The Acheulo-Yabrudian of Jamal Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel

The Acheulo-Yabrudian of Jamal Cave, Mount Carmel, IsraelAuthor(s): YOSSI ZAIDNER, DOTHAN DRUCK, MICHAL NADLER and MINA WEINSTEIN-EVRONSource: Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society / מתקופת האבן, כרך ל"הpp. 93-115 תשס"ו / 2005Published by: Israel Prehistoric Society / העמותה הישראלית לפרהיסטוריהStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23383555 .

Accessed: 31/01/2014 02:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Israel Prehistoric Society / העמותה הישראלית לפרהיסטוריה is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel PrehistoricSociety / מתקופת האבן

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 02:31:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isrpresoc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23383555?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 35 (2005), 93-115

The Acheulo-Yabrudian of Jamal Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel

YOSSIZAIDNER1

DOTHAN DRUCK

MICHALNADLER

MINA WEINSTEIN-EVRON2

Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905 Israel

Corresponding authors: '[email protected], [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

The Nahal Me'arot prehistoric cave system has become the yardstick in Levantine

prehistory since D. A. E. Garrod's pioneer excavations in the early 1930s (Garrod and Bate

1937). The famous caves of Tabun, el-Wad and Skhul contain a rich sequence of lithics, and human and animal remains, attesting to more than half a million years of human

occupation, from the Lower Paleolithic, through the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, to the

historic period. Between two larger caves, el-Wad and Tabun, lies the small Jamal Cave

(Fig. 1). Although the other caves were extensively excavated, the Jamal Cave, which was

long considered to be empty (Garrod and Bate 1937; Olami 1984), remained untouched

and only after the finding of a single handaxe (Weinstein-Evron 1990), did the cave attract

renewed interest. After the initial cleaning of the cave from recent debris, it became evident

that cemented archaeological layers covered the entire cave floor (Weinstein-Evron and

Tsatskin 1994, 1995). The excavations conducted in 1992-1994 yielded scarce lithic

material. Bones were not preserved at the site. Handaxes constituted the only indicative

pieces, suggesting a Lower Paleolithic age for the finds. However, it was not clear if

there was evidence for the occurrence of additional cultural entities in the cave, despite

93



94 ZAIDNER, DRUCK, NADLER & WEINSTEIN-EVRON

t

Cave

= = = : Wadi 4U&iUiiuAjj J j ff*

i'atot ,,c;:

meters 100 0 km 50

Figure 1 : Location Map.



THE ACHEULO-YABRUDIAN OF JAMAL CAVE, MOUNT CARMEL, ISRAEL 95

the presence of two Levallois flakes in one of the excavated units which suggested also a

Middle Paleolithic occupation at the site. Significantly, in the neighboring Tabun Cave the

Lower Paleolithic layers are covered by a long Middle Paleolithic sequence (Garrod and

Bate 1937). Similarly, Lower Paleolithic finds at the Skhul Cave are overlaid by Middle

Paleolithic layers (Garrod and Bate 1937; Ronen 1976). In el-Wad Cave the prehistoric

sequence exposed ranges from the Middle Paleolithic to the Chalcolithic period. Here we present a new detailed analysis of the lithic material of the Jamal Cave

including data that have not been previously published. Our main goal is to try and refine

the suggested stratigraphy of the Jamal Cave through the study of lithic artifacts and their

distribution pattern in the site. Another goal is to test whether there is solid evidence for

post-Lower Paleolithic human presence in the cave.

BACKGROUND

The Jamal Cave comprises one chamber, measuring 12x9m (Fig. 2). The surface of the

cave floor dips strongly from the southeast towards its center and the karstic pit in the

ONMLKJ IHGFE

26

21

20

19

18 i

South Eastc Corn

rn :

— j "N, !

Eastern j Trench

i I *'°c

\

/ j... 1

-

\ \ ; HXj

fI j C entral Area

I / i \ 1 N * ° I i <?*• £ i ) , p j |

aM

• o © + • i

T-1 j Entrance ! |

Breccia tine S Contour (cm) v/s/s* Section

Figure 2: Ground plan of the cave showing the main stratigraphie units and the studied squares.




western part of the cave. The sediments are arranged concentrically around this pit. Thus

it was clear even before excavation started that the original stratification may have been

largely disturbed by secondary processes (Weinstein-Evron and Tsatskin 1994, 1995).

Geoarchaeological and micromorphological analyses of the excavated archaeological

layers suggested that the sediments in the central part of the cave are largely a consequence

of re-deposition of the original layers by colluviation and karstic slumping. It was also

suggested that less-disturbed archaeological layers could be found along the walls of the

cave (Weinstein-Evron and Tsatskin 1994, 1995). The thickness of the sediments in the cave reaches 60 cm in the eastern part and probably

more in the center, where bedrock was not reached during the excavations. Based on a

geophysical survey (Weinstein-Evron et al. 2003a) the thickness of the archaeological sediments in the central part of the cave was estimated to be some 1-1.5 m. The cave was

excavated in two main areas: the eastern trench and the center of the cave, where only the

upper part of the sediments was removed (Fig. 2). In both excavated areas bone preservation

was very poor; only small splinters of bones recorded in the micromorphological slides

indicate their presence among the archaeological remains.

The section of the eastern trench was divided into three stratigraphie units (Fig. 3). The

differences between the units were established through geological and micromorphological characterization of the sequence (Weinstein-Evron and Tsatskin 1994, 1995). Units I and

III were very poor in lithic material, both units yielding only a few non-indicative artifacts.

Units II was much richer in lithics.

Square

N M , L 23/24

20H

E -2-40 0 c

1 60 H 5 "O Z o "o 80* X) •S

Q 100

120

Figure 3: The southern wall of the east-west section along the 23 line. For location of the

section see Figure 2. (For details see Weinstein-Evron and Tsatkin 1994)




A four-meter-long trench was excavated in the central part of the cave (Squares J20-23).

The upper part of the sediments was tentatively regarded as a lateral variation of Unit I in

the eastern trench (Weinstein-Evron and Tsatskin 1994, 1995). However, given the fact

that the lower part of this section was unexplored, the exact stratigraphie relationships between these two areas cannot be fully established. In the central area, the thickness

of the excavated sediments reached more than half a meter in squares J20-21. Only the

upper part of squares J22-23 was sampled. Although some visual differences between the

sediments in the upper and the lower part of the section were recorded, it was not possible to establish a clear stratigraphie division for this part of the cave.

In addition to these two perpendicular sections, a small area was excavated in the

south-eastern corner of the cave (squares L25-26, M26). Only the upper part of the

sediments was sampled (10-20 cm in thickness). This area is topographically higher than

the adjacent eastern trench, and the stratigraphie relationships between these two units

are again not clear.

As shown in previous reports (Weinstein-Evron and Tsatskin 1994, 1995), the

sediments with archaeological remains in the Jamal Cave underwent significant changes due to intensive post-depositional processes, and the original stratification was disturbed.

As a result, an exact stratigraphie correlation between different excavated units could

not be established, neither by geological nor by micromorphological analyses. It was

also suggested that, due to the possible mixture between Lower and Middle Paleolithic

layers, the Middle Paleolithic occupation, which may have originally occurred in the

cave, cannot be detected at present. In the current work, by employing various analyses,

including vertical and horizontal distribution of artifacts, as well as taphonomic and

techno-typological observations on the lithic industry, we attempt, first, to establish a

more coherent stratigraphy for the site, and second, to determine which cultural entities

are present in the cave.

THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Given the unclear stratigraphie relationships between the different excavated areas, the

lithic material was analyzed as three independent samples originating from the separate excavation units.

The general breakdown of the assemblages is presented in Table 1.

The Eastern Trench

Unit Unit 1 The upper unit of the Eastern Trench is a thin clay horizon that dips strongly towards the

western part of the section (Fig. 3). Very thin at the east (less than 10 cm in thickness), this




Table 1 : General breakdown of the Jamal Cave lithic assemblages.

Cores Flakes Handaxes Tools Chips Chunks Total

Eastern Trench

L23 (Unit I) 2 3 - 1 8 2 16

L23(Unit II) 4 17 - 11 24 5 61

M23 (Unit II) 3 13 1 2 - - 19

L23 (Unit III) - 5 - 1 9 1 16

Total 9 38 1 15 41 8 112

Central Area

J20 6 22 2 17 23 11 81

J21 3 28 4 13 33 11 92

J22 2 6 - - 3 3 14

J23 - 7 - 1 8 2 18

Total 11 63 6 31 67 27 205

S-E Corner

L25 1 12 - 9 8 2 32

L26 1 20 1 5 16 2 45

M26 - 2 1 2 2 - 7

Total 2 34 2 16 26 4 84

horizon becomes thicker in the western part of the section. The scarce lithic assemblage

(n=16; Table 1) found in this unit was derived mainly from the western part (Square

L23). The assemblage consists mostly of debris. The two recorded cores are small and

broken, which makes their typological and technological definition impossible. The only tool is a partially retouched flake without any characteristics that may point to its cultural

affinity.

Unit 2Unit 2 The lithic assemblage of Unit 2 is the richest of the Eastern Trench, comprising 80 pieces, most of them from square L23 (Table 1). Most of the artifacts are patinated, usually with a gray, white or brown patina. The rate of abrasion is low, with only a few artifacts

being slightly abraded. Most of the artifacts (about 70%) are broken. The débitage is not

standardized in length, width or shape. The low scar counts (usually no more than two

scars) and simple pattern of the dorsal scars, together with a predominance of plain butts

(Table 2), suggests the use of simple flaking methods. There is no indication for the use

of the Levallois method in the assemblage.



THE ACHEULO-YABRUDIAN OF JAMAL CAVE. MOUNT CARMEL, ISRAEL 99

Cores Cores

Of the seven identified cores only one is complete. It has a plain striking platform and

one big flake scar on a wide and flat debitage surface. Other items are small, indefinable

core fragments.

Handaxes Handaxes

Only one small (33x52x72 mm) crude amygdaloid handaxe was found in this unit (Fig.

4:1). It is thick and crude along most of its perimeter but the tip is thin and intensively

processed.

Typology Typology The tool assemblage includes 13 pieces (Tables 1, 3). In general, the tools are poorly standardized. The blanks are of various sizes and shapes, and the retouch is very rough. The majority of the artifacts have broken butts (Table 2).

The two simple convex side-scrapers are proximally broken. One is made on a thick

flake by crude retouch. The other is made by regular retouch on a thin flake. The side

scraper on the ventral face is made by intensive regular retouch. A thin flake with a facetted

butt served as a blank for this scraper. The side-scraper with alternate retouch is made on

a thin flake and is broken on the distal edge. In addition to side-scrapers, one typical end-scraper was recorded (Fig. 4:2). It is

made on a thick rounded flake with a plain butt, and has a series of bladelet-like scars on

the distal edge. The retouch is very intensive and standardized. One of the edges is also

partially retouched by scaled retouch.

The assemblage also contains a notch, two roughly made burins, one alternating retouched

bee, and a relatively big chopping tool with scars of three successive removals.

Besides the handaxe, which suggests a Lower Paleolithic affinity of the assemblage, the tool assemblage is too small and lacks indicative features for more accurate cultural

or chronological assessments. Middle Paleolithic forms, however, are absent from the

assemblage. We found no evidence for the use of Levallois methods in this unit. The

débitage consists of flakes of various shapes and sizes with unprepared butts. The blanks

chosen for tool manufacture exhibit similar characteristics. Thus it seems that the whole

assemblage represents a pre-Mousterian cultural entity.

The Central Area (J20-21)

The lithic assemblage of the Central Area is the richest in the Jamal Cave (Table 1 ) and includes

the largest sample of handaxes. Of the four sampled squares in the Central Area, only two

( J20-21 ) were excavated to any substantial depth, and bedrock was reached only in the northern

part of Square J20. Only lithics from these two squares were included in the analysis.




3 cm

Figure 4: Acheulo-Yabrudian flint artifacts from Jamal Cave. 1 - amygdaloid handaxe;

2, 5 - endsrapers; 3 - simple straight sidescraper; 4 - core.



THE ACHEULO-YABRUDIAN OF JAMAL CAVE, MOUNT CARMEL, ISRAEL 1Q1

Table 2: Butt preparation.

Facetted Plain Dihedral Broken Cortical Total

Eastern Trench - Unit II

Debitage 3 12 2 16 0 33

Tools 0 2 2 7 0 11

Total 3 14 4 23 0 44

Central Area

Debitage 3 24 3 42 0 72

Tools 4 7 1 19 0 31

Total 7 31 4 61 0 103

S-E Corner

Debitage 1 10 0 20 0 31

Tools 2 3 0 8 1 14

Total 3 13 0 28 1 45

During the excavation, three-dimensional point-plotting of the artifacts was employed. The results presented in Fig. 5 show no clear pattern in the distribution of the artifacts

to allow for any division of the section into distinctive stratigraphie units. Handaxes,

for example, are evenly distributed throughout the depth of the section. Since we found

J23 J22 J21 J20

N

• ♦ • ♦ • •

. . • •

# A ♦

#♦" # • V* *A' *'{♦ A • *•

• ♦. ♦ •

t A ♦♦♦

L

a - Handaxe

• - Other items

Figure 5: Distribution of the lithic artifacts in the Central Area of Jamal Cave.



02 ZAIDNER, DRUCK, NADLER & WEINSTEIN-EVRON ן

Table 3: Typological classification of Jamal Cave lithic assemblages.

Typology Eastern Eastern Eastern Central S-E Total

Trench Trench Trench Area Corner

-Unit I - Unit II -Unit

III

(J20-21)

2 Atypical Levallois flake 2 2

8 Limace 1 1

9 Simple straight side-scraper 3 3

10 Simple convex side-scraper 2 4 5

11 Simple concave side

scraper

2 2

15 Double convex side-scraper 1 1

17 Double concave-convex

side-scraper

1 1

22 Straight transverse scraper 1 1

23 Transverse convex scraper 3 5

25 Side-scraper on ventral face 1 1 2

29 Alternate retouch side

scraper

1 1 2

30 Typical end-scraper 1 3 1 5

32 Typical burin 2 2

34 Typical borer 3 1 4

38 Naturally backed knife 2 2

40 Truncated flake/blade 1 1

42 Notch 1 1 1 3

43 Denticulate 1 1

44 Alternating retouched beak 1 1

45 Retouch on ventral face 1 1 2

61 Chopping tool 1 1

62 Miscellaneous 2 1 3

106 Retouched flake 1 1 6 2 11

Total 1 13 1 30 16 61




it impossible to divide the section into coherent stratigraphical units, we treated the

assemblage as one entity. Most of the pieces in the Central Area are patinated. The degree of abrasion is much

higher than in the Eastern Trench, and more than 25% of the artifacts are rolled. The

debitage consists of flakes, heterogeneous in shape, length and thickness. Most are broken

and have a plain butt (Table 2).

Cores Cores

The frequency of cores in the Central Area is the highest in the site, and their preservation is much better than in the Eastern Trench, which makes a more detailed technological

description possible. The cores were divided into four groups: 1. 1. Varia and broken cores (4). One core in this group is a fragment with one preserved scar. Two others are polyhedral cores

with a large number of striking platforms and debitage surfaces. The fourth core had two

opposed striking platforms, with several small flakes reduced from the debitage surface.

2. Flat debitage surface unipolar cores (3). Three cores have a flat wide debitage surface with a few unipolar removals (Figure 4:4;

6:1). Two have facetted striking platforms, with much effort put into their preparation. The

striking platform of the third core is broken. The three cores exhibit high standardization

in shape, bearing two elongated flake scars each, reduced from the debitage surface. The

opposite side of the core is covered by cortex.

3.3. Core on flat pebble (1). This core is very similar to the former group, and it is most likely that flat debitage surface

unipolar cores represent a more developed stage of the same reduction sequence. The

pebble was broken close to one of its narrow edges, and the broken surface was used as

a striking platform. Four flakes were reduced from the debitage surface.

4.4. Discoidal core (I). Two surfaces of this core are totally covered by scars (Fig. 6:3). The ridge on the

intersection between the two surfaces is very irregular.

HandaxesHandaxes (4 complete and 2 fragments). Six handaxes and handaxe fragments were identified in the Central Area. The dimensions

of the measurable specimens are given in Table 4. Three are relatively small and thick,

and roughly shaped. All except one are in fresh condition. According to the Bordes (1961)

system, the three handaxes should be classified as discoidal (Fig. 7), however two of them

are probably only preforms. The third bears one big scar, and it may have been transformed

into a Levallois-like core (see DeBono and Goren-Inbar 2001, for a discussion on the

same issue). The fourth handaxe is much better manufactured than the others. It is a very




3 cm

Figure 6: Acheulo-Yabrudian lithics from Jamal Cave. 1,3 — cores; 2 - sidescraper with

alternate retouch.




Figure 7: Discoidal handaxe from the Acheulo-Yabrudian of Jamal Cave.

thin cordiform handaxe with a tip processed by a very regular retouch. The butt and the

proximal part of the handaxe bear some remains of the cortex, but the tip is very sharp

and thin. One of the handaxe fragments is probably the point of an amygdaloid handaxe;

the other is indefinable.

Table 4: Dimensions of handaxes from the Central Area.

Length (mm) Width (max) (mm) Thickness (max) (mm) 74 68 27

80 68 38

76 Broken 29

91 86 32

Typology Typology (Table 3) The tools are made on flakes of various shapes and sizes, usually with unprepared butts.

They are dominated by side-scrapers of various types (12). The main types are:

Simple Simple straight side-scrapers (3). The side-scrapers are made on flakes of various shapes and sizes. One, made by regular retouch, has few removals on its ventral face (Fig. 4:3).

The other two are shaped by semi-abrupt retouch.

Simple Simple concave side-scrapers (2). Both have one intensively retouched regular edge. Double Double convex side-scraper ( 1 ). This is made from a primary element with high degree of

abrasion, which makes it hard to recognize the retouch scars. Two edges are intensively retouched and meet at the rounded distal end of the scraper.




Concave-convex Concave-convex side-scraper (1), made on a thin flake, truncated on the distal end, with

both edges retouched by regular retouch.

Straight Straight transverse scraper (1). This item is made on a thin flake by regular retouch.

Convex Convex transverse scrapers (2). One is made on a big thick flake with intensive semi

Quina retouch. The bulb of percussion was removed. The second is made on a small flake

with regular retouch and facetted butt. This is the only side-scraper in the Central Area

assemblage which has a facetted butt. All the other side-scrapers exhibit ether plain or

broken butts.

Side-scraper Side-scraper on ventral face (1). This is made by intensive and regular retouch on a large thick flake, with plain butt.

Side-scraper Side-scraper with alternate retouch (1) (Fig. 6:2). Made on a large flake, intensively retouched on both edges. Besides side-scrapers, the tool assemblage includes:

Atypical Atypical Levallois flakes (2). One is broken at the distal end, and has a facetted butt. The

other is rounded with cortex remains on the distal end, and has a facetted butt as well.

End-scrapers End-scrapers (3). Three typical end-scrapers, different in size and shape, were recorded.

The first is made on a thin broken flake, with fine retouch on the distal edge. The second

is made by semi-abrupt retouch on the distal edge of a rounded flake (Fig. 4:5). It has one

retouched edge as well. The third is made on a thick flake by regular retouch. All three

are proximally broken.

Borers Borers (3). Three borers made on flakes were recorded. On two of them the tip was

manufactured on the distal edge. The tip of the borer is broken in both these cases. One

of the borers is made by scale retouch on two edges; the other is made by a scaled retouch

on one edge and a notch on the other. The third borer is manufactured by retouch on both

edges; its tip is placed on the left edge of the flake, close to the flake butt.

Naturally Naturally backed knife (2): Both items are made on elongated flakes and exhibit use-wear

signs on the working edge. The tool assemblage is completed by a notch, a denticulate and several retouched

flakes (Table 3).

Except for the handaxes, which clearly point to the Lower Paleolithic age of the

assemblage, the tool assemblage is too small and lacks indicative features, which makes

any further cultural or chronological assessments speculative. However, it seems that

typical Middle Paleolithic forms are absent from the assemblage. The Levallois method

is very rare, if it exists at all. The core reduction sequence is very simple, although standardization in some of the core forms indicates a certain level of preplanning. The

debitage consists of roughly-prepared flakes, heterogeneous in shape and size. The choice

of flakes for tool preparation shows no pattern of selection - the shape and size of the

flakes chosen for retouching are as heterogeneous as the shape and size of unretouched




flakes. All these features together indicate that the assemblage represents a pre-Mousterian cultural entity.

The South-Eastern Corner (L25, L-M26). The assemblage consists of 84 items. The percentage of rolled items in this part of the

cave is very small. The preservation of artifacts here seems to be the best in the entire

cave, yet most of the artifacts bear patina or are broken. The percentage of broken butts is

higher than 60%. The most common butt is plain (about 30%). No signs of the Levallois

method were recognized in the assemblage.

Cores Cores (2) One core is made on a flake. It is truncated on the ventral face, and flakes were removed

from dorsal face (Fig. 8:1). The core is very intensively reduced; the dorsal face of the

flake being completely covered by removals. Generally this method of core reduction is

named "Nahar Ibrahim technique" after Solecki and Solecki (1970). Another core has one

flat striking platform with a number of removals from different directions. A high number

of flakes were removed from the platform opposite to the original striking platform.

HandaxesHandaxes

One small cordiform handaxe (41 x35x 14 mm) was recorded. There is another thin fragment,

partially prepared in bifacial manner, which may represent a fragment of a thin handaxe.

Typology Typology (Table 3) The tool assemblage of the South-Eastern Corner of the cave is much more standardized

in the shapes of the selected blanks and in the regularity and intensity of the retouch than

the other two assemblages. Moreover, it consists of forms which allow us to make more

reliable assumptions about its cultural origins.

Limace Limace (1) This is made on an elongated thick flake by intensive stepped Quina retouch (Fig. 8:3). The retouch from both edges meets at the center of the dorsal face of the flake. Remains

of the cortex are preserved only on the center of the distal end of the artifact. The artifact

has a high rounded cross-section. The butt was not removed entirely and the retouched

edges converge on both the distal and proximal ends.

Side-scrapers Side-scrapers (7) All of the four convex side-scrapers are made on flakes; two of which are broken at the

proximal edges. One is made on a thick flake by semi-abrupt, very regular, stepped Quina




3 cm

Figure 8: Acheulo-Yabrudian flint artifacts from Jamal Cave. 1 - "Nahar Ibrahim" core;

2, 4 - sidescrapers; 3 - limace.




retouch. The second was shaped by Semi-Quina retouch along the edge. The third side

scraper is also very regularly retouched (Fig. 8:4). The fourth item is made on a thick flake;

it has a plain butt and an intensive Semi-Quina retouch along the edge (Fig. 8:2).

Three transverse convex side-scrapers were also identified. All three are made on

flakes with plain butts. The first is made on a big, short and thick flake. It has partial and

irregular retouch. The second exhibits a very intensive abrupt stepped retouch. The third

is made on a thin flake by regular retouch on the distal end.

The tool assemblage further contains a notch, a borer, an end-scraper and several

retouched and truncated pieces (Table 3). The lithic assemblage of the South-Eastern Corner of Jamal Cave exhibits some

features which provide us a sounder base for cultural interpretations; however, it should

be remembered that the assemblage is very small. First, the assemblage has no Middle

Paleolithic or later features. The handaxe found in the area indicates a Lower Paleolithic

age of the assemblage. The tool assemblage is predominated by Quina or semi-Quina

retouched items (limace and side-scrapers). Limaces in the Levant up to now were

found only in Acheulo-Yabrudian assemblages (Copeland 1983; Gisis and Bar-Yosef

1974; another limace was found in the 2003 excavations season in the Misliya Cave in

a layer which we preliminarly identified as Acheulo-Yabrudian; Weinstein-Evron et al.

unpublished). The predominance of thick side-scrapers intensively retouched by Quina

retouch, also points to a probable Acheulo-Yabrudian age of the assemblage.

Thus, although we should treat the results with caution due to the small size of the

assemblage, it is likely that this unit belongs to one of the Acheulo-Yabrudian facies.

PROVENANCE OF RAW MATERIAL

The Jamal Cave flint provenance survey is part of a wider study of Mount Carmel flint

distribution (Druck 2004), which incorporates detailed mapping and classification of raw

materials, and aims to create a Mount Carmel "litho-library". This reference collection

will serve as a basis for determining the provenance of archaeological lithic assemblages for sites in the Mount Carmel area and beyond. A similar collection has been recently

established for the Galilee (Delage 2001). The criteria used for the classification and

provenance determination of the Jamal Cave flint resources include such characteristics

as color, cortex (color, shape and texture), the contact between the cortex and the core

(abrupt or diffuse), flint texture (smooth or crystallized) and the presence or absence of

fossils (following Delage 1997, 2001).

The sample analyzed to date included 218 items from squares L23, M23, L25-26, M26

and J20-23. The two main sources for knapping are the local flint of Khureibe formation

which occurs on the northern bank of Nahal Me'arot about 2.5 km to the east of the cave




and in the river bed, and the flints of the Shamir formation occurring in the Mount Oren

area and to the north (Fig. 9; Fig. 10:1+2 and 10, respectively). The two sources together

amount to 55% of the assemblage and clearly dominate it (Fig. 9). The third source of flint

is on the south bank of Nahal Hod (No. 32), which represents 14% of the assemblage. There

are nine other minor flint sources, each containing less than 5% of the assemblage.

The distribution of possible raw material sources used by the inhabitants of the Jamal

Cave indicates that local Mount Carmel flints, from an area within a radius of 6 km around

the site, were preferred for the manufacture of artifacts (Fig. 10). The two main sources in

the assemblages; flint of the Shamir formation and the Khureibe Chalk, include an array of

high quality flints of various shapes and sizes, with a characteristic fine texture that renders

the material highly suitable for knapping. These sources are easily accessible through the

Carmel coastal plain and the wadi-bed and terraces. They are easily extractable, as they

appear in the form of small nodules, detached from the marl or limestone matrix where

they are subsequently scattered on the hilly slopes and in the nearby wadi-bed. The soft

chalky matrix also allows an easy in situ extraction of raw material.

In the Acheulo-Yabrudian of Tabun, the picture is slightly different (Druck 2004). The

local Nahal Me'arot flint of the Khureibe formation reaches up to 45% in the assemblage, while the flint of the Shamir formation presents only 10%. Clearly, the Acheulo-Yabrudians

of the two sites utilized local flints. Even though the emphasis on the various sources

differs slightly, the inhabitants of the two sites relied mainly on local flint resources within

a radius of about 5 km. This behavioral pattern recalls that identified for the Acheulo

unknown source source 9 source 8 source source source 11 (Hirbet (Rom 15 32 1,2

(Ofer) Haglon) Camel) (Isfiya) (Nahal (Nahal Hod) Me'arot)

Figure 9: Frequency distribution of flint raw material sources of Jamal Cave. (For location

see Fig. 10)




A

N

c

00

0)

c

CO

1—

L_

<D 32° -<—< 40' —

■D

0 (

Figure 10: Location map of the flint sources used by the Acheulo

Yabrudians of Jamal Cave.



12 ZAIDNER, DRUCK, NADLER & WEINSTEIN-EVRON ן

Yabrudian of Misliya Cave, situated some 5 km north of Jamal, where the local flints of

the Shamir formation were intensively used, accounting for at least 60% of the assemblage

(Druck 2004). Apparently, each Acheulo-Yabrudian population relied more heavily on

flints distributed within about 2-2.5 km from its respective site.

DATING

Three samples were collected from a flowstone overlying the Acheulo-Yabrudian layers at

the back of the Jamal Cave and subjected to 230Th/234U dating. Only the one directly capping

the archaeological layer yielded a reliable age estimation of 220-223 kyr (Weinstein-Evron

et et al. 1999). This is considered a minimum age for the Acheulo-Yabrudian occurrence

in the cave.

DISCUSSION

TaphonomyTaphonomyTaphonomy The observations regarding the physical condition of the artifacts and their density and

distribution in the Jamal Cave reveal heterogeneous patterns among different excavated

areas. The assemblage of the Central Area is the largest, even though the volume of the

excavated sediments there is not higher than in the eastern parts of the cave. It seems that

the uneven distribution of artifacts in the cave is a result of intensive post-depositional

processes, rather than linked to spatial differences in human use of the cave. The degree of abrasion of the artifacts is also much higher in the Central Area than in the periphery. In addition, the lithic artifacts are distributed equally throughout the sequence, preventing

any possibility of dividing the sequence of the Central Area into stratigraphie subunits.

These observations strongly support the geological and micromorphological analyses which showed that the Central Area was highly influenced by post-depositional processes

(Weinstein-Evron and Tsatskin 1994, 1995). Combining the geoarchaeological and lithic

data, it is most likely that the homogenous distribution of the artifacts in the Central Area

is a consequence of the redeposition of archaeological material which was originally

deposited both in the center and the periphery of the cave. The postulated karstic slumping and processes of colluviation and erosion of the sediments are most probably responsible for the higher density of artifacts and their high degree of abrasion in the Central Area.

Thus, the lithic assemblages of this area are probably the most mixed in the cave, and

may contain material from what originally were several separate archaeological layers. In contrast, the material from the eastern part of the cave exhibits a much better state

of preservation, which again supports the geoarchaeological observations, suggesting a

better preservation of the original stratification in this part of the cave. Therefore, while




the Central Area probably represents a post-depositional accumulation and/or mixing of artifacts, the eastern excavated units may well represent the original assemblages accumulated as a result of human activities.

Taxonomy Taxonomy The study of the lithic assemblages from all three excavated areas in Jamal Cave revealed

Lower Paleolithic affinities. Most characteristic are the handaxes, which are present in

high numbers in the Central Area and also occur in the eastern excavated units. The flake

and core assemblages in all excavated areas show a simple core reduction system, without

the high level of preplanning usually recorded in Middle Paleolithic assemblages of the

Levant. Most of the flakes are thick and have plain butts. Only two flakes may indicate

the use of Levallois method in the Jamal Cave (Weinstein-Evron and Tsatskin 1995).

However, the presence of the Levallois method in the Upper Acheulian of the Levant

is well documented (Bar-Yosef 1998; Goren-Inbar 1995; Ronen et al. 1970) and the

Levallois-like flakes of the Jamal Cave may well consist part of the Lower Paleolithic

variability, rather than indicate a Middle Paleolithic presence. Another support for a Lower

Paleolithic age of the archaeological layers in the Jamal Cave derives from the single date obtained for the flowstone covering the surface of the archaeological layers in the

South-Eastern corner. The age of the flowstone (about 220 kyr) should be considered as

a minimum age of the underlying archaeological layers. This date is in accordance with

the accepted chronology for the end of the Lower Paleolithic and the beginning of the

Middle Paleolithic in the Levant (e.g., Barkai et al. 2003; Porat et al. 2002; Rink et al.

2004a, b). Thus, the combined techno-typological and chronological data indicate that

the Jamal Cave was not occupied during the Middle Paleolithic.

The human occupation of the Jamal Cave may best be defined as Acheulo-Yabrudian.

Typical Yabrudian scrapers and Quina and semi-Quina type retouch were found only in the

South-Eastern corner, however the general breakdown of both other units do not contradict

this assumption. The techno-morphological resemblance between the different units in

terms of simple core reduction methods and shapes of the debitage products allow us to

assume that they all belong to the same cultural entity. The Jamal Cave is one of the series of recently discovered Acheulo-Yabrudian sites in

the southern Levant. Together with the Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel (Weinstein-Evron et

al.al. 2003b) and the Qesem Cave in Judea (Barkai et al. 2003) it sheds a new light on the

extent and intensity of Acheulo-Yabrudian occupation in the region. While only a few

years ago the rather scarce Acheulo-Yabrudian occurrences in Israel were considered

peripheral to a core-area located further north, in Lebanon and Syria (Copeland 2000 and

references therein), now it seems that the Acheulo-Yabrudian occupation in the region is

not less significant.




In most of the caves where Lower and Middle Paleolithic layers were recorded an

Acheulo-Yabrudian phase is present. This holds true for the Zuttiyeh Cave (Gisis and

Bar-Yosef 1974), the Tabun Cave (Garrod and Bate 1937; Jelinek et al. 1973; Ronen et al.

2003; Shifroni and Ronen 2000), the Bezez Cave and Abri Zumoffen in Adlun (Copeland

1983), Yabrud I (Rust 1950), Abu Sif (Neuville 1951) and the Misliya Cave (Weinstein

Evron et al. 2003b). In most of those sites the Acheulo-Yabrudian faciès are overlain

by industries with a high blade component (Tabun Cave, Abu Sif, Misliya Cave, Bezez

Cave, Yabrud I, Hummal). These industries are usually defined as Mousterian of Tabun

D-type (Bar-Yosef 1998 and references therein), except for the Hummalian, which was

identified in El Kown, and is differentiated from Tabun D-type industries by the absence

of the Levallois method.

In the light of the above, and given the location of the Jamal Cave in an area extensively used by humans during the Middle Paleolithic, the absence of Middle Paleolithic layers in the cave is surprising. Indeed, all three neighboring caves, Tabun, el-Wad and Skhul,

as well as most of the other caves and rockshelters on the Carmel ridge, bear evidence of

intensive Middle Paleolithic occupation (Olami 1984). The reason for the abandonment

of the Jamal Cave after the Acheulo-Yabrudian is yet unclear.

REFERENCES Barkai R., Gopher A., Lauritzen S. E. and Frumkin A. 2003. Uranium Series dates from Qesem Cave,

Israel, and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic. Nature 423:977-979.

Bar-Yosef O. 1998. The chronology of the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. In Akazawa T., Aoki K.

and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, pp. 39-56. New York:

Plenum Press.

Bordes F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux.

Copeland L. 1983. The Paleolithic industries. In Roe D. (éd.), Adlun in the Stone Age. The Excavations

ofD.A.EofD.A.E Garrod in the Lebanon 1958-1963, pp. 89-365. (BAR International Series 159). Oxford.

Copeland L. 2000. Yabrudian and related industries: the state of research in 1996. In A. Ronen and M.

Weinstein-Evron (eds.), Toward Modern Humans, The Yabrudian and Micoquian 400-50 k-years

ago,ago, pp. 97-117. (BAR International Series 850). Oxford.

DeBono H. and Goren-Inbar N. 2001. Note on a link between Acheulian Handaxes and the Levallois

method. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31:9-24.

Delage C. 1997. Chert procurement and management during the prehistory of northern Israel. Bulletin

du du Centre de Recherche Français de Jerusalem 1:53-58.

Delage C. 2001. Les resources lithiques dans le Nord d'Israël: La question des territoires

d'approvisionnement d'approvisionnement natoufiens confrontée a l'hypothèse de leur sedentarite. Unpublished Ph.D.

Thesis. Université de Paris I-Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Druck D. 2004. Flint Exploitation by the Prehistoric Inhabitants ofNahal Me'arot Caves, Mount Carmel.

Unpublished M. A. Thesis, University of Haifa (In Hebrew, English summary).

Garrod D.A.E and Bate D.M.A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gisis I. and Bar-Yosef O. 1974. New excavations in Zuttiyeh Cave, Wadi Amud, Israel. Paléorient

2:175-180.




Goren-Inbar N. 1995. The Lower Paleolithic of Israel. In Levy T. (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in

the the Holy Land, pp. 93-109. London: Leicester University Press.

Jelinek A. J., Farrand W.R., Haas G.. Horowitz A. and Goldberg P. 1973. New excavations at the Tabun

Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel: A preliminary report. Paléorient 1:151-183.

Neuville R. 1951. Le paléolithique et le mésolithique du Désert de Judée. Paris: Masson.

Olami Y. 1984. Prehistoric Carmel. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and M. Stekelis Museum

of Prehistory, Haifa.

Porat N., Chazan M., Schwarcz H. and Horwitz L.K. 2002. Timing of the Lower to Middle Paleolithic

boundary: New dates from the Levant. Journal of Human Evolution 43:107-122.

Rink W.J., Schwarcz H.P., Ronen A. and Tsatskin A. 2004a. Confirmation of a near 400 ka age for the

Yabrudian industry at Tabun Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:15-20.

Rink W.J., Schwarcz H.P., Weiner S., Goldberg P., Meignen L. and Bar-Yosef O. 2004b. Age of the

Mousterian industry at Hayonim Cave, Northern Israel, using electron spin resonance and 230Th/234U

methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:953-964.

Ronen A. 1976. The Skhul burials: An archaeological review. In Vandermeersch B. (éd.). Les Sépultures

Néanderaliennes.Néanderaliennes. pp. 27-39. Nice: USIPP.

Ronen A., Gilead D., Shachnai E. and Saul A. 1970. The Upper Acheulian Industry in the Kissufm

region.region. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).

Ronen A., Gisis I. and Safadi A. 2003. Tabun-Mapolet, an Acheulo-Yabrudian lithic assemblage from

Garrod's layer Ed/Ec. Verôffentlichungen des landesamtes fur archàologie 57:477-494.

Rust A. 1950. Die Hohlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). Neumunster: Karl Wachholz Verlag.

Shifroni A. and Ronen A. 2000. Observations on the Yabrudian of Tabun Cave, Israel. In A. Ronen and

M. Weinstein-Evron (eds.), Toward Modern Humans, The Yabrudian and Micoquian 400-50 k-years

ago,ago, pp. 119-132. (BAR International Series 850). Oxford.

Solecki R.L. and Solecki R.S. 1970. A new secondary flaking technique at the Nahr Ibrahim cave site.

Bulletin Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 23:137-142.

Weinstein-Evron M. 1990. Ahandaxe from the Camel cave, Nahal Me'arot, Mt. Carmel. Mitekufat Ha'even,

Journal Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:162*-163*.

Weinstein-Evron M. and Tsatskin A. 1994. The Jamal Cave is not empty: Recent excavations in the Mount

Carmel Caves, Israel. Paléorient: 20/2:119-128.

Weinstein-Evron M. and Tsatskin A. 1995. Palaeoenvironmental investigations in the Jamal Cave, Mount

Carmel, Israel. In: Otte, M. (ed.), Nature et Culture, pp. 63-78. (ERAUL 68). Liège: University of

Liège Press.

Weinstein-Evron M., Tsatskin A., Porat N. and Kronfeld J. 1999. A 2,0Th/^U date for the Acheulo-Yabrudian

layer in the Jamal Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. South African Journal of Science 95:186-188.

Weinstein-Evron M., Beck A. and Ezersky M. 2003a. Geophysical investigations in the service of Mount

Carmel prehistoric research. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1331-1341.

Weinstein-Evron M., Bar-Oz G., Zaidner Y., Tsatskin A., Druck D., Porat N. and Hershkovitz I. 2003b.

Introducing Misliya cave, Mount Carmel, Israel: a new continuous Lower/Middle Paleolithic sequence

in the Levant. Journal of Eurasian Prehistory 1:31-55.



The Acheulo-Yabrudian of Jamal Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel

Documents

Transcript of The Acheulo-Yabrudian of Jamal Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel