Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives

Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives Ofer Marder a, *, Maayan Shemer a, b, 1, Talia Abulafia a, c, Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer d, Francesco Berna e, Solene Caux f, g, Lotan Edeltin a, Mae Goder-Goldberger a, Israel Hershkovitz h, i, Ron Lavi j, Roi Shavit a, Jose-Miguel Tejero k, l, Reuven Yeshurun m, Omry Barzilai b a

Deprtament of Bible, Archaeology and the Ancient Near East, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653 Beer Sheva 84105, Israel Archaeological Research Department, Israel Antiquities Authority, P.O. Box 586, Jerusalem, Israel c Israel Antiquities Authority, P.O. Box 271, Omer, Israel d The Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel e Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada f PACEA laboratory, Bordeaux University, France g
J Centre de Recherche Français a erusalem (CRFJ), P.O. Box 547, Shimshon 3 Street, Baka, 9100401 Jerusalem, Israel h Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel i The Dan David Center for Human Evolution and Bio-history Research, Steinhardt Museum of Natural History and National Research Center, Tel Aviv University, P.O. Box 39040, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel j Independent Researcher, 8 Dan Street, Modi'in 7173161, Israel k Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique de France (CNRS), UMR 7041, ArScAn  equipe Ethnologie pr ehistorique, 92023 Nanterre, France l
riques (SERP), Universitat de Barcelona, 08001 Barcelona, Spain Seminari d'Estudis I Recerques Prehisto m Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 9 January 2019 Accepted 18 October 2019 Available online xxx

A well-preserved sequence of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) occupations has been revealed in the past decade in Manot Cave, the studies of which shed light on the cultural dynamics and subsistence patterns and paleoenvironment. Most intriguing is the series of overlying Levantine Aurignacian occupation layers, exposed near the entrance to the cave. Area E is considered the inner part of the main activity area in Manot Cave. Remains of intact combustion features, as well as numerous flint artifacts and faunal remains, were found, indicating a high level of preservation. Within a 2.5 m sequence, nine distinct occupation layers were defined. The presence of characteristic flint and osseous industries alongside a rich mollusk assemblage led to the initial association of the sequence as a whole to the Levantine Aurignacian. However, as research advanced and variability in the material culture became apparent, it became clear that a division of the sequence into two phases, early and late, is required. A preliminary study of the assemblage variability implies distinct changes in human behavior between the two phases. Most prominently, these are indicated by a change in bladelet production method and morphology alongside an increase in the significance of the bladelet component within the flint assemblage, the disappearance of composite osseous industries, and a steep decrease in mollusk shell representation in the late occupation phase. Radiocarbon dating indicates a short time span between the two phases. The earlier phase defined as, Levantine Aurignacian, was ascribed an age range of 38e34 ka cal BP with a more constrained age range of 37e35 ka cal BP suggested based on Bayesian models. In the late phase, which is temporarily referred to as “post-Levantine Aurignacian,” an age range of 36e33 ka cal BP is suggested. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Manot Cave Levantine Aurignacian Cultural variability Regional context Upper Paleolithic

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Marder). 1 Equally contributed to the paper. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705 0047-2484/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

2

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

1. Introduction The Aurignacian is considered the main cultural entity during the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) in Europe, currently dated between 43/42 and 30 ka (Banks et al., 2013; Nigst et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2014). Initially defined by H. Breuil (1913) in the early 20th century in southwestern Europe, the Aurignacian is considered to encompass a distinct set of cultural affinities: it comprises the appearance of complex osseous industries, including both tools and personal ornaments, of which the distinctive antler-made splitbase points are prominent (Liolios, 1999; White, 2007; Tartar and White, 2013; Tejero, 2014). Aurignacian assemblages often show an extensive use of shells, sometimes brought from a distance, as decorative elements. In some cases, the use of mollusks for consumption is also indicated (e.g., Vanhaeren and d’Errico, 2006;  ndez and Jo € ris, 2008; Stiner et al., 2013; Bosch et al., Alvarez Ferna 2015a,b). Characteristic flint assemblages show an emphasis on blade/bladelet production. A hallmark of Aurignacian industries is the production of bladelets with curved or twisted profiles from thick flakes or blades, most often referred to as “carinated endscrapers” or “carinated burins” (e.g., Breuil, 1913; SonnevilleBordes, 1960; Demars and Laurent, 1989). These bladelets often bear light retouch, ventral or alternate (“Dufour bladelets”). Other typical flint implements include endscrapers, wide blades with scalar, invasive lateral retouch (“Aurignacian retouch”), strangled blades, and heavily denticulated items (Breuil, 1913; SonnevilleBordes, 1960; Demars and Laurent, 1989; Bon et al., 2002; Maíllo, 2002; Bon, 2006; Teyssandier, 2007, 2008; and see; Falcucci et al., 2017). Advances in the study of the Aurignacian, resulting from the publication of old and new sites, as well as a revision of assemblages collected in the early 20th century, have led to a general division of the Aurignacian in western Europe into three main phases: Protoaurignacian (“Aurignacian 0,” “Archaic Aurignacian”), Early Aurignacian (“Aurignacian 1,” “Ancient Aurignacian”), and Recent Aurignacian (Bon et al., 2002; Bon, 2002, 2006; Teyssandier, 2007, 2008; Teyssandier et al., 2010 and see also; Bordes, 2006). Based on the identification of similar lithic technological trends between phases, a gradual development is suggested, demonstrating an increasing tendency toward microlithization with time (e.g., Bon, 2002; Kuhn, 2002; Elston and Kuhn, 2002; Bordes, 2006; Teyssandier et al., 2010). Nevertheless, in some cases, distinct differences are observed between Aurignacian occurrences originating from different geographic regions. These are mostly manifested by typological aspects, such as composition and frequencies of specific tool types within lithic assemblages or in the osseous industry. The observed differences are commonly regarded as local adaptations to different environments (e.g., Bon, 2002; Teyssandier et al., 2006). In the Levant, basic similarities in lithic components have led to the initial association of parts of the Upper Paleolithic sequence with an Aurignacian “tradition” in the early 20th century (Neuville, 1934, 1951; Garrod and Bate, 1937). However, in the mid-20th century, the use of the term “Aurignacian” was revised, as some variations from the European typecast became apparent: splitbased points are virtually absent in Levantine assemblages (Tejero et al., 2016, and see also; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981), whereas the presence of el-Wad points has been noted in several occasions (e.g., Garrod, 1957; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981). In addition, Levantine lithic assemblages were described to contain a flake-based industry (with some tendency toward blade selection for the production of specific tool types), whereas European assemblages are reported to show a clear tendency for blade/bladelet production (Breuil, 1913; Sonneville-Bordes, 1960; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Gilead, 1981; Demars and Laurent, 1989; Bon

et al., 2002; Maíllo, 2002; Bon, 2006; Bordes, 2006; Teyssandier, 2007, 2008; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010; Williams and Bergman, 2010). Levantine assemblages were then named “Lower/ Upper Antelian” or “Atlitian,” emphasizing their identification as local cultural entities (Garrod, 1957). Only later, during the London Conference in 1969, was the term “Levantine Aurignacian” introduced, used to describe similar cultural affinities found in the ^r ‘Akil (Hours, 1974; Besançon et al., 1975e1977; sequence of Ksa Copeland, 1975; and see; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014). This term emphasizes that along with similarities between Levantine and European assemblages there are evident differences. To-date, “classic” Levantine Aurignacian assemblages, incorporating complex osseous industries, personal ornaments, and characteristic flint artifacts have been recovered only from caves and rock-shelter contexts located in the northern or central Mediterranean region (Fig. 1). Their distinct variation from the locally evolved, partially contemporaneous, blade-based Ahmarian industries on the one hand and the presence of components typical of the west European Aurignacian on the other hand have led to the establishment of the generally accepted model according to which the Levantine Aurignacian is considered intrusive, introduced to the Levant well after its establishment in Europe (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1996; Lengyel et al., 2006; Alex et al., 2017; BelferCohen and Goring-Morris, 2017). This notion is supported by radiocarbon ages, indicating a range of 37e33 ka for the Levantine Aurignacian assemblages, with a more constrained timeframe (37e35 ka) suggested based on the ages retrieved from Manot Cave (Alex et al., 2017). The basic technological differences between the flakedominated Levantine Aurignacian and the blade-based Ahmarian industries essentially led to the establishment of broad definitions. Thus, any occurrence containing a flake-based industry and associated with the EUP was assigned to the Levantine Aurignacian, while sometimes overlooking major differences between assemblages (e.g., Gilead, 1981, 1991; Marks, 1981, 2003). Only recently was this definition revised, separating the “classic” Levantine Aurignacian from other industries, which presented a more distinct variation from the European typecast. These are now treated as representing local cultural entities, with their relation to the Levantine Aurignacian yet to be established (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010; BelferCohen and Goring-Morris, 2014). Two main entities are considered the potential successors of the Levantine Aurignacian: the Atlitian and the Arqov-Divshon (Garrod and Bate, 1937; Marks, 1977; Williams, 2003; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006). However, other than the general determination that they postdate the Levantine Aurignacian, these are broadly defined and poorly dated entities. Therefore, their role in Levantine EUP dynamics is still mostly unknown. The Atlitian, Phase V in Garrod's initial division of the Levantine Upper Paleolithic (Garrod and Bate, 1937), was originally defined based on the lithic industry from el-Wad, Layer C. This is a broadly defined flake-based industry characterized by dominance of burins, prominently truncation burins. Sites containing Atlitian occupation layers are mostly found in the Mediterranean part of the Levant (e.g., el-Wad C [Garrod and Bate, 1937]; el- Khiam E [9e10] lez Echegaray, 1966]; Ks^ [Neuville, 1951; Gonza ar ‘Akil VI [Copeland, 1975]; Fazael IX [Goring-Morris, 1980]; Nahal Ein Gev I [Belfer Cohen et al., 2004]; Fig. 1). Nevertheless, great variability is evident between assemblages ascribed to the Atlitian. The most prominent variation is demonstrated by differences in frequencies of blade and bladelet cores, as well as the degree of abundance of thick, nosed, or carinated endscrapers. When present in the same archaeological sequence, Atlitian layers always overlay Levantine Aurignacian occupations (Garrod

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

3

Figure 1. A distribution map of EUP sites in the southern Levant.

