Ichthyoarchaeological analyses of the freshwater fish remains from levels 19 and 20 in El Mirador cave (Atapuerca, Spain) have been conducted. Fish were always present as a source of animal protein, although their importance in the human diet was not fully exploited by people during the Neolithic on the Iberian Peninsula. Two principal goals are treated here: a taxonomic study of the fish remains and a characterization of the exploitation of this resource. The results show that the human community of El Mirador cave practiced fishing, and that fish was part of their diet and social life.
Des analyses ichthyo-archéologiques de restes de poissons d’eau douce provenant des niveaux 19 et 20 de la grotte du Mirador (Atapuerda, Espagne) ont été réalisées. Les poissons étaient toujours présents en tant que source de protéine animale, bien que leur importance dans l’alimentation humaine n’ait pas été pleinement explorée au cours du Néolithique dans la péninsule Ibérique. Deux objectifs principaux sont abordés : une étude taxonomique des restes de poisson et une caractérisation de l’exploitation de cette ressource. Les résultats montrent que la communauté humaine de la grotte du Mirador pratiquait la pêche et que le poisson faisait partie de son alimentation et de sa vie sociale.
Freshwater fish, Human diet, Neolithic, El Mirador cave, Atapuerca, SpainPoissons d’eau douce, Alimentation humaine, Néolithique, Grotte du Mirador, Atapuerca, EspagnepresentedHandled by J.A. BlainIntroduction
El Mirador cave is located within the municipality of Ibeas de Juarros, into the Sierra de Atapuerca karstic System (Burgos, Spain). The site rises to 1033 m above sea level and its geographical coordinates are 42° 20′ 58″ N and 03° 30′ 33″ W (Fig. 1A).
The cave has an impressive Holocene succession, composed of 24 archaeological levels. The MIR4 and MIR 3 levels were deposited during human occupations in the Bronze Age and the remaining layers (MIR6-MIR24), during the Neolithic period (6000–5000 cal BC.), except for MIR5 which represents a time when the cave was not occupied (Martín et al., 2009, Vergès et al., 2002 and Vergès et al., 2008) (Fig. 1B).
A total of 17 dates using AMS 14 C on samples of charred vegetables place occupation during the Neolithic between 3650–3510 cal BC for MIR6 and 5210–5170 cal BC for MIR24 (Vergès et al., 2008) level. Levels MIR19 and 20 date to 5210–4850 cal BC and 5230–4920 cal BC, respectively. These two levels have characteristics very similar to the rest of the Neolithic sequence (Martín et al., 2009). During this time, the cave was employed as a cattle pen. Overlying layers of animal manure and plant debris indicate periodic burning for sanitation (Angelucci et al., 2009).
From a paleoclimatic point of view, the existence of a temperate dry climate is documented, which presents three different biotopes including landscape mixed forest of oaks, river forest near the Arlanzón river and fields around the cave (Allué and Euba, 2008 and Rodríguez and Buxó, 2008). The presence of anthropophilic rodents also reports this human occupation around the cave (López-García et al., 2008).
Although several zooarchaeological studies have been published about faunal remains in Neolithic chronologies on the Iberian Peninsula (Bosch et al., 2000, Castaños, 1991, Castaños, 2004, Estremera, 2003, Liesau and Montero, 1999, Molist, 2005, Morales and Martín, 1995, Pérez-Ripoll, 1980, Pérez-Ripoll, 2006, Rojo-Guerra et al., 2006, Saña, 1998 and Saña et al., 2014), all of them include analyzed mammal remains and evidence for animal husbandry. However, few specific ichtyoarchaeological studies about those chronologies have been conducted on the Iberian Peninsula (Antolín et al., 2013, Blanco, 2012, Juan-Muns, 2000, Le Gall, 1995 and Zapata et al., 2007). Therefore, the principal goal of the present study is to show the fish consumption as part of the human diet during the Neolithic period of the Iberian Peninsula.
Materials and methods
A total of 227 samples were collected by screening (mesh sizes of 5 mm, 2 mm and 0.5 mm were used. Most of the remains were extracted from the 2 mm concentrate) during the 2004–2005 excavation campaigns at El Mirador site, 29 fish remains from level 19 and 198 from level 20. During the analysis of this material, a binocular EXACTA OPTECH model LFZ s/n 201030 20 W (IPHES 00013) and entomology tweezers were used. Anatomical and taxonomical classifications were done by comparison method of external characteristics of those remains using a reference collection and an osteological atlas (Conroy et al., 2005, Lepiksaar, 1994 and Watt et al., 1997). The taxonomic nomenclature used has been extracted from Cannon (1987). Standard measurements methodology was taken from Morales and Roselund (1979) and Watt et al. (1997).
After taxonomic and anatomical identification, we quantified Minimum Number of Elements (MNE). In addition, and in order to calculate the age and death seasonality of individuals, a quantitative procedure from the measurements of growth rings (annuli) was applied to vertebrae. During winter, fish grow more slowly than in other seasons due to the low temperatures and scarcer food availability; rapid growth implies wider spaces between consecutive marks rather than slow growth. Consequently, winter growth marks are closer to each other than growth annuli formed during the rest of the year, forming a darker region during the winter growth of vertebrae; summer growth appears as wider rings. Therefore, a band consisting of a wider ring and a narrower ring represents one year (Fig. 2B) (Cannon, 1988, Desse and Desse, 1983 and Turrero et al., 2013). For this study, those well-preserved vertebrae, with no taphonomical modifications were used.
To infer, average total body length and weight of well-preserved samples and published regressive statistics (Prenda et al., 2002) were used.
The observation and study of concentric rings also help to determine the season during which the fish died and this fact could inform about the time of settlement of archaeological site when cutmarks of preparation for conservation techniques were not observed (Barret, 1997). The position of the last circle of growth in relation to the outer edge of the bone indicates the period of the death of the individual. The application of this method enables us to demonstrate the time when the fishes were caught at sites (Desse and Desse-Berset, 1992).
N, Number remains (in case that would be more than one)
Description and comparison:
The genus Salmo shows a characteristic honeycomb structure of its vertebral centrum. These centrae are circular and taller rather than long, and exhibit a lateral surface with an irregular network of lamellae forming many circular to ovate foramina of various sizes. The largest foramina occur midway along the centrum and may extend nearly half of its length; small foramina are situated along the anterior and posterior margins (Turrero et al., 2013). To distinguish between S. salar and S. trutta, the unique native species of the Iberian Peninsula (Elvira, 1995 and Elvira and Almodóvar, 2001) diagnostic characteristics of size and morphology of atlas have been applied. Trout atlases appear waisted and are relatively tall when compared to the vertebral width. Pores are round (broadly ovate), often large, few in number and cover the complete surface. The processes are angular and flattened and do not protrude as ears (Feltham and Marquiss, 1989).
Brown trout (S. trutta) is common in the Iberian Peninsula and Europe. The presence of salmonides is already documented in Pleistocene sites such as Sima de los Huesos (Cuenca-Bescós et al., 1997) and in Gran Dolina (TD) (Sanchíz, 1987) both in Atapuerca. Also several authors (Adán et al., 2009 and Turrero et al., 2013) have identified this species in several sites from the North Iberian Peninsula.
Results
The study included 227 fish remains (Fig. 3A–B), and most of the sample corresponds to postcranial remains (90% in level 19 and 97% in level 20), of which only complete vertebrae (57 remains) were confidently identified as belonging to the unique species, S. trutta (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) (44 to Level 20; 13 to Level 19). The cranial bones in the sample corresponds to partial neurocranium elements, impossible to determine at species level.
