José-Miguel Tejero
email: jose-miguel.tejero@mae.cnrs.fr

Rivka Rabinovich

Reuven Yeshurun

Talia Abulafia

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Omry Barzilai

Mae Goder-Goldberger

Israel Hershkovitz

Ron Lavi

Maayan Shemer

Ofer Marder

Anna Belfer-Cohen

Personal ornaments from Hayonim and Manot caves (Israel) hint at symbolic ties between the Levantine and the European Aurignacian

Keywords: Upper Paleolithic, Levantine Aurignacian, Human symbolic behavior, Hayonim Cave, Manot Cave

à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

It seems that postdating the modern human 'out of Africa' exodus, at least three discrete dispersal events took place in the early stages of the Upper Paleolithic (UP)-two from Western Asia to Europe and one from Europe to Western Asia. The similarities between the Levantine Emiran and European Bohunician, and between the Levantine Ahmarian and European Proto-Aurignacian have been proposed to support movement of populations or ideas from the Levant to Europe (e.g., Skrdla, 1996Skrdla, , 2003;;[START_REF] Tostevin | Attribute analysis of the lithic technologies of Stra ́nska ́ ska ́la II-III in their regional and inter-regional context[END_REF]Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2014; but see also [START_REF] Teyssandier | Within projectile range: some thoughts on the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe[END_REF]. Conversely, it appears that the similarities between the European Aurignacian and the Levantine Aurignacian, observed through comparisons of the technotypological characteristics of the chipped stone assemblages (e.g., [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | The Epipalaeolithic Cultures of Palestine[END_REF][START_REF] Goring-Morris | At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai[END_REF][START_REF] Shea | The origins of lithic projectile point technology: Evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Shea | The boulevard of broken dreams: Evolutionary discontinuity in the late Pleistocene Levant[END_REF][START_REF] Shea | Complex projectile technology and Homo sapiens dispersal into Western Eurasia[END_REF], can be explained as evidence of migration in the opposite direction, i.e., from Europe to the Levant [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | Another look at the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF], 2010, 2019;[START_REF] Goring-Morris | A hard look at the "Levantine Aurignacian": How real is the taxon?[END_REF][START_REF] Zilhão | Aurignacian, behavior, modern: issues of definition in the emergence of the European Upper Paleolithic[END_REF][START_REF] Mellars | Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia[END_REF]Belfer-Cohen andGoring-Morris, 2014, 2017;[START_REF] Barzilai | The Early Upper Paleolithic period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel[END_REF] with recent dating indicating that the Levantine Aurignacian is younger than its European counterpart (Bosch et al., 2013[START_REF] Bosch | New chronology for Ksâr 'Akil (Lebanon) supports Levantine route of modern human dispersal into Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Douka | Chronology of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and implication for the colonization of Europe by Anatomically Modern Humans[END_REF][START_REF] Nigst | Early modern human settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppetype environment[END_REF][START_REF] Stutz | Early Upper Paleolithic chronology in the Levant: new ABOx-SC accelerator mass spectrometry results from the Mughr el-Hamamah Site, Jordan[END_REF][START_REF] Alex | Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals[END_REF]Bergman et al., 2017). Within this framework, bone tools have been considered an important proxy to trace typological similarities (e.g., Belfer-Cohen and [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF][START_REF] Bar-Yosef | Another look at the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF]; yet the analysis of the technological aspects of the bone industry has been rather scarce [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF][START_REF] Newcomer | Bone artifacts from Ksar 'Aqil (Lebanon)[END_REF][START_REF] Bergman | Hafting and use of bone and antler points from Ksar Akil, Lebanon[END_REF][START_REF] Coinman | Worked bone in the Levantine Upper Paleolithic: Rare examples from the Wadi al-Hasa, West-Central Jordan[END_REF]. shells, or bone and teeth beads/pendants [START_REF] Kuhn | Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New insights from the Levant[END_REF][START_REF] Stiner | Early Upper Paleolithic shell beads at Üçağızlı Cave I (Turkey): Technology and the socioeconomic context of ornament life-histories[END_REF][START_REF] Mayer | Nassarius shells: Preferred beads of the Palaeolithic[END_REF]. It is now a given that understanding technological behaviors reflected in bone-implement and ornament manufacture can greatly contribute to the study of the emergence and diffusion of Eurasian UP technocultural entities as well as their intra-actions and interactions, locally and globally [START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF][START_REF] Yeshurun | Upper Palaeolithic bone retouchers from Manot Cave (Israel): A preliminary analysis of an (as yet) rare phenomenon in the Levant[END_REF].

Two cultural entities are recognized in the Levantine Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), the Ahmarian and the Levantine Aurignacian. The latter constitutes a unique phenomenon in the local UP sequence, showing greater similarity to the West European 'classic' Aurignacian than to the local Levantine archaeological entities preceding and following it [START_REF] Gilead | Upper Palaeolithic tool assemblages from the Negev and Sinai[END_REF][START_REF] Gilead | The Upper Paleolithic period in the Levant[END_REF][START_REF] Bar-Yosef | Another look at the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF][START_REF] Goring-Morris | A hard look at the "Levantine Aurignacian": How real is the taxon?[END_REF][START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | From the beginning: Levantine Upper Palaeolithic cultural changes and continuity[END_REF], 2014[START_REF] Rabinovich | The Archaeozoological record in a changing environment of the Late Middle to the Late Pleistocene[END_REF][START_REF] Barzilai | The Early Upper Paleolithic period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel[END_REF]. Besides the similarities observed in the technotypological characteristics-e.g., nosed and frontal carinated items, retouched (Dufour) bladelets, etc. [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | The Epipalaeolithic Cultures of Palestine[END_REF]Belfer-Cohen, 1996, 2010;[START_REF] Goring-Morris | A hard look at the "Levantine Aurignacian": How real is the taxon?[END_REF][START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | From the beginning: Levantine Upper Palaeolithic cultural changes and continuity[END_REF][START_REF] Alex | Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals[END_REF]-there are also similarities in bone and antler processing. Thus, both entities shared similar complex technical concepts of antler-working as opposed to the simpler boneworking technical concepts and had in common a recurrent but limited variety of morphotypes (mainly awls and projectile points; [START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF].

It seems that the use of animal raw material such as bone, mollusks and egg shells for symbolic expressions predates the manipulation of teeth in the Paleolithic.

Besides a single example linked with Homo erectus (see Joordens et al., 2015), bone and shell ornaments are documented in contexts associated with Neanderthals (e.g., [START_REF] Rodríguez-Hidalgo | The châtelperronian Neandertals of Cova Foradada (Calafell, Spain) used Iberian imperial eagle phalanges for symbolic purposes[END_REF] see White, 2001 and[START_REF] Higham | Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implications for the context of ornaments and human remains within the Châtelperronian[END_REF] for criticism concerning the findings from Grotte du Renne). They are also well known, along with ostrich eggshell beads, among early anatomically modern human (AMH) populations (e.g., Taborin, 1980;[START_REF] Kuhn | Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New insights from the Levant[END_REF]d'Errico et al., 2005;[START_REF] Mayer | Shells and ochre in Middle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: Indications for modern behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Texier | The context, form and significance of the MSA engraved ostrich eggshell collection from Diepkloof Rock Shelter, Western Cape, South Africa[END_REF][START_REF] Stiner | Early Upper Paleolithic shell beads at Üçağızlı Cave I (Turkey): Technology and the socioeconomic context of ornament life-histories[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Radiometrically dated ostrich eggshell beads from the Middle and Later Stone Age of Magubike Rockshelter, southern Tanzania[END_REF].

Perforated teeth pendants are among the earliest symbolic expressions of the UP of Eurasia [START_REF] White | Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition[END_REF][START_REF] White | Technological and social dimensions of "Aurignacian-age" body ornaments across Europe[END_REF][START_REF] White | Observations technologiques sur les objets de parure[END_REF][START_REF] White | Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations[END_REF]d'Errico et al., 2003;[START_REF] Zilhão | The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective on the origins of "behavioral modernity[END_REF]. In the European Aurignacian record, the exploitation of mammal teethincluding in some cases human teeth (Henry-Gambier and [START_REF] Henry-Gambier | Modifications artificielles des vestiges humains de l'Aurignacien ancien de la Grotte des Hyènes (Brassempouy, Landes). Quelle signification ?[END_REF]-became a common practice, probably playing a role in the symbolic sphere of the huntergatherer groups. Various teeth (incisors, canines, premolars and molars) of a large spectrum of herbivores (e.g., reindeer, red deer, horse, bison, goat) and carnivores (e.g., bear, wolf, fox) species were selected for the manufacture of ornaments (e.g., [START_REF] Barge-Mahieu | Objets de Parure. Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique[END_REF][START_REF] Taborin | Langage sans Paroles[END_REF][START_REF] Vanhaeren | Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments[END_REF][START_REF] Álvarez Fernández | Personal ornaments in the Early Upper Palaeolithic of Western Eurasia: An evaluation of the record[END_REF]Moreau and Jöris, 2013;[START_REF] Wolf | Schmuck aus dem Aurignacien von der Schwäbischen Alb im Vergleich mit Inventaren aus dem Lahntal und dem Rheinland[END_REF][START_REF] Wolf | Aurignacian personal ornaments of the Swabian Jura[END_REF]. This behavior is well documented all over the European Aurignacian domain, from the West to the East.

Here we present an archaeozoological, technological and use-wear study of teeth ornaments from two Levantine Aurignacian assemblages, Manot Cave and Hayonim Cave (Israel), located 10 km apart in the Western Galilee within the Mediterranean belt. The ornaments were made mainly on the vestigial canines of red deer (Cervus elaphus), by a perforation of the root to be suspended as pendants or attached to garments. Both the manufacturing marks made during the preparation of the items and the use-wear traces indicate that they were used as personal ornaments.

The selected taxa and teeth, the mode of modification and use wear show similarities with analogous items from the European Aurignacian, suggesting a link between the symbolic sphere of the Levantine and European Aurignacian cultural entities.

Hayonim and Manot caves

Hayonim Cave

Hayonim Cave is situated on the right bank of Wadi Izhar, about 13 km from the Mediterranean coast and 50 m above the present wadi channel, in the Western Galilee, Israel (Figs. 1 and 2; Belfer-Cohen and [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF][START_REF] Bar-Yosef | Hayonim Cave[END_REF]. The Levantine Aurignacian occupation (Stratum D, comprising three consecutive layers, D4, D3, and D1-2) is quite small in extent (15 m 2 ) but rich in material culture remains, including hearths, ash spots, evidence of ocher use, chipped stone artifacts and an impressive faunal assemblage.

The faunal assemblage was first studied by Davis [START_REF] Davis | The effects of temperature change and domestication on the body size of Late Pleistocene to Holocene mammals of Israel[END_REF][START_REF] Davis | Climate change and the advent of domestication: The succession of ruminant artiodactyls in the Late Pleistocene-Holocene period in the Israel region[END_REF] and later by Rabinovich, with special attention to the human mode of exploitation [START_REF] Rabinovich | How many ways to skin a gazelle". Butchery patterns from an Upper Palaeolithic site[END_REF]Rabinovich, 1998a, b). The distribution of species (number of identified specimens [NISP] layer D4 = 1479; D3 = 7012; D1-2 = 5077), is very similar in all occupation levels with mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) the most common species (more than 80% of NISP), followed by Persian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica, 5-6%), while other species are represented by several bones only: red deer (Cervus elaphus), wild goat (Capra aegagrus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), aurochs (Bos primigenius), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus); [START_REF] Rabinovich | How many ways to skin a gazelle". Butchery patterns from an Upper Palaeolithic site[END_REF]Rabinovich, 1998a, b).

Regarding the flint assemblage, on the one hand there is great technotypological similarity between the flint assemblages of the three sublayers of Layer D. On the other hand, there is pronounced heterogeneity in the overall typological components of the whole lithic assemblage [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF]. Flakes are dominant among the debitage items (including 'core trimming elements' and 'primary elements'). Within the tool categories the picture is different, and tools were modified on blade/bladelet and on flake blanks equally (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981: Table 2). The character of the debitage is quite irregular. The number of cores is relatively high (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981: Table 1); still, judging from the frequencies and types of debitage items it seems that a large number of tools were made elsewhere, while some of the items produced at Hayonim were taken away.

Typologically, the Aurignacian assemblage of Hayonim Stratum D is dominated by the end-scraper category including the Aurignacian variety, i.e., nosed, shouldered and lateral carinated items. The second large category is the burin group.

Both categories constitute more than half of the total number of tools in Layer D.

Borers and backed pieces are scarce while denticulates and notches are relatively well represented. El-Wad points are quite scarce (0.71%) and there is a moderate presence of bladelets, both in debitage and among the tools (i.e., Dufour bladelets;

Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1981: Table 2).

Another interesting phenomenon is the high percentage of tools with double patina. It is more pronounced in certain tool groups, i.e., end-scrapers, burins, denticulates and notches. Most of the double-patinated artifacts clearly derive from the preceding Mousterian levels exhibiting Levallois-technique characteristics including facetted striking platforms. Most probably these Mousterian items were available on the surface of the cave and the terrace due to post-Mousterian erosion (see [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF][START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | Paleolithic recycling: The example of Aurignacian artifacts from Kebara and Hayonim caves[END_REF].

Manot Cave

Manot Cave consists of an elongated main hall (80 m long, 10-25 m wide) with two lower chambers connected from the north and the south (Figs. 1 and2). Rock falls and colluvium apparently blocked the original entrance to the cave ca. 30 ka cal BP [START_REF] Barzilai | The Early Upper Paleolithic period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel[END_REF]. During nine seasons (2010-2018), twelve areas were excavated, labeled A to L [START_REF] Hershkovitz | Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans[END_REF][START_REF] Barzilai | The Early Upper Paleolithic period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel[END_REF]Marder et al., 2017Marder et al., , 2018)). Areas C and E yielded well-preserved UP assemblages. Both areas display thick stratigraphic profiles and are extremely rich in finds, including flint artifacts, animal bones, bone and antler tools, shells, and a little charcoal (Barzilai et al., 2016;[START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF][START_REF] Alex | Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals[END_REF][START_REF] Abulafia | A techno-typological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (Area C) and the interrelation with site formation[END_REF][START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Yeshurun | Early Upper Paleolithic subsistence in the Levant: Zooarchaeology of the Ahmarian-Aurignacian sequence at Manot Cave, Israel[END_REF].

Area E is located at the western end of the cave, on top of the talus, at the location of the original entrance. A sequence of nine distinct archaeological horizons (Layers I-IX) was exposed, including a series of well-preserved combustion features.

Based on preliminary analyses of the material culture remains, a division of the sequence into at least two phases was recently suggested [START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF]: an early phase (Layers VIII-IV), presenting 'classic' Levantine Aurignacian affinities, and a later phase (Layers III-I), which demonstrates a change in focus in lithic tool typology alongside a scant osseous industry and a decrease in mollusk frequencies. This phase is temporarily referred to as 'post-Levantine Aurignacian' [START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF]. Layer IX, at the bottom of the sequence might represent another UP variant, different from the Levantine Aurignacian, as preliminary observations indicated an increased dominance of laminar components within the flint assemblage as well as lack of marine shells and a poor bone industry. However, this layer is yet to be thoroughly studied to obtain a more concrete definition.

The Levantine Aurignacian phase of the sequence (Layers VIII-IV) displays dense archaeological assemblages rich in flint artifacts, bone tools, animal bones and shells. Based on a sample from Layer V, the lithic assemblages comprise typical Levantine Aurignacian tools, such as nosed and carinated scrapers as well as blades displaying Aurignacian retouch. Notably, el-Wad points are missing in the analyzed sample [START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF]. The shell assemblages include mostly Patella, while various specimens of the scaphopod Antalis were also found [START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF].

Area C represents secondary accumulation sediments and archaeological material at the base of the western talus. The stratigraphy, based on sedimentological criteria, is divided into eight units. Following a technotypological analysis of the lithic assemblage, two cultural units were defined, the Levantine Aurignacian (Units 3, 4 and upper Unit 5), and the Early Ahmarian (consisting of the lower part of Unit 6 and Unit 7). The lower part of Unit 5 and the upper section of Unit 6 contain a mixed assemblage comprising both Levantine Aurignacian and Early Ahmarian artifacts [START_REF] Abulafia | A techno-typological analysis of the Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian assemblages from Manot Cave (Area C) and the interrelation with site formation[END_REF]. Alongside radiocarbon chronology, these suggest that chronocultural distinctions can be defined [START_REF] Alex | Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals[END_REF]Abulafia et al., 2019). The archaeological assemblage from the Levantine Aurignacian cultural units (ca. 1.5 m thick) is dominated by an Aurignacian lithic component similar to that described for Area E, as well as projectile points made on antler.

The rich and well-preserved faunal assemblages in Manot Cave are quite similar to those of the nearby Hayonim Cave. An archaeofaunal sequence of both Ahmarian and Levantine Aurignacian levels was studied in Area C [START_REF] Yeshurun | Early Upper Paleolithic subsistence in the Levant: Zooarchaeology of the Ahmarian-Aurignacian sequence at Manot Cave, Israel[END_REF]. The Levantine Aurignacian therein is rich in mountain gazelle remains and to a lesser extent, in Persian fallow deer. Red and roe deer, boar and aurochs are all present in small numbers. Bird hunting played some role, and tortoises and small mammals were sporadically exploited. Age and sex information on gazelles cautiously suggest that they were hunted in the summer and autumn (Yeshurun et al., 2019).

The shell assemblages from the Area C Aurignacian included Columbella rustica and Nassarius gibbosulus, which might have been used for personal ornamentation, and Patella sp., which was probably consumed as food (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2019).

The Aurignacian sequence at Manot is currently dated between ~38 and 34 ka cal BP (the dates were determined through samples deriving from both talus material and a secure Aurignacian context in Area E), with a more constrained timeframe of ~37-35 ka cal BP suggested based on Bayesian models [START_REF] Alex | Radiocarbon chronology of Manot Cave, Israel and Upper Paleolithic dispersals[END_REF].

Bone tools of the Levantine Aurignacian

The bone and antler assemblages from Hayonim D and Manot Cave (mainly Areas E-C) are unique in their number of tools-almost 300 specimens-and their variety, and are comparable only to the Aurignacian assemblage of Ksâr 'Akil [START_REF] Newcomer | Outils en os du Paléolithique supérieur de Ksar Akil (Liban)[END_REF][START_REF] Bergman | Hafting and use of bone and antler points from Ksar Akil, Lebanon[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF][START_REF] Yeshurun | Upper Palaeolithic bone retouchers from Manot Cave (Israel): A preliminary analysis of an (as yet) rare phenomenon in the Levant[END_REF][START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF].

Both in Hayonim and Manot caves, the majority of items are bone awls and antler simple/massive base projectile points. There are also several items, both bone and antler that were most probably used in indirect percussion (namely as chisels), as has been demonstrated through both technological and experimental studies [START_REF] Tartar | De l'os à l'outil -caractérisation technique, économique et sociale de l'utilisation de l'os à l'aurignacien ancien[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | Red deer antler technology and early modern humans in Southeast Europe: An experimental study[END_REF]. We have also documented several retouchers, which are currently not represented in other UP Levantine sites [START_REF] Yeshurun | Upper Palaeolithic bone retouchers from Manot Cave (Israel): A preliminary analysis of an (as yet) rare phenomenon in the Levant[END_REF]. Indeed, a renewed technological study of the bone tool production technology from both Levantine Aurignacian assemblages is underway, with some of it already published, e.g., the notched and incised ('decorated') bones from Hayonim [START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF] as well as the preliminary study of bone tools from the ongoing excavations of Manot [START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF].

Technical features of the production processes are identical in both sites. The tools shaped from bones were modified using a single, simple technique-scraping.

On the other hand, antler was exploited using a combination of techniques, following a process defined by [START_REF] Averbouh | Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implications palethnologiques. L'exemple des chaines d'exploitation du bois de cervidé chez les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées[END_REF] implying a complex operational sequence.

Working the antler by longitudinal splitting of antler beam fragments, typical of the European Early Aurignacian [START_REF] Tejero | Red deer antler technology and early modern humans in Southeast Europe: An experimental study[END_REF] was employed by Hayonim and Manot's inhabitants, as demonstrated by the blanks and waste products characteristic of this process [START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF].

Whenever the base of the antler projectile point is preserved, it is a simple/massive point, of the variety defined as 'elongated objects with a pointed distal tip, a variable cross-section (mostly elliptical) and a simple hafting system' (e.g., [START_REF] Hahn | Fiche Sagaie à base simple de tradition aurignacienne[END_REF]. Except for one split-based point from Kebara [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | The excavations in Kebara Cave[END_REF], see also claims for yet another specimen, from Hayonim Cave; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2014), all projectile points from the Levantine Aurignacian are simple/massive points. The known assemblage comprises ca. 150 samples so far, of which Hayonim and Manot caves have provided almost two thirds (31 and 49 specimens respectively). The rest of the projectile points were reported from Ksâr 'Akil, Sefunim and Yabroud II [START_REF] Newcomer | Outils en os du Paléolithique supérieur de Ksar Akil (Liban)[END_REF][START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF][START_REF] Bergman | Hafting and use of bone and antler points from Ksar Akil, Lebanon[END_REF][START_REF] Gilead | The Upper Paleolithic period in the Levant[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF][START_REF] Shimelmitz | The Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic of Sefunim Cave, Israel[END_REF].

The typological and technological features, as well as the dichotomy observed between the bone and antler production in both Hayonim and Manot caves, are also observed in the Early Aurignacian sites/assemblages in Europe (see the descriptions in [START_REF] Tartar | De l'os à l'outil -caractérisation technique, économique et sociale de l'utilisation de l'os à l'aurignacien ancien[END_REF][START_REF] Liolios | Variabilité et caractéristiques du travail des matières osseuses au debut de l'Aurignacien : Approche technologique et economique[END_REF][START_REF] Tartar | The manufacture of Aurignacian split-based points: an experimental challenge[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | La Explotación de las Materias Óseas en el Auriñaciense[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | Towards complexity in osseous raw material exploitation by the first anatomically modern humans in Europe: Aurignacian antler working[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | Assessing bone and antler exploitation at Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi, Italy): implications for the characterization of the Aurignacian in South-western Europe[END_REF].

Materials and methods

The studied material is housed at the National Natural History Collections of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), Jerusalem (Table 1). The taxonomic identification of the items is based on the comparative osteological collections of the National Natural History Collections, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the University of Haifa. Most of the studied items were made on red deer teeth. Published criteria were also consulted for taxonomic identification, e.g., [START_REF] Brown | The dentition of red deer (Cervus elaphus): a scoring system to assess age from wear of the permanent molariform teeth[END_REF] for red deer and Brown and [START_REF] Brown | The dentition of fallow deer (Dama dama): A scoring scheme to assess age from wear of the permanent molariform teeth[END_REF] for fallow deer.

The distinct sexual dimorphism of red deer [START_REF] Larson | Sexual dimorphism in beaver neutrophils[END_REF][START_REF] Goss | Deer Antlers: Regeneration, Function, and Evolution[END_REF], is also expressed in the shape and size of their canines (Chapman and Chapman, 1997;Fig. 3). Over the evolution of the family Cervidae, hornless ancestors predated the antlered ruminants. The size of the tusk-like upper canine teeth has tended to be inversely correlated with the size of the antlers, as if 'holding on' to the former compensated for the lack of the latter. As the antlers became longer, the canines became shorter, eventually disappearing. In most cervids, they have been lost while some species like red deer (Cervus elaphus) still have vestigial canines (e.g., [START_REF] Goss | Deer Antlers: Regeneration, Function, and Evolution[END_REF].

As changes occur through life in the shape, root and size of the canines, the specimens were examined for age and sex, following the methods of d [START_REF] Errico | Criteria for identifying Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) age and sex from their canines. Application to the study of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic ornaments[END_REF]. Apparently, male vestigial canines are broader than those of the females and with wear, the fully grown shape in young males becomes triangular.

Conversely, crowns of young females are pointed, and those of older specimens are rectangular. The roots of vestigial male canines are square or trapezoid while those of females are rectangular or V-shaped.

We recorded morphometric variables for each canine. Morphological variables include occlusal wear stages, stages of root development, state of closure of the pulp cavity, and wear removal of the distolinguocervical lobe. Metric variables include crown width, length and thickness, width and length of the occlusal wear facet, maximum width, apex width, root thickness and root length (Fig. 4).

For the description of the specimens' modification we followed the methodology of [START_REF] Barge-Mahieu | Objets de Parure. Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique[END_REF], [START_REF] White | Technological and social dimensions of "Aurignacian-age" body ornaments across Europe[END_REF], 2007[START_REF] Vanhaeren | Les fonctions de la parure au Paléolithique supérieur : de l'individu à l'unité culturelle[END_REF] and d [START_REF] Errico | Crache perforée dans le Gravettien du sire (Mirefleurs, Puy-de-Dôme)[END_REF], among others. We described the perforation process, dimensions, location, preparation modes and perforation techniques (e.g., diameter, shape, the distance between tooth buccal and lingual edges, distance between the perforation and the root base; Fig. 4).

Technological and use-wear analyses were conducted using both a stereomicroscope (magnification: 10-40×) and a scanning electron microscope. The scanning electron microscopy images (the XPS Laboratory, the Unit for Nanocharacterisation, the Harvey M. Krueger Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) were obtained using a FEI Quanta 200 ESEM in low-vacuum mode without preliminary treatment and with a chamber pressure of 0.38 Torr and acceleration voltages of 15-20 kV. The elemental analyses of the particles-for ocher identification-were done by Energy Dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) using EDAX detector.

Results

Taxonomic and sexual identification, preservation, and stratigraphic origin

The assemblage of personal ornaments recovered from Hayonim and Manot caves consists of a total of 10 perforated teeth and an unfinished pendant or preform (a tooth with an unfinished perforation; Figs. 5 and6). Nine are vestigial canines of red deer (specimens H11, H35, H53, H157, H179, and H226 [the unfinished item] from Hayonim Cave, and specimens 105, 131, and 132 from Manot Cave); two teeth are upper incisors of a large bovid (Bos; specimens H152 from Hayonim and 130 from Manot). Among the red deer vestigial canines, five are left, and four are right (Table 1). It should to be noted that a previous publication mentioned the presence of a horse incisor in Layer D at Hayonim (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1991), which after re-examination is actually a bovid incisor (H152). A fox (Vulpes vulpes) perforated canine was reported from an Aurignacian context (Belfer-Cohen and [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF] yet it derives from an area dug-in by the Natufians, and there are many of these pieces in secure Natufian contexts. For this reason, we have decided to discard it from this study. Conversely, no bovid incisors were reported from the Natufian occupation levels.

The Hayonim pendants were found in Layers D1-2 (two items), Layer D3 and D4 (one element in each layer) and in the D sequence without exact provenience (three items). The items from Manot Cave derive from Area C, upper Unit 6 (one item), and Area E (three pieces). One of the pendants from Area E was found in Layer V (Fig. 2). Two other pieces from this area were retrieved, together with a bone awl and an incised ('decorated') bone, from a sounding pit, thus they lack a precise stratigraphic affiliation. Still, all of the above items fit technotypologically into the Levantine Aurignacian tradition (Belfer-Cohen and [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF][START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF][START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF].

