Introduction
Humans structure the spaces in which they live. Whether through formal architecture or the patterned use of space, at landscape or domestic scales, such structuring is ubiquitous among people past and present, from hunter-gatherers to members of complex societies (e.g. Otte Reference Otte2012; Codding et al. Reference Codding2016; Maher & Conkey Reference Maher and Conkey2019). Identifying spatial structuring in archaeological contexts, however, can be difficult, particularly when studying hunter-gatherer sites. Distinguishing anthropogenic structuring of space from patterning caused by other agents or archaeological processes is always challenging, but it is even more so in contexts where clear-cut evidence for intentional construction of architecture is lacking (Wandsnider Reference Wandsnider1996).
Despite these difficulties, there is evidence for human modification of space in the European Palaeolithic, extending as far back as 176.5 ka BP (Jaubert et al. Reference Jaubert2016; see also Clark Reference Clark2016, Reference Clark2017; Gabucio et al. Reference Gabucio2014). Much of the evidence comes from open-air sites, for example, a large structure at the Middle Magdalenian site of Peyre Blanque (dated to approximately 19 ky cal BP; Maher & Conkey Reference Maher and Conkey2019) and pavements at Magdalenian open-air localities in the Dordogne (Gaussen Reference Gaussen1980) and Les Landes (Arambourou Reference Arambourou1978; Straus Reference Straus1995). Despite the many confounding factors associated with cave archaeology, there is also some evidence for the structuring of space at European Palaeolithic cave sites (e.g. Reeves et al. Reference Reeves2019). Hearths, for example, are well-documented in cave contexts (e.g. Barandiarán et al. Reference Barandiarán1985; Straus & Clark Reference Straus and Clark1986; Freeman Reference Freeman1988; Freeman et al. Reference Freeman, Echegaray, Klein, Crowe, Dibble and Montet-White1988; Utrilla et al. Reference Utrilla, Mazo, Domingo, Vasilʹev, Soffer and Kozłowski2003; Nakazawa et al. Reference Nakazawa2009; White et al. Reference White2017). Evidence for other types of structures is less widespread, but examples include possible ritual spaces at the Cantabrian sites of El Juyo and La Garma (e.g. Straus Reference Straus1992; Freeman & González Echegaray Reference Freeman and Echegaray2001; Cacho Quesada et al. Reference Cacho Quesada, López and Muñoz Ibáñez2007; Straus & González Morales Reference Straus, González Morales, Kornfeld, Vasil'ev and Miotti2007; Arias Reference Arias2009). Such domestic structures provide insight into the Palaeolithic concept of ‘home’, as well as into adaptation, behaviour and decision-making. Distinguishing intentional anthropogenic activity from non-anthropogenic phenomena and other post-depositional processes (e.g. rock falls), however, remains a challenge when attempting to validate any potential Palaeolithic structure.
Here, we evaluate a proposed domestic structure from the Cantabrian cave site El Mirón: an alignment of rocks from the Lower Magdalenian Level 115 that is suggested to have functioned as a wall (Straus & González Morales Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018). We use the spatial distribution of archaeological fauna around this feature to assess whether it represents a deliberate attempt to organise space during the Magdalenian occupation of El Mirón.
Structuring domestic space in Magdalenian Cantabria
Hunter-gatherers through space and time have shaped their domestic spaces, as well as the wider landscapes in which they live; the ways in which they do so, however, are typically quite different from the strategies used among sedentary agricultural societies (Maher & Conkey Reference Maher and Conkey2019). In Palaeolithic Europe, evidence for the structuring of space by hunter-gatherers extends back into the Middle Palaeolithic (Clark Reference Clark2016, Reference Clark2017; Jaubert et al. Reference Jaubert2016) and becomes prominent during the Magdalenian (17–12 ky BP; Simek Reference Simek1984; Utrilla et al. Reference Utrilla, Mazo, Domingo, Vasilʹev, Soffer and Kozłowski2003; Fuentes et al. Reference Fuentes, Lucas and Robert2019; Mas et al. Reference Mas, Allué, Alonso and Vaquero2021). While evidence for structuring of space across wider landscapes (that is, economic and social territories) is especially well documented (e.g. Straus Reference Straus2009; Fontes et al. Reference Fontes, Straus and González Morales2016, Reference Fontes, Straus and González Morales2018; Álvarez Alonso Reference Álvarez Alonso2018), there are examples from across Europe of Magdalenian sites with internal, or domestic, spatial structuring (Koetje Reference Koetje1994; Jochim Reference Jochim2019). Many of these examples include what Koetje (Reference Koetje1994) calls ‘architectural structures’—hearths, pavements, alignments of rock, or other features that seem to have structured Palaeolithic people's use of space. Although establishing the anthropogenic origin of these structures can be challenging, demonstrating their function can be particularly difficult, especially in cave sites, where the palimpsests formed by repeated occupations, along with post-depositional processes, can cause problems for interpretation (Straus Reference Straus1979, Reference Straus1990; Clark Reference Clark2017; Jochim Reference Jochim2019). Consequently, archaeologists often fall back on demonstrating that features were present when the site was occupied, rather than attempting to demonstrate how they were used (e.g. Karkanas et al. Reference Karkanas2002).
In cases where clear-cut evidence for architectural features is lacking, recognition of spatial structuring often rests on analyses of the distribution of refuse, whether lithic debitage, faunal remains, or both (Rosell et al. Reference Rosell2012; Speth et al. Reference Speth, Meignen, Bar-Yosef and Goldberg2012; Vaquero et al. Reference Vaquero2012; Yeshurun et al. Reference Yeshurun, Bar-Oz, Kaufman and Weinstein-Evron2014; Clark Reference Clark2016; Anderson et al. Reference Anderson2018). Ethnoarchaeological studies provide models for discard patterns, and, in at least some instances, these do appear to align with the distributions of archaeologically documented material, permitting some interpretation of the function and use of specific spaces (see discussion in Clark Reference Clark2017). While the challenges posed by cave environments are at least as difficult to parse in the analyses of discard as they are in establishing the presence of specific structures, the ethnoarchaeological record of hunter-gatherer discard behaviour provides a useful interpretative framework.
Combining the documentation of features with an analysis of discard patterns may therefore facilitate the recognition of further examples of ‘architectural structures’ within caves, while also providing insights into their functions. Although the analyses of discard behaviour alone cannot determine whether humans intentionally constructed any individual feature or, conversely, whether they made use of structural materials that were already in place (e.g. a rock fall), such an approach can determine whether these features played a role in the structuring of activities, and, in some instances, how those features served to organise hunter-gatherer space.
The El Mirón Level 115 rock alignment
The Lower Magdalenian (c. 20.5–18.5 ky cal BP) of Cantabria, along the northern Atlantic coast of Spain, features numerous documented examples of spatial structuring within cave sites (e.g. Freeman & González Echegaray Reference Freeman and Echegaray2001; Arias Reference Arias2009; Arias et al. Reference Arias and Gaudizinski-Windheuser2011; González Echegaray & Freeman Reference González Echegaray and Freeman2016). The cave of El Mirón (Figure 1), excavated between 1996 and 2013 under the direction of Straus and González Morales (Reference Straus and González Morales2012), provides several examples of features that indicate such structuring behaviour, particularly in the levels associated with the Magdalenian. These include the ‘Red Lady’ burial (Straus et al. Reference Straus, González Morales and Carretero2015), as well as a series of hearths, pits and stone-paved areas (Straus & González Morales Reference Straus, González Morales, Kornfeld, Vasil'ev and Miotti2007; Nakazawa et al. Reference Nakazawa2009). One intriguing feature from El Mirón is an alignment of large limestone rocks and sandstone cobbles, infilled with smaller rocks, identified in Level 115 (Straus & González Morales Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018). The age of Level 115 is modelled at c. 20 500–20 015 cal BP (Hopkins et al. Reference Hopkins, Straus and González Morales2020) and is one of several levels in the so-called ‘Corral’ area (see below; Figure 1) that date to the Lower Magdalenian. Archaeologically rich, this layer is distinct in its sedimentological composition and appearance from both underlying Level 116 and overlying Level 114 (Straus & González Morales Reference Straus and González Morales2012).
Plan of El Mirón Cave, showing location of Level 115 (by L.G. Straus and R.L. Stauber, based on cave topography by E. Torres).
The cave vestibule area was sufficiently spacious to allow inhabitants to segregate activity areas. The rock alignment was identified in an 8.5m2 excavation area, known as the Corral, at the rear of the cave vestibule (Figure 1). The rock feature comprised 11 unmodified limestone blocks and two large cobbles, plus many smaller stones, laid along the eastern boundary of squares T9, T8 and half-square T7, and the western edge of U9, U8 and half-square U7 in Level 115 (Figure 2). The feature may have continued into the unexcavated portion of square U7. The limestone blocks and cobbles sat atop Level 116, indicating that the feature was present during the deposition of Level 115. No traces of postholes were observed in association with this feature, although pits have been documented elsewhere in the Lower and Initial Magdalenian levels at El Mirón (Straus & González Morales Reference Straus and González Morales2012).
The rock alignment in Level 115: top) during excavation (photograph by L.G. Straus. From left to right are squares U9, U8 and the north half of U7—that is, the eastern portion of the feature); bottom) in plan view (see Straus & González Morales Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018: fig. 2).‘Éboulis’ indicates angular limestone spall (plan by L.G. Straus and R.L. Stauber).
No similarly dense and apparently linear concentrations of large rocks and cobbles have been found elsewhere in the Magdalenian levels during any excavations of the site. It may, therefore, have been a deliberately constructed alignment, or perhaps the occupants of El Mirón rearranged some blocks that had fallen from the cave roof, enhancing them with the addition of rocks and cobbles from the alluvial fill of the inner cave. Either way, the fact that the feature was present during the deposition of Level 115 qualifies it as a potential ‘architectural structure’. The uneven artefact distribution around the rock alignment supports this hypothesis (Table 1; see also Straus & González Morales Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018). End scrapers were more frequent to the east and north of the feature, while bladelets were concentrated to the west. Straus and González Morales (Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018) suggest that this patterning may reflect an arming/re-arming area to the west and a sewing/hideworking area to the north (three bone needles and an awl were also recovered to the north of the feature). Sample sizes, however, are small, and the spatial patterns identified are subtle, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the function of the rock alignment. While the associated tool discard patterns suggest a feature on which people sat, its location, far from the cave mouth, as well as the presence of some round cobbles on top of the limestone blocks, might suggest otherwise. The alignment may instead have functioned as a wall—perhaps, a partition that served to demarcate an area for rubbish disposal. Combining the findings of Straus and González Morales (Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018) with an analysis of the distribution of the faunal remains recovered in this area may provide additional insight into the function of the rock alignment.
Residuals of chi-square analysis of artefact distributions around the rock alignment feature (data from Straus & Gonzalez Moráles, Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018: tab. 6). Values significant at the α = 0.05 level are in bold.
Materials and methods
Previous analyses indicate that humans were the primary accumulators of many faunal assemblages at El Mirón (Marín Arroyo Reference Marín-Arroyo2009, Reference Marín-Arroyo2010; Straus et al. Reference Straus, González Morales, Marín Arroyo and Iriarte Chiapusso2013; Geiling & Marín-Arroyo Reference Geiling and Marín-Arroyo2015; Marín-Arroyo & Geiling Reference Marín-Arroyo and Geiling2015; Geiling et al. Reference Geiling, Straus, González Morales and Marín-Arroyo2016; Geiling Reference Geiling2020; Carvalho et al. Reference Carvalho2021), including the macro-mammalian assemblage from Level 115 (Carvalho et al. Reference Carvalho2021). Faunal remains at El Mirón were recovered using two methods: larger pieces (generally ≥10mm, or readily identifiable, such as teeth) collected during excavation were piece-plotted, while smaller bones and fragments were recovered by screening (‘general bags’). Bulk materials were recorded to 0.25 × 0.25m squares, allowing for the spatial analysis of the distribution of finds. While there is some variation in density, the faunal remains appear to have been evenly distributed around the rock alignment (Figure 3).
Left) number of bone specimens recovered from Level 115 by excavation square (light blue: 5–10 per cent of total; medium blue: 10–15 per cent of total; dark blue: 15–20 per cent of total); right) average weight of Level 115 bone specimens by excavation square (light green: ≤2.70g; medium green: 2.71–3.49g; dark green: ≥3.50g) (figure by E.L. Jones).
