Unravelling Hominin Activities in the Zooarchaeological Assemblage of Barranco León (Orce, Granada, Spain)

Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-022-00111-1 1 3 ARTICLE Unravelling Hominin Activities intheZooarchaeological Assemblage ofBarranco León (Orce, Granada, Spain) JoséYravedra1,2 · JoséAntonioSolano3· DaríoHerranz‑Rodrigo1,2· GonzaloJ.Linares‑Matás4· JuhaSaarinen5· JuanJoséRodríguez‑Alba1, etal.[full author details at the end of the article] Accepted: 5 April 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Abstract Little is known about the subsistence practices of the first European settlers, mainly due to the shortage of archaeological sites in Europe older than a million years. This article contributes to the knowledge of the subsistence of the first Europeans with new zooarchaeology and taphonomic data from the Palaeolithic site of Barranco León (Orce, Granada, Spain). We present the results of the analysis of the faunal assemblages retrieved in the context of new excavations undertaken between 2016 and 2020. We have followed a standard methodology for the identification and quantification of species, mortality profiles, skeletal representation and taphonomic analysis. With regard to the taphonomic evidence, we have documented the extent of rounding, abrasion and other alterations. Finally, we examined traces from the activities of carnivores and hominins that led to the accumulation and alteration of the bone assemblages. Results indicate that the archaeo-paleontological deposits from Barranco León present a dual-patterned mixed taphonomic origin. The first phase primarily involved waterborne processes (BL-D1), which led to the accumulation of lithic raw materials, a few archaeological stone tools, and some faunal remains with percussion and cutmarks. The second phase (BL-D2) contains several stone tools associated with faunal remains with more anthropogenic alterations, such as cutmarks and percussion marks. After analysing the Barranco León zooarchaeological assemblage, the present study concludes that hominins had access to the meat and within-bone nutrients of animals of diverse sizes. However, the specific carcass acquisition mechanisms that hominins followed are less certain because the presence of tooth marks suggests that carnivores also played a role in the accumulation and modification of the Barranco León faunal assemblage. Keywords Early Pleistocene· Taphonomy· First settlement of Europe· Cutmarks· Hominin-carnivore interactions· Bone surface modifications Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 2 of 33 Introduction Barranco León (Guadix-Baza, Spain) is one of the oldest Early Pleistocene openair sites in Europe (1.4 Ma). This site, alongside the nearby locality of Fuente Nueva 3, presents evidence of hominin behaviour, including the earliest lithic assemblages documented in the Iberian Peninsula (Turq etal., 1996; Gibert etal., 1998; Barsky etal., 2010, 2015; Titton etal., 2019, 2020, 2021; Toro-Moyano etal., 2009, 2010a, b, 2011, 2013; Yravedra etal., 2021). Barranco León has also produced hominin remains, specifically a mandibular left dm1 (Toro Moyano etal., 2013, although see also Gibert etal., 1999; Ribot etal., 2015). Bone modifications by biotic agents, including hominins, have also been documented at the site (Espigares, 2010; Espigares etal., 2019). On the basis of these associated discoveries, Barranco León is one of the main localities for the study of hominin subsistence strategies at the onset of the first hominin settlement of Europe (Rodríguez-Gómez etal., 2016). Nevertheless publications dealing with archaeozoology and taphonomy of the fauna assemblages have been scarce (Espigares, 2010; Huguet etal., 2013, 2017; Cheheb etal., 2019; Espigares etal., 2019). From a sedimentological point of view, Barranco León level D was described as a secondary deposit whose archaeo-paleontological remains have been reworked (Anadón et al., 2003, 2015; Anadón and Gabàs, 2009; Anadón and Julià, 2010; Oms etal. 2011) and interpretations described a secondary origin of the paleontological remains assemblages (e.g. Turq etal., 1996; Toro-Moyano etal., 2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2013). The presence of insitu knapping activities was pointed out by Toro etal. (2013) based on a lithic refitting in level D. Nevertheless a recent study (Titton etal., 2021) has proved that Barranco León D1 (BL-D1) was both a raw material source and a knapping site. BL-D1 is therefore a mix of primary and secondary archaeo-paleontological evidence sealed by another depositional event (BL-D2). Thus, the present study aims to expand the zooarchaeological and taphonomic interpretation of Barranco León. Specifically we focus on (1) unravelling the activities played by hominins in the bone accumulation (2) establishing the timing of hominin access to animal carcasses. Prior taphonomic assessments of the site have integrated insights from Fuente Nueva 3 (Espigares etal., 2019). The interplay of taphonomic factors in the Barranco León sequence demand a more in-depth focus on the evidence from this locality. This new analysis will allow for a re-assessment of the interpretations provided by Espigares etal. (2019), who claim that hominins only played a secondary role in terms of access to carcasses. From this perspective, these early hominin groups have been interpreted as scavengers of mammalian carnivore prey. This interpretation is in stark contrast with the evidence documented at other Early Pleistocene sites in Europe pre-dating 1Ma, such as Sima del Elefante, where taphonomic research has shown evidence of early human access to the carcasses prior to secondary carnivore involvement (Huguet etal., 2013, 2017). The interpretation of hominins as scavengers offered by Espigares etal. (2019) are also at odds with taphonomic evidence, such as the identification of cutmarks attributed to defleshing and evisceration activities reported in Espigares 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 3 of 33 6 etal. (2019, SF tables11), because evisceration cutmarks (i.e. those found on the ventral side of ribs) are generally associated with primary hominin access to carcasses. This reasoning is based on the fact that, upon hunting their prey, carnivores consume the viscera first; as such, cutmarks associated with evisceration imply that hominin access to the carcass preceded carnivore feeding. Establishing the timing of carcass access by the different agents involved in the formation of the Barranco León assemblage is paramount for understanding and reconstructing hominin behaviour across the Orce Basin palaeolandscapes. As shown by Titton etal. (2021), the lithic assemblage from Barranco León evidences the existence of localised knapping activities involving the exploitation of blanks through several differentiated knapping sequences, as well as the use of multi-purpose tools. Furthermore, the taphonomic analyses of the faunal remains retrieved during the excavations carried out at Barranco León between 2017–2020 provide additional insights into the subsistence strategies of the first European populations. This research contributes to enhancing our knowledge of hominin behaviour in Europe before 1Ma. The Site ofBarranco León The Early Pleistocene site of Barranco León (37°43’28.4"N 2°27’03.7"W) is located in the northeastern part of the Cenozoic Guadix-Baza Basin, in close proximity to the town of Orce (Granada, Spain) (Fig.1), where the Plio-Pleistocene Baza Formation contains abundant archaeo-paleontological deposits. This open-air site has an excavated area extension of ca. 150 m2. The site is in the Upper Member, a deposit of lacustrine and palustrine origin resulting from the accumulation of silty calcareous deposits as well as a coarser fraction (Oms etal., 2011). The BL section has a thickness of roughly 25 m, and consists of mudstones, grey to yellow sands, gravels and limestones. The stratigraphy bounding the site is divided into nine levels (Anadón etal., 2003; Anadón and Gabás, 2009; Oms etal., 2011). From oldest to youngest these are: level A, beige calcisiltite to calcarenites; level B, black and dark green feldspar quartz muddy sands; level C, beige calcisiltites to calcarenites; level D is divided in BL-D1, greyish gravels with a sandy matrix; BL-D2, greyish quartzbioclastic sands, ending in whitish limestones; level E, fine-to-medium grained quartz and feldspar sands, with reddish, brown and greenish colorations; level F1, black sandy mudstones; level F2, bioclastic sands of greyish quartz with small chalk nodules in the upper part; and finally, level G corresponds to beige-colored sands. The two most important archaeological and palaeontological levels and those analysed in this study are BL-D1 and BL-D2. The chronology of level D has been estimated at ca. 1.5 Ma using a combination of ESR and U/Th dating techniques (ToroMoyano etal., 2013). BL-D1 is the main level with more fossil and lithic material. It has a thickness steadily increasing from 0 to 75 cm in a NW-SE direction. At its base, the gravels and cobbles have eroded a large part of the underlying level C and come into direct contact with the level B. This erosion is more evident in the SE, where the central axis of the palaeocurrent that gave origin to this level is located. The formation of BL-D1 is associated with a sudden event whereby high-energy Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 4 of 33 Fig. 1 Location of Barranco León (Guadix-Baza basin). A. General location of Guadix-Baza basin, B. Regional location of Barranco León. C. Stratigraphy for Barranco León (Guadix-Baza basin) 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 5 of 33 6 water flows brought gravels together with most of palaeontological and archaeological remains (Oms etal., 2011). The sedimentology and lateral variations of this level have been studied in detail by Anadón etal. (2003). The cobbles and the pebbles of the gravels were characterised by Anadón and Juliá (2010), who showed that they are dominated by palustrine intrabasinal siltstones with scarce Mesozoic siltstones from the adjacent External Zones. According to the stratigraphical sequence provided by Oms etal. (2011), we would therefore be dealing with a reworked level with a mixture of materials contributed from nearby distances and materials in primary position. BL-D2 has a regular thickness of between 15 and 20 cm of sands very similar to those found in BL-D1. Nevertheless, this level does not seem to be posteriorly modified. The density and dimensions of the archaeo-palaeontological assemblage are lower compared to D1. The upper part of BL-D2 is a level of whitish chalky limestone with abundant ostracods, mollusks and charophyte remains (Fig.1c). Thus, it is important to point out that due to the statigraphic complexity of Barranco León, well known since the work carried out by Oms etal. (2011), it is essential that all interpretations of this site refer to the levels defined there. Sedimentological analyses indicate the existence of a marginal freshwater area in the periphery of the saline main lake (Anadón etal., 2015). The freshwater was sourced from the adjacent highlands and mixed with surface waters and hydrothermal ones. Palaeoecological analyses based on microfauna and tooth wear patterns indicate a predominance of Mediterranean woodland and open environments in the basin during much of the Early Pleistocene (e.g. Agustí etal., 2010; Blain etal., 2011; Sánchez-Bandera et al. 2020; Saarinen et al. 2021). Recent herpetofaunal studies (Sánchez-Bandera etal., 2020) show a tendency towards more arid conditions from BL-D1 to level E. The BL-D1 and BL-D2 depositional events took place in the context of a humid and wooded biotope. Table1 showing the faunal spectrum for large vertebrates has been updated after Martínez-Navarro etal. (2010) and includes Ursus etruscus, Canis mosbachensis, Xenocyon cf. lycaonoides, Vulpes alopecoides (Bartolini Lucenti and MadurellMalapiera, 2020), Meles cf. meles, Martellictis ardea (Ros-Montoya etal., 2021), Pachycrocuta brevirostris, Homotherium sp., Stephanorhinus etruscus, Equus altidens, E. sussenbornensis, Hippopotamus antiquus, Bison sp., Hemitragus cf. albus, Praemegaceros cf. verticornis and Metacervocerus rhenanus. A rich micromammals set is also represented by Mimomys savini (showing a representativity of 80% in relation to the total rodents), Allophaiomys aff. lavocati, Erinaceinae indet., Crocidura sp., Sorex minutus, Sorex sp., Galemys sp., Asoriculus gibberodon, Apodemus aff. flavicollis and Hystrix sp (e.g. Agustí etal., 2015). In addition, Oryctolagus cf. lacosti is recorded. In addition the herpetofauna list is composed by Discoglossus sp., Pelobates cultripes, Epidalea calamita, Bufotes viridis s.l., Bufonidae indet., Hyla sp., Pelophylax cf. perezi, Anura indet., Lacertidae indet. Ophisaurus sp., Malpolon monspessulanus, Natrix maura, Natrix natrix s.l., Natrix indet., cf. Coronella sp., Zamenis scalaris, Colubrinae indet. and Ophidia indet. (e.g. Blain etal., 2016; Sánchez-Bandera etal., 2020). The lithic association from BL is composed of a considerable number of artefacts typical of the Oldowan (e.g. Turq etal., 1996; Gibert etal., 1998; Toro-Moyano etal., 2009, 2010a, b, 2011, 2013; Barsky etal., 2010, 2015; Titton etal., 2019, Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 6 of 33 Table 1 Taxonomic representation in the zooarchaeological assemblages of Barranco León D1 and D2, based on the faunal remains retrieved from the 2017–2020 field seasons, quantified in terms of NISP and MNI NISP data MNI data NISP D1 % D2 % Total D1 % S/A/J/I D2 % S/A/J/I Stephanorhinus etruscus 37 6.7 0.0 37 3 8.3 1/0/1/1 Equus sussenbornensis 11 2.0 1 4.3 12 1 2.8 0/1/0/0 1 10.0 0/0/0/1 Equus altidens 90 16.3 3 13.0 93 6 16.7 1/3/1/1 2 20.0 0/1/0/1 Equus sp. 82 14.9 1 4.3 83 2 5.6 0/1/1/0 1 10.0 0/1/0/0 Hippopotamus antiquus 93 16.9 4 17.4 97 4 11.1 0/2/1/1 1 10.0 0/1/0/0 Bison sp. 11 2.0 0.0 11 2 5.6 0/1/1/0 Bovidae 29 5.3 2 8.7 31 2 5.6 0/2/0/0 1 10.0 0/1/0/0 Capra alba 36 6,6 0.0 36 2 5.6 0/2/0/0 Cervidae 77 14.0 3 13.0 80 2 5.6 0/1/1/0 1 10.0 0/1/0/0 Metacervocerus rhenanus 23 4.2 2 8.7 25 2 5.6 1/1/0/0 1 10.0 0/1/0/0 Praemegaceros cf. verticornis 9 1.6 2 8.7 11 1 2.8 0/1/0/0 1 10.0 0/1/0/0 Canis mosbachensis 1 0.2 0.0 1 1 2.8 0/0/1/0 Xenocyon lycaonoides 1 0.2 0.0 1 1 2.8 0/1/0/0 Canidae indet. 5 0.9 0.0 5 0.0 Pachycrocuta brevirostris 3 0.5 0.0 3 1 2.8 0/1/0/0 Felidae indet. 1 0.2 0.0 1 1 2.8 0/1/0/0 Mustelidae indet. 1 0.2 0.0 1 1 2.8 0/1/0/0 Ursus etruscus 2 0.4 0.0 2 1 2.8 0/1/0/0 Carnivore indet. 10 1.8 0.0 10 0.0 Oryctolagus lacosti 30 5.4 5 21.7 35 3 8.3 0/2/1/0 1 10.0 0/1/0/0 Total mammalia determ. 551 100.0 23 100.0 574 36 100.0 3/23/8/3 10 100.0 0/8/0/2 Chelonia 896 33 929 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 7 of 33 6 Table 1 (continued) NISP data MNI data NISP D1 % D2 % Total D1 % S/A/J/I D2 % S/A/J/I Mammalia indet size 0 44 3.0 5 5.0 49 Mammalia indet size 1 45 3.0 1 1.0 46 Mammalia indet size 2 314 21.1 19 18.8 333 Mammalia indet size 3 376 25.2 29 28.7 405 Mammalia indet size 3a 79 5.3 6 5.9 85 Mammalia indet size 3b 391 26.2 18 17.8 409 Mammalia indet size 4 195 13.1 21 20.8 216 Mammalia indet size 5 53 3.6 2 2.0 55 Indet 7,904 141 8,045 Total 10,848 298 11,146 Faunal remains determinable 1,447 56 1,503 % Fauna determinable 13 19 13.48 Mammalia indet 9,401 242 9,643 % Fauna indeterminable 87 81 87 Age classes: S, Seniles; A, Adults; J, Juveniles; I, Infants. Remains attributed to chelonians were excluded from overall MNI and NISP percentages; they are only represented by carapace fragments Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 8 of 33 2020, 2021). These include cores, flakes, flake fragments, debris, retouched pieces, angular fragments, hammers and unmodified cobbles. The raw materials used are predominantly flint and limestone from the nearby Jurassic formations, although there are several quartzite implements too (Toro-Moyano et al., 2011). Flint is mainly used for small and sharp tools while limestone is mostly used for the manufacture of percussion objects (Titton etal., 2019). The tool-kit is primarily focused on obtaining small, sharp-edged tools for immediate use on site. The insitu knapping processes at this site have been confirmed by several refitted lithic artefacts refittings (Toro-Moyano etal., 2013; Titton etal., 2021). Nevertheless, there is evidence for the use of heavy tools in the development of various active percussion activities other than knapping, such as bone fracturing, tendon processing, vegetal matter crushing or woodworking (Barsky etal., 2015; Titton etal., 2019). Among these tools, several spheroids and subspheroids may also have been used for these purposes (Titton etal., 2020; see also Assaf etal., 2020). Materials andMethods The materials analysed for this study came from BL-D1 and BL-D2, retrieved between 2016 and 2020. These levels account for 11,146 remains. The zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis focused on the entirety of this assemblage. Faunal remains