Learning by Heart: Cultural Patterns in the Faunal Processing Sequence during the Middle Pleistocene

Abstract

Social learning, as an information acquisition process, enables intergenerational transmission and the stabilisation of cultural forms, generating and sustaining behavioural traditions within human groups. Archaeologically, such social processes might become observable by identifying repetitions in the record that result from the execution of standardised actions. From a zooarchaeological perspective, the processing and consumption of carcasses may be used to identify these types of phenomena at the sites. To investigate this idea, several faunal assemblages from Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain, MIS 9-5e) and Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Burgos, Spain, MIS 9) were analysed. The data show that some butchery activities exhibit variability as a result of multiple conditioning factors and, therefore, the identification of cultural patterns through the resulting cut-marks presents additional difficulties. However, other activities, such as marrow removal by means of intentional breakage, seem to reflect standardised actions unrelated to the physical characteristics of the bones. The statistical tests we applied show no correlation between the less dense areas of the bones and the location of impacts. Comparison of our experimental series with the archaeological samples indicates a counter-intuitive selection of the preferred locus of impact, especially marked in the case of Bolomor IV. This fact supports the view that bone breakage was executed counter-intuitively and repetitively on specific sections because it may have been part of an acquired behavioural repertoire. These reiterations differ between levels and sites, suggesting the possible existence of cultural identities or behavioural predispositions dependant on groups. On this basis, the study of patterns could significantly contribute to the identification of occupational strategies and organisation of the hominids in a territory. In this study, we use faunal data in identifying the mechanics of intergenerational information transmission within Middle Pleistocene human communities and provide new ideas for the investigation of occupational dynamics from a zooarchaeological approach.

Neanderthal diets in central and southeastern Mediterranean Iberia

“…Several studies have provided zooarchaeological and taphonomic data about the macrofauna (Blasco et al, , 2013Blasco and Fernández Peris, 2009, 2010, 2012a, micro-mammals (Guillem, 2000) and most of the lagomorphs (Lagomorpha) Fernández Peris, 2008, 2011;Sanchis, 2012). The common feature observed in all assemblages of the Middle Pleistocene levels is the great diversity of species: 12 taxa in level XI and XVIIc, 13 in level XII, and 16 in level XVIIa.…”

Another window to the subsistence of Middle Pleistocene hominins in Europe: A taphonomic study of Cuesta de la Bajada (Teruel, Spain)

“…Together with Gran Dolina TD6 and TD10 in Atapuerca (Diez et al, 1999;Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al, 2015), Bolomor Cave (Blasco et al, 2010(Blasco et al, , 2013 these sites enlarge the small number of early Middle Pleistocene sites where primary access to carcasses by hominids can be taphonomically supported.…”

“…Several analyses of Middle Paleolithic sites have supported reconstructions of Neandertals as probable hunters who were heavily dependent on meat (Gaudzinski, 1996(Gaudzinski, , 1998(Gaudzinski, , 1999Gaudzinski and Turner, 1999;Jaubert et al, 1990;Marean, 1998;Marean and Kim, 1998;Marean and Assefa, 1999;Mussi, 1999Mussi, , 2001Chase, 1999;Conard and Prindville, 2000;Roebroeks, 2001;Bar-Oz et al, 2004;Villa, , 2008. For the earlier part of this period, sites such as Taubach (Bratlund, 1999) and Wallertheim 11 (Gaudzinski, 1996) in Germany, Coudoulous I (level 4) (Jaubert, 1999) and Biache-Saint-Vaast (Auguste, 1991(Auguste, , 1995 in France and Bolomor Cave (Blasco, 2011;Blasco et al, 2010, Blasco andFern andez Peris, 2012), Atapuerca TD10 (Blasco, 2011;Blasco et al, 2013;Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al, 2015) and…”

The contributions of animal bones from archaeological sites: the past and future of zooarchaeology

“…For example, faunal remains are being used to address questions about the rise of social complexity, ritual, ideology, agency, identity, gender, inequality, and patterns of consumption (Campana, 2010;Ervynck et al, 2003;Russell, 2011). The consistency and orientation of cut-marks and patterns of bone breakage, typical components of zooarchaeological analyses, have been used to construct arguments about food sharing and cultural learning, important aspects of ancient societies (Blasco et al, 2013;Stiner et al, 2009Stiner et al, , 2011. Models from HBE have also considered that resources might be exploited for reasons other than their direct caloric return e because they may provide costly signals of status, wealth, and/or fitness (Hildebrandt and McGuire, 2002;Hildebrandt et al, 2009).…”