The Late Lower Paleolithic Site of Holon, Israel: Subsistence, Technology, and Chronology
Liora Kolska Horwitz1, Michael Chazan2, Adrian Lister3, Hervé Monchot4 and
Naomi Porat3
1. Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91004,
Israel.
2. Department of Anthropology, 100 George Street, University of Toronto, Ontario M5S IA1,
Canada.
3. Dept. of Palaeontology, Museum of Natural History, London UK
4. Department of Prehistory, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
5. Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel Street, Jerusalem 95501, Israel.
Abstract
The open-air, Late Lower Paleolithic site of Holon is located on the southern coastal plain of
Israel. Excavated between 1963 and 1970 by Tamar Noy, this site has produced one of the
largest horizontal exposures of a Lower Paleolithic site with preserved fauna in the Near East.
The publication of a monograph on the site in the spring of 2007 marked the end of a
collaborative research program aimed at elucidating the timing and nature of hominin occupation
at the site. This paper presents an overview of the results of this project focusing on evidence
relevant to subsistence, technology, and chronology.
Subistence: Holon is a palimpsest of kill/scavenge/butchery events in a swamp margin
environment. Faunal analysis indicates multiple agents leading to bone accumulation at this
locality including hunting and scavenging by hominins as well as carnivores.
Technology: The Holon lithic assemblage includes handaxes, choppers, cores, flakes, and
retouched flakes. The retouched flakes are dominated by sidescrapers with a high frequency of
Nahr Ibrahim truncations. Technological analysis indicates an absence of the Levallois method
and that handaxes were produced off-site.
Chronology: OSL and ESR dating converge on a date in the latter part of OIS 7.
We also explore the implications of these results for our understanding of Lower Paleolithic
landscape use in the region, by comparing the data for Holon, an open-air kill/scavenge butchery
site to preliminary results from the nearby site of Qesem Cave, which may have served as a Late
Lower Paleolithic Levantine base camp,
Key words: Late Lower Paleolithic, Holon, Qesem Cave, Near East, palimpsest site,
kill/scavenge location, base camp
Introduction
Analyses of handaxe manufacture, morphology, and function have added significantly to our
understanding of these enigmatic tools and the variability that underlies the seeming uniformity
of the Lower Paleolithic (see articles in Goren-Inbar and Sharon 2006 and in the current
volume). However, handaxes are best understood within the context of the relationship between
hominins and the ecosystems they inhabited. Therefore, integrated interdisciplinary studies of
sites where handaxes occur have the potential to provide important insights into the role played
by these tools in Lower Paleolithic societies.
In the first part of this paper we present a short overview of the Late Lower Paleolithic site of
Holon, Israel, which has yielded an assemblage of 100 handaxes, in addition to over 1,000 other
lithic artefacts and 500 identified faunal remains (Fig. 1). In the second part, we focus on a
comparison of Holon with Qesem Cave, a Levantine Late Lower Paleolithic site which, to date,
has yielded few handaxes (Barkai et al. 2003, Gopher et al. 2005, Karkanas et al. 2007). This
comparison suggests a linkage between handaxes and sites like Holon which were used for
butchery of a wide range of hunted/scavenged fauna, especially very large mammals (many well
over 1 ton in weight). In contrast, the near absence of handaxes at Qesem Cave appears to be
associated with a home-base economy focused on the exploitation of medium-sized animals.
Taking this concept further, we propose that the generalized flake-based toolkits, characteristic
of the Middle Paleolithic in the Levant (Shea 2003), emerged during Late Lower Paleolithic OIS
9-7 alongside more diversified toolkits that included handaxes. The comparison of Holon and
Qesem Cave suggests that during the Late Lower Paleolithic of the Levant generalized flakebased industries are associated with sites best understood as base camps where food preparation
and consumption took place (Table 1). Conversely, diversified toolkits with handaxes are often
found in open-air sites associated with butchery of scavenged/hunted remains of very large
animals. Consideration of a wider range of sites indicates that this dichotomy in toolkit may
reflect differences in activities carried out at a site.
The Site of Holon
The Excavation
The Late Lower Paleolithic site of Holon is an open-air site, located some 2km south of the city
of Tel Aviv (Fig. 1). Following industrial development, salvage excavations were undertaken at
the site by Dr. Tamar [Yizraeli] Noy, during 1963 and 1964, followed by a third season in 1970
(Yizraeli 1963, 1967, Noy and Issar 1971) (Fig. 2). The total area excavated was 120m2.
In the site section, Noy (Yizraeli 1967), recognized five strata (Fig. 3):
Stratum A a thick red sandy loam soil (hamra)
Stratum B a dark clay layer.
Stratum C a light grey clay representing the archaeological horizon. It reaches a maximum a
thickness of 1.7 meters but is usually much thinner. Within this stratum, the excavator identified
three levels (see section below).
Stratum D is again a red sandy loam soil (hamra), reaching a maximum thickness of 50cm.
Stratum E lies at the base of the sequence and represents a cemented sand (kurkar)
Reconstruction of the site location (Netser and Chazan 2007) has shown that it formed on the
edge of a marsh which developed following blocking of the outlet of the paleo-Ayalon River by
incursive dunes (Fig. 4). Details concerning the excavation, site stratigraphy and site formation
processes are given in the comprehensive final report of the site that has recently been published
by Chazan and Horwitz (2007).
Lithics
The Holon lithic assemblage numbered 1,415 artefacts including 100 handaxes, 39 choppers, 160
cores, and 1,116 flakes - with retouch on ca. 50% of them including both sidescrapers and
truncated-faceted pieces termed Nahr Ibrahim truncations (Fig. 5). Following the system
developed by Roe (1968) 53 percent of the handaxes belong to the pointed category and 47
percent belong to the ovate category (Chazan 2007a). Mean length for the handaxes is 10.5 cm
and mean breadth is 7.0 cm. Very few small flakes were found, probably due to selective
retrieval during excavation. While the presence of cores indicate that flake knapping took place
on-site, technological and raw material analyses demonstrate that the handaxes and choppers
were produced off-site (Chazan 2000a,b, 2007a). Correspondence Analysis showed that with the
exception of bifaces, all lithic artefacts are highly associated (Chazan et al. 2007, Monchot et al.
in press).
Tool class range in Levantine sites dating to this time-span are broadly similar, but differ in
detail such as proportions of different artifact types, as well as the exclusion of some tool classes
in certain assemblages. This may be due to the exploitation of different environments and/or raw
materials. The variable nature of the Late Lower Acheulean tool kits has been discussed by
Chazan (2007a,b) and others (Bar-Yosef 1994, Jelinek 1990, Gisis and Ronen 2006) and may
reflect the increasing complexity of hominin behavior, perhaps related to specialized tools being
used for certain functions.
Fauna
Of the 1,569 bones recovered during excavations at Holon, less than half i.e. 573 (36.5%), could
be identified to species. Of these, typical Holarctic taxa were the most common species: fallow
deer, Dama dama cf. mesopotamica (N = 247) (Lister 2007), aurochsen, Bos primigenius
(N=162) (Horwitz and Monchot 2007) and straight-tusked elephant, Palaeoloxodon antiquus
(N=120) (Davies and Lister 2007) (Fig. 6). Small numbers of remains of. red deer, Cervus
elaphus (N=3), wild boar, Sus cf. scrofa (N=2) and freshwater turtle, Mauremys caspica (N=3)
were also found. Similarly, few remains of Afro-Arabian species were identified, and comprised
hippopotamus, Hippopotamus cf. amphibius (N=29) and gazelle, Gazella gazella (N=7).
Compared to the number of identified bones (NISP counts), there is a relatively high minimum
number of animals (MNI counts), comprising at least 6 elephants, 5 fallow deer, 3 aurochsen, 2
hippopotamus and individuals of red deer, gazelle, wild boar and freshwater turtle.
Due to the small number of identified bones, little data on age profiles or sex ratios are available.
It is however noteworthy that the straight-tusked elephant was represented by young and very
mature animals, a profile that matches natural mortalities such as found today at water holes in
Africa (Haynes 1988). For ungulates, all age groups are represented, including prime adults.
Surface modifications to the bones were few but included signs of both hominin and animal
activity. In both instances this was of low intensity with only 3.6% of bones in the assemblage
exhibiting butchery damage resulting from hominin tool use - cut marks, flake scars and chop
marks (Horwitz and Monchot 2002; Monchot and Horwitz 2007). Of the 63 cut marks, 15 were
on bones of Dama dama cf. mesopotamica, 17 on bones of Bos primigenius, 1 on a Gazella
gazella bone and 30 on unidentified bone splinters. A further 3% exhibited carnivore and rodent
damage (gnaw marks, pits and puncture holes). Of the 6.6% bones with hominin or animal
surface modifications, 2 exhibited both hominin and carnivore damage, 1 had both rodent
damage and a cut mark, while another exhibited both rodent and carnivore damage (Monchot
and Horwitz 2007).
Attrition of the faunal assemblage due to diagenetic processes such as those related to bone
mineral density, appears to have played only a minor role in the modification of the faunal
assemblage from Holon. Consequently, the results of the Utility Indices, which could be
calculated only for Bos and Dama, are probably reliable indicators. Both show a negative utility
curve (Lyman 1994), with a high proportion of skeletal elements with moderate to low utility
value, a picture that characterizes kill/scavenge sites where the high utility elements have been
removed. The identification of Holon as a butchery/scavenge locality is corroborated by
Correspondence Analysis which indicates that there is a low statistical association between
different faunal taxa and skeletal elements such that bones of different taxa are not spatially
associated (Chazan et al. 2007). These data suggest discrete scavenge/kill locations within the
site, although no articulated bones were recovered.
Late Lower Paleolithic Levantine sites which have yielded fauna are listed in Horwitz and
Chazan (2007: Tables 13.2-13.3). Ungulates (especially fallow deer and aurochsen) are
predominant in all assemblages, with medium-sized ungulates more common in caves as are
carnivores. Large and extremely large terrestrial mammals (elephant, hippopotamus, rhinocerus
and camel) are found in all sites, but their remains occur in far higher proportions in open sites.
The poor representation of these very large-sized taxa in caves probably reflects selective
transport strategies, with their meat but very few of their bones transported to the cave sites/base
camps from the open air kill/scavenge sites. In contrast, carcasses of smaller-sized animals
would have been introduced in a more complete state into the caves, although some transport
selection against low utility elements would undoubtedly have been practiced.
The Holon Ages - Are They Too Recent ?
OSL ages on sediments from two pits excavated near the original excavation area at the site, and
correlated on the basis of their geology with the archaeological section, gave the following
sequence (from the top of section down to its base): 81±8 ka, (top paleosol); 150±13 ka (lower
paleosol); 198±22 ka (archaeological level); and 240±17 ka (beachrock) (Fig. 3) (Porat 2007).
ESR ages on two aurochsen teeth from Holon gave ages of 197±11 ka and 210±17 ka,
respectively (Porat 2007). Thus both the ESR and OSL ages converge on ~200 ka for the
occupation of Holon i.e. towards the end of marine Oxygen Isotope Stage (OIS) 7 (Porat et al.
2002, Porat 2007).
The Holon ages, as well as those deriving from the Upper Acheulean sites of Oumm Qatafa D1
and Yabrud Cave I (Porat et al. 2002), have been questioned by several researchers as being too
young (Bar-Yosef 1994, 1998b, Mercier et al. 2000, Rink et al. 2004). They have mistakenly
claimed that dating was undertaken solely on material from museum collections and that no onsite dosimetry was practiced.
In fact:
 the Holon ages were obtained using two separate and independent dating methods - OSL
and ESR.
 for Holon, the OSL ages were obtained on fresh sediment samples recovered from newly
excavated pits located next to the original excavation area. The sedimentary units in the
pits was correlated with the original site stratigraphy using standard geological
techniques i.e stratigraphy and sedimentology.
 ESR dating at Holon and Oumm Qatafa were based on on-site gamma dosimetry as well
as using new sediments collected from the same strata as the teeth dated by ESR. For
Yabrud I a sediment sample from the original excavation, originating from the same
depth and general location as the dated tooth, was used to assess external dose rates and
the ESR age is supported by TL on burned flint (Porat et al. 2002).
 the teeth used for ESR dating from all the sites derive from in situ deposits.
 the Holon ages accord extremely well with the known chrono-stratigraphy of the Israeli
coastal plain (see Horowitz 1979, Gvirtzman et al. 1997, Netser and Chazan 2007).
 at no time have we claimed that, based on the Holon, Oumm Qatafa and Yabrud I ages,
that the Late Lower Paleolithic of the Levant dates to 200 ka. We have argued that the
transition from the Late Lower Paleolithic to the Middle Paleolithic falls within OIS 7,
which ranges from 247 kyr to 183 kyr (Rohling et al. 1988).
 most importantly, many more Upper Acheulean OIS 7 ages are now available. As
illustrated in Fig. 7, several other sites, dated by different researchers and using different
methods, have also obtained ages for the Late Lower Paleolithic or Early Mousterian in
the 200 ka range (Henning and Hours 1982; summary of ages in Bar-Yosef 1998a; Porat
et al. 2002; Rink et al. 2004; Mercier et al. 2007).
Thus, while the earliest ages for the Achuelo-Yabrudian are currently circa. 400 kyr the
uppermost ages lie in the 150-200 kyr range (Mercier et al. 1995, 2000, summary of ages in BarYosef 1998). Although several Early Mousterian sites are now dated to 220-200 kyr (Mercier et
al. 2007) we think that it is highly unlikely that the Upper Acheulean overlaps with the Middle
Paleolithic. When the standard deviations for the ages, as well as the lack of fine resolution
inherent in these dating methods is taken into account, as previously proposed by us (Porat et al.
2002), it is evident that the overlap of ages obtained from the two periods is an expression of the
rapidity of the transition between the Late Lower Paleolithic (Upper Acheulean) and Early
Middle Paleolithic (Early Mousterian).
Is Holon a multi-phase site ?
Based on Noy's stratigraphic observations, Bar-Yosef (1994, 1998b) suggested that Holon
contains more than one archaeological level and that only artifacts from the main horizon had
been published by Yizraeli (1967).
In order to examine this contention and to test whether Holon represents a single archaeological
assemblage, faunal and lithic material from the three different excavation seasons (1963, 1964
and 1970) were tested for differences. None were found between excavation seasons in the range
of species or tool types represented, their relative proportions or even in their size (length,
breadth, thickness), or even in size ratios (Chazan 2007b, Monchot and Horwitz 2007).
Moreover, statistical tests, such as a variance mean ratio test, have demonstrated that the lithic
and bone remains are spatially associated rather than randomly distributed (Chazan et al. 2007,
Monchot et al. in press). As such it was confidently concluded that Holon represented a single
horizontal archaeological occurrence.
However, what of the vertical stratigraphy? The main find horizon of the site, Stratum C, is
horizontal and lies at a depth of slightly above 38.00 m.a.s.l. It is a light grey clay attaining a
maximum thickness of 1.70 meters. The excavator (Yizraeli 1967), identified three levels within
this main horizon - Top: many chalk incrustations; Middle: very clayey with fewer chalk
incrustations but with dense archaeological material; Bottom: sandier with few archaeological
remains, mostly turtle.
Although, there is evidence for some post-depositional vertical dispersal of material, due to
movement of water through the soils, this transport was limited in scope and of low energy
(Chazan 2007, Monchot and Horwitz 2007). Figure 8 presents a vertical projection of artefact
and faunal provenience of the central area of the 1970 excavation. As illustrated here, the vast
majority of archaeological material derives from the middle layer of Stratum C, which represents
a single and clearly constrained archaeological horizon. In this profile, artefacts and fauna are
clearly associated and it is difficult to discern any evidence for more than a single find horizon.
There is however clear vertical dispersion of both artefacts and fauna.
For the fauna, 39% of bones (N=960) had no depth measurements assigned to them. Of the 61%
that could be analysed, the vast majority (82%) were recovered from a horizon 0.63 metres thick
which was constrained between 37.51 to 38.14 m.a.s.l. A further 14% were found below this
height between 38.15 to 38.99 m.a.s.l, while only 2% of bones were found either above 37.51or
below 38.99 m.a.s.l. These results clearly indicate that the archaeological find horizon is indeed
well defined. Moreover, no differences were found by depth in taxon representation or in the
relative proportions of identified to unidentified bone remains. The prominence of turtle bones
in the bottom, sandy level of Stratum C, which was noted by Yizraeli (1967), is not corroborated
by the faunal analysis since only 3 such bones were recovered in the site.
There is no method to determine the time duration represented by the palimpsest of activities that
created the association of faunal and lithic remains found at the site of Holon. This is not a
problem unique to Holon but, as recognized by Stern (1993), is an intrinsic element of the Lower
Pleistocene archaeological record. As noted above, the nature of the vertical distribution of both
artefacts and fauna indicates that the material was deposited during a constrained period of time.
The condition of the faunal remains (Monchot and Horwitz 2007) point to rapid burial. Finally,
there is no indication for variability in lithic typology or technology that would support the
identification of multiple periods of occupation (Chazan 2007a, b).
Conclusions with Respect to Holon
Holon should best be interpreted as a multiple mortality/scavenging open-air location rather than
as a base camp given the:
 broad spectrum of animals (and habitats) represented
 the high minimum numbers of identified animals (MNI counts) relative to the number of
identified bones (NISP counts)
 a similar low intensity of hominin damage on bones (3.6%) and damage caused by
animals (3% of bones)
 presence of bones and teeth of large sized species - elephants, hippopotamus - species
whose skeletal remains are not readily removed although their meat may be taken offsite
 lack of evidence for fire/hearths
 lack of evidence for redistribution of food since the redistribution model described by
Isaac (1984) for base camps is likely to result in discard areas with mixing of portions of
different species and carcasses. This was not the case at Holon since there was no
statistically significant spatial association between bones of different taxa or skeletal
elements (Chazan et al. 2007, Monchot et al. in press). This demonstrates that the
individual remains entered the site as isolated carcasses and were butchered as such.
Due to its proximity to the river, Holon would have offered a mosaic of environments with
excellent opportunities for both hunting of a wide range of animals as well as scavenging natural
mortalities on the river banks. Following repeated visits by hominins to this favoured marsh
locality on the edge of the paleo-Ayalon river, over a circumscribed period of time the remains
of animal carcasses and lithic artefacts would have accumulated.
Thus, Holon did not function as a base camp (as defined by Isaac 1984) but rather served as a
locality frequently revisited (perhaps even seasonally), where intercept hunting/ambushes, as
well as scavenging took place ( see discussion in Chazan and Horwitz 2006), in the same manner
as suggested by Rollefson (1985) for the Lower Paleolithic site of Fjaje, Jordan. As defined by
Chazan and Horwitz (2006: 444), Holon was a palimpsest site "representing multiple discreet
events i.e. numerous SCS [single carcass scatters], which have taken place in adjacent areas or
were even super-imposed on earlier activities". A site such as this would be geared towards
primary food acquisition with limited food preparation and consumption activities taking place.
Consequently, it is plausible that Holon represents just one aspect of a more complex pattern of
Late Lower Paleolithic hominin landscape use.
Indeed, with reference to the Holon assemblage, the presence of other types of sites, including
base camps, elsewhere in the Levantine landscape is hinted at by:
(a) a predominance of medium to low utility skeletal elements suggesting that high utility, meatrich elements were transported off-site (Monchot and Horwitz 2007).
(b) a difference in butchery patterns between the large sized Bos and smaller sized Dama
demonstrating that Bos carcasses were cut up into smaller parcels of meat and bone, while more
complete carcasses of Dama were transported off-site (Horwitz and Monchot 2006).
(c) bifaces and choppers were not manufactured at Holon but introduced into the site readymade (Chazan 2007a).
A possible example of a Late Lower Paleolithic base camp from Israel that may complement
Holon, are the upper levels of the Acheulo-Yabrudian site of Qesem Cave (Table 1).
Qesem Cave - A Probable Late Lower Paleolithic Base Camp
Qesem Cave, located some 12km east of Tel Aviv, was discovered during the course of highway
development, during which the cave roof was removed. Several excavation seasons undertaken
since 2000 have resulted in an area of some 12m2 being opened to a depth of 7.5 meters from
bedrock to the uppermost layer (Barkai et al. 2005; Gopher et al. 2005; Lemorini et al. 2006). A
series of U/Th series dates indicate that site occupation began before 382 kyr and ended before
152 kyr, possibly around 200 kyr (Barkai et al. 2003).
The picture obtained from the fauna spectrum is remarkably dissimilar to that found at Holon
(Gopher et al. 2005, Lemorini et al. 2006) (Table 1). Unlike Holon, the fauna present are solely
Holarctic with no Afro-Arabian forms which are found at Holon or in Levantine Early
Mousterian sites (e.g. Shea 2003, Stiner 2005, Tchernov 1988, 1998). The diet was more
focused than at Holon, with >80% representing fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica),
predominantly mature individuals that would have been of prime interest to prehistoric
populations as a meat source. Smaller quantities of aurochsen (Bos primigenius), caballine
equids, wild boar (Sus scrofa), tortoise (Testudo graeca) were found, while red deer (Cervus
elaphus) is rare. Notably, no bones of very large mammals – elephant, rhinoceros or
hippopotamus- were recovered in the upper levels of Qesem Cave.
As illustrated in Table 2, preliminary results on the taphonomy of the upper layers at Qesem
Cave (Gopher et al. 2005, Lemorini et al. 2006) indicates an inverse picture for the
representation of skeletal elements of Dama to that found at Holon; with a predominance of
limbs and cranial bones (no antlers) and absence of trunk elements, pelves and foot bones.
Indeed, Gopher et al. (2005:86) note that "hominids were selective about the body parts they
transported to the cave, presumably following field processing of the carcasses elsewhere."
Moreover, there is a very high frequency of cut marks on the Qesem bones, numerous cone
fractures associated with marrow extraction, evidence for burning, and no rodent damage while
carnivore damage was observed on only 1 bone out of some 2000 bones examined. These data
contrast markedly to the results for Holon, suggesting that a significantly different range of
activities took place at Qesem Cave and included food preparation and consumption, features
more characteristic of a base camp.
With regard to the lithic assemblage (Table 1), Qesem Cave has yielded only 4 bifaces (teardropshaped hand axes with sharpened edges), compared to the 100 from Holon. Blades, the most
common artefact type at Qesem appear to have been used predominantly in butchering activities
- cutting and defleshing (Barkai and Gopher 2005; Gopher et al. 2005; Lemorini et al. 2006).
Conclusions
In many ways the Late Lower Paleolithic of Qesem Cave anticipates the characteristics of Early
Middle Paleolithic sites such as Tabun D, Hayonim E, and Misiliya (Jelinek 1981, WeinsteinEvron et al. 2003, Bar-Yosef et al. 2005). In terms of lithic technologies all these sites share an
emphasis on the production of elongated flake/blades, although the technological strategies
employed appear to differ markedly. The associated faunal assemblages demonstrate an
emphasis on fallow deer and gazelle with high proportions of burnt, cut and fractured bones
attributed to hominin food extraction and preparation activities (Stiner 2005, Yeshurun et al.
2007). It is interesting that at Misilya the bovid assemblage shows clear evidence of differential
butchery with the larger fallow deer, undergoing partial field butchery, while the small sized
gazelle were introduced as more complete carcasses (Yeshurun et al. 2007).
The comparison between Holon and the upper levels of Qesem Cave suggests a dichotomy
between butchery sites and home base sites in the Late Lower Paleolithic of the Levant. It is
interesting that in this comparison handaxes are associated with primary butchery at the
kill/scavenge locality. Thus it is possible that by the Late Lower Paleolithic handaxes had come
to be used for tasks associated particularly with processing of large and very large animals. The
employment at this time of a generalized flake- based toolkit, which becomes the hallmark of the
Middle Paleolithic, is most clearly associated with butchery of small and medium sized animals
within the context of home base sites. Clark and Schick (2000:199) have suggested that "The
association at some sites of full sized bifaces with the small flake and core component [such as
found at Holon], may be an indication of site reuse or of new individuals joining the group, but
in every case the flake component always indicates the later stages of the reduction...suggesting
the cores were reduced initially at another locale where the cortical flakes were left behind".
A consideration of the broader context suggests that some caution should be employed when
drawing overly broad conclusions from this comparison since the cave sites of Yabrud I, Tabun,
and Oumm Qatafa all yielded a diversified lithic assemblage that included an important
component of handaxes (Neuville 1951, Gilead 1970, 1977, Jelinek 1981, 1990, Bar-Yosef.
1994). Since these are caves, it is unlikely that any served as primary kill/scavenge sites in the
same manner as Holon. It is of further interest that the distinction between the Yabrudian and
Acheulo-Yabrudian is based upon a fluctuation in the frequency of handaxes.. The comparison
of Holon and Qesem Cave raises the possibility that this fluctuation may not be the hallmark of
a cultural tradition but simply a reflection of shifts in the activities carried out at the sites.
Acknowledgements
We wish to express our appreciation to: Prof. H. de Lumley and Eric Boëda for inviting LKH
and MC to attend the Tautavel conference and to The French Embassies in Israel and Canada for
facilitating the attendance of the Tautavel conference of LKH and MC respectively.
Research on aspects of Holon was financed by grants from The Canadian Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council and The Halbert Academic Exchange Fund (University of
Toronto) (to MC), and the TMR program (co-ordinated by Prof. Naama Goren) and a Fyssen
Grant (to HM).
References
Barkai, R, Gopher, A, Lauritzen, SE, Frumkin, A., 2003. Uranium series dates from Qesem
Cave, Israel, and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic. Nature 423, 977-979.
Barkai, R, Gopher, and 2005. Middle Pleistocene blade production in the Levant: An Amudian
laminar assemblage from Acheulo-Yabrudian Qesem Cave. Eurasian Prehistory 3(2), 39-74.
Bar-Yosef. 1994. Lower Paleolithic of the Near East. Journal of World Prehistory 8, 211-265.
Bar-Yosef O. 1998a. The chronology of the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. In Neanderthals
and Modern Humans in Western Asia, T. Akazawa. K. Aoiki and O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), pp. 3956. New York: Plenum Press.
Bar-Yosef O. 1998b. Early colonizations and cultural continuities in the Lower Paleolithic of
Western Asia. In Early Human Behaviour in Global Context, M. Petraglio and R. Korisettat
(eds.), pp. 221-279. London: Routledge.
Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A., Goldberg P., Kuhn S.L., Meignen L., Vandermeersch B. and
Weiner S. 2005. Archaeological background to Hayonim Cave and Meged Shelter. In . The
Faunas of Hayonim Cave (Israel). A 200,000 year record of Paleolithic Diet, Demography and
Society. M. Stiner (ed.), pp. 17-38. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Clark J.D. and Schick K.D. 2000. Overview and conclusion on the Middle Awash Acheulian. In
The Acheulean and The Plio-Pleistocene Deposits of the Middle Awash Valley Ethiopia, J. de
Heinselin, J.D. Clark, K.D. Schick and W.H. Gilbert (eds.), pp. 193-202.Annales Sciences
Geologiques vol. 104. Musee Royal de l'Afrique Centrale. Tervuren.
Chazan, M., 2000a. Flake production at the Lower Paleolithic Site of Holon (Israel). Implications
for the origin of the Levallois method. Antiquity 74, 495-499.
Chazan, M., 2000b. Typological analysis of the Lower Paleolithic Site of Holon, Israel. Journal
of the Israel Prehistoric Society 30, 7-32.
Chazan M. 2007a. Lithic typology. In Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel, M. Chazan and
L.K. Horwitz, L.K. (eds.), pp. 43-60. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Press.
Chazan M. 2007b. Lithic technology. In Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel, M. Chazan
and L.K. Horwitz, L.K. (eds.), pp. 61-84. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Press.
Chazan M. and Horwitz L.K. 2006. Finding the message in complexity: The association of lithics
and fauna on Lower Palaeolithic multiple carcass sites. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
25, 436-447.
Chazan, M., Horwitz, L.K., 2007. Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel. Peabody Museum
Press, Cambridge.
Chazan M., Monchot H., Horwitz L.K. 2007. Spatial analysis of lithic artifacts and fauna from
Holon. In Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel, M. Chazan and L.K. Horwitz, (eds.), pp.
163-180. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Davies P. and Lister A.M. 2007. Palaeoloxodon. In Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel,
M. Chazan and L.K. Horwitz, (eds.), pp. 123-132. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Gilead D. 1970. Handaxe industries in Israel and the Near East. World Archaeology 2, 1-11.
Gilead D. 1977. Some metrical studies of Acheulian assemblages in Israel. Eretz Israel 13
(Moshe Stekelis Memorial Volume), 38-49.
.
Gisis and Ronen 2006. Bifaces from the Acheulian and Yabrudian layers of Tabun Cave, Israel.
Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard, N. Goren-Inbar and Gonen Sharon
(eds.), pp. 137-154. London: Equinox.
Gopher A., Barkai R., Shimelmitz R., Khalaily H., Lemorini C., Hershkovitz I., Stiner M.
2005. Qesem Cave : An Amudian site in central Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society
35, 69-92.
Goren-Inbar, N. and G. Sharon (eds.). Axe Age: Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard.
London: Equinox.
Gvirtzman G., G. Martinotti and S. Moshkovitz. 1997. Stratigraphy of the Plio-Pleistocene
sequence of the Mediterranean coastal belt of Israel and its implications for the evolution of the
Nile Cone. In The Pleistocene Boundary and the Beginning of the Quaternary, J.A. van
Couvering (ed.), pp. 156-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haynes, G. 1988. Longitudinal studies of African elephant death and bone deposits. Journal of
Archaeological Science 15, 131-157.
Henning G.J. and Hours F.1982. Dates pour le passage entre l'Acheuleen et le Paleolithique
moyen a El Kowm (Syrie).Paleorient 8, 81-83.
Horwitz L.K., Monchot, H., 2002. Choice cuts: hominid butchery activities at the Lower
Paleolithic site of Holon, Israel. In Archaeozoology of the Near East vol. V, H. Buitenhuis,
A.M. Choyke, M. Mashkour, A.H Al-Shiyab, (eds.), pp. 48-61. Groningen: ARC Publicaties. .
Horwitz L.K. and Monchot H. 2007. Sus, Hippopotamus, Bos and Gazella. In Holon: A Lower
Paleolithic Site in Israel, M. Chazan and L.K. Horwitz, (eds.), pp. 91-110. Peabody Museum,
Cambridge.
Horowitz A. 1979. The Quaternary of Israel. New York: Academic Press.
Isaac G. 1984. The archaeology of human origins: Studies of the Lower Pleistocene in East
Africa 1971-1981. In Advances in World Archaeology, F. Wendorf and A. Close eds., pp. 187. Academic Press, New York.
Jelinek, A.J. 1981. The Middle Paleolithic of the Levant (Synthesis). In Prehistoire du Levant, J.
Cauvin and P. Sanlaville (eds.), pp.299-302. Paris: Editions CNRS.
Jelinek, A.J. 1990. The Amudian in the Context of the Mugharan Tradition at the Tabun Cave
(Mount Carmel), Israel. In The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective,
P. Mellars (ed.), pp. 81-90. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Karkanas P., Shahack-Gross R., Ayalon A., Bar-Matthews M., Barkai R., Frumkin A.,
Gopher A., and Stiner M. 2007. Evidence for habitual use of fire at the end of the Lower
Paleolithic: Site-formation processes at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 53,
197-212.
Lemorini C., Stiner M., Gopher A., Shimelmitz R., and Barkai R., 2006. Use-wear analysis of
an Amudian laminar assemblage from the Acheulo-Yabrudian of Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33, 921-934
Lister A.M. 2007. Cervidae. In Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel, M. Chazan and L.K.
Horwitz, (eds.), pp. 111-122. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mercier N., Valladas H., Valladas G., Reyss J-L., Jelinek A., Meignen L. and Joron J-L. 1995.
TL dates of burned flint from Jelinek's excavation at Tabun and their implications. Journal of
Archaeological Science 22, 495-509.
Mercier , N., H. Valladas, L. Froget, J-L. Joron, and A. Ronen.2000. Datation par
Thermoluminescence de la base du gisement Paleolithique de Tabun (Mont Carmel, Israel).
Compte Rondu des Academie des Sciences (Sciences de la Terre et des Planetes) 330, 731-738.
Mercier N., et al. 2007. Hayonim Cave: A TL based chronology for this Levantine Mousterian
sequence. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 1064-1077.
Monchot, H., Horwitz, L.K. 2007. Bone taphonomy. In Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in
Israel. M. Chazan and LK.. Horwitz, eds., pp. 17-26. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
133-162.
Monchot H., Chazan M. and Horwitz L.K. in press. Testing the spatial association of lithic and
faunal remains: A case study from the Lower Palaeolithic site of Holon (Israel). In Bones for
Tools, Tools for Bones: the Interrelationship of Lithic and Bone Raw Materials, K. Seetah and B.
Gravina (eds.). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monograph.
Netser M. and M. Chazan. 2007. The geological setting. In Holon: A Lower Paleolithic Site in
Israel. M. Chazan and L.K. Horwitz, eds., pp. 17-26. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Noy T. and A. Issar. 1971 Holon. Revue Biblique 78, 581-582.
Neuville R. 1951. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique de Désert de Judée. Paris:.Masson et Cie,
Editeurs.
Porat N., Chazan M., Schwarcz H.P., and Horwitz L.K. 2002. Timing of the Lower to Middle
Paleolithic boundary: new dates from the Levant. Journal of Human Evolution 43, 107-122.
Porat N. 2007. Luminescence and Electron Spin Resonance dating. In Holon: A Lower
Paleolithic Site in Israel, M. Chazan and LK.. Horwitz, eds., pp. 17-26. Peabody Museum,
Cambridge.
Rink W.J., Schwarcz H.P., Weiner S., Goldberg P., Meignen L. and Bar-Yosef O. 2004. Age of
the Mousterian industry at Hayonim Cave, northern Israel, using electron spin resonance and
230Th 234
/ U. Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (7), 953-964.
