early neolithic arrowhead types in the southern levant ...

Paléorient CNRS Editions

EARLY NEOLITHIC ARROWHEAD TYPES IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT : A TYPOLOGICAL SUGGESTION Author(s): Dani NADEL, Ofer BAR-YOSEF and Avi GOPHER Source: Paléorient, Vol. 17, No. 1 (1991), pp. 109-119 Published by: Paléorient and CNRS Editions Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41492442 . Accessed: 31/05/2014 07:00 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Paléorient and CNRS Editions are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Paléorient.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

vol. 17/1- 1991 PALÉORIENT, EARLY IN A

THE

NEOLITHIC SOUTHERN

TYPOLOGICAL

D. NADEL,

ARROWHEAD

TYPES :

LEVANT SUGGESTION

O. BAR-YOSEF

and A. GOPHER

- Levantine Netiv oftheflint from arrowhead arerevised, theanalysis ABSTRACT. assemblage EarlyNeolithic types following forthe ofNear-Eastern we suggest a refined fordefinitions arrowheads, typology Hagdud. Usingthesamecriteria employed Theissueof aredefined, described andcompared. PPNAspecimens. El Khiam, Jordan points Accordingly, ValleyandSalibiya several ontheNetivHagdud arrowheads from drillsis presented, samples. testing working hypotheses distinguishing symmetrical covers the and/or Thegeographical distribution oftheEl Khiam Salibiya points, commonly accompanied byJordan Valley points, entire andtopographical zonesoftheLevant. rangeofclimatical des dusitede NetivHagdud, RÉSUMÉ.- Nousnousproposons de réviser, l'analyse typologique d'aprèsl'assemblage lithique des En utilisant à ceuxemployés deflèches du Néolithique Ancien Levantin. descritères pourla définition pointes identiques les deflèches duProche-Orient, noussuggérons doncunetypologie pourcellesduPPNA.Enconséquence, pointes plusdétaillée entre elles.Unedistinction etdeSalibiya seront ditesd'ElKhiam, dela Vallée duJourdain décrites, définies, puiscomparées pointes de tester entre deflèches etperçoirs deNetiv plusieurs hypothèses, d'aprèsl'échantillon Hagdud, pointes symétriques, quipermet, » « ValléeduJourdain normalement de pointes esttentée. La distribution despointes d'El Khiam, accompagnées géographique à toutes ettopo s duLevant. et/ou de Salibiya, s'étend leszonesclimatiques graphique

1. INTRODUCTION The aim of thispaperis to revisethetypological definitionsof pointscommonlyincludedin the category"El Khiampoints".In orderto achieve thisgoal we will review the historyof the El Khiam points as recordedin the literature,review the principles by which points are definedby Levantinearchaeologists,and, finally,use the collections fromNetiv Hagdud to suggestdetailed definitionsforEl Khiam Jordan pointsand two new types,called henceforth Valley and Salibiya points. The common projectile point described from PPNA assemblages is the El Khiam point. It was originallyrecordedby Garrod(1) andby Perrot(2), but it was Echegaraywho introduced thecurrent nameand : "A pointwithtwo notchesnear the base, definition whichhas a straight or concavetruncation ; thetiphas or alternateretouch..."(3). abrupt,semi-abrupt The above definitionis usually used only in a general sense. Echegaray himself included in this type three points which do not have a couple of basal notches(4). M.-C. Cauvin subdivided the El Khiam points into two subtypes,(a) straight,or (b) concave truncation(5). Burian and Friedman,too, definedtwo subtypesaccording to the shape of the

retouchedbase, straightor concave (6). Gopher included the variantwitha tang and withoutnotches (A24) as a sub-type of El Khiam point (7). It so happened that many of the points (tanged, unnotched) foundin PPNA assemblages were leftunnamed. Furthermore, sometimestheywere included. in the broad El Khiam category,and in some cases excluded from it. Thus comparisons between assemblages are hampered when the definitionsof points are so flexible. 2. POINTS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS The principlesby which pointswere definedin the Near East are described in the following examples. J. Cauvin definedseven types of points in Byblos, specifically separating the tanged points fromthe ones withouta tang(8). The same scholar published later some of the Mureybetpoints,here separatingtangedpointsfromEl Khiam points,coming fromthe same layerand previouslypresentedin the same figure(9). M.-C. Cauvin, who also studied the Mureybetpoints,definedtwo typesof El Khiam points (straightor concave basal truncation),and maintainedthattangedpoints fromthe same levels are not El Khiam points(10). Bar-Yosef's descrip1979: 2. (6) BURIANandFRIEDMAN, (7) GOPHER,1985: 54. thenusedforPPNB (8) J.CAUVIN,1968: 47 (a definition andlaterpoints). (9) M.-C.CAUVIN,1978: fig.17. (10) M.-C.CAUVIN,1978: 12.