and Bate, 1937; Bergman, 1987a; Williams and Bergman, 2010; Bergman et al., 2017; Shimelmitz et al., 2018). However, the Atlitian is poorly dated; its originally estimated age ranged between ~27 and 26 ka cal BP (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2017), while new dates from Ks^ ar ‘Akil suggest ages of 35e32 ka cal BP for the Atlitian Phase VI (Bosch, 2015b; Bergman et al., 2017: Table 30.2). Of particular note, a redated old sample, previously yielding an age of 29,300 ± 800 BP (Mellars and Tixier, 1989), produced a more precise yet statistically identical age of 30,250 ± 170 BP (OxA-19194; Bergman et al., 2017:273). The Arqov-Divshon entity is found in the arid zones of the Levant (Fig. 1). This entity is broadly defined, so that it incorporates all flake-based industries dominated by laterally carinated items (i.e., burins, endscrapers). Assemblages attributed to the ArqovDivshon include Ein Aqev D31, Boker C, Har Horesha I, Ramat Matred/Har Lavan, Shunera XV, Har Harif (K9a, G11), Qadesh Barnea 602, and Qseimeh II in the Negev and Sinai. In southern Jordan, there are the Wadi Madamagh and Wadi Sabra sites as well as sites

in the el-Kowm region in the northeast Rift Valley, Syria (Marks and Ferring, 1976; Marks, 1976b; Gilead, 1981; Jones et al., 1983; BelferCohen and Goring-Morris, 1986; Schyle and Uerpmann, 1988; Gilead and Bar-Yosef, 1993; Parow-Souchon, 2016). The age of the Arqov-Divshon entity is not clear. Few radiocarbon dates are available, and relative chronology based on stratigraphic constrains is difficult, as many of the Arqov-Divshon assemblages originate from surface collections. Marks (1976b) dates the Arqov entity between 18 and 17 ka, while Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris (2003) suggest that it is older, with an estimated age range between 30 and 17 ka. The distinct differences between the Atlitian and the ArqovDivshon entities and the blade-based Ahmarian industries led to the initial “clustering” of these entities with the Levantine Aurignacian (Gilead, 1981, 1991). However, while they retain basic technotypological similarities to Levantine Aurignacian industries, other considerable differences are apparent such as the virtual absence of osseous tools and ornaments. These days, some scholars regard the Atlitian and the Arqov-Divshon as distinct entities

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

4

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

(Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2003; Marks, 2003; Williams, 2003, 2006; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010). The broad definitions applied to the Atlitian and the ArqovDivshon entities are insufficient when trying to decipher the processes and dynamics of the late EUP in the Levant. While the possibility of local evolvement from the Levantine Aurignacian cannot be denied, there are still poorly known aspects, such as the chronological framework, geographical settings, cultural affinities, and the nature of interaction with other contemporaneous entities (Marks, 2003; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014, 2017). Over the past decade, a sequence (2.5 m) of EUP occupation layers has been excavated in Manot Cave, west Galilee, Israel. The sequence was exposed near the estimated location of the original entrance to the cave (Areas E and I; Barzilai et al., 2016). In Area E, nine occupation layers were defined based on the presence of intact combustion features and associated find clusters. Cultural remains retrieved during the excavation were initially associated with “Levantine Aurignacian” industries, in the broad sense of the term, based on the presence of characteristic flint implements and typical osseous industries products. Preliminary observations have indicated some variations between assemblages: the lower layers (IVeVIII) presented “classic” Levantine Aurignacian affinities, including antler points, bone tools, decorative items, and personal ornaments alongside thick carinated and nosed scrapers and wide blades with “Aurignacian retouch.” In contrast, the upper layers (IeIII) showed a distinct increase in frequencies of burins and retouched bladelets. Thick, nosed, and carinated scrapers, as well as wide “Aurignacian” retouched blades are less common in the assemblages of these layers (IeIII), bone tools are few, and antler tools

are absent (see discussion). Therefore, a division of the sequence into two phasesdearly and latedis now suggested, with detailed arguments in support of this division presented next. While the early phase is easily associated with the “classic” Levantine Aurignacian, the late phase seems to share certain affinities both with its predecessor and with the later industries described above. Hence, the sequence of Manot Cave provides valuable data regarding the cultural dynamics of the late EUP in the Levant. Here we present a detailed stratigraphic report of the sequence, as well as preliminary results of a multidisciplinary study stressing the differences between the two suggested phases. 2. Manot Cave 2.1. The site and excavation Manot is a karstic cave, located in the western Galilee, Israel, ca. 9 km east of the current shoreline (Fig. 1; Frumkin et al., 2019; and see Barzilai et al., 2016). Ongoing excavations at the cave have been underway since 2010, following its discovery in 2008 (Hershkovitz et al., 2015; Barzilai et al., 2016; Marder et al., 2017, 2018). Twelve areas were excavated in and around the cave (Fig. 2), indicating the presence of Levantine Aurignacian and Ahmarian industries (Hershkovitz et al., 2015; Barzilai et al., 2016; Marder et al., 2017, 2018; Abulafia et al., 2019). The presence of Middle Paleolithic (MP) Levallois artifacts, as well as the recovery of a human calvaria (Manot 1), dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 ka (Hershkovitz et al., 2015) implies the existence of a late MP layer within the cave, although such has not yet been reached (see also Marder et al., 2018; Abulafia et al., 2019).

Figure 2. Manot Cave general plan and cross sections, with the location of the excavation areas.

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx Table 1 General breakdown of the flint assemblages. Layer V

Flakes Blades Bladelets Kombewa flakes Primary flakes Primary blades Naturally backed flakes Naturally backed blades Burin spalls Resharpening spalls Core trimming elements Total debitage Fragments Chips Chunks Total debris Debris Debitage Tools Cores Carinated items Hammerstone Total

Layer III

n

%

n

%

314 52 199 3 109 30 29 21 6 1 109 873 37 737 84 858 858 873 89 28 13 1 1862

35.97 5.96 22.79 0.34 12.49 3.44 3.32 2.41 0.69 0.11 12.49 100.00 4.31 85.90 9.79 100.00 46.08 46.89 4.78 1.50 0.70 0.05 100.00

232 53 195 3 128 24 20 46 14 0 128 843 48 500 99 647 647 843 76 11 17 1 1595

27.52 6.29 23.13 0.36 15.18 2.85 2.37 5.46 1.66 0.00 15.18 100.00 7.42 77.28 15.30 100.00 40.56 52.85 4.76 0.69 1.07 0.06 100.00

5

this process, small items were collected, such as chips and small bladelets (Table 1). The remaining sediments from the wet sieving are subjected to additional fine sorting (picking), which in most cases is conducted in the lab after the field season is over. The best-preserved cultural remains and in situ occupation layers were found near the original entrance to the cave (Areas E and I; Fig. 2), in what is considered to have been a part of the main activity area. A series of combustion features and associated concentrations of finds were exposed, leading to the division of the sequence into occupation layers. By the end of the 2018 excavation season, nine occupation layers had been defined in Area E and five in Area I, all ascribed to the Levantine Aurignacian, in the broadest sense of the term. Area E encompasses a total of 60 sq. m, which are divided into a main excavation area (ca. 40 sq. m) and two extensions (Areas E2 and E3; Fig. 3). The purpose of these extensions, located to the west and south of the main excavation area, was to collect additional data on the location and characteristics of the original entrance to the cave (Area E2) and on the characteristics of the upper part of the talus leading to the lower, inner parts of the cave (Area E3; Fig. 3). A deep sounding was dug during the 2016 season in the southwestern part of the area (Squares C86e87; Fig. 3) in order to evaluate the thickness of the archaeological accumulation. 2.2. Sedimentological and archaeological stratigraphy of Area E

Figure 3. Subdivision of Area E.

The excavation was conducted in 1
1 m squares, applying traditional prehistoric archaeological field methods: each square was divided into four subsquares and excavated in 5e10 cm spits. All excavated sediments underwent wet sieving, using a double mesh: an upper, 5-mm mesh and a lower, 1.5-mm mesh. During

Two main sedimentological units were observed in Area E, referred to as Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 1 is a 0.5e1.3 m colluvial accumulation, composed of darkbrown clay loam, overlaying and sealing the archaeological finds boulis are dispersed bearing Unit 2. Limestone and dolostone e within the sediments. Tree roots and vertebrate as well as invertebrate remains form passage features in Unit 1. Hyena coprolites and remains of decayed guano nodules indicate that animals had used the cave, possibly after the main entrance collapsed (see Barzilai et al., 2016; Frumkin et al., 2019; Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019; Berna et al. submitted). Soil micromorphology analysis shows that the ground mass composing Unit 1 is comparable with the terra rossa A and B horizon material sampled outside the cave (Berna et al., submitted). In addition, it contained reworked nodules of carbonate hydroxyapatite, fragments of hyena coprolites, dolostone gravel and calcium carbonate coatings, hypocoatings, and infillings (Berna et al., submitted). These compositional characteristics suggest that the colluviated sediment resided in up-slope chambers before slumping into the current position. The carbonate pedofeature overprint indicates that Unit 1 is now in a stable phase. Archeological finds were very scarce in Unit 1, and included flint artifacts, some of which are associated with Epi-Paleolithic industries, as well as a number of small Byzantine pottery sherds. These were in secondary deposition, probably transported into the cave by bioturbation agents or washed in through cracks. Several lag and deflation features were identified within Unit 1 and are interpreted as the remains of dripping water basins and channels. The surface of Unit 1 was locally rilled indicating that water flowed into the cave. Unit 2da reddish-brown clay loam (terra rossa) colluvium interlayered by numerous archaeological finds. The contact between Unit 1 and Unit 2 appears as an unconformity. The upper part of Unit 2 is locally eroded and slopes steeply toward the southern, lower part of the cave (Fig. 4). The erosional features characterizing the boundary between Unit 1 and Unit 2 and the resulting steep southward inclination of Unit 2 indicate that the southern margins of Unit 2 were eroded and slumped several times before being overlain by Unit 1 (Berna et al.,

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

6

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Figure 4. Excavation steps in Area E, looking west (photograph by Hanna Parow-Souchon).

Figure 5. The contact between sedimentological Units 1 and 2, looking west.

submitted). Due to this morphology, the excavation in Area E was terraced in three main steps: the upper, northern step, where Layers IeIII were exposed; the middle step where Layers IVeVI were exposed; and the lower, southern step where Layers VIIeIX were exposed (Fig. 5). Occupation layers were defined based on the presence of intact combustion features and associated find concentrations (Fig. 6). They were separated by horizons displaying a steep decrease in find densities. For the most part, occupation layers displayed a horizontal distribution. In two instances (Layer II and Layer VII),

occupation layers were defined based on a distinct increase in find densities, even though no combustion features were identified. The stratigraphic significance of these layers is still under examination. Layer Id15e30 cm thick, defined based on the presence of three combustion features (Loci 500, 501, 503) and associated flint and bone concentrations exposed over 6 sq. m at the northernmost part of Area E. The main feature, L.500, is the remains of a hearth, measuring ca. 80 cm in diameter and 15 cm in thickness (Fig. 7a). Soil micromorphological analysis of L. 500 indicates that the hearth was

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

7

Figure 6. A schematic composite section of the occupation layers in Area E. Based on the northwestern excavation sections.

Figure 7. Combustion features in Area E. a) Hearth 500, Layer I, looking northwest. b) Combustion feature 517, Layer III, looking southeast. c) Multiphased hearth L510, Layer VI, looking west. d) Hearth 522, Layer IX, looking northwest.

fueled by a single charge of wood, reaching a temperature of up to 700  C. Approximately 30 cm to the east, ash concentration L. 503 was revealed, representing a secondary deposition of residue from the main hearth. L. 501 revealed the remains of an additional hearth, exposed at the northwestern corner of the excavated area, approximately one m southeast of L.500. It was exposed over 80 cm and extends into

the western section. While showing micromorphological similarities to Hearth L. 500, Hearth L. 501 is thinner, only 4e5 cm thick, and slopes steeply to the east. It is therefore not clear whether the exposed segment represents the margins of a larger hearth or a drifted fragment (Fig. 4). Layer IIdThe sediments composing Layer II are partially cemented and rich in finds, occupying most of the upper excavation

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

8

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Figure 8. Finds cluster on top of combustion feature 517, Layer III (looking west).

step. The thickness of these sediments seems to increase in the western part of the area, reaching 20e30 cm, in contrast to a 15-cm thickness observed in its eastern part. Although no combustion features were identified, micromorphological analyses indicate the presence of ash particles within the sediments. Layer IIIdcomposed of a single combustion feature (L.517) and an associated cluster of flint implements and bones. L.517 (Fig. 7b) was exposed across 4 sq. m, in which at least three overlaying hearths were evident. In the southern squares, a thin horizon (ca. 2e3 cm) of artifacts was uncovered, embedded on top of the ash layers of L. 517 (Fig. 8). This represents a late phase of human activity in which a northern hearth was burning. This is the deepest layer excavated in the upper step of Area E, and its full thickness is not yet known.

