The Reconstruction of Upper Paleolithic Adaptations: the Biscayan Regions As Seen by an Archeologist from North America

MUNIBE (Antropología y Arqueología) Suplemento N.º 6 35-44 SAN SEBASTIAN 1988 ISSN 0027 - 3414

The reconstruction of Upper Paleolithic adaptations: The Biscayan regions as seen by an archeologist from North America.

La reconstrucción de las adaptaciones del Paleolítico Superior. Las regiones del Golfo de Vizcaya vistas por un arqueólogo norteamericano.

Lawrence G. STRAUS *

PALABRAS CLAVE: Paleolítico superior, Paleoecología, Nueva Arqueología, Gascoña, Euskadi, Cantabria, Asturias.

RESUMEN

Esta comunicación resume algunos acontecimientos recientes en la construcción de las teorías acerca de las adaptaciones y las estrategias de movilidad de los cazadores-recolectores por L.R. Binford y otros representantes de la «Nueva Arqueología» norteamerica- na. Después describe el estado actual de nuestros conocimientos sobre las relaciones humano-medio ambiente en el Paleolítico superior de las regiones limítrofes del Mar Cantábrico de Francia y España, basándome en las investigaciones arqueológicas y de las ciencias naturales de las últimas dos décadas. Propongo un modelo descriptivo y sugiero unas hipótesis para explicar los cambios adaptativos mayores en la secuencia prehistórica regional para estar probadas por investigaciones futuras.

SUMMARY

This paper summarizes recent developments in the construction of theory concerning hunter-gatherer adaptations and mobility strategies by L.R. Binford and other exponents of North American «New Archeology». Then it describes the state of our current understanding of Upper Paleolithic human-environment relationships in the regions of France and Spain bordering the Bay of Biscay, based on archeological and natural science research conducted during the last two decades. A descriptive model is proposed and explanatory hypotheses for major adaptive changes in the regional prehistoric record are suggested for further systematic testing.

1. INTRODUCTION It is my point of view, one I believe widely sha- red by working archeologists in both the New and Prehistoric archeology can be said to have pas- Old Worlds, that the goals of prehistoric research sed historically through phases of description and should be to reconstruct and explain the operation dating, culture history, and culture process. In rea- of extinct human adaptive systems in their environ- lity, these are all aspects of prehistoric research as mental contexts. By achieving these goals, it is also conducted in the present period. The ultimate goals my feeling that we can contribute to the general un- of all prehistoric research are explanatory; the de- derstanding of processes of culture change. Given bates of at least the last two decades have concer- this framework, I regard archeological excavations ned the nature of archeologial explanations of past as peculiar, semi-replicable experiments in the study human behavior. Those debates have fundamentally of human behavior. This view stems from the basic, pitted materialists against idealists, which is ironic albeit modified, acceptance of a Hempelian logico- as the subjects of all archeological studies are ma- deductive approach to science. The vision of archeo- terial remains not ideas, not even people. We use ma- logy as a unique form of experimental science is terial remains as proxy data to try to learn about pre- tempered by adherence to the archeological ethic, historic human activities and, conceivably, beliefs. so heavily emphasized in post-1970 North America, The vigorous trans-Atlantic discussions which have whereby excavation must attempt to collect and pre- characterized the archeology of the post-World War serve as much information as possible while sites II period have forced all researchers, not just the par- are being destroyed by the researchers. A paradox ticipants in the theoretical polemics, to define their of the «new archeology» when combined with the ideological focus and pragmatic approach to archeo- «archeological ethic» is that one cannot know what logy. Thus, at least in the recent Anglo-American and «facts» to collect in the absence of specific theo- French literature, one encounters increasing referen- ries. «Facts» are not collected without reasons; rea- ces to logical positivism, functionalism, cultural eco- sons are supplied in a theoretical context. One can- logy, cultural materialism, Marxism, structuralism, not, therefore, collect all the facts about an symbolism, etc. archeological site, only those for which one can perceive some theoretical relevance based either on * Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico one's own specific research interests or on a gene- Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA ral archeological and paleoenvironmental education. 36 L.G. STRAUS

Nonetheless, we do have an ethical obligation to not who see archeology as the study of material objects willingly overlook or destroy information which we for their own sake. These archeologists would, in ef- perceive and which we realize to be of potential in- fect, return the discipline to the normative paradigm terest to other workers with problem orientations so- under which things not adaptive systems were the mewhat different from our own. subject matter, to at most be taken as indicators of If one accepts the proposition that archeologists culturally mediated mental templates and thus eit- cannot really «get inside the heads of prehistoric her deliberate or de facto symbols of ethnic identity. people» (a proposition obviously not accepted by the At this stage, the long-standing debate over eth- followers of structuralism and symbolism in prehis- nographic analogy and its relevance to prehistory ta- tory), then one faces the question of «why» to re- kes a vital turn in the evolution of processual archeo- construct behavior. Many have been seduced (by logy. This comes about as L.R. Binford begins to spectacularly well preserved, single-component si- argue for the need to establish base lines for study tes and by special analytical techniques such as lit- derived from the application of uniformitarian prin- hic replication, microwear and refitting) to see the ciples to such phenomena as ungulate anatomy, but- reconstruction of «moments in time» as the ultima- chering options, disposal patterns determined by hu- te goal of prehistoric research. This is a descriptive man anatomy, structural arrangements, numbers of goal, ultimately no less so than the classification per participants, quantity and quality of debris, etc. The- se of artifacts or of assemblage types (archeologi- re are certain physical facts which apply equally to cal «cultures» and «phases»). In addition, such exer- the present and to the prehistoric past, at least in cises are particularistic in nature, although they can so far as it concerns Homo sapiens, which can allow make for popularly pleasing scenarios, such as «a us to use our knowledge of the present to unravel day in the life of a Magdalenian». patterns in the archeological residues. This realization has led to productive ethnoarcheological work Alternately, the goal of archeological reconstruc- (of the etic variety) among such groups as Nunamiut tion can be nomothetic in nature and, in that sense, Eskimo, San (Bushmen), Navajos, and Australian it can contribute to the building of the general scien- Aborigines. Eskimos have been studied by BINFORD ce of human behavior. Prehistory uniquely (and in (1978, 1981) for example, not because he feels that contrast to ethnography) provides the social scien- «Mousterians» or «Magdalenians» were like them in ces with time depth and the ability to study long- all respects, but because certain elements of the Es- term change. Prehistory sacrifices detail (as it must) kimo situation can arguably hold to be constants in favor of coarse-grained treatment of major trends (e.g., Rangifer anatomy, camp features such as in adaptive patterns. There is scant place for the in- hearths, human body size). Comparisons are not mo- dividual person in the broad sweep of prehistory, ex- tivated by the sort of 19th century unilineal cultural cept as the occasional skeleton to be analyzed ana- evolutionism which saw no problems with drawing tomically, paleopathologically and dietarily. The direct, total analogies between Paleolithic Europeans study of general laws of human behavior assumes and contemporary Eskimos. Rather they are justified that the subject matter of archeology is not idiosy- by reasoned applications of the uniformitarian prin- ncratic. Indeed, the truly unique and idiosyncratic ciple to specific aspects of behavior which leave be- phenomena of the archeological record are ultima- hind material correlates referable to law-like state- tely irrelevant. ments relevant under both modern and ancient The high hopes of the theoretical revolution of conditions of life. 1965-1975 were tempered within this last decade Ethnoarcheological research has led to some ba- by the growing realization of the complex nature of sic cross-cultural generalizations particularly regar- the archeological record. Even at the most pristine ding disposal patterns at different kinds of hunter- of sites cultural remains cannot be directly interpre- gatherer camps. While the relationships between re- ted as «fossilized human behavior». The extant ar- sidues and site functions are not direct and often cheological record is in each case the result of a involve the less obvious kinds of remains (e.g., lithic combination of site role/activities, disposal behavior, debitage and faunal remains rather than finished reuse/recycling, and natural formation/disturbance tools), the ethnoarcheological record is not anarchic. processes. Recognition of the complicated relations- Regularities exist, facilitating the interpretation of ar- hip between archeological debris and human beha- cheological sites. vior led some to despair of ever achieving the goal of contributing to the explanation of broad scale, ge- An additional body of knowledge is required in neral culture change. Instead, practitioners of the so- order to deal with archeological contexts: the pro- called «behavioral archeology» have taken the study cesses which have affected sites since the time of of disposal behavior to be the goal of research (not abandonment. A complex business, the study of site simply a tool leading to further, higherlevel analyses). formation/disturbance processes begins with «ac- This is similar to the particularistic aims of those tualistic» experiments such as the creation of artifi- UPPER PALEOLITHIC ADAPTATION THE BISCAYAN REGIONS 37 cial sites to monitor the effects of sun, water, mud, ethnographic present, more characteristic of hunter- freeze-thaw, gravity, animals, etc., the observation of gatherer groups living at low latitudes. carcass dismemberment by carnivores/scavengers, «Collecting» in BINFORD'S terminology involves and the conduct of such exercise as trampling, bur- moving resources to consumers by sending specia- ning, butchering, lithic tool replication, use and res- lized, often well-equipped logistical parties to acquire harpening etc, under controlled conditions. In some specific food (and other) resources at particular lo- respects, this kind of research is an extension of the cations (e.g., hunting sites, quarry sites, etc.). This «experimental archeology» pioneered principally in form of behavior requires careful «gearing-up», plan- Britain several decades ago, but it obviously goes ning and organization, as well as accurate informa- well beyond the study of the decay and erosion of tion about resource location and state. Naturally ot- structures. As focused in the Binfordian sense, eth- her activities (information gathering, lithic collection, noarcheological and experimental studies attempt etc.) can be «embedded» into logistical trips such to build bridges between material facts and the be- as hunting expeditions. Such sophisticated behavior havioral patterns originally responsible fot their crea- is typical of high latitude hunter-gatherers often en- tion. This constitutes what is called «middle range gaging in storage as a strategy for year-round sur- research» (BINFORD 1977, 1983) and the patterned vival under harsh conditions, particularly when key results constitute a growing body of «middle range resources (e.g., herd ungulates) may be aggregated theory» -the link between «static» objects and and patchy. MARKS and FRIEDEL independently coined «dynamic» behavior, to use Binford's favorite des- the term «radiating» settlement to characterize the cription. Once regularities in the relationships bet- archeological result of such a system. Major residen- ween «statics» and «dynamics» can be perceived tial sites may be surrounded by series of minor, spe- in the present world and their causal relationships cialized, logistical locations often at considerable dis- and conditioning factors determined, then archeo- tances from the base camps. These ideal constructs logists can begin to apply this uniformitarian know- are useful in attempting to understand the operation ledge to the prehistoric past, for which we have only of Paleolithic adaptive systems under varying con- «static» remains which are the results of human ac- ditions which prehistorian must first reconstruct tivity and post-occupational natural processes. with the collaboration of natural scientists.

