Sorg, M. (eds.): *Bone modification*: 149-168. Center for the Study of First Americans. Orono, Maine.

LYMAN, R.L. 1991: Taphonomic problems with archaeo-
logical analyses of animal carcass utilization and
transport. In: Purdue, J.R.; Klippel, W.E. & Styles,
B.W. (eds.): *Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-Points:
Tributes to the Career of Paul W. Parmalee*: 135-148.
Scientific Papers, Vol. 23. Illinois State Museum
Springfield, Illinois.

LYMAN, R.L. 1992: Anatomical Considerations of Utility Curves in Zooarchaeology. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 19: 7-22.

LYMAN, R.L. 1994: *Vertebrate Taphonomy*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

LYMAN, R.L. & O'BRIEN, M.J. 1987: Plow-zone zooarchaeology: Fragmentation and identifiability. *Jour nal of Field Archaeology* 14: 493-498.

MAREAN, C.W. 1991: Measuring the post-depositional destruction of bone in archaeological assemblages. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 18: 677-694.

MAREAN, C.W. 1998: A critique of the evidence for sca-
venging by neandertals and early modern humans:
new data from Kobeh Cave (Zagros Mountains, Iran)
and Die Kelders Cave 1 Layer 10 (South Africa).
*Journal of Human Evolution* 35: 111-136.

MAREAN, C.W. 2000: The Middle Stone Age at Die Kelders Cave 1, South Africa. *Journal of Human Evolution* 38(1): 3-5.

MAREAN, C.W.; ABE, Y.; FREY, C.J. & RANDALL, R.C. 2000: Zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis of the Die Kelders Cave 1 Layers 10 and 11 Middle Stone Age larger mammal fauna. *Journal of Human Evolution* 38(1): 197-233.

MAREAN, C.W.; ABE, Y.; NILSSEN, P.J. & STONE, E.C. 2001: Estimating the minimum number of skeletal elements (MNE) in zooarchaeology: a review and a new image-analysis GIS approach. *American Antiquity* 66(2): 333-348.

MAREAN, C.W. & BERTINO, L. 1994: Intrasites spatial analysis of bone: substracting the secondary carnivore consumers. *American Antiquity* 49: 748-768.

MAREAN, C.W.; BLUMENSCHINE, R.J.; SPENCER, L.M. & CAPALDO, S. 1992: Captive hyaena bone choice and destruction, the schlepp effect, and Olduvai archaeofaunas. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 19: 101-121.

MAREAN, C.W. & FREY, J. 1997: Animal bones from caves to cities: Reverse utility curves as methodological artifacts. *American Antiquity* 62: 698-711.

MAREAN, C.W. & KIM, S.Y. 1998: Mousterian large mammal remains from Kobeh Cave (Zagros Mountains, Iran): Behavioral implications for Neanderthals and Early Modern Human. *Current Anthropology* 39(Supplement): S79-S114.

MAREAN, C.W. & SPENCER, L. 1991: Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures of element abundance. *American Antiquity* 56(4): 645-658.

MEIGNEN, L.; BEYRIES, S.; SPETH, J. & BAR-YOSEF, O. 1998: Acquisition, traitement des matières animales

et fonction du site au Paléolithique moyen dans la
grotte de Kebara (Israël) une approche interdiscipli-
naire. In: Brugal, J.-P.; Meignen, L. & Patou-Mathis,
M. (eds.): *Economie préhistorique: les comporte-
ments de subsistance au Paléolithique*: 227-241.
XVIII° Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et
d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS.

MEIGNEN, L. & VANDERMEERSCH, B. 1986: Le gisement moustérien de Marillac (Charente) couches 9 et 10. Caractéristiques des outillages. Economie des matières premières. In: *Préhistoire de Poitou Charentes. Problèmes actuels*: 135-141. 111° Congrès des Sciences savantes. C.T.H.S, Paris.

MONAHAN, C.M. 1996: New zooarchaeological data from Bed II Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania: implications for hominid behavior in the Early Pleistocene. *Jour nal of Human Evolution* 31: 93-128.

OLIVER, J.S. 1989: Analogues and site context: Bone damages from Shield Trap Cave, Carbon County, Montana, U S A. In: Bonnichsen, R. & Sorg, M. (eds.): *Bone Modification*: 73-97. Center for the Study of First Americans. Orono, Maine.

PATOU MATHIS, M. 1993: Etude taphonomique et paleth-
nographique de la faune de l'abri des Canalettes. In:
Meignen, L. (ed.): *L'abri des Canalettes. Un habitat
moustérien sur les grands Causses (Nantes, Avey -
ron)*. Vol. 10. Monographie du C.R.A. CNRS, Paris.

POTTS, R.B. 1988: *Early Hominid Activites at Olduvai*.
Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

RAGOUT, A. & BALOUT, L. 1942: Enquête sur le gisement moustérien de Marillac (Charente). *Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française* 39: 105-113.

RICHARDSON, P.R.K. 1980: Carnivore damage to antelo-
pe bones and its archaeological implications. *Paleon -
tologia Africana* 23: 109-125.

SCHALLER, G.B. 1967: *The deer and the tiger: a study of wildlife in India*. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

SCHALLER, G.B. 1972: *The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator/Prey Relations*. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

SELVAGGIO, M.M. 1994: Carnivore tooth marks and stone tool butchery marks on scavenged bones: archaeological implications. *Journal of Human Evolution* 27: 215-228.

SELVAGGIO, M.M. 1998a: Concerning the three stage model of carcass processing at FLK Zinjanthropus: a reply to Capaldo. *Journal of Human Evolution* 35: 319-321.

SELVAGGIO, M.M. 1998b: Evidence for the three stage sequence of hominid and carnivore involvement with long bones at FLK Zinjanthropus, Olduvai Gorge. 25. *Journal of Human Evolution* 25: 191-202.

STINER, M.C. 1990: The use of mortality patterns in archaeological studies of hominid predatory adaptations. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology* 9: 305-351.

STINER, M.C. 1991a: Food procurement and transport by human and non-human. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 18: 455-482.
STINER, M.C. 1991b: An interspecific perspective on the emergence of the modern human predatory niche. In: Stiner, M.C. (ed.): *Human predators and prey mortality*: 149-185. Westview press, Boulder.

STINER, M.C. 1991c: Introduction: actualistic and archaeological studies of prey mortality. In: Stiner, M.C. (ed.): *Human predators and prey mortality*: 1-13. Westview Press, Boulder.

STINER, M.C. 1994: *Honor Among Thieves*. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

STINER, M.C. 1998: Mortality analysis of Pleistocene bears and its paleoanthropological relevance. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 34: 303-326.

SUTCLIFFE, A.J. 1970: Spotted Hyaena: crusher, gnawer, digester and collector of bones. *Nature* 227: 1110-1113.

TERRADAS, X. & RUEDA, J.-P. 1998: Grotte 120: un exemple des activités de subsistance au Paléolithique moyen dans les Pyrénées orientales. In: Brugal, J.-P.; Meignen, L. & Patou-Mathis, M. (eds.): *Economie préhistorique: les comportements de subsistance au Paléolithique*. 349-361. XVIII° Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS.

TEXIER, P.-J.; BRUGAL, J.-P.; LEMORINI, C. & WILSON, L. 1998: Fonction d'un site du Paléolithique moyen en marge d'un territoire: l'abri de la Combette (Bonnieux, Vaucluse). *Economie préhistorique: les comportements de subsistance au Paléolithique*. In: Brugal, J.-P.; Meignen, L. & Patou-Mathis, M. (eds.): 325-348. XVIII° Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS.

VIGNE, J.-D.; BRIDAULT, A.; HORARD-HERBIN, M.-P.; PELLÉ, E.; FIQUET, P. & MASHKOUR, M. 2000: Wild boar-age at death estimates: the relevance of new modern data for archaeological skeletal material. 1-Presentation on the corpus. Dental and epiphyseal fusion ages. *Anthropozoologica* 31: 19-27.

VILLA, P. & SORESSI, M. 2000: Stone tools in carnivore sites: the case of Bois-Roche. *Journal of Anthropological Research* 56: 187-215.

WHITE, T.D. 1992: *Prehistoric cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346*. Princeton University Press, Oxford.
# Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, France): A mousterian reindeer hunting camp?

Sandrine Costamagno<sup>a,*</sup>, Meignen Liliane<sup>b</sup>, Beauval Cédric<sup>c</sup>, Vandermeersch Bernard<sup>d</sup>, Maureille Bruno<sup>e</sup>

Received 16 January 2006; revision received 17 March 2006

Available online 5 May 2006

## Abstract

The site of Les Pradelles has an important mousterian stratigraphic sequence. In the lower levels, the very low density of artefacts as well as the carnivores scavenging of carcasses abandoned by the neanderthals point to short-term human occupations; the introduction of finished tools (made on non-local, good quality flint) later highly curated, together with an expedient strategy on strictly local flint, suggest a task-specific location, within a low mobility pattern. The large faunal sample (mainly reindeer) underlines the preponderance of hunting activities. A range of butchering activities took place on the site and the abundance of filleting marks may be an indication of the processing of meat for transport to another settlement. The hypothesis of “specialized hunting” during Middle Palaeolithic is assessed with this new data set.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mousterian; France; Techno-economy; Lithic raw material; Subsistence strategies; Site function; Specialized hunting; Mobility pattern; Neanderthal behavior

## Introduction

Neanderthals have long been considered lacking in terms of the organization of activities taking place within their territories. Neanderthals have long been considered unable to anticipate prey movements and incapable of forward planning (Binford, 1989); their way of life has been characterized as a constant and unstructured roaming (Trinkaus, 1986). Acqui-

sition strategies (lithic raw materials, animal resources) were based on “expedient” responses to opportunistic situations, thus showing only a slight degree of anticipation, if any at all. In this context, Neanderthals were regarded as mediocre hunters, only attacking small and medium-sized Herbivores. Unable to hunt large Herbivores, an activity which required the co-operation of a group of individuals, they would procure big game mainly by “opportunistic scavenging” (Binford, 1984, 1988, 1989; Stiner, 1994; *contra* Chase, 1989; Jaubert et al., 1990, for example).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> UMR 5608 du CNRS, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> UMR 6130 du CNRS, Valbonne, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Archéosphère, Talence, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Madrid, Spain</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> UMR 5199 du CNRS, Bordeaux, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: costamag@univ-tlse2.fr (S. Costamagno).</footnote>
During the past 15 years, however, a growing amount of archeozoological work has altered this image and it is now widely acknowledged that Neanderthals managed to subsist primarily by hunting (including large Herbivores), possibly complemented by scavenging. (Boëda et al., 1998; Burke, 2004; Farizy et al., 1994; Fernandez et al., 1998; Gaudzinski, 1995, 1996; Gaudzinski and Roebroeks, 2000; Grayson and Delpech, 1994; Speth and Tchernov, 1998, 2001; Stiner, 2005; Texier et al., 1998). These archeozoological studies (particularly the analysis of skeletal part profiles) also allow us to emphasise the existence of genuine subsistence strategies within sites with different functions (Boëda et al., 1998; Meignen et al., 1998; Moncel et al., 1998; Terradas and Rueda, 1998; Texier et al., 1998).

On the other hand, in spite of the fact that numerous Mousterian sites yield faunal assemblages largely dominated by a single species—as is the case at La Borde (Jaubert et al., 1990), Mauran (Farizy et al., 1994), Coudoulous I (Brugal et al., 1996), Wallertheim (Gaudzinski, 1995), and Jonzac (Airsaux, 2004)—the existence of specialized hunting tactics during the Mousterian is still widely disputed (Gaudzinski, 1996; Grayson and Delpech, 2002; Mellars, 1973, 1989, 1996, 2004; Straus, 1983). The concept of specialized hunting in Upper Palaeolithic contexts refers to the communal hunting of large numbers of animals and the processing of meat for storage (David and Enloe, 1993). The existence of this type of strategy, which requires a considerable degree of collaboration between hunters and the anticipation of prey movements, is still far from being accepted for the Neanderthals (Binford, 1982; Mellars, 1996; Morin, 2004; Straus, 1992, 1997). The site of les Pradelles, where bone assemblages are largely dominated by Reindeer, allows us to broach this topic (see Discussion, below).

Since the end of the 1980s, research on lithic tools has focused on understanding raw material procurement and tool management strategies, for example, the “approche techno-économique” developed by Geneste (1985, 1990), the concept of “technological provisioning” developed by Kuhn (1995), and the concept of “technological organization” (Shott, 1986). The results obtained from lithic analyses at Middle Palaeolithic sites are compared with models of settlement and procurement strategies found in populations of modern human foragers. This research, particularly where tool and/or raw material transport is considered, not only allows us to evaluate the scale of mobility and assess the limits of

exploited territories (e.g., Féblot-Augustins, 1993, 1997, 1999; Geneste, 1991a; Wengler, 1990) but also helps us interpret the functional variability observable between sites. The study of transport patterns of raw materials also makes it possible to contribute to the debate concerning the ability of Mousterian groups to plan and organize by anticipating future needs (Binford, 1989; Kuhn, 1992).

Kuhn (1992, 1995) introduced the concept of “technological provisioning” making it possible to evaluate the degree of anticipation in a technical system (the provisioning of individuals versus the provisioning of places). The choice of strategy (never exclusive for the same group throughout the year) depends to a large extent on patterns of mobility and length of occupation. Identifying these variables, therefore, helps to decipher the land-use patterns adopted by Mousterians, or at least to test if the patterns observed resemble modern forager models or if, on the contrary, we need to look for new models. Indirectly, it is also the ability of Neanderthals to plan ahead that is being discussed.

The results obtained from our study of the site of Les Pradelles allow us to evaluate these various aspects of Neanderthal behavior, assessing the role of this site within a system of territorial exploitation and discussing the evidence for specialized hunting during the Middle Palaeolithic period.

## Presentation of the site and material

The site of Les Pradelles is located at Marillac-le-Franc (in the Department of Charente). The first paleontological finds date from the 1930s (David, 1935). Although a Neanderthal mandible was discovered in 1939 (Ragout and Balout, 1942), it was not until 1967 that the site was subjected to a real scientific excavation. This fieldwork, carried out by Vandermeersch, went on until 1980. New excavations have been undertaken by Maureille and A. Mann since 2001 (Beauval et al., 2002).

The site is a collapsed gallery within a karst system. The archaeological deposits range up to almost 5 m in thickness, lying on sterile clay-lime deposits of fluvial, endokarstic origin (Couchoud, in Maureille, 2002). The 12 layers of deposit defined by Vandermeersch can be reduced to eight sedimentological facies according to recent geological studies. All of these facies except for the lowest yielded Mousterian industry and bone remains in more or less substantial quantities. The first geological studies carried out by Debenath (1974) dated these deposits to the
last Würm period (isotope stage 4 and/or 3). ESR dating of horse and large bovid teeth, currently under way, should provide more accuracy in determining the age of this sequence.

The material studied in this research comes from the excavations carried out by Vandermeersch. Taphonomic studies conducted on faunal remains show that the upper levels (layers 5 to 3, i.e., facies 6 and 7) correspond to carnivore dens. The taphonomic history of layers 6–8 (facies 4, 5, and 8) is, according to the latest research, difficult to reconstruct. In fact, while it is obvious that both humans and carnivores played a role in the formation of this assemblage, it is impossible to assess their order of intervention (Costamagno et al., 2005). This study, therefore, will focus on the lower levels (layers 10 and 9 = facies 2a and 2b), the only ones with bone assemblages of definite human origin.

## Lithic technological organization

The lithic industries recovered in Les Pradelles, layers 9 and 10, have already been published elsewhere (Meignen, 1988; Meignen and Vandermeersch, 1986) and at this juncture we are only concerned with information relating to raw material procurement and management, strategies of tool manufacture, maintenance, and discard.

## Methods

Throughout our lithic analysis, we use the concept of the “chaîne opératoire” (Boëda et al., 1990; Cresswell, 1982; Karlin et al., 1991; Lemonnier, 1986, 1992), a methodological framework which helps to elucidate the nature and sequencing of technological and functional activities carried out by Middle Palaeolithic groups. The concept relies on the assumption that human activities are part of a dynamic system, with different phases of resource exploitation (acquisition, production and use, maintenance, and finally discard), also called the “reduction stream” Henry (1995a), organized and carried out in different places and at different times as people moved across the landscape (Geneste, 1988, 1990, 1991b; Henry, 1989, 1995b). Identifying steps within exploitation sequences (the study of the lithic raw material techno-economy) that are represented at a particular site allows us to partially decipher the subsistence activities that were carried out there by the site’s occupants, and to identify the site’s function within the system of territorial exploitation.

Kuhn (1992, 1995) introduced the “technological provisioning” model, based on the assumption that the aim of any technological system is “to make tools available where and when they are needed.” The concept of provisioning crosscuts the more familiar terms of “curation” and “expediency” used by Binford (1977, 1979); it refers to the depth of planning in artefact production, transport and maintenance, and the strategies by which potential needs are met (Kuhn, 1992). In the archaeological record, these strategies should be recognizable through patterns of core reduction/blank production, tool resharpening, and the displacement of raw materials across the landscape (Kuhn, 1993). This approach gives an interesting additional perspective to analyses based on the “chaine opératoire,” in the sense that based on the same data, it goes further in terms of anthropological interpretation (addressing mobility patterns and social organization). Modern foragers cope with anticipated demands for tools in a variety of different ways. Kuhn (1992, 1995) recognizes two principal modes of provisioning which ensure the availability of tools in advance—provisioning individuals and provisioning sites. Provisioning of individuals with “personal gear” (Binford, 1977, 1979) is a strategy that ensures that people always have at least a limited toolkit at hand. Implements are manufactured and then transported and maintained in anticipation of varied exigencies, either in the form of specialized tools if specific needs have been anticipated, or as generalized tools (or even raw material in the form of cores) for more general needs. The alternate strategy, “provisioning places,” ensures a supply of raw materials and/or tools at the places where the activities will occur. This strategy requires some prior knowledge of both the timing and the probable location of future activities and it depends on residential stability and the duration of use of habitation sites (Kuhn, 1995). The relative importance of each strategy (provisioning of places versus individuals) should vary with the degree of residential mobility. Short-duration occupations yield relatively large numbers of tools carried by individuals. As the duration of occupation increases, the large quantities of debris resulting from the manufacture of tools on site will rapidly swamp the transported toolkit, which is always less numerous in long-term occupations (Kuhn, 1995). Since mobility patterns among modern hunter-gatherers vary over the course of the year and spatial patterns vary within territories (Bamforth, 1991), foragers often practice a mixture of technological
strategies (Henry, 1998, 1992, 1995a,b and references therein), creating an archaeological record that will be very difficult to decipher. Despite these limitations, we have tried to develop this approach on the material from the lowest levels of Les Pradelles.

## Lithic assemblages

The lithic tools collected in layers 9 and 10 (facies 2a/2b) are surprisingly small in number (layer 9: N=444; layer 10: N=550). Technologically, the assemblages are very similar (Meignen, 1988) and the adopted core technology is the same in both layers. Whatever the raw material used, the Quina débitage method is involved (Bourguignon, 1996, 1997). In terms of retouched tools, scrapers are clearly dominant (69.6% of the retouched tools in layer 9; 52.9% in layer 10) with high ratios of sidescrapers (36.6 and 55.5% of the scrapers, respectively) and transverse scrapers (respectively, 35.2 and 22.2% of the scrapers). Quina retouch (scalariform retouch) is frequently used in the manufacture of scrapers (on 52% in layer 9; 55.5% in layer 10). Tool blanks show morphological characteristics typical of end-products of the Quina method: thick, short flakes, often cortical, with wide, plain platforms, and triangular transversal section, a characteristic linked with the way the core reduction is organized (Bourguignon, 1997; Turq, 1989). The two assemblages (from layers 9 and 10) belong without any doubt to the Quina type Mousterian, therefore.

## Technological organization

In both of the layers studied here, tools are far from abundant and the density of lithic products is

thus remarkably low (layer 9: 93 lithics/m³; layer 10: 45/m³), conveying the low intensity of lithic production activities in this site. In addition, assemblages from layers 9 and 10 show the use of different raw materials for tool manufacture. Both assemblages are made up of two lithic series, flaked in flint of different quality from different sources; these two series result from differential techno-economic behaviors on the part of mousterian people at Les Pradelles.

The first series, the least abundant, quantitatively speaking (Table 1: non-local flint), is manufactured from high quality flint which comes from the Cretaceous outcrops located in the region of Angoulême more than 20 km away. This implies that the material was transported from quite a considerable distance (beyond the foraging radius), introduced into the site in the form of end-products (flakes or retouched tools). This assertion is suggested by the strong proportions of retouched pieces (48.3% in layer 9; 85.2% in layer 10), the quasi-absence of cores (only a tiny one, in layer 9) and the small proportions of debitage products especially in layer 10. Among the latter, cortical flakes are far from being abundant, and ordinary flakes, often small-sized, correspond to debris resulting from the repair and maintenance of the imported tools. These imported toolkits are mainly composed of scrapers (85.7% of the tools in layer 9; 87% in layer 10) remarkably designed by Q and 1/2 Q retouch (50% of the scrapers in layer 9; 80% in layer 10). These scrapers were largely curated on site, as attested by the fact that they have reached their exhaustion stage, especially in the case of transverse scrapers (Fig. 1: 1, 4, and 5) and by the presence of several characteristic resharpening flakes (Fig. 2). These resharpening flakes

<table><caption>Table 1
Lithic composition of local flint and non-local flint series, in layers 9 and 10 at Les Pradelles</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">Local flint</th><th colspan="4">Non-local flint</th></tr><tr><th>Layer 9</th><th>N = 374</th><th>Layer 10</th><th>N = 483</th><th>Layer 9</th><th>N = 58</th><th>Layer 10</th><th>N = 27</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>All debitage products</td><td>293</td><td>78.3%</td><td>375</td><td>77.6%</td><td>30</td><td>51.7%</td><td>4</td><td>14.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Cortical flakes</td><td>147</td><td>39.3%</td><td>207</td><td>42.8%</td><td>5</td><td>8.6%</td><td>3</td><td>11.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Retouched tools</td><td>71</td><td>20%</td><td>110</td><td>22.8%</td><td>28</td><td>48.3%</td><td>23</td><td>85.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Cores</td><td>5</td><td>1.3%</td><td>24</td><td>4.7%</td><td>1</td><td>1.7%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Retouched tools</td><td>N = 71</td><td></td><td>N = 110</td><td></td><td>N = 28</td><td></td><td>N = 23</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Scrapers</td><td>45</td><td>63.4%</td><td>52</td><td>47.3%</td><td>24</td><td>85.7%</td><td>20</td><td>87%</td></tr><tr><td>Quina + 1/2 Quina retouch</td><td>23</td><td>51.1%</td><td>24</td><td>46.1%</td><td>12</td><td>50%</td><td>16</td><td>80%</td></tr><tr><td>Simple conv.sidescrapers</td><td>15</td><td>33.3%</td><td>30</td><td>55.8%</td><td>10</td><td>41.7%</td><td>10</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td>Transversal scrapers</td><td>11</td><td>24.4%</td><td>9</td><td>17.3%</td><td>14</td><td>58.3%</td><td>7</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>Notches and denticulates</td><td>21</td><td>29.6%</td><td>38</td><td>31.8%</td><td>3</td><td>10.7%</td><td>3</td><td>13%</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_164.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Retouched tools in layers 9 and 10. 1, 4, and 5: highly curated transverse scrapers; 2 and 3: denticulates.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_165.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Resharpening products. 1, 2, 3, and 4: resharpening flakes; 5 and 6: resharpening flakes used as blank for small scrapers.</figcaption></figure>

were sometimes used as new tool blanks, resulting in the production of small scrapers (Fig. 2: 5 and 6). All of these data indicate the intensive reduction of imported materials (heavy retouch, with repair phases and the maintenance of end-products), a behavior specific to transported toolkits designed using high quality raw material. Scrapers are frequently identified, in numerous industries of the Middle Palaeolithic, as “mobile” tools, transported by groups of hunter-gatherers from one site to another (e.g., Féblot-Augustins, 1997; Geneste, 1985, 1988; Turq, 1990, 2000), Les Pradelles is another example of this type of behavior, but the intensity of resharpening/recycling these tools is particularly striking here.

The second raw material series (Table 1: local flint) shows a very different pattern of behavior. By far the most abundant (84.2% of the lithic assemblage in layer 9; 92.2% in layer 10) even if the quantities of lithic material remain rather small (see Table 1), this second group was flaked on the spot in a local flint found in the Jurassic outcrops very close to the site. The local flint is strongly diaclassed, thus presenting often poor knapping quality. The second flint ensemble comprises many debitage products (cortical and ordinary flakes) which make up roughly three quarters of the material

(Table 1) as well as a quite notable proportion of the cores, thus attesting to tool production on the spot. Retouched products make up a relatively smaller proportion of the local flint series than in the series of imported tools (layer 9: 20% of local flint comprises retouched products; in layer 10: 22.8%); many of the retouched products are sidescrapers, but these are generally not heavily resharpened and the big resharpening flakes characteristic of tool curation are not present. It seems that scrapers made from local flint were not intensively used. In addition, the retouched products also contain an abundant set (layer 9: 29.6%; layer 10: 31.8%) of relatively unsophisticated tools (“becs,” notches and denticulates), which are generally regarded as expedient tools. It has been shown elsewhere that in many Mousterian sites, these tools were not part of the transported gear but seem to be manufactured on the spot out of local raw materials when needed (Geneste, 1985, 1988; Moncel et al., 1998; Turq, 2000; Van Der Sloot, 1998).

## Site function

The toolkits observed in layers 9 and 10 basically belong to the same technical traditions; minor differences are probably being due to slightly different
duration of occupation. Clearly, the site was occupied repeatedly—even if successive occupations were almost certainly of short duration (as indicated by the low density of lithic material compared to the large quantities of bone remains as well as the techno-economic structure of the tool assemblages). The results clearly indicate a discriminating technical behavior in lithic resource management by Neanderthals, in relation to the anticipation of needs. Considering the poor quality of local raw materials, tools already made out of high quality flint were introduced as “personal gear,” maintained, then recycled—in some cases until exhaustion. A broad spectrum of additional equipment was assured by on the spot debitage, in a material of lower quality, in order to manufacture required (though sometimes less elaborate) tools that were not as intensively curated after production. The tool designs and assemblage composition suggest both a “curation strategy” (for the small assemblage imported as personal gear and largely curated) and an “expediency strategy” (for the majority of toolkits produced on the spot) operating within the technological organization of the Neanderthals. The combination of these two technological provisioning strategies (provisioning of individuals, provisioning of places) would convey a certain degree of both planning depth and flexibility. The presence of a fairly large expedient component in the toolkits (especially in layer 10) suggests a slightly prolonged occupation of the site, which therefore numerically overwhelms evidence for the provisioning of individuals (Kuhn, 1995). Altogether, the very low densities of lithic artefacts and the introduction of personal gear which is then highly curated lends support to an hypothesis of repetitive, short-term occupations for the purpose of carrying out specialized activities in the site of Les Pradelles, which can therefore be interpreted as a “task-specific location.”

## Bone assemblages

### Methods

With regard to the skeletal part profiles, all identifiable specimens (including shaft fragments) were taken into account. The minimum numbers of skeletal elements (MNE) were calculated for the dominant species: reindeer. Teeth were not included in these calculations. On the other hand the calculation of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) is based on the all of the skeletal elements (bones and

teeth). To highlight the skeletal element representation, %MAU was calculated for each skeletal portion. The skeletal elements were grouped together into large anatomical segments: cranial elements (skull, mandible), post-cranial axial skeleton (vertebrae, ribs), scapulae and pelvis, long bones of the upper limb (humerus, radio-ulna, femur, and tibia), long bones of the lower limb (metacarpal, metatarsal), and compact foot bones (carpal, tarsal, and phalanges). The skeletal part profile for reindeer was subsequently analysed using bone mineral densities calculated by Computed Tomography (Lam et al., 1999) and the utility index (SFUI) calculated by Metcalfe and Jones (1988) for reindeer carcasses. Following the recommendations of Jones and Metcalfe (1988), the marrow cavity volume of reindeer bones were used rather than the marrow index calculated by Binford (1978a,b). The correlation coefficients calculated are Spearman's correlation coefficients. With regards to taphonomic and zooarchaeological observations, all bone surfaces were observed under a low-angled light using a hand lens (enlargement: 12×). The criteria used to identify these traces are those listed by Blumenschine et al. (1996). The trace frequencies were calculated on the basis of the number of identified specimens, bones with unobservable surfaces having been excluded from the calculations (following Delpech and Villa, 1993).

### General presentation

From a taxonomic point of view, we were able to identify 1500 specimens in the two levels studied (Table 2). The perfectly preserved bones reflect the actions of both men and carnivores on bone

<table><caption>Table 2
NISP and MNI counts for large mammals at les Pradelles</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Level 9</th><th colspan="3">Level 10</th></tr><tr><th>NISP</th><th>%NISP</th><th>MNI</th><th>NISP</th><th>%NISP</th><th>MNI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panthera spelaea</td><td>1</td><td>0.1</td><td>1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Canis lupus</td><td>3</td><td>0.3</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>1.8</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Vulpes/Alopex</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>7</td><td>1.1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Crocuta spelaea</td><td>8</td><td>0.9</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>1.1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Bos/Bison</td><td>39</td><td>4.4</td><td>4</td><td>54</td><td>8.8</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Rangifer tarandus</td><td>800</td><td>89.7</td><td>33</td><td>477</td><td>78.1</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Cervus elaphus</td><td>2</td><td>0.2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0.3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Equus caballus germanicus</td><td>39</td><td>4.4</td><td>5</td><td>48</td><td>7.9</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Marmota marmota</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>2</td><td>0.3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>892</td><td>100</td><td>47</td><td>608</td><td>100</td><td>44</td></tr></tbody></table>
assemblages. Carnivore tooth mark frequency is often used to assess the timing of carnivore and hominid activities affecting archaeological bone assemblages (Blumenschine, 1988; Blumenschine and Marean, 1993; Capaldo, 1997, 1998; Marean and Bertino, 1994). The frequency of carnivore tooth marks recorded at Les Pradelles is compared with frequencies obtained on modern control samples and the results show that carcasses were accumulated in the first instance by Neanderthals and then secondarily scavenged by carnivores (Costamagno et al., 2005). The frequent occurrence of hominid modifications on reindeer, horse, and bovid bones, confirms this observation.

## Length of occupation

The presence of carnivore traces in bone accumulations of anthropic origin is often regarded as evidence of relatively brief occupations. If the occupation of a camp lasts long enough, bones with less nutritional value will not be scavenged by carnivores (Bartram et al., 1991). This is a result of the defatting process of bones fully exposed to the sun, which is completed within a few months. In caves or shelters, however, the fat content of bone can last for many years (Brain, 1981). Consequently, with the exception of open-air sites, the presence of carnivore tooth marks on archaeological bone assemblages must be regarded as an additional argument, corroborating other evidence of short-term occupation; on no account must this be considered as the sole argument. At Les Pradelles, carnivore scavenging of bones neglected by the Neanderthals confirms the observation of short-term based on analysis of the lithic industry (above).

Studying the hunting season of ungulates can also provide some clues as to how long a site was occupied. Once again, the degree of resolution of this method is too weak to allow an accurate estimate, however. Identifying a single hunting season still does not make it possible to distinguish between occupations lasting only a few days and occupations lasting a few months. In the same way, faced with a faunal assemblage that provides evidence for year round hunting, it is still impossible, with some exceptions, to discern between continuous occupation of the site and sporadic occupations occurring throughout the year (or over several years) by the same group, or different human groups (Costamagno, 1999). The data available only make it possible

to document the range of activities carried out on the site.

On the site of Les Pradelles, cementochronological studies are currently under way and the available data on seasonality are relatively restricted. On the basis of tooth wear, based on the deciduous teeth of reindeer, it is possible to distinguish animals slaughtered during their first year (deciduous teeth with high crowns with angular cusps) from individuals killed during their second year (deciduous teeth with well-worn crowns). At Les Pradelles, as at the sites of Pincevent and Verberie, Magdalenian sites of the Paris Basin (Enloe, 2003) the degree of wear of the deciduous teeth does not present a continuum: the teeth are either slightly or very strongly worn, thus indicating the seasonal acquisition of reindeer. The small number of samples from Les Pradelles does not allow a study of the dispersion of crown heights but a comparison with the data obtained from the Paris Basin indicates that the animals could have been hunted in the fall. Cementochronological studies will no doubt make it possible to test the validity of this hypothesis by studying the slaughter season, not only of adult reindeers but also of other ungulates present, in particular horse and large bovids. The results obtained so far corroborate the hypothesis of a short-term occupation put forward on the basis of the study of lithic material.

The number of carcasses present on a site is not a clear indicator of how long it was occupied. Beyond the problems of palimpsests inherent in the majority of Palaeolithic sites, hunting strategies and processing methods of the carcasses strongly influence the number of skeletons present on the site, without a direct link to the length of occupation. In the case of mass kills, sites occupied during a short period of time (kill sites or butchery sites) should yield a large quantity of carcasses. On the contrary, if the carcasses are defleshed before being transported to the residential base in order to reduce transport costs, as is the case for ethnographic observations of the Kua (Bartram, 1993), the residential site may contain a very restricted number of skeletons. At Les Pradelles, the number of carcasses identified compared to the excavated surface is considerable (Table 2). This abundance displays not how long the site was occupied, but rather what kind of activities took place there (see below).

## Activities carried out on the site

The minimum number of individuals calculated for reindeer indicates that potentially exploitable
<figure><img src="image_166.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Anatomical regions abundance (I: skull, mandible, II: vertebrae, III: ribs, IV: scapula, pelvis, V: humerus, radius/ulna, femur, and tibia, VI: metacarpal, metatarsal, and VII: carpals, tarsals, and phalanges). (A) level 10; (B) level 9.</figcaption></figure>

meat available at the site weighs around 6–7 tons in layers 9 and 10. The thickness of the deposits suggests successive occupations in each level, which logically reduces the number of carcasses relative to each occupation and thus, the quantity of food resources available. The excavated area is small (30 m²) compared to the total estimated surface area of the site (more than 120 m²). The minimum number of individuals estimated is probably larger than the number of carcasses originally present in the levels. Moreover, the density of the bone remains compared with that of the lithic remains shows that most of the activities which took place on the site were allotted to hunting and/or processing of ungulate carcasses.

In terms of either NISP or MNI, reindeer largely dominates the bone assemblages, in particular in layer 9 where it represents nearly 90% of the identified specimens (Table 2). Horses and large bovids are the second and third most important species of prey. As one might expect, calculating the evenness<fnref n="1" /> of the bone assemblages shows that the taxonomic diversity of the assemblages is low for the two documented layers (layer 9: *E* = 0.233; layer 10: *E* = 0.364), which indicates specialized bone assemblages.

If the majority of activities undertaken on the site depend on reindeer hunting, the role of hunting remains to be defined. The skeletal part profiles, the anatomical distribution of butchery marks as well as the level of consumption of the carcasses are all factors to be taken into account when evaluating the range of activities carried out at Les Pradelles relating to reindeer carcasses.

As demonstrated by Binford (1978a,b), carcass transport is often governed by energy constraints: the highest nutritional parts will be more frequently transported to residential camps than the lowest nutritional ones, the latter generally abandoned on the kill sites. At Les Pradelles, basing long bone abundance on the mid-shaft specimens, upper long bones are among the most abundant elements (Fig. 3). The appreciable amount of these bones, richer in meat and fat compared to the extremity of the legs, excludes the hypothesis of a kill site. In both levels, ribs and vertebrae are extremely rare. Fig. 4 shows a positive and statistically significant relationship between the relative abundance of skeletal part and their density (layer 9: *r*<sub>s</sub> = 0.799, *p* < 0.01 and layer 10: *r*<sub>s</sub> = 0.729, *p* < 0.01): the densest skeletal elements are the most frequent and vice versa. As carnivores choose vertebrae and ribs first when ravaging bone assemblages discarded by humans (Marean et al., 1992; Marean and Spencer, 1991), the scarcity of these skeletal elements could result from carnivore chewing. Small compact bones are typically swallowed whole by carnivores (Marean, 1991). Carnivore ravaging of bone assemblages may also explain the under-representation of foot bones. It is not possible to exclude the hypothesis of the discard of these skeletal parts on the kill site, however.

For layer 10, there is a positive relationship between the SFUI and the %MAU but it is not statistically significant (*r*<sub>s</sub> = 0.057) (Fig. 5A). The abundance of the femur, in particular, compared with its nutritional utility is clearly weaker than expected, whereas the abundance of mandibles is much more frequent than expected. Fig. 6A compares the abundance of the skeletal elements with the volume of their medullary cavity. The nutrients within the bones better explain the relative abundance of the long bones than the SFUI (*r*<sub>s</sub> = 0.750, *p* < 0.01).

<footnote n="1">¹ Evenness = -∑pᵢ ln pᵢ/ln S with S taken to be the number of taxa in the assemblage and p the proportion of specimens in the ith species.</footnote>
A

%MAU

<figure><img src="image_167.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Density (from Lam et al., 1999) versus percentage minimum animal units at les Pradelles. (A) level 10; (B) level 9.</figcaption></figure>

A

%MAU

<figure><img src="image_168.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Standardized food utility index (from Metcalfe and Jones, 1988) versus percentage minimum animal units at les Pradelles (MAN: mandible; CER: cervical; THO: thoracic; LUM: lumbar; RIB: ribs; SCP: scapula; HUM: humerus; RAU: radius/ulna; MCM: metacarpal; PEL: pelvis; FEM: femur; TIB: tibia; MTM: metatarpal; PHA: phalanges). (A) level 10; (B) level 9.</figcaption></figure>

The femur and the humerus, taking their marrow cavity volume into account, appear distinctly under-represented, however, contrary to the mandible which is over-represented. When an animal suffers from malnutrition, fat is mobilized according to a precise sequence which begins with the meat and continues with the marrow contained in the bones of the upper limbs (Speth, 1983). The foot bones and the mandible are the last skeletal elements to lose their fat reserve. The abundance of these elements could thus point to hunting carried out on animals in poor physical condition. Seasonality studies refute this hypothesis, since reindeer seem to have been slaughtered during the fall (above). Consequently, under-representation of the humerus and

femur bones seems to result from their selective transport to another camp. In layer 9, as in layer 10, the relative abundance of long bones is best explained by taking into account the quantity of marrow ($r_s = 0.877, p < 0.01$) rather than the general nutritional utility ($r_s = -0.143$) (Figs. 5B and 6B). In this level too, a clear under-representation of the upper long bones can be observed indicating selective transport to another camp.

Reindeer carcasses were disarticulated on the site of primary butchery, brought in the form of skeletal portions to Les Pradelles, and were then the subject of intense butchery activities as indicated by the presence of cut marks on more than half of the long bone fragments. Although disarticulation of the carcasses took
<figure><img src="image_169.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Marrow cavity volume (from Jones and Metcalfe, 1988) versus percentage minimum animal units at les Pradelles (MAN: mandible; SCP: scapula; HUM: humerus; RAD: radius/ulna; MCM: metacarpal; PEL: pelvis; FEM: femur; TIB: tibia; MTM: metatarpal; PHA: phalanges). (A) level 10; (B) level 9.</figcaption></figure>

place mainly at the kill site, or the primary butchery site, the presence of traces of disarticulation at Les Pradelles, in particular on the phalanges, speaks in favor of the disarticulation of certain elements on the site. It is unlikely that the metapodials and phalanges were disarticulated on the site of primary butchery and then brought simultaneously to the site.

As pointed out by Lyman (1992), cut marks are an epiphenomenon, that is, they are in some sense the accidental and forfuitous result of butchery activities. The interpretation of cut mark frequency in behavioral terms thus requires accepting the assumption that the frequency of butchery traces in an assemblage is positively correlated with the number of bones initially processed on the site. At Les Pradelles, the abundance of cut marks on shaft specimens of fleshy long bones could provide evidence for the quasi-systematic removal of meat (Fig. 7).

The frequency of cut marks taken from the metapodial suggests the recovery of products other than meat, such as tendons—demonstrated at Les Pradelles by the presence of transverse cut marks at the posterior face near the distal epiphysis. The bone assemblages are intensely fractured and, except for tooth remains and compact bones, no elements were intact. If the consumption of marrow induces considerable fragmentation of the bones, many taphonomic agents other than humans can also be responsible for this pattern. At Les Pradelles, the majority of fragmentation occurred on fresh bones as shown by the spiral fracture patterns (Villa and Mahieu, 1991). Notches present on nearly a quarter of the long bone specimens from layer 9 and on 17% of the specimens from layer 10 have morphologies typical of percussion notches (broad notches with an acute release angle compared to the percussion

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Percentage of limb shaft fragments bearing one or more cutmarks in levels 9 and 10 (HUM: humerus; RAU: radius/ulna; MCM: metacarpal; FEM: femur; TIB: tibia; MTM: metatarpal).</figcaption></figure>
surface) described by Capaldo and Blumenschine (1994) on ungulates the size of reindeer. The fragmentation of bones at Les Pradelles would seem, therefore, mainly attributable to the extraction of marrow by Neanderthals. The presence of numerous percussion traces on the first and second phalanges shows, in addition, an intensive exploitation of this resource by the human groups who occupied the site. In short, faunal data seem to denote short-term occupations reserved for processing of reindeer carcasses of which certain parts were transported to another site, with the rest consumed on the spot.

## Discussion

The idea that Neanderthal hunter-gatherers demonstrated territorial organization is more and more acknowledged. Many researchers have identified various types of sites (kill and butchery sites, lithic workshops, short-term and long-term occupations) in which a range of activities (maintenance activities, extractive activities) were organized in specific seasons, even if the choice of vocabulary referring to these site types has not, for the moment, been the subject of any consensus (Conard, 2001). The role played by these site types in territorial organization is not always easy to define, and identifying regional settlement patterns and the mobility systems adopted by these groups of hunter-gatherers is more difficult still. Ethnographic data show that mobility patterns are diversified, flexible, and can change from one season to another for the same group of hunter-gatherers. Reconstructions based on fragmentary archaeological data for Palaeolithic populations are thus even more delicate. However, as other various authors (e.g., Binford, 1989, p. 37; Conard, 2001 and articles therein; Geneste, 1985; Henry, 1998 and references therein; Hovers, 1997; Kuhn, 1995) have already pointed out, we need to move this field of research forward in order to better understand human interactions with the environment, and the relations between technology, foraging strategies, and land-use patterns. This paper is a step in that direction.

The results obtained from techno-economical lithic analysis and archeozoological study are very largely complementary, and the confrontation of both makes it possible to put forward a hypothesis about the functioning of activities undertaken at Les Pradelles. The very low densities of lithic tools compared to bone remains suggest successive and short, or relatively short-term, occupations. It is clear that even if on the spot tool production is proportionally

important, it nevertheless represents fairly small quantities of waste. This means that periods of occupation were not very prolonged (Kuhn, 1995). In addition, the absence of spatial organization on the site and especially the lack of fireplaces and of burnt bones are coherent with an hypothesis of short-term occupations. Indeed, ethnographic studies show that more complex site structures appear to be linked primarily to longer duration of residence, for example, in logistically provisioned campsites (Binford, 1983; O'Connell, 1987). Conversely, short-term occupations demonstrate a small amount of site modification (e.g., few features). The low frequency of carnivore damage observed on anthropic bone assemblages would confirm this assumption.

Concerning their technological organization, as mobile hunter-gatherers the Mousterian groups occupying Les Pradelles carried a minimal toolkit to the site as personal gear (Binford, 1977, 1979) from distances of up to 20km. This personal gear, made on high quality raw material, was heavily curated as demonstrated by the intensive resharpening of scrapers (often till exhaustion) and the presence of several resharpening flakes. Even with this evidence for intensive tool rejuvenation, the amount of debris from the repair and maintenance of the tools is quite limited. This could result from the fact that the “provisioning of individual” strategy is supplemented by an expediency strategy (local flint exploitation on the spot) probably occurring as occupation times were prolonged. As the expedient use of local raw material rapidly results in large quantities of debris, this can numerically overwhelm evidence for the provisioning of individuals. This effect is not markedly observed in Les Pradelles, however, where the non-local component is still well expressed—which means that the occupations were quite short, probably not lasting more than few days to a few weeks.

In general, a strategy relying on finished tools as personal gear (provisioning of individuals) is expected in to be deployed when occupations are expected to be relatively short-lived, for example, in the context of task-specific locations where time is less available for tool manufacture. Extractive tasks tend to involve provisioning of individuals, be they in the context of high residential mobility or of logistical moves of less mobile groups (Binford, 1978a). The archeozoological study of Les Pradelles indicates that this location seems to have been a task-specific location devoted to the processing of reindeer meat, aiming at reducing the cost of transporting the yield back to a habitation site. Butchery
<figure><img src="image_171.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Number of identified specimens versus evenness for les Pradelles and Magdalenian pyrenean sites.</figcaption></figure>

activities are intense, as the level of carcass exploitation shows. The meat filleting and bone fragmentation for marrow extraction appear to be the main butchery activities carried out on the site. Les Pradelles should therefore be considered as a seasonal camp devoted to reindeer meat processing, sporadically occupied during the Fall by hunter-gatherers operating within a low residential mobility pattern.

The predominance of reindeer at Les Pradelles raises the issue of specialized hunting in the Middle Palaeolithic. To address this, we need to clarify the meaning of “specialized hunting.” As emphasized by Chase (1987), definitions of specialized hunting differ according to authors. For Mellars (1973) and White (1982), specialized hunting can be invoked when the frequency of a given species is high compared to other exploited taxa. For other authors (e.g., Binford, 1968; David and Enloe, 1993), specialized hunting implies the practise of communal hunting, bringing about the death of a large number of individuals and the mass processing of carcasses for storage.

From a strictly quantitative point of view, Mellars (1989) states that there is a trend towards increasing specialization on reindeer from the Aurignacian period onwards. A re-examination of data available for southwestern France (Grayson and Delpech, 2002) recently challenged this assertion, since Aurignacian faunal assemblages recovered in this geographical area are no more specialized than some of the assemblages from the Mousterian period. A regional synthesis of Magdalenian sites in

Southern France shows that even during this period specialized hunting (all species included) is far from being predominant; indeed, less than 30% of bone assemblages are more than 80% dominated by a particular species (Costamagno, 2003, 2004). This is a long way from Mellars' (2004) figure, which indicates that about half of the Upper Palaeolithic sites in southwestern France are more than 90% dominated by reindeer.<fnref n="2" /> This over-estimation<fnref n="3" /> (Boyle, 1990) of the importance of reindeer in Magdalenian subsistence results from the inclusion of Perigordian sites in the calculations (Costamagno, 1999). The bone assemblages from Les Pradelles present faunal spectra that are more restricted than some Magdalenian sites in the Pyrenees interpreted as specialized reindeer hunting sites, such as Dufaure (Straus, 1995) or Gazel (Fontana, 1998) (Fig. 8).

Apart from this strictly quantitative aspect, as Mellars states: “to have any meaning in cultural or behavioral terms, specialization must presumably imply deliberate selection of particular species from the total resources potentially available for exploitation” (1996:196). Thus, it is often asserted that the specialized archaeofauna observed in Mousterian

<footnote n="2">² On the basis of this same synthesis (Costamagno, 2003), only 15% of Magdalenian sites meet these two criteria (Costamagno, hitherto unpublished).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ The percentage of Magdalenian sites where reindeer dominate by over 80% is 55.7; the percentage of Magdalenian sites where reindeer dominate by over 90% is 36.7 (data according to Boyle, 1990).</footnote>
sites could merely be a reflection of the environment, that is, the resources available around the site. For the Upper Palaeolithic, on the contrary, specialization would result from the deliberate choice of a particular game species despite the fact that other prey was potentially exploitable. How valid these assumptions are remains impossible to assess using archaeological bone assemblages alone. Faunal assemblages of natural origin and/or paleoclimatic data can generate arguments in favor of one or the other assumption. In the Upper Palaeolithic sites of the Périgord, for example, the abundance of reindeer can be shown to reflect the environment rather than human choice in favor of this species (Costamagno, 2003; Enloe, 1993; Grayson et al., 2001).

At Les Pradelles, as in the majority of sites characterized by a specialized faunal spectrum irrespective of the period, it is extremely delicate to distinguish between “obligate” and “deliberate” specialization. Moreover, the very relevance of the definitions of specialized hunting proposed above can be questioned. Ethnological data show that ultra-specialized reindeer economies, such as those of Nunamiut, result from the scarcity of other exploitable resources within the environment (Burch, 1972, 1991; Meltzer and Smith, 1986). It is therefore not a deliberate choice but more of an environmental constraint. In addition, hunter-gatherers generally exploit diversified resources to cope with uncertainty, as well as by culinary choice (Kelly, 1995). Specialized subsistence economies seem to be more of an artefact of prehistoric interpretations than a strategically viable choice for the hunter-gatherers (Costamagno, 1999; Loring, 1997; Speth, 2004).

Another aspect of the debate about the cognitive capacities of Neanderthals is the assumption that large, collective hunts only appear from the Upper Palaeolithic onwards. The preponderance of reindeer on many Magdalenian sites is often suggested to reflect such practices. The large number of carcasses present on Magdalenian sites are construed as evidence of mass kills of reindeer during a single hunting episode and consequently, the practice of communal hunts. The surplus of meat available implies, in addition, the delayed consumption of resources (Binford, 1982; David and Enloe, 1993). Ethnological studies show that these time and energy consuming hunting strategies supply considerable quantities of storable food for winter—as well as the restocking of skins (Binford, 1978b; Driver, 1990). Given the degree of resolution of the Palaeolithic record, however, the number of animals

cannot and must not be the only criteria taken into account as evidence of this type of hunting strategy. Certain sites, such as Mauran (Mousterian) or le Flageolet I (Aurignacian), which yielded a significant number of carcasses (bison and reindeer, respectively) result from numerous, successive individual hunting episodes rather than mass kills (David and Enloe, 1993).

It is nonetheless implicitly acknowledged that the prevalence of reindeer in many Magdalenian assemblages could reflect mass kills of this species as well as the existence of planned communal hunting episodes (Straus, 1992, 1995, 1996). Without reliable archeozoological studies documenting the season of slaughter, the sex and the age of the individuals killed, skeletal element representation, as well as cut mark and fragmentation studies, such assumptions can by no means be confirmed, however (see discussion in Costamagno, 1999; David and Enloe, 1993). In southern France, none of the Magdalenian sites which are dominated by reindeer satisfies these criteria, deemed necessary for interpreting the existence of specialized hunting strategies (Costamagno, 1999, 2003, 2004). According to Enloe and David (1997), seasonality is a critical variable in understanding the exploitation of reindeer. At Les Pradelles, seasonality data for reindeer kills remain to be worked out. However, according to the preliminary results presented here, the animals seem to have been slaughtered during the fall, a favorable season for the practice of communal hunting strategies, since reindeer aggregate in large herds during this season as well as reaching their maximum fat levels. They can thus be slaughtered “en masse” and the meat surplus thus obtained can be stored for the coming winter (Driver, 1990).

In the case of communal hunts leading to mass kills, carcasses are subject to a logistic treatment resulting in the systematic rejection of certain parts on the butchering site (Binford, 1978b; Speth, 1983; Wheat, 1972) whereas small scale hunting results in the exploitation of all of the carcass (Bartram, 1993; Bunn, 1993). At Les Pradelles, therefore, the preferential introduction of nutritionally rich elements onto the site could confirm a mass kill of reindeer. The delayed consumption of certain skeletal elements and possibly meat storage for the winter also seem to be supported by the available data. Certain fleshy portions are under-represented compared to their index of nutritive utility and could have been transported to another site. In the absence of specific storage features, storage is particularly difficult to
prove. At the site of Pincevent the abundance of filleting cut marks and the under-representation of ribs are regarded as an indication of storage (David and Enloe, 1993; Enloe, 2003). Bone assemblages from Les Pradelles also present these two characteristics. Alternatively, the under-representation of ribs could be related to the destruction in situ of these portions or even to their abandonment on the kill site. The bones exhibiting filleting marks could also have been defleshed for the sole purpose of marrow retrieval (Costamagno, 2001) thus excluding meat storage by the Neanderthals of Les Pradelles. However, if we accept the assumption that meat was stored at Pincevent, which is a Magdalenian site, there is no reason to refute this assumption for Les Pradelles, since the conclusions are based on similar data. Thus, at Les Pradelles, the reindeer could have been killed “en masse” during communal hunts carried out during fall migrations. As with Pincevent, or Verberie, the mass slaughter of reindeer could have been intended for the production of storable food for the winter. This hypothesis may appear thin—however, with the exception of certain sites in the Paris Basin, the assumption of mass kills of reindeer during the Magdalenian is based on a convergence of facts less numerous than those highlighted on the Mousterian site of Les Pradelles. Under the pretext that they are Neanderthals, why cannot we allow ourselves to draw conclusions which would appear obvious if fauna had been accumulated by modern humans from the Upper Palaeolithic?

## Conclusion

The return of the Neanderthals to Les Pradelles for exploitation/treatment activities related to communal reindeer hunting, and evidence for selective raw material management during both of the occupations studied here, indicate the structured use of regional space in which resources (both animal and mineral) are known and their potential and limits closely calculated. The production of a meat surplus for storage is an inferential argument, admittedly (see above), but one which fits well with this interpretation. These types of behavior denote the existence of both planning depth and opportunistic behavior. Redundant patterning in seasonality and carcass processing at Les Pradelles indicates that fall migration interception could have been a strategic choice for Neanderthals in this region. However, there is no compelling evidence for planned, year round exploitation of reindeer by the hominids of

Les Pradelles. During the rest of the year, these groups could well have hunted diverse game, according to the resources available.

## References

* Airvaux, J. (Ed.), 2004. Le Site Paléolithique de Chez-Pinaud à Jonzac, Charente-Maritime. Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, Cres-sensac.

* Bamforth, D., 1991. Technological organization and hunter-gatherer land-use: a California example. American Antiquity 56, 216–234.

* Bartram, L.E., 1993. Perspectives on skeletal part profiles and utility curves from eastern Kalahari ethnoarchaeology. In: Hudson, J. (Ed.), From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, pp. 115–137.

* Bartram, L.E., Kroll, E.M., Bunn, H.T., 1991. Variability in camp structure and bone food refuse patterning at Kua San camps. In: Kroll, E.M., Price, T.D. (Eds.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 77–148.

* Beauval, C., Bourguignon, L., Costamagno, S., Couchoud, I., Marquet, J.-C., Maureille, B., Meignen, L., Mann, A.E., Texier, J.-P., Vandermeersch, B., 2002. Recent discoveries of Neandertal remains from Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, Charente, France). Abstracts for the Paleoanthropological society meetings. Journal of Human Evolution 42, A5–A6.

* Binford, L.R., 1977. Forty-seven trips: a case study in the character of archaeological formation processes. In: Wright, R.V.S. (Ed.), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 24–36.

* Binford, L.R., 1978a. Dimensional analysis of behavior and site structure: learning from an Eskimo hunting stand. American Antiquity 43, 330–361.

* Binford, L.R., 1978b. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

* Binford, L.R., 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255–273.

* Binford, L.R., 1982. Comments on “Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition”. Current Anthropology 23, 177–182.

* Binford, L.R., 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, New York.

* Binford, L.R., 1984. Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth. Academic Press, New York.

* Binford, L.R., 1988. Etude taphonomique des restes de la grotte Vaufrey, couche VIII. In: Rigaud, J.-P. (Ed.), La Grotte Vaufrey à Cénac et St Julien (Dordogne). Paléoenvironnements, chronologie et activités humaines. Mémoires de la S.P.F., Paris, pp. 535–563.

* Binford, L.R., 1989. Isolating the transition to cultural adaptations: an organizational approach. In: Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans. Biocultural Adaptations in the Late Pleistocene. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 18–41.

* Binford, S.R., 1968. Early Upper Pleistocene adaptations in the Levant. American Anthropologist 70, 707–717.
Blumenschine, R.J., 1988. An experimental model of the timing of hominid and carnivore influence on archaeological bone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 483–502.

Blumenschine, R.J., Marean, C.W., 1993. A carnivore's view of archaeological bone assemblages. In: Hudson, J. (Ed.), From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, pp. 273–300.

Blumenschine, R.J., Marean, C.W., Capaldo, S.D., 1996. Blind tests of interanalyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut-marks, percussion marks and carnivore tooth marks on bone surface. Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 493–508.

Boëda, E., Bourguignon, L., Griggo, C., 1998. Activités de subsistance au Paléolithique moyen: couche VI3b' du gisement d'Umm el Tlel (Syrie). In: Brugal, J.-P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Economie Préhistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique. 18e Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 243–258.

Boëda, E., Geneste, J.-M., Meignen, L., 1990. Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paleo 2, 43–80.

Bourguignon, L., 1996. La conception de débitage Quina. Quaternaria Nova 6, 149–166.

Bourguignon, L., 1997. Le Moustérien de type Quina: nouvelle définition d'une entité technique. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris X, Nanterre.

Boyle, K.V., 1990. Upper Palaeolithic Faunas from SouthWest France: A Zoogeographic Perspective. BAR International Series 557, Oxford.

Brain, C.K., 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Brugal, J.-P., Costamagno, S., Jaubert, J., Mourre, V., 1996. Les gisements paléolithiques de Coudoulous (Tour de Faure, Lot, France). In: Proceeding of the 13e International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli, September 8–14, 1996.

Bunn, H.T., 1993. Bone assemblages at base camps: a further consideration of carcass transport and bone destruction by the Hadza. In: Hudson, J. (Ed.), From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, pp. 156–168.

Burch, E., 1972. The caribou/wild reindeer as a human resource. American Antiquity 37, 339–368.

Burch, E.S., 1991. Herd following reconsidered. Current Anthropology 32, 439–444.

Burke, A., 2004. The ecology of Neandertals. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14, 155–161.

Capaldo, S.D., 1997. Experimental determinations of carcass processing by Plio-Pleistocene hominids and carnivores at FLK 22 (Zinjanthropus), Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 33, 555–597.

Capaldo, S.D., 1998. Simulating the formation of dual-patterned archaeofaunal assemblages with experimental control samples. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 311–330.

Capaldo, S.D., Blumenschine, R.J., 1994. A quantitative diagnosis of notches made by hammerstone percussion and carnivore gnawing on bovid long bones. American Antiquity 59, 724–748.

Chase, P., 1989. How different was Middle Paleolithic subsistence?: a zooarchaeological perspective on the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic transition. In: Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Human Revolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 321–337.

Chase, P.G., 1987. Spécialisation de la chasse et transition vers le Paléolithique supérieur. L'Anthropologie 91, 175–188.

Conard, N., 2001. Advances and problems in the study of Paleolithic settlement systems. In: Conard, N. (Ed.), Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. VII–XX.

Costamagno, S., 1999. Stratégies de Chasse et Fonction des Sites au Magdalénien dans le Sud de la France. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Bordeaux I, Bordeaux.

Costamagno, S., 2001. Exploitation de l'Antilope saïga au Magdalénien en Aquitaine: méthodes d'étude et applications archéologiques. Paleo 13, 111–127.

Costamagno, S., 2003. Exploitation de la grande faune au Magdalénien dans le sud de la France. In: Costamagno, S., Laroulandie, V. (Eds.), Mode de Vie au Magdalénien: Les Apports de l'Archéozoologie. BAR International Series 1144, Oxford, pp. 73–88.

Costamagno, S., 2004. Si les magdaléniens du sud de la France n'étaient pas des chasseurs spécialisés, qu' étaient-ils? In: Bodu, P., Constantin, C. (Eds.), Approches Fonctionnelles en Préhistoire. Société Préhistorique française, Paris, pp. 361–369.

Costamagno, S., Beauval, C., Lange-Badré, B., Vandermeersch, B., Mann, A., Maureille, B., 2005. Homme ou carnivores? Protocole d'étude d'ensembles osseux mixtes: l'exemple du gisement moustérien des Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, Charente). Archaeofauna 14, 43–68.

Cresswell, R.C., 1982. Transferts de techniques et chaînes opéra-toires. Techniques et Culture 2, 143–163.

David, F., Enloe, J.G., 1993. L'exploitation des animaux sauvages de la fin du Paléolithique moyen au Magdalénien. In: Desse, J., Audoin-Rouzeau, F. (Eds.), Exploitation des Animaux Sauvages à travers le Temps. 13e Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APDCA-CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 29–47.

David, P., 1935. Les fouilles de l'abri-repaire de Marillac, près de la Rochefoucault. Mémoire de la Société d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de Charente, pp. 89–90.

Debenath, A., 1974. Recherches sur les terrains quaternaires chaientais et les industries qui leur sont associées. Thèse de Doctorat d'Etat, Université de Bordeaux I, Bordeaux.

Delpech, F., Villa, P., 1993. Activités de chasse et de boucherie dans la grotte des Eglises. In: Desse, J., Audoin-Rouzeau, F. (Eds.), Exploitation des Animaux Sauvages à travers le Temps. 13e Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APDCA-CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 79–102.

Driver, J.C., 1990. Meat in due season: the timing of communal hunts. In: Davis, L.B., Reeves, B.O.K. (Eds.), Hunters of the Recent Past. Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 11–33.

Enloe, J.E., 2003. Acquisition and processing of reindeer in the Paris Basin. In: Costamagno, S., Laroulandie, V. (Eds.), Mode de Vie au Magdalénien: Les Apports de l'Archéozoologie. BAR International Series 1144, Oxford, pp. 23–31.

Enloe, J.G., 1993. Subsistence organization in the Early Upper Paleolithic: reindeer hunters of the Abri du Flageolet, couche
V. In: Knecht, H., Pike-Tay, A., White, R. (Eds.), Before Lascaux: The Complex Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 101–115.

Enloe, J.G., David, F., 1997. *Rangifer* herd behavior: seasonality of hunting in the magdalenian of the Paris basin. In: Jackson, L.J., Thacker, P.T. (Eds.), Caribou and Reindeer Hunters of the Northern Hemisphere. Avebury Press, Aldershot, pp. 52–68.

Farizy, C., David, F., Jaubert, J. (Eds.), 1994. Hommes et Bisons du Paléolithique Moyen à Mauran (Haute-Garonne). XXXe supplément Gallia Préhistoire, C.N.R.S, Paris.

Féblot-Augustins, J., 1993. Mobility strategies in the Late Middle Paleolithic of Central Europe and Western Europe: elements of stability and variability. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12, 211–265.

Féblot-Augustins, J., 1997. La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique, vol. 75, ERAUL, Liège.

Féblot-Augustins, J., 1999. Raw material transport patterns and settlement systems in the european Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: continuity, change and variability. In: Gamble, C. (Ed.), The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe. University of Leiden, Leiden.

Fernandez, P., Faure, M., Guérin, C., Lebel, S., 1998. Stratégie de chasse des Néandertaliens du Bau de l'Aubesier (Monieux, Vaucluse): choix et opportunisme. In: Brugal, J.-P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Economie préhistorique: les comportements de subsistance au Paléolithique. 18e Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 309–323.

Fontana, L., 1998. Mobilité et Subsistance au Magdalénien dans le Languedoc Occidental et le Roussillon. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Paris I, Paris.

Gaudzinski, S., 1995. Wallertheim revisited: a re-analysis of the fauna from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Wallertheim (Rheinhessen/Germany). Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 51–66.

Gaudzinski, S., 1996. On Bovid assemblages and their consequences for the knowledge of subsistence in the Middle Palaeolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 19–39.

Gaudzinski, S., Roebroeks, W., 2000. Adults only, reindeer hunting at the Middle Paleolithic site Salzgitter Lebensiedt, Northern Germany. Journal of Human Evolution 38, 497–521.

Geneste, J.-M., 1985. Analyse lithique d'industries moustériennes du Périgord: une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Paléolithique moyen. Thèse d'Etat, Université Bordeaux I, Bordeaux.

Geneste, J.-M., 1988. Systèmes d'approvisionnement en matières premières au Paléolithique moyen et au Paléolithique supérieur en Aquitaine. In: Otte, M. (Ed.) L'Homme de Néandertal. La Mutation. ERAUL 35, Liège, pp. 61–70.

Geneste, J.-M., 1990. Territoires de circulation au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen. Bulletin de la Société d'Anthropologie du Sud-Ouest 25, 13–30.

Geneste, J.-M., 1991a. L'approvisionnement en matières premières dans les systèmes de production lithique: la dimension spatiale de la technologie. In: Technologia y Cadenas Operativas Líticas. Treballs d'Arqueologia, Enero, pp. 2–31.

Geneste, J.-M., 1991b. Systèmes techniques de production lithique: variations techno-économiques dans les processus de réalisation des outillages paléolithiques. Techniques et culture 17–18, 1–35.

Grayson, D.K., Delpech, F., 1994. The evidence for Middle Paleolithic scavenging from couche VIII, grotte Vaufrey (Dordogne, France). Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 359–375.

Grayson, D.K., Delpech, F., 2002. Specialized Early Upper Palaeolithic hunters in Southwestern France? Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 1439–1449.

Grayson, D.K., Delpech, F., Rigaud, J.-P., Simek, J.F., 2001. Explaining the development of dietary dominance by a single ungulate taxon at Grotte XVI, Dordogne, France. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 115–125.

Henry, D., 1989. Correlations between reduction strategies and settlement patterns. In: Henry, D., Odell, G. (Eds.), Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Archeological papers of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 139–155.

Henry, D.O., 1992. Transhumance during the late Levantine Mousterian. In: Dibble, H., Mellars, P. (Eds.), The Middle Palaeolithic Adaptation Behavior and Variability, vol. 78, University of Museum Monograph. The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 143–162.

Henry, D., 1995a. The influence of mobility levels on Levallois point production, Late Levantine Mousterian, Southern Jordan. In: Dibble, H., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 185–200.

Henry, D.O., 1995b. Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution. Insights from Southern Jordan. Plenum Press, New York and London.

Henry, D.O., 1998. Intrasite spatial patterns and behavioral modernity: indications from the Late Levantine Mousterian rockshelter of Tor Faraj, Southern Jordan. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press, New York/London, pp. 127–142.

Hovers, E., 1997. Variability of Levantine Mousterian Assemblages and Settlement Patterns: Implications for Understanding the Development of Human Behavior. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Jaubert, J., Lorblanchet, M., Laville, H., Slott-Moller, R., Turq, A., Brugal, J.-P., 1990. Les Chasseurs d'Aurochs de la Borde: Un Site du Paléolithique Moyen (Livernon, Lot). DAF 27, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.

Jones, K.T., Metcalfe, D., 1988. Bare bones archaeology: bone marrow indices and efficiency. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 415–423.

Karlin, C., Bodu, P., Pelegrin, J., 1991. Processus techniques et chaînes opératoires. Comment les préhistoriens s'approprient un concept élaboré par les ethnologues. In: Balfet, H. (Ed.), Observer l'Action Technique: Des Chaînes Opératoires, pour quoi Faire? CNRS, Paris, pp. 101–117.

Kelly, R.L., 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Kuhn, S.L., 1992. On planning and curated technologies in the Middle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research 48, 185–213.

Kuhn, S.L., 1993. Mousterian technology as an adaptive response: a case study. In: Peterkin, G.L., Bricker, H.M., Mellars, P. (Eds.), Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia, pp. 25–32.

Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. An Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Lam, Y.M., Chen, X., Pearson, O.M., 1999. Intertaxonomic variability in patterns of bone density and the differential representation of Bovid, Cervid, and Equid elements in the archaeological record. American Antiquity 64, 343–362.

Lemonnier, P., 1986. The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 147–186.

Lemonnier, P., 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology, Ann Arbor.

Loring, S., 1997. On the trail to the caribou house: some reflections on Innu caribou hunters in Northern Ntessinan (Labrador). In: Jackson, L.J., Thacker, P.T. (Eds.), Caribou and Reindeer Hunters of the Northern Hemisphere. Avebury Press, Aldershot, pp. 185–220.

Lyman, R.L., 1992. Prehistoric seal and sea-lion butchering on the southern northwest coast. American Antiquity 57, 246–261.

Marean, C.W., 1991. Measuring the post-depositional destruction of bone in archaeological assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 18, 677–694.

Marean, C.W., Bertino, L., 1994. Intrasites spatial analysis of bone: substracting the secondary carnivore consumers. American Antiquity 49, 748–768.

Marean, C.W., Blumenschine, R.J., Spencer, L.M., Capaldo, S., 1992. Captive hyaena bone choice and destruction, the schlepp effect, and Olduvai archaeofaunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 101–121.

Marean, C.W., Spencer, L., 1991. Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures of element abundance. American Antiquity 56, 645–658.

Maureille, B., 2002. Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc). DFS de fouille programmée. Service Régional de l'Archéologie Poitou Charente.

Meignen, L., 1988. Un exemple de comportement technologique différentiel selon les matières premières: Marillac, couches 9 et 10. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), L'Homme de Néandertal, vol. 4, La Technique. ERAUL 31, Liège, pp. 71–79.

Meignen, L., Beyries, S., Speth, J., Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. Acquisition, traitement des matières animales et fonction du site au Paléolithique moyen dans la grotte de Kebara (Israël): une approche interdisciplinaire. In: Brugal, J.-P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Economie Préhistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique. 18e Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 227–241.

Meignen, L., Vandermeersch, B., 1986. Le gisement moustérien de Marillac (Charente) couches 9 et 10. Caractéristiques des outillages. Economie des matières premières. In: Préhistoire de Poitou Charentes. Problèmes actuels. 111e Congrès des Sociétés Savantes, CTHS, Poitiers, pp. 135–141.

Mellars, P., 1973. The character of the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition in Southwest France. In: Renfrew, C. (Ed.), The Explanation of Cultural Change, London, pp. 255–276.

Mellars, P., 1989. Major issues in the emergence of modern humans. Current Anthropology 30, 349–385.

Mellars, P., 1996. The Neandertal Legacy. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Mellars, P.A., 2004. Reindeer specialization in the early Upper Palaeolithic: the evidence from South West France. Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 613–617.

Meltzer, D., Smith, B., 1986. PaleoIndian and early archaic subsistence strategies in eastern North America. In: Neusius,

S. (Ed.), Foraging, Collecting and Haversting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in Eastern Woodlands. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, pp. 1–30.

Metcalfe, D., Jones, K.T., 1988. A reconsideration of animal-part utility indices. American Antiquity 53, 486–504.

Moncel, M.-H., Patou-Mathis, M., Otte, M., 1998. Halte de chasse au chamois au Paléolithique moyen: la couche 5 de la grotte Scladina (Sclayn, Namur, Belgique). In: Brugal, J.-P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Economie Préhistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique. 18e Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 291–308.

Morin, E., 2004. Late Pleistocene Population Interaction in Western Europe and Modern Human Origins: New Insights based on the Faunal Remains from Saint-Césaire, Southwestern France. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Michigan.

O'Connell, J.F., 1987. Alyawara site structure and its archaeological implications. American Antiquity 52, 74–108.

Ragout, A., Balout, L., 1942. Enquête sur le gisement moustérien de Marillac (Charente). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 39, 105–113.

Shott, M., 1986. Technological organization and settlement mobility: an ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42, 15–51.

Speth, J., 1983. Bison Kills and Bone Counts: Decision Making by Ancient Hunters. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Speth, J., 2004. New flash: negative evidence convicts Neandertals of gross mental incompetence. World Archaeology 36, 519–526.

Speth, J., Tchernov, E., 1998. The role of hunting and scavenging in Neandertal procurement strategies. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press, New-York, London, pp. 223–239.

Speth, J., Tchernov, E., 2001. Neandertal hunting and meat-processing in the Near-East. Evidence from Kebara Cave (Israel). In: Stanford, C.B., Bunn, H.T. (Eds.), Meat-Eating and Human Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 52–72.

Stiner, M., 1994. Honor among Thieves: A Zooarchaeological Study of Neanderthal Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Stiner, M.C., 2005. Paleolithic Diet and Demography: A 200,000-Year Record from Hayonim Cave (Israel). Harvard University, Cambridge.

Straus, L.G., 1983. From Mousterian to Magdalenian: cultural evolution viewed from Vasco-Cantabrian Spain and Pyrenean France. In: Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), The Mousterian Legacy. BAR International Series 164, London, New-York, pp. 73–111.

Straus, L.G., 1992. Iberia before the Iberians—The Stone Age Prehistory of Cantabrian Spain. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Straus, L.G. (Ed.) 1995. Les Derniers Chasseurs de Rennes du Monde Pyrénéeen. L'Abri Dufaure: Un Gisement Tardiglaciaire en Gascogne. Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française 22, Paris.

Straus, L.G., 1996. The archaeology of the Pleistocene–Holocene transition in southwest Europe. In: Straus, L.G., Eriksen, E.V., Erlandson, J.M. (Eds.), The World at the End of the Last Ice Age. The Archaeology of the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition. Plenum Press, New York London, pp. 83–100.

Straus, L.G., 1997. Late glacial reindeer hunters along the french Pyrenees. In: Jackson, L.J., Thacker, P.T. (Eds.), Caribou and
Reindeer Hunters of the Northern Hemisphere. Avebury Press, Aldershot, pp. 165–184.

Terradas, X., Rueda, J.-P., 1998. Grotte 120: un exemple des activités de subsistance au Paléolithique moyen dans les Pyrénées orientales. In: Brugal, J.-P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Economie Préhistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique. 18e Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 349–361.

Texier, P.J., Brugal, J.P., Lemorini, C., Wilson, L., 1998. Fonction d'un site du Paléolithique moyen en marge d'un territoire: l'abri de la Combette (Bonnieux, Vaucluse). In: Brugal, J.P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Economie Préhistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique. 18e Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, APCDA-CNRS, Sophia-Antipolis, pp. 325–348.

Trinkaus, E., 1986. The Neandertals and Modern Human origins. Annual Review of Anthropology 15, 193–218.

Turq, A., 1989. Approche technologique et économique du faciès Moustérien de type Quina: étude préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 86, 244–256.

Turq, A., 1990. Exploitation des matières premières lithiques dans le Moustérien entre Dordogne et Lot. In: Séronie-Vivien, M.R., Lenoir, M. (Eds.), Le Silex de sa Genèse à l'Outil, tome II. CNRS, Paris, pp. 415–427.

Turq, A., 2000. Paléolithique inférieur et moyen entre Dordogne et Lot. SAMRA, Les Eyzies.

Van Der Sloot, P., 1998. Matières premières lithiques et comportements au Paléolithique moyen: le cas de la couche 5 de la grotte Scladina. In: Otte, M., Patou-Mathis, M., Bonjean, D. (Eds.), Recherches aux Grottes de Sclayn: l'Archéologie, vol. 2., ERAUL, Liège, pp. 115–126.

Villa, P., Mahieu, E., 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21, 27–48.

Wengler, L., 1990. Matières premières, débitage et roches chauffées dans le Moustérien et l'Atérien maghrébins. Exemples du Maroc oriental. Cahiers du Quaternaire 17, 561–579.

Wheat, J.B., 1972. The Olsen Chubbuck site: a Paleo Indian bison kill. American Antiquity 37, 1–181.

White, R., 1982. Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition. Current Anthropology 23, 169–192.
Union Internationale des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques
International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences
Union Internationale des Ciências Pre-historicas e Proto-historicas

Ivre des résumés
Book of abstracts
Ivre de resumos

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /></figure>

XV

congrès congress congresso

4-9 Septembre
Septembre 2006

2006

lisbonne lisbon lisboa

<figure><img src="image_173.png" /></figure>

Global State of the Art
L. Oosterbeek, J. Raposo (Eds.)

XV Congrès de l'Union Internationale
des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques

XV Congress of the International Union
for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences

XV Congresso da União Internacional
das Ciências Pré-Históricas e Proto-Históricas

Sous le Haut Patronage
de Son Excellence le Président de la République Portugaise

Under the High Patronage
of His Excellency the Portuguese Republic President

Sob o Alto Patrocínio
de Sua Exlência o Sr. Presidente da República

Livre des Résumés

Book of Abstracts

Livro de Resumos

Vol. 2
Session WS23

Friday, 8 September 2006 / Vendredi, 8 Septembre 2006

Anfiteathre 4, Faculty of Law, Lisbon University
Amphithéâtre 4, Faculté de Droit, Université de Lisbonne

Raw material supply areas and food supply areas
Integrated approach of the behaviours

Aires d'approvisionnement en matières premières
et aires d'approvisionnement en ressources alimentaires

Approche intégrée des comportements

organized by / organisé par

<table><tr><td>Marie-Hélène MONCEL</td><td>Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Paris, France – moncel@mnhn.fr</td></tr><tr><td>Anne-Marie MOIGNE</td><td>Centre Européen de Recherches Préhistoriques, Tautavel, France – Anne-Marie.Moigne@tautavel.univ-perp.fr</td></tr><tr><td>Marta ARZARELLO</td><td>Università di Ferrara, Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche e Paleontologiche, Ferrara, Italy – paleomarta@hotmail.com</td></tr><tr><td>Carlo PERETTO</td><td>Università di Ferrara, Dipartimento delle Risorse Naturali e Culturali, Ferrara, Italy – me4@unife.it</td></tr></table>

## SESSION'S ABSTRACT

Multidisciplinary analyses of the Palaeolithic sites provide more and more information on the origin of resources exploited by the occupants of a site and the sweep of land they move on in order to meet their needs of both food and raw materials. The overlapping of these two types of supply areas may greatly differ according to the situations.

In this workshop we would like first to draw up the state of knowledge in this field and then look at the evidences in their settings, in considering, for instance, the climate or season, the topography, the availability and quality of the raw materials, the wealth in big or small game (and in potential vegetal food), the site function, etc. Discussions shall aim at working out what specifically concerns the human behaviour, among the range of possible responses to the immediate vital requirements, given the environmental constraints.

Signs of inconsistency, in the course of time, between shifting environmental conditions and stable behaviours or inversely between changing behaviours and apparently stable conditions, may feed the debates regarding the traditions, the knowledge or ability exchanges, the people movements. Well documented studies may introduce socio-cultural notions, allowing to eventually making out particular behaviours that refer to the idea of feat (hunting) or masterpiece (implement) and that involve, among the human group, much wider interests than just the matter of day to day requirements.

## RÉSUMÉ DE LA SESSION
**WS23-04**

La circulation du silex des sites du Paléolithique inférieur de Cagny-la-Garenne, Cagny-l'Epinette et de la Ferme de l'Epinette (Bassin de l'Avre, Somme, France).

10:20-10:40

A. MGELADZE (Tbilissi, Georgia)

Marie Helène MONCEL (Paris, France)

N. TOUSHABRAMICHVILI (Tbilissi, Georgia)

A. VEKUA (Tbilissi, Georgia)

A. MOUSKELISHVILI (Tbilissi, Georgia)

J-CI MISKOVSKY

David LORDKIPANIDZE (Tbilissi, Georgia)

**WS23-05**

Une occupation spécialisée acheuléenne en haute montagne: le site de Tsona (sud du Caucase, Géorgie).

10:40-11:00

Pascal DEPAEPE (Amiens, France)

**WS23-06**

Raw material supply during Middle Palaeolithic in south-east of the Bassin parisien (north France).

11:00-11:20

Dominique CLIQUET (Caen, France)

**WS23-07**

Approvisionnement en matières premières et en ressources alimentaires en Normandie (France) entre le stade 7 et le stade 3.

11:20-11:40

Nathalie MOLINES (Rennes, France)

Jean Laurent MONNIER (Rennes, France)

**WS23-08**

Paléogéographie, matières premières et territoires exploitables dans l'Ouest de la France au Pléistocène moyen.

11:40-12:00

Gilles HUGUENIN (France)

Agnès LAMOTTE (Lille, France)

**WS23-09**

Approvisionnement et circulation des matières premières minérales au Paléolithique moyen en Haute-Saône : premiers résultats.

12:00-12:20

L. BOURGUIGNON (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France)

P. BIDART (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France)

I. ORTEGA (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France)

Alain TURQ (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France)

Luc DETRAIN (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France)

André MORALA (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France)

**WS23-10**

Du territoire proche au territoire lointain : différences ou similitudes comportementales à partir des stratégies d'exploitations gîtologiques des matières premières lithiques au Paléolithique moyen (l'exemple de Combe Brune 1 et de l'Abri du Musée, Dordogne, France).

12:20-12:40

Lilliane MEIGNEN (Valbonne, France)

Sandrine COSTAMAGNO (Toulouse, France)

C. BEAUVAL (Bordeaux, France)

L. BOURGUIGNON (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France)

B. VANDERMEERSCH (Bordeaux, France)

Bruno MAUREILLE (Talence, France)
abordées. Au travers des analyses techno-économiques (évaluation des importations et des exportations) et la caractérisation des matières premières lithiques (essai de quantification de blocs exploités), des différences ou des similitudes seront mises en évidence entre le territoire « habité » et le territoire « parcouru». Enfin, les schémas de mobilité résidentielle des groupes seront abordés à partir de ces nouvelles données (à la fois quantitatives et qualitatives).

WS23-11

Lilliane MEIGNEN (Valbonne, France)

Sandrine COSTAMAGNO (Toulouse, France)

C. BEAUVAL (Bordeaux, France)

L. BOURGUIGNON (Les Eysies-de-Tayac, France)

B. VANDERMEERSCH (Bordeaux, France)

Bruno MAUREILLE (Talence, France)

**Gestion des ressources lithiques au Paléolithique moyen dans une halte de chasse spécialisée sur le Renne: Les Pradelles (Marillac, Charente).**

**RÉSUMÉ:** La composition techno-économique des assemblages lithiques reflète les activités menées sur le site et plus encore, elle nous informe sur le rôle du site dans l'organisation générale du territoire des chasseurs-cueilleurs du Paléolithique. Les niveaux inférieurs du gisement des Pradelles, en Charente, ont livré de faibles densités de matériel lithique qui contrastent avec l'abondance en restes osseux, très majoritairement du Renne. Les études techno-économiques réalisées sur ces assemblages de type Quina ont mis en évidence des stratégies de gestion des matières premières, qui suggèrent des occupations de brèves durées en relation avec des expéditions répondant à des besoins spécifiques (task-specific location). Les différences observées dans le traitement des matériaux importés (silex du Crétacé) et celui des matériaux locaux, de moindre qualité (silex du Jurassique) soulignent les capacités d'anticipation des Neandertaliens. La confrontation de ces résultats avec les données archéozoologiques a confirmé et permis de préciser le fonctionnement de ce site au sein du territoire. En effet, les recherches effectuées sur les restes osseux, très abondants, ont permis de conclure à l'existence probable d'une chasse spécialisée sur le Renne, avec traitement de la viande pour consommation différée. Ce cas d'étude illustre parfaitement la nécessaire complémentarité des approches technologiques et archéozoologiques, entre autres, dans la définition des territoires, fonction des sites et schémas de mobilité des chasseurs-cueilleurs du Paléolithique.

WS23-12

Alain TURQ (Les Eysies-de-Tayac, France)

L. BOURGUIGNON (Les Eysies-de-Tayac, France)

J. Ph. FAIVRE (Les Eysies-de-Tayac, France)

**L'apport de l'analyse des matières premières lithiques dans la compréhension du comportement humain a travers quelques exemples du nord-est aquitain.**

**RÉSUMÉ:** Depuis déjà de nombreuses années les systèmes d'approvisionnement en matières premières lithiques des hommes du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen sont bien connus dans le nord-est du bassin aquitain. Outre l'immuable principe d'approvisionnement local quelque soit la qualité des ressources, l'approche prenant en compte la fonction de site permet de nuancer cette vision.

Les nombreuses recherches menées récemment, l'émergence de la notion de ramification, l'étude systématiques des cortex, les essais sur le nombre minimum de bloc permettent d'aller encore plus loin.

Après avoir identifié et précisé les raisons du choix des matériaux transportés nous nous attacherons à deux de ces types de silex (celui dit de « Bergeracois » et celui dénommé « Belvés ») pour tenter une approche socio-économique. Celle-ci prendra en compte des gisements implantés sur ou à proximité des gîtes exploités, d'autres de grottes ou abris, de plein air, situés dans des écosystèmes spécifiques plus ou moins distants des sources de matières premières lithiques.
MUSEE DE L'HOMME (salle de cinéma)

17-19 janvier 2007

Palais de Chaillot, 17 Place de Trocadéro, 75116 Paris
(M) Trocadéro, lignes 6 et 9

<figure><img src="image_174.png" /></figure>

Les peuplements de l'Asie
La mort au Néolithique : diversité des pratiques funéraires
Actualités de la recherche

Comité scientifique :
Anne-Marie Bacon, Gilles Berillon, Florent Détroit, Françoise Le Mort,
Dominique Grimaud-Hervé, François Marchal, Bruno Maureille,
Montserrat Sansilbano-Collilieux, Anne-Marie Tillier, Frédérique Valentin

Comité d'organisation :
Gilles Berillon, François Marchal, Pascal Sellier

SOCIETE D'ANTHROPOLOGIE
DE PARIS
NOUVEAUX RESTES HUMAINS AUX PRADELLES (MARILLAC-LE-FRANC, CHARENTE)

NEW HOMID REMAINS FROM LES PRADELLES (MARILLAC-LE-FRANC, CHARENTE)

B. MAUREILLE<fnref n="1" />, A. MANN<fnref n="2" />, B. VANDERMEERSCH<fnref n="3" />, C. BEAUVAL<fnref n="4" />, L. BOURGUIGNON<fnref n="5" />, J.-G. BORDES<fnref n="6" />, S. COSTAMAGNO<fnref n="7" />, I. COUCHOUD<fnref n="6" />, J. FAUQUIGNON<fnref n="8" />, E.-M. GEIGL<fnref n="9" />, P. GUIBERT<fnref n="10" />, R. GRÜN<fnref n="11" />, F. LACRAMPE-CUYAUBERE<fnref n="4" />, V. LAROULANDIE<fnref n="6" />, J.-C. MARQUET<fnref n="12" />, L. MEIGNEN<fnref n="13" />, M. NICLOT<fnref n="6" />, W. RENDU<fnref n="6" />, G. SEGUIN¹⁴, J.-P. TEXIER<fnref n="6" />

Depuis la mise en place d'un nouveau projet de recherches, impliquant maintenant une vingtaine de collaborateurs, les fouilles programmées du gisement moustérien des Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, Charente) livrent tous les ans des vestiges humains néandertaliens. A notre connaissance, c'est le seul site rapporté à cette époque, actuellement fouillé en Europe de l'Ouest, qui présente une telle particularité.

Déjà riche de 24 ensembles de restes anthropologiques mis au jour entre 1967 et 1980 (fouilles dirigées par B. Vandermeersch), 45 découvertes sur le terrain ont été réalisées depuis 2001. Ces dernières représentent 35 nouveaux restes (voir Poplin, 1976 pour les modalités de décompte). En 6 années de fouilles, la collection paléo-anthropologique a donc plus que doublé...

Nous décrirons ici les principaux traits morphologiques et métriques des fossiles mis au jour lors des campagnes de terrain 2004, 2005 et 2006 (ceux des années précédentes ont déjà été présentés lors des journées annuelles scientifiques de la SAP en 2003 et en 2004). Nous décrirons également, brièvement, les stigmates anthropologiques ou taphonomiques que présentent certains d'entre eux.

Puis, nous nous intéresserons, pour la première fois pour un site moustérien de Poitou-Charentes, à la répartition spatiale des fossiles humains. Enfin, nous nous interrogerons sur les causes de leur présence aux Pradelles, la fonction du gisement apportant, selon nous, des informations primordiales.

En effet, force est de constater que l'étude des sites moustériens en Poitou-Charentes et en Aquitaine nous permet, pour une même période chronologique (OIS 5, 4 et 3), d'isoler deux zones différentes : une avec des sites nombreux (la première mais presque limitée à une seul département La Charente) où les gisements livrent des restes fragmentaires et peu de sépultures et une autre (la seconde mais limitée à un seul département La Dordogne) où les sites, moins nombreux, ont livré presque toutes les sépultures moustériennes mis au jour en France.

<footnote n="1">¹ UMR 5199 – PACEA : Laboratoire d'Anthropologie des Populations du Passé, Avenue des Faculté, F-33 405 Talence, e-mail :
b.maureille@anthropologie.u-bordeaux1.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Department of Anthropology, Princeton University, 109 Aaron Burr Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544 - USA</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Nunez de Balboa, 40 28001 Madrid</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Archéosphère, domaine du Haut Carré, 351 cours de la libération, 33405 Talence cedex</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ INRAP grand Sud-Ouest, Les échoppes, bâtiment F, 156 avenue Jean Jaurès, 33600 Pessac</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ UMR 5199 – IPGQ, Avenue des Faculté, F-33 405 Talence</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ UMR 5608 CNRS, Unité toulousaine d'Archéologie et d'Histoire, Maison de la recherche, Université Toulouse II, 5 Allée A. Machado, 31058 Toulouse cedex</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Société Windy Morning, 24 rue Huguerie, 33000 Bordeaux</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Institut Jacques Monod, 2 place Jussieu, 75005 Paris</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ UMR 5060, Institut de recherche sur les Archéomatériaux, Université Bordeaux 3, Centre de Recherche en Physique Appliquée à l'Archéologie Maison de l'archéologie, 33607 Pessac cedex</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Research School of Earth Sciences, Jaeger OHB-B, Building 61B, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² UMR 6575, archéologie et territoires, 3 place Anatole France, 37000 Tours</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ UMR 6130 CNRS, Centre d'étude de la préhistoire, de l'Antiquité et du Moyen-Âge, 250 rue Albert Einstein, 06560 Valbonne
¹⁴ 79 rue Manon Cormier, 33000 Bordeaux</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_175.png" /></figure>
# LES PRADELLES
(Commune de Marillac-le-Franc, Charente)

<figure><img src="image_176.png" /></figure>

Vue de la coupe stratigraphique le 19.08.2006, témoin EST
Photo : équipe de fouille des Pradelles

La campagne de fouille s'est déroulée du 11 Juillet au 19 Août. Cela représente 34 jours de terrain. Les fouilleurs bénévoles étaient d'abord de jeunes américains de l'Université de Princeton (16 étudiants) qui valident ainsi une part de leur cursus universitaire. Puis, du 29 Juillet au 19 Août, un groupe de vingt jeunes européens, essentiellement des français, a remplacé le précédent. Cette année, peu d'aménagements ont été réalisés sur le site et seuls quelques échafaudages en bois permettant l'accès à certaines zones ont été modifiés. Il reste urgent de réparer le toit qui protège les deux tiers du gisement et aussi de refaire la clôture qui entoure le gisement. Les fouilles du témoin Est ont porté sur moins d'une dizaine de m² et ont surtout concerné les faciès 4a, 4b, 2b, 2a. Une nouvelle distribution de ces faciès a aussi été observée à proximité de la paroi Sud. Elle complique leur organisation et devra être confirmée dans le futur. Le faciès 2a' a été très peu fouillé (travée K). Les fouilles dans la grotte aux poules ont confirmé la présence de lambeaux de repaires d'hyènes des cavernes. Mais le travail réalisé devant l'entrée de cette galerie n'a pas mis en évidence ces lambeaux à l'extérieur. Des datations absolues ont été obtenues pour ce repaire et la coupe Ouest. Elles se situent entre 40 et 42.000 ± 1000 ans BP. Ces deux locus seraient sub-contemporains et ces dates récentes ne sont pas en adéquation (elles sont plus récentes) avec celles obtenues pour le sommet de la stratigraphie de la coupe Est. Des objets peu fréquents dans nos collections (racloirs de grandes dimensions, matière première rare) ont été mis au jour. Comme il en est "de coutume", de nouveaux restes humains ont aussi été reconnus sur le terrain. Certains proviennent de zones et de faciès où nous avions déjà effectué ce type de trouvaille. Toutefois, 4 pièces proviennent des travées 6 et 7, à proximité de la paroi Sud du gisement et sont mis au jour au sommet du faciès 4a ou en 4b (ou autre). Une pièce a été prélevée pour de futures recherches sur l'ADN ancien en respectant le protocole établi à Bordeaux 1 ou à Jussieu. Ces vestiges sont à une altitude où nous avions, quelle que soit la collection, aucun vestige jusqu'à présent. Deux séries d'appariements entre les restes humains ont aussi été reconnues. L'ensemble de ces découvertes et la réalisation d'une base de données informatisée des fouilles dirigées par B. Vandermeersch ont permis d'avancer une nouvelle hypothèse sur la répartition des restes humains dans le gisement. Les perspectives de découvertes futures sont très nombreuses.

Mots-clefs : Paléolithique moyen, Moustérien de type Quina, Néandertalien, *hunting camp*, aven, cannibalisme.

Programme 03 : Les peuplements néandertaliens *lato sensu* (stades isotopiques 8 à 4 : 300.000 à 40.000 ans) ; Paléolithique moyen *lato sensu*.