Opportunistic Fire in the Early Palaeolithic: Evidence of small mammal incidental burning at Cueva Negra del Estrecho del Rio Quípar (Murcia, Spain)
Rhodes, S.E.1, López-Jiménez, A.2, López-Martinez, M.3, Haber-Uriarte, M.4, Walker, M.J.2
1 1Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Germany (contact:
[email protected]); 4Departmento de Zoologia y Antropologia Fisica, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain, 3Murcia, Spain, 4Departmento de Prehistoria, Arquelogia, Historia Antigua e Historia Medieval, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Prehistoric Fire
■
Advent of human pyrotechnology ■ ■ ■
James et al., 1989 Roebroeks & Villa, 2011 Sandgathe et al., 2011
■
Natural vs. Anthropogenic
■
Variable modifications ■ ■ ■ ■
Colour Microscopic morphology Crystalline structure Shrinkage
Micromammals
Micromammals: another line of evidence?
`
Oak-fire coals, < 10 min
Grassfire , > 65oC, < 6 min.
■
■
■
2.5% microfauna burnt at Zhoukoudian cave
13% micromammal teeth 9.2% amphibian bone charred or calcined at Beeches Pit
Only in association with other lines of evidence
Heat Source
Campfire
Yellow-red
Brownblack
Colour
`
Cremation
Charred (blue-black)
White
Calcined (white-grey)
` 0 oC
200oC
400oC
600oC
800oC
1000oC
Modified from Lyman, 1994
Cueva Negra
■
Cueva Negra del Estrecho del Rio Quípar
Cueva Negra
Research Questions
Anthropogenic Fire ■
Does the small mammal assemblage contain evidence of this Ash feature? ■
Discolouration
■
Spatial distribution
■
Hypothesis ■
■
The Ash feature at Cueva Negra contains a significantly higher proportion of heavily burnt small mammal bones than elsewhere in component 3.2 ■ Most likely due to exposure to anthropogenic fire Heavily burnt = charred or calcined
Five categories of burning recognized on small mammal remains from Wonderwerk Cave (image courtesy of Fernandez-Jalvo)
Research Questions
Agent of Accumulation ■
Was the Cueva Negra assemblage accumulated by humans? ■ ■
Digestive corrosion Skeletal element representation
■
Hypothesis ■
Non-human predators are responsible for the small mammal accumulation at Cueva Negra
Micromammal remains from the GRM 5 burial stomach area (right) and pelvic area (left) with arrows indicating corrosion (Dewar & Jerardino, 2007)
Methods
■
■
■
■
■
2291 specimens identified to Mammalian Class and anatomically ■ Birds, reptiles and amphibians excluded Digestive corrosion and skeletal representation recorded following Andrews (1990) and Fernandez-Jalvo (1996) Documented all present taphonomic modifications SEM-EDS to differentiate burning and oxidestaining (ESEM QUANTA200) Pearson’s Chi square (x2)
Results - Quantification Table 4.0: Small mammal bones from Cueva Negra measured as minimum number of elements (MNE) and relative proportions (%) Above Ash Skeletal Element Crania Mandible Maxilla Scapula Humerus Ulna Radius Rib Vertebrae Pelvis Femur Tibia Patella Metapodia Phalanx Astragalus Calcaneus Incisor Molar Total of small mammals MNI of small mammals Unidentified Amphibian Bird Fish Reptile Snake Tortoise Total
MNE
%
1 18 4 10 32 12 24 13 273 23 45 24 6 108 248 6 27 67 122 1,140
Ash layer MNE
4.3% 39.1% 8.7% 21.7% 69.6% 26.1% 52.2% 2.4% 33.0% 50.0% 97.8% 52.2% 13.0% 23.5% 19.3% 13.0% 58.7% 72.8% 44.2%
%
1 17 2 16 29 5 14 8 333 23 32 26 7 92 207 7 7 35 107
Below Ash MNE
6.3% 53.1% 6.3% 50.0% 90.6% 15.6% 43.8% 2.1% 57.8% 71.9% 100.0% 81.3% 21.9% 28.8% 23.1% 21.9% 21.9% 54.7% 55.7%
All Layers
%
0 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 18 1 4 1 0 14 36 2 7 18 32
Total MNE 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 10.0% 10.0% 40.0% 10.0% 0.0% 14.0% 12.9% 20.0% 70.0% 90.0% 53.3%
2 36 6 26 66 17 38 22 624 47 81 51 13 214 491 15 41 120 261
1,010
141
2,291
23
16
5
44
771 15 127 1 0 0
1,008 23 137 0 13 1
0 0 0 0 2 0
1,779 38 264 1 15 1
14
7
0
21
2,068
2,199
143
4,410
Results - Accumulator
Digestive Corrosion ■
Moderate to heavy post-crania corrosion ■
■
37.7% prox. Femora and distal humeri
Light incisor and molar digestion ■
Surface digestion of incisors
■
High % of molars modified
Conclusion ■
Non-human mammalian predator or highly destructive owl ■
e.g. Little Owl or Fox
Results – Oxide-staining
Burning SEM - EDS:
Oxide-staining SEM-EDS
■
Visual identification
■
Visual identification
■
Lack of topography
■
Lack of topography
Minimal manganese staining
■
Moderate iron staining
■
Neither follow pattern of discolouration
■
■
■
■
Moderate manganese staining Moderate iron staining Both follow pattern of discolouration
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
Thermal modification visually identifiable
Oxide-staining visually identifiable Distinct depositional process
Results - Burning Spatial patterning: ■
■
38% of Above sample burnt ■
