Masaryk University

(1)

Masaryk University

Department of Archaeology and Museology

Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

2014 Denis Štefanisko

(2)

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of Archaeology and Museology

Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Denis Štefanisko

Morphometric analysis of PPNB stone projectile points from Tell Halula in northern Syria during the second half of the 8

^th

millennium cal. BC

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D.

Brno 2014

(3)

DECLARATION

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. I agree with storing this work in the library of the Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East at the Masaryk University in Brno and making it accessible for study purposes.

Brno 26^th of May 2014 ...

Signature

(4)

ABSTRACT/ANNOTATION

Title: Morphometric analysis of PPNB stone projectile points from Tell Halula in northern Syria during the second half of the 8^th millennium cal. BC

Author: Denis Štefanisko

Department/Institute: Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology and Museology, Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East.

Supervisor of the Bachelor thesis: Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D.

Abstract: The study deals with the function of stone projectile points of the Late Pre- Pottery Neolithic B from Tell Halula in northern Syria. The focus of the study lies mainly on the morphological analysis of these tools with the aim of ascertaining the delivery mechanism they used, as such mechanism is only rarely found preserved. In order to achieve this objective, the study has employed recent morphometric methods along with available ethnographic data on projectile points that were retrieved from indigenous societies of North America and Australia as well as data obtained by means of experimental archaeology. Various significant ballistic attributes of the Byblos points of undetermined projectile type have been analysed and compared with samples of known use. The aim of this paper is to ascertain the type of weapons for which these tools were best suited based on morphometric attributes alone.

Keywords: projectile points, Byblos points, arrowheads, bow, arrow, hand projected spears, spear-thrower, dart, Stone-age weaponry, morphometric analysis, ethnography, experimental archaeology, Pre-Pottery Neolithic

(5)

ABSTRAKT/ANOTACE

Název práce: Morfometrická analýza kamenných štípaných hrotů z předkeramického neolitu B z lokality Tell Halula v severní Sýrii z období druhé poloviny 8. tisíciletí př. n.

l.

Autor: Denis Štefanisko

Katedra/Ústav: Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Ústav archeologie a muzeologie, Oddělení pravěké archeologie Předního Východu

Vedoucí bakalářské práce: Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D.

Abstrakt: Předložená práce se věnuje funkci kamenných hrotů z období pozdní fáze předkeramického neolitu B (PPNB) z lokality Tell Halula v severní Sýrii. Hlavním úkolem je morfologická analýza kamenných hrotů typu Byblos za účelem identifikace zbraní, kterých byly tyto hroty součástí. K naplnění tohoto záměru bylo využito moderních metod morfometrické analýzy, kdy balisticky důležité atributy hrotů typu Byblos byly porovnávány s kamennými hroty se známou funkcí používanými původním obyvatelstvem Severní Ameriky a Austrálie, a také s daty získanými experimentální výrobou archeologických replik. Hlavním cílem je upřesnit, kterému typu zbraní analyzované hroty na základě kombinace vhodných morfometrických metod nejlépe odpovídají (např. kopí, oštěp, vrhač oštěpů, luk a šípy).

Klíčová slova: kamenné hroty, hroty typu Byblos, hroty šípů, luk, oštěp, kopí, vrhač oštěpů, zbraně doby kamenné, etnografie, experimentální archeologie, překeramický neolit

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D. for her inspiring ideas that helped my research, as well as for reviewing my thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. phil. Maximillian Wilding and other members of the faculty and students of the Department of Archaeology and Museology at the Masaryk University for the valuable insights they provided in the course of my research.

I would like to further thank Dr. Ferran Borrell Tena, Ph.D., and Prof. Dr. Miquel Molist Montana, Ph.D., for their valuable comments and for providing access to the database of projectile points from Tell Halula, and also Kim Newman, BA, and Prof. Dr. Mark W. Moore, Ph.D., for providing access to the database of Australian ethnographic material. I would also like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. hab. Stefan Karol Kozłowski, Ph.D. and Dr. Hans-Georg K. Gebel for their comments and insights into the study of the Near Eastern Neolithic period and its projectile point technology.

I would also like to thank Štefan Sitáni for editing the English-language version of the paper. My gratitude further goes to my parents and to Gabriela Sakálová for their love and support and for standing by my side in the process of my research and the writing of this thesis.

(7)

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this thesis is to conduct a functional analysis of the projectile points from the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (LPPNB) site Tell Halula in northern Syria with the aim of determining the type of delivery system to which they were hafted. The primary objective of my research is to ascertain the type of weapon for which these projectile points are best suited, with regard to the task that they were designed to perform, by analysing their morphological attributes. This task is mainly to hit and penetrate the target (typically a game animal), while inflicting as much tissue damage as possible in order to kill the prey. To achieve my objective I will perform quantitative morphometric analysis on the examined projectile points.

This thesis was inspired by my interest in flint-knapping technology. Since the earliest days of my archaeology studies I have been interested in lithics due to the fact that stone tools are often the only preserved tangible pieces of evidence of prehistoric human presence. When I thought about the topic of my bachelor’s thesis, I decided to focus on chipped stone industries and projectile points in particular. I had no access to any archaeological material at the beginning of my research, which is why I started working with morphometric analysis. In the meantime Dr Ferran Borrell and Prof. Miquel Molist (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) have kindly provided me a database of projectile points from PPNB site Tell Halula on the middle Euphrates, for which I am very thankful. Furthermore I want additionally thanks for the database of Aboriginal points and knives from Australian museums kindly provided by Kim Newman BA. and Dr. Mark Moore (University of New England).

The method of morphometric analyses used 2 basic methods. Statistical Discriminant analyses of one or more morphological variables or, comparison of significant ballistic characteristics of projectile points from archaeological finds with such characteristics of indigenous and experimentally produced hafted projectile points with a known and documented function, enabling to determine whether the particular projectile point was part of an arrow, dart or spear (Thomas 1978; Shott 1997; Hughes 1998; Shea 2006; Sisk and Shea 2011). As has already been noted by others (Sisk and Shea 2011, 6; Lombard and Philipson 2010, 636), morphometric analysis can access potential morphometric classes, allowing us to determine the delivery mechanism used with the projectile point. But as emphasized above, such analysis should always be supported by results of use-wear, contextual, faunal or other type of analysis, since none

(10)

10 of the above methods works perfectly just by itself. Therefore, Erlandson et al (2014, 168) suggest, that the “researcher should continue to be careful in interpreting the specific function of projectile points based on size or morphology alone”. In light of the previous statement, the analysis of morphological attributes may be considered a useful first step in establishing the likelihood of presence of a particular type of weaponry, but its results alone do not yield 100 % proof of the presence or absence of a particular type of weaponry.

Since Pre-Pottery Neolithic B stone tools in the morphological group commonly called “arrowheads” or “projectile points” exhibit great diversity of shapes and sizes (Gopher 1994; Borrell and Molist 2007; Shea 2013). An analysis of this type could potentially aid in identifying weapons hidden behind these armatures, to these aspects of these weapons which are usually hidden using others approaches. In other words, examination by morphometric analysis could ascertain which archaeological projectile point may have been choice for recent indigenous societies for design of their weapons or to which weapons are best suited according to reports from field of experimental archaeology instead of just routinely label all pointed tanged artefacts as “arrowhead”.

Identifying these weapons could also lead to new findings contributing to reconstruction of prehistoric technology of production, subsistence technologies as well as hunting strategies (Knecht 1997, 4).

Since at the moment of writing this thesis it is not possible to access the actual artefacts from Tell Halula, attention will be focused mainly on morphometric analysis of assemblages from PPNB occupation phases 6-19 of Tell Halula. The ballistic attributes of PPNB Byblos points will be compared to examples found in ethnographical collections and to experimentally hafted projectiles. The points will further be subject to Discriminant analyses (Shott 1997; Hildebrant and King 2010) to determine whether they possibly served as dart tips or arrowheads. Although it is true that Use-wear analysis and detailed Contextual analysis could also help bring new information concerning the function of projectile points these kinds of analyses are beyond the scope of this thesis. Therefore this paper should be seen as a pilot study attempting to test a new approach to the study of PPNB stone projectile weaponry based on examining its only preserved parts – the projectile points.

In order to achieve the main objective I divided my paper into 6 parts. The initial theoretical part provides definitions of stone projectile points and of the weapons with

(11)

11 which they are associated, as well as ethnographic and experimental archaeological research concerning these tools. The chapter titled Current State of Research focuses on reviewing the evolution of projectile point technologies in the context of the Levant and on presenting major studies that have contributed to the present base of knowledge regarding their typologies, technologies and function. Last part of this chapter focuses on history and development of morphometric analysis. The following chapter introduces material and methodology of analyses performed in this paper. Chapter 4 explains the details of my analyses and their results. Chapter 5 attempts to evaluate the results and identify some issues for future research. The final chapter tries to answer the research question and provides the conclusion of this thesis.

(12)

12

1. Subject of study

1.1. What is a stone projectile point?

As the title suggests, this thesis focuses on examining the function of projectile points. This examination in particular, concentrates on projectile points made of stone;

it excludes points made of other raw materials, such as wood, bone, antlers, etc. The subject of this examination is further narrowed down to stone projectile point

manufactured using a technology called flint-knapping (Fig. 1) (Whittaker 1994; Inizan et al. 1999). Therefore, projectiles such as stone sling missiles or others weapons which do not use medium for the carrying the projectile point are excluded from this paper.

`

Fig. 1. Example of projectile point used in this thesis (photography by F. Borrell).

The concept of projectile point has been widely discussed in recent research literature (Bergman and Newcomer 1983; Moss 1983; Christenson 1986; Odell and Cowan 1986; Knecht et al. 1997; Hughes 1998; Coşkunsu and Lemorini 2001; Shea et al.2001; Shea 2006; Borrell and Molist 2007). If we analyse the term “projectile point”, the first word, “projectile”, denotes an object propelled through air by means of being launched, projected or thrown, either using a helping device or by hand (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/projectile). On the other hand, the meaning of the term “point” is regarded in many different ways. Perhaps the easiest definition of a point is proposed by Vayson de Pradanne: “A point is the meeting of two edges in a form which indicates use as a point” (1920, 463). Consequently, a projectile point could be referred to as a projected pointed object; however, some types of

(13)

13 projectile points may feature a transverse cutting edge instead of a pointed distal end, as seen in a number of Neolithic transverse arrowheads (Gopher 1994, 41; Mateiciucová 2008, 178). As a result, in this paper, the term “projectile points” applies not only as a formal descriptive term to pointed objects as for example “arrowheads“, but to any projectile weaponry featuring a stone component designed to function as a cutting edge or point. The use of the term “projectile point” is in itself an attempt to avoid some unwarranted assumption classify these objects to any functional category as for example

“arrowheads” or “spearheads” or other particular weapon.

The problem of reconstruction of projectile weapon from projectile point (purpose) is difficult to address since there exists, in addition to the bow and arrow, a number of projectile weapon systems, such as spear-thrower darts or even spears, that use similarly shaped stone-tipped armatures for their projectiles (Shott 1997; Shea 2006;

Hildebrant and King 2010). Even though some thrusting spears also feature stone tips similar to those found in “true” projectile weapons, they are in fact delivered by hand rather than projected away from the operator during use, and are therefore sometimes classified as contact weapons rather than projectile weapons (Churchill 1993, 13).

However, the points used in thrusting spears bear extensive morphological similarity to those used in projectiles, and even exhibit similar use-wear traces, only presumably with a different size. Thus, it is safe to assume that some of the larger morphologically similar projectile points could have, in fact, served as spearheads, however as it will be shown in following chapters, it is not easy task to establish clear line between different weapons (Fisher et al 1974; Odell and Cowan 1978). As a result, this type of weapons, is included in the examined category and is also covered by the term “projectile points”.

1.2 Description of prehistoric weaponry

As has been outlined in the previous section, the main purpose of thesis is to attempt to access to weapons from their remaining part projectile point. The main aim of this subchapter is to familiarize the reader with the functional principles, performance and advantages of Stone Age weapons, as well as the hunting techniques with which they are associated according to ethnographic and experimental archaeology literature.

It is important to consider these aspects before accessing the function, since these basic principles have impact on design of projectile point.

(14)

14 1.2.1. Basic principle of primitive weaponry

As has been noted earlier prehistoric weapons that use stone components are divided into 3 major categories: hand-delivered spears; spear-thrower and darts; and bow and arrow (Knecht 1997a, 3). The basic function and principle of these weapons, is the transfer of muscle power into the point of the weapon. The energy is transferred (projected) from the arm either directly, or through a mechanism that aids in this transfer. The force exerted by human action is converted to motion which carries the projectile to its mark (Hughes 1998, 348). Newtonian physics describe and clarify all quantities involved in this transfer. A description of all factors involved in this transfer based on Newtonian physics can be found in Cotterell and Kamminga (1990, 166). The motion of a projectile is composed of 3 phases: launch, flight, and penetration; the motion of a thrusting spear consists of 2 phases: launch and penetration. It had been suggested that the main function of a the tip of the weapon is to open a hole in the skin that is sufficiently large in order to allow the shaft to pass through with negligible friction, and to cut and damage arteries, veins and life important organs ideally lung.(Friis-Hansen 1990, 496)

Projectile and hand-delivered weapons systems vary in dynamic properties such as velocity (V) and kinetic energy (Ke)¹ (Churchill 2009 et al. 167; Hughes 1998, 352).

Differences in velocity and kinetic energy in a particular weapon along with variations in the characteristics of the stone point affects performance, as for example penetration depth, range, accuracy (Tab. 1).

1Kinetic energy (KE) is proportional to mass (M, in kg) times velocity (v in m sec^-1) squared, expressed in Joules (J): KE in (J) = (adopted after Hughes: 1998, 349; Churchill et al.

