MENGA 04 REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA JOURNAL OF ANDALUSIAN PREHISTORY Publicación anual Año 3 // Número 04 // 2013
JUNTA DE ANDALUCÍA. CONSEJERÍA DE EDUCACIÓN, CULTURA Y DEPORTE Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera ISSN 2172-6175 Depósito Legal: SE 8812-2011 Distribución nacional e internacional: 200 ejemplares
Menga es una publicación anual del Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera (Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte de la Junta de Andalucía). Su objetivo es la difusión internacional de trabajos de investigación científicos de calidad relativos a la Prehistoria de Andalucía. Menga se organiza en cuatro secciones: Dossier, Estudios, Crónica y Recensiones. La sección de Dossier aborda de forma monográfica un tema de investigación de actualidad. La segunda sección tiene un propósito más general y está integrada por trabajos de temática más heterogénea. La tercera sección denominada como Crónica recogerá las actuaciones realizadas por el Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera en la anualidad anterior. La última sección incluye reseñas de libros y otros eventos (tales como exposiciones científicas, seminarios, congresos, etc.). Menga está abierta a trabajos inéditos y no presentados para publicación en otras revistas. Todos los manuscritos originales recibidos serán sometidos a un proceso de evaluación externa y anónima por pares como paso previo a su aceptación para publicación. Excepcionalmente, el Consejo Editorial podrá aceptar la publicación de traducciones al castellano y al inglés de trabajos ya publicados por causa de su interés y/o por la dificultad de acceso a sus contenidos. Menga is a yearly journal published by the Dolmens of Antequera Archaeological Site (the Andalusian Regional Government Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport). Its aim is the international dissemination of quality scientific research into Andalusian Prehistory. Menga is organised into four sections: Dossier, Studies, Chronicle and Reviews. The Dossier section is monographic in nature and deals with current research topics. The Studies section has a more general scope and includes papers of a more heterogeneous nature. The Chronicle section presents the activities undertaken by the Dolmens of Antequera Archaeological Site in the previous year. The last section includes reviews of books and events such as scientific exhibitions, conferences, workshops, etc. Menga is open to original and unpublished papers that have not been submitted for publication to other journals. All original manuscripts will be submitted to an external and anonymous peer-review process before being accepted for publication. In exceptional cases, the editorial board will consider the publication of Spanish and English translations of already published papers on the basis of their interest and/or the difficulty of access to their content.
Figurilla antropomorfa procedente de Marroquíes Bajos (Jaén). Foto: Miguel A. Blanco de la Rubia
1
MENGA 04 REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA JOURNAL OF ANDALUSIAN PREHISTORY Publicación anual Año 3 // Número 04 // 2013
ÍNDICE 07 EDITORIAL 12 DOSSIER: ENTRE DOS AGUAS. TRADICIÓN E INNOVACIÓN EN LAS SOCIEDADES
NEOLÍTICAS DE ANDALUCÍA
Coordinado por Dimas Martín Socas y Mª Dolores Camalich Massieu
15
… Y llegaron los agricultores: agricultura y recolección en el occidente del Mediterráneo Leonor Peña-Chocarro, Guillem Pérez Jordà, Jacob Morales Mateos y Juan Carlos Vera Rodríguez
35
Comunidades campesinas, pastoras y artesanas. Traceología de los procesos de trabajo durante el Neolítico andaluz Amelia C. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Juan Francisco Gibaja Bao, Unai Perales Barrón e Ignacio Clemente Conte
53
Una perspectiva mediterránea sobre el proceso de neolitización. Los datos de la cueva de Nerja en el contexto de Andalucía (España) Joan Emili Aura Tortosa, Jesús F. Jordá Pardo, Pablo García Borja, Oreto García Puchol, Ernestina Badal García, Manuel Pérez Ripoll, Guillem Pérez Jordá, Josep Ll. Pascual Benito, Yolanda Carrión Marco y Juan V. Morales Pérez
79
Las sociedades tribales neolíticas en la zona litoral e interior de Cádiz. Continuidad poblacional y proceso histórico José Ramos Muñoz, Eduardo Vijande Vila, Juan Jesús Cantillo Duarte, Manuela Pérez Rodríguez, Salvador Domínguez-Bella y José María Gutiérrez López
103
Los inicios de Neolítico en Andalucía. Entre la tradición y la innovación María Dolores Camalich Massieu y Dimas Martín Socas
130 ESTUDIOS
2
133
Enrique Romero de Torres y el catálogo monumental de Jaén Alberto Sánchez Vizcaíno, Juan Pedro Bellón Ruiz y Arturo Ruiz Rodríguez
149
Estructura territorial y estado en la cultura argárica Borja Legarra Herrero
173
Bronze Age Bone and Antler Working: the Osseous Assemblage from Motilla del Azuer (Daimiel, Ciudad Real, Spain) Manuel Altamirano García
187
Rock Art and Digital Technologies: the Application of Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) and 3D Laser Scanning to the Study of Late Bronze Age Iberian Stelae Marta Díaz-Guardamino y David Wheatley
204 CRÓNICA 204
Memoria del Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera 2012 Maria del Carmen Andújar Gallego y Bartolomé Ruiz González
217
Sistematización e informatización del inventario de yacimientos arqueológicos de Tierras de Antequera: la base de datos ARCA María del Carmen Moreno Escobar y Leonardo García Sanjuán
235 Nuevas dataciones radiométricas del dolmen de Viera (Antequera, Málaga). La Colección Gómez-Moreno Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez, Leonardo García Sanjuán, Águeda Lozano Medina y Manuel Eleazar Costa Caramé 251
Secuencias de arquitecturas y símbolos en el dolmen de Viera (Antequera, Málaga, España) Primitiva Bueno Ramírez, Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann, Rosa Barroso Bermejo, Fernando Carrera Ramírez y Carlos Ayora Ibáñez
268 RECENSIONES 268 271
