Time and space in the formation of lithic assemblages: The example of Abric Romaní Level J

Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

Time and space in the formation of lithic assemblages: The example of Abric Romaní Level J Manuel Vaquero a, *, María Gema Chacón a, b, María Dolores García-Antón a, Bruno Gómez de Soler a, Kenneth Martínez a, Felipe Cuartero c a b c

Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES), Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Plaça Imperial Tarraco 1, 43005 Tarragona, Spain UMR7194 e Département de Préhistoire, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 1, rue René Panhard, 75013 Paris, France Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 23 December 2010

Behavioral strategies are a primary focus in the study of Middle Paleolithic assemblages. Since the emergence of the processual paradigma, this research has been partly based on the use of interpretive frameworks derived from ethnoarcheological sources. However, this approach is flawed by the lack of correspondence between the time scale of the ethnographic information and the time scale of the archeological record. This paper presents the lithic assemblage from level J (ca. 50 ka BP), one of the Middle Paleolithic layers excavated in the Abric Romaní (Capellades, Spain). The study of this assemblage has been carried out from a spatio-temporal perspective, trying to discern two different time scales involved in the formation of the archeological record: the geological time scale of the assemblage-as-awhole and the ethnographic time scale of the individual events. The results suggest that several domains of lithic variability, like raw material provisioning, artifact transport and spatial patterns, are timedependent and should be approached taking into account the temporal depth of the archeological assemblages. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: time perspectivism and Neanderthal behavior Behavioral patterns are one of the main concerns in the study of Middle Paleolithic, as the behavioral capacities of Neanderthals are a primary issue in clarifying the scope of the differences between them and modern humans. In addition, accessing behavior is the only surefire way of approaching the variability of Middle Paleolithic lithic assemblages, which seems closely tied to economic strategies and daily activities. Nevertheless, any approach to Neanderthal behavior must take into account some methodological questions associated with the interpretation of the archeological record. The behavioral perspective in Paleolithic archeology has been linked to a generalization of ethnoarcheological models, particularly in studies devoted to the most systemic levels of behavior, like settlement strategies or intra-site spatial patterns. However, the use of lithic

* Corresponding author. Fax: þ34 977 55 95 97. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Vaquero), gchacon@prehistoria. urv.cat, [email protected] (M.G. Chacón), [email protected] (M.D. García-Antón), [email protected] (B. Gómez de Soler), kenneth@ prehistoria.urv.cat (K. Martínez), [email protected] (F. Cuartero). 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.015

assemblages to reconstruct behavioral patterns confronts an initial problem: the lack of correspondence between the geological time used to define the lithic assemblages and the ethnographic time of the events that produced the artifacts. This was the central argument in the “Pompeii premise” debate (Binford, 1981, 1986; Schiffer, 1985). In general, assemblages are defined according to a geological time scale. All the remains found in the same stratigraphical unit are included in the same assemblage. The slow sedimentation rates dominant in most deposits, together with the reduction of the sedimentary volumes caused by some post-depositional processes (Brochier, 1999), make unlikely the recovery of occupation floors, especially in caves and rockshelters. Practically all archeological assemblages are palimpsests, the formation of which can span hundreds or even thousands of years and to which many natural and cultural processes may have contributed (Bailey, 2007). The temporal depth of these palimpsests depends on the deposition rate and in some deposits that formed rapidly the geological time may be close to the ethnographic time. However, the succession of different events has even been documented in archeological assemblages characterized by their high temporal resolution (Julien et al., 1992; Ketterer et al., 2004). One cannot help but wonder to what point the use of ethnographic models, defined by very different time scales, are suitable for explaining these assemblages

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

and what misconceptions might be introduced in interpretation by differences concerning formation time. The disjunction between ethnographic models and the low temporal resolution of many archeological assemblages can make ethnographically derived interpretations problematic (Smith, 1992; Stern, 1993; Lake, 1996; Murray, 2002; Holdaway and Wandsnider, 2008). The archeological record is the outcome of processes operating at different time scales (Bailey, 1981, 1983). There are reasons to believe that the shortest time scale e the event e is the best suited to make behavioral inferences (Brooks, 1982). The deposition and characteristics of material remains depend on decisions made by individuals at specific times and places with the aim of solving specific needs. Stratigraphically defined assemblages are simply the sum of an unknown number of such decisions. An ideal explanation of an archeological assemblage would be one that accounts for each of the activity events that contributed to its formation. Formation length may be an important factor in assemblage variability. If an assemblage was formed over a long period, it would be more likely that different activities would be carried out, including some uncommon ones. Assemblage variability would therefore increase as the formation period of that assemblage increased (Shott, 2008). Many times the whole assemblage is explained as the product of the same behavior, as it is assumed that the same constraints conditioned all the events represented in the assemblage. This is an unwarranted assumption as there may have been significant differences concerning the contexts, circumstances, needs, and constraints affecting those events. This problem becomes evident when analyzing how assemblage variability can be interpreted. The behavioral variability attested to by an archeological assemblage can be considered as an expression of the different options available for humans during the period in which the assemblage was formed. In this sense, the variability of assemblages can be correlated to the variability of human behavior at a point in time. However, this same assemblage variability can be alternatively interpreted as the temporal succession of different behaviors during the assemblage formation period. In this case, there would be no correspondence between assemblage variability and behavioral variability, since the former would be the result of a pooling together of different behavioral moments. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that an archeological assemblage may be affected by factors of variability operating at different time scales. The lack of correspondence between assemblage and behavioral variability may be less acute in domains of behavioral variability depending on long-term processes. The study of level J lithic assemblage will try to establish whether an approach based on the identification of single events can yield a different light on Neanderthal behavior. Special attention will be paid to temporal dynamics that formed the lithic assemblage and their consequences. The Abric Romaní is a suitable site to apply this study, due to its sedimentary context e archeological levels embedded between travertine layers  and the fieldwork methodology based on the excavation of a large surface and the threedimensional record of the archeological remains. In addition to a conventional “assemblage-as-a-whole” approach, an attempt is made to identify specific activity events and to reconstruct their timing during the formation of level J. This methodology has been already tested in another level of the Abric Romaní (Vaquero et al., 2004; Vaquero, 2005, 2008). 2. Materials and methods This study considers two levels of analysis, which correspond to different time scales. The first is the assemblage level, in which all the lithic remains are considered as a whole. This is the highest temporal resolution that can be obtained through geological criteria, so assemblages constructed using such criteria should be