Layer IVdapproximately 20 cm thick, defined based on the presence of combustion feature L. 502. Layer IV was exposed over a very limited area (0.5 sq. m) in the northwestern part of the middle excavation step, but its continuation in the western section is still visible. Layer Vd25e30 cm thick, defined based on the presence of a hearth (L. 505) and an ash deposit containing a complete deer mandible (L. 518), alongside an associated increase in find density. Exposed in an area of approximately 3 sq. m, this layer yielded a rich assemblage of cultural remains. Between Layers V and VI, a cluster of hyena coprolites was exposed, approximately 15 cm thick (L. 508; Fig. 9), overlying a cemented concentration of limestone cobbles, manuport basalt slabs, flint implements, and bone fragments. Metric and

Figure 9. Coprolites concentration between Layers V and VI (looking northwest).

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

morphological analyses of this feature associate it with the hyena activity in the cave (Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019). Layer VIdan extremely rich layer, exposed over ca. 8 sq. m, in the middle excavation step. It includes a main combustion feature (L. 510; Fig. 7c)da multiphased hearth with at least three distinct burning phases. An additional possible hearth (L.512) and associated ash deposit (L506) were found ca. 1.5 m to the west. A dense concentration of finds is associated with these features, reaching at least 30 cm in thickness. As this is the deepest layer excavated in the middle step, its full thickness is unknown. Layer VIIdapproximately 15 cm thick, exposed over an area of ca. 3 sq. m, near the western section of the lower excavation step. Layer VIIIdalthough exposed in a very limited area (ca. 1 sq. m; approximately 10 cm in thickness), seems to be a very rich layer, including combustion feature L.507 alongside large amounts of flint implements and animal bones. Layer IXdencompasses most of the lower excavation step. It is separated from the steep slope leading to Areas D and C by a stalagmite and a thick flowstone, which seem to have acted as a natural barrier. A series of boulders exposed in the southern squares of Area E probably played a similar role. Layer IX is a rich layer, approximately 30 cm thick, comprising an oval hearth (L.522; Fig. 7d) ca. 50 cm in diameter. Several concentrations of finds were identified surrounding the hearth, including several stone slabs (possibly anvils), a cluster of bladelets and cores, and a dense concentration of bones indicating that various activities took place around the hearth. A dense accumulation of ash and bones, including relatively few flint implements, was found covering the eastern part of Layer IX, sealing both the hearth and associated finds. Preliminary observations indicate an increased dominance of the laminar component within the flint assemblage of Layer IX, as well as a significant decrease in marine shells and complex osseous-industry representation, in comparison with the overlying layers. Somewhat similar trends were observed in Levels XIeXIII in ^r ‘Akil (Kadowaki et al., 2015; Bergman et al., 2017). Ksa Between the upper part of the sequence, containing Layers IeIII, and its lower part, containing Layers IVeIX, a change in sedimentological composition was observed. Layers IVeIX were found to contain higher frequencies of ash particles and poorly sorted small and medium-size sand grains in comparison with Layers IeIII, implying intensified fire activity in the lower part of the sequence. Such activities include deliberate hearth clearing and secondary ash depositions, for which no indications were found in the upper layers. In addition, the presence of concentrations of hyena coprolites between archaeological layers (mainly between Layers I and II, and between Layers V and VI) implies the occasional use of the cave as hyena den (Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019). 3. The finds 3.1. The lithic sample Preliminary observations identified a change in material culture between the upper part of the sequence, including Layers IeIII, and its lower part, including Layers IVeVIII. An additional, possible change was observed in the lowermost Layer IX and is currently being studied. While assemblages from the early phase yielded “classic” Levantine Aurignacian finds, including carinated items, bone and antler tools, decorative items, and personal ornaments, assemblages from the late phase present a distinct decrease in the frequencies of these items, implying a change in human behavior. In the process of establishing the suggested division into phases, a sample of ca. 3500 flint artifacts was analyzed, attempting to define the nature of the variability based mainly on typological

9

affinities. The selected sample includes the flint assemblages collected during the 2012e2017 excavation seasons from two occupation layers, which are considered as representative of each suggested phase: Layer V (n ¼ 1862), representing the early phase, and Layer III (n ¼ 1595), representing the late phase. However, this does not include the small finds originating from fine-sorting of the wet-sieved remains (picking), due to the fact that only ca. 30% of the sorting of Layer V and 5% of the sorting of Layer III were completed when this study was conducted. Nevertheless, as this study seeks to define the differences mainly based on typological affinities, such as tool frequencies and morphology, we believe the effect of the small finds on the trends presented here is minor. The assemblage from each layer was sorted into categories corresponding to stages of the reduction sequence and then counted (the results are presented in Table 1). Tool typology was determined based on the lists generated in the London Congress, as published by F. Hours (1974). Carinated items are presented as a separate category, until a more comprehensive study allows each item's association as either a core or a tool. These include all the items that fit into Hours’ categories of flat/thick nosed/shouldered scrapers, carinated scrapers, and the transverse, beaked, flat-faced, and nuclei-form burin types. Overall, the assemblages from both occupation layers presented a similar general breakdown. In both of them, flakes are the most frequent type of debitage, alongside a significant bladelet component. Nevertheless, the laminar component seems to be more dominant in Layer III, in which flake and laminar debitage are close in frequency (Table 1; and one should consider that the number of bladelets is expected to rise once fine-sorting is completed). Tools constitute ca. 5.5% in both flint assemblages. Layer V The assemblage from Layer V shows variability in production methods, as indicated by core typology. Flake cores are more frequent than blade/bladelet cores in this assemblage, implying a stronger tendency toward flake production, which fits the general trend shown within the debitage category. Core typology indicates the production of flakes using one, two, and multiple striking platforms, or from cores on flakes in roughly even frequencies (Table 2; Fig. 10). In contrast, blade and bladelet cores indicate the sole use of single platform cores (Table 2). This is also the case in the single core on flake used to produce bladelets, where the distal edge of the flake was truncated and shaped to be used as a striking platform. Bladelet cores are mostly semipyramidal (Fig. 10:a). At this stage of research, it is difficult to determine whether the similarity between blade/ bladelet production methods indicates a single, continuous reduction sequence for both products or if these are two distinct sequences. Occasionally, a combined production of both small flakes and bladelets from a single core was observed. These cores display the use of two, often perpendicular, striking platforms.

Table 2 Core typology, Layer V.

Single platform (flakes) Single platform (blades) Single platform (bladelets) Two, opposite platforms (flakes) Two, opposed platforms (mixed) Two, 90 platforms (mixed) Multiple platforms (flakes) Cores on flake (flakes) Cores on flake (bladelets) Core fragments Tested core Total

n

%

3 2 3 1 1 3 3 4 1 6 1 28

10.71 7.14 10.71 3.57 3.57 10.71 10.71 14.28 3.57 21.43 3.57 100.00

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

10

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Figure 10. Cores from Layer V. a) Single-platform bladelet core, pyramidal. b) Single-platform bladelet core, semipyramidal. c) Multiple platform, flake core. d) Single-platform flake core.

The carinated-item category, probably comprising both tools and cores at this stage of research, is dominated by endscrapers (Fig. 11). Of these, thick, nosed endscrapers are the most common. Assuming that at least some of them served as cores, they are

expected to produce small, point edged, “comma-shaped” bladelets (after Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; and see also Barzilai, 2001; Belfer-Cohen and Grossman, 2007), the presence of which has been noted among the debitage.

Figure 11. Composition of the carinated items category, Layer V.

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

11

Table 3 Tool typology and blank selection, Layer V. Primary flake

Endscraper Endscraper on a retouched item Endscraper on Aurignacian blade Side scraper Borer Burin on natural pan Angled diheadral burin Multiple diheadral burin on natural pan Aurignacian retouch Retouch Retouched bladelets Truncation Notch/Multiple notches Denticulation Composite tools Varia Total blank type in the n assemblage %

Naturally backed flake

Flake

Primary blade

Naturally backed blade

Blade

Bladelet

CTE

Burin spalls

Levallois flake

Unidentified

Total tool type in the assemblage n

%

e e e

2 e e

1 1 e

e 1 e

2 1 e

e e 5

e e e

e e e

e e e

e e e

2 e e

7 3 5

7.87 3.37 5.62

e 1 e e e

e e e e e

1 e e 1 e

e e e e e

e e e e e

e e 1 e 1

e e e e e

e e e e e

e e e e e

1 e e e e

1 e e e e

3 1 1 1 1

3.37 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

1 2 e e e e 1 1 6 6.74

e e e e e e e e 3 3.37

e e 6 e e e e e 6 6.74

e 7 e e 1 e e e 8 8.99

e 1 e e e e e e 1 1.12

e e e e e e e e 1 1.12

e 5 e e e e e e 8 8.99

e 5 e e e 2 1 e 9 10.11

e 2 e e 1 1 e e 6 6.74

e 9 e 1 1 2 2 e 19 21.35

Among the tools, most common are items bearing marginal or partial retouch (Table 3). This type of retouch, which is often very light, was observed on a broad spectrum of blank types, implying that a somewhat opportunistic use of whatever debitage was available. Nevertheless, the possibility that at least in some cases this type of “retouch” is the result of trampling or of postdepositional processes cannot be excluded (e.g., McBrearty et al., 1998). Similar observations were made on some of the faunal assemblages from Area D (Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019). Endscrapers are the most frequent among the “formal tools.” While the use of both flakes and blades as blanks is demonstrated, blades are more frequently used. Five are on Aurignacian blades (Fig. 12:eeh). Other formal tools include three dihedral burins and four Aurignacian blades (i.e., blades bearing Aurignacian retouch; Fig. 13:fei). Retouched bladelets, mostly presenting straight or curved profiles, are represented by six items (Tables 3 and 4). Only one fits the definition of the characteristic “Dufour” bladelets, displaying an inverse semiabrupt retouch on its right lateral edge (Fig. 13:b). Others are either truncated or bear light retouch on one of their lateral edges (Fig. 13:a, ced; Table 4). Four of the tools (ca. 5%), are recycled artifacts, two of which were made on Levallois flakes. Notably, no el-Wad points were identified in the assemblage from Layer V. Layer III The stronger tendency toward blade/bladelet production in Layer III, which is evident in the debitage, is further supported by core typology (Table 5; Fig. 14). Here, blade/bladelet cores are more frequent (Table 5). The systematic production of bladelets from single-platform cores represents a common affinity with the assemblage from Layer V, although core shape in Layer III differs, demonstrating a preference for the production of long, thin bladelets using the narrow front of the nodule as removal surface (Fig. 14:aeb). In the case of core-on-flake, long, thin bladelets were produced through the use of one of the flake's lateral edges as a removal surface, thus maintaining the narrow-front concept. Blade production is evident by a single core, showing the use of two opposed platforms (Fig. 14:c). Flakes were produced from cores with either one (Fig. 14:d) or two opposed striking platforms (Table 5).

