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

Quaternary International 361 (2015) 155e177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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, Central Syria Dorota Wojtczak a, b, * a b

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

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 7 November 2014

The excavation of the spring site at Hummal, located in the region of El Kowm (Central Syria) is a reference site for the Palaeolithic in the interior Levant due to its archaeological sequence of deposits from 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, another interesting feature that needs to be highlighted is the variation of reuse during on-site production. The practice is documented throughout Hummalian occupations and is observed through the recycling of blanks and by-products of the main reduction strategy for production of secondary blanks, patinated items for shaping new tools, using the Yabrudian scrapers as a cores and shaping exhausted cores for tool use. The main focus here will be on the presence of numerous core-burins and cores on flake including truncated-faceted pieces. The former are in the author's opinion the evidence of recycling and their end products, namely bladelets represent desired components supplementary to the repertoire of various specimens recovered from Hummalian layers and could suggest easily portable implements. The latter group, cores on flake, seems to represent a subdivision of the reduction system carried out on-site rather than a concept of recycling. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: El Kowm Middle Palaeolithic Hummalian Blade industry Lithic industries Nahr Ibrahim

1. Introduction Ideally, every artefact during its life takes part in five processes: procurement, manufacture, use, maintenance, and discard. However, many archaeologists state that not all lithic items seem to follow this linear path through its life cycle, sometimes even being redirected 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 reuse including the recycling process and its related terminology (Amick, 2007; Camilli and Ebert, 1992; Baker, 2007). Regardless of the lack of common agreement as how to precisely define recycling, it is evident that the notion of recycling is a particular form of reuse and


Nice Sophia Antipolis, SJA3 e CEPAM e UMR 7264 CNRS, Nice, * Universite France. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.10.021 1040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

its role in prehistoric economies was a significant factor recognized in 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 lithic recycling for ancient societies, even if the unequivocal identification of this action in archaeological context is often limited. Its identification can be crucial in the interpretation of mobility, site occupation pattern and procurement of lithic resources influencing the 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 be seen in the variety of technological traditions (McAnany, 1988). Furthermore, recycling along with maintenance, are regarded as two aspects of lithic curation and may appear as a response to the shortage of available raw material (Bamforth, 1986). However, since the recycled item had to be discarded after the first use and then selected again, both recycling and maintenance are very different

156

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

processes. The recycled specimen does not represent an extension of the use-life of an artefact like the action of resharpening, but the beginning of the new use-life after the first one has been completed. The definition of curation has been a matter of discussion from the moment the term was coined by Binford in 1973. His concept has seen both extensive repetition and severe criticism (Bamforth, 1986, 1991; Shott, 1986, 1996; Andrefsky, 1994; Odell, 1996). Imprecision in his original description of the concept has meant that researchers use it in their own way, and as a result curation now has many different definitions in the published literature. Shott (1996) proposed a new definition of curation, seeing it as a continuous variable and a property of tools, not of entire assemblages. In 2009 Binford defined ‘curation: “… the degree to which technology is maintained, the amount of labour investment in the design and production of tools so as to ensure them a long use life.” (Binford, 2009; 465). The concept of recycling as a form of reuse was developed by Schiffer (1972, 1976, 1977) to emphasise stages of “life history” of an artefact and to establish the connection between human behavioural patterns and the archaeological framework. To avoid terminological confusion, the terms recycling and curation employed in this study are defined thus: Recycling is the process by which an artefact completing its first use-life is yet again selected for use, starting its second use-life. It can be perceived in archaeological records when: 1. An existing specimen (often exhausted or discarded) serves as a core for the manufacture of a usable item (or items) or is modified for a new function in respond to new situation; 2. A lithic artefact is scavenged from different archaeological horizon and reused, reshaped or used as a core. In this study, curation is seen as a concept including production of the implement and maintenance throughout its life, extending the use-life of the artefact. The aim of this paper is to observe recycling and its importance to the behavioural patterns originating from the Hummalian occupation. It will mainly examine the presence of numerous cores on flake and core-burins as well as their end products, namely bladelets.

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

Reference will be made primarily to the results from lithic analysis of the richer layers 6b and sand ah, but the observations from other less rich layers have been also taken in account. The estimated TL age for Hummalian is approximately 200 ka. The context age assessment for the heated flints from layer ah give a minimum model of 190 ± 35 ka and a maximum model of 210 ± 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 Kowm area in Central Syria where Hummalian artefacts were identified (Fig. 1). A systematic excavation of the Hummalian cultural horizon was only undertaken on the artesian spring sites of Hummal. Preliminary surveys at the site led to the discovery of several archaeological levels in the interior well deposits; within them a new 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). Between 1982 and 1997, regular investigations of the site, its stratigraphy and the archaeological material were undertaken by researchers as part of a French Permanent Mission in El-Kowm (Hours, 1982; Bergman and Ohnuma, 1983; Copeland, 1985) and since 1997 as a Syrio-Swiss archaeological project led by Jean-Marie Le Tensorer and Sultan Muhesen (Le Tensorer, 2004). Exploration primarily concentrated on the Hummalian material, describing it as a blade culture prior to the Levallois-Mousterian. The site of Hummal is one of the artesian spring sites related to faults in the substratum, discovered in the El Kowm region (Central Syria). 20% of the sites known in the area of El-Kowm are spring sites, showing excellent preservation for Palaeolithic open-air sites. This is due to rapid build-up of fine sediments. Actions of springs combined with the wind action and human activity frequently caused the formation of a hillock around the spring. The current inhabitants of El-Kowm often dig new wells on these raised points, which helped to identify several archaeological sites of thick stratigraphy, such as Hummal (Besançons et al., 1981, 1982; Le Tensorer et al., 2001). Other regional sites are mainly surface scatters of flint tools, providing little information on the settlement structure. The site is in direct contact with the old artesian spring which was active for more than 780,000 years (the geological sequence investigated paleomagnetically by J. J. Villalain from Barcelona University indicates the horizon of Brunhes-Matuyama for the Lower Palaeolithic) until the early 1980s (oral communication J.M. Le Tensorer). It supplied water to a pool of variable size. The water level varied according to the periods (wet and arid) and played a big role in the sediment formation of the site and the conservation of archaeological levels. The majority of the sediment contains micritic loam, directly precipitated from the water. The sediment built up not only during the high water levels but also during the decreasing water level when the depression of the dried pool and remaining plant cover around catch the loose wind driven sand, creating the considerable accumulations of aeolian sand which was subsequently displaced in the centre of the water (Le Tensorer et al., 2007). Humans settled continuously in the vicinity from Lower to Upper Palaeolithic, attracted by water, animals, and high quality Eocene flint. Two main geological flint types were identified in the El-Kowm area. In the south exists an Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) flint type recognized in the Cretaceous formation of Palmyrides range (the north side of the Jebel Mqabra) and in the north, a Palaeocene and Lower Eocene flint type documented in the Paleogene formation of Jebal Bishri. These two horizons of flint have been formed on the same open marine carbonate shelf and have a parallel geological genesis (Julig and Long, 2001). The deposits of the Paleogene

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

157

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.)

are rich in high quality flint and emerge around the El-Kowm area with a maximum distance of 15 km from the identified prehistoric sites (Fig. 2). The microfossil analyses indicate two types of supply to the Paleogene: flint nodules that are in a primary deposit and weathered flint nodules transferred onto lower terraces by the wadis. This type of flint is very fine grained and excellent quality for knapping. Its colour varies from black to light brown with a white, sometimes red cortex. The nodule size fluctuates from a few centimetres up to tens of centimetres, and are very heterogeneous, forming both nodules and plates. The Cretaceous flint deposits appear in the form of bands, lenses and nodules, which can be exposed by erosion of the parent rock. The bands of reddish-grey colour flint, without cortex, are usually tectonically deformed, veined, and exhibit numerous breaks. They are of low quality for knapping tools. They are positioned at a distance of 10e15 km from the prehistoric sites. It appears that both sources of flint were easily available, but the humans used mainly the high quality Lower Eocene flint for tool making which seems to be exploited consistently throughout the Palaeolithic. The survey of the primary flint outcrops of the region and their surroundings demonstrated that all varieties of nodule types and colours occur in all major outcrops. The mineralogical and microfossil composition of Eocene flint is very similar between the outcrops and thus it is not possible to define the local groups of diverse flint and set any precise place where the prehistoric people collected their raw material. As a consequence it is problematic from the perspective of proving a possible provisioning strategy in the region (Diethelm, 1996; Julig and Long, 2001). The other possible material for tool making is limestone, which can be found with Eocene flint outcrops. It can be well silicified and its large blocks are appropriate for knapping. The origin of limestone used in Hummal is unknown. The possible source of this material is the alluvial deposits uncovered from some wells in the area of Hummal. The raw material used in Hummalian layers is approximately 99% local Lower Eocene flint from the El Kowm area, the remainder being made from Cretaceous flint and limestone. The occurrence of lithic items which bear a weathered cortex or neocortex give

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

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

158

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

provisioning outside of Hummal was the flint found on site, left by the previous occupants. This is noticeable in the presence of double patinated 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. The fieldwork focused on the western, eastern and later, the southern part of Hummal, an excavation area covering 28 m2 in total (Fig. 3).