One further recent advance by the «new archeo- 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF BISCAYAN PALEOLITHIC logy» should be mentioned by way of introduction PREHISTORY to this discussion of the Basque Upper Paleolithic. It is the understanding derived from worldwide eth- Prehistoric investigations of a serious nature be- nographic studies that hunter-gatherer adaptive stra- gan roughly simultaneously in Pyrenean France and tegies can be ideally categorized into two basic Vasco-Cantabrian Spain in the last third of the 19th types: «forager» and «collector» (BINFORD 1980, century with the work of E. and L. LARTET, E. PIETTE, 1982). It is not necessarily the case that any one the Conde de LERSUNDI, M. SANZ DE SAUTUOLA, J. DEL human group will fit into one or the other of these CASTILLO and others. These researchers established types of systems all the time, although different en- the existence of Stone Age sites (and art) in the vironments, demographic densities and possibly Pyreneo-Cantabrian region and began the work of even evolutionary grades of early hominids will tend creating a cultural sequence based on supposedly to have associated with them one type of organiza- temporally characteristic faunas or artifacts. On both tional pattern as opposed to the other. Foraging re- sides of the international border, but especially in fers to the relatively unspecialized gathering of food northern Spain, it was the first decade and a half and other materials within a short radius of a resi- of this century which saw a proliferation of major, dential base camp without elaborate planning or systematic excavations of sites which, to this day, much storage of foodstuffs. Foraging is generally remain keystones in the Middle and Upper Paleolit- done on a daily basis; when the resources surroun- hic culture-stratigraphic sequence of the southern ding a residential camp are expended, the entire sector of the Franco-Cantabrian region. These sites group («band») moves its camp to another location included Isturitz, Santimamiñe, El Castillo, Cueto de in what BINFORD terms «residential mobility» -mo- la Mina and many others, and the cast of prehisto- ving consumers to resources-.This is similar to the rians included such illustrious figures as E. PASSE- «circulating» settlement pattern envisaged by Marks MARD, COUNT L. BÉGOUËN, T. de ARANZADI, E. EGUREN and FRIEDEL (1977) in their study of Paleolithic adap- J.M. de BARANDIARÁN, A. de GÁLVEZ CAÑERO, L. SIERRA, tations in the Negev region of Israel. This is a relati- H. ALCALDE DEL RIO, J. BOUYSSONIE, H. OBERMAIER, H. vely simple system, particularly feasible under con- BREUIL, Conde de la VEGA DEL SELLA and E. HERNÁNDEZ- ditions of equable, relatively temperate, humid PACHECO. Along with massive, very fruitful excava- climate, with more or less evenly distributed resour- tions, these workers were responsible for the vast ces and fairly low population densities. It is, in the bulk of cave art discoveries (and publications) in the 38 L.G. STRAUS

region. This «heroic age» of research was abruptly techniques. Ultimately, perhaps somewhat influen- ended by World War I (though not completely in ced by Anglo-American developments in faunal ana- Spain where, however, the research of Fathers BA- lysis («British economic prehistory» and Binfordian- RANDIARÁN and CARBALLO did end twenty years later Flannerian «cultural ecology»), they began to con- with the outbreak of the Civil War). The concerns duct very thorough analyses beyond simple species of this period were to discover, document and date identifications (e.g., body parts, seasonality indica- finds in respect to the developing relative chronolo- tors, fragmentation studies, age and sex determina- gical synthesis of the Abbé Breuil. In the French section, body size, etc.). One could suggest that, as in tor, such research continued between the World the United States with the close wedding of ethno- Wars, notably at Isturitz and Lespugue by Count and graphy and archeology, under the BARANDIARÁN Countess de Saint-Périer and at le Mas d'Azil by St. School, Basque prehistory was always concerned Juste and M. de Péquart. with how people lived - including their subsistence. B. MADARIAGA began asking questions about the role In the post-World War II period «normative» re- of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic mollusc exploi- search has certainly continued with major excava- tation in the Cantabrian Region. G.A. CLARK and tions in Le Portel, La Vache, Aitzbitarte, El Pendo and G.N. BAILEY also took up where the Conde de la La Lloseta, but new techniques of excavation and Vega del Sella had left off in the behavioral interpre- analysis and, sometimes, new research goals have tation of Asturian shell middens. been involved. These included the rationalization and standardization of lithic and bone artifact typologies for the Upper Paleolithic by D. de SONNEVILE-BORDES, 3. NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE G. LAPLACE and I. BARANDIARÁN. Gradually, beginning UPPER PALEOLITHIC OF VASCO-CANTABRIA in the 1960s, radiocarbon dating has been applied AND GASCONY. to Upper Paleolithic deposits, although its full significance as an independent chronological yardstick The brief recounting of the post-war develop- has not yet been fully realized. Modern excavation ments in prehistory along the 43rd parallel leads to methods became the norm. Interest in Upper Paleo- the question as to whether there is any relationship lithic lifeways (although sometimes as an adjunct to between the theoretical rumblings in Cambridge, chronological concerns to assign artifacts to Last Southampton, Ann Arbor, Chicago and Albuquerque, Glacial climatic phases) arose with the creation by and the actual conduct of Stone Age research in the F. BORDES of the Institut du Quaternaire at the Uni- Franco-Cantabrian region and if so, what might its versity of Bordeaux (working in the Pyrenees in co- nature be. I am frankly somewhat ambivalent in this llaboration with C. CHAUCHAT, J. CLOTTES, COUNT R. regard. It is true that I was trained at the Universi- BÉGOUËN and R. ARAMBOUROU), together with the for- ties of Chicago and Michigan and in the field at the mation of a prehistory and paleontology section in famous Carter Ranch in Arizona (among other pla- the Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi around the figu- ces) by «new archeologists» and «cultural ecolo- re of J.M. de BARANDIARÁN in Donostia (notably gists» and it is true that I have been a close collea- through the work of J. ALTUNA) and the organization gue of Binford for over a dozen years at the of a multi-disciplinary, Hispano-American excavation University of New Mexico. On the other hand, it is of Cueva Morín by J. GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY and L.G. equally true that my maternal grandfather and great- FREEMAN. «Science in archeology» arrived with the grandfather were early prehistorians in the Charen- application of palynological and geomorphological tes (southwest France) and that my early education analyses, first by Arl. LEROI-GOURHAN, M. M. PAQUE- was humanistic and historical in nature. Thus, I am REAU, C. THIBAULT and K. BUTZER. The «Aranzadi» a living example of some of the schizophrenia which group, ever active in exploration, excavation, analy- I believe affects many of us «Anglo-Americans» sis, training and publication, remains the only true (though to my knowledge I haven't one drop of En- interdisciplinary paleoanthropological institution in glish blood in my veins) who actually conduct field the region. research in Europe while professing belief in the va- Little by little in the late 1960s and 1970s, a few lue of the processual paradigm in archeology. Can individuals (some influenced by the famous Bordes- one really espouse the goals of explaining culture Binford debate) began to question the significance process when the basic problems of research invol- of interassemblage variability in the Upper as well as ve grappling with complex stratigraphies, sorting out Middle Paleolithic and breaking out of the strict cul- chronologies, classifying artifacts, determining the ture-phylogenetic paradigm. Others (notably F. DEL- details of subsistence patterns, etc.? How can one PECH and J. ALTUNA) began to see mammalian re- get to nomothetic level of explanation when so many mains at Last Glacial archeological sites as more particulars must still be resolved? Is it indeed likely than just chronological indicators, but rather as evi- or even possible to conceive of doing «new archeo- dence of Upper Paleolithic subsistence gathering logy» with such fragmentary, still poorly dated sam- UPPER PALEOLITHIC ADAPTATION THE BISCAYAN REGIONS 39 ples of human activities as are represented for even cheology (e.g., multi-disciplinary analyses, radiocar- such a relatively recent period as the Upper Paleo- bon dating, statistics and computer use1 because lithic? they are «modern,» «progressive,» fashionable. Some pay lip service to the classic phylogenetic I will answer with a brief discussion of another scheme, while others still fundamentally believe in paradox of the «new archeology». «True believers» it as an «explanation» of the prehistoric past. No- have followed the approach of T. Kuhn (1962) to the netheless, the quality of the data being recovered history of science by declaring that a «revolution» is generally quite good - so long as the results are ocurred in archeology in the 1960s overturning of published fully and in timely fashion. the previous «normative» paradigm. Having shown itself to be explanatorily bankrupt, the phylogene- Is there room for anything beyond increasingly tic approach to normal science was believed to have sophisticated description in Upper Paleolithic prehis- collapsed, to be replaced by an entirely «new» ar- tory? How do we deal with the problem of a woefully cheology. I do subscribe to the view that the «ex- inadequate data base in order to move into a genui- planations» of traditional archeology were non-ex- nely explanatory phase or mode of research? The planatory (e.g., the mere assignment of phenomena simple answer to the second question is to follow to static «culture» categories resultant from suppo- the suggestion of A. LEROI-GOURHAN to «multiply the sed vitalistic trends toward progress or «evolution» number of excavations,» while continuing to search in a non-Darwinian sense, diffusion, migrations, in- for new sites (especially open air ones), to perfect vasions or unexplained «independent inventions»), and standardize our recovery, recording and analy- however, I do not think that science develops solely tical methods, while paying increasing attention to via revolutions totally overturning all the work of past microstratigraphy and site formation processes. The researchers. Most of the discoveries of science are answer to the first question is somewhat more com- cumulative; most (but not all) may be valid under plicated. To attempt one, let us look at some recent more than one paradigm. So it is with prehistoric ar- research in the area. cheology, even if many discoveries which would be made today were not made under the former paradigm because there was no theoretical basis or con- 4. THE STATE OF THE ART text of relevance for researchers to realize the exis- IN REGIONAL UPPER PALEOLITHIC RESEARCH. tence of «facts» under their very own noses! The 1970s and early 1980s witnessed a large The modus operandi of many of us who truly number of temporal and regional syntheses, with want to understand the functioning of extinct adap- studies of the Mousterian (FREEMAN 1970), the Early tive systems and to explain some of the fundamen- Upper Paleolithic (BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS 1982), the So- tal changes which occurred in the Stone Age (e.g., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, the de- lutrean (STRAUS 1983a), the Lower/Middle Magdale- velopment of complex Terminal Pleistocene settle- nian (UTRILLA 1981), the Upper Magdalenian (MOURE 1974), the Azilian (FERNÁNDEZ-TRESGUERRES 1980), the ment-subsistence patterns, the origins and adoption of food production economies), is to do field re- Asturian (CLARK 1983; GONZÁLEZ MORALES 1982), the search with short- and interim-term goals (the sort Pyrenean Upper Paleolithic in general (ARAMBOUROU really achievable during our active lifetimes and 1976; BAHN 1984; CLOTTES 1976), and Paleolithic which do constitute building blocks for future higher- faunas (ALTUNA 1972; DELPECH 1983; FREEMAN 1973, level interpretations) and to propose preliminary mo- 1981; STRAUS 1977, 1983b). A number of major site dels or scenarios based on re-studies of inadequate monographs were also published in this period: Cue- data sets from abundant, large-scale old excavations va Morín (GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY and FREEMAN 1971, and on some detailed analyses of better-quality data 1973), Tito Bustillo (MOURE 1975; MOURE and CANO from recent (but usually more limited) excavations 1976), Duruthy (ARAMBOUROU 1978), El Pendo (GON- carried out with modern methods. Such models are ZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY 1980), El Rascaño (GONZÁLEZ ECHEGA- set forth as working hypotheses to be tested by fur- RAY and BARANDIARÁN 1981), Enlène (BÉGOUËN and ther excavations and analyses. Thus they are true CLOTTES 1982), Ekain (ALTUNA and MERINO 1984), to the epistemological tenets of the «new archeo- Erralla (ALTUNA, BALDEÓN and MARIEZKURRENA 1985), logy». Few workers in the Cantabro-Pyrenean region, Les Eglises (CLOTTES 1983), El Castillo (CABRERA however, are explicit in describing their long-range 1984), La Riera (STRAUS and CLARK 1986), and El Ju- goals so it is hard to draw definite conclusions as yo (FREEMAN et al. 1987). These documents provide to where they would place themselves vis á vis the baselines for the construction of a modern prehis- putative revolution in archeology. My suspicion is tory of the region; many go beyond synthesis of the that some researchers are approaching prehistory known facts to engage in constructive interpretation from an integrative, natural science, reconstructio- and even reasonable speculation. nist perspective, while others may be emulating This is not the place to attempt grand synthesis some of the techniques of some Anglo-American ar- (and indeed a few essays (BUTZER 1986; FREEMAN 40 L.G. STRAUS

1981; STRAUS 1985, 1986a; STRAUS et al. 1988) and as well (STRAUS 1987a). The «Asturian» may simply several chapters in books (BAHN 1985; STRAUS and represent bulk garbage deposits from shellfishing CLARK 1986) have presented first approximations and other activities of late «Azilian» hunters and thereof (pace GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY 1984). Let me early «Neolithic» pastoralists (STRAUS 1979). Such mention, however, what I take to be some of the reinterpretations are basic to a new approach to the main things we seem to have learned in the past two archeological record consonant with processual ar- decades about the adaptations of Terminal Pleisto- cheology. cene hunter-gatherers in the Pyreneo-Cantabrian A second major contribution of recent Upper Pa- region. leolithic research is the study of subsistence pat- First, studies of large numbers of artifact assem- terns. The Cantabrian evidence is largely the result blages (BERNALDO de QUIRÓS 1982) have shown that of long-term, detailed work by J. ALTUNA and asso- the Early Upper Paleolithic sequence in northern ciates (e.g., ALTUNA 1972, 1976, 1981, 1986; ALTU- Spain was, despite some general similarities, quite NA and MARIEZKURRENA 1986, 1986; see also KLEIN et different from that of the classic Périgord region. al. 1981). This evidence points to intensification in There are similarities which crosscut the traditional the food quest beginning in the Solutrean period, Perigordian-Aurignacian «cultural» categories and li- with both diversification of exploited resources and ttle evidence of directional change in the assembla- the development of specialized methods for procu- ges, except the very late appearance of assemblages ring large numbers of two key ungulate prey species: with many backed pieces (the «Gravettian» (STRAUS red deer and ibex. Diversification entailed the exploi- and HELLER n.d.; STRAUS n.d.a.). Variability among tation of previously little- or un-used resources such Early Upper Paleolithic assemblages can be explai- as fish, shellfish, birds, ibex, chamois, boar and roe ned by a combination of factors, including site func- deer (although the appearance of the latter two spe- tions, lithic raw materials and the development of cies in the record is mostly linked to reforestation composite technologies including weapons tipped at the end of the Pleistocene). These resources were or barbed with «armatures» (backed bladelets, gra- increasingly exploited (to the point of overexploita- vette points, etc.). Stronger evidence shows the exis- tion in the case of limpets) throughout the course tence of regular, non-directional interassemblage va- of the Würm Tardiglacial and early Holocene (ORTEA riability in the «Solutrean» period (20,500-17,000 1985; STRAUS 1977; STRAUS and CLARK 1986; STRAUS B.P.), correlated with differences in faunal assembla- et al. 1980, 1981). The specialized mass hunting of ges and topography (STRAUS 1983a). Cervus and Capra is now well documented by nu- The excavation of La Riera Cave confirmed that merous studies in Guipúzcoa, Santander and Astu- the traditional chronology of Solutrean «phases», rias with MNI, body part, age and sex analyses of based on the unique sratigraphic sequence of Lauge- Solutrean, Magdalenian and Azilian archeofaunas, rie-Haute in Pèrigord, is wrong, at least for northern which are in sharp contrast with the much smaller Spain; time alone does not explain assemblage dif- assemblages of the Middle and Early Upper Paleo- ferences. La Riera was clearly used for a variety of lithic. A comparison between opportunistic foraging purposes during this and other periods, leading to in the earlier period and logistical collecting strate- the deposition of differing suites of tools, debitage, gies in the latter period can be clearly made, parti- bones and structural remains, regardless of norma- cularly with reference to specialized ibex hunting si- tive «cultural» attribution. Indeed many Solutrean tes along the Pyrenees and Cantabrian Cordillera assemblages, if stripped of their (sometimes rare) (STRAUS 1987b). foliate or shouldered points, look very much like eit- Subsistence in the late Last Glacial of Gascony her «Lower Magdalenian» assemblages or «Gravet- was characterized for the most part by specialized, tian» ones in terms of «substrate» tool composition highly efficient slaughter of reindeer (as well as of (STRAUS and CLARK 1986). A similarly wide range of ibex, horse and bovines), as shown by recent exca- assemblage variability has been demonstrated for vations at Duruthy (ARAMBOUROU 1978), Dufaure the Franco-Cantabrian Magdalenian (STRAUS and (STRAUS et al, n.d.), Enléne (BÉGOUËN and CLOTTES CLARK 1986). Indeed the «fossil director» artifact of 1982), Les Eglises (CLOTTES 1983), and by studies of the Upper Magdalenian, the antler harpoon, was older collections (BAHN 1984 STRAUS 1983b). When clearly an invention linked to intensified fishing. Har- major environmental changes came at the end of the poons appear early at some sites (e.g., TITO BUSTILLO) Pleistocene, the effects on hunter-gatherer subsis- but never at others. Considerable chronological over- tence were far more abrupt and severe in France lap exists between levels typologically assigned to than in Spain, since the key resource of Aquitaine, the «Lower» and «Upper» Magdalenian at different Rangifer, went extinct within a few centuries and sites. Finally, there is considerable typological and reforestation brought about an entirely different re- chronological overlap between the late Magdalenian source structure to which human groups had to re- and Azilian in these regions, calling into question this latively quickly adapt. In Cantabrian Spain, adjust- part of the traditional culture-stratigraphic scheme ments were made, but people basically continued ex- UPPER PALEOLITHIC ADAPTATION THE BISCAYAN REGIONS 41 ploiting most of the same species (plus more plant of southwest Europe at the time, causing a need for foods) in a broad-spectrum subsistence system al- significant adjustments in subsistence strategies ready in place for some 10.000 years. Thus Canta- (these being of the sort earlier described - i.e., inten- bria and Gascony provide interesting points of com- sification through diversification and/or specializa- parison in terms of Late Upper Paleolithic adaptation). tions (e.g., STRAUS 1983b, c, 1987d) and in terms of This new, tentative understanding of human the nature of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition adaptation in northern Spain and southern France, (e.g., STRAUS 1986b). On-going research along the including the development of hypotheses to deal 43rd parallel thus contributes to the comparative, with differences between the two regions and to ex- analytical study of regional settlement-subsistence