were quantified by number of identifiable specimens (NISP), minimum number of elements (MNE) and minimum number of individuals (MNI). MNI estimates considered specimen side, ontogenetic age and all other relevant osteological data derived from morphological and taphonomic variables (Brain, 1969). Mortality profiles were generated by assigning elements to one of four categories described in Yravedra (2006): infantile, juvenile, prime adult-adult and senile, based on tooth eruption and crown wear and epiphyseal fusion. Anatomical pattern were quantified in MNE, these are based on a division of the following anatomical regions: cranial (i.e. horn, cranium, mandible and teeth); axial (vertebrae, ribs, pelves and scapulae, according to Yravedra and DomínguezRodrigo (2009). Appendicular limbs are classified according to upper appendicular elements (humerii and femora); intermediate (radii, tibiae, patella and ulnae) and lower appendicular bones (metapodials, carpals, tarsals, phalanges and sesamoids). Long limb bones were further divided into anterior elements (scapulae, humerii, radii, ulnae, carpals and metacarpals), as well as posterior elements (pelves, femora, tibiae, patella, tarsals and metatarsals). Indeterminate herbivore and carnivore specimens that could not be identified were assigned a weight/size class. The categories used for herbivores follow the taxonomic adaptation made by Espigares etal. (2019) of the classification system developed by Bunn (1982): (0), including species weighing less than 25 kg; very small size (1), including macro-vertebrates species weighing 25–50 kg; small size (2), including species weighing 50–125 kg; intermediate size (3), including species weighing 125–500 kg, with an additional division between 3a (125–250 kg) and 3b (250–500 kg); large size (4), including species weighing 500–1000 kg; and very large size (5) for species weighing >1000 kg. Carnivores were classified according to three size classes: small 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 9 of 33 6 carnivores (e.g. foxes), intermediate carnivores (e.g. wolves), and large carnivores (e.g. lions and hyenas), following Espigares etal. (2019). Bone fragmentation was analysed according to three variables. Firstly, bones were divided into several categories according to their length: <3cm, 3.1–5.0cm, 5.1–10cm and >10 cm, in order to identify the intensity of bone fragmentation within the sample. Secondly, bones were classified according to the nature of their breakage planes (green or dry) following the criteria of Villa and Mahieu (1991). Criteria used to diagnose dry breaks included the existence of abundant breaks that are longitudinal and/or transverse to the axis of the bone as well as breakage planes that are uneven, rough and exhibiting micro-step fractures. Dry breaks are further characterised by cortical medullary surface angles that are close to 90°. In contrast, green breaks specimens have smoother surfaces and more abundant oblique breakage planes. Lastly, shaft preservation was recorded according to circumference types; where type 1 refers to specimens with <25% of the shaft circumference intact, type 2 refers to specimens with 25–50% of the shaft circumference intact, and type 3 refers to specimens with >50% shaft circumference and those with a complete circumference, following Bunn (1982). The impact of water alterations was estimated with fragment size distributions, as well as the presence of abrasion, polishing and rounding on bone surfaces according to Cáceres (2002) and Yravedra (2006). Rounding and abrasion were additionally classified into different stages (light, intermediate, and intense) on the basis of their intensity on bone surfaces, following Yravedra (2006). According to Lyman (1994) and Fernández Jalvo and Andrews (2016), abrasion is a physical phenomenon that can be caused by a range of different processes. At Barranco León, bone abrasion has a mechanical origin, associated with friction with the sedimentary matrix. This fact was already noticed in lithic industries (Titton etal., 2021) and small vertebrates (Blain etal., 2011). Weathering intensity was analysed following Behrensmeyer etal. (1978). Bone surface modification analyses were carried out using hand-held lenses at 10–40x magnification (Blumenschine, 1986). Tooth marks were classified as pits, scores or puncture, while furrowing was also analysed, following established criteria by multiple authors (Binford, 1981; Blumenschine, 1995; Blumenschine etal., 1996). Cut and percussion marks were classified according to Binford (1981), Blumenschine and Salvaggio (1988) and Blumenschine etal. (1996). Modifications were quantified for specimens with well-preserved bone surfaces, in terms of NISP values. Cut and trampling marks were analysed according to Olsen and Shipman (1988), Yravedra (2006) or Fernández Jalvo and Andrews (2016). Other processes, such as manganese staining or biochemical alterations, were recorded using the criteria outlined by Fernández Jalvo and Andrews (2016). Results Zooarchaeological Analyses The sample analysed comprises 11,146 remains, with most remains derived from BL-D1 (n=10,848), and 298 from BL-D2, of which 13% and 19% respectively Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 16 of 33 Fig. 4 Tooth mark frequencies on appendicular remains from Barranco León levels BL-D1 and BL-D2 on animal size classes 1–2, 3, and 4–5, in relation to the actualistic framework derived from carnivore feeding behaviours documented in different contexts. ULB refers to toothmarks on upper limb bones, such as humerii and femoral remains, ILB refers to intermediate limbs (tibiae, radii), while LLB stands for lower limb bones (i.e. metapodials). See Supplementary File 2 for more information on the comparative samples and their full bibliographic details 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 17 of 33 6 a similar behavioural interpretation can be deduced from the cut-mark data for size 3 animal remains from BL-D2. Nevertheless, the low frequencies documented for the remaining taxa resembles some scenarios with secondary hominin access (Fig.6). Cut-mark frequencies on appendicular elements follow a similar pattern, as upper and intermediate limb bone data only indicate primary access for the larger size classes (4–5), whereas the low incidence of cutmarks on these elements may correspond to secondary access (Fig.7). The data from lower limb bones are also ambiguous, since some frequencies are consistent with primary access while others may suggest secondary access. Lastly, the higher frequency of cutmarks on diaphyses is more indicative of primary anthropogenic access, particularly for BL-D2. In the case of BL-D1, the frequencies reported could fit carnivore-first or hominin-first actualistic scenarios (Fig.7). The different lines of evidence described in Figs.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 show frequencies of tooth, cut and percussion marks that are somewhat ambiguous to interpret, preventing a clear assessment of temporality of access to animal carcasses accumulated at Barranco León. The presence of percussion marks indicates an exploitation Table 4 Anatomical distribution of cut marks for Barranco León D1 and D2 by animal size class (see Methods section for details) D1 (NISP) 1 2 3 3a 3b 4 5 Indet Total Vertebrae 1 1 2 4 Ribs 1 3 2 6 Scapula 1 1 Humerii 1 4 5 Femur 1 1 1 3 Estilopodials 1 1 2 Radii 1 1 Zeugopodials 1 1 Tibiae 1 1 1 3 Metacarpals 1 1 Metapodials 2 1 1 4 Carpals 1 1 Phalanges 1 1 Indeterminate fragment shafts 1 3 3 2 4 6 1 4 24 Plate of carapace 2 2 Indet 3 2 2 4 11 Total 1 8 13 3 13 15 2 15 70 D2 1 2 3 3a 3b 4 5 Indet Total Ribs 1 2 3 Indeterminate fragment shafts 2 1 1 1 5 Indet 1 1 2 Placa 2 2 Total 112132 2 12 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 18 of 33 Fig. 5 Percussion mark frequencies on appendicular elements from Barranco León levels BL-D1 and BL-D2 on the basis of carcass size (1–2, 3, and 4–5) in relation to the comparative framework generated by several experimental and actualistic studies. The blue box represents the percussion mark frequencies generated by humans when they have early access to carcasses, and the red box encompasses the percussion mark frequencies in contexts of secondary access. See Suppl. File 2 for bibliographic details of the comparative samples employed 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 19 of 33 6 Fig. 6 Cut-mark mark frequencies on appendicular elements from Barranco León levels BL-D1 and BL-D2 on the basis of carcass size (1–2, 3, and 4–5) in relation to the comparative framework generated by several experimental and actualistic studies. The blue box represents the cut-mark frequencies generated by humans when they have early access to carcasses, the yellow box corresponds to cut-mark frequencies when human access followed the presence of vultures but preceded carnivore access, while the red box encompasses cut-mark frequencies from contexts of secondary access. See Suppl. File 2 for bibliographic details of the comparative samples employed Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 20 of 33 Fig. 7 Cut-mark frequencies on appendicular remains from Barranco León levels BL-D1 and BL-D2 on animal size classes 1–2, 3, and 4–5. ULB refers to toothmarks on upper limb bones, such as humerii and femoral remains, ILB refers to intermediate limbs (tibiae, radii), while LLB stands for lower limb bones (i.e. metapodials). The blue box represents cut-mark frequencies left by humans in early carcass access contexts, while the red box shows cut-mark frequencies in contexts of secondary access. Cut-mark frequencies on diaphyses are shown on the right hand side of the graph. See Suppl. File 2 for more information on the comparative samples and their full bibliographic details 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 21 of 33 6 of medullary contents of limb bones across all animal sizes, and the cut-mark data indicate patterns of defleshing and disarticulation across all animal sizes (Table4). Although we do not have conclusive results regarding the precise timing of access to carcass, we can confidently say that hominids had access to high-quality animal resources, such as meat and within-bone nutrients resources from various species, including very large prey. At this stage, however, it is important to bear in mind that over half of the faunal assemblage from BL-D1 show signs of waterborne rounding, of which 39% exhibit a stage of intense alteration and 36% correspond to an intermediate stage of alteration. The depositional origin of these bones with considerable hydraulic alterations may correspond to the high-intensity fluvial flash flood processes responsible for the incorporation of part of the mixed lithic and faunal assemblages (Titton etal., 2021); as such, they may contribute little to our assessments of the temporality of carcass access by hominin and carnivore agents. Under this premise, it is paramount to assess whether there are taphonomic differences between the subset of the assemblage that exhibits considerable waterborne alterations resulting from fluvial transport and those that are in primary position. According to the data from Table5, it appears that bone surface modification frequencies of bones with little to no rounding, attributed to a primary depositional context, do not show substantial differences from the calculations derived from the total sample. Both samples exhibit both anthropogenic and carnivore alterations, although frequency data suggest that carnivores played a more relevant role than humans in the modification of the faunal assemblage with greater waterborne rounding. This pattern also suggests that the bones with intense rounding were transported from an accumulation area (i.e. potentially a different site) where both humans and carnivores were also involved. Therefore, it is clear that BL-D1 is a very complex depositional and taphonomic sequence, encompassing a palimpsest of carnivore and hominin activities, with the added caveat of including exogenous elements with their own taphonomic biographies involving both carnivores and early humans, and originating from a different place in the landscape. In this context, it would be premature to establish a definitive temporality of carcass access by the different biological agents involved in the accumulation. Discussion andConclusions Zooarchaeological and taphonomic analyses of fauna from Barranco León offer useful perspectives on site formation processes and hominin and carnivore behaviour. The considerable number of faunal remains with intense rounding (Table1), alongside lithic implements featuring waterborne alterations (Titton etal., 2019, 2020, 2021), represent a first depositional input in secondary position, with materials transported into the site by high-intensity hydraulic processes. On the other hand, a large number of bones with good cortical preservation, with green fracture planes and without waterborne alterations (Tables1, 3, and 5) most likely derive from a subsequent accumulation in primary position (Oms etal., 2011; Titton etal., 2021). Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 22 of 33 Table 5 Bones modified by humans and carnivores from BL-D1 and BL-D2. The faunal assemblage was subdivided into three categories: total sample, sample with clear evidence of rounding, sample with light to no rounding (see Methods section) Taphonomy Barranco León - level D1 NISP % NISP with no rounding or light stage rounding % NISP with rounding alterations % NISP total 10848 6553 4295 Bone surfaces Total (excl. teeth) 9308 85.8 5300 80.9 4008 93.3 Specimens with poor preservation 5749 61.8 3051 57.6 2698 67.3 Samples with good or regular preservation excluding teeth 3559 38.2 2249 42.4 1310 32.7 Rounding Bones with rounding (incl. teeth) 5842 62.8 1552 23.7 4290 99.9 Light stage rounding 1552 1552 0 Intermediate stage rounding 2325 0 2325 Intense stage rounding 1965 0 1965 Trampling Trampling alterations 330 9.3 200 8.9 130 9.9 Carnivore activity Bones with tooth marks 167 4.7 133 5.9 34 2.6 Human activity Bones with cut marks 70 2.0 63 2.8 7 0.5 Bones with percussion marks 46 1.3 41 1.8 5 0.4 More specific evidence of human and carnivore activity NISP % NISP with light to no rounding % NISP with clear rounding alterations % Sample with good cortical surface and excluding teeth Animal size 1–2 228 194 34 Animal size 3 543 398 145 Animal size 4–5 142 110 32 Elements with cut marks Animal size 1–2 9 3.9 8 4.1 1 2.9 Animal size 3 29 5.3 26 6.5 3 2.1 Animal size 4–5 17 12.0 15 13.6 2 6.3 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 23 of 33 6 Table 5 (continued) Taphonomy Barranco León - level D1 NISP % NISP with no rounding or light stage rounding % NISP with rounding alterations % Sample with percussion marks Animal size 1–2 14 6.1 13 6.7 1 2.9 Animal size 3 21 3.9 20 5.0 1 0.7 Animal size 4–5 4 2.8 3 2.7 1 3.1 Sample with tooth marks Animal size 1–2 24 10.5 21 10.8 3 8.8 Animal size 3 75 13.8 61 15.3 14 9.7 Animal size 4–5 19 13.4 13 11.8 6 18.8 Sample of appendicular limbs with good surfaces preservation Animal size 1–2 92 81 11 Animal size 3 224 176 48 Animal size 4–5 50 35 15 Appendicular limbs with cut marks Animal size 1–2 5 5.4 4 4.9 1 9.1 Animal size 3 18 8.0 15 8.5 3 6.3 Animal size 4–5 13 26.0 12 34.3 1 6.7 Appendicular limbs with tooth marks Animal size 1–2 12 13.0 9 11.1 3 27.3 Animal size 3 37 16.5 27 15.3 10 20.8 Animal size 4–5 10 20.0 5 14.3 5 33.3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 24 of 33 These co-occurring assemblages are both characterised by a low incidence of weathering alterations, which implies two possible interpretations: (1) that only a short timespan had elapsed between the first natural accumulation and the traces of hominin behaviour at the site recorded in the primary-position deposit, suggesting rapid burial; (2) that bones were on a relatively humid substrate, with vegetation providing shelter from subaerial exposure, particularly sun radiation, and sudden changes in temperature and humidity, thus delaying bone weathering trends (Andrews and Whybrow, 2005; Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews, 2016). This second interpretation is not implausible, given how the BL palaeoenvironmental data suggests a humid and wooded biotope (Sánchez-Bandera etal., 2020; Saarinen etal., 2021). Moreover the presence among herpetofauna of a treefrog (Hyla sp.) suggest that the body of water would have been surrounded by abundant marshy vegetation (Blain etal., 2011; Sánchez-Bandera etal., 2020). Either way, the processes that contributed to the formation of both subsets of the BL D1 faunal assemblage palimpsest described in the present study led to low weathering patterns. Barranco León therefore presents a complex taphonomic history that is difficult to interpret. Previous taphonomic research on the Barranco León assemblage that focused almost entirely on carnivore and hominin behaviour (e.g. Espigares etal. 2019) have not taken into sufficient consideration other crucial site formation