Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 6;5(3):eaav9106.
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aav9106. eCollection 2019 Mar.

New evidence of broader diets for archaic Homo populations in the northwestern Mediterranean

E Morin  1   2 , J Meier  3 , K El Guennouni  4 , A-M Moigne  5 , L Lebreton  5 , L Rusch  6 , P Valensi  7 , J Conolly  1 , D Cochard  2
Affiliations

New evidence of broader diets for archaic Homo populations in the northwestern Mediterranean

E Morin et al. Sci Adv. .

Abstract

Investigating diet breadth is critical for understanding how archaic Homo populations, including Neanderthals, competed for seasonally scarce resources. The current consensus in Western Europe is that ungulates formed the bulk of the human diet during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, while small fast prey taxa were virtually ignored. Here, we present a multisite taphonomic study of leporid assemblages from Southern France that supports frequent exploitation of small fast game during marine isotope stages 11 to 3. Along with recent evidence from Iberia, our results indicate that the consumption of small fast game was more common prior to the Upper Paleolithic than previously thought and that archaic hominins from the northwestern Mediterranean had broader diets than those from adjacent regions. Although likely of secondary importance relative to ungulates, the frequent exploitation of leporids documented here implies that human diet breadths were substantially more variable within Europe than assumed by current evolutionary models.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. MP (Acheulean/Middle Paleolithic) sites included in this study (red circles).
White circles denote published MP sites with evidence of human exploitation of leporids.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Comparison of leporid abundance and marked and/or altered leporid specimens in modern control assemblages (yellow symbols) and published (green symbols) and newly examined (red symbols) archaeological assemblages.
The data include (A) the percentage of leporids, (B) leporid specimens with cutmarks, (C) burned specimens, (D) and long bone diaphysis tubes (out of the total long bone NISP, ulna excluded), (E) the length of tibia tubes in millimeters (green breaks only), and (F) the percentage of specimens with pits and/or gnawing marks, and (G) digested specimens. All percentages are based on NISP counts. Noct, nocturnal raptors; diurn, diurnal raptors; carn, small carnivores; EUP, Early Upper Paleolithic; LUP, Late Upper Paleolithic; LUP/H, Late Upper Paleolithic/early Holocene (see Supplementary Materials). Sample sizes and raw data are provided in data file S1.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Anthropogenic marks in the newly studied assemblages.
Examples of cutmarked leporid specimens from Terra Amata (A, C1a; B and C, C1b), la Baume des Peyrards (D and F), la Crouzade (G, layer 7b), l’Hortus (H, layer 26), les Ramandils (I and J, N21, NW26), le Salpêtre de Pompignan (K, level VII base), and tibia diaphysis tubes from la Baume des Peyrards (E). Skeletal elements: tibia (A, C to E, and H), ulna (B), calcaneus (F), humerus (G), femur (I), metatarsal II (J), and innominate (K). Scale bars, 1 mm except for (E). Photo credit: E. Morin and J. Meier, Trent University and University of North Florida (A to D and F to J); D. Drainat, Centre Européen de Recherches Préhistoriques, Tautavel (E).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Comparisons of different attributes of leporid assemblages.
These comparisons include scatterplots of %NISP of (A) leporids versus adults; (B) burned versus cutmarked specimens; and (C) specimens with pits and/or gnaw mark versus digestion damage. (D) Cluster analysis of five taphonomic attributes expressed in percentage (see text). Data points in the scatterplots correspond to assemblages analyzed for this study (red) and published MP (green), EUP (blue), and LUP/H sites (black). In (D), the newly studied assemblages are shown in bold red, whereas modern control assemblages are shown in gray.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. L. R. Binford, Constructing Frames of Reference: an Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets (University of California Press, 2001).
    1. J. D. Speth, The Paleoanthropology and Archaeology of Big-Game Hunting: Protein, Fat, or Politics? (Springer, New York, 2010).
    1. E. A. Smith, Inujjuamiut Foraging Strategies. Evolutionary Ecology of an Arctic Hunting Economy (Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1991).
    1. Bird D. W., Bird R. B., Codding B. F., In pursuit of mobile prey: Martu hunting strategies and archaeofaunal interpretation. Am. Antiq. 74, 3–29 (2009).
    1. Blasco R., Rosell J., Peris J. F., Arsuaga J. L., de Castro J. M. B., Carbonell E., Environmental availability, behavioural diversity and diet: A zooarchaeological approach from the TD10-1 sublevel of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) and Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). Quat. Sci. Rev. 70, 124–144 (2013).

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources