Introduction

In studies of past material cultures, there is a dichotomy between the visual and the technological research approaches. The dichotomy between the visual and the technique originates in German philosophies of art, inspired by Kant’s transcendental idealism which focused on the epistemological awareness and not the objects themselves, thus favoring the perception of the objects over the material aspects of their realization (Jamme, 2013; Hendriksen, 2017, 2020). Henceforth, modern art research has been dominated by the study of visual style, greatly influenced by Meyer Schapiro (1953) defining style (reflected in formalistic characteristics) as a classification tool, and while the visual style was given the leading role, the technical aspects were demoted to a secondary, supportive—and sometimes even marginal—position (Belting, 2005; Hendriksen, 2017). In-depth study of production processes was allotted to conservation studies, a research field that flourished as a result of the growth of the museums and the need to develop knowledge and methods pertaining to restoration, preservation, and management of museum articles (Ainsworth, 2021; Schorsch, 2019). In the past decade, there has been an advance in Technical Art History, transpiring from within the museum conservation practices unto academic research, reinforced by Digital Humanities tools (Cardinali, 2017, 2019; Dupré, 2017; Hendriksen, 2020; Hermens, 2012; Jansson, 2021; Streeton, 2022; Weil, 2007).

On the other hand, studies of technological perspective tended to introduce only the practical and the mechanical aspects of production acts (Cardinali, 2019; Costin, 2016 and references therein; Dobres, 2000; Jansson, 2021; Parry, 2008). Indeed, studies of technological style, practiced in archaeological research since the 1970s of the last century (Smith, 1970), focused on classifications of technique implementations, ignoring the visuality of the outcome. Accordingly, stylistic research and research into technology (and technological style) represented different foci of research, i.e., different research objectives and different research methodologies (Belting, 2005; Cardinali, 2019; Dupré, 2017; Fowler, 2019; Hendriksen, 2017, 2020; Jansson, 2021).

Moving beyond the longstanding dichotomy between the visual versus technological methodologies, post-processual archaeology, that accentuates symbolic and social significances, present style as a “way of doing” that communicates the maker and their identity (Hodder, 1985; Sanz & Fiore, 2014; Wiessner, 1990). This aligns with Schapiro’s (1953) conceptualization of style. In both instances, the cognitive, interpretive, symbolic, and human-centric facets of deciphering past cultures are in focus. Schapiro underscores the artist’s agency in the creation of style, a viewpoint that mirrors the post-processual focus on human agency and the influence of individuals and groups in molding material culture. However, unlike Shapiro, post-processual archaeology adopts the technological perspective occasionally combining it with the analysis of visual style (e.g., Sanz & Fiore, 2014; Wiessner, 1990).

Recently, studies (Fiore, 2020; Santos da Rosa et al., 2023) have integrated technological and cognitive factors, encouraging an exploration of what they term “techno-visual affordances.” This aligns with the Greek concept of techné, which encompasses skill application, practical action on materials, technical knowledge, awareness of the creative process, and the resulting outcomes (see Costin, 2016; Dobres, 2000; Fiore, 2020 in archaeology; Staten, 2019 in arts). The combination of these factors in the specific act of production always depends on the context and portrays variations that differentiate it from other parallel acts (Brennan, 2016; Pollitt, 1974). In fact, from the ancient Greeks to the eighteenth century, the techné standpoint was the dominant narrative in art history writing—with the invested skill and the technical processes playing a major part in the creation of “meaning” (e.g., Vasari, 1907/1960). Here, we choose to adopt the techné approach as it enables us to propose a more integrative view on the production act, recombining the technological aspects with the ensuing visuality and intentions standing behind a concrete action of making. This approach will be endorsed through a computational analysis for the understanding of the procedural aspects in the production of rock engravings.

The study of rock engravings is a prominent example of the previously mentioned tendency to separate between stylistic research and research into technology. The distinctive trait of the engravings in archaeological research is their dominant visual component, which demanded a specific research approach, in-between standard art history research and standard archaeological methodologies. It is one of the few fields in archaeology that advocated the visual style approach formulized in the discipline of art history (Francis, 2001), adopting it as a main analytical tool for classifying and interpreting findings (Chippindale & Taçon, 1998; Francis, 2001; Jones, 2017; Jones & Cochrane, 2018; Moro Abadía & González Morales, 2020).

Archaeological studies of rock engravings suggested visual style as an indicator of their cultural origin (since the formal characteristics are the reflection of religious, social, and ethical values of a distinct society) accordingly classifying motifs, identifying images and attributes, and interpreting modes of presentation (see study cases in Anati, 2015, 2023; Angás et al., 2021; Bourdier et al., 2015; Dupuy, 1995; Eisenberg Degen, 2012; Güth, 2012; Lankester, 2012; López et al., 1999; Mandt, 1995; Rothenberg, 1972; Seidl et al., 2015; Tebes, 2017; Tratebas, 1993, 1999; Zeppelzauer et al., 2016; Zotkina et al., 2022). While the organization and classification of the visual data have been implemented using methodologies from the aesthetics/art history fields (e.g., Schneider Adams, 2018), the focus of stylistic research was the product, i.e., the outcome of the “artistic” process. Thus, it is not a coincidence that rock engravings were often classified as traces of “artistic” activity and were labeled as “rock art.”

However, an evaluation of the outcome/product of the engraving process assumes that it is sufficient to interpret only the visual aspects in order to understand the reasoning behind the engraving. Nonetheless, the interpretation of ancient visual language from a contemporary perspective is debatable, considering that visual vocabulary and syntax are deeply intra-cultural (Bednarik, 2011; Layton, 1991). Given the absence of a real possibility to understand the ancient meaning of the forms and their arrangement, our capability to offer an interpretation of the elements of the visual style is extremely limited. This is especially true for non-textual communities’ remains, or in the cases in which only a few examples are available. Any interpretation, beyond being subjective, will be based on models of art creation and consumption in complex societies, and an assumption that the aesthetic principles guiding contemporary scholars, i.e., that they are similar to those which were relevant for past societies (Francis, 2001), can be completely off tangent. Therefore, although research of visual style of rock engravings has at times included descriptive accounts, image classifications, and efforts to understand their meanings through iconography and iconology, we opted for a different direction. We will avoid discussions of imagery and iconography, aligning instead with a more recent research path, that concentrates on the procedural aspects of rock mark-making while examining the perceptive qualities achieved through various techniques and procedures (see Bourdier 2013; Bourdier et al., 2017; Feruglio et al., 2019; Garate et al., 2023; Troncoso & Armstong 2023). We consider this approach beneficial; our contribution lies in providing a detailed examination of procedural consistencies and variations at the micromorphological level, through in-depth analysis of technique and visuality.

Our methods align with a growing tendency in the archaeological studies of engravings to depart from observational methods (Moro Abadía & González Morales, 2020) and the search for the meaning of visual aspects (Tomášková, 2020), rather emphasizing and tracing the acts involved in the making of the engraving/s (Dobres, 2000, 2010; Moro Abadía & González Morales, 2020; Tomášková, 2020). The analysis of mobile engraved artifacts has been based on the identification of overlaps and directionality sequences of the engraved lines (Bello et al., 2020; d’Errico & Cacho, 1994; Farbstein, 2011; Fritz, 1999; Green, 2010, 2016; Lechtman, 1977; Leroi-Gourhan, 1993; Schlanger, 1994). In other cases, the study of the cross-section cuts along the incised paths has been considered as providing indication for the methods of execution. For example, incision’s cross-cuts has been assumed to reveal the nature and state of the material when it was marked (e.g., During & Nilsson, 1991; Greenfield, 2006); allowing characterization of the marks (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2009); providing an estimate of the number of movements involved in creating each incision (e.g., in engraved bones, Bello et al., 2013; Rivero & Garate, 2020; in engraved stone plaquettes, Bello et al., 2020); demonstrating mechanical and gestural properties of tool use (e.g., Bello, 2011; Bello & Soligo, 2008; Rivero & Garate, 2020), and giving evidence of the nature of tools used to create the incision (e.g., Bello & Soligo, 2008; Boschin & Crezzini, 2012; Greenfield, 2006; Lewis, 2008; Moclán et al., 2018; Moretti et al., 2015). The field of taphonomy is especially advancing in development of digital techniques classifying marks (e.g., Arriaza et al., 2017; Barreau et al., 2022; Boschin & Crezzini, 2012; Cifuentes-Alcobendas & Domínguez‐Rodrigo, 2019; Courtenay et al., 2019, 2021; Knüsel & Robb 2016; Maté‐González et al., 2023; Pineda et al., 2023; Yravedra et al., 2017). Similar methodologies have been implemented in some analytical research efforts studying the technological aspects of parietal sites. These studies have contributed to the understanding of the tools and methods used to create rock engravings (Aubry et al., 2011; Bard & Busby, 1974; Bednarik, 1998; Cantin et al., 2022; d’Errico et al., 2002; Fiore, 2007, 2018; Jones & Díaz-Guardamino, 2019; Ruiz López et al., 2019; Santos Da Rosa et al., 2014; Tapper, 2020; Tomášková, 2020; Vergara & Troncoso, 2015; Zotkina & Davydov, 2022; Zotkina & Kovalev, 2019; Zotkina et al., 2020).

While research on visual style continues to predominate in the study of engravings, other archaeological studies have embraced technological analysis methods for several decades (Burke & Spencer-Wood, 2018; Dobres, 2000; Dobres & Hoffman, 1994; Hegmon, 1998; Killick, 2004; Lemonnier, 1993). The term technological style has been advocated from the 1970s of the last century (Smith, 1970 credited with coining the term, see also Childs, 1991; d’Ercole et al., 2017; Green, 2016; Hansen, 2000; Hegmon, 1998; Hurst, 2009; Lechtman, 1984; Lechtman & Merrill, 1977; Moore, 2010; Patel, 2017; Thornton & Lamberg-Karlovsky, 2004; Tschauner, 2006). As there are usually several ways to perform a task, and since the transfer of technological knowledge in pre-industrial societies depends on social structures (e.g., communities of practice), the technologies have been advocated as a product of the social frameworks (Bordes, 1969; Childs, 1991; Close, 2000; Dobres, 1999; Harush & Grosman, 2021; Harush et al., 2019; Lechtman, 1984; Roux, 2020; Valletta et al., 2021; Warnier, 2007; Wendrich, 2012; Wright, 2002).

We propose that through examination of the engraving techniques and the particularities of their application, particularly by analyzing the micromorphological characteristics of engraved surfaces, we can uncover insights into both the sociocultural background of the engravers and their individual actions. Our assumption is that social structure influences production methods and systems, with the production outcome reflecting the individual applications of these methods. We argue that certain social constructs are mirrored in the decisions related to technique selection and their implementations, which can be discerned through an analysis of the micromorphological features of the engravings.

Following the advocates of the production act as integrating cognitive factors (skill, knowledge, awareness of the creative process, and the resulting outcomes) with technological factors (materials and techniques) (see Fiore, 2020 and references therein) and adopting the concept of techné as describing the productive act as a knowledgeable act of “creation of meaning” (Costin, 2016; Dobres, 2000; Staten, 2019), we propose the techné concept as an appropriate approach for studying any singular production act. This allows us to highlight the dynamic interactions between the maker’s cognition and the material world upon which he is working.

We demonstrate this through our newly formulated analytical method with results of a computational analysis of 3-D data obtained from rock engravings and toolmarks in Timna Park, southern Israel (Fig. 1). To enable it, we developed a software and methodology (ArchCUT3-D), presented in detail elsewhere (Dubinsky et al., 2023). We applied this methodology during a two-step analysis: in the first stage, we performed techniques recognition and outlined the micromorphological features within the vertical engraved lines in two engravings and two toolmarks. The variability observed within a specific group of figures required the second step detailed analysis. Our results suggest that the micromorphological characterization of toolmarks left by rock engravers reveals the particular technique mode and enables addressing the features of the visual language.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Timna Park, southern Israel. Map data © MapaGISrael, Google (base: https://maps-for-free.com)

Full size image

Apparently, through study of the technology, it is possible to reach broader understandings that connect both fields—the technological processes and the visual values. Consequently, we have embraced techné for the characterization of fabrication procedure in the broadest sense, incorporating the duality of the technological and the visual.

Materials

The engravings and intentional rock marks are located at Timna Park, southern Israel (Fig. 1), where there is evidence of 500 years of continuous copper mining and smelting activities, from the fourteenth through the nineteenth century BCE (Ben-Yosef et al., 2010; Ben-Yosef et al., 2012; Ben-Yosef et al., 2019). Several rock engravings are scattered across the area. Each engraving complex is considered to be unique, and no connection was observed between the different complexes. Several other intentional rock marks were traced here, including mining marks, inscriptions, and graffiti. We center this study on two of the most remarkable engravings and mining toolmarks with the goal of defining various techniques of rockwork on site.

