The six samples collected from Unit 4 show a distinct spatial pattern, which might indicate chronological distinction between human occupations in the different excavated localities. Areas D and C present the oldest ages, and somewhat close ranges (~513–417 and ~444–428 ky, respectively), Followed by Area B (~367–316 ky). Most remarkable, however, are the results of the samples from Area G, yielding extremely young ages: ~310–305 ky for Sub-unit 4d, and ~200–195 ky for Sub-unit 4b. As the samples were collected from the silty Sub-units between archaeological horizons, they provide maximum and minimum ages for horizon G3 (~310 ky and ~195 ky, respectively) as well as maximum ages of for archaeological horizons G1–G2 (ca. 200–195 ka; Fig 2 and Tables 5, 6 and 11).

However, it must be stressed that these luminescence ages are very unusual for the Levantine Late Acheulian and are not yet supported by other dating methods. While the good correlation with ESR ages in other parts of the site grants us some confidence, the geomorphology of the site indicates that the youngest ages presented in Sub-unit 4b do not fit the deposition of the overlying Unit 5. Thus, in our view, further inspections into the reliability of the ages of Area G is required. Additional TL measurements of burnt flints and ESR age estimation of quartz particles from the sediments tested for TT-OSL and pIR-IR290 are currently underway, alongside a comprehensive analysis of the lithic assemblages from this locality. These will provide much needed additional criteria for evaluating the age of human activity in Area G, and until such data is available, we treat the suggested ages with caution.

The OSL ages from Areas B, C and D were tested against the ESR results and found to correspond, and at this stage of the research we would like to focus on these ages as the most reliable chronological estimations available at the moment for the site of Jaljulia.

Relying on the results of the absolute chronology from these three areas, we believe that the variability in the ages of Unit 4 reflects a composite, multi-phased deposition, in which three distinct phases of human activity might be evident. Areas C and D represent the earliest of the three, placing the human activity within the MIS 11, roughly 513–417 ka. The second phase is represented by Area B (and possibly also by horizon G3 in Area G), indicating human activity at the site also during MIS 9. The possibly youngest phase is seen in horizons G1-G2, as luminescence ages place them well within MIS7 and possibly early in MIS6. However, as stated above, the younger ages will have to be reconsidered in the light of more ages and the comparative lithic analysis. Nevertheless, we offer this data as food for thought for the scientific community dealing with the study of the Levantine Lower Paleolithic.

All human activity on site is associated with a long period of wetlands/marsh environmental conditions (seasonal or perennial), which followed the deposition of Unit 4 gravels, sometime during MIS12. Clear evidence for a younger phase of geological activity related to Unit 4 is shown in Area G, where the detailed stratigraphy indicates a continuous fluvial activity, with

<table><caption>Table 11. Summary of absolute dating results for Unit 4 (in bold) and Unit 5 according to locality.</caption><thead><tr><th>Sample ID</th><th>Locality</th><th>Unit</th><th>TT-OSL</th><th>pIR-IR<sub>290</sub></th><th>ESR (Al)</th><th>ESR (Ti-Li)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>JAL-10</td><td>B</td><td>5</td><td>239±11</td><td>231±13</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JAL-9</td><td>B</td><td>4 (high)</td><td>316±20</td><td></td><td>330 ± 30</td><td>NC</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-8</td><td>B</td><td>4 (low)</td><td>367±24</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JAL-6</td><td>C</td><td>5</td><td>299±14</td><td>284±19</td><td>220 ± 40</td><td>335 ± 50</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-5</td><td>C</td><td>4</td><td>428±25</td><td></td><td>444 ± 30</td><td>446 ± 30</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-3</td><td>D</td><td>5</td><td>346±31</td><td>335±28</td><td>378 ± 70</td><td>320 ± 30</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-4</td><td>D</td><td>4</td><td>513±46</td><td></td><td>462 ± 60</td><td>417 ± 50</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-21</td><td>G</td><td>4d</td><td>195±10</td><td>200±11</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JAL-20</td><td>G</td><td>4b</td><td>305±14</td><td>310±16</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267672.t011
The six samples collected from Unit 4 show a distinct spatial pattern, which might indicate chronological distinction between human occupations in the different excavated localities. Areas D and C present the oldest ages, and somewhat close ranges (~513–417 and ~444–428 ky, respectively), Followed by Area B (~367–316 ky). Most remarkable, however, are the results of the samples from Area G, yielding extremely young ages: ~310–305 ky for Sub-unit 4d, and ~200–195 ky for Sub-unit 4b. As the samples were collected from the silty Sub-units between archaeological horizons, they provide maximum and minimum ages for horizon G3 (~310 ky and ~195 ky, respectively) as well as maximum ages of for archaeological horizons G1–G2 (ca. 200–195 ka; Fig 2 and Tables 5, 6 and 11).

However, it must be stressed that these luminescence ages are very unusual for the Levantine Late Acheulian and are not yet supported by other dating methods. While the good correlation with ESR ages in other parts of the site grants us some confidence, the geomorphology of the site indicates that the youngest ages presented in Sub-unit 4b do not fit the deposition of the overlying Unit 5. Thus, in our view, further inspections into the reliability of the ages of Area G is required. Additional TL measurements of burnt flints and ESR age estimation of quartz particles from the sediments tested for TT-OSL and pIR-IR290 are currently underway, alongside a comprehensive analysis of the lithic assemblages from this locality. These will provide much needed additional criteria for evaluating the age of human activity in Area G, and until such data is available, we treat the suggested ages with caution.

The OSL ages from Areas B, C and D were tested against the ESR results and found to correspond, and at this stage of the research we would like to focus on these ages as the most reliable chronological estimations available at the moment for the site of Jaljulia.

Relying on the results of the absolute chronology from these three areas, we believe that the variability in the ages of Unit 4 reflects a composite, multi-phased deposition, in which three distinct phases of human activity might be evident. Areas C and D represent the earliest of the three, placing the human activity within the MIS 11, roughly 513–417 ka. The second phase is represented by Area B (and possibly also by horizon G3 in Area G), indicating human activity at the site also during MIS 9. The possibly youngest phase is seen in horizons G1-G2, as luminescence ages place them well within MIS7 and possibly early in MIS6. However, as stated above, the younger ages will have to be reconsidered in the light of more ages and the comparative lithic analysis. Nevertheless, we offer this data as food for thought for the scientific community dealing with the study of the Levantine Lower Paleolithic.

All human activity on site is associated with a long period of wetlands/marsh environmental conditions (seasonal or perennial), which followed the deposition of Unit 4 gravels, sometime during MIS12. Clear evidence for a younger phase of geological activity related to Unit 4 is shown in Area G, where the detailed stratigraphy indicates a continuous fluvial activity, with

<table><caption>Table 11. Summary of absolute dating results for Unit 4 (in bold) and Unit 5 according to locality.</caption><thead><tr><th>Sample ID</th><th>Locality</th><th>Unit</th><th>TT-OSL</th><th>pIR-IR<sub>290</sub></th><th>ESR (Al)</th><th>ESR (Ti-Li)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>JAL-10</td><td>B</td><td>5</td><td>239±11</td><td>231±13</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JAL-9</td><td>B</td><td>4 (high)</td><td>316±20</td><td></td><td>330 ± 30</td><td>NC</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-8</td><td>B</td><td>4 (low)</td><td>367±24</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JAL-6</td><td>C</td><td>5</td><td>299±14</td><td>284±19</td><td>220 ± 40</td><td>335 ± 50</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-5</td><td>C</td><td>4</td><td>428±25</td><td></td><td>444 ± 30</td><td>446 ± 30</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-3</td><td>D</td><td>5</td><td>346±31</td><td>335±28</td><td>378 ± 70</td><td>320 ± 30</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-4</td><td>D</td><td>4</td><td>513±46</td><td></td><td>462 ± 60</td><td>417 ± 50</td></tr><tr><td>JAL-21</td><td>G</td><td>4d</td><td>195±10</td><td>200±11</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JAL-20</td><td>G</td><td>4b</td><td>305±14</td><td>310±16</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267672.t011
alternating gravel (4e, 4c, 4a) and silty clays (4d, 4b) deposition. Sedimentary properties correlate the earliest Sub-phase 4a with the fluvial activity that deposited the gravels of Unit 4 throughout the site (Table 2), implying that Sub-units 4b–4e represent younger fluvial depositions, possibly marking a reduction in the size of the water body and a change in environmental and hydrological conditions.

## Jaljulia in a regional perspective

The site of Jaljulia is a unique point in the map of Late Acheulian sites in the southern Levant. Its magnitude and its position in the central coastal plain of Israel sheds light on the potential this region still holds for the research of the Levantine Acheulian. The geology and chronology of the site indicate that it shares the basic attributes of many of the Late Acheulian sites in the southern Levant, demonstrating repetitive occupations associated with a perennial or seasonal water source. As a fresh water source is likely to support lush vegetation as well as prey species, the advantages of such a locality for Late Acheulian hominins are clear. At the site of Jaljulia, another possible advantage was the cherty composition of Unit 4 gravels, which allowed for a rich, accessible raw material for flintknapping.

The lithic industries, presented here briefly through the assemblage from Area B, can be described as typical of the Levantine Late Acheulian, and bear great similarities to the assemblages from the Late Acheulian sites of Revadim, Kefar Menachem West, Berekhat Ram and Eyal 23 [9, 17, 26, 33, 35, 126]. The flake industries demonstrate the application of a combination of core technologies, including three main reduction sequences: 1. The production of large, medium, and small sized flakes from one-, two- or multi-striking platform cores; 2. The production of predetermined items from prepared cores; and 3. The production of very small flakes from core-on-flakes in a mode of lithic recycling.

