Lithic Use-Wear Analysis of Early Ahmarian
el-Wad Points: an Example from
John K. Williams
A study presented to Professor George Odell in
partial fulfillment of the Masters of Arts degree, University of Tulsa, 1997
This study presents the results of a
microscopic use-wear examination of el-Wad points from Early Ahmarian
occupation in southern Jordan. The sample consists of a small collection of
el-Wad points from three sites: Tor Aeid (J432), Tor Hamar (J431), and Jebel
Humeima (J412). Microscopic wear patterns indicate that the el-Wad points
from southern Jordan are multi-use tools predominantly used as projectiles and
for cutting and scraping soft material.
The Early Upper Paleolithic Period
(ca. 35,000-28,000 BP) is a time when Homo sapiens sapiens exploited a
wide variety of environmental settings throughout the world. Within the
Levant, hunting appears to have played a significant role in the adaptations
of Early Upper Paleolithic peoples, judging from a variety of tools possessing
the morphological characteristics of projectile points. Archaeologists have
generally agreed that the use of some form of flint-tipped throwing or
thrusting spear originated during Middle Paleolithic, and evidence for this
has been provided by Shea (1988) via microscopic use-wear analysis of
Levallois points from the Levant. There is equal agreement that the bow and
arrow came into play during the Upper Paleolithic, demonstrated by the
recovery of nocked arrows attributed to the end of this era (Rust 1943: 190).
Evidence for arrow points in the Early Upper Paleolithic, however, is
lacking. The morphology of Early Upper Paleolithic “points” from the Levant
suggests they could have been used in three ways: (1) as arrowheads, (2) as
tips for thrower-launched darts or spears (Van Buren 1974: 123-134), and (3)
as tips for knives (Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda et al. 1956).
It is beyond the scope of this
paper to distinguish spear/dart points from arrowheads. The purpose at hand
is to explore the full diversity of uses of Early Upper Paleolithic points to
establish a firmer grounding for their functional classification. The
specific tools chosen for this study are a collection of el-Wad points from
the Early Ahmarian period in southern Jordan. Ignorance of the use of these
Early Ahmarian tools presents a major obstacle to a comprehensive explanation
of this industry. Use and ultimately function is revealed by lithic use-wear
analysis, providing insights into prehistoric hominid behavior. Preliminary
use-wear analysis of Early Upper Paleolithic tools by Bergman and Newcomer
(1983) and Phillips (1987, 1988) have identified impact fractures suggestive
of projectile use, but a thorough microscopic use-wear examination of tools
classified as “points” within this temporal span is still lacking. This study
attempts to fill this void by identifying wear patterns on el-Wad points to
determine not only their apparently obvious use as projectiles, but also any
other varieties of use possessed by these tools.
The Levantine Upper Paleolithic
The area referred to as the Levant
includes most of present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and the Sinai
Peninsula. Extending southward from the Taurus Mountains, the Levant is
bordered on the west by the Mediterranean Sea, and stretches eastward some
300-350 km into vast semidesert regions.
Until about 20 years ago, our
understanding of the Upper Paleolithic in the Levant was largely based on
Neuville and Garrod's work at the caves and rockshelters of the Galilee,
Carmel, and the Judean Desert (Garrod and Bate 1937). Their work led to the
development of a model of cultural succession for the Upper Paleolithic that
was unilinear in concept. Neuville and Garrod's scheme has since been found
unsatisfactory, mainly due to its lineal rigid structure, and an alternative
model was proposed independently by Marks (1981) and Gilead (1981) as a result
of extensive fieldwork carried out in the arid parts of the southern Levant
during the mid 1970's. Gilead and Marks suggested that two traditions
co-existed in the Levant: (1) the Levantine Aurignacian, and (2) the Ahmarian.
The Ahmarian (38,000 - 20,000 BP) is
characterized by a stone tool assemblage with an elaborate blade/bladelet
technology and a tool kit composed mainly of retouched and backed blades, as
well as el-Wad points (Coinman and Henry 1995). The pronounced longevity of
the Ahmarian and certain trends during this time period led researchers to
divide the complex into two time periods: early and late (Ferring 1988; 342).
This paper is concerned with the
Early Ahmarian, a term ascribed to the earliest industry in the Levantine
Upper Paleolithic shared by a number of sites in the southern Levant dated to
ca. 38,000-30,000 BP (Marks 1983:37, Marks and Ferring 1988:Table 3, Haas
1977:261-264, Bar-Yosef 1984:Table 6; Phillips 1987:111). Various proportions
of el-Wad points generally distinguish the Early Ahmarian. El-Wad points are
shaped from bladelets created by soft-hammer percussion, using fine to
invasive retouch. Early Ahmarian sites show some typological dissimilarities,
but they generally share very similar single reduction strategies focused on
the production of interior blade/bladelets that were often retouched to create
El Wad points (Ferring 1988).
The Early Ahmarian of Southern Jordan
Recent research in Southern Jordan
has revealed several in situ sites ranging from the Lower Paleolithic
through the Epipaleolithic (Henry 1994, 1995a). Six Upper Paleolithic
occupations were discovered as a result of this research. Of these sites,
three possessed a technology focused on the production of blade/bladelets
removed from predominantly single-platform cores, and a typology dominated by
endscrapers, burins, retouched blade/bladelets, and el-Wad points, all of
which indicate Early Ahmarian occupations. These sites are: Tor Aeid (J432),
0-60 cm, Tor Hamar (J431), layers F-G, and Jebel Humeima (J412) horizons
Settings and Resources
Each of these sites lie within the Jebel
Qalkha study area of southern Jordan, a 6 km2
region located some 55 km northeast of the Gulf of Aqaba (Fig. 1). Ranging in
elevation from 960-1,020 masl, the study area lies within the Irano- Turanian
phytogeographic zone. Here silts and sands supporting a steppe vegetation
cover sandstone bedrock. Surface water is restricted to pools located in wadi
beds that occasionally flow with winter runoff from rain. Each of the
aforementioned sites are scattered throughout the numerous rockshelters and
overhangs in the study area.
Palynological evidence suggests a
relatively moist setting for the Early Ahmarian occupations, indicated by the
presence of alder, elm, oak, and abundant grasses (Emery-Barbier 1995).
Standing water is suggested by the presence of pollen spores of ferns and
tetrades. An analysis of the faunal sample from the Early Upper Paleolithic
layers at Tor Hamar (J431) identified several species of mammals such as
golden jackal (Canis aureus), wild ass/horse (E. asinus),
gazelle (G. gazella), and caprine (Capra aegagrus and C. ibex)
Tor Aeid (J432), 0-60 cm
Upper Paleolithic artifacts, which
composed the majority of the assemblage, were found stratigraphically
overlying Middle Paleolithic artifacts at this south-facing rockshelter
(Williams in press). Over 130 cm of in situ cultural deposits
have been excavated, and the tools from 0-60 cm depth are dominated by
retouched blades/bladelets, endscrapers, burins, and el-Wad points. These
Upper Paleolithic artifacts are comparable to other assemblages throughout the
southern Levant presently grouped under the heading "Early Ahmarian" (Ferring
1988, Marks and Ferring 1988). The site rests on a gently sloping terrace
overlooking a minor wadi to the south that provides a number of seasonal
Tor Hamar (J431), Layers F-G
This small, southwest-facing rockshelter is
formed by the lowest of a series of overhangs that project from the north wall
of the Wadi Aghar (Coinman and Henry 1995). Upper Paleolithic artifacts of an
Early Ahmarian nature, most notably el-Wad points, were found
stratigraphically underlying a deposit containing Epipaleolithic artifacts.
Layers F and G together yielded 80 cm of in situ deposits ascribable as
Jebel Humeima (J412), Horizons II-IV
Extending 15 to 20 m along a steep cliff with
a southwest exposure, this rockshelter provided 150 cm of in situ
cultural deposits (Kerry in press). Upper Paleolithic artifacts of an
Early Ahmarian nature, consisting of mostly end scrapers, burins, and el-Wad
points, were recovered from 0-100 cm, stratigraphically overlying Middle
The sample originally consisted of
a total of 96 el-Wad points from four sites: Tor Aeid (J432), Tor Hamar
(J431), Jebel Humeima (J412), and Tor Fawaz (J403). After the examination of
the points, seven were considered too inconclusive to be labeled as el-Wad
points and were removed from the sample. Also, Tor Fawaz was removed from the
analysis because of its insufficient sample size (n=3). Thus, a total
of 86 el-Wad points from three sites (J432, J431, and J412) comprise the final
sample that is used for this analysis. This sample represents every el-Wad
point recovered in the Judayid Basin of southern Jordan from surveys and
excavations since 1979 (Henry 1995).
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Use-wear analysis was conducted
using a Nikon SMZ-10 stereoscopic microscope with reflective lighting and
capacities of magnification to 160X. All of the el-Wad points from each site
were examined for use-wear, following the methodology of Odell (1976, 1980,
1981, Odell and Cowan 1986). Microfracturing, polish, rounding, and
striations were observed at these magnifications and recorded for each tool.
Use-wear was identified on those parts of the edges where overlapping
concentrations of microfractures and abrasive wear exceeded the minor
“background” wear that is commonly witnessed on stone tool edges. Each el-Wad
point that possessed use-wear was registered and described in terms of a
series of variables noting the microwear pattern, its location on an 8-polar
coordinate system, and certain morphological conditions of the piece such as
its completeness (proximal, medial, distal), the location of retouch, and edge
The uses of the el-Wad points were
reconstructed by comparing archaeological traces of use-wear to those from an
experimental reference collection. These experiments consisted of a personal
collection and the collection of points reported by Odell and Cowan (1986),
together totaling over 100 pieces. They were subjected to a variety of uses,
including arrow tips, dart tips, hafted knives, hafted borers (all used on
dead animals) and a variety of hand-held instruments used on animal and
vegetal materials for cutting/slicing, scraping, shaving, graving, and boring.
INTERPRETATION OF USE-WEAR PATTERNS
Characteristics of edge fractures
and abrasive wear in the experimental collection were identified in the
archaeological sample, allowing the determination of what activity took place,
and the material that was worked. A total of 90 worn edges have been
identified in the sample, as indicated in Table 1.
Five tool use activities were identified in
the sample of el-Wad points: hafting, penetrating, cutting, scraping, and
boring (Fig. 2).
The distribution of edge fractures
presented by the use of a binding element often consists of a contiguous row
of scars restricted almost entirely to one surface (Odell 1981). Haft contact
produces pressures oblique to the margin, causing mostly feather-terminated
bending fractures (Fig. 3). Some instances of abrasive wear were also
observed in the form of edge rounding and polish near the hafted edge or on
one of the obverse flake scar ridges (Fig. 4). The hafting wear observed in
the sample was restricted to the proximal ends of the points.
The el-Wad points from Tor Aeid
(J432), Tor Hamar (J431), and Jebel Humeima (J412) present three patterns of
tip damage referable to penetration. The most frequent pattern is a single
shallow step/hinge fracture extending from the tip across the obverse or
inverse face of the tool, resembling “fluting”, although not intentionally
manufactured. Some cases show the removal of transverse step or hinge
terminations extending from the tip down the edge of the piece rather than
from the surface. These resemble burin blows, but again do not appear to be
intentionally manufactured (Fig. 5). Another pattern is crushing,
identifiable as a small cluster of step- and hinge-terminated fractures
located at the distal end of the artifact.
Odell and Cowan (1986) describe
all of these patterns in their collection of experimental projectile points.
In addition, they observed a minor number of points that broke laterally in
the form of a “snap” or “mesial breakage” as a result of their use as
projectiles (Odell and Cowan 1986: 204). However, lateral snaps or breakage
are not considered indicators of penetration in this study primarily because
these types of fractures seem just as likely to result from mistakes during
the manufacturing process or from post-depositional damage.
Many of the worn edges (16.7%)
exhibit bifacially symmetrical microfracturing and abrasion, resulting in a
marked denticulated profile of the tool margin. This pattern of edge
fracturing results from a longitudinal cutting motion of a tool held in a
position nearly perpendicular to the worked material (Odell 1981).
A smaller number of worn edges
(8.9%) feature abrasion and unifacial, contiguous feather- and
hinge-terminated microfractures that typically result from edge-transverse
“scraping” movements (Fig. 6). In addition, three tools possessed crushed,
abraded tips and hinge fractures on the edges near the tip, indicating their
use as “borers”.
The “worked material” category was
divided into soft, medium, and hard substances. Soft materials are those such
as animal flesh/meat, and moist vegetables that act as blunt indenters; in
other words, they possess a low indentation pressure resulting in a more
yielding material (Odell 1981). Because the stone tool can easily ingress
into soft material, the contact area between the tool and worked material is
wide, resulting in a greater occurrence of abrasive wears such as edge
rounding, polish, and striations.
Medium materials represent some of
the less-yielding animal parts (e.g., tendons and ligaments), somewhat firmer
vegetables, and objects such as fresh bone and wood. As contact materials
become harder, edge damage increases and is characterized by a higher
incidence of hinge and step fractures. Hard materials are typically objects
such as dry wood and bone, antler, and unyielding inorganic materials such as
As suggested by their typological
classification and morphology, el-Wad points were used mostly as projectiles.
Penetration activity represents 26.7% of the total use-wear in the sample. It
is not surprising then, to find a high percentage of hafting wear within the
assemblage (36.7%). The percentage of penetration wear may be somewhat low
due to a bias in the sample: proximal segments are the most frequent form of
incomplete points (proximal: 39.5%, complete: 31.4%, distal: 25.6%, medial:
3.5%). Thus, the presence of hafting wear is disproportionately large due to
higher frequencies of proximal point segments (Table 2).
The high frequency of proximal segments is
likely to be the result of the use of el-Wad points as projectiles. When a
projectile is broken while it is being used, the distal segment is more likely
to be lost (e.g., buried in the animal) or left behind, while the proximal
segment has a good chance of returning to the camp in its haft before being
discarded or reused.
The most significant tool use
apart from hafting and penetrating is cutting. A transverse cutting motion
(16.7%) represents a relatively high percentage of use-wear observed in the
sample. The material being cut was exclusively soft and medium hardness,
which is not surprising considering the fragility and thinness of the tools.
It appears that these tools were being used in their haft as a sort of knife
to cut and slice (e.g., butchering). The high frequencies of penetration,
hafting, and cutting motions are likely to be a result of these tools being
used as tips for darts that were inserted into a larger spear shaft for
hunting purposes. After the prey was downed, the darts could have been
removed from the spear shaft and used for butchering purposes. In light of
this, a dart’s use is not necessarily limited to hunting and butchering; it
could have also been used as a knife to process a number of other materials.
Before it is possible to make a
generalizing statement about the function of el-Wad points in southern Jordan,
it is important to determine if any variability exists within the sites
composing the sample. Certain morphological differences are apparent between
sites, such as the location of retouch (e.g., Jebel Humeima [J412] stands
alone as the only site with inverse and alternate retouch) and tool length
(e.g., Tor Hamar [J431] has noticeably larger points than both of the other
sites). But do these differences extend to the function of the points?
To answer this question, use-wear
categories were subjected to an Anova single factor test to determine if the
number of el-Wad points used for penetration, hafting, cutting, scraping, and
boring varied between any of the sites. No significant differences were
identified (alpha=.05, df=2, P-value=0.116994), which can be interpreted as
indicating that the function of el-Wad points is the same at J432, J431, and
J412. Thus, early Ahmarian groups in southern Jordan were using el-Wad points
in a consistent manner as projectiles and for other tasks involving namely
cutting and scraping.
The morphological characteristics
of el-Wad points have evoked the long-held presumption that they were used as
projectiles, hence their typological classification as such. But inquiries
into their use have always stopped at this level without considering the
entire operational sequence of this tool category. Lithic use-wear analysis
provides valuable information about the operational sequence by identifying
the full range of observable use-tasks performed by a tool before its loss or
discard. The results of this analysis support the conception that el-Wad
points functioned primarily as projectiles, but more importantly, provides
evidence they were not limited to this category of use. Significant
frequencies of cutting and scraping use indicate that these activities play a
secondary, yet important functional roles in the operational sequence of
El-wad points undoubtedly were
important for the subsistence strategies of Early Ahmarian groups, due to the
fact that these assemblages share remarkably similar reduction strategies
focused on a single uniform end-product: small, narrow blade/bladelets that
were produced for retouched pieces and el-Wad points (Ferring 1988). Thus,
the high frequency of hunting/predatory use attributed to these points is
likely to reflect an important adaptive strategy for their makers. Hunting
efforts appear to have been focused on large game represented by the faunal
remains recovered at Tor Hamar (J431) described earlier. The other notable
uses observed on the points such as cutting and scraping are likely to
represent stages in the processing of hunted prey (e.g., butchering and hide
scraping). All of this information makes a good case for Early Ahmarian
groups that were heavily reliant on hunting. But without use-wear data from
other parts of the toolkit and the debitage category, interpretations must be
limited to the “el-Wad point” category. It is interesting to note, however,
that the results of a use-wear analysis of unretouched bladelets from Jebel
Humeima (J412) show nearly the exact same uses and frequencies of uses as the
el-Wad points in this study (Kerry personal communication). This implies that
the patterns of use for el-Wad points may carry-over to debitage categories
with similar morphology.
Thus, the el-Wad points used by
Early Ahmarian groups in this sample functioned as multi-use hunting and
processing tools. No significant use-category differences were identifiable
between any of the sites in the sample, so the function of el-Wad points
appears to be generalized throughout southern Jordan. The extent to which
this generalization applies to the adaptive strategies of all Ahmarian groups
employing the use of el-Wad points cannot currently be stated for certain
because of a lack of use-wear data from sites in more arid environmental zones
outside of the piedmont and cool desert regions of southern Jordan. Although
the environmental settings from all of these places can be considered
“marginal”, minor differences between them may result in varying subsistence
strategies that may or may not be observable in the wear patterns of tools.
More detailed models of Ahmarian subsistence strategies must include use-wear
results from all categories of tools and debitage from sites throughout the
Levant, and show how these large-scale patterns of industrial variability
relate to other nonlithic aspects of the archaeological record.
Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda, L., M. Maldonado-Koerdell,
and P. Martinez del Rio
1956 Cueva de la Candelaria.
Memorias del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e
Mexico: Iam, XII.
1984 “The Near East,” Neue
Forschungen zur Allgenmeinen und Vergleichenden
Bamforth, Douglas B.
1988 “Investigating Microwear
Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in
Context,” Journal of
Archaeological Science 15: 38-50.
Bergman, Christopher A., and Mark H. Newcomer
1983 “Flint Arrowhead Breakage:
Examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon,” Journal of
Coinman, Nancy R., and Donald O. Henry
1995 “The Upper Paleolithic Sites,”
in Donald O. Henry, ed., Prehistoric Cultural
Ecology and Evolution, Insights from
Southern Jordan. New York: Plenum
1995 “Pollen Analysis: Environmental
and Climatic Implications,” in Donald O.
Henry, ed., Prehistoric Cultural
Ecology and Evolution, Insights from
New York: Plenum Press, 375-384.
Ferring, C. Reid
1988 “Technological Change in the
Upper Paleolithic of the Negev,” in Harold L.
Dibble and A. Montet-White, eds.,
Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western
Philadelphia: The University Museum, 333-348.
Garrod, Dorothy A. E., and Dorothea M. A. Bate
1937 The Stone Age of Mount
Carmel, Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1981 “Upper Paleolithic Tool
Assemblages from the Negev and Sinai,” in Jacques
Cauvin and Paul Sanlaville, eds.,
Prehistoire du Levant. Paris: C.N.R.S., 331-
1977 “Radiocarbon Dating of Charcoal
and Ostrich Egg Shells from Mushabi and
Lagama Sites,” in Ofer Bar-Yosef and
James L. Phillips, eds., Prehistoric
Investigations in Gebel Mughara,
Northern Sinai. Qedem 7, Appendix
Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology of
the Hebrew University, 261-264.
Henry, Donald O.
1994 “Prehistoric Cultural Ecology
in Southern Jordan,” Science 265: 336-341.
1995 “Introduction and Overview:
Evolutionary Ecology and Archaeology,” in
Donald O. Henry, ed., Prehistoric
Cultural Ecology and Evolution, Insights
from Southern Jordan.
New York: Plenum Press, 1-22.
Keeley, Lawrence H.
1980 The Experimental
Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Keller, Charles M.
1966 “The Development of Edge
Damage Patterns on Stone Tools,” Man 1: 501-
Kerry, Kris W.
1997 “Jebel Humeima:
A Preliminary Lithic Analysis of an Ahmarian and
Levantine Mousterian Site in Southwest
Jordan,” In Hans G. Gebel and Gary
O. Rollefson, eds., Prehistory of
Jordan II. Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and
Environment. Ex oriente: Berlin.
Klein, Richard G.
1995 “The Tor Hamar Fauna,” in
Donald O. Henry, ed., Prehistoric Cultural
Ecology and Evolution, Insights from
Southern Jordan. New York: Plenum
Marks, Anthony E.
1981 “The Upper Paleolithic of the
Negev,” in Jacques Cauvin and Paul
Sanlaville, eds., Prehistoire du
Levant. Paris: C.N.R.S., 343-352.
1983 “The Sites of Boker and Boker
Tachtit: A Brief Introduction,” in Anthony E.
Marks, ed., Prehistory and
Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel,
Vol. III. Dallas: Southern Methodist
University Press, 15-37.
Marks, Anthony E., and C. Reid Ferring
1988 “The Early Upper Paleolithic
of the Levant,” in J. F. Hoffecker and C. A.
Wolf, eds., The Early Upper
Paleolithic, Evidence from Europe and the
Near East. BAR International Series
437. Oxford: B.A.R., 43-72.
Odell, George H.
1976 “Micro-Wear in Perspective: a
Sympathetic Response to Lawrence H.
Keeley,” World Archaeology
1980 “Toward a more Behavioral
Approach to Archaeological Lithic
Concentrations,” American Antiquity
45, 3: 404-431.
1981 “The Mechanics of Use-Breakage
of Stone Tools: Some Testable
Hypotheses,” Journal of Field
Archaeology 8: 197-210.
Odell, George H., and Frank Cowan
1986 “Experiments with spears and
arrows on animal targets,” Journal of Field
Phillips, James L.
1987 “Sinai during the Paleolithic:
The Early Periods,” in Angela E. Close, ed.,
Prehistory of Arid North Africa:
Essays in Honor of Fred Wendorf. Dallas:
Southern Methodist University Press,
1988 “The Upper Paleolithic of the
Wadi Feiran, Southern Sinai,” Paleorient 14:
1943 Die Alt- und
Mittelsteinzeitlichen Funde von Stellmoor. Neumunster: Karl
Shea, John J.
1988 “Spear Points from the Middle
Paleolithic of the Levant,” Journal of Field
1991 The Behavioral Significance
of Levantine Mousterian Industrial Variability.
Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard
University. Princeton University Press: New
1995 “Lithic Microwear Analysis of
Tor Faraj Rockshelter,” in Donald O. Henry
(ed.), Prehistoric Cultural Ecology
and Evolution, Insights from Southern
New York: Plenum Press, 85-105.
Tringham, Ruth E., Glenn Cooper, George H.
Odell, Barbara Voytek, and Anne Whitman
1974 “Experimentation in the
Formation of Edge Damage: a New Approach to
Lithic Analysis,” Journal of Field
Archaeology 1: 171-196.
Van Buren, G. E.
1974 Arrowheads and Projectile
Points. Garden Grove: Arrowhead Publishing
Williams, John K.
“Tor Aeid: An Upper Paleolithic Occupation in
Southern Jordan” In Hans
Gebel and Gary O. Rollefson, eds., Prehistory of Jordan II.
Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence,
and Environment. Ex oriente: Berlin.