# Reassessing Craft in the Late Acheulean: Technological Insights from Jaljulia Handaxes (Levant)

Sol Sánchez-Dehesa Galán, Cyrielle Mathias, Maayan Shemer, Ran Barkai

► To cite this version:

Sol Sánchez-Dehesa Galán, Cyrielle Mathias, Maayan Shemer, Ran Barkai. Reassessing Craft in the Late Acheulean: Technological Insights from Jaljulia Handaxes (Levant). Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2026, 9 (1), pp.5. 10.1007/s41982-025-00239-w. hal-05465561

HAL Id: hal-05465561

https://hal.science/hal-05465561v1

Submitted on 19 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Reassessing Craft in the Late Acheulean: Technological Insights from Jaljulia Handaxes (Levant)

Sol Sánchez-Dehesa Galán<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="5" /> Ⓒ · Cyrielle Mathias<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" /> · Maayan Shemer<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" /> · Ran Barkai<fnref n="1" />

Received: 12 August 2025 / Accepted: 6 October 2025

© The Author(s) 2026

## Abstract

Recent research on the Lower Paleolithic of the Levant has re-evaluated technical trends defined for the Acheulean techno-complex during the 1970s, trends built upon typological analysis of handaxe assemblages. To this end, new methods are being applied to old and new collections in order to assess handaxe morphological and technological variation over time, opening a discussion about the technical skills of Acheulean knappers, also referred to as “craftmanship” (hereafter referred to as “craft”). In this context, morphometric studies conducted at the Late Acheulean site of Jaljulia have highlighted the crudeness and high morphological variability of the bifacial assemblage, challenging the 1970s idea of handaxe increasing refinement over time. Interestingly, the authors do not attribute this variability to a lack of knapping skill—as irregular and non-standardized productions are traditionally interpreted—but to an expedient *chaîne opératoire* of tool production. Produced predominantly in brecciated flint, collected and modified on the spot, the sample studied is interpreted by the authors as tools mostly adapted for bone-crushing purposes. This paper aims to offer a new perspective on this assemblage by conducting a critical technological analysis of the handaxes from the oldest locality on-site, Area D, taking into account raw material constraints as well as the site’s function as a handaxe production workshop, among other activities conducted at this Paleolithic landscape. Our results suggest the presence of pieces discarded during the production process, which contributes to the increased morphological variability observed in the assemblage. Our analysis discusses the expedient character of Jaljulia’s handaxe reduction sequence and points to the production of three distinct techno-types, potentially associated to a wider variety of tasks. To conclude, we discuss our results in the context of the Late Acheulean of the Levant, within the broader framework of technological trends and associated technical skills in the late Acheulean.

**Keywords** Middle Pleistocene · Acheulean · Handaxe · Lithic taphonomy · Technical skills · Lithic technology

## Introduction

The Acheulean is the most widespread prehistoric techno-complex, in both temporal and geographical terms. Defined by the presence of handaxes, these bifacial pieces have been documented for the first time in eastern Africa and

dated to around 1.7 Ma (Beyene et al., 2013; Lepre et al., 2011). In the Levant, the earliest Acheulean occurrence is documented at ~1.5 Ma at Ubeidiya, while late Acheulean sites are dated to around ca. 400/200 ka, at sites such as Nahal Hesi (430±35 ka, Zaidner et al., 2017), Revadim (500–300 ka BP, Marder et al., 2011), and Holon (ca. 200

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Sol Sánchez-Dehesa Galán
solsdgalan@usal.es</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Institute of Archaeology Sonia and Marco Nadler, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² MSCA-COFUND USAL4EXCELLENCE, Universidad de Salamanca, Dpto. de Prehistoria, Historia Antigua y Arqueología, Facultad de Geografía e Historia, Universidad de Salamanca, C/Cervantes S/N., 37008 Salamanca, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ UMR 8068 – Technologie et Ethnologie des Mondes Préhistoriques, Nanterre, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ UMR 7194 – Histoire Naturelle de l’Homme Préhistorique (MNHN/UPVD/CERPT), Perpignan, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem, Jerusalem, Israel</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Archaeological Research Department, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA</footnote>
ka, although highly debated, Malinsky-Buller, 2014, 2016), marking the beginning of the Acheuleo-Yabrudian with a possible overlap between the two (Barkai et al., 2009; Falguères et al., 2016; Gopher et al., 2010; Jelinek, 1982; Rust, 1950; Valladas et al., 2013; Zaidner & Weinstein-Evron, 2016). This geographical area is of major interest for the study of human evolution because of its extensive chronological record and its role as part of the migration routes in the “Out of Africa” model (e.g., Chazan, 2016; Sharon, 2014, 2016; Jagher, 2011; Horwitz & Chazan, 2007; Goren-Inbar & Saragusti, 1996; Bar-Yosef & Goren-Inbar, 1993; Gilead, 1970a, 1970b). As a result, significant research has focused on investigating the local evolution of the Acheulean in the region, as well as exploring hypotheses of migration and/or diffusion from the African continent.

Given the lack of absolute dating in the past, a chronological scheme was developed during the 1970s by Gilead (1970a, b) to serve as baseline for the study of Levantine Acheulean assemblages. Three main phases of Early, Middle, and Late Acheulean were defined, based on handaxe typology. A trend of increasing refinement was suggested, that would reach its highest level during the Late Acheulean.

While Early and Middle Acheulean sites remain rare in the archaeological record of the Levant, the identification of Late Acheulean sites has increased in recent years, providing rich collections from large-scale excavations and allowing for a more complete picture of this last phase. Today, new methods applied to both old and new collections challenge Gilead's linear vision of the Levantine Acheulean and open the discussion about Late Acheulean knappers' technical skills.

The required level of craft to produce Acheulean handaxes, and therefore, the evaluation of Acheulean knapper's skill in a long-term perspective (e.g., Herzlinger et al., 2017; Muller et al., 2022; Pelegrin & Roche, 2017; Shipton, 2018; Shipton et al., 2013; Stout et al., 2015; Wynn, 1979), has been a main topic of research concerning early hominin cognitive evolution. The level of 3D symmetry (e.g., Wynn, 2002), the thinness and regularity of the peripheral edge (e.g., Shipton, 2018), or the maintaining of the width-to-thickness ratio (e.g., Callahan, 1979) are some of the morphological criteria suggested for evaluating high mastery of bifacial shaping. Yet, as different archaeological assemblages might respond to different production goals, not necessarily related to the production of highly symmetrical and regular pieces, increasingly, technological criteria, related to technical complexity, such as the presence of striking platform preparation (Stout et al., 2014), the use of different percussion techniques (e.g., Newcomer, 1971; Roche & Texier, 1991), or the evaluation of individual decision making during knapping through the production of diacritical sketches and refittings (e.g., Foulds, 2010; Leroyer, 2016; Torres & Baena, 2020) have been added to the equation.

In the Levantine context, the analysis conducted by Herzlinger et al. (2021) on the handaxes from Nahal Hesi, Holon and Ma'ayan Baruch combines traditional morphological criteria, such as symmetry, regularity, and standardization, directly associated to technical mastery in knapping, with technological descriptions of the reduction sequence of the pieces, in order to evaluate Acheulean knappers' "craft" and its evolution through time (Herzlinger et al., 2021). Their results describe important rates of technological and morphological variability, both within and between these assemblages. This concerns the level of symmetry of the pieces, artifact volume and deviation from bilateral and bifacial symmetries, retouching procedures and distribution, as well as flaking techniques (Herzlinger et al., 2021), which the authors interpret as indicative of a decrease in "craftmanship" during the late Acheulean.

In contrast, similar inter- and intra-assemblage variability has been observed by Muller et al. (2022) at Jaljulia, but it has been attributed not to a lack of skill or craft on the part of the knappers but rather to a "relatively expedient chaîne opératoire in manufacturing their handaxes" (Muller et al., 2022, p. 13). Based on detailed 3D geometric morphometric analysis that includes a few technological criteria such as raw material type, cortex, and blank type, the study by Muller et al. concludes that the Jaljulia handaxes are mostly small, short and thick, and highly variable in their morphology.

Moreover, at the intra-site scale, handaxes from the oldest area (Area D) appear more refined than those from the younger areas (Muller et al., 2022). The authors interpret this variability as resulting from the expedient selection of initial nodules, combined with a "broad mental template" for the final handaxe, with "few additional imposed constraints" (Muller et al., 2022: 15). They further attribute this variability to the poor quality of the raw material used and/or the functional purposes of the tools (Muller et al., 2022).

Supporting the connection between morphological variability and use, Zupancich et al. (2021) conducted a use-wear analysis on eight handaxes from areas B and C of Jaljulia. They documented evidence of these tools being used in a transverse motion, likely related to pounding activities on bones for marrow extraction, a function that aligns with their rough and irregular edges, as well as a larger cortical basal portion.

The causes of handaxes morphological variability remain a central topic in Acheulean research. However, specialists generally agree that factors such as raw material quality, the technical stage of the tool (its life history, including resharpening processes), and the knappers' skill level play a significant role in shaping lithic morphological variation (e.g., Jelinek, 1977; Villa, 1981, 1983; Ashton & McNabb, 1994; White, 1995; Santonja, 1996; McPherron, 1999; Eren et al., 2014; Shipton et Clarkson, 2015; Herzlinger et al., 2017;

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
Pargeter et al., 2019; Torres & Baena, 2020; Proffit et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023).

In this article, we adopt a qualitative approach to critically evaluate the reduction sequence visible in Jaljulia handaxes in order to better understand the impact of these factors in the production process of the pieces and, therefore, in the final products. Our working hypothesis is that the highly variable quality of the raw material used for handaxe production, its local origin and availability, and the site's function as a lithic/handaxe production workshop—have likely resulted in the presence at the site of pieces discarded at different stages of the production process, thus contributing to the morphological variability of the assemblage.

Our objective is to distinguish discarded elements from finished tools in order to assess intentional products from byproducts of knapping accidents and errors, the final aim being of identifying the goals of the knapping activity (intentions) and the patterns employed in their production. It is only through the evaluation of these “expert pieces”, their morphology and production process, that we attempt an evaluation of late Acheulean knappers’ technical mastery.

Moreover, we also question the uniformity of the handaxe assemblage at Jaljulia, aiming to identify any morphological and technological variations that could indicate the presence of distinct tool types. Acheulean handaxes are often considered a single category in lithic assemblages, but they actually display a wide range of shapes, sizes, and possibly functions across the archaeological record, serving various purposes ranging from butchery to fire lighting (e.g., Bello-Alonso et al., 2021; Claud, 2008, 2014; Guibert-Cardin et al., 2021; Solodenko et al., 2015; Sorensen et al., 2018; Viallet, 2016). Therefore, in contexts where these tools are plentiful, a techno-morphological and functional diversity might reflect the broader variety within the Acheulean toolkit. Notwithstanding such a hypothesis, the occurrence of task-specific sites should also be kept in mind, in which handaxes might have been manufactured for a single primary purpose, mostly processing animal carcasses (e.g., Boxgrove, Pope et al., 2020).

In this paper, we present a detailed technological analysis of the handaxes from Area D of the late Acheulean site at Jaljulia. First, we conduct an in-depth taphonomical evaluation of the lithic material in order to assess assemblage integrity, homogeneity and preservation level. Second, we analyze assemblage composition in relation to site function. Both steps are crucial for a good understanding of the lithic material and, therefore, a good technological analysis.

Our aim is to assess the sources of the morphological variability observed in these tools and to highlight the potential diversity within this late Acheulean toolkit. Our goal is to develop a more critical understanding of these artifacts, which have been the primary focus of research on morphological trajectories within this techno-complex,

and to engage with current hypotheses on the technological evolution of late Acheulean industries in the Levant and related technical skills.

