Paper Summary

Methodology

The research team used a multi-scale approach to study these ancient engravings. First, they examined each artifact under microscopes, documenting all surface modifications. Next, they used high-resolution 3D optical scanners to create digital models of each piece, with resolutions as fine as 33 micrometers (about one-third the width of a human hair). These detailed models allowed the team to analyze the surface texture and geometry of individual incisions.

On each artifact, they identified “Areas of Interest” where incisions clustered, then sampled multiple incisions within these areas. For each sampled incision, they measured four parameters across multiple cross-sections: the width between edges, cross-sectional area, maximum depth, and opening angle. This quantitative approach provided solid data for comparing incisions both within and between artifacts, helping the team distinguish intentional patterns from utilitarian marks based on objective criteria rather than subjective impressions.

Results

The analysis clearly divided the five artifacts into two distinct groups. The Levallois cores from Manot and Qafzeh and the plaquette from Quneitra formed one group, showing similar characteristics in their incisions. These featured deeper cuts (averaging 60-108 micrometers in depth) and wider grooves (820-1017 micrometers in width) with consistent opening angles around 148-149 degrees. The incisions formed clear patterns with minimal overlap between marks.

The Manot core specifically showed 64 incisions radiating in a fan pattern from the center of the piece, organized into three distinct areas of interest. Each area showed similar geometric features in the incisions.

The second group consisted of two artifacts from Amud Cave, which showed markedly different characteristics. Their incisions were much shallower (32-38 micrometers deep) and narrower (352-385 micrometers wide), with highly variable orientation and substantial overlap between marks. Statistical analysis confirmed these differences were significant.

Importantly, on both the Manot and Qafzeh cores, some incisions were cut through by subsequent flake removals, indicating that the engravings were made during the active use of the core, before it was discarded.

Limitations

Despite its groundbreaking findings, this research has limitations worth noting. The sample size is small—just five artifacts from four sites—which restricts how broadly the conclusions can be applied to Middle Paleolithic behavior in general. Additionally, some artifacts lack complete archaeological context; the Manot core, for example, comes from a mixed archaeological layer, making it difficult to place within a specific cultural framework.

While the geometric analysis can distinguish between different types of markings, determining the purpose or intent behind even the most organized patterns remains speculative. These engravings could represent what some researchers call “proto-aesthetic” behavior—creating visual patterns without necessarily attaching symbolic meaning to them.

Technical challenges also affected the study. Not all visually identified incisions yielded reliable 3D data for analysis—only 21 of the 64 incisions on the Manot core provided usable data, potentially skewing results. Finally, the wide temporal and geographic distribution of these artifacts—spanning nearly 50,000 years across different sites—makes it difficult to establish cultural connections between them.

Discussion and Takeaways

The most significant implication of this research is the evidence for intentional, non-utilitarian engravings during the Middle Paleolithic period. This challenges traditional views about when complex symbolic behavior emerged in human history. Rather than appearing suddenly during the Upper Paleolithic around 40,000 years ago, the capacity for creating visual patterns appears to have deeper roots, present in populations living at least 100,000 years ago.

The study also suggests that both Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens engaged in similar forms of visual expression, indicating that the capacity for abstract thinking wasn’t unique to our species.

Another key insight concerns the relationship between technical and creative behaviors. The engravings on the Levallois cores were made during the toolmaking process, suggesting a blend of practical and creative activities. The researchers propose that these artifacts represent moments of creative engagement with materials, possibly reflecting instances when technical processes inspired aesthetic expression.

While the team is careful not to claim these markings had symbolic meaning, they stress that the patterned, predetermined nature of the incisions reflects planning and intentionality beyond functional needs. The consistent geometric features of incisions from different sites, despite their isolation in time and space, suggests these weren’t random occurrences but examples of a broader capacity for abstract visual expression among Middle Paleolithic populations.

Funding and Disclosures

The research acknowledges contributions from various individuals, including Omry Barzilai, Israel Hershkovitz, and Ofer Marder, who granted permission to study the Manot Cave artifacts, and Naama Goren-Inbar, who allowed examination of the Quneitra plaquette. Technical contributors included Lisa Schunk, who assisted with high-resolution scanning, and Jerome Robitaille, who helped with surface texture data analysis. Funding for the open access publication was provided by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The authors declared no competing interests.

Publication Information

This research paper, “Incised stone artefacts from the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic and human behavioural complexity,” was published in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2025, Volume 17, Issue 27) and is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02111-4. The paper was received on June 19, 2024, accepted on November 8, 2024, and published online on January 10, 2025. The authors are Mae Goder-Goldberger (Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev), João Marreiros (MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution), Eduardo Paixão (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Erella Hovers (Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Arizona State University).