- Email: [email protected]
A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes
Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol
A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes T. Abulafia a, *, 1, M. Goder-Goldberger a, 1, F. Berna b, O. Barzilai c, O. Marder a a b c
Department of Bible, Archaeology and the Ancient Near East, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 8410501, Israel Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada Archaeological Research Department, Israel Antiquities Authority, P. O. Box 586, Jerusalem, 91004, Israel
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 16 January 2019 Accepted 18 October 2019 Available online xxx
For more than a century, prehistoric research has focused on cave sites and rock shelters, mostly because of good preservation of organic remains associated with stratified anthropogenic layers. Manot Cave in the Western Galilee, Israel offers the possibility of studying prehistoric assemblages in pristine condition because of the collapse of the cave entrance some 30 thousand years ago. Nine years of excavations have uncovered an Early Upper Paleolithic archaeological sequence. Area C, situated at the bottom of the talus, was exposed to fast and slow depositional and postdepositional processes affecting sediment accumulation. The central part of area C was selected for this study, as it was least disturbed. Following a technotypological analysis, and taking postdepositional processes into consideration, the assemblages were defined and assigned to the Levantine Aurignacian, and Ahmarian traditions. The two archaeological horizons are separated by a mixed horizon within which indicative artifacts of both traditions alternately appear. The Ahmarian assemblage, dated to 46e42 ka cal BP, fits within the northern Mediterranean Ahmarian sites, which technotypologically differs from and is currently dated earlier than the southern desert region Ahmarian sites. The main technotypological characteristics of the assemblage from the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon, dated to 38e34 ka cal BP, are comparable to those from Manot ^r ‘Akil levels VII-VIII. Yet, several technotypological elements seem more Cave area E layers V-VI, and Ksa ^r ‘Akil levels XI-XIII and possibly layer IX from area E. compatible with the unnamed assemblage from Ksa © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ahmarian Aurignacian Techno-typological analyses Post-Depositional processes Manot Cave el-Wad points
1. Introduction The Levantine Upper Paleolithic (UP) cultural sequence reflects changing behavioral patterns with at least two traditions encompassing large internal geographic variability. This mosaic of industries is thought to reflect a complex interplay between modern human populations that were coming and going through the region (Bar-Yosef, 2007; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014a). Similarities between the Ahmarian and Proto-Aurignacian, as well as their relevant chronologies, have been suggested to represent population dispersal from the Levant into Europe (Mellars, 2004, 2006; Hublin, 2015; Alex et al., 2017). Although resemblance in the lithic and osseous Aurignacian assemblages from the Levant
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: abulafi[email protected] (T. Abulafia). 1 Equally contributed to the article.
and Europe may imply a later back “migration” (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2012; Tejero et al., 2016). Excavations at Manot Cave have revealed a chronocultural sequence dated to between 46e33 ka including Ahmarian, Levantine Aurignacian and postLevantine Aurignacian technological traditions, with scattered lithic finds indicating the presence of a Middle Paleolithic occupation (Barzilai et al., 2016; Alex et al., 2017; Marder et al., 2017, 2018). This study focuses on excavated area C at Manot Cave, located at the bottom of the western talus. Area C has a long stratigraphic sequence subdivided into eight geostratigraphic units. The aims of this paper are to 1) characterize the two archeological horizons defined as they unraveled following the lithic assemblage technotypological analysis, and 2) elucidate the correlation between the geostratigraphic units described during excavation and the archaeological horizons as defined following lithic analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707 0047-2484/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
2
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
1.1. Background The Levantine Mediterranean cave sites display long Middle Paleolithic and UP sequences used to define a regional chronostratigraphy. A six-stage linear cultural evolution for the Levantine UP was originally defined (Neuville, 1951; Garrod and Bates, 1937; Garrod, 1954, 1957), following excavations in the caves and rock shelters of Mt. Carmel, and the Judean desert (for a detailed research history, refer to Gilead, 1991). Neuville's Phases III and IV were initially named Aurignacian by Garrod and Bates (1937) based on similarity between the carinated and nosed end scrapers from the Levantine assemblages to those found in the European ones. In later publications, Garrod (1957) referred to these phases as Lower and Upper Antelian because of the lack of split-based bone points, considered the hallmark of the European Aurignacian. Following the London conference in 1969, the term Levantine Aurignacian was coined to replace the use of Aurignacian and Antelian in the Levantine UP sequence (Hours, 1974). A chronocultural framework for the Levantine UP was established based on the long sequence ^r ‘Akil, Lebanon (Ewing, 1947; Hours, 1974; Besançon exposed at Ksa et al., 1975e1977; Copeland, 1975). Extensive work in the Negev and Sinai during the 70s led to the finding of UP industries that did ^r ‘Akil sequence as defined at the time. The not fit in with the Ksa name Ahmarian was introduced by Gilead (1981) and Marks (1981) for the early UP entities found in the Negev and Sinai. Bergman (1988) adopted the name Ahmarian for the unnamed lower UP ^r ‘Akil (XVI-XX), which portrayed similar technotypolevels at Ksa logical characteristics. In this article, we use the term Ahmarian to refer to the “Early Ahmarian” as defined by Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2018). The ‘Late Ahmarian’ (Gilead, 1981), also known as the Masraqan and assigned to approximately 25e22 ka (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2018), is considered as a separate entity and is not discussed in this article. New finds and reevaluation of old collections have expanded the geographical borders of UP entities defined for the Levant as well as suggest that there is more cultural variability to the UP than Levantine Aurignacian and Ahmarian (Belfer-Cohen and Goring- Morris, 2003; Kadowaki et al., 2015; Bretzke et al., 2017). The Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian industries at Manot Cave (Hershkovitz et al., 2015; Barzilai et al., 2016; Marder et al., 2017) were defined based on commonly used technotypological characteristics. The Ahmarian technocomplex has a wide geographic distribution in the Levant, extending across the Mediterranean eco-zones into the semi-arid and arid regions. The Ahmarian industry was initially defined as a blade industry, with high percentages of backed points, el-Wad points, few burins, carinated scrapers, and extensive use of ochre (Marks, 1981; Gilead, 1981, 1991). In the southern arid zone, the Ahmarian is technologically characterized by narrow-fronted single-platform cores that yielded series of flat or incurvate, thin, narrow, convergent blade(let) blanks (Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; GoringMorris and Davidzon, 2006). In the northern Mediterranean zone, the dominant core type in Ahmarian assemblages is bidirectional, defined by Bergman (1988) as ‘parallel-sided prismatic cores with opposed striking platforms’. These cores are found in Ahmarian izli, BeC, Ksa ^r ‘Akil XVI-XX, Yabrud Rock assemblages from Üçag Shelter II/6e5, and Qafzeh E (Bergman, 1988; Bar-Yosef and BelferCohen, 2004; Kuhn et al., 1999; Hauck et al., 2014; Demidenko and Hauck, 2017). Kebara III-IV was assigned to the Ahmarian based on a high blade index (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). The Ahmarian technocomplex dates to ~46e30 ka (Rebollo et al., 2011; Douka et al., 2013; Belfer -Cohen and Goring Morris, 2014a; b; Bosch et al., 2015; Alex et al., 2017). The Levantine Aurignacian lithic industry is characterized by a high percent of carinated and nosed scrapers and burins, some
Aurignacian blades and Dufour bladelets as well as points made on blades and bladelets including el-Wad points (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006). Although the European Aurignacian is considered a blade technology, the Levantine Aurignacian is seen as a flake-based technology, albeit tools are mostly made on blade/let blanks (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014b). The osseous component of Levantine Aurignacian assemblages consists of bone and antler tools, mostly points and bone ornaments (Newcomer, 1974; Copeland, 1975; Belfer-Cohen and Bar Yosef, 1981; Newcomer and Watson, 1984; Gilead, 1989, 1991; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003; Tejero et al., 2016, 2018). The Levantine Aurignacian is dated to between 38eand 32 ka cal BP (Belfer-Cohen and Goring Morris, 2014 a; b; Alex et al., 2017) and is mostly known from the Mediterranean ^r ‘Akil VII-VIII, Hayonim D, Kebara D, I-II, el-Wad D, cave sites of Ksa Raqefet III, and Sefunim 10e8, V (Garrod and Bate, 1937; Garrod, 1954; Copeland, 1975; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Ronen, 1984; Bergman, 1987; Goldberg and Bar-Yosef, 1998; Lengyel, 2007; Williams and Bergman, 2010; Shimelmitz et al., 2018). The only known Levantine Aurignacian assemblage in the Judean desert is el-Quseir C (Gilead, 1981). Based on dated assemblages, it is evident that the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian traditions partially co-existed in the Levant (Gilead, 1991; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003), with a diachronic geographic variability between the Mediterranean, and arid regions. Where both traditions are found at the same site, the Ahmarian is always found stratigraphically bellow the Aurignacian (Gilead, 1981; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003). Although some researchers would rather envisage each of these traditions as encompassing several social groups which maintained contacts amongst themselves (Gilead, 1991; Marks, 2003), others suggest that each regional tradition represents an independent and unique technological culture (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003). 2. Materials and methods 2.1. The site Manot Cave is an active karstic cave (Yas'ur, 2013; Frumkin, 2017) located in the western Galilee Mountains in the midst of the Mediterranean climatic belt, 220 m above sea level (asl) and nine km east of the current Mediterranean shoreline (Frumkin et al., 2019 in press). The cave is composed of one main chamber (~80-m long and 10- to 25-m wide and ~30-m deep), and several small side chambers. The cave had one major opening at the western edge, although a smaller opening may have existed at the eastern edge (Fig. 1). Nine consecutive excavation seasons (2010e2018) have resulted in a well-dated UP sequence (Barzilai et al., 2012, 2014; 2016; Marder et al., 2013, 2017; Alex et al., 2017). Areas E and I, located at the top of the talus (Fig. 1 A), adjacent to the expected original cave entrance, are composed of well stratified living surfaces and combustion features. The lithic assemblage from these areas were assigned to the Levantine Aurignacian and the post-Levantine Aurignacian (Alex et al., 2017; Marder et al., 2019 submitted). Post-Levantine Aurignacian is a name used within the Manot sequence to define the industry stratigraphically and chronologically overlying the Levantine Aurignacian layers in area E implying cultural relations between the two (Marder et al., 2019 submitted). The definition of this industry is beyond the scope of this article. 2.2. Area C: geomorphology and stratigraphy Area C, the focus of this study, is situated at the base of the western talus ~25-m deep coming down from area E, situated
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
Figure 1. Plan and stratigraphic section of area C. (A) General plan of Manot cave excavation. (B) Section 67/66 looking northwest. (C) Schematic section of J64-66 looking West. (D) Compilation of sections J66 and J65 looking northwest.
adjacent to the cave opening, with a 20O slope (Fig. 1 A). In this location, the talus sediments consist of a poorly sorted colluvium composed of terra rossa soil material mixed with angular and subangular rock and bone fragments, lithic artifacts, continental and marine mollusks, and charcoal flakes. Although the terra rossa originates from outside the cave, most rocks are thought to originate from within e the result of rock fall from the ceiling and cave walls and breakage of speleothems. Along the cave wall and at the center of the talus, there is evidence of surface sheet and rill erosion
(i.e., ditch profiles, rock winnowing and gravel/stone lags) (Fig. 1 B). Despite evidence of surface sheet wash and riling, intensive and extensive radiocarbon dating of the organic archaeological material shows that in the center of area C, the accumulation of sediment was moderately continuous resulting in a fairly undisturbed stratified sequence (Alex et al., 2017). The model suggested (Berna et al., 2019 submitted) for explaining the talus formation is based on the interplay between the geostratigraphic accumulation in the upper occupation area (area E) and the translocation of part of these
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
4
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 2. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for Manot Cave, area C. Dating samples are from squares J67-J65. Dates are listed in stratigraphic sequence by laboratory code, followed by absolute elevation or the elevation range of the sample's excavation basket. NGRIP, North Greenland Ice Core Project (following Alex et al., 2017). “Combined” stands for replicated samples that were included as one combined date.
sediments down the talus (area C). It is proposed that the presence of a physical barrier in the bedrock topography of area E, separated the occupation areas from the talus. On account that the rate of sediment accumulation during occupation was much greater than that during nonoccupation (Weiner, 2009), it is proposed that during occupation the sediments with their major ash component and associated artifacts would accumulate rapidly in area E reaching the top of the barrier. Consequently, some of these sediments overflowed across the barrier and translocated down the talus. The sediment overflow invariably involved local mixing, but
as the barrier was relatively small it allowed fairly continuous sediment accumulation in area C. At the bottom of the talus, several large rocks and a large detached speleothem fragment dammed the mass movement of colluvium trapping sediments and artifacts in a natural terrace. The cavities under the aforementioned rocks were filled with fine grain sediments, coprolites, and anthropogenic material. On the eastern side of area C (square M65), toward the center of the cave, a 4-cm-thick flowstone, deriving from an adjacent columnar speleothem, caps the surface of the talus (Hershkovitz
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
Figure 3. Allocation of baskets included in this study mapped in accordance with their stratigraphic position. Colors are coded based on the cultural assignment. Arrows mark the general orientation of the talus slope and units.
et al., 2015). UeTh dating indicates that this local capping flowstone system is formed between 32.4 ka and 19 ka (Hershkovitz et al., 2015). The presence of such a flowstone indicates that during this time interval talus formation and sediment accumulation stopped or slowed down significantly in area C. This supposition is partially supported by one of the youngest radiocarbon dates of
approximately 32 ka obtained so far for archaeological material recovered from area C (Alex et al., 2017). Soil micromorphological studies indicate that in area C, the sedimentary column was formed by a combination of slope mass movement types (e.g., rolling, fall, creep, slide and slump), surface and subsurface runoff action (e.g., sheet and rill erosion), and
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
6
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 4. Raw material types of carinated cores on flakes from the Aurignacian Horizon. (A) Greenish brown, (B). brown, (C). yellowish brown, and (D). greenish blue.
periodic talus subaerial surface stability (Berna et al., 2019 submitted). It appears that transport and deposition were dominated by low energy processes with rare spikes of moderately high energy. The overall low energy process with which the talus in area C formed is also supported by the freshness of the archaeological finds, and the presence of flint artifacts <20 mm, charcoal and wood ash (Alex et al., 2017; Berna et al., 2019 submitted). The faunal assemblage presents only rare cases of striations from trampling and rolled edges. Postdepositional damage is generally mild, and
the assemblage does not seem to be particularly weathered relative to other cave site assemblages (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press). Some of the reworked artifact aggregates are similar in structure and composition to the ones observed in area E deposits (Berna et al., 2019 submitted; Marder et al., 2019 submitted). The petrographic thin sections of area C deposits show intact dripping water puddles forming on buried surfaces in the talus (Berna et al., 2019 submitted). Some of these buried talus surfaces appeared to be locally trampled most probably by hyenas and possibly by humans
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
Figure 5. Raw material types of el-Wad points from the Ahmarian Horizon. (A, B) Unique raw materials, (C) gray, (D, E) yellowish flint points with notches at the base.
(Karkanas et al., 2007; Berna et al., 2019 submitted; Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019 in press). Diffused localized calcium carbonate impregnation features are also common and minor brecciation is also evident (Berna et al., 2019 submitted). On the other hand, in the petrographic thin section slides, there is no evidence for anthropogenic in situ activities (i.e., living surfaces, microdebitage concentrations, or in situ combustion features). The sediments exposed in the central section of the talus (squares J67e65 and K66e65) seem the least disturbed and are ~3.1 m deep. This is relative to squares I64e66, which were exposed to running water along the cave wall and squares L-M64e66, which are composed of sediments intermixed with flowstone (Fig. 1 B). During excavation, eight sedimentological units were defined, following field observation in change of sediment type, compactness, and color, as well as changes in both bone and flint density and rock and stone density, and evidence of water activity (Fig. 1C and D). All units are comprised loose dark brown to reddish brown clay to silty clay loam. Unit 1 e talus surface (5e10 cm). Unit 2 e characterized by a natural concentration of large pebbles just below the surface (10e20 cm thick). Unit 3 e characterized by a silty clay loam with few archaeological finds. In the upper part of the unit, a sedimentary lens is evident, rich in small stones with bones and artifacts, possibly the result of water action (20 cm thick). Unit 4 e characterized by a compact silty clay loam with lithic artifacts and bones (40e50 cm thick). Unit 5 e characterized by a compact silty clay loam rich in angular limestone rocks and stones, lithic artifacts, bones and charcoal (30e50 cm thick). This unit shows evidence of colluviation and runoff erosion. A channel bed, defined by large angular stones, cut through squares J65-66 into squares K65-64 and contain numerous artifacts. In section J66-J67, at elevation ~205.6 m asl (Fig. 1 D), there is a concentration of weathered stones. Based on the similarity of their weathering pattern to that commonly found in area D, they are thought to originate from there (Stephen Weiner, personal communication). Unit 6 e a thick unit of soft silty clay loam, with few angular stones, and a rich concertation of lithic artifacts, bones and coprolites (60e70 cm thick). The presence of rocks and stones at the
contact with unit 5 indicates an increase in water runoff intensity in the cave (Fig. 1C, D). Unit 7 e this is almost as thick as unit 6 (50e60 cm thick), and it is separated from unit 6 by an unconformity surface formed by a thin calcified crust (Fig. 1 D). This crust is thought to represent a short period of talus stability allowing for dissolved calcite in the dripping water to precipitate and form a thin crust (Berna et al., 2019 submitted). Within the lower part of the unit, there was a concentration of coprolites and stones within a soft sediment, possibly representing a channel that cut through the unit (Abulafia, 2018: Fig. 8). Unit 8 e this unit is characterized by rock fragments of variable sizes and soft sediment. The bottom of the unit is composed of large rocks. This unit is only partially excavated and so its depth is currently unknown. The primary process of talus deposition and accumulation, as evident from field geomorphological and sedimentological observations and soil micromorphological analysis of petrographic thin sections, is thought to be colluvial mass movement of sediments including anthropogenic material from their original depositional units in area E and I. The changes seen between the eight sedimentological units appear to be related mainly to localized changes in runoff intensity and directionality. In addition to the channel cutting through Unit 5 (Fig. 1 D), two additional large channels were identified. These channels cut through square J65 at elevations 205.4e205.2 m asl (unit 6) and K65 at an elevation of 204.25e204.14 m asl (unit 7). Although all the artifacts retrieved from the lower channel (unit 7) belong to the Ahmarian, the upper channel includes both Aurignacian and Ahmarian artifacts. This suggests that the lower channel formed during the Ahmarian occupation, whereas the upper channel formed during or after the Levantine Aurignacian occupation was established, cutting through and mixing sediments and artifacts from both layers (Abulafia, 2018: Fig. 7). 2.3. Chronology Units 4 and the top of unit 5 date to between 38 and 34 ka cal BP although the bottom of unit 6 and unit 7 date to between 46 and 42 ka cal BP (Alex et al., 2017). Three 14C dates which deviate from
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
8
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 6. Raw material types of cores from the Ahmarian Horizon. (A) Yellowish, (B) gray, (C) greenish blue, and (D) brown.
these clusters (Fig. 2 e samples RTD-7783 A, RTD-7785, and RTD7786) originate from the contact between unit 5 and 6 and are in reverse stratigraphic order (Alex et al., 2017). This section is relatively rocky, suggesting stronger water activity which could have led to rigorous sediment mixing and missing deposits. 2.4. Methodology The excavation of area C was performed in a 1 1m grid. Each square was split into 4 subsquares and excavated in 5 or 10 cm spits. At times, two subsquares were excavated together. A basket number was given to each excavated spit for all finds, and was subsequently used as the cataloging reference. All the excavated volume
was dry and wet sieved first with a 5-mm mesh and then a 1.5-mm mesh. The sample selected for this study is from squares J66-65 (from excavation seasons 2010e2014), reflecting a total depth of 2.5 m. These squares are just under a meter away from the cave wall to the southwest, limiting the influence of running water along the cave wall causing vertical dispersion at the contact between the talus and the cave wall. All channels and burrows were mapped and initial analysis of the lithic assemblages from these features was carried out separately. Other indicators for disturbances such as roots and coprolite concentrations were noted and incorporated into the final stratigraphic interpretations. At first, the baskets were grouped in accordance with the sedimentological stratigraphic units. During the lithic material analysis,
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
9
Figure 7. Ahmarian Horizon; core typology; (A) bidirectional core with evidence of crest preparation. (B, D) single-platform core, (C, E-G) opposed platform same axis.
it was evident that the correlation between sedimentological units and archaeological horizons was not straight forward. Thus, each basket was studied individually, identifying its lithic characteristics. The assignment of a basket to a specific archaeological entity, either Ahmarian or Levantine Aurignacian, was based on two variables; typological indices (Ahmarian and Aurignacian indices), and blade and bladelet morphology (Bergman, 2003). The typological indices were used as the rule whereas blade(let) morphology was used only when no indicative tools were present. Following Bergman (2003), the value of >30% of twisted blade/lets was chosen to assign a basket to the Levantine Aurignacian. The typological list used in this study (S1) is based on the list formulated during the 1969 London conference (Hours, 1974). Additional Aurignacian tool types were added from Belfer-Cohen (1980), although Ahmarian tool types were added from Gilead
(1981). The Aurignacian Index (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996), was defined for each basket based on the percent of typical Aurignacian tool types from the total number of tools. The Aurignacian tools used for the index are: carinated scrapers (types A13-A20), scrapers on an Aurignacian blade (A7), circular scrapers (A11), Aurignacian blades (H4), and carinated burins (B7). The Ahmarian Index was formulated based on Gilead (1981) and is calculated for each basket in a similar fashion: the percent of typical Ahmarian tool types from the total number of tools. These tool types include el-Wad points (I1), backed points (D8), points on blades (H7), and points on bladelets (J5). El-Wad points (Font Yves points) were initially used as one of the Levantine Aurignacian markers (Garrod and Bate, 1937), while later, they were used to define Ahmarian industries (Garrod, 1953; 1957; Gilead, 1981; Kuhn et al., 1999). El-Wad points are more prevalent
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
10
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 8. Ahmarian Horizon; core shape distribution.
and standardized in Ahmarian assemblages, and as such are currently primarily used to define the Ahmarian industry (GoringMorris and Belfer Cohen, 2006; Belfer-Cohen and Goring Morris, 2014b). Following this observation, el-Wad points were included in this study, within the Ahmarian typical tool type list. A third index was calculated, the blade index (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). This index includes only retouched and backed blades and el-Wad points and was calculated solely for the purpose of compatibility with other studies (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). The Ahmarian Index was preferred over the blade index to allocate a basket to the Ahmarian as it included more tool types commonly used to describe an Ahmarian assemblage (such as retouched and pointed bladelets, which were not included in the blade index). The formula used to calculate the indices is L*100/N, when L is the sum of the specific tool types and N is the total number of all tools (Belfer-Cohen, 1980). Baskets with similar Aurignacian and Ahmarian indices, indicating some level of mixing, were omitted form the study. When a basket with a high Ahmarian Index appeared stratigraphically above one or more baskets with a high Aurignacian Index, all baskets were omitted from the study to avoid including mechanically mixed assemblages (Fig. 3; S2). Although this is a coarse separation tool, thus causing a large bulk of baskets to be omitted from the study, it was needed to ensure, as much as possible, that the archaeological horizons represent homogeneous assemblages. After the assignment of each basket to an archaeological horizon, it was clear that there is only a partial correlation between the archaeological and sedimentological stratigraphy. There is a ~15 cm mismatch between the stratigraphic positioning of the mixed layer in squares J66 and J65 (Fig. 3). This can be explained as follows: (1) a steep decline in the boundary between units 5 and 6 as evident in the section drawing (Fig. 1C), (2) in 2016 when excavations were resumed a flowstone, causing a sharp step, was exposed in the section between square K66 and K65. Once the archaeological horizons were separated, it was possible to study the assemblages in detail. An attribute analysis was used to establish their technological traits and reconstruct reduction sequences. The attribute list used was formulated based on previous studies (Marder, 2002; Barzilai, 2009; Hovers, 2009; Goder-Goldberger, 2014). As the studied assemblages are large, all tools and cores were analyzed, but only the blades and bladelets
were sampled from the debitage. The studied blade(let) samples include, complete and marginally broken blades, bladelets, ridge ^tes), and primary blades(blades (i.e., crested blades, lames a cre lets). Bladelets are defined based on Tixier's (1963) definition and following metric criteria used in other Levantine Paleolithic studies (Bar-Yosef, 1981; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2002; Hovers et al., 2011) (for alternative criteria used to define the split between blades and bladelets Kaufman, 1986; Ambrose, 2002; Leplongeon et al., 2018). The samples were selected from a series of stratigraphically consecutive baskets that represent the complete section. The blade and bladelet samples are composed of 193 artifacts from the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon and 230 artifacts from the Ahmarian horizon.
