Looking for sharp edges: Modes of flint recycling at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Israel

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e27

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Looking for sharp edges: Modes of flint recycling at Middle PleistoceneQesem Cave, Israel

Yoni Parush a, *, Ella Assaf a, Viviane Slon b, Avi Gopher a, Ran Barkai a

a Institute of Archaeology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, 69978, Israelb Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:Qesem CaveAcheuleo-Yabrudian Cultural ComplexLithic recyclingLower PaleolithicLithic technologyUse wear

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Parush

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.07.0571040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Parush, Y.Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.d

a b s t r a c t

Qesem Cave is a Middle Pleistocene site in Israel assigned to the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex(AYCC). The cave reveals a suite of innovative behaviors including intensive flint recycling activities. Inthis paper, we present a new classification system, developed for the study of lithic recycling at QesemCave. Through the careful technological analysis of hundreds of recycled items we have identified severalrecycling modes at Qesem Cave, including a specific production trajectory of blades and knives recycledfrom “old” flakes. We argue that the study of lithic recycling provides a significant glance at humandecision-making processes and the technological repertoire of the late Lower Paleolithic, which areparticularly pronounced when practiced within a lithic economy that enjoyed abundance rather thanscarcity of stone. Our observations provide a more coherent view of AYCC lithic recycling which might beapplied to the study of lithic recycling in other Paleolithic contexts.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Qesem Cave is a Middle Pleistocene site in Israel dated to420,000e200,000 ka and assigned to the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cul-tural Complex (AYCC) of the late Lower Paleolithic in the Levant.The cave yielded a rich andwell-preserved array of lithic and faunalremains as well as human teeth. The AYCC is a unique, local culturalentity clearly distinguished from the preceding Acheulian and theproceeding Mousterian. The cave revealed a broad set of innovativebehaviors, including: the habitual use of fire; hearth-centered ac-tivities and other functionally distinct activity areas; sophisticatedacquisition of lithic raw material; intensive and systematic bladeproduction employing an efficient, innovative, and thoughtfultechnology; a noticeable presence of precursory Quina scrapers;and intensive flint recycling practices (Barkai and Gopher, 2013).The recycling of lithic artifacts at Qesem Cave is a conspicuousphenomenon, present in all lithic assemblages and all archaeolog-ical contexts.

The recycling of lithic artifacts is a known, albeit little studied,phenomenon in prehistoric archaeology. The recycling of previ-ously discarded items was also documented in ethnographicstudies of contemporary hunteregatherer groups (e.g., Amick,

).

reserved.

, et al., Looking for sharp edgoi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.0

2007). The data regarding lithic “scavenging” in ethnographiccontexts suggest that recycling was fully integrated in the provi-sioning strategies of these groups, influencing strategies of wastedisposal and, consequently, of the formation of the archaeologicalrecord (Smith, 1974; Camilli and Ebert, 1992; Amick, 2007).

The study of recycling among archaeological records facilitatesour understanding of prehistoric human behavior, availability ofraw material, technological complexity and flexibility, problem-solving and decision-making mechanisms, and other importantfacets of human behavior. Recognizing the challenge in identifyingindications of recycling in archaeological lithic assemblages (Odell,1996), recent studies show that certain aspects of the archaeolog-ical data, including technological and typological characteristics aswell as spatial distribution of archaeological finds, may be related torecycling behaviors (Galup, 2007; Hiscock, 2009; Vaquero, 2011;Vaquero et al., 2012).

Recycling is a behavior that implies successive stages of modi-fication and use of an artifact for a purpose different than theoriginal one. Although the archeological evidence for resharpeningand recycling may be difficult to discern, these are different be-haviors that should be interpreted differently. Resharpening is amaintenance procedure aimed at extending the use life of an arti-fact as it was originally used (Vaquero et al., 2012). In contrast,recycling may be defined by a phase of discard between thedifferent use events e the original one and the one following therecycling procedure. It represents not the extension of the use life of

es: Modes of flint recycling at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Israel,7.057

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.07.057



Y. Parush et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e272

the artifact, but rather the beginning of a new use life (Schiffer,1976; Camilli and Ebert, 1992; Vaquero, 2011).

Several studies on lithic recycling suggested that the phenom-enon would be more likely to occur as a consequence of relativescarcity of raw materials and, therefore, a need to maximize theprofitability of lithic resources (Kelly, 1988; Dibble and Rolland,1992; Close, 1996; Amick, 2007; Galup, 2007; Hiscock, 2009).Recycling nonetheless is also documented in areas where rawmaterial is evidently abundant (Verri et al., 2004, 2005;Shimelmitz, in this volume; Assaf et al., in this volume) and insuch cases should be viewed in social or cultural terms (Preysleret al. in this volume). For example, cores and bifaces were recy-cled into hammerstones at several Middle Paleolithic sites inWestern Europe. This behavior seems to be independent of envi-ronmental constraints or subsistence behavior since most of theraw material used in these assemblages originated from the im-mediate, 5 km radius surroundings (Thi�ebaut et al., 2010). Alter-natively, the recycling behavior identified in levels L and Ja of AbricRomani, Spain, could be seen as an integral component of a tech-nological context defined by the production of small flakes. This“micro-lithic” production is not exclusively associated with recy-cling events, but is a general feature of the technological system ofthis site characterizing most reduction sequences present in theselevels (Vaquero, 2011). Evidence accumulated in recent years at-tests to the deliberate production of small flakes in several MiddlePaleolithic industries (e.g., Dibble and McPherron, 2006) providingtechnological contexts particularly suitable for the study of therecycling phenomenon.

Archaeologists use variousmethods to identify lithic recycling inthe material record. A time lapse between the original use of theitem and its later (recycled) employment is one of the main criteriadefining recycling. This time lapse may be identified throughchemically or mechanically altered surfaces on the recycled item,which facilitate the distinction between the different activityevents (Sergant et al., 2006; Amick, 2007; Barkai et al., 2009;Vaquero et al., 2012). Another temporal marker facilitating theidentification of recycling is damage resulting from fire occurringprior to the recycling hence accentuating traces of retouch beforeand after the fire damage occurred (Vaquero et al., 2012). Adifferent approach to recycling is following artifact movementinferred from spatial analysis and refitting. These, however, areclear only in relatively well-preserved assemblages that have beencollected over broad areas (Vaquero, 2008, 2011). Where theirapplication is possible, refitting and spatial analysis allows re-searchers to “temporalize” the archaeological record, defining timerelations between artifacts or entire assemblages. Refits are espe-cially informative regarding the temporal relationships betweendifferent activity areas.

Although connections inferred from lithic refits have sometimesbeen considered as evidence of contemporaneity, it now seemsclear that only bidirectional connections can be used to arguecontemporaneity of two activity areas or clusters of remains. Aunidirectional pattern, a likely result of recycling, would ratherserve to support a temporal gap of an unknown length between thedepositions of the two accumulations, facilitating the distinctionbetween events that occurred prior or subsequent to the artifact'smovement (Vaquero, 2011).

Recycling, when present, is an important element in any lithicassemblage, influencing artifact morphology and hence likely tocontribute to the variability of the assemblage (Dibble, 1991;Vaquero, 2008; Vaquero et al., 2012). Reconstructing the lifehistories of recycled items can deepen our understanding ofhuman behavior with respect to lithic economy; availability,accessibility, and constraints of raw material; mobility patternsand strategies; scale of lithic curation; intensity of lithic resource

Please cite this article in press as: Parush, Y., et al., Looking for sharp edgQuaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.0

utilization; perception of raw material; and decision-makingprocesses.

At Qesem we have found recycling behavior to be significantlypresent in all contexts, and following a detailed technologicalanalysis in which we identified thousands of recycled items, we areable to reconstruct five recycling modes as follows:

(a) Handaxes recycled to cores. Although the production of bi-faces is rather infrequent at Qesem (e.g., Barkai et al., 2013),some handaxes were nevertheless recycled for the produc-tion of blades and flakes. A patinated handaxe recycled into ablade core (Fig. 1:1) exemplifies the case of an “old” bifacethat became patinated prior to its recycling phase. It isdifficult to discern whether this biface was produced underthe framework of some former lithic industries practiced atthe cave or whether it was collected outside of the cave froman earlier (Acheulian?) site and brought to the cave in orderto be recycled. Recycling of bifaces, however, is beyond thescope of this paper.

(b) Patinated flakes recycled into side scrapers. Some side scraperswere made on “old” patinated flakes where the last phase ofretouch was conducted after the flake became patinated(Fig. 1:2). As in the case of recycled bifaces, it is impossible, atthe moment to distinguish flakes that were produced at thecave, became patinated, and then recycled as scrapers, from“old” patinated flakes that were collected outside of the caveand brought in order to be recycled into scrapers. Cases inwhich it is difficult to identify whether the items becamepatinated as scrapers (rather than prior to recycling) aresometimes termed as reuse or resharpening cases ratherthan recycled ones. In our view, these cases in fact representthe process of recycling since a clear time gap is reflected bythe formation of patina on the blank, inferring that a “new”,and perhaps different, scraper was made over an “old”original scraper although its general function may haveremained the same. This notionwill be further studied in thefuture while in the present paper we present only generaldata from the assemblage of Qesem Cave.

