Sharon & Goren Inbar 99 Soft Hammer at GBY

Soft Percussor Use at the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov Acheulian Site?

ABSTRACTThis study presents an attempt to distinguish between flakes experimentally producedby soft and hard percussors through a morphotechnological analysis. An identicalanalysis was also carried out on an archaeological assemblage of flint flakes originatingfrom an Acheulian horizon at the site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. Throughcomparison of the experimental and archaeological assemblages we attempted todetermine the kind of percussor used at the site.

The article describes the problems encountered while quantifying the morphologicalqualities of the flakes and the difficulties in using experimental data to analyzearchaeological assemblages.

The results demonstrate that the archaeological assemblage is indeed derived from biface modification. The preliminary quantitative analysis, though applied to asmall sample, gives some indications for the possible use of soft percussors in theprocess of knapping flint bifaces in Gesher Benot Ya’aqov as early as 780,000 yearsago.

INTRODUCTIONDuring the past 10 years of research at the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqovattention was primarily focused on the basalt – dominated material recovered from theexcavation (Goren-Inbar et al. 1992; Goren-Inbar and Saragusti 1996). Recent erosionalong the Jordan River exposed deposits rich in flint artifacts, including several itemswhich were classified as éclat de taille de biface. This development led to the

Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 28 (1999), 55-79

55

GONEN SHARON NAAMA GOREN-INBAR

Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University,

Jerusalem 91905

excavation of a limited area on the Jordan River bank during the 1995-6 field seasons,which yielded additional flint dominated assemblages.

This preliminary article presents a technology-oriented study of the flint componentof these assemblages, with an emphasis on the issue of the type of percussor used inbiface production.

Somewhat surprisingly, in light of the vast temporal and geographical spread of theAcheulian Technocomplex and the richness of its occurrences, there has been relativelylittle discussion of the technological aspects of the manufacture of its most impressivetool type – the bifaces. Whatever attention the subject did receive was focused primarilyon the bifaces themselves and not on their by-products, probably due to the fact thatmany of the studied assemblages did not originate in well-controlled modernexcavations and thus were poor in flakes. Technological identification was usually of aqualitative nature, relying mostly on subjective evaluation instead of measurableattributes (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1975; Gilead 1970; Hours 1975; Hours et al. 1973).

Earlier (Abbevillian) biface forms have usually been associated with the applicationof the hard (i.e., stone) percussor technique, which was considered to result in itemsfeaturing few deep scars and S like sections, while other forms were assumed to havebeen produced in the soft percussor technique. Evidence to the use of the latter wasviewed as a mark distinguishing Middle Acheulian (Acheuléen moyen primitif)assemblages from Lower Acheulian ones (Bordes 1947, 1984: 24, for Cagnyla-Garenne, but note that Bordes suggests there [ibid: 56] that the soft percussortechnique was first introduced as early as during the Early Acheulian). Theseobservations have been restricted to fine grained raw materials and primarily to flint.

It has been assumed that the identifying marks of the soft percussor technique werediscernible both on bifaces (handaxes and cleavers) and on their by-products (flakes).Bifaces modified by this technique were usually viewed as typically refined, bearingmany regular flat scars resulting in smooth, symmetrical and biconvex faces which formlenticular cross-sections (Bordes 1984: 32; Newcomer 1971).

The soft percussor technique was described, however scantily, from observations ofboth authentic prehistoric items as well as experimentally-produced ones. Despite thefact that the éclat de taille de biface – the by-products of the advanced stages of bifacemodification – appear quite frequently in Acheulian assemblages, only few studiesexamine them in detail. Studies of Acheulian assemblages, from the Near East as wellas from Europe, mention only briefly the differences between the two productionmodes. For example, regarding the Middle Acheulian assemblage of Latamne, Syria,Clark (1967: 45) observes that: "On a few only of the better made handaxes are therethinner, longer and more sinuous flake scars such as result from the cylinder (or soft)

56 SHARON AND GOREN-INBAR

SOFT PERCUSSOR USE AT THE GESHER BENOT YA'AQOV ACHEULIAN SITE? 57

hammer technique". In a later report (Clark 1968) he describes most of the debitage anddebris from that site as having been produced with a hard percussor. At the site ofMa'ayan Barukh, where some 200 flakes have been classified as éclat de taille de biface(Stekelis and Gilead 1967), the question of the type of percussor with which thethousands of bifaces were made has not been addressed, nor was it raised with regardto the material from the prominent Acheulian cave sites in Israel (Garrod and Bate1937; Neuville 1951).

The notion that the soft percussor technique appeared in Europe sometime duringthe transition from the Lower to the Middle Acheulian has been generally accepted tohold for the Levant as well (Bar-Yosef 1975: 592). The technique is usually referred toonly briefly in reports of Late Acheulian Levantine assemblages, sometimes with onedescription or another of its presumed traits (i.e., Copeland 1995: 175). The samebriefness is typical also of reports of Acheulian sites outside the Levant (Roche andTexier 1991; Santonja and Villa 1990).

