Neandertal mobility and large-game hunting: The exploitation of reindeer during the Quina Mousterian at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France)

Neandertals were effective hunters of large ungulates throughout their geographic and temporal ranges. Equipped with this knowledge, researchers in paleoanthropology continue to seek insight on the relationships between hunting and subsistence strategies with other components of the Neandertals’ niche, such as mobility, site use, and lithic technology. The Quina Mousterian deposits from the rockshelter site of Chez Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France; hereafter Jonzac) offer an excellent opportunity to pursue these issues. This paper focuses on the extensive and well-preserved skeletal remains of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) recovered from recent excavations of the site, representing at least 18 individuals that were hunted by Neandertals during the fall through winter. Our zooarchaeological results indicate that all ages of reindeer were hunted but adult individuals predominate. No bias is evident in the comparable frequencies of males and females. These prey were butchered on-site, with abundant evidence of meat filleting and marrow exploitation. In the excavated sample, the absence of hearths and the almost complete lack of burned bones or stones suggest that Neandertals were not using fire to assist with processing the reindeer carcasses. The zooarchaeological results presented here indicate that reindeer were hunted during a restricted window of time when they were seasonally abundant in the local area near Jonzac. Taken together with the lithic industry based on bifacial elements, the evidence is consistent with a pattern of site use by highly mobile hunter-gatherers making frequent, short-term visits. Ongoing research at Jonzac and other Quina Mousterian localities will contribute to a better understanding of Neandertal behavior during cold climate phases.     

The prehistory of the Arabian peninsula: deserts, dispersals, and demography

As a geographic connection between Africa and the rest of Eurasia, the Arabian Peninsula occupies a central position in elucidating hominin evolution and dispersals. Arabia has been characterized by extreme environmental fluctuation in the Quaternary, with profound evolutionary and demographic consequences. Despite the importance of the region, Arabia remains understudied. Recent years, however, have seen major developments in environmental studies and archeology, revealing that the region contains important records that should play a significant role in future paleoanthropological narratives.(1-3) The emerging picture of Arabia suggests that numerous dispersals of hominin populations into the region occurred. Populations subsequently followed autochthonous trajectories, creating a distinctive regional archeological record. Debates continue on the respective roles of regional hominin extinctions and population continuity, with the latter suggesting adaptation to arid conditions.     

河南新郑黄帝口遗址2009年发掘简报

河南新郑观音寺镇黄帝口是一处旧石器时代晚期遗址。2006年调查发现后经过当年和2009年两次发掘。2009年发掘出土了76件石制品及75件动物化石,分别出自第3、4、5层,其中以第5层的发现居多。石制品原料以石英为主,个体较小, 砸击法与锤击法并用,类型包括石核、石片、石器及断块等。其中石器3件, 分别为刮削器和尖状器。石制品面貌属北方小石器工业传统。动物化石以鹿类、食肉类和啮齿类居多, 其中少数具有人工痕迹。遗物和堆积状况表明, 黄帝口遗址为一处人类的短暂活动场所。     

丹江上游商丹盆地新发现的旧石器及其埋藏黄土地层

2010~2012年在东秦岭丹江上游商丹盆地(商洛-丹凤盆地)第三级阶地顶部黄土堆积地层中新发现9处旷野旧石器地点, 采集石制品211件, 部分石制品直接采自遗址黄土地层剖面上。加工石制品的原料来自于丹江河床的石英质砾石, 其次是石英岩和石英砂岩砾石, 砂岩、火山岩和硅质灰岩等砾石原料偶尔被使用。早期人类主要采取锤击法直接剥片, 砸击法剥片技术也被使用, 碰砧法剥片可能只是在偶尔的情况下才被采用。石核和石片以自然砾石台面者居多。石制品种类有石锤、石核、石片、工具和断块及碎片屑。工具中砍砸器数量最多, 其次是大型石片为毛坯加工而成的重型刮削器与小型刮削器, 石器中还有一定数量的石球、手斧和手镐, 商丹盆地的石制品可视为含阿舍利(Acheulian)器物组合类型的石器工业。根据遗址的黄土-古土壤地层序列, 初步判断商丹盆地丹江第三级阶地旧石器地点埋藏石制品的黄土-古土壤地层时代为中更新世中晚期, 在获得地层绝对测年结果之前, 石制品年代可暂置于旧石器时代早期偏晚阶段。     

水洞沟遗址第7地点动物化石初步研究

水洞沟遗址第7地点2003~2005年发掘出土动物化石2000余件。初步鉴定包括蒙古野驴(Equus hemionus)、披毛犀(Coelodonta antiquitatis)、普氏原羚(Procapra przewalskii)、水牛(Bubalus sp.)等十多个动物属种。该遗址出土的动物骨骼标本表面少见食肉类啃咬痕迹且未有啮齿类啃咬痕迹及水流磨蚀等现象,表明这一动物骨骼组合应当不是食肉类、啮齿类与水流等自然性营力带入遗址的。遗址动物群中一定比例的具切割痕骨骼标本的出现表明了古人类在动物群富集过程中的主导地位。动物考古学观察表明,处于旧石器时代晚期的该地点古人类主要对遗址附近的大中型食草类动物进行了猎捕与肢解、利用,这与相对更晚阶段的第12地点古人类以小型哺乳动物为主要猎食对象的生存策略形成了较为明显的对比。     

Identification of novel Leishmania major antigens that elicit IgG2a response in resistant and susceptible mice

Experimental murine models with high, intermediate and low levels of genetically based susceptibility to Leishmania major infection reproduce almost entire spectrum of clinical manifestations of the human disease. There are increasing non-comparative studies on immune responses against isolated antigens of L. major in different murine strains. The aim of the present study was to find out whether there is an antigen that can induce protective immune response in resistant and susceptible murine strains. To do that, crude antigenic extract of procyclic and metacyclic promastigotes of L. major was prepared and subjected to SDS-PAGE electrophoresis. Western-blotting was used to search for antigen(s) capable of raising high antibody level of IgG2a versus IgG1 in the sera of both infected resistant and susceptible strains. Two novel antigens from metacyclic promastigotes of L. major (140 and 152 kDa) were potentially able to induce specific dominant IgG2a responses in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice. The 2 antigens also reacted with IgG antibody of cutaneous leishmaniasis patients. We confirm that 140 and 152 kDa proteins of L. major promastigotes are inducing IgG production in mice and humans.     

Hammer or crescent wrench? Stone-tool form and function in the Aurignacian of southwest Germany

The early Upper Paleolithic of Europe is associated with the appearance of blade/bladelet technology (e.g., Aurignacian). These industries include a wider range of formal tool types than seen in the Middle Paleolithic. Greater diversity in tool types is often interpreted as specialized tools created for specific tasks. This, in turn, is said to reflect dramatic behavioral shifts between Neandertals and modern humans. In order to test previous interpretations, it is necessary to have a detailed understanding of early Upper Paleolithic stone-tool function. Toward this end, analyses of microscopic residue and use-wear were undertaken on 109 stone tools from three Aurignacian sites in southwest Germany (Hohle Fels, Geissenkl?sterle, and Vogelherd). These cave sites evidenced remarkable residue preservation, with approximately 82% of the sample showing some form of functional evidence. Residues observed included hair, feathers, bone/antler, wood, plant tissue, phytoliths, starch grains, and resin. The results suggest that tool typology is not strongly linked to the processing of specific materials. For example, endscrapers from the sample show evidence of processing wood, charred wood, plants, starchy plants, birds, bone/antler, and animals (hair). Hairs are found on tools typologically classified as blades, flakes, borers, pointed blades, and combination tools (nosed endscraper-borer, burin-laterally-retouched blade). In the early Upper Paleolithic of southwest Germany, a wide range of tool types appears to have been used to process a diverse array of materials. These results suggest that the interpretation of behavioral patterns from stone tools must consider more than tool typology.     

Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turkey): archaeological evidence for early human settlement in Central Anatolia

Located in the Central Anatolian Volcanic Province, Kaletepe Deresi 3 was discovered in the summer of 2000 and has been under investigation since that time. Volcanic activity in the region generated a number of obsidian intrusions that have attracted humans to the area throughout prehistory. The stratigraphic sequence at Kaletepe Deresi 3, more than 7 m in depth, presents a series of archaeological horizons representing the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. The site contains the longest open-air Paleolithic sequence excavated in Turkey, as well as the first in situ Acheulean industry documented in Anatolia. Tephras in the upper Middle Paleolithic horizons and the rhyolithic bedrock bracket the timespan represented at Kaletepe Deresi 3. The lithic industry at the site illustrates a wide range of technological behaviors and documents changes in raw-material exploitation and artifact manufacture through the Lower and Middle Paleolithic.     

Art and the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: comments on the archaeological arguments for an early Upper Paleolithic antiquity of the Grotte Chauvet art

The spectacular art of the Grotte Chauvet stands out among all other examples of Aurignacian art, which are restricted to a handful of sites in other regions of western and Central Europe, which take the form of sophisticated carvings on organic materials and of simple engravings on rockshelter walls. Given its sophistication, Chauvet has understandably come to feature prominently in debates as to the nature of human symbolic origins, the behavioral capacities of Homo sapiens, the nature of the dispersal of modern humans across Europe, and the possibly contemporary extinction of Homo neanderthalensis. Significant objections to such an antiquity have, however, been made in recent years on the grounds of the style, themes, and technical practice of the art itself, and on the grounds of the AMS radiocarbon dating program that was first seen to suggest an early Upper Paleolithic age. To date, no attention has been paid to claims for an Aurignacian age on specifically archaeological grounds. Here, I undertake a critical examination of the archaeology of the cave and its wider region, as well as attempts to verify the antiquity of the art on the basis of comparison with well-dated Aurignacian art elsewhere. I conclude that none of the archaeological arguments withstand scrutiny and that many can be rejected as they are either incorrect or tautologous. By contrast, hypotheses that the art is of Gravettian-Magdalenian age have not been successfully eliminated. The age of the art of the Grotte Chauvet should be seen as a scientific problem, not an established fact. While it may prove impossible to prove an Aurignacian age for some of the Chauvet art I suggest a set of expectations that would, in combination, strengthen the robusticity of the ‘long chronology’ argument. The onus is upon Chauvet long chronologists to do this, and until they do, we must conclude that the art of the Grotte Chauvet is not dated, and very possibly much younger than claimed.