(c) Recycled side scrapers. A group of side scrapers exhibits re-movals which were conducted after the scraper's blank wasproduced and, in many cases, after the scraper had beenshaped. Where flakes were removed from scrapers, these areattested mostly on the ventral face of the scraper (Fig. 1:3).Some removals were not related to the retouched scraperedge, obscuring the temporal relation between them and thescraper edge. These removals could therefore reflect either ofthe following alternatives: (1) A former scraper was recycledinto a core-on-flake (henceforth: COF); (2) A former COF wasrecycled into a scraper; or (3) Scrapers were modified orthinned down to facilitate handling or hafting. Where ventralremovals took off parts of the retouched scraper's edge, thecase of scrapers recycled into COFs is rather straightforward.These aspects are currently being studied in detail under theframework of a Ph.D. dissertation by Andrea Zupancich.

(d) Patinated cores recycled or reused as “regular” cores. Cores thatwere first reduced and then covered by patina, exhibitinganother, post-patina stage of blank production. The removedpatina from these cores is found on the dorsal face of therecycled items (Fig. 1:4).

(e) Small flakes and blades produced from a parent flake or blade(COF). This recycling mode comprises items removed fromboth “fresh” parent flakes selected from the technologicalrepertoire within the cave as well as “old” patinated parent-flakes that were probably not produced by the cave's in-habitants but rather collected from elsewhere. The difference


Fig. 1. Recycling modes at Qesem Cave: (1) Handaxe recycled into a blade core; (2) scraper made on patinated flake; (3) Scraper recycled as core-on-flake/flaked flake; (4) Patinatedcores recycled or reused as “regular” cores.

Y. Parush et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e27 3

between these two classes is in the patina of the original andpost-removal surfaces. In the case of fresh items, both theparent flake and the scar of the blank removed from theparent flake would have been fresh at the time of removal,hence no differences in patina are observed. In the case ofrecycling old items, blanks were produced at an earlier date,became patinated and only later were smaller blank(s)removed from the patinated item, leaving scars clearly dis-cerned on the patinated surfaces.

It should be stressed here that in our opinion the production ofsmall flakes and blades from existing “parent” flakes is indeed amode of recycling, rather than a ramification of the chaîneop�eratoire (Bourguignon et al., 2004). Ramification, as mostlydefined in Middle Paleolithic West European contexts, is a plannedand intentional reduction strategy in which products from a pri-mary reduction are secondarily exploited in order to obtain otherblanks. As will be detailed below, the “parent” flakes used for theproduction of small flakes at Qesem Cave comprised a variety ofitems, including heavily patinated flakes as well as lightly patinatedflakes (Lemorini et al. this volume), and in many cases it seems thatthese “old” flakes were not intentionally produced in order to beused as COFs but rather systematically collected from within andwithout the cave in order to be used for the production of smallitems. In the case of Qesem Cavewe rather describe this behavior aslithic recycling while in other contexts other explanations might bevalid as well.


Of the modes delineated above, we focus only on the last one:recycling aimed at the production of small flakes or blades fromexisting flakes or blades. Analyzing two assemblages of QesemCave, assigned to the Yabrudian and Amudian industries, weintroduce both parent flakes (also termed here cores-on-flakes,COFs, see below) and the blanks (“products”) produced from theparent flakes. The data presented herein is based on an MA Thesison flint recycling at Qesem Cave (Parush-Glikman, 2014). We willsuggest that this was a repetitive and constant mode of produc-tion within the technological repertoire of Qesem Cave, aimed atproducing distinctive flakes and blades, probably for a specificpurpose.

2. The setting e Qesem Cave and its finds

Qesem Cave (Fig. 2) is a Middle Pleistocene site in Israel datingback to 420,000e200,000 years ago (Barkai et al., 2003; Gopheret al., 2010; Mercier et al., 2013) and assigned to the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex (AYCC) of the Lower PalaeolithicLevant. Cave inhabitants hunted cooperatively, bringing back bodyparts of fallow deer and other taxa to the cave, which they thenbutchered, shared and e as evidenced from the use of firethroughout the cave's 9.5 m deep stratigraphy and high number ofburnt bones e eventually barbecued (Shahack-Gross et al., 2014;Karakanas et al., 2007; Stiner et al., 2009, 2011). The stratigraphicsequence was divided into two e the lower part (~5 m thick)


Fig. 2. The location of Qesem Cave, Israel.


consisting of sediments containing clastic content and gravel andthe upper part (~4.5 m thick) comprising cemented sedimentcharacterized by a large ash component (Karakanas et al., 2007;Frumkin et al., 2009) (Fig. 3).

The archaeological deposits in the cave are rich and in a goodstate of preservation. Mammalian fauna at the cave is especiallyrich, dominated by fallow deer and including other taxa as well(Stiner et al., 2009, 2011). Microfauna consists of a variety ofmicromammal species (Maul et al., 2011) and a uniquely highproportion of small reptiles, mostly chameleons, which are other-wise rare in the fossil record (Smith et al., 2013). As far as humanevidence goes, a study of eight teeth indicates that the homininsinhabiting Qesem Cave share morphological similarity with laterpopulations that lived at Skhul and Qafzeh caves about 100 ka aswell as with Neanderthals (Hershkovitz et al., 2011).

A large hearth, repeatedly used served as the focal point ofhearth-centered human activities as early as 300,000 years ago.The hearth exhibits two superimposed use cycles, eachcomprising shorter episodes. The hearth is uniquely large (ca.4 m2) hearth in comparison to contemporaneous hearths identi-fied so far, possibly indicating it had been used by a relatively largegroup of people (Shahack-Gross et al., 2014). Burnt bones andbone splinters reveal a strong, consistent spatial connection be-tween fire use and carcass processing in the cave (Shahack-Grosset al., 2014).

The lithic assemblage is rich in cutting tools systematicallyproduced at the site, and particularly flint blade knives produced byan innovative blade technology (Barkai et al., 2005; Shimelmitzet al., 2011). Our lithic analyses and the study of use wear traceson flint artefacts indicate that these represent a set of cutlery,manufactured to contend with the different stages of butchering,defleshing, and meat cutting as well as processing other materials(Lemorini et al., 2006; Barkai et al., 2010). A study of flint


procurement strategies based on measured cosmogenic isotope10Be (Verri et al., 2004, 2005) shows that some of the flint used atQesem was quarried, and that this quarried material was used forspecific purposes such as the production of handaxes and scrapers(Buaretto et al., 2009).

The Amudian industry is far more dominant than the Yab-rudian, which appears in only three stratigraphically and spatiallydistinct areas (Barkai et al., 2009). The lithic assemblage repre-sents a complete chaîne op�eratoire starting with raw material andgoing through cores, CTEs, waste material, blanks, shaped items,and resharpening spalls (Gopher et al., 2005). Handaxes, or bifaces(Barkai et al., 2009), are extremely rare at Qesem and only a fewwere recovered within both Amudian and Yabrudian assemblages(Barkai et al., 2013) e clearly overshadowed by thousands ofblades and hundreds of scrapers. The Amudian lithic assemblagesshow a very early and well-established blade production tech-nology, systematically used for the serial production of pre-determined laminar items (Shimelmitz et al., 2011). Blades arealso present in the Yabrudian assemblages (Lev, 2010; Parush-Glikman, 2014), made by Amudian blade-production standards.Scrapers, including Quina scrapers, are dominant in Yabrudiantool categories but appear only in small numbers in Amudianassemblages.

Spatial organization of activities was identified in sites earlierthan Qesem Cave, for example, the Acheulien site of Gesher BenotYa'aqov (Alperson-Afil et al., 2009), as well as later Mousterian sites(Vaquero and Past�o, 2001; Henry et al., 2004; Vaquero et al., 2004;Alperson-Afil and Hovers, 2006; Speth et al., 2011). Similarly,different areas at Qesem were evidently allocated to specific ac-tivities such as the cutting and consumption of meat around thecentral hearth, or hide processing in a different, contained area ofthe cave (Barkai et al., 2009; Stiner et al., 2009, 2011). At yet anotherlocation, flint knapping which appears to have been carried out by



novices perhaps attests to an area where lithic technology wastaught (Assaf, 2014).

3. Material and methods

3.1. Context of studied assemblages

The lithic assemblages presented in this paper originate inexcavated strata located in the northwestern part of the cave,under a rock shelf (hereafter “the shelf”) (Figs. 3,4). The chro-nology of the shelf area was established as older than 299 kyrfollowing the dating of a speleothem that covered the archaeo-logical sediments below the shelf (Gopher et al., 2010). The upperpart of the sedimentary sequence of the shelf was excavated andanalyzed prior to the current study (Lev, 2010) and assigned tothe Yabrudian industry. The two shelf layers presented herepredate the strata studied by Lev (2010) e one yielded a Yab-rudian and one yielded an Amudian industry. Layers wereseparated on sedimentological grounds only whereas the study

Table 1Yabrudian and Amudian, general categories.

of the lithic industries was carried out later and played no role inthe stratigraphic and spatial division of this (or any other) cavearea. The Yabrudian layer is composed of soft and brittle browncolored sediment and brighter color soft sediment above it. TheAmudian layer lies under the Yabrudian layer and is composed ofhard gray colored sediment with a distinctive component ofcemented sediments. Both layers are inclined, from northeast tothe southwest and from south to north (Figs. 5e7). The Yab-rudian layer represents the base level of the previous brown


Yabrudian layer analyzed by Lev (2010), while the Amudian layerrepresents the first appearance of a blade-dominated assemblageat the shelf area, which was not present at higher elevations atthis part of the cave.

3.2. Techno-typological characteristics of the assemblages

The Yabrudian and Amudian assemblages of the shelf areatogether consist of ~30,000 artifacts including d�ebitage, debris,cores, and shaped items (Tables 1 and 2). The percentage of laminaritems in the Amudian assemblage of the shelf area corresponds tothat of other Amudian assemblages in the cave, while the Yabrudianassemblage shows a relatively higher percentage of laminar itemsthan that found in two other Yabrudian assemblages uncovered atthe cave (Barkai et al., 2009; Lev, 2010; Shimelmitz et al., 2011). Inother words, the Yabrudian assemblage presented here is more“Amudian” than the two higher (later) Yabrudian assemblagesuncovered at the same area under the shelf whichwere analyzed byLev (2010).

Cores are scarce in both assemblages (Tables 1 and 2), asopposed to the high number of blanks (37.5 and 56.2 blanks percore in the Yabrudian and Amudian assemblages respectively). It isassumed that parts of the reduction sequence had taken placeoutside of the excavated area and that ready-made blanks wereintroduced from elsewhere, whether from within or outside of thecave. This assumption accords well with previous suggestionsregarding the incomplete chaîne op�eratoire of scrapers at the cave(Gopher et al., 2005).


Table 2Select flint categories in both the Yabrudian and Amudian assemblages.

Yabrudian assemblage Amudian assemblage

n. % out of totalassemblage


Flakes 2379 55.4 3770 51.0Blades 730 17.0 1896 25.7Shaped items 884 8.1 1197 6.5Cores 59 0.5 74 0.4Recycled items 240 2.2 452 2.5Total D�ebitage 4292 28.4 7389 30.9Total Debris 6655 60.8 10926 59.7Total 10947 172.4 18315 176.7

Fig. 3. Map of the site, the excavated areas an



Among Yabrudian shaped items side scrapers are morefrequent compared to the Amudian assemblage. Most scrapers inboth assemblages were shaped by Quina and demi-Quina retouch.Yabrudian scrapers were more often (34.21%, n ¼ 65) recycledfrom patinated, old blanks compared than in the Amudian(22.73%, n ¼ 10). Of these, an almost identical percentage ofscrapers in both assemblages were further transformed into COFs(n ¼ 13, 6.84% in the Yabrudian; n ¼ 3, 6.82% in the Amudian). Incontrast, unpatinated scrapers recycled as COFs are more frequentin the Amudian assemblage (n ¼ 13, 29.55%) than in the Yabrudian(n ¼ 40, 21.05%).

d the study area (encircled by black line).


Fig. 4. A general view of the cave and shelf area (encircled) looking west. Fig. 6. The western section of the shelf area at elevation 645 below datum, 2010season. Dotted line denotes the separation between Yabrudian and Amudian.

Fig. 7. The northern and eastern section of the shelf area, a view from southwest tonortheast at elevation 655 below datum, 2011 season. Dotted line denotes the sepa-ration between Yabrudian and Amudian.


Small flakes and blades produced-recycled from an old parentCOF, which lie at the heart of this report, are more abundant thancores. Comprising over 2% in both assemblages, COFs and blanksproduced from COFs are not a random result but rather that of adeliberate and repetitive technological practice (Tables 1 and 2).The low frequency of COFs within both assemblages corresponds tothe general scarcity of cores in the assemblages (Tables 1e3). Incontrast, the blanks produced from COFs are much more abundantin the assemblages, comprising 77.9% of all Yabrudian recycleditems and 86.7% of all Amudian recycled items (see Table 3). Toallow for a contextual view of the systematic recycling whichcharacterizes both assemblages, namely the production of flakes orblades from existing parent flakes and blades, we limit our pre-sentation here to general, inclusive, categories (this issue is furtheraddressed in Assaf et al. (this volume)).

4. Results

Focusing on the recycling process aimed at producing smallflakes and blades from existing parent flakes or blades, we identify

Fig. 5. The northern section of the shelf area at elevation 645 cm below datum, season2010. Dotted line denotes the separation between Yabrudian and Amudian.


two main components, respectively representing the input and theoutput of the process:

� The parent flake from which one or more small flakes wereremoved from one or more ends or faces, i.e., the core-on-flake/flaked flake (henceforth COF-FF, Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. A group of COF-FFs.



� Blanks produced from the parent flake are the output of COF-FFrecycling (Fig. 9).

In both assemblages, COF-FFs are less common than the blanksproduced by recycling these “parent” flakes (Table 3). The Amudianassemblage shows higher rates of blanks produced from COF-FFs(6.5 blanks per COF-FF) than the Yabrudian assemblage (3.5blanks per COF-FF).

Table 3Distribution of recycled items in both Yabrudian and Amudian assemblages.

General distribution Yabrudianassemblage

Amudianassemblage



Cores-on-flakes/flaked flakes 53 22.1% 60 13.3%Blanks produced from

cores-on-flakes/flaked flakes187 77.9% 392 86.7%

Total 240 100.0% 452 100.0%

4.1. The recycling input: The parent flake (Cores-on-Flakes/FlakedFlakes, COF-FFs)

These are flakes or (less often) blades that were transformedinto cores for the production of small flakes or blades. Due to therelative paucity of blades among parent flakes, and for the sake ofsimplicity, from here on we shall mostly refer to these as flakes.Parent flakes have had further flakes removed from one or morefaces or ends: ventral face, dorsal face, proximal end, distal end, orlateral edges in a manner that does not seem to indicate no clearpatterning (cf. Ashton, 2007:1).

Removals were most commonly achieved in a straight-forwardmanner, with or without platform preparations. Devoid of trunca-tion serving as a striking platform, the parent flakes of Qesem differfrom similar Mousterian items of the Levant, namely truncated-

Fig. 9. A group of blanks produced from COF-FFs.


faceted items (Schroeder, 1969, 2007) or items produced by theNahr Ibrahim technique, where “The distinctive technique essen-tially consists of the truncating and faceting of one or more ends orsides of a flint flake or tool, and the utilization of the facet thuscreated as a platform for flake removal” (Solecki and Solecki, 1970).

These parent flakes discussed here were exploited using atechnique resembling that which governed the production ofBritish Paleolithic flaked-flakes (Ashton, 1991, 2007). This methodinvolves “a flake that has had one or more smaller flakes removedfrom any of its edges”, i.e., “from lateral, proximal or distal edges andfrom both ventral and dorsal faces” (Ashton, 2007, p.1). It representsa production trajectory of small flakes by means of recycling. Sincethe Qesem Cave COFs are different than COFs such as “Truncated-Faceted” pieces or the “Nahr Ibrahim technique” presented in thepast but bear resemblance to the items presented by Ashton et al.(1991) we decided to call them here cores-on-flakes/flaked flakes(COF-FFs). In many previous studies of the topic a single removal isconsidered sufficient for the classification of an item as a COF(Ashton, 2007; Dibble and McPherron, 2007; Goren-Inbar 1988;Schroeder, 1969, 2007) while in some studies COFs are consideredas “those [items] from which three or more blanks were removed,regardless of the specific technique by which this was achieved”(Hovers, 2007:45). At Qesem we followed the former classificationand COF-FFs include every flake that exhibits a single removal (ormore) from its ventral or dorsal face.

The COF-FFs at Qesem are not part of the more familiar trajec-tories of the chaîne op�eratoires present in the assemblages (e.g.,laminar, scraper, biface, or regular flakes). In support of our prop-osition that COF-FF technology should be considered as recycling,we highlight two important points.

First, COF-FFs at Qesem appear in a variety of shapes and blanktypes. The distribution of the blanks used as COF-FFs is diverse,including: flakes, primary flakes, fully patinated flakes, primaryblades, NBK (naturally-backed knives) flakes, NBK blades, blades,CTE (core trimming element) flakes, CTE blades, special wasteflakes, special waste blades, tools (shaped items), and scrapers aswell as undetermined items (Figs. 8 and 10). This selection patternindicates that blanks were chosen from an existing array of lithicpieces that had been manufactured within different trajectoirespracticed at the cave rather than produced specifically for thistrajectory. These varied pieces were found appropriate to be recy-cled into COF-FFs and were collected from the available blanks onand off site.

Secondly, blanks used for COF-FFs appear in different sizes,varying in length, width, thickness, and weight. They range fromvery small flakes of 1 cm in length to rather large flakes measuring7.5 cm in length as well as from very light flakes weighing a mere10 g to larger flakes weighing up to 83 g (Figs. 11e14). It thus seemsthat the knappers of Qesem Cave chose whichever blank wasavailable to them as long as it had adequate morphology and vol-ume sufficient for its transformation into a COF-FF that wouldprovide the desired end-product. These blanks were usually smalland bore specific characteristics, as shall be seen below, and it isclear that no specific blanks were systematically and purposelyproduced in order to be transformed into COF-FFs.

The COF-FF category was further divided into four subcategories(Table 4), according to the location of removal:

� COF-FFs with ventral removal(s). A removal of one or more smallflakes from the ventral face of the parent flake, that is, theremoval was conducted from the dorsal face or form the lateraledge towards the ventral face (Figs. 15 and 16). Ventral removalsare by far the most common category among all COF-FFs, ac-counting for 79.25% of the Yabrudian and 83.93% of the AmudianCOF-FFs (Table 4). Looking at the number of removals each COF-


Fig. 10. Blanks of COF-FFs per type.


FF sustained, the Yabrudian and Amudian assemblages show adifference with COF-FFs exhibiting a single ventral removal(35.85% in the Yabrudian and 41.67% in the Amudian; Fig. 15)and COF-FFs with multiple (two or more) ventral removals(43.40% in the Yabrudian and 36.67% in the Amudian; Fig. 16). Atthe current stage of analysis we did not distinguish purelyventral COF-FFs from ventral-lateral ones. Recycled items thussustained removals mostly from the distal or proximal ends ofthe parent flake (47e60%) and less frequently from its lateral

Fig. 11. Length groups o


edges (20e25%). Unlike the detached flakes produced by eitherthe truncated-faceted or the Nahr-Ibrahim techniques, whichare usually reduced from the dorsal face of the parent flake andthus resemble regular flakes removed from regular cores, theflakes removed by ventral removals are identifiable as such, andare further discussed in the next section on blanks which wereproduced from these COF-FFs.

� COF-FFs with dorsal removal(s). COF-FFs sustaining small flakeremovals from the dorsal face, that is, the removal blow was

f COF-FFs (in mm).


Fig. 12. Width groups of COF-FFs (in mm).


delivered from the ventral face towards the dorsal face (Fig. 17).This procedure is uncommon at Qesem Cave, (5e10% of all COF-FFs in both assemblages) (Table 4). Flakes produced in thismanner may be distinguished by their small size but otherwiseappear as regular flakes (e.g., Dibble and McPherron, 2006).

� COF-FFs with mixed removals. COF-FFs sustaining removals oftwo or more flakes from both the ventral and dorsal faces(Fig. 18). At Qesem Cave these account for just under 10% of boththe Yabrudian (9.43%) and the Amudian (8.33%) COF-FFs(Table 4). Removals may originate in separate locations on theCOF-FF or the first removal, from either the ventral or dorsalface, served as the striking platform for a different directionsecond removal. In the latter cases, it is unclear whether the firstremoval was aimed at producing a small flake and only thenused as a striking platform, or whether it was intentionallyshaped as a striking platform for the final removal. This sub-category of COF-FFs is uncommon in the assemblages and isnot further discussed here.

� COF-FF Varia. COF-FFs sustaining diverse miscellaneous re-movals unlike those described above. These items are scarce atQesem Cave, comprising 1.89% of the COF-FFs in the Yabrudianassemblage and 6.67% in the Amudian assemblage (Table 4).

Table 4Distribution of COF-FF sub-categories.

Cores-on-Flakes/Flaked Flakes Yabrudianassemblage

Amudianassemblage

n. % n. %

Ventral removals 42 79.25% 47 78.33%Dorsal removals 5 9.43% 4 6.67%Combined 5 9.43% 5 8.33%Varia 1 1.89% 4 6.67%Total 53 100.00% 60 100.00%


Due to the substantial proportion of COF-FFs with ventral re-movals they will be the focus of our attention. Qesem knappersappear to have removed small flakes from these COF-FFs from alllocations (distal end, proximal end, and lateral edges) and all sides(left, right, and middle), exhibiting no clear preference of neither aspecific location or a specific side.

Similarly, there seems to have been no particular preferenceregarding the platform fromwhich the small flakes were removed,with the exception of plain and cortical striking platforms (60% inYabrudian and 47% in Amudian assemblages). Such platformsappear to be the result of the COF-FF selection process, opting foravailable items ready to be used as blanks for the production ofCOF-FFs. As mentioned, the data suggest that Qesem knapperschose blanks to be recycled as COF-FFs while they had in mind thecharacteristics of the final blanks that would be produced fromthese COF-FFs. Modified striking platforms visible on the COF-FFsattest to the use of blanks with previous retouch, implying thatthese COF-FFs were previously shaped items. It is not always easy,however, to distinguish whether the retouch was conducted spe-cifically in the shaping of a striking platform prior to the removal ofthe small flake or whether it is related to the former life cycle of theitem.

Use wear analysis of 103 recycled COF-FFs revealed traces ononly 15% of the tested COF-FFs suggesting that these items were notthe desired end products. The new edges of the COF-FFs, created bythe removal of blanks, are usually quite thick and irregular. Usewear data suggest that in the single cases where these edges wereemployed, they were used to process materials of medium hard-ness such as wood as well as hard material such as bones (Lemoriniet al., in this volume).

4.2. The recycling output: Blanks produced from COF-FFs

In lithic studies, the blanks produced from COF-FFs usually gounnoticed. The small flakes detached from the parent COF-FF


Fig. 13. Thickness groups of COF-FFs (in mm).


exhibit, in some of the cases, a specific morphology that can berecognized. Identifying these items is necessary for reconstruct-ing the full chaîne op�eratoire of lithic recycling and, by inference,for understanding assemblage variability and past humanbehavior.

In the two assemblages presented here we identified hundredsof small flakes produced from COF-FFs. These flakes have specificand identifiable characteristics setting them clearly apart fromregular flakes and blades. When a flake was selected to be recycled

Fig. 14. Weight groups


as a COF-FF, it could be exploited in several different ways: from itsdorsal face, its ventral face, or its lateral-ventral side. In the lattercase, a flake or a blade were removed from the side of the COF-FFand its ventral face, typically, parallel to the production axis ofthe COF-FF itself. Blanks removed from the dorsal face of the parentflake usually lack distinctive characteristics and are thus difficult todistinguish from regular flakes and hence not included in the cur-rent analyses. We identified two distinctive production trajectoriesinvolving COF-FFs:

of COF-FFs (in g).



� The exploitation of the ventral face of the COF-FF. This trajectoryresulted in two blank types: Regular double ventral items anddouble bulb double ventral Kombewa items; and

� The exploitation of the lateral-ventral side of the COF-FF,mostly along the longitudinal axis, removing part of boththe side and the ventral face of the COF-FF. This trajectoryresulted in two blank types as well: Lateral double ventralitems (see similar items described as “coup de tranchet” byBourguignon, 1992) and double bulb double ventral non-Kom-bewa items.

In both the Yabrudian and Amudian assemblages of Qesem Cavethe lateral-ventral side of the COF-FF was more frequently exploi-ted than the ventral face alone (Table 5). The lateral double ventralitems are the most commonly produced blank in both assemblagesalthough the Amudian displays a slightly higher preference(50.26%, n ¼ 197) than the Yabrudian (44.39%, n ¼ 83). The secondmost common blank in both assemblages is the regular doubleventral item, this time more common in the Yabrudian assemblage(37.97%, n ¼ 71) than in the Amudian (22.96%, n ¼ 90).

Recycled Items density per m3 is significantly higher in theAmudian assemblage compared to the Yabrudian one (Table 5). Aswith their frequency, lateral double ventral items show the highestdensity among the blanks produced from COF-FF in both assem-blages (Yabrudian with 44.39 and Amudian with56.94 items per m3). This may suggest that recycling in the shelfarea was oriented towards a specific functional requirement thatwas most probably related to plant processing (Lemorini et al., inthis volume). The density of regular double ventral items also cor-responds to their frequency in both studied assemblages (Yab-rudian with 37.97 and Amudian with 26.01 items per m3),suggesting frequent cutting and processing of meat in the shelf areaof the cave (Lemorini et al., in this volume).

Table 5Distribution and density per m3 of blanks produced from COF-FFs.

Blanks produced from COF-FF Yabrudian assemblage Amudian assemblage

n. % Total Items density per m3 n. % Total Items densityper m3

Exploitation of the ventral face Regular Double Ventral 71 37.97 8.37 90 22.96 26.30Double Bulb Double Ventral “Kombewa” 6 3.21 0.70 10 2.55 2.89

Exploitation of the LateraleVentral side Lateral Double Ventral 83 44.39 9.78 197 50.26 56.93Double Bulb Double VentralNon-“Kombewa”

18 9.63 2.12 61 15.56 17.63

Varia 9 4.81 1.06 34 8.67 9.82Sum 187 100.00 22.05 392 100.00 113.29General vol. of excavation 8.48 3.46

4.2.1. Exploitation of the ventral face of the COF-FF

4.2.1.1. Regular double ventral items. Regular double ventral itemsare the second most common class of blanks produced from COF-FFs in both assemblages. These are small items with an averagelength under 2 cm, exhibiting two ventral faces which wereremoved from the ventral face of the larger parent COF-FF. The bulbof percussion is observed only on the actual ventral face while theother ventral face is part of the original ventral face of the parentflake, not including its COF-FF's bulb of percussion (Figs. 19 and 20).

These items usually exhibit a flat 'dorsal' face and rather sharpedges. Some items are hinged or stepped at their distal end, aconsequence of the force of the blow being directed towards a flatsurface devoid of ridges that would have guided the blow.Notwithstanding, these items are mostly characterized by a


feathered end termination, indicating that the knappers knew howto remove these desired items from flat, ridge-devoid surfaces.Most of the items are straight and fan in shape, while the NBKshape is more common within the Amudian assemblage. In addi-tion, the items tend to have plain or modified bases typicallytapering down in thickness to 0e3 mm.

Regular double ventral blanks are rather similar to Janus flakesthat were defined as “having two ventral faces, one is the realventral face and the other (the upper face of the Janus flake, i.e., thedorsal face) as part of the lower face, i.e., the ventral face of thecore-on-flake from which the Janus flake was removed”(Newcomer and Hivernel-Guerre, 1974, original in French). Theseitems also resemble the dorsally plain flakes (DPF) described by Dagand Goren-Inbar (2001) as having double ventral faces, resultingfrom the production and modification of Acheulian handaxes fromflake blanks. However, since the items described here are clearlythe products of a distinctive chaîne op�eratoire oriented towards thepurposeful production of small flakes, we prefer to use the termregular double ventral items for these specific items and similarterms, based on the same logic, for the rest of the blanks producedfrom COF-FFs within the technological system described herein.

Some regular double ventral blanks exhibit previous removalsindicative of repetitive production from the parent flake (Fig. 20). Inaddition, striking platforms of some items show modification,implying intentional preparation, most probably aimed at theprecise removal of specific small and sharp flakes. These items wereprobably intended for a specific task such as meat cutting (Barkaiet al., 2010).

Two sub-groups were apparent among regular double ventralitems:

� Plain items, exhibiting a plain dorsal face (whichwas the originalventral face of the parent flake) with no previous scars ormodifications (Fig. 19); and

� Previously scarred items, exhibiting at least one scar on theirdorsal face (which was the original ventral face of the parentflake). The scar(s) indicate previous removal(s) from the parentflake, implying repetitive production from the same parent flake(Fig. 20).

4.2.1.2. Double bulb double ventral Kombewa items. These itemsexhibit two ventral faces and two bulbs of percussion, one on eachof the two ventral faces (as opposed to double impact or doublecone items bearing two bulbs on the same ventral face, one by theother). Albeit their small size (often under 3 cm) these items exhibitthe original bulb of percussion of the parent flake (Fig. 21).

Most of the double bulb double ventral Kombewa items are flakesin their dimensions. They are typically double-convex in profile andrather sharp and thin at the edges and as a group they exhibit a



clear preference to a sharp right edge. These items tend to havemodified bases and terminate in a feather end.

These items resemble the blanks produced using the Kombewamethod described by Newcomer and Hivernel-Guerre (1974, orig-inal in French) as usually being “flakes in which the two bulbs ofpercussions are proximally located, and they are small, thin andcircular in shape, with the morphology of the ventral face of thelarger flake or the core-on-flake is slightly convex, which leads thewaves during the removal of the smaller flake”. In contrast to theseitems, however, many of the double bulb double ventral Kombewaitems of Qesem exhibit two bulbs that are not proximally locatedbut are rather perpendicular to one another.

Fig. 15. COF-FFs with single ventral removal; Note: (4) item also exhibiting an earlier remodenotes the bulb of percussion while black arrows denote the previous removals.


Among the few double bulb double ventral Kombewa items pre-sent at Qesem, over half (51% in the Amudian assemblage and 67%in the Yabrudian assemblage) exhibit modification on the strikingplatform of the last bulb of percussion. This pattern may indicateplanning, three-dimensional visualization, and predeterminationof the desired flake which is thus likely to have been intended for aspecific task. This pattern perhaps also attests to a greater level ofsophistication.

4.2.2. Exploitation of the lateral-ventral side of the COF-FF

4.2.2.1. Lateral double ventral items. Lateral double ventral items arethe most common class of blanks produced from COF-FFs (Table 5).

val on the distal end; (7e8) items also exhibiting earlier truncation. Dotted white line



These are items with two ventral faces removed from a lateraledges and part of the ventral face of the parent COF-FF. The bulb ofpercussion is observed on the actual ventral face of the item. Theseitems were removed along the longitudinal axis of the COF-FF (thatis, they were produced from one end of the parent flake towards itsother end), in an obtuse angle, taking the lateral edge of the COF-FFand creating a backed item, in many cases cortically backed(Figs. 22-23). This removal angle results in an intersection betweenthe original ventral face of the COF-FF and the actual ventral face ofthe item itself, creating an acute and sharp edge of 40e59�. Thus,the majority of items in this class are laminar in dimensions (52% inthe Yabrudian Amudian with 72% in the Amudian), boasting astraight angle cross-section that is triangular or trapezoidal (61% inthe Yabrudian and 52% in the Amudian). All in all, then, these items

Fig. 16. COF-FFs with multiple ventral removals; Note: (2) itemmade on laminar piece; (6) itarrows denote previous removals.


are best characterized as NBKs (Fig. 22:1e2). These items were notremoved in a 90� angle to the ventral face of the COF-FF andtherefore differ from burin spalls, but they resemble in some waythe previously described Adlun burin spalls, which show “a form ofangle burin on a thick flake or flake-blade, on which a transverseend has been fashioned by a single blow from the bulbar face”(Garrod and Kirkbride, 1961:23).

The production of lateral double ventral blanks seems to corre-spond with the suggested technological system used at Qesem forthe production of laminar items (Barkai et al., 2005; Shimelmitzet al., 2011). The resulting blank could be hand-held at its corticalback, providing a comfortable grip, while the other lateral edge issharp. Preliminary use wear results indicate that these items wereused for specific tasks (Lemorini et al. in this volume), implying

emmade on previous tool. Dotted white line denotes the bulb of percussion while black



planning and predetermination of knappers targeted at the sys-tematic production of these specific, laminar items.

Lateral double ventral blanks tend to be rather small in size,usually under 4 cm long. Many of the items display a modifiedbase (43% in the Yabrudian assemblage and 45% in the Amudianassemblage), while plain bases are also fairly common (31% inthe Yabrudian and 44% in the Amudian). A preference isapparent to bases of medium (3e6 mm thick) or large (over6 mm thick) size. Feather and hinge end terminations are fairlycommon. Many items (36%e46%) also show previous retouch,indicating that they were removed from previously shaped tools.Potentially, their retouch was exactly why these tools werechosen as blanks for COF-FFs, taking advantage of the existingretouch in order to guide the removal of the next blank, thelateral double ventral item, the product of the recycling processdiscussed herein.

Over 45% of these items show patination on their dorsal face,indicative of their origin in old blanks selected for use as COF-FFsand the time lapse between the production of the parent flake

Fig. 17. COF-FFs with dorsal removals; Note: (1) the single dorsal removal was made on postdorsal removals made after patination of the original item. Black arrows denote the previo


itself and its recycling as a COF-FF. A few items were found indi-cating at least one additional recycling process (Fig. 23) attested toby double patina on the dorsal face of the blank which covers theprevious removal. Chronologically, then, an item was recycled intoa COF-FF that became patinated and later recycled a second time toproduce small blanks.

Two sub-groups were apparent among lateral double ventralitems:

� Plain items exhibiting a plain dorsal face (which was the originalventral face of the parent flake) with no previous scars ormodifications (Fig. 22). This subclass comprises two separategroups: plain and retouched items, referring to the dorsal face ofthe COF-FF. In the latter case, the retouch along the lateral edgeof the COF-FF was applied prior to the removal of this blank inorder to guide the blow.

� Previously scarred items, exhibiting at least one scar on theirdorsal face (which was the original ventral face of the parentflake). The scar(s) indicate previous removal(s) from the parent

-patina truncation; (2) Multiple dorsal removals applied circumferentially; (3) Multipleus removals.



flake, implying repetitive production from the same parent flake(Fig. 23). This subclass comprises two sub-groups, plain andretouched items, as above. Among items that show previousremovals, most show only one previous removal applied in thesame direction as in the item itself.

4.2.2.2. Double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa items. Theseitems display two ventral faces and two bulbs of percussion, one oneach of the two ventral faces. One of the item's ventral faces is itsown while the other was removed in part from the lateral edge ofthe parent COF-FF and in part from its ventral face along with theCOF-FF's original bulb of percussion (Figs. 25e27). The two ventralfaces of these items are usually intersecting rather than beingdouble-convex, creating one obtuse angle edge and one acute(50e80�) and sharp edge at the intersection between the twoventral faces (actually a wedge shaped item, in many cases similarto an NBK).

Fig. 18. COF-FF with mixed removals; Note: (4) Mixed removals applied after patination of thdenote previous removals.


Double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa items are usuallyreduced along the longitudinal axis of the parent flake and from itsdistal end, resulting in laminar items (67% in the Yabrudianassemblage, 64% in the Amudian assemblage) with two opposedbulbs of percussions. Most of these items were overshots, taking alarger portion of the ventral face of the parent flake not only withthe original bulb of percussion but also with the original strikingplatform of the parent flake. This type of removal tends to createcross-sections of a triangular, trapezoidal, or straight-angle profile,typically resulting in the creation of blades or NBK blade blanks.

Double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa items tend to be largerthan the other blanks produced from COF-FFs, showing an averagelength of over 4.4 cm and an average thickness of over 1.3 cm (asopposed to average length of over 2.8 cm and an average thicknessof less than 1 cm in other blanks produced from COF-FFs). Most ofthe items boast plain and cortical platforms of medium 3e6 mmthick) or large (over 6mm thick) size (56% in the Yabrudian and 57%

e original item. Dotted white line denotes the bulb of percussionwhile the black arrows


Fig. 19. Regular double ventral blanks with plain dorsal face (which was the original ventral face of the parent flake); Dotted white line denote the bulb of percussion.


in the Amudian). While most of these blanks bear a plain strikingplatform, modifications appear in over 30% of the assemblage.

Double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa items resemble itemsfrom Tabun Cave described as being part of the Tabun snaptechnology which “produces flakes with two bulbs of percussion,often created thicker butts. The Tabun snap consists of removingthe proximal end of a blank by a blow invariably given from thedorsal face” (Shifroni and Ronen, 2000, Fig. 24 herein). The majordifference between Tabun snap items and double bulb doubleventral non-Kombewa items described here is the location of theblow, that is, the location on the parent blank fromwhich the itemwas removed. In the case of double bulb double ventral non-Kom-bewa items, the blow originated from the distal end of the parentflake, resulting in laminar items. In contrast, the Tabun snap itemswere transversely flaked, removing a thick part of the proximalend of the parent flake thereby resulting in thick flakes with thickbutts.


Most double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa items bear notraces of previous removals on their dorsal faces (which was pre-viously the ventral face of the COF-FF). Items with previous re-movals tend to show only one previous removal that was carriedout in the same direction as the removal of the recycled productitself (Fig. 25:1, 4, 6; 26:1e2, 7; 27: 3e8). Many of these items bearprevious retouch on their dorsal face, which was originally appliedto the parent flake.

Considering the above, it seems that the production of doublebulb double ventral non-Kombewa items was far from straightfor-ward or easy. Knappers would have needed to apply significantforce with a highly accurate gesture and angle to successfullyproduce these double bulb items. This technological productionprocedure of specific items indicates predetermination of thedesired product, which is characterized by one sharp edge andanother obtuse or dull edge at the opposite side, enabling easy gripfor manual use.


Fig. 20. Regular double ventral blanks showing previous scars on their dorsal faces (which were the original ventral face of the parent flake); Note: (2) itemmade on patinated blank;Dotted white line denotes the bulb of percussion while black arrows denote previous removals.


5. Discussion

The main objective of this paper was to present and definethe lithic recycling phenomena observed at Qesem Caveinvolving an existing old parent blank from which smaller blanksof specific characteristics were produced. This recycling behavioris extensively represented in all studied assemblages at Qesemand in all of the cave's contexts. Among the two assemblagespresented here, hundreds of artifacts (n ¼ 113 COF-FFs; n ¼ 579items produced from COF-FFs) were involved in recycling pro-cesses and many more are observed in other assemblages of thecave.

For example, in the Amudian assemblage of the southern area,COF-FFs comprise 3.2% (n ¼ 195) of the d�ebitage while the itemsproduced from COF-FFs are 6.1% (n ¼ 373) of the d�ebitage (Assafet al., 2014 in this volume; Assaf, 2014). A Yabrudian assemblagefrom the south-western part of the cave recently studied shows1.7% (n ¼ 23) COF-FFs out of the d�ebitage and 7.2% (n ¼ 100) itemsproduced from COF-FFs (data yet unpublished). In addition, theAmudian assemblage of the central hearth area shows of 2.2%(n ¼ 73) COF-FFs and 7.5% (n ¼ 246) items produced from COF-FFsout of the d�ebitage. Similarly, the Amudian assemblage of the areasouth of the central hearth shows 2.9% (n ¼ 70) of COF-FFs out ofthe d�ebitage and 12.2% (n ¼ 296) items produced from COF-FFs(data yet unpublished). Summarizing the above data, it is clearthat lithic recycling was part and parcel of every assemblage atQesem and comprised hundreds of COF-FFs and blanks producedfrom COF-FFs, constituting a constant and significant component ofAYCC lithic industries.


The production of relatively small blanks from an existingparent blank comprises two main categories: COF-FFs as the inputof the process and the blanks produced from these COF-FFs as theoutput of the process (Fig. 28). COF-FFs at Qesem form a distinctcomponent of the lithic chaîne op�eratoire. COF-FFs were made on avariety of blanks, and they also vary in size and patination. Theselection preferences of blanks for COF-FFs shows high variabilityand there are no blanks that were produced with an apparentpreconceived intention to be incorporated in the recycling pro-cess. The selected blanks seem to have been 'old' blanks that hadbeen previously produced for different purposes. Yet, the patternof production of items, their use, discard, and recycling reflectsclear choices made by past knappers, aimed at producing thesespecific flakes and blades, which were most probably targeted atspecific purposes. These choices are of special cultural and func-tional significance when considering the fact that the inhabitantsof Qesem Cave were operating within a flint-rich environmentand had several flint procurement mechanisms that could supplyas much stone as might have been needed to satisfy their needsand desires (Barkai et al., 2013; Buaretto et al., 2009; Verri et al.,2004, 2005). We thus claim that the elaborate and persistentsystem of flint recycling present at Qesem Cave was by no meansthe result of flint shortage but rather a way to maximize or opti-mize lithic production in the service of specific functionalpractices.

Considering that we did not separate ventral and ventral-lateralCOF-FFs, the comparison of scar numbers of detached flakes seenon the COF-FFs with the actual number of blanks produced fromCOF-FFs (regular double ventral items only) shows a match. Blanks


Fig. 21. Double bulb double ventral “Kombew” blanks; Note: (1e2,5) items made on patinated blanks; Dotted white line denote the actual bulb of percussion while dotted red linedenote the original bulb of percussion. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)


produced from Qesem COF-FFs exhibit specific and identifiablecharacteristics, clearly separating them from regular flakes orblades. Some of these items bear patina and previous retouch ontheir dorsal face, indicating that they were removed from COF-FFsthat had been made on previously shaped tool that had been pro-duced in a different technological cycle.

We recognized two distinctive production trajectories fromCOF-FFs, one exploiting the ventral face of the COF-FF while theother exploits its lateral-ventral side (Fig. 28). Exploiting the ventralface of COF-FFs, two classes of blanks were identified: regulardouble ventral items and double bulb double ventral Kombewa items.These two classes represent different modes by which items wereremoved from the ventral face of the COF-FF. While both result in


sharp items with two ventral faces, the double bulb double ventralKombewa items exhibit double-convex cross-sections while theregular double ventral items exhibit a flat dorsal face and thus aplano-convex cross-section.

In producing double bulb double ventral Kombewa items, oftensignificant parts of the COF-FFwere removed. It seems that this wasa predetermined technique in which the bulb area of the COF-FFwas removed. In contrast, the production of regular double ventralitems seems to have had only a minor and local effect on thethickness of the COF-FF. Preliminary experimental knapping of suchitems indicates that the production of double bulb double ventralKombewa items necessitates the application of significant force andits successful execution is far from easy. Regular double ventral


Fig. 22. Lateral double ventral blanks with plain dorsal face; Note: (3e5,7e8) items made on patinated blanks with previous retouch. Dotted white line denotes the actual bulb ofpercussion.


items, on the other hand, are removed rather easily and withrelatively little force involved. These observations, coupled with theusewear data presented by Lemorini et al. (in this volume), leads usto assume that double bulb double ventral Kombewa items were


purposefully removed and they should by no means be regarded asknapping errors but rather as specific desired end products.

A total of 30%e40% of studied regular double ventral itemsshowed use wear traces, and of these, most were used to cut soft


Fig. 23. Lateral double ventral blanks with previous removals; Note: (2,5e6) items made on blanks carrying previous retouch on the dorsal face. Dotted white line denotes the actualbulb of percussion while black arrows denote previous removals.


materials such as meat (see Lemorini et al., in this volume). Replicaexperimentations verified that such flakes could be used as razor-like implements, sharp enough for users to easily cut muscle,tendon, or skin, yet their size restricted their efficiency in cuttinglarge, deep muscles. The absence of hafting traces on theseminuscule flakes indicates that they were probably hand-held(Barkai et al., 2010; Lemorini et al., in this volume). The smallsample of three double bulb double ventral Kombewa items thatwere analyzed for use wear, support the same suggestion as allwere used mainly in cutting fleshy tissues.

Exploiting the lateral-ventral side of the COF-FF two classes ofblanks were identified: Lateral double ventral items and doublebulb double ventral non-Kombewa items. Generally, both classes


produce extremely specific items of an elongated morphologyboasting very sharp regular edges. Many of the items produced inthis manner are backed with a sharp edge enabling a comfortablegrip for use.

It might be suggested that double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa items are the result of knapping mistakes occurring inthe production process of lateral double ventral items. We, how-ever, suggest that these items were intentionally produced aimedat achieving a specific morphology e longer, wider and thickerthan that of lateral double ventral items. Producing double bulbdouble ventral non-Kombewa items is technologically differentthan producing lateral double ventral items. Knapping mistakeswhile delivering a blow into a flat surface, not guided by ridges, is


Fig. 24. Typical spalls of Tabun snap (after Shifroni and Ronen, 2000).


usually expected to result in hinge or step fractures. The produc-tion of double bulb items that end with an overshot end termi-nation must have required a high investment in terms of force andplanning as well as a highly accurate gesture and angle ofproduction.

Use wear analysis of a selection of these items further estab-lished differences between the two classes of blanks (see Lemoriniet al., in this volume). Among 46e70% of the items bearing useweartraces, both types appear to have been used in a diverse choice ofactivities (e.g., scarping, cutting etc.). Notwithstanding, the doublebulb double ventral non-Kombewa items seem to be more orientedtowards activities requiring cutting, while lateral double ventralitems seem to have participated in more prolonged activities,especially the processing of plant materials. Some of the lateraldouble ventral items show traces of prolonged griping or evenhafting (Lemorini et al., in this volume).

6. Conclusions

Flint recycling at Qesem Cave comprises a significant tech-nological component representing a constant and repetitivemode of production within the technological repertoire aimed atthe production of distinctive flakes and blades, most probably forspecific purposes. Reconstructing the chaîne op�eratoire of theseitems contributes to our understanding of human behavior andthe activities carried out at the cave. It appears that products oflithic recycling at Qesem Cave reflect a decision-making processthat followed a repetitive set of rules and conceptions. It seemsto us that the Qesem Cave knappers had a clear conception forthe production of small flakes and blades from previous, largerparent flakes or blades that reflects a deliberate and plannedaction.

The technological system described herein involved a primarystage in which specific 'old' flakes or blades were selected to berecycled as COF-FFs. The blanks used as COF-FF come in manyshapes, sizes, and as retouched, non-retouched, and cortical piecesthus forming part of the general chaîne op�eratoire of the cave's in-dustries. After selection, they constitute a starting point for a newspecific chaîne op�eratoire for the production of specific blanks.


Taking advantage of the morphology and angles of the blanksselected for COF-FFs, or in other words, selected for recycling, acareful and well-controlled technology was applied to skillfully,systematically and consistently produce the desired end productsdescribed earlier.

The systematic production of flakes and blades described herebased on the recycling of existing flakes into COF-FFs is a constantand significant component of the Qesem Cave flint technologythroughout the 200 kyr of human occupation at the site. It is not arandom procedure but rather a deliberate and repetitive actionthat allowed the Qesem Cave hominins to perfect their use ofmaterials available at their disposal as they addressed theirfunctional needs. This mode of behavior required awareness, skilland technological knowhow in order to procure blanks that wouldbe adequate for this recycling process targeted at the productionof the desired end product characterized by a functional regularsharp edge, a standardized morphology, and areas that allow for acomfortable grip.

The appearance of lithic recycling in Acheulian (Agam et al.,2014, in this volume; Shimelmitz, 2014, in this volume) and inthe Late Lower Paleolithic AYCC sites (Assaf et al., 2014, in thisvolume; Shimelmitz, 2014, in this volume), suggests that flintrecycling was an elementary and common practice in the LowerPaleolithic technology, aimed at the production of special items forspecific activities in the Levant.

The intensive flint recycling activities described herein are butone aspect of innovative behaviors exhibited by Qesem Cave in-habitants as reflected in the archaeological record they leftbehind. Recycling of flint at Qesem was not a secondary aspect tothe main chaînes op�eratoires practiced at the cave. As in the caseof scrapers and blade production, recycling played a significantrole in the technological system of the cave, attesting to thescope of activities practiced by the Qesem hominins. Recon-structing the life histories of recycled items deepens our under-standing of human behavior regarding lithic economy,perceptions of raw material, functional aspects, and cognitiveabilities (e.g., planning, transforming, problem-solving, decision-making, etc.) as displayed at Qesem Cave in particular and in theAYCC as a whole.


Fig. 25. Double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa blanks; Note: (5) The ventral face of the COF-FF was covered with red patina from a previous removal; (3,6) items with previousretouch; (2,4) items with previous removals; Dotted white line denote the actual bulb of percussion while dotted red line denote the original bulb of percussion and black arrowsdenote previous removals. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)


Please cite this article in press as: Parush, Y., et al., Looking for sharp edges: Modes of flint recycling at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Israel,Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.07.057

Fig. 26. Double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa blanks; Note: (1�2) items with previous removals; (1) item with previous retouch; (4) item made on patinated blank; Dottedwhite line denote the actual bulb of percussion while dotted red line denote the original bulb of percussion and black arrows denote previous removals. (For interpretation of thereferences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)



Fig. 27. Double bulb double ventral non-Kombewa blanks; Note: (1) item made on patinated blank; (3e8) items with previous removals. Dotted white line denotes the actual bulbof percussion while dotted red line denotes the original bulb of percussion and black arrows denote previous removals. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figurelegend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)



Fig. 28. Flow chart describing the recycling of “parent” flakes and the types of COF-FFs and products of COF-FFs presented in this paper.


Acknowledgments

This paper was presented in the workshop “The Origins ofRecycling: A Paleolithic Perspective” held at Tel-Aviv University,Israel. The workshop was kindly supported by the Israel ScienceFoundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. The Qesem Cavelithic analysis is partially supported by the Israel Science Founda-tion, the Leakey foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. Wethank Pavel Shrago (TAU) for the photographs in this article.

References

Agam, A., Marder, O., Barkai, R., 2014. Small flake production and lithic recycling atLate Acheulian Revadim, Israel. Quaternary International (in this volume).

Alperson-Afil, N., Sharon, G., Kislev, M., Melamed, Y., Zohar, I., Ashkenazi, S.,Rabinovich, R., Biton, R., Werker, E., Hartman, G., Feibel, C., Goren-Inbar, N.,2009. Spatial organization of hominin activities at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel.Science 326 (5960), 1677e1680.

Alperson-Afil, N., Hovers, E., 2006. Differential use of space in the Neanderthal Siteof Amud Cave, Israel. Eurasian Prehistory 3 (1), 3e22.

Amick, D.S., 2007. Investigating the behavioral causes of lithic recycling. In:McPherron, S. (Ed.), Tools Versus Cores. Alternative Approaches to Stone ToolAnalysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 223e252.

Ashton, N., 2007. Flakes, cores, flexibility and obsession: situational behavior in theBritish Lower Palaeolithic. In: McPherron, S. (Ed.), Tools Versus Cores. Alter-native Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing,pp. 1e16.

Ashton, N., Dean, P., McNabb, J., 1991. Flaked flakes: what, where, when and why?Lithics 12, 1e11.

Assaf, E., 2014. The Transmission of Knowledge and Apprentice Flint-knappers inthe Acheulo-Yabrudian? A Case Study from Qesem Cave, Israel (M.A. thesis). TelAviv University (in Hebrew).

Assaf, E., Parush, Y., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2014. Intra-site recycling variability atQesem Cave, Israel: new evidence from an Amudian and Yabrudian assem-blages. Quaternary International (in this volume).


Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2013. Cultural and biological transformations in the MiddlePleistocene Levant: a view from Qesem Cave, Israel. In: Akazawa, T., Nishiaki, Y.,Aoki, K. (Eds.), Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans, vol.1. Springer, Japan, pp. 115e137.

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Lauritzen, S.E., Frumkin, A., 2003. Uranium series dates fromQesem Cave, Israel, and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic. Nature 423, 977e979.

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Shimelmitz, R., 2005. Middle Pleistocene blade production inthe Levant: an Amudian assemblage from Qesem Cave, Israel. Eurasian Pre-history 3, 39e74.

Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Shimelmitz, R., Lev, Z., Stiner, M., Gopher, A., 2009. A bladefor all season? Making and using Amudian Blades at Qesem Cave, Israel. HumanEvolution 24, 57e75.

Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., 2010. Paleolithic cutlery 400000e200000 yearsago: tiny meat-cutting tools from Qesem Cave, Israel. Antiquity 84 (325).

Barkai, R., Solodenko, N., Lemorini, C., 2013. An Amudian oddity: a giant biface fromlate lower Palaeolithic Qesem Cave. Tel-Aviv 40, 175e198.

Bourguignon, L., 1992. Analyse du processus op�eratoire des coups de tranchet lat-eraux dans l'industrie moust�erienne de l'Abri du Mus�ee (Les-Eyziez-de-Tayac,Dordogne). Pal�eo 4, 69e89.

Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P., Turq, A., 2004. Ramification des chaînes op�eratoires:une sp�ecificit�e du Moust�erien? Pal�eo 16, 37e48.

Buaretto, E., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Berna, F., Weiner, S., 2009. Specialized Flintprocurement strategies for hand axes, scrapers and blades in the Late LowerPaleolithic: a 10Be study at Qesem Cave, Israel. Human Evolution 24, 1e12.

Camilli, E.L., Ebert, J.I., 1992. Artifact reuse and recycling in continuous surfacedistributions and implications for interpreting land use patterns. In:Rossignol, J., Wandsnider, L.A. (Eds.), Space, Time and Archaeological Land-scapes. Plenum Press, pp. 113e136.

Close, A.E., 1996. Carry that weight: the use and transportation of stone tools.Current Anthropology 37, 545e553.

Dag, D., Goren-Inbar, N., 2001. An actualistic study of dorsally plain flakes: atechnological note. Lithic Technology 26 (2), 105e117.

Dibble, H.L., 1991. Mousterian assemblage variability on an interregional scale.Journal of Anthropological Research 47, 239e257.

Dibble, H., McPherron, S., 2006. The missing mousterian. Current Anthropology 47(5), 777e803.

Dibble, H., McPherron, S., 2007. Truncated-faceted pieces: hafting modification,retouch, or cores? In: McPherron, S. (Ed.), Tools Versus Cores. Alternative Ap-proaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 75e90.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(14)00539-4/sref1





























































































Dibble, H.L., Rolland, N., 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic ofWestern Europe. History, perspectives and a new synthesis. In: Dibble, H.L.,Mellars, P. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability.The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 1e28.

Frumkin, A., Karkanas, P., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Schak-Gross, R.,Vaks, A., 2009. Gravitational deformations and Fillings of aging caves: theexample of Qesem Karst System, Israel. Geomorphology 106, 154e164.

Galup, S.M., 2007. Postclassic Maya Lithic Tool Maintenance, Recycling, and Con-sumption Patterns at Laguna de On Island. Occasional Publication No. 13.Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Department of Anthropology, University ofAlbany.

Garrod, D.A.E., Kirkbride, D., 1961. Excavation of the Abri Zumffen, a Paleolithic rock-shelter near Adlun, South Lebanon, 1958. Bulletin Du Mus�ee De Beyrouth. ParisXVI, 7e48.

Gopher, A., Barkai, R., Shimelmitz, R., Khalaily, M., Lemorini, C., Hershkovitz, I.,Stiner, M., 2005. Qesem Cave: an Amudian Site in Central Israel. Journal of theIsrael Prehistoric Society 35, 69e92.

Gopher, A., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A., Karkanas, P.,Shahack-Gross, R., 2010. The chronology of the late lower Paleolithic in theLevant: U series dates of speleothems from middle pleistocene Qesem Cave,Israel. Quaternary Geochronology 5 (6), 644e656.

Goren-Inbar, N., 1988. Too small to be true? Reevaluation of core on flakes inLevantine Mousterian assemblages. Lithic Technology 17 (1), 37e44.

Henry, D.O., Hietala, H.J., Rosen, A.M., Demidenko, Y.E., Usik, V.I., Armagan, T.L.,2004. Human behavioral organization in the Middle Paleolithic: where Nean-derthals different? American Anthropoligt 106 (1), 17e31.

Hershkovitz, I., Smith, P., Sarig, R., Quam, R., Rodriguez, L., Garcia, R., Arsuaga, J.-L.,Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2011. Middle Pleistocene dental remains from QesemCave, Israel. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144 (4), 575e592.

Hiscock, P., 2009. Reduction, recycling, and raw material procurement in WesternArnhem Land, Australia. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials andPaleolithic Societies. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Chichester, pp. 78e93.

Hovers, E., 2007. The Many faces of cores-on-flakes: perspective from the LevantineMousterian. In: McPherron, S. (Ed.), Tools versus Cores. Alternative Approachesto Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 42e74.

Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A.,Gopher, A., Stiner, M.C., 2007. Evidence for habitual use of fire at the end of theLower Paleolithic: site formation processes at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal ofHuman Evolution 53, 197e212.

Kelly, R.L., 1988. The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity 53, 717e734.Lemorini, C., Stiner, M.C., Gopher, A., Shimelmitz, R., Barkai, R., 2006. Use-wear

analysis of an Amudian Laminar assemblage from Acheuleo-Yabrudian QesemCave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 921e934.

Lemorini, C., Assaf, E., Parush, Y., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2014. Functional meaning ofrecycling at Qesem Cave, Israel: an overview of the use-wear data. QuaternaryInternational (in this volume).

Lev, Z., 2010. Techno-typological Analysis of a Yabrudian Assemblage from QesemCave, Israel (M.A. thesis). Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).

Maul, L.C., Smith, K.T., Barkai, R., Barash, A., Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R.,Gopher, A., 2011. Microfaunal remains at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Israel:preliminary results on small vertebrates, environment and biostratigraphy.Journal of Human Evolution 60, 464e480.

Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Falgu�eres, C., Shao, Q., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., Bahain, J.J.,Vialettes, L., Joron, J.L., Reyss, J.L., 2013. New datings of Amudian layers at QesemCave (Israel): results of TL applied to burnt flints and ESR/U-series to teeth.Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (7), 3011e3020.

Newcomer, M.H., Hivernel-Guerre, F., 1974. Nucl�eus sur �eclat: Technologie et Tili-zation par Diff�erentes Cultures Pr�ehistoriques. Bulletin de la Soci�et�ePr�ehistorique Française 71, 119e128.

Odell, G.H., 1996. Economizing behavior and the concept of “curation”. In:Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory.Plenum Press, New York, pp. 51e80.

Parush, Y., 2014. Looking for Sharp Edges: Flint Recycling at Qesem Cave. M.A.Thesis Submitted to the Archaeology Department. Tel Aviv University.

Preysler, J.B., Nieto-M�arquez, I.O., Torres, C., 2014. Recycling in abundance: reuse-recycling processes in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic contexts of the Cen-tral Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International (in this volume).


Schiffer, M.B., 1976. Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York.Schroeder, B., 1969. The Lithic Industries from Jerf Ajla and Their Bearing on the

Problem of a Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition (Ph. D. dissertation).Columbia University.

Schroeder, B., 2007. Truncated-faceted pieces from Jerf Al-Ajla. In: McPherron, S.(Ed.), Tools versus Cores. Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cam-bridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 17e41.

Sergant, J., Cromb�e, Ph, Perdaen, Y., 2006. The ‘invisible’ hearths: a contribution tothe discernment of mesolithic non-structured surface hearths. Journal ofArchaeological Science 33, 999e1007.

Shahack-Gross, R., Berna, F., Karkanas, P., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2014.Evidence for the repeated use of a central hearth at Middle Pleistocene (300 kyago) Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 44, 12e21.

Shifroni, A., Ronen, A., 2000. The “Tabun snap” from the Yabrudian/Acheuleaninterface at Tabun. Prehistoria (International Prehistory Journal of the Univer-sity of Miskolc, Hungary) 1, 109e116.

Shimelmitz, R., 2014. The recycling of flint throughout the Lower and MiddlePaleolithic sequence of Tabun Cave, Israel. Quaternary International (in thisvolume).

Shimelmitz, R., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2011. Systematic blade production at lateLower Paleolithic (400d200 kyr) Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evo-lution 61, 458e479.

Smith, A.M., 1974. Ethnography of the Northern Utes. In: . Papers in Anthropology 1.Museum of New Mexico.

Smith, K.T., Maul, L.C., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2013. To catch a chameleon, or actu-alism vs. natural history in the taphonomy of the microvertebrate fraction atQesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (8), 1e14.

Solecki, R.L., Solecki, R.S., 1970. A new secondary flaking technique at the NahrIbrahim cave Site, Lebanon. Bulletin du Mus�ee de Beyrouth XXIII, 137e142.

Speth, j., Meigen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., Goldberg, P., 2011. Spatial organization of MiddlePaleolithic occupation X in Kebara Cave (Israel): concentrations of animalbones. Quaternary International 247, 85e102.

Stiner, M., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2009. Cooperative hunting and meat sharing400e200 Ka at Qesem Cave, Israel. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences United States of America 106, 13207e13212.

Stiner, M., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2011. Hearth-side socioeconomics, hunting andpaleoecology during the Late Lower Paleolithic at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal ofHuman Evolution 60, 213e233.

Thi�ebaut, C., Claud, �E., Mourre, V., Chac�on, M.G., Asselin, G., Brenet, M., Paravel, B.,2010. The recycling and reuse of cores and bifaces during the Middle Paleolithicin Western Europe: functional and cultural interpretations. Palethnology, 3e41.

Vaquero, M., 2008. The history of stones: behavioural inferences and temporalresolution of an archaeological assemblage from the Middle Palaeolithic. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 35, 3178e3185.

Vaquero, M., 2011. New perspectives on recycling of lithic resources using refittingand spatial data. Quart€ar 58, 113e130.

Vaquero, M., Past�o, I., 2001. The definition of spatial units in Middle PalaeolithicSites: the hearth-related assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (11),1209e1220.

Vaquero, M., Alonso, S., García-Catal�an, S., García-Hern�andez, A., G�omez de Soler, B.,Rettig, D., Soto, M., 2012. Temporal nature and recycling of Upper Paleolithicartifacts: the burned tools from the Molídel Salt site (Vimbodíi Poblet, North-eastern Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2785e2796.

Vaquero, M., Rando, J.M., Chac�on, G., 2004. Neanderthal spatial behavior and socialstructure: hearth-related assemblages from the Abric Romani Middle Palae-olithic site. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithicand Middle Stone Age, vol. 2. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 367e392.

Verri, G., Barkai, R., Bordeanu, C., Hass, M., Kaufman, A., Kubik, P., Montanari, E.,Paul, M., Ronen, A., Weiner, S., Boaretto, E., 2004. Flint mining in prehistoryrecord by in situ produced cosmogenic 10Be. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science United States of America 101 (21), 780e7884.

Verri, G., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Hass, M., Kubik, P., Paul, M., Ronen, A., Weiner, S.,Boaretto, E., 2005. Flint procurement strategies in the Late Lower Paleolithicrecord by in situ produced cosmogenic 10Be in Tabun and Qesem Caves (Israel).Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 207e213.

































































































































































































Documents

Looking for sharp edges: Modes of flint recycling at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Israel