ESTUDIO TÉCNICO

As with the flake tools, the most striking difference between the flint and quartzite cores is in size; quartzite cores are much bigger and heavier than flint ones and their flake scars are correspondingly larger. Length and width, both of cores and largest

visible flake scar, and the corresponding ratios, show differences significant at the 5% level (tested with a Kolomogorov-Smimov test).

Flint cores have been more heavily exploited than quartzite ones, have more flake scars and retain less cortex. Degree of exploitation and cortex are the only categorical attributes which show differences between the two assemblages significant at the 5% level (tested with chi-squared contingency tables, table 5.11). Though over half of the quartzite cores have been fully worked, many have been only partly or minimally exploited. No flint cores have been minimally worked. The high degree of exploitation of the flint cores is to be expected because of the shortage of available flint and, the obvious desire for flint tools as seen in the flake tool component. Attribute probability (p=) core type p=.2037 %cortex p=.0001 degree of p=.0097 exploitation

Table 5.11. Pinedo cores: Chi squared contingency table for core attributes

Although there is only a slightly higher percentage of step fractures visible on the quartzite cores it should be remembered that these pieces are generally less exploited and have fewer flake scars than the flint cores. It appears unlikely that step fractures on quartzite cores prevented continued working but rather that it was perhaps easier to pick up the more readily available quartzite cobbles for further flake production. As seen in the flake tools, the approach towards the working of flint and quartzite pebbles at Pinedo is similar except that flint is more heavily worked, and the resulting pieces are smaller than the quartzite artefacts due both to the greater exploitation of flint and the smaller size of the un worked flint pebbles.

5.1.12 O th er components of the Pinedo assemblage (fig. 5.25)

Cleavers, trihedrals, pebble tools and a large number of unretouched flakes and debitage were also recovered during the Pinedo excavations. Although these artefact types were not studied in detail for this project, the descriptions of them provided by Querol and Santonja (1979) are in such detail as to give a comprehensive overview of them and the part they play in the total assemblage.

Unretouched flakes and debitage

Most of the industry consists of unretouched flakes and debitage covering all of the knapping processes: core preparation flakes, fully cortical, partially cortical, with a strip of cortex, non-cortical, retouch and rejuvenation flakes and fragments. Querol and Santonja (op cit. ) suggest that flakes with a strip of cortex are the result of knapping rounded pebbles, particularly in the manufacture o f pebble tools, the most common artefact type after unretouched flakes. They also note that many of the small flakes result from breakage caused by the force of the hammerstone at moment of impact. Flint flakes show greater exploitation of that material; they have less cortex and there are numerous rejuvenation and retouch flakes among them.

The flakes (excluding retouch and rejuvenation flakes) are small, roughly equal in length and width (about 50mm in both dimensions) and are often oval in shape, all aspects related to the raw material - small, nodules.

Cleavers

The thirty-eight cleavers are in quartzite, thirty-five on cortical flakes and three on non-cortical flakes. Lateral retouch is minimal and only slightly affects the outline of the flake blank. Edges are predominantly straight and bases are thick. The cleavers range in length from 59mm to 165mm and average 107mmi However, Querol and Santonja note that there are a number of small cleavers (less than 100mm long).

The Pinedo cleavers are typologically simple: 70% are Tixier's type 0 with very little modification, 21% (8 pieces) are type 1 and 8% (3 pieces) are type 2. The excavators note that, although these cleavers have archaic characteristics typologically and technologically, there is some standardisation in size, in particular with the relation between length and thickness.

Trihedrals

Trihedrals form an important part of the Pinedo assemblage: 9% of the macro industry, 7% o f the tools and 2% of the total assemblage (Querol and Santonja op cit., 141). Two groups of trihedrals are represented: the first includes traditional trihedral types, that is those in which modification has affected most of the piece and which have a clearly defined, trihedral point; the second group incorporates those which the excavators have called trihedral pebble tools, which are similar to pebble tools (choppers/chopping tools) but have a trihedral point.

There are 108 trihedrals in the assemblage: 105 in quartzite, 2 in flint and 3 in quartz. Of the traditional trihedrals 74% are on pebbles and 15% manufactured from flakes. M ost of the trihedral pebble tools are on pebbles (93%) as would be expected because of their classification. The first group tends to be larger and heavier than the second (128mm long, weighing 425g and 104mm long, weighing 287g respectively) (fig. 5.25).

Pebble tools

The 944 pebble tools form 57% of the tools and 16% of the total assemblage. Most (88%) are in quartzite, some in quartz (8%), and a few (4%) in flint. There are a variety of shapes and working is limited. The majority (70%) are unifacial (choppers) while 30% are bifacial (chopping tools). They are fairly small, averaging between 106mm and 108mm, but those in quartzite are bigger than those in flint or quartz (fig. 5.25).

5.1.13 Conclusion

The Pinedo assemblage is manufactured from quartzite, flint and quartz all obtained from the local fluvial gravels. Although quartzite is the most common raw material, as would be expected from its predominance in the gravels, a definite selection of flint in antiquity is evident in the assemblage. Selection is also indicated by the size of the available pebbles; pebble size in the gravels is most often between 20mm to 60mm (Diaz and Pérez-Gonzâlez 1979). The predominance of pebble tools and pebble- based artefacts in the assemblage cannot be seen as a sure indicator of an early age but is rather a reflection of the local pebble size.

The assemblage, as a whole, indicates the use of technologically simple operational chains which are both pebble and flake-based. It is dominated by the large tool element; pebble tools, unifaces/bifaces and trihedrals account for 70% of the tools. Large tools show little working, are achieved with few removals and do not have fine finishing retouch or signs of the use of a soft hammer. Striking platforms among the flake tools rarely show any preparation, retouch techniques are simple and use of the Levallois method is almost nonexistent.

The working of the different raw materials appears to be very similar, except for the presence o f cortex, striking platform preparation (cortical versus plain) and core type, in which significant differences can be discerned. Differences which are statistically significant in the working of both materials are consistently shown in both the ordinal and categorical variables for cores, but are much less apparent among flake tools.

As has been shown in the study of the Pinedo assemblage some differences between flint and quartzite have been documented. However the basic approach to the working of both materials in the assemblage is similar.

In the next section I shall discuss the materials from Porzuna which is entirely in quartzite. The assemblage offers a sharp contrast with that of Pinedo as we shall see.

Chapter 5 part II: PORZUNA