Upper Palaeolithic population histories of Southwestern France: a comparison of the demographic signatures of 14C date distributions and archaeological site counts

Abstract

a b s t r a c tRadiocarbon date frequency distributions and archaeological site counts are two popular proxies used to investigate prehistoric demography, following the assumption that variations in these data reflect fluctuations in the relative size and distribution of past populations. However, the two approaches are rarely applied to the same data-set and their applicability is heavily conditioned by the archaeological record in question, particularly research histories, agendas, and funding availability. In this paper we use both types of data to examine the population history of the Upper Palaeolithic hunteregatherers (~40 000e12 000 cal BP) of Southwestern France, comparing the demographic signatures generated.Both proxies produce similar signatures across the Upper Palaeolithic sequence of the region, strengthening the interpretation of relative demographic changes as the cause of the pattern. In particular, a marked population decline is seen in both datasets during the Late Gravettian (~28 000 cal BP), as well as a population increase in the Late Solutrean (~25 000 cal BP) supporting the notion that the region acted as a population refugium during the Last Glacial Maximum. Where the two proxies diverge in the demographic signatures they produce, the radiocarbon date distribution shows peaks compared to troughs in site counts; the opposite pattern expected given taphonomic issues surrounding cultural carbon. Despite differences in chronological resolution and sampling bias, our data suggest that the two proxies can be considered broadly equivalent; a finding which warrants the investigation of prehistoric demography in regions where either extensive survey data or radiometric dating programmes are unavailable. While some preliminary observations are made, the impact of changing mobility on diachronic patterns seen in both proxies remains, however, difficult to assess.

The demography of the Upper Palaeolithic hunter–gatherers of Southwestern France: A multi-proxy approach using archaeological data

“…The results presented here also support the hypothesis of the Final Magdalenian as a period of high population density in the region although this is actually a decrease from the preceding Upper Magdalenian, rather than the increase proposed by de Sonneville- Bordes (1960: 93) and Mellars (1973: 271). A similar pattern of demographic fluctuations across the Upper Palaeolithic sequence of Southwestern France was demonstrated by French and Collins (2015) using summed probability distributions of radiocarbon dates.…”

“…The use of radiocarbon date summed probability distributions ('dates as data' (Rick, 1987)) is also a popular palaeodemographic approach (e.g. Anderson et al, 2011;Armit et al, 2013;Bocquet-Appel et al, 2005Hinz et al, 2012;Kelly et al, 2013;Martínez et al, 2013;Meeks and Anderson, 2012;Munoz et al, 2010;Shennan, 2009Shennan, , 2013Shennan and Edinborough, 2007;Tallavaara and Seppä, 2011;Tallavaara et al, 2010;Wicks and Mithen, 2014;Williams, 2012Williams, , 2013Williams et al, 2010) which has already been applied to the dataset under discussion here (French and Collins, 2015).…”

“…Ashton and Hosfield, 2010;Ashton and Lewis, 2002;Demars, 2000a, 2000b;Conard et al, 2012;Demars, 1996Demars, , 1998French and Collins, 2015;Gamble et al, 2004Gamble et al, , 2005Grayson and Delpech, 2003;Grove, 2010;Hosfield, 1999Hosfield, , 2005Meignen et al, 2006;Mellars and French, 2011(cf. Dogandžić and McPherron, 2013; Morin, 2008;Petraglia et al, 2009;Schmidt et al, 2012;Stiner, 2001Stiner, , 2009Stiner and Munro, 2002;Stiner et al, 1999Stiner et al, , 2000Stiner et al, , 2008Straus, 2011;Straus et al, 2000;see French, 2015 for a review), focusing on the case-study of the hunter-gatherers of the Upper Palaeolithic (39,500-11,500 cal BP) of Southwestern France.…”

Dogs And Mankind: Coevolution on the Move – An Update

“…Meanwhile the geneticists' estimates have been confirmed, and recent numerical estimates of census populations are on the same order of magnitude: "… the largest population can be identified in Franco-Cantabria, comprising between 750 and 3600 people…" and "The estimated absolute number of people in the East" (of Central Europe) "ranges between 60 and 100 people" (Maier et al, 2016, p. 59). Thus, the well documented fluctuations in population levels across the Upper Palaeolithic in Southwestern France reflect migration events when this area became a refuge during cold stages (French & Collins, 2015). These recent discoveries match well with the summary statement of Paul Bahn, forty years ago: (Bahn, 1977, p. 255).…”

“…As for the density estimates, however, a few more words of caution must be inserted here: the remarkable feat (Mazet et al, 2016) of the Li and Durbin landmark study in 2011 (Li & Durbin, 2011), rests on several assumptions that may be questionable, especially in the case of Pleistocene populations of humans at extremely low densities: panmixia, or the spread in a two-dimensional diffusion process, and a comparison of data sets obtained with different methods under varying assumptions from very different populations, even from different species (e.g., Lorenzen et al, 2011). However, the extremely small human population size estimates for Pleistocene Eurasia, as calculated by the "genetic" Ne, and here used as substitute for Nc -the census population size -are well supported by recent estimates based on the archeological evidence from Pleistocene camp sites in Europe (French, 2015;French & Collins, 2015;Maier et al, 2016). The human population, in sharp contrast, numbering all over Eurasia only a few thousand individuals, narrowly had escaped extinction during the Pleistocene bottleneck, remained on a level of ecological insignificance for thousands of years, and started its rise only after the LGM to become the ultimate keystone species and "natural catastrophe" (Schaller, 1991).…”