Neandertal subsistence strategies during the Quina Mousterian at Roc de Marsal (France)

Abstract

Recent excavations at the cave site of Roc de Marsal (in the Dordogne region of SW France) have yielded several Mousterian assemblages rich in well-preserved faunal remains. The Layer 4 faunal assemblage, associated with a rich Quina Mousterian occupation, provides an opportunity to investigate Neandertal prey selection, transport decisions and reindeer carcass processing strategies. One of the most striking characteristics of the Roc de Marsal Layer 4 faunal assemblage is an apparent lack of spongy parts that cannot be explained by taphonomic processes or carnivore activities. Limb elements were selectively transported to the site, where they underwent considerable further processing, resulting in a notably high degree of fragmentation of almost all elements. Comparison of reindeer carcass processing strategies employed by Neandertals during the Quina Mousterian with those identified for the later periods of the Upper Palaeolithic gives rise to some unexpected interpretations of Neandertal consumption behaviours. We show that this kind of intensive fragmentation is associated with bone grease rendering in ethnographic and Upper Palaeolithic contexts, in most such cases with the aid of fire. However, evidence of fire is remarkably scarce in Roc de Marsal Layer 4. Layer 4 could reflect a systematic Neandertal practice of sucking and chewing on the spongy portions of bones in order to extract as much of the highly nutritious bone grease as possible. Additionally, Roc de Marsal Layer 4 shows examples of use of animal resources for nonalimentary purposes by Neandertals. The abundance of cutmarks on the anterior surfaces of reindeer metapodials seems to indicate the acquisition of tendons, and bones were frequently used as retouchers.

How Did Hominins Adapt to Ice Age Europe without Fire?

“…For both Pech de l'Azé IV and Roc de Marsal, while understanding the duration and intensity of individual occupation events is difficult at best, it is clear that these were both consistently used as occupation sites. The significant concentrations of stone tools (made and used in all components of both sites) and heavily butchered faunal remains throughout the entire sequences (Castel et al 2016;Hodgkins et al 2016;Niven 2013) are evidence of this. It would be very difficult to argue that at times, the sites served more ephemeral purposes (e.g., that they were kill sites or secondary butchery sites) where the use of fire may have been less likely.…”

“…Although faunal data are incomplete for Roc de Marsal, it is clear that while the prey species varies throughout both site sequences, the kinds of anatomical elements represented are virtually indistinguishable in layers with fire versus those without (see fig. 5; Castel et al 2016;Hodgkins et al 2016;Dibble et al 2017, pt. 3).…”

“…A5) indicate temperate conditions with an abundance of forest species, suggesting a late MIS 5a date (Marquet in Sandgathe et al 2008). The overlying layers, Layers 4 through 2, show increasingly colder and drier conditions that would correspond to MIS 3 (see Castel et al 2016;Guérin et al 2012Guérin et al , 2016Sandgathe et al 2008).…”

When Lithics Hit Bones: Evaluating the Potential of a Multifaceted Experimental Protocol to Illuminate Middle Palaeolithic Weapon Technology

“…The use of projectile technology permits the targeting of a wider variety of large-to medium-sized terrestrial game while, importantly, mitigating risk by allowing the killing of prey at a distance. Despite ample evidence that Neanderthals were skilled and proficient hunters in a range of environments and across a broad time range (Gaudzinski 1995(Gaudzinski , 1999Steele 2004;Niven et al 2012;Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al 2014aSmith 2015;Castel et al 2017;Jaouen et al 2019), there is an absence of either clearly identifiable projectile points or impact damage from Middle Palaeolithic contexts, compared to other time periods (Table 1) (Noe-Nygaard 1973;Austin et al 1999;Smith 2010Smith , 2013Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al 2018). Invariably, this has led to the hypothesis that the absence of both recognisable projectile technology and hunting lesions before the late Upper Palaeolithic is simply that these implements were not a regular part of hunting technology (Gaudzinski-Windheuser 2016).…”

Were Western European Neandertals Able to Make Fire?

“…Based on a number of recent numeric dates obtained through a variety of techniques (Guérin et al 2012; Jankowski 2018), we are able to demonstrate the overlap in the sequences of Roc de Marsal and Pech IV and tentatively assign them to various OIS stages. However, we used other data, such as macrofauna (Hodgkins 2018;Hodgkins et al 2016;Niven 2013Niven , 2018Castel et al 2016), microfauna (Marquay as reported in Sandgathe et al 2008), phytoliths (Cabanes as reported in Sandgathe et al 2008), and sedimentology (Sandgathe et al 2008;Goldberg et al 2018) to reach conclusions about the climate at the time a layer was being deposited Reille and De Beaulieu, 1990) and the occupations took place. Not only at Roc de Marsal and Pech IV, but also at other sites, for example, La Ferrassie, La Quina, Chez Pinaud Jonzac, and Abri Peyrony, there is particularly good faunal preservation resulting in significant assemblages for paleontological analysis and paleoclimatic reconstruction, corroborated by chronometric dates and geological evidence.…”