125 research outputs found
Lâexploitation alimentaire et technique du gibier au dĂ©but du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur aux Abeilles (Haute-Garonne, France)
La grotte des Abeilles, fouillĂ©e entre 1945 et 1951, a livrĂ© des niveaux archĂ©ologiques documentant notamment les premiĂšres phases du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur en Europe. Ces sĂ©ries, attribuĂ©es au Protoaurignacien et Ă lâAurignacien ancien, se composent de plusieurs restes humains, dâun abondant matĂ©riel lithique et de nombreux vestiges fauniques dont certains ont Ă©tĂ© transformĂ©s en outils et en Ă©lĂ©ments de parure. LâĂ©tude prĂ©sentĂ©e ici concerne lâensemble du matĂ©riel faunique, soit les restes utilisĂ©s Ă des fins alimentaires, techniques et ornementales. Les analyses archĂ©ozoologiques des niveaux attribuĂ©s au Protoaurignacien et Ă lâAurignacien ancien illustrent Ă la fois des similitudes (saisons de capture du gibier, modes de transport des carcasses) et des diffĂ©rences (e.g. dĂ©sarticulation, techniques de rĂ©cupĂ©ration de la moelle osseuse) dans les modalitĂ©s dâexploitation alimentaire du gibier. La prise en compte de lâensemble du matĂ©riel faunique a permis de montrer que les sphĂšres alimentaire, utilitaire et symbolique sâenchevĂȘtrent de maniĂšre complexe dans les deux ensembles et que les choix effectuĂ©s se rĂ©percutent sur lâensemble de la chaĂźne dâexploitation (acquisition du gibier, modalitĂ©s de boucherie, etc.). Les donnĂ©es acquises, confrontĂ©es Ă celles disponibles pour dâautres sĂ©ries de cette mĂȘme pĂ©riode, soulignent la diversitĂ© des rĂ©ponses adoptĂ©es par les groupes humains du dĂ©but du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur pour satisfaire au mieux Ă des besoins spĂ©cifiques.The cave of Les Abeilles, which was excavated from 1945â1951, comprises archaeological layers that document the early phases of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. The Protoaurignacian and Early Aurignacian layers contain several human remains, as well as an abundant lithic material. A large number of faunal remains have been uncovered in these layers, including some that were transformed into tools and ornaments. The present study is concerned with the entire faunal material, including food debris and remains used for technical or ornamental purposes. The archaeozoological analysis of the Protoaurignacian and Early Aurignacian layers show similarities (hunting seasons, carcass transport decisions) as well as differences (e.g., dismembering, marrow processing) in carcass processing. By examining the entire faunal material, this study shows that the dietary, technical and symbolic spheres are strongly interconnected in both layers, and this in a complex way. The decisions that were made influenced the entire processing sequence (prey acquisition, butchery processes, etc.). Comparisons of these data with coeval assemblages highlight the fact that early Upper Palaeolithic groups used a wide range of responses to fulfill their particular needs
Food and technical exploitation of mammals during the early Upper Palaeolithic at Les Abeilles (Haute-Garonne, France)
La grotte des Abeilles, fouillĂ©e entre 1945 et 1951, a livrĂ© des niveaux archĂ©ologiques documentant notamment les premiĂšres phases du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur en Europe. Ces sĂ©ries, attribuĂ©es au Protoaurignacien et Ă lâAurignacien ancien, se composent de plusieurs restes humains, dâun abondant matĂ©riel lithique et de nombreux vestiges fauniques dont certains ont Ă©tĂ© transformĂ©s en outils et en Ă©lĂ©ments de parure. LâĂ©tude prĂ©sentĂ©e ici concerne lâensemble du matĂ©riel faunique, soit les restes utilisĂ©s Ă des fins alimentaires, techniques et ornementales. Les analyses archĂ©ozoologiques des niveaux attribuĂ©s au Protoaurignacien et Ă lâAurignacien ancien illustrent Ă la fois des similitudes (saisons de capture du gibier, modes de transport des carcasses) et des diffĂ©rences (e.g. dĂ©sarticulation, techniques de rĂ©cupĂ©ration de la moelle osseuse) dans les modalitĂ©s dâexploitation alimentaire du gibier. La prise en compte de lâensemble du matĂ©riel faunique a permis de montrer que les sphĂšres alimentaire, utilitaire et symbolique sâenchevĂȘtrent de maniĂšre complexe dans les deux ensembles et que les choix effectuĂ©s se rĂ©percutent sur lâensemble de la chaĂźne dâexploitation (acquisition du gibier, modalitĂ©s de boucherie, etc.). Les donnĂ©es acquises, confrontĂ©es Ă celles disponibles pour dâautres sĂ©ries de cette mĂȘme pĂ©riode, soulignent la diversitĂ© des rĂ©ponses adoptĂ©es par les groupes humains du dĂ©but du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur pour satisfaire au mieux Ă des besoins spĂ©cifiques.The cave of Les Abeilles, which was excavated