MILLÁN MOZOTA HOLGUERAS

E. Técnicos Especializados OPIS A2

Departamento de Antropología & Arqueología

IMF-CSIC

Doctor Vinculado IIIPC

Universidad de Cantabria

COVALEJOS (PIÉLAGOS, CANTABRIA)

107 retouchers from 2 archaeological layers (J, K)

MORÍN (VILLAESCUSA, CANTABRIA)

24 retouchers from one archaeological layer (17)

PRADO VARGAS (CORNEJO, BURGOS)

15 retouchers from one archaeological layer (4)

AXLOR (DIMA, BIZKAIA)

492 retouchers from 6 archaeological layers

(N, M, F, D, C, B)

PEÑA MIEL (NIEVA DE CAMEROS, LA RIOJA)

162 retouchers from one archaeological layer (G)

OTHER SITES

Amalda (Gipuzkoa)

Cueva Millán (Burgos)

Valdegoba (Burgos)

El Esquilleu (Cantabria)

Common a priori traits shared by layers with

important assemblages of retouchers:

Abundant faunal assemblages with a

reasonably good preservation.

Most of them: dated to the more recent part of

the Middle Paleolithic (Late Neanderthals).

In most of them: evidences of human

management of space including domestic

structures (the most typical = fireplace).

Central research question: How are these

tools managed from the procuring stage to

its final discard?

Analytical techniques (I)

Taphonomical study of the assemblage –To

clarify which alterations and modifications are related to human agency.

Taxonomic and anatomical assessment of the

tool blanks -–To know the species and

particular bones providing the splinters that

were selected as tools.

Analytical techniques (II)

Morphometric analysis of tools:

Interested on possible:

Selection of blanks, and how it was made

Production of blanks, and how it was made.

Traceological analysis of use traces (more in

the next slide)

A series of experimental programs to both

test my hypothesis and produce new ones.

Main focuses during use-wear analysis

Specific mode of use (percussion vs. pressure, handling, etc.)

Amount of use for each tool.

Actual lithic material that was retouched with the tool.

General type of retouching technique

Operations to upkeep and recycle tools

Final discarding of retouchers.

Shared traits for the assemblages of

retouchers (I)

Bone retouchers are typical, and typically abundant

for Late Middle Paleolithic sites on my area of study.

Not in all the existing sites, but

They are present in most of the Middle Paleolithic

deposits that delivered faunal remains in a

reasonably good state of preservation.

No evidence of pressure retouch. Tools showed traits

related to percussion-based retouch.

Blanks were splinters obtained from green bone.

Almost all of them were used while the bone was still

green or at least not completely dry.

Shared traits for the assemblages of retouchers (II)

There’s a clear preference for

the bones of middle and large sized ungulates, particularly cervids, and also the Bos genus.

In most cases, there’s no evidence of manufacturing processes. Instead, there is a selection of the blanks.

In general terms, these blanks show a low degree of size variability – Strong selection.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

menos de 4 cm

4,01 a 6 cm

6,01 a 8 cm

8,01 a 10

10,01 a 12 cm

más de 12 cm

0

100

200

300

400

500

menos de 2 cm

2,01 a 3 cm 3,01 a 4 cm más de 4 cm

0

100

200

300

400

500

menos de 0,5 cm

0,5 a 1 cm 1,01 cm a 1,5 cm

1,51 a 2 cm

más de 2 cm

Main differences between assemblages (I)

Some assemblages of retouchers showed more

size variability: this fact suggests different degrees of selection between sites and layers.

Main differences

between

assemblages (II)

Peña Miel Layer

G = combination

of selection and

posible

production of

retouchers

(deer metapods)

Main differences between assemblages (III)

Type of retouch made with the tools: Tasks performed in the

different sites and layers can be grouped in two categories:

Retouching strategies similar to Quina retouch (abrupt retouch/

angle-changing strategy/ intensive component/ on thick flakes).

Another category related to a more “simple” non-invasive retouch.

Main differences between assemblages (IV)

Differences in the amount of use of the retouchers:

In some sites/layers individual retouchers are much

more used (before discarding) than in other ones.

1,65 1,7 1,75 1,8 1,85 1,9 1,95 2 2,05

Axlor B

Axlor D

Axlor F

Axlor M

Axlor N

Peña Miel G

Covalejos K

Prado Vargas 4

Main differences between assemblages (V)

Two different strategies to upkeep these tools:

Simply changing the way the retoucher is held, and

using another part of it (per example the opposite end).

Cleaning and smoothing the active area by scraping it

with a lithic tool (before use and in some cases

during…).

Axlor B 0,34 0,07

Axlor D 0,24 0,05

Axlor F 0,12 0,09

Axlor M 0,17 0,18

Axlor N 0,05 0,16

Peña Miel G 0,26 0,03

Covalejos K 0,16 0,15

Prado Vargas 4 0,06 0,06

SYNTHESIS EXAMPLE: AXLOR Level N

Bone retouchers

Ad hoc selected from faunal remains –

Selection of best splinters - technical criteria.

Preference for medium/large ungulates; long

bones and metapods.

Each blank scarcely used (compared to other

sites and layers)– Suggests regular and

relatively abundant incoming of animal

resources.

Retouching -Mostly “simple” retouch; bone

was still green or just partially dry.

SYNTHESIS

EXAMPLE: AXLOR

Level N

Variety of bone

implements: In

addition to bone

retouchers, there

are other tools: a

chisel, and

retouched and un-

retouched scraper-

like tools.

SYNTHESIS EXAMPLE: AXLOR Level N (I)

General information about the layer = a palimpsest of relatively stable

occupations - domestic context - resource consumption and tool upkeep.

SYNTHESIS EXAMPLE: AXLOR Level N

Lithic assemblage:

Varied and (mostly) non specialized tools, no intensive use (in the

time-limited sense).

Combines: a production in local raw materials with the import of

already manufactured tools that are upkeep or recycled on site.

Presence of small & slim lithic points that researchers (Lazuén, Rios

Garaizar) has been associated with projectile weapons for short

distance, stalking hunts.

Fauna:

Hunting is focused on red deer,

Goats and chamois from also present.

Presence of roe deer and wild boar

Combined with lithic evidence = suggest hunting resources acquired

from a wooden environment (+) & rocky environment (-).

SYNTHESIS EXAMPLE: AXLOR Level N

Taphonomic study of faunal remains

Intense processing and consumption of the animal

resources, including its bones.

Bone retouchers and other implements were

separated from the rest of faunal remains at the

beginning stage of domestic processes (much larger

than the typical large flakes on the faunal samples;

much less fire-related alteration).

SYNTHESIS EXAMPLE: AXLOR Level N

General picture:

Consumption-related context for long-term, stable occupations.

Also evidences of upkeep and recycling of tools, both related to

consumption activities and other activities like hunting.

The whole picture also helps to understand the role of the bone

retouchers in the economic management system:

Bone retouchers are ad hoc tools, but they are not fortune

tools, or impromptu tools.

Economic system in planned and organized as a cycle, with

relatively simple but extremely efficient ways of providing

what is needed = regular incoming of animal remains is the

basal condition for the procuring of bone tools. And these

bone tools are an essential part of the management of lithic

resources and lithic tools (and they also seem to cover other minor domestics needs).