Keywords

Introduction

The appearance of points in flint tool assemblages is one of the distinctive features characterizing the emergence of the Middle Paleolithic (MP) in the Levant. This tool class is especially dominant and diverse during the early phase of the period, the Early Middle Paleolithic (EMP). A variety of blanks obtained through different reduction methods, including prismatic blade technology (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1998), were modified into points with a broad array of forms from simple Levallois points (unmodified) to carefully and intensively retouched Abu Sif points (Copeland 1985; Gordon 1993; Wojtczak 2011; Zaidner and Weinstein-Evron 2012). The latter became the type fossil of the Early Levantine Mousterian (Copeland 1975, 1983; Neuville 1951; Meignen 1998, 2011).

The appearance of stone points in the prehistoric record implies changes in hunting related technology. Indeed, studies by Shea (1988, 1989a, b, 1991, 1993) identified the function of Levallois points from a number of Levantine Mousterian sites as tips of hunting weapons based on the presence of projectile damage (but see Plisson and Beyries 1998 for an alternative view suggesting that Levallois points were mainly used for cutting plant material). Retouched point types from an EMP context have never been studied in detail with regard to their function as projectile weapons, thus the connection between the variability of point assemblages and hunting weapons technology associated with the emergence of the MP remains poorly understood.

The global prehistoric record has provided only a few findings directly indicating use of particular kinds of weapons. Use of simple projectiles is evident from wooden spears found in several European sites (Dennel 1997; Theime 1997 and references therein). The earliest complex projectiles , i.e., spearthrowers and darts, as well as bows and arrows came from the context of the European Upper Paleolithic (Rust 1943; Garrod 1955; Rausing 1967; Stodiek 1992, 1993; Morales and Straus 2009). The function of the MP/MSA (Middle Stone Age) points as tips of hunting weapons is evident from findings of points embedded into vertebrae of large ungulates (i.e., Milo 1998; Boëda et al. 1999) and the presence of fractures diagnostic of impact. These were found on Levantine (Shea 1988, 1989a, b, 1991, 1993), European (Villa and Lenoir 2006; Villa et al. 2009a; Villa and Soriano 2010) and African points (Lombard et al. 2004; Lombard 2005, 2007, 2008; Villa and Lenoir 2006; Lombard and Pargeter 2008; Villa et al. 2009b) and interpreted, in most cases, as tips of simple projectiles, i.e., spears for thrusting or throwing by hand.

Several recent works indicate that particular types of MSA points served as tips of complex projectiles . Brooks and colleagues (2006) suggested that the decrease in point length, width, thickness and weight alongside the unchanging angle of the distal tips (55°–60°) during the MSA sequences in Botswana and Ethiopia reflects adoption of a complex projectile system. Another metric characteristic, Tip Cross Sectional Perimeter (TCSP), based on the maximal width and maximal thickness (see below for calculation) of various MSA point types and compared with ethnographic North American dart tips showed a theoretical plausibility that points from Porc Epic cave in Ethiopia served as tips of darts thrown with spearthrower (Sisk and Shea 2009, 2011). Lombard and Philipson (2010) and Lombard (2011) showed that backed segments, the type fossil of the MSA Howiesons Poort culture, were used as transversal arrowheads . This interpretation is based on several kinds of evidence including the location and the direction of macro- and micro- Diagnostic Impact Fractures (DIF) , residue location and the small size of the segments.

Here we present analyses of projectile damage and morpho-metric characteristics of points from the EMP Misliya Cave , Mount Carmel , Israel. The aim of this contribution is to describe the variability of the point assemblage and to provide possible interpretations for the diversity of the types and sizes in terms of their use as tips of hunting weapons. We believe that our contribution will comprise a base for further investigations of hunting-related technological transformations associated with the emergence of the MP in the Levant.

The Site and the Point Assemblage

Misliya Cave is located on the western slopes of Mount Carmel, slightly to the south of Nahal (Wadi) Sefunim, at an elevation of ca. 90 m, some 12 km south of Haifa (Fig. 8.1) and ca. 7 km north of Nahal Me‘arot (Wadi el-Mughara) and the caves of Tabun, el-Wad and Skhul (Garrod and Bate 1937; McCown 1937; Jelinek 1982a, b; Jelinek et al. 1973). Excavations in 2001–2010 revealed a rich EMP layer spread over the Upper Terrace of this collapsed cave (Fig. 8.2), below a residual rock shelter or overhang (Weinstein-Evron et al. 2003). The dating of the archaeological sequence is still in process. Preliminary TL dates on burned flint artifacts from the site suggest that they are older than 200 ka (Valladas et al. 2013), thus corroborating the dates recently obtained for the same cultural phase in the nearby Tabun Cave (ca. 260–190 ka BP; Mercier and Valladas 2003, and references therein) and at Hayonim Cave, in the western Galilee (230–170 ka BP; Mercier et al. 2007) and broadly assigning the site to marine isotope stage (MIS) 7. An ongoing technological and typological analysis of the lithic industry indicates that points of various forms comprise about 40% of the tool assemblage (Zaidner and Weinstein-Evron 2012).

Fig. 8.1
figure 1

Location map

Full size image
Fig. 8.2
figure 2

Misliya Cave, excavated area. a Plan; b section through the three terraces

Full size image

The typological classification of points is based on their morphological and technological features as follows: Levallois points (Fig. 8.3a); Retouched Levallois points (Fig. 8.3b); Abu-Sif points (elongated Mousterian points): points retouched along both edges by continuous and invasive or short retouch. These are made either on elongated Levallois points, elongated flakes or narrow blades (Fig. 8.3c, d); Hummal points : points with one fully or almost fully retouched edge opposite an edge that is either unretouched or retouched only on the tip (Fig. 8.3e). Made predominantly on blades, some are possibly made on Levallois blanks. The retouch is usually regular but not invasive and changes only slightly the original form of the blank; Misliya points a newly defined point type, with tip modified by abrupt retouch in the form of an oblique truncation (Fig. 8.3f). Misliya points are made on small thin blades , Levallois as well as non-Levallois, or on small Levallois points; Points with bifacial, alternate or ventral retouch : points made on Levallois and non-Levallois elongated blanks and modified with invasive retouch which may be either bifacial, alternating or on the ventral surface (Fig. 8.3g); Off-set points: points with retouch creating either an oblique truncation or an arch-like back (Fig. 8.3h). In both cases the tip of the point is offset relative to the striking axis of the blank.

Fig. 8.3
figure 3

Misliya Cave, point types. a Levallois point; b Retouched Levallois point; c, d Abu Sif points; e Hummal point; f Misliya point; g points with bifacial, alternate or ventral retouch ; h off-set points

Full size image

For the present project we studied points from the material excavated until the 2009 season. The assemblage consists of 291 points. Levallois points (N = 90) comprise the largest group; the second largest group are Hummal (N = 46) followed by retouched Levallois points (N = 36), Abu Sif points (N = 36) and Misliya points (N = 21). Points with bifacial, alternate or ventral retouch (N = 9) and off-set points (N = 7) complete the studied assemblage. Fifty broken distal tips which could not be assigned confidently to any particular type were not included in the analysis. Figure 8.4 represents the distribution of the points within the EMP layer of Misliya Cave , showing possible contemporary use of various types.

Fig. 8.4
figure 4

Misliya Cave: vertical distribution of points from squares K10-11 and L10-11 in the EMP sequence, Upper Terrace (Fig. 8.2)

Full size image

Methods

Types and Frequencies of Diagnostic Impact Fractures

Fischer et al. (1984) delineated two types of macro-fractures, spin-off (Fig. 8.5a) and step terminating bending (Fig. 8.5b) as diagnostic of projectile impact (Hayden 1979). These two types, along with burin-like removals – another type of impact damage described in experimental studies (e.g., Barton and Bergman 1982; Bergman and Newcomer 1983) were recognized in subsequent archery experiments and analyses of archaeological points (e.g., Odell and Cowan 1986; Nuzhnyy 1989, 1990, 1999, 2008; Lombard et al. 2004; Lombard and Pargeter 2008; Yaroshevich 2010; Yaroshevich et al. 2010; Petillon et al. 2011). On a microscopic level, diagnostic impact damage appears as linear polishes and striations (Fischer et al. 1984; Crombe et al. 2001). Recent experiments by Pargeter (2011) showed that step terminating bending fracture, spin-off fracture and burin-like fractures can occur in low frequencies (up to 3%, depending on the type of the fracture) as a result of trampling . Therefore, the frequencies of macro-fractures are important for delineating projectile function of archaeological stone points.

