# Assessing socio-economic changes between the Northern and Southern Levant through the function of projectile points from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Kharaysin (Jordan) and Dja'de (Syria)

Bogdana Milić, Fiona Pichon, Juan José Ibáñez, Lionel Gourichon

► To cite this version:

Bogdana Milić, Fiona Pichon, Juan José Ibáñez, Lionel Gourichon. Assessing socio-economic changes between the Northern and Southern Levant through the function of projectile points from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Kharaysin (Jordan) and Dja'de (Syria). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2025, 66, pp.105280. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105280. hal-05161026

HAL Id: hal-05161026

https://hal.science/hal-05161026v1

Submitted on 16 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Assessing socio-economic changes between the Northern and Southern Levant through the function of projectile points from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Kharaysin (Jordan) and Dja'de (Syria)☆

Bogdana Milić<sup>a,b,*</sup>, Fiona Pichon<sup>a,c</sup>, Juan José Ibáñez<sup>a</sup>, Lionel Gourichon<sup>d</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Levant

Use-wear

Points

Hunting

Socio-economic patterns

## ABSTRACT

This study examines the multifunctional use and socio-economic significance of projectile points from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites of Kharaysin in Jordan and Dja'de el Mughara in Syria. Analyzing a total of 165 points, including 22 from the EPPNB and 79 from the MPPNB at Kharaysin, and 64 from the EPPNB at Dja'de, we identify a significant proportion of points used for various activities beyond their primary use as projectiles in hunting. Our results reveal consistent patterns of retooling and recycling across both sites, suggesting broadly shared technological strategies despite different ecological and subsistence contexts. Notably, the study highlights the continued relevance of hunting in a period when herding has not yet become a central part of subsistence strategies. Despite that, our new insights highlight the adaptability of Neolithic communities, providing a deeper understanding of the socio-economic organization during the Neolithisation process in the 9th and beginning of the 8th mill. BC across the Levant.

# 1. Introduction

## 1.1. Cultural background

The study of lithic projectile points from Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites in Southwest Asia offers a unique window into the social practices of pre- and early agricultural societies. These tools, essential for hunting, reflect not only technological advancements but also broader socio-economic patterns (Bar-Yosef, 1998; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2010; Ibáñez et al., 2007).

Projectile points are one of the hallmarks of the Early Neolithic in the Western wing of the Fertile Crescent (Gopher, 1994; Kozłowski, 1999). Bidirectional knapping, another defining technical feature of the Neolithic shift, is clearly associated with the elaboration of projectile points, as the central pointed blades obtained in this knapping technique were used preferentially for making of hunting tools (Abbès, 2003; Barzilai, 2010; Borrell and Khalaily, 2016). The relevance of projectile points at the origins of the Neolithic has called the attention of scholars

because it is coincidental with the shift from animal hunting to herding (Bar-Yosef, 1998). Moreover, the signs of interpersonal violence during this period are meagre (see the special issue of *Clare and Gebel, 2010* and papers in it). If hunting was in decline and war was not a generalized phenomenon, what were the projectile points used for? The paradox of the relevance of projectile points and the decline of hunting was pointed out by J. Cauvin (1997), who suggested that these tools were symbols of the androcentric culture associated to the PPNB. A few use-wear studies have been conducted on the use of projectile points at the origins of the Neolithic in Southwest Asia (Ibáñez et al., 2007; Pichon & Ibáñez, 2021 and references therein). Previous studies showed that projectile points were indeed used to be thrown, as they bear impact traces (fractures and microwear linear traces). These traces were caused by the penetration of the projectile into the target or the accidental contact with the sediment, rocks or plants/trees in case the shot failed. Thus, projectile points, beside their probable symbolic meaning, were functional tools used for hunting and warfare. Moreover, projectiles show an intriguing recycling behaviour, as they were used for an array of activities (harvesting, stone

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Archaeology of Social Dynamics, Milà i Fontanals Institute, Spanish National Research Council (IMF-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> CNRS, UMR 5133 – Archéorient, Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> University Côte d'Azur, CNRS, CEPAM (UMR 7264), Nice, France</footnote>

<footnote>* This article is part of a special issue entitled: 'Tracing Social Dynamics' published in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: Archaeology of Social Dynamics, Milà i Fontanals Institute, Spanish National Research Council (IMF-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain.
E-mail address: bogdana.milic@imf.csic.es (B. Milić).</footnote>
boring, butchering among others) beside the projectile function. Was this strategy of use of projectile points widespread all across the Levant? What does this technical behaviour mean in terms of socio-economic customs of the first Neolithic communities? In this paper, we investigate the function and significance of projectile points from PPN sites in the Southern and Northern Levant, considering their distinct ecological settings, subsistence strategies, and general material culture by examining micro-scale evidence from Kharaysin (Jordan) and Dja'de el-Mughara (Syria).

## 1.2. Aims and objectives

Although the Levant is geographically and culturally distinct from the rest of the Fertile Crescent (Upper Mesopotamia and the Zagros Piedmont in particular) (Watkins, 2010; Zeder, 2011), it is not a homogenous region. Its northern and southern parts differ markedly in terms of ecology, climate, and available resources. These differences have inevitably influenced the subsistence strategies and, consequently, the socio-economic structures of the communities inhabiting the areas in the Early Holocene (Henry, 1989; Simmons, 2007), making the Pre-Pottery Neolithic very dynamic period linked to vibrant cultural transformations. In the Northern Levant, characterized by a more temperate climate and diverse vegetation, subsistence strategies likely included a combination of hunting, gathering, and early agriculture (Willcox, 2008). In contrast, the southern Levant, with its arid environment, would have required different adaptive strategies, possibly placing a greater emphasis on hunting and the management of water resources (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson, 1989). These differences significantly affected the process of plant and animal domestication, communal organisation and settlement patterns.

Recognising trends in the manufacture and use of projectile points in the Levant provides insights into crucial aspects of the economic fluctuations that occurred during the Neolithic transition, when farming and herding took centre stage in subsistence and new sets of tools supporting domestic activities emerged. However, despite extensive research, there remains a significant gap in understanding the real function of points

during the adoption of animal husbandry and agriculture within particular areas of Southwest Asia. This issue is particularly pronounced in the Levant, where distinct practices are observed between the south and the north, alongside the appearance of tanged “big arrowheads” that marked major morphological changes from the PPNA to the PPNB with Jericho, Byblos and Amuq points, primarily related to the new way of blade production by bidirectional technology (Gopher, 1994; Kozłowski, 1999; Abbès, 2003; Barzilai, 2010; Borrell and Khalaily, 2016). Contrary to the traditional view that points primarily served as hunting tools, their role as prestige objects, status symbols and tools for interpersonal violence and warfare, highlighting the social hierarchy among early Neolithic communities have been discussed previously, while the conflict-related topics have gained renewed attention within the academic community working in the Levant in recent years (Cauvin, 1997; Bar-Yosef, 2010; Clare and Gebel, 2010; Müller-Neuhof, 2014; Dietrich et al., 2019; Barzilai and May 2022). Furthermore, the functional analyses aside techno-typological and morphometric studies on points (Borrell and Štefanisko, 2016; Khalaily et al., 2022; Yaroshevich et al., 2023) made for the various assemblages in the area, have been extremely scarce in the Southern Levant compared to the rest of the Fertile Crescent (Pichon & Ibáñez, 2021).

This paper aims to bridge this gap by simultaneously examining evidence from the north and south to address cultural changes in the PPN Levant through the functional study of points from Kharaysin in Jordan and Dja'de el-Mughara in Syria (Fig. 1). We focus on regional variations by analysing the form, function, and context of projectile points from two sites in the Early and Middle PPNB (second half of the 9th and beginning of the 8th millennium BC), and seek to unravel the complex interplay between environment, subsistence practices, and socio-economic organization. Our research also aims to uncover whether the use of projectile points varied between these two regions, or if similar socio-economic practices prevailed despite the ecological and subsistence differences. By addressing these questions, this study contributes to a broader understanding of the role of hunting and other subsistence activities associated with lithic tools in the Levant and the adaptive strategies of its inhabitants during the Neolithisation process.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Map of the studied contexts and sites of the wider area important for the study (B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>
Were projectile points from Kharaysin and Dja'de el-Mughara used in similar ways, despite differences in ecological conditions, prey types, and technological and typological aspects (Jericho points in Kharaysin and Byblos points in Dja'de)? If that is the case, what are the cultural implications of this shared technical behaviour for our understanding of socio-economic practices during the origins of the Neolithic?

## 1.3. Case studies

This paper focuses on projectile points from two significant Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites: Kharaysin in Jordan and Dja'de el-Mughara in Syria, where the authors were involved in the first-hand analysis of the archaeological material. We chose to focus on the points from these particular sites due to several compelling reasons. The sites are representative of the Southern and Northern Levant, respectively, allowing us to conduct a comparative analysis across distinct ecological and cultural contexts, providing a unique opportunity to investigate how different environments and resources influenced socio-economic practices. On the other hand, both sites have yielded rich and well-preserved assemblages of lithic artefacts, suitable for conducting use-wear analyses, where we focus on the material from the EPPNB and MPPNB from Kharaysin and EPPNB from Dja'de.

Kharaysin, located in the Zarqa Valley of Jordan, north-east of Amman (Fig. 1), is a prominent site spanning throughout the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and B (PPNB) periods. Covering approximately 25 ha, Kharaysin is recognized as one of the significant 'mega-sites' in the Southern Levant. Its continuous occupation began at the very end of the 10th millennium BC during the Late PPNA and extended through various phases of the Early, Middle, and Late or Final PPNB/PPNC, with the latest occupation phase dating back to the early 7th millennium BC (Ibáñez et al., 2015, 2020; Monik et al., 2018). The site encompasses distinct areas (A, B, C, D and E), which have been excavated by a Spanish archaeological team from 2014 to 2024.

An extensive collection of chipped stone artefacts with ca. 20–25.000 lithics being excavated per season, which have been partially analysed in previous studies by F. Borrell, have been revealed by the PPNB layers at Kharaysin (Borrell et al., 2022, 72), while the material from the excavated area associated with the Late PPNA (ca. 9000 cal BC) and PPNA/PPNB transitional phase (ca. 8800/8700 cal BC) awaits new technological and typological study. The PPNB assemblage features large, naturally pointed blades created using standardized bidirectional blade technology. Fine-grained purple flint and highly lustrous flint in a variety of colours, including pink, orange, white, and light brown, are the main raw materials used in the production of chipped stone. These materials, which have also been detected at adjacent locations, most likely originate from the surrounding area (Borrell et al., 2019 and references therein). The tool kit at the PPNB Kharaysin comprises projectile points, sickle blades, notches, burins, and less common tools like denticulates, scrapers, and borers. Similar to other Southern Levantine EPPNB and MPPNB sites, caches of large bidirectional blades have been discovered at Kharaysin as well. So far published material regards 3113 lithics from the PPNB levels, where points comprise 3.89 % (n = 121). These points account for 21.6 % of the retouched tools group (n = 559) in the previously studied sample. Among the point types from this collection, Jericho points are the most frequent (72 %), followed by Byblos (8 %), Amuq (3 %), and smaller Helwan points (1 %). There is also a significant number of atypical or typologically indeterminate point types (16 %) (Borrell et al. 2019, Fig. 3.D; 262). First use-wear analyses have been performed on several artifacts from the site, including sickle blades, Nahal Hemar knives, and a unique type of bilaterally notched artifact interpreted as 'flint figurines' (Borrell et al., 2019; 2022; Ibáñez et al., 2020; Ibáñez et al. (2021)).

Tell Dja'de el-Mughara is located in modern-day Syria, on the left bank of the Euphrates River, north-east of Aleppo (Coqueugniot, 1998) (Fig. 1). During the Early Neolithic, the site was occupied from the 10th to 9th millennium BC (9310-8290 cal. BC), or from the final PPNA to the

late EPPNB (Coqueugniot, 2014). The stratigraphic sequence is divided into three phases according to the site's architecture and lithic industry: "Dja'de I" (9310-8830 cal. BC i.e. Late PPNA), "Dja'de II" (8800-8500 cal. BC, i.e. the beginning of the Early PPNB) and "Dja'de III" (8540-8290 cal. BC, i.e., the second half of the Early PPNB known as Mureybet, phase IVA). The village is situated in an area with mean annual rainfall between 250 and 300 mm. The local environment, alluvial plain and steppic hinterland constituted a rich ecological niche with complementary resources (wild plants, wood, fauna and lithic raw material) favourable to the settlement of a (semi-) permanent occupation and with the subsistence economy based on both gathering and cultivation of wild cereals and legumes (Willcox and Roitel, 1998; Coqueugniot, 1998; Helmer et al., 1998; Willcox et al., 2008; Douché and Willcox, 2018), and on hunting of gazelles, equids, aurochs, wild boar, mouflons, small mammals and birds (Helmer et al., 1998; Gourichon, 2004).

In the uppermost EPPNB layers of Dja'de, the lithic assemblage is characterised by a laminar production using various qualities of flint nodules collected from primary deposits, such as the Eocene formation of Maskar, an outcrop of which is visible ca. 65 km south from the site (Masson 1981; Arimura (2020); Abbès and Sánchez-Priego, 2008), and pebbles from the soils of ancient terraces of the Euphrates to the north and northeast of the site, as well as from the large Quaternary alluvial fans of the surrounding steppe (Coqueugniot, 1994, 1998). Standardised bidirectional and straight blades extracted from naviform and postero-lateral cores of high-quality flint with soft hammers increased through the EPPNB, while the unidirectional debitage on flint pebbles declined and became scarcely used for manufacturing tools (Coqueugniot, 1994; Coqueugniot, 2003; Arimura (2020)).

The toolkit assemblage from Dja'de III shows many similarities with the Early PPNB levels at Mureybet IVA and Cheikh Hassan (Coqueugniot, 1998; Abbès, 2003). The most common tool types are projectile points – which account for at least 4.5 % of the assemblage, according to Coqueugniot (1994), followed by drills and scrapers. Denticulated and retouched glossy blades, Nahal Hemar knives, and “ergot blades” are among the characteristic elements, while burins are few in number (Coqueugniot, 1994; Arimura (2020)). Products of bidirectional knapping are selected for all tool types, with a preference for selecting predetermined central blades for arrowheads (Arimura (2020)). Most arrowheads feature well-defined tangs formed by abrupt or semi-abrupt retouch, known as proto-Byblos points, which tend to replace the retouched-base points of earlier levels (Coqueugniot, 1994; Arimura (2020); Coqueugniot, 2014). More rarely, they have short or denticulated tangs. Use-wear analyses have been performed on a collection of a wide array of tool types, revealing the complexity of use, resharpening and recycling of those tools during the Early PPNB compared to earlier periods (Pichon, 2017a). Specific studies also focused on sickle blades and plant working (Pichon 2017b, Douché and Pichon, 2018; Pichon, 2019; Pichon et al., 2021), as well as shooting techniques and hunting practices (Abbès and Pichon, 2022).

## 1.4. Zooarchaeological evidence

The fauna from the EPPNB levels of Dja'de el-Mughara (Gourichon, 2004) is characterized by great taxonomic diversity, with around twenty species of mammals and nearly thirty species of birds identified. While this trait is comparable to the broad-spectrum exploitation observed at PPNA sites in the Near East, the difference is that the proportion of small fauna (carnivores, hares, birds), despite its remarkable variety, is significantly lower than in earlier periods, in favour of an exploitation focused on medium and large-sized ungulates such as the Persian gazelles (Gazella subgutturosa), the hemiones (Equus hemionus), and the aurochs (Bos primigenius), and secondarily on mouflons (Ovis orientalis), wild boars (Sus scrofa), and fallow deer (Dama dama mesopotamica). It has been suggested that the reduction in sexual dimorphism of the aurochs from Dja'de compared to those from PPNA sites in the Middle
Euphrates (Jerf el Ahmar, Mureybet) marked the beginning of the domestication process of this species (Helmer et al., 2005). It should be noted that its domestic status is clearly attested in the Middle PPNB in the early occupation levels of the nearby site of Halula (Sana Segui, 1999) and that early domesticated cattle were introduced to Cyprus at the end of the Early PPNB (Vigne et al., 2023). The exploitation of equids and gazelles was seasonal, with hunts scheduled mainly in autumn—winter and spring. The acquisition strategies suggest a complex organization probably involving communal drive hunting (Driver, 1995).

The exploitation of animal resources at Kharaysin shows a distinctly different pattern, likely due to the unique ecological features of this part of the Zarqa valley compared to the Middle Euphrates and its surrounding steppe environment. The early Neolithic inhabitants of Kharaysin primarily depended on a wide variety of animal resources for their subsistence, with a particular emphasis on hunting gazelles (mainly the mountain gazelle, *Gazella gazella*). They also targeted larger ungulates such as wild goats (i.e., bezoars, *Capra aegagrus*) and aurochs, in addition to smaller game like birds, hares, and foxes, though to a lesser extent. Over time, notable changes occurred, particularly an increase in goat remains, which accounted for more than 60% of the faunal assemblages in the Middle PPNB, indicating a shift away from other animal categories. Evidence, including bone pathologies that may suggest captivity and a broad dietary range in goats, points to the practice of goat herding alongside the continued hunting of wild ungulates like bezoars. The potential domestication of local wild goat populations, the extent of management practices, and the use of enclosures remain topics of ongoing investigation. For Kharaysin, data on seasonality and hunting or herding strategies are currently being studied.

Even if livestock keeping are strongly presumed at Kharaysin and Dja'de el-Mughara, based on some evidence, hunting of large and medium-sized ungulates likely played a predominant role at both sites in

terms of subsistence strategies.

## 2. Materials and methods

### 2.1. Assemblages from Kharaysin and Dja'de el-Mughara – Sample overview

This study examines the function of 165 points: 22 EPPNB and 79 MPPNB points from Kharaysin, and 64 EPPNB points from Dja'de. The Kharaysin assemblage studied for this paper originates from the later phase of the EPPNB (dated around 8400/8300 cal. BC), and furthermore MPPNB (end of the 9th millennium until 7850 cal. BC). MPPNB phase on the site was the most extensively investigated, which also affects different number of studied points from two phases. Use-wear analyses were conducted on points selected from secure stratigraphic contexts (excavated between 2018–2022) to avoid mixed deposits, focusing mainly on house assemblages and adjacent areas. The sample was exported to the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) in Barcelona for analysis in the laboratory of the Archaeology and Social Dynamics (ASD) in 2021–2022. The sampling strategy also included a variety of points differing in typology, size, and fragmentation (where intentionally both complete and incomplete specimens were taken). The EPPNB group (n = 22) includes 11 classical Jericho, 5 “Jericho-like” points, 3 Helwan, Aswad, and El Khiam points, and 3 undetermined points with shorter tangs or tiny notches (see Fig. 2). The MPPNB collection (n = 79) consists of 68 Jericho points (including two with denticulated edges and one tiny point), 7 Byblos points, and 4 atypical points featuring notches and long tangs or denticulated edges and tiny tangs (see Fig. 3 for the most common types).

In the EPPNB collection, the original blank sections are classified as triangular (10 points), trapezoidal (5 points), multi-faceted (6 points),

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** A selection of points from the EPPNB Kharaysin representing 1–3: Jericho, 4–5: Jericho with denticulated edges, 6: Aswad, 7: large El Khiam-like point with concave base (7) and 8: a short point with a tiny thang (Photos: B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. A selection of points from the MPPNB Kharaysin (1: Byblos point, 2–8: Jericho points) (Photos: B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>

and one undetermined. The MPPNB assemblage shows a greater prev-
alence of trapezoidal blanks (43 points) compared to triangular (15
points), with the remainder being mixed (triangular-trapezoidal, 9
points) and multi-faceted (12 points). Notably, some blanks were
significantly altered by shaping of points, which could affect the final
section determination. For dorsal patterns, the EPPNB points are evenly
split between unidirectional (10 points) and bidirectional blanks (12
points). Unidirectional blanks of a few large tanged points are un-
doubtedly part of the opposed platform knapping systems (according to
form and size), while the other unidirectional points belong to tiny
Jericho and previously mentioned atypical points. Dorsal pattern of the
blank for two points cannot be reconstructed due to retouch or surface
damage. In the MPPNB group, most large tanged points are made on
bidirectional blanks (72 points), with a few on unidirectional blanks (6
points, linked however to opposed platform knapping), and two points
where the dorsal pattern is unclear due to retouching or surface damage.
The entire assemblage of Early and Middle PPNB points was made on
central blades with a single exception of a bidirectional secondarily
crested blank (lateral blade), which clearly demonstrates the careful
selection of blanks.

The collection of arrowheads analysed at Dja'de el-Mughara comes
from the 'Dja'de III' phase, dated around 8540-8290 cal. BC, corre-
sponding to the second half of the Early PPNB period as known at
Mureybet, Phase IVA (Coqueugniot, 2014). During the early 1990 s, the
sampling strategy for exporting material to the French CNRS Arch-
éorient laboratory aimed to broadly represent the arrowheads discov-
ered at Dja'de during the first year of excavations (Coqueugniot, 1991).
Therefore, the sample comprises different types of arrowheads distin-
guished by their morphology, the method of retouching the proximal
part, and the presence or absence of one or two pairs of opposed lateral
notches. Impact traces related to projectile use have been identified on

specimens of each type (Pichon, 2017; Abbès and Pichon, 2022). We
distinguish short-tanged arrowheads (16 examples; Fig. 4: 1–2), proto-
Byblos points (38 examples; Fig. 4. 5–8), denticulated tanged arrow-
heads (3 examples; Fig. 4: 9–10), lozenge-based arrowheads (4 exam-
ples; Fig. 4: 3–4) and Aswad points (3 examples; Fig. 4: 12). The blanks
were specifically chosen for their edge regularity and straight profile.
Most of the sections are trapezoidal (41 examples), plano-convex (14
examples) or triangular (9 examples). The bidirectional blades are
preferentially chosen (n = 55, i.e., 86 %). Only one short-tanged
arrowhead is made on a unidirectional blade, and four short-tanged
arrowheads on maintenance bladelets of the convexities of cores. Four
points are made on indeterminate blades. The central blades, repre-
senting 81 % of the blanks, clearly appear as the preferential products
within the bidirectional laminar production for manufacturing points.
Among these, predetermined blades (n = 33) are distinctly dominant.

The analysis of detailed measurements (Table 1) of the EPPNB and MPPNB projectile points from Kharaysin and EPPNB points from Dja'de reveals several noteworthy trends regarding production and function of points. At Kharaysin, the MPPNB points display slightly higher average widths and thicknesses compared to the EPPNB points. Specifically, MPPNB points have an average width of 17.37 mm and an average thickness of 5.05 mm, whereas EPPNB points have an average width of 15.57 mm and an average thickness of 4.53 mm. Despite these differences, the thickness/width ratios are almost identical across all groups, indicating a consistent proportionality in point design regardless of the period or site. Similarly, the length/width ratios are very close, suggesting a common approach to the functional design of projectile points. The lengths of complete points show that MPPNB points from Kharaysin tend to be longer than EPPNB points from the same site, with average lengths of 60.97 mm for MPPNB points and 55.16 mm for EPPNB points. Additionally, the maximal perimeters (TCSP) are generally larger for
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Overview of the types of points present in the studied assemblage from Dja'de III. 1–2: short-tanged arrowheads. 3–4: lozenge-based arrowheads. 5–8: proto-Byblos points. 9–11: denticulated tanged arrowheads. 12: Aswad point (Photos: F. Pichon).</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1**

Comparative Metrics of Projectile Points from Kharaysin (EPPNB and MPPNB) and Dja'de (EPPNB) (B. Milić & F. Pichon).</caption><thead><tr><th>Metric</th><th>EPPNB Points (Kharaysin, n = 22)</th><th>MPPNB Points (Kharaysin, n = 79)</th><th>EPPNB Points (Dja'de, n = 64)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Widths range (mm)</td><td>10.72—23.45</td><td>8.42—24.00</td><td>8.74—26.34</td></tr><tr><td>Average Width (mm)</td><td>15.57</td><td>17.37</td><td>16.22</td></tr><tr><td>Standard Deviation (Width)</td><td>3.27</td><td>3.38</td><td>2.90</td></tr><tr><td>Thicknesses range (mm)</td><td>0.94—7.93</td><td>1.7—8.64</td><td>1.91—7.06</td></tr><tr><td>Average Thickness (mm)</td><td>4.53</td><td>5.05</td><td>4.33</td></tr><tr><td>Standard Deviation (Thickness)</td><td>1.86</td><td>1.26</td><td>1.20</td></tr><tr><td>Thickness/Width Ratio</td><td>0.29 (SD: 0.10)</td><td>0.29 (SD: 0.07)</td><td>0.27 (SD: 0.06)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Complete Points (n)</strong></td><td><strong>13</strong></td><td><strong>39</strong></td><td><strong>40</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Lengths range (mm)</td><td>16.21—77.02</td><td>33.3—91.9</td><td>33.41—86.75</td></tr><tr><td>Average Length (mm)</td><td>55.16</td><td>60.97</td><td>59.16</td></tr><tr><td>Standard Deviation (Length)</td><td>16.21</td><td>13.49</td><td>13.90</td></tr><tr><td>Length/Width Ratio</td><td>3.61</td><td>3.74</td><td>3.80</td></tr><tr><td>Maximal Perimeters (TCSP) (mm)</td><td>24.94—59.5</td><td>20.24—54.00</td><td>18.75—56.23</td></tr><tr><td>Average TCSP (mm)</td><td>41.07</td><td>43.03</td><td>34.69</td></tr><tr><td>Standard Deviation (TCSP)</td><td>9.41</td><td>7.46</td><td>6.18</td></tr></tbody></table>

MPPNB points, reflecting their overall larger size compared to EPPNB points. Comparing the EPPNB points from both sites, Dja'de points tend to be slightly smaller in dimensions compared to Kharaysin EPPNB points. The average width of Dja'de EPPNB points is 16.22 mm, and the average thickness is 4.33 mm, which are comparable to the Kharaysin EPPNB points. However, the average maximal perimeter (TCSP) is noticeably smaller for Dja'de EPPNB points at 34.69 mm compared to 41.07 mm for Kharaysin EPPNB points, suggesting regional variation in the size and perhaps the intended use of the points.

There are several similarities between the assemblages. Both EPPNB and MPPNB points at Kharaysin and EPPNB points at Dja'de exhibit very similar thickness/width ratios and length/width ratios, indicating consistent design proportions across different periods and sites. The standard deviations for width, thickness, and length are relatively low and comparable across the different assemblages, suggesting a controlled manufacturing process with a general limited variability, that is on the other hand mainly visible in shaping of tangs and wings. However, there are notable differences as well. MPPNB points from Kharaysin are generally larger in both width and length compared to EPPNB points from the same site, as evident in the higher average values and greater ranges for MPPNB points. These outcomes have important implications. The consistent design ratios suggest that both EPPNB and MPPNB points were likely subject to similar functional requirements or cultural preferences. The observed differences in dimensions and

perimeters may reflect changes in hunting strategies, target species, or social factors influencing tool production between the Early and Middle PPNB periods and between the two sites.

## 2.2. Use-wear analyses conducted on projectile points

Tool function is assessed by identifying the active part(s), or used area, defining the worked material (type, hardness, condition), and the kinematics involved in the tool use (longitudinal, transverse, rotational or percussive movements), as well as, when possible, by reconstructing hafting techniques. The functional interpretation is based on the macro- and microscopic observation of the use-wear pattern (i.e., different combinations of scars, rounding, striations, micropolish, and residues) depending on the raw material of the tools, the time of use, the kinetics, the contact materials, and the handling mode (e.g., Vaughan, 1985; González Urquijo and Ibáñez, 1994; Van Gijn, 2010; Regert, 2004; Rots and Williamson, 2004). The interpretation of the identified wear patterns is based on a visual comparison with a reference collection of experimental tools.

For the analysis of point damage, this study utilized adapted criteria for Diagnostic Impact Fractures (DIF) and Microscopic Linear Impact Traces (MLIT) as defined by Fischer et al. (1984), Plisson and Geneste (1989), and O'Farrell (2005). We examined the location, extent, and morphology of tip damages to differentiate between impact-related

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Diagnostic impact fracture (DIF) and microlinear impact traces (MLIT) on dorsal side on a Jericho point from the EPPNB Kharaysin (Photos: B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Multiple striations on dorsal side on an Aswad point from the EPPNB Kharaysin (a1-3 different magnifications), potential missed shots into the ground (Photos: B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Diagnostic impact fractures on the tip and tang of a Jericho point from the MPPNB Kharaysin, with multiple striations on the left dorsal edge indicating potential friction with a mineral (Photos: B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8.** Diagnostic impact fractures on the tips of two Jericho points from the MPPNB Kharaysin (Photos: B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>
breakages and those caused by production, trampling, or crushing. Impact fractures and microscopic striations result from kinetic energy restitution against hard materials (Soriano 1998). To distinguish impact fractures, we followed criteria for step-termination bending, burin-like, and spin-off fractures (Fischer et al. 1984; Clarkson 2016). Burin-like fractures measuring 15 mm and spin-off fractures of 5 mm were considered diagnostic, while all bending fractures were significant for the analyses. Alongside DIFs we considered linear micro polish and/or bundles of striations (MLIT), which result from micro-removals upon impact, dragged across the surface (Fischer et al. 1984) as second type of damage markers.

Prior to microscopic observation, points from Kharaysin and Dja'de were cleaned with soapy water, carefully avoiding areas where residues had already been identified with the naked eye and additionally with the Perfex Science and Olympus SZX7 stereo microscopes (up to 45x and 60x respectively). In the second step, tools were examined at high magnification (100x-400x) using a Leica DM 2500 M and an Olympus BHM reflected-light optical microscope to identify and describe micro-wear patterns. Micrographs were taken with the Leica DFC 420 camera attached to the Leica DM 2500 M metallographic microscope (for Kharaysin and Dja'de tools) and a digital SLR camera (Canon EOS 550D) attached to the Olympus microscope via an adapter (OM-Mount Photomicro Adapter L) (for part of the Dja'de assemblage). Macroscopic images were also captured using a Hirox RH-2000 3D Digital microscope and a Nikon D7100 digital single-lens reflex camera with an AF-S 105 mm macro lens for Kharaysin tools, and a Canon EOS 1300D equipped with an EF-S 60 mm macro lens for Dja'de tools.

### 3. Results

#### 3.1. Impact traces & damage markers

In the EPPNB assemblage from Kharaysin (22 points), diagnostic impact fractures (DIF) of the tips alone (without other marks) were recorded on three points, with one also exhibiting a tang fracture likely resulting from the projectile's penetration and subsequent breakage in the haft. Microscopic linear impact traces (MLIT) or straight linear polishes (striations) were solely (without other damage markers) documented on five points, while two points displayed both fractures and striations (see comparisons on Fig. 12). Some of the striations are indicative of contact with mineral surfaces, suggesting that these projectiles may have missed their targets and struck the ground (Fig. 6). The diagnostic fractures are primarily characterized by bending and step terminations and burin-like fractures. These results indicate that 45.45 % of the studied points were used as thrown projectiles, exhibiting clear impact traces or damage markers (Figs. 5, 7, 8). Within the Kharaysin MPPNB collection (79 points), 26 points displayed diagnostic impact fractures of the tips (without other marks), with four of these also showing tang fractures. Striations were observed on nine points (alone without impact fractures), and ten points exhibited both fractures and striations, indicating projectile use in 56.25 % of the points (Fig. 12). The tip impact fractures were characterized as bending (13 examples), bending with spin-off traces (2 examples), burin-like fractures (6 examples), and those with bending, step terminations, and additional tip crashing in combinations on both dorsal and ventral sides (15 examples). Additionally, a significant number of points showed unclear breakages that could not be associated with characteristic impact fractures, mainly presenting as flat tip breaks.

Within the sample studied from Dja'de (n = 64), 28 arrowheads exhibited diagnostic fractures, of which 2 examples show solely a violent

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9. Impact fracture and MLIT observed on a short-tanged type arrowhead from Dja'de III. (Photos: F. Pichon).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 10.** Impact fractures and MLIT observed on proto-Byblos points (1–3) and a lozenge-based arrowheads (4) from Dja’de III. The number 3 was reused for butchery activities. (Photos: F. Pichon).</figcaption></figure>

impact alone, and furthermore linear polish (without other traces) extending parallel to the axis of the piece (in 18 examples), or a combination of both types (DIF and MLIT) of use-wear damage (in 8 examples) (see comparisons on Fig. 12). The fractures are characterized by bending initiation and step termination. Their lengths range between 2 and 7 mm, extending on one face and, less commonly, along one of the edges as a burin-like fracture (1 example). Additionally, one instance of a spin-off fracture was noted. The linear polish and striations are distributed toward the interior face of the blade or near the distal break. Overall, 43.75 % of the analysed points exhibit traces resulting from use as projectiles, indicating their use in vertical thrown percussion (Figs. 9-11).

The absence of impact traces on nearly 54.5 % (EPPNB) and 43.75 % (MPPNB) of points at Kharaysin and 57 % of points at Dja'de (Fig. 12) does not necessarily indicate that they were not used as projectiles as the retooling of the distal end may have completely erased the impact-

related traces. Moreover, sometimes, thrown projectiles do not show impact fractures. It is likely that a significant number of the studied points from both sites were repaired, which would explain why some of them appear intact and why only around the half of the assemblages at both sites show impact traces (Fig. 12). Several arrowheads without impact traces have been repaired multiple times, and on a few points, impact traces are intersected by posterior retouching.

The retooling of projectiles is a well-documented technical behaviour both archaeologically and ethnographically, often motivated by the energy invested in manufacturing these objects (Towner and Warburton, 1990). Retooling is commonly recognized by a significant reduction in the original size of points, which often leads to the loss of their original symmetry and proportions, for example, in Jericho points where the tang may remain long while the body is shortened or reshaped. As a result, some retooled points develop a concave or waisted outline, especially along the lateral edges, due to new, intensive retouch and
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 11. MLIT observed on an Aswad point (1) and a denticulated-tanged point (2) from Dja'de. The number 3 presents subparallel and unidirectional striations oriented along the point longitudinal axis on the ventral face of the tang. The numbers 2 and 3 were reused for bone working (Photos: F. Pichon).</figcaption></figure>

resharpening (Fig. 13).

3.2. Hafting mode/technology

Although the shafts have not been found at Kharaysin and Dja'de, indirect evidence may provide insights into the hafting process of the

points. First, on both sites, the localisation of the impact traces, associ-
ated with the general morphology of the arrowheads, suggests that the
impact occurred along the longitudinal axis of the points, indicating a
basal and axial hafting. At Kharaysin, only a few points from the EPPNB
and MPPNB display dark brown and black spots on the tang or in the
proximity to it, most likely linked to the use of organic adhesive.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 12. Summary of diagnostic impact fractures (DIF), striations (MLIT), and absence of impact traces in projectile points from Kharaysin and Dja'de (B. Milić & F. Pichon).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 13. Examples of retooling based on size, form and profiles of shortened points from the EPPNB (1) and MPPNB (2, 3) Kharaysin (Photos: B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>

Occasionally, small striations and patches of polish oriented longitudi-
nally along the tang and close to the wings of points indicate hafting, and
are in topography different from the “greasy” residue which most likely
comes from the sediment sticking on points that were secondarily burnt.
At Dja’de, black-brown coloured remains of residues were observed at
low magnification on a few points. These residues were preserved very
partially as scattered patches exclusively distributed on the proximal
tang of the points, indicating hafting as a straight tip using an adhesive.
In the studied sample, the residues are not well preserved enough to
provide a clear image of their distribution on the proximal parts. At
Halula, during the Middle PPNB, the good preservation of the lime-
plaster adhesive remains discovered on large-tanged projectile points

showed that it was distributed over the entire tang and applied directly
to the stone (Borell and Štefanisko, 2016).

At Dja'de, striations were observed on the proximal part of four
points, on the ventral face for three of them and the dorsal face for one.
These subparallel and unidirectional "bundles of striations" are consis-
tently oriented along the point longitudinal axis and are associated with
compact and marginal micropolish distributed on the protruding parts
of the topography (ridges of the inverse retouch on the ventral face or
dorsal ridge on the upper face). These types of traces may result from
friction generated either upon impact between the base of the point and
the hafting element, or during the insertion or extraction of the base into
the shaft. The latter would correspond to a male-type hafting
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 14.** Examples of use-wear traces on points from MPPNB Kharaysin – 1: Sickle blade recycled into a point exhibiting additional impact fracture; 2: Bone cutting activity on a point with potentially repaired tip fracture; 3: retooled point re-used for drilling (a1, b1) and scraping mineral material along the dext. edge (a2, a3), with striations resulting from the contact with mineral (b2, b3, potential missing shot); 4: Cutting mineral (a1, a2) and traces linked to multiple frictions with mineral (a3, a4) (Photos: B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>
1

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

2

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

3

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 15. Examples of usewear patterns observed on different types of recycled arrowheads at Dja'de. 1: A denticulated-tanged point reused for scraping vegetal matter. 2: An Aswad point reused for sawing bone. 3: A Byblos point reused for drilling stone (Photos: F. Pichon).</figcaption></figure>
arrangement, in which the stone tool is inserted into the shaft (Rots 2008: 43-44).

### 3.3. Other wear-traces

In the Kharaysin EPPNB assemblage, among 22 points four points exhibit use-wear patterns distinct from those associated with impact traces from projectile use. One point shows evidence of working with animal material, likely through scraping bone or antler, while another indicates use on mineral material, specifically scraping stone. Two points have contact traces with hard materials, though the specific function could not be determined in more detail. Additionally, four points have isolated traces, suggesting they were potentially recycled tools as no continuous activity could be concluded. Several of these points display clear signs of additional edge retouching, with patches of polish indicating contact with stone, which may have erased initial traces due to tool repair. This indicates that 18.2% of the points were clearly recycled for activities other than as projectiles, excluding points with isolated insecure traces. Notably, three of these eight points show diagnostic impact fractures, and one bears impact striations near the tip. Furthermore, 27.2% of the assemblage consists of points that were retooled, suggesting they were intended for secondary use, evidenced by changes in their original form and morphology, though they do not exhibit wear traces from other activities.

In the Kharaysin MPPNB assemblage, 29 points (36.25 %) exhibit use-wear patterns distinct from those associated with impact traces from projectile use. Among these, one retooled point was used again as a projectile, bearing additional impact traces that are chronologically later than the previous impact wear. Eleven points show traces from working with animal materials, including cutting meat (butchery) and hide, as well as bone (Fig. 14: 2). Five tools were employed in working mineral materials, featuring multiple used areas indicating cutting, scraping, and drilling of both hard and soft stones (Fig. 14: 2, 3, 4). Three points were used for working with vegetal materials: one for cutting wood, and two for cutting cereal. These two cereal-cutting points display different recycling patterns. One clearly transitioned from a sickle blade to a point, evidenced by an impact fracture interrupting or "cutting" through previous sickle gloss (Fig. 14: 1). The other example's chronology is unclear due to secondary heavy burning of the tool. One tool shows a combination of work with mineral and animal materials, indicating it was recycled into a burin used for scraping and engraving different materials. Finally, eight tools display wear patterns from cutting, scraping, and drilling soft and hard materials, though the specific materials cannot be clearly determined. These tools were likely used less intensively, resulting in faded edge wear that limits precise material determination. Among the 29 points, 18 show previous impact traces (7 with just fractures, 5 with just striations, and 6 with both fractures and striations). Additionally, seven points have faded and isolated traces and are not counted as clearly recycled points. Furthermore, nine points (11.25 %) were retooled but do not exhibit additional wear traces or impact wear.

At Dja'de, among the 64 analysed points, 35 were used for activities other than hunting (14 different functions or 54 used areas), representing over half of the sample (54.69 %). The primary use was for working animal materials (21 used areas), including butchery (7 used areas), hide cutting (5 used areas), and bone sawing and scraping (3 and 6 used areas, respectively). The processing of mineral materials is also well represented (15 used areas) by stone sawing (3 used areas), perforation (7 used areas), and scraping (5 used areas). Plant working (9 used areas) is evidenced by harvesting cereals (4 used areas) and reeds (3 used areas) and scraping plants/woody plants (3 used areas). Indeterminate materials (9 used areas) comprise scraping hard material (7 used areas), cutting (1 used area) and scraping (1 used area) a soft material.

This significant proportion of other functions than projectile is also observed among arrowheads with impact traces (n = 28), as 14 show

use-wear traces related to another activity (8 functions or 26 used areas) though the range of these other functions is less diverse. While the working of animal materials remains dominant (10 used areas), the processing of mineral materials (3 used areas) decreases in favour of plant materials (9 used areas) (see examples on Fig. 15). Uses related to mineral materials seem better attested on arrowheads without impact traces. However, this observation should be taken cautiously, as 7 arrowheads were used to perforate mineral material. Due to the significant abrasion it generates, this activity could have erased traces of any prior impact. The relative chronology between the impact traces and the used areas associated with other functions was determined for twelve pieces (i.e., 19 used areas), confirming their recycling in a wide array of activities after their primary use as a projectile (e.g., harvesting cereals, bone sawing and scraping, mineral scraping, butchery, hard material scraping). The sequence between their use as projectiles and other functions could not be determined in two cases. One arrowhead was employed for scraping plant material (5 used areas) and bone material (1 used area), while another was used for cutting an indeterminate soft material. While it is difficult to hypothesise about the chronology of use in the second case, the first one is clearer: the successive scrapings of plant materials created multiple notches on the arrowhead's edges, altering its straight-line delineation and effectiveness as a projectile. At Dja'de, the use of arrowheads for functions other than projectile appears thus to be a significant characteristic of the studied assemblage (see discussion).

### 4. Discussion

Projectile points were not only tools for hunting and warfare, but played a broader role within the economic, domestic, and social frameworks of early sedentary communities and also held symbolic significance. In the transition from the PPNA to the PPNB, we witness a structural shift: the role of lithic projectile points evolved from primarily hunting-related use to a more embedded, multifunctional position within households and broader economic strategies. As livestock keeping gains increasing importance during the PPNB, we observe a parallel rise in technical investment in lithic production – particularly in the use of bidirectional technology for producing long, regular blades from high-quality flint. Such skill-intensive method was employed to manufacture projectile points and is especially visible from the Middle PPNB onwards, when domesticated animals had become a major component of the subsistence economy. The production of these points, therefore, was not incidental but a deliberate investment. The shift observed in the PPNB represents not just a contextual adaptation but a structural change in the role of lithic tools. While projectile points in the Natufian and PPNA periods were primarily used for hunting, with far fewer examples showing their secondary use so far, evidence from the PPNB reveals a structural shift toward systematic reuse, repurposing, and transformation into other tool types. This suggests an embedded practice of maximizing lithic utility, integrated within broader Neolithic economic and social frameworks. The recycling strategies employed in the PPNB further indicate that points were likely curated within households, serving as a versatile tool reserve for various activities when hunting was not the primary need.

The use strategy of projectile points shows consistency between Kharaysin and Dja'de, despite notable differences in projectile types (e. g. Jericho vs. Byblos), prey species, ecological settings, and broader cultural contexts. This functional similarity suggests the presence of shared technological strategies or tool-use logic that extended across different regions in the SW Asia during the PPNB:

1. **Style:** Both Jericho and Byblos points at the two sites were used in comparable ways, regardless of their differing typological and symbolic associations. Byblos points, though present at Kharaysin, form only a marginal part of the assemblage, with Jericho points being
more prominent, and potentially linked to practices of group marking or social signalling.

2. **Prey Types and Domestication Processes:** Different strategies were likely employed for hunting hemiones, cattle and Persian gazelles at Dja'de and goats and mountain gazelles at Kharaysin, implicating variations in hunting groups, seasons, and risks. Nonetheless, projectile point use appears functionally consistent across both sites, indicating that social needs outweighed economic ones. This shared social need suggests a ritualized aspect to hunting as its economic role declined, aligning with Cauvin's hypothesis (1997).

The analysis of projectile points from Kharaysin and Dja'de, therefore reveals a complex picture of their use and significance in the Levantine PPN societies. Impact traces, such as diagnostic impact fractures (DIF) and microscopic linear impact traces (MLIT), were prevalent, confirming their primary role as projectiles. At Kharaysin, 45.45 % of points from the EPPNB and 56.25 % from the MPPNB exhibit impact wear, while Dja'de shows 43.75 % of the points with similar damage. These figures align with high DIF frequencies found at other PPNB sites like Motza (58.9 %), Tell Halula (60 %), and Abu Hureyra 2 (53 %) (Yaroshevich et al., 2023; Ibáñez and González-Urquijo, 2013; Moss, 1983). However, the absence of impact fractures at Sabi Abyad II (Astruc, 2011) and the lower percentages (16 %) at Çayönü Tepesi (Coşkunsu and Lemorini, 2001) suggest regional variations in point utilization and hunting strategies.

Beyond their role as projectiles, the multifunctional use of points is evident through wear patterns indicating tasks such as butchery, plant processing, and working with mineral materials, among others. At Dja'de over half of the points were repurposed for activities other than hunting, while at Kharaysin, 18.2 % of EPPNB and 36.25 % of MPPNB points were similarly recycled, although even more points at Kharaysin were most likely intended to be used secondarily according to their repair and form modification. This practice of retooling goes along with practices from sites like Mureybet, where more than 40 % of points during the PPNA were used for a variety of tasks (Ibáñez et al., 2007; Ibáñez et al., 2008). Similarly, at Abu Hureyra 2, many Byblos arrow-heads with impact traces were repurposed for working woody plants or reeds, while those without impact traces were used to work plant materials, cut and perforate skin, or work bone (Moss 1983).

The recurrence in retooling practices across various sites suggests a broadly consistent technological strategy in the 9th and beginning of the 8th millennium BC, likely shaped by similar adaptive needs and approaches to tool maintenance and reuse. While this pattern may reflect shared knowledge or traditions, the extent to which it signals direct cultural connections remains open to further exploitation. Functional analyses at 'Ain Ghazal, Tell Sabi Abyad, Tell Halula, and Çayönü Tepesi confirm that points were often employed in a range of tasks involving animal, mineral, and vegetal materials (Eighmey, 1992; Astruc, 2003; Ibáñez and González-Urquijo, 2013; Coşkunsu and Lemorini, 2001). Commonly observed activities included drilling bones and antlers, cutting and sawing soft mineral materials, butchery, engraving, woodwork, and plant processing (Ibáñez et al., 2008; Ibáñez and González-Urquijo, 2013; Astruc, 2011; Pichon, 2017; Coşkunsu and Lemorini, 2001).

Broader studies encompassing the PPNA period and comparisons with point use from other sites like Klimonas (Cyprus), Shubayqa (Jordan) (upcoming results from the Copenhagen Lithic PPN conference proceedings by L. Astruc and A. Jörgensen-Lindahlin), and later 7th and 6th mill. BC Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic Çatalhöyük East and West in central Anatolia (Dogiama, 2023; Vinet, 2024) could provide a more comprehensive understanding of these practices in a diachronic perspective. Such studies would help elucidate the temporal and regional variations in tool use and recycling, contributing to a deeper understanding of socio-economic values and the consumption of different blade blanks in Neolithic communities across SW Asia.

Ethnographic parallels further support the multifunctional use of projectile points. In various regions, including Australia, Alaska, and

Africa, the lateral edges of projectiles are used as butchering knives during hunting expeditions (Towner and Warburton 1990). This dual use likely occurred within the same functional context or through successive, independent uses.

Studies of projectile points have also prompted discussions on weaponry and shooting mechanisms during the PPNB in the Levant. Analyses of Byblos and Jericho points offer insights into the use of spears versus arrows and bows, while investigations into hafting strategies and the use of bitumen and lime plaster provide valuable information on the practical application of points (Borrell and Molist, 2007; Borrell and Stefanisko, 2016; Yaroshevich, 2013; Abbès and Pichon, 2022). Although the Kharaysin and Dja'de assemblages did not yield substantial organic residue evidence, further experimental programs are needed to explore hafting techniques and their implications for tool functionality and efficiency (Levi-Sala, 1993; Howard, 1999; Rots and Vermeersch, 2004; Rots, 2010).

Different lines of interpretation regarding the function of points during the PPNB highlight their specialized use in hunting and other domestic activities. Points were multifunctional, sometimes utilized in ad-hoc ways, and remained valued as projectiles even during the advent of agriculture. Recent evidence from Levantine burials and spatial analyses suggests alternative roles for points, including interpersonal violence (Barzilai and May 2022). Recent studies from Motza propose a new hypothesis pointing out that projectile points were not only used in hunting wild game but also played a significant role in the slaughtering of domestic animals, highlighting their versatility and the complex socio-economic practices of Neolithic communities (Yaroshevich et al., 2023) These results bring into focus the importance of integrating all lines of evidence – use-wear, recycling, retooling, spatial distribution, and contextual association – when assessing the full range of functions points may have served.

## 5. Conclusions

This study investigates the largest number of projectile points subjected to use-wear analysis in the Levant, comprising 165 points from Kharaysin in Jordan (Southern Levant) and Dja'de el-Mughara in Syria (Northern Levant). Our comprehensive analysis aimed to bridge the gap in understanding the socio-economic practices of Pre-Pottery Neolithic communities through the functional investigation of tool use. Despite differing ecological contexts, the projectile points from both sites exhibit strikingly similar patterns of use and reuse, suggesting that shared technological strategies were employed across varied Neolithic settings.

Our results confirm that projectile points were primarily used in hunting, as evidenced by diagnostic impact fractures (DIF) and microscopic linear impact traces (MLIT). However, a significant proportion of these tools also bear traces of other activities, including animal processing, plant work, and work with mineral materials, highlighting their multifunctional role. This reflects an adaptive strategy to maximize the utility of well-crafted tools and demonstrates how lithics remained embedded in everyday domestic and economic life. The consistent use, repair, and recycling of projectile points at both sites indicates that these behaviours were not isolated but formed part of a broader technological pattern. While this has previously been linked to the notion of a "PPNB cultural koiné", our study emphasizes instead the practical, resilient strategies adopted by Neolithic communities of the Southern and Northern Levant in response to shifting social and subsistence demands. The recurrence of similar reuse practices across ecologically distinct zones as in case of Kharaysin and Dja'de may reflect broadly comparable technological responses to shared challenges, though whether these similarities result from cultural connections and interconnectedness between Neolithic communities, knowledge transmission, or convergent adaptation remains open to further investigation. Finally, the importance of hunting persisted even as herding became progressively central to subsistence strategies, reflecting a complex interplay between traditional practices and emerging agricultural background.
The high frequency of recycling and retooling of points at the two sites demonstrates the value placed on lithic resources and suggests an embedded technological system in which tools circulated across multiple tasks and contexts. Ultimately, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of socio-economic organization in the early Neolithic Levant. The multifunctional and curated use of projectile points offers a window into the flexible and contextually adaptive strategies employed by early farming communities as they navigated new lifeways, environments, and technological demands during the Neolithisation of Southwest Asia.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Bogdana Milić:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Fiona Pichon:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Juan José Ibáñez:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Lionel Gourichon:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements

This study of Kharaysin points was conducted as part of the post-doctoral project ARROWFUNC by the first author, B.M., awarded by the Erwin Schrödinger fellowship. The research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (Grant no. J4563, https://doi.org/10.55776/J4563). We also acknowledge the project of J.J.I., "PID2022-142075NB-I00", funded by the MCIN/AEI and Palarq Foundation in Spain for the excavations and material studies at Kharaysin. The study of Dja'de el Mughara material was conducted during the PhD thesis of F.P., with financial support from Paris-Sorbonne University as part of a doctoral contract (2011-2014) and from the UMR 8167 Orient & Méditerranée (CNRS), for short research stays at the IMF-CSIC in Barcelona. This research was also supported by funding from the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, as part of the project for publishing the results of the excavation at the site of Dja'de, "Dja'de el Mughara: A Ninth Millennium Sequence in the Euphrates Valley (Syria)". We are grateful to the Jordanian authorities for granting us permission to study the Kharaysin material at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) in Barcelona, and to the Directorate-General for Antiquities and Museums of Syria, which granted the excavation permit and authorized the export of the archaeological tools from Dja'de el Mughara, as well as the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We want to thank Ferran Borrell who did the technological study of a part of the Kharaysin lithic assemblage prior to the use-wear analysis program on points conducted in Barcelona, and Ignacio Clemente-Conte for engaging in various discussions regarding the topic of projectile use and recycling. We also thank the Archaeology and Social Dynamics (ASD) group of the IMF-CSIC in Barcelona and its members for their support and the use of the reference collection during the study of points in 2022 and 2023. Finally, we thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions, which encouraged a more reflective approach to interpretation.

## Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## References

Abbès, F., 2003. Les outillages néolithiques en Syrie du Nord. Méthode de débitage et gestion laminaire durant le PPNB. British Archaeological Reports S.1150. BAR Publishing, Oxford.

Abbès, F., Pichon, F., 2022. Arrows and Archery during the PPNB. An Experimental Approach: Points Production and Use, in: Nishiaki, Y., Maeda, O., Arimura, M. (Eds.), Tracking the Neolithic in the Near East. Lithic Perspectives on Its Origins, Development and Dispersals. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp. 33–47.

Abbès, F., Sánchez-Priego, 2008. Matières premières siliceuses et comportements technique. In: Ibáñez, J.J. (Ed.), Le Site Néolithique De Tell Mureybet (syrie Du Nord), En Hommage à Jacques Cauvin. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 231–236.

Arimura, M., 2020. The Neolithic Lithic Industry at tell Ain El-Kerkh. Sidestone Press, Leiden.

Astruc, L., 2003. Des pointes de flèche aux faucilles. Mutations économiques et sociales au VIIe millénaire av. JC en Méditerranée orientale: l’exemple de la vallée du Balikh (Syrie du Nord). Annales De La Fondation Fyssen 18, 69–77.

Astruc, L., 2011. Points and glossed pieces from Tell Sabi Abyad II and Tell Damishliyya I (Balikh Valley, Djzireh): a view from use-wear analysis. In: Healey, E., Campbell, S., Maeda, O. (Eds.), The State of the Stone. Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. SENEPSE 13. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 465–473.

Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture. Evol. Anthropol. 6 (5), 159–177.

Bar-Yosef, O., 2010. Warfare in Levantine Early Neolithic A Hypothesis to Be Considered. Neolithics 1 (10), 6–10.

Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 1989. The Levantine “PPNB” Interaction Sphere, in: Hershkovitz, I. (Ed.), People and Culture in Change. British Archaeological Reports International Series 508, pp. 59-72.

Barzilai, O., 2010. Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies: The Bidirectional Blade Industries. Ex Oriente.

Barzilai, O., May, H., 2022. Weapons or Hunting Tools? Evaluating the Role of Big Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant, in: Nishiaki, Y., Maeda, O., Arimura, M. (Eds.), Tracking the Neolithic in the Near East. Lithic Perspectives on Its Origins, Development and Dispersals. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp. 49–58.

Borrell, F., Khalaily, H., 2016. Reconstructing the last stages of bidirectional blade technology in the Levant: North and South (Dis)connections. Paléorient 42 (2), 73-95.

Borrell, F., Molist, M., 2007. Projectile points, sickle blades & glossed points: tools and hafting systems in tell Halula (Syria) during the Mid VIIIth Millennium Cal. B.C. Paléorient 33 (2), 59-78.

Borrell, F., Stefanisko, D., 2016. Reconstructing projectile technology during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B in the Levant: an integrated approach to large tanged points from Halula. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 69, 130–142.

Borrell, F., Ibáñez, J.J., Muñiz, J., Teira, L., 2019. The PPNB chipped stone industries from Kharaysin (Zarqa Valley, Jordan): preliminary insights, in: Astruc, L., McCartney, C., Briois, F., Kassianidou, V. (Eds.), Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move. Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Vol. CL. Astrom Editions, Uppsala, pp. 257–266.

Borrell, F., Ibáñez, J.J., Clemente, I., Muñiz, J., 2022. Production and use of Nahal Hemar knives in the Levant during the PPNB. New evidence from Kharaysin (Jordan), in: Nishiaki, Y., Maeda, O., Arimura, M. (Eds.), Tracking the Neolithic of the Near East. Lithic Perspectives on its Origins, Developments and Dispersals. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp. 69–85.

Cauvin, J., 1997. Naissance des divinités, naissance de l'agriculture. La revolution des symboles au Néolithique, CNRS Editions, Paris.

Clare, L., Gebel, H.G.K. (Eds.), 2010. Special Topic: Warfare in Levantine Early Neolithic. Neo-Lithics 1/10, 3–73.

Clarkson, C., 2016. Testing archaeological approaches to determining past projectile delivery systems using ethnographic and experimental data. In: Iovita, R., Sano, K. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 189–201.

Coquegniot, E., 1994. L'industrie lithique de Dja'de-el-Mughara et le début du PPNB sur l'Euphrate syrien (sondages 1991 et 1992), in: Gebel, H.G.K, Koszlowski, K. (Eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries (Berlin, 1993), Ex Oriente: Berlin, pp. 313–330.

Coquegniot, E., 1998. Dja'de el-Mughara (Moyen Euphrate), un village néolithique dans son environnement naturel à la veille de la domestication, in Fortin, M., Aurenche, O. (Eds), Espace naturel, espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10è-2è millénaires av. J.-C.), Maison de l'Orient: Lyon, pp. 109–114.

Coquegniot, E., 2003. Unité et diversité des industries lithiques taillées au Proche-Orient (Levant et Anatolie méridionale) du IXe au VIIe millénaire, in: Guilaine, J., Le Brun, A. (Eds), Le Néolithique de Chypre, École française d'Athènes: Athènes, pp. 373–387.

Coquegniot, E., 2014. Dja'de (Syrie) et les représentations symboliques au 9e millénaire cal. BC. In: Manen, C., Perrin, T., Guilaine, J. (Eds.), La Transition Néolithique En Méditerranée, Actes Du Colloque : Transitions En Méditerranée Ou Comment Des Chasseurs Devinrent Agriculteurs, Muséum De Toulouse, 14-15 Avril 2011. Errance, Paris, pp. 91–108.
Coşkunsu, G., Lemorini, C., 2001. The function of Pre-Pottery Neolithic projectile points: the limits of morphological analogy. In: Zampetti, D., Biagi, P., Lemorini, C., Caneva, I. (Eds.). Beyond Tools: Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the Levant. Ex Oriente. Berlin, pp. 145-159.

Dietrich, L., Rokita-Krumnow, D., Dietrich, O., 2019. The meaning of projectile points in the late Neolithic of the Northern Levant. A case study from the settlement of Shir, Syria. Documenta Praehistorica XLVI, 340-350.

Dogiama, L., 2023. Projectile Points, Hunting and Identity at Neolithic çatalhöyük, Turkey. British Archaeological Reports S3116. BAR publishing, Oxford.

Douché, C., Pichon, F., 2018. Agricultural strategies at Dja'de el-Mughara (Northern Syria). In: Douché, C., Pichon, F. (Eds.), From the Caucasus to the Arabian Peninsula: Domestic Spaces in the Neolithic. Routes of l'Orient, Paris, pp. 119-149.

Douché, C., Willcox, G., 2018. New archaeobotanical data from the Early Neolithic sites of Dja'de el-Mughara and tell Aswad (Syria). Paléorient 44 (2), 45-58.

Driver, J.C., 1995. Social hunting and multiple predation. In: Campana, D.V. (Ed.), Before Farming: Hunter-Gatherer Society and Subsistence. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, MASCAResearch Papers in Science and Archaeology, pp. 23-38.

Eighmey, H., 1992. A functional Analysis of Projectile Points from the Neolithic Site of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Unpublished MA Dissertation, San Diego University.

Fischer, A., Hansen, P.V., Rasmussen, P., 1984. Macro and micro wear traces on lithic projectile points: Experimental results and prehistoric examples. J. Danish Archaeol. 3 (1), 19-46.

González-Urquijo, J.E., Ibáñez, J.J., 1994. Metodologia de analisis funcional de instrumentos tallados en silex. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao.

Gopher, A., 1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant. A Seriation Analyses. American Schools of Oriental Research: Dissertation Series 10. Eisenbrauns, Indiana.

Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2010. A roof over one's head: Developments in Near Eastern residential architecture across the Epipaleolithic-Neolithic transition. In: Finlayson, B., Warren, G. (Eds.), Landscapes in Transition. Oxbow Books, pp. 105-114.

Gourichon, L., 2004. Faune et saisonnalité. L'organisation temporelle des activités de subsistance dans l'Epipaleolithique et le Néolithique précéramique du Levant nord (Syrie). Université Lumière-Lyon 2, Lyon. Ph.D. thesis.

Helmer D., Saña Seguí, M., Willcox G., 1998. Interprétations environnementales des données archéozoologiques archéobotaniques en Syrie du Nord de 16000 BP à 7000 BP et les débuts de la domestication des plantes et des animaux », in: Fortin, M., Aurenche, O. (Eds.), Espace naturel, espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10è-2e millénaires av. J.-C.), Maison de l'Orient: Lyon, pp. 9-33.

Helmer, D., Gourichon, L., Monchot, H., Peters, J., Saña Seguí, M., 2005. Identifying early domestic cattle from Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites on the Middle Euprates using sexual dimorphism. In: Vigné, J.-D., Peters, J., Helmer, D. (Eds.), The First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeozological Approaches. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 86-95.

Henry, D.O., 1989. From Foraging to Agriculture: the Levant at the end of the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Howard, C.D., 1999. Amorphous Silica, Soil Solutions, and Archaeological Flint Gloss. North American Archaeologist 20 (3), 209-215.

Ibáñez, J.J., González-Urquijo, J.E., 2013. La función de los útiles en el yacimiento de tell Halula (8700-7500 BP) Valle del Euprates. Siria. In: Molist, M. (Ed.), Tell Halula: Un Poblado de Los Primeros Agricultores En El Valle Del Eúrates. Siria. Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp. 356-385.

Ibáñez, J.J., González Urquijo, J., Rodríguez, A., 2007. The Evolution of Technology during the PPN in the Middle Euprates, a view from use wear analysis of lithic tools. In: Astruc, L., Binder, D., Briois, F. (Eds.), Systèmes Techniques et Communautés Du Néolithique Précéramique Au Proche-Orient/technical Systems and near Eastern PPN Communities. Antibes, APDCA, pp. 153-165.

Ibáñez, J.J., González-Urquijo, J.E., Rodríguez Rodriguez, A., 2008. Analyse fonctionnelle de l'outillage lithique de Mureybet. In: Ibáñez, J.J. (Ed.), Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie du Nord), En hommage à Jacques Cauvin. British Archaeological Reports 1843. BAR publishing, Oxford, pp. 363-405.

Ibáñez, J.J., Muñiz, J.R., Iriarte, E., Monik, M., Santana, J., Teira, L., Corrada, M.A., Lagüera, Z., Lendakova, Z., Regalado, E., Rosillo, R., 2015. Kharaysin: a PPNA and PPNB site by the Zarqa River: 2014 and 2015 field seasons. Neo-Lithics 2 (15), 11-19.

Ibáñez, J.J., Muñiz, J.R., Huet, T., Teira, L., Borell, F., Rosillo, R., Iriarte, E., Teira, L., Kuda, F., 2020. Flint 'figurines' from the Early Neolithic site of Kharaysin, Jordan. Antiquity 94 (376), 880-899.

Ibáñez, J.J., Anderson, P.C., Arranz-Otaegui, A., González-Urquijo, J.E., Jörgensen-Lindahl, A., Mazzucco, N., Pichon, F., Richter, T., 2021. Sickle Gloss Texture Analysis elucidates Long-Term Evolution of Plant Harvesting during the transition to Agriculture. J. Archaeol. Sci. 136, 105502.

Khalaily, H., Vardi, J., Karasik, A., Barzilai, O., 2022. 3D Morpho-Metric Analysis of PPNB Arrowheads from Motza. Preliminary Results, in: Nishiaki, Y., Maeda, O., Arimura, M. (Eds.), Tracking the Neolithic in the Near East. Lithic Perspectives on Its Origins, Development and Dispersals. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp. 59-68.

Kozłowski, S.K., 1999. The big arrowhead industries in the Near East. Neo Lithics 2 (99), 8-10.

Levi-Sala, I., 1996. A Study of Microscopic polish on Flint Implements. British Archaeological Reports INT 629. BAR Publishing, Oxford.

Masson, A., 1981. Pétroarchéologie des roches siliceuses. Intérêt en Préhistoire. Thèse de doctorat. Université Lyon 1.

Monik, M., Lendaková, Z., Ibáñez, J.J., Muñiz, J., Borell, F., Iriarte, E., Teira, L., Kuda, F., 2018. Revealing early villages: pseudo-3D ERT geophysical survey at the pre-pottery Neolithic site of Kharaysin, Jordan. Archaeol. Prospect. 25, 339-346.

Moss, E.H., 1983. A microwear analysis of burins and points from tell Abu Hureyra, Syria. In: Cauvin, M.-C. (Ed.), Traces d'utilisation sur Les Outils Néolithiques Du Proche-Orient (TMO, 5). Mison de l'Orient méditerranéen, Lyon, pp. 143-157.

Müller-Neuhof, B., 2014. What did they need arrowheads for? Thoughts about projectile points and hunting strategies in the SW-Asian PPN. In: Finlayson, B., Makarewicz, C. (Eds.), Settlement, Survey, and Stone. Essays on Near Eastern Prehistory in Honour of Gary Rollefson, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 227-233.

O'Farrell, M., 2005. Les pointes de La Gravette de Cobiac (Dordogne) et considérations sur la chasse du Paléolithique supérieur ancien, in: Bodu, P., Constantin, C. (Eds.), Approches fonctionnelles en préhistoire (Actes du XXVe congrès SPF, Nanterre, nov. 2000). Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, pp. 121-138.

Pichon, F., 2017a. Traditions culturelles dans les premières communautés villageoises du Levant Nord : analyse fonctionnelle de l'outillage en silex de Dja'de el-Mughara (Syrie, PPNB ancien, 9ème millénaire). Paris-Sorbonne University. Phd Thesis:

Pichon, F., 2017b. Exploitation des cereals during the Pre-pottery Neolithic of Dja'de el Mughara: Preliminary results of the functional study of the glossy blades. Quat. Int. 427, 138-151.

Pichon, F., 2019. Utilisation des outils en silex pour l'exploitation alimentaire et artisanale des végétaux à Dja'de el-Mughara durant le PPNB ancien (Syrie, 9ème millénaire). In: Astruc, L., Briois, F. (Eds.), Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. Nicosia, Astrom Editions, pp. 305-321.

Pichon, F., Ibáñez, J.J., 2021. Knapped Tools for Obtaining Food Resources in the Origins of Farming in the Near East, in: Vieugué, J., Mazzucco, N. (Eds.), Collecting, storing, preparing and consuming foodstuffs: the diversity of dietary practices among the first farming societies of the Mediterranean. Food and History 19(1-2), 111-134. DOI: 10.1484/J.FOOD.5.126402.

Pichon, F., Ibáñez, J.J., Anderson, P.C., Douché, C., Coqueugniot, É., 2021. Harvesting cereals at Dja'de el-Mughara in the northern Levant: New results through microtexture analysis of Early PPNB sickle gloss (11th millennium cal BP). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 36, 102807.

Plissot, H., Geneste, J.M., 1989. Analyse technologique des pointes à crans solutréennes du Placard (Charente), du Fourneau du Diable, du Pech de la Boissière et de Combe Saunière (Dordogne). Paléo 1, 65-106.

Regert, M., 2004. Investigating the history of prehistoric glues by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Sep. Sci. 27, 244-254.

Rollefson, G.O., Köhler-Rollefson, I., 1989. The Collapse of Early Neolithic Settlements in the Southern Levant, in: Hershkovitz, I. (Ed.), People and Culture in Change. British Archaeological Reports International Series 508, pp. 73-90.

Rots, V., 2008. Hafting and raw materials from animals. Guide to the identification of hafting traces on stone tools. Anthropozoologica 43 (1), 43-66.

Rots, V., 2010. Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools. Leuven University Press, Leuven, A Methodology.

Rots, V., Vermeersch, P.M., 2004. Experimental characterization of hafting traces and their recognition in archaeological assemblages. In: Walker, E.A., Wenban-Smith, F., Healy, F. (Eds.), Lithics in Action. Oxbow Press, Oxford, pp. 156-168.

Rots, V., Williamson, B., 2004. Microwear and residue analyses in perspective: the contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 1287-1299.

Saña, S.M., 1999. Arqueologia da domesticação animal. La gestión de los recursos animales en tell Halula (Valle del éuprates, Siria) de 8800 al 7000 BP. Treballs D'arqueologia Del Pròxim Orient 1, 1-288.

Simmons, A.H., 2007. The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape. University of Arizona Press.

Soriano, S., 1998. Les microgravettes du Périgordien de Rabie à Lanquais (Dordogne): analyse technologique fonctionnelle. Gallia Préhistoire 40, 75-94.

Towner, R.H., Warburton, M., 1990. Projectile Point Rejuvenation: a Technological Analysis. J. Field Archaeol. 17 (3), 311-321.

Van Gijn, A., 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sidestone Press, Leiden.

Vaughan, P., 1985. Use-wear analysis of flaked stone tools. The University of Arizona Press.

Vigne, J.-D., Cucchi, T., Rousou, M., Bailon, S., Carrère, I., Devillers, B., Douché, C., Gourichon, L., Hadjikoumis, A., Mylona, P., Papayianni, K., Parès, A., Tengberg, M., Zazzo, A., Guilaine, J., Briois, F., 2023. Historical dynamics of the human-environment interactions in Cyprus during the 12th-10th millennia cal. BP: the last 30 years contributions of the Amathous area (Limassol district). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 50, 104049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.104049.

Vinet, A., 2024. in press). Rethinking the Function of the Early Chalcolithic Points from çatalhöyük-West and Tepecik-ciflik (Türkiye. In: Vinet, A., Guilbeau, D., Milić, B. (Eds.), Strategies of Obsidian Procurement, Knapping and Use in the First Farming Societies from the Caucasus to the Mediterranean. Oriental and European Archaeology Series (OREA, Vol. 29. Austrian Academy of Science Press, Vienna.

Watkins, T., 2010. New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia. Antiquity 84 (325), 621-634.

Willcox, G., Fornite, S., Herveux, L., 2008. Reconstruction of ancient vegetation and of climate conditions on the Euprates at the end of the Pleistocene beginning of the Holocene. In: Buxo, R., Molist, M. (Eds.), MENMED From the adoption of agriculture to the current landscape: long term interaction between man and environment in the east Mediterranean basin. Museu d'Arqueologia de Catalunya Barcelona, Monografies vol. 9, pp. 29-33.

Willcox, G., Roitel, R., 1998. Rapport archéobotanique préliminaire de trois sites précéramiques du Moyen-Euphrate (Syrie). Cahiers De L'euphrate 8, 65-79.

Willcox, G., Fornite, S., Herveux, L., 2008. Early Holocene cultivation before domestication in northern Syria. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 17 (3), 313-325.
Yaroshevich, A., 2013. The earliest identified adhesive material in the Levant: bitumen discovered on Levallois points at the Middle Paleolithic site of Umm El Tlel. J. Field Archaeol. 38 (4), 318–327.

Yaroshevich, A., Eirikh-Rose, A., Khalaily, H., 2023. Management of symbols: Weapons variability and the emergence of large tanged points in early Pre-Pottery Neolithic

context of Motza, Judean Hills, Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103790,

Zeder, M.A., 2011. The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. Curr. Anthropol. 52 (S4),
S221-S235.