(1) GARROD,1937: PI. 8. 1952: 440-442. (2) PERROT, 1966: 50. (3) ECHEGARAY, (4) Ibid: fig.Xvi: 23,xxi: 10,15. (5) M.-C.CAUVIN,1974: 316. 109

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tionof Levantinepointtypesstressedtheimportance of notchesand basal morphologyfordistinguishing thevarioustypes(1 1). In a preliminary reporton Hatoula, a figurewithEl Khiam pointswas presented, and a pointwithoutnotches(in the same figure)was not included in the same category(12). Gopher in his detailed studyof Levantinepointsdefinedan El Khiam subtype (A24) according to its tang, and different fromthe rest of the El Khiam points(13). Goring-Morrishas studied late pleistocene assemblages fromtheNegev (14). In his typelisthe clearly distinguishedthe El Khiam pointfromtangedpoints withoutnotches(Abu Madi and Ounan), and froma (Shunra point). simple point withno tang/notches These examples manifestthe common use of notches,tangs and types of base modificationsfor distinguishingpoint types. Such morphological characteristics,togetherwith the general shape of the point, also attest to the way the points were hafted. However, the above referencesshow that the various writerswere not satisfiedwiththe current type list. They defined the El Khiam specimens whenevertheycould, but therewere always other points which could not be included. These, in most cases, were not given a name, but were repeatedlyseparatedfromthe El Khiam point both in text and figures. We use the 120 pointsfromNetiv Hagdud (15) as a series for the analysis and definitionof Sultanian points. In our view they cannot all be classifiedas subtypesof theEl Khiam point.Rather, it is suggestedhere thattheyare threedistincttypes definedby the same set of attributesemployedfor the definitionof other arrowheadsin the Levant. They are namedEl Khiampoint,JordanValleypoint and4Salibiya point. The Netiv Hagdud arrowheadsare mostlymade on bladelets,butsome are fashionedon small blades. All points have a triangularshape usually withthe base at the proximalend. I. El Khiam point This is a pointwithone pair (or more)of notches nearthebase or along thesides. The tip is retouched and the base is usually truncated.In one of the subtypesthe base is an unretouchedpreviousbreak of the blank. The 62 points(fromNetiv Hagdud) assigned to thistypeinclude six specimenswithan unretouched base and seven "problematic"specimens(see below), the lattergroup omittedfrommost detailed studies. 1981: 559. (11) BAR-YOSEF, etRONEN,1985: fig.22: 15-17,28. (12) LECHEVALLIER (13) GOPHER,1985: 54. 1987. (14) GORING-MORRIS, etal., 1980;KISLEVetal., 1986;NADEL, (15) BAR-YOSEF 1988,inprep.

The subtypeswere definedaccordingto theposition of notches (proximal,mesial, distal), theirnumber (one or two pairs), and base morphology(straight truncation,concave truncation or unretouched) (fig. 1). There follows a generaldescriptionof subtypesfoundat Netiv Hagdud, while a detailed presentationwill be available elsewhere. The most common subtype is El Khiam 1 (N = 23), witha pair of notchesneara straighttruncated base. The specimensshow a wide rangeof variabilityin size, and in ten cases Couze retouch(16) is presenton thetruncatedbase (figs. 2 : 2,4,5,7-12; 3 : 27,28). El Khiam 2, with mesial notches,is the fivepieces second subtypewitha straighttruncation (figs 2 : 16,20,24; 3 : 29). are less common,and there Concave truncations are five withproximalnotches(El Khiam 5, fig. 2 : 3,13,14,22), two with mesial notches(El Khiam 6, fig. 2 : 23,25), and two with distal notches (El Khiam 7, fig. 3 : 30). Points with a pair of notches, retouched sides/tipsand an unmodifiedbase were groupedas subtype9. Five specimensare presentat NetivHagdud (fig. 2 : 1,6,29). This subtypehas been included in the El Khiam type by M.-C. Cauvin(17) and Gopher(18). These artefactscould representunfinishedpieces, withcompletenotchesand the base truncationnot yet shaped. However,the generalimpressionis thatthese are completepoints in which the base retouchwas not required.This is supported by observationsof othertool typesin theNetivHagdud assemblage, where the standardof producing well-finishedartefactswas low, and leaving many edges of tools unmodifiedwas commonplace. Fragmentsof 13 pointswhichwere definitelyEl Khiampointsby theremainsof theirnotchesare present (fig. 3 : 26). Seven pointedblades with a pair of basal notchesare consideredproblematic(called while thebody El Khiam?). The base is unmodified, and tip are hardlyretouched,or not retouchedat all. The tip is lopsided in some cases. It is possible that these were drills or unfinishedpoints (fig. 2 : 28 ; 3 : 25). Remarks The El Khiam typeincludesrarespecimenswith wide notchescreatinga long tang.These were found in Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I and Mureybet,and they betweenEl Khiam may be regardedas intermediate and the JordanValley (especially subtype5) types. This gradualchangefromone morphologicaltypeto anotheris known for otherpoints (e.g. Amuq and specimens) Byblos). As the exceptions(intermediate (16) BORDESetFITTE,1964. (17) M.-C.CAUVIN,1978. (18) GOPHER,1985.

