MUNIBE (Antropologia-Arkeologia

)

nº 64

x-xx

SAN SEBASTIÁN

2013

ISSN 1132-2217
Recibido: 2013-01-24 Aceptado: 2013-05-22

Are Bordes’ Mousterian facies discrete groups in the Iberian Peninsula?
¿Son las facies musterienses de Bordes grupos discretos en la Península Ibérica?
PALABRAS CLAVES: Tipología, Musteriense, Península Ibérica, facies musterienses. KEY WORDS: Typology, Mousterian, Iberian Peninsula, Mousterian facies. GAKO-HITZAK: Tipologia, Mousteriarra, Iberiar penintsula, fazies mousteriarrak.

David SANTAMARÍA(1) y Marco DE LA RASILLA(1)
RESUMEN Se evalúa la consistencia estadística de las facies Musterienses identificadas en la Península Ibérica (Charentiense, Musteriense típico y Musteriense de denticulados) como grupos discretos bien delimitados, con el objetivo de contrastar la validez de las mismas a la hora de explicar la variabilidad tipológica Musteriense en este territorio. ABSTRACT We evaluate the statistical robustness of the Mousterian facies identified in the Iberian Peninsula (Charentian, Typical and Denticulate Mousterian) as discrete typological groups in order to check their validity for explaining the typological Mousterian variability in this territory. LABURPENA Iberiar penintsulan identifikatutako fazies mousteriar multzo diskretuen (Charentiarra, Mousteriar arrunta eta Mousteriar dentikulatua) trinkotasun estatistikoa ebaluatzen da artikuluan. Azterketaren xedea, Penintsulako aldakortasun tipologiko Mousteriarra analizatzean, harri multzo horiek duten baliotasuna egiaztatzea da.

1.- INTRODUCTION
Mousterian typological variability has been one of the major topics in Palaeolithic archaeology for a long time. In the mid-twentieth century, F. Bordes defined six Mousterian assemblages, or facies, using an innovative typological approach that has more or less endured up to the present day (BORDES, 1953). After Bordes' description, the discussion first focused on the interpretation of Mousterian facies (BORDES, 1953; BINFORD & BINFORD, 1966; FREEMAN, 1966, 1969-1970; BORDES & SONNEVILLE-BORDES, 1970; DIBBLE, 1984, 1987, 1991; ROLLAND, 1988; MELLARS, 1988, 1989, 1996), and later, on the real existence of such facies (CALLOW & WEBB, 1981; ROLLAND & DIBBLE, 1990; DIBBLE & ROLLAND, 1992; FREEMAN, 1992, 1994, 2005, 2006, 2009; CABRERA & NEIRA, 1994; MOYER & ROLLAND, 2001). The recent development of technological studies has placed the typological debate in the background. Nevertheless, due to the lack of a unified technological nomenclature, Bordes' typological classification constitutes, at present, the only method we have for making quantitative comparisons between different assemblages.

In this paper, we evaluate the statistical consistency of the Mousterian facies identified in the Iberian Peninsula as discrete clusters (CALLOW & WEBB, 1981 vs FREEMAN, 1994; MOYER & ROLLAND, 2001), in order to check their validity for explaining the typological Mousterian variability in this territory.

2. METHODOLOGY
The analyzed sample consists of 96 Mousterian assemblages from 27 Iberian sites (Figure 1). All these sites, containing at least 50 tools in essential counts (see below), were studied by different researchers using Bordes' typology (BORDES, 1961). The assemblages were assigned to one of the following Mousterian facies: Charentian (Quina or Ferrassie), Typical Mousterian, Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) and Denticulate Mousterian. Table 1 shows the typological features of the Mousterian facies according to Bordes (BORDES, 1953, 1984; BORDES & SONNEVILLE-BORDES, 1970). This classification is largely built around two indices: the essential sidescraper index and the Denticulate group (or GIV), although

(1) Departamento de Historia, Área de Prehistoria, Universidad de Oviedo, c/ Teniente Alfonso Martínez, s/n, 33011, Oviedo, España. santamariadavid@uniovi.es mrasilla@uniovi.es

Cochino.. Mugarduia Norte. IB y GIII) play a secondary role in the composition of the assemblages. GIII: Group III (Upper Palaeolithic). 16.. Ferrassie and some typical Charentian Mousterian reaching the lower limit of this definition). 21. Nevertheless. 3. 8. 2013 pp.. To minimize this inequality. Petxina. Columbeira. IBi: Handaxe Index. Lezetxiki. the classification is largely built upon the Essential Side-scraTypical Variable 30-65 Low Uncommon Uncommon High per Index and the Group IV. Amalda. 23. Map of the Iberian Peninsula illustrating the location of the Mousterian sites discussed in the text. IQ. BORDES & SONNEVILLE-BORDES. 5. Morín. IQ: Quina Index.x-xx S. 43. Gabasa. El Pendo. C. Eudoviges. 44. 2. 19. . 15.6 DAVID SANTAMARÍA Y MARCO DE LA RASILLA Fig.. 1. 26.. GIV: Group IV (Denticulate). the Hand-axe Index and the Group III to separate the subtypes A and B of MTA (see BORDES 1953: 459). La Ermita. 51 and 54. 25.. the artefact types included in such indices (side-scrapers and denticulates) are unequally treated in the typological list of reference (MONTES & MAZO. Palomarico. Carigüela. for instance. Peña Miel. 13. La Flecha. 27. 10. Cueva Millán. 9. the Levallois and Quina indices are only used by Bordes to distinguish the Quina and Ferrassie assemblages. This group includes types 42. Bordes Subtype A Variable 20-45 Low 5-40 High High used these techno-typological indices as criteria for delimitating the Mousterian Subtype B Variable 4-20 Low Low Variable >60 facies. 6. 1. El Castillo.the third one is characterized by the low percentage of side scrapers (from about 4% to 20%) and a strong to very strong percentage of denticulates (up to 60%). there are three main types of cumulative graph for Mousterian assemblages. This is the Denticulate group (or GIV) as proposed by Turq (1977). Denticulate tools (or simply denticulate). 7. sub-type A (with numerous hand-axes). Zájara I. 22.. 1984. 18. 24. respectively: notches. denticulates. 11. 4. 17. sub-type B (BORDES Y SONNEVILLE-BORDES. 1970). 1970: 61-62). Axlor. 1953. and the Ferrassie >16 >50 6-12 Uncommon Uncommon Low Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition. Covalejos. Cova Negra. Perneras. Facies MTA IL IRes IQ IB GIII GIV Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64. 12. Esquilleu. It comprises the Denticulate Mousterian and the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition. The first one characterizes assemblages rich in scraDenticulate Variable 4-20 Low Uncommon Uncommon >60 pers (more than 50%) and low in denticulates (Quina. the second is characteQuina <16 >50 >12 Uncommon Uncommon Low rized by a moderate percentage of side scrapers and a rather lower percentage of denticulates. alternate retouched becs. It comprises the other part of the Typical Mousterian. Tayac points and end-notched flakes. 14. always greater than the percentage of scrapers. Bordes (from BORDES. 20. Aranzadi. Z. 1986). IL: Levallois Index. IRes: Essential side-scraper Index.. we have used the following typological groups and indices. E. according to F. Table 1: Typological features of the Mousterian assemblages. . Bolomor. The other indices (IL. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 . Bajondillo. El Salt. El Conde.

limaces (type 8) and side-scrapers (types 9 to 29). and 96. the lower the value the greater is the rate of Denticulate tools. Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64. 47. C. The distribution of such indices is reversed (the greater the EMI value the lower is the EDI value) and continuous (without breaking points). most of them pertaining to the Quina subfacies) and the Typical Mousterian (33 levels. with. From these groups we have calculated the following typological indices. Frequency distribution of the EDI + EMI indices. with minimum and maximum values of 65. 34. The Mousterian (types 6-29) and Denticulate tools (types 42-44. 2. Mousterian/Denticulate or M/D: Based on the ratio of scrapers to denticulate tools (Dibble & Rolland 1992). Within this group we include Mousterian points (types 6 and 7). Figure 3 shows the distribution of the EDI and EMI indices in each Mousterian facies (mean and standard deviation). 3. All Mousterian assemblages. 51 and 54) are well represented in all levels. a value equal to 1 means that there are the same number of Mousterian and Denticulate tools.ARE BORDES’ MOUSTERIAN FACIES DISCRETE GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA? 7 Mousterian tools (or simply Mousterian). from Charentian to Denticulate Mousterian. the threshold from which a stone tool assemblage can be classified as Mousterian. 3. (EDI + Fig. the higher the value the greater is the rate of Mousterian tools.7) and Morin 12 (EDI + EMI: 69.3). RESULTS As table 2 shows. Mean and standard deviation of the EDI and EMI indices. 51 and 54). naturally-backed knives (type 38) and discontinuous retouched flakes (types 45 to 50).5% ± 7% of the essential tools registered in all levels. from Denticulate Mousterian to Charentian. according to this author it was a MTA. for Mousterian facies. 15. 17.9%. Aranzadi. The MTA was identified in 1971 at levels 13/14.2). excluding Morin 17 inf. or vice versa.4%) are the best represented facies in the Iberian Peninsula. Essential Mousterian index or EMI: Fig. This is the Mousterian group (or GII) as defined by Bordes (1984). subtype A.x-xx S. This value can be regarded therefore as a terminus a quo of the Mousterian. This index measures the relationship between the Mousterian and Denticulate groups. have an EDI + EMI value greater than 70. A value greater than 1 indicates disparity in favour of Mousterian tools (types 6 to 29).3% in Morin 17 inf. sui generis where hand-axes are replaced by cleavers). E.7%). only one standard deviation of overlap between successive facies. On average these groups account for 85. However. In this paper we follow the last designation. in other words. EMI: 65. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 . Mugarduia 2 (EDI + EMI: 66. Finally a value lower than 1 indicates dissimilarity in favour of Denticulate tools (types 42 to 44. 2013 pp. commonly.4% in Axlor 3 (Figure 2). pseudolevallois points (type 5). followed well behind by the Denticulate facies (n = 17. 16 and 17 of Morin Cave (Freeman 1971. the Charentian (46 levels. Essential Denticulate index or EDI Essential typological counts exclude unretouched Levallois artefacts (types 1 to 3). Z. in 1978 Freeman changed this classification to Typical Mousterian (Freeman 1978: 313-315).