In reports of European Acheulian assemblages which include éclat de taille debiface, these are merely regarded as products of the soft percussor technique and theirtypical traits are either cursorily described (Roe 1981: 74) or not at all (i.e. Tuffreau etal. 1995). Thus, the bifaces from the Acheulian site of High Lodge, England are brieflyreported to have been made with a soft percussor (Ashton 1988) and the authoremphasizes that this observation was not based on the flakes, which have not beenfound diagnostic. By contrast, in the article reporting the assemblages from Boxgrove,England, the mode of manufacture is thoroughly dealt with: "Several groups of flakescome from an advanced stage of biface manufacture (e.g. thinning flakes). These flakeshave no cortex, are curved in profile and often display removals from the other edge ofthe biface. Some have small butts with diffuse bulbs and lips on the ventral surface, andwere undoubtedly detached with a soft hammer" (Bergman et al. 1990). Similartechnological observations were reported also with regard to the assemblages from thesite of Hoxne, England (Wymer and Singer 1993: 102-106).

Naturally, the attempt to distinguish between flakes according to the type ofpercussor with which they have been detached is rather more problematic than isimplied in the quotations mentioned above. The éclat de taille de biface, however, wasidentified as a product of biface manufacture, presumably resulting from the applicationof the soft percussor technique. It continued to be regarded as a 'guide fossil' of handaxeproduction ever since, though the question of the type of percussor involved in itsproduction remained unresolved.

It is largely due to the introduction of the experimental approach to modern prehistoricresearch that attention has been drawn to many of the difficulties involved in the

attempt to characterize flakes produced in the soft percussor technique. F. Bordes,one of the founders of experimental prehistory, defined the differences betweenhandaxes manufactured with a hard percussor and those produced with a soft percussor (Bordes 1947, 1984). In his pursuit for better technological understanding and characterization, he also distinguished between Levallois flakes and éclat de taillede biface: "In the case of the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition, special care must be taken not to mistake the thin flakes obtained in making handaxes for true Levallois flakes. Both show well-prepared upper surfaces (in the handaxe flakes, this comes from preceding work on the tool), but the characteristics of the butts of the flakes are different. Levallois flakes show a normal butt, and most of them being struck out with hard hammer, they have well developed conchoidal waves.Handaxe flakes, on the other hand, are generally struck out with a soft hammer (wood,antler, or bone) and so show an extremely distinct butt, very narrow, with a kind ofoverhang over the ventral face (Figure. 26) and a very diffused bulb" (Bordes 1972:80-81, 1947: figure. 7).

Experiments conducted by Newcomer (1971) established a basis for the definitionof the different stages of flint handaxe production, and his terminology is widelyemployed by technology analysts to this day. Newcomer distinguishes between threestages of handaxe production: roughing out, thinning and shaping and finally –finishing (ibid.). In his experiments, hard percussors were used for the first stage andvarious types of soft percussors for the two latter ones. A study of the by-products wascarried out, in which the characteristics of the flakes originating from each phase wereobserved. The attributes examined for the 'soft percussor flakes' were: size, strikingplatform type, the presence of a lip (between the ventral face and the striking platform),the nature of the conchoidal waves, the pattern of flake scars on the dorsal face and thecharacteristics of the bulb of percussion.

Another series of experiments by Ohnuma and Bergman (1982), based onNewcomer's (1971) results, again aimed to differentiate between flakes produced witheither of the two percussor types. These experiments demonstrated that flakes producedin the soft percussor technique had the following characteristics: lipped strikingplatforms, diffused bulbs of percussion (i.e. a flat bulbar area) and vague points ofpercussion (ibid: 169). On the basis of these experiments Ohnuma and Bergmandistinguished between two types of percussors: those harder than or as hard as theworked material and those which are softer. This classification also implied thepossibility to distinguish between different flake populations. They further suggestedthat occasionally, the use of certain stone percussors could result in products similar tothose obtained through the use of soft percussors (made of antler, bone or wood). Thisobservation was in agreement with Crabtree's (1967) experimental demonstration that


intensive working with a hard percussor could result in products similar in properties tothose of a soft percussor.

A somewhat different approach to this issue was taken by Wenban-Smith (1989)who examined experimentally-produced flakes with regard to a series of technologicalattributes, of which five (lipped striking platform, cone, point of percussion, and theratios of surface area-to-thickness and flake length-to-platform length) wereconsequently identified as best differentiating between the percussor types examined inhis experiments. These attributes were then used in examinations of flakesexperimentally-produced with either of the two percussor types. Complex statisticalanalyses of the obtained data showed that it was possible to distinguish between flakesaccording to the type of percussor used in producing them and that such adifferentiation was possible even between the products of soft percussors made of stone(i.e., cortical pebble) and those of antler or bone percussors.

Bradley and Sampson (1986) rejected the very terminology distinguishing betweensoft and hard percussors, suggesting instead a distinction between the 'marginal' and'non-marginal' modes of knapping. In the marginal mode the percussor is aimed directlyat the edge of the biface, the resulting blow thus producing flakes of the typetraditionally attributed to the use of a soft percussor. In the non-marginal mode thepercussor's point of impact is further away from the biface's working edge, with theresulting blow producing flakes characterized by the plain lipless striking platforms,traditionally associated with the hard percussor technique.