Egyptian Stela Engraving (Site 200)

A high located engraved Stela (Site 200) was discovered by Rothenberg in 1972 (Fig. 2). This site, as other sites excavated by the Rothenberg team, had been numbered according to the order of the excavation works. The boundaries of the sites are not defined, but there is an account of their content (see Rothenberg, 1972). Site 200 comprises a worship temple, discovered by A. Nussbaumer in 1964 and excavated since 1969 onwards by Rothenberg. The temple structure incorporates elements of Midianite and Egyptian architectural elements and artifacts (Avner, 2014; Rothenberg, 1972; Schulman, 1976; Ventura, 1974). The Stela Engraving is located about 20 m above the temple.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Stela Engraving: annotated 3-D model (a) and photograph (b). Annotation based on the analytical study of the micromorphology. Photo by Liron Narunsky

Full size image

The overall height of the rock engraving is 1 m, and its overall width is slightly more than half a meter. The Stela portrays engravings of ideological and royal motifs from the Ramsesian period, based on Egyptian prototypes (Schulman, 1976; Ventura, 1974).

Previous research presented this Stela through an iconographic analysis of the motifs and the iconology of the scene (Rothenberg, 1972; Schulman, 1976; Ventura, 1974; Wimmer, 2010). The human figures have been identified as king Rameses III on the left and that of the goddess Hathor on the right (Rothenberg, 1972; Schulman, 1976; Ventura, 1974); the figures are depicted facing each other. The Stela also includes two cartouches between the figures—one in the heads’ area and one in the legs’ area (Rothenberg, 1972, Schulman, 1976; Ventura, 1974). A hieroglyphic inscription is placed under the figure’s feet possibly pointing to Ramesses’ messenger who was present at the site (Schulman, 1976).

The Chariots Engraving (Site 25)

The Chariots Engraving is considered the largest engraving in the park’s area (Fig. 3). It was discovered by the Arabah Expedition (1959–1970) led by Rothenberg (Rothenberg, 1972, 2003). The engraving is situated at the bottom of the cliff’s vertical surface in a narrow creek at Site 25, near an ancient copper mine located in the site's center. Today, the Chariots Engraving is located at about 2 m above ground level, yet the original distance from the ground when the engraving was done is unknown.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Chariots Engraving: 3-D model (a), photograph of a detail (b), and annotated Chariots Engraving (c). Annotation based on the analytical study of the micromorphology. Photo by Gadi Kedem

Full size image

The overall dimensions of the engraved scene are 9 m in length and about 2 m high, comprising a total of 72 figures: 31 human figures, 33 animal figures, and 8 chariots. Its graphic language is minimal, composed mostly of linework with occasional filled-in shapes.

Previous studies of the Chariots Engraving were based on iconographic analysis and iconological comparisons. It was interpreted as describing hunting activities alongside a mystic scene attended by Egyptian soldiers and/or representatives of Midianite/Philistines’ local workforce (Anati, 1979, 1999; Rothenberg, 1972, 2003; Tebes, 2017; Yekutieli, 2016).

Mining Shaft NW2 and Mining Shaft N (Site 25)

Walls with toolmarks (Fig. 4) were discovered in the partially collapsed mines near the Chariots Engraving (Rothenberg, 2003). These toolmarks constitute one of the many types of evidence of copper mining in Timna Park. The mines have been dated to the Egyptian New Kingdom (Rothenberg, 2003).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Mine’s walls with toolmarks: mining shaft NW2 (a) and mining shaft N (b)

Full size image

Methods

Three-Dimensional (3-D) Data Acquisition and Registration

The Chariots Engraving was 3-D scanned by POLYMETRIC PT-M4 structured light scanner (for a detailed account of our scanning workflow, see previous publication Dubinsky et al., 2023).

3-D models were created with 0.29-mm point spacing in x-y. The z resolution is 0.036 mm with 0.086-mm depth accuracy. The scanning procedures were conducted at a distance of ca 120 cm from the engraving. The scanner internal program QTSculptor (QTS, Polygon Technology by Polymetric GmbH) had removed redundancies in the measured points, smoothing the mesh without a loss of accuracy, and re-projected the mesh to keep the precision. This registration was done only for the measured data, without any filling. No other filtering, masking, filling, or smoothing processes were employed. The data was registered in a high-resolution mesh, with 0.22 mm average edge length (i.e., the average size of the triangles’ sides in the meshed files).

For the scanning of the Stela and the mine toolmarks, located in hard-to-approach areas, we used the Creaform HandySCAN mobile scanner. The Stela Engraving was scanned while the researchers climbed to the high location on the rock by ladder and top rope (Fig. 5). The accuracy of the created 3-D models is 0.05 mm. This scanning procedure was conducted at a distance of 30–40 cm from the engravings. We were able to place the retro-reflective targets on the un-engraved surfaces of the rock near the lines of the engraving, thus preventing “blind spots” inside the engraved areas. All the optional scan parameters (optimization, fill, decimation, or boundary optimization) were set at the default 0 value. The internal process requires VXelements software to create automatic and direct mesh output represented in real-time, allowing us to check the completeness of the dataset during the scanning process, contributing to the generation of a complete mesh on-site. The final resolution of the Stela Engraving 3-D model is 0.36 mm average edge length and the mine’s toolmarks is 0.25 mm average edge length.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Stela Engraving scanning process. Photo by Liron Narunsky

Full size image

3-D model of each figure in the engraving was trimmed by MeshLab software with a few centimeters of background (e.g., untreated rock surface) around it, without affecting the geometry of the files. The trimming was done to allow for focused observation and analysis.

Analysis of the Engravings

In order to examine the engraved lines, the authors used an originally developed ArchCUT3-D: MATLAB® based software (available for download here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/archcut3-d/). This software characterizes the geometry of an engraving by extracting 3-D slices from the available 3-D data (see Dubinsky et al., 2023).

The ArchCUT3-D software is designed to allow the examination of the object through a two-step process: (1) slicing of the engraved line to obtain a visual representation of the incision’s 3-D micromorphology and (2) extracting measurements from the obtained slices (Fig. 6). Utilizing the first step, we have studied all the existing lines in the engravings to identify the variety of techniques employed in each engraving. For the quantification analysis, we selected sequences along chosen lines.

Fig. 6
figure 6

ArchCUT3-D analysis overview. Left: software interface (a). Right: output of the analysis: individual slice representation (b); AS representation (c); computational analysis: aperture angle in a relative scale enhancing the form of the slice (d), in true-to-scale mode (e), and depth and FWHM measurements extraction (f)

Full size image

Our goal was to identify the technique used to create the incisions through morphological examination of slices and their sequences and to detect variations in technique implementation by extracting measurements. The techniques were identified based on the inputs of ArchCUT3-D and their association with known stone-working techniques by one of the authors (LD) whose expertise is based on years of practical experience in engraving of Supraduro gypsum. The number of lines selected for quantified analysis from each engraving was dependent on the specific circumstances such as the total number of the engraved figures as well as the number of the individual incisions, their distribution, the state of their conservation, and their micromorphological particularities.

Recognizing the possibility for variations in the morphology of the active zone of the tool during the production of engravings, we apply a multi-faceted analysis that encompasses both morphological and quantified examinations. Accordingly, we are able to take into account local changes, including the wear of the tool. Our analytical framework prioritizes the identification of recurring characteristics that manifest consistently across samples, rather than isolated or potentially anomalous features. Furthermore, our approach is based on the analysis of sequences of slices rather than isolated cuts. This sequential analysis enables us to trace the evolution of morphological characteristics over time, thereby facilitating their gradual nature. By focusing on patterns that emerge across these sequences, our method enhances the accuracy of technique identification, ensuring that transient variations do not skew the interpretation of the data. Through this process, we ensure that our conclusions are drawn from a synthesis of evidence, where corroborative morphological and quantitative data converge to support the identification of specific techniques.

In our methodology, identifying the engraving techniques involved a comprehensive examination of all engraved lines through micromorphological analysis. Technique recognition was based on morphological characteristics including the slice shape, the number of minima points (MP) in each slice, the variations in MP number and placement along the path, and the continuity and variations in the morphology of AS (for details see Dubinsky et al., 2023). As a result of technique recognition, more confined sections were subject to a detailed study, followed by quantified analysis to determine the dimensions, and then statistical examination to interpret these findings. The vertical line was selected as the primary unit for quantified analysis. Our assumption is that they display the rock-marking gestures optimally and most advantageously since during their production, the mark-makers are not required to adjust their movements to the direction of the line path. Being ergonomically straightforward, it more accurately reflects variations in technique rather than variations in path direction, a distinction we have demonstrated in our previous work (Dubinsky et al., 2023).

The second phase of the analysis (see the “Chariot’s Engraving Human Figure Analysis Method” section) investigates engravers’ rationale for employing a variety of techniques. This phase offers an in-depth analysis of the engravers’ decision-making processes throughout the engraving of the Chariots Engraving, with a specific focus on the human figures. In this phase, every line and shape that constitute the human figures was examined through micromorphological analysis and quantification.

Vertical Lines Analysis

Our analysis originally focused on the Chariots Engraving, encompassing more than 83 figures. Recognizing the need for a comparative element to thoroughly examine theories related to diverse technological choices found in the Chariots Engraving, and the nuanced interpretation of engraving practices involving multiple techniques, we selected the Stela Engraving and mine toolmarks for comparison. The Stela Engraving exemplifies the act of engraving using a singular technique, whereas the mine toolmarks, aimed at the practical task of material extraction from rock, provide a functional perspective for interpreting the engraving technique on the Stela.

The sample size for extracting quantitative data was determined based on the findings to facilitate comparison. Considering that most figures within the Chariots Engraving feature at least one vertical line, and occasionally more, we chose to analyze one vertical line from each figure. This selected length strategically avoids edges and line intersections.

For the Stela, all vertical lines were sampled to select those for quantitative analysis. The vertical lines analyzed through quantitative assessment represent different areas of each of the two Stela figures: upper part, upper middle, lower middle, and lower parts. Given that this engraving experienced more environmental damage compared to the Chariots Engraving, evident in phenomena such as water paths intersecting the lines, sections were chosen that exhibit a repeated pattern undisturbed by erosion (Fig. 7). Similarly, we avoided edge areas and areas where lines intersect.

Fig. 7
figure 7

AS micromorphology extracted from two adjacent areas. Left: AS extracted from natural rock surface (a). Right: AS extracted from an engraved path (b)

Full size image

The comparative sample from toolmarks is more limited, including one representative line from each of the mines.

With ArchCUT3-D, the vertical lines were further segmented to avoid line edges or line-crossings. Then automatic sequence (AS) of slices and representation of each individual slice was extracted within each selected segment. The software ensured the presentation of the entire morphological sequence in this mode, not just the individual sections or cuts.

In the Chariots Engraving, AS was produced from 30 human figures, 33 animal figures, and 6 chariots, disregarding figures with no vertical lines (see explanation above). Each figure was marked according to its affiliation and count (e.g., HF60 = human figure, 60th figure from the left; HF = human figure; AF = animal figure; Ch = Chariot). The slicing width was determined according to the size of the incision and ranged from 8 to 20 mm. Slicing tolerance was set to 1 mm (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

AS path marked on the longest vertical line of the AF23 in the Chariots Engraving, avoiding line-crossings

Full size image

In the Stela Engraving, AS was produced from vertical engraved lines in both human figures (see explanation above). Each path was marked according to its affiliation, whether Hathor vertical lines (Hv) or Ramses vertical lines (Rv), and numbered (e.g., Hv0.2 = Hathor figure, vertical line, second from the top). The slicing width was determined according to the size of the incision and ranged from 8 to 20 mm. The slicing tolerance was set to 0.5 mm to provide an accurate analysis of the irregularities that had been observed.

In order to have a comparative sample, a slicing of vertical miner toolmarks found in two of the mines on Site 25 was executed. The toolmarks were sliced in analysis width set to 20–30 mm. The slicing was of 1-mm tolerance.

Slices for further quantitative analysis (aperture angle, depth, and full width at half maximum (FWHM) were selected as follows: when the AS was found to be consistent—the sampled slices were selected at a regular interval; when the AS showed significant fluctuations—the most indicative (salient) slices were chosen.

Chariot’s Engraving Human Figure Analysis Method

As the results (see below) indicated variability in the computational data in vertical incisions of human figures in the Chariots Engraving (compared with the consistency in other figures), we have decided to analyze the morphological characteristics and measurements in every line that constitutes the human figures herein (31 figures, comprising 6–12 engraved lines each). Same workflow was implemented on every line of the human figures similar to that applied to the vertical lines referred to above (see the “Vertical Lines Analysis” section) (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
figure 9

AS path marked on lines that constituting the HF60 in the Chariots Engraving, avoiding line-crossings

Full size image

Results

Vertical Lines- Technique Recognition Results

The examination of AS extracted from the incisions of the Hathor and Ramses figures in the Stela Engraving showed a consistent cyclic “waves” configuration. Each “wave” is in a straight path (no significant change in the minima point on x and y axes) with a deep indentation followed by slices descending in depth. The indentations appear on the path in regular distances (Fig. 10a). The majority of the slices have a single MP, with only a few slices with two MPs. The same morphological characteristics were observed in the AS from the mines’ toolmarks (Fig. 10b). On the other hand, the AS morphology of the vertical lines of the Chariots Engraving presents a continuous linear sequence, with path continuity of MP points that vary in number—single, double, or multiple (Fig. 10c).

Fig. 10
figure 10

Examples of an extracted AS: from Stela Engraving (Hathor figure) (a); NW2 mine’s toolmarks (b); Chariots Engraving (HF60) (c)

Full size image

The above suggests a single uniformed technique in the Stela and the mine’s toolmarks, the “chisel-and-hammer” technique (i.e., chasing technique). The morphology of the waves indicates that they are a result of the application of focused force in one spot, as the “center of the blow” is clearly shown where the slice is deeper than its other parts, while initiating at the same level of the surface. The following slices reflect the shape of the line created with the impact of the blow. Occasional entry of additional MP signifies overlaps between the next blow and the previous impact.

In the Chariots Engraving, we detected a different technique—the stroking technique—with three different implementation methods. The stroking technique can be identified by MP drawn along several slices, indicating a continuous marking gesture. The MP count indicates the number of times the tool’s tip went over the given incision line. Thus, changes of MP count along the path helpidentify the particularities of the stroking technique implementation in each case: a single MP indicates a single-stroking method; two MPs indicate a double-stroking method, and three and more MPs indicate multiple stroked incisions.

To summarize the result of the technical recognition of vertical lines, we have found that the Stela Engraving was created using the chisel-and-hammer technique. In the toolmarks on the mine’s walls, we recognized the same execution technique as on the Stela. The Chariots Engraving vertical lines were created using the stroking technique, which appears in three different implementation methods: single-strokes, double-strokes, and multiple-strokes.

Vertical Lines- Measurements Extraction Results

The results of the quantitative analysis conducted on four “center of the blow” slices in eight segments of the Stela Engraving portrayed consistency in measured depth and width in all the segments, with low values in the standard deviation (Fig. 11a, b). The execution of the Hathor figure is more consistent compared to that of Ramses.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Slice’s measurements extracted from vertical incisions in Stela and the toolmarks found in the mines: depth values of Stela Engraving (a), FWHM values of Stela Engraving (b), aperture angle values of Stela Engraving (c), depth values of the mines (d), FWHM values of the mines (e), and aperture angle values of the mines (f). Rv represents the vertical lines extracted from Rameses figure; Hv represents the vertical lines extracted from Hathor figure; the mine’s incisions marked by the mine’s location on site 25

Full size image

In the mines, as expected, higher values were obtained compared to those obtained from the Stela. Analysis of the “blow center” slices showed internal consistency of the quantitative data in each of the incisions. However, differences were revealed between marks produced in the Northwestern and Northern mines (Fig. 11d, e).

Comparative analysis between the Chariots, Stela, and the mine toolmarks (Figure 12) showed that the mine toolmarks are considerably deeper (Figure 12a) than all the other engraved elements (probably due to the different purpose of the marking act—extracting material in the mines vs. visualization in the engravings). The Chariots Engraving and the Stela show great similarity in depth, indicated by the low SD measurements (Figure 12a). The same trend is observed in the width measurements of the engravings (12b), except the greatest variability in width that is present in the human figures of the Chariots Engraving (see below detailed analysis). A comparative study of the aperture angles obtained from the engravings figure’s incisions and the mine’s toolmarks showed sharper angles in those of the toolmarks (Figure 12c).

Fig. 12
figure 12

Measurements extracted from vertical lines of the Chariots Engraving, Stela Engraving, and the miner toolmarks. Depth values (a); FWHM values (b); aperture angle values (c); the results show consistency of the data within the animal and chariots figure, as well as between the figures in Stela; variations can be identified on the FWHM values of human figures in the Chariots and the depth values in the mine toolmarks

Full size image

The final phase of the vertical lines analysis was to separate the measurements of depth and width per technique. Lines made by chisel-and-hammer technique showed consistency across the incisions of both figures in the Stela Engraving. The mine toolmarks showed higher values of depth and width than those of the Stela Engraving as clustered in Figure 13. Vertical lines made by the stroking technique in the Chariots Engraving showed more consistency in the animal and chariot figures than in the human figures measurements (Figure 14).

Fig. 13
figure 13

Distribution of the slice’s measurements: blue represents the vertical lines of Rameses figure; orange represents the vertical lines from Hathor; grey and yellow represent vertical incisions extracted from the mines

Full size image
Fig. 14
figure 14

Depth and FWHM values extracted from each group of figures in Chariots Engraving

Full size image

Detecting and Measuring Technique Variability in Human Figures of Chariots Engraving

Following the results of variability, recognized in vertical lines measurements, AS was extracted from each body element of the human figures in Chariots Engraving. Technological identification was performed, and measurements of representative slices of each element were extracted. Consequently, two techniques were identified—the pecking and stroking techniques (Figure 15).

Fig. 15
figure 15

Technique classification: exemplified by slices and AS from the Chariots Engraving’s HF60: representative slice from “body” incision—multiple-stroke technique (a); representative slice from “posterior leg” incision—double-stroke technique (b); representative slice from “posterior arm” incision—single-stroke technique (c); representative slice from “head” incision—pecking technique (d); AS of pecked shape—“head” incision (e); AS of stroked line—“posterior arm” incision (f)

Full size image

The pecking technique shows an AS configuration that does not have linear consistency; the MPs do not continue between the slices. The form of the slices is characterized by a significant width and multiple MPs.

The stroking technique is identified by MP continuity along several slices, indicating a continuous marking gesture. Following the count of MP in the slices, we recognized three methods of implementation of the stroking technique: single-stroking, double-stroking, and multiple-stroking.

In 94% of the human figures, three or four variations of pecking and stroking techniques were identified (45% contain all four variations). Only 6% portray two variations.

The analysis of technical variability as a function of figures’ elements (representing different body parts) showed consistency in the implementation of the multiple-stroking and the pecking for marking the head and the body, as opposed to the diversity in the choices in the execution of the other human’s figures elements (Figure 16).

Fig. 16
figure 16

Technical variability: represented as a function of a human figure’s element in Chariots Engraving

Full size image

FWHM values as an outcome of the applied engraving methods showed that the widest marks were created using multiple-stroking and pecking. As expected, the single-stroked incisions are narrower than other mark-making methods (Figure 17a). FWHM values of the different elements of the human figures showed that the widest marks were consistently used to create the head and the body (Figure 17b).

Fig. 17
figure 17

FWHM values represented as a function of engraving method in the human images of the Chariots engraving (a); FWHM values as a function of an element in the human figures of the Chariots engraving (b)

Full size image

Summarizing, great variability was detected in the engraver’s choice of engraving methods for different body parts of the human figures. However, the patterns of technical combinations were overall consistent and repetitive, with regularity in the measurement values.

Discussion

We have shown that the examination of the micromorphology with advanced computational tools helps identify and sort engraving techniques used at Timna Park. The results of this technological identification unequivocally exposed considerable differences between engraved clusters. In Stela Engraving, we identified a single execution technique—the chisel-and-hammer technique—that was also recognized in the comparative sample, the mine’ toolmarks. While in the Chariots Engraving, two different techniques were identified—stroking and pecking. The stroking was performed in three different operative methods—single, double, and multiple stroking. These two techniques with their various method implementations are identified as distributed throughout the entire engraved scene.

Our results revealed that the pecking and the multiple stroking produced wider—and thus—more visible lines. As such, when we are approaching the discussion of the product of technological structures, we must first establish that one cannot make a dichotomic separation between the technological aspects and the visual outcome. We must move beyond a simplistic division between the “technological” and the “visual,” and instead explore the ways in which these aspects are intertwined.

Our study has underscored the interplay between technology and visuality, affirming the significance of integrating these aspects in the analysis of rock engravings. In light of this, we follow a methodological approach encapsulated by the term techné, which emphasizes the complex and interrelated processes of fabrication and meaning-making. This approach, while not unprecedented, aligns with and builds upon existing scholarly works that have similarly recognized the importance of considering both technological and visual elements as integral parts of the fabrication process (see the “Introduction” section). The application of techné seeks to further engage with and contribute to ongoing archaeological discussions on this topic.

In order to suggest that the visual variability is intentional, and achieved through deliberate technical choices, we should first discuss both the consistent and variable patterns of our data.

Consistency and Variability

Commonly, it is assumed that consistency of the engraving action reflects the high level of engraving expertise and previous experience of the maker, while major fluctuations resulting in an irregular, messy, and wobbling execution indicate an unskilled engraver, compensating for the inability to leave a desirable mark through repeated stroking (Rivero & Garate, 2020). In our previous analysis (Dubinsky et al., 2023), we presented the graffiti “Gigi” found near the Chariots Engraving made by an inexperienced passerby by the stroking technique. The low level of skill of the execution is easily observed through the differences and inconsistencies of the engraved line measurements (Dubinsky et al., 2023). These results, as well as other experimental studies (Rivero & Garate, 2020), indicate that an operation based on prior experience shows consistency in the performance of the engraving. They suggest that a consistent pattern in strokes application in Stela figures and two groups of figures in the Chariots Engraving (see Figure 12) results from a skilled arm and hand movement, grounded in previous practical experience.

We have found that there is consistency of the depth and width values extracted from eight sliced sections of the Stela incisions. Results showing slightly more consistency in the execution of Hathor when compared to Ramses raise the question of whether the two figures were engraved by the same hand. Based on the obtained results, we cannot determine it with certainty. The other option to consider is that the slight differences in the quantitative parameters of the incision’s slices belonging to the Ramses figure can be related to other factors such as the accessibility of the engraved surfaces or the position of the engraver in relation to the rock during her/his work (which can fluctuate as the engraved area is not accessible from the ground and probably required some sort of scaffolding). Poor accessibility can affect factors such as hand positioning, change in the tool grip, and a change of the angle of the tool’s working edge, which influences the regulation of the engraver’s blowing gesture.

Quantification of the aperture angle is informative as to the shape of the tool’s working edgeoperated against the rock surface. A comparison of the slice’s angle within the Stela incisions showed only slight variations, which can result from differences in the grip of the tool (as said, since the variation is slight, we cannot determine with certainty that it indicates another hand). To exemplify this point, we can refer to the shape of modern chisels. Having a wide face and a narrow face any change in the grip of the tool or in the direction of the incision can affect the angle of the tool’s working edge touching the stone resulting in fluctuations of the aperture angle of the incisions.

The mine toolmarks are deeper and wider than the Stela engraved lines, created by the same chisel-and hammer-technique. Herewith, our assumption is that the mine toolmarks, as intentional and functional marks, bear characteristics of a regulated action defined by its efficiency in removing rock material; given the functional purpose of the mining incisions (to remove as much material as possible) as opposed to the purpose of the Stela Engraving act (accuracy of the image-making act), it is clear that intensity of the hitting gesture required in these two cases substantially differs. Thus, during the mining operation, the main emphasis is on the power applied while subtracting the rock surface and not on the visibility or accuracy of the marks on the rock surface. At the same time, the noticeable differences between the mining incisions of the two mines can suggest different hands. Assuming that overall, the goal is to remove as much material as possible, it is probably testifying to two miners whose blowing intensity was different—whether due to physiological differences or any other factors.

The angles measured in the mining marks significantly differ from the angles measured in the Stela Engravings. The similarity of the angle in the marks from the two mines indicates the probability that the miners used a standardized tool.

The sharper angle of the mining marks corresponds to the main action of chipping off maximum rock’ material. On the other hand, the wider angle of the Stela incisions aimed assumingly, to achieve more visible, distinct lines.

The quantitative parameters of the Chariots incisions reveal consistency in the angle and depth dimensions. Interestingly, the results of the slice’s width within the group of the human figures are of significant variability, while those of the other elements—the chariot and the animal figures—show consistency. Since the chariot and the animal figures are arrayed across the entire engraved area of the Chariots Engraving, the detected consistency allows to assume that this engraving is an outcome of an operation of a single engraver or a group using the same engraving protocol.Footnote 1 This consistency enables us to examine the Chariots Engraving (excluding a few exceptions that will be mentioned further) as a unified product or as a product of a continuous act, in which an exception can prove the rule. At the same time, the consistency in the portraying of the animals and the chariots requires to understand the variability observed in the human figures. Assuming a single authorship, how can we understand the variability detected in this one group?

Techniques and Visual Language

We have learned that the same modes of execution were evenly distributed according to the figure’s elements. Almost all the human figures of the Chariots Engraving show a combination of at least three mark-making methods. In the majority of cases, the pecking technique was chosen to mark the head, while the multiple stroking was chosen to mark the body. The only exceptions are two figures—HF66 and HF83—which portray only two mark-making methods. When first recorded those figures were named “the rider” and “the shaman” because of the different visual language and their distinct, apart, placement. A possible explanation for this exception is that these two figures were created by a different mark-maker. It seems that the pecking and the multiple-stroking produce wider marks in the depiction of human figures. Is the use of these particular techniques due to practical reasoning such as minimal labor investment?

Discussing the possible reasoning behind the variability in the number of strokes invested in each line, we should discuss how many strokes are needed to achieve any visibility. The soft Nubian sandstone of the Chariots Engraving and its vertical surface allowed the engraver to invest more pressure during the engraving of vertical, top-to-bottom lines, resulting in an easy and efficient execution of the said lines. Thus, in order to achieve any visibility, it would have been sufficient to invest only one gesture, given the optimal stroking conditions (from top to bottom) and following the principle of economy of effort. Conversely, less convenient conditions will require repetitions of the stroking act in order to obtain similar visibility. Nevertheless, our analysis of the FWHM values as a function of the technique showed that the labor-intense techniques achieve a wider and thus more visible marks on the rock. Important to note that wider incisions gather more shadow, while the shadow is what creates the visibility. Accordingly, the body lines were incised more widely into the rock surface when compared to lines marking the limbs, which implies that the lines of the body, produced by a more laborious technique, achieved enhanced visibility. We can assume that investment of repetitive gestures in producing body lines indicates an intention to manage the degree of visuality (through the employment of labor-intensive techniques). As for the head elements, theoretically, it seems more efficient to produce them by fast marking technique, such as a contouring line. However, in most of human figures, the head was produced with the more time-consuming pecking technique, producing a filed-in (and as such—more visible) element.

It seems that the chosen techniques do not follow practical operational considerations (intentional minimal labor investment) but entitle other factors that guided the engraving process (Fiore, 2007; Rivero & Garate, 2020). We suggest that there was an intentional technological choice related to the visual intensity of an incision. The mark-making methods (different line execution and shape formation) decode figurative expression, structuring the visual language of the Chariots Engraving.

Understanding the production processes in this way provides valuable information on the engraver’s mastering of the visual language and the use of the visual rhetoric. We suppose that technological structures may serve, potentially, a key for recognizing visual canons, deriving from the cultural background of the engraver and the representational systems drawn from them (Gombrich & Bell, 1976; Semper, 2004). The wider incisions in the body lines may reflect an attempt to create an emphasis on that element and may be inferred as a key feature in the legibility of the sign. Similar suggestions can be made when examining the changes in the production technique in the head area. The choice of pecking—rather than the engraver’s primary method of stroking—in order to create the dominancy of the head, follows the same logic. As a result, it establishes a note of accord in the visual grammar of the engraved figure. This choice would mark the head as the visually dominant element, while the body would be classified as a subdominant element, with subordinate lines creating the other elements of the figure. The visual hierarchy of the elements structures the components of visual literacy. Consequently, we can link the former to the techniques used in their production. The quantified data acquired from the analysis of technique distribution by element reflect visual emphasis on specific elements and thus—visual codes embodied through the hierarchical design of elements of the human figures. The technological variations, in what seems to be a limited grouping of schematic elements, form visual statements that regulate these elements’ recognition and reading, creating perceptive characteristics (Figure 18).

Fig. 18
figure 18

HF60 technique distribution as an example of the most common technique distribution in Chariot’s human figures

Full size image

In sum, it appears that labor intense techniques of multiple stroking and pecking, used repeatedly for the body and head elements, did not create just any sort of visibility but were used as a tool for creating emphasized, directed visibility. Our results allow us to acknowledge the techniques distribution in the Chariots Engraving as a tool to decode visuality.

We have shown that the study of the engraving acts enables an understanding of the techniques and, as a follow-up—the particularities of visual language and visual rhetoric that they regulate. We have indicated, with computational tools, that these two aspects are entwined and inseparable.

As mentioned above, the stylistic research has its roots in art history, while the research of techniques and technological styles has been endorsed in the archaeological domain. But is the separation between the practical knowledge, its individual application (singular variations and skills), and visual rhetoric of the outcome fundamental, decisive, or necessary? Our results show that while the technical can be principal, objective, and generalized (Ingold, 1997), it also contains particularities of personal, skilled tool-use as well as reasoning of meaning-creation throughout the visual aspects of the outcome. Therefore, the Greek concept of techné (see the “Introduction” section) is not limited to practical skill with a material. It is both concrete and variable; its application depends on the intellectual, cultural, and individual context. Allowing to revoke the division between the technological and the visual, it is found to be useful in defining analytical tools for unveiling the techniques, bound with the subjective reasoning behind their implementation (including the visuality of the outcome). Surely it can represent the united nature of the technical action with the visual language it constructs. Recognizing the regularities and variabilities in technique implementation enables the revelation of the visual reasoning that, possibly, guided these actions. Thus, one can seek for links between societal structures and their values, as they are portrayed by the individual productive process. This is where great research potential is to be found.

Unlocking the Perspectives Behind the Technical Process

We can further speculate about the nature of operative choices driven by cultural and cognitive factors and discuss possible links between pragmatic and conceptual aspects of the engraving act.

Technique identification allows us to gauge the operational knowledge structures that can be related to each of the engravings. The technological tendencies in the Stela, made by the chisel-and-hammer technique, and the Chariots Engraving, made by pecking and stroking methods, indicate differences in the technological background of the engravers. These differences suggest that they likely originated from two distinct communities, each characterized by its own visual language and engraving techniques.

In the literature, the most frequently mentioned rock and stone engraving techniques are stroking, scraping, and pecking (called otherwise “direct percussion”) (Baird & Taylor, 2011; Fiore, 2007 and references therein; Morris, 1988). The wide use of stroking and pecking techniques is usually associated with absence of previous experience (see experiments in Bednarik, 1998 and references therein; Fiore, 2007; Rivero & Garate, 2020; and discussions in Huntley, 2017; Keegan, 2014), and no need for dedicated tools, as any pointed hard object can suffice (e.g., Bard & Busby, 1974; Bednarik, 1998; Fiore, 2007 and references therein; Keegan, 2014). Occasionally, the resulting marks are referred to unflatteringly as “scratching” or “scribbling” (Baird, 2018; Baird & Taylor, 2011; Ragazzoli et al., 2017; Stern, 2018). Studies focused on low-placed engraved complexes, comprised of stroked and pecked marks, interpret them as graffiti produced by children (for ancient Roman Pompeii and Compania see Huntley, 2012, 2017; for 20th century Parisian streets, see Hopkins, 2015). This conclusion supports the presumption that stroking and pecking techniques can be considered intuitively natural and do not necessarily require previous experience.