Mariano Ayarzagüena Sanz Ricardo Olmos, Trinidad Tortosa y Juan Pedro Bellón (eds.): Repensar la Escuela del CSIC en Roma. Cien años de memoria, 2010 Juan Manuel Jiménez Arenas José Ramos Muñoz: El Estrecho de Gibraltar como puente para las sociedades prehistóricas, 2012
275
Ramón Fábregas Valcarce José Antonio Linares Catela: Territorios, paisajes y arquitecturas megalíticas. Guía del megalitismo en la provincia de Huelva, 2011
277 NOTICIAS
3
MENGA 04 REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA JOURNAL OF ANDALUSIAN PREHISTORY Publicación anual Año 3 // Número 04 // 2013
DIRECTOR/DIRECTOR Bartolomé Ruiz González (Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera) EDITORES/EDITORS Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez (Universidad de Granada) Leonardo García Sanjuán (Universidad de Sevilla) COORDINADOR DE RECENSIONES/REVIEWS COORDINATOR José Enrique Márquez Romero (Universidad de Málaga) SECRETARIA TÉCNICA/TECHNICAL SECRETARY María del Carmen Andújar Gallego (Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera) Victoria Eugenia Pérez Nebreda (Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera) CONSEJO EDITORIAL/EDITORIAL BOARD Gonzalo Aranda Jiménez (Universidad de Granada) María Dolores Camalich Massieu (Universidad de La Laguna) Eduardo García Alfonso (Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte de la Junta de Andalucía) Leonardo García Sanjuán (Universidad de Sevilla) Francisca Hornos Mata (Museo de Jaén) Víctor Jiménez Jaimez (Universidad de Southampton) José Enrique Márquez Romero (Universidad de Málaga) Dimas Martín Socas (Universidad de La Laguna) Ana Dolores Navarro Ortega (Museo Arqueológico de Sevilla) Bartolomé Ruiz González (Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera) Arturo Ruiz Rodríguez (Universidad de Jaén) Carlos Odriozola Lloret (Universidad de Sevilla) María Oliva Rodríguez Ariza (Universidad de Jaén) Margarita Sánchez Romero (Universidad de Granada) CONSEJO ASESOR/ADVISORY BOARD Xavier Aquilué Abadias (Museu d´Arqueologia de Catalunya) Ana Margarida Arruda (Universidade de Lisboa) Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares) Juan Antonio Barceló Álvarez (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) María Belén Deamos (Universidad de Sevilla) Juan Pedro Bellón Ruiz (Universidad de Jaén) Joan Bernabeu Aubán (Universitat de València) Massimo Botto (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma) Primitiva Bueno Ramírez (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares) Jane E. Buikstra (Arizona State University) Teresa Chapa Brunet (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Robert Chapman (University of Reading)
4
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. 2013. ISSN 2172-6175
Miguel Cortés Sánchez (Universidad de Sevilla) Felipe Criado Boado (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Santiago de Compostela) José Antonio Esquivel Guerrero (Universidad de Granada) Silvia Fernández Cacho (Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico) Román Fernández-Baca Casares (Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico) Alfredo González Ruibal (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Santiago de Compostela) Almudena Hernando Gonzalo (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Isabel Izquierdo Peraile (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Gobierno de España) Sylvia Jiménez-Brobeil (Universidad de Granada) Michael Kunst (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Madrid) Katina Lillios (University of Iowa) José Luis López Castro (Universidad de Almería) Martí Mas Cornellà (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia) Fernando Molina González (Universidad de Granada) Ignacio Montero Ruiz (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid) Arturo Morales Muñiz (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) María Morente del Monte (Museo de Málaga) Leonor Peña Chocarro (Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma. CSIC) Raquel Piqué Huerta (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) José Ramos Muñoz (Universidad de Cádiz) Charlotte Roberts (University of Durham) Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño (Conjunto Arqueológico de Carmona) Robert Sala Ramos (Universitat Rovira i Virgili) Alberto Sánchez Vizcaíno (Universidad de Jaén) Stephanie Thiebault (Centre Nationale de Recherche Scientifique, París) Ignacio de la Torre Sáinz (Institute of Archaeology, University College London) Juan Manuel Vicent García (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid) David Wheatley (University of Southampton) Joao Zilhão (Universitat de Barcelona) EDICIÓN/PUBLISHED BY JUNTA DE ANDALUCÍA. Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte PRODUCCIÓN/PRODUCTION Agencia Andaluza de Instituciones Culturales Gerencia de Instituciones Patrimoniales Manuela Pliego Sánchez Eva González Lezcano Carmen Fernández Montenegro
DISEÑO/DESIGN Carmen Jiménez del Rosal MAQUETACIÓN/COMPOSITION Francisco José Romero Romero (Agencia Andaluza de Instituciones Culturales) IMPRESIÓN/PRINTING Docuimpresión LUGAR DE EDICIÓN/PUBLISHED IN Sevilla FOTOGRAFÍAS/PHOTOGRAPHS Portada/Front cover: Vista de la Peña de los Enamorados y de la Vega de Antequera desde El Torcal (Foto: Javier Pérez González. © JUNTA DE ANDALUCÍA. Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte) / General view of Peña de los Enamorados and Vega de Antequera (Photo: Javier Pérez González. Andalusian Government, Ministry of Educaction, Culture and Sport). INSTITUCIONES COLABORADORAS/SUPPORTING ENTITIES Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Arqueología Ibérica (Universidad de Jaén). Grupo de Investigación: ATLAS (HUM-694) (Universidad de Sevilla). Grupo de Investigación: GEA. Cultura material e identidad social en la Prehistoria Reciente en el sur de la Península Ibérica (HUM-065) (Universidad de Granada). Grupo de Investigación: PERUMA. Prehistoric Enclosures Research (Universidad de Málaga). Grupo de Investigación de las sociedades de la Prehistoria Reciente de Andalucía y el Algarve (GISPRAYA) (Universidad de La Laguna).
Salvo que se indique lo contrario, esta obra está bajo una licencia Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 Unported Creative Commons. Usted es libre de copiar, distribuir y comunicar públicamente la obra bajo las condiciones siguientes: • Reconocimiento. Debe reconocer los créditos de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor o el licenciador. • No comercial. No puede utilizar esta obra para fines comerciales. • Sin obras derivadas. No se puede alterar, transformar o generar una obra derivada a partir de esta obra. Al reutilizar o distribuir la obra, tiene que dejar bien claro los términos de la licencia de esta obra. Alguna de estas condiciones puede no aplicarse si se obtiene el permiso del titular de los derechos de autor. Los derechos derivados de usos legítimos u otras limitaciones reconocidas por ley no se ven afectados por lo anterior. La licencia completa está disponible en: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/3.0/
Unless stated otherwise, this work is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported Creative Commons. You are free to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work under the following conditions: • Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. • Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
ISSN 2172-6175 Depósito legal: SE 8812-2011
• No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the licence. The complete licence can be seen in the following web page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. 2013. ISSN 2172-6175
5
ESTUDIOS
BRONZE AGE BONE AND ANTLER WORKING: THE OSSEOUS ASSEMBLAGE FROM MOTILLA DEL AZUER (DAIMIEL, CIUDAD REAL, SPAIN) Manuel Altamirano García1
Abstract: In this paper I aim to present both a typological and technological analysis of the bone industry documented at the Bronze Age site of Motilla del Azuer, in Daimiel (Ciudad Real, Spain). The traceological study has shown that both flaking and shaping techniques were partially standardized for the production of each type of artefact. Two main flaking methods have been documented for points made from long mammal bones: bipartition and fracture. Either scraping or abrading could be used for shaping.
Keywords: Worked Bone, Manufacturing Techniques, Motilla del Azuer, Bronze Age, Iberian Peninsula.
EL TRABAJO DEL HUESO DURANTE LA EDAD DEL BRONCE: EL CONJUNTO ÓSEO DE LA MOTILLA DEL AZUER (DAIMIEL, CIUDAD REAL, ESPAÑA)
Resumen: Presentamos un avance sobre el estudio tecnológico y tipológico que se está desarrollando sobre la industria ósea documentada en el yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce de la Motilla del Azuer, en Daimiel (Ciudad Real, España). Gracias al estudio traceológico, se ha observado que tanto las técnicas y métodos para la obtención de los soportes, como aquéllos empleados en la manufactura, estaban totalmente normalizados para la producción de cada tipo de artefacto. Se han documentado dos métodos principales para obtener soportes a partir de huesos largos de mamíferos de cara a realizar diversos tipos de útiles apuntados: bipartición y fracturación. Por otro lado, tanto la técnica de raspado como la abrasion fueron usadas para la manufactura.
Palabras clave: Hueso trabajado, técnicas de manufactura, Motilla del Azuer, Edad del Bronce, Península Ibérica.
1
Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología. Universidad de Granada. [
[email protected]]
Recibido: 05/07/2013; Aceptado: 20/09/2013
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
173
MANUEL ALTAMIRANO GARCÍA
1. INTRODUCTION Animals species have been an important source for raw material in tool manufacture for many past societies. Whether playing a prominent role in household activities or as personal ornaments to be shown as elements of identity, even acquiring a special symbolic meaning, these tools and ornaments comprise precious material evidence that allows us to get closer to both socio-cultural and economic aspects of prehistoric cultures. Technological analysis may be understood as a process that begins with the acquisition of the raw material and ends with the discarding of the objects. Identification of various techniques through traceology and experimentation, helps us to understand the procedures and methods realized by both flaking or shaping. Such research provides us with an approximate idea about how this kind of raw material was worked in the past following sometimes specific rules and strong cultural traditions, and other times following much looser rules. In this article I will focus on the typological and technical approaches found in the osseous material industry documented at the Bronze Age archaeological site of Motilla del Azuer, in Daimiel (Ciudad Real, Spain). Altogether 290 items including tools and ornaments have been found in the course of several archaeological seasons carried out between 1974/86 and 2000/05 (Altamirano García, 20091, 2010). Only tools have been included in the present technical study.
2. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT Settlements defined as “motillas” are common in the central region of the Iberian Peninsula (western La Mancha) during the Bronze Age (2200-1350 cal BC). They are artificial mounds produced by the destruction of concentric lines of fortification. The “motillas” are located in the plain, in low-lying areas, distributed regularly each 4-5 km along the rivers. Their presence can be related to the management and control of different economic resources such as water and cereals (Molina González and Nájera Colino, 1978; Nájera Colino, 1984).
A research team from the University of Granada began systematic excavations on the archaeological site of Motilla del Azuer in 1974, followed by several archeological seasons of excavation and restoration work that are still in progress (Molina González et al., 1979; Nájera Colino et al., 1977, 1979, 1981, 2006). During field works it was discovered that the settlement had a complex system of fortification. Inside the defense works three different areas could be distinguished. First, there was a central tower made of stone surrounded by several lines of walls. Then there was a big trapezoidal open area (patio or court) with a well to obtain water from underground. And finally, there were two concentric spaces separated by a wall with an inner and an outer part. The inner part was used for different purposes which changed over time, such as a pen for animals and for storing cereals. In the outer part several ovens and rectangular storage pits for cereals came to light (Nájera Colino and Molina González, 2004). Both the settlement and necropolis lie outside the fortification. The funerary ritual consists of inhumations inside pits with bodies in a flexed position near the walls of dwellings or next to the outer line of fortification (Molina González et al., 2005; Nájera Colino et al., 2006, 2010).
3. THE OSSEOUS ASSEMBLAGE AND RAW MATERIAL As previously noted, only 255 artifacts considered tools were taken into account in this paper. Tools are defined here as artifacts whose main function was related to the transformation or production of other goods, acquiring activities (hunting, fishing, etc.) or even for warfare (López Padilla, 2001: 250; Provenzano, 2001: 111; Altamirano García, 2010: 42). Bone and deer antler are the main raw materials used in tool manufacturing, with a notable predominance of domestic species compared to wild ones. Normally, the bones come from medium-size mammals, generally caprines and suids, followed by red deer and cattle. There is a selection of long bones used for
1 La industria de hueso trabajado de un yacimiento arqueológico de la Edad del Bronce: La Motilla del Azuer, Trabajo de Investigación Fin de Máster. Inédito.