2009, 167).

(15)

15 Kinetic

energy

Velocity (in

m*sec^-1) Mass (in g) range

(in m) Source

Spear 42,4 1,7 29 200 contact Churchill 2009,Schmitt

2003, Churchill 1993

Javelin 29.2 15,9 300 7,8 Hughes 1998, Churchill

1993 Spear-thrower and

dart 32.5 23,6 110,9 15-20 Hughes 1998, Thomas

1978, Cattalein 1997

Bow and arrow 29,9 46,9 29,5 25,8 Hughes 1998, Churchill

1993, Thomas 1978 Tab. 1. Comparison of basic performance of weapons system which use stone projectile

point as armatures.

1.2.2. Hand-delivered spears

The spear is among the oldest of prehistoric weapons (Wilkins et al. 2012). It is a pole weapon with a sharp point, which appears in an infinite number of varieties in societies around the world. It may be either used at close quarters as a thrusting spear (lance) or it may be thrown, in which case it is referred to as a throwing spear or a javelin. Although technology of these weapons is relatively simple, spears were not been replaced by the introduction of new distance weapons such as bow, but were instead used in addition to long range weapons, moreover they were used until inventions of firearms (Hitchcock and Bleed 1997, 355 ).

The thrusting spear is a contact weapon that operates with high kinetic energy (KE) and low velocity (Tab 1). Numerous experiments conducted with this weapons (Shea et al. 2001; Schmitt et al, 2003; Churchill et al. 2009) and sporadic information from ethnographic records (Churchill 1993) establish the average performance of this weapon. The use of thrusting spears for hunting has been recorded mainly in Africa, however, the research literature provides no details about the morphometric attributes of the weapons themselves (Hitchcock and Bleed 1997). Therefore, more detailed information concerning this topic comes from controlled experiments conducted with these weapons using a calibrated crossbow (Shea 2001 et al.) or human power (Schmitt et al. 2003; Churchill et al. 2009) The biggest advantage for these weapons is high kinetic energy (an average of 42.4 J). The average velocity and mass involved in the use

(16)

16 of the spear was determined Schmitt et al (2003). Based on the results of experiment, the average velocity has been calculated at approximately 1.7 m per second, while the average mass was determined to be around 29.2 kg. Churchill et al. (2009) used this data to obtain an estimate of the kinetic energy, which is high due to the fact, that the user’s entire upper body mass is involved in the transfer of energy to the spear (Schmitt et al. 2003, Churchill et al. 2009).

Unlike its counterpart operated by thrusting, the throwing spear (or javelin) is a hand-delivered ranged weapon. Data concerning this weapon are also poor and come mostly from summarizations of results from experimental approaches provided by S.

Hughes (1998) and ethnographic record summarized by Churchill (1993), who focuses in his paper on the hunting techniques and prey size selection associated with different prehistoric weapons. The average velocity and mass for this type of spear have been determined by Hughes (1998, 352) using literature concerning replicas of spears and modern javelins. Therefore, the data obtained in Hughes paper should be regarded with caution. Tab. 1 lists an average kinetic energy of 29.2 J, however Hughes suggest an average KE of 75.4 J. In my opinion, modern javelins with a mass of 800 g used in obtaining her data do not fit well for the purposes of this analysis. Therefore, I have calculated values found in Tab. 1 based on the other three available sources (Hughes 1998, 408). The average velocity is estimated at 15.9 m sec^-1 with a mass of 175 g.

Ethnographic records show that most societies used these weapons at maximum effective distance of 7.8 m (Churchill 1993 Tab 1.4).

Churchill (1993, 16) survey revealed that both thrusting and thrown hand^-delivered spears were used mostly for large game and they are mainly associated with disadvantage hunting. A similar pattern of use was also observed in Africa, among the spear-hunters of Northern Kalahari, who prefer using throwing spears over the bow and arrow due to their superior suitability for killing large game (Hitchcock and Bleed 1997, 355). The impact damage inflicted by the spear results either in immediate death or blood loss that is sufficiently severe to weaken the animal quickly. This eliminates the necessity of stalking the prey over long distances, as in case of poison arrows, for instance. The projectile points of the thrusting spear unlike other mentioned is usually designed for multiple thrust, therefore it lack of barbs or others modification, which cause problematic removal from target. The lance need to be quickly recovered from body in order to be enable user to repeat attack with relatively great precision (Ellis

(17)

17 1997, 59-63). Maybe the biggest disadvantage of hand projected spears is rooted in fact that a hunter needs to be close to prey, what introduce risk of being injured from large and dangerous animals, moreover risking the loss of the spear (Hitchcock and Bleed 1997, 357; Kennedy 2004, 129).

1.2.3. Spear-thrower and dart

The definition of a spear thrower (Fig. 2), also called “Atlatl” (Aztec name) or

“Woomera” (Australian name) has been provided by Pierre Cattelain (1997, 214). The spear-thrower is a projectile weapons used for hunting, fishing, or warfare. It is made up of a rod or a plank with a hook or a gutter, to which is inserted a fletched or unfletched dart. Simply speaking, the atlatl is a stick with a hook or socket to engage the projectile referred to as a spear or dart (Whittaker 2005). The atlatl allows the dart to be thrown considerably with greater force and over a considerably longer distance than only by hand. Ethnographic evidence of spear-thrower use is found mainly in societies living in the Artic, North America and Oceania (Cattelain 1997, 217). These societies can be further divided into two groups: The first group used throwing spears exclusively from a seated position in kayaks in marine environments (Artic); the second group used them for both terrestrial and aquatic hunting (the New World and Oceania). This paper focuses predominantly on the latter of these two groups.

Fig. 2. Spear thrower and dart in use (after Handwerk 2006).

The projectiles launched using the atlatl may be referred to as a spears or darts (Fig. 3) (Raymond 1986, 153). In this paper I will use the term dart in order to distinguish them from hand projected spears. Similarly to arrows, atlatl darts are composite weapons. Most of dart consists of a mainshaft made of soft wood with a nock at one end to connect it to the spear-thrower; and a foreshaft made of hard wood to which the projectile point is hafted, although darts only with shaft from one piece of

(18)

18 wood were used also. Fletching may also be added to increase accuracy. It has been recorded in Australia that stone points hafted into foreshafts of spears and darts provided a further advantage (Allchin 1966, 160). Stone tips attached to foreshafts can be easily kept apart and use as multiple use knives for tasks such as butchering, cutting, sawing or others activities. This brings a considerable advantage in case of mobile populations of hunter-gatherers, and in hunting situations when it is necessary to carry as little weight as possible.

Therefore, the most notable difference between darts and arrows is in the length and weight. The length of a dart spans between 140 and 300 cm, with an average mass of 110.9 g and an average speed of 23.6 m*sec ^-1. Known examples of darts from Australia with weight ranging between 150 and 250 g with an average weight of 195 g, which have been documented by Cattelain (1997, 216). The calculations for the kinetic energy and velocity data have been done by Hughes (1998, Tab. 1).

Fig. 3. Spear-thrower dart with Australian macroblade dart point (modified after Raymond 1986, fig 1; Newman and Moore 2013, fig 1.3).

The main purpose of the spear-thrower is to increase the initial velocity of the projectile (Tab. 1), while simultaneously boosting its efficiency and range (Raymond 1986, 155; Cattelain 1997, 214). As we can see, it enables the user to inquire greater velocity to a projectile with reduced mass in comparison to hand projected spears however greater than mass of the arrow. Since increased velocity results in greater throwing distance, the spear-thrower has a much bigger range compared to a hand^-projected throwing spear.

The effective range of the spear-thrower has been conducted by Churchill (1993, tab 1.4) based on ethnographic records. Research by Churchill (1993) shows that the range of an average spear-thrower is around 38.4 m, which makes it the first true ranged weapon in history. It should be noted that this number is obtained by taking the mean range from 5 ethnographic reports, which is rather few compared to ethnographic

(19)

19 reports of others weapons. On the other hand, Cattalain (1997, 219) states that when a spear-thrower is used, the average distance between hunter and prey is about 15 – 20 m, although more skilful hunters are able to hit game at distances exceeding 20 m.

According to Churchill (1993, 18) the atlatl is usually associated with small to medium game and ambush and approach hunting technique, often on an open ground, such as deserts or plains. Frison’s (1989) experiments with Clovis points hafted onto darts used on dying elephants in Zimbabwe point out that this weapon is also suitable for hunting large prey. Most of groups of Indigenous Australians use the spear-thrower to kill wallabies and kangaroos, which could also be categorized as medium and big game, respectively (Jackson and Vermes 2010, 24). A similar pattern of use of these weapons for is found on parietal artwork from Chile dating back to 1400 - 500 BC where camel hunters wielding atlatl spears, which could be rather characterized as big game (Fig. 4) (Ibáñez 2004). Furthermore Indian Mesolithic parietal artworks from Bhimbetka depict hunting of big game such as Rhino with spear-thrower and hand projected spears (Fig. 5) (Kennedy 2004, 130). Moreover in close association with this rock art have been found stone projectile points, bone and horn tools, and the faunal remains of large and small game, including Bos indicus, Bubulus spp, Capriherous, Ovis sp, Sus scrofa, Gazelle Gazella, Equus sp, and Rhinoceros sp.

Fig. 4. Hunting scene with spear-thrower and dart from Chile (after Ibáñez 2004).

(20)

20 Fig. 5. Parietal artwork from Bhimbetka in India and others Mesolithic sites illustrating

use of hand projected spear and atlatl (after Kennedy 2004 130).

It is quite clear for scientific community what is main advantage of atlatl and dart over the hand projected spears (Van Buren 1974). This advantage is based in increase of velocity, accuracy and finally distance. Maybe the only disadvantage of the atlatl versus hand-projected spears could be seen in necessity for training. As Raymond (1986, 173) mentioned before it taken a lot of time to acquire skills needed to effectively hunt with atlatl.

However if we compare advantage of atlatl versus bow, evaluation gets more complicated. Although the technology of bow and arrow has been from early works (Browne 1940), regarded as superior over spear-thrower what is mostly true, in some areas bow and arrow did not replace rapidly atlatl, but was instead used concurrently for considerable time (Raymond 1986, 171; Shott 1997, 86; Rasic and Slobodina 2008, 83).

Therefore at least in some distinct geographical regions atlatl seem to have held some advantages but in this moment it is not safely to say whether added mass or other factor

(21)

21 as for example specialization for particular prey or event took role. As Churchill (1993, 18) point out there are only 5 poor records of recent hunters using this weapon, therefore is difficult to access to some safe assumption concerning preference of the use of atlatl over the bow.

On the other hand drawback of the atlatl in comparison to bow could be seen quite more clearly. As one of the major limitations of this technology is required upright stance for shooting what limits hunter ability to target prey unnoticed seen (Raymond 1986, 171; Cattelain 1997, 229-231; Rasic and Slobodina 2008, 83). Required upright stance, and fact that user aiming in dynamic motion make this weapons less accurate comparably to bow with which archer on the moment when string is pulled have time for bigger concentration for precise aiming of shot. As Cattelain (1997, 230) point out, experienced, competitive atlatl thrower were only 65% as accurate as archer at targets 8- 26 meters away. Finally rate of fire in case of atlatl is slower.

1.2.4 Bow and arrow

A bow is generally a piece of wood, with two flexible limbs held under tension by a string (Fig. 6) (Hamilton 1982, 1). When the string is pulled back, energy accumulates in the bow. Releasing the string causes the energy to transfer directly to the arrow, setting it in motion. Unlike with other weapons discussed here, there is plenty of research literature available concerning bows and bow hunting (e.g., Pope 1974;

Hamilton 1982; Allely et al 2000; Sunyol 2013). Generally there are 3 types of bows:

self/flat, composite, and compound. The length of bow is highly variable attribute. Even in contemporary sites, bows are highly varied in terms of morphometric. Their length ranges from 1.20 m to more than 2 m, in case of some longbows.

Fig. 6. Hadza (Tanzania) bow and arrow (after Bartman (2007, 333).

(22)

22 The physics and performance characteristics of the bow have been previously described in Kooi’s Ph.D. thesis (1983), and since they are beyond the scope of this paper, they will not be discussed here in detail. However, it is important to keep in mind that different bows vary in terms of draw length, power² and arrow size as well as the type of arrowhead should be in balance in order to achieve optimum performance (Tab.

2).

Moreover design of the arrow is trade-off between power/accuracy and range/penetration (Van Buren 1974; Tarabek 2010). This mean, that there was decision, putting one or two elements of equation in favour for the cost of decrease in performance of rest. For example increase of mass of projectile point will provide more energy therefore also better penetration however for the cost of lesser accuracy, velocity and range. Arrows have the highest velocity, and thus, also the longest range among prehistoric weapons. However, in recent indigenous societies, the preferred distance of the hunter and prey for a clean fatal shot for big game is approximately 25.8 m it is well known fact that prehistoric bows were capable of bigger range. This relatively short distance is respond to the fact that the hunter must be able to make the arrow pass firstly through skin, which is especially hard to penetrate on large games, afterwards through ribs to the thorax, damaging vital organs in ideally the lung of the prey (Friis-Hansen 1990, 495).

2 Power of bow or draw weight is usually expressed in pounds (1 lb.= 453 gr) Around the world simple self-wood bow have power of few decade of Lb (Bushmen and Pygmies) to nearly 100 lbs (Adza elephant hunters)(Sunyol 2013). The Neolithic bow as observed by Junkmanns (2001, 15) found, that Neolithic bows from Swiss lakes have draw weight around 35-67 lbs. For comparison the power of modern bows ranges from 15 to 75 lbs. However, as numerous practitioners of archery have pointed out, using a bow with draw weight greater than 60 lbs. tends to exhaust the archer very quickly, rendering such weapons inappropriate for continuous use over extended periods of time.