3 8 e e 2 1 e 1 22 24.72

4 39 6 1 5 6 4 2 89 100.00

4.49 43.82 6.74 1.12 5.62 6.74 4.49 2.25 100.00

Carinated items in Layer III show a higher degree of variability compared to Layer V (Figs. 15e16). Carinated burins are markedly more common, presenting higher frequencies than the carinated scrapers. Assuming that they served as cores, carinated burins are expected to produce long, thin bladelets with a twisted profile. The presence of such items was noted both within debitage and among the tools. Among the tools, three groups are prominent: burins, retouched bladelets, and endscrapers (Table 6). All three present greater typological variability compared with the assemblage from Layer V. Burins are most frequent, constituting almost a third of the tools in Layer III. The abundance of truncation burins (including burins made on Clactonian notches; Fig. 17:iej) marks another distinct variation from the assemblage of Layer V. There is also a clear decrease in the appearance of Aurignacian retouch, which appears here only on one very fragmented item. Blank selection indicates a slight tendency for flake preference, both for endscraper and for burin production. Nevertheless, where marginal, limited retouch is concerned, blades seem to have been preferred. Retouched bladelets are much more frequent in Layer III. While some still present a straight or curved profile, most of the retouched bladelets display a twisted profile (Table 7). Pointed, “commashaped” bladelets, products of carinated endscrapers, are present in lower frequencies (Table 7; Fig. 17:a). Only four of the retouched bladelets are Dufour bladelets (Fig. 17:c, f). Other bladelets display light, marginal, semiabrupt, or abrupt retouch. One bladelet presents a proximal, diagonal truncation. 3.2. Faunal analysis The faunal analysis presented here is preliminary. It was conducted on a randomly selected sample from Area E, which incorporates finds that originated only from contexts clearly associated with an occupation layer, throughout the sequence. Nevertheless, finds from Layer IX are not included in this sample, as the study of this layer has only recently begun. A total of 146 faunal specimens that could be identified to at least the genus level (i.e., cheek teeth and other cranial parts, limb epiphyses, scapulae and pelves, carpals, tarsals, and phalanges) were counted, and the

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

12

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Figure 12. Endscrapers, Layer V. a) Carinated. b) Nosed, thick. c, d) Nosed, flat. e, f) On Aurignacian blade. g-h) Single.

taxonomic frequency is presented next (see Table 8). Numerous other remains, which may be identified to precise anatomical element and body-size class, have been found but are not presented here. They will form the basis for a comprehensive study of the faunal remains from Area E. Most of the specimens in the selected sample (n ¼ 124; ca. 85%) originated from Layers IVeVIII in the lower part of the sequence, whereas only 22 items (ca. 15%) represent the Layers IeIII, in the upper part of the sequence. This sample was used to assess the taxonomic spectrum and relative abundance of taxa in the assemblage from Area E, as well as to provide some preliminary taphonomic observations. The faunal remains from Area E are numerous and well preserved. The most abundant species throughout the sequence is

mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella), amounting to >60% of the NISP (Number of Identified Species; Table 8). Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) is also well represented with ca. 17% of the NISP. Gazelle and fallow deer are represented by virtually all skeletal parts, including head, axial, limb, and feet elements. Other ungulate species are represented by 1e4 specimens each: red deer (Cervus elaphus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), aurochs (Bos primigenius), and a caprid, most likely Capra aegagrus. Small game species comprise ca. 17% of the NISP and belong to the spur-thighed tortoise (Testudo graeca), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), cat (Felis sp.), and game birds, as well as lizard and snake vertebrae. Some preliminary taphonomic observations are available, allowing an assessment of the agent/s of accumulation and

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

13

Figure 13. Selected tools from Layer V. aed) Retouched bladelets. e) Retouched blade. fei) Blades with Aurignacian retouch.

Table 4 Retouched bladelet typology, Layer V.

Blunt bladelet with fine retouch Fragment of bladelet with fine retouch Truncated bladelet Bladelet with inverse retouch Total by profile type in category

n %

Straight/curved profile

Twisted profile

1 2 2 e 5 83.33

e e e 1 1 16.67

mode of preservation. Numerous limb bones display partial shaft circumference, “green” (fresh) fractures, and conchoidal notches, indicating that the bones were broken by a hammerstone for marrow extraction. Some cutmarks and burnt specimens were also observed; together these indicate the

Total by retouch type in category n

%

1 2 2 1 6

16.67 33.33 33.33 16.67 100.00

anthropogenic nature of the assemblage, similar to the Area C faunal remains (Yeshurun et al., 2019) and contrasting markedly with the ungulate assemblage deposited by spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) in Area D (Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019).

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

14

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5 Core typology, Layer III.

Single platform (flakes) Single platform (bladelets) Opposed platforms (flakes) Opposed platforms (blades) Core on flake (bladelets) Core fragments Total

n

%

1 4 2 1 2 1 11

9.09 36.36 18.18 9.09 18.18 9.09 100.00

3.3. Osseous industry analysis The study of the bone and antler tools was conducted based on typological and technological approaches, which allowed us to reconstruct the operational sequence of exploitation for each raw ratoire”; Averbouh, 2001; Tejero et al., 2016). material (“chaîne ope The ascription of the pointed elements to a precise morpho-type category, in the case of awls and projectile points (hunting weapons), is based on the typological definition of these objects (e.g., Hanh, 1988; Camps-Fabrer et al., 1990), as well as on technological, traceological, and experimental works (e.g., Tyzzer, 1936; tillon, 2006; Newcomer, 1977; Bergman, 1987b; Knecht, 1991; Pe Tartar, 2009). The only category of projectile points identified in the assemblage of Area E is the simple/massive base point, of the variety defined as “elongated objects with a pointed distal tip, a variable cross-section (mostly elliptical) and a simple hafting system” (e.g., Hahn, 1988). These points, which characterize the Evolved Aurignacian in Europe and the local Levantine Aurignacian, are also known by various other names, such as: “pointed base points”, “biconical”, “massive base point,” or simply “not split based points” (e.g., Hahn, 1988). Here, the terms “massive base” and “simple base”

points are preferred, as they relate better to the general morphology of these objects (Tejero, 2016; Tejero et al., 2016). In some cases, the affiliation of an incomplete specimen to a precise category is difficult. When the proximal part (the hafted part of the hunting weapon) is not preserved, the combination of several parameters is needed to discriminate between awls and projectile points. Here, the affiliation of broken specimens to a category was based on raw material, cross section, extension of the worked surface, and the morphometric affinities (Liolios, 1999; Tejero, 2014). It seems that all points are made of antler, their cross section is elliptical, the entire piece is worked, and they are fully compatible with the morphometrics of simple/ massive points from other Levantine Aurignacian sites, such as Ks^ ar ‘Akil, Sefunim, and Hayonim (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Bergman, 1987b; Shimelmitz et al., 2018; Tejero et al., 2018). So far, the excavations in Area E have provided an assemblage of 46 bone and antler tools, as well as perforated teeth. However, only 28 (ca. 62%) have a secure stratigraphic affiliation. The rest were found in the colluvium layer of Unit 1 (n ¼ 10), in the deep sounding in Squares C86e87 (n ¼ 4) or in Area E3 (n ¼ 1). One item (a bone awl) lacks any stratigraphic affiliation. Another, a point made of antler, was found in the sediments separating Layers V and VI. An antler intermediate piece (chisel) was found in the sediments under Layer IX (Table 9). The typology of the assemblage from Area E is diversified, dominated by bone awls and simple/massive projectile points made of antler (Fig. 18), with a few examples of antler intermediate pieces (chisels), as well as pendants made of perforated teeth (Table 9). These constitute the typical set of the Levantine Aurignacian osseous industry (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Watson and Newcomer, 1984; Bergman, 1987b; Tejero et al., 2016, 2018).

Figure 14. Cores from Layer III. a,b) Single-platform bladelet core, utilizing the narrow front. c) Opposed platforms, blade core. d) Multiple platform, flake core.

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

15

Figure 15. Composition of the carinated items category, Layer III.

Interestingly, there is a sharp quantitative difference between the assemblages from the upper and the lower parts of the sequence, as a total of 27 pieces were recovered from its lower part (Layers VeVIII; Table 9) and only one, a bone awl, originated from its upper part (Layer III). The larger assemblages were retrieved from Layer V (n ¼ 15) and Layer VI (n ¼ 8), while Layers VII and VIII provided two samples each. 3.4. Mollusk analysis Over 660 mollusk remains were retrieved from Area E during the 2010e2018 excavation seasons. However, ca. 50% lack stratigraphic affiliation, some originating from the colluvium of Unit 1 in the main excavation area, others from Area E2, Area E3, or from the deep sounding in Squares C86e87 and other unaffiliated sediments between occupation layers. We report here only on the mollusks with known stratigraphic affiliation, amounting to 141 specimens (Minimal Number of Individuals, MNI). The MNI of gastropods, and in particular Levantina caesareana, was based on the counts of protoconch or the apex of the snails. Identification to taxon is based on a comparison with the specimens in the mollusk collection of the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, with additional consultation with Heller (2009) for terrestrial snails. Taxonomy was validated using the WoRMS (World Register of Marine Species) website. The mollusk remains from Area E are dominated by terrestrial species, which constitute ca. 88% of the assemblage (MNI ¼ 124; Table 10). Of these, only 14 shells (ca. 11% of the terrestrial specimens), consisting of four species, could be considered “ecofacts” (i.e., their presence in the cave is probably not related to human activity). These include a single specimen of Helix engaddensis, a large edible snail; Buliminus labrosus and Oxychilus sp., rock dwelling species that may have fallen into the cave or were swept in by wind and/or water; and Calaxis sp., a tiny and slender shell, less than 1 cm long, that is drawn to detritus and is commonly found in archaeological sites (of all periods), where it burrows underground. These specimens most likely penetrated the cave on their own.

The dominant species in the assemblage is L. caesareana. This land snail, the largest known to live in the Galilee, constitutes ca. 78% of all the mollusks in this sample, and ca. 89% of the terrestrial species (MNI ¼ 110; Table 10). Interestingly, this species is absent in the upper part of the sequence (Layer IeIII). Two large clusters of specimens were identified, one in Layer VI, and the other in Layer IX. The presence of L. caesareana in such large numbers, and more prominently in two distinct clusters, implies their intentional introduction into the cave by humans and suggests their intentional collection for consumption. Such a phenomenon was also ndez-Lo  pez de identified at other Upper Paleolithic sites (Ferna Pablo et al., 2014; Hill et al., 2015; Bosch et al., 2015a). Marine shells are represented by 17 specimens, constituting ca. 12% of the mollusks in Area E. Apart from two specimens, all marine shells were retrieved from the lower part of the sequence with all of the gastropods collected in Layer VI (n ¼ 9; Table 10). Until now, no marine specimens were found in Layers II, III, VII, and IX. The marine shells from Area E can be subdivided into two categories: ornamental species, constituting the majority (n ¼ 14) and edible species, represented only by three specimens. Ornamental specimens include Columbella rustica, Tritia gibbosula, and Antalis sp., all characteristic species in Levantine Upper Paleolithic assemblages (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2005, 2019). A single Columbella specimen was found in the sediments between Layers I and II, completely separated from all other gastropods that were clustered in Layer VI. A bivalve fragment, found in Layer VIII, was too fragmented to allow precise identification. Of note is a perforated spire of Conus ventricosus from Layer VI. While C. ventricosus specimens are commonly found in Aurignacian sites in Europe, they are rare in Levantine as semblages (Vanhaeren and d’Errico, 2006; Alvarez Fern andez and € ris, 2008). When present (for example at Hayonim D, Sefunim, Jo ^r ‘Akil), they are clearly associated with Levantine Aurignaand Ksa cian assemblages (e.g., Bosch et al., 2015b; Shimelmitz et al., 2018). Edible marine species include Patella caerulea and Phorcus turbinatus. Although only three specimens are present in the assemblage from Area E, it is of interest that they were all found only in Layer VI. Additional specimens of these species were found in Area C of Manot, where they are more abundant (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2019).