Three separate stratigraphical sequences were documented and were well correlated between each, exhibiting only minor differences. The stratigraphic position of Hummalian between the Yabrudian and Mousterian was confirmed in all sectors (Fig. 4). The site was repeatedly occupied, but the density of the archaeological remains between layers is variable (Table 1). This is connected to the limited extent of the excavation and possibly differing intensities of occupation. During Hummalian occupations, the levels with high-density artefacts are related to the period of water regression and reduced spring activity and the low-density levels to periods of significant freshwater input, leading to a prolonged lake system. These observations together with the results from the study of lithics suggest that the changing local

Fig. 4. Profile 34 documenting the Hummalian sequence in the Western section of Hummal.

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

management. These can be structured into two principal types: frontal and semi-rotating. Reduction begins often at the intersection of one wide and narrow part of the nodule following a natural ridge. The flaking surface of such cores, usually arranged to the length of the nodule, onto the convex, elongated and narrow face, could be expanded on its lateral sides during flaking. The different orientations of the flaking surface on the cores leads to a production of morphologically different but always elongated blanks and at the same time it seems to be an adaptation relating to the shape of the nodule or flake. Faceting was used for rejuvenation of the core platform. Additionally, management of the flaking surface was regularly attained by the removal of a flake edge along a natural or cortical ridge, and occasionally by secondary crested blades. As blank production was carried out until exhaustion of the core, the assemblage includes blanks with a size scale ranging from blades to bladelets. However, there was also a separate production of bladelets from core-burins, and bladelet cores and blanks of different size from truncated-faceted pieces. All these elements indicate a level of complexity in blank production. Although blade reduction was certainly dominant in the Hummalian industry primary flaking processes, the two additional reductions are also clearly identifiable. The retouched tools, made mainly on blades and less often on flakes, seem to be quite standardised in their metrical and nonmetrical attributes, both between the assemblages and the tools categories. The tool-kit from all layers comprises of retouched

environment influenced the site function. The length of occupation in different layers in the Hummalian horizon is difficult to ascertain, but the high concentration of items in layer 6b and 6a seems to be related to successive occupation episodes without clear intermediate layers and the lower density of artefacts in layers 7a, 7c and 6c2 corresponds to shorter-term occupations. Table 1 Density of artefacts in the Hummalian layers. Layer 2

Excavated surface (m ) Density (item per m3) Fauna (artefacts
2 cm) Lithics (artefacts
2 cm)

6a

6b

6c2

7a

7c

10 241 6 476

14 2682 51 3704

2 137 6 186

14 19 13 41

18 50 29 332

159

The sequence also contains a massive sand deposit (ah) in the heart of the doline (Fig. 5). The geological observations show that this sand intercalates between the Yabroudian layer 8 and Hummalian layers 7 (Le Tensorer, 2004; 229) and does not mix with other layers. This assemblage is homogenous and presents all technological features observed in the in situ layers, and therefore appears to be of the same technological tradition (Wojtczak, 2014). The lithic analysis concerned 10,305 artefacts of which 7411 came from in situ layers and 2894 from the sandy layer ah (Table 2).

Table 2 Inventory of analysed Hummalian assemblages. Layers

6a

6b

n Flakes Retouched flakes Unretouched blades Retouched blades Bladelets Core Trimming Elements Sum of debitage and shaped items Cores
bris >2 cm De Chips 2 cm
bris <2 cm De Hammerstone Total

63 221 11 17 54 366 4 106

6B

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

17%

252 73 1422 275 107 1021 3150 196 342 13 1165 7 4873

8% 2% 45% 9% 3% 32% 100%

9 2 44 19 11 70 155 7 4 20 114

6% 1% 28% 12% 7% 45% 100%

4 1 12 1 1 12 31 2 6 143

12.9% 3.2% 38.7% 3.2% 3.2% 38.7% 100%

35 4 49 9 16 52 165 5 84 84 263 5 606

21.1% 2.4% 29.7% 5.5% 9.7% 31.5% 100%

6 3 16 6 2 10 43 5

14.0% 7.0% 37.2% 14.0% 4.7% 23.3% 100%

5 2 10 11

14.7% 5.9% 29.4% 32.4%

6 34 7

17.6% 100%

153 44 545 323 100 484 1649 89 215 462 474 5 2894

9.3% 2.7% 33.1% 19.6% 6.1% 29.4% 100%

60% 3% 5% 15% 100%

816 1292

6c2

300

4. Results 4.1. Characteristics of the Hummalian industry The detailed technological analysis of Hummalian industry was presented elsewhere (Wojtczak, 2011, 2014) and therefore only a summary of results will be offered here. The lithic assemblages from all the Hummalian layers seem to represent similar technological and typological features. The common flaking technique is direct percussion with a hard hammer. The unidirectional flaking system dominates in all layers, but bidirectional is also well represented. The goal of production was elongated blanks regardless of their size, with the mean length/width from 2.7 to 3. The manufactured blank blades encompass a number of specimens with different morphologies. They can have high triangular or trapezoidal cross-sections or be flat, narrow or broad, thick or thin. Most butts are slightly faceted or plain, but several present a cautiously faceted platform. These blanks, although looking morphologically different e either prismatic or Levallois e seem to be the result of a single reduction strategy involving different kinds of core volume

7a

182

7c

ah

6A1-2

%

30 1 79

13 25 79

blades, often converging in the distal part and also frequently pointed by retouch; that is, Mousterian tool-type scrapers and notches/denticulate, and also Upper Palaeolithic types such as end scrapers. Hummalian assemblages also show various origins of reuse of lithic artefacts at Hummal. An evaluation of this phenomenon follows.

4.2. Cores on flake Habitually detached flake from a regular nodule core is regarded as end-product of reduction strategy. If the flake is transformed into core, it becomes a source of raw material for manufacturing another flake. Such cores on flake seem to fit the definition of recycling but this phenomenon requires special attention. It has been demonstrated that cores on flake share the same concept of core reduction with nodule cores on many Palaeolithic sites and therefore 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

160

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

Three strategies were used to exploit flakes as cores. One is classifiable as a Laminar method, when the management of cores on flake follow the technological concepts that were applied to nodule cores. A second uses the Nahr Ibrahim preparation, and a third is defined by the removal of a narrow bladelets, from the edge of a flake or debris or from bladelet cores. 4.2.1. Laminar cores on flake The identified flaking methods showed that a portion of cores on flake follow the reduction strategy observed on cores made on nodule (Laminar cores) and were classified as Laminar cores on flake. This group is well represented and was used to flake regular large and small blanks. The rather large and elongated flint items were manufactured on site, selected by the flintknapper and struck on their dorsal, or occasionally on the ventral face. The selection seems to be determined by the thickness and overall morphology of the piece. The chosen items had regularly a triangular cross-section, with a convex flaking surface formed between the back and the side of item. A comparison between Laminar cores on flake and regular Laminar cores made on nodule displays a remarkable similarity regarding their morphology, their minimum size, and the size of the last scars visible on their dorsal surfaces. Hence, Laminar cores on nodule and on flake present no differentiating metric features with respect to blank manufacture at the end of their use life (Fig. 6) and are be regarded as a part of main reduction strategy undertaken on site. In this, they cannot be regarded as recycled items, because their production was a part of the main chaine op
eratoire exercised on site. Fig. 5. Profile documenting the stratigraphical position of sand ah between layers 8 and 7c (redrawn after Le Tensorer, 2002).

