Lithic and osseous artifacts from the Lower Magdalenian human burial deposit in El Mirón cave,...

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2015) 1e13

Contents lists avai

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http : / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

Lithic and osseous artifacts from the Lower Magdalenian human burialdeposit in El Mir�on cave, Cantabria, Spain

Lisa M. Fontes a, *, Lawrence Guy Straus a, b, Manuel R. Gonz�alez Morales b

a Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USAb Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehist�oricas de Cantabria, Universidad de Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:El Mir�on caveVasco-Cantabrian Lower MagdalenianUpper PalaeolithicHuman burialLithic industryBladelet productionOsseous industry

* Corresponding author. Department of Anthropoloof New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, USA.

E-mail address: [email protected] (L.M.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.03.0100305-4403/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Fontes, L.Mcave, Cantabria, Spain, Journal of Archaeolo

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents a preliminary summary of lithic and osseous artifacts recovered from El Mir�on Level504, whose ochre-stained sediments were associated with a Lower Magdalenian human burial. The lithicartifacts were concentrated to the south of the human remains. Debris indicate that manufacture wasfocused on late-stage bladelet reduction, which followed preparatory flake or blade removals. The lithicindustry is rich in bladelet tools and other Lower Magdalenian diagnostic artifacts that were made onvery high-quality flints. Osseous artifactsdprincipally antler sagaiesdare highly fragmented, but theirattributes are consistent with others known from El Mir�on. Lithic and osseous artifacts are typical of theLower Magdalenian of Cantabria. These artifacts were recovered from a level with significant micro-stratigraphic variation associated with cultural and natural formation processes, leaving unknown howextensively these materials were spatially and/or temporally displaced from their primary discard lo-cations as part of Level 504 deposition. Interpreted as a single unit and compared with those from theunderlying Level 505, these burial area materials testify to spatial continuity with the similarly richLower Magdalenian occupations identified in the El Mir�on mid- and outer-vestibule into the vestibulerear. The artifacts found in Level 504 provide additional evidence that confirm the site's importance as amajor Lower Magdalenian residential site in the montane zone of the Cantabrian region.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

El Mir�on is a prominent cave located on the western cliff side ofMonte Pando in the upper portion of the As�on river valley, outsidethe town of Ramales de la Victoria (Gonz�alez Morales and Straus,2005). The site was a location of repeated, functionally complexoccupations during the Lower Cantabrian Magdalenian (LCM)period (c. 16e14,500 uncal. BP) (Gonz�alez Morales and Straus,2005; Straus and Gonz�alez Morales, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2012). LCMdeposits are distributed throughout the cave vestibule; these layersare generally thick, dark “chocolate” brown, highly organic depositsof silty clayey loam with limestone �eboulis, water-worn cobbles,highly fragmented faunal remains (principally red deer and ibex),osseous artifacts, charcoal and ash hearths associated with anvilsand fire-cracked rocks, lenses of yellow and red ochers, portable artobjects, and high concentrations of lithic materials (Nakazawa

gy MSC01-1040, 1 University

Fontes).

., et al., Lithic and osseous argical Science (2015), http://dx

et al., 2009; Straus and Gonz�alez Morales, 2012; Straus et al.,2008). The Mir�on LCM human burial was discovered in the vesti-bule rear in a small area (c. 2.5 m2 for the area with concentratedhuman remains within a total area of c. 4 m2) behind a large,engraved block (Straus et al., 2011) (Fig. 1). Straus et al. (in thisissue), discuss the “Red Lady's” discovery in detail, including itsstratigraphic position, radiocarbon dates, and relationship to otherMagdalenian units and materials in El Mir�on. The human remainswere recovered from a depressiondboth natural and artifi-cialdand principally from Level 504, with a few being labeled“Level 505 or 506” because of the essential continuity of the sedi-ment matrix between Levels 504 and 505. The burial pit had beendug into Level 505 and then filled withmixed sediments, withwhatis called Level 504 being fundamentally defined by the presence ofabundant red ochre. The red ochre-stained sediments of Level 504were discontinuous in the southern sector of the area (X and Y6/5),in part because of the presence of rodent burrows, but also becausethis area was peripheral to the burial per se. The stained sedimentsthat both covered and surrounded the human remains containedmany lithic and osseous artifacts typical of the LCM at the site, thus,

tifacts from the Lower Magdalenian human burial deposit in El Mir�on.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.03.010

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.03.010



Fig. 1. Plan of El Mir�on cave vestibule showing excavated areas. Lower Magdalenian contexts compared are highlighted: outer vestibule Level 15 (blue, located in the “Cabin”), mid-vestibule Level 312 (purple, square P6 in the mid-vestibule area), and rear vestibule Level 504 (red, marked “Burial area”). Cartography by Eduardo Torres, modified by L. Straus, R.Stauber, and L. Fontes.

L.M. Fontes et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2015) 1e132

it is not possible to affirmwhether any of the items recovered were“offerings” or “grave goods”, although this would seem unlikely.However, because the deposit was first mixed by the digging of theburial pit and was later locally disturbed by rodent burrows, thepossibility that some artifacts might have been deliberately placedalongside human bones remains plausible (although only 18 lithicartifacts, including ten flakes, two blades, one bladelet, two angulardebris, and three toolsda denticulate, truncation, and perfo-ratordhad ochre traces and none are “out of the ordinary”). Thispaper demonstrates that: 1) osseous industries recovered fromLevel 504 are typical of LCM assemblages; 2) the abundant lithicartifacts indicate multiple manufacture stages using very high-quality flints, and are consistent with inter- and intra-site vari-ability known for the LCM period; and 3) the rich LCM horizonextends to the rear of the El Mir�on vestibule. In addition, the lithicassemblage of the burial layer (504) is compared with that of theimmediately underlying level (505), with which it was partiallymixed when the burial was made.

2. Methodology

Lithic materials less than one linear centimeter in size (exceptsmall bladelet tools, which were all individually analyzed) wereclassified and analyzed collectively as cortical and non-corticaltrimming flakes and shatter. Lithic artifacts over 1 cm wereanalyzed using a combination of individual flake and aggregatemethods that recorded various qualitative and quantitative data,including length, width, thickness, weight, patination, burning, andtraces of use. All materials were classified using a debris typologythat distinguished microdebitage (<1 cm); cortical vs. non-corticaland fragmentary flakes, blades (�2 cm length), and bladelets(<2 cm); microburins; platform renewal flakes; splintered pieces;uni- and bi-directional crested bladelets; cortical and non-corticalchunks; and various categories of flake, blade, bladelet and mixedcores (following Straus et al., 2008). Raw materials were deter-mined for lithic debris greater than 1 cm in size and for all formalstools using an ad hoc reference collection created during 17 years of

Please cite this article in press as: Fontes, L.M., et al., Lithic and osseous arcave, Cantabria, Spain, Journal of Archaeological Science (2015), http://dx

excavations at El Mir�on. This collection includes a total of 66 typesof flints, limestones, quartzites, quartzes, calcites, mudstones, andother (rare) materials present at the site. All tools were classifiedusing the de Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot (1954, 1955, 1956a,1956b) Upper Paleolithic tool typology, which was modified toinclude “Juyo facies” bladelets as type 90 (instead of traditionalDufour bladelets), a standard typological modification for theVasco-Cantabrian region, following Gonz�alez Echegaray (1985).