39 5.10 41.24 38.13 11.64 3.54 10.35 47.67 67.43 47.97 1.05 42.32 43. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 .44 4.53 7.12 75.82 3.39 1.06 2.57 26.91 62.04 15.55 25.30 6.17 46.34 64.47 31.68 73.51 27.86 79.81 1.11 2.93 1.00 56.57 4.13 5.16 11.13 48.56 12.08 26.55 16.75 65.30 7.74 80.11 54.32 79.32 37.40 83.74 0.97 69.28 26.34 14.38 31.30 83.31 55.87 72.57 1.53 11.64 2.97 5.67 3.95 0.61 54.68 24.65 13.91 76.15 1.16 13.65 68.05 50.58 26.55 0.93 49.50 Ref 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 11 12 12 13 Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64.25 M/D 1.98 4.25 2.06 70.27 7.78 13.89 72.62 14.x-xx S.80 0.14 74.56 12.00 66.62 61.59 11.15 39.06 12.56 70.44 56.63 60.92 15.35 45.96 42.49 10.44 4.29 1.54 62. C.93 1.67 14.95 83.63 0.89 15.62 38.25 0.58 7.08 24.51 60.03 30.46 68.53 2.49 70.99 10. E.29 2.88 1.61 39. 2013 pp.22 0.67 2.22 72.25 55.97 49.03 17.00 1.48 45.06 2.46 6.8 Site Amalda Axlor Axlor Axlor Axlor Axlor Bajondillo Bajondillo Bajondillo Bajondillo Bolomor Bolomor Bolomor Bolomor Bolomor Bolomor Bolomor Bolomor Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Carigüela Cochino Columbeira Columbeira Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Cova Negra Covalejos Covalejos Covalejos El Castillo El Castillo El Castillo El Conde El Conde El Conde El Pendo El Pendo El Salt Level VII 3 4 5 6 7 14 15 16 17 Ia Ib/Ic II III IV V XII XVII V-2 V-3 V-4 V-5 V-6 VI-2 VI-3/4 VI-7 VI-8 VIIb-1 VIIb-2/3 XI-1 XI12/13 XI-8/10 III 7 8 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XIII I J K 20 22 Alfa C D E XII-XI XVI 1 MF T Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch D T T T D D Ch Ch D D D D T T T T T T T T Ch T T T T T Ch D D Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch T Ch Ch Ch T Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch D D T D D Ch DAVID SANTAMARÍA Y MARCO DE LA RASILLA Tools 174 223 1005 225 181 51 77 171 76 179 421 146 239 82 367 85 57 79 84 148 91 187 107 54 90 167 161 252 254 69 65 61 99 235 304 384 87 169 82 77 99 149 122 81 64 54 94 133 69 613 681 745 359 141 63 96 172 81 Dt 61 28 124 33 27 8 35 53 8 20 195 55 75 27 180 36 26 31 32 62 14 58 38 15 12 32 21 40 51 18 15 15 11 129 206 39 10 18 11 19 24 28 22 14 17 7 40 22 7 158 116 230 259 105 20 63 100 10 Mt 79 187 803 178 147 37 20 84 57 119 190 71 145 47 158 43 26 43 40 57 55 105 42 30 63 95 117 169 156 37 40 38 83 93 80 307 73 129 62 48 64 102 84 50 41 38 39 94 51 386 472 413 22 16 30 14 46 65 EDI 35.87 20.35 EMI 45. Z.06 61.84 39.00 5.67 31.33 75.72 0.79 18. Aranzadi.24 18.61 62.17 5.68 6.43 0.07 1.57 2.87 7.89 67.08 0.39 7.59 45.92 3.63 58.02 35.45 30.76 10.38 32.90 79.14 25.33 19.09 23.14 12.41 5.73 64.67 57.69 45.44 6.85 61.48 5.37 41.23 3.19 1.50 0.77 17.41 24.42 53.11 81.

00 82. 6. 51 and 54 of Bordes’ Lower and Middle Palaeolithic typology.94 59.86 66.76 1.73 80.37 6.68 41. M/D: Mousterian to Denticulate ratio. Denticulate Mousterian.27 2.03 0. Typical Mousterian.3 17. 21.9 9.78 0. Carrión 2002.08 4.29 0. Villaverde 1984.38 56.17 35.00 16. Vega 1980.96 9.37 2. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 . Z.10 29.53 2.93 81. Barton 1988.08 3.17 3.04 2. Denticulate tools (Dt): Types 42 to 44.84 33.4 20.9 80.59 12.59 70.88 8.61 30.e.33 7.06 71.1 28. 20.ARE BORDES’ MOUSTERIAN FACIES DISCRETE GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA? 9 EMI M/D 8.18 10.50 9.7 28.000 R2: 0.42 38.93 24.61 81. This succession refutes the existence of well-differentiated typological facies (i.35 25.61 25.2 83. Freeman 1978. Freeman 1977. Freeman y González Echegaray 1967. Barandiarán y Montes 1991-1992. 16. 18.02 3. 8.00 0.7 28. 10. Freeman 1980.7 Mean 72. 22.66 71. 9.18 2.02 66.81 22. Reference: 1. all levels are distributed in an orderly and continuous way (without abrupt changes or inflections). This continuity between levels assigned to different facies is better perceived when we ignore the typological facies to which they belong.25 80.60 17.31 15. 2. 4.5 σ 8. and suggests.14 31. Tools: Essential tool count: 4 + 6-37 + 39-44 + 51-62.2 52.02 24.44 11.11 5.12 65. Cortés 2007.0 Table 2: Typological features of the Iberian Mousterian sites.79 46. Montes 1988.29 75.91 3.00 28.92 EDI + EMI Ref 13 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 18 19 19 17 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 5 22 22 5 5 5 6 6 23 23 23 23 - Site El Salt El Salt El Salt El Salt El Salt Esquilleu Eudoviges Eudoviges Gabasa Gabasa Gabasa Gabasa La Ermita La Ermita La Flecha Lezetxiki Lezetxiki Millán Morín Morín Morín Morín Morín Morín Morín Mugarduia Palomarico Peña Miel Peña Miel Perneras Perneras Perneras Petxina Petxina Zájara I Zájara I Zájara I Zájara I Total Level 2 3 4 5 6 XI 5 7+6 D E F G 5a 5b 1-3 III IV 1b 11 12 13/14 15 16 17 17 inf 2 Inf E G α β γ Sup 2 1 2 3 5 Count MF Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch T T T T Ch Ch D Ch Ch Ch D D T T T T D T T Ch Ch T T T Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch - Tools 73 208 95 115 92 105 191 134 87 97 49 64 174 118 366 353 183 94 180 253 87 97 298 363 95 87 82 57 376 100 201 89 92 85 204 336 109 73 16743 Dt 7 26 9 8 9 11 49 19 9 21 15 16 29 35 262 65 22 23 99 162 48 34 113 172 54 29 33 13 85 30 58 17 27 22 54 38 17 13 4883 EDI Mt 62 170 76 95 75 87 127 102 57 58 23 38 118 73 44 234 138 64 29 13 27 46 116 89 8 29 30 40 262 41 117 54 55 55 127 269 78 51 9557 EDI 9.2 57.33 40.7 7.1 55.7 100 Mean 17. Vega 1988.35 7.67 59.91 2.47 11. Table 3). Cabrera 1984. 12.56 69. 3.5 σ 3.08 1. 23. Baldeón 1984.47 6.67 29.86 12. The relationship between such variables is statistically significant. Mousterian Facies (MF): CH.78 10.00 64. Mousterian tools (Mt): Types 6 to 29 of Bordes’ typology.18 69. EMI: Essential Mousterian index. accor- Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64.03 55. E.52 8.82 61.0 Mean 89.52 0.4 17.0 σ 7. 14.59 5.2 11.x-xx S.34 21.81 EMI 84. D. Aranzadi.58 18.38 67.86 - Facies Charentian Typical Denticulate Total n 46 33 17 96 % 47. Utrilla y Montes 1987.05 37.56 1.38 4.09 16.42 33.54 8. Moure y García Soto 1983. 5. Baldeón 1993.33 36.71 62.65 30.9 34. As this figure shows.47 55.50 2.35 1.60 6.1 12.59 3. 19.1 12.3 4.49 76.09 0. Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the Mousterian assemblages according to the EDI and EMI indices. 15. 17.0 16.33 2. Martín Blanco et alii 2006.07 2.86 6. 11. Benito del Rey 1975.65 14. and explains about 89% of the variability observed in the EDI index (F: 762.704 p-value < 0. 2013 pp.24 22. 13.9 85.21 60.48 25. EDI: Essential Denticulate index.88 26.52 82. Barandiarán 1975-1976. Ferrassie and Paracharentian). 7. C. Raposo y Cardoso 1998.41 12.03 47.15 1. Charentian (Quina.41 68. T.92 47. clustered) as all levels are ordered in a continuous way.00 58.890.08 0. Baldeón 1999. Fernández Peris 2007.52 59.86 19.78 64.

R2 0.873 F value 762. Figure 5 shows the distribution of the Mousterian levels according to such indices. that the assemblage types proposed by Bordes represent grades of a continuously distributed. the ratio of Mousterian tools to Denticulate). df: degrees of freedom. As the relationship between the variables is negative.e.000 R2: 0. 2013 pp. but internally heterogeneous group. Z. Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Adj. if we perform a cluster analysis of the EDI and M/D indices.889 Table 3: Summary of the linear regression model. R. Furthermore. Aranzadi. According to this test we can distinguish three groups.385 13. E. there is no reason to think the curve is unidirectional. and its equation is: where x stands for M/D ratio.639 p-value 1. we tried to rebuild (Figure 7). The regression model that best explains the data is logarithmic.0. R2 Adjusted coefficient of determination. whose inter-group distance is over 5.171 df 1 94 95 DAVID SANTAMARÍA Y MARCO DE LA RASILLA Mean Square 23547. as tools vary their shape with resharpening. C.6%) and 10 classified as Typical Mousterian (24.077 26449. Adj. the resulting groups.951. In other words.9%) and 1 Typical (9. there is a continuous intergradation of the assemblages rich in Denticulate tools into assemblages rich in Mousterian tools.095 30. and/or vice versa of the Mousterian tools into Denticulate tools.951 Table 4: Summary of the logarithmic regression model.10 Sum of Squares Regression Residual Total 23547.81E-47 R 0. ding to Moyer & Rolland (2001: 41). At present. Verjux 1988. Cluster I consists of 31 levels assigned to the Charentian (75. or facies.x-xx S. But we can improve this relationship by changing the EMI index for the M/D ratio (i. R2 0. blages. 4. finally. the so-called Frison effect (Dibble 1987.639 pvalue < 0. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 . y represents the EDI value. correlation coefficient.890 Adj. R2 Adjusted coefficient of determination.98E-63 R 0.095 2902.975 R2 0. and. Moreover. rather than a set of discrete typological groups. R2 coefficient of determination. 1995. Thus.786 26449. or facies. R. 22 Typical (50%) and 7 Denticulate levels (15. and ln is the symbol used to express the natural logarithm. which must be interpreted as artificial divisions of a continuous process of change. Distribution of the Mousterian levels according to the EDI and EMI indices. cluster II contains 15 Charentian levels (34. Table 4). R2 coefficient of determination.944 R2 0.385 1291. Hiscock & Attenbrow 2005). do not look anything like the assem- Fig.4%). the typological variability of the Iberian Mousterian can be reinterpreted as a progressive and continuous transformation of the Denticulate tools into Mousterian tools.951 Adj. the distinction between the Charentian and the Typical Mousterian gets blurred and the same thing may be said about the Typical Mousterian compared to the Denticulate facies. df: degrees of freedom. When we include in this model the Mousterian facies to which the assemblages belong.1% of the variability observed in the EDI index (F: 1830. its meaning is as follows: as the M/D ratio increases the EDI index decreases. explaining about 95.742 F value 1830.1%). cluster III includes 10 Denticulate levels (90. all Mousterian levels are well-fitted to the regression curve. 1991. the relationship between the variables is statistically significant. the transformation of the assemblages rich in Denticulate tools into assemblages rich in Mousterian tools occurs continuously without abrupt changes at a constant rate expressed by 1. correlation coefficient. As observed in this scatter plot.171 df 1 94 95 Mean Square 25157. in order to check the statistical consistency of the Mousterian facies.1%). Analysis of variance (ANOVA). the robustness of the Bordes’ facies becomes very weak. or clusters.9%). Once again. Sum of Squares Regression Residual Total 25157.704 p-value 6. Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64. suggesting they are an arbitrary division of a continuous process of change (Figure 6). From these outcomes.

Gabasa d. 53. Mugarduia 2. 79. Morín 16. Eudoviges 7+6. 54. Cochino III. El Salt 4. 7. Cova Negra VIII. 20. 59. 60. 41. 80. 86. 70. 30. Fig. 67. Bajondillo 15. 12. 4. 34. Carigüela V-5. Zájara I 2. 95. Distribution of the Mousterian levels according to the EDI and M/D indices. 37. El Conde D. Bolomor XII. Zájara I 5. 17. Perneras gamma. 21. Peña Miel g. 75. 16. 81. 89. Carigüela XI-12/13. El Castillo 20. 87. 71. Carigüela XI-1. Bolomor IV. 73. Gabasa f. C. 23. . Morín 17. 39. Peña Miel e. 38. Zájara I 1. Cova Negra XIII. 78. El Salt 5. 45. 58. 77. 29. El Pendo XVI. 5. 72. 43. for typological facies. Bajondillo 14. Morín 11. 62. 61. 10. Axlor 3. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 . E. 3. 63. Bajondillo 16. 85. Axlor 5. El Castillo alfa. 2013 pp. Carigüela V-2. 22. Bolomor II. Carigüela VIIb-1. 47. Esquilleu XI. 2. La Flecha 1-3. 48. Covalejos K. 65. Distribution of the Mousterian levels according to the EDI and M/D indices. 66. Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64. Carigüela VI-8. Zájara I 3. Cova Negra II. El Conde E. 24. Bajondillo 17. Columbeira 8. 76. Morín 12. Cova Negra VI. Millán 1b. El Salt 1. Lezetxiki 4. Lezetxiki III. Cova Negra IX. 35. 57. 32. Petxina 2. Carigüela VI-2. Sites. 40. 68. Perneras alfa. 11. 56. El Castillo 22. 50. Morín 13/14. 6. Z. 46. 93. El Pendo XII-XI. 83. Morín 15. 8. 27. 49. 88. 44. 92. 6. Bolomor III. Bolomor XVII. La Ermita 5b. El Salt 6. Cova Negra VII. 1. Gabasa g. 51. 52.ARE BORDES’ MOUSTERIAN FACIES DISCRETE GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA? 11 Fig. 36. Carigüela XI-8/10. Axlor 6. Bolomor Ib/Ic. Axlor 7. 94. Morín 17 inf. 18. Cova Negra X. 25. 82. Gabasa e. 91. Petxina sup. Amalda VII. Cova Negra III. Cova Negra IV. El Salt 2. La Ermita 5a. 90. Cova Negra I. Carigüela VI-7. 5. Covalejos J. 13. 33. 28. 14. Perneras beta. El Conde C. 15. 96. Carigüela VIIb-2/3. Carigüela V-3. Bolomor V. 42. Eudoviges 5. El Salt 3. Axlor 4. Bolomor Ia. 84. 55.Columbeira 7. 26. Carigüela VI-3/4. Cova Negra V. 64. Carigüela V-6. Palomarico inf.x-xx S. 31. 69. Covalejos I. 74. 9. Aranzadi. Carigüela V-4. 19.

Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 .x-xx S. Aranzadi. underlined the Typical Mousterian sites. C. Z.12 DAVID SANTAMARÍA Y MARCO DE LA RASILLA Fig. 7. 2013 pp. In bold the Charentian sites. and in italics the Denticulate sites. E. Hierarchical cluster analysis of the EDI and M/D indices.

L. BENITO DEL REY. Z. XXII). 1970 The significance of variability in Palaeolithic Assemblage. CSIC y Museo de Altamira. BARANDIARÁN. REFERENCES BALDEÓN. Ocupaciones paleolíticas y postpaleolíticas. I. Leçons sur le Paléolithique. 2009. perhaps. 61-73. El abrigo de Axlor (Bizkaia.) La cueva de Amalda (Zestoa. C. 55-60. CNRS. Santander). 1966 A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. 5. (British Archaeological Reports. A. Trabajos de Arqueología Navarra 10: 21-67. in J. Moyer & Rolland 2001). 3 vols. L. Madrid. granted to D. CABRERA. Revue d'Archéometrie 5: 120-138. 2013 pp. CALLOW. as all Mousterian sites are continuously distributed in the typological curve (Figure 6). 1991. Joaquín González Echegaray. International Series 408). Paris. BORDES. Zephyrus XXVI-XXVII: 31-84. evaluating these factors (functional. y MONTES. at present.) is. I. Cabrera & Neira 1994. Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 . 1991-92 Ocupaciones del Paleolítico en Urbasa (Navarra). 1993 1999 El yacimiento de Lezetxiki (Gipuzkoa. DISCUSSION According to these results. Rolland 1988. L. CARRIÓN. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Tabona: Revista de Prehistoria y de Arqueología 3: 5-112. F. at present. These factors must be anthropological in nature: they could be related to the activities performed at the sites. y NEIRA. V. Severo Ochoa program. Munibe 45: 3-97. Freeman 1992. 1981 The application of multivariate statistical techniques to Middle Palaeolithic assemblages from southwestern France. or to establish the causes that might explain the position of individual archaeological levels along such a continuum. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We gratefully acknowledge the support of a Principality of Asturias Fellowship. País Vasco). 1987. and quite another to determine the factors behind this particular distribution. or a prolonged occupation from a sum of temporary occupations. A. R. Archaeopress. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 50(7-8): 457-466. etc. 63-115. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. raw material procurement strategies. Museo y Centro de investigaciones de Altamira. A. Madrid. Rolland & Dibble 1990. a difficult task. E.R. Los niveles musterienses. Nevertheless. y WEBB. A. y BINFORD. etc. 1975-76 Yacimiento musteriense del Covacho de Eudoviges (Teruel). y SONNEVILLE-BORDES. 1994 Los conjuntos líticos del paleolítico medio cantábrico según el análisis de componentes principales. D. CABRERA. BORDES. S. 2006. Moyer & Rolland 2001). 6. Eusko Ikaskuntza. Las industrias líticas de sus niveles Musterienses. V. BARANDIARÁN. at the moment. raw material variability. it is one thing to have proved that the typological distribution of the Mousterian assemblages in the Iberian Peninsula is continuous.x-xx S. Mariezkurrena (ed. Baldeón & K. Moreover. San Sebastián. 4. En J. However. the differential transformation of unretouched flakes into tools (Rolland 1988. 1975 La industria lítica musteriense de la capa "Alfa" de la cueva del Castillo (Puente Viesgo. 1988 Lithic Variability and Middle Paleolithic Behavior. 2005. Aranzadi. 1984 Las industrias de los niveles paleolíticos. Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64. World Archaeology 2(1). BARTON. Although Bordes' typology can be used to explore the Mousterian typological variability. BINFORD. C. there is no widespread agreement about the best way to classify the unretouched flakes. Oxford. P. Santamaría. Bordes’ facies are not statistically discrete groups. Fundación José Miguel de Barandiarán. Altuna. Munibe 51: 9-121. 1953 1961 1984 Essai de classification des industries «moustériennes». the division of Mousterian into different facies is meaningless and at the current state of research can only lead us to confusion and misunderstanding (Freeman 1994). making it difficult to check some interesting hypotheses such as. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. País Vasco). 1994.E. intensity of occupation. País Vasco). Lasheras (ed) Homenaje al Dr. to the longevity of occupation.ARE BORDES’ MOUSTERIAN FACIES DISCRETE GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA? 13 All these results refute the existence of Mousterian facies as discrete groups and reinforce the continuity model proposed by some authors in the 1980s and 1990s (Dibble 1984. due to the lack of specific studies of many Mousterian sites in the Iberian Peninsula: sedimentological and functional analysis. for instance. Monografías nº 17.R. to population mobility or environmental responses. to the availability of raw materials or. 1984 El yacimiento de la cueva de El Castillo (Biblioteca Praehistorica Hispana. E. faunal studies. Paris. 2004 Variabilidad técnica en el Musteriense de Cantabria. American Anthropologist 68 (2): 238-295. Furthermore sometimes it is not easy to determine the analytical parameters of the study: when we have to distinguish a temporary occupation from a prolonged one. el sitio de Mugarduia norte. F. Dibble & Rolland 1992.

New Jersey. Patronato de las cuevas prehistóricas de la provincia de Santander. F. University Museum Monograph 78. Mellars (ed. J-Ph (coord) L’homme de Néandertal. 21-38. American Antiquity 52(1): 109-117. in J. Valencia) (Serie de Trabajos Varios 108).) En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo: el ocaso de los neandertales. Cortés (ed. clarification. 43-55. E. Joaquín González Echegaray.) The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation. A. 1984 Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function. Lasheras (ed) Homenaje al Dr. C.M.x-xx S. L. 4 La Technique (Études et recherches archéologiques de l'Université de Liège 31). Antonio Beltrán Martínez. Style. Clarkson & L. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. in J. Dos yacimientos musterienses en el valle medio del Arlanza. Cabrera. A. MELLARS. Philadelphia.M. Apellániz Cueva Morín. Santoña. y ROLLAND. 171-446. Dibble & P. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2 (4): 299-368. Aranzadi.L. 1989 1969-70 El Musteriense cantábrico: Nuevas perspectivas. Zaragoza. 25-45. L. B Madariaga & J. 1978 MONTES. Vol.) El Yacimiento de la cueva de "El Pendo" (excavaciones 1953-57) (Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana.A. 1994 MOYER. Excavaciones 1966-1968. Mellars (ed.. in Bindford. L’Anthropologie 93 (1): 53-72. Anthropology without Informants: Collected Works in Paleoanthropology by L. Servicio de Investigación Prehistórica.L. 27-161. The Mousterian.R. Mousterian assemblage variability on an interregional scale. Universidad de Zaragoza. Bernaldo de Quirós.) The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation. Kaleidoscope or tarnished mirror? Thirty years of Mousterian investigations in Cantabria. 1-28. MONTES. Freeman. 1992 On Assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of Western Europe. Museo y Centro de investigaciones de Altamira. España). M. y ROLLAND. 2001 Understanding the Middle Palaeolithic assemblage typology. L. Institución cultural de Cantabria. y MAZO.W. H. FREEMAN. in V. P. Freeman. Dibble & P. 1996 The Neanderthal legacy. MONTES. 230-237. Valencia. University Press of Colorado. (A personal view). 11: 431-436. in Estudios en homenaje al Dr. y GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY. 2007 DAVID SANTAMARÍA Y MARCO DE LA RASILLA 2005 Las industrias líticas del Paleolítico medio y superior. J. Butzer.C. Ampurias 31-32: 55-69. N. (University Museum Monograph 72). Madrid. Liège. J. perspectives and a new sinthesis.L. Lithics 'Down Under': Recent Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction. Cantabria. Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: background. Rigaud. 113-125. Monografías nº 17. Secuencia cronocultural y paleoambiental del Cuaternario reciente en la Bahía de Málaga. FERNÁNDEZ PERIS. University of Pennsylvania.) Cueva Bajondillo (Torremolinos). Monografías nº 20. An archaeological perspective from Western Europe. K. behavior and variability. Centro de ediciones de la Diputación de Málaga. González Echegaray. C. N. Mousterian facies in space: new data from Morín Level 16. Leroi-Gourham. R. Estudio tipológico del Musteriense de Cueva Morín. or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology. Zaragoza. 2006 DIBBLE. 1980 1992 MOURE. Universidad de Zaragoza.G.). L. Chronologie du Moustérien du sud-ouest de la France: Actualisation du débat. in H. Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64. 1988 The chronology of the south-west french mousterian: a review of the current debate. Freeman (ed. Maíllo (eds) En el Centenario de la Cueva de El Castillo: El ocaso de los Neandertales. En H.G. 97-119. J. 1995 DIBBLE. and review of evidence to data. L. Barandiarán (ed. in C. Princeton University Press. Málaga. Santander. Antiquity 75: 39-43. Oxford. Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueológica 49: 5-30. History. Altuna. V. Use and Classification (British Archaeological Reports International series 1408). P. XVII). A. González Echegaray & L. J. 2009 1987 1991 FREEMAN.G. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology.M. MARTÍN BLANCO. L. P y ATTENBROW. 37-54. Maíllo (ed. Departamento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad. 29-74. Z. Lasheras (coord) Neandertales cantábricos.) Vida y muerte en Cueva Morín. UNED. Bernaldo de Quirós & J. in M. Journal of Anthropological Research 47(2): 239257. González Echegaray. Zephyrus XVIII: 43-61. 2007 La cova del Bolomor (Tavernes de la Valldigna. L. in J. C. E. En R. Boletín del Real Instituto de Estudios Asturianos 90-91: 447-488. 231-248. Montes & J. 1983 Cueva Millán y La Ermita. Freeman & I. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 . 2006 La tecnología lítica del Musteriense final en la región cantábrica: los datos de Covalejos (Velo de Piélagos. Madrid. Contribución al estudio de niveles paleolíticos en la cueva del Conde (Oviedo). American Anthropologist 68 (2). En J.14 CORTÉS. H. 2013 pp. 1966 The nature of Mousterian facies in Cantabrian Spain. 1967 La industria musteriense de la cueva de la Flecha (Puente Viesgo. y GARCIA-SOTO. y SANGUINO. F. UNED. Archaeopress. estado de la cuestión.. J. Santander).G. En V. J. 2005 Reduction continuums and tool use. 159-170. Université de Liège. Ocupaciones musterienses. La investigación del Paleolítico Medio en la Región Cantábrica. Santander. HISCOCK. 217-252. 1971 Los niveles de ocupación musteriense. Algunas reflexiones.G. 1988 1977 El Musteriense en la cuenca del Ebro (Monografías Arqueológicas 28). Lamb (ed. Cabrera. CSIC. present and future of a concept.G. 1986 El musteriense y el método Bordes. Behavior and Variability. Museo y Centro de investigaciones de Altamira.

N. Vol. Donostia/San Sebastián ISSN 1132-2217 . Barandiarán.). Vílchez. Madrid. commune de Soturac (Lot). V. Utrilla. Université de Liège. in P. y MONTES. Altuna. C. N. ROLLAND. Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 64. L. 25-84. Z. 1988 Variabilité et classification: nouvelles donnes sur le «complexe moustérien». L. 1998 Las industrias líticas de la Gruta Nova de Columbeira (Bombarral. I. 1977 Première approche sur le Paléolithique moyen du gisement des Ardailloux. L. El Paleolítico Medio del Sureste español y Andalucía oriental. J. 1984 TURQ A. Almeria).. Servicio de Investigación Prehistórica. C. Université de Liège.R. La Rioja (Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 154). López (ed. Bulletin de la Société des Études du Lot 98 (4): 222-242. American Antiquity 55(3): 480-499. Portugal) en el contexto del musteriense final de la Península Ibérica. Gil & P. L. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Complutense. 4 La Technique (Études et recherches archéologiques de l'Université de Liège 31). VILLAVERDE. Trabajos de Prehistoria 55 (1): 39-62. JPh (coord) L’homme de Néandertal.L. 1988 Les denticulés moustériens.. H. 1980 1988 El musteriense de la cueva de la Zájara I (Cuevas del Almanzora. E. Ministerio de Cultura. J. y DIBBLE. 4 La Technique (Études et recherches archéologiques de l'Université de Liège 31). J. Valencia. La cueva de Peña Miel.G. 1987 Estudio Arqueológico.R. Rigaud. Trabajos de Prehistoria 37: 11-64. La Cova Negra de Xàtiva y el musteriense de la región central del mediterráneo español (Serie de Trabajos Varios nº 79). VERJUX. Liège. Vol. in Bindford. P. 2013 pp. Nieva de Cameros.x-xx S. 1990 A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Assemblage Variability. Aranzadi. L. E. Montes. UTRILLA. y CARDOSO. VEGA. 169-183. Rigaud.L. ROLLAND. Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. in Bindford. Liège. J-Ph (coord) L’homme de Néandertal.ARE BORDES’ MOUSTERIAN FACIES DISCRETE GROUPS IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA? 15 RAPOSO. Madrid. 197-204. L.