In summary, flakes resulting from biface manufacture with a soft percussor have beenvariously characterized by the following traits: small, punctiform, lipped or shatteredstriking platforms; absent or diffused points of percussion (cone); diffused bulbs ofpercussion or curved profiles. Other observations concern other types of strikingplatforms, conchoidal waves, pattern and number of scars (Wymer and Singer 1993),ridges on the dorsal face and various size attributes. Of all these, the criteria which arerepeatedly regarded as indicative of the use of a soft percussor are the following:1) Diffused bulbs of percussion 2) Lipped striking platforms3) Faceted and crushed or abraded striking platforms4) Flake thinness

OBJECTIVES OF STUDYThe material from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (henceforth GBY,Figure 1) is a unique example of the use of a sophisticated and complex lithic



Figure 1: Location map of the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov Acheulian site.

technology. The exceptionally large number of bifaces retrieved from undisturbedhorizons in the site offers an opportunity to study various aspects of the technology ofbiface production (Brande and Saragusti 1996; Goren-Inbar 1995; Goren-Inbar andSaragusti 1996; Goren-Inbar et al. 1994). Clearly, the issue of the types of percussorsemployed for the task is of considerable interest. However, apart from a minimalnumber of flint and limestone handaxes, the bifacial tools recovered until a few yearsago from the site have all been made on basalt (Stekelis 1960; Gilead 1970;Goren-Inbar et al. 1991). This posed various difficulties to any attempt to investigatethe percussor-type question.

During the 1995/6 field seasons an effort was made to rescue the remnants of anAcheulian occupation horizon (Layer V-5/6) which was continuously being eroded bythe river flow. An area of some 12 m2 (henceforth refered to as JRB) was excavated,

yielding hundreds of stone artifacts and fossil bones (Figure 2). Despite the smallnessof the exposed surface and the fact that only a single flint handaxe was found in it, anabundance of very thin flint flakes was retrieved, covered by many shallow scars ontheir dorsal faces and similar in properties to the "thinning and shaping" and "finishing"


Figure 2: Location of excavated area of Jordan River Bank and Area C.

TR

EN

CH

IV

TRENCH II

268230

209120268220

268180

209140

TRENCH I

Jordan R.

0 5 10 m

268235

268190

Area B

Area A

Area C

209130

TRENCH VI

TR. V


flakes in Newcomer's (1971) description, elsewhere termed 'type IV flakes' (Bradleyand Sampson 1986). These unusually fresh flint flakes, the likes of which have neverbeen found in any other Acheulian horizon at the site, finally offered a chance toinvestigate the percussor-type issue. It was decided to compare them to anotherassemblage of experimentally-produced flakes, in order to test the hypothesis that theywere the by-products from the use of a soft percussor.

MATERIAL AND METHODIn order to test the above hypothesis, the following procedures were carried out:a) An experimentally manufactured assemblage was formed, comprising three flint

handaxes and the flakes resulting from their manufacture. The bifaces were made(by D. Ben-Ami) on three different flint nodules and by means of differentpercussors (see Table 1).

b) Both flake assemblages, the experimental one as well as the authentic archaeologicalone, were analyzed in detail with regard to a list of specific attributes.

c) A randomly selected flake sample from another archaeological horizon in the site(Layer II-6 level 1) was similarly analyzed. (The attribute pertaining to the presenceof a lipped striking platform was originally not examined for this specific level butrather on a random sample (N=100) extracted from this entire flake assemblage.

d) All three data sets underwent attribute analysis, the results of which are presentedand discussed below.

Table 1 presents the different flake groups comprising the experimental assemblage.

Table 1: Distribution of flakes, according to the type of percussor used in bifaceproduction.

HANDAXE NO. PERCUSSOR TYPE TOTAL NO. PERCUSSOR TYPE (FOR ' TOTAL NO.

(FOR 'ROUGHING OUT') OF FLAKES THINNING AND SHAPING') OF FLAKES

2 stone 92 antler 142

4 antler antler 675

6 *stone 186

* produced solely with a basalt percussor, as opposed to nos. 2 and 4, made with several different percussors

Handaxes nos. 2, 4 and 6 were manufactured so as to respectively represent threepossible production modes: the combined use of a soft percussor (for the 'thinning and

shaping' and 'finishing' stages; see Newcomer 1971) and a hard one, and the use of either a soft percussor or a hard percussor throughout the entire course of production.A sample of 100 complete flakes produced with a soft percussor (excluding all 'roughing out' flakes) was selected from the by-products of each handaxe forattribute analysis (handaxe no. 2 produced only 75 complete flakes and for handaxe no.4 a sample of 100 complete flakes was drawn from all production stages). Each of thetwo flake samples resulting from the use of a soft percussor, was analyzed separately.The flake groups are henceforth termed after the handaxe with which they areassociated.

The archaeological material: Sample sizes for the JRB and the Layer II-6 level 1(henceforth II-6 l 1) assemblages, were 113 and 99 flakes respectively.

The flakes were analyzed as to both quantitative and qualitative attributes. Theformer included: length, maximum length, width and thickness, angle between thestriking platform and the ventral face, length and thickness of the striking platform, andnumber of scars observed on the dorsal face. The qualitative attributes included:direction of blow, scar pattern on the dorsal face, type of striking platform, presence oflipped striking platform and bulb characteristics (Goren-Inbar 1990 and referencestherein). For the JRB assemblage and the experimental one, the analysis included alsoan observation regarding the presence of a 'step'-like structure at the proximal anddorsal part of the flake, adjacent to the striking platform.

