Aurignacian Settlement Patterns in the Vézère Valley
1999; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 40; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/300090
ISSN1537-5382
Autores Tópico(s)Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
ResumoPrevious articleNext article FreeReportsAurignacian Settlement Patterns in the Vézère Valley1Brooke BladesBrooke BladesDepartment of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742, U.S.A. ([email protected]). 12 xii 98 Search for more articles by this author Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 20742, U.S.A. ([email protected]). 12 xii 98PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreVariability has long been noted in the Aurignacian archaeological record of the Périgord, which is widely regarded as having been generated by some of the earliest anatomically modern humans to inhabit southwestern France. Indeed, variations in the forms of lithic artifacts provided much of the basis for Peyrony's (1934) partitioning of the Aurignacian into numbered phases. Djindjian (1993) has argued for cyclical variation within the Aurignacian, with Peyrony's phase I (early Aurignacian) and phase III typified by blade tools bearing heavier marginal retouch and phase II (later Aurignacian) by a reduction in retouch intensity and numbers of blade tools. He further contended that this cycle coincided with climatic variation.This paper focuses upon Aurignacian variability of a different sort. The inference of group mobility from lithic raw‐material economy has emerged as one of the most powerful interpretive frameworks in Paleolithic studies. Organizational strategies are clearly indicated in the inverse relationship between the amount of material transported, which generally decreases with distance from the source, and the extent to which that material is utilized, which increases with distance (see, e.g., Chadelle 1983 and Geneste 1985). Lithic raw‐material economy and faunal seasonality data provide perspectives on the extent of exploited territory and the degree of sedentism or seasonal mobility. These data may be combined to examine whether such mobility was conditioned by the diversity and behavior of faunal resources available to a group. Aurignacian assemblages from the Vézère Valley in the Périgord are considered with particular regard to suggested changes in the structure of mobility during this early modern human occupation. Excavations at the rock shelters under discussion were directed by Henri Delporte (Le Facteur, La Ferrassie) and Hallam Movius Jr. (Abri Pataud) between 1955 and 1973. Earlier excavations at La Ferrassie were undertaken by Denis Peyrony, among others.Paleoenvironment and FaunaThe Périgord lies between the Massif Central highlands to the east and the Atlantic coastal plain to the west. The major geographic features defining the landscape are rivers that have cut downward into the underlying limestone as they flow westward toward the coastal plain and Atlantic coast (fig. 1). The paleoenvironment in the Périgord must be assessed in terms of climatic (temporal) phases, topographic (spatial) differences, and seasonal (cyclical) changes. The period under consideration in this paper falls between 34,000 and 27,000 b.p. in uncalibrated radiocarbon years. Sedimentological, palynological, and faunal data may be combined to argue for cold, dry conditions during most early Aurignacian occupations (Abri Pataud levels 14–12, La Ferrassie levels K6–K5, and Le Facteur level 21) and a warmer, wetter period associated with the Arcy interstadial for much of the later Aurignacian (La Ferrassie levels K3–J and Le Facteur level 19). Some variation has also been noted: the “early” Aurignacian level 11 at Abri Pataud was associated with a warm phase, while “later” Aurignacian levels 8 and 7 at Pataud and La Ferrassie level K4 reflected cool, humid conditions (Laville 1968, Arl. Leroi‐Gourhan 1968, Bouchud 1975, Laville, Rigaud, and Sackett 1980, Delpech 1984, Laville and Tuffreau 1984, Pacquereau 1984, Farrand 1995). The general impression is of open landscapes during the colder stadial and more closed settings during the warmer interstadial. Laville, Rigaud, and Sackett (1980) suggested shifts from cold steppe to warmer parkland environments.Fig. 1. The Périgord and surrounding area with major rivers and primary nonlocal lithic raw‐materials sources. The rock shelters are La Ferrassie (F), Abri Pataud (P), and Le Facteur (Fa). Redrawn from Geneste and Rigaud (1989:fig. 1). The raw materials are jasper, •; Maestrichtian chert, ▪; Coniacian chert, △; Turonian chert, ▴ and Jurassic chert, □.