Fig. 8.5
figure 5

Types of fractures diagnostic of impact. a Step terminating bending; b spin-off (after Fischer et al. 1984)

Full size image

All points from the Misliya assemblage were observed for the presence of macro-DIF; their frequencies were recorded according to point type. Some points with macro-DIF were subsequently observed through Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) in an attempt to identify micro-DIF.

Morpho-metric Characteristics

All the points were measured in terms of their length, maximal width and maximal thickness (Fig. 8.6). Complete or nearly complete points were weighed. In order to evaluate the tip angle we outlined the distal part of the point (about 1.5–2.0 cm) and then measured the angle with a protractor. This method differs from that used in the study of Brooks et al. (2006). We believe that our approach (Fig. 8.7a, b) is more appropriate to the assemblage from Misliya Cave as many of the points at the site have either a curved lateral edge or truncation, as opposed to African points that appear to have roughly straight edges (Fig. 8.7c). Applying the method of Brooks and colleagues to points from Misliya Cave would reduce considerably the value of the tip angle and would not reliably convey the true variation in the assemblage. We also calculated the TCSP for all point types from Misliya Cave as follows: \( {\text{TCSP}} = MaxWidth + 2\sqrt {(MaxWidth/ 2)^{ 2} + MaxThickness^{2} } \) (Sisk and Shea 2009, 2011). For comparative purposes, data from the following assemblages were recorded: North American ethnographic dart tips, based on the collections published by Thomas (1978) and Shott (1997); archaeological points from the MSA sites of Aduma 5 and Porc Epic Cave, Ethiopia, suggested as possible tips of complex projectiles (Brooks et al. 2006; Sisk and Shea 2011). The assemblage of points from Misliya Cave and the North American ethnographic dart tips were compared through one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests including Sheffé post hoc comparisons. ANOVA tests whether one or more sample means are significantly different from each other; Sheffé post hoc comparisons determine which or how many sample means are different.

Fig. 8.6
figure 6

Metric characteristics measurements based on the outline of Abu Sif points. mw Maximal width; mt Maximal thickness

Full size image
Fig. 8.7
figure 7

Angle of distal tip measurements. a, b Applied in the present study, shown on the outlines of Abu Sif and Levallois points; c according to Brooks et al. (2006)

Full size image

In terms of the distal tip, ANOVA analysis was applied only to points from Misliya Cave as there is no data for this characteristic for ethnographic dart tips. In addition, comparisons were made with Porc Epic points, previously suggested as possible tips of complex projectiles .

Results

Fractures Diagnostic of Projectile Impact

Table 8.1 shows the frequencies of DIF for various point types from Misliya Cave . The highest frequencies were observed among Levallois points (Figs. 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10) and Abu Sif points (Figs. 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13): 22.2 and 19.4%, respectively. Hummal points (Figs. 8.14 and 8.15) and Misliya points (Figs. 8.16 and 8.17) exhibit less than half the frequency compared to Levallois/Abu Sif points: 8.9 and 9.5%, respectively. Two retouched Levallois points with DIF comprise 6.3% of the group. Off-set points and points with bifacial or alternate retouch each have one representative with DIF, making up 11.1 and 14.3% of the group, respectively.

Table 8.1 Misliya Cave: frequencies of DIF according to point type
Full size table
Fig. 8.8
figure 8

Misliya Cave: DIF on Levallois point. a Macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm; b micro-DIF

Full size image
Fig. 8.9
figure 9

Misliya Cave: Levallois point with macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm

Full size image
Fig. 8.10
figure 10

Misliya Cave: Levallois point with macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm

Full size image
Fig. 8.11
figure 11

Misliya Cave: DIF on Abu Sif point. a Macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm; b micro-DIF

Full size image
Fig. 8.12
figure 12

Misliya Cave: Abu Sif point with macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm

Full size image
Fig. 8.13
figure 13

Misliya Cave: Abu Sif point with macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm

Full size image
Fig. 8.14
figure 14

Misliya Cave: Hummal point with macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm

Full size image
Fig. 8.15
figure 15

Misliya Cave: Hummal point with macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm

Full size image
Fig. 8.16
figure 16

Misliya Cave: DIF on Misliya point. a Macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm; b micro-DIF