3. Results The assemblage retrieved from the sampled squares (J65-J66) is composed of more than 20,000 artifacts, including chips (artifacts <20 mm). The initial subdivision was performed in accordance with the geostratigraphic units (Fig. 1C). Units 1e2 are thin and irregular with/few artifacts (Table 1). Unit 3 stands out with its high percent of tools (~10%), whereas units 7 and 8 are characterized by a high percent of chips and only a few tools. The low percentage of debris in units 3 and 4 is an artificial bias resulting from the fact that sediment sorting in the laboratory was completed for units 5e7 but is still ongoing for units 3e4. It is expected that when sorting is completed units 3e4 will have higher percentages of small artifacts and chips. Based on the indices (Table 2), and once the mixed baskets were omitted from the analysis, it was possible to define two archaeological horizons. The Levantine Aurignacian Horizon in square J65 comprises the geostratigraphic units 3e5 and upper unit 6, whereas for square J66 this includes units 3, 4 and upper unit 5. The Ahmarian Horizon comprises in square J65, the lower part of unit 6 and all of unit 7 (Fig. 3). The lithic assemblages from units 2 and 3 were not included in the study as the sample size was small and the sedimentological analysis reflected intensive water activity and puddling (Fig. 1 B). Unit 8 was also omitted from this study as only the top part of the unit was excavated.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx Table 1 Area C: the lithic assemblage from squares J65 and J66, divided in accordance with the geostratigraphic units. Unit
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Debitage
Debris
Tools
Cores
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
114 245 871 3205 1918 1290 133
32.2 51.8 42.0 34.8 44.5 20.2 12.6
223 176 1106 5605 2165 4892 902
63.0 37.2 53.4 60.9 50.2 76.8 85.3
15 46 77 298 174 120 14
4.2 9.7 3.7 3.2 4.0 1.9 1.3
2 6 18 91 56 70 8
0.6 1.3 0.9 1.09 1.3 1.1 0.8
354 473 2072 9199 4313 6372 1057
The area C lithic assemblage is mostly fresh, although the majority of blades and bladelets are broken (60%). In the Ahmarian assemblage, none of the artifacts are patinated whereas in the Levantine Aurignacian assemblage patina appears mostly on tools. Double patina is present on 21.7% of the scrapers, with the carinated and nosed scrapers accounting for half of the patinated scrapers. Patina also appears on 11% of the Aurignacian retouched blades. The lithic artifacts from Manot Cave area C are made of flint with considerable variability in color and texture. The flint nodules from the cave walls are of poor quality (cracked, with lime inclusions and coarse-grained) and were rarely used for knapping (<2% of the assemblage). Primary and secondary flint sources have been identified within a radius of ~10 km of the site (Frumkin et al., 2019). Several Cenomanian and Eocene flint outcrops portray similar flint color and texture to those recognized in the archaeological assemblage. To assess exploitation of different flint sources and see if there are evident differences in procurement strategies between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian at Manot Cave, each analyzed artifact was assigned to one of the 13 different flint color groups recognized (Table 4). Although color and texture classification are subjective, it has been demonstrated as a valid practice for the north of Israel (Ekshtain et al., 2014, 2017). Initial results suggest there is a difference in flint types used between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian Horizons. Although in the Ahmarian, the most common color groups are the brown, gray and yellowish flints, in the later, the yellowish-brown flint is more prevalent. In the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon, the chocolate color flint is used only for tools. The yellowish brown and brown flint was used preferentially for cores on flakes (18.7% of the cores) used for the production of twisted bladelets (Fig. 4C). In the Ahmarian Horizon several of the el-Wad points were made on unique types of colored flint (Fig. 5 A,B), and it is assumed that these artifacts were brought to the site as finished tools.
3.1. The Ahmarian horizon Cores Cores account for 1.0% of the assemblage (Table 3). Only 6 of the 13 flint color groups are found amongst the cores (Fig. 6), of these the most commonly used are the yellowish brown and gray
11
(32.9% and 23.9%), and the greenish blue (18.1%). The majority of cores (84.9%) were used for producing blades and bladelets. This differs considerably from the Levantine Aurignacian where 51.9% of the cores were used for producing blades and bladelets. Opposed platform and single-platform cores appear in similar percent (Table 5). Amongst the opposed platform cores, both platforms were frequently used to produce blades and bladelets on the same face (Fig. 7 A,C,E-G). The cores with a rectangular/prismatic shape (Fig. 8) are the most common (70%). The triangular cores (15%), mostly single platform (Fig. 7 B,D), differ in shape and size from the narrowfronted core type, which is the most common core type in the Ahmarian from the southern sites (Gilead, 1981; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003). This may result from disparity in technological practices because of differences in the shape of the selected flint nodules. In the Negev and Sinai, the selected nodules were ~150-mm long, narrow, and flat with a sharp distal edge. Striking platforms were rejuvenated by the removal of thick core tablets (Gilead and Bar-Yosef, 1993; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003). At Manot Cave, the original nodule size used was ~100-mm long and oval. They were technologically shaped and rejuvenated using different technological practices as will be presented in the following paragraphs. Many of the cores are narrow fronted (55% of the opposed platform cores and 42.5% of the single-platform cores). The cores’ striking platforms are mostly plain (88.6%), whereas the remaining are either facetted or undefined. Abrasion is evident on 46.6% of the cores and microchipping on 19.3% of the cores. When there are two platforms to a core, they are almost always different in shape and the number of blanks removed from each surface (Fig. 7 F,G). The main platform (from which most of the blanks were removed) tends to be nosed, in this case the opposed platform will be semicircular or square. These differences may suggest that in some instances the second platform was used for shape correction rather than blank production (Marder, 2002). Platforms on flake and blade cores were prepared in a similar fashion with both signs of abrasion and microchipping, although bladelet cores display only signs of abrasion. There is no clear difference in the amount of the striking platform circumference used between the single and opposed platform cores (60% and 63% of the platforms, respectively represent < 50% utilization). The average core size is 52.8 29.9 27.3 mm (Fig. 9 A,C). Several of the larger cores were abandoned before they were fully exploited because of problems that occurred during knapping. This is evident by the last scar on 64.8% of the cores being a hinged scar, as well as the presence of cracks and inclusions on the core's flaking surface. Three of the cores were abandoned in the midst of being reshaped by cresting (Fig. 7 A). These three are among the longest cores in the assemblage and allow reconstruction of the initial flint nodule size as ~100e120 mm long. Core shaping Core trimming elements include core tablets, ridge blades, and overshot flakes (Table 3; Fig. 10), the majority of which are blade(let) blanks (70.5%). The proportion of core tablets to cores (0.3) is very different to that of ridge blades to cores (1.8).
Table 2 Area C: Ahmarian, Aurignacian, and mixed horizons and typological indices. Industry Aurignacian Mixed Ahmarian a b c
Aurignacian Indexa
Blade Indexb
Ahmarian Indexc
Tools on blade
Tools on flake
Retouched bladelets
End scraper
17.9 13.3 1.0
20.3 26.7 42.2
6.4 14.3 22.1
35.1 48.6 41.2
30.5 18.1 10.3
14.4 17.1 27.9
24.1 17.1 10.3
The Aurignacian Index ¼ end scrapers on Aurignacian blades, carinated and nosed scrapers and Aurignacian blades (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). The Blade Index ¼ retouched and backed blades and el-Wad points (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). The Ahmarian Index ¼ retouched and backed points on blade and bladelets and el-Wad points, following Gilead (1981).
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
12
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 3 Area C: Ahmarian and Aurignacian Horizons, assemblage composition from squares J66-J65. Artifact type
Ahmarian
Debitage Primary flakes Primary blades Flakes Blades Bladelets Blank fragment Core shaping elements Core trimming elements Core tablets Ridge blades Over shot flakes/blades Burin spalls Cores Tools Debris Chips (<20 mm) Chunks Total
N
% (Excluding debris)
359 140 475 404 524 57
13.9 5.4 18.5 15.7 20.4 2.2
68 24 158 62 11 88 204
2.6 0.9 6.1 2.4 0.4 3.4 7.9
Aurignacian % (From total)
5991 484 9049
N
% (Excluding debris)
% (From total)
4.0 1.5 5.2 4.5 5.8 0.6
708 194 1043 361 745 123
17.1 4.7 25.2 8.7 18.0 3.0
8.4 2.3 12.4 4.3 8.9 1.5
0.8 0.3 1.7 0.7 0.1 1.0 2.3
162 45 118 101 39 104 390
3.9 1.1 2.9 2.4 0.9 2.5 9.4
1.9 0.5 1.4 1.2 0.5 1.2 4.6
66.2 5.3 100.0
3585 684 8402
42.7 8.1 100.0
Table 4 Area C: raw material color groups, visually defined. Flint color groups
Brown Greenish brown Yellowish brown Gray Greenish blue Yellowish Pinkish White Chocolate Chocolate/white Black Multicolored Total
Ahmarian
Aurignacian
Cores
Ridge blades
Blade blanks
Tools
Total
%
2 3 29 21 16 17
1 4 4 19 7 21 2 1
5 1 32 45 13 54 7 2
7 7 27 52 10 62 22 6 4
15 15 92 137 46 154 31 9 4
30.0 2.9 18.0 26.9 9.0 30.2 6.1 1.8 0.8
88
59
159
7 204
7 510
1.4 100.0
Cores
Ridge blades
Blade blanks
Tools
Total
%
16 9 46 17 16
3 4 13 7 3 5 6
33 8 61 26 11 11 1
104
41
1 152
49 26 116 72 13 33 29 9 30 1 2 10 390
101 47 236 122 43 49 36 9 30 1 2 11 687
14.7 6.8 34.4 17.8 6.3 7.1 5.2 1.3 4.4 0.1 0.3 1.6 100.0
Table 5 Ahmarian Horizon, core typology. Core type Single platform Opposed platforms same axis Opposed platforms 900 Opposed platform different face Amorphous fragment Total
Blade
Bladelet
Flake
Blade/bladelet
24 30
10
5 1 1
1 9
Flake/blade
1 1
3 54
10
The low number of core tablets stands in contrast to the majority of plain striking platforms on single and double platform cores (88.6%). Considering the dominance of blades in the assemblage, striking platform rejuvenation is needed and on average one to two core tablets per surface are expected during core exploitation (Marder, 2002; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003). It should be noted that the core tablets are oval or elongated in shape (Fig. 10 M-Q) and do not show the classical characteristics of core tablets as described by Goring-Morris and Davidzon (2006: 96), pointing to the clear technological differences between this assemblage and the southern assemblages (Nizzana XIII, Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006).
10
11
1
Total 40 40 2 1 3 2 88
cre ^tes) account for 50.6% of core modifiRidge blades (lames a cation elements, these include primary ridged blades (35.6%) and o-cre ^tes) (45.8%). Cores were exploited for rejuvenating crests (ne more than one round of blank removal, with reshaping of the lateral convexity occurring between each round. This is supported by the high percent of rejuvenating crests retaining scars of previous flaking rounds (Fig. 10 G,H) and the presence of overshot blades which removed the opposed striking platform (Fig. 10 L). Flat ridge blades (Fig. 10 K) were used to control lateral core convexity, whereas others were used to renew striking platform convexity and retain signs of abrasion (Fig. 10 N). Blades and bladelets The Ahmarian industry is characterized by straight and curved blades and bladelets (Table 6). Among the
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
13
Figure 9. Area C core metric values (in mm); (A) the Ahmarian Horizon, (B) the Aurignacian Horizon, (C) mean values comparison table.
twisted bladelets, there seems to be a tendency to curve to the right. Twisted bladelets (8.5%) are associated with pyramidal cores. They were removed at an angle with the blow directed from the edge of the cores striking platform towards the center of the flaking surface, thus resulting in a twisted profile. Over 25% of the blade/let platforms have signs of abrasion suggesting soft hammer percussion Bergman (2003):193; Marder et al. (2018). Based on scar patterns (Fig. 11 B), bidirectional flaking was more predominant amongst blades (34%) when compared with bladelets (17%). This pattern is in line with the predominance of opposed platform cores exploited to remove blades, although bladelets were flaked mostly from single-platform cores (Table 5). Using artifact width as the sole criterion for separating blades from bladelets (12 mm), when studying the length of blades (avg ¼ 50.3 mm) and bladelets (avg ¼ 33.0 mm) there seems to be a clear dichotomy between the two types (Fig. 12). Grouping blades and bladelets separately is technologically valid following differences in their technological attributes. The plain striking platform is predominant amongst the blades, although amongst bladelets, the linear, punctiform, and plain striking platforms appear in equal percent (Fig. 11 A). As for the scar patterns, although the majority of blades and bladelets feature unidirectional parallel scar pattern, it appears on 71.8% of the bladelets and only 52.0% of the blades (Fig. 11 B). Although both blades and bladelets could be produced within the same sequence, the differences in length and scar pattern support the suggestion that blades and bladelets were also produced using independent sequences, using different technological practices. Tools The majority of tools were made on blades (41.2%) and bladelets (27.9%), whereas flakes, ridge blades, and overshot blanks account together for 19.6% of the tool blanks (Abulafia, 2018: Table 44). Retouched blades and bladelets comprise 45.1% of the tools (Table 7), and el-Wad points are 15.7% of the tools. el-Wad points e el Wad points are made on both blades (N ¼ 17) and bladelets (N ¼ 15), with both straight and curved profiles (Fig. 13 A-H, L,M,O). The bimodality seen in blade and bladelet blank length (Fig. 12 A) is not evident in the el-Wad points (Fig. 14 B). This observation may suggest they were made within a single reduction
sequence. The el-Wad points reflect higher size standardization (~50.0 12.5 mm) as opposed to that of all blade/let debitage. The majority of el-Wad points display a unidirectional scar pattern (65%), although the bidirectional scar pattern is present on 22%, the remaining reflect a mixed pattern or could not be defined. The dominance of punctiform striking platforms (40.1%) results from the use of probably soft hammer percussion. Signs of abrasion are present on 22% of the points, suggesting that little modification was carried out to the core's striking platform before blank removal. The majority of el-Wad points portray abrupt retouch (Fig. 13 E,H,L,N), which in some instances can be considered backed. Fine dorsal or lateral retouch typical of the el-Wad points from the Negev Ahmarian assemblages is almost absent, as is the fine retouch at the base of the point (Bar-Yosef and Belfer, 1977; Gilead and Bar-Yosef, 1993; Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006). Few of the el-Wad points had their tip retouched forming an edge similar to an awl (Fig. 13 F). These el-Wad points are typical of the northern ^r ‘Akil level XX-XVI (Azoury, 1986; Ahmarian and appear in Ksa izli levels BeC (Kuhn Ohnuma, 1988; Bergman, 2003) and Üçag et al., 2003; 1999). Almost half (41%) of the el-Wad points have tips shaped by retouch on one side (Fig. 13H,J). Two have clear notches toward the base of the point (Fig. 5 D,E). These notches form a bottleneck shape enabling them to be hafted. Other points in the assemblage are made on both blade and bladelet blanks (N ¼ 13, included within the retouched blade(lets)). These points (Fig. 13 K,M) reflect a slightly higher percentage of bidirectional flaking (33.3%) when compared witth the el-Wad points, with both straight (40%) and curved profiles (30%). As in the el-Wad points, they have a pronounced percussion bulb. Plain striking platforms (40%) are more numerous than punctiform platforms (20%). Signs of core platform preparation (e.g., microchipping and abrasion) are evident on 42.8% of the blades. Retouched blades and bladelets display abrupt and semiabrupt retouch (Fig. 13 I,O). This differs from the fine retouch seen on the Aurignacian bladelets from the upper units. Seven of the retouched blades were made on ridge blades. Burins include double and dihedral burins (Fig. 15 A-C). Most end scrapers were made on blade blanks, including recycled ridge blades and core tablets (Fig. 15 F-I). Of the two carinated scrapers,
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
14
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
o-cre ^tes), (L) overshot blade, (M-P) Figure 10. Ahmarian Horizon; core-trimming elements; (A-D) primary ridge blades, (E, J, K) flat ridge blade, (FeI) rejuvenating ridge blades (ne core tablets, (Q) a technological core tablet, typologically defined as core-trimming element.
one is a thick nosed end scraper (Fig. 15 D,E). This tool type is considered a marker of the Levantine Aurignacian (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981), but may also appear in small numbers in izli, Qafzeh E and the Lagama Ahmarian assemblages as seen at Üçag sites (Bar-Yosef and Belfer, 1977: Fig. 17:25,26, Fig. 25:1,2, Fig. 27:16; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2005: Table 5; Kuhn et al., 1999: Table 2, Fig. 9:7).
The industry The Ahmarian assemblage from units 6e7 includes in addition to lithic artifacts, some bone tools (mostly awls and points), marine mollusks, and a rich faunal assemblage (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press and Comay et al., 2019 submitted). Columbella rustica and Nassarius gibbosulus were probably used for personal ornamentation, whereas Patella sp. was most probably consumed
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
15
Table 6 Ahmarian Horizon, blade, and bladelet profiles. Profile
Straight Straight and distally curved Straight and proximally curved Curved Twisted Irregular S-shape Fragments Total
Blade
Bladelet
Primary blade/let
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
30 11 7 15 5 1 2 2 73
41.1 15.1 9.6 20.5 6.8 1.4 2.7 2.7 100
32 14 1 16 6 1
45.1 19.7 1.4 22.5 8.5 1.4 0 1.4 100
3 4 2 5 e 1 e e 15
20.0 26.7 13.3 33.3 e 6.7 e e 100
65 29 10 36 11 3 2 3 159
40.9 18.2 6.3 22.6 6.9 1.9 1.3 1.9 100
1 71
as food (Marder et al., 2013; Tejero et al., 2016; Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2019). Within the lithic assemblage studied ~1.5% of the artifacts are possibly intrusive from the Levantine Aurignacian levels, and less than 1% are Levallois artifacts, whose provenance is unknown. Reduction sequences were reconstructed using raw material characterization, technological attributes, and published refitted sequences (Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006; Hauck et al., 2014). At least three different reduction sequences are present as follows: (1) opposed platform cores for blades, (2) a bladelet reduction sequence on blade cores once their size diminished through exploitation, and (3) single-platform cores used for the production of blades and bladelets within the same sequence. Artifacts from all stages of the noted sequences are found in the assemblage, suggesting that much of the knapping took place on site. At the same time, el-Wad points (Fig. 5 A,B) and other artifacts, represented by unique flint types, seem to have been brought to the site in their finished form. The opposed platform reduction sequence for blade production, dominates the assemblage. This sequence comprises locally collected flint and results in rectangular-shaped opposed platform cores. Initial shaping of the nodule was performed by a series of cortical blanks removed from the narrow face of the core towards the wide edge, thus forming the initial ridge. Once the ridge blade was removed, a series of blades were knapped from either one or two opposed striking platforms. Striking platforms were rejuvenated by the removal of flakes and rarely by a typical core tablet. A second round of shaping, also using ridge blades, was performed to rejuvenate the flaking surfaces and reform the core's lateral edges. Rejuvenating crests usually portray a single-sided crest (Fig. 10H,I). Blanks were removed from cores using soft hammer percussion as evident from signs of abrasion and microflaking on the core's striking platform and the removed blanks (Bon, 2006). Many of the blades were then retouched, shaping them into el-Wad points or retouched blades. The opposed platform sequence could have continued smoothly onto another round of removals, producing mostly bladelets because of diminished core size. In this case, there is a change in production mode resulting in the use of only one striking platform, whereas the other was removed from the core, possibly by an overshot blank. An additional independent reduction sequence aimed at producing blades and bladelets involves triangular single-platform cores. Blades and bladelets were struck from the entire circumference of the cores. The striking platform was rejuvenated by the removal of a flake acting as a core tablet. Abrading the core's striking platform was intended to assure the integrity of the intended blank. Core convexity maintenance was carried out by the o-cre ^tes). The proremoval of rejuvenation blades and crests (ne duction of flakes as intended blanks seems rare in the assemblage (cores for flakes are only 6.8% of all the cores) reflecting no clear
consistency in the way these cores were exploited. The high ratio of flakes to flake cores (43:1), suggests that many of the flakes originate from shaping and crest preparation of blade/let cores (Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006). This is supported by the high percent of cortical flakes to cortical blades (Table 3). 3.2. The Levantine Aurignacian Horizon Cores The Aurignacian core assemblage shows larger variability and cores tend to be shorter when compared with the Ahmarian core assemblages (Fig. 9). Although single-platform cores (Fig. 16 BD) account for half the cores in both assemblages (Table 8), the opposed platform cores are less prominent in the Aurignacian (Fig. 16 E). Cortex is evident on most cores, although 43.9% of the cores have less than 25% cortex. The most common flint type used is the light yellowish brown (44.2%, Fig. 4C). The greenish blue (Fig. 4 D), the brown and gray flint types appear in equal percentages (Table 4). The brown flint was used only for flake cores (Fig. 4 E). Single-platform cores were used for producing flakes, twisted bladelets and blades, whereas opposed platform cores were used for producing blades (Table 8). Among the cores on flakes (N ¼ 20), 65% were used to remove flakes although an additional 20% of the cores produced twisted bladelets. The cores on flakes used for twisted blade production resemble the carinated and Rabot coreelike tools (Fig. 17 A,H). Microflaking appears on 30% of the cores and signs of abrasion on 36.5%. There are signs of abrasion on 58.8% of bladelet cores, as the production of bladelets entailed more investment in platform preparation. Many of these single-platform cores have a nosed or semi-nose shape to their striking platform (Fig. 16 B,D). The cores as a whole reflect a slightly higher tendency toward removal from the cores’ wide face (45.8%) rather than the narrow face (37.8%). The remaining 15.4% cores were not flaked consistently from a single face. The wide-fronted cores were used mostly for removing flakes whereas the narrow-fronted cores were used for producing blade(lets) (e.g., Fig. 4C,D; Fig. 16 B,D). Core shaping Core-trimming elements are the largest group (38%) amongst the shaping blanks and almost all are flakes. Ridge blades comprise 27.6% of the shaping planks and overshot blanks account for 23.8%. Ridge blades include primary (39%) and rejuvenating ridges (44%). Using cresting for initial shaping and reshaping of the cores is typical of blade industries (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn, 1999), and goes well with the presence of opposed platform cores for blade(lets) in the assemblage. As in the Ahmarian assemblage, flat ridge blades (Fig. 16 J) for rejuvenating striking platform convexity are present (Fig. 16 K). Ridge blades appear in a lower percent than the Ahmarian assemblage (Table 3) corresponding to the lower percent of opposed platform cores.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
16
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 11. Ahmarian and Aurignacian Horizons, blade and bladelets technology; (A) striking platforms, (B) scar pattern.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
17
Figure 12. Length frequency distribution of blade (orange) and bladelet (blue) in the (A) Ahmarian and (B) Aurignacian Horizons.