Preservation of most of the pendants is good. Some display sediment concretion, exfoliations and desiccation fissures. Four of the Hayonim pendants have been subjected to a combustion process. In Layers D1-2 at Hayonim, isolated patches of white ash suggested that somewhere, not far away, there was a fireplace [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF]. One of the pendants derived from Square H21, where there was clearly a hearth. The surface of these specimens was burned. The homogenous color and patina (dark brown and soft brown) of their surface might suggest a specific treatment rather than just having been tossed in the hearth. In one of the Manot items (M131) concretion partially covers the perforation. Except for two specimens from Manot and one from Hayonim, all the others are complete. Based on the size ratio (Table 2) and shape, the perforated red deer canines of the Hayonim and Manot belong to males.

To what extent worked teeth come from hunted animals, or were recovered through scavenging, remains unknown. Nevertheless, as noted by several authors, vestigial deer canines disperse quickly after death as they detach easily from the maxilla (d'Errico and Rigaud, 2011). This makes it more likely that the vestigial canines originate from hunted animals. Six of the teeth display incisions at the vestibular face in the junction between the crown and the root (the base of the distolinguocervical lobe). Incisions are short and thin, oblique and perpendicular, relative to the main axis of the piece. We interpret them as cut-marks to extract the canine from the alveolar cavity, which reinforces the assumption that teeth were removed from a fresh carcass.

The wear signs of Paleolithic personal ornaments indicate long-term use (see below), which makes it challenging to determine whether they were produced on site or brought in as finished products from the outside. A high degree of mobility is assumed for Paleolithic personal ornaments tied in with the mobility of their owners (d'Errico, 1993). Assessing their lifespan and tracking their movement through a given territory is indeed rather a speculative exercise. However, the presence of a preform in Hayonim, abandoned or lost before the perforation was made (Fig. 7), implies onsite production of at least some of the teeth ornaments. Moreover, the in situ working of animal raw material (bone and antler) is demonstrated by the presence, at both sites, of blanks and waste associated with the production of bone awls and projectile antler points [START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF].

Description of the tooth pendants and their production techniques

All the perforations are located along the roots of the tooth. In some items (four canines and the two bovid incisors) the root surfaces were scraped prior to perforation. The manufacturing sequence is evidenced by the overlapping of the perforation marks over the scraping ones (Fig. 8B). Preparation scraping might have been done in order to clean the root and smooth the surface at the starting point of the hole. The root of the two bovid incisors was entirely scraped, while the deer canines were scraped over a small part of the root surface (Table 3).

Once the surface was prepared, the holes were made by one single technique in six cases and a combination of two techniques for the other five items. The four pendants from Manot, both the incisor and the canines, were perforated by bifacial gouging. The Hayonim items display a slightly different technical behavior, i.e., bifacial rotation in two cases, and a combination of bifacial gouging with bifacial rotation to finish the hole in five pieces (including the preform; Fig. 8A-D).

While it is tempting to argue for a particular technical behavior vis-a-vis the manufacture of the teeth pendants at each site, we should be cautious since the sample is quite small. Such a difference could be due to intra-Aurignacian chronological differences. Indeed, while high-resolution radiocarbon chronology for Manot Cave exists, the dating of Hayonim is questionable since it was done by older techniques and should be refined (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2002). Still, one can consider the difference observed as similar to the differences discerned in the European Aurignacian assemblages which portray flexibility in the techniques employed in ornament production [START_REF] White | Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations[END_REF]. We can thus assume that on the whole, while sharing the selection of taxon and tooth type, the Levantine Aurignacians could have employed different techniques for the manufacture of the pendants.

Most of the perforations have a circular or subcircular shape, while two specimens have elliptical holes (Fig. 8; Table 3). These perforation forms are determined by the techniques employed. Nevertheless, some of the original circular holes seem to be slightly modified, most likely through use (see below), resulting in a subcircular form (Fig. 8A,D). The cross-section of the perforations is conical in almost all the items since they were pierced from both faces of the teeth. Perforation diameter values are quite regular in all specimens, varying between 2 and 4 mm.

Holes are located at the root centered from the edges and the root distal part (the apex of the teeth). The distance from the lateral edge is also regular in all pendants.

The hole is at the same range of distance from both edges (between 2 and 5 mm), and equidistant between the end of the root and the beginning of the crown. This location was likely chosen to avoid accidents during the perforation process and to ensure the solidity of the teeth against traction forces, whichever way they were used (as beads in a necklace, bracelet, attached to clothes, or other).

Four of the items from both sites bear ochre stains inside and outside of the perforation on the buccal and vestibular faces (Fig. 9; Table 4). Presence of ocher per se in the archaeological remains as well as the presence of modified ocher fragments have been considered as proof of symbolic behavior during the African Middle Stone Age (e.g., [START_REF] Henshilwood | Engraved ochres from the Middle Stone Age levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa[END_REF][START_REF] Rosso | Middle Stone Age ochre processing and behavioural complexity in the Horn of Africa: Evidence from Porc-Epic Cave, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia[END_REF][START_REF] Rosso | Patterns of change and continuity in ochre use during the late Middle Stone Age of the Horn of Africa: The Porc-Epic Cave record[END_REF], and the European and Levantine Middle Paleolithic (e.g., [START_REF] Hovers | An early case of color symbolism: Ochre use by modern humans in Qafzeh Cave[END_REF][START_REF] Zilhão | Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals[END_REF]. Exponential growth in scope and quantity is observed from the beginning of the UP onward (e.g., d [START_REF] Errico | Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music-An alternative multidisciplinary perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Zilhão | The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective on the origins of "behavioral modernity[END_REF]. In the current study, the presence of ocher also on the unfinished pendant, covering part of the uncompleted hole, can indicate that it was used for its abrasive properties, at least in Hayonim, to facilitate hole perforation. Indeed, combined with a small amount of water, ocher is very useful in increasing the penetration power of the lithic tool used to make the hole. Still, this mineral could also have been used for decorative purposes, directly penetrating the pendants themselves or the clothes to which they were attached.

One of the authors (J.-M.T.) experimentally perforated several mammal teeth, including red deer vestigial canines, by diverse techniques, in some cases using ocher (Fig. 10). Although this experiment was a didactic test rather than real testing under an experimental protocol, we have recorded interesting data. Perforating the teeth, both red deer canines and bovid incisors, using ocher as an abrasive increases the efficiency-defined as the (often measurable) ability to avoid wasting materials, energy and efforts in producing a desired result-of carrying out the task at hand. It allows us to avoid to a great extent sliding of the tool point on the teeth root surface, thus minimizing the risk of breakages; also, it shortens the time needed to perforate the tooth, ca. 10-15 minutes against 25-30 minutes without using ocher.

We mention these data while being aware that the modern concept of efficient time management seems to be absent in hunter-gatherer societies, whether Paleolithic or recent (i.e., Shina et al., 2008;[START_REF] Polcaro | The concept of time, from Palaeolithic to Newtonian physics[END_REF].

Use-wear

Similar use-wear marks were observed on four deer canines and one of the bovid incisors. The marks consist of polish around the edge of the hole located in the distal part of the root (the surface closer to the root apex) producing a slight modification of the original perforation shape. In the area where polish is present, the striations generated during perforation by rotation were erased, while still visible along the rest of the perforation (Fig. 8A,D;Table 4).

Although it is commonly assumed that the perforated teeth were used as personal ornaments, the specifics of their use are far from clear. The ethnographic record provides us with numerous examples of variegated utilization of suspended or attached objects, not as body ornaments but rather as clothing appendages, basket and bag accessories, etc. [START_REF] White | Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations[END_REF]. In the absence of a precise context (for instance a burial) associated with the teeth pendants of Hayonim and Manot caves, we must be prudent when considering the functional interpretation of the items.

Nevertheless, technological studies of UP specimens in the European record (e.g., [START_REF] White | Technological and social dimensions of "Aurignacian-age" body ornaments across Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Vanhaeren | Les fonctions de la parure au Paléolithique supérieur : de l'individu à l'unité culturelle[END_REF][START_REF] White | Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations[END_REF]d'Errico and Rigaud, 2011), as well as experimental work (d'Errico, 1993;Cristiani et al., 2014b), advocate the hypothesis that the perforated teeth of Hayonim and Manot caves are indeed pendants (namely personal ornaments). Accruement of polish inside the holes of the pendants, which had modified the original shape of the hole, suggests that the piece was worn, suspended or sewn on clothing. Indeed, a relatively long wear of at least several months seems to have been needed to produce such a polish (d'Errico, 1993).

Intensive use of the pendants indicates that they had a 'long life' and we can thus assume that such symbolic elements must have been of value to their owners.

Discussion and conclusion

The study of the two assemblages in conjunction is most beneficial for the research of the pertinent issue detailed in the present paper. While the Hayonim specimens enforce the cultural affiliation of the findings discussed herein, the Manot specimens, especially the one from Area E layer 5 provide a more secure date for the occurrence of those ornaments.

Based on the faunal assemblages, the Aurignacians of Hayonim and Manot caves could have produced pendants on bones of any of the exploited species.

Nonetheless, they decided to choose exclusively two teeth of two of the largestbodied and least consumed species. Contrary to other symbolic expressions of the Levantine Aurignacians, which highlighted their close relationship with a particular animal, the gazelle, and whose bones were chosen to be 'decorated' by notches [START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF], gazelle teeth do not seem to have been invested with symbolic meaning. [START_REF] White | Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations[END_REF] noted for the Aurignacian of southwestern Europe that dietary importance and symbolic significance seem to have been mutually exclusive.

The Aurignacian (European and Levantine) symbolic manifestations, namely personal ornaments as well as graphic, mobile and stationary art, exhibit a broad similarity. However, at the same time, region-specific characteristics of Aurignacian groups do occur (Bourrillon et al., 2017) and there is a significant variability on a continental scale [START_REF] Vanhaeren | Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments[END_REF][START_REF] Wolf | Aurignacian personal ornaments of the Swabian Jura[END_REF].The particularities of each such group are vital in order to understand the dynamics of intergroup relationships, whether reflecting kinship ties or diachronic trends (Tejero et al., 2018), as they all belong to the Aurignacian technocomplex sensu lato. Recent research on bone and antler tools suggests similar but also particular features vis-avis the typological and technical aspects of the exploitation of animal raw materials [START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF][START_REF] Yeshurun | Upper Palaeolithic bone retouchers from Manot Cave (Israel): A preliminary analysis of an (as yet) rare phenomenon in the Levant[END_REF]. Apparently, the European and Levantine Aurignacian symbolic items utilizing animal raw material exhibit such variations as well [START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF].

The techniques employed to modify the Levantine Aurignacian pendants are similar to those documented in the European Aurignacian (e.g., [START_REF] White | Technological and social dimensions of "Aurignacian-age" body ornaments across Europe[END_REF][START_REF] White | Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations[END_REF]Vercoutère, 2004;d'Errico and Rigaud, 2011). However, while in the Levant the ways to perforate a tooth are limited, the methods employed by the European Aurignacians were varied, showing technical flexibility with gouging and rotation extensively documented [START_REF] White | Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations[END_REF].

The preference of one taxon and a particular tooth, namely the red deer vestigial canines, to make personal ornaments is a behavior shared by European and Levantine Aurignacians. Though the European Aurignacian hunter-gatherers exploited a large variety of teeth from diverse mammals, it appears that pierced red deer teeth were of importance and were worn by individuals travelling over long distances (Gravel-Miguel, 2009;Fig. 11). The apparent dissociation between consumed animals and animals whose teeth were used for ornaments is particularly marked in the case of this species. The geographic distribution of red deer pendants in the European UP does not reflect the animals' geographic distribution, since the pendants seem to have moved beyond the extent of the red deer habitat (Gravel-Miguel, 2009).

In the Levant, red deer were present during the Early UP in the Mediterranean realm, both in human-generated assemblages and in hyena den accumulations [START_REF] Rabinovich | The Archaeozoological record in a changing environment of the Late Middle to the Late Pleistocene[END_REF][START_REF] Orbach | The hunters or the hunters: Human and hyena prey choice divergence in the Late Pleistocene Levant[END_REF][START_REF] Yeshurun | Early Upper Paleolithic subsistence in the Levant: Zooarchaeology of the Ahmarian-Aurignacian sequence at Manot Cave, Israel[END_REF]. Although this species was part of the diet of the Levantine Aurignacians, its share in that diet is anecdotal compared to that of gazelles and, to a lesser extent, Persian fallow deer. Indeed, in Area C at Manot, red deer specimens represent 1.5% of the identified species of ungulates. In Hayonim the frequencies of red deer are similar, and comprise ca. 2% of the NISP in each sublayer (D4: 27 [1.83%]; D3: 97 [1.38%]; D1-2: 112 [2.21%]). At Hayonim cave Cervus elaphus is represented by various body parts including both upper and lower teeth, either isolated or socketed: seven teeth (26%) out of 27 elements from Layer D4; 15 teeth (15%) out of 97 elements from Layer D3; and 33 teeth (29%) out of 112 items from Layer D1-2. Among the teeth, no canines other than the perforated specimens were identified [START_REF] Rabinovich | How many ways to skin a gazelle". Butchery patterns from an Upper Palaeolithic site[END_REF]Rabinovich, 1998a, b). In Manot Cave Area C sample, there are two red deer specimens in the Ahmarian (astragalus and intermediate phalanx) and three red deer specimens in the Aurignacian (intermediate phalanx, humerus and unmodified incisor; [START_REF] Yeshurun | Early Upper Paleolithic subsistence in the Levant: Zooarchaeology of the Ahmarian-Aurignacian sequence at Manot Cave, Israel[END_REF].

As a rule, prehistoric European societies in general had a strong preference for the use of red deer canines as personal ornaments. Their presence in many prehistoric settlements, in different contexts, including single burials with dozens of them-e.g., in ethnographic examples [START_REF] Binford | Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential[END_REF], in the UP [START_REF] Giacobini | Les sépultures du Paléolithique supérieur d'Italie[END_REF], and in the Mesolithic (Cristiani et al., 2014a, b)-suggests that they possessed symbolic value for both Paleolithic and post-Paleolithic societies. This could be explained by the tooth's particular shape-rounded-as well as its luster and its tactile qualities [START_REF] White | Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: Methodological challenges and new observations[END_REF]. Similar reasons have been alleged for other raw materials like ivory, amber and shells [START_REF] Taborin | La Parure en Coquillage au Paléolithique[END_REF][START_REF] Taborin | Langage sans Paroles[END_REF][START_REF] Stiner | Finding a common bandwidth: Causes of convergence and diversity in Paleolithic beads[END_REF][START_REF] Mayer | Nassarius shells: Preferred beads of the Palaeolithic[END_REF]. Indeed, deer canines were at times imitated in different raw materials (bone and antler) by Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups in Europe and the Levant (White, 1989;[START_REF] Vanhaeren | Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments[END_REF][START_REF] Shaham | Art Research Tools for Reading Natufian Art: A Methodological Approach and Selected Case Studies[END_REF].

Personal ornaments can come in the form of necklaces, pendants, or dress decorations [START_REF] Kuhn | Body ornamentation as information technology: Towards an understanding of the significance of early bead[END_REF]. The use-wear of the Aurignacian Levantine pierced teeth suggests usage similar to that observed for the European Aurignacians.

An exchange of tooth pendants between groups from different regions is possible in light of the shared concepts and it could also explain the adoption of similar symbolic practices for the Aurignacians groups of both Europe and the Levant. The latter is reinforced by the in situ production of the pendants that is demonstrated for some of the Hayonim items.

While the precise meaning of the message transmitted by such objects is lost to us, we can nevertheless assess its significance in a particular regional context. In this regard, it is interesting to note that as in the Levantine Aurignacian, in other regions and material cultures a few specific types of raw materials with standardized shapes were selected as personal ornaments. One example is the choice of particular shells -Nassarius-to fabricate pendants in the African Middle Stone Age and in the beginning of the UP in both the Levant and Europe [START_REF] Kuhn | Body ornamentation as information technology: Towards an understanding of the significance of early bead[END_REF][START_REF] Mayer | Nassarius shells: Preferred beads of the Palaeolithic[END_REF]. Another example is the particular shape of the socalled 'basket beads' made mostly of ivory, characteristic of the Early Aurignacian in southwestern France [START_REF] White | Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition[END_REF]Heckel, 2017).

An essential feature of the use of symbols is that their meaning is assigned by arbitrary, socially constructed conventions, allowing the storage and visualization of information externally (e.g., [START_REF] Henshilwood | The origin of Modern Human behavior. Critique of the models and their test implications[END_REF][START_REF] Hovers | An early case of color symbolism: Ochre use by modern humans in Qafzeh Cave[END_REF][START_REF] Langley | Symbolic material culture in the Late Pleistocene: Use in prehistory, appearance in the archaeological record and taphonomy[END_REF][START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | Prehistoric perspectives on "others" and "strangers[END_REF]. The objects imbued with symbolic meaning reflect their use to link the individual or population to their cultural identity, material culture and environment [START_REF] Henshilwood | The origin of Modern Human behavior. Critique of the models and their test implications[END_REF].

As the development of UP technotypological traditions following the dispersal of AMH in Eurasia, is among the most hotly debated topics, it seems essential to examine and evaluate the variability among human groups, as regards both differences and commonalities. Such studies are of great help in identifying the directions and trajectories of dispersals and the establishment of regional territories [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | Following Pleistocene road signs of human dispersals across Eurasia[END_REF]. Human groups differ [START_REF] Binford | Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets[END_REF][START_REF] Norenzayan | Behavior. Explaining human behavioral diversity[END_REF] and, unquestionably, the differences observed stem not only from varying external environmental circumstances [START_REF] Banks | Human-climate interaction during the Early Upper Paleolithic: Testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian[END_REF] but also from intra-and intergroup social rules, customs, and relationships [START_REF] Gelfand | Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-Nation study[END_REF]. Thus, variability in ritual and symbolic behavior undoubtedly played an important role and is a critical aspect among Pleistocene groups and/or archaeological cultures.

Beyond technological skills, variability in social and spiritual dynamics lies at the core of human self-definition as a group, society, or 'cultural entity' [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | Following Pleistocene road signs of human dispersals across Eurasia[END_REF][START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | Prehistoric perspectives on "others" and "strangers[END_REF].

The Levantine Aurignacians shared with their European counterparts some similarities in various spheres (technical, economic, social, symbolic) involving bone and antler production. For example, they shared similar complex technical concepts of antler working as opposed to simpler ones for bone-working and had in common a recurrent but limited variety of bone-tool morphotypes (mainly awls and projectile points; [START_REF] Tejero | The osseous industry from Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel): Technical and conceptual behaviours of bone and antler exploitation in the Levantine Aurignacian[END_REF]. However, they differed in other particulars of their material culture, i.e., both the bone/antler industries and the lithic ones (e.g., [START_REF] Bar-Yosef | The Epipalaeolithic Cultures of Palestine[END_REF]Belfer-Cohen, 1996, 2010;[START_REF] Goring-Morris | A hard look at the "Levantine Aurignacian": How real is the taxon?[END_REF][START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | From the beginning: Levantine Upper Palaeolithic cultural changes and continuity[END_REF], 2014[START_REF] Rabinovich | The Archaeozoological record in a changing environment of the Late Middle to the Late Pleistocene[END_REF][START_REF] Barzilai | The Early Upper Paleolithic period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel[END_REF][START_REF] Marder | The Early Upper Palaeolithic of Manot Cave, Western Galilee[END_REF][START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF]. Such is also the case for some symbolic elements, e.g., the notched gazelle scapulae and hyoid, which seem to have had special significance for Levantine Aurignacians [START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF].

