One hundred years later-new evidence supporting an intentional Neandertal burial at La...
-
Upload
fromatob3404 -
Category
Documents
-
view
19 -
download
1
description
Transcript of One hundred years later-new evidence supporting an intentional Neandertal burial at La...
One hundred years later: new evidence supporting an intentional Neandertal
burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze, France)
William Rendu, Cédric Beauval, Isabelle Crevecoeur, Priscilla Bayle, Antoine Balzeau,
Thierry Bismuth, Laurence Bourguignon, Géraldine Delfour, Jean-Philippe Faivre, François
Lacrampe-Cuyaubère, Carlotta Tavormina, Dominique Todisco, Alain Turq, Bruno Maureille.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION (SI) SUPPORTING TEXTS ............................................................................................................................. 2
TEXT S1: Bouffia 118 zooarchaeological analysis ............................................................................ 2
TEXT S2: New Neandertal remains discovered during the 2011‐2012 excavations ....................... 2
SUPPORTING FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... 7
FIGURE S1: Site location and picture of the site entrance. ............................................................. 7
FIGURE S2: Map of the La Chapelle‐aux‐Saints cavity complex and main stratigraphic
information. ..................................................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE S3: Mousterian sites with faunal spectra dominated by Bison or Reindeer attributed to
the MIS 4 or the MIS 3 ..................................................................................................................... 9
FIGURE S4: Human dental remains discovered during the 2011‐2012 excavations and during the
1920’s. ........................................................................................................................................... 10
FIGURE S5: Human osseous remains discovered during the 2011‐2012. ..................................... 11
FIGURE S6: First excavation stage of the pit structure in 2011. .................................................... 12
FIGURE S7: Picture of the excavators nearby the burial pit, after its excavation ......................... 12
FIGURE S8: Picture of the pit after the 2012 excavation. ............................................................. 13
FIGURE S9: Skeletal part representation of LCS1 after the 2011‐2012 discoveries. ..................... 14
SUPPORTING TABLES ......................................................................................................................... 15
TABLE S1: Faunal spectrums from Bouffia 118. ............................................................................ 15
TABLE S2: Taphonomic modifications of the Alpha and C2 faunal remains from Bouffia 118. .... 15
TABLE S3: Faunal spectra of the Bouffia Bonneval from the 2011‐2012 excavations. ................. 16
TABLE S4: Faunal spectrum of the Bouffia Bonneval from the Bouyssonies’ excavations. .......... 17
TABLE S5: Taphonomic alterations of the faunal remains from the Bouyssonie excavation. ...... 18
TABLE S6: Taphonomic alterations of the faunal remains from the recent excavation. .............. 18
TABLE S7: Potential primary and secondary Western European Neandertal burial. .................... 19
REFERENCES FOR SUPPORTING INFORMATION ................................................................................ 20
SUPPORTINGTEXTS
TEXTS1:Bouffia118zooarchaeologicalanalysis
Two archaeological levels have been identified in Bouffia 118: Alpha and underlying C2.
Alpha has yielded a large quantity of bifacial thinning flakes linked to the MTA techno-
complex (see 1). The faunal assemblage from level Alpha is largely dominated by Bison
remains (Table S1) presenting a high frequency of weathering modifications and root
etchings (Table S2). All the skeletal elements seem to have been introduced into the site. On
the other hand, the faunal spectrum of layer C2 is largely specialized on reindeer (Table S1)
and is associated with a Levallois technology produced on local and exogenous raw
materials. While deer remains are very well-preserved, they are systematically stained by
natural manganese deposits (Table S1). Skeletal part profiles suggest a highly selective
pattern with more than 90% of the NISP being limb fragments. A statistically significant
relationship exists between the skeletal part representation and the quantity of marrow and
grease contained within the different imported elements.
Although the material is yet to be radiocarbon dated, comparisons with other well-dated
sequences from Southwestern France containing the same faunal associations allowed a
biochronological approach to the two layers (Fig S3). During the Middle Paleolithic of
Southwestern France, reindeer dominated faunal spectrums occur only during MIS 4 and the
very beginning of MIS 3 and are followed by a 'Bison phase' at around 45ky represented by
an overwhelming dominance of this large bovine in faunal assemblages recovered from sites
attributed to this period (for a complete synthesis see 2).
TEXTS2:NewNeandertalremainsdiscoveredduringthe2011‐2012excavations
Thirteen new hominin remains have been discovered during our field work in 2011 and 2012.
Seven of them are attributed to the LCS 1 individual based on their morphology and the
preservation of the skeleton. Additional dental remains, an upper third molar from the
collections of the Musée de l’Homme (Paris, France), a molar root fragment, and an upper
second premolar, could belong to additional adult individuals (18). Finally, three deciduous
teeth represent additional juvenile specimens.
New LCS 1 remains:
1) A right upper second premolar (LCAS 2011 R73 # 12) - Fig S4A&B
This tooth is limited to the root (S4). The virtual extraction of the left upper first premolar on
LCS 1 shows that this tooth is two rooted and exhibits a taurodont morphology. The
morphological similarities between the tooth still in place on the LCS 1 maxilla and LCAS
2011 R73 # 12 doesn't exclude the association of the new dental root to the same individual.
Fig S4B provides a virtual extraction and reconstruction of the first premolar still in place on
the left upper dental arch of LCS 1 allowing a comparison with LCAS 2011 R73 # 12.
