Untitled

Abstract

Lower Paleolithic handaxe assemblages were collected during a geological and archaeological survey at Nahal Zihor in the Arava, southern Israel, where the existence of a paleo-lake was established. Later measurements date sediments associated with the Zihor lake to ~1.6 Ma. The present study focuses on two groups of handaxes from different locations-Group A consists of handaxes from the shoreline of the lake, while Group B originated from the terraces which surrounded the lake. By observing the two groups of handaxes, the surveyors suggested that Group A could be assigned to the early Acheulian, while Group B was assigned to the late Acheulian. The aim of the current study is to present a more quantitative chronological assessment of the Zihor assemblages, through closer study of their shape attributes. The new element that is introduced in the present analysis is the use of the digitized 3-D images of the handaxes, from which various quantitative measures of each individual item were extracted. Our results validate the existence of two distinct groups and link Group A to the early Acheulian. Accordingly, this study suggests that the finds of Group A from the Zihor are the most southern location in the Levant where evidence of early Pleistocene hominid occupation has been found. The importance of the study of these lithic assemblages is primarily due to the scarce evidence of Lower Paleolithic hominid presence in the Levant, in particular the earliest phase in the southern region of Israel. Hence, the information derived here may shed new light on early hominin migrations out of Africa. In 1996, a geological and prehistoric survey was conducted in the Zihor River valley by H. Ginat and I. Saragusti of the Hebrew University. The surveyors discovered an early sequence of Pleistocene fluvio-lacustrine deposits indicating the existence of a paleo-lake named "Lake Zihor." These deposits were assigned to the early Pleistocene using preliminary correlations with pollen and faunal assemblages from the 'Ubeidiya paleo-lake (Ginat 1997: 109-111). Recently, 10Be exposure dates suggested a minimum date of ~1.6 Ma for the fluvio-lacustrine deposits (Guralnik et al. 2010). Tectonic uplifting of the southern Negev, post-dating Lake Zihor, caused changes in the main drainage systems, resulting in the gradual development of valleys and the formation of terraces. Four terraces were identified in the southern Negev (Ginat 1997: 188), however, unlike the lake deposits, the terraces were not dated geologically (for further elaboration on the geology see Ginat et al. 2003).The survey also discovered a large collection of Lower Paleolithic handaxes concentrated in many find spots in an area of 12km 2 ( Figure 1 ; Ginat 1997; 2003: 450). The find spots are located in two areas-near the suggested shoreline of Lake Zihor and on the neighboring terraces (see Figure 3). The handaxes were divided into two groups according to their find location (Ginat 1997: 176-178)-Group A includes handaxes found along the reconstructed shoreline ...

From side to side: Symmetry in handaxes in the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic

“…The use of powerful 3D recording methods by Grosman et al (2011) and Couzens (2012) certainly involve robust methodologies that would be ideal for the assessment of handaxe symmetry. In the former case the use of surface finds renders concepts of progression difficult to accept, and in the latter case only two sites are involved, and Couzens himself believed that function rather than progression explained the differences between the two chronologically distinct South African Acheulean assemblages he studied.…”

The mirror cracked: Symmetry and refinement in the Acheulean handaxe

“…These well designed and executed analyses make it clear that identifying development in Acheulean material culture over time is not a straightforward task. Another Israeli study is that of Grosman and colleagues (Grosman et al, 2011). Despite an enthusiastic defence and an intriguing methodology, the assemblages used in the study are all surface finds which cannot be unambiguously associated with the deposits they are said to come from.…”