A. YAROSHEVICH
Department of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Israel

Department of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Israel

E-mail: allmile@yahoo.com

Introduction

The transition to the production of microliths is undoubtedly one of the turning points in the history of stone tools. Microlithic tools appeared in Africa, Europe, and Southwest Asia at the end of the Pleistocene and by the time of the last glacial maximum (ca.20 thousand years AGO) already accounted for a significant proportion of tool sets.

In the south of the Levant, microliths began to be produced around 30 thousand years ago. The Ahmar complexes are characterized by straight pointed plates, while in the Aurignacian complexes there are dufour-type plates with opposite or alternating shallow or semi-circular retouching. Transition from the Upper Paleolithic to the Epipaleolithic ca. 20 thousand years AGO is marked by a more frequent use of steep retouching and an increase in the number of microliths in gun sets. Technomorphological characteristics of microliths formed the basis for regional cultural periodization of the Epipaleolithic (Bar-Yosef, 1970, 1998; Goring-Morris, 1998). If plates with a blunted back are typical of the Kebari culture (ca. 20 - 14.5 thousand years ago), then the geometric kebara (ca. 14.5-12.5 thousand years ago) is characterized by a predominance of trapezoids/rectangles with a blunted back, and the almost synchronous Mushabian culture in the Negev and Sinai is represented by points of the la Mouillah type. natufa (approx. 13,0-10,2 thousand bp) are characterized by segments with retouching of the helwan type (Helwan) or steep retouching. Diversity is also noted within cultures. For example, according to the metric parameters of trapezoids/rectangles in the geometric kebara culture, the Central Mediterranean zone is well distinguished, where narrow elongated products are common [Henry, 1989, p. 198; Goring-Morris, 1987, p.130].

Despite the fact that the chronological and regional diversity of types and technologies of manufacturing microlithic tools is firmly established in the south of the Levant, there is practically no direct evidence to judge the specific functions of these tools [Bar-Yosef, 1987; Bocquentin and Bar-Yosef, 2004]. At the same time, ethnographic data, archaeological finds, mainly in Europe, Africa and East Asia, as well as some trace studies indicate that microliths were used as components of remote weapons as tips, as well as side inserts or prongs [Clark et al., 1974; Clark, 1975; Fisher et al., 1984; Odell and Cowan, 1986; Barton and Bergman, 1982; Bergman and Newcomer, 1983; Bergman et al., 1988; Nuzhnyi, 1990, 2000; Caspar and De Bie, 1996; Dockall, 1997; Crombe et al., 2001; Shimelmitz, 2004; Nuzhny, 1990; Nuzhny, 1992; Pitulko, 1997].

The article presents the results of a detailed analysis of the microlytic complexes of the Heftsib sites and

The article is part of a PhD thesis that the author is currently working on under the supervision of Prof. D. Kaufman, Dr. D. Nuzhny and Prof. O. Bar-Josef. The author expresses his deep gratitude to them for their helpful comments and support, and also thanks Professor M. Weinstein-Evron for his help in preparing this article.

page 8

Neve David (Israel) - geometric kebara. The analysis included two aspects. The first is the identification of macro-injuries characteristic of propellant weapons. The classification of these damages was adopted at the International Congress devoted to the Analysis of disposal traces [Hayden, 1979], and later supplemented and improved [Fisher et al., 1984]. The second aspect is the technomorphological characteristics of the complexes. The combination of these approaches makes it possible not only to identify microliths of the geometric kebara culture as components of throwing tools, but also to reconstruct possible ways of attaching them to the shaft, taking into account the morphological and technological features of the products. Since microliths as elements of throwing tools of different primitive cultures could presumably have functionally similar morphological characteristics within the framework of different technologies, we conducted a comparative analysis of trapezoids/rectangles of the geometric kebara culture and elements of throwing tools from the Epigravetta sites of Mezhirich and Semenivka III (Ukraine).

Heftzibah and Neve David

The monuments are located on the coastal plain of the Mediterranean Sea (Israel) and are located at a distance of about 50 km from each other (Figure 1). Excavations at the Heftzibah site (Figure 2) were first carried out in 1972-1974 [Ronen et al., 1975], and then in 1996-1998. [Zakheim and Bar-Oz, 1998] (Fig.

Figure 1. Location of Heftzibah and Neve David sites.

2. General view of the western part of the Heftzibah monument, 1972.

3. Heftsib excavation plan.

page 9

4. F8-y stratigraphic section, western part of the Heftzibah site (according to Kaufman, 1976). 1-sand; 2-regosol; 3-red-colored loam (hamra); 4 - culture-containing horizon.