## Archaeological Setting

### The Acheulean Site of Jaljulia

The site of Jaljulia is located in the central coastal plain of Israel (Fig. 1a and c), approximately 9 km from the present Mediterranean shoreline. It was discovered in 2016 during surveys conducted prior to a large-scale construction project and was excavated in 2017 as part of an extensive salvage effort by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in collaboration with Tel Aviv University (dir. M. Shemer & R. Barkai). Six areas (A-E and G) were excavated beneath two to five meters of sediment (Shemer et al., 2019), containing abundant lithic artifacts deposited atop concentrations of natural flint nodules and cobbles. Although the total excavated surface covered 80 m², the full extent of the accumulation is estimated to be 1 hectare. Geological and chronological evidence suggests multiple occupations by hominin groups who settled on an ancient riverbed— likely the former course of Wadi Qanah (Fig. 1c)—in a wetland or marshland environment. Human activity at the site has been dated to approximately 500/300 ka (Shemer et al., 2022).

### Area D: Chronology and Site Formation

Area D represents the oldest occupation at the site, with sediments dated by TT-OSL, pIR-IR290, and ESR methods to approximately 514–417 ka (Shemer et al., 2022). The excavation, covering an area of around 16 m², exposed a 20–30 cm thick archaeological layer buried beneath more than three meters of sediment. Heavy machinery was used to remove the overlying sediments, while the archaeological deposit was excavated manually. All excavated sediments were dry sieved using a 5 mm mesh. The findings from Shemer et al. (2022) highlight significant differences in artifact preservation and environmental conditions between the eastern and western parts of the study area. In the east, artifacts were found in good condition with sharp edges and prominent scar ridges, suggesting minimal or low post-depositional movement and stable preservation conditions. Conversely, the western part exhibited signs of dynamic hydraulic activity, evidenced by undulating gravel topography, artifact orientation, and bone abrasion due to water transport, indicating more significant post-depositional movement and environmental changes.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>e.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>f.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
◄ **Fig. 1** Location and geological setting of the site of Jaljulia (after Shemer et al., 2022), and archaeological material collected. **a** Location of the site of Jaljulia. Green frame marks the area in **c**. **b** Aerial view of the different excavation areas present at Jaljulia. **c** Location of Jaljulia in relation with the main stream Wadi Qanah. **d** Detailed view of the excavation of Area D. **e** Recycled biface. **f** Hierarchized core, i.e., Levallois (after Mathias et al., 2023)

## Lithic Assemblage Preservation

A macroscopic analysis was conducted on a sample of 708 lithic elements, including flakes, retouched pieces, handaxes, and handaxe fragments, in order to evaluate the different post-depositional processes that occurred at the site and to evaluate the integrity of the lithic assemblage (Table 1). Previous research on this assemblage reported observations of post-depositional alterations, particularly on handaxes, and noted the presence of breaks (Muller et al., 2022; Shemer et al., 2022; Zupancich et al., 2021). However, no comprehensive and systematic analysis addressing these aspects in detail has yet been carried out and published. Nevertheless, these steps are essential to confirm the homogeneity of the lithic assemblage, ensuring that the artefacts in the study sample derive from a single depositional event rather than from the natural accumulation of elements over time. In addition, assessing the degree of preservation of the lithic material enables a critical evaluation of its informative potential, as heavily altered pieces hinder the technological reading of removals and are therefore considered of limited analytical value (see Tringham 1974; Pryor, 1988; Thiébaut, 2007). The evaluation was conducted independently for each type of flint identified, as different rocks might respond differently to the same taphonomical processes. Results are nevertheless similar for the various flint types and are presented here together.

In this stage, we evaluated alterations linked to two different post-depositional processes: mechanical alteration and patina or chemical alteration. The degree of intensity was evaluated in a scale from 0 to 3 (low to high degree) (see Sanchez-Dehesa et al., 2022). Fresh notches and breaks related to fieldwork activity have also been considered, particularly for the handaxe assemblage as they have an important impact on the reading of the pieces. These breaks are, at times, associated with scratches produced by the implementation of the excavation tools. Additionally, we have analyzed size ranges (Fig. 3) as another method of assessing the degree of disturbance of an archaeological assemblage (Bertran et al., 2006, 2012; Byers et al., 2015; Petraglia & Potts, 1994; Schick, 1986).

Results show significant patination, covering the whole surface of the pieces and altering the original color of the rock, across the whole assemblage (Fig. 2a). This chemical alteration gives an orange color (iron patina) produced by

the chemical composition of the soil, to the originally grey appearance. This process is generally homogeneous within the artifact, with few exceptions of irregular or superficial patination linked to a possible uneven sedimentation or partial exposure (Fig. 4). Double-patinated items are rare in the selected sample.

A thick matt dark brown patina and glossy patina (according to Glauberman & Thorson, 2012 definition) have also been identified on some pieces but are extremely rare (Fig. 3b).

The material from Area D shows generally prominent scar ridges and relatively sharp edges with slightly higher levels of abrasion in the smaller items (flakes and handaxe fragments), compared to handaxes (Fig. 4). Only few pieces exhibit smoothing of the edges and ridges, indicating a different life history than the rest of the corpus. On the contrary, edge damage is quite widespread in the whole assemblage, possibly related to trampling (Pryor, 1988) or to the high density of material present in the archaeological layer (Figs. 2c and 3).

To conclude, the results of the taphonomic analysis are consistent with a scenario of deposition in a low-intensity sedimentary environment and support the informative value of the lithic assemblage. The low level of abrasion of the lithics combined with the presence of an important component of items < 10 mm and under < 20 mm indicates low disturbance and scarce sorting of the archaeological assemblage (see Shackley, 1974; Schick, 1984, 1987; Petraglia & Potts, 1994; Burroni et al., 2002; Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews, 2003; Andrews, 2006; Grosman et al., 2011). The technical composition of the assemblage indicates clear on-site knapping; however, artifacts smaller than 10 mm constitute 71.93% of the lithic assemblage, a slightly lower number than that resulted from experimental works on intact in situ flaking sites (see Fladmark, 1982; Schick, 1986; Hull, 1987; Lenoble, 2005; Hovers et al., 2014), indicating a possible slight winnowing of the small debris. However, it could also be the result of the methodological constraints of a preventive excavation, as the mesh used for sieving was 5 mm, leading to the absence of the smallest elements within the assemblage. Some hydraulic activity is documented by highly abraded faunal and lithic elements (Shemer et al., 2022) indicating a different life history than the rest of the corpus (movement alongside the water stream from a different archaeological primary location), and the lithic concentrations might not be in situ.

For this paper, only elements with a clear anthropic origin and a good preservation state have been considered (Table 2). This corresponds to a density of more than 2000 pieces per 1 m³ (Table 3) in the studied context.
<table><caption>**Table 1** Lithic assemblage analyzed for the taphonomic evaluation of the site</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Taphonomic analysis Area D</th></tr><tr><th>Lithic category</th><th>Number</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Handaxes</td><td>147</td></tr><tr><td>Broken handaxes</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Handaxe fragments</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Flakes and flake fragments</td><td>458</td></tr><tr><td>Retouched pieces</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Highly altered pieces</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>708</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Assemblage Composition and Site Function

According to Agam's analysis (2020, 2021; Agam et al., 2022), most raw materials exploited at Jaljulia are local and are available within the riverbed of Wadi Qana, which may have made this spot attractive for human occupation. Four types have been identified: Turonian, Eocene and Cenomanian; however, the most common is the Campanian Mishash Formation, a grey-green opaque brecciated flint (Agam et al., 2022). All different sources are located along the Nahal (wadi) Qana drainage and blocks and slabs of different dimensions were available in secondary position in the riverbed occupied by Jaljulia knappers.

Assemblage composition evidence shows that knapping activity was mainly oriented to the production of handaxes, mostly on blocks (Table 2). However, the production of small-medium sized flakes by using various debitage methods has also been documented, including predetermined methods (see Rosenberg-Yefet et al., 2022, Mathias et al., 2022; Mathias et al. in prep.) (Fig. 1f). Some of these flakes were eventually retouched into a range of small tools or transformed into cores on flakes for the production of small flakes. Larger flakes were also produced, even if more rarely, to serve as core or handaxe blanks. In addition, handaxes turned into cores (Fig. 1e), and vice-versa, as well as pieces bearing double patina (Efrati & Barkai, 2024), indicate important recycling processes. These pieces are not analyzed here as they required an integrative perspective with core analysis, out of the scope of this paper and that will be developed in further collaborative publications.

The presence of cortical and semicortical flakes, core-trimming elements, shaping flakes, and an important component of flakes smaller than 1 cm, possibly related to retouching activities, documents the different stages of the reduction sequence and suggests knapping activity was conducted on the spot. Nevertheless, the presence of a significant number of retouched and recycled pieces (showing a second phase of transformation or use for purposes different from their

original ones) suggests that the site was not limited to production but also included the use of these elements. Moreover, the presence of double patinated items (see Efrati & Barkai, 2024), indicates the collection, reuse and recycling of “old” elements previously produced by earlier knappers either at the site or elsewhere.

## Materials

### Handaxe Assemblage and Related Debitage

We present here the full technological analysis of 153 handaxes (including 6 pieces broken during shaping or use) and 41 handaxe fragments. In addition, 362 flakes related to handaxe production were also analyzed. These include 112 shaping flakes, defined by thin covering removals from opposite directions on their dorsal faces and most likely detached with a tangential gesture (Clément, 2022; Pelegrin, 2000); 28 roughing-out flakes, which are cortical or semi-cortical and relatively thick, detached most likely with a perpendicular gesture or split fracture; and 219 retouching flakes, which are thin, curved, and smaller than 2 cm, generally showing unipolar removals on their dorsal faces and most likely detached with a tangential gesture (Clément, 2022; Pelegrin, 2000). Heavily altered pieces (n=26), corresponding to bifacial pieces and fragments, were excluded from the technological analysis (Figs. 2b and 3), as they provide only limited information in terms of technological processes and technical choices.

The type of removals and specific crushing on the edges of the handaxes indicate the use of a mineral (most certainly soft, e.g., limestone) hammerstone that was probably used in both orthogonal and tangential gestures in adaptation to the phase of the reduction process. Its use with a tangential gesture for shaping is suggested by the analysis of the shaping flakes that show a rather acute angle (≤60°), a reduced striking platform, associated in some cases with circular cracks or a lip (Pelegrin, 2000). Additionally, the analysis of the bifaces has documented vibrating removals (thin removals with a wavy topography along the detachment axis, caused by the use of a tangential gesture) with a reduced and concentrated point of origin (Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that 52 out of the 112 shaping flakes identified present some kind of platform preparation, either faceting (n=21) or abrasion (n=35) (Fig. 5b, f, j).