The similarity in the symbolic representations of the European and Levantine Aurignacian is especially striking when the 'symbolic' record of other UP cultures in the Levant is considered. The other EUP entity of the Levant, the Ahmarian, is commonly perceived as a local tradition, predating the Levantine Aurignacian and more extensively distributed in space and time. Symbolic expressions, including pendants, do exist in the Ahmarian, but exclusively in the form of mollusk-shell ornaments [START_REF] Mayer | The exploitation of shells as beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant[END_REF][START_REF] Stiner | Finding a common bandwidth: Causes of convergence and diversity in Paleolithic beads[END_REF]. Also, the exploitation of antler, so typical of the Levantine Aurignacian, is missing from secure Ahmarian contexts, which display very few bone tools in general. It thus seems that the two EUP entities in the Levant, utilizing the same environment and having access to the same natural resources (e.g., [START_REF] Yeshurun | Early Upper Paleolithic subsistence in the Levant: Zooarchaeology of the Ahmarian-Aurignacian sequence at Manot Cave, Israel[END_REF], expressed their aesthetic or symbolic needs in distinct ways. The Levantine Aurignacian symbolic 'package' is truly a very distinct cultural phenomenon that is well constrained in time and space. This lends support to the notion of the Levantine Aurignacian being an incursion from the north as opposed to the locally rooted Ahmarian technocomplex (e.g., [START_REF] Goring-Morris | A hard look at the "Levantine Aurignacian": How real is the taxon?[END_REF][START_REF] Bar-Yosef | The Epipalaeolithic Cultures of Palestine[END_REF]Belfer-Cohen, 2010, 2014;[START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Upper Palaeolithic and Earlier Epi-Palaeolithic of Western Asia[END_REF][START_REF] Barzilai | The Early Upper Paleolithic period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel[END_REF]. It does not support an independent development because of the very particular nature of the material component [START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF]. The significant similarities observed between the Levantine Aurignacian of Manot Cave and Hayonim Cave are manifested through various aspects of the material culture, including typotechnological aspects of the lithic component, diet, the bone industry and the mollusk remains [START_REF] Marder | Preliminary observations on the Levantine Aurignacian sequence of Manot Cave: Cultural affiliations and regional perspectives[END_REF]. Both sites share similar practices of iconic behavior using gazelle bones as blanks for notched items [START_REF] Tejero | Symbolic emblems of the Levantine Aurignacians as a regional entity identifier (Hayonim Cave, Lower Galilee, Israel)[END_REF]. We add here yet another aspect to the symbolic sphere of Hayonim and Manot Aurignacians dwellers-the manufacture of pendants mainly on male red deer canines. This could imply the existence of cultural bonds between the two sites as well as between the Levantine and the European Aurignacian, considering the widespread of this behavior all over Europe. a This specimen was first described as a horse tooth (Belfer-Cohen and [START_REF] Belfer-Cohen | The Aurignacian at Hayonim Cave[END_REF] Table 2 Red deer vestigial canines pendants morphometry (d'Errico and Vanahaeren, 2002; see Fig. 4).

Number

Figure captions Figure 1 .

 captions1 Figure captions

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. On the left, spatial distribution (A) and stratigraphic location (B-D) of

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Red deer vestigial canines of female (left) and male (right). Note the

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4. Red deer vestigial canines: recorded morphometric variables (after d'Errico

Figure 5 .

 5 Figure 5. Red deer canines (A, B; specimens M105, M131) and bovid incisor (C;

Figure 6 .

 6 Figure 6. Red deer canines (A-C; specimens H11, H53, H157) and bovid incisor (D;

Figure 7 .

 7 Figure 7. Preform of perforated red deer vestigial canine (H226) from Hayonim

Figure 8 .

 8 Figure 8. Detailed scanning electron microscopy photographs of perforated red deer

Figure 9 .

 9 Figure 9. Detailed scanning electron microscopy photography of an ocher stain on

Figure 10 .

 10 Figure 10. Red deer canine perforated experimentally using ocher to increase the

Figure 11 .

 11 Figure 11. Map with the location of Eurasian Aurignacian sites with worked red deer

Table 1

 1 Pendants from Hayonim and Manot caves.

	Site	Number Area Unit	Layer Square Species	Tooth	Sex	Side
	Hayonim cave H11	-		D	H22/I22 Cervus elaphus vestigial canine male	rigth
	Hayonim cave H35	-		D	H21a	Cervus elaphus vestigial canine male	left
	Hayonim cave H53	-		D	H22d	Cervus elaphus vestigial canine male	rigth
	Hayonim cave H157	-		D1-2 I22d	Cervus elaphus vestigial canine male	left
	Hayonim cave H179	-		D	F22	Cervus elaphus vestigial canine male	left
	Hayonim cave H226	-		D2	H22	Cervus elaphus vestigial canine male? rigth
	Hayonim cave H152 a	-		D4	G20	Bos primigenius incisor	-
	Manot cave	105	E	2	5	SY89b Cervus elpahus vestigial canine male	rigth
	Manot cave	130	C	6	-	j66d	Bos	incisor	-
	Manot cave	131	E	test pit -	c87	Cervus elaphus vestigial canine male	left
	Manot cave	132	E	test pit -	c86	Cervus elaphus vestigial canine male	left

Table 3

 3 Detail description of the pendants perforation of Hayonim and Manot Caves.

	Number	Type	Preparation of the	Perforation procedure	Perforation	Diameter	Distance		Distance	between
			surface		shape	(mm)	between tooth	the perforation and
							buccal	and	the root base (mm)
							lingual edges
							(mm)
	H11	perforation	scraping	bifacial gouging + rotational	subcircular 4 × 3.8	3.5/4		4
				scraping
	H35	perforation	scraping	bifacial gouging + rotational	circular	4 × 4	5/5		8
				scraping
	H53	perforation	-	bifacial rotational scraping	circular	4 × 4	3.5/4		6
	H157	perforation	scraping	bifacial gouging + rotational	subcircular 3 × 3.5	2.5/3		8
				scraping
	H179	perforation	-	bifacial rotational scraping	circular	3 × 3	2/2		6
	H226	unfinished	scraping	-	-	-	-		-
		perforation

Acknowledgments

The analytical work was funded by CNRS UMR 7041 ArScAn équipe Ethnologie préhistorique (Director P. Bodu), MINECO project HAR 2017-86509, Grup de Recerca de Qualitat de la Generalitat de Catalunya SGR2017-00011 (Director J.M. Fullola), and the Irene Levi Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation (project "The Manot Cave's (Lower Galilee) osseous raw material exploitation in the setting of the EUP emergence and diffusion". Director J.-M.Tejero).The Manot Cave excavations are supported by the Dan David Foundation, the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 338/14; 999/18), the Binational Science Foundation (grant. no. 2015303), Case Western Reserve University, the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Foundation, and the Leaky Foundation. J.-M. T. benefited in 2005 from a training stay at New York University under the supervision of Randall White, focusing on the operational sequence of the Aurignacian ornaments. He would like to express his sincere thanks to Randy White for hosting him at the laboratory and for their very productive and stimulating discussions on Aurignacian personal ornaments. The authors are grateful to Vitaly Gutkin (The XPS Laboratory, the Unit for Nanocharacterization, the Harvey M.

Krueger Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) for his help with SEM pictures. We thank Assaf Uzan for photographing the analyzed specimens of Hayonim (Fig. 5). Thanks are due to Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer for her contribution to the study of Levantine Aurignacian ornaments.

processes.

Journal of Human Evolution.

Table 4

Use-wear marks and ocher stains (see Fig. 9).

Number

Use