Symbolic Use of Marine Shells and Mineral Pigments by Iberian Neandertals João ZILHÃO, Diego E. ANGELUCCI, Ernestina BADAL-GARCÍA, Francesco d’ERRICO, Floréal DANIEL, Laure DAYET, Katerina DOUKA, Thomas F. G. HIGHAM, María José MARTÍNEZ-SÁNCHEZ, Ricardo MONTES-BERNÁRDEZ, Sonia MURCIA-MASCARÓS, Carmen PÉREZ-SIRVENT, Clodoaldo ROLDÁN-GARCÍA, Marian VANHAEREN, Valentín VILLAVERDE, Rachel WOOD, Josefina ZAPATA Supporting Information Appendix Supporting Information I: The site of Cueva de los Aviones Supporting Information II: The site of Cueva Antón Supporting Information III: Radiocarbon dating Supporting Information IV: Analysis of mineral pigments in finds from Cueva de los Aviones Supporting Information V: Analysis of mineral pigment samples from Cueva de los Aviones Supporting Information VI: Analysis of mineral pigments in a Cueva Antón Pecten Supporting Information VII: Reference collection of Acanthocardia, Cerastoderma and Glycymeris shells from modern beaches of Murcia and Alicante Supporting Information VIII: Perforated bivalves from prehistoric sites of Mediterranean Spain Supporting Information IX: References Supporting Information I: The site of Cueva de los Aviones Cueva de los Aviones is a sea cave located at the base of a natural promontory protecting the SW entrance to the Cartagena harbor (SI Figs. 1-2). Local bedrock is made up of carbonate rocks belonging to the Lower Alpujárride unit, of Middle-Upper Triassic age (1-2). The cave walls are composed of moderately deformed light grey and grey limestone (sometimes containing small chert nodules) and dark grey dolomite with intercalations of calcareous breccia and fine layers of yellow sandstone and clay. Locally, bedding of bedrock dips W/20º. The Lower Alpujárride structural unit also contains lithotypes such as slate, quartzite and diabase, all of which outcrop at a short distance from the site. The preservation of brecciated deposits and flowstones well outside the roofed area indicates that the cave was much larger in the Pleistocene, extending several meters E/SE of the present drip-line, whose retreat is related to coastal erosion triggered by sea level rise during the Late Glacial and the Holocene. These erosive processes almost entirely removed the original fill, except for a brecciated remnant preserved against the northwestern wall of the cave, ~4 m³ of which were excavated in 1985 in a two week-long (September 11-26) salvage operation (3-4) (SI Figs. 2-3). The excavation was carried out in 5 cm spits that followed the natural dip of the stratification and with three-dimensional plotting of stone tool and animal bone finds. The extreme cementation of the deposit (explaining its preservation against millennia of sea erosion and repeated impact of strong waves) made it necessary to proceed with chisel and hammer most of the time, inevitably entailing a significant incidence of excavation breakage among the most fragile category of finds, the shells. The extant succession, described below following criteria outlined elsewhere (5), is composed of slope sediments accumulated in two distinct cycles and resting on a possibly Eemian rock-beach. From top to bottom, three stratigraphic complexes have been recognized: (1) US (Upper Slope Sediment), which survives in the upper part of the 1985 profile and as cemented remnants hanging from the cave walls; (2) LS (Lower Slope Sediment), which corresponds to the excavated archeological sequence; (3) CC (Cemented Cobbles), which outcrops slightly above modern sea level on the NE side of the current cave entrance and is composed of cemented cobbles and pebbles. Correlation with the units recognized during the 1985 excavation is given in SI Table 1, and a stratigraphic column is presented in SI Fig. 4. Complex US is made of diamict-like limestone and dolomite forming a heterogeneous cemented breccia that contains rare fragments of bones and lithic artifacts with random orientation. It rests on an erosive surface with evidence of post-depositional deformation, and is separated from underlying complex LS by a discontinuously preserved carbonate flowstone. Complex LS is composed, on average, of coarse material (mainly fragments of carbonate rocks) with a variable degree of post-depositional carbonation (usually intense) and poorly recognizable bedding. It dips SE-E with an inclination of 20-25º and has an erosive base, with angular unconformity. Over a thickness of ~3 m, this complex, originally subdivided in six archeostratigraphic levels, comprises ten different units, all of which contain a variable sand fraction formed of angular and subangular grains of the same lithology as the coarser material, with minor amounts of silt and clay (SI Table 2). Complex CC underlies the archeological sequence, and is shaped as a ridge made up of cemented, clast-supported, rounded cobbles of dolomite and limestone, and occasional quartz pebbles. As the lithology of the fill is identical to that of the cave, a mainly local source is inferred for the bulk of the US and LS complexes. The geometry of these deposits and of the discontinuous flowstones found along the walls indicates that a several meter-thick seaward- sloping talus cone originally filled the entrance to the cave. The apex of that cone would have been located at the base of the passage that connects the rear part of the site with the inner 2 karst, whence came the geological components of the deposit (complemented by direct falls from the cave’s roof and walls). The sedimentary dynamics involved consist mainly of the accumulation of single fragments (scree-like), although mechanisms related to the action of surface-running waters, such as overland-flow and grain-flow, are also responsible for the formation of some of the observed facies (e.g., units LS04 and LS09). Despite the abundant archeological remains, neither in situ features nor anthropic microfacies were observed in the extant profiles, although a concentration of burnt bones and charcoal (identified as holm oak by J.-L. Vernet, University of Montpellier) is reported from level IV (3) and may have been part of a disturbed combustion feature. The orientation of the artifacts and bones in the different layers is consistent with the orientation pattern of the rock fragments, indicating that all accumulated together with the sediment and by means of the same sedimentary dynamics. As a result of these processes, stone tools and animal remains underwent lateral displacement, and their horizontal redistribution across the entire surface of the cave means that their place of excavation does not necessarily coincide with the actual area of use and discard. Given the morphology of the cave and the overall geometry of the deposit, human occupation is likely to have taken place towards the inner part of the talus cone, whence the remains recovered in the area of the 1985 excavation were eventually displaced by such low-energy, syndepositional geological processes as discussed above. Although original site reports (3-4) suggested that a “transgressive marine level” could be observed in level V (=unit LS061), the entire LS complex is in fact of continental origin. Moreover, there is no evidence that any of its units could correspond, even if only in part, to the redeposition of pre-Tyrrhenian marine deposits once extant in the cliff face at a higher elevation. Therefore, the marine shells found in the archeological sequence are non-geogenic, and their association with abundant stone tools and mammal bones (of horse, red deer, ibex, rabbit and tortoise) indicates an anthropic origin. Five Patella shells from levels I-IV of the 1985 excavation (levels V-VI were sterile) have been radiocarbon dated (Supporting Information III). The results for levels I-III (=units LS02- LS05) are in stratigraphic order, indicate accumulation during the ~45-50 ka cal BP (calendar years before present) interval, and suggest correlation of the LS01 flowstone with Greenland Interstadial 12. The fact that, at ~45 ka 14C BP, the results for levels II and III are statistically the same is consistent with the fact that, in our reading of the stratigraphy (SI Figs. 3-4), the base of level II groups with level III to form a single geological unit, LS05. One of the two results for level IV (=unit LS06u), OxA-19312, is not inconsistent with this chronology and, if accepted as valid, leads to a Bayesian model (SI Fig. 13) that constrains the deposition of the archeological sequence to the ~45-48 ka cal BP interval, broadly coinciding with the very cold episode Heinrich Event 5. However, the mid-point of the uncertainty interval of this level IV result is younger than that for levels II and III, which, given the challenging nature of radiocarbon dating in this time range, could reflect undetected, residual contamination. In this case, OxA-19312 would be a minimum age only. In fact, the deposition of level IV (=upper part of unit LS06) may well significantly predate that of level III, from which it is separated by a noticeable discontinuity (the base of the overlying LS05 unit features common carbonate concretions and has a clear lower boundary). The other sample from level IV (OxA-20906; ~42.5 ka cal BP) is statistically younger. However, this sample came from square C2, in the seaward row of the excavation grid, where the in situ deposits are covered by a sheet of reworked material derived from the erosion of both the upper part of the LS complex and the lower part of the US complex (SI Fig. 3). As it went unrecognized at the time of excavation, this sheet must have contributed to the collections provenanced to the different archeological levels. Bearing in mind that the OxA-20906 result is younger than the uppermost unit of the LS complex (level I), the simplest explanation for the anomaly is that this C2 sample was in derived position and originally belonged in the US complex. If so, it would place the deposition of the US complex ~42.5 ka cal BP, in the cold 3 stadial comprised between Greenland Interstadials 11 and 12 (SI Fig.