Daniel Schyle and Jürgen Richter (Eds.

PlEiStocEnE aRchaEology
of thE PEtRa aREa in JoRDan
KölnER StUDiEn ZUR PRähiStoRiSchEn aRchäologiE

Band 5

herausgegeben von

heinz-Werner Dämmer, Jürgen Richter und andreas Zimmermann

für das
institut für Ur- und frühgeschichte der Universität zu Köln

PDF file as printed excerpt

This file extract from

Daniel Schyle and Jürgen Richter (Eds.),

Pleistocene Archaeology of the Petra Area in Jordan
with contributions by Manuel Bertrams, Thomas C. Hauck, Shumon T. Hussain,
Karin Kindermann, Jürgen Richter, Daniel Schyle and Thomas Wolter
Kölner Studien zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 5, 2015

may not be released as printed nor digital form.

As „printed excerpt“, it is meant for personal use only.
 Daniel Schyle and Jürgen Richter (Eds.)

PlEiStocEnE aRchaEology

of thE PEtRa aREa in JoRDan

With contributions by

Manuel Bertrams, omas c. hauck, Shumon t. hussain, Karin Kindermann,

Jürgen Richter, Daniel Schyle and omas Wolter

a cRc 806 MonogRaPh

Verlag Marie leidorf gmbh • Rahden/Westf.

2015
 427 Seiten mit 171 abbildungen, 131 tabellen und 65 tafeln

gedruckt mit Unterstützung des SfB 806 “our Way to Europe”, Universität zu Köln

Bibliograische information der Deutschennationalbibliothek

Schyle, Daniel / Richter, Jürgen (Eds.):

Pleistocene archaeology of the Petra area in Jordan.
Rahden/Westf. : leidorf, 2015
(Kölner Studien zur Prähistorischen archäologie ; Band 5)
iSBn 978-3-86757-365-8

Die Deutsche nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen nationalbibliograie.

Detaillierte bibliograische Daten sind im internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier

alle Rechte vorbehalten

© 2015

Verlag Marie leidorf gmbh

Geschäftsführer: Dr. Bert Wiegel
Stellerloh 65 D-32369 Rahden/Westf.

tel: +49/(0)5771/9510-74
fax: +49/(0)5771/9510-75
e-mail: info@ml.de
internet: http://www.vml.de

iSBn 978-3-86757-365-8
iSSn 1868-2286

Kein teil des Buches darf in irgendeiner form (Druck, fotokopie, cD-RoM, DVD, internet oder einem anderen Verfahren)
ohne schriftliche genehmigung des VMl Verlag Marie leidorf gmbh reproduziert werden
oder unter Verwendung elektronischer Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfältigt oder verbreitet werden.

Universität Köln, institut für Ur- und frühgeschichte, Weyertal 125, D-50923 Köln
E-mail: secretary.prehistory@uni-koeln.de - homepage: http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/praehist

Umschlagentwurf: hartwig h. Schluse, Köln

cover image: e pathway of early modern humans (watercolour by Jürgen Richter)
Satz, layout und Bildnachbearbeitung: lutz hermsdorf-Knauth, Köln
Redaktion: Ursula tegtmeier, Köln

Druck und Produktion: druckhaus koethen gmbh & co. Kg, Köthen
 contEntS

i thE cRc 806 “oUR Way to EURoPE” –

fiElD caMPaignS into thE aRchaEology of WaDi SaBRa fRoM 2008 to 2013
(Jürgen Richter, Daniel Schyle and omas Wolter) .......................................................................................... 9
ii gEogRaPhy anD lanDScaPE EVolUtion of thE WaDi SaBRa anD aDJacEnt aREaS
(Manuel Bertrams) .......................................................................................................................................... 43

iii PlEiStocEnE DEPoSitS anD aRchaEological SitES

(Daniel Schyle) ................................................................................................................................................ 51
iV thE VEilED MoUStERian:
tRacES of MiDDlE PalaEolithic PRESEncE in thE WaDi SaBRa
(Shumon t. hussain, Jürgen Richter, Daniel Schyle, Karin Kindermann, omas Wolter and omas c. hauck) .. 55

V UPPER PalaEolithic SitES: analytic catEgoRiES of lithic analySiS

(Daniel Schyle) ................................................................................................................................................ 87
Vi thE ahMaRian SitE of al-anSaB 1
(Daniel Schyle) ................................................................................................................................................ 91

Vii BEtWixt SERiality anD SoRtiMEnt:

REthinKing EaRly ahMaRian BlaDE tEchnology in al-anSaB 1
(Shumon t. hussain) .................................................................................................................................... 131
Viii thE lEVantinE aURignacian SitE of SaBRa 2010/6
(Daniel Schyle) .............................................................................................................................................. 149

ix thE lEVantinE aURignacian SitE of SaBRa 4 - PalM ViEW 1

(Daniel Schyle) .............................................................................................................................................. 179
x thE final lEVantinE aURignacian SitE of SaBRa 4 - PalM ViEW 3
(Jürgen Richter and Daniel Schyle) ................................................................................................................ 233

xi thE final lEVantinE aURignacian finDS of MDaMagh

(Daniel Schyle) .............................................................................................................................................. 273
xii thE latE ahMaRian / MaSRaqan SitE of taiBEh 3
(Shumon t. hussain and Jürgen Richter) ...................................................................................................... 305

xiii thE tEchno-logical nExUS of coRE VaRiaBility anD BlaDElEt StanDaRDiSation:

REthinKing latE ahMaRian / MaSRaqan tEchnology in taiBEh 3
(Shumon t. hussain) .................................................................................................................................... 345
xiV thE UPPER PalaEolithic SEqUEncE of thE PEtRa aREa
anD thE UPPER PalaEolithic of thE lEVant
(Daniel Schyle) .............................................................................................................................................. 361

xV tEchnological conDUitS along thE MiDDlE to UPPER PalaEolithic tRanSition

in thE SoUthERn lEVant: SoME concEPtUal conSiDERationS
(Shumon t. hussain) .................................................................................................................................... 395
xVi DynaMicS of cUltURE changE
at thE BEginning of thE nEaR EaStERn UPPER PalaEolithic
(omas c. hauck) ........................................................................................................................................ 407

xVii SUMMaRiES
xVii.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 421
xVii.2 (arabic summary) ........................................................................................................ 425
Orders:

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH

Dr. Bert Wiegel
Stellerloh 65

D – 32369 Rahden/Westf.
Germany

Daniel Schyle and Jürgen Richter (Eds.)

Pleistocene Archaeology of the Petra Area in Jordan

With contributions by Manuel Bertrams, Thomas C. Hauck, Shumon T. Hussain,

Karin Kindermann, Jürgen Richter, Daniel Schyle and Thomas Wolter

Kölner Studien zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 5 (Rahden/Westf. 2015)

427 pages, 171 figures, 131 tables, 65 plates

Text in English with summaries in English and Arabic

Hardcover: 21,0 x 29,7 cm

ISBN 978-3-86757-365-8

Prize: 49,80 Euro

We hereby order ......... copies

Date, Signature

You may also place your order directly via:

http://www.vml.de/d/detail.php?ISBN=978-3-86757-365-8
 XII THe laTe aHmaRIaN/maSRaqaN SITe of TaIBeH 3

Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

XII.1 SITe loCaTIoN
Taibeh 3 is one of the Palaeolithic sites that had been already
identiied by Hans-Georg Gebel (Berlin) west of the small
village Taybet Zaman close to Petra in the 1980s. It is situ-
ated at the foot of the large Cretaceous limestone escarpment
stretching from north to south along the eastern margin of
the great Jordan rift fault and bearing the northern part of
the King’s Way, the old connection from Wadi mousa to
aqaba (Fig. XII-1; see also site no. 47 in Fig. I-14). e site
is actually a collapsed rockshelter within a system of narrow
and steep valleys, marking the passage from the eastern
plateau to the western lowland and is thus rather difficult to
access. In these deeply incised valleys, several sediment rem-
nants have survived erosional processes, because they are
closely attached to the steep sandstone walls that act as sed-
iment traps (Fig. XII-2). most of these small lateral sedi-
ment slopes do not contain archaeological remains, but the

4
3
5
2

Fig. XII-1 Taibeh 3. View from the east. Note the steep gravel road descending from the great limestone escarpment down to the
deeply incised valley cut into the sandstone of the Cambrian Umm Ishrin formation. (Photo: Christoph Schmidt)
1 Bedouin camp; 2 valley branch with the Taibeh site group including Taibeh 3. Small inset: 3 natural water cistern; 4 small sandy sediment
cone attached to the steep sandstone wall of valley covered with sandstone blocks; 5 white sediment bags marking the excavation area.
306 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Fig. XII-2 Taibeh 3. Gen-

eral view of the surrounding
landscape. (Photos: Daniel
Schyle)

Top: Sediment remnant on

the foot of the sandstone es-
carpment vis-à-vis the main
site.

Bottom: Western cliff of the

small valley containing the
site that marks the eastern
margin of the Jordan rift sys-
tem.

