- Email: [email protected]
Archaeological data on the exploitation of the goose barnacle Pollicipes pollicipes (Gmelin, 1790) in Europe
Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
Archaeological data on the exploitation of the goose barnacle Pollicipes pollicipes (Gmelin, 1790) in Europe ˜ o´n-Peredo a, Jose´ Molares-Vila b Esteban A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez a, *, Roberto Ontan a
´ricas de Cantabria (IIIPC), Unidad asociada al CSIC Edif. Interfacultativo, University of Cantabria, Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehisto Av. de los Castros S/N, 39005 Santander, Spain b ´ns Marin ´n, Pedras de Coro ´n S/N, Vilanova de Arousa, Pontevedra, Spain ˜as de Coro Centro de Investigacio
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 9 June 2009 Received in revised form 28 September 2009 Accepted 6 October 2009
Barnacles of the species Pollicipes pollicipes are crustaceans that nowadays live on wave-beaten rocky substrates in the intertidal and low-shore zones on the coasts of Atlantic Europe and North Africa. At the present time, the exploitation of this species is profitable, especially in northern Spain where this seafood is highly valued, as well as expensive. However, the gathering of this resource, which is carried out manually by the percebeiros or ‘‘goose barnacle fishers’’ entails great risks. The exploitation of goose barnacles is, however, not a recent activity, as evidence of it has been seen in southwest Europe in the Mesolithic (about 8000 BP), and above all from the early Neolithic (about 6000 BP). This paper analyses the archaeological evidence of barnacles (tergum, scutum and carina, calcareous plates located in the capitulum) that have been found at one Spanish Neolithic site located in the north of the Iberian Peninsula (Los Gitanos Cave, in Cantabrian Spain). Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Crustaceans Goose barnacles Human diet Marine resources Holocene Palabras clave: Crusta´ceos Percebes Dieta humana Recursos Marinos Holoceno
r e s u m e n Los percebes de la especie Pollicipes pollicipes son crusta´ceos que actualmente habitan sobre las rocas batidas por el oleaje en la zona intermareal e infralitoral en las costas europeas atla´nticas y del Norte de ˜ a, donde es A´frica. En la actualidad su explotacio´n es muy rentable, sobre todo en el Norte de Espan considerada un alimento muy apreciado, a la vez que caro. Su recoleccio´n, realizada manualmente por los ‘‘percebeiros’’, es muy arriesgada. Sin embargo, la explotacio´n de los percebes no es ni mucho menos actual, puesto que hay indicios de ella en el SW de Europa desde el Mesolı´tico (ca. 8000 BP), pero sobretodo a partir de comienzos del Neolı´tico (ca. 6000 BP). En este artı´culo se analizan las evidencias arqueolo´gicas neolı´ticas conservadas de los percebes (tergum, scutum y carina, placas calca´reas localizadas en el capı´tulo) en un yacimiento ˜ ol de e´poca neolı´tica, la cueva de Los Gitanos de Montealegre (Cantabria). espan Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In Europe, the earliest evidence for the presence of marine resources is found in the Middle Palaeolithic, but the anthropogenic origin of some of these instances may be questionable (Erdlandson, 2001). It is at the end of this period, in the Late Mousterian when clear evidence is seen of the exploitation of marine resources, gathered as food or as curiosities (shells found with signs of marine erosion) (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez and Carvajal-Contreras, 2008).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 942 202035; fax: þ34 942 202093. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez). 0305-4403/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.003
Although the remains of molluscs gathered as food predominate at sites like Vanguard Cave and Gorham’s Cave in Gibraltar (Ferna´ndez-Jalvo and Andrews, 2000; Stringer et al., 2008; Fa, 2008), in some places the shells were made into artefacts (e.g. into sidescrapers at Moscerini, in Italy) (Stiner, 1994). The exploitation of marine molluscs continued throughout Prehistory, and their remains are found in large quantities particularly in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in press; Fano, 2007; Fano et al., in press). In addition to the molluscs, evidence of the exploitation of other kinds of marine resources has also been documented since the Mousterian: mammals at Vanguard Cave (Monachus monachus, Delphinus delphis, Tursiops truncatus and Diplodus sp.) (Stringer et al., 2008) and fish (vertebrae of Dentax vulgaris) in Level G at Romanelli (Cleyet-Merle, 1990).
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
At prehistoric sites in the Cantabrian region (Northern Spain), the most abundant marine resources found in Upper Palaeolithic deposits are the molluscs (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, 2005–2006; A´lvarezFerna´ndez and Carvajal-Contreras, 2008) and, to a lesser extent, fish (Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, 2002), crustaceans (crabs and balanidae), echinoderms (sea urchins) (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in press; A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al., 2009a,b) and sea mammals (Corcho´n et al., 2008; Corcho´n and A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, 2008). Although evidence of these had already been recognized at sites excavated in the late 19th century, their documentation only became possible in the course of excavations undertaken in the 1960s, when all the small fraction was systematically collected from archaeological material by sieving the sediment through fine-meshed screens (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in press; Fano 2007). In the Iberian Peninsula, the remains of crustaceans (crabs and balanidae) are often cited in archaeological monographs on sites located in Cantabrian Spain (see for example the works of Clark, 1976; Gonza´lez-Morales, 1982; Gonza´lez Sainz, 1989; Fano, 2007), in Portugal (Ferreira, 1956; Roche, 1960; Lentacker, 1986; Detry, 2007) or on the Mediterranean (e.g. at Nerja: Jorda´ et al., 2003). However, no systematic study has been made of these kinds of remains. For the rest of Atlantic Europe, research has been carried out (almost exclusively about crabs) at a few archaeological sites, above all in Brittany (Be´niguet-3, Ponthezieres, Beg-er-Vil, Beg-an-Dorchenn, etc.), where systematic research has made it possible to classify the remains at species level, quantify them, calculate their mass, etc. (Gruet and Laporte, 1995; Gruet, 2002, 2003; Gruet et al., in press; Carvalho et al., 2005; Dupont and Gruet, 2005). However, there has been hardly any speculation about the role that these resources might have played in the diet of prehistoric groups (Gruet and ˜ o´n, 2000, 2004; Gruet, 2002; Laporte,1995; Erdlandson, 2001; Ontan Carvalho et al., 2005; Fano, 2007; Bicho and Haws, 2008; A´lvarezFerna´ndez, in preparation; A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al., 2009a,b). At European archaeological sites, the consumption of goose barnacles (Pollicipes pollicipes) has been cited for the early Holocene onwards and is mainly associated with Mesolithic and Neolithic shell-middens, in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean areas (Fig. 1). However, their systematic study has only commenced recently, in connection with archaeozoological analysis at certain prehistoric sites, such as the Neolithic deposits of Cueva de los Gitanos at Montealegre (Cantabria, Northern Spain) (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in preparation); and at Port Blanc (Hoe¨dic Island, Morbihan, France) in an Iron Age context (Dupont et al., 2008). 2. Taxonomy and biology of goose barnacles Pollicipes pollicipes (‘‘percebes’’ in Spanish, ‘‘pouce pieds’’ in French) (Phylum: Arthropoda, Subphylum: Crustacea; Infraclass: Cirripedia; Order: Pedunculata; Family: Pollicipedidae; Genus: Pollicipes; Species: Pollicipes pollicipes, Gmelin, 1790) are pedunculate cirripedes in which two parts can be distinguished. First, the peduncle or stalk (lower part) which is covered by a hard dark brown skin, and which attaches to the rocks by cementing glands. This is the edible part of the animal, to be exact, the orangeish cylinder inside it, which is considered a delicacy. Second, the capitulum (upper part) formed by a kind of carapace that is protected by some forty calcareous plates of varying thickness and size, whose colour varies from nacre-white to grey, and which are of different sizes. This part is commonly known as the barnacle’s nail. These plates protect the animal’s prosoma, where most of its vital organs are contained, from the attacks of predators and desiccation at times of low tide (Rainbow, 1984; Relini, 1987; Barnes, 1996; Southward, 2008). The goose barnacle is mainly made up of water (almost 90%), followed by protein (4%), fats (5%) and mineral salts (>3%) (Kameya and Zeballos, 1988). They supply large amounts of
403
Fig. 1. Sites where goose barnacles have been recorded in contexts clearly assigned to the Mesolithic and Neolithic, cited in the text. 1. La Llana; 2. Mazaculos II; 3. Cueva del Mar; 4. La Fragua; 5. La Trecha; 6. Los Gitanos; 7. Kobeaga II; 8. Jaizkibel 3; 9. Vidigal; 10. Samouqueira I; 11. Medo Tojeiro; 12. Castelejo; 13. Armaça˜o Nova; 14. Vale Santo 1; 15. Barranco das Quebradas 3; 16. Rocha das Gaviotas; 17. Vale Boi; 18. Corale`s.
the vitamins B1 and B2, potassium and other minerals, while possessing a low fat content. They contain about 66 calories per 100 g meat weight. Goose barnacles grow in colonies, forming groups or bunches. These bunches are gathered by hand at low tide, when the animals are emerged. Specimens of different sizes are found in any bunch, and the youngest animals usually attach themselves to the stalks of the adult individuals. They grow on the wave-beaten rocks of the intertidal zone (the zone that is covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide) and the low-shore zone (the area permanently under water). In these areas they share their habitat with molluscs (like mussels) and other incrusting organisms (e.g. balanidae) and therefore come into competition with them for living space and food. These cirripedes feed by filtering the zooplankton from the wave-beaten water; the more beaten and colder it is, the more oxygen it contains and the better the barnacles are (Barnes and Reese, 1960; Rainbow, 1984; Cardoso and Yule, 1995; Molares, 1998; Novo Loureiro, 2000). The reproductive period for goose barnacles commences in May and finishes in September. They are estimated to take nearly a year to reach a commercial size (40 mm long) (Molares, 1998). Goose barnacles vary in size depending on their location, and may reach a length of 120 mm. Specialists distinguish between two types of barnacles: those in the sun and those in the shade or watery ones. The former grow in sunny areas and tend to have a short thick stalk, whereas the latter, which are less highly valued, possess a longer, thinner body and larger water content. Pollicipes pollicipes vary are found in different locations of the world. P. pollicipes is distributed on the Atlantic coast of Europe and North Africa, between 48 N (UK, France) and 15 N (Senegal); Pollicipes polymerus on the North American west coast (from 64 to 27 N), and Pollicipes elegans on the west coast of South America (from Mexico to Peru). P. pollicipes is found both on Atlantic coasts (Cantabrian Spain, the Portuguese coast, Belle ˆIle in France) (Fig. 2) and North Africa shores (Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal). In both
404
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
Fig. 2. Modern Pollicipes pollicipes specimens (Photograph: Y. Gruet).
cases it is the same species, but the African variety is longer and narrower, and lighter in colour than the Galician variety (NorthWestern Spain) (Girard, 1982; de la Hoz and Garcı´a, 1993; Barnes, 1996; Southward, 2008; A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in press). The harvesting technique for goose barnacles is simple but very risky. The work can only be carried out at times of low tide, when the bunches of barnacles are emerged and can be gathered. In order to reach the areas where they are found, the fishermen, or percebeiros, have two choices, depending on the weather or the sea conditions: by land or in little boats (chalanas). The best groups of goose barnacles are to be gathered at the time of the spring tides, that is when the low tides are at their lowest and deeper areas, where the barnacles are usually largest and of the best quality, can be accessed. The fishermen detach the animals from the rock surface with a scraper (cachas). Other men often hold the fisherman by a rope so that he can reach more difficult sites (Pe´rez, 1996; Novo Loureiro, 2000). 3. Study methodology: identification, quantification, natural alterations, taphonomy and biometrics P. pollicipes possess over 18 plates situated in the capitulum. Three of these are larger than the others, and called the tergum, scutum and carina. These are the remains that have been recovered by archaeological excavations, due to the use of fine-meshed screens to sieve the sediment.
Adult individuals have plates of a length greater than 10 mm. We have used the works of Jennings (1914) and Newman (1987) to identify the remains. The terga and scuta are found on both sides of the capitulum (left and right), whereas this possesses only one carina plate, situated on the posterior face (Fig. 3). The shapes of the terga and scuta mean that they can be positioned and lateralized. In this way, based on a given number of plates found by archaeological methods it is possible to calculate the minimum number of individuals (MNI) from the number of remains (NR). The simplest way of calculating the MNI is by using the number of carina plates, but it can also be calculated from the right and left specimens of both terga and scuta, as their shapes are different on each side of the capitulum. The barnacle plates recovered at archaeological sites may display various kinds of alterations to their surfaces. Thus, colonies of bryozoa, balanidae and other incrusting organisms may be found on their surfaces. Other plates may be exfoliated due to wave action (this particularly affects the goose barnacles living in very exposed zones). Yet others, very often the scuta, may have small semicircular marks on their straightest edges; this is the place where the adductor muscle of the animal was attached. Together with these natural modifications, other taphonomic alterations may occur, caused by human action (fire and fragmentation by trampling) and by hydrological activity in the cave, producing the precipitation of calcium carbonate. Finally, to study potential changes in size and shape caused by climate or selective gathering, biometric data were collected from P. pollicipes in the assemblage, to the nearest 0.1 mm. Maximum length and width were measured for the different plates of the animal (terga, scuta and carina). The data obtained, both quantitative and qualitative, have been used to generate descriptive statistics. The sample of modern goose barnacles comes from Islares (Cantabria, Spain), a location on the coast about 3 km to the northwest of the archaeological site of Los Gitanos at Montealegre. A percebeiro was asked to gather a sample that would be large enough to carry out our research and then determine how many of there crustaceans could be consumed by an adult human, as well as to measure the sizes of the barnacles’ plates. He was also asked not to discard the smaller individuals as he gathered the specimens, and after gathering them, not to select them according to their size. These fishermen usually separate them for economic reasons, as the larger the barnacles are, the more they are worth in the market; and they usually divide them into three different sizes. Consequently, the population gathered in June 2008 is a true sample of the population existing on this coast. A total of 403 individuals were collected, weighing 850 g. One hundred and fifty of these were selected at random (300 g). Some 90% of these
Fig. 3. Main plates of Pollicipes pollicipes: A – Right side, B – posterior side, C – left side, D – anterior side ; 1 – scutum right, 2 – tergum right, 3 – carina, 4 – subcarina,5 – tergum left, 6 – scutum left, 7 – rostre (Dupont et al., 2008).
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
individuals could be consumed as food: the remainders were too small (juvenile individuals). The following alterations were noted on the animals’ surfaces: 8% with balanidae plates; 7.3% with bryozoan concretions; 0.1% with very small specimens of Mytilus sp.; 5.% with natural perforations in the scuta plates; 0.3% with very small specimens of P. pollicipes. Later, the terga, scuta and carina were separated from each of the capitulum of the barnacles and their maximum lengths and widths were measured. 4. The goose barnacle remains from the Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos Cave (Northern Spain) Cueva de Los Gitanos is located in the province of Cantabria (North Spain) near the village of Sa´mano, at 95 m above sea level and 20 m in height above Montealegre valley floor. At present, it is some 2 km from the nearest shore. It contains an important ˜ o´n over a series of 7 archaeological deposit, excavated by R. Ontan seasons between 1995 and 2002. The upper section of the deposit consists of a Chalcolithic layer (Level A1) and three Neolithic strata (Levels A2, A3 and A4), with dates ranging from the early 5th millennium BC to the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. Levels A2, A3 and A4, currently being studied, contain large amounts of faunal remains. Marine molluscs predominate, particularly the gastropods Patella sp. (Patella vulgata, Patella intermedia and Patella ulyssiponensis) and Osilinus lineatus. Some of the layers almost take on the appearance of a shell-midden. Together with the marine species, are found significant amounts of the remains of wild mammals (red deer and boar) and also domestic animals (cattle, sheep or goats, and pigs). Equally, some echinoderms (sea urchins) and crustaceans (goose barnacles and different species of ˜ o´n, 2000, 2004, 2005; A´lvarezcrabs) have been recorded (Ontan Ferna´ndez et al., 2009b). The levels were excavated in 1 m2 blocks (4 m2 in total) The sediment was dug by natural levels, although relatively thick beds (>5 cm) were dug by thin de facto spits to maintain control. The material being studied comes solely from the squares K12, L12 and K11; it was recovered from the sediment with a triple mesh with screen sizes of 8, 4 and 2 mm. The goose barnacle remains were separated from the rest of the material thus obtained in the laboratory. A total of 280 terga, scuta and carina plates were recorded from the Neolithic levels, and these correspond to an MNI of 77 (A´lvarez-
405
Ferna´ndez, in preparation) (Fig. 4 left). This calculation was based on the number of the left scuta plates, which were the most abundant (Fig. 4 right). The state of conservation of the plates is quite good. The most common alterations that have been noted are the natural perforations that indicate the position of the animal’s adductor muscle. All the plates with this kind of alteration are scuta (both right and left) and they only make up 5% of those recovered from the deposit. In reference to the alterations caused by human action, it should be highlighted that 20.7% of the three types of plates (scuta, terga and carina) are burnt. The fragmentation that the material has suffered, probably by trampling is quite high (35.7%) and affects the terga specimens above all. A total of twenty-eight plates have been found both fragmented and burnt. Finally, about 80% of the specimens have been affected by the precipitation of calcium carbonate, in connection with the karst processes occurring in the cave. In order to carry out a biometrical study of the archaeological remains, the scuta plates (right and left) have been used, since they are the most numerous and least fragmented (n ¼ 120) (A´lvarezFerna´ndez, in preparation). The graph in Fig. 5 compares the maximum lengths and widths of the goose barnacles in the modern sample collected at the Cantabrian village of Islares (R2S ¼ 0.903) with the sizes of the archaeological specimens from the Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos (R2S ¼ 0.857). The histograms representing the variable of maximum length of scuta plates from Islares and Los Gitanos show the difference between the two samples (Fig. 6). It can be seen that there are no plates from juvenile individuals among the archaeological specimens, possibly because barnacles of this size were not gathered on the coast. At the same time, it can be noted that some of the archaeological specimens are larger than the modern ones. Thus, in view of the data shown in the histograms and scatter plots, we can suppose that the barnacles were probably selected by size, with a preference for the larger specimens. It is equally significant that the archaeological specimens are larger than the modern examples, probably because the modern sample was gathered from an intensively exploited area. 5. Evidence of goose barnacles at other prehistoric sites in SW Europe The first citation of the presence of P. pollicipes came from the Portuguese site of Lapa de Santa Margarida (Arra´bida). Scattered
Fig. 4. Left: Goose barnacle plates recovered from the Neolithic deposit at Cueva de Los Gitanos (Cantabria, Spain). Photograph: L. Teira. Right: Number of goose barnacle plates found in the Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 77).
406
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
Fig. 5. Sizes (max. length and max. width) of barnacle scuta plates (right and left). The data for the archaeological specimens from the Neolithic levels (Levels A2 þ A3 þ A4) at Los Gitanos (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 120) are compared with a sample of the modern population at Islares (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 293).
remnants of conglomerate outcrops corresponding to the 5–8 m marine terrace have been ascribed to the beginning of the Wu¨rm glaciation (Mousterian). As well as the remains of goose barnacles, other molluscs and echinoderms were recorded, together with terrestrial vertebrates and lithic artefacts (Zbyszewski and Teixeira, 1949; Pais and Legoinha, 1999). However, the anthropic origin of the remains of the marine animals has not been adequately demonstrated. In the Upper Palaeolithic, a barnacle carina plate has been documented in the Gravettian levels at Cueva de Nerja (Malaga, Spain) with lateral notches. It may be classified as a form of suspended object of adornment (J. Jorda´, personal communication). The earliest evidence for the consumption of goose barnacles at prehistoric sites has been found in Cantabrian Spain (Fig.1). The shellmidden at Mazaculos II might be cited (Arias, 1989: p.787), since at this site a large number of plates have been recorded in Sector 3, both in the Mesolithic level (Level A3) and in the Neolithic strata (Levels A2, A2 bottom and A2 base) (Gutie´rrez and Gonza´lez-Morales, in press). A total of 43 plates have been documented at the Mesolithic site of La Llana (Gutie´rrez, 2005). A single plate was found in Level 3 at La Fragua (Azilian), while 19 were recovered from the Mesolithic level (Level 1) (Gutie´rrez, 2005). Similarly, 44 plates were found in the Mesolithic deposit at La Trecha (Gutie´rrez, 2005). At Cueva de El Cuco, 8 plates were found in Level I and a further 5 in Level III. Both levels contain disturbed material dated in the Gravettian and post-
Fig. 6. Histograms of the variable of maximum length, comparing the archaeological specimens from the Neolithic levels (Level A2 þ A3 þ A4) at Los Gitanos (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 120) with the sample of a modern population at Islares (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 293).
˜ oz et al., 2007). We are also found some Palaeolithic periods (Mun plates in the Mesolithic at Cueva del Mar. To date, in the Basque Country, goose barnacle remains had only been cited for the Mesolithic levels at Kobeaga: 2 plates were found in Level Amck and 5 in Level Amc (Lo´pez, 1998–2000). Barnacle plates have been recorded during the survey of a large number of Holocene shell-middens in the province of Cantabria, such as La Venta del Cuco, Cueva de Mallaria, Cueva de Villegas I, ˜ oz, etc. , but plates are also present in the Mesolithic at J3 (Mun 1997). However, their chronology is not known with any accuracy. In Portugal (Fig. 1), the sites with evidence of goose barnacles are found in the west (Vidigal) and southwest part of the country (Samouqueira I, Medo Tejeiro, Castelejo, Armaça˜o Nova, Barranco das Quebradas 3, Vale Santo 1, Roche das Gaviotas and Vale Boi). Here they have been quantified according to the NR and MNI, although the methodology is not explained with sufficient explicitness. It is said that length and width measurements were taken on individual shell shields, to be precise of the ‘‘beak-shaped’’ scuta that is found at the keal of the head of the animal (Dean and Carvalho, in press). A total of 543 individuals were classified in the upper level at Barranco das Quebradas 3 (Mesolithic or Neolithic); 989 individuals in the early Neolithic at Vale Santo I; and an MNI of 1115 from the Mesolithic/Neolithic (Level 5) and early Neolithic (Levels 1–4) at Rocha das Gaviotas (Carvalho, in press; Carvalho et al., 2005; Dean and Carvalho, in press). For the early Neolithic at Vale Boi, a small number of barnacles have been cited (MNI ¼ 4) (Carvalho et al., 2008). They are also present in the Mesolithic and Neolithic levels at Castelejo and Medo Tojeiro, and in the Mesolithic levels at Vidigal, Samouqueira I and Armaça˜o Nova (Le Gall et al., 1994; Soares, 1996; Tavares da Silva and Soares, 1997; Soares and Tavares da Silva, 2003). In the Mediterranean, plates of this crustacean have been cited at the Algerian site of Corale`s (Doumergue, 1921).
