Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and ...

Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age Volume IV

Edited by Nicholas J. Conard and Anne Delagnes

Tübingen Publications in Prehistory

Kerns Verlag Tübingen

Table of Contents | Foreword Nicholas J. Conard and Anne Delagnes, Series Editors

Chapter 1

| Advances in the Study of Settlement Dynamics Nicholas J. Conard, Anne Delagnes

Chapter 2

127

| Middle Paleolithic Variability in the Near East as a Reflection of Different Settlement Dynamics: A Comparative Study of Umm el Tlel, Yabrud I (Syria) and Ksar ‘Akil (Lebanon) Marina Pagli

Chapter 9

105

| Changes in Land Use and Occupation Intensity at the Onset of the Middle Paleolithic? A View from Tabun Cave, Israel Amy E. Clark

Chapter 8

77

| Paleolithic Assemblages from the Central Region of the Emirate of Sharjah (UAE) and Implications for Human Settlement Dynamics in Southern Arabia Knut Bretzke

Chapter 7

47

| Développement sur une discontinuité technique dans la séquence Howiesons Poort de l’abri Diepkloof (Afrique du Sud) Guillaume Porraz, Marina Igreja, Pierre-Jean Texier

Chapter 6

27

| Coastal Adaptations and Settlement Systems on the Cape and Horn of Africa during the Middle Stone Age Manuel Will, Andrew W. Kandel, Nicholas J. Conard

Chapter 5

11

| High-Resolution Geoarchaeology and Settlement Dynamics at the Middle Stone Age Sites of Diepkloof and Sibudu, South Africa Christopher E. Miller

Chapter 4

9

| Examples of the Use of Space 77,000 to 62,000 Years Ago at Sibudu, South Africa Lyn Wadley

Chapter 3

7

145

| Middle Paleolithic Settlement on the Iranian Central Plateau Saman Heydari-Guran, Elham Ghasidian, Nicholas J. Conard

171

Chapter 10 | Neanderthals at the Open-Air Site of Bojnice III: The Issue of “Missing” Artifacts Petr Neruda, Ľubomíra Kaminská

205

Chapter 11 | Landscape and Cave Use in the Middle Paleolithic of Bockstein: New Results from the Lithic and Faunal Analysis Berrin Çep, Petra Krönneck

227

Chapter 12 | Neanderthal Behaviors from a Spatio-Temporal Perspective: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Interpret Archaeological Assemblages María Gema Chacón, Amèlia Bargalló, Maria Joana Gabucio, Florent Rivals, Manuel Vaquero

253

Chapter 13 | Middle Paleolithic Population Dynamics: A Question of Scale of Analysis? The Example of the Early Weichselian (MIS 5d-a) in the Paris Basin Héloïse Koehler

295

Chapter 14 | Hunting Camp at the End of the Middle Paleolithic at Havrincourt “Les Bosquets” (Pas-de-Calais, France) Emilie Goval, David Hérisson, Emilie Claud, Jean-Luc Locht, Pierre Antoine, Sylvie Coutard

311

Chapter 15 | Middle Paleolithic Mobility Patterns and Settlement System Variability in the Eastern Cantabrian Region (Iberian Peninsula): A GIS-Based Resource Patching Model Joseba Rios-Garaizar, Alejandro García Moreno

329

Chapter 16 | Insights into Eurasian Middle Paleolithic Settlement Dynamics: The Palimpsest Problem Jorge Machado, Carolina Mallol, Cristo M. Hernández

361

Chapter 17 | Hafting and Site Function in the European Middle Paleolithic Veerle Rots

List of Contributors

383 411

Chapter 16 |

Insights into Eurasian Middle Paleolithic Settlement Dynamics: The Palimpsest Problem

Jorge Machado, Carolina Mallol, Cristo M. Hernández

Abstract. Dissecting archaeological palimpsests with the aim of identifying prehistoric occupation episodes and explaining settlement dynamics is not an easy task. However, current high temporal resolution studies focused on Eurasian Middle Paleolithic archaeosedimentary records are starting to provide interesting information in this direction. Here, we review data gathered from a sample of 47 case studies from 23 sites, highlighting the main analytical difficulties for the study of settlement dynamics. We do this from a research perspective concerned with the archaeological identification of temporal markers and with the aim of exploring plausible methodological options for an archaeological research agenda that holds the single occupation episode as the basic analytical unit to interpret past human behavior. Our study sample reveals a growing interest in the pursuit of single occupation episode identification, although most of the given contributions show a certain degree of ambiguity regarding estimates of the number of occupation episodes and their relative duration. In our view, a feasible solution to this shortcoming is to carry out more systematic microstratigraphic analyses in combination with other sources of behavioral information, focusing on the effective integration of information derived from macro- and micro-scale data sets. Résumé. La caractérisation de palimpsestes archéologiques en vue de l'identification d'épisodes d'occupation préhistorique et des dynamiques d’occupation n'est pas une tâche facile. Cependant, des études à haute résolution temporelle de dépôts archéosédimentaires du Paléolithique moyen eurasien commencent à fournir des données intéressantes dans ce sens. Ici, nous passons en revue les données sur la dynamique d’occupation recueillies à partir d'un échantillon de 47 études de 23 gisements, et nous mettons en évidence les principales difficultés analytiques. Notre préoccupation est la perception archéologique d'indicateurs temporels dans le but d'explorer des options méthodologiques plausibles pour un programme de recherche archéologique se fondant sur l'épisode occupation simple comme unité analytique de base. Notre échantillon d'étude révèle un intérêt croissant pour la poursuite de la détermination Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Volume IV, ed. by Nicholas J. Conard and Anne Delagnes. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. © 2015, Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, ISBN: 978-3-935751-22-3.

361

d’épisodes d’occupation. Cependant, la plupart des interprétations sont basées sur l'inférence et englobent un degré important d'ambiguïté en ce qui concerne les estimations du nombre d'épisodes d'occupation et leur durée relative. À notre avis, une solution possible à cette lacune est d'effectuer des analyses microstratigraphiques plus systématiquement et en combinaison avec d'autres sources d'informations paléthnographiques, en se concentrant sur l'intégration efficace d’informations provenant des échelles macro et micro. IntroductIon Research into Middle Paleolithic settlement dynamics has received considerable impulse in the last decade, partly due to the generalization of high resolution analytical methods and geoarchaeological techniques which have enabled fine-grained readings of the archaeosedimentary record of many Eurasian sites. As shown throughout the monographic volumes dedicated to this topic (Conard 2001a, 2004; Conard and Delagnes 2010; Conard and Wendorf 1996) and numerous papers (e.g., Adler et al. 2003; Burke 2000, 2006; Chabaï and Patou-Mathis 2009; Chacón and FernándezLaso 2007; Conard 1996; Conard and Adler 1997; Costamagno et al. 2006; Daujeard and Moncel 2010; Daujeard et al. 2012; Depaepe 2001; Gaudzinsky and Roebroeks 2000; Henry 2012; Machado et al. 2013; Martínez-Moreno et al. 2004, 2010; Moncel 2010; Moncel and Rivals 2011; Roebroeks et al. 1988; Rivals et al. 2009b; Rosell et al. 2010; Rosell et al. 2012a, 2012b; Sañudo 2008; Thiébaut et al. 2009; Vallverdú et al. 2005; Vaquero et al. 2001, 2004, 2012a, 2012b; Vermeersch 2001), detailed approaches to the way in which Middle Paleolithic hominins occupied locations and territories are starting to provide new behavioral information and hypotheses pertinent to traditional debates such as that of the cognitive ability of Neanderthals (e.g., Daujeard and Moncel 2010; Hayden 2012; Henry 2012; Henry et al. 2004; Langbroek 2011). Notwithstanding, it is well acknowledged that full comprehension of settlement dynamics implies previous knowledge on different types of human occupation occurring in a group of sites framed within a given territorial and chronological context. An ideal definition of the diversity of ways to occupy locations during Paleolithic times could only be supported by knowledge of different single occupation episodes evidencing such diversity. However, isolating these episodes is a complex task conditioned by the possibility of identifying individual human activities and their temporal relationships within a given archaeosedimentary deposit. Recent studies aimed at identifying human activities in the Paleolithic record have shown that it is feasible to approach these activities in diverse sedimentary contexts (e.g., Henry 2012; Machado et al. 2013; Vallverdú et al. 2005; Vaquero et al. 2012a). Yet, placing material manifestations in chronostratigraphic order within the framework of a single occupation episode still constitutes the major challenge (Conard 2001b; Conard and Adler 1997; Sullivan 1992; Vaquero et al. 2012b). A major methodological constraint here is the palimpsest effect inherent in the majority of Pleistocene archaeological deposits (Bailey 2007; Galanidou 2000; Vaquero 2008). This is because each palimpsest is formed by unknown combinations of overlapping, mixing and dismantling of the archaeosedimentary record. Thus, individual observation, isolation and sequencing of material evidence associated with par-

362

Machado, Mallol, Hernández | Settlement Dynamics IV

ticular natural or anthropogenic processes cannot be carried out at the same level of resolution in all case studies (e.g., Adler et al. 2003; Bailey 1981; Binford 1981; Galanidou 1997; Lucas 2012; Schiffer 1987; Villa 1978). As a result, we are faced with disordered temporal and spatial markers at three different levels of intra-site contemporaneity: strict, occupational and geological (Conard and Adler 1997; Adler et al. 2003). This condition, which limits the potential of archaeological palimpsests to provide accurately contextualized behavioral information (fig. 1), currently requires the development of new analytical perspectives and procedures. Proposals towards solving the problem posed above, which represents a clear obstacle for research on settlement dynamics at an analytical and explanatory level, have focused on three main goals (e.g., Binford 1980; Conard 2001b; Conard and Adler 1997; Galanidou 2000; Vaquero 2008; Vermeersch 2001): 1) Inter-site comparisons at higher temporal resolution (given that we are presently working on a geological time scale); 2) Functional characterization of time-averaged archaeological assemblages associated with a specific territory; 3) Archaeological identification of behavioral units of analysis close to single human occupation episodes. Fig. 1. the palimpsest problem as experienced during excavation. A) Field views of two combustion features from a single excavation surface (unit X: El Salt Middle Palaeolithic site, Spain) and B) Bone, lithic and charcoal remains excavated and recorded as a single assemblage (unit X: El Salt, Spain). Although the items from these examples appear to be roughly contemporaneous, this cannot be ascertained based on macroscopic field observation.

Chap. 16 | Insights into Eurasian Middle Paleolithic Settlement Dynamics

363

The first goal, aimed at making inter-site comparisons at a higher temporal resolution, is far from accomplished (Conard 2001b; Lourdeau 2011). Despite the technological advance of absolute dating methods (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004; Higham 2011; Jöris and Street 2008; Zilhão 2006), the range of error of calibrated dates continues to be too large (millennial-scale) to establish accurate inter-site correlations necessary for studying settlement dynamics, which requires temporal resolution at a scale close to a human life span. At present, the most chronologically precise correlations being made between Paleolithic sites are ones derived from exceptional finds such as refits between lithic artifacts from different sites (see Ono 1994 and Scheer 1993 for Upper Paleolithic examples). Still, in such cases the possibility of one of the items having been recycled from remains of much earlier occupations cannot be ruled out (Vaquero et al. 2001, 2004). The second goal, the functional characterization of archaeological assemblages within specific territories, has commonly been pursued through ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological readings of the archaeosedimentary record (e.g., Binford 1980, 1982; Yellen 1977). Normally, these data have been obtained from time-averaged archaeological records from a single geological stratum, disregarding the palimpsest effect (Vaquero 2008). The resulting hypotheses on site function are therefore ascribed to contexts whose diachronic dimension has not been sufficiently explored (Binford 1980, 1982; Isaac 1981; Shott 2004; Stern 1993; Van Noten et al. 1980). Thus, common associations of sites as a whole or stratigraphic units with territorial function are justified de facto. Yet, in dealing with palimpsest deposits, this is a risky procedure. In this regard, ethnoarchaeological analyses have pointed out both difficulties of discerning functional changes archeologically and the greater feasibility of identifying superimposed episodes in which the same activities were performed (Galanidou 1997). In our view, the key in approaching full comprehension of prehistoric settlement dynamics sensu Conard (2001b) Sullivan (1992), Vaquero (2008) and Vermeersch (2001) lies in the third issue, i.e., in identifying single occupation episodes, understood here as uninterrupted periods of time during which a single human group occupied a specific place, in the largest possible area. Although this goal is very difficult to achieve and to validate empirically, the informative potential of isolating human occupation episodes has also been widely highlighted by site formation-oriented research perspectives, such as taphonomy and assemblage formation, spatial archaeology, eventful archaeology, time perspectivism, time averaging and site formation studies since—at least—the mid-20th century (e.g., Bailey 1981; Binford 1980, 1982; Conard and Adler 1997; Galanidou 2000; Holdaway and Wandsnider 2008; Julien et al. 1992; Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon 1972; Mallinsky-Buller et al. 2011; Mallol et al. 2013a, 2013b; Martínez-Moreno et al. 2004; Lucas 2012; Schiffer 1987; Shott 1998; Stern 1993; Vaquero et al. 2012b). Previous efforts in this direction have shown the difficulty in drawing and testing lines of synchrony and diachrony among material assemblages or different activity areas within Paleolithic palimpsests (e.g., Audouze and Enloe 1997; Conard and Adler 1996, 1997; Depaepe 2001; Henry 2012; Henry et al. 2004; Mallinsky-Buller et al. 2011; Martínez-Moreno et al. 2004; Rosell et al. 2012a, 2012b; Sullivan 1992; Vaquero et al. 2001, 2004, 2012a, 2012b; Vallverdú et al. 2005).

364


With this in mind, the aim of this paper is to explore plausible analytical options for an archaeological research agenda that holds the single occupation episode as the basic analytical unit. We present data useful to approach Middle Paleolithic settlement dynamics gathered from published studies of 23 Eurasian sites (see Table 1 at the end of chapter) in order to highlight the main analytical caveats of current research on the topic. In our view, the solution to some of the problems will come with the combination of microstratigraphic analyses and other sources of behavioral information, focusing on the effective integration of macro- and micro-scale data sets. SEttlEMEnt dynAMIcS In MIddlE PAlEolIthIc EurASIA: A SAMPlE oF currEnt IntErPrEtAtIonS And SoME rElAtEd AnAlytIcAl ProBlEMS Table 1 shows a list of 47 case studies focusing on settlement patterns of 23 Eurasian Middle Paleolithic sites. We have extracted data on analytical units, excavated areas, interpretations on human occupation types and their supporting arguments. We also include our source bibliographic references in the table. Below, we first discuss methodological aspects of the sampled works with emphasis on their degree of involvement in the pursuit of single occupation episode identification. Then, with the same emphasis, we discuss some of the main interpretations relevant to settlement dynamics. As we will see, most of the interpretations are related with occupation episode identification and characterization of site function. Methodological Aspects Most interpretations of Middle Paleolithic settlement dynamics have been developed from two basic types of hypothetical working units (Table 1): 1) Palimpsests consisting of an unknown number of what appear to be short duration occupations (i.e., bivouac to several days) (Adler et al. 2003; Burke 2000; Chacón and Fernández-Laso 2007; Conard and Adler 1997; Costamagno et al. 2006; Depaepe 2001; Depaepe et al. 1999; Machado et al. 2013; Martínez-Moreno et al. 2010; Moncel and Rivals 2011; Mourre et al. 2008; Patou-Mathis and Chabaï 2003; Rosell et al. 2010, 2012b; Sañudo 2008; Vallverdú et al. 2005; Vermeersch 2001) and 2) Palimpsests comprising overlapping occupations of the former type mixed with reworked versions of these and what appear to be long-term occupations (i.e., a few weeks to months) (Lourdeau 2011; Thiébaut et al. 2009; Shott 2004; Rivals 2009a; Vaquero 2008; Vaquero et al. 2012a). The definition of these hypothetical working units has been commonly based on the identification of different kinds of geologically established entities (strata, lithological layers, facies associations, etc.) often identified in relatively small excavation areas (Table 1). In practice, such geological entities become the basic units of behavioral analysis. It is worth noting that microstratigraphic investigation of previously established macroscopic units leads to internal subdivisions representing higher temporal resolution units. In our view, this procedure is key to approach single occupation episodes. In this last sense, current archaeological methods are providing contextual and finer-grained data that may help us approach single occupation episodes by generating information about raw material procurement strategies, fragmentation of lithic and


