Abstract
ABSTRACTLeporids (Lagomorpha, Mammalia), especially the mountain hare (Lepus timidus) and the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), have been among the most abundant small game in western Europe since the Pleistocene. These animals are preferred prey for more than 40 predators, which increases the chances of finding their skeletal remains at archaeological or natural sites, and in particular karstic formations alternately occupied by Palaeolithic human societies and other predators. Moreover, specific eco‐ethological characteristics for both species also offer the possibility to produce a substantial quantity of their bones accumulated by natural mortality without predation, making it more difficult to identify their origin in the fossil record. Despite this fact, the taphonomic signature of accidental‐natural accumulations of leporids in karsts, such as pitfalls, has never been properly characterised. In order to address these issues, we carried out a detailed taphonomic study of leporid remains in a pitfall without any evidence of human activity, namely at Coulet des Roches (Monieux, Vaucluse, south‐eastern France). At this site, leporids are the most abundant species throughout the Last Glacial Maximum sedimentary sequence. The bone accumulation was analysed in order to determine the most relevant criteria to identify a natural accumulation that results from the accidental fall of individuals in the pitfall. The relative proportions of each species are consistent with their current ethology, and their mortality profiles are compatible with the structure of a living natural population. The completeness rate of the different skeletal portions for both species is relatively high, bones are less fragmented and, unlike what might be expected, very few anatomical connections were preserved. The observed anatomical representation, breakage, and bone surface modification patterns are discussed and compared with available data concerning accumulations with predation. Taken together, the identified criteria contribute valuable help in the recognition of accidental mortality in the fossil record, as well as to evaluate the proportion of leporid bones accumulated naturally and those accumulated by predation, human or not, in a deposit.
Highlights
In the midst of faunal remains regularly found in the Quaternary fossil record, leporids are among the dominant taxa in most palaeontological and archaeological deposits in western Europe
It is important to note that unlike the indices defined by Lloveras et al (2008a), those presented by Pelletier et al (2016) and used in this paper provide values of between 0 and 100%; values that are around 50% indicate a balance between the two compared portions and any results deviating from 50% indicate an imbalance in proportions, i.e. an over‐ or under‐ representation of a skeletal portion
The leporid assemblage recovered from Coulet des Roches is well preserved and comprises 14 015 elements (NISP), the majority of which relate to the mountain hare (L. timidus; 85% of number of identified specimens (NISP)), compared with about 10% of remains attributable to the European rabbit (O. cuniculus; Table 2)
Summary
In the midst of faunal remains regularly found in the Quaternary fossil record, leporids (rabbits and hares) are among the dominant taxa in most palaeontological and archaeological deposits in western Europe These animals have occupied a significant position in trophic relationships since they constitute the preferential prey for a large number of predators (humans, terrestrial carnivores, diurnal and nocturnal birds of prey). For western Europe, these reference collections focus on European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) bone accumulation, while very little work has been done on the bone accumulations of larger leporids such as European hares (i.e. Lepus europaeus, Lepus timidus, Lepus granatensis, Lepus corsicanus and Lepus castroviejoi) This difference can be explained by the biological and eco‐ethological characteristics of each leporid species (Pelletier, 2018). Digging by rabbits can strongly rework a site's stratigraphy, moving archaeological artefacts and skewing the spatial data, bringing into question the integrity of the archaeostratigraphy and the reliability of the studied material (Bocek, 1986; Balek, 2002; Mallye, 2007, 2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
