The site was discovered by N. Agha at the building site of Ramot Rahel in the Talpiyot-East Talpiyot district in south Jerusalem. At the time of discovery, more than 80% of the site was destroyed. The exact size of the Ramat Rahel Palaeolithic site is unclear, as most of this area is built-up (Fig. 1). Still, it seems to have extended over a large area, since lithic concentrations, including hand axes, were noted in the fields of Qibbuz Ramat Rahel. The site lies within a flat elongated north–south plateau, at the eastern edge of the regional Mediterranean-Dead Sea water divide (c. 780 m asl; Fig. 2). The geological unit in the area is the Mishash formation, composed of thick layers of chert and chalk (overall thickness 12 m). It is mantled by sediments and soils (overall thickness 14 m, based on engineering drills). Within the upper 6 m of these sediments, a square (2 × 2 m) whose contents were dry screened, using a 5 mm mesh, was opened; 12 probe trenches (I–IV; 1–8) were cleaned and diagnostic flint artifacts from the dirt piles around the construction site were collected.

The exposed sediment and soil sequence consisted of three Pedo-sedimentary units (Fig. 3; Table 1). The upper Unit 1 (thickness 0.2–0.8 m) is a recently disturbed soil profile, consisting of scattered chert clasts mixed with modern waste. This soil underwent agricultural use and thus, was not analyzed. Unit 2 is a clay-textured buried vertisol (thickness 0.5–1.2 m), containing Byzantine potsherds and Paleolithic flint artifacts. An abrupt wavy unconformity (gilgai micro-relief) separates this unit from theunderlyingUnit 3, which is a clay-textured buried vertisol, with cracks, slikenslides and manganese concretions (thickness >4 m). The evidence suggests that this unit and, to a lesser extent, Unit 2, comprised a high amount of swelling clay minerals (>30%). A calcic horizon (thickness c. 1 m) composed of 20–30% calcite nodules (size 1–3 cm), appears at a depth of c. 0.5 m from the top of Unit 3. Most of the Paleolithic flint artifacts were found scattered in this unit, having no horizontal order.

 

 

The lithic assemblage comprised mainly debitage and debris, while cores and tools were extremely rare. The few burnt items (N=36) may point to fire activities at the site.

Technologically, two flake industries were identified. The first and dominant one was of unprepared flakes (Figs. 5, 6:1–3). This knapping method was relatively simple, lacking preparations. This is supported by the debitage composition of mainly flakes and primary elements, while core trimming elements that usually imply planning, were scarce. The target products were thick flakes that could be divided into two groups according to size: medium (6–8 cm) and small (3–4 cm). The size seems to be an outcome of the initial core size rather than their ordinal stage within the reduction sequence.

The second and minor industry was Levallois, represented only by five flakes (Fig. 7). As opposed to the thick flakes, the thin Levallois blanks had a curved profile and were carefully prepared. Their low quantity in the assemblage was probably related to raw material. The local brecciated flint is hard and tends to break; hence, it is unsuitable for producing thin items, such as the Levallois flakes.

The cores consisted of six types (Table 3). The most frequent (N=16) were polyhedral flake cores (Fig. 6:4), which had at least three platforms with no hierarchy among them. The central surface cores (N=10) were the second most frequent type, as exemplified by a bifacial tool made on an exhausted core (Fig. 8:1). Conceptually, they resembled Levallois technique, lacking preparations by having a preferential flaking platform. The rest were core on flakes, tested nodules, core fragments (N=8 each) and blade cores (N=3).

 Table 3. Core-type frequencies

 

The excavation at Ramat Rachel revealed important aspects regarding the site geology, post depositional processes, function and chronology.

Geologically, the origin of Unit 3 sediments is probably a combination of two processes: (1) Long-distance dust transport and deposition from distal sources (i.e., the Sahara). The chert of the Mishash formation usually forms a rough landscape, making it an ideal trap for eolian dust; and (2) In-situ chemical weathering of bedrock and of eolian dust that can partly explain the high amount of clay minerals. Unit 2 is assumed to be mostly of eolian origin, since no rock outcrops were available for chemical weathering during its formation.

 

The major post-depositional process at the site seems to have been a vertical movement (Pedo-turbation). The Paleosol of Unit 3, which contained most of the flint artifacts, shows the characteristics of a swelling clay soil (vertisol): clay texture, weakly expressed horizontality, lack of color change, slikenslides and wavy micro-relief. These findings suggest Pedo-turbation of the soil.

The upper boundary of Paleosol in Unit 3 is a sharp wavy micro-relief, known as gilgai, which is common in swelling clay soils, such as Vertisols. This boundary is also an unconformity that probably marks the decrease in the accumulation/formation rate of Unit 3. The occurrence of the calcite nodules in Unit 3 is probably related also to this unconformity, which enabled soil development and the calcite accumulation, 0.5 m below the contact. It is suggested that during this time (the unconformity between Units 3 and 2), the Palaeolithic site was active, namely knapping activity took place. Since the soil Pedo-turbation continued due to wetting and drying cycles, the flint artifacts fell into the exposed cracks, moving downward and later upward through the soil. This process is probably also responsible for the abrasion of the tools and the patina.

Nevertheless, we can not rule out the possibility that the genuine site was set in the lower part of Unit 3, close to the contact with bedrock, because the flint items, including large flint blocks, are embedded within Unit 3, having no horizontal order. Furthermore, the decrement in density along the profile (from Unit 3 to Unit 1) suggests that they had come from below. 

 The site function is quite difficult to estimate, since it is in secondary deposition and no organic materials (bones) were preserved. However, we assume it is related to the flint source, as large chert blocks were found embedded in Unit 3. These indicate the proximity of a flint exposure/s and even today, brecciated Campanian chert exposures are visible in at least three localities within the site area (see Fig. 2).

 

Chronologically, it is rather difficult to date the lithic assemblage as it comprised

mainly non-diagnostic flake products. Still, it seems to share characteristics with

levels A1–2 at ‘Emeq Refa’im, which were attributed by the excavators to the

Achelo-Yabrudian complex (Arensburg, B. and O. Bar Yosef. 1962. Emeq Rephaim

(1962 excavation). Mitekufat Haeven 4-5:1–16). Both sites have a high occurrence of

unprepared flakes, accompanied by low indices of Levallois and dominance of

scrapers within the tools is discerned. Technologically, the Ramat Rahel assemblage

fits the Late Lower Palaeolithic/early Middle Palaeolithic period, due to the high

presence of unprepared flakes that are produced from polyhedral and central surface

cores, together with a minor presence of Levallois flakes, resembling the assemblage

from Kefar Menahem Lashon (Goren N. 1979. Kefar Menahem Lashon. Mitekufat Haeven 16:69–87).

 

The site of Ramat Rahel, together with ‘Emeq Refa’im and the recently discovered Kalandiya site, indicate that the Jerusalem area was inhabited during the Palaeolithic period. At present, it seems that all three are open air sites located next to flint sources. Their occurrence at the top of the Judean hills must have been interlinked with other sites in the region, possibly with some of the cave sites in the Judean desert.