Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros49-1Thematic issueHandaxes and Cleavers on Flakes o...

Thematic issue

Handaxes and Cleavers on Flakes of Silicified Limestone at Nahal Barak, Southern Negev and Possible Connections to the Arabian Peninsula Acheulian

Omry Barzilai, Maya Oron, Eli Cohen-Sasson, Gideon Ragolski et Yoav Avni
p. 9-28

Résumés

Résumé. La présente étude fait état de la découverte d'un nouveau de production de bifaces et de hachereaux sur éclats à Nahal Barak, dans le sud du désert du Néguev, en Israël. Le site de Nahal Barak est situé immédiatement en contrebas et aux alentours d'un affleurement de conglomérat datant du Pliocène-Pléistocène ancien. L'affleurement site se compose de gros blocs de calcaire silicifié à grain grossier d’âge Eocène moyen. Ces blocs ont été utilisés comme nucleus « géants » (« giant cores ») pour la production de grands éclats ultérieurement transformés en bifaces et hachereaux. De tels outils sur matériau à grain grossier sont rares au Levant ; ils ne sont connus actuellement que dans le site Acheuléen moyen de Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, dans la vallée de la Hula. Des recherches de terrain extensives menées récemment dans l'ouest et le centre de l'Arabie ont révélé des sites de production de bifaces et hachereaux sur grands éclats provenant de matériaux à grain grossier tels que l'andésite et la rhyolite. Ces outils bifaciaux ont été fabriqués sur de larges éclats, produits à partir de nucléus « géants » selon une méthode de taille particulière. Les caractéristiques technologiques des assemblages provenant de Nahal Barak présentent des similitudes avec ceux provenant des sites acheuléens d'Arabie occidentale et centrale, en particulier avec les sites de Saffaqah près de Dwadma, dans lesquels la production de bifaces et hachereaux à partir de nucleus « géants » en andésite à grain grossier a été identifiée. Des connexions culturelles entre le sud du Néguev et la péninsule arabique au cours du Paléolithique inférieur peuvent alors être envisagées.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

This project was funded by ISF grant 2236/19 “Prehistoric Sites, Fluvial Terraces, and Travertine Deposits: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of the Negev, Israel”. The archaeological survey in Nahal Barak (licenses permit # S-981/19) was directed by Omry Barzilai with the assistance of Maya Oron. We thank Naomi Porat, Ari Matmon, Roi Galili, Lazer Bergman, and Talia Oron for their assistance in the field survey. We thank Naama Goren Inbar and Leore Grossman for the fruitful discussion on the lithic assemblage, and Natalia Gubenko for providing access to the NB 25 collection. Alex Freiberg and Argita Lavnon made 3D scans of the lithic artifacts. Dafna Gazit photographed the lithic artifacts. Tali Erickson-Gini did the grammar editing. Last but not least, we thank the editor, Amir Beshkani; and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments which helped us improve this paper.

Introduction

1The Lower Palaeolithic period in the Levant extends over a wide time span, ca. 1.4-0.25 million years (Ma), and includes several techno-complexes (Garrod and Bate 1937; Stekelis et al. 1969; Sharon 2007; Bar-Yosef and Belmaker 2017; Gopher and Barkai 2017; Zaidner 2017). The Acheulian is by far the most abundant techno-complex with a substantial number of sites in various geographical regions (fig. 1). The Levantine Acheulian is divided into four phases (Early, Middle, Late and Final), each with its distinctive technological variations. The Early Acheulian is evident at the large open-air site of Ubeidiya in the central Jordan Valley dated to ca. 1.4 Ma (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar 1993; Bar-Yosef and Belmaker 2017). The lithic industry of Ubeidiya includes several reduction techniques aimed at producing a variety of tools such as choppers, spheroids, flakes, and bifacial tools (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar 1993). The selection of raw materials at Ubeidiya corresponds with specific types of tools (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar 1993; Herzlinger et al. 2021). Flint and cherts were commonly used for making chopping tools and flakes. Spheroids were made from hard limestone, while the bifacial tools (handaxes and picks) were mostly made on coarse-grained basalt slabs and thick angular flakes.

Fig. 1 – Location map.

Fig. 1 – Location map.

A. Location of Nahal Barak and Levantine Acheulian sites mentioned in the text; B. Major Acheulian sites in the Arabian Peninsula.

Eli Cohen-Sasson

2The Middle Acheulian phase is currently known only at the open-air site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (GBY) in the Hula Valley, dated to 0.78 Ma (Goren-Inbar et al. 2018). The dominant lithic technology at the site is the Large Flake Acheulian (LFA), which was focused on producing cleavers and handaxes from large basalt flakes, which were extracted from giant cores (Madsen and Goren-Inbar 2004; Sharon 2007). Since GBY share common technological features with African LFA assemblages, it is assumed to represent population dispersal/s from Africa to the Levant (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti 1996; Goren-Inbar et al. 2000). Discoveries of LFA sites in India, and more recently in the Arabian Peninsula, demonstrate that this technological variant was common throughout southwest Asia. Notably, in all regions the bifaces on large flakes were produced from coarse-grained raw materials (Petraglia et al. 2010; Pappu et al. 2011, Scerri et al. 2018; Shipton et al. 2018).

3The Late Acheulian is well known in the Mediterranean coastal plain at open-air sites such as Evron, Jaljulia, Revadim and Holon, as well as in the Hula Valley at Maayan Baruch (fig. 1; Yizraeli 1967; Ronen and Amiel 1974; Chazan and Horwitz 2007; Marder et al. 2007, 2011; Sharon 2007, Shemer et al. 2019, 2022). Late Acheulian handaxes were produced almost exclusively from flint. These handaxes were made mostly on flint nodules and pebbles from the local riverbeds. Whenever made on flakes, it was not by the LFA method (Sharon 2010, 2017). Cleavers are absent in the Late Acheulian assemblages, while Levallois technology is evident in some sites, for example at Birkat Ram in the Golan Heights, or Jaljulia in the coastal plain (Goren-Inbar 1985; Mathias et al. 2022).

4The Final Acheulian stage, also known as the Acheulo-Yabrudian, is evident only in cave sites such as Tabun, Qesem, Misliya and Zutiiyeh (Gisis and Bar-Yosef 1974; Zaidner and Weinstein-Evron 2016; Gopher and Barkai 2017; Shimelmitz et al. 2021). The Acheulo-Yabrudian lithic industry includes a systemic method for producing backed blades, and distinctive side scrapers alongside a few handaxes (Sharon 2017).

5As shown above, the Levantine Acheulian is represented in various areas in the Mediterranean woodland area (Coastal Plain, Jordan Valley, Golan Heights), whereas it is virtually absent in the desert regions, specifically the Negev. No in situ Acheulian sites have been identified so far in the Negev and the current available evidence is composed of isolated flint handaxes in the Avdat Plain area, and at Nahal Zihor near an ancient lake deposit (Issar et al. 1984; Ginat et al. 2003). A technological study of the bifacial tools from Nahal Zihor suggested the presence of two lithic traditions (Grosman et al. 2011). The earlier one was suggested to correspond to the Early Acheulian while the latter to the Late Acheulian.