Figure 5. General view of the Neva David monument, 1986.

6. Microlytic industry of geometric kebara. 1-7-trapezoids/rectangles (1-3-Heftzibah, 4-7-Neve David); 8-16-non-geometric microliths (8-14-Heftzibah, 15, 16-Neve David); 17-23-non-retouched plates (17-19-Heftzibah, 20-23 - Neve David).

7. Non-geometric microlith (a) and trapezoid (b) with a ribbon macro-wear at the end. Neve David.

Figure 8. Trapezoids with tape macro-wear on a sharp edge. a - Heftzibah; b-Neve David.

The stratigraphic section is represented by four main geological divisions, indicating four dune formation cycles, which included three periods of weathering and soil formation (Figure 4).The site was inhabited twice for the longest time during the formation of red-colored loamy soil (hamra). The stone inventory is dominated by microliths, a significant proportion of the tool kit is also made up of scrapers and chisels. The fauna is represented by the bones of Gazella gazella, Capra, Dama mesopotamica and Sus scrofa. This indicates that hunting was conducted not only on the plain near the site, but also in a wooded mountainous area located at a distance of at least 10 km to the east (Bar-Oz and Day an, 2003).

Neve David Monument is located at the western foot of Mount Carmel

page 10

5). Excavations were carried out here from 1986 to 1990 (Kaufman, 1987). The 130 cm thick layer containing materials from the Geometric Kebara culture is embedded in a dark red-brown colluvium and overlain by several layers of sediments containing Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, and Byzantine artifacts. The fauna is mainly represented by the bones of Gazella gazella and Dama mesopotamica (Bar-Oz et al., 1999). The total area of the monument is approx. 1000 m2. Based on the obtained radiocarbon dates (13400 ±180 and 12610 ± 130 Ka BP) and some features of the stone inventory, the site belongs to a later stage of the Geometric Kebara culture (Kaufman, 1988).

Methodology

For analysis, microlithic tools were divided into three groups: trapezoids/rectangles, non-geometric microliths, and indeterminate (small median) fragments. All of them were examined for the presence of macro-wear characteristic of projectile weapons (Fisher et al., 1984). The tool kit from the Heftzibah site, collected in sq. F8 in the western part of the excavation site, consists of 561 items: 292 trapezoids/rectangles, 100 non-geometric microliths, and 169 unidentifiable fragments. The Neve David tool complex was selected in several squares and contained 448 tools: 316 trapezoids / rectangles, 50 non-geometric microliths, and 82 undetectable fragments.

Morphological and metric parameters were obtained for geometric and non-geometric microliths, as well as for non-retouched plates (Fig. 6). Only whole products were taken for analysis. At the Heftsib site, their number was 743, including 355 trapezoids / rectangles, 134 non-geometric microliths and 254 plates; at the Neve David site, the complex of 325 whole products included 109 trapezoids/ rectangles, 24 non-geometric microliths and 192 plates.

The following morphological features were taken into account in the analysis:

- profile-curved, propeller-shaped, flat;

- the shape of the edges (applied only to plates and non - geometric microliths) - one curved, divergent (divergent), convergent (convergent), parallel.

Metric characteristics such as length, width, and thickness in the middle of all whole products were also taken into account.

Analysis results

Macro-wear characteristic of projectile weapons. On microliths from both sites, two main types of damage were identified, indicating the throwing function: polyline-facet and tape. The first is a transverse fracture, on the plane of which one or more conchous, fractured facets are more than 1 mm long; the second is a characteristic transverse fracture, first perpendicular to the plane of the tip, and then smoothly passing the tongue on its back or abdomen. Band injuries are characterized by the absence of facets, radial cracks, and impact bumps or their negatives on the transverse cleavage plane (Nuzhny, 1990). In the Heftsiba and Neve David sites, the second type is most common and occurs both at the ends and sharp edges of trapezoids / rectangles and non-geometric microliths (Figs. 7-9).

Morphological characteristics. Among the trapezoids/rectangles of products with propellers-

Figure 9. Frequency of location of tape macro-wear on microliths from Heftsiba (a) and Neve David (b) sites. I - trapezoids/rectangles; II - non - geometric microliths; III-indeterminate products. 1 - at the end; 2 - at the edge.

page 11

10. Frequency of microlith profile types from Heftsiba (a) and Neve David (b) sites. I - curved; II - propeller - shaped; III-flat. 1-trapezoids/rectangles; 2-non-geometric microliths; 3-plates.

