Elephants at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulian open-air site of Revadim Quarry,
, O. Ackermann
, E. Aladjem
, R. Barkai
, R. Biton
, I. Milevski
, N. Solodenko
Institute of Earth Sciences, National Natural History Collections, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
Israel Antiquities Authority, P. O. Box 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel
The Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, P.O.B. 39040, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Available online 11 May 2012
Lower Paleolithic faunal and lithic assemblages serve as a major source of information on the behavior
and capabilities of Early- and Middle Pleistocene hominins. The multi-layered Late Acheulian site of
Revadim Quarry provides a rare opportunity to study hominineelephant interactions during the Late
Lower Paleolithic period in the Levant. A large proportion of this open-air site was excavated (ca. 250 m
and yielded a wealth of lithic and faunal remains. In this paper the proboscideans from Revadim are
presented for the ﬁrst time within the broader geomorphological, stratigraphic and archaeological
context in order to allow a better understanding of elephants within the Acheulian in the southern
Levant. The unprecedented quantity of elephant remains at the site is accompanied by large and rich
lithic assemblages. Of special interest are several elephant bones with cut marks, and the earliest
appearance in the southern Levant of bones that seem to have been shaped to resemble tools. The site
bears testimony to complex exploitation of proboscideans.
Ó2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Only rarely is it possible to investigate the association between
elephants and hominins in the southern Levant. The Acheulian
open-air site of Revadim Quarry (Israel, hereafter Revadim) in
which teeth and bones of straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon
antiquus) were uncovered in spatial association with numerous
ﬂint artifacts (Marder et al., 1999,2008,2011;Rabinovich et al.,
2005) is one of the few exceptions. Moreover, this is the ﬁrst site
in the southern Levant where evidence for the utilization of animal
bones, including elephant skeletal elements, as raw material for
tools was detected. This paper aims to decipher the role of
elephants at the site of Revadim by combining the faunal and
archaeological data, with preliminary spatial distribution analysis.
The presence of proboscideans in Pleistocene archaeological
sites has been the subject of numerous studies worldwide, and
their relationship with hominins is one of the focal points in Middle
Pleistocene research (e.g. Boschian and Saccà, 2010 with references
therein; Anzidei et al., 2011). Sites vary from localities where
a single carcasses occurs with a few stone artifacts, to dense clusters
of animals and stone tools within multi-stratigraphic sites (e.g.
Clark and Haynes, 1970;Beauval et al., 1998;Chazan and Horwitz,
2006;Yravedra et al., 2010). Interpretations of the spatial associa-
tion between elephant remains and chipped stone tools encompass
a range of possibilities, from hunting (Goren-Inbar et al., 1994;
Surovell et al., 2005), to scavenging (Berthelet, 2001;Piperno and
Tagliacozzo, 2001). In any case, there is indisputable evidence for
butchery of proboscidean species in various sites (Villa et al., 2005;
Wenban-Smith et al., 2006;Yravedra et al., 2010 and see references
Their body size, morphology, feeding habits, population struc-
ture and home range make proboscidean species a distinct and
inﬂuential factor within the environment, on a grander scale than
any other known terrestrial animal (Haynes, 2001,2006;Sukumar,
2003;Christiansen, 2004,2011). The distinctive imprint of extant
elephant species on the environment is a focal issue in current
conservation programs (Sukumar, 2003). Fossil species probably
had the same impact within their ecosystems (Christiansen, 2004;
see detailed discussion and examples in; Haynes, 2001,2006,2011).
The anatomical characteristics of the proboscideans inﬂuence
the survival of their bones, resulting in a clear imprint on the fossil
record (Shoshani, 1996;Christiansen, 2004;Shoshani and Tassy,
E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (R. Rabinovich).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
1040-6182/$ esee front matter Ó2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197
2005). The skull is bulky but has inner fragile parts. The teeth are
very massive but their components (cement, enamel and dentine)
tend to break along the plates, leaving in the sediment proliﬁc
quantities of cuboid fragments of dentine, and pieces of thick
enamel. The tusk, if not well preserved, tends to deteriorate into
tiny pieces. The long bones have no marrow cavities, but rather the
interior is ﬁlled with cancellous bone through which the marrow is
disseminated (Shoshani and Eisenberg, 1982), and this bone may
also break into small pieces. The epiphyses, particularly those of
long bones and vertebrae do not completely fuse until about 25e30
years of age (Shoshani and Eisenberg, 1982). In unfavorable pres-
ervation conditions, these characteristics may cause taphonomic
bias, which will affect any attempt to interpret their association
with hominin habitats (Mussi and Villa, 2008).
In an attempt to comprehend the association between probos-
cideans and hominins, this paper will consider the anatomical
characteristics and the life history of extant proboscidean species in
conjunction with the site-speciﬁc formation processes at Revadim
(e.g. bone preservation, paleolandscape).
1.1. Proboscideans in the Levant
Proboscidean species occur in the southern Levant from the
Miocene until the Middle Pleistocene (Tchernov and Shoshani,
1996;Horowitz, 2002). In terms of hominin culture, the probosci-
deans encompass the Lower Paleolithic (ca. 1.5 Mae350 ka). This
situation is very different from that in Eurasia where they continue
to appear in the Paleolithic archaeological record until much later
(MIS 3 and perhaps beyond; Gaudzinski et al., 2005). In the
southern Levant, proboscideans do not dominate the faunal record
in any of the known sites (but see Ben-Dor et al., 2011 for another
perspective); not a single complete carcass was uncovered and
until recently there had been no evidence of usage of proboscidean
teeth, tusk or bone as raw material (but see Stekelis, 1960,1967).
Several species have been identiﬁed in the Levant (Table 1;
Fig. 1). The co-occurrence of two genera on several sites is worth
noting. Stegodon species are contemporaneous with Mammuthus at
the site of ’Ubeidiya, with Elephas at the site of Evron Quarry, and
with Palaeoloxodon at the site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov. Paleoeco-
logical models of dispersal were applied to explain the distribution
of Mammuthus and Palaeoloxodon (Lister, 2004), pointing towards
a late entrance of P. antiquus when the Mammuthus trogontherii was
Remains of P. antiquus, the straight-tusked elephant, are the most
numerous and varied in the region, and were found in two Acheulian
open-air sites besides Revadim: at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (e.g.
Rabinovich and Biton, 2011;Rabinovich et al., 2012), and at Holon
(Davies and Lister, 2007). As previously mentioned, there is no
evidence of proboscideans in any clear Acheulo-Yabrudian context or in
any early Middle Paleolithic one in the southern Levant (e.g. Bar-Yosef
and Belmaker, 2011;Ben-Dor et al., 2011;Rabinovich et al., 2012).
2. The site of Revadim
The site of Revadim is located on the southern Coastal Plain, 40 km
southeast of Tel Aviv (Fig.1). It is situated on a hillock at an elevation of
71e73 m above sea level (Fig. 2), 300 m north of the conﬂuence of two
tributaries of the main stream in the area, Nahal Timna. This stream is
itself a small wadi in the drainage basin of Nahal Soreq (Gvirtzman
et al., 1999,Fig. 1). The area is characterized by undulating topog-
raphy sloping northward towards the conﬂuence of the two tributaries.
Revadim is located within the Mediterranean vegetation belt. The site
excavations were conducted during 1996e2004 on behalf of the Israel
Antiquities Authority and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Marder
et al., 1999,2011).
Five areas labeled A to E, and several trenches were excavated
(Marder et al., 1999; and Fig. 2). The central part of the site
collapsed during the winters, and ﬁnds were collected from the
collapsed sections, a large number from Area B, and less from Areas
A and C. Area E is an isolated hill where remains of broken bones
were exposed in situ. This area was part of the Paleolithic occupa-
tion, but was scooped out during the modern quarrying activity.
Seven archaeological layers were exposed, two in Areas B (B1 and
B2) and ﬁve in Area C (C1 to C5). Several test trenches were dug,
among them trenches T-12 and T-23 that were excavated in order
to establish the stratigraphic correlation of the areas of excavation.
Faunal remains, and especially proboscideans, were found in all
the excavated areas. However, this paper concentrates mainly on
Area B, where most of the elephant bones were found in dense
archaeological horizons. Although some of the archaeological
horizons of Area C (mainly Layers C2 and C3) have higher artifacts
density than Area B (Malinsky-Buller, 2008;Solodenko, 2010;
Malinsky-Buller et al., 2011b), they are poor in elephant remains
and most of the bones that were retrieved are very fragmented.
2.1. Geological and sedimentological setting
The geological sequence of Revadim as published in 1999
(Gvirtzman et al., 1999;Wieder and Gvirtzman, 1999), comprises an
Pleistocene proboscideans from the Levant (see location of sites in Fig. 1).
Species Sites References Notes
Mammuthus meridionalis ’Ubeidiya, Jordan Valley, Israel Beden, 1986
Mammuthus trogontherii or
Latamme, Orontes Valley, Syria Lister, 2004 Previously deﬁned by
Hooijer (1961) and Guérin
et al., 1993
Palaeoloxodon antiquus Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Jordan Valley, Israel Goren-Inbar et al., 1994;Shoshani
et al., 2001;Rabinovich and Biton, 2011
Revadim, Central Coastal Plain, Israel Marder et al., 1999;Rabinovich et al.,
2005; this article
Holon, Central Coastal Plain, Israel Davies and Lister, 2007
Stegodon cf. trigonocephalus Latamne Guérin et al., 1993
Stegodon sp. Evron Quarry, Western Galilee, Israel Tchernov et al., 1994
Gesher Benot Ya’aqov Hooijer, 1960
Elephas sp. Evron Quarry Tchernov et al., 1994
Oumm Zinat (Evron), Western Galilee, Israel Horwitz and Tchernov, 1989
Tabun E/F, Western Galilee, Israel Bate, 1937
Unidentiﬁed species Nahal Ayalon, Central Coastal Plain, Israel Only tusks
Be’eri, Central Coastal Plain, Israel Bruins, 1976, p. 130 Only tusks
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197184
average of 21 m of alternating paleosols divided into several units.
Reassessment of these units was published by Marder et al. (2011;
and Table 2). In general, the paleosurface (i.e. the original topog-
raphy of the site) is characterized by undulating topography,
a combination of rills and gullies. The nature of the sediments at the
contact between Units 2 and 3 varies laterally. This phenomenon is
most pronounced in the northeastern part of the site (Area B; Fig. 2)
where the erosion deepens and truncates the Hamra paleosol to
expose the soil’s parent material (the sand of Unit 4). As a result,
numerous rills and gullies formed in the soft sand sediment. In
contrast, in the southwestern part of the site (Area C; Fig. 2) erosion
is limited, and only rills and shallow gullies were formed.
Dating of the Revadim sequence is in progress, and only partial
information is available. Paleomagnetic analyses of the geological
sequence show normal polarity, indicating that the whole sequence
is younger than 780 ka (Marder et al., 2011). Preliminary dating of
carbonate coating of ﬂint artifacts yielded dates between 300 ka
and 500 ka and possibly older, establishing the terminus ante quem
estimate for human occupation of the site. Given the characteristics
of the lithic assemblages, the entire anthropogenic accumulation is
ascribed to the Late Acheulian techno-complex. Within this period,
retouched ﬂint tools and handaxes in association with elephant
bones are particularly worth noting (Marder et al., 2006;
Solodenko, 2010;Malinsky-Buller et al., 2011a,b).
2.3. Stratigraphy and archaeological remains of Area B
Area B was divided into three sub-areas: North, Center and
South (Fig. 3). Two distinct archaeological occupation layers were
deﬁned, Layer B1 at the top, and B2 below it (Fig. 4). Both are
located within geological Unit 2, the Quartzic Gray Brown Paleosol,
and within the interface between Unit 2 and Unit 3. Occasionally,in
places where the Hamra/Husmas was eroded, ﬁnds were in contact
with the loose dune sand (Unit 4). Layer B1 appears in isolated
patches, and is not as dense in ﬁnds as the continuous horizons of
Layer B2 (Table 3). There were almost no sedimentological differ-
ences between these two layers. Furthermore, in each sub area
there were speciﬁc archaeological units around concentrations of
animal bones and ﬂint items located in discrete topographical
features. The main localities in which elephant bones were found
are presented in Table 3 and illustrated in Figs. 3 and 10.
Within this setting two types of depressions were discerned.
The ﬁrst type is small rills, which are round or elliptical shallow
depressions (20e40 cm wide, 10e20 cm deep) or alternatively
deeper (30e40 cm), irregular pipe-shape rills (e.g. Locality 2). The
second type is depressions of larger diameter, whose width is
70e100 cm and their depth 30e50 cm (e.g. Locality 3; Marder et al.,
1999,Fig. 5). Field observations and sediment granulometric
measurements of the ﬁne material indicate that the clay content
within the depressions is higher than in their surroundings. In their
bases, carbonate crust covers small and large unmodiﬁed pebbles
and numerous ﬂint artifacts that were discovered next to and above
the bones. All the evidence supports water accumulation in the
depressions, similar to local ponding. It seems that at least some
(e.g. Localities 2 and 3) functioned as sediment traps during
episodes of ﬂuvial events. A similar phenomenon occurs within the
Mediterranean hydrological regime where clusters of gravel and
sediments are trapped inside river beds (e.g. Wittenberg, 2002:
26e27: Fig. 1).
2.4. Preliminary GIS analysis of remains from Area B
In order to reconstruct the spatial distribution of the artifacts
and animal bones in relation to the paleosurface, GIS software
methods and models were used. A paleosurface model of Revadim
had already been constructed using IDW interpolation methods
(Marder et al., 2011,Fig. 8). In addition, a TIN method (triangulated
irregular network; Bonino and Rousseau, 2005, 256; Carrara et al.,
1997,470e471) was used in order to produce a more accurate
micro-topography of Area B. At this preliminary stage of the anal-
ysis a third of the debitage items as well as all the large bones have
already been digitally plotted in three coordinates (Figs. 3 and 10).
3. The faunal remains
Thousands of animal bones were uncovered at Revadim, from
the large-scale excavations and from the collapsed area at the
center of the site. Most could not be identiﬁed, but after detailed
laboratory treatment, which included sorting, cleaning and resto-
ration, a small fraction was identiﬁed to species level. For instance
in the eastern part of Area C, more than 5000 bone splinters were
recorded from an area of 11 m
. Most of them were smaller than
one cm and only 3% could be identiﬁed.
For the identiﬁcation of the Revadim fauna, the following bone
assemblages from prehistoric sites and recent mammalian collec-
tions were used: the National Natural History Collections of the
Fig. 1. Location map of Early Middle Pleistocene (Acheulian) sites from the southern
Levant mentioned in the text.
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197 18 5
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (HUJ); The Zoological
Collections, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (TAU); Museo Nacional de
Ciencias Naturales, Madrid (MNCN; Paleontology, Zoology), the
Natural History Museum, London (NHM; Paleontology, Zoology);
and the Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN). For
detailed description of the methods of identiﬁcation see Rabinovich
et al., 2012.
For the taphonomic studies, the following sources served as
comparative material: butchery experiments; rodents, porcupine
and carnivores experimental collections; porcupine lairs; and
hyena dens. All of these are part of the National Natural History
Collections of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Published
criteria were also used (for details see Rabinovich et al., 2012,
Geological and sedimentological units at Revadim Quarry.
Geological units Depth Deﬁnition Description
1 0.3e0.4 m Dark Brown Grumusol (Vertisol) Brown clayey to sandy clay with a compound
prismatic structure, breaking into smaller cubic
peds and calcic horizons. Soil slickensides.
2 2.00e2.50 m Quartzic Gray Brown Paleosol Loamy sand to sandy loam paleosol, abundant
carbonate nodules. Mixture with the underlying
Unit 3 at the bottom.
3 ca. 2.00 m Red Paleosol eHamra and Husmas Massive Red sandy clay loamy soil to sandy loam.
Elongated whole and fragmented carbonate nodules
and calciﬁed roots in the upper part.
4e6 ca. 16.00 m Loose dune sand and Hamra/Husmas Alternate layers of yellowish white, loose, medium to
coarse-grained sand and Hamra/Husmas.
Fig. 2. Revadim Quarrydareas of excavation.
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197186
17e19). Each bone was examined under a stereo light microscope
with a magniﬁcation of 10 40. Selected elements were examined
with an analytical Quanta 200 Environmental Scanning Electron
Microscope (ESEM; FEI Company) at the ESEM Center for Nano-
science and Nanotechnology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Surface modiﬁcations (striations, cut marks, etc.) were regis-
tered for each bone, and their exact anatomical position recorded in
detail (Rabinovich et al., 2012). The records were augmented by
observations speciﬁc to elephant bones, adopted from Boschian
and Saccà (2010). These include scalar breaks, sediment inclusion,
sediment coverage and elongated split marks.
All the bones were examined under the microscope to identify
surface modiﬁcations and determine their state of weathering.
However, only bones that were identiﬁed to the species level will
be considered here. Many could not be deﬁned beyond body-size
group, and there are numerous thick chunks of bones, with
eroded surfaces, and they no longer retain any identiﬁable surface.
These probably belong to the largest animal represented at the site,
Once exposed, most of the bones started to crack. Diluted polyvinyl
acetate adhesive was repeatedly applied to the surface, to consolidate
the fragments before excavation,and strips of gauze were adhered over
the whole bone when it proved to be too fragmentary to retain its
shape. Thorough cleaning at the laboratory was necessary in order to
allow microscopic observations of the bone surfaces, since many of the
bones were encrusted by sediment. Cleaning often necessitated the use
of diluted acetic acid, as the crust was too hard to remove by
mechanical means without risking damage to the bone surface.
The state of preservation of the bones varied. The following
states probably form a continuum:
Fig. 3. GIS plan of Area B localities, and topographic reconstruction with spatial distribution of the ﬁnds.
Fig. 4. Stratigraphic section of Area B showing the archaeological Layers B1 and B2 within Unit 2 and their contact with Unit 3. Squares CE-CG 65, looking south.B¼Bone,
FL ¼Flake, Bf ¼Biface.
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197 18 7
Main localities at Revadim Quarry Area B, by layers and sub-areas.
Localities Excavated area General description Number
(and other identiﬁable faunal remains)
B1 Unit 2 Ca. 72 m
; thickness 0.1e0.3 m. Isolated patches of bones and
South Unit 2 25 Less than 1 m
; thickness 0.2 m. Isolated locus. 137 Tusk fragment; root of a tooth.
; thickness 0.1e0.45 m. Concentrations of lithics and
animal bones; dense
clusters can be discerned.
31 Only partially exposed in a short
salvage excavation conducted in
order to recover an elephant scapula.
Flint artifacts and pebbles around
a slightly inclined scapula; A
handaxe in vertical position
at the distal part.
A few Scapula with cut marks and
striations; tooth fragment.
21 Area of 13 m
; thickness 0.05e0.28 m Fast palimpsest; discrete activity
area with high
percentage of cores.
984 547 Two elephant ribs; one unfused;
vertebrae plate; seven teeth. One of
the ribs, encrusted with sediment,
was broken in the past and the two
pieces conjoin. The other rib is an
almost complete left rib, cracked, with
animal scratches on its outer surface
and cut marks along its edge.
Other: eroded ulna shaft of Dama;
20 6 m
; thickness 0.1e0.15 m. Fast palimpsest; a knapping
post where handaxes
re-sharpening took place.
3572 4463 Six teeth fragments and one distal end
of tusk. The tusk is of a young elephant.
Other: Bos tibia shaft and a radius shaft
of Dama. The Bos tibia shaft has signs
of a blow.
Unidentiﬁed Contexts Localities that cannot be
securely ascribed to
Layers B1 or B2.
Center Units 2e3 30 Several ﬂint items and an
elephant pelvis. The
stratigraphic position of the
pelvis is not clear.
14 handaxes Part of an elephant pelvis, four teeth
fragments, two bone pieces of
elephant size and a rib.
South Units 2e3 2 and 3 Locality 2da small irregular
elliptical depression, 0.5 m
wide, 0.4 m deep; margins
not clearly deﬁned.
Locality 3da depression cut on the
west by the quarry, 0.8 0.6 m,
maximum depth 0.45 m. Combined
area 6 m
; thickness 0.25e0.45 m.
Two isolated elliptical depressions
adjacent to each other.
The assemblage is dominated by
debitage and tools, choppers and
handaxes are rare. Small lithic
fragments are common.
1248 960 Locality 2: an elephant tusk, with
lengthwise splits, broken into small
fragments, and very eroded.
Locality 3: elephant pelvis with
gnawing marks, overlying a
mandible, and a distal part of a
tusk; ten teeth fragments; two skull
fragments; two tusk pieces. Other:
Two conjoinable pieces of a proximal
metacarpal of Cervus elaphus that were
broken in antiquity.
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197188
Light erosion- surface relatively well preserved (robust splin-
ters, from ﬂat or long bones).
Encrusted with sediments.
Splittingdsediments accumulated in ﬁssures; common in tusk
and long-bone shafts (Fig. 5aeb).
In situ breakageddetails are lost but the general outline of the
bone is preserved. Typical of larger bones and tusks.
Chunksdunidentiﬁable pieces of various shapes and forms,
associated with stone tools.
Chemical analysis of the bone indicated the presence of the
mineral dahllite and that no collagen was left. The crystallinity of
the bone mineral was calculated following Weiner and Bar-Yosef
(1990), where the crystallinity is calculated as a ratio between
certain absorptions in the infrared spectra of the bones. At Revadim,
bone crystallinity ranges between 3.7 and 4.4, values that indicate
quite severe diagenesis of the bone mineral (Weiner and Bar-Yosef,
1990;Trueman et al., 2004). Manganese oxides cover the surface of
the bones in varying degrees. The unidentiﬁed chunks are also
composed of dahllite, but they no longer have the structure of
bones (Shahack-Gross, personal communication). Bone fragments
were found also in nodules: their formation is related to post-
depositional processes and inundation events (see details in
Marder et al., 2011).
3.2. Animal species
The mammalian species deﬁned at Revadim (Table 4) include
Palaeoloxodon antiquus,Bos primigenius,Gazella gazella,Capra cf.
aegagrus,Cervus elaphus,Dama cf. mesopotamica, Cervidae sp.,
Capreolus cf. capreolus,Sus scrofa,Equus sp., Felis silvestris and
Microvertebrates, including rodents, insectivores, amphibians
and reptiles were retrieved as well. The most abundant species is
Microtus guentheri, other species are Spalax ehrenbergi and Croci-
dura cf. suaveolens. Amphibians are represented by Pseudepidalea cf.
viridis (synonym to Bufo viridis)and amphibians indet.; reptiles are
represented by Serpentes indet. (snake vertebrae) and Lacertilia
indet. (lizard osteoderm).
3.3. The elephants from Revadim
The elephants from Revadim were deﬁned according to their
teeth as straight-tusked elephant, P. antiquus (hereafter elephant;
see Marder et al., 1999). Tusk fragments, teeth and post-cranial
elements were found throughout the excavated areas, in all
layers, and they represent several incomplete individuals. The MNI
of the elephants at the site was established taking into consider-
ation the stratigraphic origin, and the age and sex deﬁnition
according to the teeth and bones (Table 5). These data indicate the
presence at Revadim of at least three animals in Area B, two in Area
C, and one in Area A. However, MNI is not a satisfactory quantiﬁ-
cation method for this particular assemblage because elephant
bones can spread over a large area, while the exposed area per layer
and sub area is limited.
Skull fragments are few (N¼7), and originate from the
premaxilla, bulla tympanica(?), processes palatinus and processus
nasalis. The skull pieces vary from very small to 25 cm. Two
mandible parts were found, a right mandible ramus (mandibulae
foramen), and a complete jaw (see below under teeth).
List of animal species from Revadim (NISP).
Species Total NISP
Palaeoloxodon antiquus 155
Bos primigenius 46
Capra cf. aegagrus 1
Gazella gazella 4
Cervus elaphus 10
Dama cf. mesopotamica 30
Cervidae sp. 2
Capreolus capreolus 1
Sus scrofa 6
Equus sp. 6
Felis silvestris 1
Hyaenid indet. 1
Microtus guenthri 51
Spalax ehrenbergi 5
Crocidura cf. suaveolens 1
Pseudepidalea cf. viridis 1
Amphibia indet. 2
Lacertilia indet. 1
Serpentes indet. 17
Fig. 5. (a) General view of a bone from Revadim coated with sediment; (b) Close up of
the sediment inclusions in the bone (photo by SEM, Museo Nacional de Ciencias
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197 18 9
Tusks (N¼27), which are the most indicative element of
elephants, occur throughout the site. Most of them are represented
by cuboid fragments that maintain the speciﬁc section of tusks.
They measure from less than a centimeter to over 2 m. When the
preservation of the surface made it possible, the diameter along
both axes was measured, and an attempt was made to locate the
position of the piece along the tusk (proximal or distal). When
pieces were found together, they were weighed as one tusk. In
several cases only a thin layer embedded in the sediment was
preserved, as was the case with the tusks from Area A (Marder et al.,
1999: 43, Fig. 16; Rabinovich et al., 2005) and from Area B. Many of
the tusks were coated by sediments and remained white inside. The
65 kg of tusk-pieces that were weighed represent only part of the
complete assemblage: tusks that were heavily embedded in sedi-
ments and soaked with consolidant were not weighed. These
include the largest recorded tusk, which is at least 2.5 m long, with
a diameter of 21e26 cm near its proximal end (Marder et al., 1999).
Another tusk of 36 kg, in mid-proximal location, has a diameter of
18e20 cm. Three tusks are of females or young males.
Teeth (N¼95), which are morphologically distinctive, consti-
tute most of the elephant remains. Most of the teeth are inner
pieces, from the occlusal surface of the root, and contain only up to
three plates of enamel. The thickness of the enamel was recorded
and it ranges from less than 2 mm to almost 4 mm. The only tooth
found still in the mandible belongs to an animal ca. 10e11 years old
(Locality 3; and see 3.6). The seven complete teeth (Lower dP3,
Lower dP4, three Lower M1; Upper M2, Upper M3) were found in
various localities, and belong to both young and older animals.
Post-cranial elements include ten ribs, eight vertebrae, three
scapulae and three pelves. Most of the rib fragments are shafts of
the rib body. The most complete rib is 83 cm long, deposited hor-
izontally (see 2.3, Locality 21, Fig. 8). The vertebrae remains are
from cervical, thoracic, vertebra spines and vertebra plates. One of
the vertebra plates is unfused.
The three scapulae, two notably complete, and one a distal part,
are all from the right side. One of the complete scapulae is partly
fused at its proximal end. Comparisons of the measurements of the
glenoid fossa suggest that they belong to at least two males and one
Three pelves (e.g. Fig. 7) were unearthed. One can be identiﬁed
as a left part, with acetabulum, pubis and ilium preserved; the
second consists of acetabulum, pubis and ischium; and the third is
the edge of an ilium (crista iliaca). The measurements were
compared with specimens from Binsfeld (Göhlich, 2000) and
Crumstadt (Kroll, 1991), and show that the Revadim pelves were
probably of male elephants, though the proportions as well as post-
depositional deformations may indicate small size males (Fig. 8).
The absence of limb parts such as metapodials, carpals/tarsals
and phalanges is remarkable (Table 5), the only probable limb is
a humerus from Area E that was broken in situ (assigned to the
group of ‘body-size’and therefore not presented in Table 5).
3.4. Taphonomy of the elephant remains from Revadim
The complexity of studying elephants in the archaeological
fossil record is exacerbated by the difﬁculties of identifying surface
modiﬁcations, because the thick skin and high levels of body fat
minimize contact between any agent of modiﬁcation and the bone.
Moreover at Revadim, 90% of the elephant bones had old breaks
and ca. 60% were coated with sediment that was embedded in the
minute cracks that appear along the teeth plates, tusks and bone-
surfaces. Cleaning, whether mechanically, or with diluted acid,
Identiﬁed bones of Palaeoloxodon antiquus from Revadim (NISP).
Body element Area
Areas A and C)
Area B Eastern quarry
Skull fragments 1 2 2 1 6
Tusk complete 1 1 13
Tusk proximal 22
Tusk distal 3 3
Tusk fragment 2 4 1 2 10 19
Teeth 30 4 49 4 8 95
Ribs 1 1 4 1 3 10
Vertebrae 11 1 3
Cervical 1 1 2
Thoracic 1 12
Total 3 33 8 67 8 4 31 155
Fig. 6. Locality 21delephant rib (covered with gauze) in association with ﬂint arti-
facts, including handaxe (marked by the arrow; detail in the upper left corner).
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197190
may cause exfoliation of the outer surface of the bones. Thus, the
likelihood of detecting genuine surface modiﬁcations is low. Other
surface alterations, such as scalar breaks and root etching, were
very rare, limited to one to two occurrences each.
The very few modiﬁcations that were discerned on the surface
of the elephant bones originate from both human and carnivore
activities. They include cut marks on two ribs (nos. 2004, 2042) and
a scapula (no. 2107, Fig. 9). Rib no. 2042 was also scratched by
carnivores. Medium-large size carnivores left their mark also on an
elephant pelvis (no. 2040), and on a robust fragment of a mandible
ramus (no. 2003).
The numerous large, unidentiﬁable, elephant bone-chunks at
the site could be the product of two different processes: long bones
being broken to extract marrow and fat (Fisher, 1993, 2001) and/or
used as quarry source for bone tools (Holen, 2006); or decompo-
sition due to post-depositional processes.
Ethnographic data regarding hunting and butchery of elephants
show considerable variability in practices, according to circum-
stances such as animal size, fat condition, size of human group, prey
availability, and more (Fisher, 1993,2001). Handling time of a large
animal carcass is costly and therefore there are not many human
groups that specialize exclusively in elephant hunting (Fisher,
2001; but see e.g.; Byers and Ugan, 2005; vs.; Holen, 2006).
In an attempt to decipher the enigma of hominin/elephant
relations, the next section shall examine the spatial distribution of
the elephant bones at Revadim in detail, and their relation to the
lithic techno-complex characteristics and geomorphological
3.5. Spatial distribution of the elephants at Revadim
Animal remains were uncovered in all the areas of the excava-
tion and in all the occupation layers. Tusks and teeth mark the
presence of elephants through the entire Revadim sequence,
including surface collections (mainly teeth), the collapse of the
quarry cliff, Unit 2 and the interface of Unit 2 and Unit 3.
In spite of the generally poor state of preservation of the bones,
some of the elephant elements were conjoined (scapula, rib,
vertebra and tusks). Often the conjoining pieces were heavily
encrusted with sediment, and required delicate cleaning before the
joins could be identiﬁed (Beiner and Rabinovich, submitted for
publication). Joins were even identiﬁed between different areas.
The distal part of the scapula (no. 2038), which was found on the
Fig. 7. (a) Area B, Locality 3, initial stages of exposure of the elephant pelvis (no. 2040),
mandible (no.2003) and ﬂint artifacts (marked by the arrows) within the depression;
(b) Full exposure of the elephant pelvis and mandible.
Fig. 8. Locality 3. Pelves measurements from Revadim and other sources (Kroll, 1991;Göhlich, 2000). Top right, pelvis no. 2040, points of the measurement marked.
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197 191
surface of Area B, for example, conjoined with the supraspinous
fossa,infraspinous fossa and spine elements found in the collapse of
the quarry cliff. Joins were also found for pieces of a thoracic
vertebra (no. 2027) from the bottom of the quarry cliff, and for a rib
shaft (no. 2016) from Locality 21, as well as for a proximal meta-
carpal of C. elaphus from Locality 3 (Table 3).
In Area A, a tusk measuring ca. 2.5 m was exposed during
backhoe trenching (Marder et al., 1999, 46, Fig. 16). The tusk was
deposited on a slope (northwestesoutheast) and its proximal part
had been broken. In its vicinity, three bone fragments of elephant
size were conjoined (Marder et al., 1999, 46).
Many of the bones from Area C (occupation Layers C1eC5) were
very fragmented when exposed, and were consolidated in the ﬁeld,
as described above. Once in the laboratory, many were restorable.
These bones from Area C could only be assigned to body-size group.
In the eastern part of Area C, however, in layer C3, an elephant skull
fragment and part of a rib were uncovered in addition to frag-
mented elephant teeth.
Most of the elephant remains from Area C, Layer C2, are teeth
fragments, each consisting of one or two inner plates of enamel and
dentine, from the mid crown or close to the root. Some of the
fragments that were found in close proximity probably belong to
the same tooth that had been broken in antiquity.
The accretions on conjoinable bone-parts, the inner cracks along
the bones and the poor preservation of the teeth and tusks imply
exposure to humidity/dryness cycles before burial. The fact that
conjoins under such conditions have hardly been recorded indi-
cates a need for more careful examination in future.
3.6. Distribution of elephant remains in Area B
The distribution of elephant and other faunal remains in Area B
will be described in detail because of the dense archaeological
horizons associated with elephant remains in this area. The
descriptions of the main localities in which elephant elements
were found are summarized in Tab le 3 (Fi g. 10). The signiﬁcance of
the distribution and the stratigraphic position of these elements
will be part of the discussion below. The elephant remains are
dispersed throughout the sub-areas of Area B, yet their association
with the archaeological horizons is unambiguous. Tusks, teeth,
ribs, scapulae, and pelves were recovered within these horizons
(Figs. 6 and 7).
According to the reconstruction of the micro-topography of Area
B(Fig. 3), it features a small protrusion surrounded by small
depressions in which most of the elephant remains were located.
Area B Center is on the slope adjacent to the highest point, while
Area B North and South are located on the lowest slopes of the
protrusion (Marder et al., 2011).
Locality 3 in Area B South (Figs. 3, 7 and 10b) is of special
interest. This is a depression in which an elephant pelvis was found
overlying a mandible which extended southwest, above the distal
end of a tusk and other bones (Table 3). Gnawing marks were
visible on the edge of the pubis, the ilium shaft had jagged ends and
the acetabulum had cracks along its socket. The mandible was not
complete: the mandibular inner wall was collapsed and only one
tooth remained. The right-hand mandibular ramus was missing
and the left one was incomplete, its edge jagged. The distal tusk
which lies underneath the mandible is of a young male, or of
a female. It is relatively well preserved, and usage marks are visible
on its tip. The elements in this pile are not in any anatomical
position and do not necessarily belong to a single animal. It is clear
that at least the mandible and the tusk were exposed for some time,
making it possible for animals to gnaw the edges of the bones and
for the weathering process to cause cracks along their surfaces.
Nevertheless, they remained in association with numerous stone
implements and in close proximity were two conjoining pieces of
a metacarpal. The general appearance of the elephant pelvis from
Locality 3 is similar to that of the pelvis from Locality 30, but the
latter is heavily encrusted with sediment, implying that it was
exposed for longer periods under slightly different conditions.
The distribution patterns of the elephant remains suggest that
preservation was not uniform in the different localities of Area B.
GIS presentation of the data (i.e. Figs. 3 and 10) illustrates these
patterns. In Area B Center (e.g. Localities 21, 31) and in Area B South
(Locality 20) most of the ﬁnds lay in horizontal position. Locality 20
is probably a continuation of Locality 21, as both are part of Layer
B2, and were found within similar type of sediment and apparently
in primary deposition. By contrast, in Area B South, some of the
artifacts and bones, particularly in Localities 2 and 3, were clustered
in vertical position in a depression, a situation that suggests
secondary deposition and reinforces the sedimentological obser-
vations that the depressions functioned as geomorphological traps.
4. Bone tools and ﬂaked bones
Revadim is the ﬁrst site in the southern Levant in which artifacts
made on elephant bones were found in a Lower Paleolithic context.
Tools made of bones of other animals were also found, but
discussion is outside the scope of this article.
An elongated wedge-like tool (no. 5008, Fig. 11), made on a large
piece of bone (24 8.5 2.8 cm), most probably an elephant
humerus shaft, was found at the bottom of the quarry within the
collapses of Area B. It was encrusted in hard sediment that obscured
the details of the surface. A fresh break on the distal end revealed
white section, which is typical of the bones at Revadim. The section
is rectangular and may have been shaped. The most impressive
detail is the smoothed proximal edge. No similar surface treatment
was found at the site, even though all the bone material was
examined microscopically, and the authors are not familiar with
any parallels from other Lower Paleolithic sites. However, there is
no doubt that this is an intentionally shaped item. Further studies
will hopefully identify a possible function for this bone tool.
Two other tools were shaped on bone ﬂakes. One was found
next to a ﬂint handaxe in Trench 23 (no. 5007), in the contact
between Unit 2 and Unit 3, probably within Layer B2. The second
was found in Locality 20 (Layer B2; no. 5003). In the absence of any
preserved original morphological surface, their thickness is the
indication that these are elephant bones. The general appearance of
these artifacts resembles that of numerous bones at the site, but
Fig. 9. Cut marks on an elephant scapula (no. 2107), medial aspect.
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197192
their surface is coated with a dark blackish concretion which shows
signs of exfoliation, exposing the whitish inner structure of the
bone and showing longitudinal splitting on its dorsal surface and
along its edges.
Bone ﬂake (no. 5007, Fig. 12) from Trench 23 (11.2 6.5 2.8 cm) is
made of a limb-bone shaft(?). It is leaf-shaped and biface-like, its
proximal end roundedwhile the distal one is slightly pointed. Its proﬁle
is irregular in shape. The dorsal surface is convex near the proximal end
and deeply concave on the distal end, while the ventral proﬁle is
reversed (i.e. concave at the proximal end and slightly convex at the
distal end). Two, or even three ﬂakes were struck off the large bone. At
ﬁrst two initial ﬂakes were removed from both edges, an d then a larger
one (4.48 9.46 cm) was removed from the left side, obscuring the
contour of the two previous scars. The large wide butt of the artefact
(5.4 cm) possibly indicatesthat a large ﬂat surface was used as a striking
platform. Finally, the right lateral edge was modiﬁed by removing two
or three small ﬂakes near its distal point, the result resembling
aretouch(Fig. 12). The intention may have been to achieve a shape
resembling ﬂint handaxes, a phenomenon well known from Acheulian
sites in Europe (e.g. Gaudzinski et al., 2005).
Fig. 10. Location of bones and other ﬁnds in Area B: (a) Center; (b) South.
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197 193
The second bone ﬂake (no. 5003, Fig. 13) from Locality 20, is very
similar in morphology. It is made on a small, short and thick ﬂake
(6.2 5.2 3.3 cm) with a convex, slightly pointed working edge,
possibly formed by bifacial ﬂaking. The ventral surface was modi-
ﬁed by the removal of small ﬂakes (approximately 2e3 cm wide);
the ﬂaking marks on its dorsal surface are obscured by surface
attrition. Bone exfoliation removed most of the thick butt (Fig. 13).
Very small ﬂint bifaces, less than 10 cm long, are not rare in the
Revadim lithic assemblages (Marder et al., 2006) and this small
bone “biface”may imitate the miniature ﬂint ones.
Revadim is, as far as known, the only Paleolithic site in the
southern Levant in which proboscideans dominate the faunal
remains and bones shaped into tools were found. The nature of the
interaction between proboscideans and hominins is complex and
controversial. The following discussion will focus on the insights
gained into these interactions through analysis of spatial distribu-
tion and taphonomy.
In order to discuss the spatial association of ﬂint artifacts and
proboscidean remains at Revadim, as wellas hominin activities and
subsistence strategies, it is necessary to recapitulate the different
archaeological contexts, and reconstruct the ancient topography of
the site. Particular attention will be paid to Area B, where most of
the well preserved proboscideans remains were uncovered.
The archaeological contexts that were rich in proboscideans can
be divided into two:
1. ‘Fast palimpsests’dfound mainly within Layer B2, these
contexts are located in moderately undulating topography,
close to the highest point of Area B (i.e. Locality 21), or at a short
distance from it (i.e. Locality 20; Fig. 3). The archaeological
remains are dense, well preserved and most of the digitized
artifacts were in horizontal position. The remains of the
elephant rib and scapula with cut marks, accompanied by a rich
lithic assemblage, indicate hominin activity within this setting,
most probably associated with proboscideans butchery.
2. Deep depressionsdLocalities 2 and 3, and possibly Locality 30,
are deep depressions in the lower parts of AreaB (Fig. 3), within
deeply eroded surfaces. Most of the archaeological remains
were in vertical position. It seems that the depressions func-
tioned as geomorphological traps. The abundance of very small
ﬂint fragments, and the dominance of fresh lithic artifacts,
suggest that the ﬁnds originated nearby.
Therefore, there were at least two depositional and post-
depositional processes in Area B during the Lower Paleolithic. The
ﬁrst resulted in the ‘Fast palimpsest’contexts that offer indisput-
able evidence to hominin activity. The rich lithic assemblages they
contain in association with elephant remains, indicate consump-
tion of proboscideans by Acheulian hominins. Interpretation of the
second type of contexts is less secure. They could not be directly
related to anthropogenic agencies, and although it is believed that
the rich elephant ﬁnds are the outcome of hominin activities, they
may also be attributed to natural accumulation agencies.
Fig. 11. Wedge-like bone tool (no. 5008) from the collapse of Area B.
Fig. 12. Shaped bone ﬂake (no. 5007) probably from Layer B2. Fig. 13. Shaped bone ﬂake (no. 5003) from Locality 20 Layer B2.
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197194
The rills and gullies erosion phenomenon at Revadim is
considered to be natural erosion due to piping and gully activities,
which develops in many types of sediments including sandy
material (Jones, 1994;Poesen, 2003;Valentin et al., 2005). Rills and
gullies develop in environments with a combination of sparse
vegetation and extreme rain storm events (Poesen, 2003;Valentin
et al., 2005;Svoray and Ben-Said, 2010).
This type of paleolandscape is typical of elephants’biotopes,
where they dig depressions that function as mud-wallows pits,
salt-lick pans, drinking holes ﬁlled with rain water, or wells ﬁlled by
high water table (Jarman, 1972;Conybeare and Haynes, 1984;
Butler, 1995;Haynes, 2001,2006,2011). The elephants may have
contributed to the development of the gullies at Revadim.
Bulky elements such as tusks, mandibles, scapulae, and pelves
are usually parts that are left behind in butchery/processing sites
(Fisher, 2001). According to ethnographic records that describe
communal butchery and processing, the number of participants in
these activities varies substantially (Fisher, 1993). The extensive
activity that is related to lithic production in situ is an indirect
evidence of hominin repeated activities at Revadim (Marder et al.,
2006). This suggests a large group of individuals engaged in pro-
cessing and consumption, and even in delayed return activities in
the form of preparing strips of meat and fat. Perhaps not all the
parts were exploited, and a large amount was left on the spot.
The information provided by the elephant bones at Revadim is
signiﬁcant but the evidence of absence is eloquent as well. The
paucity of upper and lower limbs, including metapodials, carpals/
tarsals and phalanges, is striking, since in extant elephants these
are the bones with the highest fat content, in particular the “fatty
pads”under the phalanges (Weissengruber et al., 2006). These fatty
parts may have been removed from the archaeological horizon and
consumed elsewhere. As small- and medium-size bones exist at the
site, several with in situ conjoinable elements, the option of post-
depositional ﬂuvial transportation is less likely. It is suspected
that the robust, thick bone-chunks at the site may have been parts
of elephant limbs, but in the absence of clear identiﬁable facets, this
is merely a suggestion. There is no doubt, however, that these
chunks are the remains of a large animal, and in the circumstances,
an elephant is highly probable.
The sturdy shape of the elephant limb-bones is distinct, and in
contrast to other mammals, they have no marrow cavity, but the
bones themselves are rich in fat that can be extracted by heating.
There is, however, no evidence of the use of ﬁre at Revadim, with
the exception of a few possibly burnt ﬂints (Marder et al., 1999;
Revadim is the earliest site in the southern Levant where
elephant bones were used to produce artifacts that resemble
Acheulian stone bifaces. Production of similar tools in both stone
and bone is intriguing (Gaudzinski et al., 2005;Costa, 2010). Bone
tools occur in sites in southern Africa, as early as 1e2ma(d’Errico
and Backwell, 2009). In Europe ﬂakes and tools, including han-
daxes, made of elephant bones were recovered from Middle
Pleistocene Acheulian sites in Italy that date to ca. 300 ka (Anzidei,
2001;Biddittu and Celletti, 2001); bone hammers were found at
sites dating to 500 ka in England (Roberts and Parﬁtt, 1999). Bones
used as raw material have ongoing role in the debate regarding the
earliest occupation in North America. Actualistic experiments on
extant elephant bones demonstrate that it is indeed possible to use
the long bones to produce ﬂakes (e.g. Holen, 2006).
The earliest report of a bone tool in the southern Levant was by
Stekelis (1960, Fig. 31; 1967), who described a pointed fragment of
an elephant’s(?) humerus from Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, highly pol-
ished at one end, which he suggested had been used as a lissoir for
working skins. Clark (1977) discussed the possibility that the arti-
fact described by Stekelis was not a tool, and suggested methods of
examination to determine this, that were later applied in tapho-
The variety of tools made of animal bones, including elephant
bones, at Revadim is noteworthy. This practice is probably related
to the multiple tasks represented at the site, or there may be an as
yet unexplained link between the bone and stone bifaces,
expressed by the association of elephant butchering tools made of
ﬂint, with their imitations made of elephant bones. The abundance
of ﬂint implements at the site indicates that bones were not used
because of shortage in raw material.
At Revadim, 90% of the elephant bones have old breaks and ca.
60% are coated with sediment. Very few surface modiﬁcations
were discerned on the elephant bones. These include cuts marks
on two ribs and a scapula (Localities 21, 30). One of the ribs
(Locality 21) was also scratched by animals. Medium-large size
carnivores left their marks also on an elephant pelvis (Locality 3),
and on a robust fragment of a mandible ramus found in a collapse
context. Carnivores of medium-large size were active at the site. As
in the case of Locality 3, the carnivores damaged the bones before
their ﬁnal deposition on top of each other, but probably when little
if any skin and fat were left, otherwise they would not have left
such a clear pattern of scratches and gnawing. Whether the
condition of the carcass was due to animal consumption, natural
decomposition or hominins activity cannot be determined at this
The Late Acheulian open-air site of Revadim yielded rich
archaeological ﬁnds and animal bones, including numerous
elephant remains. This is in marked contrast to the other sites in the
southern Levant. In Eurasia and Africa on the other hand, there are
numerous contemporary sites that are dominated by elephants or
mammoths, and they constitute the data base on which most
interpretations of elephantehominin interactions rely (e.g.
Berthelet and Chavaillon, 2001;Villa et al., 2005;Wenban-Smith
et al., 2006). However, the speciﬁc history of each site makes
them very difﬁcult to compare, since accumulation took place in
diverse sedimentological and environmental settings. It is apparent
that Revadim is signiﬁcantly different from most other sites, in the
density of ﬂint artifacts found adjacent to the elephant remains, as
well as in the presence of cut marks on elephant bones, and in the
use of elephant bones as raw material for tools-production. The cut
marks on the scapula and ribs are particularly notable because they
indicate ﬁlleting of meat. Coping with large quantities of meat may
require a combination of immediate- and delayed-return strategies
such as consumption on site, and drying meat for later consump-
tion. Such procedures were possible in the paleoclimate of
Studies of contemporary human societies that rely heavily on
elephant exploitation (e.g. Fisher, 1993,2001;Yravedra et al., 2010)
provide some insights, but are of limited use. Ethnographic data
show great variability in methods of elephant hunting and
butchery, depending on the circumstance of both human and prey,
e.g. animal size, fat condition, size of human group and prey
availability. A feasible scenario can be offered for the
hominineelephant association at Revadim, by considering the
elephant record in conjunction with the information of the
archaeological horizons, paying particular attention to Area B,
where detailed information about the association between bones
and artifacts is available.
The recurrent association of elephant remains and stone tools at
Revadim points to hominin manipulation of these large animals.
The use of elephant bones to produce artifacts, some of which
resemble the characteristic stone handaxes, may further imply
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197 195
non-functional usage of the remains of these large animals, rein-
forcing the signiﬁcance of elephants in Acheulian contexts.
The paucity of upper and lower elephant limb at the site
considered in conjunction with the cut marks on the rib and
scapula suggests that elephants may have beenbutchered in Area B
and the elements that were rich in meat and/or fat were then
transported to another location. The coexistence of cut marks and
carnivores gnawing marks may indicate a more complex scenario
of overlapping activities. Unfortunately, the data from Revadim
cannot contribute to the debate of hunting versus scavenging of
elephants in the Acheulian. However, the archaeological record
indicates capabilities that would make large-game hunting possible
for Lower Paleolithic hominins.
We are indebted to Ami Gileadi who discovered the site and
reported on several of the elephant remains presented here. The
study of the elephant bones would not been possible without the
careful conservation work of Gali Beiner. Smadar Gabrieli cleaned
the bone tools. We are grateful to Pavel Shrago for photographing
the artifacts and to Leonid Zeiger and Michael Smeliansky for
drawing the maps and ﬂint artifacts. We thank also Ariel Malinsky-
Buller and Nuha Agha for their help in technical aspects during the
preparation of this paper. The project was supported by the Israel
Science Foundation (Grant No. 1050/09), Yad Hanadiv Foundation
and the Israel Antiquities Authority. The elephant study was sup-
ported by the SYNTHESYS program that allowed Rivka Rabinovich
to visit the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales at Madrid; special
thanks to Dr. Begona Sanches Chillón, our host at the Paleonto-
logical Department of the museum, and to Laura Tormo, who took
great care over the SEM photos. Prof. Adrian Lister was as always
very helpful. Finally we thank Smadar Gabrieli for the language
editing and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments, which contributed considerably to improve this paper.
Anzidei, A.P., Bulgarelli, G.M., Catalano, P., Cerilli, E., Gallotti, R., Lemorini, C., Milli, S.,
Palombo, M.R., Pantano, W., Ernesto Santucci, E., 2011. Ongoing research at the
late Middle Pleistocene site of La Polledrara di Cecanibbio (central Italy), with
emphasis on human-elephant relationships. Quaternary International 255,
Anzidei, A.P., 2001. Tools from elephant bones at La Polledrara di Cecanibbio and
Rebibbia-Casal de’Pazzi. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Congress the World of Elephants.
CNR, Roma, pp. 415e418.
Bar-Yosef, O., Belmaker, M., 2011. Early and Middle Pleistocene faunal and hominins
dispersals through Southwestern Asia. Quaternary Science Reviews 30,
Bate, D.M.A., 1937. Palaeontology: the fossil fauna of the Way el-Mughrara caves. In:
Garrod, D.A.E., Bate, D.M.A. (Eds.), Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 135e233.
Beauval, C., Patrick, M., Tastet, J.P., 1998. L’éléphant antique de Soulac (Gironde,
France). Quaternaire 9 (2), 91e10 0.
Beden, M., 1986. Le Mammoth d’Oubeidiyeh. In: Tchernov, E., Guérin, C. (Eds.), Les
Mammifères du Pléistocène Inférieur de la Vallée du Jourdain à Oubeidiyeh.
Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem, vol. 5.
Association Paléorient, Paris, pp. 213e234.
Beiner, G., Rabinovich, R. submitted for publication. An elephant task eConserva-
tion of elephant remains from Revadim Quarry (Middle Pleistocene, Israel).
Journal of the Institute of Conservation.
Ben-Dor, M., Gopher, A., Hershkovitz, I., Barkai, R., 2011. Man the fat hunter: the
demise of Homo erectus and the emergence of a new hominin lineage in the
Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant. PLoS One 6 (12), e28689. doi:10.1371/
Berthelet, A., Chavaillon, J., 2001. The Early Palaeolithic butchery site of Barogali
(Republic of Djibouti). In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R.
(Eds.), The World of Elephants eProceedings of the 1st International Congress.
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 176e179.
Berthelet, A., 2001. L’outillage lithique du site de dépeçage à Elephas recki iler-
etensis de Barogli (République de Djibouti). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des
Sciences, Paris, 332, pp. 411e416.
Biddittu, I., Celletti, P., 2001. Plio-Pleistocene Proboscidea and lower Palaeolithic
bone industry of southern Latium (Italy). In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M.,
Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), The World of Elephants eProceedings of the 1st Inter-
national Congress. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 91e96.
Bonino, O., Rousseau, F., 2005. Digital model computation from contour lines: how
to deliver quality information from artifact analysis. Geoinformatica 9 (3),
Boschian, G., Saccà, D., 2010. Ambiguities in human and elephant interactions?
Stories of bones, sand and water from Castel di Guido (Italy). Quaternary
International 214, 3e16.
Bruins, H.J., 1976. The Origin, Nature and Stratigraphy of Paleosols in the Loessial
Deposits of the NW-Negev (Netivot, Israel). Unpublished M.A. Dissertation,
Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Butler, D.R., 1995. Zoogeomorphology: Animals as Geomorphic Agents. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Byers, A.D., Ugan, A., 2005. Should we expect large game specialization in the late
Pleistocene? An optimal foraging perspective on early Paleoindian prey choice.
Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1624e1640.
Carrara, A., Bittely, G., Carla, R., 1997. Comparison of Techniques for generating
digital Terrain models from contour lines. International Journal of Geographical
Information Science 1, 451e474.
Chazan, M., Horwitz, L.K., 2006. Finding the message in intricacy: the association of
lithics and fauna on Lower Paleolithic Multiple Carcass Sites. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 25 (4), 436e437.
Christiansen, P., 2004. Body size in proboscideans, with notes on elephant metab-
olism. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140, 523e549.
Clark, J.D., Haynes Jr., V.C., 1970. An elephant butchery site at Mwanganda’s Village,
Karonga, Malawi, and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World
Archaeology 1, 390e411.
Clark, J.D., 1977. Bone tools on the Earlier Pleistocene. In: Arensburg, B., Bar-Yosef, O.
(Eds.), 1977. Moshe Stekelis, Memorial Volume, Erestz-Israel, vol 13,
Conybeare, A., Haynes, G., 1984. Observations of elephant mortality and bones in
water holes. Quaternary Research 22, 189e200.
Costa, S.J., 2010. A Geometric Morphometric Assessment of Plan Shape in Bone and
Stone Acheulean Bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene Site of Castel di Guido,
Latium, Italy. In: Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Old
Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies, pp. 23e41.
d’Errico, F., Backwell, L., 2009. Assessing the function of early hominin bone tools.
Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 1764e1773.
Davies, P., Lister, A.M., 2007. Palaeloxodon. In: Chazan, M., Horwitz, L.K. (Eds.),
Holon: a Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel. American School of Prehistoric
Research Bulletin, vol 50. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, pp. 123e131.
Fisher Jr., J.W., 1993. Foragers and farmers: material expressions of interaction at
elephant processing sites in the Ituri Forest, Zaire. In: Hudson, J. (Ed.), From
Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the
Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Carbondale, Occasional Paper No. 21. Southern Illinois University. pp. 247e262.
Fisher Jr., J.W., 2001. Elephant butchery practices in the lturi Forest, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, and their relevance for interpreting human activities at
prehistoric proboscidean sites. In: West, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Mammoth Site Studies. Publications in Anthropology 22.
University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 1e10.
Gaudzinski, S., Turner, E., Anzidei, A.P., Alvarez-Fernández, E., Arroyo-Cabrales, J.,
Cinq-Mars, J., Dobosi, V.T., Hannus, A., Johnson, E., Münzel, S.C., Scheer, A.,
Villa, P., 2005. The use of proboscidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic life.
Quaternary International 126-128, 179e194.
Göhlich, U.B., 2000. On a pelvis of the straight-tusked elephant Elephas antiquus
(Proboscidea, Mammalia) from Binsfeld near Speyer (Rhineland-Palatinate,
Germany). Paläontologische Zeitschrift 74 (1/2), 205e214.
Goren-Inbar, N., Lister, A., Werker, E., Chech, M., 1994. A butchered elephant skull
and associated artifacts from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel.
Paléorient 20, 99e112 .
Guerin, C., Eisenmann, V., Faure, M., 1993. Les grands mammifères du gisement
Pléistocène Moyen de Latamné (Valle de l’Oronte, Syrie). In: Sanlaville, P.,
Bensacon, J., Copeland, L., Muhesen, S. (Eds.), Le Paléolithic de la Valée Moyenne
de l’Oronte (Syrie). British Archaeological Series Reports. International Series,
Oxford, pp. 169e178.
Gvirtzman, G., Wieder, M., Marder, O., Khalaily, H., Rabinovich, R., Ron, H., 1999.
Geological and pedological aspects of an Early Paleolithic site: Revadim, central
coastal plain, Israel. Geoarchaeology 14, 101e127.
Haynes, G., 2001. Elephant landscapes: human foragers in the world of mammoths,
mastodonts, and elephants. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R.
(Eds.), The World of Elephants eProceedings of the 1st International Congress.
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 571e576 .
Haynes, G., 2006. Mammoth landscapes: good country for hunter-gatherers.
Quaternary International 142e143, 20e29.
Haynes, G., 2011. Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem
engineers. Geomorphology. doi:10.1016/b.geomorph.2011.04.045.
Holen, S.R., 2006. Taphonomy of two last glacial maximum mammoth sites in the
central Great Plains of North America: a preliminary report on La Sena and
Lovewell. Quaternary International 142e143, 30e43.
Hooijer, D.A.,1960. A Stegodon from Israel. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197196
Hooijer, D.A., 1961. Middle Pleistocene mammal from Latamne, Orontes Valley,
Syria. Annals of the Archaeology of Syrie 11, 117e132.
Horowitz, A., 2002. Elephant, horses, humans, and others; paleoenvironments of
the Levantine land bridge. Israel Journal of Earth-Sciences 51 (3e4), 203e209.
Horwitz, L.K., Tchernov, E., 1989. The Late Acheulian Fauna from Oumm Zinat.
Mitekufat Haeven. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22, 7e14.
Jarman, P.J., 1972. The use of drinking sites, wallows and salt licks by herbivores in
the ﬂooded Middle Zambezi Valley The use of drinking sites, wallows and salt
licks by herbivores in the ﬂooded Middle Zambezi Valley. African Journal of
Ecology 10 (3), 193e209.
Jones, J.A.A., 1994. Soil piping and its hydrogeomorphic function. Cuaternario
Geomorfologia 8 (3e4), 77e102.
Kroll, W., 1991. Der Waldelefant von Crumstadt. Ein Beitrag zur Osteologie des
Waldelefanten, Elephas (Palaeoloxodon) antiquus Falconer and Cautley (1847).
Ph.D thesis, Tierärztliche Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Mün-
Lister, A.M., 2004. Ecological interactions of Elephantids in Pleistocene Eurasia:
Palaeoloxodon and Mammuthus. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Speth, J. (Eds.), Palae-
oecology of the Levantine Corridor. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 53e60.
Malinsky-Buller, A., Hovers, E., Marder, O., 2011a. Making time: “Living ﬂoor”,
“palimpsests”and site formation processes eA perspective from open-air
Lower Paleolithic site of Revadim quarry, Israel. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 30 (2), 89e101.
Malinsky-Buller, A., Grossman, L., Marder, O., 2011b. A case of techno-typological
lithic variability & continuity in the late Lower Palaeolithic. In: Before
Farming. online version. http://www.waspress.co.uk/journals/beforefarming/.
2001/1 article 3.
Malinsky-Buller, A., 2008. Site formation processes in Area C East in the Lower
Paleolithic Site of Revadim Quarry. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Institute of
Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Marder, O., Khalaily, H., Gvirtzman, G., Rabinovich, R., Saragusti, I., Porat, N., 1999.
The Lower Palaeolithic site of Revadim. Journal of Israel Prehistoric Society e
Mitekufat Haeven 28, 21e53.
Marder, O., Milevski, I., Matskevich, Z., 2006. The handaxes of Revadim Quarry:
typo-technological considerations and aspects of intra-site variability. In:
Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age. Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry
to Discard. Equinox Publishing Ltd, London, pp. 223e242.
Marder, O., Milevski, I., Rabinovich, R., Ackermann, O., Shahack-Gross, R., Fine, P.,
2008. The Lower Paleolithic site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. In: Córdoba, J.M.,
Molist, M., Pérez, M.C., Rubio, I., Martínez, S. (Eds.), 2008. Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. II.
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, pp. 481e490.
Marder, O., Malinsky-Buller, A., Shahack-Gross, R., Ackermann, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-
Matthews, M., Goldsmith, Y., Inbar, M., Rabinovich, R., Hovers, E., 2011.
Archaeological horizons and ﬂuvial processes at the Lower Paleolithic open-air
site of Revadim (Israel). Journal Human Evolution 60 (4), 508e522.
Mussi, M., Villa, P., 2008. Single carcass of Mammuthus primigenius with lithic
artifacts in the Upper Pleistocene of northern Italy. Journal of Archaeological
Science 35, 2606e2613.
Piperno, M., Tagliacozzo, A., 2001. The elephant butchery area at the Middle
Pleistocene site of Notarchirico (Venosa, Basilicata, Italy). In: Cavarretta, G.,
Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), The World of Elephants eProceedings
of the 1st International Congress. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome,
Poesen, J., 2003. Gully erosion and environmental change: importance and research
needs. Catena 50 (2e4), 91e133.
Rabinovich, R., Biton, R., 2011. The EarlyeMiddle Pleistocene faunal assemblages of
Gesher Benot Ya’aqovdinter site variability. Journal of Human Evolution 60,
Rabinovich, R., Bar-Gal, G., Marder, O., 2005. Taphonomy of elephants from the
Lower Paleolithic site of Revadim Quarry (Israel). In: Agenbroad, L.D.,
Symington, R.L. (Eds.), The World of Elephants, Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-
national Congress. Hot Spring, SD, pp. 142e144 .
Rabinovich, R., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Kindler, L., Goren-Inbar, N., 2012. The
Acheulian Site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov. In: Mammalian Taphonomy eThe
Assemblages of Layers V-5 and V-6. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthro-
pology Series, vol. III. Springer, New York.
Roberts, M.B., Parﬁtt, S.A., 1999. Boxgrove. A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at
Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. London. English Heritage Archaeo-
logical Report 17.
Shoshani, J., Eisenberg, J.F., 1982. Elephas maximus. Mammalian Species 182, 1e4.
Shoshani, J., Tassy, P., 2005. Advances in Proboscidean taxonomy and classiﬁcation,
anatomy and physiology, and ecology and behavior. Quaternary International
Shoshani, J., Goren-Inbar, N., Rabinovich, R., 2001. A stylohyoideum of Palae-
oloxodon antiquus from Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel: morphology and func-
tional inferences. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.),
The World of Elephants eProceedings of the 1st International Congress. Con-
siglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 665e667.
Shoshani, J., 1996. Skeletal and other basic anatomical features of elephants. In:
Shoshani, J., Tassy, P. (Eds.), The Proboscidea: Evolution and Palaeoecology of
Elephants and Their Relatives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21e25.
Solodenko, N., 2010. On Tools and Elephants: An Analysis of a Lithic Assemblage
from Area B of the Late Acheulian Site Revadim Quarry. Unpublished MA thesis.
Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University. (in
Stekelis, M., 1960. The Palaeolithic deposits of Jisr Banat Yaqub. Bulletin, Research
Council of Israel 9G, 61e90.
Stekelis, M., 1967. Un lissoir en os du Pléistocène Moyen de la vallée du Jourdain.
Revista da Faculdadede Letras, Universidade de Libboa, Series III. No.10.
Sukumar, R., 2003. The Living Elephants. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Surovell, T., Waguespack, N., Brantingham, P.J., 20 05. Global archaeological evidence
for proboscidean overkill. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 102 (17), 6231e6236.
Svoray, T., Ben-Said, S., 2010. Soil loss, water ponding and sediment deposition
variations as a consequence of rainfall intensity and land use: a multi-criteria
analysis. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35 (2), 202e216.
Tchernov, E., Shoshani, J., 1996. Proboscidean remains in the southern Levant. In:
Shoshani, J., Tassy, P. (Eds.), The Proboscidea: Evolution and Palaeoecology of
Elephants and Their Relatives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 225e233.
Tchernov, E., Horwitz, L.K., Ronen, A., Lister, A., 1994. The faunal remains from Evron
Quarry in Relation to other Lower Paleolithic hominid sites in the southern
Levant. Quaternary Research 42, 328e339.
Trueman, C.N.G., Behrensmeyer, A.K., Tuross, N., Weiner, S., 2004. Mineralogical and
compositional changes in bones exposed on soil surfaces in Amboseli National
Park, Kenya: diagenetic mechanisms and the role of sediment pore ﬂuids.
Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 721e739.
Valentin, C., Poesen, J., Li, Y., 2005. Gully erosion: impacts, factors and control.
Catena 63 (2e3), 132e153.
Villa, P., Soto, E., Santonja, M., Pérez-Gonzáles, A., Mora, R., Parcerisas, J., Sesé, C.,
2005. New data from Ambrona; closing the hunting versus scavenging debate.
Quaternary International 126-128, 223e250.
Weiner, S., Bar-Yosef, O., 1990. States of preservation of bones from prehistoric sites
in the Near East: a survey. Journal of Archeological Science 17, 187e196.
Weissengruber, G.E., Egger, G.F., Hutchinson, J.R., Groenewald, H.B., Elsässer, L.,
Famini, D., Forstenpointner, G., 2006. The structure of the cushions in the feet of
African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Journal of Anatomy 209, 781e792.
Wenban-Smith, F.F., Allen, P., Bates, M.R., Parﬁtt, S.A., Preece, R.C., Steward, J.R.,
Turner, C., Whitaker, J.E., 2006. The Clactonian elephant butchery site at
Southﬂeet Road, Ebbsﬂeet, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science 21 (5), 471e483.
Wieder, M., Gvirtzman, G., 1999. Micromorphological indications on the nature of
the late Quaternary Paleosols in the southern coastal plain of Israel. Catena 35,
Wittenberg, L., 2002. Structural patterns in coarse gravel river beds: typology,
survey and assessments of the roles of grain size in river regime. Geograhiska
Annaler 84, 25e37.
Yravedra, J., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Santonja, M., Perz-Gonzalez, A., Panera, J.,
Rubio-Jara, S., Baquedano, E., 2010. Cut marks on the Middle Pleistocene
elephant carcass of Aridos 2 (Madrid, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science
R. Rabinovich et al. / Quaternary International 276-277 (2012) 183e197 197