Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution

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

The Acheulean massive scrapers of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqovda product

of the biface chaı̂ne opératoire
N. Goren-Inbar*, G. Sharon, N. Alperson-Afil, I. Laschiver
Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The presence of large scrapers has been reported from Acheulean sites worldwide but they are rarely
Received 31 August 2007 described in detail. At Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (GBY), a similar group of artifacts, named here ‘‘massive
Accepted 7 July 2008 scrapers,’’ was identified as a significant component of the lithic assemblage. In this paper, we define and
describe this Acheulean tool type and discuss its size, morphology, and technology. We demonstrate that
Keywords: at GBY these tools were shaped on flakes that were side-products of the reduction sequence to produce
Acheulean lithic technology
bifaces (handaxes and cleavers). We hypothesize that these blanks were rejected as potential bifaces
Behavior
during the knapping sequence but considered suitable for the retouching of massive scrapers, and were
Foresight
Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov set aside for future work. We support our view with data from archaeological finds younger than those of
Knapping GBY, as well as with evidence from controlled experimental knapping and ethnoarchaeological obser-
Massive scrapers vations. We then discuss the contribution of this elaborate knapping strategy to our understanding of
Lower Paleolithic hominin behavior, particularly in the domains of multifaceted planning and foresight.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction to understand knapping procedures as reflected by multizone brain

The production of stone artifacts is a dynamic process, alter-
nating between striking the stone and evaluating the products of
each blow. The procedure known as chaı̂ne opératoire, frequently
aimed at obtaining a predetermined artifact, is initiated by the
selection of appropriate raw material and ended by the use of the
finished tool for a particular or general task (e.g., Boëda et al., 1990;
Boëda, 1994; Roche and Texier, 1995; Schlanger, 2005; Soressi and
Geneste, 2006; Tostevin, 2006, and references therein). During
recent decades, experimental knapping has demonstrated the
intricacies and complexities of stone-tool modification and
contributed to our understanding of the production of, among
others, large cutting tools (LCTs) (Newcomer, 1971; Callahan, 1979;
Bradley and Sampson, 1986; Jones, 1994; Madsen and Goren-Inbar,
2004), blades (Pelegrin, 2000), points, bifacial leaves (Geneste and
Plisson, 1990), and burins (Stafford, 1977), as well as the Levallois
flakes (Bradley and Sampson, 1986; Boëda et al., 1990).
Most experimental studies are problem-oriented, focusing on
a particular morphotype, technology, or technique. As a result, they
rarely furnish detailed descriptions of the reduction process and
the decision-making involved in it. Thus, we still lack insight into
the fundamental behavioral pattern of the knapper during the
knapping process. Although a recently adopted approach attempts
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: goren@cc.huji.ac.il (N. Goren-Inbar).
activity (e.g., Stout et al., 2000), we are still far from possessing
detailed, comprehensive documentation of the process.
Knappers retain vast amounts of knowledge and experience
gained from a multitude of knapping sessions. This uniquely impor-
tant knowledge is frequently unwritten, and the ‘‘wisdom’’ is passed
from one individual to another. The formal record is surprisingly
limited: our information is largely limited to the facts that knappers
stock themselves with suitable percussors of different sizes and
materials (ethnographically: e.g., Jones and White, 1988; experi-
mentally: e.g., Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004; Pelegrin, 2000) and
invest time and effort in searching for the best-quality raw material,
both in rock type and in size and shape. Relatively little is recorded on
the ‘‘common knowledge’’ of knappers, comprising such issues as
eye-hand ‘‘tuning,’’ the importance of practicing, knapping position,
core handling and support, light conditions, and the complex deci-
sion-making process operated throughout a knapping session (for
a selection of topics, see, however, Whittaker, 1994; Roux and Bril,
2005). All of these are essential for the achievement of a successful
productdthe predetermined tool.
Many knapping sequences (‘‘projects’’ in the terminology of
Roche and Texier, 1995) are aimed at producing a predetermined,
desired tool (morphotype). Observations carried out during
experimental and ethnographic knapping sessions illustrate
a pattern of behavior that is the subject of the present study. During
a reduction session, the knapper frequently pauses to examine
a flake that resulted from the last blow, and then sets aside some of
these flakes for future modification. These flakes are clearly not

0047-2484/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.07.005
 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712 703

suitable as blanks for the desired and preplanned end-product of addition to birds (Simmons, 2004), fish, crab (Ashkenazi et al.,
the particular chaı̂ne opératoire that is being carried out; rather, 2005), and turtle remains (Hartman, 2004), micromammals
they are by-products, selected and kept because of their (Goren-Inbar et al., 2000), and reptiles.
morphology and size for future modification into morphotypes that
are not the goal of the main reduction task. This ‘‘stocking Massive scrapers
behavior’’ has been observed during experimental (e.g., Newcomer,
1971) and ethnographic (e.g., Jones and White, 1988) knapping Scrapers of large size have been identified occasionally in
sessions of different individuals aiming to achieve a variety of various Early Stone Age lithic assemblages and variously named by
knapping goals. prehistorians. Thus, ‘‘heavy-duty scrapers’’ (Leakey, 1971), ‘‘core
The objective of this paper is to test the hypothesis that the scrapers’’ (Clark and Kleindienst, 2001), and ‘‘large scrapers’’ (Isaac,
massive scraper, a tool type identified in the lithic assemblages of 1977) are terms used to define the large (>10 cm) scrapers, modi-
the Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov site, Israel, is a particular case of the fied by a series of small removals (retouch) often located at 90
behavioral mode described above. We suggest that during the relative to the flat plane of the tool (Clark and Kleindienst, 2001: 53,
production of bifacial tools at the site, the Acheulean knappers Fig. 2.7), reported from the east African Acheulean (e.g., Olduvai
purposely set aside selected flakes in order to transform them at Gorge, Kalambo Falls). A particular case of great interest is the large
a later stage into massive scrapers. We assume that production of denticulated Karari scrapers that are described as the hallmark of
bifacial tools and massive scrapers was directed toward functions the Karari Industry (Harris, 1978; for detailed discussion of the
associated with the processing of large mammal carcasses. terminology, see Isaac and Harris, 1997).
Large scrapers also occur on the Indian subcontinent and are
The GBY site reported in detail from the Acheulean site of Chirki (Corvinus, 1983:
49–50). The Chirki scrapers are often modified on large (>8 cm),
The GBY Acheulean site stretches some 3.5 km along the Jordan thick flakes with one or more steeply (70–95 ) retouched edges,
River, outcropping on both banks and submerged below the steeper than the angles of a biface’s edges. Corvinus (1983: 49–50)
present channel. It is located 4 km south of the Hula Valley at an noted that the blanks of these scrapers are morphologically
elevation of approximately 61 m above mean sea level. unstandardized, exhibiting a wide array of forms. Large scrapers
Geological and archaeological surveys conducted south of the have also been described from the Indian sites of Hunsgi V and VI
bridges at GBY in the early 1980s revealed the presence of many by Paddayya (1982). Similar artifacts have been identified in
previously unknown small faulted and inclined deposits, which Europe, where they are scarce (e.g., Gowlett et al., 2005). Clearly,
were subsequently assigned to the Benot Ya‘akov Formation Acheulean large scrapers have an extensive geographical
(Goren-Inbar and Belitzky, 1989; Belitzky, 2002). The gastropod distribution.
Viviparus apamaea was identified in most of these exposures and,
together with Acheulean handaxes and cleavers, enabled the The massive scrapers of GBY
assignment of these strata to the middle Pleistocene (Goren-Inbar
and Belitzky, 1989; Belitzky, 2002; for a detailed description and The GBY lithic assemblages include various types of scrapers.
references, see Goren-Inbar and Belitzky, 1989). Excavations were Figure 1 presents the entire scraper assemblage according to size
initiated in the deposits located south of the bridges on the left and raw material. It clearly illustrates that the flint and limestone
bank of the Jordan River (33 000 2800 N, 35 370 4400 E). Seven scrapers are predominantly small and are clustered when
seasons were conducted between 1989 and 1997, and the material compared to the larger and more dispersed basalt scrapers. Large
retrieved is currently undergoing continuous multidisciplinary (>8 cm long and >2 cm thick in maximum dimensions) scrapers
study.
The renewed excavations revealed a sequence of tilted limnic
and fluvial deposits. A series of six trenches was dug adjacent to the
excavation areas in order to reveal the maximum extent of the
sedimentological and stratigraphic sequence. The trench profiles
were integrated into a 34-m-thick composite section (Goren-Inbar
et al., 2000; Feibel, 2001, 2004), comprising a series of alternating
muds, coquinas, sands, and gravels bracketed between two basalt
conglomerates (Goren-Inbar et al., 2000).
Thirteen archaeological horizons were identified within the
excavated areas (Goren-Inbar et al., 2000: Figs. 2 and 3). Their
sedimentological context consists of stacked, multicomponent
beach complexes and discrete, single-unit accumulations (Feibel,
2001, 2004). The archaeological horizons include stone artifacts,
fossil bones, and archaeobotanical remains of wood, bark, fruits,
and seeds (Melamed, 1997; Goren-Inbar et al., 2000; Goren-Inbar
et al., 2002).
A recent study demonstrated that the Matuyama-Brunhes
boundary (790,000 years ago) is located within the lower third
section of the sequence (Goren-Inbar et al., 2000), placing it in the
early Pleistocene. The duration of the entire depositional sequence
described above is estimated to be some 100,000 years (Goren-
Inbar et al., 2000; Feibel, 2004) and is based on the assignment of
the observed sequence of six depositional cycles to MIS 18–20
(Feibel, 2001, 2004).
The fossil fauna of some of the layers at GBY is rich and Figure 1. The raw material and size (maximal length by thickness) of the entire GBY
comprises many mammalian taxa of Eurasian and African origin, in scraper inventory.
704 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712

Table 1 Table 3
Stratigraphy and frequency of massive scrapers and bifaces in the GBY layers and The working-edge shape/form (retouched edge) of massive scrapers
levels
Shape of working edge n %
Area Layer and level Massive % of all other Bifacesa (n) Straight 5 9.26
scrapers (n) scrapers Convex 30 55.56
Area C V-6 1 1.79 6 Concave 2 3.70
Area B II-1 (unconformity) 1 1.79 49 Denticulate 15 27.78
Area B II-5/6 1 1.79 2 Convergent 2 3.70
Area B II-6 Level 1 16 28.57 75
Total 54 100.00
Area B II-6 Level 2 8 14.29 34
Area B II-6 Level 3 4 7.14 19
Area B II-6 Level 4 13 23.21 220
Area B II-6 Level 4b 5 8.93 80 by the high frequencies of éclat de taille de biface among other
Area B II-6 Level 6 5 8.93 22 indicative features (Sharon and Goren-Inbar, 1999; Goren-Inbar
Area B Trench II 2 3.57 53 and Sharon, 2006), no flint massive scrapers were found, although
Total 56 100.01 450
there is a relative abundance of other scrapers made on flint, many
a
Handaxes and cleavers (including broken items).