174
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. 2013. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
BRONZE AGE BONE AND ANTLER WORKING: THE OSSEOUS ASSEMBLAGE FROM MOTILLA DEL AZUER (DAIMIEL, CIUDAD REAL, SPAIN)
flaking, mainly tibia, metapodia and fibula as well as some radius (Altamirano García, 2010: 41; 2011). In contrast to several hypotheses which proposed a significant decrease in bone manufacture due to the progressive implementation of metal (Tarradell Mateu, 1963: 145; Enguix, 1980: 157), this site as with others Bronze Age settlements in Eastern Iberia or Northern Italy, displays a quantitative reduction although bone tools and ornaments remain important displaying the emergence of a new dynamism and technical diversification during this period (Altamirano García, 2009, 2010, 2011, forthcoming; Provenzano, 2001). This significant fact may be due to an accumulation of factors, where cultural and social aspects, on the one hand, and an unequal and differential access to different resources such as metal, on the other hand, are responsible for this remarkable survival of bone industries in various Bronze Age social contexts (Choyke, 2000, 2005; Choyke and Bartosiewicz, 2009; Sofaer et al., 2010).
4. TYPOLOGICAL APPROACH The bone tools have been organized typologically following various morphological and metrical criteria, also taking into account some aspects related to the raw material from which the tools were made. We have created two groups based on the morphology of the active end: points and bevel. Only one beveled tool has been documented, made on deer antler, with double bevel (Fig.1a). Points are divided into several subgroups, types and subtypes, depending on the raw material and the degree of modification of the blanks: epiphyseal based points, non-epiphyseal based points, bi-points, projectile points and undetermined (Altamirano García, 2010: 42-46; 2011). Epiphyseal based tools are defined as objects where the natural bone morphology is almost unchanged. Flaking, in the case of this material, has been used to eliminate one of both epiphyses, preserving the other one or most of it. They are mainly made from caprine tibia and metapodia (Fig.1g), bones with a medullar cavity, and, the ulna (Fig.1e) and swine fibula (Fig.1h), which basically have no medullar cavity. Presence or absence of the cavity greatly affects how the tools are manufactured.
On the other hand, non-epiphyseal based points made on long bone shafts lack any evidence of either of the epiphyses as these were removed during manufacturing. Points made on bone splinters (Fig.1d) are a good example of such tools (Altamirano García, 2010: 44). Bipoints also represent another interesting group among tool types defined here. Both ends are pointed and normally are quite symmetric (Altamirano García, 2011: 45). Some bi-points display several concentric incisions medially on their medial part, that could be related to their function, a question that is still quite controversial (López Padilla, 1994: 180). These bi-point artefacts have been identified as projectile points (Pape, 1980: 145), fishhooks (Rodanés Vicente, 1987) or buttons (Rozoy, 1978). It seems likely that, some of them were probably used as projectile points, because of morphological features, specially the incisions mentioned before that appear to separate the body from a sort of tang (Fig.1f). Finally, projectile points and undetermined points. The first group is really special and varied, where five types have been defined (Fig.1c). The predominant type is featured by the presence of two barbs and a tang (Altamirano García et al., forthcoming). Undetermined points group (Fig.1b) includes distal pointed fragments that due to their degree of fragmentation cannot be classified into any of the types mentioned before (Altamirano García, 2010: 45-46; 2011).
5. TECHNICAL APPROACH The identification of the technological procedure (for all artifact types) reveals a broad variety of precious information about different economic and cultural aspects of society. Raw material acquisition, its selection, as well as the transformation procedures and shaping techniques, can be interpreted through the analysis of the material culture and the archaeological record. Focusing on the manufacturing process for this assemblage (technical transformation sequence), three different stages can be distinguished:
• Preparation of raw material • Flaking • Shaping
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
175
MANUEL ALTAMIRANO GARCÍA
Fig. 1. Bone tools from the Motilla del Azuer site: a) Bevelled tool; b) Undetermined pointed tool; c) Red deer antler projectile point; d) Pointed tool on a one splinter; e) Pointed tool on ulna; f) Double point tool; g) Pointed artifact on a caprine tibia; h) Pointed artifact on a pig fibula.
176
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. 2013. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
BRONZE AGE BONE AND ANTLER WORKING: THE OSSEOUS ASSEMBLAGE FROM MOTILLA DEL AZUER (DAIMIEL, CIUDAD REAL, SPAIN)
Each of these three stages may comprise several methods, procedures and techniques; these techniques could also be divided, in turn, into two groups: breaking the raw material block in two or several fragments (cassure) and the gradual removal of fine material particles (usure) (Averbouh and Provenzano, 1999: 6-9; Provenzano, 2001: 161). In order to analyze all the working techniques used in tool manufacturing on hard animal tissues used in particular assemblages, it is important from the beginning to develop a methodology whose main pillars are the traceological study and experimentation. Comparison between the archaeological tools and the artifacts made by experimentation strengthen the analysis, because it can be understood which type of marks are the result of the particular technique used. 5.1. PREPARATION OF RAW MATERIAL Before starting with the manufacturing process the raw material may sometimes be pre-prepared (heating, cleaning, etc). In general, this preparation work cannot always be observed on the archaeological material, as it is covered up or removed by the subsequence flaking and shaping techniques over the surface. The artifacts studied here do not show any clear evidence of these kinds of preparation work, apart from some objects where the bone surfaces were cleaned before manufacturing. This cleaning is carried out by scraping with the edge of a flint or metal tool to eliminate all the remains of tendons, muscles and nerves, and, sometimes, the periosteum. However, the absence of this kind of evidence could be due to the fact that the tool manufacturing was begun when bones were still quite fresh (Provenzano, 2001: 156).
5.2.1. Fracture Three main fracture techniques have been observed on the worked osseous material studied here: two different kinds of direct percussion (hard hammer and bronze axe) for bone and antler flaking, and flexion (snapping) for particular kind of bones. On the one hand, direct percussion with a hard hammer consists of breaking the raw material block into two or more fragments by hitting it with a hard hammer (Averbouh and Provenzano, 1999: 10). This technique is systematically observed for points manufacturing on bone shafts or long bones such us tibia, metapodia or radius, normally from sheep or goat. These tools usually have several lines of fracture caused by percussion over the diaphysis walls. Sometimes these types of marks have not been completely obliterated by using other techniques during the shaping process (Plate 1 and 2). The same marks that characterize fracturing techniques, have also been documented on a large number of points made on bone splinters, which are produced by percussion. These bone splinters usually display quite irregular cross-sections and profiles on both sides, provided that subsequent shaping work did not eliminate them. The second observed technique also consists of direct percussion using a bronze axe, an artifact that has been documented on the site (Nájera Colino, 1984). Use of a bronze axe causes gradual loosing of portions off the raw material block, where the negative marks produced by each impact with the axe can still be seen. This technique was only used on red deer antler flaking apparently and several tines and beams were discovered during the excavation seasons.
5.2. FLAKING Flaking methods include all the necessary operations to achieve the division of the raw material block into two or more fragments (Averbouh and Provenzano, 1999: 8). Three different flaking methods defined by how they affect the raw material were noted during the study of this material:
By analyzing their surfaces it is possible to distinguish the typical marks made by a metal axe (Plate 3). These marks of percussion display clear differences from marks produced by a stone axe, with their slightly concave profile and lower part forming a quite straight edge. This edge is usually a bit more curved on those impacts made by ground stone artifacts.
Finally, flexion or snapping could have been the third flaking techniques used to fracture the raw material used at Motilla del Azuer. This technique is com-
• Fracture • Bi-partition (Splitting) • Extraction
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
177
0
5
Plate 2. Evidence of fracture on a pointed tool made from a caprine tibia.
0
5
Plate 1. Pointed tool on a caprine radius. Note the irregular profile as result of a fracturing process to obtain the blank.
Plate 3. Slightly concave marks produced by a metal axe on a red deer antler tine.
0
5 Plate 4. Pointed pig fibula.
BRONZE AGE BONE AND ANTLER WORKING: THE OSSEOUS ASSEMBLAGE FROM MOTILLA DEL AZUER (DAIMIEL, CIUDAD REAL, SPAIN)
monly used to divide bones with suitable physical qualities, such as the fibula or ulna of certain animal species (Plate 4 and 5). Taking the bone with both hands, it is necessary to apply a continuous pressure on the bone in order to fracture it and obtain two segments (Averbouh and Provenzano, 1999:11). Nevertheless, it should also be considered that fibulae and ulnae could also have been fractured using direct percussion. Actually, it is not possible to distinguish between the two techniques (in the absence of distinctive marks), used here due to the subsequent shaping procedures that have usually erased the marks left by either percussion or snapping. Despite all that, our hypothesis is that it was snapping instead of percussion that was the chosen technique for flaking, because of the ease with which these bones can be fractured due to the thinness of the medial section. At this site, one of the epiphyses is removed (normally the proximal end), preserving the distal epiphysis. 5.2.2. Bipartition (Splitting) The next flaking method used by the artisans at the Motilla del Azuer is bipartition (splitting), that is the division of the bone into two parts that can be used as blanks for tool manufacturing. This method produces elongated blanks for shaping points, mainly epiphyseal-based points made on tibia or metapodia (Plate 6).
5.2.3. Extraction The last of the flaking methods documented at Motilla del Azuer seems to have been extraction. However, no clear evidence of this method has actually been found, but the hypothesis is that this method was used to obtain blanks for shaping projectile points from red deer antler at this settlement. Some clues suggest its use. First, the morphology of some finished artifacts (slightly curved) and the features found on a projectile point preform (Plate 8), may indicate that extraction was used to obtain blanks made from red deer antler, probably from beam part A or B (merrain A or B) (Fig. 2). This fact is also strengthened by the existence of objects in some other archaeological worked osseous assemblages from the same time period, in which this method has been clearly documented for projectile point manufacturing from red deer antler (Provenzano, 2001: 216; López Padilla, 2011). Furthermore, this has been compared with the results of experimentation, where several kinds of evidence has emerged that strengthen this hypothesis that extraction may have been the first stage in the manufacturing process of antler arrowheads during the Bronze Age in this area.
Several procedures and techniques can be used to carry out this bi-partition, including double parallel grooving, sawing and direct or indirect percussion. However, no evidence neither of grooving nor of sawing has been documented, perhaps obliterated by subsequent shaping works. Otherwise, some pointed tools worked on bi-partitioned caprine tibia display irregular profiles on both sides of the medullar cavity. These irregularities may be due to a more complex bipartition method because of the natural features of this skeletal element, which make it more difficult to work in this way. These irregularities on both sides of the tibia could be evidence of a bi-partition method employing direct or indirect percussion, normally using the side without the tibia tuberosity for manufacturing strong, elegant and quite standardized-points (67). On the other hand, the natural morphology of metapodia makes bi-partition resulting in two similar halves easier (Plate 7).
Fig. 2. Different parts on a red deer antler (Billamboz, 1979).
5
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
179
0
5 Plate 6. Marks produced by the bi-partition of the caprine tibia.
0
5 Plate 5. Pointed caprine ulna.
0
5
Plate 7. Fragment of a pointed tool made on a bi-partitioned caprine metapodial.
0
5
Plate 8. Red deer antler projectile point preform.
