The study of incised stone artefacts from the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic offers a compelling window into early hominid cognitive abilities, artistic expression, and cultural evolution. This research, focusing on engraved Levallois cores and other lithic artefacts, sheds light on the symbolic and functional significance of these markings, positioning them within the broader framework of human behavioural complexity.
the cortex
Archaeological evidence of non-utilitarian incised artefacts has long been considered a marker of cognitive sophistication among early hominins. The studys done examined artefacts from Manot, Qafzeh, Amud, and Quneitra, applying advanced 3D surface analysis to assess the intentionality behind the engravings. The findings highlight a recurring pattern of deliberate incisions, with geometric regularity and spatial organization indicative of purposeful design. These artefacts contribute to ongoing discussions regarding the emergence of abstract thinking and symbolic behaviour among Neanderthals and early modern humans.
The incised Levallois core from Manot Cave is particularly striking, displaying a fan-like pattern of converging incisions. The geometric arrangement suggests intentionality, as the markings are not random but follow a deliberate orientation. The supporting academics argue that the engravings likely predate the final knapping stage, reinforcing the hypothesis that they served a purpose beyond mere tool preparation. This aligns with other Middle Palaeolithic sites where engraved artefacts have been interpreted as early expressions of symbolic thought.
The engraved core from Qafzeh and the plaquette from Quneitra further support the idea of intentional, non-utilitarian engravings. The Qafzeh artefact, found in association with ochre and human burials, suggests a possible ritualistic or symbolic function. Meanwhile, the Quneitra plaquette exhibits a series of nested semi-circular engravings, a pattern that implies an aesthetic or communicative intention. These artefacts collectively point to the repeated and independent emergence of engraving practices across different regions and time periods.
In contrast, the artefacts from Amud Cave present a more ambiguous case. The incised blade and flake display multiple overlapping striations, but their irregularity and lack of clear patterning suggest they may have resulted from tool use rather than symbolic engraving. The study highlights this distinction, arguing that not all incised markings should be immediately classified as artistic or symbolic, that some may have purely functional origins, such as edge preparation or abrasion.
b Illustration of the engraved artefacts of Manot, c Illustration of the engraved artefacts of Quneitra (to the left) and Qafzeh (to the right)
The evidence from Manot, Qafzeh, and Quneitra strengthens the argument that Middle Palaeolithic hominids engaged in deliberate engraving, potentially as a form of proto-symbolism. The presence of these artefacts across different sites and time periods suggests that engraving practices were not isolated incidents but part of a broader cognitive and cultural repertoire. These findings challenge the long-held view that symbolic behaviour was exclusive to Homo sapiens, highlighting the creative and intellectual capabilities of Neanderthals and other archaic hominids.
incisions.
This research underscores the complexity of interpreting prehistoric engravings, emphasizing the need for a multidisciplinary approach that combines technological analysis, contextual evaluation, and cognitive archaeology. While the engravings at Manot, Qafzeh, and Quneitra suggest intentional symbolic behaviour, the Amud artefacts highlight the importance of distinguishing between functional and abstract markings. By refining our understanding of these early expressions of creativity, we move closer to unravelling the origins of symbolic thought and its role in shaping the human experience.
3D model and GIS inspection. The different colours mark, a non-cortical flaking scars, b cortical flaking scars, c deepest incisions. Narrow lines represent shallow incisions, right. Engraved incisions are superimposed on the map of the ventral surface, showing the deviation of the striation from flake orientations on this surface.
As a personal note, I would like to add that, although the research presented denotes a commendable sensibility to several problems within archaeology, it still fails to recognize what should be evident. There remain underlying assumptions that, though deeply entrenched in academic discourse, are seldom subjected to the scrutiny they deserve. Two critical points demand re-evaluation: first, the presumption that both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were cognitively limited in comparison to modern humans, and second, the problematic use of the term Proto-Symbolism, a linguistic construct that carries unintended philosophical weight and reveals an inherent bias in the academic understanding of early symbolic expression.
The notion that archaic hominids possessed a lesser cognitive capacity is an assertion rooted in assumption rather than demonstrable evidence. Nowhere in the archaeological record is there any material confirmation that Neanderthals or early Homo sapiens were intellectually inferior. This belief, inherited from an evolutionary framework that demands a linear progression of intelligence, has transformed into an unquestioned dogma. The discipline of archaeology, influenced by the overarching paradigm of evolutionary anthropology, often operates within a preordained schema in which cognitive development is presumed to follow a gradual and hierarchical trajectory. But what if this premise is flawed? What if the intellectual and creative faculties of these early humans were not rudimentary, but rather distinct in ways we have yet to comprehend? The presence of intentional engravings, structured technologies, and complex social behaviours suggests not an emergent intelligence, but an already-established cognitive sophistication that requires no artificial scaffolding to justify its existence.
Equally problematic is the term Proto-Symbolism, a phrase frequently employed in discussions of early symbolic behavior. Proto, meaning before, implies a developmental stage, a precursor to something fully realized. Yet, symbolism is not a phenomenon that can exist in degrees. It is either present or it is not. To speak of Proto-Symbolism is to suggest that these engravings, markings, and abstract designs were somehow less than symbolic, that they represent an incomplete or primitive attempt at meaning-making. But how can one conceptualize a form of symbolism that is not, in itself, symbolic? This is a contradiction rooted in modern academic language rather than empirical reality. What the record shows is that symbolism, as far back as we can trace it, was fully formed. The problem is not with the artefacts themselves but with our interpretation of them, constrained by our own imposed chronology of human intellectual development.
What we see in the archaeological record is not the birth of symbolic thought, nor the origins of cognitive complexity, but simply the earliest material evidence we have uncovered so far. This distinction is crucial. The discovery of engraved artefacts, ochre use, and structured spatial organization does not indicate the emergence of these behaviours at that moment in time; it only tells us that these behaviours were already well in practice by that period. The absence of evidence does not equate to the evidence of absence. To claim that symbolism began with these artefacts is to mistake the limits of our discoveries for the limits of history itself.
A re-examination of these assumptions is long overdue. If we free ourselves from the constraints of an evolutionary ladder model, one where intelligence and cultural complexity must always be progressing upwards, we can begin to perceive the past more clearly. Rather than viewing Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens as mere stepping stones toward modernity, we must recognize them as fully realized cognitive beings, capable of abstraction, creativity, and meaning-making in ways that may be different from, but not lesser than, our own. By challenging the dogmas that persist in our field, we open the door to a more nuanced and accurate understanding of early human expression.
Bibliography:
Incised stone artefacts from the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic and human behavioural complexity by:
Mae Goder‑Goldberger, João Marreiros, Eduardo Paixão, Erella Hovers
2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02111-4
