the technology and significance of the acheulian giant cores of gesher benot ya‘aqov, israel

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1901e1917

Contents lists avai

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http : / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

The technology and significance of the Acheulian giant cores of Gesher BenotYa‘aqov, Israel

Naama Goren-Inbar*, Leore Grosman, Gonen SharonInstitute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 January 2011Received in revised form29 March 2011Accepted 30 March 2011

Keywords:Giant coresAcheulianBasaltTechnologyReduction sequenceGesher Benot Ya‘aqov

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 2 5882409; fax:E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Goren-Inba

0305-4403/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.03.037

a b s t r a c t

The presence of very large lithic artifacts at the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov is one of the site’smost distinctive and enlightening features. Basalt giant cores and their products, modified by a variety ofcore methods and found in association with different hominin activities, occur throughout the strati-graphic sequence of the site.

In this paper we describe the giant artifacts of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov together with their reductionsequence, from the nature and acquisition of the raw material, through the shaping of the cores, to thediscarded cores and their typical waste products. We then discuss the significance of these finds andtheir implications for understanding the site and its varied activities, as well as for Acheulian cognitiveabilities and behavior during the early Middle Pleistocene on the margins of the paleo-Lake Hula.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During the entire first field season of 1989, a team of excavatorsexposed the skull of an elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus) at theAcheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (GBY) (Fig. 1). The deposit iswaterlogged, and hence very muddy and black, and the strata aretilted by about 40�. On completion of the exposure and removal ofthe heavy skull, two basalt artifacts were visible below thepremaxillary region of the skull: a giant basalt core and a giantbasalt boulder e a percussor (Goren-Inbar et al., 1994). These andother finds (lithic, paleontological, and paleobotanical) that werefound in association with the elephant skull in this archaeologicalhorizon initiated an extended study of the role of giant cores in thecultural Acheulian sequence of the GBY site and beyond.

Giant cores are artifacts of extremely large dimensions, inten-tionally shaped to yield large flakes that typically served as blanksfor the production of handaxes and cleavers. The technology oflarge flake production is a hallmark of a particular phase within theAcheulian Technocomplex (Kleindienst, 1961; Isaac, 1969; Leakey,1971, 1975; Sharon, 2007, 2009), of which GBY, assigned to MIS18 and of some 50 kyr duration, is defined as the key site (Goren-

þ972 2 5825548.r).

All rights reserved.

Inbar and Saragusti, 1996; Goren-Inbar et al., 2000; Sharon 2007;Sharon et al., 2011).

Giant cores, a striking component of the Acheulian Tech-nocomplex tool kit, have been known from the very early days ofresearch on Acheulian lithic assemblages and are recentlydescribed in a series of studies that provide new insights into thisOld World cultural phenomenon, its technological variability, andits variants in the different geographic zones within the vastAcheulian territory (for details and references, see Madsen andGoren-Inbar, 2004; Sharon, 2007, 2009). Within this topic, specialattention has been paid to the sources of Levallois technology andits roots in the Acheulian giant cores (Champault, 1966; Kuman,2001; McNabb, 2001; Tryon et al., 2006; Sharon and Beaumont,2006; de la Torre et al., 2008; Lycett, 2009; Wilkins et al., 2010, toname but a few).

In this study we aim to present the full record of data on the GBYgiant artifacts, together with their interpretation. The descriptionwill follow the reduction sequence of the giant artifacts from theacquisition of the raw material, through the reduction of the coreand the description of the resulting products, to the shaping of thebifaces. In addition, a 3-D scanningmethodology was applied to theanalysis of the giant cores and their derived waste. This enhancesour attempt to gain insight into patterns of hominin behavior in theLevantine Corridor during the early Middle Pleistocene from thecomplex reduction process of these bifacial tools.

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.03.037



Fig. 1. Giant cores in situ; the archaeological horizon of Layer II-6 Level 1: a) Elephant skull; b) Wooden log (Quercus); c) Basalt giant core [#10478]; d) Basalt handaxe on flake.

N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1901e19171902

2. Methodology and terminology

The very large basalt items unearthed at GBY fall into two maincategories: large (boulder-sized) natural items and giant artifacts.Sedimentological considerations (Feibel, 2001, 2004) suggest thatthe natural boulders were transported into the site by hominins.They are classified as manuports and occur in many Acheulian sites(Leakey, 1971). Here, however, we focus on the giant artifacts fromGBY, defined as large items bearing marks of hominin intervention,most frequently in the form of flake removals. Different approacheshave suggested for distinguishing giant from large cores (Madsenand Goren-Inbar, 2004; Sharon, 2007). Here we include in thecategory of giant artifacts all those of sufficient dimensions for theproduction of large flakes (>10 cm following the criteria suggestedby Kleindienst, 1961) or any other large artifact that can be sub-jected to a reduction process aimed at the obtaining of large tools(for additional information on the dimensions of giant cores andtheir products in relation to the products of other raw materialtypes, see an example in Goren-Inbar et al., 2008). This definitionallows us to include different aspects of the giant artifact assem-blage from GBY in the discussion.

Within the category of giant artifacts, we define three primarygroups: a) giant cores e artifacts that show a clear sequence of scarremovals that define them as cores used for the production of largeflakes; b) slab fragments e fragments of slabs (see below) that arebroken as a result of hominin knapping but show no clear scarpattern or morphology that enable their classification as cores; andc) large flakes e waste products that are larger than 10 cm and areproducts of the giant core reduction sequence, but were apparently

not selected by the GBY knappers as suitable blanks for bifaceproduction. Each of the three categories has subsidiary techno-typological groups that will be discussed in detail below.

The analysis of the GBY giant artifacts is restricted to basaltitems, since the small size of the nodules of the other rawmaterialsknapped by the GBY hominins (flint and limestone) precluded theiruse in the production of these artifacts.

The analyses of the giant cores and theirderivedproducts includea basic classification that integrates morphological, technological,and typological criteria. This classification is based on techno-morphological evaluation e degree of completeness (includingintentional breakage for better handling), exhaustion, nature offlaking edges, pattern of scars, and, when possible, typologicalclassification.

While bifaces and basalt flakes occur throughout the strati-graphic sequence above the Matuyama Brunhes Boundary at thesite (Goren-Inbar et al., 2000; Sharon et al., 2011), the frequency ofgiant cores and their typical associated products is consistentlyvery low. The small size of the samples in each archaeologicalhorizon restricts our presentation to the raw data and a fewselected qualitative and quantitative attributes, and precludesdetailed statistical studies.

The following metric attributes were used in the analyses of theGBY giant cores: length, width, thickness, volume, length of flakingedge, and number of flake scars. The first four attributes wereautomatically generated by 3-D modeling (see below), while thelast two were manually measured and counted.

In order to gain a better understanding of the GBY giant cores,we added to the analysis some of their derived products and waste,

N. Goren-Inbar et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1901e1917 1903

primarily basalt flakes. These flakes were manually analyzed andrecorded. A small number of particularly characteristic artifactswere scanned using a 3-D method (Grosman et al., 2008) in whichlength, width, thickness, volume, and weight are automaticallygenerated and items are positionedmanually according to the usualconvention of flake placing. The results of the exhaustive analysis ofthe small flakes from GBY will be published elsewhere (Goren-Inbar et al., 2011).

