The Late Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Abri du Maras (Layer 1, Neronian, Southeast France): Integrating Lithic Analyses, ZooMS and Radiocarbon Dating to Reconstruct Neanderthal Hunting Behaviour

Abstract

The exact strategies and technologies underlying Neanderthal hunting events remain open for debate with lithic points being sparse across the European Middle Palaeolithic. An exception is the Neronian entity in southeast France, defined by ventrally retouched Soyons points. This study contextualises one of the largest Neronian assemblages, layer 1 at Abri du Maras. Our lithic analyses focussed on attributes described as indicative of projectile use or hafting to contextualise the morphometric and technological characteristics of the pointed implements at an assemblage level. We found that retouched points were made on a variety of blank types (including Levallois, laminar and discoidal flaking techniques) and ventral retouch is present across different artefact types (including points, scrapers and denticulates). Next, these lithic data were compared to similar typo-technological data recorded on a sample from the recently excavated and well-contextualised point-rich layer 4.1 of Abri du Maras (MIS-3). Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS) was applied to 280 faunal remains from layer 1 and indicated significant proportions of equids, bovids, cervids and reindeer. Carnivore remains and carnivore modifications are absent, while human bone surface modifications are present across a variety of species. Five bones had sufficient collagen for radiocarbon dating but returned dates younger than expected (ca. 41–31 ka cal BP). Finally, we place Abri du Maras layer 1 in its broader regional context and discuss its relation to other Neronian assemblages and more general problematics inherent to studying material from old excavations.

Multi-isotope zooarchaeological investigations at Abri du Maras: The paleoecological and paleoenvironmental context of Neanderthal subsistence strategies in the Rhône Valley during MIS 3

“…Both of these levels contain the well-preserved evidence of hominin occupation, including abundant lithic artefacts, rare cordage remains, traces of combustion and diffuse ash lenses, and anthropogenically-modified faunal remains. The lithic assemblage comprises Levallois products and other core technologies, and includes retouched flakes, blades projectile tips and points largely made of local and semi-local flint (Hardy et al, 2013;Moncel et al, 2014;Daujeard et al, 2019;Hardy et al, 2020;Ruebens et al, 2022). Despite being close in date (or even sub-contemporaneous), levels 4.1 and 4.2 have yielded very different faunal and seasonality-indicator data, along with slightly different patterns of butchery which may suggest site use by two distinct groups with contrasting traditions (Vettese et al, 2022).…”

Neanderthal subsistence, taphonomy and chronology at Salzgitter‐Lebenstedt (Germany): a multifaceted analysis of morphologically unidentifiable bone

“…This is a reflection of the fact that NTAXA is generally correlated with sample size (ZooMS: 761 bones, Zooarch: >5000 bones) (Grayson, 1979; Lyman, 2015). In smaller faunal assemblages, ZooMS studies were often able to increase taxonomic richness (Welker et al ., 2015; Berto et al ., 2021; Ruebens et al ., 2022). It can also be hypothesized that open‐air localities provide less potential for an increase in the number of identified taxa since this site type is used less by carnivores compared to caves and rock shelters (Dusseldorp, 2013; Morin et al ., 2016).…”

“…In a second step, the available find numbers were linked to data available from recent faunal analysis [including weight (g), body size class (large, medium‐large, medium, medium‐small, and small] and bone element (Staesche, 2017). A third step involved a zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis of each bone fragment based upon previous methodologies (Smith, 2015; Sinet‐Mathiot et al ., 2019, 2023; Smith et al ., 2021; Ruebens et al ., 2022). Attributes recorded include tissue type (trabecular, cortical or indeterminate), bone element (long bone, flat bone, cranial, rib, indeterminate), bone surface readability (0%, 1–50%, 51–99%, 100%), weathering stage (0–5), abrasion (0%, 1–50%, 51–99%, 100%), break morphology (fresh, dry, indeterminate), non‐anthropogenic modifications (carnivore tooth marks, breakage, digestion) and anthropogenic modifications (cut marks, chopping marks, scraping marks, marrow fractures) (Behrensmeyer, 1978; Binford, 1981; Lyman, 1994; Fisher, 1995; Fernandez‐Jalvo & Andrews, 2016).…”

“…Weathering data modified from Behrensmeyer (1978) illustrated at other Palaeolithic sites (Fewlass et al, 2019b;Talamo et al, 2021b) and is an effective tool to apply at sites where collagen preservation is variable (e.g. Ruebens et al, 2022).…”

“…ZooMS analysis also allows for the calculation of glutamine deamidation values, which are indicative of protein preservation (van Doorn et al ., 2012). This has been integrated with ZooMS studies at various Pleistocene sites (Welker et al ., 2017; Sinet‐Mathiot et al ., 2019; Brown et al ., 2021b; Ruebens et al ., 2022; Silvestrini et al ., 2022) and has the potential to provide additional insights into differing patterns of diagenesis, especially when combined with detailed recording of taphonomic attributes such as weathering, abrasion and bone surface modifications.…”