365

faunal operational chains, interaction between different knapping methods, transported toolkit management, fire management techniques and structuring of activity areas at smaller-scaled temporal frameworks. Such data have been principally resulting from independent analyses of the lithic, faunal or sedimentary record. For the lithic record, there are an increasing number of studies that incorporate Raw Material Units (RMUs) and spatial analyses of artifacts and refitting sets from an archaeostratigraphic perspective (e.g., Adler et al. 2003; Bordes 2003; Conard and Adler 1996, 1997; Depaepe 2001; Depaepe et al. 1999; Machado et al. 2013; Roebroeks 1988; Vaquero 2008; Vaquero et al. 2001, 2004, 2012a, 2012b). Similar perspectives have been adopted in zooarchaeological analyses and refits (e.g., Adler et al. 2003; Gaudzinski and Roebroeks 2000; Morin et al. 2005; Rosell et al. 2012a, 2012b), alongside the pursuit of seasonality markers (e.g., Pike-Tay and Cosgrove 2002; Rivals et al. 2009a, 2009b; Valensi and Psathi 2004). High-resolution geoarchaeological studies are contributing valuable information towards single occupation identification as well. Microfacies analysis encompasses information about sedimentation rates and allows for identification of macroscopically invisible sterile layers between different archaeological assemblages (Courty 2001; Mallol and Mentzer n.d.). Microstratigraphic analysis of combustion structures facilitates palimpsest dissection (Henry 2012; Mallol et al. 2013a; Martínez-Moreno et al. 2004; Stevenson 1991) and provides direct evidence of human actions such as trampling and sweeping or dumping of ash (Mallol et al. 2013b; Meignen et al. 2007; Mentzer 2012; Miller et al. 2010). Microcomponent analysis (including phytoliths, spherulites, seeds, micro-coprolites and microscopic or sub-microscopic organic matter) may also lead to identification of specific behaviors such as bedding construction (Cabanes et al. 2010; Goldberg et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2013) and provide seasonality and paleodietary data (e.g., Albert et al. 2012; Sistiaga et al. 2014). In sum, our sample reveals that approaching single occupation episodes has gradually become a major goal in archaeological research focusing on settlement dynamics. For now, the methods used in this approach are based on largely independent lines of evidence (lithics, bones and sediment) and the palimpsest problem persists. Middle Paleolithic occupation episode identification and characterization: An overview of case studies and their underlying analytical criteria Data sets obtained through the different methods outlined above suggest that a single combustion structure and its surrounding archaeological remains are possibly one of the most readily observable material manifestations of a Middle Paleolithic single occupation episode (e.g., Machado et al. 2013; Vaquero and Pastó 2001; Vaquero et al. 2001; Vallverdú et al. 2005). This inference is supported by analogy with householdtype accumulations from the ethnographic record (Binford 1980, 1982; Fischer and Strickland 1991; O’Connell 1987; Vaquero et al. 2012b; Yellen 1977) and by high temporal resolution data obtained from cave and rockshelter archaeosedimentary records such as those from Abric Romaní (e.g., Chacón and Fernández-Laso 2007; Fernández-Laso et al. 2011; Rosell et al. 2012b; Vallverdú et al. 2005; Vaquero et al. 2001, 2004), Payre (Moncel et al. 2007; Rivals et al. 2009b), Tor-Faraj stratified living floors (Henry 2012), Les Pradelles sedimentological facies 2a and 2b (Costamagno et al. 2006), Roca dels Bous layers N10 and N12 (Martínez-Moreno et al. 2004, 2010),

366


Bolomor archaeostratigraphic units CBIV-1 and CBIV-2 (Sañudo 2008) and Abric del Pastor lithostratigraphic units IVa, IVb and IVc (Machado et al. 2013). At Abric del Pastor, between 4 and 6 human occupation episodes (1 or 2 in IVa, 1, 2 or 3 in IVb and a single episode in IVc) were proposed based on the results of an integrated sedimentological and archaeostratigraphic analysis of RMUs and refits. Similarly, the stratified living floors I, II and III of Tor-Faraj were each ascribed to two occupation episodes (Henry 2012). A single long-term occupation was attributed to Saint Césaire Level Egpf from the analysis of lithic and faunal remains (Thiébaut et al. 2009) and at least two occupations (one short term and one long term) were proposed for the case of Aragó Level G (Rivals et al. 2009a). No estimates on the number of human occupations have been proposed for any of the other cave and rockshelter sites in Table 1. Most sites are generally interpreted as seasonal hunting/butchering stations based on the analysis of lithic and faunal assemblages recovered from archaeological palimpsest contexts (e.g., Burke 2000; Chabaï and Patou-Mathis 2009; Costamagno et al. 2006; Gaudzinski and Roebroeks 2000; Martínez-Moreno et al. 2004, 2010; Moncel et al. 2007; Patou-Mathis 2009; Rivals et al. 2009b) or bivouacs (e.g., Moncel 2010; Rosell et al. 2010; Vallverdú et al. 2005). Anthropogenic accumulations around hearths are not as common in open-air archaeosedimentary contexts. Archaeological scatters from such settings are usually more laterally extensive than in caves and rockshelters (Table 1) and do not always preserve clear combustion features (Adler et al. 2003; Burke 2000; Gaudzinski and Roebroeks 2000; Lourdeau 2011; Vermeersch 2001). However, some studies have isolated apparent short-term occupation episodes through spatial distribution analysis of archaeological objects and refits. The empirical examples of single occupation episodes identified mainly from lithic data analyses are: 1 occupation episode at Wallertheim (Wal A, Adler et al. 2003), 2 in Blangy-Tronville (Depaepe et al. 1999), 1 in Lailly “la Tournaire,” 3 in Lailly “Beauregard” and 3 in Molinons “Le Grand Chanteloup” (Depaepe 2001). Our sample also includes cases of rockshelter settings with archaeological remains unrelated to combustion features. Such assemblages have been interpreted as personal equipment abandoned during “short-term, non-residential occupations” (Vaquero et al. 2012b), providing a cautionary note regarding the diversity in manifestations of human presence that we might encounter in Middle Paleolithic contexts. All the cited studies are based on inferred contemporaneity among material remains recovered from different site areas and on identification of spatially delimited and typo-technologically coherent lithic and faunal assemblages. Groups are made through spatial connections marked by refits and identification of reduction sequence fragmentation using the RMU approach (e.g., Adler et al. 2003; Conard and Adler 1996, 1997; Machado et al. 2013; Vallverdú et al. 2005; Vaquero 2008; Vaquero et al. 2012a). Crucially, establishing the contemporaneity among material remains is difficult, given that lithic items from previous occupations may be recycled in situ (Vaquero et al. 2001, 2004). Diachrony is generally inferred using the same logic: dissociations and differences lead to proposals of human occupation reduction/expansion scenarios, without further specification on the duration factor (Henry 2012; Henry et al. 2004; Vallverdú et al. 2005; Vaquero et al. 2012a). As gathered from the points discussed above, our study sample reveals the existence of one main criterion behind single occupation episode identification that is not


367

associated with sheltered or open-air settings: The presence/absence of synchrony links between anthropogenic material accumulations with or without combustion features, mainly based on archaeostratigraphic analysis of RMUs and lithic/faunal refits (e.g., Adler et al. 2003; Chacón and Fernández-Laso 2007; Conard and Adler 1996, 1997; Depaepe 2001; Depaepe et al. 1999; Gaudzinsky and Roebroeks 2000; Machado et al. 2013; Morin et al. 2005; Rosell et al. 2012b; Vallverdú et al. 2005; Vaquero 2008; Vaquero et al. 2012a). Although in some cases lithic and faunal assemblages are studied together, fine-grained sedimentological data are rarely incorporated into these studies (Table 1). Occupation duration is a crucial factor, key in approaching the nature of human occupations, and is often directly inferred from the quantity of material remains. Usually small assemblages are ascribed to “short-term occupations” and large assemblages to “long-term” ones (Ritcher 2006). However, large assemblages may correspond to palimpsests formed by several overlapping occupations of unknown duration (Fisher and Strickland 1991; Galanidou 1997; Isaac 1981; O’Connell 1987; Shott 2004; Van Noten et al. 1980), whose periods of human absence in between are also very difficult to identify. This difficulty may partially explain why current archaeological research has not yet provided a standard definition of the material signature of a Middle Paleolithic long-term occupation. So far, the few number of Middle Paleolithic contexts interpreted as long-term occupations have been inferred from diverse material assemblages isolated at different resolutions of analysis (i.e., from geological strata, archaeostratigraphic units or anthropogenic accumulations around combustion features) and based on data obtained independently using different analytical techniques (spatial analyses based on RMUs, lithic and faunal refits, zooarchaeology and dental macro- and microwear analysis). The majority of proposed classifications are not categorical. Selected examples related with this issue are Abric Romaní Level J (Vaquero et al. 2012b), Aragó Cave Level G (Rivals et al. 2009a) and Saint-Césaire Level Egpf (Thiébaut et al. 2009) (Table 1). It should also be emphasized that in some cases, archaeostratigraphic and technological analyses have been unable to distinguish between overlapping short-term and single long-term occupations (e.g., Machado et al. 2013; Lourdeau 2011; Vaquero 2008). Thus, solving the general interpretative ambiguity related to estimating the duration of Paleolithic occupation episodes emerges as a crucial line of archaeological research. In our opinion, microstratigraphic analysis combined with archaeostratigraphic studies of RMUs and lithic and faunal refits constitutes a suitable starting point for this undertaking. As shown in Table 1, most Middle Paleolithic material records point towards a prevalence of short-term occupations possibly involving a wide variety of human activities, a hypothesis that needs further testing. First, microstratigraphic evidence of successive multiple occupation episodes must be provided. Second, the possibility of long-term occupation must be ruled out. This requires characterization of the microstratigraphic signatures of long-term occupation, which could be sought in the ethnoarchaeological record. Such a microstratigraphic approach will help us avoid pre-established categories from actualistic models and focus on empirical data to shape more suitable models.