processes. BL-D1 comprises two intertwined taphonomic histories, with bones exhibiting differences in the nature and intensity of waterborne alterations (rounding, polish, abrasion), weathering, and breakage types (dry vs green) that may indicate a sequence of different depositional events. At the same time, Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews (2003) showed that variability in the nature and intensity of waterborne alterations do not necessarily imply different stages or sub-assemblages; bones may all be simultaneously abraded to varying extents. These results imply that the different waterbone alterations may correspond to a single depositional event. While the assessment of these site formation processes is well discussed in the taphonomic literature, particularly regarding palimpsest formation due to waterborne inputs (Voorhies, 1969, 1970; Behrensmeyer, 1982; Fiorillo, 1988; Aslan and Behrensmeyer, 1996; Ziegler and van Huet 2021); discriminating between these two scenarios is still difficult, particularly since weathering patterns at Barranco León may offer little additional insights regarding the temporality of accumulation. This is because of the aforementioned pattern that favourable climatic conditions, such as those documented at the site (Sánchez-Bandera etal., 2020), may delay the weathering trends of exposed bones (Andrews and Whybrow, 2005; Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews, 2016). Nonetheless, despite these caveats, other lines of evidence further reinforce the plausibility of the hypothesis that two depositional events took place at Barranco León. Titton etal. (2021) suggests that it is likely that different depositional events contributed to the formation of the lithic assemblage, with a first input of transported material, and a second phase representing more localised processes with a greater and clearer anthropogenic signature. In terms of hominin–carnivore interactions, the dual-patterned taphonomic sequence recorded in BL-D1 led to the incorporation of bones with both carnivore and hominin alterations to the site. The fossil remains in secondary position are 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 25 of 33 6 therefore likely to derive from a different locality where both hominins and carnivores interacted with animal carcasses. The action of carnivores appears more substantial in this subset of the assemblage than in the remains associated with a primary deposition, although the unknown nature of the inferred locality from where the displaced elements would have derived from prevents the suggestion of further behavioural hypotheses. With regard to the subset of the assemblage in primary position, both hominins and carnivores played a role in the modification, and likely accumulation, of the faunal assemblage. Nevertheless, the results in Table5 are ambiguous, and it is not possible to determine if hominins had primary or secondary access to the carcasses. With regard to early human behaviour and the role that hominins played in the accumulation of the fossil assemblage of BL-D1, the results obtained are not entirely conclusive. When analysing the frequency and distribution of tooth marks, the present data reports carnivores to have had a rather limited impact on the assemblage (Figs.2, 3 and 4). The comparison of tooth mark data with actualistic frameworks suggests that carnivore access to carcasses was likely secondary to hominins. This assessment, and the data presented in Yravedra etal. (2021) for Fuente Nueva 3, are actually in agreement with the conclusions reached by Espigares etal. (2019:10) for these Orce localities: ‘carnivore activity in these sites seems to have been residual compared to hominin activity’. At the same time, primary access to animal carcasses by hominins at Barranco León cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of comparative assessments of cut and percussion mark frequencies with actualistic frameworks (Figs.5, 6 and 7). The data from Fig.6 suggests hominins to have had primary access to animal sizes 4–5 at BL-D1 and size 3 carcasses at BL-D2. Nevertheless, the small sample sizes included here hinder further conclusions, while the remaining size classes at BL-D1 had rather low cut-mark frequencies, inconsistent with the expectations of primary access by hominins. The ambiguity from cut-mark frequency data is also reflected in Fig.7, since the counts per anatomical unit are generally very low, and only those on limb bone diaphyses would match actualistic expectations of primary access to carcasses by hominins. Nevertheless, overlap is still present between secondary hominin access models. Therefore, the detailed taphonomic and zooarchaeological data for BL-D1 presented here does not currently allow the establishment of a definitive order of whether hominins or carnivores had primary access to the carcasses. The present study was able to identify cutmarks on a wide range of carcass sizes, such as hippopotamus (size 5, BL-D1), equids and chelonian remains in both BL-D1 and BL-D2. These results are consistent with the reported observations by Espigares etal. (2019). Nevertheless, in contrast to these previous efforts (Espigares etal., 2019, TableS11), the present study was unable to identify cutmarks that could be unambiguously attributed to evisceration. While the present study was able to identify cutmarks on several rib fragments (Table4), future research with more detailed documentations of these types of trace could be useful to confirm an early access to the carcasses by hominins. Carnivores tend to consistently consume viscera first when processing a newly acquired prey, as documented for felines (Schaller, 1972; Blumenschine, 1986; Blumenschine and Cavallo, 1992; Rodríguez-Alba etal. 2019), canids (Mech, 1970; Stahler etal., 2006; Yravedra etal., 2011) or hyenas Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 1 3 6 Page 32 of 33 Toro-Moyano, I., Barsky, D., Cauche, D., Celiberti, V., Grégoire, S., Lebegue, F., Moncel, M.H., Lumley, H. de, (2011). The archaic stone-tool industry from Barranco León and Fuente Nueva 3, (Orce, Spain): Evidence of the earliest hominin presence in southern Europe. Quaternary International, 243, 80-91. Toro-Moyano, I., de Lumley, H., Barrier, P., Barsky, D., Cauche, D., Celiberti, V., Grégoire, S., Lebègue, F., Mestour, B., Moncel, M.H. (2010a). Les industries lithiques archaïques du Barranco León et de Fuente Nueva 3, Orce, basin du Guadix-Baza, Andalousie. In Monography, CNRS Éditions. Toro-Moyano, I., de Lumley, H., Fajardo, B., Barsky, D., Celiberti, V., Grégoire, S., Martínez-Navarro, B., Espigares, M. P., & Ros-Montoya, S. (2009). L’industrie lithique des gisements du pleistocène inférieur de Barranco León et Fuente Nueva 3, Granade, Espagne. L’Anthropologie, 113, 111–124. Toro-Moyano, I., Martínez-Navarro, B., & Agustí, J. (2010b). Ocupaciones Humanas en el Pleistoceno inferior y medio de la Cuenca de Guadix-Baza. Memoria Científica. Toro-Moyano, I., Martínez-Navarro, B., Agustí, J., Souday, C., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Martinón-Torres, M., Fajardo, B., Duval, M., Falguères, C., Oms, O., Parés, J. M., Anadón, P., Julià, R., GarcíaAguilar, J. M., Moigne, A. M., Espigares, M. P., Ros-Montoya, S., & Palmqvist, P. (2013). The oldest human fossil in Europe, from Orce (Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 65, 1–9. Turq, A., Martínez Navarro, B., Palmqvist, P., Arribas, A., Agustí, J., & Rodríguez Vidal, J. (1996). Le Plio-Pléistocène de la région d’Orce, province de grenade, Espagne : Bilan et perspectives de recherche. Paléo, 8, 161–204. Villa, P., & Mahieu, E. (1991). Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution, 21, 27–48. Vislobokova, I. A., Agadzhanyan, A. K., & Lopatin, A. V. (2020). The case of Trlica TRL11–10 (Montenegro): Implications for possible early hominin dispersals into the Balkans in the middle of the Early Pleistocene. Quaternary International, 554, 15–35. Voorhies, M. R. (1969). Taphonomy and population dynamics of an early Pliocene vertebrate fauna, Knox County, Nebraska. Univ. Wyo. Contrib. Geol. Sp. Pap., 1, 69. Voorhies, M. R. (1970). Sampling difficulties in reconstructing late tertiary mammalian communities. Proc. N. Am. Paleontol. Conv. Evolution of Communities, Pt., E, 454–468. Yravedra, J. (2006). Tafonomía aplicada a zooarqueología. Aula Abierta. Yravedra, J., & Domínguez-Rodrigo, M. (2009). The shaft-based methodological approach to the quantification of long limb bones and its relevance to understanding hominin subsistence in the Pleistocene: Application to four Paleolithic sites. Journal of Quaternary Science, 24, 85–96. Yravedra, J., Lagos, L., & Bárcena, F. (2011). A Taphonomic study of wild wolf (Canis lupus) modification of horse bones in northwestern Spain. Journal of Taphonomy, 9, 37–65. Yravedra, J., Maté-González, M. A., Courtenay, L., López-Cisneros, P., Estaca-Gómez, V., Aramendi, J., de Andrés-Herrero, M., Linares-Matás, G., González-Aguilera, D., & Álvarez-Alonso, D. (2019). Approaching raw material functionality in the upper Magdalenian of Coímbre cave (Asturias, Spain) through geometric morphometrics. Quaternary International, 517, 97–106. Ziegler, T., & Van Huet, S. (2021). Testing the reliability of the Fiorillo bone surface abrasion scale. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 36, 102865. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jasrep. 2021. 102865 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2022) 5:6 Page 33 of 33 6 Authors and Affiliations JoséYravedra1,2 · JoséAntonioSolano3· DaríoHerranz‑Rodrigo1,2· GonzaloJ.Linares‑Matás4· JuhaSaarinen5· JuanJoséRodríguez‑Alba1· StefaníaTitton6,7· AlexiaSerrano‑Ramos8· LloydA.Courtenay9· ClaraMielgo7· CarmenLuzón8· JoséCámara8· ChristianSánchez‑Bandera6,7· EvaMontilla10· IsidroToro‑Moyano11· DeborahBarsky6,7· MikaelFortelius5· JordiAgusti12,6,7· Hugues‑AlexandreBlain6,7· OriolOms13· JuanManuelJiménez‑Arenas14,15 * José Yravedra [email protected]; jyra[email protected] Juan Manuel Jiménez-Arenas [email protected] 1 Department ofPrehistory, Ancient History andArchaeology, Complutense University ofMadrid, Madrid, Spain, Prof. Aranguren Sn, 28040Madrid, Spain 2 C. A. I. Archaeometry andArchaeological Analysis, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain 3 Department ofPrehistory andArchaeology, University ofSevilla, Sevilla, Spain 4 Stipendiary Lecturer inArchaeology andAnthropology, St. Hugh’s College, Oxford, UK 5 Department ofGeosciences andGeography, University ofHelsinki, Helsinki, Finland 6 IPHES-CERCA, Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social, Tarragona, Spain 7 Departament d’Historia i Historia de l’Art, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Tarragona, Spain 8 History andArts Doctoral Program, University ofGranada, Granada, Spain 9 Department ofCartographic andLand Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School ofAvila, University ofSalamanca, Avila, Spain 10 Museo Primeros Pobladores de Europa, Josep Gibert, Orce, Granada, Spain 11 Archaeological andEthnological Museum ofGranada, Granada, Spain 12 ICREA, Barcelona, Spain 13 Departament ofGeology, Unitat d’Estratigrafia, Autonoma University ofBarcelona, Barcelona, Spain 14 Department ofPrehistory andArcheology, University ofGranada, Granada, Spain 15 Institute ofPeace andConflict Research, University ofGranada, Granada, Spain