Bone retouchers from the Middle Palaeolithic site of El Salt, Stratigraphic Unit Xa (Alicante, Spain): First data and comparison with the Middle to Upper Pleistocene European record

Abstract

Middle Palaeolithic sites frequently present bones with a double function, linked to subsistence and technology, which are generally referred to as “retouchers” or “bone retouchers.” These have been identified in several European sites from the Middle Pleistocene to Holocene, but different explanations of their origin and functionality have been cited. Although bone retouchers were made using various animal parts, they were usually produced from diaphyseal fragments of medium to large hoofed mammals. We present a small assemblage of six bone retouchers recovered from Stratigraphic Unit Xa (52.3 ± 4.6 ka), in the Middle Palaeolithic site of El Salt (Alicante, Spain), and compare our data with previous studies from several sites in south‐western France, northern Italy, and north‐eastern Spain. These tools were generated using diaphyseal fragments from red deer, horses, and other large mammals previously exploited by humans for meat and marrow. Our findings add to the existing knowledge on the behaviour and faunal resource management of the last Neanderthal groups on the western Iberian Peninsula before they disappeared from the region around 45–40 ka.

Neanderthal use of animal bones as retouchers at the Level XV of the Sopeña rock shelter (Asturias, northern Spain)

“…Both length and width follow a clear pattern in the Mousterian sites from the Iberian Peninsula (Table 4, Figure 12). We found similarities between Middle Palaeolithic sites and levels having 24 or more retouchers, including Peña Miel G, Prado Vargas 4, Morín 17, Covalejos J, Covalejos K, Axlor B, Axlor D, Axlor F, Axlor M, Axlor N (Alonso‐García et al, 2020; Mozota, 2015; Pérez et al, 2019) and Sopeña Level XV: Length is very similar in all these contexts. There is greater variability regarding average width, but always fitting the in general pattern.…”

“…In Europe, most bone retouchers are on the bones of robust animals, be it red deer (Alonso‐García et al, 2020; Martellotta et al, 2020), horse (Pérez et al, 2019), large bovids (Mozota, 2015), Megaloceros (Martellotta et al, 2021), or mammoth (Neruda & Lázničková‐Galetová, 2018). In fact, M. Mozota points out that bone retouchers are scarce in sites with small sized faunas, such as Esquilleu (Mozota, 2012, p. 327).…”

“…The presence of a good quantity of evidences of human action on the retouchers—such as cut‐marks and fresh bone breakage, as well as the overlapping of retouching marks on cut‐marks (Figure 13) indicate that the Neanderthal communities involved with the formation of Sopeña Level XV reused animal waste products resulting from butchering and consumption of meat and bone marrow. Far from being anecdotal, other authors (e.g., Mozota, 2012; Pérez et al, 2019) point out that the recycling of bone waste products is a habitual behavior. It makes sense, since subsistence is a priority for any society, and the production of lithic tools from the technological application of bones is an activity of a derived type, opportunistic in making use of the shaft of long bones.…”

“…The most ancient recorded bone retoucher appeared in the MIS 9 site of the Gran Dolina of Atapuerca (Level TD10‐1) (Burgos, Spain) (Rosell et al, 2011, 2015). However, Middle Palaeolithic retouchers are best known, since they appear in a good number of sites in the Iberian Peninsula, including Peña Miel (La Rioja), Covalejos (Cantabria), Morín (Cantabria), Axlor (Vizcaya), Prado Vargas (Burgos), Teixoneres (Cataluña), and El Salt (Alicante), among others (Alonso‐García et al, 2020; Barandiarán, 1987; Mateo‐Lomba et al, 2019; Mozota, 2015; Pérez et al, 2019).…”

A 115,000-year-old expedient bone technology at Lingjing, Henan, China

“…When osseous technology is concerned, and leaving aside bone retouchers, which have received much attention [e.g., 31 – 34 , 36 – 39 , 106 – 108 and references therein], the identification of expedient bone tools still heavily relies on the presence of use wear associated with flaking scars on both archaeological [ 42 , 53 – 55 ] and experimental specimens [ 56 ], accidental fracture and crushing of the working edges and surfaces [ 51 , 52 , 109 ], or a combination of these factors [ 6 , 7 , 9 , 110 ]. Faunal remains bearing only flake scars, however, have been somewhat overlooked.…”