The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory : Sourcing, Processing and Distribution [1 ed.] 9781527505230, 9781443895972

Citation preview

The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory: Sourcing, Processing and Distribution Edited by

Telmo Pereira, Xavier Terradas and Nuno Bicho

The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory: Sourcing, Processing and Distribution Edited by Telmo Pereira, Xavier Terradas and Nuno Bicho This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by Telmo Pereira, Xavier Terradas, Nuno Bicho and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9597-0 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9597-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword .................................................................................................... xi Telmo Pereira, Xavier Terradas, Nuno Bicho Contributors .............................................................................................. xiii Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Flint Outcrops and Behavioral Flexibility: Testing the Hypothesis of Recycling Acheulian Handaxes at the Middle Paleolithic Workshop Giv'at Rabi East, Lower Galilee, Israel Alla Yaroshevich, Maayan Shemer Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 15 Raw Material Diversity, Availability and Sourcing in the River Lis Basin, Central Portugal Telmo Pereira, Eduardo Paixão, Vânia Carvalho, Susana Carvalho, Telmo Gomes Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 30 Quarrying as a Socio-Political Strategy at the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Southern Norway Astrid J. Nyland Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 46 An Analysis of the Use of Quarries and Workshops by Late Prehistoric People in Western Pennsylvania Beverly A. Chiarulli Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 62 Identifying Iron-Rich Raw Material Sources with a Multi-Technique Approach: Some Analytical Problems Detected in the Case Study of a Prehistoric Mine-Cave From Southern Italy Luca A. Dimuccio, Ana M. Amado, Luís A. E. Batista De Carvalho, Felice Larocca

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 77 Neolithic Flint Quarries on Montvell (Catalan Pre-Pyrenees, NE Iberia) Xavier Terradas, David Ortega, Dioscorides Marín, Alba Masclans, Carles Roqué Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 90 Domoszló: Grinding Stone and Millstone Production Centre in Hungary Bálint Péterdi, Katalin T. Biró, Zoltán Tóth Chapter Eight ............................................................................................. 98 The Use of Non-Destructive Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis (EDXRF) for Sourcing Flint in Northern Europe: Progress to Date and Prospects for the Future Deborah Olausson, Anders Högberg, Richard E. Hughes Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 113 Near Infrared Imaging Spectroscopy for Raw Materials Characterization: The Example of a Mesolithic Dwelling Site in Northern Sweden Claudia Sciuto, Johan Linderholm, Paul Geladi Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 121 Siliceous Raw Material Sources at La Sierrita De Ticul, Yucatan, Mexico: A First Approach of Lithic Procurement During Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in the Maya Lowlands Maria Alejandra Espinosa, Gabriela Armentano Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 134 Terrain Difficulty as a Relevant Proxy for Objectifying Mobility Patterns and Economic Behaviour in the Aurignacian of the Middle Danube Region: The Case of Stratzing-Galgenberg (Austria) Luc Moreau, Guido Heinz, Anja Cramer, Michael Brandl, Oliver Schmitsberger, Christine Neugebauer-Maresch Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 148 Chert Chemical Composition Analysis for Geoarchaeological Application Liga Zarina, Valdis Seglins Chapter Thirteen ...................................................................................... 161 Preliminary Geochemical Results (ICP-MS) of Flint Debitage from an Extensive Paleolithic and Neolithic/Chalcolithic Extraction and Reduction Complex in the Eastern Galilee, Israel Meir Finkel, Ran Barkai, Avi Gopher, Ofir Tirosh, Erez Ben-Yosef

The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

vii

Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 174 The Zambujal’s Arrowheads: A Petroarchaeologic Approach to Flint’s Provenance Determination Patrícia Jordão, Nuno Pimentel Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 191 Testing a New Methodological Approach to Define the Use of Dolerite Outcrops for Prehistoric Tools Production in Mediterranean Iberia Teresa Orozco Köhler, Gianni Gallello Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 205 “Where does your Saddle Quern come from?” Grinding in the Contemporary Province of Limburg (BE) during the Iron Age Else Hartoch, Tatjana Gluhak, Roland Dreesen, Eric Goemaere Chapter Seventeen ................................................................................... 222 What For These Blades? Flint Blades Production and Circulation in Final Neolithic Sardinia Barbara Melosu, Carlo Lugliè Chapter Eighteen ..................................................................................... 234 Siliceous Raw Material Exploitation at Hort De La Boquera Site (Margalef De Montsant, Tarragona, España): First Results from La-Icp-Ms Analysis Maria Rey-Solé, Anders Scherstén, Tomas Naeraa, Deborah Olausson, Xavier Mangado Chapter Nineteen ..................................................................................... 250 Compositional Analysis on Lithic Beads: The Case of the Lower Paraná Wetland, Argentina Natacha Buc, Romina Silvestre, Alejandro Acosta, Daniel Loponte Chapter Twenty ....................................................................................... 265 Flint Variability in a Cardial Context: A Preliminary Evaluation by Portable X-Ray Fluorescence of Artefacts from Cerradinho do Ginete (Portugal) António Faustino Carvalho, Telmo Pereira

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter Twenty One................................................................................ 284 Flint Procurement and Transportation in the Middle Paleolithic in the North-Eastern Coast of Azov Sea (Preliminary Results) Ekaterina V. Doronicheva, Andrey G. Nedomolkin, Marianna A. Kulkova, Marina V. Gerasimenko Chapter Twenty Two ............................................................................... 305 Long Distance Obsidian Distribution and the Organisation of Palaeolithic Societies Theodora Moutsiou Chapter Twenty Three ............................................................................. 320 Raw Lithic Material Reservoirs or “Cache” Record in the Ecotonal Humid Dry Pampean Area, Argentina, as a Strategy for Supply and Territorial Marking Fernando Oliva Chapter Twenty Four ............................................................................... 336 Chert Acquisition in the Final Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic: Territory Contraction in Southwestern France? Guilhem Constans Chapter Twenty Five ............................................................................... 354 Alpine Jades: From Scientific Analysis to Neolithic Know-How Pierre Pétrequin, Anne-Marie Pétrequin, Estelle Gauthier And Alison Sheridan Chapter Twenty Six ................................................................................. 368 Site Catchment Analysis and Human Behaviour during the Upper Palaeolithic in the Cantabrian Region. Coímbre Cave (Asturias, Spain) as a Case Study María De Andrés-Herrero, David Álvarez-Alonso, Álvaro Arrizabalaga, Daniel Becker, Gerd-Christian Weniger, José Yravedra Chapter Twenty Seven............................................................................. 382 A Spatial Approach to the Study of Competition between Toolstones in Specific Regional Contexts Gustavo Barrientos, Luciana Catella

The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

ix

Chapter Twenty Eight.............................................................................. 400 Distinguish the Similar: The Chemical Composition of Mineral Inclusions in the Ceramic Pastes as Tracer of the Source of Raw Materials Benjamin Gehres, Guirec Querré Chapter Twenty Nine .............................................................................. 414 The Technology of Neolithic Pottery North and South of the Western Carpathians Sáawomir Kadrow, Anna Rauba-Bukowska Chapter Thirty ......................................................................................... 432 Technological Diversity of the Early Neolithic Pottery of the Muge Shellmiddens (Portugal): The Case Study of Cabeço da Amoreira Ruth Taylor, Daniel García Rivero, João Cascalheira, Nuno Bicho Chapter Thirty One .................................................................................. 449 Pottery for the Dead: Exploring Raw Material Exploitation in the Pottery of Can Gambús-1 (Sabadell, Catalonia) Miriam Cubas, Miguel Ángel Sánchez Carro, Jordi Roig, Joan Manuel Coll Rieratt, Juan Gibaja Chapter Thirty Two ................................................................................. 463 Raw Materials and their Use in the Making of Pottery from Basagain (Basque Country, Spain): Archaeological and Experimental Research Judit López De Heredia, Javier Peña Poza, Juan Félix Conde Moreno, Fernando Agua Martínez, Manuel García-Heras Chapter Thirty Three ............................................................................... 477 Technological and Functional Identification of Cooking Slabs: Evidence from the Bronze Age Pile Dwelling Settlement of Grotta di Pertosa (Salerno, Southern Italy) Delia Carloni, Felice Larocca, Levi Sara Tiziana, Valentina Cannavò Chapter Thirty Four ................................................................................. 492 Investigating the Source of Blue Color in Neolithic Beads from Barcin Höyük, Nw Turkey Ayúe Bursali, Hadi Özbal, Rana Özbal, Gülsu ùimúek, Bariú Ya÷ci, Ceren Yilmaz Akkaya, Emma Baysal

x

Table of Contents

Chapter Thirty Five ................................................................................. 506 Neolithic Materials and Materiality in the Foothills of the Zagros Mountains Amy Richardson Chapter Thirty Six ................................................................................... 520 The Bead-Maker’s Toolkit: The Circulation of Drilling Technologies and Gemstones in the “Middle Asian Interaction Sphere” Federica Lume Pereira, Giuseppe Guida, Ulrike Müller, Massimo Vidale Chapter Thirty Seven ............................................................................... 538 The Sources of Some Obsidian Beads Found at Kish, Southern Iraq Stuart Campbell, Elizabeth Healey Chapter Thirty Eight ................................................................................ 549 Prehistoric Pigments in the Hungarian National Museum Katalin T. Biró, Tamás Váczi Chapter Thirty Nine ................................................................................. 560 The Geo-Mineralogical Approach in Ochre Provenance Studies Giovanni Cavallo, Maria Pia Riccardi, Roberto Zorzin Chapter Forty ........................................................................................... 572 Iron Oxide Artefacts in Late Prehistoric Corsica: Towards a PhysicoChemical Characterisation Maryline Lambert, Robin Skeates, François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec, Stéphan Dubernet, Kewin Peche-Quilichini, Hélène Paolini-Saez, Jean-Louis Milanini, Yannick Lefrais Chapter Forty One ................................................................................... 587 Finding Chemical and Physical Evidence of Heat Treatment of Ochre by Using Non-Destructive Methods: A Preliminary Study Marine Wojcieszak, Tammy Hodgskiss, Lyn Wadley Chapter Forty Two .................................................................................. 601 Experimental Implications for Flint Heat Treatment at Hasankeyf Höyük Osamu Maeda Chapter Forty Three ................................................................................ 613 Mechanical Experiments to Test Quartzite vs Chert Edge Reduction Telmo Pereira, João Marreiros, Eduardo Paixão, Rui Martins

FOREWORD

The significance of the different raw materials found in the Prehistoric record was recognized very early in the history of archaeological science. A major reason for that was the immediate resemblance between tool-kits seen in modern hunter-gatherers and in early farmer societies. Some of them, often the most exquisite, had symbolic meaning. Others were local, ordinary, coarse and even ugly, but they all had a meaning, a reason to be present in such context and significance in the daily life, traditions, territory and ecology of those communities. As a consequence, their study was considered relevant almost from the start of archaeological investigation and such studies always had a close relation with new technological developments that could help fill gaps, refine the analysis or increase the accuracy of data. Progressively, such research became a branch of archaeological enquiry and used more and more complex equipment according to the development of new techniques. Presently, a large bulk of good photographs can be taken and seen in real time, automatically associated with accurate coordinates and sent in a second to the other side of the world. All this can be done just by using a telephone that fits in the pocket of your shirt. If one wants, it is possible to add the geochemical spectrum result in seconds with a portable X-ray fluorescence machine carried on a backpack. Yes, we live on what was science fiction just a few decades ago; and that is pretty damn cool! The investigation of archaeological raw materials uses such top highresolution methods and such large amount of detailed quantitative data that can estimate with great confidence that the 0,00005% of some element on the rock you just picked from the outcrop is the same that previous human species, living dozens of thousands of years ago, in other geological era, used one day to produce a meal. And if you used a total station in both the rock and the stone tool, you can geospatially relate them to the millimeter. This is so trivial for archaeologists today but so extraordinarily accurate that some people only believe it if you show them all the steps from the process and the individual results of each technological gadget. This approach has been carried out across regions and the chronology of human occupation therein, merging archaeology with anthropology, geology and geography. The data acquired have been able to help bring

xii

Foreword

relevant insights to infer traits of human behaviour such as cognition, ecology, ecodynamics, territory, social complexity or technology. In this scope, the University of Algarve and the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IMF, Barcelona) organized the international meeting Raw Materials Exploitation in Prehistory: Sourcing, Processing and Distribution in March 2016, at the University of Algarve, Portugal. The goal was to bring together both younger and senior scientists and their on-going projects focusing on the inorganic raw materials used during Prehistory, regardless the region or the specific time period. This included lithics, pottery, ceramics, metals, glass, beads and colorants. The sessions brought together people from Europe, Africa, Asia and America, and discussed issues such as quarrying and mining, geochemical and mineralogical analysis, archaeometrical characterization, provenance distribution and determination of raw materials, their geological and archaeological context, the raw materials used for making pottery and ceramics, those used in prestige items and as colouring materials, the objectives, changes and procedures of heat treatment and also mechanical experiments to test their physical properties. This book contains some of the studies presented in the meeting. They represent the state-of-the-art of on-going research across the world in what concerns to sourcing, processing and distribution of Prehistoric raw materials. Telmo Pereira, Xavier Terradas, Nuno Bicho

CONTRIBUTORS

Acosta, Alejandro Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano – CONICET, ARGENTINA. [email protected] Agua Martínez, Fernando Institute of History, CCHS-CSIC, Madrid, SPAIN. [email protected] Álvarez-Alonso, David Department of Prehistory & Archaeology. UNED/C.A. Asturias. Avda. Jardín Botánico 1345 (Calle interior), SPAIN. [email protected] Amado, Ana Margarida Unidade de I&D “Química-Física Molecular”, Department of Chemistry, University of Coimbra, 3004-535 Coimbra, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Andrés-Herrero, María De Neanderthal Museum. Talstraße 300, 40822 Mettmann, Germany/Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Cologne. Albertus-MagnusPlatz, 50923 Köln, GERMANY. [email protected] Armentano, Gabriela UMR 7041 ArScAn-AnTET, Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, FRANCE. [email protected] Arrizabalaga, Álvaro Department of Geography, Prehistory and Archaeology. University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU. Francisco Tomás y Valiente s/n, 01006, Vitoria, SPAIN. [email protected]

xiv

Contributors

Barkai, Ran Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, ISRAEL. [email protected] Barrientos, Gustavo División Antropología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. CONICET. CEAR (FHyA, UNR); Paseo del Bosque s/n, (B1900FWA) La Plata, ARGENTINA. [email protected]. Batista de Carvalho, Luís A. E. Unidade de I&D “Química-Física Molecular”, Department of Chemistry, University of Coimbra, 3004-535 Coimbra PORTUGAL. [email protected] Baysal, Emma Trakya Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, Edirne, TURKEY. [email protected] Becker, Daniel Institute of Geography, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923 Köln, GERMANY. [email protected] Ben-Yosef, Erez Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, ISRAEL. [email protected] Bicho, Nuno ICArEHB - Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the Evolution of Human Behaviour, Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Biró, Katalin T. Hungarian National Museum, Department of Archaeology, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 14-16, HUNGARY. [email protected]



The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

xv

Brandl, Michael OREA – Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Quaternary Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, AUSTRIA. [email protected] Buc, Natacha Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano – CONICET, ARGENTINA. [email protected] Bursali, Ayúe Graduate School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Koç University, østanbul, TURKEY. [email protected] Campbell, Stuart University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UNITED KINGDOM. [email protected] Cannavò, Valentina Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche e Geologiche, Via G. Campi 103, 41125 Modena, ITALY. [email protected] Carloni, Delia Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Archeologici, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Via Marina 33, 80133 Napoli, IT. / Centro Regionale di Speleologia “Enzo dei Medici”, Via Lucania, 3, 87070 Roseto Capo Spulico (CS), ITALY. [email protected] Carvalho, António Faustino FCHS, Universidade do Algarve, Campus Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, PORTUGAL. [email protected]



xvi

Contributors

Carvalho, Susana Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology – University of Oxford. Oxford, UNITED KINGDOM / Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behaviour - Campus Gambelas, Universidade do Algarve, 8005-139 Faro, PORTUGAL / Centre for Funcional Ecology, University of Coimbra, 3000-056 Coimbra, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Carvalho,Vânia Museu de Leiria – Convento de Santo Agostinho. Divisão de Ação Cultural, Museus e Turismo, Câmara Municipal de Leiria, Largo da República. 2414-006 Leiria, PORTUGAL. Cascalheira, João ICArEHB - Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the Evolution of Human Behaviour, Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Catella, Luciana División Arqueología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. CONICET. CEAR (FHyA, UNR); Paseo del Bosque s/n, (B1900FWA) La Plata, ARGENTINA. [email protected]. Cavallo, Giovanni Dept. of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pavia, ITALY. [email protected] Chiarulli, Beverly A. Retired, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [email protected] Coll Riera, Joan Manuel Arrago S.L. Sant Cugat 76 Baixos. E-08201. Barcelona, SPAIN. [email protected]



The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

xvii

Colomban, Philippe Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Paris 06, MONARIS UMR 8233 CNRS, 4 Place Jussieu 75005 Paris, FRANCE. [email protected] Conde Moreno, Juan Félix Institute of History, CCHS-CSIC, Madrid, SPAIN. [email protected] Constans, Guilhem Université Toulouse II Jean Jaurès UMR 5608 – TRACES, FRANCE. [email protected] Cramer, Anja Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Archaeological Research Institute, Mainz, GERMANY. [email protected] Cubas, Miriam BioArCh-University of York. Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi. Environment Building. Wentworth Way. Heslington. York, YO10 5DD, UNITED KINGDOM. [email protected] Dimuccio, Luca A. Centre of Studies on Geography and Spatial Planning (CEGOT), Colégio de S. Jerónimo, University of Coimbra, 3004-530 Coimbra, Portugal / Centro Regionale di Speleologia “Enzo dei Medici”, Via Lucania 3, 87070 Roseto Capo Spulico (CS), ITALY. [email protected] Doronicheva, Ekaterina V. ANO «Laboratory of Prehistory» 14-liniya, 3, St. Petersburg, 199034, RUSSIA. [email protected] Dreesen, Roland Gallo-Roman Museum of Tongeren - Belgium & the Geological Survey of Belgium, BELGIUM. [email protected], [email protected]



xviii

Contributors

Dubernet, Stéphan IRAMAT-CRP2A, UMR 5060 Université Bordeaux Montaigne/CNRS, FRANCE. [email protected] Espinosa, Ma. Alejandra Facultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, km. 1 carretera Mérida-Tizimín, Cholul, C.P. 97305, Mérida, Yucatán, MÉXICO. [email protected] Finkel, Meir Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, ISRAEL. [email protected] Gallello, Gianni Department of Analytical Chemistry, University of Valencia, C/ Dr. Moliner 50, 46100 Burjassot, SPAIN. [email protected] García Rivero, Daniel Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Facultad de Geografía e Historia, Universidad de Sevilla, María de Padilla s/n, 41004 Sevilla, SPAIN. [email protected] García-Heras, Manuel Institute of History, CCHS-CSIC, Madrid, SPAIN. [email protected] Gauthier, Gilles Département d'anthropologie. Université de Montréal, CANADA. [email protected] Gauthier, Estelle Laboratoire de Chrono-Environnement, CNRS et Université de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté. Besançon, FRANCE. [email protected]



The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

xix

Gehres, Benjamin UMR 5566 IRAMAT – CEB. Orléans, FRANCE. [email protected] Geladi, Paul MAL_ Environmental archaeology laboratory Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Humanisthuset, HB 121, Umeå University, 90187, Umeå SE, Sweden. / 2Swedish University of Agricoltural Sciences, Umeå, SWEDEN. [email protected] Gerasimenko, Marina V. Taganrog State literary and historic-architectural museum-reserve. 41 Frunze Street, 347900, Taganrog, RUSSIA. [email protected] Gibaja Bao, Juan CSIC-IMF. Departamento de Arqueologia y Antropologia. C/Egipcíaques 15. E-08001. Barcelona, SPAIN. [email protected] Gluhak, Tatjana Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz - Institute for Geosciences, Team Geomaterials and Gemstone Research, Mainz – GERMANY. [email protected] Goemaere, Eric Geological Survey of Belgium, Directorate Earth and History of life, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, BELGIUM. [email protected] Gomes, Telmo Serviços Municipalizados de Água e Saneamento de Leiria, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Gopher, Avi Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, ISRAEL. [email protected]



xx

Contributors

Guida, Giuseppe Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione el il Restauro, Roma, ITALY. giuseppe.guida-01@ beniculturali.it Hartoch, Else Gallo-Roman Museum of Tongeren, BELGIUM. [email protected] Healey, Elizabeth School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UNITED KINGDOM. [email protected] Heinz, Guido Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Archaeological Research Institute, Mainz, GERMANY. [email protected] Hodgskiss, Tammy Evolutionary Studies Institute (ESI), School of Geosciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA. [email protected] Högberg, Anders Faculty of Arts and Humanities Department of Cultural Sciences, Archaeology Linnaeus University 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden and Department of Anthropology and Development Studies University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, SOUTH AFRICA. [email protected] Hughes, Richard E. Geochemical Research Laboratory 20 Portola Green Circle Portola Valley, CA 94028 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [email protected] Jordão, Patrícia Deutsche Archäologische Institut-Madrid, SPAIN. [email protected]



The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

xxi

Kadrow, Sáawomir Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology – Polish Academy of Sciences. Sáawkowska st 17, 31-016 Kraków, POLAND. [email protected] Kulkova, Marianna A. Herzen State Pedagogical University, St. Petersburg, Russia. Address: 6 Kazanskaya Street, 191186, St. Petersburg, RUSSIA. [email protected] Lambert, Maryline Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UNITED KINGDOM. [email protected] Larocca, Felice Università degli Studi di Bari, Gruppo di ricerca speleo-archeologica, Piazza Umberto I 1, 70121 Bari, IT. / Centro Regionale di Speleologia “Enzo dei Medici”, Via Lucania, 3, 87070 Roseto Capo Spulico (CS), ITALY. [email protected] Le Bourdonnec, François-Xavier IRAMAT-CRP2A, UMR 5060 Université Bordeaux Montaigne/CNRS, FRANCE. [email protected] Lefrais, Yannick IRAMAT-CRP2A, UMR 5060 Université Bordeaux Montaigne/CNRS, FRANCE. [email protected] Linderholm, Johan MAL_ Environmental archaeology laboratory Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Humanisthuset, HB 121, Umeå University, 90187, Umeå SE, SWEDEN. [email protected] López De Heredia, Judit Aranzadi Society of Sciences, Donostia/San Sebastian, SPAIN. [email protected]



xxii

Contributors

Loponte, Daniel Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano – CONICET, ARGENTINA. [email protected] Lugliè, Carlo LASP, Dipartimento di Storia, Beni Culturali e Territorio, Università di Cagliari, Piazza Arsenale 1, 09124 Cagliari – ITALY. [email protected] Lume Pereira, Federica Karl Jaspers Centre for Advanced Transcultural Studies, Ruprecht-KarlsUniversität Heidelberg, GERMANY. [email protected] Maeda, Osamu Institute for Comparative Research in Human and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba 305-8571, JAPAN. [email protected] Mangado, Xavier Seminari d'Estudis i Recerques Prehistòriques (SERP), Dept. Història i Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona, C/Montalegre, 6, 08001, Barcelona, SPAIN. [email protected] Marín, Dioscorides University of Lleida - Department of History. Plaça Victor Siurana, 1. 25003 Lleida, Cataluna, SPAIN. [email protected] Marreiros, João MONREPOS. Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Bihavioural Evolutio, GERMANY. [email protected] Martins, Rui Núcleo dos Alunos de Arqueologia e Paleoecologia, Universidade do Algarve, Campus Gambelas 8005-139 Faro PORTUGAL. [email protected]