BRONZE AGE BONE AND ANTLER WORKING: THE OSSEOUS ASSEMBLAGE FROM MOTILLA DEL AZUER (DAIMIEL, CIUDAD REAL, SPAIN)
5.3. SHAPING TECHNIQUES Once the blanks are ready, the next stage in the technical transformation sequence is shaping (façonnage). It consists of transforming blanks into finished objects using several techniques or procedures. The traceological study has shown that different kinds of techniques were used to transform the blanks and shape the artifacts. Observing the worked osseous assemblage, it is possible to distinguish between preforms and finished objects, on whose surface may or may not be left marks from working and use. In general, the shaping process does not excessively affect the natural morphology of the blanks, because the transformation normally modifies the active end at this site, except for the projectile points that underwent a complex and delicate process of shaping until the final object was ready to be used. Shaping techniques can be organized into two groups according to how they affect the raw material: superficially or deeply. Both groups result in the gradual loosing of little particles of material (Averbouh and Provenzano, 1999: 13). I have already mentioned that various techniques or their combination (procedure) were used for shaping. Sometimes, only the marks left by the last technique to be applied are visible on the bone´s surface, while others marks are obliterated by previous techniques used before. 5.3.1. Scraping Scraping was not only used for shaping blanks but also it was the usual way to clean the bone surface before manufacturing. It seems to have been especially common in some regions in the Bronze Age to shape the points of some types of artifacts (Averbouh and Provenzano, 1999: 14). After analyzing the artifacts surface, there is really very little evidence from the worked bone material at this site that indicates that scraping was used to clean the bone surface in the first stages of manufacturing. In addition, scraping was frequently employed in the first stage in the transformation of the morphology of the blanks. Sometimes, it is followed by abrasion to achieve the final shape of an object before it was
actually used. On the other hand, there are some other pointed tools whose active end was directly worked or curated by scraping (Plate 9), which is represented by the longitudinal and parallel wavy marks normally produced by a lithic tool on bone surfaces. This technique was systematically used at this site for shaping and sharpening the point of the tools made from swine fibula (Plate 10). 5.3.2. Abrasion The surface of any osseous artifact can be regularized or reduced not only by scraping, but also by abrading. This technique consists on the bone surface being rubbed against an abrasive. This technique has been documented in this worked bone assemblage to achieve certain results. On the one hand, this technique was used to sharpen the active end of some points (epiphyseal-based points made on tibia or metapodia and bone splinters, etc.). The surface of these objects displays groups of parallel marks whose direction can change depending on the angle the tool is held at and the movement and pressure used for abrading (Plate 11). The thickness and depth of these marks will depend on the grain-size of the abrasive material. At this site the abrasive is normally fine-grained. As mentioned before, a first stage of scraping can be differentiated in the manufacturing of some type of bone tools. Sometimes, these scraping marks are covered by other kind of much thinner marks and whose direction changes compared to the first ones. This is result of a second stage in the shaping process where the object is given a final form before its utilization. This abrasion is commonly used to regularize the surface of some artifacts manufactured on blanks produced by fracturing the raw material block, smoothing the rough edges of fracture lines and improving the aesthetic appearance of an object. Several researchers mentioned smoothing as a different technique, but it is actually a kind of very fine-grained abrasion. It is mainly used to achieve the final appearance of some special items, such us some particular tools or personal ornaments. This kind of abrasion has been recorded for very few tools and it is often hard to differentiate such wear from use wear.
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
181
MANUEL ALTAMIRANO GARCÍA
Plate 10. Scraping marks on the distal end of a pointed pig fibula.
Plate 9. Parallel wavy marks procuded by scraping on the distal part of a pointed tool.
Plate 11. Abrading parallel marks on the medial portion of a pointed tool.
5.3.3. Carving Carving refers to a technique where the surface of the bone is removed. It is normally made by pressing on the bone or antler surface with a sharpen edge to get the desired shape (similar to sharpening a pencil with a knife), making gradual little cuts. It is this technique that was used to carry out part of the manufacturing process of the antler projectile points at the Motilla del Azuer archaeological site (Altamirano García et al., forthcoming). These morphologically variable projectile points, normally have two barbs and tang, which has sometimes a widening in its middle part as a limit for handling. The groups of little cuts were observed on the tangs (Plate 12), and are related to the final shaping of the objects. These kinds of cuts were certainly made with a metal knife, of which several examples
182
Plate 12. Evidences of carving on the tang of a red der antler projectile point.
have been discovered on this site (Nájera Colino and Molina González, 1977: 256). The only beveled tool in the worked bone assemblage was manufactured using this technique. Progressive cuts can be seen on both sides of this double beveled tool. 5.3.4. Sawing The last of the shaping techniques observed during the traceological analysis was sawing. Sawing consists of cutting and dividing the raw material with a sharp object, in a perpendicular direction with respect to the osseous fibers (Averbouh and Provenzano, 1999: 16). This technique could also have been used to make bi-partition of long bones easier, although there is no evidence to confirm this idea.
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. 2013. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
BRONZE AGE BONE AND ANTLER WORKING: THE OSSEOUS ASSEMBLAGE FROM MOTILLA DEL AZUER (DAIMIEL, CIUDAD REAL, SPAIN)
The only clear evidence of sawing in bone tool manufacture was observed on only one artifact, whose morphological and technical features make it special. It is a pointed object made on a long bone shaft, with a square section and broken at its “proximal” end, with its rounded and thinner cross-section. Each face displays a regularization with fine-grained abrasion, with very fine oblique groups of marks all over the surface. Beneath these marks, it is possible to distinguish some other striae produced during a first shaping stage using scraping. The “proximal” end, a kind of tang, also has several marks on it produced by scraping with a metal object, as shown by their morphological features (Plate 13). The most interesting thing on this object is a group of narrow gorges located on each corner and invading each surface face. There are five different lines of these gorges, whose length gets shorter the closer they are to the “distal” end. These gorges have a V-shaped cross-section. The walls so of these gorges display groups of straight and parallel marks, probably produced by a sharp metal blade. The function of this artifact is not clear at all, although two interpretations can be proposed here. On the one hand, the gorges may just have been ornamental with the object being a sort of pendant for personal adornment, its “proximal” end used to hang it. On the other hand, the gorges may have more functional than decorative. If this artifact was some kind of pointed tool that perhaps it may have been a projectile point. The morphological features of its proximal end are quite similar to those that seen on the projectile points with two barbs and tang. Furthermore, it is also quite similar to elements considered projectile points made from a long bone shaft and whose manufacture involved the same documented techniques and procedures: scraping and abrasion. This type of projectile point displays the same square cross-section in its medial part, tending to be more rounded closer to both the “distal” and “proximal” ends, and the tang not clearly separated from the rest of the projectile point body. The only elements that really make this object both special and different from the other objects similar in shape, are the gorges. They were made using sawing with a metal tool, whether they were purely decorative, functional or even a combination of both.
Plate 13. Notches made by sawing with a metal blade on the surface of a pointed tool.
6. DISCUSSION a) The raw material analysis (Altamirano García, 2011), has demonstrated a clear dominance of skeletal elements from domestic species as the source of raw materials for tool manufacturing at Motilla del Azuer archaeological site. Some wild species are also important in the production of certain types of artifacts (red deer antler for projectile points production, for example). The animal species providing raw material for making bone tools coincide with those species identified in the faunal, showing the importance of livestock with a predominance of caprines in this craft work (Driesch and Boessneck, 1980). b) There are a high proportion of pointed tools in this worked osseous assemblage among others types of artifacts, similar to some others bone tool assemblages dating to Bronze Age in the Iberian Peninsula. c) Flaking methods were also identified. Fracturing techniques dominate (54%), followed by bi-partition (34%) and, if we accept our hypothesis for projectile points manufacture, by an extraction technique (6%).
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
183
MANUEL ALTAMIRANO GARCÍA
d) There is a general use of scraping to regularize the artifacts’s surface and sharpen their active end as regard the transformation and manufacturing techniques and procedures used to make blanks. On the other hand, there is also a manufacturing procedure in which regularization of the surface was first carried out by scraping. This is then followed by abrasion to finish the object before using it. e) The results from present study enable us to talk about the parallel existence of several working patterns in the technical transformation sequence. Especially for some types of artifacts, there is a systematic selection of animal species and skeletal elements chosen to manufacture into a specific tool type. Furthermore, this tool type is normally worked using the same flaking and shaping methods, procedures and techniques. Is it possible to speak of some tool type standardization related to strong manufacturing traditions? There is evidence for some of the tool types described here (epiphyseal-based points made on caprine tibia, for example), being found in contexts dating to the III millennium BC from the center and south of the Iberian Peninsula, that could be related to this possible cultural tradition, at least for some special types of tools. It will be important to carry out the technical study of this bone equipment from such Copper Age sites and some others dating to Bronze Age. This would indicate whether we are looking at a real cultural and technological tradition over time within some cultural regions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study has been carried out within the framework of the Research Project “Paleoantropología y contexto arqueológico en la Motilla del Azuer. Una aproximación bioarqueológica a las poblaciones de la Edad del Bronce en La Mancha (2010-2013)”. To Trinidad Nájera and Fernando Molina, directors of the fieldworks carried out at Motilla del Azuer within the framework of the Research Project about Bronze Age in Western Mancha. To Noëlle Provenzano and Alice Choyke, for making me see “people” and “ideas” behind the bones, for sharing their time and experience with me and for their constant guidance. Thanks.
184
To all those people who have made possible all the archaeological work carried out at Motilla del Azuer, Martín Haro, Sergio Fernández, Gonzalo Aranda and Margarita Sánchez. Thanks.
BIBLIOGRAPHY ALTAMIRANO GARCÍA, M. (2010): “La industria de hueso de un yacimiento arqueológico de la Edad del Bronce: La Motilla del Azuer (Daimiel, Ciudad Real)”, Arqueología y Territorio 6, pp. 39-55. ALTAMIRANO GARCÍA, M. (2011): “Worked bone industry from the Bronze Age of the Iberian Peninsula. The settlement of Motilla del Azuer”, Written in Bones. Studies on technological and social context of past faunal skeletal remains, (Baron, J. and Kufel-Diakowska, B. eds.), Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytet Wrocławski, pp. 273-284. ALTAMIRANO GARCÍA, M. (forthcoming): “Elementos de adorno personal procedentes del yacimiento arqueológico de la Motilla del Azuer. Una aproximación a las técnicas de manufactura”, Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 23. ALTAMIRANO GARCÍA, M., NÁJERA COLINO, T. and MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F. (forthcoming): “Bronze Age osseous projectile points from the archaeological site of Motilla del Azuer”, Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group at Salzburg, 29.8-2.9 2011 (Lang, F. ed.), University of Salzburg. AVERBOUGH, A. and PROVENZANO, N. (1999): “Propositiones pour une terminologie du travail préhistorique des métiers osseuses: I Les techniques”, Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes 1998-1999, t. 7-8, pp. 5-25. BILLAMBOZ, A. (1979): “Les vestiges en bois de cervidés dans les gisements de l’époque holocène. Essai d´identification de la ramure et de ses différentes composantes pour l’étude technologique et l’interprétation palethnographique”, L’industria de l’os et de bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Âge des métaux, (Camps-Fabrer, H. dir.), Première reunión du groupe de travail nº3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, CNRS, París, pp. 93-129. CHOYKE, A. M. (2000): “Refuse and modified bone from Százhalombatta-Földvár. Some preliminary observations”, Field Season 1998, (Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. eds.), SAX: Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report I, Matrica Museum, pp. 78-95. CHOYKE, A. M. (2005): “Bronze Age bone and antler working at the Jászdósza-Kápolnahalom tell”, From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth.
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. 2013. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
BRONZE AGE BONE AND ANTLER WORKING: THE OSSEOUS ASSEMBLAGE FROM MOTILLA DEL AZUER (DAIMIEL, CIUDAD REAL, SPAIN)
Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, (Heidi, L., Choyke, A.M., Batey C. and Lougas, L. eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th-31st of August 2003, Muinasaja teadus 15, Tallin, pp.129-156. CHOYKE, A. M. and BARTOSIEWICZ, L. (2009): “Telltale tools from a tell: Bone and antler manufacturing at Bronze Age Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom, Hungray”, Tiscium XX, pp. 357-376. DRIESCH, A. VON DEN and BOESSNECK, J. (1980), “Die Motillas von Azuer und Los Palacios (Prov. Ciudad Real). Untersuchung der Tierknochenfunde”, Studien über frühe Tierknochenfunde von der Iberischen Halbinsel 7, Munich, pp. 84-121. ENGUIX, R. (1980): “La Edad del Bronce”, Nuestra Historia I, Valencia, pp. 151-170. LÓPEZ PADILLA, J. A. (1994): “Industria ósea”, Agua y Poder. El Cerro del Cuchillo (Almansa, Albacete), (Hernández Pérez, M. S., Simón García, J. L. and López Mira, J. A. eds.), Patrimonio Histórico-Arqueología Castilla-La Mancha 13, Toledo, pp. 176-184. LÓPEZ PADILLA, J. A. (2001): “El trabajo del hueso, asta y marfil”, Y acumularon tesoros. Mil años de Historia en nuestras tierras, (Hernández Pérez, M. S. coord.), Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo, Alicante, pp. 247-257. LÓPEZ PADILLA, J. A. (2011): Asta, hueso y marfil: artefactos óseos de la Edad del Bronce en el levante y Sureste de la Península ibérica (c. 2500 - c. 1300 cal BC), Serie Mayor 9, Museo Arqueológico de Alicante (MARQ). MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F. and NÁJERA COLINO, T. (1978), “Die Motillas von Azuer und Los Palacios (Prov. Ciudad Real). Ein Beitrag zur Bronzezeit der Mancha”, Madrider Mitteilungen 19, pp. 52-74. MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F., NÁJERA COLINO, T. and AGUAYO DE HOYOS, P. (1979): “La Motilla del Azuer (Daimiel, Ciudad Real). Campaña de 1979”, Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 4, pp. 265-294. MOLINA, F., NÁJERA, T., ARANDA, G., SÁNCHEZ, M. and HARO, M. (2005): “Recent fieldwork at the Bronze Age fortified site of Motilla del Azuer (Daimiel, Spain)”, Antiquity, http://antiquity. ac.uk/progall/aranda/index.html. NÁJERA COLINO, T. (1984): La Edad del Bronce en La Mancha Occidental, Tesis Doctorales de la Universidad de Granada 458. Granada. NÁJERA COLINO, T. and MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F. (2004): “Las motillas. Un modelo de asentamiento con fortificación central en la llanura de La Mancha”, La península Ibérica en el II milenio a.C.: poblados y fortificaciones, (García Huerta, M. R. and Morales Hervás, J. eds.), Ediciones
de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, pp. 173-214. NÁJERA COLINO, T., MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F., AGUAYO DE HOYOS, P. and SÁEZ PÉREZ, L. (1977): “Excavaciones en las “motillas” del Azuer y Los Palacios (Ciudad Real)”, XIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (Vitoria, 1975), pp. 503-514. NÁJERA COLINO, T., MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F., AGUAYO DE HOYOS, P. and MARTÍNEZ FERNÁNDEZ, G. (1981): “La Motilla del Azuer (Daimiel, Ciudad Real). Campaña de 1981”, Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 6, pp. 293-307. NÁJERA COLINO, T., MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F., DE LA TORRE, F., AGUAYO DE HOYOS, P. and SÁEZ PÉREZ, L. (1979): “La Motilla del Azuer (Daimiel, Ciudad Real), Campaña de 1976”, Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico 6, Ministerio de Cultura, pp. 19-50. NÁJERA COLINO, T., MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F., SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M. and ARANDA JIMÉNEZ, G. (2006): “Un enterramiento infantil singular en el yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce de la Motilla del Azuer (Daimiel, Ciudad Real)”, Trabajos de Prehistoria 63, pp. 148-156. NÁJERA COLINO, T., MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F., JIMÉNEZ-BROBEIL, S., SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M., AL OUMAUI, I., ARANDA JIMÉNEZ G., DELGADO-HUERTAS A. and LAFFRANCHI, Z. (2010): “La población infantil de la Motilla del Azuer: un estudio bioarqueológico”, Complutum 2010 vol. 21 (2), pp. 69-102. PAPE, W. (1980): “Au sujet de quelques pointes de flèche en os”. Industrie de l´os néolithique et de l´Age du Métaux 2, CNRS, París, pp. 137-172. PROVENZANO, N. (2001): Les industries en os et bois de cervidés des Terramares Émiliennes, Thèse pour obtenir le grade de docteur de L’ Université Aix-Marseille II. RODANÉS VICENTE, J. M. (1987): La industria ósea prehistórica en el valle del Ebro, Arqueología y Paleontología, 4. Serie Arqueología Aragonesa Monografías. Diputación General de Aragón. ROZOY J.G. (1978): “Les derniers Chasseurs”, Bulletin de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, nº Special de June. Charleville, 2 vol. SOFAER, J., BECH, J-H., BUDDEN, S., CHOYKE, A., ERIKSEN, B. V., HORVATH, T., KOVACS, G., KREITER, A., MUHLEMBOCK, C. and STICKA, H-P. (2010): “Technology and craft”, Organizing Bronze Age Societies. European Society in late Prehistory: a comparative approach, (Earle, T. and Kristiansen, K. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-217. TARRADELL MATEU, M. (1963): El País Valenciano del Neolítico a la Iberización. Ensayo de síntesis, Anales de la Universidad de Valencia.
MENGA. REVISTA DE PREHISTORIA DE ANDALUCÍA // Nº 04. PP. 173-185. ISSN 2172-6175 // ESTUDIOS
185