Osteometric analysis and seasonality
Since the only species represented in the sample is S. trutta, we use published regressive statistics (TL = a + bBL) from Prenda et al. (2002) to infer both average total body length (TL), relating the measurements (in mm) of total length of the vertebrae (BL) (Fig. 2A) where a (−10.31) and b (89.76) (r2 99,4%) are known values for S. trutta (Prenda et al., 2002). As the authors indicate, all vertebrae (thoracic and caudal) are useful to estimate the total values of the body length. Here, the measurement process used was the standard in ichtyoarchaeology. As a result, estimated average total body length for S. trutta from Level 19 is 248 mm from a sample of 11 well-preserved vertebrae (min/max. 91.12/345.14 mm). For Level 20, we used the same regressive statistics and obtained results for average total body length of 235 mm (min/max. 118.94/380.15 mm) from a sample of 29 well-preserved vertebrae. All the estimated values for both levels are similar to modern brown trout populations of the Iberian Peninsula (Alonso et al., 2012).
From the point of view of seasonality, four vertebrae from Level 19 and six vertebrae from Level 20 clearly showed growth annuli. Following Turrero et al. (2013) all vertebrae indicate the spring-summer period as the time of death of the trout specimens, a fact also described by other authors (Le Gall, 1995) at other archaeological sites. Nowadays, this period (spring-summer) is when trout abundance is greatest (Doadrio et al., 2011).
Food acquisition and source management. Taphonomic analysis
Analyzing the local geography of El Mirador site, we observe that the nearest river is the Arlanzón, which is located at approximately 1000 m above sea level and a few hundred meters from the site (1033 m) (Vergès et al., 2002), and probably the principal source of fishes for the El Mirador's inhabitants (Fig. 1A).
As we mentioned, one single species, Salmo trutta, was identified in the sample. This indicates the selection of a consumed species, and not an accumulation by natural agents. If birds of prey or carnivores were the agents of accumulation, there should be some other indication. For example, if other fish taxa such as the cyprinids, which are very common in other natural contexts (Blanco, 2012, Clavero et al., 2015, Doadrio and Casado, 1989 and Pascual, 2000) were present in the sample, both cranial and postcranial elements would be present (Broughton et al., 2006, Butler and Schroeder, 1998, Rodríguez-Santana, 1996, Russ, 2010 and Russ and Jones, 2011). Furthermore, the average size of fishes found would be smaller or different sizes were present (Broughton et al., 2006). These authors do not show the values or range from your results but explain that big sizes overrepresented are a clear signal to discard a natural accumulation on their sites. A natural accumulation would show a wide range of sizes. On the other hand, digestion marks would be present, for example, vertebrae with rounded edges and extreme pitting on the surface of bones (Broughton et al., 2006 and Butler and Schroeder, 1998).
A common characteristic of the salmonid group is that their vertebrae are not strongly ossified, giving them a rough porous texture and making them particularly prone to digestion and disintegration (Conroy et al., 2005). The almost exclusive presence of postcranial elements (the few cranial remains have not been attributed to any species for their poor state of conservation at the site) could be caused by a taphonomic process, but the presence of the vertebral apophysis, one of the less ossified parts of the fish skeleton (Lubinski, 1996 and Rodríguez-Santana, 1996) refutes this hypothesis and indicates that differential skeletal representation in the sample lies in a deliberate accumulation process in which skeletal elements of the skull were removed before being deposited. This fact has already been observed by other authors (Blanco, 2012, Broughton et al., 2006, Morales et al., 2011 and Roselló Izquierdo et al., 1994).
From a taphonomic point of view, burnt fish bones were not observed, so we cannot conclude that the fish were subjected to high temperatures during a possible cooking process (Steffen and Mackie, 2005). In addition, if the fishes were processed using tools, during the butchery or preparation process (Zohar and Cooke, 1997), several cut marks could be observed in the skeleton which are called primary, the result of preparing a fish for transport or consumption in general. In this case, cut marks could be observed in upper cleithral halves, transversal fractures of vertebrae or in keratohyal (Roselló Izquierdo et al., 1994). In our case, cutmarks were also not observed, which would indicate that butchery was accomplished without using tools. Thus, whole fish arrived at the site that were beheaded (Blanco, 2012, Roselló Izquierdo et al., 1994 and Willis et al., 2008).
