| Literature DB >> 31676799 |
William Rendu1,2, Sylvain Renou3, Marie-Cécile Soulier4, Solange Rigaud3, Morgan Roussel5, Marie Soressi5,6.
Abstract
The transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic is a major biological and cultural threshold in the construction of our common humanity. Technological and behavioral changes happened simultaneously to a major climatic cooling, which reached its acme with the Heinrich 4 event, forcing the human populations to develop new strategies for the exploitation of their environment. The recent fieldwork at Les Cottés (France) transitional site offers a good opportunity to document subsistence strategies for this period and to provide for the first time high-resolution insights on its evolution. We present the results of the complete zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis of the transitional sequence, associated with a large regional synthesis of the subsistence strategy evolution during the Middle to Upper Paleolithic. We conclude that, while there is no major change in the hunting strategies, the butchery activities evolved in strict correlation with the development of range weapons. In addition, the demise of carnivore seems to be a consequence of the human pressure on the environment. Our study demonstrates how the faunal component of the environment became a structuring element of the human social organization, being at the base of future cultural evolutions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31676799 PMCID: PMC6825241 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50647-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Distribution of the sites used for discussion. 1: Quincay; 2: Fontaury; 3: Les Rois; 4: La Quina Aval; 5: Trou de la Chèvre; 6: Les Battus; 7: La Ferrassie; 8: Pataud; 9: Castanet; 10: Les Battuts; 11: Grotte XVI; 12: Roc-de-Combes; 13: Le Piage; 14: Brassempouy; 15: Isturitz; 16: Les Abeilles; 17: Gatzarria. Map made by S. R. using the software QGIS 2.6.1 and Etopo1 Digital Elevation Mode.
Faunal spectrum per stratigraphic unit (US). NR = Number of Remains.
| US02 | US04UPPER | US04LOWER | US06 | US08 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NR | %NISP | NR | %NISP | NR | %NISP | NR | %NISP | NR | %NISP | |
| Lagomorph | 0% | 2 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 0% | 0% | |||
| Vulpine | 0% | 2 | 0% | 4 | 1% | 0% | 4 | 1% | ||
| Wolf | 0% | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| Hyena | 0% | 3 | 1% | 7 | 1% | 9 | 5% | 4 | 1% | |
| Coprolite | 0% | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0% | 1 | 1% | ||
| Medium Size Carnivore | 1 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1 | 1% | 0% | |||
| Small Size Carnivore | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| Large Size Carnivore | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1 | 1% | 1 | 0% | |||
| Horse | 5 | 1% | 53 | 10% | 137 | 22% | 23 | 13% | 32 | 11% |
| Hydruntinus | 0% | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0% | 1 | 0% | |||
| Mammoth | 0% | 4 | 1% | 0% | 4 | 2% | 4 | 1% | ||
| Capra | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0% | 1 | 1% | 0% | |||
| Chamois | 1 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| Bison | 7 | 1% | 20 | 4% | 43 | 7% | 38 | 22% | 105 | 37% |
| Rhinoceros | 0% | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0% | 1 | 0% | |||
| Wild Boar | 0% | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| Roe Deer | 0% | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| Reindeer | 426 | 97% | 463 | 84% | 436 | 69% | 95 | 55% | 127 | 45% |
| Red Deer | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1 | 1% | 3 | 1% | |||
| Megaceros | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1 | 0% | ||||
| Nisp |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Identification Rate |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Small Size ungulate | 5 | 2 | ||||||||
| Meidum Size ungulate | 205 | 283 | 280 | 44 | 60 | |||||
| Large Size ungulate | 48 | 95 | 231 | 89 | 230 | |||||
| Megafauna | 1 | 3 | ||||||||
| NID | 337 | 518 | 704 | 149 | 209 | |||||
| Total |
|
|
|
|
| |||||
Anthropic modifications per layer. NRanthro: bones exhibiting human modification.
| US02 | US04 | US04 | US06 | US08 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NRa | 765 | 970 | 1160 | 403 | 671 | |
| NRanthro |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cut-marks |
| 99 | 138 | 119 | 42 | 83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Scrapping |
| 16 | 39 | 15 | 6 | 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Retoucher |
| 6 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Notches |
| 44 | 60 | 88 | 17 | 28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bone flakes |
| 8 | 11 | 20 | 6 | 37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Burned bones |
| 37 | 61 | 179 | 32 | 26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expressed in NR and %NR. NRa = Number on analyzed remains. The percentages were calculated on observable remains only.
Figure 2US06 faunal spectrum (on the right part of the graph) compared to other Chatelperronien assemblages from the same region. QuinEm = Quincay, l. EM[66]; RDC8: Roc de Combe l. 8[26]; Fer13:La Ferrassie l.13[67]; Gat3: Gatzarria l. 3[66]; GXVI3: Grotte XVI[68]; QuinEj = Quincay, l. EJ[66]. See also[19].
Figure 4US04 upper and US02 faunal spectra (on the right part of the graph) compared to other Early Aurignacian assemblages from the same region. Abei1: Les Abeilles l.1[22]; Bra2DE & Brad2DF: Brassempouy l. 2DE & 2F[70]; Cast: Castanet[71]; Gat2: Gatzarria l. 2[67]; Ist4b1 + Ist4b2: Isturitz l. 4b1 and 4b2[22]; Pat11 + Pat12 + Pat13 + Pat1314 + Pat14: Pataud, l. 12, 13, 13–14 and 14[72,73]; PiaF + PiaGI = Piage l. F and Gl[70];QuiA: La Quina Aval[74]; RDC7: Roc de Combe l. 7[26]; Bat3: Les Battuts l. 3[75]; Fer12:La Ferrassie l.12[68]; Fonta2 + Fonta3: Fontaury l. 2 and 3[67]; Roi3: Les Roi l.3[76]; Trou1: Trou de la Chèvre l.1[77]; AbChB:Abri du Chasseur[78]. See also[19].
Figure 5Shannon diversity index distribution for the different techno-complexes (see SI2 for details). The stars position Les Cottés assemblages.