A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic

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

[email protected]

Leore Grosman

Computerized Archaeology Laboratory, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt Scoups,

Jerusalem 91905, Israel

[email protected]

Ofer Marder

The Israel Antiquities Authority, PO Box 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel

[email protected]

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).



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)



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



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



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



$

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-


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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-


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



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.



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)


(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)


(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%).



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-



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



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-



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



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



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,



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.



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



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,



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



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.

Documents

A case of techno-typological lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic