Site Exploitation Territories and Topography: Two ... - Science Direct

Journal of Archaeological Science 1983, 10, 87-l 15

Site Exploitation Territories and Topography: Two Case. Studies from Palaeolithic Spain G. N. Bailey” and I. Davidsonb Several methods of relating on-site and off-site data for developing and testing hypotheses about man-environment relationships and prehistoric subsistence economies have been devised since the original proposal for site-catchment analysis in 1970. We review the principles involved in these methods, and emphasise the importance of distinguishing clearly between Site Catchments (SCs) and Site Exploitation Territories (SETS). We propose that the distorting effects of variable topography have crucial importance in understanding the tactical reasons for using particular sites in regional exploitation strategies and demonstrate a simple technique for calculating this distortion. Two case studies from the Upper Palaeolithic of Spain show the potential of the technique. One focuses on the relationships between site clusters, the other explores the relationships between sites within site clusters. Keywords: PREHISTORIC ECONOMIES, ANALYSIS, UPPER PALAEOLITHIC.

SPAIN,

SITE

CATCHMENT

Introduction Site catchment analysis (SCA) was introduced in 1970 as a field method for testing the hypothesis of cereal use in the Natufian of Palestine (Vita-Finzi et al., 1970). It grew out of attempts to explain variability in the fauna1 assemblages of the eastern Mediterranean (Higgs, 1961, 1967) and to explore the seasonal use of sites in Late Palaeolithic Greece (Higgs et al., 1967). The methodology has since been used and developed in a variety of contexts by many students of the late E. S. Higgs to examine the relationship between human subsistence and the environment from which it is drawn (e.g. papers in Higgs, 1972, 1975; Jarman et al., 1982; also Bintliff, 1977; Carter, 1969, 1970; Cassels, 1972; Clark, 1972; Clarke, 1972; Davidson, 1976; Dennell, 1978; Ellison & Harriss, 1972; Gamble, 1978; Hawke-Smith, 1979; Jarman, H., 1976; Jarman, H. & Bay-Petersen, 1976; Jarman, M., 1972, 1976; Sakellaridis, 1979; Saxon, 1974; Sturdy, 1972, 1975; Vita-Finzi, 1975; Webley, 1972, 1976). Following an early attempt by J. Desmond Clark (1971) to apply some aspects of the methodology to the explanation of variability in African artifact assemblages, interest by North American scholars developed slowly until the major work of Flannery (1976a) and Jochim (1976). Recent surveys of the technique from a variety of perspectives can be found in Findlow & Ericson (1980), Jarman et al. (1982), Roper (1979) and Vita-Finzi (1978). aDepartment of Archaeology, University of Cambridge,Cambridge, England. bDepartment of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., Australia. 87 0305S4403/83/020087+29

$03.00/O

0 1983 AcademicPressInc. (London) Limited

88

G. N. BAILEY AND I. DAVIDSON

We emphasize at the outset our opinion that site catchment analysis is not a single technique, but rather a variety of techniques linked only in the most general way by a common focus on the study of archaeological sites in relation to their surrounding environments. While the main focus of these techniques has been subsistence economy, this shades imperceptibly into palaeoecological interests in one direction and sociological ones in the other. Under the general heading of site catchment analysis one may note attempts to achieve at least six objectives: (1) to define the area habitually used by the occupants of a site for their daily subsistence; (2) to trace to their points of origin in the surrounding landscape materials and resources whose archaeological remains are present on-site; (3) to reconstruct the micro-environments around a site as a clue to variations in the environmental data present on-site; (4) to reconstruct the food resources potentially available to the occupants of a site and hence, by further inference, the subsistence economy actually practised by them; (5) to reconstruct the function of sites (as home-bases, temporary camps etc.); (6) to reconstruct the social and economic relationships between sites as members of regional settlement systems. Although there is some overlap between these objectives, they depend on different assumptions, different methods, different sorts of data and different levels of accuracy. For example, Higgs (1961, 1967) in his early fauna1 work used modern physiographic and vegetational zones within circles of 50 km radius in what is still one of the best demonstrations of the relationship between prehistoric cave faunas and environmental setting, while a later study of some of the same sites from the point of view of subsistence economy emphasized the classification of potential land use within circles of 10 km and 5 km radius (Vita-Finzi & Higgs et al., 1970). There is also a further distinction between pursuit of these objectives inductively to generate patterns of data, or deductively to test propositions or hypotheses derived from a priori considerations. As recent commentators have observed (e.g. Roper, 1982), site catchment analysis does not itself constitute a theory of behaviour, except to the extent that it depends on uniformitarian assumptions about time-distance constraints on human travel or processes of environmental change. It refers rather to operational procedures for linking theory and archaeological data, and as such might be described as an example of “middle range” theory (Binford, 1977; Schiffer, 1976). Of the many variations on the original theme, the fundamental development was the recognition of the important difference between the Site Territory and the Site Catchment. Higgs & Vita-Finzi (1972, p. 30) defined “. . . a site territory as the area habitually exploited from a single site. The site catchment, on the other hand, embraces the terrain covered by occasional forays in search of raw materials for tools and other purposes.” We now refer to site territories as “site exploitation territories” (SETS) in order to avoid any confusion with the ethological concept of defended territories (Dyson-Hudson & Smith, 1978; Peterson, 1975). We also refer to Site Catchment Analysis (SCA) as the empirical study of site catchments from on-site data, and Site Territorial Analysis (STA) as the study of arbitrarily defined site exploitation territories. We further propose to subsume these two techniques under the more general heading of “off-site analysis”. This includes studies with similar objectives to SCA and STA but which deal with areas which lack nucleated archaeological sites (Foley, 1981; Hallam, 1977) or which begin with a regional rather than a site-specific focus of analysis (e.g. Higgs et al., 1967; Jochim, 1976; Sturdy, 1975; Zarky, 1976). For reasons which we explain below, most off-site analyses concerned with subsistence should benefit from some form of analysis of site exploitation territories, and thus have to confront the problems raised by applying

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

89

38

Figure 1. General map of Spain indicating text.

areas and sites mentioned in the

arbitrarily defined territorial limits to a variety of physical environments. We have both been concerned with this aspect of the methodology in our separate work in Spain (Figure 1). Our main purpose in this paper is to describe a technique which we have both used independently for defining territorial limits in conditions of varied topography, and to discuss our different applications of it to the Late Palaeolithic of Spain, namely in Cantabria (Bailey) and Valencia (Davidson). Theoretical Background The original site catchment analysis (Vita-Finzi et al., 1970) had three components: (1) it defined a problem current in the archaeological literature, and proposed a methodology which might solve that problem; (2) it extracted from the ethnographic literature and simple energetics (Chisholm, 1968; Lee, 1969) the fact that there is, and must be, some spatial limitation to the field of potential resources accessible to the occupants of a given site; (3) it defined as variables to be investigated in the site exploitation territory a number of resource categories (such as potential arable, rough grazing etc.) relevant to the particular problem. Subsequent reactions to the deceptive simplicity of this study have tended to overlook

90

G. N. BAILEY

AND

I. DAVIDSON

the essential interdependence of these stages, and especially the links between (1) and (3). It is easy to assume that site catchment analysis is a single technique, which only has to be applied in every situation in the same way as in the Mt. Carmel study, regardless of the archaeological problem or its context, to produce acceptable (or unacceptable) results. The original proposal did not provide a panacea, but a specific case of the application of a novel methodology. Each particular case should be defined in terms of problem, local variables affecting the time-distance factor (see below), relevant resource categories, and relevant scale of analysis. Provided these principles are kept in mind, the particular criticisms of the assumptions implicit in the original applications (Chapman in Clarke 1978, 125-128; Hodder & Orton, 1976; Wobst, 1978) may be answered in new studies. Examination of more recent analyses shows that the basic approach has given rise to a considerable variety of research designs, some of which have been constructed with the express purpose of checking and, where necessary, modifying the initial assumptions, and improving confidence in the resulting interpretations. Among the more clearly discernible trends in this direction are the weighting of sites according to their size, length of occupation or other on-site characteristics (Dennell & Webley, 1975; Peebles, 1978; Webley, 1972); detailed comparison of off-site and on-site quantities (Akazawa, 1980; Bailey, 1978, 1982; Davidson, 1976; Hastorf, 1980; Jarman, 1976; Munson et al., 1971); predictive modelling of site locations (Bailey, 1978; Gamble, 1979; Jochim, 1976; Schwellnus, 1974; Sturdy, 1975); analysis of locations relative to each other to check assumptions about territory size and site function (Brumfiel, 1976; Cassels, 1972; Dennell & Webley, 1975); and the development of regional analysis which examines the economic potential of large areas as a check on the interpretation of site territorial data (Bay-Petersen, 1982; Gamble, 1978; Sturdy, 1975; Zarky, 1976). The recognition of the distinction between the site exploitation territory (SET) and the site catchment (SC) also implies a distinction between STA and SCA. The terms “SET” and “SC” were used interchangeably in the original Mt. Carmel paper and the term “SCA” continued in use to refer to both types of analysis (e.g. Higgs, 1975, appendix A). Strictly speaking, STA defines an arbitrary limit to the SET, based on theoretical considerations about the size of area around a site which would be habitually exploited by the site inhabitants. It is usually concerned primarily with assessing the potential food resources of the SET. SCA attempts to define inductively the size of the catchment from which all the materials found in the archaeological deposit were derived, and is often concerned with non-food resources. Flannery’s (19766) study of early farming sites in Oaxaca and Tehuacan is a clear example of SCA, while Rossman’s (1976) complementary study in the San Lorenzo region exemplifies STA. We propose that this distinction be adhered to, in order to avoid further confusion. We stress that whereas STA is necessarily limited to local relationships and therefore focused on the study of individual sites, SCA may refer to areas of regional scale and thus reveal information about long-distance social and economic interactions (e.g. Bahn, 1977). The distinction between STA and SCA is important at the local level in a practical sense because it is often impossible to carry out both techniques in conjunction. When the resources of primary interest are food resources, there will often be difficulties in assigning species (particularly animals) to a specific locality, and SCA may not be possible. In many cases there is also a strong presumption that potentially important food resources-notably plant foods-have left no archaeologically visible remains, so that the prospect of assessing their role in the prehistoric economy must lie in the analysis of off-site potential. In these cases STA will be an essential starting point, and more subtle methods will be required to test the predictions derived from it, and to assessthe relationship between on-site and off-site data, than a straightforward comparison between SETS and SCs.

