Epipalaeolithic assemblages in the Western Ebro Basin (Spain):The difficult identification of cultural entities

Adriana Soto a, Alfonso Alday a, Lourdes Montes b, Pilar Utrilla c, Unai Perales a,Rafael Domingo b, *

a Universidad del País Vasco/EHU. !Area Prehistoria, C/Tom!as y Valiente s/n, 01006 Vitoria, Spainb Universidad de Zaragoza, !Area Prehistoria, Plaza Constituci!on s/n, 22001 Huesca, Spainc Universidad de Zaragoza, !Area Prehistoria, C/ Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 22 June 2014

Keywords:Ebro basinLithic industryEpipalaeolithicAzilianSauveterrianProjectiles

a b s t r a c t

In this paper, we analyse the transition Late PalaeolithiceMesolithic in a restricted northern area into theEbro Basin (from !Alava to Huesca provinces), where this phase is still not well established. Between theend of the Aller€od and the start of the Boreal, the lithic assemblages are based on microlaminar in-dustries with a predominance of backed pieces, related to the Magdalenian tradition. Despite thiscommon microlaminar tradition, some internal differences suggest the possibility of evolution in timeand perhaps in space. In order to develop an internal classification in the studied area, we analyse somebacked types, and especially the chronological and regional relationship among the different industriestested.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The transition from the Palaeolithic to Epi-palaeolithiceMesolithic communities is a frequent topic in Spanisharchaeological literature (Aura et al., 2011; Martzluff et al., 2012;Rom!an, 2012; Villaverde et al., 2012; Utrilla et al., 2012a; García-Argüelles et al., 2013). Between the end of the Aller€od and thestart of the Boreal, the lithic assemblages are based on micro-bladeindustries with a predominance of backed elements, into a slowevolutionary process that will end with the introduction of notchesand denticulates complexes, especially well documented in theEbro basin (Alday, 2006a). These are known by the termMesolithic,to indicate that certain changes have taken place, whereas theprevious assemblages are called either Epipalaeolithic or Meso-lithic. These industries are defined by the microlaminar Magdale-nian tradition and some internal differences suggest the possibilityof evolution in time and/or geographical variants. The progressivenature of the changes complicates the description of theentities and their identities, and many terms have been applied:Azilian, Microlaminar Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic, Sauveterrian, or

Epimagdalenian. As shown, in Iberia the Prehistoric phases of theLate Glacial period and the early Holocene is highly compartmen-talised and different terms have been applied to contemporaryarchaeological sites. However, are these divisions supported by realdata or do they derive from the process in which knowledge wasacquired?

From a holistic perspective, in the Peninsula all those complexeshave been traditionally called Epipalaeolithic, as they emerged outof the Palaeolithic and seemed unrelated to the Neolithic. Thus,there was no defined intermediate phase justifying the use of theMesolithic concept. In Europe, since the mid-twentieth century,largely under the influence of J.G.D. Clark, the Mesolithic wasrecreated as a flexible entity, able to adapt and display differentcharacteristics. A better knowledge of modern hunter-gatherersocieties allows observation of the variety of situations they coverand their non-linear nature.

Returning to Iberia, it is obligatory to cite Fortea (1973) for hiscareful analysis of archaeological data, his conceptual ideas, and hischronology of the units he called Epipalaeolithic. Later researchproposed further taxonomic approaches without varying the basicdiscourse. Since the 1990s, the term Mesolithic has gained inpopularity, as a period with its own personality, in a situation of asignificant increase in documentation which has recognised theEbro Basin as a cultural entity susceptible to being studied as awhole. Prehistorians working in this region do not separate the

* Corresponding author. University of Zaragoza, Dept. Ciencias de la Antigüedad,Plaza Constituci!on s/n, 22001 Huesca, Spain.

E-mail address: rdomingo@unizar.es (R. Domingo).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.0411040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Quaternary International 364 (2015) 144e152

internal processes from the general dynamic, as was seen in thespecific meetings held in Vitoria and Jaca, which analysed theproblems within the context of all Iberia.

An interesting paradox currently exists: in the Iberian Peninsula,the new information is not located in the classical areas of Palae-olithic settlement (Cantabrian Spain, Pyrenees or Mediterraneancoast) but in inland regions, such as the Ebro Basin. Here, thissuccession rhythm problem remains, despite the amount of infor-mation concerning this period provided by the studied area, thezone between !Alava and Huesca. In recent years, the amount offieldwork carried has increased significantly, with more docu-mentation and geographical gaps being filled. However, no attempthas beenmade to summarise the data: both novelties and criteria ofindustrial diagnosis and assessment. This study addresses the is-sues still unsolved about the period and the region, highlighting themain unknowns and exploring the keys that might help to solvethem.

Historiography in the Ebro Basin, with references to neigh-bouring regions for understanding, can be summarised as follows:

! During most of the twentieth century, research was orientedtowards the Azilian in the Cantabrian region and the Pyrenees,as well as in a few sites in the Ebro Basin. However, most of thisregion was unknown archaeologically.

! Since the 1990s, a significant geometric Mesolithic populationhas been observed in the Ebro Basin, with information fromNavarre and !Alava being added to that in Arag!on. Owing to theabsence of similar sites in the Cantabrian region, these werelinked to cultural dynamics in the Spanish Levant. The Jaca 2008Conference (Utrilla and Montes, 2009) recapitulated the varioussituations.

! In the Vitoria 2005 Conference (Alday, 2006a), the notches anddenticulates Mesolithic was defined as a new entity with suchrelevant industrial changes that, for some researchers, markedthe boundary between the Epipalaeolithic and the Mesolithic.Well-known in the Ebro Basin and the Mediterranean, it has notbeen identified, apart from some exceptions, in the Cantabrianregion and the Pyrenees, which still seemed to be areas withother cultural dynamics.

! In the Ebro Basin, discoveries of microlaminar assemblages haveoccurred since the late 1990s, complementing the little infor-mation previously known. Following the historiographicalpattern, these have tended to be linked with the eastern area.However, from the spatial point of view, the character of theassemblages could lead to some affiliation problems, consid-ering the neighbouring industrial traditions. Are they associatedwith Cantabrian and Pyrenean Azilian complexes or the Medi-terranean Epimagdalenian? Or, do they have their ownidiosyncrasy?

These finds of microlaminar industries appear to indicate twolines beginning in the late Aller€od, and which can be associatedwith the dynamics in surrounding regions (Cava, 2004; Aura et al.,2011):

! The first would include industries derived from the Upper-FinalMagdalenian (MSF), called Azilian or Microlaminar Epi-palaeolithic (EM), characterised by an increase in pointedbacked elements compared with non-pointed objects, theinversion of burin/endscraper ratios, and the progressivemicrolithisation of backed elements and endscrapers.

! The second displays, to a greater or lesser extent, geometricmicroliths of the sauveterroid type, without any other sub-stantial alterations compared with previous industries.

The ascription of assemblages in the Ebro Basin to one traditionor the other is difficult, in some cases because of the preliminarynature of the study of sites still being excavated. In other cases, itreflects the problem of the complexity of the phenomenon anduncertain knowledge of diagnostic criteria to analyse the evolutionand nature of the assemblages.

Bearing in mind this complexity of the post-Magdalenian situ-ation, this paper attempts to organise some Ebro Basin assemblagesfrom the late Aller€od to the early Boreal. This approach is essentiallybased on the typological assessment of the retouched lithic as-semblages, the part of the archaeological record for which mostinformation is available, complemented by other kinds of evidence(technology and chronology).

2. The archaeological record

The available record is noteworthy: some twenty sites withMSFand Epipalaeolithic sensu lato levels including the sites of Berro-berría, Urratxa-III and Anton Koba, in the Cantabrian watershedbut close to the boundary of the study basin (Fig. 1). However, asmany of the sites have been excavated recently (Legunova, Pe~na-14), or are still being excavated (Socuevas, Martinarri, Esplug!on,etc.), the documentation is incomplete, which hampers the char-acterisation and definition of the units. Detailed studies of thenature of the occupations in general and the lithic assemblages inparticular are lacking. In total, definitive studies are available foreight sites. The others have been published as preliminary reports,frequently only a reference with a brief characterisation of thelithic assemblages.

The discoveries mark out the progressive consolidation of amodel of occupation of the territory in rock-shelters, beginning inthe MSF and lasting until the early Neolithic. The evolution in thepopulation can be summarised in the following scheme:

! 14,000e11,300 cal BP: the Ebro Basin gained importance withnew settlements both on high land (Portugain, Urratxa-III) andin valleys (Socuevas, Kukuma, Martinarri, Forcas-1, etc.); both inrock-shelters (Atxoste, Legunova, Esplug!on) and in the open air(Berniollo). All these indicate a good knowledge of the geogra-phy (Utrilla et al., 2012a). Each site has yielded raw materialswith different provenances, showing the exploitation of thewhole territory: it is not an occasional or fortuitous occupation.In contrast, in Cantabrian Spain, the opposite dynamic has beenobserved, with less evidence than in previous periods. Are thetwo phenomena related?

! 11,300e9000 cal BP: the number and importance of the sites, aswell as the variety of activities carried out at them, confirms thestability of the population (the sites of Atxoste and Forcas-I arerepresentative of this, with their long stratigraphies). Along theCantabrian coast, the reduction in information continues. Is thisa process of relocation derived from environmental and vege-tation changes, leading to the occupation of inland regions? Theidea is interesting, but should be taken with certain reserva-tions. The reasonmight be the loss of interest in occupying cavesrather than rock-shelters, which would mean that surveyingobjectives in the Cantabrian region should be reoriented.

Table 1 gives the radiocarbon dates according to levels, indi-cating the cultural attributions proposed by the researchers at eachsite. Those thought to be erroneous have been eliminated. In somecases, the dates are of little use because of the large standard de-viations; out of the 42 dates listed, 30 have deviations "100 years.The chart in Fig. 2 compares the most accurate dates with climatephases.

A. Soto et al. / Quaternary International 364 (2015) 144e152 145

Fig. 1. Epipalaeolithic and some Upper Final Magdalenian sites from the studied area (highlighted into the general Ebro Basin), with levels dated between Aller€od and Borealperiods. Orthoimage: NASA.

Table 1C14 dates from the Microlaminar Epipalaeolithic sensu lato levels studied. The table also includes some dates of the immediately previous MSF levels in the same deposits.Repetitive results are omitted for some levels. Italics: dates with ± > 100 (C: charcoal; B: bone).

Site Level Phase Lab. ref. Date BP Cal BP 2s System Sample

Urratxa-III II AZIL Ua-11433 10,240 ± 100 12,690e11,890 AMS BAnton Koba VIII AZIL I-16236 11,800 ± 330 14,880-12,920 Conv B

I-17479 11,700 ± 180 13,970e13,210 Conv BBerniollo II EM I-14786 9940 ± 490 13,000e10,040 Conv CKukuma 11 MSF Ua-2625 11,550 ± 130 13,700e13,180 AMS BMartinarri 102 SAUV GrA-46014 8455 ± 45 9560e9400 AMS B

103 MSF GrA-45940 11,890 ± 50 13,960e13,560 Conv BAtxoste E* SAUV GrA-35141 9450 ± 50 10,860e10,540 AMS B

VIb SAUV GrA-35142 9510 ± 50 11,170e10,570 AMS BGrA-15858 9550 ± 60 11,190e10,630 AMS B

VII MSF GrA-23107 11,690 ± 80 13,800e13,360 AMS BGrA-22900 11,800 ± 60 13,830e13,550 AMS B

Mendandia V EM GrA-6874 8500 ± 60 9580e9420 AMS BSocuevas III SAUV Beta282213 9260 ± 50 10,580e10,260 AMS B

Beta282214 10,550 ± 50 12,750e12,390 AMS BIV MSF Beta-282215 11,530 ± 50 13,140e12,900 AMS BV MSF Beta-282216 11,530 ± 50 13,600e13,280 AMS B

Beta-312041 11,540 ± 50 13,600e13,280 AMS BBeta-312041 12,040 ± 50 14,100e13,740 AMS B

Portugain 1 AZIL GrN-14097 10,370 ± 90 12,690e11,890 Conv BAbauntz d EM Ly-1964 9530 ± 300 11,966e9969 Conv B

