The Exploitation of Reindeer During the Quina Mousterian at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal of Human Evolution 63 (2012) 624e635 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol Neandertal mobility and large-game hunting: The exploitation of reindeer during the Quina Mousterian at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France) Laura Niven a,*,1, Teresa E. Steele a,b, William Rendu c, Jean-Baptiste Mallye d,e,f, Shannon P. McPherron a, Marie Soressi a,g,h, Jacques Jaubert d, Jean-Jacques Hublin a a Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany b Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8522, USA c UMR 5608-TRACES, CNRS/Université Toulouse-Le Mirail, Maison de la Recherche, 5 allée Antonio Machado, 31058 Toulouse, Cedex 9, France d Université Bordeaux 1, PACEA, UMR 5199, F-33400 Talence, France e CNRS, PACEA, UMR 5199, F-33400 Talence, France f MCC, PACEA, UMR 5199, F-33400 Talence, France g INRAP CIF, base d’Orléans, 525, avenue de la Pomme-de-Pin, 45590 Saint-Cyr-en-Val, France h UMR 7041-ArScAn, AnTET, CNRS/Maison René-Ginouvès, 21, allée de l’Université, 92023 Nanterre, Cedex, France article info abstract Article history: Neandertals were effective hunters of large ungulates throughout their geographic and temporal ranges. Received 23 February 2012 Equipped with this knowledge, researchers in paleoanthropology continue to seek insight on the rela- Accepted 11 July 2012 tionships between hunting and subsistence strategies with other components of the Neandertals’ niche, Available online 27 August 2012 such as mobility, site use, and lithic technology. The Quina Mousterian deposits from the rockshelter site of Chez Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France; hereafter Jonzac) offer an excellent opportunity to Keywords: pursue these issues. This paper focuses on the extensive and well-preserved skeletal remains of reindeer Middle Paleolithic (Rangifer tarandus) recovered from recent excavations of the site, representing at least 18 individuals that Ungulates Rangifer tarandus were hunted by Neandertals during the fall through winter. Our zooarchaeological results indicate that Late Pleistocene all ages of reindeer were hunted but adult individuals predominate. No bias is evident in the comparable Europe frequencies of males and females. These prey were butchered on-site, with abundant evidence of meat filleting and marrow exploitation. In the excavated sample, the absence of hearths and the almost complete lack of burned bones or stones suggest that Neandertals were not using fire to assist with processing the reindeer carcasses. The zooarchaeological results presented here indicate that reindeer were hunted during a restricted window of time when they were seasonally abundant in the local area near Jonzac. Taken together with the lithic industry based on bifacial elements, the evidence is consistent with a pattern of site use by highly mobile hunter-gatherers making frequent, short-term visits. Ongoing research at Jonzac and other Quina Mousterian localities will contribute to a better understanding of Neandertal behavior during cold climate phases. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction general pattern, and researchers aim to reconstruct the spatial and temporal organization of the Neandertals’ subsistence economy. The debate over whether Neandertals acquired large game Some current research questions include: Do subsistence practices through hunting versus scavenging has been settled towards vary with lithic technology? How does subsistence interact with hunting. Throughout their range, Neandertals consistently exploi- technology to influence mobility and landscape and site use? To ted large mammals by hunting them, butchering them, and what extent did Neandertals subsist on large game to the exclusion extracting marrow and other nutritional sources from them. Now of smaller animal resources? Were some animal resources exploi- questions remain about the meaning of variation within this ted seasonally and others used throughout the year? Were multiple animals taken at once and if so, was surplus stored? Neandertals were specialists in hunting large ungulates in general, but did they sometimes intentionally specialize on a single ungulate taxon? * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Niven). Here we aim to investigate questions about Neandertal large 1 Present address: PO Box 2215, Santa Cruz, CA 95063, USA. game hunting associated with the Quina Mousterian and its 0047-2484/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.07.002 L. Niven et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 63 (2012) 624e635 625 relationship to site use and mobility. The Quina Mousterian (typi- directed by J. Jaubert and J.-J. Hublin in collaboration with S. cally considered to have been made during Oxygen Isotope Stage McPherron and M. Soressi with teams from Université Bordeaux 1/ (OIS) 4, about 71,000e59,000 years ago) provides a good context Laboratory CNRS PACEA (France) and the Department of Human for further investigation into some of these questions about Evolution in the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthro- Neandertal subsistence strategies because of its distinct tool tech- pology (Leipzig, Germany) (Jaubert et al., 2008). The goals of the nology and frequent association with reindeer-dominated, cold recent excavations included clarification of the Middle to Upper period faunas (e.g., Delagnes and Rendu, 2011; Discamps et al., Paleolithic stratigraphy, conducting a geoarchaeological study, 2011). Quina lithic assemblages are characterized by a high refining the chronology through radiocarbon and luminescence (TL percentage of scrapers, including typical Quina scrapers made on and OSL) dating, obtaining bone samples for stable isotope analyses large, thick blanks and with invasive, stepped retouch. Cores are (Richards et al., 2008; Britton et al., 2011), and obtaining a better extremely scarce but flakes are abundant, both from tool manu- understanding of the lithic industries, including functional analyses facture and maintenance. The tools reflect versatility and long use- (Claud, 2008). life, such as highly curated scrapers that were transportable and Airvaux recognized 24 layers defined primarily on the basis of could be transformed for specific needs (e.g., Meignen, 1988; archaeological criteria. One feature of the sequence is the presence Hiscock et al., 2009). Quina blank production techniques have of sterile sediments separating archaeological find horizons. In been described by Turq (1989) and clarified by Bourguignon (1996). general, Airvaux used even numbers to denominate layers with These studies suggest a ‘Quina method’ quasi-specific of this archaeological finds and odd numbers to denominate the inter- Mousterian lithic technocomplex. At Jonzac, an additional compo- vening sterile layers. The new excavations followed Airvaux’s nent of the Quina technology is represented by the use of bifacial system with only the addition of some sublevels, especially in the shaping to prepare large, thick blanks for Quina type scrapers thicker archaeological deposits at the base of the sequence. Thus, (Lenoir, 2004; Soressi, 2004). This technique is also present in the particularly in the deepest levels of the site, the numeric portions of Quina Mousterian of La Quina (Park, 2007). Although the Quina the layer names reported here correlate with those already re- toolkit varies among sites to some degree, it is generally suited for ported by Airvaux (2004) and Airvaux and Soressi (2005). However, highly mobile hunteregatherers because of its multifunctional and a designation was added to each layer indicating the section of the adaptable items (Hiscock et al., 2009). Most faunal assemblages site in which they were excavated (E ¼ east, SW ¼ southwest, and associated with the Quina Mousterian are dominated by reindeer, W ¼ west) as well as the prefix US (unité stratigraphique). Even- e.g., the nearby Charentian sites of Les Pradelles/Marillac tually, the west and southwest sections were stratigraphically (Costamagno et al., 2005, 2006) and La Quina (Armand, 1998), as connected during the course of the excavation, but the SW and W well as Pech de l’Azé IV (Laquay, 1981; Niven, in press), Roc de distinction was retained in order to provide continuity with Marsal (Turq et al., 2008; Castel, 2010), Combe Grenal, and Vaufrey previous publications. However, the east and west sections are not (Delpech, 1996). The consistency of abundant reindeer indicates connected stratigraphically and while the two sequences are that these assemblages all accumulated in cold, dry, and open overall similar, individual layer numbers are not strictly correlated. environments and perhaps contemporaneously (possibly all during The Middle Paleolithic sequence at Jonzac starts just above OIS 4). However, there are a few exceptions of Quina Mousterian bedrock at the base with a nearly 1.5 m thick bonebed deposit (W- assemblages not dominated by reindeer, particularly outside the US22 hereafter Level 22) that is extremely rich in well-preserved Charente and Périgord regions, such as Agenais, Quercy, Sous-les- faunal remains associated with a Quina Mousterian lithic industry Vignes and Le Mas-Viel (Turq et al., 1999), where large bovids (Fig. 1A). The current study focuses on the reindeer remains from and/or horse are dominant, or such as Espagnac (Brugal, 2001) this assemblage. Several lenses