2) A fragment of a right scapula (LCAS 2011 S73 #322) - Fig S5A
The piece is part of a right mature scapula preserving most of the glenoid cavity, 3
centimeters of the axillary border and 70 mm2 of the adjacent body. The roots of the coracoid
and acromion processes are broken. The morphology of the broken parts indicates ancient
breaks. As scapular elements are missing from the LCS 1 individual, we consider that the
simplest hypothesis is that this scapula fragment belongs to the LCS 1 skeleton. Note the
clear insertion of the M. teres minor on the dorsal surface (Fig S5A).
3) A distal extremity of a right ulna (LCAS 2011 S73 #62) - Fig S5B
This piece is 33 mm long and represents a well- preserved radial articulation with part of the
diaphysis. The proximal part of the fragment has an irregular and recent break. The antero-
posterior and transverse diameters of the articular extremity are respectively of 23.7 mm and
22.1 mm. The minimal circumference of the diaphysis, measured just above the radial
articulation, is 33.5 mm and the maximum height of the articular circumference is 9.5 mm.
No direct refitting is possible between the broken distal extremity of the right LCS1 ulna and
the newly discovered fragment as the original right ulna was repaired using different kinds of
materials. Nevertheless, the shapes of the two pieces suggest that this distal extremity
derives from the same bone.
4) A distal extremity of the left third metacarpal (LCAS 2012 S73 #449) - Fig S5C
This piece is part of the distal extremity of a metacarpal. The radial part of the articular
surface is well-preserved, while the palmo-ulnar side is broken. The comparison of this distal
extremity with the original material allows to attribute this fragment to the left third metacarpal
of LCS1, whose distal extremity is missing and reconstructed. The size and morphology of
the new fragment correspond with this missing area. Moreover, there is a perfect secondary
anatomical connection with the proximal articular surface of the right third proximal phalanx.
Finally, a shallow ovoid depression is present on the articular surface. The same
characteristic can be observed on the distal articular surface of the right second metacarpal
from the original collection.
5) A proximal phalanx of the right thumb (LCAS 2011 R74 #109) - Fig S5D
This piece is 30.7 mm long and is well-preserved with the exception of the palmar surface of
the diaphysis which is broken. Two small fragments of compact bone from this area are
however still preserved. The phalanx is slender and the lateral crests are not marked which
is typical for most of the Neandertal proximal pollical phalanxes (19). No pathological
conditions are perceptible.
Following the morphology and size of the other hand phalanxes associated to LCS 1
individual (20), we consider that the simplest hypothesis is that this piece belongs to the
same specimen.
6) A distal phalanx of the right thumb (LCAS 2012 S73 S2 Rem 25-30 seau 2) – Fig S5E
This piece is partially broken with the medial side of the apical tuft and part of the diaphysis
missing. Given the taphonomy of the break, it could results from the 1908's excavation. This
phalanx presents a large proximal extremity in relation to its maximum length following the
Neandertal pattern (19). The insertion area of the muscle pollicis longus is well marked. Only
the apical tuft shows few Neandertal affinity with a gracile distal extremity. Finally, the
proximal articular surface fits perfectly with distal articulation of the new right proximal
phalanx.
7) A distal extremity of the left third metatarsal (LCAS 2012 S73 #568) – Fig S5F
This piece is highly deformed by bone remodelling. It is however possible to identify it as the
distal extremity of a metatarsal. The articular surface is eburnated and flattened. Its
comparison with the original collection allowed to bring it closer to the right third metatarsal.
The symmetry is not straightforward because of the pathological state of this distal extremity,
but its dimension and morphology closely resemble the antimeric bone from the original
collection.
Presumed new adult specimens:
1) A left upper second premolar (LCAS 2012 R73 #221) - Fig S4C
This tooth presents a mesio-distal fracture and its root is apically broken. The crown shows a
very high wear degree, the lingual aspect of the enamel being completely worn and the pulp
cavity open. Only the maximal bucco-lingual diameter of the root can be estimated to 11 mm.
Compared to the right upper second premolar LCAS 2011 R73 # 12 likely belonging to
LCS1(see above), this new tooth has a shorter root with a morphologically different apex.
Thus, this tooth does not belong to LCS1, and represents a new adult individual at La
Chapelle-aux-Saints.
2) A right upper third permanent molar discovered in 1920 – Fig S4D
This right upper third molar was discovered September 7th, 1920 by a cousin of Bouyssonie
visiting the bouffia Bonneval who entrusted it to Jean Bouyssonie. It was recognized by the
latter as a human tooth. As he suspected it might belong to the LCS 1 fossil, he sent it to H.
Breuil (letter available at the Central library of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris
- Henri Breuil archives - classification mark Br 28) to give it to M. Boule. The tooth has been
in the fossil collections of the Musée de l’Homme (Paris) ever since (18).
Unfortunately, the upper alveolar arch of LCS 1 is poorly preserved and it is not possible to
test if this large third molar could refit.
3) A distal root of a lower permanent molar (LCAS 2011 R73 #26) - Fig S4E
This root of a human permanent molar bears a recent fracture on one face. The outward
orientation and distal curvature indicate that this root is a distal one of a lower molar. The
asymmetry of the lingual and the buccal edges (the buccal one is higher and less convex
than the lingual one) and the orientation of the apex suggest a left root. The slightly oblique
angle of the root relative to the inferred occlusal or cervical plane suggests that this root
cannot be a third molar and is probably more likely to be a second or a first molar.
This root belongs to either an adult or a child older than 12-13 years. There is substantial
resorption of the back part of the alveolar bone on both sides of the LCS 1 mandible. Such a
resorption is associated with a severe parodontopathy. No lower permanent molar would still
have been in place in the mouth of this Neandertal for at least several months before its
death. Thus, this fragment of a root of a lower left permanent molar cannot be attributed to
LCS1 and therefore represents another individual, like the one represented by the left upper
second premolar LCAS 2012 R73 # 221 (see above).
New juvenile specimens:
1) A right upper deciduous central incisor (LCAS 2011 S73 Rem 10-15 seau 1) – S4F
This tooth presents a complete functional crown and an apically broken root. The labial
surface is convex in both the vertical and horizontal planes. The mesial border is less convex
than the distal one which is also shorter. The lingual surface is shovel-shaped presenting a
well-developed mesial (higher) and distal (wider) margin and a clear lingual tubercule. The
mesial margin almost reaches the cingulum while the distal one is separated from it by a
deep surface. The crown occlusal border presents light attrition and there is also a very small
mesial interproximal contact facet at the mid-height of the crown. Considering the occlusal
wear, this tooth could have belonged to a child, circa 3 years old, younger than the Roc-de-
Marsal 1 and older than the Pech-de-l’Azé 1 specimens (21, 22). The crown mesio-distal
diameter is 8.17 mm and the bucco-lingual is 6.25 mm.
2) A right upper deciduous second molar (LCAS 2012 T74 S3 Rem 15-20 seau 1 & T73
S2 Rem 10-15 seau 2) - Fig S4G
This new tooth consists of two fragments from adjacent squares, one from T74 representing
the three quarters of the lingual crown, and the other one a small buccal portion from T73.
There are large fractures between the two fragments. The crown shows high occlusal wear
(6-1 following 23), and large interproximal contact facets. The beveled edge of the small root
fragment suggests that the tooth has been lost during the life of the individual. Following 24,
this tooth could have belonged to a 11-12 years old child. The crown mesio-distal diameter is
estimated to 8.83 mm, and the bucco-lingual to 11.50 mm.
Given their different wear patterns, this new tooth and the right upper deciduous central
incisor LCAS 2011 S73 Rem 10-15 seau 1 (see above) cannot have belonged to the same
juvenile individual.
3) A right lower deciduous first molar (LCAS 2012 Q74 S1 Rem 50-55 seau 1) - Fig S4H
This is a well-preserved crown showing a high occlusal wear (5-2 following 23), and
pronounced interproximal contact facets. A small fossa on the mesial aspect of the
protoconid recalls the morphology shown by Rescoundudou 2 (25), and Pech-de-l'Azé 1
(26). Following 24, this tooth could have belonged to a 10 years old child. The crown mesio-
distal diameter is 8.18 mm, and the bucco-lingual is 7.67 mm.
Given its wear degree, this new tooth could belong to the same individual as the right upper
deciduous second molar LCAS 2012 T74 S3 Rem 15-20 seau 1 & T73 S2 Rem 10-15 seau
2.
At least two juvenile individuals are recognized at La Chapelle-aux-Saints, one represented
by an upper deciduous central incisor, and the other one by an upper deciduous second
molar and a lower deciduous first molar.
SUPPORTINGFIGURES
FIGURES1:Sitelocationandpictureofthesiteentrance.A: Map From Geoatlas. B: the picture was taken from the base of the slope in front of the cave entrance before the 2011 excavation.
FIGURES2:M
apoftheLaChapelle‐aux‐Saintscavitycomplexandmainstratigraphicinform
ation.
Mod
ified
from
(1)
. In
the
figur
e, g
rey
squa
res
in a
ll of
the
cavi
ties
exce
pt th
e bo
uffia
Bon
neva
l cor
resp
ond
to th
e ex
cava
ted
are
as fo
r al
l cav
ities
ex
cept
ed f
or b
ouffi
a B
onne
val.
The
acc
ess
path
to th
e ca
vitie
s is
in li
ght s
hade
of g
rey.
All
stra
tigra
phic
and
arc
haeo
logi
cal i
nfor
mat
ion
are
deriv
ed fr
om (
1). F
auna
l spe
ctra
are
alw
ays
dom
inat
ed b
y re
inde
er o
r bi
son
rem
ains
(re
pres
ente
d by
the
sche
mat
ic fi
gure
s). F
auna
l rem
ains
fr
om G
rotte
du
Noy
er a
nd
Bou
ffia
131-
133
have
an
excl
usiv
e ca
rniv
ore
orig
in; a
ssem
blag
es fr
om B
ouffi
a 10
2 an
d B
ouffi
a 13
7-14
0 ha
ve a
mix
ed
orig
in, f
auna
l rem
ains
from
Bou
ffia
118
have
an
excl
usiv
e hu
man
orig
in.
FIGURES3:MousteriansiteswithfaunalspectradominatedbyBisonorReindeerattributedtotheMIS4ortheMIS31: Saint-Césaire, Layer EGPF (3); 2: Marillac-Les Pradelles, Layers 9 and 10 (4); 3: Jonzac, Layers 22, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12 and 9 (5-6); 4: La Quina, Layer 8 (7), Layers 6a and 6c (8-9); 5: Roc-de-Marsal (10); 6: Combe Grenal, Layers 17 and 16 (11); 7 : Pech de l’Azé IV, Layers I and H (12); 8: Sous-les-Vignes (13); 9: Puycelsi-La Rouquette, Layer 1 (14); 10: Mauran, (15-17). Cultural and radiochronological attribution are discussed and synthesized by (2).
FIGURES4:Humandentalremainsdiscoveredduringthe2011‐2012excavationsandduringthe1920’s.A, C, E-H dental remains discovered during the 2011-2012 excavation. D: M3 discovered in 1920. B : virtual extraction and reconstruction of the first premolar still in place on the left upper dental arch of LCS 1 allowing a comparison with LCAS 2011 R73 # 12
FIGURES5:Humanosseousremainsdiscoveredduringthe2011‐2012.
FIGURES6:Firstexcavationstageofthepitstructurein2011.The dark sediment corresponds to the Bouyssonie’s backfill; the light corresponds to the marl. The dotted line marks the pit limit.
FIGURES7:Pictureoftheexcavatorsnearbytheburialpit,afteritsexcavationLeft: Jean Bouyssonie and Father Robert visiting the site just after the discovery; Right: current excavators in 2011. The white line on the two pictures underlines the same relief of the cavity roof. The pictures were taken from the entrance of the cavity. The 1909 picture comes from the Fonds Bouyssonie-Ecole Bossuet.
FIGURES8:Pictureofthepitafterthe2012excavation.Backfill can only be seen now at the extremity of the cavity and the substratum is exposed on the totality of the excavated area. The picture was taken from the entrance of the cavity in September 2012.
FIGURES9:SkeletalpartrepresentationofLCS1afterthe2011‐2012discoveries.Grey: Skeletal elements identified in 1908; Red: Skeletal elements from the 2011 excavation. Drawing from: URA 376 CNRS after S.T. Constandse - Westermann and C. Meikeljohn, modified by M. Guillon, P. Sellier and P. Courtaud. Digitized by M. Coutureau (INRAP).
SUPPORTINGTABLES
TAXA ALPHA C2
Fox 7 2
Hyena 1
Wild cat 1
Reindeer 35 605
Roe deer 1
Cervid 1
Bovine 140 78
Horse 2
Avifauna 3
Marmotte 1 1
NISP 189 689
Medium sized ungulates 2 11
Large sized ungulates 226 73
Mammals 50 46
Total 467 819
TABLES1:FaunalspectrumsfromBouffia118.Faunal spectra established on the two main layers from bouffia 118. Alpha is the upper layer, dominated by bovine remains; C2 is the lower layer, dominated by reindeer.
Taphonomic
modifications
Alpha C2
NR %NR NR %NR
Longitudinal cracks 104 22,27% 237 28,94%
Exfoliation 163 34,90% 169 20,63%
Flaking of the outer
surface 65 13,92% 72 8,79%
Smoothed bone 98 20,99% 58 7,04%
Manganese deposits 11 2,36% 115 14,05%
Carnivore modifications 26 5.07% 51 6.23%
TABLES2:TaphonomicmodificationsoftheAlphaandC2faunalremainsfromBouffia118.Significant differences can be observed in the preservation pattern between the upper layer (Alpha) and the lower one C2 particularly if we considered the frequencies of smoothed bones and manganese deposits.
Taxa Backfill C4 C2sup C5 Wolf 3 1 Fox 61
Hyena 3 Felid 3
Badger 60 Polecat 0 1
Carnivore 2 Hyduntinus 0 1
Horse 56 7 3 Ovicapra 9
Capra 1 Bovine 675 87 1 1
Roe deer 5 3 Reindeer 4225 439 98 19 Red deer 7 1 Giant deer 1 Wild boar 13 Marmot 8 7
Lagomorph 101 NISP 5233 538 111 20
Large size ungulate 751 84 3 4
Mammal 457 36 2
Avifauna 78 NR 6519 658 114 26
TABLES3:FaunalspectraoftheBouffiaBonnevalfromthe2011‐2012excavations.C4: material from the non previously excavated area; C2sup: material moved into the marl by the cyroturbation. C5: faunal remains from the cryoclastic feature cut by the pit. The Backfill assemblage corresponds to what had been discarded by the Bouyssonies during their excavation.
Bouyssonies' excavation TAXA NISP Bear 1 Wolf 1 Fox 4
Horse 25 Rhinoceros 3 Ovicapra 5
Capra 3 Bovine 915
Reindeer 529 Red deer 12 Giant deer 8
Cervid 19 Wild boar 1 Marmot 1
Lagomorph 6 NISP 1533
Large size ungulate 255
Mammal 53 NR 1841
TABLES4:FaunalspectrumoftheBouffiaBonnevalfromtheBouyssonies’excavations.We have here to keep in mind that the sampling was highly selective and large taxa might be over-represented in this collection. It probably explains the main differences between the Bouyssonies collection and the material yielded by the backfill excavation.
Taphonomic alterations Reindeer Bison Neandertal NR % NR % NR %
Longitudinal craks 220 41,59 439 47,98 5 6,49 exfoliation 233 44,04 241 26,33 0 0 freezing modification 46 8,69 116 12,68 0 0 smouthed bone 196 37,05 180 19,68 4 5 Manganeze deposit 42 7,94 34 3,72 6 8
Bonesurfacealteration0 - 1 260 55,32 85 41,67 77 100
Bonesurfacealteration2 89 18,94 60 29,41 0 0
Bonesurfacealteration3 75 15,96 45 22,06 0 0
Bonesurfacealteration4 46 9,79 14 6,86 0 0
Carnivoremodifications 21 4 47 5,1 0 0
TABLES5:TaphonomicalterationsofthefaunalremainsfromtheBouyssonieexcavation.Bone surface alteration pattern refers to the stage of preservation of the cortical surface of the remains (following (16)). 0-1: less than 25% of the remain surfaces are altered, 2: less than 50% of the remain surfaces are altered. 3: less than 75% of the remain surfaces are altered, 4: more than 50% of the remain surfaces are altered. Major differences can be observed between the different analyzed taxa. Human remains are significantly less altered than the faunal ones. Bison and reindeer exhibit also two different patterns of preservation: with for instance frequencies of exfoliation and manganese deposits higher on reindeer remains than on bison ones.
Taphonomic alterations Reindeer Bison NR % NR %
Longitudinal craks 150 11,82 46 20,91 exfoliation 418 32,94 73 33,18 freezing modification 111 8,75 17 7,73 smouthed bone 81 6,36 18 8,18 Manganeze deposit 180 32,07 19 19,09 Bone surface alteration 0 - 1 730 62,07 115 59,89 Bone surface alteration 2 211 17,94 32 16,67 Bone surface alteration 3 99 8,42 23 11,98 Bone surface alteration 4 136 11,56 22 11,46 Carnivore modifications 30 2,4 9 4,1
TABLES6:Taphonomicalterationsofthefaunalremainsfromtherecentexcavation. Sample made from the 2011 material. Differences between the two collections might be explained by the fact that part of the recent one is composed by very small fragments which have a smaller cortical surface and, thus, have a lower probability to exhibit carnivore marks.
Sp
ecim
en i
nfo
rmat
ion
In
terp
reta
tio
n a
t th
e ti
me
of
the
dis
cove
ry
Cu
rren
t in
terp
reta
tio
n
Site
F
oss
il sp
eci
me
n D
isco
very
yea
r
Inte
ntio
nalit
y to
pro
tect
the
de
ad
Site
funt
ion
Ref
. In
ten
tiona
l pit
Qu
ick
pro
tect
ion
of t
he d
ead
S
ite fu
nct
ion
an
d a
na
lyse
s fo
r w
hic
h r
ese
arc
hes
mu
st b
e u
nde
rta
ken
Ref
.
Fe
ldh
ofe
r F
eld
fhof
er
1 1
856
N
o
Un
kno
wn
(2
7)
Un
kno
wn
Y
es
Un
kno
wn
lit
hics
& z
ooa
rcha
eol
ogy
-
Be
tche
-al-R
otc
he
Sp
y 1
1
886
N
o
Liv
ing
pla
ce
(28
) U
nkn
ow
n
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
?
lithi
cs &
zo
oarc
hae
olog
y(4
3)
Sp
y 2
1
886
N
o
Liv
ing
pla
ce
(28
) U
nkn
ow
n
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
?
lithi
cs &
zo
oarc
hae
olog
y(4
3)
Le
Mo
ust
ier
low
er
rock
-she
lter
Le
Mo
ust
ier
1 1
908
Y
es
Liv
ing
pla
ce
(29
) U
nkn
ow
n
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
lit
hics
& z
ooa
rcha
eol
ogy
-
Le
Mo
ust
ier
2 1
914
Y
es
Liv
ing
pla
ce
(30
) Y
es
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
Z
oo
arc
hae
olo
gy
(44
)
Ch
ap
elle
-au
x-S
ain
ts
La
Cha
pe
lle
au
x S
ain
ts 1
1
908
Y
es
Fu
ne
rary
ca
ve
(31
) Y
es
Ye
s R
esid
entia
l site
L
ithic
P
rese
nt
stu
dy
La F
erra
ssie
gra
nd
ab
ri
La
Fe
rra
ssie
1
19
09
No
th
en Y
es
Liv
ing
pla
ce
(32
-33
) Y
es
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
st
ratig
rap
hy
& li
thic
s &
zo
oa
rch
ae
olo
gy
(33
)
La
Fe
rra
ssie
2
19
10
No
th
en Y
es
Liv
ing
pla
ce
(32
-33
) U
nkn
ow
n
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
st
ratig
rap
hy
& li
thic
s &
zo
oa
rch
ae
olo
gy
(33
)
La
Fe
rra
ssie
3
19
12
Un
kno
wn
th
en Y
es
Liv
ing
pla
ce
(33
-35
) Y
es
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
st
ratig
rap
hy
& li
thic
s &
zo
oa
rch
ae
olo
gy(3
4,
35)
La
Fe
rra
ssie
4
19
12
Un
kno
wn
th
en Y
es
Liv
ing
pla
ce
(33
-35
) Y
es
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
st
ratig
rap
hy
& li
thic
s &
zo
oa
rch
ae
olo
gy(3
4,
35)
La
Fe
rra
ssie
5
19
20
Ye
s L
ivin
g p
lace
(3
4,
35)
Ye
s Y
es
Re
sid
en
tial s
ite
stra
tigra
ph
y &
lith
ics
& z
oo
arc
ha
eo
logy
(34
, 35
)
La
Fe
rra
ssie
6
19
21
Ye
s L
ivin
g p
lace
(3
4,
35)
Ye
s Y
es
Re
sid
en
tial s
ite
stra
tigra
ph
y &
zo
oa
rcha
eo
logy
(3
4,
35)
La
Fe
rra
ssie
8
19
73
L
ivin
g p
lace
(3
6)
No
Y
es
Re
sid
en
tial s
ite
lith
ics
& z
oo
arc
hae
olo
gy
-
La
Qu
ina
am
ont
L
a Q
uin
a H
5 1
911
N
o
Un
kno
wn
(3
7)
Ye
s Y
es
Un
kno
wn
lithi
cs &
zo
oarc
hae
olog
y(4
5)
Gro
tte
du
Lou
p G
rott
e d
u L
oup
1
19
49-1
950
Y
es
Un
kno
wn
(3
8)
Ye
s N
o
Un
kno
wn
A
nth
ro&
str
atig
rap
hy
& li
thic
s &
zo
oa
rcha
eo
log
y -
Le
Re
gou
rdo
u R
ego
urd
ou
1
19
57
Ye
s a
nd
po
ten
tial
sto
ne
tum
ulu
s F
un
era
ry c
ave
(3
9)
Un
kno
wn
Y
es
Un
kno
wn
A
nth
ro &
lith
ics
& z
oo
arch
ae
olo
gy
(46
)
Le
Ro
c-de
Ma
rsa
l R
oc-
de
-Ma
rsa
l 1
19
61
Ye
s L
ivin
g p
lace
(4
0)
Na
tura
l de
pre
ssio
n Y
es
Re
sid
en
tial s
ite
lith
ics
& z
oo
arc
hae
olo
gy
(47
)
Le
Ma
s V
eil
Ma
s V
eil
2 1
975
Y
es
Un
kno
wn
(4
1)
po
ten
tial a
nth
rop
ic s
truc
ture
with
bo
nes
and
lim
est
one
sla
bs
No
U
nkn
ow
n
An
thro
& li
thic
s &
zo
oar
cha
eo
logy
(4
8)
La
Ro
che
-à-P
ierr
ot
Sa
int-
Cé
saire
1
19
79
Ye
s L
ivin
g p
lace
(4
2)
No
bu
t lim
ited
spa
tial r
ep
art
ition
of
the
hum
an
rem
ain
s N
o /
Ye
s R
esi
de
ntia
l site
A
nth
ro &
lith
ics
& z
oo
arch
ae
olo
gy
(42
)
Sim
a d
e la
s P
alo
ma
s P
alo
ma
s 9
6 2
006
-20
07
Pe
rhap
s U
nkn
ow
n
(49
) U
nkn
ow
n
Ye
s U
nkn
ow
n
An
thro
& li
thic
s &
zo
oar
cha
eo
logy
(4
9)
TABLES7:PotentialprimaryandsecondaryWesternEuropeanNeandertalburial.
The
tab
le c
ompi
les
the
avai
labl
e in
form
atio
n fo
r th
e W
est
Eur
opea
n si
tes
whe
re t
he h
ypot
hesi
s of
Nea
nder
tal b
uria
l has
bee
n ad
vanc
ed b
y pr
evio
us r
esea
rche
rs. C
olum
n 11
list
s th
e an
alys
es fo
r w
hich
re
sear
ch m
ust
be u
nder
take
n (a
nthr
o =
mis
sing
info
rmat
ion
abou
t th
e sp
atia
l di
strib
utio
n of
the
hum
an r
emai
ns).
REFERENCESFORSUPPORTINGINFORMATION 1. Beauval C, Bismuth T, Bruxelles L, Mallye JB, Berthet AL (2007) in One century for the construction of scientific discourse in Prehistory (Un siècle de construction du discours scientifique en Préhistoire), ed Evin J (Congrès Préhistorique de France, Avignon), pp. 197-214. 2. Discamps E, Jaubert J, Bachellerie F (2011) Human choices and environmental constraints: deciphering the variability of large game procurement from Mousterian to Aurignacian times (MIS 5-3) in southwestern France. Quat Sci Rev 30:2755-2775. 3. Morin E (2004) Late Pleistocene population interaction in Western Europe and modern Human Origins: new insights based on the faunal remains from Saint-Cézaire, Southwestern France (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor). 4. Costamagno S, Meignen L, Beauval C, Vandermeersch B, Maureille B (2006) Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, France): A Mousterian reindeer hunting camp? J Anthropol Arch 25:466-484. 5. Jaubert J, Hublin JJ., Soressi M, Mcpherron S, Bailey S, Bordes JG, Claud E, Mallye JB, Michel A, Niclot M, Rendu W, Richards M, Richter D, Roussel M, Steele T, Taylor G, Texier JP (2008) in The Paleolithic societies from Southwestern France : new sites, new methods, new results (Les sociétés Paléolithiques d'un grand Sud-Ouest : nouveaux gisements, nouvelles méthodes, nouveaux résultats), eds Jaubert J, Bordes JG, Ortega I (Bull Soc Préhist Fr, Paris), pp. 203-243 6. Beauval C (2004) The faunal assemblage from the Mousterian levels of Chez Pinaud site (Jonzac, Charente-maritime, France). First analysis. (La Faune des niveaux Moustériens de " Chez Pinaud " (Jonzac, Charente-maritime, France). Première analyse). Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest suppl 8:125-156. 7. Debénath A, Jelinek AJ (1998) New excavations at La Quina (Charentes). Preliminary results (Nouvelles fouilles à la Quina (Charente). Résultats préliminaires). Gallia Préhistoire 40:29-74. 8. Chase P (1999) in The Bison: Prey and subsistance material of the men from the Palaeolithic to the Paleoindian (Le Bison: Gibier et Moyen de Subsistance des Hommes du Paléolithique aux Paléoindiens des Grandes Plaines), eds Brugal JP, David F, Enloe JG, Jaubert J (ADPCA, Antibes), pp. 159-184. 9. Rendu W, Armand D (2009) Hunting seasonality of the Bison from the Mousterian site of La Quina (Gardes-le-Pontaroux, Charente), Level 6c. Help to the understanding of the subsistence strategies (Saisonnalité de prédation du bison du gisement moustérien de La Quina (Gardes-le-Pontaroux, Charente), Niveau 6c. Apport à la compréhension des comportements de subsistance). Bull Soc Préhist Fr 106:679-690. 10. Soulier MC (2007) Zooarchaeological analysis of square M16, layer II, from the Roc de Marsal Mousterian Site (Dordogne) (Etude archéozoologique du carré M16 de la couche II du gisement moustérien du Roc de Marsal (Dordogne) (Université Toulouse-Le Mirail, Toulouse). 11. Guadelli JL (1987) Contribution to the study of the prehistoric zoocenoses in Aquitaine Early Wurm and Wurm interstadial) (Contribution à l'étude des zoocénoses préhistoriques en Aquitaine (Würm ancien et interstade würmien)) (Université Bordeaux I, Talence). 12. Laquay G (1981) Research on the Wurm I fauna in Perigord (Recherches sur les faunes du Würm I en Périgord) (Université Bordeaux I, Talence). 13. Turq A, Guadelli JL, Quintard A (1999) in The Bison : Prey and subsistance material of the men from the Palaeolithic to the Paleoindian (Le Bison: Gibier et Moyen de Subsistance des Hommes du Paléolithique aux Paléoindiens des Grandes Plaines), eds Brugal JP, David F, Enloe JG, Jaubert J (ADPCA, Antibes), pp. 143-158. 14. Rendu W, Bourguignon L, Costamagno S, Meignen L, Soulier MC, Armand D, Beauval
C, David F, Griggo C, Jaubert J, Maureille B, Park SJ (2011) Mousterian hunting camps: Interdisciplinary Approach and Methodological Considerations. Palethnologie 3:59-73. 15. Farizy C, David F, Jaubert J (1994) Human and Bison of the Middle Palaeolithic at Mauran (Haute-Garonne) (Hommes et Bisons du Paléolithique Moyen à Mauran (Haute-Garonne)) (CNRS edition, Paris). 16. Rendu W (2007) Subsistence activities scheduling within the territory of the last Mousterians Skeletochronological and Zooarchaeological approaches applied to Middle Palaeolithic sites (Pech-de-l'Azé I, La Quina, Mauran) and an Early Upper Palaeolithic one (Isturitz) (Planification des activités de subsistance au sein du territoire des derniers Moustériens. Cémentochronologie et approche archéozoologique de gisements du Paléolithique moyen (Pech-de-l'Azé 1, La Quina, Mauran) et du Paléolithique supérieur ancien (Isturitz)) (Université Bordeaux 1, Talence). 17. Rendu W, Costamagno S, Meignen L, Soulier MC (2012) Monospecific faunal spectra in Mousterian contexts: Implications for social behavior. Quat Int. 247:50-58. 18. Trinkaus E (1985) Pathology and the Posture of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neandertal. Am J Physical Anthropol 67:19-41. 19. Musgrave JH (1971) How Dextrous was Neanderthal Man. Nature 233:538-541. 20. Boule M (1911-1913) The fossil man from La Chapelle-aux-Saints (L’Homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints) (Masson, Paris). 21. Madre-Dupouy M (1992) The Roc de Marsal Child. Analytical and comparative analysis (L’enfant du Roc de Marsal. Etude analytique et comparative). Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie (CNRS Editions, Paris). 22. Legoux P (1970) in The Pech-de-l’Azé child (L'enfant du Pech-de-l'Azé), eds Ferembach D, Legoux P, Fenart R, Empereur-Buisson R, Vlcek E. Archives Institut Paléontologie Humaine, vol. 33 (Masson et Cie, Paris), pp. 53-87. 23. Smith BH (1984) Patterns of molar wear in hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists. Am J Physical Anthropol 63:39-56. 24. AlQahtani SJ, Hector MP, Liveresidge HM (2010) Brief communication: the London atlas of Human tooth development and eruption. Am J Physical Anthropol 142:481-490. 25. Jaubert J, Maureille B (2008) The human teeth from Rescoundoudou (Sebazac-Concourès, Aveyron) (Les dents humaines moustériennes du Rescoundudou (Sébazac-Concourès, Aveyron)). Bull Soc Préhist Fr 105:677-690. 26. Ferembach D, Legoux P, Fenart R, Empereur-Buisson R, Vlcek E (1970) The Pech-de-l’Azé child (L'enfant du Pech-de-l'Azé). Archives Institut Paléontologie Humaine, vol. 33. (Masson & Cie, Paris). 27. King W (1864) The reputed fossil man of the Neanderthal. Quarterly Journal of Science 1:88-97. 28. Fraipont J, Lohest M (1887) The Human race from Neandertal or Canstadtin Belgium. Ethographical researches on human bones, discovered in the quaternary deposit from the Spy Cave and identification of their geological age (La race humaine de Néanderthal ou de Canstadt en Belgique. Recherches ethnographiques sur des ossements humains découverts dans les dépôts quaternaires d'une grotte à Spy et détermination de leur âge géologique). Arch Biol 7 (1886):587–757. 29. Hauser O (1909) Discovery of a Neandertal type skeleton at the Moustier inferior Rock-shelter (Découverte d'un squelette du type de Néandertal sous l'abri inférieur du Moustier). L'Homme Préhistorique 6:40-48. 30. Peyrony D (1930) The Mousiter, its sites, its industries, its geological layers (Le Moustier, ses gisements, ses industries, ses couches géologiques). Revue d'Anthropologie 40:48-76 & 155-176. 31. Bouyssonie A, Bouyssonie J, Bardon L (1908) Discovery of a human Mousterian skeleton at the Bouffia from the Chapelle-aux-saints (Découverte d'un squelette humain moustérien à la bouffia de La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze)). Anthropologie 19:513-518. 32. Capitan L, Peyrony D (1909) Two human skeletons between Mousterian hearths (Deux squelettes humains au milieu de foyers de l'époque moustérienne). Revue de l'école d'Anthropologie de Paris 19:402-409.
33. Capitan L, Peyrony D (1912) Three new fossil human skeletons (Trois nouveaux squelettes humains fossiles). Revue Anthropologique 22:439-442 34. Peyrony D (1921) Did the Mousterian bury their dead? (Les Moustériens inhumaient-ils leurs morts ?) (Ribes & Cie, Périgueux) 35. Peyrony D (1934) La Ferrassie: Mousterian, Perigordian, Aurignacian (La Ferrassie: Moustérien, Périgordien, Aurignacien). Préhistoire 3:1-92. 36. Delporte H (1976) in The Neandertal burials (Les sépultures néandertaliennes), ed Vandermeersch B (CNRS, Paris). 37. Martin H (1923) Recherches sur l’évolution du Moustérien dans le gisement de la Quina, tome 3: L’Homme fossile de la Quina (Doin, Paris). 38. Leroi-Gourhan A (1950) The grotte du Loup, Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Bull Soc Préhist Fr 47:268-280 39. Bonifay E (1962) A Mousterian ritual assemblage at the Regourdou cave (Montignac, Dordogne) (Un ensemble rituel moustérien à la grotte du Regourdou (Montignac, Dordogne)). IV°Congrès UISPP, Rome:136-140. 40. Bordes F, Lafille J (1962) Discovery of a Mousterian child skeletton in the Roc-de-Marsal site Campagne-du-Bugue (Dordogne) (Découverte d'un squelette d'enfant moustérien dans le gisement du Roc-de-Marsal, commue de Campagne-du-Bugue (Dordogne)). C R Acad Sci 524:714-715. 41. Clottes J (1975) Saint-Simon - abri du Mas Veil. Gallia Préhistoire 18:635. 42. Vandermeersch B (1993) in Context of a Late Neandertal, eds Lévêque F, Backer AM, Guilbaud M (Prehistory Press, Madison). 43. Maureille B, Toussaint M, Semal P (in press) in State of 120 years of pluridisciplinary research on the Betche-aux-Rotches from Spy (Jemeppe-sur-Sambre, Province of Namur, Belgium), eds Semal P, Hauzeur A, Rougier H 44. Maureille B (2002) The rediscovery of the Moustier 2 new born child (La redécouverte du nouveau-né néandertalien Le Moustier 2). Paléo 14:221-238. 45. Verna C (2007) in One century for the construction of scientific discourse in Prehistory (Un siècle de construction du discours scientifique en préhistoire), ed. Evin J (Congrès Préhistorique de France, Avignon) pp. 527-535. 46. Madelaine S, Maureille B, Cavanhié N, Couture-Veschambre Ch, Bonifay E, Armand D, Bonifay MF, Duday H, Fosse P, Vandermeersch B (2008) New human remains attributed to the Regourdou I Neandertal skeleton (Regourdou, commune de Montignac, Dordogne, France) (Nouveaux restes humains moustériens rapportés au squelette néandertalien de Regourdou 1 (Regourdou, commune de Montignac, Dordogne, France)). Paléo 20:101-114. 47. Sandghate DM, Dibble H, Goldberg P, McPherron SP (2011) The Roc-de-Marsal Neandertal child: a reassessment of its status as a deliberate burial. J Hum Evol 61:243-253. 48. Turq A (1992) The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic between the Lot and Dordogne Valleys (Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen entre les vallées de La Dordogne et du Lot) (Université Bordeaux 1, Talence). 49. Walker MJ, Lopez-Martinez MV, Ortega-Rodriganez J, Haber-Uriarte M, Lopez-Jimenez A, Aviles-Fernadez A, Polo-Camacho JL, Campillo-Boj M, Garcia-Torres J, Carrion Garcia JS, San Nicolas-del Toro M, Rodriguez-Estrella T (2012) The excavation of buried articulated Neanderthal skeletons at Sima de las Palomas (Murcia, SE Spain). Quat Int 259: 7-21.