2.1. The 3-D documentation of giant cores

The giant cores of GBYare exceptionally heavy and hence hard tohandle in a conventional lithic analysis (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti,1996). Particular difficulty is encountered inpositioning,measuring,and attaining a general description of the giant cores. In order toovercome these difficulties, a 3-D scanning technology was used. A3-D scanner (manufactured by Polygon Technology, Darmstadt,Germany) was used to scan the cores; its operation is based onstructured light projected on the artifact and recorded by twodigitalcameras. The scanning and data conversion to a 3-D digital modelwas achieved using the QTSculptor program. The application of thismethod and technology to the study of lithic artifacts has beenpublished previously (Grosman et al., 2008) andwas used herewithsomemodifications due to the large dimensions of the cores, whichrule out the use of a turntable to obtain images at equally spacedintervals. Consequently, the artifacts were scanned while freestanding and 15 views were acquired to form a “cluster” (a series ofimages) (as above). After this, the corewas turnedmanually in orderto obtain a complementary “cluster.” The entire surface was thuscaptured by several clusters, which were combined to form a closetriangular mesh resulting in a high-precision 3-D representation ofthe artifact. Once 3-D digital images of the cores are available ata reduced scale, they can easily be viewed from all directions.

In the following stage, the 3-D model of each of the giant arti-facts was manually placed in the required position by a recentlydeveloped procedure for rotating the digital object on the computerscreen. This “conventional” positioning of the core depends oncriteria applied by the archaeologist studying the assemblage. Inthe case of the GBY giant cores, we followed the morphotechno-logical convention that considers the location of the striking plat-form (from which a series of measurable flake scars originates) asthe anchor feature. Whenmore than one striking platform could beidentified, the dominant onewas selected. The proximal ends of the

Fig. 2. Manual positioning of a giant core and the location of

cores were placed toward the viewer, as in the conventional style ofartifact illustrations. The identical positioning of all the GBY giantcores and the easy adjustment of their scale provided a standard-ized visualization of all objects and a graphic presentation thatenabled further evaluation.

Following the positioning of the artifact, we applied a methodthat automatically produces detailed graphic documentation of theobject that includes plan forms and cross-sections (Fig. 2, five viewsand a cross-section), views would otherwise have been difficult toobtain.

Based on the manual positioning, a set of different measure-ments were chosen for study (Fig. 2). These include standardvariables such as length, width, and thickness, whose values wereextracted automatically. In addition, from the 3-D images it waspossible to extract further unique parameters such as volume,location of center of mass, length of edge, etc. The cross-sectionsand the extracted metric data enable inter- and intra-assemblagecomparative analyses (see below, Fig. 2).

The entire inventory of the 3-Dmodels of theGBYgiant cores andtheir metric data are available on the GBY website (gby.huji.ac.il).

3. The giant core reduction sequence at GBY

3.1. Raw material properties, availability and morphology

The Pliocene and Pleistocene volcanic rocks that dominate thevicinity of the GBY site are alkali and basanitic basalts (Weinsteinet al., 2006) that usually form a landscape of weathered and exfo-liated rock surfaces and basaltic soils. In contrast, throughout theentire GBY sequence the giant artifacts were exclusively made onbasalt blanks that were intentionally selected and transported tothe site located on the paleo-Lake Hula margin. The intentionalselection of blanks for cores is evident from the procuring ofunweathered, dense basalt lacking vesicles or other “obstacles.”

Morphologically, the entire assemblage of the GBY giant cores ismade on slabs probably originating in basalt flows that areunknown to us today. The size and weight of these cores suggestthat they were not transported over very long distances. Such slabs,a well-known volcanic phenomenon, occur in the middle part ofbasalt flows where the basalt is the densest, lacks vesicles, and ischaracterized by horizontal fissures (Green and Short, 1971: 498;plate 154B). Similar exposures of basalt slabswithin basalt flows arecurrently visible on the banks of streams cutting into the slopes of

its maximal measurement (length, width, and thickness).

http://gby.huji.ac.il


the Golan Heights and in sections resulting from heavy machineryoperation. Some of these exposures are visible in the vicinity of GBYtoday. The formation of this bedding type, caused by particularcooling conditions, resulted in a system of marked horizontalfissures that produce large, morphologically uniform slabs(Fig. 3aed, Sharon, 2007: fig. 13).

The original size of the slabs selected by the GBY knappers isunknown, and there is not a single recently opened section of basaltflow that could have enabled experimental extraction of similarslabs for this particular study (though see Madsen and Goren-Inbar,2004). The morphology of the slabs typically used at GBY can becharacterized as follows. Their cross-sections commonly showa flatbase and frequently a double-sloping top (see details below). Thesloping face (upper surface or surfaces) of the slab joins the flatbase, forming an acute angle; the presence of this angle is of theutmost importance for the flaking process of the slabs (see below).With the exception of a few large slabs, the entire assemblage ofgiant cores at GBY consists of fragmented slabs whose original sizeis unknown. Despite this lack of information, the geometry andmorphology of the available slab fragments is apparent and theform of the original slabs could be partially reconstructed.

An interesting technological feature may add clues to theacquisition mode of the GBY slabs. Typical flake scars or notcheswere observed on a few of the giant cores excavated at the site. Thescars are relatively small and isolated, with no additional scarsadjacent to them, and show a morphology that is not typical ofintentional scar removals (Fig. 4): they are ellipsoid, flat, andapparently detached from an unsuitable striking surface and angle.These scars may have resulted from a quarrying procedure thatinvolved the use of levers or wedges (and possibly the use of fire)for the detachment of the slabs from the outcrop.

Fig. 3. aed: Horizontally fissured basalt flows: a) Heavy machinery cut on the right bank oc) Nahal Rosh Pina; d) Susita, western slopes of the Golan Heights.

3.2. The slab morphology

The analyses of the giant cores and the 3-D models producedfrom them illustrate the homogeneity of the blanks used for theproduction of giant cores at GBY. This homogeneity is expressed inthe shape and morphological characteristics that are shared byalmost all of the GBY giant cores. Obviously, the smaller exhaustedcores exhibit only residual features of the original slabs, usuallyidentified by their very flat base. Other cores have a typical trian-gular cross-section, with one edge forming a right angle with thestraight base and a slightly larger angle with the upper surface ofthe core/slab. Fig. 5 presents the cross-sections of several giantcores illustrating these features.

Another feature of slab morphology is the sloping upper surfaceof the slab/core (Fig. 5). In some cases, where the original rightangle of the slab was retained unmodified, the triangular shapedescribed above is encountered. However, when the right anglewas removed (“corner/shoulder flakes”; see below), or when theoriginal slab had a trapezoidal cross-section and hence two slopingplanes on the upper surface, the residual cores have a variety ofcross-sections (sampled and illustrated in Fig. 6). These cross-sections document the intensity of flaking carried out on the slab/core. Thus, the more extensive the knapping, the more amorphousthe cross-section.

The original size of the slab remains unknown to us. Fieldobservations of basalt flows exposed at present show that they canbe quite large, perhaps more than one meter in the largestdimension and probably too large to serve as awhole as a giant core(Fig. 3). Thus, the slab had to be fragmented to facilitate thesubsequent stages of knapping. Slab fragmentation is a commonprocedure in stone knapping, documented by ethnographic

f the Jordan River, south of the site; b) Kramim Basalt, Berekhat Ram, Golan Heights;

Fig. 4. Three GBY giant cores showing notches, possibly the result of quarrying:a) Giant core #5447; b) Giant core #5896; c) Two faces of giant core #7696.

Fig. 5. Cross-sections of giant cores and their probable location within the basalt slabmorphology.


examples of present-day knappers treating large blanks for theproduction of bifacial tools (Goren-Inbar et al., 2011 in reference toPétrequin and Pétrequin, 1993).

Further information about the slabs is available from the studyof the GBY giant artifacts classified as “slab fragments” (Table 1).The similarity in their form and dimensions suggests that theyoriginated in a much larger slab that was intentionally fragmented.When the different giant artifacts are examined with respect towhich part of the original slab they represent, one may propose thefollowing suggestions for the morphology of the original slab:

1) All giant cores and fragments share a natural flat base.2) In most of the giant artifacts the upper surface is also a natural

surface, a remnant of the upper surface of the slab. Even inheavily knapped cores (such as the Levallois Fig. 5, #10478;Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004: fig. 4B), some of this originalsurface is present, enabling definition of the core blank asa slab.

3) In some cases the upper surface is naturally flat and is parallelto the base. These are remnants of cubic slab morphology(Fig. 6, #5897, 10479, 10477).

Fig. 6. Cross-sections of GBY giant cores (obtained by 3-D scanning) indicative of their slab origin.


4) In other cases the upper natural surface slants, creating anacute angle with the base (Fig. 6, #7705, 5895, 7698). In others(Fig. 5, #5446), a ridge is observed from which the uppersurface slants toward both lateral edges of the slab. The slant-ing surfaces and the acute angle that they form with the baseindicate selection of this particular morphology, which enablesthe application of a suitable striking surface and angle.

4. The GBY giant cores

The presence of giant artifacts at GBY is limited to a series ofarchaeological horizons in Area B of the site (Goren-Inbar et al.,2000). Table 1 presents the inventory of giant artifacts at GBYstratigraphically, from youngest (top) to oldest (bottom). Despitethe general scarcity of giant artifacts at GBY, there are indications,particularly in the presence of their typical byproducts (largeflakes), that they were exploited continuously along the strati-graphic and hence temporal record at the site. This is further sup-ported by the presence throughout the record of the giant cores’products, basalt handaxes and cleavers made on large flakes(Sharon et al., 2011).

Table 1Frequencies of giant artifacts and associated large flakes (>10 cm) by layer.

Layer Giant cores Large flakesa

ExhaustedGiant Core

Giant Core Slab Fragment Total (>10 cm)

JB e 5V-5 e 5V-6 e 14II-2/3 1 1 7II-5 e 10II-6/L1 4 1 5 114II-6/L2 1 2 3 6 76II-6/L3 1 2 3 47II-6/L4 1 1 2 4 177II-6/L4b e 66II-6/L5 1 1 10II-6/L6 1 1 2 27II-6/L7 1 3 3 7 50

Total 3 14 12 29 608

a The detailed analysis of the large flakes is currently under study.

The need to extract large flakes for the production of handaxesand cleavers directly determines the size of the giant cores (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996; Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004; Sharon,2007, 2009). Nevertheless, the size of the GBY giant artifacts variesa great deal and is far from being a tightly clustered group, for twomain reasons. The first is the size, type, and morphology of theavailable rawmaterials (ibid.). The second is inherent to the functionof the desired artifact and derives from the “hominin factor”: coresare, by definition, artifacts that vary greatly in size due to theirfunction (here production of large flakes), which results in diminu-tion of their dimensions with each additional series of flaking. Asa result, giant cores, like all other cores, may remain in the primarystage of knapping or, at the other extreme, may be exhausted andhencemuchsmaller.AtGBY,previousdimension-basedclassificationresulted in subdivision of the giant core assemblage into differentsize categories (giant cores, very large cores, and large cores;MadsenandGoren-Inbar, 2004). However, such a classification does not takeinto consideration the “life history” of the core e the extent of massreductionor the amountofflaking that is readable from the scars andtheir visible orientation. Hence, though an exhausted giant corecould be considered a “large core” in the terminology ofMadsen andGoren-Inbar (2004), its smaller dimensions are simply an effect of itsdocumented longer reduction sequence.

Despite the large size variation of the GBY giant cores, they areall far larger than those made on flint and limestone that occur inthe same archaeological horizons (Fig. 7). Consequently, in thepresent study they are all included in the single category of giantcores.

4.1. Size variation and knapping intensity

The extensive size variability of the GBY giant artifacts is pre-sented in Table 2 and Fig. 7. The knapping intensity of the giantcores is expressed by the sum of flake scars observed on both theirfaces (Table 2).

Some of the giant cores are so large that they were probablyvisible features of the landscape for a very long time in the MiddlePleistocene. During excavation, the same giant core was presentthrough a sequence of several superimposed levels (each anindividual archaeological horizon). Two such objects encountered

Fig. 7. Size (maximal length and width) of all cores from two archaeological horizons at GBY by raw material: Layer II-6 Level 1 (106 cores: 91 small cores, 11 cores on flake, and 4giant cores; Layer II-6 Level 4 (110 cores: 87 small cores, 18 cores on flake, and 5 giant cores).


in Layer II-6 are not described here; since the excavation did notreach their bases, they were left in situ in the field (Fig. 8). Othercores classified as giant cores were of much smaller size. Most ofthese are exhausted, as evidenced by the relatively high number ofscars observed on their surfaces and particularly by the fact thatthey are no longer suitable in form and size for the extraction ofadditional large flakes.

Table 2Giant cores and large flakes: size (in mm), volume, and statistics (generated by 3-D scan

# of artifact Type Number of scar

3562 Exhausted giant core 29580 Exhausted giant core 614213 Exhausted giant core 52078 Giant core (fragment) 13555 Giant core 13561 Giant core (corner) 15446 Giant core 15447 Giant core (bifacial) 65896 Giant core (fragment) 47696 Giant core 37698 Giant core (fragment) 17704 Giant core (Kombewa) e

7705 Giant core 210476 Giant core (fragment) 110478 Giant core (Levallois) 1810479 Giant core 314177 Giant core (slab fragment) 12196 Slab fragment (flake) 22315 Slab fragment e

3553 Slab fragment 25890 Slab fragment (exhausted giant core) 55897 Slab fragment 27697 Slab fragment 27699 Slab fragment 27701 Slab fragment (corner) 17708 Slab fragment 410475 Slab fragment (flake) 510477 Slab fragment 514061 Slab fragment (flake) 2

The small size of the giant core assemblage rules out theirdetailed classification. Clearly, some of the artifacts are thoroughlyexhausted, while others, of larger dimensions, seem to have beendiscarded in the archaeological horizons for unknown reasons.Some of the cores show “natural knapping obstacles” expressed bydifferences of grain size (Fig. 9) that perhaps led to their discard,although to us they still seem usable.

ning).

s Volume (cm3) Length Width Thickness

13275.19 190 142 1087165.61 125 132 111

17265.23 176 168 14819888.79 164 203 12228702.84 278 179 12722867.96 205 209 17856400.12 227 227 18669641.22 280 361 14676168.84 304 297 22570885.6 266 454 17013844.89 152 172 10937663.75 291 258 13380436.86 273 415 15829125.37 270 209 9862614.67 262 312 17761567.87 370 229 13659571.91 149 232 32623250.58 284 197 14715466.1 202 167 11515132.32 197 171 1039303.541 160 141 108

27814.58 328 159 11516415.9 233 162 1189771.165 116 181 93

12151.69 176 143 10414528.68 202 179 10520657.13 211 264 11531374.89 218 286 1144824.932 124 135 73

Fig. 8. Giant cores in situ at the site.

