View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 1
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in
the late Lower Palaeolithic
Ariel Malinsky-Buller
Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt Scoups, Jerusalem 91905, Israel
ariel.buller@mail.huji.ac.il
Leore Grosman
Computerized Archaeology Laboratory, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt Scoups,
Jerusalem 91905, Israel
lgrosman@mscc.huji.ac.il
Ofer Marder
The Israel Antiquities Authority, PO Box 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel
oferm@israntique.org.il
Keywords
Late Lower Palaeolithic, technology, typology, lithic variability, Levant
Abstract
The late Lower Palaeolithic was a turbulent period with many changes in subsistence as well variations in the
material culture. Yet, despite its importance, few detailed descriptions have been published. In this article we
present a techno-typological report on the variability and continuity along the depositional sequence of Area C
East, at the open-air site of Revadim, Israel. In order to learn how and in what ways smaller scale variations over
time, as well as of micro- environmental changes, affect lithic assemblages the lithic assemblage was initially
analysed through the raw material acquisition followed by the examination of flaking methods, analysing the
geometrical organisation of the core’s volume, recording debitage characteristics and the affinities of the re-
touched artefacts. The artefacts were documented using 3-D technology and novel methods for analysing the
digital image. The technological analysis of the lithic assemblages revealed the existence of four main reduction
sequences. The typological variations representing tactical, short term functional need, while the flaking methods
are structured learned behaviours socially mediated exhibited via raw material exploitation. The lithic assem-
blage is a package of both technological and typological traits that remains stable through a prolonged (as yet
unknown) period of time. The range of variations of lithic technology of Revadim (ie, the number of technological
options and their relative frequency) is maintained throughout micro-environmental changes. The structure of
variation observed in Revadim – within a smaller scale, has also been noticed in other Late Lower Palaeolithic
assemblages, this in sharp contrast to previous studies of the Lower Palaeolithic and later Early Middle Palaeolithic.
1 Introduction
The final stage of the Lower Palaeolithic (hereafter
LLP) was a time of global change dating to between
oxygen isotopic stage (OIS) 12 and the beginning of
OIS 7 {478,000–242,000 BP}). Sites spanning this
chronological period exist over vast geographical ar-
eas; from southern Africa to England and from Spain
to the Korean Peninsula (Klein 2000; Norton et al
2006; Santonja & Villa 2006; McNabb 2007). During
the LLP, there is evidence for increasing intensity in
the use of fire (Gowlett 2006; Karkanas et al 2007);
permanent habitation of new territories (such as north
of the Pyrenees and the Alps in Europe, (Roebroeks
2001) as well as new micro-habitats such as the
Levantine caves, Goring-Morris et al 2009); hunting of
large animals (eg, Villa et al 2005; Stiner et al 2009;
Stiner et al 2011) and indications for the use of or-
2 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
ganic material in the production of hunting equipment
(Oakley et al 1977; Thieme 1997). Moreover, within
this time span (ca 500 and 200 ka) the final burst in
hominin encephalisation occurred (Rightmire 2004).
Though the Lower Palaeolithic (LP) in general is of-
ten described as a period of technological and typo-
logical stasis (eg, Gowlett 1986; Lycett & Gowlett
2008), in fact there seems to be an acceleration in the
tempo of changes and variations in human subsist-
ence strategies within the latter parts of the time pe-
riod (Goren-Inbar 1995).
The growth in techno-typological variations among
lithic assemblages during the LLP is expressed by a
plethora of terminologies that blend pan-regional cul-
tural entities, local regional terms and chronological
designations (Bar-Yosef 1994; Goren-Inbar 1995;
Klein 2000; Beaumont & Vogel 2006; McBrearty & Tryon
2006; Santonja & Villa 2006; Tuffreau et al 2008; Go-
pher et al 2010; Turq et al 2010). Yet, despite the im-
portance of this period, few detailed reports on LLP
lithic assemblages have been published (Goren-
Inbar 1985; Moncel 1999; Clark 2001) hampering our
ability to better understand the meaning, causes, and
behavioural implications of this variability.
The lithic variability of the Lower Palaeolithic has
traditionally been described using the ‘presence or
absence’ approach, as well by various morphologies
of the typological fossile directeur for this period – the
biface. A shift toward a systematic typological charac-
terisation and quantification of LP lithic assemblages
was promoted by Bordes (1950; 1961), Kleindienst
(1961; 1962), and Leakey (1971). According to this ap-
proach the main criteria for variability are the typologi-
cal traits of retouched artefacts, as well as changes in
the composition of tool types and their frequencies.
However, in the last three decades, there has been a
shift in analysis with the adoption of a technological
perspective when the examining lithic material (Roche
1980; Tixier et al 1980; Toth 1985; Boëda et al 1990;
Pelegrin 1990; Nelson 1991; Roche & Texier 1991;
Schlanger 1994; Roche & Texier 1996). A combination
of these approaches provides important insight into
the production sequence of stone artefact manufac-
ture.
There is, however, an inherent complexity in merg-
ing the typological classificatory schemes with tech-
nology. For instance, in some of the schemes used
there is no categorisation of cores (eg, Leakey 1971)
while in other schemes core classification is deter-
mined according to morphological properties at the
time of abandonment (Bordes 1950; Bordes 1961;
Kleindienst 1962). The latter case provides a source
of arbitrary subjectivity which causes difficulties in
duplication by other investigators when working with
different samples. When translating strict typologies
into technological categories it is difficult to establish
a comparable analytical language (eg, de la Torre &
Morra 2005). As a result, current technological de-
scriptions of the volumetric exploitation of lithic cores
are not using common nomenclature and as a result
do not permit wide-ranging comparisons. (For exam-
ple, see Peresani 2003 and papers therein for the
reevaluation of Boëda’s discoidal concept).
Aside from the challenges that exist due to the
different use of analytical approaches, in the context
of LLP lithic studies specifically, two further difficulties
emerge. The first of these problems is the dichotomy
that exists between Middle Palaeolithic Levallois cores
being considered as the first appearance of elabo-
rate debitage and, in contrast, Lower Palaeolithic cores
depicted as others (divers).This dichotomy is com-
mon to the work of Bordes (1961), African Palaeolithic
researchers (eg, Kleindienst 1961; 1962; Isaac 1977;
Clark & Kleindienst 2001), as well as the recent tech-
nological studies of Tixier & Boëda (Tixier et al 1980;
Boëda et al 1990; Inizian et al 1999).
The second difficulty with the study of LLP lithic
assemblages is that techno-typological descriptions
are often torn between associations made with as-
semblages from earlier LP – which consequently fo-
cus on the bifacial component (Gilead 1970; Wynn &
Tierson 1990) – and later Middle Palaeolithic (MP)
periods that emphasise affinities with Levallois tech-
nology (eg, Chazan 2000a). The outcome of these
two methodological obstacles is conflation of descrip-
tion and chronological interpretations. As a result, a
more realistic description of LLP assemblages us-
ing their own technological and typological affinities
is lost amongst characterisations of assemblages
being either unstandardised or non-Levallois, or both.
Questions regarding variability in Lower
Palaeolithic contexts usually refer to a coarse grain
diachronic resolution as well as a wide geographical
extension (eg, Sharon, 2007). Such studies have fo-
cused primarily on morphology and technology of the
bifacial component, and less on flakes, cores, and
smaller retouched artefacts that quantitatively domi-
nate most assemblages (eg, Howell & Clark 1963).
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
It is with regard to the aforementioned analytical
concerns that the depositional sequence of Area C East
of the Lower Palaeolithic site of Revadim, Israel, has
the potential for studying how smaller scale diachronic
variations, as well as of micro- environmental changes,
affect lithic assemblages. Revadim is an open-air site
that was excavated over an area of 250 m2 (figure 1). A
detailed site formation analysis of Area C East revealed
the existence of several sequential episodes of hu-
man use of the locality within changing micro-environ-
mental contexts (Malinsky-Buller 2008; Malinsky-Buller
et al 2011; Marder et al 2011). The reconstruction of the
Figure 1 Map of the excavation areas at Revadim (after Marder et al 2011)
4 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
site’s history of stratigraphic deposition brings to the
fore the anthropogenic influences that affected post-
depositional processes at Revadim.
The first goal of this paper is to describe the lithic
assemblages according to the stages of core reduc-
tion and subsequent tool production. The aspects of
this part of the research project begin with reviewing
strategies for initial raw material acquisition followed
by the examination of flaking methods, analysing the
geometrical organisation of the core’s volume, and re-
cording debitage characteristics and the affinities of
the retouched artefacts. The second goal of this paper
is to detail about the lithic variability and continuity along
the depositional sequence. In this case our aim is to
expose the technological and typological options that
were available for the inhabitants of Revadim. Specifi-
cally, we aim to identify the most dominant technologi-
cal traits which were, therefore, also the most desired
(Perles 1992; Perles 1993; Pelgrin 1990).
The following discussion will include two parts. First,
from a quantitative perspective, we will reconstruct the
reduction sequences employed at the site by integrat-
ing technological studies of core reduction with data
associated with the retouched end-products. The sec-
ond part will attempt to extrapolate information pertain-
ing to broad-scale technological variability by examin-
ing the detailed variations evidenced in the lithic mate-
rial in Area C East of Revadim and more specifically,
within the LLP lithic assemblages of the area. The re-
sults of the paper demonstrate that the range of varia-
tions of lithic technology of Revadim (ie, the number of
technological options and their relative frequency) is
maintained throughout time trends as well as micro-
environmental changes.
2 The site
The site of Revadim is located on the southern coastal
plain of Israel, 40 km southeast of Tel Aviv (figure 1). It is
situated on a hillock at an elevation of 71–73 m above
sea level. The site is located 300 m north of a conflu-
ence of two tributaries of Nahal Timna, itself a small
wadi in the drainage basin of Nahal Soreq.
Palaeomagnetic analyses of the geological sequence
indicate that the whole stratigraphic section is of nor-
mal polarity and therefore younger than 780,000 BP
(Marder et al 1998; Gvirtzman et al 1999). Additionally,
preliminary dating of the carbonate coating on flint arte-
facts yielded dates between 300 ka and 500 ka and
possibly older (Marder et al 2011). We expect that on-
going dating efforts will provide better chronological
control over the time span of hominin use of the
Revadim locality. Yet, we suspect that the actual time
span is far more restricted in time than the current avail-
able dates.
Fieldwork focused mainly on Area B in the north-
east part of the site and Area C in the southern part.
Seven archaeological layers were exposed in the two
areas over an area of 170 m2 and an additional 80 m2
in trenches (Marder et al 1998; Gvirtzman et al 1999;
Marder et al 2006; Marder et al 2011). Marder et al (2011)
differentiated between two main periods of occupation.
The earlier phase took place within two micro-habitats;
the low areas (Layer B2) and hill slopes (Layer C5).
The majority of human activities occurred in layers C3
and C2 with repeated preference for channel and chan-
nel-bank habitats on shallow slopes.
The current study focuses on Area C East, which is
a continuation of Layer C3 in Area C West (Area C East
is 11 m2 over a total area of 44 m2 excavated from Layer
C3). The archaeological sequence in this area con-
sists of a single layer, ca 40 cm thick. Two archaeologi-
cal horizons (C3a and C3b) were identified within Layer
C3 in this area (figure 3). In C3a more manganese
oxide nodules were observed compared to carbonate
nodules, appearing in discrete, thin horizons. The re-
verse proportions were noted in C3b, where manga-
nese oxide nodules occur more sporadically. A younger
component that was not well-defined stratigraphically
was dubbed ‘above C3a’. However, the section was
arbitrarily divided into four levels (levels I–IV from top to
bottom), each being ca 10 cm in thickness. This divi-
sion takes into account the appearance and arrange-
ment of lithic specimens in the excavation, so that level
boundaries do not ‘truncate’ cobbles or artefacts (See
details in Malinsky-Buller et al 2011).
A comprehensive site-formation study enabled the
reconstruction of several sequential episodes of hu-
man use of the locality in changing micro-environ-
mental contexts. The discussion included here re-
garding the changes in the lithic assemblage through-
out the section will not include Level I, as it had under-
gone the most severe post-depositional processes
and has a small sample-size that may bias the analy-
sis (Malinsky-Buller 2008).
3 Methodology
The assemblage of Area C East comprises 29,144
specimens. There are 12,389 modified artefacts
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 5
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
larger than 20 mm, 6,616 that are smaller than 20
mm, 5,393 large unmodified items and 4,746 un-
modified items smaller than 20 mm (table 1). The
lithic material was subjected to an attribute analysis
including physical, metric and technological attributes
(Clark 1967; Clark 1968 Isaac 1977; Goren-Inbar
1990; Bar-Yosef & Goren-Inbar 1993; Hovers 2009).
