ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PALEVO-767; No.ofPages16
C.R.Palevolxxx(2014)xxx–xxx
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Comptes Rendus Palevol
www . s c ie n c e d i r e c t . c o m
Human palaeontology and prehistory
The influence of raw material qualities in the lithic
technology of Gran Dolina (Units TD6 and TD10) and Galería (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain): A view from
experimental archeology
L
influence des qualités des matières premières dans l
industrie lithique de Gran Dolina (couches TD6 et TD10) et Galería (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Espagne) : une étude d’archéologie expérimentale
Marcos Terradillos-Bernal
a,∗,b, Xosé-Pedro Rodríguez-Álvarez
c,daÁreadePrehistoria,UniversidaddeBurgos,EdificioI+D+i,PlazaMisaelBa˜nueloss/n,09001Burgos,Spain
bFundaciónAtapuerca,Ctra,Logro˜noNo.44,09198IbeasdeJuarros,Burgos,Spain
cAreadePrehistoria,UniversitatRoviraiVirgili(URV),AvingudadeCatalunya35,43002Tarragona,Spain
dInstitutCatalàdePaleoecologiaHumanaiEvolucióSocial(IPHES),C/MarcellíDomingos/n,CampusSesceladesURV(EdificiW3), 43007Tarragona,Spain
a rt i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Received24October2013
Acceptedafterrevision9February2014 Availableonlinexxx
HandledbyMarcelOtte Keywords:
Experimentalknapping Rawmaterials
LowerandMiddlePaleolithic SierradeAtapuerca Lithictechnology
a b s t r a c t
ThispaperanalysesthequalitiesoftherawmaterialsusedintwoPalaeolithicsites(Gran DolinaandGalería)oftheSierradeAtapuerca(Burgos,Spain)duringtheLowerandMiddle Pleistocene,andtheirinfluenceinthedevelopmentofknapping.Thesesitesofferachrono- logicalsequencethatallowsustostudytheevolutionoflithictechnologyatalocalscale during1.2Ma.Combiningtechnologicalanalysisandexperimentalarchaeologyhasproven tobeanexcellenttoolfortheunderstandingandtheinterpretationofthequalitiesofraw materialsandtheirrelationwiththedevelopmentofthegestures,methodsandtechniques.
©2014Académiedessciences.PublishedbyElsevierMassonSAS.Allrightsreserved.
Motsclés: Tailleexpérimentale Matièrespremières
Paléolithiqueinférieuretmoyen SierradeAtapuerca
Technologielithique
r é s um é
Cetarticleanalyselesqualitésdesmatièrespremièresemployéesdansdeuxgisements (GranDolinaetGalería)delaSierradeAtapuerca(Burgos,Espagne)pendantlePléistocène inférieuretmoyen,etsoninfluencesurleprocessusdelataille.Cessitesarchéologiques ontuneséquencechronologiquequinouspermetdétudierlévolutiondelatechnologie lithiqueàuneéchellelocalependant1,2Ma.Lacombinaisond’analysestechniquesdes
∗ Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected](M.Terradillos-Bernal),[email protected](X.-P.Rodríguez-Álvarez).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2014.02.002
1631-0683/©2014Académiedessciences.PublishedbyElsevierMassonSAS.Allrightsreserved.
assemblageslithiquesaveclarchéologieexpérimentaleconstitueuneexcellenteméthode d’étudepourcomprendreetpourinterpréterlesqualitésdesmatièrespremièresetleur relationavecledéveloppementdesgestes,méthodesettechniques.
©2014Académiedessciences.PubliéparElsevierMassonSAS.Tousdroitsréservés.
1. Introduction
The Sierra de Atapuerca sites, located15km east of the city of Burgos (Spain) (Fig. 1), cover a time span- ningbetweenabout1.22Mato0.01Ma.Thischronological sequence allows us tostudy differentcultural horizons belongingtothePleistoceneandHolocene.Thehominins thatoccupiedthisenvironmentduringtheEarlyandMid- dlePleistocenedevelopedtechnologicalstrategiesthatcan beascribedtoMode1, Mode2,thetransition between Modes2and3,andMode3(Olléetal.,2013;Terradillos- BernalandDíez-Fernández-Lomana,2012)(Table1).
Oneofthereasonsforahumanpresencethroughout thislongchronologicalperiodistheexistenceinthisenvi- ronmentofawidevarietyandalargenumberoflithicraw materials(mainlyNeogenechert).
Anextensiverangeofanalyseshavebeenconductedon thelithicartefactsrecoveredfromtheSierradeAtapuerca (Carbonellet al.,1999,2001; López-Ortegaet al.,2011;
Olléetal.,2013;Rodríguez,2004;Terradillos-Bernaland Rodríguez,2012).Wehavecomplementedtheseanalyses withthedevelopmentofacomplexprogramofexperimen- talknappingthatanalysestheinfluenceofthequalitiesof therawmaterialsinthetechnologicalbehaviour.
InthispaperwestudytheGranDolina(UnitsTD6and TD10)andGaleríaassemblages,datingtotheEarly(TD6) andMiddlePleistocene(TD10,andGalería),fromthisper- spective(Table1,Fig.1).
Thedevelopmentofcomplexprogramsofexperimental knappinghasbeensuccessfulfortheanalysesofdifferent variablessuchas:rawmaterials,techniques,knappers,and technologicalmodes(Baenaand Cuartero,2006;Brenet, 2013;Perles,1991;Terradillos-BernalandAlonso-Alcalde, 2011,interalia).
2. Objectives
Theanalysesofrawmaterialoftheselevelshavespecific aims,whichmustbemetthroughthedevelopmentofthe experimentalprogram.Theaimofthispaperistoanswer questionssuchas:
•Amonga largerangeofrawmaterialsinthisenviron- ment, which are the basic characteristics of the raw materialsused?
•Howdidtheyinfluenceinthedifferentprocessesofknap- ping?
•Whatwerethebasesoftheselectionofeachrawmate- rial?
•Isit possibletoobservea selectionand/ora differen- tialuseofrawmaterialsdependingonthetechnological
modethatwasdeveloped,thefunctionalityofthesite,or themethodsofknappingused?
•Whataretheadvantagesofusingchertoverotherraw materials?
•WasthereaculturaltraditionrelatedtotheuseofCreta- ceouschert?
•WhywasCretaceouschertmainlyselectedtoproduce flakeinstruments?
•Whataretheadvantagesofusingthisrawmaterial?
3. Materials
3.1. GranDolina
GranDolinaisacavefilledwith18mofsedimentin which 11 lithostratigraphicalunits havebeen identified (TD1toTD11,frombottomtotop).
3.1.1. GranDolinaTD6
UnitTD6(Table1)hasamaximumthicknessof2.40m andisconstitutedessentiallyofcalcareousconglomerates, pebblesandlimestonegravelwithinamatrixcomposedof sandandclay(Pérez-Gonzálezetal.,2001).TD6lies1m belowtheMatuyama–Brunheslimit(locatedatthetopof layerTD7)(ParésandPérez-González,1999),andhasbeen datedbyacombinationofESRandpalaeomagnetictech- niquestobetween780and857ka(Falguèresetal.,1999), andbythermoluminescenceto>960±120ka(Bergeretal., 2008).Anewpalaeomagneticstudyindicatesaminimum ageof936kaforthearchaeo-paleontologicalrecordofTD6 (Paréset al., 2013).TD6 stands out for thepresence of humanremainsclassifiedasHomoantecessor (Carbonell etal.,1995)withevidenceofcannibalism(Carbonelletal., 2010;Fernández-Jalvoetal.,1996).
Thisstudyinvolvedanalysisofasampleof570pieces from sublevels TD6-1 and 2 (excavations carried out between 1994and 1996 and between2003 and 2006).
To datethetotal number of piecesrecovered atTD6 is 999(Table3).ThelithicindustryofTD6hasbeenclassi- fiedasMode1,thoughitdisplayscertainfeatureswhich pointtodevelopmentsattheoldestEarlyPleistocenesites in southern Europe,such asraw material management (particularlythepreferential useofCretaceouschertfor instrumentsmadewithflakes)andtheuseofvaried,more complex knapping strategies (Carbonell and Rodríguez, 2006;Carbonelletal.,1999;Olléetal.,2013).
Rawmaterialmanagementischaracterisedbytheuse ofmostlyNeogenechert.Thesecondaryrawmaterialsat thesiteareCretaceouschert,limestone,quartzite,quartz andsandstone.Alltheserawmaterialsarelocalandappear within a maximum distance of five kilometres (Fig. 2, Table2).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PALEVO-767; No.ofPages16
M.Terradillos-Bernal,X.-P.Rodríguez-Álvarez/C.R.Palevolxxx(2014)xxx–xxx 3
Fig.1.Locationofthestudiedsites.
Fig.1. Localisationdesgisementsétudiés.
Instrumentsmadefrompebbles(0.1%)arescarce,while those made from medium-sized thick flakes are more plentiful.Ahighpercentageofhammerstonesandmanu- ports(12.5%)havebeenrecovered.Theknappingstrategies documented in Unit TD6 are characterised by the use of orthogonal angles. This orthogonal knapping could havebeenconditionedbythemorphologyofthePalaeo- zoicmaterials(quartziteand sandstone)that areonthe ArlanzónT4terrace,whichisthenearesttoGranDolina (Fig.3-1).AuniquefeatureinTD6isthepresenceoflarge Neogenechertcores(upto26cminlength)withalack ofintensivereduction(Fig.3-6).ThehomininsofTD6pro- duced23.4flakesperkilogramfromchertandanaverage of18 flakesfromothermaterials.Amongtheretouched flakesthereisasignificantpresenceofdenticulates,convex dihedrals(scrapers),andconcavedihedrals(notches).
3.1.2. GranDolinaTD10
Unit TD10 (Table 1) is divided into four lithostrati- graphicsubunits(TD10.4toTD10.1,frombottomtothe top),witha maximum thicknessof 2.50m. Atthe time whenTD10wasformedtheentrancetothecavewasinthe formofalargerocksheltercausedbythecollapseofthe roof.ESRcombinedwithuranium-seriesdatinggiveages
of337±29kafortheupperpartofTD10-1;379±57kaat thebottomofTD10-1and418±63kaintheupperpartof TD10-2(Falguèresetal.,1999).Thermoluminescencedat- inghasgivenagesofbetween244±26kaforTD10-2and 430±59kaforTD10-3(Bergeretal.,2008).
Forthisstudyweanalysedasampleofthelithicreper- toiresofTD10-1(914pieces)andTD10-2(1853pieces).Up tonowatotalof31,680artefactshavebeenfoundinTD10- 1andTD10-2,although9366wereindeterminabledueto preservationproblems(Table3).Thelithicindustryofthe upperlevelsofTD10(TD10-1andTD10-2)hasbeenclas- sifiedastransitionalbetweenModes2and3(Olléetal., 2013).Thislithicindustryis characterisedbyarational, intensivemanagementofthebest-qualityrawmaterials, andatendencytowardsstandardisationofsmallpieces.
