lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e12

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Combustion structures of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areaswith use of fire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula)

Josep Vallverdú a,b,*, Susana Alonso a, Amèlia Bargalló a, Raúl Bartrolí c, Gerard Campeny b,Ángel Carrancho d, Isabel Expósito b, Marta Fontanals a, Joana Gabucio a, Bruno Gómez b,Josep Maria Prats a, Pablo Sañudo a, Àlex Solé a, Jaume Vilalta a, Eudald Carbonell a,b

aGrup de Recerca en Autoecologia Humana del Quaternari, Àrea de Prehistòria, Departament d’Història, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Avda de Catalunya 35,43002 Tarragona, Spainb IPHES - Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social, Plaça Imperial Tarraco 1, 43005 Tarragona, SpaincAjuntament de Capellades, C/ Ramon Godó 9, ES08786 Capellades, Spaind Laboratorio de Paleomagnetismo (Dpto. Física), Escuela Politécnica Superior Edificio A1, Avda Cantabria s/n, ES09006 Burgos, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

* Corresponding author. IPHES - Institut Català delució Social, Plaça Imperial Tarraco 1, 43005 Tarragon

E-mail address: josep@prehistoria.urv.cat (J. Vallve

1040-6182/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd adoi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú,fire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Ibe

a b s t r a c t

The human use of fire generates a cultural sedimentary record that can be used to characterizeprehistoric activity areas. The aim of this paper is to develop a field guide for recognizing and describingcombustion structures. The use of fire as suggested by the results of ethnoarchaeological and prehistoricarchaeological studies has served as the foundation for the analytical design of the field observations ofthe combustion structures at the Abric Romaní rockshelter.

Flat and concave combustion structure types have been uncovered in archaeological level O. Thesystematic recording of the sedimentary and dimensional attributes of the combustion structures can beused as empirical evidence with which to characterize the use of fire. Differences in the use of firerepresent a significant finding in the cultural repertoires of Neanderthals. Recognizing and recording thespecific organizational patterns of these activity areas, such as fire-use in sleeping and resting activityareas, indicate the definitive emergence of home bases in the spatial record of the living floors of thearchaic human groups.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Characterizing and locating combustion structures and othercultural features is a fundamental requisite for site structureresearch in archaeology (Kent, 1991; Binford, 1996). Combustionstructures of Middle Paleolithic age are scarce in extensive excava-tions, but theycan be avaluable source of information in the attemptto recognize the organizational properties of the archaeologicalrecord (Binford, 1982, 1996). The abundant sedimentary records ofthe combustion structures in level O of the Abric Romaní suggestdifferent uses of fire in the Mousterian living floors. The spatialpattern of the combustion structures shows relevant parallels withthat reported in archaeological and ethnoarchaeological studies of

Paleoecologia Humana i Evo-a, Spain.rdú).

nd INQUA. All rights reserved.

J., et al., Combustion structurrian Peninsula), Quaternary I

modern foragers (Lumley and Boone, 1976; Yellen, 1977; Fisher andStrickland, 1991; Binford, 1996).

Despite the scarce evidence among the cultural repertories ofarchaic human groups, several features of these combustion struc-tures suggest that they were household spaces. The existence ofdwellings in the Middle Paleolithic is a controversial issue. Criticalperspectives have been based on the absence of activity areas, suchas sleeping and resting areas in the archaeological record. Empiricalevidence of dwellings in archaic archaeological sites is supported byfindings related to construction materials, such as the alignment ofstones, mammoth tusks (as in the case ofMoldova) or plant remains(Jelínek,1976; Stapert,1990;Nadel et al., 2004). Solid dwellings haveonly been accepted in the Upper Paleolithic record (Kolen, 1999;Klein, 2003). The remains of huts from the Early Upper Paleolithic,specifically the structures from level IX and X at Grotte du Renned’Arcy, have been the subject of much criticism due to theirresemblance to the biomechanical “centrifugal living structures” ofthe Late Middle Paleolithic (Kolen, 1999).

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Fig. 1. Abric Romaní archaeological site, located on the northeastern Iberian Peninsula near the village of Capellades (Barcelona) (a). The Abric Romaní has NNE solar orientation andis located in the northern zone of the cliff called Cinglera del Capelló. The cliff containing the archaeological site is marked with a discontinuous circle (b).

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e122

Field observation and documentation of the sedimentary recordof combustion structures are useful tools in recognizing prehistoricactivity areas. The sedimentary record of the use of fire has beenwidely studied by means of numerous analytical techniquesincluding sedimentary petrography, soil micromorphology, organicgeochemistry, determinations of minerals of plant origin, magneticand luminescent properties and signatures in burned minerals androcks (Bischoff et al., 1984; Courty, 1984; Olive and Taborin, 1989;Piperno and March, 1996; Albert et al., 2000; Goodfrey-Smith andIlani, 2004). Researchers have mainly focused on the preciserecognition of natural and cultural formation processes to discusstheir reliability as empirical evidence of use of fire by humangroups. The prehistoric use of fire by human archaic groups hasrarely been explored in the framework of site structure research(site size, number of occupants, activity area types, etc.) (Bordes,1975; Rigaud et al., 1995; Meignen et al., 2001; Peretto et al.,2004). Therefore, this paper suggests that the sedimentarysamples of combustion structures can be a source of inconsistenciesbetween analytical results and site structure evidence in order toexplore episodic and processual paradigms in archaeology (Gouldand Watson, 1982; Henry, 2003).

This paper proposes using the sedimentary record observed incombustion structures at Abric Romaní as a way to characterizeprehistoric activity areas. The aims are: (1) to provide a field guidefor describing combustion structures and (2) to promote the bridgebetween field and laboratory data. Finally, recognition of prehistoricactivity areas of use of fire can enhance the recognition of areas ofsleeping and resting activities (Vallverdú et al., 2010). Identifyingsleeping and resting areas in the archaeological record can be aneffective test to suggest residential units or home bases withina specific organizational pattern of the living floors (Binford, 1988).

2. Abric Romaní de Capellades (Anoia, Barcelona)

The Abric Romaní site is located in the town of Capellades(Barcelona) at 280 m above sea level (Fig. 1). The site is a widerockshelter in the northern face of a long cliff carved out bya tectonic fault and the Anoia River. This river cuts through thePrelittoral chain and connects two structural areas of the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula: the Ebro and Vallés-Penedès basins.

The Abric Romaníwas discovered by Amador Romaní in 1909 andhas since been recognized as a classic Catalan Mousterian andAurignacian site. The sedimentary successionconsists of at least 15mof well-stratified carbonate sediments of fluvial and gravitational

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

transport with 25 archaeological levels spanning between 70 and40 ka (Bischoff et al., 1988). The archaeological layers were formedwhen rock fall sedimentary processes were dominant. The fluvialdeposits contain a limited ensemble of archaeological remains,suggesting that the rockshelter was at times uninhabitable due todrippingwaterflowingover the surfaces. Sediments of natural originform thick sedimentary successions (dm to m), whereas thearchaeological deposits are comparatively thinner (cm to dm).

Archaeological layer O is comprised of poorly stratified sand andfine gravel with a weathered surface. These fine-grained depositsare above a basal succession composed of gravel, blocks andmegablocks that originated from the fall of travertine rocks fromthe cliff above the rockshelter. U-series dates for level O place it ataround 55 ka (Bischoff et al., 1988), a period in human evolution inwhich fire control is generalized in the archaeological record of thearchaic human groups, suggesting the definitive emergence ofeconomic zoning based on central locations in prehistoric settle-ment systems (Gamble, 1990; Rolland, 1999, 2004).

3. Materials and methods

The combustion structures are located within a thin (<5 cm)archaeological layer protected by the travertine roof of the rock-shelter. The combustion structures are described by means offacies analyses and various dimensional attributes grouped intostratigraphic and mapping observations. The combustion structureobservations and studies of sedimentary microfacies suggest thatthere are two sedimentary processes related to the use of the fireby human groups (Vallverdú, 2002): (1) the thermal trans-formation of sediments and (2) the incorporation of organo-mineral material. The thermal transformations of sediments at theAbric Romaní are related to burnt carbonate sediments (Canti andLinford, 2000). The organo-mineral components consist of carbo-naceous facies (sediments rich in charcoal), which also containcarbonate rocks with homogeneous or heterogeneous burningmixed with other fuel-derived residues (ash, phosphate, humus,etc.). Homogenous carbonaceous facies have dominant charcoalcontents (>40%) and uniform thermal modification of rock frag-ments. Heterogeneous carbonaceous facies are made up of a vari-able charcoal content with unburned and burned sedimentarycomponents.

To document a combustion structure, the fieldwork begins bydelimiting the carbonaceous area, which is made up of carbonaceousand other natural-anthropic facies associations. The observation of

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Fig. 2. Combustion structure field procedures, step by step, in order to determine carbonaceous and combustion activity areas and stratigraphy. 1, hatched area with discontinuousline, carbonaceous activity area. 2, hatched area and continuous line, combustion activity area. 3, empty and continuous line: area of burnt sediments (burnt ground of thecombustion activity area without carbonaceous components). 4, travertine block. 5, z value (depth). 6, burnt sediment. 7, black homogeneous carbonaceous sediment. 8, darkheterogeneous carbonaceous sediment. 9, sedimentary ground of the combustion structure. A, greatest thickness. B, greatest linear diameter. C, number of bedforms.

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structures of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use offire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary International (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Fig. 3. Structural map of level O. 1, combustion areas. 2, carbonaceous areas (Roman numerals). 3. burnt blocks and megablocks. 4, blocks of the occupied floors. 5, structural blocksand megablocks. 6, large wood pseudomorph of travertine.

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e124

carbonaceous and burned carbonate facies associations identifiesa segment of ground as a combustion area. Two contour maps aremade in order to measure the surface areas of: (1) the carbonaceousactivity area; (2) the combustion activity area or the fire-use area.Each carbonaceous area is identified with a Roman numeral. Whereevidence of stratification in the combustion structure is found, eachstructure is labeled with a lower case letter in alphabetical order.

Before a combustion structure is excavated is thoroughlydocumented in the field by means of drawing, sampling and pho-tographing the carbonaceous area. In well preserved structures,

Fig. 4. Photograp

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

elementary hearths (Bordes, 1992) can often be distinguishedduring the determination of combustion activity areas becausehave a form similar to an experimental hearth. These elementaryhearths help to suggest the direction of the stratigraphic outcropwithin the combustion structure. In order to study the stratigraphyof a combustion structure, the structure must first be partiallyexcavated. First the carbonaceous material is removed and sampledto expose the burned or natural ground (Fig. 2). Then the ground isexcavated and sampled to determine its thermal modification.Samples are labeled as carbonaceous, burnt, or natural facies.

h of level O.

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Table 1Dimensional attributes of combustion structures: Sq, square of the site grid system;A, carbonaceous area (m2); S, slope (%); WD, lowest distance of the central point inthe combustion structure to rockshelter wall (m). Bottom graph: cases with theshortest distance between the rockshelter wall and combustion structures.

Combustion structures Sq Type form A (m2) S % WD (m)

I O41 Flat 0.8 9 2.8I a N41 Flat 0.08 17 3II N42 Flat 1.16 11 4III O45 Flat 0.59 9 5III b O45 Flat 0.35 1 5IV N44 Flat 0.6 15 5.1V M43 Concave 0.08 30 5.5VI M45 Flat 0.24 14 5.9VII L43 Flat 0.57 17 5.6VIII O43 Concave 2.38 14 3,1VIII a O43 Concave 0.6 17 3.7IX O51 Flat 7.24 0 6.6X N47 Flat 2.92 0 7.15XI R42 Flat 1.1 11 1.4XII T47 Flat 2.4 4 1.9XII a U46 Flat 0.15 13 0.4XII b U46 Flat 0.29 8 2.7XIII S50 Flat 0.5 2 2.2XIV S53 Flat 1.6 7 1.58XV S51 Flat 0.6 20 2.3XVI N58 Flat 11.1 18 2.1XVII K43 Flat 0.8 25 7XVIII L42 Flat 0.09 13 5.6XIX M40 Flat 1.3 23 4

Fig. 5. Different sizes of combustion structures. A, an elementary hearth. B, large combuscarbonaceous facies stratified with thick, dark heterogeneous carbonaceous facies showingphotograph of combustion structure XIII with a burnt slab above it.

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e12 5

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

Stratigraphic observations include the measure of thickness andthe shape (bedform) of the carbonaceous, homogeneous andheterogeneous (if present), and burnt facies (Fig. 2). The stratig-raphy of a simple combustion activity area contains a facies asso-ciation consisting of carbonaceous, black and homogeneous, andburned sediments. This facies association often has the lenticulargeometry regularly observed in themeridian stratigraphic outcropsof elementary hearths. The longest dimension (cm), number andmaximum thickness are noted in order to characterize the shape ofthe carbonaceous and burned layers (bedforms). Other measure-ments related to combustion structure stratigraphy are slope andthe color comparison of burned and natural ground. The stratig-raphy is drawn and photographed and, along with the descriptionof the lithofacies, the field documentation of the combustionstructures is complete.

4. Results

The map of the combustion structures in level O shown in Fig. 3contains the field documentation recorded in 2005. The carbona-ceous areas are drawn in light gray and the combustion areas areindicated in dark gray. Nineteen combustion structures have beendelimited, four of which are stratified (Fig. 4).

The forms of the combustion structures in level O can bedescribed by typological features regularly detailed in Paleolithicarchaeological studies (Perlès, 1976; Beechinng and Gasco, 1989),such as flat (n ¼ 17) and concave or cuvettes (n ¼ 2) (Table 1). Bothmorphologies may or may not feature stones. Flat structures occurin all dimensions of carbonaceous areas, whereas concave shapesare limited to middle-sized carbonaceous areas (Table 1).

tion structure IX. C, combustion structure III that shows a thin, black homogeneousa sedimentary figure made by a small scale cross-stratification of granules and sand. D,

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Fig. 6. Density (artifacts/25 cm2) of lithic (a) and faunal (b) remains (gray scale), and the carbonaceous (gray) and combustion (black) activity areas and structural blocks andmegablocks (hatched). Cartography produced during fieldwork from 2004 to 2005.

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e126

The lithostratigraphy of flat combustion structures containsa thin, black homogeneous carbonaceous facies, a thicker and darkheterogeneous carbonaceous facies and a red calcarenite facies. Thelithology of the cuvettes consisted of: (1) a thin, black homogeneouscarbonaceous facies; (2) a thick, dark heterogeneous carbonaceousfacies; and (3) a thick, grayish-white calcarenite facies, with scarcecharcoals, and burned gravel and blocks. Concave combustionstructures have a complex morphology due to their constructiontechnique: (1) a dug tail in keeping with those described by Bordes(Sonneville-Bordes, 1989); (2) burned gravel and blocks in the floorlike slab pavement; (3) multilayered thermal modification on theinterior of certain slabs.

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

4.1. Dimensional attributes

The most common dimension of the carbonaceous areas isapproximately 1 m2 (Table 1). The largest areas range from 3 to11 m2 and their diameters vary between 0.5 and 1.5 m, giving themelongated or rectangular shapes. Rectangular combustion struc-tures (IX, XI, XII, and XVI) are flat and have elementary hearths, withor without burnt blocks, and a slope of 0e20% (Fig. 5 and Table 1).One dimension related attribute of the combustion structures istheir bimodal distribution of around 2.5 and 5.5 m from the wall ofthe rockshelter (Fig. 3 and Table 1). Combustion structures XI, XII,XIII, XIV, XV and XVI are near the wall of the rockshelter, 2e3 m

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Table 2Stratigraphic features of the combustion structures. BC, black homogenous carbo-naceous facies. B, burned facies. DC, dark heterogeneous carbonaceous facies. A,highest thickness. B, highest linear diameter. C, number of bedforms. D, Munsell colorvalue/chroma variation between burned/natural sediment.

Combustion structure BC B DC

A B C A C D A B C

I 3 20 5 3 7 2/1 e e e

I a 2 10 1 1 1 2/1 e e e

II 1 15 3 3 3 4/0 e e e

III 3 15 3 1 1 3/0 e e e

III a 2 25 3 1 3 3/0 e e e

IV 2 15 3 4 3 1/0 3 50 4V 1 20 1 2 1 1/0 e e e

VI 3 15 3 3 3 3/-1 e e e

VII 1 10 4 5 7 4/-1 e e e

VIII 7 25 12 6 6 4/0 3 50 3VIII a e e e e e e e e e

IX 2 40 16 10 19 4/-1 8 40 1X 3 30 9 7 15 4/2 8 60 1XI 2 25 9 5 10 2/0 2 20 2XII 4 30 15 3 10 e 1 10 1XII a 1 30 1 3 1 e e e e

XII b e e e e e e e e e

XIII 5 20 5 6 5 3/0 e e e

XIV 1 25 1 3 2 4/0 e e e

XV 2 25 1 1 1 3/-1 e e e

XVI 4 20 23 7 25 4/1 e e e

XVII 2 25 8 6 9 e e e e

XVIII e e e e e e e e e

XIX 2 20 3 10 3 e e e e

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e12 7

from it, while the remainders are located 5e6 m away. Anotherdimension related-attributed is the 1 m spacing of the smallcombustion structures XIII, XIV and XV.

Bones and lithic artifacts are accumulated close to the rock-shelter wall and the combustion structures. The combustionstructures located at 6 m from the rockshelter wall are empty orcontain a low density of lithic and bone remains (Fig. 6).

4.2. Stratigraphic features

Lenticular homogeneous carbonaceous facies have amodal linealdimension of 20 cm. A partial correlation (50%) determines thecarbonaceous area through the number of lenticular layers made upof homogeneous carbonaceous facies as measured during strati-graphic observation. The field observations that can explain thesepartial correlations are subject to different degrees of archaeologicalvisibility. Low archaeological visibility is present in six combustionstructures, in which the presence of heterogeneous carbonaceousfacies suggests postdepositional modifications (Table 2). The lineardimensions of carbonaceous areas are larger than the number oflenticular layers of homogeneous carbonaceous facies. An exampleof natural alteration is observed in combustion structure III, inwhichheterogeneous carbonaceous facies have small scale cross-stratifi-cation (Fig. 5C). Nevertheless, an anomaly is observed in the largercombustion structures, for instance in combustion structure IX(Fig. 7), where there is a thick reddish facies with dark gray coloring,which seems to be burnt gravelous calcarenite. Several largercombustion structures show scant variation between the naturalground color of the living floor and the color of the reddened burntsediments (Munsell chroma variation< 2/in Table 2) suggesting: (1)low-intensity temperatures according to the modal length ofthe lenticular layers of black homogeneous carbonaceous facies,indicating possible small dimensions of elementary hearths; (2)probable sedimentary homotaxia between burnt sediments andreddened humic sediments in the facies composition of the com-bustion activity area.

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

Small and medium-sized combustion structures do not haveheterogeneous carbonaceous facies. Paired numbers of lenticularlayers of burnt and homogeneous carbonaceous facies seem anal-ogous to experimental hearths (Table 2).

One stratigraphic feature visible within large and very largecarbonaceous areas is the distance between combustion activityareas (Gamble,1990; Fisher and Strickland,1991). Inside these largecarbonaceous areas IX, X-XI-XII and XVI there are combustion areasspaced at a distance of 1 m apart (Figs. 7, 8 and 9).

5. Discussion

The occupied floors of level O at the Abric Romaní rockshelterfeature combustion structures that are well delimited by thepresence of empty adjacent areas and many of them are notstratified. The low number of stratified combustion structurespoints to a large surface area available for the use of fire in theoccupied floors. Only the travertine megablock outcrops on thenorthern part of the excavated area separate the zone near the wallfrom the dripline zone. This separation seems to have some effecton the distribution of artifacts, but not on the use of fire (Fig. 3), asthere are activity areas where only the use of fire has beenobserved, in the combustion structures farthest from the rock-shelter wall.

Sedimentary facies with homogeneous carbonaceous compo-nents are related to low temperature intensity combustion activityareas (Courty, 1984; Wattez, 1988). Heterogeneous carbonaceousfacies suggest occupational or natural disturbances and comprisethe carbonaceous area of the combustion structures. Grayish-whitecalcarenite sedimentary facies deserve a more detailed analysis inorder to determine their degree of thermal alteration and theirconstructive purpose in concave combustion structures (Bazile andGuillerault, 1987; Berna and Goldberg, 2007). Redder calcarenitefacies characterize the color change caused by the thermal impact(reddening due to rubefaction) in combustion activity areas oversediments rich in organic components (Canti and Linford, 2000).

5.1. Flat combustion structures

The size may depend on the lateral stratification of thecombustion activity areas, an amalgam of elementary hearthsdescribed in the formation process of external hearths (Binford,1988). Studies of other combustion structures, such as thosefound in Kebara cave, suggest a general vertical stratificationpattern (Bar-Yosef et al., 1992) or the reuse of combustion struc-tures in locations with space constraints in small occupied sites likeToj Faraj (Henry et al., 1996; Meignen et al., 2001). Hearth reuse hasalso been observed in recent Canoeros dwellings (Legoupil, 1989).According to the amorphous hearths of the Pech de l’Azé II site, theanalogy with flat combustion structures is supported by evidenceof their simple constructive techniques (Sonneville-Bordes, 1989).

The stratigraphy of flat combustion structures shows a mode of20 cm for homogeneous carbonaceous lenticular layers. Thismeasurement, which roughly indicates the dimensions of elemen-tary hearths, is also the measurement established for the lowestdiameter range in the Kebara hearths (Bar-Yosef et al., 1992). Thesmall size of these elementary hearths suggests limited consump-tion of wood fuel. The spacing of 1e1.5 m between combustionactivity areas (fire-use distances) in larger combustion structureswas also found in the small and medium-sized combustion struc-tures XII, XIII, XIV and XV (Figs. 8 and 9). This distance in fire-usereveals an activity area similar to the sleeping or resting activityareas documented in ethnoarchaeological and prehistoric archaeo-logical studies (Binford, 1988; Gamble, 1990; Fisher and Strickland,1991).

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Fig. 7. A, morphology and stratigraphy of flat combustion structures IX and X. B, AeA0 photograph of the stratigraphy of combustion structure IX. C, oblique view of combustionstructure X and stratigraphy of the IeI0 outcrop. Drawings of combustion structures IX and X and stratigraphic outcrops (bottom). Same vertical and horizontal scale. Erosionaltruncation of the combustion activity area is suggested by the abundance of burned-like facies and black homogeneous carbonaceous facies association, e.g. FeF0 stratigraphicprofile. Legend: 1, black homogeneous carbonaceous facies; 2, reddened calcarenite, burned-like, facies; 3, dark heterogeneous carbonaceous facies.

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e128

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structures of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use offire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary International (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Fig. 8. Maps and stratigraphy of flat combustion structures XI and XII. Same vertical and horizontal scale. Legend: 1, black homogeneous carbonaceous facies; 2, burned facies;3, dark heterogeneous carbonaceous facies.

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e12 9

The reuse of combustion structures from an axis made up ofsmall combustion activity areas spaced about 1 m apart mayexplain the rectangular shape and large surface of the carbona-ceous area of combustion structure IX (Table 1). This oversizedflat combustion structure also lacks artifacts, another character-istic of sleeping and resting activity areas (Nadel et al., 2004).Large, flat combustion structures such as IX-X-XI-XII-XVI in ar-chaeological layer O may be explained either by: (1) pedologicalweathering or erosion caused by occupational disturbances ornatural agents; or (2) the use of plants as a construction materialfor bedding.

Reoccupation may explain the large size of combustionstructure XVI. The combustion activity areas in this structure aremostly small and spaced 1 m apart, with one medium-sizedcombustion activity area. These morphological and stratigraphicfeatures may indicate different uses of fire and the spacing ofsmall combustion areas suggests another sleeping area in anoccupational palimpsest with an external hearth.

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

5.2. Concave combustion structures or cuvettes

Natural or artificial concavities and burned slabs indicate the useconstructive techniques and sedimentary materials for specialpurposes related to the use of fire (Fig. 10). The morphology andstratigraphy of these combustion structures suggest relevantcultural modifications of the original topography: erosional trun-cation, dug tail, pavement of burned slabs, etc. The homogeneouscarbonaceous lenticular layers have dimensions similar to those offlat combustion structures. Repeated episodes of the use of firewere deduced by blocks and slabs with interior multilayer thermalchanges (Fig.10B). Burned stones and fine sedimentary particles arealso reported in combustion structures from Kebara (Bar-Yosefet al., 1992). Combustion structures in cuvettes with stones havebeen documented as a means of producing heat and steam insidedwellings (Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon, 1983; Bordes, 1992). Dugtails as a technical combustion feature have been described asà event hearths at the Pech de l’Azé Nord site (Perlès, 1976;

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Fig. 9. Photographs of flat combustion structures. A, transversal view of combustion structure XII, note the elementary hearth in the right corner. B, view of carbonaceous area andthe 1-m spacing between two combustion areas within combustion structure XII. C and D, oblique view of combustion area in combustion structure XI when carbonaceous area hasbeen partially removed. E, stratigraphy of combustion structure XI showing the 1-m spacing between combustion areas.

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e1210

Sonneville-Bordes, 1989; Bordes, 1992). This tail in the morphologyof the combustion structures appears to help break the topographiclimitations of the concavity and enhance aeration.

6. Conclusions

The combustion structures of level O suggest various differentuses of fire. Recent reviews of spatial patterns and activity areas ofarchaic human groups suggest dissimilarities between theirbehaviors and those of modern humans. Some construction tech-niques also appear to be exclusive to modern humans (Karkanaset al., 2004). Significantly, evidence of combustion structuresdating from the Lower Paleolithic supports differing uses of the firebased on constructive techniques and sedimentary materials(Lumley and Boone, 1976; Perlès, 1976; Sonneville-Bordes, 1989).However, Paleolithic archaeology has yielded little newevidence oncombustion structures constructive techniques and sedimentarymaterials use, pointing to the need for further research in this field(Mania,1998;Henry, 2003; Peretto et al., 2004; Rolland, 2004; Berna

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

and Goldberg, 2007). In this respect, this paper constitutes a fieldguide for documenting different uses of fire in prehistoric activityareas. This processual paradigm implies the logical identification ofthe natural and cultural transformations of combustion structures.The approach avoids the application of episodic paleoethnographythrough archaeometry, bioarchaeology, geoarchaeology, or otherdisciplines until the site structure is elucidated. The paucity ofresearch into activity areas in archaeology indicates the vitality ofthe stratigraphic paradigm in Paleolithic archaeology (Julien, 2002).

In level O of the Abric Romaní the use of fire occurs in differentintra- and inter-occupational episodes. This is deduced by the evolu-tion of the morphology of the larger flat combustion structuresdocumented here. The size of the flat carbonaceous areas is linkedwith episodes of natural and occupational disturbances. The concavecombustion structures require further analytical data in order toidentify specificpurpose activityareas. Combustion structures inareasdevoid of artifacts represent a challenge for Paleolithic archaeologyand are of specific potential interest. Several flat combustion struc-tures have certain similarities to sleeping and resting activity areas,

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

Fig. 10. Map and stratigraphy of concave combustion structure VIII in the upper left corner. Same vertical and horizontal scale. This map shows the position of AeA0 and BeB0

profiles and CeC0 and DeD0 surfaces. Legend: 1, black homogeneous carbonaceous facies; 2, burned facies; 3, grayish-white heterogeneous calcarenite facies with charcoals andburned travertine slabs. Upper right corner: A, photograph of double concave combustion structure VII (stratigraphy); B, photograph of combustion structure IV (stratigraphy)where, in the left central part of the photograph, a travertine block shows multiple layers of thermal modifications; there is also an erosional truncation between cultural andnatural sedimentary facies.

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e12 11

considering the spacingbetweenfire-use or combustion activityareasdistance of 1m. The expectation is to documentmore activity areas inupcoming fieldwork at the Abric Romaní site. The empirical evidenceneeded to identify resting activity areas is proxy data in measuringgroupsize. Thesedimensional attributes of certain activityareas of theuse of the fire, such as sleep and rest activity areas in the spatialpatterning of the living floors, may be empirical evidence for therecognition of home bases and residential units among the differentoccupational strategies recorded at the Abric Romaní site.

Acknowledgements

Excavations at the Abric Romaní have been carried out with thesupport of the Departament de Cultura de la Generalitat de Cata-lunya (Servei d’Arqueologia i Paleontologia, Departament de Cul-tura i Mitjans de Comunicació), the Ajuntament de Capellades. TheGeneralitat de Catalunya and the Servei General de la Recercaprogram "De la recerca aplicada a la socialització del coneixement:Els canvis tecno-culturals i paisatgístics durant el Plistocè Superiori l’Holocè" (2009 SGR 813) provide financial support as well as theCatedra Atapuerca predoctoral program grant.

References

Albert, R.M., Weiner, S., Bar-Yosef, O., Meignen, L., 2000. Phytoliths in the middlepalealeolithic deposits of Kebara cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel: a study of the plant

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

material used for fuel and other purposes. Journal of Archaeological Science 27(10), 931e947.

Bar-Yosef,O.,Vandermeersch, B.,Arensburg,B., Belfer-Cohen,A.,Goldberg,P., Laville,H.,Meignen, L., Rak, Y., Speth, J.D., Tchernov, E., Tillier, A.M., Weiner, S., 1992. Theexcavations in Kebara cave, Mt. Carmel. Current Anthropology 33 (5), 497e550.

Bazile, F., Guillerault, P., 1987. Apports de la microscopie à Balayage à l’étude des solss’habitats paléolithiques. Hélinium XXVII, 19e31.

Beechinng, A., Gasco, J., 1989. Les foyers de la Préhistoire récente du Sud de laFrance. In: Olive, M., Taborin, Y. (Eds.), Nature et fonction des foyers pré-historiques. APRAIF, Nemours, pp. 275e292.

Berna, F., Goldberg, P., 2007. Assessing Paleolithic pyrotechnology and associatedhominin behavior in Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 107e121.

Binford, L.R., 1982. The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology 1 (1), 5e31.

Binford, L.R., 1988. En busca del pasado. Descifrando el registro arqueológico.Crítica, Barcelona.

Binford, L.R., 1996. Hearth and home: The Spatial Analysis of EthnographicallyDocumented Rock Shelter Occupations as a Template for DistinguishingBetween Human And Hominid Use of Sheltered Space. In: Proceedings of theXIII UISPP Congress. Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age SettlementSystems. ABACO, Forli, pp. 229e239.

Bischoff, J.L., Ikeya, M., Budinger, F.E., 1984. A TL/ESR study of the hearth feature atthe Calico archaeological site, California. American Antiquity 49 (4), 764e774.

Bischoff, J.L., Julià, R., Mora, R., 1988. Uranium-series dating of the Mousterianoccupation at Abric Romani, Spain. Nature 332, 68e70.

Bordes, F., 1975. Sur la notion de sol d’habitat en préhistoire paléolithique. Bulletinde la Société Prehistorique Française 72, 139e144.

Bordes, F., 1992. Leçons sur le paléolithique. Notions de géologie quaternaire.Presses du CNRS, Paris.

Canti, M.G., Linford, N., 2000. The effects of fire on archaeological soils and sedi-ments: temperature and colour relationships. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 6, 385e395.

Courty, M.A., 1984. Formation et évolution des accumulations cendreuses: approchemicromorphologique. 8e Colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Les

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012

J. Vallverdú et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2011) 1e1212

influences méridionales dans l’Est et le Centre-Est de la France au Néolithique:le rôle du Massif Central. C.R.E.P.A., Le Puy-en-Velay, pp. 341e353.

Fisher, J.W., Strickland, H.C., 1991. Dwellings and fire places: keys to Efe pygmycampsite structure. In: Gamble, C., Boismier, W.A. (Eds.), EthnoarchaeologialApproaches to Mobile Campsites. International Monographs in Prehistory,pp. 215e236. Ann Arbor.

Gamble, C., 1990. El poblamiento paleolítico de Europa. Critica, Barcelona.Goodfrey-Smith, D.I., Ilani, S., 2004. Past thermal history of goethite and hematite

fragments from Qafzeh cave deduced from thermal activation characteristics ofthe 110’C TL peak of enclosed quartz grains. Revue D’Archéométrie 28, 185e190.

Gould, R.A., Watson, P.J., 1982. A dialogue on the meaning and use of analogy in eth-noarchaeological reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 355e381.

Henry, D.O., 2003. Neanderthals in the Levant: Behavioral Organization and theBeginnings of Human Modernity. Continuum, London.

Henry, D.O., Hall, S.A., Hietala, H.J., Demidenko, Y.E., Usik, V.I., Rosen, A.M.,Thomas, P.A., 1996. Middle paleolithic behavioral organization: 1993 excavationof tor faraj, southern Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 23, 31e53.

Jelínek, J., 1976. Encyclopédie illustrée de l’homme prehistorique. Grund, Paris.Julien, M., 2002. Hacia la interpretación de los suelos de habitación. In: Garanger, J.

(Ed.), La prehistoria en el mundo. Akal, Madrid, pp. 195e220.Karkanas, P., Koumouzelis, M., Kozlowski, J.K., Sitlivy, V., Sobczyk, K., Berna, F.,

Weiner, S., 2004. The earliest evidence for clay hearths: aurignacian features inKlisoura cave 1, southern Greece. Antiquity 78 (301), 516e525.

Kent, S., 1991. The relationship between mobility strategies and site structure. In:Kroll, E.M., Douglas Price, T. (Eds.), The Interpretation of Archaeological SpatialPatterning. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 33e59.

Klein, R.G., 2003. Whither the Neanderthals? Science 299, 1525e1527.Kolen, J., 1999. Hominids without homes: on the nature of the middle palaeolithic

settlement in Europe. In: Roebroeks, W., Gamble, C. (Eds.), The Middle Palae-olithic Occupation of Europe. University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 139e175.

Legoupil, D., 1989. Le feu chez les indiens "canoeros" (nomades marins) de Pata-gonie: un exemple ethno-archaeologique. In: Olive, M., Taborin, Y. (Eds.), Natureet fonction des foyers préhistoriques. APRAIF, Nemours, pp. 123e127.

Leroi-Gourhan, A., Brézillon, M., 1983. Fouilles de Pincevent. Essai d’analyse eth-nographique d’un habitat magdalénien (la section 36). CNRS, Paris.

Lumley, H.d., Boone, Y., 1976. Les structures d’habitat au Paléolithique moyen. In:Lumley, H.d (Ed.), La Préhistoire Française. CNRS, Paris, pp. 644e655.

Mania, D., 1998. El paleolítico inferior en la región de Elbe-Saale. El yacimineto deBilzingsleben. In: Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L.,Rodríguez, X.P. (Eds.), The First Europeans: Recent Discoveries and CurrentDebate, pp. 137e149. Burgos.

Please cite this article in press as: Vallverdú, J., et al., Combustion structurfire at the Abric Romaní rockshelter (NE Iberian Peninsula), Quaternary I

Meignen, L., Bar-Yosef, O., Goldberg, P., Weiner, S., 2001. Le feu au Paléolithiquemoyen: recherches sur les structures de combustion et le statut des foyers.L’exemple du Proche-Orient. Paléorient 26 (2), 9e22.

Nadel, D., Weiss, E., Simchoni, O., Tsatskin, A., Danin, A., Lislev, M., 2004. Stone agehut in Israel yields world’s oldest evidence of bedding. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 101 (17), 6821e6826.

Olive, M., Taborin, Y., 1989. Nature et fonction des foyers préhistoriques. APRAIF,Nemours.

Peretto, C., Biagi, P., Boschian, G., Broglio, A., 2004. Living-floors andstructures fromthelower paleolithic to the bronze age in Italy. Collegium Antropologicum 28 (1),63e88.

Perlès, C., 1976. Le feu. In: Lumley, H.d (Ed.), La Préhistorie Française. CNRS, Paris,pp. 679e683.

Piperno, M., March, R., 1996. The Study of Human Behaviour in Relation to Fire inArchaeology: New Data and Methodologies for Understanding Prehistoric FireStructures. In: XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and ProtohistoricSciences. ABACO, Forlí-Italia. 11e107.

Rigaud, J.P., Simek, J., Ge, T.,1995.Mousterian fires fromGrotte XVI. Antiquity 69 (266),902e912.

Rolland, N., 1999. The middle palaeolithic as development stage: evidence fromtechnology, subsistence, settlement systems and himinid socio-ecology. In:Ullrich, H. (Ed.), Hominid Evolution. Lifestyles and Survival Strategies. EditionArchaea, Gelsenkirchen/Schwelm, pp. 315e334.

Rolland, N., 2004. Was the emergence of home bases and domestic fire a punctu-ated event? a review of the middle pleistocene record in Eurasia. AsianPerspectives 43 (2), 248e280.

Sonneville-Bordes, D.,1989. Foyers paléolithiques en Périgord. In: Olive,M., Taborin, Y.(Eds.),Natureet fonctiondes foyerspréhistoriques.APRAIF,Nemours, pp. 225e237.

Stapert, D., 1990. Middle palaeolithic dwellings: fact or fiction? some applications ofthe ring and sector method. Palaeohistoria 32, 1e19.

Vallverdú, J., 2002. Micromorfología de las facies sedimentarias de la colección dereferencia de la Sierra de Atapuerca y del nivel J del Abric Romaní. Implicacionesgeoarqueológicas y paleoetnográficas. Ph. D. Thesis. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

Vallverdú, J., Vaquero,M., Cáceres, I., Allué, E., Rosell, J., Saladié, P., Chacón, G., Ollé, A.,Canals, A., Sala, R., Courty, M.A., Carbonell, E., 2010. Sleeping activity area withinthe site structure of archaic human groups. Evidence from Abric Romaní level Ncombustion activity areas. Current Anthropology 51 (1), 137e145.

Wattez, J., 1988. Contribution à la connaissance des foyers préhistoriques par l’étudedes cendres. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 85 (10e12), 352e366.

Yellen, J.E., 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Recon-structing the Past. Academic Press, New York.

es of archaeological level O and mousterian activity areas with use ofnternational (2011), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.012