6The current study focuses on a newly discovered Acheulian site at Nahal Barak in the southern Negev region (fig. 1). For the moment, it is the only known site in the Negev that bears evidence of the systematic production of bifaces on flakes from coarse-grain raw material.

The Nahal Barak site complex

7Nahal Barak is located in the southern Negev ca. 60 km south of the Dead Sea, and ca. 100 km north of the Aqaba Gulf, the north-eastern extension of the Red Sea (fig. 1). The area was surveyed during 2013−2018 by one of the authors (Gideon Ragolski) on behalf of the Dead Sea and Arava Science Center. During the fieldwork, 15 findspots (NB10-24) and one site (NB2) were identified in a restricted area north of the stream of Nahal Barak (fig. 2; table 1). The findspots included isolated artifacts, many of which were handaxes (N=24). The site of NB2 included complete handaxes from silicified limestone as well as dozens of associated chipped stone debitage that are described below. Another locality with handaxes (collected by amateurs without authorization) was found ca. 600 m to the east of NB2, at NB25. Among the collected artifacts were eight handaxes and two cleavers, all made from silicified limestone. These bifacial tools were recently transferred to the Israel Antiquities Authority and are included in the data of the present research (see below).

Fig. 2 – The Nahal Barak site complex.

Fig. 2 – The Nahal Barak site complex.

All findspots are found in direct association with relicts of conglomerates of Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene Arava Formation (dark surfaces). Green points were identified during 2013−2018 by Gideon Ragolski Blue points were identified in the 2019 survey. The yellow point is the site of unauthorized collection.

E. Cohen-Sasson

Table 1 – A description of the contents of the Nahal Barak findspots.

Site Description Period
NB1 Giant core, core fragment and a large flake (silicified limestone) found at the site of Nahal Barak 2 Lower Palaeolithic
NB2 A production site for handaxes (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB3 Levallois core (flint) Middle Palaeolithic
NB4 A broken handaxe (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB5 A knapping locality. A cluster of a dozen silicified limestone debitage Lower Palaeolithic
NB6 A knapping locality. Concentration of silicified limestone artifacts and a trihedral from flint next to a limestone boulder Lower Palaeolithic
NB7 A concentration of Levallois cores and debitage (flint) Middle Palaeolithic
NB8 A large flake (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB9 A handaxe (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB10 Three handaxes, a hammerstone and debitage (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB11 A handaxe (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB12 A handaxe and debitage (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB13 Debitage (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB14 Two handaxes (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB15 A handaxe Lower Palaeolithic
NB16 A handaxe Lower Palaeolithic
NB17 Two handaxes (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB18 Two handaxes and a flake (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB19 Two handaxes (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic
NB20 A handaxe Lower Palaeolithic
NB21 A handaxe Lower Palaeolithic
NB22 A handaxe Lower Palaeolithic
NB23 A handaxe Lower Palaeolithic
NB24 Four handaxes Lower Palaeolithic
NB25 Eight handaxes and two cleavers (silicified limestone) Lower Palaeolithic

8In the winter of 2019, the Nahal Barak area was revisited in the framework of a large geoarchaeological survey conducted in the Negev (permit S-981/19). The field methodology employed in the survey is based on previous fieldwork carried out in the central Negev (Avni et al. 2021). Prior to the fieldwork, geological maps of the investigated regions were studied to define in situ diagnostic geomorphic surfaces within the regional geological stratigraphy. These surfaces, representing different stages of landscape development, were then examined in archaeological surveys in which diagnostic Palaeolithic artifacts were plotted against the geological layers. In some cases, when a survey site seemed to represent more than one isolated findspot, further fieldwork was carried out such as test excavation, or extensive high-resolution survey defining the site borders and piece plotting diagnostic artifacts, like in the case of NB2 presented below.

9The current survey of Nahal Barak was done in several field expeditions. The first season in 2019 was carried in the vicinity of NB2 and led to the discovery of seven more findspots (NB1, NB3-NB8; fig. 2). Follow-up expeditions in 2021–2023 included high-resolution find plotting of NB2, and attribution of lithic finds from NB10-25 into typo-technological groups in the field.

10Our aim in the geoarchaeological survey of the Nahal Barak area was to contextualise the finds by studying the geological framework and better define the archaeological occurrences. The additional fieldwork showed that the area was mainly visited during the Lower Palaeolithic (LP), but also during the Middle Palaeolithic (MP). Nevertheless, a clear separation between the periods was evident in the horizontal stratigraphy and raw material choice. Spatially, the MP findspots (NB3, NB7) are separated from LP sites by at least 200 m (fig. 2). Moreover, there is a clear preference for raw materials. Flint was exclusively used for Levallois production at findspots NB3 and NB7 as opposed to the exploitation of coarse-grained silicified limestone in all the LP findspots (table 1).

11Although field observations suggest that almost all of the LP findspots are clearly part of the same large production site (a part of the distinct locations NB3 and NB7 with MP artifacts), our analysis focused on the largest and richest sites in the survey: NB1 and NB2. The analysed sample of the bifacial tools derives from the sites where the surface collection was performed: NB2 and NB25.

The Geological Context

12The site complex of Nahal Barak is located on the western margin of the Arava Valley, 3 km north-west of the junction between Nahan Paran and Nahal Ha’arava that serves as the main drainage channel draining most of the Arava Valley to the Dead Sea.

13The general topography around the site consists of a large eastward tilted plateau, composed of massive limestone rocks of Eocene age with some relict hills composed of the reddish sandstone section of the Early Miocene Hazeva Formation (Calvo and Bartov 2001), topped by a conglomerate layer of the Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene Arava Formation (Avni et al. 2001; figs. 2–3). The plateau is inclined toward the centre of the Arava Valley, which was formed since the Middle Miocene along a segment of the Dead Sea fault system that extends from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Dead Sea (Garfunkel 1981). At present, the section of the Hazeva and Arava Formations form several isolated relict hills, situated on top of the tilted plateau. The Nahal Barak site finds are located along the slopes of one of these relict hills (figs. 2–3).

Fig. 3 – Geological section of Nahal Barak.

Fig. 3 – Geological section of Nahal Barak.

Top: Arava Formation, the source of the silicified limestone raw materials; Centre: Hazeva Formation; Back: Avdat Group.

Photo O. Barzilai

14The relict hill is composed of three geological units: the bottom consists of a chalky limestone section of the Matred Formation of Middle Eocene age (Benjamini 1984), it is covered by a section, 10−15 m thick, composed of the reddish clays and sandstone of the Early Miocene Hazeva Formation (Calvo and Bartov 2001), whereas the top of the hill is composed of a coarse conglomerate, 3−5 m thick, of the Arava Formation (Avni et al. 2001; fig. 3). This non-cemented conglomerate contains a polimictic assemblage of cobbles and pebbles of limestone and chert, deposited together with large boulders of partly silicified limestone, which originated from the Matred Formation of Middle Eocene age. Rocks of this composition are exposed in the nearby plateau located west of the site. These partly silicified boulders were utilized by ancient hominids as a preferred rock material for bifacial tool industries.

15Nahal Barak sites are located at the base of the relict hill topped by the non-cemented conglomerate of the Arava Formation. These relict hills were formed by the incision of the current fluvial system into the Arava Formation alluvial plain formed on the western side of the Arava Valley during the Early Pleistocene. The initiation of the incision process is related to the tectonic activity of the western margin of the Arava depression that uplifted and tilted the region toward the depression, dated to 1.5 Ma (Avni 2017).

16Following the fluvial incision and the creation of the relict hills, a long process of local slope erosion and small-scale rock sliding occurred, especially influencing the topmost layer of the uncemented conglomerate. As a result, boulders and cobbles from the top conglomerate are integrated with the talus slopes, while some rest a short distance (5−10 m) from the relict hills, indicating the maximum slope retreat since the creation of the relict hills (figs. 4, 6a). This near-stable environment, preserving the original boulders used as raw material for artifact production, is also reflected by the extremely low rate of exhumation in hyper-arid conditions reported by Matmon (Matmon 2017). In addition, Amit et al. (2006) reported permanent aridity in the region during the last 1 Ma. The area surrounding the relict hill, away from its talus, is a stable flat surface, incised by very shallow gullies, with no evidence of intense fluvial or colluvial activity.

Fig. 4 – Nahal Barak 1–2, a view to the south.

Fig. 4 – Nahal Barak 1–2, a view to the south.

Note the density of chipped stone artifacts from silicified limestone (dark colour on the pale surface background).

Photo O. Barzilai

Nahal Barak 2: A Production Site of Bifaces from Silicified Limestone

17In this section, we focus on the main archaeological site found in the Nahal Barak site complex which includes survey sites NB1 and NB2. This archaeological site extends over an area of ca. 4,000 m2 that includes hundreds of exposed artifacts (NB2) and a giant core with two refitted artifacts (NB1). Among these, we identified and piece-plotted 103 diagnostic artifacts from silicified limestone presented below (fig. 5; table 2).

Table 2 – A breakdown of the diagnostic artifacts at Nahal Barak 2.

  N %
Large flakes 8 7.8
Flakes 60 58.3
Core trimming elements 2 1.9
Modified pieces 22 21.4
Giant Core 2 1.9
Handaxes 9 8.7
Cleaver 1 1.0
Hammerstones 6 5.8
Preform 1 1.0
Total 103 100

Fig. 5 – Distribution of diagnostic artifacts from silicified limestone at Nahal Barak 1–2.

Fig. 5 – Distribution of diagnostic artifacts from silicified limestone at Nahal Barak 1–2.

E. Cohen-Sasson

E. Cohen-Sasson

18Giant core (NB1). Three artifacts, a giant core, a core fragment and a large flake, were found in the southern part of the site and were recorded as survey point NB1 (figs. 6–7). All are made from silicified limestone and refit into one aggregate of one knapped sequence (figs. 6–7). The flake was found lying on its dorsal face near the core, while the core fragment was found partly covered with sediments at a distance of 3 m east of the core. The three artifacts are well preserved, in fresh condition and display sharp edges; nevertheless, they are partly covered with a dark-developed patina indicating long exposure on the surface (fig. 6B). The refit of the flake to the core shows a sharp contrast between their patina. The ventral face of the flake has a dark brown patina, like the colour of the core, attesting they were exposed for a similar length of time. The dorsal face of the flake, however, displays lighter off-white colour which is the natural colour of the silicified limestone. Thus, we assume this flake did not move much since it was knapped. The core fragment also refits onto the core and shows it bore the tip of the distal scar of the preferential flake (figs. 6D, 7D). The core weighs approximately 40 kg and shows several scars on its perimeter and one large negative scar of the preferential flake. The flake is elongated (24 cm long, 15 cm wide) and displays a pronounced bulb of percussion.

Fig. 6 – A. Nahal Barak 1.

Fig. 6 – A. Nahal Barak 1.

A. A giant core and a large flake from silicified limestone documented in the field. The arrow indicates the location of the core fragment; B. A close-up of the giant core and the large flake; C. The flake refits onto the core; D. A refit of the core fragment onto the core.

Photo O. Barzilai

Fig. 7 – The giant core.

Fig. 7 – The giant core.

A. Core; B. Large flake; C. Core fragment; D. Refitted aggregate.

CAD I. Azulai

19Large Flakes. A total of eight large flakes from silicified limestone were identified at NB2. The flakes exceed 10 cm in length. All have pronounced bulbs of percussion indicating they were struck with a hard hammerstone. Most of the flakes bear ridges on their dorsal face but there are also Kombewa flakes (fig. 8).

Fig. 8 – Large flakes.

Fig. 8 – Large flakes.

A. Kombewa flake; B. A flake with dorsal ridges.

CAD I. Azulai

20Flakes. There are 60 flakes of various sizes in the assemblage (fig. 9). The flakes seem to derive from various stages in the reduction sequence. Nevertheless, a group of small thin flakes could represent a modification of handaxes as their size and dimensions fit the scars on the handaxes as described below (fig. 9B).

21Core trimming elements (CTE). Two CTEs were found in the assemblage (fig. 9D). Both seem to represent the trimming of the edges of the giant core/s.

22Modified pieces. 22 modified pieces were found. These artifacts include items bearing less than three scars, perhaps representing the initial stages of the reduction.

Fig. 9 – Flakes and CTE.

Fig. 9 – Flakes and CTE.

CAD I. Azulai

23Handaxes. A total of ten handaxes were found at NB2. Six of them are complete, another three are broken and one is a preform. All items were made on silicified limestone. All of the complete handaxes were made of large flake blanks. Two of them still possess the striking platform and bulb of percussion (fig. 10), while in the other four handaxes, the proximal features of the flake were removed, but distinguishable parts of the ventral face were still evident (fig. 11).

Fig. 10 – A handaxe with a bulb of the procession and a striking platform from Nahal Barak 2.

Fig. 10 – A handaxe with a bulb of the procession and a striking platform from Nahal Barak 2.

CAD O. Barzilai

Fig. 11 – A handaxe with no bulb of the procession but with remains of the ventral face from Nahal Barak 2.

Fig. 11 – A handaxe with no bulb of the procession but with remains of the ventral face from Nahal Barak 2.

CAD O. Barzilai

24Cleaver. One cleaver was found in the assemblage (fig. 12A). It is made of a large flake. The proximal part of the cleaver was modified with a minimal bifacial retouch. Its distal end is oblique.

