# The Middle Paleolithic quartz assemblage from Gruta da Figueira Brava (Portugal)

Maria Melo, Marianne Deschamps, João Zilhão

► To cite this version:

Maria Melo, Marianne Deschamps, João Zilhão. The Middle Paleolithic quartz assemblage from Gruta da Figueira Brava (Portugal). Comptes Rendus. Palevol, 2025, 24 (28), pp.563-585. 10.5852/cr-palevol2025v24a28. hal-05511359

HAL Id: hal-05511359

https://hal.science/hal-05511359v1

Submitted on 15 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# The Middle Paleolithic quartz assemblage from Gruta da Figueira Brava (Portugal)

Maria N. R. MELO, Marianne DESCHAMPS & João ZILHÃO
DIRECTEURS DE LA PUBLICATION / PUBLICATION DIRECTORS :

Gilles Bloch, Président du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle
Étienne Ghys, Secrétaire perpétuel de l'Académie des sciences

RÉDACTEURS EN CHEF / EDITORS-IN-CHIEF : Michel Laurin (CNRS), Philippe Taquet (Académie des sciences)

ASSISTANTE DE RÉDACTION / ASSISTANT EDITOR : Adenise Lopes (Académie des sciences ; cr-palevol@academie-sciences.fr)

MISE EN PAGE / PAGE LAYOUT : Audrina Neveu (Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle ; audrina.neveu@mnhn.fr)

RÉVISIONS LINGUISTIQUES DES TEXTES ANGLAIS / ENGLISH LANGUAGE REVISIONS : Kevin Padian (University of California at Berkeley)

RÉDACTEURS ASSOCIÉS / ASSOCIATE EDITORS (*, took charge of the editorial process of the article/a pris en charge le suivi éditorial de l'article):

Micropaléontologie/Micropalaeontology

Lorenzo Consorti (Institute of Marine Sciences, Italian National Research Council, Trieste)

Paléobotanique/Paleobotany

Cyrille Prestianni (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels)

Anàs Boura (Sorbonne Université, Paris)

Métazaires/Metazoa

Annalisa Ferretti (Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena)

Paléichthyologie/Paleoichthyology

Philippe Janvier (Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Académie des sciences, Paris)

Amniotes du Mésozoïque/Mesozoic amniotes

Hans-Dieter Sues (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington)

Tortues/Turtles

Walter Joyce (Universität Freiburg, Switzerland)

Lépidosauromorphes/Lepidosauromorphs

Hussam Zaher (Universidade de São Paulo)

Oiseaux/Birds

Jingmai O'Connor (Field Museum, Chicago)

Paléomammalogie (mammifères de moyenne et grande taille)/Palaeomammalogy (large and mid-sized mammals)

Grégoire Métais (CNRS, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Université, Paris)

Paléomammalogie (petits mammifères sauf Euarchontoglires)/Palaeomammalogy (small mammals except for Euarchontoglires)

Robert Asher (Cambridge University, Cambridge)

Paléomammalogie (Euarchontoglires)/Palaeomammalogy (Euarchontoglires)

K. Christopher Beard (University of Kansas, Lawrence)

Paléoanthropologie/Paleoanthropology

Aurélien Mounier (CNRS/Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris)

Archéologie préhistorique (Paléolithique et Mésolithique)/Prehistoric archaeology (Palaeolithic and Mesolithic)

Nicolas Teysandier* (CNRS/Université de Toulouse, Toulouse)

Archéologie préhistorique (Néolithique et âge du bronze)/Prehistoric archaeology (Neolithic and Bronze Age)

Marc Vander Linden (Bournemouth University, Bournemouth)

RÉFÉRÉS / REVIEWERS : https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/fr/periodiques/comptes-rendus-palevol/referes-du-journal

COUVERTURE / COVER :

A close-up photograph of a quartz scraper surface. Credits: José Paulo Ruas.

Comptes Rendus Palevol est indexé dans / Comptes Rendus Palevol is indexed by:

- Cambridge Scientific Abstracts

- Current Contents® Physical

- Chemical, and Earth Sciences®

- ISI Alerting Services®

- Geoabstracts, Geobase, Georef, Inspec, Pascal

- Science Citation Index®, Science Citation Index Expanded®

- Scopus®.

Les articles ainsi que les nouveautés nomenclaturales publiés dans *Comptes Rendus Palevol* sont référencés par / *Articles and nomenclatural novelties published in Comptes Rendus Palevol* are registered on:

- ZooBank® (http://zoobank.org)

Comptes Rendus Palevol est une revue en flux continu publiée par les Publications scientifiques du Muséum, Paris et l'Académie des sciences, Paris

Comptes Rendus Palevol is a fast track journal published by the Museum Science Press, Paris and the Académie des sciences, Paris

Les Publications scientifiques du Muséum publient aussi / The Museum Science Press also publish:

Adansonia, Geodiversitas, Zoosystema, Anthropozoologica, European Journal of Taxonomy, Naturae, Cryptogamie sous-sections Algologie, Bryologie, Mycologie.

L'Académie des sciences publie aussi / The Académie des sciences also publishes:

Comptes Rendus Mathématique, Comptes Rendus Physique, Comptes Rendus Mécanique, Comptes Rendus Chimie, Comptes Rendus Géoscience, Comptes Rendus Biologies.

Diffusion – Publications scientifiques Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle
CP 41 – 57 rue Cuvier F-75231 Paris cedex 05 (France)

Tél. : 33 (0)1 40 79 48 05 / Fax : 33 (0)1 40 79 38 40
diff.pub@mnhn.fr / https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr

Académie des sciences, Institut de France, 23 quai de Conti, 75006 Paris.

© This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ISSN (imprimé / print): 1631-0683/ ISSN (électronique / electronic): 1777-571X
# The Middle Paleolithic quartz assemblage from Gruta da Figueira Brava (Portugal)

**Maria N. R. MELO**

UNIARQ, Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, Alameda da Universidade, 1600-214 Lisboa (Portugal) melo.maria@campus.ul.pt (corresponding author)

**Marianne DESCHAMPS**

UNIARQ, Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, Alameda da Universidade, 1600-214 Lisboa (Portugal) and Laboratoire Travaux et recherches archéologiques sur les cultures, les espaces et les sociétés (TRACES), Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, Maison de la Recherche, 5, allée Antonio Machado, F-31058 Toulouse, CEDEX 9 (France) marianne.deschamps@cnrs.fr

**João ZILHÃO**

UNIARQ, Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, Alameda da Universidade, 1600-214 Lisboa (Portugal) joao.zilhao@campus.ul.pt

Submitted on 12 May 2025 | Accepted on 20 September 2025 | Published on 10 December 2025

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FDD95F5D-08BB-4FE0-BB78-EC02BAD44555

Melo M. N. R., Deschamps M. & Zilhão J. 2025. — The Middle Paleolithic quartz assemblage from Gruta da Figueira Brava (Portugal). *Comptes Rendus Palevol* 24 (28): 563-585. https://doi.org/10.5852/cr-palevol2025v24a28

## ABSTRACT

For the understanding of Middle Paleolithic subsistence behaviors, Gruta da Figueira Brava (Setúbal, Portugal) is a key site, as it represents the earliest evidence of systematic subsistence exploitation of marine resources in Europe known to date. However, the associated lithic assemblage, more than 80% composed of quartz, has so far remained understudied. Although widely used during the Pleistocene and the Holocene, quartz, the most abundant mineral on Earth, has been traditionally considered as a “second-rate” resource. Due to the raw material’s specific fracture mechanics, quartz lithic assemblages have the tendency to be typologically and morphologically less standardized than flint ones. For these reasons, studies of quartz assemblages have been few and far between, especially when flint and quartzite ones, easier to analyze, are found alongside. Following techno-typological and techno-economic approaches, we carried out a study of a sample of quartz cores and blanks from three successive Figueira Brava human occupation phases spanning the 86-106 ka (thousands of years ago) interval. The results show that several reduction methods were successfully applied, displaying good management of the mechanical properties of the raw material. Alongside the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique, methods such as Levallois and Discoid were used, albeit following strategies somewhat different than with flint and quartzite. At Figueira Brava, the use of quartz – abundant locally and skillfully worked through a diverse range of reduction methods – reflects the good adaptation of the cave dwellers to their environmental context.

**KEY WORDS**
Neanderthal,
quartz,
lithic technology,
MIS 5.
## RÉSUMÉ

L'industrie du Paléolithique moyen en quartz de la grotte de Figueira Brava (Portugal).

Pour la compréhension des comportements de subsistance au Paléolithique moyen, la grotte de Figueira Brava (Setúbal, Portugal) est un site-clé, représentant la plus ancienne preuve d'exploitation alimentaire systématique des ressources marines connue à ce jour en Europe. Cependant, l'assemblage lithique, composé à plus de 80 % de quartz, est resté peu étudié jusqu'à récemment. Bien qu'il soit le minéral le plus répandu sur Terre, utilisé par différentes technologies lithiques au cours du Pléistocène et de l'Holocène, le quartz a été traditionnellement classé comme une ressource de second rang. En raison d'une forte tendance à la fracturation, les assemblages lithiques en quartz sont typologiquement et morphologiquement moins standardisés que ceux en silex. Pour ces raisons, les études concernent les industries en quartz restent rares, surtout lorsqu'elles sont associées au silex et au quartzite, qui sont plus faciles à analyser. En suivant les approches techno-typologique et techno-économique, nous avons effectué l'étude d'un échantillon de nucléus et de produits en quartz provenant de trois phases successives d'occupation humaine de Figueira Brava couvrant l'intervalle entre 86 et 106 ka (milliers d'années avant le présent). Les résultats montrent que différentes méthodes de taille ont été appliquées avec succès, ce qui implique une bonne gestion des propriétés mécaniques particulières de la matière première. Les méthodes Levallois, Discoïde, et Bipolaire-sur-Enclume ont été utilisées et différentes stratégies techno-économiques peuvent être mises en évidence par rapport à l'industrie en silex et en quartzite. À Figueira Brava, l'utilisation du quartz, abondant localement et taillé grâce à diverses méthodes de débitage, reflète la bonne adaptation des habitants au contexte environnemental du site.

MOTS CLÉS
Néandertal,
quartz,
technologie lithique,
MIS 5.

## INTRODUCTION

### RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Quartz, silicon dioxide (SiO$_2$), is the most common mineral on Earth and a major component of many igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks (Driscoll 2010). Because of its abundance in the landscape and durable edge properties (e.g. Abrunhosa et al. 2019) or for symbolic reasons (de Lombera-Hermida & Rodríguez-Rellán 2016), quartz was widely used by prehistoric communities (Mourre 1996; Bracco 1997; Jaubert 1997; Knutsson & Lindgren 1999). Despite its widespread representation in the archeological record, the analysis and classification of quartz artifacts have been particularly challenging for archaeologists, due to what Callahan (1987) defined as the “gravel effect” – the perception of most quartz products as amorphous, not easily recognizable as human-modified. This has led to quartz industries becoming out of favor with the scientific community, which has overwhelming focused on flint ones (Mourre 1996; Knutsson & Lindgren 1999). The prevalence of “flint-thinking” in prehistoric archaeology (Knutsson 2014) has fostered the perception that quartz was primarily employed only when higher-quality raw materials, such as flint, were unavailable. This perception gave rise to the Flint-for-Levallois versus Quartz-for-Discoid dichotomy that has been advocated for the Middle Paleolithic of France, a region where flint is naturally abundant (Boëda 1994).

It was only from the 1970s onwards, with the emergency of novel analytical approaches, namely the *chaîne opératoire* approach, that researchers began to fully consider the range of knapping strategies used by Middle Paleolithic people in the context of the diverse environmental constraints that they faced. The observed variation came to be understood as the

result of multiple factors: production requirements and site function; raw material availability; the lithology, size, and crystalline properties of the starting volumes (e.g. presence or absence of fissures and cleavage planes); and the technological knowledge of the knappers (Rolland & Dibble 1990; Delagnes & Meignen 2006). This shift in perspective moved the focus away from direct, flint-based comparisons to uncovering the technological logic behind non-flint lithic raw material usage, especially in areas where quartz is more common than flint, such as Scandinavia (Knutsson et al. 2016) or Northwestern and Central Iberia (Pereira & Benedetti 2013).

It was with the development of systematic experimental studies (e.g. Tixier 1978; Texier 1981), the pioneering studies in Scandinavia (Knutsson & Lindgren 1999; Saville & Ballin 2008), and the opening up of new fields of research in Africa, where flint played a secondary role (Mourre 1996), that the study of quartz industries gained the role it deserves. More recently, renewed methodological approaches (e.g. de Lombera-Hermida & Rodríguez-Rellán 2016; Knutsson et al. 2016; Manninen 2016; Pargeter & de la Peña 2017; Daffara 2018; Pargeter et al. 2019; Spry et al. 2021; Yeşilova et al. 2024), along with the analysis of previously unstudied assemblages (e.g. Muñoz del Pozo et al. 2023; Ramos et al. 2024; Daffara et al. 2025), have improved our understanding of quartz lithic technology and led to the development of analytical criteria better suited to its petrographic and mineralogical characteristics.

In this context, we present Gruta da Figueira Brava (Setúbal, Portugal) as a case study of quartz use in the Middle Paleolithic of the Iberian Peninsula. The lithic assemblage from an earlier phase of fieldwork has been analyzed (Cardoso & Raposo 1993; Raposo & Cardoso 2000), but publication of the stone tools from the most recent excavations (2010-2013) remains partial: it concerns the flint component plus the use-wear
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 1. — **A**, Location of the cave in the Serra da Arrábida (Setúbal, Portugal); **B**, overview of its three extant entrances (after Zilhão *et al.* 2020).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 2. — Site plan with position of the excavated trenches (after Zilhão *et al.* 2020). Elevations are given in meters above sea level.</figcaption></figure>

analysis of a small sample of 50 quartz items (Zilhão *et al.* 2020). Here, we summarize the results of a techno-typological study conducted on a sample of the quartz assemblage (Melo 2023). Our findings, alongside those made at other Iberian sites, support the idea that quartz is a versatile raw material amenable to exploitation via complex debitage strategies such as the Levallois and Discoid methods.

## SITE DESCRIPTION AND STRATIGRAPHIC INFORMATION

The Figueira Brava cave (38°28′14″N, 8°59′10″W, WGS84) is located on the Arrábida coast, south of Lisbon (Fig. 1). It was first described in 1945 by H. Breuil and G. Zbyszewski, who mention the presence of lithic artefacts and Quaternary faunal remains (Breuil & Zbyszewski 1945; Cardoso & Raposo 1993, 1998). In its current configuration, the site has three
<table><caption>FIG. 3. — Stratigraphic correlation scheme: equivalence between the stratigraphic units of the different areas, occupation phases, chronology, and positioning in the Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) sequence. After Zilhão *et al.* (2020), modified.</caption><thead><tr><th>Area C (1989-1989)</th><th>Entrance 3 (2010-2013)</th><th>Area F (2010-2013)</th><th>Human occupation</th><th>Chrono-stratigraphy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2a</td><td rowspan="3">-</td><td>IT0</td><td rowspan="3">-</td><td>Reworked</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">0</td><td>IT2</td><td>Holocene</td></tr><tr><td>IT1</td><td>MIS 2-MIS 5a</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>UC1</td><td>IH1</td><td rowspan="8">Phase FB4</td><td rowspan="8">MIS 5b (86.0 to 90.0 ka)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">2</td><td rowspan="7">UC2-UC6</td><td>IH2</td></tr><tr><td>IH3</td></tr><tr><td>IH4</td></tr><tr><td>IH5</td></tr><tr><td>IH6</td></tr><tr><td>IH7</td></tr><tr><td>IH8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">3</td><td>MC0</td><td>IL1</td><td rowspan="3">Phase FB3</td><td rowspan="3">MIS 5c (92.0-94.0 to 104.0-106.0 ka)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">MC1-MC2</td><td>IL2</td></tr><tr><td>IL3</td></tr><tr><td>MC3-MC5</td><td>-</td><td>Phase FB2</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>LC1-LC3</td><td></td><td>Phase FB1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>CO</td><td>IB1</td><td rowspan="2">-</td><td>MIS 5c-MIS 6</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>IB2</td><td>MIS 6 or older</td></tr></tbody></table>

entrances (1, 2 and 3) and its interior has been subdivided into six distinct areas (A, B, C, D, E, and F; Fig. 2) (Zilhão *et al.* 2020). The interior area accessed through Entrance 1 (Areas A and B) has been heavily eroded, but the Pleistocene infilling has been preserved in Entrances 2 and 3 and adjacent interior areas (Areas C and F, respectively).

The site was first excavated in the 1980s, when Areas B and C were targeted. Almost four thousand lithic artifacts, including mainly quartz and, secondarily, flint and quartzite artefacts, homogeneously attributed to the Middle Paleolithic, were retrieved alongside a Neanderthal tooth and a wide range of faunal remains, including an important marine resource component (Cardoso & Raposo 1993; Antunes & Cardoso 2000; Raposo & Cardoso 2000). A conventional radiocarbon measurement on a bulk sample of limpet shells collected in layer 2 of Area C (ICEN-387) yielded an age of 30 930 ± 700 BP (c. 35 ka) for this context (Cardoso & Raposo 1998).

As demonstrated by Zilhão *et al.* (2020), that radiocarbon result is a vast underestimate of the sample's age, which is due the age of the shells lying beyond the method's limit of applicability and the attendant impact of even very small amounts of unremoved contaminants. The correct age of the sequence is based on uranium-thorium (U-Th) and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of stratigraphically associated speleothems and of the sediments themselves, respectively.

This work was carried out in the context of the 2010-2013 excavations of Entrance 3 and Area F, shed new light on the site's stratigraphic layout, and moved the time of human occupation back to the interval of 86-106 ka, in Marine Isotopic Stages (MIS) 5b and 5c (Fig. 3). This work's wider behavioral significance, however, rested on its demonstration that Neanderthal coastal populations of the Last Interglacial exploited marine resources as much as coeval (e.g. South African) or later (e.g. Atlantic European Mesolithic) “modern human” ones (Zilhão 2012; Zilhão *et al.* 2020).

Our analysis here uses the four-phases framework of Zilhão *et al.* (2020). These phases correspond to intervals during which the conditions of formation of the stratigraphic units remained similar at all scales (local, regional, topographic, environmental). Phase FB1 corresponds to the LC complex of Entrance 3; it was not represented in the excavated trenches and is only known through exposures observed along the seaward edge of the erosion-truncated infilling of that area. The sample that we report on is comprised only of finds belonging to the FB2, FB3 and FB4 phases. The FB2 and FB3 sediments were brecciated; their excavation required the use of power tools, namely demolition hammers, and the (inevitable) breakage and loss of smaller items that occur in these circumstances must be kept in mind when these phases' content is compared with FB4's.
Coastal zones are ecotones where marine, estuarine, and terrestrial habitats converge to produce some of the ecologically richest places on the planet (Haws et al. 2010, 2011; Brown et al. 2011). They offer plenty of easily exploitable resources, including mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, marine mammals, fish, birds, and plant foods (e.g. pine nuts), all of which are abundantly represented in the Figueira Brava deposit. Given its privileged location, it is not surprising that human usage of the cave extended over such a long period of time.

The lithic artefacts retrieved from the site are predominantly made of quartz. Flint, quartzite, and limestone are found less frequently (Table 1), while other raw materials, such as jasper, rhyolite, and lydite, are present in very small amounts.

## RESEARCH CONTEXT AND KEY QUESTIONS

Due to its hardness and its mechanical and physical properties, vein quartz was commonly used to produce stone tools, via a range of technological systems, all through the Pleistocene and the Holocene (Mourre 1996; Bracco 1997; Jaubert 1997; Knutsson & Lindgren 1999). However, in the absence of clear definitions of which features specific to quartz are indicative of how reduction proceeded from initial volume to end product, criteria based on the study of flint collections are routinely applied to quartz, generating classificatory confusion and further complicating technological analysis (de Lombera-Hermida 2009; Driscoll 2011; Knutsson et al. 2016; Rodríguez-Rellán 2016).

The traditional underrating of quartz as a secondary resource, only used in cases of local unavailability of flint, has mostly been based on the following arguments:

- typologically and morphologically, quartz assemblages are less standardized than flint ones due to the raw material's proclivity to fracture and lower resistance to compression and traction, leading to less well-defined flaking planes (Mourre 1996; Driscoll 2011; de Lombera-Hermida & Rodríguez-Rellán 2016);

- quartz often features internal flaws and microfractures due to post-formation processes (de Lombera-Hermida & Rodríguez-Rellán 2016);

- being less prone to conchoidal fracturing, quartz tends to break unpredictably along internal fissures, radially and transversely (Spry et al. 2021).

Here, based on the analysis of Figueira Brava's lithic assemblage, we show that these features of the raw material do not stand in the way of its productive and efficient exploitation for stone tool making. In addition, we also address the following questions of more general interest:

- does a particular lithological setting condition the organization of the technology of past humans, i.e., is the geological environment the only determinant of the recourse to quartz, or are there other circumstances that also require consideration?

- how much and in which way do the mechanical and petrographic properties of quartz affect the organization and management of reduction sequences?

- what technological strategies were used to overcome the limitations associated with the knapping of vein quartz, and did such strategies change over time?

- was quartz, at least in some cases, preferred over flint and, if so, why?

- did raw material selection change over time (e.g. were quartz, quartzite, and flint always used in similar proportions and for similar purposes)?

- what kinds of blanks and formal tools were produced, and is there change over time or relative to raw material selection?

## MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used a techno-economic approach (Geneste 1985): every stage in the production of lithic artefacts is situated within a specific temporal and spatial context, from the acquisition of raw materials to their ultimate discard (Leroi-Gourhan 1964; Geneste 1991). The first step is the identification of potential supply areas, specific sources, and modes of introduction. The second step is the technological analysis of the cores and flakes to reconstruct the *chaînes opératoires* (Leroi-Gourhan 1964; Tixier 1978; Geneste 1985; Inizan et al. 1999). The third step is the typological classification (Inizan et al. 1999; Bordes 2000) of the retouched products, accompanied by an analysis of blank selection.

Our study was carried out on a sample comprised of different raw materials (flint, quartz, quartzite, limestone) totaling 1094 artifacts (Table 1) and corresponding to almost 30% of the total (excluding debris and unmodified blocks and unmodified cobbles, N = 3846). The analyzed sample comes from the SEx trench, which illustrates the FB2 phase, and from two squares (T8 and U8) of the Area F trench representative of phases FB3 and FB4. For the technological analysis of the assemblage, an Excel database was created. The different technological features considered (see Raw material: types and alterations and Technological description below) were meant to ensure that comparison between the different phases of Figueira Brava's occupation was based on the same descriptive and interpretative criteria.

### RAW MATERIAL: TYPES AND ALTERATIONS

For each artefact, we determined the raw material properties potentially underpinning the choice of reduction technology or the morphology of extracted blanks: type, volume morphology, and presence/absence of thermoalteration.

Traditionally, quartz has been divided into two main sub-categories: vein quartz, commonly referred to as milky quartz, and hyaline quartz, widely known as rock crystal (Mourre 1996). In certain instances, especially when dealing with high-quality and diverse samples, further distinctions can be made based on lithological characteristics. In archaeological assemblages, the described variants have included greasy quartz, coarse-grained quartz, and wind-blown quartz (Ballin 2008; Saville & Ballin 2008). However, this classification does not consider the mineralogical properties and formation processes, which have significant implications for chemical composition and
<table><caption>TABLE 1. — Composition of the studied stone tool assemblage. “Others” includes lydite (N = 1), rhyolite (N = 1), and jasper (N = 1).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Cores</th><th>Flakes</th><th>Tools</th><th>Debris</th><th>Hammerstones/Anvils</th><th>Manuports</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">FB2</td><td><strong>Quartz</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>26</td><td>54</td><td>7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>24.1%</td><td>50%</td><td>6.5%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>80.6%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Flint</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>-</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>-</td><td>9.3%</td><td>-</td><td>4.6%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>13.9%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Quartzite</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>1.9%</td><td>1.9%</td><td>0.9%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4.6%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Limestone</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Others</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.9%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Total (N)</td><td>28</td><td>66</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>Total (%)</td><td>25.9%</td><td>61.1%</td><td>8.3%</td><td>4.6%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">FB3</td><td><strong>Quartz</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>53</td><td>58</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>136</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>32.5%</td><td>35.6%</td><td>7.4%</td><td>8.0%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>83.4%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Flint</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>3.7%</td><td>-</td><td>2.5%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>6.7%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Quartzite</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>2.5%</td><td>1.2%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.6%</td><td>4.9%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Limestone</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>-</td><td>0.6%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1.2%</td><td>1.8%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Others</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>1.8%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.6%</td><td>3.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Total (N)</td><td>59</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>17</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>163</td></tr><tr><td>Total (%)</td><td>36.2%</td><td>42.9%</td><td>8.0%</td><td>10.4%</td><td>-</td><td>2.5%</td><td>1005</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">FB4</td><td><strong>Quartz</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>193</td><td>354</td><td>96</td><td>29</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>686</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>23.6%</td><td>43.3%</td><td>11.7%</td><td>3.5%</td><td>1.1%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>83.9%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Flint</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>8</td><td>51</td><td>3</td><td>17</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>1.0%</td><td>6.2%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>2.1%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>9.7%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Quartzite</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>1</td><td>15</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>1.8%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2.4%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Limestone</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>0.6%</td><td>1.1%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.5%</td><td>2.2%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Others</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>-</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>-</td><td>1.2%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Total (N)</td><td>207</td><td>439</td><td>103</td><td>51</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>818</td></tr><tr><td>Total (%)</td><td>25.3%</td><td>53.7%</td><td>12.6%</td><td>6.2%</td><td>1.1%</td><td>1.1%</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Uncertain</strong></td><td><strong>Quartz</strong></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>All</strong></td><td>Total (N)</td><td>296</td><td>577</td><td>126</td><td>73</td><td>9</td><td>13</td><td>1094</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total (%)</td><td>27.1%</td><td>52.7%</td><td>11.5%</td><td>6.7%</td><td>0.8%</td><td>1.2%</td><td>100%</td></tr></tbody></table>

fracture mechanisms (de Lombera-Hermida & Rodríguez-Rellán 2016). In this regard, the subdivision in morphostructural types is a useful way to understand the technological choices made

by prehistoric communities, as it shows how internal fissures and texture play an important role in raw material selection (de Lombera-Hermida 2009; de Lombera-Hermida *et al.* 2011).
<table><caption>TABLE 2. — Figueira Brava: lithological categories of the quartz assemblage (three technologically undetermined specimens were not considered).</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Subtypes of anhedric milky white quartz<br>(type J9 of Aubry et al. 2016)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>N</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>J9.1 Homogeneous</td><td>376</td><td>41.3%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.2 More crystallized, cream to pink quartz</td><td>42</td><td>4.6%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.3 More crystallized, orange to grayish brown quartz</td><td>6</td><td>0.7%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.4a Milky to opaque gray, with some orange veins quartz</td><td>26</td><td>2.9%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.4b Milky to opaque, spotted gray quartz</td><td>11</td><td>1.2%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.4c Milky, grainy color (gray or pink) spotted beige quartz</td><td>29</td><td>3.2%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.5 Milky to translucent white quartz</td><td>85</td><td>9.3%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.6a Milky, grainy color (gray or orange), spotted beige quartz</td><td>17</td><td>1.9%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.6b Milky to smoky beige or gray quartz</td><td>25</td><td>2.7%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.6c Milky to smoky spotted gray quartz</td><td>68</td><td>7.5%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.7a Milky “waxy” light gray or beige quartz</td><td>28</td><td>3.1%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.7b Milky grainy zoned darker gray quartz</td><td>18</td><td>2.0%</td></tr><tr><td>J9.7c Milky grainy white, gray or beige quartz</td><td>83</td><td>9.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Milky grainy to vitreous with gradient color change beige to white or gray to white quartz</td><td>97</td><td>10.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>911</td><td>100%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nevertheless, considering that vein quartz presents a high degree of internal variability, its subdivision in only four morphostuctural groups, cannot, alone, fully describe the different subtypes of quartz observed in Figueira Brava's lithic assemblage. Hence, for a more comprehensive characterization of the quartz varieties found in the studied assemblage we have adapted the classification proposed for the Cardina-Salto do Boi (Côa Valley, Portugal) case-study (Aubry *et al.* 2016). This classification emphasizes formation processes and composition, allowing a more complete description of quartz's appearance. The categories that we retained, illustrated in Figure 4 and described in Table 2, are based on texture, presence/absence of internal flaws, brightness, degree of transparency, and color of the observed surface.

Criteria for the recognition of burning in quartz artefacts have seldom been reported, described or discussed, but recent experimental studies (Ballin 2008; Driscoll & Menuge 2011) have identified the following: pitting and “peeled-off” surfaces; glossy patina giving the piece an almost polished appearance; alteration of the original color, usually turning it redder or pink, due to the presence of iron oxides; darker, somewhat purplish hue apparent in iron oxide-rich fissures even when the color change is not homogeneous (Fig. 5).

## TECHNOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

For the general description of the attributes of flakes, cores, and tools we followed Inizan *et al.* (1999) and Bordes (1950), with some adaptations due to the raw material's specific constraints (de Lombera-Hermida 2009). For a better classification of debitage methods we followed: Boëda (1993, 1994) and González-Molina *et al.* (2020) for the Levallois and the Discoid methods; de la Peña (2015) and de Lombera-Hermida *et al.* (2016) for Bipolar-on-Anvil

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 4. — Lithological subtypes identified in the Figueira Brava quartz assemblages (representative flakes, and macro views of their surfaces): A, J9.1; B, J9.2; C, J9.3; D, J9.4a; E, J9.4b; F, J9.4c; G, J9.5; H, J9.6a; I, J9.6b; J, J9.6c; K, J9.7a; L, J9.7b; M, J9.7c; N, J9.7d. Scale bar: 5 cm.</figcaption></figure>

schemes; Tixier (1978) and Tixier & Turq (1999) for the Kombewa method; and Forestier (1993) for the *système à surface de débitage alterne* (SSDA) method.

In tool classification, we followed a very conservative approach, particularly with regard to notches, as they may be an artifact of post-depositional processes, such as trampling (Thiébaut *et al.* 2010).

## RESULTS

### RAW MATERIAL

In the sample studied, quartz corresponds to 83.5% of the total. There is not much variation across the sequence, even though quartz is somewhat less frequent, and flint correspondingly
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 5. — Stigmata of burning observed on Figueira Brava quartz artifacts, and macro views of their surfaces: A, pitting and "peeling-off"; B, glossy patina; C, color alteration; D, purplish hue of iron oxide-rich fissures. Scale bar: 5 cm.</figcaption></figure>

more so, in phase FB2. In phase FB4 there is also a slightly higher frequency of other types of raw materials, such as lydite, rhyolite, and jasper (Table 1).

Quartz would have been obtained locally, in the form of cobbles, both in marine deposits and in continental conglomerates. Flint came from greater distances – most likely from the right banks of the Tagus, in the Lisbon area, >30 km to the north (Zilhão *et al.* 2020). Like flint, quartzite and

limestone also occur in small numbers even though they could have been easily collected nearby, on the terraces of the Sado river and along the coast. Therefore, the high frequency of quartz may reflect deliberate choice, possibly influenced by the immediate abundance and variability of quartz types. Nevertheless, distance to raw material sources must have been only one among several factors influencing raw material selection, exploitation, and curation (Marks *et al.* 1991: 128), which may also have been underpinned by cultural or social factors (Aubry *et al.* 2012), symbolic considerations (de Lombera-Hermida & Rodríguez-Rellán 2016), or adaptive responses to climatic or geological constraints (Pereira & Benedetti 2013).

The quartz varieties in our sample all belong to Aubry *et al.'s* (2016) J9 type of vein quartz. Their physical and mechanical properties impacted the choices made by quartz knappers, as revealed by the following observations:

- the J9.1 subtype – anhedral milky to clear quartz, lacking well-defined crystal faces and shapes – accounts for almost half of the total (41.3%), followed by subtypes J9.7d and J9.5, which account for just 10.6% and 9.3%, respectively. There seems to be no technological or typological justification for this preference. Possibly, J9.1 is simply the most common subtype in the region and the easiest to obtain, a hypothesis that will need to be verified through an actualist study of quartz availability;

- morphostructure, texture, and mineralogy seem to have played an important role. More granular textures – such as those of subtypes J9.4c, J9.6a, J9.7b, J9.7c, and J9.7d – increase elasticity and reduce the occurrence of cracks and fractures (de Lombera-Hermida 2009), thus offering greater knapping control. Not unexpectedly, J9.7c and J9.7d were therefore preferred over less suitable varieties with more internal flaws.

- thermo-alteration is uncommon (25.8%). Considering that evidence for controlled heat treatment on quartz has rarely, if ever, been found (Ballin 2008), we infer that the quartz artefacts whose brightness and color indicate thermoalteration reflect accidental contact with fire.

## CORES

Cores represent 27.1% of the sample's techno-economic categories. Their frequency is higher in phase FB3 (Table 1), which the sampling biases caused by the excavation techniques used probably suffice to explain (see Site description and stratigraphic information above). Another factor to consider is variation in the representation of the small flakes (<2 cm) produced when cores were exploited to exhaustion, which were not included in the present study.

Core types are similar across the three phases: centripetal, bipolar, unipolar, prismatic, globular, one-or-two-extraction, and one-surface (Table 3; Fig. 6) and are characterized by an expedient exploitation of the volumes (Binford 1979; Vaquero & Romagnoli 2017). Frequently, their blanks are cortical flakes (Table 4). The exploitation of ventral surfaces was carried out in proximal areas, where a bulb was suitable for producing smaller flakes, and along the entire perimeter of the original blank (Fig. 6A). When the blank was not a flake,
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 6. — Quartz cores: A, one-or-two-extraction Kombewa core; B, C, centripetal cores from FB2; D, Levallois core from FB4; E, unipolar SSDA core from FB4; F, discoidal core from FB4; G, Bipolar-on-Anvil core from FB4. Scale bars: 5 cm.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE 3. — Quartz core types.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Core type</th><th colspan="3">Phase</th><th colspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>FB2</th><th>FB3</th><th>FB4</th><th>N</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Unipolar</td><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>29</td><td>39</td><td>15.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Bipolar</td><td>–</td><td>4</td><td>14</td><td>18</td><td>7.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Centripetal</td><td>9</td><td>16</td><td>57</td><td>82</td><td>33.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Globular</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>14</td><td>5.6%</td></tr><tr><td>One-or-two-extraction</td><td>9</td><td>13</td><td>41</td><td>63</td><td>25.4%</td></tr><tr><td>One-surface</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>18</td><td>23</td><td>9.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Prismatic</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>2.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Atypical carinated</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>49</td><td>176</td><td>248</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>17</td><td>24</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>26</td><td>53</td><td>193</td><td>272</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE 4. — Quartz core blanks.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Core blanks</th><th colspan="3">Phase</th><th colspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>FB2</th><th>FB3</th><th>FB4</th><th>N</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cobble</td><td>8</td><td>29</td><td>78</td><td>115</td><td>45.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Block</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Direct percussion flake</td><td>14</td><td>17</td><td>81</td><td>112</td><td>44.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Bipolar-on-Anvil flake</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>17</td><td>22</td><td>8.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Chunk</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>50</td><td>179</td><td>254</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>14</td><td>18</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>26</td><td>53</td><td>193</td><td>272</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE 5. — Quartz debitage methods (based on cores only).</caption><thead><tr><th>Debitage method</th><th>FB2</th><th>FB3</th><th>FB4</th><th>Total</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Discoid</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>9.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Levallois</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>12.5%</td></tr><tr><td>SSDA</td><td>–</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>15</td><td>9.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Kombewa</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>77</td><td>103</td><td>64.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Bipolar-on-Anvil</td><td>–</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>4.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>16</td><td>30</td><td>114</td><td>160</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>10</td><td>23</td><td>79</td><td>112</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>26</td><td>53</td><td>193</td><td>272</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE 6. — Degree of exhaustion of quartz cores. Grade 1: beginning of life; Grade 2: peak of life; Grade 3: exhausted.</caption><thead><tr><th>Degree of exhaustion</th><th>N</th><th>Levallois</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FB2<br>Grade 1</td><td>11</td><td>1</td><td>9.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 2</td><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>11.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 3</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>FB3<br>Grade 1</td><td>24</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 2</td><td>18</td><td>6</td><td>33.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>50.0%</td></tr><tr><td>FB4<br>Grade 1</td><td>77</td><td>1</td><td>1.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 2</td><td>62</td><td>4</td><td>6.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 3</td><td>20</td><td>4</td><td>20.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>226</td><td>19</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>46</td><td>1</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

neocortical or cortical surfaces were used as striking platforms, taking advantage of appropriate convexities (Fig. 6B, C, E, F) and following an “opportunistic” behavior (Arzarello 2003; Carpentieri & Arzarello 2022). The number of extractions is small, and discard occurs at an early stage of exploitation. Extraction is mostly carried out on one surface only – cores with hierarchically related surfaces are 53.8% (N = 14) in FB2, 47.2% (N = 25) in FB3, and 46.6% (N = 90) in FB4 – and, when determinable, mostly in a centripetal or unipolar manner. Preparation of the striking platform is infrequent and in no way exclusive to debitage methods involving a predetermination of the blank.

Due to the frequent absence of important diagnostic elements – preparation of the striking platform, chronology and organization of scars – inferring debitage methods is challenging and often impossible. When determinable, the most common reduction strategies are Kombewa and Levallois, followed by Discoid, SSDA, and Bipolar-on-Anvil (Table 5). The differences seen across the three phases are minor:

The Levallois concept is more frequent in FB3 (Table 5). FB3’s Levallois cores were not discarded at an early stage: all were abandoned either at the peak of their exploitation or at exhaustion (Table 6). To a lesser extent, it’s the same in FB4, where most Levallois cores were exploited to exhaustion, with the length of the last removal only exceptionally exceeding 2 cm.

The Discoid method is more frequently identified in FB4, albeit not without some degree of uncertainty (Table 5). This is because the SSDA method, which facilitates long and continuous sequences of removals by automatically maintaining favorable angles between two opposing surfaces, can often lead to scar patterns and core organizations closely resembling those produced by the Discoid method (Mesfin *et al.* 2023). Typologically, the cores assigned to the latter are centripetal, one-surface, globular, or, in a single case, bipolar.

The small size of the sample explains why no FB2 cores display traces of the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique, which, however, is represented among debitage blanks (Tables 7; 8). The Bipolar-on-Anvil cores from the assemblage are mostly exploited following their horizontal axis, in a bipolar rectilinear/convex or single-angular, non-recurrent way, which fits the “Bipolar C” and “Bipolar D” modalities of de Lombera-Hermida *et al.* (2016). In the FB4 phase, one example falls within the so-called bipolar modality on vertical/axial anvil, or “Bipolar E” (Fig. 6G), whereby the cobbles are placed on the anvil along their longest axis and the knapping is parallel, creating a pattern of opposing longitudinal or bipolar extractions. On small and medium volumes, two series of removals are observed, in what seems to be a response to the effects of both the strike and the anvil (de Lombera-Hermida *et al.* 2016). These cores show unifacial series of removals and incipient reduction; they probably reflect the opening-up of spheric cobbles for subsequent, separate exploitation of the parts as blanks for centripetal reduction by the Levallois or Kombewa methods.

At discard, cores are usually small (Fig. 7A), particularly in FB2 and FB4, where they measure <40 mm, which probably is a correlate of the Kombewa method’s higher representation.
<table><caption>TABLE 7. — Quartz flake types.</caption><thead><tr><th>Flake types</th><th>FB2</th><th>FB3</th><th>FB4</th><th>Total</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;50% cortical flake</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>59</td><td>76</td><td>14.5%</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;50% cortical flake</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>50</td><td>58</td><td>11.1%</td></tr><tr><td>100% cortical flake</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>20</td><td>32</td><td>6.1%</td></tr><tr><td>naturally backed flake (long)</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td>31</td><td>5.9%</td></tr><tr><td>naturally backed flake (short)</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>33</td><td>37</td><td>7.1%</td></tr><tr><td>backed flake</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>67</td><td>91</td><td>17.4%</td></tr><tr><td>bipolar</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>23</td><td>26</td><td>5.0%</td></tr><tr><td>elongated flake</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>2.6%</td></tr><tr><td>regular flake</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>60</td><td>78</td><td>14.9%</td></tr><tr><td>perimeter-edged, non-cortical flake</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>42</td><td>62</td><td>11.8%</td></tr><tr><td>pseudo-Levallois point</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.6%</td></tr><tr><td>striking platform flake</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>1.3%</td></tr><tr><td>crest flake</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>1.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Kombewa flake</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>54</td><td>63</td><td>407</td><td>524</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>flake fragment</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>36</td><td>49</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>undetermined flake</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>60</td><td>70</td><td>444</td><td>574</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE 8. — Flaking angles: Figueira Brava (FB) compared to the data in Mourre et al. (2011) and Kobayashi groups A and C (1979).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">FB All</th><th colspan="2">FB Bipolar-on-Anvil</th><th colspan="2">Kobayashi (1975)</th><th colspan="2">Mourre et al. (2011)</th></tr><tr><th>N</th><th>%</th><th>N</th><th>%</th><th>N</th><th>%</th><th>N</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>75-79°</td><td>1</td><td>0.2%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>8</td><td>3.0%</td><td>8</td><td>11.2%</td></tr><tr><td>80-84°</td><td>7</td><td>1.6%</td><td>3</td><td>15.7%</td><td>26</td><td>9.8%</td><td>9</td><td>12.7%</td></tr><tr><td>85-89°</td><td>36</td><td>8.4%</td><td>12</td><td>63.2%</td><td>37</td><td>14%</td><td>13</td><td>18.3%</td></tr><tr><td>90-94°</td><td>91</td><td>21.2%</td><td>4</td><td>21.1%</td><td>65</td><td>24.6%</td><td>14</td><td>19.7%</td></tr><tr><td>95-99°</td><td>78</td><td>18.2%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>30</td><td>11.4%</td><td>12</td><td>16.9%</td></tr><tr><td>100-104°</td><td>82</td><td>19.1%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>28</td><td>10.6%</td><td>10</td><td>14.1%</td></tr><tr><td>105-109°</td><td>58</td><td>13.5%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>16</td><td>6.0%</td><td>4</td><td>5.6%</td></tr><tr><td>110-114°</td><td>35</td><td>8.2%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>10</td><td>3.8%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>115-119°</td><td>28</td><td>6.5%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>7</td><td>2.5%</td><td>1</td><td>1.4%</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;120°</td><td>13</td><td>3.0%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>37</td><td>14.0%</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>Total</td><td>429</td><td>–</td><td>19</td><td>–</td><td>264</td><td>–</td><td>71</td><td>–</td></tr></tfoot></table>

In the final phase of their exploitation, cores only produced small flakes, as indicated by the average size of the last scar (FB2: 17.5 x 22.4 mm; FB3: 21 x 21.9 mm; FB4: 18.2 x 18.4 mm).

## FLAKES

Flakes correspond to 52.7% of the total lithic assemblage (Table 1). For the techno-typological study, the sample also included flakes corresponding to the preparation stage of the volume, as well as those selected for subsequent retouch.

Regarding flake types, there is no substantial difference between the three occupation phases. The increased diversity, observed across the sequence, is a simple correlate of sample size. Throughout, there is a predominance of semi-cortical flakes, backed flakes, short and long naturally backed flakes, and perimeter-edged, non-cortical flakes (Table 7). Most butts are cortical or unfaceted and most scar patterns are unipolar or bipolar, illustrating exploitation sequences that are mostly expedient (Binford 1979). Flakes with these characteristics can be produced by the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique or the SSDA method. However, the latter produces flakes

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 7. — Discarded quartz cores: length (mm) per occupation phase (A) and debitage method (B).</figcaption></figure>

with very wide flaking angles (the angle between the butt and the ventral surface), commonly >115°, with large and thick cortical or unfaceted butts (Forestier 1993), while, as Kobayashi (1975) and Mourre et al. (2011) have shown, the corresponding angles are ≤90° when the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique is used (Table 8).

Concerning the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique, it is important to note that it is not easy to identify, even though it produces very characteristic knapping stigmata (Fig. 8), namely: absence of a prominent bulb; presence of an opposite counter-bulb; occurrence of linear and rectangular striations; and predominantly cortical, punctiform, linear, or crushed butts. These attributes are relatively frequent in the Figueira Brava assemblage, supporting the notion that the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique was commonly used (Table 9).

Corroborating the mostly expedient nature of the exploitation sequences, cortical butts are 36.3% and unfaceted ones are 31.9%. Faceted (Fig. 9B, C, E) and dihedral butts are 3.7% and 8.6%, respectively (Table 10), and are mostly found on perimeter-edged flakes. The latter are non-cortical, oval, or circular blanks featuring a cutting edge extending across the entire periphery (except for the butt). They imply the use of more complex debitage methods, Levallois or Discoid (but secure attribution is often not possible, explaining why we classified counted them by morphology rather than reduction
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 8. — Typical stigmata of the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique in the Figueira Brava quartz assemblage: A, "cascade" step terminations of the scars; B, bluntness and cracks; C, punctiform butt. Scale bar: 5 cm.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>TABLE 9. — Quartz debitage methods (based on debitage blanks, preparation material, and retouched tools).</caption><thead><tr><th>Flaking method</th><th>FB2</th><th>FB3</th><th>FB4</th><th>Total</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Discoid</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>16.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Levallois</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>26</td><td>27.0%</td></tr><tr><td>SSDA</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>19</td><td>20.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Kombewa</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Bipolar-on-Anvil</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>26</td><td>34</td><td>35.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7</td><td>16</td><td>74</td><td>97</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>53</td><td>54</td><td>370</td><td>477</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>60</td><td>70</td><td>444</td><td>574</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE 10. — Quartz flakes' platform types.</caption><thead><tr><th>Platform type</th><th>FB2</th><th>FB3</th><th>FB4</th><th>Total</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cortical</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>165</td><td>198</td><td>36.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Neocortical</td><td>1</td><td>–</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>2.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Unfaceted</td><td>28</td><td>23</td><td>123</td><td>174</td><td>31.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Dihedral</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>35</td><td>47</td><td>8.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Faceted</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>15</td><td>20</td><td>3.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Linear</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>16</td><td>22</td><td>4.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Punctiform</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>28</td><td>37</td><td>6.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Suppressed</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Broken</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>28</td><td>35</td><td>6.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>57</td><td>67</td><td>422</td><td>546</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>22</td><td>28</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>60</td><td>70</td><td>444</td><td>574</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

method). This inference is corroborated by two other observations: centripetal and, to a lesser extent, orthogonal, and chordal scar patterns are common in these types of flakes, and most flaking angles fall in the 90-110° range. Accepting the inference, 27% and 16% of our sample's quartz blanks were obtained via pre-determined reduction methods such as Levallois and Discoid, respectively (Table 9).

Knowing that the same blank types can be produced by different debitage methods, distinguishing Discoid from Centripetal Levallois flakes can be challenging – particularly when both occur in the same assemblage (Boëda 1993, 1994). González-Molina *et al.* (2020) have noted that two criteria are especially useful for differentiation: the flake's proportions, and the angle formed between the platform and the ventral surface. As flake proportions were not calculated in this study, platform angle served as the primary criterion for distinguishing Levallois from Discoid products. Levallois flakes generally present slightly obtuse angles, between 90° and 95°, sometimes wider, whereas Discoid flakes tend to display more obtuse angles, exceeding 100° (González-Molina *et al.* 2020). Flake thickness offers an additional criterion for differentiation, as Levallois products are generally thinner (Boëda 1993, 1994).

The assemblage contains 29 perimeter-edged, non-cortical flakes with prepared platform angles in the 90-119° range. This distribution corroborates the inference that they were extracted using Levallois or Discoid reduction strategies (note that Levallois flakes tend to be longer than they are wider, while Discoid flakes tend to be wider than they are longer; Fig. 10A, B). Consistent with their standing for the use of
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 9. — Quartz flakes: A, Bipolar-on-Anvil flake from FB4; B, Levallois flake with faceted butt from FB3; C, Levallois flake with faceted butt from FB4; D, Levallois flake with unfaceted butt from FB4; E, pseudo-Levallois point with faceted butt from FB4; F, regular flake with cortical butt from FB3; G, unipolar SSDA flake from FB4. Scale bar: 5 cm.</figcaption></figure>

those reduction methods, perimeter-edged, non-cortical flakes with faceted or dihedral butts and angles below 100° (Fig. 9B, C) have a mean thickness of 8.8 mm, whereas those with wider angles average 9.4 mm.

In FB4, the Discoid method is also plausibly responsible for most short-backed flakes and pseudo-Levallois points (Fig. 9E), characterized by rectilinear profiles, faceted or dihedral butts, centripetal or orthogonal scar patterns, and
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 10. — Quartz flakes: length (A) and width (B) according to the reduction scheme applied (mm).</figcaption></figure>

platform angles almost always exceeding 100°. In FB2, the two backed flakes identified are linked to the reconfiguration of the debitage surface in a preferential scheme. In FB3, the Discoid method is possibly represented by a single flake with bipolar removals. As with cores, Levallois blanks are more frequent in FB3, while the Discoid method, poorly represented overall, is most frequently found in FB4 (Table 9).

The Bipolar-on-Anvil technique resulted in a more varied range of products: cortical flakes, semi-cortical flakes, bipolar flakes, naturally backed, and short or long cortically backed flakes (Fig. 9A). They tend to be longer (Fig. 10) and to present cortical remnants, usually occupying between 5 and 50% of the dorsal surface.

## RETOUCHED TOOLS

The sample studied contains a total of 126 retouched tools, 116 of which are quartz (Table 1). They are small, with average lengths of c. 30 mm. For quartz, the predominant tool types are denticulates, followed by notches and sidescrapers (Table 11; Fig. 11A, C). FB4 is typologically more diverse, which, as with the other techno-economic categories, is most likely a function of the larger sample size.

Most retouched tool blanks are flakes bearing little or no cortex (which, when present, is usually distal), and a significant percentage are made on perimeter-edged, non-cortical

<table><caption>TABLE 11. — Quartz retouched tool types (per occupation phase and excluding one tool of uncertain stratigraphic provenience).</caption><thead><tr><th>Retouched tool types</th><th>FB2</th><th>FB3</th><th>FB4</th><th>Total</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Notch</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>24</td><td>28</td><td>24.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Denticulate</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>39</td><td>43</td><td>37.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Double denticulate</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Bec</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Tayac point</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Lateral scraper</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>13</td><td>18</td><td>15.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Transversal scraper</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Oblique transversal scraper</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Convergent scraper</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Endscraper</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Partially retouched flake</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>7.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Retouched piece fragment</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7</td><td>12</td><td>96</td><td>115</td><td>100%</td></tr></tbody></table>

flakes. Cortex is slightly more common in the blanks from FB4, which is likely related to this phase's somewhat more frequent usage of the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique (Table 9). FB4 also yielded three tools on other types of blanks: a scraper on a small, flat pebble (Fig. 11F); a denticulate obtained by alternating retouch applied to a patinated/rounded flake (Fig. 11D); and another denticulate retouched on the flat surface of a cleaved fragment. There are also two pieces on chunks: a denticulate and a piece with irregular retouch.

Almost half of the retouched tools are broken. When the diagnosis is possible, the retouch usually modifies the dorsal faces on their right or distal edges. Among denticulates, micro-notching is the predominant mode of retouch. Among scrapers, retouch is mostly scaled (Fig. 11B, D), featuring wide, short scars closely resembling fish scales (Inizan *et al.* 1999). In the case of partially retouched flakes, the modification of the edge is irregular and marginal (Fig. 11E).

## HAMMERSTONES

Cobbles used as hammerstones account for only 1.1% of the lithic assemblage and are attested exclusively in FB4 (Table 1). Although frequently broken, their original size can be reconstructed as >5 cm. Regarding raw material subtypes, J9.4a is the most common (N = 3), followed by J9.2 (N = 2) and J9.1 (N = 2).

The low number of hammerstones can be explained by the fact that some were later reused as cores, among which a small percentage bear diagnostic stigmata. This reuse did not result from raw material scarcity, but rather from the fact that, once broken, a hammerstone could provide a suitable platform for further flake extraction. This recycling behavior is most often observed in centripetal cores and one-or-two-extraction cores, which also happen to be the most common core types. When the breakage was particularly clean, the resulting platform would also have been especially well suited for centripetal removals.

## REDUCTION

Most of the time, quartz cores were exploited in an expedient and “opportunistic” manner to produce regular flakes with <50% cortex and backed flakes (Binford 1979; Arzarello 2003;
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 11. — Quartz tools: A, denticulate from FB4 (with magnesium treatment on the right); B, transversal oblique scraper from FB3 with magnesium treatment; C, transversal scraper from FB4; D, denticulate on patinated/rounded flake from FB4; E, denticulate from FB4; F, scraper on flat pebble from FB4 phase. Scale bar: 5 cm. Credits: A-C, photos by José Paulo Ruas. The modified edge is indicated.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE 12. — Quartz subtypes used by different debitage methods and techniques.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Bipolar-on-Anvil</th><th>Discoid</th><th>Levallois</th><th>SSDA</th><th>Kombewa</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>J9.1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>39</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>J9.2</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>J9.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>J9.4a</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>J9.4b</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>J9.4c</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>J9.5</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>J9.6a</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>J9.6b</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>J9.6c</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>J9.7a</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>J9.7b</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>J9.7c</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>J9.7d</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>11</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7</td><td>15</td><td>20</td><td>15</td><td>104</td><td>161</td></tr></tbody></table>

Vaquero & Romagnoli 2017; Carpentieri & Arzarello 2022). Bringing together the results of the analysis of cores, blanks, and tools, the following can be concluded:

- despite FB3's somewhat higher representation of the Levallois concept, there are no substantial differences between the three phases of human occupation;

- throughout, the Bipolar-on-Anvil method was used, application of the Discoid method was rare, and raw material subtypes J9.1, J9.7c, and J9.7d were preferentially selected for the application of the more complex Levallois and Discoid methods (Table 12), of which the Kombewa cores may represent but an initial stage;

- at discard, Bipolar-on-Anvil cores are larger (Fig. 7B), so it is possible that, among other applications, this technique was used to open quartz pebbles and cobbles to produce blanks that could be used in more controlled, unipolar or centripetal reduction sequences;

- there is no correlation between the weight or length of the core and the size of the last removal (Fig. 12), which is consistent with targeting the production of small blanks, no more than c. 3 cm-long on average (perhaps as a deliberate strategy to compensate for the raw material's structural weaknesses). It is often noted that the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique is particularly effective for working hard, flawed rocks that are otherwise difficult to reduce to small sizes – such as certain varieties of vein quartz (Hiscock 2015). Future studies focusing on small-flake production may offer valuable insights into the full extent that this technique was put to use at Figueira Brava.

## ECONOMY

Through the Figueira Brava sequence, quartz is the most used raw material (Table 1). Figure 13 schematizes this raw material's exploitation economy. All steps of the *chaîne opératoire* are represented. On-site, reduction of raw pebbles is demonstrated by the number of cortical flakes. Anvil splitting was frequently employed to initiate volume reduction. The ventral surfaces of the resulting flakes were then exploited either with the same technique or through a variety of other

methods. A significant proportion of the selected blanks underwent ramification (Bourguignon *et al.* 2004; Mathias *et al.* 2021), with Kombewa cores potentially representing the initial stage of Levallois reduction sequences. The primary objective appears to have been the production of small flakes, <3 cm, whose shape is closely linked to the debitage method applied (Fig. 10). When retouched, blanks were transformed into notches, denticulates, and scrapers.

Flint was exploited differently (Zilhão *et al.* 2020). FB2 yielded no cores and only a few <50%-cortical or non-cortical flakes. FB3 yielded a single core, and a few cortical flakes. FB4 accounts for most of the flint artefacts and yielded eight cores (including fragments), mostly reduced by Kombewa or Levallois methods and largely exhausted. The flake assemblage includes large, preferential Levallois blanks that could not have been extracted from the much smaller cores discarded at the site and must represent imported items. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that, among the totality of the flint assemblage, 64% of the retouched tools are made on cortical or partly cortical blanks. This indicates that they were imported as finished implements or as blanks that, prior to discard, were used or re-sharpened at the site (as shown also by a couple of retouch flakes). In the sample studied here, the few tools are denticulates and sidescrapers.

Quartzite cores are present throughout but, unlike flint ones, they are far from exhausted. The blanks are mostly cortical or partly cortical (61%). Tools are rare and represented by denticulates and notches made on partly cortical blanks.

As far as tool manufacture is concerned, a similar approach was followed, regardless of raw material. The same types of blanks – flakes with <50% of cortex or non-cortical ones – were selected, and the same kinds of edge modifications were applied.

## DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Quartz, a raw material with more internal flaws and more prone to fracture unpredictably, has been widely understood as unsuitable for the application of elaborate knapping techniques. The idea that the technical constraints of the Levallois concept necessitate quality raw materials, in contrast to Discoid or other techniques, derives from a wide range of Middle Paleolithic sites of Southern France (Mathias *et al.* 2020). However, recent work has called into question this proposition, as Levallois productions using quartz and quartzite have been documented at several Middle Paleolithic sites in the Pyrenees and the Iberian Peninsula (e.g. Eixea *et al.* 2016; Deschamps 2019; Ramos *et al.* 2024).

## THE ROLE OF QUARTZ IN THE MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC OF IBERIA

Multiple sites of the Middle Paleolithic of Iberia, where non-flint raw-materials, such quartz and quartzite, are more common than flint (Pereira & Benedetti 2013), have challenged the above dichotomy (although a few exceptions exist, like the Abric Romaní, where flint from far away was consistently
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 12. — Last flake removals as a function of core weight (A; excluding five outliers from phases FB3 and FB4 weighing >100 g) and core length (B).</figcaption></figure>

preferred over locally availably quartz and quartzite; Vaquero
1999) (Table 13). The long-standing belief that the use of harder
raw materials inevitably requires technological approaches dis-
tinct from those used for flint has been challenged by Marks
et al. (2001), Mourre & Thiébaut (2008), Eixea et al. (2016),
Deschamps (2019), and Deschamps & Zilhão (2018). In the
case of the Gruta da Oliveira site in Torres Novas, Portugal,
Deschamps & Zilhão (2018) demonstrated that, in the strati-
graphic units analyzed, the reduction methods employed were

the same for quartzite and flint. A similar pattern is observed
at Abrigo de la Quebrada (Eixea et al. 2016), where flint is
locally abundant and Levallois reduction sequences are repre-
sented among quartzite and limestone too. Likewise, at Gruta
Nova da Columbeira in Bombarral, Portugal, where quartz
is the predominant raw material, followed by quartzite and
flint in similar proportions, the reduction methods applied
show no substantial differences between raw material types
/Cardoso et al. 2002).
<table><caption>TABLE 13. — Frequency of quartz in the Iberian Middle Paleolithic sites mentioned in the text. *, Counts are for levels 8-9 only; **, quartz is the majority.</caption><thead><tr><th>Site</th><th>Location</th><th>Site</th><th>Age</th><th>%</th><th>Levallois</th><th>Discoid</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Oliveira</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Cave</td><td>MIS 5a</td><td>10%*</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>Marks et al. 2001; Zilhão et al. 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Columbeira</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Cave</td><td>MIS 5-2</td><td>37%**</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Cardoso et al. 2002</td></tr><tr><td>Azinhal</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Open-air</td><td>MIS 4-3</td><td>c. 50%</td><td>residual</td><td>yes</td><td>Almeida 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Santa Cita</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Open-air</td><td>MIS 3</td><td>58%</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>Cura et al. 2017</td></tr><tr><td>l'Arbreda</td><td>Spain</td><td>Cave</td><td>MIS 3</td><td>73%</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>Bracco 1997</td></tr><tr><td>Avellaners</td><td>Spain</td><td>Open-air</td><td>?</td><td>77%</td><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>Mora 1984</td></tr><tr><td>Navalmaíllo</td><td>Spain</td><td>Shelter</td><td>MIS 5-4</td><td>78%</td><td>residual</td><td>yes</td><td>Márquez et al. 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Buena Pinta</td><td>Spain</td><td>Cave</td><td>MIS 4-3</td><td>c. 80%</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>Mielgo et al. 2024</td></tr><tr><td>Cueva del Camino</td><td>Spain</td><td>Cave</td><td>MIS 5-4</td><td>c. 80%</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>Arsuaga et al. 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Figueira Brava</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Cave</td><td>MIS 5</td><td>83%</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Melo 2023; this study</td></tr><tr><td>Cova Eirós</td><td>Spain</td><td>Cave</td><td>MIS 5</td><td>88%</td><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>Lazuén et al. 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Cardina/ Salto-Boi</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Open-air</td><td>MIS 6-3</td><td>90%</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Ramos et al. 2024</td></tr><tr><td>Diable Coix</td><td>Spain</td><td>Open-air</td><td>?</td><td>91%</td><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>Mora 1984</td></tr><tr><td>Escoural</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Cave</td><td>MIS3-2</td><td>99%</td><td>yes</td><td>?</td><td>Cardoso 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Lagoa Funda 2</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Open-air</td><td>?</td><td>100%</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>Bicho 2004</td></tr><tr><td>Vale da Fonte</td><td>Portugal</td><td>Open-air</td><td>?</td><td>100%</td><td>?</td><td>?</td><td>Bicho 2004</td></tr></tbody></table>

Many other sites illustrate the use of the Levallois concept on quartzite, but little is known regarding Iberian Middle Paleolithic sites where quartz is the most used raw material (Table 13). Bracco (1997) notes that, at the site of l'Arbreda, in Catalonia, the debitage methods employed for quartz were distinct, even though the blanks selected for tool manufacture were no different from flint ones. Likewise, at Santa Cita in Tomar, Portugal (Cura *et al.* 2017), no evidence was found that predetermined knapping methods were applied. At Azinhal, located in Vila Velha do Ródão, Portugal, the Discoid method predominates, with Levallois represented by only a few flakes (Almeida 2012). At Cardina-Salto do Boi, in Vila Nova de Foz Cça, Portugal, both Levallois and Discoid methods were applied, especially so in the assemblage from the GFU6-7 stratigraphic unit (Ramos *et al.* 2024). At Cova Eirós, Lugo, Spain, the Levallois method is employed more frequently than the Discoid method, the latter having been used for quartzite only (Lazuén *et al.* 2011; Rodríguez-Alvarez *et al.* 2011). At the Navalmaíllo rockshelter, in Pinilla del Valle, Spain, where the incidence of the Levallois method is low, application was not observed on chert-like rocks and would seem to have been restricted to quartz and quartzite (Márquez *et al.* 2013).

This body of evidence confirms that there is no necessary relationship between the Levallois concept and any specific raw material. While local availability is known to have played an important role in the Middle Paleolithic (Geneste 1991), in sites where multiple raw materials are present the use of quartz is not necessarily a simple byproduct of immediate abundance. The use of non-flint raw materials in Levallois productions can be related to length of occupation and the activities carried out at the site (Eixea *et al.* 2016). Further studies are needed to determine whether regional patterns exist in quartz exploitation in Iberia and whether its management varied according to site function.

## FIGUEIRA BRAVA'S CONTRIBUTION

Figueira Brava adds to and considerably expands current knowledge about the use of quartz in the Middle Paleolithic

of Iberia. Based on our analyses, the following evidence-based statements can be made regarding quartz exploitation at Figueira Brava:

- quartz was abundantly and consistently used throughout the site's human occupation, despite the nearby availability of other raw materials. This observation suggests that the use of quartz might have been dictated by choice, not opportunity. Experimental (e.g. Mourre *et al.* 2011; de la Peña 2015; Pargeter & de la Peña 2017; Spry *et al.* 2021) and techno-economic studies (Tallavaara *et al.* 2010; de Lombera-Hermida & Rodríguez-Rellán 2016; Knutsson *et al.* 2016; Manninen 2016; Márquez *et al.* 2016) have shown that quartz can play diverse roles in prehistoric technologies depending on its status and abundance, challenging the view of quartz as a mere substitute. As Eixea *et al.* (2016: 48) pointed out, particular raw materials with appropriate characteristics may have been preferred for the manufacturing of certain kinds of implements. Further work – including targeted surveys and use-wear analysis – is needed to better characterize Figueira Brava's quartz lithic assemblages and the economic and functional objectives associated with the consumption of this raw material;

- our study confirms that the petrographic and mechanical properties of quartz influenced reduction strategies. While most volumes were exploited expediently, more complex debitage methods, such as Levallois and Discoid, were occasionally applied to selected quartz types with finer, more granulated textures and fewer internal flaws;

- specific strategies appear to have been employed to mitigate quartz's tendency to fracture. Previous work (e.g. Tallavaara *et al.* 2010; Manninen 2016) has identified technological choices that can help in managing this limitation, such as: 1) producing artefacts with thicker butts to yield thicker products less prone to breakage; 2) producing smaller blanks, especially if intent on subsequent modification into retouched tools (Hiscock 2015; Knutsson *et al.* 2016); 3) preferentially using cortical or neocortical surfaces as striking platforms (de Lombera-Hermida & Rodríguez-Rellán 2016); 4) organizing reduction in longitudinal sequences (de Lombera-Hermida
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>FIG. 13. — Figueira Brava quartz economics as illustrated by the phase FB4 assemblage. The **black-shaded areas** indicate cortex cover.</figcaption></figure>

et al. 2011, 2016); and 5) employing the Bipolar-on-Anvil technique. The assemblage from Figueira Brava is consistent with application of these strategies;

— the methods used to knap quartz blocks remained largely consistent across the three human occupation phases. Given the small size of the study area relative to the original area of

occupation, minor variations, such as the somewhat higher frequency of Levallois in FB3, are parsimoniously explained by sampling bias rather than change in technological preference.

Figueira Brava's unique setting — coastal location with abundant sources of food and raw material — enabled Neanderthal groups to maintain long-term usage of the site. Seasonality
data indicate human presence in every season: aquatic and marine birds, along with mature pinecones, were exploited/ collected during autumn and winter, while brown and spider crabs were gathered in the summer (Zilhão *et al.* 2020).

Quartz, abundantly available in the vicinity, was the raw material of choice for the making of the stone tools involved in the procurement, processing, and consumption of these resources. Although often considered a lower-quality raw material compared to flint in terms of knapping properties, quartz's local abundance and adequate performance characteristics (e.g. hardness and durable edges) must have made it entirely suitable for the activities carried out at the site.

A careful selection of more granular-textured varieties allowed for the application of more complex debitage methods. The reduction sequences employed combined different technological systems (Bourguignon *et al.* 2004), taking advantage of the natural convexities of collected blocks, and aimed at the production of small flakes. These strategies fully harnessed the potential of quartz, demonstrating technological flexibility and adaptation to available resources. As H. Knutsson (2014) aptly stated, "simple needs not mean archaic."

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor-in-chief, Michel Laurin, the associate editor, Nicolas Teyssandier, and the reviewers for their work on the manuscript.

## REFERENCES

ABRUNHOSA A., PEREIRA T., MÁRQUEZ B., BAQUEDANO E., ARSUAGA J. L. & PÉREZ-GONZÁLEZ A. 2019. — Understanding Neanderthal technological adaptation at Navalmaíllo rock shelter (Spain) by measuring lithic raw materials performance variability. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences* 11 (11): 5949-5962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00826-3

ALMEIDA N. 2012. — O Paleolítico Médio do Complexo Pré-histórico do Arneiro – Santana, Nisa. Dez anos de investigação. *Açafa On-Line* 5: 273-292. https://www.altotejo.org/acafa/docsn5/paleolitico_medio_arneiro.pdf

ANTUNES M. T. & CARDOSO J. L. 2000. — Gruta Nova da Columbeira, Gruta das Salemas and Gruta da Figueira Brava: stratigraphy, and chronology of the Pleistocene deposits. *Memórias da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa. Classe de Ciências* 38: 23-67.

ARSUAGA J. L., BAQUEDANO E., PÉREZ-GONZÁLEZ A., SALA N., QUAM R. M., RODRÍGUEZ L., GARCÍA R., GARCÍA N., ÁLVAREZ-LAO D. J., LAPLANA C. & HUGUET R. 2012. — Understanding the ancient habitats of the last-interglacial (late MIS 5) Neanderthals of central Iberia: Paleoenvironmental and taphonomic evidence from the Cueva del Camino (Spain) site. *Quaternary International* 275: 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.04.019

ARZARELLO M. 2003. — Contributo allo studio del comportamento tecno-economico dell'uomo di Neandertal: l'industria litica della serie musteriana del riparo Tagliente (Stallavena di Grezzena, VR, Italia). PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Italia.

AUBRY T., LUIS L., MANGADO LLACH J. & MATIAS H. 2012. — We will be known by the tracks we leave behind: exotic lithic raw materials, mobility and social networking among the Côa Valley foragers (Portugal). *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology* 31 (4): 528-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2012.05.003

AUBRY T., BARBOSA A. F., LUIS L., SANTOS A. T. & SILVESTRE M. 2016. — Quartz use in the absence of flint: Middle and Upper Paleolithic raw material economy in the Côa Valley (North-eastern Portugal). *Quaternary International* 424: 113-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.067

BALLIN T. 2008. — Quartz as a mineral - Its properties, formation and provenance. *Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports* 26: 43-52. https://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/sair/article/view/1028

BICHO N. 2004. — The middle Paleolithic occupation of southern Portugal. *Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age* 2: 513-531.

BINFORD L. R. 1979. — Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. *Journal of Anthropological Research* 35 (3): 255-273. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3629902

BOÈDA E. 1993. — Le débitage discoïde et le débitage Levallois récurrent centripète. *Bulletin De La Société Préhistorique Française* 90: 392-404. https://doi.org/10.3406/Bspf.1993.9669

BOÈDA E. 1994. — *Le Concept Levallois: variabilité des méthodes. Éditions Du CNRS (coll. Monographies du CRA; 9)*, Paris, 280 p.

BORDES F. 1950. — Principes d'une methode d'étude des techniques et de la typologie du Paleolithique ancien et moyen. *L'anthropologie* 54: 19-34.

BORDES F. 2000. — *Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. CNRS Éditions, Paris, 228 p.*

BOURGUIGNON L., FAIVRE J.-P. & TURQ A. 2004. — Ramification des chaînes opératoires : une spécificité du Moustérien? *Paleo* 16: 37-48.

BRACCO J.-P. 1997. — Gestion et exploitation du quartz dans les gisements de l'Arbreda et Reclau Viver (Catalogne, Espagne): aspects techniques et données sur la transition Paléolithique moyen / Paléolithique supérieur. *Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes* 6: 279-184.

BREUIL H. & ZBYSZEWSKI G. 1945. — Contribution à l'étude des industries paléolithiques du Portugal et leurs rapports avec la géologie du Quaternaire. Les principaux gisements des plages quaternaires du littoral d'Estremadura et des terrasses fluviales de la basse vallée du Tage. *Comunicações dos Serviços Geológicos de Portugal* XXVII: 1-678.

BROWN K., FA D., FINLAYSON G. & FINLAYSON C. 2011. — Small game and marine resource exploitation by Neanderthals: the evidence from Gibraltar, in BICHO N., HAWS J. & DAVIS L. (eds), *Treking the Shore. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology*. Springer, New York, NY: 247-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8219-3_10

CALLAHAN E. 1987. — *An Evaluation of the Lithic Technology in Middle Sweden during the Mesolithic and Neolithic*. Vol. 8. Societas archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala, 72 p.

CARDOSO J. L. 2006. — The Mousterian Complex in Portugal. *Zephyrus* 59: 21-50. https://revistas.usal.es/uno/index.php/0514-7336/article/view/5638

CARDOSO J. & RAPOSO L. 1993. — *As Indústrias Paleolíticas Da Gruta Da Figueira Brava (Setúbal)*. 3ª Reunião do Quaternário Ibérico, Coimbra: 451-456.

CARDOSO J. & RAPOSO L. 1998. — A gruta da Figueira Brava (Setúbal) no contexto do Paleolítico Médio Final do Sul e Ocidente ibéricos. *Encontro sobre Arqueologia da Arrábida, Trabalhos de Arqueologia* 14: 7-19.

CARDOSO J. L., RAPOSO L. & FERREIRA O. DA V. 2002. — *A Gruta Nova da Columbeira (Bombarral)*. Câmara Municipal do Bombarral, Bombarral, 142 p.

CARPENTIERI M. & ARZARELLO M. 2022. — For our world without sound: the opportunistic debitage in the Italian context—a methodological evaluation of the lithic assemblages of pirro nord. Cà Belvedere di Montepoggiolo, Ciota Ciara Cave and Riparo Tagliente. *Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology* 5: 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-022-00117-9
CURA S., CURA P., BERRUTI G. L. F., GRAZIANO R. & PEÇA P. 2017. — Estudo tecnológico de três sítios do Paleolítico Médio do centro de Portugal: Ribeira da Ponte da Pedra, Santa Cita e Lagoa do Bando, in ARNAUD J. & MARTINS A. (eds), *Arqueologia em Portugal: 2017–Estado da questão*. Associação dos Arqueólogos Portugueses, Lisboa: 319-330.

DAFFARA S. 2018. — *Non-flint raw materials in the European Middle Paleolithic: variability of Levallois and discoid knapping methods and study of the supply areas*. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/669893

DAFFARA S., ARNAUD J., BERRUTI G., CARACAUSI S. & ARZARELLO M. 2025. — Ugly stones sharpen the wits: the Middle Paleolithic of Piedmont in the context of Western Europe. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences* 17: 172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-025-02284-6

DELAGNES A. & MEIGNEN L. 2006. — Diversity of lithic production systems during the Middle Paleolithic in France, in HOVERS E. & KUHN S. L. (eds), *Transitions Before the Transition. Interdisciplinary Contributions To Archaeology*. Springer, Boston, MA: 85-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24661-4_5

DE LA PEÑA P. 2015. — A qualitative guide to recognize bipolar knapping for flint and quartz. *Lithic Technology* 40 (4): 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2015.1123947

DE LOMBERA-HERMIDA A. 2009. — The scar identification of quartz lithic industries. Non-flint raw material use in prehistory. Old prejudices and new direction British. *Archaeological Reports*: 5-11.

DE LOMBERA-HERMIDA A. & RODRÍGUEZ-RELLÁN C. 2016. — Quartzes matter. Understanding the technological and behavioural complexity in quartz lithic assemblages. *Quaternary International* 424 (1): 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.11.039

DE LOMBERA-HERMIDA A., RODRÍGUEZ X.-P., FÁBREGAS R. & MONCEL M.-H. 2011. — La gestion du quartz au Pléistocène moyen et supérieur. Trois exemples d'Europe Méridionale. *L'anthropologie* 115 (2): 294-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2011.02.003

DE LOMBERA-HERMIDA A., RODRÍGUEZ-ÁLVAREZ X. P., PENA L., SALA-RAMOS R., DESPRIÉE J., MONCEL M.-H., GOURCIMAULT G., VOINCHET P. & FALGUERES C. 2016. — The lithic assemblage from Pont-de-Lavaud (Indre, France) and the role of the bipolar-on-anvil technique in the Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene technology. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology* 41: 159-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.12.002

DESCHAMPS M. 2019. — Identification of Quina and Vasconian technocomplexes in Gatzarria Cave (north-western Pyrenees), based on the stratigraphic, taphonomic and technological revision of the Georges Laplace collections. *Comptes Rendus Palevol* 18 (5): 569-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2019.04.001

DESCHAMPS M. & ZILHÃO J. 2018. — Assessing site formation and assemblage integrity through stone tool refitting at Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karst system, Torres Novas, Portugal): a Middle Paleolithic case study. *PLOS One* 13 (2): e0192423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192423

DRISCOLL K. 2010. — *Understanding Quartz Technology in Early Prehistoric Ireland*. PhD dissertation, University College Dublin.

DRISCOLL K. 2011. — Identifying and classifying vein Quartz artefacts: an experiment conducted at the World Archaeological Congress, 2008. *Archaeometry* 53 (6): 1280-1296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00600.x

DRISCOLL K. & MENUGE J. 2011. — Recognising burnt vein quartz artefacts in archaeological assemblages. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 38 (9): 2251-2260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.03.028

EIXEA A., VILLAVERDE V. & ZILHÃO J. 2016. — Not only flint: Levallois on quartzite and limestone at Abrigo de la Quebrada (Valencia, Spain): implications for Neandertal behavior. *Journal of Anthropological Research* 72 (1): 24-57. https://doi.org/10.1086/685265

FORESTIER H. 1993. — Le Clactonien: mise en application d'une nouvelle méthode de débitage s'inscrivant dans la variabilité des systèmes de production lithique du paléolithique ancien. *Paleo, Revue d'archéologie Préhistorique* 5: 53-82. https://doi.org/10.3406/PAL.1993.1104

GENESTE J.-M. 1985. — *Analyse lithique d'industries moustériennes du Périgord: une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Paléolithique Moyen*. PhD dissertation, University of Bordeaux I, Bordeaux.

GENESTE J.-M. 1991. — Systèmes de production lithique, gestion des outillages et territoires au Paléolithique moyen où se trouve la complexité? *Techniques & Culture. Revue Semestrielle d'Anthropologie des Techniques* 54-55: 419-449. https://doi.org/10.4000/Tc.5013

GONZÁLEZ-MOLINA I., JIMÉNEZ-GARCIA B., MAILLO-FERNANDEZ J.-M., BAQUEDANO E. & DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGO M. 2020. — Distinguishing Discoid and Centripetal Levallois methods through machine learning. *PLOS One* 15 (12): e0244288. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244288

HAWS J. A., BENEDETTI M. M., FUNK C. L., BICHO N. F., DANIELS J. M., HESP P. A., MINCKLEY T. A., FORMAN S. L., JERAJ M. & GIBAJA J. F. 2010. — Coastal Wetlands and the Neanderthal Settlement of Portuguese Estremadura. *Geoarchaeology* 25 (6): 709-744. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20330

HAWS J. A., FUNK C. L., BENEDETTI M. M., BICHO N. F., DANIELS J. M., MINCKLEY T. A., DENNISTON R. F., JERAJ M., GIBAJA J. F. & HOCKETT B. S. 2011. — Paleolithic landscapes and seascapes of the West Coast of Portugal, in BICHO N., HAWS J. & DAVIS L. (eds), *Trekking the Shore. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology*. Springer, New York: 203-246. https://doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8219-3_9

HISCOCK P. 2015. — Making it small in the Paleolithic: bipolar stone-working, miniature artefacts and models of core recycling. *World Archaeology* 47: 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.991808

INIZAN M., REDURON-BALLINGER M., ROCHE H. & TIXIER J. 1999. — *Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone*. Cercle de recherches et d'études préhistoriques, Nanterre, 189 p.

JAUBERT J. 1997. — L'Utilisation du Quartz au Paléolithique Inférieur et Moyen. *Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes* 6: 239-259.

KNUTSSON H., KNUTSSON K., MOLIN F. & ZETTERLUND P. 2016. — From flint to quartz: organization of lithic technology in relation to raw material availability during the pioneer process of Scandinavia. *Quaternary International* 424: 32-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.10.062

KNUTSSON K. & LINDGREN C. 1999. — *Making sense of quartz. Presentation and results of an experimental analysis applied to quartz from a number of sites in Söodertööm*. Interdisciplinary Investigations of Stone Age Sites in Eastern Middle Sweden, The Swedish National Heritage Board, Archaeological excavations Dept, Gävle: 5-36

KNUTSSON K. 2014. — 'Simple' need not mean 'archaic.' *Antiquity* 88 (341): 950-953. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598x00050894

KOBAYASHI H. 1975. — The Experimental Study of Bipolar Flakes, in SWANSON E. H. (ed.), *Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools*. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, New York: 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111390376.115

LAZUÉN T., FABREGAS R., LOMBERA A. & PEDRO RODRIGUEZ X. 2011. — La gestión del utillaje de piedra tallada en el Paleolítico Medio de Galicia. El nivel 3 de Cova Eirós (Triacastela, Lugo). *Trabajos De Prehistoria* 68 (2): 237-258. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2011.11068

LEROI-GOURHAN A. 1964. — Le geste et la parole. I. Technique et langage. II. La mémoire et les rythmes. *Les Études Philosophiques* 20 (3): 360-360.

MANNINEN M. A. 2016. — The effect of raw material properties on flake and flake-tool dimensions: a comparison between quartz and chert. *Quaternary International* 424: 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.096
MARKS A., SHOKLER J. & ZILHÃO J. 1991. — Raw material usage in the Paleolithic the effects of local availability on selection and economy. *University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology* 19: 127-140.

MARKS A., MONIGAL K. & ZILHÃO J. 2001. — *The Lithic Assemblages of the Late Mousterian at Gruta da Oliveira, Almonda, Portugal. Les premiers hommes modernes de la Péninsule Ibérique. Actes du Colloque de la Comission VIII de l'UISPP, Vila Nova de Foz Côa, Octobre 1998.* Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa: 145-154.

MÁRQUEZ B., MOSQUERA M., PÉREZ-GONZÁLEZ A., ARSUAGA J. L., BAQUEDANO E., PANERA J., ESPINOSA J. & GÓMEZ J. 2013. — Evidence of a neanderthal-made quartz-based technology at Navalmaíllo rockshelter (Pinilla del Valle, Madrid Region, Spain). *Journal of Anthropological Research* 69 (3): 373-395. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/44669

MÁRQUEZ B., BAQUEDANO E., PÉREZ-GONZÁLEZ A. & ARSUAGA J. L. 2016. — Microwear analysis of Mousterian quartz tools from the Navalmaíllo Rock Shelter (Pinilla del Valle, Madrid, Spain). *Quaternary International* 424: 84-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.quaint.2015.08.052

MATHIAS C., BOURGUIGNON L., BRENET M., GRÉGOIRE S. & MONCEL M.-H. 2020. — Between new and inherited technical behaviours: a case study from the Early Middle Paleolithic of Southern France. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences* 12: 146 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01114-1

MATHIAS C., BERNARD-GUELLE S., BOURGUIGNON L. & VIALLET C. 2021. — *On Knapping Pebbles. Impact of Pebble Morphologies on Debitage Initialisation and Differences with Ramification Processes*. 13th International Symposium on Knappable Materials, Taronga, Spain. https://hal.science/hal-03380640v1

MELO M. N. R. 2023. — *Estudo tecno-económico da indústria lítica em quartzo do Paleolítico Médio (MIS 5) da Gruta da Figueira Brava (Setúbal, Portugal)*. M.A. dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa. http://hdl.handle.net/10451/57796

MESFIN I., BENJAMIM M.-H., LEBATARD A.-E., SAOS T., PLEURDEAU D., MATOS J. & LOTTER M. 2023. — Evidence for Earlier Stone Age ‘coastal use’: the site of Dungo IV, Benguela Province, Angola. *PLOS One* 18 (2): e0278775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278775

MIELGO C., HUGUET R., LAPLANA C., MARTÍN-PEREA D. M., MOCLÁN A., MÁRQUEZ B., ARSUAGA J. L., PÉREZ-GONZÁLEZ A. & BAQUEDANO E. 2024. — Intra-site spatial approaches based on taphonomic analyses to characterize assemblage formation at Pleistocene sites: a case study from Buena Pinta Cave (Pinilla del Valle, Madrid, Spain). *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences* 16 (5): 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-023-01913-2

MORA R. 1984. — *Estudio tecnológico de los complejos líticos al aire libre de la comarca de la Selva (Avellaners y Diable Coix) y comparación con Arbreda H43 (Serinyà)*. M.A. thesis, University of Barcelona.

MOURRE V. 1996. — Les industries en quartz au Paléolithique. *Terminologie, méthodologie et technologie. Paléo, Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique* 8: 205-223. https://doi.org/10.3406/pal.1996.1160

MOURRE V. & THIÉBAUT C. 2008. — L'industrie lithique du Moustérien final de la Grotte du Noisetier (Fréchet-Aure, Hautes-Pyrénées) dans le contexte des Pyrénées centrales françaises. *Treballs d'Arqueologia* 14: 87-104.

MOURRE V., JARRY M., DAVID C. & LELOUVIER L.-A. 2011. — Le débitage sur enclume aux Bosses (Lamagdelaine, Lot, France). *Paleo, Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique*, Numéro spécial: 49-62. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.1894

MUÑOZ DEL POZO A., GÓMEZ DE SOLER B., BUSTOS-PÉREZ G., MARÍA GEMA C., PICIN A., BLASCO R., RIVALS F., RUFA A. & ROSELL ARDÉVOL J. 2023. — Analysis and classification of Middle Paleolithic lithic raw materials from Teixoneres Cave: project overview and initial results. *Acta Imeko* 12 (3): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.21014/actaimeko.v12i3.1494

PARGETER J. & DE LA PEÑA P. 2017. — Milky quartz bipolar reduction and lithic miniaturization: experimental results and archaeological implications. *Journal of Field Archaeology* 42 (6): 551-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2017.1391649

PARGETER J., KHREISHEH N. & STOUT D. 2019. — Understanding stone tool-making skill acquisition: experimental methods and evolutionary implications. *Journal of human evolution* 133: 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.05.010

PEREIRA T. & BENEDETTI M. M. 2013. — A model for raw material management as a response to local and global environmental constraints. *Quaternary International* 318: 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.04.011

RAMOS P., AUBRY T., MONTEIRO-RODRIGUES S. & SANCHES M. 2024. — A ocupação do Vale do Côa pelo Homem de Neandertal: o sítio arqueológico da Cardina-Salto do Boi (Vila Nova de Foz Côa, Portugal) como caso de estudo. *Estudos Do Quaternário Quaternary Studies* 24: 34-42. https://doi.org/10.30893/eq.v0i24.229

RAPOSO L. & CARDOSO J. 2000. — *Mousterian Industries of the Gruta da Figueira Brava*. Memórias da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa, Classe de Ciências Tomo XXXviii: 319-337.

RODRIGUEZ-ALVAREZ X.-P., DE LOMBERA-HERMIDA A., VALCARCE R. & FERNÁNDEZ L. 2011. — The Upper Pleistocene site of Cova Eirós (Triacastela, Lugo, Spain), in DE LOMBERA-HERMIDA A. & FÁBREGAS VALCARCE R. (eds), *To the West of Spanish Cantabria: The Paleolithic Settlement of Galicia*. Archaeopress (BAR International series; 2283), Oxford: 123-133.

RODRÍGUEZ-RELLÁN C. 2016. — Variability of the rebound hardness as a proxy for detecting the levels of continuity and isotropy in archaeological quartz. *Quaternary International* 424: 191-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.085

ROLLAND N. & DIBBLE H. L. 1990. — A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. *American Antiquity* 55 (3): 480-499. https://doi.org/10.2307/281279

SAVILLE A. & BALLIN T. B. 2008. — Quartz technology in Scottish prehistory. *Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports* 26: 1-101. https://doi.org/10.9750/issn.2056-7421.2008.26.1-101

SPRY C., KURPIEL R., FOLEY E. & PENZO-KAJEWSKI P. 2021. — Revisiting the “Quartz Problem” in lithic studies: a review and new, open-access, experimental dataset. *Lithic Technology* 47 (2): 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2021.1981655

TALLAVAARA M., MANNINEN M. A., HERTELL E. & RANKAMA T. 2010. — How flakes shatter: a critical evaluation of quartz fracture analysis. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 37 (10): 2442-2448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.05.005

TEXIER P. 1981. — Désilification (sic) des silex taillés. *GéoProdig, portail d'information géographique*. http://geoprodig.cnrs.fr/items/show/159575

THIÉBAUT C., COSTAMAGNO S., COUMONT M.-P., MOURRE V., PROVENZANO N. & THÉRY-PARISOT I. 2010. — Approche expérimentale des conséquences du piétinement des grands herbivores sur les vestiges archéologiques. Mise en commun des approches en taphonomie = *Sharing taphonomic approaches: actes du workshop n° 16 - XVe congrès international de l'UISPP, UISPP, Sep 2006, Lisbonne, Portugal: 109-130*. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00585961v1

TIXIER J 1978. — *Méthode pour l'étude des outillages lithiques: notice sur les travaux scientifiques de J. Tixier*. Doctorat D'État, Université de Paris X-Nanterre, 118 p.

TIXIER J. & TURQ A. 1999. — Kombewa et alii. *Paléo, Revue d'archéologie Préhistorique* 11: 135-143.

VAQUERO M. 1999. — Intrasite spatial organization of lithic production in the Middle Palaeolithic: the evidence of the Abric Romaní (Capellades, Spain). *Antiquity* 73 (281): 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00065054

VAQUERO M. & ROMAGNOLI F. 2017. — Searching for lazy people: the significance of expedient behavior in the interpretation of paleolithic assemblages. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory* 25: 334-367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9339-x
YEŞILOVA G. C., ARROYO A., VERGÈS J. M. & OLLÉ A. 2024. — New approaches to the bipolar flaking technique: qualitative, quantitative, and kinematic perspectives. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory* 31 (3): 1333-1382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-024-09639-8

ZILHÃO J. 2012. — Neandertals from World’s end: Results of recent research, in TURBÓN D., FAÑANÁS L., RISSECH C. & ROSA A. (eds), *Biodiversidad humana y Evolución*. Universidad de Barcelona, Sociedad Española de Antropología Física, Barcelona: 68-77.

ZILHÃO J., ANGELUCCI D. E., IGREJA M. A., ARNOLD L. J., BADAL E., CALLAPEZ P., CARDOSO J. L., D'ERRICO F., DAURA J., DEMURO M., DESCHAMPS M., DUPONT C., GABRIEL S., HOFFMANN D. L., LEGOINHA P., MATIAS H., MONGE SOARES A. M., NABAIS M., PORTELA P., QUEFFELEC A., RODRIGUES F. & SOUTO P. 2020. — Last Interglacial Iberian Neandertals as fisher-hunter gatherers. *Science* 367 (6485): eaaz7943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz7943

Submitted on 12 May 2025;
accepted on 20 September 2025;
published on 10 December 2025.