The percentage of shaped items, including the bifaces category, is rather high and comparable mainly to the site of Revadim where this category constitutes 4.9–12.9% [35], whereas in other sites such as Berekhat Ram and Kfar Menahem West, lower frequencies of shaped items are noted (4–7% and 7.8%, respectively; [9, 17]). Such a high percentage could imply a wide range of activities conducted on-site or high intensity of production and use. As such differences might also be influenced by artifact classification procedures and standards of different research groups it is worth noting that the two sites of Jaljulia and Revadim were studied by the same research group. The abundance of bifaces, as well as typical maintenance and shaping debitage, is associated with the production of these items on-site, possibly from the cherty gravels of Unit 4. Preliminary use-wear analysis suggested the use of some of the bifaces for pounding and breaking bones and other related activities [99]. In addition, the use of some of the handaxes as cores after their discard as tools was suggested to represent a particular approach for the production of predetermined flakes [42]. All suggest long sequences of handaxe production, maintenance, use and recycling on-site.

As for understanding the broader chronological and behavioral implications of this study regarding the probable overlap in time between the Late Acheulian and the AYCC, or more particularly between the sites of Jaljulia and Qesem Cave which are only six km apart, we feel more data is needed. The most reliable ages from Areas C and D of Jaljulia are clearly earlier than the established AYCC chronology of Qesem Cave, and thus it seems that they represent Late Acheulian occupations which predate the AYCC at Qesem. Nevertheless, the ages suggested for Area B seem to be contemporaneous with the chronological range represented at Qesem Cave, and those of Area G even seems to be slightly younger than the range of Qesem Cave chronology. While the ages of Area G still need to be further investigated, we consider the chronology of Area B reliable due to the good correlation between TT-OSL, feldspar and
alternating gravel (4e, 4c, 4a) and silty clays (4d, 4b) deposition. Sedimentary properties correlate the earliest Sub-phase 4a with the fluvial activity that deposited the gravels of Unit 4 throughout the site (Table 2), implying that Sub-units 4b–4e represent younger fluvial depositions, possibly marking a reduction in the size of the water body and a change in environmental and hydrological conditions.

## Jaljulia in a regional perspective

The site of Jaljulia is a unique point in the map of Late Acheulian sites in the southern Levant. Its magnitude and its position in the central coastal plain of Israel sheds light on the potential this region still holds for the research of the Levantine Acheulian. The geology and chronology of the site indicate that it shares the basic attributes of many of the Late Acheulian sites in the southern Levant, demonstrating repetitive occupations associated with a perennial or seasonal water source. As a fresh water source is likely to support lush vegetation as well as prey species, the advantages of such a locality for Late Acheulian hominins are clear. At the site of Jaljulia, another possible advantage was the cherty composition of Unit 4 gravels, which allowed for a rich, accessible raw material for flintknapping.

The lithic industries, presented here briefly through the assemblage from Area B, can be described as typical of the Levantine Late Acheulian, and bear great similarities to the assemblages from the Late Acheulian sites of Revadim, Kefar Menachem West, Berekhat Ram and Eyal 23 [9, 17, 26, 33, 35, 126]. The flake industries demonstrate the application of a combination of core technologies, including three main reduction sequences: 1. The production of large, medium, and small sized flakes from one-, two- or multi-striking platform cores; 2. The production of predetermined items from prepared cores; and 3. The production of very small flakes from core-on-flakes in a mode of lithic recycling.

The percentage of shaped items, including the bifaces category, is rather high and comparable mainly to the site of Revadim where this category constitutes 4.9–12.9% [35], whereas in other sites such as Berekhat Ram and Kfar Menahem West, lower frequencies of shaped items are noted (4–7% and 7.8%, respectively; [9, 17]). Such a high percentage could imply a wide range of activities conducted on-site or high intensity of production and use. As such differences might also be influenced by artifact classification procedures and standards of different research groups it is worth noting that the two sites of Jaljulia and Revadim were studied by the same research group. The abundance of bifaces, as well as typical maintenance and shaping debitage, is associated with the production of these items on-site, possibly from the cherty gravels of Unit 4. Preliminary use-wear analysis suggested the use of some of the bifaces for pounding and breaking bones and other related activities [99]. In addition, the use of some of the handaxes as cores after their discard as tools was suggested to represent a particular approach for the production of predetermined flakes [42]. All suggest long sequences of handaxe production, maintenance, use and recycling on-site.

As for understanding the broader chronological and behavioral implications of this study regarding the probable overlap in time between the Late Acheulian and the AYCC, or more particularly between the sites of Jaljulia and Qesem Cave which are only six km apart, we feel more data is needed. The most reliable ages from Areas C and D of Jaljulia are clearly earlier than the established AYCC chronology of Qesem Cave, and thus it seems that they represent Late Acheulian occupations which predate the AYCC at Qesem. Nevertheless, the ages suggested for Area B seem to be contemporaneous with the chronological range represented at Qesem Cave, and those of Area G even seems to be slightly younger than the range of Qesem Cave chronology. While the ages of Area G still need to be further investigated, we consider the chronology of Area B reliable due to the good correlation between TT-OSL, feldspar and
ESR results. As the lithic assemblage from Area B is clearly Late Acheulian in nature, the overlap with the chronological range suggested for the AYCC of Qesem Cave indeed might imply some contemporaneity between the occupations of the two cultural groups in a close geographic region.

These observations are intriguing and hold significant potential for enhancing our understanding of cultural and behavioral transformations in the Levant during these significant times in human cultural and biological evolution. We intend to further pursue and study these aspects as the processing and analyses of the finds advance.

The possibility that at least three phases of occupation are represented on-site, supported by absolute ages, provide a unique opportunity to study diachronic changes in material culture within the Late Acheulian. Even though each of the excavated localities could in fact represent a palimpsest of short-term occupations, the study of each locality can potentially teach us about subtle changes in lithic traditions and preferences through time. Furthermore, the study of the assemblage from Area E is expected to provide a glimpse into human activity in dry environments slightly distant from, and at the margins of the waterbody dominating the rest of the site.

**Concluding remarks**

A recently discovered, large-scale Late Acheulian site was excavated at the town of Jaljulia, in the central coastal plain of Israel. Multidisciplinary study of the site indicates repeated human activity in a water rich environment, in immediate proximity to potential secondary source of stone for flintknapping. Geomorphological analyses indicate a change in depositional environment, with wetter climate conditions and higher sea levels during the deposition of Units 4 and 5 (partially), correlating to MIS11 and MIS9.3, which caused coastline shifts to the east, resulting in a blockage of the Yaronik stream corridor to the sea.

Analysis of the flint assemblage from Area B shows the classic attributes of Late Acheulian industries, including flake production from cores and cores-on-flake, and production of pre-determined flakes from prepared cores and from discarded bifaces. Absolute ages provided a chronological frame of ca. 500-300 ky for the main human activity on-site, followed by a younger phase of activity, the chronology of which is still under investigation. Implied chronological overlap between the Late Acheulian of Jaljulia and the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex of Qesem Cave which are only 6 km apart, opens a venue for the study of possible connections and technological continuation between the two hominin lineages occupying the region during the Middle Pleistocene. Such lines of investigations are at the center of our ongoing studies, and the site of Jaljulia is expected to shed more light on the nature of human activity, adaptation, and creativity in the southern Levant during Late Acheulian times.

**Supporting information**

**S1 Fig.** *Jaljulia, Area A*. From the center: a) Air view of Area A at the end of the excavation. b) The eastern section showing the sedimentary units detailed in chapter 3.1. The scale is 1 m. c) The eastern excavation squares. The scale is 50 cm. d) The main excavation of Area A. The scale is 50 cm. e) a closeup of Unit 4, containing lithic artifacts, in the main excavation of Area A. Each section of the scale marks 10 cm.
(TIF)

**S2 Fig.** *Jaljulia, Area B*. From the center and counterclockwise: a) Air view of Area B at the end of the excavation. b) Geological section showing the sedimentary units described in chapter 3.1. c) a closeup of the section. d) Area B at the end of the excavation. The scale marks 50 cm.
ESR results. As the lithic assemblage from Area B is clearly Late Acheulian in nature, the overlap with the chronological range suggested for the AYCC of Qesem Cave indeed might imply some contemporaneity between the occupations of the two cultural groups in a close geographic region.

These observations are intriguing and hold significant potential for enhancing our understanding of cultural and behavioral transformations in the Levant during these significant times in human cultural and biological evolution. We intend to further pursue and study these aspects as the processing and analyses of the finds advance.

The possibility that at least three phases of occupation are represented on-site, supported by absolute ages, provide a unique opportunity to study diachronic changes in material culture within the Late Acheulian. Even though each of the excavated localities could in fact represent a palimpsest of short-term occupations, the study of each locality can potentially teach us about subtle changes in lithic traditions and preferences through time. Furthermore, the study of the assemblage from Area E is expected to provide a glimpse into human activity in dry environments slightly distant from, and at the margins of the waterbody dominating the rest of the site.

## Concluding remarks

A recently discovered, large-scale Late Acheulian site was excavated at the town of Jaljulia, in the central coastal plain of Israel. Multidisciplinary study of the site indicates repeated human activity in a water rich environment, in immediate proximity to potential secondary source of stone for flintknapping. Geomorphological analyses indicate a change in depositional environment, with wetter climate conditions and higher sea levels during the deposition of Units 4 and 5 (partially), correlating to MIS11 and MIS9.3, which caused coastline shifts to the east, resulting in a blockage of the Yaronik stream corridor to the sea.

Analysis of the flint assemblage from Area B shows the classic attributes of Late Acheulian industries, including flake production from cores and cores-on-flake, and production of pre-determined flakes from prepared cores and from discarded bifaces. Absolute ages provided a chronological frame of ca. 500-300 ky for the main human activity on-site, followed by a younger phase of activity, the chronology of which is still under investigation. Implied chronological overlap between the Late Acheulian of Jaljulia and the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex of Qesem Cave which are only 6 km apart, opens a venue for the study of possible connections and technological continuation between the two hominin lineages occupying the region during the Middle Pleistocene. Such lines of investigations are at the center of our ongoing studies, and the site of Jaljulia is expected to shed more light on the nature of human activity, adaptation, and creativity in the southern Levant during Late Acheulian times.

## Supporting information

**S1 Fig.** *Jaljulia, Area A.* From the center: a) Air view of Area A at the end of the excavation. b) The eastern section showing the sedimentary units detailed in chapter 3.1. The scale is 1 m. c) The eastern excavation squares. The scale is 50 cm. d) The main excavation of Area A. The scale is 50 cm. e) a closeup of Unit 4, containing lithic artifacts, in the main excavation of Area A. Each section of the scale marks 10 cm.
(TIF)

**S2 Fig.** *Jaljulia, Area B.* From the center and counterclockwise: a) Air view of Area B at the end of the excavation. b) Geological section showing the sedimentary units described in chapter 3.1. c) a closeup of the section. d) Area B at the end of the excavation. The scale marks 50 cm.
cm. e, f) closeups of Unit 4 displaying high frequencies of lithic artifacts. Scales are 20 cm (e) and 10 cm (f).

(TIF)

**S3 Fig. Jaljulia, Area C.** From the center: a) Air view of Area C at the end of the excavation. b) Area C, after removing the archaeological horizon and digging into Unit 4. c) A close up of the section of Area C, displaying the sedimentary units described in chapter 3.1. d) The top of Unit 4 in Area C. e) A close up look of the archaeological horizon at the top of Unit 4.

(TIF)

**S4 Fig. Jaljulia, Area D.** From the center and counterclockwise: a) Air view of Area D at the end of the excavation. b) Area D and the southern section. c) Area D and the southern section, presenting the sedimentary units described in chapter 3.1. d) A close up look at the top of Unit 4, containing high frequencies of lithic artifacts. e) The archaeological horizon at the top of Unit 4, as was exposed in Area D. f-h) close up views of the archaeological horizon. (f) is showing one of the few faunal remains preserved on site. Scales are 50 cm (g) and 5 cm (h).

(TIF)

**S5 Fig. Jaljulia, Area E.** From the center: a) Air view of Area E at the end of excavation. b) The southern section, displaying the sedimentary units described in chapter 3.1. c) The archaeological horizon as was exposed in Area E. The scale (at the center) marks 50 cm. d, e) A close up look of two of the find-clusters exposed in Area E. Scale is 5 cm.

(TIF)

**S6 Fig. Jaljulia, Area G.** From the top left: a) Air view of Area G at the end of the excavation. b) The southern section, displaying Unit's 4 sub-division as described in chapter 3.1. c) Area G during the exposure of sub-unit 4e. The scale marks 50 cm. d) A close up look on archaeological horizon G1. The scale is 5 cm. e) A close up look at archaeological horizon G2. The scale is 5 cm. f) Sub-unit 4c (= archaeological horizon G3). The scale marks 20 cm. g) A close up look at archaeological horizon G3. The scale is 5 cm. h) Sub-unit 4a (= archaeological horizon G4).

i) A close up look at archaeological horizon G4. The scale marks 20 cm. j) Area G after the removal of sub-unit 4a and the exposure of the underlying conglomerate of Unit 4.

(TIF)

**S7 Fig.** Orthogonal comparative display of representative results of AF (a) and Thermal (b) demagnetizations conducted on samples from horizon GAL 2.

(TIF)

**S1 Table.** U, Th, K contents in the sediments of Jaljulia.

(DOCX)

**S2 Table.** Detailed results of the sedimentary analyses of the Jaljulia samples showing main elements frequencies. *IC measurement.

(DOCX)

**S3 Table.** Detailed sedimentary analyses results for the samples from Jaljulia, displaying main minerals frequencies. *IC measurement.

(DOCX)

## Acknowledgments

The Authors wish to extend their gratitude to the excavators and field supervisors: N. Solodenko, B. Efrati, Y. Keidar, A. Agam, E. Assaf. We also thank the students of the Department
cm. e, f) closeups of Unit 4 displaying high frequencies of lithic artifacts. Scales are 20 cm (e) and 10 cm (f).

(TIF)

**S3 Fig. Jaljulia, Area C.** From the center: a) Air view of Area C at the end of the excavation. b) Area C, after removing the archaeological horizon and digging into Unit 4. c) A close up of the section of Area C, displaying the sedimentary units described in chapter 3.1. d) The top of Unit 4 in Area C. e) A close up look of the archaeological horizon at the top of Unit 4.

(TIF)

**S4 Fig. Jaljulia, Area D.** From the center and counterclockwise: a) Air view of Area D at the end of the excavation. b) Area D and the southern section. c) Area D and the southern section, presenting the sedimentary units described in chapter 3.1. d) A close up look at the top of Unit 4, containing high frequencies of lithic artifacts. e) The archaeological horizon at the top of Unit 4, as was exposed in Area D. f-h) close up views of the archaeological horizon. (f) is showing one of the few faunal remains preserved on site. Scales are 50 cm (g) and 5 cm (h).

(TIF)

**S5 Fig. Jaljulia, Area E.** From the center: a) Air view of Area E at the end of excavation. b) The southern section, displaying the sedimentary units described in chapter 3.1. c) The archaeological horizon as was exposed in Area E. The scale (at the center) marks 50 cm. d, e) A close up look of two of the find-clusters exposed in Area E. Scale is 5 cm.

(TIF)

**S6 Fig. Jaljulia, Area G.** From the top left: a) Air view of Area G at the end of the excavation. b) The southern section, displaying Unit's 4 sub-division as described in chapter 3.1. c) Area G during the exposure of sub-unit 4e. The scale marks 50 cm. d) A close up look on archaeological horizon G1. The scale is 5 cm. e) A close up look at archaeological horizon G2. The scale is 5 cm. f) Sub-unit 4c (= archaeological horizon G3). The scale marks 20 cm. g) A close up look at archaeological horizon G3. The scale is 5 cm. h) Sub-unit 4a (= archaeological horizon G4).

i) A close up look at archaeological horizon G4. The scale marks 20 cm. j) Area G after the removal of sub-unit 4a and the exposure of the underlying conglomerate of Unit 4.

(TIF)

**S7 Fig.** Orthogonal comparative display of representative results of AF (a) and Thermal (b) demagnetizations conducted on samples from horizon GAL 2.

(TIF)

**S1 Table.** U, Th, K contents in the sediments of Jaljulia.

(DOCX)

**S2 Table.** Detailed results of the sedimentary analyses of the Jaljulia samples showing main elements frequencies. *IC measurement.

(DOCX)

**S3 Table.** Detailed sedimentary analyses results for the samples from Jaljulia, displaying main minerals frequencies. *IC measurement.

(DOCX)

**Acknowledgments**

The Authors wish to extend their gratitude to the excavators and field supervisors: N. Solodenko, B. Efrati, Y. Keidar, A. Agam, E. Assaf. We also thank the students of the Department
of Archaeology in Tel Aviv University for their assistance during the excavation. LKH wishes
to thank F. Natalio and Z. Stepka (Weizmann Institute) for performing the SEM-EDS
analyses.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Maayan Shemer, Ran Barkai.

**Data curation:** Maayan Shemer, Noam Greenbaum, Nimer Taha, Lena Brailovsky-Rokser, Yael Ebert, Ron Shaar, Christophe Falgueres, Pierre Voinchet, Naomi Porat, Galina Faersh-tein, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Tamar Rosenberg-Yefet, Ran Barkai.

**Formal analysis:** Noam Greenbaum, Nimer Taha, Yael Ebert, Ron Shaar, Christophe Falgueres, Pierre Voinchet, Naomi Porat, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Tamar Rosenberg-Yefet.

**Investigation:** Maayan Shemer, Noam Greenbaum, Christophe Falgueres, Naomi Porat, Ran Barkai.

**Methodology:** Maayan Shemer, Naomi Porat, Galina Faershtein, Ran Barkai.

**Project administration:** Maayan Shemer.

**Resources:** Maayan Shemer, Ran Barkai.

**Software:** Lena Brailovsky-Rokser.

**Supervision:** Ran Barkai.

**Writing – original draft:** Maayan Shemer, Noam Greenbaum, Christophe Falgueres, Naomi Porat, Tamar Rosenberg-Yefet, Ran Barkai.

**Writing – review & editing:** Liora Kolska Horwitz.

**References**

1. Bar-Yosef O. The Lower Paleolithic of the Near East. J World Prehist. 1994; 8: 211–265.

2. Finkel M, Barkai R. The Acheulean handaxe technological persistence–Lack of innovation or a case of preferred conservatism? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 2018; 84: 1–19.

3. Sharon G. The early prehistory of Western and Central Asia. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. The Cambridge World Prehistory. Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 1357–1378.

4. Garrod DA, Bate DMA. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel—I. Excavations at the Wadi-el-Mughara. Clarendon: Oxford; 1937

5. Neuville R. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du désert de Judée. Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie Humain. 24. Masson; 1951.

6. Stekelis M, Gilead D. Maayan Baruch, a Lower Palaeolithic Site in Upper Galilee. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 1966; 8.

7. Yisraeli T. A Lower Palaeolithic site at Holon: Preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal. 1967; 17 (3): 144–152.

8. Gilead D, Ronen A. Acheulian industries from 'Evron on the western Galilee Coastal Plain. Eretz-Israel. 1977; 13: 56–86.

9. Goren-Inbar N. The lithic assemblage of the Berekhat Ram Acheulian site, Golan Heights. Paléorient. 1985; 11(1): 7–28.

10. Ohel MY. The Acheulean of the Yiron Plateau, Israel. British Archaeological Reports (BAR) International Series. 1986; 307.

11. Copeland L. The late Acheulean knapping-floor at C-Spring, Azraq oasis, Jordan. Levant. 1991; 23 (1): 1–6.

12. Copeland L. "Cordon Littoral", Ras Beirut (Lebanon) and its relations with other Tayacian sites in the Levant. Paléorient. 2003; 29(2): 87–107.
of Archaeology in Tel Aviv University for their assistance during the excavation. LKH wishes
to thank F. Natalio and Z. Stepka (Weizmann Institute) for performing the SEM-EDS
analyses.

Author Contributions

**Conceptualization:** Maayan Shemer, Ran Barkai.

**Data curation:** Maayan Shemer, Noam Greenbaum, Nimer Taha, Lena Brailovsky-Rokser, Yael Ebert, Ron Shaar, Christophe Falgueres, Pierre Voinchet, Naomi Porat, Galina Faersh-tein, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Tamar Rosenberg-Yefet, Ran Barkai.

**Formal analysis:** Noam Greenbaum, Nimer Taha, Yael Ebert, Ron Shaar, Christophe Falgueres, Pierre Voinchet, Naomi Porat, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Tamar Rosenberg-Yefet.

**Investigation:** Maayan Shemer, Noam Greenbaum, Christophe Falgueres, Naomi Porat, Ran Barkai.

**Methodology:** Maayan Shemer, Naomi Porat, Galina Faershtein, Ran Barkai.

**Project administration:** Maayan Shemer.

**Resources:** Maayan Shemer, Ran Barkai.

**Software:** Lena Brailovsky-Rokser.

**Supervision:** Ran Barkai.

**Writing – original draft:** Maayan Shemer, Noam Greenbaum, Christophe Falgueres, Naomi Porat, Tamar Rosenberg-Yefet, Ran Barkai.

**Writing – review & editing:** Liora Kolska Horwitz.

References

1. Bar-Yosef O. The Lower Paleolithic of the Near East. J World Prehist. 1994; 8: 211–265.

2. Finkel M, Barkai R. The Acheulean handaxe technological persistence–Lack of innovation or a case of preferred conservatism? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 2018; 84: 1–19.

3. Sharon G. The early prehistory of Western and Central Asia. In: Renfrew C, Bahn P, editors. The Cambridge World Prehistory. Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 1357–1378.

4. Garrod DA, Bate DMA. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel—I. Excavations at the Wadi-el-Mughara. Clarendon: Oxford; 1937

5. Neuville R. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du désert de Judée. Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie Humain. 24. Masson; 1951.

6. Stekelis M, Gilead D. Maayan Baruch, a Lower Palaeolithic Site in Upper Galilee. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 1966; 8.

7. Yisraeli T. A Lower Palaeolithic site at Holon: Preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal. 1967; 17 (3): 144–152.

8. Gilead D, Ronen A. Acheulian industries from 'Evron on the western Galilee Coastal Plain. Eretz-Israel. 1977; 13: 56–86.

9. Goren-Inbar N. The lithic assemblage of the Berekhat Ram Acheulian site, Golan Heights. Paléorient. 1985; 11(1): 7–28.

10. Ohel MY. The Acheulean of the Yiron Plateau, Israel. British Archaeological Reports (BAR) International Series. 1986; 307.

11. Copeland L. The late Acheulean knapping-floor at C-Spring, Azraq oasis, Jordan. Levant. 1991; 23 (1): 1–6.

12. Copeland L. "Cordon Littoral", Ras Beirut (Lebanon) and its relations with other Tayacian sites in the Levant. Paléorient. 2003; 29(2): 87–107.
13. Rollefson G, Schnurrenberger D, Quintero L, Watson RP, Low R. Ain Soda and 'Ayn Qasiya: New late Pleistocene and early Holocene sites in the Azraq Shishan area, eastern Jordan. In: Gebel HG, Kafafi Z, Rollefson GO, editors. The Prehistory of Jordan, vol. II: Perspectives from 1997. Berlin: Ex Oriente; 1997. pp. 45–58.

14. Rollefson GO, Quintero LA, Wilke PJ. The Acheulian industry in the al-Jafr Basin of southeastern Jordan. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 2005; 35: 53–68.

15. Weinstein-Evron M, Bar-Oz G, Zaidner Y, Tsatskin A, Druck D, Porat N, et al. Introducing Misliya cave, Mount Carmel, Israel: A new continuous Lower/Middle Paleolithic sequence in the Levant. Eurasian Prehistory. 2003; 1(1): 31–55.

16. Ginat H, Zilberman E, Saragusti I. Early Pleistocene lake deposits and Lower Paleolithic finds in Nahal (wadi) Zihor, Southern Negev desert, Israel. Quat Res. 2003; 59(3): 445–458.

17. Barzilai O, Malinsky-Buller A, Ackermann O. Kefar Menachem West: A Lower Paleolithic site in the southern Shephela, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 2006; 36: 7–38.

18. Chazan M, Horwitz LK, editors. Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology: Harvard University; 2007.

19. Marder O, Malinsky-Buller A, Shahack-Gross R, Ackermann O, Ayalon A, Bar-Matthews M, et al. Archaeological horizons and fluvial processes at the Lower Paleolithic open-air site of Revadim (Israel). J Hum Evol. 2011; 60: 508–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.01.007 PMID: 20304463

20. Nowell A, Walker C, Cordova CE, Ames CJH, Pokines JT, Stueber D, et al. Middle Pleistocene subsistence in the Azraq Oasis, Jordan: Protein residue and other proxies. J Archaeol Sci. 2016; 73: 36–44.

21. Shaw A. Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Lebanon. In: Enzel Y, Bar-Yosef O, editors. Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. pp. 555–566.

22. Marder O, Gvirtzman G, Ron H, Khalaily H, Wieder M, Bankirer R, et al. The Lower Paleolithic site Revadim Quarry, preliminary finds. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 1999; 28: 21–53.

23. Horwitz LK, Chazan M. Holon in the context of Levantine Late Lower Paleolithic. In: Chazan M, Horwitz LK, editors. Holon: A Lower Paleolithic site in Israel. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 2007; 50. pp. 181–191.

24. Grosman L, Goldsmith Y, Smilansky U. Morphological analysis of Nahal Zihor handaxes: a chronological perspective. PaleoAnthropology 2011: 203–215.

25. Ronen A, Gilead D, Shachnai E, Saull A. Upper Acheulean in the Kissufim region. Proc Am Philos Soc. 1972; 116 (1): 68–96.

26. Ronen A, Winter Y. Eyal 23: A Lower Palaeolithic site in the Eastern Sharon, Israel. Quartär. 1997; 47: 177–188.

27. Evron Stekelis M.. Alon (Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums). 1950; 2: 29–30.

28. Malinsky-Buller A, Hovers E, Marder O. Making time: 'Living floors', 'palimpsests' and site formation processes—A perspective from the open-air Lower Paleolithic site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. J Anthropol Archaeol. 2011; 30(2): 89–101.

29. Alperson-Afil N. Demographic changes as triggers for the loss of skills during the Lower Palaeolithic Levant. Insights of Anthropology. 2019; 3(1): 140–146.

30. Rosenberg D, Shimelmitz R, Gluhak TM, Assaf A. The geochemistry of basalt handaxes from the Lower Palaeolithic site of Ma'ayan Baruch, Israel—A perspective on raw material selection. Archaeometry. 2015; 57: 1–19.

31. Goren N. Kefar Menahem Lashon. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 1979; 16: 69–87.

32. Chazan M. Flake production at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Holon (Israel): Implications for the origin of the Levallois method. Antiquity. 2000; 74(285): 495–499.

33. Agam A, Barkai R. Small flake Acheulian: Further insights into lithic recycling at late Acheulian Revadim, Israel. Tel Aviv. 2018; 45(2): 170–192.

34. Goren-Inbar N, Alperson-Afil N, Sharon G, Herzlinger G. The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov Volume IV: The Lithic Assemblages. Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190804 PMID: 29293687

35. Rosenberg-Yefet T, Barkai R. Early in the Late Acheulian: Techno-typological analysis of the earliest lithic assemblage from Lower Paleolithic Revadim, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 2019; 49: 6–31.

36. Sharon G. Acheulian giant-core technology: A worldwide perspective. Curr Anthropol. 2009; 50(3): 335–367.
13. Rollefson G, Schnurrenberger D, Quintero L, Watson RP, Low R. Ain Soda and 'Ayn Qasiya: New late Pleistocene and early Holocene sites in the Azraq Shishan area, eastern Jordan. In: Gebel HG, Kafafi Z, Rollefson GO, editors. The Prehistory of Jordan, vol. II: Perspectives from 1997. Berlin: Ex Oriente; 1997. pp. 45–58.

14. Rollefson GO, Quintero LA, Wilke PJ. The Acheulian industry in the al-Jafr Basin of southeastern Jordan. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 2005; 35: 53–68.

15. Weinstein-Evron M, Bar-Oz G, Zaidner Y, Tsatskin A, Druck D, Porat N, et al. Introducing Misliya cave, Mount Carmel, Israel: A new continuous Lower/Middle Paleolithic sequence in the Levant. Eurasian Prehistory. 2003; 1(1): 31–55.

16. Ginat H, Zilberman E, Saragusti I. Early Pleistocene lake deposits and Lower Paleolithic finds in Nahal (wadi) Zihor, Southern Negev desert, Israel. Quat Res. 2003; 59(3): 445–458.

17. Barzilai O, Malinsky-Buller A, Ackermann O. Kefar Menachem West: A Lower Paleolithic site in the southern Shephela, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 2006; 36: 7–38.

18. Chazan M, Horwitz LK, editors. Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology: Harvard University; 2007.

19. Marder O, Malinsky-Buller A, Shahack-Gross R, Ackermann O, Ayalon A, Bar-Matthews M, et al. Archaeological horizons and fluvial processes at the Lower Paleolithic open-air site of Revadim (Israel). J Hum Evol. 2011; 60: 508–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.01.007 PMID: 20304463

20. Nowell A, Walker C, Cordova CE, Ames CJH, Pokines JT, Stueber D, et al. Middle Pleistocene subsistence in the Azraq Oasis, Jordan: Protein residue and other proxies. J Archaeol Sci. 2016; 73: 36–44.

21. Shaw A. Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Lebanon. In: Enzel Y, Bar-Yosef O, editors. Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. pp. 555–566.

22. Marder O, Gvirtzman G, Ron H, Khalaily H, Wieder M, Bankirer R, et al. The Lower Paleolithic site Revadim Quarry, preliminary finds. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 1999; 28: 21–53.

23. Horwitz LK, Chazan M. Holon in the context of Levantine Late Lower Paleolithic. In: Chazan M, Horwitz LK, editors. Holon: A Lower Paleolithic site in Israel. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 2007; 50. pp. 181–191.

24. Grosman L, Goldsmith Y, Smilansky U. Morphological analysis of Nahal Zihor handaxes: a chronological perspective. PaleoAnthropology 2011: 203–215.

25. Ronen A, Gilead D, Shachnai E, Saull A. Upper Acheulean in the Kissufim region. Proc Am Philos Soc. 1972; 116 (1): 68–96.

26. Ronen A, Winter Y. Eyal 23: A Lower Palaeolithic site in the Eastern Sharon, Israel. Quartär. 1997; 47: 177–188.

27. Evron Stekelis M.. Alon (Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums). 1950; 2: 29–30.

28. Malinsky-Buller A, Hovers E, Marder O. Making time: 'Living floors', 'palimpsests' and site formation processes—A perspective from the open-air Lower Paleolithic site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. J Anthropol Archaeol. 2011; 30(2): 89–101.

29. Alperson-Afil N. Demographic changes as triggers for the loss of skills during the Lower Palaeolithic Levant. Insights of Anthropology. 2019; 3(1): 140–146.

30. Rosenberg D, Shimelmitz R, Gluhak TM, Assaf A. The geochemistry of basalt handaxes from the Lower Palaeolithic site of Ma'ayan Baruch, Israel—A perspective on raw material selection. Archaeometry. 2015; 57: 1–19.

31. Goren N. Kefar Menahem Lashon. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 1979; 16: 69–87.

32. Chazan M. Flake production at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Holon (Israel): Implications for the origin of the Levallois method. Antiquity. 2000; 74(285): 495–499.

33. Agam A, Barkai R. Small flake Acheulian: Further insights into lithic recycling at late Acheulian Revadim, Israel. Tel Aviv. 2018; 45(2): 170–192.

34. Goren-Inbar N, Alperson-Afil N, Sharon G, Herzlinger G. The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov Volume IV: The Lithic Assemblages. Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190804 PMID: 29293687

35. Rosenberg-Yefet T, Barkai R. Early in the Late Acheulian: Techno-typological analysis of the earliest lithic assemblage from Lower Paleolithic Revadim, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 2019; 49: 6–31.

36. Sharon G. Acheulian giant-core technology: A worldwide perspective. Curr Anthropol. 2009; 50(3): 335–367.
37. Jagher R. Nadaouiyeh Ain Askar—Acheulean variability in the Central Syrian Desert. In: Le Tensorer J-M, Jagher R, Otte M, editors. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions. Proceedings of the Basel symposium (May 8–10 2008). Liege: ERAUL; 2011; 126. pp. 209–224.

38. Malinsky-Buller A, Grosman L, Marder O. A case of techno-typological lithic variability and continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic. Before Farming. 2011; 1: 1–32.

39. Malinsky-Buller A. Contextualizing curational strategies at the Late Lower Paleolithic site of Holon, Israel. *PaleoAnthropology*. 2014; 483: 504.

40. Malinsky-Buller A, Barzilai O, Ayalon A, Bar-Matthews M, Birkenfeld M, Porat N, et al. The age of the Lower Paleolithic site of Kefar Menachem West, Israel—Another facet of Acheulian variability. *J Archaeol Sci Rep*. 2016; 10: 350–362.

41. Chazan M. Technological radiation and the process of technological change at the end of the Levantine Lower Paleolithic. Quat Int. 2016; 411: 59–66.

42. Rosenberg-Yefet T, Shemer M, Barkai R. Acheulian shortcuts: Cumulative culture and the use of handaxes as cores for the production of predetermined blanks. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2021; 36: 102822.

43. Shimelmitz R. The recycling of flint throughout the Lower and Middle Paleolithic sequence of Tabun Cave, Israel. Quat Int. 2015; 361: 34–45.

44. DeBono H, Goren-Inbar N. Note on a link between Acheulian handaxes and the Levallois method. *Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society*. 2001; 31: 9–23.

45. Hérisson D, Soriano S. A view of the Lower to Middle Paleolithic boundary from Northern France, far from the Near East? J Hum Evol. 2020; 145: 102814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102814 PMID: 32673890

46. Moncel MH, Ashton N, Arzarello M, Fontana F, Lamotte A, Scott B, et al. Early Levallois core technology between marine isotope stage 12 and 9 in Western Europe. J Hum Evol. 2020; 139: 102735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102735 PMID: 32078934

47. Zaidner Y, Weinstein-Evron M. The emergence of the Levallois technology in the Levant: A view from the Early Middle Paleolithic site of Misliya Cave, Israel. J Hum Evol. 2020; 144: 102785 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102785 PMID: 32428731

48. Porat N, Chazan M, Schwarcz H, Horwitz LK. Timing of the Lower to Middle Paleolithic boundary: New dates from the Levant. J Hum Evol. 2002; 43(1): 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2002.0562 PMID: 12098213

49. Meignen L, Bar-Yosef O. Acheulo-Yabrudian and Early Middle Paleolithic at Hayonim Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Continuity or break? J Hum Evol. 2020; 139: 102733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102733 PMID: 32062431

50. Nishiaki Y, Kanjou Y, Akazawa T. The Yabrudian industry of Dederiyeh Cave, Northwest Syria. In: Wojtczak D, Al Najjar M, Jagher R, Elsuede H, Wegmüller F, Otte M. editors. Vocation Préhistoire. Hommage à J.-M. Le Tensorer. Liege: ERAUL. 2017; 126. pp. 295–304.

51. Valladas H, Mercier N, Hershkovitz I, Zaidner Y, Tsatskin A, Yeshurun R, et al. Dating the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition in the Levant: A view from Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. J Hum Evol. 2013; 65(5): 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.07.005 PMID: 24034982

52. Barkai R, Gopher A, Lauritzen SE, Frumkin A. Uranium series dates from Qesem Cave, Israel, and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic. Nature. 2003; 423(6943): 977. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01718 PMID: 12827199

53. Mercier N, Valladas H. Reassessment of TL age estimates of burnt flints from the Paleolithic site of Tabun Cave, Israel. J Hum Evol. 2003; 45(5): 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2003.09.004 PMID: 14624750

54. Rink WJ, Schwarcz HP, Ronen A, Tsatskin A. Confirmation of a near 400 ka age for the Yabrudian industry at Tabun Cave, Israel. J Archaeol Sci 2004; 31(1): 15–20.

55. Gopher A, Ayalon A, Bar-Matthews M, Barkai R, Frumkin A, Karkanas P, et al. The chronology of the late Lower Paleolithic in the Levant based on U–Th ages of speleothems from Qesem Cave, Israel. Quat Geochronol. 2010; 5(6): 644–656.

56. Barkai R, Rosell J, Blasco R, Gopher A. Fire for a reason: Barbecue at Middle Pleistocene Qesem cave, Israel. Curr Anthropol. 2017; 58 (S16): S314–S328.

57. Ben-Dor M, Gopher A, Hershkovitz I, Barkai R. Man the fat hunter: The demise of *Homo erectus* and the emergence of a new hominin lineage in the Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant. PLoS One. 2011; 6(12): e28689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028689 PMID: 22174868

58. Sneh A, Shaliv G. The geological map of Israel, 1:50,000. Sheet 8-II, Ari'el. In: Rosensaft M, editor. Vectorial Format of the 1:50,000 Geological Map of Israel. Isr. Geol. Surv. 2012; Jerusalem.
37. Jagher R. Nadaouiyeh Ain Askar—Acheulean variability in the Central Syrian Desert. In: Le Tensorer J-M, Jagher R, Otte M, editors. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions. Proceedings of the Basel symposium (May 8–10 2008). Liege: ERAUL; 2011; 126. pp. 209–224.

38. Malinsky-Buller A, Grosman L, Marder O. A case of techno-typological lithic variability and continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic. Before Farming. 2011; 1: 1–32.

39. Malinsky-Buller A. Contextualizing curational strategies at the Late Lower Paleolithic site of Holon, Israel. *PaleoAnthropology*. 2014; 483: 504.

40. Malinsky-Buller A, Barzilai O, Ayalon A, Bar-Matthews M, Birkenfeld M, Porat N, et al. The age of the Lower Paleolithic site of Kefar Menachem West, Israel—Another facet of Acheulian variability. *J Archaeol Sci Rep*. 2016; 10: 350–362.

41. Chazan M. Technological radiation and the process of technological change at the end of the Levantine Lower Paleolithic. Quat Int. 2016; 411: 59–66.

42. Rosenberg-Yefet T, Shemer M, Barkai R. Acheulian shortcuts: Cumulative culture and the use of handaxes as cores for the production of predetermined blanks. *J Archaeol Sci Rep*. 2021; 36: 102822.

43. Shimelmitz R. The recycling of flint throughout the Lower and Middle Paleolithic sequence of Tabun Cave, Israel. Quat Int. 2015; 361: 34–45.

44. DeBono H, Goren-Inbar N. Note on a link between Acheulian handaxes and the Levallois method. *Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society*. 2001; 31: 9–23.

45. Hérisson D, Soriano S. A view of the Lower to Middle Paleolithic boundary from Northern France, far from the Near East? *J Hum Evol*. 2020; 145: 102814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102814 PMID: 32673890

46. Moncel MH, Ashton N, Arzarello M, Fontana F, Lamotte A, Scott B, et al. Early Levallois core technology between marine isotope stage 12 and 9 in Western Europe. *J Hum Evol*. 2020; 139: 102735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102735 PMID: 32078934

47. Zaidner Y, Weinstein-Evron M. The emergence of the Levallois technology in the Levant: A view from the Early Middle Paleolithic site of Misliya Cave, Israel. *J Hum Evol*. 2020; 144: 102785 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102785 PMID: 32428731

48. Porat N, Chazan M, Schwarcz H, Horwitz LK. Timing of the Lower to Middle Paleolithic boundary: New dates from the Levant. *J Hum Evol*. 2002; 43(1): 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2002.0562 PMID: 12098213

49. Meignen L, Bar-Yosef O. Acheulo-Yabrudian and Early Middle Paleolithic at Hayonim Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Continuity or break? *J Hum Evol*. 2020; 139: 102733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102733 PMID: 32062431

50. Nishiaki Y, Kanjou Y, Akazawa T. The Yabrudian industry of Dederiyeh Cave, Northwest Syria. In: Wojtczak D, Al Najjar M, Jagher R, Elsuede H, Wegmüller F, Otte M. editors. Vocation Préhistoire. Hommage à J.-M. Le Tensorer. Liege: ERAUL. 2017; 126. pp. 295–304.

51. Valladas H, Mercier N, Hershkovitz I, Zaidner Y, Tsatskin A, Yeshurun R, et al. Dating the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition in the Levant: A view from Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. *J Hum Evol*. 2013; 65(5): 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.07.005 PMID: 24034982

52. Barkai R, Gopher A, Lauritzen SE, Frumkin A. Uranium series dates from Qesem Cave, Israel, and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic. *Nature*. 2003; 423(6943): 977. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01718 PMID: 12827199

53. Mercier N, Valladas H. Reassessment of TL age estimates of burnt flints from the Paleolithic site of Tabun Cave, Israel. *J Hum Evol*. 2003; 45(5): 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2003.09.004 PMID: 14624750

54. Rink WJ, Schwarcz HP, Ronen A, Tsatskin A. Confirmation of a near 400 ka age for the Yabrudian industry at Tabun Cave, Israel. *J Archaeol Sci* 2004; 31(1): 15–20.

55. Gopher A, Ayalon A, Bar-Matthews M, Barkai R, Frumkin A, Karkanas P, et al. The chronology of the late Lower Paleolithic in the Levant based on U–Th ages of speleothems from Qesem Cave, Israel. *Quat Geochronol*. 2010; 5(6): 644–656.

56. Barkai R, Rosell J, Blasco R, Gopher A. Fire for a reason: Barbecue at Middle Pleistocene Qesem cave, Israel. *Curr Anthropol*. 2017; 58 (S16): S314–S328.

57. Ben-Dor M, Gopher A, Hershkovitz I, Barkai R. Man the fat hunter: The demise of *Homo erectus* and the emergence of a new hominin lineage in the Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant. *PLoS One*. 2011; 6(12): e28689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028689 PMID: 22174868

58. Sneh A, Shaliv G. The geological map of Israel, 1:50,000. Sheet 8-II, Ari'el. In: Rosensaft M, editor. Vectorial Format of the 1:50,000 Geological Map of Israel. Isr. Geol. Surv. 2012; Jerusalem.
59. Hildebrand-Mittlefehldt N. The geological map of Israel, 1:50,000. Sheet 8-I, Kefar Sava. In: Rosensaft M, editor. Vectorial format of the 1:50,000 geological map of Israel. Isr. Geol. Surv. 1993 (Partly revised 2011); Jerusalem.

60. Sneh A, Rosensaft M. The geological map of Israel, 1:50,000. Sheet 7-II, Tel Aviv. In: Rosensaft M, editor. Vectorial format of the 1:50,000 geological map of Israel. Isr. Geol. Surv. 2008; Jerusalem.

61. Gardiner V, Dackombe RV. Geomorphological Field Manual. London: Allen & Unwin; 1983.

62. Birkland PW, Machette MN, Haller KM. Soils as a Tool for Applied Quaternary Geology. Miscellaneous publications 91-3: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Utah Department of Natural Resources; 1991. PMID: 1921055

63. Dan J, Fine P, Lavee H. The Soils of the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv: The "Eretz" series — Geographical Research & Publications (in Hebrew, English Summary); 2007.

64. Dan J, Raz Z. Soil Group Map of Israel (1:250,000). Vulcani Institute for Agricultural Study and the Department of Soil Conservation and drainage: Ministry of Agriculture; 1970.

65. Porat N. Use of magnetic separation for purifying quartz for luminescence dating. Ancient TL. 2006; 24: 33-36.

66. Porat N, Faerstein G, Medialdea A, Murray AS. Re-examination of common extraction and purification methods of quartz and feldspar for luminescence dating. Ancient TL. 2015; 33: 22-30.

67. Arnold LJ, Demuro M, Parés JM, Pérez-González A, Arsuaga JL, de Castro JMB, et al. Evaluating the suitability of extended-range luminescence dating techniques over early and Middle Pleistocene time-scales: Published datasets and case studies from Atapuerca, Spain. Quat Int. 2015; 389: 167-190.

68. Duller GAT, Wintle AG. A review of the thermally transferred optically stimulated luminescence signal from quartz for dating sediments. Quat Geochronol. 2012; 7: 6-20.

69. Faershtein G, Porat N, Matmon A. Natural saturation of OSL and TT-OSL signals of quartz grains from Nilotic origin. Quat Geochronol. 2019; 49: 146-152.

70. Porat N, Duller GAT, Roberts HM, Wintle AG. A simplified SAR protocol for TT-OSL. Radiat Meas. 2009; 44: 538-542.

71. Adamiec G, Duller GAT, Roberts HM, Wintle AG. Improving the TT-OSL SAR protocol through source trap characterization. Radiat Meas. 2010; 45: 768-777.

72. Buylaert JP, Jain M, Murray AS, Thomsen KJ, Thiel C, Sohbati R. A robust feldspar luminescence dating method for Middle and Late Pleistocene sediments. Boreas 2012; 41: 435-451.

73. Huntley DJ, Lamothe M. Ubiquity of anomalous fading in K-feldspars and the measurement and correction for it in optical dating. Can J Earth Sci. 2001; 38: 1093-1106.

74. Thomsen KJ, Murray AS, Jain M, Bøtter-Jensen L. Laboratory fading rates of various luminescence signals from feldspar-rich sediment extracts. Radiat Meas. 2008; 43: 1474-1486.

75. Faershtein G, Porat N, Matmon A. Extended-range luminescence dating of quartz and alkali feldspar from aeolian sediments in the eastern Mediterranean. Geochronology. 2020; 2: 1-18.

76. Auclair M, Lamothe M, Huot S. Measurement of anomalous fading for feldspar IRSL using SAR. Radiat Meas. 2003; 37: 487-492.

77. Voinchet P, Bahain JJ, Falguères C, Laurent M, Dolo JM, Despriée J, et al. ESR dating of quartz extracted from Quaternary sediments: Application to fluvial terraces system of northern France. Quaternaire. 2004; 15: 135-141.

78. Toyoda S, Falguères C. The method to represent the ESR signal intensity of the aluminium hole center in quartz for the purpose of dating. Advances in ESR Applications. 2003; 20: 7-10.

79. Tissoux H, Falguères C, Voinchet P, Toyoda S, Bahain JJ, Despriée J. Potential use of Ti-center in ESR dating of fluvial sediment. Quat Geochronol. 2007; 2: 367-372.

80. Duval M, Grün R, Falguères C, Bahain JJ, Dolo JM. ESR dating of Lower Pleistocene fossil teeth: Limits of the single saturating exponential (SSE) function for the equivalent dose determination. Radiat Meas. 2009; 44 (5-6): 477-482.

81. Voinchet P, Yin G, Falguères C, Liu C, Han F, Sun X, et al. ESR dose response of Al center measured in quartz samples from the Yellow River (China): Implications for the dating of Upper Pleistocene sediment. Geochronometria. 2013; 40 (4): 341-347.

82. Guérin G, Mercier N, Adamiec G. Dose-rate conversion factors: Update. Ancient TL. 2011; 29: 5-8.

83. Yokoyama Y, Falguères C, Quaegebeur JP. ESR dating of quartz from Quaternary sediments: First attempts. Nucl Tracks Radiat Meas. 1985; 10: 921-928.

84. Brennan BJ. Beta doses to spherical grains. Radiat Meas. 2003; 37: 299-303.

85. Brennan B, Lyons R, Phillips S. Attenuation of alpha particle track dose for spherical grains. Nucl Tracks Radiat Meas. 1991; 18: 249-253.
59. Hildebrand-Mittlefehldt N. The geological map of Israel, 1:50,000. Sheet 8-I, Kefar Sava. In: Rosensaft M, editor. Vectorial format of the 1:50,000 geological map of Israel. Isr. Geol. Surv. 1993 (Partly revised 2011); Jerusalem.

60. Sneh A, Rosensaft M. The geological map of Israel, 1:50,000. Sheet 7-II, Tel Aviv. In: Rosensaft M, editor. Vectorial format of the 1:50,000 geological map of Israel. Isr. Geol. Surv. 2008; Jerusalem.

61. Gardiner V, Dackombe RV. Geomorphological Field Manual. London: Allen & Unwin; 1983.

62. Birkland PW, Machette MN, Haller KM. Soils as a Tool for Applied Quaternary Geology. Miscellaneous publications 91-3: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Utah Department of Natural Resources; 1991. PMID: 1921055

63. Dan J, Fine P, Lavee H. The Soils of the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv: The "Eretz" series — Geographical Research & Publications (in Hebrew, English Summary); 2007.

64. Dan J, Raz Z. Soil Group Map of Israel (1:250,000). Vulcani Institute for Agricultural Study and the Department of Soil Conservation and drainage: Ministry of Agriculture; 1970.

65. Porat N. Use of magnetic separation for purifying quartz for luminescence dating. Ancient TL. 2006; 24: 33-36.

66. Porat N, Faerstein G, Medialdea A, Murray AS. Re-examination of common extraction and purification methods of quartz and feldspar for luminescence dating. Ancient TL. 2015; 33: 22-30.

67. Arnold LJ, Demuro M, Parés JM, Pérez-González A, Arsuaga JL, de Castro JMB, et al. Evaluating the suitability of extended-range luminescence dating techniques over early and Middle Pleistocene timescales: Published datasets and case studies from Atapuerca, Spain. Quat Int. 2015; 389: 167-190.

68. Duller GAT, Wintle AG. A review of the thermally transferred optically stimulated luminescence signal from quartz for dating sediments. Quat Geochronol. 2012; 7: 6-20.

69. Faershtein G, Porat N, Matmon A. Natural saturation of OSL and TT-OSL signals of quartz grains from Nilotic origin. Quat Geochronol. 2019; 49: 146-152.

70. Porat N, Duller GAT, Roberts HM, Wintle AG. A simplified SAR protocol for TT-OSL. Radiat Meas. 2009; 44: 538-542.

71. Adamiec G, Duller GAT, Roberts HM, Wintle AG. Improving the TT-OSL SAR protocol through source trap characterization. Radiat Meas. 2010; 45: 768-777.

72. Buylaert JP, Jain M, Murray AS, Thomsen KJ, Thiel C, Sohbati R. A robust feldspar luminescence dating method for Middle and Late Pleistocene sediments. Boreas 2012; 41: 435-451.

73. Huntley DJ, Lamothe M. Ubiquity of anomalous fading in K-feldspars and the measurement and correction for it in optical dating. Can J Earth Sci. 2001; 38: 1093-1106.

74. Thomsen KJ, Murray AS, Jain M, Bøtter-Jensen L. Laboratory fading rates of various luminescence signals from feldspar-rich sediment extracts. Radiat Meas. 2008; 43: 1474-1486.

75. Faershtein G, Porat N, Matmon A. Extended-range luminescence dating of quartz and alkali feldspar from aeolian sediments in the eastern Mediterranean. Geochronology. 2020; 2: 1-18.

76. Auclair M, Lamothe M, Huot S. Measurement of anomalous fading for feldspar IRSL using SAR. Radiat Meas. 2003; 37: 487-492.

77. Voinchet P, Bahain JJ, Falguères C, Laurent M, Dolo JM, Despriée J, et al. ESR dating of quartz extracted from Quaternary sediments: Application to fluvial terraces system of northern France. Quaternaire. 2004; 15: 135-141.

78. Toyoda S, Falguères C. The method to represent the ESR signal intensity of the aluminium hole center in quartz for the purpose of dating. Advances in ESR Applications. 2003; 20: 7-10.

79. Tissoux H, Falguères C, Voinchet P, Toyoda S, Bahain JJ, Despriée J. Potential use of Ti-center in ESR dating of fluvial sediment. Quat Geochronol. 2007; 2: 367-372.

80. Duval M, Grün R, Falguères C, Bahain JJ, Dolo JM. ESR dating of Lower Pleistocene fossil teeth: Limits of the single saturating exponential (SSE) function for the equivalent dose determination. Radiat Meas. 2009; 44 (5-6): 477-482.

81. Voinchet P, Yin G, Falguères C, Liu C, Han F, Sun X, et al. ESR dose response of Al center measured in quartz samples from the Yellow River (China): Implications for the dating of Upper Pleistocene sediment. Geochronometria. 2013; 40 (4): 341-347.

82. Guérin G, Mercier N, Adamiec G. Dose-rate conversion factors: Update. Ancient TL. 2011; 29: 5-8.

83. Yokoyama Y, Falguères C, Quaegebeur JP. ESR dating of quartz from Quaternary sediments: First attempts. Nucl Tracks Radiat Meas. 1985; 10: 921-928.

84. Brennan BJ. Beta doses to spherical grains. Radiat Meas. 2003; 37: 299-303.

85. Brennan B, Lyons R, Phillips S. Attenuation of alpha particle track dose for spherical grains. Nucl Tracks Radiat Meas. 1991; 18: 249-253.
86. Grün R. A cautionary note: use of the “water content” and “depth for cosmic ray dose rate” in AGE and DATA. Ancient TL. 1994; 12: 50–51.

87. Prescott JR, Hutton JT. Cosmic ray contributions to dose rates for Luminescence and ESR Dating: Large depths and long-term time. Radiat Meas. 1994; 23: 497–500.

88. Murray AS, Roberts RG. Determining the burial time of single grains of quartz using optically stimulated luminescence. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 1997; 152: 163–180.

89. Vandenbergue D, De Corte F, Buylaert JP, Kucera J, Van den Haute P. On the internal radioactivity in quartz. Radiat Meas. 2008; 43: 771–775.

90. Ludwig KR. User's Manual for a Geochronological Toolkit for Microsoft Excel (Isoplot/Ex. Version 3.0). Berkeley Geochronology Center Special Publication 2003; 4: 1–71.

91. Faershtein G, Guralnik B, Lambert R, Matmon A, Porat N. Investigating the thermal stability of TT-OSL main source trap. Radiat Meas. 2018; 119: 102–111.

92. Rosenberg-Yefet T, Shemer M, Barkai R. Lower Paleolithic winds of change: Prepared core technologies and the onset of the Levallois method in the Levantine late Acheulian. Front Earth Sci. 2022; 10: 847358.

93. Agam A, Marder O, Barkai R. Small flake production and lithic recycling at Late Acheulian Revadim, Israel. Quat Int. 2015; 361: 46–60.

94. Venditti F, Cristiani E, Nunziante-Cesaro S, Agam A, Lemorini C, Barkai R. Animal residues found on tiny Lower Paleolithic tools reveal their use in butchery. Scientific Reports 2019; 9(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 PMID: 30626917

95. Debenáth A, Dibble H. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology Middle and Lower Paleolithic of Europe. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; 1994.

96. Picin A. Technological adaptation and the emergence of Levallois in Central Europe: New insight from the Markkleeberg and Zwochau open-air sites in Germany. J Quat Sci. 2018; 33(3): 300–312.

97. Boëda E. Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In: Dibble HL, Bar-Yosef O, editors. The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press; 1995. pp. 41–68.

98. Terradas X. Discoid flaking method: conception and technological variability. In: Peresani M, editor. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and Implications. BAR International Series. 2003; 1120: 19–32.

99. Zupancich A, Shemer M, Barkai R. Biface use in the Lower Paleolithic Levant: A view from Late Acheulean Revadim and Jaljulia (Israel). J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2021; 36: 102877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102877

100. Fernández-Jalvo Y, Andrews P. Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications: 1001+ Images of Fossil and Recent Mammal Bone Modification. Springer: Dordrecht; 2016.

101. Pante MC, Blumenschine RJ. Fluvial transport of bovid long bones fragmented by the feeding activities of hominins and carnivores. J Archaeol Sci. 2010; 37: 846–854.

102. Aslan A, Behrensmeyer AK. Taphonomy and time resolution of bone assemblages in a contemporary fluvial system: The East Fork River, Wyoming. Palaios 1996; 11(5): 411–421.

103. Sneed ED, Folk RL. Pebbles in the Lower Colorado River, Texas a study in particle morphogenesis. J Geol. 1958; 66 (2): 114–150.

104. Marín-Arroyo AB, Landete Ruiz MD, Vidal Bernabeu G, Seva Romá NR, González Morales MR, Straus LG. Archaeological implications of human-derived manganese coatings: a study of blackened bones in El Mirón cave, Cantabrian Spain. J Archaeo Sci. 2008; 35: 801–813.

105. Yaalon DH, Ganor E. The influence of dust on soils during the Quaternary. Soil Science 1973; 116: 146–155.

106. Frechen M, Neber A, Dermann B, Tsatskin A, Boenigk W, Ronen A. Chronostratigraphy of eolianites from the Sharon Coastal Plain of Israel. Quat Int. 2002; 89: 33–44.

107. Frechen M, Neber A, Dermann B, Tsatskin A, Boenigk W, Ronen, A. Chronostratigraphy of Pleistocene sedimentary cycles in the Carmel Coastal Plain of Israel. Quat Int. 2004; 121 (1): 41–52.

108. Porat N, Avital A, Frechen M, Almogi-Labin A. Chronology of Upper Quaternary offshore successions from the southeastern Mediterranean Sea, Israel. Quat Sci Rev. 2003; 22: 1191–1199.

109. Sivan D, Porat N. Late Pleistocene contemporaneous formation of calcareous aeolinite (kurkar) and paleosol (Hamra) in the Carmel coast, Israel. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2004; 211: 95–106.

110. Cohen-Seffera R, Greenbaum N, Sivanc D, Jull T, Barmeir E, Croitoru S, et al. Late Pleistocene–Holocene marsh episodes along the Carmel coast, Israel. Quat Int. 2005; 140–141: 103–120.

111. Harel M, Amit R, Porat N, Enzel Y. Evolution of the southwestern Mediterranean coastal plain. In: Enzel Y, Bar-Yosef O. editors. Quaternary of the Levant. Cambridge University Press; 2017. pp. 433–445.
86. Grün R. A cautionary note: use of the “water content” and “depth for cosmic ray dose rate” in AGE and DATA. Ancient TL. 1994; 12: 50–51.

87. Prescott JR, Hutton JT. Cosmic ray contributions to dose rates for Luminescence and ESR Dating: Large depths and long-term time. Radiat Meas. 1994; 23: 497–500.

88. Murray AS, Roberts RG. Determining the burial time of single grains of quartz using optically stimulated luminescence. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 1997; 152: 163–180.

89. Vandenbergue D, De Corte F, Buylaert JP, Kucera J, Van den Haute P. On the internal radioactivity in quartz. Radiat Meas. 2008; 43: 771–775.

90. Ludwig KR. User's Manual for a Geochronological Toolkit for Microsoft Excel (Isoplot/Ex. Version 3.0). Berkeley Geochronology Center Special Publication 2003; 4: 1–71.

91. Faershtein G, Guralnik B, Lambert R, Matmon A, Porat N. Investigating the thermal stability of TT-OSL main source trap. Radiat Meas. 2018; 119: 102–111.

92. Rosenberg-Yefet T, Shemer M, Barkai R. Lower Paleolithic winds of change: Prepared core technologies and the onset of the Levallois method in the Levantine late Acheulian. Front Earth Sci. 2022; 10: 847358.

93. Agam A, Marder O, Barkai R. Small flake production and lithic recycling at Late Acheulian Revadim, Israel. Quat Int. 2015; 361: 46–60.

94. Venditti F, Cristiani E, Nunziante-Cesaro S, Agam A, Lemorini C, Barkai R. Animal residues found on tiny Lower Paleolithic tools reveal their use in butchery. Scientific Reports 2019; 9(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 PMID: 30626917

95. Debenáth A, Dibble H. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology Middle and Lower Paleolithic of Europe. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; 1994.

96. Picin A. Technological adaptation and the emergence of Levallois in Central Europe: New insight from the Markkleeberg and Zwochau open-air sites in Germany. J Quat Sci. 2018; 33(3): 300–312.

97. Boëda E. Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In: Dibble HL, Bar-Yosef O, editors. The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press; 1995. pp. 41–68.

98. Terradas X. Discoid flaking method: conception and technological variability. In: Peresani M, editor. Discoid Lithic Technology. Advances and Implications. BAR International Series. 2003; 1120: 19–32.

99. Zupancich A, Shemer M, Barkai R. Biface use in the Lower Paleolithic Levant: A view from Late Acheulian Revadim and Jaljulia (Israel). J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2021; 36: 102877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102877

100. Fernández-Jalvo Y, Andrews P. Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications: 1001+ Images of Fossil and Recent Mammal Bone Modification. Springer: Dordrecht; 2016.

101. Pante MC, Blumenschine RJ. Fluvial transport of bovid long bones fragmented by the feeding activities of hominins and carnivores. J Archaeol Sci. 2010; 37: 846–854.

102. Aslan A, Behrensmeyer AK. Taphonomy and time resolution of bone assemblages in a contemporary fluvial system: The East Fork River, Wyoming. Palaios 1996; 11(5): 411–421.

103. Sneed ED, Folk RL. Pebbles in the Lower Colorado River, Texas a study in particle morphogenesis. J Geol. 1958; 66 (2): 114–150.

104. Marín-Arroyo AB, Landete Ruiz MD, Vidal Bernabeu G, Seva Romá NR, González Morales MR, Straus LG. Archaeological implications of human-derived manganese coatings: a study of blackened bones in El Mirón cave, Cantabrian Spain. J Archaeo Sci. 2008; 35: 801–813.

105. Yaalon DH, Ganor E. The influence of dust on soils during the Quaternary. Soil Science 1973; 116: 146–155.

106. Frechen M, Neber A, Dermann B, Tsatskin A, Boenigk W, Ronen A. Chronostratigraphy of eolianites from the Sharon Coastal Plain of Israel. Quat Int. 2002; 89: 33–44.

107. Frechen M, Neber A, Dermann B, Tsatskin A, Boenigk W, Ronen, A. Chronostratigraphy of Pleistocene sedimentary cycles in the Carmel Coastal Plain of Israel. Quat Int. 2004; 121 (1): 41–52.

108. Porat N, Avital A, Frechen M, Almogi-Labin A. Chronology of Upper Quaternary offshore successions from the southeastern Mediterranean Sea, Israel. Quat Sci Rev. 2003; 22: 1191–1199.

109. Sivan D, Porat N. Late Pleistocene contemporaneous formation of calcareous aeolinite (kurkar) and paleosol (Hamra) in the Carmel coast, Israel. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2004; 211: 95–106.

110. Cohen-Seffera R, Greenbaum N, Sivanc D, Jull T, Barmeir E, Croitoru S, et al. Late Pleistocene–Holocene marsh episodes along the Carmel coast, Israel. Quat Int. 2005; 140–141: 103–120.

111. Harel M, Amit R, Porat N, Enzel Y. Evolution of the southwestern Mediterranean coastal plain. In: Enzel Y, Bar-Yosef O. editors. Quaternary of the Levant. Cambridge University Press; 2017. pp. 433–445.
112. Dan J, Yaalon DH. Trends of Soils Development with Time in the Mediterranean Environments of Israel. In:Trans Int Conf Medit Soils, Madrid; 1966. pp. 139–145.

113. Dan J, Yaalon DH. Catenary soil relationships in Israel, The Netanya catena on coastal dunes of the Sharon. Geoderma 1969; 2: 95–120.

114. Yaalon DH, Dan J. Factors controlling soil formation and distribution in the Mediterranean coastal plain of Israel during the Quaternary. Quaternary Soils, 7th INQUA Congress 1965; 1967; 9: 322–338.

115. Sandler A. Clay distribution over the landscape of Israel: From the hyper-arid to the Mediterranean climate regimes. Catena. 2013; 110: 119–132.

116. Gile LH, Peterson FF, Grossman RB. The K horizon: Amaster soil horizon of carbonate accumulation. Soil Science. 1965; 99: 72–82.

117. Gile LH, Peterson FF, Grossman RB. Morphological and genetic sequences of carbonate accumulation in desert soils. Soil Science. 1966; 101: 347–360.

118. Costa JE. Paleohydraulic reconstruction of flash-flood peaks from boulderdeposits in the Colorado Front Range. Geol Soc Am Bull. 1983; 94: 986–1004.

119. Machette MN. Calcic soils of the southwestern United States. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 1985; 203: 1–23.

120. Shtober-Zisu N. Quaternary Tectonic Geomorphology along the Naftali Mountain Front. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Haifa. 2005.

121. Sivan D, Greenbaum N. Middle-Late Quaternary wetlands along the coastal plain of Israel. In: Enzel Y, Bar-Yosef O, editors. Quaternary of the Levant. Cambridge University Press; 2017. pp. 447–456.

122. Waelbroeck C, Labeyrie L, Michel E, Duplessy JC, McManus JF, Lambeck K, et al. Sea-level and deep water temperature changes derived from benthic foraminifera isotope records. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2002; 21: 295–305.

123. Greenbaum N, Ekshtain R, Malinsky-Buller A, Porat N, Hovers E. The stratigraphy and paleogeography of the Middle Paleolithic open-air site of the 'Ein Qashish, northern Israel. Quat Int. 2014; 331: 203–2015.

124. Vaks A, Bar-Matthews M, Matthews A, Ayalon A, Frumkin A. Middle-Late Quaternary paleoclimate of northern margins of the Saharan-Arabian Desert: Reconstruction from speleothems of Negev Desert, Israel. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2010; 29: 2647–2662.

125. Rossignol-Strick M, Paterne M. A synthetic pollen record of the eastern Mediterranean sapropels of the last 1 ma: implications for the time-scale and formation of sapropels. Mar. Geol. 1999; 153: 221–237.

126. Solodenko N. On Tools and Elephants: An Analysis of a Lithic Assemblage from Area B of the Late Acheulian site Revadim Quarry. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Tel Aviv University, Israel (Hebrew). 2010.
112. Dan J, Yaalon DH. Trends of Soils Development with Time in the Mediterranean Environments of Israel. In:Trans Int Conf Medit Soils, Madrid; 1966. pp. 139–145.

113. Dan J, Yaalon DH. Catenary soil relationships in Israel, The Netanya catena on coastal dunes of the Sharon. Geoderma 1969; 2: 95–120.

114. Yaalon DH, Dan J. Factors controlling soil formation and distribution in the Mediterranean coastal plain of Israel during the Quaternary. Quaternary Soils, 7th INQUA Congress 1965; 1967; 9: 322–338.

115. Sandler A. Clay distribution over the landscape of Israel: From the hyper-arid to the Mediterranean climate regimes. Catena. 2013; 110: 119–132.

116. Gile LH, Peterson FF, Grossman RB. The K horizon: Amaster soil horizon of carbonate accumulation. Soil Science. 1965; 99: 72–82.

117. Gile LH, Peterson FF, Grossman RB. Morphological and genetic sequences of carbonate accumulation in desert soils. Soil Science. 1966; 101: 347–360.

118. Costa JE. Paleohydraulic reconstruction of flash-flood peaks from boulderdeposits in the Colorado Front Range. Geol Soc Am Bull. 1983; 94: 986–1004.

119. Machette MN. Calcic soils of the southwestern United States. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 1985; 203: 1–23.

120. Shtober-Zisu N. Quaternary Tectonic Geomorphology along the Naftali Mountain Front. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Haifa. 2005.

121. Sivan D, Greenbaum N. Middle-Late Quaternary wetlands along the coastal plain of Israel. In: Enzel Y, Bar-Yosef O, editors. Quaternary of the Levant. Cambridge University Press; 2017. pp. 447–456.

122. Waelbroeck C, Labeyrie L, Michel E, Duplessy JC, McManus JF, Lambeck K, et al. Sea-level and deep water temperature changes derived from benthic foraminifera isotope records. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2002; 21: 295–305.

123. Greenbaum N, Ekshtain R, Malinsky-Buller A, Porat N, Hovers E. The stratigraphy and paleogeography of the Middle Paleolithic open-air site of the 'Ein Qashish, northern Israel. Quat Int. 2014; 331: 203–2015.

124. Vaks A, Bar-Matthews M, Matthews A, Ayalon A, Frumkin A. Middle-Late Quaternary paleoclimate of northern margins of the Saharan-Arabian Desert: Reconstruction from speleothems of Negev Desert, Israel. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2010; 29: 2647–2662.

125. Rossignol-Strick M, Paterne M. A synthetic pollen record of the eastern Mediterranean sapropels of the last 1 ma: implications for the time-scale and formation of sapropels. Mar. Geol. 1999; 153: 221–237.

126. Solodenko N. On Tools and Elephants: An Analysis of a Lithic Assemblage from Area B of the Late Acheulian site Revadim Quarry. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Tel Aviv University, Israel (Hebrew). 2010.