Archeologie Du Poisson

ARCHÉologie du poisson. 30 ans d’archéo-ichtyologie au cnrs Hommage aux travaux de Jean Desse et Nathalie Desse-Berset

XXVIIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes Sous la direction de P. Béarez, S. Grouard et B. Clavel Éditions APDCA, Antibes, 2008

Taphonomic processes and human accumulations of fish remains at Palaeolithic sites in Europe. Grotto di Pozzo: a case study Hannah Russ(1) Résumé. Les restes de poissons trouvés à Grotto di Pozzo, une caverne en Italie centrale d’occupation datée d’environ 14 500 ans cal. avant le présent, ont été analysés dans le but d’identifier l’agent d’accumulation et faciliter la compréhension de la subsistance et de la mobilité du chasseur-cueilleur du Paléolithique supérieur. Des outils en pierre et des restes de faune avec des traces de découpe ont été également récupérés du site et datent de cette époque, ce qui indique que les groupes humains ont utilisé le site à cette époque. Cependant, les mouvements saisonniers des chasseurs-cueilleurs donnent l’occasion à une faune piscivore d’occuper les sites, ce qui peut potentiellement créer ou modifier l’origine des restes de poisson sur un site. Mots-clés. Os de poisson, Paléolithique, Italie, grotte, découpe de poissons, processus taphonomique. Abstract. Fish remains from Grotta di Pozzo, a cave site in central Italy dating to c. 14,500 cal. BP, were analysed with the aim of identifying accumulation agents to aid current understanding of Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer subsistence and mobility. Stone tools and faunal remains with cut marks have also been recovered from the site and dated to this period, indicating that human groups used the site at this time. The seasonal movement of hunter-gatherers, however, provides the opportunity for sites to be occupied by piscivorous faunas that can potentially create or modify fish remains at a site. Keywords. Fish bones, Palaeolithic, Italy, cave, fish processing, taphonomy. * *    *

An increasing number of Palaeolithic sites in Europe are yielding fish remains; this has resulted mainly from improved sampling and recovery techniques. Identification and interpretation of these assemblages, however, are seriously limited by difficulties in distinguishing anthropogenic thanatocoenoses from those produced by other faunal species and natural processes. This problem is enhanced in Palaeolithic archaeology due to the nature of hunter-gatherer mobility where sites are often used seasonally but may also be abandoned for many years. This (1)  Division of Archaeological, Geographical and Environmental Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, UK

1

H. Russ

allows animals to inhabit locations vacated by human groups, as such, cultural and natural materials may appear within the same contexts. Associating fish remains with human occupation based on artefact presence, usually stone tools, can lead to incorrect interpretation of human subsistence strategies and is a link that should not be assumed. Fish remains from Grotta di Pozzo, a cave site in central Italy dating to 14,500 cal. BP, were analysed with the aim of establishing agents of accumulation to aid current understanding of Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer subsistence and mobility in the area.

Results In total 5,793 fragments of fish bone were analysed, of these 2,543 could be identified to species level. Ribs and spines represented a further 2,150 fragments, leaving 1,100 unidentifiable. All identifiable remains from the site represented a single species, Salmo trutta (brown trout). The assemblage was dominated by cranial elements, especially those of the oromandibular region of the branchiocranium that bear teeth (fig. 1). The glossohyal provides a minimum number of individuals (MNI) of 133. Based on total number of vertebrae (1,624), and given that the average specimen of Salmo trutta has 59 vertebrae (Morales, 1984, p. 46), a maximum MNI of only 28 can be calculated. If vertebrae are separated into five morphotypes as suggested by Morales (1984, p. 46), MNI is reduced to only 24 (based on 609 type II vertebrae at 26 per specimen). Element representation patterns do not fit those associated with digestion (Nicholson, 1993) or bone density (Butler, Chatters, 1994) and so may result from human modification in the form of butchery.

0.1-25

50.1-75

% Element Presence 0

25.1-50

75.1-100

Fig.  1. Cranial element representation at Grotta di Pozzo. Glossohyal and vomer fall in the 75.1-100 % element presence. Base image from Gregory (1933).

 2

Taphonomic processes and human accumulations of fish remains

7

8

N

9

10

0 G

H

I

J

K

L 0

Cave boundary

Drip line

1m2 excavation unit

M

1m

N 16-100

1-15 Fish bone density per m2

251-600

101-250

1000-2000

Fig. 2. Plan of Grotta di Pozzo showing spatial distribution of fish remains. Base image from Mussi et al. (2004).

