lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

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

Middle Paleolithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A viewfrom Nesher Ramla, Israel

Yossi Zaidner a, b, *, Leore Grosman b

a Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Israelb Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:Middle PaleolithicSouthern LevantSidescrapersResharpening flakesRecyclingMaintenance

* Corresponding author. Zinman Institute of ArchHaifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Israel.

E-mail address: yzaidner@research.haifa.ac.il (Y. Z

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.0371040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner,Ramla, Israel, Quaternary International (201

a b s t r a c t

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 MiddlePaleolithic site of Nesher Ramla, Israel, represents a rare case in which sidescrapers were frequentlymodified by removal of longitudinal spalls from their edges. Both parent sidescrapers and spalls, 'LongSharpening Flakes' (LSF), are abundant throughout the site's stratigraphy, providing a rare opportunityfor a complementary study of both artifact groups. The aim of the present study is to reconstruct the lifehistory of sidescrapers retrieved from Nesher Ramla. We ask how the LSF removal changed themorphology of the sidescraper edge, at which stage of the sidescraper life-history it occurred, what wasthe purpose of LSF removal and was it a part of a recycling system aimed at producing a new edge/tooltype or the maintenance of the existing tool edge.

The studied artifacts (100 parent sidescrapers and 60 complete LSF) were sampled randomly from themost intensively occupied and richest layers of the site. Our results suggest that sidescraper edgemodification was a well-mastered and skillful process that resulted in standardized and morphologicallydistinct products. In most cases the sidescrapers were not further retouched after the LSF removal. Thisleads us to propose that the major goal was to transform the sidescraper into a tool with a sharp, straightand flat edge. The LSF removal at Nesher Ramla provides an exceptional case in which a simple raw edgewas deliberately manufactured at the expense of the previously retouched edge. This reinforces theprevious assumptions that simple raw edges were often preferred over retouched ones.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The resharpening of sidescrapers is a widely discussed issue inrecent Middle Paleolithic studies. The majority of these studies arebased on the assumption that the sidescrapers' edges wereresharpened by continuous retouch in order to extend their use-lives (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 onarchaeological material is difficult. In most cases it is hard to tellwhether the form of the sidescraper' edge is a result of repeatedretouching or a single retouch event. Only a few cases showempirical evidence for sidescraper resharpening by retouch. Theseare resharpening flakes with evidence of use that were refitted tothe parent scrapers (e.g. Frison, 1968) and double patinated

aeology, University of Haifa,

aidner).

reserved.

Y., Grosman, L., Middle Paleo4), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

scrapers (e.g. Amick, this volume). However, in the majority ofarchaeological 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 lithicassemblage provide direct evidence for the resharpening. A fewtypes of spalls were recognized, one of the most common is aremoval of a long spall parallel to the longitudinal axes of the side-scraper which removes a part of, or the entire retouched edge(Cornford, 1986; Bourguignon, 1992; Roebroeks et al., 1997; Lazu�enand Gonz�alez-Urquijo, this volume). Such a method of sidescrapertransformation is rarely known and was reported from only a fewassemblages in theMiddlePaleolithicof Europe andAfrica (Cornford,1986; Bourguignon, 1992; Roebrocks et al., 1997; Douze, 2014). Theoutcome of long spall removal is ‘parent sidescrapers’ and spallsknownas 'LongSharpening Flakes' (hereafter LSF; Cornford,1986), or“coup de tranchet lateral” (Bourguignon, 1992). The LSFs preserveevidence for a stage at which the sidescraper edgewas transformed,shedding some light on the reason for the resharpening and ondecision-making of the Middle Paleolithic hominins.

lithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesherj.quaint.2014.11.037

Fig. 1. Location of Nesher Ramla in the Southern Levant and the stratigraphic section (layers discussed in the text are marked in gray).

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e102

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle Paleolithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from NesherRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.037

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of sidescraper and LSF removed from its edge.