6. Conclusions The earliest evidence for the exploitation of goose barnacles by human groups in Europe dates to the early Holocene, as has been shown by the latest research at archaeological sites on the Atlantic (northern Spain and southwest Portugal) and in the western Mediterranean. The use of fine-meshed screens to sieve archaeological sediments since the 1960s has made it possible to recover the largest plates of these animals, and thus the exploitation of barnacles has been demonstrated for Mesolithic and Neolithic contexts. The study of the goose barnacle remains found in the Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos shows that they were gathered intentionally from rocky substrates in the intertidal and low-shore zones. This has been proven by the large number of plates (called terga, scuta and carina). The action of fire that has been seen on about 20% of the remains may be an indication of the processing of the food at the site, and the later intentional or accidental burning of the remains. The comparison of the sizes (length and width) of the archaeological scuta plates and those of a modern sample gathered by a percebeiro at Islares, located near the archaeological site, suggests the following (Fig. 5): 1. the absence of plates from juvenile individuals suggests that either these were not gathered for consumption or they were gathered (in nature they are found adhered to the stalks of the adult animals) and then discarded in the gathering zone or at the archaeological site. In this respect, it should also be pointed out that the absence of the plates of juvenile individuals in the archaeological record could be due to taphonomic problems;
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
2. there is a predominance of plates in the archaeological sample belonging to adult individuals as large as or larger than in the modern collection. This is not owing to any intentional selection by the percebeiro (avoiding the largest individuals), and therefore may be explained in two ways: a. the goose barnacle specimens may have been larger in the Neolithic than at present b. the modern sample was gathered from an area intensely exploited in present times. This is the hypothesis that we find most convincing, as these crustaceans are currently in very high demand. The Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos contain a large concentration of animal remains, particularly the shells of different mollusc species (NR: 22,116; MNI: 16,917): various limpet species (P. vulgata, P. ulyssiponensis and P. intermedia), as well as other gastropods (mainly O. lineatus and Gibbula sp.), so it appears that these resources formed an important part of the diet of these human groups. This contrasts with the scarcity of other marine resources, such as sea urchins, crabs and barnacles. These were possibly picked up during the gathering of the marine molluscs. In the case of goose barnacles, we can point out that, although they are rich in vitamins and minerals and have a low fat content, a very large number of them are needed to satisfy daily nutritional requirements. In this respect, we have calculated that an adult person can eat 1/2 kg at one meal, that is, some 240–250 barnacles. Continuity in the consumption of goose barnacles during the Mesolithic and Neolithic can be seen in both Southwest Portugal and North Spain, at sites situated near the coast; usually no more than 5 km from the shore. This continuity is seen not only in the exploitation of goose barnacles, but also for other marine resources (molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms). The inexistence of the remains of these crustaceans at archaeological sites in the Upper Palaeolithic in southwest Europe could be explained in three ways: 1) by the flooding of the archaeological deposits nearer the prehistoric coastline (which potentially may have contained the remains of this resource) owing to the Flandrian transgression; 2) the absence of this animal in a cold climate; 3) because human groups did not gather them, which we consider the least likely hypothesis. We think the second explanation is the most likely. At the present time, goose barnacles do not tolerate waters that are too cold. Thus, their northern limit is situated in Finiste`re (Brest). Their colonization of Cornwall (a few specimens identified at Land’s End in 1880, 1984 and 2005; Tater Du, in 2007), in the south-western peninsula of Great Britain, took place in the late 19th century (Southward, 2008), and appears to be related to climate change and human introduction. Consequently, it is quite likely that goose barnacles did not exist on the shores of northern Spain in the Upper Palaeolithic, and only colonized this area during the Holocene. Acknowledgments The authors thank A. Chauvin, M. Cubas, C. Dupont , V. Ferna´ndez and Y. Gruet for their helpful comments. Research was carried out with the support of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science HAR2008-06477-C03-01/HIST ‘‘La implantacio´n de las especies dome´sticas en la Europa atla´ntica: Cronologı´a e impacto en la dieta humana’’, Principal Researcher, P. Arias. References A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., 2005–2006. La explotacio´n y utilizacio´n de los moluscos marinos durante el Paleolı´tico superior y el Mesolı´tico en la Cornisa Canta´brica y en el Valle del Ebro: pasado y presente de la investigacio´n. Homenaje al Prof.
407
Jesu´s Altuna Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) I (57/1), 359–368. San Sebastia´n. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E. Human and marine resource interaction reappraised: archaeofauna remains during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene in Cantabrian Spain. World Archaeology, in press. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E. Los percebes y balanos de de la Cueva de los Gitanos de Montealegre, Sa´mano, Cantabria, in preparation. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Carvajal-Contreras, D.R., 2008. Not only food: marine, terrestrial and freshwater molluscs in archaeological sites. In: A´lvarezFerna´ndez, E., Carvajal-Contreras, D.R., Teira-Mayolini, L.C. (Eds.), Not Only Food. 2nd Meeting of the ICAZ Archaeomalocology Working Group (Santander, February 19th–22nd 2008). Abstracts and Field Trips Guidebook. Ed. IIIPC & Consejerı´a de Cultura, turismo y Deporte del Gobierno de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 11–27. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Dupont, C., Desse-Berset, N., Dre´ano, Y., Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, R., 2009a. Fish & crabs: exploitation of marine resources on the European Atlantic Façade during prehistoric times. In: National Shellfisheries Association 101st Annual Meeting (Savannah, Georgia, 22nd al 26th March 2009). ˜ o´n-Peredo, R., Rosello´A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, R., Gruet, R., Ontan Izquierdo, E., 2009b. Marine resources of the early farmers in Cantabrian Spain: Los Gitanos Cave (Sa´mano, Cantabria). In: ICAF 28TH Conference on Fish & Seafood, Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives (Crete, Greece, 31st de May–6th de June 2009). Arias, P., 1989. Los procesos de neolitizacio´n en la Regio´n Canta´brica. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cantabria University, Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas, Santander, inedit. Barnes, M., 1996. Pedunculate cirripedes of the genus Pollicipes. Oceanography and Marine Biology 34, 303–394. Barnes, H., Reese, E.S., 1960. The behaviour of the stalked intertidal barnacle Pollicipes polymerus J.B. Sowerby, with reference to its ecology and distribution. The Journal of Animal Ecology 29 (1), 169–185. Bicho, N., Haws, J., 2008. At the land’s end: marine resources and the importance of fluctuations in the coastline in the prehistoric hunter–gatherer economy of Portugal. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2166–2175. Carvalho, A.F. O Mesolı´tico tardı´o em Portugal. En: El Mesolı´tico Geome´trico: el desarrollo de las industrias lı´ticas geome´tricas del VIII-VII milenio BP. II Reunio´n sobre Mesolı´tico de la Cuenca del Ebro y Litoral Mediterra´neo. (Jaca, 2008), in press. Carvalho, A.F., Valente, M.J., Bicho, N.F., Stiner, M.C., Gibaja, J.F., Masucci, M., 2005. O projecto "o proceso de neolitizaça˜o no Algarbe" (Portugal); aˆmbito e premeiros ˜ o´n, R., Garcı´a-Monco´, C. (Eds.), Actas del III Conresultados. In: Arias, P., Ontan greso del Neolı´tico en la Penı´nsula Ibe´rica. Universidad de Cantabria, Monografı´as del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehisto´ricas de Cantabria, I. Santander, pp. 965–973. Carvalho, A.F., Dean, R.M., Bicho, N.F., Figueiral, I., Petchey, F., Davis, S.J.M., Lubell, D., Beukens, R., Morales, A., Rosello´, E., 2008. O Neolı´tico antigo de Vale Boi (Algarbe, Portugal). Primeiros resultados. In: Herna´ndez Pe´rez, M., Soler Garcı´a, J.A., Lo´pez Padilla, J.A. (Eds.), IV Congreso del Neolı´tico Peninsular (Alicante, 27st–30st novembre 2006), Tomo I. Museo Arqueolo´gico de Alicante. Diputacio´n Provincial de Alicante, Alicante, pp. 267–274. Cardoso, A.C., Yule, A.B., 1995. Aspects of the reproductive biology of Pollicipes pollicipes (Cirripedia; Lepadomorpha) from the southwest coast of Portugal, Netherlands. Journal of Aquatic Ecology 29 (3–4), 391–396. Clark, G.A., 1976. El Asturiense canta´brico. In: Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana, vol. XIII. CSIC, Madrid. Cleyet-Merle, J., 1990. Pre´histoire de la peˆche. E. Errance. Collection des Hespe´rides. Paris. Corcho´n, M.S., A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., 2008. Nuevas evidencias de restos de mamı´feros marinos en el Magdaleniense: los datos de La Cueva de Las Caldas ˜ a). Munibe 59, 53–72. (Asturias, Espan ˜ alver Molla´, E., Van Corcho´n, M.S., Mateos, A., A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Delclo`s, X., Pen Der Made, J., 2008. Ressources comple´mentaires et mobilite´ dans le Magdale´nien Cantabrique. Nouvelles donne´es sur les mammife`res marins, les crustace´s, les mollusques et les roches organoge`nes de la Grotte de Las Caldas (Asturies, Espagne). L´ Anthropologie 112 (2), 284–327. Dean, R.M., Carvalho, A.F. Surf and turf: the use of marine and terrestrial resources in the Early Neolithic of coastal Southern Portugal. In: Haws, J., Bicho, N.F. (coords.). Harvesting the Sea: Current Perspectives on Hunter–Gatherer Coastal Adaptations, in press. Detry, C., 2007. Paleoecologia e paleoeconomia do Baixo Tejo no Mesolı´tico final: o contributo do estudo dos mamı´feros dos concheiros de Muge. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Auto´noma de Lisboa/Universidad de Salamanca, Lisboa/ Salamanca. Doumergue, F., 1921. Le "Cimetie`re des Escargots"; foyer littoral pre´historique de Corale`s. Bolletin de la Socie´te´ de Ge´ographie (et d’Arche´ologie) de la Province d’Oran 41, 45–55. Dupont, C., A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Gruet, Y., 2008. Un nouveau crustace´ identifie´ sur le site gaulois de Port Blanc (ıˆle d’Hoe¨dic, Morbihan): le pouce-pied Pollicipes pollicipes (Gmelin, 1790). Bulletin de l´AMARAI 21, 17–23. Dupont, C., Gruet, Y., 2005. Malacofaune et crustace´s marins des amas coquillieres me´solithiques de Beg-an-Dorchenn (Plomeuer, Finiste`re) et de Berg-er-Vil (Quiberon, Morbihan). In: Marchand, G., Tresset, A. (Eds.), Unite´ et diversite´ des processus de ne´olithisation sur la façade atlantique de l´Europe (6e-4e mille´naires avant J.-C.). Table ronde de Nantes (Nantes, 26-27 avril 2002). Me´moire XXXVI de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Française, pp. 139–161. Paris.