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES

AND TOPOGRAPHY

91

The definition of SETS in STA is also important from a theoretical point of view because it allows the investigation of the relationship between resources potentially available to the occupants of a site, and the resources actually exploited from the site. Such comparisons may illuminate in unexpected ways the reasons for the choice of site location and site economy and the relationship of location and economy to long-term regional trends. This is illustrated in the comparison between crop plant remains and arable potential (Jarman, 1976; Jarman & Gamble, 1975) and in the analysis of coastal sites and marine exploitation (Bailey, 1978, 1982, 1983u). Comparison may also show that not all of the materials found in the archaeological deposits could be obtained from the SET and that it is necessary to investigate a wider area-the SC. This frequently involves the recognition of the interrelationships between activities at two or more sites or site groupings. In these two ways the study of resource exploitation may move beyond the study of subsistence to the study of economy and hence beyond reconstruction to explanation (Davidson, 1981). We recognize that alternative methods of off-site analysis have been proposed to compare human activities with environmental potential (Foley, 1977; Gumerman, 1971). Judging by the difficulties that these methods seem to have encountered in practice, we suspect that they might gain from being combined with STA rather than being considered as substitutes for it. In any case it is our contention that there are few case studies which will not benefit from the imaginative application of some form of STA, either as a means of generating hypotheses by exploring the structure of the archaeological record, or as a means of testing hypotheses derived from other considerations, such as predictions about economic strategy based on the analysis of regional environmental structure (Binford, 1980, 1982). Time-distance Factors The concept of the time-distance factor is crucial to the application of STA and is defined here as the maximum radius of travel from a given site to a given area of resource exploitation such that the energy expended in travel and extraction does not exceed the energy acquired as food. It is usually expressed in terms of time to accommodate impediments imposed by topography, vegetation or other factors. Since energy expenditure is a function of distance and time, the application of time-distance factors allows the concept of cost (Earle, 1980) to be introduced into the study of prehistoric economies. As Browman (1976) emphasises, there is no single limit for a given resource, but rather a series of thresholds representing the effect of diminishing returns with increasing distance. These circumscribe successively larger areas around a site, representing the preferred, the maximum and the marginal territory of exploitation. The time-distance factor employed is, in the first instance, arbitrary unless some measure can be devised for the energy costs and the probability of energy capture under variable conditions. In the original study Vita-Finzi et al. (1970) used a time-distance factor of 10 km or 2 hours’ walking time to define the limit of SETS. This followed Lee’s (1969) observation that the !Kung San usually do not venture more than 10 km from a base camp in daily exploitation. Other distances might be extracted from wider readings of the ethnographic literature, but the important point is that the application of this time-distance factor does not depend on the general applicability of the particular ethnographic example. It depends on the principle that distance and the related time is a limiting factor on human exploitation. At the stage of entering the archaeological analysis, the particular ethnographic source has ceased to have any relevance (Davidson, 1981). The acceptability of applying a particular time-distance limit will depend primarily on the nature of the archaeological problem under investigation and the additional tests undertaken to corroborate the initial results.

92

G. N. BAILEY

AND

I. DAVIDSON

Larger distances are of course occasionally recorded in the ethnographic literature (e.g. Hodder & Orton, 1976, p. 233). But these usually turn out to refer to exceptional circumstances where, for example, the resource in question has a crucial importance outweighing the costs imposed by extra distance, or where it is sparsely scattered, or temporarily scarce because of overexploitation close to the site, or where the costs of moving a settlement closer to the resource would outweigh the costs of extra movement in daily subsistence. A properly designed analysis should reveal major anomalies of this sort in the archaeological record. Subsequent experience has, in fact, indicated that the territorial limits commonly employed in the definition of SETS may be too large for many purposes. Flannery (1976~) has shown that the choice of an area as large as that within 2 hours may overwhelm the importance of resources within lesser distances which could have had a crucial effect in determining the prehistoric selection of sites. Vita-Finzi et al. (1970), following Chisholm (1968) and Virri (1946), recognized the importance of this, especially for crop agriculture, by introducing some weighting for successive 1 km rings up to 5 km distance from the site. In more recent analyses particular attention was focused on 1 hour and 10 min territories (e.g. Jarman & Webley, 1975). How far the choice of a given time-distance factor will distort the archaeological results will depend on the particular purpose of the analysis. In the Mt. Carmel study, the aim of defining SETS was mainly to measure the potential for cereal exploitation from the Natufian sites. In this case a large territorial “mesh” seemed appropriate, so that any area of potentially arable soil which might conceivably be relevant to a given site should be included for consideration. Even at this relatively coarse scale of analysis, a clear difference emerged between the arable potential of the coastal and inland Natufian sites, and between the Natufian sites as a whole and the later tell sites of the neolithic period. In similar fashion Ellison & Harriss (1972), by building models from the general patterns of land use potential within a large sample of SETS, were able to extract results of general validity about diachronic trends in rural settlement in a way that would not have been possible if they had concentrated on the problems of interpreting individual cases. Where, however, the interest is in the detailed quantification of economic potential at a particular site, or in the analysis of the criteria which determined site location, it may be necessary to justify more fully the choice of a given time-distance factor. The time-distance factor is actually a highly variable quantity, dependent on a number of different components, some of which it may be possible to define before STA commences. The key component in assessing the time-distance factor is the accessibility of the food supply. This in its turn is a function of the behaviour of the various food resources, the methods used to exploit them, the technology available, and the terrain in which the resources are found. Mobile animal resources clearly present different problems of accessibility from plant resources. Plant cultivation, because it involves more labour-intensive work, often requires a different assessment from plant collection. Use of boats, pack animals or other transport aids, or means of killing at a distance (e.g. traps, bows or spear throwers), may alter the definition and interpretation of SETS in comparison with walking time. Difficult terrain is likely to increase the costs of exploitation and so reduce the distance which can conveniently be covered in a day’s activity. It is sometimes possible to quantify these variables, and incorporate them into the initial definition of SETS. The use of 5 km/l hour and 1 km/l0 min distances for farming sites is a recognition of the more labour-intensive requirements of crop agriculture. Other time-distance factors can sometimes be estimated for resources with unusual characteristics: thus molluscs have quite small time-distance thresholds because of the relatively high transport costs frequently incurred in their exploitation (Bailey, 1975, 1978). In other contexts it is possible to quantify the technological variable in trans-

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

93

portation and use this to modify the definition of SETS, as illustrated by Anderson’s (.1976, 1982) comparison of walking, “ski-ing” and “boating” exploitation territories among boreal hunter-gatherers. Other variables, such as social or demographic factors, may be recognized, even though they cannot be quantified and built into the initial definition of SETS, and their effects are only likely to emerge after some initial application of STA. Thus, there is no single universally applicable time-distance factor. Where the choice of appropriate time-distance factor is in doubt, it may be useful to vary the initial assumption in the light of subsequent results, or to employ several different assumptions and assessthe impact of any resulting differences on the problem under study. Our case studies include one example where the 2-hour time-distance factor is used, and another where this was only the initial stage of analysis before a smaller time-distance factor was chosen. Browman (1976, p. 469) has suggested a classification of the various components that make up the time-distance factor into “. . . (1) geodesic distance, the straight line distance between two points; (2) pheric distance, the time needed to cover topographic space such as hills versus plains; (3) transport costs . . . ; and (4) social and psychological costs . . .“. This is a useful way to classify the different costs, but we prefer the term isochronic distance to describe the distance covered in a given unit of time in variable terrain, since “pheric” etymologically embodies the notion of carrying costs, which properly belong in Browman’s category (3). In the following we will concentrate on the theoretical and methodological problems of defining isochronic distance.

Isochronic Distance and Topography The published methodology for delimiting territory size in variable terrain (Higgs, 1975, appendix A) involves the walking of a number of arbitrarily defined 2-hour transects (usually a minimum of four). The boundary connecting these four points is then interpolated approximately by eye from maps. This procedure may be adequate for many purposes, but is obviously crude, especially where, as is often the case, the interpolated boundary runs over the most difficult terrain. The virtue of this method is that it ensures some first-hand familiarity with the terrain and allows systematic observation of environmental and geomorphological features. There are, however, numerous disadvantages. The principal one is that four 2-hour transects is a minimum of two person-day’s work. In variable terrain more than four transects for any one site may be desirable. Where many sites are being studied this places a high premium on available time and labour. The field studies of Barker (1975) and Jarman & Webley (1975) would each have required not less than two months in walking transects, which takes no account of time spent finding the sites, and travelling between them, or of transects beyond the minimum of four. In practice the walks were often carried out by students who were unfamiliar with the terrain, unused to walking long distances, and whose transects were influenced one way or another by modern roads and footpaths, barbed wire fences, bulls, unfriendly dogs or landowners, and the location of bars! The original Mt. Carmel study also had to allow for minefields and military manoeuvres. A number of shortcuts are possible. The simplest and least satisfactory of these is the use of circles of 5 km or 10 km radius on a commercial map projection. This is also the most common method, although the justification for it is not commonly given (but see e.g. Ellison & Harriss, 1972). Other possibilities are to walk shorter distances and to concentrate observations in the area closest to the site on the assumption that this is the

94

G. N. BAILEY

AND

I. DAVIDSON

most crucial area for interpretation; to use modern transport; and to seek out vantage points which allow a panoramic survey of large areas. In view of these difficulties it seems desirable to find a method of assessing topographic distortions which is independent of the knowledge of the terrain, the energies of the individual researcher, and of the time available for fieldwork. Our method involves the use of simple weighting factors which can be applied in any area for which detailed topographic maps are available. It is easy to apply, allows the systematic calculation of territories of any size (varying other components of the time-distance factor), estimates all parts of the circumference systematically and can be repeated by any researcher without requiring verification in the field. We stress that this method is not a substitute for field observation, but, by allowing the delimitation of SETS and detailed scrutiny of maps before fieldwork commences, may improve the quality and efficiency of field observations by indicating the most important points to be confirmed on the ground. When people go walking in rough country (rambling, bush-walking, back-packing, trekking, hiking, etc.) they usually estimate their time of arrival so that help may be alerted if they should be delayed from returning. A calculation commonly used by hill climbers is by Naismith’s formula, which states that the average time taken to walk 10 km on the flat is 2 hours, and that for every variation in altitude of 300 m an extra 4 hour should be added (Poucher, 196O).l This formula can easily be adapted to the discovery of territorial limits on topographic maps. On a map at scale 1 : 25,000 with contours at 50 m intervals, isochronic limits may be calculated with a pair of compasses. With the compasses set at 1 cm, each unit of distance on the map is equivalent to 3 min on the ground, and each contour is equivalent to an extra 5 min. These figures can easily be altered for maps of different scale. In measuring the area of the SET so defined, or the individual land-use zones within the SET, we assume a flat surface, although in theory the measurement of effective surface area taking account of angle of slope might seem a desirable refinement. We have not followed this through in practice because the calculations required to estimate effective surface area are complex and the resulting differences are in any case slight.2 We acknowledge the possibility of other impediments to movement such as the nature of the ground surface, vegetation or climatic conditions. Our justification for emphasizing topography here is that our case studies refer to mountainous regions with marked variations of altitude over short distances which have a dramatic effect on the delimitation of SET boundaries. Topography also has the incidental methodological advantage that it is one of the most stable features of the environment and hence one which involves fewest assumptions in extrapolating from the present-day to the prehistoric past. This is not to say that it never changes or that the possibility of change can be ignored, and we ‘Davidson (1980~) used a correction factor for altitude of 1 hour for every 300 m change of altitude. The results agreed very well with walked distances and reflect the greater impediment presented by the broken limestone country as compared with lakeland fells or the Cantabrian terrain. Davidson’s alternative formula is therefore retained for eastern Spain. It may be noted that application of the Naismith formula would result in larger territorial sizes than those quoted, but that this would not affect the proposed interpretations, since these depend mainly on relative differences of site location and territorial distortion. sIf we consider a site on the top of a cone-shaped mountain, we can compare the area of the curved surface of the cone with the area of the flat circle produced by projecting the base of the cone onto a map. For the extremely steep slopes implied when the difference in height between the top and base of the cone equals the diameter of the base of the cone (e.g. in a valley where the difference in altitude is 2500 m over a horizontal distance of 5 km), the curved surface area of the cone is 12 ‘A larger than the area of the flat circle.

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

95

discuss evidence of change below. The effect of non-topographic impediments to travel is more difficult to assess in any comprehensive way for the prehistoric context, and is better evaluated once a framework of topographic variation has been established. Our opinion is that these variables would have been relatively slight or localized in their impact in our areas of study, especially vegetation, for which there is some direct palaeoenvironmental data. Pollen indicates open steppe and heath or scattered tree cover (see below) rather than extensive thickets of shrubs and bushes that might seriously impede movement on a large scale. Topography, vegetation and other environmental features are of course relevant in other ways to palaeoeconomic interpretation, apart from their impact on travel time, and we consider these in the next section. Economy and Topography in Last Glacial Spain

Both Cantabria and Valencia underwent similar changes in response to the Last Glacial climate, especially at its maximum, between about 20,000 bp and 15,000 bp. Since the bulk of the archaeological evidence discussed below falls within this period, we shall take the conditions of maximum cold as a point of reference, while noting the evidence for intermediate conditions. Snowlines were depressed by as much as 1200 m in both areas (Butzer, 1971, 1981). The winter climate in Cantabria was more severe with temperatures 12 “C to 13 “C lower than the present and soil frost down to sea level, compared with a temperature reduction in Valencia of 8 “C and 9 “C (Butzer, 1971; Kopp, 1965; Thiede, 1978). Tree cover was substantially reduced. Pollen in eastern Spain indicates abundant evidence of Artemisia steppe, with some pine in interstadials and an increase in oak in the late glacial (Dupre, 1978; Florschiitz et al., 1971). Pollen from cave deposits in Cantabria similarly shows treeless steppe conditions during periods of maximum cold. There is also evidence of temporary climatic amelioration with steppe giving way to heath with woods of pine, alder and hazel, and in the mildest interstadial at c. 18,000 bp up to 50 % arboreal pollen including birch, hazel, oak, lime, hornbeam and elm, suggesting correlation with the Lascaux interval in France (Boyer-Klein, 1980; Leroi-Gourhan, 1971a, b; Straus et al., 1981). The degree of climatic change implied by the evidence of cave pollen is controversial, as is the actual extent of tree cover, which could be quite local (Laville et al., 1980, pp. 316, 349). But the evidence suggests at least occasional patches of trees, with sheltered localities offering refuge for the temperate tree species. The main mammal species in Cantabrian deposits are red deer (Cervus elaphus), horse (Equus caballus), bovids (Bos primigenius and Bison priscus), and ibex (Capra pyrenaica) (Freeman, 1973; Straus, 1977). A similar spectrum is present in Valencia, but with the absence of bison and the addition of steppe ass (Equus hydruntinus) (Davidson, 1972, 1980a; Esttvez, 1979). In Cantabria there is evidence of fauna1 change, with bovids, horse and red deer about equally represented in the Middle and early Upper Palaeolithic -up to about 20,000 bp. Thereafter red deer becomes the dominant species in the sites of Asturias and Santander, remaining so right through into the Postglacial. This change in emphasis after 20,000 bp cannot be explained by variation in vegetation as recorded in the pollen evidence (Freeman, 1973; Straus, 1977). An alternative explanation is that it represents the introduction of mass driving techniques taking advantage of the herding behaviour of red deer in confined topography (Clark & Straus, 1983). Greater seasonal polarity between favourable winter grounds on the coastal plain-made more extensive by the reduced sea level-and summer grazing in the more broken hinterland, would also have favoured the red deer with its broad dietary tolerances and capacity for middle range migratory movements in varied terrain (Bailey, 1982; 1983a). Sites in the mountainous interior with faunas dominated by ibex are also more common in Cantabria

96

G. N. BAILEY

AND

I. DAVIDSON

after about 20,000 bp. Similarly in Valencia, where the evidence falls mainly between 22,000 bp and 12,000 bp, red deer is the dominant species, although ibex is locally important. Small or non-terrestrial animal resources are present in the form of rabbit bones in Valencia and molluscs and rare seal bones in Cantabria. But they are not present in sufficient quantities to suggest other than minor or seasonally important resources at best (Bailey, 1978, 1982; Davidson, 1976). Plant food exploitation is difficult to assess. The steppe environments probably supplied some edible chenopods and grasses. Seeds of some pines are edible, notably Pinus pinea, remains of which were found at Gorham’s Cave on Gibraltar (Metcalf, 1964). Whether these foods were widely or easily available is another matter. Absence of seed-grinding technology leads us to doubt whether they were intensively exploited as an important part of the diet. Hazelnuts would also have been available but only in interstadial conditions. In our case studies then we emphasize terrestrial mammals as the major food resource. We also concentrate on topography as a major limiting factor in their exploitation. In doing so we do not overlook the interacting effects of other ecological variables such as soil conditions and vegetation. It must be noted, however, that relevant palaeoenvironmental data are rarely available, or available only for limited localities, thereby precluding extensive mapping of patterns of variation. More important, topography, quite apart from its impact on time-distance constraints and hence on the definition of SETS, has a number of direct or indirect effects on subsistence economy in these areas. The mountainous topography creates marked variations of altitude-often over quite short distances-which have a profound effect on local climate, vegetation and seasonal availability of food resources, and hence on patterns of animal migration and dispersal. Conditions of slope and altitude also give a useful guide to the habitats of the various species. Ibex prefer steep slopes and higher altitudes, the bovids and equids flatter ground at lower altitude, with red deer occupying a middle range, albeit with considerable overlap between species habitats. Variable topography also affects the precise routes used by animals, and hence the ease with which they can be observed, controlled and captured. Significantly, the patterns of fauna1 variation discussed above appear to have been little affected by variations in vegetation as compared with the effects of topography. We refer to an SET in which 2-hour walks define a circle of 10 km radius as an “ideal” territory in the sense that it includes the maximum possible area of land within its territorial boundary, and SETS in which the territorial boundary is reduced by impediments to movement as “distorted” territories. One of us explored the implications of this way of conceiving of territories in an earlier study (Bailey, 1975). In a situation where the SETS are severely distorted, one might expect the potential resources to be very much less than in the ideal situation. Unless the regional topography is such as to make a distorted territory unavoidable regardless of location, the degree of territorial distortion may be an important aid in revealing or testing differences of site use and site exploitation. Paradoxically, it is often the distorted SET that is advantageous for animal exploitation rather than the ideal. This follows from the fact that animals are mobile resources, whereas the model of a radial pattern of daily movements from a centrally located home base implicit in STA is derived from economies based on plant foods. A major factor in the exploitation of sedentary resources such as plant foods is transportation costs, which may be expected to increase in proportion with increasing distance. With mobile animal resources, however, it is the location and capture of the prey rather than the transportation of the dead carcase that is the major problem confronting the human predator (Bailey et al., 1983~; Binford, 1978). Sturdy (1972, 1975) first demonstrated that some of the major upper palaeolithic sites in central Europe, so far from being centrally located in relation to the deer resources whose bones dominate their

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

97

archaeological faunas, as theory would predict, are asymmetrically located on the edge of major blocks of grazing terrain, with small and distorted SETS. He proposed the term “extended territory” for cases such as these where the catchment of resources supporting the site economy covers a larger area than the hypothetical SET, and suggested that the steep topography associated with an asymmetrical site location offered advantages in predicting and controlling the movements of herd animals at critical periods of the year, and reduced risk and effort in their exploitation. Thus the advantages of using a site with a distorted SET may be said to be “tactical”. Tactics in this sense refer to short-term methods of procuring resources at a particular location, and may be contrasted with strategy, which refers to the combined patterning of tactical methods over a longer period and (usually) a wider area (Davidson, 198Ob). The contrast between the time-scales would normally be between the tactical use of sites over a few days or weeks, and the strategic use of site systems over annual cycles or longer. Tactics would normally be concerned with the exploitation of local resources, strategy with the regional articulation of different local resource-exploitation tactics. Our examples concern the interplay between tactics and strategy in the above sense. Cantabria

Cantabria (for this analysis we concentrate Asturias and Santander) is a mountainous more than 10 km wide, backed by foothills 2700 m a.s.1. only 25 km from the sea shore

on the rich data from the provinces of region with a narrow coastal plain rarely and mountains with maximum heights of (Figure 2). Prehistoric occupation extends

9”s

m

,manMdabo”e

a

2W-~Wm.

.

,-2

l

sxddlatlm

6.~

tti(rL*

rrHa”

pcJ

8w -,-,

0

o-2wm,

.

3-4

.

,-B

:: ,,,,-,:

,c3

0

‘-‘-.” -

-

20

30m

sallam CO”Iol8 -100 m.

Figure 2. Topographic map of Cantabria showing weighted distribution archaeological sites and select 2-hour site exploitation territories.

of

98

G. N. BAILEY

AND

I. DAVIDSON

from at least as early as the Mousterian period to the Postglacial. There are records of prehistoric activity at some 80 locations, mostly caves or rockshelters (see especially Groupe de travail, 1980; Straus, 1977). Recognition of distinct archaeological periods depends on low frequency type-fossils or other dubious criteria. Radiocarbon dates are relatively few, and those which are available indicate substantial overlap of supposedly discrete archaeological entities, especially in the case of the Solutrean (21,000 bp to 16,000 bp), Lower Magdalenian (17,000 bp to 13,000 bp), Upper Magdalenian (15,000 bp to 10,000 bp) and Azilian (13,000 bp to 9000 bp), (Clark & Straus, 1977, in press; Straus & Clark, 1978; Straus et al., 1978; Stuckenrath, 1978). Thus, there is a large sample of sites, but poor relative dating, even within the customary limits of uncertainty implied by “archaeological contemporaneity”. The most abundant data from the Last Glacial are associated with Solutrean or Magdalenian levels, representing a maximum time bracket of c. 21,000 bp to 10,000 bp. In the following, therefore, it will be necessary to concentrate on large-scale spatial trends relating to the regional distribution of site systems, rather than the detailed functions of individual sites within site systems. Temporal trends associated with the late upper palaeolithic/mesolithic transition and with the Middle and early Upper Palaeolithic are examined in more detail elsewhere (Bailey, 1982; 1983~). The major features of data on archaeological site distributions and site territories are mapped in Figure 2. Sites are weighted according tothe number of archaeological periods represented (all periods are included for this purpose). Ideally it would be desirable to refine the weighting by taking into account data on the quantity and variety of artifactual and fauna1 material at individual sites or within individual strata, and rate of accumulation of material. Such data are not available in the detail or on the scale required for regional analysis. The present weighting procedure is thus admittedly crude, especially in view of the chronological uncertainties noted above, and the reliance on a pattern dominated by caves and rockshelters. But it can be applied to all sites, and provides a useful first approximation to the distribution of preferred sites (Higgs, 1975). In addition it may be seen from Figure 2 that sites tend to group together to form what may be defined as site clusters. These are sites so close to each other that they have virtually identical SETS. For convenience we treat sites within a circle of 1 km radius as forming site clusters in this sense. The 1 km radius is a relatively arbitrary limit but offers a convenient way of simplifying and displaying the structure of the data. In this way it is possible to build up a rough map of preferred areas, that is areas which represent a generalized focus of repeated human activity, but where it may not be possible to identify any single location as the primary focus. Preferred sites and preferred areas are first-order interpretations about the relative structuring of the archaeological data. They should not be confused with second-order interpretations about the structuring of the human activities that gave rise to the archaeological data. Thus they carry no necessary implications about the function of the sites as home-bases, transit sites and kill sites (Higgs et al., 1967; Hole & Flannery, 1967), annually mobile home-bases and blocking sites (Sturdy, 1972), residential bases, locations, field camps, stations and caches (Binford, 1980), or aggregation sites (Conkey, 1980), although they may be expected to aid in such second-order interpretations. In the present case there is a strong presumption that the site clusters represent residential bases, although it is not possible, because of the poor resolution of the available data, to identify the function of individual sites within each cluster. It could be that all the sites were used simultaneously as residential bases because of the large size of the resident population. Or only one site may have been used at any one time, the others being occupied at other times on some rotational basis. Or one site may have served as the residential base, the others as short-term sites used for various tactical reasons. For the

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES

AND

TOPOGRAPHY

99

present, fine focusing at this level of analysis has necessarily to be eschewed in favour of a broader focus on large-scale regional patterning. The main problem to be examined here is the relationship of this regional patterning to spatial variations in economic potential. It may be objected that the distribution of archaeological sites, being based almost entirely on caves and rockshelters, reflects the availability of locations favourable to archaeological preservation and discovery rather than the original pattern of settlement. However, there are many caves and rockshelters in the region in addition to those with archaeological remains-at least 500 in Santander alone (Begines Ramlrez, 1965). Of those occupied some were clearly preferred over others. Open sites are not unknown (Clark, 1979~2)and others have been inferred (Straus, 1979). While open sites in the near vicinity of occupied caves (for example within site clusters) may yet await detection, there is no reason to doubt that the surviving distribution is sufficiently representative to justify exploratory investigation at the regional scale of analysis adopted here. One factor that clearly has some influence on the nature of occupation at sites or site clusters is the economic potential of their SETS. Data in Table 1 show that the size of

Table 1. Size of selected site exploitation Site Coastal2 Lloseta Riera Pindal Meaza Altamira Pendo Morin Frances Otero ,f

Hectares

x1

20,000

64

22,600

71

18,800 19,700 19,500 21,000 18,300 18,700 11,300

60 63 62 67 58 60 36

18,900 -

ii -

territories in Cantabria Site

Inland (lowland) Ferran Mere La Loja Hornos de la Peiia Castillo

Hectares

x1

12,100 10,000 13,100

39 32 42

9900

32

13,100

42

,t 11,600 -

37 -

Inland (upland) Collubil Hermida Mora

7800 5300 5300 6600 6900

Valle

Rascafio x

6400 -

27 17 17 21 22 21 -

lSizes are expressed as percentages of the “ideal” circular territory. 2Figures for coastal territories include areas below modern sea level.

individual SETS is highly variable in response to the effects of topographic distortion. Moreover there is a general correlation between SET size and site size (as measured by the weighting factors described above). The large sites or site clusters on the coastal plain have larger SETS than any of the inland sites, while coastal sites with small SETS, notably Otero, have relatively restricted evidence of occupation. The majority of inland sites, in consequence of their location in steep terrain and their more severely distorted territories, have relatively little habitation. Fauna1 remains in these sites are dominated by ibex (Straus, 1977) and suggest as one likely function camps used for tactical advantage in ibex hunting from residential bases on the coast.

100

G. N. BAILEY

AND

I. DAVIDSON

It is difficult to make more detailed assessments of relative economic potential, since relevant palaeoenvironmental data on soils and vegetation are rarely present. But the land below 200 m, comprising the coastal plain and related valley systems, clearly forms a major restraint on the overall distribution of sites. In that this topographic unit refers to relatively level terrain, low altitude and mild winter climate, it is reasonable to suppose that it circumscribes particularly favourable conditions for plant and animal populations. Major sites or site clusters in particular are located on the edge of the coastal plain with immediate access to large areas of this favoured resource zone within their SETS. A feature highlighted by the use of SETS is the effect of change in sea level, which was at least 100 m lower than the present between about 20,000 bp and 16,000 bp (for detailed discussion and references see Bailey, in 1983a and 1983b). On a steep coastline like Cantabria, the strip of land so exposed is relatively insignificant in relation to total land area. However, it is highly significant in the context of human economy, nearly doubling the extent of the most favoured resource zone, and more than doubling its availability within individual SETS (Figure 2). Conversely the lowering of the permanent snowline by some 1200 m to approximately the 1400 m contour would have had a lesser impact. The area directly affected, though very extensive, is relatively steep and impassable terrain outside the range of known SETS. On the other hand these snowline changes would have had an indirect effect by lowering the altitudinal range of ibex and making them more easily accessible to exploitation from the coast. A second factor influencing the preference for particular sites or site clusters is their distance from other site clusters. The tendency for the eight major site clusters on the coastal plain to be distributed so as to form almost contiguous SETS is interesting corroboration of the general validity of the 2-hour time-distance factor. This spacing effect cannot be attributed solely to the availability of major river valleys, since some of these have relatively little or no evidence of prehistoric occupation, while some of the major site clusters are not in river valleys at all. Nor can it be simply attributed to the availability of habitable caves. Other cave sites would have been available, for example mid-way between the Riera and the Lloseta clusters, and between Riera and Pindal. But these contain no evidence of occupation prior to the accumulation of shell middens during the early Post-glacial, when the special constraints of shell-gathering would have imposed different time-distance limits. The distribution of the coastal SETS, however, is not perfectly in accord with expectation. In one case there is considerable overlapping of SETS associated with sites which are not sufficiently close that they can be regarded as part of a single site cluster strictly defined, nor sufficiently far apart that they fit the predictions of the 2-hour time-distance factor, namely Pendo, Morin, Cobalejos and Juyo. It could be that these represent alternative foci for a single SET, possibly related to some coastward displacement of residential location during the maximum lowering of sea level (Bailey, 1978), or that the different locations offer different tactical advantages in terms of the local exploitation of red deer (cf. Freeman, 1973). Further detail about the inter-relations of these sites should be possible when the results of detailed investigations currently in progress at Juyo (Freeman, pers. comm.) are combined with the already complete documentation of the Morin Upper Palaeolithic (Gonzalez Echegaray & Freeman, 1971, 1973). But at any rate the “packing” of sites would seem to indicate that this part of the coastal zone was a strongly preferred area with a relatively intensive exploitation of resources. In other cases occupation is relatively sparse, notably at Meaza and Pindal. Pindal is scarcely an occupation site at all, being better known for its art, But since it is on an especially narrow part of the coastal plain in a cliff which overlooks the sea, it is possible that other locations more suitable for occupation are now submerged, although the nearby site of La Franca-not apparently used until the early postglacial-would

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES

AND TOPOGRAPHY

101

seem to have offered a feasible alternative. Similarly, the site of Gtero has a relatively small and distorted SET for a coastal site and a considerable hiatus of occupation, and it is possible that another site closer to the sea ina location with a more favourable SET awaits discovery. This brings us to the third factor influencing the weighting of preferred sites, and that is the distribution of resources that lie beyond the immediate reach of the SET, and the role of the site or site cluster in the regional economic strategy. The clue to the operation of this factor is provided by the site of Castillo. Although it is on the inner edge of the coastal plain, and this resource zone comprises a relatively high percentage of the landuse categories within its SET, it is essentially an inland site with a relatively small and distorted SET. Yet it is one of the “largest” sites in the whole region. It has evidence of repeated occupation from Middle Palaeolithic to Neolithic, an abundance of habitation debris and wall art, and is clearly of pivotal importance in the interpretation of regional trends. The existence of regional linkages can best be illustrated in the first instance by SCA at Castillo (Figure 2). Two types of evidence are of interest. The first is the presence of marine shells (Fischer, 1925). Most of these were brought in from the Cantabrian seashore 15-22 km away. One species (from an Azilian level) is also of Mediterranean type, and must presumably have been imported over a distance of at least 470 km, the shortest route being from Tarragona up the Ebro valley onto the northern meseta and across the Cantabrian watershed. The second type of evidence is the art. Although art, especially wall art, does not fall within the strict definition of SCA (since it is not being claimed that the art objects themselves were necessarily imported), stylistic similarities may indicate long-distance connections and enable us to identify ‘social catchments’. Again, contacts are indicated both with the coast to the north and with the meseta to the south. The virtual identity of the deer heads at Castillo and Altamira is well known (Ucko & Rosenfeld, 1967, p. 63). To the south are the art sites of Penches, Atapuerca and Ojo Guarefia in Burgos province (Clark, 1979b; Clark et al., 1975) and Maltravieso 500 km away in Caceres (Callejo, 1958), although the stylistic similarities are more generalized and weaker evidence of regular contact. In the regional context, then, Castillo is well placed to control the major route of communication and movement (for animals and people) between the coastal plain and the valleys of the hinterland (Figure 2). It is also on the route which connects the coast with the meseta via the lowest and most easily traversed pass across the Cantabrian watershed. It thus stands between the broadest and hence most productive zone of coastal plain, and the most productive and easily accessible areas of hinterland, and could easily have formed the pivot of a site system including sites nearer the coast such as Altamira, Pendo and Morin. A similar system of regional integration is indicated in relation to the site clusters of Lloseta and Riera in eastern Asturias, the main difference being that the focus of the whole system is displaced coastwards because of the steeper and more mountainous hinterland (Figure 2). Thus both site clusters are adjacent to the mouths of valleys which provide access to a major inland basin of relatively low altitude and high grazing potential. The small sites located around the peripheries of this inland basin raise the possibility that this area may have acted as an extended territory to the coastal site clusters in a manner similar to that described by Sturdy (1975, p. 78) for the Delemont basin in southern Germany. Thus the inland sites could have served as “blocking” sites at major points of access, although other interpretations are possible, for example that these sites were used for seasonal hunting of deer or ibex. At any rate their importance is likely to have derived from their tactical use within a regional exploitation strategy centred on the coastal plain. In contrast, the coastal site clusters with relatively little evidence of occupation, such as Pindal, Meaza, Fuente Frances and Otero, are much less