Osseous industries included needle fragments, a perforatedtooth, a few perforated shells (described in detail by Guti�errez-Zugasti (in this issue)), and several fragmentary antler sagaies.Bone points were classified as to their portion; base type; cross-section style, including presence/absence of grooves presumablyfor microlith insertion; and presence/absence of engraved “deco-rations”, which were described, if present. Metric variables (length,width, thickness) were also recorded.

3. Lithic industry

3.1. Lithic materials and densities

The lithic industry from El Mir�on Level 504 is a total of 33,600artifacts: 969 formal tools, 80 cores, 5610 debitage, and 26,941microdebitage. The overall densities of lithic artifacts in relation tothe human remains recovered from Level 504, as well as the lithiccontents of underlying Level 505 are presented by sub-square inFig. 2. Human remains from Level 504 are mostly concentrated insquares X7 and Y7, in the thickest (c.20 cm) portion of the wedge-shaped deposit; only seven elements were recovered from X or Y6and no remains from the Red Ladywere recovered fromX/Y5 orW7(see Geiling and Marín-Arroyo, in this issue). Lithic artifacts weremost densely concentrated in X and Y 6/5 (c. 9 cm thick), to thesouth of the human remains.

Microdebitage, which constitute 80% of the Level 504 lithicassemblage, strongly influence the overall lithic density plots(Figs. 2e4). Larger lithic artifacts, summarized by artifact type inFigs. 3 and 4, confirm the major concentration shown in Fig. 2 in


Fig. 2. Sub-square lithic artifacts and human remains densities in El Mir�on Levels 504 and 505. Percentages were determined based on sub-square portion of the overall lithicassemblage. W7D, X7B, and X7C are partial squares; squares are lettered left to right, north row then south row.

Fig. 3. Density breakdown of lithic artifacts from Level 504 by artifact type. Percentages were determined based on sub-square portion of the total material of each artifact type.

Fig. 4. Density breakdown of lithic artifacts from Level 505 by artifact type. Percentages were determined based on sub-square portion of the total material of each artifact type.

L.M. Fontes et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2015) 1e13 3

Levels 504 and 505. There is a high density of tools in Level 504subsquare Y6C, coupled with a relatively even distribution amongsubsquares in X and Y6/5. Cores from this level form two majorgroups in Y6C and X6C. While both clusters contain flake, prismaticbladelet, pyramidal bladelet, and mixed cores, Y6C (n ¼ 15) haspredominately mixed (40%) and pyramidal bladelet cores (33%),while X6C (n ¼ 16) contains 31% flake cores and 38% pyramidalbladelet cores. Unfortunately, the core types are not significantlyvaried enough so as to correlate them with any certainty to varia-tions in debitage: both core groups indicate flake and bladeletproduction. Lithic density distributions from Level 505 echo those


from Level 504, particularly in the debris locus in subsquare Y6C.Overall, lithic artifact density sub-plots demonstrate a concentra-tion of all types of lithic artifacts to the south of the human remainsrecovered fromX and Y7. Additionally, the closely correlated spatialdistribution between Level 504 and that of underlying Level 505suggests a degree of spatial integrity associated with patternedactivities within the X/Y6 area. Those materials recovered in thearea of concentrated human remains are quite smalldthe majorityare microdebitage or other items under 2 cm in size. Only 80 toolswere found from Level 504 in this area; 69% of these were bladelettools made on high quality raw materials. Relative to the rest of the



assemblage, these materials are not unique. Thus, a direct rela-tionship between the lithic artifacts and human remains is ques-tionable (i.e., that the lithics were deliberately placed atop oralongside human remains), because of the significant concentrationof all lithic artifact types against the south cave wall.

The complicated stratigraphic structure of the Level 504depositdcomposed of thin, easily disturbed patches and lenseswhose common denominator was ochre stainingddoes little toclarify the kinds of activities that could have resulted in the sepa-rate concentrations of lithics and human remains. While the strongpattern shown in density plots from Level 504 mirrors similar lithicconcentrations in Level 505 and those distinguished in preliminaryanalyses by Fontes et al. (2012, 2013) from the Mir�on outer vesti-bule, the integrity of this concentration can be drawn into questionbecause of the level's sedimentary structure and formation pro-cesses. There are two principal issues that effect its interpretation:

(1) Level 504 sediments within the X/Y7 squares are presumedto be “fill” for a wedge-shaped depression in which the hu-man bones were placed because they are stained with ochrepigment and sparkling hematite crystals. Some of this “fill”appears to have been removed from the X/Y7 area (fromunderlying Level 505, whose faunal remains indicate darkermanganese staining than those from Level 504, thus indi-catingmixed layers), to create a depression and/or augment anatural basin interlaid between the sloping bedrock and thefallen engraved block (see Marín Arroyo, in this issue);

(2) Level 504 varied substantially in thickness and characterd-with some areas being tinted a deeper red color (in X/Y7);others sparkling from hematite crystals; some with dense,localized ochre patches, as if remnants of a processing area(in X6); and still other micro-lenses were difficult to identifyduring excavation (see Seva et al., in this issue). The thickestportions of the deposit contain the fewest lithic artifacts andthe densest concentrations of ochre staining and hematitecrystals.

With these two factors as a basis, there are two possible in-terpretations of the lithic concentration in Level 504, X/Y6 and X/Y5:

(1) the lithic cluster is the result of in situ flintknapping and wasminimally altered in terms of its contents by the creationand/or infilling of the burial depression; lithics recoveredfrom thin lenses of ochre-stained sediments contributedminimally to the artifact concentration in X and Y6/5.

(2) the lithic concentrationwas directly related to creation of theburial depression. When materials were first removed fromX/Y7, larger, heavier pieces were “filtered” from sedimentsand deposited together against the wall such that only thesmallest materials were reintegrated into the stained sedi-ment mixture that was returned to squares X and Y7. Thelithics were spatially and temporally displaced.

The inability to distinguish how lithic artifacts in the Level 504depression fill have been altered through cultural (long boneremoval and re-burial) and natural (carnivore scavenging and ro-dent burrowing) activities throws their absolute depositionalintegrity into question (see Geiling and Marín-Arroyo, this issue;Marín Arroyo, this issue; and Straus et al., 2011). However, the ar-tifacts were related through at least some shared shades of ochrestaining, and thus were interpreted as a single unit in this ana-lysisda unit that provided important information about lithicmanufacture, composite tool industries, and use of El Mir�on cave,despite its contextual uncertainties.


