The Role of Foxes in the Palaeolithic Economies of the Swabian Jura (Germany)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2020) 12:208 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01173-4 ORIGINAL PAPER The role of foxes in the Palaeolithic economies of the Swabian Jura (Germany) Chris Baumann1,2 & Gillian L. Wong 1 & Britt M. Starkovich1,3 & Susanne C. Münzel1 & Nicholas J. Conard4,5 Received: 22 June 2020 /Accepted: 27 July 2020 / Published online: 15 August 2020 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract In this study, we examine the role of foxes in Palaeolithic economies, focusing on sites of the Middle Palaeolithic, Aurignacian, Gravettian and Magdalenian of the Swabian Jura. For this purpose, we used published faunal data from 26 assemblages from the region, including new information from the Magdalenian layers of Langmahdhalde. We explore how the abundance of foxes changes over time, how they were used by humans, and how they were deposited at the sites, with a special focus on fox hunting methods. To evaluate these hunting methods, we use the prey choice model of optimal foraging theory (OFT) and simulate possible hunting scenarios, which we test based on the published faunal assemblages. Our research indicates that foxes were hunted since the early Upper Palaeolithic for their meat, fur and teeth, possibly with traps. We find that the abundance of fox remains in the archaeological record of the region increased continuously starting in the Aurignacian, which cannot be explained by taphonomic factors. The trend of foxes to adapt to human-influenced environments with commensal behavior may also have contributed to them being hunted more often. Keywords Fox hunting methods . Prey choice model . Aurignacian . Gravettian . Magdalenian . Middle Palaeolithic Introduction associated with the appearance of anatomically modern humans, is an important and very active field of research in The transition from the Middle Palaeolithic, which was dom- archaeology (Arrighi et al. 2019; Benazzi et al. 2011;Faetal. inated by Neanderthals, to the Upper Palaeolithic, which is 2016; Jones et al. 2019; Jones et al. 2018; Morales et al. 2016; Peresani et al. 2016; Pirson et al. 2012; Pleurdeau et al. 2016; Richard et al. 2019; Romandini et al. 2019). In This article is part of the topical collection on Do good things come in small packages? zooarchaeological studies, this transition is often interpreted as a change in human hunting behavior or an expansion of the Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article food spectrum (Romandini et al. 2019; Starkovich 2012; (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01173-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Starkovich 2014;Stiner2009;Stineretal.2000;Stineretal. 1999). Although recent studies suggest that Neanderthals had * Chris Baumann a broad diet in some regions (Droke et al. 2020;Wißingetal. [email protected] 2019;Wißingetal.2016; Wroth et al. 2019;Yravedraetal. 2019), many sites in Europe and the Middle East have rapid 1 Institute for Scientific Archaeology, University of Tübingen, increases in faunal diversity from their Middle to Upper Rümelinstraße 23, 72070 Tübingen, Germany Palaeolithic layers (Conard et al. 2013; Starkovich 2012; 2 Biogeology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Starkovich 2014;Stiner2009; Stiner et al. 2000), which can Hölderlinstrasse 12, 72074 Tübingen, Germany be interpreted as a result of a higher population density of 3 Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment, modern humans and a resulting over-hunting of certain food Rümelinstraße 23, 72070 Tübingen, Germany resources (Stiner et al. 1999). In this context, representation of 4 Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University primarily small prey animals, such as hares, birds, fish and of Tübingen, Burgsteige 11, 72070 Tübingen, Germany foxes, increases. While archaeological evidence strongly sup- 5 Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment, ports the use of hares, fish and birds as additional components Burgsteige 11, 72070 Tübingen, Germany of human diets (Conard et al. 2013; Stiner 2009; Stiner et al. 208 Page 2 of 17 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2020) 12:208 2000; Stiner et al. 1999), the use of foxes for both fur and meat Conard 2003). In addition to pendants made of carnivore is less strongly supported but is likely to have occurred teeth, felids and bears were illustrated in mobile art in hunting (Camarós et al. 2016; Conard et al. 2013; Yeshurun et al. poses (Hahn 1986). Although no Palaeolithic figurines have 2009). In modern hunter-gatherer cultures, such as some been interpreted as depicting foxes, the regular presence of Inuit tribes of the eastern Arctic (Eber 1989), it is common foxes in the faunal record, as well as the use of their teeth as to consume foxes regularly only in times when no other food pendants, indicates that these animals were important to is available. This makes the presence of fox remains an im- humans during these periods. However, the nature of this re- portant indicator for over-hunting of main prey and human lationship has not yet been studied in detail. population growth, following the hypothesis of Stiner et al. A particular behavior in foxes could be related to their (1999). Furthermore, in some contexts, it is also possible that occurrence in archaeological sites: commensalism. humans were not responsible for depositing fox remains at the Commensal behavior is a symbiotic behavior between two sites. Our study focuses on the human use of foxes from the species, which benefits one species and does not affect the Middle Palaeolithic to the Magdalenian in the Swabian Jura of other (Hulme-Beaman et al. 2016;Yeshurunetal.2009). southwestern Germany, a region with some of the most well- Modern foxes show two types of commensalism. In one type, researched Palaeolithic sites in Europe. they are commensal to large predators (Pulliaines 1993; Researchers have studied the archaeofaunal remains from Wandeler and Lüps 1993), such as wolves or polar bears the Swabian Jura for decades. The sites are particularly fa- and, and in the other type, they are commensal to humans mous for their rich Middle and Upper Palaeolithic layers. (Jędrzejewski and Jędrzejewska 1992;Kidawaand While the Middle Palaeolithic settlement of the region appears Kowalczyk 2011; MacDonnald 1977; Panek and Budny to have been sparse, most archaeological sites dating to the 2017; Pulliaines 1993; Savory et al. 2014; Sidorovich et al. Upper Palaeolithic seem to have been used more intensively 2006; Soe et al. 2017; Wandeler and Lüps 1993). In both (Conard et al. 2012). In the Swabian Jura, the Upper cases, the foxes benefit by obtaining food more easily without Palaeolithic is represented by the Aurignacian (42,000– positively or negatively affecting the large predators or 34,000 cal BP (Conard and Bolus 2003; Conard and Bolus humans (Hulme-Beaman et al. 2016;KaysandFeranec 2008;Hahn1982;Highametal.2012)), Gravettian (34,000– 2011;Merkleetal.2011;Murrayetal.2015;Newsome 24,000 cal BP (Conard and Bolus 2008; Housley et al. 1997; et al. 2010; Newsome et al. 2015;Warsenetal.2014). Taller and Conard 2019)), and after the Last Glacial Recent research has indicated that this phenomenon is not Maximum (LGM), the Magdalenian (16,300 to approximately restricted to modern foxes (West and Yeshurun 2019; 12,700 cal BP (Gaudzinski and Street 2003;Hahn1995; Yeshurun et al. 2009), but also likely occurred during the Housley et al. 1997;Kind2003;Talleretal.2014)). Magdalenian (Baumann et al. 2020). In general, archaeological sites in the Ach and Lone valleys This paper has three primary goals. First, we seek to deter- of the Swabian Jura are dominated by remains of cave bear mine how the abundance of foxes has changed from the and ungulates throughout the Palaeolithic (e.g. Bertacchi Middle Palaeolithic to the Magdalenian in the Swabian Jura. (2017); Camarós et al. (2016); Conard et al. (2013); Second, we explore how foxes were used during these differ- Kitagawa et al. (2012); Krönneck (2012); Lykoudi (2017); ent periods. Finally, we discuss the circumstances under Münzel (2019); Münzel and Conard (2004a); Münzel and which fox remains were likely deposited in the Palaeolithic Conard (2004b); Napierala et al. (2014); Wong et al. sites of the Swabian Jura, including possible methods of fox (2017)). However, there are also small numbers of carnivore hunting by humans. We address these goals by conducting a taxa in almost all of the sites, including red fox (Vulpes vulpes) meta-analysis of previously published studies and presenting and arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) (Bertacchi 2017; Camarós new data from recent excavations at Langmahdhalde. et al. 2016; Conard et al. 2013; Kitagawa et al. 2012; Furthermore, we interpret our results through the paradigm Krönneck 2012; Lykoudi 2017;Münzel2019; Münzel and of human behavioral ecology and the prey choice model Conard 2004a; Münzel and Conard 2004b; Napierala et al. (Charnov 1976) in order to explore possible hunting scenarios 2014;Wongetal.2017). We know that carnivores must have Palaeolithic people might have used to procure foxes. played an important role in the lives of Palaeolithic peoples, based on, among other things, the presence of perforated car- nivore teeth in the archaeological record, which were most Material and methods likely used as pendants (Camarós et al. 2016;Conard2003; Hahn 1992; Langguth and Malina 2003;Münzel2019). The Our studied material consists of 26 assemblages from twelve earliest evidence of these pendants in the Swabian Jura comes