Roe, D 1968. British Lower and Middle Paleolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 34: 1-82.
Rohling, E., M. Fenton, F. Jorissen, P. Bertrand, G. Ganssen, and P.P. Caulet
1998. Magnitudes of sea-level lowstands of the past 500,000 years. Nature 394, 162-165.
Rollefson, G. 1985. Late Pleistocene environment and seasonal hunting strategies: A case study
from Fjaje, Near Shobak, Southern Jordan. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan
II, A. Hadidi, ed., pp. 103-108. Berlin: Ex Oriente,.
Shea J.J. 2003. The Middle Paleolithic of the East Mediterranean Levant. Journal of World
Prehistory 17 (4), 313-394.
Stern, N. 1993. The structure of the Lower Pleistocene archaeological record: A case study
from the Koobi Fora Formation. Current Anthropology 34 (3), 201-225.
Stiner M. 2005. The Faunas of Hayonim Cave (Israel). A 200,000 year record of Paleolithic
Diet, Demography and Society. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Tchernov E. 1988. The biogeographical history of the Southern Levant. In The Zoogeography of
Israel, Y. Yom-Tov and E. Tchernov (eds.), pp. 159-250. Dordrecht:.Dr. W. Junk.
Tchernov E. 1998.The faunal sequences of the southwest Asian Middle Palaeolithic in relation to
hominid dispersal events. In Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, T. Akazawa.
K. Aoiki and O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), pp. 77-90. New York: Plenum Press.
Weinstein-Evron M., Bar-Oz G., Zaydner Y., Tsatskin A., Druck D., Porat N. and Hershkovitz
I. 2003. Introducing Misiliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel: A new continuous Lower/Middle
Paleolithic sequence in the Levant. Eurasian Prehistory 1, 31-55.
Yeshurun R. G. Bar-Oz, and M. Weinstein-Evron 2007. Modern hunting behavior in the early
Middle Paleolithic: Faunal remains from Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Journal of Human
Evolution 53, 656-677.
Yizraeli (Noy), T. 1963. Holon. Israel Exploration Journal 13, 137.
Yizraeli (Noy), T. 1967. A Lower Paleolithic Site at Holon. Israel Exploration Journal 17, 144152.
Figure Captions
Figure 1: Map of the Levant showing the location of Holon and other sites discussed in the text.
Figure 2: Location of the different excavation seasons at Holon and recent Pits A and B sampled
for OSL dating.
Figure 3: Correlation of stratigraphy and OSL dates between the excavation section and Pits A
and B.
Figure 4: Location of site relative to the reconstructed course of the paleo-Ayalon river.
Figure 5: Lithics from Holon. 1: Simple concave sidescraper; 2: Double sidescraper with Nahr
Ibrahim truncation; 3: Core; 4: Handaxe; 5: Chopper. (Drawings by A. Sumner and M. Chazan)
Figure 6: Palaeoloxodon tusk recovered in situ at Holon
Figure 7: Graph showing range of dates for Levantine Late Lower Paleolithic sites and Early
Mousterian sites based on several different radiometric methods
Figure 8: Vertical projection of lithic and faunal provenience for the central area of the 1970
excavation at Holon. Note the complete mixing of faunal and lithic components, as well as of
bifaces and other artefact types.
Table Captions
Table 1: Comparison of Holon and the upper levels of Qesem Cave
Table 1: Comparison of Holon and the upper levels of Qesem Cave
FEATURE
HOLON
QESEM (Upper Levels)
Area excavated
Dating
Site type
SITE
120 m2 x 2m depth
200 Ka
Open air, adjacent to a river
12m2 x 7.5m depth
207-152 Ka
Cave
FAUNA
N= 1,569
N=1,780
Faunal sample
studied
Most common faunal
species
Very large mammals
Skeletal element
representation
Dama 43% of total id;
16% of total fauna
Present (Paleoloxodon,
Hippopotamus)
Dama- complete
Bos – low utility elements
Burnt Bones
Absent
Cut marks
Cone fractures
Few – on 3.6% of bones
Questionable if present - only
isolated instances
Present – on 3% of bones
Common on many bones
Carnivore activity
Weathering
Lithic density
Bifaces
Biface manufacture
Dominant artifact
type
LITHICS
Sparse: N = 1,415 but
deposit was not sieved
Many: N = 100
No handaxe debitage
suggesting off-site
manufacture
Flakes, sidescrapers, Nahr
Ibrahim truncations
Dama 89% of total id
Absent
Dama – only cranial (no antlers) and
limb elements
Bos - few bones
Common - 36% of all bones; 84% of
unidentified bone splinters
Many - on 19% of bones
Common - on 38% of bones
Absent
Rare - 2% of bones
Very dense: N = 50,000 items
Few: N = 4+1 preform
Presence of large flakes for fashioning
bifaces suggesting they were made onsite
Blades
CONCLUSION
Disarticulation of carcasses = Exploitation of meat and bone marrow
Hunting/Scavenge site
and cooking = Base camp