Regional variability in late Lower Paleolithic Amudian blade technology: Analyzing new data from...

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e24

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

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

Regional variability in late Lower Paleolithic Amudian bladetechnology: Analyzing new data from Qesem, Tabun and Yabrud I

Ron Shimelmitz a, b, *, Ran Barkai c, Avi Gopher c

a Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905 Haifa, Israelb The David Yellin Academic College of Education, Jerusalem 91035, Israelc Marco and Sonia Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:AmudianQesem CaveTabun CaveYabrud ITechnological choicesBlade production

* Corresponding author. Zinman Institute of ArchMount Carmel, 31905 Haifa, Israel.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Shim

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.0371040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA.

Please cite this article in press as: Shimelmitdata from Qesem, Tabun and Yabrud I, Quat

a b s t r a c t

The AcheuloeYabrudian Cultural Complex (AYCC) of the late Lower Paleolithic Levant consists of threemajor industries, one of which is the blade-dominated Amudian. This paper provides an in-depthcomparison of the Amudian blade industry from three major AYCC sites in the Levant e Qesem Cave,Tabun Cave and Yabrud Rockshelter I. The results demonstrate high inter-site similarity in Amudian bladetechnology and in product (blades) characteristics e i.e., a regional, clearly defined Amudian bladeproduction technology. Nevertheless, differences in particular technological choices along the reductionsequences of blade production between the sites represent minute sub-regional technological variabilitywithin the Amudian. The evidence presented in this paper, together with many other innovativebehavioral patterns seen in the AYCC, especially as reflected at Qesem Cave, may mark the end of a LowerPaleolithic Acheulian way of life that lasted over a million years in the Levant, and the beginning of a newera.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA.

1. Introduction

The AcheuloeYabrudian cultural complex (AYCC) constitutesthe final phase of the Lower Paleolithic period in the Levant,generally dated between 420 and sometime between 250 and200 ka (Gopher et al., 2010; Mercier et al., 2013; Valladas et al.,2013). It comprises three industries (also known as facies): theAcheuloeYabrudian (also termed the Acheulian facies’ or ‘Acheu-lian of Yabrudian tradition’), the Amudian (previously termed Pre-Aurignacian) and the Yabrudian (Jelinek, 1990; Copeland, 2000).While this complex has been studied for some 80 years (Rust, 1933;Garrod and Bate, 1937), recent discoveries suggest a coalescence ofbehavioral patterns that set the AYCC as a significant turning pointin human evolution. These patterns include the habitual use of fire(Karkanas et al., 2007; Shahack-Gross et al., 2014; Shimelmitz et al.,2014a), the use of a central hearth (Stiner et al., 2011; Blasco et al.,2014), the hunting and sharing of game meat (Stiner et al., 2009),the use of bone retouchers for shaping flint tools (Blasco et al.,2013), flint procurement from deep underground sources (Verri

aeology, University of Haifa,

elmitz).

z, R., et al., Regional variabiliternary International (2015), h

et al., 2004, 2005; Boaretto et al., 2009), diverse and intensiveflint recycling (Barkai et al., 2010) and the common use of pre-determined debitage technologies as represented by the serialproduction of blades (Shimelmitz et al., 2011) and the scraper-blankmanufacture (Shimelmitz et al., 2014b). As a whole, these modes ofbehavior set the AYCC apart from the Lower Paleolithic Acheulian(Barkai and Gopher, 2013) reflecting potential increased behavioralcomplexity.

The AYCC itself however, shows variability by definition as itconsists of three distinct industries. Moreover, these three in-dustries intercalate in different sites or in different archaeologicalcontexts within the same site, showing no apparent repetitivestratigraphic order (e.g. Rust, 1950; Copeland, 1983; Jelinek, 1990).This can be interpreted, following the “geological” logic, as a gen-eral contemporaneity of the different industries within the AYCCtime block; yet, this variability still needs to be explained. Thedifferences in lithic composition between the three industries weresufficiently clear to allow pioneering researchers to claim that theyrepresent distinct cultural groups (e.g. Rust, 1950; Garrod, 1956).Today, however, these industries are widely viewed as comple-mentary components within a single cultural complex, since theyoccasionally co-appear in the same layers being only spatiallydifferentiated as is the case at Qesem (Copeland, 2000; Barkai et al.,

y in late Lower Paleolithic Amudian blade technology: Analyzing newttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.037

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.037



R. Shimelmitz et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e242

2009). The fact that all three industries show similar technologicalknowledge (Shimelmitz, 2009) supports this view as well.

To date, the discussion AYCC variability was focused mainly onthe quality of the relationships between its three constitutive in-dustries (e.g. Jelinek, 1982, 1990; Copeland, 1983). While theexplanation of intra-AYCC industry variability undoubtedly valu-able, this perspective fails to reflect the variability within each ofthe industries. We would like to amend this lacuna and addressthe issue of intra-industry variability. The present study in-vestigates the variability within the Amudian industry focusing ona specific aspect d blade production d in three major sites of thelate Lower Paleolithic AYCC: Qesem Cave, Tabun Cave and YabrudRockshelter I (henceforth Qesem, Tabun and Yabrud I; Fig. 1). Thusfar, studying variation between Amudian occupations focused ontypological differences (e.g., Copeland, 2000). A detailed compar-ative study of blade-production technologies within the Amudian,

Fig. 1. Selected sites of the Ach

Please cite this article in press as: Shimelmitz, R., et al., Regional variabilitdata from Qesem, Tabun and Yabrud I, Quaternary International (2015),

following the chaînes op�eratoire approach is expected to bear onthe degree to which the Amudian embodies one or more bladeproduction trajectories (e.g. Wilkins and Chazan, 2012). The resultswill shed new light on the question of behavioral variability andon the quality of the relationship among different AYCC e ‘Amu-dian’ sites.

The advantage of limiting our discussion to one particularreduction trajectory, and specifically to a geographically limited,well defined and well dated industry is that it enables us to bettertrack aspects of variation relating to the degree of a shared tech-nological knowledge and to pinpoint possible different sub-regional knapping traditions. Thereby, it provides a differentperspective than former studies that examined variability in vastgeographical areas of the Lower Paleolithic/Early Stone Age (e.g.McBrearty et al., 1996; McBrearty and Tryon, 2006; Wilkins andChazan, 2012).

euloeYabrudian complex.

y in late Lower Paleolithic Amudian blade technology: Analyzing newhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.037

Table 1Glossary.

Laminar item All items that have more than 2:1 length/width ratio.Blade The common laminar item, some covered by cortex up

to 30% of the dorsal face.Primary element blade

(PE blade)Laminar items covered by cortex of 30% or more of thedorsal face. PE blades were produced all along theproduction sequence and not only at the initial stage.

Naturally backedknifea (NBK)

Laminar items that have a steep natural cortical back(�60�) and an opposed sharp lateral edge.

a NBKs mentioned in the text referred only to laminar NBKs unless statedotherwise.

R. Shimelmitz et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e24 3

Our choice of blade production should not however be mistak-enly taken as a statement regarding its superiority over other cat-egories or technological aspects (e.g. Bar-Yosef and Kuhn, 1999). Achaîne op�eratoire study directed towards Quina scrapers thatappear in varying percentages in all AYCC industries (Rust, 1950;Copepland, 1983; Jelinek, 1990; Barkai et al., 2009; Shimelmitzet al., 2014b) may provide an equally appropriate source for suchan inquiry. We focus on blades because blade reduction iscomparatively better known and studied among the various tech-nologies of the AYCC (e.g. Meignen, 1994; Vishnyatsky, 2000;Monigal, 2002). Furthermore, it is well represented in the threemajor AYCC sites examined here, and has a pivotal role in theAmudian industry onwhichwe focus. Presuming that technologicalbehavior is socially learned (Lemonnier, 1993; Bar-Yosef and VanPeer, 2009; Tostevin, 2012), we expect that the tracing of choicesmade throughout the reduction sequence will shed light on therelationships between the producers of these assemblages.

Three alternative hypotheses are tested regarding blade pro-duction: (1) A different set of technological choices will be foundamong the sites indicating the presence of relatively independentand disconnected communities that only share a general concept ofblade production (e.g. Wilkins and Chazan, 2012). (2) A high simi-larity in technological choices indicating homogeneity and a sharedtechnological knowledge. (3) Similarity in the pool of technologicalchoices available, however these are drawn upon differentially. Thelatter may result from using different rawmaterial or different localknapping traditions.

In order to examine these hypothesis we will first present andcompare the products of the Amudian blade industry as observed inthe three sites of Qesem, Tabun and Yabrud I. Subsequently, we willexplore the various choices made throughout the reductionsequence, from raw material selection to core discard. Patterns ofblank selection for secondary modification will also be discussed.The issue of Amudian blade production as a predetermined tech-nology and the factors affecting its variability will be specificallyaddressed. Against this background the existence of possible localdistinct technological traditions will be considered. We hope toprovide a detailed look and afford a unique opportunity to discussthe scale and the meaning of variability within a pre-Mousterianwell defined lithic industry constituting one of the three in-dustries of the late Lower Paleolithic AYCC.

2. Materials and methods

Our study is based on the lithic assemblages from Qesem, Tabunand Yabrud I. The focus of this paper is solely on Amudian laminartechnology, while flake production or other technologies found inthe studied sites (Garrod and Bates, 1937; Rust, 1950; Jelinek, 1982,1990; Vishnyatsky, 2000; Monigal, 2002; Barkai et al., 2009;Shimelmitz, 2014; Shimelmitz et al., 2014b) are not treated here.Furthermore, we did not compare the assemblages from the threesites in their entirety, but rather concentrated on a comparisonbetween the laminar items and their related by-products. Thedatabase regarding blade production from the three sites isextensive and will thus be only partially and shortly presented. Fora comprehensive description of the reduction sequences at thethree sites and a detailed account of attributes see Barkai et al.,2005; Shimelmitz, 2009:59e146; Shimelmitz et al., 2011 forQesem; and Shimelmitz, 2009:147e300 for Tabun and Yabrud I.Although former reports on blade production from Amudian Tabunand Yabrud I (Meignen, 1994; Vishnyatsky, 2000; Monigal, 2002)are of significance, these samples were studies anew and here weuse only our own data thus avoiding differences originating fromdifferent observers and/or differing definitions.

Please cite this article in press as: Shimelmitz, R., et al., Regional variabilitdata from Qesem, Tabun and Yabrud I, Quaternary International (2015), h

Due to the fact that the Amudian industry is characterized notonly by ‘central blades’ (henceforth blades) but by cortical blades(primary elements, henceforth PE blades) and elongated naturallybacked knives (NBKs) (Vishnyatsky, 2000; Monigal, 2002;Shimelmitz, 2009; Shimelmitz et al., 2011) as well, we use theterm ‘laminar items’ to refer to all these items as a group (Table 1).The analysis includes both laminar blanks and tools since the goalwas to characterize all the products of the knapping process.Comparing blanks and tools is also useful, to some extent, inassessing the characteristics of target products, while taking intoaccount the fact that in many cases unmodified blanks were actu-ally used too (e.g. Lemorini et al., 2006). The results of an attributeanalysis were used to reconstruct the reduction sequence oflaminar items at each of the three sites (Shimelmitz, 2009). Wewillnot present each site separately but rather illustrate the similaritiesand differences among the laminar items, reduction sequences andselection of items for secondary modification.

One should note that while in the on-going excavation at Qesemall sediments are sieved through a 2.4 mm mesh and all findscollected and analyzed (Barkai et al., 2009; Shimelmitz,2009:59e146), in the case of Tabun, the collection of small items(<2.5 cm) was partial. Furthermore, the small items retrieved fromTabun were excluded from the analyzed assemblages. The Yabrud Imaterial was not systematically collected and this was taken intoconsideration when discussing the results.