Table 7 Ahmarian and Aurignacian Horizons, tool typology. Tool type
End scrapers Carinated & thick-nosed end scrapers Burins Borers Knives and backed pieces Truncations Notches and denticulates Composite tools Retouched flakes Retouched blades Aurignacian blades Side scrapers el-Wad points Retouched bladelets Total
Ahmarian
Aurignacian
N
%
N
%
19 2 12 6 4 2 18 4 10 50
9.3 1.0 5.9 2.9 2.0 1.0 8.8 2.0 4.9 24.5 0.0 1.5 15.7 20.6 100.0
64 30 53 10 12 5 43 17 35 42 9 9 16 45 390
16.4 7.7 13.6 2.6 3.1 1.3 11.0 4.4 9.0 10.8 2.3 2.3 4.1 11.5 100.0
3 32 42 204
Blades and bladelets Blades and bladelets are an integral component of the Levantine Aurignacian (Gilead, 1991; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006), and as such can be used as a comparative element with the Ahmarian. Almost 50% of the bladelets have a twisted profile (Table 9). Although 24.3% of the bladelets are twisted to the left, 75.7% twist to the right, perhaps indicating that the knappers were mostly right-handed (Bergman, 2003). Some of the smaller bladelets (L < 12 mm and W~2 mm) may actually be carinated end scraper spalls. The use of direct soft hammer percussion for producing bladelets is evident in the abundance of punctiform platforms (Fig. 11 A), and platform preparation by abrasion (38.8%) and microflaking (15.3%). The blades are longer on average (avg ¼ 46.6 mm) than the bladelets (avg ¼ 31 mm), although there is a large overlap in length dimensions between the two types (Fig. 12). The twisted bladelets have a unidirectional scar pattern (93.6%) and were flaked from triangular/prismatic cores using a soft hammer (Bergman, 2003:193; Bon, 2006). Among the blades, the plain striking platform dominates, followed by linear and punctiform types (Fig. 11 A). Platform preparation is evident by signs of abrasion (26.9%) and microchipping (20.9%). Two bulbs of percussion appear on 15% of the bladelets, resulting either from percussion using an irregular hammer or infliction of two consecutive blows (Marder, 2002). Tools End scrapers dominate the assemblage (Table 7). Carinated end scrapers were defined following Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot (1954e1956) and include artifacts made on thick flakes
distally shaped by the removal of a series of bladelets, mostly straight and curved. An end scraper was classified as carinated only if the angle of carination was larger than 45 and the bladelet removal reached the ridge on the blanks dorsal side (Fig. 17 A-C). These end scrapers differ from nosed scrapers (Fig. 17 D), which are shaped by the removal of twisted bladelets (Bordes, 2006), and simple scrapers (Fig. 17 E,F). Patina is present on 30% of all scrapers, suggesting that discarded artifacts were intentionally collected and recycled. One of the nosed scrapers was made on a Levallois flake. Artifact recycling is also known from other Levantine Aurignacian assemblages (e.g., Kebara and Hayonim, Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 2015). Blades were the preferable blank choice for producing simple end scrapers, although flakes were preferred for nosed and carinated scrapers (Fig. 18). Half the scrapers had their striking platform removed or broken. Two of the carinated scrapers are made on a uniquely textured flint, not seen in the assemblage (Fig. 19). The average thickness of the nosed end scraper tips is 11.4 mm, identical to the average length of the twisted bladelets. The Rabot edge (Fig. 17 A) is thicker with an average of 20.2 mm, a length that is compatible with the longer Dufour bladelets in the assemblage (Fig. 17 Q,R). Burins are the second largest group amongst the tools (Table 7) and include carinated burins, dihedral burins, and burins on scrapers (Fig. 17 G-J). Aurignacian blades (N ¼ 9) and end scrapers on Aurignacian blades (N ¼ 7) are made on a chocolate brownecolored flint (Table 4), different from the common yellowish-brown flint used for the larger part of the assemblage. The Aurignacian blades are retouched on one or both lateral sides (Fig. 17 K,L). The complete circumference of the strangled blade (Fig. 17 M) is retouched. Retouched points are made on blade and bladelet blanks. The elWad points (N ¼ 16) tend to be wide and twisted (37%) or partially curved (37%), whereas 25% have a straight profile. The partially twisted el-Wad points have a bidirectional scar pattern and two have an impact fracture on their distal tip. The el-Wad points have a punctiform striking platform (N ¼ 7) and signs of abrasion (N ¼ 5), suggesting they were flaked using direct soft hammer percussion (Bon, 2006; Bordes, 2006). The retouch (Fig. 17 N) is mostly abrupt, izli B (Kuhn et al., similar to the Ahmarian el-Wad points at Üçag 1999). Dufour bladelets were defined following Goring Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2006), and include straight and curved bladelets (Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot, 1954e1956), as well as twisted blanks produced from bladelet cores also known as “nosed scrapers” (Bordes, 2006). The Dufour bladelets present a wide range of variability from small minute bladelets (<5 mm long), to
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
18
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 13. Ahmarian Horizon; retouched blade (lets). (A-H, J, L, N). el-Wad points, (I) retouched bladelet, (K, M) pointed blade, and (O) retouched blade.
long and slender blades (Fig. 17 P-R). The retouch is either fine (i.e., Ouchtata retouch) or semiabrupt. Several of the twisted bladelets, retouched only on the dorsal face, were included within the Dufour bladelets even though they divert from the initial definition of Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot (1954e1956). The low percent (1.7%) of Dufour bladelets in the assemblage is probably biased because of incomplete sediment sorting of units 3 and 4. The industry The upper talus units in area C, almost a meter thick, are rich in anthropogenic material typical of the Levantine Aurignacian tradition. In addition to the lithic industry, the archaeological assemblage includes a basalt grinding stone, bone and antler tools and bone points, tooth pendants, engraved bone artifacts, and a rich faunal assemblage (Tejero et al., 2016, 2018; Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press; Comay et al., 2019 submitted). Several different reduction sequences were recognized, but not all took place on-site. Single-platform cores were mainly used for the production of flakes, and were rarely rejuvenated by core tablet removal. This reduction sequence produced many of the flakes later modified into end scrapers, burins, and denticulates. Thick flakes were also modified into carinated end scrapers, burins, and cores on flakes for the production of bladelets. Although some of these thick flakes were produced during initial stages of the described reduction sequence, others were brought into the cave as blanks. This import is suggested mostly by their size and flint types. A similar off-site production is also suggested for the Aurignacian blades. They are longer and thicker than most of the assemblage
components, and are made on multicolored flint (Table 4). Blades, bladelets, and flakes were produced from the locally available yellowish brown, greenish brown and gray flint types, and the described sequences most probably took place at the cave as all components of the reduction sequences are present in the assemblage. The reduction sequence for the production of bladelets is mostly related to carinated end scrapers (Bon, 2006), and single-platform cores (Fig. 16 B). Bladelets could have been produced within the same sequence as blades, but their higher level of length standardization (Fig. 12) suggests most were produced from defined reduction sequences intended for the production of bladelets. The single-platform core reduction sequence began with the removal of an initial flake from the flint nodule. Further shaping was performed by flaking a series of cortical blanks to form a ridge extending from the striking platform to the opposed edge, giving the core a pyramidal shape. Flaking was alternated by constant renewal of the striking platform through abrasion, microchipping, and the removal of core tablets. Several of the bladelets produced had a twisted profile. These blade/lets were then retouched into elWad points and other retouched points. Twisted bladelets were also flaked from nosed scrapers (Bordes, 2006). Several of the smaller twisted bladelets were retouched (Gilead, 1991; Bordes, 2006). Blades and possibly some of the bladelets were also flaked from opposed platform cores. These cores were often shaped by cresting,
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
19
Figure 14. Ahmarian Horizon; metric data for el-Wad points (N ¼ 20). (A) length and width distribution, (B) length frequency and normal distribution on blades (orange) and bladelets (blue). (C) average length and width.
maintaining a rectangular shape to the core, while forming a flaking surface from which both flakes and blades could be detached. The striking platform edge displays preparation signs by abrasion and microflaking associated with direct soft hammer percussion (Bon, 2006). These cores are the same as the Ahmarian opposed platform rectangular cores in shape and technological management. Another reduction sequence evident in the assemblage involves the transformation of originally opposed or single-platform cores for blades to single-platform cores for twisted bladelets. In these instances, the new striking platform canceled the original platform changing the angle of the flaking face by creating a new one. During the reshaping of the core, a ridge is formed (Fig. 16 F). 4. Discussion Cave sites with thick sedimentological accumulations rarely lack intrusive artifacts due to postdepositional disturbances (Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch, 1972; Weiner et al., 1993; Goldberg and BarYosef, 1998; Deschamps and Zilh~ ao, 2018), yet much of the Levantine chronostratigraphy has been based on cave sites (e.g., Tabun Cave and Ks^ ar ‘Akil). Deciphering the Manot Cave talus formation and subsequent postdepositional processes is essential for interpreting the cultural material derived from the defined stratigraphic units. In area C, the talus sedimentological characteristics portray a constant colluvial accumulation of geogenic and anthropogenic material from the upper part of the cave (i.e., mostly from area E) interspersed by intermittent surficial runoff episodes. The accumulation of sediments on the talus was an ongoing process during human occupation of the cave. Sediment accumulation appeared to have slowed significantly starting at ~32 ka and is thought to coincide with the collapse of the cave entrance, blocking the cave
entrance for both people and sediments, although Hyenas may have still visited the cave (Frumkin et al., 2019 in press; Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019 in press). The two channels in units 6 and 7 and the stratigraphic mixing of Ahmarian and Aurignacian archaeological material at the boundary between units 5 and 6 are thought to result from changes in intensity and directionality of the cave's water regime. This hydrological mix of sediments in the lower section of unit 5 and upper part of unit 6, is partially supported by the three 14C dates reflecting reverse stratigraphy and ranging between 42eand 33 ka (Fig. 2; Alex et al., 2017). These hydrological changes seem to correspond to a recoded increase in rainfall occurring between 43eand 36 ka (Ya’sur et al., 2019 in press). The painstaking technotypological analysis of each basket individually, rather than for each stratigraphic unit, made it possible to describe the archaeological stratigraphy independently from the sedimentological units identified during excavation. Apparent inconsistencies between sedimentological units (lithostratigraphy) and archaeological horizons is also evident from other ~o, 2018; Martini et al., sites in karstic caves (Deschamps and Zilha 2018), especially in tali accumulations as opposed to in situ anthropogenic layers. The use of technotypological indices to assign the collection of lithic artifacts from each basket to either the Levantine Aurignacian, Ahmarian, or mixed assemblages is a valid analytical protocol as it uses distinctive tool types, characteristic of particular chronocultural horizons during the UPin the Near East (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003). The exclusion of lithic assemblages from baskets assigned to the mixed units (lower unit 5 and upper unit 6) strengthens the coherence of the archaeological horizons. Presented in the following is the case of basket 3800 used to exemplify the importance of the caution taken when allocating baskets to specific archaeological horizons.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
20
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 15. Ahmarian Horizon; selected tools, (A) double burin on truncation (B, C) dihedral burin, (D) carinated scraper, (E) carinated scraper on brake, (F) end scraper, (G) end scraper on rejuvenation ridge, (H) end scraper on core tablet, and (I) backed blade.
Basket 3800 (Fig. 3), from square J66a, b situated at the base of unit 5 (205.67e205.57 m), has a unique archaeological assemblage including an articulated human foot (Borgel et al., 2019 in press), three marine mollusks; two Cowries shells (Erosaria sp. and Zanaria pyrum) and one C. rustica (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2019), and 196 flint artifacts >20 mm. The lithic assemblage is Ahmarian by default (Ahmarian Index of 54.5) and includes the highest concentration of retouched points from all studied baskets. Amongst the retouched points are four el-Wad points (Fig. 20), two of which are long and slender (66.2 13.7 mm and 75.2 14.4 mm). The basket immediately beneath (3805) consists of an Aurignacian lithic assemblage (Aurignacian Index ¼ 10 and Ahmarian Index ¼ 0). Although it is plausible that basket 3800 originates from a burial further up the talus (Borgel et al., 2019 in press), based on talus dynamics and the presence of an Aurignacian assemblage below, it was not possible to securely assign it to the Ahmarian horizon. As this basket was included within the mixed baskets, it was exempt from this study, and was assigned broadly to the Early UP.
The Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian archaeological horizons differ in reduction sequences and tool kit. Aside from the predominance of blade production in the Ahmarian and flake production in the Aurignacian, they both have a bladelet component (Table 3). The bladelets in each of the archaeological horizons were flaked using different reduction sequences. In the Ahmarian, they were flaked from dedicated single-platform bladelet cores or during the final stages within the blade reduction sequences. This is evident in the bidirectional scar pattern amounting to 17% and an equal distribution between plain, crushed and punctiform striking platforms (Fig. 11), and a curved profile (Table 6). The Aurignacian bladelets were flaked from either dedicated singleplatform bladelet cores, carinated end scrapers or possibly even carinated burins, thus the bladelets reflect different technological characteristics with twisted profiles, predominantly unidirectional flaking and punctiform striking platforms (Table 9, Fig. 11). Bladelets with twisted profiles account for 47.4% of all bladelets in the Levantine Aurignacian horizon, and only 8.5% in the Ahmarian
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
21
Figure 16. Aurignacian Horizon; cores and core-trimming elements, (A) discoidal core for flakes, (B) single-platform blade core for twisted blades and bladelets, (C) single-platform flake core for flakes, (D) single-platform bladelet core for bladelets, (E) narrow opposed platform blade core, (F) core on flake for twisted blades and bladelets, (G) overshot blades, ^te), (J) flat rejuvenating ridge, (K) rejuvenating ridge, (L) ridge blade, and (M, N) core-trimming elements. (H) core tablet, (I) secondary ridge (sous-cre
Horizon (Tables 6 and 9). Although both the Ahmarian and Aurignacian assemblages display a bimodality in the length of blades and bladelets (Fig. 12), in the Ahmarian there is a greater length standardization of blades supporting their suggested role as the
main desired blank (Table 10). El-Wad points are found in both archaeological horizons, albeit in different percentages; 15.7% in the Ahmarian and 4.1% in the Aurignacian. Some differences between the two el-Wad groups are noted. In the Ahmarian horizon
Table 8 Aurignacian Horizon, core typology. Core type Single platform Opposed platforms same axis Opposed platforms 900 Opposed platform different face Discoidal Amorphous fragment Total
Blade
Bladelet
Flake
Blade/bladelet
Flake/blade
undefined
Total
12 15
14 1
19
6
2
2
2
3
55 16 3 11 1 15 3 104
1 30
18
2 6 1 14 1 43
1
6
3
2 4
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
22
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 17. Aurignacian Horizon; selected tools; (A) Rabot microlithic carinated scraper, (B, C) carinated scraper, (D) nosed scraper, (E, F) end scrapers, (G, H) carinated burin, (I) dihedral burin, (J) burin on scraper, (K) Aurignacian blades, (L) scraper on Aurignacian blade, (M) scraper on Aurignacian blade (strangled blade), (N, O) el-Wad point, (P-R) Doufor bladelets.
they are mostly robust with abrupt and semiabrupt retouch, at times even invasive. Within the Levantine Aurignacian horizon 37% of the el-Wad points are wide and have a twisted profile. Another major difference between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian Horizons is the presence of antler points and incised
bone fragments found only within the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon and the mixed unit below (Tejero et al., 2016). The faunal assemblage from area C presents differences in occupation intensity between the horizons, with the Aurignacian Horizon reflecting higher occupation intensity, or more frequent visitations
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
23
Table 9 Aurignacian Horizon, blade, and bladelet profiles. Profile
Straight Straight and distally curved Straight and proximally curved Curved Twisted Irregular S-shape Fragments Total
Blade
Bladelet
Primary blade/let
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
19 6 1 10 15 e e 2 53
35.8 11.3 1.9 18.9 28.3 e e 3.8 100.0
18 9 4 7 37 3 e e 78
23.1 11.5 5.1 9.0 47.4 3.8 e e 100.0
5 5 1 2 6 1 1 e 21
23.8 23.8 4.8 9.5 28.6 4.8 4.8 e 100.0
42 20 6 19 58 4 1 2 152
27.7 13.1 3.9 12.5 38.3 2.6 0.6 1.3 100.0
Figure 18. Aurignacian Horizon; end scraper typology and blank selection frequencies.
to the cave (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press). In the flint assemblage, this difference of intensity is less visible (S2). Climate changes between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian suggest a transition from a grassy open land between 47eand 42 ka to a more wooded landscape between 41eand 36.5 ka, mostly resulting from a change in rainfall (Ya’sur et al. 2019 in press). Although the presence of a rare, cold-adapted rodent taxa in the Aurignacian Horizon (Comay et al., 2019 submitted), may indicate a cooler climate. The presence of both steppe and woodland dwellers (mountain gazelle e Gazella gazelle and Mesopotamian fallow deer e Dama mesopotamia) reflects the ability of the caves’ dwellers to exploit at least two different environments, an open environment and a wooded one, located within short walking distance (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press). The changing climatic conditions evident in the speleothem record and the micromammal assemblage, are not clearly mirrored in the Faunal assemblage, which reflects a preference for mountain gazelle hunting over the fallow deer (Ya’sur et al. 2019 in press; Yeshurun et al., 2019; Comay et al., 2019 in press, submitted). This apparent mismatch between the climatic proxies and the faunal assemblage is interpreted as an indication of human hunting preferences (Yeshurun et al., 2019). These preferences did not seem to have changed very much at Manot Cave, between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press). The Ahmarian Horizon at Manot Cave shares technotypological similarities with other sites within the Mediterranean zone; Ks^ ar izli BeC, Qafzeh E and Kebara III-IV ‘Akil XVI-XX, Yabrud II 6e7, Üçag
(Bergman, 1988; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Kuhn et al., 2003, 1999; BarYosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2005; Bretzke and Conard, 2012; Bergman et al., 2017; Bretzke et al., 2017; Demidenko and Hauck, 2017). The main characteristics include the use of opposed platform cores for blade production and small prismatic single-platform cores for blades and bladelets, use of ridge blades and rejuvenation blades, the presence of el-Wad points, retouched blades and composite tools, and end scrapers on blades and burins. Typological variability between sites is evident. Focusing on the el-Wad point, their percent amongst tools varies between sites; izli B and C (Bar-Yosef from 33% at Qafzeh E to less than 19% at Üçag and Belfer-Cohen, 2005; Kuhn et al., 1999). At Ks^ ar ‘Akil, the percent of el-Wad points varies between 17% and 3.4%, depending on the layer and excavation collection (Williams and Bergman, 2010). The ^r ‘Akil portray a general change in shape el-Wad points at Ksa through time, from straight long robust points with abrupt retouch (levels XVI-XX), to slightly twisted and short points (levels XI-XIII), and back to short straight points with inverse retouch in levels IX-X (Copland, 1970; Bergman, 2003; Williams and Bergman, 2010). Neuville (1951) noted a similar change in the retouched points at Erq el-Ahmar, in the Judean desert, from crude points with abrupt retouch in levels E and F, to delicate and elongated retouched points in level D (Bar-Yosef and Belfer, 1977). The el-Wad points from the ^r ‘Akil XVI-XX, Ahmarian Horizon at Manot resemble those from Ksa izli layers BeC, Qafzeh E and Erq el-Ahmar E and F (Neuville, Üçag 1951; Bergman, 2003; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2004; Kuhn et al., 1999).
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
24
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 19. Uncommon raw material in the tool assemblage from the Aurignacian unit. (a) carinated scrapers on uniquely textured flint, (b) retouched blade on half white and half chocolateecolored flint.
Figure 20. el-Wad points from basket 3800.
In the southern arid Negev and Sinai regions, the Ahmarian is characterized by a blade industry, albeit the blades were produced from narrow-fronted single-platform cores. The ridge blades mostly display lateral removals only at the tip (Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006). The
blades and bladelets tend to be narrow, thin, and curved. There is a tight technological link between el-Wad point production and the distinctive narrow-fronted single-platform cores (Bar-Yosef and Belfer, 1977; Phillips, 1988; Gilead and Bar Yosef, 1993; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Monigal, 2003; Coinman, 2005;
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
25
Table 10 Blank types used for tool production in the Ahmarian and Aurignacian Horizons (Abulafia, 2018: Tables 33 and 44). Tool blank type
Ahmarian Horizon tools (N ¼ 204)
Aurignacian Horizon tools (N ¼ 390)
41.2% 27.9% 10.3% 20.6%
35.1% 14.4% 30.5% 20.0%
Blades Bladelets Flakes Cores, core-trimming elements and chunks
Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006; Hussain, 2015; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2018). The el-Wad points from the southern assemblages tend to be slender, and they have a fine retouch on both the tip and along the base of the point, differing from the northern Ahmarian el-Wad points. The earliest dates for the Ahmarian are 46 ka cal BP at Manot Cave and 47 of 46 ka cal BP for Kebara IV (Rebollo et al., 2011; Alex ^r ‘Akil were dated to 43-41 cal BP et al., 2017). Level XVI-XX at Ksa (Bosch et al., 2015, it should be noted that modeled dates by Douka izli, levels BeC are dated et al., 2013 are some 4 ka younger). At Üçag to between 40 and 33.5 ka cal BP (Kuhn et al., 1999). In the southern region, the Ahmarian sites are mostly younger than 40 ka cal BP (for a comprehensive list of dated assemblages, refer to the appendix in Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2003). Therefore, it seems that the Ahmarian in the Mediterranean zone appears earlier than in the southern desert and semidesert region. The upper archaeological horizon has a clear Levantine Aurignacian nature well represented in the lithic and osseous assemblage. The lithic assemblage is characterized by the presence of carinated and nosed end scrapers, multiple burins, Aurignacian blades, and flake and bladelet cores. The osseous assemblage includes bone and antler points, perforated animal teeth, and incised gazelle scapula (Tejero et al., 2016, 2018, 2019 submitted). This assemblage shares similarities with the assemblages from Manot Cave area E Layers V-VI, Kebara I-II, Hayonim D, and Reqefet IV and III (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Lengyel, 2007:40, 61; Marder et al., 2019 submitted). At the same time within the area C assemblage, there are several components that differ from the typical Levantine Aurignacian assemblage including opposed platform cores and el-Wad points, some of which are on twisted blanks. One feasible explanation is that these are intrusive artifacts from the Ahmarian Horizon. This explanation is valid for the opposed platform cores and some of the el-Wad points but not for the ones on twisted blanks. A more plausible origin could possibly be layer IX in area E (Marder et al., 2019 submitted). Layers ^r ‘Akil VII-VIII, V-VI from Manot Cave area E are comparable with Ksa although initial observations from layer IX suggested the assem^r ‘Akil XI-XIII (Bergman blage displays some similarities with Ksa et al., 2017; Marder et al., 2019 submitted). Only after layer IX of area E is fully analyzed will it be possible to corroborate or refute this explanation. Following the processes that formed the area C talus, it is most feasible that the contribution of intrusive elements into the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon originates from layers below the Levantine Aurignacian layers V-VI in area E. Vertical dispersal of artifacts is a known phenomenon at multistratified sites and should be taken into consideration when the composition of archaeological cultural entities is defined (Villa, 1982). Other sites in the Levant with assemblages which represent unique technological characteristics that do not fit the classical definitions of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian are either small assemblages or are curated assemblages (i.e., Yabroud Rockshelter II, Baaz Rockshelter and wadi Kharkar). These assemblages are important for understanding the Early UP cultural variability represented at Ks^ ar ‘Akil, which is most probably larger than depicted in the Levantine Aurignacian-Ahmarian dichotomy (Azoury, 1986; Bergman and Goring-Morris, 1987; Bergman, 1987,
1988, 2003; Pastoors et al., 2008; Williams and Bergman, 2010; Bretzke and Conard, 2012; Hauck et al., 2014; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014a; Kadowaki et al., 2015; Bergman et al., 2017; Bretzke et al., 2017; Demidenko and Hauck, 2017; Kadowaki, 2018). The point made here is that although in the past, based on typological grounds, only the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian cultural traditions were noted in the southern Mediterranean cave site, recent technotypological studies, including the present analysis, albeit the reservations noted above, hint at the presence of a wider cultural variability. 5. Conclusions The area C assemblages’ lithic analysis demonstrates the need for a critical assessment of using sedimentological units (e.g., lithostratigraphy), defined in the field, as archaeological horizons (i.e., archaeostratigraphy) for a talus where no clear in situ anthropogenic layers are evident. The contact between the archaeological horizons in the talus is disturbed presenting a mixed lithic assemblage, preventing us from relating to the nature of transition between the cultural entities based on the talus assemblages. The Ahmarian Horizon displays a higher level of coherence than the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon and is the only place in the cave where the Ahmarian industry has been excavated. The later horizon is dominated by a Levantine Aurignacian component as evident in area E layer V-VI, supplemented by elements from an un-named entity, possibly present in area E level IX and Ahmarian components from lower levels as suggested by finds from the bottom of a test pit in area E. Based on chronological and technotypological data, it is suggested that the Ahmarian tradition originated in the Levantine Mediterranean area from which it expanded North at izli (Kuhn, 2009, 2013), if not further north as least as far as Üçag suggested by Hublin (2015). The movement south, into the arid and semi-arid regions, was accompanied by a change of core technology for the production of a similar, yet different, tool kit. Acknowledgments This study is based on A.T.’s M.A. thesis in the department of Bible, Archaeology and the Ancient Near East, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Supervised by Ofer Marder and Omry Barzilai. The authors thank Patrice Kaminsky for the artifact drawings, Evgeniy Ostrovskiy for the photographs, and Eliyahu Cohen-Sasson for drawing the sections. The authors would like to thank Daniella Bar-Miguel Tejero, for their contribution to the Yosef Mayer Jose manuscript. A special thanks goes to Ron Lavi for his invaluable insight during excavations and all the University students and volunteers without whom the area would not have been excavated. The Manot Cave excavations are a joint project of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, the Tel Aviv University and the Israel Antiquities Authority. The project is supported by the Dan David Foundation, the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 338/14;999/ 18), Binational Science Foundation (grant. no. 2015303), Case Western Reserve University, the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Foundation and The Leakey Foundation. The geomorphology and soil micromorphology analysis were partially sponsored with funds provided
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
26
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
by the Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Grant No. 430-2013-000546) and The Bertha and Louis Weinstein Research Fund. The authors would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which contributed to improving the manuscript. Supplementary Online Material Supplementary online material to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707. References Abulafia, T., 2018. Post-depositional processes in the Upper Paleolithic period; A typo-technological case study from Manot Cave Area C. M.A. Thesis. Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Alex, B., Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Berna, F., Caracuta, V., Abulafia, T., Davis, L., Goder-Goldberger, M., Lavi, R., Mintz, E., Regev, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Tejero, J.-M., Yeshurun, R., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Yasur, G., Frumkin, A., Latimer, B., Hans, M.G., Boaretto, E., 2017. Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals. Science Advances 3(11), 1701450. Ambrose, S.H., 2002. Small things remembered: origins of early microlithic industries in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 12, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 9e29. Azoury, I., 1986. Ks^ ar Akil, Lebanon. A Technological and Typological Analysis of the and Abu Halka. BAR Transitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ks^ ar Akil International Series, vol. 289. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Bar-Yosef, O., 1981. The Epipaleolithic complexes in the Southern Levant. In: histoire du Levant. CNRS, Paris, pp. 389e408. Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), Pre Bar-Yosef, O., 2007. The archaeological framework of the Upper Paleolithic revolution. Diogenes 54(2), 3e18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192107076869. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer, A., 1977. Upper Paleolithic occurrences; the Lagaman industry. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Phillips, J.L. (Eds.), Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai. Qedem 7. The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, pp. 42e84. Bar-Yosef, O., Kuhn, S.L., 1999. The big deal about blades: laminar technologies and human evolution. American Anthropologist 101(2), 322e338. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2004. The Qafzeh Upper Paleolithic assemblages: 70 years later. Eurasian Prehistory 2(1), 145e180. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2010. The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic. In: Garcea, A. (Ed.), South-Eastern Mediterranean Peoples Between 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 144e167. Bar-Yosef, O., Arnold, M., Mercier, N., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Housley, R., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Vogel, J.C., Vandermeersch, B., 1996. The dating of the Upper Paleolithic layers in Kebara cave, Mt Carmel. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(2), 297e306. Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., 1972. The stratigraphical and cultural problems of the passage from Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Palestinian caves. In: The Origin of Homo Sapiens. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 221e225. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., 2019. Upper Palaeolithic explorers: The geographic sources of shell beads in Early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages in Israel. PaleoAnthropology 2019, 105e115. Barzilai, O., 2009. Social complexity in the southern Levantine PPNB as reflected through lithic studies: The bidirectional blade industries. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Mathews, M., Bar-Oz, G., Boaretto, E., Berna, F., Frumkin, A., Khalaily, H., Weiner, S., 2012. Manot Cave Hadashot Arkheologiot, vol. 124. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail. aspx?id¼2183&mag_id¼119. Barzilai, O., Marder, O., Hershkovitz, I., 2014. Manot Cave seasons 2011-2012, vol. 126. Hadashot Arkheologiot. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail. aspx?id¼6470&mag_id¼121. Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., 2016. The Early Upper Paleolithic period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel. Human Evolution 31, 85e100. Belfer-Cohen, A., 1980. The Aurignacian assemblage from Hayonim Cave, Western Galilee, Israel. M.A. thesis. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. orient, Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 1981. The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave. Pale pp. 19e42. Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2015. Paleolithic recycling: The example of Aurignacian artifacts from Kebara and Hayonim caves. Quaternary International 361, 256e259. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, N., 2002. Why microliths? Microlithization in the Levant. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12(1), 57e68. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2003. Current issues in Levantine Upper Palaeolithic research. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 1e12. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2012. The Early Upper Palaeolithic: A view from the Southern Levant. In: Otte, M., Shidrang, S., Flas, D. (Eds.), The
Aurignacian from the Yafteh Cave and its Context (2005-2008 Excavations), vol. ge, pp. 127e136. 132. ERAUL, Lie Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2014a. On the rebounddA Levantine view of Upper Palaeolithic dynamics. In: Otte, M., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Modes de placements au Pale olithique Eurasiatique, ERAUL 140, Lie ge, Contacts et de De pp. 27e36. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2014b. The Upper Palaeolithic and Earlier EpiPalaeolithic of Western Asia. In: Renfrew, A.C., Bahn, P.G. (Eds.), The Cambridge World Prehistory, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1381e1407. Bergman, C.A., 1987. Ks^ ar Akil Lebanon: A Technological and Typological Analysis of the Later Palaeolithic Levels of Ks^ ar Akil: Volume 2.: Levels 13.-6. BAR International Series 329. orient, Bergman, C.A., 1988. Ksar Akil and the Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant. Pale pp. 201e210. Bergman, C.A., 2003. Twisted debitage and the Levantine Aurignacian problem. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye. Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 187e195. Bergman, C.A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 1987. Conference: The Levantine Aurignacian ^r Akil, with special reference to Ksa Lebanon March 27-28, 1987. Institute of orient, pp. 142e147. Archaeology, London. Pale Bergman, C., Williams, J., Douka, K., Schyle, D., 2017. The Palaeolithic sequence of ^r Akil Ksa l, Lebanon. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary of the Levant. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 267e276. Berna, F., Boaretto, E., Wiebe, M.C., Goder-Goldberger, M., Lavi, R., Barziali, O., Weiner, S., 2019. Site formation processes at Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution submitted. histoire libanaise. Besançon, J., Copeland, L., Hours, F., 1975-1977. Tableaux de pre orient 3, 5e46. Pale Bosch, M.D., Mannino, M.A., Prendergast, A.L., O'Connell, T.C., Demarchi, B., Taylor, S.M., Niven, L., Van Der Plicht, J., Hublin, J.J., 2015. New chronology for ^r ‘Akil (Lebanon) supports Levantine route of modern human dispersal into Ksa Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 201501529. Bretzke, K., Conard, N.J., 2012. Evaluating morphological variability in lithic assemblages using 3D models of stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(12), 3741e3749. Bretzke, K., Kandel, A.W., Conard, N.J., 2017. Establishing regional sequences; The Qalamunian Upper Paleolithic and its implications for the two-tradition model histoire, Hommage a Jean-Marie Le in the Levant. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Vocation Pre ologiques de l'Universite de Tensorer. Eraul 148. Etudes et Recherches Arche ge, Lie ge, pp. 43e56. Lie Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the industries of the transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Portuguȇs de Zilha Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 133e146. Bordes, J.G., 2006. News from the West: A reevaluation of the classical Aurignacian rigord. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh~ sequence of the Pe ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Portuguȇs de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 147e172. Borgel, S., Latimer, B., McDermott, Y., Sarig, R., Pokhojaev, A., Abulafia, T., GoderGoldberger, M., Barzilai, O., May, H., 2019. Early Upper Paleolithic Human foot bones from Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution in press. Coinman, N.R., 2005. Subsistence and technology in the Late Levantine Upper Paleolithic. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 159e177. Comay, O., Weissbrod, L., Dayan, T., 2019. Predictive modelling in paleoenvironmental reconstruction: the micromammals of Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution submitted. Copeland, L., 1975. The Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Lebanon and Syria in the light of recent research. In: Wendorf, F., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMU Press, pp. 317e350. Davidzon, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2003. Sealed in stone: The Upper Palaeolithic Early Ahmarian knapping method in the light of refitting studies at Nahal Nizzana XIII, Western Negev, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 33, 75e205. Demidenko, Y.E., Hauck, T.C., 2017. Yabrud II rock-shelter archaeological sequence (Syria) and possible Proto-Aurignaicnan origin in the Levant. In: Otte, M. histoire. Hommage a Jean-Marie Le Tensorer. Eraul 148. (Ed.), Vocation Pre ologiques de l'Universite de Lie ge, Lie ge, Etudes et Recherches Arche pp. 89e98. ~o, J., 2018. Assessing site formation and assemblage integrity Deschamps, M., Zilha through stone tool refitting at Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karst system, Torres Novas, Portugal): A Middle Paleolithic case study. PloS one 13(2), e0192423. Douka, K., Bergman, C.A., Hedges, R.E., Wesselingh, F.P., Higham, T.F., 2013. Chro ^r Akil nology of Ksa (Lebanon) and implications for the colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans. PLoS One 8, e72931. Ekshtain, R., Malinsky-Buller, A., Ilani, S., Segal, I., Hovers, E., 2014. Raw material exploitation around the Middle Paleolithic site of ‘Ein Qashish. Quaternary International 331, 248e266. Ekshtain, R., Ilani, S., Segal, I., Hovers, E., 2017. Local and nonlocal procurement of raw material in Amud Cave, Israel: The complex mobility of late Middle Paleolithic groups. Geoarchaeology 32(2), 189e214. Ewing, J.F., 1947. Preliminary note on the excavations at the Palaeolithic site of ^r'Akil, Republic of Lebanon. Antiquity 21(84), 186e196. Ksa
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx Frumkin, A., 2017. Quaternary evolution of caves and associated palaeoenvironments of the Southern Levant. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans. Cambridge University Press, pp. 135e144. Frumkin, A., Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Ullman, M., Marder, O., 2019. Karst terrain in the western upper Galilee, Israel: Speleogenesis, hydrogeology and human preference of Manot Cave. Journal of Human Evolution (In press). Garrod, D.A.E., Bate, D.M.A., 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Garrod, D.A., 1953. The relations between south-west Asia and Europe in the later palaeolithic age. Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale. Journal of World History. Cuadernos de Historia Mundial 1(1), 13. Garrod, D.A.E., 1954. Excavations at the Mugharet Kebara, Mount Carmel, 1931: The Aurignacian industries. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 20, 155e192. olithique Supe rieur du Moyen Orient. Bulletin Garrod, D.A.E., 1957. Notes sur le Pale te Pre historique Française 55, 439e445. de la Socie Gilead, I., 1981. Upper Palaeolithic tool assemblages from the Negev and Sinai. In: histoire du Levant. CNRS, Paris, pp. 331e342. Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), Pre Gilead, I., 1989. The Upper Palaeolithic in the Southern Levant: periodization and terminology. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B. (Eds.), Prehistoire du SudLevant, pp. 231e254. BAR International Series 497. Gilead, I., 1991. The Upper Paleolithic period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 5(2), 105e154. Gilead, I., Bar-Yosef, O., 1993. Early Upper Paleolithic sites in the Qadesh Barnea area, NE Sinai. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(3), 265e280. Goder-Goldberger, M., 2014. Lithic variability along the Middle Paleolithic dispersal routes of modern humans' Out of Africa. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Goring Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), 2003. More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2006. A hard look at the “Levantine Auri~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a gnacian”: How real is the taxon. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha s de Arqueologia, Lisboa, Definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Portugue Portugal, pp. 297e314. Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2018. The Ahmarian in the context of the earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East. In: Akazawa, T., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Springer, Singapore, pp. 87e104. Goring-Morris, A.N., Davidzon, A., 2006. Straight to the point: Upper Paleolithic Ahmarian lithic technology in the Levant. Anthropologie 44(1), 93e111. Goldberg, P., Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. Site formation processes in Kebara and Hayonim Caves and their significance in Levantine prehistoric caves. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Southwest Asia. Plenum Press, pp. 107e125. Hauck, T., Domnina, M., Molden, C., Cetinkaya, J., 2014. Yabroud II-Layer 4 A new ratoire reconstruction for the early Upper Palaeolithic. dataset and chaîne ope SFB/CRC 806 Database. https://doi.org/10.5880/SFB806.6. http://www.unikoeln.de/fast/projects/yabroud/yabroud2_l4/yabroud.html. Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Yasur, G., Boaretto, E., Caracuta, V., Alex, B., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Gunz, P., Holloway, R.L., Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Matthews, A., Slon, V., Mayer, D.B.-Y., Berna, F., Bar-Oz, G., Yeshurun, R., May, H., Hans, M.G., Weber, G.W., Barzilai, O., 2015. Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans. Nature 520(7546), 216. tude du Hours, F., 1974. Remarques sur l'utilisation de listes-types pour l'e olithique supe rieur et de l'Epipale olithique du Levant. Pale orient 3e18. Pale Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford University Press. Hovers, E., Malinsky-Buller, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Ekshtain, R., 2011. Capturing a moment: identifying short-lived activity locations in Amud Cave, Israel. In: Le Tensorer, J.M., Jagher, R., Otte, M. (Eds.), The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the ge, pp. 101e114. Middle East and Neighboring Regions, vol. 126. ERAUL, Lie Hublin, J.J., 2015. The modern human colonization of western Eurasia: when and where? Quaternary Science Reviews 118, 194e210. Hussain, S.T., 2015. Betwixt seriality and sortiment: rethinking the Early Ahmarian blade technology in Al-Ansab 1. In: Schyle, D., Richter, J. (Eds.), Pleistocene Archaeology of Petra Area in Jordan. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf, pp. 131e148. Kadowaki, S., Omori, T., Nishiaki, Y., 2015. Variability in Early Ahmarian lithic technology and its implications for the model of a Levantine origin of the Protoaurignacian. Journal of Human Evolution 82, 67e87. Kadowaki, S., 2018. Ahmarian or Levantine Aurignacian? Wadi Kharar 16R and new insights into the Upper Palaeolithic lithic technology in the Northeastern Levant. In: Akazawa, T., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Springer, Singapore, pp. 105e118. Kaufman, D., 1986. A proposed method for distinguishing between blades and bladelets. Lithic Technology 15(1), 34e40. Kuhn, S.L., 2013. Questions of complexity and scale in explanations for cultural transitions in the Pleistocene: a case study from the early Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(2), 194e211. Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Güleç, E., 1999. Initial Upper Palaeolithic in south-central Turkey and its regional context: a preliminary report. Antiquity 73(281), 505e517. Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Kerry, K.W., Güleç, E., 2003. The Early Upper Palaeolithic at izli Cave (Hatay, Turkey): some preliminary results. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Üçag
27
Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More Than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 106e117. Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A., Gopher, A., Stiner, M.C., 2007. Evidence for habitual use of fire at the end of the Lower Paleolithic: Site-formation processes at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 53(2), 197e212. Lengyel, G., 2007. Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic Lithic Technologies at Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel East, Israel. BAR International series 1681. Archaeopress, Oxford. Leplongeon, A., Pleurdeau, D., Hovers, E., 2018. Late Pleistocene and Holocene lithic variability at Goda Buticha (Southeastern Ethiopia): implications for the understanding of the Middle and Late Stone Age of the Horn of Africa. Journal of African Archaeology 15(2), 202e233. Marder, O., 2002. The lithic technology of epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers in the Negev: The implications of refitting studies. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Marder, O., Alex, B., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Berna, F., Boaretto, E., Caracuta, V., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Hershkovitz, I., Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Matthews, A., Weiner, S., Weiss, U., Yas’ur, G., Yeshurun, R., Barzilai, O., 2013. The Upper Paleolithic of Manot Cave, western Galilee, Israel: The 2011-12 excavations. Antiquity 87(337). https://www. researchgate.net/publication/265906072_The_Upper_Palaeolithic_of_Manot_ Cave_Western_Galilee_Israel_the_2011-12_excavations. Marder, O., Hershkovitz, I., Barzilai, O., 2017. The Early Upper Palaeolithic of Manot Cave, Western Galilee. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans. Cambridge University Press, pp. 277e284. Marder, O., Barzilai, O., Abulafia, T., Hershkovitz, I., Goder-Goldberger, M., 2018. Chrono-cultural considerations of Middle Paleolithic occurrences at Manot Cave (Western Galilee), Israel. In: Akazawa, T., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Springer, Singapore, pp. 49e63. Marder, O., Shemer M., Abulafia, T., Bar-Yosef-Mayer, D., Berna, F. Caux, S., Edeltin, L., Goder-Goldberger M., Hershkovitz I., Lavi R., Shavit, R., Tejero J.-M., Yeshurun, R., Barzilai O., submitted Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: cultural affiliations and regional perspectives. Journal Human Evolution. Marks, A.E., 1981. The Upper Paleolithic of the Negev. In: Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. histoire du Levant. CNRS, Paris, pp. 343e352. (Eds.), Pre Marks, A.E., 2003. Reflections on levantine Upper Palaeolithic studies: Past and present. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye. Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 249e264. Martini, I., Ronchitelli, A., Arrighi, S., Capecchi, G., Ricci, S., Scaramucci, S., Spagnolo, V., Gambassini, P., Moroni, A., 2018. Cave clastic sediments as a tool for refining the study of human occupation of prehistoric sites: insights from the cave site of La Cala (Cilento, southern Italy). Journal of Quaternary Science 33(5), 586e596. Mellars, P., 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432, 461e465. Mellars, P., 2006. Going east: new genetic and archaeological perspectives on the modern human colonization of Eurasia. Science 313(5788), 796e800. Monigal, K., 2003. Technology, economy and mobility at the beginning of the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic. In: Goring Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 118e133. olithique et le Me solithique du de sert de Jude e. Masson. Neuville, R., 1951. Le Pale olithique supe rieur de Ksar Akil (Liban). Newcomer, M.H., 1974. Outils en os du Pale r. Colloque International sur l'Industrie de l'Os dans In: Camps Fabrer, H. (Ed.), 1e histoire : Abbaye de Se nanque, 18-20 avril 1974. Editions de la Pre de l'Universite Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 60e65. orient Newcomer, M., Watson, J., 1984. Bone artifacts from Ksar 'Aqil (Lebanon). Pale 10(1), 143e147. Ohnuma, K., 1988. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A Technological Study of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic Levels at Ksar Akil, vol. 3. British Archaeological Reports International Series 426, Oxford. Levels XXV-XIV. Orbach, M., Yeshurun, R., 2019. The hunters or the hunters: Human and hyena prey choice divergence in the Late Pleistocene Levant. Journal of Human Evolution (In press). Pastoors, A., Weniger, G.C., Kegler, J.F., 2008. The Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition at Yabroud II (Syria). A re-evaluation of the lithic material from the Rust orient, pp. 47e65. excavation, Pale Phillips, J.L., 1988. The Upper Palaeolithic of the Wadi Feiran, southern Sinai. orient 14, 183e200. Pale Rebollo, N.R., Weiner, S., Brock, F., Meignen, L., Goldberg, P., Belfer-Cohen, A., BarYosef, O., Boaretto, E., 2011. New radiocarbon dating of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Kebara Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(9), 2424e2433. Shimelmitz, R., Friesem, D.E., Clark, J.L., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Weissbrod, L., Porat, N., Kandel, A.W., 2018. The Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic of Sefunim Cave, Israel. Quaternary International 464, 106e125. olithique Sonneville-Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1954-1956. Lexique typologique du Pale rieur. Outillage lithique. Bulletin de la Socie te Pre historique Française, supe Paris.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
28
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Tejero, J.M., Yeshurun, R., Barzilai, O., Goder-Goldberger, M., Hershkovitz, I., Lavi, R., Schneller-Pels, N., Marder, O., 2016. The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian. Quaternary International 403, 90e106. Tejero, J.M., Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., Gutkin, V., Rabinovich, R., 2018. Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences e.201717145. Tejero, J.-M., Rabinovich, R., Yeshurun, R., Abulafia, T., Bar-Yosef, O., Barzilai, O., Goder-Goldberger, M., Hershkovitz, I., Lavi, R., Shemer, M., Marder, O., BelferCohen, A., 2019. Toward complexity in the osseous raw material work at the beginning of the early Upper Paleolithic in Eurasia: The Manot Cave (Israel) osseous tools in the Aurignacian emergence and diffusion context. Journal of Human Evolution submitted. olithique du Maghreb. Me moires du Centre de Tixier, J., 1963. Typologie de l'Epipale historiques et ethnographiques. Arts et recherches anthropologiques, pre tiers graphiques, París. Me Villa, P., 1982. Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity 47(2), 276e290.
Weiner, S., 2009. Diagenetic transformations: deciphering the archaeological record of prehistoric caves: Papers in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. In: Shea, J., Lieberman, D. (Eds.), Transitions in Prehistory: Papers in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Weiner, S., Goldberg, P., Bar-Yosef, O., 1993. Bone preservation in Kebara Cave, Israel using on-site Fourier transform infrared spectrometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 20(6), 613e627. Williams, J.K., Bergman, C.A., 2010. Upper Paleolithic levels XIII-VI (A and B) from the 1937-1938 and 1947-1948 Boston college excavations and the Levantine ^r Akil, orient, pp. 117e161. Aurignacian at Ksa Lebanon. Pale Yas’ur, G., 2013. The chronology of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the Western Galilee based on U-Th ages of speleothems from Manot Cave, Israel. M.A. Dissertation. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Yas’ur, G., Ayalon, A., Matthews, A., Zilberman, T., Marder, O., Barzilai, O., Boaretto, E., Hershkovitz, I., Bar-Matthews, M., 2019. Climatic and environmental conditions in the Western Galilee, during Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods, based on speleothems from Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution in press. Yeshurun, R., Schneller-Pels, N., Barzilai, O., Marder, O., 2019. Early Upper Paleolithic subsistence in the Levant: Zooarchaeology of the AhmarianeAurignacian Sequence at Manot Cave, Israel. Journal Human Evolution (In press).
