2.7 The technological study: observations
2.^ Further observations taken for the El Sartalejo assemblage 2.9 The typological study: observations
2.10 The Bordes and Tixier typological lists 2.11 Conclusion
PART I
2.1 Introduction
In the first chapter I presented the background to, and formulation of my research goals. This chapter describes the method followed during the study. I describe how and why specific assemblages were chosen for detailed study and how the practical mechanics of the work were undertaken, that is where and how the research was done. In the second part of the chapter I describe the observations I chose to make and why I chose them, and follow this with a definition of the observations themselves. In this way I hope that the clarification of terms may make the thesis more readily understood by the reader, and the method more easily replicated should the need arise.
1.2 Assemblages chosen for special study
The aim of the thesis is to determine, if possible, the affect of quartzite pebbles and cobbles on the technology and typology of stone tools and to assess the role that quartzite may play in assemblage variability. One o f the first difficulties lies in isolating raw material from other factors which also affect lithic technology, typology and variability such as function, cultural traditions, knapping techniques, knapper's ability, site formation processes and so on. Ideally, one would like to work with material from sites in which conditions o f preservation have been optimum as seen in the pristine Upper Palaeolithic sites of Verberie, Etiolles, Marsangy and Pincevent in the Paris Basin (Karlin 1992a and b; Pigeot 1990). The reality for Iberia is less than perfect, particularly when dealing with the earlier time period of the Middle Pleistocene; there are numerous Middle Pleistocene lithic
assemblages, some resulting from excavations but few from in situ sites, and many from surface collections made by both archaeologists and amateurs. Dating for these assemblages is based on the relative chronology of terrace sequences and on typology (dating is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3). At first glance, therefore, it would seem that Iberia is not a good area to choose for the purposes of the present thesis. This is not necessarily correct. Aspects o f stone tool manufacture which are affected by raw material should be visible on artefacts, irrespective of the time period or location of those artefacts. Therefore securely dated and provenanced material is not essential, although it would, of course, have facilitated a more in depth comparative study than has been possible here.
As mentioned above a large body of Middle Pleistocene, mainly quartzite artefacts, has been recovered from the Spanish Meseta and Central Portugal. The presence of so many assemblages within a well defined region, drained by many of the same large rivers, lends a certain homogeneity to the assemblages under study, and will, it is hoped, enable any variability within the region to be more easily determined (fig. 2.1). Moreover, it facilitates the practical aspects of research, in that transport to and within the regions poses few problems, the longest journey involving an overnight train ride. The assemblages studied here come from systematic surface collections, private surface collections and controlled excavations. Assemblages solely in quartzite, in quartzite and other stone, and almost entirely in flint have been studied to determine variability between assemblages of like raw material, and those of different raw materials. The predominantly flint assemblage of Oxigeno was included to see if any striking differences became apparent which might be linked to raw material use.
Assemblages from different time periods of the M iddle Pleistocene, more specifically the Acheulian, have been studied to see if there are any attributes which are constant throughout time and which may be related to the raw material exploited. As mentioned above, all the dating is relative, so that while an assemblage cannot be given a specific date in years it can be seen to be younger or older than another.
In this way it is hoped to get a spatial and temporal view of the use of quartzite in the Lower Palaeolithic of the Spanish Meseta and Central Portugal.
2.3 Technological analyses
Five assemblages were chosen for the technological study; Pinedo, El Sartalejo, Porzuna and Oxigeno in the Spanish Meseta and Milharôs in central Portugal (fig. 2.1). Fine-grained quartzite forms the basis for the assemblages from El Sartalejo, Porzuna and Milharôs. Flint and quartzite, but predominantly coarse-grained quartzite, were exploited at Pinedo, and flint and quartzite, but predominantly flint, were exploited at Oxigeno. Pinedo has been assigned to the Early Acheulian, El Sartalejo to the Middle Acheulian and Porzuna, Oxigeno and Milharôs to the Late Acheulian. In this way it was hoped that variability in stone type and texture, in time and geographical area could be assessed in light of the main aims of the thesis.
The artefacts from Pinedo and Milharôs were the result of controlled excavation, those from El Sartalejo from an unbiased, systematic surface collection over a two- week period, the artefacts from Porzuna are surface collections by three private individuals, and those from Oxigeno are supervised, surface collections undertaken by the Seminario de Histôria Primitiva del Hombre and the Instituto Arqueolôgico Municipal de Madrid. Apart from Milharôs, with an assemblage of 330 pieces, the other assemblages consisted of more than 2500 artefacts.
Time made the study of all the assemblages in their entirety impractical. Unifaces/bifaces, flake tools and cores were studied in detail as it was felt that these types adequately cover the range of techniques involved in the manufacture of a variety of artefact types: flake production, flake modification and large tool production. In addition, these three categories commonly form an important part of Acheulian assemblages. Flake cleavers and trihedrals were not studied with the unifaces/bifaces because of time limits and because they usually form a smaller group than the uniface/biface group in an assemblage. Furthermore, all the flake cleavers from Pinedo had been stolen from the excavation site and could not have been incorporated in the study. A random sample of approximately 200 of each artefact category was made from the more extensive assemblages (Porzuna and Oxigeno), while the Milharôs assemblage was small enough to allow study of all the artefacts within each category. There were fewer than 200 of each type in the Pinedo material, housed in the Museo de Santa Cruz, all of which were studied. However, the assemblage from El Sartalejo was considered in its entirety in order to assess the effect of large, quartzite cobbles on all aspects of stone modification.
rn n o n u e r o I i s km 250 100
Fig. 2.1 Map of the sites included in the technological and typological study 1. Puig d"En Roca 2. Banugues 3. Gandaras de Budino 4. Gaiisancho
5. La Maya 6. Atapuerca 7. San Quirce de Rio Pisuerga 8. Torralba and Ambrona 9. Oxigeno 10. Aridos 11. Pinedo 12. El Sartalejo
13. Porzuna 14. Albalâ 15. El Martinete 16. Laguna Blanca 17. S. M. del Guadiana IS.Solanadel Zamborino 19. El Aculadero 20. Milharôs 21. Gruta do Almoda 22. Monte Famaco
2.4 Typological analyses
The form and size, nature and fracture properties of quartzite may influence the artificial ordering of artefacts into types. Archaeological stone artefacts fall into a number of recurrent categories some of which are seen as indicating more advanced techniques of working than others. The utilization of such types, more specifically the Bordes typological system, is widespread in Iberia and has often served as a criterion for the chronological ordering of assemblages. I felt that a typological study would reveal any significant absences, should there be any, of tool types associated with the Acheulian as well as any differences between areas which might be associated with the type o f stone exploited. Additionally, such an analysis, undertaken with raw material in mind, might shed light on the viability of using typology as a chronological marker in the Acheulian. The typological study involved the analyses of eighteen Middle Pleistocene assemblages in quartzite, most of which come from the Spanish Meseta and Central Portugal (fig. 2.1). These assemblages, which include four of the five assemblages used in the technological study here, come from excavations, systematic collections and surface collections and are well documented in the literature. The typological analyses were based solely on these literary sources.
2.5 Research procedures
The technological study was done in Spain, at those museums in which the artefacts were stored: Museo de Arqueologia Nacional in Madrid, Museo de Ciudad Real in Ciudad Real, Museo de Santa Cruz in Toledo, Museo de Salamanca in Salamanca and Museu Nacional de Arqueologia in Lisbon. In each of these I had a room in which to work, and although I did not always have access to the area in which the artefacts were stored e.g. in Madrid, I was always cordially received and helped greatly by the Museum curators and staff. In all I made three trips to Spain during the course of my study. The first was undertaken in order to judge the feasibility of studying Spanish materials, and to collect pertinent literature. Study of the materials occurred during the second two, more protracted trips. The typological study was done England, using the the literature obtained in Spain and that available at the Institute of Archaeology library in London.