Taibeh site group is a rare exception. Today, the area is in-
habited by a small Bedouin community who live in the
narrow canyon cut into the Umm Ishrin Cambrian sand-
stone formation. ese families depend on animal prod-
ucts as well as on a number of natural water cisterns in the
canyon. one of them is located only a few metres away
from the site and might therefore explain the presence of
a well attested prehistoric occupation.
e site was originally visible as a large surface scatter of
artefacts spread on a small slope on the southern wall of
the valley (Figs. XII-3; XII-4). It became immediately
clear from a number of embedded artefacts that the rem-
nants are particularly well preserved, although luvial ero-
sion is a major geomorphological agent within the valley
loor. e now completely collapsed roof of the former
rockshelter covers most parts of the sediment cone with
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 307

Fig. XII-3 Taibeh 3. loca-

tion and topography of the
site.

contour lines

bedrock

surface collection
(non-systematic)
0 10 20 m
surface collection
(systematic)

excavation

Fig. XII-4 Taibeh 3. View

of the collapsed rockshelter
from the north. (Photo:
Daniel Schyle)
308 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

A
Pos. 5
AH 1
B

AH 2 C

E E1
AH 3
Pos. 6
F

G
Pos. 7
AH 4

Pos. 8
K

L
Pos. 9
AH 5 M

flint bone stone disturbance 0 30 cm

Fig. XII-5 Taibeh 3. Stratigraphic sequence including geological horizons a – m and archaeological horizons aH 1 – aH 5. Scale 1:10.
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 309

huge sandstone blocks, thus preventing the sediments from

eroding. Because the site complex appears to be heavily en-
dangered, archaeological investigations were initialised in
2009. activities in 2010 extended the initial documenta-
tion of the site to a small scale test excavation that aimed
at the examination of stratigraphic structure and integrity.

XII.2 THe eXCaVaTIoN aRea

after topographic surveying and comprehensive surface

sampling, one small section was established parallel to the
southern walls of the valley along the natural slope of the
sediment cone (Fig. XII-3). In order to create an inform-
ative cross-section, an area was chosen that enabled the
straightforward cutting of the main layers without remov-
ing much sediment. accordingly, 4 m2 were opened and
excavated in a stepwise manner, creating a staired trench
that covers a limited area only but soundly penetrates the
stratigraphic sequence (Figs. XII-6; XII-7). e depth of
the test trench increases to the southeast to a maximum of
2 m, generating decreasing sample sizes relative to both
depth and its south-easterly extent. all excavated sediments
were sieved with a 4 mm mesh and documented individ-
ually. along with small chips and debris, artefact densities
were thus nonetheless relatively high, reaching 700 artefacts Fig. XII-6 Taibeh 3. View to the staired test trench penetrating
per m2. ere is not much to say about ind distributions, the large sediment cone in front of the collapsed rockshelter from
a south-easterly direction. (Photo: Christoph Schmidt)
however, because the excavated area is simply too small and
the lowermost archaeological horizons (aH 3 to aH 5) in
particular yielded only few single artefacts (Tab. XII-2).
Notwithstanding, two spatial features were recorded: an ag-
gregation of densely scattered lint artefacts in the upper-
most archaeological horizon (aH 1), and a shallow pit with
an associated shroud of charcoal and some burnt artefacts
that appears to be an eroded ireplace at the bottom of the
subsequent archaeological horizon.

XII.3 STRaTIGRaPHy

Taibeh 3 has a complex stratigraphic sequence represented

by twelve different lithostratigraphic units and ive archae-
ological horizons (Figs. XII-5; XII-8). ese units generally
consist of ine to medium-grained sands with variable pro-
portions of aeolian and possibly luvial components.
Whereas seven geological horizons (GH) were sterile (GH a,
D, f, H, J, K and l), ive layers contained varying amounts
of lithic artefacts (GH B, C, e, G and m). lithostratigraphic
units associated with archaeological remains are usually
linked to the most consolidated parts of the sediment se-
quence, thus indicating soil formation processes that might
relate to ancient occupation surfaces. Nevertheless, it seems Fig. XII-7 Taibeh 3. Schematic representation of the staired
to be unlikely that these surfaces remained uncovered for test trench with geological horizons a – m.
310 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Geological Sedimentary description Depth Archaeological

horizon (GH) (in cm) horizon (AH)
- Surface 12 -

a Heterogeneous red brown ine sand, possibly re-deposited 12 – 30 -

B fine and intermediate sand with small ratio of angular debris, embedded artefacts 30 – 43 1

C Consolidated surface (calcareous crust) to its lower part dissolved into nodules 43 – 60 2
containing many artefacts and bones, lower part contains increasing ratios
of heterogeneous ine sand with silt and clay components, grey to brown colour
and “dusty” matrix, instable

D Pure homogeneous red ine sand with small calcareous concretions 60 – 71 -

e Pure homogeneous red indurated ine to intermediate sand with embedded artefacts 71 – 82 3

e1 Sediment lens bounded by GH D and GH e with grey consolidated sand - -

similar to GH B

f Reddish yellow brown sand, consolidated surface with calcareous crust 82 – 90 -

G Grey sand with coarse rubble components and river pebbles, coarse-grained materials 90 – 117 4
are concentrated in the upper part along with embedded bones and artefacts

H Red homogeneous sand, strongly consolidated, low ratio of ine-grained rubble 117 – 130 -

J Red heterogeneous sand, surface strongly consolidated and mixed with many 130 – 150 -
calcareous concretions of a nodular structure (calcareous crust), containing
a number of deep issures

K Red laminated sand, calcareous concretions follow vertical issures originating 150 – 170 -
from GH J, instable sediment matrix

l laminated heterogeneous sand mixed with rubble and consolidated by calcareous

soil formation processes, old surface probably exposed for a longer period 170 – 180 -

m loose homogeneous red sand with a few embedded artefacts 180 – 186 5

Fig. XII-8 Taibeh 3. Sedimentary characteristics of the lithostratigraphic units.

longer periods of time because the almost perfect horizon-
tal and extremely ine lamination speaks for a rather fast
burial of the embedded artefacts. on the other hand, the
poor preservation of organic materials might favour longer
periods of exposure. Unfortunately, only six bones, all in
bad shape, could be unearthed in the face of close to 3000
lithic specimens. all pieces were covered by calcareous
coatings and derive from GH C and G; ive of them have
been preliminary identiied as wild bovid, probably au-
rochs (Hubert Berke, pers. comm.).
e ive distinct archaeological horizons considerably
differ in artefact frequencies, aH 1 and aH 2 are by far the
richest horizons (Tab. XII-2). Close to 70 % of all laked
pieces derive from aH 2, whereas aH 3, aH 4 and aH 5
together make up not more than 4 % of the combined
sample. Hence, it is clear that samples of the three lower-
most horizons are difficult to interpret. Useful numbers
and indices are nevertheless given for all archaeological
horizons. However, only aH 1 and aH 2 were analysed in
detail and thus form the baseline for the classiication of
the material excavated so far.
XII.4 THe aRTefaCTS
XII.4.1 Raw material procurement
Raw material suitable for lithic reduction is generally abun-
dant within the wadi beds and along the numerous geo-
morphological faults in the vicinity of the site exposing dif-
ferent ine to coarse-grained lint varieties. Identiication
of meaningful raw material subtypes, however, is limited
by heavy patination at times and a poor knowledge of tex-
ture and matrix variability of these materials in relation to
the underlying formation processes and geological sub-
strata in the wider region. e raw material classes used
here are therefore based on general macroscopic similarities
and relect the need for a uniied classiicatory scheme in
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3
the larger project to enable cross-site comparisons of raw
material dynamics. It is thus extremely difficult to distin-
guish between different raw material sources, sometimes
even between primary outcrops and secondary lint seams.
Judging from the less patinated part of the excavated inds,
the overall range of raw materials is comparable to other
sites in the Wadi Sabra, although the spectrum of different
subtypes seems to be slightly larger resulting in a more het-
erogeneous raw material signature. Nevertheless, some
clear trends and patterns in the provisioning of these ma-
terials can be documented. first and most importantly,
ine-grained materials (“chalcedony”) represent the pre-
ferred variety for lithic production, while their coarse-
grained counterparts (“chert”, “phosphatic” lint and
“banded” lint) were used only occasionally (Tabs. XII-3;
XII-4). Banded lint is the only exception to this general
pattern and reaches amounts between 16 % and 21 %,
which is in good accordance with the raw material signa-
ture of recorded cores in the respective layers. It is reason-
able to assume that banded lint is easily available in the
immediate surroundings; banded lint proportions in the
assemblage hence relect the general availability of coarse-
grained materials in the vicinity of the site. Secondly, there
is no signiicant difference in complete blank size between
the raw material classes (Tab. XII-9), which indicates that
not only quality, but also size was an important selection
criterion for nodules and raw material chunks. is inding
is replicated by metric core properties (Tab. XII-10), sup-
porting the interpretation that high-quality, but small-size
raw material acquisition was the major goal.
from this perspective, the exceptional stability of this
raw material signature for the two uppermost archaeolog-
ical horizons provides an additional argument for a similar
sociocultural background of these two layers, assuming
that land use and raw material procurement strategies are
at least partially grounded in the sociocultural fabric of
final Upper Palaeolithic groups that produced these as-
semblages. even the lower horizons show comparably little
change in the general proportions of raw materials, which
potentially complements the stratigraphic evidence indi-
cating a fairly rapid accumulation of sediments at the site.
Conditions of natural surfaces are not in disagreement with
the previous observations (Tab. XII-5). most of the pieces
have unrolled natural surfaces, while less than 37 % are
clearly rolled. In this regard, it is interesting to note that
chalcedony embodies the lowest proportions of rolled nat-
ural surfaces conirming that special attention was paid in
the procurement of this particular raw material. In con-
trast, banded lint documents the highest proportion of
rolled surfaces, which supports the view that this is a typ-
ical local variety and was predominantly collected from the
wadi beds and lint seams in secondary position near the
site. Taken together, these indings might indicate that the
311
exploitation of primary outcrops was not an integral/sys-
temic modality of final Upper Palaeolithic raw material
provisioning, but rather occurred unsystematically. is in-
terpretation argues for the critical role of unsystematic and
continuous culling of adequate nodules and raw material
chunks with reduced energy and time investment within
an extremely embedded raw material acquisition strategy.
a decent part of the analysed pieces displays a jugged and
issured physical matrix, which might indicate that some
of them had been exposed to both taphonomic agents and
weathering processes. e comparatively high amount of
limestone cortex on cortical artefacts (Tab. XII-6) merely
emphasises that embedded procurement was not random,
targeting preferred high-quality pieces in particular.
Concerning the problem of raw material selection and
choice, comparison of the general procurement trends
with the raw material structure of modiied pieces is fairly
instructive (Tab. XII-4). assuming that at least a large part
of the formal tools can be located in the most distal part
of the reduction sequence and therefore represent true
endproducts, the overarching raw material selection focus
should be most clearly visible within these pieces. Having
said this, it becomes immediately clear that chalcedony is
even more predominant than it already is in the overall
raw material pattern. Notably, there is a strong positive re-
lationship between these ine-grained materials and mod-
iied bladelets of different types. is inding once again
underscores the interpretation that the differentiated struc-
ture of general raw material classes is not only a mirror of
raw material availability in the landscape, but conveys
valuable information on raw material procurement and
transformation strategies of human groups operating in
this setting.
XII.4.2 Debitage
e composition of the debitage (Tab. XII-2) reveals the
prevalence of laminar blanks over lakes. While the overall
lake to blade[let] ratio is 0.7 when all pieces (including
medial and distal fragments) are counted, the comparison
of complete blanks from aH 1 and aH 2 is a bit more bal-
anced (0.8), but still shows the focus on laminar debitage.
Unrebuttable, however, is the strong variability between
these two ind bearing horizons, aH 1 yielding more lakes
(ratio = 1.2) and aH 2 is clearly dominated by laminar
blanks (ratio = 0.6). is gives a irst indication of the vari-
able role of lakes during core initialization, maintenance
and primary laking, which should be considered as sensi-
tive variable here. another issue is of course artefact export
from the site that primarily affects bladelets because the
entire reduction modality is centred on them (compare
hapter XIII). Bladelets sensu stricto are much more frequent
312 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter
than blades and account for 30 % to 80 % of all recorded
blanks. ese immense luctuations very likely relect such
import-export dynamics. aside from these factors, one has
to bear in mind that all these inds derive from a very lim-
ited excavation area. is opens up the possibility that the
observed variability is actually only a function of spatial
heterogeneity. anyway, both argumentation strands enter
into the rejection of lake to blade[let] ratios as a helpful
means to classify lithic assemblages eo ipso.
Cores
all cores are bladelet cores either made on small chunks,
natural debris or lakes. Cores on lakes are clearly domi-
nant and make up more than 60 % of the core component.
e overarching core coniguration is not easily discernible
and the spectrum of reduced cores very heterogeneous.
Single-laking surfaces conigurations dominate by far,
whereas some cores exhibit additional platforms. In this
regard, 76 % of all exploited specimens were unidirectional
reduced and bidirectional cores constitute a minor part
(15 %) of the different assemblages (Tab. XII-7). ere is
moderate variation of this general pattern through the se-
quence, but the clear prevalence of single-platform/single-
laking surface conigurations is retained. an outstanding
feature of most cores is the extremely narrow and conver-
gent reduction surface. Wider reduction surfaces are only
preserved systematically on cores made on chunks or debris
that lack a natural hierarchy between wide and narrow
faces. flakes with such a generic morphology are almost
exclusively exploited along the narrow face. Typologically
speaking, the majority of these pieces would be grouped
in the category of “narrow-fronted convergent single-plat-
form cores” (Pls. XII-5 – XII-8,1.2). However, reduction
depth seems to be limited in these pieces and exploitation
is thus often depleted after three to ive small laminar de-
tachments. Specimens on the lower pole of this spectrum
can be confused with complex burins, although they mir-
ror the exact same reduction pattern and are therefore
treated as ad hoc bladelet cores on lakes here.
Core trimming elements
altogether, the total range of technical products is fairly
variable, almost no specimen matches another one. Crested
pieces are the most frequent supportive blanks (Tab. XII-
11). most of them are only marginally crested. us, the
resulting dorsal ridge is often restricted to the distal part
of the piece. accordingly, they are sometimes very irregular
and often not even parallel-sided. as such, cresting occurs
not only during core initialisation, but also as a means to
rejuvenate the narrow-fronted laking surface. from this
perspective, the division in crested pieces and reduction
surface rejuvenations may be arbitrary at times. e second
most frequent class of core trimming elements is consti-
tuted by blanks that maintain or rejuvenate the primary
reduction surface. is is by far the most heterogeneous
class in terms of morphologies or diagnostic and redundant
attributes. Included are various overshots attempting to re-
trieve the convexity of the distal laking surface. ese
pieces appear to solve situational problems and can even
be executed from an opposite striking platform. more reg-
ular occurring reduction surface rejuvenation blanks are
almost completely featured by lakes and technical per-
formance can be rather different. ey are struck from the
main laking platform, perpendicular or opposed to it.
moreover, some pieces are extremely small scaled and attest
a fair amount of micro corrections on already initialised
cores. others combine elements of cresting and ordinary
core face rejuvenation and are partially crested. Platform
rejuvenation by core tablets and related pieces is not very
common and testiies in many cases to minimal platform
adjustments only. Core lank rejuvenations are much more
invasive and often seem to reset the entire core shape. ac-
cordingly, some of them even truncate a considerable part
of the already narrow reduction surface.
Core reduction strategies
e general signature of core technology suggests little ini-
tial preparation effort, primary blank extraction seems to
have started immediately after the selection of adequate
pieces. ere is a clear distinction between bladelets that
are the main targets of core reduction and lakes that rep-
resent most of the technical products (Tab. XII-11). along
with the role as operators of core preparation and mainte-
nance, lakes have been used as core blanks. In these cases,
primary bladelet detachment is guided by the natural
ridges/edges on the lateral part of these lakes. Collected
chunks, thermoclastic pieces or natural debris were utilised
as cores if they had a prominent narrow face with a natural
guiding ridge. is straightforward strategy of core initial-
isation is mirrored in the low core trimming element
(CTe) to core ratio (Tab. XII-2). Coupled with an average
of 2 tools per core only, this demonstrates that the actually
removed volume is rather limited and many discard sizes
approach initialisation sizes very closely. Taken together,
the signature is evidence for a highly pragmatic and often
opportunistic modality of bladelet production with limited
reduction depth and minor initialisation and preparation.
is picture is in good accordance with the generally vari-
able nature of core trimming elements, pointing to situa-
tional problem solving at best. Nevertheless, constant and
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3
extremely low CTe to bladelet ratios (< 0.2) throughout
the main horizons reveal the efficiency of this approach.
from this perspective and in the context of good availabil-
ity of adequately sized raw materials in the vicinity, the dis-
card threshold for cores has to be considered very low. e
main core reduction strategy therefore relects general land-
scape exploitation schemes.
on the other hand, core transformation throughout
the exploitation process should not be underestimated. e
coniguration of core trimming elements suggests that
many technical operations were extremely invasive, poten-
tially re-organising the entire core by setting back the over-
all reduction surface or the core lank (compare chapter
XIII). one can grasp this aspect of core technology in the
low proportions of core tablet rejuvenation scars on dis-
carded cores in the face of associated technical products
that make up 8 % of the recorded CTes (Tabs. XII-8;
XII-11). a nearly complete detachment of the primary
laking surface creates new narrow edges that can be sub-
sequently exploited and therefore also re-structures the en-
tire core body. e same is true for comparatively thick
lakes removed from the core lank to maintain a narrow-
fronted reduction surface. In some cases, these pieces may
even have been reutilised as core blanks.
Blanks are generally removed by a soft hammer ap-
proach, although small but instructive differences in plat-
form coniguration between bladelets and blades as well
as lakes can be documented (Tab. XII-13). flakes bear
plain or cortical platforms that clearly place them in the
realm of technical laking and core shaping. moreover,
platform depth seems to indicate a more direct percussion
approach than in the case of bladelets (see Fig. XII-12).
Blade butts resemble lake conigurations, but medium
proportions of punctiform platforms bring them also close
to bladelet reduction strategies. is pattern might imply
that blades represent an arbitrary class within the techno-
logical system and same group into supportive blanks
whereas others portray early laminar reduction entering
into bladelet extraction sensu stricto (compare chapter
XIII). laminar blanks are slightly curved and in most cases
rectangular outlined, the distal shape, however, is not con-
trolled technologically.
Blanks
Table XII-12 illustrates the differences in fragmentation
rates for lakes and blade[let]s on the one hand and for the
two main archaeological horizons on the other hand. While
bladelets sensu stricto are the most fragmented class, lakes
and blades are fairly similarly fragmented and in most cases
almost complete. Together with the general trends in core
reduction strategies, this indicates that the latter represent
313
mostly by-products whereas bladelets are the intended out-
come of the reduction sequence. In addition, the higher
fragmentation rate of bladelets may testify to a potentially
large amount of complete bladelets exported from the site.
Bladelets are thus probably more sensitive to a discard bias
in this regard. Notwithstanding, the importance of small
laminar debitage within the assemblage would even be in-
creased if it is assumed that only a limited proportion of
the actually produced output is preserved, supporting the
characterisation as bladelet technology.
Dorsal scar patterns reproduce this inding, setting
lakes clearly apart from bladelets in particular (Tab. XII-
14). Identiication of bladelets as primary products is con-
irmed by their homogeneous parallel-unidirectional dorsal
scar coniguration. In contrast, lake dorsal scar patterns
support their separated role within the reduction sequence
with often more complex directionalities. Blades, once
again, stand somewhere in between. In this regard, there
is exceptionally little variation within the two main archae-
ological horizons.
Size distributions for complete blanks show that the
range of documented blank size is fairly limited resulting
in a high degree of clustering with a small number of out-
liers with both length and width values between 40 and
60 mm (Fig. XII-9). Blanks are generally small-sized and
continuously scattered in the distribution space, which un-
derscores their common origin from one broad size-con-
trolled core type (Figs. XII-10; XII-11). us, differences
in size most likely relect different reduction stages or min-
imal input-size variations only.
Comparison of blade and bladelet length classes (Fig.
XII-13) also argues for a continuous size distribution
amongst both classes with the focal point between 25 and
35 mm. almost 80 % of all complete blade[let]s fall within
this category, the blades sensu stricto representing merely
those specimens that deviate from the otherwise rather nar-
row and clinched shape of laminar debitage. Basic statistics,
however, also show that metric variability within lakes and
blades is comparable, whereas bladelets are more strongly
conined (Tab. XII-15). is would indicate that bladelets
are more strongly size-controlled than blades or lakes, the
latter two being more dependent on original core dimen-
sions. a simple statistical test conirms that bladelet size is
highly standardised, the width even more (Shapiro-Wilk:
p = 0.98) than the length (Shapiro-Wilk: p = 0.92). more-
over, length and width statistics of ordinary bladelets and
ouchtata bladelets are statistically identical, demonstrating
the almost neglectable distance between blank-bladelets
and modiied ones (Tabs. XII-15; XII-16). us, there is
no intermediate selection targeting better suited blanks
within this class. is means that in theory, each primary
bladelet already incorporates all the necessary attributes to
become an ouchtata bladelet.
314 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