368


Middle Paleolithic Settlement Pattern characterization Commonly, the information derived from archaeological studies such as those reviewed here feeds into various models to explain Middle Paleolithic settlement patterns. Inspired by contemporary hunter-gatherer behavior, functional explanations of Paleolithic settlement systems have been traditionally based on two opposing fundamental strategies for occupying a territory, involving different occupation types in terms of their functionality and their duration (Moncel and Rivals 2011): 1. Short, seasonal occupations linked to small groups exploiting local resources and moving short distances (Foraging and Logistical Modes; Binford 1980), and 2. Long-term occupations involving central campsites and their satellite locations (Circulating/Radiating Model; Mortensen 1972). Additional models strictly based on archaeological evidence (e.g., Bordes et al. 1972; Kuhn 1995; Marks and Chabaï 2001; Marks and Friedel 1977; Roebroeks 1988; Shea 1996; Wallace and Shea 2006) comprise a series of criteria to estimate occupation duration and to classify archaeological assemblages functionally based on stipulated percentages of specific object types. However, the applicability of such models may be questioned, particularly on the difficulty, as mentioned above, in perceiving occupation duration archaeologically and on their adaptability to archaeological records from different geographic zones. Furthermore, the poor suitability of these models to explain the variability in hunter-gatherer mobility has been pointed out in ethnographic material (e.g., Kelly 1995; Weissner 1982) as well as in the Eurasian Middle Paleolithic archaeological record (e.g., Burke 2006; Moncel and Rivals 2011). This has led to further questioning of the real applicability of such models for explaining past human behavior (Conard 1996; Conkey 1987; O’Connell 1995; Smith 1992) and of their current use as reference tools. In our view, the effectiveness of these models can only be evaluated against empirical archaeological data corresponding to single occupation episodes, which are currently scarce. FroM thE occuPAtIon EPISodE to SEttlEMEnt dynAMIcS: towArdS An IntEgrAtEd rESEArch AgEndA An ideal approach to prehistoric settlement dynamics is one that involves a smallscale temporal framework and contextualized empirical evidence of occupation duration and function obtained from the archaeological record of several contemporary sites from a single territorial unit. For this, we need to be able to divide individual archaeological sequences into analytical units as close as possible to single occupation episodes by identifying abandonment periods, functional change or seasonality markers. The study sample we have reviewed here shows advancement in this direction, but the emerging picture is one of separate race tracks running towards the same finish line. In our view, there needs to be an integrative effort to cross data across different fields. Perhaps the most influential field contributing to the identification and correlation of small-scale temporal units within Middle Paleolithic palimpsest deposits is geoarchaeology. Nowadays, site formation process reconstruction, which implies identifying the major natural and anthropogenic events contributing to the genesis of archae-


369

ological deposits, is standard procedure in any given project, and an increasing number of research teams are incorporating microstratigraphic approaches into their agendas. Microstratigraphy not only has the potential to individualize occupations through microfacies characterization (Courty 2001) but also plays a fundamental role in characterizing the nature of stratigraphic contacts, which is crucial in elucidating the position of occupation floors and identifying abandonment periods (Mallol and Mentzer n.d.). Crossing data from different microstratigraphic techniques (e.g., Goldberg and Berna 2010) has great potential in generating robust, contextualized archaeological data suitable for approaching the nature and duration of human occupation episodes. In a recent study, integrated micromorphological, paleobotanical and geochemical data yielded the identification of three periods of site abandonment in what appeared in the field as a single combustion episode (Mallol et al. n.d.). However, application of high-resolution geoarchaeological techniques is largely being developed independently of fine-grained studies of the lithic and faunal record. This is partly due to the impossibility of establishing spatial correlation between millimeter-thin microfacies and the cm-sized objects of the archaeological record, as well as to the time lag occurring between excavation of a site, analysis of the archaeological record, and microfacies analysis (Dibble 2005). How could we integrate different sources of data towards the identification of occupation episodes? Although we cannot provide a categorical answer, we address this question by listing what in our view are key procedures that might point us in the right direction: 1) Site formation reconstruction through multitechnique microstratigraphic analysis. This procedure is essential in obtaining information on the integrity of any given archaeosedimentary deposit in addition to providing us with cues to the presence/absence of microstratification (fig. 2). Systematization of this procedure will set the stage for the routine evaluation of sites in terms of their potential for palimpsest dissection. 2) Crossing of information, not raw data. As an example, microfacies cannot be traced continuously across a given excavation area and correlated with specific lithic and faunal remains. However, information regarding a hypothetical number of occupations at a given site based on a concrete number of successive anthropogenic microfacies can be paired with the number of occupations estimated through archaeostratigraphic analyses of RMUs and lithic refits. 3) Emphasis on inter-site lithic refitting. This is possibly one of the only available methods in establishing more accurate contemporaneity links among different Middle Paleolithic locations. concluSIon Research on Middle Paleolithic settlement dynamics is still in a phase of data acquisition. In our review of a sample of case studies we perceive increasing interest in identifying and correlating different temporal scales and units within archaeological palimpsests. A general trend towards higher analytical resolution is starting to reveal

370


Fig. 2. Microstratigraphic sampling during excavations at the Middle Palaeolithic site of El Salt, Spain. Palimpsest dissection can be facilitated by sampling of the sedimentary record either during large surface excavation (A and B) or in unexcavated profiles (C and D), which can also be useful for site formation reconstruction and planning of future excavation strategies. A) collecting bulk samples for organic chemistry from a freshly excavated surface; B) undisturbed sediment blocks for micromorphological analysis from a combustion area; C) Sampling of a profile for inorganic chemistry; D) Micromorphological blocks whose study will help in excavation strategy planning.

the potential of interdisciplinary approaches aimed at integrating different data sets obtained through site formation studies, archaeostratigraphic analysis and lithic/faunal refitting. In our opinion, such integrated archaeological research strategies are a sign that we are advancing in the right direction, with these strategies eventually allowing us to shift from describing to explaining. AcknowlEdgMEntS We thank Nicholas Conard and Anne Delagnes for inviting us to participate in this volume.


371

Table 1. Sample of Eurasian Middle Palaeolithic sites with published interpretations on settlement dynamics. these interpretations include parameters such as the number and duration of neanderthal occupations as well as site function. As a whole, this information reflects the different degrees of temporal resolution achieved depending on the analytical strategy. SItE

unItS oF AnAlySIS

SEttIng

Abric del Pastor rockshelter (Spain)

EXc. ArEA (APProX.)

InFErrEd occuPAtIon tyPE/durAtIon

ArguMEntS

Anthropogenic accumulations MIS 5-4? within lithostratigraphic unit IVa

30 m²

Identification of between 1 and 2 distinct human occupation episodes sharing a clear sporadic character

Archaeostratigraphic Machado analysis of rMus, et al. lithic refits and sedi2013: 2271 mentological data.

Anthropogenic accumulations within lithosMIS 5-4? tratigraphic unit IVb

30 m²

Identification of between 1 and 3 distinct human occupation episodes sharing a clear sporadic character

Archaeostratigraphic Machado analysis of rMus, et al. lithic refits and sedi2013: 2270 mentological data.

30 m²

"we conceive the IVc accumulation as a single human occupation episode, fundamentally linked to animal processing and consumption (predominantly of testudo hermanni)"

Archaeostratigraphic analysis of combus- Machado et al. tion features and 2013: 2269 lithic and faunal records.

195 m²

"Short-term occupations", "the Abric romani was basically a place of passage (Bivouac)"

Archaeostratigraphic analysis of combus- Vallverdú tion features and et al. lithic and faunal 2005: 171 records.

290 m²

"occupation pattern of long duration"

Archaeostratigraphic analysis of combus- Vaquero et al. tion features and 2012b: 397 lithic and faunal records.

>200 m²

"the procurement patterns and territorial mobility observed in level M is very similar to those proposed for Analysis of bone, other archaeological sites from lithic and vegetal the same chronological period remains. such as roca dels Bous, Payre or la combette" (succession of short-term occupation episodes)

chronology

Anthropogenic accumulations MIS 5-4? within lithostratigraphic unit IVc Anthropogenic accumulations within stratigraphic unit (level I)

MIS 3

Anthropogenic accumulations MIS 3 within stratigraphic sub-units (levels Ja and Jb)

Anthropogenic accumulations within stratigraphic unit (level M) Abric romaní (Spain)

rockshelter

MIS 3

rEFS

Fernándezlaso et al. 2011: 200

Anthropogenic accumulations within stratigraphic unit (level l)

MIS 3

>200 m²

"Maybe they [anthropogenic accumulations] were formed Archaeostratigraphic Vaquero successively in the framework analysis of rMus 2008: 3184 of the same occupation. or and lithic refits. maybe they correspond to three different occupations"

Anthropogenic accumulations within stratigraphic unit (level k)

MIS 3

279 m²

Short-term occupations

220 m²

"In the case of level h, no temporal relationships between activity areas have been registered (isolated areas Archaeostratigraphic rosell with local refits). In general, analysis of faunal et al. these phenomena could be interpreted as a consequence remains and refits. 2012b: 66 of the human occupations: presence of small groups with reduced use of the space at level h"

Anthropogenic accumulations within stratigraphic unit (level h)

372

MIS 3


chacón and Archaeostratigraphic Fernándezanalysis of lithic and laso faunal remains. 2007: 57

SItE

Aragó (France)

SEttIng

cave

unItS oF AnAlySIS

chronology

Archaeostratigra phic unit (level MIS 12 g)

Archaeosedimen tary units (niveaux MIS 5-4 inférieur et supérieur )

Blangytronville (France)

open air

Bolomor (Spain)

Archaeostratigra phic units (cBIV1 and cBIV-2) MIS 5 rock shelter within stratigraphic unit (level IV)

Buran geological layer kaya III rock shelter MIS 3? (level B) (ukraine)

grotte du noisetier cave (France)

geological layer MIS 3 (couche 1)

kabazi II open air (ukraine)

lithological stratum II/8 (13 archaeological MIS 3 levels separated by sterile units)

EXc. ArEA (APProX.)


ArguMEntS

-

"level g was reported to correspond to a long occupation. the dental wear methods, combined with zooarchaeological data, also suggest a longterm settlement for level g, except for the dental wear of cervus elaphus, which may have been hunted during a short time frame"

dental macro and microwear analysis rivals et al. and zooarchaeologi- 2009a: 337 cal data.

2000 m²

"les deux occupations de Blangy-tronville sont de natures différentes. la première (niveau inférieur) est caractérisée par la dispersion non structurée d'un faible Archaeostratigraphic nombre d'artefacts sur une depaepe et analysis of lithics and importante superficie. les limal. 1999: 21 refits. ites du site sont inconnues", "la seconde semble être une occupation de très courte durée marquée par le débitage de deux blocs et l'abandon à proximité de quelques éclats"

17 m²

"Absence of palimpsests of large diachronic development vs. a high synchronic relation of the record, always limited by the characteristics of archaeological sets formation and the existence of sporadic occupational events"

Archaeostratigraphic analysis of combusSañudo 2008: tion features and 159 lithic and faunal records.

-

"during the occupation of level B, Buran kaya III was a seasonal camp, used very probably many times"

Zooarchaeological data.

-

"néandertaliens ont fréquenté le site de façon discontinue, durant des occupations proba- Faunal and lithic blement brèves compte tenu data. de la modeste densité des vestiges"

Mourre et al. 2008: 8

30 m²

"kill and butchery site", "Site spécialisé dans l’abattage et le traitement primaire d’Equus Faunal and lithic hydruntinus; occupations data. récurrentes et de courte durée"

Patou-Mathis and chabaï 2003: 252


373

rEFS

Patou-Mathis 2009: 450

SItE

unItS oF AnAlySIS

SEttIng

EXc. ArEA (APProX.)


ArguMEntS

rEFS

15 m²

“camps type A” (fireplaces, main knapping on flint from nearby outcrops and on-site dismembering and/or consumption of fauna)

Faunal and lithic data.

chabaï and Patou-Mathis 2009: 73

15 m²




15 m²




Archaeological sub-level (III/2A) MIS 3 within lithological layer

15 m²




Archaeological level (III/3-3A) MIS 3 within lithological layer

17 m²

“Station type A” (Butchering station)



10 m²




20 m²

“la ou les fonctions du site ne sont pas encore connues mais Faunal and lithic reliées à des occupations de data. type bivouac que l’on observe aussi dans la région à Balazuc”

4500 m²

distinction of three different occupations episodes

lithic data (proportional comparative depaepe analysis of zones and 2001: 356 refits and distribution maps).

5480 m²

“Seems to reflect a single occupation episode over the entire area excavated”

lithic data (proportional comparative depaepe analysis of zones and 2001: 357 refits and distribution maps).

chronology

Archaeological sub-level (III/1) MIS 3 within lithological layer

Archaeological sub-level (III/1A) MIS 3 within lithological layer

kabazi V (ukraine)

collapsed rockshelter

Archaeological sub-level (III/2) MIS 3 within lithological layer

Archaeological level (III/5-3B) MIS 3 within lithological layer

l’Abri des Pêcheurs (France)

rockshelter

Stratigraphic units (couches 14-16)

lailly “Beauregard” open air (France)

Archaeological level

lailly “la tournaire” (France)


open air

374

MIS 4-3

MIS 5

MIS 4


Moncel 2010: 19

SItE

SEttIng

unItS oF AnAlySIS

EXc. InFErrEd occuPAtIon chronology ArEA tyPE/durAtIon (APProX.)

Sedimentological MIS 4 and/or facies 2a MIS 3

Molinons “le grand open air chanteloup” (France)

Payre (France)


MIS 5

rEFS

30 m²

Primarily based on “task-specific location,” “rein- lithic analysis. Zoo- costamagno deer hunting camp,” “shortarchaeological data et al. 2006: term occupations” 472 is considered as a secondary indicator.

30 m²

Primarily based on “task-specific location,” “rein- lithic analysis. Zoo- costamagno deer hunting camp,” “shortarchaeological data et al. 2006: term occupations” is considered as a 472 secondary indicator.

6130 m²

distinction of three different occupations episodes

les Pradelles collapsed (France) cave Sedimentological MIS 4 and/or facies 2b MIS 3

ArguMEntS

lithic data (proportional comparative depaepe analysis of zones and 2001: 356 refits and distribution maps)

rockshelter

Archaeosedimen tary units within MIS 5 geological layer (level d)

70 m²

“Seasonal short-term occupa- Mainly zooarchaeo- Moncel et al. tions (autumn-winter)” logical data 2007: 83

cave

Archaeosedimen tary units within MIS 8-7 geological layer (level F)

25 m²

“Succession of short [seasonal] Mainly zooarchaeo- rivals et al. occupations” logical data 2009b: 1077

cave

Archaeosedimen tary units within MIS 8-7 geological layer (level g)

54 m²

“Butchery halt or unspecialized Mainly zooarchaeo- rivals et al. short occupation?” logical data 2009b: 1071

55 m²

“the site operated at the same Martínezas an intermediate point on Principally based on Moreno et al. the route of herd migrations, lithic record 2010: 504 and was used during brief seasonal occupations”

15 m²

“Settlement related with monitoring the migrations of aniMartínezmals that roamed the nearby Principally based on Moreno et al. valleys at a time when such lithic record 2010: 504 animal resources were highly predictable”

37 m²

“l’atelier de taille stricto sensu étant exclu du fait de l’abondance de vestiges fauniques, il semble que seule une occupation de type habitat saisonnier ou de longue durée soit compatible avec les données archéologiques, en particulier parce que les activités réalisées intégralement dans l’abri sont diversifiées (production/ utilisation/entretien des outillages; traitement des ressources animales, prélèvement de viande et de moelle)”

lithic technology, raw material prothiébaut et curement analysis al. 2009: 709 and zooarchaeological data.

150 m²

Succession of unknown number and duration of reindeer hunting and processing episodes

Spatial distribution analysis of faunal and lithic records.

Archaeosedimen MIS 3 tary unit n10 roca dels rockshelter Bous (Spain) Archaeosedimen MIS 3 tary unit n12

Saint-césaire rockshelter (France)

Archaeosedimen tary unit (level MIS 3 Egpf)

Salzgitter lebenstedt (germany)

Archaeostratigra phic sub-units within waterMIS 5-3 logged fluvial sediments

open air


375

gaudzinsky and roebroeks 2000: 517519

SItE

Starosele (ukraine)

teixoneres (Spain)

SEttIng

unItS oF AnAlySIS

EXc. ArEA (APProX.)