408
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
Erdlandson, J.M., 2001. The archaeology of aquatic adaptations: paradigms for a new millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 9 (4), 287–350. Fa, D.A., 2008. Effects of tidal amplitude on intertidal resource availability and dispersal pressure in prehistoric human coastal populations: the Mediterranean–Atlantic transition. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2194–2209. Fano, M.A., 2007. The use of marine resources by the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies of Cantabrian Spain: the current evidence. In: Milner, N., Craig, O.E., Bailey, G.N. (Eds.), Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 136–149. Fano, M.A., Gutie´rrez, F.I., A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, R. The exploitation of the Bay of Biscay (North of Spain) by Late Glacial and Postglacial societies. In: Bailey, G.N., et al. (Eds.). Shell Energy. Prehistoric Coastal Resource Strategies, in press. Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, R., 2002. La actividad pesquera en la Regio´n Canta´brica durante el Paleolı´tico y el Epipaleolı´tico. Estado de la cuestio´n. Trabajo de Investigacio´n de Tercer Ciclo. University of Cantabria, Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas, Santander, inedit. Ferna´ndez-Jalvo, Y., Andrews, P., 2000. The taphonomy of Pleistocene Caves, with particular reference to Gibraltar. In: Stringer, C.B., Barton, R.N.E., Finlayson, J.C. (Eds.), Neanderthals on the Edge. Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th Anniversary of the Forbes Quarry Discovery, Gibraltar. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 171–182. Ferreira, O.V., 1956. Faune malacologique: crustace´s et poissons. Muge (Moita do Sebastia˜o). In: Congresos Internacionales de Cieˆncias Prehisto´ricas y Protohisto´ricas. Actas de la IV Sesio´n. Zaragoza, pp. 339–353. Girard, S., 1982. E´tude du stock de pouces-pieds de Belle-Ile et de son exploitation. Memoire de fin d’etudes ENSAR, inedit. Gonza´lez-Morales, M.R., 1982. El Asturiense y otras culturas locales. La Explotacio´n de las a´reas litorales de la Regio´n Canta´brica en los tiempos epipaleolı´ticos. Centro de Investigacio´n y Museo de Altamira, 7. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid. Gonza´lez Sainz, C., 1989. El Magdaleniense superior-final de la regio´n canta´brica. Tantı´n y Universidad de Cantabria, Santander. Gruet, Y., 2002. Reconnaissance de quelques espe`ces communes de Crustace´s (balanes et crabes): application au site me´solithique de Beg-er-Vil (Morbihan, France). Revue d’Arche´ome´trie 26, 125–139. Gruet, Y., 2003. Les Crustace´s et les Echinodermes. In: Dupont, C., Gruet, Y., Leroy, A., Marchand, G., Pailler, Y., Sparfel, Y. (Eds.), Le site pre´historique de Be´niguet-3 (ıˆle Be´niguet, Le Conquet, Finiste`re). Bulletin de l´AMARAI 16, 14–18. Gruet, Y. Les crustace´s (crabes et cirripe`des). In: Dupont, C. et al. (Eds.). Beg-anDorchenn : une feneˆtre ouverte sur l’exploitation du littoral par les peuples me´solithiques du sixie`me mille´naire dans l’ouest de la France in press. Gruet, Y., Laporte, L., 1995. Crabes peˆche´s au Ne´olithique Final a` Ponthezie`res (SaintGeorges d’Ole´ron, Charente-Maritime): identifications, modes de peˆche et application de la me´trique. Actes du Colloque de Pe´rigueux 1995. Supple´ment a` la Revue d’Arche´ome´trie, 197–201. Gutie´rrez, F.I., 2005. La explotacio´n de moluscos en la cuenca baja del rı´o Aso´n ˜ a) a inicios del Holoceno (10.000–5.000 BP) y su importancia (Cantabria, Espan en las comunidades humanas del Aziliense y del Mesolı´tico. University of Cantabria, Trabajo de Investigacio´n de Doctorado. Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas, Santander, inedit. Gutie´rrez, F.I., Gonza´lez-Morales, M.R. New data on Asturian shell-midden sites: the caves of Mazaculos and La Llana (Asturias, Northern Spain). In: A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Carvajal Contreras, D.R. (Eds.). Not Only Food. Marine, Terrestrial and Freshwater Molluscs in Archaeological Sites. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the ICAZ Archaeomalocology Working Group (Santander, February 19th–22nd 2008), in press. de la Hoz, J.J., Garcı´a, L., 1993. Datos para el estudio de la distribucio´n del percebe, Pollicipes cornucopiae (Leach), en Asturias. Publicaciones Especiales del Instituto ˜ ol de Oceanografı´a 11, 65–71. Espan Jennings, L.S., 1914. Pedunculate cirripedia of New Zealand and neighbouring islands. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand 47, 285–293. Jorda´, J., Aura, J.E., Rodrigo, M.J., Pe´rez, M., Badal, E., 2003. El registro paleobiolo´gico ˜ a). cuaternario del yacimiento arqueolo´gico de la Cueva de Nerja (Ma´laga, Espan ˜ ola de Historia Natural (Seccio´n Geologı´a) 98 Boletı´n de la Real Sociedad Espan (1–4), 73–89.
Kameya, A., Zeballos, J., 1988. Distribucio´n y densidad de percebes. Pollicipes elegans (Crustacea: Cirripedia) en el Mediolitoral Peruano (Yasila, Paita, Chilca, Lima). Boletı´n del Instituto del Mar del Peru´ 12 (1), 5–22. Le Gall, O., Altuna, J., Straus, L.G., 1994. Les faunes me´solithique et ne´olithique de Vidigal (Alentejo, Portugal). Archaeozoologia VII (1), 59–72. Lentacker, A., 1986. Preliminary results of the fauna of Cabeço da Arruda (Muge, Portugal). Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia XXVI, 9–26. Lo´pez, J.C., 1998–2000. El yacimiento prehisto´rico de la cueva de Kobeaga II (Ispaster, Bizkaia): cazadores-recolectores en el Paı´s Vasco atla´ntico durante el VIII y VII milenio b. p. Illunzar 4, 83–162. Molares, J., 1998. Estudio del ciclo biolo´gico del percebe (Pollicipes cornucopia Leach) ˜ as Patin ˜ o, X. (Ed.), Marisqueo de las costas de Galicia. Xunta de Galicia. In: Pen ˜ o e acuicultura. Edicios do Castro, Sada, en Galicia. 3as Xornadas de medio marin pp. 135–158. ˜ oz, E., 1997. Los concheros holoce´nicos en Cantabria. University of Cantabria. Mun Trabajo de investigacio´n de Tercer Ciclo. Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas, Santander, inedit. ˜ oz, E., Rasines, P., Santamarı´a, S., Morlote, J.M., 2007. Estudio arqueolo´gico del Mun ˜ oz, E., Montes, R. (Eds.), Intervenciones arqueolo´gicas Abrigo del Cuco. In: Mun en Castro Urdiales. Arqueologı´a y Arte Rupestre Paleolı´tico en las cavidades de El Cuco y La Lastrilla. Excmo, Tomo III. . Ayuntamiento de Castro Urdiales. Concejalı´a de Medio Ambiente y Patrimonio Arqueolo´gico, Castro Urdiales, pp. 15–160. Newman, W.A., 1987. Evolution of cirripedes and their major groups. In: Southward, A.J. (Ed.), Barnacle Biology. Balkema A.A. (Crustacean Issues 5), Rotterdam, pp. 3–42. Novo Loureiro, S., 2000. Un marisco?. El Percebe. Terralia 16, 50–58. ˜ o´n, R., 2000. El Calcolı´tico en la Cornisa Canta´brica. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ontan University of Cantabria. Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas. Santander, inedit. ˜ on, R., 2004. Caminos hacia la complejidad: el Calcolı´tico en la Regio´n CanOntan ta´brica. Universidad de Cantabria, Santander. ˜ o´n, R., 2005. La secuencia de la cueva de Los Gitanos (Castro Urdiales, CanOntan ˜ o´n, R., Garcı´a-Monco´, C. tabria) y el Neolı´tico canta´brico. In: Arias, P., Ontan (Eds.), Actas del III Congreso del Neolı´tico en la Penı´nsula Ibe´rica. Universidad de Cantabria, Monografı´as del instituto internacional de Investigaciones Prehisto´ricas de Cantabria, I. Santander, pp. 1035–1043. Pais, J., Legoinha, P., 1999. Figueira Brava Cave (Arra´bida). Geological setting. Memo´rias da Academia das Cieˆncias de Lisboa XXXVIII, 69–81. Pe´rez, A.C., 1996. El percebe en Galicia. Fundacio´n Caixa Galı´cia. Aula del Mar. Rainbow, P.S., 1984. An introduction to the biology of British litoral barnacles. Field Studies 6, 1–51. Relini, G., 1987. Fiches FAO d’identification des espe`ces pour les besoins de la peˆche. Me´diterrane´e et mer d’Europe. Cirripe`des, 168–177. Roche, J., 1960. Le gisement me´solithique de Moita do Sebastia˜o (Muge, Portugal). Arche´ologie. Instituto de Alta Cultura, Lisboa. Soares, J., 1996. Padro˜es de povoamento e subsisteˆncia no mesolitico da costa sudoeste portuguesa. Zephyrus 49, 109–124. Soares, J., Tavares da Silva, C., 2003. A transiça˜o para o Neolı´tico na costa sudoeste portuguesa. In: Gonçalves, V.S. (Ed.), Muita gente poucas antas?. Origens, espaços e contextos do Megalitismo. Actas do II colo´quio Internacional sobre Megalitismo (Regengos de Monsaraz, 3 a 7 de Maio de 2000). Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 25. Ministerio de Cultura. Instituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 45–56. Southward, A.J., 2008. Barnacles. In: Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series), 57. The Linnean Society of London and the Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Association, Shrewsbury. Stiner, M.C., 1994. Honor among thieves. A zooarchaeological study of Neanderthal Ecology. Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Stringer, C.B., Finlayson, J.C., Barton, R.N.E., Ferna´ndez-Jalvo, Y., Ca´ceres, I., Sabin, R.C., Rhodes, E.J., Currant, A.P., Rodrı´guez Vidal, J., Giles-Pacheco, F., Riquelme-Cantal, J.A., 2008. Neanderthal exploitation of marine mammals in Gibraltar. Proccedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 105 (38), 14319–14324. Tavares da Silva, C., Soares, J., 1997. Economias costeiras na Pre´-Histo´ria do Sudoeste portugeˆs. O concheiro de Montes de Baixo. Setu`bal Arqueologica 11–12, 69–108. Zbyszewski, G., Teixeira, C., 1949. Le niveaux quaternaire marin de 5-8 me`tres au Portugal. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Ge´ologique de Portugal 8 (1/2), 1–6.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
Archaeological data on the exploitation of the goose barnacle Pollicipes pollicipes (Gmelin, 1790) in Europe ˜ o´n-Peredo a, Jose´ Molares-Vila b Esteban A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez a, *, Roberto Ontan a
´ricas de Cantabria (IIIPC), Unidad asociada al CSIC Edif. Interfacultativo, University of Cantabria, Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehisto Av. de los Castros S/N, 39005 Santander, Spain b ´ns Marin ´n, Pedras de Coro ´n S/N, Vilanova de Arousa, Pontevedra, Spain ˜as de Coro Centro de Investigacio
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 9 June 2009 Received in revised form 28 September 2009 Accepted 6 October 2009
Barnacles of the species Pollicipes pollicipes are crustaceans that nowadays live on wave-beaten rocky substrates in the intertidal and low-shore zones on the coasts of Atlantic Europe and North Africa. At the present time, the exploitation of this species is profitable, especially in northern Spain where this seafood is highly valued, as well as expensive. However, the gathering of this resource, which is carried out manually by the percebeiros or ‘‘goose barnacle fishers’’ entails great risks. The exploitation of goose barnacles is, however, not a recent activity, as evidence of it has been seen in southwest Europe in the Mesolithic (about 8000 BP), and above all from the early Neolithic (about 6000 BP). This paper analyses the archaeological evidence of barnacles (tergum, scutum and carina, calcareous plates located in the capitulum) that have been found at one Spanish Neolithic site located in the north of the Iberian Peninsula (Los Gitanos Cave, in Cantabrian Spain). Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Crustaceans Goose barnacles Human diet Marine resources Holocene Palabras clave: Crusta´ceos Percebes Dieta humana Recursos Marinos Holoceno
r e s u m e n Los percebes de la especie Pollicipes pollicipes son crusta´ceos que actualmente habitan sobre las rocas batidas por el oleaje en la zona intermareal e infralitoral en las costas europeas atla´nticas y del Norte de ˜ a, donde es A´frica. En la actualidad su explotacio´n es muy rentable, sobre todo en el Norte de Espan considerada un alimento muy apreciado, a la vez que caro. Su recoleccio´n, realizada manualmente por los ‘‘percebeiros’’, es muy arriesgada. Sin embargo, la explotacio´n de los percebes no es ni mucho menos actual, puesto que hay indicios de ella en el SW de Europa desde el Mesolı´tico (ca. 8000 BP), pero sobretodo a partir de comienzos del Neolı´tico (ca. 6000 BP). En este artı´culo se analizan las evidencias arqueolo´gicas neolı´ticas conservadas de los percebes (tergum, scutum y carina, placas calca´reas localizadas en el capı´tulo) en un yacimiento ˜ ol de e´poca neolı´tica, la cueva de Los Gitanos de Montealegre (Cantabria). espan Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In Europe, the earliest evidence for the presence of marine resources is found in the Middle Palaeolithic, but the anthropogenic origin of some of these instances may be questionable (Erdlandson, 2001). It is at the end of this period, in the Late Mousterian when clear evidence is seen of the exploitation of marine resources, gathered as food or as curiosities (shells found with signs of marine erosion) (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez and Carvajal-Contreras, 2008).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 942 202035; fax: þ34 942 202093. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez). 0305-4403/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.003
Although the remains of molluscs gathered as food predominate at sites like Vanguard Cave and Gorham’s Cave in Gibraltar (Ferna´ndez-Jalvo and Andrews, 2000; Stringer et al., 2008; Fa, 2008), in some places the shells were made into artefacts (e.g. into sidescrapers at Moscerini, in Italy) (Stiner, 1994). The exploitation of marine molluscs continued throughout Prehistory, and their remains are found in large quantities particularly in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in press; Fano, 2007; Fano et al., in press). In addition to the molluscs, evidence of the exploitation of other kinds of marine resources has also been documented since the Mousterian: mammals at Vanguard Cave (Monachus monachus, Delphinus delphis, Tursiops truncatus and Diplodus sp.) (Stringer et al., 2008) and fish (vertebrae of Dentax vulgaris) in Level G at Romanelli (Cleyet-Merle, 1990).
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
At prehistoric sites in the Cantabrian region (Northern Spain), the most abundant marine resources found in Upper Palaeolithic deposits are the molluscs (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, 2005–2006; A´lvarezFerna´ndez and Carvajal-Contreras, 2008) and, to a lesser extent, fish (Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, 2002), crustaceans (crabs and balanidae), echinoderms (sea urchins) (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in press; A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al., 2009a,b) and sea mammals (Corcho´n et al., 2008; Corcho´n and A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, 2008). Although evidence of these had already been recognized at sites excavated in the late 19th century, their documentation only became possible in the course of excavations undertaken in the 1960s, when all the small fraction was systematically collected from archaeological material by sieving the sediment through fine-meshed screens (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in press; Fano 2007). In the Iberian Peninsula, the remains of crustaceans (crabs and balanidae) are often cited in archaeological monographs on sites located in Cantabrian Spain (see for example the works of Clark, 1976; Gonza´lez-Morales, 1982; Gonza´lez Sainz, 1989; Fano, 2007), in Portugal (Ferreira, 1956; Roche, 1960; Lentacker, 1986; Detry, 2007) or on the Mediterranean (e.g. at Nerja: Jorda´ et al., 2003). However, no systematic study has been made of these kinds of remains. For the rest of Atlantic Europe, research has been carried out (almost exclusively about crabs) at a few archaeological sites, above all in Brittany (Be´niguet-3, Ponthezieres, Beg-er-Vil, Beg-an-Dorchenn, etc.), where systematic research has made it possible to classify the remains at species level, quantify them, calculate their mass, etc. (Gruet and Laporte, 1995; Gruet, 2002, 2003; Gruet et al., in press; Carvalho et al., 2005; Dupont and Gruet, 2005). However, there has been hardly any speculation about the role that these resources might have played in the diet of prehistoric groups (Gruet and ˜ o´n, 2000, 2004; Gruet, 2002; Laporte,1995; Erdlandson, 2001; Ontan Carvalho et al., 2005; Fano, 2007; Bicho and Haws, 2008; A´lvarezFerna´ndez, in preparation; A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al., 2009a,b). At European archaeological sites, the consumption of goose barnacles (Pollicipes pollicipes) has been cited for the early Holocene onwards and is mainly associated with Mesolithic and Neolithic shell-middens, in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean areas (Fig. 1). However, their systematic study has only commenced recently, in connection with archaeozoological analysis at certain prehistoric sites, such as the Neolithic deposits of Cueva de los Gitanos at Montealegre (Cantabria, Northern Spain) (A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in preparation); and at Port Blanc (Hoe¨dic Island, Morbihan, France) in an Iron Age context (Dupont et al., 2008). 2. Taxonomy and biology of goose barnacles Pollicipes pollicipes (‘‘percebes’’ in Spanish, ‘‘pouce pieds’’ in French) (Phylum: Arthropoda, Subphylum: Crustacea; Infraclass: Cirripedia; Order: Pedunculata; Family: Pollicipedidae; Genus: Pollicipes; Species: Pollicipes pollicipes, Gmelin, 1790) are pedunculate cirripedes in which two parts can be distinguished. First, the peduncle or stalk (lower part) which is covered by a hard dark brown skin, and which attaches to the rocks by cementing glands. This is the edible part of the animal, to be exact, the orangeish cylinder inside it, which is considered a delicacy. Second, the capitulum (upper part) formed by a kind of carapace that is protected by some forty calcareous plates of varying thickness and size, whose colour varies from nacre-white to grey, and which are of different sizes. This part is commonly known as the barnacle’s nail. These plates protect the animal’s prosoma, where most of its vital organs are contained, from the attacks of predators and desiccation at times of low tide (Rainbow, 1984; Relini, 1987; Barnes, 1996; Southward, 2008). The goose barnacle is mainly made up of water (almost 90%), followed by protein (4%), fats (5%) and mineral salts (>3%) (Kameya and Zeballos, 1988). They supply large amounts of
403
Fig. 1. Sites where goose barnacles have been recorded in contexts clearly assigned to the Mesolithic and Neolithic, cited in the text. 1. La Llana; 2. Mazaculos II; 3. Cueva del Mar; 4. La Fragua; 5. La Trecha; 6. Los Gitanos; 7. Kobeaga II; 8. Jaizkibel 3; 9. Vidigal; 10. Samouqueira I; 11. Medo Tojeiro; 12. Castelejo; 13. Armaça˜o Nova; 14. Vale Santo 1; 15. Barranco das Quebradas 3; 16. Rocha das Gaviotas; 17. Vale Boi; 18. Corale`s.
the vitamins B1 and B2, potassium and other minerals, while possessing a low fat content. They contain about 66 calories per 100 g meat weight. Goose barnacles grow in colonies, forming groups or bunches. These bunches are gathered by hand at low tide, when the animals are emerged. Specimens of different sizes are found in any bunch, and the youngest animals usually attach themselves to the stalks of the adult individuals. They grow on the wave-beaten rocks of the intertidal zone (the zone that is covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide) and the low-shore zone (the area permanently under water). In these areas they share their habitat with molluscs (like mussels) and other incrusting organisms (e.g. balanidae) and therefore come into competition with them for living space and food. These cirripedes feed by filtering the zooplankton from the wave-beaten water; the more beaten and colder it is, the more oxygen it contains and the better the barnacles are (Barnes and Reese, 1960; Rainbow, 1984; Cardoso and Yule, 1995; Molares, 1998; Novo Loureiro, 2000). The reproductive period for goose barnacles commences in May and finishes in September. They are estimated to take nearly a year to reach a commercial size (40 mm long) (Molares, 1998). Goose barnacles vary in size depending on their location, and may reach a length of 120 mm. Specialists distinguish between two types of barnacles: those in the sun and those in the shade or watery ones. The former grow in sunny areas and tend to have a short thick stalk, whereas the latter, which are less highly valued, possess a longer, thinner body and larger water content. Pollicipes pollicipes vary are found in different locations of the world. P. pollicipes is distributed on the Atlantic coast of Europe and North Africa, between 48 N (UK, France) and 15 N (Senegal); Pollicipes polymerus on the North American west coast (from 64 to 27 N), and Pollicipes elegans on the west coast of South America (from Mexico to Peru). P. pollicipes is found both on Atlantic coasts (Cantabrian Spain, the Portuguese coast, Belle ˆIle in France) (Fig. 2) and North Africa shores (Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal). In both
404
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
Fig. 2. Modern Pollicipes pollicipes specimens (Photograph: Y. Gruet).
cases it is the same species, but the African variety is longer and narrower, and lighter in colour than the Galician variety (NorthWestern Spain) (Girard, 1982; de la Hoz and Garcı´a, 1993; Barnes, 1996; Southward, 2008; A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, in press). The harvesting technique for goose barnacles is simple but very risky. The work can only be carried out at times of low tide, when the bunches of barnacles are emerged and can be gathered. In order to reach the areas where they are found, the fishermen, or percebeiros, have two choices, depending on the weather or the sea conditions: by land or in little boats (chalanas). The best groups of goose barnacles are to be gathered at the time of the spring tides, that is when the low tides are at their lowest and deeper areas, where the barnacles are usually largest and of the best quality, can be accessed. The fishermen detach the animals from the rock surface with a scraper (cachas). Other men often hold the fisherman by a rope so that he can reach more difficult sites (Pe´rez, 1996; Novo Loureiro, 2000). 3. Study methodology: identification, quantification, natural alterations, taphonomy and biometrics P. pollicipes possess over 18 plates situated in the capitulum. Three of these are larger than the others, and called the tergum, scutum and carina. These are the remains that have been recovered by archaeological excavations, due to the use of fine-meshed screens to sieve the sediment.
Adult individuals have plates of a length greater than 10 mm. We have used the works of Jennings (1914) and Newman (1987) to identify the remains. The terga and scuta are found on both sides of the capitulum (left and right), whereas this possesses only one carina plate, situated on the posterior face (Fig. 3). The shapes of the terga and scuta mean that they can be positioned and lateralized. In this way, based on a given number of plates found by archaeological methods it is possible to calculate the minimum number of individuals (MNI) from the number of remains (NR). The simplest way of calculating the MNI is by using the number of carina plates, but it can also be calculated from the right and left specimens of both terga and scuta, as their shapes are different on each side of the capitulum. The barnacle plates recovered at archaeological sites may display various kinds of alterations to their surfaces. Thus, colonies of bryozoa, balanidae and other incrusting organisms may be found on their surfaces. Other plates may be exfoliated due to wave action (this particularly affects the goose barnacles living in very exposed zones). Yet others, very often the scuta, may have small semicircular marks on their straightest edges; this is the place where the adductor muscle of the animal was attached. Together with these natural modifications, other taphonomic alterations may occur, caused by human action (fire and fragmentation by trampling) and by hydrological activity in the cave, producing the precipitation of calcium carbonate. Finally, to study potential changes in size and shape caused by climate or selective gathering, biometric data were collected from P. pollicipes in the assemblage, to the nearest 0.1 mm. Maximum length and width were measured for the different plates of the animal (terga, scuta and carina). The data obtained, both quantitative and qualitative, have been used to generate descriptive statistics. The sample of modern goose barnacles comes from Islares (Cantabria, Spain), a location on the coast about 3 km to the northwest of the archaeological site of Los Gitanos at Montealegre. A percebeiro was asked to gather a sample that would be large enough to carry out our research and then determine how many of there crustaceans could be consumed by an adult human, as well as to measure the sizes of the barnacles’ plates. He was also asked not to discard the smaller individuals as he gathered the specimens, and after gathering them, not to select them according to their size. These fishermen usually separate them for economic reasons, as the larger the barnacles are, the more they are worth in the market; and they usually divide them into three different sizes. Consequently, the population gathered in June 2008 is a true sample of the population existing on this coast. A total of 403 individuals were collected, weighing 850 g. One hundred and fifty of these were selected at random (300 g). Some 90% of these
Fig. 3. Main plates of Pollicipes pollicipes: A – Right side, B – posterior side, C – left side, D – anterior side ; 1 – scutum right, 2 – tergum right, 3 – carina, 4 – subcarina,5 – tergum left, 6 – scutum left, 7 – rostre (Dupont et al., 2008).
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
individuals could be consumed as food: the remainders were too small (juvenile individuals). The following alterations were noted on the animals’ surfaces: 8% with balanidae plates; 7.3% with bryozoan concretions; 0.1% with very small specimens of Mytilus sp.; 5.% with natural perforations in the scuta plates; 0.3% with very small specimens of P. pollicipes. Later, the terga, scuta and carina were separated from each of the capitulum of the barnacles and their maximum lengths and widths were measured. 4. The goose barnacle remains from the Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos Cave (Northern Spain) Cueva de Los Gitanos is located in the province of Cantabria (North Spain) near the village of Sa´mano, at 95 m above sea level and 20 m in height above Montealegre valley floor. At present, it is some 2 km from the nearest shore. It contains an important ˜ o´n over a series of 7 archaeological deposit, excavated by R. Ontan seasons between 1995 and 2002. The upper section of the deposit consists of a Chalcolithic layer (Level A1) and three Neolithic strata (Levels A2, A3 and A4), with dates ranging from the early 5th millennium BC to the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. Levels A2, A3 and A4, currently being studied, contain large amounts of faunal remains. Marine molluscs predominate, particularly the gastropods Patella sp. (Patella vulgata, Patella intermedia and Patella ulyssiponensis) and Osilinus lineatus. Some of the layers almost take on the appearance of a shell-midden. Together with the marine species, are found significant amounts of the remains of wild mammals (red deer and boar) and also domestic animals (cattle, sheep or goats, and pigs). Equally, some echinoderms (sea urchins) and crustaceans (goose barnacles and different species of ˜ o´n, 2000, 2004, 2005; A´lvarezcrabs) have been recorded (Ontan Ferna´ndez et al., 2009b). The levels were excavated in 1 m2 blocks (4 m2 in total) The sediment was dug by natural levels, although relatively thick beds (>5 cm) were dug by thin de facto spits to maintain control. The material being studied comes solely from the squares K12, L12 and K11; it was recovered from the sediment with a triple mesh with screen sizes of 8, 4 and 2 mm. The goose barnacle remains were separated from the rest of the material thus obtained in the laboratory. A total of 280 terga, scuta and carina plates were recorded from the Neolithic levels, and these correspond to an MNI of 77 (A´lvarez-
405
Ferna´ndez, in preparation) (Fig. 4 left). This calculation was based on the number of the left scuta plates, which were the most abundant (Fig. 4 right). The state of conservation of the plates is quite good. The most common alterations that have been noted are the natural perforations that indicate the position of the animal’s adductor muscle. All the plates with this kind of alteration are scuta (both right and left) and they only make up 5% of those recovered from the deposit. In reference to the alterations caused by human action, it should be highlighted that 20.7% of the three types of plates (scuta, terga and carina) are burnt. The fragmentation that the material has suffered, probably by trampling is quite high (35.7%) and affects the terga specimens above all. A total of twenty-eight plates have been found both fragmented and burnt. Finally, about 80% of the specimens have been affected by the precipitation of calcium carbonate, in connection with the karst processes occurring in the cave. In order to carry out a biometrical study of the archaeological remains, the scuta plates (right and left) have been used, since they are the most numerous and least fragmented (n ¼ 120) (A´lvarezFerna´ndez, in preparation). The graph in Fig. 5 compares the maximum lengths and widths of the goose barnacles in the modern sample collected at the Cantabrian village of Islares (R2S ¼ 0.903) with the sizes of the archaeological specimens from the Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos (R2S ¼ 0.857). The histograms representing the variable of maximum length of scuta plates from Islares and Los Gitanos show the difference between the two samples (Fig. 6). It can be seen that there are no plates from juvenile individuals among the archaeological specimens, possibly because barnacles of this size were not gathered on the coast. At the same time, it can be noted that some of the archaeological specimens are larger than the modern ones. Thus, in view of the data shown in the histograms and scatter plots, we can suppose that the barnacles were probably selected by size, with a preference for the larger specimens. It is equally significant that the archaeological specimens are larger than the modern examples, probably because the modern sample was gathered from an intensively exploited area. 5. Evidence of goose barnacles at other prehistoric sites in SW Europe The first citation of the presence of P. pollicipes came from the Portuguese site of Lapa de Santa Margarida (Arra´bida). Scattered
Fig. 4. Left: Goose barnacle plates recovered from the Neolithic deposit at Cueva de Los Gitanos (Cantabria, Spain). Photograph: L. Teira. Right: Number of goose barnacle plates found in the Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 77).
406
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
Fig. 5. Sizes (max. length and max. width) of barnacle scuta plates (right and left). The data for the archaeological specimens from the Neolithic levels (Levels A2 þ A3 þ A4) at Los Gitanos (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 120) are compared with a sample of the modern population at Islares (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 293).
remnants of conglomerate outcrops corresponding to the 5–8 m marine terrace have been ascribed to the beginning of the Wu¨rm glaciation (Mousterian). As well as the remains of goose barnacles, other molluscs and echinoderms were recorded, together with terrestrial vertebrates and lithic artefacts (Zbyszewski and Teixeira, 1949; Pais and Legoinha, 1999). However, the anthropic origin of the remains of the marine animals has not been adequately demonstrated. In the Upper Palaeolithic, a barnacle carina plate has been documented in the Gravettian levels at Cueva de Nerja (Malaga, Spain) with lateral notches. It may be classified as a form of suspended object of adornment (J. Jorda´, personal communication). The earliest evidence for the consumption of goose barnacles at prehistoric sites has been found in Cantabrian Spain (Fig.1). The shellmidden at Mazaculos II might be cited (Arias, 1989: p.787), since at this site a large number of plates have been recorded in Sector 3, both in the Mesolithic level (Level A3) and in the Neolithic strata (Levels A2, A2 bottom and A2 base) (Gutie´rrez and Gonza´lez-Morales, in press). A total of 43 plates have been documented at the Mesolithic site of La Llana (Gutie´rrez, 2005). A single plate was found in Level 3 at La Fragua (Azilian), while 19 were recovered from the Mesolithic level (Level 1) (Gutie´rrez, 2005). Similarly, 44 plates were found in the Mesolithic deposit at La Trecha (Gutie´rrez, 2005). At Cueva de El Cuco, 8 plates were found in Level I and a further 5 in Level III. Both levels contain disturbed material dated in the Gravettian and post-
Fig. 6. Histograms of the variable of maximum length, comparing the archaeological specimens from the Neolithic levels (Level A2 þ A3 þ A4) at Los Gitanos (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 120) with the sample of a modern population at Islares (Cantabria, Spain) (n ¼ 293).
˜ oz et al., 2007). We are also found some Palaeolithic periods (Mun plates in the Mesolithic at Cueva del Mar. To date, in the Basque Country, goose barnacle remains had only been cited for the Mesolithic levels at Kobeaga: 2 plates were found in Level Amck and 5 in Level Amc (Lo´pez, 1998–2000). Barnacle plates have been recorded during the survey of a large number of Holocene shell-middens in the province of Cantabria, such as La Venta del Cuco, Cueva de Mallaria, Cueva de Villegas I, ˜ oz, etc. , but plates are also present in the Mesolithic at J3 (Mun 1997). However, their chronology is not known with any accuracy. In Portugal (Fig. 1), the sites with evidence of goose barnacles are found in the west (Vidigal) and southwest part of the country (Samouqueira I, Medo Tejeiro, Castelejo, Armaça˜o Nova, Barranco das Quebradas 3, Vale Santo 1, Roche das Gaviotas and Vale Boi). Here they have been quantified according to the NR and MNI, although the methodology is not explained with sufficient explicitness. It is said that length and width measurements were taken on individual shell shields, to be precise of the ‘‘beak-shaped’’ scuta that is found at the keal of the head of the animal (Dean and Carvalho, in press). A total of 543 individuals were classified in the upper level at Barranco das Quebradas 3 (Mesolithic or Neolithic); 989 individuals in the early Neolithic at Vale Santo I; and an MNI of 1115 from the Mesolithic/Neolithic (Level 5) and early Neolithic (Levels 1–4) at Rocha das Gaviotas (Carvalho, in press; Carvalho et al., 2005; Dean and Carvalho, in press). For the early Neolithic at Vale Boi, a small number of barnacles have been cited (MNI ¼ 4) (Carvalho et al., 2008). They are also present in the Mesolithic and Neolithic levels at Castelejo and Medo Tojeiro, and in the Mesolithic levels at Vidigal, Samouqueira I and Armaça˜o Nova (Le Gall et al., 1994; Soares, 1996; Tavares da Silva and Soares, 1997; Soares and Tavares da Silva, 2003). In the Mediterranean, plates of this crustacean have been cited at the Algerian site of Corale`s (Doumergue, 1921).
6. Conclusions The earliest evidence for the exploitation of goose barnacles by human groups in Europe dates to the early Holocene, as has been shown by the latest research at archaeological sites on the Atlantic (northern Spain and southwest Portugal) and in the western Mediterranean. The use of fine-meshed screens to sieve archaeological sediments since the 1960s has made it possible to recover the largest plates of these animals, and thus the exploitation of barnacles has been demonstrated for Mesolithic and Neolithic contexts. The study of the goose barnacle remains found in the Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos shows that they were gathered intentionally from rocky substrates in the intertidal and low-shore zones. This has been proven by the large number of plates (called terga, scuta and carina). The action of fire that has been seen on about 20% of the remains may be an indication of the processing of the food at the site, and the later intentional or accidental burning of the remains. The comparison of the sizes (length and width) of the archaeological scuta plates and those of a modern sample gathered by a percebeiro at Islares, located near the archaeological site, suggests the following (Fig. 5): 1. the absence of plates from juvenile individuals suggests that either these were not gathered for consumption or they were gathered (in nature they are found adhered to the stalks of the adult animals) and then discarded in the gathering zone or at the archaeological site. In this respect, it should also be pointed out that the absence of the plates of juvenile individuals in the archaeological record could be due to taphonomic problems;
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
2. there is a predominance of plates in the archaeological sample belonging to adult individuals as large as or larger than in the modern collection. This is not owing to any intentional selection by the percebeiro (avoiding the largest individuals), and therefore may be explained in two ways: a. the goose barnacle specimens may have been larger in the Neolithic than at present b. the modern sample was gathered from an area intensely exploited in present times. This is the hypothesis that we find most convincing, as these crustaceans are currently in very high demand. The Neolithic levels at Los Gitanos contain a large concentration of animal remains, particularly the shells of different mollusc species (NR: 22,116; MNI: 16,917): various limpet species (P. vulgata, P. ulyssiponensis and P. intermedia), as well as other gastropods (mainly O. lineatus and Gibbula sp.), so it appears that these resources formed an important part of the diet of these human groups. This contrasts with the scarcity of other marine resources, such as sea urchins, crabs and barnacles. These were possibly picked up during the gathering of the marine molluscs. In the case of goose barnacles, we can point out that, although they are rich in vitamins and minerals and have a low fat content, a very large number of them are needed to satisfy daily nutritional requirements. In this respect, we have calculated that an adult person can eat 1/2 kg at one meal, that is, some 240–250 barnacles. Continuity in the consumption of goose barnacles during the Mesolithic and Neolithic can be seen in both Southwest Portugal and North Spain, at sites situated near the coast; usually no more than 5 km from the shore. This continuity is seen not only in the exploitation of goose barnacles, but also for other marine resources (molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms). The inexistence of the remains of these crustaceans at archaeological sites in the Upper Palaeolithic in southwest Europe could be explained in three ways: 1) by the flooding of the archaeological deposits nearer the prehistoric coastline (which potentially may have contained the remains of this resource) owing to the Flandrian transgression; 2) the absence of this animal in a cold climate; 3) because human groups did not gather them, which we consider the least likely hypothesis. We think the second explanation is the most likely. At the present time, goose barnacles do not tolerate waters that are too cold. Thus, their northern limit is situated in Finiste`re (Brest). Their colonization of Cornwall (a few specimens identified at Land’s End in 1880, 1984 and 2005; Tater Du, in 2007), in the south-western peninsula of Great Britain, took place in the late 19th century (Southward, 2008), and appears to be related to climate change and human introduction. Consequently, it is quite likely that goose barnacles did not exist on the shores of northern Spain in the Upper Palaeolithic, and only colonized this area during the Holocene. Acknowledgments The authors thank A. Chauvin, M. Cubas, C. Dupont , V. Ferna´ndez and Y. Gruet for their helpful comments. Research was carried out with the support of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science HAR2008-06477-C03-01/HIST ‘‘La implantacio´n de las especies dome´sticas en la Europa atla´ntica: Cronologı´a e impacto en la dieta humana’’, Principal Researcher, P. Arias. References A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., 2005–2006. La explotacio´n y utilizacio´n de los moluscos marinos durante el Paleolı´tico superior y el Mesolı´tico en la Cornisa Canta´brica y en el Valle del Ebro: pasado y presente de la investigacio´n. Homenaje al Prof.
407
Jesu´s Altuna Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) I (57/1), 359–368. San Sebastia´n. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E. Human and marine resource interaction reappraised: archaeofauna remains during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene in Cantabrian Spain. World Archaeology, in press. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E. Los percebes y balanos de de la Cueva de los Gitanos de Montealegre, Sa´mano, Cantabria, in preparation. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Carvajal-Contreras, D.R., 2008. Not only food: marine, terrestrial and freshwater molluscs in archaeological sites. In: A´lvarezFerna´ndez, E., Carvajal-Contreras, D.R., Teira-Mayolini, L.C. (Eds.), Not Only Food. 2nd Meeting of the ICAZ Archaeomalocology Working Group (Santander, February 19th–22nd 2008). Abstracts and Field Trips Guidebook. Ed. IIIPC & Consejerı´a de Cultura, turismo y Deporte del Gobierno de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 11–27. A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Dupont, C., Desse-Berset, N., Dre´ano, Y., Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, R., 2009a. Fish & crabs: exploitation of marine resources on the European Atlantic Façade during prehistoric times. In: National Shellfisheries Association 101st Annual Meeting (Savannah, Georgia, 22nd al 26th March 2009). ˜ o´n-Peredo, R., Rosello´A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, R., Gruet, R., Ontan Izquierdo, E., 2009b. Marine resources of the early farmers in Cantabrian Spain: Los Gitanos Cave (Sa´mano, Cantabria). In: ICAF 28TH Conference on Fish & Seafood, Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives (Crete, Greece, 31st de May–6th de June 2009). Arias, P., 1989. Los procesos de neolitizacio´n en la Regio´n Canta´brica. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cantabria University, Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas, Santander, inedit. Barnes, M., 1996. Pedunculate cirripedes of the genus Pollicipes. Oceanography and Marine Biology 34, 303–394. Barnes, H., Reese, E.S., 1960. The behaviour of the stalked intertidal barnacle Pollicipes polymerus J.B. Sowerby, with reference to its ecology and distribution. The Journal of Animal Ecology 29 (1), 169–185. Bicho, N., Haws, J., 2008. At the land’s end: marine resources and the importance of fluctuations in the coastline in the prehistoric hunter–gatherer economy of Portugal. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2166–2175. Carvalho, A.F. O Mesolı´tico tardı´o em Portugal. En: El Mesolı´tico Geome´trico: el desarrollo de las industrias lı´ticas geome´tricas del VIII-VII milenio BP. II Reunio´n sobre Mesolı´tico de la Cuenca del Ebro y Litoral Mediterra´neo. (Jaca, 2008), in press. Carvalho, A.F., Valente, M.J., Bicho, N.F., Stiner, M.C., Gibaja, J.F., Masucci, M., 2005. O projecto "o proceso de neolitizaça˜o no Algarbe" (Portugal); aˆmbito e premeiros ˜ o´n, R., Garcı´a-Monco´, C. (Eds.), Actas del III Conresultados. In: Arias, P., Ontan greso del Neolı´tico en la Penı´nsula Ibe´rica. Universidad de Cantabria, Monografı´as del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehisto´ricas de Cantabria, I. Santander, pp. 965–973. Carvalho, A.F., Dean, R.M., Bicho, N.F., Figueiral, I., Petchey, F., Davis, S.J.M., Lubell, D., Beukens, R., Morales, A., Rosello´, E., 2008. O Neolı´tico antigo de Vale Boi (Algarbe, Portugal). Primeiros resultados. In: Herna´ndez Pe´rez, M., Soler Garcı´a, J.A., Lo´pez Padilla, J.A. (Eds.), IV Congreso del Neolı´tico Peninsular (Alicante, 27st–30st novembre 2006), Tomo I. Museo Arqueolo´gico de Alicante. Diputacio´n Provincial de Alicante, Alicante, pp. 267–274. Cardoso, A.C., Yule, A.B., 1995. Aspects of the reproductive biology of Pollicipes pollicipes (Cirripedia; Lepadomorpha) from the southwest coast of Portugal, Netherlands. Journal of Aquatic Ecology 29 (3–4), 391–396. Clark, G.A., 1976. El Asturiense canta´brico. In: Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana, vol. XIII. CSIC, Madrid. Cleyet-Merle, J., 1990. Pre´histoire de la peˆche. E. Errance. Collection des Hespe´rides. Paris. Corcho´n, M.S., A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., 2008. Nuevas evidencias de restos de mamı´feros marinos en el Magdaleniense: los datos de La Cueva de Las Caldas ˜ a). Munibe 59, 53–72. (Asturias, Espan ˜ alver Molla´, E., Van Corcho´n, M.S., Mateos, A., A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Delclo`s, X., Pen Der Made, J., 2008. Ressources comple´mentaires et mobilite´ dans le Magdale´nien Cantabrique. Nouvelles donne´es sur les mammife`res marins, les crustace´s, les mollusques et les roches organoge`nes de la Grotte de Las Caldas (Asturies, Espagne). L´ Anthropologie 112 (2), 284–327. Dean, R.M., Carvalho, A.F. Surf and turf: the use of marine and terrestrial resources in the Early Neolithic of coastal Southern Portugal. In: Haws, J., Bicho, N.F. (coords.). Harvesting the Sea: Current Perspectives on Hunter–Gatherer Coastal Adaptations, in press. Detry, C., 2007. Paleoecologia e paleoeconomia do Baixo Tejo no Mesolı´tico final: o contributo do estudo dos mamı´feros dos concheiros de Muge. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Auto´noma de Lisboa/Universidad de Salamanca, Lisboa/ Salamanca. Doumergue, F., 1921. Le "Cimetie`re des Escargots"; foyer littoral pre´historique de Corale`s. Bolletin de la Socie´te´ de Ge´ographie (et d’Arche´ologie) de la Province d’Oran 41, 45–55. Dupont, C., A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Gruet, Y., 2008. Un nouveau crustace´ identifie´ sur le site gaulois de Port Blanc (ıˆle d’Hoe¨dic, Morbihan): le pouce-pied Pollicipes pollicipes (Gmelin, 1790). Bulletin de l´AMARAI 21, 17–23. Dupont, C., Gruet, Y., 2005. Malacofaune et crustace´s marins des amas coquillieres me´solithiques de Beg-an-Dorchenn (Plomeuer, Finiste`re) et de Berg-er-Vil (Quiberon, Morbihan). In: Marchand, G., Tresset, A. (Eds.), Unite´ et diversite´ des processus de ne´olithisation sur la façade atlantique de l´Europe (6e-4e mille´naires avant J.-C.). Table ronde de Nantes (Nantes, 26-27 avril 2002). Me´moire XXXVI de la Socie´te´ Pre´historique Française, pp. 139–161. Paris.
408
´ lvarez-Ferna´ndez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 402–408 E. A
Erdlandson, J.M., 2001. The archaeology of aquatic adaptations: paradigms for a new millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 9 (4), 287–350. Fa, D.A., 2008. Effects of tidal amplitude on intertidal resource availability and dispersal pressure in prehistoric human coastal populations: the Mediterranean–Atlantic transition. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2194–2209. Fano, M.A., 2007. The use of marine resources by the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies of Cantabrian Spain: the current evidence. In: Milner, N., Craig, O.E., Bailey, G.N. (Eds.), Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 136–149. Fano, M.A., Gutie´rrez, F.I., A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, R. The exploitation of the Bay of Biscay (North of Spain) by Late Glacial and Postglacial societies. In: Bailey, G.N., et al. (Eds.). Shell Energy. Prehistoric Coastal Resource Strategies, in press. Ferna´ndez-Garcı´a, R., 2002. La actividad pesquera en la Regio´n Canta´brica durante el Paleolı´tico y el Epipaleolı´tico. Estado de la cuestio´n. Trabajo de Investigacio´n de Tercer Ciclo. University of Cantabria, Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas, Santander, inedit. Ferna´ndez-Jalvo, Y., Andrews, P., 2000. The taphonomy of Pleistocene Caves, with particular reference to Gibraltar. In: Stringer, C.B., Barton, R.N.E., Finlayson, J.C. (Eds.), Neanderthals on the Edge. Papers from a Conference Marking the 150th Anniversary of the Forbes Quarry Discovery, Gibraltar. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 171–182. Ferreira, O.V., 1956. Faune malacologique: crustace´s et poissons. Muge (Moita do Sebastia˜o). In: Congresos Internacionales de Cieˆncias Prehisto´ricas y Protohisto´ricas. Actas de la IV Sesio´n. Zaragoza, pp. 339–353. Girard, S., 1982. E´tude du stock de pouces-pieds de Belle-Ile et de son exploitation. Memoire de fin d’etudes ENSAR, inedit. Gonza´lez-Morales, M.R., 1982. El Asturiense y otras culturas locales. La Explotacio´n de las a´reas litorales de la Regio´n Canta´brica en los tiempos epipaleolı´ticos. Centro de Investigacio´n y Museo de Altamira, 7. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid. Gonza´lez Sainz, C., 1989. El Magdaleniense superior-final de la regio´n canta´brica. Tantı´n y Universidad de Cantabria, Santander. Gruet, Y., 2002. Reconnaissance de quelques espe`ces communes de Crustace´s (balanes et crabes): application au site me´solithique de Beg-er-Vil (Morbihan, France). Revue d’Arche´ome´trie 26, 125–139. Gruet, Y., 2003. Les Crustace´s et les Echinodermes. In: Dupont, C., Gruet, Y., Leroy, A., Marchand, G., Pailler, Y., Sparfel, Y. (Eds.), Le site pre´historique de Be´niguet-3 (ıˆle Be´niguet, Le Conquet, Finiste`re). Bulletin de l´AMARAI 16, 14–18. Gruet, Y. Les crustace´s (crabes et cirripe`des). In: Dupont, C. et al. (Eds.). Beg-anDorchenn : une feneˆtre ouverte sur l’exploitation du littoral par les peuples me´solithiques du sixie`me mille´naire dans l’ouest de la France in press. Gruet, Y., Laporte, L., 1995. Crabes peˆche´s au Ne´olithique Final a` Ponthezie`res (SaintGeorges d’Ole´ron, Charente-Maritime): identifications, modes de peˆche et application de la me´trique. Actes du Colloque de Pe´rigueux 1995. Supple´ment a` la Revue d’Arche´ome´trie, 197–201. Gutie´rrez, F.I., 2005. La explotacio´n de moluscos en la cuenca baja del rı´o Aso´n ˜ a) a inicios del Holoceno (10.000–5.000 BP) y su importancia (Cantabria, Espan en las comunidades humanas del Aziliense y del Mesolı´tico. University of Cantabria, Trabajo de Investigacio´n de Doctorado. Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas, Santander, inedit. Gutie´rrez, F.I., Gonza´lez-Morales, M.R. New data on Asturian shell-midden sites: the caves of Mazaculos and La Llana (Asturias, Northern Spain). In: A´lvarez-Ferna´ndez, E., Carvajal Contreras, D.R. (Eds.). Not Only Food. Marine, Terrestrial and Freshwater Molluscs in Archaeological Sites. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the ICAZ Archaeomalocology Working Group (Santander, February 19th–22nd 2008), in press. de la Hoz, J.J., Garcı´a, L., 1993. Datos para el estudio de la distribucio´n del percebe, Pollicipes cornucopiae (Leach), en Asturias. Publicaciones Especiales del Instituto ˜ ol de Oceanografı´a 11, 65–71. Espan Jennings, L.S., 1914. Pedunculate cirripedia of New Zealand and neighbouring islands. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand 47, 285–293. Jorda´, J., Aura, J.E., Rodrigo, M.J., Pe´rez, M., Badal, E., 2003. El registro paleobiolo´gico ˜ a). cuaternario del yacimiento arqueolo´gico de la Cueva de Nerja (Ma´laga, Espan ˜ ola de Historia Natural (Seccio´n Geologı´a) 98 Boletı´n de la Real Sociedad Espan (1–4), 73–89.
Kameya, A., Zeballos, J., 1988. Distribucio´n y densidad de percebes. Pollicipes elegans (Crustacea: Cirripedia) en el Mediolitoral Peruano (Yasila, Paita, Chilca, Lima). Boletı´n del Instituto del Mar del Peru´ 12 (1), 5–22. Le Gall, O., Altuna, J., Straus, L.G., 1994. Les faunes me´solithique et ne´olithique de Vidigal (Alentejo, Portugal). Archaeozoologia VII (1), 59–72. Lentacker, A., 1986. Preliminary results of the fauna of Cabeço da Arruda (Muge, Portugal). Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia XXVI, 9–26. Lo´pez, J.C., 1998–2000. El yacimiento prehisto´rico de la cueva de Kobeaga II (Ispaster, Bizkaia): cazadores-recolectores en el Paı´s Vasco atla´ntico durante el VIII y VII milenio b. p. Illunzar 4, 83–162. Molares, J., 1998. Estudio del ciclo biolo´gico del percebe (Pollicipes cornucopia Leach) ˜ as Patin ˜ o, X. (Ed.), Marisqueo de las costas de Galicia. Xunta de Galicia. In: Pen ˜ o e acuicultura. Edicios do Castro, Sada, en Galicia. 3as Xornadas de medio marin pp. 135–158. ˜ oz, E., 1997. Los concheros holoce´nicos en Cantabria. University of Cantabria. Mun Trabajo de investigacio´n de Tercer Ciclo. Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas, Santander, inedit. ˜ oz, E., Rasines, P., Santamarı´a, S., Morlote, J.M., 2007. Estudio arqueolo´gico del Mun ˜ oz, E., Montes, R. (Eds.), Intervenciones arqueolo´gicas Abrigo del Cuco. In: Mun en Castro Urdiales. Arqueologı´a y Arte Rupestre Paleolı´tico en las cavidades de El Cuco y La Lastrilla. Excmo, Tomo III. . Ayuntamiento de Castro Urdiales. Concejalı´a de Medio Ambiente y Patrimonio Arqueolo´gico, Castro Urdiales, pp. 15–160. Newman, W.A., 1987. Evolution of cirripedes and their major groups. In: Southward, A.J. (Ed.), Barnacle Biology. Balkema A.A. (Crustacean Issues 5), Rotterdam, pp. 3–42. Novo Loureiro, S., 2000. Un marisco?. El Percebe. Terralia 16, 50–58. ˜ o´n, R., 2000. El Calcolı´tico en la Cornisa Canta´brica. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ontan University of Cantabria. Departamento de Ciencias Histo´ricas. Santander, inedit. ˜ on, R., 2004. Caminos hacia la complejidad: el Calcolı´tico en la Regio´n CanOntan ta´brica. Universidad de Cantabria, Santander. ˜ o´n, R., 2005. La secuencia de la cueva de Los Gitanos (Castro Urdiales, CanOntan ˜ o´n, R., Garcı´a-Monco´, C. tabria) y el Neolı´tico canta´brico. In: Arias, P., Ontan (Eds.), Actas del III Congreso del Neolı´tico en la Penı´nsula Ibe´rica. Universidad de Cantabria, Monografı´as del instituto internacional de Investigaciones Prehisto´ricas de Cantabria, I. Santander, pp. 1035–1043. Pais, J., Legoinha, P., 1999. Figueira Brava Cave (Arra´bida). Geological setting. Memo´rias da Academia das Cieˆncias de Lisboa XXXVIII, 69–81. Pe´rez, A.C., 1996. El percebe en Galicia. Fundacio´n Caixa Galı´cia. Aula del Mar. Rainbow, P.S., 1984. An introduction to the biology of British litoral barnacles. Field Studies 6, 1–51. Relini, G., 1987. Fiches FAO d’identification des espe`ces pour les besoins de la peˆche. Me´diterrane´e et mer d’Europe. Cirripe`des, 168–177. Roche, J., 1960. Le gisement me´solithique de Moita do Sebastia˜o (Muge, Portugal). Arche´ologie. Instituto de Alta Cultura, Lisboa. Soares, J., 1996. Padro˜es de povoamento e subsisteˆncia no mesolitico da costa sudoeste portuguesa. Zephyrus 49, 109–124. Soares, J., Tavares da Silva, C., 2003. A transiça˜o para o Neolı´tico na costa sudoeste portuguesa. In: Gonçalves, V.S. (Ed.), Muita gente poucas antas?. Origens, espaços e contextos do Megalitismo. Actas do II colo´quio Internacional sobre Megalitismo (Regengos de Monsaraz, 3 a 7 de Maio de 2000). Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 25. Ministerio de Cultura. Instituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 45–56. Southward, A.J., 2008. Barnacles. In: Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series), 57. The Linnean Society of London and the Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Association, Shrewsbury. Stiner, M.C., 1994. Honor among thieves. A zooarchaeological study of Neanderthal Ecology. Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Stringer, C.B., Finlayson, J.C., Barton, R.N.E., Ferna´ndez-Jalvo, Y., Ca´ceres, I., Sabin, R.C., Rhodes, E.J., Currant, A.P., Rodrı´guez Vidal, J., Giles-Pacheco, F., Riquelme-Cantal, J.A., 2008. Neanderthal exploitation of marine mammals in Gibraltar. Proccedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 105 (38), 14319–14324. Tavares da Silva, C., Soares, J., 1997. Economias costeiras na Pre´-Histo´ria do Sudoeste portugeˆs. O concheiro de Montes de Baixo. Setu`bal Arqueologica 11–12, 69–108. Zbyszewski, G., Teixeira, C., 1949. Le niveaux quaternaire marin de 5-8 me`tres au Portugal. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Ge´ologique de Portugal 8 (1/2), 1–6.