2r MSF Beta-9918 12,340 ± 60 14,950e14,070 AMS COxA-5516 11,760 ± 90 13,840e13,480 AMS C

Berroberría C SAUV GrN-16618 8510 ± 90 9640e9360 Conv BGrN-18426 8630 ± 70 9790e9470 Conv BGrN-18425 8860 ± 100 10,300e9580 Conv B

Zatoya Ib EM Ly-1398 8150 ± 220 9540e8544 Conv CLY-1457 8260 ± 550 10,701e8016 Conv C

II MSF/AZIL Ly-1399 11,480 ± 270 13,935e12,775 Conv BLy-1400 11,840 ± 240 14,434e13,143 Conv B

Las Orcillas 1 EM Beta-252434 8610 ± 50 9670e9520 AMS BPe~na-14 d SAUV GrN-26000 10,630 ± 100 12,740e12,238 Conv C

GrN-25096 10,160 ± 130 12,381e11,294 Conv CGrN-26001 10,430 ± 190 12,720e11,621 Conv C

Legunova m EM? GrA-24295 10,760 ± 60 12,750e12,586 AMS Cq MSF GrA-27846 11,240 ± 60 13,242e13,000 AMS C

GrA-22089 12,500 ± 90 15,110e14,242 AMS CEsplug!on IV EM Beta-306725 7860 ± 40 8934e8547 AMS B

Beta-306722 8380 ± 40 9486e9300 AMS BForcas-I 7 SAUV GrN-17784 9360 ± 140 11,087e10,244 Conv B

9 AZIL GrN-17785 9715 ± 75 11,252e10,786 Conv B10 MSF GrA-32955 11,015 ± 45 13,012e12,742 AMS B

A. Soto et al. / Quaternary International 364 (2015) 144e152146

ERRATUM (see last page)

Fig. 2. Synthetic 14C diagram with relevant selected data (±" 100). Deep Grey: Upper Final Magdalenian; Grey: Sauveterrian industries; White: Azilian and undeterminedMicrolaminar complexes.

3. The difficult structuring of Epipalaeolithic assemblages

From the late Aller€od onwards, microlaminar industries derivedfrom the Magdalenian would gradually become independent of it.Their study in the Iberian Peninsula has been approached fromdifferent perspectives and regional viewpoints, so that industrialcomplexes have been described that are apparently different fromeach other, at least in name: Azilian (and its derivative, Aziloid),Microlaminar Epipalaeolithic, Sauveterrian and/or Sauveterroid,and Epimagdalenian. What are the diagnostic criteria? Is there acommon industrial background developed in different lines thatcross each other chronologically and territorially? Do they mix ordo they fuse together? Or are they different only in name owing todifferent research traditions?

In the Younger Dryas, the industries analysed in this studydisplay characteristics different from the MSF, a dynamic thatoccurred at a similar time in the Cantabrian region and the SpanishLevant. In some cases, these units are called Sauveterroid simplybecause of the presence of geometrics. This will be discussedfurther below.

The first methodological doubts arise: although contextualisedstratigraphically and chronologically, are the lithic assemblagessignificant enough to mark both the transition between thePalaeolithic and the Epipalaeolithic and the evolution of the latter?What characters define each archaeological entity?

A first look at the current status of the issue will take data fromthe most important lithic series: Portugain (Barandiar!an and Cava,2008); Martinarri (Alday et al., 2012); Abauntz (Utrilla, 1982);Mendandia (Alday, 2006b); Kukuma (Balde!on and Berganza, 1997);Atxoste (Alday, 2002; Barandiar!an et al., 2006); Zatoya(Barandiar!an and Cava, 1989, 2000); Pe~na-14 and Legunova(Montes, 2005 and provisional counts); Esplug!on (Utrilla et al.,2012b); Forcas-I (Utrilla and Mazo, 2014). The information will behomogenised in six categories: endscrapers (R), burins (B), backedelements (lba), geometrics (Gm), notches and denticulates (MD),and others. Table 2 shows that, whatever the cultural ascription,backed elements are usually the most numerous. In eleven as-semblages they are the most abundant and in three the secondmost. Endscrapers dominate in small assemblages and are thesecond most common in nine. Burins have significant proportions(over 10%) in four cases. In two, they are even more numerous thanendscrapers, but in Portugain level 1 the difference does not seemsignificant and in the level 7 of Forcas-I the ensemble is extremelypoor.

Given the importance of backed elements, their evolution needsto be examined, even though there are assemblages where they areless relevant. Table 3 illustrates the process, including Urratxa-III(Mu~noz and Berganza, 1997) and Anton Koba (Armend!ariz, 1997).It shows that: a) projectiles are generally very abundant, but vary inimportance; and b) in the blades/points ratio, often taken asdifferentiating Magdalenian and Epipalaeolithic assemblages, anoverall progression is unclear.

To study armatures in greater detail, the evolution of certaintypes has been examined, in an elementary analysis that will needexploring in greater depth in the future. At the same time, an initialmetric assessment of the assemblages has been performed. No clearprocess in the evolution of the sub-types can be discerned: trun-cated backed blades appear in varying proportions in each of thechrono-climatic phases, ranging from 3.4 to 30%, and truncatedbacked points are scarce. A trend may exist in the development ofpartially backed points: scarce at Zatoya (Aller€od), double in pro-portion at Portugain (Younger Dryas), and again at Atxoste (Pre-boreal). More data is needed to confirm this pattern. Are the trendsreal or do they depend on the particular interests of the commu-nities occupying the sites? In themetric analysis, a reduction in sizeis clear: the mean length of backed elements in the Aller€od is30 mm, dropping to 15.2 mm in the Holocene. The mean widthdeclines from 7.5 mm to 6 mm in the Boreal. Microlithisation didnot end in the Palaeolithic and continued in Holocenemicrolaminarindustries, until the start of the notches and denticulatesMesolithic.

The general composition of the assemblages and the evolutionof the backed elements suggest a process that needs testing withmore data and more precise characterisation of the series. Somechanges are not anecdotal and are related to more general strate-gies whose consideration improves the understanding of thetransition: systems of production, provision and consumption oflithic materials, and the functionality and type of occupation of thesites.

3.1. The transition from the Magdalenian

If we take into account the analysed archaeological ensemblesthat make up the evidence base, the first Epipalaeolithic industriessensu lato appear about 13,500 cal BP, at the end of theMagdaleniancycle. In other parts of Iberia, the criteria to define this transitionare: a) the disappearance of art; b) changes and impoverishment ofbone industries; and c) variations in the composition of lithictoolkits (microlithisation, increase in backed points, inversion ofthe burin/endscraper ratios) (Gonz!alez S!ainz, 1989; Aura et al.,2011). The scarcity of the first two criteria in the Ebro Basinmeans that we are limited to the lithic assemblages. In addition, theprogressive nature of the changes, and the functional and

Table 2Typological characterization from some lithic ensembles synthesized in 6 differentcategories (% among the total retouched pieces). (R: endscrapers; B: burins; lba:backed pieces; Gm: geometric armatures; MD: notches and denticulate; Other: restof types). *Provisional data. Bold: dominant type.

Site Level ETAPE R B lba Gm MD Other Total

Portugain 1 Azilian 9.3 13.3 29.3 e 18.0 30.1 441Martinarri 100 EM 25.6 e 41.0 5.1 17.9 10.4 25*

101 EM 24.0 2.5 49.3 3.1 2.5 18.6 182*102 SAUV 25.2 4.1 42.6 2.2 1.7 24.4 191*103 MSF 8.3 4.1 62.5 e 4.1 21.0 57*

Abauntz d AZIL 13.8 6.9 36.6 e 12.5 30.2 72Mendandia V EM 40.0 e 26.6 e 13.3 20.0 15Kukuma MSF 4.3 6.5 47.8 6.5 13.0 21.7 46Atxoste VIb SAUV 8.0 4.2 44.3 9.5 5.0 29.0 262

VIb2 EM 14.7 3.4 58.0 3.4 5.6 14.7 88Zatoya II MSF/AZIL 21.2 9.0 51.3 1.3 5.3 11.7 434Pe~na 14 d SAUV 23.9 4.2 19.7 5.6 20.7 25.8 213Legunova m EM? 18.0 14.0 31.0 e 12.0 25.0 100*Forcas I 7 SAUV 6.2 16.6 12.5 6.2 12.5 43.7 16

9 AZIL 33.3 19.0 e e 14.2 33.3 2110 MSF 34.7 4.3 21.7 e 13.0 26.0 23

Table 3Some industries with backed pieces from the Ebro Basin (bold: backed elements #40% among all the retouched pieces) and relationship between LD and PD (bold: LDor PD # 60%). (LD: backed bladelets; PD: backed points).

Allerod Dryas III Preboreal Boreal

Zatoya II: 51%61% LD/PD 39%

Portugain 1: 30%45% LD/PD 55%

Atxoste VIb2: 58%74% LD/PD 26%

Las Orcillas: 34%49% LD/PD 51%

Kukuma: 48%72% LD/PD 28%

Urratxa III: 25%76% LD/PD 24%

Atxoste VIb: 44%54% LD/PD 46%

Berroberria C: 20%

Anton Koba: 41% Pe~na-14 d: 20% Abauntz d: 37%93% LD/PD 7%

Martinarri 102: 43%

Forcas-I 10: 22%

A. Soto et al. / Quaternary International 364 (2015) 144e152148

geographic diversity of the sites, hinders the establishment ofobjective criteria with which to define the industries.

According to the ascriptions given by some researchers, it hasbeen supposed that in the upper and middle Ebro, the first Epi-palaeolithic assemblages appeared somewhat later. However, inMSF collections, some industrial peculiarities are appreciable andcan be associated with a progressive advance towards character-istics typical of the Epipalaeolithic. Here, the MSF begins about15,500 cal BP and lasts about twomillennia: Atxoste VII, Socuevas Vand IV, Legunova q, Abauntz 2r, Forcas-I 13 and 10, Chaves 2b and2a, Martinarri 103, Kukuma, and Zatoya IIb and II. Based on the littlepublished data, these industries are characterised by the predom-inance of backed pieces (between 35 and 55%, with a preference fornon-pointed elements) and burins.

However, within this phase, a slow transformation withdifferent orders and rates can be seen. A gradual process towardsthe canons of micro-blade industries that are not classed as Azilianowing to the absence of a diagnostic bone industry nor as Epi-magdalenian due to the difficulty in determining differences withinthe continuum. For example, in Zatoya II, Chaves 2a and Atxoste VII,the slight trends attesting this evolution towards the Epi-palaeolithic are: the loss of burins in favour of endscrapers whosecharacter is modified; and in backed elements, an increase inpointed pieces, consolidation of curved pieces, slight decrease inlength and an increase in thickness (Barandiar!an and Cava, 1989;Barandiar!an et al., 2006; Utrilla et al., 2010). The end of theMagdalenian world gave rise to a diversity and complexity of in-dustrial situations resulting in several issues that are currently hardto solve.

Owing to the problems it displays, it is pertinent to examineAnton Koba, a cave located on the edge of the Ebro Basin(Armend!ariz, 1997). Its level VIII would represent the oldest Azilian(largely defined by the presence of two flat harpoons), dated to c.13,700 cal BP and contemporary with the MSF at other sites. Inother aspects, the Azilian nature is less clear: a predominance ofnon-pointed backed pieces, absence of microlithisation, and pres-ence of double side-scrapers with invasive retouching. Does thisrepresent the start of a long-term process or could it be two over-lapping assemblages?

3.2. Epipalaeolithic industries from the Younger Dryas to the Boreal

Younger Dryas sites are described as Azilian or Epimagdalenian.Their industries exhibit great differences in their composition(Table 2) and differ from the MSF in the characteristics of theendscrapers and backed elements. The endscraper/burin ratio isnot homogeneous but displays changes in comparison with theprevious phase. The former are the most numerous at Urratxa-IIIlevel III and Pe~na-14 d, with an increase in the unguiform and cir-cular microlithic types (Mu~noz and Berganza, 1997; Montes, 2005).In contrast, they are less common than burins at Portugain and,although they are not microlithics, they tend to use short preforms(Cava, 2008). Although the predominance of backed tools ismaintained, they lose importance, particularly at Pe~na-14 d, wherethey only amount to 20%. The changes in the backed pieces mostlyaffect the style of their shaping. Some traits are connected with theAzilian: at Portugain (Fig. 3) they exhibit an arched morphology(80% of the continuous backed points), bipolar retouching (28%)and a greater thickness (mean of 3 mm and carenated index of2.45). Microlithisation is more common than in the MSF.