The methodology adopted for this study links the
quantified information assembled from the attribute
analysis with data provided by the technological frame-
work of sequence models. The technological ap-
proach involved examining the volumetric conception
in core reduction through a study of the cores, debitage
and core management pieces. Since lithic reduction
is a directional and irreversible process, it is possi-
ble to position the artefacts within the reduction se-
quence taking into account the relative sizes, shapes,
amount of cortical cover, number of dorsal scars and
other characteristics of the artefacts, as described by
the attribute analysis (Pelegrin 1990; Hovers 2009).
The attributes recorded for the cores include the
number of flaking surfaces, amount of cortex on the
preparatory removal surfaces, mode of preparation
of the removal surface, number of scars on prepara-
tory surface, number of scars on the removal surface
and scar pattern. The metrical attributes include length
(along the axis of the dominant scar), width, thick-
ness, circumference of core, circumference of the uti-
lised part, length, width of dominant scar, and length
and width of last scar. The cores were divided into two
main groups according to the blank used for flaking –
nodules or flakes. The defining condition for a core
on flake is a sequence of three removals or more
from the same surface (Goren-Inbar 1988; Hovers
2007 and see discussion below).
The types of cores made on nodules represent a
volumetric organisation of the cores, rather than a dis-
tinct reduction sequence. The arrangement of the core
types depended on the whether or not hierarchy was
maintained. Hierarchy refers to the use of one surface
as a preferential striking platform (surface of debitage
sensu Inizan et al 1999: figure 21) and the other sur-
face/s function as preparatory to the production sur-
face. As a rule, the geometrical organization of core
volume remains unchanged throughout the reduction
sequence and is determined by the differential exploi-
tation of the two surfaces; with fewer and smaller re-
movals occurring along the preparatory surface. Within
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Total
Debitage
N % N % N % N % N %
Primary elements 81 22.1 275 19.2 306 20.1 118 20.6 780 20.0Flakes 245 66.9 889 62.0 856 56.4 336 58.6 2326 59.8Kombewa flakes 4 1.1 46 3.2 68 4.5 25 4.3 143 3.6Blades 6 1.6 20 1.4 18 1.2 12 2.1 56 1.4Eclat de taille de biface 1 0.3 8 0.6 8 0.5 1 0.2 18 0.5Burin spalls 2 0.5 16 1.1 23 1.5 4 0.7 45 1.2Core management pieces 26 7.1 175 12.2 223 14.7 75 13.1 499 12.8Hammer stone and spalls 1 0.3 5 0.3 17 1.1 2 0.3 25 0.6Sub total 366 100 1434 100 1519 100 573 100 3892 100
Debris
Chunk 35 2.2 69 2.2 59 3.4 27 8.1 191 2.8Chips 1527 97.8 3108 97.8 1676 96.6 305 91.9 6616 97.2Sub total 1562 23.0 3177 46.7 1735 25.5 332 1.0 6808 100
Unmodified
Unmodified > 2 cm. 50 4.3 140 6.4 290 18.4 167 36.8 647 100Unmodified< 2 cm. 1114 95.7 2058 93.6 1286 81.6 288 63.2 4746 100Sub total 1164 21.6 2198 40.8 1576 29.2 455 8.5 5393 100
Debitage 366 17.9 1434 28.4 1519 38.0 573 44.2 3892 31.4Core 41 2.0 150 3.0 309 7.7 201 15.5 701 5.7Biface - - 1 0.02 1 0.03 1 0.08 3 0.02Tools 72 3.5 293 5.8 431 10.8 189 14.6 985 8.0Debris 1562 76.5 3177 62.8 1735 43.4 332 25.6 6808 55.0Total 2041 100 5055 100 3995 100 1296 100 12389 100
Table 1 Frequencies of generalised lithic categories in the four levels of Area C East
6 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
each group, the various types are presented accord-
ing to their relative abundance (table 2).
The technological attributes that were used for
debitage, core management pieces and retouched
pieces included the amount of cortex on the dorsal
face, the ventral and dorsal profiles, number of scars,
scar pattern, and type of striking platform. The metri-
cal attributes include the length of the flaking axis;
maximum length; flaking width; maximum width (per-
pendicular to maximum length); thickness; striking
platform thickness; and striking platform breadth. The
core management pieces were defined as pieces
that were detached in order to maintain or reshape
the core geometry during its use for further flaking.
There are five types of such core rejuvenation flakes
in the Revadim assemblage: generic, éclat
dèbordant, éclat outrepassé, naturally backed knives,
ridge flake/blade (table 3).
The retouched artefacts were analysed using a
combination of the typologies lists developed by Bordes
(1950; 1961) for Lower and Middle Palaeolithic assem-
blages and by Leakey (1971) for Lower Palaeolithic
assemblages. Ten types of tools were identified, seven
of them common to both lists: side scraper, end scraper,
notch and denticulate, awls, burins, truncated flakes
(laterally trimmed flakes) and miscellaneous. Three
additional tool-types were used: retouched items, flakes
with isolated removals and composite tools (Goren-
Inbar 1990; Hovers 2007; Hovers 2009, for the discus-
sion about cores-on-flakes vs. isolated removals see
below). The analysis of the retouched artefacts included
stylistic attributes: the type of retouch, its location, and
the face upon which the retouch is located. It should be
noted that not all physical, metric and technological at-
tributes were applied to each artefact due to the state of
preservation.
Cores with two surfaces perpendicular to each other with hierarchy
Level I Level II Level III Level IV TotalN % N % N % N % N %
Cores on nodules
Cores with hierarchy
Cores with two surfacesperpendicular to eachother with hierarchy 5 16.7 12 13.3 24 11.1 20 13.7 61 13.0
Prismatic cores 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.5 1 0.7 3 0.6
Cores without hierarchy
Cores with two surfacesperpendicular to eachother without hierarchy 5 16.7 20 22.2 61 28.1 33 22.6 119 25.3
Core with three or morestriking platforms 0 0.0 7 7.8 28 12.9 21 14.4 45 9.6
Alternating strikingplatforms cores 3 10.0 6 6.7 7 3.2 4 2.7 20 4.3
Tested core 0 0.0 2 2.2 5 2.3 10 6.8 17 3.6
Discoidal cores 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 3 2.1 4 0.9
Core fragment 4 13.3 20 22.2 32 14.7 25 17.1 79 16.8
Varia 13 43.3 22 24.4 58 26.7 29 19.9 122 26.0
Total 30 100 90 100 217100 146 100 470 100
Cores-on flakes
Cores on flake 7 63.6 43 72.9 61 66.3 40 71.4 151 69.3Possible cores-on-flakes 4 36.4 9 15.3 25 27.2 12 21.4 50 22.9Truncated-faceted(Nahr Ibrahim) 0 0.0 7 11.9 6 6.5 4 7.1 17 7.8
Total 11 100 59 100 92 100 56 100 218 100
Table 2 The core category frequencies across categories in the four levels of Area C East
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 7
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
$
The documentation of the artefacts from Revadim
was initially 3-D scanned (manufactured by Polygon
Technology, Darmstadt, Germany) which its opera-
tion is based on structured light projected on the arte-
fact and recorded by two digital cameras. The scan-
ning and data conversion to a 3-D digital model was
achieved using the QTSculptor program. The entire
surface was captured by several clusters, which were
combined to form a close triangular mesh resulting
in a high-precision 3-D representation of the artefact.
Once 3-D digital images of the artefacts are available
at a reduced scale, they can easily be viewed from all
directions. The availability of the entire 3-D data ena-
bles others to examine the digital data base in three
dimensions using his/her PC. A 3-D viewer and im-
ages of Revadim artefacts are available for download
at http://archaeology.huji.ac.il/depart/computerized/
tools.asp.
The next step in utilising the 3-D image to the study
of archaeological artefacts has been recently pub-
lished elsewhere (Grosman et al 2008, Grosman et
al 2011). The Revadim artefacts are not standardized
in shape, style, form or state of preservation. This very
nature enforces a development of a dynamic inter-
face with the user to obtain an accurate documenta-
tion, ie, special algorithms were developed to pro-
duce technical drawings of lithic artefacts. The 3-D
model of each of the artefacts was manually placed
in the required position on the computer screen. This
‘conventional’ positioning of the artefacts depended
on criteria applied by the authors studying this as-
semblage. Following the positioning of the artefact,
we applied a method that automatically produces de-
tailed graphic documentation of the object that in-
cludes plan forms and cross-sections.
4 Raw material
The origin of the raw material is most likely the cob-
bles and pebbles of the Ahuzam conglomerate and
the Pleshet formation, both exposed in the vicinity of
the site. The flint produced from these pebbles and
cobbles varies greatly in texture, colours, and fracture
properties (Buchbinder 1969).
In Area C East the frequency of unmodified compo-
nents is exceptional in comparison with other excava-
tion areas at the site. Two hypotheses for the concen-
tration of large unmodified pebbles have been consid-
ered. The first theory postulates that the pebbles were
accumulated by hominins as a potential source of raw
material for knapping. The second theory suggests that
the unmodified pebbles were eco-facts.
The results of comparisons of dimensions, mass,
and state of preservation of the modified and unmodi-
fied items in each level suggest that most of the un-
modified items were not of the desired size of raw
material for knapping or use as hammerstones
(Malinsky-Buller 2008). This trend is more significant
statistically in the upper levels (level I+II) and less in the
lower levels (level III+IV) (Malinsky-Buller et al 2011:
figure 4). Therefore, these results refute the hypothesis
of caching/stocking of raw material in the area. Conse-
quently, we assume that most of the raw material was
acquired outside the locality and brought in.
5 Flaking technique
The mode of flaking in Area C East is most probably by
direct percussion using hard hammer. Hammerstones,
in contrast to the unmodified components, are nod-
ules that bear signs of percussion (figure 2). The
hammerstones (n=9) were made of flint, with one ex-
ception, that was made of hard limestone. Their shape
is diverse since both flat and angular pebbles were
used. The average length of the hammerstones is 62.9
(±14.1) mm, 58.5 (±16.8) mm width, 41.6 (± 12.7) mm
thick. Their weight varies greatly, ranging between a
maximum of 520 and minimum of 43 grams. The
number of hammerstones should be taken as mini-
mum number only as many of the cores also display
signs of use as hammerstones (figure 6.1); a phe-
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Total
N % N % N % N % N %
General 8 30.8 69 35.4 93 39.5 40 52 210 37.7Éclat’s Dèbordant 14 38.5 93 38.9 75 29.6 27 29.3 209 37.5Éclat’s Outrepassé 3 11.5 21 11.4 27 12.1 5 6.7 56 10.1Naturally backed knife 3 11.5 11 6.3 32 14.3 5 6.7 51 9.2Ridge 2 7.7 14 8 10 4.5 5 5.3 31 5.6
Total 30 100 208 100 237 100 82 100 557 100
Table 3 Core management piece types’ relative frequencies from all size categories
8 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
nomenon common to all levels. Cores with previous
signs of percussion use are known from other LLP
sites such as Holon (Chazan 2007: figure 4.13 b, d).
The hammerstones’ spalls (n=16) are made on flint.
Their size is 29.5 (±15.6) mm long, 27.0 (±16.5) mm
wide and 13.4 (±12.2) mm thick. Most of the spalls
(64.7%) weigh less than 10 grams; the maximum
weight is 354.
Figure 2 1-3 Hammer stones
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 9
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
Hard-hammer percussion is also evident on the
striking platforms of the debitage and retouched arte-
facts in all the levels. Striking platforms knapped by
hard-hammer are usually thick and wide (Cotterell &
Kamminga 1987; Anderfsky 1998; Inizan et al 1999).
The bulbs are prominent (10.1%), crushed (7.4%) and
sometimes there are two or more bulbs (3.6%). Split
flakes (‘Éclat siret’, Siret, 1933) also appear in ca 3.4%
of the flakes with existing striking platforms (figure
16.2). These flakes halve the bulb of percussion and
Figure 3 1-3 Flakes with two bulbs of percussion, one of which is a complete Hertzian cone; 4-10 atypical Kombewa - flakes with two ventralfaces but in dissimilar flaking axes
10 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
are caused by accidental breaks perpendicular to the
striking platform. This type of flaking accident is spe-
cifically associated with hard-hammer percussion as
well as poor raw material quality (Inizan et al 1999).
There are some indications regarding the force of
the blows during knapping. Few of the bulbs of per-
cussion are crushed (7.4%) or having two or more
bulbs (3.6%). Some flakes bear two bulbs on two
faces, with one of them comprised of a complete clas-
sic Hertzian cone, usually on the dorsal face (figure 3.