11. Frequency of lateral edge shapes in plates and non-geometric microliths from Heftsiba (a) and Neve David (b) sites. I - one curved edge; II - divergent; III - convergent; IV - parallel. 1 - non-geometric microliths; 2-plates.

different profiles are much smaller, while those with a flat profile are larger than those with non-retouched plates and non-geometric microliths. A similar ratio is typical for both sites (Fig. 10).

Unlike trapezoids/rectangles, non-geometric microliths have very similar edge shapes to those of the original plates, which differ by a single curved edge (Figure 11).

Metric characteristics. Trapezoids/rectangles are much smaller in size than non-retouched plates and non-geometric microliths. This pattern is observed in both parking lots (Table 1). 1; figs. 12-14). The coefficient of variation (KB), defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean value, characterizes the variance of a feature. A more homogeneous complex will show insignificant KB values, while a less homogeneous one will show high KB values. Trapezoids / rectangles from the Heftsib parking lot show significant variability in metric characteristics, especially in length and width, which vary accordingly-

Table 1. Metric characteristics and deviation coefficients for trapezoids / rectangles, non-geometric microliths and plates, mm

Indicator

Trapezoids/rectangles

Non-geometric microliths

Records

Heftsiba

Neve David

Heftsiba

Neve David

Heftsiba

Neve David

Number of copies.

355

109

134

24

254

192

Length

Average value

15,21

16,74

29,30

22,91

32,95

26,02

Standard deviation

3,43

2,60

5,09

7,08

6,18

7,67

KB

0,23

0,15

0,17

0,30

0,18

0,29

Width in the middle

Average value

4,23

4,82

6,18

6,16

8,43

7,39

Standard deviation

0,87

0,65

1,26

2,11

1,71

2,08

KB

0,20

0,13

0,20

0,34

0,20

0,28

Thickness in the middle

Average value

1,58

1,83

2,29

2,39

2,97

2,83

Standard deviation

0,39

0,38

0,55

0,96

0,93

1,19

KB

0,24

0,20

0,24

0,40

0,31

0,42

page 12

12. Length ranges of trapezoids (I), non-geometric microliths (II), and plates (III).

13. Ranges of width (in the middle) of trapezoids (I), non-geometric microliths (II), and plates (III).

14. Thickness ranges (in the middle) of trapezoids (I), non-geometric microliths (II), and plates (III).

15. Side inserts for Epigravetta projectiles (according to [Nuzhnyi, 2002; Komar et al., 2003]). 1-5-Semenivka III; 6-11-Mezhirich.

branches from 8 to 24 and from 2 to 6 mm. The group of non-geometric microliths from this monument is much more homogeneous than in the Neve David complex.

Comparison with microlytic elements of throwing tools of the epigravetta industry

The Late Paleolithic sites of mammoth hunters Mezhirich and Semenivka III are located in the Dnieper basin (Ukraine) and belong to the Epigravett. Microliths of two main types were used as components of throwing tools: narrow points of microgravettes and rectangles. Spear shafts made from mammoth tusk with slots for microlitic inserts were found at both sites. Judging by the characteristic macro-wear, the points were attached not only as piercing tips, but also as side inserts, and the rectangles served as side inserts for throwing tools (Nuzhnyi, 2002; Komar et al., 2003). Whole items are mostly represented by rectangles (Fig. 15). Let's compare these microliths with trapezoids/rectangles of the geometric kebara culture, paying special attention to the profile and metric characteristics, and compare the methods of reduction of nuclei characteristic of both industries.

The most typical profile of Epigravetta rectangles is similar to that of trapezoids/ rectangles of geometric kebara: most often it is flat or slightly curved (Figure 16). Epigravetta rectangles are longer (Fig. 17), wider (Fig. 18), and thicker (Fig. 19) than trapezoids/rectangles of a geometric kebara (Table 2). However, I observe-

page 13

Figure 16. Frequency of trapezoid/rectangle (geometric kebara) and rectangle (epigravette) profile types. I - curved; II-propeller-shaped; III-flat. 1-Heftsiba; 2-Neve David; 3-Semenivka III; 4-Mezhirich.

Figure 1-7.Length ranges of trapezoids/rectangles (geometric kebara) and rectangles (epigravette).

Figure 18: Width ranges (in the middle) trapezoids/rectangles (geometric kebara) and rectangles (epigravette).

