time and space in the formation of lithic assemblages: the example of abric romaní level j

8/10/2019 Time and space in the formation of lithic assemblages: The example of Abric Roman Level J

1/20

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

Manuel Vaquero a,*, Mara Gema Chacn a,b, Mara Dolores Garca-Antn a, Bruno Gmez de Soler a,Kenneth Martnez a, Felipe Cuartero c

a Institut Catal de Paleoecologia Humana i Evoluci Social (IPHES), Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Plaa Imperial Tarraco 1, 43005 Tarragona, Spainb UMR7194 e Dpartement de Prhistoire, Musum national dHistoire naturelle, 1, rue Ren Panhard, 75013 Paris, Francec Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologa, Universidad Autnoma de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Available online 23 December 2010

a b s t r a c t

Behavioral strategies are a primary focus in the study of Middle Paleolithic assemblages. Since theemergence of the processual paradigma, this research has been partly based on the use of interpretiveframeworks derived from ethnoarcheological sources. However, this approach is awed by the lack ofcorrespondence between the time scale of the ethnographic information and the time scale of thearcheological record. This paper presents the lithic assemblage from level J (ca. 50 ka BP), one of theMiddle Paleolithic layers excavated in the Abric Roman (Capellades, Spain). The study of this assemblagehas been carried out from a spatio-temporal perspective, trying to discern two different time scalesinvolved in the formation of the archeological record: the geological time scale of the assemblage-as-a-whole and the ethnographic time scale of the individual events. The results suggest that several domainsof lithic variability, like raw material provisioning, artifact transport and spatial patterns, are time-dependent and should be approached taking into account the temporal depth of the archeologicalassemblages.

2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: time perspectivism and Neanderthalbehavior

Behavioral patterns are one of the main concerns in the study ofMiddle Paleolithic, as the behavioral capacities of Neanderthals area primary issue in clarifying the scope of the differences betweenthem and modern humans. In addition, accessing behavior is theonly surere way of approaching the variabilityof Middle Paleolithiclithic assemblages, which seems closely tied to economic strategiesand daily activities. Nevertheless, any approach to Neanderthalbehavior must take into account some methodological questions

associated with the interpretation of the archeological record. Thebehavioral perspective in Paleolithic archeology has been linked toa generalization of ethnoarcheological models, particularly in studiesdevoted to the most systemic levels of behavior, like settlementstrategies or intra-site spatial patterns. However, the use of lithic

assemblages to reconstruct behavioral patterns confronts an initialproblem: the lack of correspondence between the geological timeused to dene the lithic assemblages and the ethnographic time oftheevents that produced theartifacts. This was thecentral argumentinthe Pompeii premise debate (Binford,1981, 1986;Schiffer, 1985).

In general, assemblages are dened according to a geologicaltime scale. All the remains found in the same stratigraphical unitare included in the same assemblage. The slow sedimentation ratesdominant in most deposits, together with the reduction of thesedimentary volumes caused by some post-depositional processes(Brochier, 1999), make unlikely the recovery of occupation oors,

especially in caves and rockshelters. Practically all archeologicalassemblages are palimpsests, the formation of which can spanhundreds or even thousands of years and to which many naturaland cultural processes may have contributed (Bailey, 2007). Thetemporal depth of these palimpsests depends on the depositionrate and in some deposits that formed rapidly the geological timemay be close to the ethnographic time. However, the succession ofdifferent events has even been documented in archeologicalassemblages characterized by their high temporal resolution (Julienet al., 1992; Ketterer et al., 2004). One cannot help but wonder towhat point the use of ethnographic models, dened by verydifferent time scales, are suitable for explaining these assemblages

* Corresponding author. Fax: 34 977 55 95 97.E-mail addresses: [email protected](M. Vaquero), gchacon@prehistoria.

urv.cat, [email protected] (M.G. Chacn), [email protected] (M.D.Garca-Antn), [email protected] (B. Gmez de Soler), [email protected] (K. Martnez),[email protected](F. Cuartero).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m/ l o c a t e / q u a i n t

1040-6182/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.015

Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quainthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.015http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.015http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.015http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.015http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.015http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.015http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quainthttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/20

and what misconceptions might be introduced in interpretation bydifferences concerning formation time. The disjunction betweenethnographic models and the low temporal resolution of manyarcheological assemblages can make ethnographically derivedinterpretations problematic (Smith, 1992; Stern, 1993; Lake, 1996;Murray, 2002; Holdaway and Wandsnider, 2008).

The archeological record is the outcome of processes operatingat different time scales (Bailey, 1981, 1983). There are reasons tobelieve that the shortest time scale e the event e is the best suitedto make behavioral inferences (Brooks, 1982). The deposition andcharacteristics of material remains depend on decisions made byindividuals at specic times and places with the aim of solvingspecic needs. Stratigraphically dened assemblages aresimply thesum of an unknown number of such decisions. An ideal explanationof an archeological assemblagewould be one that accounts for eachof the activity events that contributed to its formation.

Formation length may be an important factor in assemblagevariability. If an assemblage was formed over a long period, it wouldbe more likely thatdifferent activities would be carried out, includingsome uncommon ones. Assemblage variability would thereforeincreaseas the formationperiod of that assemblage increased (Shott,2008). Many times thewhole assemblage is explained as theproduct

of the same behavior, as it is assumed that the same constraintsconditioned all the events represented in the assemblage. This isan unwarranted assumption as there may have been signicantdifferences concerning the contexts, circumstances, needs, andconstraints affecting those events. This problem becomes evidentwhen analyzing how assemblage variability can be interpreted. Thebehavioral variability attested to by an archeological assemblage canbe considered as an expression of the different options available forhumans during the period in which the assemblage was formed. Inthis sense, the variability of assemblages can be correlated to thevariability of human behavior at a point in time. However, this sameassemblage variability can be alternatively interpreted as thetemporal succession of different behaviors during the assemblageformation period. In this case, there would be no correspondence

between assemblage variability and behavioral variability, since theformer would be the result of a pooling together of different behav-ioral moments. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that anarcheological assemblage may be affected by factors of variabilityoperating at different time scales. The lack of correspondencebetween assemblage and behavioral variability may be less acute indomains of behavioral variability depending on long-term processes.

Thestudy of level J lithic assemblage will tryto establish whetheran approach based on the identication of single events can yielda different light on Neanderthal behavior. Special attention will bepaid to temporal dynamics that formed the lithic assemblage andtheir consequences. The Abric Roman is a suitable site to apply thisstudy, due to its sedimentary context e archeological levelsembedded between travertine layers and the eldwork method-

ology based on the excavation of a large surface and the three-dimensional record of the archeological remains. In addition toa conventional assemblage-as-a-whole approach, an attempt ismade to identify specic activity events and to reconstruct theirtiming during the formation of level J. This methodology has beenalready tested in another level of the Abric Roman (Vaquero et al.,2004; Vaquero, 2005, 2008).

2. Materials and methods

This study considers two levels of analysis, which correspond todifferent time scales. The rst is the assemblage level, in which allthe lithic remains are considered as a whole. This is the highesttemporal resolution that can be obtained through geological

criteria, so assemblages constructed using such criteria should be

considered as palimpsests formed by an unknown number oftechnical events. This assemblage level is focused on a technolog-ical perspective based on thechane opratoireconcept and a func-tional study. The approach to this level will focus on attribute anduse-wear analyses. Methods for the attribute analysis of cores,akes and retouched artifacts have been largely described in otherworks (Vaquero, 1997; Carbonell, 2002). Use-wear analysis hasbeen carried out using a scanning electron microscope (SEM),coupled with a morphological analysis of tool edges, following theprocedure outlined inMartnez (2005).

The second level of analysis might be called the event level, andfocuses on identifying the maximum number of technical episodes.It consists of the highest temporal resolution that can be achievedand it is the best approach to ethnographic time. Retting andidentication of Raw Material Units (RMUs) are the basic empiricalprocedures in this level. An RMU incorporates the artifactsproduced during the reduction of a single nodule (Roebroeks,1988)and is dened 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 assemblageswith lithics of variable appearance. RMUs have been characterized

taking into account two main features: how they were introducedinto the site and what kind of intentional modication was carriedout on them inside the rockshelter. Retting, nodule analysis, andspatial distribution, together with archeostratigraphy, form thebasis for interpreting the assemblage in temporal terms.

The spatial distribution of RMUs and retting groups is impor-tant in testing hypotheses on cultural and natural formationprocesses, post-depositional disturbance, occupation strategies andtemporal patterns. Rets are especially informative regarding thetemporal relationships among different activity areas. The spatialdistribution of RMUs indicates the location of knapping activities.The scattering of RMUs is also important in studying the temporaldynamics in the formation of the assemblage. The dispersion of theartifacts resulting from a knapping episodedepends on its temporal

location in the sequence of technical events (Stevenson, 1985,1991). Earlier episodes tend to be more widely scattered, as theywould have been more affected by intentional and unintentionaldispersion factors. As the knapping events approach the latestoccupation phases, their scatters are less subject to these dispersionprocesses and they therefore tend to be more clustered.

3. The Abric Roman and the raw material sources

The Abric Roman is located in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula,50 km west of Barcelona (Fig. 1). It is a wide rockshelter (Abric) ina travertine cliff called Cinglera del Capell, located in a karst land-scape in the town of Capelladesat the west bank of the Anoia river.The Abric Roman (41 320N, 1 41030"E) has an elevation of 265 m

abovesealevel.Thestratigraphyismadeupof20mofwell-stratiedtravertine sediments dated by U-Series between 40 and 70 ka(Bischoff et al., 1988; Vaquero et al., 2001b). Level J is one of therichest archeological levels, and has yielded almost 7.000 lithicartifacts. There are two main archeostratigraphic units, sublevels Jaand Jb, although they have been distinguished only in the middle ofthe site. U-series dating has provided dates around 49 ka BP for theoverlayingtufa (49.31.6and49.22.9kaBP),andaround50kaBP(50.0 1.6 and 50.8 0.8 ka BP)for the underlying tufa (Bischoffet al., 1988). In addition, a charcoal sample from the archeologicallevel hasbeen dated at 47.12.114C ka BP (NZA-2316).Level J showsa spatial distribution of lithics less clustered than other Romanlevels characterized by well-dened discrete accumulations(Vaquero and Past, 2001). Nevertheless, as in the rest of the levels,

lithics tend to be associated to hearths. The highest concentrations

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181 163


3/20


4/20

St. Mart de Tous chert (SMT). The cortex is calcareous, 1e3 mmthick with rough surface. The chert has a translucent appear-

ance and its color varies from light to dark gray in a range ofgray-blue. The texture is soft to rough to the touch, witha conchoidal fracture, which gives it a variable aptitude forknapping. This chert had laminated sedimentary structure, andpresents 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 isblackish-green with opaque appearance. When oxidations arepresent, its color varies toward light brown. The texture is softto the touch, and presents a conchoidal fracture with very goodknapping properties. The sedimentary structure is laminatedand contains several alochems, ooids, pellets and some bio-clasts. This chert can present some grayish-brown patina.

The nearest raw materials were not the most exploited. Quartzand limestone are overwhelmingly dominant in the uvial andcolluvial deposits close to the site. They are clearly the more abun-dant materials within a 5 km radius, while chert nodules areextremely rare. Nevertheless, chert was preferentially selected forknapping sequences. This might explain the economizing behaviorinferred from core reduction sequences. As usual at the AbricRoman, the most common material in level J is chert (75% of theartifacts), followed by limestone and quartz (about 10% each one),and other materials (porphyry, quartzite) with less than 3%. TheSMTand VLD are the most represented cherts. Cortical surfaces indicatethat both primary and secondary chert outcrops were exploited, butcobbles from alluvial formations were dominant. These cobblesexhibit a high variability in size and shape, depending of the prox-

imity to the primary outcrops.

4. The assemblage-as-a-whole: technology, typology, and use-

wear

The technological analysis of level J has been widely presentedin another work (Vaquero et al., in press) and will be only brieysummarized here. Core and ake attribute analysis indicates thatexibility and expediency were basic features of technical behavior.Core reduction strategies were directed at maximizing the prot-ability of the blanks in the simplest possible way. Knapping strat-egies were based on two fundamental criteria:

1) The main goal of core reduction sequences was to produce thehighest number of blanks per core, with a little concern on theform and size of the products. Many reduction sequences weredirected toward the production of small and very small akes.

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-akes, whichare well represented.

This expedient technology produces a high variability in coreshape. Core structure is characterized by the dominance of bifacialknappinge cores present two opposed akingsurfaces separated byan intersection plane e and the morphology of many cores corre-sponds more or less to the discoidal method (Fig. 4). However, othercores exhibit hierarchized structures, similar to those of Levalloiscores. There are also unipolar cores that indicate a volumetricexploitation, and some cores show the detachment of elongatedblanks. This expedient strategy is used on cores of both int andlimestone, regardless of the phase of the knapping process. This

excludes the possibility of distinguishing between reduction stages

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



5/20

producing desired end-products (predetermined) and reductionstages yielding wasted akes (predetermining).

The different core morphologies should not be interpreted asdifferent reduction methods, but as the consequence of applying

these expedient criteria to a wide range of blank forms. Theseexpedient contexts tend to produce a higher variability in coremorphology as opposed to contexts characterized by more elabo-rated strategies (as the Levallois method), which tend to producemore standardized cores. In this sense, the discoidal and Levalloiscannot be interpreted as equivalent methods. Levallois may beconsidered as a truemethod, since it determines a specic corestructure. Discoidal cores would be the result of applying the recur-rence principle in an expedient context. There was not a mentaltemplate guiding the core structure. The core morphology was theresult of adapting the recurrence principle to changing circum-stances. Sometimes this led to the appearance of typical discoidalcores, but not other times.

Knapping processes are characterized by spatial and temporal

fragmentation. This is observed basically in chert cores, as there arefew cases in which the whole exploitation was carried out in thesite. Cores habitually arrived at an advanced stage of reduction andwere nished off in the shelter. Cores are economized, knappedthrough short sequences when tools are needed. Flakes showsimilar technical features and microwear does not show differencesamong them, which excludes the existence of a specialized toolkit.Neither is there differentiation between akes and tools, becauseall akes with an acute edge were potential tools. Cores weremobile objects transported around as reserve of tools, they alwayswere knapped following the same criteria, and the produced akesshowthe same technical morphologies. This suggests that activitiesand 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 Roman, denticulates and notches are

dominant (84.6% of retouched tools) (Fig. 5). Other tool types, andnotably sidescrapers, are practically absent. Large and thicksupports were preferentially selected, and the denticulate edge iscommonly opposed to an abrupt side. Retouched tools were man-

ufactured on ordinary akes, especially blanks from the beginningof the reduction sequence. The retouch is mainly located in onlyone side, the most potentially suitable and longer edge. Retouchededges do not show evidence of intense resharpening as retouch isnot invasive or stepped. In addition, the microwear analysis showsa low degree of tool using. Most tools werealready retouched whentransported into the shelter. Small akes from cores exploited inthe site were not usually selected for retouching, although rettingshows that some retouched tools were manufactured inside shelter.Both denticulates produced in and outside the shelter show thesame technical features, which suggests that they were used for thesame activities or that denticulates were suitable for all the range ofactivities. Therefore, human groups had a versatile technologywithout specialized tools.

Microwear analysis included akes and retouched tools. All theretouched toolswere analyzed andakes were selected from amongthe diversity of artifacts commonat thesite,with preferencegiven tolarge akes and excluding retted objects because their microwearalteration. The microwear analysis showed a reduced percentage ofidentication, with a lowdegreeof developmentof usetraces,exceptfor actions on hide and wood. Cutting actions on animal tissue arethe most common. Retouched tools were used mainly on hardanimal matter, during butchery activities in which bone and otherhard materials of carcasses are rubbed. Flakes were mostly used inbutchery, showing cutting actions on soft animal tissue and, ina lesserextent, harderanimal material (bone and hide). It seems thatretouched tools were used in deeshing and dismembering, whileakes were used in skinning and cutting meat. Only one small

dbordant

akewas used in a whittling action on wood. Otherwise,

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

M. Vaquero et al. / Quaternary International 247 (2012) 162e181166


6/20


7/20

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



8/20

retouched tools were used in tanning hide in transversal negativeactions. The abrupt angle of retouched edges was used in scrapingactions forcleaning thedermis tissues, which could be related to therst phase of tanning process.

Except for one retouched tool that was used for cutting meat andscraping fresh hide, denticulates were used in only one action withonly one edge, always the retouched one. Therefore, retouchingseems to be related only with tool using. Retouched tools were notreused and maintained for further activities in or outside shelter, aswe have not identied microwears detached by later series ofretouches. Among theakes with use-wear traces, those presentingasymmetrical proles are particularly well represented. They arecharacterizedbyanabruptsideopposedtotheusededge( dbordantand naturally backed akes), which allows for comfortablehandling. These data showthe versatility of these geometric models(Beyries and Boda, 1983; Lemorini, 2000). Microwear analysissuggests a functional duality between two kinds of complementarytools; acute angles of akes were used in cutting actions on softanimal tissue, while abrupt retouched edges were used in harderand longer actions that needed stronger edges.

The organization of lithic production and use follows a clear andwell established technical model, based on the use of expedient

recurrent knapping methods and the manufacture of denticulatesand notches. These technical models are used in any time andcondition. Likewise, tools are used following the same technicalcriteria and modes of use. In spite of this, when technical models ofproduction and use are executed, the specic needs and conditionsof each episode produce a wide range of variability due to theexibility and versatility of these technical models.

5. The event level: spatial and temporal patterns

According to rets and the macroscopic characteristics of rawmaterials, more than 500 Raw Material Units were identied, eachone corresponding to a singular technical event. Moreover, 262retting groups, totaling 719 artifacts (10.4%of the lithic assemblage),

could be realized. These data form the basis for a temporal approach

to the formation of thelithic assemblage. Focus is on two interrelatedissues.First,provisioning strategies areconsidered, distinguishing thedepositional contexts associated with the different ways of trans-porting lithic resources into the site. Second, the temporal nature ofthe lithic assemblage is highlighted, providing some examples fromretting and spatial data.

Raw materials from local sources are dominant in lithic assem-blages, especially during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic (Geneste,1989; Turq, 1992; Dibble et al., 1995; Fblot-Augustins, 1997),although there are some Mousterian assemblages in which exoge-nous materials are the most abundant (Ros, 2005). The percentageof remains tends to decrease as their origin becomes more distant,especially when these sources are located more than 10e20kmfromthe site. Moreover, themode inwhichlithicresources are introducedinto the sites also varies according to distance. Local raw materialstend to be transported as bulk resources that are processed at thesite. As distance to the lithic sources increases, resources tend to betransported in more elaborate forms. This pattern may be modiedin contexts characterized by a logistical provisioning, in which bulkresources are transported into the sites from a long distance (Henry,1992), but this provisioning strategy does notseem to be commoninthe Middle Paleolithic.

The lithic resources of level J were introduced into the site indifferent forms: 1) entire or almost entire nodules, 2) angularfragments, 3) partially reduced cores, 4) single blanks (akes andretouches artifacts), 5) sets of blanks from the same reductionsequence. In general, there is a relationship between the intro-ducing 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 intro-ducedas single blanks. However, many exceptions to this generalrule have been observed, especially as far as the introduction oflocal materials is concerned. Transport of local materials as singleartifacts, such as some limestone dbordantakes, has been wellattested. The selective mode of transport is dominant for moredistant materials, but some bulk procurement events have also

been documented. The average behavior ts the predictions of the

Fig. 6. Transported artifacts from level J. Dbordant

akes. Photo by G. Campeny.



9/20

minimizing-weight model, but a higher variability can be found atthe event level, which suggests that all the technical episodescarried out at level J were not affected by the same constraints oreconomic considerations. In addition, this variability is particularlyevident in chert provisioning, which shows nearly all the types ofintroduction.

Regardless the type and the origin of raw materials, the distri-bution of lithics by RMU indicates that two classes of artifacts canbe distinguished according to their provisioning strategies. Theseclasses of artifacts form two different assemblages:

a) The artifacts produced during the knapping sequences carriedout in the rockshelter or derived from the in situ breakage ofnodules. Resources were brought into the site as entire oralmost entire nodules or partially reduced cores.

b) The artifacts produced outside the shelter and introduced intothe siteas singleitems, essentiallyakesand retouched artifacts.

This second provisioning strategy is the most common. Of all theintroductions identied, 284 (50.2%) corresponded to isolatedakes or retouched artifacts produced outside. The RMUs intro-duced 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 provi-sioning strategies and their visibility in terms of the amount ofremains that they represent in the lithic assemblage. The morecommon strategy (introducing isolated blanks) produces a rela-tively small assemblage, while the lesser used strategy (introducingentire or nearlyentire nodules) provides most of the lithics remainsfound in the level.

Fig. 7. Re

tting 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.