The comparison of Amudian blade production strategies fromthe three sites is based on a detailed attribute analysis of alllaminar items and related by-products (cores and core trimmingelements). Our analysis focuses on three aspects: laminar itemscharacteristics, reduction sequence reconstruction, and identifyingpatterns of blank selection for secondary modification. The attri-bute analysis is used to illustrate and discuss each of the steps ofblade reduction sequences in order to track variability in processesof manufacture (e.g. Baena et al., in press). For comparative pur-poses we also used various ratios referring to laminar items andcore trimming elements. Ratios referring to cores ([blades þ PEblades þ NBKs]: laminar cores) were less useful in the case of thestudied samples since the number of laminar items per core isvery high, particularly at Tabun XI, but at Qesem as well. This maybe the result of an ‘import’ of some of the blades from elsewhere,the continuous reduction of blade cores to a point that does notenable their identification as such or a combination of these twofactors.

2.1. Qesem Cave

Qesem Cave, situated at the foothills of the Samaria Hills, Israel,ca. 12 km east of Tel Aviv, 90 m a.s.l. (Gopher et al., 2005) consists ofa ca. 9.5 m depositional sequence of archaeological sedimentsentirely attributed to the AYCC. The Amudian, blade-dominated



industry (Gopher et al., 2005) constitutes the majority of thesequence while the Yabrudian Quina scrapers-dominated industrywas found in three distinct areas of the cave (Barkai et al., 2009;Lev., 2010). Speleothems from different parts of the cave weredated by U-series to ca. 420e200 ka (Barkai et al., 2003; Gopheret al., 2010) and TL and ESR dates of specific Amudian contexts

Table 2Major features of the laminar types (including blanks and tools).

Blade PE blade NBK

QesemCave

Tabun XIAmudian

YabrudI-15

QesemCave

Tabun XIAmudian

YabrudI-15

QesemCave

Tabun XIAmudian

YabrudI-15

n¼ 999 249 147 759 86 41 794 95 34Metric s.d s.d s.d. s.d s.d s.d. s.d s.d s.dMean length 51.2 12.7 62.6 13.7 58.2 13.2 53.7 12.0 64.4 15.3 61.5 12.7 52.5 10.9 65.6 13.9 61.9 11.0Mean width 20.9 5.5 23.5 6.3 21.9 5.0 21.5 5.6 24.9 6.1 23.8 4.6 20.8 5.3 23.6 6.3 24.6 5.3Mean thickness 8.6 3.1 8.9 3.4 8.0 2.7 9.9 3.1 9.8 3.5 10.8 3.3 10.8 3.6 11.8 3.6 11.5 2.9Mean length/width ratio 2.5 0.4 2.8 0.6 2.7 0.5 2.6 0.5 2.7 0.5 2.6 0.4 2.6 0.5 2.9 0.7 2.6 0.5Mean width/thickness

ratio2.6 0.8 2.9 1.1 3.0 1.0 2.3 0.6 2.6 0.7 2.4 0.7 2.0 0.6 2.1 0.6 2.2 0.8

Cortex% of blades with cortex 44.7% 43.2% 40.8%% on dorsal face (peak) 50% 30e50% 50% 30% 30% 20%Edge anglesSharp edge angle (peak) 40� 35� 30� 40� 40� 40� 40�e50� 40�e45� 35�e45�

Shapes% parallel edges 29.9 19.6 20.4% pointed 6.9 6.5 2.7Cross-section% of triangular (blades

and PE blades)47.2 42.3 40.4 64.9 67.9 50.0

% of trapezoidal (blades) 26.4 31.8 25.5% of right-angle

trapeziodal (NBKs)50.6 50.0 50.0

Other attributes s.d s.d s.d. s.d s.d s.d. s.d s.d s.d% feather end termination 68.6 72.3 71.9 67.8 74.3 73.3 52.5 53.0 68.2% overpassing end

termination15.5 16.9 14.9 20.2 13.5 13.5 36.9 30.1 27.3

Mean number of laminarscars

2.5 1.1 2.6 1.1 2.3 1.4 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.4 0.9 1.8 0.8 1.7 0.8 1.7 0.9

Striking platform% thick plain 49.2 30.9 34.2 47.7 38.8 54.3 44.0 37.0 37.5% modified 34.3 43.2 50.0 25.8 37.3 22.9 38.7 44.4 37.5% micro flaking on edge 32.0 34.6 26.9 25.0 31.3 31.4 22.0 27.8 32.3

For complete data base see Shimelmitz, 2009.

were recently published showing a similar range (Mericier et al.,2013).

The habitual use of fire throughout the cave's sequence isattested to by the presence of hearths in the sediments and anabundance of burnt bones and flint items (Karkanas et al., 2007;Stiner et al., 2011; Mercier et al., 2013; Blasco et al., 2014;Shahack-Gross et al., 2014). The faunal assemblages are domi-nated by fallow deer. Other species include bovides, equids, pig,tortoise and red deer. Cut mark patterning suggests a uniqueway ofmeat cutting and sharing (Stiner et al., 2009, 2011).

For the following comparison, five Amudian assemblagesincluding ca. 20,000 items were grouped together (for the variationwithin these assemblages see: Barkai et al., 2009; Shimelmitz,2009:59e146). The flint assemblages of Qesem and especially itslaminar technology were described in detail elsewhere (Barkaiet al., 2005; Lemorini et al., 2006; Barkai et al., 2009; Shimelmitz,


2009:59e146; Shimelmitz et al., 2011). Items of the laminar pro-duction (n ¼ 3156; Tables 2e4; Fig. 2; Appendix A: 1e2) wereexamined using an attribute analysis. Use-wear analysis demon-strated that the laminar blanks, as well as the laminar retouchedtools, were commonly used for cutting soft to medium-hard ma-terials, most prominently meat (Lemorini et al., 2006).

2.2. Tabun Cave: Unit XI e the Amudian beds

Tabun Cave lies at the opening of Nahal Me'arot (60 m a.s.l.),20 km south of Haifa and ca. 65 km north of Qesem. It was exca-vated in 1929e1934 by D.A.E. Garrod (Garrod and Bate, 1937), by A.Jelinek in 1967e1971 (Jelinek et al., 1973; Jelinek, 1982, 1990) andby A. Ronen in 1975e2003 (Ronen et al., 2011). Garrod exposedseven layers within the 24.5 m of sediments (Garrod and Bate,1937). Jelinek's excavations concentrated in the central part of thestepped section left by Garrod and the 10 m section was dividedinto 14 ‘Major Stratigraphic Units’, each composed of severalgeological beds (Jelinek, 1982, 1990). Jelinek's Units X-XIII areequivalent to Garrod's Layer E that was described by Garrod (1956)as AcheuloeYabrudian and by Jelinek (1982) as the ‘MugharanTradition’. The maximum thickness of Garrod's Layer E was 7.10 mand it was divided into four sub-layers (EaeEd). Layer E includes all


Table 3Major attributes of single striking platform ‘laminar cores’ and ‘laminar and flake cores’.

‘Laminar cores’ ‘Laminar and flake cores’

QesemCave

Tabun XIall

Yabrud I-15

QesemCave

Tabun XIall

YabrudI-15

na¼ 60 16 14 34 12 21% out of ‘laminar cores’ and ‘laminar and flake cores’with a single striking

platform59.5 57.1 40.0 40.5 42.9 60.0

Core shapes (%)Parallel edges 45.8 31.3 21.4 \ \ \Prismatic 20.3 31.3 57.1 73.5 66.7 47.6Pyramidal 10.2 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0Narrowed prismatic \ \ \ 0.0 16.7 47.6Amorphous front 23.7 37.5 21.4 17.6 16.7 4.8Debitage surface shape (%)Rectangle 41.5 15.4 30.8 29.4 \ 20.0U-shaped 22.6 30.8 30.8 32.4 \ 55.0Triangular 11.3 7.7 23.1 5.9 \ 25.0Irregular 24.5 46.2 15.4 32.4 \ 0.0Base shape (%)Flat 33.3 13.3 23.1 38.2 \ 23.8Oblique 13.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 \ 14.3Pointed 22.2 13.3 30.8 2.9 \ 38.1Rounded 27.8 33.3 38.5 35.3 \ 19.0Irregular 3.7 40.0 7.7 14.7 \ 4.8Mean size (mm) s.d. s.d. s.d. s.d. s.d. s.d.Max. length 50.1 12.3 61.4 13.5 48.7 10.0 43.0 8.0 57.2 17.8 47.3 10.1Max. width 29.8 9.0 37.2 8.5 30.8 7.4 38.7 9.6 52.4 11.8 33.5 9.0Mean number of laminar scars s.d. s.d. s.d. s.d. s.d. s.d.Total scar no. 2.8 1.2 2.9 1.8 3.8 2.2 2.0 1.3 \ 3.1 1.4Parallel scars 2.5 0.9 2.5 1.3 2.9 0.8 1.8 0.8 \ 2.6 0.7Base modification% of base modification 27.8 12.5 71.4 20.6 8.3 50.0

a Not including the bladelet cores.

Table 4Core trimming elements from the three sites.

Core tablet Overpass item Radial overpass item Crested blade Varia Sum

Qesem Cave Blanks n¼ 43 224 26 199 234 726Qesem Cave Shaped items n¼ 44 3 16 11 74Qesem Cave Total n¼ 43 268 29 215 245 800Qesem Cave Blanks % 5.9 30.9 3.6 27.4 32.2 100Qesem Cave Shaped items % 59.5 4.1 21.6 14.9 100Qesem Cave Total % 5.4 33.5 3.6 26.9 30.6 100Tabun XI e Amudian Blank n¼ 9 48 11 32 48 148Tabun XI e Amudian Shaped item n¼ 24 13 5 42Tabun XI e Amudian Total n¼ 9 72 11 45 53 190Tabun XI e Amudian Blank % 6.1 32.4 7.4 21.6 32.4 100Tabun XI e Amudian Shaped item % 57.1 31.0 11.9 100Tabun XI e Amudian Total % 4.7 37.9 5.8 23.7 27.9 100Yabrud I-15 Blank n¼ 8 19 2 39 15 83Yabrud I-15 Shaped item n¼ 1 2 3 7 3 16Yabrud I-15 Total n¼ 9 21 5 46 18 99Yabrud I-15 Blank % 9.6 22.9 2.4 47.0 18.1 100Yabrud I-15 Shaped item % 6.3 12.5 18.8 43.8 18.8 100Yabrud I-15 Total % 9.1 21.2 5.1 46.5 18.2 100

For CTEs particular definitions see Shimelmitz et al., 2011.


three industries of the AYCC dominated by the Yabrudian and theAcheuloeYabrudian industries. Our study focused on the Amudianindustry retrieved from Jelinek's Unit XI Bed 75. TL dates fromJelinek's Unit XI average at 264 ± 28 ka (Mercier and Valladas,2003).

The inventory from several Tabun XI beds was presented byJelinek (1975) and Dibble (1981:38e47). The Ilam of Bed 75S is 20.3and of Bed 75I is 49.6 (Jelinek, 1975). The tools include retouchedblades and backed blades. While some scrapers were found, han-daxes were rare (Jelinek, 1975; Dibble, 1981:38, 47).

For this study we used only thematerial from the Amudian bedsof Tabun XI as defined by Jelinek (1990:85, Fig. 4.1). These bedsinclude 75I1, 75I2 and 75S, in which we included the adjoining


beds: 75I, 75Iq, 75I1a, 75I1b, 75I1c, 75I1q, 75I2a and 75I2b. Alto-gether, 584 items were examined from the Amudian beds of TabunXI (Tables 2e4; Fig. 3; Appendix A: 1e2). Out of the 96 identifiedcores in the Amudian beds, only 15 bear blade scars. Therefore, inorder to provide a reasonable sample size we used, solely for cores,the data of Tabun XI as a whole with 37 (7.7%) cores showing bladescars (out of a total of 482 cores).

2.3. Yabrud I e layer 15

Yabrud rockshelter I is located in the Skifta Valley, ca. 60 kmnorth of Damascus, Syria, 260 km north east of Qesem and 215 kmfrom Tabun. It lies at a relatively high altitude e 1400 m a.s.l. The


Fig. 2. Blades (1e3), PE blade (4) NBKs (5e6), cores (7e8) and overpass items (9e11) from Qesem.


site was excavated in 1932e1933 by Rust (1950) and later in1963e1965 by Solecki and Solecki (1966, 1986). Rust excavated a23 m long trench, up to five m in width along the rockshelter andidentified four geological horizons and 25 layers within this


sequence. Layers 11e25 were attributed to various industries of thelate Lower Paleolithic period, known today as the AYCC. The pre-Aurignacian (Amudian) of Layer 15 of Rust's excavations (hence-forward Yabrud I-15) is the focus of our analysis. A TL date of


Fig. 3. Blades (1e2), PE blade (3), retouched NBK (4), retouched blades (5), backed knife (6), overpassed items (7e9) and cores (10e13) from the Amudian beds of Tabun XI. Rastermarks patinated surfaces.


Please cite this article in press as: Shimelmitz, R., et al., Regional variability in late Lower Paleolithic Amudian blade technology: Analyzing newdata from Qesem, Tabun and Yabrud I, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.037

Fig. 4. Blade (1), retouched blades (2e4), crested blades (5e6), core tablet (7), overpassed items (8e11) and cores (12e14) from Yabrud I-15. Drawings no. 1e4, 6, 9e10, 12 are afterRust, 1950: Tafeln 32e37.



Fig. 5. Division of the three laminar types (blanks and tools). n ¼ Qesem: 2552; TabunXI (Amudian): 430; Yabrud I-15: 222.


224 ± 17 ka was obtained from Layer 18 (Porat et al., 2002; but seecomments in; Gopher et al., 2010).

It is of note that the collection of lithic finds in Rust's excavationswas not systematic and the sediments were not sieved. Solecki andSolecki (1966:126) report that while preparing the area for theirexcavations at Yabrud I they encountered roughly 4000 flint itemswithin the backfill left by Rust. Solecki and Solecki examined thematerial found in the cleaning of the 1964 season and argued that itwas mainly debitage items, especially flakes that were rejected byRust. Although these are not ideal circumstances, the uniqueness ofthe Pre-Aurignacian (Amudian) layers of Yabrud I makes it impor-tant and we present them here despite these difficulties (seecomments and discussion in Shimelmitz, 2009:227e300).

The assemblage of Yabrud I-15 includes 975 lithic items (Rust,1950:30e33) and its Ilam is 37.3 (Bordes, 1955). The tools arecharacterized by a high index of ‘Upper Paleolithic tools’, includingretouched blades, end-scrapers and burins (Rust, 1950:31; Bordes,1984:37; Vishnyatsky, 2000). Altogether, 327 items from YabrudI-15 were examined in our attribute analysis (Tables 2e4; Fig. 4,Appendix A: 1e2).

Fig. 6. Cross-section of blades (blanks and tools). n ¼ Qesem: 904; Tabun XI (Amu-dian): 141; Yabrud I-15: 105.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the three laminar types from the three sites

The major attributes and metrics of the three laminar types(blades, PE blades and NBK; Fig. 5) from Qesem, Tabun XI andYabrud I-15 are presented in Table 2. Amudian knappers at thesesites usually produced blades with two sharp edges, a triangular ortrapezoidal cross-section (Fig. 6) and a fairly specific size (AppendixB: 1e3). The PE blades and NBKs also share many similaritiesamong the sites (Appendix B. 2e4) and show the same size range asthe blades. The difference between the three laminar types is in thepresence of a cortical edge and other attributes such as the angle ofthe cutting edge, which is sharpest among the blades and the mostobtuse among the NBKs (Appendix B. 1) thus possibly used fordifferent tasks (e.g. Lemorini et al., 2006).

The similarity of laminar items from the three Amudian sites isfurther supported when these are compared to blades from otherLevantine industries (Appendix A. 3). Blade production in the in-dustries of the Paleolithic Levant varies significantly both inreduction sequence and in blade characteristics. This includes therelatively large and straight blades common in the Middle Paleo-lithic and the more delicate blades of the Upper Paleolithic. Thetriangle cross section common in the Amudian is also less commonamong Middle and Upper Paleolithic industries (e.g. Marks andVolkman, 1983; Monigal, 2001, 2002; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Meignen, 2007; Hovers, 2009; Hauck, 2010; Shi-melmitz and Kuhn, 2013).

The general similarity within Amudian laminar types betweenthe three examined sites is accompanied however by some varia-tion (Shimelmitz, 2009), for example, in the frequencies of thethree laminar types, namely, while at Tabun XI and Yabrud I-15blades are dominant, at Qesem, blades, PE blades and NBKs appearin almost equal numbers (Fig. 5).

3.2. Amudian laminar production: two main trajectories

Two trajectories for the manufacture of Amudian laminar itemswere identified (Shimelmitz, 2009) and recently described in detailfor Qesem (Shimelmitz et al., 2011). One trajectory is in accordancewith the concept of ‘debitage frontal’ (Pigeot, 1987:50e51; Delagnes


et al., 2007) and the second is more flexible. Both share similaritiesas follows:

1. The reduction takes advantage of the natural shape of thecarefully selected raw material and does not include intensivepre-shaping and decortication.

2. The continuous use of powerful blows, by hard hammerstones,for the removal of items that generally followed through theentire length of the debitage surface.

3. The frequent removal of laminar items with an overpassing endtermination in order to control core convexities.

4. The combined reduction of PE blades, NBKs and possibly alsoflakes, alongside blades in a single sequence.

3.2.1. Trajectory I: d�ebitage frontalThis trajectory is characterized by the use of a uniform raw

material with two straight and flat parallel sides such as thin flintslabs. The debitage surface is placed between these two sides andthe core has a ‘parallel edges’ shape (Fig. 7). In this manner, thedebitage surface exploits the entire length and width of the rawmaterial block. During the reduction the debitage surfacemaintainsa relatively constant contour, gradually retreating towards thecore's back. The reduction includes the co-production of blades, PE


Fig. 7. Shapes of single striking platform cores. The division into laminar cores and laminar and flake cores is based on the types of scars on the debitage surface.


blades and NBKs as the removal of each item sets the requiredcontour for the next item (Fig. 8). The reduction of each of the threelaminar types entailed a slightly different procedure. The constantcontour of the debitage surface enabled a continuous reduction oflaminar items maintaining the same repeated pattern for each se-ries. This quality separates this variant from other variants ofd�ebitage frontal that utilize a narrow frontal edge without neces-sarily retaining a constant width (e.g. Pigeot, 1987:50e51; Delagneset al., 2007). Middle Pleistocene Amudian laminar production from‘parallel edges’ cores was achieved by the careful selection of nar-row raw material and the use of overpassing blows rather than byintensive preparation, thus reflecting a straightforward and veryearly strategy for serial and systematic blade production. It is ofnote that although the removal of crested blades was often prac-ticed, these were mostly roughly shaped by few blows.

3.2.2. Trajectory II: flexible single striking platform reductionThis trajectory was used when rounded or irregular shape

nodules were exploited. Pre-shaping or decortication was not sys-tematically performed, apart from occasional preparation of thestriking platform and minor shaping of the future debitage surfaceby some lateral blows forming rough crested blades. A calculated


exploitation of the natural outline of the selected nodules was a keyfactor. The place chosen for initiating the debitage surface was anangular part of the raw material. As a result, the cores started outwith a relatively limited debitage surface compared to theircircumference. At this early stage of the reduction the cores werelikely of the ‘amorphous front’ or prismatic shape (Fig. 9). Laminaritems or a combination of laminar items and flakes were reduced atthis stage. Working on relatively wide debitage surfaces (>4 cm)required the combined reduction of laminar items and flakes. Insome cases flake reduction contributed to achieving the lateralcurvature required for the removal of laminar items, alongside theremoval of overpassing laminar items.

As the production from these cores progressed, their shapechanged in one of three patterns: (1) In cases the productionfocused only on one specific part of the core (‘amorphous front’),the debitage surface gradually shifted towards the core back,consequently becoming wider, thus attaining a prismatic shape. (2)When reduction extended the debitage surface towards the cores'sides, together with overpassing removals, the cores became py-ramidal in shape. (3) Flake removal from the sides of the coresaccentuated its front into a narrow shape from which blades werethen detached (narrowed prismatic cores).


Fig. 8. The reduction sequence characterizing the exploitation of flat flint slabs.


3.3. Technological choices of the Amudian laminar technology atthe three sites

3.3.1. Raw material selectionSiliceous homogenous raw material of local origin was used at

all three sites. The area of Qesem is rich in flat flint slabs, how-ever nodules of other shapes are frequently found as well. In thecase of Tabun, Mount Carmel is rich in flint outcrops with nod-ules of varying quality, size and shape, some of which are foundin the vicinity of Tabun (Druck, 2004). Some of the raw materialfrom Qesem and the lower part of Tabun Layer E has beenquarried according to the study of the cosmogenic 10Be (Verriet al., 2004, 2005; Boaretto et al., 2009). Raw material sourcesin the vicinity of Yabrud I are common, offering nodules invarying size and quality (Bakdach, 1982, 2000; Solecki andSolecki, 2007). While we cannot quantify the use of specificraw material shapes (type) at each site, we offer the followinggeneral observations:

The use of flint slabs is most apparent at Qesem. In order totrack the use of this raw material shape to some extent, wecalculated the percentage of overpass items that were visiblyremoved from thin raw material/slabs, showing cortex on bothlateral edges (Fig. 2:10e11) out of all overpass items. Theseconstitute 14.3% at Qesem, 5.6% at Tabun XI, and are completelyabsent at Yabrud I-15.

The exploitation of nodules with rounded or irregular shapes isindicated by the outline of the cortical edges of PE blades and NBKs(n ¼ Qesem: 672; Tabun XI: 101; Yabrud I-15: 52). In Tabun XI andYabrud I-15 such raw material shapes were more commonly used,as reflected by the higher percentage of PE blades and NBKs with arounded or irregular cortical edge (Tabun XI: 58.4%; Yabrud I-15:


55.8%; Qesem: 44.6%; the rest are straight). The difference betweenTabun XI and Qesem is statistically significant (c2 ¼ 6.97, df ¼ 1,p < 0.05).

It is difficult to evaluate how many of the cores were made ofwhole nodules and howmany weremade of split nodules. The datawe draw on for estimating the former comes from cases in whichthe discarded core is still entirely covered by cortex except for itsdebitage surface and striking platform. This can be used as a basefor estimation since most of the laminar cores in the three sites arenot characterized by a circumferential reduction that removed thecortex. These cases constitute 20% in Yabrud I-15, 30.8% in Tabun XIand 47.8% in Qesem (including ‘laminar cores’ and ‘laminar andflake cores’with a single striking platform). The difference betweenYabrud I-15 and Qesem is statistically significant (c2 ¼ 8.17, df ¼ 1,p < 0.05). This pattern suggests that while the cores from Qesemusually exploited whole pieces of raw material (nodule or flintslab), the cores from Yabrud I-15 were mostly made of split rawmaterial or were significantly reduced.

In order to estimate the recycling of old patinated items forlaminar production we used the percentage of laminar itemsbearing old patinated surfaces out of all laminar items bearingnatural surfaces (patinated or cortical; n ¼ Qesem: 1882; Tabun XI:270; Yabrud I-15: 128). Laminar itemswith patinated surfaces showhigher percentage at Yabrud I-15 (20.3%) and lower percentages atQesem (11.4%) and Tabun XI (9.3%). Yabrud I-15 is statisticallydifferent from Qesem (c2 ¼ 8.97, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05) and Tabun XI(c2 ¼ 9.50, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05). Of special interest is the recycling ofhandaxes into blade cores, in particular as seen in Yabrud I-15(Fig. 3:6, 10e11; Rust, 1950:28e29), but also in Tabun(Shimelmitz, 2014) and in a single case from Qesem (Barkai andGopher, 2011).

Another difference between the three sites is in the dimensionsof the pieces (whole or split) of raw material used as cores. Since inthis reduction the debitage surface usually exploits the entirelength of the raw material (Shimelmitz, 2009:309e332;Shimelmitz et al., 2011), the differences in the length of the selectedrawmaterial pieces can be traced by the differences in length of theblanks. The mean length of laminar items is presented in Table 2and that of the overpass items is: 53.3 mm (s.d. 9.9) at Qesem,65.0 mm (s.d. 15.1) at Tabun XI and 58.0 mm (s.d. 2.3) at Yabrud I-15. Although variations in length are generally low, a statisticaldifference was found in the case of the laminar items betweenTabun XI and Qesem and between Tabun XI and Yabrud I-15(t ¼ 10.03, df ¼ 258.43, p < 0.05; t ¼ 2.35, df ¼ 374, p < 0.05respectively), and in the case of overpass items between Tabun XIand Qesem (t ¼ 5.78, df ¼ 85.13, p < 0.05). Accordingly, raw ma-terial used at Tabun XI is the longest while that of Qesem is theshortest. Thewidth of the used pieces of rawmaterial (estimated bythe core's maximum width; Table 3) is highest at Tabun XI with astatistical difference compared to Qesem (t ¼ 4.68, df ¼ 116,p < 0.05) and Yabrud I-15 (t ¼ 4.32, df ¼ 58, p < 0.05).

The difference in the used raw materials between the sites isimportant since it affects the entire course of the reduction. It istherefore a central question whether this difference represents achoice out of a larger variety of options or whether it reflectsconstraints of the environment. The landscapes of both Tabun(Druck, 2004) and Qesem have a variety of rawmaterials appearingin different shape, size and quality. Flint slabs and rounded fist sizenodules of high quality appear in both areas. The fact thatnumerous handaxes from Tabun XIeXIII weremade on flint slabs oron thin nodules (Rollefson, 1978; McPherron, 2003, 2006) indicatesthat such raw material sources were indeed available and used. Inthe case of Yabrud I, Bakdach (2000) and Solecki and Solecki (2007)note that ‘tabular rawmaterial’ is highly common in the region. Thepresence of several items made of such raw material, including one


Fig. 9. The reduction sequence characterizing the exploitation of rounded and irregular flint nodules.


core fromYabrud I-15 and several handaxes from the other layers ofYabrud I (Rust, 1950: Taflen 20:7; 41:2) confirm that these sourceswere available and used. Accordingly, it is concluded that the dif-ferences in raw material exploitation between the three sites werenot the consequence of what the environment had to offer butrather of a human preference.


3.3.2. Shaping the core's striking platform and debitage surfaceTransforming the nodules into cores was usually characterized

by only minor preparations at the three sites. Cortex was notremoved prior to laminar reduction but rather left intact. Thepresence of handaxes in some of the examined assemblages in-dicates that although the possibility of narrowing and controlling


Fig. 10. Initiating options for “opening” the debitage surface. n ¼ Qesem: 230; TabunXI (Amudian): 45; Yabrud I-15: 34.


the core outline by bifacial reduction was a feasible option, it wasnot applied. Only in Yabrud I-15 the possibility of a preliminarynarrowing of the cores or shaping a roughly keeled base was noted.Yet even in this case, it seems more likely that these proceduresoccurred along the course of laminar reduction and not as a pre-shaping stage. The majority of the cores from all three sites wereonly slightly treated before initiating the laminar reduction.

The debitage surface itself could have been “opened” in variousways. Those identified by indicative items include the removal of PEblades fully covered by cortex (�80%), ‘initial’ crested blades(usually roughly shaped; Appendix A. 4) and ‘initial’ overpass items.‘Initial’ crested blades and ‘initial’ overpass items lack laminar scarson their dorsal face thus indicating that their removal occurredprior to laminar production. These three options for “opening” thedebitage surface were practiced at all three sites but in differentfrequencies (Fig. 10). “Opening” the debitage surface by removing‘initial’ crested blades was the most common option at all threesites. The second most prevalent option was the removal of ‘initial’overpass items, while the option of removing fully cortical PEblades is less common. A higher percentage of PE blades fullycoveredwith cortex is found at Qesem and it is statistically differentfrom Tabun XI (c2 ¼ 4.59, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05) and Yabrud I-15(c2 ¼ 5.29, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05). This correlates with the more common

Fig. 11. Types of striking platforms of the three laminar types (blades, PE blades and NBKs) inThick plain >2 mm; thin plain �2 mm.


use of flint slabs by taking advantage of the angular surfaces of thisraw material shape. The removal of overpass items to initiate thereduction was more common in Tabun XI and Qesem than in Yab-rud I-15. In this case Yabrud I-15 is statistically different from bothTabun XI (c2 ¼ 6.48, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05) and Qesem (c2 ¼ 7.58, df ¼ 1,p < 0.05). The higher percentage of ‘initial’ crested blades in YabrudI-15 was found to be statistically significant from that in Qesem(c2 ¼ 17.06, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05) and in Tabun XI (c2 ¼ 7.92, df ¼ 1,p < 0.05). The extremely high percentage of ‘initial’ crested bladesand the rarity of the other options in Yabrud I-15 cannot beexplained merely by differences in raw material. Although the useof split raw material that is common at Yabrud might fit such anapproach, it represents only a part of the variety used. It is morelikely that in Yabrud I-15 the shaping of a crest before “opening” thedebitage surface was inherent to the concept of the reductionsequence.

3.3.3. The rhythm of laminar productionAt all three sites the removal of laminar items was performed by

hard hammer percussion, usually by hitting deep inside the strikingplatform. This is manifested by the abundance of thick plain andmodified platforms (Fig. 11).

Various blank types were produced in the course of the reduc-tion sequence. Some of the cores enabled producing almostexclusively laminar items, while other cores enabled the produc-tion of laminar types as well as flakes and ‘blade-flakes’. In ouranalysis we referred to the former as ‘laminar cores’ and to thelatter as ‘laminar and flake cores’. In general, ‘laminar cores’ weremade on relatively narrow rawmaterial (ca. 3 cm) and ‘laminar andflake cores’ were made on wider raw material (Table 3).

The reduction of blades, PE blades, NBKs, and even flakes and‘NBK-flakes’, was complementary e each of these blank typesguided the outline of the next detached blank. Removal of specificlaminar types and its combination with flake reduction was inaccordance with the core's morphology (Shimelmitz et al., 2011).While at Qesem the three laminar types appear in approximatelyequal amounts, with blades being only slightly more common, inTabun XI and Yabrud I-15 blades clearly outnumber the other twolaminar types (Fig. 5). The higher representation of PE blades andNBKs at Qesem is in accordance with the more common use ofnarrow cores (Table 3) made of flint slabs with two cortical sides.The higher percentage of blades and the lower, but equal per-centage of PE blades and NBKs in Tabun XI, are in accordance with

cluding blanks and tools. n ¼ Qesem: 1774; Tabun XI (Amudian): 368; Yabrud I-15: 167.


Fig. 12. End termination of all three laminar types (blanks and tools). n ¼ Qesem:1591; Tabun XI (Amudian): 370; Yabrud I-15: 173.


the use of wider cores on average but still with a debitage surfaceframed between two cortical sides. At Yabrud I-15, where bladesare highly common and PE blades and NBKs are few, their relativeamount was likely affected less by the debitage surface width andmore by the common use of split raw material with debitage sur-faces not framed between two cortical sides.

3.3.4. Fluctuations and stability of core shapeAt the beginning of the reduction the cores most commonly had

an ‘amorphous front’, a prismatic or a ‘parallel edges’ shape, usuallyin accordance with the selected raw material shape. Cores with‘parallel edges’ shapes were mostly made of flint slabs and flat flintnodules taking advantage of their narrow shape. At Qesem the useof flint slabs was the most common and ‘parallel edges’ cores areindeed most prevalent. At Tabun XI and Yabrud I-15, whererounded and amorphous nodules weremore commonly used, coreswith prismatic and ‘amorphous front’ shapes are more frequent(Table 3).

One of the fundamental differences between these core shapesis that among cores with a ‘parallel edges’ shape the debitage

Fig. 13. Methods of maintaining the debitage surface in the course of laminar pro-duction by CTE removal. n ¼ Qesem: 208; Tabun XI (Amudian): 69; Yabrud I-15: 29.


surface could have retained its contour all along the reduction, asopposed to the ‘amorphous front’ and prismatic core, in which thedebitage surface contour was not constant during the reduction.The shape of these relatively wide cores could easily have beenchanged and alternated from ‘amorphous front’ to prismatic andoccasionally, during early stages of production, even vice versa.Cores with prismatic or ‘amorphous front’ shapes could also havebeen altered into ‘pyramidal’ or ‘narrowed prismatic’ shapes at alater stage of the reduction. Both the ‘pyramidal’ and the ‘narrowedprismatic’ shapes represent an extension of the production towardsthe core's sides. Of these two shapes, it is the ‘narrow prismatic’that shows more planning depth. The reduction from the sides ofthese cores created a narrow and homogenous shape that providednearly all the advantages of the ‘parallel edges’ shape. Of all theAmudian core shapes, it is the ‘narrowed prismatic’ that is mostsimilar to the blade cores of the Upper Paleolithic (e.g. Davidzonand Goring-Morris, 2003). This core shape is prevalent only atYabrud I-15 (Table 3), with a statistically significant difference fromboth Qesem (c2 ¼ 28.82, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05) and Tabun XI (c2 ¼ 4.63,df ¼ 1, p < 0.05). The pyramidal core shape is found only at Qesem.

3.3.5. Maintaining the striking platformsDuring the course of laminar reduction the striking platform

was most commonly maintained by faceting. Maintaining thestriking platform by removing core tablets was not common, as isindicated by their low percentage among the CTEs (Table 4). Thehigher percentage of modified platforms in Tabun XI and Yabrud I-15 (Fig. 11) shows that maintaining striking platforms was morecommon at these sites than at Qesem.

3.3.6. Maintaining the debitage surfacesThe removal of laminar items that followed through the entire

debitage surface served as a maintenance procedure all along thereduction. This strategy usually kept the debitage surface clear ofhinge or step fractures and with the required curvature. The mainevidence for this is the overpassing end termination on laminaritems, mainly NBKs (Table 2). This practice differed however be-tween the three sites; Qesem showing the highest use and YabrudI-15 the lowest (Fig. 12). The difference between Qesem and YabrudI-15 is statistically significant (c2 ¼ 5.20, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05). Anotherindication of its lesser use at Yabrud I-15 is that the cores show thegreatest difference between the number of parallel laminar scarsand the total number of laminar scars on their debitage surface(Table 3). This difference can only have resulted from laminar itemsthat did not follow-through the entire length of the debitage sur-face and did not fully remove former scars.

The removal of overpass items and crested blades played amajor role in maintaining the debitage surface. In order to find outwhich method was more commonly used to maintain the coresalong the course of laminar reduction, we united the overpassitems bearing laminar scars (indicating removal during the courseof production in contrast to the ‘initial’ overpass items) with therejuvenation crested blades and examined their relative frequency(Fig. 13). The results show that overpass item removal for main-taining the debitage surface at Yabrud I-15 was statistically lesscommon than at Qesem (c2 ¼ 6.69, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05) and Tabun XI(c2 ¼ 6.0, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05).

Another way of examining this aspect uses two sets of ratios,each relating to the three laminar types as a whole. The first set istheir ratio to rejuvenation crested blades and the second is theirratio to overpass items bearing regular laminar scars (Table 5). Thefirst set of ratios shows that at Qesem the systematic reduction oflaminar items was performed with only rare removals of rejuve-nation crested blades, as opposed to Tabun XI or Yabrud I-15 wherethe use of rejuvenation crested blades was statistically more



common (c2 ¼ 5.09, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05; c2 ¼ 14.67, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05respectively). The removal of overpass items during the course ofthe laminar reduction was also less common at Qesem. However inthis case, Yabrud I-15 shows a rather similar ratio, while in Tabun XIoverpass item removal was well practiced. The difference betweenQesem and Tabun XI is statistically significant (c2 ¼ 16.08, df ¼ 1,p < 0.05). The fact that at Qesem both rejuvenation crested bladesand overpass items show the highest ratio demonstrates that amore common reduction of laminar items with an overpassing endtermination makes other maintenance procedures lessnecessary.

Table 5Several ratios of the three laminar types (blades, PE blades and NBKs) to cores and CTEs.

The three laminartypesa\laminar core class

The three laminar types\alloverpass items and crestedblades

The three laminar types\rejuvenationcrested blades and non-initialoverpass items

The three laminartypes\rejuvenationcrested blades

The three laminartypes\non-initialoverpass items

QesemCave

15.8 5.3 12.3 44.0 17.0

Tabun XI(Amudian)

26.0 3.7 6.2 23.9 8.4

Tabun XI(all)

19.4 4.3 4.8 17.3 6.6

YabrudI-15

5.4 3.3 7.7 14.8 15.9

a This ratio includes only whole and proximal items.

The debitage surface was also maintained from the core base, asmostly indicated by the removal of single small items. At Qesemand Tabun XI single removals from the base appear on about a thirdof the overpass items (32.2% and 33.8% respectively), while atYabrud I-15 they appear on more than half (57.9%). The differencebetween Qesem and Yabrud I-15 is statistically significant(c2 ¼ 5.22, df¼ 1, p < 0.05). Their presence on the cores themselves(Table 3) also varies. At Tabun they appear in the lowest percentage,at Qesem on about one quarter of the cores and at Yabrud I-15 onmore than a half. In this case Yabrud I-15 is statistically differentfrom Qesem (c2 ¼ 7.49, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05) and Tabun XI (c2 ¼ 12.84,df ¼ 1, p < 0.05). Another difference is in the character of the re-movals from the core base. While at Qesem and Tabun XI most ofthese are in the form of small flakes, at Yabrud I-15 21.1% of all of theoverpass items show the removal of single blades or bladelets fromthe base (Qesem 1.9%; Tabun XI 4.2%). In this case Yabrud I-15 isstatistically different than Qesem (c2 ¼ 24.63, df ¼ 1, p < 0.05) andTabun XI (c2¼ 5.92, df¼ 1, p < 0.05). Another indication of this typeof core modification is seen on blades with a bipolar scar patternthat are rare at Qesem and Tabun XI andmore common at Yabrud I-15 (9.5% of blades).

Another method for maintaining the reduction was to abandonthe debitage surface and to open a new one from a different di-rection. This choice is indicated by cores with two striking plat-forms and it was more frequent at Qesem (19.0%) and Tabun XI(24.3%) than at Yabrud I-15 (7.9%) (Appendix A. 2).

3.3.7. Core discardIn general, only few cores were not utilized to exhaustion. The

reduction of laminar items usually stopped a few mm below themean length of the laminar items (compare data from Tables 2e3).

3.3.8. Summarizing the variability in the reduction sequenceThe above comparison between the three sites demonstrates

that the reduction sequence was dynamic and that each stepincluded technological choices made out of an array of potential


shared possibilities. It is commonly accepted that planned productscan usually be achieved using more than one mode of production(e.g. Marks and Volkman, 1983; D�ebenath and Dibble, 1994:12;Bo€eda, 1995; Meignen, 1995). The knapper makes a choiceconsidering the quality and shape of the raw material and the bankof techniques mastered, as in the case we have presented here.

Since the finds of Yabrud I were not systematically collected,further caution is necessary in this particular case. Nevertheless,the fact that the results of the separately conducted attributeanalysis of the three laminar types, CTEs and cores fromYabrud I-15(Shimelmitz, 2009:227e300) showed similar patterns (e.g. the

frequent use of removals from core bases) demonstrates theimportance of the assemblage in displaying specific technologicalchoices despite its limitations.

Altogether, our results indicate that most of the technologicalprocedures and choices made throughout the different steps of thereduction sequence appear at all three sites, indicating that theknappers shared the same ‘know-how’ (e.g. Parker and Milbrath,1993; Annet, 1996) regarding laminar production and similar con-cepts of the product properties. There were however differencesbetween the three sites in the frequencies of using specific tech-nological procedures and choices along the reduction sequence.

These differences are already discernible at the stage of rawmaterial selection. While at Qesem flat flint slabs were commonlyfavored, at Tabun XI and Yabrud I there was a preference forrounded or amorphous nodules. The difference in raw material isthe result of preference and not the lack of certain shapes of rawmaterial in the site's surroundings. Variability in raw material se-lection by different groups of the same cultural entity was observedin other cases as well (e.g. Van Peer, 1991:138; Kuhn. 1995:108).Although choosing a specific raw material limits the range oftechnological choices for controlling the reduction (e.g. Kuhn,1995:105), the analysis shows that different choices were madeeven when working with similar raw material types. One exampleis the utilization of rounded and amorphous nodules that weretreated differently for the production of laminar items. Although atall three sites they were often shaped into ‘amorphous front’ orprismatic cores, there was a difference in the use of the availableoptions during the production that led to different core shapes atthe state of discard. For example, while at Yabrud I-15 the tech-nological choices during the reduction process often led to coreswith ‘narrowed prismatic’ shapes, this was rarely the case at theother sites. Another difference is that Qesem is the only sitewhere atechnological choice leading to pyramidal cores was made.

Another difference is the maintenance of the cores along thereduction sequence. At Qesem the production involved thefrequent removal of laminar items which followed through the



entire length of the debitage surface. The constant removal of suchitems during the entire reduction process preserved the convexitynecessary for knapping and reduced the need for core maintenanceby removing overpass items or crested blades. At Tabun XI andYabrud I-15, where follow-through blows were less common, theremoval of overpass items and crested blades for maintenance wasmore pervasive than at Qesem. At Yabrud I-15 the frequency ofmodification removals from core base is higher. Here too, thesedifferences do not seem to be related to the selected raw material.

3.4. Patterns of blank selection for secondary modification

Selection patterns of blanks for secondary modification werededuced from comparing blanks and tools. Our focus was on thebladese themain laminar type selected for secondarymodification(Table 6). At all three sites the selection of longer, wider, and moreelongated (L:W) blades for secondary modification is noticeable.This pattern indicates that Amudian knappers did not seek delicatelaminar items, but rather more robust items that could be easilyhand held (e.g. Shimelmitz et al., 2014b). Other shared attributes inselected laminar items include more acute edge angles, curvedprofiles, few hinge scars and a modified platform. The commonrejection of items with an irregular or a convex profile and a thinplain platform is yet another shared characteristic of blade selec-tion. Many of these attributes relate to blade edges e the potentialuse of the items for cutting activities. With regard to attributessuggesting different patterns of selection among the sites, no sta-tistical significance was found to support opposing patterns.

Table 6Selection patterns of the three laminar types.

Qesem Cave Tabun XI Amudian Yabrud I-15

X2 or t df p X2 or t df p X2 or t df p

n ¼ blanks 645 140 107n ¼ shaped items 354 109 40MetricLarger length þ t ¼ 6.25 431 <0.05 þ t ¼ 3.65 203 <0.05 þ t ¼ 2.39 113 <0.05Larger width þ t ¼ 4.58 427 <0.05 þ þ t ¼ 2.35 117 <0.05Larger length/width ratio þ t ¼ 2.62 420 <0.05 þ þEdge anglesAcuter angle of sharp edges þ t ¼ 4.65 1019 <0.05 þ t ¼ 3.48 320 <0.05 þTwo edges with non-uniform angles e X2 ¼ 11.54 1 <0.05 e X2 ¼ 6.36 1 <0.05 þCross-sectionTriangular þ X2 ¼ 15.01 1 <0.05 þ X2 ¼ 5.18 1 <0.05 ¼‘other’ e X2 ¼ 8.95 1 <0.05 e X2 ¼ 11.31 1 <0.05 ¼End terminationOverpassing þ X2 ¼ 17.26 1 <0.05 e þ X2 ¼ 3.93 1 <0.05Hinged e X2 ¼ 5.85 1 <0.05 ¼ ¼HingeLess hinge scars on dorsal face þ X2 ¼ 7.16 1 <0.05 þ þProfileCurved þ X2 ¼ 22.24 1 <0.05 þ X2 ¼ 4.24 1 <0.05 þConvex e X2 ¼ 7.56 1 <0.05 e e

Twisted e X2 ¼ 8.27 1 <0.05 ¼ þIrregular e e X2 ¼ 8.33 1 <0.05 e

Striking platformThin plain e X2 ¼ 5.39 1 <0.05 e e X2 ¼ 6.42 1 <0.05Modified þ þ þ X2 ¼ 15.09 1 <0.05

(þ) marks positive representation: more common in the tools than in blanks.(�) marks a negative representation: less common among the tools than in blanks.(¼) marks no major differences between blanks and tools.

Another factor which might have affected the selection patterns(and the production itself) is a possible difference in tool typesbetween the sites. This option necessitates investigation, especiallydue to the typological difference between Tabun Ea-Eb/Unit XI andYabrud I-15 e i.e., the prevalence of backed knives in the former


and themorewidespread appearance of end-scrapers and burins inthe latter (which was suggested to distinguish the Amudian fromthe Pre-Aurignacian; e.g. Garrod, 1970; Jelinek et al., 1973;Vishnyatsky, 2000). However, the typological difference referredto above relates not only to the laminar tools but to all tools. Forexample, many of the burins and end-scrapers of Yabrud I-15 weremade on flakes (Rust, 1950; Vishnyatsky, 2000). Focusing on toolsmade solely on laminar types shows that burins appear in anexceptionally high percentage in Yabrud I-15, while backed knivesaremost prevalent at Tabun XI (Fig.14). Nonetheless, examining theentire distribution of tools made on laminar items indicates thatthe differences between the sites are minute and thus inconse-quential. Another aspect demonstrating the similar use of laminaritems for secondary modification between the sites, is the similarcomposition of the three laminar types used as tools (Fig. 15). Inmost cases the retouch of the tools was light and did not signifi-cantly change the blank's characteristics.

4. Discussion and conclusions

4.1. Summarizing similarities and differences between the threesites

The comparison of the Amudian assemblages in Qesem, TabunXI and Yabrud I-15 reveals major similarities, as well as some dif-ferences. Following is a summary of our results.

4.1.1. Blanks

1. Blades, PE blades and NBKs characterize Amudian laminarproduction at the three sites. However, the relative frequency ofthe three laminar types differs e while at Qesem, blades, PE


Fig. 14. Composition of the tool types made on laminar items. n ¼ Qesem: 657; Tabun XI (Amudian): 179; Yabrud I-15: 67.

Fig. 15. The composition of the three laminar types used as tools out of their sum.n ¼ Qesem: 616; Tabun XI (Amudian): 158; Yabrud I-15: 60.


blades and NBKs are equally represented, at Tabun XI and Yab-rud I-15 blades dominate.

2. When each of the three laminar types e blades, PE blades andNBKs is examined separately, a highmorphological and metricalsimilarity is observed between the three sites.

4.1.2. Reduction sequences

1. Although the three sites have a variety of available raw materialtypes at their reach, including both nodules of various sizes andflint slabs, preferences differed. While at Qesem flint slabs werehighly favored for laminar production, at the other two sitesrounded or irregular nodules, mostly fist sized, were preferred.

2. Flint knappers in the three sites had similar sets of technologicalprocedures at their disposal, but they drew upon them differ-entially. While some preferences may be explained as followingraw material selection, others cannot.

4.1.3. Patterns of selection of blanks for secondary modification

1. The various patterns of selection demonstrate that the sharpedge characteristics were of a major importance, alongside er-gonomic considerations regarding potential handgrip.


2. The composition of tool types made from laminar items is fairlysimilar at the three sites.

3. Blades constitute the main laminar type selected for secondarymodification at all three sites. Modification was rather minorand did not significantly change the morphology of the originalblank.

4.2. Predetermined debitage technologies

The study of Qesem has shown that Amudian blade productionis a predetermined technology characterized by the systematicmanufacture of several types of laminar items (Shimelmitz et al.,2011). The comparison of the three sites presented here providesfurther evidence regarding the nature and intensity of pre-determined debitage technologies in the Amudian of the late LowerPaleolithic. At all three sites, Amudian technology overcame theneed for intensive core preparation that is usually performed inorder to achieve a specific core shape before the reduction of theproducts (a procedure common to many predetermined debitagetechniques: e.g., Bo€eda et al., 1990; Bo€eda, 1995; Dibble and Bar-Yosef, 1995 and references therein). This was chiefly done byselecting suitable raw material combined with the use of over-passing blows to control core convexities and occasionally by a jointreduction of laminar items and flakes.

Pelegrin's (2005:28) view of predetermined debitage tech-niques emphasizes that “the results of elaborated knapping pro-cedures include standardized products, the formal features ofwhich are completely independent of the initial morphology of theraw material”. While in the Amudian technology, laminar produc-tion is not fully independent of the raw material morphology, thiswas not always the case in later Middle Paleolithic Levallois tech-nology either (e.g. Kuhn, 1995). Amudian blade production couldhowever manage various shapes of rawmaterial to produce blades,and the preference for certain raw material shapes was a result ofspecific shared technological choices.

In other words, this laminar technology (with little core prep-aration or maintenance) had minimized raw material constraints.The Amudian laminar technology demonstrates this quality by wayof producing similar products across the three examined sites,drawing on flat flint slabs, as well as rounded and amorphousnodules of various sizes. The high degree of similarity between theAmudian laminar items implies that their qualities were wellcontrolled. It further indicates that the knappers at the three sitesshared not only technological knowledge but also the same general



concept of the blanks' characteristics. In a broader perspective, itsuggests a shared mental template (e.g. Deetz, 1967:45e47;Monnier, 2006) of how these blanks should be. This similarity,which is in sharp contrast with the variety of blades appearing inother Lower, as well as Middle Paleolithic contexts (e.g. Meignen,1994; R�evillion and Tuffreau, 1994; Moncel, 2001; Monigal, 2001,2002; Meignen and Tushabramishvili, 2006; Meignen, 2007;Johnson and McBrearty, 2010; Wilkins and Chazan, 2012), dem-onstrates that in the Amudian, it was not just a general concept ofmaking blades, but rather of making blades and other laminar typesof specific characteristics.

4.3. Variability in the Amudian laminar production

The technological study presented here showed that while theproducts in the three sites differed only slightly, variability wassomewhat higher in the reduction sequences. White and Dibble(1986) argued that when searching for the reason behind vari-ability in lithic assemblages, fivemajor aspects must be considered:raw material, function, mental template, technology and skill. Adiachronic difference should also be addressed. The question is thuswhether, and to what extent, was the variability observed in theAmudian blade production affected by these or other factors.

The possibility that the observed variability is due to temporalfactors seems irrelevant since the dates of Qesem span from ca.420e200 ka (Gopher et al., 2010) and the dates from Tabun XI(Mercier and Valladas, 2003) and Yabrud I (Porat et al., 2002) fallwithin this range.

The three sites differed mostly in the raw material used and itseffect on the reduction sequence. As a variety of raw material typeswas available around each of the three sites, it follows that thisdifference in selection is due to educated choices, rather thanenvironmental constraints.

The fact that the three laminar types from the examined sitesare quite similar demonstrates that a different mental templateregarding the blanks' character is not the case. Difference in skillalso seems irrelevant to the results we presented since we addressdifferent sites and not probable differences between novices andexperienced knappers, which most probably contributed to each ofthe assemblages studied here (e.g. Karlin et al., 1993; Karlin andJulien, 1994; Shea, 2006).

Functional differences as an explanation for the observedvariability do not seem to be feasible due to the fact that boththe blanks, as well as the tool types made of them, are quitesimilar. The only clear exception is the higher percentage ofNBKs at Qesem that could indicate some difference in the in-tensity of functions performed at the examined sites. However,future use wear studies might contribute towards a better res-olution of this issue. Currently, a faunal perspective is missing, asdetailed faunal insights are available from Qesem only (Stineret al., 2009, 2011; Blaso et al., 2014). At Tabun, the Jelinek andRonen excavations since the mid-1960s yielded practically nobones from the AYCC, while earlier excavations at Tabun andYabrud I yielded faunal remains (Garrod and Bate, 1937;Lehmann, 1970) but provide no specific description for theAmudian contexts.

Summarizing the above, some of the observed differences intechnology between the three sites can be attributed to the dif-ferences in raw material selection preferences and a possiblevariation in function. Nevertheless, these two factors cannotexplain other differences between the sites, such as the frequency


of follow-through blows, crested blades and removals from the corebase. Keeping in mind that the blanks are quite similar, a sharedmental template of the items' characteristics is feasible, whileknappers from each site had their own “interpretation” or localtradition for achieving this goal.

Variability between industries of large scale Paleolithic culturalcomplexes has been thoroughly discussed in the past. One of thevery well-known cases is the discussion on Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age variability (e.g., Binford and Binford,1966; Bordesand Sonneville-Bordes, 1970; Dibble and Rolland, 1992; McBreartyet al., 1996; Van Peer, 1998; Wurz, 2002; Delagnes and Meignen,2006; McBrearty and Tryon, 2006; Monnier and Missal, 2014;Baena et al., in press). Clark (1988), in his study of the Middle StoneAge of Africa, argued that this variability may represent the rise ofregional identity. Variability within industries on the other hand,and especially within regionally confined industries (as is the caseof the AYCC) received less attention in early Paleolithic perspective.The study of the Amudian industry presented here is an example ofsuch a case where variability may be an indication of regional dif-ferences in a small scale geographical area. Variability within theAmudian has already been noted, especially regarding the differ-ence between the Yabrud I blade-dominated industry termed byRust (1950) ‘Pre-Aurignacian’ and the blade-dominated industrytermed by Garrod ‘Amudian’ (see Copeland, 2000). The ‘Beach In-dustry’ from the Lebanese coast near Adlun (Copeland, 1983) andthe industry fromMasloukh (Shmookler, 1983) may be regarded asadditional AYCC blade dominated variants. Preliminary notesregarding technological difference between Amudian Tabun XI andYabrud I-15 have already been made (Monigal, 2002: 269e271;Meignen, 2007). The detailed study of the Amudian presented hereindicates that there was a general ‘know-how’ concerning laminarproduction throughout the region with variations in specificchoices made along the chaîne op�eratoire. The consistency of thesetechnological traditions is best exemplified by the site of Qesemwhere the reduction sequence for making laminar items prevailedfor a very long time (Gopher et al., 2010). The cases of Yabrud I andTabun also show persistence of technological traditions throughoutthe layers constituting the later parts of the AYCC sequence at thesesites.

At a different level, a comparison of the laminar productionbetween the Amudian and the other two AYCC industries (Yab-rudian, AcheuloeYabrudian) at Tabun and at Yabrud I (Shimelmitz,2009) may shed light on the above conclusion. Although laminarproduction in the non-Amudian AYCC industries is significantly lessintensive, it can be studied using the same methods and thencompared to the Amudian laminar production. We found that inthe case of Tabun XI the technology of laminar productionwas quitesimilar in all the three AYCC industries present on-site, the maindifference being in the craftsmanship of the reduction, i.e., bladeswith irregular characteristics were the least common in the Amu-dian andmost common in the AcheuloeYabrudian industry. YabrudI, on the other hand, demonstrates amore pronounced difference inblade production between the Amudian of Yabrud I-15 and that ofthe AcheuloeYabrudian of Yabrud I-11/12. Nevertheless, in bothTabun and Yabrud I there are distinct similarities characterizing thesite itself when compared to other sites, such as, for example a highutilization of modification removals from the core base at Yaburd Iappearing both in layer 15 and layers 11e12 (Shimelmitz, 2009). Itis noteworthy that at Qesem as well, blade production was quitesimilar in the Amudian and the Yabrudian assemblages (Lev, 2010).Thus, the analysis indicates that the three industries comprising the



AYCC in the three studied sites shared not only the ability to pro-duce laminar items but also the same general technologicalknowledge and particular technological choices characteristic toeach of the sites. In other words, although the Amudian industryconstitutes only a small component of the sequences of Tabun andYabrud I, the fact that in both cases the laminar technology shows ahigh resemblance to that of the Yabrudian and AcheuloeYabrudianindustries from the same sites (Shimelmitz, 2009) supports thesuggestion that these sites represent repeated visits of groups withtheir own traditions.

Hovers (2001), in her study of the lithic assemblages of theLevantine Middle Paleolithic, argued that there is a greaterresemblance along the sequence of a single specific site than amongsites. She suggested that this illustrates a pattern of returning to thesame sites by the same groups of people, especially in the lateMiddle Paleolithic. Our results indicate that this pattern can bepushed backwards to the late Lower Paleolithic. Bearing in mindthat technology is not merely a means to an end but also a reflec-tion of the social sphere of its users (e.g. Pfaffenberger, 1988, 1992;Ingold, 1993; Lemonnier, 1993; Dobres, 2000), this implies that thegroups constituting the AYCC shared a pool of knowledge and awayof life, yet they were not free of some differences. As Ingold(1993:285) advocated, “In human societies … learning to dothings in a certain way is also a matter of learning to do themdifferently from other people. Technical proficiency, then, is anaspect of social placement of belonging”.

Similarities and differences (variability) between the threemajor AYCC industries as well as within the Amudian industrystudied in detail and presented here through the production of

Appendix A: 1State of preservation of laminar items and composition of blanks and tools.

Layer Whole

A: Qesem CaveBlanks Blade 257Blanks PE blade 295Blanks NBK 353Shaped Blade 180Shaped PE blade 94Shaped NBK 69Blanks and shaped Blade 437Blanks and shaped PE blade 389Blanks and shaped NBK 422B: The Amudian beds of Tabun XIBlanks Blade 116Blanks PE blade 45Blanks NBK 62Shaped Blade 90Shaped PE blade 21Shaped NBK 20Blanks and shaped Blade 206Blanks and shaped PE blade 66Blanks and shaped NBK 82C: Yabrud I e Layer 15Blanks Blade 87Blanks PE blade 24Blanks NBK 20Shaped Blade 33Shaped PE blade 9Shaped NBK 6Blanks and shaped Blade 120Blanks and shaped PE blade 33Blanks and shaped NBK 26


blades reflect a significant change in human behavior andadaptation during this pivotal period in human cultural andbiological evolution (Hershkovitz et al., 2011; Ben-Dor et al.,2011). Notwithstanding Lower Paleolithic intra- and inter-assemblage/site variability in the Acheulian (e.g. Gowlett, 1998;Clark, 2001; Gamble and Marshall, 2001; Sharon, 2009; Sharonet al., 2011), the evidence presented here, we suggest, maymark the end of a Lower Paleolithic Acheulian way of life thatlasted over a million years in the Levant, setting the stage for anew set of human behaviors. In this regard, the AYCC deservesspecial attention as a formative stage in human behavioral evo-lution in the Levant.

Acknowledgments

We wish to deeply thank Arthur Jelinek and Steven Kuhn forallowing us to study the finds of Tabun Cave stored at the Universityof Arizona and present its results here. We also thank the IsraelAntiquities Authority. Thematerial fromYabrud I was studied at theInstitut für Ur-und Frühgeschichte der Universit€at zu K€oln with thecourtesy of Prof. Jürgen Richter and Prof. A. Zimmermann. Wethank several organizations that financially supported the excava-tion at Qesem: the Israel Science Foundation, the Leakey Founda-tion, the Wenner Gren Foundation, the CARE ArchaeologicalFoundation, the Dan David Foundation and the Fritz ThyssenFoundation.

Appendixes

Proximal Medial Distal Sum

232 61 95 645139 47 114 595184 48 111 69671 30 73 35427 9 34 1648 4 17 98

303 91 168 999166 56 148 759192 52 128 794

14 3 7 1404 2 9 604 1 5 72

11 1 7 1092 0 3 261 1 1 23

25 4 14 2496 2 12 865 2 6 95

13 0 7 1073 0 1 285 0 2 272 0 5 403 0 1 131 0 0 7

15 0 12 1476 0 2 416 0 2 34


Appendix A: 2Cores from the three examined sites.

Laminar core class Flake coreclass

Tested rawmaterial

Sum

Single strikingplatform laminarcore

Two strikingplatforms laminarcore

Single striking platformlaminar and flake core

Two striking platformslaminar and flake core

Single strikingplatform bladeletcore

Flake core(various types)

Tested rawmaterial

QesemCave

60 9 34 13 5 192 4 317

% 18.9 2.8 10.7 4.1 1.6 60.6 1.3 100Tabun XI-

Amudian4 7 4 77 4 96

% 4.2 7.3 4.2 80.2 4.2 100Tabun XI

total16 12 9 437 8 482

% 3.3 2.5 1.9 90.7 1.7 100Yabrud I-15 14 1 21 2 45 83% 16.9 1.2 25.3 2.4 54.2 100

Appendix A: 3Comparison of blade characteristics to several Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic sites.

Blade Middle Paleolithic Upper Paleolithic

Qesem Tabun XIAmudian

Yabrud I-15

Tabun IX(1)

Hummal A1(2)

Hayonim D(3)

Azariq XIII(3)

Shunera XVI(3)

n¼ 999 249 147 270 100 100 100Metric s.d s.d s.d. s.d s.d s.d s.d s.d.Mean length 51.2 12.7 62.6 13.7 58.2 13.2 78.7 17.2 81 41.2 16.3 37.2 10.7 40.9 19.1Mean width 20.9 5.5 23.5 6.3 21.9 5.0 25.2 6.6 41 12.9 6.5 9.5 3.9 11.5 6.3Mean thickness 8.6 3.1 8.9 3.4 8.0 2.7 8.4 2.7 8 4.5 2.9 3.2 1.7 3.8 2.6Mean length/width

ratio2.5 0.4 2.8 0.6 2.7 0.5 3.1 0.4 2.6 3.5 0.8 4.2 1.3 4 2.5

Mean width/thicknessratio

2.6 0.8 2.9 1.1 3.0 1.0 3.2 0.5

Cortex% of blades with cortex 44.7 43.2 40.8 27.1 31 21 26Shapes% pointed 6.9 6.5 2.7 30.5 43 24 33Cross-section% of triangular 47.2 42.3 40.4 34.4Scars s.d s.d s.d. s.d s.d s.d s.d s.d.Mean No. of laminar

scars2.5 1.1 2.6 1.1 2.3 1.4 4.0 1.4

Striking platform% Thick plain 49.2 30.9 34.2 22.9 22.0 3.0 16.0% Modified 34.3 43.2 50.0 70 7.0 3.0 1.0

Data from: 1. Shimelmitz and Kuhn, 2013; 2. Hauck 2010, Table 45; 3. Wiseman, 1993.

Appendix A: 4Crested blade sub-types from the three sites.

Initial Unifacial Rejuvenation Sum

* Primary Faustkeilklingen Rough Patinated Second-primary Unifacial Rejuvenation

Qesem Cave n¼ 8 37 51 13 48 58 215Qesem Cave % 3.7 17.2 23.7 6.0 22.3 27.0 100Tabun XI e Amudian n¼ 1 14 9 1 2 18 45Tabun XI e Amudian % 2.2 31.1 20.0 2.2 4.4 40.0 100Yabrud I-15 n¼ 4 13 8 2 2 2 15 46Yabrud I-15 % 8.7 28.3 17.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 32.6 100

*For definition of crested blade sub-types see Shimelmitz et al., 2011. The Faustkeilklingen sub-type follows Rust, 1950:28e29.



Appendix B: 1. sharp edges of blades (A), PE blades (B) and NBKs (C) (blanks and tools). Left and right angles of blades are united. Blades: n ¼ Qesem: 649; Tabun XI (Amudian):322; Yabrud I-15: 165. PE blades: n ¼ Qesem: 281; Tabun XI (Amudian): 52; Yabrud I-15: 19. NBK: n ¼ Qesem: 407; Tabun XI (Amudian): 78; Yabrud I-15: 23.



Appendix B: 2. Length/width ratio of blades (blanks and tools). n ¼ Qesem: 422; Tabun XI (Amudian): 199; Yabrud I-15: 115.

Appendix B: 3. Width/thickness ratio of NBKs (blanks and tools). n ¼ Qesem: 420; Tabun XI (Amudian): 80; Yabrud I-15: 25.

Appendix B: 4. Percentage of cortex cover on the dorsal face of NBKs (blanks andtools). n ¼ Qesem: 420; Tabun XI (Amudian): 81; Yabrud I-15: 26.


References

Annett, J., 1996. On knowing how to do things: a theory of motor imagery. CognitiveBrain Research 3, 65e69.

Bakdach, J., 1982. Das Jungpalaeolithikum von Jabrud in Syrien (unpublished Ph.D.dissertation). Universit€at zu K€oln.

Bakdach, J., 2000. Die Pal€aolithischen freilandfundstellen auf dem hochplateau unJabrud und in der Nabek-Ebene. Damazener Mitteilungen 12, 116.

Bar-Yosef, O., Kuhn, S.L., 1999. The big deal about blades: laminar technologies andhuman evolution. American Anthropologist 101 (2), 322e338.

Bar-Yosef, O., Van Peer, P., 2009. The chaîne op�eratoire approach in Middle Paleo-lithic archaeology. Current Anthropology 50, 103e131.


Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2011. Innovative human behavior between Acheulian andMousterian: a view from Qesem Cave, Israel. In: Le Tensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R.,Otte, M. (Eds.), The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the Middle East andNeighboring Regions, vol. 126. ERAUL, Li�ege, pp. 121e130.

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

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

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

Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., 2010. Paleolithic cutlery 400,000e200,000 yearsago: tiny meat-cutting tools from Qesem Cave, Israel. Antiquity 84. http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/barkai325/.

Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Shimelmitz, R., Lev, Z., Stiner, M.C., Gopher, A., 2009. A bladefor all seasons? Making and using Amudian blades at Qesem Cave, Israel. Hu-man Evolution 24, 57e75.

Baena, J., Moncel, M.H., Cuartero, F., Navarro, M.G.C., Rubio, D., 2015. Late MiddlePleistocene genesis of Neanderthal technology in Western Europe: the case ofPayre site (south-east France). Quaternary International (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.031.

Ben-Dor, M., Gopher, A., Hershkovitz, I., Barkai, R., 2011. Man the fat hunter: thedemise of Homo erectus and the emergence of a new hominin lineage in theMiddle Pleistocene (ca. 400 ka) Levant. PLoS One 6 (12), e28689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028689.

Binford, L.R., Binford, S.R., 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability inthe Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68, 238e295.

Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Cuartero, F., Fern�andez Peris, J., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2013.Using bones to shape stones: MIS 9 bone retouchers at both edges of theMediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 8 (10), e76780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076780.

Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2014. Subsistence economy and social life:a zooarchaeological view from the 300 kya central hearth at Qesem Cave, Israel.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35, 248e268.

Boaretto, E., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Berna, F., Kubik, P.W., Weiner, S., 2009. Specializedflint procurement strategies for hand axes, scrapers and blades in the late LowerPaleolithic: a 10Be study at Qesem Cave, Israel. Human Evolution 24, 1e12.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(15)00144-5/sref1



































http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/barkai325/

http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/barkai325/







http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028689

















Bo€eda, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In:Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of LevalloisTechnology. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 41e69.

Bo€eda, E., Geneste, J.-M., Meignen, L., 1990. Identification de chaines op�eratioreslithiques du Pal�eolithique Ancien et Moyen. Pal�eo 2, 43e80.

Bordes, F., 1955. Le Pal�eolitique inf�erieur et Moyen de Yabrud (Syrie) et al questiondu Pr�e-aurignacien. L'Anthropologie 59 (5e6), 486e507.

Bordes, F., 1984. Leçons sur le Pal�eolithique, Tome III. �Editions du CNRS, Paris.Bordes, F., Sonneville-Bordes, D., 1970. The significance of variability in Paleolithic

assemblages. World Archaeology 2 (1), 61e73.Clark, J.D., 1988. The Middle Stone Age of East Africa and the beginnings of regional

identity. Journal of Anthropological Research 2 (3), 235e305.Clark, J.D., 2001. Variability in primary and secondary technologies of the later

Acheulian in Africa. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed.Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 1e18.

Copeland, L., 1983. The stone industries. In: Roe, D. (Ed.), Adlun in the Stone Age.The Excavations of D.A.E. Garrod in Lebanon 1958e1963, British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 159, pp. 89e365. Oxford.

Copeland, L., 2000. Yabrudian and related industries: the state of research in 1996.In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Toward Modern Humans: Yabrudianand Micoquian, 400e50 k-years Ago, BAR International Series 850, pp. 97e117.Oxford.

Davidzon, A., Goring-Morris, N., 2003. Sealed in stone: the Upper Paleolithic earlyAhmarian knapping method in the light of refitting studies at Nahal NizzanaXIII, Western Negev, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 33, 75e206.

Deb�enath, A., Dibble, H.L., 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. UniversityMuseum, Philadelphia.

Deetz, J., 1967. Invitation to Archeology. Natural History Press, New York.Delagnes, A., Jaubert, J., Meignen, L., 2007. Les technocomplex du Pal�eolithique

Moyen en Europe occidentale dans leur cadre diachronique et g�eographique. In:Vandermeersch, B., Maureillr, B. (Eds.), Les N�eandertaliens. Biologie et Cultures.CTHS, Paris, pp. 213e229.

Delagnes, A., Meignen, L., 2006. Diversity of lithic production systems during theMiddle Paleolithic in France. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions beforethe Transition. Springer, New York, pp. 85e107.

Dibble, H.L., 1981. Technological Strategies of Stone Tool Production at Tabun Cave(Israel) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Arizona.

Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), 1995. The Definition and Interpretation of LevalloisTechnology. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Dibble, H.L., Rolland, N., 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic ofWestern Europe: history, perspectives and a new synthesis. In: Dibble, H.L.,Mellars, P. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability.University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1e20.

Dobres, M.A., 2000. Technology and Social Agency. Blackwell, Malden.Druck, D., 2004. Flint exploitation by the Prehistoric Inhabitants of Nahal Me'arot

Caves, Mount Carmel (unpublished M.A. dissertation). University of Haifa.Gamble, C., Marshall, G., 2001. The shape of handaxes, the structure of the

Acheulian world. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed.Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 19e27.

Garrod, D.A.E., 1956. Acheul�eo-Jabroudien et «Pr�e-Aurignacien» de la Grotte deTaboun (Mont Carmel); �Etude stratigraphique et chronologique. Quaternaria III,39e59.

Garrod, D.A.E., 1970. Pre-Aurignacian and Amudian: a comparative study of theearliest blade industries of the Near East. In: Gripp, K., Schütrumpf, R.,Schabedissen, H. (Eds.), Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt. B€ohlau Verlag, K€oln,pp. 224e229.

Garrod, D.A.E., Bate, D.M.A., 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, vol. I. ClarendonPress, Oxford.

Gopher, A., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A., Karkanas, P.,Shahack-Gross, R., 2010. The chronology of the late Lower Paleolithic in theLevant: U series dates of speleothems from Middle Pleistocene Qesem cave,Israel. Quaternary Geochronology 5, 644e656.

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

Gowlett, J.A.J., 1998. Unity and diversity in the Early Stone Age. In: Ashton, J.,Healy, F., Pettitt, P. (Eds.), Stone Age Archaeology. Oxbow Books, Oxford,pp. 59e66.

Hauck, T.C., 2010. The Mousterian Sequence of Hummal (Syria) (unpublished Ph.D.dissertation). Universit€at Basel.

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

Hovers, E., 2001. Territorial behavioral in the Middle Paleolithic of the southernLevant. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic andMiddle Stone Age. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 123e152.

Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblage of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Ingold, T., 1993. Tools and hunteregatherers. In: Berthelet, A., Chavaillon, J. (Eds.),The Use of Tools by Human and Non-human Primates. Clarendon Press, Oxford,pp. 281e292.

Jelinek, A.J., 1975. A preliminary report on some Lower and Middle Paleolithic in-dustries from the Tabun Cave, (Mount Carmel), Israel. In: Wendorf, R.,Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMUPress, Dallas, pp. 297e315.


Jelinek, A.J., 1982. The Middle Paleolithic in the southern Levant, with comments onthe appearance of Modern Homo Sapiens. In: Ronen, A. (Ed.), The Transitionfrom Lower to Middle Paleolithic and the Origin of Modern Man, BAR Inter-national Series 151, pp. 57e101. Oxford.

Jelinek, A.J., 1990. The Amudian in the context of the Mugharan Tradition at theTabun Cave (Mount Carmel), Israel. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence ofModern Humans. Cornell University Press, Ithica, pp. 81e90.

Jelinek, A.J., Farrand, W.R., Haas, G., Horowitz, A., Goldberg, P., 1973. New excavationthe Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, 1967e1972: a preliminary report.Pal�eorient 1, 151e183.

Johnson, C.R., McBrearty, S., 2010. 500,000 year old blades from the KapthurinFormation, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 58, 193e200.

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

Karlin, C., Julien, M., 1994. Prehistoric technology: a cognitive science? In:Renfrew, C., Zubrow, E.B. (Eds.), The Ancient Mind. New Directions in Archae-ology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 152e164.

Karlin, C., Ploux, S., Bodu, P., Pigeot, N., 1993. Some socio-economic aspects of theknapping process among groups of hunteregatherers in the Paris Basin area. In:Berthelet, A., Chavaillon, J. (Eds.), The Use of Tools by Human and Non-humanPrimates. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 318e337.

Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Lehmann, U., 1970. Die tierreste aus den h€ohlen von Jabrud (Syrien). In: Gripp, K.,

Schütrumpf, R., Schabedissen, H. (Eds.), Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt. B€ohlauVerlag, K€oln, pp. 181e188.

Lemonnier, P., 1993. Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Culturessince the Neolithic. Routledge, London.

Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., Shimelmitz, R., Stiner, M., Barkai, R., 2006. Use-wearanalysis of an Amudian laminar assemblage from Acheuleo-Yabrudian QesemCave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 921e934.

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

Marks, A.E., Volkman, P., 1983. Changing core reduction strategies: a technologicalshift from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in the southern Levant. In:Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), The Mousterian Legacy: Human Bi Cultural Change in theUpper Pleistocene, BAR International Series 164, pp. 13e33. Oxford.

McBrearty, S., Bishop, L., Kingston, J., 1996. Variability in traces of Middle Pleisto-cene hominid behavior in the Kapthurin Formation, Baringo, Kenya. Journal ofHuman Evolution 30, 563e579.

McBrearty, S., Tryon, C., 2006. From Acheulian to Middle Stone Age in the KapthurinFormation, Kenya. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions before the Tran-sition. Springer, New York, pp. 257e277.

McPherron, S., 2003. Technological and typological variability in the bifaces fromTabun Cave, Israel. In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to theStudy of Bifacial Technologies. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archae-ology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, pp. 55e76.

McPherron, S., 2006. What typology can tell us about Acheulian handaxe produc-tion. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age, Acheulian Tool-making fromQuarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 267e285.

Meignen, L., 1994. Pal�eolithique Moyen au Proche-Orient: le ph�enom�ene laminaire.In: R�evillion, S., Tuffreau, A. (Eds.), Les Industries Laminaires au Pal�eolithiqueMoyen. �Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 125e161.

Meignen, L., 1995. Levallois lithic production systems in the Middle Paleolithic ofthe Near East: the case of the unidirectional method. In: Dibble, H., Bar-Yosef, O.(Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. PrehistoryPress, Madison, pp. 361e380.

Meignen, L., 2007. Le ph�enom�ene laminaire au Proche-Orient, duPal�eolithique Inf�erieur aux d�ebuts du Pal�eolithique Sup�erieur. In: Evin, J. (Ed.),Congr�es du Centenaire: Un Si�ecle de Construction du Discours Scientifique enPr�ehistoire, XXVI� Congr�es Pr�ehistorique de France, Avignon 2004. Paris,pp. 79e94.

Meignen, L., Tushabramishvili, N., 2006. Pal�eolithic Moyen laminaire sur les flancssud du Caucase: productions lithiques et functionnement du site de Djruchula.Pal�eorient 32, 81e104.

Mercier, N., Valladas, H., 2003. Reassessment of TL age estimates of burnt flints fromthe Paleolithic site of Tabun Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 45,401e409.

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

Moncel, M.-H., 2001. Middle Paleolithic blade assemblages in southeastern France:the question of technical variability during the Middle Paleolithic and itsmeaning. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 2, 37e47.

Monigal, K., 2001. Lower and Middle Paleolithic blade industries and the dawn ofthe Upper Paleolithic in the Levant. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropologyof Eurasia 1, 11e21.

Monigal, K., 2002. The Levantine Leptolithic: Blade Production from the LowerPaleolithic to the Dawn of the Upper Paleolithic (unpublished Ph.D. disserta-tion). Southern Methodist University.

Monnier, G., 2006. Testing retouched flake tool standardization during the MiddlePaleolithic. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions before the Transition.Springer, New York, pp. 57e83.














































































































































































































































































Monnier, G.F., Missal, K., 2014. Another Mousterian debate? Bordian facies, chaîneop�eratoire technocomplexes, and patterns of lithic variability in the westernEuropean Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Quaternary International 350, 59e83.

Parker, S.T., Milbrath, C., 1993. Higher intelligence, propositional language, andculture as adaptation for planning. In: Gibson, K.R., Ingold, T. (Eds.), Tools,Language and Cognition in Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 314e333.

Pelegrin, J., 2005. Remarks about archaeological techniques and methods ofknapping: elements of a cognitive approach to stone knapping. In: Roux, V.,Bril, B. (Eds.), Stone Knapping. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,Cambridge, pp. 23e34.

Pigeot, N., 1987. Magdal�eniens D'�Etiolles. �Editions du CNRS, Paris.Pfaffenberger, B., 1988. Festishized objects and humanized nature: toward an an-

thropology of technology. Man 23, 236e252.Pfaffenberger, B., 1992. Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of An-

thropology 21, 491e516.Porat, N., Chazan, M., Schwarcz, H., Horwitz, L.K., 2002. Timing the Lower to Middle

Paleolithic boundary: new dates from the Levant. Journal of Human Evolution43, 107e122.

R�evillion, S., Tuffreau, A. (Eds.), 1994. Les Industries Laminaires au Pal�eolithiqueMoyen. �Editions du CNRS, Paris.

Rollefson, G.O., 1978. A Quantitative and Qualitative Typological Analysis of Bifacesfrom the Tabun Excavations, 1967e1972 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). TheUniversity of Arizona.

Ronen, A., Gisis, I., Tchernikov, I., 2011. The mugharan tradition reconsidered. In: LeTensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R., Otte, M. (Eds.), The Lower and Middle Paleolithic inthe Middle East and Neighboring Regions, vol. 126. ERAUL, Li�ege, pp. 59e66.

Rust, A., 1933. Beitrag zur erkenntnis der abwicklung der vorgeschictlichen kul-turperioden in Syrien. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 24, 205e218.

Rust, A., 1950. Die Hohlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). Wachholtz, Neumunster.Shahack-Gross, R., Berna, F., Karkanas, P., Lemorini, C., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2014.

Evidence for the repeated use of a central hearth at Middle Pleistocene (300 kyago) Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 44, 12e21.

Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulian giant-core technology. Current Anthropology 50,335e367.

Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Cultural conservatism andvariability in the Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. Journal of Hu-man Evolution 60, 387e397.

Shea, J.J., 2006. Child's play: reflections on the invisibility of children in thePaleolithic record. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 212e216.

Shimelmitz, R., 2009. Lithic Blade Production in the Middle Pleistocene of theLevant (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Tel Aviv University.

Shimelmitz, R., 2014. The recycling of flint throughout the Lower andMiddle Paleolithicsequence of Tabun Cave, Israel. Quaternary International (in press).

Shimelmitz, R., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2011. Systematic blade production at lateLower Paleolithic (400e200 ka) Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution61, 458e479.

Shimelmitz, R., Kuhn, S.L., 2013. Early Mousterian Levallois technology in Unit IX ofTabun Cave. PaleoAnthropology 2013, 1e27.

Shimelmitz, R., Kuhn, S.L., Jelinek, A.J., Ronen, A., Clark, A.E., Weinstein-Evron, M.,2014a. ‘Fire at will’: the emergence of habitual fire use 350,000 years ago.Journal of Human Evolution 77, 196e203.


Shimelmitz, R., Kuhn, L.S., Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M., 2014b. Predeterminedflake production at the Lower/Middle Paleolithic boundary: Yabrudian scraper-blank technology. PLoS ONE 9 (9), e106293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106293.

Shmookler, L., 1983. Masloukh Revisited: the Amudian Layers of the Coastal Site inLebanon (unpublished manuscript). Columbia University.

Solecki, R.L., Solecki, R.S., 1986. A reappraisal of Rust's cultural stratigraphy ofYabroud Shelter I. Pal�eorient 12 (1), 53e59.

Solecki, R.L., Solecki, R.S., 2007. Use of raw material at Yabrud Rockshelter I, Syria.In: Delage, C. (Ed.), Chert Availability and Prehistoric Exploitation in the NearEast, BAR International Series 1615, pp. 117e129. Oxford.

Solecki, R.S., Solecki, R.L., 1966. New Data from Yabroud, Syria. Preliminary report ofthe Columbia University archaeological investigations. In: Annales Arche-ologiques Arabes Syriennes XVI, pp. 121e153.

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

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

Tostevin, G.B., 2012. Seeing Lithics. Oxbow, Oxford.Valladas, H., Mercier, N., Hershkovitz, I., Zaidner, Y., Tsatskin, A., Yeshurun, R.,

Vialettes, L., Joron, J.-L., Reyss, J.-L., Weinstein-Evron, M., 2013. Dating the Lowerto Middle Paleolithic transition in the Levant: a view from Misliya Cave, MountCarmel, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 65, 585e593.

Van Peer, P., 1991. Interassemblage variability and Levallois styles: the case ofnorthern African Middle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10,107e151.

Van Peer, P., 1998. The Nile Corridor and the out-of-Africa model. Current Anthro-pology 39 (Suppl.), S115eS140.

Verri, G., Barkai, R., Bordeanu, C., Gopher, A., Hass, M., Kaufman, A., Kubik, P.,Montanari, E., Paul, M., Ronen, A., Weiner, S., Boaretto, E., 2004. Flint mining inprehistory recorded by in situ-produced cosmogenic 10Be. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 101 (21), 7880e7884.

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

Vishnyatsky, L.B., 2000. The pre-Aurignacian and Amudian as intra-Yabrudian-episode. In: Ronen, A., Weinstein-Evron, M. (Eds.), Toward Modern Humans:Yabrudian and Micoquian, 400-50 k-years Ago, British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 850, pp. 145e151. Oxford.

White, J.P., Dibble, H., 1986. Stone tools: small-scale variability. In: Bailey, G.N.,Callow, P. (Eds.), Stone Age Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 47e53.

Wilkins, J., Chazan, M., 2012. Blade production ~500 thousand years ago at KathuPan 1, South Africa: support for a multiple origins hypothesis for early MiddlePleistocene blade technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (6),1883e1990.

Wurz, S., 2002. Variability in the Stone Age Lithic sequence, 115,000e60,000 yearsago at Klasies River, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 29,1001e1015.




















































































































































Regional variability in late Lower Paleolithic Amudian blade technology: Analyzing new data from...

Documents

Transcript of Regional variability in late Lower Paleolithic Amudian blade technology: Analyzing new data from...