### Raw Material

As mentioned above, most raw materials exploited at Jaljulia are local and are available within the riverbed of Wadi Qana. However, quality varies significantly from one block to the other primarily due to the brecciation of part of the flint. This

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Taphonomic alterations visible on the lithic assemblage of Area D. **a** Biface on Mishash flint broken during the excavation. An orange patina covers the total surface of the piece. **b** Biface on medium grained non brecciated flint showing a thick white patina and smooth edges. The distal part show also mechanical alteration. **c** Biface on Turonian flint showing orange patina that covers the whole surface of the piece, and pseudo-retouches on the edges indicating a mechanical alteration of the piece. **d** Degrees of breccia visible identified within the Mishash flint</figcaption></figure>

process produces hard, heterogeneous conglomerates with variable mechanical properties within a single block, leading to differences in flaking quality and a tendency toward internal fracturing. To better understand the choices made by the knappers concerning raw material selection, we took into account the degree of breccia visible in the exploited blocks. Three levels were identified depending on the number and size of the inclusions from a macroscopic observation: (1) Low

brecciated: describes blocks predominantly composed of a single, homogeneous type of flint, with only minor inclusions. (2) Medium brecciated: refers to blocks in which the conglomerate is formed by large clasts of distinct raw materials. (3) Highly brecciated: applies to blocks composed of numerous small fragments of various raw materials, resulting in a highly heterogeneous matrix due to the differing mechanical properties of its components (Fig. 2d).
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Archaeological assemblage from Jaljulia Area D classified by size</figcaption></figure>

# Methods

## The Technological Approach

The lithic material was analyzed following the French technological approach, grounded in the concept of *chaîne opératoire* (Leroi-Gourhan, 1964, 1965; Tixier, 2012 [1978], Pelegrin, 1985; Inizan et al. 1995, 1999). Focused on the reduction process, rather than solely on the final products, it combines the reading of knapping scars and the analysis of the interdependence of artifacts to identify and reconstruct the succession of technical gestures involved in tool production (for a detailed description of the features used to read scar direction and chronology see Inizan et al. 1995, 1999). This framework situates each object within its broader technical context by identifying all stages of its transformation—from raw material procurement through manufacturing, use, and eventual

discard. Emphasizing the reduction sequence over the final product, this approach seeks to reconstruct the intentions behind knapping activities and to understand the technical choices made by knappers to achieve their form. These intentions are understood as mental templates—mental representations of the desired tool(s) that guide the knapping process. In psychology, the concept of mental image refers to the ability to mentally represent an object, an event or a scene, when this object, event or scene is not present to the senses (for example, the ability to imagine—and draw—a bike, a house, when we do not have one in front of us). The mental image functions here as a mental model to be reproduced, via the progressive learning of the motor skill, and the methods committed to it.

Yet, problems related to raw material, or accidents caused by inaccuracies in the gesture or planning of the knapper, can lead to unintended shapes and morphologies, or to the discard of the piece in a premature stage of the production process (e.g., Pelegrin, 1991; Sanchez-Dehesa, 2012; Herzlinger et al., 2017; Klaric, 2018; Torres & Baena, 2020; Sanchez-Dehesa, 2020; Caruana & Herries, 2021; Caruana et al., 2023; Forte et al., 2023; Sanchez-Dehesa & Pelegrin, 2023). Thus, the introduction of these pieces in a morphometric analysis will generate a higher variability in the assemblage that may not be representative of the intentions of the knappers.

Logically, the abundance of pieces discarded during the production process is expected to be higher on sites where the knapping process is documented in situ, as opposed to localities to which finished handaxes were brought, such as hunting and/or carcass processing sites. Therefore, in the context of Area D of Jaljulia, where all stages of lithic production have been documented, attention was given to the presence of pieces discarded during the reduction sequence (also refer to the “technical stage” of the pieces) (Holmes, 1919) and pieces produced by knappers with varying skill levels (e.g., Pigeot, 1987; Pelegrin, 1985; Roux et Pelegrin, 1989; Olive, 1988; Ploux, 1988; Sánchez-Dehesa, 2020; Sánchez-Dehesa & Pelegrin, 2023).

This was conducted through a critical evaluation of the reduction sequence visible on the pieces in order to identify potential knapping accidents, errors, and pieces showing good control of the knapping activity.

There’s a growing bibliography focused on the identification of knapping accidents and mistakes (e.g., Bradley & Sampson, 1986; Keller & Keller, 1996; Andrews, 2003; Shea, 2006; Bamforth & Finlay, 2008; Darmark, 2010; Klaric, 2018); Assaf et al., 2015; Bril and Roux, 2023; Torres & Baena, 2020; Centi et al., 2023; Cattabriga & Peresani, 2024). These refer to objective features visible on the pieces and related to the motor and logical-cognitive skill as defined by Pelegrin (1991). Two categories can be distinguished:

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4 Taphonomic analysis of the lithic material</figcaption></figure>

- Accidents that result from inaccuracies in the gesture of the knapper such as (1) a misevaluation of the energy required to detach a flake resulting in, for example, hinged removals (“... any removal whose fracture plane, normal in its proximal zone, arches suddenly and inter-

sects prematurely the upper face of the blank, which is therefore shorter than what was expected.” Inizan et al., 1999, p. 143), (2) lack of precision in the gesture leading to the crushing of the edges, (3) involuntary breaks in the piece such as the tearing of the edge (the unwilling-
<table><caption>**Table 2** General composition of the Jaljulia Area D lithic assemblage</caption><thead><tr><th>Main lithic categories (all flints)</th><th>Number</th><th>Main lithic categories (all flints)</th><th>Number</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Chips &lt; 1 cm</td><td>1223</td><td>Levallois s.l. cores</td><td>177</td></tr><tr><td>Flakes with cortex &gt; 1 cm</td><td>3482</td><td>COF</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>Flakes without cortex &gt; 1 cm</td><td>4707</td><td>Laminar, lamellar cores</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Backed flakes</td><td>1177</td><td>Bipolar on anvil cores</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Laminar products</td><td>215</td><td>Broken cores, undet</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Discoid flakes (inc. Pseudo-Levallois points)</td><td>252</td><td>Shaping flakes</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>Levallois l.s. flakes</td><td>186</td><td>Retouch flakes</td><td>755</td></tr><tr><td>Lev./Disco flakes</td><td>6</td><td>Notch flakes</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Kombewa flakes</td><td>39</td><td>Burin spall</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Other COF flakes</td><td>3</td><td>Bifaces</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>Split</td><td>1</td><td>Ambiguous, recycled</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>SAS, SSDA Cores*</td><td>103</td><td>Choppers, chopping-tools</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Discois cores</td><td>113</td><td>Broken tool, undet</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>13084</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 3** Archaeological material collected from Area D</caption><caption>Area D</caption><thead><tr><th>Excavated area (m2)</th><th>Average thickness of the archaeological horizon (m)</th><th>Estimated volume of excavated sediments (m3)</th><th>Number of lithic elements collected (N)</th><th>Number of knapped pieces (N)</th><th>Average density for cubic meter (N)</th><th>Bone fragments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>16</td><td>0.30</td><td>4.8</td><td>24,136</td><td>13,084</td><td>2725</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Biface assemblage</td><td>Bifacial pieces</td><td>Fragments</td><td></td><td>Highly altered pieces</td><td></td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>153</td><td>41</td><td></td><td>26</td><td></td><td>220</td></tr></tbody></table>

ing removal of a portion of the edge of a bifacial piece caused by a misevaluation of the striking point, in French “arrachement du bord”).

- Accidents related to a poor evaluation of the knapping situation leading to the accumulation of unsuccessful knapping actions (Figs. 6 and 7) such as multiple circular cracks in a surface showing an angle non-suitable for knapping (≥ 90°) or, during handaxe thinning, the production of multiple removals on a surface showing a too flat surface leading to an accumulation of hinged removals causing important irregularities in the volume.

Yet, although these elements document knapping errors and mistakes, knapping mastery cannot be reduced to a lack of accidents but should also take into account a knapper's ability to overcome such situations (e.g., Leroyer, 2018; Torres & Baena, 2020). Therefore, the quality of a knapper's performance and the technical stage of the pieces can only be evaluated through a systematic production of diacritical sketches for each piece, that analyzes the knapping development, including a knapper's response to the abovementioned mishaps. Moreover, a comparison between pieces within the

same assemblage is essential in order to identify patterns in the production relating to the abovementioned “mental template.” The key point of this approach is to consider first the well-knapped pieces, those showing a good control of the knapping activity, as the best representatives of the main goals of the knapping activity and the technical patterns selected to achieve these forms (Sánchez-Dehesa, 2020; Sánchez-Dehesa & Pelegrin, 2023).

Following these principles, we consider as “unfinished” those pieces that show a reduction sequence ended after the emergence of impurities/flaws or internal breaks in the rock or after a set of unsuccessful removals (as described above). These pieces are generally associated with important irregularities in shape, volume and edges that, after a comparison with pieces within the same assemblage, do not seem to share a common pattern or any technical logic and, therefore, cannot be assigned to any intentional tool type.

A relevant example might be referred from the late Lower Paleolithic site of Qesem cave, where an unfinished biface was tested for use-wear and indeed yielded no results (Barkai et al., 2013). This case is noteworthy, since in most cases items which look unfinished are not selected for use-wear

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Different types of flake associated with biface production. **a** Cortical flake produced by split fracture, showing an exploded point of impact, associated with the opening of flint cobbles. **c**, **e** and **g** Shaping flakes showing a reduced and concentrated point of impact, in some cases associated with peripheral detachment or scaring of the bulb indicating the use of a mineral hammerstone. **b**, **d** and **f** Shaping flakes showing a larger butt with an acute angle and a lip, indicating the use of a soft hammer. **h**, **i** and **j** Tranchet-blow like spalls</figcaption></figure>

analysis for obvious reasons, and thus not many examples of
functional studies of such items are available.

On the contrary, we consider pieces to be “finished” and therefore “successful” if they show a reduction sequence dominated by long and regular removals (feather-like termination), where the presence of step fractures and raw material constraints have been overcome or integrated into the volume, resulting in the production of pieces which share technological and morphological features indicating a common production goal. This suggests good control of the knapping gestures and a critical overview of the knapping activity, including evaluation of the risks related to raw material quality. The presence of step fractures or irregularities in the piece related to raw material constraints can also indicate a certain degree of tolerance in the internal variation of the pieces whose modification can be total or partial to prevent knapping accidents related to raw material

quality. As noted by other scholars (e.g., Herzlinger et al., 2017), knapping skills do not relate solely to the production of highly symmetrical and regular pieces but to the capacity of the knapper to adapt to every situation and achieve the product with the “desired” characteristics according to the abovementioned “mental template” (Pelegrin, 1991). The mental template can be very precise, resulting in highly standardized productions, or partial, resulting in more morphologically variable products.

For this study, a full technological analysis was conducted on all the handaxes from Area D of the site. However, only pieces that were considered to be finished and produced by a skilled knapper were taken into account when identifying knapping goals, as these pieces can be considered the best representation of knapping goals and technical patterns (Fig. 8).

Identification of Discarded Pieces

The detailed analysis of the reduction sequence on the
handaxes shows knappers had to deal with recurrent inter-
nal fractures in the material (cf. brecciated flints), causing
systematic step fractures and limiting the extension of the
shaping removals (Figs. 6 and 7). Here we present an in-
depth analysis of the reduction sequence of four handaxes as
an example of the application of the methodology developed
above.

**Handaxe 1066 (Fig. 6a)** This handaxe was produced on a cobble of highly brecciated Campanian flint. A first series of large, alternate removals—reaching more than half the surface of the piece—marks the beginning of the shaping process. This initial stage, which entirely modifies the volume except for the basal part that remains cortical, results in a thick, slightly plano-convex section. Internal fractures in the block are already visible at this stage. A second set of removals overlaps the earlier scars, indicating a new phase in the reduction sequence. These later removals appear thinner, presumably intended to regularize the volume. In view 1, a flake removal near the tip of the piece is abruptly stopped by a visible impurity/flaw in the raw material, which creates a pronounced convexity in both the overall volume and the edge profile. On the opposite edge (view 3), multiple unifacial scars extend from the edge toward the surface, resulting in short step fractures only a few centimeters long. These removals only partially modify the volume. The outcome is an increasingly irregular volume with a highly uneven edge—both in terms of sinuosity and sharpness—as each flake scar has a different profile.

Finally, a last set of removals (view 2) is visible on the
same edge but toward the distal end of the piece, aimed at
thinning the tip. However, significant internal fractures and
impurities in the raw material again result in step fractures
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** Bifaces discarded during (at) different moments of the reduction (their production) sequence. **a** Handaxe 1066. **b** Handaxe 1105</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** a Handaxe 1128. Handaxe discarded during the beginning of shaping. b Handaxe 1045. Handaxe considered finished by an expert knapper</figcaption></figure>
and further irregularities in the volume. After this final set of removals, the reduction sequence stops.

The result is a thick handaxe with a cortical basal area, an irregular overall shape and volume, and a thick, unre-fined peripheral edge that lacks sharpness. All the above-mentioned elements—along with the final result support the interpretation of this handaxe as an unsuccessful attempt.

**Handaxe 1105 (Fig. 6b)** This handaxe was produced on a small pebble. A first series of thin, elongated removals indicates the beginning of the shaping process (view 2). The presence of cortical areas on the basal part and both faces suggests that the original volume was always relatively small, and that shaping began directly with relatively thin removals- unlike the first example analyzed. This initial set of removals appears to aim at removing cortex from most of the surface (but the basal part) and establishing a bifacial volume. However, one side retains a natural flat surface, resulting in an asymmetrical triangular cross-section. A set of diagonally oriented bifacial scars can be observed, intended to reduce thickness, but internal fractures systematically stop the removals (view 1). This produced a stepped surface on one face and a prominent bulge near the distal edge, caused by the accumulation of several unsuccessful blows (view 3). The reduction sequence stops after this final attempt. The result is a small, irregular piece with no sharp peripheral edge. All the abovementioned elements—along with the final result support the interpretation of this handaxe as an unsuccessful attempt by a non-expert knapper.

**Handaxe 1128 (Fig. 7a)** This handaxe was produced on a medium-sized cobble of low brecciated Campanian flint. A first set of large alternate removals marks the beginning of shaping. In this case, almost half of the piece remains cortical, always the basal part. This initial set of removals covers more than half of the surface, resulting in a relatively balanced volume in profile. However, internal fractures quickly appear on the right side, where several attempts were made to thin a bulge created by the intersection of previous removals—without success (view 2). Each flake removal ends in a step fracture, contributing to the accentuation of the bulge. On the same edge, additional alternate removals can be observed toward both the base and the distal end. These, too, were stopped by internal fractures, resulting in a highly sinuous and irregular edge and overall volume (view 2).

On the opposite side, where cortex covers more than half the length of the piece, an accumulation of impact points is visible near the tip, directly on the edge, which appears completely crushed and irregular (view 1). The hammering direction—always unifacial and concentrated in a very limited area—as well as the presence of circular cracks on the percussion surface (similar to those produced by a

hammerstone) suggest that this action was part of the knapping sequence rather than use-related damage.

As noted above, repeated unsuccessful actions on inadequately prepared surfaces have been documented by several authors in the productions of inexperienced knappers. These elements—along with the final result, a piece with a highly irregular and thick peripheral edge—support the interpretation of this handaxe as an unsuccessful attempt by a non-expert knapper.

**Handaxe 1045 (Fig. 7b)** This handaxe was produced in a medium-sized cobble of highly brecciated Campanian flint. Scars from large, long convergent removals originating from the periphery are visible at the center of the volume, indicating a first stage of roughing-out. At the base, circular cracks and few alternate removals suggest several attempts of reducing the thickness. However, successful strikes that managed to detach flakes resulted in step fractures. The variation in raw material quality is clearly visible in this part through differences in texture and color. Although these removals produced a relatively thick and irregular basal part, a slightly sinuous edge was nevertheless created. This edge was used in a second stage to begin regularizing the volume of the piece through a series of thin, unipolar removals from both faces. A final set of short unipolar removals is visible on the upper part of the piece, aimed at regularizing the edge. The result is a piece with a thick, partially cortical basal section, a regularized overall volume, and a nearly continuous peripheral edge—more sinuous toward the base and more regular toward the tip. The tip is broken, most likely as a result of use; in any case, the break appears to be posterior to the production process. This piece is considered finished by an expert knapper.

As we can observe, at times, these knapping constraints led to the discard of the piece in the first stages of the reduction sequence, while in other cases the reduction sequence was pursued despite raw material limitations. Different management strategies to overcome these difficulties are visible, indicating different skill levels. Most commonly, inexperienced knappers are characterized by repeated unsuccessful removals leading to significant breaks on the pieces and by the tearing off of edges (ex. Pigeot, 1983; Grimm, 2000; Sánchez-Dehesa Galán, 2012; Sánchez-Dehesa Galán, 2020). In contrast, handaxes showing good control of the knapping activity display total or only partial modification, most likely to prevent knapping accidents related to raw material quality. Some additional examples are visible in Fig. 5, these pieces can also present internal fractures and raw material constraints but knappers have managed to overcome these difficulties, totally or partially, and have managed to produce a series of tools that share totally or partially the same technological and morphological features.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>
This demonstrates a certain degree of tolerance in the internal variability of the pieces and the characteristics of the searched products (e.g., production objectives).

Of the 153 pieces analyzed, 70 handaxes have been classified as discarded during the production process, and 15 have been identified as recycled. Among the 70 discarded pieces, 9 show evidence of discard after only a few removals, at the initial shaping stage; 26 were discarded during the volume regularization phase; and 32 were abandoned during the final stage, which involved the regularization of the peripheral edge and distal tip, most commonly through retouching. Finally, for 3 pieces, it was not possible to determine the technological stage of abandonment (cf. *undetermined*).

In addition, 6 pieces exhibit significant breaks on the distal or basal part, preventing any classification or further analysis. 62 pieces are considered finished products allowing for a characterization of knapping goals. Among these pieces, three main categories of tools have been identified, based on technological and morphological criteria (Table 4).

# Results

## Types of Tools Produced

### Rounded Tip Pieces

The largest sub-group of Area D bifaces is characterized by a rounded distal part achieved by retouch, generally through relatively long and convergent removals (Fig. 8a and b). The apex section is generally formed by the convergence of two flat surfaces, creating an angle between 30° and 45°, with a median of 32.5° and a standard deviation of approximately 8.74°. Some pieces exhibit a plano-convex section.

A certain range of variability is visible among these pieces in terms of the following: (1) the width of the basal part, which results in more or less elongated shapes with a cordiform to a limande outline (cf. Bordes, 1961); (2) the width of the distal part, which can be narrow, distinctive from the rest of the piece, or wider, fitting in the general outline (Fig. 9).

No links have been found between the pieces of different shapes that would suggest that they formed part of a continuous reduction sequence (McPherron, 1999). No overlapping

of shaping removals, indicative of resharpening, has been documented, and there is no visible association between elongation rates and shape that would suggest specific forms to be the result of progressive reduction of the piece (Fig. 9).

### Pointed Pieces

The second group is characterized by cordiform and subtriangular pieces showing a pointed distal part. This shape was obtained by the convergence of two regular lateral edges, and it is associated with retouching of the tip (Fig. 8c and d). Some of these pieces exhibit various phases of shaping removals on the distal-lateral part of one of the edges, which could be associated with the re-sharpening of the tool. These removals are flat, creating a sharp edge that, in combination with a pointed apex, could indicate a distal-lateral function of the pieces. In comparison with the rounded-tip pieces, pointed pieces show slightly steeper angles, the tips show an angle between 20° and 60°, with a median of 45° and a standard deviation of approximately 11.02°.

Two pieces are worth mentioning as they have notably smaller dimensions (less than 5 cm) and a twisted volume, achieved through controlled shaping, associated with a pointed tip. However, their small number and the morphology of their distal part, which is in some cases almost denoticated similar to a borer, raise questions about their attribution to the bifaces rather than the retouched tools. A more detailed analysis of this last category should provide a better understanding of its position in Jaljulia's technical system.

### Pieces with Transversal Cutting Edge

Finally, a few pieces exhibit a cordiform to limande shape, characterized by a large distal part that is sometimes morphologically distinct from the rest of the piece. Among these, some demonstrate a higher level of technical mastery, particularly evident in the sharpening of the distal part through unifacial or bifacial transversal tranchet blow spalls—a débordant removal parallel to the edge, aiming to regularize and thin the edge (Fig. 8e and f). This is a particular technical procedure requiring a high level of skill (Douze et al., 2018). However, its application to the other pieces remains unclear. While the edges of the rounded and pointed tools present angles between 30 and

<table><caption>**Table 4** Classification of the lithic material analyzed for this study</caption><caption>Area D</caption><thead><tr><th>Bifaces</th><th>Rounded</th><th>Pointed</th><th>Transversal edge</th><th>Undetermined</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>73</td><td>23</td><td>11</td><td>46</td><td>153</td></tr><tr><td>Bifaces considered for the identification of the knapping goals</td><td>37</td><td>18</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>62</td></tr></tbody></table>
a.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

b.

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

3 cm

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

2

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

c.

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

1° phase

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

2° phase

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

3° phase

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

4° phase

d.

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

e.

1

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

2

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

2

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

f.

1

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

2

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

1

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

2

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

3 cm

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>
◄Fig. 8 Different type of tools identified within the bifacial pieces. **a** and **b** Biface with a rounded distal part produced by convergent removals on the distal part. **c** and **d** Pointed pieces produced by the convergence of two regular edges produced by retouching. The piece of the left shows a possible resharpening of the lateral edge. **e** and **f** Bifaces showing a transversal edge. Both pieces show a bifacial tranchet blow without further modification of the edge

45 degrees, all pieces with transversal cutting-edge present an angle between 20 and 30 degrees, with a median of 30 and a standard deviation of 4.88.

**Internal Variation** Besides these differences, all three morphotypes show a search for bifacial symmetry and regular volume. However, it is possible to observe a higher technical investment in the distal part of the pieces that decreases as towards the bottom (ex. Fig. 8c), also noted by Muller and colleagues (2022). As a fact, the basal part is modified only occasionally (Fig. 10), but even if cortical or unmodified, it fits in the general outline of the piece and contributes to the piece's overall facial symmetry (Fig. 8).

Independent of the volume, a peripheral edge is created, often reaching half of the length of the piece. The regularity of this edge, typically achieved through unifacial or bifacial retouch, is greater in the distal part of the pieces than in the basal part, but it can sometimes extend around the entire periphery. When it does not, both sides are worked to the same or similar extent (Fig. 10).

**Reduction Process** Management of the volume of the pieces varied in response to the morphology of the original blank. Pieces produced on thick blanks such as pebbles or rounded cobbles show a first phase of alternate removals in order to establish the symmetries of the volume (Figs. 6a and 7a.). Pieces produced on large flakes, flat pebbles and slabs were directly modified by thinner removals in order to remove the cortex and regularize the volume. As noted above, the type of removals and specific crushing on the edges of some pieces indicate the use of a mineral (most likely soft) hammerstone that was probably used in both orthogonal and tangential gestures in adaptation to the phase of the reduction process.

When it comes to the regularization of the volume, it is interesting to observe a repeated pattern, even if not systematic, consisting in the use of long convergent removals that create a spike design on the surface (Fig. 11a). In some cases, the removals start on one of the sides and cover the total surface of the piece (Fig. 11b). In the distal part, this pattern results in convergent removals, or, in the case of the second variant, in a débordant removal that thinned and regularized the edge, in a similar way to the tranchet blow technique. However, these removals are part of a shaping sequence and are systematically followed by retouching or a second sequence of removals that shape the tip of the piece (Fig. 11b).

**Raw Material and Blank Selection and Management** Handaxes were produced mostly on flint from the Campanian Mishash formation (Fig. 12). This is a fine to medium-grained raw material although highly brecciated. In terms of suitability and control during the knapping activity, its quality depends directly on the level of brecciation that varies from one block to another. Pebbles and cobbles up to 20 cm were available on the river bed occupied by the prehistoric groups (also referred to Unit 4, Shemer et al., 2022). The second raw material exploited is Turonian flint, fine-grained and more homogeneous than the precedent, but available only in relatively thin slabs, around 5 cm thick, and generally up to 9 cm in length. Only a few pieces were produced on Eocene flint of coarser grain and heterogeneous matrix.