Spatial distribution of remains indicated two main areas of deposition with no remains recovered from northern areas of the site (fig. 2). When considered stratigraphically, the spatial distribution shows recurring deposition of fish remains in the H9, H10 and L7 areas. There were no significant differences between the spatial distributions of cranial and post-cranial elements. Vertebrae dimensions were compared to modern specimens to estimate fish total length (TL). At Grotta di Pozzo, fish represent a narrow size range between 29.3 and 41.6 cm TL (95  % confidence). Seasonal assessment by growth ring analysis did not provide sufficient data due to vertebral bone loss.

Interpretation Based on current taphonomic knowledge, this assemblage may be attributed to human activity. The element representation pattern is not comparable with those associated with bone density or digestion. It may suggest that this site was used to partially process fish by head removal, perhaps for fish to be preserved or transported, an activity often documented for larger fish in ethnographic accounts of hunter-gatherers in many parts of the world (e.g., Scheffer, 1704; Gifford, 1965). However, there are still many depositional and post-depositional processes that are not understood or that have not been considered. It is especially important to consider processes that may produce assemblage characteristics that parallel those produced by human modification. One area that requires investigation is the ways in which animals can accumulate and deposit fish in archaeological contexts. Preliminary experimental studies at University of Bradford have provided data indicating that basic fish processing with stone tools can leave diagnostic traces

Russ 02

3

H. Russ

on fish skeletal remains. Rather than sustaining individual cut marks, which are often seen on butchered mammal and bird remains, fish bones can become characteristically sectioned. This is supported by recently published research by Willis et al. (2008) which highlights that cut and chop marks on fish bone may be missed in archaeological assemblages as they occur on skeletal elements that are not identified to low taxonomic level (such as ribs and spines) and therefore are observed for less time during identification. To address the problem of identifying agents of accumulation at archaeological sites, especially caves, faecal and pellet samples from animals that use caves and eat fish will be collected. Samples will be processed to recover surviving skeletal elements that will then be analysed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). SEM results will be compared to establish criteria for recognising material resulting from activities of specific animals. This research looks to develop new criteria for distinguishing natural from cultural accumulations of fish remains to improve understanding of hominin subsistence during the Palaeolithic. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr A. K. G. Jones and Dr R. E. Donahue at the University of Bradford and Professor M. Mussi, University of Rome “La Sapienza”. Also to Adrian A. Evans, Lizzy Heywood and Louise Outram. This research is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

Bibliography Butler V. L., Chatters J. C., 1994.– The role of bone density in structuring prehistoric salmon bone assemblages, Journal of Archaeological Science, 21, p. 413-424. Gifford E. W., 1965.– The Coast Yuki. Sacamento: Sacamento Anthropological Society, Sacaramento State College. Gregory W. K., 1933.– Fish skulls: A study of evolution of natural mechanisms, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 23, p. 75-481. Morales A., 1984.– A study on the representativity and taxonomy of the fish faunas from two Mousterian sites in northern Spain with special reference to the trout (Salmo trutta L., 1758), in: N. Desse (dir.), 2nd fish osteoarchaeology meeting, Paris, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, p. 41-59. Mussi M., D’angelo E., F iore I., 2004.– Escargots et autres «  petites  » ressources alimentaires: le cas de la Grotta di Pozzo (Abruzzes, Italie centrale), in: J.-P. Brugal, J. Desse (dir.), Petits animaux et sociétés humaines. Du complément alimentaire aux ressources utilitaires, actes des XXIVe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire ­d’Antibes, octobre 2003, Antibes, ADPCA, p. 99-109. Nicholson R. A., 1993.– An investigation into the effects on fish bone on passage through the human gut: some experiments and comparisons with archaeological material, Circaea, 10, p. 38-51.

 4

Taphonomic processes and human accumulations of fish remains

Scheffer J. 1704.– The history of Lapland: Containing a geographical description and a natural history of that country; with an account of the inhabitants, their original religion, customs, habits, marriages, conjurations and employments, London, Royal-Exchange. Willis L. M., Eren M. I., R ick T. C., 2008.– Does butchering fish leave cut marks?, Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, p. 1438-1444.

5