1–4). A classic Hertzian cone fracture is formed when
maximum stress of a hard-hammer is activated per-
pendicular to the nucleus (Cotterell and Kamiminga
1987: 685; Andrefsky 1998: 26). In Area C East, many
such cones are located on the cortex, (figure 3. 5, 6,
8,10) indicating the presence of a massive blow for
the initial opening of the nodules. The shattered con-
dition of most hammerstones (figure 2.1) and
hammerstone spalls also indicates the strength of
the blow. It should be noted that some of the Hertzian
cones appear on flakes without cortex (figure 3. 7, 9),
attesting to their formation in the advanced stages of
the reduction sequence. These Hertzian cones ap-
pear in other Lower Palaeolithic sites such as
Ubeidiya (Bar-Yosef & Goren-Inbar, 1993: figure 7.2;
figure 8.1), Bizaat Ruhama (Zaidner 2003: figure. 4.3–
14; figure 6.5,7) and the Middle Palaeolithic site of
Quneitra (Goren-Inbar 1990: figure 50.6–7).
6 Analysis of cores on nodules
6.1 Cores on nodules with hierarchy
6.1.1 Cores with two surfaces perpendicular to
each other with hierarchy (n=61)
This group consists of cores with two surfaces with
differential exploitation. One serves as the main strik-
ing platform while the other is the preparatory sur-
face, the angle between the two is 80–100 degrees
(figures 4.1; 5). The preparation surface usually in-
volves removals of flakes rather than faceting. The
mode of formation and exploitation for hierarchical
cores was used on both flat and rounded pebbles.
The average size of these cores is 44.6 (±12.8) mm
long, 37.1 (±11.6) mm wide and 22.9 (±8.8) mm thick.
The average number of scars on the main surface is
7.1 (± 3.3), whereas that on the preparatory platform is
4.6 (± 2.3). The average length of the last scar is 22.8 (±
11.8) mm and of its width 22.0 (± 10.5) mm. The length
of the dominant scar averages 25.8 (± 9.0) mm, and its
width averages 24.5 (± 9.8) mm.
The surface of debitage in 91.7% of the artefacts
contains less than 50% cortex, while 75% of the pre-
paratory platforms contain more than 50% cortex. The
preparatory platform of most cores is convex. On a
number of occasions, an additional platform was cre-
ated on the distal edge of the main striking platform
opposite the original one, in order to maintain the nec-
essary convexity. But in most cases the proximal and
distal convexities were not maintained, causing the
abandonment of cores once the preferential surface
reached an angle too flat for rejuvenation. The average
circumference of the cores is 128.2 (± 43.9) mm while
the average utilised circumference is 59.6 mm (±33.0),
exploiting 47% of the cores circumference. The scar
pattern on the surface of the debitage in most cases is
Figure 4 Schematic representation of cores-on-nodule: 1 coreswith two surfaces perpendicular to each other with hierarchy; 2prismatic core; 3 cores with two surfaces perpendicular to eachother without hierarchy; 4 cores with three or more surfaces; 5cores with alternating surfaces
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 11
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
unipolar (52.5%) or unipolar and side (14.7%); while
the centripetal scar pattern is less frequent, appearing
in 19.7% of the cores.
6.1.2 Prismatic cores (n=3)
In the case of these cores, the preparatory surface is
located on the distal part of the nodule, and the
debitage a surface occurs on a lateral face. The pre-
paratory platform is produced by the removal of a large
flake (figures 4.2; 9.1). The mode of flaking in these
cores is a unipolar scar pattern converging toward
the base of the core. This type matches Bordes’ de-
scription of prismatic cores (1961: 73; figure 106, n 2
& 4; figure 107 n 3) or single platform cores as de-
scribed by Clark & Kleindienst (2001).
Their size is the smallest among the cores made
Figure 5 Cores with two platform perpendicular to each other with hierarchy
12 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
on nodules, with measurements of 40.0 (±9.2) mm
long, 28.0 (± 4.2) mm wide and 30.7 (± 5.2) mm thick.
Although they have exceptionally elongated propor-
tions, these cores do not produce true blades; rather
they are characterised by elongated scar proportions
of 19.0 mm (± 7.9) in length and 16.7 (± 4.5) mm in
width. These cores do not constitute a systematic
blade production (Bar-Yosef & Kuhn, 1999;
Shimelmitz 2009).
6.2 Cores on nodules without hierarchy
6.2.1 Cores with two surfaces perpendicular to
each other without hierarchy (n=119)
In this group the main surface of the cores cannot be
determined, since the number and size of the removal
scars is similar in the two surfaces. Hence each sur-
face has an interchangeable function during the re-
duction sequence. The angle between the two sur-
faces is ca 100 degrees (figures 4.3; 6). As in the
case of hierarchical cores, this knapping mode uti-
lises flat or rounded pebbles.
The average size of these cores is 49.4 (± 15.6)
mm long, 40.3 (± 12.4) mm wide and 29.3 (± 11.3)
mm thick. The average length of the last scar is 21.9
(± 9.9) mm and its width is 20.5 (± 8.7) mm. The size
of the dominant scar is, on average, 31.4 (± 12.0) mm
long and 28.9 (± 10.2) mm wide. The number of scars
on the first surface is on average 6.5 (± 3.3), while on
the other surface is 4.9 (± 3.0). In 64.2% of the cores,
the first surface retains less than 50% of the cortex.
On the other surface, most of the cores (61.4%) retain
between 26% and 75% cortex. The average circum-
ference of the cores is 145.0 mm, while the utilised
circumference is 63.5 mm, exploiting 43% of the cir-
cumference of the core. The most frequent scar pat-
tern is unipolar (55.5%) and unipolar and side (26.1%),
whereas the centripetal and bipolar scar patterns are
found in smaller frequencies.
6.2.2 Cores with three or more surfaces (n=56)
The defining characteristic of this type is the pres-
ence of at least three surfaces without any unifying
order of removals and without repetitive organisation
of the cores (figures 4.4; 7.1,2). The cores exhibit a
wide range of morphologies, some similar to Bordes’
types of globular or amorphous cores (Bordes, 1961)
or Ashton’s ‘cores with migrating platforms’ (Ashton
1992; Ashton & Mcnabb, 1996).
The average length of this type is 44.3 (± 14.9)
mm, 35.8 (± 11.9) mm wide, and 28.3 (± 10.7) mm
thick. The length of the dominant scar (n=24) is 27.3
mm (± 9.4) and its width 23.3 mm (± 11.7). The size of
the last scar (n=30) is 20.0 (± 9.1) mm long, 20.8 (±
8.9) mm wide. The cores’ circumference averages
126.8 mm, while the average utilised circumference
is 95.7 mm, utilizing 75.4% of the circumference. Most
of the cores retain only a small amount of cortex, if
any. The mean number of scars per core is high 17.1
(± 6.9) scars. The expected number of flakes pro-
duced by this method should be considered to be
higher since, as Braun (et al 2005) demonstrated,
this mode of flaking often erases previous knapping
procedures. The scar pattern is mostly unipolar
(45.5%) or unipolar and side (21.8%).
6.2.3 Cores with alternating surfaces (n=20)
This type consists of two surfaces with an angle of
about 60 degrees without hierarchy. The surfaces func-
tion as preparatory for each other (figures 4.5; 8). This
scheme of flaking was described by Forestier (1993)
as ‘system par surface de debitage alterne’. Typo-
logically, the final results of this flaking method were
named ‘chopping tool’ (Bordes, 1961) or ‘end-chop-Figure 6 Cores with two platform perpendicular to each other withouthierarchy
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 13
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
per’ (Leakey 1971). The thickness of the ‘active edge’
(intersection between the two surfaces) is broad,
measuring 10–20 mm. In general the proximal edge
of these cores (opposite the ‘active edge’) remains
cortical.
These cores are large, ca 63.1 (± 21.3) mm long,
49.2 (± 17.1) mm wide, and 33.6 (± 14.9) mm thick.
The size of the last scar is 22.0 (± 8.5) mm long and
27.2 (± 9.9) mm wide with the dominant scar size
being 28.1 (± 14.1) mm long and 22.8 (± 7.7) mm
wide. The level of exploitation in this type is low. The
frequency of cores with more than 50% cortex is 79.6%
Figure 7 1-2 Cores with three striking platforms or more; 3 Testednodule
on one surface and 84.2% on the other. The circum-
ference of this type is 196.5 mm (±59.0), exploiting
only 40.2% (79.0 mm ± 27.6). The average number of
scars is 9.6 (± 5.3) and the dominant scar pattern is
unipolar (94.7 %).
6.2.4 Tested nodules (n=17)
This type of core comprises nodules from which no
more than three flakes were removed (figure 7.3).
Sometimes the morphology of this type resembles
those of the ‘cores with alternating surfaces’. Tested
nodules appear on flat and rounded pebbles. The
average measurements of the tested nodules are
72.8 (± 20.0) mm long, 62.1 (± 23.1) mm wide and
35.2 (± 13.4) mm thick and the length and width of the
final scars are on average 24.8 mm (± 12.1) and 27.5
mm (± 12.6), respectively.
6.2.5 Discoidal cores (n=4)
The technological criterion for analysing discoidal
cores follows Boëda (1993; 1995). In the case of this
Figure 8 Cores with alternating striking platforms
14 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
type of core, the two surfaces are at an angle of ca
60–80 degrees, and serve as preparatory surfaces
for each other. The full circumference of the core is
utilised, leaving no cortex, and creating a centripetal
scar-pattern of flake debits. The resulting shape of
7 Cores-on-flakes
This category comprises three variants of cores:
cores-on-flakes (n=151), ‘possible cores-on-flakes’’
(n=50) and ‘truncated-facetted flakes’ (n=17). The
blanks chosen for knapping are mostly flakes and
primary elements (52.0% and 27.6% respectively).
Also, a small number of tools were chosen as blanks
(4.6%). The three core variants are similar in the size
of their initial and final blanks, and in the amount of
detached flakes. The products’ dimensions are mostly
10–20 mm, their length similar to their width, and the
ventral profile is usually straight. But there is consid-
erable variability in the preparation of the striking plat-
form. The preparation for the cores-on-flakes is op-
portunistic; sometimes there is no preparation at all
(figure 10.1). In other cases preparation exploits pre-
existing breaks with appropriate angles (figure 10.
3,4). Conversely, the preparation surface exploits the
geometry of hinged flakes, taking advantage of their
inbuilt convexities (figure 10.2). In some cases, the
sequence of removals resembles that of prismatic
cores, or burin-like removals, creating scars with
blade-like proportions (figure 11.1,2). The truncated-
facetted flakes are distinguished by the initial crea-
tion of a preparatory platform through truncation of the
end or the edge of a flake, and a subsequent removal
of secondary flakes (figure 11.3,4). This type was first
defined by Schroëder as truncated-facetted (1969)
and by Solecki & Solecki (1970) as Nahr Ibrahim tech-
nique.
The cores-on-flakes are on average 34.9 (± 9.2)
mm long, 26.4 (± 7.8) mm wide and 15.1 mm (± 5.4)
thick. The average size of the truncated-faceted flakes
is 32.7 (± 8.3) mm long, 27.6 (± 9.1) mm wide, and
12.4 (± 4.0) mm thick. The dimensions of the domi-
nant scars of cores-on-flakes (N=53) are on average,
19.1 (± 7.9) mm long and 16.9 (± 7.9) mm wide. The
dimensions of the last scars (N=128) are 14.0 (± 6.9)
mm long and 13.2 (± 6.1) mm wide. The size of the
dominant scar of the truncated-facetted flakes (N=5)
is 16.4 (± 6.7) mm long and 14.0 (± 5.7) wide. The
length of the last scar (N=13) is 15.2 (± 7.0) mm; its
width is 12.3 (± 4.4) mm. The average number of scars
per core is 6.4 (± 3.8) while the truncated-facetted
flakes bear 8.4 (± 3.4) scars per core.
8 Bifacial flaking system
Only three handaxes were found in the entire assem-
blage. All three were shaped out of nodules leaving
Figure 9 1 Prismatic Core; 2-3 discoidal cores
the cores is bi-conical (figure 9.2,3).
The number of removals is 27.8 (± 6.5) flakes per
core. Despite the extensive utilisation of the volume,
the remaining cores are large, being 56.8 (± 24.4)
mm long, 51.0 (± 22.7) mm wide and 40.3 mm thick
(± 17.3). The size of the last scar is 26.8 (± 13.1) mm
by 24.3 (± 9.7) mm.
6.2.6 ‘Varia’ (n=122)
This group encompasses a large number of cores
that do not fit in any other type class. The average
length of cores in this group is 40.1 mm (± 17.5), its
width is 30.4 (± 13.7) mm and its thickness is 23.3 (±
14.3) mm. The average size of the dominant scar
(N=36) is 22.7 (± 11.5) mm long and 21.6 (±10.3)
mm wide and the size of the last scars (N=81) is
15.9 (± 7.8) mm long and 16.6 (±6.0) mm wide.
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 15
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
Figure 10 1 Core on flake simple; 2-3 core on flake with breakageas preparation; 4 core on flake made on hinged flake
Figure 11 1-2 Prismatic/burin core on flake; 3-4 truncated-facettedflake
the butts cortical. The average of their maximum
length is 109.3 (± 16.6) mm, 81.3 (± 5.8) mm wide
and 35.3 (± 1.5) mm thick and the average weight of
these handaxes is 316.3 g (± 56.4).
Éclats de taille de biface (n=28) were defined as
thin flakes, usually having facetted striking platforms.
The two other criteria are the presence of centripetal
or unipolar and side scar patterns, and profiles that
are ventrally concave and dorsally convex (figure 12).
The éclats de taille de biface are exceptional in their
small dimensions. There are 26 pieces smaller than
30 mm, and a further 10 have axes below 20 mm.
Calculation of the original dimensions of the nodules
required for producing handaxes suggest that only
the rejuvenation stages were executed on site. The
early manufacturing stages of the handaxes were
performed outside the locality. Similar scenarios for
16 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
the transportation of handaxes around the landscape
were suggested for Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (Goren-
Inbar & Sharon 2006) and Boxgrove (Pope & Roberts
2005).
9 The debitage components
9.1 Primary elements (N=780)
Primary elements are defined as flakes with more
than 50% cortex on their dorsal faces. They are slightly
larger than other flakes (figure 13A) and have a low
average number of scars of 1.4 (± 1.5) per item. Cor-
tical (40.4%) and unipolar (39.9%) scar patterns are
the most frequent for this type. The profile of primary
elements is more varied than that of the flakes with
the ventral profile frequently being straight (62.5%) or
concave (34.7%) while the dorsal profile is primarily
convex (69%) and to a lesser extent straight (23.1%).
The striking platform is usually unprepared (plain
62.4% and cortical 13.6%).
9.2 Flakes (N=2326)
The average length of flakes is 25.8 (±9.7) mm with
similar values exhibited for their width (figure 13A). The
average number of scars is 4.4 (± 2.3) and the main
scar patterns are the unipolar (52.8%) and unipolar
and side (25.0%) while bipolar and centripetal appear
in lower frequencies. The profile of both ventral and
dorsal faces of the flakes is usually straight (60.5%
and 50.1% respectively). Flakes with concave ventral
and convex dorsal profiles appear less frequently
(29.8% and 33.4% respectively). The striking platform
is generally unprepared, plain (60.0%) or cortical (8.3%).
9.3 Kombewa Flakes (N=126)
The average length of Kombewa flakes is 22.1 (±
7.1), 21.2 (± 6.4) mm wide and 8.2 (±3.5) thick. The
remaining 22 are less than 20 mm long. Most of
these flakes (84.1%) have less than 25% cortex. The
mean number of scars is 3.0 (±2.0) with the maxi-
mum number of scars for any single piece being 11.
The scar pattern is frequently plain (42.7%) or uni-
polar (39.6%). The most frequent ventral profile is
straight (47.7%), though concave profile (25.6%) and
convex (22.1%) are also common; the dorsal pro-
files are convex (41.25%) or straight (40.0%). The
striking platform is usually plain (57.3%) or cortical
(11.7%) with a width of 13.7 (± 7.3) mm and a thick-
ness of 5.3 (± 2.7) mm.
A sub-type of the Kombewa flakes (N=17) are those
who have two bulbs of percussion but the bulbs are
Figure 12 1-5 éclats de taille de biface
Figure 13 A Length of the different types of debitage and retouchedartefacts in levels I–IV; P.E. = primary element, C.M.P = coremanagement pieces, T = tools.Figure 13 B Length of the different cores types in levels I–IV; H= cores with two surfaces perpendicular to each other with hierarchy,NH = cores with two surfaces perpendicular to each other withouthierarchy, 3 sur = cores with three or more surfaces, COF = cores-on-flakes.In both A and B the topmost and lowermost lines of the box plotrepresent the dispersion of values for the group. The box is definedby the 25th and 75th percentiles, the line in the middle is the medianfor the group. The line across each diamond represents the groupmean. The vertical span of each diamond represents the 95%confidence interval for the group. Overlapping marks indicate thatthe two group means are not significantly different at this confidenceinterval, and vice versa
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 17
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
oriented differently, creating two ventral faces with two
dissimilar flaking axes (figures 3.4-10; 3.4-10; 14.1
14.1). The artefacts of this sub-type are larger and
more cortical than those of typical Kombewa flakes
(76.5% of them have 26–50% cortex). Their length is
30.8 (±10.1) mm, the width is 23.8 (±7.9) mm and
they exhibit a thickness of 13.9 (±4.5) mm. In some of
the items a complete Hertzian cone is located on the
ventral side implying that these items are the result of
flaking accidents which involved massive blows.
9.4 Blades (N=56)
Blades comprise only 1.4% of the debitage. The
blades defining characteristics – the number of scars,
scar pattern and type of striking platforms — resem-
ble those of the flakes and primary elements. No evi-
dence was found for discrete systematic laminar pro-
duction. It can be inferred that these items are only
morphemically blades and not true laminar artefacts
(Bar-Yosef & Kuhn 1999).
9.5 Burin spalls (N=45)
The average length of the burin spalls is 27.4 (± 6.7)
mm, their width is 11.0 (±3.5) mm and their thickness
is 9.0 (±4.1) mm (figure 14.2). Most burin spalls
(77.7%) have less than 25% cortex and their section
is usually triangular in shape. The mean number of
scars is 3.4 (±1.8) and the scar pattern is mostly uni-
polar (57.1%) and in smaller frequencies, bipolar
(25.0%). The striking platform width is 7.1 (± 2.9) mm
and is 4.6 (± 2.6) mm thick.
9.6 Core management pieces (N=499)
The core-management pieces comprise 12.8% of
the debitage larger than 20 mm (table 1) and in-
clude another 58 pieces that are smaller than 20
mm. They usually retain less than 25% of cortex,
and are thicker on average than flakes and pri-
mary elements. Their striking platforms also tend
to be thicker than the flakes (12 mm wide and 5–3
mm thick), and mostly plain. The core-manage-
ment pieces have similar technological attributes
as were observed in the debitage as well as those
characterizing the cores. The small-sized (< 20
mm) pieces are mostly dèbordants (n=43) or ge-
neric types (n=13) (see below). Such items may
be interpreted as either the result of core rejuve-
nation at the very final stage of knapping or as a
byproduct of knapping at the edge of the core that
creates accidental dèbordants. The core-manage-
ment pieces will be described below in order of
frequency, from the most common to the rarest.
9.6.1 Generic core management pieces (N=210)
These are non-diagnostic rejuvenation flakes that bear
segments of the core’s striking platform as part of
their dorsal face scars (figure 15.1,4). The scar pat-
tern includes ridge (42.3%), unipolar (24.9%), unipo-
lar and side (15.3%), bipolar (10.6%) and centripetal
(5.8%), the presence of which expresses this type’s
non-specific characteristics. The dorsal profile is
mostly irregular (36.9%) or straight (30.6%); the ven-
tral profile is usually straight (59.6%) or concave
(26.6%). The length of these items is on average 27.9
(± 10.6) mm, the width 22.4 (± 9.4) mm, and they are
13.6 (±5.8) mm thick. Most of these artefacts retain
less than 25% cortex (79.1%). The number of scars
Figure 14 1 Atypical kombewa; 2 burin spall
18 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
is 5.2 (± 2.8). The striking platforms are usually un-
prepared, and are plain (68.8%) or cortical (7.8%) with
a width of 12.8 mm (±7.1) and a thickness of 5.7 (±
4.7) mm.
9.6.2 Éclat Dèbordant (Core edge flakes, N=209
These are flakes removed from the lateral edge of the
core and lateral edges that bear residual scars of
flakes that had been removed from the preparation
face of the core (Beyiers & Boëda 1983) (figure 15.2).
Their length is 27.1 (± 8.9) mm, they are 24.0 (± 9.3)
mm wide, and 10.5 (±4.8) mm thick. Their size values
are in-between those exhibited for flakes and primary
elements. The number of scars is 4.9 (± 2.9) and the
dominant scar patterns are unipolar (45.8%) and uni-
polar and side (30.7%). Centripetal as well as bipolar
scar patterns appear in minor frequencies. The ven-
tral and dorsal profiles are usually straight (57.5%
and 47.3% respectively). The striking platform width
is 12.2 (± 7.4) mm and 5.6 (± 2.7) mm thick. The
striking platform is mostly plain (64.1%). Facetted strik-
ing platforms are relatively high (14.5%).
9.6.3 Éclat’s outrepassé (plunging core edge
elements, N=56)
Outrepassé flakes remove the edge of the opposite
striking platform but do not plunge into it (Tixier et al
1980: 95; Inizan et al 1999: figure 14.1) (figure 15.3).
The question of whether these flakes are accidental
or intentional is debatable. Nevertheless their occur-
rence provides information about the methods and
techniques used at the site. Their length is 29.9 mm
(± 9.5), with a width of 27.9 (±8.8) mm, and a thick-
ness of 12.1 (±4.0) mm. The dimensions of
outrepassé flakes are intermediate between flakes
and primary elements, and are similar to those of the
débordant. Their small dimensions attests of the
core’s reduced size when it was rejuvenated. The
number of scars is high with a count of 6.0 (± 2.8).
Their scar pattern is mostly bipolar (37.7%) and cen-
tripetal (18.9%). The dominant ventral profiles are
concave (54.1%) and straight (32.4%), and the dorsal
profiles are convex (36.8%), straight (31.6%) and ir-
regular (26.3%). The striking platform is usually plain
(56.3%) with a width of 12.1 (± 5.8) mm and a thick-
ness of 4.6 (± 2.3) mm thick.
9.6.4 Naturally-backed knives (N=51)
These flakes are defined by the occurrence of cortex
on a flake’s lateral edge that is at a ca 90° angle to the
ventral surface. They have the largest dimensions ofFigure 15 1 Core trimming element; 2 éclat dèbordant; 3–4 éclatoutrepassé
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 19
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
all core management pieces. The average length of
naturally-backed knives is 37.8 (± 12.4) mm, 19.7 (±
5.1) mm wide and 12.0 (± 4.7) mm thick. Most of these
items (73.6%) have between 25–50% cortex, more
than the usual amount on other types of core man-
agement pieces. The number of scars is 3.3 (±1.9).
The most frequent scar patterns are unipolar (57.5%),
unipolar and side (20.0%) and bipolar (15.0% and
centripetal (7.5%). The ventral profiles are usually
straight (48.8%) or concave (39.0%) while the dorsal
profiles are convex (45.0%) or straight (42.5%). The
striking platform is usually plain (54.1%) and they have
a width of 9.9 (± 4.0) mm and a thickness of 4.8 (± 2.7)
mm.
9.6.5 Ridge flake (N=31
The average dimensions of the ridge flakes are 25.8 (±
8.3) mm long, 16.6 (±4.8) mm wide and 12.2 (±4.7)
mm thick. Most of these artefacts bear no cortex at all.
The average number of scars is 6.0 (±2.2) and all these
items have a ridge scar pattern. The striking platform
width is 7.1 mm (± 2.9) and 4.6 (± 2.6) mm thick.
10 The retouched artefacts
The frequencies of the ten types of retouched arte-
facts are presented in table 4.
10.1 Retouched items (n=295)
The type was defined by Goren-Inbar as having regu-
lar and continuous retouch along the edge (Goren-
Inbar 1990:63; figure 19. 1, 4, 5, 7). In Area C East,
most of the retouched items are flakes (64.6%), fol-
lowed by primary elements (14.6%) and core man-
agement pieces (12.2%). Their average length is 30.6
(±11.9), their width is 25.5 (±9.2) mm and they are
10.6 (±5.0) mm thick. They are distinguished from
other tools in their extent of retouch invasiveness. Up
to 25% of the artefact’s circumference may be re-
touched by assorted types of retouch including regu-
lar, fine, invasive, abrupt and semi-abrupt. The retouch
is applied equally to the left and right edges of the
blanks and is preferentially located on the dorsal face
(61.2%) compared to the ventral (22.8%) or on the
edges (14.4%). The mode and extent of retouch have
only moderate effect on the morphology of the re-
touched items.
10.2 Isolated removals (N=206)
This type is defined as flakes bearing no more than
two post-flaking removals without spatial associa-
tions (Hovers 2009; figures 16–17.2). Most of the
blanks are flakes (69.6%), followed by primary ele-
ments (20.2%) or core management pieces (10.1%).
Their average length is 32.7 (±8.4), they are 23.6 (±7.1)
mm wide and 13.2 (±4.5) mm thick. A considerable
proportion of the circumference of the blanks was re-
moved by the retouch —over 25% in 70.6% of the
items. In most cases the removals are on the ventral
face (53.7%) or on both faces (21.6%). There is no
preparation of the striking platform before detachment.
Despite the extensive reduction of the surface, it does
not seem to create a distinct morphology of the active
edge (eg, notch or denticulate form; similar to
Clactonian notches of Bordes, 1961 plate 39: 10, 13).
Isolated removals are differentiated from the cores-
on-flakes in the type of selected blanks, smaller
blanks size, as well as having more random and un-
organized removals (see discussion below).
10.3 Composite tools (n=130)
This type includes blanks that were retouched into
two or three distinct tool types (Goren-Inbar 1990: 95–
97). In Area C East, this group consists of 124 com-
posite tools comprising two tool types (figures 17;
19.6), and six blanks that were used to manufacture
three discrete types Typologically this group com-
Level I Level II Level III Level IV Total
N % N % N % N % N %
Retouched items 23 31.9 100 34.0 118 27.4 54 28.6 295 29.9Isolated removal 21 29.2 66 22.4 78 18.1 41 21.7 206 20.9Composite tool 12 16.7 28 9.5 62 14.4 28 14.8 130 13.2End scraper 3 4.2 19 6.5 45 10.4 10 5.3 77 7.8Side scraper 4 5.6 19 6.5 30 7.0 14 7.4 67 6.8Notch and denticulate 6 8.3 17 5.8 22 5.1 15 7.9 60 6.1Aw l 2 2.8 16 5.4 29 6.7 10 5.3 57 5.8Burin - - 9 3.1 26 6.0 8 4.2 43 4.4Truncated flakes - - 18 6.1 15 3.5 7 3.7 40 4.1Varia 1 1.4 2 0.7 6 1.4 2 1.1 11 1.1Total 72 100 294 100 431 100 189 100 986 100
Table 4 The tool type frequencies in the four levels of Area C East
20 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
Retouched End Side Burin Truncated Notch and Awl Isolated Varia items scraper scraper flakes denticulate removal
Retouched items 6 4 2 2 1 2 13 1End scraper 5 16 1 1 1 4 4 Side scraper 4 4 1 1 1 5 Burin 1 1 1 1 1 Truncated flakes 4 2 1 2 Notch and denticulate 1 1 Awl 1 1 1 3 2 Isolated removal 4 1 1 2 1 2 Varia 1
Table 5 Composite tool type frequencies
Figure 16 1-3 Isolated removal
prises a combination of all the discrete known types
(table 5). Sometimes, the last phase of retouch re-
moves the previous ones (figure 17,1 shows an ex-
ample of the removals of a transversal burin truncat-
ing the previous retouch). The most frequent combi-
nations of composite tools are retouched flakes or
side-scrapers combined with isolated removals and
side-scrapers (table 5). The dimensions of the com-
posite tools are the largest of the tool blanks with an
average length of 34.5 (±10.8) mm, a width of 25.5
(±9.4) mm and a thickness of 12.1 (±5.4) mm. Most of
the blanks are flakes (75.4%), followed by primary
elements (11.9%) and core management pieces
(9.5%). Tools that are a combination of three distinct
types are comprised mostly of side- or end-scrapers
in combination with burins (figure 17.1).
10.4 End scrapers (n=77)
This type is defined according to the location of the
retouch on the distal edge and the intensity of retouch.
In this tool-type there is more selection of primary
elements as blanks (figure 19.3) (32.4%) than in any
other tool category. Still, 54.4% of end-scrapers are
made on flakes and 10.3% on core-management
pieces (figure 18.3). Their average length is 32.3
(±10.6) mm with a width of 30.5 (±11.2) mm and a
thickness of 10.6 (±4.4) mm. The retouch is predomi-
nantly abrupt (33.8%) and semi-abrupt (22.1%).
10.5 Side scrapers (n=67)
The blanks of this type are mostly made of flakes
(55.0%), followed by primary elements (20.0%) or core
management pieces (18.8%). Their average length
is 33.9 mm (±11.0), their width is 24.8 (±7.7) mm and
they have a thickness of 11.8 (±5.8) mm. The retouch
is mostly invasive (including semi-abrupt and abrupt
retouch) and scalar (figures 18. 2,4; figure 19. 8, 9 ). In
the majority of scrapers, the retouch extends over more
than 25% of their circumference and most of it occurs
on the dorsal face.
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 21
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
Figure 17 1 composite tool (retouched flake on ventral surface,side-scraper and transversal burin); 2 composite tool (isolatedremoval and retouched flake on ventral surface)
Figure 18 1 Notch; 2,4 side scraper; 3 end scraper
10.6 Notches and denticulates (n=60)
The blanks of this type are mostly made of flakes
(54.7%), followed by core management pieces
(20.8%) or primary elements (13.2%) (figure 18.1).
Their average length is 36.1 mm (±13.5); they are
29.4 (±14.0) mm wide and 10.6 (±5.6) mm thick. The
retouch is mostly regular (50.9%) or abrupt (15.9%).
10.7 Awls (n=57)
These pieces are mostly made of flakes (58.2%) or
primary elements (18.2%) (figure 19.2). Their aver-
age length is 30.6 mm (±7.7) while they are 22.4 (±6.5)
mm wide and 10.7 (±5.0) mm thick. The retouch is
mostly regular (47.2%) or abrupt (13.2%).
10.8 Burins (n=43)
This type is mostly made of flakes (68.3%) or primary
elements (17.1%). Their average length is 31.5 mm
(±9.0), with a width of 23.0 (±7.0) mm and a thickness
of 12.0 (±4.2) mm. The number of burins is relatively
correlative to the burin spalls.
10.9 Truncated flakes (40)
The blanks of this type are mostly made of flakes
(68.7%) or primary elements (12.8%). Their average
length is 32.2 mm (±10.0), with a width of 23.6 (±7.7)
mm and a thickness of 11.0 (±5.3) mm. The retouch
is mostly abrupt (82.0%).
22 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
10.10 Summary of the result of retouched
artefacts
The blanks used for further retouch have similar tech-
nological characteristics to the debitage. This is re-
flected in the ventral and dorsal profiles, number of
scars, scar patterns and the striking-platform types.
The length of the majority of retouched items
(90.8%) is between 20–50 mm. Two other size groups
were identified, those larger than 50 mm (7.0%), that
are classified as heavy duty tools by Kleindienst
(1962) and those smaller than 20 mm (N=21, 2.2%).
There is some preference for larger blanks (heavy
duty size group) as attested in comparison to the
debitage size ratios (1.5% of the total debitage).
Another size-related tendency associated with a
specific tool type is regarding the composite tools.
This type has the largest size in comparison to all
other types, despite their extensive retouch.
There are no differences in the relative abundance
of the different tool-types between those of the 20–50
mm size group, and the heavy duty types. Yet, the ty-
pology of the small size group is different. The most
frequent types of the small tools are retouched flakes
(n=8, 38.1%) (figure 19.1,4,5,7), end-scrapers (figure
19.3), side-scrapers (figure 19.8.9), and composite
tools (figure 19.6) (each type represented by equal
counts of three), truncated flake, notch and awl (figure
19.2) (n=1, respectively). These small tools have equal
length and width measurements (17 mm) that exhibit
a different morphology from the other size-groups.
Specifically, the other size-groups have more oblong
proportions (the heavy duty length width proportion of
1.4 and the size group of 1.2). However, it should be
kept in mind that the small size-group is probably
under represented due to hydraulic winnowing of the
small fraction in the depositional sequence of Area C
East (Malinsky-Buller et al 2011). Despite the reduced
sample size in this area of the site, these small sized
tools raise new questions regarding hafting of com-
posite tools and possibly standardisation (see
Barham 2002, who addresses a similar concern).
11 Lithic variability & continuity along the
depositional sequence in Area C East
The detailed reconstruction of the depositional history
at Area C East permits the examination of behaviours
associated with the taphonomic ‘background noises’
of this area of Revadim’s formation processes
(Malinsky-Buller et al 2011). The depositional history of
levels III and IV is characterized by two distinct cycles
which are composed of at least five accumulation/re-
moval processes: flooding, human occupation(s), win-
nowing, burial and post burial pedogenic processes.
In the upper levels (Level I and II) two main processes
were identified: human occupation(s) followed by hy-
draulic activity that adversely affected the residue of
human activities (for details see Malinsky-Buller et al
2011). Levels III and represent a channel-bed environ-
ment, while levels I and II is a natural levee resulting
from overbank flow along a floodplain.
The reconstruction of the depositional history helps
to explain some of the variations as being a conse-
quence of natural processes. For example, the rela-
tively low frequency of the micro-artefacts, smaller than
20 mm agency (eg, Goren-Inbar 1985; Alperson-Afil &
Goren-Inbar 2010) is mainly related to the intensity of
post-depositional hydraulic winnowing rather to any
anthropogenic influence (for details of this analysis see
Malinsky-Buller et al 2011). On the other hand, the spa-
tial association of hammerstones with the dense dis-
tribution of cores, flakes and tools implies a probable
knapping locality in level III (Malinsky-Buller 2008).
The detailed nature of the present research high-
lights the small-scale diachronic trends in human
adaptation. Specifically, both the natural and anthro-
pogenic processes in Area C East, Revadim, revealed
a palimpsest pattern of repeated exploitation of this
locality in relation to micro-environmental changes
(Malinsky-Buller et al 2011 for details).
Three main trends in variation can be explored in
the different assemblages. The first aspect of varia-
tion is the relative frequency of cores, debitage and
retouched artefacts. In Level II, the relative frequency
of retouched artefacts and cores (3.0% and 5.8% re-
spectively) is the lowest, whereas in level IV the tools
and cores are more abundant (15.5% and 14.6% re-
spectively), in addition, Level III has values of tools
and cores that are intermediate between Levels II and
IV (7.7% and 10.8% respectively, table 1).
The second aspect is the relative frequency of the
various reduction sequences. The ratio of cores made
on nodules show that level II was comprised the low-
est amount (54.3%) of the complete cores in compari-
son to 66.8% and 68.3% of complete cores in level III
and IV respectively. This differential distribution is not
related to geogenic site formation processes. In level II
the hydraulic homogenisation of unmodified and modi-
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 23
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
fied artefacts would have displaced the lighter and smaller
clast, whereas the cobbles would not have been sorted
had they been present. However, the small and light
cores, ie, cores-on-flakes remained intact. Therefore, it
can be concluded that cores on nodules which are
larger and heavier were not originally at the site. Rather,
the relative abundance of cores-on-flakes present in
Level II reflects a behavioural signature stemming from
the choices made by the inhabitants of the site.
The third type of variation is the frequency of the
various types of retouched items. The main difference
in this regard is the low frequency of composite tools
in Level II in comparison to other levels (9.5%, 14.4%
and 14.8% in levels II, III and IV respectively).
Can these techno-typological variations within the
sequence of Area C East be correlated to the micro-
environmental changes? Can the variations between
Levels II to III and IV be interpreted as a response to
raw material deficiency, corresponding to the change
from channel-bed environment in Levels III and IV to
that of a natural levee along a floodplain in Level II?
The relative abundance of cores-on-flake in Level II
can be used as an argument to support an earlier sug-
gestion made by Munday (1976) that behaviour relates
to the on-site availability of lithic raw material. Another
positive line of evidence is that in Level II cores with two
Figure 19 1 Retouched item; 2 awl; 3 end scraper; 4-5 retouched item; 6 composite tool - end scraper and side scraper; 7 retouched item; 8-9 side scrapers
24 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
surfaces perpendicular to each other with hierarchy and
those without hierarchy are smaller in size and their
circumference more intensively utilised compared to
those in the lower levels (figure 13B). Similarly, the cores
with three or more surfaces are the smallest in size in
Level II. Moreover, the flakes, core management pieces,
as well as retouched items are, on average, the small-
est in Level II when compared to the lower levels.
It is important to note that there are several vari-
ables that remain constant despite the different
depositional conditions. The cores-on-flakes remain
homogeneous throughout the depositional se-
quence, as indicated by the consistency of blank se-
lection, the number of detachments and the dimen-
sions of removed scars (figure 13B). Similarly,
handaxes, despite their minute numbers, and there-
fore not being statistically significant, remain strik-
ingly homogenous with only a 1.5 mm standard de-
viation in their thickness. The thickness, in particular,
represents the initial nodule selection since thickness
is measured in relation to the cortical butt of the
handaxe. Therefore, the unreduced in size of the
handaxes lacking a reduction in size testifies to the
original size selection of the nodule.
On the other hand, some of the variations does
not seem to be affected by raw material constraints. It
is expected that if raw material was scarce, the eco-
nomic use of such sources would be heightened.
Moreover, there would be evidence for a higher than
expected occurrence of retouch on retouched items
and composite tools in Level II than in Levels III and
IV. However, both the frequency of retouched items
and the relative frequency of composite tools is the
smallest in Level II.
It can be concluded that micro-environmental
changes was related to raw material availability and, in
turn affected, to a certain degree, the variations demon-
strated in Level II in comparison to the lower levels. It
should be kept in mind however that Levels III and IV
are not identical and there are some differences that
exist between the two that cannot be clearly identified.
In this case perhaps, some other functional or adap-
tive influence could be the cause of this variability.
It is important to note that there is no single flaking
system that dominates the depositional sequence of
Area C East. Similarly, there is no evidence for typo-
logical innovation in the sequence either. The fluctua-
tions apparent in the technological affinities, as well
as in the various retouched types, lie in their relative
abundance. The typo-technological repertoire which
include the range of the available techno-typological
options accessible for selection by the inhabitant of
the site remain constant throughout the sequence.
12 Summary of technological and
typological analysis
The technological analysis of the lithic assemblages
of Area C East in Revadim revealed the existence of
four main reduction sequences (figure 20). The initial
stages of knapping are represented with tested nod-
ules, as well as cores with alternating surfaces. Be-
ginning with these initial stages two distinct reduc-
tion sequences are apparent: Cores with two sur-
faces perpendicular to each other (with or without hi-
erarchy), and cores with three or more striking sur-
faces. The different modes of flaking are demonstrated
on a range of nodule morphologies and are not de-
termined by the natural shape of the nodule. The cores
with two surfaces perpendicular to each other with
hierarchy are more thoroughly exploited than those
without hierarchy. This is evident from their smaller
size, the reduced presence of cortex, and the more
extensive use of the circumference. It is important to
note that in Level II it was demonstrated that these
two types of sequences represent flexible modes of
flaking and possibly, as a result of economizing raw
material,the cores were more utilised than the same
types reductions from the lower levels.
The core management pieces can be tentatively
ascribed to the different reduction sequences or to
stages within the reduction sequences. The dèbordant
flakes and naturally-backed knives have similar func-
tions in maintaining the lateral convexities of the cores.
The naturally-backed knives have a greater amount
of cortex, are larger in size, as well as having a smaller
number of scars and can therefore be linked to ear-
lier stages of manufacture. On the other hand, the
technological role of the éclat outrepassé is to main-
tain the distal convexities of the cores. All three types
of rejuvenation can be more closely related to cores
with hierarchy that has two surfaces perpendicular to
each other. Yet it is important to note that the dorsal
curvature of both cores, as well as the debitage, is
mostly flat or minimally arched. The generic flake type
and ridge flakes can be attributed to the final stages
of reduction of cores with three surfaces.
The cores with two surfaces perpendicular to each
other with hierarchy have technological traits com-
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 25
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
mon to a number of techniques including what
Ameloot-Van der Heijden (1993) defined as the
récurrent non-Levallois technique; to White & Ashton’s
(2003) ‘simple prepared-core’ technology and to what
Barzilai (et al 2006) described as central surface cores.
Interestingly, these techniques all date to LLP con-
texts, deviating from Boëda’s (1994; 1995) definitions
of Levallois in two main aspects: core preparation is
executed by large flake removals, and there is mini-
mal maintenance of the distal and lateral convexities
(Ameloot-Van der Heijden 1993; White & Ashton 2003;
Barzilai et al 2006). This technological repertoire was
suggested by White & Ashton (2003) to be the
antecessor of the Middle Palaeolithic Levallois tech-
nology.
The emergence of the Levallois technology was
suggested by Brantingham & Kuhn (2000) to be a
consequence of optimal solution in minimising prepa-
ration waste and in maximising the number of usable
end products and the amount of usable cutting edge.
If efficiency in producing the maximum cutting edge
per reduction sequence is the aim of the knapper in
the Area C East, the most efficient reduction sequence
is that exhibited in the cores with three surfaces which
produce the largest number of flakes per sequence.
Yet, the differentiating aspects between those LLP
reduction sequences (cores with two surfaces per-
pendicular to each other, recurrent non-Levallois tech-
nique, simple prepared-core or central surface) is their
crude preparation and minimal maintenance of the
core’s convexities. Therefore, the advantages of
Levallois technology in comparison to the LLP reduc-
tion sequences may stem from the refinement in
preparation as well as improved management of the
core convexities. These traits are associated with a
higher degree of control over the morphology of the
end products rather than relating to pure efficiency.
In our opinion there are strong links between the
cores with two surfaces perpendicular to each other
with hierarchy, the LLP technologies mentioned
above, and the Levallois technology. But, whether the
Levallois evolved from these variants has yet to be
established.
The third type of reduction sequence is the cores-
on-flakes. This flaking system remains consistent with
the selection of blanks, the number of detachments
and the dimensions of removed items throughout the
depositional sequence. The occurrence of cores-on-
Figure 20 Reconstruction of the reduction sequences conducted at Area C East Revadim
26 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
flakes as a specific flaking system is neither an acci-
dental nor random phenomenon, but rather is a re-
peated pattern (Goren-Inbar 1988). In comparison to
those made on nodule cores, this flaking system
seems to differ in the morphometric attributes of its
end-products as is apparent from the core scars and
the small-size of retouched items (smaller than 20
mm). Diagnostic products from this type of reduction
sequence are Kombewa flakes. However, these types
of flakes are only a small proportion of the total flakes
that can result from a flaking system that includes
other types of small flakes. The main variability within
this flaking system is in the preparation of the striking
platform either by truncation, broken flakes, or con-
vexities that already exist on the chosen blanks.
The question regarding the attribution of cores-
on-flakes either as cores or tools has been the topic
of long debate over the last 30 years (Dibble 1984;
Goren-Inbar 1988; Delagnes 1992; Chazan 2000b;
Dibble & McPherron 2006; Hovers 2007; Barkai et al
2010; Zaidner et al 2010). Moreover, the question of
how to attribute isolated removals as being tools or
cores also needs some clarification. This is an im-
portant issue with regard to the assemblages of Area
C East due to the fact that both cores-on-flake (N=218)
and isolated removals (N=206) occur in very high
numbers.
Ashton advocated a different approach to the cat-
egorisation of cores-on-flakes. He used the broader,
more comprehensive term ‘flaked flakes’ (Ashton
1992, 1998, 2007; Ashton & McNabb, 1996). He de-
fined them as flakes that have additional exploitation
of between one and four removals, and sometimes
more. These removals can derive from lateral, proxi-
mal or distal edges and from both the ventral and
dorsal faces (Ashton 2007:1). Ashton’s definition in-
corporates both cores-on-flakes as well as isolated
removals into one group but does not provide a solu-
tion for whether or not to classify them as tool or cores.
In his various published works, Ashton refers to this
group sometimes as cores and sometimes as tools
(Ashton 1992 vs Ashton & McNabb 1996). He states:
Any attempts to interpret flaked flakes, whetherthrough metrical analyses, technology or artefactand site association, largely fail to distinguishbetween their function as cores or tools. Whatthey do suggest is that flaked flakes wereprobably used as both, reflecting a flexibility intechnology (Ashton 2007: 13).
In Area C East assemblages there are several differ-
ences between cores-on-flakes and flakes with iso-
lated removals. The blanks chosen for removals of
isolated removals (up to 2 removals) are smaller with
less cortex and are only randomly utilised. Cores-on-
flakes, on the other hand are a hierarchical mode of
flaking similar in a sense to the cores with two sur-
faces perpendicular to each with hierarchy. This con-
ceptual similarity is in our view the main distinction
between cores-on-flake and isolated removals. There-
fore, we suggest that the isolated removals type be
considered tools, whereas cores-on-flakes suggest
of a particular reduction sequence.
The fourth reduction sequence that was some-
times employed at Revadim is that of bifacial produc-
tion (façonnage). Only three such items were found.
Their knapping was begun outside the locality and
only reshaping occurred on-site. Although their num-
bers are minimal, to some degree they attest to the
selection of similar types of nodules in all the levels.
It is not possible to ascribe a flake or blank to a
certain type of reduction sequence. Yet, the blanks
chosen for further retouch have similar technological
attributes as the debitage, as well as were expected
from the analysis of the cores. Thus, there are no
morpho-metrical affinities of the desired blanks that
can demonstrate why they would have been preferred
for further retouch. Most of the retouch on these items
do not alter the blanks original shape. This type can
be characterised as being irregular and lacking stand-
ardisation as is attested to by the fact that the three
most frequent tool types (retouched items, flakes with
isolated removals and composite tools) do not ap-
pear in Bordes’s typological list (1961). This finding
relates to McNabb & Fluck’s (2006) remark concern-
ing Bordes’s typology failing to describe the full range
of the repertoire of Lower Palaeolithic tools.
13 Concluding remarks
Examining the fine resolution of variations demon-
strated in Area C East, how can we provide interpreta-
tions concerning the broader scale of variability and
changes which occurred at Revadim, in particular, and
during the LLP in general? The current study brings
us a step closer to the importance of high resolution
analysis. It allows us to demonstrate and quantify the
technological options that were available to individu-
als and how this repertoire of behaviours was ap-
plied throughout chronological and micro-environ-
mental changes in a particular place (layer C3 in the
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 27
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
eastern excavation) within the Revadim palaeo-land-
scape. The current state of research of Revadim ena-
bles us to make only preliminary observations regard-
ing these overall variations. In future, a more detail
studies will increase our understanding of both
chronological as well as changes along the palaeo-
landscape.
The early assemblages both in the low areas
(Layer B2) and the hill slopes (Layer C5) have a very
high percentage of retouched items (42.8% in B2 and
30.4% in C5 larger than 20 mm) when compared to
cores and debitage (Solodenko 2010). Similar ob-
servations have been reported in previous publica-
tion (Marder et al 1998). The composition of the tools
types in the early assemblages consist of mainly re-
touched items (52.0% and 50% in B2 and C5 respec-
tively) and notches (16.3% in B2 and 13.9% in C5).
Similarly, in Marder et al (1998) notches, denticulate
and awls are the most dominant tool types and tech-
nologically, cores-on-flakes are a dominant compo-
nent in the early assemblages of Revadim (Marder et
al 1998; Solodenko 2010).
The bifaces represent one of the most differing
aspects of the early and the late assemblages of the
site (Marder et al 2006). The most obvious dissimi-
larity is the relatively low number of bifaces in Layers
C2-C3 (n=12) in comparison to their more frequent
appearance in B2 (n=56) and C5 (n=6 in 8 m2, Marder
et al 2006; Solodenko 2010). Moreover, there are
morpho-metrical variations between the bifaces of the
early and the late assemblages. The early handaxes
are larger and mostly pointed (lanceolate and amy-
gdaloid) while later handaxes are shorter and thinner
and mostly discoidal or irregular in shape (Marder et
al 2006). The metrical proportions of bifaces in Area
C East are the largest in comparison to the length of
both early and late assemblages. However, in this
regard the small number of handaxes (3) should be
taken in to consideration.
It seems that both technologically and typologi-
cally there are similarities in the characteristics of the
lithic assemblage of Revadim as a whole. More
nuanced, smaller scale, variations are demonstrated
but research at the site continues and therefore, de-
finitive interpretations with regard to these unique
occurrences is still premature.
In general, Area C East assemblages provide evi-
dence for both the typological variations in the relative
number of retouched artefacts as well as the compo-
sition of the different tools types in the different as-
semblages (Levels II–IV) representing tactical, short
term functional needs associated with diverse activi-
ties that took place in the various archaeological hori-
zons (eg, Marder 2003; Hovers 2009; Sharon et al
2011). The flaking methods, in contrast to the tools,
are structured learned behaviours socially mediated,
which exhibited via raw material exploitation (techno-
logical style – Lechtman, 1977, Lemonnier, 1992).
The lithic assemblage at Area C East is package of
both technological and typological traits that remains
stable through a prolonged (as yet unknown) period
of time and may be regarded as socially transmitted
adaptive behaviours. The suggestion that technologi-
cal modes of flaking represent longer term stable
behaviours while typological variations are more flex-
ible and affected by mundane, every-day influences,
needs to be further investigated with respect to the
variations inherent in micro-habitats as well the dia-
chronic changes within the sequence of Revadim.
The breadth of variations as observed in Area C
East is by no means unique in LLP lithic assem-
blages. In the cave site of Qesem, for example, there
are five distinct reduction sequences whose use fluc-
tuates over time and space, producing recurrent tech-
nological variants (Gopher et al 2005; Barkai et al
2009). Similarly, at Orgnac 3, Moncel (1999: figure
158; Moncel & Combier 1992; Moncel et al 2005;
Moncel et al 2011) demonstrated the coexistence of
several flaking methods, none of which predominates
quantitatively more than the other. These flaking meth-
ods produce discrete, rigid morphologies, from initial
flaking to final discard.
The LLP assemblage-variability is different from
the previous Early Lower Palaeolithic assemblages.
In the Early Lower Palaeolithic assemblages a dis-
tinct mental template can be discerned in the use of
raw material such as flint, limestone and basalt
(Belfer-Cohen & Goren-Inbar 1994). On the other hand,
the diversity of the typical Middle Palaeolithic assem-
blage stems from variations in a single, very flexible
technological concept- the Levallois technique, which
produces a variety of products: flakes, points and
blades (Goren-Inbar & Belfer-Cohen 1998).
Mesoudi & Lycett (2009) differentiated between
distributions of variants as being a result of the selec-
tion of the most popular variant, which they called ‘win-
ner-takes-all’ distribution and selection. In such cases,
the selection is not related to the trait’s popularity,
28 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
which they termed ‘frequency-dependent trimming’.
From the perspective of LLP lithic assemblages, the
distribution of the variants resembles the ‘frequency-
dependent trimming’, while the Middle Palaeolithic
resembles more the ‘winner-takes-all’ type of distri-
bution. This type of distribution may indicate a higher
degree of societal conformity since high levels of con-
formity may prevent variants from spreading and gain-
ing quantitative predominance through time. In con-
trast, a lower degree of societal conformity may cre-
ate a structure of distribution of variants similar to the
‘frequency-dependent trimming’ model (Kandler &
Laland 2009). This in turn may represent extremely
variable selection within a defined package of tech-
nological and typological traits as depicted in many
LLP lithic assemblages. A change from less struc-
tured social meat distributions systems in LLP con-
texts in contrast to those of the EMP was suggested
by Stiner (et al 2009; 2011) who proposed different
societal meat sharing mechanics between these two
periods.
The study of LLP variations, its structure, mean-
ing, causes, and implications both on the societal
anthropogenic and evolutionary scales are in their
infancy, and in this regard, we hope the research re-
viewed in the present paper contributes somewhat
toward expanding our understanding of this period in
prehistory.
Acknowledgements
Field and laboratory research in Revadim Quarry was
supported by grants to OM from the Israel Antiquities
Authority and Yad Hanadiv Foundation, and by the Irene
Levi-Sala CARE foundation for OM and AMB. We thank
Yanir Milevski, Hamoudi Khalaily, Omry Barzilai, Ronit
Lupo for their help during fieldwork and laboratory
analysis. Noah Lichtinger prepared figire 1 for digital
publication. We are grateful to Alexandra Sumner and
Smadar Gavrieli for their editorial reading of earlier
versions of this paper. This paper could not have been
accomplished without the guidance, critical reading
and mental support of Erella Hovers through the years
(AMB). We deeply thank Professor Naama Goren-
Inbar and Professor Nigel Goring- Morris for numer-
ous discussions. AMB wishes to thank Liora for the
long years discussing the meaning of battered stones.
References
Alperson-Afil, N & Goren-Inbar, N 2010. TheAcheulian Site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov: AncientFlames and Controlled Use of Fire. Dordrecht:Springer.
Ameloot-Van der Heijden, N 1993. L’ensemblelithique du gisement de Longavesnes (Somme): illustration d’un problème de reconnaissancedu débitage levallois dans une industrie à bifacesde la phase ancienne du Paléolithique moyen.Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 90(4):257–264.
Anderfsky, W 1998. Lithics: MacroscopicApproaches to Analysis, Cambridge Manuals inArchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Ashton, NM 1992. The High Lodge flint industries.In Ashton, NM, Cook, J, Lewis, SG &. Rose, J(eds) High Lodge: Excavations by G. de G.Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988. London:British Museum Press:124–164.
Ashton, NM 1998. The technology of the flintassemblages. In Ashton, NM, Lewis, SG & Parfitt,A (eds) Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Siteat East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk, 1989–94.London: British Museum Occasional Paper:205–236.
Ashton, NM 2007. Flakes, cores, flexibility andobsession: situational behaviour in the BritishLower Palaeolithic. In McPheron,S (ed). Tools
versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to StoneTool Analysis. Newcastle: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing:1–16.
Ashton, NM & McNabb, J 1996. The flint industriesfrom the Waechter excavations. In Conway, B,McNabb, J & Ashton,N (eds) Excavations atBarnfield Pit, Swanscombe, 1968–72. London:British Museum Press:201–236.
Barham, L 2002. Backed tools in MiddlePleistocene Central Africa and their evolutionarysignificance. Journal of Human Evolution 43(5):585–603.
Barkai, R, Lemorini, C, Shimelmitz, R, Lev, Z, Stiner,MC & Gopher, A. 2009. A blade for all seasons?Making and using Amudian blades at QesemCave, Israel. Human Evolution 24 (1):57–75.
Barkai , R, Lemorini , C & Gopher, A 2010.Palaeolithic cutlery 400,000–200,000 years ago:tiny meat-cutting tools from Qesem Cave, Israel.Antiquity 84 (325).
Bar-Yosef, O 1994. The Lower Paleolithic of theNear East. Journal of World Prehistory 8:211–265.
Bar-Yosef, O & Goren-Inbar, N, 1993. The LithicAssemblages of ‘Ubeidiya, a Lower PaleolithicSite in the Jordan Val ley. The Inst i tute ofArchaeology, The Hebrew Universi ty ofJerusalem, Qedem 34. Jerusalem.
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 29
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
Bar-Yosef, O & Kuhn, SL 1999. The big deal aboutblades: laminar technologies and humanevolution. American Anthropologist 101 (2): 322–338.
Barzilai, O, Malinsky-Buller, A &, Ackermann, O2006. Kefar Menachem West: A LowerPalaeolithic Site in the Shephela, Israel. Journalof the Israel Prehistoric Society 36:7–38.
Beaumont, PB & Vogel, JC 2006. On a timescalefor the past million years of human history incentral South Africa. South African Journal ofScience 102 (B):217–228.
Belfer-Cohen, A, & Goren-Inbar, N 1994. Cognitionand communication in the Levantine LowerPaleolithic. World Archaeology 26:144–157.
Beyries, S & Boëda, E 1983. Étude technologiqueet traces d’utilisation des « éclats débordants »de Corbehem (Pas-de-Calais). Bulletin de laSociété Préhistorique Française 80:275–283.
Boëda, E 1993. Le débitage discoïde et le débitageLevallois récurrent centripède. Bulletin de laSociété Préhistorique Française 90 (6):392–404.
Boëda, E 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilitédes méthodes. Paris. CNRS.
Boëda, E 1995. Levallois: A volumetric construction,methods, a technique. In Dibble,HL & Bar-Yosef.O (eds) The Definition and Interpretation ofLevallois technology. Ann-Arbor: Monographs inWorld Archaeology:41–68.
Boëda, E, Geneste, JM & Meignen, L 1990.Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques duPaléolithique ancien et moyen. Paleo 2 (1):43–80.
Bordes, F 1950. Principes d’une méthode d’étudedes techniques de debitage et de la typologiedu Paléol i th ique ancien et moyen.L’Anthropologie 54 (1–2):19–34.
Bordes, F 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancienet Moyen. Paris: CNRS.
Brantingham, PJ & Kuhn, SL 2001. Constraints onLevallois core technology: A mathematicalmodel. Journal of Archaeological Science28:747–761.
Braun, DR, Tactikos, JC, Ferraro, JV & Harris, JWK2005. Flake recovery rates and inferences ofOldowan hominin behavior: a response toKimura 1999, 2002. Journal of Human Evolution48:525–531.
Buchbinder, B 1969. Geological Map of HashephelaRegion, Israel with Explanatory Notes, 1:20,000scale, 5 sheets. Report OD/1/68, GeologicalSurvey, Israel.
Chazan, M 2000a. Flake production at the LowerPalaeolithic site of Holon (Israel): implicationsfor the origin of the Levallois method. Antquity74 (285):495–499.
Chazan, M 2000b. Typological analysis of the LowerPaleolithic site of Holon, Israel. Journal of theIsrael Prehistoric Society 30:7–32.
Chazan, M 2007. Lithic Typology. In Chazan, M &Horwitz, LK (eds) Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Sitein Israel. Cambridge, MA: American School ofPrehistoric Research:43–59.
Clark, JD 1967. The middle Acheulian site atLatamne, northern Syria. Quaternaria 9:1–68.
Clark, JD 1968. The middle Acheulian occupationsite at Latamne northern Syria. Quaternaria 10:1–73.
Clark, JD, 2001. Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site.Volume III. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Clark, JD & Kleindienst, M 2001. The Stone Agecultural sequence: terminology, typology and rawmaterial . In Clark, JD (ed) Kalambo Fal lsPrehistor ic Si te. Volume I I I . Cambridge:Cambridge University Press: 34–65.
Cotterell, B & Kamminga, J1987. The formation offlakes. American Antiquity 48:435–472.
de la Torre, I & Mora, R 2005. TechnologicalStrategies in the Lower Pleistocene at OlduvaiBeds I & II Vol. Liege: ERAUL 112.
Delagnes, A 1992. Éclats à troncature inverse etenlèvements postérieurs : réflexions nouvellesautour d’un vieux débat. Bulletin de la SociétéPréhistorique Française 89 (9):274–277.
Dibble, HL 1984. The Mousterian industry fromBisitun Cave (Iran). Paléorient 10 (2):23–34.
Dibble, HL & McPherron, SP 2006. The MissingMousterian. Current Anthropology 47 (5): 777–803.
Forest ier, H 1993. Le Clactonien: mise enapplication d’une nouvelle méthode de débitages’inscrivant dans la variabilité des systèmes deproduction lithique du Paléolithique ancien.Paleo 5:53–82.
Gilead, D 1970. Handaxe industries in Israel andthe Near East. World Archaeology:1–11.
Gopher, A, Barkai, R, Shimelmitz, R, Khalaily, M,Lemorini, C, Hershkovitz, I & Stiner, MC 2005.Qesem Cave: An Amudian site in central Israel.Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35:69–92.
Gopher, A, Ayalon, A, Bar-Matthews, M, Barkai, R,Frumkin, A, Karkanas, P & Shahack-Gross, R2010. The chronology of the late LowerPaleolithic in the Levant based on U-Th ages ofspeleothems from Qesem Cave, Israel .Quaternary Geochronology 5:644–656.
Goren-Inbar, N 1985. The lithic assemblage of theBerekhat Ram Acheulian site, Golan Heights.Paléorient 11 (1):7–28.
Goren-Inbar, N 1988. Too small to be true?Reevaluation of cores on flakes in LevantineMousterian assemblages. Lithic technology 17(1):37–44.
Goren-Inbar, N 1990. The Lithic Assemblages. InGoren-Inbar, N (ed) Quneitra: A Mousterian Siteon the Golan Heights. Jerusalem Institute of
30 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
Archaeology, Qedem 31 61–167.
Goren-Inbar, N 1995. The Lower Paleolithic ofIsrael. In Levy,TE (ed) The Archaeology of Societyin the Holy Land,. London: Leicester UniversityPress: 93–109.
Goren-Inbar, N & Belfer-Cohen, A 1998. Thetechnological abi l i t ies of the Levant ineMousterians. In Akazawa, T, Aoki, K & Bar-Yosef.O (eds) Neandertals and Modern Humans inWestern Asia. New York: Plenum:205–221.
Goren-Inbar, N & Sharon, G 2006. Invisiblehandaxes and visible Acheulian biface technologyat Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel. In Goren-Inbar,N & Sharon, G (eds) Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard . London:Equinox:111–136.
Goring-Morris, AN, Hovers, E & Belfer-Cohen, A2009. The dynamics of Pleistocene settlementpatterns and human adaptations in the Levant:an overview. In Shea,JJ & Lieberman, D (eds)Transitions in Prehistory: Papers in Honor of OferBar-Yosef. Oakville: Brown/Oxbow:187–254.
Gowlett, JAJ 1986. Culture and conceptualisation:the Oldowan – Acheulean gradient. In Bailey,GN& Callow,P (eds) Stone Age Prehistory: Studiesin Memory of Charles McBurney. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:243–260.
Gowlett, JAJ 2006. The early settlement of northernEurope: fire history in the context of climatechange and the social brain. Comptes rendus-Palevol 5 (1–2):299–310.
Grosman, L, Smikt, O & Smilansky, U 2008. On theapplication of 3-D scanning technology for thedocumentation and typology of lithic artefacts.Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 3101–3110.
Grosman, L, Sharon, G, Goldman-Neuman, T,Smikt, O & Smilansky, U 2011. Studying postdepositional damage on Acheulian bifaces using3-D scanning. Journal of Human Evolution 60(4):398–406.
Gvirtzman, G, Wieder, M, Marder, O, Khalaily, H,Rabinovich, R & Ron, H 1999. Geological andpedological aspects of an Early-Paleolithic site:Revadim, central coastal plain, Israel .Geoarchaeology 14 (2):101–126.
Hovers, E 2007. The many faces of cores-on-flakes:A perspective from the Levantine Mousterian. InMcPherron, S & Lindly, J (eds) Cores or Tools?The Identification and Study of Alternative CoreTechnologies , . Phi ladelphia: Universi ty ofPhiladelphia:42–74.
Hovers, E 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of QafzehCave. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howell, FC & Clark, JD 1963. Acheulian hunter-gatherers of Sub-Saharan Africa. In Howell, FC& Bourliere, F (eds) African Ecology and HumanEvolut ion, . Chicago: Aldine Publ ishingCompany:458–533.
Inizan, M-L, Reduron-Ballinger, M, Roche, H &
Tixier, J 1999. Technology and Terminology ofKnapped Stone. Nanterre: Cercle de Rechercheset D’études Préhistorique.
Isaac, GL 1977. Olorgesail ie: ArchaeologicalStudies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin,Kenya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kandler, A & Laland, KN 2009. An investigation ofthe relationship between innovation and culturaldiversity. Theoretical Population Biology 76:59–67.
Karkanas, P, Shahack-Gross, R, Ayalon, A, Bar-Matthews, M, Barkai, R, Frumkin, A, Gopher, A &Stiner, MC 2007. Evidence for habitual use of fireat the end of the Lower Paleolithic: Site-formationprocesses at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal ofHuman Evolution 53:197–212.
Klein, RG 2000. The Earlier Stone Age of SouthernAfrica. The South African Archaeological Bulletin55 (172):107–122.
Kleindienst, MR 1961. Variability within the lateAcheulian assemblage in Eastern Africa. SouthAfrican Archaeological Journal 16:35–52.
Kleindienst, MR 1962. Components of the EastAfrican Acheulian assemblage: an analyticapproach. In Mortelmans, G & Nenquin, J (eds)Actes du IV ême Congrès Panafr icain dePréhistoire et de L’étude du Quaternaire .Tervuren: Musée Royal de L’Afrique Centrale :81–111.
Leakey, MD 1971. Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3:Excavations in Beds I and I I , 1960–1963.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lechtman, H 1977. Style in technology: Some earlythoughts In Material Culture, styles, organization,and dynamics of technology 1975. InLechtman,H & Merrill,R (eds) Proceedings of theAmerican Ethnological Societ,. St. Paul MN: WestPublishers:3–20.
Lemonnier, P 1992. Elements for an Anthropologyof Technology. Anthropological Papers, Museumof Anthropology, University of Michigan No. 88.
Lycett, SJ & Gowlett, JAJ 2008. On questionssurrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’. WorldArchaeology 40 (3): 295–315.
Malinsky-Buller, A 2008. Site Formation Processesin Area C East in the Lower Paleolithic Site ofRevadim Quarry. MA Dissertation, Institute ofArchaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Malinsky-Buller, A, Hovers, E & Marder, O 2011.Making Time: “Living Floors”, “Palimpsests” andSite Formation Processes – A Perspective fromthe Open-air Lower Paleolithic Site of RevadimQuarry, Israel . Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology, 30:89–101.
Marder, O 2003. The Lithic Technology of Epi-Paleolithic Hunter- Gatherers in the Negev; theImplication of Refitting Studies. Unpublished PhDthesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Marder, O, Gvirtzman, G, Ron, H, Khalaily, H, Wieder,M, Bankirer, R, Rabinovich, R, Porat, N, Saragusti,
Before Farming 2011/1 article 3 31
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
I 1998. The Lower Paleolithic site of RevadimQuarry, preliminary finds. Journal of IsraelPrehistoric society 28:21–53.
Marder, O, Milevski, I & Matskevich, Z 2006. Thehandaxes of Revadim quarry: typo technologicalconsiderat ions and aspects of intra si tevariability. In Goren-Inbar, N & Sharon,G (eds)Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry toDiscard. London: Equinox:223–242.
Marder, O, Malinsky-Buller, A, Shahack-Gross R,Ackermann, O, Ayalon, A, Bar-Matthews, M,Goldsmith, Y, Inbar, M, Rabinovich, R & Hovers,E 2011. Archaeological horizons and fluvialprocesses at the Lower Paleolithic open-air siteof Revadim (Israel). Journal of Human Evolution,60 (4):508–522.
McBrearty, S & Tryon, CA 2006. From Acheulean toMiddle Stone Age in the Kapthurin Formation,Kenya. In Hovers, E &. Kuhn, SL (eds) Transitionsbefore The Transition: Evolution and Stability inthe Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age.New-York: Springer:257–278.
McNabb, J 2007. The British Lower PaleolithicStones in Contention. New York: Routledge.
McNabb, J & Fluck, H 2006. Reply to Monnier (2006)The Lower/Middle Paleolithic periodization inWestern Europe. Current Anthropology 47(5):731–732.
Mesoudi, A & Lycett, SJ 2009. Random copying,frequency-dependent copying and cul turechange. Evolution and Human Behavior 30:41–48.
Moncel, MH 1999. Les assemblages lithiques dusite Pléistocène moyen d’Orgnac 3 (Ardèche,Moyenne Vallée du Rhône, France): contributiona‘ la connaissance du Paléolithique moyenancien et du comportement technique différentieldes Hommes au Paléolithique inferieur et auPaléolithique moyen. Etudes et RecherchesArchéologiques de l’Université´ de Liège no. 89.Liège: Université´ de Liège.
Moncel, MH & Combier, J 1992. L’industrie lithiquedu site pléistocène moyen d’Orgnac 3 (Ardèche).Gallia Préhistoire 34:1–55.
Moncel, MH, Moigne, AM & Combier, J 2005. Pre-Neandertal behaviour during isotopic stage 9 andthe beginning of stage 8: New data concerningfauna and lithics in the different occupation levelsof Orgnac 3 (Ardèche, South-East France):occupation types. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 32 (9):1283–1301.
Moncel, MH, Moigne AM, Sam, Y & Combier, J 2011.The emergence of Neanderthal technicalbehavior: New evidence from Orgnac 3 (Level 1,MIS 8), Southeastern France. CurrentAnthropology 52 (1):37–75.
Munday, F 1976. Intersi te var iabi l i ty in theMousterian of the Central Negev. In Marks, EA(ed) Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in theCentral Negev, Israel. Vol. I: The Avdat/AqevArea, Part 1. Dallas: SMU Press:113–140.
Nelson, M 1991. The study of technologicalorganization. In Schiffer, M (ed) ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory. Tuscon: University of ArizonaPress: 57–100.
Norton, CJ, Bae, K, Harris, JWK & Lee, H 2006.Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the KoreanPeninsula. Journal of Human Evolution 51:527–536.
Oakley, K, Andrews, P, Keeley, LH & Clark, DJ 1977.A reappraisal of the Clacton spear point .Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:13–30.
Pelegrin, J 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology:Some aspects of research. ArchaeologicalReview from Cambridge 9:116–125.
Perles, C 1992. In search of lithic strategies: acognitive approach to prehistoric chipped stoneassemblages. In Gardin, JC & Peebles, CS (eds)Representations in Archaeology. Bloomington:Indiana University Press:223–247.
Perles, C 1993. Ecological determinism, groupstrategies, and individual decisions in theconception of prehistoric stone assemblages.In Berthelet, A & Chavaillon, J (eds) The Use ofStone Tools by Human and Non-HumanPrimates. Oxford: Clarendon Press:267–277.
Peresani, M 2003. Discoid Lithic Technology:Advances and Impl icat ions. Oxford:Archaeopress, BAR International Series 1120.
Pope, M & Roberts, M 2005. Observations on therelationship between Palaeolithic individualsand artefact scatters at the Middle Pleistocenesite of Boxgrove, UK. In Gamble, C & Porr, M (eds)The Hominid Individual in Context.Archaeological Investigations of Lower andMiddle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales andArtefacts, London and New York: Routledge:81–97.
Rightmire, GP 2004. Brain size and encephalizationin Early to Mid-Pleistocene Homo. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 124:109–123.
Roebroeks, W 2001. Hominid behaviour and theearliest occupation of Europe: an exploration.Journal of Human Evolution 41 (5):437–461.
Roche, H 1980. Premiers outils taillés d’Afrique.Paris: Société d’ethnographie.
Roche, H & Texier, P-J 1991. La not ion decomplexi té dans un ensemble l i th ique.Application aux séries acheuléennes d´Isenya(Kenya). In 25 ans d´études technologiques enPréhistoire. Juan les- les-Pins: APDCA :99–108.
Roche, H & Texier, P-J 1996. Evaluation of technicalcompetence of Homo erectus in East Africaduring the Middle Pleistocene. In HumanEvolution in its Ecological Context, edited by J.R. F. Bower and S. Sartorno. Leiden: RoyalNetherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences:153–167.
Santonja, M & Villa, P 2006. The Acheulian ofWestern Europe. In Goren-Inbar, N & Sharon, G(eds) Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from
32 Before Farming 2011/1 article 3
A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic: Malinsky-Buller et al
Quarry to Discard. London: Equinox:429–478.
Schlanger, N 1994. Mindful technology: unleashingthe chaîne opératoires for an archaeology ofmind. In Renfrew, C & Zubrow, E (eds) TheAncient Mind: Elements of Cognit iveArchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress:143–151.
Schroëder, B 1969. The Lithic Industries from JerfAjla and Their Bearing on the Problem of a Middleto Upper Paleolithic Transition, UnpublishedPhD thesis, Columbia University.
Sharon, G 2007. Acheulian Large flake Industries:Technology, Chronology, and Signif icance.Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR International Series1701.
Sharon, G, Alperson-Afil, N & Goren-Inbar, N 2011.Cultural Conservatism and Variability in theAcheulian Sequence of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov.Journal of Human Evolution 60(4):387–397.
Shimelmitz R 2009. Lithic Blade production in theMiddle Pleistocene of the Levant. UnpublishedPhD thesis. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Siret, L 1933. Le coup de burin moustérien. Bulletinde la Société Préhistorique Française 30:120–127.
Solodenko, N 2010. On Tools and elephants: Ananalysis of a lithic assemblage from Area B ofthe Late Acheulian site Revadim Quarry. MAdissertation, University of Tel Aviv.
Solecki, RL & Solecki, R 1970. A new secondaryflaking technique at the Nahr Ibrahim Cave site,Lebanon. Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth 23:137–142.
Stiner, MC, Barkai, R & Gopher, A 2009. Cooperativehunting and meat sharing 400–200 kya atQesem Cave, Israel. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the USA 106 (32):13207–13212.
Stiner, MGopher, A & Barkai, R 2011. Hearth-side
socioeconomics, hunting and paleoecology duringthe late Lower Paleolithic at Qesem Cave, Israel.Journal of Human Evolution 60 (2):213–233.
Tixier, J, Inizan, M-L & Roche, H 1980. Terminologieet technologie. Paris: C.R.E.P.
Thieme, H 1997. Lower Paleolithic hunting spearsfrom Germany. Nature 385:807–810.
Tuffreau, A, Lamotte, A & Goval, E 2008. Lesindustr ies acheuléennes de la Franceseptentrionale. L’Anthropologie 112:104–139.
Turq, A, Brenet, M, Colonge, D. Jarry, M, Lelouvier,L-A, O’Farrelle, M & Jaubert, J 2010. The firsthuman occupations in southwestern France: Arevised summary twenty years after the Abbeville/Saint Riquier col loquium. QuaternaryInternational 223–224:383–398.
Toth, N 1985 Oldowan reassessed: a close lookat early stone artefacts. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 12:101–120.
Villa, P, Soto, E, Santonja, M, Pérez-González, A,Mora, R, Parcerisas, J & Sesé, C 2005. New datafrom Ambrona: closing the hunting versusscavenging debate. Quaternary International126:223–250.
White, M & Ashton, N 2003. Lower Palaeolithic coretechnology and the origins of the Levalloismethod in north-western Europe. CurrentAnthropology 44 (4):598–609.
Wynn, T & Tierson, F 1990. Regional comparisonof the shapes of later Acheulean handaxes.American Anthropologist 92:73–84.
Zaidner, Y 2003. The Lithic Assemblage of BizatRuhama: Lower Palaeolithic in Southern CoastalPlain, Israel. Unpublished MA. thesis, Universityof Haifa. (In Hebrew).
Zaidner Y, Yeshurun R & Mallol, C 2010. EarlyPleistocene Hominins Outside of Africa: RecentExcavat ions at Bizat Ruhama, Israel .PaleoAnthropology 2010:162–195.
Recommended