To test the hypothesis that the feature may have had an effect on taxonomic distribution, we use Jones's identification of the macro-mammalian remains (both piece-plotted and bulk-collected) from Level 115; identifications were conducted, with support from Marín-Arroyo, at the Laboratorio de Bioarqueología (Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria), using its comparative osteological collection (for additional details on identification methods, see Carvalho et al. Reference Carvalho2021). Following Straus and González Morales (Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018), we divide these data into three spatial units: west (excavation squares T7, T8 and T9); east (excavation squares U7, U8, U9, V7 and V8); and north of the rock alignment feature (excavation squares T10 and U10). Given our inclusion of both piece-plotted and bulk collected material in this analysis, as well as the context of Level 115, the chances of aggregation errors are high. We therefore make use of the Number of Identified Specimens, or NISP (see discussions in Grayson Reference Grayson1984; Lyman Reference Lyman2008). We use Spearman's rank-order correlation to identify any large-scale taxonomic differences in the assemblages from the west, east and north sides of the feature. We then apply a chi-squared test for association to test for differences in taxonomic frequency.
To investigate the possibility of variation in the types of bone-working activities on different sides of the rock alignment feature, we take two approaches. First, we assess differences in fragmentation to either side (east and west), and to the north, of the feature. We use two metrics as proxies for specimen size: weight, which was recorded for all specimens; and maximum length, which was recorded for long bone fragments only. For both metrics, we assess normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For normally distributed data, we test for differences using Analysis of Variance; for non-normally distributed data, we use the Kruskal-Wallis rank-order test.
Second, we consider the frequency of different types of anthropogenic bone surface modification (i.e. cut marks and impact marks) on specimens from different sides of the feature. Cut marks (typically defined as incisions that are V-shaped in cross-section) may represent butchering and other carcass processing activities, while impact marks (including features such as conchoidal fractures, notch marks or chop marks) may indicate post-butchering bone processing. Our identification protocol for fracture types and bone surface modification follows the work of Carvalho and colleagues (Reference Carvalho2021; see also Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews Reference Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews2016; Vettese et al. Reference Vettese2020). Statistical analyses are conducted in PAST (Hammer et al. Reference Hammer, Harper and Ryan2001); the raw data for all the analyses are available in the online supplementary material (OSM).
Results
Taxonomic distribution appears to differ around the rock alignment feature (Table 2). While the Spearman's rank order correlation analysis indicates that taxonomic rank order is similar on all sides (Table 3)—a finding that likely reflects the relatively small number of taxa identified, as well as the dominance of red deer (Cervus elaphus) and ibex (Capra pyrenaica)—the chi-squared analysis identifies a significant association between location relative to the feature and taxonomic distribution (χ2 = 30.68; p = 0.02). The adjusted residuals associated with this analysis (Table 4) suggest that this result is driven by differences in the area to the north, where there are significantly fewer red deer remains than expected, but more ibex and smaller fauna, notably hare (Lepus sp.) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes; see Figure 4).
Top) proportion of stone tool types to the west, east and north of the rock alignment feature (data from Straus & González Morales Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018); bottom) the taxonomic relative abundance of faunal remains (as a proportion of NISP) to the west, east and north of the rock alignment feature (figure by E.L. Jones).
NISP of macro-mammalian faunal specimens from Level 115.
Spearman's rank-order correlation analysis.
Adjusted residuals from the chi-square analysis of taxonomic frequencies surrounding the rock alignment feature. Values statistically significant at the α = 0.05 level are in bold.
Specimen size also varies spatially. As both weight and maximum length are not normally distributed, we use the rank-order Kruskal-Wallis test for both analyses. Our analysis of weight indicates that fragments recovered from east of the feature are significantly heavier than those from areas to the west and north (H = 21.79; p = 0.00; Figure 3). This is corroborated by our analysis of maximum length; again, the Kruskal-Wallis test indicates that long bone fragments recovered from east of the feature are significantly longer than those from the west or north (H = 6.63; p = 0.03). Finally, bone surface modification frequencies are low overall, particularly cut marks; impact marks are slightly more frequent (Table 5). There appears to be no significant spatial difference in the frequency of bone surface modifications—an observation supported by the results of a chi-squared test (χ2 = 0.24; p = 0.89).
Bone surface modification NISP in Level 115.
Discussion
The distribution of the faunal remains around the rock alignment in Level 115 suggests that the hunter-gatherers who lived at El Mirón used this feature to structure their domestic space. This finding supports the results of the spatial analysis of artefactual material undertaken by Straus and González Morales (Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018) (Figure 4). But what can this distribution of faunal remains tell us about the function of this feature? The small size of the faunal fragments, the relatively low frequency of cut marks, and the higher frequency of impact marks combine to suggest that the area around the feature was neither a primary butchery area nor a food-consumption area. The small fragment size could reflect marrow extraction, but particularly to the north and west of the rock alignment, the presence of red fox—a taxon often hunted for raw material (such as pelts, teeth for ornaments and bone for toolmaking) rather than for its contribution to human diet (see discussion in Baumann et al. Reference Baumann2020)—suggests another option. At least one of the red fox specimens recovered from Level 115—a mandible with multiple parallel grooves along the ramus and with the inferior surface removed—is heavily modified in a way that suggests use of the bone for making tools or ornaments (Figure 5). Hares, a few fragmentary bones of which were also recovered in this area, may also have been hunted for non-dietary reasons, such as for pelts (Rosado-Méndez et al. Reference Rosado-Méndez, Lloveras, García-Argüelles and Nadal2019).
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) mandible from excavation square T9 (grooves, indicated by arrow, are along the body of the mandible, parallel to the alveolus). Scale in cm (photograph by E.L. Jones).
The patterns do not seem to indicate a wall or partition used to contain rubbish; in such a case, one would expect most of the refuse to have been contained on one side of the feature, rather than distributed around it. The rock alignment may have demarcated a bone-working area; this would be consistent with the findings of Straus and González Morales (Reference Straus, González Morales, Valde-Nowak, Sobczyk, Nowak and Źrałka2018). If bone-workers sat on the feature facing west, discarding materials behind them (to the east), this might account for the larger faunal specimen size to the east of the wall. The suggestion that this was an area for bone-working, however, is confounded not only by the limited natural light in this area of the cave (it receives direct light only during the late afternoon), but also by the scarcity of bone tools (aside from many needles) recovered from deposits at El Mirón, despite the abundance of antler projectile points. If the inhabitants of El Mirón were working bone as a raw material, where were the products of this activity eventually deposited? Still, the frequency of internal marks on the faunal specimens does suggest that the activities undertaken at El Mirón were not primarily related to food production, and the discard patterning around the alignment suggests that its function was not simply to contain or demarcate an area for refuse disposal.
The El Mirón rock alignment can thus be added to the list of Magdalenian domestic structures from Cantabria and elsewhere in Upper Palaeolithic Europe. Our analysis has several further implications. In terms of zooarchaeological analysis, the Level 115 faunal assemblage does not appear to reflect dietary subsistence directly, but rather indicates the use of animals for other purposes. This has important implications for interpretation of the relative abundance of different animal taxa in the Level 115 fauna. More broadly, the rock alignment, and its possible function as a type of site furniture, serves as a reminder that even in caves, which afforded pre-existing structural spaces, Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers still actively shaped the spaces in which they lived through everyday practices.
Conclusion
While we cannot demonstrate whether the El Mirón Level 115 rock alignment was intentionally constructed, our analysis shows that it was used as a structure by the Lower Magdalenian inhabitants of El Mirón Cave. The taxonomic distribution of faunal remains, size of faunal specimens recovered, and the distribution of stone tool artefacts around this feature all indicate that it shaped the space in which these people lived, whether as a ‘bench’ that served as seating, a type of partition, some other function, or a combination of these possibilities. As with features identified at other Magdalenian sites in Cantabria and elsewhere in Western Europe, the El Mirón rock alignment from Level 115 demonstrates one of the myriad ways in which Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers engaged in the spatial structuring of their daily lives and physical environments.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Museo de Prehistoria y Arqueología de Cantabria, especially director Roberto Ontañon and curator Adriana Chauvín; the Grupo de Bioarqueología at the Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria and the Universidad de Cantabria, which hosted Jones during the identification of the Level 115 fauna; Jeanne-Marie Geiling and Lucía Agudo Pérez for their great assistance during the analytical process; and two anonymous reviewers of the initial version of this manuscript, whose comments significantly improved it.
Funding statement
Jones's analysis of the El Mirón Level 115 archaeofauna was supported by a Spain Fulbright Scholar Award and by a Faculty Field Research Grant from the Latin American and Iberian Institute of the University of New Mexico. The excavation of El Mirón Cave, directed by Straus and González Morales since 1996, has been authorised and partially funded by the Gobierno de Cantabria, with additional funding from the US National Science Foundation, Fundación M. Botín, L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, National Geographic Society, University of New Mexico, UNM Foundation Stone Age Research Fund (J. and R. Auel, principal donors), and material support from the IIIPC and Town of Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria.
Supplementary materials
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2023.9.
Open access