The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

xxiii

Masclans, Alba University of Girona – Department of History and History of Art. Plaça Ferrater Mora, 1. 17007 Girona, Catalonia, SPAIN. [email protected] Melosu, Barbara LASP, Dipartimento di Storia, Beni Culturali e Territorio, Università di Cagliari, Piazza Arsenale 1, 09124 Cagliari, ITALY. [email protected] Milanini, Jean-Louis Education Nationale, FRANCE. [email protected] Moreau, Luc McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM. [email protected] Moutsiou, Theodora Archaeological Research Unit, University of Cyprus, 12 Gladstone Street, 1095, Nicosia, CYPRUS. [email protected] Müller, Ulrike Labor für Biomechanik und Implantatforschung, Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, GERMANY. [email protected] Naeraa, Tomas Department of Geology, University of Lund, Sölvegatan 12, 223 62, Lund, SWEDEN. [email protected] Nedomolkin, Andrey G. National Museum of the Republic of Adygea, Sovetskaya Street, 229, Maykop, 385000, RUSSIA. [email protected]



xxiv

Contributors

Neugebauer-Maresch, Christine OREA – Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Quaternary Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, AUSTRIA. [email protected] Nyland, Astrid J. Archaeological Museum, University Of Stavanger, NORWAY. [email protected] Olausson, Deborah Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Lund, BOX 192, 221 00, Lund, SWEDEN. [email protected] Oliva, Fernando CEAR, Facultad de Humanidades y Artes, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, ARGENTINA. [email protected] Orozco, Teresa Departament de Prehistòria i Arqueologia, Universitat de València. Avenida Blasco Ibáñez 28, 46010 València, SPAIN. [email protected] Ortega, David Spanish National Research Council – IMF, Archaeology of Social Dynamics. Egipciaques, 15. 08001 Barcelona, SPAIN. [email protected] Özbal, Hadi Department of Archaeology and History of Art. Koç University, IstanbulTURKEY. [email protected] Özbal, Rana Arkeoloji ve Sanat Tarihi Bölümü, Rumeli Feneri Yolu, Koç Üniversitesi, Istanbul, TURKEY. [email protected]



The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

xxv

Paixão, Eduardo Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behaviour. Campus Gambelas – Universidade do Algarve. 8005-139 Faro, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Paolini-Saez, Hélène Laboratoire régional d’Archéologie. Corse-Du-Sud, FRANCE. [email protected] Peche-Quilichini, Kewin Inrap France and ASM UMR 5140 Université de Montpellier, FRANCE. [email protected] Peña Poza, Javier Institute of History, CCHS-CSIC, Madrid, SPAIN. [email protected] Pereira, Telmo ICArEHB - Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the Evolution of Human Behaviour, Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Péterdi, Bálint Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary, HUNGARY. [email protected] Pétrequin, Anne-Marie MSHE C.N. Ledoux, CNRS et Université de Franche-Comté, 32, rue Mégevand, F 25030 Besançon Cedex, FRANCE. [email protected] Pétrequin, Pierre MSHE C.N. Ledoux, CNRS et Université de Franche-Comté, 32, rue Mégevand, F 25030 Besançon Cedex, FRANCE. [email protected]



xxvi

Contributors

Pimentel, Nuno Instituto Dom Luiz, Fac.Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Querré, Guirec French Ministry of Culture and communication – UMR 6566 CReAAH, University of Rennes 1, FRANCE. [email protected] Rauba-Bukowska, Anna Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology – Polish Academy of Sciences. Sáawkowska st 17, 31-016 Kraków, POLAND. [email protected] Rey-Solé, Mar Seminari d'Estudis i Recerques Prehistòriques (SERP), Dept. Història i Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona, C/Montalegre, 6, 08001, Barcelona, SPAIN. [email protected] Riccardi, Maria Pia Institute of Materials and Constructions, Univ. of Applied Sciences and Arts - Supsi, SWITZERLAND. [email protected] Richardson, Amy Wainwright Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Institute of Archaeology 36 Beaumont St, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 2PG, UNITED KINGDOM. [email protected] Rodrigues, Nelson Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra - Polo II, 3030-790 Coimbra, PORTUGAL. [email protected] Roig, Jordi Arrago S.L. Sant Cugat 76 Baixos. E-08201. Barcelona, Spain. / 4CSICIMF. Departamento de Arqueologia y Antropologia. C/Egipcíaques 15. E08001. Barcelona, SPAIN. [email protected]



The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

xxvii

Roqué, Carles University of Girona – Department of Environmental Sciences. Campus de Montilivi s/n. 17003 Girona, Catalonia, SPAIN. [email protected] Sánchez Carro, Miguel Ángel Laboratorio de Microscopía Óptica para Materiales Pétreos (Universidad de Cantabria)-Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria. ETS de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos. Avd de los Castros, s/n. E-39005. Santander, SPAIN. [email protected] Scherstén, Anders Department of Geology, University of Lund, Sölvegatan 12, 223 62, Lund, SWEDEN. [email protected] Schmitsberger, Oliver OREA – Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Quaternary Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, AUSTRIA. [email protected] Sciuto, Claudia MAL_ Environmental archaeology laboratory Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Humanisthuset, HB 121, Umeå University, 90187, Umeå SE, SWEDEN. [email protected] Seglins, Valdis University of Latvia, Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, Jelgavas 1, Riga, LV-1004, LATVIA. [email protected] Shemer, Maayan Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum Building, POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004, ISRAEL. [email protected]



xxviii

Contributors

Sheridan, Alison Department of Scottish History and Archaeology, National Museums Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, UNITED KINGDOM. [email protected] Silvestre, Romina Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, CONICET, ARGENTINA. [email protected] ùimúek, Gülsu Chemistry Department and Surface Science and Technology Center (KUYTAM), Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Sariyer, 34450 Istanbul, TURKEY. [email protected] Skeates, Robin Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UNITED KINGDOM. [email protected] Taylor, Ruth Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Facultad de Geografía e Historia, Universidad de Sevilla, María de Padilla s/n, 41004 Sevilla, SPAIN. [email protected] Terradas, Xavier Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) – IMF, Archaeology of Social Dynamics. Egipciaques, 15. 08001 Barcelona, SPAIN. [email protected] Tirosh, Ofir The Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ISRAEL. [email protected] Tiziana, Levi Sara Hunter College, Department of Classical and Oriental Studies, The City University of New York, 695 Park Ave, New York, NY 10065, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [email protected]



The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory

xxix

Tóth, Zoltán University of Miskolc, Sámuel Mikoviny Doctoral School of Earth Sciences, HUNGARY. [email protected] Váczi, Tamás Department of Mineralogy, Eötvös Lóránd University, Department of Mineralogy Budapest, 1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C. HUNGARY. [email protected] Vidale, Massimo Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali, Università degli Studi di Padova, ITALY. [email protected] Wadley, Lyn Evolutionary Studies Institute (ESI), School of Geosciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA. [email protected] Weniger, Gerd-Christian Neanderthal Museum. Talstraße 300, 40822 Mettmann, Germany./ Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Cologne. AlbertusMagnus-Platz, 50923 Köln, GERMANY. [email protected] Wojcieszak, Marine Evolutionary Studies Institute (ESI), School of Geosciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA. [email protected] Ya÷ci, Mustafa Baris Chemistry Department and Surface Science and Technology Center (KUYTAM), Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Sariyer, 34450 Istanbul, TURKEY. [email protected] Yaroshevich, Alla Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum Building, POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004, ISRAEL. [email protected]



xxx

Contributors

Ylmaz Akkaya, Ceren Chemistry Department and Surface Science and Technology Center (KUYTAM), Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Sariyer, 34450 Istanbul, TURKEY. [email protected] Yravedra, José Department of Prehistory. Complutense University of Madrid – UCM, SPAIN. [email protected] Zarina, Liga University of Latvia, Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, Jelgavas 1, Riga, LV-1004, LATVIA. [email protected] Zorzin, Roberto Civic Museum of Natural History, Verona, ITALY. [email protected]



CHAPTER ONE FLINT OUTCROPS AND BEHAVIOURAL FLEXIBILITY: TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS OF RECYCLING ACHEULIAN HANDAXES AT THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC WORKSHOP GIV'AT RABI EAST, LOWER GALILEE, ISRAEL ALLA YAROSHEVICH, MAAYAN SHEMER Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum Building, POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004, Israel. Alla Yaroshevich: [email protected]; Maayan Shemer: [email protected]

Abstract The Giv'at Rabi East flint workshop, located on a large bedrock outcrop west of Nazareth, Lower Galilee, yielded scores of flint handaxes, alongside hundreds of items produced using Levallois technique. The chronometric dates obtained for the site place the workshop within the Middle Paleolithic sequence – a period when handaxes are virtually lacking in the Levant. This situation suggests a possibility that the handaxes found at Giv'at Rabi East workshop were originally produced during the late Lower Paleolithic Acheulian and recycled later on by Middle Paleolithic flint knappers who used them as devices suitable to extract flint nodules from the bedrock. In the present paper we test the hypothesis the handaxes found at Giv'at Rabi East workshop were originally produced during the late Lower Paleolithic Acheulian and recycled later on by Middle Paleolithic flint knappers. In order to do so we compare the assemblage of handaxes from Giv'at Rabi East to the collection obtained at Area A7, located at the same

2

Chapter One

outcrop ca. 400 m to the north of the Middle Paleolithic workshop. The analyses show that the two assemblages do not statistically differ with regard to the handaxes found at Giv'at Rabi East workshop were originally produced during the late Lower Paleolithic Acheulian and recycled later on by Middle Paleolithic flint knappers. In order to do so we compare the assemblage of handaxes from Giv'at Rabi East to the collection obtained at Area A7, located at the same outcrop ca. 400 m to the north of the Middle Paleolithic workshop. These results support the hypothesis of recycling and reflect the behavioural flexibility of the MP hominids in the Levant. Moreover, the apparent use of the same outcrop during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic is in accordance with studies that indicate technological continuity between the two periods, and further suggests a long time span of variability-forming that defined the behaviour of the MP groups in the region. Keywords: Middle Palaeolithic, Levant, flint workshops, bifacial tools, handaxes, behavioural flexibility.

Introduction The Middle Paleolithic (MP) in the Levant (ca 250-47 ka BP) emerges as a dynamic period when the region was apparently occupied by different hominids who had entered from Africa and Europe in several events or waves of migration (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1998; Kaufman 2001; Hovers 2009; Hershkovitz et al. 2015; Kuhlwilm et al. 2016; Been et al. 2017, but see Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen 1998). Present-day knowledge concerning human adaptations during the period is mainly based on finds deriving from habitation sites such as caves and open-air localities. Recently discovered flint quarries and flint workshop sites apparently used during hundreds of millennia (Barkai et al. 2002, 2006; Gopher and Barkai 2006, 2011, 2014; Barkai and Gopher 2009, 2011; Nadel et al. 2011; Ekshtain et al. 2012, 2014; Finkel et al. 2016, Yaroshevich et al. in press) contain a new and important source of information concerning MP behavioral variability. Several of these sites consistently show presence of handaxes and other bifacial tools diagnostic of the late Lower Palaeolithic (LP) Acheulian alongside items produced using the Levallois technique––a method of core reduction characteristic of the MP Mousterian. This phenomenon allowed for the provisional attribution to the time span stretching from the late LP to the MP (Barkai et al. 2002, 2006; Gopher and Barkai 2006, 2011, 2014; Barkai and Gopher 2009, 2011; Finkel et al. 2016).

Flint Outcrops and Behavioural Flexibility

3

Salvage excavations at the Giv'at Rabi East (GRE) flint workshop, located on a large flint outcrop west of Nazareth, Lower Galilee (Fig. 1.1a) revealed a somewhat similar phenomenon, with a few dozen bifacial tools found among hundreds of Levallois items (Yaroshevich et al., in press). Several OSL dates obtained for the first time for a flint workshop site in the Levant, affiliate the activity in GRE to the MP. Admittedly, such a situation theoretically could reflect a post-depositional mixture of occurrences representing two separated periods. Such a possibility, however, is excluded by a geomorphological study of the site that did not indicate high-energy gravity slope-flows. Another explanation – that the handaxes were produced by MP knappers – is compromised by the study of their physical characteristics i.e., the degree of abrasion and patination, which indicates that the bifacial tools found at the GRE workshop were exposed to natural processes for a longer period of time than the Levallois cores––items of comparable size and volume. A third possibility is that the bifacials tools originally produced during the late LP were picked up later on by MP flintknappers for some purpose or another. This hypothesis can be further corroborated by a locality rich in Acheulian bifacial excavated ca 400 m north of GRE (Area A7: Fig. 1.1b; Yaroshevich 2016a), which indicates the use of the outcrop during the late LP and thus implies that the tools could have been available on the surface for the MP knappers picking them up. In this study we test the hypothesis of recycling through a statistical comparison between the two assemblages of bifacial tools deriving from the GRE MP workshop and Area A7. The comparison focusses on the metric characteristics of the tools, the degree of abrasion, patination and the frequency of edge damage.

Materials and Methods Giv'at Rabi is a hill located west of the industrial area of the modern city of Nazareth. The hill and its surroundings constitute an outcrop of high-quality flint dated to the lower Eocene (Ekshtein et al. 2012; Yaroshevich et al., in press). The outcrop was exploited starting in early prehistory, particularly in the late LP and throughout the MP, and, after a break, during the Neolithic and early Chalcolithic periods when the flint workshops were apparently located in the close vicinity of, or within the extensive settlements excavated in the area during the last decade (Barzilai and Milevski 2010; Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2010; Milevski and Gezov 2014; Yaroshevich 2016a, b; Agam et al. 2016).

4

Chapter One

Fig. 1.1. a: Location of Giv'at Rabi East, MP habitation sites mentioned in the text and late LP-MP outcrops described in previous studies (in green); b: Area to the east of Giv’at Rabi indicating location of GRE MP workshop and Area A7.

Flint Outcrops and Behavioural Flexibility

5

The GRE MP workshop contains two archaeological units separated by a layer of dark clay sediments, the lower one directly overlaying the basal calcrete formation (Fig. 1.2; Yaroshevich et al., in press). OSL dates obtained for the archaeological units show that the workshop was in use from ca 136 ka to ca 94 ka BP, i.e., during the middle phase of the MP in the Levant. A single date obtained for the basal calcrete cut by the cupmarks mentioned above (198±16ka) indicates that the site could have been in use already in the early phase of the MP. The absolute majority of the flint assemblages collected from the site comprises chipped debitage with a prominent Levallois component. Bifacial tools were found in different loci, mostly in the lower archaeological unit, throughout this layer's vertical built-up. It is important to stress, again, that geomorphological analysis did not indicate high-energy gravity slopeflows that otherwise might have explained the presence of bifacial tools at the MP site as a result of a post-depositional mixture between two chronologically different events. Area A7, located ca 400 m north of the GRE workshop (Fig. 1.1b), was probed over five squares, 4 x 4 m each, arranged in a ca 30 m long strip of land. Late LP bifacial tools, mostly handaxes, were retrieved in all five squares within a layer containing mainly patinated and abraded nondiagnostic debitage, chunks and natural flint nodules. Interestingly, the Acheulian bifacial-bearing layer had been cut by Neolithic/early Chalcolithic knapping pits that were easily differentiated by the fresh condition of the artefacts (Yaroshevich 2016a). In both of the investigated assemblages handaxes comprise the most common tool type, including 24 out of 39 bifacial tools found in GRE and 60 out of 65 bifacials in Area A7 (Fig. 1.3). Roughouts and picks, each category represented by a few items, are the second and third most prominent groups in both sites. Further comparison therefore focuses on handaxes––the only group large enough to provide a base for statistical analyses. The analyses relate to quantitative characteristics, i.e., the length, maximal width and maximal thickness of the handaxes compared through a t-test; as well as to qualitative aspects, such as the degree of abrasion, patination and the frequency of items broken or damaged on their distal edge. These aspects were compared through Ȥ2.

6

Chapter One

Fig. 1.2. a, b: GRE MP workshop, looking west and north-east; c, d: cupmarks and flint nodules embedded in the calcrete formation.

Results The boxplots presented in Fig. 1.4a-c show the metric characteristics of the handaxes, as well as the results of the t-test comparison. The two assemblages show relatively close average values in all three characteristics, i.e., length, maximal width and maximal thickness, alongside a high intragroup variability expressed in high values of SD. T-test analyses show that the two assemblages are statistically similar with 95% of probability with regard to all three metric characteristics. The results of the comparison in terms of the qualitative aspects are presented in Fig. 1.4d-f. In both assemblages the majority of the items are abraded and patinated; Ȥ2 shows that the two assemblages are statistically similar with regard to these aspects (Fig. 1.4d, e). In terms of edge damage frequency, however, the two assemblages were found to be statistically different, with damaged or broken items much more common among handaxes retrieved from GRE than from Area 7 (Fig. 1.4f).

Flint Outcrops and Behavioural Flexibility

7

Discussion and conclusions The lack of statistical differences between the handaxes from the GRE MP workshop and Area A7 with regard to their metric characteristics and degree of abrasion and patination suggests close technological traditions and a comparable time span of exposure to natural forces at both localities. Against this background the significantly higher frequency of handaxes with a broken or damaged distal edge in the GRE assemblage can be seen as support for the hypothesis that these tools were produced during the late LP and recycled by MP hominids. In the light of the nature of the site, i.e., a flint workshop located on a large flint outcrop, it is not inconceivable that re-use of the LP handaxes might relate to flint quarry activities. This working hypothesis, however, requires a comprehensive study per se, including quarry experiments and subsequent use-wear and breaking pattern analyses of both experimentally made as well as ancient handaxes. The recycling of ancient tools found on the outcrop expresses the behavioural flexibility of GRE knappers––a capacity indicated in previous studies for other aspects of MP lifestyles in the Levant. In particular, this flexibility is expressed itself in the low numbers of retouched items alongside a variety of Levallois core preparation concepts and methods of reduction, different rates of Levallois points and blades (summarized in Hovers 2009), as well as in tool use. Thus, points––a tool category with a seemingly predictable function––were applied not only as the tips of hunting weapons (i.e., Yaroshevich et al. 2016), but also in wood processing, for the cutting of herbaceous plants as well as for other activities (Groman-Yaroslavski et al. 2016). Moreover, anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals occupying the Levant during the MP produced essentially similar assemblages (e.g., Bar-Yosef 1998; Hovers 2009). The behavioural flexibility expressed in the approach to lithics apparently allowed an adaptable mobility pattern and adjustment to ecologically or environmentally different niches or habitats. With regard to forming MP variability––whether behavioural, palaeontological or genetic––flint outcrops could be of key importance as such sites constitute localities where different groups could potentially meet and interact. Ethnographic models of supplying raw materials from remote sources include seasonal expeditions, whereby a hosting group stays behind at the outcrop (summarized in Finkel et al. 2016). Such a scenario raises the likelihood of an encounter and therefore an interaction between different hominid groups provided they exploited the same outcrop. Practising long-distance journeys aimed at obtaining raw materials during the MP in the Levant can be inferred from the analysis of

8

Chapter One

flint types from e.g., Amud Cave (Ekshtein et al. 2017) as well as from the isolated position of known MP workshops in relation to contemporary habitation sites (Finkel et al. 2016 and references therein; Yaroshevich et al., in press). In other words, a model that would imply a feasible possibility of encounter and interaction between different hominid groups at the outcrop could indeed have been applicable during the MP in the Levant. OSL dates show that MP occupation at GRE occurred during the middle phase of the period (also defined as Tabun C, e.g., Bar-Yosef 1998). During that time the region was evidently occupied by anatomically modern humans (AMH), remains of which were found in Skhul Cave and in Tabun Cave, Layer C (C2 hominid), and in Qafzeh Cave (Van der Meersch 1981; Hovers et al. 2003; Hovers 2009) located only 7 km from the GRE workshop. In case the Neanderthal from Tabun (C1 hominid) belongs to Layer C and is not intrusive from Layer B, as suggested by the original excavators (Garrod and Bate 1937; Bar-Yosef 1998; see discussion in Bar-Yosef and Callander 1999), this would imply the coexistence of two hominid species during the middle phase of the period (but see Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen, 1998). Co-existence and interaction between Neanderthals and AMH is supported by genetic evidence indicating an interbreeding event ca 100 ka ago, with the Levant being one of a few possible localities where interbreeding could originally have taken place (Kuhlwilm et al. 2016). The apparent use of the same outcrops during late LP to MP correlates with the results of studies indicating a technological continuity between the two periods. Thus, recent analysis of the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex from Tabun Cave points to the recycling of handaxes into Levallois-like cores in a very specific manner, resembling very much the earliest MP industries (Tabun D) in the Levant (Shimelmitz et al. 2016). In this regard, the lack of workshops attributable to the Upper Paleolithic (UP) at the same outcrops may be of importance for understanding the MP-UP transition (e.g., Marks et al. 1991) and the emergence of the modern human's ancestors in the region. The time of the assumed shift in strategies of raw material procurement associated with the emergence of modern humans is especially interesting against the background of an apparent chronological gap between the earliest UP assemblages (ca 47 ka BP, e.g., Kadowaki et al. 2015; Barzilai et al. 2016) and the palaeontological data, i.e., the cranium from Manot Cave, dated to ca 55 ka BP (Hershkovitz et al. 2016). In other words, studies related to raw material procurement during the MP-UP transition alongside chronometric dates of known MP outcrops, especially with regard to the end of their exploitation, have a

Flint Outcrops and Behavioural Flexibility

9

potential to provide insight into time depth and the nature of behavioural changes associated with the migration of modern humans’ ancestors in the Levant.

