Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:18:09.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stone Tools and Paleolithic Settlement in the Iberian Peninsula

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

C. Michael Barton
C. Michael Barton
Affiliation:
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287–2402, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The assemblages from four sites in Spain and Gibraltar form the basis of a study that addresses the behavioral significance of the variability in Middle Paleolithic chipped stone artifacts. Quantitative analysis of artifact edge morphology forms the primary focus of this work.

It is suggested that (1) morphological variability is generally continuous for the features examined, (2) retouched and unretouched lithics are extremes in a continuum of the degree of edge use, (3) lithic morphology is dynamic and artifacts may be multi-functional and (4) lithic morphoplogy is conditioned by the time of discard in the use-life of the artifact. Retouched artifacts may be more the end result of the extent and nature of the use of their various edges than preconceived tools determined by cultural traditions or intended function.

These results are applied to a study of Middle Paleolithic settlement strategies using data from the four primary sites of the study and an additional five sites in the Iberian peninsula. Differences are noted between upland and lowland strategies. Upland sites may represent more of a ‘forager’ strategy, with frequent, short-term occupations of sites. Lowland sites seem more characteristic of a ‘collector’ strategy, with longer occupations and less frequent visits to sites. Settlement response to changing Upper Pleistocene environments during the onset of the last glacial may include a shift to a more ‘forager’-like strategy in lowland settings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 56 , 1990 , pp. 15 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barton, C. M. 1987. An Analysis of Lithic Variability from the Middle Paleolithic of the Iberian Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Barton, C. M. 1988. Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behavior: New Evidence from the Iberian Peninsula. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1973. Interassemblage variability — the Mousterian and the ‘functional’ argument. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, 227–54. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1980. Willow smoke and dog's tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45, 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. and Binford, S. R. 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist 68, 238–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R. 1969. Stone tools and human behavior. Scientific American 220, 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique, Ancien et Moyen. Bordeau: Publ. de l'Institut de Préhistoire de l'Université de Bordeau, Memoire 1, vols 1–2.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1972. A Tale of Two Caves. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1973. On the chronology and contemporaneity of different paleolithic cultures in France. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, 217–26. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1981. Vingt-cinq ans après; le complexe moustérien revisité. Bulletin de la Societé Préhistoire Française 78, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordes, F. and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de 1970. The significance of variability in paleolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butzer, K. W. 1981. Cave sediments, Upper Pleistocene stratigraphy and Mousterian facies in Cantabrian Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 8, 133–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahen, D., Keeley, L. H. and Van Noten, F. L. 1979. Stone tools, toolkits, and human behavior in prehistory. Current Anthropology 20, 661–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, G. A. 1989. Romancing the stones: biases, style and lithics at La Riera. In Henry, D. O. and Odell, G. H. (eds), Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, 27–50. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, number 1.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1973. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. L. 1984. Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: function, style, or sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11, 431–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H. L. 1987. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52, 109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H. L. 1988. Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilization of lithic resources in the French Mousterian. In Dibble, H. L. and Montet-White, A. (eds), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, 181–97. Philadelphia: University Museum.Google Scholar
Fish, P. R. 1979. The Interpretive Potential of Mousterian Debitage. Tempe: Anthropological Research Papers, no. 16, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Freeman, L. G. 1964. Mousterian Developments in Cantabrian Spain. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Chicago: Dept of Anthropology, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Frison, G. C. 1968. A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. American Antiquity 33, 149–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, D.A.E., Buxton, L. H. D., Smith, G. E. and Bate, D. M. A. 1928. Excavation of a Mousterian rock-shelter at Devil's Tower, Gibraltar. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 58, 38–58.Google Scholar
Gould, R. A. K., Koster, D. A. and Sontz, A. H. L. 1971. The lithic assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 7, 38–58.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. 1987. From chopper to celt: the evolution of resharpening techniques. Lithic Technology 16, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, D. O. 1989. Correlations between reduction strategies and settlement patterns. In Henry, D. O. and Odell, G. H. (eds), Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, 139–58. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, number 1.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J. 1976. Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. In Cleland, C. E. (ed.), Cultural Change and Continuity, 19–35. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J. 1988. Technology, typology and culture in the Middle Paleolithic. In Dibble, H. L. and Montet-White, A. (eds), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, 199–212. Philadelphia: University Museum.Google Scholar
Laville, H., Rigaud, J.-P. and Sackett, J. 1980. Rock Shelters of the Perigord. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
de Lumley, H. 1969. Étude de l'outillage moustérien de la Grotte de Carigüela (Piñar-Grenade). L‘Anthropologie 73, 165–206.Google Scholar
Mellars, P. A. 1965. Sequence and development of Mousterian tradition in southwestern France. Nature 205, 626–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellars, P. A. 1969. The chronology of Mousterian industries in the Perigord region of south-west France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35, 134–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellars, P. A. 1986. A new chronology for the French Mousterian period. Nature 322, 410–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller-Wille, C. F. 1983. Analysis of Variability among Mousterian Industries in Eastern and Southern Spain. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Chicago: Dept of Anthropology, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. and Bent, D.H. 1975. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Rolland, N. 1977. New aspects of Middle Palaeolithic variability in western Europe. Nature 266, 251–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolland, N. 1981. The interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic variability. Man 16, 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega Toscano, L. G. 1980. El Musteriense de la Cueva de la Zájara I (Cuevas del Almanzora, Almería). Trabajos de Prehistória 37, 11–64.Google Scholar
Villaverde Bonilla, V. 1984. La Cova Negra de Xàtiva y el Musteriense de la Región Central del Mediterráneo Español. Valencia: Servicio de Investigatión Prehistória, Serie de Trabajos Varios, 79.Google Scholar
Waechter, J. d'A. 1951. Excavations at Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 17, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waechter, J. d'A. 1964. The excavation of Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar, 1951–1954. Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 4, 189–221.Google Scholar