Analysis of 1,770 stone artifacts dating back 33–52 years suggests two parallel strategies: valuable obsidian tools that were transported long distances and carefully maintained, alongside local flint tools made for immediate needs. The researchers believe that Ararat-1 Cave served as a stopping and maintenance station along migration routes in the South Caucasus.
Even debris less than two centimeters long can become a map of ancient journeys. Tiny stone fragments discovered in Ararat-1 Cave in Armenia allow researchers to reconstruct how groups of hunter-gatherers moved through space, what equipment they carried with them, and how they prepared for the journey tens of thousands of years ago.
In a study published in 2025 in the journal Quaternary Science ReviewsAn international team of researchers analyzed 1,770 stone artifacts from five archaeological layers in the cave. The layers date to the late Middle Paleolithic period, approximately 52 to 33 years ago.
The study was led by David Nora, along with Dr. Ariel Malinsky-Buler and other researchers from the Hebrew University and research institutions in Armenia, the United States and Europe. The findings do not allow for a definitive identification of the species of people who inhabited the cave, and therefore the researchers refer to them as ancient human populations.
Two stones, two strategies
The analysis revealed a clear difference between the use of obsidian – a sharp volcanic glass suitable for making cutting tools – and the use of local flint.
The obsidian was not available in the immediate vicinity of the cave. Some of it came from volcanic sources as far away as 200 kilometers. The obsidian tools showed many signs of reshaping, sharpening, and re-repairing of the edges. According to the researchers, these were tools that were selected in advance, carried with the group, and preserved over time as part of portable equipment.
In contrast, the local flint tools show a different pattern. Evidence was found in the cave for the first stages of flint chiseling and the production of flakes and tool raw materials on site. It seems that the local raw material was used to prepare quick solutions to tasks that arose during the stay at the site, and not as part of a toolbox carried along the migration route.
The difference does not necessarily indicate a technological preference for one stone over the other. It reflects two complementary ways of coping: investing in expensive, portable tools designed for a long period of time, alongside utilizing available raw materials for specific needs.
The tiny fragments left behind
One of the methodological innovations in the study was the consideration of the smallest stone fragments, including fragments less than 20 millimeters long. In the past, archaeological studies tended to focus on intact, shaped tools, while tiny fragments were sometimes classified as unimportant debris.
However, small spatters are also created when an existing tool is resharpened. Therefore, they can be used to learn about maintenance operations carried out at the site, even when the tool itself was taken by its owner upon leaving the cave.
The combination of the abundance of maintenance splashes and the paucity of the first stages of obsidian tool production indicates that the tools arrived at the cave already shaped. Repairs and adjustments were mainly made there to extend the life of the tools for the rest of the journey.
Stop and maintenance station
The pattern of findings reinforces the hypothesis that Ararat Cave 1 was not a permanent settlement or a major center for stone tool production. It likely functioned as a staging post along a broader system of movement routes: a place where groups could rest, use local resources, sharpen the tools they carried with them, and prepare for the next stage of their journey.
“Ancient hunter-gatherers were very flexible and strategic,” said Dr. Malinsky-Buller, who heads the Human-Environment Dynamics Laboratory at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University. He said the groups combined long-term mobile equipment with immediate exploitation of resources found along the way.
The finding also indicates a level of planning that is not necessarily reflected in the shape of a single tool. The choice of which tool to carry, which tool to repair, and which raw material to collect along the way was related to the distances traveled, the availability of resources, and the role of each site within the migration route.
What was new compared to the previous study in Armenia?
The current study complements previous research by Malinsky-Buller and colleagues at the Klawan-2 site, published in Scientist in 2021. There, too, evidence was found of short visits, movement between high-altitude areas, and the use of obsidian sourced from great distances.
However, these are two different sites. The research on Kalavan-2 Focusing on the impact of seasonality and altitude on mobility, the Barratt-1 study examines how tool maintenance and the choice between imported obsidian and local flint reveal the decision-making process within that mobility system.
The study was conducted as part of a broader effort to reconstruct the adaptive mechanisms of human populations in the South Caucasus, a mountainous region with altitude differences, temperature fluctuations, and seasonally changing resources. The project was supported by the European Research Council and the Fritz Thyssen Foundation.
More on the subject on the science website
- Colder? Faster! The impact of seasonality on the mobility of hunter-gatherers in Armenia
- First evidence of use of tiny recycled tools found in the Land of Israel half a million years ago
- Researchers have identified animal and plant remains on tiny flint tools from hundreds of thousands of years ago.
- The toolbox of prehistoric man
- Why did the Netuvim of Carmel travel as far as the Sea of Galilee to carve basalt vessels?
Questions and Answers
Question: What findings were examined in the study?
Answer: The researchers analyzed 1,770 stone artifacts from five layers in Ararat Cave 1, dating to a period between about 52 and 33 years ago.
Question: What is the difference between obsidian tools and flint tools?
Answer: The obsidian was brought from far away and was repeatedly maintained, while the local flint was hewn on site and used mainly for immediate needs.
Question: What can we learn from stone fragments that are less than two centimeters long?
Answer: Some of the fragments were created during the sharpening and repair of tools. They indicate that maintenance was carried out in the cave even when the repaired tools were subsequently removed.
Question: What was the function of Ararat-1 Cave?
Answer: According to the pattern of findings, the cave was primarily used as a stopping point, for using local resources and maintaining equipment along migration routes.
For the original publication: Opening the original publication