Fig. 1.3. Handaxes from GRE (1, 2) and from Area A7 (3). The scale is 5cm.

10

Chapter One

Fig. 1.4. a-c: Metric characteristics and the results of the t-test analyses; e-f: qualitative aspects and results of Ȥ2 analyses. p < 0.05: the two samples differ with 95% confidence; p > 0.05: the two samples cannot be distinguished with 95% confidence.

Flint Outcrops and Behavioural Flexibility

11

To summarize, the results of the present study support the possibility that MP flintknappers at the GRE workshop recycled Acheulian handaxes. This expression of behavioural flexibility at outcrops––localities where different groups could actually meet, interact and influence each other's adaptations––contributes to the pool of characteristics which define cultural variability during the MP in the Levant. The apparent use of the same outcrops through late LP to MP correlates with the technological continuity between the two periods observed in stratified contexts and suggests that the variability had formed over a long period of time. Future studies of MP workshop sites and their chronometric dates have a potential to shed new light on the processes associated with the migration of modern human's ancestors that took place by the end of the period.

Acknowledgments The salvage excavations at the Giv'at Rabi East workshop and in Area 7 were underwritten by the Israel National Roads Company. We thank Yoval Gur for his help during the fieldwork, Dror Bar-Shad and Miki Peleg for their administrative support, and Edwin C.M. van den Brink for English editing of this paper.

References Agam, Aviad, Walzer, N., Schechter, H.C., Zutovski, K., Milevski, I., Getzov, N., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2016. "Organized Waste Disposal in the Pottery Neolithic: A Bifacial Workshop Refuse Pit at Ein Zippori, Israel". Journal of Field Archaeology 41(6): 713-730 Arensburg, B., Belfer-Cohen, A., 1998. "Sapiens and Neandertals. Rethinking the Levantine Middle Paleolithic hominids". In: Takeru Akazawa, K.A and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.) Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Asia, 311-322, New York: Plenum Press. Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2009. "Changing the Face of the Earth: Human Behavior at Sede Ilan, an Extensive Lower-Middle Paleolithic Quarry Site in Israel". In Brian A., Brooke S.B (eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, 174-185, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2011. "Two Flint Caches from a Lower-Middle Paleolithic Flint Extraction and Workshop Complex at Mount Pua, Israel." In del Rio, P.D. (ed.), 2nd International Conference of the UISPP Commission on Flint Mining in Pre and Protohistoric Times, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 265-274 Oxford: Archaeopress.

12

Chapter One

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., La Porta, P.C., 2002. "Paleolithic Landscape of Extraction: Flint Surface Quarries and Workshops at Mt. Pua, Israel". Antiquity 76: 672-80. Barkai, R., Gopher, A., La Porta, P.C., 2006. "Middle Pleistocene Landscape of Extraction: Quarry and Workshop Complexes in Northern Israel". In Naama G-I., Gopher, A., Barkai R., Sharon, G., (eds.) Axe Age: Acheulian Toolmaking - from Quarry to Discard, 7-44 Oxford: Equinox Publishers. Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. "The Chronology of the Middle Paleolithic in the Levant". In Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef O., (eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Asia, 39-56, New York: Plenum Press. Bar-Yosef, O., Callander, J., 1999. "The Woman from Tabun: Garrod’s Doubts in Historical Perspective". Journal of Human Evolution 37: 879-85. Barzilai, O., Milevski, I., 2010. "Givat Rabi East. Middle Palaeolithic and Neolithic Workshop Sites". Hadashot Arkheologiyot 12. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1587&mag_id=117

Barzilai, O., Goring-Morris, A.N., 2010. "Bidirectional Blade Production at the PPNB site of Kfar HaHoresh: The Techno-Typological Analysis of a Workshop Dump". Paléorient 36 (2): 5-24. Barzilai, O., Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., 2016. "The Early Upper Paleolithic Period at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel". Human Evolution 31 (1-2): 85-100. Been, E, Hovers, E., Ekshtain, R., Malinski-Buller, A., Agha, N., Barash, A., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Benazzi, S., Hublin, J. J., Levin, L., Greenbaum, N., Mitki, M., Oxilia, G., Porat N., Roskin, J., Soudack, M., Yeshurun, R., Shahack-Gross, R., Nir, N., Stahlschmidt, M. C., Rak, Y., Barzilai, O., 2017. "The First Neanderthal Remains from an Open-Air Middle Palaeolithic Site in the Levant". Nature: Scientific Reports 7: 2958. Ekshtain, R., Barzilai, O., Inbar, M., Milevski, I., Ullman, M., 2012. "Givat Rabi East, a New Middle Paleolithic Knapping Site in the Lower Galilee (Israel)". Paléorient 37 (2): 107-122. Ekshtain, R., Malinsky-Buller, A., Ilani, S., Segal, I., Hovers, E., 2014. "Raw Material Exploitation Around the Middle Paleolithic Site of ’Ein Qashish". Quaternary International 331 (8): 248-66. Ekshtain, R., Ilani, S., Segal, I., Hovers, E., 2017. "Local and Nonlocal Procurement of Raw Material in Amud Cave, Israel: The Complex Mobility of Late Middle Paleolithic Groups". Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 32(2): 189–214.

Flint Outcrops and Behavioural Flexibility

13

Finkel, M., Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2016. "Extensive Paleolithic Flint Extraction and Reduction Complexes in the Nahal Dishon Central Basin, Upper Galilee, Israel". Journal of World Prehistory 29 (3): 21766. Garrod, D.A.E., Bate, D.M.A., 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Excavations at the Wadi Mughara. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2006. "Flint Extraction Sites and Workshops in Prehistoric Galilee, Israel". In Körlin, G., Weisgerber, G., Stone Age Mining Age, 91-98, Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum. Gopher, A., Barkai, R., 2011. "Sitting on the Tailing Piles: Creating Extraction Landscapes in Middle Pleistocene Quarry Complexes in the Levant". World Archaeology 43 (2): 211-29. Gopher, A., Barkai. R., 2014. "Middle Paleolithic Open-Air Industrial Areas in the Galilee, Israel: The Challenging Study of Flint Extraction and Reduction Complexes". Quaternary International 331 (8): 95–102. Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Zaidner, Y., Weinstein-Evron, M., 2016. "Mousterian Abu Sif points: Foraging Tools of the Early Middle Paleolithic Site of Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7: 312–23. Grosman, L., Goren-Inbar, N., 2016. "Landscape Alteration by Pre-Pottery Neolithic Communities in the Southern Levant – The Kaizer Hilltop Quarry, Israel". PLoS one 11(3): e0150395 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150395 Hershkovitz, I., Marder, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Yasur, G., Boaretto, E., Caracuta, V., Alex, B., Frumkin, A., Goder-Goldberger, M., Gunz, P., Holloway, R.L., Latimer, B., Lavi, R., Matthews, A., Slon, V., Mayer, D B-I., Berna, F., Bar-Oz, G., Yeshurun, R., May, H., Hans, M.G., Weber, G.W., Barzilai, O., 2015. "Levantine Cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) Foreshadows the First European Modern Humans". Nature 520: 216-19. Hovers, E., 2009. The Lithic Assemblages of Qafzeh Cave. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hovers, E., Ilani, S., Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., 2003. "An Early Case of Color Symbolism: The Use of Ochre by Early Modern Humans in Qafzeh Cave". Current Anthropology 44(4): 491-522. Kadowaki, S., Omori, T., Nishiaki, Y., 2015. "Variability in Early Ahmarian Lithic Technology and its Implications for the Model of a Levantine Origin of the Protoaurignacian". Journal of Human Evolution 82: 67-87. Kuhlwilm, M., Gronau, I., Hubisz, M.J., Filippo, C., Prado-Martinez, J., Kircher, M., Fu, Q., Burbano, H.A., Lalueza-Fox, C., Rasilla, M.,

14

Chapter One

Rosas, A., Rudan, P., Brajkovic, D., Kucan, Z., Gušic, I., MarquesBonet, T., Andrés, A.M., Viola, B., Pääbo, S., Meyer, M., Siepel, A., Castellano, S., 2016. "Ancient Gene Flow from Early Modern Humans into Eastern Neanderthals". Nature 530: 429-33. Marks, A.E., Shokler, J., Zilhão, J., 1991. "Raw Material Usage in the Paleolithic. The Effects of Local Availability on Selection and Economy", Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric HunterGatherers, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19: 127–140. Milevski, I., Getzov. N., 2014. "‘En Zippori". Hadashot Arkheologiyot– Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=13675 Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., Zisu, N.S., Filin, S., 2011. "The Nahal Galim/Nahal Ornit Prehistoric Flint Quarries in Mt. Carmel, Israel". Eurasian Prehistory 8 (1–2): 51-66. Shimelmitz, R., Weinstein-Evron, M., Ronen, A. Kuhn, S.L., in press. "The Lower to Middle Paleolithic Transition and the Diversification of Levallois Technology in the Southern Levant: Evidence from Tabun Cave, Israel". Quaternary International: 1-18. Van der Meersch, B., 1981. Les Hommes Fossiles de Qafzeh (Israel). Paris: CNRS. Yaroshevich, A., 2016a. "Giv‘at Rabbi". Hadashot Arkheologiyot– Excavations and Surveys in Israel 128. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=24973&mag_id=124 Yaroshevich, A., 2016b. "‘En Zippori". Hadashot ArkheologiyotExcavations and Surveys in Israel 128. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=24979&mag_id=124 Yaroshevich, A., Zaidner, Y., Weinstein-Evron, M, 2016. “Projectile Damage and Point Morphometry at the Early Middle Paleolithic Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel (Israel): Preliminary Results and Interpretations”. In Iovita R., Sano, K., Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry, 119-134 , Dordrecht: Springer. Yaroshevich, A., Shemer, M., Porat, N., Roskin, J., (in press). "Flint Workshop Affiliation: Chronology, Technology and Site-Formation Processes at Giv'at Rabbi East, Lower Galilee, Israel". Quaternary International.

CHAPTER TWO RAW MATERIAL DIVERSITY, AVAILABILITY AND SOURCING IN THE RIVER LIS BASIN, CENTRAL PORTUGAL TELMO PEREIRA,1 EDUARDO PAIXÃO,1,2 VÂNIA CARVALHO,3 SUSANA CARVALHO,1,4,5 TELMO GOMES6 1

Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behaviour. Campus Gambelas – Universidade do Algarve. 8005-139 Faro (Portugal). [email protected] 2 Núcleo de Arqueologia e Paleoecologia. Campus Gambelas – Universidade do Algarve. 8005-139 Faro (Portugal). [email protected] 3 Museu de Leiria – Convento de Santo Agostinho. Divisão de Ação Cultural, Museus e Turismo, Câmara Municipal de Leiria, Largo da República. 2414-006 Leiria (Portugal) 4 Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology – University of Oxford. Oxford (United Kingdom). [email protected] 5 Centre for Funcional Ecology – University of Coimbra. 3000-056 Coimbra (Portugal) 6 Serviços Municipalizados de Água e Saneamento de Leiria (Portugal). [email protected]

Abstract The project EcoPLis––Human Occupations in the Pleistocene Ecotones of the River Lis––started in central Portugal in 2015. It aims to understand the behavioural ecology of hominins during the Pleistocene in a region where sub-rectilinear rivers link the coast to the inland mountains through

16

Chapter Two

open riverine and canyon environments. This project is rooted in Leiria’s mapping project––CARQLEI––managed by the City Council that has been mapping archaeological sites and off-sites since 2004, including some identified by Cultural Resource Management projects. One of the most important aims of EcoPLis is the systematic recording and spatial analysis of raw material sources. The Lis basin has a large diversity of rocks suitable for knapping and multiple sources of these materials can be found both in primary and secondary sources. Although rocks are readily available, some materials were selectively sourced and used in the production of stone tools, e.g. chert, quartzite and quartz. The last two are allochthonous, showing great diversity and are highly abundant in river and marine gravels. On the other hand, chert is autochthonous, and it can thus be obtained from secondary and subprimary positions, and extracted from primary outcrops that are considerably limited in space, such as those of the Ribeira das Chitas valley. In this paper we present a tentative map of raw material types and availability in the Lis basin and a preliminary geochemical analysis of chert specimens collected in primary, sub-primary and secondary positions. Our goal is to set a framework for the future investigation of raw material provenance relative to the excavated sites, including a provisional geochemical characterization of the main sources. Keywords: EcoPLis, Raw material diversity, Central Portugal.

The EcoPLis Project The coarse information on western-most Iberia does not allow for a detailed understanding of human behavioural ecology and ecodynamics during the Pleistocene, including coastal foraging patterns. Aiming to shed light on these behavioural patterns, we developed an innovative project focusing on a region rich in resources that represents an ecotone between different landscapes. Here, we find sites with long sequences of thin occupational lenses with good preservation of organic material such as the Lagar Velho and Alecrim Rock-shelters. One of these regions is the basin of the River Lis (Leiria, Central Portugal) (fig 2.1). Our goal is to investigate Pleistocene behavioural ecology and coastal foraging in the Western Coast of Iberia from a diachronic perspective and using a high-resolution approach. In this process, it has been necessary to excavate some Holocene deposits overlaying the Pleistocene ones. Surveys, tests and excavations in rock-shelters, caves and open-air sites

Raw Material Diversity in the River Lis Basin, Central Portugal

17

have been ongoing since 2015. The EcoPLis project tested four sites with dates ranging from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Chalcolithic: Gruta da Buraca da Moira (2015), Abrigo da Buraca da Moira (2015-2016), Abrigo do Poço (2015-2016) and Praia do Pedrógão (2016). Abrigo da Buraca da Moira (~24 km from present coast line) has a Chalcolithic primary burial ground located in the top without large bones albeit with abundant small cranial and post-cranial bone fragments, e.g. teeth, phalanges and the remains of a foetus, along with stone tools made of chert, quartz and quartzite, a schist plaque and adornments on Littorina sp. and Crassostrea angulate.

Figure 2.1. Location of the River Lis basin, and the age of the geological formations where the sources of chert were identified.

Below, is a Palaeolithic deposit bearing Upper Solutrean and ProtoSolutrean assemblages. Abrigo do Poço (25.5 km from present coast), was found in 2002 (Braz et al. 2006) and has abundant shell from sandy, salty or brackish waters and lithics made mostly from chert, quartz and quartzite associated with the Mousterian (from a breccia remnant). Epipaleolithic material is found in the top layer and possible Solutrean (due to the presence of small bifacial trimming flakes below). There is no pottery and the presence of little faunal remains, just a few large mammal bones,

18

Chapter Two

might be related with the excavation being on the top layers since these few were recovered from deeper parts. Praia do Pedrógão is a Mousterian occupation found in 2003. Located on the present beach with a possible older assemblage in the gravel below (Aubry et al. 2005), this is waiting for a thorough investigation. The site was excavated in 2003 but never dated and that is one of the aims of our project. Another site to be restudied, contextualized and re-excavated is Abrigo da Palha (~26 km from the present coast), whose adjacent platform was excavated in 2002 (Braz et al. 2006) with several shell matrix layers and assemblages associated to the period between the Neolithic and the Late Magdalenian, also lacking systematic study. Despite the fact that large Upper Palaeolithic assemblages with shells, shell ornaments, fish and marine mammals from sites such as Lagar Velho (Almeida et al. 2002), Abrigo da Palha (Braz et al. 2006), and Abrigo do Poço (Braz et al. 2006) are serious indicators that these populations were living inland but foraging on the coast and most probably in the space between, there has never been a systematic investigation focusing on the human behavioural ecology and patterns of coastal foraging. Such ecodynamics can be inferred mostly through the faunal assemblages, but the territorial networks and the specific areas of exploitation can be recognized by linking the raw material sources with the archaeological sites.

Geological and Geomorphological Background The basin of the River Lis is located on the Western Portuguese Mesocenozoic Edge (Almeida et al. 1989; Gonçalves 2007), dominated by Jurassic limestone, between 585 m.a.s.l. and the present sea coast. There are abundant canyons, caves and other karstic phenomena in a hilly landscape, especially on the eastern margin. The presence of the LeiriaParceiros and Monte Real diapires and of the Torrinhas/Reguengo do Fetal and Sr.ª do Monte main faults drove the orientation N-S of the River Lis and Lena, and the orientation E-W of most smaller streams, the most important with the springs in the mountains located on the eastern margin (Almeida et al. 1989). Closer to the coast and starting in the Lena and Lis floodplains, the landscape changes considerably dominated by siliclastic fluvial and eolian Pleistocene and Holocene deposits until the coastline, where the limestone becomes visible again at some points (Teixeira et al. 1968). The area of the River Lis basin has 850 km2 of surface drainage (hard to establish due to large dune areas located upstream) and 945 km2

Raw Material Diversity in the River Lis Basin, Central Portugal

19

considering the underwater drainage (Dinis 1996; Almeida et al. 1989, INAG 1999; Gonçalves 2007). Structurally, the basin sits on deposits of Mesozoic ages, being the oldest deposits visible associated to lagoon formations dated from the Hetangian-Recian. Before that, the environment was continental and resulted in the present plaster, and salt deposits. With the Lusitanian there is a strong marine regression that created marls, clays and sandstone deposits, often with fossils. In the beginning of the Jurassic started the formation of the Leiria-Monte Real diapire with the consequent development of volcanic activity, doleritic domes and lodges (Teixeira et al. 1968). Until the end of the Middle Jurassic there is a long-term transgressive phase and, especially during the Batonian and Callovian there is a strong accumulation of calcareous sediments, but between the Middle and Upper Jurassic there is a hiatus (Azerêdo et al. 2003; Gonçalves 2007), followed by a large marine transgression with the sea covering the whole region (Teixeira et al. 1968). In the last phase of the Cretacic period and the beginning of the Cenozoic there is another marine regression and the climatic conditions result in the silification of the Turonian limestones and of the related formation of iron deposits. During the Cenomanian there is a new marine transgression that floods the entire basin (Teixeira et al. 1968; Gonçalves 2007). During ~40 Myrs between the Cenomanian and the Eocene there is strong erosion (Gonçalves 2007). During the Miocene the region has a continental characteristic with lagoons, while during the Pliocene there is another marine transgression marked by a visible base gravel and the upper finer sediments have abundant fossils. In the end of the Pliocene there is, again, a new transgression with the sea covering a great part of the region (Teixeira et al. 1968). During the Pleistocene occurs the formation of fluvial and marine siliclastic deposits (quartz and quartzite gravels to sand) over the Miocene and Pliocene formations that are not always easy to distinguish from the Pliocene ones (Teixeira et al. 1968; Gonçalves 2007) and the formation of abrasion platforms and deep karstic canyons. It is possible that during the LGM the sea level was below 120 to 140 m below the present sea level, exposing hundreds of km2 of the continental platform (Dias et al. 2000, 2004), creating a completely different landscape, with much steeper talwegs and making the present coast localities considerably inland, probably exposing presently undersea raw material sources, with an impact on human ecodynamics and the present interpretation of the archaeological record. After that, the sea level slowly rises and, even in the Holocene, the formation occurs of extensive alluvial deposits reaching

20

Chapter Two

some canyons, of decametric dune and eolian deposits, lagoons and estuarine formations (Teixeira et al. 1968; Dinis 1996; Dias et al. 2004; Gonçalves 2007). The changes in the landscape can be inferred also by the presence of Late Pleistocene turf deposits below some of these dune deposits.

Materials and Methods Many primary and secondary raw material sources have been identified and georeferenced in the basin of the River Lis during the last 14 years, but they represented in some cases only points on the map (Carvalho 2011, 2014; Carvalho and Carvalho 2007). With the beginning of the EcoPLis project we started to record the visible perimeters of each primary and subprimary source that, in this region, are only of chert. Primary sources are defined by a continuous limestone formation with chert lenses and/or nodules. Secondary sources are defined by a concentration of nodules or chunks that are out of the original bedrock. This bedrock may not be visible (e.g. covered by a thick deposit such as a marine or fluvial terrace) or exist anymore (e.g. the softer limestone with chert is highly exposed and heavily eroded). The concentration can occur at the surface (often as debris flow), below a terrace or below a colluvium but usually as loose gravel and usually visible due to local erosion (e.g. a road cut, torrential stream or slope dynamics). The recording of the visible perimeter of each primary and secondary source has been marked using a tablet or smartphone with GPS in order to make a georeferenced polygon with a 5 to 15 m error. In the near future, we expect to perform this task with higher-resolution equipment. This has been done only for the primary and sub-primary sources as the quartzite, quartz and some chert can be found in the gravel deposits already mapped by geological maps (Teixeira et al. 1968). We collect multiple hand samples of chert from each source in order to cover its internal variability (size, shape, colours, internal flaws, etc.) but because each source is unique, the number of samples differs between sources. Cobbles are collected whole, but boulders are broken with a geology hammer for sampling. All specimens are then included in the LusoLit reference collection, using its protocol (Pereira et al. in press). Macroscopic analysis has not been done yet as it is our intention that the detailed investigation on the sourcing, processing and distribution of raw materials in the sites will be done in the scope of a master’s thesis and larger archaeological assemblages are necessary. In order to identify the geochemical signature of the different chert sources in the basin of the River Lis and understand the raw material provenance in each

Raw Material Diversity in the River Lis Basin, Central Portugal

21

occupational layer from each archaeological site, we randomly selected hand samples from each source and analysed them at the University of Algarve. The geochemical composition of each specimen was read on a freshly cut surface by X-ray fluorescence during 240 seconds, using a portable energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometer, Bruker S1 Titan equipped with a rhodium X-ray tube and XFlash® SDD detector, S1RemoteCtrl filter set on the Geochemtrace programme and S1Sync software, with the courtesy of Dias de Sousa, S.A. Secondary sources such as Areeiro do Aeródromo Este were subjected to the same method but had multiple nodules analysed in order to recognize and control for variation within the same source.

Figure 2.2. a) Primary chert outcrop from Ribeira das Chitas; b) Primary chert source of Martinela; c) Sub-primary source of chert Opeia, showing a slope deposit under which the chert nodules can be found; d) Secondary chert source of Areeiro do Aeródromo Este where the main gravel deposit occurs at the bottom of the >20 m thick Pleistocene terrace.

The geochemical analysis of quartz and quartzite will be done in a second phase. This is because these raw materials are not local. They were brought from deep inland by the Tagus River, remobilized by the sea, by

22

Chapter Two

the rivers of the Lis basin and then deposited in the siliclastic formations. Thus, their provenance was not anthropic but natural. These are all finegrained and of very good quality. The diversity of colours and patterns suggests some possible geochemical diversity; however the selection of one over another was never reported for any site. Nevertheless, the geochemical composition might have been relevant on edge performance or resistance and deserves further investigation in the future, eventually associated with use-wear analysis.

Results: Raw Material Sources Previous work has shown that the most common raw materials used in the basin of the River Lis during the Palaeolithic were quartzite, quartz and chert, following the general pattern seen in most parts of Portugal (Almeida et al. 2002; Aubry et al. 2005; Braz, et al. 2006; Cunha-Ribeiro 1999; Haws et al. 2010; Pereira 2010; Zambujo and Carvalho 2005). However, despite having a ubiquitous presence in the landscape these rocks occur in different conditions. Good quality quartzite and quartz nodules can be easily found in a secondary position, in the shape of wellwater-worn pebbles and boulders in siliclastic gravels, most of them dated from the Pliocene and the Pleistocene (fig. 2.2B). These raw materials, especially in the case of quartzite, are not local and result from the erosion of inland outcrops such as Portas do Ródão crests where quartzite boulders were used as cores for the production of handaxes and cleavers during the Acheulean (Cunha-Ribeiro 1999), after which, they give way to pebbles as support for cores during the Middle (Aubry et al. 2005; Haws et al. 2010) and Upper Palaeolithic (Almeida et al. 2002; Braz, et al. 2006; Pereira 2010; Zambujo and Carvalho 2005). Good quality quartz (crystalline and milky) occurs only as well-water-worn pebbles. It was used as hand-held cores throughout the known human occupation in the region for the production of flakes and, from the Upper Palaeolithic onwards, also bladelets (Almeida et al. 2002; Braz et al. 2006; Zambujo and Carvalho 2005). On the other hand, chert has a completely different setting because it can be found in primary, sub-primary and secondary positions. Primary contexts correspond to Cenomanian limestone layers. They can correspond to very discreet and localized lenses of nodules such as in the case of some outcrops of Ribeira das Chitas (fig. 2.2A) or cover a large area such as in the case of the top of the Martinela plateau (fig. 2.2A) where the large and abundant nodules have multiple flaws and crumble easily due to the tectonics that affected the entire plateau. Besides these, large nodules

Raw w Material Diveersity in the Riv ver Lis Basin, C Central Portugal

23

presenting vvery good quaality can be found f in sub-pprimary positiions such as in the casse of Opeia, where w they aree often over thhe bedrock an nd hidden under severaal metres of colluvial c depo osits. These ar are usually only visible when torrenntial and seassonal water streams s cut tthrough the sediments s down to thee bedrock (fig.. 2.2C). Finallly, large and vvery good nodules can also be founnd in the gravvels of the Pleeistocene terraaces, sometim mes within or under deccametric depoosits such as in n the case of A Areeiro do Aeeródramo Este (AAE) (fig. 2.2D).

Figure 2.3. Prrincipal Compoonent Analysis with w geochemiccal results.

From a ggeochemical point p of view, the chert froom the Lis is relatively homogeneouus concerningg the presencee/absence of eelements, but relatively distinct conccerning the freequency of so ome of those eelements (tablle 2.1 and fig. 2.3). P P, Ka, Ca, Ti, T Cr, Fe an nd Cu are prresent in all samples. Specimens ffrom Chitas Valley V (Bancada das Chitaas, Casa da Epígrafe), E along with the sample frrom Boa Vistta and one frrom AAE hav ve a high frequency oof Al. Potentiial trace elem ments may bee Co, only present p in Curvachia, N Ni, Sn and Ba B only presen nt in the sampples from AA AE, SR in one sample from AAE and a one from Martinela, Z Zn only in To ojeira, Ag only in Arrroteia and Ce C in Curvach hia. Surprisinngly, some sp pecimens collected froom secondaryy positions sh how significannt low valuess of silica (AAE1, AA AE3, and Currvachia, Arrotteia 1), and thhis reduction of silica could relate with erosion, causing desillification.

24

Chapter Two

Discussion and Final Remarks This preliminary approach aims to understand variety, distribution and raw material sourcing in the basin of the River Lis. The goal is to set a basis to further understand the ecodynamics of the populations living in this region during the Pleistocene and Early Holocene. This includes their relation with the coast, with the inland mountains and with specific zones that, at some point, constituted interesting areas of specific resources or bulks of resources, and how these relations changed through time and space. It is expected that the irregular terrain, marked by steep rich valleys would have considerably affected those dynamics creating a mosaic of short-range areas with multiple bulks of similar biotic resources. In other words, it is predictable that different archaeological sites from different valleys and chronologies may have considerable similarities on the main groups of lithic raw material, fauna and flora, but it is plausible that these populations could have ranged in limited and distinct areas (i.e. small home ranges). In this sense, the existence of multiple sources with different qualities and chemical signals will almost certainly allow us to reconstruct these short-range movements related with the trading networks of these populations. At the same time, it is probable that, as we go back in time, some chert sources may not have been exposed by erosion during some periods, which, if confirmed, may allow us to date the beginning of their exposure and their entrance to the economic system of Pleistocene hunter-gatherers. Such exposure may have had considerable weight in the decision making of these populations, eventually driving then to shift from a previous traditional territory of exploitation of biotic resources to these new areas where another asset had become available. The first set of geochemical analyses showed that some chert sources have specific compositions that may allow an understanding of the movement of the nodules not only by humans but also by natural agents (slope dynamics, rivers, sea currents, etc.). It also showed a very important aspect: the same source (even if primary) may have slightly different compositions. These compositions translate into small shifts in the frequency of the same spectrum of elements, or translate into the presence or absence of some elements. This strongly suggests that interpretations can be dramatically biased by considering single samples as demonstrative of entire outcrops. With this first set of geochemical analyses of presently-known chert sources of the basin of the River Lis we conclude that it is fundamental to expand the investigation focusing on the characterization of each source,

Raw Material Diversity in the River Lis Basin, Central Portugal

25

especially the primary and sub primary ones, since the secondary are expected to be always highly heterogenic. This investigation must combine the accurate spatial analysis, i.e. defining the geographic limits of each source, with a focus on the outcrop’s internal variation and a vertical and horizontal understanding of this variation. This requires the collection of a larger number of hand samples, representative of the area (that must be collected with higher accuracy; for example, by using transects and by georeferencing each collected specimen) (using a GPS-KRT or total station), following criteria of sizes and other macroscopic features of the nodules. It will also include the geochemical analyses of the internal variation of each nodule, from the cortex to its deepest area. With this information––that will link the tiniest bladelets, cores and flakes with the largest outcrops––it will be possible to interpret the palaeoeconomic behaviour of the Pleistocene societies.

Chapter Two

  

MgO MgO Err Al2O3 Al2O3 Err SiO2 SiO2 Err P2O5 P2O5 Err S S Err Cl Cl Err K2O K2O Err CaO CaO Err Ti Ti Err V V Err Cr Cr Err

ID

Arroteia2

Arroteia1

Martinela

AAE4

AAE3

AAE2

AAE1

Tojeira

Opeia

Boa Vista

Curvachia

1,1812 < LOD < LOD < LOD 1,152 1,1205 1,106 < LOD 1,0829 1,16185 < LOD 0,3973 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,37855 0,4257 0,4227 < LOD 0,4495 0,43965 < LOD 0,18985 5,0648 < LOD 0,139 0,3856 0,64825 1,83525 0,3917 0,2124 0,92105 1,6599 0,14245 0,2258 0,15 0,15515 0,12745 0,14555 0,15025 0,1552 0,1554 0,1484 0,1797 71,7519 99,26915 98,76245 98,9828 67,68545 83,3616 60,6333 96,02965 94,52435 79,07505 96,21195 0,4874 0,5841 0,57895 0,57995 0,4247 0,4948 0,39815 0,5595 0,58715 0,4754 0,5848 0,1049 0,0777 0,0663 0,07125 0,0517 0,05775 0,1455 0,0539 0,0633 0,0531 0,06275 0,0146 0,0135 0,0111 0,01265 0,01135 0,01155 0,0149 0,01205 0,0117 0,01165 0,0123 0,0037 0,01605 0,02355 < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0074 0,00845 < LOD 0,0145 0,00765 0,00565 0,00535 0,0054 0,007 0,006 0,00785 0,00575 0,00545 0,0066 0,00555 < LOD < LOD 0,01155 0,0101 0,02 < LOD < LOD 0,02715 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,01195 0,01635 0,0153 0,01525 0,01165 0,0137 0,0113 0,0158 0,01585 0,01365 0,01585 0,03325 0,1624 0,0308 0,03155 0,0576 0,04185 0,0591 0,04255 0,04285 0,06685 0,0531 0,0045 0,00595 0,00405 0,0043 0,0044 0,00425 0,00445 0,0044 0,0044 0,00465 0,0045 0,0552 0,0586 0,01095 0,0452 0,0899 0,0573 0,029 0,0192 0,0258 0,0229 0,03485 0,0046 0,00435 0,0035 0,0043 0,00455 0,0042 0,0039 0,0039 0,0039 0,00385 0,004 0,01865 0,00965 0,0013 0,0064 0,0099 0,0086 0,01195 0,0046 0,0068 0,01445 0,00885 0,00215 0,0016 0,0016 0,00175 0,00185 0,00175 0,00205 0,00165 0,0017 0,00185 0,00165 < LOD 0,00005 0,00005 0,00005 0,0076 0,0025 0,007 0,00025 0,00115 0,00425 0,0007 0,00075 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0007 0,0004 0,0009 0,0001 0,00015 0,0005 0,0001 0,00705 0,00745 0,00765 0,00725 0,0027 0,0045 0,006 0,00635 0,00725 0,00205 0,0055 0,00105 0,0008 0,0008 0,00085 0,0009 0,00085 0,00105 0,0008 0,00085 0,0009 0,0008

Bancada Chitas 1,1108 0,6269 2,50915 0,18585 91,352 0,5406 0,30645 0,01865 0,10645 0,00795 0,0125 0,01595 0,1279 0,00555 0,24295 0,006 0,0125 0,0018 0,0004 0,0002 0,00865 0,0009

Casa da Epigrafe 1 < LOD < LOD 2,6667 0,1982 97,9711 0,5988 0,0787 0,0134 0,01385 0,0057 < LOD 0,0167 0,07575 0,005 0,11215 0,00505 0,0072 0,00165 0,00015 0,00005 0,0076 0,00085

0,9034 0,4943 3,19375 0,198 92,41905 0,55655 0,07945 0,0136 0,0168 0,00615 < LOD 0,0159 0,07895 0,005 0,11565 0,005 0,0112 0,0017 0,0012 0,0002 0,00685 0,00085

Casa da Epigrafe 2

Table 2.1: Results from the pXRF analysis done on the geological sources from the River Lis Basin

26

Casa da Epigrafe 3 < LOD < LOD 2,9398 0,19325 92,92895 0,54295 0,06895 0,014 < LOD 0,00605 < LOD 0,0158 0,09695 0,00535 0,23785 0,00615 0,0139 0,00175 0,00085 0,00015 0,00715 0,0009

< LOD < LOD 0,24755 0,16465 100 0,6245 0,07055 0,0123 0,02005 0,00525 < LOD 0,01655 0,0237 0,00425 0,0428 0,00425 0,00225 0,00165 < LOD < LOD 0,0081 0,0008

Picassinos

 

Fe Fe Err Co Co Err Ni Ni Err Cu Cu Err Zn Zn Err Sr Sr Err Zr Zr Err Mo Mo Err Ag Ag Err Sn Sn Err Ba Ba Err Ce Ce Err W W Err Au Au Err

0,11425

0,0035

< LOD < LOD < LOD 0,00065 0,00105 0,00035 0,0002 0,0003 < LOD 0,0003 < LOD 0,0002 < LOD 0,0003 < LOD 0,0007 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0122 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0004 < LOD 0,0005

0,03885

0,00385

0,00135 0,00045 < LOD 0,0007 0,00115 0,0004 < LOD 0,0003 < LOD 0,0003 < LOD 0,0002 0,00055 0,00035 < LOD 0,00075 < LOD 0,0052 < LOD 0,0108 0,0501 0,00455 < LOD 0,0004 0,00035 0,0005

0,0047

0,2453 0,0028

0,00295

0,07255 0,08005 0,0065

0,4591

0,0774 0,00295

< LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0003 0,00005 0,00055 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0006 < LOD 0,00065 < LOD 0,0007 0,0007 0,00085 0,00075 0,00085 0,0007 0,001 0,00095 0,00115 0,00105 0,0012 0,00095 0,0004 0,0004 0,0004 0,0004 0,00045 0,0004 < LOD 0,0003 0,00045 0,00015 0,00045 0,00045 0,0003 0,0003 0,0004 0,0003 0,00035 0,0003 < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,00045 0,00035 0,0003 0,0004 0,00035 0,00035 0,0003 < LOD 0,0001 < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0002 0,0002 0,0003 0,0002 0,00025 0,0002 < LOD 0,00025 < LOD 0,00025 0,00025 < LOD 0,0003 0,0003 0,00045 0,0004 0,00045 0,00035 < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0007 0,0007 0,00095 0,0008 0,00085 0,0007 < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,00515 < LOD 0,00005 < LOD 0,00525 0,00265 0,00635 0,0004 < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,02105 0,0125 0,0098 0,0131 0,01255 0,0123 0,01035 < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0003 0,00025 < LOD < LOD 0,0004 0,0004 0,0005 0,0004 0,00045 0,0004 0,00025 < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0005 0,0005 0,0006 0,00055 0,0006 0,0005

0,0027

0,06105 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,00065 0,0009 0,00035 0,0004 0,0003 0,0002 0,00035 < LOD 0,0002 < LOD 0,00035 < LOD 0,0007 < LOD 0,0009 < LOD 0,0119 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0004 < LOD 0,0005

0,0029 < LOD 0,0001 < LOD 0,00075 0,00105 0,0004 0,0002 0,0003 < LOD 0,00035 < LOD 0,0002 0,00035 0,0004 < LOD 0,0008 < LOD 0,00345 < LOD 0,01135 < LOD < LOD 0,0003 0,00045 0,00035 0,00055

0,0029

0,07485 0,07625 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0007 0,0011 0,0004 0,0002 0,0003 < LOD 0,0003 < LOD 0,0002 0,00025 0,00035 0,0007 0,0007 < LOD 0,0005 < LOD 0,0127 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0004 0,00035 0,0005

0,0029

0,07245 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,00065 0,0011 0,00035 0,00025 0,0003 < LOD 0,00035 < LOD 0,0002 0,00025 0,0003 < LOD 0,0007 < LOD 0,0013 < LOD 0,0117 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0004 < LOD 0,0005

0,00395

0,1587 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0006 0,001 0,0003 0,00035 0,0003 < LOD 0,0003 < LOD 0,0002 < LOD 0,0003 < LOD 0,0007 < LOD 0,00005 < LOD 0,0118 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0004 0,0005 0,0005

0,00335

0,10465

Raw Material Diversity in the River Lis Basin, Central Portugal 0,091 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,00065 0,0009 0,00035 0,0003 0,0003 < LOD 0,00035 < LOD 0,0002 < LOD 0,00035 < LOD 0,0007 < LOD 0,0012 < LOD 0,0109 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0004 0,0004 0,0005

0,00315 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0007 0,00105 0,0004 0,00025 0,0003 < LOD 0,0004 < LOD 0,0002 < LOD 0,00035 < LOD 0,0007 < LOD 0,00075 < LOD 0,0119 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0004 0,00025 0,0005

0,0036

0,12595 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0006 0,001 0,0004 0,00035 0,0003 < LOD 0,00035 < LOD 0,0002 < LOD 0,0003 < LOD 0,0007 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,01095 < LOD < LOD < LOD 0,0004 < LOD 0,0005

0,0031

0,08545

27

28

Chapter Two

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Dias de Sousa, S.A. and Bruker Corporation for allowing us to use S1 Titan to perform the geochemical analyses. We thank Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (project IF/01075/2013), the Wenner-Gren Foundation for funding the 2016 field season, EST, S.A., União de Freguesias de Santa Eufémia e Boa Vista and the City of Leiria for the logistical support.

References Almeida, A.C., Gama, A., Cunha, L., Jacinto, R., Boura, I., Medeiros, J., Brandão, J., 1989. A Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Lis – Contributo para o Estudo da Organização do Espaço e dos Problemas de Ambiente. Coimbra, Comissão de Coordenação Regional do Centro / Câmara Municipal de Leiria. Almeida F., Gameiro C., Zilhão J., 2002. “The Artifact Assemblage”. In Zilhão, J., Trinkaus, E. (eds.), Portrait of the Artist as a Child. The Gravettian Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its Archaeological Context. Lisboa. Instituto Português de Arqueologia. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 22: pp. 202-220. Aubry, T., Cunha-Ribeiro, J.P., Angelucci, D., 2005. “Testemunhos da ocupação pelo Homem de Neandertal: o sítio da Praia do Pedrógão”. In Carvalho, S. (coord.), Habitantes e Habitats - Pré e Proto-História na Bacia do Lis. Leiria, Câmara Municipal de Leiria: pp. 26-33. Azerêdo, A.C., Duarte, L.V., Henriques, M.H., Manuppella, G., 2003. Da Dinâmica Continental no Triásico aos Mares do Jurássico Inferior e Médio. Lisboa, Instituto Geológico e Mineiro. Braz, A.F., Gaspar, R., Pereira, T., 2006. Vale da Ribeira das Chitas – Sondagens de Diagnóstico. Relatório Final – Fase 1, Torres Novas, Junho de 2006 [Unpublished]. Carvalho. V., 2011. O Abrigo do Lagar Velho e o Paleolítico Superior em Leiria, Portugal: Análise dos Dados Arqueológicos no Actual Contexto da Evolução Humana. University of Coimbra, Master thesis, [Unpublished]. Carvalho, V., 2007. “Património Arqueológico”. Plano Diretor Municipal de Leiria, Tomo VI - Património, Volume II, 2014. Carvalho, S, Carvalho, V., 2007. Relatório de Progresso da Carta Arqueológica de Leiria (2004-2007). Leiria, Câmara Municipal de Leiria [Unpublished].

Raw Material Diversity in the River Lis Basin, Central Portugal

29

Cunha-Ribeiro, J.P., 1999. O Acheulense no Centro de Portugal: O Vale do Lis. Contribuição para uma Abordagem Tecno-tipológica das Suas Indústrias Líticas e Problemática do seu Contexto Cronoestratigráfico. University of Lisbon, Doctoral thesis, [Unpublished]. Dias, J.M.A., Boskia, T.A., Rodrigues, A., Magalhães, F., 2000. “Coast Line Evolution in Portugal Since the Last Glacial Maximum Until Present -AaSynthesis”. Marine Geology 170: 177-186. Dias, J.M.A., 2004. “A História da Evolução do Litoral português nos Últimos Vinte Milenios”, In Evolução Geohistórica do Litoral Português e Fenómenos Correlativos: Geologia, História, Arqueologia e Climatologia. Lisboa: pp. 157-170. Dinis, P.A., 1996. Dinâmica Sedimentar e Evolução do Estuário do Lis. University of Coimbra, Master Thesis. Gonçalves, P., Dinis, J., 2007. “The Holocene Evolution of The Lis River – Historical, Geomorphological And Sedimentological Approach”. Iberian Coastal Holocene Paleoenvironmental Evolution – Coastal Hope 2010 – Proceedings: pp. 59-60. Haws, J.A., Benedetti, M.M., Funk, C.L., Bicho, N.F., Daniels, J.M., Hesp, P.A., Minckley, T.A., Forman, S.L., Jeraj, M., Gibaja, J.F., Hockett, B.S., 2010. “Coastal Wetlands and Neanderthal Settlement of Portuguese Estremadura”. Geoarchaeology 25/6: 709-744. INAG., 1999. Plano de Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Lis. 1º Fase – Síntese da Análise e Diagnóstico da Situação Actual. Lisboa. Pereira, T., 2010. A Exploração do Quartzito na Faixa Atlântica Peninsular no Final do Plistocénico, University of Algarve, Doctoral Thesis [Unpublished]. Teixeira, C., Zbyszewski, G., Assunção, C.T., Manuppella, G., 1968. Carta Geológica de Portugal na Escala 1/50.000. Notícia Explicativa da Folha 23-C, Leiria. Lisboa, Serviços Geológicos de Portugal. Zambujo, G., Carvalho, S., 2005. “Quinta do Bispo – Parceiros: O Primeiro Sítio Mesolítico da Bacia do Lís”, In Carvalho, S. (coord.), Habitantes e Habitats - Pré e Proto-História na Bacia do Lis. pp. 84103. Leiria, Câmara Municipal de Leiria.

CHAPTER THREE QUARRYING AS A SOCIO-POLITICAL STRATEGY AT THE MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN SOUTHERN NORWAY ASTRID J. NYLAND Archaeological Museum – University of Stavanger. 4036 Stavanger (Norway). [email protected]

Abstract The quarrying and exploitation of certain extraction sites and specific raw materials are practices strategically undertaken in order to mark cultural affinity and social relations during the Stone Age in southern Norway. I support this statement with results from a “chaîne opératoire” analysis of the direct procurement of rock. Investigations at 21 extraction sites of different types of rock, and related workshops and settlement sites, have demonstrated chronological and spatial variations in lithic procurement practices. Key features are knowledge of the scale of extraction, the degree of distribution, and the time-depth of activity. Differences in these features cannot be explained by natural preconditions, availability, or the quality of the quarried rock alone. Interpreting quarrying and lithic procurement in a wider material and social context, the character of procurement, the specific use of certain sites, and rock from significant sites, are important aspects too. Indeed, when contextualized, practices of lithic procurement can reflect socio-political strategies. To exemplify this, I will discuss the Neolithization process of southern Norway. Keywords: Quarrying, Procurement practices, Social context, Neolithisation, Regionality

Quarrying as a Socio-political Strategy in Southern Norway

31

Introduction Perceived as a social phenomenon, lithic procurement can express the conscious socio-political strategies of prehistoric societies. In this article, I interpret the demonstrated variability in lithic procurement as underscoring developing regional diversity at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in southern Norway. The archaeological material that supports this perspective builds on a comparative and contextualized study of 21 extraction sites located in southern Norway (fig. 3.1). As the map in figure 3.1 shows, the sites are scattered across southern Norway (Nyland 2016a), and they are located in different landscape zones or spanning the exposed coast, fjord landscapes, inland plateaus and high mountainous areas. The examined quarry sites vary topographically too, comprising large and small outcrops and deposits, diabase dykes, and taluses. The sites have been examined through excavations, surface surveys, and the examination of collected lithics from the quarries themselves. Among the 21 sites, there are small sites where less than one m3 has been extracted, one even located on a settlement site (Knapstad, site 18 in fig. 3.1). But, there are also large sites that were massively quarried such as the adze quarry Stakalleneset (3), and Hespriholmen (10), where as much as 400 m3 of rock has been quarried at each of them (Olsen and Alsaker 1984). The scale of extraction, expressed as volumes, has been estimated mainly based on the thickness and extent of the waste piles. This, together with time-depth, and the range of dispersal of the extracted rock, has also been considered in relation to the sites being described as large, medium or small (table 3.1). The rock types quarried at the various sites include diabase, greenstone, jasper, rhyolite, and fine-grained quartzite of different colours. The types of tools made from them are either adzes, or blade and flake tools. Naturally, the type of rock and the requirements for certain tool production would have affected the scale of extraction too. However, there is also variation in the engagement with lithic procurement and specific sites. For example, and I will return to this shortly, interpreted in a wider cultural-historical context, the character of lithic procurement, of quarrying, mattered more than the type of rock procured. Several methods have been applied to be able to date the time-periods of exploitation and establish a tentative chronology. In southern Norway, fire was not used regularly for quarrying. Together with poor preservation conditions for organic material in often-exposed locations and acidic soils, radiocarbon dating of quarries is rare. Thus, radiocarbon dating is not necessarily the best way to date activity at a quarry site when persisting over a long time-period either. Quarrying techniques may have changed

32

Chapter Three

during the site’s life span, and fire was perhaps only applied during parts of it. This is at least the case at greenstone quarries Hespriholmen (10) and Stakalleneset (3) (Olsen and Alsaker 1984; Alsaker 1987; Bergsvik and Olsen 2003). Typological dating has therefore proven essential in the present study, and quarry waste––lithics left at workshops and settlement sites surrounding the quarries––has been examined.

Figure 3.1. These 21 lithic procurement sites, located across southern Norway, have been examined and the results used to substantiate the interpretation presented in this paper (Illustration: A. J. Nyland).

Quarrying as a Socio-political Strategy in Southern Norway

33

In a few situations, the relation of the sites to ancient sea levels has enabled dating. Almost uniquely in Europe, the isostatic movements of the earth’s crust after the last Ice Age caused the sea level along the Norwegian coast to drop. This means that most of the sites dated from 9500-2000 BC are found high above today’s sea level. Experience has shown that the inhabitants of the Mesolithic and Neolithic preferred their sites to be located close to the shores (e.g. Kleppe 1985; Bjerck et al. 2008; Prøsch-Danielsen 2006; Jaksland 2014). However, this method was only directly applicable on a few quarry sites, as these were transgressed by the sea during parts of the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Hence, the timeperiods in fig. 3.2 are suggested based on the few radiocarbon dates existing, an evaluation of technology and types knapped in the quarried raw material and sometimes also found at radiocarbon-dated sites, and the scale of extraction (the volume of waste at the sites) (fig. 3.2). Table 3.1. Type of rock, landscape zone and scale of extraction of each one of the examined procurement sites in southern Norway. The information in brackets on a couple of the sites means very unsure information due to modern disturbances. The suggested periods of activity (years) are not to be understood as exact, but are for comparative reasons to illustrate timedepth; the summarized sequences/ chronozones (see fig. 3.2) within which there have been activity. Abbreviations: blade and flake tools (B&F tools). No. Site 10 Hespriholmen 3 Stakalleneset 11 Siggjo 21 Femundsåsen 6 Kjølskarvet 20 Flendalen 9 Kreklevatnet 3 5 Halsane 12 Stegahaugen 19 Ekeberg 7 Stongeskaret 8 Kreklevatnet 2 13 Skjervika 16 Rivenes 14 Nautøya 1 Ytrehorne 18 Knapstad 4 Vikadalen 15 Kalhovd 2 Skilbreivatnet Tømmervig17 odden

Landscape zone Exposed coast Fjord Exposed coast Inland plateau High mountain Inland plateau High mountain High mountain Coast Fjord High mountain High mountain Coast Coast Coast Fjord/ lake Fjord High mountain

Rock type Greenstone Diabase Rhyolite Bluish quartzite Greenish quartzite Jasper White quartzite White quartzite Greenstone Diabase Greenish quartzite Greenish quartzite Jasper Diabase Jasper Chalsedonite Diabase White/grey quartzite High mountain White quartzite Mountain Whitish quartzite Coast Diabase

Tool types Adzes Adzes B&F tools B&F tools B&F tools B&F tools B&F tools B&F tools B&F tools Adzes B&F tools B&F tools B&F tools Adzes B&F tools B&F tools Adzes B&F tools B&F tools B&F tools Adzes

Summarized Extracted sequences/ Scale of vol (m3) chronozones activity 400 5700 Large 400 5700 Large 110 1900 Large 100 2300 Large 100 8000 Large 40 4700 Large 10 2800 Moderate 10 7000 Moderate 6 1700 Moderate 6 1000 Moderate 6 1200 Moderate 5 2800 Moderate 3 1200 Moderate 2.5 500 Moderate 2 1200 Moderate (1) (500) Moderate (?) 0.5 500 Small 0.5 >0.5 >0.1

500 2300 500

Small Small Small

-

500(?)

Small (?)

34

Chapter Three

As figure 3.2 illustrates, there is a great variability of duration. Some sites display continuous activity from the Middle Mesolithic into the Early Iron Age, while activity at other sites is considerably shorter. Some of the sites were apparently in use simultaneously, but as I will present in this paper, the character of the exploitation of the rock differs. A comparative approach is required in order to demonstrate the significance of certain sites.

The “chaîne opératoire” of direct lithic procurement In order to identify preferences in procurement practices, a threelevelled analysis has been undertaken (Nyland 2016a). The first level was a detailed analysis of selected procurement sites. In my recently completed PhD project, I identified key elements at each site through empirical methods, such as excavation and surface surveys. This also involved studying lithics collected during previous archaeological examinations of some of the quarries, as well as from any recorded and excavated workshops and settlement sites near the procurement sites. These studies gave me an indication of the types of activity undertaken at the sites, the scale of extraction, and not least, it enabled my dating of the sites, as mentioned. Hence, with my approach, I have operated with an extended notion of what constitutes a quarry, or perhaps rather, a procurement site. The first empirically oriented analysis facilitated the second level of analysis: an analysis of the chaîne opératoire of quarrying. The interpretative and theoretical premise of the chaîne opératoire is that material culture is perceived as social production (Lemonnier 1993). That is, our unconscious and subconscious preferences, gestures and operational choices, the way we undertake tasks, perform techniques and technologies can reflect who we are. The methodology of chaîne opératoire has perhaps most often been applied to analyse lithic production, and in traditional schemas, the procurement of rock is normally placed as phase zero (see for example figures in Eriksen 2000; Sørensen 2006, 2012). Instead of this, I sequenced lithic procurement, quarrying in particular, in seven stages (Nyland 2016a). Below, I will briefly present these stages to illustrate the actual complexity and considerations that can characterize lithic procurement and quarrying. Stage 1: Choice and Preferences This is the initial stage of all lithic procurement. This stage is particularly influenced by cultural traditions and habitual practices or strategies. It all starts with whether or not to quarry, since the alternative,

Quarrying as a Socio-political Strategy in Southern Norway

35

to collect rock at the beaches or in the moraines, often apparently sufficed. To understand this stage, it is necessary to look beyond the actual quarrying and extraction site and examine the kind of rock actually used at settlement sites at the time of quarrying, and how much of the rock was used.

Figure 3.2. The suggested periods of activity for the 21 quarries located in southern Norway. Note that a dashed line means the site was in use at some point during this time, sometimes repeatedly. The scale of extraction (m3) has been part of this evaluation too. A continuous line means used with higher frequency continuously over the time-period suggested. The left column contains abbreviation of chronozones: Early (E), Middle (M), and Late (L) Mesolithic and Neolithic, Early and Younger (Y) Bronze Age, and Pre-Roman Iron Age (PRIA).

36

Chapter Three

Stage 2: Location This stage emphasizes the context of the quarries, that is, the quarries’ relations to other types of sites through the identification of activities taking place at the extraction sites, or, at the workshop or settlement sites. Hence, the geographical or topographical locations of quarries might not have been the most important feature to the prehistoric societies. Locations considered “risky” or “remote” to us (as in e.g. Lødøen 2010; Bergsvik 2002b; Bradley 2000), cannot support arguments of a site’s social or symbolic significance, without also stating what they are remote/risky in relation to. In the present study, whether or not a procurement site was included in the everyday sphere involving types of activities other than quarrying, is the pivotal aspect. Stage 3: Initial Preparations Initial preparations may be hard to identify, as most often preparations can only be deduced from the content of the waste piles. For example, if firewood and hammerstones had to be brought to a site, you find this stage only represented as charcoal, and broken or stored hammerstones. Preparations may also be immaterial, such as the acquisition of knowledge and know-how of certain techniques, and the knowledge of where to find good sources. Stage 4: Quarrying Techniques Due to the nature of a quarried material, the individual gestures and operations can hardly be deciphered. Still, the sum of the practices can be identified at a site. Signs of different techniques, such as direct hammering, fire, wedging––or all of these, might be observed as traces on the rock faces, or in the waste piles. A few of the sites included in my study are not regular quarries per se, but are small, most likely opportunistically, exploited sources. At these, freeze and thaw processes had left regular quarrying redundant, but because of the scattered waste around them, it was clear that the sources were exploited repeatedly. The choice of exploiting certain places without quarrying can also be a characteristic feature of a tradition. Stage 5: Waste Management A well-known example of waste management from quarries is the practice of backfilling known from Danish and British flint mines (Gardiner 2007, Becker 1959). However, the Norwegian mines are all open cast, so backfilling has not been practised in the same sense. Instead, I regard the establishment of specialized workshop sites for initial reduction as a type of waste management, as it keeps waste secluded from, for example, the household sphere. These workshops can be either adjacent to or detached from the quarry sites themselves.

Quarrying as a Socio-political Strategy in Southern Norway

37

Stage 6: Initial Reduction This stage is an evaluation of the degree of finishing preparations undertaken before the rock was transported away from the quarry. This includes the initial reduction of blanks, the simple testing of a blank, or preform production. It was undertaken either at the sources, at adjacent workshop sites, at detached specialized workshop sites, or at the settlements. Together with the first and the seventh stages, stage 6 requires an extended perception of what constitutes an extraction site and an emphasis on relations found between sites. Stage 7: Distribution What happened next with the quarried material, establishing relations between sites and gaining knowledge of distribution, are also important aspects to consider. Without such knowledge, the character of specific lithic procurement practices, and the significance of the quarry sites themselves, can hardly be understood. Dispersal patterns display if the quarried rocks were immediately consumed, or if they were transported further away. The distribution of certain raw materials is perhaps one of the most examined aspects in quarry research. Many scientific methods have been applied and developed to enable us to securely trace, and establish, source-site relations. Within the scope of my project, I have not undertaken provenance analysis for all the examined sites (Nyland 2016a). I have myself therefore, only explored local distribution and the use of rock on a case study basis. I have also build on other researchers’ previous distribution analyses (Olsen 1981; Alsaker 1982; Fægri 1944; Bergsvik 2006, Solheim 2007; Skjelstad 2003). Distribution is also related to the scale of the exploitation of each site, being limited, modest, or massive. However, equally important in the identification of dispersal and scale, is to question what such potential patterns reflect in terms of human relations and commitment.

Variation in the phenomena of lithic procurement More often than not, the physical and mechanical properties of rocks are emphasized to explain their value. Although in some studies, the results are unexpected, they are suited to demonstrating how our modern perception of quality is perhaps not adequate to grasp the prehistoric appreciation of the same (see Bradley et al. 1992; Cooney and Mandal 1995). In this paper, I argue that in order to gain insight into rocks’ potentially symbolic, esoteric or social qualities, preferences in the practices of procuring rock and the character of the exploitation of certain quarry sites must be explored too. Deconstructing the practice of quarrying

38

Chapter Three

directed my attention to key variables in the practice. Building on information obtained from investigating the seven stages at the 21 sites, I could identify and define variation in the phenomena of lithic procurement. Aspects of each site, such as its relation to different types of workshop sites, signs of other activities at the quarries, for example, settlement activities, have been compared (Nyland 2016a). In southern Norway, there are at least six defined ways of engaging with lithic procurement: quarrying of long duration, wide and/or local distribution (1); intense, large-scale quarrying of short duration, wide and/or local distribution (2); moderate or low-scale quarrying, moderate duration and local distribution (3); “household quarries”––the exploitation of on-site sources, local distribution (4); opportunistic exploitation of a deposit, local distribution (5); and collecting from beaches and moraines, also locally distributed (6). Furthermore, comparing aspects such as the intensity of exploitation of each site, the sites’ varying time-depths, and the range of distribution, the use of some of the sites, and the rock from these sites, emerged as extraordinary (see also Nyland 2016c).

Lithic procurement as a socio-political strategy When comparing several quarries and practices, certain quarries stand out. These appear to have been particularly significant in their contemporary societies, beyond being sources of high quality raw materials (Nyland 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2017). I will illustrate how variation in procurement practices may have had socio-political implications by discussing five quarries on the western coast. These quarries are located relatively close together, on and around the island of Bømlo (fig. 3.3). They were all in use at the Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic transition, representing several of the just-mentioned types of phenomena of lithic procurement. The greenstone quarry at Hespriholmen (10) was exploited for adze material from the Middle Mesolithic onwards. It is located on an islet, a few kilometres out to sea, and west of the island of Bømlo. Greenstone distribution from Hespriholmen has been traced to a demarcated area, about 27 000 m2 (Olsen and Alsaker 1984; Alsaker 1982, 1987). This practice continued well into the Middle Neolithic. The exploitation of greenstone at Hespriholmen has made the quarry one of the most monumental sites of its time in southern Norway. Moreover, the scale and continuous exploitation of greenstone from this islet in the open sea was larger than at accessible deposits on the main island of Bømlo, such as at the greenstone quarry Stegahaugen (12). The greenstone at Stegahaugen is very similar to Hespriholmen, and cannot be geochemically distinguished

Quarrying as a Socio-political Strategy in Southern Norway

39

(Bergsvik 2006: 123). The scale of extraction though, is evidently much smaller (Nyland 2012).

Figure 3.3. Five quarries located on and around the island Bømlo. At one point, these were all exploited simultaneously, but their exploitation was of different character (Illustration: A. J. Nyland). The number on the map relate to figures 3.1, 3.2, and table 3.1

There are also two jasper quarries in this area, both representing moderate or small-scale quarrying. These are Skjervika (13), and Nautøya (14). Their time-period of use is comparatively short. Moreover, a limited visual analysis of lithics at settlement sites nearby demonstrates how the distribution of the jasper from each site appears to have been restricted to within the immediate surrounding area (Nyland 2016c). Jasper has been recorded at settlements within an area of about 30 km2. At excavated and surveyed sites, jasper makes up only around 1-2% of the lithic assemblages while the dominating raw materials for lithic tool production at these sites are beach-flint, quartzite, and quartz (Kristoffersen and

40

Chapter Three

Warren 2001). Hence, people did apparently not need to quarry these jasper deposits, but they still did. The contemporary use of rocks from the two jasper quarries, and greenstone from the quarry at Hespriholmen, and perhaps Stegahaugen, is demonstrated by jasper and greenstone having been found in the same archaeological contexts. Now, the jasper quarries were small and used locally, whereas the greenstone quarry at Hespriholmen had been exploited through deep time. This is perhaps also true for Stegahaugen, but at a much smaller scale.

Figure 3.4. Atop Mt. Siggjo, a characteristic bluish-grey rhyolite, criss-crossed by white veins, was extracted (right corner). (Photo: A. J. Nyland)

A great contrast to the exploitation at these mentioned sites is the extraordinary and intense quarrying atop Mt. Siggjo (474 m.a.s.l.) (fig. 3.4). The strikingly located rhyolite quarry, on the very top of this low mountain, was established at the onset of the Early Neolithic. Indeed, the large-scale exploitation of rhyolite characterizes the start of the Neolithic in western Norway. The characteristic looking rock from this quarry is found in lithic assemblages at sites along the western coast. The distribution area of rhyolite covers approx. 42 000 m2 (Alsaker 1987). Hence, rhyolite distribution greatly exceeds the distribution area of both greenstone and jasper. Rhyolite is even distributed into areas where other rock types, such as quartzite and mylonite––equally suited to making

Quarrying as a Socio-political Strategy in Southern Norway

41

blades and other small tools, such as Siggjo-rhyolite, were already exploited (Bergsvik 2002a). Apparently, it felt necessary to possess rock from certain sites, here: rock from the rhyolite quarry at Mt. Siggjo, as well as greenstone from Hespriholmen. That is, quarrying persisted at the large adze quarry of Hespriholmen too, even if similar rock types were available elsewhere. This is demonstrated by the variability of raw materials in adzes and production debris found at sites all along the coast (Gjerland 1984; Olsen 1981; Olsen and Alsaker 1984). Moreover, quarrying, even minutely appears to have been important on its own. The reasons for such desires though remain to be discussed. But as I have argued elsewhere, this pattern of preferences may be perceived as representing existing social concepts within a group, expressing social ties, communities of practices, perhaps even socio-political strategies (e.g. Nyland 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). These varying preferences, or practices, can only be understood when interpreted in relation to their wider historical and material context. In this case, this pattern emerges at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. During this period in western Norway, there was incipient contact between the huntergatherer-fishers of western Norway and the farmers from southern Scandinavia. Indeed, this might have been the trigger for this practice. Sites with imported ground flint axes, pottery and paleo-botanical evidence of crop growing and pastoralism, as found in southern Scandinavia, are almost non-existent in western Norway (Hjelle et al. 2006; Mehl et al. 2015; Bergsvik 2006). Still, although infrequent, the few artefacts found signal that the western hunter-gatherer-fishers knew of another way of life. Nevertheless, the regional variability of the archaeological records also demonstrates that these people chose not to engage in, or adapt to the new way of life approaching. Instead, the traditions of past generations were still maintained, efforts were made, and strategies chosen, to keep the new impulses out. Thus, I propose that at the transition to the Neolithic, quarrying had become an expressive act. Quarrying small sites mimicked the activities at the large sites as quarrying was part of a socio-political strategy undertaken in order to demonstrate roots in the past, upholding traditions, and access defining those who were part of a group, and those who were not.

Summarizing remarks To conclude, when approaching lithic procurement practices with the intention of studying direct procurement practices, one needs an extended notion of what constitutes a quarry. I have studied the operational chain of

42

Chapter Three

direct lithic procurement where the quarries themselves display only part of the picture. That is, I have emphasized the quarry sites’ relations to other types of sites, comparing the ways of engagement with different sites and the application of the extracted raw material at contemporary sites. This has enabled me to demonstrate that the role of procurement sites can differ, finding that some of the sites really stand out. Quarry sites and rocks from specific quarries can be more than “just” pragmatic sites to acquire necessary lithic raw materials (see for example also Pétrequin et al. 1998, Pétrequin et al. 2015, Edmonds 1990, 2004, Davies and Edmonds 2011). In my studies, I found that some procurement practices defined regions, or groups living within regions. Some quarries materialized the actions of past generations, and these sites could thereby have become representations or places of ancestral presence. Hence, to quarry is an important expressive practice in itself––reflecting the maintenance of a tradition, communion of practice, and a cultural specific concept.

References Alsaker, S. 1982. Bømlo, Steinalderens Råstoffsentrum på Sørvestlandet. Unpublished thesis, University of Bergen, Department of Archaeology, Alsaker, S. 1987. Bømlo, Steinalderens Råstoffsentrum på Sørvestlandet. Bergen, Museum of History, University of Bergen. Becker, Carl Johan. 1959. Flint Mining in Neolithic Denmark. Antiquity 33, 87-92. Bergsvik, K.A. 2002a. Arkeologiske Undersøkelser ved Skatestraumen. Bind I, Arkeologiske Avhandlinger og Rapporter 7. Bergen, Museum of Bergen, University of Bergen. Bergsvik, K.A. 2002b. Task Groups and Social Inequality in Early Neolithic Western Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review 35/1, 1-28. Bergsvik, K.A. 2006. Ethnic Boundaries in Neolithic Norway. Oxford, Archaeopress (BAR International Series 1554). Bergsvik, K.A., Olsen, A.B., 2003. “Traffic in Stone Adzes in Mesolithic Western Norway”. In Larsson, L., Knutsson, K., Loeffler, D., Åkerlund, A. (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Books, pp. 395-404. Bjerck, H.B., Åstveit, L.I., Meling, T., Gundersen, J., Jørgensen, G., Normann, S. (eds.) 2008. NTNU Vitenskapsmuseets arkeologiske undersøkelser Ormen Lange Nyhamna. Trondheim, Tapir. Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London, Routledge.

Quarrying as a Socio-political Strategy in Southern Norway

43

Bradley, R., Meredith, P., Smith, J., Edmonds. M. 1992. Rock Physics and the Neolithic Axe Trade in Great Britain. Archaeometry 34/2, 223-233. Cooney, G., Mandal, S. 1995. Getting to the Core of the Problem: Petrological Results from the Irish Stone Axe Project. Antiquity 69/266, 969-980. Davies, V., Edmonds, M. 2011. “A Time and Place for the Belmont Hoard”. In Davies, V., Edmonds, M. (eds.), Stone Axe Studies III. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow Books, pp. 167-186. Edmonds, M. 1990. “Science, Technology and Society”. Scottish Archaeological Review 7, 23-30. Edmonds, M. 2004. The Langdales. Landscape and Prehistory in a Lakeland Valley. Gloucerstershire, Tempus publishing. Eriksen, B.V. 2000. “‘Chaîne opératoire’ - den Operative Proces og Kunsten at Tænke som en Flinthugger”. In Eriksen, B.V. (ed.), Flintstudier. En Håndbok i Systemiske Analyser af Flintinventarer. Århus, Aarhus Universitetsforlag, pp. 75-100. Fægri, K. 1944. Studies on the Pleistocene of Western Norway. III Bømlo, Bergens Museums Årbok 1943. Naturvitenskapelig rekke. Nr. 8. Bergen, Museum of Bergen. Gardiner, J. 2007. “Flint Procurement and Neolithic Axe Production on the South Downs: A Re-assessment”. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9/2, 119-140. Gjerland, B. 1984. Bergartsøkser i Vest-Norge. Distribusjon sett i Forhold til Praktisk Funksjon, Økonomisk Tilpasning og Tradisjon i Steinalderen. Univeristy of Bergen, Department of Archaeology, Unpublished thesis. Hjelle, K.L., Hufthammer, A.K., Bergsvik, K.A. 2006. “Hesitant Hunters: a Review of the Introduction of Agriculture in Western Norway”. Environmental Archaeology 11/2, 147-170. Jaksland, L. 2014. “Kronologiske Rammer”. In Lasse Jaksland, L., Persson, P. (eds.), E18 Brunlanesprosjektet Bind I. Forutsetninger og Kulturhistorisk Sammenstilling. Oslo, Museum of Cultural History, Archaeological Department, pp. 43-46. Kleppe, E.J. 1985. Archaeological Data on Shore Displacement in Norway. Vol. 1. Hønefoss, Norges Geografiske Oppmåling. Kristoffersen, K.K., Warren E.J. 2001. Kulturminner i Trekant-traséen. De Arkeologiske Undersøkelsene i Forbindelse med Utbygging av Trekantsambandet i Kommunene Bømlo, Sveio og Stord i Sunnhordland. Vol. 6, Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter 6. Bergen, University of Bergen.

44

Chapter Three

Lemonnier, P. 1993. “Introduction”. In Lemonnier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic. London and New York, Routledge, pp. 1-35. Lødøen, Trond Klungseth. 2010. “Concepts of Rock in Late Mesolithic Western Norway”. In Goldhahn, J., Fuglestvedt, I., Jones, A. (eds.), Changing Pictures. Rock Art Traditions and Visions in Northern Europe, Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow books. Mehl, I.K., Overland, A., Berge, J., Hjelle, K.L. 2015. “Cultural landscape development on west-east gradient in western Norway - potential of the Landscape Reconstruction Algorithm (LRA)”. Journal of Archaeological Science 61, 1-16. Nyland, A.J., 2012. Rapport fra Arkeologisk Forskningsundersøkelse av ID66722 - Stegahaugen. Finnås gård, gnr. 6, bnr. 1, Bømlo k., Hordaland. Archive, University Museum of Bergen. Nyland, A.J. 2016a. Humans in Motion and Places of Essence. Variations in Rock Procurement Practices in the Stone, Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Southern Norway. University of Oslo, Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History, Unpublished PhD thesis. Nyland, A.J. 2016b. New Technology in an Existing Social Landscape Southern Norway: a Melting Pot in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age. Fennoscandia XXXIII. Nyland, A.J. 2016c. “Rock Procurement in the Early Neolithic in Southern Norway: Significant by Association With People and Places?” Current Swedish Archaeology 24, 107-136. Nyland, A.J., 2017. “Materialized Taskscapes? – Mesolithic lithic procurement in Southern Norway”, in: Rajala, U., Mills, P. (Eds.), Forms of Dwelling; 20 Years of Taskscapes in Archaeology, Oxbow books, Oxford, pp. 125-150. Olsen, A.B. 1981. Bruk av Diabas i Vestnorsk Steinalder. University of Bergen, Department of Archaeology, Unpublished thesis. Olsen, A.B., Alsaker, S. 1984. “Greenstone and Diabase Utilization in the Stone Age of Western Norway: Technological and Socio-cultural Aspects of Axe and Adze Production and Distribution”. Norwegian Archaeological Review 17/2, 71-103. Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.M., Jendy, F., Jeunesse, Ch., Monnier, J.L., Pelegrin, J., Praud, I. 1998. “From the Raw Material to the Neolithic Stone Axe. Production Processes and Social Context”. In Edmonds, M., Richards, C. (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Glasgow, Cruithne Press, pp. 277-311. Pétrequin, P., Sheridan, A., Gauthier, E., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Klassen, L. 2015. “Projet JADE 2. ‘Object-signs’ and Social Interpretations of

Quarrying as a Socio-political Strategy in Southern Norway

45

Alpine Jade Axeheads in the European Neolithic: Theory and Methodology”. In Kerig, T., Shennan, S. (eds), Connecting Networks. Characterising Contact by Measuring Lithic Exchange in the European Neolithic. Oxford, Archaeolpress, pp. 83-102. Prøsch-Danielsen, L. 2006. Sea-level Studies Along the Coast of SouthWestern Norway. With Emphasis on Three Short-lived Holocene Marine Events, AmS-Skrifter 20. Stavanger: Arkeologisk museum. Skjelstad, G. 2003. Regionalitet i Vestnorsk Mesolitikum. Råstoffbruk og Sosiale Grenser på Vestlandskysten i Mellom- og Seinmesolitikum. University of Bergen, Department of Archaeology, Unpublished thesis, Hovedfag. Solheim, S. 2007. Sørvest-Norge i Tidligneolittisk tid. En Analyse av Etniske Grenser. University of Bergen, Department of Archaeology, Unpublished Master thesis. Sørensen, M. 2006. “The Chaîne Opératoire Applied to Arctic Archaeology”. In Grønnow, B., Arneberg, J. (eds.), Dynamics of Northern Societies, Proceedings of the SILA/NABO Conference on Arctic and North Atlantic Archaeology. Kjøbenhavn, National Museum of Denmark, pp. 31-44. Sørensen, M. 2012. Technology and Tradition in the Eastern Arctic, 2500 BC - 1200 AD. A Dynamic Technological Investigation of Lithic Assemblages of from the Paleo-Eskimo Traditions of Greenland. Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press.

CHAPTER FOUR AN ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF QUARRIES AND WORKSHOPS BY LATE PREHISTORIC PEOPLE IN WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA BEVERLY A. CHIARULLI Associate Professor, Retired, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA [email protected]

Abstract During the Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 1,000 to 1400) in the central Allegheny River Valley, at least four major lithic raw material types were used for the manufacture of a limited variety of tool types. The major tool forms were small triangular projectile points and flake tools. The major raw material types used in this region included Onondaga, Loyalhanna, and Shriver cherts and Vanport Siliceous Shale. Workshops and quarries have been identified have been identified for these materials and are found on the north, south, east and west sides of this region. An analysis of the lithic assemblages from several villages investigated by IUP field schools and projects has found that these raw materials were used throughout the area. Additional investigation of the raw materials used in the villages suggests that although the frequency of raw materials used in any particular village generally reflects the distance to sources, there are some materials that are present in greater than expected quantities. For example, the source of the most used raw material at the Johnston site is not Loyalhanna, which is the closest source less than 10 miles from the site, but is Onondaga chert brought from quarry and workshops at least 25 miles from the site. Analysis of the assemblages suggests that the use of raw materials reflects both proximity to sources and some perceived qualitative differences in the materials. While there is no expectation that native groups in western Pennsylvania were transporting the quarry products in great quantities, it is

Use of Quarries and Workshops in Western Pennsylvania

47

possible that some raw materials could have been moved either overland or through canoe transport on the regional rivers. Chert from a more distant type like the Onondaga could very easily been brought to some of the sites by canoe while the Loyalhanna chert would have been transported overland or by hand-to-hand trade from village to village. In the past, I have argued that Onondaga chert was common at the site, because it was preferred. However, it may instead be common because its transport by water was easier than the transportation methods for other chert types. Keywords: Late Prehistoric Period, Lithic procurement and tool manufacture, chert quarries, raw material sources and styles, trade patterns

Introduction Since 2000, faculty and students from Indiana University of Pennsylvania have participated in a long-term investigation of Late Prehistoric and Late Woodland villages in the Central Allegheny Valley in Indiana, Armstrong, and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania (USA) This research is known as the IUP Late Prehistoric Project. The site which has been most intensively investigated during this project is the Johnston site, located on the floodplain of the Conemaugh River near the town of Blairsville in Indiana County, Pennsylvania (Fig. 4.1). The Johnston Site (36In02) is a Late Prehistoric Native American Monongahela Culture Village and is the type site for the Johnston Phase of the Monongahela culture. The site was initially recorded by Ralph Solecki of the Smithsonian Institution in 1950 as part of the US River Basin Survey Program (Dragoo 1956). This section of the Conemaugh River was surveyed during the preconstruction environmental studies for the construction of a dam on the Conemaugh River as part of a flood control project to protect Pittsburgh from devastating floods like the St. Patrick’s Day flood of 1936. The Johnston site was considered the most significant of those discovered in the survey and was then investigated further in 1952 by Dr. Don Dragoo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. The Johnston site was within the flood control area of a dam project although it is approximately 13 miles from the dam itself. The construction of the dam did not initially affect the site and it continued to be cultivated until the 1980s according to local informants. By the 1980s, the site was inundated to the point where surface materials were no longer visible and it was thought that the site had been destroyed. In 2000, a team from Indiana University of Pennsylvania began to conduct limited

48

Chapter Four

investigations to try to relocate the site under permits from the USACE, Pittsburgh District as art of the IUP Late Prehistoric Project (Chiarulli, Beverly A. and Sarah W. Neusius (2015), Neusius, Sarah and Beverly A. Chiarulli (2013a, b, c, Chiarulli, et al. 2001).

Fig. 4.1. Locations of Some of the Village and Quarry Sites discussed in this study

These efforts were unsuccessful until 2005, when the site was examined in the early spring and a buried soil horizon containing charcoal was discovered approximately one meter below the surface (Neusius and Chiarulli 2015). Fig. 4.2 shows the difference in depths before the construction of the dam during Dragoo’s investigation and during the 2012 field school in the western part of the site. There is now from 70cm to 1 meter of sediment covering Dragoo’s plow zone. Dr. Neusius and I investigated the site through undergraduate and graduate field schools, and other research projects in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012. Several MA students have based their thesis research on materials from the site or conducted new field investigations to investigate research questions about the site (Dugas 2012; Kaufman 2013; Mitchell 2012). During the Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 1000-1500) four major lithic raw material types were used for the manufacture of a limited variety of

Use of Quarries and Workshops in Western Pennsylvania

49

tool types in the central Allegheny Valley. The major tool forms were small triangular projectile points and flake tools. The major raw material types used in this region include Onondaga, Loyalhanna, and Shriver cherts and Vanport Siliceous Shale (Fig. 4.3). Workshops and quarries have been discovered to the north, south, east and west sides of this region. An analysis of the lithic assemblages from several villages has found that all four of these raw materials were used throughout the area. Analysis of the raw material types used in the villages suggests that although the percentage of a raw material type used in any particular village generally reflects the distance to sources, there are some materials that are present in much greater than expected quantities. In some cases, the most commonly used raw material is from quarries that are twice as far from a site as closer quarries. Analysis of the assemblages suggests that the use of raw materials reflects not only proximity to source areas, but also to either perceived qualitative differences in the materials or access to different cultural networks. This paper examines patterns of raw material quarrying and use in the Central Allegheny Valley. The central Allegheny Valley contains an unusually large number of villages dated from between 1400 to 1600 A. D. (Fig. 4.3). Eleven villages and numerous smaller Late Woodland sites are recorded in the Conemaugh-Blacklick watershed in the Pennsylvania Cultural Resource GIS (PHMC Bureau of Historic Preservation). The area is between the Allegheny River and the mountains of the Allegheny Front. The area had access to multiple environmental zones with riverine as well as terrestrial resources available during the Late Prehistoric period. The area is also crossed by several important Indian paths, including the Frankstown, Catawba, and the Great Shamokin Paths. The Late Prehistoric period dated from approximately A.D. 1000 to 1600 A.D.. The people were agriculturalists who grew a variety of domestic plants including maize, beans, and squash. They also collected wild plants including acorns, walnuts, hickory nuts, chenopodium, and other medicinal plants. They hunted a variety of mammals including deer, elk, raccoons, and other mammals, collected turtles, amphibians, and fished. They lived in circular villages enclosed by stockades in relatively small circular houses. Both chipped and ground stone tools were used. Common chipped stone tools included small triangular points and expedient flake tools.

50

Chapter Four

Fig. 4.2. Latee Prehistoric Village V and otheer sites includiing villages and d geologic formations inn the Conemauggh-Blacklick waatershed (Courttesy Chiarulli ett al. 2001).

U Use of Quarriess and Workshop ps in Western P Pennsylvania

51

Fig. 4.3. Smaall Projectile Points and Expedient Flake Toolls from the John nston Site.

Raw material types in the studyy sample While aas many as 15 types of o chert havve been iden ntified in archaeologiccal collections at sites in the t Conemauggh and Crook ked Creek watersheds, there are fouur major types used in the villages. Theese major types found in this area include i the Lo oyalhanna, Onnondaga, Van nport, and Shriver or B Bedford chertts. There are known quarriies and workshops for these types tto the north, south, s east, an nd west arounnd this concen ntration of villages. Althoughh minor or exxotic types arre present in aall the site co ollections, one of thesee four types iss the majority y raw materiaal type in each h of these sites. Quarries and workshhops for the materials m have bbeen found surrrounding the concentrration of villagges. Loyalhann na chert quarriies have been identified to the south in Westmorelland County (Oshnock 197 1), and for thee Vanport Siliceous Shhale in Jefferson County to the north (Buurkett 1971). Onondaga O workshops hhave been ideentified in Arrmstrong Coun unty to the weest on the bluffs abovee the Alleghenny River (PA Cultural C Resoource GIS). Sources for Shriver chert c or its loccal variant Beedford Chert are a found along the Allegheny Fronnt in Bedford and Blair Couunties (Coppo ock 2007, McDonald 22003) and earrly reduction workshops haave been desccribed by Coppock forr this type. IUP P Archaeologiical Services cconducted inveestigations of several siites in Bedforrd County inclluding the Braajo Site (Walk ker 1998) and found similar reducction sequences to those iidentified in from the Vanport andd Loyalhanna workshops. Fig. F 4.5 showss some examp ples of the biface blankks produced in the Shriver, Vanport V and Looyalhanna worrkshops.

52

Chapter Four

V Sites. Fig. 4.4. Majoor Chert Quarriies Relative to Village

U Use of Quarriess and Workshop ps in Western P Pennsylvania

53

Fig. 4.5. Exaamples of Quaarry blanks for Shriver, Vanpport Siliceous Chert and Loyalhanna C Chert (Vanportt example courttesy of Ken Buurkett, Loyalhaanna Chert courtesy of B Bob Oshnock).

This currrent study exxamined collections of litthic artifacts from the western sidee of the Johnstton village. One sample waas collected by y Dr. Don Dragoo of th the Carnegie Museum M from m the western trench which h was one of his largeest excavationn areas. His excavations rrevealed at leeast three stockades, oone circular hoouse structuree, at least fourr post enclosed d pits and a number off burials. The seccond collectioon is from one o of the IIUP investigaations. In November 22010, as parrt of his thessis research, graduate stud dent Seth Mitchell exxcavated threee shovel testss and a 2m2 excavation unit u in an attempt to locate the western w edge of the villag e and possib bly locate Dragoo’s w western trenchh. He was su uccessful and his investigaation was followed byy a larger invvestigation by students in tthe advanced graduate field school during the 20012 field seasson. They fouund that Mitch hell’s unit was adjacennt to Dragoo’ss western tren nch and that ssome of the 2012 units actually encountered part of Dragoo’s western w trenchh. In Novem mber 2014, thhe Carnegie Museum M in Pitttsburgh, Penn nsylvania (USA) allow wed me to annalyze part off the collectioon of lithics recovered r from Dragoo’s excavatioons on the western side of the village. I was also able to com mpare the Draggoo material to a sample oof lithics reco overed by Seth Mitchell. There haas not been a complete analysis of the IUP investigationns in the wesstern part of the t site, but thhis study can compare the counts oof the total num mber and sizess of flakes in eeach sample. There are some clear differences between the tw wo samples. F First, there were many fewer lithics per cubic meter m of excaavation in thhe Carnegie collection. c Tables 4.1 and 4.2 com mpare the totaal number of flakes from the units excavated by IUP on the western part of the site froom Mitchell’s unit, and

Chapter Four

54

from Dragoo’s western trench. Dragoo’s excavation recovered only 133 lithics, while the more recent IUP investigation recovered 364 pieces. Table 4.1: Number of Lithics from Carnegie Western Trench Excavation Blocks Block # # Lithics

1 5

3 2

4 6

5 7

6 15

7 27

6, 7 17

8 20

9 7

10 7

N Ext 20

Total 133

Table 4.2: Number of Flakes from Excavated Levels in Mitchell’s 2x2 meter unit Level 7 148

Level 8 200

Level 9 13

Feature 242 3

Total 364

Analysis of the raw material types found in the two collections suggest that the IUP sample contains a greater variety of raw material types. This may be in part because the material comes from more areas of the site. The analyzed Dragoo material is only from the western trench while the IUP collection is from all the IUP excavations in the north, eastern and western parts of the site. Table 4.3: Average Length, Width and Thickness of Flakes Excavated from the IUP Excavations of the Eastern, and Western part of the Johnston site and of the Carnegie Western Trench Location IUP East IUP West Carnegie West

Number of flakes 2720 150 133

Length 13.81 13.29 25.36

Width 11.20 12.43 21.40

Thickness 3.18 3.10 6.48

The average sizes of the two IUP samples are very similar in length, width and thickness, while the Carnegie artifacts are significantly larger (Table 4.3). In fact, the Carnegie flakes are almost twice as large as the IUP flakes. A comparison of length of all of Mitchell’s flakes compared to the Carnegie sample confirms this difference. Table 4.4 shows the range of flake sizes. This difference is flake size is probably related to the standard excavation strategies used in the 1950s. While there was screening of the excavated material in the 1950s when Dragoo conducted his investigations, most screens used only half inch screen mesh rather than the quarter inch mesh commonly used today.

Use of Quarries and Workshops in Western Pennsylvania

55

Table 4.4: Lengths of Flakes from IUP, Mitchell West and Carnegie West Samples Sample IUP East Mitchell West Carnegie West

Maximum Length 89mm 34mm 68mm

Minimum Length 5.5mm 7.0mm 8.0mm

Similar raw material types are found in the IUP and Carnegie lithic material, although there are fewer types represented in the Carnegie sample. The major raw material types as described above are found to the North, South, East, and West of the Johnston Site. The Mitchell sample differs from the Carnegie sample in that there are more types of minor raw material types in the Mitchell sample. As discussed above, the Carnegie sample contains larger flakes and artifacts and this difference is also thought to have affected the types of raw materials in the Carnegie sample. Table 4.5 lists the numbers and percentages of flakes of various raw material types found in the Carnegie and Mitchell samples. Loyalhanna and Onondaga cherts are by far the most common types in both collections. These materials come from the two closest sources to the Johnston site. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 show the distance from the Loyalhanna and Onondaga quarries to the Johnston site and the possible mode of transportation. Table 4.5: Raw material Types found in the Mitchell and Carnegie Samples Material Bedford/Shriver Flint Ridge Loyalhanna Upper Mercer Onondaga Gray and Tan Ryolite Unknown

Mitchell 16 3 126 3 233 8 4 393

Canegie 1 51 98

150

Mitchell % 4% 1% 32% 1% 59% 2% 1% 100%

Carnegie% 1% 0% 34% 0% 65% 0% 100%

Overall, 28% of the lithics at the Johnston site are made of Loyalhanna chert. The Loyalhanna Quarry is about 10 kilometers from the site and is the closest source to the site. Instead, Onondaga chert is the most common type found at the Johnston site. Forty-four percent of the lithics are made of this material, which is found approximately 25 kilometers from the site. It is possible that the Onondaga chert could be brought to the site in canoes

56

Chapter Four

from the Allegheny River to the Conemaugh River while the Loyalhanna chert would have to have been carried overland. Table 4.6: Distances and Routes from the Loyalhanna Quarry to Late Prehistoric Villages Site Dividing Ridge (35In477) Johnston Site (36In02) 36IN362 (Brandt) 36In59 (Tearing run) 36In26 (Fleming) 36In29 (Mary Rinn)

Distance to Loyalhanna Quarry (km) 8 12 22 28 38 42

Percent Loyalhanna 24% 28% 0% 13% 8% 10%

Access to Path Overland Overland Indian Path Indian Path Indian Path Indian Path

Access to Water None Conemaugh River Blacklick Creek Yellow Creek Crooked Creek Crooked Creek

Table 4.7: Distances and Routes from the Onondaga Quarry to Late Prehistoric Villages Site Horseman’s Park 36In26 (Fleming) 36In29 (Mary Rinn) 36In59 (Tearing run) 36IN362 (Brandt) Johnston Site (36In02) Dividing Ridge (36In477)

Distance to Onondaga Quarry (miles) 6 16 20 25 25 25 27

Percent Onondaga 100% 36% 53% 64% 52% 44% 35%

Access to Path Indian Path Indian Path Indian Path Indian Path Indian Path Overland Overland

Access to Water Crooked Creek Crooked Creek Crooked Creek Yellow Creek Blacklick Creek Conemaugh River None

Discussion Studies of lithic quarries in other regions have found distribution networks in which some quarry sources were more heavily used even when transportation of the material was more difficult. For example, research comparing the quantity of chert that could be carried by canoe versus by walking overland draws on ethnohistorical accounts from the Valley of Mexico. Hassig (1985:216) provides comparative figures for the transportation of goods by overland or water transport in the early historic period in the Valley of Mexico. Tlamemehs were a hereditary class of traders who carried goods on their backs in woven cane containers supported by trump lines. Hassig estimates that an individual Tlamemeh could have transported an average of 23 kilograms of goods over an average distance of 13.8 miles (21 kilometers) per day. In contrast, canoes which were used to transport goods on the lakes in the Valley of Mexico could have carried up to 6,800 kilograms in a load over a distance of 29 kilometers per day. Sidrys (1976:141) estimates that obsidian cores

Use of Quarries and Workshops in Western Pennsylvania

57

weighed 25 grams, so a “tlamemeh” could have carried as many as 920 obsidian cores in a load. In contrast, a canoe load would have been able to transport more than 200,000 cores over a similar distance each day. Table 4.8: Raw Material Types found in the Mitchell and Carnegie Samples. Material Bedford/Shriver Flint Ridge Loyalhanna Upper Mercer Onondaga Gray and Tan Ryolite Unknown

Mitchell 16 3 126 3 233 8 4 393

Canegie 1 51 98

150

Mitchell % 4% 1% 32% 1% 59% 2% 1% 100%

Carnegie% 1% 0% 34% 0% 65% 0% 100%

While there is no expectation that native groups in western Pennsylvania were transporting goods in this quantity, it is clear that some materials, like lithic raw materials were moved either overland or through canoe transport over rivers in this region. Onondaga chert could very easily been brought to the Johnston site by canoe while the Loyalhanna chert would have been transported overland or by hand to hand trade from village to village. In the past, I have argued that Onondaga chert was common at the site, because it was preferred. However, it may instead be common because its transport by water was easier than the transportation methods for other chert types. The different types of transportation may provide an explanation for the high percentage of Onondaga chert tools at the Johnston site even though the Onondaga quarry was 25 miles from the site and the Loyalhanna site was only 12 miles from the site. This is an area where several thousand bone beads were associated with a burial, so these small tools may have been used in the production of those items. Table 4.9: Percentage of flake tools from Dragoo and Mitchell Excavations from the western part of the Johnson village. Excavation Area Dragon West Trench Mitchell Level 8 Total

Total Flakes 154 151 305

# Flake Tools 54 126 180

Percentage 40% 83% 59%

58

Chapter Four

Conclusions The production of lithic artifacts involves a number of steps starting with the initial procurement of raw material, producing both expedient and formal tools, using these for the production of other artifacts and discarding the materials. Detailed analysis of this dynamic process can provide us with insights into the choices that were made in the past. Finally, although multiple raw material types were used to produce tools used in the Late Prehistoric villages, a limited set of tools were produced. Formal bifacial tools consisted of small triangular projectile points. A recent examination of the IUP and Carnegie formal and expedient tools found that the expedient tools were primarily small gravers, notches, and retouched flakes. As shown on Table 4.8, these were made of all raw material types, although were most commonly made of Loyalhanna or Onondaga cherts. Figures 17 and 18 show flake tools from two proveniences, one from the Carnegie excavations, the other is from the IUP excavation by Mitchell. In each case, only one flake in each sample does not show evidence of use as an expedient flake tool. Additional analysis is needed to determine if this use of expedient tools is as common through the site as it appears to be in the western excavations.

