- Email: [email protected]
A palaeolithic map from 13,660 calBP: engraved stone blocks from the Late Magdalenian in Abauntz Cave (Navarra, Spain)
Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol
Review
A palaeolithic map from 13,660 calBP: engraved stone blocks from the Late Magdalenian in Abauntz Cave (Navarra, Spain) P. Utrilla*, C. Mazo, M.C. Sopena, M. Martı´nez-Bea, R. Domingo ¨ edad (Prehistoria), Universidad de Zaragoza, Consolidated Research Group H-007 ‘‘First Settlers of the Ebro Basin’’, Dpto. de Ciencias de la Antigu C/Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 6 June 2008 Accepted 28 May 2009
An engraved block from the cave of Abauntz is interpreted as a Magdalenian map in which the actual surrounding landscape, including mountains, rivers, and ponds, is represented. Some possible routes or avenues of access to different parts of the geography are also engraved on the landscape. The engraving seems to reproduce the meandering course of a river crossing the upper part of side A of the block, joined by two tributaries near two mountains. One of these is identical to the mountain that can be seen from the cave, with herds of ibex depicted on its hillsides, on both sides of the gorge in front of which the cave of Abauntz is strategically located. In the southern part of the gorge, there is a completely flat area where the watercourses slow down, forming meanders and flooding in springtime. The following elements are also represented on the block: tangles of concentric strokes and bundles of lines forming very marked meanders. In short, all of these engravings could be a sketch or a simple map of the area around the cave. It could represent the plan for a coming hunt or perhaps a narrative story of one that had already happened. This paper is provided in the context of recent discussions on early modern human capacities of spatial awareness, planning, and organized hunting. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Magdalenian art Landscape Palaeolithic Human spatial awareness
Introduction: European prehistoric ‘‘maps’’ In Eastern Europe there are documented cases of topographic representations of the immediate surroundings of several sites (Marshack, 1979; Klı´ma, 1991; Zu¨chner, 1996; Svoboda, 1997). Kozlowski (1992) lists possible maps from Kiev-Kirillovskaya and Mezhirichi in Ukraine, and, in Moravia, those of Pavlov, showing mountains and the meanders of a river, and Dolni Vestonice, with engravings of small arches suggesting the representation of huts. Recently, Svoboda (2007) has presented several complex Gravettian engravings from Moravia (at the Pavlov and Predmostı` sites), and he has suggested their possible interpretation as ‘‘maps’’ and/ or ‘‘hunting plans,’’ recording local landscape features and their relevant qualities such as rivers, slopes, accessibility for animals and humans, or natural barriers. The Pavlov case in particular provides utilitarian information about how the valley and slopes above the site might have been used for driving animal herds and thus for creating an optimal hunting strategy. The image shows a meandering river, the mountain behind the site, and the living
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Utrilla). 0047-2484/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.05.005
site itself, represented by a small double circle in the center of this landscape. An engraving from Predmostı` represents, without doubt, a human female. Several explanations, however, have been proposed concerning the strange geometric representation of the body, the triangular head, and the complex linear patterns inside it. Various ‘‘double-readings’’ appear after more careful examination of this object: according to Svoboda (2007), the triangular head could represent a herd of large animals such as mammoths, and the breasts would refer to the geographic bottleneck of the Moravian Gate in the Carpathian Mountains. The herd, forced to enter into this passage, loses its internal organisation. After passing through, the disorganized animals are faced with some kind of barrier represented by the enigmatic rectangular sign in the middle of the ‘‘belly’’ (Svoboda, 2007). In contrast, some of the cases mentioned in Western Europe, such as the supposed scenery of marshlands reflected in a piece from El Pendo Cave (Cantabria, Spain), have been discounted and severely criticised by Barandiara´n (1993). The clearest example, however, occurs in the meander-shaped lines engraved on the ceiling of Gargas Cave (French Pyrenees), which Marshack (1977, 1979) interpreted as paths or watercourses, but with no link to the surroundings. They may represent the confluence of the Neste and the Garonne rivers, where Gargas is located; an IGN aerial
100
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
photograph of the area shows a similar meander shape (Utrilla et al., 2007–2008). An engraved rib, from the Middle Magdalenian of Llonı´n Cave (Asturias, Spain; Fortea et al., 2004, their Fig. 6), represents another example of landscape features in miniature art. One face of the bone shows a complex composition, similar to the block from Abauntz: one ibex head in profile and some others in frontal view. From the left extends a long triangle including a wavy line. The triangular form is circumscribed by another sharply bent double line, which starts in the upper part of the bone and leaves it at the lower edge. According to Zu¨chner (1996), the engraving shows a mountain crest surrounded by a river and animals living in that area. The cave of Abauntz The cave of Abauntz is located in Navarra, Spain, on the southern side of the Pyrenees, not far from the numerous Magdalenian sites of the Cantabrian coast and those of the Northwestern Pyrenees, such as Isturitz (Esparza, 1995), Duruthy (Arambourou, 1978; CleyetMerle, 1996), or Dufaure (Straus, 1995), with which it is strongly linked in terms of its bone industry (Utrilla and Mazo,1996a,b,c). The published excavations undertaken between 1976 and 1979 (by P. Utrilla) were followed by further work at the site between 1988 and 1996 under the direction of Utrilla and Mazo. The site has a long stratigraphy, ranging from the Mousterian occupation up to the Bronze Age. Two Magdalenian levels can be identified: the upper one (2r) which was bright red-colored (probably stained by ochre or ferric oxide in water deposits), yielded three figuratively-decorated mobiliary art objects, and the lower level (e), grey in color and which contained a varied bone industry (points, wands, decorated spatulae, pendants; Mazo et al., 2008). The spatial distribution of the lithic and bone industries allows for the identification of different functional areas within the internal space of the cave (Utrilla and Mazo, 1992; Utrilla et al., 2003). Two reasonable 14C dates have been obtained by AMS (Higham et al., 2007) for the Middle Magdalenian level (e2). In particular, a date of 13,500 160BP (16,530 calBP; OxA-5983), derived from a decorated spatula, is in accordance with both the bone and lithic industries and their decorative motifs in the Middle Magdalenian caves of Asturias (Fortea et al., 1990; Corcho´n, 2004; Utrilla, 2004; Utrilla and Martı´nez-Bea, in press) and of the Pyrenees (Bahn, 1982; Sieveking, 1987; Barandiara´n, 2003; Fritz and Tosello, 2005). For the red Late Magdalenian level (2r), a date of 11,760 90BP (13,660 calBP; OxA-5116) has been obtained from charcoal adjacent to Block 3 that bears a horse head engraving. This date agrees with the stylebased dating of these images to the Late Magdalenian (with ibex shown in frontal perspective; Utrilla, 1990). This Late Magdalenian level, testament to a short occupation, only yielded 45 lithic pieces, 5 bone points, and 13 (MNI) ungulate game animals, with a predominance of horses and deer. Two of the deer were one month old, a fact that documents at least a spring occupation. The bird remains include Lagopus and Perdix, which indicate a colder climate than the present and an open landscape (Altuna et al., 2001–2002). Taking into account the low-density occupation of this level, it is rather surprising that it yielded five decorated blocks of stone, three of them with engravings of animals and two of them painted.
plane II has a small natural hole (b), with a group of parallel lines leading to it. Side B is divided into three planes. Plane I would correspond to the butt of the biface, and it has a natural concavity with an ellipsoidal spiral in its interior (a). It is framed by two bundles of lines forming an arch; from one extends a third bundle of horizontal lines and three groups of parallel lines. Plane II presents on its upper rim two small flaked-shape borders (b and c) with inner ellipsoidal spirals. A third (d), opposite to the one on side A, is present at the pointed area. Plane III constitutes the reverse part of the biface, and it only presents a few lines with no recognizable figures. Engraved on the lower part of the same side, separated from the upper part by a transverse line, there is a large anthropomorphic figure with his mouth open (f) and two animals (g) in an upsidedown position, which may be identified as an immature auroch or a reindeer. Two more problematic figures can be also discerned: a possible horse and a small anthropomorphic figure with raised arms in the form of those found on the great ceiling of Altamira cave in Cantabria. Different signs or landscape elements are highlighted at the bottom of Figure 2: there are various bundles of undulating lines that could suggest a river in the upper part (1), perhaps separating two herds of Ibex in the gorge; a mountain (2) with a natural concavity in its slope; and several lines in parallel position (4) are shown ‘‘crossing the river’’ or accessing the natural hole. Six signs filled by spirals appear over the deer head (6) and several half-circle signs at the left of the mountain (7). In the lower part, two more meander-shaped bundles can be seen and, on the left side, a tangle of strokes shapes a circular trend (3). Short lines forming a row might represent paths (5). On side B, a group of serial strokes seems to be crossing out two previously drawn figures of hinds (female deer, depicted at a and b in Fig. 2, side B). Three ellipsoidal spirals (6) occupy natural concavities and appear to be associated with a vertical line. It is worth emphasizing one of these signs is in the area of the butt (plane I) where different kinds of signs converge. Another motif on side B is formed by several half-circle signs each composed of fine lines (7). Block 2 (Fig. 3) The second block, an apparent lamp weighing 1573 g, has a concave surface with a central circular hole, perhaps a container for grease used for lighting (Fig. 3). On the lateral side, eight figures were engraved: a naturalistic horse in profile (a), a male ibex in frontal position underneath the neck of the horse (b), and five schematic ibex, grouped around the horse’s back, also in a frontal position (c). The smaller size of their horns and the fact that they are grouped together could lead one to identify the grouped ibex as females, as opposed to the solitary male. Above them, an anthropomorphic figure (d) was engraved. Concerning the ‘‘landscape,’’ a group of bundles of parallel lines (1) could be interpreted as a river, similar to Block 1; there are also fifteen half-circles located below the five grouped ibex, which turn their heads toward the half-circles as if they were smelling the air (7), and several short traces in line similar to paths (5).
Description of the engraved blocks Block 1(Figs. 1 and 2)
Association of sides A and B of Block 1: order of execution of the engravings (Fig. 4)
Weighing 947 g, Block 1 is reminiscent of a biface. We can distinguish two sides and five planes: side A (Fig. 1) is divided into two planes (I and II) by an edge and a flaked-border in its left part (a), both of them emphasized by an incision. The upper-left part of
On Block 1, the superimpositions seem to indicate the existence of two episodes of engraving. If we follow the groups of lines we can see that some of them occupy both side A and side B, so the correspondence between the sides is demonstrated. In Fig. 4, the
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
101
Figure 1. Block 1: Volumetric representation. Side A is divided into two planes (I and II) by an edge and a flaked-border in its left part (a); a small natural hole is present in Plane II (b). Side B is divided into three planes (I, II, and III); Plane I has a natural concavity with an ellipsoidal spiral (a), and Plane II has three small flaked-shape borders (b–d).
sequence of the engravings is explained, based on the superimpositions of lines and the animal figures inserted among them. The composition started at the ‘‘butt’’ (side B, plane I), where first were engraved the four bundles of vertical lines (BI1 to BI4), two of them (BI2 and BI3) continue onto the lower part of side A (plane I: AI2 and AI3). Over them was engraved a bundle of lines in a meander shape (AI4) that is underneath the back of the deer and continues onto the upper part of side A. Line bundles BI3 and BI4,
on the butt, frame a natural concavity whose interior was engraved with an ellipsoidal spiral; a group of parallel traces, perhaps suggestive of a ‘‘ford,’’ reach that concavity (Fig. 1, side B, a). From this natural concavity departs the only horizontal bundle (BI5) that continues, as a river-like shape, across the upper part of side A (AII5). It is superimposed above the antlers of the big deer (Fig. 4 Photo). In this way, the first naturalistic figure, the deer, is framed between two line bundles (AI4-BI4 and AII5-BI5). At the same time
Figure 2. Block 1: Description of the engravings. On side A, several animal outlines are found: two deer, one in frontal view (a) and the other in profile (b); a group of 7 ibex in a row (c), hidden behind an indentation in the block highlighted with a line; another Ibex in profile (d); two series of horns in V-shape with two spots on both sides of the base (possibly the eyes) that could be attributed to an ibex (e).
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
Figure 3. Block 2: On the left, a solitary male ibex is opposite five grouped female ibex, which turn their heads toward the half-circles signs.
103
Figure 4. Sequence of execution for the figures of Block 1. The horizontal connecting lines show that it is the same sign on different sides. The vertical connecting lines show the superposition of the bundles.
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
six small spirals were engraved in the area of the antler, one of them actually superimposed over it and two others underneath bundle AII5. It could be supposed that the hinds on side B would have been engraved at the same time, if we accept that they form a composition together with the deer of side A, because of their position, identical ductus (style, manner, or mode in which someone writes or paints) and naturalistic style, whether this is a rutting season scene or not. Line bundle BII1 is underneath the ears of the incomplete hind; bundle BII2 is superimposed above the body of the complete hind, and bundle BII3 is superimposed atop BII2 and the complete hind. This bundle reaches the upper right part of side A (AII8), and it ends almost at bundle AII5, although it is impossible to establish any superimposition sequence. It is not possible to specify when the young aurochs or reindeer were engraved in the lower right part of side A (plane I) because there is no superimposition with the line bundles. However, we can deduce that these animals were engraved in a moment between AI2 and AI3 due to their upside-down position relative to the rest of the figures. The circles of AI1 seem to be superimposed above these animals, but their position with respect to them is not conclusive. We only know that they were engraved before the anthropomorph and the short traces that form the ‘‘path,’’ one of them superimposed above the dewlap of the deer. In the second phase, the landscape was engraved, occupying the top of side A (plane II). It appears clearly delimited by a linear incision, which separates both parts of side A, alongside the border on the left part of the block. A new bundle of horizontal lines (AII6) covers the AII5 bundle, the group of small schematic ibex, and the ibex shown in profile. These engravings were followed by the group of lines that represent the mountain, the access to the ‘‘cave’’ (formed by a little natural hole located in the ‘‘slope of the mountain’’), the pass or ford over the ‘‘river’’ (AII6), and the herd of ibex. The herd appears hidden behind a break in the block, that possibly has been outlined, to represent a second ‘‘mountain’’ located on the other side of the river, just in the place where the cave of Abauntz is actually found. This broken part of the block has two hill-shaped forms, and in the central area there are crescent-shape signs. Another bundle of lines (AII7) seems to descend from the mountain as a tributary, superimposed atop the bundle AII6. In a third phase were engraved not only the schematic deer in a central position that covers the big deer shown in profile, but also one of the ibex in the herd and the AII6 bundle of lines. Over the schematic deer was engraved the anthropomorph, which culminates the sequence of the narrative. The association of blocks 1 and 2 If we compare the themes represented on blocks 1 and 2, we can observe that several of them have been represented on both stones: the schematic Ibex in frontal position, the anthropomorphic figures, the meanders, and the half-circles. These figures seem to have a common topic (anthropomorphic figures linked to the game available in the area); an interest in landscape (representation of flowing water on both blocks) and, perhaps, a reference to the mating season: bellowing deer on Block 1 (Fig. 2, top, b); solitary male Ibex opposed to grouped female Ibex on Block 2. According to the order of execution of Block 2, the large horse was engraved first, taking up the entire decorative surface; then, the meander and the six Ibex were placed in the spaces that were left. Finally, as in the case of Block 1, the anthropomorphic figure was engraved with deeper strokes. Another detail that both pieces may have in common is the order of completion of the figures in relation to their size. On both
105
blocks, the large realistic figures were represented first, choosing the space to be decorated (horse on Block 2, deer in profile and aurochs/reindeer on Block 1, side A; female deer on side B), and ending with the smaller and more schematic figures (Ibex and deer in frontal position on Block 1, schematic Ibex on Block 2). This order coincides with that noted by V. Villaverde (1994: 198) on stone slabs in Parpallo´ Cave in Valencia, on which the big figures were engraved first and the smaller ones afterwards. In the case of both Abauntz blocks, the landscape signs were represented in second place, before the smaller figures, with the anthropomorphic figure being the latest. It could even be possible that the same hand worked both blocks. Thus, when comparing the ductus of the male Ibex of Block 2 and the first Ibex of Block 1, a similar order of completion may be noted: first the head, then the neck, followed by the back, abdomen, and chest, then the legs from the femur to the hoof. The horns, from the base upwards, were engraved afterwards. Despite the fact that there seem to be two different episodes of engraving, we think that the whole composition would have been realized in a short period of time. Interpretation First phase: large animals. A mating scene? We have contemplated the possibility that on Block 1 there were two main engraving episodes with several intermediate phases. The first one would correspond to the animals of large size, which occupy both sides of the main central area: the deer on side A and the two hinds grouped on side B. All of them have the same size and a naturalistic style; thus, they seem to participate in only one scene or composition. The scene could have been a represention of the fall rut season of the deer because the stag is shown with its antlers totally developed, the typically open mouth, bellowing, with its head raised. It is the same representation of the deer at Morin (Les Landes, France; Deffarge et al., 1975) or several examples from La Vache (Arie`ge, France; Cre´mades, 1993, 1997a,b). Certainly, however, the open mouth and the raised head also appear in wounded deer, which express pain in this way. For example, there are cases of three animals in Candamo, Buxu (Asturias), and Pasiega (Cantabria, Spain) that are engraved in this manner. Alternatively, for these engravings it has been suggested that hunters used the stag bellowing of the rut season to locate and more easily get near their prey (Gonza´lez Sainz, 2007–2008). Other deer with antlers and open mouths, such as that on the great block at La Madeleine (Dordogne, France) who is followed by her fawn, are considered female reindeer because of their small antlers. At one time we had thought that, perhaps, the two immature animals on Block 1 could be reindeer (although with very long ears) and that the big ‘‘deer’’ could be in fact a reindeer, because of its palm-shaped antler tines and its large dewlap. Nevertheless, the non-convex frontal profile of the Block 1 deer is much more characteristic of a red deer than of a reindeer; we also dismissed its interpretation as a female reindeer because of the well-developed antler, which is one other aspect that would not fit well with the morphological characteristics used to determine the iconography in question (Tosello, 2003: 21, 23). The hinds on side B present lifted snouts. The ears are also shown and one of the hinds is shown with an advanced leg in an alert position. The crescent signs that appear over its head, without excluding any other interpretation, could represent the bellowing sound made by the deer or, maybe, the smell that the hinds would perceive from the stags, strengthening the unified character of the composition on both sides of the block. In this case, as is well known for the Late Magdalenian in the Cantabrian region, the representation of hinds with various signs associated with their
106
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
Figure 5. Hinds with signs near their heads: 1. Abauntz; 2. El Valle; 3. El Pendo (2 and 3 after Barandiara´n, 2006).
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
snouts has been interpreted as an expression of their great sense of ˆ tons from the smell (Barandiara´n, 1984), such as occurs on the ba caves of Pendo and Valle (Cantabria; Fig. 5). In favor of the first interpretation, the sound that emanates from the bellowing of the stags could be suggested by the six circular spirals represented over the head of the deer, whose superposition sequence indicates that they were engraved after the animal, but before the river meander. Second phase: landscape represented in the map: the strategic plan for a hunt? The principal novelty yielded by Block 1 from Abauntz is that, for the very first time in Western Europe, the landscape surrounding an actual site seems to be represented (mountain, rivers, ponds), and
107
that, on this landscape, some routes or access points were marked which may be linked to ellipsoidal spirals that are difficult to interpret. Thus, a multiple engraving seems to reproduce the meandering flow of the river (Fig. 2.1) crossing the upper part of side A and joined by two tributaries near the mountain. Surprisingly, as the 1:50.000 map of this area shows Fig. 7, there is a similar watercourse which incorporates two tributaries near the place where there is a mountain, situated opposite the cave. This mountain is apparently engraved on the block (Figs. 2.2 and 7.1); it has an identical shape to the one that can be seen from the cave. There are depicted herds of Ibex on its hillsides, along both sides of the gorge, in front of which the cave of Abauntz is strategically placed. In the mountain of the other side of the engraved ‘‘river,’’ there is a natural small concavity, with a group of parallel short traces as an access to it, which could had been used to
Figure 6. Block 1, Side A, top: Representation of elements of the landscape in the upland zone: mountain, river, passage over the river (ford?). Note how two herds of ibex (represented as complete bodies, not just by their horns) occupy both riverbanks in the zone of the mountain. Those on the lower bank are hidden behind a line that outlines a border in the block and crosses it along its edge separating the two main biotopes represented (mountain and plain). Side A, bottom: Representation of elements of the landscape on the plain: ponds, meanders, and paths. Small bovines or reindeer and a problematic horse represent fauna typical of a plain or steppe.
108
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
indicate the cave of San Gregorio, located in front of the cave of Abauntz. In this other cave there is also a Magdalenian level (Figs. 2.4 and 6). On the other hand, the Ibex are smaller and more schematic the farther they are from the foreground, as if the artist were seeking to show the depth in the composition, a third dimension. In contrast, to the south of the gorge there is a completely flat area where the watercourses slow down, forming meanders that flood during the spring thaw (Fig. 7.2). This also appears in Block 1: tangles of concentric strokes and bundles of lines forming very marked
meanders (Figs. 2.3 and 6, side A, bottom). The surrounding animals are no longer those that inhabit the mountains, but rather animals typical of the plains: two small aurochsen or reindeer and a possible horse. This, then, could represent the plan for a hunt yet to happen or, maybe, the narrative story of a hunt that had already occurred. Series of short oblique strokes (Fig. 2.4) cut across the river near the mountain (Fig. 6, side A, top), which could represent fords, or even bridges; three similar signs are found on side B, two in a natural concavity and the third one crossing the river (Fig. 2.4). Another group of short strokes, now forming a row, was represented crossing the rear
Figure 7. Representation of the surrounding landscape. In the center is shown the one-hour exploitation territory surrounding the cave of Abauntz. At the top, the engraved ‘‘mountain’’ (right) and the actual mountain (left). At the bottom, on the right, there is a representation of possibly flooded land. On the left, the real landscape of the plain flooded after a snowfall.
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
Figure 8. Position of Block 1, the dihedral burins, and the engraved sandstone.
109
110
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
legs of the frontally represented deer (Fig. 2.5), possibly a representation of its hoof prints. Six ellipsoidal signs in spiral form, some of them filling hollows, complete the representation (Fig. 2.6). Perhaps they could be marking the location of shelters, springs, or places where raw materials or food can be found. Ethnology provides us with rich evidence of how recent hunters-gatherers produce simple but practical ‘‘maps’’ and give names to geographic features in the landscape (e.g., Mallery, 1886; Svoboda, 2007). It is not likely that the landscape would have changed substantially since Late Magdalenian times. The mountain in front of the cave was already shaped in its present form in the Tertiary Period, when the Pyrenees emerged as a product of the Alpine Orogeny. Only the river level may have been somewhat higher than nowadays, a fact that cannot be discerned on the block due to its small size. The river and its tributaries carve their way via a valley in a very narrow landscape, as it is shown on the modern map. Only when they have reached the open plain would the river’s channel have been different, but this is expressed by the circles and spirals in the left lower zone of side A of the block. Discussion Were the blocks engraved in situ? The lithic assemblage found in the same level as the engraved blocks is composed of 48 items. We have not done a functional analysis to determine if some of the items (especially the 12 burins, of which 11 are dihedral) were used to engrave the blocks because a thick patina does not lend itself to obtaining good microwear results. Therefore, we cannot confirm that the burins that surrounded the decorated block were in fact the instruments employed to engrave it. But indeed, some of the engraving lines such as those of the anthropomorphic ones are double and parallel, which suggests that they could have been traced with an instrument characterized by a polygonal or sigmoid edge. Next to the blocks, a long flat piece of sandstone with one of its faces completely covered by engravings was found. The artist might have used this piece to test the engraving instrument. It is very suggestive that this ensembledthe flat piece of sandstone and the burinsdwas concentrated in the immediate vicinity of Block 1, within an area two meters in diameter (Fig. 8). Given that blocks 1 and 2 suggest similar manufacturing patterns, we believe that the pieces were engraved in situ. It is an established fact that burins did not serve only to engrave, as was proposed by L. Leguay and D. Peyrony in the late XIXth century, or to carve deep grooves in bone, antler, or ivory in order to extract splinters (Movius, 1968). There is no simple relationship between this artifact’s morphology and its function, and a good number of studies show that objects classified as burins may have had many possible uses, with several active zones employed on a wide range of materials and for various actions (Vaughan, 1985; Plisson, 1985). There are also some indications that suggest that the burins were waste-products in several operative chains (Toma´skova´, 2005) or core residues (Plisson, 1985). Indeed in level ‘‘e’’ (Middle Magdalenian) from Abauntz the functional study showed that the main uses of dihedral and truncated burins and endscraper burins were related to hide-working, scraping, cutting and drilling or, simply, to facilitate tool grip (Mazo, 1989; Utrilla and Mazo, 1992). What was the function of Abauntz Cave during the Late Magdalenian? It is difficult to explain the presence of these blocks in a cave of such a low occupation density. Due to its scant lithic artifact content
Abauntz Cave was not a base camp for many people but may have been just a temporary shelter during a short expedition. The cave has a very favorable location for hunting, due to its strategic position in a transit zone for game. The record of a great density of artifacts (171 pieces m3) in the Middle Magdalenian level, dated to 16,530 calBP, contrasts with the scarcity registered (62 m3) for the Late Magdalenian level, dated to 13,660 calBP, which, paradoxically, is where the extraordinary decorated blocks appeared. A possible explanation for this artistic phenomenon is provided by Binford (1980): the Nunamiut hunters of the Mask Site spent their time making crafts while waiting for reindeer at their hunting stand. The artistic richness of Abauntz during the Late Magdalenian occupation(s) is emphasized by the finding, in the same level ‘‘2r,’’ of a third engraved block and two other painted stones. On the third engraved block, there is represented another horse with multiple strokes, which is one of the finest pieces of Spanish Magdalenian mobiliary art known (Utrilla and Mazo, 1996a,b,c; Utrilla et al., 2004). As a whole, the horse is a predominant animal in portable art and in parietal sanctuaries of the Late Magdalenian (Sieveking, 1987; Tosello, 2003) and, in particular, in the Western Pyrenean area of influence of Isturitz/Duruthy, to which Abauntz belongs (Utrilla and Martı´nez-Bea, in press). In any case, Abauntz should not be considered to be an artist’s workshop if we compare its five examples of portable art with the 300 blocks or plaquettes from the cave of Limeuil in Dordogne (Tosello, 2003), the 180 stone figurines from Isturitz (Mons, 1996), or the 5,034 plaquettes from Parpallo´ (Villaverde, 1994). Block 1 could be telling a simple story, depicted on a stone of almost 1 kg in weight, which was left in the cave as a message for those who followed. However, given its location as part of the paved floor, it might have gone unnoticed. Therefore, it could be seen as a sketch or map of marked areas of interest for the author, who left it in the cave as a reminder to him or to the group when visiting the cave again. A second option is possible: Abauntz could have been a mobiliary art sanctuary, a model that, in Late Magdalenian times, would have substituted for the earlier parietal sanctuaries. But this does not seem likely in the case of Block 1, since it was part of the paved floor at the base of the level, as if it had been recycled after ‘‘use’’ as a map. Besides, the hinds on side B were vigorously rubbed out, as if the artist (or someone else) had rejected them. Neither does it seem to be the case for Block 2, which had a function as a lamp. Only the great horse of Block 3 would fit with a ritual interpretation as it was found in bright red-colored dirt, next to a hearth, and associated with two flat stones: one of them pointed and the other one axeshaped more than 20 cm long. Both of them were painted with undulating lines, in one case simulating an anthropomorphic figure. Six pieces of ochre and a grindstone, completely stained red, were found nearby. Block 3 could have been the symbol of a clan (Arambourou, 1978), as has also present in Isturitz and Duruthy, which would indicate that the representation of the horse was left as a signature of their presence in the cave, or perhaps even of their ownership of Abauntz (Utrilla et al., 2007–2008). Acknowledgements This paper forms part of the project Cicyt HUM- 2005-02882 ‘‘Hunters-Gatherers in the Ebro Basin’’ supported by the Spanish Inter-Ministry Commission of Science and Technology (CICYT). We thank our colleague Professor Lawrence G. Straus, who has corrected the English translation. We are also grateful to the JHE reviewers and Editor, Susan Anton, for the constructive criticisms of an earlier version of this paper. Their comments have contributed to improving the manuscript.
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
References Altuna, J., Mariezcurrena, K., Elorza, M., 2001–2002. Arqueozoologı´a de los niveles paleolı´ticos de la cueva de Abauntz (Arraiz, Navarra). Salduie 2, 1–26. Arambourou, R., 1978. Le gisement pre´historique de Duruthy, a` Sorde-L’Abbaye (Landes). Bilan des recherches de 1958 a` 1975. Me´moires de la S.P.F., t.13. Parı´s. Bahn, P.G., 1982. Inter-site and inter-regional links during the Upper Palaeolithic. The Pyrenean evidence. Oxford J. Archaeol. I (3), 247–268. Barandiara´n, I., 1984. Utilizacio´n del espacio y proceso gra´fico en el arte mueble paleolı´tico. Scripta Praehistorica. Francisco Jorda´. Oblata, Salamanca, pp. 113–161. Barandiara´n, I., 1993. El lobo feroz: la vacuidad de un cuento magdaleniense. Veleia 10, 7–37. Barandiara´n, I., 2003. Grupos homoespecı´ficos en el imaginario mobiliar magdaleniense. Retratos de familia y cuadros de ge´nero. In: Anejos de Veleia, 21 Vitoria. Barandiara´n, I., 2006. Ima´genes y adornos en el arte porta´til paleolı´tico. Ed. Ariel, Barcelona. Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow smoke and dog’s tails. Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. Am. Antiq. 45, 4–20. Cleyet-Merle, J.J., 1996. Duruthy (Sorde-L’Abbaye, Landes). In: Thiault, H., Roy, J.B. (Eds.), L’art pre´historique des Pyre´ne´es. Muse´e des Antiquite´s Nationales, Paris, pp. 178–180. Corcho´n, M.S., 2004. Europa 16500–14000 a.C.: un lenguaje comu´n. In: ˜ o´n (Ed.), La materia del lenguaje prehisto´rico. El arte mueble Arias, Ontan paleolı´tico de Cantabria en su contexto, pp. 105–126. Santander. Cre´mades, M., 1993. La repre´sentation des variations saisonnieres dans l’art parietal pale´olithique. Paleo 5, 319–331. Cre´mades, M., 1997a. La repre´sentation des variations saisonnie`res dans l’art pale´olithique. L’Anthropologie 101, 36–82. Cre´mades, M., 1997b. Bestiaire figure´, environnement animal, saisonnalite´ a` la grotte de La Vache (Alliat, Arie`ge). Bull. Soc. Prehist. Fr. 94 (4), 455–469. Deffarge, R., Laurent, P., Sonneville-Bordes, D., 1975. Arte mobilier du Magdale´nien Supe´rieur de l’abri Morin, a` Pessac-sur-Dordogne (Gironde). Gallia Pre´histoire 18, 1–64. Esparza, X., 1995. La cueva de Isturitz. Su yacimiento y sus relaciones con la cornisa canta´brica durante el Paleolı´tico Superior. UNED, Madrid. Fortea, J., De La Rasilla, M., Rodrı´guez, V., 2004. L’art parie´tal et la se´quence ˜ amellera Alta, Asturies, arche´ologique pale´olithique de la grotte de Llonı´n (Pen Espagne). Pre´histoire, Arts et Societe´s 59, 7–29. Fortea, J., Corcho´n, S., Gonza´lez Morales, M., Rodriguez, A., Hoyos, M., Laville, H., Dupre´, M., Ferna´ndez, J., 1990. Travaux re´cents dans les valle´es du Nalon et du Sella (Asturies). In: Clottes, J. (Ed.), L’art des objets au Pale´olithique, pp. 219–244. Foix. Fritz, C., Tosello, G., 2005. Entre Pe´rigord et Cantabres: les Magdale´niens de Marsoulas. In: Jaubert, J., Barbaza, M. (Eds.), Territoires, de´placements, mobilite´, e´changes durant la Pre´histoire, pp. 311–327. Tulouse. Gonza´lez Sainz, C., 2007–2008. El tema del ciervo herido en el arte parietal paleolı´tico de la regio´n Canta´brica. Evolucio´n iconogra´fica. Veleia 24–25, 305–327. Higham, T.F.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Brock, F., Baker, D., Ditchfield, P., 2007. Radiocarbon dates from The Oxford AMS system. Archaeometry datelist 32. Archaeometry 49, S1–S60. Klı´ma, B., 1991. Die jungpala¨olithischen Mammtja¨ger-Siedlungen Dolnı´ Vestonice und Pavlov in Su¨dma¨hren. CSFR, Archa´ologie und Museum, Liestal. Kozlowski, J., 1992. L’art de la pre´histoire en Europe orientale. CNRS Editions, Parı´s. Mallery, G., 1886. Pictographs of the North American Indians. 4th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1882–1883, pp. 7–256. Marshack, A., 1977. The meander as a system. The analysis and recognition of iconographic units in upper palaeolithic compositions. In: Ucko, P.J. (Ed.), Form in Indigenous Art, Schematisation in the Art of Aboriginal Australia and Prehistoric Europe. Humanities Press Inc., New Jersey, pp. 286–317. Marshack, A., 1979. Upper palaeolithic symbol systems of the Russian plain. Cognitive and comparative analysis. Curr. Anthropol. 20 (2), 271–305. Mazo, C., 1989. Ana´lisis de huellas de uso en u´tiles de sı´lex del Paleolı´tico. Tesis Doctoral ine´dita. Universidad de Zaragoza. Mazo, C., Utrilla, P., Sopena, M.C., 2008. Co´mputos lunares? en el Magdaleniense Medio de la Cueva de Abauntz. Una reflexio´n sobre marcas en mu´ltiplos de
111
siete. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I. Nueva e´poca. Prehistoria y Arqueologı´a, t. I, 135–154. Mons, L., 1996. Un atelier de sculpteurs sur pierre a` Isturitz. In: Thiault, H., Roy, J.B. (Eds.), L’art pre´historique des Pyre´ne´es. Muse´e des Antiquite´s Nationales, Paris, p. 236. Movius, H., 1968. Note on the history of the discovery and recognition of the function of burin as tools. In: de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (Ed.), La pre´histoire, proble`mes et tendances. C.N.R.S, Paris, pp. 311–318. Plisson, H., 1985. E´tude fonctionnelle d’outillages lithiques pre´historiques par l’analyse des micro-usures: Recherche Me´thodologique et Arche´ologique. Universite´ de Paris I, Paris. Sieveking, A., 1987. Engraved Magdalenian Plaquettes. A Regional and Stylistic Analysis of Stone, Bone and Anttler Plaquettes from Upper Palaeolithic Sites in France and Cantabric Spain. B.A.R, Oxford. Straus, L.G., 1995. Les derniers chasseurs de rennes du monde pyre´ne´en. Memoires SPF t. XXII. Paris. Svoboda, J., 1997. Symbolisme gravettien en Moravie. Espace, Temps et Formes. Bull. Soc. Prehist. de L’Arie`ge-Pyre´ne´es 52, 87–104. Svoboda, J., 2007. Spatial representations in the Upper Paleolithic: the cases from Pavlov and Predmostı´. In: The Intellectual and spiritual expressions of nonliterate peoples. Colloque UISPP-CISENP, Capo di Ponte, pp. 123–126. Toma´skova´, S., 2005. What is a burin? Typology, Technology, and Interregional Comparison. J. Archaeol. Meth. Theor. 12, 79–115. Tosello, G., 2003. Pierres grave´es du Pe´rigord magdale´nien. Art, symboles, territoires. XXXVI Supple´ment a` Gallia Pre´histoire. CNRS. Editions, Paris. Utrilla, P., 1990. Bases objectives de la chronologie de l’art mobilier sur la Cote Cantabrique. In: Clottes, J. (Ed.), L’art des objets au Pale´olithique, 1, pp. 83–104. Foix. Utrilla, P., 2004. Evolucio´n histo´rica de las sociedades canta´bricas durante el Tardiglacial. El Magdaleniense inicial, inferior y medio (16.500–13.000 BP). In: Fano, M.A. (Ed.), Las Sociedades del Paleolı´tico en la Regio´n Canta´brica. Kobie Anejos, 8, pp. 243–274. Bilbao. Utrilla, P., Martı´nez-Bea, M., in press. Sanctuaires rupestres comme marqueurs d’identite´ territoriale. Sites d’agre´gation et animaux « sacre´s ». In: Sauvet, J., Fritz, C., Tosello, G. (Eds.), Art rupestre et communication espaces symboliques et territoires culturels. Toulouse. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 1992. L’ocupation de l’espace dans la grotte d’Abauntz (Navarra, Espagne). In: Le peuplement magdale´nien. Pale´ogeographie physique et humaine. Colloque de Chancelade 1988. C.T.H.S., Paris, pp. 365–376. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 1996a. Le versant sud des Pyre´ne´es. In: Thiault, H., Roy, J.B. (Eds.), L’art pre´historique des Pyre´ne´es. Muse´e des Antiquite´s Nationales, Paris, pp. 60–69. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 1996b. Le Pale´olithique Supe´rieur dans le versant sud des Pyre´ne´es. Communications et influences avec le monde Pyre´ne´en français. In: Delporte, H., Clottes, J. (Eds.), Pyre´ne´es Pre´historiques. Arts et Societe´s. C.T.H.S., Paris, pp. 243–262. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 1996c. Arte mueble sobre soporte lı´tico de la cueva de Abauntz. Su aportacio´n a los estilos del Magdaleniense tardı´o. Complutum extra-6 (1), 41–62. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., Domingo, R., 2003. Les structures d’habitat de l’occupation magdale´nienne de la grotte d’Abauntz (Navarre, Espagne). L’organisation de l’espace. In: Vasil’ev, S.A., Soffer, O., Kozlowski, J. (Eds.), Perceived Landscapes and Built Environments. The Cultural Geography of Late Paleolithic Eurasia. B.A.R, Oxford, pp. 25–37. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., Sopena, M.C., Domingo, R., Nagore, O., 2004. L’art mobilier sur pierre du versant sud des Pyre´ne´es: les blocs grave´s de la grotte d’Abauntz. In: Lejeune, M.L., Welte´, A.C. (Eds.), L’art du Pale´olithique supe´rieur. XIVe Congre`s de l’UISPP (Lie`ge, 2001), 107. ERAUL, pp. 199–218. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., Sopena, M.C., Domingo, R., Martı´nez-Bea, M., 2007–2008. Rı´os, ˜ as y charcas: una representacio´n de paisaje en el bloque 1 de la cueva de montan Abauntz. Veleia 24–25, 229–260. Vaughan, P.C., 1985. Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Villaverde, V., 1994. Arte Paleolı´tico de la Cova del Parpallo´. Estudio de la coleccio´n de plaquetas y cantos grabados y pintados. Servei d’Investigacio´ Prehisto`rica, Valencia. Zu¨chner, Ch., 1996. The scaliform sign of Altamira and the origin of maps in ˜ os despue´s. Uniprehistoric Europe. In: Moure, A. (Ed.), El Hombre Fo´sil 80 an versidad de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 325–343.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol
Review
A palaeolithic map from 13,660 calBP: engraved stone blocks from the Late Magdalenian in Abauntz Cave (Navarra, Spain) P. Utrilla*, C. Mazo, M.C. Sopena, M. Martı´nez-Bea, R. Domingo ¨ edad (Prehistoria), Universidad de Zaragoza, Consolidated Research Group H-007 ‘‘First Settlers of the Ebro Basin’’, Dpto. de Ciencias de la Antigu C/Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 6 June 2008 Accepted 28 May 2009