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol
A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes T. Abulafia a, *, 1, M. Goder-Goldberger a, 1, F. Berna b, O. Barzilai c, O. Marder a a b c
Department of Bible, Archaeology and the Ancient Near East, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 8410501, Israel Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada Archaeological Research Department, Israel Antiquities Authority, P. O. Box 586, Jerusalem, 91004, Israel
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 16 January 2019 Accepted 18 October 2019 Available online xxx
For more than a century, prehistoric research has focused on cave sites and rock shelters, mostly because of good preservation of organic remains associated with stratified anthropogenic layers. Manot Cave in the Western Galilee, Israel offers the possibility of studying prehistoric assemblages in pristine condition because of the collapse of the cave entrance some 30 thousand years ago. Nine years of excavations have uncovered an Early Upper Paleolithic archaeological sequence. Area C, situated at the bottom of the talus, was exposed to fast and slow depositional and postdepositional processes affecting sediment accumulation. The central part of area C was selected for this study, as it was least disturbed. Following a technotypological analysis, and taking postdepositional processes into consideration, the assemblages were defined and assigned to the Levantine Aurignacian, and Ahmarian traditions. The two archaeological horizons are separated by a mixed horizon within which indicative artifacts of both traditions alternately appear. The Ahmarian assemblage, dated to 46e42 ka cal BP, fits within the northern Mediterranean Ahmarian sites, which technotypologically differs from and is currently dated earlier than the southern desert region Ahmarian sites. The main technotypological characteristics of the assemblage from the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon, dated to 38e34 ka cal BP, are comparable to those from Manot ^r ‘Akil levels VII-VIII. Yet, several technotypological elements seem more Cave area E layers V-VI, and Ksa ^r ‘Akil levels XI-XIII and possibly layer IX from area E. compatible with the unnamed assemblage from Ksa © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ahmarian Aurignacian Techno-typological analyses Post-Depositional processes Manot Cave el-Wad points
1. Introduction The Levantine Upper Paleolithic (UP) cultural sequence reflects changing behavioral patterns with at least two traditions encompassing large internal geographic variability. This mosaic of industries is thought to reflect a complex interplay between modern human populations that were coming and going through the region (Bar-Yosef, 2007; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014a). Similarities between the Ahmarian and Proto-Aurignacian, as well as their relevant chronologies, have been suggested to represent population dispersal from the Levant into Europe (Mellars, 2004, 2006; Hublin, 2015; Alex et al., 2017). Although resemblance in the lithic and osseous Aurignacian assemblages from the Levant
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: abulafi[email protected] (T. Abulafia). 1 Equally contributed to the article.
and Europe may imply a later back “migration” (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2012; Tejero et al., 2016). Excavations at Manot Cave have revealed a chronocultural sequence dated to between 46e33 ka including Ahmarian, Levantine Aurignacian and postLevantine Aurignacian technological traditions, with scattered lithic finds indicating the presence of a Middle Paleolithic occupation (Barzilai et al., 2016; Alex et al., 2017; Marder et al., 2017, 2018). This study focuses on excavated area C at Manot Cave, located at the bottom of the western talus. Area C has a long stratigraphic sequence subdivided into eight geostratigraphic units. The aims of this paper are to 1) characterize the two archeological horizons defined as they unraveled following the lithic assemblage technotypological analysis, and 2) elucidate the correlation between the geostratigraphic units described during excavation and the archaeological horizons as defined following lithic analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707 0047-2484/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
2
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
1.1. Background The Levantine Mediterranean cave sites display long Middle Paleolithic and UP sequences used to define a regional chronostratigraphy. A six-stage linear cultural evolution for the Levantine UP was originally defined (Neuville, 1951; Garrod and Bates, 1937; Garrod, 1954, 1957), following excavations in the caves and rock shelters of Mt. Carmel, and the Judean desert (for a detailed research history, refer to Gilead, 1991). Neuville's Phases III and IV were initially named Aurignacian by Garrod and Bates (1937) based on similarity between the carinated and nosed end scrapers from the Levantine assemblages to those found in the European ones. In later publications, Garrod (1957) referred to these phases as Lower and Upper Antelian because of the lack of split-based bone points, considered the hallmark of the European Aurignacian. Following the London conference in 1969, the term Levantine Aurignacian was coined to replace the use of Aurignacian and Antelian in the Levantine UP sequence (Hours, 1974). A chronocultural framework for the Levantine UP was established based on the long sequence ^r ‘Akil, Lebanon (Ewing, 1947; Hours, 1974; Besançon exposed at Ksa et al., 1975e1977; Copeland, 1975). Extensive work in the Negev and Sinai during the 70s led to the finding of UP industries that did ^r ‘Akil sequence as defined at the time. The not fit in with the Ksa name Ahmarian was introduced by Gilead (1981) and Marks (1981) for the early UP entities found in the Negev and Sinai. Bergman (1988) adopted the name Ahmarian for the unnamed lower UP ^r ‘Akil (XVI-XX), which portrayed similar technotypolevels at Ksa logical characteristics. In this article, we use the term Ahmarian to refer to the “Early Ahmarian” as defined by Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2018). The ‘Late Ahmarian’ (Gilead, 1981), also known as the Masraqan and assigned to approximately 25e22 ka (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2018), is considered as a separate entity and is not discussed in this article. New finds and reevaluation of old collections have expanded the geographical borders of UP entities defined for the Levant as well as suggest that there is more cultural variability to the UP than Levantine Aurignacian and Ahmarian (Belfer-Cohen and Goring- Morris, 2003; Kadowaki et al., 2015; Bretzke et al., 2017). The Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian industries at Manot Cave (Hershkovitz et al., 2015; Barzilai et al., 2016; Marder et al., 2017) were defined based on commonly used technotypological characteristics. The Ahmarian technocomplex has a wide geographic distribution in the Levant, extending across the Mediterranean eco-zones into the semi-arid and arid regions. The Ahmarian industry was initially defined as a blade industry, with high percentages of backed points, el-Wad points, few burins, carinated scrapers, and extensive use of ochre (Marks, 1981; Gilead, 1981, 1991). In the southern arid zone, the Ahmarian is technologically characterized by narrow-fronted single-platform cores that yielded series of flat or incurvate, thin, narrow, convergent blade(let) blanks (Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; GoringMorris and Davidzon, 2006). In the northern Mediterranean zone, the dominant core type in Ahmarian assemblages is bidirectional, defined by Bergman (1988) as ‘parallel-sided prismatic cores with opposed striking platforms’. These cores are found in Ahmarian izli, BeC, Ksa ^r ‘Akil XVI-XX, Yabrud Rock assemblages from Üçag Shelter II/6e5, and Qafzeh E (Bergman, 1988; Bar-Yosef and BelferCohen, 2004; Kuhn et al., 1999; Hauck et al., 2014; Demidenko and Hauck, 2017). Kebara III-IV was assigned to the Ahmarian based on a high blade index (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). The Ahmarian technocomplex dates to ~46e30 ka (Rebollo et al., 2011; Douka et al., 2013; Belfer -Cohen and Goring Morris, 2014a; b; Bosch et al., 2015; Alex et al., 2017). The Levantine Aurignacian lithic industry is characterized by a high percent of carinated and nosed scrapers and burins, some
Aurignacian blades and Dufour bladelets as well as points made on blades and bladelets including el-Wad points (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006). Although the European Aurignacian is considered a blade technology, the Levantine Aurignacian is seen as a flake-based technology, albeit tools are mostly made on blade/let blanks (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014b). The osseous component of Levantine Aurignacian assemblages consists of bone and antler tools, mostly points and bone ornaments (Newcomer, 1974; Copeland, 1975; Belfer-Cohen and Bar Yosef, 1981; Newcomer and Watson, 1984; Gilead, 1989, 1991; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003; Tejero et al., 2016, 2018). The Levantine Aurignacian is dated to between 38eand 32 ka cal BP (Belfer-Cohen and Goring Morris, 2014 a; b; Alex et al., 2017) and is mostly known from the Mediterranean ^r ‘Akil VII-VIII, Hayonim D, Kebara D, I-II, el-Wad D, cave sites of Ksa Raqefet III, and Sefunim 10e8, V (Garrod and Bate, 1937; Garrod, 1954; Copeland, 1975; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Ronen, 1984; Bergman, 1987; Goldberg and Bar-Yosef, 1998; Lengyel, 2007; Williams and Bergman, 2010; Shimelmitz et al., 2018). The only known Levantine Aurignacian assemblage in the Judean desert is el-Quseir C (Gilead, 1981). Based on dated assemblages, it is evident that the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian traditions partially co-existed in the Levant (Gilead, 1991; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003), with a diachronic geographic variability between the Mediterranean, and arid regions. Where both traditions are found at the same site, the Ahmarian is always found stratigraphically bellow the Aurignacian (Gilead, 1981; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003). Although some researchers would rather envisage each of these traditions as encompassing several social groups which maintained contacts amongst themselves (Gilead, 1991; Marks, 2003), others suggest that each regional tradition represents an independent and unique technological culture (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003). 2. Materials and methods 2.1. The site Manot Cave is an active karstic cave (Yas'ur, 2013; Frumkin, 2017) located in the western Galilee Mountains in the midst of the Mediterranean climatic belt, 220 m above sea level (asl) and nine km east of the current Mediterranean shoreline (Frumkin et al., 2019 in press). The cave is composed of one main chamber (~80-m long and 10- to 25-m wide and ~30-m deep), and several small side chambers. The cave had one major opening at the western edge, although a smaller opening may have existed at the eastern edge (Fig. 1). Nine consecutive excavation seasons (2010e2018) have resulted in a well-dated UP sequence (Barzilai et al., 2012, 2014; 2016; Marder et al., 2013, 2017; Alex et al., 2017). Areas E and I, located at the top of the talus (Fig. 1 A), adjacent to the expected original cave entrance, are composed of well stratified living surfaces and combustion features. The lithic assemblage from these areas were assigned to the Levantine Aurignacian and the post-Levantine Aurignacian (Alex et al., 2017; Marder et al., 2019 submitted). Post-Levantine Aurignacian is a name used within the Manot sequence to define the industry stratigraphically and chronologically overlying the Levantine Aurignacian layers in area E implying cultural relations between the two (Marder et al., 2019 submitted). The definition of this industry is beyond the scope of this article. 2.2. Area C: geomorphology and stratigraphy Area C, the focus of this study, is situated at the base of the western talus ~25-m deep coming down from area E, situated
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
Figure 1. Plan and stratigraphic section of area C. (A) General plan of Manot cave excavation. (B) Section 67/66 looking northwest. (C) Schematic section of J64-66 looking West. (D) Compilation of sections J66 and J65 looking northwest.
adjacent to the cave opening, with a 20O slope (Fig. 1 A). In this location, the talus sediments consist of a poorly sorted colluvium composed of terra rossa soil material mixed with angular and subangular rock and bone fragments, lithic artifacts, continental and marine mollusks, and charcoal flakes. Although the terra rossa originates from outside the cave, most rocks are thought to originate from within e the result of rock fall from the ceiling and cave walls and breakage of speleothems. Along the cave wall and at the center of the talus, there is evidence of surface sheet and rill erosion
(i.e., ditch profiles, rock winnowing and gravel/stone lags) (Fig. 1 B). Despite evidence of surface sheet wash and riling, intensive and extensive radiocarbon dating of the organic archaeological material shows that in the center of area C, the accumulation of sediment was moderately continuous resulting in a fairly undisturbed stratified sequence (Alex et al., 2017). The model suggested (Berna et al., 2019 submitted) for explaining the talus formation is based on the interplay between the geostratigraphic accumulation in the upper occupation area (area E) and the translocation of part of these
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
4
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 2. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for Manot Cave, area C. Dating samples are from squares J67-J65. Dates are listed in stratigraphic sequence by laboratory code, followed by absolute elevation or the elevation range of the sample's excavation basket. NGRIP, North Greenland Ice Core Project (following Alex et al., 2017). “Combined” stands for replicated samples that were included as one combined date.
sediments down the talus (area C). It is proposed that the presence of a physical barrier in the bedrock topography of area E, separated the occupation areas from the talus. On account that the rate of sediment accumulation during occupation was much greater than that during nonoccupation (Weiner, 2009), it is proposed that during occupation the sediments with their major ash component and associated artifacts would accumulate rapidly in area E reaching the top of the barrier. Consequently, some of these sediments overflowed across the barrier and translocated down the talus. The sediment overflow invariably involved local mixing, but
as the barrier was relatively small it allowed fairly continuous sediment accumulation in area C. At the bottom of the talus, several large rocks and a large detached speleothem fragment dammed the mass movement of colluvium trapping sediments and artifacts in a natural terrace. The cavities under the aforementioned rocks were filled with fine grain sediments, coprolites, and anthropogenic material. On the eastern side of area C (square M65), toward the center of the cave, a 4-cm-thick flowstone, deriving from an adjacent columnar speleothem, caps the surface of the talus (Hershkovitz
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
Figure 3. Allocation of baskets included in this study mapped in accordance with their stratigraphic position. Colors are coded based on the cultural assignment. Arrows mark the general orientation of the talus slope and units.
et al., 2015). UeTh dating indicates that this local capping flowstone system is formed between 32.4 ka and 19 ka (Hershkovitz et al., 2015). The presence of such a flowstone indicates that during this time interval talus formation and sediment accumulation stopped or slowed down significantly in area C. This supposition is partially supported by one of the youngest radiocarbon dates of
approximately 32 ka obtained so far for archaeological material recovered from area C (Alex et al., 2017). Soil micromorphological studies indicate that in area C, the sedimentary column was formed by a combination of slope mass movement types (e.g., rolling, fall, creep, slide and slump), surface and subsurface runoff action (e.g., sheet and rill erosion), and
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
6
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 4. Raw material types of carinated cores on flakes from the Aurignacian Horizon. (A) Greenish brown, (B). brown, (C). yellowish brown, and (D). greenish blue.
periodic talus subaerial surface stability (Berna et al., 2019 submitted). It appears that transport and deposition were dominated by low energy processes with rare spikes of moderately high energy. The overall low energy process with which the talus in area C formed is also supported by the freshness of the archaeological finds, and the presence of flint artifacts <20 mm, charcoal and wood ash (Alex et al., 2017; Berna et al., 2019 submitted). The faunal assemblage presents only rare cases of striations from trampling and rolled edges. Postdepositional damage is generally mild, and
the assemblage does not seem to be particularly weathered relative to other cave site assemblages (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press). Some of the reworked artifact aggregates are similar in structure and composition to the ones observed in area E deposits (Berna et al., 2019 submitted; Marder et al., 2019 submitted). The petrographic thin sections of area C deposits show intact dripping water puddles forming on buried surfaces in the talus (Berna et al., 2019 submitted). Some of these buried talus surfaces appeared to be locally trampled most probably by hyenas and possibly by humans
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
Figure 5. Raw material types of el-Wad points from the Ahmarian Horizon. (A, B) Unique raw materials, (C) gray, (D, E) yellowish flint points with notches at the base.
(Karkanas et al., 2007; Berna et al., 2019 submitted; Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019 in press). Diffused localized calcium carbonate impregnation features are also common and minor brecciation is also evident (Berna et al., 2019 submitted). On the other hand, in the petrographic thin section slides, there is no evidence for anthropogenic in situ activities (i.e., living surfaces, microdebitage concentrations, or in situ combustion features). The sediments exposed in the central section of the talus (squares J67e65 and K66e65) seem the least disturbed and are ~3.1 m deep. This is relative to squares I64e66, which were exposed to running water along the cave wall and squares L-M64e66, which are composed of sediments intermixed with flowstone (Fig. 1 B). During excavation, eight sedimentological units were defined, following field observation in change of sediment type, compactness, and color, as well as changes in both bone and flint density and rock and stone density, and evidence of water activity (Fig. 1C and D). All units are comprised loose dark brown to reddish brown clay to silty clay loam. Unit 1 e talus surface (5e10 cm). Unit 2 e characterized by a natural concentration of large pebbles just below the surface (10e20 cm thick). Unit 3 e characterized by a silty clay loam with few archaeological finds. In the upper part of the unit, a sedimentary lens is evident, rich in small stones with bones and artifacts, possibly the result of water action (20 cm thick). Unit 4 e characterized by a compact silty clay loam with lithic artifacts and bones (40e50 cm thick). Unit 5 e characterized by a compact silty clay loam rich in angular limestone rocks and stones, lithic artifacts, bones and charcoal (30e50 cm thick). This unit shows evidence of colluviation and runoff erosion. A channel bed, defined by large angular stones, cut through squares J65-66 into squares K65-64 and contain numerous artifacts. In section J66-J67, at elevation ~205.6 m asl (Fig. 1 D), there is a concentration of weathered stones. Based on the similarity of their weathering pattern to that commonly found in area D, they are thought to originate from there (Stephen Weiner, personal communication). Unit 6 e a thick unit of soft silty clay loam, with few angular stones, and a rich concertation of lithic artifacts, bones and coprolites (60e70 cm thick). The presence of rocks and stones at the
contact with unit 5 indicates an increase in water runoff intensity in the cave (Fig. 1C, D). Unit 7 e this is almost as thick as unit 6 (50e60 cm thick), and it is separated from unit 6 by an unconformity surface formed by a thin calcified crust (Fig. 1 D). This crust is thought to represent a short period of talus stability allowing for dissolved calcite in the dripping water to precipitate and form a thin crust (Berna et al., 2019 submitted). Within the lower part of the unit, there was a concentration of coprolites and stones within a soft sediment, possibly representing a channel that cut through the unit (Abulafia, 2018: Fig. 8). Unit 8 e this unit is characterized by rock fragments of variable sizes and soft sediment. The bottom of the unit is composed of large rocks. This unit is only partially excavated and so its depth is currently unknown. The primary process of talus deposition and accumulation, as evident from field geomorphological and sedimentological observations and soil micromorphological analysis of petrographic thin sections, is thought to be colluvial mass movement of sediments including anthropogenic material from their original depositional units in area E and I. The changes seen between the eight sedimentological units appear to be related mainly to localized changes in runoff intensity and directionality. In addition to the channel cutting through Unit 5 (Fig. 1 D), two additional large channels were identified. These channels cut through square J65 at elevations 205.4e205.2 m asl (unit 6) and K65 at an elevation of 204.25e204.14 m asl (unit 7). Although all the artifacts retrieved from the lower channel (unit 7) belong to the Ahmarian, the upper channel includes both Aurignacian and Ahmarian artifacts. This suggests that the lower channel formed during the Ahmarian occupation, whereas the upper channel formed during or after the Levantine Aurignacian occupation was established, cutting through and mixing sediments and artifacts from both layers (Abulafia, 2018: Fig. 7). 2.3. Chronology Units 4 and the top of unit 5 date to between 38 and 34 ka cal BP although the bottom of unit 6 and unit 7 date to between 46 and 42 ka cal BP (Alex et al., 2017). Three 14C dates which deviate from
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
8
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 6. Raw material types of cores from the Ahmarian Horizon. (A) Yellowish, (B) gray, (C) greenish blue, and (D) brown.
these clusters (Fig. 2 e samples RTD-7783 A, RTD-7785, and RTD7786) originate from the contact between unit 5 and 6 and are in reverse stratigraphic order (Alex et al., 2017). This section is relatively rocky, suggesting stronger water activity which could have led to rigorous sediment mixing and missing deposits. 2.4. Methodology The excavation of area C was performed in a 1 1m grid. Each square was split into 4 subsquares and excavated in 5 or 10 cm spits. At times, two subsquares were excavated together. A basket number was given to each excavated spit for all finds, and was subsequently used as the cataloging reference. All the excavated volume
was dry and wet sieved first with a 5-mm mesh and then a 1.5-mm mesh. The sample selected for this study is from squares J66-65 (from excavation seasons 2010e2014), reflecting a total depth of 2.5 m. These squares are just under a meter away from the cave wall to the southwest, limiting the influence of running water along the cave wall causing vertical dispersion at the contact between the talus and the cave wall. All channels and burrows were mapped and initial analysis of the lithic assemblages from these features was carried out separately. Other indicators for disturbances such as roots and coprolite concentrations were noted and incorporated into the final stratigraphic interpretations. At first, the baskets were grouped in accordance with the sedimentological stratigraphic units. During the lithic material analysis,
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
9
Figure 7. Ahmarian Horizon; core typology; (A) bidirectional core with evidence of crest preparation. (B, D) single-platform core, (C, E-G) opposed platform same axis.
it was evident that the correlation between sedimentological units and archaeological horizons was not straight forward. Thus, each basket was studied individually, identifying its lithic characteristics. The assignment of a basket to a specific archaeological entity, either Ahmarian or Levantine Aurignacian, was based on two variables; typological indices (Ahmarian and Aurignacian indices), and blade and bladelet morphology (Bergman, 2003). The typological indices were used as the rule whereas blade(let) morphology was used only when no indicative tools were present. Following Bergman (2003), the value of >30% of twisted blade/lets was chosen to assign a basket to the Levantine Aurignacian. The typological list used in this study (S1) is based on the list formulated during the 1969 London conference (Hours, 1974). Additional Aurignacian tool types were added from Belfer-Cohen (1980), although Ahmarian tool types were added from Gilead
(1981). The Aurignacian Index (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996), was defined for each basket based on the percent of typical Aurignacian tool types from the total number of tools. The Aurignacian tools used for the index are: carinated scrapers (types A13-A20), scrapers on an Aurignacian blade (A7), circular scrapers (A11), Aurignacian blades (H4), and carinated burins (B7). The Ahmarian Index was formulated based on Gilead (1981) and is calculated for each basket in a similar fashion: the percent of typical Ahmarian tool types from the total number of tools. These tool types include el-Wad points (I1), backed points (D8), points on blades (H7), and points on bladelets (J5). El-Wad points (Font Yves points) were initially used as one of the Levantine Aurignacian markers (Garrod and Bate, 1937), while later, they were used to define Ahmarian industries (Garrod, 1953; 1957; Gilead, 1981; Kuhn et al., 1999). El-Wad points are more prevalent
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
10
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 8. Ahmarian Horizon; core shape distribution.
and standardized in Ahmarian assemblages, and as such are currently primarily used to define the Ahmarian industry (GoringMorris and Belfer Cohen, 2006; Belfer-Cohen and Goring Morris, 2014b). Following this observation, el-Wad points were included in this study, within the Ahmarian typical tool type list. A third index was calculated, the blade index (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). This index includes only retouched and backed blades and el-Wad points and was calculated solely for the purpose of compatibility with other studies (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). The Ahmarian Index was preferred over the blade index to allocate a basket to the Ahmarian as it included more tool types commonly used to describe an Ahmarian assemblage (such as retouched and pointed bladelets, which were not included in the blade index). The formula used to calculate the indices is L*100/N, when L is the sum of the specific tool types and N is the total number of all tools (Belfer-Cohen, 1980). Baskets with similar Aurignacian and Ahmarian indices, indicating some level of mixing, were omitted form the study. When a basket with a high Ahmarian Index appeared stratigraphically above one or more baskets with a high Aurignacian Index, all baskets were omitted from the study to avoid including mechanically mixed assemblages (Fig. 3; S2). Although this is a coarse separation tool, thus causing a large bulk of baskets to be omitted from the study, it was needed to ensure, as much as possible, that the archaeological horizons represent homogeneous assemblages. After the assignment of each basket to an archaeological horizon, it was clear that there is only a partial correlation between the archaeological and sedimentological stratigraphy. There is a ~15 cm mismatch between the stratigraphic positioning of the mixed layer in squares J66 and J65 (Fig. 3). This can be explained as follows: (1) a steep decline in the boundary between units 5 and 6 as evident in the section drawing (Fig. 1C), (2) in 2016 when excavations were resumed a flowstone, causing a sharp step, was exposed in the section between square K66 and K65. Once the archaeological horizons were separated, it was possible to study the assemblages in detail. An attribute analysis was used to establish their technological traits and reconstruct reduction sequences. The attribute list used was formulated based on previous studies (Marder, 2002; Barzilai, 2009; Hovers, 2009; Goder-Goldberger, 2014). As the studied assemblages are large, all tools and cores were analyzed, but only the blades and bladelets
were sampled from the debitage. The studied blade(let) samples include, complete and marginally broken blades, bladelets, ridge ^tes), and primary blades(blades (i.e., crested blades, lames a cre lets). Bladelets are defined based on Tixier's (1963) definition and following metric criteria used in other Levantine Paleolithic studies (Bar-Yosef, 1981; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2002; Hovers et al., 2011) (for alternative criteria used to define the split between blades and bladelets Kaufman, 1986; Ambrose, 2002; Leplongeon et al., 2018). The samples were selected from a series of stratigraphically consecutive baskets that represent the complete section. The blade and bladelet samples are composed of 193 artifacts from the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon and 230 artifacts from the Ahmarian horizon.