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointHowever, varied topographic settings would have displayed different vegetation patterns. Three major landforms are present in the Périgord: river valleys, adjacent cliff slopes and interfluvial upland slopes, and plateaus between the major rivers (White 1985:32). Le Facteur and Abri Pataud are located in the valley of the Vézère, while La Ferrassie lies within a tributary valley (i.e., upland slope) 4 km north of the Vézère (fig. 2). Modern interpretations suggest that plateaus and river valleys were open areas favoring grassy steppe vegetation with some arboreal elements, particularly coniferous species on acidic plateau soils. Sheltered valleys and south‐facing slopes with greater sun exposure would have supported thermophilous deciduous trees (Wilson 1975:183; White 1985:44).Fig. 2. A topographic section (with exaggerated vertical scale) across the study area: east from La Ferrassie to Abri Pataud, northeast to Le Facteur, and northwest across the Vézère River. From Institut Geographique National map no. 1936, Le Bugue.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointModern descendants of Paleolithic prey species reflect behaviors of their last‐glacial ancestors to varying degrees. Caribou and reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) are found in tundra and woodland habitats today. Pleistocene reindeer evidently had a wide range of environmental tolerance, but relative percentages do seem to have been affected by temperature fluctuations. Horses (Equus caballus) were probably mobile grazers associated with open‐habitat grasslands (Spiess 1979:62, 63, 258; Gordon 1988:6).Late‐glacial data suggest that bison (Bison priscus) were primarily open‐grassland grazers while aurochs (Bos primigenius) favored more closed parklands that provided opportunities for grazing and fall mast consumption. Modern chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) and ibex (Capra ibex) manifest varied habitat preferences but are generally assumed to have been available locally during at least a portion of the year (Spiess 1979:258–63).Wild boar (Sus scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and possibly red deer (Cervus elaphus) may have been more closely linked to wooded or mosaic environments and less mobile (White 1985:43; Boyle 1990:179–96). Roe deer are browsers that prefer warmer open forests. Wild boars manifest similar habitat and temperature preferences, placing particular emphasis upon mast consumption (Spiess 1979:261; Gordon 1988:41, 45). Red deer evidently had a wide range of environmental tolerance that included both open grasslands and more closed parklands and forests. Pike‐Tay (1991:44–48) noted that red deer seem to alternate with reindeer in last‐glacial faunal assemblages and are found in association with roe deer, wild boar, and aurochs—factors that argue for more closed or at least mosaic settings in temperate climates (Gordon 1988:41).Reindeer frequencies are highest at sites in the Dordogne and adjacent river valleys during the early Aurignacian (Boyle 1990:179–96). Reindeer become less dominant at sites throughout the region during the later Aurignacian, although they remain important at Abri Pataud and other sites in the Vézère and Dordogne Valleys. Red deer, roe deer, and wild boar increase in and near the Vézère during the later Aurignacian, according to Boyle reflecting the increasing diversity of local environments. Red deer are dominant or codominant in only five assemblages throughout the region, but all are associated with the later Aurignacian.An examination of faunal profiles from Abri Pataud and La Ferrassie reveals striking contrasts that emphasize the importance of topographic positioning and possibly season of occupation within a climatic period (table 1).2 Reindeer dominate the faunal assemblages throughout the Aurignacian sequence of Abri Pataud, although an increased presence of horse is apparent in levels 12, 11, and, to a lesser extent, 7. The sustained exploitation of gregarious herd animals such as reindeer and horse is indicated regardless of climate, and this may reflect a relatively stable grassy habitat within the river valley. A minimal presence of wild boar and red deer suggests the proximity of some forested settings during occupations in levels 11 and 7.TABLE 1 Ungulate (NISP) PercentagesFaunaPataud 14 (N = 1,495)Pataud 13 (N = 224)Pataud 12 (N = 177)Pataud 11 (N = 966)Ferrassie L1, K6–K4 (N = 221)Ferrassie K3–J (N = 155)Pataud 7 (N = 567)Rangifer tarandus99.098.772.862.077.36.569.6Bos primigenius/Bison priscus0.1–4.00.416.751.51.8Bos/Equus––1.7––––Equus caballus0.1–20.937.23.23.210.6Equus hydruntinus–––––1.91.1Mammuthus primigenius–––0.1––0.4Megaloceros giganteus?