ThemostcommonlyusedrawmaterialisNeogenechert (Table2).TheuseofchertincreasesinTD10-2,reachingas muchas95.7%ofthetotal.TD10produced170flakesper kilogramfromchertandanaverageof38flakesfromother materials.
InTD10,thechaîneopératoireis fragmented,because partoftheknappingwasdoneawayfromthesite.Flake production processes arecharacterizedby thelow per- centage of cores and their introduction to the site at
Table1
ArchaeologicallevelsfromAtapuercasitesstudiedinthiswork.
Tableau1
Ensemblesarchéologiquesdesgisementsd’Atapuercaétudiésdanscetravail.
Site/level Karstic morphology
Dating(ka) Studiedsample Technology
GranDolina TD10-1a
Rockshelter 337±29ESR/SeriesU (Falguèresetal.,2001)
471 TransitionMode2–Mode3 GranDolina
TD10-1b
Rockshelter 379±57ESR/SeriesU(Falguèresetal., 2001)
481 TransitionMode2–Mode3 GranDolina
TD10-2
Cave 244±26TL(Bergeretal.,2008) 418±63ESR/SeriesU(Falguèresetal., 2001)
1853 TransitionMode2–Mode3
GranDolina TD10-3
Cave 430±59TL(Bergeretal.,2008) – Mode2
GranDolina TD6
Cave 780–857ESR/paleomagnetic (Falguèresetal.,1999)
>936paleomagnetic(Parésetal.,2013)
>960±120TL/IRSL(Bergeretal.,2008)
570 Mode1
GaleriaGIII, series1
Cave 256±23
TL/IRSL(Berger etal.,2008)
200–300ESR-US (Falguèresetal.,2013)
151 TransitionMode2–Mode3
GaleriaGIII, series2
Cave 466±39TL
(Bergeretal., 2008)
152 TransitionMode2–Mode3
GaleriaGII, series3
Cave 229 Mode2
GaleriaGII, series4
Cave 422±55TL
(Bergeretal., 2008)
350–450ESR-US (Falguèresetal.,2013)
203 Mode2
GaleriaGII, series5
Cave 503±95TL
(Bergeretal., 2008)
285 Mode2
TL:thermoluminescence;IRSL:infraredstimulatedluminescence;U:uranium;ESR:electronspinresonance.
Fig.2.(Colouronline).Originoftherawmaterialsusedintheexperimentalprogram.1:UtrillasQuartzite;2:Cretaceouschert;3:limestone;4:Neogene chert;5:sandstone;6:quartzitefromtheArlanzónriver;7:quartz.
Fig.2. (Couleurenligne).Originedesmatièrespremièresemployéesdansleprogrammeexpérimental.1:Quartzitedufaciès«Utrillas»;2:silexcrétacé; 3:calcaire;4:silexnéogène;5:grès;6:quartzitedelarivièreArlanzón;7:quartz.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PALEVO-767; No.ofPages16
M.Terradillos-Bernal,X.-P.Rodríguez-Álvarez/C.R.Palevolxxx(2014)xxx–xxx 5
Fig.3.ExperimentalandarchaeologicallithicindustryfromAtapuercasitesI.1:LimestonepebbleinstrumentfromTD6;2:experimentallimestonepebble instrument;3:experimentalsandstonepebbleinstrument;4:experimentalUtrillasquartzitepebbleinstrumentandflakes;5:limestonepebbleinstrument formTD10;6:coreonNeogenechertfromTD6;7:experimentalcoremadewithNeogenechert;8:experimentalLevalloisNeogenechertcore;9:Levallois NeogenechertcorefromTD10;10:discoidalcorefromGalería(Cretaceouschert);11:experimentaldiscoidalcoreonCretaceouschert.
Fig.3. IndustrielithiqueexpérimentaleetarchéologiquedesgisementsdAtapuercaI.1:OutillithiquesurgaletencalcairedeTD6;2:outillithique expérimentalsurgaletdecalcaire;3:outillithiqueexpérimentalsurgaletdegrès;4:outillithiqueexpérimentalsurgaletdequartzited’Utrillas;5:outil lithiquesurgaletdegrèsdeTD10;6:nucléusdesilexnéogènedeTD6;7:nucléusexpérimentalensilexnéogène;8:nucléusexpérimentalLevalloisen silexnéogène;9:nucléusLevalloisensilexnéogènedeTD10;10:nucléusdiscoïdeensilexcrétacédeGalería;11:nucléusexpérimentaldiscoïdeensilex crétacé.
Table2
RawmaterialsofthelithicassemblagesofGranDolinaandGalería.
Tableau2
MatièrespremièreslithiquesdesensemblesarchéologiquesdeGranDolinaetGalería.
Levels Neogenechert Cretaceous chert
Indeterminable.
chert
Quartzite Sandstone Quartz Limestone Other Total
TD6 391
(39.1%)
98 (9.8%)
0 248
(24.8%)
90 (9.0%)
77 (7.7%)
95 (9.5%)
0 999
GII 647
(64.0%)
54 (5.3%)
0 172
(17.0%)
80 (7.9%)
18 (1.8%)
37 (3.7%)
3 (0.3%)
1011 GIII 450
(56.5%)
24 (3.0%)
0 180
(22.6%)
95 (11.9%)
15 (1.9%)
24 (3.0%)
9 (1.1%)
797 TD10-27457
(76.1%)
1671 (17.1%)
243 (2.5%)
176 (1.8%)
164 (1.7%)
51 (0.5%)
18 (0.2%)
16 (0.2%)
9796 TD10-111,206
(51.2%)
1453 (6.6%)
766 (3.5%)
3768 (17.2%)
3905 (17.8%)
708 (3.2%)
57 (0.3%)
21 (0.1%)
21,884
intermediate knapping phases. The Levallois and Dis- coidmethodsweredevelopedalmostexclusivelyonchert (Fig.3-9).TheDiscoidknappingmethodstandsoutamong otheroperativeprocessesusedatthesite. TheLevallois methodhasbeendocumentedbutinsmallnumbersand avarietyofforms(Olléetal.,2013;Terradillos-Bernaland Rodríguez,2012).
Fewinstruments made from limestone, quartzite or sandstone pebbles have been recovered in TD10-1 and TD10-2, and all weremade with low tomedium qual- itymaterials(Fig.3-5).Denticulateddihedralsandconvex continuousdihedrals(scrapers)predominate(Fig.4-8–10 and12).
3.2. Galería
Galeríais made ofthree different deposits: theTres SimasBocaNorte (TN),Galería(TG)andCovachadelos Zarpazos(TZ).Archaeopalaeontologicalmaterialhasbeen recoveredfromtwoofthesixlithostratigraphicunits(GII and GIII),and five lithic serieshave been distinguished withintheseunits(Table1).Thissitefunctionedmainly asanaturaltrapduetotheexistenceofaverticalshaft locatedinTN(DíezandRosell,1998).Datingshavegiven anageof256±23ka (TLandIRSL)for UnitGIIIb(lithic seriesI),466±39ka(TL)forUnitGIIIa(lithicseriesII),and 503±95ka(TL)forUnitGIIa(lithicseriesV)(Bergeretal., 2008).AccordingtoFalguèresetal.(2013)theESRages
ofGIIIandGIIbunits(seriesI–III)rangebetween200and 300ka,whereasforGIIa(seriesIVandV)theESR-USages rangebetween350and450ka.
Thisstudyinvolvedanalysisofasampleof1011pieces (totalNo.1808)(Table3).ThelithicseriesofGaleríahave beenassignedtoMode2(Olléetal.,2013),although,twoof themostmodernseries(IandII,fromUnitGIII)maybelong toatransitionalphasebetweenModes2and3(Terradillos- BernalandDíez-Fernández-Lomana,2012).Neogenechert isthemostwidelyusedmaterial,butinamuchlowerpro- portionthanthedocumentedinTD6andTD10.Another differenceamongGalería,TD6andTD10isthehighpres- enceofhammerstonesandmanuportsinGalería(27.2%of thedeterminablepiecesinUnitGIII),primarilyofquartzite.
Quartziteandsandstonewereintroducedmainlyasnatural bases,shapedtools,andflakes.
Qualitatively,theLevalloisandDiscoidmethodsstand out.Bothofthemweredevelopedonchert(Fig.3-10).A considerabledifferencehasbeenfoundintheproportionof flakesinthemostancientlevelsofGalería(54.5%)andthe mostrecent(35.5%).Galeríaproduced37flakesperkilo- gramfromchertandanaverageof9.6flakesfromother rawmaterials.
At this site, the larger,heavier flakes wereselected, along withthebestraw materialstomake tools.Trihe- drals, handaxes,and cleaversare rare(Fig.4-1).Among smaller instruments, denticulated dihedrals and simple convexdihedrals(scrapers)predominate(Fig.4-13).
Table3
TechnologicalcategoriesofthelithicassemblagesofGranDolinaandGalería.
Tableau3
CatégoriestechnologiquesdesensembleslithiquesdeGranDolinaetGalería.
Levels Hammerstones/
manuports
Pebble/block cores
Flake cores
Pebble tools
Flake tools
Whole flakes
Broken flakes
Fragments Totaldeter- minable
IndeterminableTotal
TD6 93 (12.5%)
52 (7.0%)
5 (0.7%)
1 (0.1%)
61 (8.2%)
297 (40.0%)
174 (23.4%)
60 (8.1%)
743 (74.4%)
256 (25.6%)
999 GII 100
(14.5%)
10 (1.4%)
8 (1.2%)
18 (2.6%)
166 (24.1%)
234 (33.9%)
142 (20.6%)
12 (1.7%)
690 (68.2%)
321 (31.8%)
1011 GIII 151
(27.2%)
4 (0.7%)
24 (4.3%)
11 (2.0%)
143 (25.8%)
140 (25.2%)
57 (10.3%)
25 (4.5%)
555 (69.6%)
242 (30.4%)
797 TD10-232
(0.5%)
29 (0.5%)
30 (0.5%)
1 (0.01%)
322 (5.3%)
3656 (59.9%)
1684 (27.6%)
348 (5.7%)
6102 (62.3%)
3694 (37.7%)
9796 TD10-1177
(1.1%)
109 (0.7%)
92 (0.6%)
17 (0.1%)
719 (4.4%)
8637 (53.3%)
5184 (32.0%)
1277 (7.9%)
16,212 (74.1%)
5,672 (25.9%)
21,884
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PALEVO-767; No.ofPages16
M.Terradillos-Bernal,X.-P.Rodríguez-Álvarez/C.R.Palevolxxx(2014)xxx–xxx 7
Fig.4. ExperimentalandarchaeologicallithicindustryfromAtapuercasitesII:1:QuartzitehandaxefromGalería;2:experimentalquartzitehandaxe;
3:experimentalNeogenecherthandaxe(hardandsofthammer);4:experimentalNeogenecherthandaxe(hardhammer);5:denticulatefromTD6 (Cretaceouschert);6and8:convexdihedralsfromTD10(Cetaceouschert);7:experimentalinstrumentsmadewithCetaceouschert;9:denticulatefrom TD10(Neogenechert);10:denticulatefromTD10(quartzitefromtheArlanzónriver);11:experimentalinstrumentsmadewithNeogenechert;12:point fromTD10(Utrillasquartzite);13:convexdihedral(sidescraper)fromGalería(quartzitefromtheArlanzónriver);14:experimentalinstrumentsmade withquartzitefromtheArlanzónriver.
Fig.4. IndustrielithiqueexpérimentaleetarchéologiquedesgisementsdAtapuercaII.1:BifaceenquartzitedeGalería;2:bifaceenquartziteexpéri- mental;3:bifaceensilexnéogèneexpérimental(percuteurenpierreetpercuteurtendre);4:bifaceensilexnéogèneexpérimental(percuteurenpierre); 5:denticuléensilexcrétacédeTD6;6et8:dièdreconvexeensilexcrétacédeTD10;7:outilslithiquesexpérimentauxensilexcrétacé;9:denticulé ensilexnéogènedeTD10;10:denticuléenquartzitedelarivièreArlanzóndeTD10;11:outilslithiquesexpérimentauxensilexnéogène;12:pointe enquartzited’UtrillasdeTD10;13:dièdreconvexedeGaleríaenquartzitedelarivièreArlanzón;14:outilslithiquesexpérimentauxenquartzitedela rivièreArlanzón.
4. Methods
Theexperimentalanalysisallowsustobetterunder- standsomefeaturesofthelithictechnologyusedbythe homininsinthepast,suchas:
•thecharacteristicsofthefractureoftherawmaterials;
•theinfluenceofblankmorphologyintheknapping;
•theadjustmentof theknapping processes totheraw material quality, that is, the technical problems the homininshadtoface,andthepossibilitiesthattheyhad tobeabletocorrectthem,forexamplechangingtheir techniqueoradaptingtheirknappingmethodstotheraw materialconstraints.
First,we developedan extensivesurveyof theenvi- ronmentoftheSierradeAtapuerca,inordertolocatethe supplysourcesofthelithicrawmaterialusedinthearchae- ologicalsites.
Theexperimentalprogramconsistedof92individual- izedexperiments(45focusedonflakeproductionand47 ontoolshaping)usingsevenrawmaterials(Neogeneand Cretaceouschert,Limestone,Utrillasfaciesquartzite,and Arlanzónriversandstone,quartzite,andquartz).
Tenknapperswithverydiversetheoreticalandpractical knowledgetookpartintheexperiments(Tables4and5).
This allowed us to differentiate the technical variables determinedbytheknowledgeandthephysicalconditions oftheknapperswiththevariablesdeterminedbytheraw materials(Terradillos-BernalandAlonso-Alcalde,2011).
Theexperimentalprogramwasmadeupoftwocom- plementarylevels:
•generalqualitiesofrawmaterials:we conductedgen- eralexperimentswiththerawmaterialsusedin Gran Dolina and Galeríato study thefracture standards of thesematerials. We analysed seven primary types of rocks:Neogenechert,Cretaceouschert(chertisdivided in these two petrologic groups), Quartzite from the Arlanzónriver,UtrillasQuartzite,Sandstone,Quartzand limestone(Tables2,4and5,Fig.2).Weanalysedtheir physical-mechanicalpropertiestoinfertheinitialtech- nicalproblemsthatthehomininsatthesesitesfacedand thewaysinwhichtheymayhavedealtwiththoseprob- lems;
•relationoftherawmaterialqualitieswiththeknapping methodsandtechniques:oneofthemainphasesofthis experimentalknappingprogramconsistedoftherepli- cationofthetechniques,andshapingandexploitation methodsidentified in the archaeological assemblages.
Weanalysedtheirresponsetothedifferentmethodsand techniquesusedandwhetherthetechniquestheyused hadtobeadaptedtotherawmaterialschosen.
Our study of technological processes (archaeological andexperimental)wasbasedonthestageinwhich the objectswereproducedduringtheknappingsequence.The objectswereclassifiedintostructuralcategories(hammer- stonesandmanuports,cores,retouchedinstruments,and flakes).Weanalysedsomecommoncharacteristicsacross allstructuralcategories,suchasrawmaterial,morphology,
weight,sizeandproductionmethods/techniques,aswellas particularfeaturessuchasobliquity,reductionintensity, andedgedelineation.Wealsoanalysedthemorphologyof thecuttingedges(Carbonelletal.,1982;Terradillos-Bernal andRodríguez,2012).
5. Resultsoftheexperimentalprogram
5.1. Characteristicsandqualitiesofrawmaterials 5.1.1. Neogenechert
TheNeogenechertbelongstotheLateMiocene(Pineda, 1997),anditisfoundintheformoflargeblocksthatout- croppedfollowingtheerosionoftheAstaracianmarlsand marlylimestoneinwhichtheywerecontained(Olléetal., 2013).
Neogenechertishighlyheterogeneousinitsreaction toknapping(Table6,Fig.2-4).Theheterogeneityconsists oftwomainareas:theinterior,whichfeatureslittlecrys- tallizationandcontainsgeodes;andtheexterior(between 1and10cm),whichfeaturesaverythin,homogeneously crystallizedgrain.Theoutsidematerialisnotexcessively hard,whereastheinteriorrequiresgreaterknappinginten- sityduetothelackofthetransmissionofforce.Therelative softnessof this materialmeansit canbeknappedwith smallhammers.
5.1.2. Cretaceouschert
CretaceouschertbelongstotheTuronian-LowerSan- tonian(Pineda,1997).Thisisafossiliferouschertwitha microcrystallinewackestonestructure(Olléetal.,2013).
Cretaceouscherthasamediumtohighsuitabilityfor knappingbutthisislimitedbyitssmallsize,polyhedraland thickmorphology,andthepresenceofsomeirregularities andfissures(Table6,Fig.2-2).Itisamaterialthatrequires theuseoflow-middleforceattheinitialstagesofknapping andmiddle-intenseforceduringtheadvancedreduction phases,especiallyiftheanglesareabrupt.Proportionally largehammersandnarrowpercussionplatformshaveto beusedtopreventovershots.
5.1.3. Utrillasfaciesquartzite
Utrillas quartzite is a Cretaceous material (Albian).
The tenacious rocks (compact quartzarenite), or the verytenacious(metaquartzite,orthoquartzite)havebeen generically labelled quartzite (Ollé et al., 2013; Pineda, 1997).
Utrillas facies quartzite(Table6) is a veryabundant material and hasgood qualitiesfor knapping(Fig.2-1).
Itsadvantagesarethatitiseasytocontroltheproducts obtained,itresultsinalimitednumberofaccidentsand it produces regularandvery hard edges,but itsspheri- calmorphology,itshardnessand thefissurespresentin approximately 70% of thepieces are itsprimary disad- vantages.Itsmorphologyrequirestheuseoflarge,dense hammersandsharpstrikesbytheknapper,especiallydur- ingthephasesinwhichthesizeisreducedandpercussion anglesincrease.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PALEVO-767; No.ofPages16
M.Terradillos-Bernal,X.-P.Rodríguez-Álvarez/C.R.Palevolxxx(2014)xxx–xxx 9 Table4
Primaryfeaturesintheexperimentationswithdifferentknappers.
Tableau4
Caractéristiquesprincipalesdesexpérimentationsavecdifférentstailleurs.
Knappers Experienceandknowledge Experimentdevelopment
Practice Theoretical Experience withchert
Methodsand techniques
Support Accidents Flakes
production
1 Medium High No Bif.CeAlt. Air Platform
fractures
Medium
2 Medium High No Bif.CeAlt. Air Hingedflakes,
platform fractures
High
3 Null Null No Internal
percussion
Ground Fractures Low
4 High High Yes Levallois Air Hingedflakes Medium
5 High High Yes UniCemassive Air Plungingflakes High
6 Low Medium Yes Bif.OrAlt. Air Platform
fractures
Low
7 High High Yes Bif.CeAlt./Trif.
marginal
Ground Hingedflakes, platform fractures
High
8 Veryhigh High Yes Bif.Ce/Levallois Air No High
9 Veryhigh High Yes Levallois/Discoid Leg/Air Siretfractures
andhinged flakes
High
10 Medium Low Yes Bif.OrAlt. Leg Siretfractures
andhinged flakes
Medium
Trif.:trifacial;Bif.:bifacial;Uni:unifacial;Ce:centripetal;Alt.:alternating;Or:orthogonal.
5.1.4. Arlanzónriverquartzite
TheArlanzónRiverprovidesPalaeozoicmaterials,from La Demanda ridge (quartzite, sandstone and quartz).
Among the different varieties of quartzite from the Arlanzón river terraces (Table 6, Fig. 2-6), we anal- ysed the ones with the best qualities for knapping.
Thisrawmaterialrepresents3%ofthepebbles(accord- ing to the analysis of a sample of 800 pebbles) in the Arlanzón river terrace area. They are large, irregular pebbles with an average length of 10cm. The grain is thin, the structure is homogeneous and they tend to lackfissuresorfractures.Theexperimentalanalyseshave allowed us to know that their suitability for knapping is only ordinary because the cortex impedes the cor- recttransmissionofforce,resultinginshort,quadrangular products.
5.1.5. Arlanzónriversandstone
Sandstonerepresents21%ofthepebblesinthediffer- entterracesoftheRiverArlanzón(Table6,Fig.2-5).These aremedium-sizedtolargepebbleswithanaveragelength of9.1cmandtendtobeflat.Ourexperimentsshowthat sandstoneisasoftmaterialwithahomogeneousstructure andthintomedium-sizedgrain.Itfeaturesaconsiderable number of frontalfissuresthat determinetheknapping processesandcausenumerousfractures.Thereductionof thismaterialnormallyrequirestheuseofawideplatform, which generatesmassive products. The flakes resulting from this rawmaterial are veryirregular, have sinuous edges,littlecuttingcapacityandareveryfragile.Thisisa verysuitablematerialfortheproductionoflarge,forceful, flattools.
5.1.6. Arlanzónriverquartz
Quartzrepresents13%ofthepebblesintheterracesof theRiverArlanzón(Table6,Fig.2-7).Thesepebblesare smallandthickwithathintomedium-sizedgrainandhave someirregularitiesandfissuresthatcrossthethreebase axes.Thefissurescausefractured,hingedflakes(manyof themwithSiretfractures),whichhavelimitedpotentialfor use.
5.1.7. Limestone
Limestonewasprocuredfromthekarst,fromtheCre- taceoussubstratumoftheSierradeAtapuerca(Olléetal., 2013).Limestoneisthemostabundantandthegeograph- ically closest raw material in the Sierra de Atapuerca (Table6,Fig.2-3).Itappearsinthickandirregularblocks distributedbothinsideandoutsidethecaves.Itsproper- tiesmakeitapoormaterialforknappinganditishighly heterogeneous.
5.2. Theinfluenceofrawmaterialsontheknapping techniquesandmethods
5.2.1. Exploitation:theproductionofflakes(débitage) We carried out eight experiments using theDiscoid method(wellrepresented inMiddle Pleistoceneassem- blages).When it is used on Neogene chert theDiscoid methodallowsalargenumberofflakeswithhomogeneous morphologiestobeextractedusingwidepercussionplat- formsandlimitedforce.Inthefinalstagesofexploitation, principallywithquartziteandCretaceouschert,moreacci- dentsoccurwiththismethod,mostcommonlyfractures (oftenSiretfractures)andhingedflakes(Fig.3-8and11).
TheLevalloismethodwasusedin15experimentsin itsdifferentvariants,inthreeofthemcombinedwiththe
Table5
Listofknappingexperiments.
Tableau5
Listedesexpérimentationsdetaille.
No.Experiment Knapper Rawmaterial Methods Knappingobjective
1 1 Neogenechert Alternatingcentripetalunifacial E
2 2 Neogenechert Alternatingcentripetalunifacial E
3 3 Neogenechert Improvisation E
4 4 Neogenechert Levallois E
5 5 Neogenechert Massivecentripetalunifacial E
6 6 Neogenechert Massivebifacialorthogonal E
7 7 Neogenechert Alternatingcentripetalunifacial/Trifacial E
8 8 Neogenechert Centripetalbifacial/levallois E
9 9 Neogenechert Levallois/Discoid E
10 10 Neogenechert Massivecentripetalbifacial E
11 5 Neogenechert Centripetalbifacial/discoid//levallois E
12 5 Neogenechert Centripetalbifacial.largesize E
13 5 Neogenechert Centripetalbifacial.largesize E
14 5 Neogenechert Discoid E
15 5 Neogenechert Discoid E
16 5 Neogenechert Recurrentlevallois E
17 5 Neogenechert Recurrentlevallois E
18 5 Neogenechert Bipolarknappingonanvil E
19 5 Neogenechert Bipolarknappingonanvil E
20 5 Neogenechert Bipolarknappingonanvil E
21 5 Neogenechert Bifacialhandaxe C
22 5 Neogenechert Bifacialhandaxe C
23 5 Neogenechert Bifacialhandaxe C
24 5 Neogenechert Bifacialhandaxe C
25 5 Neogenechert Bifacialhandaxe C
26 5 Neogenechert Bifacialhandaxe C
27 5 Neogenechert Cleaver C
28 5 Neogenechert Cleaver C
29 5 Neogenechert Cleaver C
30 5 Neogenechert Convexdihedral C
31 5 Neogenechert Denticulatedihedral C
32 5 Neogenechert Concavedihedral C
33 5 Neogenechert Straightdihedral C
34 5 Neogenechert Trihedralwithbilateraldihedrals C
35 5 Neogenechert Punchdihedral C
36 5 Cretaceouschert Discoid/Recurrentandlinearlevallois E
37 5 Cretaceouschert Discoid E
38 5 Cretaceouschert Discoid E
39 5 Cretaceouschert Recurrentlevallois E
40 5 Cretaceouschert Recurrentlevallois E
41 5 Cretaceouschert Recurrentlevallois E
42 5 Cretaceouschert Convexdihedral C
43 5 Cretaceouschert Denticulatedihedral C
44 5 Cretaceouschert Concavedihedral C
45 5 Cretaceouschert Straightdihedral C
46 5 Cretaceouschert Punchdihedral C
47 5 Quartzite(Utrillas) Discoid E
48 5 Quartzite(Utrillas) Discoid E
49 5 Quartzite(Utrillas) Discoid E
50 5 Quartzite(Utrillas) Preferentiallevallois E
51 5 Quartzite(Utrillas) Recurrentlevallois E
52 5 Quartzite(Utrillas) Massivelongitudinalunipolarunifacial E
53 5 Quartzite(Utrillas) Point/Convexdihedral E
54 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Recurrentlevallois E
55 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Recurrentlevallois E
56 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Recurrentlevallois C
57 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Massivecentripetalunifacial E
58 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Largetrihedral E
59 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Cleaver E
60 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Cleaver E
61 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Bifacialhandaxe C
62 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Bifacialhandaxe C
63 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Bifacialhandaxe C
64 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Convexdihedral C
65 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Denticulatedihedral C
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PALEVO-767; No.ofPages16
M.Terradillos-Bernal,X.-P.Rodríguez-Álvarez/C.R.Palevolxxx(2014)xxx–xxx 11 Table5(Continued)
No.Experiment Knapper Rawmaterial Methods Knappingobjective
66 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Concavedihedral C
67 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Straightdihedral C
68 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Trihedralwithbilateraldihedrals C
69 5 Quartize(Arlanzón) Punchdihedral C
70 5 Sandstone Massivelongitudinalunipolarunifacial C
71 5 Sandstone Massivelongitudinalunipolarunifacial C
72 5 Sandstone Cleaver C
73 5 Sandstone Cleaver E
74 5 Sandstone Bifacialhandaxe E
75 5 Sandstone Bifacialhandaxe C
76 5 Sandstone Bifacialhandaxe C
77 5 Sandstone Bifacialhandaxe C
78 5 Sandstone Convexdihedral C
79 5 Sandstone Denticulatedihedral C
80 5 Sandstone Concavedihedral C
81 5 Sandstone Straightdihedral C
82 5 Sandstone Trihedralwithbilateraldihedrals C
83 5 Sandstone Punchdihedral C
84 5 Quartz Bipolarknappingonanvil C
85 5 Quartz Bipolarknappingonanvil C
86 5 Quartz Bipolarknappingonanvil C
87 5 Quartz Alternatingcentripetalunifacial E
88 5 Quartz Massivelongitudinalunipolarunifacial E
89 5 Limestone Massivelongitudinalbipolarunifacial E
90 5 Limestone Alternatingcentripetalunifacial E
91 5 Limestone Longitudinalunipolarunifacial C
92 5 Limestone Longitudinalunipolarunifacial C
Quartzite(Arlanzón):quartzitefromtheArlanzónriver;quartzite(Utrillas):quartzitefromthe“Utrillas”facies;knappingobjective.E:exploitation (productionofflakes);C:shapingoftools.
Discoid method.Thiscombinationis rareinthearchae- ologicalassemblagesstudied,buthasagreat qualitative value. The Levallois method is considerably efficient (high/middle)whenitisusedonNeogenechert(sixexperi- ments)andisevenmoreefficientwhencombinedwiththe Discoidmethod.OnNeogenechert,thebestresultswith Levalloismethodwereobtainedfromthickflakeblanks.On Cretaceouschert(fourexperiments),theLevalloismethod seemsto bea relatively inefficientstrategy due to two basicreasons:thelimitedsizeoftheblanks,whichmakes prehensiondifficult,andthepresenceofatleastonefis- sure.Theproductsthattypicallytendtoberelatedtothis methodwerenotgenerated(Fig.3-8).
WhenweusedUtrillasquartzite(twoexperiments)the Levalloismethodwasperfectlyadapted tothehomoge- neousqualitiesofthematerial.ThequartzitefromtheRiver Arlanzón (threeexperiments) yielded numeroushinged flakesandtheinitialmorphometryoftheblankswasworse suitedtotheLevalloismethod.
We conducted nine experiments using the uni- facial/bifacial massive unipolar method or using the centripetalmethod(Fig.3-2–4).InexperimentswithNeo- genechertwewereabletoselectlarge,verythickbases withwide,non-corticalinitialplatforms.Thisallowedus toobtainlarge,thickflakesfromthefirstreductionphase, almostwithapredeterminedmorphologyiftheedgesand angleswerewellcontrolled.Thisisa veryopportunistic andquickmethod,suitableforusewithlargefragmentsof Neogenechert.
Sixexperimentswerecarriedoutwithbipolarknapping onanvilonNeogenechert(n=3)andquartz(n=3).Noneof theexperimentsimprovedupontheresultsproducedwith othertechniquesandmethods.
5.2.2. Shaping
In Gran Dolina TD6 and TD10 instrumentsmade on pebblesarescarceandallweremadeoflowtomedium qualitymaterialslikelimestoneorquartziteofscantyqual- itybecausetheyareshortcycletools,whichonlyneeda heavyweight.Weverifiedexperimentallythatthemaking ofpebbletoolsisverysimple,affectingonlyasmallpropor- tionoftheedgeandcloselyconnectedtotheuseofweight asanactivefactor.
Weverifiedthattheselectionoftheinitialrawmaterials for the configuration of handaxes and cleavers (docu- mented in Galería) gave priority to morphology over quality,havingselectedflatsandstonepebblesandbigNeo- genechertflakes.
In the case of small flake instruments the produc- tionischaracterizedbyitssimplicityandspeed(between 10secondsand2minutes)(Fig.4-7,11,and14).Neogene chertyieldsthelargestformatsandthesharpestedges.Cre- taceouschertpresentsmoreregularandresistantedges, butrequiresagreaterinvestmentofforce(Table6).The smallsizeofCretaceouschertpiecesdoesnotallownumer- ousreactivationphasestobecarriedout.Retouchiseasy onthequartziteandsandstoneoftheArlanzónterraces, althoughtheresultingflakeedgesaredullerandlessregu- lar.Therectificationofknappingaccidentsismorecomplex withthesematerials.
6. Discussion
6.1. Rawmaterialsselection
Comparingarchaeologicalandexperimentalartefactsin Cretaceouschertdemonstrateshowearlyhomininshadto
thisarticleinpressas:Terradillos-Bernal,M.,Rodríguez-Álvarez,X.-P.,TheinfluenceofrawmaterialqualitiestechnologyofGranDolina(UnitsTD6andTD10)andGalería(SierradeAtapuerca,Burgos,Spain):Aviewarcheology.C.R.Palevol(2014),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2014.02.002
AR TICLE IN PRESS
No.ofPages16M.Terradillos-Bernal,X.-P.Rodríguez-Álvarez/C.R.Palevolxxx(2014)xxx–xxx
Table6
PrimaryfeaturesoftherawmaterialsusedatGranDolinaandGalería.
Tableau6
CaractéristiquesprincipalesdesmatièrespremièresutiliséesàGranDolinaetàGalería.
Geological origin
Spatialorigin Abundance Size Homogeneity Grain Resistanceto
fracture
Qualityfor knapping
Qualityofthe cuttingedge Neogenechert LateMiocene 1.5–3km.
Erosionplains
High Verylarge Medium Micro Low Medium/high High
Cretaceouschert Turonian–Lower Santonian
1.5–2km.
Erosionplains
Low Small High Micro Medium Medium/high High
Utrillasquartzite Utrillas facies/Cretaceous
4km.Fluvial paleochannel
High Large High Fine Medium/high Medium/high High
ArlanzónQuartzite Palaeozoic <0.5km.
Fluvialterraces andcolluviums
High Large Medium Fine/medium Medium Medium Medium
Quartz Palaeozoic <0.5km.
Fluvialterraces andcolluviums
Medium Medium Low Fine/medium Medium Low Low
Sandstone Palaeozoic <0.5km.
Fluvialterraces andcolluviums
High Large Medium Fine/medium Low/medium Medium Low
Limestone Cretaceous 0km.Caves Veryhigh Allformats Medium Micro/fine Low Low Medium/low
