The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian

Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian
-Miguel Tejero a, b, *, Reuven Yeshurun c, Omry Barzilai d, Mae Goder-Goldberger e, Jose Israel Hershkovitz f, Ron Lavi g, Nehora Schneller-Pels c, Ofer Marder h Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique de France (CNRS), UMR 7041, ArScAn
equipe Ethnologie pr
ehistorique, 92023 Nanterre, France riques), Universitat de Barcelona, 08001 Barcelona, Spain SERP (Seminari d'Estudis I Recerques Prehisto Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel d Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586, Jerusalem, Israel e Max Planck Weizmann Joint Center for Integrative Archaeology and Anthropology, Weizmann Institute for Science, Rehovot, Israel f The Dan David Laboratory for the Search and Study of Modern Humans, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel g Independent Researcher h Department of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer Sheva, 84105, Israel a

b c

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online xxx

The Early Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant plays an important role in understanding the emergence, dispersal, and adaptations of the first Anatomically Modern Human (AMH) populations in the Levant and Europe. The technical exploitation of osseous raw materials, represented by the new concepts applied to the antler working, is recognized as one of several innovations that occur both in the Levant and in Europe during this time. Here we present preliminary results of a technological analysis conducted on the Aurignacian bone and antler industry from the Early Upper Palaeolithic layers of Manot Cave, Israel. The industry displays several similarities with its European counterpart such as the choice of bone for making “domestic” tools (recurrent morpho-types like awls) while antler was used predominantly for hunting equipment (projectile points). The complex technical exploitation of antler, almost exclusively devoted to making hunting weapons, constitutes a major feature both in the European Early Aurignacian and in the Levantine Aurignacian. Nevertheless, while simple-based antler points are common in the Levantine Aurignacian, split-based antler points, characteristic of the European Early Aurignacian are only anecdotally documented in the Levant. Unique to the Levantine industry is the common exploitation of fallow deer antler. While some of these particularities seem to be related to the different ecological niches exploited, others, such as the different type of hunting weapons, need to be assessed in light of different cultural contexts. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Levant Early Upper Palaeolithic Aurignacian Manot Cave bone and antler technology Simple-/massive-based projectile points

The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic plays an important role in understanding the emergence, dispersal, and adaptations of the first Anatomically Modern Human (hereafter AMH) populations outside of Africa (Bar-Yosef, 2007; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen,

2013; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2012). At least three dispersal events are conceived to be reflected in the early stages of the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic e two from the Levant into Europe (e.g., Hublin, 2015), and one from Europe to the Levant (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010). Similarities found between  the Emirian techno-complex and the Bohunician industry (Skrdla,

* Corresponding author. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique de France
quipe Ethnologie pre
historique, 92023 Nanterre, (CNRS), UMR 7041, ArScAn e France. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.-M. Tejero).

2003), and between the Ahmarian and Proto-Aurignacian (Hublin, 2015) were proposed to reflect population movement from the Levant to Eurasia conforming to the “Out of Africa” model (e.g., Stringer, 2001, 2007; Mellars, 2006; Fu et al., 2014; Hershkovitz et al., 2015). A later “back migration” of European

1. Introduction

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.028 1040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

2

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Aurignacians into the Levant has also been suggested (e.g., BarYosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2012). The focus of our research is to examine the “back migration” hypothesis through the study of bone and antler assemblages from the two regions. Understanding technical and conceptual behaviours of osseous raw material exploitation of the Levantine Aurignacian is essential to the issue of complex projectile technologies. Projectile technologies are perceived as a key strategic innovation that enabled the fast dispersion of AMH across Eurasia (Shea, 2006, 2009; Shea and Sisk, 2010). While projectile technology exploited mostly flint as the basic raw material, during the Aurignacian antler was used almost exclusively for manufacturing hunting equipment in both the Levant and Europe. New technical and conceptual behaviours relating to osseous raw material exploitation may be linked to the search for more effective hunting weapons, lending an advantage to AMH adaptive systems and the success of their dispersion (Knecht, 1997; Tejero, 2014). So far, studies concerning Levantine Aurignacian osseous industries have been conducted mainly from a typological approach (Belfer-Cohen, 1980; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1996). In this work, we attempt to characterize the technical practices chosen by the inhabitants of Manot Cave (Israel) in exploiting bone and antler as raw material. Following the results, similarities and differences between the Levantine and the European Aurignacian practices of osseous raw material exploitation will be highlighted. The data was retrieved from the Early Upper Palaeolithic layers which include the Levantine Aurignacian component from Areas C, D and E at Manot Cave (Excavation seasons 2010e2014) in light of their taphonomic context. The presented technological analysis constitutes the starting point of a broader project that aims to reconstruct the chaîne op
eratoire of osseous raw material exploitation within the Early Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant.

1.1. Manot Cave Manot Cave is an active karstic cave situated within the Mediterranean vegetation belt in the western Galilee, Israel (Fig. 1), ca. 220 m asl, ca. 10 km northwest of Hayonim Cave and about 50 km northeast of the Mount Carmel Caves. The cave consists of an elongated main hall (80 m long, 10e25 m wide) with two lower chambers connected from the north and the south (Fig. 2). Rock falls and colluvium apparently blocked the original entrance to the cave ca. 30,000 years ago. During five seasons (2010e2014), eight areas were excavated (labelled A to H in Fig. 3; Barzilai et al., 2012, 2014; Marder et al., 2013; Hershkovitz et al., 2015). Areas C and E contain well-preserved Upper Palaeolithic assemblages. Both areas display thick (ca. 3 m) stratigraphic profiles and are extremely rich in finds, including flint artifacts, animal bones, bone and antler tools, shells, ochre and charcoal. Area E is located at the western end of the cave, on top of the talus, where the original entrance is thought to have been situated (Fig. 3). Two distinct sedimentological units were identified. Unit 1 is a colluvial accumulation, ca. 1 m thick, with few archaeological finds in secondary deposition. Unit 2 consists of compact reworked sediments with cemented crusts in various degrees of brecciation. This unit contains nine distinct archaeological horizons (Unit 2 Layers IeIX). The upper archaeological horizons of Unit 2 (Layers IeIII) are composed of a series of well-preserved combustion features. Based on the small lithic assemblages, these horizons are understood as corresponding to Post-Aurignacian entities (Barzilai et al. in press; Marder et al., in press). The lower archaeological horizons of Unit 2 (Layers IVeIX) display dense archaeological assemblages rich in flint artifacts, bone tools, animal bones, and shells. The lithic assemblages are comprised of typical Levantine Aurignacian tools, such as nosed and carinated scrapers as well as blades displaying Aurignacian retouch, and a few atypical el-Wad points (Barzilai et al. in press; Marder et al., in press). The shell assemblages include mostly Patella, while various species of the

Fig. 1. Location of Manot Cave and Upper Palaeolithic sites mentioned in the text in northern Israel. Israel topographic and hydrographic map by Eric Gaba (Wikimedia commons user: Sting). Topography: NASA SRTMBO. Bathymetry: NGDC ETOPO1. Additional data: NGDC World Data Bank II.

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

3

Fig. 2. General view, looking to the west on Area A. (Photo M. Ullman).

scaphopod Antalis were also found (Marder et al., 2013; Barzilai et al., 2014). Area D was opened in the middle of the western talus (Fig. 3), where ca. 20 m2 were excavated along the talus and eight sedimentological units were identified (Barzilai et al., 2014). These units are composed mostly of colluvium containing large concentrations of flint artifacts and animals bones not in primary contexts. Bone tools as well as basalt ground stones were also retrieved. The lithic assemblage includes both Ahmarian and Aurignacian lithic components. The stratigraphy of Area C was defined according to sedimentological criteria and was subsequently divided into eight units. It should be noted that Units 6 and 7 are separated by a thin (ca. 1 cm thick) unconformity layer which divides the units culturally as described below (Fig. 4). The archaeological assemblages are rich in finds, including large quantities of flint artifacts and animal bones. Also found were bone and antler tools, charcoal pieces, ochre as well as basalt ground stones. Due to the nature of the talus some mixing

occurred between the units, although preliminary analysis of the lithic assemblages and radiocarbon chronology suggest chronocultural distinctions can be defined (Barzilai et al. in press; Marder et al. In press). The freshness of the lithic material as well as the finding of complete lithic assemblages (cores, tool debitage and numerous small artifacts <2 cm), and the preservation of the charcoal pieces and bones all indicate that the assemblages were not exposed to high levels of movement down the slope. The archaeological assemblages from units 2e4 (ca. 1.5 m thick), are dominated by an Aurignacian lithic component similar to that described for Area E, as well as projectile points made on antler. The archaeological assemblages from Units 5e6 (ca. 1 m thick) include both Ahmarian and Aurignacian elements, while Units 7e8 (ca. 1 m thick) are composed almost exclusively by the Ahmarian component, with numerous blades/bladelets produced from single and opposed platform cores, retouched bladelets and el-Wad points (Hershkovitz et al., 2015; extended data Fig. 21). The shell assemblages from Area C included Columbella rustica and Nassarius

Fig. 3. Cave plan, showing the areas of excavation. (Drawing V. Asman).

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

4

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Fig. 4. Stratigraphical sequence of Area C Units 1e8; Squares J66-67. Looking west. (Photo Mae Goder-Goldberger).

gibbosulus, which were used for personal ornamentation, and Pattela sp., which was probably consumed as food (Marder et al., 2013). The Aurignacian entity at Manot Cave, both from Areas C and E, are dated between 34 and 38,000 cal BP, while the Ahmarian entity, Area C, is dated between 42 and 46,000 cal BP (Barzilai et al. in press). Several Uranium Thorium dates retrieved from flowstone layers that seal the archaeological horizons in Area C range between ca. 41e33,000 BP, roughly corresponding with the radiocarbon dates (Yas'ur, 2013; Hershkovitz et al., 2015). 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Technological analysis The study presented is a technological analysis of the Aurignacian osseous assemblage components from the Manot Cave

2010e2014 excavation seasons. Rather than focusing exclusively on the end products, the analysis also takes into account the “technical pieces” (i.e., raw material blocks, blanks, preforms and waste). The technological analysis utilizes a heuristic approach to infer social and behavioural practices from cultural material (Lemmonier, 1976, 1991; Pelegrin et al., 1988; Karlin et al., 1992). The overall goal of this kind of approach is to combine technical and economic data from which cultural and possibly social information may be inferred. With this approach, the reconstruction of the chaîne op
eratoire, which constitutes the primary tool of the technological analysis, helps us reconstruct the technical steps allowing the production of the objects (Averbouh, 2001: 112). As part of the chaîne op
eratoire reconstruction, “technical stigmata” and use-wear marks were identified. This was done using a stereomicroscope with magnification up to 80
. To reconstruct the chaîne op
eratoire, all stages of the sequence were taken into consideration, from raw material

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

selection and preparation through the working, re-working and reuse of artifacts, and up to the final stage at which they were discarded (Averbouh, 2001). To enhance our understanding of the patterns of selection and discarding of osseous artifacts, ongoing zooarchaeological and taphonomic studies of bones from Area C were incorporated (Schneller-Pels in preparation; cf. Yeshurun et al., in this volume). To evaluate the origin of the worked antler, we focused on three facets: the presence of shed antler bases; the size-class (or thickness) of the exploited antlers' compact bone tissue; and archaeozoological data about the hunted deer. Antler compact bone tissue thickness values constitute an indicator for assessing the possible origins of exploited antler. Not all antlers have the properties necessary to be exploited technologically. As antler is an osseous tissue with an annual growth cycle (Goss, 1983; Crigel et al., 2001); its mineralization is not completed until the end of the cycle or, at the very minimum, two months before this time (Averbouh, 2000). Sufficiently thick antler parts composed of interior trabecular bone tissue and exterior compact bone tissue are mandatory for effective antler debitage by longitudinal splitting (Tejero et al., 2012). The selection of these antler parts is also necessary to ensure that projectile points (almost exclusively antler-based during the Aurignacian) (Knecht, 1991, 1997; Liolios, 1999; Tejero, 2013) would be sufficiently solid for the manufacture of the hunting weapons. In this study, consistent with previously published research (Averbouh, 2000; Goutas, 2004), we have classified the antler objects following a conventional antler classification based on several criteria (length, shape, cross-section, etc.) among which is also compact bone tissue thicknesses. A. Averbouh (2000) proposed this classification which attributes the finished artifacts to three hypothetical raw material sizes: small (1e3 mm), medium (4e5 mm) and large (6 mm or more). These size categories were established based on data provided from both wild and domestic Siberian reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) (Averbouh, 2000). 2.2. Selected study sample The selected bone and antler artifacts (N ¼ 104), are comprised of blanks, wastes and preforms (Table 1). Among the finished objects (N ¼ 64), antler projectile points (N ¼ 32) and bone awls (N ¼ 29), are the dominant morphotypes. Also documented are three bevelled objects (intermediate pieces). Technical pieces, which are artifacts other than finished objects, are represented by antler blanks (N ¼ 9), debitage wastes (N ¼ 7) and unfinished awls (N ¼ 3) (preforms). It was not possible to determine the technical status of 18 items. Three “decorated” (incised and notched) bones were found which will be presented in a future analysis. Table 1 Typo-technical distribution of bone and antler items from Manot Cave. Morpho-technical categories

Objects Spear points (simple/massive base points) Awls Bevelled pieces (intermediate pieces or chisels) “Technical pieces” Blanks Preforms (unfinished awls) Debitage wastes “Other” items “Decorated” bones (incised and notched) Indet. elements Total

Items number Bone

Antler

Total

e

32

32

29 1

e 2

29 3

e 3 e

9 e 7

9 3 7

3 e 36

e e 50

3 18a 104

a Raw material (bone/antler) distribution of indeterminate elements is not taken into account.

5

Preservation of the pieces is variable. Bone surfaces of most of the pieces are amenable to taphonomic and technological analyses. The most frequent surface alterations, both for bone and antler, consist of concretions and light abrasions, the result of several postdepositional processes mostly related to sediment composition and fluvial activity. 3. Results 3.1. Bone working 3.1.1. Raw material e recovering food wastes The percent of worked osseous pieces from the total identified fauna is 0.6% (calculated as worked artifacts/NISPX100; to facilitate unbiased comparison the calculation only took into account the artifacts coming from the zooarchaeological sample of Area C). Hence, bone working was not a great contributor to the accumulation and modification of the faunal assemblage in the cave. This proportion is low in comparison with those found in terminal Pleistocene Natufian assemblages, where worked bones can amount to more than 2% of the faunal NISP (Yeshurun et al., in this volume). The raw material source exploited for the production of worked bones at Manot Cave was most probably a by-product of the butchery and consumption of hunted game. The Manot Cave animal economy was based on hunting small ungulates (mainly mountain gazelle, Gazella gazella) and medium-sized ungulates (mainly Persian fallow deer, Dama mesopotamica). Correspondingly, the osseous artifacts were made from both small and medium-sized ungulate limb bones and antlers. The use of smaller mammal bones (i.e., fox and hare) as well as bird and reptile bones was extremely rare (Fig. 5). Among the tools made of only slightly modified small ungulate limb bones, the precise anatomical part chosen to be worked was identifiable in the case of metapodials (N ¼ 4), one tibia and one radius. These choices are in accordance with the properties of these limb-bones, being straight and displaying a relatively thick compact bone shaft (as opposed to the thinner and more curvy upper-limb bones, the humerus and the femur), making the metapodials and tibiae the most suitable material for crafting awls. Technical behaviour is reflected not only in the working of the bone, but also in the initial stage of selecting particular bones which were better suited to the technological requirements of each type of tool. 3.1.2. Bone debitage by fracturing without technological purpose Following the hunting of the small and medium ungulates, their transport back to Manot Cave, their butchery and consumption, the remains were probably discarded at or near the location of the last activity. This local discard pattern is evident from the remarkable accumulations of faunal remains found in association with abundant lithics and other cultural materials. Taphonomic evidence suggests that virtually all ungulate limb-bones were cracked open in the consumption stage, probably in order to extract bone marrow (Schneller-Pels, in preparation). This is seen in the high proportion of limb-bone shaft fragments exhibiting hammer-stone percussion marks (8e10% of relevant identified specimens of small ungulate and medium-sized ungulate groups), as well as by the fact that nearly all shaft fragments (89e100% per specimen group) display incomplete shaft circumference. Thus, abundant splinters of ungulate limb-bone shafts were already available for awl making, and no technical procedure was needed to shape splinters into suitable blanks. Worked bones were fractured to extract bone marrow in a manner similar to unworked bones. Fracturing was done by direct percussion, thereby breaking the bone with a certain degree of control of the impact point. The worked bones resemble the

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

6

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Fig. 5. Comparison of the relative taxonomic representation of the total Area C fauna (Schneller-Pels, in preparation) vs. the osseous artifacts. ‘Small mammal’ refers to hares and small carnivores; ‘small ungulate’ includes mostly gazelle; ‘medium ungulate’ includes mostly fallow deer and ‘large ungulate’ refers to aurochs.

unworked ones in size, shape and position of the fracture impact. Thus, the fracturing of bones was not the initial technical intention. Rather, bones were broken to recover and consume bone marrow, and then subsequently blanks were selected from among the longest bone pieces and transformed into awls. A certain degree of selection of specific shaft splinters to serve as blanks is noticeable. In addition to the preference for lower limb elements as discussed above, it seems there was a selection bias towards long-shaft fragments. The mean length of small ungulate limb shafts in the total zooarchaeological sample is 42 mm, whereas the mean length of the complete bone awls made of the same bones is significantly greater at 61 mm (Fig. 6). Undoubtedly, such long fragments were also available from among the discarded consumption remains, but constituted a smaller group from which to select. The absence of a specific chaîne op
eratoire, documented in the Levantine Aurignacian, for the production of bone blanks is characteristic behaviour for the manufacture of such expedient tools, and was also observed in the Aurignacian assemblages of Europe (Tartar, 2009; Tejero, 2013, 2014). Contrary to antler, which does not have nutritional value, and might have been supplied both by hunting and by collecting expeditions (see below), bone remains are strictly linked to the alimentary sphere of hunter-gatherers during the Early Upper Palaeolithic. 3.1.3. Bone equipment e awls as expedient tools As raw material, bone was exclusively devoted to fabricating awls, with the exception of a single bone fragment that was used as a chisel. The consumption of bone marrow extracted from long bones provided a sufficient number of potential blanks, minimizing the technical debitage required for manufacturing awls. The transformation of long bone splinters into awls involved little technical investment and could be accomplished in a few minutes (as described above). Awls are described as tools made on bone fragments whose active (distal) edge is slightly worked by scraping or abrasion (Camps-Fabrer, 1990). In Europe, awls are also known from Mousterian assemblages, as well as from the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian “transitional techno-complexes” (Vincent, 1993; d'Errico et al., 2003; d'Errico et al., 2012). Awls have been documented throughout the Early Upper Palaeolithic in both Europe and

the Levant. They are well represented in the Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian in Europe, and in the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian in the Levant (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Newcomer and Watson, 1984; Gilead, 1991; Coinman, 1996; Tartar, 2009; Tejero, 2013). At this stage it is difficult to establish whether different types of awls were produced within the Manot Cave assemblage (Fig. 7). One reason is the fragmentation of the sample. The thickness and width of awls is quite variable (with thickness ranging between 2 and 10 mm while width varies between 3 and 20 mm), presumably the result of the random morphology of the long bones which were

Fig. 6. Comparison of the mean length of the small ungulate limb shafts in the total zooarchaeological sample (Schneller-Pels, in preparation) against the mean length of the complete bone awls made of the same bones. The mean length of the worked bones is significantly higher (Student's t-test: t ¼ 4.77, p < 0.05).

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Fig. 7. Manot Cave bone awls (1e7). Unfinished bone awls (preforms) (8e9). (numbers 1 and 2 come from area E; 4, 6e9 come from area C; 5 comes from area D).

7

fractured and from which pointed blanks were selected, as demonstrated by the preforms. Length, together with a pointed shape, is one of the parameters for selection of blanks that has been identified. A minimum length is necessary for the awl to have both an efficient active (distal) part and a zone for grabbing and/or hafting the tool. Diameter (width/thickness) probably had less influence on blank choice, as it is correlated with the solidity of the piece. Nevertheless, it is necessary to identify the characteristic (softness/hardness) of the specific material that an awl has worked to evaluate the importance of width and thickness with the functionality of the piece. The awl assemblage at Manot Cave includes complete awls (N ¼ 4) and complete unfinished awls (preforms) (N ¼ 3). The remainder of the assemblage is composed by incomplete awls (N ¼ 25). This assemblage can be divided into two groups based on the length of the complete artifacts: the first group includes two awls and one perform, all small in size (ca. 30 mm), while the second group includes four awls and two preforms ranging in length between 50 and 80 mm (Fig. 8). While the difference between the two groups may be the result of the small sample size, it is possibly that it may actually represent two categories of awls with different functions. The awls were worked along the distal extremity along their complete circumference, as is common for this tool type. The worked extension of complete awls corresponds to 30e59% of the total length of each piece, while the remainder of the artifact (medial and proximal parts) remains unworked (Fig. 8. Table 2). The two longest awls (71 and 80 mm long) were completely worked. One of these awls exhibits several transversal incisions on its two surfaces. These incisions seem to lack any functional purpose, and might be seen as “decorative” or “symbolic” marks. The second, longer awl was worked along the edge and down its sides, only slightly modifying the edge shape (Fig. 7.2). This form of working was probably intended to regularize the edges, thereby facilitating the grasping of the awl and preventing injury to the hand by a rough edge.

Table 2 Bone awls morphometric. Item number

Area

Preserved

Taxa

Anatomical part

Morphometric (L
W
T mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

C D C E C C E C C C E D C E E D D D C C C C C C C C E C C

Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial-prox Frag. medial-prox Unfinished (preform) Unfinished (preform) Unfinished (preform)

Medium ungulate size Medium/large ungulate Gazella size Dama size Gazelle size Indet. Indet. Gazelle size Indet. Gazelle size Indet. Indet. Indet. Gazelle size Indet. Gazelle size Gazelle size Indet. Gazelle size Gazelle size Gazelle size Indet. ungulate Cervid sp Medium/large ungulate Medium ungulate size Medium ungulate size Gazelle size Gazelle size Gazelle size

Radius (proximal saft radius aspect) Limb bone frag. Tibia? Limb bone frag. Limb bone frag. Indet. Indet. Limb bone frag. Indet. Limb bone frag. Indet. Limb bone frag. Indet. Limb bone frag. Indet. Limb bone frag. Limb bone frag. Indet. Limb bone frag. Limb bone frag. Limb bone frag. Indet. Metatarsal Limb bone frag. Metapodial (ventral side) Limb bone frag. Limb bone frag. Limb bone frag. Metapodial

83 80 72 66 39 27 12 21 22 23 26 25 27 52 35 34 61 56 67 36 53 33 27 62 71 75 52 53 31

a
































11
10 11
10 12
5 9
8 8
3 5
4 3
2 10
6 4
2 6
3 4
4 6
3 5
4 10
5 5
2 8
4 7
4 7
5 6
4 10
4 9
4 5
4 8
6 9
7 12
9 17
10 5
4 8
6 9
4

Work ext. (mm)

Worked surface %a

83 80 22 37 18 14 12 21 22 23 26 25 16 31 18 13 26 56 27 16 17 33 27 17 71 25 30 16 18

100 100 30.5 56 46 51.8 e e e e e e 59.2 59.6 51.4 38.2 42.6 100 40.2 44.4 32 e e e e e 57.6 30.1 58

Worked surface extension percentage is not considered for distal and medial fragments.

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

8

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Fig. 8. Morphometric (length and width in mm) of complete, fragmented and preform bone awls (Left). Rate values of unworked surface and work extension of bone awls. Distal and medial fragments are not included (Right).

A single technique for the manufacture of awls was documented, involving modification of one of the blank's extremities by scraping to create a pointed edge. Unfinished awls allow us to reconstruct the implied manufacture sequence. Work started by scraping along the sides of the artifact, after which edges were scraped to regularise their shape. No waste materials associated with bone working were found at Manot Cave. As mentioned above, this is not surprising because technical debitage was not employed to produce the blanks; instead, they were recovered from among broken bones that had been consumed. Nevertheless, the existence of several awl preforms demonstrates that this expedient tool was fabricated on-site. This behaviour is not at all unique to Manot Cave, but rather has been observed at many Upper Palaeolithic sites both in Europe and the Levant (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Tartar, 2009; Tejero, 2013). 3.2. Antler working Antler working is a unique component of the Early Upper Palaeolithic in Eurasia (appearing from the Aurignacian). Bone working developed earlier, and is known from the Lower Palaeolithic (for instance in Fontana Ranuccio and Castel di Guido, Italy and Qesem cave and Revadim Quarry, Israel) (Segre and Ascendi, 1984; Gaudzinski, 1999; Blasco et al., 2013; Rabinovich et al., 2012) and the Middle Palaeolithic (e.g. Vincent, 1993; Armand and Delagnes, 1998) in this region. However, antler working seems to have appeared only after 40 Ka calibrated BP, coinciding with the Early Aurignacian in Western Europe (Tejero, 2014). The exploitation of antler represents the emergence of a new complex technology (e.g., in terms of raw material supply as well as its technical and conceptual transformation) devoted to the production of hunting weapons. Antler exploitation is almost exclusively associated with the production of projectile points (“pointes de sagaie” in the French terminology) (Knecht, 1991; Liolios, 1999; Tejero, 2014, i.p). Prior to the adoption of antler, at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in Eurasia, projectile points were produced from lithic raw material. Blades and bladelets were retouched to form points. In the Levant, they are known as el-Wad points (e.g., Gilead, 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010); in southwest Europe, they are called Dufour points (e.g., Bon, 2002); and in central Europe, they are termed Krems points (Teyssandier, 2007). Technological and traceological analysis shows that at least some of these different types of blades and bladelets could have been used as lithic-composite (complex) projectile elements (e.g., Pelegrin and O'Farrell, 2005; Shea, 2006; Pasquini, 2013), and were likely mounted on wooden tips. Changes

observed in the archaeological record in Eurasia around 40,000 years ago and coinciding with the Heinrich Stadial 4 (HS4) climatic event (Banks et al., 2013a,b) seem to involve the replacement of lithic points with antler projectile points (Tejero, 2014). 3.2.1. Raw material procurement Three deer taxa are present in the faunal assemblage of Manot Cave. Persian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) is the most abundant, while red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) were also documented. As mentioned, hunting weapons (projectile points) constitute the large majority of Early Upper Palaeolithic objects made from antler (Tejero, 2014). Technical exploitation of roe deer antler has not been documented so far for the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. This is possibly the result of the antlers small size and thinness, and thus its unsuitability for the production of projectile points, which need to be long and durable (Newcomer, 1974). Moreover, in the European Upper Palaeolithic the most represented deer, almost exclusively in several Aurignacian sites, are reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and red deer (e.g., Altuna and Mariezcurrena, 2000; Dari, 2003; Letourneux, 2007; Liouville, 2007; Soulier, 2013). Thus, availability most likely also accounts for this absence of worked roe deer antler in the European Upper Palaeolithic. Persian fallow deer and red deer were hunted and consumed at Manot Cave while their antlers were exploited for the production of projectile points. Although taxonomic identification is difficult, and at times impossible due to extreme transformation of the blank, it is possible to retrieve taxonomic affiliation from other objects such as bevelled pieces and especially blanks and wastes. Two debitage wastes in the assemblage have been recognized as Persian fallow deer: a shed antler base and a fragment of beam with marks of cutting percussion. In turn, one of the bevelled pieces made from antler (see below) was fabricated on a red deer beam fragment, confirming that antler from both species were worked in Manot Cave. In most cases, the thickness of the osseous compact tissue of Persian fallow deer antler is sufficient to manufacture projectile points like those found at Manot Cave, contrary to the claim made for the Ksar Akil assemblage (Bergman, 1987). In several cases, the exploited antler at Manot Cave exhibits relatively small compact bone tissue thickness. Of the worked antler points, ca. 60% belong to the large compact bone tissue-size class (greater than 6 mm) while the remaining 40% were classified as having medium compact bone tissue-size (4e5 mm). It should be noted that during the shaping of artifacts the compact bone tissue thickness is reduced. Compact bone tissue thickness is one of the parameters taken into account when determining the original size of the exploited antler (see above).

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Antler is an osseous formation with an annual growth cycle and only matures when it has finished growing, after which the deer sheds its antlers (Goss, 1983; Crigel et al., 2001). While antler, unlike bone, has no nutritional value, during part of the year its supply might have been integrated into the food supply

9

system. As previously mentioned, in the Manot Cave assemblage there is one shed antler base from a Persian fallow deer (Fig. 9) that exhibits cutting percussion marks (i.e., percussion made with a lithic object having a cutting edge). The piece comes from Area C, which was rich in antler objects, blanks and debitage wastes.

Fig. 9. Antler blanks from Manot Cave (1), El Castillo Cave. Spain. Aurignacian Delta Layer of Obermaier excavations. (2) (Tejero, 2013) compared to an experimental blank (3) (Tejero et al., 2012). Antler wastes produced during debitage by longitudinal splitting. Shed base antler (4), basal beam fragment (5) and tine points (6). Arrows show the marks of direct cutting percussion. Detail picture of piece number 5 magnification 20
. On bottom, simplified operational sequence of debitage by longitudinal splitting of antler beam secondary blocks to produce blanks subsequently transformed (manufacture) into projectile points.

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

10

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

stage) by indirect percussion employing an intermediate piece (Fig. 9). Several debitage wastes and “baguette” type blanks from Manot Cave are consistent with the referred procedure recognized in the European Aurignacian. These blanks are characterized by a subrectangular contour, straight lateral fracture planes and, in some cases, a proximal tongue fracture plane (fracture en langüette, a result of the final extraction by flexion) (Fig. 9). The Manot Cave blank set is fragmented; several straight postdepositional fractures are documented on blanks making it difficult to compare their morphometry with that of projectile points. Nevertheless, comparison of two large (most likely complete) blanks with the seven complete antler points (see below), shows some measure of morphometric compatibility (Fig. 9). Obviously, blanks are slightly longer, wider and thicker relative to projectile points, taking into account the loss of several millimetres of matter due to the scraping done to create the point. The width/thickness relationship (measured at the medial part of pieces) permits us to compare the morphometric correspondence between blanks and points, whether complete or fragmented. These parameters are quite constant and consistent between the blanks and projectile points (Fig. 10). While width of blanks ranges between 16 and 23 mm, projectile point widths range between 8 and 12 mm. Thickness of blanks range between 7 and 10 mm and between 6 and 7 mm for projectile points (Table 3). Thus, it seems that antler blank production at Manot Cave was part of the production sequence of antler projectile points and, contrary to the bone exploitation, constitutes a complex chaîne op
eratoire.

The presence of shed antler in the assemblage suggests intentional collection of antler, possibly as an embedded procurement strategy (Binford, 1979). An alternative explanation may be selective hunting of adult individuals with almost completely calcified antlers. 3.2.2. Antler debitage by longitudinal splitting The best-documented debitage procedure applied to osseous materials in the Upper Palaeolithic is that of extraction by longitudinal grooving and wedging. However, the evidence for this procedure does not appear until the Gravettian period (ca. 28e20 Ka uncalibrated BP) (Goutas, 2004). Although some authors (Knecht, 1991, 1997; Liolios, 1999) have advocated longitudinal splitting as the primary means of blank removal for the Aurignacian, this procedure has not yet been well characterised for this period due to the difficulty in identifying blanks that were obtained by splitting. Recently the procedure for obtaining antler blanks for the manufacture of projectile points during the European Aurignacian has been determined (Tejero et al., 2012; Tejero, 2014). This information was attained through comparisons between experimental data and technological analysis of Spanish and French assemblages. Preliminary analysis of the Manot Cave assemblage has provided us with some information that seems to confirm the use of an identical technical concept for the production of blanks. The identified actions consist of two stages: First, the antler debitage is worked by sectioning, employing a cutting percussion. Then, a secondary debitage was produced, longitudinally breaking the secondary blocks (blocks produced by antler beam sectioning during the first

Table 3 Antler blanks and projectile points morphometric. Item number

Area

Preserved

Morphometric (L
W
T mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

D D C E C E C C C C E C C C E D C C C C E E C C C C C C C C E C C C

Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial-distal Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial Frag. medial-proximal Frag. medial-proximal Antler blankb Antler blankb

88 66 65 63 63 62 56 14 21 20 32 16 37 20 48 41 43 34 35 25 38 45 30 35 28 21 16 32 15 13 38 24 79 58

a b





































10
6 11
7 9
6 9
6 8
6 8
6 8
6 5
3 7
5 7
5 8
6 8
5 9
5 8
5 12
7 14
6 10
6 9
6 8
4 10
6 8
7 9
6 9
6 11
6 12
8 10
6 9
5 8
6 11
6 9
5 10
6 8
4 25
7 16
9

Cross-section

Antler modulea

Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Elliptical Sub-triangular Sub-rectangular

Big Big Big Big Big Big Big e e e e e Medium Medium Big Big Big Big e Big Big Big Big Big Big Big Medium Big Big Medium Big Medium Big Big

See section Material and methods for author's criteria to establish the size (big, medium, small) antler categories (antler bone tissue cortical thickness in mm). Only antler blanks those who have been considered complete have taken into account.

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

11

Fig. 10. Distribution of complete and fragmented projectile points sample (Left). Length/width ratio of complete and fragmented projectile points and complete antler blanks in mm (Right).

Antler wastes recovered from the assemblage seems to be consistent with the procedure of debitage by longitudinal antler splitting. Several of the wastes were formed by longitudinally splitting debitage of an antler, a procedure that maximizes antler exploitation (Tejero et al., 2012). Waste often consists of tines and points that were removed when preparing the antler segments, assuming they did not become intermediate pieces. These waste pieces tend to be under-represented and at times are even noted as missing from archaeological collections, as they are hard to identify. Possible debitage waste pieces (N ¼ 8) were recognized in the Manot Cave Aurignacian component: these include a shed antler base; 3 antler tines; 1 fragment of antler beam; a deer crown point; and 3 other pieces of undetermined origin. These waste pieces represent the anatomical parts of deer antler most frequently found among Aurignacian debitage waste. Antler beam pieces are not represented; presumably, they were completely exploited and transformed into hunting weapons. The waste discard pattern encountered seems to relate to the functional requirements of projectile points that need to be both straight and thick to ensure the correct trajectory and solidness of the object. In most cases, only antler beams can provide such features (Tejero, 2010, 2013). While three of the antler waste pieces found have clear anthropic marks, the poor preservation of the remaining pieces prevents us from accurately assigning technical status. The surface condition of the three pieces with anthropic marks is not good due to post-depositional deterioration, concretions, and loss of material. It is nonetheless possible to observe negative bulb scars, providing evidence of breaking by direct percussion. The beam fragment and the shed antler base show removal scars on the front face of the antler (Fig. 9). Three tine points also seem to have traces along their extremity as a result of anthropic sectioning, but this is difficult to assert due to the state of preservation of the pieces. The morphology and size of the marks on the beam fragment allow us to determine how the antler was sectioned. The piece shows a deep V-shaped groove (Fig. 9), while the notching plane is abrupt, providing evidence for rough, expeditious work. This technique is similar to those noted at European Aurignacian sites such as El Castillo level Delta from Obermaier's excavations (Tejero et al., 2012; Tejero, 2013).

3.2.3. Hunting equipment e antler as raw material for manufacturing hunting weapons Hunting weapons (projectile points) from the assemblage are exclusively made of antler as are two intermediate bevelled pieces used as chisels as is indicated by their use wear marks. Examples from different European Aurignacian sites show that the majority of objects made from antler are projectile points. With only a few examples of points made of bone or ivory, the use of antler for projectile point production seems to have been a favoured practice throughout the Aurignacian (Otte, 1995; Knecht, 1997; Liolios, 1999, 2006; Tejero, 2013, 2014, in press). While more technical data is needed to say the same for the Levant, the assemblage of antler objects from Manot Cave seems to render a similar pattern of osseous raw material exploitation. Among the projectile points of Manot Cave (N ¼ 32), seven are complete or nearly complete, with only a few millimetres of the apex missing. Fragmented points consist mostly of medial-distal (N ¼ 10), medial (N ¼ 8), and distal parts (N ¼ 5), while only two pieces are medial-proximal parts (Fig. 10). Since osseous projectile points are classified according to their hafting system, only complete and medial-proximal fragmented points can be attributed morpho-typologically with certainty. All the identified points from Manot Cave belong to the simple- or massive-based point category (Fig. 11). These are defined as elongated objects with a pointed distal tip, a variable cross-section, and a simple hafting system. These types of projectile points are also known by other various names, including: pointed base points, biconical, massive base points or simply “not split based points” as opposed to their European predecessors (Hahn, 1988). We prefer to use the term “massive-based” or “simple-based” point which better fits the reality and variability of the general morphology of these objects (Tyzzer, 1936). These points do not always have a pointed proximal part or a biconical contour. In the Manot Cave set, we can assume that the fragmented points are also simple-based points. Morphometric (width and thickness) values are quite constant for the assemblage. Moreover, the fragmented points have an identical cross-section (elliptical, see below) like the complete points, reflecting their manufacture using the same technique e scraping along the entire surface. With the exception of one splitbased point from Kebara (Layer D) (Mount Carmel: Bar-Yosef et al., 1992) and another probable one, from El Quseir (Layer D)

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

12

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Fig. 11. Complete antler projectile points (1) and medial-distal fragments of antler projectile points (2). (numbers 1, 3 and 5 come from area C; 2 comes from area E; 4 comes from area D).