110

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FIG. 1. - Schematic ofEl Khiam,Jordan withtheirnumbered BasemorValleyand Salibiyapoints, subtypes. representations in eachgroup.In addition, andmodification number and concave, phology (straight, tang,etc.)wereusedtodistinguish subtypes ofnotches wereusedforsorting Foridentifying theSalibiyasubtypes themorphology ofthetips theEl Khiampoints. position wasalsoemployed, inthesample, andtwobasicshapesoftipswererecorded sidestowards a tipanda shouldered namely converging is drawnonlywhenrelevant to definitions ofsubtypes. tip.Retouch

are rare,theydo not contradictthe currenttypological approach. One interesting El Khiam point has its tip separatedfromthebodyby shoulders,a commonfeature in the Salibiya type (fig. 2 : 13, and compare with fig. 3 : 9-11). II. Jordan Valley point This point has a tang separatedfromits body by a neck or shoulders.No notchesare presentalong the point.Several typesof pointsfromNorthAfrica and the Levant could be lumpedtogetheras "tanged pointswithoutnotches".In the Levant theyinclude Harifand Abu Madi points,and in NorthAfricathe Ounan point. The above mentionedtypes were described mainly by way of their morphological

characteristicsand manufacturing technology.The Harif points have a rhomboidcontourand the tang is bifacially modified(19). Abu Madi points are elongated ovals or rhomboidin shape, sometimes with a small tang(20). Ounan points are not symmetrical, and the tang is diagonal to the main axis (21). The Netiv Hagdud tanged points do not fall withinthese definitions,and thereforeare describedseparatelyas JordanValley points. 16 points of this type make it the smallestgroupof the point types found at Netiv Hagdud, and they were subdivided accordingto tang morphology(fig. 1).

1981. (19) MARKS,1973;BAR-YOSEF, 1981. (20) BAR-YOSEF, (21) TIXIER, 1963: 148-150,fig.56; WENDORFand SCHILD,1980: 110,fig.3-40,3-45.

Ill

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

- El Khiam5 : - El Khiam2 : 3,13,14,22 - El Khiam1 : 16,20,24 NetivHagdud: 2,4,5,7-12,15,17-19,21,27 FIG. 2. - Pointsfrom : varia. El Khiam 6 : El 9 : 28 El Khiam ? 30 Khiam 23,25,26 1,6,29 112

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE1 in mm)andstandard dimensions measured deviations (length , width , thickness, Average ofthepoints foundat NetivHagdud. El Khiam? is a pointed bladewithbilateral notches Nadel , 1988) (after TYPE El Khiam El Khiam? Jordan V. Salibiya Varia Fragment Total

N

AVG.L.

S.D.L.

AVG.W

S.D.W.

AVG.TH.

S.D.TH.

55 7 16 25 7 10

21.8 24.9 27.7 19.8 21.9 18.4

7.2 2.7 7.9 4.7 3.6 1.8

8.4 10.9 10.4 7.8 8.7 8.0

2.5 0.4 2.1 1.7 0.9 2.0

2.4 2.9 2.5 2.0 2.4 1.7

0.7 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.6

120

The mostcommonsubtypeincludesseven points witha long drop-shapedtang (JordanValley 5). The long tangis roundat its proximalend, and thereare always shouldersor a neck betweenthe tangand the body. The angle between tang and body is over 90 degrees.Threepointswitha long rectangular tang separatedfromthebody by morethan90 degreesare present(JordanValley 2, fig. 3 : 19-21). Threepoints withthelong tangwideningat its end werefound,too (JordanValley4, fig.3 : 22,23). One specimenof Jordan Valley 1 and one of JordanValley 3 (fig. 3 : 16) demonstratethe wide range of variabilityin tang shapes. Two unique wingedpointswere found,with the angle betweenthe tang and the body being less than90 degrees.The tangis bifaciallyretouched, while the wings and the tips are bifaciallyor abruptlyretouched(JordanValley6, fig. 3 : 17,18).

Remarks

III. Salibiya point

IV. Varia and fragments

It is a small point with a basal truncationof various formsand withoutnotches. The Couze retouch is common(Netiv Hagdud), the tip is always modifiedand the body is sometimesretouched.A somewhat similar point is defined as Bou-Saada pointin NorthAfrica(22). All 25 Netiv Hagdud examples are made on bladelets,and subtypeswere defined according to base morphology (straight, concave or bi-concave truncation)and shape of tip (shoulderedor convergent). The most common subtype(Salibiya 2) has a straighttruncationand convergingedges ending at the tip (nine specimens,fig. 3 : 1,2,6,7). This kind of tip is also foundin subtype4 (concave base, three specimens,fig. 3 : 4,5,8) and in subtype6 (doublenotchedbase, five specimens,fig. 3 : 12-15).

