Fig 1.
Southeastern Arabia showing locations discussed in the text.
Figure by Hélène David-Cuny.
Table 1.
Counts of stone artefact types, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 2.
Cooking features and metal artefacts from the bone midden, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A) Bone midden prior to excavation. (B-D) Cooking features from contexts 2328 (B), 2332 (C), and 2338 (D). (E) Copper-base arrowheads from Horizon IV contexts (courtesy of Hélène David-Cuny). Scale bar 10 cm increments (A-D).
Fig 3.
Stone reduction sequence model, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 4.
Scatterplot of unmodified and assayed chert cobble sizes, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The unmodified chert cobbles were carried to the site (‘manuports’).
Fig 5.
Assayed chert cobbles, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Artefacts are from contexts 1748 (A), 1797 (B), and 2018 (C). Scale bar 50 mm.
Fig 6.
Chalcedony flake showing evidence for heat-treatment, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Heat-treatment is suggested by the glossy surfaces. The dull surfaces are cortex. From context 2714. Scale bar 10 mm.
Fig 7.
Chert artefacts recycled from earlier lithic scatters and further reduced or utilised, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Reworking is indicated by relatively fresh flake scars intruding into patinated flake scars. (A) Blade-like flake with more recent unifacial reduction at the distal end. (B) Distal end of a flake with more recent steep unifacial retouch across the proximal end. The retouching is indicated by a dashed line. (C) Single-platform core with crushed platform from a more recent attempt at removing a flake down the core face. (D) Bifacial core with a more recent flake struck from the same platform edge. (E) Blade-like flake recycled as a tool. More recent use-wear flaking is present on the lateral edges and dorsal ridge, indicated by the dashed lines. (F) Bifacial centripetal core with older, patinated scar remnants on both faces. From contexts 1794 (A), 2021 (B), 2012 (C), 2019 (D), 1790 (E), and 4802 (F). Scale bar 50 mm.
Fig 8.
Hammerstones, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A) Dolomite hammerstone with wear facets around the perimeter. (B) Chert hammerstone with a wear facet on one face. The hammerstone was shaped by percussion flaking prior to use as a hammer. From contexts 2446 (A) and 2006 (B). Scale bar 50 mm.
Fig 9.
Hammerstones and flakes, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A) Dolomite cobble with hammerstone wear and a use-wear scar resulting from a heavy percussion blow (arrow). B) Dolerite flake initiated by wedging. The prior negative scars suggest that this flake was produced in the reduction of a dolerite core, rather than from use as a hammerstone. C) Dolomite flake initiated by wedging. D) Dolomite flake initiated by wedging. From contexts 1293 (A), 2117 (B), 2315 (C), and 2325 (D). Scale bar 50 mm.
Fig 10.
Bipolar core made on a quartz pebble, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The artefact is from context 1797. Scale bar 10 mm.
Fig 11.
Chart showing the mean and range of incipient cone diameters on six cores, listed by excavation context, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Table 2.
Number of platforms on cores, all contexts, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 12.
Scatterplot comparing core sizes to manuport/assayed chert cobble sizes, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 13.
Chert single platform cores, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A, B) Cores reduced around part of the perimeter from cortical platform surfaces. (C, D) Cores reduced around most of the perimeter from a platform composed of a large flake scar. From contexts 1794 (A), 1797 (B), 2018 (C), and 2016 (D). Scale bar 50 mm.
Fig 14.
Chert single platform and multiplatform cores, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Dotted black lines outline platform surfaces, and arrows show the direction of major flake scars. (A) Core with three flakes removed across the end followed by rotation and striking flakes down the adjacent face using the prior scars as the platform. The reduction surfaces are adjacent to the one platform edge, so this is classified as a single platform core. (B) Core reduced in a similar way to A, but with evidence for two prior rotations and reduction from platforms that no longer exist. The final platform was established on the lateral margin of a prior scar. Only one platform now exists, so this is classified as a single platform core. (C) Core with a ‘cuboidal’ morphology, with bidirectional reduction down the core face from platforms at either end. Two independent platforms exist, so this is classified as a multiplatform core. (D) Core reduced in a similar way to A, but from a platform surface composed of a single large negative scar. The core was rotated and flakes were struck from the lateral margin of a prior scar, creating a second independent platform. The core is classified as multiplatform. (E) Core reduced bidirectionally from a multi-scar platform at one end (similar to A) and a cortical platform at the opposite end. The core has two independent platforms and is classified as multiplatform. The blank was a core recycled from an older lithic scatter; the black arrows indicate scars from the earlier reduction. All of these cores have platforms oriented at close to 90 degrees to the core face, and platforms on A-D are crushed, perhaps indicating anvil support. From contexts 2231 (A), 2111 (B), 1309 (C), 2823 (D), and 2325 (E). Scale bar 50 mm.
Table 3.
Platform types on core reduction flakes, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 15.
Schematic representation of anvil-supported direct percussion, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The chert multiplatform core is from context 1797.
Fig 16.
Chert bifacial centripetal cores, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The artefacts are from contexts 2018 (A), 1790 (B), and 2022 (C). Scale bar 50 mm.
Fig 17.
Bifacially-flaked chert and chalcedony tablets, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A) Chert tablet reduced by relatively invasive percussion flaking (images courtesy of Hélène David-Cuny). A burin-like blow was struck down one lateral edge from the tip, indicated by the arrow. This artefact was recovered from context 1793, but a wedge-shaped fragment with similar bifacial flaking-–probably from early in the same reduction event—was recovered from context 1790. (B) Chalcedony tablet reduced by steep, non-invasive bifacial percussion flaking, from context 1228. (C) Chalcedony tablet reduced by non-invasive bifacial percussion flaking, followed by sectioning on an anvil, from context 2448. The arrow points to a demicone on one of the truncated faces. Scale bar 50 mm.
Table 4.
Dimensions of chert and chalcedony flakes, contexts 1309 and 2009, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 18.
Scatterplot comparing the elongation of complete flakes and flake scars on cores, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 19.
Conjoined set of truncated pieces, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The ventral surface of the flake blank is shown on the right. Reduction began with unifacial freehand retouching to the blank’s ventral surface (indicated by the dotted line), and part of the edge shows microflaking, probably from use. This was followed by a series of anvil-supported truncations blows to the dorsal surface, culminating in the detachment of two conjoining truncation flakes. The points of force application for these two blows are shown by red dots. From context 2022, single reduction event (SRE) 32. Scale bar 10 mm.
Fig 20.
Scatterplot comparing the elongation of byproducts from truncating and backing flakes, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 21.
Thicknesses of blanks selected for truncating and backing, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Thickness was measured directly on truncated pieces, microliths, and tile knives. Flake length is the proxy of blank thickness for truncation flakes and backing flakes.
Fig 22.
Chert bifacial centripetal core, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The core was truncated by anvil-supported percussion (indicated by arrows). From context 2021. Scale bar 30 mm.
Fig 23.
Backed microliths from Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Scale bar 10 mm.
Fig 24.
Scatterplot comparing the elongation of unmodified flakes and microliths from the early and late stages of backing, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The backing process imposed size and shape constraints on the finished tools, and the data reflects the design criteria of the flintknappers.
Fig 25.
Schematic model of microlith backing methods, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A) Saruq Strategy A. (B) Saruq Strategy B.
Fig 26.
Microliths abandoned during the early phase of microlith manufacture, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A) Thick chert microlith with crushed platform edges and step-terminated flake scars on the backed face. The proximal end was detached by a single blow. (B) Chert microlith broken transversely across the proximal end, probably by a backing blow delivered without proper support. (C) Chert microlith with the distal end removed by a backing blow which propagated invasively and expanded laterally, rather than terminating at the anvil support. The lateral expansion lopped off the end of the microlith. From contexts 2023 (A), 2054 (B), and 2018 (C). Scale bar 10 mm.
Table 5.
Microlith stages, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Table 6.
Backed microlith orientation relative to percussion axis, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 27.
Chalcedony microlith abandoned in manufacture, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The flake blank’s platform is intact and the proximal part of the flake is unmodified. The middle part of the microlith is coarsely backed, resulting in notching of the platform edge. The distal end of the microlith shows well-controlled, final-stage backing. From context 2040. Scale bar 20 mm.
Fig 28.
Technical issues in microlith backing, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The schematic drawing shows the side view of a flake blank and anvil surface. (A) If a flake blank is placed on a flat anvil, there is a risk that the blank’s curvature will cause it to be unsupported opposite the point of force application (PFA), and backing can fail through a bending fracture. (B) Effective backing occurs when the blank is properly supported opposite the PFA. A convex surface allows the flintknapper to maintain anvil contact regardless of the degree of flake blank curvature, by tilting the blank as backing progresses.
Fig 29.
Single- and double-backed microliths, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
In the top examples, the arrows indicate the directions of the main flake scars. From contexts 2022 (A), 2008 (B), 2321 (C), 2049 (D), 2822 (E), and 1748 (F). Not to scale.
Table 7.
Single- and double-backed edges relative to microlith reduction stages, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 30.
Late stage microlith backing method, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A) Schematic cross-section view of late stage microlith backing sequence. (A, top) Full-length backing flakes can create scars with a zone of high mass near the termination end, distal to the relatively deep negative bulb of percussion. This mass is referred to as the ‘termination flange’. (A, middle) The termination flange is removed by flakes struck from the opposite edge of the backed face, terminating near the middle. (D, bottom) The ‘overhang’ proximal to the percussion bulbs are removed by a non-invasive raking technique, enhancing the domed profile to the backed face. (B) Examples of termination flanges on 3 flake scars. The arrows indicate the directions of the principal flake removals. (C) Examples of flange removal scars, indicated by the top arrows, terminating near the middle of the backed face. (D) Example of a domed face enhanced by a raking technique, creating non-invasive scars. The dotted lines show the approximate limit of the raking scars. Scale bar 10 mm, for artefact D. From contexts 1794 (B, D) and 2009 (C).
Fig 31.
Schematic cross-section of flake attrition and backing, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
The drawing illustrates how the thickness of a finished microlith may not reflect the thickness of the flake blank. Attrition progresses until the microlith falls within the desired thickness range; the width of the finished microlith will be strongly influenced by the edge-angle of the flake blank.
Table 8.
Dimensions of chert and chalcedony microlith manufacturing rejects, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Table 9.
Dimensions of chert and chalcedony finished microliths, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 32.
Examples of microlith chord shapes, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
(A) Straight chord, context 2026. (B) Excurvate chord, context 2232. (C) Incurvate chord, context 2008. (D) Sinuous chord, context 1794. Not to scale.
Table 10.
Backed microlith chord shapes, Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 33.
Microlith silhouettes showing the continuous variation in shape Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Scale bar 10 mm.
Fig 34.
Symmetry data for finished microliths from Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Perfect symmetry is 50% in Maximum Width Position (MWP) [65] and 1.0 in the Backed Artefact Symmetry Index [66]. The proportions are illustrated with schematic silhouettes of scalene microliths.
Table 11.
Dimensions of backed microliths from southeast Queensland, Australia, and Horizon IV, Saruq al-Hadid.
Fig 35.
Microliths from late prehistory.
(a, b) Hafted transverse backed microlith arrowheads from tombs at Naga-ed-Der, Egypt, ca. 2182–2052 BC (after [88]: Plate V). (c, d) Transverse arrowheads depicted on slate palettes from Hierakonpolis, Egypt (c), and lower Egypt (d), ca. 3650–3300 BC (after [88]: Fig 1). Figure by Hélène David-Cuny.