- Email: [email protected]
Hunting camps and nucleiform endscrapers in the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian: A lithic microwear analysis
Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Hunting camps and nucleiform endscrapers in the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian: A lithic microwear analysis Rafael Domingo*, Carlos Mazo, Pilar Utrilla Research Group “First Settlers of the Ebro Valley”, Dpto. Ciencias de la Antigüedad, University of Zaragoza, Pza Constitución s/n, 22001 Huesca, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 20 March 2012
This paper presents a study that includes the factor analysis of some classic deposits from the Cantabrian Middle and Lower Magdalenian and the functional analysis of Rascaño nucleiform endscrapers. Three categories of enclaves are distinguished, based on their main industrial features (two functional: aggregation sites and hunting camps; and one chronological: late Lower or Middle Magdalenian occupations). Finally, the functional analysis relates the abundance of nucleiform endscrapers in Rascaño cave, a hunting camp, to the maintenance or fabrication of bone points. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction: the diversity of the Lower Magdalenian Cantabrian sites The Cantabrian region is a narrow coastal corridor in the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula (Fig. 1), with a well-known prehistoric record whose most famous aspect is its Palaeolithic cave art. Studied by some of the most famous pioneer researchers, such as H. Breuil and H. Obermaier, a detailed picture of its prehistoric inhabitants can now be painted, based on dozens of sites excavated over the last century. Since the 1950se1970s work of F. Jordá and J. González Echegaray and the synthesis of Utrilla (1981), the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian has become a particularly well-known period. Utrilla developed a full-range study that systematized the lithic and osseous industries and the faunal assemblages, providing an overview that has been confirmed by recent research carried out at sites such as El Juyo, El Mirón, La Garma, Berroberría or La Viña. In 1994, the same author published a paper dealing with the functions of Lower Magdalenian sites in the Cantabrian region. There she proposed, following the line of thinking started by Conkey (1980), that Lower Magdalenian sites could be divided into three major types: aggregation (or long-term residential) sites, hunting camps and art sanctuaries. From these three types of sites, the focus is on those related to socio-economic activities that left traces in the archaeological record. The factor analysis based on lithic and osseous industries and faunal remains (Fig. 2) reveals a very clear distinction between aggregation sites and temporary hunting camps, as well as the existence of a late group of sites, dating to the final Lower (or to the * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Domingo). 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.027
Middle) Magdalenian. Analyses have been applied to data from the Cantabrian Early Upper Palaeolithic (Bernaldo de Quirós, 1981), Solutrean (Straus, 1983) and Magdalenian (Utrilla, 1990). The quality of the results depends on a diversity of elements such as the selected data, the preservation of the archaeological remains or the validity of the sample within each site. See Simek (1988) for further remarks concerning the analysis carried out at the Grotte Vaufrey. The classification was made by only one person (Utrilla), thus minimizing the human factor that could bias the result. The aggregation sites have been defined as major dwelling places, frequently located in large caves that offer ample habitable space for large short-term occupations, concentrated specially in the summers. They can also be long-term occupations where there are remains showing hunting activities at all seasons, even in winter, and in many cases they are “decorated” with parietal rock art. In addition to rich, highly diversified lithic and osseous toolkits (including assorted antler points and wands), is the appearance of non-utilitarian artworks (such as the well-known engraved scapulae depicting hinds). Some of the osseous instruments can be considered as “work” tools: aiguilles, ciseaux, chasse-lames. Some permanent dwelling camps could be interpreted as major aggregation sites by only considering the abundance of remains. The difference can be pointed from the study of the portable art, which is more varied (reflecting the presence of different human groups) in the aggregation sites than in the permanent, “common” dwelling places (more stable, showing a local or regional tradition). The faunal remains (showing all-year or short-term hunting strategies) could clarify this difference, but some of the most important sites (Castillo and Altamira) lack of such studies. Among the Lower Magdalenian sites are some of the most important Paleolithic residential loci in the Cantabrian region:
106
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
Fig. 1. Map of the Cantabrian Lower and Middle Magdalenian (in plain text, the Lower Magdalenian sites; in italics, the Middle Magdalenian ones; the arrows mark the sites studied in the factor analysis).
Castillo, Altxerri, Aitzbitarte, Ermittia and Tito Bustillo. The first and the last of these share characteristics with the other groups: Castillo has some features in common with hunting camps (nucleiform endscrapers and square-section sagaies) and Tito Bustillo could be also grouped in the factor analysis with the Late Lower/Middle Magdalenian sites, which share similar dates around 13,500 BP. In some places, such as Altamira, the prehistoric people not only
hunted for food, but also conducted other activities. The presence of rock art sanctuaries in the depths of many of those caves helps to classify them as major aggregation sites (Utrilla, 1994, 2004; Utrilla and Martínez-Bea, 2008). On the other hand, the hunting camps are temporary sites, highly specialized in the slaughter of red deer (Paloma, Balmori, Cierro, Juyo) or ibex (Rascaño, Erralla). Their occupations took place
Fig. 2. Graph showing the main distinctive elements of the three types of sites detected in the LowereMiddle Magdalenian in the Cantabrian region after the factor analysis.
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
mainly during the warm season. As for the toolkit, nucleiform endscrapers (de Sonneville and Perrot tool type 15 among the original 92 Upper Paleolithic tool types) represent more than 50% of the formal tool total; consequently, the Endscraper Index (IG) exceeds the Burin Index (IB) and there is a low diversity of tools. Square-section antler points, decorated with elongated tectiform designs, characterize the osseous industry. Finally, the late Lower/Middle Magdalenian group exhibits distinctive items such as triangle-section bone points decorated with lozange designs, while the IB now exceeds the IG. Among these are sites such as Bolinkoba, Santimamiñe, Ekain, Abauntz, Caldas, Loja and Tito Bustillo. Sites were included that were originally published as Lower Magdalenian by their researchers, although some of them lack of reliable dates. For example, J. M. Barandiarán identified as such the Basque group (Lumentxa, Santimaniñe, Bolinkoba, Ermittia or Aitzbitarte); however, their lithic and osseous characteristics suggested that they could date from the Middle Magdalenian or, at least, the Late Lower Magdalenian. In order to test this, some well-dated Middle Magdalenian sites (Caldas, Abauntz, Tito Bustillo) were added to the analysis. As shown in Fig. 2, Santimamiñe and Bolinkoba have been grouped by the factor analysis to those sites, clearly showing that there is an industrial difference between the two chronological periods and maybe a raw material conditioning (good-quality flint in the Basque Country vs. quartzite in Asturias). 2. The problem of the function of nucleiform endscrapers Late in the last century, typologists, technologists and microwear specialists offered up differing viewpoints about this tool, so characteristic of the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian. The pioneer typologists thought that they were endscrapers produced on cores distinguished from simple cores by the presence of secondary retouch that regularized a core edge into a convex endscraper. Thus one would classify as nuclei those pieces that do not present secondary retouch on the base and as endscrapers those pieces that do display such retouch (Lenz, 1905; SonnevilleBordes et Perrot, 1954). The tiny secondary flakes that regularize the supposed contact edge (namely, the striking platform of a core) would be considered a result of their use (Clark, 1954; Cook, 1968). In contrast, Hadleigh-West (1967) and Del Bene (1980) interpreted very similar data as the result of spontaneous splinters from bladelets as they were being knapped. In parallel, the technologists noted that the secondary retouch appeared in every bladelet knapping process, denying its spontaneity (Lenoir, 1971; Brink, 1978; Tixier, 1982). This also implies that many nuclei do not display the edge retouch because the extraction of rejuvenation flakes had eliminated the retouched zone. Hence, the nucleiform endscraper was rejected from the category of tools, being excluded from the revised (but never formally published) Upper Paleolithic, 105-type list. Even the definition of nucleiform burins and other carenate pieces (thick “nosed” endscrapers, shouldered endscrapers, busked burins) are nowadays being disputed: the technological analysis of the lithic industry from the site of Thèmes, for example, has shown a standardized production of bladelets obtained from cores that, from a typological point of view, should be considered carinate burins (Le Brun-Ricalens and Brou, 2003). After the simple typological classification, cores and nucleiform endscrapers are opposed categories, but there are difficulties in pinpointing the characteristics that evidence their differences (Kantman, 1969). Sheets (1973) warned against the use of edge-rounding and the presence of grooves as indicators of functional damage when he reviewed the paper of Nance (1971) on Stockton points. It is clear
107
that the voluntary abrasion of the plans de frappe, in order to assure a better striking platform, causes those very “wear” traces that must be carefully interpreted by the researcher (Mazo, 1991, 1997). From the viewpoint of the microwear analysts, some cores were employed as endscrapers, but most of them were not. For example, Dumont (1988) stated that in Star Carr three out of the five cores/ endscrapers analysed (from a total of 120) showed scraping wear traces. In Cassegros 10, Vaughan (1985) said that only one out of nine pieces scraped hide. Plisson (1985) did not see any wear traces in three quartzitic cores from Andernach. Moss (1983) stated that in Pincevent, one out of three cores had been used as a retouching tool. In recent years, there have been more studies of the function of the carinate pieces during the Upper Palaeolithic; but most of them focused on burins. These carinates are included under the premise of their morphological similarities with the endscrapers, discarding the strict typological viewpoint. Following Ibáñez and GonzálezUrquijo (2006), the nucleiform burins and the nucleiform endscrapers could be discriminated based on the position of the knapping: frontal for the burins, semi-perimetric for the endscrapers. This could be more a matter of thickness than a different knapping behaviour: in any case the desired result is the production of blades or bladelets: the authors propose that the utilisation of the nucleus might be viewed as a secondary or even opportunistic phenomenon. They studied 16 bladelet nuclei from several sites in the Basque Country, observing that 25% of them had been actually used: 1 for woodworking, 2 for hide scraping and the last one for bone-working. In Laminak II, in a Late Magdalenian level, carinate endscrapers had produced “every type of bladelets, from the biggest module to the smallest”. Thus, they interpret the site as a hunting camp specialized in the fabrication and repair of projectiles; the systematic knapping of blades and bladelets would supply replacements for the pieces that were damaged or lost in the course of hunting expeditions. Le Brun-Ricalens et al. (2006) discuss the most recent research on the subject and conclude that, “the functional results obtained on carinate pieces have reinforced the understanding of those artifacts, that should be interpreted as nuclei instead of as tools” (p. 347). Among those papers is that of Hays and Lucas (2000), dealing with the carinate pieces from the Aurignician levels of the Flageolet rockshelter. They studied a total of 113 tools; 57 were endscrapers and 56 burins. Most (82%) did not show any wear traces. The endscrapers had been used more often (21%) than the burins (12%). The raw materials that they had processed were bone and antler. The authors made an interesting remark concerning the edge angles: none of the pieces that surpassed 65 had been employed, while an impressive 82% of the endscrapers that showed an angle under 65 had been actually utilised, even if they had had a primary function as nuclei for Dufour bladelets, as confirmed by refitting. The technological analysis of the nuclei with edge angles below 65 confirm the impossibility of knapping adequate blanks for Dufour bladelets, which would explain the occasional secondary use of spent nuclei as endscrapers. All these sites date to the Aurignician (Flageolet), the Archaic Magdalenian (Cassegros), the Final Magdalenian (Andernach, Pincevent, Laminak), or even to the Mesolithic (Star Carr). So what happened during the Lower Magdalenian? 3. Nucleiform endscrapers of the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian: tools or cores? The substantial presence of nucleiform endscrapers in the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian toolkit found in sites attributed to the “Juyo” facies (classic Magdalenian III) achieves a frequency up to 50% of the tool total (Utrilla, 1981, 1984, 1994, 1996; González-Echegaray
108
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
and Barandiarán, 1981; Barandiarán et al. 1985)). This phenomenon existed in sites that had osseous industries characterised by squaresection antler points, decorated with elongated tectiform designs, lithic assemblages with more endscrapers than burins (even without tool type 15) and a specialization in summer hunting of only one game species (red deer or ibex, depending on the local environment). They may be therefore interpreted as hunting campsites. The nucleiform endscrapers do not appear significantly in levels identified as workshops and cannot be related to a proportional increase in bladelets, whether retouched or unretouched. It seems plausible that the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian hunters kept bladelet cores in their bags along with other tools, but it cannot be argued that these were spare raw material provisions, as they are tiny, nearly exhausted cores. Furthermore, many of them still display cortical surfaces, a clear sign of the exploitation of small nodules, preferably as tools, but not as bladelet cores. The interpretation of function via wear traces analysis and the massive presence of nucleiform endscrapers in the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian lead to the following question: what type of morphology was desired by the prehistoric people while knapping: cores or bladelets? Which is the waste element? The functional analysis carried out by C. Mazo and R. Domingo concerned 34 pieces from the site of Rascaño (Figs. 3e5); 23 from level 4, Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian (15,998 193 BP) and 11 from level 5, Archaic Magdalenian (16,433 131 BP). In the near
future, a study of nucleiform endscrapers from El Mirón will be undertaken, at the request of its directors L. G. Straus and M. González-Morales. When first studied, they still had some adhering sediments even though they seemed well cleaned. It was assumed that they had never before been analysed under the microscope. The research that L. H. Keeley undertook on the sites of Verberie, Juyo and Rascaño (1988) did not affect the pieces studied here, since they still were associated with the original manuscript record. It is a pity that his results cannot be employed, because he aggregated pieces from levels 3, 4 and 5 under the common denomination “Late Magdalenian” and therefore their precise provenance cannot be determined. The initial analysis was carried out with a Nikon Optiphot microscope in the University of Zaragoza, and the final analysis was done with an Olympus microscope in the laboratory of the Museum of Altamira (where microphotographs were taken with an Olympus camera). Distinctive microscopic micropolishes, grooves and other features were identified as diagnostic traces, based on a previous personal experimentation with replica tools. The microscopic observation ranged between 100 and 400. The methods (Mazo, 1991; Domingo, 2005) follow very closely those explained by Keeley (1980) and Anderson (1981). The wear traces pattern in each level is very different: in level 4, 57% of the endscrapers show microwear related to manufacturing processes, versus level 5, where this index achieves only 9%. In
Fig. 3. Stratigraphy of the cave of Rascaño. Nucleiform endscrapers and square-section bone points come from levels 4 and 5.
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
109
Fig. 4. Drawings of the analysed pieces from Rascaño, with indications of microwear localisation and type.
every case, the wear traces were exclusively on the contact face (striking platform) limited to the nearest zone to the edge. Data provided by functional analysis show the utilization of a high percentage of small endscrapers from Rascaño level 4 (classic Lower Magdalenian, Juyo-type), compared to level 5 (archaic Magdalenian), where they were scarcely utilised. This lack of wear traces has been also observed in later levels, dating from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian (Rascaño 2). Microwear always shows
utilization related to bone- or wood-working, but never to hide scraping. That could confirm their function as scrapers, rather than as simply pyramidal bladelet cores, constraining this attribution for other Magdalenian levels. For the whole of the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian, nucleiform endscrapers are dominant and can be stratigraphically related to square-section bone points and to hunters specialized in a summer seasonal activity. Therefore, a substantial part of the nucleiform
Fig. 5. Microscopic photography of wood micropolish on a small nucleiform endscraper from Rascaño.
110
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
endscrapers would be employed for sharpening or repairing bone points, justifying thus their predominant presence in huntingintended sites. Fig. 5 illustrates how the micropolish appears next to the edge of the endscraper and is superposed atop knapping grooves, attesting the work sequence: the nucleus comes first, and then, when exhausted for further removal of bladelets, it is employed for other tasks. The grooves caused by a harder material (likely stone) that appear on some platforms may well have been produced when knapping the bladelets on an irregular stone anvil, even without excluding the possibility of their being the result of percussion during the knapping of the core/endscraper. Comparing these results with those previously quoted shows how differently the Magdalenian people from Rascaño managed their flint. The lesser availability of good-quality lithic raw materials in the central Cantabrian area could explain this behaviour, taking advantage of exhausted nuclei as endscrapers in a more systematic way than in other areas that were richer in large flint nodules (e.g., the Basque Country). 4. Conclusions The fact that these tools were used to scrape bones and wood suggests the possibility that their secondary function, after that of providing the hunters with bladelets, was to assist in the fabrication or refitting of weapons. Thus, the hypothesis is that the type 15-dominated sites were employed as hunting camps, where the Magdalenian people settled for a limited time, in order to process their prey carcasses and rearm their weapons using nucleiform endscrapers. Perhaps these were preformed at their primary aggregation sites, only to be brought along on the hunting expeditions to provide a replacements for lost lithic implements and, once exhausted, they were used to carry out the maintenance and repair of osseous and wooden points. Thereby, microwear analysis stands out as a useful technique to help archaeologists interpret the data retrieved in the sites and provides a different approach for the interpretation of the lithic assemblages. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the conveners of the Magdalenian session held in Bern during the INQUA Congress of 2011: Lawrence G. Straus, Denise Leesch and Thomas Terberger. We are also deeply grateful to the Museum of Altamira, where the analysed artifacts are curated and that provided us with all the facilities needed to restudy and photograph them. We warmly thank Lawrence Straus for exhaustive revision of the English. This paper forms part of the research project HAR2008-05451 “La Movilidad en el Valle Medio del Ebro”. References Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1981. Contribution méthodologique à l’analyse des microtraces d’utilisation sur les outils préhistoriques. Thèse de 3ème cycle. Université de Bordeaux-I. Barandiarán, I., Freeman, L., González-Echegaray, J., Klein, R., 1985. Excavaciones en la cueva del Juyo. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, n 14. Bernaldo de Quirós, F., 1981. Análisis matemáticos del Paleolítico Superior Inicial. Zephyrus XXXIIeXXXIII, 41e56. Brink, J., 1978. Notes on the occurrence of spontaneous retouch. Lithic Technology 7, 31e33. Clark, J.G.D., 1954. Excavations at Star Carr: An Early Mesolithic Site at Seamer Near Scarborough, Yorkshire. Cambridge University Press. Conkey, M., 1980. The identification of prehistoric hunteregatherer aggregation sites: the case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21, 609e630. Cook, J.P., 1968. Some microblades cores from the Western Boreal Forest. Arctic Anthropology 5, 121e127.
Del Bene, T., 1980. Microscopic damage traces and manufacture process: the Denali Complex example. Lithic technology 9, 34e35. Domingo, R., 2005. La funcionalidad de los microlitos geométricos. Bases experimentales para su estudio. Monografías Arqueológicas, 44. Universidad de Zaragoza. Dumont, J.V., 1988. A microwear analysis of selected artefacts types from the Mesolithic sites of Star Carr and Mount Sandel. British Archaeological Research, British Series 187. González-Echegaray, J., Barandiarán, I., 1981. El Paleolítico Superior de la cueva del Rascaño (Santander). Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, 3. Hadleigh-West, F., 1967. The Donnelly Ridge Site and the definition of an early core and blade complex in Central Alaska. American Antiquity 32, 360e382. Hays, M., Lucas, G., 2000. A technological and functional analysis of carinates from Le Flageolet I, Dordogne. Journal of Field Archaeology 27, 455e465. Ibáñez, J.J., González-Urquijo, J., 2006. La complexité fonctionnelle des burins: exemples de la fin du Paleólithique Supérieur Cantabrique et du Néolithique Précéramique en Syrie. In: Agraujo, M., Bracco, J.P., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Burins préhistoriques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions. Musée National d’histoire et d’art, Luxembourg, pp. 297e316. Kantman, S., 1969. Essai sur la formation de concept du « Type » dans l’étude du Paléolithique. Quartär 20, 69e77. Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tools Uses: A Microwear Analysis. Chicago University Press. Keeley, L.H., 1988. Lithic economy, style and use: a comparison of three late Magdalenian sites. Lithic Technology 17, 19e25. Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Brou, L., 2003. Burins carénés-nucléus à lamelles: identification d’une chaîne opératoire particulière à Thémes (Yonne) et implications. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 100, 67e83. Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Bracco, J.P., Brou, L., 2006. Burins carénés, grattoirs carénnés et formes associés: un retournement! In: Agraujo, M., Bracco, J.P., Le BrunRicalens, F. (Eds.), Burins préhistoriques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions. Musée National d’histoire et d’art, Luxembourg. Lenoir, M., 1971. Traces d’utilisation observées sur un nucleus à lamelles. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 69, 69e70. Lenz, D., 1905. À propos des rabots en silex, grattoirs où nucleus? Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 2, 300e303. Mazo, C., 1991. Glosario y cuerpo bibliográfico de los estudios funcionales en Prehistoria. Monografías Arqueológicas n 34. Universidad de Zaragoza. Mazo, C., 1997. Análisis de huellas de uso: « del dicho al hecho. ». Veleia 14, 9e39. Moss, E.H., 1983. The functional analysis of flint implements. Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon: two case studies from the French Final Palaeolithic. British Archaeological Research, International Series 177. Nance, J., 1971. Functional interpretation from microscopic analysis. American Antiquity 36, 361e366. Plisson, H., 1985. Étude fonctionnelle d’outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l’analyse des micro-usures: Recherche méthodologique et archéologique. Université de Paris I-Panthéon-Sorbonne. Sheets, P., 1973. Edge abrasion biface manufacture. American Antiquity 38, 215e218. Simek, J., 1988. Analyse de la répartition spatiale des vestiges de la couche VIII de la grotte Vaufrey. In: Rigaud, J.Ph. (Ed.), La Grotte Vaufrey. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française XIX, pp. 569e592. Sonneville Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1954-56. Lexique typologique du Paléolithique Supérieur. Outillage lithique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51, 327e335. Straus, L.G., 1983. El Solutrense vasco-cantábrico. Una nueva perspectiva. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira 10. Tixier, J., 1982. Techniques de débitage: osons ne plus affirmer. In: Cahen, C. (Ed.), Studia Praehistorica Belgica, pp. 13e22. Utrilla, P., 1981. El Magdaleniense Inferior y Medio en la Costa Cantábrica. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira 4. Utrilla, P., 1984. ¿Es un útil el raspador nucleiforme? Primeras jornadas de Metodología de Investigación Prehistórica. Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales, pp. 169e174. Utrilla, P., 1990. La llamada « Facies del Pais Vasco » del Magdaleniense Inferior Cantábrico. Apuntes estadísticos. Munibe 42. Homenaje a J.M. de Barandiarán, pp. 41e54 Utrilla, P., 1994. Campamentos base, cazaderos y santuarios. Algunos ejemplos del Paleolítico peninsular. In: Homenaje al Dr. Joaquín González Echegaray. Museo y Centro de Investigación de Altamira 11, pp. 97e114. Utrilla, P., 1996. La sistematización del Magdaleniense Cantábrico: una revisión histórica de los datos. In: Moure, M. (Ed.), El Hombre fósil: ochenta años después. Universidad de Cantabria, pp. 211e248. Utrilla, P., 2004. Evolución histórica de las sociedades cantábricas durante el Tardiglacial: El Magdaleniense inicial, inferior y medio (16.500e13.000 BP). In: Fano (Ed.), Las Sociedades del Paleolítico en la Región Cantábrica. De los orígenes del poblamiento en el Pleistoceno medio al inicio del Neolítico en el V milenio. Anejos de Kobie 8, pp. 243e274. Utrilla, P., Martínez-Bea, M., 2008. Sanctuaires rupestres comme marqueurs d’identité territoriale: sites d’agrégation et animaux « sacrés ». In: Sauvet, Fritz (Eds.), Art rupestre et communication: espaces symboliques et territoires culturels. Préhistoire, Arts et Societés. LXIII, pp. 109e133. Vaughan, P.C., 1985. Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tucson.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Hunting camps and nucleiform endscrapers in the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian: A lithic microwear analysis Rafael Domingo*, Carlos Mazo, Pilar Utrilla Research Group “First Settlers of the Ebro Valley”, Dpto. Ciencias de la Antigüedad, University of Zaragoza, Pza Constitución s/n, 22001 Huesca, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 20 March 2012
This paper presents a study that includes the factor analysis of some classic deposits from the Cantabrian Middle and Lower Magdalenian and the functional analysis of Rascaño nucleiform endscrapers. Three categories of enclaves are distinguished, based on their main industrial features (two functional: aggregation sites and hunting camps; and one chronological: late Lower or Middle Magdalenian occupations). Finally, the functional analysis relates the abundance of nucleiform endscrapers in Rascaño cave, a hunting camp, to the maintenance or fabrication of bone points. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction: the diversity of the Lower Magdalenian Cantabrian sites The Cantabrian region is a narrow coastal corridor in the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula (Fig. 1), with a well-known prehistoric record whose most famous aspect is its Palaeolithic cave art. Studied by some of the most famous pioneer researchers, such as H. Breuil and H. Obermaier, a detailed picture of its prehistoric inhabitants can now be painted, based on dozens of sites excavated over the last century. Since the 1950se1970s work of F. Jordá and J. González Echegaray and the synthesis of Utrilla (1981), the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian has become a particularly well-known period. Utrilla developed a full-range study that systematized the lithic and osseous industries and the faunal assemblages, providing an overview that has been confirmed by recent research carried out at sites such as El Juyo, El Mirón, La Garma, Berroberría or La Viña. In 1994, the same author published a paper dealing with the functions of Lower Magdalenian sites in the Cantabrian region. There she proposed, following the line of thinking started by Conkey (1980), that Lower Magdalenian sites could be divided into three major types: aggregation (or long-term residential) sites, hunting camps and art sanctuaries. From these three types of sites, the focus is on those related to socio-economic activities that left traces in the archaeological record. The factor analysis based on lithic and osseous industries and faunal remains (Fig. 2) reveals a very clear distinction between aggregation sites and temporary hunting camps, as well as the existence of a late group of sites, dating to the final Lower (or to the * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Domingo). 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.027
Middle) Magdalenian. Analyses have been applied to data from the Cantabrian Early Upper Palaeolithic (Bernaldo de Quirós, 1981), Solutrean (Straus, 1983) and Magdalenian (Utrilla, 1990). The quality of the results depends on a diversity of elements such as the selected data, the preservation of the archaeological remains or the validity of the sample within each site. See Simek (1988) for further remarks concerning the analysis carried out at the Grotte Vaufrey. The classification was made by only one person (Utrilla), thus minimizing the human factor that could bias the result. The aggregation sites have been defined as major dwelling places, frequently located in large caves that offer ample habitable space for large short-term occupations, concentrated specially in the summers. They can also be long-term occupations where there are remains showing hunting activities at all seasons, even in winter, and in many cases they are “decorated” with parietal rock art. In addition to rich, highly diversified lithic and osseous toolkits (including assorted antler points and wands), is the appearance of non-utilitarian artworks (such as the well-known engraved scapulae depicting hinds). Some of the osseous instruments can be considered as “work” tools: aiguilles, ciseaux, chasse-lames. Some permanent dwelling camps could be interpreted as major aggregation sites by only considering the abundance of remains. The difference can be pointed from the study of the portable art, which is more varied (reflecting the presence of different human groups) in the aggregation sites than in the permanent, “common” dwelling places (more stable, showing a local or regional tradition). The faunal remains (showing all-year or short-term hunting strategies) could clarify this difference, but some of the most important sites (Castillo and Altamira) lack of such studies. Among the Lower Magdalenian sites are some of the most important Paleolithic residential loci in the Cantabrian region:
106
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
Fig. 1. Map of the Cantabrian Lower and Middle Magdalenian (in plain text, the Lower Magdalenian sites; in italics, the Middle Magdalenian ones; the arrows mark the sites studied in the factor analysis).
Castillo, Altxerri, Aitzbitarte, Ermittia and Tito Bustillo. The first and the last of these share characteristics with the other groups: Castillo has some features in common with hunting camps (nucleiform endscrapers and square-section sagaies) and Tito Bustillo could be also grouped in the factor analysis with the Late Lower/Middle Magdalenian sites, which share similar dates around 13,500 BP. In some places, such as Altamira, the prehistoric people not only
hunted for food, but also conducted other activities. The presence of rock art sanctuaries in the depths of many of those caves helps to classify them as major aggregation sites (Utrilla, 1994, 2004; Utrilla and Martínez-Bea, 2008). On the other hand, the hunting camps are temporary sites, highly specialized in the slaughter of red deer (Paloma, Balmori, Cierro, Juyo) or ibex (Rascaño, Erralla). Their occupations took place
Fig. 2. Graph showing the main distinctive elements of the three types of sites detected in the LowereMiddle Magdalenian in the Cantabrian region after the factor analysis.
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
mainly during the warm season. As for the toolkit, nucleiform endscrapers (de Sonneville and Perrot tool type 15 among the original 92 Upper Paleolithic tool types) represent more than 50% of the formal tool total; consequently, the Endscraper Index (IG) exceeds the Burin Index (IB) and there is a low diversity of tools. Square-section antler points, decorated with elongated tectiform designs, characterize the osseous industry. Finally, the late Lower/Middle Magdalenian group exhibits distinctive items such as triangle-section bone points decorated with lozange designs, while the IB now exceeds the IG. Among these are sites such as Bolinkoba, Santimamiñe, Ekain, Abauntz, Caldas, Loja and Tito Bustillo. Sites were included that were originally published as Lower Magdalenian by their researchers, although some of them lack of reliable dates. For example, J. M. Barandiarán identified as such the Basque group (Lumentxa, Santimaniñe, Bolinkoba, Ermittia or Aitzbitarte); however, their lithic and osseous characteristics suggested that they could date from the Middle Magdalenian or, at least, the Late Lower Magdalenian. In order to test this, some well-dated Middle Magdalenian sites (Caldas, Abauntz, Tito Bustillo) were added to the analysis. As shown in Fig. 2, Santimamiñe and Bolinkoba have been grouped by the factor analysis to those sites, clearly showing that there is an industrial difference between the two chronological periods and maybe a raw material conditioning (good-quality flint in the Basque Country vs. quartzite in Asturias). 2. The problem of the function of nucleiform endscrapers Late in the last century, typologists, technologists and microwear specialists offered up differing viewpoints about this tool, so characteristic of the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian. The pioneer typologists thought that they were endscrapers produced on cores distinguished from simple cores by the presence of secondary retouch that regularized a core edge into a convex endscraper. Thus one would classify as nuclei those pieces that do not present secondary retouch on the base and as endscrapers those pieces that do display such retouch (Lenz, 1905; SonnevilleBordes et Perrot, 1954). The tiny secondary flakes that regularize the supposed contact edge (namely, the striking platform of a core) would be considered a result of their use (Clark, 1954; Cook, 1968). In contrast, Hadleigh-West (1967) and Del Bene (1980) interpreted very similar data as the result of spontaneous splinters from bladelets as they were being knapped. In parallel, the technologists noted that the secondary retouch appeared in every bladelet knapping process, denying its spontaneity (Lenoir, 1971; Brink, 1978; Tixier, 1982). This also implies that many nuclei do not display the edge retouch because the extraction of rejuvenation flakes had eliminated the retouched zone. Hence, the nucleiform endscraper was rejected from the category of tools, being excluded from the revised (but never formally published) Upper Paleolithic, 105-type list. Even the definition of nucleiform burins and other carenate pieces (thick “nosed” endscrapers, shouldered endscrapers, busked burins) are nowadays being disputed: the technological analysis of the lithic industry from the site of Thèmes, for example, has shown a standardized production of bladelets obtained from cores that, from a typological point of view, should be considered carinate burins (Le Brun-Ricalens and Brou, 2003). After the simple typological classification, cores and nucleiform endscrapers are opposed categories, but there are difficulties in pinpointing the characteristics that evidence their differences (Kantman, 1969). Sheets (1973) warned against the use of edge-rounding and the presence of grooves as indicators of functional damage when he reviewed the paper of Nance (1971) on Stockton points. It is clear
107
that the voluntary abrasion of the plans de frappe, in order to assure a better striking platform, causes those very “wear” traces that must be carefully interpreted by the researcher (Mazo, 1991, 1997). From the viewpoint of the microwear analysts, some cores were employed as endscrapers, but most of them were not. For example, Dumont (1988) stated that in Star Carr three out of the five cores/ endscrapers analysed (from a total of 120) showed scraping wear traces. In Cassegros 10, Vaughan (1985) said that only one out of nine pieces scraped hide. Plisson (1985) did not see any wear traces in three quartzitic cores from Andernach. Moss (1983) stated that in Pincevent, one out of three cores had been used as a retouching tool. In recent years, there have been more studies of the function of the carinate pieces during the Upper Palaeolithic; but most of them focused on burins. These carinates are included under the premise of their morphological similarities with the endscrapers, discarding the strict typological viewpoint. Following Ibáñez and GonzálezUrquijo (2006), the nucleiform burins and the nucleiform endscrapers could be discriminated based on the position of the knapping: frontal for the burins, semi-perimetric for the endscrapers. This could be more a matter of thickness than a different knapping behaviour: in any case the desired result is the production of blades or bladelets: the authors propose that the utilisation of the nucleus might be viewed as a secondary or even opportunistic phenomenon. They studied 16 bladelet nuclei from several sites in the Basque Country, observing that 25% of them had been actually used: 1 for woodworking, 2 for hide scraping and the last one for bone-working. In Laminak II, in a Late Magdalenian level, carinate endscrapers had produced “every type of bladelets, from the biggest module to the smallest”. Thus, they interpret the site as a hunting camp specialized in the fabrication and repair of projectiles; the systematic knapping of blades and bladelets would supply replacements for the pieces that were damaged or lost in the course of hunting expeditions. Le Brun-Ricalens et al. (2006) discuss the most recent research on the subject and conclude that, “the functional results obtained on carinate pieces have reinforced the understanding of those artifacts, that should be interpreted as nuclei instead of as tools” (p. 347). Among those papers is that of Hays and Lucas (2000), dealing with the carinate pieces from the Aurignician levels of the Flageolet rockshelter. They studied a total of 113 tools; 57 were endscrapers and 56 burins. Most (82%) did not show any wear traces. The endscrapers had been used more often (21%) than the burins (12%). The raw materials that they had processed were bone and antler. The authors made an interesting remark concerning the edge angles: none of the pieces that surpassed 65 had been employed, while an impressive 82% of the endscrapers that showed an angle under 65 had been actually utilised, even if they had had a primary function as nuclei for Dufour bladelets, as confirmed by refitting. The technological analysis of the nuclei with edge angles below 65 confirm the impossibility of knapping adequate blanks for Dufour bladelets, which would explain the occasional secondary use of spent nuclei as endscrapers. All these sites date to the Aurignician (Flageolet), the Archaic Magdalenian (Cassegros), the Final Magdalenian (Andernach, Pincevent, Laminak), or even to the Mesolithic (Star Carr). So what happened during the Lower Magdalenian? 3. Nucleiform endscrapers of the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian: tools or cores? The substantial presence of nucleiform endscrapers in the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian toolkit found in sites attributed to the “Juyo” facies (classic Magdalenian III) achieves a frequency up to 50% of the tool total (Utrilla, 1981, 1984, 1994, 1996; González-Echegaray
108
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
and Barandiarán, 1981; Barandiarán et al. 1985)). This phenomenon existed in sites that had osseous industries characterised by squaresection antler points, decorated with elongated tectiform designs, lithic assemblages with more endscrapers than burins (even without tool type 15) and a specialization in summer hunting of only one game species (red deer or ibex, depending on the local environment). They may be therefore interpreted as hunting campsites. The nucleiform endscrapers do not appear significantly in levels identified as workshops and cannot be related to a proportional increase in bladelets, whether retouched or unretouched. It seems plausible that the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian hunters kept bladelet cores in their bags along with other tools, but it cannot be argued that these were spare raw material provisions, as they are tiny, nearly exhausted cores. Furthermore, many of them still display cortical surfaces, a clear sign of the exploitation of small nodules, preferably as tools, but not as bladelet cores. The interpretation of function via wear traces analysis and the massive presence of nucleiform endscrapers in the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian lead to the following question: what type of morphology was desired by the prehistoric people while knapping: cores or bladelets? Which is the waste element? The functional analysis carried out by C. Mazo and R. Domingo concerned 34 pieces from the site of Rascaño (Figs. 3e5); 23 from level 4, Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian (15,998 193 BP) and 11 from level 5, Archaic Magdalenian (16,433 131 BP). In the near
future, a study of nucleiform endscrapers from El Mirón will be undertaken, at the request of its directors L. G. Straus and M. González-Morales. When first studied, they still had some adhering sediments even though they seemed well cleaned. It was assumed that they had never before been analysed under the microscope. The research that L. H. Keeley undertook on the sites of Verberie, Juyo and Rascaño (1988) did not affect the pieces studied here, since they still were associated with the original manuscript record. It is a pity that his results cannot be employed, because he aggregated pieces from levels 3, 4 and 5 under the common denomination “Late Magdalenian” and therefore their precise provenance cannot be determined. The initial analysis was carried out with a Nikon Optiphot microscope in the University of Zaragoza, and the final analysis was done with an Olympus microscope in the laboratory of the Museum of Altamira (where microphotographs were taken with an Olympus camera). Distinctive microscopic micropolishes, grooves and other features were identified as diagnostic traces, based on a previous personal experimentation with replica tools. The microscopic observation ranged between 100 and 400. The methods (Mazo, 1991; Domingo, 2005) follow very closely those explained by Keeley (1980) and Anderson (1981). The wear traces pattern in each level is very different: in level 4, 57% of the endscrapers show microwear related to manufacturing processes, versus level 5, where this index achieves only 9%. In
Fig. 3. Stratigraphy of the cave of Rascaño. Nucleiform endscrapers and square-section bone points come from levels 4 and 5.
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
109
Fig. 4. Drawings of the analysed pieces from Rascaño, with indications of microwear localisation and type.
every case, the wear traces were exclusively on the contact face (striking platform) limited to the nearest zone to the edge. Data provided by functional analysis show the utilization of a high percentage of small endscrapers from Rascaño level 4 (classic Lower Magdalenian, Juyo-type), compared to level 5 (archaic Magdalenian), where they were scarcely utilised. This lack of wear traces has been also observed in later levels, dating from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian (Rascaño 2). Microwear always shows
utilization related to bone- or wood-working, but never to hide scraping. That could confirm their function as scrapers, rather than as simply pyramidal bladelet cores, constraining this attribution for other Magdalenian levels. For the whole of the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian, nucleiform endscrapers are dominant and can be stratigraphically related to square-section bone points and to hunters specialized in a summer seasonal activity. Therefore, a substantial part of the nucleiform
Fig. 5. Microscopic photography of wood micropolish on a small nucleiform endscraper from Rascaño.
110
R. Domingo et al. / Quaternary International 272-273 (2012) 105e110
endscrapers would be employed for sharpening or repairing bone points, justifying thus their predominant presence in huntingintended sites. Fig. 5 illustrates how the micropolish appears next to the edge of the endscraper and is superposed atop knapping grooves, attesting the work sequence: the nucleus comes first, and then, when exhausted for further removal of bladelets, it is employed for other tasks. The grooves caused by a harder material (likely stone) that appear on some platforms may well have been produced when knapping the bladelets on an irregular stone anvil, even without excluding the possibility of their being the result of percussion during the knapping of the core/endscraper. Comparing these results with those previously quoted shows how differently the Magdalenian people from Rascaño managed their flint. The lesser availability of good-quality lithic raw materials in the central Cantabrian area could explain this behaviour, taking advantage of exhausted nuclei as endscrapers in a more systematic way than in other areas that were richer in large flint nodules (e.g., the Basque Country). 4. Conclusions The fact that these tools were used to scrape bones and wood suggests the possibility that their secondary function, after that of providing the hunters with bladelets, was to assist in the fabrication or refitting of weapons. Thus, the hypothesis is that the type 15-dominated sites were employed as hunting camps, where the Magdalenian people settled for a limited time, in order to process their prey carcasses and rearm their weapons using nucleiform endscrapers. Perhaps these were preformed at their primary aggregation sites, only to be brought along on the hunting expeditions to provide a replacements for lost lithic implements and, once exhausted, they were used to carry out the maintenance and repair of osseous and wooden points. Thereby, microwear analysis stands out as a useful technique to help archaeologists interpret the data retrieved in the sites and provides a different approach for the interpretation of the lithic assemblages. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the conveners of the Magdalenian session held in Bern during the INQUA Congress of 2011: Lawrence G. Straus, Denise Leesch and Thomas Terberger. We are also deeply grateful to the Museum of Altamira, where the analysed artifacts are curated and that provided us with all the facilities needed to restudy and photograph them. We warmly thank Lawrence Straus for exhaustive revision of the English. This paper forms part of the research project HAR2008-05451 “La Movilidad en el Valle Medio del Ebro”. References Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1981. Contribution méthodologique à l’analyse des microtraces d’utilisation sur les outils préhistoriques. Thèse de 3ème cycle. Université de Bordeaux-I. Barandiarán, I., Freeman, L., González-Echegaray, J., Klein, R., 1985. Excavaciones en la cueva del Juyo. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, n 14. Bernaldo de Quirós, F., 1981. Análisis matemáticos del Paleolítico Superior Inicial. Zephyrus XXXIIeXXXIII, 41e56. Brink, J., 1978. Notes on the occurrence of spontaneous retouch. Lithic Technology 7, 31e33. Clark, J.G.D., 1954. Excavations at Star Carr: An Early Mesolithic Site at Seamer Near Scarborough, Yorkshire. Cambridge University Press. Conkey, M., 1980. The identification of prehistoric hunteregatherer aggregation sites: the case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21, 609e630. Cook, J.P., 1968. Some microblades cores from the Western Boreal Forest. Arctic Anthropology 5, 121e127.
Del Bene, T., 1980. Microscopic damage traces and manufacture process: the Denali Complex example. Lithic technology 9, 34e35. Domingo, R., 2005. La funcionalidad de los microlitos geométricos. Bases experimentales para su estudio. Monografías Arqueológicas, 44. Universidad de Zaragoza. Dumont, J.V., 1988. A microwear analysis of selected artefacts types from the Mesolithic sites of Star Carr and Mount Sandel. British Archaeological Research, British Series 187. González-Echegaray, J., Barandiarán, I., 1981. El Paleolítico Superior de la cueva del Rascaño (Santander). Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, 3. Hadleigh-West, F., 1967. The Donnelly Ridge Site and the definition of an early core and blade complex in Central Alaska. American Antiquity 32, 360e382. Hays, M., Lucas, G., 2000. A technological and functional analysis of carinates from Le Flageolet I, Dordogne. Journal of Field Archaeology 27, 455e465. Ibáñez, J.J., González-Urquijo, J., 2006. La complexité fonctionnelle des burins: exemples de la fin du Paleólithique Supérieur Cantabrique et du Néolithique Précéramique en Syrie. In: Agraujo, M., Bracco, J.P., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Burins préhistoriques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions. Musée National d’histoire et d’art, Luxembourg, pp. 297e316. Kantman, S., 1969. Essai sur la formation de concept du « Type » dans l’étude du Paléolithique. Quartär 20, 69e77. Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tools Uses: A Microwear Analysis. Chicago University Press. Keeley, L.H., 1988. Lithic economy, style and use: a comparison of three late Magdalenian sites. Lithic Technology 17, 19e25. Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Brou, L., 2003. Burins carénés-nucléus à lamelles: identification d’une chaîne opératoire particulière à Thémes (Yonne) et implications. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 100, 67e83. Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Bracco, J.P., Brou, L., 2006. Burins carénés, grattoirs carénnés et formes associés: un retournement! In: Agraujo, M., Bracco, J.P., Le BrunRicalens, F. (Eds.), Burins préhistoriques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions. Musée National d’histoire et d’art, Luxembourg. Lenoir, M., 1971. Traces d’utilisation observées sur un nucleus à lamelles. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 69, 69e70. Lenz, D., 1905. À propos des rabots en silex, grattoirs où nucleus? Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 2, 300e303. Mazo, C., 1991. Glosario y cuerpo bibliográfico de los estudios funcionales en Prehistoria. Monografías Arqueológicas n 34. Universidad de Zaragoza. Mazo, C., 1997. Análisis de huellas de uso: « del dicho al hecho. ». Veleia 14, 9e39. Moss, E.H., 1983. The functional analysis of flint implements. Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon: two case studies from the French Final Palaeolithic. British Archaeological Research, International Series 177. Nance, J., 1971. Functional interpretation from microscopic analysis. American Antiquity 36, 361e366. Plisson, H., 1985. Étude fonctionnelle d’outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l’analyse des micro-usures: Recherche méthodologique et archéologique. Université de Paris I-Panthéon-Sorbonne. Sheets, P., 1973. Edge abrasion biface manufacture. American Antiquity 38, 215e218. Simek, J., 1988. Analyse de la répartition spatiale des vestiges de la couche VIII de la grotte Vaufrey. In: Rigaud, J.Ph. (Ed.), La Grotte Vaufrey. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française XIX, pp. 569e592. Sonneville Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1954-56. Lexique typologique du Paléolithique Supérieur. Outillage lithique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 51, 327e335. Straus, L.G., 1983. El Solutrense vasco-cantábrico. Una nueva perspectiva. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira 10. Tixier, J., 1982. Techniques de débitage: osons ne plus affirmer. In: Cahen, C. (Ed.), Studia Praehistorica Belgica, pp. 13e22. Utrilla, P., 1981. El Magdaleniense Inferior y Medio en la Costa Cantábrica. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira 4. Utrilla, P., 1984. ¿Es un útil el raspador nucleiforme? Primeras jornadas de Metodología de Investigación Prehistórica. Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales, pp. 169e174. Utrilla, P., 1990. La llamada « Facies del Pais Vasco » del Magdaleniense Inferior Cantábrico. Apuntes estadísticos. Munibe 42. Homenaje a J.M. de Barandiarán, pp. 41e54 Utrilla, P., 1994. Campamentos base, cazaderos y santuarios. Algunos ejemplos del Paleolítico peninsular. In: Homenaje al Dr. Joaquín González Echegaray. Museo y Centro de Investigación de Altamira 11, pp. 97e114. Utrilla, P., 1996. La sistematización del Magdaleniense Cantábrico: una revisión histórica de los datos. In: Moure, M. (Ed.), El Hombre fósil: ochenta años después. Universidad de Cantabria, pp. 211e248. Utrilla, P., 2004. Evolución histórica de las sociedades cantábricas durante el Tardiglacial: El Magdaleniense inicial, inferior y medio (16.500e13.000 BP). In: Fano (Ed.), Las Sociedades del Paleolítico en la Región Cantábrica. De los orígenes del poblamiento en el Pleistoceno medio al inicio del Neolítico en el V milenio. Anejos de Kobie 8, pp. 243e274. Utrilla, P., Martínez-Bea, M., 2008. Sanctuaires rupestres comme marqueurs d’identité territoriale: sites d’agrégation et animaux « sacrés ». In: Sauvet, Fritz (Eds.), Art rupestre et communication: espaces symboliques et territoires culturels. Préhistoire, Arts et Societés. LXIII, pp. 109e133. Vaughan, P.C., 1985. Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tucson.