3.2. Lithic manufacture

3.2.1. CoresEighty cores were recovered from Level 504 and classified based

on the shapes of the final removals on each core's face. There are 22flake cores, one prismatic blade core, 11 prismatic bladelet cores, 22pyramidal bladelet cores, and 24 mixed cores (with both blade(let)and flake removals). Level 505 provided a similarly distributed coreassemblage (n ¼ 66) (Table 1). Together, the cores from Levels 504and 505 demonstrate a combination of chaînes op�eratoiresdflake,shaped-core blade(let), and mixed flake/blade(let)dthat empha-size bladelet manufacture as a focus of lithic reduction at Mir�on.However, the high percentage of flake debitage at Mir�on (Table 1)contrasts the high percentage of bladelet manufacture demon-strated among the cores (71% of cores in Level 504 and 65% of thosein Level 505 have one or more bladelet removals). This, togetherwith the presence of mixed cores (30% of all cores), indicates thatbladelet manufacture was primarily a late-stage reduction strategy,secondary to flake removals that trimmed larger cores to sizessuitable for bladelet blank production. As blade cores and debitageare comparatively rare to flakes and bladelets (Table 1), it is possiblethat blades served the same purpose as flakes in shaped-corereduction sequencesdtrimming minimal excess material on theouter core and preparing the core shape for bladelet reduction. Theprevalence of bladelet reduction and diversity of core types istypical of the Lower Cantabrian Magdalenian at El Mir�on (Strauset al., 2008). It is, however, worth noting that the core assem-blage in Levels 504 and 505 is relatively small compared to thatrecovered from the LowerMagdalenian Level 312 in theMir�onmid-vestibule sondage (Fig. 1), a one square meter pit that yielded 257cores, 83% of which had at least one bladelet removal (Straus et al.,2008). These assemblage sizes could be correlated to differentialspatial use of the Mir�on vestibule or the aforementioned deposi-tional disturbances in the burial area, though neither factor di-minishes the emphasis on late-stage bladelet production evident inthe cores from both excavation areas.

3.2.2. DebitageWith nearly 60% of the debitage assemblage>1 cm in size, flakes

are the most prevalent debris type in Level 504, followed by bla-delets (16%) and angular chunks (17%). Blades, burin spalls, plat-form renewal flakes, and crested blades are present in smallquantities. There are no microburins. The majority of debitage arenon-cortical (69%); primary decortications are rare among flakeand blade(let) debitage. A third of flakes and blades are cortical,consistent with these removals playing equal roles in core con-struction for later bladelet removals. Only ~13% of bladelets havecortex, consistent with cortical surfaces being removed beforebladelets were produced. Additionally, nearly half of angular debrisis cortical, consistent with the use of hard- and soft-hammer pro-duction techniques in early stage reduction before executingpressure techniques to manufacture standardized bladelet blanks.These results are again consistent with the Level 504 cores: flakes,blades, and angular waste by-products could constitute evidence ofearly-stage reduction of joint chaînes op�eratoireswith bladelet end-products.

Debitage types present in small amountsdburin spalls (n ¼ 85),crested blades (n ¼ 6), and platform renewal flakes (n ¼ 58)dareevidence of early and middle stages of lithic reduction: crestedblades were used to form initial blade removals on a core face whileplatform renewal flakes rejuvenated cores for further reduction.Burin spalls also attest to blank renewal and creation of dihedralsurfaces. Approximately 20% of burin spall and platform renewalflakes are cortical, while for crested blades the cortical percentageis a higher 67% (Table 1). These values, while based on small sample


Table 1El Mir�on Levels 504 and 505 lithic debris types, counts, and percentages.

Debris type Count Percentage of all debris Percentage of debris >1 cm

Level 504 Level 505 Level 504 Level 505 Level 504 (n ¼ 5690) Level 505 (n ¼ 4549)

Non-cortical trimming flakes 22,222 10,800 68.1 60.1 e e

Cortical trimming flakes 828 328 2.54 1.82 e e

Non-cortical shatter 2486 1891 7.62 10.52 e e

Cortical shatter 1405 414 4.31 2.3 e e

Plain flakes 2229 1915 6.83 10.65 39.17 42.1Primary decortication flakes 64 50 0.2 0.28 1.12 1.1Secondary decortication flakes 947 469 2.9 2.61 16.64 10.31Whole plain blades 129 125 0.4 0.7 2.27 2.75Fragmentary plain blades 113 126 0.35 0.7 1.99 2.77Primary decortication blades 1 4 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.09Secondary decortication blades 116 57 0.36 0.32 2.04 1.25Whole plain bladelets 463 602 1.42 3.35 8.14 13.23Fragmentary plain bladelets 317 322 0.97 1.79 5.58 7.08Whole cortical bladelets 72 50 0.22 0.28 1.27 1.1Fragmentary cortical bladelets 42 6 0.13 0.03 0.74 0.13Burin spall 85 85 0.26 0.47 1.49 1.87Microburins 0 1 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02Unidirectional crested bladelets 5 3 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.07Bidirectional crested bladelets 1 1 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02Platform renewal flakes 58 6 0.18 0.03 1.02 0.13Angular debris (chunks) 501 391 1.54 2.17 8.8 8.6Cortical angular debris 467 270 1.43 1.5 8.21 5.9Flake cores 22 17 0.07 0.1 0.39 0.37Prismatic blade cores 1 3 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.07Prismatic bladelet cores 11 9 0.03 0.05 0.19 0.2Pyramidal blade cores 0 3 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07Pyramidal bladelet cores 22 4 0.07 0.02 0.39 0.09Mixed blade(let) and flake cores 24 30 0.07 0.17 0.42 0.66Total 32,631 17,982


sizes of each artifact type, are consistent with initial reductionstages that removed cortical surfaces to prepare further reduction(crested blades), or to rejuvenate surfaces that had been previouslymodified (platform renewal flakes and burin spall). Furthermore,the small number of crested blades is consistent with observed lowpercentages of blade cores and debitage in the Level 504 lithicassemblage. The small (crested) blade amounts provide furtherevidence of the prominent use of flake-to-bladelet chaînesop�eratoires at Mir�on, instead of blade-to-bladelet sequences (or, atleast those prepared using the crested blade technique). Overall,Level 504 debitage and cores suggest the same reduction se-quences, which could indicate that the lithics were left relativelyundisturbed when the burial depression was formed, and/or thatthe displaced lithics were the result of temporally and spatiallyconstrained flintknapping activities in the Mir�on rear vestibule.Comparisons of Level 504 debitage with those from Level 505provide further support of these hypotheses: aside from slightpercentage differences (approximately or <5%) among plain flake,secondary decortication flake, whole and fragmentary plain bla-delet, and cortical chunk debris categories, the overall distributionof lithic categories is essentially identical between these levels(Table 1). When coupled with the spatial correlations shown inFigs. 2e4, there is strong evidence that Levels 504 and 505were notjust sequentially, but also behaviorally, contiguous.

3.3. Lithic tools

LCM lithic technology is known for its regional inter-site vari-ability, which could be related to Last Glacial mobility, rawmaterialaccessibility and/or site activities, among other interpretations(Freeman and Gonz�alez Echegaray, 2001; Freeman et al., 1998;Gonz�alez Echegaray, 1960, 1980; Straus, 1992, 2013; Utrilla, 1981).To determine if the tools from Level 504 were simply typical of theLCM at El Mir�ondand thus not “special” or indicative of “grave


goods”da comparison was made between tools from the burial(15,740 ± 40 BP) and three other areas within the site (Fig. 1;Table 2): those from the underlying Level 505; the temporallyequivalent, artifactually abundant mid-vestibule sondage Level 312(1 m2; 15,850 ± 170 BP), and a later Lower Magdalenian outervestibule Level 15 (9 m2; 15,010 ± 260 and 15,220 ± 300 BP) (Strausand Gonz�alez Morales, 2003, 2007; Straus et al., 2011). Relative tothese three other contexts, Level 504 is exceptionally rich, with265% more tools than Level 505, 167% more than Level 312, and475% more than Level 15 (Table 2). Despite the quantity of materialin Level 504, its tool assemblage is largely similar to the threeMir�oncontexts and typical LCM variation.

3.3.1. Endscrapers, perforators, and burinsLevel 504 is not particularly rich in endscrapers, though the

assemblage contains several nucleiform endscrapers, an artifactmarker of the LCM (Table 2; Keeley, 1988; Straus, 1992; Utrilla,1981). Endscrapers are not a significant component of the Level505 tool assemblagedeven nucleiform endscrapers are few innumber. Level 312 hasmuch higher percentages of this artifact typerelative to endscrapers overall (72%), while Level 15 contains equalnumbers of nucleiform endscrapers and endscrapers-on-flakes.Other endscrapers are a minor portion of the Level 504 (4%) andLevel 505 (3%) tool assemblages, while Levels 312 (12%) and 15(20%) are richer in this artifact type. Perforators comprise smallpercentages of Levels 504, 505 and 312 (~2e3%) and are slightlymore prominent in Level 15 (6%). In all contexts except Level 505,“becs”, or atypical perforators, are the most common type. Level504 also has several microperforators, which were also encoun-tered in Levels 505 and 312, but not in Level 15; perforator diversityand distribution is similar in Levels 504 and 312. Finally, burinsmake up nearly a tenth of the Level 15 tool assemblage, but onlysmall portions of artifacts from Levels 504, 505, and 312. Variousdihedral and truncated burins were found in each context; angle-


Table 2Tool Types in Four Contexts from El Mir�on cave. Tool types were made with respect to the de Sonneville Bordes and Perrot (1954, 1955, 1956a, 1956b) Upper Paleolthic tooltypology (tool number is listed parenthetically). Tool types by excavation area are presented as counts; tool groups by area are presented as percentages of the total number oftools summarized in the upper portion of this table. El Mir�on level 312 data are from Straus and Gonz�alez Morales (2008) and level 15 data are from preliminary analysesconducted by Fontes et al. (2012).

Tool type (counts) Level 504 burial Level 505 sub-burial Level 312 mid-vestibule Level 15 “Cabin”

(1) Simple endscraper 4 e 3 1(2) Atypical endscraper 1 3 2 7(3) Double endscraper 2 e e e

(5) Endscraper on a retouched flake/blade e e 1 2(8) Endscraper on flake e 1 5 10(9) Circular endscraper e 1 e e

(10) Thumbnail endscraper 8 e 3 e

(11) Carinated endscraper 3 e 1 3(12) Atypical carinated endscraper e e 1 2(13) Thick nosed endscraper 2 2 1 2(14) Flat nosed/shouldered endscraper 1 e 3 4(15) Core endscraper 21 3 51 10(17) Endscraper-burin 1 e 4 e

(18) Endscraper-truncated piece e e 1 e

(20) Perforator-truncated piece 1 1 e e

(21) Perforator-endscraper 1 e 1 e

(22) Perforator-burin 4 e e e

(23) Perforator 7 2 2 1(24) Bec 11 2 9 11(25) Multiple perforator 1 e 1 e

(26) Microperforator 9 1 6 e

(27) Straight dihedral burin 7 1 1 3(28) Slanted dihedral burin 1 1 1 2(29) Angle dihedral burin e e e 2(30) Angle on break burin 21 5 8 7(31) Multiple dihedral burin 3 2 e 1(33) Parrot beak burin e e 1 e

(34) Burin on straight retouched truncation 1 e 2 1(35) Burin on oblique retouched truncation 3 e e e

(36) Burin on concave retouched truncation e e 1 1(38) Transverse burin on lateral retouch 5 e e 1(39) Transverse burin on notch e e 2 e

(43) Core burin 4 e e 1(44) Flat-face burin e 1 1 e

(48) Gravette point 3 6 e e

(49) Atypical Gravette point e 2 e e

(51) Microgravette 7 5 e e

(52) Font-Yves point e 2 e e

(53) Bulging backed piece 1 e 3 1(57) Shouldered piece e e e 1(58) Completely backed blade 40 52 9 6(59) Partially backed blade 6 2 e 1(60) Straight truncated piece 11 e 2 e

(61) Oblique truncated piece 3 1 4 2(62) Concave truncated piece 1 e e 3(63) Convex truncated piece 1 e 1 2(64) Bitruncated piece 2 e e e

(65) Continuously retouched piece-1 78 20 46 16(66) Continuously retouched piece-2 9 4 2 7(69) Solutrean unifacial point 1 e e e

(70) Solutrean laurel leaf point e 1 e e

(72) Solutrean shouldered point e e e 2(74) Notch 45 15 40 24(75) Denticulate 32 15 28 33(76) Splintered piece 23 17 17 3(77) Sidescraper 2 1 9 3(78) Raclette e e e 1(79) Triangle 28 7 8 e

(81) Trapeze 2 e 1 e

(83) Circle segment 59 12 13 e

(84) Truncated bladelet 17 2 9 e

(85) Backed bladelet 346 143 230 11(86) Truncated backed bladelet 12 7 10 e

(87) Denticulated backed bladelet 8 2 6 1(88) Denticulated bladelet 1 3 1 e

(89) Notched bladelet 3 2 1 2(90) Retouched bladelet 78 9 27 2(92) Diverse 28 9 e 11Total Tools 969 365 579 204


Please cite this article in press as: Fontes, L.M., et al., Lithic and osseous artifacts from the Lower Magdalenian human burial deposit in El Mir�oncave, Cantabria, Spain, Journal of Archaeological Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.03.010

Table 2 (continued )

Tool groups (%) Level 504 Level 505 Level 312 Level 15

Endscrapers 4.3 2.7 12.3 20.1Composite Tools 0.7 0.3 1.0 0Perforators 2.9 1.4 3.1 5.9Burins 4.7 2.7 2.9 9.3Backed Pieces 5.2 17.5 2.1 4.4Truncations 1.9 0.3 1.2 3.4Continuously Retouched Pieces 9.0 6.6 8.3 11.3Solutrean Tools 0.1 0.3 0 1.0Various Pieces 8.2 8.5 13.3 29.9Splintered Pieces 2.2 4.7 2.9 1.5Geometrics 9.2 5.2 3.8 0Bladelet Tools 48.8 47.4 49.1 7.8Diverses 2.9 2.5 0 5.4


on-break burins are the most common burin type. These data showthat while the representation of endscrapers, perforators, and bu-rins is variable among these contexts, LCM diagnostic arti-factsdnucleiform endscrapers and angle on break burinsdarepresent in each level (Table 2).

3.3.2. MicrolithsGeometric microliths and bladelet tools represent significant

differences among these four contexts: Level 15 lacks geometricmicroliths, while in Levels 504, 505, and 312 theydtogether withbacked bladeletsdare important elements of each assemblage.Diverse microliths were recovered from Level 504, though

Fig. 5. A sample of lithic tools and debris from Level 504, including: bladelet cores (1e4),bladelet (15), retouched “Juyo” bladelets (16e18), geometrics (19e23), bladelet debitage ma(Group A) flints (39e42). Photograph by M.R. Gonz�alez Morales.


someddenticulated bladelets, trapezes, and notched bladeletsdinsmall numbers (Table 2; Fig. 5). The Level 504 microlithic assem-blage is rich in triangles, circle segments, and very small, diminu-tive retouched bladelets consistent with the “Juyo facies” describedby Gonz�alez Echegaray (1985). Yet another tool type distinguishesLevel 504 from the other contexts: the presence of backed Gravetteand microgravette points, another important blade(let) based toolgroup that were presumably weapon tips. Level 505 mirrors 504 inits microlithic assemblage diversity, though it is not as rich overalland lacks “Juyo” bladelets. The Level 504, 505 and 312 tool as-semblages are similarly microlith-focused, though Level 504 is themost diverse among these samples.

backed blades and bladelets (5e13), a microgravette point (14), a denticulated backedde using Trevi~no flint (24e26), other flints (27e31), Group B flints (32e38) and Barrika



3.3.3. “Various” tools and continuously retouched piecesNotches, denticulates, and sidescrapersdtermed “Various

Pieces” in the de Sonneville Bordes and Perrot typologydarecomponents of each Mir�on context. They make up an exceptionallylarge portion of the Level 15 assemblage (30%) compared to Levels504 (8%), 505 (9%) and 312 (13%). No raclettes, a tool typical ofFrench earliest Magdalenian (Badegoulian) assemblages and rare inCantabria (Straus and Gonz�alez Morales, 2012), were found inLevels 504, 505, and 312, though one was recovered from Level 15.Continuously retouched piecesdflakes or blades retouched on oneor two sides, and usually dulled through usedwere found in allfour levels in similar percentages (Table 2). Despite differing con-centrations, the ubiquity of these tools in all four contexts testifiesto their importance, even in blade(let)-focused LCM assemblages.

3.3.4. Other tool categoriesSmall percentages of these Mir�on assemblages are comprised of

truncated pieces, Solutrean pieces, and/or “diverse” (Table 2).Truncations of various shapes were found in all four areas of theMir�on vestibule, though in small numbers in each assemblage.Solutrean pieces (fragments of points) were recovered in smallnumbers from Levels 504, 505, and 15. Finally, “diverse”da catch-all category for composite tools not accounted for by the de Son-neville-Bordes and Perrot typesdare small components of theLevel 15, 504, and 505 tool assemblages, but are absent from Level312. As these tool categories are represented by such small quan-tities in each level's assemblage, the comparisons that may bedrawn between them are insignificant relative to other toolcategories.

3.3.5. Tool assemblage summaryHalf of the lithic tool assemblage from Level 504 consists of

bladelet tools, with secondary foci of geometrics, continuouslyretouched pieces, and various pieces, all c.10% of the assemblage.Bladelet tools are equally significant in Level 505 (47%); backedpieces (18%)dprincipally completely and partially backed bla-desdand various pieces (9%) are secondary groups. Level 312 issimilarly bladelet tool-focused, with secondary groups distributedamong endscrapers, continuously retouched pieces, and variouspieces. Finally, the Level 15 tool assemblage is more diverse: 30%various pieces and 20% endscrapers, with three secondary group-sdburins (9%), continuously retouched pieces (11%) and bladelettools (8%) (Table 2). Various and continuously retouched piecesalways form primary or secondary foci in El Mir�on LCM assem-blages, regardless of the proportion of bladelet tools in the sample.These tool assemblage comparisons confirm that the materialsfrom Level 504 are consistent with others contexts from the LCMperiod, further implication that these materials were probably not“offerings”, but simply remnants of economic activities typical ofLast Glacial occupations in El Mir�on.

Intra-site comparison of lithic tool assemblages has provideddata that improve archaeological understanding of LCM deposits inEl Mir�on cave. Levels 504, 505, and 312, which represent roughlycontemporaneous occupations, differ from Level 15, a slightly laterLCM occupation. Additionally, Level 312 has long been consideredequivalent to outer vestibule Level 17 (another exceptionally richMir�on LCM deposit) both depositionally and temporally, throughseveral radiocarbon assays (Straus and Gonz�alez Morales, 2007).The similarity between Levels 312, 504 and 505 implies that theintense occupations that formed most abundant sections of theLCM palimpsest stretched the length of El Mir�on cave in sim-ilarlydand extraordinarilydhigh densities. While each contextlikely represents multiple discrete, patterned occupations, togetherLevels 504, 505, 312, and 15 summarize major LCM tool variationpreviously demonstrated at other Cantabrian sites. El Juyo Level 4,


an internally diverse deposit in a coastal plain cave known for itsrich bladelet tool assemblage (Freeman et al., 1998, 1988; Gonz�alezEchegaray and Freeman, 2006), is largely similar to Mir�on 312, 504,and 505. Altamira and El Rasca~no, also two central Cantabrian sites(the former on the coastal plain, the latter in the adjacent montanezone), are broadly comparable to Mir�on Level 15, but are lackingsubstantial quantities of bladelet tools (Freeman and Gonz�alezEchegaray, 2001; Gonz�alez Echegaray and Barandiar�an, 1981). InEl Mir�on, the difference between Levels 312/504/505 and 15 mightrepresent gradual change in the activities conducted during LCMoccupations and as settlements in the As�on basin subsequentlyshifted to different cave sites at lower elevations (El Horno, El Valle)as part of a changing settlement strategy that brought with it agreater influence of Pyrenean groupsdevidenced especially inportable art objects recovered fromMiddle and Upper Magdalenianoccupations, though not significantly at El Mir�on (at least in theareas excavated) (Corch�on, 1995; García Moreno, 2007; Gonz�alezMorales and Straus, 2012; Gonz�alez Sainz and Utrilla, 2005;Straus, 2013). On the other hand, the difference in bladelet tech-nology could be due to functionally distinct activity areas (orsampling vagaries) within the Mir�on cave vestibule, rather thantemporal trends.

3.4. Lithic raw materials

The El Mir�on lithic raw material reference collection includesnine categories of tool-stone:

1. Group A, a collection of very high-quality, Basque-region flintsthat outcrop c.50e70 km from Mir�on;

2. Group B, a variably colored, always high-quality flint category,also probably from flysch outcrops along the present Basquecoast;

3. Ungrouped flint types, which represent some 30 distinguishablematerials;

4. Unknown flintsdrare materials that are unlike Groups A or B orthe defined but ungrouped flint types;

5. Limestones;6. Mudstones;7. Quartzes and calcites;8. Quartzites;9. All other unidentified stones, which do not resemble any sam-

ples in the reference collection.

Group A flints dominate the Level 504 lithic assemblage amongall artifact types; half of the tools recoveredweremade using GroupA flints (Table 3) as well as half of the cores with blade(let) removals(n ¼ 58). Other toolstones are distributed similarly in all lithicgroups: high-quality Group B flints at 25e29% of the assemblage;ungrouped flintsdpreferred over the lower-quality raw materi-alsdapproximate 17% of each lithic group (Table 3). The raw ma-terial distribution shows clear preference among LowerMagdalenian knappers for the highest quality flints, and asmaterialquality decreases, its presence in the assemblage diminishes.Additionally, while debitage and tools that were manufacturedusing low quality raw materials were recovered from Level 504,these materials were not present in the core assemblage (Table 3).Thus, these coarser materials may have been initially reducedelsewhere and their blanks and tools then transported to increasetransport weight efficiency (see Beck et al., 2002; Bettinger et al.,1997; Metcalfe and Barlow, 1992). Early-stage reduction outsideof El Mir�on is also supported by the rarity of primary decorticationflakes in the Level 504 assemblage; both local, low-quality rawmaterials and distant, very high-quality materials were trimmed to


Table 3Percentages of raw material types from El Mir�on Level 504, by artifact type. Angular chunks are included in lithic debitage.

Raw material group Cores Debitage Tools

Level 504 Level 505 Level 504 Level 505 Level 504 Level 505

Group A flints 47.5 45.5 42.9 32.8 51.4 48.2Group B flints 28.7 18.2 27.3 19.9 25.0 16.2Ungrouped flint types 16.3 22.7 17.9 19.9 17.9 30.1Unknown flint 5 e 5.7 8.5 4.7 0.3Quartzite 2.5 1.5 2.7 5.2 0.5 0.8Quartz and calcite e e 1.6 4.1 0.1 0.3Mudstone e e 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.5Limestone e e 0.1 0.1 0.1 e

Unidentified stone e 12.1 1.3 8.5 0.2 3.6


decrease weight and thereby ease transport across the ruggedCantabrian landscape.

The raw materials identified in Level 505 show some importantdifferences to those from 504. Among cores, ungrouped flint typesare more common, seemingly at the expense of Group B flints(Table 3). This trend follows among debitage and tools: Group Bflints are less common in Level 505 than they are in Level 504.Among all lithic artifact categories in Level 505, unidentified stonescomprise a small portion of the raw materialsd12% of cores, 9% ofdebitage, and 4% of tools (Table 3). Though discerning analyticnodules is difficult for unidentified stones (unknown quartzites,mudstones, limestones, etc. are grouped together in this catch-allcategory), when taken as a single unit these materials reflectreduction sequences that were geared toward flake-to-bladeletproduction and which yielded bladelet and flake tools. Finally,debitage from Level 505 show greater percentages of diverse rawmaterial typesdunknown flints, quartzites, quartzes, and uniden-tified stonesdthan the same artifact types in Level 504 (Table 3).These distinctions in lithic toolstones constitute a smalldbutnonetheless significant in terms of provisioning and consequently,LCM mobilityddifference in the Level 504 and 505 lithic assem-blages. Additionally, despite the varying raw materials, the behav-ioral patterns in lithic reduction remain nearly identical betweenthe two levels: flakes and bladelets were the foci of both assem-blages (Table 1).

In addition to the worked lithic artifacts, it is worth noting thatLevel 504 also yielded a large quartz crystal in close associationwith human bones in square X7D, whose weight was 3 g and di-mensions were 12 � 11 � 4 mm. This object, like the perforatedbivalve shell found in the same area at the contact between Levels502 and 504, could conceivably have been a grave offering,although this is impossible to prove.

4. Osseous industry

This section presents a collective summary of the osseous in-dustry recovered from the human burial area in El Mir�on. Pendingfurther detailed taphonomic analyses, especially of the degree ofmanganese coating evident on the surface of the sagaies, itemprovenience is based on artifact labels made during excavation anddoes not account for the post-depositional mixing that occurredbetween Levels 504 and 505 during the activity processes linked toburial and re-burial of the remains, as demonstrated by MarínArroyo's (in this issue) taphonomic analysis.

4.1. Antler sagaies

Thirty-one fragments of antler sagaies (points) were recoveredfrom Level 504. Seven fragments are proximal, 18 mesial, and sixdistal. Among proximal fragments, three are single-bevel bases,


two are double-bevel bases, one has a rounded base, and one isindeterminate (see samples in Fig. 6). The fragment sections can besummarized as follows:

d nine have a quadrangular sections, one of which has ashallow longitudinal groove on each of two opposingsurfaces;

d six are oval section, and one of these also has a single shallowlongitudinal groove;

d five have round sections (one of which is centrally flattened);d three have a plano-convex section (but these are single-bevel

bases, so were in fact probably round- or oval-section);d five are plano-convex, two of which have longitudinal

grooves along the convex surface or along both sides and oneof which has a shallow, narrow longitudinal groove alongeach of the two sides of its bevel base;

d one is plano-convex because it is the mesial part of acentrally-flattened piece;

d one round- or oval-section piece has deep, longitudinalgrooves along both top and bottom surfaces;

d one was either round- or plano-convex in section, but the“flat” surface is too badly eroded to be certain of the originalstate.

The six grooved sagaies were undoubtedly fitted with bladeletbarb or cutting elements. One of the double-bevel bases has alongitudinal groove on one bevel, diagonal lines across the otherbevel and on one side. Another double-bevel base has diagonallines across one bevel and a “W”-shaped engraving on the otherbevel. There are no “anti-skid” marks on the central flattenings ofthe two points of that type.

Widths of the sagaies range from 3 to 12 mm and thicknessesfrom 3 to 11 mm. Cross-section areas range from 9 to 132 mm2. Theaverage is ~45 mm2, with an essentially unimodal distributioncentered around 50mm2 and a very long tail composed of four very“fat” sagaies. At the “skinny” end there are eight very gracile itemsthat could be called “fine points”.

Not counting the “microlith insert” grooves and the “anti-skid”bevel-base lines, there are eight pieces with engraved “decora-tions”. One of the centrally flattened sagaies has five “X”es on theconvex face. A square-section piece has parallel lines on one face.The eroded round- or plano-convex section piece has three trans-versal lines on one side. An oval-section piece has a longitudinalline on one edge and another on one face. One small, square-sectionpiece has a longitudinal line on each of three faces and transversallines on the fourth face. One round-section piece has longitudinallines crossed by two sets of diagonal lines on one face and anotherround-section item has a thin longitudinal line on one face and finediagonal lines on another. There are a few marks on other piecesthat could be decorations or manufacturing “accidents”.


Fig. 6. Antler points (sagaies) and decorated bone (X6, no. 710) from Level 504, the burial layer. Drawings by Luis Teira.


The diversity of cross-sections (but with many quadrangularones) and sizes, the presence of several longitudinally groovedpieces and of a centrally flattened one, plus the kinds of engraveddecorations are typical of the LowerMagdalenian in El Mir�on and inCantabria in general (Gonz�alez Morales and Straus, 2005; Strausand Gonz�alez Morales, 2012).

4.2. Other osseous artifacts

Level 504 yielded three mesial and two distal fragments of boneneedles, plus three other problematic distal fragments and a thirdindefinite fragment. No needle “eye”was found. There is also a large(140 � 33 � 8 mm) mesial rib fragment of an ungulate (larger thanred deer and probably horse) that has a polished beveled endclassifiable as a spatula. This item is slightly stained with red ochreand bears small hematite crystals, as do other bone arti-factsdsimply from having been in the ochre-rich Level 504. Lesscertain is a split section of a flat long bone from an ungulate that hasa canted polished end that might be a kind of knife. Another split,


half-round section ungulate long bone is bifacially battered/splin-tered at one end and looks like a “scoop”. The osseous industry ofLevel 504 is rounded out by the presence of a small probable birdbone tube (split) mesial fragment (L ¼ 5.7 mm, W ¼ 4.4 mm,T ¼ 2.6 mm) with many very fine transversal engraved lines on oneface. There is a perforated incisor (probably of an ibex) and twofragments of antler blanks. Guti�errez-Zugasti (in this issue)describe the few mollusk shells found in this area, includingperforated Littorina and Trivia shells from Level 504 and a perfo-rated bivalve (from Level 502.1 and thus probably unrelated to theburial unless displaced by post-depositional disturbance such as byrodents).

4.3. Relation of osseous artifacts to human remains

The fact that there are no whole sagaies or needles (and nofragments come even close to completeness) suggest that thesewere not “grave goods”. The absolute scarcity of perforatedobjectsda single caprid incisor and the two shellsdis very striking



in comparison, for example, to the large numbers of perforateditems from the Solutrean levels and non-burial Lower Magdalenianlevels. Such objects are often fairly common in normal “residential”levels (e.g. see Fig. 7), again suggesting that the artifact assemblagesof the Level 504 fill reflect activities unrelated to the burial. Theonly clear exception to this observation is the large amount of redochre that stains much of Level 504, although it is also true thatlumps of red ochre and thin, localized lenses or patches of ochrepowder were often found on Lower Magdalenian living floors ofboth the vestibule front and rear areas.

4.4. Osseous artifacts from underlying Level 505

Twelve antler sagaies (all fragmentary) were recovered fromLevel 505, into which the “grave”may have been partially dug. They

Fig. 7. Antler points (sagaies) from Levels 503 and 506, respective


are in general similar to the finds from Level 504, but there are novery “fat” sagaies. The average cross-section area of these pro-jectiles (including two pieces that could be classified as “finepoints”) is 53 mm2, with a range from 12 to 123 mm2. Five areround section, four are plano-convex, two oval, and one square.There is only one proximal (base) fragment: spindle-shaped. Threehave longitudinal grooves (one double-sided). Three are decorated,the square section sagaie having a particularly complex set ofgeometric designs on all four facesdtypical of the LCM. There arealso two needle fragmentsdone with an “eye”. The frequency ofgrooved sagaies in both levels is noteworthy in relation to the largenumbers of backed bladelets that were probably cutting edge in-serts for such projectile points.

Level 505 also yielded several marine mollusk shells (alldescribed in detail by Guti�errez-Zugasti (in this issue)), notably

ly above and below the burial layer. Drawings by Luis Teira.



many Antalis (Dentalium) tubes, a doubly perforated Trivia, adoubly perforated Nassa, a possibly perforated Littorina and threeother perforated shell fragments, plus a scallop shell fragmentdalltestify to shoreline visits and/or exchanges with other bands livingalong the coast. All are more or less “normal” finds in LCM occu-pation layers in El Mir�on.

5. Discussion and conclusions

Lithic and osseous artifacts recovered from El Mir�on Level 504reflect variation typical of Lower Magdalenian archaeological sitesin the Vasco-Cantabrian region. The relationship of these industriesto the human remains found in the leveldas “offerings”dremainsproblematic, though comparison of Levels 504 and 505 offersconvincing evidence for fundamentally little disturbance of lithicconcentrations in squares X/Y6 and 5, south of the burial per se. Theosseous industry is highly fragmentary and poor in needles andperforated items; though small, the assemblage is similar incomposition to those that have been found in non-ritual (i.e., res-idential) contexts of this age in El Mir�on. The industry is composedmainly of broken antler pointsdsome decorateddthat reflect avery important LCM economic activity, i.e., hunting. These mate-rials do not distinguish themselves from “normal”, discarded LCMassemblages or from the underlying materials in Level 505 eitherquantitatively or stylistically and thus do not warrant classificationas specific grave goods.

The lithic artifacts in Level 504, in addition to being significantlyconcentrated south of the human remainsdalbeit within thisphysically confined area at the vestibule reardconstitute anassemblage whose debris and tools uniformly indicate early-stagelithic reduction focused on flake and blade removals that preparedcores for late-stage bladelet production. The bladelet productsrelate directly to the abundance in bladelet tool industries found inthis context. The spatial and artifact continuity of the lithic con-centration with that of Level 505dwhich it echoes in nearly allaspectsdsuggests that despite any cultural and natural tapho-nomic processes affecting the area (human/animal digging, rodentburrowing, etc.), the assemblage has a great degree of integrity andis distinctive in its wealth of bladelet tools and debris. Finally, therich assemblage of lithic tools from Level 504 reflects variationtypical of the LCMdas indicated by comparisons to other datedcontexts from the Mir�on vestibuledfurther evidence that the ar-tifacts deposited with the human remains in the Mir�on rear ves-tibule are consistent with LCM economic activities rather thanwith ritual placement.

Despite the fact that the Level 504 artifact assemblages testifyto economic activities typical of other LCM sites (e.g., El Juyo,Altamira), and other samples within the Mir�on vestibule, thedepositional context and variegated sedimentsdcollectivelydefined by ochre stainingdindicate that lithic and osseous ma-terials may have been temporally and/or spatially displacedwithin the deposit as the human remains were buried andcovered over with “back-dirt” some 19,000 years ago. Interpretedtogether, the lithic and osseous materials recovered from Level504 reveal an artifact-dense, functionally specialized LCM occu-pation, accompanied by a human burial at the rear of the El Mir�onvestibule. These finds, coupled with extraordinary LowerMagdalenian pieces recovered from the outer vestibule Level17dan engraved scapulae and atlatl hook (see Straus andGonz�alez Morales 2009)ddemonstrate the importance of thiscave as a montane, residential location whose entire vestibulearea was used for a wide range of human activities during the lateLast Glacial (Oldest Dryas) period.


Acknowledgments

Excavations of the human burial in El Mir�on cave, authorizedand partly funded by the Government of Cantabria, were alsofinanced by the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation and the UNM Fund forStone Age Research (principal donors: Jean and Ray Auel). US Na-tional Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation ImprovementGrant #1318485 funded a portion of Fontes' lithic analyses. Strausdid the osseous artifact analysis.

References

Beck, C., Taylor, A.K., Jones, G.T., Fadem, C.M., Cook, C.R., Millward, S.A., 2002. Rocksare heavy: transport costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry behavior in the Great Basin.J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 21, 481e507.

Bettinger, R.L., Malhi, R., McCarthy, H., 1997. Central place models of acorn andmussel processing. J. Archaeol. Sci. 24, 887e899.

Corch�on, M.S., 1995. El Magdaleniense Medio: Nuevos Datos sobre la ocupaci�on dela cornisa Cant�abrica entre el 14,000 y el 13,000 BP. In: Moure Romanillo, A.,Gonz�alez Sainz, C. (Eds.), El Final del Paleolitico Cant�abrico. Universidad deCantabria, pp. 119e158.

Fontes, L.M., Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., 2012. Living “Floors” and LivingSpace: Lower Magdalenian Activity Areas in the Outer Vestibule of El Mir�onCave, Cantabria, Spain. Paper Presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the So-ciety for American Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee.

Fontes, L.M., Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., 2013. Spatial Distributions of LithicArtifacts in the Lower Magdalenian Levels of El Mir�on Cave, Cantabria, Spain.Paper Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Freeman, L.G., Gonz�alez Echegaray, J., 2001. La Grotte D’Altamira. La Maison desRoches, Paris.

Freeman, L.G., Gonz�alez Echegaray, J., Klein, R., Crowe, W., 1988. Dimensions ofresearch at El Juyo. In: Dibble, H., Montet-White, A. (Eds.), Upper PleistocenePrehistory of Western Eurasia. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadel-phia, pp. 3e39.

Freeman, L.G., Gonzalez Echegaray, J., Pokines, J., Stettler, H., Krupa, M., 1998.Tamisage ultra fin et r�ecup�eration de l'outillage observations r�ealis�ees a El Juyo(Espagne Cantabrique). L'anthropologie 102, 35e44.

García Moreno, A., 2007. La Evoluci�on del Paisaje en la Transici�on al Holoceno:Desarrollo de un modelo predictivo de vegetaci�on en el valle del As�on (Can-tabria). Trab. Prehist. 64, 55e71.

Geiling, J.M., Marín Arroyo, A.B., 2015. Spatial distribution analysis of the LowerMagdalenian human burial in El Mir�on cave (Cantabria, Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci.Special Issue: The Red Lady of El Mir�on Cave(in this issue).

Gonz�alez Echegaray, J., 1960. El Magdaleniense III en la Costa Cant�abrica. Boletín delSemin. Arte Arqueol. 26, 1e32.

Gonzalez Echegaray, J., 1980. El Concepto de “Facies” Aplicado al Paleolitico Supe-rior. Zephyrus 30e31, 249e251.

Gonzalez Echegaray, J., 1985. La Industria Lítica. In: Barandiar�an, I., Freeman, L.G.,Gonz�alez Echegaray, J., Klein, R.G. (Eds.), Excavaciones en la cueva del Juyo,Centro de Investigacion y Museo de Altamira Monografias No. 14, pp. 121e154.

Gonz�alez Echegaray, J., Barandiar�an, I., 1981. El Paleolítico Superior de la Cueva delRasca~no. Monografías del Centro de Investigaci�on y Museo de Altamira 3,Santander.

Gonzalez Echegaray, J., Freeman, L.G., 2006. Variaciones en la industria lítica de losniveles de la cueva del Juyo. Misc. Homen. Vic. Cabrera, Zona Arqueol. 7,474e481.

Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., Straus, L.G., 2005. The Magdalenian sequence of El Mir�oncave (Cantabria, Spain). In: Dujardin, V. (Ed.), Industrie Osseuse et Parures duSolutr�een au Magdal�enien en Europe. Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française, Paris,pp. 209e219. M�emoire 39.

Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., Straus, L.G., 2012. Terminal Magdalenian/Azilian at ElMir�on Cave (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria) and the Río As�on Valley. In:Ram�on �Alvarez, J. (Ed.), Ad Orientum: Del final del Paleolítico en el norte deEspa~na a las primeras civilizaciones del Oriente Pr�oximo, pp. 189e215 (M�ensulaEdiciones).

Gonz�alez Sainz, C., Utrilla, P., 2005. Problemas actuales en la organizaci�on y data-ci�on del Magdaleniense de la Regi�on Cant�abrica. In: Bicho, N. (Ed.), O Paleolítico.Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueología Peninsular, pp. 39e47. PromontoriaMonogr�afica 2.

Guti�errez Zugasti, F.I., 2015. Ornaments from the Magdalenian burial area in ElMir�on cave (Cantabria, northern Spain): were they grave goods? J. Archaeol. Sci.Special Issue: The Red Lady of El Mir�on Cave (in this issue).

Keeley, L., 1988. Lithic economy, style and use: a comparison of three late Magda-lenian sites. Lithic Technol. 17, 19e25.

Marín Arroyo, A.B., 2015. Taphonomic study of the human remains from theMagdalenian burial in El Mir�on cave (Cantabria, Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. SpecialIssue: The Red Lady of El Mir�on Cave(in this issue).

Metcalfe, D., Barlow, K.R., 1992. A model for exploring the optimal trade-off be-tween field processing and transport. Am. Anthropol. 94, 340e356.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0305-4403(15)00096-5/sref1















































































































































Nakazawa, Y., Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M., Cuenca, D., Caro, J., 2009. On stone-boiling technology in theUpper Paleolithic: behavioral implications fromanearlyMagdalenian hearth in El Mir�on, Cantabria, Spain. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 684e693.

Seva, R., Biete, C., Landete, M.D., 2015. Analysis of the red ochre of the El Mir�on burial.J. Archaeol. Sci. Special Issue: The Red Lady of El Mir�on Cave(in this issue).

de Sonneville Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1954. Lexique typologique du Pal�eolithiqueSup�erieur: Grattoirs et Outils Solutr�eens. Bull. Soc. Pr�ehist. Fr. 51, 327e335.

de Sonneville Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1955. Lexique typologique du Pal�eolithiqueSup�erieur: Outils Composites et Perçoirs. Bull. Soc. Pr�ehist. Fr. 52, 76e79.

de Sonneville Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1956a. Lexique typologique du Pal�eolithiqueSup�erieur: Burins. Bull. Soc. Pr�ehist. Fr. 53, 408e412.

de Sonneville Bordes, D., Perrot, J., 1956b. Lexique typologique du Pal�eolithiqueSup�erieur: Suite en fin. Bull. Soc. Pr�ehist. Fr. 53, 547e559.

Straus, L.G., 1992. Iberia before the Iberians. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Straus, L.G., 2013. After the deep freeze: confronting “Magdalenian” realities inCantabrian Spain and beyond. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 20, 236e255.

Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., 2003. El Mir�on cave and the 14CChronology ofCantabrian Spain. Radiocarbon 45, 41e58.

Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., 2007. Further radiocarbon dates for the UpperPaleolithic of El Mir�on cave (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria, Spain). Radio-carbon 49, 1205e1214.


Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., 2008. Addendum and correction to EarlyMagdalenian variability: new evidence from El Mir�on cave, Cantabria, Spain.J. Field Archaeol. 33, 367e369.

Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., 2009. Extraordinary early Magdalenian findsfrom El Mir�on cave, Cantabria. Antiquity 83, 267e281.

Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., 2012. The Magdalenian settlement of theCantabrian region (Northern Spain): the view m El Miron cave. Quat. Int.272e273, 111e124.

Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., Carretero, J.M., 2011. Lower Magdalenian sec-ondary human burial in El Mir�on cave, Cantabria, Spain. Antiquity 85,1151e1164.

Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., Cuenca Solana, D., 2015. The MagdalenianHuman Burial of El Mir�on Cave (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria, Spain):Introduction, Background, Discovery, and Context. in this issue). J. Archaeol. Sci.Special Issue: The Red Lady of El Mir�on Cave (.

Straus, L.G., Gonz�alez Morales, M.R., Stewart, E., 2008. Early magdalenian vari-ability: new evidence from El Mir�on cave, Cantabria, Spain. J. Field Archaeol. 33,197e218.

Utrilla, P., 1981. El Magdaleniense Inferior y Medio en la Costa Cant�abrica. In:Monografías del Centro de Investigaci�on y Museo de Altamira 4.Santander.































































































Lithic and osseous artifacts from the Lower Magdalenian human burial deposit in El Mirón cave,...

Documents

Transcript of Lithic and osseous artifacts from the Lower Magdalenian human burial deposit in El Mirón cave,...