Les outillages néolithiques en Syrie du Nord: Méthode de débitage et gestion laminaire durant le PPNB

For decades, so‐called Fasad points have been discovered in Oman and the UAE. These lithic projectile points have been until now fossiles directeurs (or defining artefacts) for Early Holocene human occupation prior to the development of the Arabian Neolithic. It appears that many different types of points are described in the literature as Fasad points, but the actual variability of the archaeological discoveries leads to the necessity for reassessment and clarification of the very definition of this type of artefact. We propose here a new definition of the Fasad points with the creation of sub‐types. We also discuss the trend of using this lithic type as a marker for the diffusion of PPNB technology towards the south‐east from the Mediterranean Levantine Neolithic core area.

Section: The Other Types Of Points Made On Bladesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Back to Fasad… and the PPNB controversy. Questioning a Levantine origin for Arabian Early Holocene projectile points technology

Charpentier

Crassard

2013

“…The bidirectional blade technology is the most significant lithic tradition of the Pre Pottery Neolithic (PPN) B during the ninth and the eighth millennia BC (e.g. Abbès, ; Barzilai, ; Borrell, ; Calley, ; Nishiaki, ; Quintero & Wilke, ; Wilke & Quintero, ). The PPN bidirectional blade technology appeared around 8900–8800 BC (Late PPNA) in the middle Euphrates valley, marking a crucial change in local lithic traditions and projectile technology (Stordeur & Abbès, ).…”

Section: Definition Of the Bidirectional Blade Technology On Naviformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bidirectional blade technology on naviform cores from northern Arabia: New evidence of Arabian‐Levantine interactions in the Neolithic

Crassard

Hilbert

2019

Discovered in March 2015, the sites of DAJ‐112 and DAJ‐125 in the Al‐Jawf province of northern Saudi Arabia consist of a large collection of surface lithic artefacts that can be compared to well‐known Pre‐Pottery Neolithic (PPN) B technology from the Levant: the two sites include bidirectional blade technology with naviform core preparation and opposed platforms surface exploitation, as well as burin production at a wide scale. Other surface scatters have been identified during the 2013 and 2015 surveys, showing these two sites are not isolated in Al‐Jawf, as rather important occurrences of Early Holocene technology have been identified across the region. Although the sites from Al‐Jawf are surface occurrences and not radiometrically dated, the finds have proven to be extremely significant, representing a southward incursion of classic naviform cores‐based technology, thus expanding the geographical distribution of this technology beyond the Levant. By addressing the lithic evidence from northern Arabia, the expansion and/or influence of PPN populations and cultural elements will be discussed.

“…Presently, this technique is recognised as one used for the detachment of different‐sized flint blades (from small bladelets to large blades) in several industries of the Upper and Late Palaeolithic until the Early to Middle Mesolithic of western Europe (Pelegrin ), as well as in the Ibero‐Maurusian of Maghreb (Sari ) and in the PPNB of the Near East (Abbès ; : 88), which brings us to the present case of the industry of Acila 36.…”

Section: Cultural Impact Of Knapping Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This episode is more than a simple anecdote, but reveals the significance of this technical tradition as a cultural marker (Inizan & Lechevallier ; Lemonnier : 1–35). There is little mention of the ‘technique(s)’, that is, the technical mode(s) of detachment of the blades during the blade core exploitation process. Only a few archaeologists/experimentalists recognised the use of the soft hammerstone in Levantine archaeological contexts, such as L. Quintero and P. Wilke (; also Wilke & Quintero ), and F. Abbès (, ) who experimented with G. Deraprahamian.…”

Section: The ‘Technique’ Of Detachment Of Small Blades From the Site mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In eliminating the other possible techniques, we are thus limited to two remaining techniques: organic percussion and soft‐stone percussion. We know from experimentation, however, that these two techniques have similar stigmata (Pelegrin : 78; Abbès : 88). More precisely, if we observe a series of blades detached using a soft‐stone hammer, only a fraction of them can be recognised as such, while the remainder cannot be distinguished from blades detached using an organic percussion tool.…”

Section: The ‘Technique’ Of Detachment Of Small Blades From the Site mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Soft hammerstone percussion use in bidirectional blade‐tool production at Acila 36 and in bifacial knapping at Shagra (Qatar)

Pélegrin

Inizan

2013

International audienceA new observation of the flint industry from site 36 at Acila (Qatar) reveals that its blade production, issued from bidirectional cores, was practised using the ‘soft-stone direct percussion technique’. In addition to the similarity of the knapping method (shape of the blade core, intended light straight blades used as tanged arrowhead point blanks), the technique used to produce this ‘Blade Arrowhead Culture’ first described by H. Kapel about fifty years ago, provides yet another argument for a Levantine origin. Soft-stone percussion was also detected as the main shaping technique of foliate and tanged and barbed points in the more recent Qatari site of Shagra