Tag Archives: halte de chasse

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

2011-04–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

2011-06–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

2011-09–SIMONET

The Diversity of Hunting Camps
in the Pyrenean Gravettian

Aurélien SIMONET

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

In the Pyrenean Gravettian, several types of sites that vary in terms of their technical elements and/or the density of their assemblages can be interpreted as hunting camps. How can this archaeological diversity contribute to social and economic interpretations of the human groups that occupied these sites? It appears that in the context of a centralized organization of the Pyrenean territory, in which Brassempouy and Isturitz played key economic, social and spiritual roles, the concept of a hunting camp applies to several types of sites specialized in hunting related activities, and at which other activities sometimes also took place. “Simple hunting camps”, which best correspond to the accepted definition, would thus have coexisted with “complex hunting camps”, at which flint knapping activities were performed along with hunting and butchery activities. Finally, there are other potential hunting camps whose assemblages include artistic representations. The identification of hunting camps therefore contributes to our understanding of the occupation strategies of a territory. Their diversity, high degree of specialization and the significant difference that exists between the low density of their assemblages and the high density of those of certain large occupation sites, represents a socio-economic coherence that seems to traverse the European continent. In effect, this tendency of hunting camps toward diversification and ultra-specialization accompanies the appearance the first large habitatsanctuaries with numerous female statuettes, associated with Modern Humans, such as Brassempouy, Laussel, Les Balzi Rossi and Willendorf in Western Europe. Hunting camps thus constitute an important element in reflections on the nature of cultural identity since they corroborate the idea of a phenomenon of double-polarization of human communities between 28000 and 22000 BP, which characterizes the Gravettian: relative to the Aurignacian tradition, Gravettian occupations appear to be more oriented toward the plains and large alluvial basins. In addition, within these more densely occupied zones, certain sites themselves are more densely occupied, and it is these that are generally associated the large assemblages of female statuettes: Brassempouy, Laussel, Les Balzi Rossi, Willendorf, Dolní Vĕstonice, Pavlov, Předmosti, Kostienki, Gagarino, Avdeevo and Zaraisk.

To cite this article

Simonet A., 2011 – The Diversity of Hunting Camps in the Pyrenean Gravettian, 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, 183-210.
2011 # 3

2011-10–MARTÍNEZ-MORA

In the Kingdom of Ibex:

Continuities and Discontinuities in Late Glacial
Hunter-gatherer Lifeways at Guilanyà (South-Eastern Pyrenees)

Jorge MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, Rafael MORA TORCAL

Icon pdf   Download

Abstract

Hunting camps play an essential role for investigating changing hunter-gatherer behavior during the Late Glacial. In the south-eastern Pyrenees, sites located in mountainous contexts, often interpreted as hunting camps, represent adaptations to demanding environments.

These sites form part of emergent strategies associated with specialized systems and are characterized by the presence of a hunting toolkit, monospecific faunal assemblages and the seasonal exploitation of mountain ecosystems. Taken together, these various aspects suggest profound transformations in subsistence practices and social organization.

Here we test the validity of such a scenario for the site of Balma Guilanyà in the western Catalonian Pyrenees. Comparisons of techno-typological trends and faunal assemblages are placed within their chrono-environmental context allowing the question of possible changes in systems developed by the Late Glacial hunter-gatherers who occupied the southern slopes of the Pyrenees to be addressed.

To cite this article

Martínez-Moreno J., Mora Torcal R., 2011 – In the Kingdom of Ibex: Continuities and Discontinuities in Late Glacial Hunter-gatherer Lifeways at Guilanyà (South-Eastern Pyrenees), 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, 211-227.
2011 # 3

2011-17–OTTE

Freedom of Expression
A Tribute to Free Men

Marcel OTTE

Icon pdf   Download

Supposing that any human group was ever nourished by animal products alone, or supposing that this same group periodically split up solely for this purpose (which remains to be shown), or even supposing, in this fiction, that significant traces of such an action were preserved, the archaeologist would still need to understand them. On the contrary, fervent imaginations on a perpetual quest for such arguments have constantly run up against inverse scenarios, in which no nutritional reason can justify the power of human concepts over the natural environment. Despite persistent obstinacy, the categorization of a space by a human society is never defined by the search for prey alone, as if this form of nourishment was never just a consequence, rather than the cause, for the nets drawn by a human group over its environment.

To cite this article

Otte M., 2011 – Freedom of Expression. A Tribute to Free Men, 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, 343-346.
2011 # 3

2011-18–CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Nicolas VALDEYRON, François BON, Sandrine COSTAMAGNO

Icon pdf   Download

Was the ambition of this meeting really a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Would we be capable of defining the criteria necessary to identify a “hunting camp” based on the different elements of the prehistoric and ethno-archaeological record – for the former, extending from the Middle Paleolithic to the Mesolithic and throughout most of western Europe and secondarily the Near East, and for the latter, reaching into Africa and the two extremities of the Americas? Judging by the difficulties experienced by the participants and authors when trying to respond to this question, this would be a logical first conclusion. But in fact, one of the most important, and probably (at least we hope) most productive, aspects of this meeting was the intellectual discomfort we all felt when attempting to determine the function of sites that we should, in principle, be able to consider as the most simple and banal for hunter-gatherers…

To cite this article

Costamagno S., Bon F., Valdeyron N., 2011 – Conclusion, 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, 347-354.