Understanding lithic recycling at the Late Lower Palaeolithic Qesem Cave, Israel : : a functional and chemical investigation of small flakes / / Flavia Venditti.

• Superior document: Archaeopress Archaeology
• VerfasserIn: Venditti, Flavia,
• Place / Publishing House: Oxford : : Archaeopress Publishing Ltd,, [2019]; ©2019
• Year of Publication: 2019
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Series: Archaeopress archaeology.
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (203 pages) :; illustrations (chiefly color), maps (some color).

Flakes, and small flakes in particular, are usually seen as by-products or debris of the knapping process, rather than as desired end-products with a specific potential use. In recent years, this particular category of small tools has attracted increasing interest among researchers, especially when...

Table of Contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Dedication
• Contents Page
• List of Figures
• Preface
• Chapter 1
• Introduction
• Chapter 2
• Chapter 2
• Methodology and techniques
• 2.1 Use-wear analysis: the state of the art
• 2.2 Use-wear analysis: the experimental protocol
• 2.3 Cleaning procedures
• 2.4 Microscopy and photography
• 2.5 Documentation
• 2.5.1 Variables recorded per artefact: general information
• 2.5.2 Variables recorded per artefact: description of wear traces on functional edgesEdge damage
• 2.5.3 Variables recorded per artefact: description of hafting traces
• 2.6 Chemical techniques for residue detection: the state of the art
• 2.7 FTIR and EDX experimental sampling and cleaning procedures
• Methodology and techniques
• Figure 2.1: Tribological system (after Ludger 2009).
• Figure 2.2: Overview of the optical equipment at LTFAPA. From left to right: stereomicroscope, metallographic microscope with transmitted and reflected light equipped with DIC and Confocal System, ultrasonic tank.
• Figure 2.3: Example of the experimental (A) and archaeological, (B) database file with some of the variables used to describe the stone artefacts.
• Figure 2.4: Illustration of the description of the functional edge: A) morphology of the cross-section: 1 straight combinations, 2 convex combinations, 3 concave combinations (after van Gijn 1990, modified)
• B) profile morphology: 1 straight, 2 convex, 3
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 3
• The archaeological context: Qesem Cave and the Lower Paleolithic in the Levant
• 3.1 Introduction
• 3.2 The Lower Paleolithic in the Levant: The Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex
• 3.3 Speleological setting of Qesem Cave
• 3.4 Chronology
• 3.5 Lithic production
• 3.5.1 Amudian sequence
• 3.5.2. Yabrudian sequence
• 3.5.3 Raw material procurement.
• 3.6 Spatial distribution and density aspects of lithics at Qesem Cave
• 3.6.1 The rock shelf area ('shelf')
• 3.6.2 'Hearth'
• 3.6.3 Area south of the 'hearth'
• 3.7 Faunal and micro-faunal remains
• 3.8 Human remains
• The archaeological context: Qesem Cave and the Lower Paleolithic in the Levant
• Figure 3.1: Qesem Cave, Israel: A) general view looking south
• B) Qesem Cave during the 2001 salvage excavation
• (picture Qesem Cave Project)
• C) geographical location.
• Figure 3.2: Qesem Cave stratigraphic sequence: A) view of the lower sequence
• from west to east
• B) close-up of the upper part of the lower sequence
• from south to north (after Karkanas et al. 2007).
• Figure 3.3: The upper sequence during the 2009 season, looking from southwest to northeast (after Barkai et al. 2013).
• Figure 3.4: Chrono-stratigraphic chart (after Gopher et al. 2016).
• Figure 3.5: Schematic reconstruction of the laminar trajectories I (A) and II (B) observed at Qesem Cave (after Schimelmitz et al. 2011).
• Figure 3.6: Typical Yabrudian scrapers from Qesem Cave (after Barkai and Gopher 2011).
• Figure 3.7: Qesem Cave map (after Shahack-Gross et al. 2014).
• Figure 3.8: A) general view of the site with the 'shelf' area (circled), 2009 excavation season (after Parush et al. 2016)
• B) close-up of the deepest area under the 'shelf', 2016 excavation season (picture Qesem Cave Project).
• Figure 3.9: Plan of the 'hearth' and its surrounding area (after Shahack-Gross et al. 2014).
• Figure 3.10: A) general view of the southern area looking west (after Assaf et al. 2015)
• B) the southern area view of the eastern section (after Gopher et al. 2016).
• Figure 3.11: Different examples of cut marks on limb bones fragments belonging to medium- and small-sized ungulates from the 'hearth' faunal assemblage of Qesem Cave (after Blasco et al. 2014).
• Figure 3.12: Qesem lower left second deciduous molar (after Hershkovitz et al. 2011).
• Figure 3.13: Root striations on the cervical third of the crown on a deciduous canine (A) from Qesem Cave (after Sarig et al. 2016).
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 4
• The recycling phenomenon and it's manifestations at Qesem Cave
• 4.1 Defining flint recycling
• 4.2 Recycling flint: history of research
• 4.2.1 State of the art: core-on-flake (COF) for specific production of small blanks
• 4.2.2 State of the art: blanks produced from cores-on-flake (COF)
• 4.3 Recycling production at Qesem Cave
• 4.3.1 Parent flakes at Qesem Cave (cores-on-flakes/flaked flakes/COF-FFs)
• 4.3.2 Blanks produced from COF/FF at Qesem Cave
• 4.4 Discussion and summary
• The recycling phenomenon and it's manifestations at Qesem Cave
• Figure 4.1: A) débitage of a Kombewa flake (after Inizan et al. 1999)
• B) Kombewa core from the production of small flakes (after Casini 2010).
• Figure 4.2: Flaked flake piece (after Ashton et al. 1991).
• Figure 4.3: Truncated-faceted piece (after Schroeder 2007).
• Figure 4.4: Kostienki technique on a burin (after Klaric 2000).
• Figure 4.5: The reduction sequence of Kombewa flakes (after Newcomer and Hivernel-Guerre 1974).
• Figure 4.6: A group of COF-FFs (after Parush et al. 2015).
• Figure 4.7: Group of blanks produced from COF-FFs (after Parush et al. 2015).
• Figure 4.8: Regular double-ventral blanks. Dotted white line highlights the bulb of percussion (after Parush et al. 2015).
• Figure 4.9: Double bulb double-ventral Kombewa blanks. Dotted white line denotes the actual bulb of percussion, while dotted red line denotes the original bulb of percussion (after Parush et al. 2015).
• Figure 4.10: Double bulb double-ventral non-Kombewa blanks. Dotted white line highlights the actual bulb of percussion, while dotted red line highlights the original bulb of percussion and black arrows denote previous removals (after Parush et al. 2015)
• Figure 4.11: Lateral double-ventral blanks. Dotted white line denotes the actual bulb of percussion (after Parush et al. 2015).
• Chapter 5
• Chapter 5
• The experimental programme
• 5.1 Introduction
• 5.2 Exploitation of vegetal resources: plant working
• 5.2.1 Use-wear traces from woodworking
• 5.2.2 Use-wear traces from woody plants
• 5.2.3 Use-wear traces from wild plant
• 5.3. Exploitation of animal resources: hide, bone and meat processing
• 5.3.1 Use-wear traces from hide working
• 5.3.2 Use-wear traces from bone working
• 5.3.3 Use-wear traces from meat processing: butchering activities
• 5.4 Looking for prehensile wear and hafting
• 5.5 Experimental residues: morphological and chemical analyses and results
• 5.5.1 Vegetal resources
• 5.5.2 Animal resources
• 5.6 The experimental programme - conclusion
• The experimental programme
• Figure 5.1: Experimental activities: A) whittling fresh wood
• B) cutting dry wood
• C) cutting fresh wood
• D) scraping dry wood.
• Figure 5.2: Experimental replicas used to process wood. A), B), C): Lateral items
• D): Kombewa item.
• Figure 5.3: Use-wear from wood working: A, B) edge damage and micro wear after cutting fresh wood
• C, D) edge damage and micro wear after whittling fresh wood
• E, F) edge damage and micro wear after cutting dry wood
• G, H) edge damage and micro wear after.
• Figure 5.5: Experimental activities: A, C) cutting woody plants (willow)
• B) cutting woody plants (lentiscus).
• Figure 5.6: Use-wear from woody plant working: A, B) edge damage and micro wear after cutting lentiscus
• C, D) edge damage and micro wear after cutting willow branches
• E, F) edge damage and micro wear after cutting different woody plants. White scale-bar
• Figure 5.7: Polish observed after cutting willow branches (experiment by F. Marinelli
• micrograph by F. Venditti).
• Figure 5.8: Experimental activities: A) cutting stramma
• B, C) cutting different edible plants
• D) cutting juncus.
• Figure 5.9: Experimental replicas used to gather wild plants: A, B) lateral items
• C) blade.
• Figure 5.10: Experimental activities: A) cutting tuber without peel
• B) cutting tuber with peel
• C) tuber slices.
• Figure 5.11: Experimental replicas used to process tubers: A, B, C) lateral items.
• Figure 5.12: Use-wear from wild plant gathering: A, B) edge damage and micro wear after cutting stramma
• C) edge damage after cutting juncus
• D) micro wear after cutting stinging nettle
• E) micro wear after scraping stinging nettle. White scale-bar equals
• Figure 5.13: Use-wear from cutting different edible plants: A, B) edge damage and micro wear after cutting wild plants.
• Figure 5.14: Use-wear from tuber working: A, B) edge damage and micro wear after peeling tubers
• C, D) edge damage and micro wear after cutting tubers with peel
• E, F) edge damage and micro wear after cutting peeled tubers. White scale-bar equals 1 mm.
• Figure 5.15: Experimental replicas used to cut dry hide: A, B, C) Kombewa item
• D, E) lateral items.
• Figure 5.16: Experimental replicas used to cut fresh hide: A) regular item
• B) lateral item.
• Figure 5.17: Experimental activities: A, B) cutting fresh hide
• C) scraping dry hide.
• D) cutting hair.