340
Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019)
Introduction
Conflict and warfare studies have constituted impor-
tant research focusses within archaeology in recent
years (Guilaine, Zammit 2005; Livingstone Smith
2009; Martin, Frayer 1997; Meller, Schefzik 2015;
Thorpe 2005). The origin and genesis of interperso-
nal conflicts, war, their forms and probable causes,
and their traces in the archaeological record are
much debated also for the Near Eastern Neolithic
(Clare 2010; Müller-Neuhof 2005; 2014a; 2014b).
Site structures, the existence of fortifications or of
defensive buildings, phenomena of site abandon-
ment, spatial analysis of site distribution and evi-
dence for trauma in bones are among the proposed
archaeological markers for conflict (Ferguson 2013;
Glencross, Boz 2014; Müller-Neuhof 2005.129–163;
Müller-Neuhof 2014a). Based on these finds or on
ethnographic analogies, generalized as well as small-
scale conflicts with mostly economic causes were pro-
posed for this epoch and region (Clare 2010; Mül-
ler-Neuhof 2014a).
The meaning of projectile points
in the Late Neolithic of the Northern Levant.
A case study from the settlement of Shir, Syria
Laura Dietrich, Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow, and Oliver Dietrich
German Archaeological Institute, Orient-Department, Berlin, DE
ldietrich@zedat.fu-berlin.de
doerte.rokitta-krumnow@dainst.de< oliver.dietrich@dainst.de
ABSTRACT – Our contribution explores the possibilities of inferring the functions of Late Neolithic
projectile points from the settlement of Shir, Syria. Use-wear and metrical values are applied to dif-
ferentiate between arrowheads, darts and thrusting spears, followed by a discussion of hints for use
for hunting or as weapons for interpersonal conflict. Weapons get larger and more visible exactly in
the moment when hunting declines as a basis for subsistence. This economical transformation would
have produced considerable change for individuals who previously defined themselves as hunters.
The social practice of hunting may (at least partially) have been substituted by prowess in interper-
sonal conflict.
IZVLE∞EK – V prispevku raziskujemo mo∫nosti, kako sklepamo o namenu pozno neolitskih projekti-
lov iz najdi∏≠a Shir v Siriji. Za razlikovanje med pu∏≠i≠nimi konicami, pu∏≠icami in sulicami smo
uporabili analizo sledov uporabe in metri≠ne podatke, vse to pa nadgradili z razpravo o sledovih
uporabe pri lovu ali kot oro∫je pri medosebnih spopadih. Oro∫je postane namre≠ ve≠je in bolj opaz-
no ravno v trenutku, ko se zmanj∏a vloga lova kot osnovnega sredstva za pre∫ivetje. Tak∏na gospodar-
ska preobrazba bi pomenila znatno spremembo za posameznike, ki so se pred tem identificirali pred-
vsem kot lovci. Dru∫ben obi≠aj lova bi lahko bil (vsaj deloma) nadome∏≠en s spretnostjo v medoseb-
nih spopadih.
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Near East; projectile points; Shir; warfare
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – neolitik; Bli∫nji Vzhod; projektili; Shir; vojskovanje
Pomen projektilov v ;asu poznega neolitika v severnem Levantu.
{tudijski primer iz najdi[;a Shir v Siriji
DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.21

The meaning of projectile points in the Late Neolithic of the Northern Levant. A case study from the settlement of Shir, Syria
341
dressed as arrows, darts and spears; sling stones are
also numerous (Borrell, πtefanisko 2016; Gopher
1994; Korfmann 1972; Müller-Neuhof 2005.167–
207; Rosenberg 2009; Shea 2006; 2013.238–249).
The notion of ‘projectile points’ comprises triangu-
lar to biconical pieces of flint, usually between 2 to
10cm long and less than 3cm wide (Shea 2013.238).
The development of the shapes of projectile points
from the Epipaleolithic to the Late Neolithic in the
Levant does not seem to follow one common, supra-
regional line; major differences between the South-
ern and the Northern Levant were noticed (Shea
2013.238–249). These include discrepancies in sha-
pes, which could have a functional or stylistic mean-
ing (Gopher 1994.22), and a disparity in their sizes,
with north Levantine points being generally larger
(Borrell, πtefanisko 2016.138). Elongated points
were usually associated with the Middle PPNB (Bor-
rell, πtefanisko 2016 with further reading), while for
the PN a reduction in length was postulated (Shea
2013.248–249), following a short-time growth in
the Late PPNB (Cauvin 1978). Regional and chrono-
logical variability and changes in the shapes of the
projectile points have been explained either by ma-
jor changes in hunting techniques, implying morpho-
logical and technological transformations, by shifts
in weapon technologies and functions – or simply by
stylistic reasons (Gopher 1994.22; Müller-Neuhof
2005.177–181). It has also been stressed that some
objects, addressed as ‘projectile points’, were in fact
used for different tasks based on their shapes (Ast-
ruc, Russell 2013.338; Müller Neuhof 2014b with
bibliography) and use-wear analyses seem to con-
firm this hypothesis in some cases (Coskunsu, Le-
morini 2001). Multifunctionality (weapon-tools or
tool-weapons: see Chapman 1999) is very likely,
and exclusions of functions cannot be made easily
through functional macro- and microscopic analyses
of use-wear. These analyses reflect often only the
last steps in the biography of an object. Previous
analytical approaches focused on typological distinc-
tions and metrical analysis. The latter were used to
differentiate between different weapon categories
like arrows, darts and spears by way of comparing
the dimensions of archaeological finds to ethnogra-
phic data (Hughes 1998; Shea 2006; Shott 1997;
Sisk, Shea 2011; Thomas 1978).
The present study aims to decipher possible func-
tions and social roles of projectile points from the
Late Neolithic site of Shir, Syria. The site is particu-
larly suitable for this analysis due to its long strati-
graphical and chronological sequence and a high
quantity of projectile points. Also projectile points
Weapons as a conflict marker were taken into consi-
deration to a lesser degree. This is partly due to the
difficult differentiation between weapons used for
conflict and those used for hunting (with the ex-
ception of maceheads, for which an use in hunting
would be less likely) – in an epoch in which hunt-
ing still represents a major basis of subsistence (Mül-
ler-Neuhof 2014a-b; Scheibner 2016). This is parti-
cularly the case for the Early Neolithic (Pre-Pottery
Neolithic (PPN), 9600–7000 BC) of the Levant. A
stronger possibility of linking weapons and conflict
seems to exist only toward the end of the Neolithic,
in the Late PPNB and Early Pottery Neolithic (PN) (c.
7500 to 6000/5600 BC) (Hours et al. 1994). A supra-
regional, general change of the subsistence basis
takes place during that period, marked by the declin-
ing importance of hunting (and therefore of the use
of weapons in this scope) and the completion of the
domestication processes both of animals and plants
(Abbo et al. 2017; Asouti, Fuller 2013; Vigne 2015),
the extended cultivation of plants, animal husbandry
and the exploitation of milk (Evershed et al. 2008;
Russell 2010; Scheibner 2016.110–125, 210–218,
with bibliography), the invention of pottery (Nieu-
wenhuyse 2009; Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2010) and the
spread of food storage (Bartl 2004). Archaeozoolo-
gical records show a decline in the number of bones
of wild animals in the finds along with a simulta-
neous rise in the number of bones of domesticated
animals (Scheibner 2016.235, Fig. 4.47–48).
It is not entirely clear how demography and settle-
ments evolved at the end of the PPNB in the North-
ern Levant, and most probably major regional dif-
ferences in their development have to be assumed.
Some reconstruction models include a reduction of
settlement sizes and densities in the Late Neolithic
(Bocquet-Appel, Bar-Yosef 2008). Furthermore, re-
gionalization and an interruption of the long-distance
trade networks of the PPNB (Asouti 2006) have been
postulated (e.g., Watkins 2008). Severe climate
change (the 8.2k-event: Verheyden et al. 2008; We-
ninger et al. 2005) was also suggested, followed by
the development and spread of pastoralism as a sub-
sistence strategy (e.g., Russell 2010). Climate change
and subsequent lack of resources are assumed to
have caused social stress, resulting in supra-regional,
‘politically’ motivated inter-group conflicts and large-
scale migrations through Anatolia, to the West (Clare
et al. 2008; Clare, Weninger 2016).
The most representative weapons in Neolithic assem-
blages, including the Late Neolithic, are ‘projectile
points’, i.e. pointed weapons, which have been ad-

Laura Dietrich, Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow, and Oliver Dietrich
342
made from bone, which seem to be very rare, consti-
tute an important part of the analysis.
The Neolithic settlement of Shir
Shir is located c. 12km northwest of the city of Hama
on a 30m high, natural terrace above the Orontes
tributary Sarut. The site, with an overall size of 4ha,
was discovered in 2005 during the Orontes survey
conducted by the Damascus Branch of the German
Archaeological Institute under the direction of Karin
Bartl in cooperation with the Syrian Department of
Antiquities. Excavations were undertaken in three
areas of the site between 2006 and 2010, accumulat-
ing to a total of 2350m
2
excavated (Bartl et al. 2008;
2009; 2012; Nieuwenhuyse 2009; Rokitta-Krum-
now 2012). Settlement activities date exclusively to
the 7
th
millennium BC. An earlier settlement phase
was excavated in the southern area (7000 to 6600
BC), a later phase in the central and northern areas
(6600 to 6200/6100 BC). As far as could be recon-
structed from the excavations and the geophysical
prospections, Shir represents a typical Late Neolithic
village from the Northern Levant with several clus-
ters of houses. The site’s special importance arises
from an exceptionally long settlement history of
nearly 800 years, covering the Late Neolithic period,
its very well preserved stratigraphy, the very early
occurrence of pottery on site (dark faced burnished
ware and later coarse ware: Nieuwenhuyse 2009),
and evidence for significant changes in architecture
with the appearance of large, specialized buildings
for storage (Bartl 2014; 2017; Dietrich in prep.;
Dietrich, Lelek Tvetmarken 2015).
The Southern Area was excavated most extensively.
Here, six subsequent layers were noticed, ranging
from the early to middle 7
th
millennium. The earli-
er layers (I-III) are mainly characterized by single-
room buildings, sometimes with annexes and much
of the daily activities going on outside the houses.
The later layers (IV-VI) yielded multi-room buildings
with inner courtyards (Bartl 2017; Pfeiffer in print).
The functional interpretation of projectile points
More than 190 projectile points have been found in
this area. Most of them were made of flint. Only 48
items are fully preserved of the total number of 172
flint points. Most of the broken pieces show signs
of impact, e.g., burin-like blows, hinting at an inter-
pretation as projectile points and not as awls or
drills. The types are dominated by large ‘Amuq-1
and ‘Amuq-2 points followed by Ugarit and Byblos
points; one Bouqras point and three Levallois points
complete the assemblage (Rokitta-Krumnow 2012)
(Fig. 1). The persistence of PPN lithic reduction tech-
niques in the PN period is noticeable, and, for exam-
ple, naviform core-and-blade technology producing
long bidirectional blades is present at all stages of oc-
cupation (Rokitta-Krumnow 2011).
Projectiles of flint show a high varia-
bility in size and weight (Fig. 2), rang-
ing from 3.3g to 26.4g weight and
4.2cm to 11.8cm size.
Projectile points made from bone are
generally rare in Neolithic assembla-
ges, or they have not been recogniz-
ed as such so far. Experimental stu-
dies as well as ethnographic exam-
ples have pointed out the high effec-
tivity of bone projectiles (Letour-
neux, Pétillon 2008; Waguespack et
al. 2009), which lends some proba-
bility to the latter explanation. At
Shir, fifteen bone projectile points
were identified, and an additional
twelve objects may possibly be ad-
dressed as such. Osseous points imi-
tate the lithic projectiles in shape
(Fig. 3). Use-wear traces like broken
tips hint at their use as projectiles.
This specific use-wear was also ob-
Fig. 1. Flint projectile points from the Neolithic settlement of Shir
(© German Archaeological Institute, photos by K. Bartl, T. Urban).

The meaning of projectile points in the Late Neolithic of the Northern Levant. A case study from the settlement of Shir, Syria
343
served with objects classified as awls based on their
shapes, but is not typical for that category of tools.
Other traces of use-wear include splinters on one
end and to a lesser extent fissures along the shaft.
Bone projectile points have relatively symmetrical
shapes and are well-balanced through their wide
blade with pointed ends. Hence, the shape displays
aerodynamic characteristics. This is not the case with
objects classified as awls, so we consider this specific
shape as being diagnostic for an interpretation as pro-
jectile points. Typical awls in Shir have tubular shafts,
made from an entire or half hollow long bone with
one pointed end. It is however difficult to differen-
tiate between fragmented projectile points and awl
fragments. It is therefore assumed that among the
objects classified as awls several projectile points are
hidden. This is again tentative evidence for the origi-
nal number of bone projectile points being higher.
We are aware that our identification of the tools’
functions as projectile points is based on shapes and
macroscopic use-wear analysis and is missing micro-
scopic analyses. Microscopic exa-
mination was planned but then
not possible because of the poli-
tical situation in Syria. Also, as
mentioned above, observable tra-
ces often only reflect the last of a
long series of uses of any given
tool. However, the great quantity
of other pointed osseous tools
used as drills in Shir and a cer-
tain standardization of their
forms may constitute arguments
to exclude the differently shap-
ed lithic and aerodynamic bone
points from this category.
As mentioned above, size and weight have been
used as indicators to distinguish between different
kinds of projectile points. In some mechanical cal-
culations, mass is an important parameter for the
distinction between arrowhead and spear (Borrell,
πtefanisko 2016; Sisk, Shea 2011). These calcula-
tions are based on the assumption that, in the case
of a bow and arrow, there is a firm relationship be-
tween the arrow shaft, the arrowhead, and the bow.
Accordingly, the arrowhead should not exceed 12%
of the total weight of the arrow shaft (Beckhoff
1966) in order to hit the target. Korfmann (1972.33–
35) confirmed these estimates by applying a relation
of 1:7 between arrow and arrowhead. There is also
a firm relationship between a bow and the weight
of an arrow, with the consequence that the weight
of an arrowhead can be estimated, too. The most
practical weight for an arrowhead is estimated at c.
8g, although this applies only to modern-day bows
with complex designs. A weight up to 5g may be esti-
mated for prehistoric arrowheads; ethnographic stu-
dies and calculations have affirmed such approxima-
tions (Bretzke et al. 2006; Cattelain
1997). This value will also be applied
in the following discussion.
As for projectiles catapulted with
spear-throwers, ethnographic stud-
ies and experiments on weights de-
fine an ideal weight-range between
9g and 70g (Bretzke et al. 2006; Hu-
ghes 1998). By adding feathers, the
weight of a dart can be reduced (Hu-
ghes 1998).
Following these schemes for inter-
preting projectile weights, a total of
21 points made from bone and 45
Fig. 2. Size and weight of flint projectile points from the Neolithic settle-
ment of Shir (chart by D. Rokitta-Krumnow).
Fig. 3. Bone (left) and flint (right) projectile points from the
Neolithic settlement of Shir (© German Archaeological Institute,
photos by K. Bartl, T. Urban).

Laura Dietrich, Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow, and Oliver Dietrich
344
from stone from Shir were analysed (Figs. 4 and 5).
Despite the small numerical basis, an interesting
picture emerged about the development of the pro-
jectile points. It can be recognized that in the early
Layers III and IV as well as in Layer V the weights
noticeably locate within the lower (especially bone
projectile points) as well as median zones, that is,
within the range of possible arrowheads and darts
for spear-throwers. The weight values for spear-thro-
wers increase already in Layer Vb and even more so
in Layer VI (Fig. 4).
In order to clarify this picture, reference was also
made to size parameters in the analysis. Various stu-
dies on projectiles do not pay sole regard to the
length, but far more to the surface area of the cross-
section. This ‘area’ is referred to as the ‘tip cross-sec-
tional surface’ (TCSA), a parameter which basically
links size and shape of the projectile with the beha-
viour at the moment of its penetration into animal or
human tissue, and the thus expended energy (Bor-
rell, πtefanisko 2016; Sisk, Shea 2011; Hughes
1998; Shea 2006; Thomas 1978). The TCSA value is
calculated with the formula 0.5 x maximum width x
thickness. Points with a low value are smaller, thin-
ner and penetrate tissue more quickly. A higher va-
lue, on the other hand, is indicative of wider and thic-
ker points. Based on ethnographic metric data from
North America and Australia (Borrell, πtefanisko
2016.140, Tab. 1; Bretzke et al. 2006.70; Shott 1997;
Thomas 1978), TCSA values between 13 and 53 for
arrows and 20 and 174, e.g., an average between 57
and 103 for darts can be expected (Borrell, πtefanis-
ko 2016.140, Tab. 1). Values for thrusting spears
range between 79 and 257 (Bretzke et al. 2006.70;
Shea 2006) and between 7 and 222 for experimental-
ly produced spears (Borrell, πtefanisko 2016.Tab.
1). Cycles of recycling and reshaping could not be
taken into consideration in the present analysis.
The development of TCSA-values for Shir results in a
pattern similar to that of the development of weights
(Fig. 5). Smaller, thinner projectiles that would usu-
ally be used as arrowheads and spear-thrower darts
appear mainly in Layers III-IV and less so in Layer V,
while larger, wider projectiles are represented pre-
dominantly in Layer VI.
Prestige weapons in a changing world
One possible way of interpreting this result based
on the above mentioned weight differences among
the darts with and without feathers is to view the
lighter, smaller projectiles in the early layers as ar-
rowheads and feathered spear-thrower darts, and
the heavier ones in Layer VI and the later settlement
as spear-thrower darts without feathers or as spear-
heads. They are already present in the early layers,
albeit only in small numbers, but markedly increa-
se in Layer VI. According to Shea’s experiments, the
values shown in Figures 3 and 4 (11g or 79mm)
may represent the lower boundary of the value zone
for thrusting spears (Bretzke et al. 2006.70; Shea
2006), while by contrast throwing spears may weigh
less (Bretzke et al. 2006.73). These considerations
lead to two more interpretational possibilities:
❶ During the periods of the earlier layers at Shir
(III–IV, partly V), arrowheads, darts and feathered
darts were produced. Thrusting spears were either
rarely made, or made from perishable material, such
as wood.
❷ During the periods corresponding to the later la-
yers, especially Layer VI, arrowheads declined, while
darts and/or throwing spears continued to be uti-
lized. A change in the basic procurement of raw ma-
terials cannot be assumed, as the often-employed
flint was locally available. This ‘enlargement’ of
spears could therefore signal an increased utiliza-
tion of thrusting spears. Thrusting spears can be used
both as short-range as well as long-range weapons.
If the coeval development of daggers and maceheads
– appearing only in the later layers (Fig. 6) – is con-
sidered, which served primarily as short-range wea-
pons and probably had social implications, being
used as prestige-weapons (Müller-Neuhof 2005.196),
then the development of large projectile points, pos-
sibly for spears, may be linked to this process.
Surprisingly, this development is opposed to the ge-
neral development of other formal lithic tools, which
decrease in size (Rokitta-Krumnow 2011) (Fig. 7).
Apparently, the projectile points seem to have play-
ed an important role in the community, since their
development follows the opposite direction. Com-
parisons to other sites in the Northern Levant with
several occupational phases show a general devel-
opment toward longer points at the End of the Early
PN (Rokitta-Krumnow 2011.222, Fig. 12; Mezraa
Teleilat: Coskunsu 2007; Tell el-Kerkh: Arimura
2004; Ain el-Kerkh: Arimura 2007; Tell Halula: Bor-
rell 2006). This is accompanied by a loss of formal
tools in favour of ad-hoc and expedient tools (Rokit-
ta-Krumnow 2011.290).
How can we interpret the possible appearance of
large, probably prestige weapons in Shir? The deve-

The meaning of projectile points in the Late Neolithic of the Northern Levant. A case study from the settlement of Shir, Syria
345
lopment of larger projectile points in the Late PPNB
in the Northern Levant has been linked with the
(possible ritual) hunting of larger animals like au-
rochs (Cauvin 1978). Deposits of auroch bones in
archaeological finds seem to confirm the special sig-
nificance of the hunting and consumption of these
animals in social activities like feasting (Pöllath et
al. 2018; Russell, Martin 2005; Russell et al. 2009).
The archaeozoological analyses from Shir are still in
progress, but some deposits of aurochs bones were
observed.
However, as a general trend a reduction in the per-
centage of hunted animals is noticeable between the
Early and the Late Neolithic in the Levant (Scheibner
2016.235–237, Fig. 4.47; 4.48). Bones of domesti-
cated animals constitute about 70% of the assembla-
ges in the Late Neolithic, and hint at a maximum use
of domestic animals in this
time and a decrease of the
contribution of wild animals
to the food spectrum. Also, a
constant reduction of game
size from the Upper Palaeoli-
thic to Late Neolithic is noti-
ceable (Scheibner 2016.212–
217). This general develop-
ment apparently does not co-
incide with the development
of the length of arrowheads
and spears. The most charac-
teristic weapon and one of
the most characteristic objects
of the Early Neolithic (PPNB)
are large tanged points made
on bidirectional blades (Ab-
bès 2003; Borrell, πtefanisko
2016), used for middle-sized
game, while for example du-
ring the Natufian small lithic-
tipped projectiles coincide
with large game in archaeo-
zoological assemblages (Boc-
quentin, Bar-Yosef 2004; Yes-
hurun, Yaroshevich 2014).
Thus, there is no simple cor-
relation between small pro-
jectile points and small ani-
mals on one side, and large
projectile points and large
animals on the other. Additio-
nally, assuming that the large
points actually represent darts
and/or spears, then their ex-
clusive use for subsistence hunting would signify a
lower range in variation and a lesser ability to adapt
hunting techniques than with the combined utiliza-
tion of spears/sling shots and the bow and arrow, as
the latter are far more versatile and possess several
technical advantages (Churchill 1993; Whittaker
2013). Taking the association of larger projectile
points with other weapons in the later layers from
Shir into account, a more complex significance is
proposed, centring on representation within (ritual)
hunting and interpersonal conflict.
In the numerous murals at the contemporary set-
tlement of Çatalhöyük, Anatolia, wild animals and
hunting scenes predominate (Hodder 2006.195–
204). Depictions at Çatalhöyük show large danger-
ous animals surrounded by small hunters, who at-
tack them with different kinds of weapons (bows
Fig. 4. Weight of projectile points from the Neolithic settlement of Shir
(© German Archaeological Institute, chart by L. Dietrich).
Fig. 5. TCSA values for projectile points from the Neolithic settlement of
Shir (© German Archaeological Institute, chart by L. Dietrich).

Laura Dietrich, Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow, and Oliver Dietrich
346
and possibly bolas are visible,
spears and other projectile wea-
pons like boomerangs are also
present: Hodder 2006.197, Fig.
84, 94, Fig. 38). Such scenes
have occasionally been interpret-
ed as attempts to transfer the
strength of the large dangerous
animals to human beings (Hod-
der 2006.197–198; Lewis-Wil-
liams 2004), or from a perspec-
tive of ritually acquiring hunting
skills (Hodder 2006.197, Fig.
84), as a successful hunt not only
would have an important symbo-
lic meaning but would also bear
the bonus for individuals or even
dominant groups of gaining social prestige (Hod-
der 2006.203–204). The weapons depicted at Ça-
talhöyük (Hodder 2006.94, Fig. 38) are clearly rec-
ognizable, as the individuals are habitually shown
with their hands raised and their weapons aiming
at the animals. Such representations denote a con-
scious manner of depicting the action as the main
subject. Along the same lines, it is likewise conceiva-
ble that at Shir weapons were made larger in order
to render them more visible. Symbolically, an ampli-
fication of human strength in battle with wild ani-
mals or human opponents would thus be achieved
through an enlargement of the size of the weapons.
The later projectile points from Shir would conse-
quently not only reveal specific activities, but also
specific groups of agents, with regard to age/stage of
initiation, gender, clan, etc. (Carter 2011).
Armed conflict between human beings is not directly
archaeologically attested at Shir (for example through
burnt layers, fortified complexes, large depots of sling
stones). However, conflict and demonstrations of
power by small groups or individuals can be assum-
ed for the period in question on a supra-regional
echelon (Clare 2010; Clare et al. 2008).
To sum up, at the end of the PPNB and Early PN in
the Northern Levant, large visible weapons appear.
This phenomenon could have a connection to hunt-
ing, but it appears exactly at the moment when hunt-
ing declines as a basis for subsistence. This transfor-
mation would have produced considerable change
regarding the social roles of individuals, who previ-
ously defined themselves as hunters. It seems possi-
ble that the social practice of hunting was (at least
partially) substituted by prowess in interpersonal
conflict as a means to perpetuate and reinforce iden-
tities in this situation of change, or transform aspects
of them into a new one, that of the warrior, defend-
ing the new settlements and their agriculturally used
hinterlands. Symbolically charged weapons of im-
pressive size could have played a significant role
here. Large-scale conflict on a
supra-regional level does not
need to be proposed or pro-
ven for this scenario, rather
an interpretation of the use of
these weapons especially for
conflict on the local level with-
in smaller groups seems pro-
bable. These conflicts might
be individually motivated and
may have had a denotation in
the individual development
of a single person, generating
social status and (new) social
identities.
Fig. 6. Stratigraphical distribution of daggers, maceheads and pro-
jectile points at the Neolithic settlement of Shir (© German
Archaeological Institute, chart by L. Dietrich).
Fig. 7. Chronological development of percentage of formal tools at the
Neolithic settlement of Shir (chart by D. Rokitta-Krumnow).

The meaning of projectile points in the Late Neolithic of the Northern Levant. A case study from the settlement of Shir, Syria
347
The settlement of Shir was excavated by the German Archaeological Institute, Damascus Branch of the Orient-
Department (project leader Karin Bartl) in cooperation with the Direction Générale des Antiquités et de Musées
(DGAM, Damascus). Work was funded by the German Research Foundation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Abbès F. 2003. Les Outillages Néolithiques en Syrie Du
Nord. Méthode de débitage et gestion laminaire durant
le PPNB. British Archaeological Reports IS 1150. Archae-
opress. Oxford.
Abbo S., Gopher A., and Lev-Yadun S. 2017. The domesti-
cation of crop plants. In B. Thomas, G. G. Murray, and D.
J. Murphy (eds.), Encyclopedia of applied plant sciences,
vol. 3. Elsevier. Waltham, MA: 50–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394807-6.00066-6
Arimura M. 2004. Chipped Stone Artefacts. In T. Iwasaki,
A. Tsuneki (eds.), Archaeology of the Rouj Basin. A re-
gional study of the transition from village to city in North-
west Syria. University of Tsukuba. Tsukuba: 57–97
2007. Néolithisation de la Syrie du Nord-Ouest. L’évo-
lution des industries lithiques à Tell Ain el-Kerkh (Ba-
sin du Rouj, 8500–6000 cal. BC). Doctoral Thesis. Uni-
versité Lumière Lyon 2. Lyon.
Asouti E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B inter-
action sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20: 87–126.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-007-9008-1
Asouti E., Fuller D. Q. 2013. A contextual approach to the
emergence of agriculture in southwest Asia. Current An-
thropology 54: 299–345.
https://doi.org/10.1086/670679
Astruc L., Russell A. 2013. Trends in Early Pottery Neoli-
thic Projectiles and Wild Fauna Exploitation at Tell Sabi
Abyad I, Northern Syria. In O. P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bern-
beck, P. M. M. G. Akkermans, and J. Rogasch (eds.), Inter-
preting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia. Bre-
pols. Turnhout: 331–343.
Bartl K. 2004. Vorratshaltung: die spätepipaläolithische
und frühneolithische Entwicklung im westlichen Vor-
derasien. Voraussetzungen, typologische Varianz und
sozioökonomische Implikationen im Zeitraum zwis-
chen 12.000 und 7.600 BP. ex Oriente. Berlin.
2014. Shir, Syrien: Siedlung und Umland des 7. Jts. v.
Chr. in der nördlichen Levante. e-Forschungsberichte
des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut 1: 115–119.
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0048-journals.efb-
2014-1-p115-119-v4416.6
2017. Shir, Syrien. e-Forschungsberichte des Deutschen
Archäologischen Institut 1: 168–173.
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0048-journals.efb-
2017-1-p168-173-v6108.2
Bartl K. Haidar A., Nieuwenhuyse O., and Rokitta-Krumnow
D. 2008. Shir – Ein neolithischer Fundplatz am mittleren
Orontes. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Test-
kampagne Herbst 2005 und Grabungskampagne Frühjahr
2006. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 1: 54–88.
Bartl K., Hijazi M., Ramadan J., and Neef R. 2009. Die spät-
neolithische Siedlung Shir/Westsyrien. Vorläufiger Bericht
über die Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagnen Herbst 2006
und Frühjahr 2007. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 2:
140–161.
Bartl K., Farzat A., and Wael al-Hafian W. 2012. The Late
Neolithic site of Shir. New results from 2010. Zeitschrift
für Orient-Archäologie 5: 168–187.
Beckhoff K. 1966. Zur Morphogenese der steinzeitlichen
Pfeilspitze. Die Kunde N. F. 17: 34–65.
Bocquentin F., Bar-Yosef O. 2004. Early Natufian remains:
Evidence for physical conflict from Mt. Carmel, Israel.
Journal of Human Evolution 47(1–2): 19–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.05.003
Bocquet-Appel J.-P., Bar-Yosef O. (eds.) 2008. The Neoli-
thic demographic transition and its consequences. Sprin-
ger. New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8539-0
Borrell F. 2006. La gestión de los recursos minerales si-
liceous en las primeras comunidades campesinas en el
valle medio del Éufrates; VIII°-VII° milenios Cal. BC. Im-
plicationes socioeconomicas del proceso de producción
litico. Doctoral Thesis. Universitat autònoma de Barce-
lona. Barcelona.
Borrell F., πtefanisko D. 2016. Reconstructing projectile
technology during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B in the Le-
vant: An integrated approach to large tanged points from
References
∴ ∴

Laura Dietrich, Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow, and Oliver Dietrich
348
Halula. Journal of Archaeological Science 69: 130–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.005
Bretzke K., Marks A., and Conard N. 2006. Projektiltech-
nologie und kulturelle Evolution in Ostafrika. Mitteilun-
gen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 15: 63–82.
Carter T. 2011. A true gift of mother earth: the use and
significance of obsidian at Çatalhöyük. Anatolian Studies
61: 1–19.
Cattelain P. 1997. Hunting during the Upper Paleolithic:
Bow, Spearthrower, or both? In H. Knecht (ed.), Projec-
tile technology. Plenum. New York: 213–240.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1851-2_9
Cauvin M.-C. 1978. L’outillage lithique. In M.-C. Cauvin,
D. Stordeur (eds.), Les outillages lithiques et osseux de
Mureybet, Syrie. Cahiers de l’Euphrate 1. Centre National
de la Recherche Scientifique. Valbonne: 3–79.
Chapman J. 1999. The origins of warfare in the prehisto-
ry of Central and Eastern Europe. In J. Carman, A. Hard-
ing (eds.), Ancient warfare. Alan Sutton. Stroud: 101–142.
Churchill S. 1993. Weapon technology, prey size selec-
tion, and hunting methods in modern hunter-gatherers:
Implications for hunting in the Mesolithic. In H. Bricker,
P. Mellars, and G. Larsen Peterkin (eds.), Hunting and
animal exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Meso-
lithic of Eurasia. Washington DC. American Anthropolo-
gical Association: 11–24.
Clare L. 2010. Introduction: Pastoral clashes: conflict risk
and mitigation at the Pottery Neolithic transition in the
Southern Levant. Neo-Lithics 1(10): 13–31.
Clare L., Weninger B. 2016. Early warfare and its contri-
bution to Neolithization and dispersal of Neolithic lifeways
of first farming communities in Anatolia. In M. Reindel, K.
Bartl, F. Lüth, and N. Benecke (eds.), Palaeoenvironment
and the development of early settlement. Rahden/West-
falen. Marie Leidorf Rahden/Westfalen: 29–49.
Clare L., Rohlin E., Weninger B., and Hilpert J. 2008. War-
fare in Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic Pisidia, southwest-
ern Anatolia. Climate induced social unrest in the late 7
th
millennium calBC. Documenta Praehistorica 35: 65–92.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.35.6
Coskunsu G. 2007. The end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
in the Middle Euphrates Valley. The lithic assemblages
of Mezraa Teleilat, southeastern Turkey. Harvard Univer-
sity. Harvard.
Coskunsu G., Lemorini C. 2001. The function of Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic projectile points: The limits of morphologi-
cal analogy. In I. Caneva, C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti, and P.
Biagi (eds.), Beyond tools. Redefining the PPN lithic as-
semblages of the Levant. ex Oriente. Berlin: 145–159.
Dietrich L. in prep. The excavations at the northeast area.
In K. Bartl (ed.), The Late Neolithic site of Shir/Syria II.
The excavations t the northeast and central areas 2008–
2010. In preparation.
Dietrich L., Lelek Tvetmarken C. 2015. Shir, Syrien: Die
Arbeiten des Jahres 2014. e-Forschungsberichte des Deut-
schen Archäologischen Institut 2: 117–123.
Evershed R. and 21 co-authors. 2008. Earliest date for milk
use in the Near East and Southeastern Europe linked to
cattle herding. Nature 455: 528–531.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07180
Ferguson R. B. 2013. The prehistory of war and peace in
Europe and the Near East. In D. P. Fry (ed.), War, peace,
and human nature: The convergence of evolutionary
and cultural views. Oxford University Press. Oxford /
New York: 191–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780199858996.003.0011
Glencross B., Boz B. 2014. Representing violence in Ana-
tolia and the Near East during the transition to agricul-
ture. Readings from contextualized human skeletal re-
mains. In C. Knüsel, M. J. Smith (eds.), The Routledge
Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of human Conflict.
Routledge: New York: 90–108.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315883366
Gopher A. 1994. Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant: A
seriation analysis. Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake.
Guilaine J., Jean Zammit J. 2005. The Origins of war: Vio-
lence in prehistory. Blackwell. Oxford. https://onlinelibra
ry.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470773819
Hodder I. 2006. The leopard’s tale: revealing the myste-
ries of Çatalhöyük. Thames & Hudson. London.
Hours F., Aurenche O., Cauvin J., Cauvin M.-C., Lorraine
Copeland L., and Sanlaville P. 1994. Atlas des sites du
Proche-Orient (ASPRO). Maison de l’Orient méditerra-
néen. Lyon.
Hughes S. 1998. Getting to the point: Evolutionary change
in prehistoric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Me-
thod and Theory 5(4): 345–408. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02428421
Korfmann M. 1972. Schleuder und Bogen in Südwest-
asien: Von den frühesten Belegen bis zum Beginn der
historischen Stadtstaaten. Rudolf Habelt. Bonn.

The meaning of projectile points in the Late Neolithic of the Northern Levant. A case study from the settlement of Shir, Syria
349
Letourneux C., Pétillon J.-M. 2008. Hunting lesions caused
by osseous projectile points: experimental results and ar-
chaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Sci-
ence 35(10): 2849–2862.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.05.014
Lewis-Williams D. 2004. Constructing a cosmos: Architec-
ture, power and domestication at Çatalhöyük. Journal of
Social Archaeology 4(1): 28–59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605304039849
Livingstone Smith D. 2009. The most dangerous animal:
Human nature and the origins of war. St. Marti’s Grif-
fin. New York.
Martin D., Frayer D. (eds.) 1997. Troubled times: Violence
and warfare in the past. Gordon and Breach Publishers.
Amsterdam.
Meller H., Schefzik M. (eds.). 2015. Krieg – eine archäo-
logische Spurensuche. Theiss. Stuttgart.
Müller-Neuhof B. 2005. Zum Aussagepotenzial archäol-
ogischer Quellen in der Konfliktforschung: Eine Unter-
suchung zu Konflikten im vorderasiatischen Neolithi-
kum. Freie Universität Berlin (microfiche). Berlin.
2014a. Kriege im Neolithikum Vorderasiens? In R. Ditt-
mann, S. Paulus, H. Neumann, and A. Schuster-Brandis
(eds.), Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien. Uga-
rit-Verlag. Münster: 539–552.
2014b. What did they need arrowheads for? Thoughts
about projectile points and hunting strategies in the SW-
Asian PPNB. In B. Finlayson, C. Makarewicz (eds.), Set-
tlement, survey, and stone. Essays on Near Eastern
Prehistory in honour of Gary O. Rollefson. ex Orien-
te. Berlin: 227–233.