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

16

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Figure 16. Carinated items, Layer III. aed) Endscrapers: (a) carinated; (b) nosed, thick; (c) nosed, flat; (d) carinated. e-h) Burins: (e) transverse on lateral preparation; (f) nuclei form; (g, h) beaked.

Specimens of these species were also found, in fairly large numbers, ^r ‘Akil and throughout the Mediterranean basin, where they at Ksa were commonly associated with shell middens of the Upper Paleolithic, indicating their use for consumption (for review see Colonese et al., 2011). 4. Discussion 4.1. The Manot Cave sequence Area E is located near the original entrance to Manot Cave and is considered the innermost part of the entrance hall and the main

activity area in the cave. The exact location of the entrance is still a matter of speculation, as is the original size of the main entrance hall. The preservation of intact combustion features in clear association with steep increases in find densities has allowed the identification of nine distinct layers so far, in some of which more than one living surface was identified. The mostly horizontal distribution of archaeological remains further indicates the extraordinary level of preservation, even though the effects of postdepositional processes are evident throughout the cave (Berna et al., submitted; Abulafia et al., 2019). The possible differences in material culture within the sequence, suggested in previous publications (e.g., Hershkovitz et al., 2015;

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

17

Table 6 Tool typology and blank selection, Layer III. Cortical flake

Endscraper Endscraper on a retouched item Endscraper on Aurignacian blade Endscraper on a notched item Ogival endscraper Sidescraper Straight diheadral burin Offset diheadral burin Angled diheadral burin Burin on a concave truncation Burin on natural pan Multiple burin on natural pan Burin on a break Fragment of a burin Retouch Retouched bladelets el-Wad points (atypical) Truncation Notch/multiple notches Denticulation Total blank type in the n assemblage %

Naturally backed flake

4 e e

1 e e

e e e e e e 1 e 1 1 e e e e e e e 7 9.21

e e e e e e e e e e e 1 e e e e e 2 2.63

Flake

e 1 e 1 1 e 1 e 2 4 2 e e e 2 e e 1 1 e 16 21.05

Cortical blade

Naturally backed blade

e e e

2 e e

e e e 1 e 1 e e e e 1 e e e e e e 3 3.95

e e e e e e e e e e e 1 e e e e e 3 3.95

Barzilai et al., 2016; Alex et al., 2017; Marder et al., 2017, 2018), were tested here through a typological analysis of flint samples, as well as through the presence and characteristics of items of the osseous industry and the mollusk remains. The combined analyses imply changes in human behavior between the lower part of the sequence and its upper part, solidifying its division into two phasesdearly and late. Prominently, the analyzed flint samples indicate a technotypological shift toward the production of long, thin bladelets often with a twisted profile, in the late phase, as represented by the assemblage from Layer III. These were produced either from carinated burin cores or from narrow fronted bladelet cores. They seem to somewhat replace (although not completely) the relatively short and wide bladelets produced from carinated scrapers or from single platform, semipyramidal cores that characterize the early phase, as represented by the assemblage from Layer V. Alongside this shift, an increase in bladelet production is observed in the late phase, demonstrated by these items’ frequencies among the debitage and by the dominance of bladelet cores. Correspondingly, retouched bladelets become a significant component of the tool assemblage of this phase. In addition to what seems to be a rise in the significance of bladelets in the late phase of occupation, other typological differences were observed. One such difference is the almost complete disappearance of items bearing the characteristic “Aurignacian retouch” in the late phase, in comparison with their prominent presence among the tools in the early phase. A second difference is the sudden dominance of burins among the tools in the late phase, including the appearance of truncation burins and burins on Clactonian notches. A general preference for the use of blanks with flake proportions in the late phase marks the third of the main typological differences between phases. Differences between the two phases are also observed in other aspects of the material culture, with items of the osseous industries being a case in point. While assemblages associated with the early occupation phase yielded a rich collection of worked bone and antler pieces, these items were almost completely absent in

Blade

4 e e e e 1 e 1 e e 2 e e e 4 e 1 e e e 13 17.11

Bladelet

e e e e e e e e 1 e e e e e 1 21 e e e e 23 30.26

CTE

Nodule

Unidentified

Total tool type in the assemblage n

%

e e e

e e e

1 e 1

12 1 1

15.79 1.32 1.32

e e e e e e e e e e e 1 e e e e e 1 1.32

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 1 1.32

e e e e e 1 2 e e 1 e 1 e e e e e 7 9.21

1 1 1 2 1 5 7 4 1 2 1 11 21 1 1 1 1 76

1.32 1.32 1.32 2.63 1.32 6.58 9.21 5.26 1.32 2.63 1.32 14.47 27.63 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 100

assemblages associated with the late occupation phase. Furthermore, osseous items from the early phase indicate the presence of several distinct bone/antler industries, including simple/massive antler points; antler intermediate pieces (chisels); incised scapulae; perforated teeth pendants; and bone awls, all of which are markers of the Levantine Aurignacian. In contrast, only one osseous item was found in a secure context associated with the late occupation phase: a bone awl. This distinct decrease in the presence of worked bone and antler pieces implies a twofold shift between the early and the late phases: a technological shift, marking the disappearance of complex, multiphased industries, and a typological (cultural?) shift that saw the disappearance of personal ornaments and decorative items. A similar trend is shown by the presence of mollusk shells. Both marine and terrestrial species were mainly found in contexts associated with the early occupation phase, indicting their variable use. Marine species were used mainly as decorative items, although the presence of three edible specimens might imply their occasional use for consumption. The dominance of the terrestrial L. caesareana among the mollusk remains and more prominently, the appearance of specimens of this species in two large clusters strongly suggest their intentional collection for consumption, thus indicating their role as a dietary component. In contrast, in contexts associated with the late occupation phase, mollusk remains are uncommon, encompassing a total of five specimens, in which edible species are completely absent. Finally, a distinct difference in pyrogenic activity is shown through thin-section analyses. These analyses indicate a wide dispersal of calcite particles of pyrogenic origin within the sediments of the early occupation phase, implying comprehensive fire-related activity, which possibly involved organized hearth cleaning and waste disposal. In contrast, the presence of pyrogenic calcite particles in sediments from the late occupation phase was identified only in the immediate proximity to a combustion feature. This implies a reduction in fire-related activity during this phase.

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

18

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Figure 17. Selected tools from Layer III. a, b, d, e) Retouched bladelets. c, f) Dufour bladelet. g) el-Wad point, atypical. h) Dihedral burin. i) Burin on a concave truncation. j) Burin on a Clactonian notch. k-l) Single endscrapers.

These differences indicate variances in human behavior between the two occupation phases. The typotechnological changes observed within the flint component may imply a possible change in site function, but may alternately indicate a more fundamental change in cultural perception. The alteration in the desired bladelet morphology and the higher frequencies of retouched bladelets in comparison with the early occupation phase infer a possible change in hafting technique and a corresponding change in the general morphology of the complete tool they composed.

An association of bladelets as components of composite projectile tools during the EUP has been suggested on several occasions (e.g., Chazan, 2001; Bon et al., 2002; Bon, 2002, 2006; Marks, 2003; Teyssandier et al., 2010) and also seems to be plausible for the Manot assemblages. The increased frequencies and the change in bladelet morphology noted in later Upper Paleolithic industries in Europe and in the Levant were then associated with a stronger emphasis on projectile use and with a possible change in projectile shape (e.g., Bon et al., 2002; Bon, 2002, 2006; Marks, 2003;

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

19

Table 7 Retouched bladelet typology, Layer III. Straight/curved profile

Truncated bladelets Bladelets with inverse retouch Bladelets with alternate retouch Pointed bladelets with semi abrupt retouch Pointed bladelets with abrupt retouch Blunt bladelets with abrupt retouch Blunt bladelets with semi-abrupt retouch Fragment of bladelets with abrupt retouch Fragment of bladelets with semi-abrupt retouch Total profile type in category n %

1 1 e e 2 1 1 1 1 8 38.10

Table 8 Taxonomic breakdown of the Area E archaeofauna, based on field observations of a sample of excavation units. All counts are NISP, Number of Identified Specimens. Layers IVeVIII

Layers IeIII

76 1 20 4 1 1 3 1 4 6 7 124

12 e 5 e 1 e e e 2 1 1 22

Gazella gazella Capra sp. Dama mesopotamica Cervus elaphus Sus scrofa Bos primigenius Vulpes vulpes Felis sp. Bird-medium size Testudo graeca Lizard and snake Total

Twisted profile

Teyssandier et al., 2010). In Manot, these affinities in association with the disappearance of antler points in the late occupation phase might relate to their role as components of composite projectiles in the early phase. Their disappearance may imply the abandonment of this component during the late occupation phase, as a part of projectile morphological adaptation to a different prey, a change in hunting strategy, or changing environmental conditions. Relatively high site-occupation intensity in the Levantine Aurignacian of Manot was suggested by Yeshurun et al. (2019), based on increased exploitation of smaller game and deposition of more bone remains, compared to the earlier Ahmarian sample in Area C. The presence of a permanent body of sweet water in the vicinity of the cave ca. 38e34 ka was also suggested, based on micromammalian analysis (Frumkin and Comay, 2019; Comay et al., 2019). Here, the reduced fire-related activity observed in the late

Total retouch type in category

e 2 2 5 1 e 3 e e 13 61.90

n

%

1 3 2 5 3 1 4 1 1 21

4.76 14.29 9.52 23.81 14.29 4.76 19.05 4.76 4.76 100.00

occupation phase might relate to a more ephemeral use of the cave, possibly due to a higher degree of mobility. Higher mobility patterns in the late occupation phase are further implied by the multiphased nature as well as by the density and thickness of the Levantine Aurignacian Layer VI (see earlier discussion). The disappearance of personal ornaments and decorative items made of bone, as well as the steep decrease in representation of mollusk shells might be the result of these changes in mobility patterns. Alternately, this disappearance might signify a deeper cultural perception in which decorative items were of lesser importance, or perhaps it may have a different, still unidentified significance. A timeframe has recently been suggested for the occupations at Manot Cave by Alex et al. (2017). Based on samples from secure hearth contexts, an age range of ~34e33 ka cal BP was suggested for Layer I, representing the late occupation phase. Layer IV, representing the early phase, yielded an age range of ~37e36 ka cal BP, also providing an indication for the chronological boundary between both phases (Alex et al., 2017: Table 1). Relying on these results, an age range of ~36e33 ka cal BP is suggested for the late occupation phase whereas a timeframe of ~38e34 ka cal BP is suggested for the early phase, with a more constrained age range of ~37e35 ka cal BP proposed based on Bayesian models (Alex et al., 2017). It therefore seems that only a short time span separates the two occupation phases observed in the Manot Cave sequence, with an age overlap of between 36 and 35 ka cal BP. During this time span, a period of frequent oscillations in climate and environmental conditions was observed, based on isotopic analyses of speleothems and ancient wood residues from the cave (Caracuta et al., submitted; Yasur et al., 2019). These indicate rapid fluctuations in precipitation, as well as changes in scenery, alternating between wooded landscape and a more open

Table 9 Frequencies, typology, and stratigraphic affiliation of the osseous items from Area E. Context

Antler projectile point Antler blank (fragmented) Bone awl Preform (unfinished awl) Intermediate piece (chisel) Decorated bone (incised) Tooth pendant Total osseous items n per layer %

Unit 1 (colluvium)

Layer III

Layer V

Between Layers V/VI

Layer VI

Layer VII

Layer VIII

Layer IX (?)

Deep sounding

Area E3

Unknown

2 e 7 1 e e e 10 21.74

e e 1 e e e e 1 2.17

8 1 5 e e e 1 15 32.61

1 e e e e e e 1 2.17

5 e 2 e 1 e e 8 17.39

1 e 1 e e e e 2 4.35

1 e 1 e e e e 2 4.35

e e e e 1 e e 1 2.17

e e 1 e e 1 2 4 8.70

e e 1 e e e e 1 2.17

e e 1 e e e e 1 2.17

Total osseous items per category n

%

18 1 20 1 2 1 2 46

39.13 2.17 43.48 2.17 4.35 2.17 4.35 100.0

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

20

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Figure 18. Osseous items from Area E: a, b) simple/massive base antler points. c, d) Bone awls.

one. Such changes might have been the catalyst for the observed shift in human behavior. The higher emphasis on bladelet technology and the possible changes in projectile morphology could be perceived as adaptations to the changing environment. 4.2. Terminology Associating the occupation phases discussed here with a specific cultural entity in the Levant proved to be a challenging task. As the study presented here is preliminary in nature and does not

encompass a comprehensive and much-needed technological analysis, such associations are based mainly on typological aspects, as well as on the presence (or absence) of specific find types (such as worked antler/bone items; mollusk remains). Nevertheless, the early occupation phase, encompassing Layers IVeVIII, shows distinct affinities of the Levantine Aurignacian. The lithic assemblages, as represented by the assemblage from Layer V, share multiple similarities with other Levantine Aurignacian assemblages, but most prominently with the most adjacent sites of Hayonim and Raqefet (Belfer-Cohen, 1980; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

21

Table 10 Taxonomic breakdown and stratigraphic affiliation of the mollusk remains from Area E. All counts are MNI, Minimum Number of Individuals. Layer I Between Layer II Layer III Layer IV Layer V Between Layer VI Layer VII Layer VIII Layer IX Total mollusks Layers I/II Layers V/VI per species n Marine species

Patella caerulea Phorcus turbinatus Columbella rustica Tritia gibbosula Conus ventricosus Bivalve fragment Antalis spp. Subtotal e marine n species % Terrestrial species Buliminus labrosus Calaxis sp. Oxychilus sp. Helix engaddensis Levantina caesareana Subtotal e terrestrial n species % Total mollusks n per layer %

e e e e e e 1 1 5.88 e e e e e e e 1 0.71

e e 1 e e e e 1 5.88 e e e e e e e 1 0.71

e e e e e e e e e e 1 e e e 1 0.81 1 0.71

e e e e e e e e e e 2 e e e 2 1.61 2 1.42

Yosef,1981; Ronen, 1984; Lengyel, 2007). These are manifested by the dominance of endscrapers, including the carinated and nosed types, the presence of Aurignacian blades, and the appearance of burins, albeit in low frequencies. However, curiously, el-Wad points, which have been reported in most Levantine Aurignacian assemblages (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Lengyel, 2007; Williams and Bergman, 2010; and see Abulafia et al., 2019 as an indication of the presence of el-Wad points in Aurignacian contexts from Area C in Manot Cave), are absent in the analyzed sample from Layer V. Another trait identified in Layer V and commonly associated with Levantine Aurignacian industries is the reuse (or recycling) of old artifacts (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 2015). This phenomenon refers in most cases to the reshaping of Middle Paleolithic artifact, an is indicated by changes in patina coverage. This practice is represented by four items in Layer V (but appears in higher frequencies in the Levantine Aurignacian contexts of Area C: Marder et al., 2018; Abulafia, 2018). Items of the osseous industry found in contexts ascribed to the early occupation phase also display traits that are considered unique to Levantine Aurignacian assemblages. These items present quite a variety, including antler light projectile points and bone awls, with several samples of tooth pendants and incised and notched scapulae (Tejero et al., submitted). While some bone tools (like awls) and ornaments are shared by both Levantine Aurignacian and later entities (Campana, 1989; Rabinovich and Nadel, 1994), the simple/massive antler points seem to be clear markers of the Aurignacian industries of the Levant (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Watson and Newcomer, 1984; Newcomer, 1987). Of importance is the concise selection observed, both in the sample from Area E and in other Levantine assemblages, of gazelle bonesdmainly hyoids and scapulaedfor the production of incised artifacts, which is considered a symbolic identifier of the Levantine Aurignacian cultural entity (Tejero et al., 2018). A preliminary analysis of the fauna from the early occupation phase indicates that the animal economy relied on hunting gazelle (primarily), fallow deer, and birds, a pattern similar to the one observed in other Levantine Aurignacian faunal assemblages (e.g., Rabinovich, 2003; Stiner, 2005; Shimelmitz et al., 2018). A more comprehensive analysis, conducted on the specimens from Areas C and D, indicates that the Levantine Aurignacian assemblages found in Manot are similar to those from Hayonim D, including

e e e e e e 3 3 17.65 e e e e 4 4 3.23 7 4.96

e e e e e e 1 1 5.88 e e e e e e 1 0.71

e e e e e e 1 1 5.88 e e e e 2 2 1.61 3 2.13

2 1 3 2 1 e e 9 52.94 e 1 e e 49 50 40.32 59 41.84

e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 1 0.81 1 0.71

e e e e e 1 e 1 5.88 e 3 e e 2 5 4.03 6 4.26

e e e e e e e e e 3 2 1 1 52 59 47.58 59 41.84

%

2 1.42 1 0.71 4 2.84 2 1.42 1 0.71 1 0.71 6 4.26 17 12.06 100.00 e 3 2.13 9 6.38 1 0.71 1 0.71 110 78.01 124 87.94 100 141 100.00 100.00

indications of the exploitation of large birds at both sites (Yeshurun et al., 2019). The dominance of gazelles within the faunal assemblage is likely to reflect deliberate human selection, as indicated by the analysis of the faunal remains left by spotted hyenas in Manot Cave, Area D. Representing an identical geographic region and time span, the assemblage from Area D demonstrates a focus on fallow deer consumption, which had to be abundant in the landscape as well (Orbach and Yeshurun, 2019). Considering the similarities detailed earlier, the association of the early occupation phase encompassing Layers IVeVII in Manot Cave, Area E with the Levantine Aurignacian cultural entity seems to be well established. Finding suitable terminology for the late phase, however, proved to be far more challenging. A comparison of the material culture of the Manot assemblage from this phase to other cultural entities that are considered to postdate the Levantine Aurignacianthe Atlitian and the Arqov-Divshon- showed both similarities and variations. Thus, the increase in burin dominance, and in the abundance of truncation burins in particular, is mostly associated with assemblages that fall under the loose definitions of the Atlitian (Garrod and Bate, 1937; Copeland, 1975; Goring-Morris, 1980; Belfer-Cohen et al., 2004; Williams and Bergman, 2010; Bergman et al., 2017). However, the broad definition assumed for this entity seems to encompass at least two distinct variants. One variant includes the assemblages from Fazael IX and Ein Gev I that present absolute burin dominance and have been reported to contain a flake-oriented industry (Goring-Morris, 1980; Belfer-Cohen et al., 2004). This is clearly not the case in the Manot assemblage. The ^r ‘Akil VI, where the second variant is evident at el-Wad C and Ksa dominance of burins is less pronounced, and endscrapers are relatively common. In addition, a more distinct bladelet component is observed within these assemblages (Garrod and Bate, 1937; Copeland, 1975; Williams and Bergman, 2010; Bergman et al., 2017). Thus, their resemblance to the industry of the late occupation phase at Manot Cave, as represented by the assemblage from Layer III, is more apparent. It is therefore of interest that the time frame suggested for Level VI at Ks^ ar ‘Akil corresponds to the one suggested for the post-Levantine Aurignacian layers at Manot Cave, indicating an age range of ~35e32 ka cal BP (Douka et al., 2013; Bosch et al., 2015b). However, the dominance of carinated burins while still containing a substantial endscraper component, and the use of the

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

22

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

narrow front of the core for the production of long, thin bladelets, is best represented in the Negev sites associated with the ArqovDivshon entity (Ferring, 1976; Marks, 1976a, b; Marks and Ferring, 1976). The dominance of bladelet cores marks another common affinity between the two industries. Nevertheless, laterally carinated endscrapers, which are considered a key component in the ascription of any industry to the Arqov-Divshon entity, are seemingly not represented in the Manot assemblage. In addition to the difficulty presented earlier, some of the trends displayed between occupation phases in the Manot sequence are said to characterize the differences between Early and Late (Recent/ Evolved) Aurignacian in European assemblages (e.g., Bordes, 2006; Lucas, 2006). For instance, the rising emphasis on bladelet production and the shift in production method. Also noted is a change in bladelet morphology with higher frequencies of long, thin bladelets, often produced from carinated cores (burins or endscrapers), which is considered a trait of Late Aurignacian assemblages. The preference for blanks with flake proportions for the production of formal tools, such as burins and endscrapers in the Late Aurignacian, as well as a general decrease in the use of lateral retouch, including the characteristic “Aurignacian retouch,” are also associated with Late Aurignacian industries. The fact that both similarities and differences can be found between the late occupation phase from Manot Cave and both local cultural entities that are regarded as the possible successors of the Levantine Aurignacian, in addition to the implied similarities with the European Late Aurignacian, makes the association of the Manot assemblage to any cultural entity difficult. It is therefore clear to us that a more comprehensive analysis of the sequence is required before a secure terminology can be established. Trying to retain an objective view, we defer to the previously suggested term “postLevantine Aurignacian”, until such a study is completed. The use of the term “post-Levantine Aurignacian” stresses its chronostratigraphic position within the sequencedoverlying the Levantine Aurignacian phase. It is also meant to emphasize the similarities to the Levantine Aurignacian industries, as are demonstrated, for example, by the continuous production of bladelets from carinated items. 5. Conclusions The Early Upper Paleolithic sequence exposed in Area E in Manot Cave encompasses nine occupation layers, which are currently dated between ~38 and 33 ka cal BP. Based on differences in material culture, a division of the sequence into two phases is now assumed. The early phase, including Layers IVeVIII, is associated with Levantine Aurignacian industries and currently dated between ~38 and 34 ka cal BP, with a more constrained timeframe of ~37e35 ka cal BP suggested based on Bayesian models (Alex et al., 2017). The late phase, including Layers IeIII, shows both similarities and differences to Atlitian and to Arqov-Divshon assemblages. It also shares several common traits with the Late Aurignacian of Europe. Therefore, a secure association to any of these cultural entities awaits the results of a more comprehensive study of the sequence. Nevertheless, a temporary terminology is assumed, naming this phase “post-Levantine Aurignacian.” The suggested age range for this phase is ~36e33 ka cal BP. The differences in material culture between the two phases indicates a change in human behavior. Bladelet morphology and production method differed between the two phases, and they assumed a more prominent role in the post-Levantine Aurignacian. The rich, complex osseous industries that are found in the Levantine Aurignacian layers disappeared almost completely. The mollusk remains, which indicate their use for both consumption and as decorative items during the Levantine Aurignacian,

diminished substantially in post-Levantine Aurignacian contexts. These changes might correspond to possible climatic and environmental fluctuations in the region ca. 35 ky BP, as indicated by isotope analyses of both speleothems and ancient wood fragments from within the cave, which imply a decrease in precipitation and a drier climate between 35,000 and 28,000 years ago, which led to a change in the surrounding landscape. The differences in material culture presented here might reflect adaptation to this changing environment.

