Dynamic landscapes, artifact taphonomy, and landuse modeling in the western Mediterranean

Abstract

The Polop Alto valley, in eastern Spain, is characteristic of many Mediterranean landscapes. It has been sporadically reoccupied over the course of at least 80 kyr. Its landforms have undergone various geomorphic processes resulting from late Quaternary environmental fluctuations. During the Holocene, the valley has been modified by millennia of extensive land clearance, cultivation, and terracing. As a result, the evidence for human activity and landuse is a cumulative, but discontiguous palimpsest of the most durable behavioral residuesprimarily stone and ceramic artifacts-whose distributions have been affected by diverse natural and cultural formation processes. Human occupation of the Polop Alto spans the evolution of morphologically modern humans and the replacement of foraging economies by farming, arguably the two most significant biobehavioral transitions for human life today. To better understand the changes in human landuse that accompanied these important transitions, we have employed an integrated suite of techniques aimed at unmixing the diverse formation processes that have affected Polop Alto landscapes and material culture. These include patch-based survey methods, photogrammetry, GIS-based spatial analysis, and using artifact morphology and distribution to assess artifact taphonomy. This has permitted us to develop a diachronic settlement model for the 80 kyr of human occupation in the Polop Alto.

In glacial environments beyond glacial terrains: Human eco-dynamics in late Pleistocene Mediterranean Iberia

“…Fig. 5 shows retouch frequency versus surface artifact density for all survey units with likely Upper Paleolithic materials (see Barton et al, 1999Barton et al, , 2002. There is a clear and significant negative correlation between these two measures, indicating that retouch frequency can serve as a proxy for land-use in the survey collections as well as in the assemblages from excavated sites.…”

“…The surface collections can only be divided chronologically into early (pre-Magdalenian) and late (Magdalenian) Upper Paleolithic (we did not analyze surface Holocene lithics here) on the basis of "Temporal Index" for surface collections, described in detail in prior publications (Barton et al, , 2002Bernabeu Aubán et al, 1999;Bernabeu et al, 2000). Because this division differs from the slightly higher chronological resolution of the excavated assemblages, we consider the surface collections separately from excavated materials, although we perform the same analyses on all materials.…”

Segunda campaña de prospección en el territorio inmediato a Cueva de la Cocina: el Valle del Magre

“…No obstante, será a partir de la década de 1970 cuando se llevarán a cabo diferentes actuaciones arqueológicas que permitieron la localización de numerosos asentamientos arqueológicos de diferente cronología (Martínez 1984;Martí y De Pedro 1999;Albiach 2013), incluyendo algunas manifestaciones de arte rupestre (López Montalvo et al 2001). (Barton et al 2002;Bernabeu et al 1999;Pardo Gordó et al 2009 La metodología de prospección ha sido diseñada siguiendo dichos trabajos, donde el criterio utilizado es el llamado patch-based, que implica la evaluación de la distribución continua de las actividades humanas (restos arqueológicos) a lo largo del tiempo. En el enfoque offsite aplicado la unidad mínima de prospección es definida en nuestro caso por la parcela catastral (unidad mínima prospectada para facilitar las labores de toma de datos atendiendo a la característica parcelación de los territorios considerados).…”

Experimental lithic tool displacement due to long-term animal disturbance

“…Natural processes influence the burial, modification, and patterning observed on all archeological materials at multiple scales (Flenniken and Haggarty 1979;Villa and Courtin 1983;Gifford-Gonzalez et al 1985;Behrensmeyer et al 1986;Olsen and Shipman 1988;Nielsen 1991;Shea and Klenck 1993;McBrearty et al 1998;Barton et al 2002;Schoville et al 2009;Eren et al 2010;Pargeter 2011). Although stone tools are the most common surviving artifact from most Pleistocene archeological contexts, they are subject to the same trampling, bioturbation, and displacement processes that impact the archeological visibility of other artifact classes (Lyman 1994;Dibble et al 2006).…”