(23)

23 Arrow length (cm) Shaft diameter (in cm) for given bow draw weight

15-27 lbs 28-35 lbs 36-45 lbs 46-60 lbs 60 lbs

40,6 0,71

45,7 0,71

57,2 0,71

61 0,71 0,71 0,79

63,5 0,71 0,71 0,79 0,83 0,83

66 0,71 0,79 0,79 0,83 0,87

68,6 0,71 0,79 0,79 0,83 0,87

71,1 0,79 0,79 0,83 0,87 0,87

73,7 0,79 0,83 0,87 0,87 0,87

76,2 0,79 0,83 0,87 0,87 0,87

Tab. 2. Modern archery table of ideal arrow length and diameter for bow of different draw weight (after Burke 1954, 62).

There is plenty of ethnographical evidence of big game hunting with bow. It is a well-known fact that the bow can be used to hunt big game (Pope 1918, 126; Friis Hansen 1990, 494; Churchill 1993, 18). Iconographic evidence of this technology used in big game hunting has been found also in context of Neolithic Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia (Mellart 1967, 134-136). On (Fig. 7) east side of house called ”Hunting shrine” were found frescos decorated with long scene of dancing hunters armed with bows around large games as Cervidae or Bos. Although bow is as has been shown above is effective for big prey, for example the San people of the Northern Kalahari are known to prefer throwing spear over the bow for hunting big game (Hitchcock and Bleed 1997, 355). On the other hand, since arrow inquire greatest velocity, range and accuracy, Shea (2006, 839) point out it superiority for small game such as rabbits for example, which are generally more complicated to hunt than big game with other weapons analysed here.

(24)

24 Fig. 7. Iconographic evidence of bow and “Club” use from Çatal Hüyük (after Mellart

1967, 135).

As has been already mentioned above, and extensively discussed in literature (Churchill 1993, 21; Hughes 1998, 394; Rasic and Slobodina 2010, 83) bow and arrow has a superior position among stone-age weaponry and represents an improvement in accuracy, effective distance, rate of fire and the ability to shoot from a variety of position (Hughes 1998, 394) also mentions little required operating motion and low noise factor as additional positive features. A bow-hunter can assume various positions, and does not have to make conspicuous arm movements as in case of using an atlatl, which leaves more time for aiming, and sometimes also gives the hunter a chance shoot repeatedly at the target without being spotted. Additional aspect such as ability to use while running or ability to use variety of projectile point sizes could be one of additional aspects of weapons flexibility (Borrell personal communication).

The biggest advantage of the bow, compared to other weapons, is its versatility (Hughes 1998, 394). Tab. 3 compares the bow and arrow to other weapons systems in terms of flexibility. As already Hughes (1998, 394) points out from her survey of experimental and ethnographic literature, the bow and arrow fulfils 5 of the set criteria (Distance, variety of positions, motionless and noiseless, ease to transport to these have been added ability to use while running and ability to use variety of projectile point size) which makes bow most versatile option with regard to a variety of hunting situations. Spear-thrower and hand projected spears score of 4 and 3 points, with connection of fact, that this technologies coexisted with the bow in some chronological periods of North American prehistory (Shot 1997, 86), or even in Artic environment (Rasic and Slobodina 2008, 82) suggest that the atlatl or even hand-projected spears are

(25)

25 weapons rather specialized for particular hunting strategy, or size of prey. Such weapons may have been suitable for example for larger prey and the relatively high physical strength and training period necessary for proper operation (as opposed to the bow) could have been associated with a social function of the spear or atlatl as a sign of prestige.

Weapons flexibility

Thrusting spear Throwing spear Spear-thrower and dart

Bow and arrow

Distance - + + +

Variety of position - - - +

Motionless and noiseless + - - +

Rapid fire + - - +

Ease of transport - - + +

Ability to use while running + + + -

Ability to use variety

projectile point size + + + -

Total 4 3 4 5

Tab. 3. Comparison of flexibility of different weapons (modified after Hughes 1998, 394).

Bow and arrow flexibility is also apparent if we look on Churchill’s (1993, 17) ethnographic survey of indigenous groups and hunting techniques with which they were used (Tab. 4). These data in the table further reaffirms the conclusions previously made by Churchill (1993, 18) and Hughes (1998, 396); the bow and arrow has more selective advantages compared to other weapons, since it can be used in all of the hunting techniques, including disadvantage, ambush, approach, pursuit and encounter as well as for large variety of game and environmental settings. It should be emphasized that weak point of these studies is small number of records using spear-thrower. Furthermore the origin of this technology seems to be tied to a change in organization of labour which resulted in an increase in the efficiency of individuals, rather than groups. Bettinger (1999, 71) further proposes, that this process also could encourage the emergence of private ownership and a more independent, family based economic system.

(26)

26 Hunting

Strategy Spear Atlatl Bow and Arrow

Disadvantage 37 - 18

Encounter 1 - 7

Ambush 7 3 25

Approach 2 2 28

Pursuit 4 - 15

Total 51 5 93

Tab. 4. Hunting strategies associated with weapons among recent ethnographic societies (based on data of Churchill 1993, 17; drawn by Rasic and Slobodina 2010, 82).

1.3. Why stone tipped weaponry? (Ethnographic and experimental archaeological perspectives on the function of stone tipped weaponry)

In order to answer the titular question of this subchapter, it is first necessary to answer the question why people started to use weapons? From the perspective of natural selection, the species of Homo possess no natural anatomical, ecological or physical advantages in the form of sharp claws, superior speed, or other physical attributes that may potentially enhance their chance of survival; therefore, their brain is their main evolutionary advantage (Shea 2006, 842). Hominids have balanced this lack of physical advantages by inventing weapons. From a simple sharpened stones and sticks to, mechanically propelled long ranged composite weapons. As shown in literature, the invention of weapons helped expand the size range of capture able prey (Churchill 1993, 11). Therefore, some researcher as Shea (2006, 842) suggest, that this invention along with the increased use of the projectile point technology is likely one of the main factors having contributed to the current global ecological domination by our species.

Maybe the biggest advantage of stone projectile points is that they are more lethal and effective in comparisons with points made of most other raw materials

(27)

27 available in the Stone Age³ (Ellis 1997, 40; Knecht 1997b, 206). This is mainly due to their sharpness and breakage, although their greater mass is also of considerable importance. Unlike with their organic counterparts, the sharp edges of stone points cause severe bleeding as they slice through tissue and organs. Because of their lethality they are the most favoured option in indigenous societies for hunting dangerous game (including other humans) (Ellis 1997, 63).

Interesting information about the use of stone points and stone-tipped weapons can also be obtained by looking at recent societies that were using this technology. A survey of ethnographic literature conducted by C. Ellis (1997) revealed that the choice between using points made of stone or organic materials was mostly affected by the size of game⁴ hunted, and occasionally, also by whether or not the tips were used for warfare. As has been shown in Ellis survey, 96 % of the available samples from 79 societies where practice a stone tipped projectiles. This data does not affirm the proposition that stone projectile points are used exclusively for big game, but it shows that in the surveyed societies, others raw materials are preferred for hunting small prey.

Furthermore, this survey highlights another noteworthy tendency: Besides functioning as hunting tools, stone projectile points were also extensively used in warfare; and those combat-type projectile points differed from those used on large game in shape, size, and the usual presence of barbs on the former.

As experiment results confirm, projectile points are also useful for performing a variety of other tasks, such as cutting, scraping or engraving (Coşkunsu and Lemorini 2001, 151; Moss 1983, 146; personal observation). The versatility of a stone projectile point gives the user a significant advantage. A stone tool may be designed for a single specific activity, but it can also be made to suit a variety of functions, types of prey, and to be effectively deployed in various settings (Nelson 1997, 373-375). Use-wear analysis of archaeological material confirms that stone tools usually had multiple purposes (Moss 1983, 154; Coşkunsu and Lemorini 2001, 157). Ethnographic data also contains evidence of this multi-purpose pattern of use as has been shown in case of Australian spears (Allchin 1966, 160)

3 Only exception could be seen in geographical areas where use of bamboo or fast-acting poison is available (Ellis 1997, 63).

4 The prey was easily divided by Churchill (1993, 11) into large with weight over 40 kg and small game with weight less than 40 kg).

(28)

28 Multi-functional tools have been further divided into flexible form, which are those that can be converted to other tools, and versatile form, which denotes tools suitable for a range of tasks without necessity of conversion (Nelson 1997, 374).

Designing projectiles with versatility and/or flexibility in mind implies extended use.

Therefore, a point built to serve multiple functions must be resistant to breakage and easily removable from the animal carcass after use. The choice of material, thickness, length, notching, barbs or even serration are all related to influence the likelihood of breakage (Hughes 1998, 370-373). On the other hand, projectile weapons such as for example arrows may be designed either for taking down a specific type of game (this kind is also called specialized) or several different types of game (also referred to as generalized). All factor in the environment such as natural settings, availability of resources, as well as prey size and variability and other affect usage and design of projectile point.

The disadvantage of stone projectile points can be seen in their durability. Albeit some stone projectile points take, in fact, a shorter time to make compared to points made of organics materials, the damage and breakage rate of the latter type indicates that organic points are much more durable that stone points (Knecht 1997b, 206).

However, high breakage rate can, indeed, positively influence killing effectiveness, since once broken, the tip remains in the prey and cuts its way through the tissue as the muscles move. A further disadvantage is that the process of re-sharpening and retouching stone tips is extensively time-consuming.

As we have seen above, the invention of weaponry, particularly stone-tipped weaponry is certainly one of the factors that contributed to the global ecological domination by hominids (Shea 2006). According ethnographic records, projectile point functioned primarily as weapons armatures, although evidence indicates that they were in some cases used as quite multifunctional tools for various task as cutting, scraping, perforating (Ellis 1997; Nelson 1997). The biggest advantage of stone projectile points is their effectiveness and versatility. Their effectiveness seems to be related primarily to their superior cutting abilities and brittleness even though weight is also of considerable importance. Therefore, they are a preferred choice for hunting big or dangerous game (Ellis 1997; Knecht 1997b). Whether or not stone projectile points were used was influenced by subsistence economy and specific natural and social environment (Ellis 1997). However in some situations, the effectiveness of stone-tipped weapons may be

(29)

29 economically outweighed by some of their drawbacks, such as short lifetime due to low durability, or excessively time-consuming maintenance. For example by populations which have limited access to stone of suitable quality for flint knapping, which is necessary for the manufacture of projectile points.

2. Current state of research of Levantine projectile point

“Over the past hundred years, scientist have gone from regarding projectile points not only as index fossils and time markers; they have also deemed them helpful for reconstructing prehistoric technological organization, subsistence technologies and hunting strategies” (Knecht 1997a, 4).

While retouched pointed tools, especially those possessing a tang and occurring in large quantities are often called arrowheads (Moore 1979, 67; Gopher 1994), the term arrowhead is typically associated with morphological attributes which reminds modern arrowheads and necessity of categorization of stone tools into typologies. But as it will be shown the reconstruction of a projectile to which these tools were hafted is not so straightforward.

Since Levantine prehistoric archaeological records are not lucky enough to have frequent discoveries of complete prehistoric tools, as were found in Scandinavia, Switzerland or Egypt, micro-wear or edge damage analysis, residue of adhesive and use of ethnographic records will remain important sources of information concerning the rest of the projectile weapons ⁵(Bar-Yosef 1987, 156). In addition to these methods in recent decades also morphometric (Shea 2006; Yaroshevich et al. 2013), estimation of fracture velocity on Diagnostic Impact Fracture (DIF) (Hutchings 2011) has proven to be useful tool for identification.

The following subchapters offer an introduction to the first plausible candidates and to the evolution of projectile weapons among stone tools in Levant prehistoric records. How they changed from their first appearance until the Neolithic period. In the second part, I will focus on Neolithic projectile points and present publications which contribute on our today knowledge of typology, technology and their function. In the final part of this chapter I will focus on the history and development of morphometric

5 Although there are exception as for example Nahal Hemar cave, or Tell Halula which increased total number entire composite objects (Bar-Yosef 1987, 156; Borrell and Molist 2007, 65)

(30)

30 analysis as a method for the reconstruction of projectiles to which these points were hafted.

2.1. Utilisation of projectile points in the Levant during Paleolithic and Neolithic periods

According to literature, the systematic production of projectile weapons in the Levant dates back to after 40 – 50 ka and is closely associated with increasing population densities and a decrease in the amount of available resources resulting from environmental change (Shea 2006, 840). Since no completely preserved weapons from this period have been discovered, research focuses mainly on the projectile points, as those have most often been only parts of those weapons preserved.

Bergman and Newcomer’s (1983, 238) experimental tests using replicas of retouched pointed examples from early Upper Paleolithic Ksar Akil in Lebanon (layers 9-24, dated to 44-24 ka) revealed that the original artefacts from the site could have, in fact, served as armatures for projectile weapons, possibly as arrow or more probable darts as suggested by the results of macro use-wear analysis, part of the Bergman and Newcomer experiment. In addition to the early plausible projectile points from Ksar-Akil, Shea (2006, 832) lists other possible Upper-Paleolithic types of projectile points including Emireh (Lebanon, Initial Upper Paleolithic), Üçağızlı (Mediterranean coast in Turkey; dated to 28-41 ka), and El-Wad points (Israel, Upper Paleolithic), Oblique truncated, unifacial points and backed points, determined on the basis of morphometric analysis. Results of Shea (2006) analysis (Fig. 8) also confirm possibility that as Bergman and Newcomer (1983) noted more than 30 years ago that those Ksar Akil Early Upper Paleolithic tools could be functioned as projectile weapons possibly as darts for atlatl.

(31)

31

Fig. 8. First plausible projectile points in Levantine record according to morphometric analysis (modified after Shea 2006, 832).

(32)

32 A uniquely preserved stone assemblage from the settlement of Ohalo II dated to the final period of the Upper Paleolithic (Proto-Kebaran) to approximately 22.5 -23.5 ka allows detailed analysis of the remains of adhesives, use-wear traces and also morphometric analyses conducted by Yaroshevich et al. (2013). As the authors suggest, all kind of evidence together point to the conclusion that the Scalene triangle and Kebara point types from Ohalo II could, in fact, have worked as side elements of complex projectiles (Fig. 9) (Yaroshevich et al. 2013, 4021).

Fig. 9. Hafting and use of- Scalene triangle from Ohalo II (1), and Kebara point (2) projectile according to adhesive, use-wear as well as morphometric analysis (modified

after Yaroshevich et al. 2010; 2013).

When we move forward in time to Epi-Paleolithic flint assemblage, the Levant does not yield any type of symmetrical point that would leave microliths to as -the only candidates to function as tips for projected weapons (Yaroshevich et al. 2010, 368).

Recent experiments conducted by Yaroshevich et al (2010) with replicas of the most prominent Epi-Paleolithic types of geometric and lunate microliths, and the subsequent comparison of the replicas with archaeological microliths revealed that these points could in fact served as element of composite projectile points. This conclusion has been reached by studying the diagnostic impact fractures occurring in the archaeological and experimental assemblages as well as the performance characteristics of stone points.

Furthermore, the authors of the study attempt to interpret the significance of the change

(33)

33 from geometric to lunate microlith shape. According to the authors, the transition from geometric to lunate microliths is associated with a certain change in projectile design.

Namely, it was the decreasing use of microliths as side elements of projectiles, coupled with a simultaneous increase in their tendency to be used as tip elements (Fig. 10) (Yaroshevich et al. 2010, 387). However from the results it is not yet possible to safely reconstruct projectile with which are these microliths associated.

Fig. 10. Possible hafting of Epi-Paleolithic projectiles 1-3 Kebara points, 4-6 lunates (after Yaroshevitch et al. 2010, 386).

The Neolithic period is commonly associated with agriculture and permanent settlement, but as Akkermans (2004, 290) suggests this is rather true for the later part of PPNB (after 7500 BC). The people of the Early Neolithic, according to Akkermans, have retained many of the subsistence methods of their ancestors from the Epi- Paleolithic, including the use of short-term camps for habitation and the strong dependence on hunting. This is even true for a number of sites with long-term habitation.

Neolithic projectile points frequently referred to as “arrowheads”, have garnered much more scientific attention than their Pre-Neolithic counterparts. This is maybe due to their symmetrical morphology that enables them to be easily recognized among stone tools assemblages as well as easily dated (Gopher 1994). Having first appeared in the late centuries of the 9^th millennium BC, they are thought to have served for hunting

(34)

34 (Gopher 1994, 22). At the same time, projectile points became relatively common tools, appearing in every Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) stone tools assemblage

Gopher’s (1994) Seriation analysis of more than 10 000 “arrowheads” from the Levant was one of the more systematic approaches to the chronology of Neolithic projectile points. The results of his research prove that these artefacts underwent rapid change in a short time. Because of that, they are sensitive indicators of chronological change. Therefore, their relative chronological sequence of types could be enriched by the data obtained by radiometric dating (Fig. 11).

In short, the chronology of Neolithic projectile points, frequently called arrowheads, has shown that there are four main stages of development in this period (Gopher 1994, 265-266):

In the first cycle of PPNA, the period marked by the use of lunates, there is a rapid occurrence of PPNA El-Khiam points. These points also occur sporadically in the Late Natufian complex. El-Khiam point is a type of point made from a small blade with a straight or concave base usually with pair of lateral notches (Fig. 12) (Gopher 1994, 32-34). However, their original source area is in the Northern Levant, in the Early PPN context, these points are more frequently found in the south. Clark et al. (1974)

interprets their appearance and spread as a result of changes in hunting technique or possibly the introduction of new weapons, such as the bow. But as recent research suggests (Yaroshevich et al. 2010), there are indications of bow and arrow technology having already appeared in the region of Levant in the Epi-Paleolithic period.

(35)

35 Fig. 11. Chronological sequence of Neolithic projectile points (originally published by

Gopher 1994, modified after redrawn version of Shea 2013).

(36)

36 Fig. 12. PPNA El-Khiam points (after Gopher 1994, 43).

The second cycle of the PPNB period, which is also frequently dubbed the period of “Big Arrowhead Industries” (BAI) cultures (Kozłowski 1999, 9) is marked by a significant change in the morphology of projectile points. The term BAI industry indicates fact that projectile points of this period are considerably larger than points of other period of Neolithic. In Early PPNB in the Levant there is sudden spread of Helwan points, in addition in later phases of PPNB Byblos and Amuq points in the north while Jericho points which occurrence is mainly on southern part of the Levant, creating a “multi-type system”, as it was termed by Gopher (1994, 265) (Fig. 13). In other words, the classification of projectile points, also frequently termed “arrowheads”

in PPNB is highly diversified, which is probably related to technical aspects, such as aerodynamics qualities, lithic technology or hafting. In addition to the differences in shape, many projectile points also occur in varying sizes, ranging from a few

centimetres to more than 15cm length (Cauvin 1968, 46). Bar-Yosef (1987, 159) suggests that there is a formal difference between Helwan, Jericho, Byblos and Amuq points in the shape of the base, associated with different kinds of hafting. On Fig. 14, it is possible to see a reconstruction of some of the possible type of hafting of the

Neolithic projectile points based on Egyptian finds and data from ethnographic records.

(37)

37 Fig. 13. Multi-type system of PPNB projectile points (after Gopher 1994, 43).

Fig. 14. Possible hafting of Neolithic projectile points (modified after Bar-Yosef 1983 159).

(38)

38 The development of projectile points underwent significant change in the Pottery Neolithic (PN) (Gopher 1994, 265). The Third cycle is marked by the appearance of new types, the Ha-Parsa, Nizzanim and Herzeliya points (Fig. 15). These types are morphologically similar to previous arrowheads, but difference being their relatively small dimensions, and the fact that they have often been retouched by pressure flaking.

They vary in level of craftsmanship and the quality of the finished product. Their appearance marks the end of the multi-type system.

In the later phases of Pottery Neolithic era, the multi-type system of

“arrowheads” slowly disappeared, followed by the emergence of transverse arrowheads (Fig. 15). In this fourth and last cycle of Neolithic projectile development, transverse arrowheads became the predominant type in later stages of PN (Gopher 1994, 265). It has been concluded that this change in the design of projectile points reflects certain innovations of the period, such as the use of poison arrows or significant changes in hafting techniques and lithic technology (Clark 1974 et al).

Fig. 15. Late Neolithic Multi-type system with addition of transverse arrowheads (after Gopher 1994, 43).

(39)

39

2.2. Research history of Neolithic projectile points

The archaeological study of projectile points can be divided into three cycles that each correspond to specific changes and new developments in archaeological methodology.

The first cycle of studies classified stone tools into typologies and relative chronologies of type occurrence across the Near East. In the second cycle, a holistic approach to

“chaîne opératoire” with statistic evaluation of numerous technological attributes was more prevalent. The third cycle was inspired by Semenov’s (1965) use-wear studies that introduced a breakthrough method that provided insight into the function of stone tools by examining micro and macro use-wear traces.

The first typologies and relative chronologies of Neolithic “arrowheads” have been created in the second half of the 20^th century by J. Cauvin (1968, 45-49) based on points found at Byblos; by Mortenson, (1970, 21-26) based on points from Beidha; by M.C. Cauvin, (1974, 311-314) based on findings from several areas of Syria (northern Levant); Bar-Yosef (1981, 559-561) based on finding from southern Levant; and by Crowfoot-Payne (1983, 676-683) based on points discovered at Jericho. More recent typologies containing additional point types have been compiled by Gopher (1994, 30- 42), Kozłowski & Aurenche (2005, 22), and Shea (2013, 238-249). All these studies proven that these object are significant for dating and connected these objects to time periods, regions, and “cultures” to establish relative chronology of Neolithic projectile points. In term of morphology most of the Neolithic projectile points are triangular or bi-conical in shape, with varying degree of elongation and difference in tang shape (Gopher 1994, 22; Kozłowski and Aurenche 2005, 22; Shea 2013, 238).

Replication of “chaîne opératoire” and statistics evaluation of huge number of morphological attributes allowed to recognize details of, raw material acquisition, core preparation, reduction and modification of blade blanks of Neolithic projectile points (Wilke and Quintero 1994; Nishiaki 2000, 55-80; Borrell 2006). From a technological point of view, most PPNB projectile points are manufactured from blades that were knapped using so-called “Bipolar”, “Bi-directional” or “Naviform“ blade core technology. This technology is sometimes regarded as a hallmark of PPNB chipped stone tool assemblage (Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2013, 140). The use of this distinctive technique, allow producing series of regular standardized blades blanks, from core produced mainly from flint. Blades tend to be slightly asymmetrical, and

(40)

40 pointed at the distal end with trapezoidal/triangular cross section. Asymmetry on blades is solved by scarce retouch into projectile point.

Functional studies in form of use-wear traces have proven to shed new light on function of Neolithic projectile points (Moss 1983; Coşkunsu and Lemorini 2001;

Quinn 2008; Yaroshevich et al. 2010; 2013; Ibáñez and González 2013). Experimental reconstruction and use of the projectile points and subsequent use-wear analyses on both archaeological and experimental samples proven that both groups tend to have same diagnostic impact fractures, therefore it is reasonable to say that both

(archaeological and experimentally produced projectile points) were used in same manner as experimental projectiles, although they show also sign of use as knives, burins, borers and drills. Furthermore also remains of lime plaster on Byblos projectile points from PPNB Tell Halula seem to confirm this hypothesis (Borrell and Molist 2007, 73). As excavators suggest lime plaster was used in Tell Halula as hafting material for projectile points comparably to bitumen which was used for hafting of sickle blades.

As Hutching (2011, 1737) already note that conventional use-wear analyses could identify just whether particular tool was used as projectile point or non-projectile but failed to reconstruct rest of the projectile. Therefore approaches as Hutching’s (2011) measurements of fracture velocity or below described morphometric analyses could shed new light on the rest of the projectile.

2.3.

The use of morphometric analyses in the study of projectile points

“Although often treated as complete cultural entities, projectile points are only the partial remnants of complex projectile delivery systems” (Christenson 1986, 109).

Unfortunately, organic parts of prehistoric weapons are not usually preserved (Bar- Yosef 1981). Therefore our observation of prehistoric weaponry is therefore conducted mainly from stone armatures from which it is difficult to say whether a particular point was used as spear arrow or dart.

Morphometric analysis is kind of functional analysis which is used in New world archaeology for identifying weapon among biface assemblages used in North American prehistory, (Thomas 1978; Christenson 1986; Shott 1997; Hughes 1998;

Hildebrant and King 2010; Erlandson 2014) and for the identification of potential

(41)

41 weapons among Paleolithic pointed retouched flake tools (Shea 2006; Sisk and Shea 2011; Wilkins et al. 2012; Yaroshevich 2013 et al.). It is based on the assumption that certain morphological attributes of projectile points affect their performance as weapons. Small modifications in the morphology of a point effect considerable changes in weapon performance. Different weapons classes require projectile points with different attributes in order to achieve sufficient performance. Simply speaking some projectile points are preferred by hunters for use with particular weapons, because they provide better performance, such as improved penetration, increased accuracy, longer range or better durability of weapons.

Topic of how projectile point morphological attributes affect performance of weapons has been studied in experimental archaeology since the first half of the last century. This topic and the discussion surrounding it began with a series of heated exchanges between V. Kidder (Baker and Kidder 1937; Kidder 1938) and J. Browne (1938; 1940), Although these papers point out some interesting points, the experimental studies lead to a rather impractical conclusion that almost anything is possible in terms of projectile point morphology. As a result, some researcher soon noted the fact that what is experimentally proven as possible today, speaks little of the actual manner of use of projectile points in prehistory (Fenenga 1953, 319; Christenson 1986, 114).

A more solid groundwork for morphometric analysis of weapons was published in papers by Thomas (1978) and Shott (1997), followed by Hughes (1998), Shea et al.

(2001), Shea (2006), Sisk and Shea (2009; 2011), Hildebrant and King (2010) as well as by authors that challenge these analyses pointing out their weak points (Lombard and Phillipson 2010, 638-639; Newman and Moore 2013; Erlandson 2014). These papers are based rather on empiric knowledge gain from ethnographic projectile points of known function thank older above mentioned experimental studies.

2.2.1. Discriminant analyses between dart and arrow

Although Thomas (1978) was not the first researcher to address the problem of discerning between different types of projectile weapons, he was the first one to formulate a verifiable formula by which it could be done. In order to support his method of Discriminant analysis, he gathered data on indigenous projectile weapons with which he began to test his formula. Despite having certain weak points in the test data, such as the small quantity of darts (in a sample of 142 projectile weapons only 10 have been

Masaryk University

Masaryk University

Department of Archaeology and Museology

Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

2014 Denis Štefanisko

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of Archaeology and Museology

Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Morphometric analysis of PPNB stone projectile points from Tell Halula in northern Syria during the second half of the 8

millennium cal. BC

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

DECLARATION

ABSTRACT/ANNOTATION

ABSTRAKT/ANOTACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

1. Subject of study

2.1. Utilisation of projectile points in the Levant during Paleolithic and Neolithic periods

2.2. Research history of Neolithic projectile points

The use of morphometric analyses in the study of projectile points