Abstract

The study of ungulate assemblages is essential to understand hominins and carnivore behavior and interactions. For this reason, many studies involve the taphonomic analysis of faunal remains, focusing on the identification of the various biotic actors. This study looks at the horse assemblages from Mousterian and Aurignacian Units I, II and III from Bize-Tournal cave with the aim to characterizing the nature of this accumulation. Here we show that the horse remains in these units are mainly the consequence of carnivoran activity. Unit II also clearly evidences the fact that the assemblage is the result of hyena activity. Our analysis indicates a predominance of cranial remains and lower long limb bones (metapodials). The mortality profiles of the three units are different, although two are classic of a cursorial predator. Taphonomical and statistical analysis indicated that carnivores were the main modifying agent at the three units. Our results demonstrate that hominins played a minor role in horse accumulation. Additionally, it seems that there was little difference in the exploitation in this specie by Mousterian and Aurignacian groups, and this probably took place during short, sporadic hominin occupations.

Highlights

  • In the Palaearctic area, caves were the focus for occupation by hominins and carnivores

  • This study looks at the horse assemblages from Mousterian and Aurignacian Units I, II and III from Bize-Tournal cave with the aim to characterizing the nature of this accumulation

  • Anatomical profiles and bone preservation Unit II contained the largest number of horse remains according the number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum number of elements (MNE), followed by Unit III, and Unit I (Table 3)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the Palaearctic area, caves were the focus for occupation by hominins and carnivores These taxa shared several characteristics that included diet (importance/dependence on ungulates), social organisation, the types of food resource catchment zones, and the use of shelters (Brugal & Fosse 2004). These common features must have led them to interact fairly frequently (Binford 1981; Brain 1981; Capaldo 1997; Daujeard & Moncel 2010; Egeland et al 2004; Patou-Mathis 2012; Selvaggio 1998). With the aim a large number of ethological and actualistic studies have been developed (Andrés et al 2012; Arriaza et al 2016; Binford 1981; Brugal & Fosse 2004; Cruz-Uribe 1991; Domínguez-Rodrigo & Piqueras 2003; DomínguezRodrigo et al 2012; Fourvel et al 2012; Gidna et al 2015; Kruuk 1972; Pokines & Peterhans 2007; Selvaggio 1994)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call