plain changes through time in each, represents a systems in Last Glacial Europe (cf. GAMBLE 1986; contribution to the study of the processes of Pleis- SOFFER 1985). tocene hunter-gatherer cultural variability and chan- In line with that broad-scale comparative ap- ge. Archeological projects, like those of Ekain, Erra- proach, I have recently proposed a scenario for mo- lla, Amalda, Dufaure, La Riera, and El Juyo were bility patterns in the Magdalenian period of northern designed to answer processual questions, not just Spain (STRAUS 1986a). In this very preliminary mo- to «fill in temporal gaps or to «better» typologically del l envisage relatively low residential mobility with define supposed prehistoric «lithic cultures». Futu- base camps established along the coastal zone (then re research will undoubtedly seek to test specific as- somewhat wider than today) and logistical locations pects of the models now being advanced for Upper in the foothills and Cordillera/Picos de Europa slo- Paleolithic behavior. pes. I interpret regional population densities to be One aspect of prehistoric reconstruction I have relatively high by this time and I suspect the exis- not dealt with is «paleoethnology» à la Leroi-Gour- tence of fairly well defined. rather small band terri- han. Certainly, limited attempts have been made to tories (compared with much larger annual territories describe particular features and structures of «living on the plains and plateaux of France, Germany, Cen- floors» in a few Upper Paleolithic sites in these re- tral and Eastern Europe). The abundance of cave art gions (e.g., ARAMBOUROU 1978; BÉGOUËN and CLOTTES and the relationships between art «sanctuaries» and 1982; CLOTTES 1983; CORCHÓN 1982; FREEMAN and habitation sites in this period may in part be indica- GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY 1970; FREEMAN et al. 1987; GON- tors of such territorial relationships (and of relatively ZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY and BARANDIARÁN 1981; MOURE and CANO 1976; STRAUS and CLARK 1983). No one has closed mating systems?) (see STRAUS 1987c). Pre- really attempted, however, to produce detailed sce- sently available data developed by ALTUNA for a large number of Magdalenian (and Solutrean) levels narios of «moments in time» during any given oc- throughout Vasco-Cantabria fail to detect strict sea- cupation in these regions. This is perhaps for the sonality to the utilization of upland and lowland best, first because such anecdotal work is ultima- areas (probably since logistical parties or even resi- tely idiosyncratic and non-explanatory and, second, dential groups had easy access to all the region's ha- because we do not yet accurately control for non- bitats within a few hours walk of any base camp) cultural, depositional processes, particularly in the very complex, stratified contexts of the limestone (STRAUS 1986a, 1987b). In contrast, growing evidence suggests transhumant patterns of reindeer caves of the Pyrenean and Cantabrian regions. Even hunting in the Magdalenian period along the Pyre- our thinnest archaeological levels and lenses are pa- nees: high, montane residence in summer, low in the limpsests and in most cases cannot be directly in- cold seasons, with specialized ibex hunting parties terpreted as pristine residues of limited sets of activities. Much research needs to be devoted in the area sent into the mountains even in winter (ARAMBOUROU to the crucial factors of site formation and distur- 1978; BAHN 1984; CLOTTES 1983; DELPECH 1983; GOR- bance. Work along these lines is well underway at DON 1986; STRAUS et al. 1988; STRAUS 1987b). Abri Dufaure where, once such processes have been I have long felt that the Cantabrian data presen- controlled for analytically, we have been able to re- ted a credible case for the role of population pres- cognize distinctive activity areas associated with ex- sure in changing human subsistence patterns tensive paved surfaces in the Magdalenian sequen- (STRAUS 1977, 1981; STRAUS and CLARK 1986; cf. BIN- ce of this rockshelter/talus site (STRAUS et al. 1988). FORD 1968; COHEN 1977). This view takes on added They give us further insight into the general role of plausibility with the growing evidence for total or at this locus in the annual settlement-subsistence least substantial human abandonment of northern rounds of that period (see STRAUS and SPIESS 1985). Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum ca 20,000- 15,000 B.P. (see GAMBLE 1986). As argued by Jo- 5. CONCLUSIONS chim (1983), this may have led to substantial, cumulative increases in human population densities in Paleoanthropology is by definition an interdisci- the relatively rich, relatively habitable environments plinary subject. The research of archeologists, pa- 42 L.G. STRAUS leontologists, paleobotanists and geologists is all ARAMBOUROU, R. equally required to reconstruct and explain the re- 1976. Les civilisations du Palèolithique supérieur dans le Sud- mote past. Some of the preliminary conclusions I Ouest (Pyrènèes Atlantiques, Landes). In La Préhistoire have attempted to make are my interpretations of française I, edited by H. de Lumley, 1.236-1.251 CNRS, the research results of many others, notably the re- Paris. search team at the Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi. 1978. Le Gisement Préhistorique de Duruthy. Mémoires de la My interpretations may be wrong, but I am convin- Sociètè Préhistorique française, 13. Paris. ced that, despite the apparent empiricism of many of BAHN, P. our studies, we are contributing to one of the funda- mental goals of the «new archeology» as envisaged 1984. Pyrenean Prehistory. Aris and Phillips, Warminster. by the Anglo-American paradigms of cultural eco- BEGOUEN, R. and CLOTTES, J. logy, cultural materialism and functionalism, namely the long-term explanation of culture change. Such 1982. Nouvelles fouilles dans la Salle des Morts de la Caverne work requires painstaking excavation, analysis, re- d’Enlène. XXI Congrès Prèhistorique de France, I, pp. 33-70. Paris. analysis, and studies which often seem very classi- cal in nature. Indeed, stratigraphy, chronology, and BERNALDO DE QUIROS, F. typology are research tools -not the ultimate aims 1982. Los Inicios del Paleolítico superior Cantábrico. Centro de of paleoanthropology. But when the goals of the Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Monografías, 8.. work are to understand the operation of past adaptive systems, then this indeed is research far diffe- BINFORD, L. rent from that considered the norm only a few years 1968. Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In New Perspectives in Ar- ago under the traditional, phylogenetic paradigm. chaeology, edited by S. and L. Binford, pp. 313-341. Al- dine, Chicago.

1977. General introduction. In For Theory Building in Archaeo- BIBLIOGRAFIA logy, edited by L. Binford, pp.1-10. Academic, New York.

1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic, New York.

ALTUNA, J. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American An- 1972. Fauna de mamíferos de los yacimientos prehistóricos de tiquity, 45: 4-20. Guipúzcoa. Munibe 24: 1-464. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic, New 1976. Los mamíferos del yacimiento prehistórico de Tito Bus- York. tillo. In: Excavaciones en la Cueva de Tito Bustillo, edited by J.A. Moure and M. Cano, pp. 149-194. Instituto 1982. The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Ar- de Estudios Asturianos, Oviedo. chaeology 1: 5-31. 1981. Restos óseos del yacimiento prehistórico del Rascaño. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London. In: El Paleolítico superior de la Cueva del Rascaño (San- tander), edited by J. González Echegaray and I. Baran- BUTZER, K. diarán. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Mo- nografías 3: 223-269. 1986. Paleolithic adaptations and settlement in Cantabrian Spain. Advances in World Archaeology 5: 201-252. 1986. The mammalian faunas from the prehistoric site of La Riera. In: La Riera Cave, edited by L. Straus and G. Clark, CABRERA, V. pp. 237-274, 421-479. Anthropological Research Pa- pers, 36 Tempe. 1984. El Yacimiento de la Cueva de El Castillo. Bibliotheca Prae- histórica Hispana 22. Madrid. ALTUNA, J. and MARIEZKURRENA, K. CLARK, G.A. 1984. Bases de subsistencia de origen animal en el yacimien- to. In: El Yacimiento Prehistórico de la Cueva de Ekain, 1983. The Asturian of Cantabria: Early Holocene Huntergat- edited by J. Altuna and J. Merino, pp. 211-280. Socie- herers in Northen Spain. Anthropological Papers of the dad de Estudios Vascos, San Sebastián. University of Arizona, No. 41.

1985. Bases de subsistencia de los pobladores de Erralla. Mu- CLOTTES, J. nibe 37: 87-117. 1976. Les civilisations du Palèolithique supérieur dans les Pyrè- ALTUNA, J. and MERINO, J. nées. In La Prèhistoire française, II. edited by H. de Lum- ley, pp. 1.214-1.231. CNRS, Paris. 1984. El Yacimiento Prehistórico de la Cueva de Ekain. Socie- dad de Estudios Vascos. San Sebastián. 1983. La Caverne des Eglises á Ussat. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l’Ariège 38: 32-118. ALTUNA, J.; BALDEON, A. and MARIEZKURRENA, K. COHEN, M. 1985. Cazadores Magdalenienses en la Cueva de Erralla. Mu- nibe 37. pp. 1-206. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory. Yale University, New Haven. UPPER PALEOLITHIC ADAPTATION: THE BISCAYAN REGIONS 43

CORCHON, M. JOCHIM, M.

1982. Estructuras de combustión en el Paleolitico. Zephyrus 1983. Paleolithic cave art in ecological perspective. In Hunter- 34/35: 27-46. gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 212-219. Cambridge University, Cambridge. DELPECH, F. KLEIN, R.; WOLF, C.; FREEMAN, L. and ALLWARDEN K. 1983. Les faunes du Palèolithique supèrieur dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. CNRS, Paris. 1981. The use of dental crown heights for constructing age profiles of red deer and similar species in archaeologi- FERNANDEZ-TRESGUERRES, J. cal samples. Journal of Archaeological Science 8: 1-31.

1980. El Aziliense en las Provincias de Asturias y Santander. LUHN, T. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Monogra- fías 2. Santillana del Mar. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chi- cago, Chicago. FREEMAN, L.G. ORTEGA, J. 1970. El Musteriense Cantábrico: nuevas perspectivas, Ampu- rias, 30/31: 55-69. 1986. The malacology of La Riera Cave. In La Riera Cave, edited by L. Straus and G. Clark, pp. 289-298. Anthropo- 1973. The significance of mammalian faunas from Paleolithic logical Research Papers 36 Tempe. occupations in Cantabrian Spain. American Antiquity 38: 3-44. MARKS, A. and FRIEDEL D.

1981. The fat of the land: notes on Paleolithic diet in Iberia. 1977. Prehistoric settlement patterns in the Avdat/Agev area. In Omnivorous Primates, edited by R.S.O. Harding and In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Ne- G. Teleki, pp. 104-165. Columbia University, New York. gev, Israel (vol. II), edited by A. Marks, pp. 131-158. Sout- hern Methodist University, Dallas. FREEMAN, L.; GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY, J. KLEIN, R. and CRO- WE, W. MOURE, J.A. 1987. Dimensions of research at El Juyo. In Upper Pleistoce- 1974. Magdaleniense superior y Aziliense en la Región Cantá- ne Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. Dibble. brica española. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni- University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia versidad Complutense de Madrid. (preprint). 1975. Excavaciones en la Cueva de Tito Bustillo (Asturias) GAMBLE, C. (Campañas de 1972 y 1974). Instituto de Estudios As- turianos, Oviedo. 1986. The Palaeolithihc Settlement of Europe. Cambridge Uni- versity, Cambridge. MOURE, J.A. and CANO M.

GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY, J. 1976. Excavaciones en la Cueva de Tito Bustillo (Asturias): Tra- bajos de 1975. Instituto de Estudios Asturianos, Oviedo. 1980. El Yacimiento de la Cueva de el Pendo. Bibliotheca Prae- histórica Hispana 17. Madrid. SOFFER, O.

1984. Reflexiones sobre el momento actual en la investigación 1985. The Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. Aca- del Paleolitico superior cantábrico. In Francisco Jordá demic, Orlando. Oblata, pp. 259-269. Scripta Praehistorica, Salamanca. STRAUS, L.G.

GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY, J. and BARANDIARAN I. 1977. Or deerslayers and mountain men: Paleolithic faunal exploitation in Cantabrian Spain. In For Theory Building in 1981. El Paleolítico superior de la Cueva del Rascaño (Santan- Archaeology, edited by L.R. Binford, pp. 41-76. Acade- der). Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Mo- mic, New York. nografías 3. 1979. Mesolithic adaptations along the northern coast of Spain. GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY, J., and FREEMAN L.G. Quaternaria 21: 305-327.

1971. Cueva Morin: Excavaciones 1966-1968. Patronato de las 1981. On maritime hunter-gatherers: a view from Cantabrian Cuevas Prehistóricas, Santander. Spain. Munibe 33: 171-173.

1973. Cueva Morin: Excavaciones 1968. Patronato de las Cue- 1983.a El Solutrense Vasco-Cantábrico: Una Nueva Perspecti- vas Prehistóricas, Santander. va. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Mo- nografías 10. Santillana del Mar.

GONZALEZ MORALES, M.R. 1983. Terminal Pleistocene faunal exploitation in Cantabria and 1982. El Asturiense y otras Culturas Locales. Centro de Inves- Gascony. In Animals and Archaeology Hunters and Their tigación y Museo de Altamira, Monografías, 7. Prey, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 163: 209-225. GORDON, B. 1983.c Paleolithic adaptations in Cantabria and Gascony: a pre- 1986. Of hunters and reindeer herds in French Magdalenian preliminary comparison. In Homenaje al Profesor Martin Al- history. In The Pleistocene Perspective. II, edited by A. magro Basch (vol. I), pp 187-201. Ministerio de Cultu- ApSimon. Allen and Unwin, London (preprint). ra, Madrid. 44 L.G. STRAUS

1985. Stone Age prehistory of northern Spain. Science 230: STRAUS, L.G.; ALTUNA, J.; CLARK, G.A.; GONZALEZ MORALES, 501-507. M.; LAVILLE, H.; LEROI-GOURHAN, A.; MENENDEZ DE LA HOZ, M. and ORTEGA, J. 1986.a Late Wurm adaptive systems in Cantabrian Spain: the case of eastern Asturias. Journal of Anthropological Ar- 1981. Paleoecology at La Riera (Asturias, Spain). Current An- chaeology, 5: 330-368. thropology, 22: 655-682. 1986.b The end of the Paleolithic in Cantabrian Spain and Gas- cony. In The End of the Paleolithic in the Old World, edi- STRAUS, L.G.; CLARK, G.A.; ALTUNA, J. and ORTEGA, J. ted by L. Straus, pp. 81-116. British Archaeological Re- ports S-284. Oxford. 1980. Ice Age subsistence in northern Spain. Scientific Ame- rican 242 (6): 142-152. 1987.a Chronostratigraphy of the Pleistocene/Holocene boun- dary: The Azilian problem in the Franco-Cantabrian re- STRAUS, L.G. and CLARK G.A. gion. Palaeohistoria, 27: 1986. La Riera Cave: Stone Age Hunter-gatherer Adaptations 1987.b Upper Paleolithic ibex hunting in SW Europe. Journal of in Northern Spain. Anthropological Research Papers, 36, Archaeological Science, 14: 163-178. Tempe. 1987.c The Paleolithic cave art of Vasco-Cantabrian Spain. Ox- ford Journal of Archaeology 6: 149-163. STRAUS, L. and HELLER C.

1987 d Hunting in late Upper Paleolithic western Europe. In The n.d. Explorations of the twilight zone: the early Upper Paleo- Evolution of Human Hunting, edited by M. D. Nitecki Ple- lithic of Vasco-Cantabrian Spain. In: The Early upper Pa- num. New York (in press). leolithic of the Mediterranean Bassin, edited by C. Wolf & Hoffecken, British Arqueological Reports (in press). n.d. The early Upper Paleolithic of SW Europe: CroMagnon adaptations in the Iberian peripheries. Paper given at the STRAUS, L. and SPIESS, A. 1987 Symposium on the Origins and Dispersal of Mo- dern Humans, Cambridge, England. 1985. Le Magdalènien final de l'abri Dufaure. Bulletin de la So- ciétè Prèhistorique de l'Ariége 40: 169-184. STRAUS, L.; AKOSHIMA, K.; PETRAGLIA, M. and SERONIE- VIVIEN M. UTRILLA, P.

1988. Terminal Pleistocene adaptations in Pyrenean France: the 1981. El Magdaleniense Inferior y Medio en la Costa Cantábri- nature and role of the Abri Dufaure site. World Archaeo- ca. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Mo- logy 19: 328-348. nografías 4. Santillana del Mar.