RESULTSThe following results, derived from the data obtained through the analyses, seem to beindicative of certain inter-sample differences regarding certain attributes. Thesedifferences between the experimentally-produced flakes and the authenticarchaeological ones are discussed further below, with regard to the possibility that theymay reflect corresponding differences in production techniques.

striking platform typesTable 2 presents the distribution of striking platform types in the different samples. TheJRB samples (note the small sample size of the éclat de taille de biface) arecharacterized by a dominance of faceted striking platforms and platform-less ('missing')items as well as by a high proportion of the 'plain' type. The II-6 l 1 assemblage deviatesfrom the above in its extremely low proportion of items with faceted striking platforms.The high frequency of items with 'removed' striking platforms (i.e., striking platformswhich were thoroughly damaged by additional flaking) within the II-6 l 1 material may


be ascribed to the fact that the typological composition of this assemblage is morevaried than that of the JRB assemblage.

The experimental samples are characterized by a dominance of 'crushed' platformsand by high frequencies of 'faceted' striking platforms.

The differences between the archaeological samples and the experimental onesresult partially from the fact that the latter included only complete items. When thearchaeological data presented in Table 2 is modified so as to exclude 'missing' and'removed' striking platforms, the proportion of 'faceted' platforms rises to over 39% forthe JRB sample and to 48% for the éclat de taille de biface in this sample. The II-6 l 1sample is thus markedly different from both the JRB sample and the experimentalflakes produced with both types of percussors.

Table 2: Distribution of striking platform types in the different flake samples

JRB JRB II-6 l 1 Handaxe 2 Handaxe 4 Handaxe 6éclat de taille de biface

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

Indeter. 13 10.15 2 5.12 9 8.10

cortical 3 2.34 1 2.56 7 6.30 2 2.00 3 3.03

punctiform 4 3.12 1 2.56 4 3.60 9 12.33 9 9.00 11 11.11

plain 26 20.31 6 15.38 36 32.43 4 5.48 13 13.00 22 22.22

faceted 35 27.33 12 30.76 6 5.40 22 30.14 27 27.00 36 36.36

removed 7 5.46 3 7.69 16 14.41

missing 33 25.78 13 33.33 33 29.73

crushed 7 5.46 1 2.56 38 52.05 49 49.00 27 27.27

Total 128 100.00 39 100.00 111 99.97 73 100.00 100 100.00 99 99.99

lipped striking platformsTable 3 (see also Figures 3-5, 6) presents the results concerning the presence of a lippedstriking platform. The use of a soft percussor seems to result in higher frequencies ofthis type of platform, as can be seen from the experimental data. Interestingly, the JRBsample shows a much higher frequency of lipped platforms than the experimentalmaterial, with the éclat de taille de biface within that sample showing the highestfrequency of this attribute. Within the archaeological material the II-6 l 1 sampleexhibits the lowest values for this attribute. The difference between the JRB sample andthe other flake groups is further emphasized when the flakes for which this attribute was



Figure 3: Flint flakes resulting from biface modification (nos. 1-6, éclat de taille debiface; 7-8, thinning and shaping flakes).


Figure 4: Flint flakes resulting from biface modification (nos. 1-5, 7-8, éclat de taillede biface; 6, thinning and shaping flake).


Figure 5: Flint flakes resulting from biface modification (nos. 1-4, 6, éclat de taille debiface; 5, 7, thinning and shaping flakes).


15%

2%

83%

Ben-Ami 6 (n=98)

20%

34%

46%

JRB (n=83)

4%

37%

59%

JRB éclat de taille de biface(n=27)

44%

18%

38%

Ben-Ami 2 (n=65)

29%

10%

61%

Ben-Ami 4 (n=68)

30%

7%

63%

II-6l 1 (n=99)

Figure 6: Frequency distribution of the "lipped" attribute.

found indeterminate (i.e. those falling in the "lipped?" category) are also taken intoaccount.

Two additional observations are of interest: The first pertains to the location of the'lip' between the flake's ventral face and its striking platform, an extremely fragile areamost susceptible to wear by post depositional processes. It is only due to the outstandingfreshness of the JRB sample (in which 74% of the flakes were fresh) that this attributecould be easily observed. The second observation concerns the fact that in many of theexperimentally produced flakes a bulb scar – infrequently a large one – was observed,occasionally damaging the striking platform and especially the area where the 'lipped'surfaces would have been found. It should be noted that the 'lipped' attribute is far frombeing a decisive criterion: the number of unequivocally 'lipped' platforms is rather smalland, as mentioned above, 'lips' could result from the use of a stone percussor as well.Factors such as type of flint and/or craftsman-related variables could play a role in thefrequency of the lipped artifacts.

Despite their varied mode of distribution, which permits no clear-cut conclusion asto the type of percussor used in handaxe production, the distinctly higher frequency of'lipped' striking platforms in the 'soft percussor flakes' indicates the possibility of asystematic relation between the two variables.

Table 3: Frequencies of lipped striking platforms in the different flake samples


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

Lipped 28 33.73 10 37.03 7 7.07 12 18.46 7 10.29 2 2.04

Not Lipped 38 45.78 16 59.25 62 62.63 25 38.46 41 60.29 81 82.65

Lipped ? 17 20.48 1 3.70 30 30.30 28 43.07 20 29.41 15 15.30

bulb of percussionOne of the attributes regarded as most indicative of the use of a soft percussor is thenature of the bulb of percussion (Bordes 1947, 1972; Newcomer 1971; Ohnuma andBergman 1982). The variability that all the samples showed, regarding this attribute,ruled out any attempt to present a classification and/or a meaningful quantification. Thedistinction between 'developed' and 'diffused' bulbs proved to be extremely subjectiveand at present it can only be said that flakes from the JRB tend to show a low bulbarprofile.


pattern of scars on the dorsal faceAnalyses of the scar patterns on the dorsal face of flakes showed no direct relationbetween specific patterns and particular techniques. This attribute shows a very highdegree of inter-sample variability, which apparently might be better explained in termsof the knapper's individual choices along the reduction process than in terms of thespecific technique employed.

number of scarsTable 4 presents the results of the analysis pertaining to the number of scars on thedorsal face of the flakes. The values for the JRB sample are intermediate between thosefor flakes experimentally produced with a soft percussor and those produced with a hardpercussor. The values obtained for the éclat de taille de biface are somewhat lower thanmight be expected (in comparison with the scar-counts of the experimentally-producedflakes), illustrating the complex nature of the data. The similarity between éclat de taillede biface items and the Handaxe 6 flakes with regard to this attribute is worth noting.

The results for the II-6 l 1 sample are far removed from those obtained for the otherflake groups, and are characterized on one hand by significantly smaller values and onthe other hand by a limited spread of the distribution. The highest value for this attributewas found for the Handaxe 2 sample. Again, such a diversity could just as well beascribed to individual factors affecting the knapping sequence as to differences inmanufacturing techniques.

Table 4: Number of scars on the dorsal face of flakes in the different samples


N 131 40 92 73 99 99

X 6.72 6.00 3.28 9.39 7.44 5.55

s.d. 4.16 2.81 2.00 5.16 4.61 3.72

s.e. .36 .44 .20 .60 .46 .37

min. 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00

max. 21.00 13.00 12.00 29.00 27.00 21.00

flake thinnessThe thinness of the JRB flakes, so marked in comparison to all the other flakeassemblages from the GBY site (except those from Area C, and see discussion below),


had already been noted during the excavation. The values for flake thickness and for theratio of maximum length-to-thickness, are presented in Tables 5 and 6 (see also Figures3-5, 7).

Table 5: Maximum thickness (in mm) of flakes in the different samples


N 137 44 117 73 100 99

X 7.07 6.57 9.98 4.30 3.62 6.08

s.d. 3.22 3.15 6.12 2.57 1.97 4.25

s. e. 0.27 .47 .56 0.30 0.19 0.43

Min. 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00

Max. 16.00 14.00 52.00 13.00 11.00 26.00

(all flakes included)

Table 6: Length-to-thickness ratio for flakes* in the different samples


N 71 20 68 73 100 99

X 4.89 4.58 2.68 10.60 10.25 6.07

s.d. 2.38 2.25 0.86 5.66 5.66 2.59

s.e. 0.28 0.50 0.10 0.66 0.57 0.26

Min. 1.15 1.5 1.20 1.77 1.83 1.00

Max. 13.00 15.00 5.00 30.00 41.00 13.00

* (length measured in complete items only)

Analyses of the thickness and the relative thickness of the experimental samples showthat despite the lack of pronounced differences between the by-products of a softpercussor (Flakes of handaxes 2 and 4) and a hard percussor (Flakes of handaxe 6) somesmall-scale differences do exist: the former tend to be thinner, with a smaller valuespread than the latter. It should be noted that among the thin flakes there is a higherfrequency of broken items (see values for 'missing' striking platforms, Table 2), a



0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% F

requ

ency

Thickness

JRB (N=135)

JRB éclat de taille de biface (N=40)

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% F

requ

ency

Thickness

Ben-Ami 2 (N=73)

Ben-Ami 4 (N=100)

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% F

requ

ency

Thickness

Ben-Ami 6 (N=99)

II-6 level 1 (N=114)

Figure 7: Frequency distribution of maximum thickness of flakes.

phenomenon well known from many studied assemblages. The JRB sample showsgreater similarity to the products of the hard percussor than to those of the softpercussor, in both the values and the spread characteristics. This tendency is even morepronounced than that observed in the hard percussor experimental flakes. The II-6 l 1sample shows values even more extreme than those of the JRB sample, and is thusfurther removed from the experimental samples.

width-to-thickness ratio for striking platformsTable 7 presents the width-to-thickness ratios for striking platforms of flakes in thedifferent samples. The values obtained for the JRB sample are smaller than those of theexperimental products of the soft and the hard percussors.

Table 7: Width-to-thickness ratios for striking platforms of flakes in the differentsamples*.

JRB JRB Handaxe 2 Handaxe 4 Handaxe 6éclat de taille de biface

N 35 1 23 92 60

X 2.87 - 4.80 3.91 3.87

s.d. 0.55 - 2.67 1.82 2.57

s.e. 0.09 - 0.56 0.19 0.33

Minimum 2.00 - 0.50 0.80 0.17

Maximum 5.00 - 13.00 10.00 13.00

* (No data for the II-6 l 1 sample are presently available).