Difficulties to distinguish meaningful (to research) stroked engravings from common graffiti, doodling, or vandalism—sometimes causing dismissing of engraved complexes (Fernandes, 2009; Hopkins, 2015)—are yet another reflection of presumptions regarding the low-skill nature of this engraving technique. In closer connection to our study case, this perception is well exemplified in the contemporary erasure of the left upper part of the Chariots Engraving panel since it was suspected to be a product of a vandalistic act (Holzer, personal communication; Rothenberg, 2003).

On the other hand, the chisel-and-hammer technique is commonly associated with the development of metal and considered high-skilled practice that requires expertise and knowledge transfer (Meilach, 1970; Miller, 1948; Rockwell, 1990, 1993). Starting with the Egyptian Pharaonic era and onwards, it became the dominant and standard manual technique in the professional training of stoneworkers, stone sculptors, and engravers up to the present days with no, or just minor, changes (Adam, 1966; Dunn, 2010; Lucas, 1948; Miller, 1948; Rockwell, 1990, 1993; Shaw, 2012; Smith, 1949; Stocks, 2003, 2020; Van Voorhis, 2018). The catalyst for the standardization of chisel-and-hammer technique in ancient Egypt was the technological evolution in the field of metal processing that allowed hardening the metal, resulting in the development of metal chisels (Adam, 1966; Etienne, 1968; Freed, 1984; Lucas, 1948; Miller, 1948; Smith, 1949; Stocks, 2020, Weinstein, 1974). This technique became further common through time until our days, called a “universal technique” due to its optimal labor efficiency, alongside potential precision (Rockwell, 1993). Stela’s surroundings were previously shown to be institutional, both through the studies of labor organization of the mining and smelting activities in Timna (Ben-Yosef et al., 2010, Ben-Yosef et al., 2012, Ben-Yosef et al., 2019; Rothenberg, 1972, 2003), and through the recognition of the royal content of the Stela Engraving (Rothenberg, 1972; Schulman, 1976; Ventura, 1974; Wimmer, 2010). The availability of copper technologies, during the quarrying activities at Timna, supports our hypothesis that the Stela engraver originated from a community with the knowledge and capability to manage complex metalwork. Interesting to note that the iconography compliments our technological observations. The formal/institutional technique we identified, probably depended on the advancements in metalworking, employed to produce formal/institutional content. Once again, it can verify the Egyptian royal representative attendance in the Timna area. While during our study we chose not to refer to the iconography, but to the technological aspects only, we can now point out that both aspects complement each other—the identified formal/institutional technique, used to create the formal/institutional content.

The predictability of the visual outcome, required by the institutional visual language, depends on the consistency of the technical action. In the current case—a stable implementation of a single technique. Here, we harness for the current discussion the theoretical perspective, originating in the theory of craftmanship. The standardization of effort/execution detected in the Stela Engraving is a sign of social structures that demand “workmanship of certainty” (Pye, 1968). Technical standardization serves as a testament to the necessity of “certainty,” or the regulation and predictability of execution, which is crucial for the establishment to ensure the final product aligns with its dictates, impositions, and edicts. Our assumption links the chisel-and-hammer technique to the standardization of visual canons in Ancient Egypt. The uniformity of the technique hints that the emphasis is placed on imagery as the primary tool for meaning-making. Unsurprisingly, the Stela Engraving relies on familiar visual catalogs that originated within the hierarchical system of the Egyptian establishment, while our results hint at the standardization of the operational act as one that serves the institutionalized visual language.

Nevertheless, the technical variabilities (and their distribution) in the Chariots Engraving testify to a different kind of complexity. While we have established expertise, indicated by executive consistency (see the “Consistency and Variability” section), we have also observed technological variability in the human figures suggesting non-operative, but visual, considerations (see the “Techniques and Visual Language” section). This demonstrates the second definition of Pye’s theory—the “workmanship of risk” (Pye, 1968:20). It is a “free process” workmanship (ibid.) that creates diversity on the smallest visible scale, recognized only at “very close range” (ibid., 64). Hence, we can envision Chariots Engraving as the product of an engraver who implemented a protocol that features mutual relationships between the imagery and the technique. Unlike in the case of Stela, where the regulation of imagery dictates a predictable and uniform technical execution, in Chariots Engravings, the technical aspects and visual elements are much more interconnected, and variations in technique control the image readability. The visual language is minimal and, at first sight, appears similar to a wide range of other engraved findings worldwide (referred to as “stick-figures”) and assigned to different groups. Nonetheless, through micromorphological inspection, these can be distinguished from other stick-like engravings. We have demonstrated that the employment of techniques as rhetorical tools of the engraving medium indicates that this engraver controls both aspects, while the technological one regulates the perceptual aspects of the workmanship, potentially evolving during the engraving act itself.

Summary

The present study, focusing on two engravings in Timna Park, enabled us to construct a framework for studying technological choices, defining and analyzing their outcome with a computational tool. We have shown that it is possible to identify not only the technique that was used but also the characteristics of the visual language that guided the application of the techniques. We believe that the individual representational schemes, carried out by the engraver, can provide us with socio-cultural insights gained through the study of technique variations and the characterization of quantitative parameters.

Developments in digital tools harnessed for archaeological studies make it possible to advance our research approach and to offer progressive methods for exploring engraved surfaces, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the actions, skills, and techniques required to produce them.

While recognizing the standardization of execution methods in the Stela Engraving, our methodology revealed that the Chariots engraver’s decisions during the production process did not follow purely practical technological constraints. Indicative characteristics of production conventions and the variabilities in the technique application can serve as clues to the conceptual schemes that guided the engraver and may provide a link between execution techniques and visual considerations. The visual modes, when defined or inferred through differences in the execution of features and elements, enable discussion on the “techno-visual codes” as a signature of mark-makers. The concept of techné can be fruitful for creating links between the principled and the personal aspects of know-how, with the ultimate aim of identifying social codes. Thus, it is being not only informative as to application aspects, but, on a closer look, conceals cognitive perceptions and perspectives that can be beneficial for socio-cultural characterization of the engravers.

Given the long history of occupation in Timna area, and as most engraved clusters within it are considered to be unique, it is difficult to provenance their makers based solely on stylistic characteristics. Our approach, i.e., a comparison between the production techniques of the engravings and the micromorphological properties of its lines, can aid and provide sound platform for comparison. A computational method for identifying ancient technologies means there is the ability to differentiate between particular techniques reflecting cultural conventions, incorporating aspects of material availability, geographical locations (see Dubinsky et al., 2023), level of technological development, societal connections, and learning networks.

The analysis presented above moves us a significant step forward on the way to identifying the “fingerprints” of engraved complexes and unlocking hidden concepts behind the creative process.