102

G. N. BAILEY

AND

I. DAVIDSON

advantageously placed in terms of access to productive seasonal grazing resources for large-mammal populations in the hinterland. Some degree of seasonal displacement of human population between coast and hinterland, related at least in part to seasonal movements of animals, is likely at all periods, and especially during the upper palaeolithic period, when the more extreme conditions of the Last Glacial would have resulted in greater seasonal polarity between favourable winter conditions on the coast and favourable summer conditions in the interior. Seasonality data are consistent with this hypothesis (Clark & Straus, 1983; Klein et al., 1983; Bailey et al., in press), although they do not demonstrate fullscale transhumance involving total abandonment of the coastal zone in summer, which now seems unlikely in any case, at least in eastern Asturias with its compressed ecological zonation. Evidence of occupation on the northern rneseta is sparse and ambiguous (Clark, 19793; Clark et al., 1975) as might be expected in relation to dispersed, transient, summer encampments. But the evidence of art alone indicates some presence during the upper palaeolithic period. Moreover, it is significant that such sites as do exist are mainly in the upper reaches of the Ebro valley and are most easily reached from the Cantabrian coast via the route which passes Castillo (Figures 1 and 2). This reinforces the suggestion that there was some interconnection, probably of a seasonal or intermittent nature, between the Cantabrian coastal plain and the inland meseta. Thus there appear to have been at least three major site systems, centred on Lloseta, Riera and Castillo respectively. Each would have provided a regional integration of a variety of sites and resources necessary to the maintenance of a year-round economic strategy. Sites outside the immediate orbit of these systems (e.g. Pindal, Meaza, Fuente Frances, Otero, etc.) may have formed subsidiary groupings involving relationships between exploitation on the coastal plain and ibex hunting in the interior. Or they may have been used as lateral outliers to the three major systems.. It would, however, be premature to make detailed inferences about population densities, since there is no way of establishing how many site systems would have been in use in any one year. It is possible that different site systems were in use in different years, following some rotational pattern; or one major system, say the Castillo system, might have been the one most regularly used, the other systems being brought into use less frequently-during years of exceptionally abundant resource availability, for example, or periods of sustained growth in human population numbers. Lateral interchange and movement of people in an east-west direction along the coastal zone would have been facilitated by the topography, as well as seasonal dispersal along a north-south axis. The pivotal location of Altamira in relation to both axes of communication lends support to recent suggestions that this may have been a major aggregation site (Conkey, 1980).

Southern Valencia In contrast with the situation in Cantabria, the site grouping near Gandia is still almost unique in the region of the east coast of Spain (Figure 1). The two best documented sites within this grouping are Parpallo (Pericot, 1942; Davidson, 1974; Bofinger & Davidson, 1977) and Les Mallaetes (Davidson, 1976; Fortea & Jorda, 1976). Both sites contain a sequence of Gravettian and Solutrean assemblages and faunas dominated by red deer and Spanish ibex. They also have an excellent radiocarbon (RC) chronology (Bofinger & Davidson, 1977) which shows that the changes in artifact assemblages were exactly contemporary between 22 ka and 12 ka within the limits of the archaeological and RC methods. In addition Les Mallaetes has some early (pre-Gravettian) and Parpallo some later (post-Solutrean,/Magdalenian) occupation. Other sites within the grouping are Ports, Barranc Blanc, Rates Penaes, Llop and Maravelles (Aparicio et al., 1976;

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES

‘, ”

Figure 3. General map of Valencia Mallaetes and Parpalb

AND

:, ; :

TOPOGRAPHY

103

CL

showing the lc ations of Volcib.

Les

Fullola, 1979). These sites lack radiocarbon dates but their artifact assemblages are sufficiently distinctive to allow them to be placed within the chronology established at Parpall and Les Mallaetes. In the initial phase of occupation in the area only Les Mallaetes was occupied. During the Gravettian period more sites were in use and the emphasis shifted from Les Mallaetes to Parpallo. In the Solutrean, all the sites were in use. Subsequently the number of sites declined leaving Parpall as the only site that was certainly used. These characteristics offer an unusual opportunity to investigate the inter-relationships within what may be broadly defined as a site cluster. The presence of numerous other caves in the same area which do not have palaeolithic occupation suggests that we are justified in examining the choices which led to the use of these caves and not the others. Moreover, the fact that Parpall is extremely “rich” in a rare form of mobile artpaintings and engravings on limestone plaques-scarcely represented at Les Mallaetes, and completely absent from all of the other sites, suggests that Parpall was not simply an alternative focus of occupation but that it had a different type of function within the site cluster. There are relatively few sites elsewhere in the region at large to indicate the nature of contemporaneous or complementary site groupings. One such site, however, is Volcan near the modern coastline (Figure 3). This is about 21 km north-east of Parpallo, and thus well beyond the SET of Parpallo, and contains sparse evidence of Solutrean and later assemblages. The presence of marine mollusc shells at Parpallo and Les Mallaetes demonstrates that their catchments were larger than their SETS at this period (Davidson, 1983), and indicates links with the coast suggesting that the resources of the coastal lowland and the evidence of sites such as Volcin should be taken into account in assessing regional economic strategy. Westwards on the meseta are occasional traces of upland occupation as at Cueva de1 Nifio [Davidson, 1980a; in press).

104

G. N. BAILEY AND I. DAVIDSON

A brief comparison of the SETS of the Parpallo-Les Mallaetes group with the SET of Volcan provides an initial indication of the differences revealed by STA. In the former case all the sites within the cluster have SETS severely distorted by topography. The areas circumscribed within 2-hour radii vary from 7% to 25%. This suggests that the sites were not occupied simply because of their suitable location for efficient return from energy expenditure, but because of the tactical opportunities for exploitation. In contrast Volcan’s 2-hour SET is almost circular, with an area amounting to 90% of the ideal. Volcan is a classic “hunting site” (Sturdy, 1972), i.e. a site which is located in the middle of the available grazing resources. This apparently advantageous location was probably enhanced by the rich grazing on the floodplain of the River Jticar, which would have attracted marsh birds (Eastham, 1978) as well as ungulates, and provided a freshwater supply. Despite these advantages, there are relatively few archaeological remains at Volcan in comparison with the mountain sites. This suggests that while potential access to resources for a given energy expenditure may be greater in an “ideal” territory, actual efficiency of exploitation may be higher in a distorted territory, where tactical advantages increase the probability of a successful return. In the following analysis we shall concentrate primarily on the local factors within the Parpallo-Les Mallaetes grouping, referring to the evidence of regional economic strategy only when this is necessary to clarify local variations in site usage. The caves of Parpallo and Les Mallaetes are situated on the mountain of Monddver and are only 3 km apart in terms of geodesic distance (Figure 3). One factor in the differential use of the two sites is their differential aspect (Davidson, 1976). Parpallo opens to the south at 450 m above modern sea level (m a.m.s.1.) and looks over the valley of Marchuquera. Les Mallaetes is the most obvious cave on the northern side of the mountain, and opens almost due west at an altitude of 600 m a.m.s.1. The wide entrance of the cave is fully exposed to the prevailing winter winds and is exposed to the sun in winter for only a couple of hours per day at most. It does, however, command an excellent view of the coastal plain of Valldigna. Thus, it might be argued that the two sites represent the winter and summer bases of an essentially identical SET. As might be expected the SETS of the two sites do show a considerable overlap (Figures 3 and 4). The 10 km “ideal” territories share 79% of their combined areas. The 2-hour territories, though severely distorted by topography, nevertheless also retain a large degree of overlap amounting to 50% of their combined areas. The shared area includes the steep terrain on the main peak of Monduver, which would be primarily ibex territory, and flatter areas suitable for red deer grazing at 400 m a.m.s.1. Outside the zone of overlap Parpall has slightly better access to flat areas at low altitude (c. 100 m a.m.s.1.) and Les Mallaetes better access to flatter areas at high altitude (450 m a.m.s.1.). Thus, both sites would appear to have equally good access to red deer and ibex resources with perhaps some slight differences as regards access to summer (high altitude) and winter (low altitude) grazing. With such a large zone of overlap, however, it seems unlikely that 2-hour SETS provide a sufficiently sharp focus to reveal any economic factors that might explain why two sites so close together were both used apparently contemporaneously for 10,000 years. By experimenting with the calculation of SETS on maps, it is possible to establish that the $-hour territories of each site are mutually exclusive. This suggests that the nature of the resources available in these g-hour territories may be crucial in understanding the reasons for the use of the sites, although it does not mean that exploitation from each site would necessarily have been confined to a &hour radius. Two differences may be noted between the &hour territories of Parpallo and Les Mallaetes. The first concerns available grazing resources. Despite the much smaller areas under consideration, there is nevertheless a significant difference in the modal

SITE EXPLOITATION

Figure 4. Two-hour

TERRITORIES

site exploitation

AND

TOPOGRAPHY

105

territories of Les Mallaetes and Parpall

altitude of the terrain within each territory. The i-hour territory of Parpall is at a lower altitude, and primarily consists of steep ibex slopes, with a small area of gentler slope at the western end. The i-hour territory of Les Mallaetes comprises the steep terrain at higher altitude around the peak of Monduver and some of the flatter grazing at 450 m a.m.s.l., much of it shaded in summer because of its northerly aspect. Les Mallaetes offers the better position for summer exploitation of the area, in that it provides immediate access to ibex and to red deer terrain, and to high level summer grazing for both species. The second difference is one of tactical advantage. Parpallo, although it is less

