuffreau, A.(Eds.), Les Industries Laminaires au Pal�eolithique Moyen. Dossier de Docu-mentation Arch�eologique, vol. 18, pp. 19e44.

Richter, D., 2006. Erste Ergebnisse der Thermoluminiszenz-Datierung für dieFundstelle Ain Hummal. Travaux de la Mission Arch�eologique Syro-Suisse d'ElKowm 11, 45.

Richter, D., Hauck, T.C., Wojtczak, D., Le Tensorer, J.-M., Muhesen, S., 2011. Chro-nometric age estimates for the site of Hummal (El Kowm, Syria). The Lower andMiddle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions. In: ERAUL126, pp. 249e262.

Rolland, N., Dibble, H.L., 1990. A new Synthesis of mousterian variability. AmericanAntiquity 55, 480e499.

Ronen, A., 1970. Prepared for AN 331, Prehistory, Fall Semester 1970 University ofArizona. In: Ronengeneral, A. (Ed.), Typology of Paleolithic Stone Implements(Old World). Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Rule, P., Evans, J., 1985. The Relationship of morphological variation to haftingtechniques among Paleoindian Endscrapers at the Shawnee Minisink Site. In:McNett, C. (Ed.), Shawnee Minisink Site: a Stratified Paleoindian-archaic Site inthe Upper Dela1aware Valley of Pennsylvania. Academic Press, New York,pp. 211e220.

Semenow, S., 1964. Prehistoric Technology: an Experimental Study of the OldestTools and Artifacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Moonrakerpressedition. Cory, Adams and Mackay, London.

Schiffer, M.B., 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiq-uity 37, 156e165.

Schiffer, M.B., 1976. Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York.Schiffer, M.B., 1977. Toward a Unified science of the cultural Past. In: South, S. (Ed.),

Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York,pp. 13e50.

Schroeder, H.B., 1969. The Lithic Industries from Jerf al-Ajla and Their Bearing on theProblem of a Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition. Ph.D. dissertation. Uni-versity of Columbia, Columbia.

Shott, M., 1986. Technological organization and settlement mobility: an ethno-graphic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42 (1), 15e51.

Shott, M.J., 1989. On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological as-semblages. American Antiquity 54 (1), 9e30.

Shott, M.J., 1996. An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 52 (3), 259e280.

Slimak, L., Lucas, G., 2005. Le d�ebitage lamellaire, une invention aurignacienne? In:Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Foni (Eds.), Productions lamellaires attribu�ees �a l'Aurig-nacien. Chaînes op�eratoires et perspectives technoculturelles. Imprimerie Fr.Faber, Luxemburg, pp. 75e102.

Solecki, R.L., Solecki, R.S., 1979. A new secondary flaking technique at the NahrIbrahim cave site, Lebanon. Bulletin du Mus�ee de Beyrouth 23, 137e140.

Tomaskova, S., 2005. What is a burin? Typology, technology and interregionalcomparison. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (2), 79e115.

Vaquero, M., 2011. New perspectives on recycling of lithic resources using refittingand spatial data. Quart€ar 58, 113e130.

Vaughan, P.C., 1985. The burin-blowtechnique: creator or eliminator? Journal ofField Archaeology 12, 488e496.

Weber, Th, 1991. Mathematische Methoden bei der Analyse von Inventaren ges-chlagener Steinartefakte. Ph.D. dissertation. Martin-Luther University of Halle e

Wittenberg, Hall.Wojtczak, D., 2011. Hummal (Central Syria) and its Eponymous Industry. The Lower

and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions. In:ERAUL 126, pp. 289e308.

Wojtczak, D., 2014. The Early Middle Palaeolithic Blade Industry from Hummal, El-Kowm, Central Syria. PhD-thesis. Basel University.




















































































































































































Cores on flakes and bladelet production, a question of recycling? The perspective from the Hummalian...

Documents

Transcript of Cores on flakes and bladelet production, a question of recycling? The perspective from the Hummalian...