from 1945â1951, comprises archaeological layers that document the early phases of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. The Protoaurignacian and Early Aurignacian layers contain several human remains, as well as an abundant lithic material. A large number of faunal remains have been uncovered in these layers, including some that were transformed into tools and ornaments. The present study is concerned with the entire faunal material, including food debris and remains used for technical or ornamental purposes. The archaeozoological analysis of the Protoaurignacian and Early Aurignacian layers show similarities (hunting seasons, carcass transport decisions) as well as differences (e.g., dismembering, marrow processing) in carcass processing. By examining the entire faunal material, this study shows that the dietary, technical and symbolic spheres are strongly interconnected in both layers, and this in a complex way. The decisions that were made influenced the entire processing sequence (prey acquisition, butchery processes, etc.). Comparisons of these data with coeval assemblages highlight the fact that early Upper Palaeolithic groups used a wide range of responses to fulfill their particular needs
Entre alimentaire et technique : l'exploitation animale aux débuts du paléolithique supérieur : stratégies de subsistance et chaßnes opératoires de traitement du gibier à Isturitz, La Quina aval, Roc-de-Combe et Les Abeilles
In Western Europe, several major events occurred during the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic transition, including the development of modern behavior. The emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic is most of the time discussed through material culture analyses but, due to a persistent lack of data, less often through zooarchaeological studies. The faunal remains studied in this work come from four sites of southwestern France frequently integrated in the debates surrounding the appearance of the Upper Palaeolithic (la Quina aval, Roc-de-Combe, les Abeilles, Isturitz). The corpus is constituted by more than 37,000 artifacts from nine assemblages attributed to the Chatelperronian, Protoaurignacian and Early Aurignacian. This work comprises descriptions of hunting strategies (discussion on mortality profiles and seasonality data, comparision with species ethology) and carcass processing techniques (by analyses of the frequencies, localization and signification of butchering and technical marks). Previous models on predation strategies are challenged by the identification of an important shift in hunting practices between the Mousterian and the Early Upper Palaeolithic. Besides, observation of cut-marks highlights differences in butchery gestures compared to more recent stages of the Upper Palaeolithic. With the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic, faunal exploitation became more complex, with a technical and symbolic utilization of faunal remains. The integrated analysis of alimentary refuses, bone tools and adornments shows that the selection of blanks had influences in acquisition choices and carcasses processing. Dietary, technic and symbolic spheres appear thus strongly interconnected. These data, coupled with the other markers of the material culture, allowed us to propose the definition of distinct territories and to discuss mobility strategies of Early Upper Palaeolithic human groups. This work thus offers a renewed vision of subsistence behavior at the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic.En Europe occidentale, le passage du PalĂ©olithique moyen au PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur voit la conjonction de plusieurs Ă©vĂšnements majeurs parmi lesquels figure le dĂ©veloppement de comportements dits « modernes ». Si la mise en place du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur est frĂ©quemment discutĂ©e sous lâangle des cultures matĂ©rielles, les modalitĂ©s dâexploitation du gibier ne sont, faute de donnĂ©es suffisantes, que rarement intĂ©grĂ©es aux discussions. Dans ce travail, les restes fauniques de quatre gisements du Sud-Ouest de la France frĂ©quemment intĂ©grĂ©s dans les discussions sur lâĂ©mergence du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur (la Quina aval, Roc-de-Combe, les Abeilles, Isturitz) ont Ă©tĂ© analysĂ©s. Le corpus Ă©tudiĂ© se compose de plus de 37 000 piĂšces, issues de neuf sĂ©ries, et documente les pĂ©riodes du ChĂątelperronien, du Protoaurignacien et de lâAurignacien ancien. Ce travail sâest intĂ©ressĂ© Ă dĂ©crire les tratĂ©gies de chasse (profils de mortalitĂ© et saisonnalitĂ© discutĂ©s en regard de lâĂ©thologie des espĂšces, modalitĂ©s de transport du gibier) et les modalitĂ©s de traitement du gibier (frĂ©quence, localisation et signification des traces de boucherie et des traces techniques). Un changement important dans les modalitĂ©s dâacquisition du gibier apparaĂźt par rapport au MoustĂ©rien, remettant en cause les modĂšles prĂ©cĂ©demment avancĂ©s sur les stratĂ©gies de chasse. Lâanalyse des stries de dĂ©coupe identifie, elle, des diffĂ©rences dans les gestes de boucherie par rapport aux phases plus rĂ©centes du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur. Avec le dĂ©but du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur, lâexploitation de la faune se complexifie : le gibier ne rĂ©pond plus seulement Ă des besoins alimentaires, mais Ă©galement techniques et symboliques. Lâanalyse intĂ©grĂ©e des dĂ©chets alimentaires et des piĂšces dâindustrie et de parure montre que la sĂ©lection des supports dâindustrie influe sur les choix dâacquisition et de traitement du gibier, attestant dâune forte imbrication des sphĂšres alimentaire, technique et symbolique. Ces donnĂ©es, confrontĂ©es aux autres marqueurs de la culture matĂ©rielle, permettent dâesquisser les contours de plusieurs territoires et de discuter des systĂšmes de mobilitĂ© des groupes humains du dĂ©but du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur. Ce travail offre ainsi une vision renouvelĂ©e des comportements de subsistance lors de lâĂ©mergence du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur
Large carnivores and small games use from the Early Aurignacian of La Quina aval (Charente, France) (V. Dujardin excavations)
Dans cet article, nous prĂ©sentons les rĂ©sultats dâune analyse archĂ©ozoologique qui a portĂ© sur les restes de grands carnivores et de petits vertĂ©brĂ©s du gisement de La Quina aval (Charente, France). Ce gisement a Ă©tĂ© fouillĂ© par le docteur Henri-Martin puis par sa fille au dĂ©but et au milieu du XXĂš siĂšcle. La derniĂšre campagne de fouille dirigĂ©e par VĂ©ronique Dujardin remonte Ă la fin du siĂšcle dernier. Le gisement a livrĂ© les tĂ©moins dâune industrie lithique et osseuse attribuable Ă lâAurignacien ancien, un grand nombre dâobjets de parure ainsi que des restes dâHomme anatomiquement moderne. Notre Ă©tude a portĂ© sur les restes trouvĂ©s lors de la derniĂšre campagne de fouille. Nos rĂ©sultats apportent plusieurs Ă©lĂ©ments inĂ©dits. Ils livrent tout dâabord une quantification de chaque taxon en nombre de restes mais aussi en nombre dâindividus documentant ainsi la rĂ©partition des espĂšces Ă cette pĂ©riode. De plus, malgrĂ© un Ă©chantillon de taille modeste, les indices dâune exploitation du Loup, du Renard, du LiĂšvre et du Harfang permettent dâĂ©largir le tableau de chasse des hommes de lâAurignacien ancien de cette rĂ©gion et de percevoir les modalitĂ©s dâexploitation de ces nouveaux gibiers.This paper presents the results of a zooarchaeological analysis conducted on the remains of large carnivores and small game from the Early Aurignacian from the site of La Quina aval. This site was excavated successively by Dr. Henri-Martin and her daughter Germaine at the early and mid-twentieth century. Recently, the site was re- excavated by VĂ©ronique Dujardin. The different excavations yielded a large archaeological sample composed of many faunal remains but also lithic and bone artefact industry, a large number of personal ornament (bones, teeth and shell) as well as several anatomically modern human remains.Our study focuses on small-game remains found during the last excavation campaign. Our results provide several unpublished results. We first offer the first quantification of each taxa in terms of number of identified remains but also in terms of minimal number of individuals.These data will contribute to define more precisely the paleoenvironment and lead to a better understanding of the paleogeography of the different species. Despite a modest sample size, the evidences of human exploitation were observed on the wolf, the fox, the hare and the snowy owl remains. Our results provide a new vision of the Manâs hunting bag during the Early Aurigacian in Charente. The butchery processes are discussed and the economical status of each game is proposed
Loups, chiens et sociétés du Paléolithique supérieur
Le processus de domestication du loup vraisemblablement initiĂ© au cours du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur, pose aujourdâhui encore de nombreuses questions en termes notamment dâanciennetĂ© du phĂ©nomĂšne et de sa diffusion au sein des diffĂ©rents groupes de chasseurs-cueilleurs se succĂ©dant au cours de cette pĂ©riode. Pour tenter dâapporter de nouveaux Ă©lĂ©ments de discussion, de nouvelles analyses pluridisciplinaires ont rĂ©cemment Ă©tĂ© entreprises sur la Grotte Maldidier, lâAbri Pataud, lâAbri du Morin, lâAbri MĂšge, Rochereil, la Grotte-Abri du Moulin Ă Troubat et le Pont dâAmbon. Ce travail, Ă visĂ©e diachronique, permet de lancer une discussion concernant le statut sauvage ou domestique des grands CanidĂ©s dans ces contextes et plus gĂ©nĂ©ralement dans les sĂ©ries du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur du Sud-Ouest de la France. Pour cette analyse, nous avons notamment croisĂ© biomĂ©trie et archĂ©ozoologie. Les donnĂ©es biomĂ©triques obtenues Ă partir des restes de CanidĂ©s participent Ă la diagnose taxinomique. Les Ă©tudes archĂ©ozoologique et taphonomique de lâensemble des vestiges fauniques associĂ©s Ă ces restes permettent quant Ă elle de documenter la prĂ©dation humaine et animale. Lâensemble de ces donnĂ©es nous permet donc de contextualiser la mise en place de cette innovation zootechnique majeure quâest la domestication ; et plus globalement, de questionner lâĂ©volution des relations Hommes-CanidĂ©s Ă travers les diffĂ©rents techno-complexes du PalĂ©olithique supĂ©rieur
Neanderthal subsistence at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France): A kill site dominated by reindeer remains, but with a horse-laden diet?
During the MIS 4 in Southwestern France, Quina Neanderthal from the north of the Aquitaine was characterized by a hunting specialization on the reindeer and the lack of diversity in their diet. They developed task-specific locations dedicated to the capture, the butchery, and the consumption of reindeer, and the whole society seems, in this region, to be dependent on this food resource. In this context, the site of Chez-Pinaud at Jonzac (France) occupies a specific place. First, interpreted as a reindeer kill and butchery site, the recent recovery of the site underlines the importance of the large ungulate (horse and bison) to the faunal spectrum (30% of the NISP). Considering the quantity of meat and grease that these species can provide to hunters, the new zooarchaeological analyses suggest that at least the horse may have played a major role in the diet of the Neanderthal population. Since Jonzac is one of the largest sites for this period, these results relativize the importance of reindeer specialization of the Quina population and the lack of diversityl in their diet
Identifying the unidentified fauna enhances insights into hominin subsistence strategies during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition
Understanding Palaeolithic hominin subsistence strategies requires the comprehensive taxonomic identification of faunal remains. The high fragmentation of Late Pleistocene faunal assemblages often prevents proper taxonomic identification based on bone morphology. It has been assumed that the morphologically unidentifiable component of the faunal assemblage would reflect the taxonomic abundances of the morphologically identified portion. In this study, we analyse three faunal datasets covering the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition (MUPT) at Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria) and Les Cottés and La Ferrassie (France) with the application of collagen type I peptide mass fingerprinting (ZooMS). Our results emphasise that the fragmented component of Palaeolithic bone assemblages can differ significantly from the morphologically identifiable component. We obtain contrasting identification rates between taxa resulting in an overrepresentation of morphologically identified reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and an underrepresentation of aurochs/bison (Bos/Bison) and horse/European ass (Equus) at Les Cottés and La Ferrassie. Together with an increase in the relative diversity of the faunal composition, these results have implications for the interpretation of subsistence strategies during a period of possible interaction between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in Europe. Furthermore, shifts in faunal community composition and in carnivore activity suggest a change in the interaction between humans and carnivores across the MUPT and indicate a possible difference in site use between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. The combined use of traditional and biomolecular methods allows (zoo)archaeologists to tackle some of the methodological limits commonly faced during the morphological assessment of Palaeolithic bone assemblages
Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences
The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & NemĂ©sio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; NemĂ©sio 2009aâb; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported
by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on
18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based
researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016
Food at the heart of hunter-gathererâs daily lives: new tools, new data, new vision of prehistoric societies
International audienc
- âŠ