Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R., Gluhak, T.M. and Assaf, A. 2014. Geochemistry of basalt handaxes from...

THE GEOCHEMISTRY OF BASALT HANDAXES FROM THELOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE OF MA‘AYAN BARUCH,

ISRAEL—A PERSPECTIVE ON RAW MATERIAL SELECTION*

D. ROSENBERG†

Laboratory for Ground-stone Tools Research, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa,199 Abba Khousy Avenue, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498898, Israel

R. SHIMELMITZ

Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 31905, Israel andthe David Yallin Academic College of Education, 7 Maagal Beit Hamidrash St., P.O. Box 3578, Jerusalem 91035, Israel

T. M. GLUHAK

Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Becherweg 21, 55099 Mainz, Germany

and A. ASSAF

Kibbutz Ma‘ayan Baruch, Israel

The Upper Acheulian site of Ma‘ayan Baruch, northern Israel, is primarily known for itsexceptionally large assemblage of thousands of flint handaxes. Within this assemblage, aminute collection of basalt handaxes was retrieved as well, representing particular techno-logical choice within the Upper Acheulian. Using geochemistry, we were able to determinethat these basalt handaxes were not made from local basalt, but from different sources. Thus,the use of basalt at the site does not represent an ad hoc choice of using local raw material but,rather, a more complex technological choice pertaining to variability in raw material selectionin the Lower Palaeolithic Levant.

KEYWORDS: GEOCHEMISTRY, BASALT HANDAXES, MA‘AYAN BARUCH, LOWERPALAEOLITHIC, ACHEULIAN

INTRODUCTION

Handaxes, one of the central characteristics of the Acheulian of the Lower Palaeolithic, have beenthe topic of numerous papers discussing cognitive capabilities, functional aspects, aesthetics,symbolics, style, raw material exploitation and reshaping, among many other aspects (e.g., Kohnand Mithen 1999; Wynn 2002; McPherron 2003; Goren-Inbar and Sharon 2006; Lycett 2008;Sharon 2008). Anthropological studies of lithic technology suggest that each step of the chaînopératoire entails crucial information for reconstructing the ways of life of the people whoemployed the studied technology (e.g., Pfaffenberger 1992; Lemonnier 1993; Bar-Yosef and VanPeer 2009). In this regard, the production of handaxes is by no mean different, as summarizedrecently by Machin (2009). Our focus in this paper is on raw material selection for handaxeproduction, its variability and provenance. Using geochemistry, we aim to test whether the rare

*Received 21 August 2013; accepted 3 February 2014†Corresponding author: email [email protected]

bs_bs_banner

Archaeometry ••, •• (2014) ••–•• doi: 10.1111/arcm.12096

© 2014 University of Oxford

mailto:[email protected]

choice of basalt for handaxe manufacture in the Levantine landscape of the late Acheulian was anad hoc phenomenon or, alternatively, if it represents a more complex technological choice.

Studies of handaxes from the Levant demonstrate large and diverse assemblages in whichmorpohmetrical variability is evident (e.g., Garrod and Bate 1937; Gilead 1970; Copeland andHours 1993; Goren-Inbar and Saragusti 1996; Saragusti et al. 1998; Saragusti 2002; Rollefsonet al. 2006; Sharon 2009; Jagher 2011). In contrast, it seems that handaxes were produced froma limited number of rock types. In fact, while in many parts of the Old World the Acheulian ischaracterized by the exploitation of a variety of raw materials (e.g., Norton et al. 2006; Sharon2008; Archer and Braun 2010), in the Upper Acheulian of the southern Levant, flint waspredominantly used for handaxe manufacture (e.g., Gilead 1970; Ronen et al. 1972; Gisis andRonen 2006; Zaidner et al. 2006; Sharon 2008).

Three factors are assumed to affect this technological choice: (1) the abundance of flintthroughout the Levant; (2) the ability to control its knapping well by conchoidal fracture; and (3)its sharp edges—a significant point if these are indeed large cutting tools as commonly argued.As a result, the dominant use of flint for handaxe manufacture seems to have been the more‘practical’ technological choice in the Levantine landscape (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1994). Within thehandaxe assemblages of the southern Levant, the presence of basalt handaxes, which contrastswith the common use of flint for tools in most sites, caught the attention of prehistoric research,almost from its systematic beginning in the region (Stekelis et al. 1937; Stekelis 1960). In theLevant, the discussions of the use of basalt for handaxe manufacture are based on two relativelyearly sites: Ubeidiya, where basalt is clearly the preferred raw material for handaxe production(Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar 1993, 147, fig. 69a), and Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, where most of thehandaxes were made of basalt (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti 1996; Saragusti and Goren-Inbar 2001,87). The manufacture of basalt handaxes at these sites has been argued to be one of the aspects,out of a larger pull of technological choices, representing a remnant of African knappingtraditions (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti 1996; Goren-Inbar et al. 2000; Saragusti and Goren-Inbar2001; Goren-Inbar 2011). The limited number of basalt handaxes at other sites (e.g.; BerekhatRam; Goren-Inbar 1985, 18) and its possible significance is usually neglected.