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my colleague and codirector of the IUP Late Prehistoric Project, Dr. Sarah Neusius, Professor of Anthropology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania to our investigations of the Johnston Site. I also want to thank The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District for allowing us to conduct excavations at the Johnston site, and The Carnegie Museum of Natural History, especially Dr. Sandra Olsen and Ms. Amy Covell, curator, Anthropology Section for allowing me to analyze the artifacts recovered by Dr. Dragoo from his excavations. The research has been supported through funding from the IUP School of Graduate Studies, the IUP Anthropology Department, the IUP Senate Faculty Research Program, and a Transportation Enhancement Grant from the PA Department of Transportation. I would also like to thank Mr. Robert Oshnock, Mr. Butch Laney, Richard George, Dr. William Johnson, Dr. Bernard Means, Dr. Mark McConaughy, Dr. Jack Rossen, and Dr. DeeAnne Wymer, all those colleagues who have provided direct and indirect support to the Late Prehistoric Project and to numerous IUP student members of field schools and assistants on analysis projects. Of

Use of Quarries and Workshops in Western Pennsylvania

59

these students, Justin DeMaio, Michael Deemer and Michele Troutman deserve special mention to acknowledge the important research they conducted for their senior honors research. All errors found within this paper are the author’s sole responsibility.

References Burkett, K., 1971. “Vanport Siliceous Shale”. Pennsylvania Archaeologist Volume 71(1): 1-10. Chiarulli, B.A., Neusius, S.W. 2009. Update on the IUP Late Prehistoric Project. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Harrisburg, PA April 2009 Chiarulli, B.A. Neusius, S.W. 2009. Burying the Past: Observations on Unintentional Site Reburial at the Johnston Site, Indiana County, Pennsylvania Poster presented at the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, Medicine and Engineering Annual Meeting. Washington D.C. January (2009). Chiarulli, B.A., 2014. Late Prehistoric Patterns of Lithic Raw Material Exploitation in Western Pennsylvania. Paper Presented at the 85th Annual Meeting Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology Greensburg, Pennsylvania April 5 2014. Chiarulli, B.A. Neusius, S.W. 2015. A Comparison of Lithic Artifacts from Johnston Site Excavations by the Carnegie and IUP Investigations. Paper presented at the Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Conference. Ocean City, Maryland. Chiarulli, B.A., Kellogg, D.C., Kingsley, R.G., Meyer Jr., W.J., Miller, P.E., Perazio, P.A., Siegel. P.E., 2001. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Upland Settings: An Analysis of Site Data in a Sample of Exempted Watersheds. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Under a Historic Preservation Grant awarded to the Pennsylvania Archaeological Council. January 2001. Coppock, G.F., 2008. “Shriver Chert Acquisition: A Case Study From Snyder County, Pennsylvania”. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 24: 113-140. Coppock, G.F., 2004. Additional Phase II Archaeological Investigations and Phase III Data Recovery at Site 36Sn265, Penn Valley Airport Expansion, Monroe Township, Snyder County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Penn Valley Airport Authority, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Aviation, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA (E.R. 82-069-109).

60

Chapter Four

DeMaio, J. 2009. Investigating Possible Causes for the Late Prehistoric Monongahela Settlement Patterns in the Conemaugh/Blacklick Watershed, Honors Thesis Anthropology Department, Indiana University of PA. Dragoo, D., 1955. “Excavations at the Johnston Site, Indiana County, Pennsylvania”. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 25(2): 85-141. Dugas, L., 1985. Monongahela Bone Technology: A Zooarchaeological Approach to Identity. MA Thesis Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Hassig, Ross 2011. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The SixteenthCentury Political Economy of the Valley of Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman. Kaufman, L.A., 2013. Understanding Site Formation Processes Through the Faunal Assemblages of the Johnston Site. MA Thesis. Anthropology Department, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Mitchell, S.T. 2012. Understanding the Occupational History of the Monongahela Johnston Village Site through Total Artifact Design. MA Thesis. Anthropology Department, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Neusius, S. Chiarulli, B.A, 2013. Investigating and Interpreting the Johnston Site, A Late Prehistoric Village in Western Pennsylvania, Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation. South Portland, Maine. November 31. Neusius, S.W., Chiarulli, B.A. 2009. More New Perspectives on the Johnston Site: The 2008 Excavations, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Harrisburg, PA April 2009. Neusius, S.W. Chiarulli, B.A. 2009. More New Perspectives on the Johnston Site: The 2008 Excavations Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Harrisburg, PA April. Neusius, S., Chiarulli, B.A. 2013. Investigating and Interpreting the Johnston Site, A Late Prehistoric Village in Western Pennsylvania Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation. South Portland, Maine. November 31. Neusius, S., Chiarulli B.A., 2013. Recent Investigations at the Johnston Site. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. Uniontown, Pennsylvania April 21, 2013 Oshnock, R.E., 2005. “Prehistoric Usage of Loyalhanna Chert”. Pennsylvania Archaeologist. Volume 75(2): 53-60. Sidrys, R.V., 1997. “Mass-Distance Measures for the Maya Obsidian Trade.” In Earle, T.K, Ericson, J.E., (eds.) Exchange Systems in Prehistory. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Use of Quarries and Workshops in Western Pennsylvania

61

Troutman M., 2012. Lithic Analysis: The Raw Materials Present in the Lithic Artifacts of the Johnston Site (36In2), Honors Thesis Anthropology Department, Indiana University of PA. Walker, R., 1998. Act 70 Investigations of the Brajo Site, Bedford County, PA. Report Submitted to the Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

CHAPTER FIVE IDENTIFYING IRON-RICH RAW MATERIAL SOURCES WITH A MULTITECHNIQUE APPROACH: SOME ANALYTICAL PROBLEMS DETECTED IN THE CASE STUDY OF A PREHISTORIC MINE-CAVE FROM SOUTHERN ITALY LUCA A. DIMUCCIO,1,2 ANA M. AMADO,3 LUÍS A. E. BATISTA DE CARVALHO,3 FELICE LAROCCA2,4,5 NELSON RODRIGUES5 1

Centre of Studies on Geography and Spatial Planning (CEGOT), Colégio de S. Jerónimo, University of Coimbra, 3004-530 Coimbra, Portugal. 2 Centro Regionale di Speleologia “Enzo dei Medici”, Via Lucania 3, 87070 Roseto Capo Spulico (CS), Italy. 3 Unidade de I&D “Química-Física Molecular”, Department of Chemistry, University of Coimbra, 3004-535 Coimbra Portugal. 4 Gruppo di Ricerca Speleo-Archeologica, University of Bari, Piazza Umberto I, 70121 Bari, Italy. 5 Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra - Polo II, 3030-790 Coimbra, Portugal. Luca A. Dimuccio: [email protected] Ana M. Amado: [email protected] Luís A. E. Batista De Carvalho: [email protected] Felice Larocca: [email protected] Nelson Rodrigues: [email protected]

Abstract This chapter aims to examine some analytical problems detected during the geochemical-mineralogical characterization of the prehistorically exploited

Identifying Iron-rich Raw Material Sources

63

ferruginous mineralizations of Grotta della Monaca (Calabria, Italy). It is a methodological contribution and the results came from previously published works and new experiments. Selected samples from these ironrich mineral resources were analysed using a multi-technique approach that included portable X-Ray fluorescence, X-Ray diffraction, and microRaman and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. In order to assess the correct Raman laser power to be used, representative samples under laser illumination were monitored to detect changes on the sample surface or in the Raman spectrum. As expected, some photochemical/thermal transformations were observed on the more yellow-orange and soft ironrich materials, for laser powers of ca. 10 mW. Thus, to avoid these unwanted laser-induced effects, the incident laser power was often fixed to less than 1 mW. The limitations of integrating geochemical and mineralogical data are also emphasized. Keywords: Grotta della Monaca, ferruginous mineralizations, Raman spectroscopy, photochemical degradation, geochemical/mineralogical data integration.

Introduction In a geoarchaeological analytical framework (Goldberg and Macphail 2005), the elemental and mineralogical study of iron-rich mineral resources (also referred to as ferruginous mineralizations, which means iron oxides/hydroxides with associated matrix minerals) from geological outcrops and archaeological assemblages has become increasingly common practice, particularly to support the identification of ancient mining strategies and the construction of resource use-tradeexchange models (Beck et al. 2012; Popelka-Filcoff et al. 2012; McDonald et al. 2013; Bu et al. 2013; Kingery-Schwartz et al. 2013; Mathis et al. 2014; Cavallo et al. 2015a; Scadding et al. 2015; Rifkin et al. 2015; Dayet et al. 2016; Pradeau et al. 2016; among others). The various methods widely used for a precise and consistent identification, characterization and evaluation of these materials involve spectroscopy, diffractometry, magnetometry, microscopy, dissolution and thermal analysis (more details on the basic principle, description of each method and sample preparation procedures prior to analysis are given in Cornell and Schwertmann 2003; McAlister and Smith 2007; Garrison 2016). While most of these are non-destructive, the last two methods completely destroy the sample being examined and, for this reason, often they are not very useful in most geoarchaeological and

64

Chapter Five

archaeometric research. The quantitative or qualitative nature of the information obtained (the geochemical and/or mineralogical data) is clearly imposed by the instrumental procedure chosen or by the combination of procedures. The main established techniques for elemental analysis are instrumental neutron activation (INA), atomic emission spectroscopy (AES), atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE), X-ray fluorescence (XRF, either a handheld portable or fixed lab-based instrument), electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) and ion chromatography (IC) (Beck et al. 2012; McAlister and Smith 2007; Mathis et al. 2014; MacDonald 2016; among others). Alternatively, X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) and micro-Raman spectroscopies are instead some of the most useful analytical techniques for mineralogical identification (de Faria et al. 1997; Bikiaris et al. 2000; Smith and Clark 2004; de Faria and Lopes 2007; Clark 2011; Das and Hendry 2011; Liu et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2013; Cavallo et al. 2015a, b; among others). In addition to all these techniques, versatile scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and highresolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM), as well as petrographic thin-section analysis, are extensively used (Cornell and Schwertmann 2003; McAlister and Smith 2007; MacDonald 2016; among others). This chapter examines some analytical problems detected during the geochemical and mineralogical characterization of the ferruginous mineralizations that are exposed within Grotta della Monaca, which is a prehistoric iron mine-cave in the southern Apennines (Italy). The main objective is to highlight the possible advantages and limitations that arise from applying a combination of non-invasive analytical techniques, such as handheld portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF), XRD, micro-Raman and FTIR (both conventional and attenuated total reflection), for the identification of iron-rich raw material sources.

The prehistorically exploited ferruginous mineralizations of Grotta della Monaca as a case study Located near the town of Sant’Agata di Esaro (Calabria, Italy) on the northern slope of the Upper Esaro Valley (Fig. 5.1a), Grotta della Monaca is an archaeological cave which is exceptionally rich in yelloworange to red and darker brown shades of massive ferruginous mineralizations (see Dimuccio et al. 2017; and references therein).

Identifying Iron-rich Raw Material Sources

65

Frequented for mining purposes, although sporadically, since the Upper Palaeolithic, this underground environment becomes the seat of an intense exploitation of such iron-rich mineral resources at the end of the Neolithic, between the late 5th and early 4th millennia BC, as well as during the 17th-18th centuries in the post-Medieval period (Larocca 2010, 2012; Larocca and Levato 2013; Larocca and Breglia 2014; Levato and Larocca 2016; Breglia et al. 2016; Fig. 5.1b).

Fig. 5.1. (a) Geographical setting of the Upper Esaro Valley (Calabria, southern Italy) and location of the prehistoric iron mine-cave of Grotta della Monaca. (b) Topographic map of the cave, stating the underground geomorphological sectors and the main extractive mining areas.

Selected samples of ferruginous mineralizations were collected in the main geomorphological sectors of Grotta della Monaca and initially studied by pXRF to obtain a quick selection of all the materials based on geochemical element trends. Structural and mineralogical inspections were made using binocular/petrographic microscopes, XRD, microRaman and FTIR. Multivariate statistical analyses of the elemental concentration data were used to differentiate geochemical groups within

66

Chapter Five

sample sets. Fig. 5.2 shows some examples of the analysed iron-rich mineral resources. The results of this geochemical-mineralogical investigation were recently published in Dimuccio et al. (2017). According to Dimuccio et al. (2017), the analysed ferruginous mineralizations generally correspond to heterogeneous massive facies that are exposed along open fractures and inclined bedding planes and that partially cover the cave walls/ceiling. These materials are composed of a clear admixture of iron oxides/hydroxides (essentially goethite and lepidocrocite), which often is associated with small and subordinate quantities of anatase, calcite, gypsum, brochantite, arsenosiderite, lavendulan, quartz, muscovite, kaolinite, illite and organic matter (black/amorphous carbon). Occasionally limonite, maghemite and/or hematite are also present. In addition to the very small quantities of natural hematite (intimately mixed with goethite and/or lepidocrocite) detected only in some samples of the analysed ferruginous mineralizations from Grotta della Monaca, a few tiny lenticular layers of possibly artificial hematite were easily discovered due to their bright red colour, near the cave entrance, in association with fireplaces of historical age (Fig. 5.2f). Levato and Larocca (2016) assumed a thermal transformation of goethite to hematite caused by man-made fire for these specific findings. In the same way, the maghemite sporadically also found near the referred fireplaces could be associated to the thermal transformation of goethite but in the presence of organic matter (Pomiès 1998; Grogan et al. 2003; Nørnberg et al. 2009; Salomon et al. 2015) or, eventually, to the heating of lepidocrocite (Cudennec and Lecerf 2005). These two specific mineral occurrences of Grotta della Monaca (hematite and maghemite), and their genetic interpretation (anthropogenic or natural), require further detailed mineralogical and petrographic (microstratigraphic) investigation. Geochemical raw data of Table S2 in Dimuccio et al. (2017) summarize the realized pXRF measurements. The authors have concluded that As, Cu, V and Zn are the identifying chemical elements for this specific iron-rich raw material source––i.e., Grotta della Monaca.

Identifying Iron-rich Raw Material Sources

67

(b)

(a)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

0

3 cm

0

15 cm

0

20 cm

Fig. 5.2. (a) Archaeological excavation at Grotta della Monaca during the field work in 2012. (b), (c), (d) and (e) Representative examples of the analysed ferruginous mineralizations. A total of twenty-four samples were collected in the main geomorphological sectors of the cave in order to perform the abovementioned pXRF, XRD, micro-Raman and FTIR analyses. (f) An archaeostratigraphic succession observed near the cave entrance and associated to a fireplace of historical age (1 = thick layer of earthy detritus fill; 2 = very thin lenticular layer of ash; 3 = thin lenticular layer of red ferruginous mineralizations mainly hematite; 4 = vein of yellow-orange massive ferruginous mineralizations, mainly composed of goethite and lepidocrocite).

68

Chapter Five

Photochemical degradation on the sample surface under Raman laser irradiation Although Raman spectroscopy is a non-destructive technique, in the process of mineral identification, the irradiated material can suffer localized laser-induced sample alteration/decomposition (at the micrometre scale) if the power of the laser used is too high. This represents a major limitation of the technique (Nasdala et al. 2004; Smith 2006; White 2008; among others). However, it is important to note that what is considered to be “high” laser power is relative and it depends on the intrinsic characteristics of the material that is exposed to a laser beam (e.g., chromatism and transparency degree), and it also depends on the morphological aspect of the irradiated sample’s surface (flat or rugose). In any case, these potential analytical artefacts need to be verified and, eventually, they should be avoided by experimental means in order to produce accurate Raman measurements of the materials to be investigated. Many previous studies have demonstrated that iron-rich minerals are highly sensitive to some degradation under a laser beam (de Faria et al. 1997; Worobiec et al. 2011; Apopei et al. 2014; among others). In most cases, the selection of appropriate laser power can be sufficient to resolve these issues. For the exploited ferruginous mineralizations of Grotta della Monaca, the Raman spectra were recorded on a Horiba Jobin-Yvon T64000 spectrometer in direct configuration mode (more details in Dimuccio et al. 2017). Micro-Raman spectroscopy was applied directly to the sample surface (with no sample preparation), under ambient air conditions (i.e., relative humidity of ca. 60% and a temperature at around 21ºC), with a penetration depth that did not go beyond 50-70 μm. The laser spot diameter on the sample surface was approximately 2-3 μm. Before carrying out the Raman measurements on the sampled ferruginous mineralizations [these results are reported in Table 1 of Dimuccio et al. (2017)], some experimental tests took place in order to assess the correct laser power to be used. Representative samples under laser illumination were monitored carefully to detect any changes on the sample surface or in the Raman spectrum, over time, through successive scans. As expected, during these tests some artificial and localized photochemical alterations were observed for most of the yellow-orange and soft iron-rich varieties of the studied materials, potentially coupled with dehydration processes (mineralogical degradation) resulting in the intensity increase of a few spectral features, namely at 153 and 170 cm-

Identifyiing Iron-rich Raaw Material Soources

69

1

, clearly iinduced by a small temperrature rise in the laser focu us point (Fig. 5.3). Although thiss specific low w wavenumberrs region is veery little studied duue to its analyytical complex xity, often refe ferred to as the region of lattice m modes, these signals s have been b assigned to iron-rich arsenates a minerals suuch as arsenossiderite and yu ukonite (see G Gomez et al. 2010). 2

m analytical a arteffacts observed on three Fig. 5.3. Reepresentative micro-Raman irradiate sam mples of yellow w-orange and soft ferruginoous mineralizattions from Grotta della Monaca (sampples A, B and C). Two distinnct Raman speectra were recorded for each selected sample, underr a laser poweer of ca. 10 mW m (at the sample surfacce). Between thhe first (to the leeft) and the seccond (to the righ ht) records each sample was exposedd to a constan nt laser beam m for 60 s. An A optical photomicrogrraph was takenn after each spectral acquisitiion. Under thesse specific experimental conditions, a laser-inducced photochem mical/thermal alteration, associated wiith changes on the Raman speectrum (i.e., loocal decomposittion of the sample), weree observed in alll three cases.

To avooid these unw wanted laser-in nduced effectss, and the con nsequent misinterpreetation of thee results, duriing the subseqquent Raman n spectra acquisitionn of all thee yellow-oraange ferruginnous minerallizations collected from Grotta della Monacca, the incideent laser pow wer was

70

Chapter Five

constrained to ensure that the focused energy density remained below the level that causes photochemical or irreversible thermal damage. In most cases, less than 1 mW of power, at the laser focus point, has been used.

Some problems in integrating the geochemical and mineralogical data Among all the above-mentioned spectroscopic approaches for multielement analysis, most of which are time-consuming and can be costly and require intensive sample preparation, the pXRF has proven to be a quick, relatively inexpensive and powerful tool (accurate for most chemical elements) as an alternative to other laboratory-based techniques (Speakman et al. 2011; Frahm 2014; Gay et al. 2016; Young et al. 2016; Lubos et al. 2016; Sarala 2016; among others). In the specific case of the ferruginous mineralizations collected from Grotta della Monaca, a Niton™ XL3t 950 GOLDD+ pXRF instrument, fully calibrated, was used to determine the geochemical composition of the sampled materials. This instrument generates X-rays with a 6-50 kV Ag-anode tube, outfitted with a silicon drift detector (SDD) (more details in Dimuccio et al. 2017). While the used pXRF instrument was capable of obtaining accurate measurements for several elements, including Fe, As, Ca, Cu, Ni, Sr, Ti, V and Zn (among others), it proved unable to detect, reliably, other elements such as Al, Cr, Mg, Pb, Rb and Zr. Furthermore, the wellknown inability to quantify the minerals by XRD, micro-Raman and FTIR made it difficult to relate the mineralogical phases identified in the samples to the corresponding pXRF elemental concentrations data.

Concluding remarks This chapter presents some information on a multi-technique approach (a combination of pXRF, XRD, micro-Raman and FTIR) used for the identification of possible geochemical-mineralogical trends of prehistorically exploited iron-rich mineral resources, as well as an overview of selected analytical problems that have to be addressed before making the measurements. Although micro-Raman spectroscopy is currently considered as one of the best and most versatile techniques for qualitative mineralogical identification, especially when the analysed sample corresponds to a heterogeneous mixture, some instrumental limitations exist. Particularly, iron-rich minerals are extremely prone to undergo changes under a laser

Identifying Iron-rich Raw Material Sources

71

beam if too high power is used. Indeed, during an experimental procedure realized on the ferruginous mineralizations from Grotta della Monaca (used here as a case study), some photochemical/thermal transformations were observed on the more yellow-orange materials, for laser powers of ca. 10 mW. This case study clearly demonstrates that before making any micro-Raman measurements on iron-rich mineral resources (but not only), the researcher/analyst needs to dismiss potential analytical artefacts resulting from a local temperature increase, induced by the laser, at the sample surface. So, the adequate incident laser power must be determined in order to minimize the risks of spectral changes due to sample degradation that, in turn, may lead to a misinterpretation of the Raman spectra. This means that a very critical evaluation of the sample and of the obtained Raman spectra is always an outmost step in this kind of mineralogical analysis. Despite the highlighted problems, mineral identification and characterization by micro-Raman are mostly possible with no sample preparation. Furthermore, it is a non-destructive technique, which represents an obvious advantage (among others) when a multi-analytical approach is applied to the same sample or in archaeological/archaeometric studies when perfect conservation of the analysed material is generally imposed. The pXRF confirmed its wide potential as a preliminary method for the identification of geochemical fingerprints, shortening the need for the application of more sophisticated and generally more expensive techniques such as INA, AAS, etc. The possibility to utilize more techniques such as micro-Raman, FTIR and XRD that could be complementary for the different information, shows that this multiapproach is very useful for the potential identification of iron-rich raw material sources. Finally, it must be emphasized that the quality of the results and the information that can be obtained from any instrumental technique are highly dependent on the researcher/analyst choosing the best/most adequate method and carrying this out with accuracy and precision. A wide range of analytical techniques is available. However, a number of them are not yet fully developed for the analysis of geoarchaeological and archaeometric materials or they are not economically viable for a certain number of academic institutions. Nevertheless, taking into account that the development and availability of methodologies are continuously and rapidly improving, it is important that the researcher/analyst is fully aware of the wide range of techniques accessible, along with their advantages and limitations.

72

Chapter Five

Acknowledgements This study was supported by the European Fund FEDER, through the Program COMPETE, and National FCT Funds (Strategic Projects UID/GEO/04084/2013 and UID/Multi/00070/2013).

References Apopei, A.I. Buzgar, N., Damina, G., Buzatu, A., 2014. “The Raman Study of Weathering Minerals from the Coranda-Hondol Open Pit (Certej Gold-Silver Deposit) and Their Photochemical Degradation Products Under Laser Irradiation.” The Canadian Mineralogist 52: 1027-1038. Beck, L., Salomon, H., Lahlil, S., Lebon, M., Odin, G., Coquinot, Y., Pichon, L., 2012. “Non-destructive Provenance Differentiation of Prehistoric Pigments by External PIXE.” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 273: 173-177. Bikiaris, D., Daniilia, S., Sotiropoulou, S., Katsimbiri, O., Pavlidou, E., Moutsatsou, A.P., Chryssoulakis, Y., 2000. “Ochre-differentiation Through Micro-Raman and Micro-FTIR Spectroscopies: Application on Wall Paintings at Meteora and Mount Athos, Greece.” Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 56(1): 3-18. Breglia, F., Caricola, I., Larocca, F., 2016. “Macrolithic Tools for Mining and Primary Processing of Metal Ores from the Site of Grotta della Monaca (Calabria, Italy).” Journal of Lithic Studies 3(3), doi: 10.2218/jls.v3i3.1651. Bu, K., Cizdziel, J. V., Rus, J., 2013. “The Source of Iron-oxide Pigments Used in Pecos River Style Rock Paints.” Archaeometry 55(6): 10881100. Cavallo, G., Fontana, F., Gonzato, F., Guerreschi, A., Riccardi, M.P., Sardelli, G., Zorzin, R., 2015a. “Sourcing and Processing of Ochre During the Late Upper Palaeolithic at Tagliente rock-shelter (NE Italy) Based on Conventional X-ray Powder Diffraction Analysis.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences: 1-13, accessed November 07, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s12520-015-0299-3. Cavallo, G. Riccardi, M.P., Zorzin, R., 2015b. “Powder Diffraction of Yellow and Red Natural Earths from Lessini Mountains in NE Italy”. Powder Diffraction 30(2): 122-129 Clark, R.J.H. 2011. “Raman Microscopy as a Structural, Analytical and Forensic Tool in Art and Archaeology.” Chemistry in New Zealand

Identifying Iron-rich Raw Material Sources

73

75: 13–20. Cornell, R.M., Schewertmann, U. 2003. The Iron Oxides. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. Cudennec, Y., Lecerf, A. 2005. “Topotactic Transformations of Goethite and Lepidocrocite into Hematite and Maghemite.” Solid State Science 7: 520-529. de Faria, D., Lopes, F.N. 2007. “Heated Goethite and Natural Hematite: Can Raman Spectroscopy be Used to Differentiate Them?” Vibrational Spectroscopy 45(2): 117-121. de Faria, D. S. Silva, V., de Oliveira, M.T., 1997. “Raman Microspectroscopy of Some Iron Oxides and Oxyhydroxides.” Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 28(11): 873-878. Dayet, L., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Daniel, F., Porraz, G., Texier, P.-J., 2016. “Ochre Provenance and Procurement Strategies During the Middle Stone Age at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa.” Archaeometry 58: 807-829. Das, S., Hendry, M.J. 2011. “Application of Raman Spectroscopy to Identify Iron Minerals Commonly Found in Mine Wastes.” Chemical Geology 290(3-4): 101-108. Dimuccio, L.A., Rodrigues N., Larocca F., Pratas J., Amado A.M., de Carvalho L.A., 2017. “Geochemical and Mineralogical Fingerprints to Distinguish the Exploited Ferruginous Mineralisations of Grotta della Monaca (Calabria, Italy).” Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 173: 704-720. Frahm, E. 2014. “Characterizing Obsidian Sources with Portable XRF: Accuracy, Reproducibility, and Field Relationships in a Case Study from Armenia.” Journal of Archaeological Science 49: 105-125. Gay, M., Müllera, K., Plassardb, F., Cleyet-Merlec, J.-J., Ariasd, P., Ontañónd, R., Reichea, I. 2016. “Efficient Quantification Procedures for Data Evaluation of Portable X-ray Fluorescence - Potential Improvements for Palaeolithic Cave Art Knowledge.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10: 878-886. Garrison, E. 2016. Techniques in Archaeological Geology. Second edition, Springer Verlang Berlin Heidelberg. Goldberg, P. and Macphail, R.L. 2005. Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Wiley-Blackwell. Gomez, M.A., Becze, L., Blyth, R.I.R., Cutler, J.N., Demopoulos, G.P., 2010. “Molecular and Structural Investigation of Yukonite (Synthetic & natural) and its Relation to Arseniosiderite.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 74: 5835-5851. Grogan, K.L., Gilkes, R.J., Lottermoser, B. G., 2003. “Maghemite

74

Chapter Five

Formation in Burnt Plant Litter at East Trinity, North Queensland, Australia.” Clay Mineralogy 51(4): 390-396. Kingery-Schwartz, A., Popelka-Filcoff, R.S., Lopez, D.A., Pottier, F., Hill, P., Glascock, M., 2013. “Analysis of Geological Ochre: Its Geochemistry, Use, and Exchange in the US Northern Great Plains.” Open Journal of Archaeometry 1(e15): 72-76. Larocca, F. 2010. “Grotta della Monaca: A Prehistoric Copper and Iron Mine in the Calabria Region (Italy).” In Anreiter, P., Goldenberg G., Hanke K., Krause, R., Leitner W., Mathis F., Nicolussi, K., Oeggl K., Pernicka E., Prast M., Schibler J., Schneider I., Stadler, H., Stöllner T., Tomedi, G., Tropper, P. (eds.), Mining in European History and its Impact on Environment and Human Societies, 267-270. Proceedings for the 1st Mining in European History-Conference of the SFB-HIMAT, Innsbruck, 12-15 November 2009, Innsbruck: University Press. Larocca, F. 2012. “Grotta della Monaca (Calabria, Italia meridionale). Una Miniera Neolitica per l'Estrazione dell'Ocra.” In Xarxes al Neolitic, 249-256. Actes Congrés Internacional, Gavà/Bellaterra, 2-4 febrer 2011, Rubricatum 5, Gavà. Larocca, F., Levato, C. 2013. “From the Imprint to the Tool: The Identification of Prehistoric Mining Implements Through the Study of Dipping Traces. The Case of Grotta della Monaca in Calabria (Italy).” In Anreiter, P., Goldenberg G., Hanke K., Krause, R., Leitner W., Mathis F., Nicolussi, K., Oeggl K., Pernicka E., Prast M., Schibler J., Schneider I., Stadler, H., Stöllner T., Tomedi, G., Tropper, P. (eds.), Mining in European History and its Impact on Environment and Human Societies, 21-26. Proceedings for the 2nd Mining in European History Conference of the FZ HIMAT, 7-10 November 2012, Innsbruck: University Press. Larocca, F., Breglia, F. 2014. “L’alta Valle dell’Esaro e le Sue Miniere Preistoriche.” Speleologia 71: 30-36. Levato, C., Larocca, F. 2016. “The Prehistoric Iron Mine of Grotta della Monaca (Calabria, Italy).” Anthropologica et Præhistorica 126/2015: 25-37. Liu, H., Chen T., Qing C., Xie Q., Frost R.L., 2013. “Confirmation of the Assignment of Vibrations of Goethite: An ATR and IES Study of Goethite Structure.” Spectrochimica Acta Part a-Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 116: 154-159. Lubos, C., Dreibrodt, S., Bahr, A., 2016. “Analysing Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Archaeological Soils and Sediments by Comparing pXRF and Different ICP-OES Extraction Methods.” Journal of Archaeological

Identifying Iron-rich Raw Material Sources

75

Science: Reports 9: 44-53. Mathis, F., Bodu, P., Dubreuil, O., Salomon, H., 2014. “PIXE Identification of the Provenance of Ferruginous Rocks Used by Neanderthals.” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 331: 275-279. McAlister, J.J., Smith, B.J. 2007. “Analytical Techniques for Investigating Terrestrial Geochemical Sediments.” In Nash, D.J., McLaren, S.J. (eds.), Geochemical Sediments and Landscape, 409442. Blackwell Publishing, RGS-IBG Book Series. MacDonald, B., Hancock, R. G. V., Cannon, A., McNeill, F., Reimer, R., Pidruczny, A. 2013. “Elemental Analysis of Ochre Outcrops in Southern British Columbia, Canada.” Archaeometry 55(6): 10201033. MacDonald, B. 2016. “The Analysis of Inorganic Pigments Using Spectrometric Techniques.” In The Unvarnished Truth, Exploring the Material History of Painting, McMaster University of Art, 53-61. Hamilton (ON). Nasdala, L., Smith, D.C., Kaindl, R., Ziemann, M.A., 2004. “Raman Spectroscopy: Analytical Perspectives in Mineralogical Research.” In EMU Note in Mineralogy 6, chapter 7. Nørnberg, P., Vendelboe, A.L., Gunnlaugsson, H.P., Merrison, J.P., Finster, K., Jensen, S.K., 2009. “Comparasion of the Mineralogical Effects of an Experimental Forest Fire on a Goethite/Ferrihydrite Soil With a Topsoil That Contains Hematite, Maghemite and Goethite.” Clay Mineralogy 44: 239-247. Pomiès, M-P., 1998. “XRD Study of the Goethite-Hematite Transformation: Application to the Identification of Heated Prehistoric Pigments.” European Journal of Solid State Inorganic Chemistry 35: 9-25. Popelka-Filcoff, R.S., Lenehan, C. E., Walshe, K., Bennett, J.W., Stopic, A., Jones, P., Pring, A., Quinton, J.S., Durham, A., 2012. “Characterisation of Ochre Sources in South Australia by Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA).” Journal of the Anthropological Society of South Australia 35: 81-106. Pradeau, J-V., Bindera, D., Vératib, C., Lardeauxb, J-M., Dubernetc, S., Lefraisc, Y., Regerta, M., 2016. “Procurement Strategies of Neolithic Colouring Materials: Territoriality and Networks from 6th to 5th millennia BCE in North-Western Mediterranean.” Journal of Archaeological Science 71: 10-23. Rifkin, R., Dayet, L., Queffelec, A., Summers, B., Lategan, M., d’Errico, F., 2015. “Evaluating the Photoprotective Effects of Red Ochre on

76

Chapter Five

Human Skin by in Vivo SPF Assessment: Implications for Human Evolution, Adaptation and Dispersal.” PLoS One 10(9): e0136090. Salomon, H. Vignaudb, C., Lahlilc, S., Menguyd, N., 2015. “Solutrean and Magdalenian Ferruginous Rocks Heat-Treatment: Accidental and/or Deliberate Action?” Journal of Archaeological Science 55: 100-112. Sarala, P. 2016. “Comparison of Different Portable XRF Methods for Determining Till Geochemistry.” Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, doi:10.1144/geochem2012-162. Scadding, R. Winton, V., Brown, V., “2015. An LA-ICP-MS Trace Element Classification of Ochres in the Weld Range Environ, Mid West Region, Western Australia.” Journal of Archaeological Science 54: 300-312. Smith, G.D. Clark, R.J.H. 2004. “Raman Microscopy in Archaeological Science.” Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 1137-1160. Smith, D.C. 2006. “A Review of the Non-Destructive Identification of Diverse Geomaterials in the Cultural Heritage Using Different Configurations of Raman Spectroscopy.” In Maggetti M., Messiga, B., (eds.), Geomaterials in Cultural Heritage, 9-32. London: Geological Society, Special Publications 257. Speakman, R.J. Littla, N.C., Creel, D., Miller, M.R., Iñañez, J. G., 2011. “Sourcing Ceramics With Portable XRF Spectrometers? A Comparison With INAA Using Mimbres Pottery from the American Southwest.” Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 3483-3496. Wang, Y.Y., Gan, F.X., Zhao, H.X., 2013. “Inclusions of lack-Green Serpentine Jade Determined by Raman Spectroscopy.” Vibrational Spectroscopy 66: 19-23. White, S.N. 2008. “Laser Raman Spectroscopy as a Technique for Identification of Seafloor Hydrothermal and Cold Seep Minerals.” Chemical Geology 259(3-4): 240-252. Worobiec, A., Darchuk, L., Brooker, A., Potgieter, H., Van Grieken, R., 2011. “Damage and Molecular Changes Under a Laser Beam in SEM-EDX/MRS Interface: a Case Study on Iron-Rich Particles.” Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 42(4): 808-814. Young, K.E. Evans, C.A., Hodges, K.V., Bleacher, J.E., Graff, T.G., 2016. “A Review of the Handheld X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometer as a Tool for Field Geologic Investigations on Earth and in Planetary Surface Exploration.” Applied Geochemistry 72: 77-87.

CHAPTER SIX NEOLITHIC FLINT QUARRIES ON MONTVELL (CATALAN PRE-PYRENEES, NE IBERIA) XAVIER TERRADAS,1 DAVID ORTEGA,2 DIOSCORIDES MARÍN,3 ALBA MASCLANS,4 CARLES ROQUÉ5 1

Spanish National Research Council – IMF, Archaeology of Social Dynamics. Egipciaques, 15. 08001 Barcelona. [email protected] 2 Spanish National Research Council – IMF, Archaeology of Social Dynamics. Egipciaques, 15. 08001 Barcelona. [email protected] 3 University of Lleida - Department of History. Plaça Victor Siurana, 1. 25003 Lleida. [email protected] 4 University of Girona – Department of History and History of Art. Plaça Ferrater Mora, 1. 17007 Girona. [email protected] 5 University of Girona – Department of Environmental Sciences. Campus de Montilivi s/n. 17003 Girona. [email protected]

Abstract The recently excavated flint quarries at Montvell (Castelló de Farfanya, NE Spain) constitute the first example of a specialized flint quarrying site in north-eastern Iberia. Quarries were opened in Oligocene limestone and marly limestone strata in the western sector of Castelltallat Fm deposits, in the Serra Llarga range. These strata contain nodular brown flint nodules outcropping profusely in the area of Montvell. Evidence of quarrying was located in steps up the hill slopes and this had been carried out by removing the layers containing the largest flint nodules. Flint quarrying was easy as the worked beds outcrop vertically and are quite accessible. This geological and topographical framework allowed the opening of successive quarry faces without it being necessary to remove huge quantities of debris.

78

Chapter Six

Castelltallat flint was widely exploited as a raw material by prehistoric populations in north-eastern Iberia, as their products were distributed along a regional framework. Despite the preliminary character of the results and the fact that there is still insufficient evidence to date quarrying activities accurately, there are reasons supporting a Neolithic chronology. Keywords: Flint, quarries, lithic production, Neolithic, Castelltallat Fm, north-eastern Iberia

Introduction Since their origins, human societies have procured lithic raw materials by means of quarrying. Regarding the nature of this type of extractive activity––carried out on the outcrop’s surface and performed with diverse intensity––the quarries have not always been preserved nor has their evidence been identifiable. However, these activities are sometimes put into practice in specific places with more intensity. The reasons can be diverse: a higher density or concentration of raw material, a greater accessibility to the beds, and better conditions for its extraction, among others. In any case, quarries and lithic workshops are extremely specialized sites whose excavation and study may provide valuable data concerning the nature of raw material procurement and the first stages in their exploitation (Ericson and Purdy 1984; Andrefsky 1994). The recent discovery of flint quarries at Montvell (Catalan PrePyrenees) supposes unprecedented evidence concerning quarrying activities in the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula. Despite the preliminary nature of the work we think it is important to present here the discovery of the site as well as first results and ongoing lines of research. On the one hand, the geological setting and petrological characterization of the flint from the Castelltallat Formation are given. Its most diagnostic traits will allow in the future, differentiation from similar types in other neighbouring lithological units, establishing the scope of its distribution. On the other hand, first hypotheses about the goals and exploitation dynamics of the quarries are announced, presenting the reasons that support a Neolithic chronology for these activities.

Neolithic Flint Quarrries on Montveell

79

Fig. 6.1. Casttelltallat Formattion flint nodulees hosted in theeir bedrock.

Backgrround In recentt years, the LITOcat L Project has been bbuilding up a reference collection of siliceous roocks from the north-east off the Iberian Peninsula P for purposess connected with w archaeological researchh (Terradas et al. 2012; Ortega and Terradas 20144). From this point of view w, the lithotheeque does not represennt a mere collection of rock k types, but a form of research with which to fformulate scientific propo osals regardinng the availaability of siliceous roccks in a particcular geologiccal and geograaphic environ nment and the managem ment of thosse raw materiials by humann societies th hroughout prehistory. Differennt kinds of woork have been carried out w within the scop pe of this project. Firsst of all, a syystematic dataabase has beenn constructed d with the geological uunits in the areea of study co ontaining silicceous rocks, whether w or not they w were used as a a raw material. m Theese rocks haave been contextualizzed from the point p of view of their geoloogical setting,, unit and formation, aage and sedim mentary environ nment. This hhas contributed d towards a preliminarry overview of o the availability of siliceoous rocks in Catalonia and surrounnding regions and their po otential use ass raw materiaal for the manufacturee of lithic toolls (Ortega et al., a in press). In addition to o forming the collectioons, consideraable attention has been paidd to the analy ysis of the

80

Chapterr Six

samples andd, therefore, thhe petrologicaal characterizaation of their lithology following sttandard proceddures (Tarriño o and Terradass 2013). As a connsequence of this t work, thee project has sstudied in greaater detail those formattions containiing flint types that, because of their particcularities, historical siggnificance annd problems liinked to theirr characterizattion, pose greater challlenges for ressearch on preh historic societties. This is th he case of the flint in the Castelltaallat Formatio on (Sáez 198 7), which ou utcrops in Oligocene laacustrine limeestone in the geological g settting of the Eb bro Basin, in north-eastern Iberia. Inn the course of fieldwork reecording, sam mpling and studying this formation, several s proofss attesting the human explo oitation of this flint w were found inn the hills of Montvell ((Castelló de Farfanya, Lleida). Theese evidences are the subjecct of the presennt study.

Mining tool founnd on the surfacce of Montvell qquarries. Figure 6.2. M

Geologicall Setting The Casttelltallat Form mation (Sáez 1987) is a Cennozoic lithostrratigraphic unit that forrms part of thee sedimentary y fill of the Ebbro Basin, a depression d between thee mountain rannges of the Py yrenees, the IIberian System m and the Coastal-Cataalan Range, in north-easteern Iberia. W Within the Ebrro Basin, many siliceeous rocks occcur as a co ommon diagennetic productt in both sulphated annd carbonatedd lacustrine sy ystems (Ortí 19990; Arenas and a Pardo

Neolithic Flint Quarries on Montvell

81

1999) and are often found in several lacustrine formations. The sedimentary fill in the Ebro basin evolved in stages as it adapted to the progress of the tectonic remodelling of the relief that forms its structural boundaries (Pardo 2004). In coherence with the spatial-temporal evolution of the sedimentation in this basin, the oldest levels with flint (Paleogene)––which is the case of La Noguera Lacustrine System that includes the Castelltallat Formation––, correspond to the stratigraphic units that outcrop in the north-eastern part of the basin. A punctuated migration of the lacustrine systems from NE to SW occurred as a response to the balance between sediment supply and subsidence (Anadón et al. 1989; Valero et al. 2014). At the end of the lower Oligocene epoch, sedimentation in the eastern part of the basin completely finished and it became terrigenous thereafter. The Castelltallat Formation consists of alternating strata of limestone and marly limestone with flint nodules, and mudstones occasionally interbedded with sandstones, which can be ascribed a Rupelian age. Deposits of this formation outcrop in three separate sectors that are progressively younger from East to West. The Eastern sector is poor in flint whereas in the Central (Serra de Castelltallat) and the Western (Serra Llarga) sectors there is abundant evidence of its outcropping. Sediments corresponding to this formation were deposited in a shallow carbonated lake with little bathymetric gradient, which developed in the distal part of large fluvial fan systems attached to the Pyrenean and Catalan Coastal Range basin margins (Sáez et al. 2007; Costa et al. 2011).

Flint in the Castelltallat Formation The flint in the Castelltallat Formation was the subject of a recent publication (Ortega et al. 2017) focusing on its mineralogical, petrological and geochemical properties where we proposed a petrogenetic model for its formation. Therefore, only its most significant and diagnostic traits will be described here. The flint nodules in the Castelltallat Formation are elliptical in shape with a flat cross-section and an average length of about 12 cm, although in some cases they may reach 20 cm (Fig. 6.1). Flint nodules are found in layers parallel to the limestone stratification and their proportion is variable from bed to bed. The flint is dark brown to black in colour, opaque, finely-grained and normally with a massive texture. Some nodules are banded concentrically, a trait that is often hidden and usually increases through a slight alteration to the fresh section of the rock. The nodules are covered by a thin layer of carbonate (