Qesem Cave (QC) is a well-known Late Lower Paleolithic site in the southern Levant. It is well-known because it provides unique and spectacular behavioral evidence for this early period in human evolution. But it should also be recognized that the innovative behaviors of the cave dwellers have been thoroughly documented as part of an ambitious research project conducted by A. Gopher and R. Barkai of Tel Aviv University (TAU) since 2001. The project of studying chert sourcing and procurement at QC was developed within this global project. It started in 2013 under the supervision of L. Wilson. Aviad Agam participated in this project from its inception. A preliminary publication appeared a few years later summarizing a first stage of research (Wilson et al. 2016). The next phase of research was conducted by Agam as part of a doctoral dissertation at TAU. The book under review here is the publication of this dissertation and a summary of the main results achieved after eight years of research.This book deals with chert sourcing and procurement in the Lower Paleolithic of the southern Levant, more precisely in a specific cultural context, the Acheuleo-Yabrudian (AYCC), at Qesem Cave. Thus, in his introduction (1–23), the author provides a good review of the literature on (1) this cultural context and its salient features (blade production in its Amudian facies and the Quina technique in its Yabrudian facies); (2) the multidisciplinary research carried out since 2001; as well as (3) studies about geological silicifications and lithic raw-material sourcing and exploitation in general (and specifically for the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of the Levant). This section ends with a presentation of the methodological approach applied here (which is quite rare), combining a reconstruction of the lithic landscape around QC and various techniques of chert characterization (macroscopic, petrographic, geochemical analyses). These techniques are described in more detail in the following chapter (“Materials and Methods,” 24–42). The next chapter, on “Blind Tests” (43–54), is developed as an argument in support of naked-eye visual observation of the lithic artifacts. A total of 21,102 items, constituting the general assemblage, was analyzed, and 208 Quina and demi-Quina sidescrapers were also included in this research work.The chapter on “Data Analysis” (55–149) is the longest one, discussing the results Agam achieved over several years of research on this large lithic assemblage. In terms of chert availability around QC, it seems that there is only one chert-bearing geological horizon (Bi’na Formation), dated to the Turonian era, in the vicinity of the site. This horizon yields rich and diverse silicifications in terms of nodule sizes and shapes, texture, visual appearance, and so on. The Turonian cherts represent the dominant supply in the lithic assemblage throughout the sequence. Non-Turonian (e.g., Campanian or Eocene) are cherts also present in small proportions, originating in non-local sources that have not yet been found. In addition, Campanian cherts were important components in the production of the Quina scrapers and bifaces. Interestingly, the author argues that all (local and non-local) rocks could have been introduced to the site as near-complete nodules, based on the presence of cortical flakes. Specific tabular shapes of nodules were preferred for blade production in the Amudian facies. Overall, very fine-grained materials were available to the QC inhabitants and were extensively exploited. Moreover, the reuse or recycling of lithic artifacts seems to be supported by the presence of numerous pieces yielding a double patina. On the same matter the presence of rare bifaces at QC could be the result of collection of these very specific artifacts in older contexts at nearby Acheulean sites. Finally, QC clearly documents that Yabrudian and Amudian contexts are very similar and should rather be interpreted as activity-related in different locations of the site. The final chapter, “Discussion and Conclusions” (150–56), summarizes the evidence presented in the book and draws some behavioral implications from the QC lithic assemblage in the context of the Lower Paleolithic in the Near East. The main chapters are complemented by a three-part appendix describing the 96 QC chert types that Agam recognized in the general lithic assemblage and their potential source areas. Each chert type is identified by a color photograph.The results presented in this monograph are a very important contribution to the various studies conducted within the impressive QC project. The picture drawn is very neat and the components within it all fit well together. Yet, I fear that the reader will focus exclusively on the behavioral interpretations put forward and will not look at the methodology followed to produce this knowledge. Indeed, as the author openly acknowledges throughout the book’s first chapters, the various lines of geoarchaeological evidence provided in this volume, notably based on the preliminary application of combined analytical techniques for chert characterization, should be taken with caution and provisional acceptance. The preliminary work published by Wilson et al. in 2016 focused very little on the local Turonian (Bi’na) chert-bearing formation. Published five years later, I would have expected Agam’s work to have filled in this gap. Instead, the book does not much discuss the silicifications in their geological context: most notably, the book crucially lacks geological maps of chert-type distribution. Another troublesome point is the importance, within the analysis of chert characterization, of secondary lithic deposits. Since these materials were mainly sampled in wadis and thus are out of context, it is essential to avoid employing them in any work that builds a geological reference database. We should be aware that fully 16 QC chert types are of unknown sources, 59 have been tentatively assigned to a geological formation, whereas 13 are likely known; 8 QC chert types are of certain geological origin, either of Middle Eocene (with nummulites) or of Campanian (with brecciated texture or Bulimina sp. foraminifers) age. All of this is quite unsatisfying. Moreover, no observations are presented on the nature of the artifacts’ cortex to tell us whether they originate from primary (outcrops) or secondary (wadis or alluvium) contexts. Thus, I hope that a new phase of research will be conducted to secure the tentative observations presented in the book.Despite my criticisms and reservations from a viewpoint of chert sourcing, this book is another important piece of the puzzle in our effort to reconstruct the lithic landscape of the southern Levant and, with its abundant illustrations, it therefore is an important reference work.