One of these rare sites where basalt handaxes are present, albeit in small numbers, is the UpperAcheulian site of Ma‘ayan Baruch, in northern Israel. Ma‘ayan Baruch is located in a basalticlandscape and as such the dominant raw material found at the site’s immediate surroundings isbasalt. Stekelis and Gilead (1966, 4) argued that the flint arrived from sources some 6 km northof the site. Closer sources are present north and north-west of the site; however, their use forhandaxe production still needs further analysis. Despite the proximity of the site to large basaltoutcrops, the assemblage, which includes thousands of handaxes, is almost entirely made of flint,with only nine basalt handaxes and several more debitage items. This characteristic of Ma‘ayanBaruch clearly reflects some significant behaviour and complexity of early hominins’ adapta-tions, and raw material and technological preferences, especially as it is known that the Acheulianknappers in many parts of the world tended to exploit local outcrops (Sharon 2008). This smallassemblage of basalt handaxes was overshadowed for many years by the large number of flinthandaxes found at the site and received little scholarly attention (see Stekelis and Gilead 1966, 4,8, pl. XXVIII). The fact that it is a very rare technological choice does not reduce itssignificance—in fact, exactly the contrary, as it may reflect specific functional or non-functionalset of choices.

To test whether the selection of basalt for the limited production of handaxes was random adhoc in nature or reflected a more complex set of choices, three options regarding the source(s) ofraw material are to be considered first. Each of these bears a different implication on our

2 D. Rosenberg et al.

© 2014 University of Oxford, Archaeometry ••, •• (2014) ••–••

understanding of this particular raw material selection: (1) local raw material; (2) a singleoutcrop, outside the site; or (3) different outcrops. We see the significance of the results in severallayers. First, production using the site’s surrounding basaltic raw material, in contrast to produc-tion based on off-site raw material, is a major key. Since on-site raw material production canresult from an ad hoc solution, it will be difficult to develop the essence behind this technologicalchoice. One or more outside outcrops, on the other hand, will reveal a more complex choice. Theinformation about whether it is from a single outcrop or several outcrops is of further importance.One specific external outcrop might relate this point to specific mobility patterns throughout thelandscape, perhaps where flint is scarce (although carrying it to the site indicates that it is morethan an ad hoc solution). Multiple outcrops, on the other hand, will show that the use of basalt iseven more complex and will highlight the deliberate technological choices made by LevantineAcheulian knappers.

THE LOWER PALAEOLITHIC SITE OF MA‘AYAN BARUCH

The site of Ma‘ayan Baruch (Hamara) is a large open-air site that covers ∼2 km2, situated on amoderate hill demarcating the northern edge of the Hula Basin (Stekelis and Gilead 1966; Ronenet al. 1980), between the village of KfarYuval and Kibbutz Ma‘ayan Baruch (Fig. 1, ∼280–265 ma.s.l.). The site extends across both sides of the international Israeli/Lebanese border, and itsentire area is used today for agriculture (Fig. 2).

The site includes several find-spots on a moderate slope that descends towards the Hula Valleyand is most notable for its large assemblage of ∼5000 flint handaxes, which appear in a variety

Figure 1 A map showing the location of Lower Palaeolithic Ma‘ayan Baruch.

Basalt handaxes from Ma‘ayan Baruch, Israel 3


of shapes (Stekelis and Gilead 1966; Ronen et al. 1980). Other Lower Palaeolithic knapped toolsand debitage have also been noted (Stekelis and Gilead 1966; Gilead 1970). Elephant remains,including teeth and a tusk, have been retrieved from the site’s surface and from two trenches onthe northern edge of the site (Stekelis and Gilead 1966; Ronen et al. 1980). The site’s survey,conducted by one of us (A. Assaf) over 50 years, includes an attempt to collect all tools anddebitage items. However, even today, flint tools and waste as well as knapped basalt can bespotted on the site’s surface or within the red–brown soil that is typical of the site. The amountof flakes, and especially thinning flakes, seems far removed from what the manufacturing ofthousands of handaxes would produce (for a similar observation, see also Gilead 1970). As theassemblage does not show any notable evidence of weathering or rolling, and the richest part ofthe site is located at the highest point in this particular area, we concur with Stekelis and Gilead(1966, 11–12) that the site and handaxe assemblage represent an in situ occurrence that wasdisturbed by modern and pre-modern agriculture activities.

The site features relatively small amounts of production waste (basalt and flint) and thispaucity of waste, as well as the limited number of tools apart from handaxes in the collection(Stekelis and Gilead 1966), add to the uniqueness of the site compared to other LowerPalaeolithic sites in the southern Levant, such as Holon (Chazan and Kolska-Horwitz 2007),Revadim (Malinsky-Buller et al. 2011) and Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (Sharon et al. 2011, 389,table 1). The site was ascribed to the Upper Acheulian, predominantly based on techno-typological considerations (Stekelis and Gilead 1966; Gilead 1970; Ronen et al. 1980; Shea

Figure 2 The Ma‘ayan Baruch Palaeolithic site (today mainly orchards): a view to the east.



2013, 71, table 3.4). Although McPherron (2006) demonstrate that handaxe size and morphologychange as result of resharpening, a long-term pattern, in which handaxes tend to become smallerand more refined, is still discernible (e.g., Grosman et al. 2011; Shea 2013, 298).

Ronen et al. (1980) support the Upper Acheulian dating by emphasizing the presence ofLevallois technology within the flint assemblage. However, the Levallois technology was alsofound at the earlier site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (Goren-Inbar 2011), which means that thedating range based on this indicator is relatively large. Nevertheless, the high quality of bifacialremovals, as a characteristic of the site, is still argued to be typical of the Upper Acheulian(Grosman et al. 2011). A limited sampling of the local, 2–3 m thick travertine, which rests on abasalt flow and is covered by 1–2 m thick, red–brown soil, was conducted in the 1970s and gavedates of >350 kya (Schwarcz et al. 1980).

THE BASALT BIFACIALS OF MA‘AYAN BARUCH

Several studies have analysed different samples of the finds from the site, focusing on flinthandaxes and other tools and debitage (Stekelis and Gilead 1966; Gilead 1970; Ronen et al. 1980;Saragusti 2002, 32–3; Sharon 2007). The three major types of handaxes in the assemblage,following Bordes terminology, are cordiforms, ovals and amygdaloids (Stekelis and Gilead 1966,15, appendix 2). Great effort was put into the shaping of most of the Ma‘ayan Baruch flinthandaxes. They exhibit a high degree of symmetry and a superb quality of knapping, in com-parison to other Lower Palaeolithic handaxe assemblages in the southern Levant (Saragusti et al.1998; Saragusti 2002; Sharon 2009; Grosman et al. 2011). Their average length is 114 mm,which is relatively long in comparison to other Levantine Upper Acheulian sites (Shea 2013, 298,table 8.1).

Within the large collection of flint handaxes and debitage found at the site, a collection ofnine basalt handaxes and an additional 40 basalt debitage items was noted (Table 1 and Figs 3and 4). A few additional basalt items that bear the shape of handaxes, but are too eroded andlack scars on their surfaces, were excluded from this analysis. The basalt handaxes assemblageof Ma‘ayan Baruch reflects the production of handaxes made of fine-grained, homogeneousbasalt, which is easy to knapp and to control with regard to the flaking processes. Most of thesurfaces of the basalt handaxes are eroded, although preserved in their original shapes, wholeor nearly so.

Weathering of the surface had removed or lightened most of the arrises. While the flinthandaxes from the site are generally characterized by heavy patination, they are still usually inpristine condition in terms of their morphology—highly symmetrical, with relatively sharp edges(see also Saragusti 2002). The difference between the basalt and flint artefacts is assumed to bea result of different weathering patterns of the two raw materials. While surface exposure (leavingaside factors such as rolling and trampling; e.g., Grosman et al. 2011) of flint usually results inpatinated surfaces, in the case of basalt it is often characterized by the smoothing of the outersurfaces and the gradual removal of arrises (which is also obvious on Holocene basalt artefacts;e.g., Rosenberg et al. 2008).

For most of the basalt handaxes, it is impossible to determine the original blank from which thehandaxe was formed; only one has a ventral face indicating that it was made on a flake. Ovalhandaxes are dominant, while pointed variants are less frequent. The weathering of the handaxesurfaces camouflages many of the bifacial production scars in most items. Nevertheless, it seemsthat the number of scars for items rarely exceeds 10–15. Although there are basalt flakes and otherbasalt debitage items in the collection (and we noted additional items on the site surface), which



Tabl

e1

The

basa

ltha

ndax

esfr

omM

a‘ay

anB

aruc

h

Item

Con

diti

onSh

ape

Wei

ght

(g)

Len

gth

(mm

)W

idth

,m

ax.

(mm

)

Wid

th,

mid

dle

(mm

)

Wid

th,

base

(mm

)

Wid

th,

tip

(mm

)

Thi

ckne

ss,

max

.(m

m)

Thi

ckne

ss,

mid

dle

(mm

)

Thi

ckne

ss,

base

(mm

)T

hick

ness

,ti

p(m

m)

Max

.le

ngth

/max

.w

idth

(mm

)

1D

amag

edO

val

388

121

8483

6448

3128

2818

1.4

2H

eavi

lyw

eath

ered

Ova

l44

910

992

8173

5035

3330

211.

23

Hea

vily

wea

ther

edO

val

380

106

8379

7840

3733

2819

1.3

4L

ight

lyw

eath

ered

Ova

l26

099

7774

6854

2626

1814

1.3

5L

ight

lyw

eath

ered

Ova

l18

789

6159

4835

2729

2110

1.5

6D

amag

edO

val

427

120

8483

8251

3639

2215

1.4

7L

ight

lyw

eath

ered

Poin

ted

267

135

7463

6845

2826

2015

1.8

8L

ight

lyw

eath

ered

Poin

ted

––

––

––

––

––

–9

Lig

htly

wea

ther

edPo

inte

d–

––

––

––

––

––

Ave

rage

336.

911

1.3

79.3

74.6

68.7

46.1

31.4

30.6

23.9

161.

4



Figure 3 Basalt handaxes from Ma‘ayan Baruch: 1–3, handaxes; 4, a weathered item (not included in theassemblage).

Figure 4 Basalt handaxes from Ma‘ayan Baruch (after Stekelis and Gilead 1966).



could indicate that production may have been conducted on site, none of these items could besecurely tied in with bifacial production. Cross-sections are irregular, sometimes sub-lenticular.The seven items available (two are on display in the Museum for the Prehistory of the Hula Valleyand thus cannot be measured or weighed) show notable variability in terms of length, width,thickness and weights (Table 1).

In order to better evaluate the possibility that the basalt bifaces from Ma‘ayan Baruch are theresult of an additional earlier occupation at the site (i.e., Lower/Middle Acheulian), we comparethem to the basalt bifacials found at Ubeidiya and Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (Bar-Yosef andGoren-Inbar 1993; Saragusti and Goren-Inbar 2001; Sharon 2008, 2009). The blanks used tomake the bifacials at Ubeidiya were cobbles, while at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov they were primarilyflakes. The bifacial types also differ: the ones from Ubeidiya are characterized by numerous picksand trihedrals, apart from handaxes; whereas at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, alongside the handaxescleavers are common, comprising about a quarter of the bifacials at that site. The sizes of thebifaces at these sites, as well as at Ma‘ayan Baruch, are presented in Table 2. The main differ-ences in size lie in the thickness and the thickness/width ratio. The bifacials from Ubeidiya arerelatively thick and show a high thickness/width ratio.

While the bifacials from Ma‘ayan Baruch show some similarities to both Ubeidiya and GesherBenot Ya‘aqov, they also display some significant differences, which allow them to be distin-guished from these early assemblages. These differences include: (1) the smaller size of theMa‘ayan Baruch basalt handaxes, which in fact correlates with the size of flint handaxes atMa‘ayan Baruch; and (2) the fact that the use of flakes as a blank is rare (among the flint handaxessome are present; Sharon 2008) and differs from Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov.

THE GEOLOGICAL SETTINGS OF THE MA‘AYAN BARUCH AREA AND THE GEOCHEMISTRY OFTHE BASALT BIFACIALS AND LOCAL SOURCES

Several studies have dealt with the geological formations of the northern Hula Valley, theirstratigraphy and their chronology (Picard 1963; Horowitz 1973; Heimann 1985, 25; Mor 1986,1993; Sneh et al. 1997; Sneh and Weinberger 2003). The Hula basin is one of several pull-apartbasins that have developed along the Dead Sea Rift. Subsidence started at c.4.1 Ma and continuesup to the present day (Heimann and Steinitz 1989). The basin is filled mainly with lake sediments,which are intercalated with Pleistocene basalts. In the north-western part, the basin is coveredwith basalts (referred to as ‘Hasbani basalt’—see Mor 1993; Sneh et al. 1997; Sneh andWeinberger 2003) and travertine (termed ‘Kfar Yuval travertine’, and dated to earlier than0.35 Ma—see Picard 1963; Schwarcz et al. 1980). Geological surveys conducted at thePalaeolithic site of Ma‘ayan Baruch (Fig. 5) have shown that in some localities the site overliesthe Hasbani basalt, while in others it covers the KfarYuval travertine (Figs 6 and 7), which in turnpartly covers the local Hasbani basalt (see Mor 1986, 62).

The Hasbani basalt belongs to the Ortal geological formation and has various thicknesses(Picard 1963; Heimann 1985; Mor 1986, 61–3). Several suggestions have been raised in the pastwith regard to the chrono-spatial layout of the Hasbani basalt and possible subdivisions (seePicard 1963; Heimann 1985, 35–7; Mor 1986, 59–61; Mor 1993, 228–9). However, mostresearchers agree today with Mor (1993, 228–9; see also Sneh and Weinberger 2003) whosuggested, based on geochronological considerations and 40K/40Ar age determinations, that weshould distinguish the Upper Pliocene Mechki basalt (c.2.9–2.2 Ma), which flowed from Babel-Ahmar in Lebanon southwards, from the Lower Pleistocene Hasbani basalt (c.1.5–0.8 Ma),which covers the area from the slopes of Mt Hermon in the east to the Hamamis ridge in the west,



Tabl

e2

Mea

nsi

zes

ofha

ndax

esfr

omU

beid

iya,

Ges

her

Ben

otY

a’aq

ovan

dM

a’ay

anB

aruc

hba

salt

hand

axes

(∼80

%of

the

hand

axes

ofU

beid

iya

K-3

0an

d98

%of

Ges

her

Ben

otY

a‘aq

ovw

ere

mad

eof

basa

lt—

Bar

-Yos

efan

dG

oren

-Inb

ar19

93,1

25;

Gor

en-I

nbar

and

Sara

gust

i19

96)

Site

Mea

nle

ngth

Mea

nw

idth

Mea

nth

ickn

ess

Mea

nth

ickn

ess/

wid

thR

efer

ence

s

Ube

idiy

a(K

-30)

138.

9(S

D36

.6)

84.4

(SD

17.1

)60

.3(S

D14

.4)

0.72

(SD

0.16

)B

ar-Y

osef

and

Gor

en-I

nbar

(199

3,21

8–19

)G

eshe

rB

enot

Ya’

aqov

142.

1(S

D23

.5)

86(S

D12

.3)

38.9

(SD

5.7)

0.46

(SD

0.06

)G

oren

-Inb

aran

dSa

ragu

sti

(199

6)M

a’ay

anB

aruc

h11

1.3

79.3

31.4

0.42

Thi

sst

udy

(SD

15.3

)(S

D9.

9)(S

D4.

6)(S

D0.

04)



and stretches from the el-Khiam area in southern Lebanon to Giv‘at Schumit in northern Israel.Nevertheless, the examinations made so far are scattered along the landscape and the possibilityof younger basalt at some localities is suggested by earlier studies (Heimann 1985; Mor 1986,61–3).

ANALYSES

To define the geochemical characteristics of the basalt bifacial, we sampled six handaxes of thenine available at the Ma‘ayan Baruch Regional Museum for the Prehistory of the Hula Valley.

MetullaMetullaMetulla

YuvalYuvalYuvalMa‘ayanMa‘ayanBaruchBaruchMa‘ayanBaruch

Kiryat ShmonaKiryat ShmonaKiryat Shmona

HaGoshrimHaGoshrimHaGoshrim

DafnaDafnaDafna

Figure 5 The geological map of the Ma‘ayan Baruch Palaeolithic site area.



The weathered crust was removed, either using a diamond saw or ground off on an abrasivewheel. Afterwards, the samples were cleaned in distilled water in an ultrasonic bath and thendried. They were crushed and ground to powder—when small enough, by hand in an agatemortar, or otherwise in a Si3N4 micro-mill. The loss on ignition was determined on about 0.7 g ofsample powder in a Pt cup, to avoid contamination of the sample material. From the samematerial, 0.4 g was used to produce glass beads for major element determination by wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence. About 40 mg of powder was used to produce glass beads on aninfrared strip heater for in situ laser-ablation–ICP–MS (for more details on the sample prepara-tion and analytical methods, see Gluhak and Rosenberg 2013).

RESULTS

The results of the handaxe analyses, as well as of a few samples taken from several volcanicoutcrops in the vicinity of the site, are given in Table 3. The total alkali–silica diagram (TASdiagram; Le Bas et al. 1986) is used for the classification of fine-grained volcanic rocks(Fig. 8).

For comparison, volcanic rocks from the region as well as the archaeological samples arepresented in a single TAS diagram. All handaxes plot in the alkaline field. Sample MB2 is a

Figure 6 Basalt and travertine in the Lower Palaeolithic site of Ma‘ayan Baruch.



trachybasalt; according to its Na2O:K2O ratio, it has to be defined as hawaiite. MB5 is a basaltsensu stricto, whereas MB4 lies at the border of basalt to picro-basalt. MB1, MB6 and MB7 allcontain ∼20% normative olivine and thus are addressed as basanites. MB1, MB4 and MB7 areespecially alkali poor in comparison to the volcanic rocks in the region. The general major andtrace element composition suggests that handaxes MB1 and MB7 are derived from the samesource, whereas all other handaxes are from different, distinct sources (e.g., by means of theMgO–P2O5 composition; Fig. 9).

The major elements composition of published geological samples from the region (Weinstein2000; Weinstein et al. 2006; Gluhak and Rosenberg 2013) imply that the handaxes were notderived from the basaltic rocks in their closest vicinity. In Figure 10, the SiO2–TiO2 compositionof the handaxes in comparison to the local rocks is presented. The handaxes clearly deviate fromrock samples marked as ‘northern Hula Valley’, taken from Kefar Yuval and Giv‘at Schumit.Additionally, the TiO2 values at a given SiO2 content of the handaxes are too high to allow aprovenance from Pliocene and Pleistocene magmatic rocks from Golan, or from Lower Pliocenerocks from Galilee. Instead, the handaxes plot in a field that is dominated by Miocene rocks fromJezreel and the Jordan Valley, and high-TiO2 Upper Pliocene rocks from north-eastern Galilee(Weinstein et al. 2006). The trace element diagram (Fig. 11) shows that the handaxes match thegeneral concentrations and trends of the Miocene Jezreel and Jordan Valley lavas, as well as ofthe Upper Pliocene rocks from north-eastern Galilee.

Figure 7 Travertine in the Lower Palaeolithic site of Ma‘ayan Baruch.



Table 3 The major and trace element composition of the rock samples and the sampled handaxes: GS-B, GS-S,Giv‘at Schumit; Bas1, basalt sample from the Lower Palaeolithic site of Ma‘ayan Baruch; KY, basalt from Kefar

Yuval, near the site; MB1–2 and MB4–7, sampled handaxes from Ma‘ayan Baruch

GS-B GS-S Bas1 KY MB1 MB2 MB4 MB5 MB6 MB7

SiO2 (wt%) 46.99 46.09 46.51 46.95 43.55 47.21 45.01 46.57 44.27 44.41Al2O3 15.13 14.32 14.83 14.7 15.1 15.98 15.02 17.45 14.08 15.35Fe2O3(t) 13.11 12.66 11.52 12.44 13.99 12.21 12.81 12.51 12.73 12.53MnO 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.23 0.15 0.17 0.16MgO 6.16 7.71 6.08 7.13 8.55 4.75 6.42 4.82 8.57 8.63CaO 9.87 9.62 13.1 10.08 10.12 8.51 12.95 9.61 9.77 10.43Na2O 2.8 3.54 2.72 3.17 1.85 3.7 1.63 2.6 2.85 1.79K2O 1.18 1.19 1.17 1.17 1.52 2 1.15 1.95 1.98 1.52TiO2 2.82 2.68 2.71 2.81 3.2 3.31 3.25 3.27 3.31 3.1P2O5 0.93 0.88 0.82 0.81 1.2 1.35 1.08 0.75 1.5 1.22Sum 99.15 98.85 99.63 99.41 99.25 99.16 99.55 99.68 99.23 99.14LOI 1.06 −0.57 3.18 0.17 2.6 1.81 2.9 2.71 1.85 2.73Sc (ppm) 22 20 26.94 26 25.89 22.14 34.54 27.48 20.95 26.93V 215 192 185.26 199.73 219.92 167.68 242.18 206.34 170.3 221.65Cr 222 207 160.48 185.77 192.14 149.68 197.9 221.21 163.01 208.65Co 43 48 45.6 44.61 47.89 41.97 42.01 47.03 44.2 47.2Ni 143 154 137.01 111.13 145.2 131.19 155.82 163.99 167.51 196.45Cu 60 53 45.82 46.41 46.4 38.57 53.8 55.38 38.51 55.75Rb 15 16 11.44 12.76 18.82 21.07 11.99 19.44 31.26 16.52Sr 1142 1180 1171.81 1115.51 1288.08 1397.8 1173.61 920.56 1573.96 1192.51Y 37 26 19.98 20.75 25.21 24.13 32.44 25.68 22.68 26.29Zr 217 210 181.11 195.68 271.5 282.22 245.09 270.39 296.72 285.5Nb 46 44 35.85 39.21 92.91 66.42 62.55 54.44 81.25 88.45Ba 561 460 560.79 535.73 1073.93 767.42 925.45 682.24 941.43 836.45La 43.14 42.36 65.59 61.24 67.58 42.62 70.51 70.46Ce 80.63 81.33 115.29 110.68 117.62 75.19 127.72 116.85Pr 9.65 9.61 12.79 13.67 14.98 9.17 14.61 13.36Nd 44.06 43.77 55.02 61.46 68.58 40.6 64.13 58.17Sm 8.33 8.47 10.07 11.89 12.98 8.59 11.67 10.85Eu 2.99 2.92 3.45 4 4.25 2.97 4.05 3.62Gd 6.46 6.75 7.74 8.69 9.9 6.9 8.49 8.2Tb 0.9 0.9 1.05 1.14 1.31 0.97 1.12 1.12Dy 4.65 4.68 5.47 5.78 6.99 5.43 5.55 5.87Ho 0.81 0.82 0.97 0.96 1.23 1 0.88 1.06Er 1.9 1.95 2.34 2.12 2.83 2.53 1.95 2.37Tm 0.23 0.24 0.29 0.28 0.35 0.3 0.24 0.3Yb 1.56 1.53 2.01 1.63 2.29 2.01 1.48 2.01Lu 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.23 0.31 0.24 0.18 0.26Hf 3.99 4.4 5.38 5.89 5.2 5.73 5.86 5.77Ta 1.68 1.83 4.1 3.17 2.69 2.74 3.75 3.92Th 2.9 3.1 2.62 2.73 5.43 3.78 4.52 3.79 5.3 5.9U 1.2 1.3 0.46 0.62 1.26 0.94 1.14 1.03 1.41 1.24



DISCUSSION

Ma‘ayan Baruch is one of a few Levantine sites where thousands of handaxes have been found,such as in Tabun Cave (e.g., Garrod and Bate 1937; Rollefson 1978; Rollefson et al. 2006) andat Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar (Jagher 2011). In contrast to the latter two sites, however, whereheavy resharpening of handaxes was observed (McPherron 2003; Jagher 2011), many of thehandaxes from Ma‘ayan Baruch are in pristine condition, highly symmetrical and large(Saragusti 2002), indicating that they were discarded even though they could potentially beresharpened. Evidence of on-site production at Ma‘ayan Baruch is scarce and the location (orlocations) where this enormous number of handaxes was made are unknown for now. While thismight fit the argument put forward by Kohn and Mithen (1999) that handaxes might be part ofa system of social transitions and may imply that the site served as a unique locale in the overalllandscape (aggregation site), such an interpretation must await additional studies to strengthenthis possibility.

Nonetheless, the presence of only a few basalt handaxes within an assemblage of thousandsof flint handaxes seems to reflect clear selection for specific raw material. This assemblagegives rise to several questions, concerning the nature of the assemblage, its size and the role

Figure 8 The TAS diagram (Le Bas et al. 1986) of the Ma‘ayan Baruch handaxes and of volcanic rocks from the region.Data sources: the Miocene Jordan Valley, Gilboa and Golan, Weinstein (2000); Miocene Wadi Tavor and the JezreelValley, Weinstein (2000) and Gluhak and Rosenberg (2013); Pliocene and Pleistocene rocks from Galilee and Golan,Weinstein et al. (2006); northern Hula Valley samples, this study.



of basalt handaxes in the activity that took place at the site. Other questions centre on rawmaterial preference and the provenance of the raw material, as well as the function of thesehandaxes. While most of these questions demand further exploration and provenance studies,it is clear that based on our new data, we can try to assess this unique assemblage in its owncontext.

Two explanations for the presence of these basalt handaxes at the site should be considered.Either they represent an additional earlier occupation at the site, attributed to the Lower orMiddle Acheulian, or they should be taken to be an integral, yet unique, technological choicewithin the technological behaviour of the hominins of the Upper Acheulian of the Levant.For now, considering the various characteristics, we see that the handaxes from Ma‘ayanBaruch differ both from Ubeidiya and Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, and with the lack of a strongcorrelation with either of these assemblages we find no support for the first possibility. Thus,they should be ascribed as an integral part of the general Upper Acheulian assemblage ofMa‘ayan Baruch.

Our geochemical tests indicate that the basalt used for the production of these handaxes wasnon-local, although it is clear that suitable raw material could easily be found, both in theimmediate vicinity of the site as well as a few kilometres to the north, east and south. Further-more, there is high probability that at least five distinct raw material sources were utilized

Figure 9 The MgO–P2O5 composition of Ma‘ayan Baruch handaxes and volcanic rocks from the region (for references,see Fig. 8).



for handaxe production. This means that these rare phenomena within the Ma‘ayan Baruchassemblage were brought to the site from different locations, which could hint at specificselection of raw material and at specific designated mobility patterns. For now, we cannotdetermine the exact provenance of each handaxe, as our field database is not yet complete, but wecan exclude some of the sources for which we have already established geochemical fingerprints(Gluhak and Rosenberg 2013).

The present geochemical study of the basalt handaxes from Ma‘ayan Baruch demonstrateshow we can move forward, improving our understanding of Lower Palaeolithic landscape use andmobility and raw material selection and acquisition. The presence of the small basalt handaxeassemblage within this massive flint assemblage is indeed striking and enigmatic in this regard,specifically as both raw materials are easily accessible near the site. This clearly suggests thathominins occupying these parts of the Hula Valley during the Upper Acheulian were acquaintedwith the possibility of producing handaxes from both flint and basalt, and only rarely chose toproduce handaxes from basalt. Whether these reflect some technological preference, chronologi-cal traits or some other aspect of hominin behaviour is unclear at this stage and demands furtherresearch. However, the non-local origin of the basalt items, their clearly distinct provenance andtheir small number could suggest that these items may have had a special significance for thesehominins.

Figure 10 The SiO2–TiO2 composition of Ma‘ayan Baruch handaxes and volcanic rocks from the region (for references,see Fig. 8).



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank N. Gubenko of the IAA for her help. D. Ma’ayan carried out thephotography of the artefacts. We would also like to thank D. Kaufman and S. Ilani for theirhelpful insights.

REFERENCES

Archer, W., and Braun, D. R., 2010, Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein, Western Cape, South Africa: ageometric morphometric approach, Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 201–9.

Bar-Yosef, O., 1994, The Lower Paleolithic of the Near East, Journal of World Prehistory, 8(3), 211–65.Bar-Yosef, O., and Goren-Inbar, N., 1993, The lithic assemblages of ’Ubeidiya—a Lower Palaeolithic site in the Jordan

Valley, Qedem 34, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.Bar-Yosef, O., and Van Peer, P., 2009, The chaîne opératoire approach in Middle Paleolithic archaeology, Current

Anthropology, 50, 103–31.Chazan, M., and Kolska-Horwitz, L., 2007, Holon: a Lower Paleolithic site in Israel, American School of Prehistoric

Research Bulletin 50, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Copeland, L., and Hours, F., 1993, The Middle Orontes: Paleolithic flint industries, in Le Paléolithique de la vallée

moyenne de l’Oronte (eds. P. Sanlaville, J. Besançon, L. Copeland and L. Muhesen), 63–144, BAR InternationalSeries 587, Tempus Reparatum, Oxford.

Garrod, D. A. E., and Bate, D. M. A., 1937, The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Gilead, D., 1970, Handaxe industries in Israel and the Near East, World Archaeology, 2(1), 1–11.Gisis, I., and Ronen, A., 2006, Bifaces from the Acheulian and Yabrudian layers of Tabun Cave, Israel, in Axe age:

Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard (eds. N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon), 137–54, Equinox, London.

Figure 11 The pyrolite-normalized trace element diagram of the Ma‘ayan Baruch handaxes: Miocene and UpperPliocene rocks from Galilee. Data sources: Miocene rocks, Weinstein (2000) and Gluhak and Rosenberg (2013); UpperPliocene rocks from Galilee, Weinstein et al. (2006); pyrolite values, McDonough and Sun (1995).



Gluhak, T., and Rosenberg, D., 2013, Geochemical discrimination of basaltic sources as a tool for provenance analysesof bifacial tools in the southern Levant: first results from the Jezreel Valley, Israel, Journal of Archaeological Science,40, 1611–22.

Goren-Inbar, N., 1985, The lithic assemblage of the Berekhat Ram Acheuliean site, Golan Heights, Paléorient, 11(1),7–28.

Goren-Inbar, N., 2011, Culture and cognition in the Acheulian industry: a case study from Gesher Benot Ya’aqov,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366, 1038–49.

Goren-Inbar, N., and Saragusti, I., 1996, An Acheulian biface assemblage from Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel: indicationsof African affinities, Journal of Field Archaeology, 23(1), 15–30.

Goren-Inbar, N., and Sharon, G., 2006, Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard, Equinox, London.Goren-Inbar, N., Feibel, C. S., Verosub, K. L., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M. E., Tchernov, E., and Saragusti, I., 2000,

Pleistocene milestones on the Out-of-Africa corridor at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel, Science, 289, 944–7.Grosman, L., Goldsmith, Y., and Smilansky, U., 2011, Morphological analysis of Nahal Zihor handaxes: a chronological

perspective, Paleoanthropology, 2011, 203–15.Grosman, L., Sharon, G., Goldman-Neuman, T., Smikt, O., and Smilansky, U., 2011, Studying post depositional damage

on Acheulian bifaces using 3-D scanning, Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 398–406.Heimann, A., 1985, The geology of the Banias Plateau and the northern Hula Valley, with an emphasis on travertine

sediments, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).Heimann, A., and Steinitz, G., 1989, Ar-40/Ar-39 total gas ages of basalts from the Notera-3 well, Hula-Valley, Dead Sea

Rift—stratigraphic and tectonic implications, Israel Journal of Earth Science, 38(2–4), 173–84.Horowitz, A., 1973, Development of the Hula Basin, Israel, Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences, 22, 107–39.Jagher, R., 2011, Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar—Acheulean variability in the central Syrian desert, in The Lower and Middle

Palaeolithic in the Middle East and neighboring regions (eds. J.-M. Le Tensorer, R. Jagher and M. Otte), 209–24,ERAUL 126, Liège.

Kohn, M., and Mithen, S., 1999, Handaxes: production of sexual selection, Antiquity, 73, 518–26.Le Bas, M. J., Le Maitre, R. W., Streckeisen, A., and Zanettin, B., 1986, A chemical classification of volcanic rocks based

on the total alkali–silica diagram, Journal of Petrology, 27(3), 745–50.Lemonnier, P., 1993, Technological choices: transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic, Routledge, London.Lycett, S. J., 2008, Acheulean variation and selection: does handaxe symmetry fit neutral expectations? Journal of

Archaeological Science, 35, 2640–8.McDonough, W. F., and Sun, S.-S., 1995, The composition of the Earth, Chemical Geology, 120, 223–53.Machin, A., 2009, The role of the individual agent in the Acheulean biface variability: a multi-factorial model, Journal

of Social Archaeology, 9, 35–58.McPherron, S., 2003, Technological and typological variability in the bifaces from Tabun Cave, Israel, in Multiple

approaches to the study of bifacial technologies (eds. M. Soressi and H. L. Dibble), 55–76, University of PennsylvaniaMuseum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA.

McPherron, S., 2006, What typology can tell us about Acheulian handaxe production, in Axe age: Acheulian tool-makingfrom quarry to discard (eds. N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon), 267–85, Equinox, London.

Malinsky-Buller, A., Hovers, E., and Marder, O., 2011, Making time: ‘living floors’, ‘palimpsests’ and site formationprocesses—a perspective from the open-air Lower Paleolithic site of Revadim Quarry, Israel, Journal of Anthropo-logical Archaeology, 30, 89–101.

Mor, D., 1986, The volcanism of the Golan Heights, Report GSI/5/86, Ministry of National Infrastructures, GeologicalSurvey of Israel, Jerusalem (in Hebrew with English abstract).

Mor, D., 1993, A time-table for the Levant volcanic province, according to K–Ar dating in the Golan Heights, Israel,Journal of African Earth Sciences, 16(3), 223–34.

Norton, C. J., Bae, K., Harris, J. W. K., and Lee, H., 2006, Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the Korean Peninsula,Journal of Human Evolution, 51, 527–36.

Pfaffenberger, B., 1992, Social anthropology of technology, Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 491–516.Picard, L., 1963, The Quaternary in the northern Jordan Valley, Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1(4),

1–34.Rollefson, G. O., 1978, A quantitative and qualitative typological analysis of bifaces from the Tabun Excavations,

1967–1972, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.Rollefson, G. O., Quintero, L. A., and Wilke, P. J., 2006, Late Acheulian variability in the southern Levant: a contrast of

the western and eastern margins of the Levantine Corridor, Near Eastern Archaeology, 69(2), 61–72.Ronen, A., Gilead, D. Shachnai, E., and Saull, A., 1972, Upper Acheulean in the Kissufim region, Proceedings of the

American Philosophical Society, 116(1), 68–96.



Ronen, A., Ohel, M. Y., Lamdan, M., and Assaf, A., 1980, Acheulian artifacts from two trenches at Ma’ayan Barukh,Israel Exploration Journal, 30(1), 17–33.

Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R., and Nativ, A., 2008, Basalt bifacial tool production in the southern Levant: a glance at thequarry and workshop site of Giv’at Kipod, Israel, Antiquity, 82, 367–76.

Saragusti, I., 2002, Changes in the morphology of handaxes from Lower Paleolithic assemblages in Israel, UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Saragusti, I., and Goren-Inbar, N., 2001, The biface assemblage from Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel: illuminating patternsin ‘Out of Africa’ dispersal, Quaternary International, 75, 85–9.

Saragusti, I., Sharon, I., Katzenelson, O., and Avnir, D., 1998, Quantitative analysis of the symmetry of artefacts: LowerPaleolithic handaxes, Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, 817–25.

Schwarcz, H. P., Goldberg, P., and Blackwell, B., 1980, Uranium series dating of archaeological sites in Israel, IsraelJournal of Earth-Sciences, 29, 157–65.

Sharon, G., 2007, Acheulian large flake industries: technology, chronology, and significance, BAR International Series1701, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Sharon, G., 2008, The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production, Journal of Archaeological Science, 35,1329–44.

Sharon, G., 2009, Acheulian giant-core technology, Current Anthropology, 50(3), 335–67.Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., and Goren-Inbar, N., 2011, Cultural conservatism and variability in the Acheulian

sequence of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 387–97.Shea, J. J., 2013, Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Sneh, A., and Weinberger, G., 2003, Geological map of Israel, sheet 2-II (1:200,000), Ministry of National Infrastruc-

tures, Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem.Sneh, A., Bartov, Y., and Rosensaft, M., 1997, Geological map of Israel, sheet 1 (1:200,000), Ministry of National

Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem.Stekelis, M., 1960, The Paleolithic deposits of Jisr Banat Yaqub, The Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel, 9G(2–3),

61–87.Stekelis, M., and Gilead, D., 1966, Mayan Baruch, Mitekufat Haeven, 8.Stekelis, M., Picard, L., and Bate, D. M. A., 1937, Jisr Banat Yaqub, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in

Palestine, 6, 214–15.Weinstein, Y, 2000, Spatial and temporal geochemical variability in basin-related volcanism, northern Israel, Journal of

African Earth Science, 30(4), 865–86.Weinstein, Y., Navon, O., Altherr, R., and Stein, M., 2006, The role of lithospheric mantle heterogeneity in the generation

of Plio-Pleistocene alkali basaltic suites from NW Harrat Ash Shaam (Israel), Journal of Petrology, 47(5), 1017–50.Wynn, T., 2002, Archaeology and cognitive evolution, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 389–438.Zaidner, Y., Druck, D., and Weinstein-Evron, M., 2006, Acheulo-Yabrudian handaxes from Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel,

Israel, in Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard (eds. N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon), 243–66,Equinox, London.



Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R., Gluhak, T.M. and Assaf, A. 2014. Geochemistry of basalt handaxes from...

Documents

Transcript of Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R., Gluhak, T.M. and Assaf, A. 2014. Geochemistry of basalt handaxes from...