Even though it is relatively contemporaneous, Pe~na-14 d dis-plays certain patterns in the shape of the backed elements whichneed to be analysed (Fig. 4): a predominance of pointed (74%) andcurved (68%) in the backed elements, without resembling Azilianmodels, owing to the absence of bipolar retouching and their flatshape (2.1 mm thick in the backed points, with a carenated index of2.6). They are small (mean length 15mm, with only 10% longer than20 mm, and mean width of 5.3 mm), considerably smaller than atPortugain and Urratxa-III. These differences in the backed artefactsare accompanied by the introduction of geometrics, which aug-ments the dissimilarities. There are 12 scalene triangles (5.6% of theassemblage) which are small in size (mean length 14.8 mm andmean width 5.7 mm). The assemblage is completed by 21microburins.

This means that, together with assemblages with a predomi-nance of curved and relatively thick backed points partly madewith bipolar retouching, in which geometrics are absent (Portugainand Urratxa-III), there are collections with geometrics and backedpoints that, although curved, are microlithic, thin and made with

Fig. 3. Backed points from the Portugain Azilian industry (Dryas III). Note the frequent (1, 2, 4 and 6e9) arched and thick bipolar backs (Cava, 2008).

A. Soto et al. / Quaternary International 364 (2015) 144e152 149

unidirectional retouching (Pe~na-14 d and, with certain reserva-tions, Socuevas level III) (Alday and Cava, 2013).

Both situations occur in the sequence at Atxoste (Fig. 4),although in a more recent period, the Preboreal. Between levelsVIb2 and VIb, as well as an increase in the proportion of backedpoints and the number of geometrics (isosceles and scalene tri-angles, together with segments and two trapezoid microliths)(Tables 2 and 3), there is a transformation in the shaping style of theformer, with a decrease in bipolar retouching (from 20% to 7%), anincrease in the curvedmorphologies (from 8% to 24%), and a greaterdiversity of subtypes (truncated and partial backed points). Theincrease in their microlithisation is equally noticeable. Althoughthey are small in level VIb2 (mean of 15 mm), they becomehypermicrolithic in VIb (74% <15 mm and even <10 mm), in thesame way as the geometrics (22% <10 mm).

At Atxoste, these changes in the shaping occur together withother variations in the retouched assemblage (such as theappearance of splintered pieces) and also in the management of

raw materials and knapping systems, which must reflectmore profound transformations in lithic production strategies.These aspects are difficult to assess in the current state ofknowledge.

This duality of microlaminar assemblages with or withoutgeometrics persists in time. As well as the assemblages with geo-metrics at Atxoste and Socuevas III in the Preboreal, in the Borealthey have been identified in levels 102, and possibly 101 at Marti-narri and Forcas-I level 7 (Alday et al., 2012; Utrilla and Mazo,2014). Detailed studies of their lithic assemblages are still notavailable, which hinders an assessment of the characteristics oftheir backed elements and the reconstruction of the productiveprocesses.

Microlaminar assemblages without geometrics include Forcas-I9 in the Preboral and two sites dated c. 9500 cal BP, Mendandia andLas Orcillas (Alday, 2006b; Fern!andez Eraso et al., 2010). However,they are poor collections where the absences may not be particu-larly meaningful. More relevant for this debate are the assemblages

Fig. 4. Hypermicrolithic arched backed points (without bipolar retouch) and geometric armatures (triangles and segments) from Pe~na-14 level d (Dryas III) and Atxoste level VIb(Preboreal).

A. Soto et al. / Quaternary International 364 (2015) 144e152150

from level d at Abauntz and level II at Berniollo, whose imprecisedating does, however, hamper an appropriate assessment (Utrilla,1982).

In addition, not far from the Ebro Valley, level C at Berroberría,dated in the Boreal, has yielded geometrics without a microlaminarbase and with the presence of elements that are techno-typologically in the line of the notches and denticulates Meso-lithic (Alday and Cava, 2006). It is too soon to assess its parallels inthe Ebro Basin, and this will be an aspect to be considered in thefuture.

4. Discussion

Despite the limitations caused by the preliminary nature ofmuch of the data being used, the evolution seen in the upper andmiddle Ebro valley is similar to that identified in surrounding re-gions, both in the composition of the retouched industry and in thestyle of the backed elements. In the Cantabrian region, thesequence includes an early Azilian and an evolved phase. Backedelements increased in diversity, splintered pieces and notchesgained importance and it is common to find geometrics andmicroburins in the recent phase (Fern!andez-Tresguerres, 2006). Onthe Mediterranean, the shapes of microlaminar tools in the Epi-palaeolithic sequencing have recently been highlighted (Rom!an,2011, 2012). In this way, in an Epimagdalenian phase, backedpoints became common, especially the thicker pieces with bipolarretouching in its initial phase, and these evolved towards curvedshapes in the recent phase, with the presence of geometrics. In theHolocene at some sites, geometrics become more abundant,although they are always found in smaller numbers than thebacked pieces. This phase is defined as a microlaminarSauveterrian.

Owing to its location, the study area lies in the possible region ofthe confluence of both traditions and it plays a vital role in theunderstanding of the relationship existing between them. As aconsequence of the scarcity of other elements in the archaeologicalrecord, such as the bone industry or art, which in any case areequally scarce in Azilian areas themselves, the definition of sites inthe Ebro as Azilian or Epimagdalenian depends on the lithic as-semblages. According to our own experience, the criteria normallyused to discern between one and the other are not effectivelydiagnostic, but this problem does not appear to be exclusive to thestudy area (Martínez-Moreno and Mora, 2009; Petit et al., 2009;Martzluff et al., 2012; Rom!an, 2012). The recognition of this pro-cess of change does not impede the identification of regional dif-ferences and particularities, which do exist, but a global debate isnecessary to assess to what extent these form part of the sameindustrial process or are differences that require the use of differentterminologies.

In the same way, it may be debated whether the first geometricassemblages developed on an Azilian or Epimagdalenian base. InMSF deposits, geometrics are not rare, and may even be accom-panied by microburins (e.g. at Zatoya, Kukuma and Forcas-I), andtheir presence continued during the Younger Dryas until the mid-dle of the Boreal period. These microlithic, occasionally pygmy el-ements, appear mainly in the form of scalene and isoscelestriangles and segments. These are similar types to those in theFrench Sauveterrian. However, they seem to have been introducedslowly, as an addition rather than a transformation of the toolkit.Backed elements remain the predominant category. However, fromthe Younger Dryas onwards, there are more sites with geometricsthan without them. What may be more significant is their associ-ation with changes to the shape of backed artefacts and possibly tomore profound modifications in the general production strategiesand management of lithic tools. These are very interesting aspects

for an understanding of the development of geometric assem-blages, and need to be studied in greater depth in future research.

5. Conclusions

1. The transition from the late Palaeolithic to the Epipalaeolithic is,in Iberia, divided into various regional complexes. Analysissuggests that this division may be fictitious, perhaps derivedfrom the history of research and the lack of clear concepts todefine these industries.

2. The present study has used the available documentation fromthe Ebro Basin to compare the data. Although they are provi-sional, they should help to reach a consensus between theCantabrian andMediterranean extremes. It is an initial approachresulting from the research carried out in recent decades, of-fering a state of the art, pointing out deficiencies and problemsand attempting an evolutionary framework.

3. The composition of the lithic assemblages remains relativelystable in time, with certain changes (percentage of backed ele-ments, endscrapers, and burins) within a progressive evolution.Some elements may display certain diagnostic value, such as thedenticulate backed pieces called saws (Kukuma, Socuevas,Atxoste, and Esplug!on), or the Teyjat points (Socuevas andAlaitz), that are considered Magdalenian. However other casesare debatable (the long blades with invasive bilateral retouchidentified in the MSF at Zatoya, Abauntz, Socuevas, Atxoste, andMartinarri, but also found in the Azilian at Anton Koba andSantimami~ne). Is this another example of slow change?

4. Aspects of the retouched tools at the various sites (size, style,subtypes, etc.) remain to be determined, as well as changes inthe production and management of raw materials, in the pop-ulation and use of the territory, and in the general under-standing of the types, duration, and functionality of theoccupations.

5. In the timespan being studied (Aller€odeBoreal), some generaldynamics are significant, although several issues need to beclarified. In the conclusion of the MSF, the number of burinsdecreases in comparison with the endscrapers, which tend touse shorter products, while the number of endscrapers withpointed base increases. Backed elements are one of the mostimportant tools in the definition of the industries:! These artefacts are normally predominant in the assemblages.Although their percentages fluctuate, no variations in chro-nological order can be detected. This aspect may be related tothe functionality and duration of the occupations.

! The trend is towards an increase in pointed backed artefactsrather than non-pointed pieces, but not in all cases.

! Microlithisation is continuous, even in the Holocene.6. The changes seen in the backed elements can be observed

together with the geometrics. Armatures and microburins arecommonly found in MSF deposits (Zatoya II, Kukuma, Forcas-I13). From the evidence at Pe~na-14 and Atxoste, it is possible topropose their growing importance in time and also greatervariability in their types.

7. One challenge for the future will be to understand how, after theDryas, some Azilian assemblages (Portugain and Urratxa-III,with curved, thick and partially bipolar backed artefacts) coin-cide with others (Pe~na-14 d and Socuevas III) which may bedescribed as Sauveterrian. Their backed elements have adifferent appearance and are associated with geometrics, in amodality that continues in time (Atxoste in the Preboreal). Evenlater, in the Boreal, the significance of the persistence of as-semblages with geometrics (Martinarri 102 and 101) andwithout them (Mendandia V and Las Orcillas) needs to be

A. Soto et al. / Quaternary International 364 (2015) 144e152 151

determined. In the current state of research, certain complexityis seen, and this is clearly not limited to the study area.

8. This study has shown the necessity of achieving an agreementabout the analytical criteria used to discriminate the rates ofchange. Apparently, from a common MSF background, theCantabrian region, the Spanish Levant and the Ebro Basindisplay a similar and contemporary process. In the Cantabrianregion, this process goes from an early Azilian to an evolvedphase. In the Levant, the Epimagdalenian evolves into a micro-laminar Sauveterrian. In the same chronological framework, theEbro Basin follows similar steps that suggest convergences thatcannot be accidental. However, there are certain signs ofcomplexity. In any case, in this time, the region had alreadyemerged culturally, and continued to develop in the successivestages of the Epipalaeolithic and the Mesolithic.

Acknowledgements

The present text forms part of the projects HAR2011-26364“Human communities in the upper Ebro Basin in the Pleistoce-neeHolocene transition” and HAR2011-27197 “Reappraising oldsites, widening horizons in the Prehistory of the middle Ebro Val-ley”. The authors also participate in the Research Network CTPR4/12 PalMesoPyr: “Between the Ebro and the Garonne: The Pyreneesin the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.”

References

Alday, A., 2002. Las unidades industriales mesolíticas en la Alta-Media Cuenca delEbro. Complutum 13, 19e50.

Alday, A., 2006a. El mesolítico de muescas y denticulados en la cuenca del Ebro y ellitoral mediterr!aneo peninsular. In: Memoria de Yacimientos Alaveses, vol. 11.Diputaci!on Foral de !Alava.

Alday, A., 2006b. El legado prehist!orico de Mendandia: los modos de vida de losúltimos cazadores-recolectores en la prehistoria de Trevi~no. In: Arqueología deCastilla y Le!on. Memorias, vol. 15. Junta de Castilla y Le!on.

Alday, A., Cava, A., 2006. La unidad de muescas y denticulados del Mesolítico en elPaís Vasco: la formalizaci!on de un modelo cultural. In: Alday, A. (Ed.), El mes-olítico de muescas y denticulados en la cuenca del Ebro y el litoral mediterr!aneopeninsular, Memoria de Yacimientos Alaveses, vol. 11, pp. 223e300.

Alday, A., Cava, A., 2013. Yacimiento prehist!orico de Socuevas (Pobes). Arkeoikuska2012, 110e118.

Alday, A., Soto, A., L!opez de Heredia, J., Perales, U., 2012. El abrigo de Martinarri(Ob!ecuri, Trevi~no): una ocupaci!on del Tardiglaciar en la Cuenca Alta del Ebro.Trabajos de Prehistoria 69 (2), 257e272. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/tp.2012.12091.

Armend!ariz, A., 1997. Ant!on Koba: cazadores azilienses en la sierra de Aizkorri(Gipuzkoa). In: II Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular, vol. 1, pp. 297e310.

Aura, E., Jord!a, J., Montes, L., Utrilla, P., 2011. Human responses to Younger Dryas inthe Ebro Valley and the Mediterranean Watershed (Eastern Spain). QuaternaryInternational 242, 348e359.

Balde!on, A., Berganza, E., 1997. El yacimiento epipaleolítico de Kukuma. Un asen-tamiento de cazadores-recolectores en la Llanada Alavesa (Araia, !Alava). In:Memoria de Yacimientos Alaveses, vol. 3. Diputaci!on Foral de !Alava.

Barandiar!an, I., Cava, A., 1989. El yacimiento prehist!orico de Zatoya (Navarra).Evoluci!on cultural y ambiental a fines del Tardiglaciar y en la primera mitad delHoloceno. Trabajos de Arqueología Navarra 8.

Barandiar!an, I., Cava, A., 2000. El Paleolítico superior de la cueva de Zatoya (Nav-arra): actualizaci!on de los datos en 1997. Trabajos de arqueología Navarra 5,5e99.

Barandiar!an, I., Cava, A. (Eds.), 2008. Cazadores y tallistas en el abrigo de Portugain.Una ocupaci!on de Urbasa durante el Tardiglaciar. Fundaci!on Jos!e Miguel deBarandiar!an, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

Barandiar!an, I., Cava, A., Alday, A., 2006. Ocupaciones de altura e interior durante elTardiglaciar: la Llanada alavesa y sus estribaciones monta~nosas. ZonaArqueol!ogica 7 (1), 535e550.

Cava, A., 2004. Los “procesos culturales” del Holoceno en la Cuenca del Ebro y sucontextualizaci!on. Saldvie 4, 17e40.

Cava, A., 2008. La industria lítica de Portugain: los objetos retocados, descripci!on yreflexiones tecno-tipol!ogicas. In: Barandiar!an, I., Cava, A. (Eds.), Cazadores ytallistas en el abrigo de Portugain. Una ocupaci!on de Urbasa durante el Tardi-glaciar. Fundaci!on Jos!e Miguel de Barandiar!an, Vitoria-Gasteiz, pp. 59e119.

Fern!andez Eraso, J., García Rojas, M., Fern!andez Crespo, T., Casta~nos, P., Bailon, S.,Murelaga, X., Tarri~no, A., 2010. La cueva de Las Orcillas 1: una estaci!on de losúltimos cazadores-recolectores en La Berrueza (Mendaza-Acedo, Navarra).Trabajos de arqueología Navarra 22, 13e91.

Fern!andez-Tresguerres, J.A., 2006. El Aziliense de la regi!on cant!abrica. Zephyrus 59,163e179.

Fortea, J., 1973. Los complejos microlaminares y geom!etricos del Epipaleolíticomediterr!aneo espa~nol. Salamanca.

García-Argüelles, P., Fullola, J.M., Rom!an, D., Nadal, J., Bergad!a, M.M., 2013. Elmodelo epipaleolítico geom!etrico tipo Filador cuarenta a~nos despu!es: vigenciay nuevas propuestas. In: de la Rasilla, M. (Coord), F. Javier Fortea. UniversitatisOvetensis Magister. Estudios en homenaje. Universidad de Oviedo/M!ensulaEdiciones, Oviedo, pp. 151e165.

Gonz!alez S!ainz, C., 1989. El Magdaleniense Superior-Final de la regi!on cant!abrica.Tantín, Santander.

Martínez-Moreno, J., Mora, R., 2009. Balma Guilany#a (Prepirineo de Lleida) y elAziliense. Trabajos de Prehistoria 66 (2), 35e50.

Martzluff, M., Martínez-Moreno, J., Guilaine, J., Mora, R., Casanova, J., 2012. Trans-formaciones culturales y cambios clim!aticos en los Pirineos catalanes entre elTardiglaciar y Holoceno antiguo: Aziliense y Sauveterriense en Balma de laMargineda y Balma Guilany#a. Cuaternario y Geomorfología 26 (3e4), 61e78.

Montes, L., 2005. El Magdaleniense en el Prepirineo aragon!es: últimos hallazgos. In:Bicho, N. (coord.), O Paleolitico. Promontoria Arqueologica 2, Faro, pp. 183e192.

Mu~noz, M., Berganza, E., 1997. El yacimiento de la cueva de Urratxa III (Orozko,Bizkaia). Universidad de Deusto.

Petit, M.A., Mangado, X., Fullola, J.M., Bartrolí, R., Bergada, M.M., Esteve, X., 2009. Elscaçadors recol.lectors de la cova del Parco (Al#os de Balaguer, la Noguera, Lleida).L'epipaleolític microlaminar: continuïtat o canvi?. In: Els Pirineus i les #areescircumdants durant el Tardiglacial. Mutacions i filiacions tecnoculturals,evoluci!o paleoambiental (16,000e10,000 BP). XIV Col-loqui internacionald'arqueologia de Puigcerd#a. Homenatge al Professor George Laplace. Puigcerd!a,2006. Institut d'estudis ceretans, pp. 579e587.

Rom!an, D., 2011. El poblament del final del Plistoc#e en les comarques del nord delPaís Valenci#a a partir d l'estudi tecno-tipol#ogic de la indústria lítica. Pub-licacions de la Universitad de Val#encia (Ph.D. Dissertation). Format CD. Availableat: http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/39089.

Rom!an, D., 2012. Nouveaut!es sur la s!equence du Pl!eistoc#ene final et l'Holoc#eneinitial dans le versant m!editerran!een de la p!eninsule Ib!erique #a traversl'industrie lithique. L'Anthropologie 116 (5), 665e679.

Shackleton, N.J., Fairbanks, H.R.G., Chiu, T.-C., Parrenin, F., 2004. Absolute calibrationof the Greenland time scale: implications for Antarctic time scales and for D14C.Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 1513e1522.