25Hammer stones. Six hammerstones were found (fig. 12B-12C). All are heavy and made on silicified limestone pebbles.

Fig. 12 – A. Cleaver on a flake; B-C. Hammerstones.

Fig. 12 – A. Cleaver on a flake; B-C. Hammerstones.

CAD I. Azulai

2.3. Bifacial tools from other sites in Nahal Barak

26An additional ten complete bifacial tools from NB25 were analysed. These include eight handaxes and two cleavers, all made from silicified limestone. Four handaxes display distinct ventral faces with minimal retouch indicating they were made on flakes (fig. 13). Three of them bear the bulb of the procession, while in the fourth it was removed. The other handaxes were modified on both faces, thus it is impossible to know if they were made of flakes (fig. 14A).

27Two cleavers made on large flakes from silicified limestone were found at NB25 (fig. 14b). One cleaver bears bifacial retouch on the right side of the blank similar to the cleaver from NB2 (fig. 12A).

Fig. 13 – Handaxes on flakes from NB25.

Fig. 13 – Handaxes on flakes from NB25.

CAD I. Azulai

Fig. 14 – A handaxe and cleaver from NB25.

Fig. 14 – A handaxe and cleaver from NB25.

A. Handaxe; B. Cleaver.

CAD I. Azulai

Reconstruction of handaxe production

28A reconstruction for the production of handaxes in the Nahal Barak sites is proposed based on the presence of various diagnostic artifacts, including a core, bifacial preforms, large flakes, flakes, and the handaxes. The first stage in the reduction began with a selection of a boulder with a suitable size and configuration from the conglomerate of the Arava formation. The next stage included the preparation of the core striking platform made by a series of flake removals followed by the extraction of a large flake perpendicular to the preparation (fig. 15). This process may have been repeated several times on each core, as attested by the amount of debitage in NB2 but cannot be fully reconstructed.

Fig. 15 – Reconstruction of large flake production from a giant core at Nahal Barak.

Fig. 15 – Reconstruction of large flake production from a giant core at Nahal Barak.

CAD I. Azulai, photo O. Barzilai

29The large flake was then subjected to three stages of bifacial flaking to form a handaxe (fig. 16). The first set included large and deep flake removals, 5–7 flakes per face. The size of these scars fit the size of some of the thin flakes within the debitage (fig. 9B). The second set is the smaller shaping flakes, 7–8 removals per face. The final set is the sharpening micro flakes that shaped the working edges of the tool. These include ca. 15 removals in the complete handaxes. Notably, the third set is underrepresented in the two handaxes which still maintained the striking platform and the bulb (fig. 10).

Fig. 16 – Reconstruction of the shaping of a handaxe from a large flake at Nahal Barak.

Fig. 16 – Reconstruction of the shaping of a handaxe from a large flake at Nahal Barak.

Red: first flaking series; blue: second flaking series; green: third flaking series.

CAD O. Barzilai

30A comparison between the outline of the complete handaxes shows a high resemblance in their configuration (fig. 17). Notably, all of the handaxes fit in the large flake from NB1 implying this flake blank is large enough to be used as a blank for handaxe production.

Fig. 17 – Comparison between the configuration of handaxes from NB2 and the large flake from NB1.

Fig. 17 – Comparison between the configuration of handaxes from NB2 and the large flake from NB1.

CAD A. Karasik

Discussion

  • 1 There is also evidence for cave exploitation, mostly characterizing the Final Acheulian/Acheulo-Ya (...)

31The Acheulian in the Levant is mainly known in the Mediterranean woodland region where a substantial number of sites were uncovered and excavated. Most of the sites1 were found in the open landscape in association with large permanent water bodies such as lakes and marshes (Sharon 2017). The stratigraphy in many of these sites attests repeated visits to these favoured localities (Gilead and Ronen 1977; Goren-Inbar and Speth 2004; Barzilai et al. 2006; Chazan and Horwitz 2007; Marder et al. 2011; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2013). A common characteristic of the Acheulian sites is the composition of the faunal assemblages, demonstrating the preferential exploitation of medium to large-sized mammals and, in some cases, extremely large-sized mammals such as elephants and hippopotamuses (Yizraeli 1967; Tchernov 1987; Horwitz and Tchernov 1989; Tchernov 1992, Tchernov et al. 1994; Martínez-Navarro et al. 2009; Yeshurun et al. 2011; Rabinovich et al. 2012a, 2012b).

32While the Acheulian of the Mediterranean woodland is well explored, it is currently underrepresented in the Negev despite the fact that this region was comprehensively investigated during the 1970−1980s (Marks 1976, 1977, 1983; Gilead 1981; Goring-Morris 1987). The field projects revealed an abundance of Middle, Upper and Epipalaeolithic sites as opposed to the earlier Lower Palaeolithic. The discovery of Nahal Barak expands our knowledge and provides new information on the lithic technology of the Acheulian in the Negev but also raises questions concerning its geographical affiliation.

33The reconstruction of the lithic organization at Nahal Barak sites shows a pattern of consistent exploitation of coarse-grained silicified limestone materials for the production of handaxes and cleavers. The site is located immediately below an outcrop of the Arava conglomerate formation in which large boulders of silicified limestone are available. These boulders were probably the main attraction for Acheulian visits to the site. The occurrence of diagnostic artifacts, including the giant core, large flakes, flakes, CTE, modified pieces, and hammerstone, indicates that handaxes and cleavers were produced at the site.

34Although the Nahal Barak assemblages originated in a surface collection, it is concentrated in a stable geological surface that was subjected to minimal effects of natural fluvial and colluvial activities. This notion is supported by the composition of the assemblages and by refitting. The assemblage from NB1-NB2, although small and not fully collected, clearly represents the complete reduction sequence. Knapping on site seems to be restricted to one technological reduction aimed at producing handaxes and cleavers on large flakes. Almost all bifacial tools from Nahal Barak bear relatively no invasive modifications, suggesting that blanks of specific size and shape were produced and selected, to allow minimal preparation. This is most prominent in the cleavers, although very few were among the studied materials.

35These characteristics at Nahal Barak stand out in the Levantine Acheulian, not only due to being the only well-preserved assemblage in the arid Negev but mostly due to the dominant mode of production at the site. Such production of handaxes and cleavers from coarse-grained raw material is not known from other sites in the region apart from GBY. The handaxes from Nahal Barak differ from most of the Acheulian sites in the Mediterranean woodland with respect to raw material exploitation and core production. For these reasons, even though the assemblage is small, we cautiously propose to assign Nahal Barak to the LFA tradition in which bifacial tools (handaxes and cleavers) were modified on large flakes produced from giant cores (Sharon 2010).