Fig. 9. Natural knapping obstacles due to change in basalt grain size (obtained by 3-Dscanning).


4.2. Technological manipulation and flexibility

4.2.1. Core methodPrevious studies have presented detailed reconstructions of the

core methods used in the production of large flake blanks at GBY(Goren-Inbar et al., 1994; Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004 withadditional observations by Sharon, 2007). Considering the limitedsample size of giant cores at GBY and the absence of many of thereduction process products from the assemblage, the reconstruc-tion of the core method is somewhat hypothetical. It is based onthree primary lines of observations: a) study of the giant cores; b)study of the giant core products e flakes and particularly thehandaxes and cleavers produced on these large flakes; and c)experimental replication of the GBY artifacts. Here we will brieflydescribe the core methods observed at the site and will illustratethese with the actual cores.

Although small, the assemblage of GBY giant cores is extremelyvaried. Sharon (2007) demonstrated that as many as five differentcore methods can be defined from the cores and bifacial tools at thesite. These include Kombewa, Levallois, bifacial core, slab slicing,and indeterminate or ad-hoc methods. In addition, the use of non-flake blanks (primary flat river cobbles) is documented for a few ofthe GBY handaxes. Observation of the GBY giant cores revealed thefollowing classification (for detailed description of the GBY coressee Goren-Inbar, 1992; Goren-Inbar et al., 1994; Goren-Inbar andSaragusti, 1996; Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004). Metric data areavailable in Table 2. For detailed discussion of the Acheulian giantcore methods in a wider perspective, see Sharon (2007).

4.2.1.1. Levallois. This method is represented by a single core(Fig. 10b: #10478), found under the butchered elephant skull inLayer II-6 Level 1 (Goren-Inbar et al., 1994; Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004). This is the most advanced core design at GBY and

Fig. 10. Core methods at GBY: a) and d) Indeterminate cores, #5897 and #10479 respectively; b) Levallois core, #10478; c) Slab slicing method, #10479; e) Kombewa core on giantflake, #7701; f) Bifacial core, #5447.


falls well within the definition of the Levallois recurrent coremethod (Boëda, 1995). The flakes detached from this core werelarge and at least one of the scars indicates the removal of a largeside-struck flake that matches handaxe blanks from the site. All ofthe other GBY giant cores have much lower scar counts (Table 2).

4.2.1.2. Kombewa. A single giant core represents this method atGBY (Fig. 10e: #7701). It is a very large amorphous flake from theventral face of which a large flakewas detached. This core is heavilyweathered and its morphology is very difficult to read. However,the use of the Kombewa core method for the production of bifacialtools at GBY is evident from the presence of many Kombewa flakesamong the bifacial tools and large flakes at the site (Goren-Inbarand Saragusti, 1996).

4.2.1.3. Bifacial flaking. This method is, again, represented at GBYby a single core (Fig. 10f: #5447) in which the flakes were removedfrom both faces of the same striking platform by alternate removalsin which each of the scars was used as a striking platform for theremoval of the next flake (for a similar scar surface exploitation see

the description in Champault, 1966). Although the sequence ofremovals shows only a few flakes, better examples of this coremethod are known from other Acheulian sites (Sharon, 2007).Nevertheless, this core furnishes an indication that the knappers ofGBY were familiar with the bifacial core method and applied it tothe production of large flakes.

4.2.1.4. Slab slicing. This core method was defined in the study ofbifacial tools (rather than cores) at the Indian Acheulian site ofHunsgi V, where it is the dominant core method (ibid.). At GBY,there are only one or two example of such slice flakes. However,one of the GBY slabs (Fig. 10c: #10479) was clearly sliced bya method similar to that described for Hunsgi V (Paddayya, 1982;Sharon, 2007). Evidently, this method was not frequently used atGBY, but the volumetric principle of using the flat surface of a slabas a striking platform for flakes that “slice” the entire thickness ofthe slab was known and practiced by the GBY knappers (Fig. 11).

4.2.1.5. Undetermined (ad hoc). A few of the GBY giant cores(Fig. 10a, d: #5897 and #7696 respectively) are large slabs from

Fig. 11. Hypothetical reconstruction of the slab slicing method: stage 1) Basalt slab; stages 2 and 3) Removal of two opening “shoulder” flakes (Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004;Sharon, 2007); stage 4) Removal of a “wedge” flake (see below) creating a suitable débitage surface. Following this stage, two strategies are possible. The first (stages 5a and 6a) is todetach flakes that remove the entire thickness of the slab, resulting in flakes that have an inherent cleaver shape, similar to a slice of cheese. The second strategy (stages 5 and 6) isto detach flakes that remove only half or more of the slab’s thickness, creating a “backed knife” flake. Note that all the striking platforms of these flakes are the natural upper flatsurface of the slab (see further discussion in Sharon, 2007).


which one or two flakes were removed without any preparation. Inother cases the method used cannot be reconstructed due to thefragmentary nature of the core and the weathering of the basalt.These cores are defined here as indeterminate.

Three of the GBY giant cores are defined as exhausted (Table 1;Fig. 12, #9580, #3562). These cores are smaller than other giantcores but show a higher scar count (Table 2); a significant part oftheir surface is covered with scars in comparison to the other giantcores. They are consequently assigned to the final stage of corereduction in which they were discarded, probably because theywere too small to provide further large flakes. Technologically, they

furnish no significant information, as they do not show clearevidence for the application of a particular core method. This is incontrast to cores from other sites in which the method is veryevident, as in the case of Victoria West cores from South Africa,Tabelbala Tachenghit cores from the Western Sahara, and even themedium Levallois cores from Morocco (Sharon, 2007).

The technology used by the GBY knappers and the exclusive useof basalt slabs as giant core blanks is further illustrated by anadditional group within the giant artifacts category e fragmentedslabs (Fig. 10:a, d (#5897 and #10479 respectively). This group, themost common group within the GBY giant artifacts, results from

Fig. 12. Exhausted cores.


a procedure of fragmentation, the “opening” (initiation) andshaping of slabs into cores (see above).

4.3. Giant core products at GBY

An important source of information for the reconstruction of thetechnology and coremethods used by the GBY hominins is the largebasalt flakes. In Table 1 we have presented the frequencies of GBYlarge flakes (following the definition of Kleindienst, 1961, of 10 cmand above). More than 600 such flakes, which present importanttechnological data, were recorded throughout the stratigraphicrecord of GBY. In addition, significant data are derived fromobservations on the large flakes used as blanks for the production ofhandaxes and cleavers. Among these large basalt flakes we haveidentified the following technological categories: cortical flakes,end-struck/wedge flakes, corner/shoulder flakes, triangularpointed flakes, and Kombewa flakes.

Large cortical flakes and large flakes offer only partial informa-tion, as they could have originated from a multitude of flakingmethods and reduction stages. However, in the GBY large flakes the

relationship between the orientation of the axis of detachment andthe symmetry of the flake yields valuable information about theparent core (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996). The purpose of largecortical flakes is to prepare the core for exploitation of the débitagesurface; their removal produces both an exploitable edge anda surface from which the next blow will result in obtaining a pre-determined (target) flake suitable for the production of bifaces(Champault, 1966; Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004). Theoretically,such a situation could be seen in discoidal, Levallois, and a variety ofother bifacial cores. The extent of surface coveredwith cortex in theGBY large basalt flakes is presented in Table 3. It should be notedthat basalt does not have cortex in the sense used to describe thesurface rind of flint nodules and the term refers here to the originalouter surface of the basalt. This surface is hard to identify in manycases, due to the heavy postdepositional weathering of the basaltartifacts at GBY.

4.3.1. Cortical flakesEvidently, most of the GBY large basalt flakes are either devoid

of cortex or show only minimal cortical surface. This can be seen asan indication that most of them originated from advanced stages ofgiant core reduction, after cortex removal. It has been demon-strated elsewhere (Goren-Inbar and Sharon, 2006) that most of theGBY bifacial tools were brought to the site as finished tools and thereduction of most cores was performed away from the excavatedsurface. On the other hand, the presence of cortical large flakesclearly shows that some giant cores were knapped at the site,starting at the very first stages of reduction. The scarcity of largeflakes with partial amounts of cortex (1e75% of surface coverage) isalso interesting. Thus, it can be suggested that the large flakes wereeither brought to the site as non-cortical large flakes ready to beused as tools or as bifacial tool blanks or, more rarely, knapped onthe spot from giant cores. The great majority of giant cores found atthe site belong to an early stage of the reduction sequence, withonly a few scars removed from them.

4.3.2. End-struck/wedge flakesElongated triangular/pointed/wedge flakes (“frontal flakes” in

Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004: 14, fig. 5) are ventrally flat largeflakes of a particular “wedge-shaped” morphology (Fig. 13). Flakesof this category could result from the knapping of giant cores of twopossible types. The first necessitates a relatively straight strikingplatform fromwhich a series of convergent flakes was detached. Inorder to produce the form that exists at GBY, at least two largeflakes preceded the detachment of a triangular/pointed flake, mostprobably converging on the parent core. In contrast with manyAcheulian flake blanks from elsewhere, where flakes are detachedat a consistent oblique angle to the striking platform, the preferredmode of blow at GBY is oblique to the striking platform but displaysa variety of orientations. Surprisingly, and despite the fact that wehave a large quantity of end-struck large flakes, giant cores ofa unipolar scar pattern (parallel or convergent patterned) thatcould have produced these flakes were not discovered.

The second possibility is to produce these particular flakes froma (fragmented) slab modified for use as a core by minimal surfacealteration. In this case, the exploitation of the slab is perpendicularto its thickness, as shown in Fig. 11.

4.3.3. Corner/shoulder flakesThis type is a very robust and very thick cortical flake (Fig. 14),

removing the natural right-angled corner of the slab. Experimentalknappers consider such a removal, which requires an extremelypowerful blow, an “opening” of the core, since it removes anunsuitable surface from the perspective of potentially exploitableangle (andhence suitableflakingedge). The removal of theseflakes is

Table 3Extent of cortex on GBY large basalt flakes.

Layer No cortex 1e25% 26e50% 51e75% 76e100% Indet. Total

N % N % N % N % N % N % N

JB 4 80.0 1 20.0 5V-5 3 60.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 5V-6 1 7.7 3 23.1 9 69.2 13II-2/3 5 71.4 1 14.3 1 14.3 7II-5 7 70.0 3 30.0 10II-6/L1 61 61.6 3 3.0 7 7.1 10 10.1 14 14.1 4 4.0 99II-6/L2 40 54.8 1 1.4 4 5.5 5 6.8 14 19.2 9 12.3 73II-6/L3 31 72.1 4 9.3 1 2.3 2 4.7 3 7.0 2 4.7 43II-6/L4 106 61.3 6 3.5 10 5.8 7 4.0 34 19.7 10 5.8 173II-6/L4b 44 67.7 3 4.6 7 10.8 6 9.2 5 7.7 65II-6/L5 6 60.0 1 10.0 3 30.0 10II-6/L6 14 51.9 7 25.9 6 22.2 27II-6/L7 30 62.5 1 2.1 1 2.1 5 10.4 11 22.9 48

Total 352 60.9 16 2.8 26 4.5 31 5.4 90 15.6 63 10.9 578


clearly aimed to produce an acute angle, the initial stage in theformation of a striking platform, enabling the knapper to continue toobtain large flakes for the production of bifaces. The morphology ofthese flakes makes them unsuitable for the production of bifaces.

4.3.4. Kombewa flakesThe Kombewa core method was defined by Owen (1938) for

small cores that generally produced small flakes. Once applied tothe production of biface blanks, a large flake is used as a core anda flake is detached from its ventral face. This flake is characterizedby two ventral faces and has a plano-convex section. Such flakeshave a morphology that is very suitable for modification intoa biface and will require minimal additional shaping (see Sharon,2007 for discussion and references). Fig. 15 present a hypotheticalreconstruction of this method as applied at GBY. Our experimentaldata demonstrate that the blank intended to be modified intoa biface could not be detached from the same striking platform asthat of the large parent flake (the Kombewa core) because the anglebetween the striking platform and the ventral face of the Kombewacore is too wide (Fig. 15, stage 4). This is why the striking axes of thetwo visible platforms of each Kombewa flake (biface blanks) arealigned at ca. 90� to each other. (Fig. 15, stage 5).

As mentioned above, the data on Kombewa flakes at GBY orig-inate not from Kombewa cores but from the high frequency ofKombewa blanks used for the production of bifacial tools (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996). The frequency of Kombewa flakesused for the production of bifacial tools at GBY is one of the highestrecorded in Acheulian sites; only at the site of Ternifine, Algeria,was a higher frequency of Kombewa flakes recorded (Sharon,2007). Examples of the use of Kombewa flakes for the productionof bifacial tools are presented in Fig. 16.

4.3.5. Flake orientationLarge flakes, as well as cleavers and handaxes, that retain visible

features of the blank (dorsal face, striking platform, direction ofblow) are extremely important contributors to better under-standing of the reduction sequence of the giant cores. The flakingorientation (end-struck, side-struck, and special side-struck,following Isaac and Keller, 1968) and the length/width ratio of theflakes shed light on the force, orientation, and angle of blow, allyielding important information about the parent core. One of themost significant flake types used by the GBY knappers for theproduction of bifacial tools is the special side-struck flake (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996). These flakes are the result of theknapping method applied to many of the cores discussed above, in

which the scar of a previous flake was used as the striking platformfor the detachment of the next flake at an oblique angle to the core’sflaking edge, resulting in a special side-struck flake. As demon-strated experimentally, such a sequence of removals is typical ofbifacial cores, as well as Kombewa and discoid cores (Champault,1966; Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004). Fig. 17a shows a hypothet-ical flaking sequence of a bifacial core that will result in a specialside-struck flake. Fig. 17b shows experimental examples of specialside-struck flakes. An example of a special side-struck flakeremoved from a GBY core is shown in Fig. 17c. This flake, removedfrom a Levallois core, was suitable in both size and shape for theproduction of a bifacial tool. Bifaces produced on special side-struckflakes from GBY are presented in Fig. 17d.

5. Discussion

5.1. Reconstruction of the chaîne opératoire

The characteristics of the basalt giant artifacts occurring inmanyof the GBY archaeological horizons leads us to suggest that thebasalt slabs were extracted directly from the flows, since the arti-facts made from themwere fresh, unweathered, non-vesicular, andentirely devoid of exfoliation (Goren-Inbar, 2011). Boulders foundin streams in the vicinity of the site do not display the slabmorphology that was found archaeologically at GBY. We furthersuggest that the slabs were extracted from the middle section ofbasalt flows by an unknown technique that perhaps involveda lever, fire, or a combination of both. It is noteworthy that hardorganic levers were not found at GBY, apart from awooden log thatwas located under an elephant skull (Goren-Inbar et al., 1994;Goren-Inbar et al., 2002). Although this log was identified as thehardest type of wood in the assemblage (oak), it does not seemstrong enough to be the sole means of extracting a basalt slab froma flow. Clearly, an unknown extraction technology has left itsmarkings on the giant cores. Three giant cores from Layer II-6Levels 1, 2, and 7 at GBY display such markings in the form of anindentation or “notch” that does not have the typical features ofa flake scar. The “notch” is not related to the débitage surface or tothe flaking edges of the cores (Fig. 4).

Following the extraction of the basalt slab from the basalt flow,it was deliberately fragmented into several smaller, workablefragments. The fragments were then worked into giant cores bya variety of core reduction methods.

The control and exploitation of the particular geometry of thebasalt slabs is the key to efficient knapping. The GBY knappers

Fig. 13. End-struck/wedge flakes.

Fig. 14. Corner/shoulder flakes: a) Flake #3561; b) Flake #5888.


employed the natural presence of a sharp angle, which allowedimmediate knappingwithout preparation of the core. Experimentalstudies have shown that fragmentation of basalt slabs requireda very heavy percussor, while the systematic production of largeflakes exploiting a natural angle required the application of lighterones (Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004). These observations areborne out by ethnographic data from Irian Jaya (Pétrequin andPétrequin, 1993) and experimental work in Africa (Jones, 1994).

The preparation of the giant core for the production of pre-determined (target) flakes sometimes necessitated further steps inaddition to the exploitation of the natural geometric properties of

the slab. These are visible archaeologically through corner/shoulderflakes, exceptionally thick flakes that were extracted from the edgesof the fragmented slab. If the geometry allowed the immediateextraction of large flakes, what could be the reason for detachingcorner/shoulder flakes? A possible answer may lie in the hominins’selection of a particular sequence of reduction from several alter-natives. If a knapper intends to adopt a strategy that exploits theentire circumference of the fragmented slab (as seen in Fig. 10b),then a core morphology that includes the thickest part of the slabmay be an obstacle. Alternatively, thinning the slab by removal ofthe thickest part will produce a longer flaking edge and will allowcontinuous exploitation of the core and its transformation intoa pre-designed core, whether bifacial, Levallois, or discoidal.Clearly, slab fragmentation strategy at GBY tackled the issue of

Fig. 15. Hypothetical reconstruction of the Kombewa core method at GBY: stage 1)Basalt boulder; stage 2) Removal of an opening flake creating a striking platform fora flake removal in stage 3; stage 3) Detachment of a very large flake to be used asa Kombewa core; stage 4) Removal of a Kombewa flake from the ventral bulb-of-percussion of the large flake core. Note that due to angle restrictions the flake isdetached from the lateral edge, ca. 90� from the original striking platform of the core-flake (arrow). The result is a Kombewa flake (with two ventral faces).


thickness in different ways. Once a slab fragment was obtained,a crucial phase of the mass reduction process took place duringwhich the knapper was forced to take an irreversible decisione theselection of a particular method of large flake extraction. Sharon(2009) (see also Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004) has demon-strated that the GBY assemblage shows the highest variability ofAcheulian giant core reduction methods among the Acheulian sitesstudied worldwide.

5.2. Human behavior as reflected by the chaîne opératoire of thegiant cores

5.2.1. Transportation/mobilityArtifact mobility is one of the earliest recognizable hominin

behavioral traits. Not only is there evidence for transportation ofvarious types of rocks over the landscape as early as the LowerPleistocene (Feblot-Augustins, 1990; Harmand, 2009), but partic-ular patterns of transportation have emerged from the analysis ofAcheulian sites in Africa and beyond (Goren-Inbar et al., 2011). Acommon strategy used as early as 1.5 myr at ‘Ubeidiya, for example,is one of biface production at the raw material outcrops/quarries,with bifaces being transported to the site for final modification anduse (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993). The same pattern isobserved at most of the African Acheulian sites and beyond (e.g.,the Arabian peninsula: Petraglia, 2006; India: Sharon, 2007). Manystudies of lithic Acheulian assemblages have demonstrated that theexpected large numbers of primary flaking products of bifacereduction sequences are missing from the sites, and hence that thetools were imported to the site as finished tools (Bar-Yosef andGoren-Inbar, 1993).

Giant artifacts do not appear in all of the layers at GBY, and theirnumbers in some layers are unexpectedly low. The sedimentolog-ical lake margin record of GBY furnishes indisputable evidence thatgiant artifacts, of a clast size foreign to the lake margin sediments,were transported to the site by hominins from basalt outcrops inthe vicinity of the lake. Very large basalt boulders showing noevidence of hominin modification, most probably also transportedto the site by the hominins, are also present in the GBY archaeo-logical horizons.

Handaxes and cleavers made on large flakes, as well as unre-touched large flakes, are present in different frequencies in all thearchaeological horizons at GBY (Table 1). It has been shown that thenumbers of giant cores and waste flakes are far too small to accountfor all the bifaces excavated at the site (Goren-Inbar and Sharon,2006; Sharon et al., 2011). For example, while some 225 bifaceswere excavated from the “biface pavement” of Layer II-6 Level 4(Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996), only one giant core was exca-vated from this level. Clearly, the lithic assemblages of GBY repre-sent neither intensive quarrying activity nor a biface workshop (forquarry/workshop site assemblages see the discussion in Sharon,2007). Most of the bifacial tools were imported to the site asfinished tools, and in some cases they were taken out of the siteafter somemodification and probably use (Goren-Inbar and Sharon,2006). In other cases, both giant cores and large flakes were pro-cessed on the archaeological horizon.

Giant artifacts probably had additional functions, such as anvils,since a few of these artifacts bear pits and have been interpreted asnutting stones (Goren-Inbar et al., 2002). The giant artifacts of LayerII-6 Level 1 are clearly part of a specific activity that took place inthis level; one of these was probably used as support for theattempt to turn the elephant skull upside down by leverage (Goren-Inbar et al., 1994). In contrast, the absence of giant cores from LayerII-6 Level 4 emphasizes the unique and puzzling nature of thisassemblage. Bifacial tools were not produced in this layer, nor dowe have evidence that they were used for any task we canreconstruct.

5.2.2. Giant cores and home-baseGiant artifacts from Acheulian stratigraphic contexts are usually

found in sites interpreted as quarries, workshops, or ateliers (e.g.,Isampur: Petraglia et al., 1999; Vaal River: Kuman, 2001). OldWorldAcheulian giant cores are extremely rare in other types of occu-pations such as base camps or kill sites. The GBY giant cores areclearly exceptional with regard to their cultural context (for

Fig. 16. GBY cleaver tools shaped on Kombewa flake.

Fig. 17. Special side-struck flakes (SSF): a) Hypothetical reconstruction of SSF by bifacial core method; b) Experimental SSF; c) SSF removal on GBY giant core; d) A handaxe anda cleaver shaped on SSFs from GBY.



a detailed review see Madsen and Goren-Inbar, 2004). Giant coresat GBY are always found in association with bifaces (handaxes andcleavers), but they are not present in every Acheulian archaeolog-ical horizon that includes these tools. Previous studies of this recordhave demonstrated that the production of bifaces at GBY includesall stages of the reduction process: from obtaining large flakes fromgiant cores to the final trimming of the bifaces. Bifaces and theirwaste products occur in varying frequencies in all of the archaeo-logical horizons, reflecting extensive transportation (Sharon et al.,2011). This shifting of artifacts in and out of the site can bedemonstrated for giant cores as well as for bifaces. It encompassesall reduction phases from the introduction of rawmaterial, throughthe production of giant cores and introduction of biface roughouts,to the final stages of removal/transportation of bifaces away fromthe site. Clearly, whatever was excavated at GBY reflects only a verysmall fraction of the original assemblage before the discard ofartifacts and abandonment of the site.

At GBY the giant cores and their associated products were foundin a variety of horizons reflecting occupations of different types: anelephant kill site (Goren-Inbar et al., 1994), a biface stocking locale(Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996), and a carcass processingarchaeological horizon (Sharon and Goren-Inbar, 1999; Goren-Inbar and Sharon, 2006; Rabinovich et al., 2008; Rabinovich et al.,in press). In all of these archaeological horizons additional cate-gories of finds were recorded, including lithic, paleobotanical, andpaleontological assemblages. The unique co-existence of all thesecategories points to repeated occupations that served as a focalpoint e a “home base” e in which diverse activities and tasks tookplace simultaneously.

There are indications at GBY (in Layer II-3/4) that large naturalbasalt slabs were brought to the site and left unworked. This can beinterpreted as stocking of blocks of raw material suitable for futureproduction. This fact may support the suggestion that the effortinvested in the acquisition of the large basalt slabs and in theirtransportation to the site was not the action of an individual butthat of several members of the community. Repeated trips to quarrysites, acquisition of the basalt slabs, fragmentation, and trans-portation to the home base are all well documented ethnographi-cally (Pétrequin and Pétrequin, 1993). Social organization of sucha kind also requires different roles within the particular group(division of labor). In such a scenario women in general, as docu-mented in a variety of ethnographic observations, are active insupplying foodstuff but banned from any association with quar-rying or stone knapping (Goren-Inbar et al., 2011). The presence oflarge animals (particularly elephants, hippos, large bovids, etc.) inthe same archaeological horizons also points to group efforts. Asdescribed elsewhere, there are additional indications of the divi-sion of labor within the group and mixed gender presence at GBY(e.g., Goren-Inbar et al., 2002; Goren-Inbar et al., 2011).

Perhaps among our most striking conclusions is that giant coresare present in a variety of occupation types that clearly reflectdifferent tasks and activities carried out simultaneously. Theseinclude, among others, hunting, fishing, meat and bone processing,nut and fruit gathering, and fire making (e.g., Goren-Inbar et al.,1994; Goren-Inbar et al., 2002; Alperson-Afil, 2007; Rabinovichet al., 2008; Alperson et al., 2009; Alperson-Afil and Goren-Inbar,2010; Rabinovich et al., in press; Rabinovich and Biton, 2011;Zohar and Biton, 2011). The association of the giant cores with theirproducts in the different horizons, coupled with the indications fora composite group structure, call for a novel view (onwhich wewillfocus in our future research) of a variety of activities carried out onthe lake margin at GBY, integrating various behavioral patterns inthe same sites. We tend to view this as an expression of thecontinuously developing concept of the home base, in which thegiant core system forms only a small fraction of the activities.

The transportation of the basalt slabs, whether whole or frag-mented, from the quarries to the Acheulian sites, and the behav-ioral implications that we may draw from it, are only one aspect ofthe complex and highly developed cognitive level expressed at GBY,which is discussed at length elsewhere (Goren-Inbar, 2011). Withinthe cultural realm of the Acheulian of GBY, we believe that divisionof labor, resource sharing, and language were essential foracquiring the long-term planning expertise in handling thedifficult-to-control basalt, and the thorough understanding of theenvironment and its sources. All of the above support our view thatthe producers of the giant cores were culturally a highly sophisti-cated hominin group sharing a long-duration tradition on themargins of the paleo-Lake Hula.

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out with the support of an ongoing grantawarded by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 300/06) to theCenter of Excellence Project Title: “The Effect of Climate Change onthe Environment and Hominins of the Upper Jordan Valley betweenca. 800Ka and 700Ka ago as a Basis for Prediction of FutureScenarios”. The authors wish to thank the Israel Science Foundationand the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. We thank Yaron Hazan forthe production of Figs. 5, 11, and 15, Gabi Laron for the photographsof Fig. 1(aec), Paolo Gionti for the drawing in Fig. 17, and NoahLichtinger for improving the digitized graphics. The three anony-mous reviewers are thanked for their important comments andsuggestions. Sue Gorodetsky edited the manuscript with her usualprofessionalism and dedication.

References

Alperson, N., Sharon, G., Zohar, I., Biton, R., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M.E., Ashkenazi, S.,Rabinovich, R., Werker, E., Hartman, G., Goren-Inbar, N., 2009. Spatial organi-zation of hominin activities at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel. Science 326,1677e1680.

Alperson-Afil, N., 2007. Ancient flames: controlled use of fire at the Acheulian site ofGesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Univer-sity, Jerusalem.

Alperson-Afil, N., Goren-Inbar, N., 2010. The Acheulian Site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov:Ancient Flames and Controlled Use of Fire. Springer, Dordrecht.

Bar-Yosef, O., Goren-Inbar, N., 1993. The Lithic Assemblages of ‘Ubeidiya. Qedem 34.Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Boëda, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In:Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of LevalloisTechnology, Monographs in World Archaeology. Prehistory Press, MadisonWisconsin, pp. 41e68.

Champault, B.,1966. L’Acheuléen Evolué au SaharaOccidental: Notes sur l’Homme auPaléolithique Ancien. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Paris, Paris.

Feblot-Augustins, J., 1990. Exploitation des matières premieres dans l’Acheuléend’Afrique: perspectives comportementales. Paléo 2, 27e42.

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. 21e36.

Feibel, C.S., 2001. Archaeological sediments in lake margin environments. In:Stein, J.K., Farrand, W.R. (Eds.), Sediments in Archaeological Contexts. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 127e148.

Goren-Inbar, N., 1992. The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov e an Asian or anAfrican entity? In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Kimura, T. (Eds.), The Evolution andDispersal of Modern Humans in Asia. Hokusen-sha, Tokyo, pp. 67e82.

Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Culture and cognition in the Acheulian industry e a casestudy from Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 1038e1049.

Goren-Inbar, N., Lister, A., Werker, E., Chech, M., 1994. A butchered elephant skulland associated artifacts from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel.Paléorient 20 (1), 99e112.

Goren-Inbar, N., Saragusti, I., 1996. An Acheulian biface assemblage from GesherBenot Ya‘aqov, Israel: indications of African affinities. J. Field Archaeol. 23,15e30.

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 atGesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel. Science 289, 944e974.

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M., 2002. Nuts, nut cracking, andpitted stones at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (4),2455e2460.

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., 2006. Invisible handaxes and visible Acheulian bifacetechnology at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Israel. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.),


Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp.111e136.

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., Laschiver., I., 2008. The AcheulianMassive Scrapers of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov e an associated product of the largecutting Tools Chaîne Opératoire. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 702e712.

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., 2011. The Acheulian Site of GesherBenot Ya‘aqov, vol. IV: The Lithic Assemblages. Springer, Dordrecht.

Green, J., Short, N.M. (Eds.), 1971. Volcanic Landforms and Surface Features e APhotographic Atlas and Glossary. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Grosman, L., Smikt, O., Smilansky, U., 2008. On the application of 3-D scanningtechnology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. J. Archaeol.Sci. 35, 3101e3110.

Harmand, S., 2009. Variability in rawmaterial selectivity at the Late Pliocene sites ofLokalalei, West Turkana, Kenya. In: Hovers, E., Braun, D.R. (Eds.), Interdisci-plinary Approaches to the Oldowan. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 85e98.

Isaac, G.L., 1969. Studies of early culture in East Africa. World Archaeol. 1, 1e27.Isaac, G.L., Keller, C.M., 1968. Note of the proportional frequency of side- and end-

struck flakes. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 23 (89), 17e19.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. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 254e298.

Kleindienst, M.R., 1961. Variability within the late Acheulian assemblage in EasternAfrica. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 16, 35e52.

Kuman, K., 2001. An Acheulian factory site with prepared core technology nearTaung, South Africa. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 56 (173,174), 8e22.

Leakey, M.D., 1971. Olduvai Gorge. In: Excavations in Beds I and II, vol. 3. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 1960e1963.

Leakey, M.D., 1975. Cultural patterns in the Olduvai sequence. In: Butzer, K.W.,Isaac, G.L. (Eds.), After the Australopithecines. Mouton Publishers, Paris, pp.477e493.

Lycett, S.J., 2009. Are Victoria West cores “proto-Levallois”? A phylogeneticassessment. J. Hum. Evol. 57 (2), 175e191.

Madsen, B., Goren-Inbar, N., 2004. Acheulian giant core technology and beyond: anarchaeological and experimental case study. Euras. Prehist. 2 (1), 3e52.

McNabb, J., 2001. The shape of things to come. A speculative essay on the role of theVictoria West phenomenon at Canteen Koppie, during the South African StoneAge. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed. Oxbow Books,Oxford, pp. 37e46.

Owen, W.E., 1938. The Kombewa CULTURE, Kenya Colony. Man (December),203e205.

Paddayya, K., 1982. The Acheulian Culture of the Hunsgi Valley (Peninsular India) eA Settlement System Perspective. Deccan College Postgraduate and ResearchInstitute, Pune.

Petraglia, M.D., LaPorta, P., Paddayya, K., 1999. The first Acheulian quarry in India:stone tool manufacture, biface morphology and behavior. J. Anthropol. Res. 55,39e70.

Petraglia, M.D., 2006. The Indian Acheulian in global perspective. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry toDiscard. Equinox, London, pp. 389e414.

Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.M., 1993. Écologie d’un outil: la hache de pierre en IrianJaya (Indonésie). Éditions CNRS, Paris.

Rabinovich, R., Gaudzinski, S., Goren-Inbar, N., 2008. Systematic butchering offallow deer (Dama) at the early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian site of GesherBenot Ya‘aqov, (Israel). J. Hum. Evol. 54, 134e149.

Rabinovich, R., Biton, R., 2011. The Early-Middle Pleistocene faunal assemblages ofGesher Benot Ya‘aqov e taphonomy and paleoenvironment. J. Hum. Evol. 60,357e374. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.12.002.

Rabinovich, R., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Kindler, L., Goren-Inbar, N. The Acheu-lian Site of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, vol. III: Mammal Taphonomy e The Assem-blages of Layers V-5 and V-6. Springer, Dordrecht, in press.

Sharon, G., 2007. Acheulian Large Flake Industries: Technology, Chronology, andSignificance. BAR International Series 1701. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulian giant cores technology e a worldwide perspective. Curr.Anthropol. 50 (3), 335e367.

Sharon, G., Goren-Inbar, N., 1999. Soft percussor use at the Gesher Benot Ya‘aqovAcheulian site? J. Israel Prehist. Soc. 28, 55e79.

Sharon, G., Beaumont, P., 2006. Victoria West e a highly standardized prepared coretechnology. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 181e199.

Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Cultural conservatism andvariability in the Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov. J. Hum. Evol. 60,387e397. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.11.012.

de la Torre, I., Mora, R., Martínez-Moreno, J., 2008. The early Acheulean in Peninj(Lake Natron, Tanzania). J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 27, 244e264.

Tryon, C.A., McBrearty, S., Texier., P.J., 2006. Levallois lithic technology from theKapthurin Formation, Kenya: Acheulian origin and middle Stone Age diversity.Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 22 (4), 199e229.

Weinstein, Y., Navon, O., Altherr, R., Stein, M., 2006. The role of lithospheric mantleheterogeneity in the generation of Plio-Pleistocene alkali basaltic suites fromNW Harrat Ash Shaam (Israel). J. Petrol. 47 (5), 1017e1050.

Wilkins, J., Pollarolo, L., Kuman, K., 2010. Prepared core reduction at the site of KuduKoppie in northern South Africa: temporal patterns across the Earlier andMiddle Stone Age boundary. J. Arch. Sci. 37 (6), 1279e1292.

Zohar, I., Biton, R., 2011. Land, lake, and fish: investigation of fish remains fromGesher Benot Ya‘aqov (paleo-lake Hula). J. Hum. Evol. 60, 343e356. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.10.007.

the technology and significance of the acheulian giant cores of gesher benot ya‘aqov, israel

Documents