10/20

These single blanks make up the transported toolkit and corre-spond to the strategy of provisioning individuals dened byKuhn(1995) or the personal gear described by Binford (1977). Thistoolkit was formed basically by akes and retouched artifacts andmost tools correspond to this provisioning strategy. Some of thecores introduced in a more or less advanced reduction stage wouldprobably have been included in this transported gear. There areclear size differences between the transported assemblage and thelithics from the reduction sequences carried out in the rockshelter.Among the transported artifacts, medium, large and very largeitems are dominant, while in situ production was principally aimedat producing very small andsmallakes. Forthe large and very largecategories, the number of transported blanks exceeds that of lithicsfrom in situ knapping events. Large artifacts are especially suitablefor transport, since they allow an extended period of use. In addi-tion, it seems that the transported toolkit was selected according tosome technical attributes, like the presence of an abrupt sideopposed to the edge. This feature is characteristic ofdbordantakes, which were preferentially selected for transport, but thisselection also includes any blank showing an abrupt side (naturallybacked akes) (Fig. 6). These criteria, as well as the preferentialselection of large blanks, led to a high percentage of cortical dorsal

surfaces in this transported assemblage. In addition, most of theretouched artifacts belong to the transported toolkit. Few retouchedtools have been clearly linked to core reduction sequences carriedout in the site.

However, there areno clear-cuttechnical differences betweenthereduction sequences from which the transported artifacts wereproduced and those carried out on the spot. Aside from somequantitative differences derived from the selection criteria, such asthe higher percentage of dbordant akes in the transported

assemblage, mostof theimported blanks t perfectlywell withintheexpedient reduction strategies documented in level J. In particular,blanks showing the typical characteristics of Levallois products areuncommon.Similarly, no typologicaldifferences have beenobservedbetween the transported tools and the few tools produced andretouched in theshelter. Themain difference concerns the size of theknapping products. In general, the aim of the core reductions per-formed in theAbric Roman was directed at producing small andverysmall akes. Both rets and RMUs provide numerous examples ofthis kind of sequence (Fig. 7). This suggests that small akes wereintentional and soughtafterproducts. In some cases, this small-akeproduction appears at the end of long reduction sequences entirelycarried out in the rockshelter, which previously produced largerakes. However, this is the less common and it is more usual to ndsequences whose only purpose was the production of small akes.This intentional production of small akes has recently been docu-mented in other Middle Paleolithic assemblages (Goren-Inbar,1988;Moncel and Neruda, 2000; Moncel, 2003; Dibble and McPherron,2006). In the Abric Roman, this small-ake-oriented production isrelated to the domestic activities carried out around hearths,whereas large akes tend to be linked to the activities performedduring trips.

These two assemblages exhibit different, and even contradictory,economical behaviors. Core reduction shows an economizingbehavior. Cores were reduced until exhausted and reduction strat-egies were aimed at maximizing their protability. On the otherhand, transported artifacts were not intensively used,as indicated bythe absence of strongly reduced artifacts and the low percentage oftools showing use traces. It seems therefore that economizingpatterns were not a determining factor in the management of theseartifacts. If we take into account that most retouched artifacts

Fig. 8. Re

tting map of sublevel Ja.



11/20

correspond to the transported assemblage, this suggests that corereductionand artifact retouch were unrelated phenomenasubject todifferent constraints.

This has also important consequences for the interpretation ofspatial patterning. One of the main characteristics of the spatialdistribution in level J is size sorting. In sublevel Ja, the interiorhearth-related areas are dened by the dominance of smallremains, while the outer areas around the large blocks showa higher presence of large remains. Following the drop/toss zonedichotomy, this was interpreted in previous works (Vaquero, 1999;Martnez Molina and Rando, 2001) as the opposition betweendomestic areas, where the knapping activities were carried out, andrefuse areas, where large artifacts were discarded. However, thisinterpretation has not been fully supported by retting, sinceconnections between the inner and outer areas are scarce. Mostlarge artifacts located in the exterior areas are unrelated to theknapping activities carried out at the inner domestic areas.

The differential spatial distribution of the two lithic assemblagesdened according to the provisioning method may provide analternative explanation for size sorting. Reduction sequences areclearlyconcentrated in the hearth-related domestic areas located inthe interior of the shelter. However, the transported artifacts are

more evenly scattered and are well represented in the outer low-density areas. This suggests that knapping activities and the dis-carding of transported blanks were unrelated events, subjected todifferent constraints and perhaps corresponding to different typesof occupation episodes. Domestic areas associated with an effectivesettlement in the shelter and showed therefore a careful selectionof their spatial location, searching for the best protected areas. Onthe other hand, if the discard of transported blanks was associatedto short visits that did not imply a real dwelling in the shelter, their

spatial locations were less constrained by the natural structure andwere therefore more evenly distributed. Temporal dynamics wouldbe therefore characterized by the alternation of two differentdepositional contexts. Size sorting would be produced by thedifferential spatial pattern of these different depositional contexts.The short-visit context would tend to create a relatively homoge-neous scatter of transported artifacts, without clear accumulations.This scatter would be a sort of intra-site and continuous veil ofstones(Roebroeks et al., 1992), upon which the discrete accumu-lations formed during residential events would be superimposed.

Resource provisioning provides a rst clue to the temporalnature of the lithic assemblage. This assemblage is the product ofa sequence of technical events that followed one anotherthroughout time. This temporal dynamics is also suggested by theretting spatial pattern. Connection-lines cover all the excavatedsurface and, although short rets are dominant (65.8% are shorterthan 2 m), long rets are not uncommon, especially in sublevel Ja,in which 6.8% of the connections are longer than 8 m. Atrst sight,the movement of artifacts between different areas may suggest thatthe activities represented in these areas were contemporaneousand carried out during the same occupation in the ethnographicsense 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 theserets, the evidence seems less straightforward. The direction ofthe intentional movements shows that unidirectional patternsare prevailing (Fig. 9). Only bidirectional connections can be usedto argue that two activity areas or clusters of remains were con-temporaneous. Unidirectional connections cannot be used tosupport contemporaneity, especially in technical contexts charac-terized 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.



12/20

a preparing-core stage. On the contrary, they can provide a goodargument in favor of a temporal gap between the formations ofboth accumulations. Rets cannot be therefore used as evidence ofthe contemporaneous occupation of the different activity areasidentied in level J.

Moreover, the temporal nature of the lithic assemblage is fairlyclear if we consider two interrelated questions: the changes inprovisioning strategies during the formation of level J and recy-cling. Concerning the rst question, an example from sublevel Ja ispresented. Based on archeostratigraphy and differences in thescattering of knapping events, three successive formation periodscan be recognized in the middle of the site, each one showinga different provisioning strategy:

1) The earliest one corresponds to the RMU showing moredispersed distributions. Products of these reduction sequenceswere found scattered over a wide area. These are entire knap-ping sequences performed on entire or almost entire nodules ofmediocre quality. Most reduction sequences on limestone andquartz would correspond to this occupation period. Most chertnodules exploited during this formation period correspond tothe SMT formation (Fig. 10).

2) The second stage is principally associated to nal reductionsequences and is focused around square P51. These reductionevents exhibit much clustered scatters and most of themcorrespond to chert from the VLD formation (Fig. 11).

3) Finally, archaeostratigraphy has identied a third formationstage represented by a small accumulation found in O49. Thiswas located at the top of the layerand corresponds to one of thelatest deposition events of level J. These artifacts show a veryselective introduction pattern. They are mainly transported

blanks, although a short reduction event producing large akeswas also carried out (Fig. 12).

Recycling is one of the clearest expressions of the temporaldynamics affecting assemblage formation. Some long-distance retsindicate intentional movements associated with the recycling ofpreviously refused artifacts. In some cases, recycling has beeninferred from knapping sequences showing different degrees ofscattering for successive reduction stages, which suggests that thesestages had different taphonomic histories. Two kindsof recycling aredocumented: recyclingof cores orakes forproducing short seriesofsmall akes, and recycling of cobble fragments for their use ashammer-stones. The scatter of remains corresponding to mostrecycling events, together with the location of some of them at thetop of the layer, suggest that this behavior was more common in thelater phases of occupation. Some examples are provided in thispaper, which are fairly illustrative.

The RMU represented inFig. 13presents two spatially separatedreduction stages, which are characterized by very different disper-sionradii.Artifacts from this nodule were scattered over most of theexcavated surface. This RMU was introducedas a complete or nearlycomplete nodule and the rst reduction stages show the widest

scatter. The artifacts from this stage were clustered around O48,which seems to correspond to the knapping focus, but someremains were dispersed throughout the central sector of the site.Nevertheless, the end of the reduction sequence, aimed atproducing verysmallakes, showed a markedcluster in N59. Five ofthe sixvery smallakes detached in this terminal stage were in N59and the sixth in P59. The core was found in the collection fromRipolls excavation, which indicates that it was moved again to thearea of Pit 1.

Fig. 10. Spatial distribution of RMU on SMT chert corresponding to the

rst formation stage discussed in the text. Drawing by P. Saudo.



13/20

Another examplefromsublevel Jb canbe seen in Fig.14. Itshowsthe same difference between the scattering of the rst and last

reduction stages. The rst one was widely scattered throughout themiddle of the shelter. The second one formed the bulk of the lithicsfound in L49-50. The rst stage, including the decortication of thenodule, provided a wide array of products, while thenal stage wasexclusively aimed at producing small and very small akes. This isshown by the rets found in L49-50 and one of them in particularwhich is made up of 19 very small and small akes that wereconjoined on the core. The differences between the two stages werenot only related to production goals, but also to the degree ofdispersion. On the one hand, the remains from the rst reductionevent were very scattered. The mean length of the connection linesfound in this zone was 154 cm. On the other hand, the second stagewas clustered in L49-50, showing a principal accumulation of only50 cm in diameter. Mean length of connection lines was 33 cm. The

assemblage of L49-50corresponds to knapping events carried outfrom blanks produced during the rst reduction stage. One of thecores exploited in L49-50 corresponded to a cortical productdetached during the decortication of the nodule, which wastransported to L49-50 and reduced to obtain very small akes.Another core found in L49-50 was also transported from the rstreduction area. The differences in scatter between the two phasessuggest that they were temporally differentiated events and theaccumulation of L49-50 was the result of the recycling of artifactsdiscarded in the rst reduction stage .

Recycling of limestone fragments can be seen, for example, inthe retting from sublevel Ja shown inFig. 15. It is a broken lime-stone cobble presenting two fragments conjoined by an 1125-cmconnectionline 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 ofmovement was therefore from P51 to O40, which indicates inten-

tional transport. The two pieces located in P51 were burned. Thefragment in O40 was not burned and showed percussion marksposterior to the fracture. These patterns show that original cobblewas broken in the middle of the site, after a rst use as hammer-stone. One of the fragments was moved toward the area aroundO40, where a second use as hammer-stone took place. As anotherevidence of the temporal depth of the assemblage, a burningepisode affecting the fragments in P51 happened after the recyclingevent.

The last example, from sublevel Ja, shows also the use ashammer-stone of a limestone fragment from the breakage of a largecobble after a rst event of use. The artifacts are very scattered, ascan be seen in the ret ofFig.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 thatthe use as percussor was subsequent to the breakage event. Twoartifacts of this ret were burnt, while the rest of the set did notshow any evidence of re damage. This indicates a temporalsuccession of at least four different events: the cobble breakage, thespatial dispersion of the fragments derived from this breakage, theuse as hammer-stone of one fragment, and the exposure to re oftwo 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 inter-esting insights on Neanderthal technical behavior. This behavior

combines some structural features characterizing level J as a whole

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



14/20

and other aspects showing strong variability. In the rst place,exibility is evident in several aspects, from raw material provi-

sioning to artifact use, and is largely the result of the expediencyprevailing in the technical system. This expediency allows forpermanent adaptation to changing circumstances. Variability is therule in most behaviors, although certain aspects exhibit a markedstability, like the manufacture of retouched artifacts, which isfocused on denticulates and notches. Another structural trend isthe preference for chert in knapping, although it was less availablethan other materials in the immediate surroundings. However, thispreference was less pronounced during some occupation periods,which underlines the temporal variability of provisioning strate-gies. The event-focused approach adopted in this paper has yieldeda broadest picture of technical behavior, highlighting some vari-ability phenomena that would go unnoticed in an assemblage-as-a-whole 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 assem-blage formation. The lithic assemblage dened by stratigraphiccriteria is not a behavioral unit. It is a palimpsest formed by anunknown number of events, subjected to different constraints, andshowing a wide range of, sometimes contradictory, behaviors. Someevents were associatedwith knapping,but others to theintroductionand discard of single artifacts. Two different lithic assemblages canbe distinguished, each of them formed in a different depositionalcontext. These different depositional contexts were largely corre-lated to different types of occupation events: residential campsitesassociatedwith hearth constructionand shortnon-residentialvisits.These occupation types are basic components of Middle Paleolithicsettlement patterns. Residential campsites may be one of the

features de

ning the Middle Paleolithic as a developmental stage

(Rolland,1999), as indicatedby the apparentcorrelation betweenthebeginning of the Middle Paleolithic and the rst well-dened

hearth-related assemblages. Although residential occupations werenot necessarily the most common, they produced the bulk of thelithic remains and exhibit the repeated use of the best-shelteredareas.

The second depositional context e short non-residential visits ehas been also well documented throughout the Middle Paleolithic,although it is present since Early Pleistocene times. It has been welldened at sites in which it was not mixed with a residentialcomponent and the single-artifact-transport pattern was thereforeeasier to identify. These assemblages are mainly formed by largeblanks, including high percentages of retouched artifacts. Remainsderived from in situ knapping sequences tend to be scarce (Brugaland Jaubert,1991; Deeur and Crgut-Bonnoure, 1995; Costamagnoet al., 2006). This would be a common use of cave and rockshelters,

and this component would be present in practically all lithicassemblages. The residential use of caves would determine thedifferences between sites, since it would be less generalized, both indiachronic and synchronic terms.

Thefactors conditioning technical behaviorsworked at theeventlevel and some technical features were event-specic. Certainbehaviors are associated with some events, but not to others. Theassemblage variability is therefore conditioned by the kind andnumber of events that contributed to its formation. As the numberof eventsis a function of formationlength, differences in theamountof time represented in the assemblages are a relevant factor inexplaining inter-assemblage variability. Knapping of limestone andquartz is not randomly distributed during the formation of theassemblage, but it is mainly concentrated in a specic area of

sublevel Jae

the central area

suggesting that it occurred during

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



15/20

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



16/20

thesame occupation event or thesame formationphase.These poorquality but immediately available materials were not equallyexploited throughout the level J formation, but tended to be

restricted to a speci

c time period. A similar phenomenon was also

observed in level I, where the reduction of limestone and quartzcores was found to be characteristic of some accumulations(Carbonell, 2002). From this perspective, characterizing a strati-graphic assemblage in behavioral terms makes little sense if thedifferent components contributing to its formation are not identi-ed. The technical behavior of level Jis the average of severaldifferent and may be contradictory actual behaviors. The behavioralsignicance of technical strategies should therefore be sought on anevent time scale.

Far from showing repetitive patterns, behavior exhibits highvariability in the short term. The apparent monotony is the result ofthe temporal depth of archeological assemblages. As the resolutionof analysis increases, Neanderthal behavior becomes more variable.However, this approach depends on the ability to identify singleactivity events. In level J, this has been possible in lithic analysis,and our perspective on this level of variability is biased towardtechnical activities. Other domains, such as the study of faunalremains, are less suitable for this temporal analysis, and they tendto favor the structural viewpoint of the assemblage-as-a-whole. Itremains to be proven whether this variability at the event level isalso characteristic of other behavioral realms, such as the exploi-tation 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 alsoshown by recycling.

Provisioning choices varied throughout the sequence of events thatformed the archaeological assemblage. Archeological sites weredynamic entities and their appeal for human frequentation mayhave changed over time. During the beginning of the formation oflevel J, the rockshelter was a place devoid of lithic resources andprovisioning of bulk resources in the form of entire nodules wouldhave been more likely. As the formation process advanced, the sitewas progressively transformed into a raw material source itself andthe need to introduce bulk resources would have been less likely.The dispersion radiuses of reduction sequences indicate that recy-cling events tended to take place in the last stage of the formationsequence. Moreover, the accumulation focused in square P51 is

characterized by a series of reduction sequences on highly reducedcores introduced as such into the shelter. The scarce dispersion ofthese sequences also suggests that they were carried out in the lastoccupations of level J. This indicates that raw material constraintschanged throughout the formation of the assemblage and, conse-quently, lithic provisioning strategy also changed.

Temporal dynamics are relevant to the interpretation of spatialpatterns. Spatial studies should not be exclusively spatial. Theymust also include a temporal analysis, since some spatial patternscan be conditioned by the succession of different depositionalcontexts showing different spatial distributions. Size sorting shouldbe scrutinized from this temporal perspective, especially concern-ing the identication of secondary refuse areas. Sublevel Ja showsa spatial pattern characterized by the size sorting of both lithic and

faunal remains. Small remains are dominant in the inner hearth-related areas, while the frequency of large items tends to increasetoward the outside. This was interpreted as the formation of dropand toss zones. The inside would correspond to the activity area, inwhich there is a preferential accumulation of small remains. Largeremains produced during these activities would be discardedtoward the exterior, forming a low-density belt dened by highpercentages of large items. However, the event-focused approachindicates that there may be other processes at work in this spatialdistribution. First, rets between the knapping areas and thepurported dumping area are scarce, suggesting that tossing largeartifacts toward the outside was not common. Second, RMUdistribution indicates that most large artifacts were not produced atthe site, but transported as single blanks from outside. Two

different depositional patterns contributed to the formation of the

Fig. 14. Spatial distribution of Chert-01, showing the location of the two reduction

stages. Drawing by P. Saudo. Photo by G. Campeny.



17/20

assemblage. On the one hand, knapping events, which producedthe bulk of the assemblage, are clustered in the hearth-relatedareas. On the other hand, artifacts introduced as single blanks tend

to be more evenly distributed, and are well represented in the low-activity areas. Overlapping of these different depositional contextsproduces a size sorting distribution that resembles that derivedfrom refuse strategies.

Level J also provides insight into Middle Paleolithic technolog-ical variability. Different occupational contexts are identiedthroughout the formation of level J, but there is not a clear corre-lation between these contexts and changes in knapping methods.Both transported artifacts and reduction sequences carried out onthe spot can be attributed to the same reduction strategies, whoseexpedient character is outlined above. Variability in reductionstrategies is more evident at the inter-assemblage rather than theintra-assemblage level. These changes are clearer when comparingdifferent levels of the Abric Roman sequence e for instance, levels

E and Je

but can hardly be shown when analyzing only one lithic

assemblage. This suggests that technological trends had a temporalpattern and characterized long time spans. Expedient discoidalmethods were dominant during the formation of level J, regardless

of changes in provisioning strategies or occupation types. Thistechnological conception was applied in the different activitycontexts performed by human groups in their annual cycles.Changes in the criteria used in reduction sequences would corre-spond to long duration dynamics (Bintliff, 1991). These criteriadened the initial conditions upon which the variability associatedwith the adaptation to the specic circumstances took place. Use ofcomplex or expedient reduction methods would not have depen-ded on occupation length or mobility patterns. The technicalparadigms were in place previous to the variations caused by suchsettlement factors.

This temporal dimension shines a new light on Neanderthalbehavior. It allows variability levels associated with two differenttimescales to be discerned: the timeof the event and the timeof the

structure (Sewell,1996; Harding, 2005). Archeology is a particularly

Fig.15. Retting 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.



18/20

suitable domain for this kind of approach, since it allows an almostimmediate access to these temporal levels. Events are specic andcontextual, singular moments embedded in circumstance (Beck Jr.,et al., 2007), and represent adaptation to the circumstances ofa particular place in a particular instant of time. Events can be alsoconsidered as the actualization of structures. According toGiddens(1979), structures are the underlying long-term behavioral patternsand natural conditions in which the short-term events are founded.The interplay between these temporal scales is essential in under-standing social and cultural changes. However, the causal relation-ships between events and structures are far from being established.On the one hand, it might be considered that what happens at thetimeoftheeventisdened by thelong-term structures.On theotherhand, it couldbe argued that the short-term individualengagementsdetermine the larger-scale entities and processes (Harding, 2005).In

anycase, establishing suchcausalrelationships is themostimportantendeavorat this point.Fornow, itis enoughto identifythesetwotimescales in thearcheological record and to associate them with specicfeatures of assemblage variability.

7. Conclusions

Technical variability and settlement patterns should not beapproached without taking into consideration the temporal natureof the archeological assemblages. The archeostratigraphical unitsidentied in level J do not correspond to occupations in the ethno-graphic sense, but they are palimpsests produced by a succession ofoccupation episodes. This temporal dimension is fundamental to

approach some structural features used to characterize residential

occupations: occupation length, special activity areas and disposalareas. The behavioral interpretation of palimpsests is oftenbiased bythe episodes that produced more vestiges, at the expense of otherbehaviorsthat may be more commonbut generatefew remains. Thisis evident by comparing the archeological consequences of thereduction sequences carried out entirely at the site with the intro-duction and disposal of single blanks. The latter behavior is morecommon and canbe considered as more signicant in characterizingthe technical behavior of the Neanderthals that visited the AbricRoman. However, this behavior tends to be blurred in an assem-blage-as-a-whole perspective. These problems can only be con-fronted by focusing attention on the events and organize thearcheological record according to them. The construction of anarcheological discourse based on events should be considered asa challenge for future research on the evolution of human behavior.

The temporality of the assemblage limits the ability to charac-terize the occupations beyond the distinction between residentialand non-residential events. Even in a high-resolution context likethe Abric Roman, it seems illusory to reach a time scale e thatof occupation in the ethnographic sense e in which these kinds ofquestions may be answered. This is partly due to the equinality ofprocesses acting at different time scales but producing the same

archeological outcomes. The archeological consequences of long-term occupations are similar to those produced by the overlappingof different occupations during long periods. Spatial patterns nor-mally associated with longoccupations mayalso be the result of thesuccession of different kinds of depositional events over time.

Some factors used to explain the variability of Middle Paleolithiclithic 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 ona long-term structural time scale. These factors are dened by thecharacteristics that remained unchanged during the formation ofthe archeological assemblage in spite of the short-term adapta-tions. For example, the dominance of denticulates and the generalcriteria applied in core reduction would be structural trends. Core

morphology exhibits high variability due to the use of expedientmethods aimed at producing as many akes as possible, but char-acterized by little concern for blank shape and size. This is anexample of the interplay between the different temporal scales ofvariability. The specic characteristics of each reduction sequencedepend on the circumstances operating at the event level, such asnodule shape or transport mode. It is at this level that the variabilityofcore forms should be explained. However, the expedient natureof technical behavior is structural and denes the general frame-work in which this large variability of cores emerges. The lack ofcorrelation between occupational contexts and changes in knap-ping methods suggests that the expedient or elaborated nature ofthe technical system (e.g. discoidal vs. Levallois) does not dependon short-term adaptations. The changes in techno-psychological

criteria correspond to long-term process that can be observed ina geological time scale, but not in an ethnographic time scale. Thesetechnical criteria dened the initial conditions upon which theadaptation to specic circumstances took place. Use of complex orexpedient reduction methods would not have depended on occu-pation length or mobility patterns. This pattern differs from thatidentied at other sites (Munday, 1979; Henry, 1995) that showa correlation between reduction strategies and occupationalcontext. Explaining these differences will be an interesting line ofresearch.

The limits of the ethnographical explanation are the conse-quence of the differences between the ethnographic time scale andthe archeological time scale. The basic time scale of ethno-archeological models, occupational time, is the most difcult to

deduce from the archeological record. There is easy access to the

Fig. 16. Retting 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. Saudo. Photo by G. Campeny.



19/20

time scale of the single event and the geological time scale repre-sented by the stratigraphic unit, but the occupation time scaleremains archeologically invisible. All that is available areevents andrelationships between events, but there are serious constraints todene these relationships in occupational terms. Through thespatial association of events, activity areas can be identied, toestablish relationships between activity areas by means of retting.Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that this chain of relationships willexpand to the scale of an occupationin the ethnographic sense. Thisdoes not mean that all the ethnoarcheological information isuseless for archeological interpretation. It implies that archeolo-gists must be more conscious of the consequences of temporality inthe use of such information. The ethnoarcheological evidence cor-responding both to an event time scale and a structural time scalewould be fully adjusted to the kind of data immediately available toarcheologists and would therefore maintain its reliability.

Acknowledgments

Excavations at the Abric Roman are carried out with thesupport of the Departament de Cultura de la Generalitat de

Catalunya, Ajuntament de Capellades, O

cina Patrimoni Cultural-Diputaci de Barcelona, Tallers Grcs Romany-Valls, Bercontrs-Centre de Gesti Medioambiental SL, and Constructora de CalafSAU. The Generalitat de Catalunya provides nancial support to theResearch Group in Quaternary Human Autoecology (2005SGR-00702). We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpfulcomments. Research of one of the authors (M.G.C.) is supportedby a postdoctoral grant from the Juan de la Cierva Subprogram (JCI-2010-07863) 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 InternationalSeries 96, pp. 97e117. Oxford.

Bailey, G.N., 1983. Concepts of time in Quaternary Prehistory. Annual Review ofAnthropology 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., Boda, E., 1983. Etude technologique et traces dutilisation des "eclatsdbordants" de Corbehem (Pas-de-Calais). Bulletin de la Socit PrhistoriqueFranaise 80, 275e279.

Binford, L.R., 1977. Forty-seven trips: a case study in the character of archaeologicalformation 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 ofAnthropological 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, Wash-ington, 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. LeicesterUniversity Press, London and New York, pp. 1e33.

Bischoff, J.L., Juli, R., Mora, R., 1988. Uranium-series dating of the mousterianoccupation at Abric Romani, Spain. Nature 332, 68e70.

Brochier, J.E., 1999. Couche archologique, sol archologique et distributions spa-tiales: quelques rexions (go)archologiques sur un vieux problme. In:Rossell., V.M. (Ed.), Geoarqueologia I Quaternari Litoral: Memorial Maria PilarFumanal. Universitat de Valncia, Valncia, pp. 91e95.

Brooks, R.L., 1982. Events in the archaeological context and archaeological expla-nation. Current Anthropology 23 (1), 67e75.

Brugal, J.-Ph., Jaubert, J., 1991. Les gisements palontologiques plistocnes indicesde frequentation humaine: un nouveau type de comportement de prdation?Palo 3, 15e41.

Carbonell, E. (Ed.), 2002. Abric Roman nivell I. Models docupaci de curtaduradade fa 46.000 anys a la Cinglera del Capell (Capellades, Anoia, Barcelona).Universitat Rovirai Virgili, Tarragona.

Costamagno, S., Meignen, L., Beauval, C., Vandermeersch, B., Maureille, B., 2006. LesPradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, France): a mousterian reindeer hunting camp.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, 466e

484.

Deeur, A., Crgut-Bonnoure, E., 1995. Le gisement palolithique moyen de lagrotte des Cdres (Var). Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l HommeParis.

Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.P., 2006. The missing mousterian. Current Anthropology47 (5), 777e803.

Dibble, H.L., Roth, B., Lenoir, M., 1995. The use of raw materials at Combe-CapelleBas. In: Dibble, H.L., Lenoir, M. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, pp. 259e287.

Fblot-Augustins, J., 1997. La circulation des matires premires au Palolithique.

ERAUL, 75. Universit de Lige, Lige.Garca 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 Sud-

Ouest de la France. In: LHomme de Neandertal, 6. La Subsistance. E.R.A.U.L,Lige, pp. 75e97.

Giddens, A., 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, andContradiction in Social Analysis. Macmillan, London.

Goren-Inbar, N., 1988. Too small to be true? Reevaluation of cores on akes inLevantine Mousterian assemblages. Lithic Technology 17 (1), 37e44.

Hall, C.T., 2004. Evaluating prehistoric hunteregatherer mobility, land use, andtechnological organization strategies using minimum analytical nodule anal-ysis. 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 thetemporality 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, andVariability. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 143e162.

Henry, D.O., 1995. Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Insights fromSouthern Jordan. Plenum Press, New York.

Holdaway, S., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), 2008. Time in Archaeology: Time PerspectivismRevisited. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Julien, M., Karlin, C., Valentin, B., 1992. Dchets de silex, dchets de pierres chauf-fes. De lintret des remontages Pincevent (France). In: Hofman, J.L.,Enloe, J.G. (Eds.), Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Retting Studies inArchaeology. BAR International Series 578, pp. 287e295. Oxford.

Ketterer, I., Pigeot, N., Serra, S., 2004. Le temps de loccupation. Une histoire desactivits et des comportements. In: Pigeot, N. (Ed.), Les derniers magdalniensdtiolles. Perspectives culturelles et palohistoriques. ditions du CNRS, Paris,pp. 235e254.

Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. An Ecological Perspective. PrincetonUniversity 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 UtahPress, Salt Lake City, pp. 3e17.Lemorini, C., 2000. Reconnatre des tactiques dexploitation du milieu au Palo-

lithique Moyen. La contribution de lanalyse fonctionnelle. In: Etude fonction-nelle des industries lithiques de Grotta Breuil (Latium, Italie) et de La Combette(Bonnieux, Vaucluse, France). British Archaeological Report International Series858, Oxford.

Martnez, K., 2005. Anlisis funcional de industrias lticas del Pleistoceno Superior.El Paleoltico Medio del Abric Roman (Capellades, Barcelona) y el PaleolticoSuperior de agizli (Hatay, Turqua) y del Mol del Salt (Vimbod, Tarragona).Cambios en los patrones funcionales entre el Paleoltico Medio y el Superior. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

Martnez Molina, K., Rando, J.M., 2001. Organizacin y funcionalidad de la pro-duccin ltica en un nivel del Paleoltico Medio del Abric Roman. Trabajos dePrehistoria 58 (1), 51e70. Nivel Ja (Capellades, Barcelona).

Moncel, M.-H., 2003. Lexploitation de lespace et la mobilit des groupes humainesau travers des assemblages lithiques la n du Plistocne moyen et au dbutdu Plistocne suprieur. La moyenne valle du Rhne entre Drme et Ardche.In: BAR International Series 1184, Oxford.

Moncel, M.-H., Neruda, P., 2000. The Klna level 11: some Observation on theDebitage rules and Aims. The originality of a middle Palaeolithic microlithicassemblage (Klna cave, Czech Republic. Anthropologie, Brno 38 (2),219e247.

Munday, F.C., 1979. Levantine mousterian technological variability: a perspectivefrom the Negev. Palorient 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.Ort, F., 1990. Las formaciones evaporticas del Terciario continental de la zona

decontacto entre la Cuenca del Ebro y los Catalnides. In: Ort, F., Salvany, J.M.(Eds.), Formaciones evaporticas de la Cuenca del Ebro y cadenas perifricas,yde la zona de Levante: Nuevas aportaciones y gua de supercie. Enresa-Uni-versidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp. 70e75.

Ros, J., 2005. Caractersticas de la produccin ltica al nal del Paleoltico Medioen el Pas Vasco. El caso del Nivel B de Axlor (Dima, Bizkaia). In: Montes, R.,Lasheras, J.A. (Eds.), Neandertales cantbricos, estado de la cuestin. Mon-ografas, 20. Museo de Altamira, Museo de Altamira, Santander, pp.333e348.



20/20

Roebroeks, W., 1988. From Find Scatters to Early Hominid Behaviour: a Study ofMiddle Palaeolithic Riverside Settlements at Maastricht-Belvdre (TheNetherlands). In: Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 21. University of Leiden,Leiden.

Roebroeks, W., de Loecker, D., Hennekens, P., van Ieperen, M., 1992. "A veil ofstones": on the interpretation of an early Middle Palaeolithic low densityscatter at Maastricht-Belvdre (The Netherlands). Analecta Praehistorica Lei-densia 25, 1e16.

Rolland, N., 1999. The middle Palaeolithic as development stage: evidence fromtechnology, subsistence, settlement systems, and hominid socio-ecology. In:

Ullrich, H. (Ed.), Hominid Evolution. Lifestyles and Survival. Archaea, Gelsen-kirchen/Schwelm, pp. 315e334.

Schiffer, M.B., 1985. Is there a Pompeii premise in archaeology? Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 41, 18e41.

Sewell Jr., W.H., 1996. Historical events as transformations of structures: inventingrevolution at the Bastille. Theory and Society 25, 841e881.

Shott, M.J., 2008. Lower paleolithic industries, time, and the meaning of assemblagevariation. 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. Braudels temporal rhythms and chronology theory in archae-ology. In: Knapp, A.B. (Ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 23e34.

Sol Sabars, L. (Ed.), 1958e1964, Geograa 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/habita-tion sites: models from Peace Point in northern Alberta. American Antiquity 50(1), 63e81.

Stevenson, M.G., 1991. Beyond the formation of hearth-associated artifact assem-blages. In: Kroll, E.M., Price, T.D. (Eds.), The Interpretation of ArchaeologicalSpatial Patterning. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 269e299.

Turq, A., 1992. Raw material and technological studies of the Quina Mousterian inPrigord. In: Dibble, H.L., Mellars, P.A. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation,Behavior, and Variability. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 75e85.

Vaquero, M., 1997. Tecnologa ltica y comportamiento humano: organizacin de lasactividades tcnicas y cambio diacrnico en el Paleoltico Medio del AbricRoman (Capellades, Barcelona), Ph. D. thesis. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

Vaquero, M., 1999. Intrasite spatial organization of lithic production in the Middle Palae-olithic: the evidence of the AbricRoman (Capellades, Spain). Antiquity 73, 493e504.

Vaquero, M., 2005. Les stratgies de transport doutils dans un contexte rsidentiel:un exemple du Palolithique moyen. In: Vialou, D., Renault-Miskovsky, J.,

Patou-Mathis, N. (Eds.), Comportements des hommes du Palolithique moyenet suprieur en Europe: territoires et milieux. Actes du Colloque du G.D.R. 1945du CNRS, Paris, 8e10 janvier 2003. E.R.A.U.L, Lige, pp. 121e132.

Vaquero, M., 2008. The history of stones: behavioural inferences and temporalresolution of an archaeological assemblage from the Middle Palaeolithic. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 35, 3178e3185.

Vaquero, M., Chacn, G., Cuartero, F., Garca-Antn, M.D., Gmez de Soler, B, Mar-tnez, K., in press. The Lithic Assemblage of Level J. In: Carbonell, E. editors. HighResolution Archaeology and Neanderthal Behavior: Time and Space in Level J ofAbric Roman (Capellades, Spain). Springer.

Vaquero, M., Chacn, G., Fernndez, C., Martnez, K., Rando, J.M., 2001a. Intrasitespatial patterning and transport in the Abric Roman middle Paleolithic site(Capellades, Barcelona, Spain). In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of theMiddle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Kerns Verlag, Tbingen, pp. 573e595.

Vaquero, M., Past,I., 2001. The Denitionof spatial units in middle Palaeolithic sites: thehearth-relatedassemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (11),1209e1220.

Vaquero, M., Rando, J.M., Chacn, G., 2004. Neanderthal spatial behavior and socialstructure: hearth-related assemblages from the Abric Roman middle Palae-olithic site. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithicand Middle Stone Age, vol. 2. Kerns Verlag, Tbingen, pp. 367e392.

Vaquero, M., Vallverd, J., Rosell, J., Past, I., Allu, E., 2001b. Neandertal behavior atthe middle Palaeolithic site of Abric Roman, Capellades, Spain. Journal of FieldArchaeology 28 (1e2), 93e114.


time and space in the formation of lithic assemblages: the example of abric romaní level j

Documents