36Currently, LFA production in the Levant is known only at the site of GBY (Goren-Inbar et al. 2018). The raw material used at GBY is coarse-grained basalt which was the main choice of raw material for producing handaxes and cleavers. Sharon (Sharon 2008) suggested the reason for the selection of coarse-grained basalt at GBY was its durability and the higher specific gravity which made these bifacial tools heavier than the flint parallels. The reconstruction of LFA production at GBY is based on experimental studies which proposed four techniques for extracting the large flakes: slab slicing, bifacial cores, Kombewa and Levallois methods (Goren-Inbar et al. 2018). The presence of large Kombewa flakes at Nahal Barak together with large flakes with dorsal ridges implies that several methods were employed at the site. As for the giant core from Nahal Barak, it is different from all the GBY production modes as it is characterized by circumferential preparations prior to the extraction of a large preferential flake (fig. 16). Another difference is the paucity of cleavers at Nahal Barak as opposed to GBY where they form almost one-third of the bifacial tool component in average (Goren-Inbar et al. 2018: table 9.1).

Arabian Acheulian

37The extensive fieldwork in the last two decades has revealed new data regarding the Lower Palaeolithic period in the arid regions of the Arabian Peninsula (Petraglia 2003; Petraglia et al. 2010; Rose and Petraglia 2010; Faulds et al. 2017; Scerri et al. 2018, 2021; Shipton et al. 2018; Groucutt et al. 2021). Dozens of Acheulian occurrences were discovered in several field expeditions at Wadi Fatimah and Wadi Dabsa in western Arabia close to the Red Sea, and at Dawadmi and Jubbah in central Arabia (fig. 1B). At Wadi Fatimah, exposures of coarse-grained basalt, andesite, diabase, and rhyolite were used to manufacture handaxes, cleavers and picks using the LFA method (Petraglia et al. 2010). At Wadi Dabsa, the Acheulian sites are located near basalt outcrops that were used to produce handaxes and cleavers on large flakes (Faulds et al. 2017).

38At Dawadmi in central Arabia, the sites were found in proximity to andesite and rhyolite dikes which were used as the sole raw material for LFA production (Killick et al. 1981; Whalen et al. 1984; Scerri et al. 2018; Shipton et al. 2018). The sites, located near springs or riverbeds, consisted of giant cores, manufacturing debris and bifacial tools such as handaxes and cleavers. Among the Dawadmi sites, the complex at Saffaqah (206-76), is one of the better-preserved LFA production sites. It contains handaxes and cleavers from stratified contexts as well as large flakes and giant cores. Handaxes significantly outnumber cleavers which compose ca. 4% of the biface’s component, similarly to Naha Barak (Shipton et al. 2018: table 1). The age of the site, based on luminescence dating, is estimated to be the MIS7 time span (Scerri et al. 2018).

39Another cluster of sites is found in southwestern Nefud Desert (Scerri et al. 2021). The most important site in this cluster is An Nasim, which currently has the earliest known occupation in Arabia dated to MIS 9 (~337–301 ka). The site is associated with a sedimentological sequence of a local palaeolake. The lithic assemblage includes refined pointed handaxes shaped from raw material blocks. Cleavers are absent and there is no evidence for local production despite the apparent availability of large blocks of raw material. The morphological characteristics of the handaxes from An Nasim are different from the LFA of Dawadmi. For the moment, its relationship with the Late Acheulian in the Levant is not clear (Scerri et al. 2021).

40The distribution of the sites in Arabia along the coast and the central deserts have led some researchers to propose the movement of populations back and forth from the Rift Valley (GBY) and from the Red Sea (Wadi Fatimah, Wadi Dabsa) to the central desert during wetter climatic conditions (Rose and Petraglia 2010).

41The Nahal Barak site, although located ca. 1,200 km north of Dawadmi and Wadi Fatima, shows resemblance to the Arabian Peninsula LFA in the following respects. The first is the environmental conditions: Nahal Barak is located in the southern Negev Desert, which is an integral part of the northern Saharo-Arabian desert belt. Both southern-central Arabia and the southern Negev have hyper-arid environment conditions that characterise these regions for the last 1 Ma (Amit et al. 2006). Nevertheless, both regions were subjected in the past to less arid environmental conditions that are reflected by the presence of paleolakes (Ginat et al. 2018; Parton et al. 2018; Petraglia et al. 2020).

42Another resemblance between Nahal Barak and the sites from the Arabian Peninsula is the systematic use of coarse-grain outcrops for producing bifacial tools despite the presence of good flint outcrops in these regions (Ginat et al. 2003; Crassard and Hilbert 2020; Finkel et al. 2022). In both regions, the production sites were located near coarse-grained raw material outcrops, where large boulders were used as giant cores for the production of large flakes that were shaped into bifacial tools. The bifacial tools in Nahal Barak and the Arabian Peninsula sites include handaxes and cleavers. The handaxes were modified on both faces by at least two series of flaking. Notably, some of the handaxes display minimal retouch on their ventral faces and some bear the flake’s bulb of percussion. Cleavers are also present in the assemblages of both regions, but their frequency is relatively low when compared to the handaxes. In the southern Negev and the Arabian Peninsula, the cleavers average less than 5% of the bifaces component, whereas at GBY, they amount to almost 30% of the bifaces component.

43The LFA sites from the Arabian Peninsula are chronologically younger than GBY and thus possibly represent the intrusion of the LFA from the Mediterranean woodland region into the deserts of Arabia (Shipton et al. 2018). At present, the Nahal Barak site contains no opportunities for radiometric dating, however, its location between the Jordan Valley (GBY) and the sites of central Arabia make it a candidate for connections between the regions as has been noted in other time periods (e.g. Crassard et al. 2013; Barzilai et al. 2022).

Conclusions

44The Nahal Barak complex is the first in-situ Acheulian site discovered in the Negev desert and is currently the only production site for bifaces on coarse-grained raw material known in the Levant.

45The technological characteristics of the Nahal Barak assemblages show resemblance to LFA sites in central and western Arabia and therefore imply potential cultural connections between the two regions.

46The current research highlights the southern Negev and the Arava region with its series of paleo-lakes as a favoured habitat for Middle Pleistocene hominins.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Amit R, Enzel Y and Sharon D. 2006 – Permanent Quaternary hyperaridity in the Negev, Israel, resulting from regional tectonics blocking Mediterranean frontal systems. Geology 34: 509–512

Avni Y. 2017 – Tectonic and Physiographic Settings of the Levant. In: Enzel Y. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans: 3–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Avni Y., Bartov Y., Garfunkel Z. and Ginat H. 2001 – The Arava Formation-A Pliocene Sequence in The Arava Valley and its Western Margin, Southern Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 50,2-4: 101–120.

Avni Y., Oron M., Cohen-Sasson E., Porat N. and Barzilai O. 2021 – Chrono-sequences of alluvial terraces and fossilized water bodies as a predictive model for detecting Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites in the Negev desert, Israel. Quaternary Science Reviews 268,107114.‏

Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A. 2013 – Following Pleistocene Road Signs of Human Dispersals Across Eurasia. Quaternary International 285: 30–43.

Bar-Yosef O. and Belmaker M. 2017 – Ubeidiya. In: Enzel Y. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans: 179–185. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bar-Yosef O. and Gisis I. 1974 – New excavation in Zuttiyeh Cave, Wadi Amud, Israel. Paléorient 2: 175–180.‏

Bar-Yosef O. and Goren-Inbar N. 1993 – The Lithic Assemblages of ʻUbeidiya: A Lower Palaeolithic Site in the Jordan Valley. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Qedem).

Barzilai O., Malinsky-Buller A. and Ackermann O. 2006 – Kefar Menachem West: A Lower Paleolithic Site in the Southern Shephela, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 36: 7–38.

Barzilai O., Oron M., Porat N., White D., Timms R., Blockley S., Zular A., Avni Y., Faershtein G., Weiner S. and Boaretto E. 2022 – Expansion of eastern Mediterranean Middle Paleolithic into the desert region in early marine isotopic stage 5. Scientific reports 12,1: 1–13.‏

Benjamini C. 1984 – Stratigraphy of The Eocene of the Arava Valley (Eastern and Southern Negev, Southern Israel). Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 33,4: 167–177.

Calvo R. and Bartov Y. 2001 – Hazeva Group, Southern Israel: New Observations, and Their Implications for its Stratigraphy, Paleogeography, and Tectono-Sedimentary Regime. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 50,2-4.

Chazan M. and Horwitz L.K. 2007 – Holon: a Lower Paleolithic site in Israel. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Crassard R., Petraglia M. D., Parker A. G., Parton A., Roberts R. G., Jacobs Z., Alsharekh A., Al-Omari A., Breeze P. and Drake N. A. 2013 – Beyond the Levant: First Evidence of A Pre-Pottery Neolithic Incursion Into the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia. PLoS ONE 8,7: e68061.

Crassard R. and Hilbert Y. H. 2020 – Bidirectional blade technology on naviform cores from northern Arabia: New evidence of Arabian‐Levantine interactions in the Neolithic. Arabian archaeology and epigraphy 31,1: 93–104.‏

Finkel, M., Erel Y., Dor Y. B., Tirosh O., Levy T. E., Najjar M., Avni Y., Gopher A. and Ben-Yosef E. 2022 – High-resolution elemental characterization of prehistoric flint sources in southern Israel: Implications for archaeological provenance studies. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 43,103438.‏

Foulds F. W., Shuttleworth A., Sinclair A., Alsharekh A. M., Al Ghamdi S., Inglis R. H. and Bailey G. N. 2017 – A Large Handaxe from Wadi Dabsa and Early Hominin Adaptations Within the Arabian Peninsula. Antiquity 91,360: 1421–1434.

Garfunkel Z. 1981 – Internal Structure of The Dead Sea Leaky Transform (Rift) in Relation to Plate Kinematics. Tectonophysics 80,1-4: 81–108.

Garrod D. A. E. 1956 – Acheuléo-Jabroudien et “Pré-Aurignacien” de la grotte du Taboun (Mont Carmel), étude stratigraphique et chronologique. Quaternaria 3: 39-59.

Garrod D. A. E. 1970 – Pre-Aurignacian and Amudian: a comparative study of the earliest blade industries of the Near East. In: Gripp K, Schüttrumpf R. and Schwabedissen H. R. (eds) Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt: 224–229. Böhlau Verlag: Köln.

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

Gilead D. and Ronen A. 1977 – Acheulian Industries from Evron on The Western Galilee Coastal Plain. Eretz-Israel 13: 56–86.

Gilead I. 1981 – The Upper Palaeolithic in Sinai and the Negev: Sites in Gebel-Maghara, Kadesh Barnea and Nahal Zin, PhD dissertation. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ginat H., Opitz S., Ababneh L., Faershtein G., Lazar M., Porat N. and Mischke S. 2018 – Pliocene-Pleistocene Waterbodies and Associated Deposits in Southern Israel and Southern Jordan. Journal of Arid Environments 148: 14–33.

Ginat H., Zilberman E. and Saragusti I. 2003 – Early Pleistocene Lake Deposits and Lower Paleolithic Finds in Nahal (Wadi) Zihor, Southern Negev Desert, Israel. Quaternary Research 59,3: 445–458.

Gopher A., Ayalon A., Bar-Matthews M., Barkai R., Frumkin A., Karkanas P. and Shahack-Gross R. 2010 – The Chronology of the Late Lower Paleolithic in the Levant Based on U–Th Ages of Speleothems from Qesem Cave, Israel. Quaternary Geochronology 5,6: 644–656.

Gopher A. and Barkai R. 2017 – Qesem Cave and the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex in the Levant. In: Enzel Y. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environment, Climate change and Humans: 203–214. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gopher A., Barkai R., Shimelmitz R., Khalaily M., Lemorini C., Hershkovitz I. and Stiner M. 2005 – Qesem Cave: an Amudian Site in Central Israel. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35: 62–92.

Goren-Inbar N. 1985 – The lithic Assemblage of the Berekhat Ram Acheulian Site, Golan Heights. Paléorient 11,1: 7–28.

Goren-Inbar N., Alperson-Afil N., Sharon G. and Herzlinger G. 2018 – The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya ’aqov, vol. IV: The lithic assemblages. Dordrecht: Springer.

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 289,5481: 944–947.

Goren-Inbar N. and Saragusti I. 1996 – An Acheulian Biface Assemblage from Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel: Indications of African Affinities. Journal of Field Archaeology 23,1: 15–30.

Goren-Inbar N. and Speth J. D. 2004 – Human paleoecology in the Levantine Corridor. Oxford: Oxbow Books (BAR International Series).

Goring-Morris A. N. 1987 – At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. Oxford: Oxbow Books (BAR International Series).

Grosman L., Goldsmith Y. and Smilansky U. 2011 – Morphological Analysis of Nahal Zihor Handaxes: a Chronological Perspective. PaleoAnthropology 2011: 203–215.

Groucutt H. S., White T. S., Scerri E. M., Andrieux E., Clark-Wilson R., Breeze P. S., Armitage S. J., Stewart M., Drake N. and Louys J. 2021 – Multiple Hominin Dispersals into Southwest Asia Over the Past 400,000 Years. Nature 597,7876: 376–380.

Herzlinger G., Brenet M., Varanda A., Deschamps M. and Goren-Inbar N. 2021 – Revisiting the Acheulian Large Cutting Tools of ’Ubeidiya, Israel. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology 4,4: 1–29.

Horwitz L. K. and Tchernov E. 1989 – The Late Acheulian Fauna from Oumm Zinat. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22: 7–14.

Issar A., Karnieli A., Bruins H. J. And Gilead I. 1984 – The Quaternary Geology and Hydrology of Sede Zin, Negev, Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 33,5: 34–42.

Jelinek A. J. 1990 – The Amudian in the Context of the Mugharan Tradition at the Tabun Cave (Mount Carmel), Israel. In: Mellars P. (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans, An Archaeological Perspective: 81–90. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Killick A., Whalen N., James N., Morsi G. and Kamal M. 1981 – Saudi Arabian Archaeological Reconnaissance 1980, Preliminary Report on the Western Province Survey. Atlal 5: 43–58.

Madsen B. and Goren-Inbar N. 2004 – Acheulian Giant Core Technology and Beyond: An Archaeological and Experimental Case Study. Eurasian Prehistory 2,1: 3–52.

Marder O., Malinsky-Buller A., Shahack-Gross R., Ackermann O., Ayalon A., Bar-Matthews M., Goldsmith Y., Inbar M., Rabinovich R. and Hovers E. 2011 – Archaeological Horizons and Fluvial Processes at the Lower Paleolithic Open-Air Site of Revadim (Israel). Journal of Human Evolution 60,4: 508–522.

Marder O., Milevski I. and Rabinovich R. 2007 – The Revadim Quarry. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 119.

Marks A. E. (ed.) 1976 – Prehistory and Paleoenvironments of the Central Negev, Israel, vol. I: The Avdat/Aqev Area. Part 1. Dallas: Southern Methodist University (SMU) Press.

Marks A. E. (ed.) 1977 – Prehistory and Paleoenvironments of the Central Negev, Israel, vol. II: The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2 and the Har Harif. Dallas: Southern Methodist University (SMU) Press.

Marks A. E. (ed.) 1983 – Prehistory and Paleoenvironments of the Central Negev, Israel, vol. III. Dallas: Southern Methodist University (SMU) Press.

Martínez-Navarro B., Belmaker M. and Bar-Yosef O. 2009 – The Large Carnivores from ’Ubeidiya (Early Pleistocene, Israel): Biochronological and Biogeographical Implications. Journal of Human Evolution 56,5: 514–524.

Mathias C., Shemer M. and Barkai R. 2022 – Levallois Technology Half a Million Years Ago? A View from Late Acheulian Jaljulia, Israel. European Society for the Study of Human Evolution Meeting.

Matmon A. 2017 – Cosmogenic-Isotope Based Erosion Rates along the Western Margin of the Dead Sea Fault. In: Enzel Y. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Quaternary of the Levant (Environment, Climate change and Humans): 391–400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Neuville R. 1951 – Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du désert de Judée. Paris: Masson et Cie.

Pappu S., Gunnell Y., Akhilesh K., Braucher R., Taieb M., Demory F. and Thouveny N. 2011 – Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in south India. Science 331: 1596–1599.‏

Parton A., Clark-Balzan L., Parker A. G., Preston G. W., Sung W. W., Breeze P. S., Leng M. J., Groucutt H. S., White T. S. and Alsharekh A. 2018 – Middle-Late Quaternary Palaeoclimate Variability from Lake and Wetland Deposits in the Nefud Desert, Northern Arabia. Quaternary Science Reviews 202: 78–97.

Petraglia M. D. 2003 – The Lower Paleolithic of the Arabian Peninsula: Occupations, Adaptations, and Dispersals. Journal of World Prehistory 17,2: 141–179.

Petraglia M. D., Drake N. and Alsharekh A. 2010 – Acheulean Landscapes and Large Cutting Tools Assemblages in the Arabian Peninsula. In: Petraglia M. D. and Rose J. I. (eds.), The evolution of human populations in Arabia: 103–116. Dordrecht: Springer.

Petraglia M. D., Groucutt H. S., Guagnin M., Breeze P. S. and Boivin N. 2020 – Human Responses to Climate and Ecosystem Change in Ancient Arabia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117,15: 8263–8270.

Rabinovich R., Ackermann O., Aladjem E., Barkai R., Biton R., Milevski I., Solodenko N. and Marder O. 2012a – Elephants at The Middle Pleistocene Acheulian Open-Air Site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. Quaternary International 276,183197.

Rabinovich R., Gaudzinski-Windheuser S., Kindler L. and Goren-Inbar N. 2012b – The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya ’aqov Volume III: Mammalian Taphonomy. The Assemblages of Layers V-5 and V-6. Dordrecht: Springer.

Ronen A. and Amiel A. 1974 – The Evron Quarry: A Contribution to the Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Coastal Plain of Israel. Paléorient 2,1: 167–173.

Rose J. I. and Petraglia M. D. 2010 – Tracking the Origin and Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia. In: Petraglia M. D. and Rose J. I. (eds.), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics: 1–12. New York: Springer.

Scerri E. M., Frouin M., Breeze P. S., Armitage S. J., Candy I., Groucutt H. S., Drake N., Parton A., White T. S. and Alsharekh A. M. 2021 – The Expansion of Acheulean Hominins into the Nefud Desert of Arabia. Scientific reports 11,1: 1–10.

Scerri E. M., Shipton C., Clark-Balzan L., Frouin M., Schwenninger J. L., Groucutt H. S., Breeze P. S., Parton A., Blinkhorn J. and Drake N. A. 2018 – The Expansion of Later Acheulean Hominins into the Arabian Peninsula. Scientific Reports 8,1: 1–9.

Sharon G. 2007 – Acheulian Large Flake Industries: Technology, Chronology, and Significance. Archaeopress: Oxford (BAR International Series).

Sharon G. 2008 – The Impact of Raw Material on Acheulian Large Flake Production. Journal of Archaeological Science 35,5: 1329–1344.

Sharon G. 2010 – Large flake Acheulian. Quaternary International 223: 226–233.‏

Sharon G. 2014 – The Early Prehistory of Western and Central Asia: 1357–1378. The Cambridge World Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sharon G. 2017 – The Acheulian of the Levant. In: Enzel Y. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans: 539–547. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shemer M., Crouvi O., Shaar R., Ebert Y., Matmon A., Horwitz L. K., Eisenmann V., Enzel Y. and Barzilai O. 2019 – Geochronology, Paleogeography, and Archaeology of the Acheulian Locality of ‘Evron Landfill in the Western Galilee, Israel. Quaternary Research 91,2: 729–750.

Shemer M., Greenbaum N., Taha N., Brailovsky-Rokser L., Ebert Y., Shaar R., Falgueres C., Voinchet P., Porat N. and Faershtein G. 2022 – Late Acheulian Jaljulia–Early Human Occupations in the Paleo-Landscape of the Central Coastal Plain of Israel. PLoS ONE 17,5: e0267672.

Shimelmitz R., Kuhn S. L., Bisson M. and Weinstein-Evron M. 2021 – The End of The Acheulo-Yabrudian and the Lower Paleolithic in the Levant: A View from the “Transitional” Unit X of Tabun Cave, Israel. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 13,4: 1–26.

Shipton C., Blinkhorn J., Breeze P. S., Cuthbertson P., Drake N., Groucutt H. S., Jennings R. P., Parton A., Scerri E. M. and Alsharekh A. 2018 – Acheulean Technology and Landscape Use at Dawadmi, Central Arabia. PloS one 13,7: e0200497.

Stekelis M., Bar-Yosef O. and Schick T. 1969 – Archaeological Excavations at ’Ubeidiya, 1964–1966. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Tchernov E. 1987 – The Age of the Ubeidiya Formation, an Early Pleistocene Hominid Site in the Jordan Valley, Israel. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 36,1-2: 3–30.

Tchernov E. 1992 – Biochronology, paleoecology, and dispersal events of hominids in the southern Levant. In: Akazawa T., Aoki K. and Kimura T. (eds.), The evolution and dispersal of modern humans in Asia: 149–188. Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha.

Tchernov E., Horwitz L. K., Ronen A. and Lister A. 1994 – The Faunal Remains from Evron Quarry in Relation to Other Lower Paleolithic Hominid Sites in The Southern Levant. Quaternary Research 42,3: 328–339.

Valladas H., Mercier N., Hershkovitz I., Zaidner Y., Tsatskin A., Yeshurun R., Vialettes L., Joron J. L., Reyss J. L. and Weinstein-Evron M. 2013 – Dating the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition in the Levant: a view from Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 65: 585–593.

Weinstein-Evron M., Bar-Oz G., Zaidner Y., Tsatskin A., Druck D., Porat N. and Hershkovitz I. 2003 – Introducing Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel: A new continuous Lower/Middle Paleolithic sequence in the Levant. Eurasian Prehistory 1: 31–55.

Whalen N., Siraj-Ali J. S. and Davis W. 1984 – Excavation of Acheulean sites near Saffaqah, Saudi Arabia, 1403 AH 1983. Atlal 8: 9–24.

Yeshurun R., Zaidner Y., Eisenmann V., Martínez-Navarro B. and Bar-Oz G. 2011 – Lower Paleolithic hominin ecology at the fringe of the desert: Faunal remains from Bizat Ruhama and Nahal Hesi, Northern Negev, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 60,4: 492–507.

Yizraeli T. 1967 – A Lower Palaeolithic Site at Ḥolon: Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 17,3: 144–152.

Zaidner Y. 2017 – Bizat Ruhama. In: Enzel Y. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans: 195–202. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zaidner Y. and Weinstein-Evron M. 2016 – The end of the Lower Paleolithic in the Levant: the Acheulo-Yabrudian lithic technology at Misliya Cave, Israel. Quaternary international 409: 9–22.

Haut de page

Notes

1 There is also evidence for cave exploitation, mostly characterizing the Final Acheulian/Acheulo-Yabrudian (e.g., Neuville 1951; Garrod 1956, 1970; Jelinek 1990; Weinstein-Evron et al. 2003; Gopher et al. 2005, 2010; Valladas et al. 2013).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Location map.
Légende A. Location of Nahal Barak and Levantine Acheulian sites mentioned in the text; B. Major Acheulian sites in the Arabian Peninsula.
Crédits Eli Cohen-Sasson
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M
Titre Fig. 2 – The Nahal Barak site complex.
Légende All findspots are found in direct association with relicts of conglomerates of Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene Arava Formation (dark surfaces). Green points were identified during 2013−2018 by Gideon Ragolski Blue points were identified in the 2019 survey. The yellow point is the site of unauthorized collection.
Crédits E. Cohen-Sasson
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 381k
Titre Fig. 3 – Geological section of Nahal Barak.
Légende Top: Arava Formation, the source of the silicified limestone raw materials; Centre: Hazeva Formation; Back: Avdat Group.
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 186k
Titre Fig. 4 – Nahal Barak 1–2, a view to the south.
Légende Note the density of chipped stone artifacts from silicified limestone (dark colour on the pale surface background).
Crédits Photo O. Barzilai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 239k
Titre Fig. 5 – Distribution of diagnostic artifacts from silicified limestone at Nahal Barak 1–2.
Crédits E. Cohen-Sasson
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 182k
Titre Fig. 6 – A. Nahal Barak 1.
Légende A. A giant core and a large flake from silicified limestone documented in the field. The arrow indicates the location of the core fragment; B. A close-up of the giant core and the large flake; C. The flake refits onto the core; D. A refit of the core fragment onto the core.
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 234k
Titre Fig. 7 – The giant core.
Légende A. Core; B. Large flake; C. Core fragment; D. Refitted aggregate.
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 106k
Titre Fig. 8 – Large flakes.
Légende A. Kombewa flake; B. A flake with dorsal ridges.
Crédits CAD I. Azulai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 50k
Titre Fig. 9 – Flakes and CTE.
Crédits CAD I. Azulai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 46k
Titre Fig. 10 – A handaxe with a bulb of the procession and a striking platform from Nahal Barak 2.
Crédits CAD O. Barzilai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 79k
Titre Fig. 11 – A handaxe with no bulb of the procession but with remains of the ventral face from Nahal Barak 2.
Crédits CAD O. Barzilai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 85k
Titre Fig. 12 – A. Cleaver on a flake; B-C. Hammerstones.
Crédits CAD I. Azulai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 127k
Titre Fig. 13 – Handaxes on flakes from NB25.
Légende CAD I. Azulai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 68k
Titre Fig. 14 – A handaxe and cleaver from NB25.
Légende A. Handaxe; B. Cleaver.
Crédits CAD I. Azulai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 68k
Titre Fig. 15 – Reconstruction of large flake production from a giant core at Nahal Barak.
Crédits CAD I. Azulai, photo O. Barzilai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 139k
Titre Fig. 16 – Reconstruction of the shaping of a handaxe from a large flake at Nahal Barak.
Légende Red: first flaking series; blue: second flaking series; green: third flaking series.
Crédits CAD O. Barzilai
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 88k
Titre Fig. 17 – Comparison between the configuration of handaxes from NB2 and the large flake from NB1.
Crédits CAD A. Karasik
URL http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/docannexe/image/2954/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 50k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Omry Barzilai, Maya Oron, Eli Cohen-Sasson, Gideon Ragolski et Yoav Avni, « Handaxes and Cleavers on Flakes of Silicified Limestone at Nahal Barak, Southern Negev and Possible Connections to the Arabian Peninsula Acheulian »Paléorient, 49-1 | -1, 9-28.

Référence électronique

Omry Barzilai, Maya Oron, Eli Cohen-Sasson, Gideon Ragolski et Yoav Avni, « Handaxes and Cleavers on Flakes of Silicified Limestone at Nahal Barak, Southern Negev and Possible Connections to the Arabian Peninsula Acheulian »Paléorient [En ligne], 49-1 | 2023, mis en ligne le 28 août 2023, consulté le 05 novembre 2024. URL : http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/paleorient/2954 ; DOI : https://0-doi-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/10.4000/paleorient.2954

Haut de page

Auteurs

Omry Barzilai

Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem – Israel

Maya Oron

Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem – Israel | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem – Israel

Eli Cohen-Sasson

MUZA, Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv – Israel

Gideon Ragolski

Moshav Paran – Israel

Yoav Avni

Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem – Israel

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search