Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Erella Hovers

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 1 General inventory of the number of analysed incisions, organised by site/artefact and area of interest lack of double patination, this indicates that the incisions do not result from post-Middle Palaeolithic recycling activities.

Table 1 General inventory of the number of analysed incisions, organised by site/artefact and area of interest lack of double patination, this indicates that the incisions do not result from post-Middle Palaeolithic recycling activities.

Related Figures (19)

Fig.1 a Location of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text, b Manot, map of the excavated areas The majority of the Middle Palaeolithic artefacts originate from areas C and D (Marder et al. 2018), where a systematic ka calBP), Aurignacian (37.5-35.0 ka calBP) and Atli- tian (34.5-33.1 ka) industries in various excavation areas (Marder et al. 2018; Abulafia et al. 2021; Barzilai et al. 2016, 2021; Alex et al. 2017; Berna et al. 2021; Shemer et al. 2024). Middle Palaeolithic and Levallois artefacts were found within the Upper Palaeolithic contexts in all the excavated areas. In Area E of the excavation, the Levallois flakes found within the Levantine Aurignacian assemblages
Fig.1 a Location of the archaeological sites mentioned in the text, b Manot, map of the excavated areas The majority of the Middle Palaeolithic artefacts originate from areas C and D (Marder et al. 2018), where a systematic ka calBP), Aurignacian (37.5-35.0 ka calBP) and Atli- tian (34.5-33.1 ka) industries in various excavation areas (Marder et al. 2018; Abulafia et al. 2021; Barzilai et al. 2016, 2021; Alex et al. 2017; Berna et al. 2021; Shemer et al. 2024). Middle Palaeolithic and Levallois artefacts were found within the Upper Palaeolithic contexts in all the excavated areas. In Area E of the excavation, the Levallois flakes found within the Levantine Aurignacian assemblages
Fig.2 The engraved cortical Levallois core of Manot. High-resolu- tion photograph and 3D model (photo by E. Ostrovsky and drawing by M. Smelansky, 3-D models by E. Paix4o and L. Schunk)
Fig.2 The engraved cortical Levallois core of Manot. High-resolu- tion photograph and 3D model (photo by E. Ostrovsky and drawing by M. Smelansky, 3-D models by E. Paix4o and L. Schunk)
Fig.4 Photo of Amud 1, the retouched blade, note the Incisions on the cortex
Fig.4 Photo of Amud 1, the retouched blade, note the Incisions on the cortex
Fig.3 High-resolution closeup photo of the cortical artefact of Manot showing the different areas of interest where the engraved incisions are located
Fig.3 High-resolution closeup photo of the cortical artefact of Manot showing the different areas of interest where the engraved incisions are located
b Illustration of the engraved artefacts of Manot, ¢ Illustration of the engraved artefacts of Quneitra (to the left) and Qafzeh (to the right) Fig.5 3D models of the artefacts (arrows show the orientation of the dorsal face scar(s) on each artefact) a Illustration of the engraved artefacts of Amud (hereafter Amud | and Amud 2, from left to right),
b Illustration of the engraved artefacts of Manot, ¢ Illustration of the engraved artefacts of Quneitra (to the left) and Qafzeh (to the right) Fig.5 3D models of the artefacts (arrows show the orientation of the dorsal face scar(s) on each artefact) a Illustration of the engraved artefacts of Amud (hereafter Amud | and Amud 2, from left to right),
b Plaque from Quneitra adapted from Marshack (1996), ¢ the core from Qafzeh adapted from Hovers et al. (1997) drawn by J. Mosko- vich Fig.6 Schematic drawing of the artefacts of Manot, Quneitra and Qafzeh (same scale) that illustrates the respective Areas of Inter- est (red dashed lines); a Core from Manot drawn by M. Smelansk,
b Plaque from Quneitra adapted from Marshack (1996), ¢ the core from Qafzeh adapted from Hovers et al. (1997) drawn by J. Mosko- vich Fig.6 Schematic drawing of the artefacts of Manot, Quneitra and Qafzeh (same scale) that illustrates the respective Areas of Inter- est (red dashed lines); a Core from Manot drawn by M. Smelansk,
Fig.7 Schematic illustration of the analysis workflow using Tem- plate 1 to select and extract areas of interest and incisions’ surface areas for geometry analysis. a Selected areas of interest, b 3D repre-
Fig.7 Schematic illustration of the analysis workflow using Tem- plate 1 to select and extract areas of interest and incisions’ surface areas for geometry analysis. a Selected areas of interest, b 3D repre-
sentation of the areas of interest, c select and trace incisions, and d extract incisions individually
sentation of the areas of interest, c select and trace incisions, and d extract incisions individually
Fig.8 Schematic illustration of the analysis workflow using Tem- plate 2 to import and analyse the geometric features of each incision. a import incision surface, b select and extract 3 sections/profiles, and mesure ¢ horizontal distance, d area of the cut and maximum depth, and e section angle
Fig.8 Schematic illustration of the analysis workflow using Tem- plate 2 to import and analyse the geometric features of each incision. a import incision surface, b select and extract 3 sections/profiles, and mesure ¢ horizontal distance, d area of the cut and maximum depth, and e section angle
for OAI 3. A similar homogeneous pattern was also found in the measured area of the cut and maximum depth for every incision. For the cut area, mean values are 25,592, 20,100 and 29,378 um’, for OAI 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The mean angle is also similar between the AOI, with 150°, 151 and 148° for OAI 1, 2 and 3 respectively. As for the maximum depth of Incisions, AOI 1 and 3 show a mean of 62.4 and 64.8 ym, while incisions from AOI 2 show a mean value of 52.3 pm, indicating comparatively fewer deep incisions.
for OAI 3. A similar homogeneous pattern was also found in the measured area of the cut and maximum depth for every incision. For the cut area, mean values are 25,592, 20,100 and 29,378 um’, for OAI 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The mean angle is also similar between the AOI, with 150°, 151 and 148° for OAI 1, 2 and 3 respectively. As for the maximum depth of Incisions, AOI 1 and 3 show a mean of 62.4 and 64.8 ym, while incisions from AOI 2 show a mean value of 52.3 pm, indicating comparatively fewer deep incisions.
Table 3 Summary statistics for the area of the cut (in um?) of the incision’s profiles organised by site/artefact. (count, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, median)
Table 3 Summary statistics for the area of the cut (in um?) of the incision’s profiles organised by site/artefact. (count, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, median)
Table 4 Summary statistics for the maximum depth (in um) of the incision’s profiles organised by site/artefact. (count, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, median)
Table 4 Summary statistics for the maximum depth (in um) of the incision’s profiles organised by site/artefact. (count, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, median)
Fig.11 Boxplot for visualising distance, depth, area and angle data organised by site/artefact and Area of Interest (AOD Table 2 Summary statistics for the distance (in tm) of the incision’s profiles organised by site/artefact. (count, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, median)
Fig.11 Boxplot for visualising distance, depth, area and angle data organised by site/artefact and Area of Interest (AOD Table 2 Summary statistics for the distance (in tm) of the incision’s profiles organised by site/artefact. (count, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation, median)
Comparison with the artefacts from Qafzeh and Quneitra evident on the cortex, of which a total of 25 were analysed. The incisions have a parallel orientation mostly overlapping and occasionally intersecting each other and show a perpen- dicular and oblique directionality relative to the flaking axis of the artefact.
Comparison with the artefacts from Qafzeh and Quneitra evident on the cortex, of which a total of 25 were analysed. The incisions have a parallel orientation mostly overlapping and occasionally intersecting each other and show a perpen- dicular and oblique directionality relative to the flaking axis of the artefact.
Fig.12 Boxplot of distance, depth, area and angle data (AOI are aggregated) organised site/artefact The repetitive engraving and pattern formed by the inci- sions on the cortical face of the Manot core suggest intent. In contrast, the incisions on the cortical artefacts from Amud are shallower and portray multiple orientations possibly rep- resenting a by-product of utilitarian purposes. In an attempt to see if the differences noted between the incisions on the Manot and Amud items are also visible on the artefacts from Quneitra and Qafzeh, the same methodology was used to characterise the incisions of the latter two (Figs. 5 and 6). Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 describe and summarise the measure- ments on all artefacts for each of the geometric features (Distance between profiles, area between profiles, depth of incision and angle of profiles). Boxplots in Figs. 11 and 12 statistically describe and illustrate the distribution of the data for each parameter organised by site. The two artefacts are similar to each other (p-val- ues > 0.05 for pair comparison for each feature, see SOM4 for more details). Both artefacts show low values for the horizontal distance (width) of the incisions. Distance val- ues from the different AOIs on Amud | have mean val- ues ranging between 343 and 430 pm, and Amud 2 with a range of values between 318 and 435 pm (Table 2). The incisions on both are shallow and range for Amud | from 29.5 to 62.1 ym and on Amud 2 between 22.7 and 59.5 ym (Table 4).
Fig.12 Boxplot of distance, depth, area and angle data (AOI are aggregated) organised site/artefact The repetitive engraving and pattern formed by the inci- sions on the cortical face of the Manot core suggest intent. In contrast, the incisions on the cortical artefacts from Amud are shallower and portray multiple orientations possibly rep- resenting a by-product of utilitarian purposes. In an attempt to see if the differences noted between the incisions on the Manot and Amud items are also visible on the artefacts from Quneitra and Qafzeh, the same methodology was used to characterise the incisions of the latter two (Figs. 5 and 6). Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 describe and summarise the measure- ments on all artefacts for each of the geometric features (Distance between profiles, area between profiles, depth of incision and angle of profiles). Boxplots in Figs. 11 and 12 statistically describe and illustrate the distribution of the data for each parameter organised by site. The two artefacts are similar to each other (p-val- ues > 0.05 for pair comparison for each feature, see SOM4 for more details). Both artefacts show low values for the horizontal distance (width) of the incisions. Distance val- ues from the different AOIs on Amud | have mean val- ues ranging between 343 and 430 pm, and Amud 2 with a range of values between 318 and 435 pm (Table 2). The incisions on both are shallow and range for Amud | from 29.5 to 62.1 ym and on Amud 2 between 22.7 and 59.5 ym (Table 4).
Related topics:
Middle PaleolithicAmud CaveSymbolic Behavior
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved