To be or not to be: reassessing the origins of portable art in the Cantabrian Region (Northern Spain)

Abstract

The characterization of the first portable artistic depictions in Cantabrian Spain is crucial for comprehension of the symbolic development of Neandertals and Homo sapiens in the context of the passage from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. However, despite the importance of these first graphic representations, their study has tended to lack the application of suitable methodologies to be able to discriminate between graphic activity and other kind of alterations (use-wear, taphonomic, or post-depositional). The present study has examined a significant sample of Middle and Upper Paleolithic lithic and osseous objects from Cantabrian Spain that have been cited as evidence of graphic activity in the literature. The contexts in which the objects were found have been considered, and the objects have been analyzed through the microscopic observation of the marks to distinguish between incisions, pecking, and engraving made for a non-functional purpose (graphic activity) and those generated by diverse functional actions or taphonomic processes (cutmarks, trampling, root marks, percussion scars, and use-wear). The results show that some regional Middle Paleolithic osseous objects display incisions that are neither functional nor taphonomic and whose characteristics are similar to graphic evidence attributed to Neandertals in Europe and the Near East. In turn, the first portable art produced by Homo sapiens in the Cantabrian Spain seems to be limited mostly to linear signs, and no figurative representation can be recognized until the Gravettian. This appears to indicate a particular idiosyncrasy of the region in the Early Upper Paleolithic, which, in comparison with other regions such as south-west France and the Swabian Jura, shows a later and less abundant production of portable art.

Cervidae antlers exploited to manufacture prehistoric tools and hunting implements as a reliable source of ancient DNA

“…It was exhaustively employed to produce hunting weapons, one of the most important tools for the survival of the UP societies [ [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] ]. Furthermore, other "domestic" tools, like chisels and awls [ [14] , [15] , [16] ], and even mobile art and personal ornaments [ [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] ], were sometimes also made using antler.…”

Hornos de la Peña (Northern Iberia): New excavations, chronological and subsistence data of the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition

“…Breuil and Obermaier (Breuil & Obermaier, 1912;Obermaier, 1925) identified five stratigraphic levels: Mousterian level A (also called Level III), Aurignacian level B and Solutrean level C (both grouped as Level II), Magdalenian level D (or Level I) and Neolithic level E. Different scholars have investigated Hornos de la Peña cave producing several publications about Palaeolithic rock art (Alcalde del Río et al, 1911;Ucko, 1987Ucko, , 1989González Sainz, 2000;Rivero & Garate, 2013), portable art (Breuil & Obermaier, 1912;Obermaier, 1925;Barandiarán, 1973;Utrilla, 1981;Corchón, 1986;Tejero et al, 2008;Rivero, 2010;Rivero et al, 2021), lithic industry (Freeman, 1966(Freeman, , 1969Bernaldo de Quirós, 1982;Carrión, 2002;Tejero et al, 2008;Rios-Garaizar et al, 2013), fauna (Freeman, 1973;Straus, 1976Straus, , 1977Bernaldo de Quirós, 1982;Yravedra, 2010) and stratigraphy (Butzer, 1981). Despite these works, doubts remained about the integrity and definition of the stratigraphic sequence and its chronology (Alcalde del Río et al, 1911;Straus, 1983;Carrión, 2002).…”