Discussion and conclusion
Several sites of Neolithic age have been excavated on the Iberian Peninsula, but few have relevant fish bones assemblages similar to that of El Mirador. In addition, Iberian sites with freshwater fish remains are underrepresented compared with marine or coastal sites.
Therefore, we can conduct only a partial analysis for the Neolithic of the Iberian Peninsula due to the small number of sites available for comparison. The low presence of fish remains at Neolithic sites may be due, in some cases, to the recovery methodology, as noted by several authors (Antolín et al., 2013, Blanco, 2012 and Rodríguez-Santana, 1996). Usually the recovery was done without the use of sieves of various mesh sizes. Thus, the studied levels 19 and 20 of El Mirador cannot be compared to similar aged sites where fish remains, but no brown trout, were recovered, for example, La Draga (Banyoles, NE Spain) (Blanco, 2012). In any event, we assume that this species was an important food resource because it is still fished commercially on both the Iberian Peninsula and in Europe.
As noted by several authors (Lubinski, 1996, Russ, 2010 and Russ and Jones, 2011), it was necessary to do an analysis to test if the fish assemblage of El Mirador resulted from natural or anthropogenic accumulation. In the present case, poor skeletal representation and the taxonomy of the accumulation indicate that the recovered assemblages from the richest levels of El Mirador, levels 19 and 20, correspond to an anthropogenic accumulation. Although the sample size of the trout vertebrae is too small to make further generalizations, the assemblage must be considered as a food resource. The study of fish remains belonging to the rest of El Mirador's levels will improve our knowledge of the fish assemblages of this site. Of course, future study would also be important to improve our knowledge about Neolithic fishing on the North Iberian Peninsula. Few have studied this question which would provide more information about ancient diet during this important period of human prehistory. So far very few fish remains have been documented during the Neolithic and Mesolithic of the Iberian Peninsula at the various studied sites. In some cases, the evidence for fishing as a subsistence activity is indirect, demonstrated by the presence of hooks and other possible tools for fishing (Bernaldo de Quirós and Neira, 2007-08).
Although it is difficult to ascertain the fishing technology used, the Neolithic inhabitants of El Mirador must have had enough tools to catch larger fishes. Furthermore, the Arlanzón River, a few hundred meters from the site, was a good fishing resource for the inhabitants of El Mirador.
In conclusion, the assemblage of fish remains found in levels 19 and 20 of El Mirador (Atapuerca, Spain) indicates that the inhabitants were the most likely accumulator of fish bone. This study shows that fish consumption was common practice during the Neolithic of the Sierra de Atapuerca.
Salmo trutta was the only exploited species and is very common nowadays in the region. The accumulation agent was identified by establishing taphonomic signatures, for example, the large size of the trout, skeletal element representation as shown by the presence of only postcranial bones in the sample, and finally the lack of bone surface modifications. We did not find cutmarks or burnt bones which prove that the fish arrived at the site whole, and just beheaded. All vertebrae indicate spring-summer as the period of death. This period is also described by other authors as the time of human occupation at El Mirador (Cabanes et al., 2009 and Martín et al., 2009) which are based on the ovicaprids and bovids death age analysis. The presence of several fish bones at this site indicates that fish served simply as food to complement the diet of its inhabitants.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the cooperation and support of all IPHES staff involved in the El Mirador cave excavations. We thank the Atapuerca Foundation for financial support (CGL2012-38434-C03-03). We appreciate the help, advices and translations of Dr. Hugues-Alexandre Blain (IPHES, Institut català de Paleoecologia Humana I Evolució Social, Tarragona, Spain) and of Dr. Andrew Kandel (Center for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment (HEP), Tübingen, Germany) during the preparation of this manuscript. We also thank Dr. Tomás Prîkryl (Institute of Geology of the CAS, Prague, Czech Republic) and anonymous reviewers for providing comments which significantly improved an earlier version of the manuscript.
AdánG.E.Álvarez-LaoD.TurreroP.ArbizuM.García-VázquezE.Fish as diet resource in North Spain during the Upper PaleolithicJ. Archaeol. Sci.362009895–899AlluéE.EubaI.Los datos antracológicos de la secuencia neolítica del Mirador (Atapuerca Burgos): Un estudio sobre el medio vegetal y la explotación de las especies vegetales leñosas”2008Actas del IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, Alicante 2007Alacant345–352AlonsoC.GortázarJ.García de JalónD.Trucha común–Salmo truttaSalvadorA.ElviraB.Enciclopedia Virtual de los Vertebrados Españoles2012Museo Nacional de Ciencias NaturalesMadrid85–90AngelucciD.E.DiegoE.BoschianG.FontanalsM.PedrottiA.VergèsJ.M.Shepherds and karst: the use of caves and rock-shelters in the Mediterranean region during the NeolithicWorld Archaeol.4122009191–214AntolínF.BlancoÀ.BuxóR.CarusoL.JacometS.LópezO.MarlascaR.PalomoA.PiquéR.SañaM.TerradasX.The Application of Systematic Sampling Strategies for Bioarchaeological Studies in the Early Neolithic Lakeshore Site of La Draga (Banyoles, Spain)J. Wetland Archaeol.131201329–49BarretJ.H.Fish trade in Norse Orkney and Caithness: a zooarchaeological approachAntiquity711997616–638Bernaldo de QuirósF.NeiraA.Una pieza excepcional del Mesolítico cantábrico: El anzuelo de la cueva de «El Espertín» (Cuenabres, Burón, León)Veleia24-252007-2008571–579BlancoÀ.La ictioarqueologia en el marc de la recerca arqueològica. Els exemples dels jaciments arqueològics de la Draga (Neolític antic) i el Castell de Montsoriu (S. XVI). Màster en Arqueologia Prehistòrica2012Història Antiga i Medieval-Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaInédit, 93 p.BoschA.TarrúsJ.ChinchillaJ.El poblat lacustre neoliític de la Draga. Excavacions de 1990 a 19982000Generalitat de CatalunyaGirona296 p.BroughtonJ.H.CannonV.I.ArnoldS.The taphonomy of owl-deposited fish remains and the origin of the Homestead Cave IchtyofaunaJ. Taphon.42200669–94ButlerV.I.SchroederR.A.Do digestive processes leave diagnostic traces on fish bones?J. Archaeol. Sci.251998957–971CabanesD.BurjachsF.ExpósitoI.RodríguezA.AlluéE.EubaI.VergèsJ.M.Formation processes through archaeobotanical remains: The case of the Bronze Age levels in El Mirador cave, sierra de Atapuerca, SpainQuatern. Int.1932009160–173CannonD.Y.133 pMarine fish osteology: A Manual for Archaeologists1987Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCannonD.Y.Radiographic age determination of Pacific salmon species and seasonal inferencesJ. Field Archaeol.151988103–108CastañosP.Estudio de los restos faunísticos de la Cueva del Moro (Olvena-Huesca)Bolskan10199179–107CastañosP.Estudio Arqueozoológico de los Macromamíferos de la Cueva de Chaves (Olvena- Huesca)”Salduie42004125–171ClaveroM.EsquiviasJ.QninbaA.RiescoM.RibeiroJ.F.FernándezN.DelibesM.Fish invading deserts: non-native species in arid Moroccan riversAquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.251201549–60ConroyJ.W.H.WattJ.WebbJ.B.JonesA.A guide to the identification of prey remains in otter spraint2005The Mammal SocietyLondon48 p.Cuenca-BescósG.LaplanaC.CanudoJ.I.ArsuagaJ.L.Small mammals from Sima de los HuesosJ. Hum. Evol.331997175–190DesseG.DesseJ.L’identification des vertèbres de poissons; applications au matériel issu de sites archéologiques ou paléontologiquesArch. Scie. GenGve362198325–39DesseG.Desse-BersetN.Age et saison de mort des poissons. Applications à l’archéologieBaglinièreJ.-L.CastanetJ.ConandF.MeunierF.Tissus durs et âge individuel des vértébrés. ORTSTOM, Colloque national, Bondy (4-6 mars 1991)1992ORSTOM/INRAParis341–353DoadrioI.PereaS.Garzón-HeydtP.GonzálezJ.L.Ictiofauna Continental Española. Bases para su seguimiento. DG Medio Natural y Política Forestal2011MARMMadrid616 pDoadrioI.CasadoP.Nota sobre la ictiofauna continental de los yacimientos de la cuenca de Guadix-Baza (Granada). Geología y Paleontología de la Cuenca de Guadix-BazaTrabajos sobre el Neógeno-Cuaternario111989139–150ElviraB.Native and exotic freshwater fishes in Spanish river basinsFreshwater Biol.331995103–108ElviraB.AlmodóvarA.Freshwater fish introductions in Spain: Facts and figures at the beginning of the 21st centuryJ. Fish Biol.59Suppl. A2001323–331EstremeraM.S.Primeros Agricultores y Ganaderos en la Meseta Norte: El Neolítico de la Cueva de La Vaquera (Torreiglesias, Segovia)2003Junta de Castilla y LeónZamora322 pFelthamM.MarquissM.The use of first vertebrae in separating and estimating the size of trout (Salmo trutta) and salmon (Salmo salar) in bone remainsJ. Zool.2191989113–122Juan-MunsN.La ictiofauna de la dragaBoschA.ChinchillaJ.TarrúsJ.El poblat lacustre neolítico de la Draga. excavacions de 1990 a 199822000Monografies del Casc167 pLe GallO.Els peixos de la Balma de la Margineda. Neolític i Mesolític. (Capes 3 a 6)Ministeri d’Afers Socials i CulturaDels últims caçadors als primers domesticadors1995Andorra98–110LepiksaarJ.Introduction to osteology of fishes for paleozoologists1994Publicat. No press75 p.López-GarcíaJ.M.Cuenca-BescósG.RosellJ.Resultados del estudio de microvertebrados del neolítico de la Cueva de El Mirador (Ibeas de Juarros, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos)2008In Actas del IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular (Alicante 2007)Alicante338–344LiesauC.MonteroS.Vorbericht über die Tierknochenfunde aus Ambrona (Soria)Madrider Mitteilungen40199966–71LubinskiP.M.Fish heads, fish heads: an experiment of differential bone preservation in a salmonid fishJ. Archaeol. Sci.231996175–181MartínP.RosellJ.VergésJ.M.La gestión de los recursos faunísticos durante el Neolítico en la Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos): los niveles 19 y 20 de la Cueva del MiradorTrabajos de Prehistoria662200977–92MolistM.Les activitats productives (II): Les pràctiques ramaderesGiraltE.Història Agrària dels Paisos Catalans2005Edicions de la Universitat de BarcelonaBarcelona147–178MoralesA.RoselundK.Fish bone measurements. An attempt to Standardize the Measuring of Fish Bones from Archaeological Sites1979SteenstrupiaCopenhague48 p.MoralesA.MartínS.Los mamíferos de la Cueva de Nerja: Análisis de las cuadrículas NM-80 y NT-82PellicerM.MoralesA.Fauna de la Cueva de Nerja I. Salas de la Mina y de la Torca. Campañas 1980-821995Patronato de la Cueva de NerjaNerja59–101MoralesA.Moreno-GarcíaM.RosellóE.LlorenteL.MoralesD.C.711ad. ¿El origen de una disyunción alimentaria? In Zona Arqueológica. Arqueología e Historia entre dos mundosVol. II2011Museo Arqueológico RegionalMadrid311–320PascualM.Variaciones estacionales en la dieta de la nutria (Lutra lutra) en la cuenca del Río Esva (Asturias). Seminario de Investigación2000Universidad de OviedoOviedo21 p.Pérez-RipollM.La fauna de vertebradosMartíB.Cova de L’Or (Beniarrés-AlicanteII. Diputación de Valencia1980Valencia193–253Pérez-RipollM.El estudio Arqueozoológico del Abric de La Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant)GarcíaO.AuraJ.El Abric de la Fulgura (Alcoi, Alacant). 8000 años de ocupación humana en la cabecera del río Alcoy 22006Diputación Provincial de AlicanteAlicante120–157PrendaJ.ArenasM.P.FreitasD.Santos-ReisM.Collares-PereiraM.J.Bone Length of Iberian Freshwater Fish, as a Predictor of Length and Biomass of Prey Consumed by PiscivoresLimnética211–2200215–24RodríguezX.P.Technical Systems of lithic production in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula: technological variability between nort-eastern sites and the Sierra de Atapuerca sites2004BAR International Series 1323Oxford184 p.RodríguezA.BuxóR.Cultivos y alimentación vegetal durante el Neolítico en la Cueva de El Mirador (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos)Actas del IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular (Alicante 2007)2008Alicante317–325Rodríguez-SantanaC.G.La pesca entre los canarios, guanches y auaritasLas ictiofaunas arqueológicas del Archipiélago Canario1996Ediciones del Cabildo Insular de Gran CanariaLas Palmas de Gran Canaria577 p.Rojo-GuerraM.A.KunstM.GarridoR.García- MartínezI.La Neolitización de la Meseta Norte a la luz del C-14: análisis de 47 dataciones absolutas inéditas de dos yacimientos domésticos del Valle de Ambrona, Soria, EspañaArchivo de Prehistoria Levantina26200639–100Roselló IzquierdoE.Morales MuñizA.MoralesD.C.La Cartuja/Spain: anthropogenic ichthyocenosis of culinary nature in a paleocultural contextOffa511994232–331RussH.The Eurasian Eagle owl (Bubo bubo): a fish bone accumulator on Pleistocene cave sites?J. Taphon.82010281–290RussH.JonesK.G.Fish remains in cave deposits; how did they get there? Cave and KarstScience383201157–60SañaM.Arqueozoologia I faunes neolítiques a Catalunya. Problemàtica plantejada entorn a la dinàmica del procès de domesticació animalCypsela12199899–110SañaM.BogdanovicI.NavarreteV.Taphonomic evaluation of the degree of historical representation of the archaeological bones samples in anaerobic versus aerobic environaments: The Neolithic site of La Draga (Banyoles, Spain)Quatern. Int.330201472–87SanchízB.Nota preliminar sobre ictiofauna y herpetofauna del Pleistoceno de Atapuerca (Burgos)AguirreE.El hombre fósil de Ibeas de Juarros y el Pleistoceno de la Sierra de Atapuerca19871. Junta de Castilla y LeónValladolid61–66SteffenM.MackieQ.An experimental approach to understanding burnt fish bone assemblages within archaeological hearth contextsCan. Zooarchaeol.23200511–38TurreroP.HórreoJ.L.LópezB.PolaI.G.ArbizuM.García-VázquezE.Chronological changes in Upper Paleolithic fisheries revealed by Museum Archival materialPalaios282013228–232VergèsJ.M.AlluéE.AngelucciD.E.CebriàA.PérezC.FontanalsM.MányanosA.MonteroS.MoralS.VaqueroM.ZaragozaJ.La Sierra de Atapuerca durante el Holoceno: Datos preliminares sobre las ocupaciones de la edad del Bronze en la Cueva de El Mirado (Ibeas de Juarros, Burgos)Trabajos de Prehistoria592002107–126VergèsJ.M.AlluéE.AngelucciD.E.BurjachsF.CarranchoÁ.CebriàA.ExpósitoI.FontanalsM.MoralS.RodríguezA.VaqueroM.Los niveles neolíticos de la cueva de El Mirador (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos): nuevos datos sobre la implantación y el desarrollo de la economía agropecuaria en la submeseta norte2008In Actas del IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, Alacant: MARQ, 2008, pp. 418-427. - ISBN: 9788496979000. Proc. IV Congreso del Neolítico PeninsularAlacant2008WattJ.PierceG.J.BoyleP.R.Guide to the Identification of North Sea Fish Using Premaxillae and Vertebrae. ICES Cooperative research report, 2201997International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Palaegade 2-4Copenhagen (Denmark)231 p.WillisL.M.ErenM.I.RickT.C.Does butchering fish leave cut marks?J. Archaeol. Sci.3520081438–1444ZapataL.MilnerN.RosellóE.Pico Ramos cave Shell midden: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Bay of BiscayMilnerN.CraigO.C.BaileyG.N.Shell middens in Atlantic Europe2007OxbowOxford28–36ZoharI.CookeR.The impact of salting and drying on fish bones: Preliminary observations on four marine species from Parita Bay, PanamaArchaeofauna6199759–66
(A) Location of Sierra de Atapuerca and El Mirador cave (MIR) site (modified from Rodríguez, 2004). (B) Synthetic column of El Mirador stratigraphy showing the different archaeological levels, and specifically levels 19 and 20, from which the fish material haves been analyzed (modified from Angelucci et al., 2009).
(A) Situation de la Sierra d’Atapuerca et de la grotte du Mirador (MIR) (modifié d’après Rodríguez, 2004). (B) Colonne stratigraphique synthétique du Mirador montrant les différents niveaux archéologiques et plus spécialement les niveaux 19 and 20, dans lesquels les restes de poissons ont été analysés (modifié d’après Angelucci et al., 2009).
(A) First thoracic vertebra of Salmo trutta from El Mirador (MIR20 Q21). Scale bar 1 mm, BL: total length of the vertebrae (B) S. trutta caudal vertebra from El Mirador (MIR20 Q22). Scale bar 3 mm. Arrowheads point to winter marks (age 5 + ). Magnification of growth bands is shown on the right. (Scale bar 300 μm) (C) S. truth caudal vertebral (MIR 19Q20 F:V). Scale bar 0,5 mm.
(A) Première vertèbre thoracique de Salmo trutta de El Mirador (MIR20 Q21). Échelle 1 mm, BL : longueur totale de la vertèbre (B) vertèbre caudale de S. trutta de la grotte du Mirador (MIR20 Q22). Échelle 3 mm. Les flèches marquent les bandes de croissance d’hiver (âge 5 + ). Un grandissement des bandes de croissance est montré à droite (échelle 300 μm). (C) Vertèbre caudale de S. trutta (MIR 19 Q20 F:V). Échelle 0,5 mm.
(A) Anatomical elements from level 19. I: indeterminate remain; R: rib; VA: Vertebral apophysis; VB: Vertebral body; CV: Caudal vertebra; TV: thoracic vertebra. Total remains: 29. (B) Anatomical elements from level 20. I: indeterminate remain; R: rib; VA: Vertebral apophysis; VB: Vertebral body; CV: Caudal vertebra; TV: thoracic vertebra. Total remains: 197. (C) Histogram which shows the minimum number of elements (MNE) of Salmo trutta and indeterminate remains in both Level 19 and Level 20. NISP total = 227.
(A) Éléments anatomiques du niveau 19. I : reste indéterminé; R : côte ; VA : apophyse vertébrale ; VB : corps vertébral ; CV : vertèbre caudale ; TV : vertèbre thoracique. Nombre total de restes : 29. (B) Éléments anatomiques du niveau 20. I : reste indéterminé ; R : côte ; VA : apophyse vertébrale ; VB : corps vertébral ; CV : vertèbre caudale ; TV : vertèbre thoracique. Numéro de restes total : 197. (C) Histogramme montrant le MNE (nombre minimum d’éléments) de S. trutta et les restes indéterminés dans les niveaux 19 et 20. MNR total = 227.