As noted, more fine-grained flint types, as Cenomanian flint, were available in the vicinity but are absent from the handaxe assemblage. These higher quality pebbles/cobbles were used exclusively for the production of small to medium flakes mainly through hierarchized methods (Mathias et al., 2022).

Our results show no visible differences in the selection and management of the different flint types for the production of the different tools (however see different results in the case of scrapers, and its particular Quina-like scrapers; Litov and Barkai (2023, 2024, 2025)).

Mishash flint is the most common raw material exploited, the high brecciated variety being the most present in all tool types (Fig. 12). This is especially visible in the corpus of rounded pieces where Mishash flint constitutes over 70% of the assemblage of which 50% is highly brecciated.

When the blanks could be identified, the majority (n=91=62%) indicate a preferential use of cobbles and pebbles (Fig. 13). Only 12% (n=5) of the handaxes with a rounded distal part are made on slabs and less than 28% (n=11) on flakes. There is no evidence of a systematic production of flake blanks. Twelve out of the 16 flakes transformed into handaxes are fully or partially cortical.

The detailed analysis of the collection indicates that raw material and blank selection might have been guided by the objective of producing tools of different sizes. Handaxes show an important variability in terms of dimensions that go from 40 to 140 mm.

in maximum length, with a higher proportion of pieces between 60 and 110 mm (Fig. 14).

The largest pieces (in terms of maximum length) were produced on brecciated Mishash flint, while pieces in non-brecciated flint are considerably smaller (Fig. 14). Highly brecciated handaxes have a mean length of 89.8 mm with a standard deviation of 19 mm, while pieces on Turonian flint have a mean length of 64.5 mm with a standard deviation of 11.6 mm. These size differences certainly reflect raw material and blank availability in the close environment, large blanks
<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 9** Relation between rounded tip handaxes elongation and shape</figcaption></figure>

being available only of Mishash flint. However, in parallel
to the production of large pieces, smaller blanks of Mishash
flint were selected for the production of smaller pieces. This
indicates the intentional production of a wide range of tool
sizes. This is confirmed by the analysis of the shaping inten-
sity, calculated by the percentage of shaped surface visible in
the pieces. Our results indicate that there is no relationship
between the intensity of the shaping and the size of the pieces,
meaning, small pieces are not the result of a more intensive
reduction process (Fig. 15).

Discussion

Are Jaljulia Handaxes Massive?

Area D marks the oldest locality in Jaljulia. In recent years,
several studies have examined the lithic assemblages from
the site, approaching different aspects of procurement,
exploitation, and technological approaches in an attempt to
shed more light on chronological and spatial trends within
the late Acheulian (e.g., Agam et al., 2022; Mathias et al.,

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 10** Left. Degree of modification of the basal part in the biface assemblage. This graph only takes into account the pieces considered “successful” (n=62). Right. Percentage of the regularized edge extension on the pieces</figcaption></figure>

2023; Muller et al., 2022; Rosenberg-Yefet et al., 2021, 2022; Zupancich et al., 2021). Previous publications suggested a concise choice of specific flint types for handaxe production (brecciated Campanian flint), whereas the shape and size of the chosen nodules displayed high variability (e.g., Agam et al., 2022; Muller et al., 2022; Zupancich et al., 2021). 3D-based technological studies indicated significant variability in handaxe shaping methods, which was suggested to relate to technological flexibility and the ability to adapt to variable nodule shapes and raw material qualities, indicating high knapping skills (Muller et al., 2022). The handaxes from Jaljulia were found to be coarser compared to handaxes from other Late Acheulian sites, with more focus put on the pointed edge, whereas the lateral edges were often left irregular and unrefined (Muller et al., 2022, 2025). Comparative use wear and experimental studies focused on handaxes from Jaljulia, Areas B and C, suggested that they were used in percussive activities, possibly for marrow extraction, unlike the handaxes from Late Acheulian Revadim, which were used for butchering. Yet, more recent publications suggest the lack of refinement and the shape variability to reflect a concise choice of the knappers, possibly to allow durable

use of the biface for multiple functions. This hypothesis is based on the presence of a more diverse range of faunal remains at Jaljulia, compared to the specific task designation observed in other Late Acheulian sites, such as Holon, associated solely with elephant remains (Muller et al., 2025).

Finally, intra-site comparison showed that the handaxes from Area D support a higher degree of refinement compared to the younger localities, somewhat challenging the existing model that suggested an overall increase in finesse through time (Muller et al., 2022).

The technological analyses have introduced some new perspectives on this issue. First of all, a critical analysis of the reduction process visible in the pieces indicates the presence of pieces discarded at different stages of the production process. Important internal fractures and the accumulation of step fractures limited the shaping activity and resulted in thicker (length/thickness ratio) and, therefore, heavier pieces, as visible in Fig. 16 (see also Fig. 3). Second, the presence of pieces produced on very different blank sizes and, therefore, very different weights, suggests different objectives and a more diverse utilization for some of these tools. By the same token, the use of naturally thin slabs and flakes indicates that
**Fig. 11** a Pointed handaxe showing a shaping pattern on spike achieved through convergent removals. b Pointed piece on pebble produced by long diagonal removals that go from one side to the other creating, in one of the disto-lateral edges, a removal similar to the tranchet blow

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 12** Raw material selection for the production of the different types of tools. This graph only takes into account the pieces considered “successful” (n=62)

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_68.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 13** Blank selection for the production of the different types of tools produced</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 14** Left. Dimensional variation within the handaxes. This graph only takes into account the pieces considered “successful” (n=62). Right. Size variation of the pieces related to raw material type.</figcaption></figure>

This graph takes into account the whole assemblage of handaxes (n=146). The dimensions refer to maximum length of the pieces and the unit is mm

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /><figcaption>**Relationship Between Degree of Modification and Maximum Length**</figcaption></figure>
the selection of massive pieces or those with a thick proximal part was not systematic. Third, while some of the pieces present a cortical basal part, this is not a systematic feature in the Area D assemblage. Moreover, pieces presenting a cortical

basal part are not necessarily more robust or massive. The calculation of the length/thickness and length/weight ratio of the considered finished pieces show similar values between the smaller and larger pieces (Fig. 16).

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 16** Left. Projection of the length and thickness of the handaxes taking into account the whole assemblage (n = 146). Right. Projection of the length and thickness of the handaxes taking into account exclusively the pieces considered “successful” (n = 62)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>
## Morphometric Variability

The diversity in tool sizes has been interpreted by Muller et al. (2022: 206) as an expedient selection of nodules of varying sizes. While this explanation aligns with the local selection of materials, it contrasts with the idea of producing thick and massive pieces for pounding purposes. The implications of the differences in tool size for their potential use cannot be overlooked. According to Agam and colleagues (2022), flint nodules of various shapes and sizes were available in the ancient wadi channels. A new survey conducted in 2022 confirmed this: angular blocks and cobbles of Campanian flint were collected, ranging in size from 5 to 20 cm. Slabs of Turonian flint were also recovered, ranging from 4 to 12 cm. This suggests that the Jaljulia knappers had the option to produce both large and small pieces—and indeed, they chose to produce both.

The occurrence of small or “diminutive handaxes” has been documented in eastern Africa since the Early Acheulean at the site of Melka Wakena (Gossa & Hovers, 2024) and becomes more common from the Middle Acheulean at sites such as Isenya (H. Roche, personal communication) and Kilombe (Gowlett et al., 2017) in Kenya, as well as Garba I in Melka Kunture, Ethiopia (Sánchez-Dehesa, 2020; Sánchez-Dehesa & Pelegrin, 2023). In contrast, in the Levant, the reduction in handaxe size has traditionally been interpreted as a defining trend of the Late Acheulean (Gilead, 1970a, 1970b; Herzlinger et al., 2021; Marder et al., 2006). At Jaljulia (Area D), although these diminutive handaxes are less numerous and part of a continuum of tool size variation, we interpret their production as an intentional practice, part of Jaljulia’s tool kit and consistent with the technical trends of late Acheulean groups. Therefore, we do not fully agree with the idea of these pieces being produced expediently. Instead, we interpret their presence as part of the diversity within the Acheulean toolkit. Additionally, the identification of three different tool types within the handaxe assemblage supports a diversity of tasks at Jaljulia, which could be further expanded when considering tool size variability.

Moreover, the use of highly brecciated Mishash flint for the production of large and small handaxes, and the exclusive use of high-quality flint with specific morphologies for the production of flakes through particular methods (e.g., hierarchized, laminar-like, cores-on-flakes; Mathias et al., 2022) indicates clear intentionality in raw material management at Jaljulia (see also Litov & Barkai, 2023, 2024, 2025).

## The Tranchet Blow in the Acheulean of the Levant

The presence of handaxes with a transversal distal cutting edge, achieved by a large *tranchet* scar on one or both faces of the tool, has been noted in several late Acheulean sites in

the Levantine corridor such as ‘Ain Soda in Jordan (Rolleson et al., 1997, 2005), Nadouiyeh in Syria (Le Tensorer et Muhesen, 1997) or Tabun cave in Israel (Matskevich, 2006; McPherron, 2003). Imprecisely called “cleavers”, some researchers have suggested these pieces to be a distinctive phenomenon within the Lower Paleolithic of the region (Matskevich, 2006), however the technical process associated with their production has been poorly documented. The technological analysis of Jaljulia’s Area D assemblage shows the use of *debordant* removals at different moments of the reduction sequence, in order to regularize specific portions of the piece. Still, the use of these *debordant* removals on the distal part of the pieces - parallel to the edge, and also accounted for as a *tranchet* spall aimed at producing a sharp, unretouched cutting edge (as defined by Inizan et al., 1995) - is extremely rare. Therefore, at Jaljulia, the use of this type of *debordant* flake cannot be interpreted as a cultural feature but as part of the technical knowledge of the group, in adaptation with the different blanks selected and the production goals. Similar technical behavior has been identified in other chronological contexts such as in the bifacial production of the Neolithic site of Kaizer Hill (Modi’in, Israel) (Goren Inbar et al., 2022).

## Beyond the Handaxes: Technological Mastery During the Late Acheulean

Opposite to the idea of a decline in late Acheulean knapper’s craft, the Jaljulia (Area D) assemblage exhibits low morphological standardization, paired with a high level of control over knapping, evident in the adaptation of the technical chaîne opératoire to various raw materials, blank types, and sizes. As highlighted by Herzlinger et al. (2021), knapper’s craft, or “knapping skill,” is not solely defined by tool morphology and standardization but also by the ability to maintain a mental image of the desired end-product and the specific steps required for its realization, while considering the physical constraints of fracture mechanics. The use of different raw materials and blanks at Jaljulia to produce the same tool types reflects 1) the presence of mental templates consistently reproduced throughout the assemblage and 2) the capacity to adjust the knapping strategy to different situations to achieve the same or similar results, as seen in the differential management of large and small modules in Area D.

Overall, studies on the Jaljulia assemblage suggest high technological competence, as well as developed ability for problem-solving and adaptation. Beyond the handaxe production, knapping mastery is supported at Jaljulia by three main innovative elements: (1) the production of proto-Levallois cores at areas B & C of Jaljulia (Rosenberg-Yefet et al., 2021) and possibly before (Mathias et al., 2022), (2) the presence of Quina-like retouch, more characteristic of
the Acheulo-Yabrudian but present in Jaljulia from Area D (Litov et al., 2025), and (3) the identification of the earliest use of bulb retouchers, also at Area D, suggesting the presence of a range of different hammerstones for percussive activities (Mathias et al. 2023).