Figure 19. Thickness ranges (in the middle) trapezoids/rectangles (geometric kebara) and rectangles (epigravette).

Table 2. Metric characteristics of propellant guns, mm

Parking lot

Indicator

Length

Width in the middle

Thickness in the middle

Length: width in the middle

Width in the middle: thickness in the middle

Heftsiba (N = 355)

Average value

15,21

4,23

1,58

3,65

2,78

Standard deviation

3,43

0,87

0,39

0,77

0,70

Neve David (N = 109)

Average value

16,75

4,86

1,83

3,51

2,76

Standard deviation

2,61

0,72

0,38

0,72

0,65

Semenivka III (N = 36)

Average value

23,51

6,56

2,32

3,61

2,95

Standard deviation

5,19

1,14

0,53

0,62

0,74

Mezhirich (N = 18)

Average value

30,51

7,70

2,53

4,04

3,12

Standard deviation

5,24

1,25

0,57

0,93

0,54

page 14

20. Ranges of the ratio of the length and width of trapezoids/rectangles (geometric kebara) and rectangles (epigravette).

21. Ranges of the ratio of width and thickness of trapezoids/rectangles (geometric kebara) and rectangles (epigravette).

similarity is given in the ratio of length and width (Fig. 20), width and thickness of microliths (Fig. 21). The geometric kebab industry is characterized by the use of single-site pyramidal nuclei (Kaufman, 1976; Shaul, 1999). The plates that appear as a result of splitting are mainly propeller-shaped or curved in profile and have mainly one curved edge. The epigravette industry is dominated by prismatic nuclei with two opposite impact pads, from which long, minimally curved blanks with almost parallel edges were removed by pressing techniques [Nuzhnyi, 2002; Komar et al., 2003].

Discussion and conclusions

Comparison of microlithic complexes of the geometric Kebara culture presented at the sites of Heftzibah and Neve David revealed both similar features and some differences. In both cases, certain criteria are taken into account when selecting workpieces for the production of trapezoids/rectangles and non-geometric microliths. Differences in the profile, metric characteristics of the blank plates and trapezoids/ rectangles indicate that the thinnest and least curved blanks were selected for the production of the latter at both sites, which were then processed by truncating and decorating the blunted back with a steep side retouch. For the production of non-geometric microliths, it was not necessary to significantly change the original shape of the workpiece. This is evidenced by the similarity of profiles and metric characteristics of preform plates and non-geometric microliths in both Heftsib and Neve David.

The presence of macro-wear characteristic of throwing tools at the ends and sharp edges of trapezoids/ rectangles and non-geometric microliths indicates that both could have been used as piercing tips and side inserts or prongs of such tools.

Straight backs and least curved profiles are found in both trapezoids / rectangles of the geometric kebara culture and Epigravetta microliths. However, similar morphological characteristics were achieved by different technological methods: these cultures are characterized by different methods of reducing nuclei. In contrast to the geometric kebara, in the epigravetta industry, the production of almost flat blanks resulted in minimal processing of the original plates by retouching.

The practice of using microliths as side inserts for throwing tools is also observed in many cultures in Siberia from the Upper Paleolithic to the Bronze Age (Pitulko, 1997). Standardized morphological features and minimal curvature are the defining features of these inserts, and a special method of reducing nuclei for their manufacture should also be taken into account [Gir'ia and Pitulko, 1994].

The geometric kebara culture, on the other hand, is characterized by the removal of mainly propeller-shaped or curved plates with a single curved side edge from pyramidal single-site nuclei. They were used for the manufacture of both non-geometric microliths, and

page 15

trapezoids/rectangles. At the same time, different criteria were applied when selecting blanks, and the degree of modification of the latter was different. The straight backs of the trapezoids/rectangles, which were treated with a cool retouch, could be attached directly to the shaft using adhesives, such as resin or bitumen.

There are archaeological and ethnographic data on various methods of fixing microliths, in particular geometric ones, as piercing tips (Clark et al., 1974; Clark, 1975; Nuzhny, 1992). Trapezoids could be attached as single or composite piercing tips. Some damages on the sharp edges of trapezoids / rectangles from the Heftzibah and Neve David sites are located perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, which may indicate their use as cross-blade arrowheads.

A variety of ways to attach to the shaft is the main advantage of microliths, especially geometric ones. It is probably this advantage that has led to the rapid spread of trapezoids/ rectangles and other geometric products in the Levant. The modularity of standard components made it possible to increase the efficiency of the manufacturing process of remote weapons. In addition, the use of these elements made it possible to create weapons that differ in a certain design, characteristic of a particular group of hunters.

When comparing microlytic complexes from the sites of Heftsiba and Neve David, some differences can be traced. In the former, the collection of non-geometric microliths is more pronounced and standardized than in the latter. At the same time, the trapezoids/ rectangles from the Heftsib parking lot show a much greater variety in metric characteristics. Since the Heftsib site is somewhat older than Neve David, these differences can be explained by the fact that over time, the trend towards standardization of the size of microlytic inserts of geometric shape has increased. In addition, the differences may be related to regional variability in the manufacture of hunting weapons in the geometric kebara culture.

Further experimental studies, including the analysis of damage on microliths of various types, will allow us to more accurately determine the specific functions of the latter in the composition of throwing guns, as well as the types of remote weapons of which they were elements. Reconstruction of throwing tools belonging to different cultures is extremely important for solving the problem of chronological and regional diversity of microlitic technologies in the Southern Levant.

List of literature

Нужний Д. Розвиток мікролітичної техніки в кам'яному віці. - Київ: Наук, думка, 1992. - 187 с.

Nuzhny D. Types of damages on niche microlithic parts of throwing tools in the Late Paleolithic / / Voprosy arkheologii yuga Vostochnoi Evropy. Elista: Kalmyk State University, 1990, pp. 14-26.

Pitulko V. V. Obshchie tendentsii v razvitii shlusevykh oudutsii [General trends in the development of insert tools]. Kamenny vek evropeyskikh ravnin: Mat-ly Mezhdunar. konf. - Zamostye, 1997, pp. 161-167.

Bar-Oz G., Day an T. Testing the use of multivariate inter-site taphonomic comparisons: the faunal analysis of Hefzibah in its Epipalaeolithic cultural context // J. of Archaeological Science. - 2003. - N 30(7). - P. 885 - 900.

Bar-Oz G., Dayan T., Kaufman D. The Epipaleolithic Faunal Sequence in Israel: A View from Neve David // J. of Archaeological Science. - 1999. -N26. -P. 67 - 82.

Barton R.N.E., Bergman C.A. Hunters at Hengistbyry: Some Experimental Archaeology // World Archaeology. -1982. -N14. -P. 236 - 248.

Bar-Yosef O. The Epi-Palaeolithic Cultures of Palestine: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis / Hebrew University. - Jerusalem, 1970. -260 p.

Bar-Yosef O. Direct and Indirect Evidence for Hafting in the Epi-Palaeolithic and Neolithic Southern Levant // La Main et L'Outil. Manches et Emmanchements Prehistoriques: Travaux de la Maison de L'Orient. - 1987. - Vol. 15. - P. 155 - 164.

Bar-Yosef O. Prehistoric Chronological Framework // The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land / Ed by T. E. Levy. -L.: Leicester University Press, 1998. - P. XIV-XVII.

Bergman C.A., McEvaen E., Miller R. Experimental Archery: Projectile Velocities and Comparison of Bow Performance //Antiquity. - 1988. - Vol. 62. - P. 658 - 670.

Bergman C.A., Newcomer M.H. Flint Arrowhead Breakage, Examples from Ksar Akil // J. of Field Archaeology. - 1983. -N 10. -P. 238 - 243.

Bocquentin E, Bar-Yosef O. Early Natufian Remains: Evidence for Physical Conflict from Mt. Carmel, Israel. // J. of Human Evolution. -2004. -Vol. 47(1). -P. 19 - 23.

Caspar J. -R., De Bie M. Preparing for the Hunt in the Late Palaeolithic Camp at Recem, Belgium // J. of Field Archaeology. - 1996. -Vol. 23. -P. 437 - 460.

Clark J.D., Phillips J.L., Staley R.S. Interpretations of Prehistoric Technology from Ancient Egypt and Other Sources. Pt 1: Ancient Egyptian Bows and Arrows and Their Relevance for African Prehistory // Paleorient. - 1974. - Vol. 2. -P. 323 - 388.

Clark J.D. Interpretations of Prehistoric Technology from Ancient Egypt and Other Sources. Pt 2: Prehistoric Arrow Forms in Africa as Shown by Surviving Examples in Traditional Arrows of San Bushmen // Paleorient. - 1975. - Vol. 3. -P. 127 - 150.

Crombe R., Perdaen Y., Sergant J., Caspar J. -R. Wear Analysis on Early Mesolithic Microliths from the Verrebroek Site, East Flanders Belgium // J. of Field Archaeology. -2001. -Vol. 28. -P. 253 - 269.

Dockall J.E. Wear Traces and Projectile Impact: A Review of Experimental and Archaeological Evidence // J. of Field Archaeology. - 1997. -Vol. 24. -P. 321 - 331.

page 16

Fisher A., Hansen P.V., Rassmussen P. Macro- and Micro-Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile Points: Experimental Results and Prehistoric Examples // J. of Danish Archaeology. -1984. -Vol. 3. -P. 19 - 46.

Gir'ia E., Pitulko V.V. High Arctic Mesolithic Culture of Zokhov Island: Insert Tools and Knapping Technology //Arctic Anthropology. - 1994. -Vol. 31/2. -P. 17 - 29.

Go ring-Morris A.N. At The Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. - Oxford: Hadrian Books, 1987. - 526 p. - (Bar International Series; N 361).

Go ring-Morris A.N. Complex Hunter/Gatherers at the End of the Palaeolithic // The Archaeology of society in the Holy Land / Ed by T. E. Levy. - L.: Leicester University Press, 1998. -P. 141 - 168.

Hayden B. Ho-Ho Nomenclature Committee. The Ho-Ho Classification and Nomenclature Committee Report // Lithic Use-Wear Analysis / Ed by B. Hayden. - N. Y.: Academic Press, 1979. -P. 133 - 135.

Henry D.O. From Foraging to Agriculture. - Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989. - 277 p.

Kaufman D. Typological and Technological Comparisons of Two Epi-Paleolithic Assemblages from the Coastal Plain of Israel: Unpublished MA. Thesis / University of Tel-Aviv. - Tel-Aviv, 1976. - 175 p.

Kaufman D. Excavations at the Geometric Kebaran site of Neve David, Israel: a Preliminary Report // Quartar. - 1987. -Vol. 37/38. -P. 1989 - 1999.

Kaufman D. New Radiocarbon Dates for the Geometric Kebaran // Paleorient. - 1988. - Vol. 14. - P. 107 - 109.

Komar M., Nuzhnyi D., Korniets N., Pean St. Mezhirich Upper Paleolithic site: The Reconstruction of Environmental Condition of the Late Pleistocene and Human Adaptation in the Mddle Dnieper Basin (Northern Ukraine) // Кам'яна доба України. - 2003. - Vip. 4. - p. 262-277.

Nuzhnyi D. Projectile Damage on Upper Paleolithic Microliths and the Use of Bow and Arrow among Pleistocene Hunters in the Ukraine // Proceedings of the International conference of lithic Use-Wear analysis, 15 - 17th February 1989 in Uppsala, Sweden. - Uppsala, 1990. -P. 113 - 124. - (Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis; N 14).

Nuzhnyi D. Development of Mcrolithic Projectile Weapons in the Stone Age // La chasse dans la Prehistoire: Actes du Colloque international de Tregnes 3 - 7 octobre 1990. -Bruxelles, 2000. - P. 95 - 101. - (Bull, de la Societe royale beige d'Anthropologie et de Prehistoire; T. 111).

Nuzhnyi D. Assemblages of Three Epigravettian Sites in the Mddle Dnieper Basin: A Case of Variability of Residential Patterns of Mammoth Hunters During the Warm Season // Trends in the Evolution of East European Paleolithic: (Proceedings of Kostenki Expedition). - S. -Petersburg: [SI], 2002. - Vol. 1. -P. 123 - 137.

Odell G.H., Cowan F. Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets // J. of Field Archaeology. -1986. -Vol. 13. -P. 195 - 212.

Ronen A., Kaufman D., Gofna R., Backler N., Smith P., Amiel A. The Epipaleolithic Site Hefziba, Central Coastal Plain of Israel // Quartar. - 1975. - Vol. 26. - P. 53 - 72.

Shaul N. The Geometric Kebaran Site in Neve David. Unpublished MA. Thesis / University of Haifa (Hebrew). -Haifa, 1999. -75 p.

Shimelmitz R., Barkai R., Gopher A. The Geometric Kebaran Mcrolithic Assemblage of Ain Mri, Northern Israel // Paleorient. - 2004. - Vol. 30(2). - P. 127 - 140.

Zakheim O., Bar-Oz G. Hefzibah//HadashotArcheologiot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel. - 1998. - Vol. 109. -P. 45 - 46.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 18.01.06.

page 17

Permanent link to this publication: