Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Absract
Two lithic caches were discovered during excavation of one of the tailing piles at the Lower-Middle Paleolithic
extraction and workshop complex of Mt. Pua, Israel. These caches, both of which consisted of 13 items,
including a Levallois core in each cache and a handaxe in the first one, were intentionally placed on top of the
exhausted extraction front and covered by a massive cap stone. In this paper we provide a detailed description
of the archaeological context of the caches, discuss the interpretations of lithic caches in the archaeological
literature and conclude by arguing that they had a symbolic connection to the quarrying activity, the successful
exploitation of an exhausted extraction front and the initiation of a new quarrying locality.
Keywords
Caches. Flint extraction. Mt. Pua. Lower-Middle Paleolithic.
these joints using massive hammerstones, smashed the limestone blocks, extracted the flint nodules and piled the
extraction waste in proximity of the extraction front. Test
pits excavated at two different heaps indicate that the tailings are placed on top of exhausted flint sources, covering
exploited extraction fronts. Our interpretation relates this
behavior to the organization of flint procurement and exploitation strategies practiced at the site. More specifically,
we suggest that expended flint sources were intentionally
covered to be marked as potential sites of future manipulation (Barkai et al., 2002, 2006, 2009).
1. INTRODUCTION
The survey of the summit of Mt. Pua in Northern Israel
conducted in 1997-2000 revealed a Paleolithic surfacequarrying complex and hundreds of stone heaps strewn
with knapped flint items (Barkai et al., 2002, 2006). The
finds of the survey identified the site as belonging to the
Late Acheulian (Lower Paleolithic) and/or early Mousterian (Middle Paleolithic) cultural complexes (Barkai et
al,. 2002, 2006). The tailings (quarry debris heaps) are covered with flint nodules and Paleolithic artifacts such as
tested nodules, cores, roughouts, blanks, knapped lithic
waste material and shaped items (tools). Preliminary
mapping of the site identified approximately 1500 tailing
heaps (Figure 1), varying in size from <1 to >15 meters in
diameter and from <0.3 to >3 meters in height. Most, if not
all, of the extraction debris heaps lie adjacent to limestone
outcrops containing flint nodules. Numerous flint nodules
have eroded from the outcrop due to natural weathering
processes. However, specific breakage patterns and impact
marks observed on the outcrops, as well as massive hammerstones bearing impact marks, indicate human exploitation of the flint nodules using a method of extraction called
surface quarrying (e.g. Claris and Quartermaine 1989).
Our preliminary reconstruction of the extraction techniques demonstrates that Paleolithic hominins took advantage of master joints in the limestone outcrops, expended
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
Figure 1. Mt. Pua flint extraction and workshop complex. White dots are extraction and reduction localities. Pua workshop pile No. 3. is marked by a
circle and an arrow.
The large linear tailings pile (PW3) is 30m long and 12m
wide and is located in the northeastern part of the Mt. Pua
extraction complex (Figure 1). It covers the area of some
350 square meters (Figure 2). A 2x2m grid was set on this
pile, with one 4 square meters unit, G-24 chosen at ran-
Figure 2. A close-up view at Pua workshop pile No. 3. Note a person (A.G.)
as a scale.
R. BARKAI and A. GOPHER : TWO FLINT CACHES FROM A LOWER-MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC FLINT EXTRACTION...
Figure 3. Excavation square G-24 at Pua workshop pile No. 3 at the close of the excavation.
hed 811kg. The kanpped flint assemblage from the surface collection was made up of 2699 items including cores
(n=348, 13% of the assemblage), core trimming elements
(n=86, 3%), cortical flakes (n=670, 25%), flakes (n=531,
20%), blades (n=42, 1.5%), naturally backed knifes (n=40,
1.5%), shaped items (tools, n=385, 14%) and unclassifiable chunks of knapped flint (n=597, 22%).
The finds from sq. G-24 are similar in nature to the surface finds described above but flint preservation is better.
Another difference between the two assemblages is the
presence of small waste artifacts (items smaller than 4cm)
in the excavation which were completely absent in the surface collection of PW3. Such small items are absent from
the two caches as well. The excavated lithics are presented
in Figure 4 (including the two caches and the surface collection).
PROCEEDINGS
G 24
Surface
Collection
Excavation
(large items)
Excavation
(items smaller
than 4 cm)
Cache No. 1
OF THE
PRIMARY
ELEMENTS
FLAKE
BLADE
CORE
TRIMMING
ELEMENTS
CORE
NATURAL
BACKED
KNIFE
SHAPED
VARIA
TOTAL
ITEMS
34
33
12
40
17
149
118
84
14
12
44
242
81
597
45
83
221
Near cahce
No. 1
Cache No. 2
Level 3
(around and
below caches)
203
203
25
20
66
17.71%
17.71%
2.18%
1.75%
5.76%
Total
CHUNK
358
13
2
13
516
105
1146
0.61%
45.03%
9.16%
0.09%
100.00%
14
Figure 4. Sq. G-24 Lithic assemblage (including surface collection and excavation).
than the second one, they might belong to the same stratigraphic horizon, above the bedrock and below the stone
heap. 13 items were found here as well, while the sediment
around was sterile. The 13 items were piled one on top
of the other representing a specific concentration (Figure 7). Cache No. 2 includes three cortical flakes (88-420g
in weight), three flakes (90-280g), two large flake cores
(780 and 1420g); one tested nodule (532g), one roughout
(568g), one Levallois core (240g); one Naturally Backed
Knife and one unclassifiable chunk of knapped flint. Very
few flint items were found as the excavation proceeded
to bedrock after the removal of the caches. Theses finds
appear as Level 3 in Figure 4.
Both caches are very similar to each other and do not seem
to represent a concentration resulting from knapping that
took place at the spot since they were composed of only
large items. It appears that the artifacts included in the
caches were mostly selected according to their size and
other specific properties such as production techniques
or special significance (in the case of Levallois cores and
the handaxe). It is clear that the artifacts in the two caches
do not represent a single reduction sequence since all the
waste material and by-products involved in their produc-
The second cache (No. 2) was found 20cm lower, but not
directly underneath cache No. 1, located slightly to the east
of the first cache, in the northeastern corner of sq. G-24 on
a some 30x50cm-large rock bench (Figure 5-7). Since the
natural slope of the bedrock below the heap inclines from
west to east, it appears that, although cache No. 1 is higher
R. BARKAI and A. GOPHER : TWO FLINT CACHES FROM A LOWER-MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC FLINT EXTRACTION...
Figure 5. Cache No. 2 in Sq. G-24. The large flake at the top of the cache as apeared at the beginning of the exposure of this cache. The flake is marked
by circle and an arrow.
covered by the large stone block and thus protected during the subsequent formation process of stone heap PW3
above them.
In summary, we present the sequence of events that led, in
our opinion, to the formation of this special archaeological
context:
Stage 1: An extraction front for flint quarrying was established at the specific location labeled as square G24 in
our excavation grid. The extraction front was most probably much larger than that seen in the 4 square meters unit
excavated by us at random.
Stage 2: Flint nodules had been extracted from this extraction front until it became exhausted. The flint nodules were
most probably not reduced on top of the extraction front
since no flaking waste material was left at that place.
The caches are composed of relatively large flint items (Figures 6-7) and the first cache was completely covered by a
massive limestone block. The second cache was deposited
on top of the exhausted limestone outcrop (Figure 8) and
thus both caches are directly related to massive limestone
blocks, either from bottom or top. Both caches were sealed between the limestone bedrock underlying cache No. 2
and the limestone block covering cache No. 1. We suggest
that these two caches were intentionally placed on top of
the exhausted extraction front prior to the formation of the
heap using waste material of the extraction process and
products of the flint knapping process. The caches were
Stage 3: The extracted flint nodules were reduced elsewhere and specific flint items were taken from the knapping
location and brought to the exhausted extraction front.
It is, of course, impossible to indicate whether the large
items placed on top of the exhausted extraction front were
actually produced from nodules previously extracted from
this specific front or from nodules originating in other localities. The question whether knapped flint items were
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
Figure 6. Cache No. 2 in Sq. G-24. The pile of large items located at the bottom of the excavation.
R. BARKAI and A. GOPHER : TWO FLINT CACHES FROM A LOWER-MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC FLINT EXTRACTION...
indicates a diachronic increase in caching from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic or rather reflects research intensity,
scale of excavation or just random discoveries requires
further fieldwork and analyses.
The only other case known to us of a flint cache from a
Lower Paleolithic context in Israel was found during
Garrods excavation at Tabun Cave some 80 years ago. In
layer E at Tabun, 29 handaxes were cached near the cave
entrance by the caves wall (Garrod and Bate 1937). Unfortunately, neither detailed description nor photographs
or drawings are available.
We are not familiar with any published studies of Lower
Paleolithic stone caches in Europe, although the recent discovery from Sima de los Huesos in Spain might be relevant to our discussion. A finely flaked red quartzite handaxe was found in association with hominin remains, and the
researchers suggest that both the handaxe and the human
accumulation have symbolic significance (Carbonell and
Mosquera 2006). Notwithstanding the fact that this is an
isolated artifact and not a concentration, its special context
might indicate a special-purpose deposition. Considering
that a single handaxe was included in one of the caches
described in this paper, this case of caching behavior that
cannot be ignored when discussing Lower Paleolithic caching behavior from Mt. Pua.
As for the Early Stone Age of Africa, a stone cache strategy has been suggested by Isaac (e.g. 1978) and Potts
(1984; 1988). They claim that early Hominins employed
strategic planning in their technological organization, anticipating future need of stone tools for carcass processing
and transported raw materials or tools to specific locations
for future use. While such behavior is indeed possible and
the claim that artifacts were moved from place to place is
not disputed, as far as we have understood, stone caches
have not yet been discovered and the stone cache strategy
is not backed by archaeological data.
coming back and use the items but for some reasons did
not. Potts (1994) for example suggested that already in
the very early stages of tool making early hominids used
caching as a strategy of secondary raw material storage
in areas poor in raw material but important in their routes
as hunter-gatherers. This means that raw material and/or
tools storages are expected to be found at sites where certain scheduled activities such as seasonal hunting or movement of game herds took place. Caching in extraction
sites or next to them is interpreted through the functional prism as the caching of a surplus to be collected and
used in the future. Ethnographic studies further support
this idea. Alyawara of Australia left extracted stone in the
extraction site for future use when too much raw material
was extracted, or the amount to be carried in one trip was
excessive (Binford and OConnel 1984). Another study of
Australian aborigines demonstrated that after extraction
and reduction, the unused blades were bundled together
and buried at the quarry in caches to be recovered at a
later date, but usually they were simply left on the surface
at the place of production (Patton 1994). Most studies of
Neolithic and later stone caches from Europe and North
America mostly follow this line of argument, focusing on
caching for future use as a reaction to unexpected danger,
storage of surplus items or a way to retain the freshness of
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
be made between deposits which could be rather easily recovered, as hoards buried near or inside the settlements,
and contexts where recovery of hoards would have been
either difficult or impossible (Bradley 1987, 351).
As for the interpretation of the two caches found in the extraction and workshop complex of Mt. Pua, we would like
to begin by emphasizing the claim that distinction should
Figure 8. The location of the two caches on top of the exhausted extraction front (marked by circles) at the bottom of Sq. G-24.
R. BARKAI and A. GOPHER : TWO FLINT CACHES FROM A LOWER-MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC FLINT EXTRACTION...
logical procedures conducted by Lower and Middle Paleolithic flint knappers in the region and some scholars have
suggested that, on top of their functional properties, such
significant objects must have had special social meaning
(e.g. Kohn amd Mithen 1999; White and Ashton 2003).
The two Levallois cores deposited in the Mt. Pua caches
were shaped and reduced elsewhere. The Levallois blanks
produced from these cores were not cached and the two
cores are the only clear manifestation of this specific technology in the caches. So in the case of the Levallois cores,
only the unusable remains of the Levallois technology, the
exploited cores were deposited in the caches. It is hard to
say whether the two Levallois cores were used to exhaustion. It is however clear that the continued production of
Levallois blanks from these cores would have required an
investment in reshaping the cores according to the Levallois concept. One might be bold enough to suggest that
the two exhausted Levallois cores were deposited on top of
the exhausted extraction front from which the raw material
used for their production was extracted. As for the handaxe
found in cache No. 1, it appears indeed to be a roughout
discarded in a very early stage of production. This biface
was shaped on a nodule using few bifacial blows, so in
terms of their place within the lithic production sequence,
the Levallois cores and the handaxe present two extremes
the beginning and the end of the knapping process. A detailed description of the rest of the items found in the caches
is beyond the scope of this paper, since there is not enough
space for illustrating each item. We hope to provide a description of all artifacts in the caches elsewhere. By way
of generalizing, we would say that the rest of the components of the two caches are not different than the rest of the
finds collected on the surface and in the excavation of heap
PW3. The only clearly distinguishing feature of the items
in the caches is their size, but a more detailed study of the
artifacts might reveal other significant characteristics.
Cooney, G. 1998. Breaking stone, making places: The social landscape of axe production sites, in A. Gibson and D.
Simpson (eds.), Prehistoric Ritual and Religion, 108-118.
Phoenix Mill, Stroud, Gloucestershire, Sutton Publishing.
This case represents one of the earliest manifestations of caching behavior conducted for symbolic or ritual purposes.
Since such behaviors are not commonly reflected in the archaeological record of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic periods, this is a rare opportunity to study aspects of behavior,
decision making and world views of such early hominins.
Hamon, C. and Quilliec, B. 2008. Hoards from the Neolithic to the Metal Ages. Oxford, Oxford Archaeopress,
British Archaeological Reports Intrnational Series 1758.
Hurst, S. 2007. An analysis of caching behavior. Lithic Technology 31, 101-126.
Isaac, G. 1978. The food-sharing behavior of protohuman
hominids. Scientific American 238 (4), 90-108.
REFERENCES
Barkai, R., Gopher, A. and La Porta, P. C. 2002. Paleolithic
landscape of extraction: flint surface quarries and workshops at Mt. Pua, Israel. Antiquty 76, 672-680.
Jones, R. and White, N. 1988. Point blank: Stone tool manufacture at the Ngilipitji quarry, Arnhem Land, 1981, in
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
B. Meehan and R. Jones (eds.), Archaeology with Ethnography: An Australian Perspective, 51-87. Dept. of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian
National University.
Kobayashi, T. (ed.) 2004. Recent Paleolithic Studies in Japan. Proceedings for Tainted Evidence and Restoration of
Confidence in the Pleistocene Archaeology of the Japanese
Archipelgo. Tokyo, The Japan Archaeological Association.
Kohn, M. and Mithen, S. 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73, 518-526.
Lintz, C. and Dockall, J. 2002. The Spreen cache: A study of a prehistoric curated collection of broken tools from
41RN108, Runnels County, Texas. Lithic Technology 27,
13-37.
Normile, D. 2002. Japanese fraud highlights media-driven
research ethic. Science 292, 34.
Patton, R. 1994. Speaking through atones: A study from
northern Australia. World Archaeology 26, 172-184.
Potts, R. 1984. Home bases and early hominids. American
Scientist 72, 338-347.
Potts, R. 1988. Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai. New
York, Aldine de Gruyter.
Rudebeck, E. 1998. Flint extraction, axe offering and the
value of cortex, in M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds.),
Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe,
312-327. Glasgow, Cruithne Press.
Taon, P. 1991. The Power of Stone: Symbolic Aspects
of Stone Use and Tool Development in Western Arnhem
Land, Australia. Antiquity 65, 192-207.
White, M. and Ashton, N. 2003. Lower Palaeolithic core
technology and the origins of the Levallois Method in North-Western Europe. Current Anthropology 44, 598-609.
10