Pas de peau pour Néandertal ? Modes de dépouillement du renne dans le faciès 2b des Pradelles (Charente) - Archive ouverte HAL Accéder directement au contenu
Chapitre D'ouvrage Année : 2023

Neither Hide Nor Hair of Neanderthal? Reindeer Skinning Patterns of Layer 2b from Les Pradelles (Charente, France)

Pas de peau pour Néandertal ? Modes de dépouillement du renne dans le faciès 2b des Pradelles (Charente)

Résumé

Animal skins in many societies are not only used in the making of clothing, but provide materials for tent covers, containers, musical instruments, kayaks, and the list goes on. Such a diversity of functions places animal skins at the center of many economies. For example, the ethnographic literature, and in particular that relating the life of inland peoples in cold environments, indicates that it takes 50 to 60 skins to meet the annual basic needs of a family of five (Issenman, 1997). Moreover, the species, season of acquisition, age of prey, and coat colour all influence the functional destination of different skins, in addition to how they are cut and processed before use (e.g. Balikci, 1970; Grønnow et al., 1983; Wachowich, 2014). The skin from hunted animals was used by past societies, and undoubtedly at relatively early stages of human evolutionary devel-opment. While the presence of certain types of tools, such as smoothers, awls, needles, or scrapers, makes it possible to assume that hide-working activities took place on prehistoric sites, these tools are generally only indicative of the final steps of hide processing. Species choice, the selection of specific hide portions, and the ways in which the skin is removed from the carcass, all provide essential information allowing us to decipher specific technical and cultural processes. Thanks to recently developed analytical tools regarding the analysis of cutmarks (Soulier and Costamagno, 2017), in combination with skeletal representation analysis, these early steps are becoming more easily accessible, and can therefore provide important insights into our understanding of the lifestyles of early human populations, including Neanderthal groups. Reindeer skin is widely recognized for its qualities in regards to thermal insulation, impermeability, and lightness relative to its high clo value (e.g. Manning and Manning, 1944; Moote, 1955; Stenton, 1991). In layer 2b at Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, Charente, France), which is attributed to the Quina Mousterian, at least 31 reindeers have been identified (Régis, 2020) and this raises questions about the use of skins from this species by the Neanderthals occupying the site. In order to explore this question, the above-mentioned method, combining a study of skeletal representation with detailed analysis or cutmarks produced during skinning, was applied to the layer 2b faunal assemblage. Although the faunal remains are highly fragmented, 659 potentially skin removal trace-bearing elements were identified. 630 of these pieces had a surface that was sufficiently well-preserved in order to observe cutmarks. Traces documenting the three gestures required for skin removal (circular incisions, longitudinal incisions, oblique cutting motions) were observed. These cutmarks are located pri-marily on the metapodials, and most of these marks correspond to oblique cuts necessary for the final detachment of the skin from the carcass. Longitudinal and transverse cutmarks are quite rare, but the paucity of these marks cannot be interpreted as a lack of interest in the skin, as the presence of oblique cutmarks indicates that the lower legs (i.e. metapodials and phalanges) were skinned. Furthermore, all the metapodials and phalanges were fractured to access the marrow contained, which implies de facto that these bones were skinned. Longitudinal incisions of skins were only identified on the lateral face of 3 metapodials. Considering the data of S. Chong and colleagues (2019), when this longitudinal incision is performed on the medial or lateral face half of the metapod fragments bear the traces of such incisions. In facies 2b, using MNE, this ratio is 3:78, suggesting that such longitudinal incisions were made primarily on anterior and/or posterior surfaces and more rarely on lateral surfaces. Moreover, experiments have shown that this action leaves no traces on anterior or posterior surfaces due to the presence of thick tendons. None of these three demonstrated choices in the placement of the longitudinal incision allows for the recovery of skin portions that combine legs and trunk with a single clean cut (Costamagno, 2012). The most likely hypothesis would therefore be that, in layer 2b, the skins of the legs were removed independently from that of the trunk. Doing this necessi-tates a first circular incision of the skin at the upper limbs, an area where the muscle masses prevent any tool-bone contact during skinning. Transverse cutmarks produced by the circular incision of the skin are also quite rare on the lower legs (MNE that can potentially bear this kind of mark = 105, MNE with circular incision = 11). Here again, experimental data indicate that this action almost systematically generates cutmarks when performed on metapodials or proximal phalanges. The low number of circular incisions on the metapods in the facies 2b would indicate that the second incision of the skin was near the hooves, a location where the presence of large tendons reduces the possibility of contact between tools and bones. Moreover, the presence of transverse cutmarks observed on a mesial phalanx seem to support this hypothesis. The combination of these different lines of evidence seems to indicate a relatively standard procedure for removing the skin from the legs on facies 2b where artisans seem to attempt to recover the longest possible pieces of hide from the limbs, extending down to the hooves. This method of skinning was nevertheless not exclusive, as some circular incisions present on metapodial diaphyses indicate that these Neanderthals sometimes took slightly smaller pieces. The presence of two methods of skinning could suggest that the pieces produced were for different uses. By comparing these results with the seasonality of reindeer capture in layer 2b (Soulier, 2008), it would appear that the occupants of Les Pradelles used skins with varied properties, suggesting that the two cutting patterns identified possibly reflect variable needs. Beyond the stage of skin recovery, some elements allow us to discuss the following steps in the operational chain at Les Pradelles. The associated lithic industry, while not very abundant, is primarily composed of Quina and semi-Quina scrapers (Meignen et al., 2007), which are tools that are often presented as being strongly associated with hide processing. A large number of intensively used bone retouchers have also been identified in this assemblage (Oulad El Kaïd, 2018), and these show characteristic traces of resharpening and/or recycling of Quina and semi-Quina scrapers (Bourguignon, 2001). Interestingly, although dominant in the lithic assemblage, scrapers are rare relative to the high number of retouchers used for their maintenance. These results converge with those obtained for facies 4a, where the overabundance of bone retouchers, and in particular those used for the resharpening and/or recycling of Quina and semi-Quina scrapers, relative to the lithic tools suggest that some of the hide processing activities may have been conducted on the plateau in the vicinity of the site (Costamagno et al., 2018). These results are consistent with the reindeer skeletal representation within facies 2b, illustrating a very clear under-representation of the acropod and the tail compared to the leg elements, despite an extensive search for these types of bones in the sieve remains. As distal phalanges, vestigial phalanges and caudal vertebra can remain embedded in the skin during the first stages of skin processing, their near absence could support this hypothesis. Moreover, results from the study of multiple materials and processes converge towards a similar interpretation for human occupations at the site, i.e. very brief visits, which would appear to be incompatible with the time required for complete skin processing. This suggests that the skins were exported from the site without having been completely processed. New attempts at lithic usewear analysis could refine our understanding of the ways in which skins were worked at this site, and if our working hypotheses are correct, traces of fresh hide work (which are only observable in the very early steps of skin processing) should be present. Neanderthal’s use of skin is no longer a subject of debate and has been proven in particular through usewear analyses identifying dry hide working (e.g. Lemorini, 2000; Cortés Sánchez et al., 2011; Thiébaut et al., 2014; Costamagno et al., 2019b; Delpiano et al., 2019). The capacity for Neanderthals to work and use skin optimally, on the other hand, remains hotly debated (e.g. Gilligan, 2007; Tarle, 2012; Collard et al., 2016 contra White, 2006; Sørensen, 2009). The identification of bone tools related to skinning activities in Middle Paleolithic contexts (Soressi et al., 2013; Baumann et al., 2020; Tartar et al., 2022) however, is a strong argument that Neanderthals had the knowledge necessary for elaborate hide working. The results presented here, underlining the use of skins with various qualities, probably for diverse needs, in addition to an organized sequence involved in their treatment, bring new elements to reflect upon regard-ing the role of skins in Neanderthal economies.
Le gisement des Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, Charente) présente une séquence de niveaux successifs livrant du Moustérien de type Quina et dominés par le renne (Rangifer tarandus). L’environnement froid et sec dans lequel se sont mis en place ces dépôts et le grand nombre de rennes identifiés laissent supposer que la peau de cette espèce a pu être une ressource importante pour les Néander-taliens qui ont utilisé le site. Une analyse détaillée des traces de découpe présentes sur les ossements a été réalisée et il a été possible d’identifier précisément les stries produites lors du retrait de la peau de ces ongulés. Ainsi, nous avons pu observer que les Néandertaliens des Pradelles ont effec-tué un prélèvement de la peau des pattes dissocié de la peau du tronc dans le faciès 2b. Deux schémas de découpe de la peau ont été utilisés, permettant l’acquisition de morceaux de peau de plus ou moins grande taille, avec une préférence pour la modalité permettant de prélever la peau des pattes dans ses plus grandes dimensions. En confrontant ces données aux saisons de capture du renne du faciès 2b, il apparaît que ces Néandertaliens ont utilisé des peaux aux propriétés variées. Cela suggère des usages et des besoins diversifiés qui peuvent être mis en relation avec les deux schémas de découpe identifiés. Enfin, l’intégration des autres données contextuelles laisse à penser que le traitement de ces peaux s’est déroulé dans un autre lieu que le gisement des Pradelles.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
CPF 29 - Session L4 Soulier BAT HD.pdf (3.1 Mo) Télécharger le fichier
Origine : Accord explicite pour ce dépôt

Dates et versions

hal-04177505 , version 1 (28-08-2023)

Licence

Licence Ouverte - etalab

Identifiants

  • HAL Id : hal-04177505 , version 1

Citer

Marie-Cécile Soulier, Enya Regis-Franzke, Bruno Maureille, Sandrine Costamagno. Pas de peau pour Néandertal ? Modes de dépouillement du renne dans le faciès 2b des Pradelles (Charente). Hiatus, lacunes et absences : identifier et interpréter les vides archéologiques, Actes du 29e Congrès préhistorique de France, 31 mai-4 juin 2021, Toulouse, 2023. ⟨hal-04177505⟩
30 Consultations
8 Téléchargements

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More