3. Results The assemblage retrieved from the sampled squares (J65-J66) is composed of more than 20,000 artifacts, including chips (artifacts <20 mm). The initial subdivision was performed in accordance with the geostratigraphic units (Fig. 1C). Units 1e2 are thin and irregular with/few artifacts (Table 1). Unit 3 stands out with its high percent of tools (~10%), whereas units 7 and 8 are characterized by a high percent of chips and only a few tools. The low percentage of debris in units 3 and 4 is an artificial bias resulting from the fact that sediment sorting in the laboratory was completed for units 5e7 but is still ongoing for units 3e4. It is expected that when sorting is completed units 3e4 will have higher percentages of small artifacts and chips. Based on the indices (Table 2), and once the mixed baskets were omitted from the analysis, it was possible to define two archaeological horizons. The Levantine Aurignacian Horizon in square J65 comprises the geostratigraphic units 3e5 and upper unit 6, whereas for square J66 this includes units 3, 4 and upper unit 5. The Ahmarian Horizon comprises in square J65, the lower part of unit 6 and all of unit 7 (Fig. 3). The lithic assemblages from units 2 and 3 were not included in the study as the sample size was small and the sedimentological analysis reflected intensive water activity and puddling (Fig. 1 B). Unit 8 was also omitted from this study as only the top part of the unit was excavated.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx Table 1 Area C: the lithic assemblage from squares J65 and J66, divided in accordance with the geostratigraphic units. Unit
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Debitage
Debris
Tools
Cores
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
114 245 871 3205 1918 1290 133
32.2 51.8 42.0 34.8 44.5 20.2 12.6
223 176 1106 5605 2165 4892 902
63.0 37.2 53.4 60.9 50.2 76.8 85.3
15 46 77 298 174 120 14
4.2 9.7 3.7 3.2 4.0 1.9 1.3
2 6 18 91 56 70 8
0.6 1.3 0.9 1.09 1.3 1.1 0.8
354 473 2072 9199 4313 6372 1057
The area C lithic assemblage is mostly fresh, although the majority of blades and bladelets are broken (60%). In the Ahmarian assemblage, none of the artifacts are patinated whereas in the Levantine Aurignacian assemblage patina appears mostly on tools. Double patina is present on 21.7% of the scrapers, with the carinated and nosed scrapers accounting for half of the patinated scrapers. Patina also appears on 11% of the Aurignacian retouched blades. The lithic artifacts from Manot Cave area C are made of flint with considerable variability in color and texture. The flint nodules from the cave walls are of poor quality (cracked, with lime inclusions and coarse-grained) and were rarely used for knapping (<2% of the assemblage). Primary and secondary flint sources have been identified within a radius of ~10 km of the site (Frumkin et al., 2019). Several Cenomanian and Eocene flint outcrops portray similar flint color and texture to those recognized in the archaeological assemblage. To assess exploitation of different flint sources and see if there are evident differences in procurement strategies between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian at Manot Cave, each analyzed artifact was assigned to one of the 13 different flint color groups recognized (Table 4). Although color and texture classification are subjective, it has been demonstrated as a valid practice for the north of Israel (Ekshtain et al., 2014, 2017). Initial results suggest there is a difference in flint types used between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian Horizons. Although in the Ahmarian, the most common color groups are the brown, gray and yellowish flints, in the later, the yellowish-brown flint is more prevalent. In the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon, the chocolate color flint is used only for tools. The yellowish brown and brown flint was used preferentially for cores on flakes (18.7% of the cores) used for the production of twisted bladelets (Fig. 4C). In the Ahmarian Horizon several of the el-Wad points were made on unique types of colored flint (Fig. 5 A,B), and it is assumed that these artifacts were brought to the site as finished tools.
3.1. The Ahmarian horizon Cores Cores account for 1.0% of the assemblage (Table 3). Only 6 of the 13 flint color groups are found amongst the cores (Fig. 6), of these the most commonly used are the yellowish brown and gray
11
(32.9% and 23.9%), and the greenish blue (18.1%). The majority of cores (84.9%) were used for producing blades and bladelets. This differs considerably from the Levantine Aurignacian where 51.9% of the cores were used for producing blades and bladelets. Opposed platform and single-platform cores appear in similar percent (Table 5). Amongst the opposed platform cores, both platforms were frequently used to produce blades and bladelets on the same face (Fig. 7 A,C,E-G). The cores with a rectangular/prismatic shape (Fig. 8) are the most common (70%). The triangular cores (15%), mostly single platform (Fig. 7 B,D), differ in shape and size from the narrowfronted core type, which is the most common core type in the Ahmarian from the southern sites (Gilead, 1981; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003). This may result from disparity in technological practices because of differences in the shape of the selected flint nodules. In the Negev and Sinai, the selected nodules were ~150-mm long, narrow, and flat with a sharp distal edge. Striking platforms were rejuvenated by the removal of thick core tablets (Gilead and Bar-Yosef, 1993; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003). At Manot Cave, the original nodule size used was ~100-mm long and oval. They were technologically shaped and rejuvenated using different technological practices as will be presented in the following paragraphs. Many of the cores are narrow fronted (55% of the opposed platform cores and 42.5% of the single-platform cores). The cores’ striking platforms are mostly plain (88.6%), whereas the remaining are either facetted or undefined. Abrasion is evident on 46.6% of the cores and microchipping on 19.3% of the cores. When there are two platforms to a core, they are almost always different in shape and the number of blanks removed from each surface (Fig. 7 F,G). The main platform (from which most of the blanks were removed) tends to be nosed, in this case the opposed platform will be semicircular or square. These differences may suggest that in some instances the second platform was used for shape correction rather than blank production (Marder, 2002). Platforms on flake and blade cores were prepared in a similar fashion with both signs of abrasion and microchipping, although bladelet cores display only signs of abrasion. There is no clear difference in the amount of the striking platform circumference used between the single and opposed platform cores (60% and 63% of the platforms, respectively represent < 50% utilization). The average core size is 52.8 29.9 27.3 mm (Fig. 9 A,C). Several of the larger cores were abandoned before they were fully exploited because of problems that occurred during knapping. This is evident by the last scar on 64.8% of the cores being a hinged scar, as well as the presence of cracks and inclusions on the core's flaking surface. Three of the cores were abandoned in the midst of being reshaped by cresting (Fig. 7 A). These three are among the longest cores in the assemblage and allow reconstruction of the initial flint nodule size as ~100e120 mm long. Core shaping Core trimming elements include core tablets, ridge blades, and overshot flakes (Table 3; Fig. 10), the majority of which are blade(let) blanks (70.5%). The proportion of core tablets to cores (0.3) is very different to that of ridge blades to cores (1.8).
Table 2 Area C: Ahmarian, Aurignacian, and mixed horizons and typological indices. Industry Aurignacian Mixed Ahmarian a b c
Aurignacian Indexa
Blade Indexb
Ahmarian Indexc
Tools on blade
Tools on flake
Retouched bladelets
End scraper
17.9 13.3 1.0
20.3 26.7 42.2
6.4 14.3 22.1
35.1 48.6 41.2
30.5 18.1 10.3
14.4 17.1 27.9
24.1 17.1 10.3
The Aurignacian Index ¼ end scrapers on Aurignacian blades, carinated and nosed scrapers and Aurignacian blades (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). The Blade Index ¼ retouched and backed blades and el-Wad points (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). The Ahmarian Index ¼ retouched and backed points on blade and bladelets and el-Wad points, following Gilead (1981).
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
12
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 3 Area C: Ahmarian and Aurignacian Horizons, assemblage composition from squares J66-J65. Artifact type
Ahmarian
Debitage Primary flakes Primary blades Flakes Blades Bladelets Blank fragment Core shaping elements Core trimming elements Core tablets Ridge blades Over shot flakes/blades Burin spalls Cores Tools Debris Chips (<20 mm) Chunks Total
N
% (Excluding debris)
359 140 475 404 524 57
13.9 5.4 18.5 15.7 20.4 2.2
68 24 158 62 11 88 204
2.6 0.9 6.1 2.4 0.4 3.4 7.9
Aurignacian % (From total)
5991 484 9049
N
% (Excluding debris)
% (From total)
4.0 1.5 5.2 4.5 5.8 0.6
708 194 1043 361 745 123
17.1 4.7 25.2 8.7 18.0 3.0
8.4 2.3 12.4 4.3 8.9 1.5
0.8 0.3 1.7 0.7 0.1 1.0 2.3
162 45 118 101 39 104 390
3.9 1.1 2.9 2.4 0.9 2.5 9.4
1.9 0.5 1.4 1.2 0.5 1.2 4.6
66.2 5.3 100.0
3585 684 8402
42.7 8.1 100.0
Table 4 Area C: raw material color groups, visually defined. Flint color groups
Brown Greenish brown Yellowish brown Gray Greenish blue Yellowish Pinkish White Chocolate Chocolate/white Black Multicolored Total
Ahmarian
Aurignacian
Cores
Ridge blades
Blade blanks
Tools
Total
%
2 3 29 21 16 17
1 4 4 19 7 21 2 1
5 1 32 45 13 54 7 2
7 7 27 52 10 62 22 6 4
15 15 92 137 46 154 31 9 4
30.0 2.9 18.0 26.9 9.0 30.2 6.1 1.8 0.8
88
59
159
7 204
7 510
1.4 100.0
Cores
Ridge blades
Blade blanks
Tools
Total
%
16 9 46 17 16
3 4 13 7 3 5 6
33 8 61 26 11 11 1
104
41
1 152
49 26 116 72 13 33 29 9 30 1 2 10 390
101 47 236 122 43 49 36 9 30 1 2 11 687
14.7 6.8 34.4 17.8 6.3 7.1 5.2 1.3 4.4 0.1 0.3 1.6 100.0
Table 5 Ahmarian Horizon, core typology. Core type Single platform Opposed platforms same axis Opposed platforms 900 Opposed platform different face Amorphous fragment Total
Blade
Bladelet
Flake
Blade/bladelet
24 30
10
5 1 1
1 9
Flake/blade
1 1
3 54
10
The low number of core tablets stands in contrast to the majority of plain striking platforms on single and double platform cores (88.6%). Considering the dominance of blades in the assemblage, striking platform rejuvenation is needed and on average one to two core tablets per surface are expected during core exploitation (Marder, 2002; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003). It should be noted that the core tablets are oval or elongated in shape (Fig. 10 M-Q) and do not show the classical characteristics of core tablets as described by Goring-Morris and Davidzon (2006: 96), pointing to the clear technological differences between this assemblage and the southern assemblages (Nizzana XIII, Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006).
10
11
1
Total 40 40 2 1 3 2 88
cre ^tes) account for 50.6% of core modifiRidge blades (lames a cation elements, these include primary ridged blades (35.6%) and o-cre ^tes) (45.8%). Cores were exploited for rejuvenating crests (ne more than one round of blank removal, with reshaping of the lateral convexity occurring between each round. This is supported by the high percent of rejuvenating crests retaining scars of previous flaking rounds (Fig. 10 G,H) and the presence of overshot blades which removed the opposed striking platform (Fig. 10 L). Flat ridge blades (Fig. 10 K) were used to control lateral core convexity, whereas others were used to renew striking platform convexity and retain signs of abrasion (Fig. 10 N). Blades and bladelets The Ahmarian industry is characterized by straight and curved blades and bladelets (Table 6). Among the
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
13
Figure 9. Area C core metric values (in mm); (A) the Ahmarian Horizon, (B) the Aurignacian Horizon, (C) mean values comparison table.
twisted bladelets, there seems to be a tendency to curve to the right. Twisted bladelets (8.5%) are associated with pyramidal cores. They were removed at an angle with the blow directed from the edge of the cores striking platform towards the center of the flaking surface, thus resulting in a twisted profile. Over 25% of the blade/let platforms have signs of abrasion suggesting soft hammer percussion Bergman (2003):193; Marder et al. (2018). Based on scar patterns (Fig. 11 B), bidirectional flaking was more predominant amongst blades (34%) when compared with bladelets (17%). This pattern is in line with the predominance of opposed platform cores exploited to remove blades, although bladelets were flaked mostly from single-platform cores (Table 5). Using artifact width as the sole criterion for separating blades from bladelets (12 mm), when studying the length of blades (avg ¼ 50.3 mm) and bladelets (avg ¼ 33.0 mm) there seems to be a clear dichotomy between the two types (Fig. 12). Grouping blades and bladelets separately is technologically valid following differences in their technological attributes. The plain striking platform is predominant amongst the blades, although amongst bladelets, the linear, punctiform, and plain striking platforms appear in equal percent (Fig. 11 A). As for the scar patterns, although the majority of blades and bladelets feature unidirectional parallel scar pattern, it appears on 71.8% of the bladelets and only 52.0% of the blades (Fig. 11 B). Although both blades and bladelets could be produced within the same sequence, the differences in length and scar pattern support the suggestion that blades and bladelets were also produced using independent sequences, using different technological practices. Tools The majority of tools were made on blades (41.2%) and bladelets (27.9%), whereas flakes, ridge blades, and overshot blanks account together for 19.6% of the tool blanks (Abulafia, 2018: Table 44). Retouched blades and bladelets comprise 45.1% of the tools (Table 7), and el-Wad points are 15.7% of the tools. el-Wad points e el Wad points are made on both blades (N ¼ 17) and bladelets (N ¼ 15), with both straight and curved profiles (Fig. 13 A-H, L,M,O). The bimodality seen in blade and bladelet blank length (Fig. 12 A) is not evident in the el-Wad points (Fig. 14 B). This observation may suggest they were made within a single reduction
sequence. The el-Wad points reflect higher size standardization (~50.0 12.5 mm) as opposed to that of all blade/let debitage. The majority of el-Wad points display a unidirectional scar pattern (65%), although the bidirectional scar pattern is present on 22%, the remaining reflect a mixed pattern or could not be defined. The dominance of punctiform striking platforms (40.1%) results from the use of probably soft hammer percussion. Signs of abrasion are present on 22% of the points, suggesting that little modification was carried out to the core's striking platform before blank removal. The majority of el-Wad points portray abrupt retouch (Fig. 13 E,H,L,N), which in some instances can be considered backed. Fine dorsal or lateral retouch typical of the el-Wad points from the Negev Ahmarian assemblages is almost absent, as is the fine retouch at the base of the point (Bar-Yosef and Belfer, 1977; Gilead and Bar-Yosef, 1993; Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006). Few of the el-Wad points had their tip retouched forming an edge similar to an awl (Fig. 13 F). These el-Wad points are typical of the northern ^r ‘Akil level XX-XVI (Azoury, 1986; Ahmarian and appear in Ksa izli levels BeC (Kuhn Ohnuma, 1988; Bergman, 2003) and Üçag et al., 2003; 1999). Almost half (41%) of the el-Wad points have tips shaped by retouch on one side (Fig. 13H,J). Two have clear notches toward the base of the point (Fig. 5 D,E). These notches form a bottleneck shape enabling them to be hafted. Other points in the assemblage are made on both blade and bladelet blanks (N ¼ 13, included within the retouched blade(lets)). These points (Fig. 13 K,M) reflect a slightly higher percentage of bidirectional flaking (33.3%) when compared witth the el-Wad points, with both straight (40%) and curved profiles (30%). As in the el-Wad points, they have a pronounced percussion bulb. Plain striking platforms (40%) are more numerous than punctiform platforms (20%). Signs of core platform preparation (e.g., microchipping and abrasion) are evident on 42.8% of the blades. Retouched blades and bladelets display abrupt and semiabrupt retouch (Fig. 13 I,O). This differs from the fine retouch seen on the Aurignacian bladelets from the upper units. Seven of the retouched blades were made on ridge blades. Burins include double and dihedral burins (Fig. 15 A-C). Most end scrapers were made on blade blanks, including recycled ridge blades and core tablets (Fig. 15 F-I). Of the two carinated scrapers,
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
14
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
o-cre ^tes), (L) overshot blade, (M-P) Figure 10. Ahmarian Horizon; core-trimming elements; (A-D) primary ridge blades, (E, J, K) flat ridge blade, (FeI) rejuvenating ridge blades (ne core tablets, (Q) a technological core tablet, typologically defined as core-trimming element.
one is a thick nosed end scraper (Fig. 15 D,E). This tool type is considered a marker of the Levantine Aurignacian (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981), but may also appear in small numbers in izli, Qafzeh E and the Lagama Ahmarian assemblages as seen at Üçag sites (Bar-Yosef and Belfer, 1977: Fig. 17:25,26, Fig. 25:1,2, Fig. 27:16; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2005: Table 5; Kuhn et al., 1999: Table 2, Fig. 9:7).
The industry The Ahmarian assemblage from units 6e7 includes in addition to lithic artifacts, some bone tools (mostly awls and points), marine mollusks, and a rich faunal assemblage (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press and Comay et al., 2019 submitted). Columbella rustica and Nassarius gibbosulus were probably used for personal ornamentation, whereas Patella sp. was most probably consumed
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
15
Table 6 Ahmarian Horizon, blade, and bladelet profiles. Profile
Straight Straight and distally curved Straight and proximally curved Curved Twisted Irregular S-shape Fragments Total
Blade
Bladelet
Primary blade/let
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
30 11 7 15 5 1 2 2 73
41.1 15.1 9.6 20.5 6.8 1.4 2.7 2.7 100
32 14 1 16 6 1
45.1 19.7 1.4 22.5 8.5 1.4 0 1.4 100
3 4 2 5 e 1 e e 15
20.0 26.7 13.3 33.3 e 6.7 e e 100
65 29 10 36 11 3 2 3 159
40.9 18.2 6.3 22.6 6.9 1.9 1.3 1.9 100
1 71
as food (Marder et al., 2013; Tejero et al., 2016; Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2019). Within the lithic assemblage studied ~1.5% of the artifacts are possibly intrusive from the Levantine Aurignacian levels, and less than 1% are Levallois artifacts, whose provenance is unknown. Reduction sequences were reconstructed using raw material characterization, technological attributes, and published refitted sequences (Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006; Hauck et al., 2014). At least three different reduction sequences are present as follows: (1) opposed platform cores for blades, (2) a bladelet reduction sequence on blade cores once their size diminished through exploitation, and (3) single-platform cores used for the production of blades and bladelets within the same sequence. Artifacts from all stages of the noted sequences are found in the assemblage, suggesting that much of the knapping took place on site. At the same time, el-Wad points (Fig. 5 A,B) and other artifacts, represented by unique flint types, seem to have been brought to the site in their finished form. The opposed platform reduction sequence for blade production, dominates the assemblage. This sequence comprises locally collected flint and results in rectangular-shaped opposed platform cores. Initial shaping of the nodule was performed by a series of cortical blanks removed from the narrow face of the core towards the wide edge, thus forming the initial ridge. Once the ridge blade was removed, a series of blades were knapped from either one or two opposed striking platforms. Striking platforms were rejuvenated by the removal of flakes and rarely by a typical core tablet. A second round of shaping, also using ridge blades, was performed to rejuvenate the flaking surfaces and reform the core's lateral edges. Rejuvenating crests usually portray a single-sided crest (Fig. 10H,I). Blanks were removed from cores using soft hammer percussion as evident from signs of abrasion and microflaking on the core's striking platform and the removed blanks (Bon, 2006). Many of the blades were then retouched, shaping them into el-Wad points or retouched blades. The opposed platform sequence could have continued smoothly onto another round of removals, producing mostly bladelets because of diminished core size. In this case, there is a change in production mode resulting in the use of only one striking platform, whereas the other was removed from the core, possibly by an overshot blank. An additional independent reduction sequence aimed at producing blades and bladelets involves triangular single-platform cores. Blades and bladelets were struck from the entire circumference of the cores. The striking platform was rejuvenated by the removal of a flake acting as a core tablet. Abrading the core's striking platform was intended to assure the integrity of the intended blank. Core convexity maintenance was carried out by the o-cre ^tes). The proremoval of rejuvenation blades and crests (ne duction of flakes as intended blanks seems rare in the assemblage (cores for flakes are only 6.8% of all the cores) reflecting no clear
consistency in the way these cores were exploited. The high ratio of flakes to flake cores (43:1), suggests that many of the flakes originate from shaping and crest preparation of blade/let cores (Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006). This is supported by the high percent of cortical flakes to cortical blades (Table 3). 3.2. The Levantine Aurignacian Horizon Cores The Aurignacian core assemblage shows larger variability and cores tend to be shorter when compared with the Ahmarian core assemblages (Fig. 9). Although single-platform cores (Fig. 16 BD) account for half the cores in both assemblages (Table 8), the opposed platform cores are less prominent in the Aurignacian (Fig. 16 E). Cortex is evident on most cores, although 43.9% of the cores have less than 25% cortex. The most common flint type used is the light yellowish brown (44.2%, Fig. 4C). The greenish blue (Fig. 4 D), the brown and gray flint types appear in equal percentages (Table 4). The brown flint was used only for flake cores (Fig. 4 E). Single-platform cores were used for producing flakes, twisted bladelets and blades, whereas opposed platform cores were used for producing blades (Table 8). Among the cores on flakes (N ¼ 20), 65% were used to remove flakes although an additional 20% of the cores produced twisted bladelets. The cores on flakes used for twisted blade production resemble the carinated and Rabot coreelike tools (Fig. 17 A,H). Microflaking appears on 30% of the cores and signs of abrasion on 36.5%. There are signs of abrasion on 58.8% of bladelet cores, as the production of bladelets entailed more investment in platform preparation. Many of these single-platform cores have a nosed or semi-nose shape to their striking platform (Fig. 16 B,D). The cores as a whole reflect a slightly higher tendency toward removal from the cores’ wide face (45.8%) rather than the narrow face (37.8%). The remaining 15.4% cores were not flaked consistently from a single face. The wide-fronted cores were used mostly for removing flakes whereas the narrow-fronted cores were used for producing blade(lets) (e.g., Fig. 4C,D; Fig. 16 B,D). Core shaping Core-trimming elements are the largest group (38%) amongst the shaping blanks and almost all are flakes. Ridge blades comprise 27.6% of the shaping planks and overshot blanks account for 23.8%. Ridge blades include primary (39%) and rejuvenating ridges (44%). Using cresting for initial shaping and reshaping of the cores is typical of blade industries (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn, 1999), and goes well with the presence of opposed platform cores for blade(lets) in the assemblage. As in the Ahmarian assemblage, flat ridge blades (Fig. 16 J) for rejuvenating striking platform convexity are present (Fig. 16 K). Ridge blades appear in a lower percent than the Ahmarian assemblage (Table 3) corresponding to the lower percent of opposed platform cores.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
16
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 11. Ahmarian and Aurignacian Horizons, blade and bladelets technology; (A) striking platforms, (B) scar pattern.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
17
Figure 12. Length frequency distribution of blade (orange) and bladelet (blue) in the (A) Ahmarian and (B) Aurignacian Horizons.