In consideringthis group of points,one might argue that they are unfinishedEl Khiam points,or in some cases even drills. The fact thatone of the El Khiam points has a tip separatedfromthe body like various Salibiya pointssupportsthe assumption the shoulderedtip thattheseare points.Furthermore, of subtypes 1,3,5,7 is uncommonin the El Khiam pointcategory,but forms32% (8 out of 25) of the base of subtypes Salibiya points.The double-notched 5 and 6 forms20% of the Salibiya points,and was not found in the El Khiam points. These observations, togetherwith the homogeneouscharacterof each of the Salibiya subtypesmaycontributeto their possible definitionas an independenttype, rather than a stage of manufactureor a varietyof the El Khiam type.

Specimens which could not fit the above type definitionswere groupedhere. These include seven points designatedvaria, and ten points too broken to be further classified. V. Comparison of the three types 1. Size The JordanValley points are much larger,on average, than the other types, while the Salibiya pointsare thesmallest(table 1), althoughall overlap as theyhave a wide range of size variability. 2. Break type patterns

A tip separatedfromthe body by shouldersis less common,and is presentin subtype1 (straight five specimens,fig. 3 : 3,9-11) and subtruncation, type 3 (concave base, threespecimens). (22) TIXIER,1963: 150-152, fig.57.

The points were divided into three groups accordingto thebreaktypeof thetip.The firstconsists of those with a complete tip, the second of those with only the very end broken (1-2 mm missing, break type A), and the thirdof those with most of thetipbroken(breaktypeB). Of theEl Khiampoints only 13% are complete,while in the JordanValley and Salibiya points 25 % and 32 % are complete

113

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

- Salibiya2 : 4,5,8- Salibiya4 : 12-15- Salibiya6 : 19-21FIG. 3. - PointsfromNetivHagdud: 3,9-11- Salibiya1 : 1,2,6,7 Jordan Valley4 : 17,18- Jordan Valley6 : 27,28- El Khiam1 : 29 - El Khiam Valley2 : 16- Jordan Valley3 : 22,23- Jordan 2 : 30 - El Khiam7 : 25 - El Khiam? : 26 - El Khiam,fragment : 24 - fragment. 114

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE2 A comparison in anyofthetypes. Break . Complete ofpointsanddrillsbythebreakpattern oftheirtips tipsarenotdominant A is a tipalmost withonly1-2mmmissing. BreaktypeВ is a broken Complete type complete tipwithmorethan2 mmmissing. drillsaretwiceas common as complete wereidentified. Broken , andno drillfragments points tips(typeB) aremorecommon Notetheborers amongthepoints. fortheirlowfrequency oftypeA, andtheirvery highfrequency oftypeВ (27 of44 !). El Khiam? is a pointed bladewithbilateral notches. Thesamples arefromNetivHagdud(after Nadel,1988).

Points

Drills

Type El Khiam El Khiam? Jordan V. Salibiya Varia+ Frag. Total %

Complete 7 4 6 17 14.2%

Awlon Blade Awlon flake Borer Total %

А

В

21 3 5 13 6

20 4 7 6 5

Fragment 7

42 35.0%

48 40.0%

N

6

55 7 16 25 17

13 10.8

120 100.0%

45 28 7

74 48 10

28 7 27

147 83 44

80 29.2 %

132 48.2 %

62 22.6 %

274 100.0%

TABLE3 Thechoiceofrawmaterial at NetivHagdud.Thetypes forproducing pointsandawls-borers offlintaregivenbytheircolors. It hasbeenshown thatat leastsomeofthepinkflintwasheattreated , 1989).Notethesimilarity (Nadel1988 priortoknapping between andgrey Nadel , brown pointsanddrillsin thechoiceofpink , 1988) flints(after Type Points %

Pink

Brown

12 10.0%

48 40.0 %

Grey 41 34.2 %

Drills %

60 8.1 %

311 41.9 %

240 32.3 %

Transparent 18 15.0% 23 3.1 %

(respectively,table 2). In general,thereis no dominant break type of the points. It is interestingto note thatSalibiya pointshave brokentips whichare similarto El Khiam and JordanValley points.These breaks supportthe assumptionthat Salibiya points were used as arrowheadsand were not unfinished specimens. 3. Morphology The factthatcommontips and bases in the Salibiya pointcategorywere not foundin theEl Khiam points (see above) is used here to advance the hypothesis that the formerare not a manufacturing stage of the latter. VI. Functional aspects All points describedabove are triangularelongated, symmetrical(usually) and pointed. These propertiescharacterizedrillingheads, too, especially

Chert

16 2.2 %

Other

Total

1 0.8 %

120 100%

92 12.4%

742 100%

those used in bow-drillswhere symmetry is important. It is hard to distinguishthe projectile points fromthe drillingpoints by morphologicalcriteria alone. Tixier, for example, admits that in fact the Ounan point could have been an awl (23). As we have encounteredthe same problem in the Netiv Hagdud assemblage, we presentfive workinghytheprojectilepointsfrom pothesesfordistinguishing the drill heads.

Hypothesis 1 : It is possible to recognize the two typesby macro- and micro-wearanalysis. Studying a sample fromAbu Hureira, Moss found out that some projectilepoints were actually used as borers on reed (24). This conclusion only augments the problem,as artefactsmighthave been used formore thanone task. It seems thatsuch analyses could not be conclusive for the distinctionrequired. (23) Ibid: 150. (24) MOSS,1983.

115

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

raw materiHypothesis2 : A selectionof preferred als forthe productionof pointsand drillswas practiced by the knappers.As table 3 makes it clear that therewas no suchpreferencein thelocal assemblage, this hypothesisis not usefulhere. Hypothesis 3 : The modificationof the tip in the two groupsis achieved by different typesof retouch. An analysis of all the Netiv Hagdud points (N = 120) and a sample of awls-borers(N = 274) shows that an abruptretouchon both converging edges is commonforpointsand drills.A tip having one edge obverselyand theotherinverselyretouched is also commonto both groups.In otherwords,the type of retouchcannot serve as a criterionfor separatingprojectilepointsfromawls-borers. of thetwo groups Hypothesis4 : Spatial distribution in In them. the currentcase, may help separating thereis no evidentcorrelation(positiveor negative) betweenthe distributions of the two types. Hypothesis5 : Experimentsof shootingarrowheads and drillingwith flintpoints will expose different breaktypesof thetips.Bergmanand Newcomerhave shown thatthe impacton projectilepointscauses a typical break, usually in the shape of a small burin(25). Bergman and Goring-Morrismaintain thatthe break will always occur on the freepartof thepointand noton itshaftedsegment(26). We have no experimentaldata on breaktypesof awls-borers. Table 2 presentsa comparativeanalysis of the tips of pointsand drills.The pointsare morebroken thanthe various drill types,but as thereis an overlap betweenthecategoriesthebreakof thetipcannot serve as the requiredcriterion. It should be pointed out that most El Khiam points are broken at the tip and not at the weak "bottle-neck"between the notches. This indicates thattheydid not break due to rollingor trampling. Rather,theybrokewhile theywere partof the arrow (secured at the end of the arrowshaft),when most of the arrowheadbody was protected,and only its freetip was vulnerable. It should be stressedthatit seems unlikelythat the definedawls-borerswill prove to be projectile points. On the otherhand, it is possible that some of the pointswill prove to have been used as drills, or as drills and projectiles.In Netiv Hagdud, none of theworkinghypothesesprovedto be usefulin this respect. The Netiv Hagdud pointsshow a wide range of variabilityin choice of raw material,size and shape. There is no correlationbetween type and size as thereare small,mediumand largespecimensof each point type (although on average there were some differencesbetweenthe threetypes). J. Cauvin has andNEWCOMER, 1983. (25) BERGMAN 1988: pers.comm. (26) GORING-MORRIS,

addressedthe issue of pointsize and its typological implications(27). It is reasonable to inferthat the threepoint types were haftedin different ways, as notches and tangs are designed by a premeditated techniqueof securingthe point to the shaft(28). 3. THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF EL KHIAM, JORDANVALLEY AND SALIBIYA POINTS In view of the suggestionsabove, a review of Near Easternsites fromwhichEl Khiampointswere reportedis givenbelow withour comments.The survey is presentedin a generalgeographicalorder,with special attentionto assemblages includingwhat we designateSalibiya and JordanValley points. Abu Madi I : This lithicassemblage froma PPNA sitein themountainsof SouthernSinai includeslarge quantitiesof Abu Madi and El Khiam points(29). A commonvariantof the latterhas a deeply concave base. Mushabi XX : One El Khiam pointis reportedfrom this Harifiansite in NothernSinai (30). Abu Salem : One El Khiam point and two (by our definition)JordanValley points were foundat this Harifian site in the Negev (31). It is not clear whethertheybelong to the Harifian,to a laterphase or have no relationto the local assemblages(32). Nahal Lavan 108 : This early Neolithic site from theNegev was assignedto thePPNA (33). The report presentstwelve points, none of which have basal notches.The dominanttypesare JordanValley and Salibiya points. This site, with no true El Khiam points, was considered a Harifian derivative by (34). Gopherand Goring-Morris Nahal Lavan 109 : A PPNB surface site in the Negev,fromwhichtwo El Khiam points,of theA24 variant,are describedin Gopher(35). Accordingto the new definitionstheybelong to theJordanValley and Salibiya types. Shunra IV : A surfaceHarifiansite in the Western Negev in which,apartfromthelocal Harifianpoints, threeEl Khiam points,one Salibiya point and one JordanValley point were found(36). (27) J.CAUVIN,1968: 46. 1987. (28) BAR-YOSEF, 1981; GOPHER,1985: 88. (29) BAR-YOSEF, (30) PHILLIPS,1977:211,fig.99: 22. (31) GOPHER,1985: 145,tab.III.6,fig.III.3. (32) Ibid: 197,note34. (33) NOYetai, 1981. 1987. (34) GOPHER,1985:222-3,290; GORING-MORRIS, (35) GOPHER,1985: 177-180, fig.III.22. 1988:pers.comm. (36) GORING-MORRIS,

116

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Poleg 18M : A late Natufiansite with El Khiam points,collectedfromerodedsurfaceof redloam hill in the coastal plain (49).