Moreover, the variety of tool types within the handaxe category, alongside the high number of retouched pieces and the emergence of hierarchized methods (among others) for flake production from higher-quality raw materials, points to a potential shift in tool production focus, a diversification of knapping strategies, and possible specialization within the late Acheulean toolkit.

This idea is further supported by several researchers, who discuss the production of small flakes during the late Acheulean, designed for specific activities, underscoring the technological, morphological, and size-based diversity of the late Acheulean toolkit (Marinelli et al., 2021, 2024; Venditti et al., 2019; Agam et Barkai, 2018; Agam et al., 2015). Nevertheless, this interpretation has been challenged in the case of scrapers by Litov et al. (2025).

## Conclusions

Recent studies conducted on Levantine Acheulean handaxes pointed to the decrease in symmetry, regularity, refinement and standardization of late Acheulean handaxes compared to Middle Acheulean sites (Herzlinger et al., 2021). A morphological trend that, if confirmed with larger samples, would differ with Gilead's original interpretation of the Levantine Acheulean technological evolution.

At Late Acheulian Jaljulia, the presence of pieces showing a higher technical investment indicates knappers' intention and ability to produce symmetrical and regular (balanced volume in terms of bifacial and bilateral symmetry) pieces. However, detailed analysis of the reduction sequences observed in the handaxes reveals the impact of the highly variable raw material quality on the production process and the knapper's decision-making in response to these constraints. This response involved prioritizing specific morphological features at the distal end over achieving overall volumetric balance and shape regularity. In this sense, handaxe production follows a mental template that combines a relatively highly precise distal shape, that responds to the search of a limited range of tool types, with a more variable volume. Thus, our results partially align with the idea of a "broad mental template" or "flexible reduction sequence" for Jaljulia handaxes (Muller et al., 2022), where the priority is given to the distal end, while we discuss the notion of an expedient production of these tools (Muller et al., 2022) as we interpret distal morphology and tool size variation at Jaljulia as part of the intended diversity of tools produced. New and more extensive use-wear analysis should allow to

explore the links between these morphometric differences and tool function.

The use of tranchet blow-like removals at different stages of the reduction sequence can be interpreted as a technical practice of the group for producing regular surfaces, and eventually sharp edges. However, its rarity in the production of handaxes makes it difficult to give it a cultural significance.

Additionally, the Jaljulia assemblage indicates an important mastery and skill of the Acheulean knappers, visible through the use of, at least, three different percussion techniques and possibly a diversity of hammerstones. The use of the split fracture to open some cobbles and pebbles, the direct percussion with a hard hammerstone for debitage flaking, visible by the circular cracks left on the cores, the use of bulb retouchers, documented by Mathias et al. (2023), and the use of a mineral hammerstone (most likely soft with a tangential gesture) for shaping, visible on the handaxes and related debitage.

Recent studies indicate that handaxes achieved their highest level of craftsmanship during the Middle Acheulean in the Levant. The subsequent decline in handaxe standardization during the Late Acheulean necessitates a more critical analysis of handaxe production to clarify the objectives of the knapping process. In this sense, the methodology developed here offers valuable insight into the knapper's decision-making processes during artefact manufacture and contributes to a better understanding of their knapping objectives. Moreover, this shift compels us to broaden our investigation to encompass other dimensions of human technological behavior, such as flake production and techno-economy, to achieve a more holistic understanding of Acheulean technological strategies.

**Acknowledgements** We extend our sincere thanks to Jacques Pelgehrin and Erella Hovers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which significantly improved the first version of the manuscript, and to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable insights, which have undoubtedly strengthened the quality of this paper.

**Author Contribution** S.S-DG. Conducted the analysis, produced the main figures and tables and prepared the manuscript. C.M. Produced the Fig. 1&3 and Tabl. 2, she contributed to collect the data on the composition of the assemblage and the debitage methods, and on the discussion on the preparation of the paper. R.B. & M.S. Directed the excavation of Jaljulia (Israel) and produced all the related information. All authors revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the version to be published.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Tel Aviv University. This research was supported by the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University through a postdoctoral grant framework. The study of the Jaljulia lithic assemblage is funded by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 321/19) and the Israel Antiquities Authority (project no. 108149). Additional support was provided by the Maisons des Sciences de l'Homme and the Centre de Recherches Français à Jérusalem through the mobility program (FMSH - ATLAS

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>
Program for Jerusalem) that preceded the first author's postdoctoral grant.

**Data Availability** No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

## Declarations

**Competing interests** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

Agam, A. (2020). Late lower paleolithic lithic procurement and exploitation strategies: A view from Acheulo-Yabrudian Qesem Cave (Israel). *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 33*, Article 102447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102447

Agam, A., & Barkai, R. (2018). Small flake acheulian: Further insights into lithic recycling at Late Acheulian Revadim, Israel. *Tel Aviv, 45*(2), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2018.1494783

Agam, A., Marder, O., & Barkai, R. (2015). Small flake production and lithic recycling at late Acheulian Revadim, Israel. *Quaternary International, 361*, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.06.070

Agam, A., Rosenberg-Yefet, T., Wilson, L., Shemer, M., & Barkai, R. (2022). Flint type analysis at Late Acheulian Jaljulia (Israel), and implications for the origins of prepared core technologies. *Frontiers in Earth Science*. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.858032

Agam, A. (2021). Flint procurement and exploitation strategies in the Late Lower Paleolithic Levant: a view from Acheulo-Yabrudian Qesem Cave (Israel). Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd.

Andrews, B. N. (2006). Sediment consolidation and archaeological site formation. *Geoarchaeology*. https://doi.org/10.1002/hea.20114

Andrews, B. (2003). Measuring prehistoric craftsman skill. Contemplating its application to Mesoamerican core-blade research. In K. G. Hirth (Eds.) *Mesoamerican Lithic Technology* (pp. 208–219). University of Utah Press.

Ashton, N., & McNabb, J. (1994). Bifaces in perspective. *Stories in Stone, 4*, 182–191.

Assaf, E., Barkai, R., & Gopher, A. (2015). Knowledge transmission and apprentice flint-knappers in the Acheulo-Yabrudian: A case study from Qesem cave, Israel. *Quaternary International, 398*, 70–85.

Bamforth, D. B., & Finlay, N. (2008). Introduction: Archaeological approaches to lithic production skill and craft learning. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15*, 1–27.

Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Shimelmitz, R., Lev, Z., Stiner, M. C., & Gopher, A. (2009). A blade for all seasons? Making and using Amudian blades at Qesem Cave. *Israel. Human Evolution, 24*(1), 57–75.

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Solodenko, N., & Lemorini, C. (2013). An Amudian oddity: A giant bface from late Lower Palaeolithic Qesem Cave. *Tel Aviv, 40*(2), 176–186.

Bar-Yosef, O., Goren-Inbar, N. (1993). The lithic assemblages of ‘Ubeidiya: a lower palaeolithic site in the Jordan Valley. *Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem*.

Bello-Alonso, P., Rios-Garaizar, J., Panera, J., Rubio-Jara, S., Pérez-González, A., Rojas, R., Baquedano, E., Mabulla, A., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., & Santonja, M. (2021). The first comprehensive micro use-wear analysis of an early Acheulean assemblage (Thiongo Korongo, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). *Quaternary Science Reviews, 263*, Article 106980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.106980

Bertran, P., Claud, É., Detrain, L., Lenoble, A., Masson, B., & Vallin, L. (2006). Composition granulométrique des assemblages lithiques. *PALEO. Revue D’archéologie Préhistorique, 18*, 7–36. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.111

Bertran, P., Lenoble, A., Todisco, D., Desrosiers, P. M., & Sørensen, M. (2012). Particle size distribution of lithic assemblages and taphonomy of Palaeolithic sites. *Journal of Archaeological Science, 39*(10), 3148–3166.

Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W. K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., Kondo, M., Hyodo, M., Renne, P. R., Suwa, G., & Asfaw, B. (2013). The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110*(5), 1584–1591. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221285110

Bordes, F. (1961). Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Bordeaux: Delmas.

Bradley, B., & Sampson, C. G. (1986). Analysis by replication of two Acheulian artefact assemblages. In G. N. Bailey & P. Callow (Eds.), *Stone age prehistory: studies in memory of Charles McBurney* (pp. 29–45). Cambridge University Press.

Bril, J., & Roux, V. (2023). Au fondement de l’apprentissage des habiletés de taille: des référentiels interdisciplinaires destinés à l’interprétation archéologique. In S. préhistorique français (Ed.), *Hiatus, lacunes et absences: identifier et interpréter les vides archéologiques* (Vol. Apprendre et comprendre: de la transmission des savoirs à la structuration des sociétés, pp. 3–24). Société préhistorique française.

Burroni, D., Donahue, R. E., Pollard, A. M., & Mussi, M. (2002). The surface alteration features of flint artefacts as a record of environmental processes. *Journal of Archaeological Science, 29*(11), 1277e1287.

Byers, D. A., Hargiss, E., & Finley, J. B. (2015). Flake morphology, fluvial dynamics, and debitage transport potential. *Geoarchaeology, 30*(5), 379–392.

Callahan E. (1979). The basics of bface knapping in the eastern fluted point tradition. A manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts. Pitdown Productions.

Caruana, M. V., & Herries, A. I. (2021). Modelling production mishaps in later Acheulian handaxes from the Area 1 excavation at Amanzi Springs (Eastern Cape, South Africa) and their effects on reduction and morphology. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 39*, Article 103121.

Caruana, M. V., Wilson, C. G., Blackwood, A. F., & Herries, A. I. (2023). Mitigating mishaps: Diachronic trends in handaxe shaping and knapping error management at Amanzi Springs Area 2 (Eastern Cape, South Africa). *Lithic Technology, 48*(4), 347–363.

Cattabriga, G., & Peresani, M. (2024). Criteria for identifying knapping skill level through the analysis of lithic cores: An example from Val Lastari, Late Paleolithic, Italy. *Lithic Technology, 49*, 416–431.
Centi, L., Valletta, F., & Zaidner, Y. (2023). To err is humna: Knapping expertise and technological variability at the Middle Paleolithic Site of Nesher Ramla, Israel. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, 30, 103–126.

Chazan, M. (2016). Technological radiation and the process of technological change at the end of the Levantine Lower Paleolithic. *Quaternary International*, 411, 59–66.

Claud, É. (2014). New functional data concerning Middle Palaeolithic bifaces from Southwestern and Northern France. *International conference on use-wear analysis, use-wear 2012* (pp. 140–151). Cambridge University Press.

Claud, É. (2008). Le statut fonctionnel des bifaces au Paléolithique moyen récent dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. Étude tracéologique intégrée des outillages des sites de La Graulet, La Conne de Bergerac, Combe Brune 2, Fonseigner et Chez-Pinaud/Jonzac. (These de doctorat). Université de Bordeaux I, Bordeaux.

Clément, S. (2022). Soft-hammer percussion during the Acheulean: Barking up the wrong tree of technical change? *Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology*, 5, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-021-00104-6

Darmark, K. (2010). Measuring skill in the production of bifacial pressure flaked points: A multivariate approach using the flip-test. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 37, 2308–2315.

Douze, K., Delagnes, A., Rots, V., & Gravina, B. (2018). A reply to Sahle and Braun's reply to 'The pattern of emergence of a Middle Stone Age tradition at Gademotta and Kulkuletti (Ethiopia) through convergent tool and point technologies' [J. Hum. Evol. 91 (2016) 93–121]. *Journal of Human Evolution*, 125, 207–214.

Efrati, B., & Barkai, R. (2024). The magnitude of a practice: Collection and recycling of patinated 'old' flint items during the Levantine Late Lower Paleolithic. *Quaternary*, 7(4), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat0704005

Eren, M. I., Roos, C. I., Story, B. A., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., & Lycett, S. J. (2014). The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: An experimental assessment. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 49, 472–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.034

Falguères, C., Richard, M., Tombret, O., Shao, Q., Bahain, J. J., Gopher, A., & Barkai, R. (2016). New ESR/U-series dates in Yabrudian and Amudian layers at Qesem Cave, Israel. *Quaternary International*, 398, 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.006

Fladmark, K. R. (1982). Microdebitage analysis: Initial considerations. *Journal of Archaeological Science*. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(82)90050-4

Forte, V., Castañeda, N., & Romagnoli, F. (2023). From novices to experts: Skill development and knowledge transmission in pre-history. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, 30(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-023-09601-0

Foulds, F. W. F. (2010). Investigating the individual? An experimental approach through lithic refitting. *Lithics*, 31, 6–19.

Gilead, D. (1970b). Handaxe industries in Israel and the Near East. *World Archaeology*, 2(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1970.9979459

Gilead, D. (1970a). Early Palaeolithic Cultures in Israel and the Near East. ha-Universitah ha-Ivrit.

Glauberman, P., & Thorson, R. (2012). Flint Patina as an aspect of «flaked stone taphonomy»: a case study from the loess terrain of the Netherlands and Belgium. *Journal Taphonomy*, 10.

Gopher, A., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A., Karkanas, P., & Shahack-Gross, R. (2010). The chronology of the late Lower Paleolithic in the Levant based on U-Th ages of speleothems from Qesem Cave, Israel. *Quaternary Geochronology*, 5(6), 644–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2010.03.003

Goren-Inbar, N., & Saragusti, I. (1996). An acheulean bface assemblage from Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel: Indications of African

affinities. *Journal of Field Archaeology*, 23(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/530606

Goren-Inbar, N., Belfer-Cohen, A., Grosman, L., Herzlinger, G., & Agam, A. (2022). Kaizer Hill (Modi'in), a pre-pottery neolithic a quarry site – The terraced slopes. *PLoS ONE*, 17(3), e0265727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265727

Gossa, T., & Hovers, E. (2024). The emergence of large flake-based Acheulian technology: Perspective from the highland site-complex of Melka Wakena Ethiopia. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences*, 16(10), 172.

Gowlett, J. A. J., Herries, A. I. R., Hoare, S., & Rucina, S. M. (2017). The small and short of it: mini-bifaces and points from Kilombe, Kenya, and their place in the Acheulean. En D. Wojtczak, D. M. Al Najjar, R. Jagher, H. Elsuede, & F. Wegmüller (Eds.), *Vocation Préhistoire: Homage à Jean-Marie Le Tensorer* (pp. 121–132). ERAUL, University of Liège.

Grimm, L. (2000). Apprentice flintkapping: Releating material culture and social practice in the upper paleolithic. In J. S. Derevenski (Ed.), *Children and material culture* (pp. 53–71). Routledge.

Grosman, L., Sharon, G., Goldman-Neuman, T., Smikt, O., Smilansky, U. (2011). Studying post depositional damage on Acheulian bifaces using 3-D scanning. *Journal of Human Evolution* 60 (4), 398e406.

Guibert-Cardin, J., Capellari, F., Lhomme, V., Connet, N., Nicoud, E., & Beyries, S. (2021). Lower Palaeolithic stone tools. A techno-functional study of the Soucy 3P assemblage (France). In S. Beyries, C. Hamon, & Y. Maigrot (Eds.), *Beyond Use-Wear Traces. Going from tools to people by means of archaeological wear and residue analyses* (pp. 101–116). Sidestone Press.

Herzlinger, G., Goren-Inbar, N., & Grosman, L. (2017). A new method for 3D geometric morphometric shape analysis: The case study of handaxe knapping skill. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 14, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.013

Herzlinger, G., Varanda, A., Deschamps, M., Brenet, M., Lopez-Tascón, C., & Goren-Inbar, N. (2021). Reevaluation of the classification scheme of the Acheulian in the Levant - 50 years later: A morpho-technological analysis of handaxe variability. *PaleoAnthropology*, 1, 23–84.

Holmes WH. (1919) Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities. Smithsonian Institution Bulletin.

Horwitz, L. K., & Chazan, M. (2007). Holon in the context of Levantine Late Lower Paleolithic. In M. Chazan & L. K. Horwitz (Eds.), *Holon: A lower paleolithic site in Israel* (pp. 181–191). Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Hovers, E., Ekshtain, R., Greenbaum, N., Malinsky-Buller, A., Nir, N., & Yeshurun, R. (2014). Islands in a stream? Reconstructing site formation processes in the Late Middle Paleolithic site of 'Ein Qashish, Northern Israel. *Quaternary International*, 331, 216–233.

Hull, K. L. (1987). Identification of cultural site formation processes through microdebitage analysis. *American Antiquity*, 52(4), 772e783.

Inizan, M. L., Reduron, M., Roche, H., & Tixier, J. (1995). Préhistoire de la pierre taillée, Terminologie et technologie. *CREP, Valbonne*.

Inizan, M. L., Reduron, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J. (1999). Technology and terminology of knapped stone. Valbonne: CREP.

Jagher, R. (2011). Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar—Acheulean variability in the Central Syrian Desert. In Le Tensorer J.-M., Jagher R., Otte M. (Eds.) *The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the Middle East and neighbouring regions* (pp.209–224). Proceedings of the Basel symposium. Liege: ERAUL.

Jelinek, A. J. (1977). The lower Paleolithic: Current evidence and interpretations. *Annual Review of Anthropology*, 6, 11–32.

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>
Jelinek, A. J. (1982). The Tabun Cave and Paleolithic man in the Levant. *Science*, **216**(4553), 1369-1375. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4553.1369

Keller, C., & Keller, J. (1996). *Cognition and tool use: The black-smith at work*. Cambridge University Press.

Klaric, L. (Eds.) (2018). The prehistoric apprentice: Investigating apprenticeship, know-how and expertise in prehistoric technologies (Vol. 24). The Czech Academy of Sciences, Dolni Vestonice Studies, Institute of Archaeology, Brno.

Lenoble, A. (2005). *Ruissellement et formation des sites préhistoriques: Référentiel actualiste et exemples d'application au fosfile*. British Archaeological Report.

Lepre, C. J., Roche, H., Kent, D. V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R. L., Brugal, J.-P., Texier, P.-J., Lenoble, A., & Feibel, C. S. (2011). An earlier origin for the Acheulian. *Nature*, **477**(7362), 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10372

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). *Le geste et la parole 1: Technique et langage* (Vol. 1). Albin Michel.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1965). Le Geste et la Parole-tome 2: La mémoire et les rythmes (Vol. 2). Paris: Albin Michel.

Leroyer, M. (2016). Palethnologie Acheuléenne: de la technologie bifaciale à l'organisation de la subsistance collective. Étude du site de Boxgrove-Eartham Pit (West Sussex, Angleterre) et de deux sites du cours moyen de la Seine. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Paris I- Pantheon-Sorbonne.

Leroyer, M. (2018). La connaissance des niveaux de savoir-faire du Paléolithique ancien : le cas des maîtres et apprentis tailleurs de bifaces à Boxgrove (Angleterre), il y a 500 000 ans. In L. Klaric (Eds.) *L'apprenti Préhistorique, Appréhender l'apprentissage, les savoir-faire et l'expertise à travers les productions techniques des sociétés préhistoriques* (pp.39-95). The Czech Academy of Sciences, Dolni Vestonice Studies, Institute of Archaeology, Brno. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.011

Litov, V., & Barkai, R. (2023). Palaeolithic innovations in response to faunal fluctuations: The case of Acheulian Quina-like scrapers and bifacial knives in the Levant. *Hunter Gatherer Research*, **9**(1-2), 165-207.

Litov, V., & Barkai, R. (2024). The stone, the deer, and the mountain: Lower Paleolithic scrapers and early human perceptions of the cosmos. *Archaeologies*, **20**(1), 106-146.

Litov, V., Marinelli, F., Lemorini, C., & Barkai, R. (2025). Continuity and innovation in the Late Acheulian: Technological and functional analysis of scrapers from Aljulia, Southern Levant (500-300 ka). *Journal of Human Evolution*, **205**, Article 103716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2025.103716

Liu, C., Khreisheh, N., Stout, D., & Pargeter, J. (2023). Differential effects of knapping skill acquisition on the cultural reproduction of late acheulean handaxe morphology: Archaeological and experimental insights. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, **49**, Article 103974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103974

Malinsky-Buller, A. (2016). The muddle in the Middle Pleistocene: The Lower-Middle Paleolithic transition from the Levantine perspective. *Journal of World Prehistory*, **29**, 1-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-016-9092-1

Malinsky-Buller, A. (2014). Contextualizing curational strategies at the late Lower Paleolithic site of Holon, Israel. *PaleoAnthropology*, **483–504**.

Marder, O., Malinsky-Buller, A., Shahack-Gross, R., Ackermann, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Goldsmith, Y., Inbar, M., Rabinovich, & Hovers, E. (2011). Archaeological horizons and fluidial processes at the Lower Paleolithic open-air site of Revadim (Israel). *Journal of Human Evolution*, **60**, 508-522.

Marder, O., Milevski, I., & Matskevich, Z. (2006). The handaxes of Revadim Quarry: Typo-technological considerations and aspects of intra-site variability. En *Axe Age: Acheulian*

*Tool-making from Quarry to Discard*. Equinox, London (pp. 223–242). London:Equinox.

Marinelli, F., Lemorini, C., & Barkai, R. (2021). Lower Palaeolithic small flakes and megafauna: The contribution of experimental approach and use-wear analysis to reveal the link. In G. E. Konidaris, R. Barkai, V. Tourloukis, & K. Harvati (Eds.), *Human-elephant interactions: From past to present* (pp. 169–192). Tübingen University Press.

Marinelli, F., Nunziante-Cesaro, S., Barkai, R., & Lemorini, C. (2024). Lower Palaeolithic small flake prehension: Use-wear and residue analyses reveal hominin grasping potential at late acheulean sites in Israel and Italy. *Journal of Quaternary Science*. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3683

Mathias, C., Shemer, M., & Barkai, R. (2022). *Levallois technology half a million years ago? A view from late Acheulian Jaljulia*. In European society for the study of human evolution meeting.

Matskevich, Z. (2006). Cleavers in the levantine late Acheulian the case of Tabun cave. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon (Eds.), *Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard* (pp. 335–346). Equinox Publishing.

McPherron, S. P. (1999). Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: Two points make a line. *Préhistoire Européenne*, **14**, 9-32.

McPherron, S. P. (2003). Technological and typological variability in the bifaces from Tabun Cave, Israel. In M. Soressi & H. L. Dibble (Eds.), *Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technology* (pp. 55–76). Publication of the University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Muller, A., Barkai, R., Shemer, M., & Grosman, L. (2022). 3D morphology of handaxes from late Acheulean Jaljulia: A flexible reduction strategy in the Lower Paleolithic Levant. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences*, **14**(10), 206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-022-01671-7

Muller, A., Sharon, G., & Grosman, L. (2025). The skills of handaxe making: Quantifying and explaining variability in 3D sinuosity and bifacial asymmetry. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, **32**, 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-025-09705-9

Newcomer, M. H. (1971). Some quantitative experiments in handaxes manufacture. *World Archaeology*, **3**(1), 85-104.

Olive, M. (1988). *Une habitation magdalénienne d'Etiolles: l'unité P 15* (Mémoire de la société préhistorique française, Vol. 20). Paris: Editions du CNRS.

Pargeter, J., Khreisheh, N., & Stout, D. (2019). Understanding stone tool-making skill acquisition: Experimental methods and evolutionary implications. *Journal of Human Evolution*, **133**, 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.05.010

Pelegrin, J. (1991). Les savoir-faire : Une très longue histoire. *Terrain*, **16**, 106-113. https://doi.org/10.4000/terrain.3001

Pelegrin, J. (2000). Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: Critères de diagnose et quelques réflexions. *Mémoires Du Musée De Préhistoire D'ile De France*, **7**, 73-86.

Pelegrin, J., & Roche, H. (2017). L'humanisation au prisme des pierres taillées. *Comptes Rendus Palevol*, **16**, 175-181.

Pelegrin J. (1985). Réflexions sur le comportement techniques. In M. Otte (Eds.) La signification culturelle des industries lithiques (pp.72-91). Actes du Colloque de Liège, 3-7 octobre 1984. Oxford: B.A.R., International Series, 239, Studia Praehistorica Belgica, 4.

Petraglia, M. D., & Potts, R. (1994). Water flow and the formation of early Pleistocene artifact sites in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, **13**(3), 228-254. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaar.1994.1014

Pigeot, N. (1983). Les magdaléniens de l'unité U5 d'Étiolles: étude technique, économique, sociale par l'analyse dynamique du débitage (PhD Thesis). Paris 1.

Pigeot, N. (1987). Magdaléniens d'Étiolles. Économie de débitage et organisation sociale (l'unité d'habitation U5). Éditions du CNRS.
Ploux, S. (1988). *Approche archéologique de la variabilité des comportements individuels. L'exemple de quelques tailleurs magdaliens à Pincevent*. (phdthesis). Université de Nanterre - Paris X. Recuperado a partir de https://theses.hal.science/tel-00761111

Pope, M., Parfitt, S., & Roberts, M. (2020). *The horse butchery site: A high-resolution record of Lower Paleolithic hominin behaviour at Boxgrove*. SpoilHeap Publications.

Proffitt, T., Bargalló, A., & de la Torre, I. (2022). The effect of raw material on the identification of knapping skill: A case study from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, 29(1), 50–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-021-09511-z

Pryor, J. H. (1988). The effects of human trample damage on lithics: A consideration of crucial variables. *Lithic Technology*, 17(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.1988.11754525

Roche H. & Texier P.-J. (1991). La notion de complexité dans un ensemble lithique. Application aux séries acheuléennes d'Isenya (Kenya). In *25 ans d'études technologiques en préhistoire: bilan et perspectives* (pp. 99–108). Actes des XIe rencontres internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. Juan-les-Pins: APDCA.

Rollefson, G. O., Quintero, L. A., & Wilke, P. J. (2005). The Acheulian industry in the al-Jafr basin of Southeastern Jordan. *Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society* / *באה תפקדמ* 7, 53–68.

Rollefson, G., Schnurrenberger, D., Quintero, L., Watson, R. P., & Low, R. (1997). Ain Soda and ‘Ayn Qasiya: new late Pleistocene and early Holocene sites in the Azraq Shishan area, eastern Jordan. *The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from*, 45–58.

Rosenberg-Yefet, T., Shemer, M., & Barkai, R. (2021). Acheulian shortcuts: Cumulative culture and the use of handaxes as cores for the production of predetermined blanks. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 36, Article 102822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102822

Rosenberg-Yefet, T., Shemer, M., & Barkai, R. (2022). Lower Paleolithic winds of change: Prepared core technologies and the onset of the Levallois method in the Levantine Late Acheulian. *Frontiers in Earth Science*. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.847358

Roux, V., & Pelegrin, J. (1989). Taille des perles et spécialisation artisanale. Enquête ethnoarchéologique dans le Gujarat. *Techniques Et Culture*, 14, 23–49.

Rust, A. (1950). *Die Höhlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien)*. Neumünster: Wachholtz.

Sánchez-Dehesa Galán, S., Méndez-Quintas, E., Bahain, J.-J., Di Bianco, L., Bonnefille, R., Brunelli, E., Geraads, D., Melis, R., Serodio Domínguez, A., Voinchet, P., & Mussi, M. (2022). Age and formation processes of an Acheulean site with extensive accumulation of large cutting tools: Garba I (Melka Kunture, Upper Awash, Ethiopia). *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences*, 14(3), Article 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-022-01521-6

Sanchez-Dehesa Galán, S., & Pelegrin, J. (2023). Identifier différents niveaux de savoir-faire dans l'Acheuléen de Garba I (Éthiopie). In S. préhistorique français (Ed.), *Hiatus, lacunes et absences: identifier et interpréter les vides archéologiques* (Vol. Apprendre et comprendre: de la transmission des savoirs à la structuration des sociétés*, pp. 65–84). Société préhistorique français.

Sánchez-Dehesa Galán, S. (2020). *Contribution à l'évaluation de la variation interne des industries acheuléennes: le cas de Garba I (Melka Kunture, Ethiopie)* (These de doctorat). Paris 10.

Sánchez-Dehesa Galán S. (2012) Étude des méthodes de débitage d'éclats au Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Le cas de Plachy-Buyon (Somme). Mémoire de Master 2. Université Paris Nanterre.

Santonja, M. (1996). The Lower Palaeolithic in Spain: Sites, raw material and occupation of the land. In: N. Moloney, L. Raposo, & M. Santonja (Eds.), *Non-flint stone tools and the Palaeolithic occupation of the Iberian Peninsula* (Vol. 649, pp. 1–20). BAR International Series.

Schick, K. (1984) Processes of Paleolithic site formation: An experimental study. Dept. of Anthropology, Ph. D. Univresity of California Berkeley.

Schick, K. D. (1986). *Stone age sites in the making: Experiments in the formation and transformation of archaeological occurrences*. University of Michigan Press.

Schick, K. D. (1987). Experimentally-derived criteria for assessing hydrologic disturbance of archaeological sites. In Nash, D.T., Petraglia, M.D. (Eds.) *Natural Formation Processes and the Archaeological Record* (pp.86–107), vol. 352. BAR, Oxford.

Shackley, M. L. (1974). Stream abrasion of flint implements. *Nature*, 248(5448), 501–502.

Sharon, G. (2014). The early prehistory of Western and Central Asia. In C. Renfrew & P. Bahn (Eds.), *The cambridge world prehistory* (pp. 1357–1378). Cambridge University Press.

Sharon, G., & Barsky, D. (2016). The emergence of the Acheulian in Europe – A look from the east. *Quaternary International*, 411, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.108

Shea, J. J. (2006). Child's play: Reflections on the invisibility of children in the Paleolithic record. *Evolutionary Anthropology*, 15, 212–216.

Shemer, M. (2019). *Julajulia: Preliminary Report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot-Excavations and Surveys in Israel*, 131, 2–9.

Shemer, M., Greenbaum, N., Taha, N., Brailovsky-Rokser, L., Ebert, Y., Shaar, R., et al. (2022). Late acheulian jaljulia – Early human occupations in the paleo-landscape of the central coastal plain of Israel. *PLoS ONE*, 17(5), Article e0267672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267672

Shipton, C. (2018). Biface knapping skill in the East African Acheulean: Progressive trends and random walks. *African Archaeological Review*, 35(1), 107–131.

Shipton, C., & Clarkson, C. (2015). Handaxe reduction and its influence on shape: An experimental test and archaeological case study». *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 3, 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.06.029

Shipton, C., Clarkson, C., Pal, J. N., Jones, S. J., Roberts, R. G., Harris, C., Gupta, M. C., Ditchfield, P. W., & Petraglia, M. D. (2013). Generativity, hierarchical action and recursion in the technology of the Acheulean to Middle Palaeolithic transition: A perspective from Patpara, the Son Valley, India. *Journal of Human Evolution*, 65, 93–108.

Solodenko, N., Zupancich, A., Cesaro, S. N., Marder, O., Lemorini, C., & Barkai, R. (2015). Fat residue and use-wear found on Acheulian biface and scraper associated with butchered elephant remains at the site of Revadim, Israel. *PLoS ONE*, 10(3), Article e0118572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118572

Sorensen, A. C., Claud, E., & Soressi, M. (2018). Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis. *Scientific Reports*, 8(1), 10065. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28342-9

Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J., & Roberts, M. (2014). Late acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 41, 576–590.

Stout, D., Hecht, E., Khreisheh, N., Bradley, B., & Chaminade, T. (2015). Cognitive demands of lower Paleolithic toolmaking. *PLoS ONE*, 10(4), Article e0121804. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121804

Tensorer, J.-M. L., & Muhesen, S. (1997). *Les premiers hommes du désert syrien - Fouille syrio-suisse à Nadaouiyeh Ain Askar. Catalogue de l'exposition, Musée de l'Homme de Paris*. Éditions du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.

Thièbaut C. 2007. Les pieces encochées au Paléolithique moyen et les pseudo-outils: peut-on les distinguer? In J. Évin (Eds.) *Un siècle de construction du discours scientifique en Préhistoire occupation of the Iberian Peninsula* (Vol. 649, pp. 1–20). BAR International Series.
(pp.201–216), vol. 3, XXVI Congrès Préhistorique de France, Avignon, 2004.

Tixier, J. (2012 [1978]). *Méthode pour l'étude des outillages lithiques: notice sur les travaux de J. Tixier*. Centre national de recherche archéologique du Luxembourg.

Torres, C., & Preysler, J. B. (2020). Experts also fail: A new methodo-logical approach to skills analysis in lithic industries. *Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 3*(4), 889–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-020-00063-4

Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., & Whitman, A. (1974). Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. *Journal of Field Archaeology, 1*(1–2), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1179/jfa.1974.1.1-2.171

Valladas, H., Mercier, N., Hershkovitz, I., Zaidner, Y., Tsatskin, A., Yeshurun, R., Vialettes, L., Joron, J.-L., Reyss, J.-L., & Wein-stein-Evron, M. (2013). Dating the lower to middle Paleolithic transition in the Levant: A view from Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. *Journal of Human Evolution, 65*(5), 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.07.005

Venditti, F., Cristiani, E., Nunziante-Cesaro, S., Agam, A., Lemorini, C., & Barkai, R. (2019). Animal residues found on tiny lower Paleolithic tools reveal their use in butchery. *Scientific Reports, 9*(1), 13031.

Viallet, C. (2016). Bifaces used for percussion? Experimental approach to percussion marks and functional analysis of the bifaces from Terra Amata (Nice, France). *Quaternary International, 409*, 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.068

Villa, P. (1981). *Matières premières et provinces culturelles dans l'Acheuléen français. Matières Premières Et Provinces Culturelles Dans L'acheuléen Français, 23*, 19–35.

Villa, P. (1983). *Terra amata and the Middle Pleistocene archaeological record of Southern France* (Vol. Vol. 13). University of California Press.

White, M. (1995). Raw materials and bife variability in Southern Britain: A preliminary examination. *Lithics-the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society, 15*, 1.

Wynn, T. (1979). The intelligence of later Acheulean hominids. *Man, 14*, 371–391.

Wynn, T. (2002). Archaeology and cognitive evolution. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25*, 389–438.

Zaidner, Y., Porat N., Ziberman E., Herzlinger G., Almogi-Labin A. & Roskin J. (2017) Geo-chronological context of the open-air Acheulian site at Nahal Hesi, northwestern Negev, Israel. *Quaternary International, 464*, part A, 18–31.

Zaidner, Y., & Weinstein-Evron, M. (2016). The end of the lower paleolithic in the Levant: The Acheulo-Yabrudian lithic technology at Misliya Cave, Israel. *Quaternary International, 409*, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.080

Zupancich, A., Shemer, M., & Barkai, R. (2021). Bife use in the lower paleolithic Levant: First insights from late Acheulean Revadim and Jaljulia (Israel). *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 36*, Article 102877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102877

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.