Full size image
Fig. 8.17
figure 17

Misliya Cave: Misliya point with macro-DIF. The scale is 5 mm

Full size image

In the majority of the cases DIF were observed on the distal tip of the point. A few points were broken either at their proximal third or half their length with burin-like DIF (Fig. 8.13). Some exhibited DIF on both the distal tip and the breakage (Figs. 8.11 and 8.14). Fifteen points with macro-DIF on their distal tips were observed through SEM with linear striations occurring on five points (33%; e.g., Figures 8.8b, 8.11b and 8.16b). The relatively low frequency of micro-striations on the points from Misliya cave may be explained by the fact that observations were made only on the area of macro-fracture while striations may have been present on other areas of a point’s surface. In previous works analyzing either experimental or archaeological assemblages of points the ratios of micro-striations vary. For example, Fischer et al. (1984) observed micro-striations on 60% of experimental points. Among eleven experimental microliths with macro-DIF observed through SEM only five exhibited micro-striations (Yaroshevich et al. 2010). For archaeological points, values of 40% (Crombe et al. 2001) and ca. 55% (16 of 29 segments, Lombard 2011) were reported.

Morpho-metric Characteristics

The subsequent morpho-metric analyses we applied to the four types which are the most common and exhibit the highest frequencies of DIF, i.e., Levallois, Abu Sif, Hummal and Misliya points . Results of ANOVA analysis are shown for each metric characteristic separately. In addition, for each characteristic we present box plots where values for points with and without DIF are presented separately.

Maximal Width (Table 8.2, Fig. 8.18)

In terms of maximal width, the points create three distinctive groups: the first contains North American ethnographic dart tips, Misliya points and Hummal points with average values of 23.0, 21.5 and 25.7 mm, respectively. Abu Sif (30.5 mm) forms the second group whereas Levallois points (36.3 mm) belong to the third group. Hummal points bearing DIF appear at the lower end of the range for the type (Fig. 8.18) and their maximal width (19.1 mm, Table 8.3), is statistically similar to North American ethnographic darts (Table 8.4). Also, in terms of maximal width Misliya and Hummal points with DIF are statistically similar (Table 8.4) to Porc Epic bifacial and unifacial points (23.61 and 23.15 mm, respectively, Sisk and Shea 2011) and have similar values with Aduma 5 points (about 23 mm, Brooks et al. 2006, Fig. 9).

Table 8.2 Mean maximal widths for points from Misliya Cave and North American ethnographic dart tips: Scheffé homogeneous subsets based on one-way analysis of variance
Full size table
Fig. 8.18
figure 18

Boxplots of maximal width values for various types of points from Misliya Cave and North American ethnographic dart tips

Full size image
Table 8.3 Misliya Cave: morpho-metric characteristics of various types of points bearing DIF
Full size table
Table 8.4 T-test probabilities comparing Misliya and Hummal points with North American ethnographic dart tips and Porc Epic bifacial and unifacial points. p < 0.05: the two samples differ with 95% confidence; p > 0.05: the two samples cannot be distinguished with 95% confidence. TCSP for Porc Epic points were compared to Misliya and Hummal points with DIF (http://in silico.net/statistics/ttest/two-sample) using standard deviation values provided by Sisk, personal communication, 2011
Full size table

Maximal Thickness (Table 8.5, Fig. 8.19)

In terms of mean maximal thickness North American dart tips (5.0 mm), Misliya (6.3 mm), Levallois (7.8 mm) and Abu Sif (9.3 mm) comprise four separate groups whereas Hummal (8.2 mm) belong to the third and in the fourth groups, meaning Hummal points are statistically similar to both, Levallois and Abu Sif points in terms of their maximal thickness.

Table 8.5 Mean maximal thicknesses for points from Misliya Cave and North American ethnographic dart tips: Scheffé homogeneous subsets based on one-way analysis of variance
Full size table
Fig. 8.19
figure 19

Boxplots of maximal thickness values for various types of points from Misliya Cave and North American ethnographic dart tips

Full size image

Again, Hummal points with DIF have the lowest values within the type (6.2 mm). Misliya points and Hummal points with DIF are statistically similar (Table 8.4) to Porc Epic bifacial and unifacial points (8.36 and 7.45 mm, respectively, Sisk and Shea 2011) and are practically identical to Aduma 5 points (6.5 mm, Brooks et al. 2006, Fig. 9) in terms of their maximal thickness.

TCSP (Table 8.6, Fig. 8.20)

In terms of average TCSP the points create four distinct groups with Misliya (46.5 mm) and North American ethnographic dart tips (47.2 mm) comprising the first. Hummal (56.4 mm), Abu Sif (66.4 mm) and Levallois (76.0 mm) each represent separate groups. T-tests (Table 8.4) show that Hummal points with DIF are statistically similar to North American dart tips, as well as to Porc Epic bifacial and unifacial points (50.25 and 50.93 mm, respectively, Sisk and Shea 2011). Misliya points are statistically similar to Porc Epic bifacial points and even smaller than Porc Epic unifacial points in terms of TCSP (Table 8.4).

Table 8.6 Mean TCSPs for points from Misliya Cave and North American ethnographic dart tips: Scheffé homogeneous subsets based on one-way analysis of variance
Full size table
Fig. 8.20
figure 20

Boxplots of TCSP values for various types of points from Misliya Cave and North American ethnographic dart tips

Full size image

Weight (Table 8.7, Fig. 8.21)

In terms of mean weight, the points create three groups with a considerable overlap between them. North American ethnographic tips (4.4 gr.) belong to the first group; Misliya (10.6 gr.) belong to the first and to the second; Hummal (16.2 gr.) and Levallois (14.7 gr.) belong to the second and to the third; Abu Sif (22.7 gr.) belong solely to the third group. Misliya points have weights similar to Aduma 5 points (10 gr., Brooks et al. 2006, Fig. 11b).

Table 8.7 Mean weights for points from Misliya Cave and North American ethnographic dart tips: Scheffé homogeneous subsets based on one-way analysis of variance
Full size table
Fig. 8.21
figure 21

Boxplots of weight values for various types of points from Misliya Cave and North American ethnographic dart tips

Full size image

Angle of the Distal Tip (Table 8.8, Fig. 8.22)

In terms of the average angle of the distal tip, the points create two distinctive groups with Abu Sif (58.9°), Misliya (62.0°) and Hummal (62.9°) belonging to the first and Levallois (73.1°) comprising the second. Abu Sif, Misliya and Hummal points with DIF show values lower than their type in general: 57.2°, 60° and 51°, respectively. These values are similar to Aduma points (55°–60°, Brooks et al. 2006).

Table 8.8 Mean distal angles for points from Misliya Cave: Scheffé homogeneous subsets based on one-way analysis of variance
Full size table
Fig. 8.22
figure 22

Boxplots of the angle of the distal tip values for various types of points from Misliya Cave

Full size image

Discussion and Conclusions

While all point types present in the EMP layer of Misliya Cave seem to have been applied as tips of hunting weapons, there are four types, i.e., Levallois, Abu Sif, Hummal and Misliya which were most frequently used in this function. These four types differ in terms of their morpho-metric characteristics, as well as in terms of DIF ratios. Levallois and Abu Sif points, the two largest types, show relatively high frequencies of DIF, around 20%. Misliya and some Hummal points , specifically those bearing DIF are the smallest in the assemblage and statistically similar to North American ethnographic dart tips, as well as to MSA Porc Epic and Aduma 5 points in terms of metric characteristics. The frequencies of DIF for Misliya and Hummal points (ca. 10%), are only one-half of those occurring on Levallois and Abu Sif points.

The largest types, Levallois and Abu Sif points differ statistically in terms of width, thickness, TCSP and the angle of the distal tip, with Levallois points being wider and thinner on average and having duller tips. Experiments with thrusting spears showed that greater width enhances penetrating ability of the point (Shea et al. 2001) while greater thickness makes the point more durable on impact, but reduces its penetrating capacity (Hughes 1998). Based on this evidence we suggest that Levallois points provided better penetration whereas Abu Sif points were designed to be more durable on impact. Abu Sif points show the lowest values of distal tip angle , a characteristic which increases penetrating abilities (Hughes 1998) thus reducing the influence of their relatively greater thickness.