that are characterized by a particular type of retouch (described

below) were classified at GBY as massive scrapers. The term is
adopted here in order to differentiate it from the common terms
‘‘heavy-duty scraper’’ and ‘‘core scraper’’ used for the east African
Acheulean (see above).
Following these criteria, the entire inventory of massive scrapers
from GBY (n ¼ 56; Table 1) is made on flakes of volcanic raw
material (alkali basalts or basanitic lavas; Weinstein et al., 2006),
henceforth referred to simply as basalt.
Some of the metric characteristics of the massive scrapers from
GBY are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Figure 2 illustrates the
morphology and location of the working edge, as well as the
planform. The data convey the extremely unstandardized nature of
these tools, whether pertaining to size ranges, working-edge
morphology, or other technological modifications.
Basalt flake blanks selected for production of massive scrapers
are typically noncortical (over 70% of the massive scrapers are
devoid of cortex). They are commonly characterized by a single,
dominant retouched edge (for exceptions see Fig. 2: 4, 10, 14, 18)
with a morphology that is primarily convex followed by denticulate
(Table 3; Figs. 3–7). The retouch is typically invasive and frequently
forms a steep edge at an acute angle to the ventral face of the flake
(mean ¼ 82 ; n ¼ 51). The retouch is most frequently located on the
dorsal face of the artifact (66.67%) and only rarely on the ventral
face (19.61%) (Fig. 2: 1, 5, 12, 17, 20, 21; Figs. 3–7). Many of the
massive scrapers were produced on broken blanks (43.6%; n ¼ 24)
(Fig. 6). In three cases, they were made on accidental éclat siret
(split flakes) blanks.

Massive scrapers and bifaces at GBY

The extensive variation in the GBY lithic assemblages is

expressed by the co-occurrence of basalt bifaces and massive
scrapers throughout the stratigraphic sequence, suggesting an
association between these two morphotypes.
Layers V-5 and V-6 of Area C at GBY yielded impressive flint-
dominated assemblages. While this locality was clearly a place Figure 2. Planform of a selected series of massive scrapers from GBY. Lines mark the
where modification of flint handaxes was finalized, as documented location of a retouched edge (a continuous line marks retouch on the dorsal face;
a broken line marks retouch on the ventral face). The stratigraphic location (layers and
levels) and catalog numbers of the depicted items are: (1) # 13399, Layer II-6 Level 1;
(2) #13411, Layer II-6 Level 4; (3) 13538, Layer II-6 Level 2; (4) #14190, Layer II-6 Level
Table 2
2; (5) #14482, Layer II-6 Level 2; (6) #14739, Layer II-6 Level 2; (7) #16138, Trench II;
Dimensions and number of scars of the entire massive-scraper assemblage
(8) #2029, Layer II-6 Level 1; (9) #2032, Layer II-6 Level 1; (10) #2065, Layer II-6 Level
(maximum length >80 mm)
1; (11) #2077, Layer II-6 Level 1; (12) #29, Layer II-6 Level 4; (13) #4852, Layer II-5
n Mean SD Minimum Maximum Level 4; (14) # 4854, Layer II-6 Level 4; (15) #4887, Layer II-6 Level 4b; (16) #4913,
Layer II-6 Level 4b; (17) #4920, Layer II-6 Level 4b; (18) #4943, II-6 Level 4; (19) #4959,
Length 56 89.96 27.31 46 162
Layer II-6 Level 4; (20) #5004, Layer II-6 Level4; (21) #5338, Layer II-6 Level 1; (22)
Maximum length 56 104.39 19.54 80 162
#5486, Layer V-6; (23) #5594, Layer II-6 Level 1; (24) #5608, Layer II-6 Level 4b; (25)
Width 56 79.95 17.34 51 121
#5671, Layer II-6 Level 6; (26) #5704, Layer II-6 Level 6; (27) #5726, Layer II-6 Level 4b;
Thickness 56 33.18 8.50 21 60
(28) #5739, Layer II-6 Level 4b; (29) #5838, Layer II-6 Level 2; (30) #8609, Layer II-6
Number of scars 45 3.96 2.59 1 12
Level 2; (31) #9247, Layer II-6 Level 6; (32) #4998, Layer II-6 Level 4.
 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712
Figure 3. Massive scraper (#5338).
of which exhibit the highest workmanship found at the site. Only
a single basalt massive scraper was recovered (Fig. 2:22) in addition
to the eight basalt cleavers excavated from these layers (Goren-
Inbar and Sharon, 2006). Other large basalt débitage items are
minimally represented. Hence, in Area C, we interpret the absence
of basalt giant cores and their products, the minimal presence of
basalt massive scrapers, and the lack of large cortical flint artifacts
suitable for the production of massive scrapers as additional indi-
cations for viewing the massive scrapers as an exploitation mode of
the available basalt débitage stock. Thus, hominins selected large
basalt items from the potential resources for the production of
these particular morphotypes.
In contrast to Area C, massive scrapers are most frequent in Area
B Layer II-6 (Table 1). This layer yielded the most extensive overall
evidence for the production of basalt artifacts, particularly han-
daxes and cleavers (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996; Goren-Inbar
et al., 2000).
The unstandardized nature of the massive scrapers is most
strikingly expressed by the tools’ irregular planform (Fig. 2), a trait
that contradicts the homogeneity of shape that is observed in the
bifacial component of GBY. Figures 8–11 illustrate the dimensions of
the bifaces and massive scrapers in the various levels within Layer
II-6 through a series of scattergrams. We have purposely selected
several levels of Layer II-6 for illustration to represent the time-
trajectory (stratigraphic) continuity of this morphotype through the
depositional sequence. Although the small number of massive
scrapers rules out valid statistical testing, the scattergrams show
that the blanks selected to be modified as massive scrapers are
similar in size range to the bifaces. The massive scrapers are slightly
wider than the bifaces, but similar to them in thickness (Fig. 12).
Hence, the massive scrapers lack the morphological standardi-
zation that characterizes the GBY bifaces (Fig. 2). This trait has been
studied previously (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996; Madsen and
Goren-Inbar, 2004), resulting in a better understanding of the
procedure by which the GBY knappers attained their final goal of
bifaces (both cleavers and handaxes). This goal was achieved by
intentionally producing elongated flakes with a preplanned
morphology that necessitated only minimal investment of retouch
Figure 4. Massive scraper (#8609).
705
during the final shaping of the tool, particularly in the case of the
cleavers. It was further demonstrated that the treatment was
concentrated mainly on thinning the area of the butt, with minimal
maintenance of the edges. The massive scrapers differ from the
bifacial component of GBY in their planform and only to a small
extent in their width. While small handaxes do occur at the site,
these are usually made of flint or limestone and are therefore
irrelevant to the present discussion.
The typological inventory of the archaeological horizons at GBY
demonstrates the co-occurrence of massive scrapers and bifacial
tools (Table 1; Figs. 8–11). While the entire cultural sequence at GBY
is assigned to the Acheulean Industrial Complex, the frequencies of
bifaces (handaxes and cleavers) vary greatly among the different
archaeological horizons. Some of the horizons yielded a very small
number of bifacial tools (Goren-Inbar and Sharon, 2006), while in
others there were extremely rich bifacial assemblages (Goren-Inbar
and Saragusti, 1996). The biface/massive scraper frequency ratio is
examined here in an attempt to determine whether the presence of
massive scrapers is associated with the production of biface mor-
photypes, as suggested by the working hypothesis.
It has been shown that, at GBY, the extensive exploitation of
basalt as a raw material is associated primarily with the production
of bifacial tools (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996; Goren-Inbar
et al., 2000). This trend, identified throughout the depositional
sequence at the site, has been extensively studied from the
perspective of the complete chaı̂ne opératoire: from the selection of
raw material through the different technological methods (docu-
mented by the study of the giant cores), the production of large
flakes, and their transformation into handaxes and cleavers (Mad-
sen and Goren-Inbar, 2004; Sharon, 2006). Another prominent
feature is the recurrence throughout the archaeological sequence of
basalt bifaces along with large basalt flakes of various dimensions
and forms, some of which clearly resulted from various knapping
episodes of the giant cores.
Apart from massive scrapers and the rare occurrence of massive
basalt denticulates, no other large (>8 cm in maximum dimension)
flake tools are known from the GBY lithic assemblages. Other large
basalt items that are present in these assemblages are classified as
706 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712

Figure 5. Massive scraper (#13538).

 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712 707

Figure 6. Massive scraper (#4943).

various-sized percussors, ‘‘modified’’ items, pitted anvils, and
manuports (terminology following Leakey, 1971).
The reduction sequence of the GBY basalt bifaces consists of the
exploitation of large basalt boulders, frequently in the shape of
large slabs, for the production of large flakes suitable for the
production of handaxes and cleavers. Various core-reduction
methods, including the Kombewa, bifacial, and Levallois methods,
were identified at GBY (Goren-Inbar et al., 1994; Madsen and
Goren-Inbar, 2004; Sharon, 2006).
An extensive experimental knapping project was aimed at
replicating and thus better understanding the chaı̂ne opératoire of
the GBY bifaces. The knapping of large flakes from giant cores was
the main focus of this study. The experiments (Madsen and
Goren-Inbar, 2004) demonstrated that knapping of basalt giant
cores also regularly produces flakes that are too small, too thick,
or morphologically unsuitable for use as blanks for bifaces. These
flakes, however, are suitable in morphology and size for use as
blanks for the production of massive scrapers (Fig. 13). For
example, core #B-20 yielded 26 flakes measuring between 8 and
15 cm in maximum dimension, while core #B-21 produced 39
flakes in the same size range. During the experiment of core #B-
25, the knapper sorted the flakes according to their suitability as

Figure 7. Massive scraper (#5004).

708 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712
Figure 8. Massive scrapers of Layer II-6 Level 1 (with dimensions of complete basalt
bifaces).
blanks to be modified for the production of different Acheulean
tool types. This core yielded 22 flakes ranging between 8 and
15 cm, of which six were selected for modification as handaxes,
nine as cleavers and twelve as massive scrapers (Fig. 13). These
data illustrate the number of potential massive-scraper blanks
produced as by-products during the reduction of giant cores
intended for the production of bifaces.
In view of the occurrence of basalt flakes alongside basalt
massive scrapers, basalt bifaces, and basalt giant cores, and based
on the evidence described above, we conclude that, at GBY, the
flakes that were modified and transformed into massive scrapers
are a component of the chaı̂ne opératoire of the production of
Figure 9. Massive scrapers of Layer II-6 Level 2 (with dimensions of complete basalt
bifaces).
Figure 10. Massive scrapers of Layer II-6 Level 4 (with dimensions of complete basalt
bifaces).
bifacial tools (Table 1; note that bifaces occur in additional
archaeological horizons that do not appear in the table).
Discussion and conclusions
Heavy-duty or large scrapers (ca. >8 cm) are reported from most
Acheulean lithic assemblages. While there is no doubt that many
Acheulean sites include this morphotype (e.g., Attirampakkam,
India; S. Pappu, pers. comm.), detailed descriptions and illustra-
tions that could be used for comparison with those found at GBY are
Figure 11. Massive scrapers of Layer II-6 Level 4b (with dimensions of complete basalt
bifaces).
 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712
Figure 12. Massive scrapers of Layer II-6 Level 1 (with dimensions of complete basalt
bifaces).
few. The following is an attempt to examine other Acheulean
assemblages for possible analogies.
The only available comparable Levantine assemblages come
from ‘Ubeidiya. At this site, the common large-scraper morphotype
is the heavy-duty scraper, differing morphologically and techno-
logically from the massive scrapers of GBY in being made on cobbles
and split cobbles, as well as flakes (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993:
142–144). These items do coexist with a bifacial element, but while
the raw material of the bifaces at ‘Ubeidiya is predominantly basalt,
the raw material of the heavy-duty scrapers is usually oolithic
limestone and cannot be associated with the production of the
bifacial tools (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993).
At two east African Acheulean sites (Olorgesailie and Kalambo
Falls), heavy-duty scrapers were described and analyzed. The
heavy-duty scrapers at Olorgesailie were defined as ‘‘large
scrapers’’ by Isaac (1977). His view of these tools was the following:
‘‘In many respects, they are more like large cutting tools than like
small scrapers, so they have been included in the analysis of both
categories. Core scrapers are numerically unimportant at
Figure 13. Core #B-25 (experimental) and its products.
709
Olorgesailie and have not been distinguished in this analysis’’
(Isaac, 1977: 154). Isaac considered these scrapers an entity within
the realm of bifacial tools. The basis for this assumption was
a grading-out typological phenomenon, observed at the various
sites in the Olorgesailie Formation for the different types within the
bifacial tools (Isaac, 1972). The available descriptions of these
scrapers, their retouch, and its characteristics, as well as the illus-
trations from the site, do not reveal any similarity to the typical GBY
massive scrapers. Furthermore, the well-known dichotomy
observed at Olorgesailie between alternating high frequencies of
scrapers and bifaces in the various layers was not encountered
within the basalt tools at GBY. The planform of the GBY massive
scrapers differs significantly from that of the bifaces (see above),
and the workmanship of their retouch does not resemble the scar
pattern or other characteristics typical of the bifaces (Goren-Inbar
and Saragusti, 1996) (Figs. 8–11).
At Kalambo Falls, heavy-duty scrapers were defined as ‘‘core
scrapers’’ by Clark and Kleindienst (2001: 386–387, Fig. 6.40). These
tools seem to vary substantially in terms of blank type, size,
morphology, and section. They were viewed as representing
a ‘‘small but not insignificant part of the Acheulean assemblage at
Kalambo Falls’’ (Clark and Kleindienst, 2001: 310).
At Koobi Fora, the scraper inventory displays a high variation in
morphotypes, which are divided between scrapers on cobbles and
those on flakes (Harris, 1978; Isaac and Harris, 1997). Unlike the
unstandardized scrapers of the Koobi Fora KBS Member, the Karari
scrapers of the Okote Member ‘‘are notable also for showing
a distinctive, relatively highly standardized format,’’ which involves
‘‘trimming from a fracture plane onto a domed cortical face’’ (Isaac
and Harris, 1997: 279).
While no direct analogy to the massive scrapers of GBY is
currently available, there are several indications that other
Acheulean sites have a somewhat similar component in their
toolkits in the form of scrapers made on large flakes or other types
of blanks. A common feature of all assemblages is their very low
frequencies and their large dimensions, much larger than those of
the regular small scrapers.
Although heavy-duty scrapers are everywhere an integral part
of the toolkit of the Acheulean Technocomplex, their frequencies
are relatively low, especially when compared to those of handaxes
and cleavers. The data from GBY demonstrate that even where the
frequencies of bifacial tools are extremely high (II-6 Level 4), the
occurrence of massive scrapers is minimal (Table 1). A high
occurrence of bifaces is typical of the Acheulean in Africa [e.g.,
Kenya: Olorgesailie (Isaac, 1977), Kilombe (Gowlett, 1991), Isenya,
(Roche et al., 1987; Roche and Texier, 1991); Tanzania: Isimila
710 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712
(Howell et al., 1962); Ethiopia: Middle Awash (Kalb, 2001), Melke
Konture (Chavaillon and Berthelet, 2004)] and the Levant (Layer II-
6 Level 4 at GBY; Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996), and is inter-
preted by some as biface ‘‘stocking’’ (Potts, 1984). In contrast, the
number of massive scrapers reported from Acheulean sites is
usually small. Their scarcity can be explained by extensive artifact
mobility or particular discard patterns. Another possibility is that
massive scrapers had a particular function that could also have
been carried out by the use of other (smaller) types of scrapers (e.g.,
Goren-Inbar, 1990).
Massive scrapers as a discrete type
A relationship between bifaces and scrapers has consistently
been reported from Acheulean sites with long depositional
sequences, where an alternating dominance of one over the other is
often displayed (e.g., Olorgesaile: Isaac, 1977; Tabun Cave: Jelinek,
1981, 1982). In this study, we have established the association
between the production of bifaces and the presence of massive
scrapers, a newly described technotypological entity at GBY.
Massive scrapers are clearly an important component of the
Acheulean lithic assemblages at GBY, a distinct, unstandardized
morphotype of independent design and production, and most
probably of a particular function.
The main objective of this study was to examine the working
hypothesis that massive scrapers are by-products of the biface
chaı̂ne opératoire. The lithic analyses at GBY demonstrate that the
highest frequencies of giant cores and their products, along with
a substantial number of bifaces and the highest recorded
frequencies of massive scrapers, all coexist in Layer II-6 Level 1. Our
hypothesis was that the presence of an entire reduction sequence at
the knapping point will furnish the knapper with suitable items to
be selected for future modification and transformation to massive
scrapers, and the results presented here indeed confirm this.
Furthermore, in layers and levels that are extremely poor in basalt
artifacts, such as Layer V-6, this morphotype is not represented at
all (Sharon and Goren-Inbar, 1999; Goren-Inbar and Sharon, 2006).
The flakes on which massive scrapers were modified are by-
products of the initial stages of the chaı̂ne opératoire aimed to
produce bifacial tools, in which the size of the débitage is still large
(ca. >8 cm.). Thus, the production of massive scrapers depended on
the availability of large flakes originating from the knapping of
basalt masses of large volumedthe giant cores (Madsen and
Goren-Inbar, 2004). The association between the bifaces and the
massive scrapers is illustrated in Fig. 8.
The presence of massive scrapers at GBY (albeit in low
frequencies) has a dual significance. Firstly, it supports the
hypothesis that various steps of the biface chaı̂ne opératoire took
place at the site, resulting in a stock of suitable blanks for the
production of massive scrapers. Because the large basalt flakes are
not the target of production but a side effect, reflecting opportu-
nistic exploitation of the available material, their sizes and shapes,
and perhaps even their retouch, are not as standardized as the
predetermined objects (the bifaces). This lack of standardization is
responsible for the observed characteristics of the GBY massive
scrapers, as detailed in this study.
Secondly, a complex pattern of discard/mobility is evident.
Mobility of artifacts, including basalt, flint, and limestone, has been
previously identified at the site and is also documented in the realm
of the giant cores, their by-products (débitage), and their target
products (the bifaces) (Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004; Goren-
Inbar and Sharon, 2006). This extensive mobility should be viewed
as a particular trait within Acheulean sociocultural behavioral
patterns (Goren-Inbar, in press). It also rules out a detailed
comparison between the basalt experimental flakes mentioned
above and the dimensional breakdown of basalt flakes from the
GBY occupations; while the experimental record is a complete one,
the archaeological one has undergone an extensive process of
‘‘sorting’’ as a result of artifact mobility. Similar mobility patterns
emerge from the analyses of refitted artifacts from younger
Acheulean sites in Europe, such as Boxgrove (Roberts et al., 1997;
Roberts and Parfitt, 1999; Pope, 2002) and Beeches Pit (Hallos,
2005, and references to other sites therein). These studies enable
the tracing of mobility patterns and the drawing of inter-Acheulean
behavioral comparisons. Massive scrapers thus seem to be
a component of the realm of mobility.
Modern human behavioral analogues
The study of the massive scrapers of GBY has demonstrated that
they are a component of the biface chaı̂ne opératoire. The Acheulean
hominins intentionally selected and set aside blanks suitable for
future modification as massive scrapers. This is also a known
behavior of modern humans, reported from archaeological,
ethnographic, and experimental studies (Figs. 1 and 8–11).
The recently published study of Nahal Nizzana XIII (an early
Upper Paleolithic Ahmarian site ca. 38,000–30,000 years old in the
Negev, Israel) has furnished a most impressive case of human
behavior revealed through a refitting project (Goring-Morris and
Davidzon, 2006). The refitted flint items were reconstructed as
a chaı̂ne opératoire aimed at the production of blades and bladelets.
Although the target products were artifacts of laminar morphology
and dimensions, the knapper(s) set aside by-products from the very
first stage of the chaı̂ne opératoire (cortical flakes and other artifacts
of larger dimensions). These were used for the production of end-
scrapers that were clearly not the predetermined (target) objective
of the knapped series (Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006: Figs. 4:9,
10; 6:2; 3a; 8:c). The authors referred to this as a general
phenomenon well known within the temporal frame of the Middle
Paleolithic through Epi-Paleolithic and Neolithic.
The tracing of a continuous pattern of setting aside (selecting)
flakes for future exploitation, from Paleolithic to modern times, is
further sustained by ethnographic data. In a detailed and inter-
esting observation, a set of selected by-products was collected for
future use during the knapping process at the Ngilipitji Quarry,
Arnhem Land, Australia (Jones and White, 1988).
As previously discussed, there is a lack of detailed descriptions
of the behavior of present-day knappers. Nevertheless, questioning
of several knappers verified that during a knapping session, they do
indeed set aside selected pieces for future modification, a repeated
mode of behavior (e.g., D. Ben-Ami, pers. obs.; B. Madsen, pers. obs.;
M. Santonja and A. Turq, pers. comm.).
Knappers agree that while they are working to accomplish
a preplanned scheme, they observe the shape/dimension or other
properties of by-products and save them for future use. Obviously,
while the prehistoric selection of such pieces was associated with
particular intended functional uses, the modern knapping experi-
mental behavior is mainly intended to produce other morphotypes
without any particular functional goal in mind.
The selection and utilization of particular flakes that originate
from specific chaı̂ne opératoire but deviate from them is a common
denominator of both the Acheuleans of GBY and modern humans.
Because the taxon of the producers of the Levantine Acheulian is
unknown, and refitting studies that might reconstruct the chaı̂ne
opératoire at GBY are not feasible, we are left, as the only behavioral
evidence available, with a record of patterns that characterize the
production, modification, and probably use of scrapers. Yet the
patterns themselves, and their long and continuous record at the site,
are viewed here as indications of similar modes of decision-making
and behavior during the knapping process.
While we cannot supply direct proof that the selection of blanks
for the production of massive scrapers occurred during episodes of
 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712
biface knapping, we consider the various lines of evidence dis-
cussed in this study to be adequate support of our hypothesis. We
conclude that these particular patterns, embedded within the
Acheulean record, are elements of behavioral ‘‘modernity,’’ of
which foresight, planning, and calculated as well as evaluative step-
by-step processes are some of the cognitive abilities and traits.
These records are only one of an agglomerate of several indications
showing that, despite the antiquity of the evidence, the patterns are
explainable through insight gained from modern behavior.
The ethnographic analogies, the refitting results of the Negev Upper
Paleolithic assemblages, and observations deriving from the experi-
mental realm emphasize the complexity and sophistication of the GBY
Acheulean hominins. The preplanned behavior revealed in the
production of massive scrapers illustrates another facet of the complex
system of lithic production that took place at the site throughout the
long sequence of lake-shore occupations. The persistence of massive-
scraper occurrences is yet another indication of both its role within the
array of functions carried out there, but it also indicates the conser-
vatism of the Acheulean toolkit during its long duration at this locality
of the Levantine Corridor.
Acknowledgments
This study was carried out through the support of an ongoing
grant awarded by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 300/06)
to the Center of Excellence Project Title: ‘‘The Effect of Climate
Change on the Environment and Hominins of the Upper Jordan
Valley between ca. 800Ka and 700Ka ago as a Basis for Prediction of
Future Scenarios.’’ The Hebrew University, the LSB Leakey Foun-
dation, and the National Geographic Society supported the field-
work. The Israel Science Foundation, the LSB Leakey Foundation,
and the Hebrew University supported laboratory analysis. G. Laron
took the photographs in Figs. 3–7. The authors are extremely
grateful to E. Hovers and R. Barkai for their constructive editorial
comments and to B. Madsen for producing the experimental
assemblage. S. Gorodetsky edited the manuscript with her usual
professionalism and N. Lichtinger contributed to the quality of the
digitized illustrations.
References
Ashkenazi, S., Motro, U., Goren-Inbar, N., Bitton, R., Rabinovich, R., 2005. New
morphometric parameters for assessment of body size and population structure
in freshwater fossil crab assemblage from the Pleistocene site of Gesher Benot
Ya’aqov (GBY), Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 675–689.
Bar-Yosef, O., Goren-Inbar, N., 1993. The Lithic Assemblages of the Site of ‘Ubeidiya,
Jordan Valley. Qedem 34, Jerusalem.
Boëda, E., 1994. Le Concept Levallois: Variabilité des Méthodes. Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., Meignen, L., 1990. Identification de chaı̂nes opératoires
lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo 2, 43–80.
Bradley, B.R., Sampson, C.G., 1986. Analysis by application of two Acheulian artefact
assemblages. In: Bailey, G.N., Callow, P. (Eds.), Stone Age Prehistory. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 29–45.
Belitzky, S., 2002. The structure and morphotectonics of the Gesher Benot Ya’aqov
area, northern Dead Sea Rift, Israel. Quatern. Res. 58, 372–380.
Callahan, E., 1979. The basics of biface knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradi-
tion: analysis. Archaeol. East North Am. 7, 1–180.
Chavaillon, J., Berthelet, A., 2004. The archaeological sites of Melka Kunture. In:
Chavaillion, J., Piperno, M. (Eds.), Studies on the Early Paleolithic Site of
Melka Kunture, Ethiopia. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Flor-
ence, pp. 25–80.
Clark, J.D., Kleindienst, M.R., 2001. The Stone Age cultural sequence: terminology,
typology and raw material. In: Clark, J.D. (Ed.), Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 34–65.
Corvinus, G., 1983. The Raised Beaches of the West Coast of South West Africa/
Namibia: An Interpretation of their Archaeological and Palaeontological Data.
Verlag C.H. Beck, Münchenologie des Deutschen Archäologischen Institute,
Bonn.
Feibel, C.S., 2001. Archaeological sediments in lake margin environments. In:
Stein, J.K., Farrand, W.R. (Eds.), Sediments in Archaeological Contexts. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 127–148.
711
Feibel, C.S., 2004. Quaternary lake margins of the Levant Rift Valley. In: Goren-
Inbar, N., Speth, J.D. (Eds.), Human Paleoecology in the Levantine Corridor.
Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 21–36.
Geneste, J.-M., Plisson, H., 1990. Technologie fonctionelle des pointes à cran solu-
tréennes: l’apport des nouvelles données de la Grotte de Combe Saunière
(Dordogne). In: Kozlowski, J. (Ed.), Feuilles de Pierre: Les Industries à Pointes
Foliacées de Paléolithique Supérieur Européen. Université de Liège, Liège, pp.
293–320.
Goren-Inbar, N., 1990. QuneitradA Mousterian Site on the Golan Heights. Qedem
31, Jerusalem.
Goren-Inbar, N. Behavioral and cultural origins of Neanderthals: A Levantine
perspective In: Condemi, S., Weniger G.-C. (Eds.), 150 Years of Neanderthal
Discoveries: Continuity and Discontinuity. Springer, New York, in press.
Goren-Inbar, N., Belitzky, S., 1989. Structural position of the Pleistocene Gesher
Benot Ya’aqov site in the Dead Sea Rift Zone. Quatern. Res. 31, 371–376.
Goren-Inbar, N., Lister, A., Werker, E., Chech, M., 1994. A butchered elephant skull
and associated artifacts from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel.
Paléorient 20, 99–112.
Goren-Inbar, N., Feibel, C.S., Verosub, K.L., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M.E., Tchernov, E.,
Saragusti, I., 2000. Pleistocene milestones on the out-of-Africa corridor at
Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel. Science 289, 944–974.
Goren-Inbar, N., Saragusti, I., 1996. An Acheulian biface assemblage from the site of
Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel: indications of African affinities. J. Field Archaeol.
23, 15–30.
Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., 2006. Invisible handaxes and visible Acheulian biface
technology at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.),
Acheulean Handaxes and Cleaversdfrom Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London,
pp. 111–135.
Goren-Inbar, N., Werker, E., Feibel, C.S., 2002. The Acheulian Site of Gesher Benot
Ya’aqov: The Wood Assemblage. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Goring-Morris, N., Davidzon, A., 2006. Straight to the point: Upper Paleolithic
Ahmarian lithic technology in the Levant. Anthropologie XLIV, 93–111.
Gowlett, J.A.J., 1991. Kilombedreview of an Acheulian site complex. In: Clark, J.D.
(Ed.), Cultural Beginnings. Dr. Rudolf Habelt Gmbh, Bonn, pp. 129–136.
Gowlett, J.A.J., Hallos, J., Hounsell, S., Brant, V., Debenham, N.C., 2005. Beeches Pit:
Archaeology, assemblage dynamics and early fire history of middle Pleistocene
site in East Anglia, UK. Euras. Prehist. 3, 3–38.
Hallos, J., 2005. ‘‘15 minutes of fame’’: Exploring the temporal dimension of middle
Pleistocene lithic technology. J. Hum. Evol. 49, 155–179.
Harris, J.W.K., 1978. The Karari Industry, its place in east African prehistory. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Hartman, G., 2004. Long-term continuity of a freshwater turtle (Mauremys caspica
rivulata) population in the northern Jordan Valley and its paleoenvironmental
implications. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Speth, J.D. (Eds.), Human Paleoecology in the
Levantine Corridor. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 61–74.
Howell, F.C., Cole, G.H., Kleindienst M.R., 1962. Isimiladan Acheulian occupation
site in the Iringa Highlands, Southern Highlands Province, Tanganyika. Actes du
IV Congrès Panafricain de Préhistoire et de l’Etude de Quaternaire, Tervuren, pp.
43–80.
Isaac, G.L. 1972. Some experiments in quantitative methods for characterizing
Acheulian assemblages. In: Hugot, H.J. (Ed.), Actes du VI Congrès Panafricain de
Préhistoire, Dakar 1967. Chambéry, Paris, pp. 547–555.
Isaac, G.L., 1977. Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake
Basin, Kenya. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Isaac, G.L., Harris, J.W.K., 1997. The stone artefact assemblages: a comparative study.
In: Isaac, G.L. (Ed.), Koobi Fora Research Project, Vol. 5: Plio-Pleistocene
Archaeology. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 262–299.
Jelinek, A., 1981. The Middle Paleolithic of the southern Levant from the perspective
of the Tabun Cave. In: Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), Préhistoire du Levant. CNRS,
Paris, pp. 265–280.
Jelinek, A.J., 1982. The Tabun Cave and Paleolithic Man in the Levant. Science 216,
1369–1375.
Jones, P.R., 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of
Olduvai Gorge. In: Leakey, M.D., Roe, D.A. (Eds.), Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 5: Exca-
vations in Beds III, IV, and the Masek Beds 1968–1971. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 254–298.
Jones, R., White, N., 1988. Point blank: stone tool manufacture at the Ngilipitji
Quarry, Arnhem Land, 1981. In: Meehan, B., Jones, R. (Eds.), Archaeology: An
Australian Perspective. The Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 51–87.
Kalb, J., 2001. Adventures in the Bone Trade: The Race to Discover Human Ancestors
in Ethiopia’s Afar Depression. Copernicus Books, New York.
Leakey, M.D., 1971. Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3: Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960–1963.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Madsen, B., Goren-Inbar, N., 2004. Acheulian giant core technology and beyond: an
archaeological and experimental case study. Euras Prehist. 2, 3–52.
Melamed, Y., 1997. Reconstruction of the landscape and the vegetarian diet at
Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov archaeological site in the Lower Paleolithic period. M.Sc.
Thesis, Bar-Ilan University.
Newcomer, M.H., 1971. Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture.
World Archaeol. 3, 85–94.
Paddayya, K., 1982. The Acheulian Culture of the Hunsgi Valley (Peninsular India): A
Settlement System Perspective. Deccan College, Pune.
Pelegrin, J., 2000. Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: critères de
diagnose et quelque réflexions. L’Europe Centrale et Septentrionale au Tardi-
glaciaire: confrontation des modèles régionaux de peuplement. Mémoires du
Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile de France, Paris, pp. 73–86.
712 N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 702–712
Pope, M.I., 2002. The significance of biface-rich assemblages: An examination of
behavioural controls on lithic assemblage formation in the Lower Paleolithic.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southampton, Southampton.
Potts, R., 1984. Home bases and early hominids. Am. Sci. 72, 338–347.
Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A., 1999. Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at
Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage, London.
Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A., Pope, M.I., Wenban-Smith, F.F., Macphail, R.I., Locker, A.,
Stewart, J.R., 1997. Boxgrove, West Sussex: rescue excavations of a Lower
Paleolithic landsurface (Boxgrove Project B, 1989–91). PPS. 63, 303–358.
Roche, H., Brugal, J.-P., Lefevre, D., Texier, P.-J., 1987. Premiers données sur
l’Acheuléen des hauts plateaux kenyans: le site d’Isenya (district de Kajiado). C.
R. Acad. Sci. Ser. II 305, 529–532.
Roche, H., Texier, P.-J., 1991. La notion de complexité dans un ensemble lithique.
Application aux séries acheuléen d’Isenya (Kenya). In: 25 ans d’études tech-
nologiques en préhistoire. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.
Roche, H., Texier, P.-J., 1995. Evaluation of technical competence of Homo erectus
in east Africa during the middle Pleistocene. In: Bower, J.R.F., Sartono, S.
(Eds.), Evolution and Ecology of Homo erectus. L.J. Slikkerveer, Leiden, pp.
153–167.
Roux, V., Bril, B. (Eds.), 2005. Stone Knapping: The Necessary Condition for Uniquely
Hominin Behaviour. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
Cambridge.
Schlanger, N., 2005. The chaı̂ne opératoire. In: Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. (Eds.), Archae-
ologydKey Concepts. Routledge, London, pp. 1–6.
Simmons, T., 2004. ‘‘A feather for each wind that blows’’: utilizing avifauna in
assessing changing patterns in paleoecology and subsistence at Jordan Valley
archaeological sites. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Speth, J.D. (Eds.), Human Paleoecology
in the Levantine Corridor. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 191–205.
Sharon, G., 2006. Acheulian large flake industries: Technology, chronology, distri-
bution and significance. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Sharon, G., Goren-Inbar, N., 1999. Soft percussor use at the Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov
Acheulian site? Mitekufat Haeven 28, 55–79.
Soressi, M., Geneste, J.-M., 2006. Discussing the history and the efficacy of the chaı̂ne
opératoire approach to lithic analysis. Paper submitted to the Electronic
Symposium ‘‘Core Reduction, Chaı̂ne Opératoire, and Other Methods: The Epis-
temologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis’’ at the 71st Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico, pp. 1–24.
Stafford, B.D., 1977. Burin manufacture and utilization: an experimental study. J.
Field Archaeol. 4, 235–246.
Stout, D., Toth, N., Schick, K., Stout, J.C., Hutchins, G., 2000. Stone tool-making and
brain activation: Positron emission tomography (PET) studies. J. Archaeol. Sci.
27, 1215–1223.
Tostevin, G.B., 2006. Levels of theory and social practice in the reduction sequence
and chaı̂ne opératoire methods of lithic analysis. Paper submitted to the Elec-
tronic Symposium ‘‘Core Reduction, Chaı̂ne Opératoire, and Other Methods: The
Epistemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis’’ at the 71st Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Weinstein, Y., Navon, O., Altherr, R., Stein, M., 2006. The role of lithospheric mantle
heterogeneity in the generation of Plio-Pleistocene alkali basaltic suites from
NW Harrat Ash Shaam (Israel). J. Petrol. 47, 1017–1050.
Whittaker, J.C., 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools.
University of Texas Press, Austin.