ArguMEntS

geological layer MIS 3 (level 1)

-

“Butchering station”; “the palimpsest nature of level 1 makes further analysis of the assemblage risky”

Mainly zooarchaeo- Burke 2000: logical data 329

geological layer MIS 3 (level 2)

-

“levels 4, 2 and 1 appear likely to have served as butchering Mainly zooarchaeo- Burke 2000: locales, or summarily organlogical data 332 ized processing stations”

geological layer MIS 3? (level 3)

-

“Secondary butchering locale and as a living site,” “butcher- Mainly zooarchaeo- Burke 2000: 329 ing locale, or summarily organlogical data ized processing station”

geological layer MIS 3? (level 4)

-

“Butchering locale and as a living site” - “butchering locale, Mainly zooarchaeo- Burke 2000: or summarily organized prological data 332 cessing station”

geological layer MIS 2-MIS 5c (level III)

>15 m²

“Stop along the way: Sporadic visits, very spread chronologi- Faunal and lithic records. cally, of small groups of hunter-gatherers”

67 m²

“Floor I apparently resulted from two occupational episodes”

67 m²

Archaeostratigraphic analysis of combus“Floor II also reflects two occu- tion features, lithic henry 2012: pations” items and refits, cou- 260 pled with microstratigraphic data.

67 m²

“An integration of the hearth patterns and sector analysis suggests that Floor III experienced two occupations, one during a prevailing wind from the southeast and another associated with wind from the southwest”

Archaeostratigraphic analysis of combustion features, lithic henry 2012: items and refits, cou- 261 pled with microstratigraphic data.

Analysis of production sequences using lourdeau 2011: 184 a technological approach.

chronology

open air

cave

Stratified living floor (I) within MIS 3 lithostratigraphic unit

tor-Faraj (Jordan)

Stratified living floor (II) within MIS 3 lithostratigraphic unit

rockshelter

Stratified living floor (III) within MIS 3 lithostratigraphic unit

umm el tlel open air (Syria)

rEFS

rosell et al. 2010: 152

Archaeostratigraphic analysis of combustion features, lithic henry 2012: items and refits, cou- 260 pled with microstratigraphic data.

Stratum “Sedimentary complex VI3”

MIS 3?

70 m²

3 hypotheses: 1) “An interrupted presence,” 2) “Abandonment phases for bigger periods (several hundred or thousand years),” and 3) “Site abandonment for fairly short periods (on the order of a few years or a few decades)”

geological stratum (wal d)

MIS 5c

139 m²

“Finds from wal d represent Archaeostratigraphic conard and ephemeral episodes of analysis of rMus Adler 1997: hominid activity in the Middle and refits 170 Paleolithic”

176 m²

“we feel most secure in distinguish a single short-term occupation episode in which the remains of at least one fallow deer were processed, roasted, and consumed in association with the reduction of primary source lithic material”

wallertheim open air (germany) Archaeological horizon (wal A)

376

MIS 5


Archaeostratigraphic Adler et al. analysis of rMus, 2003: 68 refits and faunal remains.

lItErAturE Adler, d. S., t. J. Prindiville, and n. J. conard. 2003. Patterns of Spatial organization and land use during the Eemian Interglacial in the rhineland: new data from wallertheim, germany. Eurasian Prehistory 1 (2): 25-78 Albert, r., F. Berna, and P. goldberg. 2012. Insights on neanderthal Fire use at kebara cave (Israel) through high resolution Study of Prehistoric combustion Features: Evidence from Phytoliths and thin Sections. Quaternary International 247: 278-293. Audouze, F., and J. g. Enloe. 1997. high resolution Archaeology at Verberie: limits and Interpretations. world Archaeology 29 (2): 195207. Bailey, g. n. 1981. concepts, time-Scales and Explanation in Economic Prehistory. In Economic Archaeology, ed. by A. Sheridan and g. n. Bailey, pp. 97-117. oxford: British Archaeological reports International Series 96. 2007. time Perspectives, Palimpsests and the Archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 198-223. Binford, l. r. 1980. willow Smoke and dogs' tails: hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 4-20. 1981. Behavioural Archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise.” Journal of Anthropological research 37: 195-208. 1982. the Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 5-31. Bordes, J.-g. 2003. lithic taphonomy of the châtelperronian/Aurignacian Interstratifications in roc-de-combe and le Piage (lot, France). In the chronology of the Aurignacian and of the transitional technocomplexes. dating, Stratigraphies, cultural Implications, ed. by J. Zilhão and F. d’Errico, pp. 223-244. lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia. Bordes, F., J.-P. rigaud, and d. de Sonneville-Bordes. 1972. des buts, problèmes et limites de l’archéologie paléolithique. Quaternaria 16: 1537. Bronk ramsey, c., t. higham, A. Bowles, and r. E. M. hedges. 2004. Improvements to the Pretreatment of Bone at oxford. radiocarbon 46: 155-63.

Burke, A. 2000. the View from Starosele: Faunal Exploitation at a Middle Palaeolithic Site in western crimea. International Journal of osteoarchaeology 10: 325-335. 2006. neanderthal Settlement Patterns in crimea: A landscape Approach. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 510-523. cabanes, d., c. Mallol, I. Expósito, and J. Baena. 2010. Phytolith Evidence for hearths and Beds in the late Mousterian occupations of Esquilleu cave (cantabria, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2947-2957. chabaï, V., and M. Patou-Mathis. 2009. kabazi V, late Middle Palaeolithic camps: raw Material and Fauna Exploitation. Археологическийальманах 20: 59-76. chacón, M. g., and M. c. Fernández-laso. 2007. Modelos de ocupación durante el Paleolítico medio: El nivel k del Abric romaní (capellades, Barcelona, España). complutum 18: 47-60. conard, n. J. 1996. Middle Palaeolithic Settlement in the rhineland. In Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age Settlement Systems, ed. by n. J. conard and F. wendorf, pp. 255-68. u.I.S.P.P – XIII congress. Forlì: ABAco. ed. 2001a. Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. I. tübingen: kerns Verlag. 2001b. Advances and Problems in the Study of Paleolithic Settlement Systems. In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. I, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. vii-xx. tübingen: kerns Verlag. ed. 2004. Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. II. tübingen: kerns Verlag. conard, n. J., and F. wendorf, eds. 1996. Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age Settlement Systems, u.I.S.P.P – XIII congress. Forlì: ABAco. conard, n. J., and d. S. Adler. 1996. wallertheim horizon d: An Example of high resolution Archaeology in the Middle Paleolithic. Quaternaria nova 6: 109-125. 1997. lithic reduction and hominid Behavior in the Middle Palaeolithic of the rhineland. Journal of Anthropological research 53: 147-176. conard, n. J., and A. delagnes, eds. 2010. Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and


377

Middle Stone Age, Vol. III. tübingen: kerns Verlag. conkey, M. 1987. Interpretative Problems in hunter-gatherer regional Studies: Some thoughts on the European upper Paleolithic. In the Pleistocene old world, ed. by o. Soffer, pp. 63-77. new york: Plenum Press. costamagno, S., l. Meignen, c. Beauval, B. Vandermeersch, and B. Maureille. 2006. les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, France): A Mousterian reindeer hunting camp? Journal of Archaeological Anthropology 25: 466-84. courty, M. A. 2001. Microfacies Analysis Assisting Archaeological Stratigraphy. In Earth Sciences and Archaeology, ed. by P. goldberg, V. t. holliday, and c. r. Ferring, pp. 205-239. new york: kluwer. daujeard, c., and M. h. Moncel. 2010. on neanderthal Subsistence Strategies and land use: A regional Focus on the rhone Valley Area in Southeastern France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29: 368-391

Fisher, J. w., and h. c. Strickland. 1991. dwellings and Fireplaces: keys to Efe Pygmy campsite Structure. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile campsites, ed. by c. S. gamble and w. Boismier, pp. 215-236. Ann Arbor, MA: International Monographs in Prehistory. Ethnoarchaeological Series 1. galanidou, n. 1997. home is where the hearth is. the Spatial organization of the upper Palaeolithic rockshelter occupations at klithi and kastritsa in northwest greece. oxford: BAr International Series 687. 2000. Patterns in caves: Foragers, horticulturists and the use of Space. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 243-75. gaudzinsky, S., and w. roebroeks. 2000. Adults only. reindeer hunting at the Middle Palaeolithic Site Salzgitter lebenstedt, northern germany. Journal of human Evolution 38: 497-521. goldberg, P., and F. Berna. 2010. Micromorphology and context. Quaternary International 214 (1): 56-62.

daujeard, c., P. Fernandes, J.-l. guadelli, M. h. Moncel, c. Santagata, and J.-P. raynal. 2012. neanderthal Subsistence Strategies in Southeastern France between the Plains of the rhone Valley and the Mid-Mountains of the Massif central (MIS 7 to MIS 3). Quaternary International 252: 32-47.

hayden, B. 2012. neandertal Social Structure? oxford Journal of Archaeology 31 (1): 1-26.

depaepe, P. 2001. A comparison of Spatial Analyses of three Mousterian Sites: new Methods, new Interpretations. In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. I, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. 337-360. tübingen: kerns Verlag.

henry, d. o., h. J. hietala, A. M. rosen, y. E. demidenko, V. I. usik, and t. l. Armagan. 2004. human Behavioral organization in the Middle Paleolithic: were neanderthals different? American Anthropologist 106 (1): 17-31.

depaepe, P., o. guerlin, c. Swinnen, and P. Antoine. 1999. occupations du Paléolithique moyen à Blangy-tronville. revue archéologique de Picardie 3-4: 3-21. dibble, h. l., t. P. raczek, and S. P. McPherron. 2005. Excavator Bias at the Site of Pech de l'Azé IV, France. Journal of Field Archaeology: 317328. Fernández-laso, M. c., M. g. chacón, M. d. garcíaAntón, and F. rivals. 2011. territorial Mobility of neanderthal groups: A case Study from level M of Abric romaní (capellades, Barcelona, Spain). In neanderthal lifeways, Subsistence and technology: one hundred Fifty years of neanderthal Study, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, ed. by n. J. conard and J. richter, pp. 187-202. Springer.

378

henry, d. o. 2012. the Palimpsest Problem, hearth Pattern Analysis, and Middle Paleolithic Site Structure. Quaternary International 247: 246266.

higham, t. 2011. European Middle and upper Palaeolithic radiocarbon dates are often older than they look: Problems with Previous dates and Some remedies. Antiquity 85: 235-249 holdaway, S., and l. wandsnider. 2008. time in Archaeology: time Perspectivism revisited. Salt lake city: the university of utah Press. Isaac, g. 1981. Stone Age Visiting cards: Approaches to the Study of Early land-use Patterns. In Pattern of the Past: Studies in honour of david clarke, ed. by I. hodder, g. Isaac, and n. hammond, pp. 131-155. cambridge: cambridge university Press. Jöris, o., and M. Street. 2008. At the End of the 14c time Scaled the Middle to upper Paleolithic record of western Eurasia. Journal of human Evolution 55: 782-802.


Julien, M., c. karlin, and B. Valentin. 1992. déchets de silex, déchets de pierres chauffées. de l’intéret des remontages à Pincevent (France). In Piecing together the Past: Applications of refitting Studies in Archaeology, ed. by J. l. hofman and J. g. Enloe, pp. 287-295. oxford: BAr International Series 578. kelly, r. l. 1995. the Foraging Spectrum: diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways. washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution Press. kuhn, S. 1995. Mousterian lithic technology: An Ecological Perspective. Princeton: Princeton university Press. langbroek, M. 2011. trees and ladders: A critique of the theory of human cognitive and Behavioural Evolution in Palaeolithic Archaeology. Quaternary International 270: 4-14. leroi-gourhan, A., and M. Brézillon. 1972. Fouilles de Pincevent: essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un habitat Magdalénienne (la section 36). Paris: Editions du c.n.r.S. lourdeau, A. 2011. Stability in the Intermittence. A Spatio-temporal Approach to Mousterian Behavior in the near East Based on the technological Analysis of lithic Industries of complex VI3 at umm el tlel (central Syria). In neanderthal lifeways, Subsistence and technology: one hundred Fifty years of neanderthal Study, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, ed. by n. J. conard and J. richter, pp. 167186. Springer. lucas, g. 2012. understanding the Archaeological record. cambridge: cambridge university Press. Machado, J., c. M. hernández, c. Mallol, and B. galván. 2013. lithic Production, Site Formation and Middle Palaeolithic Palimpsest Analysis: In Search of human occupation Episodes at Abric del Pastor Stratigraphic unit IV (Alicante, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 2254-2273. Malinsky-Buller, A., E. hovers, and o. Marder. 2011. Making time: ‘living Floors’, ‘Palimpsests’ and Site Formation Processes. A Perspective from the open-Air lower Paleolithic Site of revadim Quarry, Israel. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2): 89-101. Mallol, c., d. cabanes, and A. Sistiaga, A. n.d. unraveling the Formation of a Middle Palaeolithic combustion Structure: A microcontextual approach. (In preparation)

Mallol, c. and S. Mentzer. n.d. contacts under the lens: Perspectives on the role of microstratigraphy in archaeological research. (Submitted) Mallol, c., c. M. hernández, d. cabanes, A. Sistiaga, J. Machado, Á. rodríguez, l. Pérez, and B. galván. 2013a. the Black layer of Middle Palaeolithic combustion Structures. Interpretation and Archaeostratigraphic Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 25152537. Mallol, c., c. M. hernández, d. cabanes, J. Machado, A. Sistiaga, l. Pérez, and B. galván. 2013b. human Actions Performed on Simple combustion Structures: An Experimental Approach to the Study of Middle Palaeolithic Fire. Quaternary International 315: 3-15. Marks, A. E., and V. chabaï. 2001. constructing Middle Paleolithic Settlement Systems in crimea: Potentials and limitations. In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. I, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. 179-204. tübingen: kerns Verlag. Marks, A. E., and d. Friedel. 1977. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Avdat/Aqev Area. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the central negev, Israel II, ed. by A. E. Marks, pp. 131-158. dallas: Southern Methodist university. Martínez-Moreno, J., r. Mora, and I. de la torre. 2004. Methodological Approach for understanding Middle Palaeolithic Settlement dynamics at la roca dels Bous (noguera, catalunya, northeast Spain). In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. II, ed. by. n. J. conard, pp. 393414. tübingen: kerns Verlag. Martínez-Moreno, J., I. de la torre, r. Mora, and J. casanova. 2010. technical Variability and changes in the Pattern of Settlement at roca dels Bous (Southeastern Pre-Pyrenees, Spain). In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. III, ed. by n. J. conard and A. delagnes, pp. 485-507. tübingen: kerns Verlag. Meignen, l., P. goldberg, and o. Bar-yosef. 2007. the hearths at kebara cave and their role in Site Formation Processes. In kebara cave Mt. carmel, Israel. the Middle and upper Paleolithic Archaeology (Part I), ed. by o. Bar-yosef and l. Meignen, pp. 91-107 cambridge: American School of Prehistoric research Bulletin 49 and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, harvard university.


379

Mentzer, S. M. 2012. Microarchaeological Approaches to the Identification and Interpretation of combustion Features in Prehistoric Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Method and theory: 1-53. Miller, c. E., n. J. conard, P. goldberg, and F. Berna, F. 2010. dumping, Sweeping and trampling: Experimental Micromorphological Analysis of Anthropogenically Modified combustion Features. Palethnologie 2: 25-37.

1995. Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory of Behavior. Journal of Archaeological research 3: 205-255. ono, A. 1994. die Altsteinzeit in Japan. Jahrbuch des rgZM 42: 3-19. Patou-Mathis, M. 2009. the Subsistence Behaviours of the last crimean neanderthals. In Sourcebook of Paleolithic transitions, ed. by M. camps and P. chauhan, pp. 441-454. Springer.

Miller, c. E., P. goldberg, and F. Berna. 2013. geoarchaeological Investigations at diepkloof rock Shelter, western cape, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 3432-3452.

Patou-Mathis, M., and V. chabaï. 2003. kabazi II (crimée, ukraine): un site d’abattage et de boucherie du Paléolithique moyen. l’anthropologie 107: 223-253.

Moncel, M. h. 2010. l’Abri des Pêcheurs (Ardèche, sud-est France). des occupations néandertaliennes dans une “grotte en forme de fissure”. Annales d’université Valahia targoviste, Section d’Archéologie et d’histoire XII (2): 7-21.

Pike-tay, A., and r. cosgrove. 2002. From reindeer to wallaby: recovering Patterns of Seasonality, Mobility, and Prey Selection in the Palaeolithic old world. Journal of Archaeological Method and theory 9: 101-146.

Moncel, M. h., M. g. chacón, A. Bouteaux, M.-A. Julien, and M. Patou-Mathis. 2007. ocupación en abrigo durante el estadio isotópico 5: El nivel d del yacimiento de Payre (Ardèche, Francia). gestión del territorio y actividades dentro del yacimiento. trabajos de Prehistoria 64: 65-86.

ritcher, J. 2006. neanderthals in their landscape. In neanderthals in Europe. Proceedings of the International conference held in the galloroman Museum in tongeren, ed. by B. demarsin and M. otte, pp. 51-66. liège: ErAul 117.

Moncel, M. h., and F. rivals. 2011. on the Question of Short-term neanderthal Site occupations. Payre, France (MIS 8-7), and taubach/weimar, germany (MIS 5). Journal of Anthropological research 67: 47-75.

rivals, F., E. Schulz, and t. M. kaiser. 2009a. A new Application of dental wear Analyses: Estimation of duration of hominid occupations in Archaeological localities. Journal of human Evolution 56: 329-39.

Morin, E., t. tsanova, n. Sirakov, w. rendu, J.-B. Mallye, and F. lévêque. 2005. Bone refits in Stratified deposits: testing the chronological grain at Saint-césaire. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1083-1098.

rivals, F., M. h. Moncel, and M. Patou-Mathis. 2009b. Seasonality and Intra-Site Variation of neanderthal occupations in the Middle Palaeolithic locality of Payre (Ardèche, France) using dental wear Analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1070-78.

Mortensen, P. 1972. Seasonal camps and Early Villages in the Zagros. In Man, Settlement And urbanism, ed. by P. ucko, r. thungham, and g. w. dimblely, pp. 159-173. london: duckworth. Mourre, V., S. costamagno, l. Bruxelles, d. colonge, S. cravinho, V. laroulandie, B. Maureille, c. thiébaut, and J. Viguier. 2008. Exploitation du milieu montagnard dans le moustérien final: la grotte du noisetier à Fréchet-Aure (Pyrénées centrales Françaises). In Proceedings of the XV world congress uISPP (lisbon, 4-9 September 2006). Mountain environments in prehistoric Europe: Settlement and mobility strategies. British Archaeological reports International Series. o’connell, J. F. 1987. Alyawara Site Structure and its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52 (1): 74-108.

380

roebroeks, w. 1988. From Find Scatters to Early hominid Behaviour. A Study of Middle Palaeolithic riverside Settlements at MaastrichtBelvedere (the netherlands). leiden: leiden university Press. rosell, J., r. Blasco, F. rivals, M. g. chacón, l. Menéndez, J. I. Morales, A. rodríguez-hidalgo, A. cebrià, E. carbonell, and d. Serrat. 2010. A Stop Along the way: the role of neanderthals groups at level III of teixoneres cave (Moià, Barcelona, Spain). Quaternaire 21: 139154. rosell, J., I. cáceres, r. Blasco, M. Bennàsar, P. Bravo, g. campeny, M. Esteban-nadal, M. c. Fernández-laso, M. J. gabucio, r. huguet, n. Ibáñez, P. Martín, F. rivals, A. rodríguez hidalgo, and P. Saladié. 2012a. A Zooarchaeological


contribution to Establish occupational Patterns at level J of Abric romaní (Barcelona, Spain). Quaternary International 247: 69-84. rosell, J., r. Blasco, M. c. Fernández-laso, M. Vaquero, and E. carbonell. 2012b. connecting Areas: Faunal refits as a diagnostic Element to Identify Synchronicity in the Abric romaní Archaeological Assemblages. Quaternary International 252: 56-67.

Stevenson, M.g. 1991. Beyond the Formation of hearth-Associated Artifact Assemblages. In the Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, ed. by E. M. kroll and t. d. Price, pp. 269-299. new york: Plenum Press. Sullivan, A. P. 1992. Investigating the Archaeological consequences of Short-duration occupations. American Antiquity 57: 99-115.

Sañudo, P. 2008. Spatial Analysis of Bolomor cave level IV (tavernes de la Valldigna, Valencia). Annali dell’università degli Studi di Ferrara, Museologia Scientifica e naturalistica, volumen speciale: 155-160.

thiébaut, c., l. Meignen, and F. lévêque. 2009. les dernières occupations moustériennes de Saintcésaire (charente-Maritime, France): diversité des techniques utilisées et comportements économiques pratiqués. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 106 (4): 691-714.

Scheer, A. 1993. the organization of lithic resource use during the gravettian in germany. In Bebore lascaux, ed. by h. knecht, A. Pike-tay, and r. white, pp. 193-210. Boca ratón: crc Press.

Valensi, P., and E. Psathi. 2004. Faunal Exploitation during the Middle Palaeolithic in South-eastern France and north-western Italy. International Journal of osteoarchaeology 14: 256-272.

Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological record. Albuquerque: university of new Mexico Press. Shea, J. J. 1996. levantine Mousterian land use and lithic Variability. In Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age Settlement Systems, ed. By n. J. conard and F. wendorf, pp. 299-304. u.I.S.P.P – XIII congress. Forlì: ABAco. Shott, M. J. 1998. Status and role of Formation theory in contemporary Archaeological Practice. Journal of Archaeological research 6 (4): 299-329. 2004. hunter-gatherer Aggregations in theory and Evidence: the Eastern north American Paleoindian case. In hunter gatherers in Archaeology, ed. by g. crothers, pp. 68-102. carbondale: center for Archaeological Investigation, Southern Illinois university. Sistiaga, A., c. Mallol, B. galván, and r. E. Summons. 2014. the neanderthal Meal: A new Perspective using Faecal Biomarkers. Plos one 9, e101045. Smith, M. E. 1992. Braudel’s temporal rhythms and chronology theory in Archaeology. In Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, ed. by A. B. knapp, pp. 23-34. cambridge: cambridge university Press. Stern, n. 1993. the Structure of the lower Pleistocene archaeological record: A case Study from the koobi Fora Formation. current Anthropology 34: 201-225.

Vallverdú, J., A. Allué, J. l. Bischoff, I. cáceres, E. carbonell, A. cebrià, d. garcía-Antón, r. huguet, n. Ibáñez, k. Martínez, I. Pastó, J. rosell, P. Saladié, and M. Vaquero. 2005. Short human occupations in the Middle Palaeolithic level I of the Abric romaní rock-Shelter. Journal of human Evolution 48: 157-174. Van noten, F., d. cahen, and l. keeley. 1980. A Paleolithic campsite in Belgium. Scientific American 242: 48-55. Vaquero, M. 2008. the history of Stones: Behavioural Inferences and temporal resolution of an Archaeological Assemblage from the Middle Palaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 3178-3185. Vaquero, M., and Pastó, I. 2001. the definition of spatial units in Middle Palaeolithic sites: the hearth-related assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(11): 1209-1220. Vaquero, M., g. chacón, c. Fernández, k. Martínez, and J. M. rando. 2001. Intrasite Spatial Patterning and transport in the Abric romaní Middle Palaeolithic Site (capellades, Barcelona, Spain). In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. I, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. 573-596. tübingen: kerns Verlag. Vaquero, M., J. M. rando, and g. chacón. 2004. neandertal Spatial Behaviour and Social Structure: hearth-related Assemblages from the Abric romaní Middle Palaeolithic Site. In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, vol. II, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. 367-392. tübingen: kerns Verlag.


381

Vaquero, M., M. g. chacón, M. d. garcía-Antón, r. gómez, k. Martínez, and F. cuartero. 2012a. time and Space in the Formation of lithic Assemblages: the Example of Abric romaní level J. Quaternary International 247: 162-181. Vaquero, M., E. Allué, and J. Vallverdú. 2012b. conclusions: landscapes, campsites, time, and neanderthal Behavior. In high resolution Archaeology and neanderthal Behavior. time and Space in level J of Abric romaní (capellades, Spain), ed. by E. carbonell, pp. 389-405. dordretch: Springer. Vermeersch, P. 2001. Middle Paleolithic Settlement Patterns in west European open-Air Sites: Possibilities and Problems. In Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age, Vol. I, ed. by n. J. conard, pp. 395-420. tübingen: kerns Verlag.

wallace, I. J., and J. J. Shea. 2006. Mobility Patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1293-1309. weissner, P. 1982. Beyond willow Smoke And dogs’ tails: A comment on Binford’s Analysis of hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47: 171-178. yellen, J. E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for reconstructing the Past. new york: Academic Press. Zilhão, J. 2006. chronostratigraphy of the Middleto-upper Paleolithic transition in the Iberian Peninsula. Pyrenae 37: 7-84.

Villa, P. 1978. terra Amata and the Middle Pleistocene Archaeological record of Southern France. Berkeley: university of california Press.

382