Acknowledgments The Manot Cave excavations is a joint project of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Tel Aviv University, and 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 Leaky Foundation. We thank Patrice Kaminski for drawing the flint illustrations, Evgeniy Ostrovskiy for field and studio photography, Hannah Parow-Souchon for high-resolution panorama pictures of the cave and the excavated areas, and Eliyahu Cohen-Sasson for section drawings and software support throughout the excavation. We wish to express our gratitude to Isaac Gilead and Steve Rosen, for their valuable comments and remarks on earlier versions of this manuscript.

References Abulafia, T., 2018. Post-depositional process in Upper Paleolithic period: A typotechnology case study from Manot, Area C. M.A thesis. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (in Hebrew). Abulafia, T., Goder-Goldberger, M., Berna, F., Barzilai, O., Marder, O., 2019. 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. Submitted to special issue on Manot Cave. Alex, B., Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Abulafia, T., Ayalon, A., BarMatthews, M., Davis, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Berna, F., Caracuta, V., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Hans, M.G., Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Mintz, E., Regev, L., Tejero, J.-M., Yas'ur, G., Yeshurun, R., Boaretto, E., 2017. Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals. Science Advances 3(11), e1701450.  ndez, E., Jo €ris, O., 2008. Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Alvarez Ferna Paleolithic of Western Eurasia: An evaluation of the record. Eurasian Prehistory 5(2), 31e44. Averbouh, A., 2001. Methodological specifics of the techno-economic analysis of worked bone and antler: Mental refitting and methods of application. In: Choyke, A.M., Bartosiewicz, L. (Eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, vol. 937. BAR International Series, Oxford, pp. 111e122. ~o, J., 2013. Humaneclimate interaction during the Banks, W.E., d'Errico, F., Zilha Early Upper Paleolithic: Testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. Journal of Human Evolution 64, 39e55. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 1996. Another look at the Levantine Aurignacian. In: di Cesnola, A., Montet-White, A. (Eds.), The Late Aurignacian, UISPP 13th Congress, ABACO. Edizioni, Forli, pp. 139e150. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2010. The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic. In: Garcea, E.A.A. (Ed.), Southeastern Mediterranean Peoples between 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 144e167. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., 2005. The exploitation of shells as beads in the Palaeolithic orient 31(1), 176e185. and Neolithic of the Levant. Pale 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., 2001. The Meged Rockshelter flint analyses (1995e1997). M.A. Thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., 2016. The Early Upper Paleolithic Period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 31(1e2), 85e100. Belfer-Cohen, A., 1980. The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave. MA Dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (in Hebrew). orient 7, Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 1981. The Aurignacian in Hayonim Cave. Pale 19e42.

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx 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, A.N., 1986. Har Horesha I: An Upper Palaeolithic site in the central Negev highlands. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society e Mitekufat Haeven 19, 43e57. 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, Oxford, pp. 1e12. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2014. On the rebound e a Levantine view of Upper Palaeolithic dynamics. In: Otte, M., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Modes de placements au Pale olithique Eurasiatique (La commission 8 Contacts et de De olithique sup e rieur] de l'UISPP), ERAUL 2014. University of Lie
ge Press, [Pale
ge, pp. 27e36. Lie Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2017. The Upper Palaeolithic of Cisjordan. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 627e638. Belfer-Cohen, A., Grosman, L., 2007. Tools or Cores? Carinated artifacts in the Levantine Late Upper Paleolithic assemblages and why does it matter. In: Mecpheron, S.P. (Ed.), Tools versus Cores Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, pp. 143e163. Belfer-Cohen, A., Davidzon, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., Lieberman, D., Spears, M., 2004. Nahal Ein Gev I: A Late Upper Palaeolithic site by the Sea of Galilee, Israel. orient 30, 25e46. Pale Bergman, C.A., 1987a. Ks^ ar ‘Akil, Lebanon: A Technological and Typological Analysis ^r ‘Akil, vol. II. Levels XIII-VI. BAR Interof the Later Palaeolithic Levels of Ksa national Series 329, Oxford. Bergman, C.A., 1987b. Hafting and use of bone and antler points from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. In: Stordeur, D. (Ed.), La Main et l'Outil. Manches et Emmanchements historiques. Table Ronde C.N.R.S. tenue a
lyon du 26 au 29 novembre 1984. Pre Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient, Lyon, pp. 117e126. Bergman, C., Williams, J., Douka, K., Schyle, D., 2017. The Palaeolithic sequence of Ks^ ar ‘Akil, Lebanon. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary Environments, Climate Change and Humans in the Levant. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 255e267. Berna, F., Boaretto, E., Wiebe, M.C., Goder-Goldberger, M., Abulafia, T., Lavi, R., Barzilai, O., Marder, O., Weiner, S., submitted. Site formation processes at Manot Cave, Israel: Interplay between strata accumulation in the occupation area and the talus. Journal of Human Evolution. Submitted to special issue on Manot Cave. Besançon, J., Copeland, L., Hours, H., 1975e1977. Tableaux de prehistoire Libanaise. orient 3, 5e45. Pale Bon, F., 2002. Les termes de l Aurignacien. Espacio Tiempo y Forma. Serie I. Prehistoria y Arqueología 15, 39e65. Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the industries of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings Yosef, O., Zilha of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 133e144. ndez, J.M., Ortega Cobos, D., 2002. En torno a los conceptos de Bon, F., Maíllo-Ferna ~ aciense, Aurin ~ aciense arcaico, inicial y antiguo: unidad y variabilidad de Protoaurin  gicos de los primeros grupos de humanos modernos los comportamientos tecnolo ~ a. Prehistoria y Arqueologíade 13e15. en el Sur de Francia y norte de Espan Bordes, J.G., 2006. News from the West: a reevaluation of the classical Aurignacian rigord. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition sequence of the Pe of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 141e171. ^r 'Akil (Lebanon) mollusc Bosch, M.D., Wesselingh, F., Mannino, M.A., 2015a. The Ksa assemblage: Zooarchaeological and taphonomic investigations on Upper Palaeolithic shells. Quaternary International 390, 85e101. 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., 2015b. New chronology for Ks^ ar ‘Akil (Lebanon) supports Levantine route of modern human dispersal into Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 7683e7688. olithique supe rieur et leur signification. Breuil, H., 1913. Les subdivisions du pale
s International d'Anthropologie et d'Arche ologie Pre historiques, 14e
me Congre
ve (1912). Kündig, Gene
ve, pp. 166e238. session, Gene Campana, D.V., 1989. Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools: The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. BAR International Series 494, Oxford. Camps-Fabrer, H., Ramseyer, D., Stordeur Yedid, D., 1990. Poinçons, pointes, historique. poignards, aiguilles. Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie Osseuse Pre Cahier III, Commision de Nomenclature sur LIndustrie de lOs Prehistorique.  de Provence, Aix-en-Provence. Universite Caracuta, V., Alex, B., Regev, L., Regev, J., Mintz, E., Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Boaretto, E., submitted. The MIS 3 landscape around Manot Cave (Israel) - new insights from anthracological record and stable carbon isotopes analyses. Journal of Human Evolution. Submitted to special issue on Manot Cave. Chazan, M., 2001. Bladelet production in the Aurignacian of Hayonim cave, Israel. orient 27(1), 81e88. Pale

23

Colonese, A.C., Mannino, M.A., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., Fa, D.A., Finlayson, J.C., Lubell, D., Stiner, M.C., 2011. Marine mollusc exploitation in Mediterranean prehistory: An overview. Quaternary International 239, 83e103. Comay, O., Weissbrod, L., Dayan, T., 2019. Predictive modelling in paleoenvironmental reconstruction: the micromammals of Manot Cave, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 102652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102652. 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. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas Texas, pp. 317e350. olithique supe rieur en Demars, P.Y., Laurent, P., 1989. Types d’outils lithiques du Pale Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire 14, 1e178. Douka, K., Bergman, C.A., Hedges, R.E.M., Wesselingh, F.P., Higham, T.F.G., 2013. Chronology of Ks^ ar ‘Akil (Lebanon) and implications for the colonization of Europe by Anatomically Modern Humans. Plos One 9(8), 1e10. Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L., 2002. Thinking small: Global perspectives on microlithization, vol. 12. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Arlington Virginia (1). Falcucci, A., Conard, N.J., Peresani, M., 2017. A critical assessment of the Protoaurignacian lithic technology at Fumane Cave and its implications for the definition of the earliest Aurignacian. Plos One 12, e0189241. ndez-Lo pez de Pablo, J., Badal, E., Ferrer García, C., Martínez-Ortí, A., Sanchis Ferna Serra, A., 2014. Land snails as a diet diversification proxy during the Early Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. Plos one 9(8), e104898. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0104898. Ferring, C.R., 1976. Sde Divshon: an Upper Paleolithic site on the Divshon Plain. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol. I: The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 1. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 99e206. Frumkin, A., Comay, O., 2019. The last glacial cycle of the southern Levant: Paleoenvironment and chronology of modern humans. Journal of Human Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.04.007 (in press). Frumkin, A., Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Ulman, M., Marder, O., 2019. Karst terrain in the western upper Galilee, Israel: Speleogenesis, hydrogeology and human preference of Manot Cave. Journal of Human Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jhevol.2019.05.006 (in press). olithique Supe rieur du Moyen Orient. Bulletin Garrod, D.A.E., 1957. Notes sur le Pale te pre historique France 55, 239e445. de la Socie Garrod, D.A.E., Bate, D.M.A., 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Excavations at the Wadi-Mughara, vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Gilead, I., 1981. The Upper Paleolithic tools assemblages from the Negev and Sinai. In: Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), Prehistoire du Levant. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 369e374. Gilead, I., 1991. The Upper Paleolithic Period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 5, 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. lez Echegaray, J.G., 1966. Excavaciones en la Terraza de" El Khiam"(Jordania): Gonza Los Niveles Meso-Neolíticos, Estudio de la Fauna, Flora y An alisis de las Tierras del Yacimiento. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid. Goring-Morris, A.N., 1980. Upper Palaeolithic sites from Wadi Fazael, Lower Jordan orient 6, 173e191. Valley. Pale 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 Definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 297e316. Hahn, J., 1988. Fiche sagaie
a base fendue. In: Delporte, H., Hahn, J., Mons, L., Pinçon, G., Sonneville-Bordes, D. (Eds.), Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie historique. Cahier I. Sagaies. Commission de Nomenclature sur Osseuse Pre historique. Universite  de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, l'Industrie de l'oOs Pre pp. 1e21. Heller, J., 2009. Land Snails of the Land of Israel: Natural Historyand a Field Guide. Pensoft, Sofia. Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Yas'ur, G., Boaretto, E., Caracuta, V., Alex, B., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Gunz, P., Holloway, R., Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Matthews, A., Slon, V., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Berna, F., BarOz, G., Yeshurun, R., May, H., Hans, M., Weber, G., Barzilai, O., 2015. Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans. Nature 520, 216e219. Hill, E.A., Hunt, C.O., Lucarini, G., Mutri, G., Farr, L., Barker, G., 2015. Land gastropod piercing during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in The Haua Fteah, Libya. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 4, 320e325. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.09.003. Hours, F., 1974. Remarques sur l’utilisation de listes-types pour l’etude de Paleoorient 2, 3e18. lithique Superieur et de l'Epipaleolithique du Levant. Pale Jones, M., Marks, A.E., Kaufman, D., 1983. Boker: the artifacts. In: Markes, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 3. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 283e329. Knecht, H., 1991. Technological Innovation and Design during the Early Upper Paleolithic: A Study of Organic Projectile Technologies. Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, New York University.

