Servicio

first flake test preparation of block cortex removal platform prep. production o f blanks retouch or not of tools if unretouched - on to phase 4 use rejuvenation recycling transformations discard breakage wear Fig. 1.5. Operations in a lithic production cycle (after Geneste 1985,179)

The first three phases (0-2) cover that part of the production in which raw material is worked (debitage), either to be used as it is or to produce flake blanks. These phases may include the choosing and testing o f raw material, preparation of the block/pebble and striking platforms, removal of cortex and production of blanks. In the fourth phase (Geneste's phase 3) blanks are retouched or not, as desired, and pass onto the final two phases in which they may undergo a number of actions (use, rejuvenation, recycling) before they break, wear out or are abandoned.

These phases cover the main chain of production of a piece but will also incorporate additional chains which pertain to the byproducts resulting from the principal operations. The primary operational chain may end at phase 3 in the manufacture of pebble tools or bifaces while the secondary chain can continue in the further modification (retouch) of flakes resulting from pebble tool or biface manufacture (fig,

phase 0

phase 1 phase 2 - 3

phase 3

Primary chain Secondary chain

unworked block tested block

biface preform ——4pri biface

preform —— ^primary cortical flakes ^secondary cortical flakes

biface flzdres

biface trimming flakes functional biface —^ retouch flakes

tool

tools on waste, cortical flakes, biface trimming flakes, etc.

Fig. 1.6 Production of a biface from a block/pebble (after Geneste 1985, fig 41). 1.13 Logical Analytical approach

The logical-analytical system of analysis (Carbonell et al. 1983,1987, 1990, 1992; Carbonell and Mora 1986; Carbonell 1987) was developed for the study of unifacial and bifacial tools. Based on Laplace's analytical typology, it considers each artefact as part of a dialectic process, an evolving dynamic. The system consists of three basic elements: the morpho-technical representing the stages in a manufacturing process, the morpho-potential presenting the theoretical functional potential of the piece and m o r p h o -fu n c tio n a l or function for which a piece has been used (Rodriguez 1991). Artefacts are placed in primary groups, not on morphological criteria, but on their position in the transformation process (Carbonell et al. 1992). The unworked natural block is called a Natural Base (NB), when flakes have been removed it becomes a Negative Base o f the First Generation (NBIG ). The flake itself is a Positive Base o f the First Generation (FBI G ) which becomes a

Negative Base o f the Second Generation (NB2G ) when it is retouched. The retouching flake becomes a Positive Base o f the Second Generation (BP2G ) and so on. This may at first appear confusing but it serves to remind one that the artefact is part of a dynamic process, part of an operational chain. Carbonell et al.

(1992, 24) stress that the structural categories of the Logical-Analytical System are segments of a process and do not form a typology. A number of technological attributes are considered following a standardized procedure and the results are subjected to multivariate analysis.

The Logical Analytical System is used in parts of Spain, e.g. in Catalonia and the Guadelete Valley of southwest Spain. However, its use is not, as yet, widespread. Consequently the terminology, which is confusing, is not well understood and as a

result it can be difficult to understand lithic reports unless they are 'translated'. This occurs in most reports in which the terms 'biface', 'uniface', 'denticulate' and 'scraper' are used. When this does not occur the reports are of little value to all but those who are familiar with the system. Nevertheless, if the terminology were simplified the Logical Analytical System could prove a useful approach to the characterization and understanding of a lithic assemblage within the wider context. Of course, the degree to which the links in the operational chain can be determined depends on the nature of the assemblage; the ideal assemblage is that which is complete, in situ and in which refitting is possible. Such a scenario is rare in the Lower Palaeolithic. However, with the operational chain in mind one is inclined to consider more carefully the various factors which may affect the production of a lithic artefact. The piece becomes more than a specific shape or type. Today, French studies often include both traditional typological as well as operational chain studies (Rigaud 1988, Truffreau and Sommé 1988). In this way the determining role of the classical typological study in the characterisation of an assemblage is tempered by the history of lithic production as seen in the operational chain studies.

1.14 Research goals

In this chapter I have presented background information on raw material studies and experimental work which have led me to propose a number of hypotheses that I feel are worth testing. In addition I have presented an overview of the number of different approaches to lithic classification of which morphological classification, more specifically the Bordes typological system has been used most frequently in the Iberian Peninsula. With this in mind my research goals may be summarised as follows:

1. To determine the effect of quartzite pebbles on the typology and technology of Lower Palaeolithic stone tools, particularly those of the Spanish Meseta and central Portugal.

2. To assess the role, if any, that quartzite may play in assemblage variability. In the next chapter I will outline the approach I myself took in order to achieve these goals.

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Part I

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Assemblages chosen for special study 2.3 Technological analyses

2.4 Typological analyses 2.5 Research procedures

Part II Observations and definitions