Utrilla, P., 1982. El yacimiento de la cueva de Abauntz (Arraiz, Navarra). Trabajos deArqueología Navarra 2.

Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., 2014. La Pe~na de Las Forcas (Graus, Huesca). Un asentamientoestrat!egico en la confluencia del !Esera y el Is!abena. Monografías Arqueol!ogicas46. Universidad de Zaragoza.

Utrilla, P., Montes, L., 2009. El Mesolítico geom!etrico en la Península Ib!erica. In:Monografías Arqueol!ogicas 44. Universidad de Zaragoza.

Utrilla, P., Montes, L., Mazo, C., Alday, A., Rodan!es, J.M., Blasco, M.F., Domingo, R.,Bea, M., 2010. El paleolítico superior en la cuenca de Ebro a principios del sigloXXI. Revisi!on y novedades. In: Mangado, X. (Ed.), El Paleolítico superiorpeninsular: novedades del siglo XXI: [homenaje al profesor Javier Fortea],pp. 23e62. Barcelona,.

Utrilla, P., Domingo, R., Montes, L., Mazo, C., Rodan!es, J.M., Blasco, M.F., Alday, A.,2012a. The Ebro Basin in NE Spain: a crossroads during the Magdalenian.Quaternary International 272e273, 88e104.

Utrilla, P., Berdejo, A., Ob!on, A., 2012b. El Esplug!on: un abrigo mesolítico en el valledel Guarga (Huesca). In: Mu~niz, J.R. (Ed.), Ad Orientem. Del final del Paleolíticoen el norte de Espa~na a las primeras civilizaciones del Oriente Pr!oximo. Uni-versidad de Oviedo/M!ensula Ediciones, Oviedo, pp. 235e251.

Villaverde, V., Rom!an, D., P!erez Ripoll, M., Bergad!a, M.M., 2012. The end of theUpper Paleolithic in the Mediterranean Basin of the Iberian Peninsula. Qua-ternary International 272e273, 17e32.

Weninger, B., J€oris, O., Danzeglocke, U., 2013. CalPal-2007. Cologne RadiocarbonCalibration & Palaeoclimate Research Package. Available at: http://www.calpal.de.

A. Soto et al. / Quaternary International 364 (2015) 144e152152

ERRATUM

Dr. P. Vermeersch has warned us of some mistakes in Table 1, for which we thank him.

This is the corrected version of the table. Yellow marks changes.

!SITE LEVEL PHASE LAB. REF. DATE BP CAL BP 2s SYSTEM SAMPLE

URRATXA-III II AZIL Ua-11433 10240 ± 100 12690-11890 AMS B

ANTON KOBA VIII AZIL I-16236 11800 ± 330 14880-12920 Conv B I-17479 11700 ± 180 13970-13210 Conv B

BERNIOLLO II EM I-14786 9940 ± 490 13000-10040 Conv C KUKUMA 11 MSF Ua-2625 11550 ± 130 13700-13180 AMS B

MARTINARRI 102 SAUV GrA-46014 8455 ± 45 9560 - 9400 AMS B 103 MSF GrA-45940 11890 ± 50 13960-13560 AMS B

ATXOSTE

E* SAUV GrA-35141 9450 ± 50 10860-10540 AMS B

VIb SAUV GrA-35142 9510 ± 50 11170-10570 AMS B GrA-15858 9550 ± 60 11190-10630 AMS B

VII MSF GrA-23107 11690 ± 80 13800-13360 AMS B GrA-22900 11800 ± 60 13830-13550 AMS B

MENDANDIA V EM GrA-6874 8500 ± 60 9580 - 9420 AMS B

SOCUEVAS

III SAUV Beta282213 9260 ± 50 10580-10260 AMS B Beta282214 10550 ± 50 12750-12390 AMS B

IV MSF Beta-282215 11530 ± 50 13140-12900 AMS B

V MSF Beta-282216 11530 ± 50 13600-13280 AMS B Beta-312041 11540 ± 50 13600-13280 AMS B Beta-312040 12040 ± 50 14100-13740 AMS B

PORTUGAIN 1 AZIL GrN-14097 10370 ± 90 12690-11890 Conv B

ABAUNTZ d EM Ly-1964 9530 ± 300 11966 - 9969 Conv B

2r MSF CAMS-9918 12340 ± 60 14950-14070 AMS C OxA-5116 11760 ± 90 13840-13480 AMS C

BERROBERRÍA C SAUV GrN-16618 8510 ± 90 9640 - 9360 Conv B GrN-18426 8630 ± 70 9790 - 9470 Conv B GrN-18425 8860 ± 100 10300- 9580 Conv B

ZATOYA Ib EM Ly-1398 8150 ± 220 9540 - 8544 Conv C

LY-1457 8260 ± 550 10701-8016 Conv C

II MSF/AZIL Ly-1399 11480 ± 270 13935-12775 Conv B Ly-1400 11840 ± 240 14434-13143 Conv B

LAS ORCILLAS 1 EM Beta-252434 8610 ± 50 9670 - 9520 AMS B

PEÑA-14 d SAUV GrN-26000 10630 ± 100 12740-12238 Conv C GrN-25096 10160 ± 130 12381-11294 Conv C GrN-26001 10430 ± 190 12720-11621 Conv C

LEGUNOVA m EM? GrA-24295 10760 ± 60 12750-12586 AMS C

q MSF GrA-27846 11240 ± 60 13242-13000 AMS C GrA-22089 12500 ± 90 15110-14242 AMS C

ESPLUGÓN IV EM Beta-306725 7860 ± 40 8934 - 8547 AMS B Beta-306722 8380 ± 40 9486 - 9300 AMS B

FORCAS-I 7 SAUV GrN-17784 9360 ± 140 11087-10244 Conv B 9 AZIL GrN-17785 9715 ± 75 11252-10786 Conv B

10 MSF GrA-32955 11015 ± 45 13012-12742 AMS B Table 1 C14 dates from the Microlaminar Epipalaeolithic sensu lato levels studied. The table also includes some dates of the immediately previous MSF levels in the same deposits. Repetitive results are omitted for some levels. Italics: dates with ± > 100 (C: charcoal; B: bone).