Nieuwenhuyse O. 2009. The Late Neolithic ceramics from
Shir. A first assessment. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäolo-
gie 2: 310–356.
Nieuwenhuyse O., Akkermans P., and van der Plicht J.
2010. Not so coarse, nor always plain: The earliest pottery
of Syria. Antiquity 84: 71–85.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00099774
Pfeiffer K. in print. Stratigraphy and Architecture. In K.
Bartl (ed.), The Late Neolithic site of Shir/Syria I. The
excavations at the south area 2006–2009. Philipp von
Zabern. Darmstadt: 35–180.
Pöllath N., Dietrich O., Notroff J., Clare L., Dietrich L., Kök-
sal-Schmidt Ç., Schmidt K., and Peters J. 2018. Almost a
chest hit: An aurochs humerus with hunting lesion from
Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Tukey, and its implications.
Quaternary International 495: 30–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quaint.2017.12.003
Rokitta-Krumnow D. 2011. The lithic artifacts from the
Late Neolithic Settlement of Shir/Western Syria. Zeitschrift
für Orient-Archäologie 4: 212–244.
Rokitta-Krumnow D. 2012. Lithikfunde des 7. Jahrtau-
sends v. Chr. in der nördlichen Levante. Die Entwick-
lung der Steingeräteindustrie der spätneolithischen Sied-
lung Shir/Syrien. Doctoral thesis Freie Universität Berlin.
Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-12560
Rosenberg D. 2009. Flying stones – the slingstones of the
Wadi Rabah Culture of the Southern Levant. Paléorient
35: 97–110. http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_
2009_num_35_2_5301
Russell A. 2010. Retracing the steppes. A zooarchaeolo-
gical analysis of changing subsistence Patterns in the
Late Neolithic at Tell Sabi Abyad, Northern Syria, c.
6900 to 5900 BC. PhD thesis University of Leiden. Leiden.
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/16001
Nerissa Russell N., Martin L. 2005, Çatalhöyük mammal
remains. In I. Hodder (ed.), Inhabitating Çatalhöyük.
Reports from the 1995–99 seasons. British Institute of
Archaeology. Ankara: 33–39.
Russell N., Martin L., and Twiss K. 2009. Building memo-
ries: Commemorative deposits at Çatalhöyük. Anthropo-
zoologica 44(1): 103–128.
https://doi.org/10.5252/az2009n1a5
Scheibner A. 2016. Prähistorische Ernährung in Vorder-
asien und Europa. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Synthese
auf der Basis ausgewählter Quellen. Marie Leidorf. Rah-
den/Westfalen.
Shea J. 2006. The origins of lithic projectile point techno-
logy: evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science 33: 823–846.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.10.015
2013. Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic of
the Near East: A Guide. Cambridge University Press.
New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774314000134
Shott M. 1997. Stones and shaft redux: The metric discri-
mination of chipped-stone dart and arrow points. Ameri-
can Antiquity 62: 86–101.
https://doi.org/10.2307/282380
Sisk M., Shea J. 2011. The African origin of complex pro-
jectile technology: An analysis using tip cross-sectional
area and perimeter. International Journal of Evolutio-
nary Biology 2011: 968012.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/968012

Laura Dietrich, Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow, and Oliver Dietrich
350
Thomas D. 1978. Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: how the
stones got the shaft. American Antiquity 43: 461–472.
https://doi.org/10.2307/279405
Thorpe N. 2005. The ancient origins of warfare and vio-
lence. In M. Parker Pearson, N. Thorpe (eds.), Warfare,
Violence and Slavery in Prehistory. British Archaeologi-
cal reports IS 1374. Archaeopress. Oxford: 1–18.
Verheyden S., Nader F. H., Cheng H. J., Edwards L. R., and
Swennen R. 2008. Paleoclimate reconstruction in the Le-
vant region from the geochemistry of a Holocene stalag-
mite from the Jeita cave, Lebanon. Quaternary Research
70: 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2008.05.004
Vigne J.-D. 2015. Early domestication and farming: What
should we know or do for a better understanding? Anthro-
pozoologica 50(2): 123–150.
https://doi.org/10.5252/az2015n2a5
Waguespack N., Todd A., Surovel T. A., Denoyer A., Dal-
low A., Savage A., Hyneman J., and Tapster D. 2009. Mak-
ing a point: Wood- versus stone-tipped projectiles. Anti-
quity 83(321): 786–800.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098999
Watkins T. 2008. Supra-regional networks in the Neolithic
of Southwest Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 21: 139–
171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-008-9013-z
Weninger B., Alram-Stern E., Bauer E., Clare L., Danzeglo-
cke U., Joeris O., Kubatzki C., Rollefson G., and Todorova
H. 2005. Die Neolithisierung von Südosteuropa als Folge
des abrupten Klimawandels um 8200 calBP. In D. Gro-
nenborn (ed.), Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel
in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas 6700–22
v.Chr. Tagungen, Band 1. Römisch-Germanischen Zentral-
museums. Mainz: 75–117.
Whittaker J. 2013. Comparing atlatls and bows: Accuracy
and learning curve. Ethnoarchaeology 5(2): 100–111.
https://doi.org/10.1179/1944289013Z.0000000009
Yeshurun R., Yaroshevich A. 2014. Bone projectile inju-
ries and Epipaleolithic hunting: New experimental and
archaeological results. Journal of Archaeological Science
44: 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.01.019