- Email: [email protected]
Middle Paleolithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesher Ramla, Israel
Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Middle Paleolithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesher Ramla, Israel Yossi Zaidner a, b, *, Leore Grosman b a b
Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Israel Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 19 January 2015
The resharpening of sidescrapers is a widely discussed issue in recent Middle Paleolithic studies. However, in the Levantine record the evidence for sidescraper resharpening is meager. The Middle Paleolithic site of Nesher Ramla, Israel, represents a rare case in which sidescrapers were frequently modified by removal of longitudinal spalls from their edges. Both parent sidescrapers and spalls, 'Long Sharpening Flakes' (LSF), are abundant throughout the site's stratigraphy, providing a rare opportunity for a complementary study of both artifact groups. The aim of the present study is to reconstruct the life history of sidescrapers retrieved from Nesher Ramla. We ask how the LSF removal changed the morphology of the sidescraper edge, at which stage of the sidescraper life-history it occurred, what was the purpose of LSF removal and was it a part of a recycling system aimed at producing a new edge/tool type or the maintenance of the existing tool edge. The studied artifacts (100 parent sidescrapers and 60 complete LSF) were sampled randomly from the most intensively occupied and richest layers of the site. Our results suggest that sidescraper edge modification was a well-mastered and skillful process that resulted in standardized and morphologically distinct products. In most cases the sidescrapers were not further retouched after the LSF removal. This leads us to propose that the major goal was to transform the sidescraper into a tool with a sharp, straight and flat edge. The LSF removal at Nesher Ramla provides an exceptional case in which a simple raw edge was deliberately manufactured at the expense of the previously retouched edge. This reinforces the previous assumptions that simple raw edges were often preferred over retouched ones. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Middle Paleolithic Southern Levant Sidescrapers Resharpening flakes Recycling Maintenance
1. Introduction The resharpening of sidescrapers is a widely discussed issue in recent Middle Paleolithic studies. The majority of these studies are based on the assumption that the sidescrapers' edges were resharpened by continuous retouch in order to extend their uselives (e.g., Dibble, 1987, 1995; Kuhn, 1990; Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Clarkson, 2002; Eren et al., 2005; Hiscock and Clarkson, 2005). While accepted by many, testing this assumption on archaeological material is difficult. In most cases it is hard to tell whether the form of the sidescraper' edge is a result of repeated retouching or a single retouch event. Only a few cases show empirical evidence for sidescraper resharpening by retouch. These are resharpening flakes with evidence of use that were refitted to the parent scrapers (e.g. Frison, 1968) and double patinated
* Corresponding author. Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Israel. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Zaidner). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.037 1040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
scrapers (e.g. Amick, 2015). However, in the majority of archaeological cases such direct evidence is lacking. Rarely, sidescrapers were also resharpened by a spall removal. The presence of both parent sidescrapers and spalls in the lithic assemblage provide direct evidence for the resharpening. A few types of spalls were recognized, one of the most common is a removal of a long spall parallel to the longitudinal axes of the sidescraper which removes a part of, or the entire retouched edge n (Cornford, 1986; Bourguignon, 1992; Roebroeks et al., 1997; Lazue lez-Urquijo, 2015). Such a method of sidescraper transand Gonza formation is rarely known and was reported from only a few assemblages in the Middle Paleolithic of Europe and Africa (Cornford, 1986; Bourguignon, 1992; Roebrocks et al., 1997; Douze, 2014). The outcome of long spall removal is ‘parent sidescrapers’ and spalls known as 'Long Sharpening Flakes' (hereafter LSF; Cornford,1986), or “coup de tranchet lateral” (Bourguignon, 1992). The LSFs preserve evidence for a stage at which the sidescraper edge was transformed, shedding some light on the reason for the resharpening and on decision-making of the Middle Paleolithic hominins.
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
Fig. 1. Location of Nesher Ramla in the Southern Levant and the stratigraphic section (layers discussed in the text are marked in gray).
179
180
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
While in the case of resharpening by retouch the general morphology of the sidescraper will not change much, the removal of LSF results in general renovation and change of the edge morphology. This raises the question whether LSF removal was intended to recycle the implement into a different type of tool, or was it a part of the sidescraper maintenance. In the latter case it is expected that the sidescraper edge would be restored into a similar kind of edge by a new retouch series. Cornford (1986) in her work on LSFs from La Cotte de Saint Brelade, Jersey, English Channel, suggested that spalls were removed in order to produce a new unmodified edge with a sharper angle. Her study shows that in the vast majority of cases, the edges of the parent sidescrapers were not restored by retouch, but were used unmodified. She concluded that for the case of La Cotte de Saint Brelade the unmodified edges were not only used, but deliberately manufactured for use (Cornford, 1986, p. 349). At site J, Maastricht-Belvedere, refitting and usewear analysis showed that the parent implement was transformed into a denticulate in one of the cases while, in another case, the edge was used without further modification (Roebroeks et al., 1997). The transformation and recycling of a sidescraper into a new tool-type with different edge morphology is only one facet of LSF removal technique. Removal of a small longitudinal spall was embedded within the sequence of bifacial knife preparation and maintenance in the Central European Middle and Upper Paleolithic €ris et al., this volume), providing a case in which a similar (Jo technique was used as part of tool shaping and maintenance. The LSF removal was also a part of sidescraper maintenance in Quina Mousterian assemblages (Bourguignon, 1992). In the Levantine record the evidence for sidescraper resharpening is meager. The sidescrapers in the Levantine Middle Paleolithic sites are mostly lightly retouched and show no direct evidence for reuse or maintenance, except rare cases of double patinated implements (e.g. Goren-Inbar, 1990; Hovers, 2009). To date, LSF removal has only been reported from the open-air Middle Paleolithic site of Nesher Ramla (Zaidner et al., 2014) and the Lower Paleolithic site of Holon (Malinsky-Buller, personal communication). In Nesher Ramla both parent sidescrapers and LSF are abundant throughout the site's stratigraphy providing a rare opportunity for a complementary study of both artifact groups. The aim of the present study is to reconstruct the life history of sidescrapers in Nesher Ramla. We address the following questions: how the LSF removal changed the morphology of the sidescraper edge; at which stage of sidescraper life-history it occurred; what was the purpose of LSF removal; was it a part of a recycling practice aimed at producing a new edge/tool type or the maintenance of the existing tool edge.
2. Nesher Ramla The Nesher Ramla open-air Middle Paleolithic site is situated at an elevation of 85e120 masl on the chalk terrain bordering the coastal plain of Israel (Fig. 1). The site occupies a funnel-shaped karst depression 40 m wide at the top and 11 m wide at the bottom of the archaeological sequence (Zaidner et al., 2014). Depressions are formed in the fissured Senonian chalk of 'En Zetim Formation that overlies hard Turonian limestone of the B'ina Formation whose lower portion contains large karst voids and caves (Frumkin and Gvirtzman, 2006). The larger underground voids are susceptible to roof collapse and subsidence of the overburden (Frumkin et al., 2009). The depressions were formed by gravitational deformation, subsidence and collapse above these karst cavities (Frumkin et al., 2015). The sedimentary sequence was shaped by cyclic colluviation of materials into the depression,
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of sidescraper and LSF removed from its edge.
waterlogging, in situ pedogenesis and human occupation (Tsatskin and Zaidner, 2014). Middle Paleolithic cultural remains were uncovered in a 8 m thick sequence, 107.5e99 m asl, ca. 12 m below the rim of the depression (Fig. 1). A set of single-grain OSL measurements (Zaidner et al., 2014) provided dates from 170 ± 12 at the bottom to 78 ± 6 ka at the top of the anthropogenic sequence placing the Mousterian occupation at the site within the middle part of the Levantine Middle Paleolithic. The sequence was divided into six major stratigraphic units (Units IeVI) with some internal subdivisions. The cultural remains show significant vertical variation with marked increase in densities of stone artifacts observed in the lower part of the sequence beginning within Unit II. Clear evidence for in situ hominid activities, especially in the lower part of the sequence, includes concentrations of manuports associated with stone artifacts and abundant remains of small to large sized fauna, some exhibiting cultural modifications (see Zaidner et al., 2014). Ash lenses were also identified mainly in Units III and V (Friesem et al., 2014). The lithic assemblage comprises ~81,000 artifacts larger than 2 cm. The assemblage shows noticeable variations in the numbers of artifacts and the frequencies of different technological and typological groups along the site's stratigraphic sequence. Sidescrapers and Levallois cores, flakes and points occur throughout the archaeological sequence (Zaidner, 2014; Zaidner et al., 2014). The Nesher Ramla retouched tool-kit is highly standardized and is characterized by a high frequency of carefully and intensively retouched sidescrapers, unprecedented in open-air sites and in the vast majority of caves in the Levant (see Hovers, 2009). In some units at Nesher Ramla, sidescraper frequencies among the retouched tools reach 60% (Zaidner et al., 2014). The evidence for LSF removal at Nesher Ramla derives from two sets of artifacts. The first set is composed of parent tools that exhibit scars of the removal of LSF on their edges (Fig. 2). The second set is composed of LSF. The parent tools are mostly sidescrapers, but some lightly retouched flakes and unmodified pieces with LSF scars were also identified and included in the studied sample. 3. Methods The studied sample includes artifacts from both groups that were retrieved from the two most intensively occupied and richest layers of the site e Units III and V. The sample of 100 parent tools and 60 complete LSF larger than 2 cm was collected from randomly selected excavation units.
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
181
Fig. 3. LSF e 3D model of an LSF.
Fig. 4. Parent sidescrapers e Note the small truncations prepared for LSF removal. In illustrated cases the LSFs removed only a part of the retouched edge. Only sidescraper 4 shows evidence for retouch after the LSF removal.
182
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
Fig. 5. LSFs e 5 views and section located at the maximum width for each LSF. Please note that the left view is the ventral face followed by a side view and the dorsal face.
Both groups of artifacts were subjected to technological, morphological and metrical observations. The LSF were 3D scanned at the Computerized Archaeology Laboratory, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University. The 3D scanner uses structured light technology to obtain the complete geometry of the artifacts' surface. The digital model provides a precise image of the surface of the scanned object. The software developed by Polymetric Technology (Darmstadt, Germany) provides a three dimensional digital model that presents a complete, reliable image of the original item, the LSF (Fig. 3). The resulting 3D digital model was further manipulated within the computer software Artifact3-D (Grosman
et al., 2014) for manual positioning, generating views, dimensions and sections that have been selected for analysis (Figs. 4 and 5; Grosman et al., 2008, 2014). Special attention was given to the study of LSFs sections that were generated after the positioning of the 3D model. A new procedure was written for calculating the angles of the selected sections (Fig. 6a). The angles were selected manually by three points on each side of an angle and on the vertices. The following steps were conducted for each LSF in Artifact3-D:
Fig. 6. LSF e a. angle calculations (red e old edge angle; blue e complementary angle of the new edge). b. Three locations of section extraction (green lines) e at the 1/5, center, and 4/5 of the length axis (red). The maximum width is also marked (red). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
4. Parent tools
1. Manual positioning based on standard technological criteria for lithic artifacts, primarily the location of the point of percussion and the knapping direction. 2. Extracting basic measurements including the maximum length of the object. 3. Marking on the 3D image the locations of sections at the 1/5, 1/2 and 4/5 length, perpendicular to the length axis (Fig. 6b). 4. Measuring two angles on each section: the original edge of the artifact and the complementary angle of the new edge (further discussion below).
The LSFs were usually struck from the distal end of the parent tool (70%). In rare cases (6.5%) two opposite spalls were removed
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
183
Fig. 7. Parent sidescrapers e frequencies of various types of striking platforms from which LSF was removed.
from the same edge, struck from the distal and the proximal edges. In 99% of the cases the LSFs were removed from the dorsal surface of the parent tools. The striking platform was primarily prepared on the ventral surface of the parent tool by a few small removals or even a single one creating a small truncation (Figs. 4 and 7). Occasionally, already available surfaces were used (edges, hinged edges, breaks) with little preparation. Only rarely is careful preparation visible. The majority of LSFs were removed from single sidescrapers (78%), 20% from double sidescrapers and a few from both retouched edges of double sidescrapers. Only in about 20% of the cases was the entire edge of the parent tool removed by an LSF. Given that approximately fifty percent of LSF scars have a hinged termination, we cannot rule out the possibility that some of the short removals could be a result of knapping mistakes. Nonetheless, LSF scars with feather termination are still short and on average cover only about half of the parent tool edge (Table 1; the ratio between parent tool edge length/LSF scar length is 0.56) suggesting that partial removal of the edge was most likely preplanned. Whatever the case may be, the remaining parts of the original sidescraper edge provides a rare opportunity to examine the morphology of the original sidescraper edge and shed some light on the goal of the LSF removal. The study of the original edge demonstrates that the LSFs were removed mostly from sidescrapers and in a few cases from unretouched flakes. The LSFs were removed from sidescrapers with different intensity of retouch (Fig. 8). While there are some differences in the retouch intensity observed on LSFs and sidescrapers (Fig. 8), similar general trend could be observed. Thereby, not the intensity of the retouch seems to be the key aspect in the decision to remove the LSF from sidescrapers' edges.
The angle and the state of the edge provide better insights into the reasoning behind such decisions. At this stage, though, we were not able to conduct 3D analysis on the parent sidescrapers therefore visual observations were conducted. In 34% of the cases LSF removal reduces the angle of the parent tool edge, making it sharper (Fig. 9). In 20% of the cases the remaining edge is either dull or irregular, exhibiting small hinges, steps and notches that could be caused by use, indicating that LSF was removed in order to renew a worn edge. In 46% of the examined cases, the remaining part of the original edge exhibits a relatively sharp angle and fine regularly retouched edge, which make the goal of LSF removal unclear (Fig. 9). Additional insights into the goals of LSF removal come from the absence of evidence for post-LSF detachment modification. Thus, only on 75% of the parent tools a two-stage reduction sequence is visible: 1. Retouching; 2. Spall removal (Figs. 4, 10 and 11). In relatively rare cases, when a third stage was added to this sequence, it usually consisted of light retouch that only partially covers the scar of LSF removal. Although it is possible that in some cases intensive retouch erased evidence for LSF detachment, the high frequency of pieces with a two-stage reduction sequence indicates that restoring the sidescraper edge was not a major goal of LSF removal. 5. The LSFs After positioning, the length of the LSF was calculated revealing an average of 30 mm (Table 1). It is interesting to note that the
Table 1 Metric data for sidescrapers and LSFs.
Sidescrapers Mean Std Minimum Maximum LSF Mean Std Minimum Maximum
Length
Length-retouched edge
Length- LSF scar (larger than 20 mm)
Ratio: length of retouched edge/length of LSF scar
46.6 10.1 30.0 85.0
39.7 12.1 0.0 85.0
22.8 9.9 5.0 46.0
0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0
30.9 13.6 2.7 76.7
(30.1) (7.48) (20.1) (46.0)
Fig. 8. Parent sidescrapers and LSFs e intensity of retouch. Unknown means that entire edge was removed by LSF (for sidescrapers) or by scar of previous LSF removal (for LSFs).
184
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
Fig. 9. Parent sidescrapers e Possible reasons for LSF removal according to visual observations. Sharper angle e if the remains of retouched edge indicate that LSF removal formed edge with a sharper angle; Unclear e the LSF removal was either very long (removed entire, or almost entire, edge), too short, or does not change the morphology of the edge; Removing irregularities e if the remains of retouched edge exhibit irregularities; Sharpening a dull edge e the remains of retouched edge are dull and show macroscopic signs of wear.
average length of the LSFs is similar to the length of the LSFs scars (longer than 2 cm) on the parent sidescrapers. This further verifies that the LSFs and the parent sidescrapers are part of the same reduction sequence. One of the surfaces of the LSF is the original ventral face of the parent sidescraper. Consequently, the angle of the cutting edge of the original tool can be calculated and the new edge of the sidescraper will be the complementary angle of the opposite angle (Fig. 12). For each spall three sections were extracted and the lateral angles on the original ventral surface of each section were calculated. This was followed by a subtraction which allowed us to obtain both the old and new angles of the sidescraper, before and after the LSF blow (Fig.12). These angles were calculated for the entire assemblage and separately for LSFs with continuous retouch (29). Clear differences were found between the average angle of the new and old edge of the original scraper in all three locations on the length axis of the LSF e 1/5, center and 4/5. At the center, the original angle of the lateral edge of the scraper was wider (67 ± 2) than the new angle (57 ±1) (Fig. 13). At the 1/5 location, the angle was reduced to a greater extent while near the edge of the LSF (4/5 location) the difference is similar to the center profile measurements. These results are further verified when presenting the angle values of the artifacts that have remnants of continuous retouch on the old edge (29). Here, the difference between the old and the new edge at the center is even greater (Fig. 13). Thus, the analysis suggests that the LSF were struck from the parent scraper in order to
Fig. 10. Parent sidescrapers e signs of edge modifications after LSF removal.
Fig. 11. Parent sidescrapers e Reconstruction of sidescraper reduction sequence: 1. Preparation of sidescraper edge by retouch (black); 2. LSF removal (yellow); 3. New series of retouch (red). Sidescraper on the right shows three-stage reduction sequence; sidescraper on the left exhibit two stages of the reduction. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
obtain about 10 sharper edge. In addition, the analysis demonstrates that the modification of the sidescrapers is standardized as evidenced by the low values of the standard deviation of the calculated angles. The knappers were skilled and planned in advance the angle for the required tool.
Fig. 12. LSF e Angle calculation e A side view of a sidescraper and a closer view of the edge from which the spall was detached, i.e., the spalls' side section. The angles marked are the ones that can be calculated on the detached spall. Red is the angle between the ventral face of the parent sidescraper and its retouched edge, i.e. the old edge of the sidescraper; blue represents the angle between the ventral face of the parent sidescraper and the ventral face of the LSF; green is the complementary angle of blue and it represents the new edge attained by LSF removal. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
185
Fig. 13. LSF e mean values of the old and new angle of the working edges of all 60 LSFs (blue) and 29 retouched LSFs (orange; only artifacts preserving continuous retouch were included). Values were calculated at different locations along the LSF length axisecenter (circle); 1/5 length (triangle) and 4/5 length (star). The minimum and maximum values of the old angle at the center (min ¼ 60; max ¼ 80), 4/5 (min ¼ 55; max ¼ 110) and 1/5 (min ¼ 50; max ¼ 100) are higher than the values of the new edge: center (min ¼ 42; max ¼ 64), 4/5 (min ¼ 40; max ¼ 78) and 1/5 (min ¼ 32; max ¼ 81). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
6. Discussion The complementary study of parent sidescrapers and LSF at Nesher Ramla demonstrates that sidescraper edge modification was a well-mastered and skillful process that resulted in standardized and morphologically distinct products. The procedure started with preparation of a small truncation on the ventral surface of the sidescraper that served as striking platform for the spall removal. In spite of the low investment in striking platform preparation, the results of our study show surprisingly high standardization in the morphology of the achieved edge. The LSF assemblage analysis demonstrates that the angle of the edge formed by spall removal is significantly sharper than the original. This was achieved by directing and angling the blow in a way that removed a higher volume of material from the dorsal surface compared to the ventral surface of the parent flake (Fig. 14). The scar of an LSF removal usually extends over a part of the retouched edge forming an edge that is partially retouched and partially flat. Only in rare occasions does the LSF remove the entire edge of the parent tool. In most studies, resharpening of sidescrapers is viewed as part of continuous process of edge maintenance (e.g., Kuhn, 1990; Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Dibble, 1995; Clarkson, 2002; Eren et al., 2005; Hiscock and Clarkson, 2005). The sidescrapers are conceived as tools of relatively static form that are used and resharpened in a similar way, until the loss of volume does not
Fig. 14. Schematic width section of sidescraper and LSF showing the difference in width between the ventral and dorsal sides of LSF. The ability of the knappers to remove a higher volume of material from the dorsal surface of the sidescraper resulted in a lower angle of the attained edge.
permit further reduction. The study presented here points to a system of considerably higher complexity in which sidescraper edge modification served a number of goals from maintenance to formation of a new type of edge. The cases of edge maintenance strategies at Nesher Ramla are exemplified by evidence for removal of damaged and dull edges and reinstallment of retouched edges after the LSF removal. The evidence from Nesher Ramla suggests that LSFs removed relatively sharp, regular and moderately retouched edges. Moreover, majority of the parent sidescrapers were not retouched after LSF removal. Therefore, maintenance and reestablishment of the retouched edges seem to be of secondary importance in sidescraper modification strategies at Nesher Ramla. In some studies (e.g. n and Gonza lez-Urquijo, 2015) the sharpening flakes were Lazue retouched and used after their removal from parent-tools, suggesting that blank production could also be part of sidescraper modification strategies. Nevertheless, at Nesher Ramla LSFs show no evidence for post-detachment retouch or use (see also Cornford, 1986). The high frequency of parent tools that were not further retouched after LSF removal leads us to propose that the major goal was to transform the sidescraper into a tool with sharp, straight flat edge e “recycling”. Therefore, we agree with Cornford's interpretation of LSFs from La Cotte de Saint Brelade that “it was the cutting properties of a new edge that was the object of removing the old one” (Cornford, 1986, p. 348). Cornford suggested that the goal of LSF at La Cotte de Saint Brelade was to produce raw edges for butchering activities. Her view is based upon assumptions that butchering was one of the main activities at La Cotte de Saint Brelade and that raw edges are most appropriate for butchering and meat cutting. The latter is supported by archaeological studies in which simple flakes with sharp edges were found to be associated with butchering activities (e.g. Clark and Haynes, 1969; Keeley and Toth, 1981; Longo et al., 1997; Barkai et al., 2010) and experimental studies that pointed to high efficiency of unmodified edges in meat cutting (Walker, 1978; Jones, 1980, 1994; Toth, 1985; Jobson, 1986; Frison, 1989; Dewbury and Russell, 2007). Cornford further suggested that the rise in frequencies of LSFs in some of the layers of La Cotte de Saint Brelade correlates with diminishing supply of flint at
186
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
the site. In other words, growing shortages of fresh blanks with suitably long edges resulted in a need to reuse existing retouched tools for making these edges. Except for the frequent use of LSF removal technique, additional parallels can be drawn between Nesher Ramla and La Cotte de Saint Brelade. La Cotte de Saint Brelade is located in a large fissure within a granite cliff that is filled with thick layers of debris and archaeological sediments. Some archaeological layers of the site are characterized by dense concentrations of broken bone splinters belonging to a wide range of species and associated with numerous lithic artifacts suggesting that the site served as a base-camp to which hunted animals were brought. Other layers show heap-like concentrations of large bones, with limited species representation and a few artifacts suggesting that the site was used as a natural pitfall for large animals (Callow and Cornford, 1986). Hunting and butchering seem to be the main activities in the latter type of occupation, while more variable activities are suggested for the former type. LSFs seem to occur throughout the sequence without preference for either type of occupation. Nesher Ramla shows a dichotomy in faunal remains similar to La Cotte de Saint Brelade. At the site heaps of large, often complete and sometimes articulated bones were found alongside concentrations of mostly broken and often burnt bone splinters. The faunal assemblages are still under study and data on species representation from different concentrations is presently unavailable. However, it is already clear that aurochs were one of the major species hunted at Nesher Ramla (Zaidner et al., 2014). In addition to the specific characteristics of the faunal assemblages, the lithic assemblage of Nesher Ramla differs from other Mousterian assemblages known from both cave and open-air sites in the Levant. The open-air sites commonly exhibit low frequencies of Levallois debitage (IL), a low ratio of unretouched Levallois blanks among tools (ILty) and high technological and typological diversity (Ronen, 1974; Munday, 1977; Goren-Inbar, 1990; Gilead, 1995; Hovers et al., 2008; Hovers, 2009). It has been suggested that these differences are the result of specific site functions, more intensive lithic reduction and higher expediency of the lithic technology in the open-air sites (Ronen, 1974; Jelinek, 1982; Hovers, 1990, 2009; Gilead, 1995; Meignen et al., 2006; Sharon et al., 2010; Oron and Goren-Inbar, 2014; Malinsky-Buller et al., 2014; Sharon and Oron, 2014). The majority of caves show higher frequencies of Levallois debitage and low frequencies of retouched tools (Jelinek, 1975, 1982; Ronen, 1984; Meignen and Bar-Yosef, 1991; Nishiaki and Copeland, 1992; Hovers, 1998, 2009). Both Levallois indices (IL and ILty) at Nesher Ramla are lower than in most of the cave sites, but higher than indices calculated for open-air sites. Moreover, the Nesher Ramla retouched tool assemblage is highly standardized and consists of only a few dominant types. The lower levels of the site are characterized by a high frequency of carefully prepared sidescrapers, unprecedented in open-air sites and in the vast majority of caves in the Levant (see Hovers, 2009). Denticulates and notches, on the other hand, which are common types especially in open-air sites (Ronen, 1974; Gilead, 1980; Goren-Inbar, 1990; Hovers et al., 2008), are virtually absent in the lower levels of Nesher Ramla. On the basis of the frequent faunal articulations, presence of complete bones, abundance of aurochs and highly standardized tool-kit, it was hypothesized that the site was used as a hunting destination where initial stages of butchery and some consumption took place (Zaidner et al., 2014). In this context we can presume, that similar to La Cotte de Saint Brelade, the sidescraper modification strategy was directed toward the production of raw edges for butchering. However, even if sidescrapers were transformed in response to an immediate need for sharp implements, it is not yet clear why flakes with sharp edges were not directly
produced from the cores. Unlike La Cotte de Saint Brelade, raw material availability seems not to be a constraint in the Nesher Ramla area, since chert is locally available from primary (exposures of the Mishash formation) and secondary sources (pebbles from Ayalon riverbeds). The use of simple sharp edged flakes is known from the onset of the Oldowan throughout the Paleolithic (Clark and Haynes, 1969; Keeley and Toth, 1981; Toth, 1985; Kuhn et al., 1996; Longo et al., 1997; Bamforth, 2002; Gao and Norton, 2002; Delagnes and Roche, 2005; Roche, 2005; Wenban-Smith et al., 2006; Barkai et al., 2010; Zaidner, 2013). However, the LSF removal at Nesher Ramla provides an exceptional case in which a simple raw edge was deliberately manufactured at the expense of a previously retouched edge. Whatever the reason for sidescraper modification at Nesher Ramla, it is clear that interpretations of tool functions at the site should not be based on retouched tools alone. Future analysis should integrate use-wear analysis to provide stronger clues to the understanding of tool function. In general, modification by retouch is the main means currently available for distinguishing between bitage. Yet this is a criterion needed for a standardized tools and de analysis i.e., common scientific language, while we all suspect that bitage were also selected by hominins for large portions of the de utilization. The present study strengthens this idea by demonstrating that simple raw edges were preferred over retouched ones. We were fortunate to participate in the enlightening conference (Tel Aviv Oct. 2013) on “The Origin of Recycling: A Paleolithic Perspective” where evidence for recycling was presented. Discussions were conducted on the definition of recycling in prehistoric research and how we can identify recycling activities in the material remains. Although this issue is beyond the present contribution, we propose that the Nesher Ramla LSF accords well with the definitions of recycling as discussed at the workshop. The large quantities of both sidescrapers and LSFs attest to the recycling activities of the Nesher Ramla hominins, indicating that they often chose to manipulate the old tools and not knap the fresh raw material. Acknowledgements We thank the organizers, Ran Barkai, Cristina Lemorini and Manuel Vaquero for inviting us to take part in “The Origin of Recycling: A Paleolithic Perspective”, a workshop that was kindly supported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. We thank the Nesher Ramla factory for funding the excavations and the Lady Davis Foundation at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University for funding a post-doctoral scholarship (YZ). We also thank Yad Hanadiv Foundation for a significant contribution to the Computerized Archaeology Laboratory at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University. We thank the members of the Computerized Archaeology Laboratory, specifically Dan Pri-Tal for his computer programing expertize. Finally, special thanks go to Uzy Smilansky and Daniel Kaufman for their helpful comments. References Amick, D.S., 2015. The recycling of material culture today and during the Paleolithic. Quaternary International 361, 4e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.059. Bamforth, D.B., 2002. High-tech Foragers? Folsom and Later Paleoindian Technology on the Great Plains 1 (16), 55e98. Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., 2010. Palaeolithic cutlery 400 000e200 000 years ago: tiny meat-cutting tools from Qesem Cave, Israel. Antiquity 84, 325. ratoire des coups de tranchet Bourguignon, L., 1992. Analyse du processus ope raux dans l'industrie mouste rienne de l'abri du Muse e (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, late o 4, 69e89. Dordogne). Pale Callow, P., Cornford, J.M., 1986. La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey. Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney 1961e1978. Geo Books, Norwich.
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187 Clark, J.D., Haynes, C.V., 1969. An elephant butchery site at Mwanganda's Village, Karonga, and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeology 1, 390e411. Clarkson, C., 2002. An index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifacial and bifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 65e75. Cornford, J.M., 1986. Specialised resharpening techniques and evidence of handedness. In: Callow, P., Cornford, J.M. (Eds.), La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey. Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney 1961e1978. Geo Books, Norwich, pp. 337e351. Delagnes, A., Roche, H., 2005. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: the case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 435e472. Dewbury, A.G., Russell, N., 2007. Relative frequency of butchering cutmarks produced by obsidian and flint: an experimental approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 354e357. Dibble, H.L., 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52, 109e117. Dibble, H.L., 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2, 299e368. Douze, K., 2014. A new chrono-cultural marker for the early Middle Stone Age in Ethiopia: the tranchet blow process on convergent tools from Gademotta and Kulkuletti sites. Quaternary International 343, 40e52. Eren, M.I., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Kuhn, S.L., Adler, D.S., Le, I., Bar-Yosef, O., 2005. Defining and measuring reduction in unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1190e1201. Frison, G.C., 1968. A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. American Antiquity 33, 149e155. Frison, G.C., 1989. Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on African elephants. American Antiquity 54, 766e784. Friesem, D.E., Zaidner, Y., Shahack-Gross, R., 2014. Formation processes and combustion features at the lower layers of the Middle Palaeolithic open-air site of Nesher Ramla, Israel. Quaternary International 331, 128e138. Frumkin, A., Gvirtzman, H., 2006. Cross-formational rising groundwater at an artesian karstic basin: the Ayalon Saline Anomaly. Israel Journal of Hydrology 318, 216e333. Frumkin, A., Karkanas, P., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., ShahackGross, R., Vaks, A., 2009. Gravitational deformations and fillings of aging caves: the example of Qesem karst system, Israel. Geomorphology 106, 154e164. Frumkin, A., Zaidner, Y., Na'aman, I., Tsatskin, A., Porat, N., Vulfson, L., 2015. Sagging and collapse sinkholes over hypogenic hydrothermal karst in a carbonate terrain. Geomorphology 229, 45e57. Gao, X., Norton, C.J., 2002. A critique of the Chinese “Middle Palaeolithic”. Antiquity 76, 397e412. Gilead, I., 1980. A Middle Palaeolithic open-air site near Tell Far'ah, Western Negev: preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal 30, 52e62. Gilead, I., 1995. Problems and prospects in the study of Levallois technology in the Levant: the case of Fara II, Israel. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 79e92. Goren-Inbar, N., 1990. The lithic assemblages. In: Goren-Inbar, N. (Ed.), Quneitra: a Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights, Qedem, vol. 31. Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 61e167. Grosman, L., Smikt, O., Smilansky, U., 2008. On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 3101e3110. Grosman, L., Karasik, A., Harush, O., Smilansky, U., 2014. Archaeology in three dimensions: computer-based methods in archaeological research. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 2, 48e64. Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., 2005. Experimental evaluation of Kuhn's geometric index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1015e1022. Hovers, E., 1990. The exploitation of raw material at the Mousterian Site of Quneitra. In: Goren-Inbar, N. (Ed.), Quneitra: a Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights, Qedem, vol. 31. Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 150e167. Hovers, E., 1998. The lithic assemblages of Amud Cave: implications for the end of the Mousterian in the Levant. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 143e163. Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford University Press. Hovers, E., Buller, A., Ekshtain, R., Oron, M., Yeshurun, R., 2008. Ein Qashish e a new Middle Paleolithic open-air site in northern Israel. Journal of Israel Prehistoric Society 38, 7e40. Jelinek, A., 1975. A preliminary report on some Lower and Middle Paleolithic industries from the Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel (Israel). In: Wendorf, F., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 279e316. Jelinek, A., 1982. The Middle Paleolithic in the Southern Levant, with comments on the appearance of modern Homo sapiens. In: Ronen, A. (Ed.), The Transition
187
from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the Origin of Modern Man, British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. Oxford, pp. 57e104. Jobson, R.W., 1986. Stone tool morphology and rabbit butchering. Lithic Technology 15, 9e20. Jones, P.R., 1980. Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeology 12, 153e165. Jones, P.R., 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai Gorge. In: Leakey, M.D., Roe, D. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge, vol. 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254e298. Keeley, L.H., Toth, N., 1981. Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Nature 293, 464e465. Kuhn, S.L., 1990. A geometric Index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17, 583e593. Kuhn, S.L., Arsebuk, G., Howell, F.C., 1996. The Middle Pleistocene lithic assemblage orient 22, 31e49. from Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey. Pale n, T., Gonza lez-Urquijo, J., 2015. Recycling in the Early Middle Paleolithic: the role Lazue of resharpening flakes assessed through techno-functional analysis. Quaternary International 361, 229e237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.008. Longo, L., Peretto, C., Sozzi, M., Vannucci, S., 1997. Artefacts, outils ou supports epuises? Une nouvelle approche pour l'etude des industries du paleolithique ancien: le cas d'Isernia La Pineta (Molise, Italie Centrale). L'Anthropologie 101, 579e596. Malinsky-Buller, A., Ekshtain, R., Hovers, E., 2014. Organization of lithic technology at 'Ein Qashish, a late Middle Paleolithic open-air site in Israel. Quaternary International 331, 234e247. riens de Kebara (fouilles Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., 1991. Les outils lithiques mouste 1982e1985). In: Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B. (Eds.), Le squelette rien de Kebara 2, Cahiers de Pale oanthropologie. CNRS, Paris, pp. 49e85. mouste Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., Speth, J.D., Stiner, M.C., 2006. Middle Paleolithic settlement patterns in the Levant. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York, pp. 149e169. Munday, F.C., 1977. Nahal Aqev (D35): a stratified, open-air Mousterian occupation in the Avdat/Aqev area. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 2. SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 35e60. Nishiaki, Y., Copeland, L., 1992. Keoue Cave, Northern Lebanon, and its place in the context of the Levantine Mousterian. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Kimura, T. (Eds.), The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia. Hakusen-Sha, Tokyo, pp. 107e127. Oron, M., Goren-Inbar, N., 2014. Mousterian Intra-site spatial patterning at Quneitra, Golan Heights. Quaternary International 331, 186e202. Roebroeks, W., Kolen, J., Van Poecke, M., Van Gijn, A., 1997. “Site J”: an early Weichselian (Middle Palaeolithic) flint scatter at Maastricht-Belvedere, The o 9, 143e172. Netherlands. Pale Roche, H., 2005. From simple flaking to shaping: stone-knapping evolution among early hominins. In: Roux, V., Bril, B. (Eds.), Stone Knapping: the Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behavior. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 35e53. Rolland, N., Dibble, H.L., 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55, 480e499. Ronen, A., 1974. Tirat Carmel: a Mousterian Open-air Site in Israel. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Ronen, A., 1984. Sefunim Prehistoric Sites, Mount Carmel, Israel. In: BAR 230. Oxford. Sharon, G., Grosman, L., Fluck, H., Melamed, Y., Rak, Y., Rabinovich, R., 2010. The first two excavation seasons at NMO: a Mousterian site at the bank of the Jordan River. Eurasian Prehistory 7, 135e157. Sharon, G., Oron, M., 2014. The lithic tool arsenal of a Mousterian hunter. Quaternary International 331, 167e185. Toth, N., 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 101e120. Tsatskin, A., Zaidner, Y., 2014. Geoarchaeological context of the later phases of Mousterian occupation (80-115 ka) at Nesher Ramla, Israel: soil erosion, deposition and pedogenic processes. Quaternary International 331, 103e114. Walker, P.L., 1978. Butchering and stone tool function. American Antiquity 43, 710e715. Wenban-Smith, F.F., Allen, P., Bates, M.R., Parfitt, S. a., Preece, R.C., Stewart, J.R., Turner, C., Whittaker, J.E., 2006. The Clactonian elephant butchery site at Southfleet Road, Ebbsfleet, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science 21, 471e483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1033. Zaidner, Y., 2013. Adaptive flexibility of Oldowan hominins: secondary use of flakes at Bizat Ruhama, Israel. PLoS ONE 8 (6), e66851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0066851. Zaidner, Y., 2014. A new open-air Middle Paleolithic site at Nesher Ramla, Israel. Stratum Plus 2014 (1), 29e44. Zaidner, Y., Frumkin, A., Porat, N., Tsatskin, A., Reuven, Y., Weissbrod, L., 2014. A series of Mousterian occupations in a new type of site: the Nesher Ramla karst depression, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 66, 1e17.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Middle Paleolithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesher Ramla, Israel Yossi Zaidner a, b, *, Leore Grosman b a b
Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Israel Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 19 January 2015
The resharpening of sidescrapers is a widely discussed issue in recent Middle Paleolithic studies. However, in the Levantine record the evidence for sidescraper resharpening is meager. The Middle Paleolithic site of Nesher Ramla, Israel, represents a rare case in which sidescrapers were frequently modified by removal of longitudinal spalls from their edges. Both parent sidescrapers and spalls, 'Long Sharpening Flakes' (LSF), are abundant throughout the site's stratigraphy, providing a rare opportunity for a complementary study of both artifact groups. The aim of the present study is to reconstruct the life history of sidescrapers retrieved from Nesher Ramla. We ask how the LSF removal changed the morphology of the sidescraper edge, at which stage of the sidescraper life-history it occurred, what was the purpose of LSF removal and was it a part of a recycling system aimed at producing a new edge/tool type or the maintenance of the existing tool edge. The studied artifacts (100 parent sidescrapers and 60 complete LSF) were sampled randomly from the most intensively occupied and richest layers of the site. Our results suggest that sidescraper edge modification was a well-mastered and skillful process that resulted in standardized and morphologically distinct products. In most cases the sidescrapers were not further retouched after the LSF removal. This leads us to propose that the major goal was to transform the sidescraper into a tool with a sharp, straight and flat edge. The LSF removal at Nesher Ramla provides an exceptional case in which a simple raw edge was deliberately manufactured at the expense of the previously retouched edge. This reinforces the previous assumptions that simple raw edges were often preferred over retouched ones. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Middle Paleolithic Southern Levant Sidescrapers Resharpening flakes Recycling Maintenance
1. Introduction The resharpening of sidescrapers is a widely discussed issue in recent Middle Paleolithic studies. The majority of these studies are based on the assumption that the sidescrapers' edges were resharpened by continuous retouch in order to extend their uselives (e.g., Dibble, 1987, 1995; Kuhn, 1990; Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Clarkson, 2002; Eren et al., 2005; Hiscock and Clarkson, 2005). While accepted by many, testing this assumption on archaeological material is difficult. In most cases it is hard to tell whether the form of the sidescraper' edge is a result of repeated retouching or a single retouch event. Only a few cases show empirical evidence for sidescraper resharpening by retouch. These are resharpening flakes with evidence of use that were refitted to the parent scrapers (e.g. Frison, 1968) and double patinated
* Corresponding author. Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Israel. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Zaidner). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.037 1040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
scrapers (e.g. Amick, 2015). However, in the majority of archaeological cases such direct evidence is lacking. Rarely, sidescrapers were also resharpened by a spall removal. The presence of both parent sidescrapers and spalls in the lithic assemblage provide direct evidence for the resharpening. A few types of spalls were recognized, one of the most common is a removal of a long spall parallel to the longitudinal axes of the sidescraper which removes a part of, or the entire retouched edge n (Cornford, 1986; Bourguignon, 1992; Roebroeks et al., 1997; Lazue lez-Urquijo, 2015). Such a method of sidescraper transand Gonza formation is rarely known and was reported from only a few assemblages in the Middle Paleolithic of Europe and Africa (Cornford, 1986; Bourguignon, 1992; Roebrocks et al., 1997; Douze, 2014). The outcome of long spall removal is ‘parent sidescrapers’ and spalls known as 'Long Sharpening Flakes' (hereafter LSF; Cornford,1986), or “coup de tranchet lateral” (Bourguignon, 1992). The LSFs preserve evidence for a stage at which the sidescraper edge was transformed, shedding some light on the reason for the resharpening and on decision-making of the Middle Paleolithic hominins.
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
Fig. 1. Location of Nesher Ramla in the Southern Levant and the stratigraphic section (layers discussed in the text are marked in gray).
179
180
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
While in the case of resharpening by retouch the general morphology of the sidescraper will not change much, the removal of LSF results in general renovation and change of the edge morphology. This raises the question whether LSF removal was intended to recycle the implement into a different type of tool, or was it a part of the sidescraper maintenance. In the latter case it is expected that the sidescraper edge would be restored into a similar kind of edge by a new retouch series. Cornford (1986) in her work on LSFs from La Cotte de Saint Brelade, Jersey, English Channel, suggested that spalls were removed in order to produce a new unmodified edge with a sharper angle. Her study shows that in the vast majority of cases, the edges of the parent sidescrapers were not restored by retouch, but were used unmodified. She concluded that for the case of La Cotte de Saint Brelade the unmodified edges were not only used, but deliberately manufactured for use (Cornford, 1986, p. 349). At site J, Maastricht-Belvedere, refitting and usewear analysis showed that the parent implement was transformed into a denticulate in one of the cases while, in another case, the edge was used without further modification (Roebroeks et al., 1997). The transformation and recycling of a sidescraper into a new tool-type with different edge morphology is only one facet of LSF removal technique. Removal of a small longitudinal spall was embedded within the sequence of bifacial knife preparation and maintenance in the Central European Middle and Upper Paleolithic €ris et al., this volume), providing a case in which a similar (Jo technique was used as part of tool shaping and maintenance. The LSF removal was also a part of sidescraper maintenance in Quina Mousterian assemblages (Bourguignon, 1992). In the Levantine record the evidence for sidescraper resharpening is meager. The sidescrapers in the Levantine Middle Paleolithic sites are mostly lightly retouched and show no direct evidence for reuse or maintenance, except rare cases of double patinated implements (e.g. Goren-Inbar, 1990; Hovers, 2009). To date, LSF removal has only been reported from the open-air Middle Paleolithic site of Nesher Ramla (Zaidner et al., 2014) and the Lower Paleolithic site of Holon (Malinsky-Buller, personal communication). In Nesher Ramla both parent sidescrapers and LSF are abundant throughout the site's stratigraphy providing a rare opportunity for a complementary study of both artifact groups. The aim of the present study is to reconstruct the life history of sidescrapers in Nesher Ramla. We address the following questions: how the LSF removal changed the morphology of the sidescraper edge; at which stage of sidescraper life-history it occurred; what was the purpose of LSF removal; was it a part of a recycling practice aimed at producing a new edge/tool type or the maintenance of the existing tool edge.
2. Nesher Ramla The Nesher Ramla open-air Middle Paleolithic site is situated at an elevation of 85e120 masl on the chalk terrain bordering the coastal plain of Israel (Fig. 1). The site occupies a funnel-shaped karst depression 40 m wide at the top and 11 m wide at the bottom of the archaeological sequence (Zaidner et al., 2014). Depressions are formed in the fissured Senonian chalk of 'En Zetim Formation that overlies hard Turonian limestone of the B'ina Formation whose lower portion contains large karst voids and caves (Frumkin and Gvirtzman, 2006). The larger underground voids are susceptible to roof collapse and subsidence of the overburden (Frumkin et al., 2009). The depressions were formed by gravitational deformation, subsidence and collapse above these karst cavities (Frumkin et al., 2015). The sedimentary sequence was shaped by cyclic colluviation of materials into the depression,
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of sidescraper and LSF removed from its edge.
waterlogging, in situ pedogenesis and human occupation (Tsatskin and Zaidner, 2014). Middle Paleolithic cultural remains were uncovered in a 8 m thick sequence, 107.5e99 m asl, ca. 12 m below the rim of the depression (Fig. 1). A set of single-grain OSL measurements (Zaidner et al., 2014) provided dates from 170 ± 12 at the bottom to 78 ± 6 ka at the top of the anthropogenic sequence placing the Mousterian occupation at the site within the middle part of the Levantine Middle Paleolithic. The sequence was divided into six major stratigraphic units (Units IeVI) with some internal subdivisions. The cultural remains show significant vertical variation with marked increase in densities of stone artifacts observed in the lower part of the sequence beginning within Unit II. Clear evidence for in situ hominid activities, especially in the lower part of the sequence, includes concentrations of manuports associated with stone artifacts and abundant remains of small to large sized fauna, some exhibiting cultural modifications (see Zaidner et al., 2014). Ash lenses were also identified mainly in Units III and V (Friesem et al., 2014). The lithic assemblage comprises ~81,000 artifacts larger than 2 cm. The assemblage shows noticeable variations in the numbers of artifacts and the frequencies of different technological and typological groups along the site's stratigraphic sequence. Sidescrapers and Levallois cores, flakes and points occur throughout the archaeological sequence (Zaidner, 2014; Zaidner et al., 2014). The Nesher Ramla retouched tool-kit is highly standardized and is characterized by a high frequency of carefully and intensively retouched sidescrapers, unprecedented in open-air sites and in the vast majority of caves in the Levant (see Hovers, 2009). In some units at Nesher Ramla, sidescraper frequencies among the retouched tools reach 60% (Zaidner et al., 2014). The evidence for LSF removal at Nesher Ramla derives from two sets of artifacts. The first set is composed of parent tools that exhibit scars of the removal of LSF on their edges (Fig. 2). The second set is composed of LSF. The parent tools are mostly sidescrapers, but some lightly retouched flakes and unmodified pieces with LSF scars were also identified and included in the studied sample. 3. Methods The studied sample includes artifacts from both groups that were retrieved from the two most intensively occupied and richest layers of the site e Units III and V. The sample of 100 parent tools and 60 complete LSF larger than 2 cm was collected from randomly selected excavation units.
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
181
Fig. 3. LSF e 3D model of an LSF.
Fig. 4. Parent sidescrapers e Note the small truncations prepared for LSF removal. In illustrated cases the LSFs removed only a part of the retouched edge. Only sidescraper 4 shows evidence for retouch after the LSF removal.
182
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
Fig. 5. LSFs e 5 views and section located at the maximum width for each LSF. Please note that the left view is the ventral face followed by a side view and the dorsal face.
Both groups of artifacts were subjected to technological, morphological and metrical observations. The LSF were 3D scanned at the Computerized Archaeology Laboratory, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University. The 3D scanner uses structured light technology to obtain the complete geometry of the artifacts' surface. The digital model provides a precise image of the surface of the scanned object. The software developed by Polymetric Technology (Darmstadt, Germany) provides a three dimensional digital model that presents a complete, reliable image of the original item, the LSF (Fig. 3). The resulting 3D digital model was further manipulated within the computer software Artifact3-D (Grosman
et al., 2014) for manual positioning, generating views, dimensions and sections that have been selected for analysis (Figs. 4 and 5; Grosman et al., 2008, 2014). Special attention was given to the study of LSFs sections that were generated after the positioning of the 3D model. A new procedure was written for calculating the angles of the selected sections (Fig. 6a). The angles were selected manually by three points on each side of an angle and on the vertices. The following steps were conducted for each LSF in Artifact3-D:
Fig. 6. LSF e a. angle calculations (red e old edge angle; blue e complementary angle of the new edge). b. Three locations of section extraction (green lines) e at the 1/5, center, and 4/5 of the length axis (red). The maximum width is also marked (red). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
4. Parent tools
1. Manual positioning based on standard technological criteria for lithic artifacts, primarily the location of the point of percussion and the knapping direction. 2. Extracting basic measurements including the maximum length of the object. 3. Marking on the 3D image the locations of sections at the 1/5, 1/2 and 4/5 length, perpendicular to the length axis (Fig. 6b). 4. Measuring two angles on each section: the original edge of the artifact and the complementary angle of the new edge (further discussion below).
The LSFs were usually struck from the distal end of the parent tool (70%). In rare cases (6.5%) two opposite spalls were removed
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
183
Fig. 7. Parent sidescrapers e frequencies of various types of striking platforms from which LSF was removed.
from the same edge, struck from the distal and the proximal edges. In 99% of the cases the LSFs were removed from the dorsal surface of the parent tools. The striking platform was primarily prepared on the ventral surface of the parent tool by a few small removals or even a single one creating a small truncation (Figs. 4 and 7). Occasionally, already available surfaces were used (edges, hinged edges, breaks) with little preparation. Only rarely is careful preparation visible. The majority of LSFs were removed from single sidescrapers (78%), 20% from double sidescrapers and a few from both retouched edges of double sidescrapers. Only in about 20% of the cases was the entire edge of the parent tool removed by an LSF. Given that approximately fifty percent of LSF scars have a hinged termination, we cannot rule out the possibility that some of the short removals could be a result of knapping mistakes. Nonetheless, LSF scars with feather termination are still short and on average cover only about half of the parent tool edge (Table 1; the ratio between parent tool edge length/LSF scar length is 0.56) suggesting that partial removal of the edge was most likely preplanned. Whatever the case may be, the remaining parts of the original sidescraper edge provides a rare opportunity to examine the morphology of the original sidescraper edge and shed some light on the goal of the LSF removal. The study of the original edge demonstrates that the LSFs were removed mostly from sidescrapers and in a few cases from unretouched flakes. The LSFs were removed from sidescrapers with different intensity of retouch (Fig. 8). While there are some differences in the retouch intensity observed on LSFs and sidescrapers (Fig. 8), similar general trend could be observed. Thereby, not the intensity of the retouch seems to be the key aspect in the decision to remove the LSF from sidescrapers' edges.
The angle and the state of the edge provide better insights into the reasoning behind such decisions. At this stage, though, we were not able to conduct 3D analysis on the parent sidescrapers therefore visual observations were conducted. In 34% of the cases LSF removal reduces the angle of the parent tool edge, making it sharper (Fig. 9). In 20% of the cases the remaining edge is either dull or irregular, exhibiting small hinges, steps and notches that could be caused by use, indicating that LSF was removed in order to renew a worn edge. In 46% of the examined cases, the remaining part of the original edge exhibits a relatively sharp angle and fine regularly retouched edge, which make the goal of LSF removal unclear (Fig. 9). Additional insights into the goals of LSF removal come from the absence of evidence for post-LSF detachment modification. Thus, only on 75% of the parent tools a two-stage reduction sequence is visible: 1. Retouching; 2. Spall removal (Figs. 4, 10 and 11). In relatively rare cases, when a third stage was added to this sequence, it usually consisted of light retouch that only partially covers the scar of LSF removal. Although it is possible that in some cases intensive retouch erased evidence for LSF detachment, the high frequency of pieces with a two-stage reduction sequence indicates that restoring the sidescraper edge was not a major goal of LSF removal. 5. The LSFs After positioning, the length of the LSF was calculated revealing an average of 30 mm (Table 1). It is interesting to note that the
Table 1 Metric data for sidescrapers and LSFs.
Sidescrapers Mean Std Minimum Maximum LSF Mean Std Minimum Maximum
Length
Length-retouched edge
Length- LSF scar (larger than 20 mm)
Ratio: length of retouched edge/length of LSF scar
46.6 10.1 30.0 85.0
39.7 12.1 0.0 85.0
22.8 9.9 5.0 46.0
0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0
30.9 13.6 2.7 76.7
(30.1) (7.48) (20.1) (46.0)
Fig. 8. Parent sidescrapers and LSFs e intensity of retouch. Unknown means that entire edge was removed by LSF (for sidescrapers) or by scar of previous LSF removal (for LSFs).
184
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
Fig. 9. Parent sidescrapers e Possible reasons for LSF removal according to visual observations. Sharper angle e if the remains of retouched edge indicate that LSF removal formed edge with a sharper angle; Unclear e the LSF removal was either very long (removed entire, or almost entire, edge), too short, or does not change the morphology of the edge; Removing irregularities e if the remains of retouched edge exhibit irregularities; Sharpening a dull edge e the remains of retouched edge are dull and show macroscopic signs of wear.
average length of the LSFs is similar to the length of the LSFs scars (longer than 2 cm) on the parent sidescrapers. This further verifies that the LSFs and the parent sidescrapers are part of the same reduction sequence. One of the surfaces of the LSF is the original ventral face of the parent sidescraper. Consequently, the angle of the cutting edge of the original tool can be calculated and the new edge of the sidescraper will be the complementary angle of the opposite angle (Fig. 12). For each spall three sections were extracted and the lateral angles on the original ventral surface of each section were calculated. This was followed by a subtraction which allowed us to obtain both the old and new angles of the sidescraper, before and after the LSF blow (Fig.12). These angles were calculated for the entire assemblage and separately for LSFs with continuous retouch (29). Clear differences were found between the average angle of the new and old edge of the original scraper in all three locations on the length axis of the LSF e 1/5, center and 4/5. At the center, the original angle of the lateral edge of the scraper was wider (67 ± 2) than the new angle (57 ±1) (Fig. 13). At the 1/5 location, the angle was reduced to a greater extent while near the edge of the LSF (4/5 location) the difference is similar to the center profile measurements. These results are further verified when presenting the angle values of the artifacts that have remnants of continuous retouch on the old edge (29). Here, the difference between the old and the new edge at the center is even greater (Fig. 13). Thus, the analysis suggests that the LSF were struck from the parent scraper in order to
Fig. 10. Parent sidescrapers e signs of edge modifications after LSF removal.
Fig. 11. Parent sidescrapers e Reconstruction of sidescraper reduction sequence: 1. Preparation of sidescraper edge by retouch (black); 2. LSF removal (yellow); 3. New series of retouch (red). Sidescraper on the right shows three-stage reduction sequence; sidescraper on the left exhibit two stages of the reduction. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
obtain about 10 sharper edge. In addition, the analysis demonstrates that the modification of the sidescrapers is standardized as evidenced by the low values of the standard deviation of the calculated angles. The knappers were skilled and planned in advance the angle for the required tool.
Fig. 12. LSF e Angle calculation e A side view of a sidescraper and a closer view of the edge from which the spall was detached, i.e., the spalls' side section. The angles marked are the ones that can be calculated on the detached spall. Red is the angle between the ventral face of the parent sidescraper and its retouched edge, i.e. the old edge of the sidescraper; blue represents the angle between the ventral face of the parent sidescraper and the ventral face of the LSF; green is the complementary angle of blue and it represents the new edge attained by LSF removal. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
185
Fig. 13. LSF e mean values of the old and new angle of the working edges of all 60 LSFs (blue) and 29 retouched LSFs (orange; only artifacts preserving continuous retouch were included). Values were calculated at different locations along the LSF length axisecenter (circle); 1/5 length (triangle) and 4/5 length (star). The minimum and maximum values of the old angle at the center (min ¼ 60; max ¼ 80), 4/5 (min ¼ 55; max ¼ 110) and 1/5 (min ¼ 50; max ¼ 100) are higher than the values of the new edge: center (min ¼ 42; max ¼ 64), 4/5 (min ¼ 40; max ¼ 78) and 1/5 (min ¼ 32; max ¼ 81). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
6. Discussion The complementary study of parent sidescrapers and LSF at Nesher Ramla demonstrates that sidescraper edge modification was a well-mastered and skillful process that resulted in standardized and morphologically distinct products. The procedure started with preparation of a small truncation on the ventral surface of the sidescraper that served as striking platform for the spall removal. In spite of the low investment in striking platform preparation, the results of our study show surprisingly high standardization in the morphology of the achieved edge. The LSF assemblage analysis demonstrates that the angle of the edge formed by spall removal is significantly sharper than the original. This was achieved by directing and angling the blow in a way that removed a higher volume of material from the dorsal surface compared to the ventral surface of the parent flake (Fig. 14). The scar of an LSF removal usually extends over a part of the retouched edge forming an edge that is partially retouched and partially flat. Only in rare occasions does the LSF remove the entire edge of the parent tool. In most studies, resharpening of sidescrapers is viewed as part of continuous process of edge maintenance (e.g., Kuhn, 1990; Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Dibble, 1995; Clarkson, 2002; Eren et al., 2005; Hiscock and Clarkson, 2005). The sidescrapers are conceived as tools of relatively static form that are used and resharpened in a similar way, until the loss of volume does not
Fig. 14. Schematic width section of sidescraper and LSF showing the difference in width between the ventral and dorsal sides of LSF. The ability of the knappers to remove a higher volume of material from the dorsal surface of the sidescraper resulted in a lower angle of the attained edge.
permit further reduction. The study presented here points to a system of considerably higher complexity in which sidescraper edge modification served a number of goals from maintenance to formation of a new type of edge. The cases of edge maintenance strategies at Nesher Ramla are exemplified by evidence for removal of damaged and dull edges and reinstallment of retouched edges after the LSF removal. The evidence from Nesher Ramla suggests that LSFs removed relatively sharp, regular and moderately retouched edges. Moreover, majority of the parent sidescrapers were not retouched after LSF removal. Therefore, maintenance and reestablishment of the retouched edges seem to be of secondary importance in sidescraper modification strategies at Nesher Ramla. In some studies (e.g. n and Gonza lez-Urquijo, 2015) the sharpening flakes were Lazue retouched and used after their removal from parent-tools, suggesting that blank production could also be part of sidescraper modification strategies. Nevertheless, at Nesher Ramla LSFs show no evidence for post-detachment retouch or use (see also Cornford, 1986). The high frequency of parent tools that were not further retouched after LSF removal leads us to propose that the major goal was to transform the sidescraper into a tool with sharp, straight flat edge e “recycling”. Therefore, we agree with Cornford's interpretation of LSFs from La Cotte de Saint Brelade that “it was the cutting properties of a new edge that was the object of removing the old one” (Cornford, 1986, p. 348). Cornford suggested that the goal of LSF at La Cotte de Saint Brelade was to produce raw edges for butchering activities. Her view is based upon assumptions that butchering was one of the main activities at La Cotte de Saint Brelade and that raw edges are most appropriate for butchering and meat cutting. The latter is supported by archaeological studies in which simple flakes with sharp edges were found to be associated with butchering activities (e.g. Clark and Haynes, 1969; Keeley and Toth, 1981; Longo et al., 1997; Barkai et al., 2010) and experimental studies that pointed to high efficiency of unmodified edges in meat cutting (Walker, 1978; Jones, 1980, 1994; Toth, 1985; Jobson, 1986; Frison, 1989; Dewbury and Russell, 2007). Cornford further suggested that the rise in frequencies of LSFs in some of the layers of La Cotte de Saint Brelade correlates with diminishing supply of flint at
186
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187
the site. In other words, growing shortages of fresh blanks with suitably long edges resulted in a need to reuse existing retouched tools for making these edges. Except for the frequent use of LSF removal technique, additional parallels can be drawn between Nesher Ramla and La Cotte de Saint Brelade. La Cotte de Saint Brelade is located in a large fissure within a granite cliff that is filled with thick layers of debris and archaeological sediments. Some archaeological layers of the site are characterized by dense concentrations of broken bone splinters belonging to a wide range of species and associated with numerous lithic artifacts suggesting that the site served as a base-camp to which hunted animals were brought. Other layers show heap-like concentrations of large bones, with limited species representation and a few artifacts suggesting that the site was used as a natural pitfall for large animals (Callow and Cornford, 1986). Hunting and butchering seem to be the main activities in the latter type of occupation, while more variable activities are suggested for the former type. LSFs seem to occur throughout the sequence without preference for either type of occupation. Nesher Ramla shows a dichotomy in faunal remains similar to La Cotte de Saint Brelade. At the site heaps of large, often complete and sometimes articulated bones were found alongside concentrations of mostly broken and often burnt bone splinters. The faunal assemblages are still under study and data on species representation from different concentrations is presently unavailable. However, it is already clear that aurochs were one of the major species hunted at Nesher Ramla (Zaidner et al., 2014). In addition to the specific characteristics of the faunal assemblages, the lithic assemblage of Nesher Ramla differs from other Mousterian assemblages known from both cave and open-air sites in the Levant. The open-air sites commonly exhibit low frequencies of Levallois debitage (IL), a low ratio of unretouched Levallois blanks among tools (ILty) and high technological and typological diversity (Ronen, 1974; Munday, 1977; Goren-Inbar, 1990; Gilead, 1995; Hovers et al., 2008; Hovers, 2009). It has been suggested that these differences are the result of specific site functions, more intensive lithic reduction and higher expediency of the lithic technology in the open-air sites (Ronen, 1974; Jelinek, 1982; Hovers, 1990, 2009; Gilead, 1995; Meignen et al., 2006; Sharon et al., 2010; Oron and Goren-Inbar, 2014; Malinsky-Buller et al., 2014; Sharon and Oron, 2014). The majority of caves show higher frequencies of Levallois debitage and low frequencies of retouched tools (Jelinek, 1975, 1982; Ronen, 1984; Meignen and Bar-Yosef, 1991; Nishiaki and Copeland, 1992; Hovers, 1998, 2009). Both Levallois indices (IL and ILty) at Nesher Ramla are lower than in most of the cave sites, but higher than indices calculated for open-air sites. Moreover, the Nesher Ramla retouched tool assemblage is highly standardized and consists of only a few dominant types. The lower levels of the site are characterized by a high frequency of carefully prepared sidescrapers, unprecedented in open-air sites and in the vast majority of caves in the Levant (see Hovers, 2009). Denticulates and notches, on the other hand, which are common types especially in open-air sites (Ronen, 1974; Gilead, 1980; Goren-Inbar, 1990; Hovers et al., 2008), are virtually absent in the lower levels of Nesher Ramla. On the basis of the frequent faunal articulations, presence of complete bones, abundance of aurochs and highly standardized tool-kit, it was hypothesized that the site was used as a hunting destination where initial stages of butchery and some consumption took place (Zaidner et al., 2014). In this context we can presume, that similar to La Cotte de Saint Brelade, the sidescraper modification strategy was directed toward the production of raw edges for butchering. However, even if sidescrapers were transformed in response to an immediate need for sharp implements, it is not yet clear why flakes with sharp edges were not directly
produced from the cores. Unlike La Cotte de Saint Brelade, raw material availability seems not to be a constraint in the Nesher Ramla area, since chert is locally available from primary (exposures of the Mishash formation) and secondary sources (pebbles from Ayalon riverbeds). The use of simple sharp edged flakes is known from the onset of the Oldowan throughout the Paleolithic (Clark and Haynes, 1969; Keeley and Toth, 1981; Toth, 1985; Kuhn et al., 1996; Longo et al., 1997; Bamforth, 2002; Gao and Norton, 2002; Delagnes and Roche, 2005; Roche, 2005; Wenban-Smith et al., 2006; Barkai et al., 2010; Zaidner, 2013). However, the LSF removal at Nesher Ramla provides an exceptional case in which a simple raw edge was deliberately manufactured at the expense of a previously retouched edge. Whatever the reason for sidescraper modification at Nesher Ramla, it is clear that interpretations of tool functions at the site should not be based on retouched tools alone. Future analysis should integrate use-wear analysis to provide stronger clues to the understanding of tool function. In general, modification by retouch is the main means currently available for distinguishing between bitage. Yet this is a criterion needed for a standardized tools and de analysis i.e., common scientific language, while we all suspect that bitage were also selected by hominins for large portions of the de utilization. The present study strengthens this idea by demonstrating that simple raw edges were preferred over retouched ones. We were fortunate to participate in the enlightening conference (Tel Aviv Oct. 2013) on “The Origin of Recycling: A Paleolithic Perspective” where evidence for recycling was presented. Discussions were conducted on the definition of recycling in prehistoric research and how we can identify recycling activities in the material remains. Although this issue is beyond the present contribution, we propose that the Nesher Ramla LSF accords well with the definitions of recycling as discussed at the workshop. The large quantities of both sidescrapers and LSFs attest to the recycling activities of the Nesher Ramla hominins, indicating that they often chose to manipulate the old tools and not knap the fresh raw material. Acknowledgements We thank the organizers, Ran Barkai, Cristina Lemorini and Manuel Vaquero for inviting us to take part in “The Origin of Recycling: A Paleolithic Perspective”, a workshop that was kindly supported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. We thank the Nesher Ramla factory for funding the excavations and the Lady Davis Foundation at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University for funding a post-doctoral scholarship (YZ). We also thank Yad Hanadiv Foundation for a significant contribution to the Computerized Archaeology Laboratory at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University. We thank the members of the Computerized Archaeology Laboratory, specifically Dan Pri-Tal for his computer programing expertize. Finally, special thanks go to Uzy Smilansky and Daniel Kaufman for their helpful comments. References Amick, D.S., 2015. The recycling of material culture today and during the Paleolithic. Quaternary International 361, 4e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.059. Bamforth, D.B., 2002. High-tech Foragers? Folsom and Later Paleoindian Technology on the Great Plains 1 (16), 55e98. Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., 2010. Palaeolithic cutlery 400 000e200 000 years ago: tiny meat-cutting tools from Qesem Cave, Israel. Antiquity 84, 325. ratoire des coups de tranchet Bourguignon, L., 1992. Analyse du processus ope raux dans l'industrie mouste rienne de l'abri du Muse e (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, late o 4, 69e89. Dordogne). Pale Callow, P., Cornford, J.M., 1986. La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey. Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney 1961e1978. Geo Books, Norwich.
Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International 361 (2015) 178e187 Clark, J.D., Haynes, C.V., 1969. An elephant butchery site at Mwanganda's Village, Karonga, and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeology 1, 390e411. Clarkson, C., 2002. An index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifacial and bifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 65e75. Cornford, J.M., 1986. Specialised resharpening techniques and evidence of handedness. In: Callow, P., Cornford, J.M. (Eds.), La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey. Excavations by C.B.M. McBurney 1961e1978. Geo Books, Norwich, pp. 337e351. Delagnes, A., Roche, H., 2005. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: the case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 435e472. Dewbury, A.G., Russell, N., 2007. Relative frequency of butchering cutmarks produced by obsidian and flint: an experimental approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 354e357. Dibble, H.L., 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52, 109e117. Dibble, H.L., 1995. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2, 299e368. Douze, K., 2014. A new chrono-cultural marker for the early Middle Stone Age in Ethiopia: the tranchet blow process on convergent tools from Gademotta and Kulkuletti sites. Quaternary International 343, 40e52. Eren, M.I., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Kuhn, S.L., Adler, D.S., Le, I., Bar-Yosef, O., 2005. Defining and measuring reduction in unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1190e1201. Frison, G.C., 1968. A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. American Antiquity 33, 149e155. Frison, G.C., 1989. Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on African elephants. American Antiquity 54, 766e784. Friesem, D.E., Zaidner, Y., Shahack-Gross, R., 2014. Formation processes and combustion features at the lower layers of the Middle Palaeolithic open-air site of Nesher Ramla, Israel. Quaternary International 331, 128e138. Frumkin, A., Gvirtzman, H., 2006. Cross-formational rising groundwater at an artesian karstic basin: the Ayalon Saline Anomaly. Israel Journal of Hydrology 318, 216e333. Frumkin, A., Karkanas, P., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., ShahackGross, R., Vaks, A., 2009. Gravitational deformations and fillings of aging caves: the example of Qesem karst system, Israel. Geomorphology 106, 154e164. Frumkin, A., Zaidner, Y., Na'aman, I., Tsatskin, A., Porat, N., Vulfson, L., 2015. Sagging and collapse sinkholes over hypogenic hydrothermal karst in a carbonate terrain. Geomorphology 229, 45e57. Gao, X., Norton, C.J., 2002. A critique of the Chinese “Middle Palaeolithic”. Antiquity 76, 397e412. Gilead, I., 1980. A Middle Palaeolithic open-air site near Tell Far'ah, Western Negev: preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal 30, 52e62. Gilead, I., 1995. Problems and prospects in the study of Levallois technology in the Levant: the case of Fara II, Israel. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 79e92. Goren-Inbar, N., 1990. The lithic assemblages. In: Goren-Inbar, N. (Ed.), Quneitra: a Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights, Qedem, vol. 31. Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 61e167. Grosman, L., Smikt, O., Smilansky, U., 2008. On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 3101e3110. Grosman, L., Karasik, A., Harush, O., Smilansky, U., 2014. Archaeology in three dimensions: computer-based methods in archaeological research. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 2, 48e64. Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., 2005. Experimental evaluation of Kuhn's geometric index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1015e1022. Hovers, E., 1990. The exploitation of raw material at the Mousterian Site of Quneitra. In: Goren-Inbar, N. (Ed.), Quneitra: a Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights, Qedem, vol. 31. Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp. 150e167. Hovers, E., 1998. The lithic assemblages of Amud Cave: implications for the end of the Mousterian in the Levant. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 143e163. Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford University Press. Hovers, E., Buller, A., Ekshtain, R., Oron, M., Yeshurun, R., 2008. Ein Qashish e a new Middle Paleolithic open-air site in northern Israel. Journal of Israel Prehistoric Society 38, 7e40. Jelinek, A., 1975. A preliminary report on some Lower and Middle Paleolithic industries from the Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel (Israel). In: Wendorf, F., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 279e316. Jelinek, A., 1982. The Middle Paleolithic in the Southern Levant, with comments on the appearance of modern Homo sapiens. In: Ronen, A. (Ed.), The Transition
187
from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the Origin of Modern Man, British Archaeological Reports International Series 151. Oxford, pp. 57e104. Jobson, R.W., 1986. Stone tool morphology and rabbit butchering. Lithic Technology 15, 9e20. Jones, P.R., 1980. Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeology 12, 153e165. Jones, P.R., 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai Gorge. In: Leakey, M.D., Roe, D. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge, vol. 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254e298. Keeley, L.H., Toth, N., 1981. Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Nature 293, 464e465. Kuhn, S.L., 1990. A geometric Index of reduction for unifacial stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17, 583e593. Kuhn, S.L., Arsebuk, G., Howell, F.C., 1996. The Middle Pleistocene lithic assemblage orient 22, 31e49. from Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey. Pale n, T., Gonza lez-Urquijo, J., 2015. Recycling in the Early Middle Paleolithic: the role Lazue of resharpening flakes assessed through techno-functional analysis. Quaternary International 361, 229e237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.008. Longo, L., Peretto, C., Sozzi, M., Vannucci, S., 1997. Artefacts, outils ou supports epuises? Une nouvelle approche pour l'etude des industries du paleolithique ancien: le cas d'Isernia La Pineta (Molise, Italie Centrale). L'Anthropologie 101, 579e596. Malinsky-Buller, A., Ekshtain, R., Hovers, E., 2014. Organization of lithic technology at 'Ein Qashish, a late Middle Paleolithic open-air site in Israel. Quaternary International 331, 234e247. riens de Kebara (fouilles Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., 1991. Les outils lithiques mouste 1982e1985). In: Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B. (Eds.), Le squelette rien de Kebara 2, Cahiers de Pale oanthropologie. CNRS, Paris, pp. 49e85. mouste Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., Speth, J.D., Stiner, M.C., 2006. Middle Paleolithic settlement patterns in the Levant. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York, pp. 149e169. Munday, F.C., 1977. Nahal Aqev (D35): a stratified, open-air Mousterian occupation in the Avdat/Aqev area. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 2. SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 35e60. Nishiaki, Y., Copeland, L., 1992. Keoue Cave, Northern Lebanon, and its place in the context of the Levantine Mousterian. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Kimura, T. (Eds.), The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia. Hakusen-Sha, Tokyo, pp. 107e127. Oron, M., Goren-Inbar, N., 2014. Mousterian Intra-site spatial patterning at Quneitra, Golan Heights. Quaternary International 331, 186e202. Roebroeks, W., Kolen, J., Van Poecke, M., Van Gijn, A., 1997. “Site J”: an early Weichselian (Middle Palaeolithic) flint scatter at Maastricht-Belvedere, The o 9, 143e172. Netherlands. Pale Roche, H., 2005. From simple flaking to shaping: stone-knapping evolution among early hominins. In: Roux, V., Bril, B. (Eds.), Stone Knapping: the Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behavior. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 35e53. Rolland, N., Dibble, H.L., 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55, 480e499. Ronen, A., 1974. Tirat Carmel: a Mousterian Open-air Site in Israel. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Ronen, A., 1984. Sefunim Prehistoric Sites, Mount Carmel, Israel. In: BAR 230. Oxford. Sharon, G., Grosman, L., Fluck, H., Melamed, Y., Rak, Y., Rabinovich, R., 2010. The first two excavation seasons at NMO: a Mousterian site at the bank of the Jordan River. Eurasian Prehistory 7, 135e157. Sharon, G., Oron, M., 2014. The lithic tool arsenal of a Mousterian hunter. Quaternary International 331, 167e185. Toth, N., 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 101e120. Tsatskin, A., Zaidner, Y., 2014. Geoarchaeological context of the later phases of Mousterian occupation (80-115 ka) at Nesher Ramla, Israel: soil erosion, deposition and pedogenic processes. Quaternary International 331, 103e114. Walker, P.L., 1978. Butchering and stone tool function. American Antiquity 43, 710e715. Wenban-Smith, F.F., Allen, P., Bates, M.R., Parfitt, S. a., Preece, R.C., Stewart, J.R., Turner, C., Whittaker, J.E., 2006. The Clactonian elephant butchery site at Southfleet Road, Ebbsfleet, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science 21, 471e483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1033. Zaidner, Y., 2013. Adaptive flexibility of Oldowan hominins: secondary use of flakes at Bizat Ruhama, Israel. PLoS ONE 8 (6), e66851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0066851. Zaidner, Y., 2014. A new open-air Middle Paleolithic site at Nesher Ramla, Israel. Stratum Plus 2014 (1), 29e44. Zaidner, Y., Frumkin, A., Porat, N., Tsatskin, A., Reuven, Y., Weissbrod, L., 2014. A series of Mousterian occupations in a new type of site: the Nesher Ramla karst depression, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 66, 1e17.