In summary, it appears that the extent of some of the variability observed within theexperimental material is smaller than that characterizing the archaeological data. Theflakes in the JRB sample are typically thicker than those produced experimentally witha hard percussor. Furthermore, the values obtained for the II-6 l 1 sample are muchhigher than those for the JRB sample and thus not similar to any of the other twoexperimental samples. These results are in contrast with those obtained for the attributesof lipped striking platform and number of scars on the dorsal face. Possible explanationsfor these results are presented below.


DISCUSSIONThe renewed excavations at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov produced a distinctly different dataset from that of the previous excavations there. The retrieved material indicated acomplex mode of raw material exploitation, with a mixture of basalt, limestone and flintitems in every archaeological horizon. The overwhelming majority of the handaxes andcleavers were found to have been modified on basalt, with only a minimal number (lessthan 1%) which were made on flint or limestone (Brande and Saragusti 1996; Feibeln.d.; Goren-Inbar 1992, 1995; Goren-Inbar and Saragusti 1996; Goren-Inbar et al.1992). As most of the comparative studies involving experimentally-produced bifacesmade use of flint bifaces, their results are naturally of limited relevance to the GBYbiface assemblages. The question whether during the Middle Acheulian basalt bifaceshad indeed been modified with a soft percussor, remains therefore to be resolved byfuture research.

Unlike the other horizons which were rich in basalt bifaces, the stratigraphicallyyounger Layer V-5/6 (Feibel n.d.) yielded only a small number of basalt cleavers andno basalt handaxes. Indeed, while the extent of surface exposure of this layer wasminimal, the only handaxe found there was made of flint. The numerous flint flakesfound together with this single flint biface, are very likely the residuals of flint pebblesmodified into handaxes at that particular spot. The possibility that all these flakesoriginated from the manufacture of this single handaxe is ruled out by analyses showingmarked variability in flint types within this flake assemblage. The possibility that theintriguing composition of the JRB sample reflects merely the smallness of the exposedarea is ruled out by the presence, at the site, of concentrations of flint flakes and cores(as in Area C; Figure 2), of a very similar character and of the same position within thestratigraphical sequence. Worth noting is the presence in the JRB assemblage of basaltitems modified by the Kombewa method (so characteristic of lower stratigraphic unitsat the site, Area B: Layer II-6), which suggests that no major technological breakoccurred there, between the sedimentologically distinct and spatially separatedarchaeological occurrences

The attempt reported in this article, to draw a clear-cut distinction between theproducts of the soft percussor and the hard percussor techniques in the GBYassemblages, did not meet the expected results. The possible reasons for this outcomeare varied:1) The small flake assemblage from the JRB area, comprising only 70 complete items,

though by far one of the largest and most extensively described assemblages of itstype, was nevertheless significantly outnumbered by the experimentally-producedflakes. This size difference between the samples did not enable a more detailed andcomprehensive statistical analysis.


2) The archaeological assemblages from GBY (both that of II-6 l 1 and that of the JRB)comprise products of several diverse reduction processes, all of which had beenmanufactured and deposited on the same archaeological horizons. The wasteproducts from biface modification are thus mixed with those of other manufactureprocesses, as confirmed by the dispersed mode of the size distributions and theirstatistics.

3) Some of the criteria presumably differentiating between the products of the twopercussor types are of an altogether subjective nature. As a result, various attributestates of certain non-metrical attributes (such as the morphology of the bulb ofpercussion; see above) were sometimes very hard to identify.

4) There is a very small degree of co-variation between attributes which are supposedto be characteristic of bifaces produced by the soft-percussor technique.

5) Handaxe reduction is a complex process involving foresight, hierarchical planningand continuous decision-making throughout the course of production. Certainindividual knapper-related factors affect the process from its very initial stages ofraw material selection, strongly influencing each and every aspect of the knapper'saction (i.e., choices of angles, location and spacing of blow, order of removals etc.,all of which may well be affected also by cultural preferences). These factors arelikely to have had as much influence on the properties of the finished products as thespecific type of percussor used for the task. This is well illuminated by the diversityencountered in this very work, in the experimental material produced by a singleknapper. Nevertheless, the results of the multiple comparisons between thearchaeological and the experimental samples indicate the existence of several trends.It seems that the attributes of 'type of striking platform', 'lipped platform' andpossibly 'length-to-thickness ratio of the striking platform', might be instrumental indistinguishing between products of soft and hard percussors in future studies of theGBY material and similar assemblages. Indeed, the JRB sample is not altogether ofsimilar properties as the flake assemblage produced with a soft percussor (asidefrom the lipped striking platform), but it repetitively shows values which are closerto those of the soft percussor experimental products. Significantly contrasting theabove are the values obtained for the II-6 l 1 sample, which are widely removedfrom those of both the experimentally produced material and the JRB sample. It canthus be concluded that the II-6 l 1 assemblage comprises only a small number offlakes resulting from biface production and that it also indicates to a limited extentthe use of the soft percussor technique.