exploited in order to obtain other blanks. Such an action is a part of the 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). Cores made 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 is considered here as chunks of lithic material removed from core which does not fit the definition of flake, having neither an identifiable platform nor dorsal and ventral faces. Correspondingly flake or debris which show one or more distinct negative left by a blank removal was considered as core on flake. Some technological phenomena can cause an accidental removal of small flakes (Jelinek et al. 1971; Dag and Goren-Inbar, 2001) and expand the number of identified ‘purposeful’ cores on flake. To reduce such errors, flakes with only one negative visible on their surface were branded as cores on flake if a secondary flake were manufactured after a striking platform had been prepared, indicating intent. Furthermore, the accidental removal of flake usually occurs in the bulbar area of flakes, and in the case of the Hummalian assemblages cores on flakes were exploited commonly on their dorsal face. Table 3 Frequency of cores categories in Hummalian layers. Layer

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

On block

On flake

Bladelet cores

Core-burins

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

94 2

48% 29%

3 53 1

75% 27% 14%

1 8 2

4% 29%

41 2 2

0% 21% 29% 100%

4 2 1 40

57% 40% 14% 45%

3 2 5 35

43% 40% 71% 39%

1 1 14

20% 14% 16%

Total

4 196 7 2 7 5 7 89

4.2.2. Cores on flake with Nahr Ibrahim preparation The group contains items made of flake with a particular preparation: the removal of small flakes on one face creates a striking platform for flake removals on the opposite face. Such preparation can appear on proximal and/or distal parts or infrequently on the sides. They represent so called truncated-faceted pieces (Schroeder, 1969; 396e403) or using the technique labelled Nahr Ibrahim (NI) (Solecki and Solecki, 1979). There are three hypotheses to consider these very characteristic specimens. The first perceives the retouch on the ventral face as made for functional purposes. Semenov (1964; 63, Fig. 65) proposed such an interpretation after analysing Kostienki knives, and later Dibble (1984; 29) who studied the Mousterian industry of Bistun Cave drew similar conclusions. The second assumption is that the NI technique was used to thin the lithic specimen intended for hafting €l-Soriano et al., 2001; 24, (Schroeder, 1969; 29, Crew, 1976; 109, Noe Fig. 17). The latter hypothesis is that such modification was used for core preparation and that these specimens are cores for flake production (cf. Newcomer and Hivernel-Guerre, 1974; Nishiaki, 1985; Goren-Inbar, 1988, 2007; Hovers, 2007; Hauck, 2010). Rose and Ralph Solecki proposed a typological list of NI pieces and suggested that this kind of technique could be used for various purposes: for hafting or for core preparation when flint knapper wanted to strike a flake from another flake, hence this piece became a core on flake (Solecki and Solecki, 1979). Lack of traceological studies of truncated-faceted pieces from Hummal does not help in their interpretation. Considering numerous 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 a morphological adaptation to fit a certain haft. However, the NI preparation often (more than half of truncated-faceted pieces) occurs on multiple edges of the same lithic item, and the hypothesis that it is a hafting adaptation seems to be rather unreliable. The truncated pieces presented in Hummalian layers occur on items of different morphology (blades and flakes) but the majority

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

161

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 truncatedfaceted specimens were classified as cores on flake with NI preparation. The metrical properties of all cores categories versus blanks suggested such a classification. Furthermore, their dorsal scar pattern seems to be dependent on the location of truncation. If the truncation was set on the proximal part of blank, the reduction is unidirectional, scars coming from a single direction from truncation onto the dorsal face of the blank. If truncation has been accomplished on the proximal and distal part of the item, the reduction is bidirectional. The use of NI technique is visible in seven of the eight Hummalian layers, which comprises 42 specimens. They were truncated and then faceted on either the proximal or distal ends or both. The truncation set on side(s) of specimen is sporadic; only three items demonstrate such configuration. The prepared edge serves as a platform. In all pieces the faceted platform is situated on the ventral face, if applied to the proximal end, the faceting removed the bulb. The angle between prepared platform and dorsal face varies between 105 and 130 . There are 23 bidirectional pieces and 19 unidirectional. There are six NI pieces made on retouched support and a couple clearly manufactured on previously discarded items as visible thanks to their double patination (Fig. 7: 2). In all cases, the dorsal surface was used for blank production which seems to be often related with the presence of parallel ridges. Such guide-ridges

facilitate detachments of secondary blanks. However, recent refitting of a small workshop from Layer 7c (Wojtczak and Demidenko in 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 undertaken. These are very similar to the small, double ventral Janus/ Kombewa flakes, discovered in Qesem Cave and described as handheld cutting tools used in meat-processing (Barkai et al., 2010). Comparing metrical data (length, width, thickness and index of relative thickness) of all core types and blanks with NI pieces from Layers 6b and sand ah (Figs. 8 and 9), the source for manufacturing of NI, as well as core-burins and Laminar cores on flake were blanks found on the site, completed in situ throughout the extensive reduction of cores on nodules (Wojtczak, 2014: 147e148). In both layers, the median length of NI is bigger than of Laminar cores, coreburins and blank flakes, but smaller than of retouched blanks and blade blanks. The median width of NI in layer 6b is greater than all selected artefacts (Figs. 10 and 11) including retouched blanks. In sand ah, the median width of NI is smaller than Laminar cores and blank flakes, but larger than core-burins and retouched blanks. The median thickness of NI in both layers is smaller than other cores categories but larger than retouched and non-retouched blanks (Figs. 12 and 13). The index of relative thickness ((RT ¼ t/ 0.5*(L þ W), the thickness was measured at the artefact's midpoint

162

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

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

and L and W are the artefact's length and width respectively, after Weber, 1991) shows a very similar value in both layers for all cores made on flakes (NI, Laminar and core-burins), and the cores never attain the minimum value of index relative thickness of blanks. As expected, this value is the highest for cores on nodule (Figs. 14 and

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

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

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

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

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

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

15). It appears the flintknapper sought relatively large and thick items to set up truncation. The lower median length of Laminar cores versus NI can be explained by their extensive on site reduction, and in any case at the end of their use-life they are still thicker than NI. Looking at all metric properties, the smaller blanks in terms of length and thickness (and in the case of layer 6b also width) were avoided in the course of choosing specimens to be used for secondary production, with an exception of core-burins. Another point of interest when comparing different type of cores is the amount of cortex visible on their surfaces. As a rule, it is assumed to decrease as reduction progresses. The NI items are almost totally deprived of cortical coverage in both collections. There are three pieces in Layer 6b and two in sand ah showing generally small amounts (less than 20%) of cortex on their dorsal face. Conversely, the Laminar cores made on nodules display a significant percentage of cortex on their surfaces (from 25 to 75% of surface), especially on their ventral face, 85% in layer 6b and 75% in sand ah. In Layer 6b, 57% of Laminar cores made on flake show the presence of cortex. 27% carry small patches of cortex (covering less than 25% of their surface) on their dorsal face and 30% a larger proportion of cortex from 25 to 50% of their ventral surface. In sand ah, almost 50% of Laminar cores on flake have small patches of cortex (less than 25%) on their dorsal face, with only one example showing larger patches of cortex on its ventral surface. It could be advocated that blanks used in manufacturing of NI pieces were selected not only in terms of metrical properties but also in terms of absence of cortex which could not be completely removed throughout the short reduction cycles. As flakes are usually thinner than the nodules, they are expected to produce a limited number of blanks and to be discarded after the short reduction sequence. The mean number of negatives longer or equal to 2 cm visible on the upper face of NI cores in both Hummalian layers is lower than that from Laminar cores on flake and

163

nodule (Table 4). This data confirms that NI cores were less productive than cores reduced through the main reduction strategy, and demonstrates their different life history as well. Table 4 The mean number of negatives (
2 cm) visible on the upper face of complete Laminar cores and NI in layers 6b and sand ah (in parentheses the number of intact items). 6b Mean Median sd Max Min

Laminar cores on nodule (69) 4.0 4.0 1.1 9.0 3.0

Laminar cores on flake (34)

NI (14)

3.5 3.0 1.0 6.0 2.0

3.0 3.0 0.8 4.0 2.0

Sand ah

Laminar cores on nodule (40)

Laminar cores on flake (17)

NI (18)