163

considered as palimpsests formed by an unknown number of technical events. This assemblage level is focused on a technological perspective based on the chaîne opératoire concept and a functional study. The approach to this level will focus on attribute and use-wear analyses. Methods for the attribute analysis of cores, flakes and retouched artifacts have been largely described in other works (Vaquero, 1997; Carbonell, 2002). Use-wear analysis has been carried out using a scanning electron microscope (SEM), coupled with a morphological analysis of tool edges, following the procedure outlined in Martínez (2005). The second level of analysis might be called the event level, and focuses on identifying the maximum number of technical episodes. It consists of the highest temporal resolution that can be achieved and it is the best approach to “ethnographic time”. Refitting and identification of Raw Material Units (RMUs) are the basic empirical procedures in this level. An RMU incorporates the artifacts produced during the reduction of a single nodule (Roebroeks, 1988) and is defined according to macroscopic characteristics like color, grain size, texture, inclusions and type of cortex. This procedure, also known as minimum analytical nodule analysis (Hall, 2004; Larson, 2004; Odell, 2004), is especially useful in assemblages with lithics of variable appearance. RMUs have been characterized taking into account two main features: how they were introduced into the site and what kind of intentional modification was carried out on them inside the rockshelter. Refitting, nodule analysis, and spatial distribution, together with archeostratigraphy, form the basis for interpreting the assemblage in temporal terms. The spatial distribution of RMUs and refitting groups is important in testing hypotheses on cultural and natural formation processes, post-depositional disturbance, occupation strategies and temporal patterns. Refits are especially informative regarding the temporal relationships among different activity areas. The spatial distribution of RMUs indicates the location of knapping activities. The scattering of RMUs is also important in studying the temporal dynamics in the formation of the assemblage. The dispersion of the artifacts resulting from a knapping episode depends on its temporal location in the sequence of technical events (Stevenson, 1985, 1991). Earlier episodes tend to be more widely scattered, as they would have been more affected by intentional and unintentional dispersion factors. As the knapping events approach the latest occupation phases, their scatters are less subject to these dispersion processes and they therefore tend to be more clustered. 3. The Abric Romaní and the raw material sources The Abric Romaní is located in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula, 50 km west of Barcelona (Fig. 1). It is a wide rockshelter (Abric) in a travertine cliff called Cinglera del Capelló, located in a karst landscape in the town of Capelladesat the west bank of the Anoia river. The Abric Romaní (41 320 N, 1 41 030"E) has an elevation of 265 m above sea level. The stratigraphy is made up of 20 m of well-stratified travertine sediments dated by U-Series between 40 and 70 ka (Bischoff et al., 1988; Vaquero et al., 2001b). Level J is one of the richest archeological levels, and has yielded almost 7.000 lithic artifacts. There are two main archeostratigraphic units, sublevels Ja and Jb, although they have been distinguished only in the middle of the site. U-series dating has provided dates around 49 ka BP for the overlaying tufa (49.3  1.6 and 49.2  2.9 ka BP), and around 50 ka BP (50.0  1.6 and 50.8  0.8 ka BP)for the underlying tufa (Bischoff et al., 1988). In addition, a charcoal sample from the archeological level has been dated at 47.1  2.1 14C ka BP (NZA-2316). Level J shows a spatial distribution of lithics less clustered than other Romaní levels characterized by well-defined discrete accumulations (Vaquero and Pastó, 2001). Nevertheless, as in the rest of the levels, lithics tend to be associated to hearths. The highest concentrations

164

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 1. Geographical location, main geochronological units and incidents of the Capellades region, situated in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula. Legend (IGME, 1975): 1 Plutonic intrusions. 2 Paleozoic. 3 Mesozoic. 4 Cenozoic. 5 Quaternary travertines. 6 Quaternary. 7 Anticline. 8 Syncline. 9 Inverse (thrust) fault. 10 Inverse (thrust) fault. 11 Fault. 9 or 10 Normal fault.

correspond to the area where most hearths are located, between the shelter’s wall and the outer line of blocks (Fig. 2). The Capellades region shows a high diversity of lithic raw materials. The Anoia valley connects three structural units that have lithic resources: the Ebro basin (1), the Prelittoral Range (2), and the Prelittoral Depression (3). The Ebro basin is the unit with more chert-bearing formations and corresponds to a Paleogene sedimentary basin with Eocene deposits (Solé Sabarís, 1958e1964). The Prelittoral Range provides mainly metamorphic and igneous rocks and is divided by the Anoia into two different lithological areas: the Paleozoic materials to the east and the Triassic materials to the west. The Prelittoral Depression, with chert and limestone in secondary position, was formed by the sinking of a large block during the last movements in the Alpine orogeny and is filled by Triassic materials from the Prelittoral Range, marine Paleogene materials from the Ebro basin and fluvial Quaternary sediments. The Romaní lithic assemblages indicate that two main zones can be distinguished in lithic provisioning. Quartz and limestone can be found within a radius of 5 km of the site and they are plentiful in the surroundings. In contrast, chert nodules are very scarce in this zone. The quartz sills cross the Paleozoic slate formations surrounding the site (García Rodrigo, 1957). Quartz nodules can be located in primary and subprimary positions and exhibit angular forms and medium

sizes (10e50 cm). They also appear in secondary position in the river terraces and other colluvial formations. The limestone and sandstone used in level J varies greatly. Cortical surfaces indicate that the limestone blanks found in the site have a secondary origin. Some limestone cobbles show conchoidal fracture and are suitable for knapping, while others exhibit a very poor quality. Among the several types of limestone, only that from the Orpí formation have been identified (Ortí, 1990). It presents orange colorless, conchoidal fracture and micritic texture and content alveolines. The second zone, ranging between 5 and 25 km from the site, presents several primary and secondary chert sources (Fig. 3). Chert provisioning came principally from the Ebro basin formations, including the Valldeperes formation (20 km from the site), the St. Martí de Tous formation (15 km), and the Montmaneu formation (25 km). These types of chert show the following properties:  Valldeperes chert (VLD). It presents a calcareous-marly cortex with 1e2 mm of thickness. Its color goes from white to black in a range of gray-blue and has a translucent appearance. The texture is soft to saccharoid, with a conchoidal fracture good for knapping. Quartz and gypsum druses have been found, as well as vegetable fibers and gypsum ghosts. This chert type exhibits a tendency to white patina.

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

165

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of lithics in sublevel Ja. Drawing by P. Sañudo.

 St. Martí de Tous chert (SMT). The cortex is calcareous, 1e3 mm thick with rough surface. The chert has a translucent appearance and its color varies from light to dark gray in a range of gray-blue. The texture is soft to rough to the touch, with a conchoidal fracture, which gives it a variable aptitude for knapping. This chert had laminated sedimentary structure, and presents a weak white patina.  Montmaneu chert (PAN). It appears in lenses of decimetric size. The cortex is calcareous and less than 1 mm thick. The color is blackish-green with opaque appearance. When oxidations are present, its color varies toward light brown. The texture is soft to the touch, and presents a conchoidal fracture with very good knapping properties. The sedimentary structure is laminated and contains several alochems, ooids, pellets and some bioclasts. This chert can present some grayish-brown patina. The nearest raw materials were not the most exploited. Quartz and limestone are overwhelmingly dominant in the fluvial and colluvial deposits close to the site. They are clearly the more abundant materials within a 5 km radius, while chert nodules are extremely rare. Nevertheless, chert was preferentially selected for knapping sequences. This might explain the economizing behavior inferred from core reduction sequences. As usual at the Abric Romaní, the most common material in level J is chert (75% of the artifacts), followed by limestone and quartz (about 10% each one), and other materials (porphyry, quartzite) with less than 3%. The SMT and VLD are the most represented cherts. Cortical surfaces indicate that both primary and secondary chert outcrops were exploited, but cobbles from alluvial formations were dominant. These cobbles exhibit a high variability in size and shape, depending of the proximity to the primary outcrops.

