Lithic refitting and intrasite artifact transport: a view from the Middle Paleolithic

Abstract

The intrasite mobility of lithic artifacts is one of the most relevant issues that can be approached from the spatial study of refitting. In many sites, it has been found that some artifacts were abandoned at considerable distance from the place where they were produced. Once natural causes of post-depositional nature are discarded, the most likely hypothesis to explain these movements is intentional displacement by humans. However, the interpretation of such intentional movements is particularly difficult, since the intrasite mobility of lithic artifacts can be related to at least four different factors: a) refuse disposal strategies; b) functional complementarity between different activity areas; c) social relations between different domestic units; and d) recycling. Each of these factors has different implications concerning questions as important as the spatial organization within the campsites or the contemporaneity between activity areas. To address this issue, it is necessary to have a representative sample of transport episodes and to analyze aspects such as the connection length, the directionality of the movements, the kind of transported artifacts and the activities carried out both in the place of origin and in the place of destination. As an example, in this work we are going to analyze the long distance displacements identified in different Middle Paleolithic layers from the Abric Romaní (Capellades, Spain).

Examining Neanderthal and carnivore occupations of Teixoneres Cave (Moià, Barcelona, Spain) using archaeostratigraphic and intra-site spatial analysis

“…The low number of lithic refits is expected if we consider that, except for quartz, the other raw materials were transported to the site already knapped and configured. The distances of the connection lines are within the normal dispersion range observed by experimental archaeology for on-site knapping sequences; that is, generally less than 1 m in diameter and rarely exceeding 2 m 76 – 79 . However, three connections exceed the normal dispersion range suggesting intentional anthropogenic displacements from the main knapping areas to peripheral zones.…”

Is a spatial investigation possible without long-distance refit/conjoin? Application to the MIS 11 lithic assemblage of levels E and J from La Cansaladeta site (Tarragona, Spain)

“…Unluckily, neither level J nor level E had bidirectional connections regarding inter-clusters; however, the presence of intense preferential orientation was one of the main spatial patterns of level E. This issue was a very significant difference between two levels regarding comparative spatial pattern analysis. Contemporaneity hypothesis is almost impossible for both levels, although there were seven well-separated clusters in level J due to the absence of bidirectional connection between the clusters and lack of faunal remains (Romagnoli and Vaquero 2019;Vaquero et al 2019). Additionally technological analysis also did not show remarkable similarities regarding the clusters.…”

“…Unidirectional and the bidirectional movements of the connection lines can provide very effective results for the interpretation of temporal issues of the clusters (Bodu 1996;Vaquero 2011). According to Vaquero et al (2019), the hypothesis of contemporaneity between two areas can be explained by bidirectional movement of the connection lines. In addition, this issue has also been confirmed by Karlin and Julien (2019, p. 4439) for Pincevent, level IV20.…”

Variability of limestone knapping methods in Middle Palaeolithic levels M and Ob of Abric Romaní (Barcelona, Spain)

“…As a result, any suitable raw material available could have been chosen for the production of blanks (discoid, Levallois, orthogonal, etc.). Recycling, whether flakes or hammerstones, has been identified through the technological and spatial analysis of refitted sequences, attesting to the use of the internal area of the rock shelter as a procurement area (Vaquero et al 2014(Vaquero et al , 2017(Vaquero et al , 2019Romagnoli et al 2018).…”

“…Refitting analysis was used to determine the variability within the production sequences and the temporal relation between the archaeological clusters. All finds taken into consideration to establish different kinds of knapping activities (exploitation, configuration, retouching, fracturing) and the distances between the elements were quantified, as was their location in space (Newcomer and Sieveking 1980;Cziesla, 1990;Cziesla et al, 1990;Kvamme 1997;Vaquero et al 2017Vaquero et al , 2019. Moreover, refitting can provide information about the temporal relationships between the archaeological accumulations in which the refitted artefacts are located.…”