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

24

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx

Kuhn, S.L., 2002. Pioneers of Microlithization: The “Proto-Aurignacian” of Southern Europe. In: Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization, vol. 12. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Arlington Virginia, pp. 83e93 (1). Lengyel, G., 2007. Lithic Economy of the Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic of Raqefet Cave. BAR International Series S1681, Oxford. Lengyel, G., Boaretto, L., Fabre, L., Ronen, A., 2006. New AMS 14 C dates from the Early Upper Paleolithic sequence of Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. Radiocarbon 48, 253e258.  et caracteristiques du travail des matie
res osseuses au Liolios, D., 1999. Variabilite debut de l'Aurignacien: Approche technologique et economique. Ph.D Disserpartement d'Ethnologie et de Sociologie Comparative, Universite  Paris tation, De X-Nanterre.  2006. Re-evaluation of the principal diagnostic criteria of the AuriLucas, G.E., nac-et-Saint-Julien, Dordogne). In: gnacian: The example from Grotte XVI (Ce ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. ProBar-Yosef, O., Zilha ceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25e30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 173e186. ~ aciense Arcaico de Cueva Morín Maíllo, J.M., 2002. Tecnología lítica en el Aurin (Villanueva de Villaescusa, Cantabria). In: Bon, F., Maíllo, J.M., Ortega, D. (Eds.), Autour des Concepts de Protoaurignacien, d'Aurignacien Archaïque, Initial et  et Variabilite  des Comportements Techniques des Premiers Ancien. Unite Groupes d'Hommes Modernes dans le Sud de la France et le Nord de l'Espagne: Actas de la Mesa Redonda Celebrada en Toulouse entre los Días 27 de Febrero y 1 de Marzo de 2003. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie I Prehistoria y Arqueología (15). UNED, Madrid, pp. 87e116. Marder, O., Hershkovitz, I., Barzilai, O., 2017. The Early Upper Palaeolithic period at the Manot Cave, Western Galilee: Chrono-cultural, subsistence and palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary Environments, Climate Change and Humans in the Levant. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 267e276. 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., Nishiaki, Y. (Eds.), Replacement of Neanderthals by Moderns Humans: Testing Evolutionary Models of Learning. Springer, Japan, pp. 49e63. Marks, A.E. (Ed.), 1976a. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Avdat/Aqev Area. Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 1. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Marks, A.E., 1976b. Ein Aqev: A late Levantine Upper Paleolithic site in the Nahal Aqev. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. I. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 227e291. Marks, A.E. (Ed.), 1977. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Avdat/Aqev Area. Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 2. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Marks, A.E., 1981. The Upper Paleolithic of the Levant. In: Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), Prehistoire du Levant. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 369e374. 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, Oxford, pp. 249e264. Marks, A.E., Ferring, C.R., 1976. Upper Paleolithic sites near Ein Avdat. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 1. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 141e198. McBrearty, S., Bishop, L., Plummer, T., Dewar, R., Conard, N., 1998. Tools underfoot: Human trampling as an agent of lithic artifact edge modification. American Antiquity 63(1), 108e129. Mellars, P., Tixier, J., 1989. Radiocarbon-accelerator dating of Ksar'Aqil (Lebanon) and the chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic sequence in the Middle East. Antiquity 63(241), 761e768. historique de Palestine. Revue Biblique 43, 237e259. Neuville, R., 1934. Le Pre olithique et le Me solithique du desert de Jude e. Archives Neuville, R., 1951. Le Pale ontologie Humaine, Paris. de l'Institut de Pale Newcomer, M.H., 1977. Experiments in Upper Palaeolithic bone work. In: Campsthodologie Applique e a
lIndustrie de l'Os Pre historique. Fabrer, H. (Ed.), Me
me Colloque International sur l'Industrie de l'Os dans la Pre histoire. Deuxie nanque (Vaucluse). 9e12 juin 1976. Centre National de la Abbaye de Se Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 293e301. Newcomer, M., 1987. Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). In: Bergman, C.A. (Ed.), Ksar Akil Lebanon: A Technological and Typological Analysis of the Later Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil, Vol. II. Levels XIlI-VI, vol. 329. BAR International Series, Oxford, pp. 284e307. Nigst, P.R., Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Frank-Fellner, C., Mallol, C., Viola, B., €tzinger, M., Niven, L., Trnka, G., Hublin, J.-J., 2014. Early modern human Go settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppe-type environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS USA 111, 14394e14399. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.01.005 (in press).

Parow-Souchon, H., 2016. The Wadi Sabra - A Contextual Approach to the Palae€ ln. olithic Landscape. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ko tillon, J.M., 2006. Des Magdale niens en Armes. Technologie des Armatures de Pe  du Magdale nien Supe rieur de la Grotte d'Isturitz Projectile en Bois de Cervide ne es-Atlantiques). Editions du Centre d'Etudes et de Documentation (Pyre ologiques, Belgique. Arche Rabinovich, R., 2003. The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic faunal record. In: GoringMorris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 33e48. Rabinovich, R., Nadel, D., 1994. Bone tools from Ohalo II: A morphological and functional study. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society- Mitekufat Haeven 26, 32e63. Ronen, A., 1984. Sefunim Prehistoric Sites e Mount Carmel, Israel, vol. 230. BAR International Series, Oxford. Schyle, D., Uerpmann, H.P., 1988. Palaeolithic Sites in the Petra Area. The Prehistory of Jordan, vol. 39. BAR International Series, Oxford, pp. 39e65. 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 1e20. olithique Supe rieur en Pe rigord. Delmas, Sonneville-Bordes, D., 1960. Le Pale Bordeaux. Stiner, M.C., 2005. The Faunas of Hayonim Cave (Israel): A 200,000-Year Record of Paleolithic Diet, Demography and Society. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. Stiner, M.C., Kuhn, S.L., Gülec, E., 2013. Early Upper Paleolithic shell beads at üçagızlı Cave I (Turkey): Technology and the socioeconomic context of ornament lifehistories. Journal of Human Evolution 64, 380e398.
l'outil - caracte risation technique, e conomique et sociale Tartar, E., 2009. De l'os a 
l'aurignacien ancien. Etude de l'utilisation de l'os a de trois sites: l'Abri Castanet
nes et Abri Dubalen) et (secteurs nord et sud), Brassempouy (Grotte des Hye  Paris I Panthe on-Sorbonne. Gatzarria. PhD dissertation, Universite Tartar, E., White, R., 2013. The manufacture of Aurignacian split-based points: An experimental challenge. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 2723e2745. Tejero, J.-M., 2014. Towards complexity in osseous raw material exploitation by the first anatomically modern humans in Europe: Aurignacian antler working. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36, 72e92. Tejero, J.-M., 2016. Spanish Aurignacian projectile points. An example of the first European Palaeolithic hunting weapons in osseous material. In: Langley, M.C. (Ed.), Osseous Projectile Weaponry: Towards an Understanding of Pleistocene Cultural Variability. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 55e69. Tejero, J.-M., Yeshurun, R., Barzilai, O., Goder-Goldberg, M., Hershkovitz, I., Lavi, R., Schneller-Pels, N., Marder, O., 2016. The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technological and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Early Upper Palaeolithic. 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, PNAS USA, 201717145. Tejero, J.-M., Rabinovich, R., Yeshurun, R., Abulafia, T., Bar-Yosef, O., Barzilai, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goder-Golberger, M., Hershkovitz, I., Lavi, R., Shemer, M., Marder, O., Submitted. Personal ornaments from Hayonim and Manot caves (Israel) hint to symbolic ties between the Levantine and the European Aurignacian. Journal of Human Evolution, submitted to special issue on Manot Cave. buts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. Teyssandier, N., 2007. En Route Vers l’Ouest. Les De Hadrian Books, Oxford. Teyssandier, N., 2008. Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. World Archaeology 40, 493e519. Teyssandier, N., Bolus, M., Conard, N.J., 2006. The Early Aurignacian in central Europe and its place in a European perspective. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh~ ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25e30, 2002. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 241e256. Teyssandier, N., Bon, F., Bordes, J.G., 2010. Within projectile range: Some thoughts on the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journal of Anthropological Research 66(2), 209e229. Tyzzer, E.E., 1936. The "simple bone point" of the shell-heaps of the Northeastern Algonkian area and its probable significance. American Antiquity 1, 261e279. Vanhaeren, M., d'Errico, F., 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(8), 1105e1128. orient Watson, J., Newcomer, M., 1984. Bone artifacts from Ksar ’Aqil (Lebanon). Pale 10(1), 143e147. White, R., 2007. Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., BarYosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 287e302. Williams, J.K., 2003. An examination of Upper Palaeolithic flake technologies in the marginal zone of the Levant. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.),

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705

O. Marder et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (xxxx) xxx More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 196e208. Williams, J.K., 2006. The Levantine Aurignacian: A closer look. In: Bar-Yosef, O., ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. Instituto Portugue ^s de Zilha Arqueologia (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45), Lisbon, pp. 317e352. Williams, J.K., Bergman, C., 2010. Upper Paleolithic Levels XIII-VI (A and B) from the 1937-1938 and 1947-1948 Boston College Excavations and the ‘Levantine orient 36(2), 117e161. Aurignacian’ at Ks^ ar ‘Akil, Lebanon. Pale Wood, R.E., Arrizabalaga, A., Camps, M., Fallon, S., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.J., Jones, R., Maroto, J., de la Rasilla, M., Santamaría, D., Soler, J., Soler, N., Villaluenga, A., Higham, T.F.G., 2014. The chronology of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic in

25

~ a. Journal northern Iberia: New insights from L'Arbreda, Labeko Koba and La Vin of Human Evolution 69, 91e109. Yasur, 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. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.04.004 (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 of Human Evolution. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.05.007 (in press).

Please cite this article as: Marder, O et al., Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives, Journal of Human Evolution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102705