Category Archives: 2011 # 3

2011 # 3

2011–REVIEW

Cover 2011

CONTENTS

Nicolas VALDEYRON, François BON, Sandrine COSTAMAGNO

Introduction

Adrian L. BURKE

The Halte de Chasse in the Prehistory of Eastern Canada:
Variability, Representativeness and Significance

Dominique LEGOUPIL

Guanaco Hunting among the Selk’nam of Tierra del Fuego:
Poor Traceability of Temporary Halt and Versatility of the Kill Site

Félicie FOUGÈRE

From the Ethnographic Modelling of Nomadic Behaviours
to Archaeological Site Functions: Determining Attribution Critera

William RENDU, Laurence BOURGUIGNON, Sandrine COSTAMAGNO, Liliane MEIGNEN,
Marie-Cécile SOULIER, Dominique ARMAND, Cédric BEAUVAL, Francine DAVID,
Christophe GRIGGO, Jacques JAUBERT, Bruno MAUREILLE, Seong-Jin PARK

Mousterian Hunting Camps:
Interdisciplinary Approach and Methodological Considerations

Camille DAUJEARD, Marie-Hélène MONCEL, Florent RIVALS, Philippe FERNANDEZ,
Daniele AURELI, Patrick AUGUSTE, Hervé BOCHERENS, Évelyne CRÉGUT-BONNOURE,
Évelyne DEBARD, Marie LIOUVILLE

What Occupation Type in the Unit F at Payre (Ardèche, France)?
A Specialised Hunting Stop or a Short-term Camp?
An Example of a Multidisciplinary Approach

Christophe GRIGGO, Éric BOËDA, Stéphanie BONILAURI,
Heba AL SAKHEL, Aline EMERY-BARBIER, Marie-Agnès COURTY

A Mousterian Dromedary Hunting Camp:
Level VI1aO at Umm el Tlel (El Kowm, Central Syria)

François BACHELLERIE, François BON, Marianne DESCHAMPS, Laura EIZENBERG,
Dominique HENRY-GAMBIER, Vincent MOURRE, Christian NORMAND, Jacques PELEGRIN,
Jérôme PRIMAULT, René SCANDIUZZI, Céline THIÉBAUT

Archaeological Signatures of Hunting Activities Applied to Comparisons of
Mousterian, Chatelperronian and Aurignacian Industries in the Pyrenees:
The Nature of Hunting Tools and Site Functions

Grégory BAYLE, Céline BÉMILLI, Nelly CONNET

Contributions of the 2004 Preventive Excavation
to Understanding the Aurignacian Occupations at Solutré (Saône-et-Loire, France)

Aurélien SIMONET

The Diversity of Hunting Camps in the Pyrenean Gravettian

Jorge MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, Rafael MORA TORCAL

In the Kingdom of Ibex:
Continuities and Discontinuities in Late Glacial Hunter-gatherer
Lifeways at Guilanyà (South-Eastern Pyrenees)

Pierre BODU, Monique OLIVE, Boris VALENTIN, Olivier BIGNON, Grégory DEBOUT

Where are the Hunting Camps?
A Discussion based on Lateglacial Sites in the Paris Basin

Marco PERESANI, Rossella DUCHES, Riccardo MIOLO, Matteo ROMANDINI, Sara ZIGGIOTTI

Small Specialized Hunting Sites and their Role
in Epigravettian Subsistence Strategies. A case Study in Northern Italy

Grégor MARCHAND, Nicolas NAUDINOT, Sylvie PHILIBERT, Sandra SICARD

Hunting for Camps at an Azilian Site in Western

Federica FONTANA

From Season to Season: a Revision of the Functional Status of Sauveterrian Sites
in the North Eastern Sector of the Italian Peninsula and Implications for the Mobility of Human Groups

Grégor MARCHAND, Michel LE GOFFIC, Nancy MARCOUX

Elusive Mesolithic Occupations in the Pont-Glas Rock Shelter: an Analysis of the Spatial Segmentation of Production Sequences in Relation to the Mobility of Prehistoric Groups in Brittany

Nicolas VALDEYRON, Thomas BRIAND, Laurent BOUBY, Auréade HENRY, Rym KHEDHAIER,
Benjamin MARQUEBIELLE, Hélène MARTIN, Anna THIBEAU, Bruno BOSC-ZANARDO

The Mesolithic Site of Les Fieux (Miers, Lot):
a Hunting Camp on the Gramat Karst Plateau?

Marcel OTTE

Freedom of Expression. A Tribute to Free Men

Nicolas VALDEYRON, François BON, Sandrine COSTAMAGNO

Conclusion

2011 # 3

2011-00–INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Nicolas VALDEYRON, François BON, Sandrine COSTAMAGNO

Icon pdf   Download

In a more or less implicit manner, prehistorians necessarily refer to a typology of the sites occupied by the hunter-gatherer groups that they study. For at least the past 40 years, the notion of “site function” has thus played a crucial role in prehistoric archaeology, particularly when the goal is to interpret the variability of archaeological assemblages (the controversy opposing François Bordes and Lewis and Sally Binford concerning the meaning of Mousterian facies is an excellent example). In this context, sites that yield evidence for activities judged to be specialized are designated as knapping workshops, art sites (and often sanctuaries) or hunting camps, depending on the artifacts or other indices recovered, as well as the types of analyses performed. Sites that appear to have been occupied for longer periods, on the other hand, and at which the range of activities is more varied, are often qualified as residential camps, seasonal occupations or, when they have yielded artifacts considered to be quantitatively or qualitatively exceptional, as aggregation sites, or even super-sites. The notions underlying these terms are highly significant: is it not through them that the entire territorial organization of the groups studied is more or less suggested? And behind the rules governing this supposed territorial organization, are there not certain aspects that are closely linked to the social organization of the group? In effect, the segmentation of activities in space reveals not only the degree of economic planning practiced by a group, but also a certain form of social functioning. Despite this significance, however, these notions and the terms by which they are designated, remain vague. Though, following the initiative of André Leroi-Gourhan, prehistoric occupation features benefit from a vocabulary constructed with the aid of precise criteria – whose pertinence can therefore be discussed based on solid foundations – the bases of the typology of sites alluded to by these terms are much more tenuous, at least in the context of European prehistoric archaeology. When they do exist, the definitions proposed often vary depending on the context or the authors, thus diminishing the validity of spatial or temporal comparisons.

To cite this article

Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N., 2011 – Introduction, in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 5-7.
2011 # 3

2011-01–BURKE

The Halte de Chasse in the Prehistory
of Eastern Canada:

Variability, Representativeness and Significance

Adrian L. BURKE

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

Archaeologists working in Eastern Canada regularly excavate small sites that appear to be the product of short term occupations by hunter-gatherers. Ethnographic and ethnohistoric data on hunter-gatherer groups that occupied these northern latitudes indicate that there are many types of short term sites and that they should contain evidence of a variety of activities and related features and artefacts. This article explores the variability, representativeness and significance of these small, short term, hunting related sites by presenting a few archaeological cases from Quebec.

To cite this article

Burke A. L., 2011 – The Halte de Chasse in the Prehistory of Eastern Canada: Variability, Representativeness and Significance, in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 9-19.
2011 # 3

2011-02–LEGOUPIL

Guanaco Hunting among the Selk’nam
of Tierra del Fuego:

Poor Traceability of Temporary Halt
and Versatility of the Kill Site

Dominique LEGOUPIL

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

At the extremity of the south-American continent, Tierra del Fuego was occupied during the whole of the Holocene by hunter-gatherers whose survival was based on the exploitation of a camelid that was never domesticated: the guanaco. The way of life of these foragers is known through travellers and ethnologists who observed them towards the end of the 19th century and during the first decades of the 20th century, shortly before their extinction. Guanaco hunting was the main and practically daily activity of this population, and it is frequently mentioned in these writings. Several tactics seem to have been used. But whether the hunt was individual or collective, the main concern of the hunter was generally to return each evening to the hut; in this way halts were reduced to a strict minimum. Only the halt at the end of the hunt seems to have had a real significance, but it could take on a number of profiles – kill site, butchery site (of several types), bivouac, etc. – when it did not transform into a new residential camp. In addition, the absence of means of storage made mass killing unnecessary, and these sites are therefore more difficult to identify than those of the collector groups.

To cite this article

Legoupil D., 2011 – Guanaco Hunting among the Selk’nam of Tierra del Fuego: Poor Traceability of Temporary Halt and Versatility of the Kill Site, in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 21-40.
2011 # 3

2011-03–FOUGÈRE

From the Ethnographic Modelling of Nomadic
Behaviours to Archaeological Site Functions:

Determining Attribution Critera

Félicie FOUGÈRE

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

Based on a study of the camp types of three populations of nomadic hunter-gatherers, we have defined three categories of habitation which are differentiated on an essentially sociological basis, but which may also reflect an economic organisation that changes throughout the year. The “hunting camp” is one of the occupation types that composes the division of the residential group, and has a specific economic role (base camp provisioning). Archaeology, which essentially attributes functions to sites on the basis of the remains of economic activities, may attempt to reconstruct the sociological composition of sites. However, the necessarily incomplete aspect of archaeological data requires us to compare information from several sites close in space and time in order to determine site function and mobility type. The modelling of camp types based on comparative ethnographic data allows us to clarify the relationships between site function and mobility type; when applied to the Magdalenian sites of the Paris Basin, it helps to support the interpretations made by researchers.

To cite this article

Fougère F., 2011 – From the Ethnographic Modelling of Nomadic Behaviours to Archaeological Site Functions: Determining Attribution Critera, in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 41-60.
2011 # 3

2011-04–RENDU-ET-ALII

Mousterian Hunting Camps:

Interdisciplinary Approach and Methodological Considerations

William RENDU, Laurence BOURGUIGNON, Sandrine COSTAMAGNO,
Liliane MEIGNEN, Marie-Cécile SOULIER, Dominique ARMAND,
Cédric BEAUVAL, Francine DAVID, Christophe GRIGGO,
Jacques JAUBERT, Bruno MAUREILLE, Seong-Jin PARK

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

Recent studies concerning the exploitation of the environment by Neanderthals have revealed the existence of short-term seasonal Mousterian occupations focused on hunting activities. The exact nature of these activities has rarely been addressed through inter-disciplinary studies, however. An interpretive framework that draws upon criteria from paleontology, zooarcheology, techno-economy, archeopetrography and paleotopography helps distill the most salient aspects from each of these sites and ultimately leads to a better perception of the activities that took place at each one.

To cite this article

Rendu W., Bourguignon L., Costamagno S., Meignen L., Soulier M.-C., Armand D., Beauval C., David F., Griggo C., Jaubert J., Maureille B., Park S.-J., 2011 – Mousterian Hunting Camps: Interdisciplinary Approach and Methodological Considerations, in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 61-76.
2011 # 3

2011-05–DAUJEARD-ET-ALII

What Occupation Type in the Unit F
at Payre (Ardèche, France)?

A Specialised Hunting Stop or a Short-term Camp?
An Example of a Multidisciplinary Approach

Camille DAUJEARD, Marie-Hélène MONCEL, Florent RIVALS,
Philippe FERNANDEZ, Daniele AURELI, Patrick AUGUSTE,
Hervé BOCHERENS, Évelyne CRÉGUT-BONNOURE,
Évelyne DEBARD, Marie LIOUVILLE

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

The middle Rhône Valley in the south east of France offers an opportunity to address the question of Neandertal mobility and the status of their occupations by comparing a broad corpus of sites in a limited chronological and geographic context. The combined study of occupation levels from ten deposits has revealed three occupation types defined based on the management and use of animal resources (Daujeard, 2008). This diversity is represented by technical choices and diverse tool assemblages. In addition to faunal criteria, this work compares other parameters, such as archaeostratigraphy, lithic artefacts and dental microwear to determine site function and occupation duration. We present the example of unit F at the site of Payre, dated to MIS 8/7 and defined as a recurring short -term camp.

To cite this article

Daujeard C., Moncel M.-H., Rivals F., Fernandez P., Aureli D., Auguste P., Bocherens H., Crégut-Bonnoure É., Debard É., Liouville M., 2011 – What Occupation Type in the Unit F at Payre (Ardèche, France)? A Specialised Hunting Stop or a Short-term Camp? An Example of a Multidisciplinary Approach, in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 77-101.
2011 # 3

2011-06–GRIGGO-ET-ALII

A Mousterian Dromedary Hunting Camp:

Level VI1aO at Umm el Tlel (El Kowm, Central Syria)

Christophe GRIGGO, Éric BOËDA, Stéphanie BONILAURI,
Heba AL SAKHEL, Aline EMERY-BARBIER, Marie-Agnès COURTY

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

The site of Umm el Tlel, located in the El Kowm basin in Central Syria, contains a long stratigraphic sequence extending from the Roman period to the Acheulean. The artifacts exceptional well preserved, particularly for the Mousterian. The existence of such a sequence on the steppe margins can be explained by the permanent presence of water.

The abundant artifacts collected throughout the Mousterian sequence have permitted us to show that there was a significant variability in regional technical behaviors and to identify the functions of this site.

Through a multidisciplinary approach, we thus propose to explain why we believe that the Mousterian level VI1a0 corresponds precisely to what most archaeologists consider as a “hunting camp”.

This level, excavated over a surface of 20 m2, yielded nearly 250 archaeological artifacts. Faunal remains are by far the most abundant and all are attributed to a single species: dromedary, or Arabian camel. The lithic artifacts consist of less than twenty objects, including 15 retouched flint flakes over 2 cm long and two limestone blocks. The whole assemblage was fossilized in silts of a palustrine origin, which were deposited very shortly after the Mousterian occupation. There was no subsequent post-depositional disturbance. We thus have an exceptional recording of a short duration occupation during which a small group of Mousterians came to hunt dromedaries at the edge of a lake.

To cite this article

Griggo C., Boëda É., Bonilauri S., Al Sakhel H., Emery-Barbier A., Courty M.-A., 2011 – A Mousterian Dromedary Hunting Camp: Level VI1aO at Umm el Tlel (El Kowm, Central Syria), in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 103-129.
2011 # 3

2011-07–BACHELLERIE-ET-ALII

Archaeological Signatures of Hunting Activities
Applied to Comparisons of Mousterian, Chatelperronian
and Aurignacian Industries in the Pyrenees:

The Nature of Hunting Tools and Site Functions

François BACHELLERIE, François BON, Marianne DESCHAMPS,
Laura EIZENBERG, Dominique HENRY-GAMBIER, Vincent MOURRE,
Christian NORMAND, Jacques PELEGRIN, Jérôme PRIMAULT,
René SCANDIUZZI, Céline THIÉBAUT

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

Comparisons of lithic industries originating from a sample of sites in the Pyrenees and their Vasco-Cantabrian extension show the existence of different degrees of functional specialization, and that this specialization was more pronounced in Chatelperronian contexts than in Aurignacian ones. In the Chatelperronian, specialized sites where hunting activities took a major place (“hunting camps”) are correlated to consisted of occupations that had diverse functions, while in the Aurignacian there was only one site type: multifunctional installations where hunting was an important activity, but not the only one. To correctly interpret these results, however, we must consider the difficulty of comparing the functional attributes of industries with very different weapon systems; it is necessary to take into account the relative visibility, from one assemblage to another, of hunting weapons armed with apical lithic points (Chatelperronian model) as opposed to instruments armed with antler or wood points, only some of which had retouched or non retouched bladelets attached to them (Early Aurignacian model).

This methodological discussion of the archaeological attributes of hunting activities depending on the contexts and the industries considered becomes even more pertinent when we go back even further in time to compare these data with those the Late Mousterian in this same region.

That being, the combination of two criteria – the nature of hunting equipment and the probable specialization of some sites in relation to this activity – allows us to address questions concerning the reasons for this apparent contrast between the Chatelperronian and the cultures by which it is preceded and followed. This approach can lead to new research perspectives on the evolution of human behavior at the time of change from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic.

To cite this article

Bachellerie F., Bon F., Deschamps M., Eizenberg L., Henry-Gambier D., Mourre V., Normand C., Pelegrin J., Primault J., Scandiuzzi R., Thiébaut C., 2011 – Archaeological Signatures of Hunting Activities Applied to Comparisons of Mousterian, Chatelperronian and Aurignacian Industries in the Pyrenees: The Nature of Hunting Tools and Site Functions, in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 131-167.
2011 # 3

2011-08–BAYLE-ET-ALII

Contributions of the 2004 Preventive Excavation
to Understanding the Aurignacian Occupations
at Solutré (Saône-et-Loire, France)

Grégory BAYLE, Céline BÉMILLI, Nelly CONNET

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

The Aurignacian levels of Crôt-du-Charnier at Solutré (Saône-et-Loire) were the object of a preventive excavation in 2004. This work yielded a considerable amount of faunal remains and thus confirmed the significant role of hunting and its associated technical activities at this site, such as butchery, hide working and the collection of bone materials.

The nature of the lithic industry, composed of a small number of pieces, indicates that human groups came to the site with a toolkit that was manufactured in large part elsewhere. The abundance of bone remains and the scarcity of lithic artifacts raises the following question: does this site, whose topography favored the passage of animals and thus would have made it an attractive location for hunting, correspond to a specialized occupation complementary to a more long-term occupation elsewhere?

In other words, how can we define the Aurignacian occupations of this site? Can we qualify them as “stops” or “camps”? The complexity of these definitions of the nature and function of prehistoric sites is discussed in the case study that we present here.

To cite this article

Bayle G., Bémilli C., Connet N., 2011 – Contributions of the 2004 Preventive Excavation to Understanding the Aurignacian Occupations at Solutré (Saône-et-Loire, France), in Bon F., Costamagno S., Valdeyron N. (eds.), Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, May 13-15 2009, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail, P@lethnology, 3, 169-181.