Mean Median sd Max Min

3.9 4.0 1.3 10.0 3.0

3.2 3.0 0.8 5.0 2.0

2.5 2.0 1.1 5.0 1.0

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

164

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

There is no direct correlation between scar length and core categories, and there is a high degree of overlap between them. As the large majority of cores from both assemblages seem to be exhausted (their cross-section became flat), it could be suggested that they were rejected when an average margin of thickness was reached. The similarity of exhaustion index (core thickness divided by core volume, Hovers, 2009; 179) between all core categories (except core-burins), shows that their dimensions were proportionally reduced to the same degree and all cores types present similar geometrical and morphological characteristic when discarded (Table 5). The lack of cortex on surfaces of NI specimens, their rather short life-use and restricted productivity determined by their thickness, suggest the existence of two separate reduction sequences that diverge in their duration and intensity. As suggested previously, there is one reduction sequence that is characteristic for Laminar cores either on flakes or nodule and another, separate one for NI items. In view of this, the discrete reduction strategy of NI pieces, with all its similarities and dissimilarities to the main reduction strategy, seems to be perfectly incorporated into the general system of debitage and could be therefore regarded as a part of the main production system recognised on the site (Figs. 18 and 19) rather than part of recycling strategy. However, there are exceptions to the above approach: NI pieces arranged on previously patinated items demonstrating a clear recycling of previously discarded pieces. Also, there are a few pieces that present retouch on one side. In the case of the latter group, it is impossible to determine the order of production as the NI preparation and the negatives of detachments made from truncation are separate from the negatives of retouch or vice versa. This means that it cannot be determined whether the NI preparation and detachment of secondary blanks was undertaken on an already retouched piece, or the retouching occurred after the initial preparation. Whichever the order of production, this is clear evidence of recycling, where the function of the item has changed: the core with NI preparation became a formal tool or the previously retouched tool was used as a core for secondary blank production. Additionally, it shows that a typologically similar lithic artefact could be multifunctional, being sometimes the core, sometimes the tool, or both.

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

Laminar cores on nodule (69)

Laminar cores on flake (34)

NI (14)

Mean Median sd Max Min

0.05 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.02

0.06 0.06 0.04 0.26 0.02

0.05 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.03

Sand ah

Laminar cores on nodule (40)

Laminar cores on flake (17)

NI (18)

Mean Median sd Max Min

0.05 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.01

0.06 0.05 0.02 0.12 0.03

0.05 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.03

documented in all Hummalian layers, followed by their endproduct, bladelets. Burins have long been considered as an engraving tool, and their types were renowned on the base of either manufacturing technique (Bordes, 1947; Laplace, 1957; Barton et al., 1998; 111e113; Ronen, 1970) or morphology. The results of use-wear analysis show that the burin was a multi-tasking tool rather than a single purpose object (Tomaskova, 2005). Additionally, some display the traces of use and others not. This has led some scholars to propose a burin was the rejuvenation of an edge rather than manufacture of a bevelled tip (Vaughan, 1985). It is also advocated that burins that do not demonstrate evidence of use have served as cores for bladelet production (Beyries, 1993; 60,; De Araujo-Igreya and Pesesse, 2006) and that there is functional diversity among stone artefacts reduced by burination (Barton et al., 2013). Unfortunately, no traceological analyses on items which would be typologically described as ‘burin’ were undertaken on the Hummalian material. Therefore the idea that core-burins were used as tools cannot be ruled out. Nonetheless, their morphology and the presence of bladelets in all analysed layers suggest that these burins could be a source of bladelets and thus all are considered here as cores for bladelet production. In all analysed layers, the bladelets and/or coreburins (Fig. 20: 3e10 and Fig. 21) and bladelets cores (Fig. 20: 1e2) are present. The length and width of negatives visible on the flaking surface of core-burins and bladelet cores are similar in both lithic complexes (Table 6). The metrical attributes of intact bladelets indicate that they could be struck from analysed core-burins.

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

Length Mean Median sd Max Min Width Mean Median sd Max Min Thickness Mean Median sd Max Min

Sand ah

6b Bladelet cores/coreburins (49)

Bladelets 107 (8)

Coreburins (14)

Bladelets: 100(10)

Negatives 2.9 2.8 0.9 4.9 1.4

Complete pieces 3.1 3.0 0.6 3.9 2.3

Negatives 3.2 3.0 0.8 5.0 2.0

Complete pieces 4.0 3.9 0.5 4.7 3.2

0.7 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.4

1.0 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.7

0.8 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.7

1.1 1.2 0.1 1.2 0.9

0.4 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.3

0.4 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.2

4.3. Bladelet cores and core-burins The third group comprises two types of core for the production of bladelets: one is typical Upper Palaeolithic bladelet cores in form, while the other is similar to typologically identifiable burins. The latter presents frequently multifaceted removal negatives and they are considered in this study as core-burins. Additionally, there are occasionally a combination of a bladelet core and a core-burin arising together on the same specimen. These were analysed as a group, and henceforth all will be called core-burins. These were

In layer 6b, cores-burins and bladelet cores represent 25% of all cores, whereas in sand ah this figure stands at 15%. Bladelet cores were not discovered in sand ah. In layer 6b they are less numerous than core-burins, but both groups are very similar in their metrical aspects. The bladelet cores seem to be more productive than core-burins. The median number of negatives left on flaking surfaces was 3.5, with only 2 from core-burins (Table 7).

D. Wojtczak / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 155e177 Table 7 Metric attributes of bladelet cores and core-burins in layers 6b and sand ah. Layer

Table 8 (continued ) Layer

Bladelet cores (8)

Core-burins (41)

Core-burins (14)

Length Mean 4.5 4.7 Median 4.7 4.4 sd 1.1 1.4 Max 6.6 8.6 Min 2.7 2.0 Width Mean 3.7 3.5 Median 3.8 3.0 sd 1.8 1.5 Max 6.3 7.6 Min 1.3 1.4 Thickness Mean 1.6 1.6 Median 1.6 1.6 sd 0.5 0.4 Max 2.3 2.8 Min 1.0 0.8 Number of negatives on flaking surface Mean 3.5 2.4 Median 3.5 2.0 sd 0.5 1.3 Max 4.0 7.0 Min 3.0 1.0

6.3 5.6 2.0 10.2 3.5

Number sd Max Min Mean Median sd Max Min

Thickness

3.2 3.4 0.7 4.1 2.2

Length/Width Width/Thickness Scars on upper face

1.3 1.2 0.5 2.7 0.7

ah

6b

Sand ah

6b

165

Mean Max Min

On debris

On flake

On debris

On flake

24

25

1

13

1.6 7.6 1.4 1.7 1.7 0.5 2.8 1.0 1.3 2.4 2.8 7.0 1.0

7.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.4 4.5 0.6 0.9 1.8 2.4 2.3 4.0 1.0

1.0

1.4 3.1 2.0

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

2.6 2.0 1.7 7.0 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 overall retouched and non-retouched blanks population (Figs. 12 and 13). They were reduced mainly by a ‘burin-flaking’ method, working on the thickness of support. The flintknapper used the natural shape of support and started to detach the blanks from its natural edge or broken surface, and the edge of the flake serves as a guide-ridge. In a few cases, the flaking started on one edge of the support and expanded on to the other, not unlike the semi-rotating debitage. Metrical data of core-burins made on flake and on debris shows that they are similar. Those made on flake tend to be longer, and those made on debris are thicker. Both present between one to seven bladelet negatives on their flaking surface (Table 8). The vast majority of these spalls were removed following the core-burins long axis. Their striking platforms are plain or lightly prepared by one or two blows from the side. The majority of cores for bladelet production in both assemblages are unidirectional, with a few bidirectional. The bidirectional cores do not represent a genuine bidirectional reduction, but rather two juxtaposed unidirectional reductions realised on the same core, the succession of short sequences of two-three unidirectional removals before switching platform. Only a few bladelets present bidirectional scars on their dorsal face.

Bladelets are described in analysed assemblages as the small blades whose width is equal or less than 1.2 cm and not more than 5 cm in length (Fig. 23). They were uncovered in 7 of the 8 studied layers. Bladelets were not discovered in layer 6B but core-burins which show the negatives of small bladelets on their flaking surfaces were found. Their percentage varies between layers: in assemblages 6b and ah it is 3% and 7% of debitage respectively. They are frequently broken and only a few remain intact (Figs. 22 and 23). The preserved bladelets from sand ah seem to be more elongated than those from layer 6b, and their length ranges from 3.2 to 4.8 cm. The width and thickness of bladelets are similar in both complexes (Table 6). The large majority of bladelets are unidirectional, but in every layer one or two pieces also present bidirectional reduction. Two or three previous scars can be observed on

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

Number Length (cm)

Width (cm)

ah

6b

Mean Median sd Max Min Mean Median

On debris

On flake

On debris

On flake

24

25

1

13

4.2 3.9 1.5 7.9 2.0 3.7 3.2

5.1 4.8 8.6 2.7 1.2 3.5 3.0

4.4

6.5 5.7 2.0 10.2 3.5 3.2 3.4

3.1

0.7 4.1 2.2 1.3 1.2 0.6 2.7 0.7 2.1 2.7 2.6 7.0 1.0

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

166

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

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

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

their upper surface advocating that the flaking process during which they were produced was not very long, but still repetitive. Around half have a relatively bowed profile, and the rest are rectilinear. 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 Laminar cores, NI and core-burins in sand ah.

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

167

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 on flake, 4, 5 e unidirectional NI with retouch made on blade fragment.

although slightly faceted, dihedral and cortical platforms are also observed. Around 10% of items from each layer show a slight preparation of the proximal end of the item by tiny removals from the platform into proximal part of upper surface. Such preparation of the proximal part of a lithic item is very characteristic of production of regular, large blades. Only a few have a small patch of cortex on their upper surface, indicating that the knapping surface of the core was almost free of cortex. Two types of spalls were produced. The naturally pointed bladelets with triangular cross-section follow a central scar from the flaking surface. The second type consists of specimens with parallel edges with either flat or trapezoidal cross-section, sometimes presenting a natural back. Additionally, the upper surface of thick blank blades could also have been a source of bladelets. Often a narrow, less than 5 cm, and converging 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 the lithic item. The removal follows the ridge from the upper surface that could even reach the midpoint. Such negatives are flat and the resultant bladelets had to be very thin. In five Hummalian layers, 138 very thin bladelets were found in layers 6b, 6c2, 7a, and 7c, and 37 in layer ah. Their sides always converge, as in the visible negatives on the upper face of the blank, and match perfectly to the flat negatives. The length ranges between 2 and 5 cm and thickness less than 0.2 cm. The majority still show a tiny punctiform butt, produced before the blank was detached from the core. The proximal part of their scar is often cut by the negatives of small removals stemming from the edge of the proximal end of cores. Alongside this, there was thinning of the proximal part of the large blank that could possibly be related to the specific mode of hafting. From a

168

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

modified on one or more of their part by invasive, abrupt retouch and transformed into tools, after their reduction was accomplished (Fig. 24: 2, 3). Those cores confirm recycling as their usage changed from being a source of blanks into formal tools. Reuse of exhausted cores for additional flaking of smaller supports could be visible when one flaking event working on broader face of cores finished, and a second flaking episode has been performed on the side or the ventral face on the same item. This usually involves a supplementary preparation, principally setting a new striking platform. The items are covered by the same patination, but the second episode is clearly performed after the first was finished, as evidenced by the chronology of scar patterns visible on the surface. There are a few cores which were primarily unidirectional and when they become flat in cross section, a second striking platform was set on the opposite end or on the side. Usually arranged on the opposite end, this additional platform was exploiting the core on its thickness (Fig. 25). The negatives coming from the second striking platform clearly crossed the negatives obtained from the first platform. The first, main knapping surface is redundant after setting the new striking platform. In some cases, the flintknapper succeeded in attaining only two bladelets from the narrow side because the new platform was not re-orientated to the new knapping surface. Sometimes, the flintknapper used two or three blows from the side of the core to re-orientate the new platform towards the new knapping surface and successfully removed a few blanks. 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 old platform and broken surface (perpendicular flaking plane) created an apt angle, they were struck again. The flinknapper would obtain only one or two blanks. Such a behavioural pattern seems to be opportunistic in nature. 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, converging subtractions prepared the proximal part of the flaking surface of the core and thus should be viewed as by-products of blade production. Consequently, these specimens were not included in the bladelet category. However, a similar production of tiny bladelets used in maintaining the cores flaking surface was recognised in Mousterian €da and Bonilauri, 2006) and levels III2a' and II at Umm el Tlel (Boe the micro-wear analysis showed that they were used for working meat, bone and vegetal matter. Furthermore, they show hafting €da and Bonilauri, 2006; 86e91). Thus, in the case of traces (Boe Umm el Tlel these bladelets were intentional end products, next to their utility in maintaining core productivity. Obviously, without traceological analysis, proving that unretouched bladelets are intentional products is no simple task. It does not appear, in the Hummalian layers, that these small implements were produced because the flintknappers were running out of raw material. Collected items used in manufacturing of bladelets were sensibly selected in terms of their thickness and apt morphology to start the detachment of small spalls and create burin blows. So the question remains, could these be tools as well as a 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 tool use. Two exhausted cores from layer 6b and one from ah were

4.6. Double patina The practice of recycling is usually easy to recognize if the artefacts show some kind of surface alteration permitting discrimination of two or more different chronological events, before and after alteration. Double patinated specimens on which the secondary modification can be distinguished from an older patinated surface seem to be one of the most consistent possibilities in identifying recycling in Palaeolithic assemblages. It is usually not possible to calculate the time spans between the creation of the first, second, or even third generation of patina. We can only see the chronology of patina and of the use episodes. The reuse of older items for shaping new tools was recognized in four of six Hummalian layers: 6b, 6c2, 7c, and ah. It only occurs sporadically in layer 6b, 6c and 7c, but it is notable in the rich and well preserved sandy layer ah (Fig. 26). In this deposit, 10% of all retouched tools were completed on already patinated specimens. Several core-burins and truncated faceted pieces (six from 19) were also made on chemically altered items (Fig. 7: 1). In layers 6a and 6b, such observations were very limited, as all artefacts from both assemblages are covered by thick white-grey patina because they have been weathered through a long period of exposure on the surface. 4.7. Scavenging from preceding cultural horizons Some of the Hummal archaeological material lay on the surface for a long period before being covered. This is true for some Hummalian layers as well as previous cultural horizons. It can be supposed that lithic material from the Yabrudian horizon would be

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

169

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 the Hummalian occupations. From an economic point of view, it seems rational to use large scrapers which shows potential for further reduction. Three examples of cores made on Yabrudian scrapers coming from layer 6b, 6c, and 7c and additionally one edge flake in layer 6b and three in sand ah which were clearly struck from the edge of Yabrudian scarpers were collected (Fig. 24: 1, 4). This confirms that the procuring of lithic material from older occupations also took place. There were probably more such scavenged items which could have been easily reduced to an unrecognisable form. The lower face of Yabrudian scarpers becomes the flaking surface, and the upper face, still covered by stepped retouch, the ventral face of the core. As those artefacts were already covered by patina when procured, the change in their function from tool into core is easily identified, and thus they are doubtless examples of recycling.

4.8. Short-term recycling and curation Short-term recycling (Baker, 2007) and curating technology cannot really be distinguished in the archaeological record. Evidently, both events are very different phenomena and have different archaeological implications, but both can be sometimes explained by similar factors associated with, for example, scarcity of lithic resources (Bamforth, 1986). As Baker (2007; 1) has stated: “… if one abandons an artifact on one day and chooses to recycle it the next, how is the archaeologist going to recognise the difference?”. Only if visibly different flake surfaces occur on the same specimen can we state with any certainty that recycling occurred. If not, it will rather be described as a result of curation. Therefore, the curation may be an indication of recycling. The percentage of retouched artefacts varies between analysed assemblages from 23% of debitage in sand ah, to 11% in 6b. They

170

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

Fig. 21. Burins blow completed on blades.

were shaped mostly on thick blades, less commonly on flakes, and a few on debris. The large majority are elongated with an average L/ W ratio greater than 2. The retouched tool assortment consists of a high percentage of elongated end-point or parallel products fashioned by intense retouching. The majority of them are covered from the proximal to the distal part by invasive, semi-abrupt retouching. The metrical data from both layers indicates a choice of longer and broader supports for shaping the retouched tools, especially if the original size of many was reduced through repeated use and retouching (Wojtczak, 2014). Following the idea of the “Frison effect” (Jelinek, 1976) and the suggestion of scraper transformation through re-sharpening and reduction put forward by Dibble (1987), the simple lateral scrapers exhibit the least reduction, and the converging scrapers which exhibit the most. The heavily retouched specimens could be considered in the maintained tool category, indicating numerous re-sharpening events and thus a longer uselife. 8% of blades in layer 6b and 14% in sand ah are covered by invasive retouch and are considered as curated tools. As suggested by Baker (2007), they could also be regarded as the result of shortterm recycling (Fig. 27) which happens over the period of an individual lifetime. As Hummal is located in a lithic-rich region, it is easy to imagine that there was no reason to keep a lithic implement

Fig. 22. Selected small blades and bladelets discovered in Layers 6a, 6b and sand ah.

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

171

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

after it accomplished its design task. The specimen was discarded and when a new tool was required, it could be easily shaped from core or a previously discarded (on site) tool was recycled back into use. 5. Discussion The evidence of recycling and reuse of previously employed lithic artefacts is evident within the Hummalian horizon. There are double patinated specimens scavenged from the same or older cultural horizons. There are also examples of cores transformed into tools. There are exhausted cores which were reused for secondary production and core-burins produced on broken items and debris. There are also blades covered by invasive retouch, defined as curated tools, which can be also interpreted as the result of shortterm recycling and may possibly indicate controlled use of the lithic resources (Shott, 1989). All those elements show that Hummalian inhabitants did not avoid reusing lithic items, blanks, cores and debris if they were appropriate and to hand. Usually, archaeologists are unable to determine the time span between different use-events of an artefact. The presence of patination and its intensity on flint implements is not always a good assessment of the time that has passed since its burial (Burroni et al., 2002), but undoubtedly indicate recycling activities. The development of patina seems to be a complex process depending on many factors, for example the flints' mineralogical composition

and the degree of moisture (B€ asemann, 1987). The observations made in El-Kowm reveal that the changes in the surface of Paleogene flint commonly used by Palaeolithic flintknappers can already be perceived after just a few weeks lying on the surface. The usually black, very fine flints became slowly covered by a white vein and lost its shiny black aspect. In contrast, Baker assumed that the time needed to affect the changes to the rock surface; “… is not measured in days or years, but in hundreds of years and more likely thousands of years.” (Baker, 2007; 2). The geomorphological investigations show that Hummalian layer 6a and 6b lay exposed on the surface for a long time, creating the possibility of a scenario of lithics from overlapping occupations and activities. Flint artefacts recovered from these layers are covered by a very thick white grey patina, and double patinated items are rare. However, it is not hard to imagine that scavenging of lithics scattered on the surface took place, but it is not possible to precisely recognise the amount of effectively recycled material. Ethnographic investigations and studies of other Hummalian complexes suggest that the collecting of lithics dispersed on the surface from an earlier or current occupation were often undertaken. The occurrence of cores on flakes, and the phenomenon of blade and bladelet production within Middle Palaeolithic context is widely recognized. There are numerous sites in Europe, Near East, and Africa, where varied reduction strategies for the manufacture of blades and bladelets were recognised (e.g., Bosinski, 1967;

172

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

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 core transformed into tool (core-tool); 4 e core made on Yabrudian scraper.


villion and Tuffreau, 1994; Conard et al., 1995; BarConard, 1992; Re Yosef and Kuhn, 1999; Maillo-Fernandez et al., 2004; Slimak and Lucas, 2005; Pastoors, 2009; Meignen, 2011). However, we could ask why were bladelets made? They remained merely one type of blank amongst several others. Their production is not very consistent when compared to the Upper Palaeolithic bladelet production. The manufacturing of bladelets in the Middle Palaeolithic horizon can be interpreted in different ways. Some researchers perceive it as the indication for the transmission of specific tech
s et al., 2006; Maillo-Fernandez nological knowledge (Cabrera Valde et al., 2004; Bernaldo de Quiros and Maillo Fernandez, 2009); others as a part of the general spectrum of technological knowledge within the entire Middle Palaeolithic. Hummal seems to be an excellent example for Middle Palaeolithic bladelet production. The best represented is the unidirectional method used on the lateral edges of different stone specimens (blanks as well as debris) as guiding ridges. The striking platforms seem to be used ad hoc without preparation, or only faintly adjusted. No additional preparation of the lateral and distal convexity was detected. Similarly, the production of bladelets from

the side of discarded cores with no or little investment in preknapping adjustment of striking platform of selected items is observed. Evidently there is a sort of pre-planning, because the flintknapper searched for thick specimens to detach bladelets. The investment was small, and thus the return was also usually small with only a couple of implements obtained. When the flintknapper chose appropriate items and prepared the striking platform of a future core, his profit was also greater as can be seen on a few examples of bladelet cores. The configuration of producing the bladelets on the spot or with little preparation, on often broken specimens or debris, where there is a broad spectrum of lithic implements coming from more sophisticated reduction strategy, could be perceived as an opportunistic process. However, it could also be seen as an attempt to maximize the productivity of the flint resource, whereby the flinknapper uses waste or by-products of main reduction strategy found on site, as cores for production of secondary blanks. Thus the use of core-burins becomes part of a recycling strategy and the obtained end-products, namely bladelets, as a desired, supplementary element to the implements manufactured by the main reduction strategy. It seems that

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

173

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, the appearance of bladelets is a manifestation of human requirements at a specific time, linked most probably to the site-function. As both core-burins and their end-products are repetitively present in all Hummalian layers, this need must have been recurrent and does not seem to be related to any provisioning strategy (Kuhn, 1995). It may be possible that these bladelets were intended to be used for tasks that could not be undertaken with larger blanks, but it is also possible that they represent just one end of a continuum of blade sizes that were commonly convenient. Restricted access to flint sources is certainly a pertinent reason for recycling, but other factors 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 the Hummalian deposits does not seem to correlate with raw material scarcity, as its availability is not seen as a critical factor in the observed lithic organization. However, large, non-exhausted cores are very rare in Hummalian layers, and the presence of large blanks is explained by successive reduction of large cores into small cores (not including NI items). This can imply a raw material shortage in the direct vicinity of site, indicating that many small specimens were probably by-products of large blank production, and only some of them were intentionally produced toward the end of the reduction system. At the same time, the Hummal site was repetitively visited

174

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

time remaining a subject of ongoing discussion (e.g. Newcomer and Hivernel-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). At first glance, it seems that the bulk of cores on flakes found in Hummalian assemblages can be interpreted as a result of the recycling process in which the stone specimens manufactured during the main reduction strategy were recycled to produce cores on flake. This can be an indication of an economic strategy trying to increase the efficiency of the raw material. Looking closer at their morphology, their metrical properties and dorsal scar pattern, it can be recognized that they seem to be well integrated into the general knapping system exercised at the site, forming part of a complete chaîne op
eratoire. Firstly all cores on flake were accomplished from the blanks produced on site. Furthermore, the flinknapper selected specimens in terms of their dimensions, probably presence or lack of cortex and suitability for different reduction strategies. The thickness, as expected, seems to be the most pertinent component in their choice. In addition, as shown earlier using metrical analysis, both Laminar cores either on flake or nodule and NI pieces at the end of their use-life have produced items similar in length and when discarded (cores), they reached the same threshold in respect to their overall geometry. The majority of these cores were aimed at the production of elongated items, with few exceptions targeting small flakes. It seems that the selection and planning are important features in the on-site general knapping organization undertaken by Hummalian flinknappers. Therefore it is not a recycling strategy and should rather be seen as similar to the idea of ramification (Bourguignon et al., 2004), when flakes are selected to be used as cores, and when cores on nodule and on flake have the same objective, sometimes creating divergent by-products, for example truncated-faceted pieces. 6. Conclusions

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

by humans, and each successive occupation left knapping waste behind which could be considered as a constant, easy to obtain, and reliable source of raw material. It has been suggested by Elston (1992 in Amick, 2007) that the procuring of flint scattered on the surface is more efficient in terms of time and energy than quarry extraction. However, the possible profits would probably be lower as flint exposed on surface tends to be weathered and poorer in quality. Apparently the lithic remnants gathered on or nearby the site were good enough and correctly sized for Hummalian residents, as could be seen by the recognised recycling and reuse activities. From this perspective, the flint found on site was perceived as a valuable supply to hand which may have reduced the number and importance of trips to primary outcrops in the nearby landscape. The presence of rich archaeological literature describing the frequent occurrences of cores on flake in different chronological and regional contexts attests to the complexity of this concept and its significance in an archaeological framework whilst at the same

Some archaeologists presumed that lithic recycling increases when the lithic resources are scarce (Hayden et al., 1996), whilst others (Baker, 2007) argue that long term recycling is more frequent in the areas rich in lithic material. As the site function of Hummal during the Hummalian cultural horizon is not yet clearly identified (Le Tensorer et al., 2007; Hauck et al., 2010; Wojtczak, 2014) and was possibly different in successive layers, it is difficult to discuss its affinities in a wider framework. During Hummalian occupations, humans reused or recycled, but this phenomenon does not seem to be pertinent in terms of the economy as the site is located in a lithic-rich region. This has appeared throughout the Hummalian occupation and seems to be more a result of opportunism. At the same time, the end-products of such behaviour had to be anticipated implements within the tool-kits of humans. From this perspective, the reuse and recycling of lithic artefacts previously discarded on site exercised by Hummalian occupants appears to be an intended activity to reduce transportation costs. Furthermore, the appearance of cores on flake either Laminar or with NI preparation in Hummalian layers seems to represent a subdivision of the reduction system carried out on-site rather than a concept of recycling. At first glance, the use of blanks from primary reduction to accomplish the core can be seen as recycling, when the blank is transformed into the core for secondary production. However, this process aims at a similar end-product as those produced through the main reduction system, and fits perfectly into knapping system carried out on the site. Consequently, it is not seen as an element of recycling undertaken on site. Additionally, the procedure of using a blank produced on site during the main reduction strategy for core manufacture, had to

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

175

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

reduce the overall dimensions of raw material and consequently the size of detached products. As a result, the lithic assemblages from Hummalian horizon contain blanks of different sizes from 2 to 16 cm in length, and it seems that bladelet production is associated with the production of blades. There was also a clear need to produce small implements outside the main reduction system, suggesting easily portable implements. All these elements show the complexity of Hummalian lithic assemblages and the broad-based approach to lithic resources of ancient humans. Such behaviour can also suggest division and management of time and space activities, hence a pronounced anticipation of needs. Finally, because of the lack of traceological analysis undertaken on Hummalian assemblages, it is important to point out that if

some truncated-faceted pieces or core-burins have generated usable blanks, others may also have been used as tools. It also could be that these items were sometimes tools and at other times used to manufacture functional blanks. The two positions need not be viewed as mutually exclusive. A multiplicity of purposes might exist within a single typological category and behaviours implicated in making, using and recycling of stone artefacts may have been diverse. Acknowledgments I thank Cristina Lemorini, Ran Barkai and Manuel Vaquero for their invitation to participate in the workshop ‘The Origins of Recycling: A Paleolithic Perspective’ held at Tel-Aviv University,

176

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

Israel in October, 2013, that led to this contribution. I am grateful to Ella Assaf, Yoni Parush and Agam Aviad for their helpfulness throughout the meeting. The workshop was kindly supported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. I thank 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-Kowm Archaeological Project. The excavations at Hummal were supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Tell Arida Foundation. I am grateful to Richard Frosdick for help in correcting my English.

References Amick, D.S., 2007. Behavioral causes and archaeological effects of lithic artifact recycling. In: McPherron, S. (Ed.), Tools versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publications, Newcastle, pp. 223e252. Andrefsky Jr., W., 1994. Raw material availability and the organization of technology. 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. American Antiquity 51, 38e50. Bamforth, D.B., 1991. Technological organization and hunteregatherer land use: a California example. American Antiquity 56, 216e234. Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., 2010. Palaeolithic cutlery 400 000e200 000 years 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: reconsidering burin function. Journal of Field Archaeology 23 (1), 111e125. Bar-Yosef, O., Kuhn, S.L., 1999. The big deal about blades. Laminar technologies and human evolution. American Anthropologist 101, 322e338. €semann, R., 1987. Umweltabha €ngige Strukturvera €nderungen an Steinartefakten. Ba Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M. Bergman, C.A., Ohnuma, K., 1983. Technological notes on some blades from Hummal Ia, El-Kowm, Syria. Qu€ artar 33 (34), 171e180.
s, F., Maíllo Ferna
ndez, J.M., 2009. The transitional Aurignacien Bernaldo de Quiro and 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.
olithique Besançon, J., Copeland, L., Hours, F., Muhesen, S., Sanlaville, P., 1981. Le pale
liminaire. Pale
orient 7 (1), 33e55. d'El kowm. Rapport pre Besançon, L., Copeland, L., Hours, F., Muhesen, S., Sanlaville, P., 1982. Prospection
ographique et pre
historique dans le bassin d'El Kowm (Syrie); rapport ge
liminaire. Cahiers de l'Euphrate 3, 9e26. pre Besançon, J., Sanlaville, P., 1991. Une oasis dans la steppe aride syrienne: la cuvette d'El Kowm au Quaternaire. Cahier de l’Eufrat 5 (6), 47e92. Beyries, S., 1993. Analyse fonctionnelle de l’industrie lithique du niveau CA: rapport
liminaire et directions de recherche. In: Tuffreau, A. (Ed.), Riencourt-le spre
olithique moyen. Maison de sciBapaume, Pas-de-Calais: un gisement du Pale ences de l’Homme, Paris, pp. 53e61. Binford, L.,R., 1973. Inter assemblage variability e the Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In: Renfrew, C. (Ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London, pp. 227e253. Binford, L.,R., 2009. Debating Archaeology. Left Coast Press. €da, E., Bonilauri, S., 2006. The Intermediate Paleolithic: the first bladelet proBoe duction 40,000 years ago. Anthropologie XLIV (1), 75e92.
rentes techniques de taille du silex et Bordes, F., 1947. Etude comparative des diffe des roches dures. L'Anthropologie 51, 1e29. Bosinski, G., 1967. Die mittelpal€ aolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. €hlau, Ko € ln. Bo
ratoire de de
bitage discoïde sur e
clat Bourguignon, L., Turq, A., 2003. Une chaîne ope
rien a  denticules aquitain : les exemples de Champ Bossuet et de du Mouste Combe-Grenal c.14. In: Peresani, M. (Ed.), Discoid Lithic Technology: Advances
opress, Oxford, pp. 131e152. and Implications. Arche
ratoires: Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P., Turq, A., 2004. Ramification des chaîne ope
cificite
du Mouste
rien? Pale
o 16, 37e48. Une spe Buccellati, G., Buccellati, M., 1967. Archaeological survey of the Palmyrene and the Jebel Bishri. Archaeology 20, 305. Burroni, D., Donahue, R.E., Mussi, M., Pollard, A.M., 2002. The surface alteration features of flint artefacts as a record of environmental processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 1277e1287.
s, V., Maíllo Fern
Cabrera Valde andez, J.M., Pike-Tay, A., Garralda Benajes, M.D.,
s, F., 2006. A Cantabrian perspective on late Neanderthals. In: Bernaldo de Quiro

Conard, N. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Kerns, Tübingen, pp. 441e466.
historiques a  El Kowm Cauvin, J., Cauvin, M.-C., Stordeur, D., 1979. Recherches pre re campagne 1978. Cahiers de l'Euphrate 2, 80e117. (Syrie). Premie Camilli, E.L., Ebert, J.I., 1992. Artifact reuse and Recyclingin continuous surface distributions and implications for interpreting land Use patterns. In: Rossignol, J., Wandsnider, L.A. (Eds.), Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 113e136. Clark, J.,D., 1958. Some Stone Age wood-working tools in southern Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 13 (52), 144e151. € nchesberg and its Position in the Paleolithic Prehistory of Conard, N.J., 1992. To Northern Europe. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Conard, N.J., Adler, D.S., Forrest, D.T., Kaszas, P.J., 1995. Preliminary archaeological €ologisches Korresults from the 1991e1993 excavations in Wallertheim. Archa respondenzblatt 25, 13e27. Copeland, L., 1985. The pointed tools of Hummal Ia (El Kowm, Syria). Cahiers de l'Euphrate 4, 177e189. Crew, H.,L., 1976. The Mousterian site of Rosh Ein Mor. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Pre€l). Southern Methhistory and Paleoenvironment in the Central Neguev (Israe odist University Press, Dallas, pp. 75e112. Dag, D., Goren-Inbar, N., 2001. An actualistic study of dorsally plain flakes: a technological note. Lithic Technology 26 (2), 105e117.
techniques et objectife De Araujo-Igreya, M., Pesesse, D., 2006. Entre modalite
OP10 de La Vigne Brun (Villerest, Loire, France). fonctionnels: le burin de l’unite
ologique 2, Luxembourg, pp. 165e196. Burin pre
historique : formes, Arche fonctionnements, fonctiona.
orient 10 Dibble, H.L., 1984. The Mousterian industry from Bisitun Cave (Iran). Pale (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 Anthropology 47 (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: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 75e90. Diethelm, I., 1996. The silex raw material of the Acheulean site Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar in the El Kowm Basin, Syria e mineralogical preliminary report. Travaux
ologique Syro-Suisse d’El Kowm 1, 82e84. de la Mission Arche Gallagher, J.,P., 1977. Contemporary stone tools in Ethiopia: implications for archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4, 407e414. Geneste, J.-M., Plisson, H., 1999. Production et utilisation de l'outillage lithique dans
rien du Sud-ouest de la France: Les Tares a  Sourzac, valle
e de l'Isle, le Mouste Dordogne. In: Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S. (Eds.), Reduction Processes (“chaînes
ratoires”) for the European Mousterian. Quaternaria Nova VI, pp. 343e368. ope Goren-Inbar, N., 1988. Too small to be true? Re-evaluation of core on flakes in Levantine Mousterian assemblages. Lithic Technology 17, 37e44. Goren-Inbar, N., 1990. Quneitra e a Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights (Qedem 31). 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 University Press, New York, pp. 359e377. Hauck, T.C., 2010. The Mousterian Sequence of Hummal (Syria). PhD-thesis. Basel University. Hauck, Th, Wojtczak, D., Wegmüller, F., Le Tensorer, J.-M., 2010. Variation in Lower and Middle Paleolithic land use strategies in the Syrian Desert steppe: the example of Hummal (El Kowm area). In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen. Hayden, B., Franco, N., Spafford, J., 1996. Evaluating lithic strategies and design criteria. In: Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 9e45.
en supe
rieur et le Hours, F., 1982. Une nouvelle industrie en Syrie entre l'Acheule
rien. In: de l’Orient, Maison (Ed.), Arche
ologie du Levant Levalloiso-Mouste Recueil Roger Saidah. Maison de l'Orient, Lyon, pp. 33e46. Hovers, E., 1997. Variability of Lithic Assemblages and Settlement Patterns in the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic: Implications for the Development of Human Behavior (PhD. dissertation). The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Hovers, E., 2007. The many faces of cores-on-flakes: a perspective from the Levantine Mousterian. In: McPherron, S. (Ed.), Tools versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to 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 multiple flakes. 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. Academic Press, New York, pp. 19e33. Julig, P., Long, G.F., 2001. Flint sourcing in Central steppe Desert region, Syria. In:
e de la Civilisation, Fortin, M. (Ed.), Canadian Research on Ancient Syria. Muse
bec, pp. 19e31. Que Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. An Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Laplace-Jauretche, G., 1957. Typologie analytique. Application d’une nouvelle
thode d’e
tudedes formes et des structures aux industries a  lames et me lamelles. Quaternaria IV, 133e164. Princeton University Press, Princeton (N.J.).

D. Wojtczak / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 155e177 Le Tensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R., Muhesen, S., 2001. Paleolithic settlement dynamics in the El Kowm area (Central Syria). In: Conard, N. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 101e122. Le Tensorer, J.-M., 2004. Nouvelles fouilles  a Hummal (El Kowm, Syrie Centrale).
sultats (1997e2001). In: Aurenche, O., Le Mie re, M., Sanlaville, P. Premiers re (Eds.), From the River to the Sea. The Palaeolithic and the Neolithic on the Euphrates 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 springs Nadaouiyeh and Hummal in the El Kowm Oasis, Central Syria. Geoarchaeology 22 (6), 621e640.
bitage Maillo-Fernandez, J.M., Cabrera Valdes, V., Bernaldode Quiros, F., 2004. Le de
rien final de Cantabrie (Espagne): le cas de El Castillo lamellaire dans le Mouste et Cueva Morin. L'Anthropologie 108, 367e393. McAnany, P.,A., 1988. The effects of lithic procurement strategies on tool curation and recycling. Lithic Technology 17, 3e11. McPherron, S.P., 2007. Tools Versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle. Meignen, L., 2011. The contribution of Hayonim cave assemblages to the understanding of the so-called Early Levantine Mousterian. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions. In: ERAUL 126, pp. 85e100. Munday, F., 1977. Nahal Aqev (D35): a stratified, open-air Mousterian occupation in the Avdat/Aqev area. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), The Avdat/Aqev Area Part 2, and the Har Harif, Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev Israel, vol. II. Southern Methodist University (SMU) Press, Dallas, pp. 35e60.
us sur e
clat: Te
chnologie et utiNewcomer, M.H., Hivernel-Guerre, F., 1974. Nucle
rentes cultures pre
historiques. Bulletin de la Socie
te
lisation par diffe
historique Française 71, 119e128. Pre Nishiaki, Y., 1985. Truncated-faceted Flakes from Levantine Mousterian Assemblages. University of Tokyo Bulletin 4, pp. 215e226. €l-Soriano, S., Boe €da, E., Griggo, C., 2001. Diffe
rents modes d'occupation du site Noe
olithique moyen (El Kowm, Syrie Centrale). d'Umm El Tlel au cours du Pale
orient 27 (2), 13e28. Pale 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.
sume
de the se. Syste mes de production lithique et circulation Park, S.-J., 2008. Re res premie res au Pale
olithique moyen re
cent et final: Une approche des matie
conomique a  partir de l'e
tude des industries lithiques de la Quina. technoe
te
Pre
historique Française 105 (3), 625e634. Bulletin de la Socie Pastoors, A., 2009. Blades? e Thanks, no interest! Neanderthals in Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Quart€ ar 56, 105e118.
villion, S., Tuffreau, A., 1994. Valeur et signification du de
bitage laminaire du Re
olithique moyen de Seclin (Nord). In: Re
villion, S., Tuffreau, A. gisement Pale
olithique Moyen. Dossier de Docu(Eds.), Les Industries Laminaires au Pale
ologique, vol. 18, pp. 19e44. mentation Arche Richter, D., 2006. Erste Ergebnisse der Thermoluminiszenz-Datierung für die
ologique Syro-Suisse d'El Fundstelle Ain Hummal. Travaux de la Mission Arche Kowm 11, 45.

177

Richter, D., Hauck, T.C., Wojtczak, D., Le Tensorer, J.-M., Muhesen, S., 2011. Chronometric age estimates for the site of Hummal (El Kowm, Syria). The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions. In: ERAUL 126, pp. 249e262. Rolland, N., Dibble, H.L., 1990. A new Synthesis of mousterian variability. American Antiquity 55, 480e499. Ronen, A., 1970. Prepared for AN 331, Prehistory, Fall Semester 1970 University of Arizona. 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 hafting techniques among Paleoindian Endscrapers at the Shawnee Minisink Site. In: McNett, C. (Ed.), Shawnee Minisink Site: a Stratified Paleoindian-archaic Site in the Upper Dela1aware Valley of Pennsylvania. Academic Press, New York, pp. 211e220. Semenow, S., 1964. Prehistoric Technology: an Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artifacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Moonrakerpress edition. Cory, Adams and Mackay, London. Schiffer, M.B., 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 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 the Problem of a Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Columbia, Columbia. Shott, M., 1986. Technological organization and settlement mobility: an ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42 (1), 15e51. Shott, M.J., 1989. On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages. American Antiquity 54 (1), 9e30. Shott, M.J., 1996. An exegesis of the curation concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52 (3), 259e280.
bitage lamellaire, une invention aurignacienne? In: Slimak, L., Lucas, G., 2005. Le de
es a  l'AurigLe Brun-Ricalens, F., Foni (Eds.), Productions lamellaires attribue
ratoires et perspectives technoculturelles. Imprimerie Fr. nacien. Chaînes ope Faber, Luxemburg, pp. 75e102. Solecki, R.L., Solecki, R.S., 1979. A new secondary flaking technique at the Nahr
e de Beyrouth 23, 137e140. Ibrahim cave site, Lebanon. Bulletin du Muse Tomaskova, S., 2005. What is a burin? Typology, technology and interregional comparison. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (2), 79e115. Vaquero, M., 2011. New perspectives on recycling of lithic resources using refitting €r 58, 113e130. and spatial data. Quarta Vaughan, P.C., 1985. The burin-blowtechnique: creator or eliminator? Journal of Field Archaeology 12, 488e496. Weber, Th, 1991. Mathematische Methoden bei der Analyse von Inventaren geschlagener 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, ElKowm, Central Syria. PhD-thesis. Basel University.