106

G. N. BAILEY AND I. DAVIDSON

advantageously placed for immediate access to summer resources, controls within its &hour territory the principal corridor of red deer movements between low altitude grazings on the coast and on the plain of Marchuquera and the grazing plateaux at higher altitude. Thus, while Les Mallaetes would provide an excellent view of red deer movements between lowland and upland, its high altitude prevents its effective use as a base for the control of any animal movements except those on the top of the mountain. Inspection of the other sites in the area, namely the group of sites around the plain of Marchuquera, shows that these too have mutually exclusive i-hour territories (Figure 5),

Figure 5. Half-hour

site exploitation

territories

Llop, Maravelles,Ports and Barranc Blanc.

of Les Mallaetes, Parpall

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

107

except for Rates Penaes, which has very little evidence of occupation, and which is very close to Barranc Blanc. The reasons for use of one or other site may hate been determined by considerations of shelter or comfort, whereas their tactical use, which is of main interest here, would have been almost identical. For the sake of simplification, these two sites will be treated together here as one site. The modal altitude of grazing resources within these $-hour territories is variable but generally lower than at Parpall or Les Mallaetes. Taken as a whole, the i-hour territories of the area represent a sequence of seasonal grazing resources at successively higher altitudes, with Ports at the lower end and Les Mallaetes at the upper end. With these overall features in mind, four models of animal exploitation can be proposed. The first model involves a variant of the “Duke of York”3 pattern of seasonal movements, and might best account for the evidence of earliest occupation in the area, when Les Mallaetes was the only site in use and its fauna1 exploitation was dominated by red deer. In this model the Mondtiver region would be visited sporadically in summer by populations moving inland from winter bases in the coastal lowland, following the seasonal movements of animals such as red deer. This model does not necessarily imply a close relationship with the deer or a regional strategy focused primarily on deer exploitation, and would be quite consistent with a broad-spectrum economy drawing on a range of resources. In such a system, Les Mallaetes would offer an ideal summer camp for the intermittent and opportunistic slaughter of deer, given its excellent view of the lowlands and its easy access to high altitude grazing. It must be admitted that, whether through lack of exploration or lack of preservation, coastal sites (with the exception of VolcBn) are rare, especially sites with evidence of early upper palaeolithic occupation. But it is likely that the coastal lowlands with their relatively mild winter climate would have formed a favoured winter refuge for the larger mammals during Last Glacial climatic conditions. In any case it is highly unlikely that Les Mallaetes with its high altitude and westerly aspect would have been used in winter. The absence of any evidence of occupation in any of the other caves in the Monddver group in the early Upper Palaeolithic would therefore seem to presuppose total abandonment of the Monddver region by human populations in winter. An alternative variant of the Duke of York model might be invoked to explain the use of more sites in the succeeding periods. In this model the regional strategy of seasonal movements and the attractions of Les Mallaetes as a vantage point and a high altitude camp, would remain essentially unchanged. But the local economy would involve tactical changes to accommodate a more intensive and a more carefully controlled exploitation of deer resources, and with that a longer period of seasonal occupation, perhaps extending to include some human presence even in winter. With a more prolonged occupation of the area, we might also expect some intensification of exploitation of other locally available resources such as ibex and lagomorphs. These features would account for the greater number of sites in use, possibly representing a series of successive occupations as animals moved up and down the mountain sides with the progress of the seasons. They would also explain the shift of emphasis in site usage to Parpall as the focal point of the local exploitation system. The relative increase of ibex remains at Les Mallaetes and the presence of abundant ibex and rabbit bones alongside deer remains at Parpall are consistent with this interpretation. It should, however, be added that the tendency towards a relative decrease of red deer at Les Mallaetes, and a relative increase of ibex at 3We acknowledge that this way of expressing“He marched them up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again” hasbeen usedindependently by R. W. Dennell, D. A. Sturdy and R. W. Chapman, in recognition of the fact that seasonal transhumance has sometimes been applied in an oversimplified and uncritical way in palaeoeconomicinterpretation.

G. N. BAILEY

AND I. DAVIDSON

Parpall over the same time period, would have been reinforced by the onset of more severe climatic conditions at the maximum of the Last Glacial and the consequent lowering of the upper altitudinal limits to deer and ibex territories (Davidson, 1976). A third model, which develops the concept of controlled exploitation, may be characterized as the “Sturdy model” and relies on the, possibilities inherent in the site locations for controlling what Sturdy has defined as an “extended territory” (Sturdy, 1972, 1975, p. SO). The cliffs and canyons which run south from Parpallo to Barranc Blanc are steep and almost impassable for humans and other large mammals. The $-hour territories of Parpallo, Llop, Maravelles and Barranc Blanc, together with this steep escarpment, nearly enclose the plain of Marchuquera. Thus, this could represent an area where a majority of the deer herds could be left undisturbed, the small sites serving as “blocking” sites for the observation, prediction and control of animal movements. Parpall would be the main residential base, controlling the movements of animals between the plain and upland grazings, and with good access to other resources such as ibex. Les Mallaetes could have continued in use as a subsidiary camp, optimally placed for hunting ibex in summer and for use as an observation post to aid in the prediction and control of local and regional deer movements. The fourth model may be described as the “Dispersal model”. This expands the possibilities of group dispersal, and thus differs from the other models in the role attached to the Mondtiver site cluster (and Parpall in particular) within the regional economic strategy, rather than in the local tactical roles assigned to the individual sites within the cluster. In this model Parpall would have served as the focus for seasonal aggregations of people, many of whom would have been widely dispersed in small groups over a very large area at other seasons. There are three reasons for proposing the dispersal model. The first is the likelihood of increasing specialization and unpredictability of environmental resources during the maximum of the Last Glacial, and the consequent pressures on larger mammals such as red deer to range more widely in search of forage, and on human populations to do likewise and/or develop contacts with other groups over extensive territories (cf. Gamble, 1978). A second reason is that extensive if short-lived summer grazing would have been available in the hills and mountains to the south of Parpall and on the edges of the meseta, and this is likely to have attracted migratory animals at least for short periods of the year. These resources could have been incorporated into the regional economic strategy by small, widely dispersed groups using ephemeral sites such as Cueva de1 Nifio. A third reason is the presence of marine shells in the deposits at Parpallo and Les Mallaetes at a time when the sea shore would have been furtherest away from the site. This points towards the coast as another area of dispersal, where resources could have been exploited by relatively small groups, as at Volcan, either in summer or winter depending on the locality. On the available evidence for the regional distribution of archaeological sites and environmental resources, the dispersal model offers a more attractive alternative than the Duke of York model, although either could be combined with the Sturdy model. With the progressive amelioration of climate and immigration of woodland vegetation at the end of the Last Glacial, and the consequent development of possibilities for more localized economic strategies, the need for large-scale regional integration is likely to have lessened, and the tactical advantages of many of the sites would have changed. This accords with the evidence for continued occupation in later periods only at Parpallo and Volcan, each of which could have become the more or less permanent focus for relatively localized and mutually exclusive economic strategies.

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES

AND

TOPOGRAPHY

109

Conclusions

In this paper we have explored some of the problems and possibilities of using arbitrarily defined site exploitation territories in the analysis of prehistoric economies. So far from imposing an arbitrary pattern which is itself beyond further correction, site territorial analysis can provide a systematic means of revealing structure in the pattern of site distributions and a framework for interpreting the relationship between on-site and off-site data. We have further emphasized the importance of recognizing the differences between site exploitation territories and site catchments and the need to distinguish the corresponding techniques of site territorial analysis and site catchment analysis as complementary techniques for assessing the “perceived” environment of prehistoric populations. Site territorial analysis need not be confined to single sites viewed in isolation; rather by being combined with site catchment analysis in a regional framework it can identify the linkages between groups of sites forming inter-related parts of a regional site system. This point is clearly brought out both in Cantabria and Valencia, where Castillo and Parpallo were major focal centres of regional exploitation strategies which may have involved population dispersal over immense annual territories extending from the sea shore to the meseta, at least during part of the Last Glacial period. It seems quite possible that the margins of such annual territories overlapped on the meseta, and thus provided a network for the transmission of ideas and objects over distances of 500 km or more from the shores of Biscay to the Mediterranean. We have also emphasized the need to define the limits of site exploitation territories in such a way as to take account of the difficulties of traversing mountainous terrain with marked changes of altitude. We have proposed a simple methodology which may be applied with or without the direct determination of distances by walking, and which allows for the distortion imposed by topography. The variation in the size of SETS resulting from the effects of topographic distortion can provide a simple guide to the resource potential available at different locations, clarify the nature of the regularities that influence the distance between sites or site clusters, and reveal the important distinction between tactical and strategic considerations in the choice of sites. Finally, our data indicate some of the ways in which site exploitation territories can be used to assess the impact of environmental change on subsistence and the nature of economic change over time. In Cantabria STA throws into sharper focus the differential effect of large-scale change in sea levels and snowlines and their impact on fauna1 changes in individual site sequences. In Valencia site territorial analysis underlines the important distinction between changes of site distribution due to changes of tactics within a virtually unchanged regional strategy, and changes in site distribution related to change in the overall economic strategy. This distinction suggests that caution should be exercised in the unqualified use of change in number and density of sites within a given region as a simple guide to changes in population density and intensity of exploitation (cf. Straus, 1977). In neither area do we find any substantial evidence for progressive intensification of exploitation that might be construed as a lead up to the development of agricultural or stockbreeding economies. Many of the most obvious changes that are visible in the archaeological record seem to us to be more simply explicable in terms of the tactical reorganization of economies in response to fluctuations in key environmental variables. This seems to be a rather general pattern of the later Pleistocene in the western Mediterranean region, and carries with it the strong implication that agriculture or agriculturalists entered the Iberian peninsula primarily as a result of developments going on elsewhere. We believe that the renewed interest in the methodology of site catchment analysis has,

110

G. N. BAILEY

AND I. DAVIDSON

by and large, tended to avoid the difficulties posed by assumptions inherent in the original proposal. We present the above discussion as part of what we hope will be a continuing discussion of the ways in which we can integrate on-site and off-site data.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Paul Bahn, Bob Chapman, Robin Dennell, Geoffrey Dimbleby, Clive Gamble, Ian Hodder and two anonymous assessors for their comments on an earlier draft.

References Akazawa, T. (1980). Fishing adaptation of prehistoric hunter-gatherers at the Nittano site, Japan. Journal of Archaeological Science 7, 325-344. Anderson, A. J. (1976). Prehistoric Competition and Economic Change in Northern Sweden. University of Cambridge, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Anderson, A. J. (1982). Coasts, lakes and littorals: Central Norrland. In (M. R. Jarman, G. N. Bailey & H. N. Jarman, Eds) Early European Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 114-120. Aparicio, J., Sancho Santa Maria, A. & San Valero Aparisi, J. (1976). Prospeccion arqueolbgica en la Cova de1 Llop, Gandia (Valencia). Saitabi 26, 35-39. Bahn, P. G. (1977). Seasonal migration in South-west France during the late glacial period. Journal

of Archaeological

Science 4, 245-257.

Bailey, G. N. (1973). Concheros de1 Norte de Espafia: una hipbtesis preliminar. Actas def XII Cdngreso National de Arqueologia, pp. 73-84. Bailey, G. N. (1975). The Role of Shell Middens in Prehistoric Economies. University of Cambridge, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Bailey, G. N. (1978). Shell middens as indicators of postglacial economies: a territorial perspective. In (P. A. Mellars, Ed.) The Early Postglacial Settlement of Northern Europe. London: Duckworth, pp. 37-63. Bailey, G. N. (1982). Coasts, lakes and littorals: Denmark; Cantabrian coast. In (M. R. Jarman, G. N. Bailey & H. N. Jarman, Eds) Early European Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81-107. Bailey, G. N. (1983a). Economic change in late Pleistocene Cantabria. In (G. N. Bailey, Ed.) Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, pp. 149-165. Bailey, G. N. (19836). Problems of site formation and the interpretation of spatial and temporal discontinuities in the distribution of coastal middens. In P. M. Masters & N. C. Flemming, Eds) Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology. London: Academic Press. Bailey, G. N., Carter, P. L., Gamble, C. S. & Higgs, H. P. 1983a. Epirus revisited: seasonality and inter-site variation in the Upper Palaeolithic of north-west Greece. In (G. N. Bailey, Ed.) Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-78. Bailey, G. N., Deith, M. R. & Shackleton, N. J. In press. Oxygen isotope analysis and seasonality determination: limits and potential of a new technique. American Antiquity. Barker, G. W. W. (1975). Prehistoric territories and economies in central Italy. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Palaeoeconomy. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111-175. Bay-Petersen, J. L. (1982). Coasts, lakes and littorals: the Polish littoral. In (M. R. Jarman, G. N. Bailey & H. N. Jarman, Eds) Ear& European Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-112. Begines Ramirez, A. (1965). Avance al catalog0 de cavidades de la Provincia de Santander. Cuadernos de Espeleologia

1, 43-46.

Binford, L. R. (1977). General introduction. In CL. R. Binford, Ed.) For Theory Building Archaeology. New York: Academic Press, pp. l-10. Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

in

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

111

Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45, 4-20. Binford, L. R. (1982). The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 5-31. Bintliff, J. L. (1977). Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece. Oxford: B. A. R. Supplementary Series 28. Bofinger, E. & Davidson, I. (1977). Radiocarbon age and depth: a statistical treatment of two sequences of dates from Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 4, 231-243. Boyer-Klein, A. (1980). Nouveaux resultats palynologiques de sites solutreens et magdaleniens cantabriques. Bulletin de la Socie’te’ Prehistorique FranGuise 77, 103-107. Browman, D. L. (1976). Demographic correlations of the Wari conquest of Junin. American Antiquity 41, 465-477. Brumfiel, E. (1976). Regional growth in the eastern valley of Mexico: a test of the “population pressure” hypothesis. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press, pp. 234249. Butzer, K. W. (1971). Environment and Archaeology, 2nd Edn. Chicago: Aldine. Butzer, K. W. (1981). Cave sediments, Upper Pleistocene stratigraphy and Mousterian facies in Cantabrian Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 8, 133-183. Callejo Serrano, C. (1958). La Cueva Prehistdrica de Maltravieso, junto a Caceres. Caceres: Biblioteca publica de la Ciudad. Carter, P. L. (1969). Moshebi’s Shelter: excavation and exploitation in eastern Lesotho. Lesotho 8, 13-23. Carter, P. L. (1970). Late Stone Age exploitation patterns in southern Natal. South African Archaeological

Bulletin

25, 55-58.

Cassels,R. J. S. (1972). Locational analysis of prehistoric settlement in New Zealand. Mankind 8, 212-222. Chisholm, M. (1968). Rural Settlement and Land Use, 2nd Ed. London: Hutchinson. Clark, G. A. (1975). Excavations in the Late Pleistocene cave site of Balmori, Asturias (Spain). Quaternaria 18, 383-246. Clark, G. A. (1979a). Liencres: an open station of Asturian affinity near Santander, Spain. Quaternaria 21, 249-304. Clark, G. A. (Ed.) (1979b). The North Burgos Archaeological Survey. Arizona State University: Anthropological Research Papers, 19. Clark, G. A. & Straus, L. G. (1977). La Riera paleoecological project : preliminary report, 1976 excavations. Current Anthropology 18, 354-355. Clark, G. A. & Straus, L. G. (1983). Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer adaptations in Cantabrian Spain. In (G. N. Bailey, Ed.) Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131-148. Clark, G. A., Straus, L. G. & Fuentes de M, C. (1975). Preliminary site survey of the Meseta de1 Norte, northern Burgos Province, Spain. Current Anthropology 16, 283-286. Clark, J. D. (1971). Human behavioral differences in southern Africa during the later Pleistocene. American Anthropologist 73, 1211-1236. Clark, J. G. D. (1972). Star Carr: a case study in bioarchaeology. Addison- Wesley Modular Publications

10.

Clarke, D. L. (1972). A provisional model of an Iron Age society and its settlement system. In (D. L. Clarke, Ed.) Models in Archaeology. London: Methuen, pp. 801-869. Clarke, D. L. (1978) (2nd edition, revised by R. W. Chapman) Analytical Archaeofogy. London : Methuen. Conkey, M. W. (1980). The identification of prehistoric hunter-gatherer aggregation sites: the case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21, 609-630. Davidson, I. (1972). The fauna from La Cueva de Volcan de1 Faro (Cullera, Valencia). Archive de prehistoria Levantina 13, 7-15. Davidson, I. (1974). Radiocarbon dates for the Spanish Solutrean. Antiquity 48, 63-65. Davidson, I. (1976). Les Mallaetes and Monduver: the economy of a human group in prehistoric Spain. In (G. de G. Sieveking, I. K. Longworth & K. E. Wilson, Eds) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. London: Duckworth, pp. 483-499.

112

G. N. BAILEY

AND I. DAVIDSON

Davidson, I. (1980~). Late Palaeolithic Economy in Eastern Spain. University of Cambridge, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Davidson, I. (19806). Transhumance, Spain and ethnoarchaeology. Antiquity 54, 144147. Davidson, I. (1981). Can we study prehistoric economy for fisher-gatherer-hunters? An historical approach to Cambridge “Palaeoeconomy”. In (J. A. Sheridan & G. N. Bailey, Eds) Economic Archaeology. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series 96, pp. 17-33. Davidson, I. (1983). Site variability and prehistoric economy in Levante. In (G. N. Bailey, Ed.) Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79-95. Davidson, I. (In prep.). La Cueva de1 NiI?o: excavaciones 1973. Noticiurio Arqueoldgico Hisprinico.

Dennell, R. W. (1978). Early Farming in South Bulgaria from the VI to the ZZZ Milleniu B.C. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series (Supplementary) 45. Dennell, R. W. (1980). The use, abuse and potential of site catchment analysis. In (F. J. Findlow & J. E. Ericson, Eds) Essays on Prehistoric Resource Space. Anthropology UCLA, Vol. 10. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. Dennell, R. W. & Webley, D. P. (1975). Prehistoric settlement and land use in southern Bulgaria. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Palaeoeconomy. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97-109. Dupre Ollivier, M. (1978). Ancilisis Polinico de Sedimentos de la Cueva de “Les Mallaetes” (Burx, Vulenciu). Tesina inkdita. Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad de Valencia. Dyson-Hudson, R. & Smith, E. A. (1978). Human territoriality: an ecological reassessment. American Anthropologist 80, 21-41. Earle, T. K. (1980). A model of subsistence change. In (T. K. Earle & A. L. Christenson, Eds) Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. New York: Academic Press, pp. l-29. Eastham, A. (1978). Birds from Spanish caves. Unpublished paper read to conference on sea-cavesat the British Museum. Ellison, A. & Harriss, J. (1972). Settlement and land use in the prehistory and early history of southern England: a study based on locational models. In (D. L. Clarke, Ed.) Models in Archaeology. London: Methuen, pp. 911-962. EstCvez, J. (1979). La Fauna de1 Pleistocene Catalan. Tesis inbdita, Facultad de Geografia y Historia, Universidad de Barcelona. Findlow, F. J. & Ericson, J. E. (1980). Catchment Analysis: Essays on Prehistoric Resource Space. Anthropology UCLA, Vol. 10. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. Fischer, P.-H. (1925). Mollusques Quaternaires recoltes dans la grotte de Castillo (Espagne, province de Santander). Journal de Conchyliologie 68, 320-323. Flannery, K. V. (1976a). The village and its catchment area. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press, pp. 91-95. Flannery, K. V. (19766). Empirical determination of site catchments in Oaxaca and TehuacBn. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press, pp. 107-l 17. Florschtitz, F., MenCndez, J. & Wijmstra, T. A. (1971). Palynology of a thick Quaternary successionin southern Spain. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 10, 233-264. Foley, R. A. (1977). Space and energy: a method for analysing habitat value and utilization in relation to archaeological sites. In (D. L. Clarke, Ed.) SpatiuI Archaeology. London: Academic Press, pp. 163-187. Foley, R. A. (1981). Off-site Archaeology in the Amboseli Region of East Africa. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series Fortea, J. & Jorda CerdB, F. (1976). La Cueva de Les Mallaetes y 10s problemas de1 Paleolitico Superior de1 Mediterraneo Espafiol. Zephyrus 26-27, 129-166. Freeman, L. G. (1973). The significance of mammalian faunas from Paleolithic occupations in Cantabrian Spain. American Antiquity 38, 3-44. Fullola, J. M. (1979). Las industrias liticas de1 Palaeolitico Superior IbCrico. Trabujo Vario de1 Servicio

de Znvestigacidn Prehistdrica

de Valencia

60.

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

113

Gamble, C. S. (1978). Resource exploitation and the spatial patterning of hunter-gatherers: a case study. In (D. Green, C. Haselgrove & M. Spriggs, Eds) Social Orgunisation and Settlement. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series (Supplementary) 47, 153-185. Gamble, C. S. (1979). Hunting strategies in the central European Palaeolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society 45, 35-52.

Gonzalez Echegaray, J. & Freeman, L. G. (Eds) (1971). Cueva Morin: Excuvuciones 19661968. Santander: Publicaciones de1 Patronato de las Cuevas de la Provincia de Santander. Gonzalez Echegaray, J. & Freeman, L. G. (Eds) (1973). Cuevu Morin: Excuvaciones 1969. Santander: Publicaciones de1 Patronato de las Cuevas de la Provincia de Santander. Groupe de Travail de Prehistoire Cantabrique (1980). Chronostratigraphie et Ccologie des cultures du Paleolithique final en Espagne cantabrique. In (D. de Sonneville-Bordes, Ed.) La Fin des Temps Glaciuires en Europe. Paris: Colloques Internationaux C.N.R.S., pp. 714719. Gumerman, G. J. (Ed.) (1971). The Distribution of Prehistoric Population Aggregates. Anthropological Reports, 1. Prescott, Arizona: Prescott College Press. Hallam, S. J. (1977). Topographic archaeology and artifactual evidence. In (R. V. S. Wright, Ed.) Stone Tools us Cultural Markers. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 169-177. Hastorf, C. A. (1980). Changing resource use in subsistence agricultural groups of the prehistoric Mimbres River Valley, New Mexico. In (T. K. Earle & A. L. Christenson, Eds) Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79-120. Hawke-Smith, C. F. (1979). Man-Lund Relations in Prehistoric Britain: the Dove-Derwent Interfluve, Derbyshire. Oxford: B. A. R. British Series, 64. Higgs, E. S. (1961). Some Pleistocene faunas of the Mediterranean coastal areas. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27, 144-154. Higgs, E. S. (1967). Environment and chronology-the evidence from mammalian fauna. In (C. B. M. McBurney) The Huuu Fteuh (Cyrenuicu) and the Stone Age of the South-East Mediterranean. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16-44. Higgs, E. S. (Ed.) (1975). Pulueoeconomy. London: Cambridge University Press. Higgs, E. S., Vita-Finzi, C., Harris, D. R. & Fagg, A. E. (1967). The climate, environment and industries of stone age Greece, part III. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, l-29.

Higgs, E. S. & Vita-Finzi, C. (1972). Prehistoric economies: a territorial approach. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Papers in Economic Prehistory. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-36. Hodder, I. R. & Orton, C. R. (1976). Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hole, F. & Flannery, K. V. (1967). The prehistory of southwestern Iran: a preliminary report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 147-206. Jarman, H. N. (1976). Early crop agriculture in Europe. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Origine de I’Elevuge et de la Domestication. Nice: Union Internationale des SciencesPrehistoriques et Protohistoriques, IX Congrts, pp. 116-144. Jarman, H. N. & Gamble, C. S. (1975). Plant remains from Fiave: a preliminary report. Preistoriu

Aipinu-Museo

Tridentino

di Scienze Nuturuli

11, 75-76.

Jarman, H. N. & Bay-Petersen, J. L. (1976). Agriculture in prehistoric Europe-the lowlands. In (Sir Joseph Hutchinson, J. G. D. Clark, E. M. Jope & R. Riley, Eds) The Early History of Agriculture. (Series B) 275, 85-97.

Philosophical

Transactions

of the Royal Society, London

Jarman, M. R. (1972). A territorial model for archaeology: a behavioural and geographical approach. In (D. L. Clarke, Ed.) Models in Archueoiogy. London: Methuen, pp. 705-733. Jarman, M. R. (1976). Prehistoric economic development in sub-Alpine Italy. In (G. de G. Sieveking, I. H. Longworth & K. E. Wilson, Eds) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. London: Duckworth, pp. 523-548. Jarman, M. R. & Webley, D. P. (1975). Settlement and land use in Capitanata, Italy. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Pulueoeconomy. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177-221.

114

G. N. BAILEY

AND I. DAVIDSON

Jarman, M. R., Bailey, G. N. & Jarman, H. N. (Eds) (1982). Early European Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jochim, M. A. (1976). Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement. New York: Academic Press. Jorda Cerda, F. (1951). El problema de1 Chatelperroniense (Aurifiaciense Inferior) en Espafia. Congreso arqueoldgico de1 sud-este espcnol6, 63-67. Klein, R. G., Allwarden, K. & Wolf, C. (1983). The calculation and interpretation of ungulate age profiles from dental crown heights. In (G. N. Bailey, Ed.) Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehisfory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-57. Kopp, K. 0. (1965). Limite de la nieve perpetua y clima de la Cpoca glaciar Wtirmiense en la Sierra de Aralar (Guiptizcoa-Navarra). Munibe 17, 3-20. Laville, H., Rigaud, J.-P. ‘& Sackett, J. (1980). Rockshelters offhe Perigord. New York, Academic Press. Lee, R. B. (1969). !Kung Bushman subsistence: an input-output analysis. In (A. P. Vayda, Ed.) Environment and Cultural Behavior. Garden City, New York: Natural History Press, pp. 47-79. Leroi-Gourhan, Arl. (1971a). Analisis polinico de Cueva Morin. In (J. Gonzalez Echegaray & L. G. Freeman, Eds) Cueva Morin: Excavaciones 1966-1968. Santander: Patronato de las Cuevas Prehistoricas, pp. 359-365. Leroi-Gourhan, Arl. (19716). La fin du Tardiglaciaire et les industries prehistoriques (Pyretrees-Cantabres). Munibe 23, 249-254. Metcalf, C. R. (1964). Appendix IV. Gorham’s Cave, Gibraltar: report on the plant remains. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 4, 219. Munson, P. J., Parmalee, P. W. & Yarnell, R. A. (1971). Subsistence ecology of Scovill, a terminal Middle Woodland Village. American Antiquity 36, 410431. Peebles, C. S. (1978). Determinants of settlement size and location in the Moundville phase. In (B. D. Smith, Ed.) Mississippian Settlement Patterns. New York: Academic Press, pp. 369-416. Pericot Garcia, L. (1942). La Cueva de1 Parpalld. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Peterson, N. (1975). Hunter-gatherer territoriality: the perspective from Australia. American Anthropologist

77, 53-68.

Poucher, W. A. (1960). The Lakeland Peaks. London: Constable. Roper, D. C. (1979). The method and theory of site catchment analysis: a review. In (M. G. Schiffer, Ed.) Advances in Archaeological Mefhod and Theory, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, pp. 119-140. Roper, D. C. (1982). Review of “Catchment Analysis: Essayson Prehistoric Resource Space”, edited by F. J. Findlow & J. E. Ericson. Anthropology UCLA, Vol. 10. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. American Antiquity 47,460-462. Rossman, D. L. (1976). A site catchment analysis of San Lorenzo, Veracruz. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press, pp. 95-103. Sakellaridis, M. (1979). The Mesolifhic and Neolithic of the Swiss Area. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series, 67. Saxon, E. C. (1974). The mobile herding economy of Kebarah Cave, Mt. Carmel: an economic analysis of the fauna1 remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 1, 27-46. Schiffer, M. B. (1976). Behavioral Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Schwellnus, W. (1974). Wartberg-Gruppe und Hessische Megalithik: ein Beifrag zum spiiten Neolithikum des hessischen Berglandes. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde des Fachbereichs Altertumswissenschaften der Philipps-Universitat Marburg/Lahn. Straus, L. G. (1977). Of deerslayers and mountain men: paleolithic fauna1 exploitation in Cantabrian Spain. In (L. R. Binford, Ed.) For Theory Building in Archaeology. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-76. Straus, L. G. (1979). Mesolithic adaptations along the coast of northern Spain. Quaternaria 21, 305-327.

SITE EXPLOITATION

TERRITORIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

115

Straus, L. G. & Clark, G. A. (1978). Prehistoric investigations in Cantabrian Spain. Journal of Field Archaeology 5, 289-317. Straus, L. G., Bernaldo de Quiros, F., Cabrera, V. & Clark, G. A. (1978). New radiocarbon dates for the Spanish Solutrean. Antiquity 51, 243. Straus, L. G., Clark, G. A., Altuna, J. & Ortea, J. A. (1980). Ice-age subsistence in northern Spain. ScientificAmerican 242, 142-152. Straus, L. G., Altuna, J., Clark, G. A., Gonzalez, M., Laville, H., Leroi-Gourhan, Arl., Menendez, M. & Ortea, J. A. (1981). Paleoecology at la Riera (Asturias, Spain). Current Anthropology

22, 655-674.

Stuckenrath, R. (1978). Dataciones de Carbon0 14. In (J. Gonzalez Echegaray & L. G. Freeman, Eds) Vida y Muerte en Cueva Morin. Santander: Institution Cultural de Cantabria, Diputacion Provincial, p. 215. Sturdy, D. A. (1972). Reindeer Economies in Late Ice Age Europe. University of Cambridge: unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Sturdy, D. A. (1975). Some reindeer economies in prehistoric Europe. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Palaeoeconomy. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 55-95. Thiede, J. (1978). A glacial Mediterranean. Nature 276, 680-683. Ucko, P. J. & Rosenfeld, A. (1967). Palaeolithic Cave Art. London: Weidenfeld. Vega de1 Sella, Conde de la (1921). El paleolitico de Cueva Morin (Santander) y notas para la climatologia cuaternaria. Comisidn de Znvestigaciones Paleontoldgicas y Prehistdricas 29. Virri, T. J. (1946). Maanjake-olojen Vaikutuksesta Maataloustuctantous. Maatalous Agronomien

Yhdistkysen

Julkaisa,

6-11.

Vita-Finzi, C. (1975). Related territories and alluvial sediments. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Palaeoeconomy. London : Cambridge University Press, pp. 225-231. Vita-Finzi, C. (1978). Archaeological Sites in their Setting. London: Thames & Hudson. Vita-Finzi, C., Higgs, E. S. with Sturdy, D. A., Harriss, J., Legge, A. J. & Tippett, H. (1970). Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: site catchment analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, l-37. Webley, D. P. (1972). Soils and site location in prehistoric Palestine. In (E. S. Higgs, Ed.) Papers in Economic Prehistory. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169-180. Webley, D. P. (1976). How the west was won: prehistoric land-use in the Southern Marches. In (G. C. Boon & J. M. Lewis, Eds) Welsh Antiquity. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales, pp. 19-35. Wobst, H. M. (1978). The archaeo-ethnology of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology. American Antiquity 43, 303-309. Zarky, A. (1976). Statistical analysis of site catchments at Ocos, Guatemala. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press, pp. 117-130.