There is a possibility that some DIF observed on the points from Misliya Cave occurred as a result of trampling as shown in experiments conducted by Pargeter (2011). However, the frequencies of DIF at Misliya Cave (between 6 and 22%) are considerably higher than those created in trampling experiments, up to 3%, depending on the type of the fracture (Pargeter 2011). The relatively high frequencies of DIF on Misliya Cave points precludes the possibility that these were created only as a result of trampling or post depositional processes. There are also parallels from other MP/MSA sites. For example, Shea (1988, 1993) reported relatively high frequencies of DIF for the Levantine MP, comprising about a third of all points bearing use-wear. In these analyses Shea included crushing and abrasion on tips in the criteria he used to infer projectile impact. If these are deducted, the frequency of DIF would comprise 10–20% (Shea, personal communication 2011). For the MSA Howiesons Poort segments the frequencies vary from 21 to 24% in different sites (Lombard and Pargeter 2008); MSA bifacial and unifacial point of various types exhibit DIF in frequencies varying from 5.3 to 13.4% (Villa and Lenoir 2006; Soriano et al. 2007; Villa et al. 2009a). For the European MP the values of DIF are somewhat lower, comprising 5.3% for the Bouheben site (Villa and Lenoir 2006) and 5.3 and 7.9% for units 1 and 2, respectively for Oscurusciuto rockshelter (Villa et al. 2009b).

The diversity in point sizes observed for the Misliya assemblage alongside the similarity of a particular group to North American ethnographic dart tips may reflect the presence of more than one kind of weapon during the EMP in the Levant. Thrusting or throwing spears, as well as darts may have been in use, presumably for different game or biotopes. Faunal evidence supports this possibility. The emergence of the MP in the southern Levant was associated with hunting of mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) in considerable numbers, a species extremely rare in the preceding Lower Paleolithic archaeofaunas. Moreover, this species, living in open terrain and hunted, according to ethnographic record (Churchill 1993) with complex projectiles was probably preferred by MP hunters in the Levant. The preference of gazelle is evident from the comparative analysis of faunal remains from a natural pitfall trap, Rantis Cave, and a number of anthropogenic cave sites (Yeshurun 2012). While in the natural trap Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) outnumber mountain gazelles, the anthropogenic caves, including Misliya (Yeshurun et al. 2007), show roughly equal presence of both species or an abundance of the latter. Whether this transformation in hunting behavior can be related to environmental changes i.e., prevalence of arid conditions during 285–255 or 240–230 ka BP (Vaks et al. 2010), close to the emergence of the MP, needs further research. The prevalence of aridity could have increased the population of gazelles who thrive in open, arid environments. This, in turn, could have led to the adoption of new hunting strategies and technologies, such as use of various stone tipped weapons, including long-distance projectiles.

The possibility of use of more than one kind of weapon during the EMP remains, however, theoretical. It is equally possible that the variability within Misliya Cave points actually reflects the range within one particular kind of weapon. Estimations of tip weight provided by Hughes (1998, Table IX) show that the range for Australian unfletched dart tips is 9–70 gr. Thus, dart tips seem not to be limited by weight or metric characteristics (see also Clarkson 2016) and theoretically all point types from Misliya Cave could have served as dart tips. Since there is no available data about dimensions of ethnographic (i.e., efficient) spearheads, we cannot exclude any archaeological type from being used as a tip for this kind of weapon, either. Experiments by Shea et al. (2001) showing that small and thin points are not efficient as tips of thrusting spears may be of relevance here. These provide further support for the possibility that Misliya points and Hummal points with DIF, the smallest points in our assemblage, served as tips of complex projectiles . Even so, at the present state we cannot rule out the option that these types represent the smallest efficient spearheads, probably for throwing by hand.

In sum, the diversity of Levantine EMP points in terms of their morpho-metric characteristics and the similarity of a particular group with North American dart tips support the possibility of the presence of a variety of weapons, including complex projectiles . In order to validate our observations, additional analyses should include considerations of the size of particular fracture types (e.g., Clarkson 2016; Sano et al. 2016) and calculations of fracture velocity (Hutchings 2011). Archery experiments and estimating performance characteristics can also provide insights on technological choices of prehistoric hunters (Yaroshevich 2010; Yaroshevich et al. 2010; Petillon et al. 2011). Such a study involving multiple lines of evidence will shed important new light on pertinent issues regarding technological transformations and subsistence strategies associated with the emergence of the MP in the Levant.