Table 7 Ahmarian and Aurignacian Horizons, tool typology. Tool type
End scrapers Carinated & thick-nosed end scrapers Burins Borers Knives and backed pieces Truncations Notches and denticulates Composite tools Retouched flakes Retouched blades Aurignacian blades Side scrapers el-Wad points Retouched bladelets Total
Ahmarian
Aurignacian
N
%
N
%
19 2 12 6 4 2 18 4 10 50
9.3 1.0 5.9 2.9 2.0 1.0 8.8 2.0 4.9 24.5 0.0 1.5 15.7 20.6 100.0
64 30 53 10 12 5 43 17 35 42 9 9 16 45 390
16.4 7.7 13.6 2.6 3.1 1.3 11.0 4.4 9.0 10.8 2.3 2.3 4.1 11.5 100.0
3 32 42 204
Blades and bladelets Blades and bladelets are an integral component of the Levantine Aurignacian (Gilead, 1991; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006), and as such can be used as a comparative element with the Ahmarian. Almost 50% of the bladelets have a twisted profile (Table 9). Although 24.3% of the bladelets are twisted to the left, 75.7% twist to the right, perhaps indicating that the knappers were mostly right-handed (Bergman, 2003). Some of the smaller bladelets (L < 12 mm and W~2 mm) may actually be carinated end scraper spalls. The use of direct soft hammer percussion for producing bladelets is evident in the abundance of punctiform platforms (Fig. 11 A), and platform preparation by abrasion (38.8%) and microflaking (15.3%). The blades are longer on average (avg ¼ 46.6 mm) than the bladelets (avg ¼ 31 mm), although there is a large overlap in length dimensions between the two types (Fig. 12). The twisted bladelets have a unidirectional scar pattern (93.6%) and were flaked from triangular/prismatic cores using a soft hammer (Bergman, 2003:193; Bon, 2006). Among the blades, the plain striking platform dominates, followed by linear and punctiform types (Fig. 11 A). Platform preparation is evident by signs of abrasion (26.9%) and microchipping (20.9%). Two bulbs of percussion appear on 15% of the bladelets, resulting either from percussion using an irregular hammer or infliction of two consecutive blows (Marder, 2002). Tools End scrapers dominate the assemblage (Table 7). Carinated end scrapers were defined following Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot (1954e1956) and include artifacts made on thick flakes
distally shaped by the removal of a series of bladelets, mostly straight and curved. An end scraper was classified as carinated only if the angle of carination was larger than 45 and the bladelet removal reached the ridge on the blanks dorsal side (Fig. 17 A-C). These end scrapers differ from nosed scrapers (Fig. 17 D), which are shaped by the removal of twisted bladelets (Bordes, 2006), and simple scrapers (Fig. 17 E,F). Patina is present on 30% of all scrapers, suggesting that discarded artifacts were intentionally collected and recycled. One of the nosed scrapers was made on a Levallois flake. Artifact recycling is also known from other Levantine Aurignacian assemblages (e.g., Kebara and Hayonim, Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 2015). Blades were the preferable blank choice for producing simple end scrapers, although flakes were preferred for nosed and carinated scrapers (Fig. 18). Half the scrapers had their striking platform removed or broken. Two of the carinated scrapers are made on a uniquely textured flint, not seen in the assemblage (Fig. 19). The average thickness of the nosed end scraper tips is 11.4 mm, identical to the average length of the twisted bladelets. The Rabot edge (Fig. 17 A) is thicker with an average of 20.2 mm, a length that is compatible with the longer Dufour bladelets in the assemblage (Fig. 17 Q,R). Burins are the second largest group amongst the tools (Table 7) and include carinated burins, dihedral burins, and burins on scrapers (Fig. 17 G-J). Aurignacian blades (N ¼ 9) and end scrapers on Aurignacian blades (N ¼ 7) are made on a chocolate brownecolored flint (Table 4), different from the common yellowish-brown flint used for the larger part of the assemblage. The Aurignacian blades are retouched on one or both lateral sides (Fig. 17 K,L). The complete circumference of the strangled blade (Fig. 17 M) is retouched. Retouched points are made on blade and bladelet blanks. The elWad points (N ¼ 16) tend to be wide and twisted (37%) or partially curved (37%), whereas 25% have a straight profile. The partially twisted el-Wad points have a bidirectional scar pattern and two have an impact fracture on their distal tip. The el-Wad points have a punctiform striking platform (N ¼ 7) and signs of abrasion (N ¼ 5), suggesting they were flaked using direct soft hammer percussion (Bon, 2006; Bordes, 2006). The retouch (Fig. 17 N) is mostly abrupt, izli B (Kuhn et al., similar to the Ahmarian el-Wad points at Üçag 1999). Dufour bladelets were defined following Goring Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2006), and include straight and curved bladelets (Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot, 1954e1956), as well as twisted blanks produced from bladelet cores also known as “nosed scrapers” (Bordes, 2006). The Dufour bladelets present a wide range of variability from small minute bladelets (<5 mm long), to
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
18
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 13. Ahmarian Horizon; retouched blade (lets). (A-H, J, L, N). el-Wad points, (I) retouched bladelet, (K, M) pointed blade, and (O) retouched blade.
long and slender blades (Fig. 17 P-R). The retouch is either fine (i.e., Ouchtata retouch) or semiabrupt. Several of the twisted bladelets, retouched only on the dorsal face, were included within the Dufour bladelets even though they divert from the initial definition of Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot (1954e1956). The low percent (1.7%) of Dufour bladelets in the assemblage is probably biased because of incomplete sediment sorting of units 3 and 4. The industry The upper talus units in area C, almost a meter thick, are rich in anthropogenic material typical of the Levantine Aurignacian tradition. In addition to the lithic industry, the archaeological assemblage includes a basalt grinding stone, bone and antler tools and bone points, tooth pendants, engraved bone artifacts, and a rich faunal assemblage (Tejero et al., 2016, 2018; Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press; Comay et al., 2019 submitted). Several different reduction sequences were recognized, but not all took place on-site. Single-platform cores were mainly used for the production of flakes, and were rarely rejuvenated by core tablet removal. This reduction sequence produced many of the flakes later modified into end scrapers, burins, and denticulates. Thick flakes were also modified into carinated end scrapers, burins, and cores on flakes for the production of bladelets. Although some of these thick flakes were produced during initial stages of the described reduction sequence, others were brought into the cave as blanks. This import is suggested mostly by their size and flint types. A similar off-site production is also suggested for the Aurignacian blades. They are longer and thicker than most of the assemblage
components, and are made on multicolored flint (Table 4). Blades, bladelets, and flakes were produced from the locally available yellowish brown, greenish brown and gray flint types, and the described sequences most probably took place at the cave as all components of the reduction sequences are present in the assemblage. The reduction sequence for the production of bladelets is mostly related to carinated end scrapers (Bon, 2006), and single-platform cores (Fig. 16 B). Bladelets could have been produced within the same sequence as blades, but their higher level of length standardization (Fig. 12) suggests most were produced from defined reduction sequences intended for the production of bladelets. The single-platform core reduction sequence began with the removal of an initial flake from the flint nodule. Further shaping was performed by flaking a series of cortical blanks to form a ridge extending from the striking platform to the opposed edge, giving the core a pyramidal shape. Flaking was alternated by constant renewal of the striking platform through abrasion, microchipping, and the removal of core tablets. Several of the bladelets produced had a twisted profile. These blade/lets were then retouched into elWad points and other retouched points. Twisted bladelets were also flaked from nosed scrapers (Bordes, 2006). Several of the smaller twisted bladelets were retouched (Gilead, 1991; Bordes, 2006). Blades and possibly some of the bladelets were also flaked from opposed platform cores. These cores were often shaped by cresting,
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
19
Figure 14. Ahmarian Horizon; metric data for el-Wad points (N ¼ 20). (A) length and width distribution, (B) length frequency and normal distribution on blades (orange) and bladelets (blue). (C) average length and width.
maintaining a rectangular shape to the core, while forming a flaking surface from which both flakes and blades could be detached. The striking platform edge displays preparation signs by abrasion and microflaking associated with direct soft hammer percussion (Bon, 2006). These cores are the same as the Ahmarian opposed platform rectangular cores in shape and technological management. Another reduction sequence evident in the assemblage involves the transformation of originally opposed or single-platform cores for blades to single-platform cores for twisted bladelets. In these instances, the new striking platform canceled the original platform changing the angle of the flaking face by creating a new one. During the reshaping of the core, a ridge is formed (Fig. 16 F). 4. Discussion Cave sites with thick sedimentological accumulations rarely lack intrusive artifacts due to postdepositional disturbances (Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch, 1972; Weiner et al., 1993; Goldberg and BarYosef, 1998; Deschamps and Zilh~ ao, 2018), yet much of the Levantine chronostratigraphy has been based on cave sites (e.g., Tabun Cave and Ks^ ar ‘Akil). Deciphering the Manot Cave talus formation and subsequent postdepositional processes is essential for interpreting the cultural material derived from the defined stratigraphic units. In area C, the talus sedimentological characteristics portray a constant colluvial accumulation of geogenic and anthropogenic material from the upper part of the cave (i.e., mostly from area E) interspersed by intermittent surficial runoff episodes. The accumulation of sediments on the talus was an ongoing process during human occupation of the cave. Sediment accumulation appeared to have slowed significantly starting at ~32 ka and is thought to coincide with the collapse of the cave entrance, blocking the cave
entrance for both people and sediments, although Hyenas may have still visited the cave (Frumkin et al., 2019 in press; Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019 in press). The two channels in units 6 and 7 and the stratigraphic mixing of Ahmarian and Aurignacian archaeological material at the boundary between units 5 and 6 are thought to result from changes in intensity and directionality of the cave's water regime. This hydrological mix of sediments in the lower section of unit 5 and upper part of unit 6, is partially supported by the three 14C dates reflecting reverse stratigraphy and ranging between 42eand 33 ka (Fig. 2; Alex et al., 2017). These hydrological changes seem to correspond to a recoded increase in rainfall occurring between 43eand 36 ka (Ya’sur et al., 2019 in press). The painstaking technotypological analysis of each basket individually, rather than for each stratigraphic unit, made it possible to describe the archaeological stratigraphy independently from the sedimentological units identified during excavation. Apparent inconsistencies between sedimentological units (lithostratigraphy) and archaeological horizons is also evident from other ~o, 2018; Martini et al., sites in karstic caves (Deschamps and Zilha 2018), especially in tali accumulations as opposed to in situ anthropogenic layers. The use of technotypological indices to assign the collection of lithic artifacts from each basket to either the Levantine Aurignacian, Ahmarian, or mixed assemblages is a valid analytical protocol as it uses distinctive tool types, characteristic of particular chronocultural horizons during the UPin the Near East (Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003). The exclusion of lithic assemblages from baskets assigned to the mixed units (lower unit 5 and upper unit 6) strengthens the coherence of the archaeological horizons. Presented in the following is the case of basket 3800 used to exemplify the importance of the caution taken when allocating baskets to specific archaeological horizons.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
20
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 15. Ahmarian Horizon; selected tools, (A) double burin on truncation (B, C) dihedral burin, (D) carinated scraper, (E) carinated scraper on brake, (F) end scraper, (G) end scraper on rejuvenation ridge, (H) end scraper on core tablet, and (I) backed blade.
Basket 3800 (Fig. 3), from square J66a, b situated at the base of unit 5 (205.67e205.57 m), has a unique archaeological assemblage including an articulated human foot (Borgel et al., 2019 in press), three marine mollusks; two Cowries shells (Erosaria sp. and Zanaria pyrum) and one C. rustica (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2019), and 196 flint artifacts >20 mm. The lithic assemblage is Ahmarian by default (Ahmarian Index of 54.5) and includes the highest concentration of retouched points from all studied baskets. Amongst the retouched points are four el-Wad points (Fig. 20), two of which are long and slender (66.2 13.7 mm and 75.2 14.4 mm). The basket immediately beneath (3805) consists of an Aurignacian lithic assemblage (Aurignacian Index ¼ 10 and Ahmarian Index ¼ 0). Although it is plausible that basket 3800 originates from a burial further up the talus (Borgel et al., 2019 in press), based on talus dynamics and the presence of an Aurignacian assemblage below, it was not possible to securely assign it to the Ahmarian horizon. As this basket was included within the mixed baskets, it was exempt from this study, and was assigned broadly to the Early UP.
The Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian archaeological horizons differ in reduction sequences and tool kit. Aside from the predominance of blade production in the Ahmarian and flake production in the Aurignacian, they both have a bladelet component (Table 3). The bladelets in each of the archaeological horizons were flaked using different reduction sequences. In the Ahmarian, they were flaked from dedicated single-platform bladelet cores or during the final stages within the blade reduction sequences. This is evident in the bidirectional scar pattern amounting to 17% and an equal distribution between plain, crushed and punctiform striking platforms (Fig. 11), and a curved profile (Table 6). The Aurignacian bladelets were flaked from either dedicated singleplatform bladelet cores, carinated end scrapers or possibly even carinated burins, thus the bladelets reflect different technological characteristics with twisted profiles, predominantly unidirectional flaking and punctiform striking platforms (Table 9, Fig. 11). Bladelets with twisted profiles account for 47.4% of all bladelets in the Levantine Aurignacian horizon, and only 8.5% in the Ahmarian
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
21
Figure 16. Aurignacian Horizon; cores and core-trimming elements, (A) discoidal core for flakes, (B) single-platform blade core for twisted blades and bladelets, (C) single-platform flake core for flakes, (D) single-platform bladelet core for bladelets, (E) narrow opposed platform blade core, (F) core on flake for twisted blades and bladelets, (G) overshot blades, ^te), (J) flat rejuvenating ridge, (K) rejuvenating ridge, (L) ridge blade, and (M, N) core-trimming elements. (H) core tablet, (I) secondary ridge (sous-cre
Horizon (Tables 6 and 9). Although both the Ahmarian and Aurignacian assemblages display a bimodality in the length of blades and bladelets (Fig. 12), in the Ahmarian there is a greater length standardization of blades supporting their suggested role as the
main desired blank (Table 10). El-Wad points are found in both archaeological horizons, albeit in different percentages; 15.7% in the Ahmarian and 4.1% in the Aurignacian. Some differences between the two el-Wad groups are noted. In the Ahmarian horizon
Table 8 Aurignacian Horizon, core typology. Core type Single platform Opposed platforms same axis Opposed platforms 900 Opposed platform different face Discoidal Amorphous fragment Total
Blade
Bladelet
Flake
Blade/bladelet
Flake/blade
undefined
Total
12 15
14 1
19
6
2
2
2
3
55 16 3 11 1 15 3 104
1 30
18
2 6 1 14 1 43
1
6
3
2 4
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
22
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 17. Aurignacian Horizon; selected tools; (A) Rabot microlithic carinated scraper, (B, C) carinated scraper, (D) nosed scraper, (E, F) end scrapers, (G, H) carinated burin, (I) dihedral burin, (J) burin on scraper, (K) Aurignacian blades, (L) scraper on Aurignacian blade, (M) scraper on Aurignacian blade (strangled blade), (N, O) el-Wad point, (P-R) Doufor bladelets.
they are mostly robust with abrupt and semiabrupt retouch, at times even invasive. Within the Levantine Aurignacian horizon 37% of the el-Wad points are wide and have a twisted profile. Another major difference between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian Horizons is the presence of antler points and incised
bone fragments found only within the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon and the mixed unit below (Tejero et al., 2016). The faunal assemblage from area C presents differences in occupation intensity between the horizons, with the Aurignacian Horizon reflecting higher occupation intensity, or more frequent visitations
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
23
Table 9 Aurignacian Horizon, blade, and bladelet profiles. Profile
Straight Straight and distally curved Straight and proximally curved Curved Twisted Irregular S-shape Fragments Total
Blade
Bladelet
Primary blade/let
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
19 6 1 10 15 e e 2 53
35.8 11.3 1.9 18.9 28.3 e e 3.8 100.0
18 9 4 7 37 3 e e 78
23.1 11.5 5.1 9.0 47.4 3.8 e e 100.0
5 5 1 2 6 1 1 e 21
23.8 23.8 4.8 9.5 28.6 4.8 4.8 e 100.0
42 20 6 19 58 4 1 2 152
27.7 13.1 3.9 12.5 38.3 2.6 0.6 1.3 100.0
Figure 18. Aurignacian Horizon; end scraper typology and blank selection frequencies.
to the cave (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press). In the flint assemblage, this difference of intensity is less visible (S2). Climate changes between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian suggest a transition from a grassy open land between 47eand 42 ka to a more wooded landscape between 41eand 36.5 ka, mostly resulting from a change in rainfall (Ya’sur et al. 2019 in press). Although the presence of a rare, cold-adapted rodent taxa in the Aurignacian Horizon (Comay et al., 2019 submitted), may indicate a cooler climate. The presence of both steppe and woodland dwellers (mountain gazelle e Gazella gazelle and Mesopotamian fallow deer e Dama mesopotamia) reflects the ability of the caves’ dwellers to exploit at least two different environments, an open environment and a wooded one, located within short walking distance (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press). The changing climatic conditions evident in the speleothem record and the micromammal assemblage, are not clearly mirrored in the Faunal assemblage, which reflects a preference for mountain gazelle hunting over the fallow deer (Ya’sur et al. 2019 in press; Yeshurun et al., 2019; Comay et al., 2019 in press, submitted). This apparent mismatch between the climatic proxies and the faunal assemblage is interpreted as an indication of human hunting preferences (Yeshurun et al., 2019). These preferences did not seem to have changed very much at Manot Cave, between the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian (Yeshurun et al., 2019 in press). The Ahmarian Horizon at Manot Cave shares technotypological similarities with other sites within the Mediterranean zone; Ks^ ar izli BeC, Qafzeh E and Kebara III-IV ‘Akil XVI-XX, Yabrud II 6e7, Üçag
(Bergman, 1988; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Kuhn et al., 2003, 1999; BarYosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2005; Bretzke and Conard, 2012; Bergman et al., 2017; Bretzke et al., 2017; Demidenko and Hauck, 2017). The main characteristics include the use of opposed platform cores for blade production and small prismatic single-platform cores for blades and bladelets, use of ridge blades and rejuvenation blades, the presence of el-Wad points, retouched blades and composite tools, and end scrapers on blades and burins. Typological variability between sites is evident. Focusing on the el-Wad point, their percent amongst tools varies between sites; izli B and C (Bar-Yosef from 33% at Qafzeh E to less than 19% at Üçag and Belfer-Cohen, 2005; Kuhn et al., 1999). At Ks^ ar ‘Akil, the percent of el-Wad points varies between 17% and 3.4%, depending on the layer and excavation collection (Williams and Bergman, 2010). The ^r ‘Akil portray a general change in shape el-Wad points at Ksa through time, from straight long robust points with abrupt retouch (levels XVI-XX), to slightly twisted and short points (levels XI-XIII), and back to short straight points with inverse retouch in levels IX-X (Copland, 1970; Bergman, 2003; Williams and Bergman, 2010). Neuville (1951) noted a similar change in the retouched points at Erq el-Ahmar, in the Judean desert, from crude points with abrupt retouch in levels E and F, to delicate and elongated retouched points in level D (Bar-Yosef and Belfer, 1977). The el-Wad points from the ^r ‘Akil XVI-XX, Ahmarian Horizon at Manot resemble those from Ksa izli layers BeC, Qafzeh E and Erq el-Ahmar E and F (Neuville, Üçag 1951; Bergman, 2003; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2004; Kuhn et al., 1999).
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
24
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Figure 19. Uncommon raw material in the tool assemblage from the Aurignacian unit. (a) carinated scrapers on uniquely textured flint, (b) retouched blade on half white and half chocolateecolored flint.
Figure 20. el-Wad points from basket 3800.
In the southern arid Negev and Sinai regions, the Ahmarian is characterized by a blade industry, albeit the blades were produced from narrow-fronted single-platform cores. The ridge blades mostly display lateral removals only at the tip (Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006). The
blades and bladelets tend to be narrow, thin, and curved. There is a tight technological link between el-Wad point production and the distinctive narrow-fronted single-platform cores (Bar-Yosef and Belfer, 1977; Phillips, 1988; Gilead and Bar Yosef, 1993; Davidzon and Goring-Morris, 2003; Monigal, 2003; Coinman, 2005;
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
25
Table 10 Blank types used for tool production in the Ahmarian and Aurignacian Horizons (Abulafia, 2018: Tables 33 and 44). Tool blank type
Ahmarian Horizon tools (N ¼ 204)
Aurignacian Horizon tools (N ¼ 390)
41.2% 27.9% 10.3% 20.6%
35.1% 14.4% 30.5% 20.0%
Blades Bladelets Flakes Cores, core-trimming elements and chunks
Goring-Morris and Davidzon, 2006; Hussain, 2015; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2018). The el-Wad points from the southern assemblages tend to be slender, and they have a fine retouch on both the tip and along the base of the point, differing from the northern Ahmarian el-Wad points. The earliest dates for the Ahmarian are 46 ka cal BP at Manot Cave and 47 of 46 ka cal BP for Kebara IV (Rebollo et al., 2011; Alex ^r ‘Akil were dated to 43-41 cal BP et al., 2017). Level XVI-XX at Ksa (Bosch et al., 2015, it should be noted that modeled dates by Douka izli, levels BeC are dated et al., 2013 are some 4 ka younger). At Üçag to between 40 and 33.5 ka cal BP (Kuhn et al., 1999). In the southern region, the Ahmarian sites are mostly younger than 40 ka cal BP (for a comprehensive list of dated assemblages, refer to the appendix in Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2003). Therefore, it seems that the Ahmarian in the Mediterranean zone appears earlier than in the southern desert and semidesert region. The upper archaeological horizon has a clear Levantine Aurignacian nature well represented in the lithic and osseous assemblage. The lithic assemblage is characterized by the presence of carinated and nosed end scrapers, multiple burins, Aurignacian blades, and flake and bladelet cores. The osseous assemblage includes bone and antler points, perforated animal teeth, and incised gazelle scapula (Tejero et al., 2016, 2018, 2019 submitted). This assemblage shares similarities with the assemblages from Manot Cave area E Layers V-VI, Kebara I-II, Hayonim D, and Reqefet IV and III (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Lengyel, 2007:40, 61; Marder et al., 2019 submitted). At the same time within the area C assemblage, there are several components that differ from the typical Levantine Aurignacian assemblage including opposed platform cores and el-Wad points, some of which are on twisted blanks. One feasible explanation is that these are intrusive artifacts from the Ahmarian Horizon. This explanation is valid for the opposed platform cores and some of the el-Wad points but not for the ones on twisted blanks. A more plausible origin could possibly be layer IX in area E (Marder et al., 2019 submitted). Layers ^r ‘Akil VII-VIII, V-VI from Manot Cave area E are comparable with Ksa although initial observations from layer IX suggested the assem^r ‘Akil XI-XIII (Bergman blage displays some similarities with Ksa et al., 2017; Marder et al., 2019 submitted). Only after layer IX of area E is fully analyzed will it be possible to corroborate or refute this explanation. Following the processes that formed the area C talus, it is most feasible that the contribution of intrusive elements into the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon originates from layers below the Levantine Aurignacian layers V-VI in area E. Vertical dispersal of artifacts is a known phenomenon at multistratified sites and should be taken into consideration when the composition of archaeological cultural entities is defined (Villa, 1982). Other sites in the Levant with assemblages which represent unique technological characteristics that do not fit the classical definitions of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian are either small assemblages or are curated assemblages (i.e., Yabroud Rockshelter II, Baaz Rockshelter and wadi Kharkar). These assemblages are important for understanding the Early UP cultural variability represented at Ks^ ar ‘Akil, which is most probably larger than depicted in the Levantine Aurignacian-Ahmarian dichotomy (Azoury, 1986; Bergman and Goring-Morris, 1987; Bergman, 1987,
1988, 2003; Pastoors et al., 2008; Williams and Bergman, 2010; Bretzke and Conard, 2012; Hauck et al., 2014; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014a; Kadowaki et al., 2015; Bergman et al., 2017; Bretzke et al., 2017; Demidenko and Hauck, 2017; Kadowaki, 2018). The point made here is that although in the past, based on typological grounds, only the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian cultural traditions were noted in the southern Mediterranean cave site, recent technotypological studies, including the present analysis, albeit the reservations noted above, hint at the presence of a wider cultural variability. 5. Conclusions The area C assemblages’ lithic analysis demonstrates the need for a critical assessment of using sedimentological units (e.g., lithostratigraphy), defined in the field, as archaeological horizons (i.e., archaeostratigraphy) for a talus where no clear in situ anthropogenic layers are evident. The contact between the archaeological horizons in the talus is disturbed presenting a mixed lithic assemblage, preventing us from relating to the nature of transition between the cultural entities based on the talus assemblages. The Ahmarian Horizon displays a higher level of coherence than the Levantine Aurignacian Horizon and is the only place in the cave where the Ahmarian industry has been excavated. The later horizon is dominated by a Levantine Aurignacian component as evident in area E layer V-VI, supplemented by elements from an un-named entity, possibly present in area E level IX and Ahmarian components from lower levels as suggested by finds from the bottom of a test pit in area E. Based on chronological and technotypological data, it is suggested that the Ahmarian tradition originated in the Levantine Mediterranean area from which it expanded North at izli (Kuhn, 2009, 2013), if not further north as least as far as Üçag suggested by Hublin (2015). The movement south, into the arid and semi-arid regions, was accompanied by a change of core technology for the production of a similar, yet different, tool kit. Acknowledgments This study is based on A.T.’s M.A. thesis in the department of Bible, Archaeology and the Ancient Near East, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Supervised by Ofer Marder and Omry Barzilai. The authors thank Patrice Kaminsky for the artifact drawings, Evgeniy Ostrovskiy for the photographs, and Eliyahu Cohen-Sasson for drawing the sections. The authors would like to thank Daniella Bar-Miguel Tejero, for their contribution to the Yosef Mayer Jose manuscript. A special thanks goes to Ron Lavi for his invaluable insight during excavations and all the University students and volunteers without whom the area would not have been excavated. The Manot Cave excavations are a joint project of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, the Tel Aviv University and the Israel Antiquities Authority. The project is supported by the Dan David Foundation, the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 338/14;999/ 18), Binational Science Foundation (grant. no. 2015303), Case Western Reserve University, the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Foundation and The Leakey Foundation. The geomorphology and soil micromorphology analysis were partially sponsored with funds provided
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
26
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
by the Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Grant No. 430-2013-000546) and The Bertha and Louis Weinstein Research Fund. The authors would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which contributed to improving the manuscript. Supplementary Online Material Supplementary online material to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707. References Abulafia, T., 2018. Post-depositional processes in the Upper Paleolithic period; A typo-technological case study from Manot Cave Area C. M.A. Thesis. Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Alex, B., Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Berna, F., Caracuta, V., Abulafia, T., Davis, L., Goder-Goldberger, M., Lavi, R., Mintz, E., Regev, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Tejero, J.-M., Yeshurun, R., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Yasur, G., Frumkin, A., Latimer, B., Hans, M.G., Boaretto, E., 2017. Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals. Science Advances 3(11), 1701450. Ambrose, S.H., 2002. Small things remembered: origins of early microlithic industries in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 12, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 9e29. Azoury, I., 1986. Ks^ ar Akil, Lebanon. A Technological and Typological Analysis of the and Abu Halka. BAR Transitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ks^ ar Akil International Series, vol. 289. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Bar-Yosef, O., 1981. The Epipaleolithic complexes in the Southern Levant. In: histoire du Levant. CNRS, Paris, pp. 389e408. Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), Pre Bar-Yosef, O., 2007. The archaeological framework of the Upper Paleolithic revolution. Diogenes 54(2), 3e18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192107076869. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer, A., 1977. Upper Paleolithic occurrences; the Lagaman industry. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Phillips, J.L. (Eds.), Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai. Qedem 7. The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, pp. 42e84. Bar-Yosef, O., Kuhn, S.L., 1999. The big deal about blades: laminar technologies and human evolution. American Anthropologist 101(2), 322e338. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2004. The Qafzeh Upper Paleolithic assemblages: 70 years later. Eurasian Prehistory 2(1), 145e180. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2010. The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic. In: Garcea, A. (Ed.), South-Eastern Mediterranean Peoples Between 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 144e167. Bar-Yosef, O., Arnold, M., Mercier, N., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Housley, R., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Vogel, J.C., Vandermeersch, B., 1996. The dating of the Upper Paleolithic layers in Kebara cave, Mt Carmel. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(2), 297e306. Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., 1972. The stratigraphical and cultural problems of the passage from Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Palestinian caves. In: The Origin of Homo Sapiens. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 221e225. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., 2019. Upper Palaeolithic explorers: The geographic sources of shell beads in Early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages in Israel. PaleoAnthropology 2019, 105e115. Barzilai, O., 2009. Social complexity in the southern Levantine PPNB as reflected through lithic studies: The bidirectional blade industries. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Mathews, M., Bar-Oz, G., Boaretto, E., Berna, F., Frumkin, A., Khalaily, H., Weiner, S., 2012. Manot Cave Hadashot Arkheologiot, vol. 124. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail. aspx?id¼2183&mag_id¼119. Barzilai, O., Marder, O., Hershkovitz, I., 2014. Manot Cave seasons 2011-2012, vol. 126. Hadashot Arkheologiot. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail. aspx?id¼6470&mag_id¼121. Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., 2016. The Early Upper Paleolithic period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel. Human Evolution 31, 85e100. Belfer-Cohen, A., 1980. The Aurignacian assemblage from Hayonim Cave, Western Galilee, Israel. M.A. thesis. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. orient, Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 1981. The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave. Pale pp. 19e42. Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2015. Paleolithic recycling: The example of Aurignacian artifacts from Kebara and Hayonim caves. Quaternary International 361, 256e259. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, N., 2002. Why microliths? Microlithization in the Levant. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12(1), 57e68. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2003. Current issues in Levantine Upper Palaeolithic research. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 1e12. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2012. The Early Upper Palaeolithic: A view from the Southern Levant. In: Otte, M., Shidrang, S., Flas, D. (Eds.), The
Aurignacian from the Yafteh Cave and its Context (2005-2008 Excavations), vol. ge, pp. 127e136. 132. ERAUL, Lie Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2014a. On the rebounddA Levantine view of Upper Palaeolithic dynamics. In: Otte, M., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Modes de placements au Pale olithique Eurasiatique, ERAUL 140, Lie ge, Contacts et de De pp. 27e36. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2014b. The Upper Palaeolithic and Earlier EpiPalaeolithic of Western Asia. In: Renfrew, A.C., Bahn, P.G. (Eds.), The Cambridge World Prehistory, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1381e1407. Bergman, C.A., 1987. Ks^ ar Akil Lebanon: A Technological and Typological Analysis of the Later Palaeolithic Levels of Ks^ ar Akil: Volume 2.: Levels 13.-6. BAR International Series 329. orient, Bergman, C.A., 1988. Ksar Akil and the Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant. Pale pp. 201e210. Bergman, C.A., 2003. Twisted debitage and the Levantine Aurignacian problem. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye. Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 187e195. Bergman, C.A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 1987. Conference: The Levantine Aurignacian ^r Akil, with special reference to Ksa Lebanon March 27-28, 1987. Institute of orient, pp. 142e147. Archaeology, London. Pale Bergman, C., Williams, J., Douka, K., Schyle, D., 2017. The Palaeolithic sequence of ^r Akil Ksa l, Lebanon. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary of the Levant. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 267e276. Berna, F., Boaretto, E., Wiebe, M.C., Goder-Goldberger, M., Lavi, R., Barziali, O., Weiner, S., 2019. Site formation processes at Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution submitted. histoire libanaise. Besançon, J., Copeland, L., Hours, F., 1975-1977. Tableaux de pre orient 3, 5e46. Pale Bosch, M.D., Mannino, M.A., Prendergast, A.L., O'Connell, T.C., Demarchi, B., Taylor, S.M., Niven, L., Van Der Plicht, J., Hublin, J.J., 2015. New chronology for ^r ‘Akil (Lebanon) supports Levantine route of modern human dispersal into Ksa Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 201501529. Bretzke, K., Conard, N.J., 2012. Evaluating morphological variability in lithic assemblages using 3D models of stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(12), 3741e3749. Bretzke, K., Kandel, A.W., Conard, N.J., 2017. Establishing regional sequences; The Qalamunian Upper Paleolithic and its implications for the two-tradition model histoire, Hommage a Jean-Marie Le in the Levant. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Vocation Pre ologiques de l'Universite de Tensorer. Eraul 148. Etudes et Recherches Arche ge, Lie ge, pp. 43e56. Lie Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the industries of the transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Portuguȇs de Zilha Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 133e146. Bordes, J.G., 2006. News from the West: A reevaluation of the classical Aurignacian rigord. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh~ sequence of the Pe ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Portuguȇs de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 147e172. Borgel, S., Latimer, B., McDermott, Y., Sarig, R., Pokhojaev, A., Abulafia, T., GoderGoldberger, M., Barzilai, O., May, H., 2019. Early Upper Paleolithic Human foot bones from Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution in press. Coinman, N.R., 2005. Subsistence and technology in the Late Levantine Upper Paleolithic. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 159e177. Comay, O., Weissbrod, L., Dayan, T., 2019. Predictive modelling in paleoenvironmental reconstruction: the micromammals of Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution submitted. Copeland, L., 1975. The Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Lebanon and Syria in the light of recent research. In: Wendorf, F., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMU Press, pp. 317e350. Davidzon, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2003. Sealed in stone: The Upper Palaeolithic Early Ahmarian knapping method in the light of refitting studies at Nahal Nizzana XIII, Western Negev, Israel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 33, 75e205. Demidenko, Y.E., Hauck, T.C., 2017. Yabrud II rock-shelter archaeological sequence (Syria) and possible Proto-Aurignaicnan origin in the Levant. In: Otte, M. histoire. Hommage a Jean-Marie Le Tensorer. Eraul 148. (Ed.), Vocation Pre ologiques de l'Universite de Lie ge, Lie ge, Etudes et Recherches Arche pp. 89e98. ~o, J., 2018. Assessing site formation and assemblage integrity Deschamps, M., Zilha through stone tool refitting at Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karst system, Torres Novas, Portugal): A Middle Paleolithic case study. PloS one 13(2), e0192423. Douka, K., Bergman, C.A., Hedges, R.E., Wesselingh, F.P., Higham, T.F., 2013. Chro ^r Akil nology of Ksa (Lebanon) and implications for the colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans. PLoS One 8, e72931. Ekshtain, R., Malinsky-Buller, A., Ilani, S., Segal, I., Hovers, E., 2014. Raw material exploitation around the Middle Paleolithic site of ‘Ein Qashish. Quaternary International 331, 248e266. Ekshtain, R., Ilani, S., Segal, I., Hovers, E., 2017. Local and nonlocal procurement of raw material in Amud Cave, Israel: The complex mobility of late Middle Paleolithic groups. Geoarchaeology 32(2), 189e214. Ewing, J.F., 1947. Preliminary note on the excavations at the Palaeolithic site of ^r'Akil, Republic of Lebanon. Antiquity 21(84), 186e196. Ksa
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx Frumkin, A., 2017. Quaternary evolution of caves and associated palaeoenvironments of the Southern Levant. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans. Cambridge University Press, pp. 135e144. Frumkin, A., Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Ullman, M., Marder, O., 2019. Karst terrain in the western upper Galilee, Israel: Speleogenesis, hydrogeology and human preference of Manot Cave. Journal of Human Evolution (In press). Garrod, D.A.E., Bate, D.M.A., 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Garrod, D.A., 1953. The relations between south-west Asia and Europe in the later palaeolithic age. Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale. Journal of World History. Cuadernos de Historia Mundial 1(1), 13. Garrod, D.A.E., 1954. Excavations at the Mugharet Kebara, Mount Carmel, 1931: The Aurignacian industries. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 20, 155e192. olithique Supe rieur du Moyen Orient. Bulletin Garrod, D.A.E., 1957. Notes sur le Pale te Pre historique Française 55, 439e445. de la Socie Gilead, I., 1981. Upper Palaeolithic tool assemblages from the Negev and Sinai. In: histoire du Levant. CNRS, Paris, pp. 331e342. Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), Pre Gilead, I., 1989. The Upper Palaeolithic in the Southern Levant: periodization and terminology. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B. (Eds.), Prehistoire du SudLevant, pp. 231e254. BAR International Series 497. Gilead, I., 1991. The Upper Paleolithic period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 5(2), 105e154. Gilead, I., Bar-Yosef, O., 1993. Early Upper Paleolithic sites in the Qadesh Barnea area, NE Sinai. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(3), 265e280. Goder-Goldberger, M., 2014. Lithic variability along the Middle Paleolithic dispersal routes of modern humans' Out of Africa. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Goring Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), 2003. More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2006. A hard look at the “Levantine Auri~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a gnacian”: How real is the taxon. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha s de Arqueologia, Lisboa, Definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Portugue Portugal, pp. 297e314. Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2018. The Ahmarian in the context of the earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East. In: Akazawa, T., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Springer, Singapore, pp. 87e104. Goring-Morris, A.N., Davidzon, A., 2006. Straight to the point: Upper Paleolithic Ahmarian lithic technology in the Levant. Anthropologie 44(1), 93e111. Goldberg, P., Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. Site formation processes in Kebara and Hayonim Caves and their significance in Levantine prehistoric caves. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Southwest Asia. Plenum Press, pp. 107e125. Hauck, T., Domnina, M., Molden, C., Cetinkaya, J., 2014. Yabroud II-Layer 4 A new ratoire reconstruction for the early Upper Palaeolithic. dataset and chaîne ope SFB/CRC 806 Database. https://doi.org/10.5880/SFB806.6. http://www.unikoeln.de/fast/projects/yabroud/yabroud2_l4/yabroud.html. Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Yasur, G., Boaretto, E., Caracuta, V., Alex, B., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Gunz, P., Holloway, R.L., Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Matthews, A., Slon, V., Mayer, D.B.-Y., Berna, F., Bar-Oz, G., Yeshurun, R., May, H., Hans, M.G., Weber, G.W., Barzilai, O., 2015. Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans. Nature 520(7546), 216. tude du Hours, F., 1974. Remarques sur l'utilisation de listes-types pour l'e olithique supe rieur et de l'Epipale olithique du Levant. Pale orient 3e18. Pale Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford University Press. Hovers, E., Malinsky-Buller, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Ekshtain, R., 2011. Capturing a moment: identifying short-lived activity locations in Amud Cave, Israel. In: Le Tensorer, J.M., Jagher, R., Otte, M. (Eds.), The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the ge, pp. 101e114. Middle East and Neighboring Regions, vol. 126. ERAUL, Lie Hublin, J.J., 2015. The modern human colonization of western Eurasia: when and where? Quaternary Science Reviews 118, 194e210. Hussain, S.T., 2015. Betwixt seriality and sortiment: rethinking the Early Ahmarian blade technology in Al-Ansab 1. In: Schyle, D., Richter, J. (Eds.), Pleistocene Archaeology of Petra Area in Jordan. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf, pp. 131e148. Kadowaki, S., Omori, T., Nishiaki, Y., 2015. Variability in Early Ahmarian lithic technology and its implications for the model of a Levantine origin of the Protoaurignacian. Journal of Human Evolution 82, 67e87. Kadowaki, S., 2018. Ahmarian or Levantine Aurignacian? Wadi Kharar 16R and new insights into the Upper Palaeolithic lithic technology in the Northeastern Levant. In: Akazawa, T., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Springer, Singapore, pp. 105e118. Kaufman, D., 1986. A proposed method for distinguishing between blades and bladelets. Lithic Technology 15(1), 34e40. Kuhn, S.L., 2013. Questions of complexity and scale in explanations for cultural transitions in the Pleistocene: a case study from the early Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(2), 194e211. Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Güleç, E., 1999. Initial Upper Palaeolithic in south-central Turkey and its regional context: a preliminary report. Antiquity 73(281), 505e517. Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Kerry, K.W., Güleç, E., 2003. The Early Upper Palaeolithic at izli Cave (Hatay, Turkey): some preliminary results. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Üçag
27
Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More Than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 106e117. Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Barkai, R., Frumkin, A., Gopher, A., Stiner, M.C., 2007. Evidence for habitual use of fire at the end of the Lower Paleolithic: Site-formation processes at Qesem Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 53(2), 197e212. Lengyel, G., 2007. Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic Lithic Technologies at Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel East, Israel. BAR International series 1681. Archaeopress, Oxford. Leplongeon, A., Pleurdeau, D., Hovers, E., 2018. Late Pleistocene and Holocene lithic variability at Goda Buticha (Southeastern Ethiopia): implications for the understanding of the Middle and Late Stone Age of the Horn of Africa. Journal of African Archaeology 15(2), 202e233. Marder, O., 2002. The lithic technology of epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers in the Negev: The implications of refitting studies. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Marder, O., Alex, B., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Berna, F., Boaretto, E., Caracuta, V., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Hershkovitz, I., Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Matthews, A., Weiner, S., Weiss, U., Yas’ur, G., Yeshurun, R., Barzilai, O., 2013. The Upper Paleolithic of Manot Cave, western Galilee, Israel: The 2011-12 excavations. Antiquity 87(337). https://www. researchgate.net/publication/265906072_The_Upper_Palaeolithic_of_Manot_ Cave_Western_Galilee_Israel_the_2011-12_excavations. Marder, O., Hershkovitz, I., Barzilai, O., 2017. The Early Upper Palaeolithic of Manot Cave, Western Galilee. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans. Cambridge University Press, pp. 277e284. Marder, O., Barzilai, O., Abulafia, T., Hershkovitz, I., Goder-Goldberger, M., 2018. Chrono-cultural considerations of Middle Paleolithic occurrences at Manot Cave (Western Galilee), Israel. In: Akazawa, T., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Springer, Singapore, pp. 49e63. Marder, O., Shemer M., Abulafia, T., Bar-Yosef-Mayer, D., Berna, F. Caux, S., Edeltin, L., Goder-Goldberger M., Hershkovitz I., Lavi R., Shavit, R., Tejero J.-M., Yeshurun, R., Barzilai O., submitted Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: cultural affiliations and regional perspectives. Journal Human Evolution. Marks, A.E., 1981. The Upper Paleolithic of the Negev. In: Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. histoire du Levant. CNRS, Paris, pp. 343e352. (Eds.), Pre Marks, A.E., 2003. Reflections on levantine Upper Palaeolithic studies: Past and present. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye. Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 249e264. Martini, I., Ronchitelli, A., Arrighi, S., Capecchi, G., Ricci, S., Scaramucci, S., Spagnolo, V., Gambassini, P., Moroni, A., 2018. Cave clastic sediments as a tool for refining the study of human occupation of prehistoric sites: insights from the cave site of La Cala (Cilento, southern Italy). Journal of Quaternary Science 33(5), 586e596. Mellars, P., 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432, 461e465. Mellars, P., 2006. Going east: new genetic and archaeological perspectives on the modern human colonization of Eurasia. Science 313(5788), 796e800. Monigal, K., 2003. Technology, economy and mobility at the beginning of the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic. In: Goring Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 118e133. olithique et le Me solithique du de sert de Jude e. Masson. Neuville, R., 1951. Le Pale olithique supe rieur de Ksar Akil (Liban). Newcomer, M.H., 1974. Outils en os du Pale r. Colloque International sur l'Industrie de l'Os dans In: Camps Fabrer, H. (Ed.), 1e histoire : Abbaye de Se nanque, 18-20 avril 1974. Editions de la Pre de l'Universite Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 60e65. orient Newcomer, M., Watson, J., 1984. Bone artifacts from Ksar 'Aqil (Lebanon). Pale 10(1), 143e147. Ohnuma, K., 1988. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A Technological Study of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic Levels at Ksar Akil, vol. 3. British Archaeological Reports International Series 426, Oxford. Levels XXV-XIV. Orbach, M., Yeshurun, R., 2019. The hunters or the hunters: Human and hyena prey choice divergence in the Late Pleistocene Levant. Journal of Human Evolution (In press). Pastoors, A., Weniger, G.C., Kegler, J.F., 2008. The Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition at Yabroud II (Syria). A re-evaluation of the lithic material from the Rust orient, pp. 47e65. excavation, Pale Phillips, J.L., 1988. The Upper Palaeolithic of the Wadi Feiran, southern Sinai. orient 14, 183e200. Pale Rebollo, N.R., Weiner, S., Brock, F., Meignen, L., Goldberg, P., Belfer-Cohen, A., BarYosef, O., Boaretto, E., 2011. New radiocarbon dating of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Kebara Cave, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(9), 2424e2433. Shimelmitz, R., Friesem, D.E., Clark, J.L., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Weissbrod, L., Porat, N., Kandel, A.W., 2018. The Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic of Sefunim Cave, Israel. Quaternary International 464, 106e125. olithique Sonneville-Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1954-1956. Lexique typologique du Pale rieur. Outillage lithique. Bulletin de la Socie te Pre historique Française, supe Paris.
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707
28
T. Abulafia et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx
Tejero, J.M., Yeshurun, R., Barzilai, O., Goder-Goldberger, M., Hershkovitz, I., Lavi, R., Schneller-Pels, N., Marder, O., 2016. The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian. Quaternary International 403, 90e106. Tejero, J.M., Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., Gutkin, V., Rabinovich, R., 2018. Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences e.201717145. Tejero, J.-M., Rabinovich, R., Yeshurun, R., Abulafia, T., Bar-Yosef, O., Barzilai, O., Goder-Goldberger, M., Hershkovitz, I., Lavi, R., Shemer, M., Marder, O., BelferCohen, A., 2019. Toward complexity in the osseous raw material work at the beginning of the early Upper Paleolithic in Eurasia: The Manot Cave (Israel) osseous tools in the Aurignacian emergence and diffusion context. Journal of Human Evolution submitted. olithique du Maghreb. Me moires du Centre de Tixier, J., 1963. Typologie de l'Epipale historiques et ethnographiques. Arts et recherches anthropologiques, pre tiers graphiques, París. Me Villa, P., 1982. Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. American Antiquity 47(2), 276e290.
Weiner, S., 2009. Diagenetic transformations: deciphering the archaeological record of prehistoric caves: Papers in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. In: Shea, J., Lieberman, D. (Eds.), Transitions in Prehistory: Papers in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Weiner, S., Goldberg, P., Bar-Yosef, O., 1993. Bone preservation in Kebara Cave, Israel using on-site Fourier transform infrared spectrometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 20(6), 613e627. Williams, J.K., Bergman, C.A., 2010. Upper Paleolithic levels XIII-VI (A and B) from the 1937-1938 and 1947-1948 Boston college excavations and the Levantine ^r Akil, orient, pp. 117e161. Aurignacian at Ksa Lebanon. Pale Yas’ur, G., 2013. The chronology of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the Western Galilee based on U-Th ages of speleothems from Manot Cave, Israel. M.A. Dissertation. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Yas’ur, G., Ayalon, A., Matthews, A., Zilberman, T., Marder, O., Barzilai, O., Boaretto, E., Hershkovitz, I., Bar-Matthews, M., 2019. Climatic and environmental conditions in the Western Galilee, during Late Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods, based on speleothems from Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution in press. Yeshurun, R., Schneller-Pels, N., Barzilai, O., Marder, O., 2019. Early Upper Paleolithic subsistence in the Levant: Zooarchaeology of the AhmarianeAurignacian Sequence at Manot Cave, Israel. Journal Human Evolution (In press).
Please cite this article as: Abulafia, T et al., A technotypological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (area C) and the interrelation with site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102707