Fig 1.
Aerial location map of Kaizer Hill PPNA quarry site.
1) Hilltop; 2) areas of artifacts surface collection, and excavation (in red); 3) surface collection–“above building”. Reprinted from ICAROS Geosystems under a CC BY license with permission from ICAROS, original copyright 2008.
Fig 2.
Bi’na formation—appearance and morphology (1–4).
Fig 3.
Bi’na formation—appearance and morphology (5–8).
Fig 4.
Rock damage resulting from flint quarrying of the Bi’na Formation bedrock (voids) and different types of quarrying marks (1–4).
Fig 5.
Rock damage resulting from flint quarrying of the Bi’na Formation bedrock (voids) and different types of quarrying marks (5–8).
Fig 6.
Rock damage resulting from flint quarrying of the Bi’na Formation bedrock (voids) and different types of quarrying marks (9).
Fig 7.
Rock markings indicating limestone quarrying.
Drilling (no. 1–2); fissure widening (no. 2–4); flaking (no.3).
Fig 8.
The Terraced slopes of Kaizer Hill; 1) looking uphill; 2–3) the quarrying fronts (linear lines) viewed from the air; 4) the quarrying fronts.
Fig 9.
Top: cross-section along the quarrying fronts T1-T4; Bottom: plan view of the quarrying fronts.
Fig 10.
(1–4) preparing the excavation.
Fig 11.
(5–8) exposure of quarrying fronts.
Fig 12.
(9–12) the quarrying fronts and the exploited surfaces.
Fig 13.
(13–14) quarrying fronts, exploited surfaces and an enlarged fissure.
Fig 14.
The two transects along the slopes of the hill (A, B).
Fig 15.
The rock damaged 16 units.
Fig 16.
The geologic setting of Kaizer Hill (following [20]).
Note the interchanging Campanian and Turonian outcrops in the immediate vicinity of the site. Reprinted from Yechieli 2008, under a CC BY license. It is taken from the Geological survey of Israel website (public domain), with permission from Dr. Amit Mushkin of the Geological survey of Israel, original copyright 2021.
Table 1.
The surveyed geologic sources.
Table 2.
Size and rock damage patterns of the 16 selected units.
Fig 17.
Rare raw materials: 1–4) obsidian—broken blades; 5) basalt—broken pestle; 6) silicified limestone—broken grinding stone.
Fig 18.
The brecciated texture of the Mishash flint, in cross polars (above) and in plain polars (below).
Fig 19.
An oval ostracod observed in one of the Mishash flint samples, in cross polars (above) and in plain polars (below), infilled with large grains of quartz.
Fig 20.
A concentration of foraminifera in a Turonian Bi’na sample, in cross polars (above) and in plain polars (below).
Fig 21.
Frequencies of the geologic flint raw material by assemblage.
Table 3.
The lithic assemblages analyzed by geologic origins and weight.
Table 4.
Debitage and debris categories–Kaizer Hill Terraces.
Table 5.
Core types–Kaizer Hill Terraces.
Table 6.
Core categories–Kaizer Hill Terraces.
Table 7.
Tool categories–Kaizer Hill Terraces.
Table 8.
Technological observations and double patina of tools—Kaizer Hill Terraces.
Fig 22.
Borers and awls: 1–4.
Fig 23.
Borers and awls: 1–5.
Table 9.
‘Borers and Awls’ tool types–Kaizer Hill Terraces.
Fig 24.
Burins: 1–2 and Endscrapers: 3–5.
Table 10.
Biface distribution in Kaizer Hill Terraces assemblages.
Fig 25.
Finely made biface (a ‘prestige item’) (#142).
Fig 26.
Finely made biface (a ‘prestige item’) (#020).
Fig 27.
A coarsely made biface (#025).
Fig 28.
Waste products typical of the early stages of biface production.
Fig 29.
Transversal spalls.
Fig 30.
Transversal spalls.
Fig 31.
Unfinished biface with preparation for bifacial retouch (#88).
Fig 32.
Unfinished biface with preparation for bifacial retouch (#131).
Fig 33.
Unfinished biface with preparation for bifacial retouch (#136).
Fig 34.
Unfinished biface with preparation for bifacial retouch (#047).
Fig 35.
Biface with a transversal scar at the distal end (#106).
Table 11.
Bifaces retaining distinct preparation traces.
Fig 36.
Distribution of the bifaces across each of the first four principal components.
Box plots are quantile, blank line is the median. The figures at the top and bottom of each plot represent hypothetical items at the extremity of the principal component to visualize the shape trend. Color scales reflect the proportional spatial distribution of variability on each shape trends (i.e., the areas that change the most).
Fig 37.
Dendrogram reflecting the hierarchical clustering based on morphological distances between specimens.
Colors reflect the four clusters cut-off; labels are artifact numbers.
Fig 38.
Mean shapes (central tendencies) of clusters 1 (A), 2 (B), 3 (C), and 4 (D). Color scales reflect the proportional spatial distribution of variability in each cluster (i.e., the areas that are most variable).
Table 12.
Different debitage categories resulting from production of bifaces.
Fig 39.
Length (A), width (B), and thickness (C) of flint thinning flakes by assemblage (in mm). The ‘X’ sign represents the mean value of each group, the line within the rectangles represents the median value.
Table 13.
Striking platforms of flint thinning flakes by assemblage.
Table 14.
Dorsal face scar pattern of flint thinning flakes by assemblage.
Fig 40.
Limestone thinning flakes.
Fig 41.
Length (A), width (B), and thickness (C) of limestone thinning flakes by assemblage (in mm). The ‘X’ sign represents the mean value of each group, the line within the rectangles represents the median.
Fig 42.
Lateral biface spalls.
Fig 43.
Transversal spalls (1, 2) and a surface-rejuvenation flake (3).
Fig 44.
Biface rejuvenation spalls.
Fig 45.
Bir el-Maksur PPNA site—lateral spalls.
Table 15.
The entire lithic assemblage—Kaizer Hill Terraces.