Metodología y Procedimiento en la Determinación de Características del Suelo

The scraper (9-29), notch (42) and denticulate (43) groups are represented in all assemblages, except Q2a in which the absence of denticulates is likely due to the very small flake tool component. The scraper group is almost always one of the three most common groups and is the dominant group in nine of the assemblages (table 4.3).

Denticulates are well represented in eleven of the assemblages and are the dominant group in four. Other types which are regularly well represented are notches and the miscellaneous pieces (type 62). While notches dominate only one assemblage, the miscellaneous group dominates three and is the second most important group in another three. Retouched flakes (45-50) are important in the El Aculadero assemblages and push-planes or rabots (56) are the most common type in the Santa Maria del Guadiana collection and relatively important among the Laguna Blanca assemblage. Interestingly push-planes appear more often in the Southern Meseta material; they are present in all four assemblages from the region

but are rare or absent in the other regions. Does this indicate a cultural preference, a specific function related to the region or confusion relating to the criteria of the typologist? It is often difficult to make the distinction between cores and certain tool types in quartzite (Santonja and Pérez Gonzalez 1984, Raposo et al. 1985) and Bordes' description for push-planes suggests similar difficulties.

Naturally backed knives {38) appear in many assemblages, forming as much as 15% of the El Sartalejo SI flake tools. It is debatable whether these should be classed as tools or not: flakes with a cortical strip along one edge are often produced naturally when a pebble is knapped. The presence of such flakes (or tools) may not indicate deliberate intention on the part of the knapper, but may rather be the outcome of the natural characteristics, (rounded, cortical pebble), of the raw material.

Pieces which are uncharacteristic, badly made or unclear are typologically classed as miscellaneous (62). According to Bordes (1961, 43) the miscellaneous group should rarely form more than 10% of the total tools. This group is not represented, or forms less than 1% of the tools in the assemblages from the Southern Meseta and El Aculadero. Conversely it is present in all the other collections and is indeed one of the three most prominent types in the Northern Meseta assemblages and in the Q2a collection. How can this be explained? It will be remembered that retouched flakes are the most common type among the El Aculadero flake tool artefacts which otherwise are comprised mainly of the scraper/denticulate/notch triad. Could possible contenders for the miscellaneous category have been incorporated among the retouched flakes? It seems unlikely at El Aculadero; the material was studied by the same person (M. Santonja) who studied the Northern Meseta assemblages in which the percentage of miscellaneous pieces is high. The irregular type of retouch on the flakes of El Aculadero preclude them from being assigned to any other type. Quite possibly, too, some of the retouch on these flakes is due to natural causes (Querol and Santonja 1983). It is difficult to account for the virtual lack of miscellaneous pieces among the Southern Meseta collections. Does this represent a group which is distinct from the other areas? Does it represent a different approach to the classification of the tools or a difference in the quality of the local raw material? Implements made from coarser grained quartzite will not have the same clear cut appearance as those manufactured from a fine grained quartzite. That used at La Maya is coarse-grained, generally of poor quality and the miscellaneous pieces are often flakes with a few, isolated, large removals, or fragments of stone (pebble or tabular), sometimes thick and angular, which have been summarily retouched (see fig. 3.6). These pieces could not be easily placed in any of the other defined

categories. At La Maya, then, it seems likely that the presence of miscellaneous types can be related to the coarseness of the raw material, whereas the fine-grained quartzite exploited in the Porzuna collections may account for the rarity of miscellaneous pieces.

The percentage of atypical tool types was considered with the hypothesis that coarse-grained material is difficult to control when working, so atypical pieces wiU result more often than they would with fine-grained material. While these tools are found in all assemblages except Q2a, they appear to be much more common in those areas of the Southern Meseta in which miscellaneous tools were absent. Would many of the pieces classed as atypical in these areas have been classed as miscellaneous in other areas and vice versa? Are the differences between the Northern and Southern M eseta assemblages, as indicated in the numbers of miscellaneous and atypical tool types, real or ones of typological classification?

The Levallois or prepared core technique requires control over the raw material and a degree of expertise in flaking stone. It is not an easy technique to master in flint. In coarser materials such as quartzite, which are difficult to control and on which standardized removals cannot be assured, it will be more difficult. Use of the technique is seen, to a greater or lesser degree in most assemblages. It is more common in the later assemblages of Porzuna, El Sotillo and Milharôs where perhaps it might be expected. However, it is almost non-existent in the Middle Palaeolithic assemblages of La Maya. As mentioned above, the quartzite o f Porzuna is particularly good and that of La Maya is poor. The quartzite at Milharôs (although not as good as the Porzuna material) is reasonably fine-grained and homogeneous and appears to be relatively easy to work.

Bordes flake tool type numbers 1-5 9- 29 30- 31 34- 35 36- 37 38 40 42 43 44 45- 50 54 56 62 % aty P Galisanch 0 3 63 3 4 3 11 11 4 La Maya I Z1L2 17 10 28 18 4 La Maya I Z2L1 17 5 12 26 5 5 26 2 La Maya I Z1L4 27 6 18 24 7 La Maya I Z2L3 22 18 5 31 4 Sartalejo SI 24 15 25 19 3 Pinedo 38 12 11 11 5 6 Laguna Blanca 22 9 16 11 40 S.M.del Guadiana 12 15 15 21 29 15 El Sotillo 33 35 8 12 25 Porzuna 22 32 7 10 8 Aculadero sup. 7 14 5 67 2 Aculadero med. 6 19 1 52 6 Aculadero inf. 8 5 20 5 52 4 Milharôs 16 40 18 20 6 Q2aLis V alley 33 8 17 42 0 Quinto do Cônego 30 3 18 30 3 3 1 Casal de S. Maria 1 33 33 17 17 0

Notched triangles, pseudo microburins, tanged points and leaf shaped bifacial points (Bordes’ nos. 5 2 ,5 3 ,5 7 and 63 ) were absent from all assemblages. These pieces are characteristic of North African or Eastern European assemblages and are normally not found in Western European assemblages so that their absence in Iberia is to be expected. A further two types, limaces and tanged tools (8 and 58 ) are found only in the Porzuna collections where they account for less than 1% of the flake tools. These types, too, are not common in Western European assemblages and their absence in Iberia is not unusual. Six more types form 3% or less of the flake tool assemblages; mousterian points (6/ ) burins (32/33), raclettes (39), mousterian tranchets (41), tayac points (51), hachoirs (5 ). Once again, this is not unusual in Lower Palaeolithic assemblages. Piercers (34135) and end notches (54) (both among Bordes’ Upper Palaeolithic tool group) are found in many of the assemblages, but form 5% or less of the flake tools.

The lack, or relatively limited presence o f the above types cannot be related unequivocally to raw material constraints. As has been demonstrated these types are either rare in Lower Palaeolithic, W estern European assemblages or are normally present in reduced numbers. In this respect, the Iberian, quartzite assemblages do not differ from what would be expected in a European Acheulian assem blage.

4.8 Scrapers (table 4.4)

As mentioned above, scrapers form an important part in all flake tool assemblages. Within the scraper group, simple side scrapers (9-11 ) are usually the type most represented. However, transverse scrapers (22-24 ) and side scrapers with retouch on the ventral surface (inverse retouch, type 25 ) are also among the most common types and often exceed simple side scrapers. Experimental flake production using quartzite pebbles has shown that flakes removed from pebbles tend to be round, elliptical or short oval in shape and often wider than they are long i.e. side-struck. If this is the case, then one might suggest that on such flakes, in which the edge opposite the striking platform is longer than the lateral edges, this longer edge could be seen as the most appropriate to modify and would be chosen to be retouched. As a result increased numbers of transverse scrapers would be an expected occurrence rather than a surprising one. However, although this hypothesis m ight seem justified on the basis of the assemblages studied here, it does not always hold true; in the mainly quartzite assemblages of the Tam Valley transverse scrapers, while present, are not exceptionally common (Tavoso 1978). Although pebble morphology

may influence the production o f numbers of transverse scrapers it does not necessarily determine their presence in an assemblage.

Bordes scraper type numbers

total % % % % % % % % % % 9/29 9111 12! 17 18120 21 22/24 25 26 27 28 29 Galisancho 123 30 2 7 14 15 24 9 La Maya IZ 1L 2 24 33 8 33 21 4 La Maya IZ 2 LI 7 17 17 33 17 17 La Maya IZ1 L4 48 21 8 8 25 25 LaM ayaIZ2L3 17 18 6 6 18 35 18 El Sartalejo SI 32 22 3 6 31 22 9 3 3 Pinedo 193 29 3 1 10 28 20 4 6 Laguna Blanca 10 50 20 30 S M. del Guadiana 5 20 60 20 El Sotillo 35 26 6 9 51 Porzuna 411 20 5 3 2 29 5 1 35 Aculadero sup. 4 50 25 25 Aculadero medio 26 35 4 8 8 19 8 12 4 4 Aculadero inf 6 33 33 17 17 Milharôs 22 27 23 9 14 9 5 14

Q2a (Lis Valley) 4 75 25

Quinto de Cônego 10 80 20

Casal de S. Maria 2 50 50

Table 4.4. Scraper types represented in each assemblage

Scrapers with inverse retouch are quite commonly found among the Tam Valley assemblages, although they never exceed single side scrapers. They may also play a relatively important part of the scraper components of the La Cotte de St. Brelade flint assemblages, as do transverse scrapers occasionally, but always in much smaller percentages than simple side scrapers (Callow and Comford 1986). While most of the retouch on the flint pieces of I'Orgnac 3 is direct, about one quarter of the pieces have inverse retouch which appears to be related to those flakes whose ventral faces are more convex than the dorsal ones (Moncel and Combler 1992).

Quartzite flakes resulting from experimental work at times tend to have a ventral surface which is slightly more convex than the dorsal, and on which retouch would seem to be preferable or convenient. Perhaps this may help to explain the greater presence of inverse retouch on quartzite pieces.

Transverse scrapers and scrapers with inverse retouch are found among most scraper groups. In this respect there is nothing unusual about their presence among these quartzite assemblages. More unusual though is their abundance in many of the Iberian quartzite assemblages and their presence in those scraper groups which are numerically small.

The typological study of flake tools present in a selected number of areas shows that a number of different types have been made in quartzite. Those which are absent, or form a very minor part of an assemblage, are normally either rare types uncommon in Lower Palaeolithic assemblages or found in particular geographical areas. The most common types in these assemblages, scrapers, denticulates and notches, in particular, are those which would be expected for the period and which generally form an important part of most assemblages whether in flint or quartzite (e.g. the Somme Valley sites - Cagny L'Epinette, Gagny la Garenne, l'Atelier Commont; Leopold 1989: Tuffreau 1978, 1989 a, 1989b; Bordes and Fitte 1953). It appears, then, that quartzite does not prevent the manufacture o f tool types described in Bordes typelist. However, it may well be a reason for the lack of Levallois in the Northern Meseta, where a coarse-grained, poor quality quartzite was exploited.

Nevertheless, raw material does appear to have some effect on classification; as noted above, and seen particularly in the Northern Meseta industries, quite often those tools which do not fit the standard type, have been classed as 'miscellaneous' and form a numerically strong part of some assemblages.