4. The assemblage-as-a-whole: technology, typology, and usewear The technological analysis of level J has been widely presented in another work (Vaquero et al., in press) and will be only briefly summarized here. Core and flake attribute analysis indicates that flexibility and expediency were basic features of technical behavior. Core reduction strategies were directed at maximizing the profitability of the blanks in the simplest possible way. Knapping strategies were based on two fundamental criteria: 1) The main goal of core reduction sequences was to produce the highest number of blanks per core, with a little concern on the form and size of the products. Many reduction sequences were directed toward the production of small and very small flakes. 2) There was a constant adaptation to the shape and size of the exploited blanks, taking advantage of their natural morphology, as can be seen for example in the case of core-on-flakes, which are well represented. This expedient technology produces a high variability in core shape. Core structure is characterized by the dominance of bifacial knapping e cores present two opposed flaking surfaces separated by an intersection plane e and the morphology of many cores corresponds more or less to the discoidal method (Fig. 4). However, other cores exhibit hierarchized structures, similar to those of Levallois cores. There are also unipolar cores that indicate a volumetric exploitation, and some cores show the detachment of elongated blanks. This expedient strategy is used on cores of both flint and limestone, regardless of the phase of the knapping process. This excludes the possibility of distinguishing between reduction stages

166

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 3. Geological map showing the location of the primary chert-bearing formations.

producing desired end-products (predetermined) and reduction stages yielding wasted flakes (predetermining). The different core morphologies should not be interpreted as different reduction methods, but as the consequence of applying these expedient criteria to a wide range of blank forms. These expedient contexts tend to produce a higher variability in core morphology as opposed to contexts characterized by more elaborated strategies (as the Levallois method), which tend to produce more standardized cores. In this sense, the discoidal and Levallois cannot be interpreted as equivalent methods. Levallois may be considered as a “true” method, since it determines a specific core structure. Discoidal cores would be the result of applying the recurrence principle in an expedient context. There was not a mental template guiding the core structure. The core morphology was the result of adapting the recurrence principle to changing circumstances. Sometimes this led to the appearance of typical discoidal cores, but not other times. Knapping processes are characterized by spatial and temporal fragmentation. This is observed basically in chert cores, as there are few cases in which the whole exploitation was carried out in the site. Cores habitually arrived at an advanced stage of reduction and were finished off in the shelter. Cores are economized, knapped through short sequences when tools are needed. Flakes show similar technical features and microwear does not show differences among them, which excludes the existence of a specialized toolkit. Neither is there differentiation between flakes and tools, because all flakes with an acute edge were potential tools. Cores were mobile objects transported around as reserve of tools, they always were knapped following the same criteria, and the produced flakes show the same technical morphologies. This suggests that activities and tools were the same in the shelter and outside. Retouched artifacts are scarce (less than 3% of the assemblage) and, as usual in the Abric Romaní, denticulates and notches are

dominant (84.6% of retouched tools) (Fig. 5). Other tool types, and notably sidescrapers, are practically absent. Large and thick supports were preferentially selected, and the denticulate edge is commonly opposed to an abrupt side. Retouched tools were manufactured on ordinary flakes, especially blanks from the beginning of the reduction sequence. The retouch is mainly located in only one side, the most potentially suitable and longer edge. Retouched edges do not show evidence of intense resharpening as retouch is not invasive or stepped. In addition, the microwear analysis shows a low degree of tool using. Most tools were already retouched when transported into the shelter. Small flakes from cores exploited in the site were not usually selected for retouching, although refitting shows that some retouched tools were manufactured inside shelter. Both denticulates produced in and outside the shelter show the same technical features, which suggests that they were used for the same activities or that denticulates were suitable for all the range of activities. Therefore, human groups had a versatile technology without specialized tools. Microwear analysis included flakes and retouched tools. All the retouched tools were analyzed and flakes were selected from among the diversity of artifacts common at the site, with preference given to large flakes and excluding refitted objects because their microwear alteration. The microwear analysis showed a reduced percentage of identification, with a low degree of development of use traces, except for actions on hide and wood. Cutting actions on animal tissue are the most common. Retouched tools were used mainly on hard animal matter, during butchery activities in which bone and other hard materials of carcasses are rubbed. Flakes were mostly used in butchery, showing cutting actions on soft animal tissue and, in a lesser extent, harder animal material (bone and hide). It seems that retouched tools were used in defleshing and dismembering, while flakes were used in skinning and cutting meat. Only one small débordant flake was used in a whittling action on wood. Otherwise,

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 4. Cores from sublevel Ja. Drawing by S. Alonso.

167

168

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 5. Retouched artifacts from level J. Drawing by S. Alonso.

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

retouched tools were used in tanning hide in transversal negative actions. The abrupt angle of retouched edges was used in scraping actions for cleaning the dermis tissues, which could be related to the first phase of tanning process. Except for one retouched tool that was used for cutting meat and scraping fresh hide, denticulates were used in only one action with only one edge, always the retouched one. Therefore, retouching seems to be related only with tool using. Retouched tools were not reused and maintained for further activities in or outside shelter, as we have not identified microwears detached by later series of retouches. Among the flakes with use-wear traces, those presenting asymmetrical profiles are particularly well represented. They are characterized by an abrupt side opposed to the used edge (débordant and naturally backed flakes), which allows for comfortable handling. These data show the versatility of these geometric models (Beyries and Boëda, 1983; Lemorini, 2000). Microwear analysis suggests a functional duality between two kinds of complementary tools; acute angles of flakes were used in cutting actions on soft animal tissue, while abrupt retouched edges were used in harder and longer actions that needed stronger edges. The organization of lithic production and use follows a clear and well established technical model, based on the use of expedient recurrent knapping methods and the manufacture of denticulates and notches. These technical models are used in any time and condition. Likewise, tools are used following the same technical criteria and modes of use. In spite of this, when technical models of production and use are executed, the specific needs and conditions of each episode produce a wide range of variability due to the flexibility and versatility of these technical models. 5. The event level: spatial and temporal patterns According to refits and the macroscopic characteristics of raw materials, more than 500 Raw Material Units were identified, each one corresponding to a singular technical event. Moreover, 262 refitting groups, totaling 719 artifacts (10.4% of the lithic assemblage), could be realized. These data form the basis for a temporal approach

169

to the formation of the lithic assemblage. Focus is on two interrelated issues. First, provisioning strategies are considered, distinguishing the depositional contexts associated with the different ways of transporting lithic resources into the site. Second, the temporal nature of the lithic assemblage is highlighted, providing some examples from refitting and spatial data. Raw materials from local sources are dominant in lithic assemblages, especially during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic (Geneste, 1989; Turq, 1992; Dibble et al., 1995; Féblot-Augustins, 1997), although there are some Mousterian assemblages in which exogenous materials are the most abundant (Ríos, 2005). The percentage of remains tends to decrease as their origin becomes more distant, especially when these sources are located more than 10e20 km from the site. Moreover, the mode in which lithic resources are introduced into the sites also varies according to distance. Local raw materials tend to be transported as bulk resources that are processed at the site. As distance to the lithic sources increases, resources tend to be transported in more elaborate forms. This pattern may be modified in contexts characterized by a logistical provisioning, in which bulk resources are transported into the sites from a long distance (Henry, 1992), but this provisioning strategy does not seem to be common in the Middle Paleolithic. The lithic resources of level J were introduced into the site in different forms: 1) entire or almost entire nodules, 2) angular fragments, 3) partially reduced cores, 4) single blanks (flakes and retouches artifacts), 5) sets of blanks from the same reduction sequence. In general, there is a relationship between the introducing ways and the origin of raw materials. Strictly local materials (limestone and quartz) tend to be introduced as entire nodules. Exogenous materials from more than 30 km are normally introduced as single blanks. However, many exceptions to this general rule have been observed, especially as far as the introduction of local materials is concerned. Transport of local materials as single artifacts, such as some limestone débordant flakes, has been well attested. The selective mode of transport is dominant for more distant materials, but some bulk procurement events have also been documented. The average behavior fits the predictions of the

Fig. 6. Transported artifacts from level J. Débordant flakes. Photo by G. Campeny.

170

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

minimizing-weight model, but a higher variability can be found at the event level, which suggests that all the technical episodes carried out at level J were not affected by the same constraints or economic considerations. In addition, this variability is particularly evident in chert provisioning, which shows nearly all the types of introduction. Regardless the type and the origin of raw materials, the distribution of lithics by RMU indicates that two classes of artifacts can be distinguished according to their provisioning strategies. These classes of artifacts form two different assemblages: a) The artifacts produced during the knapping sequences carried out in the rockshelter or derived from the in situ breakage of nodules. Resources were brought into the site as entire or almost entire nodules or partially reduced cores.

b) The artifacts produced outside the shelter and introduced into the site as single items, essentially flakes and retouched artifacts. This second provisioning strategy is the most common. Of all the introductions identified, 284 (50.2%) corresponded to isolated flakes or retouched artifacts produced outside. The RMUs introduced as entire or almost entire nodules are less common. However, these uncommon events form the bulk of the assemblage, which creates a contradiction between the frequency of provisioning strategies and their visibility in terms of the amount of remains that they represent in the lithic assemblage. The more common strategy (introducing isolated blanks) produces a relatively small assemblage, while the lesser used strategy (introducing entire or nearly entire nodules) provides most of the lithics remains found in the level.

Fig. 7. Refitting of reduction sequences on chert. The small dimensions of the exploited blanks allow the production of only some very small removals. Photo by G. Campeny.

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

These single blanks make up the transported toolkit and correspond to the strategy of provisioning individuals defined by Kuhn (1995) or the “personal gear” described by Binford (1977). This toolkit was formed basically by flakes and retouched artifacts and most tools correspond to this provisioning strategy. Some of the cores introduced in a more or less advanced reduction stage would probably have been included in this transported gear. There are clear size differences between the transported assemblage and the lithics from the reduction sequences carried out in the rockshelter. Among the transported artifacts, medium, large and very large items are dominant, while in situ production was principally aimed at producing very small and small flakes. For the large and very large categories, the number of transported blanks exceeds that of lithics from in situ knapping events. Large artifacts are especially suitable for transport, since they allow an extended period of use. In addition, it seems that the transported toolkit was selected according to some technical attributes, like the presence of an abrupt side opposed to the edge. This feature is characteristic of débordant flakes, which were preferentially selected for transport, but this selection also includes any blank showing an abrupt side (naturally backed flakes) (Fig. 6). These criteria, as well as the preferential selection of large blanks, led to a high percentage of cortical dorsal surfaces in this transported assemblage. In addition, most of the retouched artifacts belong to the transported toolkit. Few retouched tools have been clearly linked to core reduction sequences carried out in the site. However, there are no clear-cut technical differences between the reduction sequences from which the transported artifacts were produced and those carried out on the spot. Aside from some quantitative differences derived from the selection criteria, such as the higher percentage of débordant flakes in the transported

171

assemblage, most of the imported blanks fit perfectly well within the expedient reduction strategies documented in level J. In particular, blanks showing the typical characteristics of Levallois products are uncommon. Similarly, no typological differences have been observed between the transported tools and the few tools produced and retouched in the shelter. The main difference concerns the size of the knapping products. In general, the aim of the core reductions performed in the Abric Romaní was directed at producing small and very small flakes. Both refits and RMUs provide numerous examples of this kind of sequence (Fig. 7). This suggests that small flakes were intentional and sought after products. In some cases, this small-flake production appears at the end of long reduction sequences entirely carried out in the rockshelter, which previously produced larger flakes. However, this is the less common and it is more usual to find sequences whose only purpose was the production of small flakes. This intentional production of small flakes has recently been documented in other Middle Paleolithic assemblages (Goren-Inbar, 1988; Moncel and Neruda, 2000; Moncel, 2003; Dibble and McPherron, 2006). In the Abric Romaní, this small-flake-oriented production is related to the domestic activities carried out around hearths, whereas large flakes tend to be linked to the activities performed during trips. These two assemblages exhibit different, and even contradictory, economical behaviors. Core reduction shows an economizing behavior. Cores were reduced until exhausted and reduction strategies were aimed at maximizing their profitability. On the other hand, transported artifacts were not intensively used, as indicated by the absence of strongly reduced artifacts and the low percentage of tools showing use traces. It seems therefore that economizing patterns were not a determining factor in the management of these artifacts. If we take into account that most retouched artifacts

Fig. 8. Refitting map of sublevel Ja.

172

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

correspond to the transported assemblage, this suggests that core reduction and artifact retouch were unrelated phenomena subject to different constraints. This has also important consequences for the interpretation of spatial patterning. One of the main characteristics of the spatial distribution in level J is size sorting. In sublevel Ja, the interior hearth-related areas are defined by the dominance of small remains, while the outer areas around the large blocks show a higher presence of large remains. Following the drop/toss zone dichotomy, this was interpreted in previous works (Vaquero, 1999; Martínez Molina and Rando, 2001) as the opposition between domestic areas, where the knapping activities were carried out, and refuse areas, where large artifacts were discarded. However, this interpretation has not been fully supported by refitting, since connections between the inner and outer areas are scarce. Most large artifacts located in the exterior areas are unrelated to the knapping activities carried out at the inner domestic areas. The differential spatial distribution of the two lithic assemblages defined according to the provisioning method may provide an alternative explanation for size sorting. Reduction sequences are clearly concentrated in the hearth-related domestic areas located in the interior of the shelter. However, the transported artifacts are more evenly scattered and are well represented in the outer lowdensity areas. This suggests that knapping activities and the discarding of transported blanks were unrelated events, subjected to different constraints and perhaps corresponding to different types of occupation episodes. Domestic areas associated with an effective settlement in the shelter and showed therefore a careful selection of their spatial location, searching for the best protected areas. On the other hand, if the discard of transported blanks was associated to short visits that did not imply a real dwelling in the shelter, their

spatial locations were less constrained by the natural structure and were therefore more evenly distributed. Temporal dynamics would be therefore characterized by the alternation of two different depositional contexts. Size sorting would be produced by the differential spatial pattern of these different depositional contexts. The short-visit context would tend to create a relatively homogeneous scatter of transported artifacts, without clear accumulations. This scatter would be a sort of intra-site and continuous veil of stones (Roebroeks et al., 1992), upon which the discrete accumulations formed during residential events would be superimposed. Resource provisioning provides a first clue to the temporal nature of the lithic assemblage. This assemblage is the product of a sequence of technical events that followed one another throughout time. This temporal dynamics is also suggested by the refitting spatial pattern. Connection-lines cover all the excavated surface and, although short refits are dominant (65.8% are shorter than 2 m), long refits are not uncommon, especially in sublevel Ja, in which 6.8% of the connections are longer than 8 m. At first sight, the movement of artifacts between different areas may suggest that the activities represented in these areas were contemporaneous and carried out during the same occupation in the ethnographic sense of this term (Fig. 8). This hypothesis was proposed in previous spatial analyses of this assemblage (Vaquero, 1999; Vaquero et al., 2001a). However, with a closer look at the character of these refits, the evidence seems less straightforward. The direction of the intentional movements shows that unidirectional patterns are prevailing (Fig. 9). Only bidirectional connections can be used to argue that two activity areas or clusters of remains were contemporaneous. Unidirectional connections cannot be used to support contemporaneity, especially in technical contexts characterized by expedient reduction sequences in which there is not

Fig. 9. Directionality of the connection-lines corresponding to intentional movements. A dominant unidirectional pattern can be observed.

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

a preparing-core stage. On the contrary, they can provide a good argument in favor of a temporal gap between the formations of both accumulations. Refits cannot be therefore used as evidence of the contemporaneous occupation of the different activity areas identified in level J. Moreover, the temporal nature of the lithic assemblage is fairly clear if we consider two interrelated questions: the changes in provisioning strategies during the formation of level J and recycling. Concerning the first question, an example from sublevel Ja is presented. Based on archeostratigraphy and differences in the scattering of knapping events, three successive formation periods can be recognized in the middle of the site, each one showing a different provisioning strategy: 1) The earliest one corresponds to the RMU showing more dispersed distributions. Products of these reduction sequences were found scattered over a wide area. These are entire knapping sequences performed on entire or almost entire nodules of mediocre quality. Most reduction sequences on limestone and quartz would correspond to this occupation period. Most chert nodules exploited during this formation period correspond to the SMT formation (Fig. 10). 2) The second stage is principally associated to final reduction sequences and is focused around square P51. These reduction events exhibit much clustered scatters and most of them correspond to chert from the VLD formation (Fig. 11). 3) Finally, archaeostratigraphy has identified a third formation stage represented by a small accumulation found in O49. This was located at the top of the layer and corresponds to one of the latest deposition events of level J. These artifacts show a very selective introduction pattern. They are mainly transported

173

blanks, although a short reduction event producing large flakes was also carried out (Fig. 12). Recycling is one of the clearest expressions of the temporal dynamics affecting assemblage formation. Some long-distance refits indicate intentional movements associated with the recycling of previously refused artifacts. In some cases, recycling has been inferred from knapping sequences showing different degrees of scattering for successive reduction stages, which suggests that these stages had different taphonomic histories. Two kinds of recycling are documented: recycling of cores or flakes for producing short series of small flakes, and recycling of cobble fragments for their use as hammer-stones. The scatter of remains corresponding to most recycling events, together with the location of some of them at the top of the layer, suggest that this behavior was more common in the later phases of occupation. Some examples are provided in this paper, which are fairly illustrative. The RMU represented in Fig. 13 presents two spatially separated reduction stages, which are characterized by very different dispersion radii. Artifacts from this nodule were scattered over most of the excavated surface. This RMU was introduced as a complete or nearly complete nodule and the first reduction stages show the widest scatter. The artifacts from this stage were clustered around O48, which seems to correspond to the knapping focus, but some remains were dispersed throughout the central sector of the site. Nevertheless, the end of the reduction sequence, aimed at producing very small flakes, showed a marked cluster in N59. Five of the six very small flakes detached in this terminal stage were in N59 and the sixth in P59. The core was found in the collection from Ripoll’s excavation, which indicates that it was moved again to the area of Pit 1.

Fig. 10. Spatial distribution of RMU on SMT chert corresponding to the first formation stage discussed in the text. Drawing by P. Sañudo.

174

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 11. Spatial distribution of the RMU on VLD chert from the second formation stage. Drawing by P. Sañudo.

Another example from sublevel Jb can be seen in Fig. 14. It shows the same difference between the scattering of the first and last reduction stages. The first one was widely scattered throughout the middle of the shelter. The second one formed the bulk of the lithics found in L49-50. The first stage, including the decortication of the nodule, provided a wide array of products, while the final stage was exclusively aimed at producing small and very small flakes. This is shown by the refits found in L49-50 and one of them in particular which is made up of 19 very small and small flakes that were conjoined on the core. The differences between the two stages were not only related to production goals, but also to the degree of dispersion. On the one hand, the remains from the first reduction event were very scattered. The mean length of the connection lines found in this zone was 154 cm. On the other hand, the second stage was clustered in L49-50, showing a principal accumulation of only 50 cm in diameter. Mean length of connection lines was 33 cm. The assemblage of L49-50corresponds to knapping events carried out from blanks produced during the first reduction stage. One of the cores exploited in L49-50 corresponded to a cortical product detached during the decortication of the nodule, which was transported to L49-50 and reduced to obtain very small flakes. Another core found in L49-50 was also transported from the first reduction area. The differences in scatter between the two phases suggest that they were temporally differentiated events and the accumulation of L49-50 was the result of the recycling of artifacts discarded in the first reduction stage . Recycling of limestone fragments can be seen, for example, in the refitting from sublevel Ja shown in Fig. 15. It is a broken limestone cobble presenting two fragments conjoined by an 1125-cm connection line between P51 and O40. In this case, a third fragment, detached at the time of the breakage, was also recovered in P51,

which suggests that this was the breakage locus. The direction of movement was therefore from P51 to O40, which indicates intentional transport. The two pieces located in P51 were burned. The fragment in O40 was not burned and showed percussion marks posterior to the fracture. These patterns show that original cobble was broken in the middle of the site, after a first use as hammerstone. One of the fragments was moved toward the area around O40, where a second use as hammer-stone took place. As another evidence of the temporal depth of the assemblage, a burning episode affecting the fragments in P51 happened after the recycling event. The last example, from sublevel Ja, shows also the use as hammer-stone of a limestone fragment from the breakage of a large cobble after a first event of use. The artifacts are very scattered, as can be seen in the refit of Fig. 16, which conjoins artifacts located in J62, K58, K61, M59 and P52. One fragment presented percussion marks that extended over the fracture plane, which indicates that the use as percussor was subsequent to the breakage event. Two artifacts of this refit were burnt, while the rest of the set did not show any evidence of fire damage. This indicates a temporal succession of at least four different events: the cobble breakage, the spatial dispersion of the fragments derived from this breakage, the use as hammer-stone of one fragment, and the exposure to fire of two other fragments. A new dispersion event can be also proposed, since the burnt fragments were not located inside a hearth. 6. Discussion The study of the lithic assemblage of level J has yielded interesting insights on Neanderthal technical behavior. This behavior combines some structural features characterizing level J as a whole

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

175

Fig. 12. Spatial distribution of the artifacts attributed to the third formation stage.

and other aspects showing strong variability. In the first place, flexibility is evident in several aspects, from raw material provisioning to artifact use, and is largely the result of the expediency prevailing in the technical system. This expediency allows for permanent adaptation to changing circumstances. Variability is the rule in most behaviors, although certain aspects exhibit a marked stability, like the manufacture of retouched artifacts, which is focused on denticulates and notches. Another structural trend is the preference for chert in knapping, although it was less available than other materials in the immediate surroundings. However, this preference was less pronounced during some occupation periods, which underlines the temporal variability of provisioning strategies. The event-focused approach adopted in this paper has yielded a broadest picture of technical behavior, highlighting some variability phenomena that would go unnoticed in an assemblage-as-awhole approach. This shows how palimpsests tend to minimize technical variability that becomes evident at the event level. Lithic variability is related to the temporal dynamics of assemblage formation. The lithic assemblage defined by stratigraphic criteria is not a behavioral unit. It is a palimpsest formed by an unknown number of events, subjected to different constraints, and showing a wide range of, sometimes contradictory, behaviors. Some events were associated with knapping, but others to the introduction and discard of single artifacts. Two different lithic assemblages can be distinguished, each of them formed in a different depositional context. These different depositional contexts were largely correlated to different types of occupation events: residential campsites associated with hearth construction and short non-residential visits. These occupation types are basic components of Middle Paleolithic settlement patterns. Residential campsites may be one of the features defining the Middle Paleolithic as a developmental stage

(Rolland,1999), as indicated by the apparent correlation between the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic and the first well-defined hearth-related assemblages. Although residential occupations were not necessarily the most common, they produced the bulk of the lithic remains and exhibit the repeated use of the best-sheltered areas. The second depositional context e short non-residential visits e has been also well documented throughout the Middle Paleolithic, although it is present since Early Pleistocene times. It has been well defined at sites in which it was not mixed with a residential component and the single-artifact-transport pattern was therefore easier to identify. These assemblages are mainly formed by large blanks, including high percentages of retouched artifacts. Remains derived from in situ knapping sequences tend to be scarce (Brugal and Jaubert, 1991; Defleur and Crégut-Bonnoure, 1995; Costamagno et al., 2006). This would be a common use of cave and rockshelters, and this component would be present in practically all lithic assemblages. The residential use of caves would determine the differences between sites, since it would be less generalized, both in diachronic and synchronic terms. The factors conditioning technical behaviors worked at the event level and some technical features were event-specific. Certain behaviors are associated with some events, but not to others. The assemblage variability is therefore conditioned by the kind and number of events that contributed to its formation. As the number of events is a function of formation length, differences in the amount of time represented in the assemblages are a relevant factor in explaining inter-assemblage variability. Knapping of limestone and quartz is not randomly distributed during the formation of the assemblage, but it is mainly concentrated in a specific area of sublevel Ja e the central area  suggesting that it occurred during

176

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 13. Refitting of the two reduction stages and spatial distribution of Chert-007. Drawing by P. Sañudo. Photo by G. Campeny.

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 14. Spatial distribution of Chert-01, showing the location of the two reduction stages. Drawing by P. Sañudo. Photo by G. Campeny.

the same occupation event or the same formation phase. These poor quality but immediately available materials were not equally exploited throughout the level J formation, but tended to be restricted to a specific time period. A similar phenomenon was also

177

observed in level I, where the reduction of limestone and quartz cores was found to be characteristic of some accumulations (Carbonell, 2002). From this perspective, characterizing a stratigraphic assemblage in behavioral terms makes little sense if the different components contributing to its formation are not identified. The “technical behavior of level J” is the average of several different and may be contradictory actual behaviors. The behavioral significance of technical strategies should therefore be sought on an event time scale. Far from showing repetitive patterns, behavior exhibits high variability in the short term. The apparent monotony is the result of the temporal depth of archeological assemblages. As the resolution of analysis increases, Neanderthal behavior becomes more variable. However, this approach depends on the ability to identify single activity events. In level J, this has been possible in lithic analysis, and our perspective on this level of variability is biased toward technical activities. Other domains, such as the study of faunal remains, are less suitable for this temporal analysis, and they tend to favor the structural viewpoint of the assemblage-as-a-whole. It remains to be proven whether this variability at the event level is also characteristic of other behavioral realms, such as the exploitation of faunal resources, in which only the structural level of variability can be reached due to the low resolution of the data. The temporal dimension of variability is also shown by recycling. Provisioning choices varied throughout the sequence of events that formed the archaeological assemblage. Archeological sites were dynamic entities and their appeal for human frequentation may have changed over time. During the beginning of the formation of level J, the rockshelter was a place devoid of lithic resources and provisioning of bulk resources in the form of entire nodules would have been more likely. As the formation process advanced, the site was progressively transformed into a raw material source itself and the need to introduce bulk resources would have been less likely. The dispersion radiuses of reduction sequences indicate that recycling events tended to take place in the last stage of the formation sequence. Moreover, the accumulation focused in square P51 is characterized by a series of reduction sequences on highly reduced cores introduced as such into the shelter. The scarce dispersion of these sequences also suggests that they were carried out in the last occupations of level J. This indicates that raw material constraints changed throughout the formation of the assemblage and, consequently, lithic provisioning strategy also changed. Temporal dynamics are relevant to the interpretation of spatial patterns. Spatial studies should not be exclusively spatial. They must also include a temporal analysis, since some spatial patterns can be conditioned by the succession of different depositional contexts showing different spatial distributions. Size sorting should be scrutinized from this temporal perspective, especially concerning the identification of secondary refuse areas. Sublevel Ja shows a spatial pattern characterized by the size sorting of both lithic and faunal remains. Small remains are dominant in the inner hearthrelated areas, while the frequency of large items tends to increase toward the outside. This was interpreted as the formation of drop and toss zones. The inside would correspond to the activity area, in which there is a preferential accumulation of small remains. Large remains produced during these activities would be discarded toward the exterior, forming a low-density belt defined by high percentages of large items. However, the event-focused approach indicates that there may be other processes at work in this spatial distribution. First, refits between the knapping areas and the purported dumping area are scarce, suggesting that tossing large artifacts toward the outside was not common. Second, RMU distribution indicates that most large artifacts were not produced at the site, but transported as single blanks from outside. Two different depositional patterns contributed to the formation of the

178

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 15. Refitting formed by three fragments of a cobble that shows an intentional transport of one of the fragments. Fragment number 1 was found in O40, fragments 2 and 3 were found in P51. Photo by G. Campeny.

assemblage. On the one hand, knapping events, which produced the bulk of the assemblage, are clustered in the hearth-related areas. On the other hand, artifacts introduced as single blanks tend to be more evenly distributed, and are well represented in the lowactivity areas. Overlapping of these different depositional contexts produces a size sorting distribution that resembles that derived from refuse strategies. Level J also provides insight into Middle Paleolithic technological variability. Different occupational contexts are identified throughout the formation of level J, but there is not a clear correlation between these contexts and changes in knapping methods. Both transported artifacts and reduction sequences carried out on the spot can be attributed to the same reduction strategies, whose expedient character is outlined above. Variability in reduction strategies is more evident at the inter-assemblage rather than the intra-assemblage level. These changes are clearer when comparing different levels of the Abric Romaní sequence e for instance, levels E and J e but can hardly be shown when analyzing only one lithic

assemblage. This suggests that technological trends had a temporal pattern and characterized long time spans. Expedient discoidal methods were dominant during the formation of level J, regardless of changes in provisioning strategies or occupation types. This technological conception was applied in the different activity contexts performed by human groups in their annual cycles. Changes in the criteria used in reduction sequences would correspond to long duration dynamics (Bintliff, 1991). These criteria defined the initial conditions upon which the variability associated with the adaptation to the specific circumstances took place. Use of complex or expedient reduction methods would not have depended on occupation length or mobility patterns. The technical paradigms were in place previous to the variations caused by such settlement factors. This temporal dimension shines a new light on Neanderthal behavior. It allows variability levels associated with two different time scales to be discerned: the time of the event and the time of the structure (Sewell, 1996; Harding, 2005). Archeology is a particularly

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

Fig. 16. Refitting and spatial distribution of RMU Lim-016 that shows a temporal succession in at least three different events in various zones of the rockshelter. Drawing by P. Sañudo. Photo by G. Campeny.

suitable domain for this kind of approach, since it allows an almost immediate access to these temporal levels. Events are specific and contextual, singular moments embedded in circumstance (Beck Jr., et al., 2007), and represent adaptation to the circumstances of a particular place in a particular instant of time. Events can be also considered as the actualization of structures. According to Giddens (1979), structures are the underlying long-term behavioral patterns and natural conditions in which the short-term events are founded. The interplay between these temporal scales is essential in understanding social and cultural changes. However, the causal relationships between events and structures are far from being established. On the one hand, it might be considered that what happens at the time of the event is defined by the long-term structures. On the other hand, it could be argued that the short-term individual engagements determine the larger-scale entities and processes (Harding, 2005). In any case, establishing such causal relationships is the most important endeavor at this point. For now, it is enough to identify these two time scales in the archeological record and to associate them with specific features of assemblage variability.

7. Conclusions Technical variability and settlement patterns should not be approached without taking into consideration the temporal nature of the archeological assemblages. The archeostratigraphical units identified in level J do not correspond to occupations in the ethnographic sense, but they are palimpsests produced by a succession of occupation episodes. This temporal dimension is fundamental to approach some structural features used to characterize residential

179

occupations: occupation length, special activity areas and disposal areas. The behavioral interpretation of palimpsests is often biased by the episodes that produced more vestiges, at the expense of other behaviors that may be more common but generate few remains. This is evident by comparing the archeological consequences of the reduction sequences carried out entirely at the site with the introduction and disposal of single blanks. The latter behavior is more common and can be considered as more significant in characterizing the technical behavior of the Neanderthals that visited the Abric Romaní. However, this behavior tends to be blurred in an assemblage-as-a-whole perspective. These problems can only be confronted by focusing attention on the events and organize the archeological record according to them. The construction of an archeological discourse based on events should be considered as a challenge for future research on the evolution of human behavior. The temporality of the assemblage limits the ability to characterize the occupations beyond the distinction between residential and non-residential events. Even in a high-resolution context like the Abric Romaní, it seems illusory to reach a time scale e that of occupation in the ethnographic sense e in which these kinds of questions may be answered. This is partly due to the equifinality of processes acting at different time scales but producing the same archeological outcomes. The archeological consequences of longterm occupations are similar to those produced by the overlapping of different occupations during long periods. Spatial patterns normally associated with long occupations may also be the result of the succession of different kinds of depositional events over time. Some factors used to explain the variability of Middle Paleolithic lithic assemblages e raw material provisioning, artifact transport, exploitation intensity e operate at the time of the event. However, level J also provides some insights into variability factors acting on a long-term structural time scale. These factors are defined by the characteristics that remained unchanged during the formation of the archeological assemblage in spite of the short-term adaptations. For example, the dominance of denticulates and the general criteria applied in core reduction would be structural trends. Core morphology exhibits high variability due to the use of expedient methods aimed at producing as many flakes as possible, but characterized by little concern for blank shape and size. This is an example of the interplay between the different temporal scales of variability. The specific characteristics of each reduction sequence depend on the circumstances operating at the event level, such as nodule shape or transport mode. It is at this level that the variability of core forms should be explained. However, the expedient nature of technical behavior is structural and defines the general framework in which this large variability of cores emerges. The lack of correlation between occupational contexts and changes in knapping methods suggests that the expedient or elaborated nature of the technical system (e.g. discoidal vs. Levallois) does not depend on short-term adaptations. The changes in techno-psychological criteria correspond to long-term process that can be observed in a geological time scale, but not in an ethnographic time scale. These technical criteria defined the initial conditions upon which the adaptation to specific circumstances took place. Use of complex or expedient reduction methods would not have depended on occupation length or mobility patterns. This pattern differs from that identified at other sites (Munday, 1979; Henry, 1995) that show a correlation between reduction strategies and occupational context. Explaining these differences will be an interesting line of research. The limits of the ethnographical explanation are the consequence of the differences between the ethnographic time scale and the archeological time scale. The basic time scale of ethnoarcheological models, occupational time, is the most difficult to deduce from the archeological record. There is easy access to the

180

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181

time scale of the single event and the geological time scale represented by the stratigraphic unit, but the occupation time scale remains archeologically invisible. All that is available are events and relationships between events, but there are serious constraints to define these relationships in occupational terms. Through the spatial association of events, activity areas can be identified, to establish relationships between activity areas by means of refitting. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that this chain of relationships will expand to the scale of an occupation in the ethnographic sense. This does not mean that all the ethnoarcheological information is useless for archeological interpretation. It implies that archeologists must be more conscious of the consequences of temporality in the use of such information. The ethnoarcheological evidence corresponding both to an event time scale and a structural time scale would be fully adjusted to the kind of data immediately available to archeologists and would therefore maintain its reliability. Acknowledgments Excavations at the Abric Romaní are carried out with the support of the Departament de Cultura de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Ajuntament de Capellades, Oficina Patrimoni CulturalDiputació de Barcelona, Tallers Gràfics Romanyà-Valls, BercontrésCentre de Gestió Medioambiental SL, and Constructora de Calaf SAU. The Generalitat de Catalunya provides financial support to the Research Group in Quaternary Human Autoecology (2005SGR00702). We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Research of one of the authors (M.G.C.) is supported by a postdoctoral grant from the Juan de la Cierva Subprogram (JCI2010-07863) of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. References Bailey, G.N., 1981. Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory. In: Sheridan, A., Bailey, G.N. (Eds.), Economic Archaeology. BAR International Series 96, pp. 97e117. Oxford. Bailey, G.N., 1983. Concepts of time in Quaternary Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12, 165e192. Bailey, G., 2007. Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26, 198e223. Beck Jr., R.A., Bolender, D.J., Brown, J.A., Earle, T.K., 2007. Eventful archaeology. The place of space in structural transformation. Current Anthropology 48 (6), 833e860. Beyries, S., Boëda, E., 1983. Etude technologique et traces d’utilisation des "eclats débordants" de Corbehem (Pas-de-Calais). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 80, 275e279. Binford, L.R., 1977. Forty-seven trips: a case study in the character of archaeological formation processes. In: Wright, R.V.S. (Ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 24e36. Binford, L.R., 1981. Behavioral archaeology and the “Pompeii premise”. Journal of Anthropological Research 37, 195e208. Binford, L.R., 1986. In Pursuit of the Future. In: Meltzer, D.J., Folwer, D.D., Sabloff, J.A. (Eds.), American Archaeology Past and Future. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 459e479. Bintliff, J., 1991. The contribution of an Annaliste/structural history approach to archaeology. In: Bintliff, J. (Ed.), The Annales School and Archaeology. Leicester University Press, London and New York, pp. 1e33. Bischoff, J.L., Julià, R., Mora, R., 1988. Uranium-series dating of the mousterian occupation at Abric Romani, Spain. Nature 332, 68e70. Brochier, J.E., 1999. Couche archéologique, sol archéologique et distributions spatiales: quelques réflexions (géo)archéologiques sur un vieux problème. In: Rosselló., V.M. (Ed.), Geoarqueologia I Quaternari Litoral: Memorial Maria Pilar Fumanal. Universitat de València, València, pp. 91e95. Brooks, R.L., 1982. Events in the archaeological context and archaeological explanation. Current Anthropology 23 (1), 67e75. Brugal, J.-Ph., Jaubert, J., 1991. Les gisements paléontologiques pléistocènes à indices de frequentation humaine: un nouveau type de comportement de prédation? Paléo 3, 15e41. Carbonell, E. (Ed.), 2002. Abric Romaní nivell I. Models d’ocupació de curtadurada de fa 46.000 anys a la Cinglera del Capelló (Capellades, Anoia, Barcelona). Universitat Rovirai Virgili, Tarragona. Costamagno, S., Meignen, L., Beauval, C., Vandermeersch, B., Maureille, B., 2006. Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, France): a mousterian reindeer hunting camp. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, 466e484.

Defleur, A., Crégut-Bonnoure, E., 1995. Le gisement paléolithique moyen de la grotte des Cèdres (Var). Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme Paris. Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.P., 2006. The missing mousterian. Current Anthropology 47 (5), 777e803. Dibble, H.L., Roth, B., Lenoir, M., 1995. The use of raw materials at Combe-Capelle Bas. In: Dibble, H.L., Lenoir, M. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic Site of CombeCapelle Bas (France). The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 259e287. Féblot-Augustins, J., 1997. La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique. ERAUL, 75. Université de Liège, Liège. García Rodrigo, B., 1957. El Valle del Anoia. Memorias Y Comunicaciones XVI; p. 45e80. Geneste, J.-M., 1989. Economie des resources lithiques dans le mousterien du SudOuest de la France. In: L’Homme de Neandertal, 6. La Subsistance. E.R.A.U.L, Liège, pp. 75e97. Giddens, A., 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Macmillan, London. Goren-Inbar, N., 1988. Too small to be true? Reevaluation of cores on flakes in Levantine Mousterian assemblages. Lithic Technology 17 (1), 37e44. Hall, C.T., 2004. Evaluating prehistoric hunteregatherer mobility, land use, and technological organization strategies using minimum analytical nodule analysis. In: Hall, C.T., Larson, M.L. (Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 139e155. Harding, J., 2005. Rethinking the Great Divide: long-term structural history and the temporality of event. Norwegian Archaeological Review 38 (2), 88e101. Henry, D.O., 1992. Transhumance during the late Levantine Mousterian. In: Dibble, H.L., Mellars, P. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 143e162. Henry, D.O., 1995. Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Insights from Southern Jordan. Plenum Press, New York. Holdaway, S., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), 2008. Time in Archaeology: Time Perspectivism Revisited. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Julien, M., Karlin, C., Valentin, B., 1992. Déchets de silex, déchets de pierres chauffées. De l’intéret des remontages à Pincevent (France). In: Hofman, J.L., Enloe, J.G. (Eds.), Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology. BAR International Series 578, pp. 287e295. Oxford. Ketterer, I., Pigeot, N., Serra, S., 2004. Le temps de l’occupation. Une histoire des activités et des comportements. In: Pigeot, N. (Ed.), Les derniers magdaléniens d’Étiolles. Perspectives culturelles et paléohistoriques. Éditions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 235e254. Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. An Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Lake, M., 1996. Archaeological inference and the explanation of hominid evolution. In: Steele, J., Shennan, S. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: Power, Sex, and Tradition. Routledge, London, pp. 184e206. Larson, M.L., 2004. Chipped stone aggregate analysis in archaeology. In: Hall, C.T., Larson, M.L. (Eds.), Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 3e17. Lemorini, C., 2000. Reconnaître des tactiques d’exploitation du milieu au Paléolithique Moyen. La contribution de l’analyse fonctionnelle. In: Etude fonctionnelle des industries lithiques de Grotta Breuil (Latium, Italie) et de La Combette (Bonnieux, Vaucluse, France). British Archaeological Report International Series 858, Oxford. Martínez, K., 2005. Análisis funcional de industrias líticas del Pleistoceno Superior. El Paleolítico Medio del Abric Romaní (Capellades, Barcelona) y el Paleolítico izli (Hatay, Turquía) y del Molí del Salt (Vimbodí, Tarragona). Superior de Üçag Cambios en los patrones funcionales entre el Paleolítico Medio y el Superior. Ph. D. thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Martínez Molina, K., Rando, J.M., 2001. Organización y funcionalidad de la producción lítica en un nivel del Paleolítico Medio del Abric Romaní. Trabajos de Prehistoria 58 (1), 51e70. Nivel Ja (Capellades, Barcelona). Moncel, M.-H., 2003. L’exploitation de l’espace et la mobilité des groupes humaines au travers des assemblages lithiques à la fin du Pléistocène moyen et au début du Pléistocène supérieur. La moyenne vallée du Rhône entre Drôme et Ardèche. In: BAR International Series 1184, Oxford. Moncel, M.-H., Neruda, P., 2000. The Külna level 11: some Observation on the Debitage rules and Aims. The originality of a middle Palaeolithic microlithic assemblage (Külna cave, Czech Republic. Anthropologie, Brno 38 (2), 219e247. Munday, F.C., 1979. Levantine mousterian technological variability: a perspective from the Negev. Paléorient 5, 87e104. Murray, T., 2002. Evaluating evolutionary archaeology. World Archaeology 34 (1), 47e59. Odell, G.H., 2004. Lithic Analysis. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Ortí, F., 1990. Las formaciones evaporíticas del Terciario continental de la zona decontacto entre la Cuenca del Ebro y los Catalánides. In: Ortí, F., Salvany, J.M. (Eds.), Formaciones evaporíticas de la Cuenca del Ebro y cadenas periféricas, yde la zona de Levante: Nuevas aportaciones y guía de superficie. Enresa-Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp. 70e75. Ríos, J., 2005. Características de la producción lítica al final del Paleolítico Medio en el País Vasco. El caso del Nivel B de Axlor (Dima, Bizkaia). In: Montes, R., Lasheras, J.A. (Eds.), Neandertales cantábricos, estado de la cuestión. Monografías, 20. Museo de Altamira, Museo de Altamira, Santander, pp. 333e348.

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181 Roebroeks, W., 1988. From Find Scatters to Early Hominid Behaviour: a Study of Middle Palaeolithic Riverside Settlements at Maastricht-Belvédère (The Netherlands). In: Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 21. University of Leiden, Leiden. Roebroeks, W., de Loecker, D., Hennekens, P., van Ieperen, M., 1992. "A veil of stones": on the interpretation of an early Middle Palaeolithic low density scatter at Maastricht-Belvédère (The Netherlands). Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 25, 1e16. Rolland, N., 1999. The middle Palaeolithic as development stage: evidence from technology, subsistence, settlement systems, and hominid socio-ecology. In: Ullrich, H. (Ed.), Hominid Evolution. Lifestyles and Survival. Archaea, Gelsenkirchen/Schwelm, pp. 315e334. Schiffer, M.B., 1985. Is there a “Pompeii premise” in archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41, 18e41. Sewell Jr., W.H., 1996. Historical events as transformations of structures: inventing revolution at the Bastille. Theory and Society 25, 841e881. Shott, M.J., 2008. Lower paleolithic industries, time, and the meaning of assemblage variation. In: Holdaway, S., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), Time in Archaeology: Time Perspectivism Revisited. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 46e60. Smith, M.E., 1992. Braudel’s temporal rhythms and chronology theory in archaeology. In: Knapp, A.B. (Ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23e34. Solé Sabarís, L. (Ed.), 1958e1964, Geografia de Catalunya, vol. 4. Aedos, Barcelona. Stern, N., 1993. The structure of the Lower Pleistocene archaeological record: a case study from the Koobi For a formation. Current Anthropology 34 (3), 201e224. Stevenson, M.G., 1985. The formation of artifact assemblages at workshop/habitation sites: models from Peace Point in northern Alberta. American Antiquity 50 (1), 63e81. Stevenson, M.G., 1991. Beyond the formation of hearth-associated artifact assemblages. In: Kroll, E.M., Price, T.D. (Eds.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 269e299.

181

Turq, A., 1992. Raw material and technological studies of the Quina Mousterian in Périgord. In: Dibble, H.L., Mellars, P.A. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior, and Variability. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 75e85. Vaquero, M., 1997. Tecnología lítica y comportamiento humano: organización de las actividades técnicas y cambio diacrónico en el Paleolítico Medio del Abric Romaní (Capellades, Barcelona), Ph. D. thesis. Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Vaquero, M., 1999. Intrasite spatial organization of lithic production in the Middle Palaeolithic: the evidence of the AbricRomaní (Capellades, Spain). Antiquity 73, 493e504. Vaquero, M., 2005. Les stratégies de transport d’outils dans un contexte résidentiel: un exemple du Paléolithique moyen. In: Vialou, D., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Patou-Mathis, N. (Eds.), Comportements des hommes du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur en Europe: territoires et milieux. Actes du Colloque du G.D.R. 1945 du CNRS, Paris, 8e10 janvier 2003. E.R.A.U.L, Liège, pp. 121e132. Vaquero, M., 2008. The history of stones: behavioural inferences and temporal resolution of an archaeological assemblage from the Middle Palaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 3178e3185. Vaquero, M., Chacón, G., Cuartero, F., García-Antón, M.D., Gómez de Soler, B, Martínez, K., in press. The Lithic Assemblage of Level J. In: Carbonell, E. editors. High Resolution Archaeology and Neanderthal Behavior: Time and Space in Level J of Abric Romaní (Capellades, Spain). Springer. Vaquero, M., Chacón, G., Fernández, C., Martínez, K., Rando, J.M., 2001a. Intrasite spatial patterning and transport in the Abric Romaní middle Paleolithic site (Capellades, Barcelona, Spain). In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 573e595. Vaquero, M., Pastó, I., 2001. The Definition of spatial units in middle Palaeolithic sites: the hearth-related assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (11), 1209e1220. Vaquero, M., Rando, J.M., Chacón, G., 2004. Neanderthal spatial behavior and social structure: hearth-related assemblages from the Abric Romaní middle Palaeolithic site. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. 2. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 367e392. Vaquero, M., Vallverdú, J., Rosell, J., Pastó, I., Allué, E., 2001b. Neandertal behavior at the middle Palaeolithic site of Abric Romaní, Capellades, Spain. Journal of Field Archaeology 28 (1e2), 93e114.