–––––0.7–Sus scrofa–––0.10.513.60.5Cervus elaphus0.71.3–0.21.418.714.1Capreolus capreolus–––––2.61.2Capra ibex0.1–0.6–0.9––Rupicapra rupicapra–––––1.30.7Note: The fauna also included remains of the following carnivores: Crocuta spelaea (1, Ferrassie L1, K6–K4), Ursus spelaea (1, Pataud 11), Canis lupus (4, Pataud 12; 7, Pataud 11; 1, Pataud 7), Vulpes vulpes (4, Pataud 14; 2, Pataud 12; 62, Pataud 11; 1, Ferrassie L1, K6–K4), and Alopex/Vulpes (2, Ferrassie L1, K6–K4; 1, Ferrassie K3–J).View Table ImageEarly Aurignacian levels (L1 and K6–K5) at La Ferrassie were also dominated by reindeer but display a more even distribution among the various species. (Level K4, which is typologically considered later Aurignacian [Delporte 1984], was combined with the earlier levels during Delpech's faunal analysis because of sedimentological similarities.) In contrast, reindeer virtually disappeared in Aurignacian levels K3–J at La Ferrassie, to be replaced by bovids, red deer, and wild boar. The combination of these species coupled with roe deer suggests postglacial Mesolithic profiles (P. Crabtree, personal communication, 1997) and clearly argues for exploitation of more forested habitats. Level 7 at Abri Pataud indicated an increased presence of red deer and associated “forest” species, although reindeer dominated and bovids were never major numerical components at Pataud. The temporal succession at both sites of ibex followed by chamois reflects the preference of the latter for humid conditions (Gordon 1988:43).Finally, season of occupation must be considered. Spiess (1979) argued that occupation at Abri Pataud was confined to late fall through early spring during the Aurignacian (based on reindeer and horse specimens) and Perigordian periods. No seasonal analyses have been presented for the Aurignacian at La Ferrassie; Pike‐Tay's (1991) examination of tooth cementum indicated that red deer, which dominated the Perigordian assemblage at La Ferrassie, were taken during spring and summer.A complex mixture of long‐term climatic, annual seasonal, and topographic variability influenced the environments of Aurignacian social groups and the fauna that they procured. It is entirely possible that the Périgord was a boundary area between reindeer summer and winter ranges (Bouchud 1975, Delpech 1984, White 1989), in which case reindeer would have been present somewhere in the Périgord regardless of season. Pike‐Tay's (1991) cementum analysis of red deer from a Perigordian occupation at Le Flageolet I in the Dordogne Valley indicated procurement from fall through late spring, which when combined with data from La Ferrassie pointed to the presence of red deer year‐round.2Very few large mammalian fauna were preserved at Le Facteur. The presence of raptors and carnivorous mammals is indicated at Abri Pataud and La Ferrassie, but their potential contribution to or modification of the faunal remains has not been assessed. Few carnivore bones and species were present, but this does not imply a correspondingly minor impact upon the faunal assemblage.Lithic Materials and Group MobilitySite location is ultimately a human choice to fulfill subsistence and other needs in response to natural and cultural variables. Site geography, solar orientation, and other influences on the microenvironment may have had considerable impact upon seasonal potential, subsistence activities, and group movement (Wilson 1975, Delpech 1984, White 1985). Groups select strategies of settlement and mobility on the basis of various concerns that are not limited to subsistence needs. Decisions to occupy a new settlement location may be made for social reasons without regard to food resources.Nevertheless, the structure of local subsistence environments bears directly upon foraging behavior. Site locations that are in close proximity but near different ecozones may permit exploitation of differing biological resources. Various behavioral ecological models examine the implications of spatially uneven distributions of resources (Winterhalder 1981:25–28). Ethnographic studies and ecological modeling indicate that the density and distribution of food resources are often important determinants of diet among hunter‐gatherers (Kelly 1995:66–73, 78–97). The data presented to this point on Aurignacian occupation of the Périgord do suggest a relationship between environmental structure and diet, at least as reflected in large herbivore fauna.Ethnographic data and ecological models also indicate that subsistence environments may exert considerable influence upon the social constructs of settlement pattern and mobility (Binford 1980:14, 15; Kelly 1995:120)—not in a deterministic sense but by limiting or expanding the range of ecologically viable options. (Cultural viability is, of course, another matter.) Simek and Snyder (1988) argued that long‐term trends of declining faunal variability in the early Upper Paleolithic Périgord mirror increasingly open habitats with high biomass but fewer species. Such conditions were evidently also present during the early Aurignacian. The Arcy interstadial witnessed the expansion of more closed forested habitats during the later Aurignacian and a shift to more diverse faunal profiles at La Ferrassie and, to a lesser extent, at Abri Pataud. Human groups in warmer, more closed environments with relatively high species diversity and low biomass may undertake short but frequent moves to exploit lower‐density resources (Shott 1989:224; Kelly 1995:122).Lithic raw‐material utilization provides one means of exploring the extent to which Aurignacian groups may have employed varying procurement and possibly mobility strategies. The Périgord and surrounding regions have been systematically surveyed for lithic raw materials within primary Cretaceous and secondary alluvial and colluvial deposits (Demars 1982, Chadelle 1983, Larick 1983, Morala 1984, Geneste 1985). The materials that are available in the immediate vicinity of the rock shelters in question are Senonian gray and brown cherts, and these materials dominated both the debitage and the retouched portion of each assemblage (table 2). All technological stages of reduction—from untested blocks through cortical flakes and cores to reutilized retouched blades—were present among the local materials, but secondary core preparation, flake reduction, and blade production were the predominant operations performed on locally available cherts by Aurignacian occupants of the shelters. The extent of utilization of these materials was low (20–30%).TABLE 2 Representation of Various Raw Materials by Weight (Percentages) in Debitage and Retouched PiecesaMaterialDistance (km) and DirectionPataud 14Ferrassie K6Facteur 21Ferrassie K4Facteur 19Debitage n.a.bRetouched n.a.bDebitage 24.6 kgRetouched 4.8 kgDebitage 8.4 kgRetouched 2.6 kgDebitage 24.3 kgRetouched 7.8 kgDebitage 6.5 kgRetouched 5.3 kgSenonian chert0–599.082.989.392.693.671.293.990.895.992.2Chalcedony15–25 SW––1.01.60.20.60.11.00.30.4Bergerac chert25–40 WNW0.19.50.31.90.518.00.03.00.12.9Jasper30–40 ENE–0.50.00.10.10.80.10.30.10.05Fumel/Gavaudon chert35–45 S––0.10.10.00.6–0.40.20.05Other?0.94.30.01.91.86.50.01.40.31.8Note: Removal of quartzites and patinated cherts results in sums of less than 100% in most columns.a “Retouched Pieces” includes all the type tools from Sonneville‐Bordes and Perrot's list plus slightly “retouched” utilized blades and flakes.b Weight not recorded.View Table ImageMaterials were also present from more distant sources: chalcedony from Tertiary deposits 15–25 km to the southwest, Maestrichtian cherts from Bergerac and the Isle Valley, 25–40 km to the west and northwest, Coniacian cherts from Gavaudun and Turonian cherts from Fumel, 35–45 km to the south, and Jurassic jaspers probably from 30–40 km to the northeast. These distant materials were virtually invisible among the debitage, and one possible chalcedony fragment was the sole nonlocal core among the assemblages studied. All distant materials never accounted for more than 3% of the debitage by weight, which also reflects the small sizes of unretouched pieces from distant sources. However, utilization as tools generally accounted for 50–100% of the transported materials. The proportion of type tools made on distant materials therefore presents a different and more variable image. Percentages of distant materials among the tool portion of the assemblage are greater during the early Aurignacian.Distant materials were often imported as blade tools and possibly as unretouched blade blanks. The proportion of the tool collection made on blade blanks was higher during the early Aurignacian (La Ferrassie level K6, 73%; Le Facteur level 21, 82%) compared with later Aurignacian assemblages (La Ferrassie level K4, 60%; Le Facteur level 19, 50%). However, distant materials composed approximately the same percentages of flake and blade tools (e.g., 22.6% for blades [N=93] compared with 22.2% for flakes [N=18] in Le Facteur level 21).Specific tool forms reflect various percentages of materials from distant sources (table 3). Burins and retouched blades have higher distant‐material percentages during the early Aurignacian (except for La Ferrassie level K6), but quantities of burins are small. Retouched bladelets (i.e., blades less than 12 mm in width) are, by contrast, found only on distant materials in Abri Pataud level 14, but again quantities are small. Endscrapers were among the most commonly encountered tools, made either on blades or as “Aurignacian” forms on thicker blades or thick flakes. A stronger preference for distant materials as blanks for blade endscrapers was manifested in the later Aurignacian assemblages. It would therefore appear that selection for certain tool forms alone does not explain the elevated percentages of distant materials in the early Aurignacian assemblages.TABLE 3 Major Tool Types by Quantity and Distant‐Material Percentages (by Numbers of Type Tools) Pataud 14Ferrassie K6Facteur 21Ferrassie K4Facteur 19Tool TypeN% DistantN% DistantN% DistantN% DistantN% DistantEndscrapers, blades35a11.4a598.52714.84020.01421.4Endscrapers, Aurignacian––119.1837.52165.1442.3Burins, dihedral5a40.0a1118.2742.9392.62913.8Burins, truncation––333.3616.7494.190.0Retouched blades9118.7792.53429.4200.0137.7Retouched bladelets450.060.070.060.0100.0 Total type tools17117.02315.211422.84435.91755.7Sources: For Pataud 14, Bondon (1993); Brooks (1995: table 22) reports 47 blade endscrapers, 8 Aurignacian endscrapers, 2 burins, 64 retouched blades, and 2 Dufour bladelets. Totals are averages because not all tool types are listed.a Combined totals for blade and Aurignacian endscrapers, dihedral and truncation burins.View Table ImageThe increased proportions of cherts from distant sources—particularly Bergerac—may reflect more frequent movement to those distant source areas during the early Aurignacian, movement that was related to the procurement of mobile fauna dominated by reindeer. Evidence of reduced transport of distant raw materials during the later Aurignacian may be linked to an intensification of food procurement from a broader suite of fauna within the local foraging area. If faunal diversity values (derived from Simpson's Index of Diversity) and distant‐material percentages for Abri Pataud and La Ferrassie are compared (table 4), an inverse association is suggested except for the early Aurignacian assemblage from La Ferrassie level K6. The distant‐material value of 16.3% derived from a sample of 86 blade endscrapers excavated by Peyrony in his “Aurignacian I” level F contrasts with the much lower value of 5.2% from Delporte's level K6. It is impossible to determine which percentage is the more representative of the early Aurignacian at La Ferrassie; indeed, each may accurately reflect some component of the occupation. The higher Peyrony value conforms more closely to those from Abri Pataud and Le Facteur. However, faunal diversity was somewhat elevated at the interfluvial locus of La Ferrassie even during the early Aurignacian, and the lower Delporte percentage may reflect reduced mobility associated with utilization of more diverse fauna within the local area. The later Aurignacian distant‐material values derived from the 193 blade endscrapers excavated by Delporte from levels K2 and J compare well with those for Peyrony's “Aurignacian II” level H. Exploitation of a resident faunal assemblage associated with forested habitats is well documented from levels K3–J. Percentages of distant raw materials at Abri Pataud (Bondon 1993; Brooks 1995: table 29) remained relatively elevated in most levels despite variation in faunal diversity. Reindeer were supplemented by another mobile species (horse) in level 11, and therefore maintenance of higher distant‐material percentages is perhaps not surprising.TABLE 4 Faunal Diversity and Distant Lithic Materials (Percentages by Numbers of Type Tools)LevelFaunal Diversity IndexDistant‐Material PercentageLater Aurignacian Abri Pataud 71.9411.1 La Ferrassie J3.07a9.7 La Ferrassie K23.07a3.8 (La Ferrassie Peyrony H)–7.4 Le Facteur 19–5.7 Abri Pataud 8–2.9 La Ferrassie K41.55a5.9Early Aurignacian Abri Pataud 111.9117.5 La Facteur 21–22.8 La Ferrassie K61.55a5.2 (La Ferrassie Peyrony F)–16.3Abri Pataud 141.0217.0Sources: For Abri Pataud, Brooks (1995: table 29) and Bondon (1993). Faunal diversity values were calculated from data in Bouchud (1975) and Delpech (1984).a Assemblages combined for faunal analyses (Delpech 1984).View Table ImageDiscussionThe importance of lithic variability in the Aurignacian archaeological record is far from fully understood. Typological variability has traditionally formed much of the basis for differentiating temporal phases within the Aurignacian. As Djindjian's (1993) comment on cyclical variation emphasizes, however, a good deal of functional variability is probably subsumed within the apparent temporal pattern.The Aurignacian lithic tool repertoire was evidently a flexible one that was adjusted in response to the demands of economy and environment. The relative increases in burins and thick Aurignacian scrapers during later Aurignacian occupations may reflect functional concerns arising from changing economic activities or group mobility patterns within warmer, more closed environments. (It will be noted, however, that such increases had appeared during the occupation of La Ferrassie level K4, when the depositional environment does not appear to have greatly differed from preceding conditions.) The role of Aurignacian scrapers as tools or as cores from which bladelet blanks were struck is the subject of continuing discussion. The small quantities of retouched bladelets at