An engraved block from the cave of Abauntz is interpreted as a Magdalenian map in which the actual surrounding landscape, including mountains, rivers, and ponds, is represented. Some possible routes or avenues of access to different parts of the geography are also engraved on the landscape. The engraving seems to reproduce the meandering course of a river crossing the upper part of side A of the block, joined by two tributaries near two mountains. One of these is identical to the mountain that can be seen from the cave, with herds of ibex depicted on its hillsides, on both sides of the gorge in front of which the cave of Abauntz is strategically located. In the southern part of the gorge, there is a completely flat area where the watercourses slow down, forming meanders and flooding in springtime. The following elements are also represented on the block: tangles of concentric strokes and bundles of lines forming very marked meanders. In short, all of these engravings could be a sketch or a simple map of the area around the cave. It could represent the plan for a coming hunt or perhaps a narrative story of one that had already happened. This paper is provided in the context of recent discussions on early modern human capacities of spatial awareness, planning, and organized hunting. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Magdalenian art Landscape Palaeolithic Human spatial awareness
Introduction: European prehistoric ‘‘maps’’ In Eastern Europe there are documented cases of topographic representations of the immediate surroundings of several sites (Marshack, 1979; Klı´ma, 1991; Zu¨chner, 1996; Svoboda, 1997). Kozlowski (1992) lists possible maps from Kiev-Kirillovskaya and Mezhirichi in Ukraine, and, in Moravia, those of Pavlov, showing mountains and the meanders of a river, and Dolni Vestonice, with engravings of small arches suggesting the representation of huts. Recently, Svoboda (2007) has presented several complex Gravettian engravings from Moravia (at the Pavlov and Predmostı` sites), and he has suggested their possible interpretation as ‘‘maps’’ and/ or ‘‘hunting plans,’’ recording local landscape features and their relevant qualities such as rivers, slopes, accessibility for animals and humans, or natural barriers. The Pavlov case in particular provides utilitarian information about how the valley and slopes above the site might have been used for driving animal herds and thus for creating an optimal hunting strategy. The image shows a meandering river, the mountain behind the site, and the living
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Utrilla). 0047-2484/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.05.005
site itself, represented by a small double circle in the center of this landscape. An engraving from Predmostı` represents, without doubt, a human female. Several explanations, however, have been proposed concerning the strange geometric representation of the body, the triangular head, and the complex linear patterns inside it. Various ‘‘double-readings’’ appear after more careful examination of this object: according to Svoboda (2007), the triangular head could represent a herd of large animals such as mammoths, and the breasts would refer to the geographic bottleneck of the Moravian Gate in the Carpathian Mountains. The herd, forced to enter into this passage, loses its internal organisation. After passing through, the disorganized animals are faced with some kind of barrier represented by the enigmatic rectangular sign in the middle of the ‘‘belly’’ (Svoboda, 2007). In contrast, some of the cases mentioned in Western Europe, such as the supposed scenery of marshlands reflected in a piece from El Pendo Cave (Cantabria, Spain), have been discounted and severely criticised by Barandiara´n (1993). The clearest example, however, occurs in the meander-shaped lines engraved on the ceiling of Gargas Cave (French Pyrenees), which Marshack (1977, 1979) interpreted as paths or watercourses, but with no link to the surroundings. They may represent the confluence of the Neste and the Garonne rivers, where Gargas is located; an IGN aerial
100
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
photograph of the area shows a similar meander shape (Utrilla et al., 2007–2008). An engraved rib, from the Middle Magdalenian of Llonı´n Cave (Asturias, Spain; Fortea et al., 2004, their Fig. 6), represents another example of landscape features in miniature art. One face of the bone shows a complex composition, similar to the block from Abauntz: one ibex head in profile and some others in frontal view. From the left extends a long triangle including a wavy line. The triangular form is circumscribed by another sharply bent double line, which starts in the upper part of the bone and leaves it at the lower edge. According to Zu¨chner (1996), the engraving shows a mountain crest surrounded by a river and animals living in that area. The cave of Abauntz The cave of Abauntz is located in Navarra, Spain, on the southern side of the Pyrenees, not far from the numerous Magdalenian sites of the Cantabrian coast and those of the Northwestern Pyrenees, such as Isturitz (Esparza, 1995), Duruthy (Arambourou, 1978; CleyetMerle, 1996), or Dufaure (Straus, 1995), with which it is strongly linked in terms of its bone industry (Utrilla and Mazo,1996a,b,c). The published excavations undertaken between 1976 and 1979 (by P. Utrilla) were followed by further work at the site between 1988 and 1996 under the direction of Utrilla and Mazo. The site has a long stratigraphy, ranging from the Mousterian occupation up to the Bronze Age. Two Magdalenian levels can be identified: the upper one (2r) which was bright red-colored (probably stained by ochre or ferric oxide in water deposits), yielded three figuratively-decorated mobiliary art objects, and the lower level (e), grey in color and which contained a varied bone industry (points, wands, decorated spatulae, pendants; Mazo et al., 2008). The spatial distribution of the lithic and bone industries allows for the identification of different functional areas within the internal space of the cave (Utrilla and Mazo, 1992; Utrilla et al., 2003). Two reasonable 14C dates have been obtained by AMS (Higham et al., 2007) for the Middle Magdalenian level (e2). In particular, a date of 13,500 160BP (16,530 calBP; OxA-5983), derived from a decorated spatula, is in accordance with both the bone and lithic industries and their decorative motifs in the Middle Magdalenian caves of Asturias (Fortea et al., 1990; Corcho´n, 2004; Utrilla, 2004; Utrilla and Martı´nez-Bea, in press) and of the Pyrenees (Bahn, 1982; Sieveking, 1987; Barandiara´n, 2003; Fritz and Tosello, 2005). For the red Late Magdalenian level (2r), a date of 11,760 90BP (13,660 calBP; OxA-5116) has been obtained from charcoal adjacent to Block 3 that bears a horse head engraving. This date agrees with the stylebased dating of these images to the Late Magdalenian (with ibex shown in frontal perspective; Utrilla, 1990). This Late Magdalenian level, testament to a short occupation, only yielded 45 lithic pieces, 5 bone points, and 13 (MNI) ungulate game animals, with a predominance of horses and deer. Two of the deer were one month old, a fact that documents at least a spring occupation. The bird remains include Lagopus and Perdix, which indicate a colder climate than the present and an open landscape (Altuna et al., 2001–2002). Taking into account the low-density occupation of this level, it is rather surprising that it yielded five decorated blocks of stone, three of them with engravings of animals and two of them painted.
plane II has a small natural hole (b), with a group of parallel lines leading to it. Side B is divided into three planes. Plane I would correspond to the butt of the biface, and it has a natural concavity with an ellipsoidal spiral in its interior (a). It is framed by two bundles of lines forming an arch; from one extends a third bundle of horizontal lines and three groups of parallel lines. Plane II presents on its upper rim two small flaked-shape borders (b and c) with inner ellipsoidal spirals. A third (d), opposite to the one on side A, is present at the pointed area. Plane III constitutes the reverse part of the biface, and it only presents a few lines with no recognizable figures. Engraved on the lower part of the same side, separated from the upper part by a transverse line, there is a large anthropomorphic figure with his mouth open (f) and two animals (g) in an upsidedown position, which may be identified as an immature auroch or a reindeer. Two more problematic figures can be also discerned: a possible horse and a small anthropomorphic figure with raised arms in the form of those found on the great ceiling of Altamira cave in Cantabria. Different signs or landscape elements are highlighted at the bottom of Figure 2: there are various bundles of undulating lines that could suggest a river in the upper part (1), perhaps separating two herds of Ibex in the gorge; a mountain (2) with a natural concavity in its slope; and several lines in parallel position (4) are shown ‘‘crossing the river’’ or accessing the natural hole. Six signs filled by spirals appear over the deer head (6) and several half-circle signs at the left of the mountain (7). In the lower part, two more meander-shaped bundles can be seen and, on the left side, a tangle of strokes shapes a circular trend (3). Short lines forming a row might represent paths (5). On side B, a group of serial strokes seems to be crossing out two previously drawn figures of hinds (female deer, depicted at a and b in Fig. 2, side B). Three ellipsoidal spirals (6) occupy natural concavities and appear to be associated with a vertical line. It is worth emphasizing one of these signs is in the area of the butt (plane I) where different kinds of signs converge. Another motif on side B is formed by several half-circle signs each composed of fine lines (7). Block 2 (Fig. 3) The second block, an apparent lamp weighing 1573 g, has a concave surface with a central circular hole, perhaps a container for grease used for lighting (Fig. 3). On the lateral side, eight figures were engraved: a naturalistic horse in profile (a), a male ibex in frontal position underneath the neck of the horse (b), and five schematic ibex, grouped around the horse’s back, also in a frontal position (c). The smaller size of their horns and the fact that they are grouped together could lead one to identify the grouped ibex as females, as opposed to the solitary male. Above them, an anthropomorphic figure (d) was engraved. Concerning the ‘‘landscape,’’ a group of bundles of parallel lines (1) could be interpreted as a river, similar to Block 1; there are also fifteen half-circles located below the five grouped ibex, which turn their heads toward the half-circles as if they were smelling the air (7), and several short traces in line similar to paths (5).
Description of the engraved blocks Block 1(Figs. 1 and 2)
Association of sides A and B of Block 1: order of execution of the engravings (Fig. 4)
Weighing 947 g, Block 1 is reminiscent of a biface. We can distinguish two sides and five planes: side A (Fig. 1) is divided into two planes (I and II) by an edge and a flaked-border in its left part (a), both of them emphasized by an incision. The upper-left part of
On Block 1, the superimpositions seem to indicate the existence of two episodes of engraving. If we follow the groups of lines we can see that some of them occupy both side A and side B, so the correspondence between the sides is demonstrated. In Fig. 4, the
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
101
Figure 1. Block 1: Volumetric representation. Side A is divided into two planes (I and II) by an edge and a flaked-border in its left part (a); a small natural hole is present in Plane II (b). Side B is divided into three planes (I, II, and III); Plane I has a natural concavity with an ellipsoidal spiral (a), and Plane II has three small flaked-shape borders (b–d).
sequence of the engravings is explained, based on the superimpositions of lines and the animal figures inserted among them. The composition started at the ‘‘butt’’ (side B, plane I), where first were engraved the four bundles of vertical lines (BI1 to BI4), two of them (BI2 and BI3) continue onto the lower part of side A (plane I: AI2 and AI3). Over them was engraved a bundle of lines in a meander shape (AI4) that is underneath the back of the deer and continues onto the upper part of side A. Line bundles BI3 and BI4,
on the butt, frame a natural concavity whose interior was engraved with an ellipsoidal spiral; a group of parallel traces, perhaps suggestive of a ‘‘ford,’’ reach that concavity (Fig. 1, side B, a). From this natural concavity departs the only horizontal bundle (BI5) that continues, as a river-like shape, across the upper part of side A (AII5). It is superimposed above the antlers of the big deer (Fig. 4 Photo). In this way, the first naturalistic figure, the deer, is framed between two line bundles (AI4-BI4 and AII5-BI5). At the same time
Figure 2. Block 1: Description of the engravings. On side A, several animal outlines are found: two deer, one in frontal view (a) and the other in profile (b); a group of 7 ibex in a row (c), hidden behind an indentation in the block highlighted with a line; another Ibex in profile (d); two series of horns in V-shape with two spots on both sides of the base (possibly the eyes) that could be attributed to an ibex (e).
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
Figure 3. Block 2: On the left, a solitary male ibex is opposite five grouped female ibex, which turn their heads toward the half-circles signs.
103
Figure 4. Sequence of execution for the figures of Block 1. The horizontal connecting lines show that it is the same sign on different sides. The vertical connecting lines show the superposition of the bundles.
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
six small spirals were engraved in the area of the antler, one of them actually superimposed over it and two others underneath bundle AII5. It could be supposed that the hinds on side B would have been engraved at the same time, if we accept that they form a composition together with the deer of side A, because of their position, identical ductus (style, manner, or mode in which someone writes or paints) and naturalistic style, whether this is a rutting season scene or not. Line bundle BII1 is underneath the ears of the incomplete hind; bundle BII2 is superimposed above the body of the complete hind, and bundle BII3 is superimposed atop BII2 and the complete hind. This bundle reaches the upper right part of side A (AII8), and it ends almost at bundle AII5, although it is impossible to establish any superimposition sequence. It is not possible to specify when the young aurochs or reindeer were engraved in the lower right part of side A (plane I) because there is no superimposition with the line bundles. However, we can deduce that these animals were engraved in a moment between AI2 and AI3 due to their upside-down position relative to the rest of the figures. The circles of AI1 seem to be superimposed above these animals, but their position with respect to them is not conclusive. We only know that they were engraved before the anthropomorph and the short traces that form the ‘‘path,’’ one of them superimposed above the dewlap of the deer. In the second phase, the landscape was engraved, occupying the top of side A (plane II). It appears clearly delimited by a linear incision, which separates both parts of side A, alongside the border on the left part of the block. A new bundle of horizontal lines (AII6) covers the AII5 bundle, the group of small schematic ibex, and the ibex shown in profile. These engravings were followed by the group of lines that represent the mountain, the access to the ‘‘cave’’ (formed by a little natural hole located in the ‘‘slope of the mountain’’), the pass or ford over the ‘‘river’’ (AII6), and the herd of ibex. The herd appears hidden behind a break in the block, that possibly has been outlined, to represent a second ‘‘mountain’’ located on the other side of the river, just in the place where the cave of Abauntz is actually found. This broken part of the block has two hill-shaped forms, and in the central area there are crescent-shape signs. Another bundle of lines (AII7) seems to descend from the mountain as a tributary, superimposed atop the bundle AII6. In a third phase were engraved not only the schematic deer in a central position that covers the big deer shown in profile, but also one of the ibex in the herd and the AII6 bundle of lines. Over the schematic deer was engraved the anthropomorph, which culminates the sequence of the narrative. The association of blocks 1 and 2 If we compare the themes represented on blocks 1 and 2, we can observe that several of them have been represented on both stones: the schematic Ibex in frontal position, the anthropomorphic figures, the meanders, and the half-circles. These figures seem to have a common topic (anthropomorphic figures linked to the game available in the area); an interest in landscape (representation of flowing water on both blocks) and, perhaps, a reference to the mating season: bellowing deer on Block 1 (Fig. 2, top, b); solitary male Ibex opposed to grouped female Ibex on Block 2. According to the order of execution of Block 2, the large horse was engraved first, taking up the entire decorative surface; then, the meander and the six Ibex were placed in the spaces that were left. Finally, as in the case of Block 1, the anthropomorphic figure was engraved with deeper strokes. Another detail that both pieces may have in common is the order of completion of the figures in relation to their size. On both
105
blocks, the large realistic figures were represented first, choosing the space to be decorated (horse on Block 2, deer in profile and aurochs/reindeer on Block 1, side A; female deer on side B), and ending with the smaller and more schematic figures (Ibex and deer in frontal position on Block 1, schematic Ibex on Block 2). This order coincides with that noted by V. Villaverde (1994: 198) on stone slabs in Parpallo´ Cave in Valencia, on which the big figures were engraved first and the smaller ones afterwards. In the case of both Abauntz blocks, the landscape signs were represented in second place, before the smaller figures, with the anthropomorphic figure being the latest. It could even be possible that the same hand worked both blocks. Thus, when comparing the ductus of the male Ibex of Block 2 and the first Ibex of Block 1, a similar order of completion may be noted: first the head, then the neck, followed by the back, abdomen, and chest, then the legs from the femur to the hoof. The horns, from the base upwards, were engraved afterwards. Despite the fact that there seem to be two different episodes of engraving, we think that the whole composition would have been realized in a short period of time. Interpretation First phase: large animals. A mating scene? We have contemplated the possibility that on Block 1 there were two main engraving episodes with several intermediate phases. The first one would correspond to the animals of large size, which occupy both sides of the main central area: the deer on side A and the two hinds grouped on side B. All of them have the same size and a naturalistic style; thus, they seem to participate in only one scene or composition. The scene could have been a represention of the fall rut season of the deer because the stag is shown with its antlers totally developed, the typically open mouth, bellowing, with its head raised. It is the same representation of the deer at Morin (Les Landes, France; Deffarge et al., 1975) or several examples from La Vache (Arie`ge, France; Cre´mades, 1993, 1997a,b). Certainly, however, the open mouth and the raised head also appear in wounded deer, which express pain in this way. For example, there are cases of three animals in Candamo, Buxu (Asturias), and Pasiega (Cantabria, Spain) that are engraved in this manner. Alternatively, for these engravings it has been suggested that hunters used the stag bellowing of the rut season to locate and more easily get near their prey (Gonza´lez Sainz, 2007–2008). Other deer with antlers and open mouths, such as that on the great block at La Madeleine (Dordogne, France) who is followed by her fawn, are considered female reindeer because of their small antlers. At one time we had thought that, perhaps, the two immature animals on Block 1 could be reindeer (although with very long ears) and that the big ‘‘deer’’ could be in fact a reindeer, because of its palm-shaped antler tines and its large dewlap. Nevertheless, the non-convex frontal profile of the Block 1 deer is much more characteristic of a red deer than of a reindeer; we also dismissed its interpretation as a female reindeer because of the well-developed antler, which is one other aspect that would not fit well with the morphological characteristics used to determine the iconography in question (Tosello, 2003: 21, 23). The hinds on side B present lifted snouts. The ears are also shown and one of the hinds is shown with an advanced leg in an alert position. The crescent signs that appear over its head, without excluding any other interpretation, could represent the bellowing sound made by the deer or, maybe, the smell that the hinds would perceive from the stags, strengthening the unified character of the composition on both sides of the block. In this case, as is well known for the Late Magdalenian in the Cantabrian region, the representation of hinds with various signs associated with their
106
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
Figure 5. Hinds with signs near their heads: 1. Abauntz; 2. El Valle; 3. El Pendo (2 and 3 after Barandiara´n, 2006).
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
snouts has been interpreted as an expression of their great sense of ˆ tons from the smell (Barandiara´n, 1984), such as occurs on the ba caves of Pendo and Valle (Cantabria; Fig. 5). In favor of the first interpretation, the sound that emanates from the bellowing of the stags could be suggested by the six circular spirals represented over the head of the deer, whose superposition sequence indicates that they were engraved after the animal, but before the river meander. Second phase: landscape represented in the map: the strategic plan for a hunt? The principal novelty yielded by Block 1 from Abauntz is that, for the very first time in Western Europe, the landscape surrounding an actual site seems to be represented (mountain, rivers, ponds), and
107
that, on this landscape, some routes or access points were marked which may be linked to ellipsoidal spirals that are difficult to interpret. Thus, a multiple engraving seems to reproduce the meandering flow of the river (Fig. 2.1) crossing the upper part of side A and joined by two tributaries near the mountain. Surprisingly, as the 1:50.000 map of this area shows Fig. 7, there is a similar watercourse which incorporates two tributaries near the place where there is a mountain, situated opposite the cave. This mountain is apparently engraved on the block (Figs. 2.2 and 7.1); it has an identical shape to the one that can be seen from the cave. There are depicted herds of Ibex on its hillsides, along both sides of the gorge, in front of which the cave of Abauntz is strategically placed. In the mountain of the other side of the engraved ‘‘river,’’ there is a natural small concavity, with a group of parallel short traces as an access to it, which could had been used to
Figure 6. Block 1, Side A, top: Representation of elements of the landscape in the upland zone: mountain, river, passage over the river (ford?). Note how two herds of ibex (represented as complete bodies, not just by their horns) occupy both riverbanks in the zone of the mountain. Those on the lower bank are hidden behind a line that outlines a border in the block and crosses it along its edge separating the two main biotopes represented (mountain and plain). Side A, bottom: Representation of elements of the landscape on the plain: ponds, meanders, and paths. Small bovines or reindeer and a problematic horse represent fauna typical of a plain or steppe.
108
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
indicate the cave of San Gregorio, located in front of the cave of Abauntz. In this other cave there is also a Magdalenian level (Figs. 2.4 and 6). On the other hand, the Ibex are smaller and more schematic the farther they are from the foreground, as if the artist were seeking to show the depth in the composition, a third dimension. In contrast, to the south of the gorge there is a completely flat area where the watercourses slow down, forming meanders that flood during the spring thaw (Fig. 7.2). This also appears in Block 1: tangles of concentric strokes and bundles of lines forming very marked
meanders (Figs. 2.3 and 6, side A, bottom). The surrounding animals are no longer those that inhabit the mountains, but rather animals typical of the plains: two small aurochsen or reindeer and a possible horse. This, then, could represent the plan for a hunt yet to happen or, maybe, the narrative story of a hunt that had already occurred. Series of short oblique strokes (Fig. 2.4) cut across the river near the mountain (Fig. 6, side A, top), which could represent fords, or even bridges; three similar signs are found on side B, two in a natural concavity and the third one crossing the river (Fig. 2.4). Another group of short strokes, now forming a row, was represented crossing the rear
Figure 7. Representation of the surrounding landscape. In the center is shown the one-hour exploitation territory surrounding the cave of Abauntz. At the top, the engraved ‘‘mountain’’ (right) and the actual mountain (left). At the bottom, on the right, there is a representation of possibly flooded land. On the left, the real landscape of the plain flooded after a snowfall.
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
Figure 8. Position of Block 1, the dihedral burins, and the engraved sandstone.
109
110
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
legs of the frontally represented deer (Fig. 2.5), possibly a representation of its hoof prints. Six ellipsoidal signs in spiral form, some of them filling hollows, complete the representation (Fig. 2.6). Perhaps they could be marking the location of shelters, springs, or places where raw materials or food can be found. Ethnology provides us with rich evidence of how recent hunters-gatherers produce simple but practical ‘‘maps’’ and give names to geographic features in the landscape (e.g., Mallery, 1886; Svoboda, 2007). It is not likely that the landscape would have changed substantially since Late Magdalenian times. The mountain in front of the cave was already shaped in its present form in the Tertiary Period, when the Pyrenees emerged as a product of the Alpine Orogeny. Only the river level may have been somewhat higher than nowadays, a fact that cannot be discerned on the block due to its small size. The river and its tributaries carve their way via a valley in a very narrow landscape, as it is shown on the modern map. Only when they have reached the open plain would the river’s channel have been different, but this is expressed by the circles and spirals in the left lower zone of side A of the block. Discussion Were the blocks engraved in situ? The lithic assemblage found in the same level as the engraved blocks is composed of 48 items. We have not done a functional analysis to determine if some of the items (especially the 12 burins, of which 11 are dihedral) were used to engrave the blocks because a thick patina does not lend itself to obtaining good microwear results. Therefore, we cannot confirm that the burins that surrounded the decorated block were in fact the instruments employed to engrave it. But indeed, some of the engraving lines such as those of the anthropomorphic ones are double and parallel, which suggests that they could have been traced with an instrument characterized by a polygonal or sigmoid edge. Next to the blocks, a long flat piece of sandstone with one of its faces completely covered by engravings was found. The artist might have used this piece to test the engraving instrument. It is very suggestive that this ensembledthe flat piece of sandstone and the burinsdwas concentrated in the immediate vicinity of Block 1, within an area two meters in diameter (Fig. 8). Given that blocks 1 and 2 suggest similar manufacturing patterns, we believe that the pieces were engraved in situ. It is an established fact that burins did not serve only to engrave, as was proposed by L. Leguay and D. Peyrony in the late XIXth century, or to carve deep grooves in bone, antler, or ivory in order to extract splinters (Movius, 1968). There is no simple relationship between this artifact’s morphology and its function, and a good number of studies show that objects classified as burins may have had many possible uses, with several active zones employed on a wide range of materials and for various actions (Vaughan, 1985; Plisson, 1985). There are also some indications that suggest that the burins were waste-products in several operative chains (Toma´skova´, 2005) or core residues (Plisson, 1985). Indeed in level ‘‘e’’ (Middle Magdalenian) from Abauntz the functional study showed that the main uses of dihedral and truncated burins and endscraper burins were related to hide-working, scraping, cutting and drilling or, simply, to facilitate tool grip (Mazo, 1989; Utrilla and Mazo, 1992). What was the function of Abauntz Cave during the Late Magdalenian? It is difficult to explain the presence of these blocks in a cave of such a low occupation density. Due to its scant lithic artifact content
Abauntz Cave was not a base camp for many people but may have been just a temporary shelter during a short expedition. The cave has a very favorable location for hunting, due to its strategic position in a transit zone for game. The record of a great density of artifacts (171 pieces m3) in the Middle Magdalenian level, dated to 16,530 calBP, contrasts with the scarcity registered (62 m3) for the Late Magdalenian level, dated to 13,660 calBP, which, paradoxically, is where the extraordinary decorated blocks appeared. A possible explanation for this artistic phenomenon is provided by Binford (1980): the Nunamiut hunters of the Mask Site spent their time making crafts while waiting for reindeer at their hunting stand. The artistic richness of Abauntz during the Late Magdalenian occupation(s) is emphasized by the finding, in the same level ‘‘2r,’’ of a third engraved block and two other painted stones. On the third engraved block, there is represented another horse with multiple strokes, which is one of the finest pieces of Spanish Magdalenian mobiliary art known (Utrilla and Mazo, 1996a,b,c; Utrilla et al., 2004). As a whole, the horse is a predominant animal in portable art and in parietal sanctuaries of the Late Magdalenian (Sieveking, 1987; Tosello, 2003) and, in particular, in the Western Pyrenean area of influence of Isturitz/Duruthy, to which Abauntz belongs (Utrilla and Martı´nez-Bea, in press). In any case, Abauntz should not be considered to be an artist’s workshop if we compare its five examples of portable art with the 300 blocks or plaquettes from the cave of Limeuil in Dordogne (Tosello, 2003), the 180 stone figurines from Isturitz (Mons, 1996), or the 5,034 plaquettes from Parpallo´ (Villaverde, 1994). Block 1 could be telling a simple story, depicted on a stone of almost 1 kg in weight, which was left in the cave as a message for those who followed. However, given its location as part of the paved floor, it might have gone unnoticed. Therefore, it could be seen as a sketch or map of marked areas of interest for the author, who left it in the cave as a reminder to him or to the group when visiting the cave again. A second option is possible: Abauntz could have been a mobiliary art sanctuary, a model that, in Late Magdalenian times, would have substituted for the earlier parietal sanctuaries. But this does not seem likely in the case of Block 1, since it was part of the paved floor at the base of the level, as if it had been recycled after ‘‘use’’ as a map. Besides, the hinds on side B were vigorously rubbed out, as if the artist (or someone else) had rejected them. Neither does it seem to be the case for Block 2, which had a function as a lamp. Only the great horse of Block 3 would fit with a ritual interpretation as it was found in bright red-colored dirt, next to a hearth, and associated with two flat stones: one of them pointed and the other one axeshaped more than 20 cm long. Both of them were painted with undulating lines, in one case simulating an anthropomorphic figure. Six pieces of ochre and a grindstone, completely stained red, were found nearby. Block 3 could have been the symbol of a clan (Arambourou, 1978), as has also present in Isturitz and Duruthy, which would indicate that the representation of the horse was left as a signature of their presence in the cave, or perhaps even of their ownership of Abauntz (Utrilla et al., 2007–2008). Acknowledgements This paper forms part of the project Cicyt HUM- 2005-02882 ‘‘Hunters-Gatherers in the Ebro Basin’’ supported by the Spanish Inter-Ministry Commission of Science and Technology (CICYT). We thank our colleague Professor Lawrence G. Straus, who has corrected the English translation. We are also grateful to the JHE reviewers and Editor, Susan Anton, for the constructive criticisms of an earlier version of this paper. Their comments have contributed to improving the manuscript.
P. Utrilla et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 99–111
References Altuna, J., Mariezcurrena, K., Elorza, M., 2001–2002. Arqueozoologı´a de los niveles paleolı´ticos de la cueva de Abauntz (Arraiz, Navarra). Salduie 2, 1–26. Arambourou, R., 1978. Le gisement pre´historique de Duruthy, a` Sorde-L’Abbaye (Landes). Bilan des recherches de 1958 a` 1975. Me´moires de la S.P.F., t.13. Parı´s. Bahn, P.G., 1982. Inter-site and inter-regional links during the Upper Palaeolithic. The Pyrenean evidence. Oxford J. Archaeol. I (3), 247–268. Barandiara´n, I., 1984. Utilizacio´n del espacio y proceso gra´fico en el arte mueble paleolı´tico. Scripta Praehistorica. Francisco Jorda´. Oblata, Salamanca, pp. 113–161. Barandiara´n, I., 1993. El lobo feroz: la vacuidad de un cuento magdaleniense. Veleia 10, 7–37. Barandiara´n, I., 2003. Grupos homoespecı´ficos en el imaginario mobiliar magdaleniense. Retratos de familia y cuadros de ge´nero. In: Anejos de Veleia, 21 Vitoria. Barandiara´n, I., 2006. Ima´genes y adornos en el arte porta´til paleolı´tico. Ed. Ariel, Barcelona. Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow smoke and dog’s tails. Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. Am. Antiq. 45, 4–20. Cleyet-Merle, J.J., 1996. Duruthy (Sorde-L’Abbaye, Landes). In: Thiault, H., Roy, J.B. (Eds.), L’art pre´historique des Pyre´ne´es. Muse´e des Antiquite´s Nationales, Paris, pp. 178–180. Corcho´n, M.S., 2004. Europa 16500–14000 a.C.: un lenguaje comu´n. In: ˜ o´n (Ed.), La materia del lenguaje prehisto´rico. El arte mueble Arias, Ontan paleolı´tico de Cantabria en su contexto, pp. 105–126. Santander. Cre´mades, M., 1993. La repre´sentation des variations saisonnieres dans l’art parietal pale´olithique. Paleo 5, 319–331. Cre´mades, M., 1997a. La repre´sentation des variations saisonnie`res dans l’art pale´olithique. L’Anthropologie 101, 36–82. Cre´mades, M., 1997b. Bestiaire figure´, environnement animal, saisonnalite´ a` la grotte de La Vache (Alliat, Arie`ge). Bull. Soc. Prehist. Fr. 94 (4), 455–469. Deffarge, R., Laurent, P., Sonneville-Bordes, D., 1975. Arte mobilier du Magdale´nien Supe´rieur de l’abri Morin, a` Pessac-sur-Dordogne (Gironde). Gallia Pre´histoire 18, 1–64. Esparza, X., 1995. La cueva de Isturitz. Su yacimiento y sus relaciones con la cornisa canta´brica durante el Paleolı´tico Superior. UNED, Madrid. Fortea, J., De La Rasilla, M., Rodrı´guez, V., 2004. L’art parie´tal et la se´quence ˜ amellera Alta, Asturies, arche´ologique pale´olithique de la grotte de Llonı´n (Pen Espagne). Pre´histoire, Arts et Societe´s 59, 7–29. Fortea, J., Corcho´n, S., Gonza´lez Morales, M., Rodriguez, A., Hoyos, M., Laville, H., Dupre´, M., Ferna´ndez, J., 1990. Travaux re´cents dans les valle´es du Nalon et du Sella (Asturies). In: Clottes, J. (Ed.), L’art des objets au Pale´olithique, pp. 219–244. Foix. Fritz, C., Tosello, G., 2005. Entre Pe´rigord et Cantabres: les Magdale´niens de Marsoulas. In: Jaubert, J., Barbaza, M. (Eds.), Territoires, de´placements, mobilite´, e´changes durant la Pre´histoire, pp. 311–327. Tulouse. Gonza´lez Sainz, C., 2007–2008. El tema del ciervo herido en el arte parietal paleolı´tico de la regio´n Canta´brica. Evolucio´n iconogra´fica. Veleia 24–25, 305–327. Higham, T.F.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Brock, F., Baker, D., Ditchfield, P., 2007. Radiocarbon dates from The Oxford AMS system. Archaeometry datelist 32. Archaeometry 49, S1–S60. Klı´ma, B., 1991. Die jungpala¨olithischen Mammtja¨ger-Siedlungen Dolnı´ Vestonice und Pavlov in Su¨dma¨hren. CSFR, Archa´ologie und Museum, Liestal. Kozlowski, J., 1992. L’art de la pre´histoire en Europe orientale. CNRS Editions, Parı´s. Mallery, G., 1886. Pictographs of the North American Indians. 4th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1882–1883, pp. 7–256. Marshack, A., 1977. The meander as a system. The analysis and recognition of iconographic units in upper palaeolithic compositions. In: Ucko, P.J. (Ed.), Form in Indigenous Art, Schematisation in the Art of Aboriginal Australia and Prehistoric Europe. Humanities Press Inc., New Jersey, pp. 286–317. Marshack, A., 1979. Upper palaeolithic symbol systems of the Russian plain. Cognitive and comparative analysis. Curr. Anthropol. 20 (2), 271–305. Mazo, C., 1989. Ana´lisis de huellas de uso en u´tiles de sı´lex del Paleolı´tico. Tesis Doctoral ine´dita. Universidad de Zaragoza. Mazo, C., Utrilla, P., Sopena, M.C., 2008. Co´mputos lunares? en el Magdaleniense Medio de la Cueva de Abauntz. Una reflexio´n sobre marcas en mu´ltiplos de
111
siete. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I. Nueva e´poca. Prehistoria y Arqueologı´a, t. I, 135–154. Mons, L., 1996. Un atelier de sculpteurs sur pierre a` Isturitz. In: Thiault, H., Roy, J.B. (Eds.), L’art pre´historique des Pyre´ne´es. Muse´e des Antiquite´s Nationales, Paris, p. 236. Movius, H., 1968. Note on the history of the discovery and recognition of the function of burin as tools. In: de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (Ed.), La pre´histoire, proble`mes et tendances. C.N.R.S, Paris, pp. 311–318. Plisson, H., 1985. E´tude fonctionnelle d’outillages lithiques pre´historiques par l’analyse des micro-usures: Recherche Me´thodologique et Arche´ologique. Universite´ de Paris I, Paris. Sieveking, A., 1987. Engraved Magdalenian Plaquettes. A Regional and Stylistic Analysis of Stone, Bone and Anttler Plaquettes from Upper Palaeolithic Sites in France and Cantabric Spain. B.A.R, Oxford. Straus, L.G., 1995. Les derniers chasseurs de rennes du monde pyre´ne´en. Memoires SPF t. XXII. Paris. Svoboda, J., 1997. Symbolisme gravettien en Moravie. Espace, Temps et Formes. Bull. Soc. Prehist. de L’Arie`ge-Pyre´ne´es 52, 87–104. Svoboda, J., 2007. Spatial representations in the Upper Paleolithic: the cases from Pavlov and Predmostı´. In: The Intellectual and spiritual expressions of nonliterate peoples. Colloque UISPP-CISENP, Capo di Ponte, pp. 123–126. Toma´skova´, S., 2005. What is a burin? Typology, Technology, and Interregional Comparison. J. Archaeol. Meth. Theor. 12, 79–115. Tosello, G., 2003. Pierres grave´es du Pe´rigord magdale´nien. Art, symboles, territoires. XXXVI Supple´ment a` Gallia Pre´histoire. CNRS. Editions, Paris. Utrilla, P., 1990. Bases objectives de la chronologie de l’art mobilier sur la Cote Cantabrique. In: Clottes, J. (Ed.), L’art des objets au Pale´olithique, 1, pp. 83–104. Foix. Utrilla, P., 2004. Evolucio´n histo´rica de las sociedades canta´bricas durante el Tardiglacial. El Magdaleniense inicial, inferior y medio (16.500–13.000 BP). In: Fano, M.A. (Ed.), Las Sociedades del Paleolı´tico en la Regio´n Canta´brica. Kobie Anejos, 8, pp. 243–274. Bilbao. Utrilla, P., Martı´nez-Bea, M., in press. Sanctuaires rupestres comme marqueurs d’identite´ territoriale. Sites d’agre´gation et animaux « sacre´s ». In: Sauvet, J., Fritz, C., Tosello, G. (Eds.), Art rupestre et communication espaces symboliques et territoires culturels. Toulouse. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 1992. L’ocupation de l’espace dans la grotte d’Abauntz (Navarra, Espagne). In: Le peuplement magdale´nien. Pale´ogeographie physique et humaine. Colloque de Chancelade 1988. C.T.H.S., Paris, pp. 365–376. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 1996a. Le versant sud des Pyre´ne´es. In: Thiault, H., Roy, J.B. (Eds.), L’art pre´historique des Pyre´ne´es. Muse´e des Antiquite´s Nationales, Paris, pp. 60–69. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 1996b. Le Pale´olithique Supe´rieur dans le versant sud des Pyre´ne´es. Communications et influences avec le monde Pyre´ne´en français. In: Delporte, H., Clottes, J. (Eds.), Pyre´ne´es Pre´historiques. Arts et Societe´s. C.T.H.S., Paris, pp. 243–262. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 1996c. Arte mueble sobre soporte lı´tico de la cueva de Abauntz. Su aportacio´n a los estilos del Magdaleniense tardı´o. Complutum extra-6 (1), 41–62. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., Domingo, R., 2003. Les structures d’habitat de l’occupation magdale´nienne de la grotte d’Abauntz (Navarre, Espagne). L’organisation de l’espace. In: Vasil’ev, S.A., Soffer, O., Kozlowski, J. (Eds.), Perceived Landscapes and Built Environments. The Cultural Geography of Late Paleolithic Eurasia. B.A.R, Oxford, pp. 25–37. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., Sopena, M.C., Domingo, R., Nagore, O., 2004. L’art mobilier sur pierre du versant sud des Pyre´ne´es: les blocs grave´s de la grotte d’Abauntz. In: Lejeune, M.L., Welte´, A.C. (Eds.), L’art du Pale´olithique supe´rieur. XIVe Congre`s de l’UISPP (Lie`ge, 2001), 107. ERAUL, pp. 199–218. Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., Sopena, M.C., Domingo, R., Martı´nez-Bea, M., 2007–2008. Rı´os, ˜ as y charcas: una representacio´n de paisaje en el bloque 1 de la cueva de montan Abauntz. Veleia 24–25, 229–260. Vaughan, P.C., 1985. Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Villaverde, V., 1994. Arte Paleolı´tico de la Cova del Parpallo´. Estudio de la coleccio´n de plaquetas y cantos grabados y pintados. Servei d’Investigacio´ Prehisto`rica, Valencia. Zu¨chner, Ch., 1996. The scaliform sign of Altamira and the origin of maps in ˜ os despue´s. Uniprehistoric Europe. In: Moure, A. (Ed.), El Hombre Fo´sil 80 an versidad de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 325–343.