(Judea Desert: Perrot, 1955; Tejero, personal observation), no other types of osseous projectile points were found in the Levantine Aurignacian. During the shaping stage of hunting weapons, the antler blanks were completely transformed by scraping to shape the blank into a functional projectile point. The cross-section of the Manot Cave points is elliptical probably as a result of the debitage procedure employed when obtaining the blanks by longitudinal splitting. The blanks were worked from the edges, most likely to preserve their thickness, thus making the intended point more solid. Using this procedure, the original cross-section of the blanks (mostly subrectangular) become elliptical in most of the finished points, as is observed in the European Aurignacian projectile points (Knecht, 1991, 1997; Liolios, 1999, 2006; Tejero, 2014). The antler hunting weapons of Manot Cave are quite standardized. Taking into consideration the complete points (and blanks, see above), the length of “original” projectile points is thought to have been ca. 65e70 mm (only one point is longer than 88 mm). The width of the point assemblage ranges between 8 and 12 mm and the thickness between 6 and 7 mm (Fig. 10). It is expected that the width and thickness of the point base reflects the least variability between points, as this is the part that was hafted on to the shaft, limiting the dimensions of the proximal extremity. Although Aurignacian antler working is dominated by projectile point production, a few other antler objects were also produced. These objects are normally integral components of the projectile point chaîne op
eratoire. At times, these objects were manufactured from the waste products of antler projectile point production and,

at times, they were made on blanks with an unsuitable shape for point making, or on broken projectile points that had been recycled mainly as chisels (Tejero, 2014). At Manot Cave, the only two pieces made from antler other than projectile points are bevelled pieces. One was made on a beam fragment of red deer antler while the other was made on a beam fracture that cannot be identified taxonomically. These pieces are characterized by the distal (active or functional) part having a bevelled profile and, as a result, a planconvex distal cross-section (Fig. 12.1-2). Both bevelled pieces were made from antler beams fragments sectioned by direct cutting percussion as is attested to by marks on the proximal part of the largest piece. This transversal segmentation of antler beams for the production of cylindrical fragments (secondary blocks) which were subsequently split longitudinally is the first step of the Aurignacian debitage (Tejero et al., 2012), as was described in the previous section. Two of these secondary blocks were selected to produce the bevelled pieces instead of being split into point blanks. Subsequently, distal bevels were obtained by cutting percussion, then regularized by scraping and, perhaps, by abrasion as suggested by some short, narrow and oblique (with respect to the main axis of the piece) striations identified on the lower face of the distal part. This complex technical procedure was applied to the working of antler not intended for the production of projectile points. Although more experimental and functional analyses are needed, it is thought that these tools were produced to split antler for the production of points. Experiments have shown their efficiency in splitting antler to produce blanks (Tejero et al., 2012). Woodworking has also been suggested as one of the possible functions of

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

13

Fig. 12. Antler bevelled tools used as intermediate pieces (chisels) of Manot Cave (1, 2 both from area C). Intermediate pieces of El Castillo Cave. Spain. Aurignacian Delta layer of Obermaier excavations (Tejero, 2013) (3). Labeko Koba. Spain. Early Aurignacian layer (Tejero, 2013) (4). Riparo Mochi. Italy. Unit H, Early Aurignacian (Tejero and Grimaldi, 2015).

bevelled pieces (Tartar, 2012). At several European Aurignacian sites where the production of antler projectile points is documented (for instance El Castillo, Spain and Riparo Mochi, Italy e Tejero, 2013; Tejero and Grimaldi, 2015), pieces identical to the bevelled pieces from Manot Cave were recorded (Fig. 12.3-5). Indeed, these pieces are known from another Levantine Aurignacian site, Hayonim Cave Layer D where some examples were evoked (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981) and several bevelled pieces were recently identified (Tejero, personal observation). The use of bevelled pieces as intermediate pieces (chisels) is deduced from macro and microscopic use wear analysis at their distal and proximal ends. These marks are relatively slight, especially when the artifacts are made of antler. Marks include flattened ends, scratches and small fissures initiated at the distal end undoubtedly linked to their use in indirect percussion. The proximal end, however, is characterised by the presence of folded fibres and, in some cases, loss of matter initiated at what would appear to be the flaking plane. The association and the appearance of these marks leave no doubt as to the use of these objects for indirect percussion (Tartar, 2009, 2012; Tejero et al., 2012). 4. Discussion 4.1. Manot cave osseous industry and the characterisation of the Levantine Aurignacian The Aurignacian osseous industry in the Levant has been considered as quite rich and one of the characteristic features of this typo-technological tradition of the region (e.g., Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2007, 2012, 2014a, 2014b; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010). Before the discovery of Manot Cave, the corpus of osseous industry in the Levant totalled around 350 pieces (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Gilead, 1991; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1996; Coinman,

1996; Stutz et al., 2015) with an unequal distribution among sites (Table 4). Some “major” sites, like Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and Hayonim D, account together for ca. 275 pieces (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981; Williams and Bergman, 2010; Tejero, personal observation), while the rest of the sites seem to be much poorer in osseous artifacts. These differences between sites may be the result of a number of reasons: (1) differential preservation of osseous remains resulting from specific taphonomic processes in some sites; (2) differing intensity of site occupation; (3) collection bias (selection of easily recognizable pieces in old excavations) or (4) different cultural traditions. At Manot Cave, where excavations are ongoing, we find a rich osseous industry. This site reiterates the importance of this industry as a unique component of the Levantine Aurignacian. Bone and antler assemblage provide us with important quantitative and qualitative information that enables the reconstruction of their technical chaîne op
eratoire, allowing for a preliminary comparison between this assemblage, other Levantine assemblages, and their European counterparts. Comparison with assemblages from other sites must be conducted in the context of the research history of each site, as differences between assemblages may be the result of one or more of the reasons noted above. Following this study we find that, for the osseous industry, both differences and parallels can be observed between the Levantine Aurignacian and the European Aurignacian. Based on the Manot Cave assemblage, we discern a direct correlation between specific bone objects and the activities for which they were used. Specifically, we note a distinct pattern of bone use for tools utilized in domestic activities, while antler points were part of the Aurignacian groups hunting equipment. The European Aurignacian is commonly divided into two main phases, the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian, the definitions of which are based on the typo-technological features of lithics and some osseous “markers” like the split-based points

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

14

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Table 4 Levantine Upper Paleolithic osseous industry from the literature. Site name

Zone/Region/Country

Level(s)

Abu Halka Ain El-Buhira (WHS618) Antelias Cave El Quseir El-Wad

Lebanon Wadi Al-Hasa (Jordan) Lebanon

Aurignacian Ahmarian

15 5

Azoury, 1986 Coinman, 1996

IV-III

17

Copeland, 1970, Copeland and Hours, 1971

Kebara

Judea Desert Mount Carmel (Israel) Judea Desert Western Galilee (Israel) Mount Carmel (Israel)

Ksar Akil Manot Cave

Lebanon Western Galilee (Israel)

Masaraq an-Na'aj Mughr el-Hamamah Sefunim Umm Naquos Yabroud II

Judea Desert

Layer Db/Units I-II south profilec Layers XeVI Units 3e6 Area C, units II-VII Area E, EUP layers Area D
rieure Couche Infe

Jordan Mount Carmel (Israel) Judea Desert Wadi Skifta (Syria)

Et Tabban Hayonim

a b c d

Items number (aprox.)a

References

Layer D Layer D

2 7

Layer B Layer D

2 98

Gilead 1991 Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 1981, Tejero pers. obsv.

10

Garrod, 1954, Bar-Yosef et al., 1992, Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2010

176 104d

Perrot 1955 Garrod and Bate, 1937

Newcomer and Watson 1984, Newcomer, 1987 Marder et al., 2013, Tejero et al. this paper

3

Perrot 1955

EUP layer

3

Stutz et al., 2015

Layer IV Aurignacian Layer 4

8 1 5

Ronen, 1984 Gilead 1991 Ziffer, 1981, Hauck et al., 2014

The number of items is simply advisory, because of the great variability in excavation, analysis and publication methods. Excavations Turville-Petre 1931. Excavations Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch 1982e1990. Includes items from 2010 to 2014 excavation seasons.

(Liolios, 1999, 2006; Bon, 2002, 2006; Bon et al., 2002; Teyssandier and Liolios, 2003; Normand and Turq, 2005; Bordes, 2006; Tsanova, 2006; Teyssandier, 2007). Recently, the analysis of some major European sites has permitted us to propose that antler working did not appear before the Early Aurignacian, postdating 40 Ka (Tejero, 2014; Tejero and Grimaldi, 2015). This hypothesis could have important implications concerning the emergence of the Levantine Aurignacian for which several authors have proposed a European origin (e.g., Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2013; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2012; Hublin, 2015). The split-based points, which constitute the first hunting weapons of the AMH in Europe, are hardly represented in the Levant. Simple-based or massive-based points, in turn, are not documented in the European Early Aurignacian, but they do succeed the split-based points in Europe from the Evolved Aurignacian onward (Knech, 1991; Liolios, 1999; Tejero, 2013). Although more research is needed to define the Evolved Aurignacian and refine the chronological boundary between these two phases of the Aurignacian, some authors have recently proposed that this transition occurred ca. 37.0e36.5 Ka calibrated BP (Banks et al., 2013a,b, but also see Higham et al., 2013 and Ronchitelli et al., 2014 for criticism). Differences in morphometrics and in the hafting system of hunting weapons between Aurignacian typo-technological traditions in Europe and in the Levant can arise from diverse modalities of use (launch systems); the various preys they intended to hunt; the constraints of raw materials used (different antler morpho-structure among deer taxa); or merely differing cultural traditions. In all these respects, the practice of working antler from the beginning of the Levantine Aurignacian is of interest. Bone rather than antler was the exclusive osseous raw material exploited in both the European Proto-Aurignacian and the Levantine Ahmarian (Coinman, 1996; Kuhn et al., 2009; Tejero, 2014). The exploitation of bone as a raw material has always been linked to the alimentary sphere of late Pleistocene hunteregatherer groups. Antler, from the Early Aurignacian in Europe, is the first organic animal raw material exploited with an exclusively

technical purpose in mind. This study shows a similar practice occurred in the Levantine Aurignacian. This scheme possibly echoes the improvement of lithic hunting equipment of the first AMH groups in Eurasia (Shea, 2006, 2009; Shea and Sisk, 2010). Complexity in antler working is manifested in strategies to supply raw material, in the debitage to obtain blanks, and in the manufacture phase of projectile points. The analysis of the osseous industry from Manot Cave proposes the presence of an antler chaîne op
eratoire. The antler assemblages from Manot Cave suggest that procurement was achieved by both hunting and collecting. While these two procurement strategies are not incompatible, they are different from a conceptual point of view. Antler acquired after hunting (independently combining strategies for obtaining meat resources and antlers at the same time), are always directly linked to a group's alimentary strategies. By contrast, planning the collection of shed antler implies independence from other food procurement activities and involves deep knowledge of deer ethology, the environment, as well as the properties of the raw material, as antler does not remain intact out of doors for too many days. This type of procurement is more similar to that of lithic raw material than to the sphere of animal material exploitation (Goutas, 2004). The antler debitage at Manot Cave is characterized by longitudinal splitting. This procedure reflects a large degree of complexity, as it implies the use of a combination of many different techniques (direct-cut percussion, diffuse percussion, flexion, indirect percussion, etc.), particularly when compared to the Aurignacian bone debitage, which in most cases was made by simple diffuse percussion. Finally, during the manufacture phase, blanks were completely transformed by shaping the object via scraping. Thus, the antler projectile point production entails a significant technical investment, undoubtedly because of the tools' status as hunting weapons that required careful preparation (symmetry of the object, strength, penetration power and a hafting) to ensure their effectiveness.

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

15

One can conceive that the exploitation of antler is related to the search for a more effective hunting system, at least regarding the archaeological record at the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic. As for lithics, the challenge now is to explain why changes concerning organic raw material exploitation took place concurrently with changes in lithic technology, and to determine the consequences of these technical and conceptual changes.

different deer taxa (reindeer, red deer and megaceros in Europe as opposed to Persian fallow deer and red deer in the Levant), seem to be related to the different ecological niches that were exploited, others, like the different type of hunting weapons, need to be assessed according to the cultural background.

5. Conclusion

This paper is part of the HAR2014-55131 research project of the MICINN and the Quality Research Group of the Generalitat de Catalunya SGR2014-108. J.-M Tejero's research was supported by a
s grant (2013 BP-B0013) co-funded by the Catalan Beatriu de Pino Government and European Community via the Marie Curie Actions of Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. He also received support from the Centre Français de  Jerusalem (CNRS-Ministe re d'Affaires Etrangers de Recherches a France) through the auspices of Mission Chercheur invit
e. The au€lle thors are extremely grateful to Boris Valentin, François Valla, Gae Le Dosseur, Anna Belfer-Cohen, Naama Goren-Inbar, Erella Hovers, Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Fanny Bocquentin, and Laurent Davin. We would also like to thank Talia Abulafia, Bridget Alex, Avner Ayalon, Mira Bar-Matthews, Guy Bar-Oz, Elisabetta Boaretto, Francesco Berna, Valentina Caracuta, Lauren Davis, Amos Frumkin, Dafna Langutt, Bruce Latimer, Stephen Weiner, Lior Weissbord and Gal Yas'ur for contributing data for this paper. Thanks to Vadim Asman and Yaa'kov Smidov for drawing the plan of the cave. The Manot Cave excavations are supported by the Dan David Foundation, the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Foundation, the Israel Science Foundation, Case Western Reserve University, and the Leaky Foundation.

Manot Cave was repeatedly occupied during the Upper Palaeolithic period. Located within the Mediterranean woodland region and with its multi-layered units and thick archaeological accumulations, Manot Cave has the potential to assist in refining the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic cultural sequence (Marder et al., 2013; Barzilai et al., 2014; Hershkovitz et al., 2015). The analysis of osseous (bone and antler) industry from Manot Cave is essential in this respect. Similarities presented between the Levantine and European osseous assemblages suggest that there were contacts between the regions; in particular, with regard to antler, most notable is the similarity in technical concepts of its working in these two geographical regions during the Aurignacian. The lithic analysis of the site's assemblages, currently under process, should assist in elucidating other aspects of these inter-regional contacts. The Manot Cave assemblage is rich in bone and antler remains in a good state of preservation. The assemblage contains bone and antler objects as well as “technical pieces” (blanks, preforms, waste) that allow us to reconstruct, for the first time in the Levant, the chaîne op
eratoire of bone and antler exploitation. Of particular importance in the Manot Cave assemblage is the extensive antler projectile point sample and the elements linked to their production. Stone and antler points, as integral components of complex projectile technology, constituted technologically-assisted strategies for niche-broadening, which allowed for the extension of the geographic range available to settlement and rapid population growth (Shea and Sisk, 2010). Nevertheless, despite the demonstrated value of osseous industries to the archaeological discussion of AMH dispersals (Tejero, 2014), in contrast to lithic, faunal and other aspects of the archaeological record, the technological and use wear analysis of worked osseous has been neglected. An important contribution of incorporating the osseous industries into the discussion is their role in subsistence strategies. Comparing lithic hunting projectiles and organic ones could help identify different hunting practices, including the planning, preparations, and choices made pertaining to the selection of raw materials from which the projectile points could be made. By studying differences in hunting practices related to raw material choice, some questions remain open: are organic hunting projectiles more advantageous than lithic ones? Furthermore, did the introduction of osseous raw material for projectile point production contribute to the advantage modern humans had over Neanderthals while dispersing into Eurasia? Although preliminary data presented in this paper raise more questions than are answered, several interesting observations can already be suggested: The Levantine Aurignacian share with their European counterparts some similarities regarding the different spheres to which bone production and antler production were devoted. They also share similar complex technical concepts of antler working as opposed to simple technological concepts of bone working. Finally, they have in common a recurrent but limited variety of morpho-types (mainly awls and projectile points). Nevertheless, particularities are also present, as has been pointed out by several authors for lithic industries (e.g., Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1996, 2010; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2007, 2014a,b). While some of these particularities, for instance the exploitation of antler from

Acknowledgements

References Altuna, J., Mariezkurrena, K., 2000. Macromamíferos del yacimiento de Labeko Koba (Arrasate, País Vasco). In: Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), Labeko Koba (País Vasco). Hienas y humanos en los albores del Paleolítico Superior, Munibe Nº 52.
n, pp. 107e181. Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, San Sebastia Armand, D., Delagnes, A., 1998. Les retouchoirs en os d'Artenac (couche 6c): per
ozoologiques, taphonomiques et expe
rimentales. In: Brugal, J.-P., spectives arche

historique: les comportements de subsitance au et al. (Eds.), Economie pre
olithique. XVIIIe  Rencontres Internationales d'Arche
ologie et d'Histoire Pale d'Antibes. 23e25 octobre 1997. APDCA, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 205e214. re osseuse travaille
e et implications Averbouh, A., 2000. Technologie de la matie
rvide chez palethnologiques. L'exemple des chaines d'explotation du bois de ce
niens des Pyre
ne
es (Ph.D. thesis). Universite
Paris I Panthe
onles Magdale Sorbonne. Averbouh, A., 2001. Methodological specifics of the techno-economic analysis of worked bone and antler: mental refitting and methods of application. In: Choyke, A., Bartosiewicz, L. (Eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space e Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 Auguste5 September 1999, British Archaeological Reports International Series 937, pp. 111e121 (Oxford). Azoury, I. (Ed.), 1986. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A technological and typological analysis of the Transitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic levels of Ksar Akil and Abu Halka. British Archaeological Reports International Series 289, Oxford. Banks, W.E., D'errico, F., Zilh~ ao, J., 2013a. Humaneclimate interaction during the Early Upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. Journal of Human Evolution 64, 39e55. ~o, J., 2013b. Revisiting the chronology of the ProtoBanks, W.E., d'Errico, F., Zilha Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian in Europe: a reply to Higham et al.'s comments on Banks, et al. (2013). Journal of Human Evolution 65 (6), 810e817. Bar-Yosef, O., 2007. The dispersal of Modern Humans in Eurasia: a cultural interpretation. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. McDonald Institute, Oxford, pp. 207e217. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 1996. Another look at the Levantine Aurignacian. In: Proceedings of the XIII Congress of the UISPP. The Upper Palaeolithic, vol. 6. A.B.A.C.O Edizioni, Forli, pp. 139e150. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2010. The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic. In: Garcea, E., A.-A. (Eds.), South-Eastern Mediterranean Peoples Between 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 144e167. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2013. Following Pleistocene road signs of human dispersals across Eurasia. Quaternary International 285, 30e43. Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., Arensburg, B., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Rak, Y., Speth, J.D., Tchernov, E., Tillier, A.M., Weiner, S.,

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

16

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17

Clark, G.A., Garrard, A., Henry, D.O., Hole, F., Roe, D., Rosenberg, K.R., Schepartz, L.A., Shea, J.J., Smith, F.H., Trinkaus, E., Whalen, N.M., Wilson, L., 1992. The excavations in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Current Anthropology 33 (5), 497e550. Barzilai, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Bar-Oz, G., Boaretto, E., Berna, F., Frumkin, A., Hershkovitz, I., Khalaily, H., Marder, O., Weiner, S., Yeshurun, R., 2012. Manot Cave: a prehistoric cave site in the western Galilee. Hadashot Arkeologiot 124. http:// www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id¼2183&mag_id¼119. Barzilai, O., Marder, O., Hershkovitz, I., 2014. Manot Cave Seasons 2011e2012. Hadashot Arkeologiot, p. 126. Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., 2016. The Early Upper Paleolithic Period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel. Human Evolution 31 (1). Belfer-Cohen, A., 1980. The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave (unpublished MA thesis). The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Hebrew).
orient 7 Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 1981. The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave. Pale (2), 19e42. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, N., 2007. From the beginning: Levantine Upper Palaeolithic cultural changes and continuity. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., BarYosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Evolution. McDonald Institute, Oxford, pp. 199e205. Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2012. The early Upper Palaeolithic: a view from the Southern Levant. In: Otte, M., Shidrang, S., Flas, D. (Eds.), The Aurignacian from the Yafteh Cave and its context (2005e2008 excavations), vol. 132. ge, pp. 127e136. Eraul, Lie Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, N.A., 2014a. On the rebound e a Levantine view of Upper Paleolithic dynamics. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Modes de Contacts et de
placements au Pale
olithique Eurasiatique. (La commission 8 [Pale
olithique De
rieur] de l'UISPP), ERAUL 140-Arche
oLogiques 5, Lie ge, pp. 27e36. supe Belfer-Cohen, A., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2014b. The Upper Palaeolithic and Earlier EpiPalaeolithic of Western Asia. In: Renfrew, A.C., Bahn, P. (Eds.), The Cambridge World Prehistory, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1381e1407. Bergman, C.-A., 1987. 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. Binford, L.R., 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255e273. Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Cuartero, F., Fern
andez Peris, J., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2013. Using bones to shape Stones: MIS 9 bone Retouchers at both edges of the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 8 (10), e76780. Bon, F., 2002. Les termes de l'Aurignacien. In: Bon, F., Maíllo, J.M., Ortega, D. (Eds.), Actas de la Mesa redonda celebrada en Toulouse entre los días 27 de febrero y 1 de marzo de 2003: Autour des concepts de protoaurignacien, d'Aurignacien
et variabilite
des comportements techniques archaïque, initial et ancien. Unite des premiers groupes d'hommes modernes dans le Sud de la France et le Nord de l'Espagne. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie I Prehistoria y Arqueología 15. UNED, Madrid, pp. 39e65. Bon, F., 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the industries of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian: Proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25e30, 2002 Trabalhos de arqueologia 45, pp. 133e144. Bon, F., Maíllo, J.M., Ortega, D. (Eds.), 2002. Actas de la Mesa redonda celebrada en Toulouse entre los días 27 de febrero y 1 de marzo de 2003: Autour des concepts de protoaurignacien, d'Aurignacien archaïque, initial et ancien.
et variabilite
des comportements techniques des premiers groupes Unite d'hommes modernes dans le Sud de la France et le Nord de l'Espagne. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I Prehistoria y Arqueología 15. UNED, Madrid, pp. 39e65. Bordes, J.-G., 2006. News from the west: a reevaluation of the classical Aurignacian ~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a Definition sequence of the Perigord. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha of the Aurignacian: Proceedings of the symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25e30, 2002 Trabalhos de arqueologia 45Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 147e171.
conomie. In: Camps Fabrer, H., et al. (Eds.), Camps Fabrer, H., 1990. Fiche poinçon d'e Poinçons, pointes, poignards, aiguilles. Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie
historique. Cahier III. Universite
de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, Osseuse Pre pp. 17e18. Coinman, N.R., 1996. Worked bone in the Levantine Upper Paleolithic: rare exam
orient 22 (2), 113e121. ples from the Wadi al-Hasa, West-Central Jordan. Pale
rature Crigel, M.-H., Balligand, M., Heinen, E., 2001. Les bois de cerf: revue de litte
dicine Ve
te
rinaire 145, 25e38. scientifique. Annales de Me
olithique Dari, A., 2003. Comportements de subsistance pendant la transition Pale
olithique supe
rieur en Cantabrie a  partir de l'e
tude archmoyen-Pale
ozoologique des restes osseux des grands mammife res de la Grotte d'El Case
um National d'Histoire tillo (Puente Viesgo, Espagne) (Ph.D. thesis). Muse Naturelle, Paris. d'Errico, F., Julien, M., Liolios, D., Vanhaeren, M., Baffier, D., 2003. Many awls in our ^telperronian and Auriargument. Bone tool manufacture and use in the Cha gnacian levels of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. In: Zilh~ ao, J., d'Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes : Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Proceeding of ge, Belgium, Symposium 6. I of the XIV Congress of the UISPP (University of Lie September 2e6, 2001), Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, pp. 247e270.

d’Errico, F., Borgia, V., Ronchitelli, A., 2012. Uluzzian bone technology and its implications for the origin of behavioural modernity. Quaternary International 259, 59e71. Fu, Q., Li, H., Moorjani, P., Jay, F., Slepchenko, S.M., Bondarev, A.A., Johnson, P.L.F., Aximu-Petri, A., Prufer, K., De Filippo, C., Meyer, M., Zwyns, N., SalazarGarcia, D.C., Kuzmin, Y.V., Keates, S.G., Kosintsev, P.A., Razhev, D.I., Richards, M.P., Peristov, N.V., Lachmann, M., Douka, K., Higham, T.F.G., Slatkin, M., Hublin, J.-J., Reich, D., Kelso, J., Viola, T.B., Paabo, S., 2014. Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia. Nature 514 (7523), 445e449. Gaudzinski, S., 1999. Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools from the Open-Air Site Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany). Journal of Archaeological Science 26 (2), 125e141. Gilead, I., 1991. The Upper Paleolithic Period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 5 (2), 105e154. Goring-Morris, N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2006. A hard look at the “Levantine Aurigna~o, J. (Eds.), Towards a cian”: how real is the taxon? In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilha Definition of the Aurignacian. Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Lisbon, Portugal in June 25e30 2002, Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 297e314. Goss, R.J., 1983. Deer Antlers: Regeneration, Function, and Evolution. Academic Press, New York.
risation et e
volution du Gravettien en France par Goutas, N., 2004. Caracte
conomique des industries en matie res dures animales l'approche techno-e
tude de six gisements du Sud-ouest) (Ph.D. thesis). Paris I Panthe
on-Sorbonne (e University.  base fendue. In: Delporte, H. (Ed.), Fiches typologiques Hahn, J., 1988. Fiche sagaie a
historique. Cahier I. Sagaies. Commission de de l'industrie Osseuse Pre
historique. Universite
de Provence, Aixnomenclature sur l'industrie de l'os pre en-Provence. Hauck, T., Dommina, M., Centinkaya, J., Molden, C., 2014. Yabroud II-Layer 4. A new
ratoire reconstruction for the early Upper Palaeolithic. dataset and chaîne ope Institut for Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Cologne. Online article. 01/ 2014; http://dx.doi.org/10.5880/SFB806.6. Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Yasur, G., Boaretto, E., Caracuta, V., Alex, B., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Gunz, P., Holloway, R.L., Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Matthews, A., Slon, V., Mayer, D.B.-Y., Berna, F., Bar-Oz, G., Yeshurun, R., May, H., Hans, M.G., Weber, G.W., Barzilai, O., 2015. Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans. Nature 520 (7546), 216e219. Higham, T., Wood, R., Moreau, L., Conard, N., Ramsey, C.B., 2013. Comments on ‘Humaneclimate interaction during the early Upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian’ by Banks et al. Journal of Human Evolution 65 (6), 806e809. Hublin, J.-J., 2015. The modern human colonization of western Eurasia: when and where? Quaternary Science Reviews 118, 194e210. Karlin, C., Ploux, S., Bodu, P., Pigot, N., 1992. Some socio-economic aspects of the knapping process among groups of hunters-gatherers in the Paris Basin Area. In: Berthelet, A., Chavaillon, J. (Eds.), The Use of Tools by Human and Nonhuman Primates. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 318e340. Knecht, H., 1991. Technological Innovation and Design during the Early Upper Paleolithic: a Study of Organic Projectile (Ph.D. thesis). New York University, New York, p. 520. Knecht, H., 1997. Projectile points of bone, antler, and stone. Experimental explorations of manufacture and use. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 191e212. € Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Güleç, A., Ozer, I., Yilmaz, H., Baykara, I., Goldberg, P., Martinez Molina, K., Suata-Alpaslan, F., 2009. The Early Upper Palaeolithic occuızlı Cave (Hatay, Turkey). Journal of Human Evolution 57, pations at Üçag 87e113.
ratoires: contribution
Lemonnier, P., 1976. La description des chaînes ope a l'analyse mes techniques. Techniques et Culture 1, 100e151. des syste
rielle  Lemonnier, P., 1991. De la culture mate a la culture? Ethnologie des techniques
histoire. In: 25 ans d'e
tudes technologiques en Pre
histoire. Bilan et peret Pre e
ologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. spectives. XI rencontres internationales d'Arche APDCA, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 15e20 (18e20 octobre 1990). Letourneux, C., 2007. Quelle place pour le renne dans la subsistance aurignacienne?
flexions a  paritr de quelques exemples de l'Aurignacien ancien. In: Beyries, S., Re
, V. (Eds.), Les civilisations du renne d'hier et d'aujourd'hui. Approches Vate
ologiques et anthropologiques, XXVIIe  rencontres interetnohistoriques, arche
ologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. APDCA, Juan-le-Pins, pp. 1e17. nationales d'Arche
et caracteristiques du travail des matie res osseuses au Liolios, D., 1999. Variabilite debut de l'Aurignacien: Approche technologique et economique (Ph.D. thesis). Paris X University. Liolios, D., 2006. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the Early Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhao, 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. 37e52.
du cerf Elaphe (Cervus Elaphus Linne
1758) au cours Liouville, M., 2007. Variabilite
istoce ne moyen et supe
rieur en Europe occidentale: approches mordu Ple
trique, pale
oe
cologique et cyne
ge
tique (PhD. thesis). Muse
um National phome d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Marder, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Berna, F., Boaretto, E., Caracuta, V., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Hershkovitz, I.,

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028

J.-M. Tejero et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e17 Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Matthews, A., Weiner, S., Weiss, U., Yas'ur, G., Yeshurun, R., Barzilai, O., 2013. The Upper Paleolithic of Manot Cave, western Galilee, Israel: the 2011e12 excavations. Antiquity. Marder, O., Hershkovitz, I., Barzilai, O., 2015. The Early Upper Paleolithic period at the Manot Cave, Western Galilee: chrono-cultural, subsistence and paleoenvironmental reconstruction. In: Enzel, Y., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Quaternary Environments, Climate Change and Humans in the Levant. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press). Mellars, P., 2006. Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model. PNAS 103 (25), 9381e9386.
olithique supe
rieur de Ksar Akil (Liban). Newcomer, M.H., 1974. Outils en os du Pale r. Colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans In: Camps-Fabrer, H. (Ed.), 1e

histoire : Abbaye de Se
nanque, 18e20 avril 1974. Editions
la pre de l'Universite de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 60e65.
orient Newcomer, M., Watson, J., 1984. Bone artifacts from Ksar 'Aqil (Lebanon). Pale 10 (1), 143e147. Normand, C., Turq, A., 2005. L'Aurignacien de la grotte d’Isturitz (France): la pro
quence de la salle Saint-Martin. In: Le Brunduction lamellaire dans la se
es a  l'Aurignacien: chaînes Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Productions lamellaires attribue
ratoires et perspectives techno-culturelles. Luxembourg, Arche
ologiques 1. ope s de l'UISPP, Universite
de Lie ge, 2e8 Actes du symposium C6.7, XIVe Congre septembre 2001, pp. 375e394.
olithique au Nord-Ouest europe
en. In: Hahn, J., Otte, M., 1995. L'ivoire pale Menu, M., Taborin, Y., Walter, P., Widemann, F. (Eds.), Actes de la Table ronde: Le travail et l'usage de l'ivoire au Paleolithique superieur. Ravello 29e31 mai 1992. Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Estato, Rome, pp. 103e113.
europe
en. Le Protoaurignacien au de
but Pasquini, A., 2013. Les traces de notre passe
olithique supe
rieur: l'e
clairage de la trace
ologie (Ph.D. thesis). Aixdu Pale Marseille University.
ratoires”: un outil pour la Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C., Bodu, P., 1988. “Chaînes ope

historien. In: Tixier, J. (Ed.), Technologie pre
historique. Editions pre du CNRS, Paris, pp. 55e62.
es ou outilise
es de Castanet. In: Pelegrin, J., O'farell, M., 2005. Les lamelles retouche
es a  l'Aurignacien: Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Productions lamellaires attribue
ratoires et perspectives technoculturelles XIVe congre s de l'UISPP, Chaînes ope ge 2e8 Septembre 2001. ArcheoLogiques 1, Luxemburg, pp. 103e121. Lie
olithique supe
rieur d'El Quseir et de Masaraq an Na'aj Perrot, J., 1955. Le Pale
Neuville I et II. Bulletin de la Socie
te
(Palestine). Inventaire de la collection Rene
historique de France 52 (8), 493e506. Pre Rabinovich, R., Ackermann, O., Aladjem, E., Barkai, R., Biton, R., Milevski, I., Solodenko, N., Marder, O., 2012. Elephants at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulian open-air site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. Quaternary International 276e277, 183e197. Ronchitelli, A., Benazzi, S., Boscato, P., Douka, K., Moroni, A., 2014. Comments on “Human-climate interaction during the Early Upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian” by William E. Banks, Francesco d'Errico, Jo~ ao Zilh~ ao. Journal of Human Evolutiion 73, 107e111. Ronen, A., 1984. The Sefunim Prehistoric sites. Mt. Carmel. British Archaeological Reports International series 230, Oxford. Schneller-Pels, N., 2015. Upper Paleolithic Faunal Remains of Manot Cave, Western Galilee: Taphonomy, Palaeoeconomy and Palaeoecology Aspects (MA thesis). University of Haifa, Haifa (in preparation). Segre, A., Ascenzi, A., 1984. Fontana Ranuccio: Italy's Earliest Middle Pleistocene Hominid site. Current Anthropology 25, 230e233. Shea, J.J., 2006. The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 823e846. Shea, J.J., 2009. The impact of projectile weaponry on Late Pleistocene hominin evolution. In: Hublin, J.-J., Richards, M. (Eds.), The Evolution of Hominin Diets. Springer Netherlands, pp. 189e199. Shea, J.J., Sisk, M.L., 2010. Complex projectile technology and Homo sapiens dispersal into Western Eurasia. PaleoAnthropology 100e122. Soulier, M.C., 2013. Entre alimentaire et technique : l’exploitation animale aux
buts du Pale
olithique supe
rieur. Strate
gies de subsistance et chaînes de
ratoires de traitement du gibier a  Isturitz, La Quina aval, Roc-de-Combe et ope
Toulouse-le-Mirail. Les Abeilles (PhD. thesis). Universite  Skrdla, P., 2003. Comparison of Boker Tachtit and Str
ansk
a Sk
ala MP/UP transitional industries. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 33, 33e69. Stringer, C., 2001. Modern human origins: progress and prospects. The Royal Society London Bulletin 357, 563e579.

17

Stringer, C., 2007. The origins and dispersal of Homo sapiens: our current state of knowledge. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, pp. 15e20. Stutz, A.J., Shea, J.J., Rech, J.A., Pigati, J.S., Wilson, J., Belmaker, M., Albert, R.M., Arpin, T., Cabanes, D., Clark, J.L., Hartman, G., Hourani, F., White, C.E., Nilsson Stutz, L., 2015. Early Upper Paleolithic chronology in the Levant: new ABOx-SC accelerator mass spectrometry results from the Mughr el-Hamamah Site, Jordan. Journal of Human Evolution 85, 157e173.  l'outil e 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
on-Sorbonne University, Paris 1. Gatzarria (Ph.D. thesis). Panthe Tartar, E., 2012. The recognition of a new type of bone tools in Early Aurignacian assemblages: implications for understanding the appearance of osseous technology in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2348e2360.
n de las materias duras animales en el PaleoTejero, J.-M., 2010. La explotacio
n tecno-econo
mica a las producciones lítico superior inicial. Una aproximacio
seas aurin ~ acienses en la Península Ibe
rica (Ph.D. thesis). UNED University, o Madrid.
n de las materias o
seas en el Aurin ~ aciense. Tejero, J.-M., 2013. La explotacio
n tecnoecono
mica de las producciones del Paleolítico superior Caracterizacio
rica. British Archaeological Reports. In: International inicial en la Península Ibe Series 2469 Archaeopress, Oxford. 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. Spanish Aurignacian projectile points. An example of the first European Palaeolithic hunting weapons in osseous material. In: Langley, M. (Ed.), Osseous Projectile Weaponry: towards an Understanding of Pleistocene Cultural Variability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press). Tejero, J.-M., Christensen, M., Bodu, P., 2012. Red deer antler technology and Early Modern Humans in Southeast Europe: an experimental study. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 332e346. Tejero, J.-M., Grimaldi, S., 2015. Assessing bone and antler exploitation at Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi. Italy): implications for the characterization of the Aurignacian in South-western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 61, 59e77.
buts de l'aurignacien en Europe. Teyssandier, N., 2007. En route vers l'ouest. Les de British Archaeological Reports. In: International Series 1638. Hadrian Books, Oxford. Teyssandier, N., Liolios, D., 2003. Defining the earliest Aurignacian in the Swabian €sterle (BadenAlp: the relevance of the technological study of the Geissenklo Württemberg, Germany) lithic and organic productions. In: Zilhao, J., D'errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications: Proceeding of ge, Symposium 6. I of the XIV Congress of the UISPP (University of Lie Belgium, September 2e6, 2001). Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Lisbon, pp. 179e196.
buts du Pale
olithique supe
rieur dans l'Est des Balkans : Tsanova, T., 2006. Les de
flexion a  partir de l'e
tude taphonomique et techno-e
conomique des enRe sembles lithiques des sites de Bacho Kiro (couche 11), Temnata (couches VI et 4)
Bordeaux 1. et Kozarnika (niveau VII) (Ph.D. thesis). Universite Tyzzer, E.E., 1936. The “simple bone point” of the Shell-heaps of the Northeastern Algonkian
area and its probable significance. American Antiquity 1 (4), 261e279.
olithique moyen: une nouvelle approche Vincent, A., 1993. L'outillage osseux au Pale
Paris X Nanterre. (Ph.D. thesis). Universite Williams, J.-K., Bergman, C.-A., 2010. Upper Palaeolithic levels XIII-VI (A and B) from the 1937e1938 and 1947e1948 Boston College Excavations and the Levantine
orient 36 (2), 117e161. Aurignacian at Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Pale Yas'ur, G., 2013. The Chronology of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the Western Galilee Based on U-Th Ages of Speleothems from Manot Cave, Israel. Ministry of National Infrastructure Energy and Water Resources, Geological Survey. Yeshurun, R., Kaufman, D., Weinstein-Evron, M., 2015. Contextual taphonomy of worked bones in the Natufian sequence of the el-Wad Terrace (Israel). Quaternary International (in this volume) (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. quaint.2015.07.010. Ziffer, D., 1981. Yabroud Shelter II: A re-consideration of its cultural composition and of its relevance to the Upper Palaeolithic cultural sequence in the Levant. Quart€ ar 31/32, 69e94.

Please cite this article in press as: Tejero, J.-M., et al., The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.11.028