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10 3

While in the case of resharpening by retouch the generalmorphology of the sidescraper will not change much, the removalof LSF results in general renovation and change of the edgemorphology. This raises the question whether LSF removal wasintended to recycle the implement into a different type of tool, orwas it a part of the sidescraper maintenance. In the latter case it isexpected that the sidescraper edge would be restored into a similarkind of edge by a new retouch series. Cornford (1986) in her workon LSFs from La Cotte de Saint Brelade, Jersey, English Channel,suggested that spalls were removed in order to produce a newunmodified edge with a sharper angle. Her study shows that in thevast majority of cases, the edges of the parent sidescrapers were notrestored by retouch, but were used unmodified. She concluded thatfor the case of La Cotte de Saint Brelade the unmodified edges werenot only used, but deliberately manufactured for use (Cornford,1986, p. 349). At site J, Maastricht-Belvedere, refitting and use-wear analysis showed that the parent implement was trans-formed 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 newtool-type with different edge morphology is only one facet of LSFremoval technique. Removal of a small longitudinal spall wasembedded within the sequence of bifacial knife preparation andmaintenance in the Central European Middle and Upper Paleolithic(J€oris et al., this volume), providing a case in which a similartechnique was used as part of tool shaping and maintenance. TheLSF removal was also a part of sidescraper maintenance in QuinaMousterian assemblages (Bourguignon, 1992).

In the Levantine record the evidence for sidescraper resharp-ening is meager. The sidescrapers in the Levantine Middle Paleo-lithic sites are mostly lightly retouched and show no directevidence for reuse or maintenance, except rare cases of doublepatinated implements (e.g. Goren-Inbar, 1990; Hovers, 2009). Todate, LSF removal has only been reported from the open-air MiddlePaleolithic site of Nesher Ramla (Zaidner et al., 2014) and the LowerPaleolithic site of Holon (Malinsky-Buller, personal communica-tion). In Nesher Ramla both parent sidescrapers and LSF areabundant throughout the site's stratigraphy providing a rare op-portunity for a complementary study of both artifact groups.

The aim of the present study is to reconstruct the life history ofsidescrapers in Nesher Ramla. We address the following questions:how the LSF removal changed the morphology of the sidescraperedge; at which stage of sidescraper life-history it occurred; whatwas the purpose of LSF removal; was it a part of a recycling practiceaimed at producing a new edge/tool type or the maintenance of theexisting tool edge.

2. Nesher Ramla

The Nesher Ramla open-air Middle Paleolithic site is situated atan elevation of 85e120 masl on the chalk terrain bordering thecoastal plain of Israel (Fig. 1). The site occupies a funnel-shapedkarst depression 40 m wide at the top and 11 m wide at the bot-tom of the archaeological sequence (Zaidner et al., 2014).

Depressions are formed in the fissured Senonian chalk of 'EnZetim Formation that overlies hard Turonian limestone of the B'inaFormation whose lower portion contains large karst voids andcaves (Frumkin and Gvirtzman, 2006). The larger undergroundvoids are susceptible to roof collapse and subsidence of the over-burden (Frumkin et al., 2009). The depressions were formed bygravitational deformation, subsidence and collapse above thesekarst cavities (Frumkin et al., 2015). The sedimentary sequence wasshaped by cyclic colluviation of materials into the depression,

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle PaleoRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

waterlogging, in situ pedogenesis and human occupation (Tsatskinand Zaidner, 2014).

Middle Paleolithic cultural remains were uncovered in a 8 mthick sequence, 107.5e99 m asl, ca. 12 m below the rim of thedepression (Fig.1). A set of single-grain OSLmeasurements (Zaidneret al., 2014) provided dates from 170 ± 12 at the bottom to 78 ± 6 kaat the top of the anthropogenic sequence placing the Mousterianoccupation at the site within the middle part of the LevantineMiddle Paleolithic. The sequence was divided into six major strati-graphic units (Units IeVI) with some internal subdivisions. Thecultural remains show significant vertical variation with markedincrease in densities of stone artifacts observed in the lower part ofthe sequence beginning within Unit II. Clear evidence for in situhominid activities, especially in the lower part of the sequence, in-cludes concentrations of manuports associated with stone artifactsand abundant remains of small to large sized fauna, some exhibitingculturalmodifications (see Zaidner et al., 2014). Ash lenseswere alsoidentified mainly in Units III and V (Friesem et al., 2014).

The lithic assemblage comprises ~81,000 artifacts larger than2 cm. The assemblage shows noticeable variations in the numbersof artifacts and the frequencies of different technological andtypological groups along the site's stratigraphic sequence. Side-scrapers and Levallois cores, flakes and points occur throughout thearchaeological sequence (Zaidner, 2014; Zaidner et al., 2014). TheNesher Ramla retouched tool-kit is highly standardized and ischaracterized by a high frequency of carefully and intensivelyretouched sidescrapers, unprecedented in open-air sites and in thevast majority of caves in the Levant (see Hovers, 2009). In someunits at Nesher Ramla, sidescraper frequencies among theretouched tools reach 60% (Zaidner et al., 2014).

The evidence for LSF removal at Nesher Ramla derives from twosets of artifacts. The first set is composed of parent tools that exhibitscars of the removal of LSF on their edges (Fig. 2). The second set iscomposed of LSF. The parent tools are mostly sidescrapers, butsome lightly retouched flakes and unmodified pieces with LSF scarswere also identified and included in the studied sample.

3. Methods

The studied sample includes artifacts from both groups thatwere retrieved from the two most intensively occupied and richestlayers of the site e Units III and V. The sample of 100 parent toolsand 60 complete LSF larger than 2 cmwas collected from randomlyselected excavation units.

lithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesherj.quaint.2014.11.037

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 showsevidence for retouch after the LSF removal.

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e104

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle Paleolithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from NesherRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.037

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.

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10 5

Both groups of artifacts were subjected to technological,morphological andmetrical observations. The LSF were 3D scannedat the Computerized Archaeology Laboratory, Institute of Archae-ology, The Hebrew University. The 3D scanner uses structured lighttechnology to obtain the complete geometry of the artifacts' sur-face. The digital model provides a precise image of the surface ofthe scanned object. The software developed by Polymetric Tech-nology (Darmstadt, Germany) provides a three dimensional digitalmodel that presents a complete, reliable image of the original item,the LSF (Fig. 3). The resulting 3D digital model was furthermanipulated within the computer software Artifact3-D (Grosman

Fig. 6. LSF e a. angle calculations (red e old edge angle; blue e complementary angleof 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). (Forinterpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred tothe web version of this article.)

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle PaleoRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

et al., 2014) for manual positioning, generating views, dimensionsand 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 thatwere generated after the positioning of the 3D model. A new pro-cedure was written for calculating the angles of the selected sec-tions (Fig. 6a). The angles were selected manually by three pointson each side of an angle and on the vertices. The following stepswere conducted for each LSF in Artifact3-D:

1. Manual positioning based on standard technological criteria forlithic artifacts, primarily the location of the point of percussionand the knapping direction.

2. Extracting basic measurements including the maximum lengthof the object.

3. Marking on the 3D image the locations of sections at the 1/5, 1/2and 4/5 length, perpendicular to the length axis (Fig. 6b).

4. Measuring two angles on each section: the original edge of theartifact and the complementary angle of the new edge (furtherdiscussion below).

4. Parent tools

The LSFs were usually struck from the distal end of the parenttool (70%). In rare cases (6.5%) two opposite spalls were removed

lithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesherj.quaint.2014.11.037

Fig. 7. Parent sidescrapers e frequencies of various types of striking platforms from which LSF was removed.

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e106

from the same edge, struck from the distal and the proximal edges.In 99% of the cases the LSFs were removed from the dorsal surfaceof the parent tools. The striking platformwas primarily prepared onthe ventral surface of the parent tool by a few small removals oreven a single one creating a small truncation (Figs. 4 and 7). Oc-casionally, already available surfaces were used (edges, hingededges, breaks) with little preparation. Only rarely is careful prep-aration visible. The majority of LSFs were removed from singlesidescrapers (78%), 20% from double sidescrapers and a few fromboth retouched edges of double sidescrapers.

Only in about 20% of the cases was the entire edge of the parenttool removed by an LSF. Given that approximately fifty percent ofLSF scars have a hinged termination, we cannot rule out the pos-sibility that some of the short removals could be a result of knap-ping mistakes. Nonetheless, LSF scars with feather termination arestill short and on average cover only about half of the parent tooledge (Table 1; the ratio between parent tool edge length/LSF scarlength is 0.56) suggesting that partial removal of the edgewas mostlikely preplanned. Whatever the case may be, the remaining partsof the original sidescraper edge provides a rare opportunity toexamine the morphology of the original sidescraper edge and shedsome light on the goal of the LSF removal.

The study of the original edge demonstrates that the LSFs wereremoved mostly from sidescrapers and in a few cases from unre-touched flakes. The LSFs were removed from sidescrapers withdifferent intensity of retouch (Fig. 8). While there are some differ-ences in the retouch intensity observed on LSFs and sidescrapers(Fig. 8), similar general trend could be observed. Thereby, not theintensity of the retouch seems to be the key aspect in the decisionto remove the LSF from sidescrapers' edges.

Table 1Metric data for sidescrapers and LSFs.

Length Length-retouchededge

Length- LSFscar (largerthan 20 mm)

Ratio: lengthof retouchededge/lengthof LSF scar

SidescrapersMean 46.6 39.7 22.8 (30.1) 0.5Std 10.1 12.1 9.9 (7.48) 0.2Minimum 30.0 0.0 5.0 (20.1) 0.1Maximum 85.0 85.0 46.0 (46.0) 1.0LSFMean 30.9Std 13.6Minimum 2.7Maximum 76.7

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle PaleoRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

The angle and the state of the edge provide better insights intothe reasoning behind such decisions. At this stage, though, wewerenot able to conduct 3D analysis on the parent sidescrapers there-fore visual observations were conducted. In 34% of the cases LSFremoval reduces the angle of the parent tool edge, making itsharper (Fig. 9). In 20% of the cases the remaining edge is either dullor irregular, exhibiting small hinges, steps and notches that couldbe caused by use, indicating that LSF was removed in order torenew a worn edge. In 46% of the examined cases, the remainingpart of the original edge exhibits a relatively sharp angle and fineregularly retouched edge, which make the goal of LSF removalunclear (Fig. 9).

Additional insights into the goals of LSF removal come from theabsence of evidence for post-LSF detachment modification. Thus,only on 75% of the parent tools a two-stage reduction sequence isvisible: 1. Retouching; 2. Spall removal (Figs. 4, 10 and 11). Inrelatively rare cases, when a third stagewas added to this sequence,it usually consisted of light retouch that only partially covers thescar of LSF removal. Although it is possible that in some casesintensive retouch erased evidence for LSF detachment, the highfrequency of pieces with a two-stage reduction sequence indicatesthat restoring the sidescraper edge was not a major goal of LSFremoval.

5. The LSFs

After positioning, the length of the LSF was calculated revealingan average of 30 mm (Table 1). It is interesting to note that the

Fig. 8. Parent sidescrapers and LSFs e intensity of retouch. Unknown means thatentire edge was removed by LSF (for sidescrapers) or by scar of previous LSF removal(for LSFs).

lithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesherj.quaint.2014.11.037

Fig. 9. Parent sidescrapers e Possible reasons for LSF removal according to visualobservations. Sharper angle e if the remains of retouched edge indicate that LSFremoval formed edge with a sharper angle; Unclear e the LSF removal was either verylong (removed entire, or almost entire, edge), too short, or does not change themorphology of the edge; Removing irregularities e if the remains of retouched edgeexhibit irregularities; Sharpening a dull edge e the remains of retouched edge are dulland show macroscopic signs of wear.

Fig. 11. Parent sidescrapers e Reconstruction of sidescraper reduction sequence: 1.Preparation of sidescraper edge by retouch (black); 2. LSF removal (yellow); 3. Newseries 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 thereferences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version ofthis article.)

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10 7

average length of the LSFs is similar to the length of the LSFs scars(longer than 2 cm) on the parent sidescrapers. This further verifiesthat the LSFs and the parent sidescrapers are part of the samereduction sequence. One of the surfaces of the LSF is the originalventral face of the parent sidescraper. Consequently, the angle ofthe cutting edge of the original tool can be calculated and the newedge of the sidescraper will be the complementary angle of theopposite angle (Fig. 12). For each spall three sections were extractedand the lateral angles on the original ventral surface of each sectionwere calculated. Thiswas followedbya subtractionwhich allowedusto obtain both the old and new angles of the sidescraper, before andafter the LSFblow (Fig.12). Theseangleswere calculated for theentireassemblage and separately for LSFs with continuous retouch (29).

Clear differences were found between the average angle of thenewand old edge of the original scraper in all three locations on thelength axis of the LSF e 1/5, center and 4/5. At the center, theoriginal 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 anglewas reduced to a greater extent while near the edge of the LSF (4/5location) the difference is similar to the center profile measure-ments. These results are further verified when presenting the anglevalues of the artifacts that have remnants of continuous retouch onthe old edge (29). Here, the difference between the old and the newedge at the center is even greater (Fig. 13). Thus, the analysis sug-gests that the LSF were struck from the parent scraper in order to

Fig. 10. Parent sidescrapers e signs of edge modifications after LSF removal.

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle PaleoRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

obtain about 10� sharper edge. In addition, the analysis demon-strates that the modification of the sidescrapers is standardized asevidenced by the low values of the standard deviation of thecalculated angles. The knappers were skilled and planned inadvance the angle for the required tool.

Fig. 12. LSF e Angle calculation e A side view of a sidescraper and a closer view of theedge from which the spall was detached, i.e., the spalls' side section. The anglesmarked are the ones that can be calculated on the detached spall. Red is the anglebetween the ventral face of the parent sidescraper and its retouched edge, i.e. the oldedge of the sidescraper; blue represents the angle between the ventral face of theparent sidescraper and the ventral face of the LSF; green is the complementary angle ofblue and it represents the new edge attained by LSF removal. (For interpretation of thereferences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version ofthis article.)

lithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesherj.quaint.2014.11.037

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 wereincluded). 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 ofthe 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 ofthis article.)

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e108

6. Discussion

The complementary study of parent sidescrapers and LSF atNesher Ramla demonstrates that sidescraper edge modificationwas a well-mastered and skillful process that resulted in stan-dardized and morphologically distinct products. The procedurestarted with preparation of a small truncation on the ventral sur-face of the sidescraper that served as striking platform for the spallremoval. In spite of the low investment in striking platform prep-aration, the results of our study show surprisingly high standardi-zation in the morphology of the achieved edge. The LSF assemblageanalysis demonstrates that the angle of the edge formed by spallremoval is significantly sharper than the original. This was achievedby directing and angling the blow in a way that removed a highervolume of material from the dorsal surface compared to the ventralsurface of the parent flake (Fig. 14). The scar of an LSF removalusually extends over a part of the retouched edge forming an edgethat is partially retouched and partially flat. Only in rare occasionsdoes the LSF remove the entire edge of the parent tool.

In most studies, resharpening of sidescrapers is viewed as partof continuous process of edge maintenance (e.g., Kuhn, 1990;Rolland and Dibble, 1990; Dibble, 1995; Clarkson, 2002; Erenet al., 2005; Hiscock and Clarkson, 2005). The sidescrapers areconceived as tools of relatively static form that are used andresharpened in a similar way, until the loss of volume does not

Fig. 14. Schematic width section of sidescraper and LSF showing the difference inwidth between the ventral and dorsal sides of LSF. The ability of the knappers toremove a higher volume of material from the dorsal surface of the sidescraper resultedin a lower angle of the attained edge.

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle PaleoRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

permit further reduction. The study presented here points to asystem of considerably higher complexity in which sidescraperedge modification served a number of goals from maintenance toformation of a new type of edge. The cases of edge maintenancestrategies at Nesher Ramla are exemplified by evidence for removalof damaged and dull edges and reinstallment of retouched edgesafter the LSF removal.

The evidence from Nesher Ramla suggests that LSFs removedrelatively sharp, regular and moderately retouched edges. More-over, majority of the parent sidescrapers were not retouched afterLSF removal. Therefore, maintenance and reestablishment of theretouched edges seem to be of secondary importance in sidescrapermodification strategies at Nesher Ramla. In some studies (e.g.Lazu�en and Gonz�alez-Urquijo, this volume) the sharpening flakeswere retouched and used after their removal from parent-tools,suggesting that blank production could also be part of sidescrapermodification strategies. Nevertheless, at Nesher Ramla LSFs showno evidence for post-detachment retouch or use (see also Cornford,1986).

The high frequency of parent tools that were not furtherretouched after LSF removal leads us to propose that the major goalwas to transform the sidescraper into a tool with sharp, straight flatedge e “recycling”. Therefore, we agree with Cornford's interpre-tation of LSFs from La Cotte de Saint Brelade that “it was the cuttingproperties of a new edge that was the object of removing the oldone” (Cornford, 1986, p. 348). Cornford suggested that the goal ofLSF at La Cotte de Saint Brelade was to produce raw edges forbutchering activities. Her view is based upon assumptions thatbutchering was one of the main activities at La Cotte de SaintBrelade and that raw edges aremost appropriate for butchering andmeat cutting. The latter is supported by archaeological studies inwhich simple flakes with sharp edges were found to be associatedwith butchering activities (e.g. Clark and Haynes, 1969; Keeley andToth, 1981; Longo et al., 1997; Barkai et al., 2010) and experimentalstudies that pointed to high efficiency of unmodified edges in meatcutting (Walker, 1978; Jones, 1980, 1994; Toth, 1985; Jobson, 1986;Frison, 1989; Dewbury and Russell, 2007). Cornford further sug-gested that the rise in frequencies of LSFs in some of the layers of LaCotte de Saint Brelade correlates with diminishing supply of flint at

lithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesherj.quaint.2014.11.037

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10 9

the site. In other words, growing shortages of fresh blanks withsuitably long edges resulted in a need to reuse existing retouchedtools for making these edges.

Except for the frequent use of LSF removal technique, additionalparallels can be drawn between Nesher Ramla and La Cotte de SaintBrelade. La Cotte de Saint Brelade is located in a large fissure withina granite cliff that is filled with thick layers of debris and archae-ological sediments. Some archaeological layers of the site arecharacterized by dense concentrations of broken bone splintersbelonging to a wide range of species and associated with numerouslithic artifacts suggesting that the site served as a base-camp towhich hunted animals were brought. Other layers show heap-likeconcentrations of large bones, with limited species representationand a few artifacts suggesting that the site was used as a naturalpitfall for large animals (Callow and Cornford, 1986). Hunting andbutchering seem to be the main activities in the latter type ofoccupation, while more variable activities are suggested for theformer type. LSFs seem to occur throughout the sequence withoutpreference for either type of occupation. Nesher Ramla shows adichotomy in faunal remains similar to La Cotte de Saint Brelade. Atthe site heaps of large, often complete and sometimes articulatedbones were found alongside concentrations of mostly broken andoften burnt bone splinters. The faunal assemblages are still understudy and data on species representation from different concen-trations is presently unavailable. However, it is already clear thataurochs were one of the major species hunted at Nesher Ramla(Zaidner et al., 2014).

In addition to the specific characteristics of the faunal assem-blages, the lithic assemblage of Nesher Ramla differs from otherMousterian assemblages known from both cave and open-air sitesin the Levant. The open-air sites commonly exhibit low frequenciesof Levallois debitage (IL), a low ratio of unretouched Levalloisblanks among tools (ILty) and high technological and typologicaldiversity (Ronen, 1974; Munday, 1977; Goren-Inbar, 1990; Gilead,1995; Hovers et al., 2008; Hovers, 2009). It has been suggested thatthese differences are the result of specific site functions, moreintensive lithic reduction and higher expediency of the lithictechnology 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; Sharonand Oron, 2014). The majority of caves show higher frequencies ofLevallois debitage and low frequencies of retouched tools (Jelinek,1975, 1982; Ronen, 1984; Meignen and Bar-Yosef, 1991; Nishiakiand Copeland, 1992; Hovers, 1998, 2009). Both Levallois indices (ILand ILty) at Nesher Ramla are lower than in most of the cave sites,but higher than indices calculated for open-air sites. Moreover, theNesher Ramla retouched tool assemblage is highly standardizedand consists of only a few dominant types. The lower levels of thesite are characterized by a high frequency of carefully preparedsidescrapers, unprecedented in open-air sites and in the vast ma-jority of caves in the Levant (see Hovers, 2009). Denticulates andnotches, on the other hand, which are common types especially inopen-air sites (Ronen, 1974; Gilead, 1980; Goren-Inbar, 1990;Hovers et al., 2008), are virtually absent in the lower levels ofNesher Ramla.

On the basis of the frequent faunal articulations, presence ofcomplete bones, abundance of aurochs and highly standardizedtool-kit, it was hypothesized that the site was used as a huntingdestination where initial stages of butchery and some consump-tion took place (Zaidner et al., 2014). In this context we can pre-sume, that similar to La Cotte de Saint Brelade, the sidescrapermodification strategy was directed toward the production of rawedges for butchering. However, even if sidescrapers were trans-formed in response to an immediate need for sharp implements, itis not yet clear why flakes with sharp edges were not directly

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle PaleoRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

produced from the cores. Unlike La Cotte de Saint Brelade, rawmaterial availability seems not to be a constraint in the NesherRamla area, since chert is locally available from primary (expo-sures of the Mishash formation) and secondary sources (pebblesfrom Ayalon riverbeds).

The use of simple sharp edged flakes is known from the onset ofthe 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 andRoche, 2005; Roche, 2005; Wenban-Smith et al., 2006; Barkaiet al., 2010; Zaidner, 2013). However, the LSF removal at NesherRamla provides an exceptional case inwhich a simple raw edgewasdeliberatelymanufactured at the expense of a previously retouchededge. Whatever the reason for sidescraper modification at NesherRamla, it is clear that interpretations of tool functions at the siteshould not be based on retouched tools alone. Future analysisshould integrate use-wear analysis to provide stronger clues to theunderstanding of tool function. In general, modification by retouchis the main means currently available for distinguishing betweentools and d�ebitage. Yet this is a criterion needed for a standardizedanalysis i.e., common scientific language, while we all suspect thatlarge portions of the d�ebitage were also selected by hominins forutilization. The present study strengthens this idea by demon-strating 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 PaleolithicPerspective” where evidence for recycling was presented. Discus-sions were conducted on the definition of recycling in prehistoricresearch and how we can identify recycling activities in the mate-rial remains. Although this issue is beyond the present contribu-tion, we propose that the Nesher Ramla LSF accords well with thedefinitions of recycling as discussed at the workshop. The largequantities of both sidescrapers and LSFs attest to the recycling ac-tivities of the Nesher Ramla hominins, indicating that they oftenchose to manipulate the old tools and not knap the fresh rawmaterial.

Acknowledgements

We thank the organizers, Ran Barkai, Cristina Lemorini andManuel Vaquero for inviting us to take part in “The Origin ofRecycling: A Paleolithic Perspective”, a workshop that was kindlysupported by the Israel Science Foundation and the Wenner-GrenFoundation. We thank the Nesher Ramla factory for funding theexcavations and the Lady Davis Foundation at the Institute ofArchaeology, The Hebrew University for funding a post-doctoralscholarship (YZ). We also thank Yad Hanadiv Foundation for asignificant contribution to the Computerized Archaeology Labora-tory at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University. Wethank 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 fortheir helpful comments.

References

Amick, D.S., 2014. The recycling of material culture today and during the Paleolithic.Quaternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.059 (thisvolume).

Bamforth, D.B., 2002. High-tech Foragers? Folsom and Later Paleoindian Technologyon the Great Plains 1 (16), 55e98.

Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., 2010. Palaeolithic cutlery 400 000e200 000years ago: tiny meat-cutting tools from Qesem Cave, Israel. Antiquity 84, 325.

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

lithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesherj.quaint.2014.11.037

Y. Zaidner, L. Grosman / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e1010

Callow, P., Cornford, J.M., 1986. La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey. Excavations by C.B.M.McBurney 1961e1978. Geo Books, Norwich.

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 andbifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification.Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 65e75.

Cornford, J.M., 1986. Specialised resharpening techniques and evidence of hand-edness. In: Callow, P., Cornford, J.M. (Eds.), La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey. Ex-cavations by C.B.M. McBurney 1961e1978. Geo Books, Norwich, pp. 337e351.

Delagnes, A., Roche, H., 2005. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: the case ofLokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 435e472.

Dewbury, A.G., Russell, N., 2007. Relative frequency of butchering cutmarks pro-duced by obsidian and flint: an experimental approach. Journal of Archaeo-logical 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 andTheory 2, 299e368.

Douze, K., 2014. A new chrono-cultural marker for the early Middle Stone Age inEthiopia: the tranchet blow process on convergent tools from Gademotta andKulkuletti 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 Archae-ological Science 32, 1190e1201.

Frison, G.C., 1968. A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. AmericanAntiquity 33, 149e155.

Frison, G.C., 1989. Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on African ele-phants. American Antiquity 54, 766e784.

Friesem, D.E., Zaidner, Y., Shahack-Gross, R., 2014. Formation processes and com-bustion features at the lower layers of the Middle Palaeolithic open-air site ofNesher Ramla, Israel. Quaternary International 331, 128e138.

Frumkin, A., Gvirtzman, H., 2006. Cross-formational rising groundwater at anartesian karstic basin: the Ayalon Saline Anomaly. Israel Journal of Hydrology318, 216e333.

Frumkin, A., Karkanas, P., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Shahack-Gross, 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. Saggingand collapse sinkholes over hypogenic hydrothermal karst in a carbonateterrain. Geomorphology 229, 45e57.

Gao, X., Norton, C.J., 2002. A critique of the Chinese “Middle Palaeolithic”. Antiquity76, 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 theLevant: the case of Fara II, Israel. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), TheDefinition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, AnnArbor, pp. 79e92.

Goren-Inbar, N., 1990. The lithic assemblages. In: Goren-Inbar, N. (Ed.), Quneitra: aMousterian 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 scanningtechnology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal ofArchaeological Science 35, 3101e3110.

Grosman, L., Karasik, A., Harush, O., Smilansky, U., 2014. Archaeology in three di-mensions: computer-based methods in archaeological research. Journal ofEastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 2, 48e64.

Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., 2005. Experimental evaluation of Kuhn's geometric indexof reduction and the flat-flake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 32,1015e1022.

Hovers, E., 1990. The exploitation of rawmaterial 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 ofthe 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 PrehistoricSociety 38, 7e40.

Jelinek, A., 1975. A preliminary report on some Lower and Middle Paleolithic in-dustries from the Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel (Israel). In: Wendorf, F.,Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMUPress, Dallas, pp. 279e316.

Jelinek, A., 1982. The Middle Paleolithic in the Southern Levant, with comments onthe appearance of modern Homo sapiens. In: Ronen, A. (Ed.), The Transition

Please cite this article in press as: Zaidner, Y., Grosman, L., Middle PaleoRamla, Israel, Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the Origin of Modern Man, BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 151. Oxford, pp. 57e104.

Jobson, R.W., 1986. Stone tool morphology and rabbit butchering. Lithic Technology15, 9e20.

Jones, P.R., 1980. Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevancefor Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeology 12, 153e165.

Jones, P.R., 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries ofOlduvai Gorge. In: Leakey, M.D., Roe, D. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge, vol. 5. CambridgeUniversity 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 ofArchaeological Science 17, 583e593.

Kuhn, S.L., Arsebuk, G., Howell, F.C., 1996. The Middle Pleistocene lithic assemblagefrom Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey. Pal�eorient 22, 31e49.

Lazu�en, T., Gonz�alez-Urquijo, J., 2014. Recycling in the Early Middle Paleolithic: therole of resharpening flakes assessed through techno-functional analysis. Qua-ternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.008 (thisvolume).

Longo, L., Peretto, C., Sozzi, M., Vannucci, S., 1997. Artefacts, outils ou supportsepuises? Une nouvelle approche pour l'etude des industries du paleolithiqueancien: le cas d'Isernia La Pineta (Molise, Italie Centrale). L'Anthropologie 101,579e596.

Malinsky-Buller, A., Ekshtain, R., Hovers, E., 2014. Organization of lithic technologyat 'Ein Qashish, a late Middle Paleolithic open-air site in Israel. QuaternaryInternational 331, 234e247.

Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., 1991. Les outils lithiques moust�eriens de Kebara (fouilles1982e1985). In: Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B. (Eds.), Le squelettemoust�erien de Kebara 2, Cahiers de Pal�eoanthropologie. CNRS, Paris, pp. 49e85.

Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., Speth, J.D., Stiner, M.C., 2006. Middle Paleolithic settle-ment patterns in the Levant. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions beforethe Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and MiddleStone Age. Springer, New York, pp. 149e169.

Munday, F.C., 1977. Nahal Aqev (D35): a stratified, open-air Mousterian occupationin the Avdat/Aqev area. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Palaeoenviron-ments 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 thecontext 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 earlyWeichselian (Middle Palaeolithic) flint scatter at Maastricht-Belvedere, TheNetherlands. Pal�eo 9, 143e172.

Roche, H., 2005. From simple flaking to shaping: stone-knapping evolution amongearly hominins. In: Roux, V., Bril, B. (Eds.), Stone Knapping: the NecessaryConditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behavior. McDonald Institute for Archaeo-logical 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 ofArchaeology, 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 firsttwo excavation seasons at NMO: a Mousterian site at the bank of the JordanRiver. Eurasian Prehistory 7, 135e157.

Sharon, G., Oron, M., 2014. The lithic tool arsenal of a Mousterian hunter. Quater-nary International 331, 167e185.

Toth, N., 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. Journalof Archaeological Science 12, 101e120.

Tsatskin, A., Zaidner, Y., 2014. Geoarchaeological context of the later phasesof Mousterian occupation (80-115 ka) at Nesher Ramla, Israel: soilerosion, 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 atSouthfleet 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 flakesat 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 Ramlakarst depression, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 66, 1e17.

lithic sidescrapers were resharped or recycled? A view from Nesherj.quaint.2014.11.037