Beidha : In this PPNB site in SouthernJordan,out of 901 points the type Al comprises 1 % (37), and parallelsthe El Khiam point(the variantwithan unmodifiedbase).

El-Wad (cave) : An El Khiam point was found in the upperNatufianlayer(50), but could be intrusive like the sherds.

Sabra 1 : This surfacecollectedsite in SouthernJordan seems like a mixed assemblage withlunates,El Khiam points and Helwan points(38).

Nahal Oren : In a detailed studyof the Early Neolithicpoints,the El Khiam and Salibiya typeswere identified(51).

Dhra' : El Khiam pointsare reportedfromthis surface collection in the Arava Valley(39).

Gesher : This recentlyanalysedsmall PPNA assemblage has only the El Khiam type of point(52).

El Khiam Terrace : Accordingto Perrot,thereis a variety of what was later defined as El Khiam points(40). JordanValley and Salibiya points (our definition)are presenttoo. One Harif point is reported(41). Echegaray definedthe El Khiam point followinghis excavationshere,and he describedthe type in detail (42).

Nachcharini : Large numbersof El Khiampointsare reported(53), as well as many simple points which fitour descriptionof the Salibiya type. Mureybet: It is clear that this assemblage is rich in points,and all threetypes (according to our typology) are reported(54).

Hatoula : The Khiamian assemblage fromthis site at the westernfoothillsof the JudeanHills includes El Khiam and what we call Salibiya points,and the local Sultanian is reported to have El Khiam points(43).

Nemriq 9 : El Khiam pointswere reportedfromthis site in NorthernIraq (55). Qermez Dere : El Khiam pointsare commonin this site in NorthIraq (56).

Jericho: The pointscollectedfromthePPNA layers are probablyunder-represented due to fieldrecovery techniques.Of the eight specimensdescribed,only two are El Khiam points(44). The rest are of the Salibiya and JordanValley types,and one is not a point. Additional El Khiam points were found in PPNB layers(45).

4. CONCLUSIONS

Salibiya IX : This assemblageoriginatesfroma test excavationat a site located betweenGilgal and Netiv Hagdud, and the threetypesof pointsare each well(46). represented Gilgal I-III : El Khiam, JordanValley and Salibiya points were identified at this early Neolithic site (47). Michmoret 26 : A PPNB surfacesite in the coastal plain with two earlierpoints,El Khiam and Jordan Valley(48).

1970:22,fig.12: a,b,c. (37) MORTENSEN, (38) GEBEL,1986: fig.8 ; 1988: fig.6 : 5. 1980:39,fig.1; RAIKES,1980:fig.16. (39) BENNETT, 1952:fig.1,2. (40) PERROT, (41) Ibid: fig.2.21. 1963;1966: 11,40,50, (42) ECHEGARAY, figs,xvi,xxi. et RONEN,1985: fig.21; LECHE(43) LECHEVALLIER VALLIERetal., 1989. 1983: fig.273: 5. (44) CROWFOOT-PAYNE, (45) Ibid: figs.305,331. andBAR-YOSEF, inprep. (46) ENOCH-SHILOH ; BAR-YOSEF, 1980; GOPHER,1985: 160-161, fig.Ill-13: 5,6; D.N. pers.observations. (47) NOYetal, 1981: 66-68,fig.3; NOY,1989. (48) GOPHER,1985: fig.III-24.

We have presentedhere the morphologicaland dimensional characteristicsof what appear to be threetypesof pointsfromPPNA assemblages. Our suggestionis thatthe degree of differencebetween themis not less thanbetweenotherLevantinepoint types.An attemptwas made to resolve the issue of whetherthe Salibiya point is an independenttype, or rathera stage in the productionof the El Khiam type. Our preliminaryresults support the former possibility (with some reservationsof A.G.), althoughfurtherstudies are required. The above surveyof Early Neolithic sites demonstratesthe wide geographicaldistribution of El Khiam points. They are presentin every Levantine and are usuallyaccompaniedby Jordan environment, and/or Valley Salibiya points. The presence of El Khiam pointsin Mureybetin the second half of the IXth millenniumB.C. (57) assists our understanding of their sporadic appearance in Late Natufianand Harifianassemblages. They could have reached the 1970:72-75,fig.44: 17,18. (49) BAR-YOSEF, 1937: fig.32. (50) GARROD, (51) NADELandGOPHER, pers.observations. andNADEL,1989. (52) GARFINKEL 1977. (53) SCHROEDER, (54) M.-C.CAUVIN,1974: fig.1; M.-C.CAUVIN,1978. andSZYMCZAK, 1989. (55) KOZLOWSKI etal., 1989: fig.4 :1,2. (56) WATKINS (57) M.-C.CAUVIN,1978;GOPHER,1985.

117

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

forhafting intheEpiDirect andindirect evidence andNeolithic oftheSouthern Levant. paleolithic In : STORDEUR D. (éd.): Manches etEmmanchements Travaux dela Maison del'OPréhistoriques. rient15.Lyon. A. BAR-YOSEF O. andBELFER-COHEN "PPNB"interaction 1989 The Levantine sphere.In: in HERSHKOVITZ I. (ed.): PeopleandCulture BARInt.Ser.508(i) : 59-72.Oxford. Change. BAR-YOSEF A.N. O.,GOPHERA. andGORING-MORRIS intheLower 1980 NetivHagdud : a "Sultanian" mound Jordan Paléorient 6 : 201-205. Valley. BAR-YOSEF O. andPHILLIPSJ. 1977 Prehistoric inGebelMaghara, NorthInvestigations ernSinai.Qedem 1. Monographs oftheInstitute of : Hebrew Jerusalem Archaeology. University. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BERGMAN C.A.andNEWCOMER M.H. Flint arrowhead fromKsar 1983 : Examples breakage We are grateful to theNationalGeographic Society Journal 10: Akil,Lebanon. ofWorld Archaeology which enabled us to out the field D.C.) (Washington carry 238-243. workin NetivHagdud,to theWenner-Gren Foundation for BENNETT C. theinitialgrantwhichdemonstrated thepotentials of the 1980 at Dhra'Jordan. XII: 30-39. forBasic Researchadministered Levant site,to thefoundation Soundings by theIsraelAcademyof Scienceand theCARE - ArchaeoBORDESF. andFITTEP. forfunding thelaboratory logicalFoundation analysesand 1964 Microlithes du Magdalénien de la Gare Supérieur thewriting ofthevariousreports. Thefieldproject enjoyed du Couze Miscelánea en al (Dordogne). homenaje theconstant supportof Dr. I. Magen,theArchaeological 1 : 259-267. AbateBreuil(1877-1961) StaffOfficerforJudeaand Samariaand KibbutzYitav BURIANF. andFRIEDMAN E. whichlodgedtheexpedition. A 1979 of arrowheads andofsicklebladesand Typology We also wishto thankD. Enoch-Shiloh and J. Barits chronological Haeven Mitekufat implications. Rashifortheirdrawings, E. Orelleforhercriticalreading 16: 1-16(Hebrew). and S. Durocher forherhelp. CAUVINJ. Dani NADEL Lesoutillages deByblos etduLittoral Néolithiques Stekelis Prehistoric Museum. 1968 Libanais. Fouilles de VI. Paris : MaisonByblos 124Hatishby Israel st.,Haifa34455, neuve. 1978 Les premiers de Syrie-Palestine. T.M.O.4 villages Ofer BAR-YOSEF Sériearchéologique 3. Lyon: Maisonde l'Orient. Harvard University, Department ofAnthropology, Museum Mass.02138,U.S.A. , Cambridge, Peabody CAUVINM.-C. 1974 Flèches à encoches deSyrie : essaideclassification Avi GOPHER et d'interprétation culturelle. Paléorient 2,2: 311Tel-Aviv Department ofArchaeology, University, 322. Tel-Aviv 69978,Israel CAUVINM.-C. 1978 In: CAUVINM.-C.etSTORL'outillage lithique. DEURD. 1978Les outillages et osseux lithiques deMureybet, 1: 3-79.Cahiers de l'Euphrate Syrie. ParisCNRS. BIBLIOGRAPHY CAUVINM.-C.et STORDEUR D. 1978 Lesoutillages etosseux deMureybet, lithiques Syrie VanLoon).Cahiers del'Euphrate 1.Paris: (fouilles C.N.R.S. BAR-YOSEF O. J. 1970 TheEpipaleolithic Cultures ofPalestine. Unpublis- CROWFOOT-PAYNE hedPh.D. Dissertation. Hebrew Jerusa- 1983 University. TheFlintIndustries ofJericho. In: KENYONK.M. lem. andHOLLANDT.A.: Excavations V: at Jericho A Human 1980 from a Khiamian site in the Lofigurine С : 622-759. Oxford : Oxford Press. Appendix werJordan Paléorient : 6 193-199. Valley. G.M. 1981 The"Pre-Pottery Neolithic" intheSouthern ECHEGARAY period Levant. In: CAUVINJ.etSANLAVILLE P. (ed.): 1963 Nouvelles fouillesà El Khiam.RevueBiblique Préhistoire duLevant : 555-569. Paris: CNRS. LXX: 94-119. 1982 Neolithic SitesinSouthern Sinai.BibliPre-pottery 1966 Excavaciones enla terraza de"ElKhiam" (Jordania) cal Archaeologist 46,1: 9-12. estudio de la fauna, 2,losniveles Meso-Neolíticos, floray analysis de las tierras del yacimiento. Bibliotheca Prehistórica : Artes Hispana5. Madrid Gráficas GonzaloBedia. ENOCH-SHILOH D. and BAR-YOSEF O. (58) BAR-YOSEFand BELFER-COHEN, 1989; GOPHER, 1989. inprep. TheSalibiya IX flint assemblage. SouthernLevant throughdiffusionprocesses operating by exchange networks(58). They could have arbeen local imitationsof the productsof northern tisans,or representlate intrusionsof Natufiansites fromvisitsby Neolithicinhabitants of thesame area. It is hoped thatthe typologyof Early Neolithic arrowheadsproposedin thispaper will contributeto a better understandingof their technological, functionaland stylisticaspects. Furthermore, this could serve as a possible basis for furtherdetailed analyses which will enable improvedculturalinterpretations.

1987

118

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GARFINKEL Y. andNADELD. MOSSE.H. 1989 TheSultanian flint from Gesher andits of burins andpointsfrom A microwear 1983 assemblage analysis forrecognizing entities In: Traces d'utilisation surlesoutils implications EarlyNeolithic Abu-Hureyra. intheLevant. Paléorient du Proche-Orient : 143-161.Lyon: 15,2: 139-151. Néolithiques C.N.R.S. GARRODD.A.E. andBATED.M. 1937 TheStoneAgeofMount Carmel. Oxford University NADELD. Press. Theflintassemblage 1988 , Jordan fromNetivHagdud Hebrew M.A.thesis, GEBELH.G. Valley. University, Unpublished Jerusalem (Hebrew). Die Jungsteinzeit inPetra-Gebiet. In: Sondendruck 1986 oftheneolithic Flint heattreatment atthebeginning 1989 aus Petra,neueAusgrabungen undEntdeckungen : intheLevant. Haeven22: 61-67. Mitekufat period 273-309. München undBadWindsheim : Hsq.Manfrom NetivHagdud inprep Theflint (a finalreindustry fredLinder. Delp.Verlag. port). - Aceramic sitesin 1988 LateEpipalaeolithic Neolithic thePetraarea.In: GARRARD A.N.andGEBEL NOYT. BARInt.Ser. H.G.(eds.): ThePrehistory ofJordan. Neolithic 1989 site,Israel-the GilgalI - a Pre-Pottery 369(i,ii). Oxford. 1985-1987 seasons. Paléorient 15,1: 11-18. GOPHERA. NOYT.,FRIEDMAN E. andBURIANF. 1985 Flinttoolindustries inIsrael. oftheNeolithic period A sitein Nahal Lavan 108: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic 1981 Ph. D thesis. Hebrew JeruUniversity, Unpublished theWestern IsraelExploration Journal 30: salem. Negev, inthePre-Pottery 1989 Diffusion Neolithic Le63-82. processes vant: thecaseoftheHelwanpoint.In: HERSHPERROTJ. inChange. BAR KOVITZ(ed.): PeopleandCulture Int.Ser.508: 91-105.Oxford. Têtesde flèches duNatoufien etduTahounien 1952 (PaBulletin de la Sociétépréhistorique lestine). franGORING-MORRIS A.N. çaise49 : 439-449. AttheEdge: Terminal 1987 Pleistocene hunter-gatherers intheNegevandSinai.BARInt.Ser.361.Oxford. PHILLIPSJ. In: BAR-YOSEF 1977 TheHarifian. O. andPHILLIPS KISLEVM.E.,BAR-YOSEF O. andGOPHERA. inGebelMaghaJ. : Prehistoric (eds.) Investigations domesticated andwildbarley from 1986 EarlyNeolithic oftheInsSinai.Qedem ra,Northern 7,Monographs intheJordan theNetiv Israel Valley. Hagdud region titute of Archaeology, Jerusalem : Hebrew Journal 35: 197-201. ofBotany University. KOZLOWSKI S.K. andSZYMCZAKK. RAIKES T.D. 1989 Flintindustry from house1/1A/1B at thePPNsite andlater sitesinWadiAra1980 NotesonsomeNeolithic in Nemrik 9 (Northern 15,1: 32Iraq).Paléorient XII: 40-60. Levant ba andtheDeadSea Valley. 42. M. andRONENA. LECHEVALLIER H.B. SCHROEDER 1985 Le siteNatoufien-Khiamien deHatoula. LesCahiers PostNatufian a stratified 1977 (n.d.) Nachcharini, camp du Centre de Recherche de Jérusalem 1. at in theantiLebanon mountains. Français Paperpresented Paris: Association Paléorient. ArtheAnnual oftheSociety forAmerican Meeting chaeology. LECHEVALLIER M.,PHILIBERT D.,RONENA. andSAMZUN A. TIXIERJ. khiamienne etSultanienne à Hatou1989 Uneoccupation du Maghreb. 1963 Typologiede l'Epipaléolithique la (Israël)? Paléorient 15,1: 1-10. C.R.A.PE.2. Paris: A.M.6. MARKSA.E. WATKINS T.,BAIRDD. andBETTSA. 1973 TheHarif : a newtooltypefrom theterminal point neolithic of Dereandtheearlyaceramic 1989 Qermez 1: ofthecentral Negev.Paléorient Epipaleolithic North 15,1: 19-24. Iraq.Paléorient 99-102. WENDORF F.A.andSCHILDR. MORTENSEN P. A preliminary of the stone 1970 Sahara.NewYork: Aca1980 study chipped industry Prehistory oftheEastern 41 : 1-54. demicpress. from Beidha. ActaArchaeologica

119

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Sat, 31 May 2014 07:00:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions