aggsbach.

de
http://www.aggsbach.de/2014/05/denominating-lamelles-during-the-early-paleolithic-in-sw-asia-examples-from-kebara-
israel/
by Katzman May 4, 2014
Denominating Lamelles during the Early Paleolithic in S/W-
Asia: Examples from Kebara / Israel
These are Bladelets (max 4,5 cm long) f rom the early Ahmarian at Kebara: f rom lef t to right: Two
unretouched lamelles, the proximal 2/3 of a Font Yves point and an El-Wad point with some (impact?)
damage at the tip.
Neuville and Garrod early noticed the similarity between the early Upper Paleolithic retouched lamelles in the
Levant and points of the Font Yves type. Garrod called these armatures: El Wad points
(http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/07/ahmarian-bladeletpoint/). Compared to the Font Yves points, which have
a f usif orm appearance and direct, bilateral semi abrupt retouches on both ends and are mostly
weakly curved, the El Wad category is more diversif ied. El Wad points may be described as f lat blades or
bladelets, pointed by f ine, semi abrupt or abrupt retouch on the dorsal surf ace at only the distal end. A
f usif orm appearance may be present or not. The retouch may extend continuously or discontinuously along
only one or along both margins of the blade/bladelet. The blanks have an almost perf ect shape f or an
armature and of ten needed only minimal modif ications or were used without any retouch (the lazy
Ahmarians). The points may be straight or even curved or twisted (note that the latter attribute in the
European terminology are reserved f or the Duf our category). The Abu Halka variant at Ksar Akil has been
def ined by Azoury as having an inverse retouch on the proximal end.
While El Wad Points are common during the Ahmarian between 43-20 k.a. cal BP, they are rare, but not
absent during the short episode of the Levantine Aurignacian at Kebara and Ksar Akil at ca 36-32 k.a. BP
(http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/09/aurignacian-in-the-southern-levant/). Early dates f or the Ahmarian around
45-40 k.a. cal BP have been published f rom Kebara layer IIIa, IIIb, and IVb and IV/V, Qaf zeh level 9 and Boker
A and Stratum 17 at Ksar Akil. Other dates are younger: azl, layer B is dated between 28 and 33 k.a. BP
and at Qseimeh I, dates on ostrich samples give an age of circa 34 k.a. BP. At the sites of Lagama IIID, VII
and VIII, Qadesh Barnea 601B and 501, Abu Noshra I and Abu Noshra II, most of the dates range between
36 and 30 k.a. BP.
The main typological categories of the Aurignacian toolkit
in the Zagros show, together with a clear abundance of
bladelet tools, primarily Arjeneh points. These are
def ined as bladelets with a nearly rectilinear section, with
short direct retouch limited to the edges to produce a
f usif orm contour, very similar to the original Font-Yves
points. At Yaf teh cave, bladelets were obtained in
dif f erent ways: f rom bladelet cores, f rom ake edges and
f rom the proximal ends of carinated burins. Classic
Duf our bladelets are also present. The toolkit also
includes Aurignacian blades, sometimes pointed,
numerous burins of dif f erent types, endscrapers on
blades and splintered pieces. In addition to bladelet tools,
tools unique to the Aurignacian carinated endscrapers
and burins are also present. The calibrated C-14 dates,
using Bayesian statistics, show a single chronological
signal, between 37 and 39 cal BP near the Heinrich 4
event. In addition radiometric ages f rom Yaf teh overlap
some of the Early Ahmarian dates at Kebara and Ksar Akil.
Based on these data Otte recently proposed: Based on the available archeological and chronological
dataset, the f ollowing hypothesis is proposed. It is generally accepted that Ahmarian and Levantine
Aurignacian are distinct technocomplexes. From a phylogenetic point of view, Yaf teh could then be seen as
a hypothetical taxonomic unit between technological traditions derived f rom the Early Ahmarian and the
Levantine Aurignacian.
During the Protoaurignacian of S-Europe, Bladelets were produced f rom pyramidal / prismatic cores,
which were also used f or blade production. Several sub-types of lamelles have been described: Firstly,
Large Lamelles Duf our (subtype Duf our) with straight or only slightly curved prof ile. If tipped and alternately
retouched they are also called Krems Point (other researchers subsume the Krems Point category under
the St Yves points with alternately retouches) and secondly, large St. Yves Points, of ten with invasive
retouches. The tools of the classic Aurignacien ancient are absent.
The Mediterranean Protoaurignacian (at Castelcivita) and Uluzzian
(at Castelcivita and Cavallo) and similar are f ound below the
Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) Y-5 tephra and are theref ore older than 39
k.a. cal BP. These data are af f irmed by the f act that pretreated-AMS
dated-C-14 samples at of the Protoaurignacian in Italy situate this
techno complex at ca. 41-40 k.a. cal BP.
Last but not least, there are analogies to the EUP of the Levant and
S-Europa, coming f rom the Don-area: Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora)
The oldest cultural level at this site contains a small lithic
assemblage (n=340) with no cores and very f ew tools (ca 1%);
however, among these tools are highly characteristic Duf our
bladelets similar to examples f rom the Protoaurignacian. The anchor
f or the early upper Paleolithic Kostenki chronology is again the Y5
tephra. The lowest EUP at Kostenki is immediately bef ore and
incorporated within the Y5 tephra and theref ore roughly coincident
with the Italian Protoaurignacian.
It is f ascinating to see the rapid development of bladelet technologies over such a vast area almost at the
same time (http://www.aggsbach.de/2014/01/13656/). The important questions: monocentric or polycentric
origin-and if monocentric origin: where did it happen?, and: why did it happen?-have to be resolved in the
f uture..