100
complete blanks Fig. XII-9 Taibeh 3. length/
width scattergram of com-
90 plete blanks.

80

flakes (n = 234)
70

60
width in mm

50

40

30 blades (n = 95)

20

10
ge
bita
ll dé
sma bladelets sensu stricto (n = 208)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
length in mm

30 % 30 %

25 % complete flakes (n = 234) 25 % complete flakes (n = 234)

20 % 20 %

15 % 15 %

10 % 10 %

5% 5%

0% 0%
<15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 <55 <60 <65 <70 <75 <80 <85 <90 <95 <15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 <55 <60 <65 <70 <75 <80 <85 <90 <95
length classes in mm width classes in mm

40 % 30 %
complete flakes (n = 234) complete flakes (n = 234)
25 %
30 %
20 %
20 % 15 %
10 %
10 %
5%
0% 0%
<15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 <55 <60 <65 <70 <75 <80 <85 <90 <95 >0.2 >0.5 >1 >2 >4 >8 >12 >24 >32 >48 >55 >70 >90 >120
size classes in mm weight classes in g

Fig. XII-10 Taibeh 3. Dimensions of complete lakes. “Size” is calculated as [¥(l ° w)].

XII.4.3 Tools
although the overall frequency of artefacts was moderate,
the recorded number of modiied pieces is within the ex-
pected range (see Tab. XII-2). Tool values between 9 % to
12 % show that “tooling” was a major activity at the site,
essentially if one takes into account the presumably frag-
mented nature of the tool kit due to signiicant export bias.
e differences between the two main archaeological hori-
zons are minimal and hence conirm the reliability of the
sample size. In both layers, ouchtata bladelets and re-
touched pieces are the most common tool categories (Tab.
XII-1). endscrapers and truncations only occur in small,
but nearly identical numbers and burins are almost lacking
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 315

100 %
25 %
complete blade[let]s (n = 303) 80 % complete blade[let]s (n = 303)
20 %
60 %
15 %
40 %
10 %

5% 20 %

0% 0%
<15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 <55 <60 <65 <70 <75 <80 <85 <90 <95 <15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 <55 <60 <65 <70 <75 <80 <85 <90 <95
length classes in mm width classes in mm

60 % 40 %
complete blade[let]s (n = 303) complete blade[let]s (n = 303)
50 %
30 %
40 %
30 % 20 %
20 %
10 %
10 %
0% 0%
<15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 <55 <60 <65 <70 <75 <80 <85 <90 <95 >0.2 >0.5 >1 >2 >4 >8 >12 >24 >32 >48 >55 >70 >90 >120
size classes in mm weight classes in g

Fig. XII-11 Taibeh 3. Dimensions of complete blade[let]s. “Size” is calculated as [¥(l ° w)].

Fig. XII-12 Taibeh 3. Plat- 80 %

form depth of blade[let]s platforms
and lakes.
70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

blade[let]s (n = 377)
30 % flakes (n = 416)

20 %

10 %

0%
<1 <2 <3 <4 <5 <6 <7 <8 <9 <10 <11 <12 <13 <14 <15 <16 <17 <18 <19 <20 <21 <22 <23 <24 <25 >25
depth classes in mm

(but see Cores in XII.4.2). In terms of modiications, the Endscrapers

combined assemblage is clearly directed to bladelets, form-
ing a range from marginally across inely retouched pieces
to backed specimens. is focus seems to relect the general
intention to generate minimally invasive edge normalisa-
tions that enhance the properties of those pieces as lint
implements.
endscrapers are almost exclusively made on lakes (Pls.
XII-1; XII-2). although these lakes are not formal core
trimming elements, some pieces can be nevertheless iden-
tiied with initial blanks arising during core setup or core
lank initialisation. Some individuals are rather marginally
316 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter
90 %
complete blades and bladelets
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
<10 <15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 <55 <60 <65 <70 <75 <80 <85 <90 <95 <100
length classes in mm
retouched while others are evidently complex and
overutilised endscrapers. Blank selection seems to be ex-
tremely expedient and focused on the supportive blank
component only. Consequently, cortex is a common fea-
ture of many endscrapers.
Truncations
Truncations are predominantly made on lakes. ey gen-
erally share many features with endscrapers and often even
conlate a clear-cut classiication boundary between the
two tool categories. only one truncation is made on a pri-
mary product, while all others are made on lakes with a
supportive character.
Retouched pieces
is is the most heterogeneous category. It is dominated by
lakes and chunks or fragments. ese pieces either appear
to be extremely expedient in blank choice or are made on
core trimming elements. many modiications are extremely
irregular, indicating that some of these pieces might simply
relect heavy-utilisation and not modiication sensu stricto.
moreover, the retouch is often locally restricted and thus
only covers a small part of the modiied edge. Indeter-
minable chunks and fragments are also grouped into this
category. ey represent broken working edges and splin-
tered tools or expediently retouched shatters.
Backed and marginally retouched bladelets
Steeply and abruptly retouched pieces are rare in the assem-
blage. ey are often fragmented but appear throughout the
Fig. XII-13 Taibeh 3.
length of complete blades
and bladelets.
blades (n = 95)
bladelets (n = 208)
entire sequence. one single specimen in aH 5 represents a
microgravette point, but remains the only example so far.
marginally retouched bladelets bear a continuous, but at
times irregular and sometimes even local modiication,
which sets them apart from true ouchtata bladelets. Con-
sequently, some of these bladelets are under suspicion to be
utilised pieces rather than intentionally modiied ones. In
this respect, they are the laminar counterpart of the re-
touched piece category. Nevertheless, utilisation in this case
is more likely to be associated with their use as implements.
from this perspective, they might not be that different from
backed pieces in terms of functionality.
Ouchtata bladelets
finely retouched bladelets with minimal edge manipula-
tion, which continuously decreases from the proximal to
the distal end of the blank, are both the most frequent and
most important tool category (Pls. XII-3; XII-4; XII-
8,3.4). By far most of the bladelets that were modiied bear
an ouchtata retouch. most of them are broken, in partic-
ular at the distal tip that might indicate impact damage.
overall, ouchtata bladelets constitute the most homoge-
neous category of modiied pieces.
XII.5 CoNClUSIoN
e lithic assemblages from Taibeh 3 can be placed in terms
of both technology and typology alongside various bladelet
industries from the dawn of the epipalaeolithic in the wider
levant (e.g., SCHyle 1996; GoRING-moRRIS & BelfeR-
CoHeN 1997; KaUfmaN 2003). most of these archaeologi-
cal complexes have hitherto been described only loosely as
“bladelet assemblages” (SCHyle 1996). is terminology al-
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3
ready indicates the rather broad characteristics that these
lithic ensembles actually share. However, they seem to be
linked by a technological proclivity to produce small-scale
laminar blanks, essentially very regular bladelets sensu stricto,
which yield both a ine and continuous retouch on one single
edge. Consequently, the overall coniguration of the two up-
permost archaeological horizons (aH 1 and aH 2) in Taibeh
3 its very well into this group of assemblages. e lack of
geometric microliths throughout the sequence further sup-
ports this designation and argues for a terminal Upper Palae-
olithic origin of the ind bearing layers in question (cf. HUS-
SaIN 2013).
e so far only stratiied site in the project area that
yielded material of a potentially similar chronostratigraphic
position is mdamagh located in the eponymous Wadi system
south of Petra (chapter XI). In general terms, the Taibeh 3
material is comparable to assemblages in the wider region
that have either been described as “late ahmarian” (CoIN-
maN 2003; SHea 2013, 156f.) or as “masraqan” (GoRING-
moRRIS & BelfeR-CoHeN 1997). although such general
affinities can be doubtlessly attested, it is important to note
that signiicant differences are also evident. In contrast to late
ahmarian/masraqan sites from the Negev such as ain aqev
east (feRRING 1988) or Shunera XVI (GoRING-moRRIS
1985), for example, Taibeh 3 produced a much less devel-
oped blade component in terms of both blank properties and
tool design. e same accounts for the comparison with the
RefeReNCeS
CoINmaN 2003: N.R. Coinman, e Upper Palaeolithic of
Jordan: New data from the Wadi al-Hasa. In: a.N.
Goring-morris & a. Belfer-Cohen (eds.), more than
meets the eye. Studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity
in the Near east (oxford 2003) 151–170.
feRRING 1988: C.R.ferring, Technological change in the
Upper Paleolithic of the Negev. In: H.l. Dibble & a.
montet-White (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of
Western eurasia (Philadelphia 1988) 333–348.
GaRRaRD & ByRD 2013: a.N. Garrard, & B.f. Byrd (eds.),
Beyond the fertile Crescent. late Palaeolithic and
Neolithic communities of the Jordanian steppe. e
azraq Basin Project; vol. 1 (oakville 2013).
GoRING-moRRIS 1985: a.N. Goring-morris, at the edge:
Terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherers in the Negev
and Sinai; vol. 1. British archaeological Reports, In-
ternational Series 361 (oxford 1985).
GoRING-moRRIS & BelfeR-CoHeN 1997: a.N. Goring-
morris & a. Belfer-Cohen, e articulation of cul-
317
late Upper Palaeolithic assemblages from Wadi Jilat 10 and
Uwaynid 18 lower phase in the azraq basin (GaRRaRD &
ByRD 2013). Both assemblages yield inely retouched
bladelets of the ouchtata type, but display a much broader
array of cores and laminar blanks. analogous to the Negev,
this pattern indicates that independent blade production
sensu stricto (cf. feRRING 1988; GaRRaRD & ByRD 2013)
might play a crucial part in these assemblages. It remains
open, however, if these distinctions are rooted in chronology,
cultural geography or appear to be a mere relection of subtle
and potentially functional differences within comparable
land use systems around the last Glacial maximum (com-
pare chapter XIII).
acknowledgements
We are grateful to all the student members of the 2009 and
2010 CRC 806 “our Way to europe” ield campaigns to
Jordan for their practical support. Special thanks go to
omas Wolter who organised the topographic survey and
to Christoph Schmidt, Nicole Klaßen, michael lemke and
manuel Bertrams from RWTH aachen for their geoscien-
tiic assistance. is research would not have been possible
without the constant support and collaboration of the De-
partment of antiquities of Jordan (Doa). any shortcomings
or remaining errors remain ours.
tural processes and late quaternary environmental
changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23 (1997) 71–93.
HUSSaIN 2013: S.T. Hussain, Zum Problem leptolithischer
Klassiikationseinheiten im Jungpaläolithikum –
eine Kritik des technotypologischen Zusammen-
hangs von frühem und spätem ahmarien in Süd-
jordanien (unpubl. master dissertation, University
of Cologne 2013).
KaUfmaN 2003: D. Kaufman, Cultural variability in the
late Upper Palaeolithic of the levant. In: a.N. Gor-
ing-morris & a. Belfer-Cohen (eds.), more than
meets the eye. Studies on Upper Palaeolithic diver-
sity in the Near east (oxford 2003) 209–215.
SCHyle 1996: D. Schyle, Das epipaläolithikum des Vor-
deren orients; Band 1, Teil I: Das epipaläolithikum
und der Übergang zum Neolithikum in der levante
und in Ägypten. Beihefte zum Tübinger atlas des
Vorderen orients Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften)
85/1 (Wiesbaden 1996).
SHea 2013: J.J. Shea, Stone tools in the Paleolithic and
Neolithic Near east. a guide (New york 2013).
318 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

lakes blades bladelets CTE chunks/indet. fragm. total

n % n % n % n % n % n %
AH 1
endscrapers 3 37.5 . . . . . . . . 3 6.8
burins . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
retouched pieces 3 37.5 . . 1 3.1 1 100.0 3 100.0 8 18.2
marginally retouched bladelets . . . . 3 9.4 . . . . 3 6.8
backed bladelet . . . . 1 3.1 . . . . 1 2.3
ouchtata bladelets 27 84.4 . . . . 27 61.4
truncations 2 25.0 . . . . . . . . 2 4.5
notches and denticulates . . . . . . . . . . . .
splintered pieces . . . . . . . . . . . .
total tools 8 18.2 0 0.0 32 72.7 1 2.3 3 6.8 44
AH 2
endscrapers 5 25.0 1 50.0 . . . . . . 6 7.5
burins 2 10.0 . . 1 2.1 . . . . 3 3.8
retouched pieces 12 60.0 1 50.0 1 2.1 . . 11 100.0 25 31.3
marginally retouched bladelets . . . . 5 10.6 . . . . 5 6.3
backed bladelet . . . . 3 6.4 . . . . 3 3.8
ouchtata bladelets . . . . 36 76.6 . . . . 36 45.0
truncations 1 5.0 . . 1 2.1 . . . . 2 2.5
notches and denticulates . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
splintered pieces . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
total tools 20 25.0 2 2.5 47 58.8 0 0.0 11 13.8 80
AH 3
endscrapers . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
burins . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
retouched pieces 1 100.0 1 100.0 . . . . . . 2 50.0
marginally retouched bladelets . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
backed bladelet . . . . 1 50.0 . . . . 1 25.0
ouchtata bladelets . . . . 1 50.0 . . . . 1 25.0
truncations . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
notches and denticulates . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
splintered pieces . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
total tools 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4
AH 4
endscrapers 1 100.0 . . . . . . . . 1 20.0
burins . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
retouched pieces . . 1 50.0 . . . . . . 1 20.0
marginally retouched bladelets . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
backed bladelet . . . . 2* 100.0 . . . . 2 40.0
ouchtata bladelets . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
truncations . . 1 50.0 . . . . . . 1 20.0
notches and denticulates . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
splintered pieces . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
total tools 1 20.0 2 40.0 2 40.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5
* a single backed bladelet represents the only so far recorded ‘microgravette’

Combined
endscrapers 9 30.0 1 20.0 . . . . . . 10 7.5
burins 2 6.7 . . 1 1.2 . . . . 3 2.3
retouched pieces 16 53.3 3 60.0 2 2.4 1 100.0 14 100.0 36 27.1
marginally retouched bladelets . . . . 8 9.6 . . . . 8 6.0
backed bladelet . . . . 7 8.4 . . . . 7 5.3
ouchtata bladelets . . . . 64 77.1 . . . . 64 48.1
truncations 3 10.0 1 20.0 1 1.2 . . . . 5 3.8
notches and denticulates . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
splintered pieces . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.0
total tools 30 5 83 1 14 133

Tab. XII-1 Taibeh 3. Tool counts for each archaeological horizon (aH) and the combined assemblage.
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 319

AH 1 AH 2 AH 3 AH 4 AH 5 combined
n % n % n % n % n % n %

lakes 197 52.0 328 36.3 2 10.5 6 40.0 4 50.0 537 40.6
blades 49 12.9 121 13.4 2 10.5 3 20.0 2 25.0 177 13.4
bladelets 114 30.1 429 47.5 13 68.4 6 40.0 2 25.0 564 42.6
blade[let]s 163 43.0 550 60.9 15 78.9 9 60.0 4 50.0 741 56.0
cores 9 2.4 6 0.7 2 10.5 . . . . 17 1.3
cores on lakes 10 2.6 19 2.1 . . . . . . 29 2.2
debitage 379 28.6 903 68.2 19 1.4 15 1.1 8 0.6 1324
chunks 26 6.1 55 5.1 . . 2 7.1 . . 83 5.3
chips 399 93.9 1031 94.9 23 100.0 26 92.9 . . 1479 94.7
debris 425 27.2 1086 69.5 23 1.5 28 1.8 . . 1562
total 804 27.9 1989 68.9 42 1.5 43 1.5 8 0.3 2886

tools 44 11.6 80 8.9 4 21.1 5 33.3 . . 133 10.0

tools per core 2.3 . 3.2 . 2 . . . . . 1.8 .
CTes 22 5.8 81 9.0 . . . . . . 103 7.8
CTes per core 1.2 . 3.2 . . . . . . . 2.2 .
CTes per bladelet 0.2 . 0.2 . . . . . . . 0.2 .
blanks per core 19.0 . 35.1 . 8.5 . . . . . 20.9 .
lakes per core 10.4 . 13.1 . 1 . . . . . 8.2 .
blade[let]s per core 8.6 . 22 . 7.5 . . . . . 12.7 .
lake/blade[let] ratio 1.2 . 0.6 . 0.1 . 1 . 2 . 1.0 .
chip/blank ratio 1.1 . 1.2 . 1.4 . 1.7 . . . 1.3 .
chip/core ratio 21.0 . 41.2 . 11.5 . . . . . 24.6 .
chip/tool ratio 9.1 . 12.9 . 5.8 . 5.2 . . . 8.2 .

CTe = Core Trimming element

Tab. XII-2 Taibeh 3. Debitage counts and various indices for each archaeological horizon (aH) and the combined assemblage.
320 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

lakes blade[let]s cores total

n c% n c% n c% n c%
AH 1
chert 6 3.0 6 3.7 . . 12 3.2
chalcedony 111 56.3 101 62.0 12 66.7 224 59.3
phosphatic lint 3 1.5 7 4.3 1 5.6 11 2.9
banded lint 50 25.4 26 16.0 5 27.8 81 21.4
other 1 0.5 2 1.2 . . 3 0.8
indet. 26 13.2 21 12.9 . . 47 12.4
sample size 197 163 18 378

AH 2
chert 7 2.1 12 2.2 . . 19 2.1
chalcedony 193 58.8 327 59.5 13 54.2 533 59.1
phosphatic lint 19 5.8 28 5.1 1 4.2 48 5.3
banded lint 50 15.2 88 16.0 9 37.5 147 16.3
other 5 1.5 3 0.5 . . 8 0.9
indet. 54 16.5 92 16.7 1 4.2 147 16.3
sample size 328 550 24 902

AH 3
chert . . . . . . 0 0.0
chalcedony . . 9 60.0 1 50.0 10 52.6
phosphatic lint . . 1 6.7 1 50.0 2 10.5
banded lint 2 100.0 3 20.0 . . 5 26.3
other . . 1 6.7 . . 1 5.3
indet. . . 1 6.7 . . 1 5.3
sample size 2 15 2 19

AH 4
chert . . 1 . . . 1 6.7
chalcedony 4 . 2 . . . 6 40.0
phosphatic lint . . 2 . . . 2 13.3
banded lint 1 . 4 . . . 5 33.3
other 1 . . . . . 1 6.7
indet. . . . . . . 0 0.0
sample size 6 9 0 15

AH 5
chert . . . . . . 0 0.0
chalcedony 2 50.0 3 75.0 . . 5 62.5
phosphatic lint . . 1 25.0 . . 1 12.5
banded lint 2 50.0 . . . . 2 25.0
other . . . . . . 0 0.0
indet. . . . . . . 0 0.0
sample size 4 4 0 8

c% = column percentage

Tab. XII-3 Taibeh 3. General distribution of raw materials by blank category for each archaeological horizons (aH).
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 321

chert chalcedony phosphatic lint banded lint other indet. total

n r% n r% n r% n r% n r% n r% n
AH 1
endscrapers . . 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3 . . . . 3
burins . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
retouched pieces . . 4 50.0 . . 3 37.5 . . 1 12.5 8
marginally retouched bladelets 1 . 2 . . . . . . . . . 3
backed bladelets . . . . . . 1 100.0 . . . . 1
ouchtata bladelets 1 3.7 22 81.5 1 3.7 1 3.7 . . 2 7.4 27
truncations . . 2 100.0 . . . . . . . . 2
total 2 4.5 31 70.5 2 4.5 6 13.6 0 0.0 3 6.8 44
AH 2
endscrapers 1 16.7 1 16.7 3 50.0 . . . . 1 16.7 6
burins . . 2 66.7 . . . . . . 1 33.3 3
retouched pieces . . 14 56.0 1 4.0 7 28.0 1 4.0 2 8.0 25
marginally retouched bladelets . . 4 80.0 . . 1 20.0 . . . . 5
backed bladelets . . 2 66.7 1 33.3 . . . . . . 3
ouchtata bladelets . . 25 69.4 4 11.1 4 11.1 . . 3 8.3 36
truncations . . 1 50.0 1 50.0 . . . . . . 2
total 1 1.3 49 61.3 10 12.5 12 15.0 1 1.3 7 8.8 80
AH 3
endscrapers . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
burins . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
retouched pieces . . . . . . 2 100.0 . . . . 2
marginally retouched bladelets . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
backed bladelets . . 1 100.0 . . . . . . . . 1
ouchtata bladelets . . 1 100.0 . . . . . . . . 1
truncations . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
total 0 0.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4
AH 4
endscrapers 1 100.0 . . . . . . . . 1
burins . . . . . . . . . . 0
retouched pieces . . . . 1 100.0 . . . . 1
marginally retouched bladelets . . . . . . . . . . 0
backed bladelets 1 50.0 1 50.0 . . . . . . 2
ouchtata bladelets . . . . . . . . . . 1
truncations 1 100.0 . . . . . . . . 0
total 0 0.0 3 60.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5
Combined
endscrapers 1 10.0 3 30.0 4 40.0 1 10.0 . . 1 10.0 10
burins . . 2 66.7 . . . . . . 1 33.3 3
retouched pieces . . 18 50.0 1 2.8 13 36.1 1 2.8 3 8.3 36
marginally retouched bladelets 1 12.5 6 75.0 . . 1 12.5 . . . . 8
backed bladelets . . 4 57.1 2 28.6 1 14.3 . . . . 7
ouchtata bladelets 1 1.6 48 75.0 5 7.8 5 7.8 . . 5 7.8 64
truncations . . 4 80.0 1 20.0 . . . . . . 5
total 3 2.3 85 63.9 13 9.8 21 15.8 1 0.8 10 7.5 133

r% = row percentage
Tab. XII-4 Taibeh 3. General distribution of raw materials by tool types for each archaeological horizon (aH).

Tab. XII-5 Taibeh 3. Per-

rolled unrolled indet. total
centage of rolled natural sur- n r% n r% n r% n c%
faces according to raw mate-
rial indicating the original chert 6 40.0 8 53.3 1 6.7 15 3.2
condition of utilised chunks chalcedony 83 30.6 171 63.1 17 6.3 271 58.4
and nodules. phosphatic lint 9 39.1 7 30.4 7 30.4 23 5.0
banded lint 43 54.4 34 43.0 2 2.5 79 17.0
other 3 60.0 2 40.0 . . 5 1.1
r% = row percentage indet. 27 38.0 43 60.6 1 1.4 71 15.3
c% = column percentage sample size 171 36.9 265 57.1 28 6.0 464
322 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Tab. XII-6 Taibeh 3.

smooth rough limestone pebble indet. total
Cortex type according to
n r% n r% n r% n r% n r% n c%
raw material.
chert . . 4 57.1 3 42.9 . . . . 7 3.1
chalcedony 26 25.0 20 19.2 57 54.8 1 1.0 . . 104 46.4
phosphatic lint 1 5.9 3 17.6 10 58.8 3 17.6 . . 17 7.6
banded lint 11 19.0 11 19.0 36 62.1 . . . . 58 25.9
other 3 42.9 2 28.6 2 28.6 . . . . 7 3.1 r% = row percentage
indet. 6 19.4 4 12.9 18 58.1 3 9.7 . . 31 13.8 c% = column percentage
sample size 47 21.0 44 19.6 126 56.3 7 3.1 0 0.0 224

unidirectional unidirectional bidirectional sample size Tab. XII-7 Taibeh 3.

with supportive Reduction directionality
striking platform throughout the sequence as
n r% n r% n r% n documented on cores for
aH 1 13 68.4 2 10.5 4 21.1 19 each archaeological horizon
aH 2 20 80.0 2 8.0 3 12.0 25 (aH).
aH 3 2 100.0 . . . . 2
total 35 76.1 4 8.7 7 15.2 46 r% = row percentage

Tab. XII-8 Taibeh 3.

no negative 1 negative 2 negatives 3 negatives sample size
Total number of core tablet
n r% n r% n r% n r% n
and core lank rejuvenation
core lank rejuvenation scars negatives on cores for each
aH 1 11 57.9 5 26.3 2 10.5 1 5.3 19 archaeological horizon (aH).
aH 2 18 72.0 3 12.0 4 16.0 . . 25
aH 3 2 100.0 . . . . . . 2
total 31 67.4 8 17.4 6 13.0 1 2.2 46 r% = row percentage
core tablet rejuvenation scars
aH 1 19 100.0 . . . . . . 19
aH 2 25 100.0 . . . . . . 25
aH 3 2 100.0 . . . . . . 2
total 46 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 46

Tab. XII-9 Taibeh 3.

chert chalcedony phosphatic lint banded lint other
Weight and size statistics for
blank weight complete blanks according
minimum 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 to raw materials.
average 1.2 2.6 2.6 3.4 1.0
1q 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
median 0.8 0.7 1.4 1.2 0.9 Weight in g;
3q 2.0 1.9 3.0 3.1 1.5 size calculated as [¥(l ° w)].
maximum 2.4 111.8 18.4 32.3 1.7
SD 0.8 7.6 3.7 5.7 0.6
sample size 7 323 28 97 6

blank size
minimum 7.8 6.3 9.5 8.1 10.5
average 17.7 18.1 19.5 20.8 15.4
1q 14.1 12.7 14.2 13.7 14.9
median 17.5 16.6 19.7 18.8 16.6
3q 22.5 21.2 22.7 25.5 19.6
maximum 25.7 70.2 38.5 50.5 21.6
SD 5.9 8.2 6.6 9.1 3.7
sample size 7 323 28 97 6
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 323

Tab. XII-10 Taibeh 3. Weight and di- cores cores on lake core fragments
mensionality statistics for all cores from weight dimension weight dimension weight dimension
the sequence.
minimum 10.2 23 2.8 16 1.3 12
average 27.1 32.9 20.9 29.4 5.3 18.3
SD 11.6 5.3 14.3 6.2 4 6.3
Weight in g; dimensionality statistics cal- median 22.2 32.7 17.3 28.3 5.3 18.3
culated as length + width + thickness maximum 47.3 40.7 71.2 44.7 9.3 24.7
3 total 15 29 2

lakes bladelets blades total

n n n n %
overshots, opposed 1 . . 1 3.6
overshots rejuvenating the reduction surface 1 1 . 2 7.1
reduction surface rejuvenation 7 . 3 10 35.7
reduction surface rejuvenation, opposed 1 . . 1 3.6
reduction surface rejuvenation, perpendicular 3 . . 3 10.7
reduction surface rejuvenation, partially crested 2 4 2 8 28.6
reduction surface micro-rejuvenation 3 . . 3 10.7
subtotal reduction surface rejuvenation 18 5 5 28 18.5
crestings 4 15 2 21 65.6
crestings, marginal . 10 1 11 34.4
subtotal crested pieces 4 25 3 32 21.2
core tablet 6 . . 6 46.2
micro core tablet 3 . . 3 23.1
platform blade . . 1 1 7.7
micro-platform blade . 2 . 2 15.4
reduction angle rejuvenation 1 . . 1 7.7
subtotal core tablets/platform blades 10 2 1 13 8.6
core lank rejuvenation 11 1 . 12 57.1
core lank micro-rejuvenation 2 . . 2 9.5
core lank rejuvenation, perpendicular 1 . . 1 4.8
core lank rejuvenation partially truncating reduction surface 6 . . 6 28.6
subtotal core lank rejuvenation 20 1 0 21 13.9
indet. technical element 4 1 . 5 3.3
burin spalls . 48 . 48 31.8
burin spalls removing retouched edges . 4 . 4 2.6
total CTEs 56 86 9 151

CTe = Core Trimming element

Tab. XII-11 Taibeh 3. main categories of trimming elements (CTes) according to blank type.

Tab. XII-12 Taibeh 3. Blank fragmen- lakes bladelets blades blade[let]s

tation by category for the two uppermost n % n % n % n %
archaeological horizons (aH).
AH 1
complete 108 54.8 44 38.6 30 61.2 74 45.4
proximal 31 15.7 30 26.3 14 28.6 44 27.0
medial 23 11.7 19 16.7 2 4.1 21 12.9
distal 35 17.8 21 18.4 3 6.1 24 14.7
sample size 197 114 49 163

AH 2
complete 209 63.7 201 46.9 67 55.4 268 48.7
proximal 67 20.4 102 23.8 30 24.8 132 24.0
medial 19 5.8 55 12.8 11 9.1 66 12.0
distal 33 10.1 71 16.6 13 10.7 84 15.3
sample size 328 429 121 550
324 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

lakes bladelets blades blade[let]s Tab. XII-13 Taibeh 3. Platform type per
n % n % n % n % blank category for the two uppermost ar-
chaeological horizons (aH).
AH 1
plain 82 65.1 16 21.9 24 55.8 40 34.5
cortical 19 15.1 2 2.7 3 7.0 5 4.3
facetted 7 5.6 1 1.4 2 4.7 3 2.6
linear 8 6.3 20 27.4 9 20.9 29 25.0
punctiform 2 1.6 21 28.8 5 11.6 26 22.4
splintered 8 6.3 13 17.8 . . 13 11.2
indet. . . . . . . .
sample size 126 73 43 116
AH 2
plain 156 56.5 84 27.6 46 47.4 130 32.4
cortical 41 14.9 9 3.0 4 4.1 13 3.2
facetted 15 5.4 4 1.3 6 6.2 10 2.5
linear 23 8.3 48 15.8 20 20.6 68 17.0
punctiform 25 9.1 123 40.5 16 16.5 139 34.7
splintered 16 5.8 36 11.8 5 5.2 41 10.2
indet. . . . . . . .
sample size 276 304 97 401

lakes bladelets blades blade[let]s Tab. XII-14 Taibeh 3. Dorsal scar pat-
n % n % n % n % terns by blank category for the two up-
permost archaeological horizons (aH).
AH 1
parallel 95 48.2 99 86.8 38 77.6 137 84.0
parallel/perpendicular 44 22.3 5 4.4 7 14.3 12 7.4
opposed 4 2.0 . . . . . .
opposed/perpendicular 5 2.5 . . . . . .
perpendicular 13 6.6 1 0.9 . . 1 0.6
multidirectional 18 9.1 5 4.4 3 6.1 8 4.9
indet. 18 9.1 4 3.5 1 2.0 5 3.1
sample size 197 114 49 163
AH 2
parallel 180 54.9 340 79.3 85 70.2 425 77.3
parallel/perpendicular 44 13.4 12 2.8 11 9.1 23 4.2
opposed 6 1.8 1 0.2 1 0.8 2 0.4
opposed/perpendicular 2 0.6 . . 1 0.8 1 0.2
perpendicular 25 7.6 11 2.6 1 0.8 12 2.2
multidirectional 31 9.5 27 6.3 16 13.2 43 7.8
indet. 40 12.2 38 8.9 6 5.0 44 8.0
sample size 328 429 121 550

lakes bladelets blades blade[let]s Tab. XII-15 Taibeh 3. length and

length width length width length width length width width statistics (in mm) of all complete
lakes, blades and bladelets from the
minimum 6 6 11 3 23 11 11 3 entire sequence.
average 24.4 21.5 23.6 6.7 38.4 14.9 28.5 9.4
SD 11.4 8.7 7.9 1.7 12.4 4.8 11.9 5.0
median 22 20 23 7 37 13 26 8
maximum 77 64 61 10 96 42 96 42
total 255 215 106 321

Ouchtata bladelets length width thickness weight Tab. XII-16 Taibeh 3. length, width,
thickness (in mm) and weight statistics
minimum 9 4 1 0.1 (in g) for all ouchtata bladelets from the
average 20.4 6.1 2.1 0.2 entire sequence.
SD 7.8 1.5 0.6 0.2
median 19 6 2 0.2
maximum 39 12 3 0.9
total 24 24
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 325

TaIBeH 3 – lIST of ToolS By Tool ClaSS

ArCHAEOlOGICAl HOrIzOn 1: 44
Endscrapers: 3
endscraper, distal, on initial lake (core shaping) (Pl. XII-2,3) [12-7-47]
endscraper, distal (extending on the right side), on lake [12-7-100]
endscraper, distal, on initial lake (core shaping) [12-9-49]

Truncations: 2
Truncation, distal, on lake [12-9-54]
Truncation, distal, on reduction surface rejuvenation lake [12-7-101]

retouched lakes: 4
Continuous right-sided retouch on simple lake [10-12-19]
Invasive bilateral retouch, asymmetrical, on core lank rejuvenation lake (with failed bladelet extraction scar) [12-9-55]
abrupt left-sided retouch on lake with supportive character [12-7-107]
Invasive left-sided retouch on initial lake with core tablet character [12-7-53]

retouched fragments: 3
Broken part of a retouched working edge [12-7-121]
Broken part of a retouched working edge [5-2-48]
Broken part of a retouched working edge [12-9-31]

retouched bladelets: 1
Semi abrupt right-sided retouch on bladelet (Pl. XII-4,2) [12-3-16]

Backed bladelets: 1
abrupt and partially invasive backing on medial bladelet fragment [12-10-23]

Marginally retouched bladelets: 3

Continuous left-sided irregular inverse retouch (usewear ?) on distally broken bladelet [12-10-30]
Continuous right-sided irregular retouch (usewear ?) on bladelet [12-8-19]
Continuous right-sided ine retouch on proximally broken bladelet [12-8-28]

Ouchtata bladelets: 27
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-9-73]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on proximally broken bladelet, twisted [5-2-30]
Continuous left-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [12-9-72]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet, atypical [12-9-74]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-9-75]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distal bladelet fragment [12-7-94]
Continuous left-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet from lateral sharpening spall [12-7-92]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-7-91]
Continuous left-sided marginal retouch on medial bladelet fragment [12-7-82]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-7-84]
Continuous left-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-7-79]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [5-3-11]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on medial bladelet fragment [12-7-95]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on medial bladelet fragment [12-7-93]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-7-90]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-7-97]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on medial bladelet fragment [12-4-6]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [12-4-7]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distal bladelet fragment [5-2-10]
Continuous left-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-10-26]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [12-10-24]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet [12-10-25]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet, atypical [12-8-30]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on proximally broken bladelet [12-8-29]
Continuous right-sided marginal inverse retouch on bladelet [12-10-21]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distally broken bladelet (Pl. XII-4,3) [12-7-89]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet (Pl. XII-4,4) [12-7-99]
326 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

ArCHAEOlOGICAl HOrIzOn 2: 80
Endscrapers: 6
endscraper, distal, on lake with supportive character (core lank rejuvenation) [12-4-93]
endscraper, proximal (extended to the left side), on irregular short blade (Pl. XII-1,6) [13-2-103]
endscraper, distal, on short lake (core lank rejuvenation ?) (Pl. XII-1,1) [13-2-102]
endscraper, distal, on short lake (Pl. XII-2,2) [13-3-81]
marginal endscraper, distal, on lake (core lank rejuvenation) [5-4-60]
endscraper, distal, on distal lake fragment [13-3-82]

Burins: 3
Burin, distal, on bladelet [13-2-12]
Dihedral burin, distal, on lake (core lank rejuvenation ?) [13-4-92]
Burin on prepared edge, distal, on lake [13-1-338]

Truncations: 2
Inverse truncation, distal, on bladelet [13-1-34]
Truncation (bilaterally extended) on distal lake fragment [13-1-333]

retouched lakes: 12
Distal retouch on irregular lake [13-1-279]
Irregular distal retouch on early large lake [13-2-110]
Right-sided ine irregular inverse retouch on lake [13-2-148]
Right-sided ine irregular inverse retouch on lake [13-1-315]
Irregular ine distal retouch on large lake [13-2-109]
Bilateral ine retouch on proximally thinned lake [13-1-341]
Irregular ine distal retouch on lake with supportive character (core lank rejuvenation ?) [13-3-83]
marginal left-sided inverse retouch on lake with supportive character (core lank rejuvenation?) [13-2-108]
Irregular marginal left-sided retouch on proximal lake fragment with supportive character (core lank rejuvenation ?) [13-2-147]
left-sided, partially invasive retouch on small lake [13-1-337]
Proximal ine retouch on lake [13-1-342]
Distal short retouch on failed lake-core initialisation [13-1-317]

retouched chunks/fragments: 11
alternating marginal and invasive irregular retouch on indet. chunk/fragment [13-2-107]
alternating invasive retouch on indeterminate chunk [13-2-106]
Continuous short retouch on indeterminate chunk [13-1-172]
marginal retouch on indeterminate lake fragment [13-2-116]
Irregular ine retouch on indeterminate fragment [13-3-112]
abrupt retouch on indeterminate (blade ?) fragment [13-4-96]
Short irregular retouch on indeterminate fragment [13-3-84]
Short ine, partially alternating retouch on indeterminate fragment [13-1-339]
Irregular ine retouch on indeterminate lake fragment [13-1-316]
Short irregular retouch on indeterminate fragment [13-1-336]
Continuous ine retouch on indeterminate fragment [13-1-311]

retouched blades: 1
left-sided strong invasive retouch on distal blade fragment [13-1-340]

retouched bladelets: 1
left-sided short retouch on distal bladelet fragment [13-1-328]

Backed bladelets: 3
left-sided abrupt backing on distal bladelet fragment [13-2-139]
Right-sided abrupt backing on proximal bladelet fragment (Pl. XII-4,8) [13-1-322]
Right-sided abrupt backing on bladelet [13-2-120]

Marginally retouched bladelets: 5

left-sided ine retouch on distal bladelet fragment [13-3-90]
Irregular left-sided ine retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-3-84]
local right-sided inverse marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-1-355]
Bilateral ine to semi-abrupt retouch on bladelet [13-1-329]
Right-sided ine retouch on distal micro-bladelet fragment [13-1-312]
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 327

Ouchtata bladelets: 36
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-4-127]
Continuous left-sided marginal retouch on distal bladelet fragment with naturally steep edge [13-4-126]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distal bladelet fragment [13-4-125]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-4-124]
Continuous bilateral marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-4-123]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-4-121]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-3-91]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-4-87]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-4-86]
Continuous left-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-2-117]
Continuous bilateral marginal retouch on bladelet [13-2-119]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet, atypical [13-2-118]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-2-121]
Continuous left-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-2-137]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-1-368]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distal bladelet fragment [13-1-332]
Continuous right-sided marginal to semi-abrupt retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [5-5-57]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-1-318]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-1-331]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distal bladelet fragment, atypical [13-1-71]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-1-323]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on distal bladelet fragment [13-1-326]
Continuous right-sided extreme marginal retouch on bladelet [13-4-85]
Continuous right-sided inverse marginal retouch on bladelet [13-3-92]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [5-5-15]
Continuous right-sided marginal and partially invasive retouch on bladelet (Pl. XII-8,3) [13-1-321]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet (Pl. XII-4,7) [13-1-325]
Continuous bilateral marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment (Pl. XII-4,9) [13-1-324]
Continuous left-sided inverse marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-1-330]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-1-320]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-1-319]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet (Pl. XII-8,4) [13-1-327]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet (Pl. XII-4,6) [13-1-302]
Continuous right-sided inverse marginal retouch on proximal bladelet fragment [13-1-334]
Continuous right-sided inverse marginal retouch on bladelet [13-2-138]
Continuous right-sided marginal retouch on bladelet [13-4-88]

ArCHAEOlOGICAl HOrIzOn 3: 4
retouched lakes: 1
Proximal and right-sided invasive retouch on distal lake fragment [6-1-11]

retouched blades: 1
Continuous right-sided ine inverse retouch on proximal blade fragment [6-1-14]

Backed bladelets: 1
Right-sided backing on proximal bladelet fragment with naturally steep edge [6-1-12]

Ouchtata bladelets: 1
Continuous right-sided inverse marginal retouch on bladelet [6-1-13]

ArCHAEOlOGICAl HOrIzOn 4: 5
Endscrapers: 1
fine endscraper, distal, on proximally broken lake [7-1-7]

Truncations: 1
Short truncation, distal, on distal blade fragment [7-1-8]

retouched blades: 1
Continuous left-sided inverse ine retouch on distal blade fragment [7-1-11]

Backed bladelets: 2
abrupt left-sided elaborate backing (microgravette point ?) on bladelet (Pl. XII-4,1) [7-1-12]
abrupt right-sided backing on proximal bladelet fragment [7-1-13]
328 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Plate XII-1 Taibeh 3.

1 endscraper, distal, steep, on elongated lake (from aH 2) [13-2-102];

2 endscraper, distal, on semi-cortical lake (from aH 1) [10-12-49];

3 endscraper, proximal, on lake with ventral thinning (from surface collection) [7-2-14];

4 endscraper, distal, on lat lake with natural surface remnants (from surface collection) [3-24-7];

5 endscraper, distal, on wide lake (from surface collection) [3-1-8];

6 marginally endscraper, proximal, on irregular blade (from aH 2) [13-2-103].

Scale 1:1
 e late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 329

1 2

0 5 cm

3 4

5 6
330 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Plate XII-2 Taibeh 3.

1 endscraper, distal, circular, on semi-cortical lat lake (from surface collection) [3-23-27];

2 endscraper, distal, on small lake (from aH 2) [13-3-81];

3 endscraper, distal, on small semi-cortical lake (from aH 1) [12-7-47];

4 endscraper, distal, on large initial preparation lake (from surface collection) [3-23-9].

Scale 1:1
 The late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 331

1 2

0 5 cm

4
332 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Plate XII-3 Taibeh 3.

1 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from surface collection) [3-1-1];

2 finely retouched bladelet, right-sided (from surface collection) [3-1-2];

3 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from surface collection) [3-1-3];

4 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from surface collection) [3-1-4];

5 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from surface collection) [3-1-5];

6 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from surface collection) [3-18-1];

7 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from surface collection) [3-23-6];

8 ouchtata bladelet, bilateral (from surface collection) [3-23-8];

9 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from surface collection) [3-23-120].

outline scale 1:1

Drawing scale 2:1
 The late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 333

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9
334 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Plate XII-4 Taibeh 3.

1 Backed bladelet, left-sided (microgravette point ?) (from aH 4) [7-1-12];

2 Semi-abrupt retouch, right-sided, on elongated bladelet (from aH 1) [12-3-16];

3 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from aH 1) [12-7-89];

4 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from aH 1) [12-7-99];

5 Backed bladelet, right-sided (from aH 1) [12-10-23];

6 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from aH 2) [13-1-302];

7 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from aH 2) [13-1-325];

8 Backed bladelet, right-sided (from aH 2) [13-1-322];

9 ouchtata bladelet, bilateral (from aH 2) [13-1-324].

outline scale 1:1

Drawing scale 2:1
 The late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 335

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9
336 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Plate XII-5 Taibeh 3.

1 Narrow-fronted single-platform bladelet core on angular lake (from surface collection) [3-28-1];

2 Convergent single-platform bladelet core (from surface collection) [3-18-4];

3 Narrow-sided double platform bladelet core (from aH 1) [12-9-51];

4 Narrow-fronted parallel-sided single-platform bladelet core (from surface collection) [3-18-3];

5 Bidirectional bladelet core on cortical raw material chunk (from surface collection) [3-27-1];

6 Narrow-fronted parallel-sided single-platform bladelet core on lake (from surface collection) [3-18-8].

Scale 1:1
 The late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 337

1 2

3 4

0 5 cm

5 6
338 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Plate XII-6 Taibeh 3.

1 Convergent single-platform bladelet core with cortical part (from aH 1) [13-7-107];

2 Narrow-ronted convergent single-platform bladelet core on semi-cortical elongated lake (from aH 2) [13-4-90];

3 Narrow-sided double platform bladelet core on heavy-duty tool (from aH 2) [13-2-105];

4 modiied elongated lat core tablet (from surface collection) [3-24-8];

5 Narrow-sided double platform bladelet core on lake (from aH 2) [13-4-89];

6 elongated preparation lake (from surface collection) [3-23-13].

Scale 1:1
 The late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 339

1 2

0 5 cm

3 4

5 6
340 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Plate XII-7 Taibeh 3.

1 Narrow-sided single-platform bladelet core on heavy-duty tool (from surface collection) [3-23-10];

2 Sub-pyramidal single-platform bladelet core (from surface collection)[3-18-9];

3 Narrow-sided double platform bladelet core on heavy-duty tool (from aH 1) [12-9-47].

Scale 1:1
 The late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 341

0 5 cm
342 Shumon T. Hussain and Jürgen Richter

Plate XII-8 Taibeh 3.

1 Narrow-fronted single-platform bladelet core on lake (from surface collection) [3-22-24];

2 Convergent single-platform bladelet core with cortical part (from surface collection) [3-24-2];

3 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from aH 2) [13-1-321];

4 ouchtata bladelet, right-sided (from aH 2) [13-1-327].

1.2 Scale 1:1

3.4 outline scale 1:1; drawing scale 2:1
 The late ahmarian/masraqan Site of Taibeh 3 343

3 4