the Vézère Valley sites under consideration indicate a limited functional role; relatively large numbers of unretouched bladelets were recovered in all studied levels at both La Ferrassie and Le Facteur. Specific ecological conditions may have favored a greatly expanded use of bladelets, as noted for an “early” Aurignacian occupation level from Riparo Mochi on the Mediterranean coast (Kuhn and Stiner 1998). Clearly, much research remains to be done on Aurignacian typological variability.A study of lithic raw‐material procurement indicates that similar sources were exploited both early and later in the Aurignacian. The trajectories of raw‐material transport indicate both east‐west and north‐south orientations. Movement from all three rock shelters westward along the Vézère and Dordogne Rivers at least as far as Bergerac is suggested, as well as movement out of the river valleys into interfluvial areas such as Fumel and Gavaudun to the south. Jasper procurement may suggest eastward movement, but river transport of these materials was also possible. Féblot‐Augustins (1993:215, 216), considering Middle Paleolithic data, observed that the river valley (east‐west) axes may reflect movement through the Périgord river valleys to and from the Massif Central highlands and the coastal plain. The north‐south axes would provide access to adjacent river valleys as well as different interfluvial environments surrounding sites such as La Ferrassie. (The presence at La Ferrassie of a Senonian brown chert variant that derives from the plateau above the interfluvial rock shelter [J‐P. Chadelle, personal communication, 1994] argues for exploitation of plateau habitats by Aurignacian occupants of the shelter.)It seems apparent that Aurignacian mobility varied with the season and with climatic regime. Seasonality data generated by Spiess (1979) for Abri Pataud indicate late‐fall‐to‐early‐spring occupations during the Aurignacian and Perigordian periods. Pike‐Tay's (1991) evidence of spring and summer Perigordian occupations focused on red deer procurement indicate a complementary seasonal strategy, at least immediately after the Aurignacian. The scale of such movements has been the subject of some debate. Spiess (1979:233–34) and White (1989:615) have employed seasonality data from various Upper Paleolithic periods to argue for fall‐winter hunting of reindeer in the Vézère Valley, followed by movement along the river valleys from continued exploitation of reindeer (and salmon) and movement to interfluvial upland settings to hunt other species during spring and summer. White therefore questioned the necessity for human groups in the Périgord to follow migrating reindeer herds over long distances as suggested by Bahn (1982) and Gordon (1988).A longer‐term modification in group movement and settlement strategies may also be perceived in the Aurignacian archaeological record. Lithic raw‐material variability within the Aurignacian may reflect adaptational adjustments in settlement pattern and mobility in response to changing distributions of habitats and fauna. Early Aurignacian groups occupied the Périgord during a cold, dry climatic phase and deposited archaeological faunal assemblages dominated by reindeer. The later Aurignacian groups encountered milder and presumably somewhat more closed environments and left behind faunal deposits that often contain more species and more uniform distributions among those species. Aurignacian occupants of Abri Pataud exploited mobile herds of reindeer presumably migrating through the valley bordering the Vézère during fall and winter seasons regardless of more general climatic shifts. By contrast, the occupants of La Ferrassie exploited a broader range of fauna more closely associated with forested settings, particularly during the later Aurignacian, when procurement of reindeer was all but abandoned. Aurignacian occupation in the area reflects a complex mixture of seasonal and geographic opportunity within climatic phases. Lithic raw‐material data for the early Aurignacian are consistent with a model positing that more frequent movement to distant sources was associated with procurement of mobile fauna. Lower proportions of distant materials during the later Aurignacian may reflect exploitation of a more diverse and, at La Ferrassie, less mobile faunal base.The relationship between environment and mobility depends not only upon abiotic environmental conditions but also upon the structure and distribution of biological resources—human and nonhuman—and variability in cultural strategies for exploiting those resources. Evolutionary ecological theorists argue that cultural behaviors are directed by an evolved human capacity for adaptive decision making (Boone and Smith 1998:S156, S168). Adjustments in the scale and frequency of group movements in response to changing subsistence environments represent behavioral responses to changing ecological conditions, responses that, being reflected in Middle Paleolithic assemblages, were demonstrated by Neandertals (Rolland and Dibble 1990, Féblot‐Augustins 1993). Yet it is of the utmost importance to recognize that Aurignacian mobility and settlement patterns were embedded in a complex social and symbolic structure (White 1993) that, in concert with variation in local subsistence environments, directed the flexible mobility strategies indicated in the Vézère Valley sites.References CitedBahn, P. 1982. Inter‐site and inter‐regional links during the Upper Paleolithic: The Pyrenean evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1:247–68.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarBinford, L. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs' tails: Hunter‐gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarBondon, N. 1993. L'étude de l'industrie lithique aurignacienne (couche 14) de l'Abri Pataud (Les Eyzies‐de‐Tayac, Dordogne). Paris: Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBoone, J., and E. A. Smith. 1998. Is it evolution yet? A critique of evolutionary archaeology. current anthropology 39:S141–S173.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBouchud, J.1975. “Etude de la faune de l'abri Pataud,” in Excavation of the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dordogne). Edited by H. L. Movius Jr., pp. 69–153. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBoyle, K. 1990. Upper Paleolithic faunas from south‐west France: A zoogeographic perspective. British Archaeological Reports International Series 557.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBrooks, A. 1995. “L'Aurignacien de l'abri Pataud niveaux 6 à 14,” in Le Paléolithique supérieur de l'abri Pataud (Dordogne): Les fouilles de H. L. Movius Jr. Edited by H. M. Bricker, pp. 167–222. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarChadelle, J‐P. 1983. Technologie et utilisation du silex au Périgordien supérieur: L'exemple de la couche VII du Flageolet I. Toulouse: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDelpech, F. 1984. “La Ferrassie: Carnivores, artiodactyles et périssodactyles,” in Le grand abri de la Ferrassie. Edited by H. Delporte, pp. 61–89. Paris: Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDelporte, H. 1984. “L'Aurignacien de la Ferrassie,” in Le grand abri de la Ferrassie. Edited by H. Delporte, pp. 145–234. Paris: Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDemars, P‐Y. 1982. L'utilisation du silex au Paléolithique supérieur. Choix, approvisionnement, circulation: L'exemple du bassin de Brive. Paris: CNRS.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDjindjian, F. 1993. L'Aurignacien du Périgord: Une revision. European Prehistory, Fall, pp. 29–54.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarFarrand, W. 1995. “Etude sédimentologique du remplissage de l'abri Pataud,” in Le Paléolithique supérieur de l'abri Pataud (Dordogne): Les fouilles de H. L. Movius Jr. Edited by H. M. Bricker, pp. 31–65. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarFéblot‐Augustins, J. 1993. Mobility strategies in the Late Middle Paleolithic of central Europe and western Europe: Elements of stability and variability. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12:211–65.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarGeneste, J‐M. 1985. Analyse lithique d'industries moustériennes du Périgord: Une approche technologique du comportement des groupes humains au Paléolithique moyen. Thèse Sc., Université de Bordeaux I, Bordeaux, France.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarGeneste, J‐M., and J‐P. Rigaud. 1989. “Matières premières lithiques et occupation de l'espace,” in Variation des paléomilieux et peuplement préhistorique. Edited by H. Laville, pp. 205–18. Paris: CNRS.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarGordon, B. 1988. Of men and reindeer herds in French Magdalenian prehistory. British Archaeological Reports International Series 390.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarKelly, R. 1995. The foraging spectrum: Diversity in hunter‐gatherer lifeways. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarKuhn, S., and M. Stiner. 1998. The earliest Aurignacian of Riparo Mochi. current anthropology 39:S175–S189.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarLarick, R. 1983. The circulation of Solutrean foliate point cherts: Residential mobility in the Périgord. Ph.D. diss., State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, N.Y.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarLaville, H. 1968. L'abri du Facteur à Tursac (Dordogne): Etude sédimentologique du remplissage. Gallia Préhistoire 11(1):133–45.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarLaville, H., and A. Tuffreau. 1984. “Les dépôts du grand abri de la Ferrassie: Stratigraphie, signification climatique et chronologie,” in Le grand abri de la Ferrassie. Edited by H. Delporte, pp. 25–50. Paris: Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarLaville, H., J‐P. Rigaud, and J. Sackett. 1980. Rock shelters of the Périgord: Geological stratigraphy and archaeological succession. New York: Academic Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarLeroi‐Gourhan, Arl. 1968. L'abri du Facteur à Tursac (Dordogne): Analyse pollinique. Gallia Préhistoire 11(1):123–32.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarMorala, A. 1984. Périgordien et Aurignacien en Haut‐Agenais: Etude d'ensembles lithiques. Toulouse: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarPaquereau, M‐M. 1984. “Etude palynologique du gisement de la Ferrassie (Dordogne),” in Le grand abri de la Ferrassie. Edited by H. Delporte, pp. 51–59. Paris: Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarPeyrony, D. 1934. La Ferrassie: Moustérien, Périgordien, Aurignacien. Préhistoire 3:1–92.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarPike‐Tay, A. 1991. Red deer hunting in the Upper Paleolithic of southwest France: A study in seasonality. British Archaeological Reports International Series 569.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarRolland, N., and H. Dibble. 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity 55:480–99.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarShott, M. 1989. “Technological organization in Great Lakes Paleoindian assemblages,” in Eastern Paleoindian lithic resource use. Edited by C. Ellis and J. Lothrop, pp. 221–37. Boulder: Westview Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarSimek, J., and L. Snyder. 1988. “Changing assemblage diversity in Périgord archaeofaunas,” in The Upper Pleistocene prehistory of western Eurasia. Edited by H. Dibble and A. Montet‐White, pp. 321–32. Philadelphia: University Museum Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarSpiess, A. 1979. Reindeer and caribou hunters: An archaeological study. New York: Academic Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarWhite, R. 1985. Upper Paleolithic land use in the Périgord: A topographic approach to subsistence and settlement. British Archaeological Reports International Series 253.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar———. 1989. Husbandry and herd control in the Upper Paleolithic: A critical review of the evidence. current anthropology 30:609–32.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar———. 1993. “Technological and social dimensions of `Aurignacian‐age' body ornaments across Europe,” in Before Lascaux: The complex record of the early Upper Paleolithic. Edited by H. Knecht, A. Pike‐Tay, and R. White, pp. 277–99. Boca Raton: CRC Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarWilson, J. 1975. “The last glacial environment at the Abri Pataud: A possible comparison,” in Excavation of the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dordogne). Edited by H. L. Movius Jr., pp. 175–86. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarWinterhalder, B. 1981. “Optimal foraging strategies and hunter‐gatherer research in anthropology: Theory and models,” in Hunter‐gatherer foraging strategies. Edited by B. Winterhalder and E. Smith, pp. 13–35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 40, Number 5December 1999 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/300090 Views: 493Total views on this site Citations: 6Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Jennifer C. French The demography of the Upper Palaeolithic hunter–gatherers of Southwestern France: A multi-proxy approach using archaeological data, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39 (Sep 2015): 193–209.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.04.005Steven L. Kuhn Neanderthal Technoeconomics: An Assessment and Suggestions for Future Developments, (Jan 2011): 99–110.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0415-2_10Chris Clarkson Changing Reduction Intensity, Settlement, and Subsistence in Wardaman Country, Northern Australia, (Sep 2008): 286–316.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499661.014Peter Frost European hair and eye color, Evolution and Human Behavior 27, no.22 (Mar 2006): 85–103.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.07.002Michael L. Galaty European Regional Studies: A Coming of Age?, Journal of Archaeological Research 13, no.44 (Dec 2005): 291–336.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-005-5110-zClive Finlayson Neanderthals and Modern Humans, 42 (Aug 2009).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542374
Referência(s)