The various definitions of the different percussor types, discussed in the beginning ofthis article, have been found of limited value. For example, the classification of


percussors into those which are "...as hard as the material being flaked and those whichare softer" (Ohnuma and Bergman 1982: 169) is problematic at least in terms of thepresent study, as most stone percussors are probably softer than the modified flint. Thisis also true of the detailed, though not quite convincing discussion (Wenban-Smith1989) concerning the hardness of some soft stones as opposed to antler or bone.

Experiments have shown that similar flakes can be produced from diverse rawmaterials and through different techniques or percussor types. They have shown,moreover, that specific percussors could change their characteristics through intensiveuse (Crabtree 1967). Bradley and Sampson reached through a different analysis thesame conclusion, that: "...the terms 'hard-hammer technique' and 'soft-hammertechnique', used by Acheulian artifact analysts to differentiate retouch attributes, aredevoid of any meaning and should be abandoned. Scar patterns ascribed to both theseclaimed techniques can be reproduced at will by both stone hammer and antler billet"(Bradley and Sampson 1986: 43). Until a thorough, structurally complex experimentalstudy is conducted and larger quantities of in situ Acheulian material are available forthat purpose, the issue remains unresolved.

The differences between the JRB and the II-6 l 1 flake samples are evident to theobserver and yet, at present it is impossible to conclude whether they can be ascribed tothe use of different percussor types. Until additional research is initiated, perhaps thefollowing alternative should be considered: the JRB flakes are indicative only of thefact that they result from biface production, but the type of percussor employed inthe process remains unknown. It was demonstrated repeatedly, though seldompublished, that stone percussors can produce extremely fine, multi-scarred flakes(Bradley and Sampson 1986). If this is indeed the case, one is then encountered withanother problem: how can the flakes discussed here be distinguished from thoseresulting from the application of the Levallois technique? It is argued in variouspublications that flakes resulting from the 'roughing out' stage of biface modificationmight be quite similar to Levallois flakes (Bradley and Sampson 1986). Some opinionsare even as extreme as to consider all the 'Levalloisian' components of the LateAcheulian assemblages as biface waste products (Copeland 1995: 178). Suffice it tonote here that the JRB flakes differ from the Levallois ones with respect to theirthinness, their mean number of scars, the nature of their striking platforms etc., but mostclearly in the characteristics of the scars on their dorsal face: flakes originating in bifaceproduction typically show very shallow scars whereas Levalloisian flakes bear deeperscars, with pronounced ridges. Further elaboration of this technological issue awaitsfurther analyses of appropriate sample sizes (from the 1997 excavations in Area C).

We have attempted here to present unique quantitative data and to come to some


conclusions as to the type of percussor which might have produced the Acheulian flakeassemblage of the JBR, Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. The following remark is appropriate tothis study and to others which may be initiated in the future: "As a sobering reminderto archaeologists, however, the theoretical and experimental results ... indicate that therelationships are exceedingly complex, multivariate, and nonlinear" (Speth 1977: 35).

The fascination of archaeology is expressed time and again in the unpredictability ofthe recovered artifacts. It is such enlightening finds as the antler and bone percussorswith small embedded flint fragments from Boxgrove (Pitts and Roberts 1997), whichsometimes yield indisputable answers to questions as those discussed in this article.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSField work of this study was supported by the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, IreneLevi-Sala Care Archaeological Foundation and National Geographic Society.Laboratory analysis was supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by theIsrael Academy of Sciences and Humanities and by the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.We wish to thank D. Ben-Ami for producing the experimental handaxes and flakes, J.Moskovitch for artifact drawings, G. Hivroni for computer graphics, I. Sharon and B.Madsen for their advice and Y. Cohen for the editorial work.

REFERENCESAshton N.M. 1988. Tranchet axe manufacture from Cliffe, Kent. Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society 54:315-320. Bar-Yosef O. 1975. Archaeological occurrences in the Middle Pleistocene of Israel. In Butzer K.W.

and Isaac G.L. (eds.): After the Australopithecines: Stratigraphy, Ecology and Culture Change inthe Middle Pleistocene, pp. 571-604. Chicago: Aldine.

Bergman C.A., Barlow P., Collcutt S. and Roberts M.B. 1990. Refitting and Spatial analysis ofartefacts from Quarry 2 at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulean site of Boxgrove, West Sussex,England. In Cziesla E., Eickhoff S., Arts N. and Winter D. (eds.): The Big Puzzle, internationalsymposium of refitting stone artefacts, pp. 265-281. Bonn: Holos.

Bordes F. 1947. Etude comparative des différentes techniques de taille du silex et des roches dures.L’Anthropologie 51:1-29.

Bordes F. 1972. A tale of two caves. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Bordes F. 1984. Le paléolithique en Europe. Paris: CNRS.Bradley B. and Sampson C.G. 1986. Analysis by replication of two Acheulian artefact assemblages.

In Bailey G.N. and Callow P. (eds.): Stone age prehistory, pp. 29-45. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brande S. and Saragusti I. 1996. A Morphometric Model and Landmark Analysis of Acheulianhandaxes from Northern Israel. In Marcus L.F., Corti M., Loy A., Naylor G.J.P. and Slice D.E.(eds.): Advances in Morphometrics, pp. 423-435. New York: Plenum Press.

Clark D.J. 1967. The Middle Acheulian occupation site at Latamne, Northern Syria. Quaternaria9:1-68.


Clark D.J. 1968. Further excavations (1965) at the Middle Acheulian occupation site at Latamne.Quaternaria 10:1-76.

Copeland L. 1995. Are Levallois flakes in the Acheulean the results of biface preparation? In DibbleH.L. and Bar-Yosef O. (eds.): The definition and interpretation of Levallois technology, pp.171-183. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Crabtree D.E. 1967. Tools used for making flaked stone artefacts: notes and experiments in flintknapping. Tabiwa 10/1:60-73.

Feibel C.S. n.d. Report on field work at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel, 1996. PaleoenvironmentalResearch Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University.

Garrod D.A.E. and Bate D.M. 1937. The stone age of Mount Carmel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Gilead D. 1970. Handaxe industries in Israel and the Near East. World Archaeology 2:1-11. Goren-Inbar N. 1990. Quneitra – a Mousterian site on the Golan Heights (Qedem 31). Jerusalem: The

Hebrew University, Institute of Archaeology.Goren-Inbar N. 1992. The Acheulian Site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov – an Asian or an African entity?

In Akazaua T., Aoki K and Kimura T. (eds.): The evolution and dispersal of modern humans inAsia, pp. 67-82. Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha.

Goren-Inbar N. 1995. The Lower Palaeolithic of Israel. In Levy T.E. (ed.): The archaeology of societyin the Holy Land, pp. 93-109. London: Leicester University Press.

Goren-Inbar N., Belitzky S., Goren Y., Rabinovitch R. and Saragusti I. 1991. Gesher Benot Ya’aqov– the “bar”: an Acheulian assemblage. Geoarchaeology 7/1:27-40.

Goren-Inbar N., Belitzky S., Verosub K., Werker E., Kislev M., Rosenfeld A., Heimann A. and CarmiI. 1992. New discoveries at the Middle Pleistocene Gesher Benot Ya’aqov Acheulian site.Quaternary Research 38:117-128.

Goren-Inbar N., Lister A., Werker E. and Chech M. 1994. A butchered elephant skull and associatedartifacts from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. Paléorient 20/1:99-112.

Goren-Inbar N. and Saragusti I. 1996. An Acheulian biface assemblage from the site of Gesher BenotYa’aqov, Israel: indications of African affinities. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:15-30.

Goren-Inbar N., Zohar I. and Ben-Ami D. 1991. A new look at old cleavers – Gesher Benot Ya’aqov.Mitekufat Haeven 24:7-33.

Hours F. 1975. The Lower Paleolithic of Lebanon and Syria. In Wendorf F. and Marks A.E. (eds.):Problems in prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, pp. 249-271. Dallas: Southern MethodistUniversity.

Hours F., Copeland L. and Aurenche O. 1973. Les industries paléolithiques du Proche Orient: essai decorrelations. L’Anthropologie 77/3-4; 5-6:229-280; 437-496.

Neuville R. 1951. Le Paléolithique et Mésolithique du désert de Judée. Paris: Archives de L’Inst. dePaléont. Humaine.

Newcomer M.H. 1971. Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology3/1:85-94.

Ohnuma K. and Bergman C.A. 1982. Experimental studies in the determination of flaking mode.Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 19:161-170.

Pitts M. and Roberts M. 1997. Fairweather Eden Life in Britain half a million years ago as revealedby the excavations at Boxgrove. London: Century.

Roche H. and Texier P.-J. 1991. La notion de complexité dans un ensemble lithique. Application auxséries acheuléennes d’Isenya (Kenya). In CRA CEd (eds.): 25 ans d’études technologiques enpréhistoire. Bilan et prespectives, pp. 99-108. Juan-les Pins: APDCA.

Roe D.A. 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in Britain. London: Routledge & KeganPaul.

Santonja M. and Villa P. 1990. the Lower Paleolithic of Spain and Portugal. Journal of World


Prehistory 4/1:45-94. Speth J.D. 1977. Experimental investigations of hard-hammer percussion flaking. In Ingersoll D.,

Yellen J.E. and Macdonald W. (eds.): Experimental Archeology, pp. 3-37. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Stekelis M. 1960. The Paleolithic deposits of Jisr Banat Yaqub. Bulletin of the Research Council ofIsrael G9:61-87.

Stekelis M. and Gilead D. 1967. Ma’ayan Barukh – a Lower Palaeolithic site in Upper Galilee.Mitekufat Haeven VIII.

Tuffreau A., Antoine P., Chase P.G., Dibble H.L., Ellwood B.B., Kolfschoten T.v., Lamotte A.,Mcpherron S.P., Moigne A.-M. and Munaut A. 1995. Le gisemnent Acheuléen deCagny-L’Épinette (Somme). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 92/2:169-191.

Wenban-Smith F.E. 1989. The use of canonical variates for determination of biface manufacturingtechnology at Boxgrove Lower Palaeolithic site and the behavioral implications of thistechnology. Journal of Archaeological Science 16/1:17-26.

Wymer J.J. and Singer R. 1993. Flint industries and human activity. In Singer R., Gladfelter B.G. andWymer J.J. (eds.): The Lower Paleolithic site at Hoxne, England, pp. 74-128. Chicago: TheUniveristy of Chicago Press.


Documents

Sharon & Goren Inbar 99 Soft Hammer at GBY