Almost 50 years after its publication by Arambourg (1958), the large mammal fauna of the “Tayacian” bed of Fontéchevade merits reanalysis in light of our current knowledge. Even though it was collected with minimal data concerning provenience, the collection remains a precious source of information concerning paleoenvironment, paleontology, taphonomy, and, above all, biostratigraphy.

This chapter presents only the essential results that permitted taxonomic attribution of certain large mammals from Bed E; it discusses as well the chronological position of the Fontéchevade fauna in the French Pleistocene.

HISTORY OF RESEARCH: THE EARLY EXCAVATIONS

From the earliest research, the fauna from the early beds of Fontéchevade took on a particular importance because they indicated the existence of an ancient temperate period rarely encountered in French Pleistocene deposits. The Abbé Breuil said to Henri-Martin in 1939, “Be aware that it is very old: [rhinoceros] Mercki, fallow deer, tortoise” (Henri-Martin 1957:6).

When the excavations were complete, Arambourg (1958:225) made a succinct study of this fauna and attributed it to a temperate period earlier then the Würm. He showed, however, a certain prudence in reaching this conclusion:

Probably the most dramatic events of Henri-Martin's excavations at Fontéchevade were the discoveries of two fragments of human skull. A bit of frontal bone lacking a supraorbital torus (Fontéchevade I) was found in apparent association with a more archaic-looking partial calotte (Fontéchevade II). (Henry-Martin [1957] referred to these as Homo I and Homo II, respectively.) Both came from the upper parts of her Bed E, which she dated to the last interglacial (OIS 5) or earlier. Because of this date, the modern appearance of Fontéchevade I has posed a problem for paleoanthropologists. Although these are the most famous of the Fontéchevade human remains, the site also contained Bronze Age burials, and during the 1994–1998 excavations more human remains were recovered. In this chapter, the various interpretations and descriptions of the Fontéchevade I and Fontéchevade II specimens are summarized, followed by descriptions of the other human remains from the cave.

THE “TAYACIAN” REMAINS

The fragment of frontal bone was discovered on August 13, 1947. A block of breccia coming from Henri-Martin's Bed E0 in her Sector 1, 2.40–2.60 m below her datum and some 6.5 m in front of the present dripline (Vallois 1958:7–8), was transported to her laboratory in Le Peyrat to permit methodical disengagement of the archaeological material. It was during the course of this work that the fragment of frontal bone appeared. Vallois (1958:7) noted that no trace of fire was observed at this bed. These specimens are housed in the Musée de l'Homme in Paris.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter reports on the use of the technique of magnetic susceptibility (MS) on sediments found in Fontéchevade Cave to describe the paleoclimate of the region. It describes in detail the technique of MS and its usefulness in detecting paleoclimatic trends from sediment analysis.

It is well known that MS data from cave sediments found in archaeological sites can be used as a high-resolution paleoclimate proxy. MS is useful when other climate indicators and dates are ambiguous or absent. Caves and perhaps deep rock shelters provide ideal environments for sediment deposition that is unaffected by in-situ pedogenesis. Cave sediments are not as strongly affected by iron variations produced within individual soils as are sediments at open-air sites, nor are they strongly affected by bioturbation, which is minimal in most caves and is usually easily recognized during excavation. From cave sediments, paleoclimatic trends and estimates of duration of sediment deposition can be extracted. Because paleoclimate analyses of this type are performed on the entire data set from which archaeological materials are extracted, we believe that MS data provide a unique opportunity to evaluate the effect of climate on the behavior of ancient peoples.

In recent years, MS measurements of sediments have been used in paleoclimatic studies of loess and as a paleoclimate proxy in other materials. (The MS work in loess has been summarized by Heller and Evans [1995].

INTRODUCTION

It was clear that the geometry of the Fontéchevade Cave system was likely much more complex than it appeared initially. Other caves in this area, particularly La Chaise, demonstrate complexity with their multitude of subsidiary chambers, entrances, and connecting passageways. To some extent, the complexity of Fontéchevade is apparent in Henri-Martin's map of the site. Just inside the entrance of the cave there is a side branch, which she labeled the Diverticule. Just behind the main section, there is another side branch that is too full of sediment to enter, and likewise the very back of the cave ends with apparent passageways choked with sediment. In part to look for additional caves in the area and in part to look for alternative entrances to Fontéchevade, we conducted an electrical resistivity survey of the area immediately above and adjacent to the entrance to the cave.

METHODOLOGY

Electrical resistivity is a well-established remote sensing technique that has been applied to archaeological situations for some time, typically to map changes in lithology and to locate buried features (Ellwood and Harrold 1993; Ellwood et al. 1993, 1995). The usefulness of electrical resistivity is based on the fact that soils and rocks vary in the degree to which they are able to conduct electrical current. The ability of soils and rocks to conduct current is controlled by several factors, including moisture content, clay content, porosity, and the presence of free ions (Ellwood and Harrold 1993).

INTRODUCTION

The following discussion is based on 42 sediment samples collected in 1998 and processed at the University of Michigan; it also includes comparisons made with the sediment studies published by Henri-Martin (1957). Coordinates of the sample locations were determined in the field with a total station, except for the samples from the Witness Section and samples FCH 11 and FCH 12 in Henri-Martin's old Test Pit 3 (designated as “Test Pit” in recent excavations). Stratum designations were taken from tags on the section faces, where these still existed, and from information supplied by the excavators. Strata identified in the 1998 study are labeled “Levels” in this chapter, and the term “Beds” is retained for the strata in Henri-Martin's earlier study.

In attempting comparisons with the sections of Henri-Martin, it would have been useful to know the relation of the present datum to her “ligne de repère” (datum line), but it could not be located. Although Henri-Martin's sediment analysis, both physical and chemical, has been studied in some detail, the locations of her samples are quite indeterminate, being identified only to “secteur” (sector; see Fig. 1.8) and “couche” (bed), but she gives no depths, limiting close comparisons with the current data.

SAMPLE COLLECTION

Samples are labeled FCH 1–2, FCH 3–1, etc., where the first digit stands for the sample column and the second is the specific sample number from “1” at the top progressively downward in that column.

Since its discovery in 1947, the dating of Fontéchevade I, a fragment of human frontal bone (lacking a supraorbital torus), has posed a problem for paleoanthropologists. In spite of its apparently modern appearance, it has been considered to date from the last interglacial or even earlier. Such a date would be much earlier than any other convincing evidence of anatomically modern peoples in Europe. One goal of the excavations reported in this monograph was to clarify the chronological position of the Fontéchevade I specimen.

Fontéchevade I was recovered approximately 6.5 m in front of the present-day dripline of the cave, in Henri-Martin's Bed E0 – that is to say, 2.40 to 2.60 m below her datum (Henri-Martin 1957). About 2 m farther toward the cave, in Bed E1′ (2.60–2.80 m below datum), a more archaic-looking calotte (Fontéchevade II) was discovered.

Fontéchevade I consists of a fragment of frontal that includes glabella, the medial portion of the left superciliary arch, and a small part of the squamous portion above these. What is remarkable about this piece, given its apparent age, is the complete absence of a frontal torus. This feature, as well as the thinness of the squamous portion, gives it a very modern appearance. Fontéchevade II consists of the upper part of the frontal bone and portions of the left and right parietals. The specimen, much more archaic in appearance, is distinguished by the thickness of the cranial walls.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter describes some of the Upper Paleolithic lithic material recovered from Fontéchevade during the early part of the twentieth century. Upper Paleolithic remains, in varying amounts and from both inside and outside the cave, had been noted by several excavators. The first to uncover these industries was L. Durousseau-Dugontier, between 1902 and 1910, but unfortunately his results were never published and his excavation notes have been lost (Henri-Martin 1957). In 1913 and 1914, M. Vallade undertook more systematic excavations, uncovering three beds of Upper Paleolithic. G. Henri-Martin used Vallade's unpublished results when she published her own excavations (1957). In 1921, M. and Mme. de Saint-Périer opened a trench at the opening of the cave, which yielded some Upper Paleolithic elements (1957). In 1933, P. David (1933) carried out several tests that also produced some Aurignacian artifacts. Although the most significant excavations were carried out starting in 1937 by Henri-Martin, the Upper Paleolithic had already been almost entirely removed, with only two remnants of the Aurignacian bed found (Henri-Martin 1957). In the course of the 1994–1998 excavations, no Upper Paleolithic was found in situ, though several indisputably Upper Paleolithic elements were uncovered in disturbed contexts.

DATA FROM THE OLD EXCAVATIONS

The first excavations by Durousseau-Dugontier produced pottery sherds as well as Typical Aurignacian and Châtelperronian lithics, although it is impossible to know if the excavator recognized any stratigraphy.

EXCAVATION METHODS

What follows is a description of the methods used in the current excavation of Fontéchevade and an overview of the work accomplished. The methodology is based in part on French tradition for Paleolithic excavations and in part on the methodologies that our team has developed through the years at the sites of La Quina, Combe-Capelle Bas, Cagny-l'Epinette, and Cagny-la-Garenne. Much of the methodology is based on the application of computerized recording techniques, which have been extensively described in previous publications (Dibble 1987b; Dibble et al. 1995; Dibble and McPherron 1989; McPherron and Dibble 1987, 2002). Special emphasis was given to standardizing the excavation techniques and recording methods at Fontéchevade, both to optimize analysis of the site itself and to make the data comparable with data collected at the previously listed sites.

The excavation grid

The site was excavated in 1-m units following the traditional French system of labeling excavation units with a letter-number designation. In this system, it is also traditional to place grid north directly into the cave. We followed this tradition, despite the fact that true north is almost exactly 180 degrees opposite. One of the principal advantages of doing so is that all of our maps are thus oriented in relation to the long axis of the cave, very much as we saw the cave each day. The principal disadvantage to this system is that there can be some confusion between, for instance, “west” and “grid west.

There is considerable interest in growth and development, both historical and anthropological. Growth and development is an area to which the study of skeletal assemblages is able to make a significant contribution. Final achieved height is determined to a great extent by genetic factors and by the influence of hormones, most importantly growth hormone and thyroxin, but in populations which share a similar genetic makeup, the state of nutrition during the period of active growth during puberty is the most significant factor. Thus, it is often taken as a surrogate for the comparison of nutritional status in different skeletal assemblages.

NORMAL GROWTH

As is well known, the growth of the skeleton does not proceed in a uniform manner from birth to adulthood, but there are two major linear growth spurts during childhood: the first during the first two years of life, and the second which begins at puberty. From birth to age one, growth proceeds at a rate of between 18–25 cm, and from one to two, at 10–13 cm per year. The pubertal growth spurt, which is generally supposed to be the most rapid, actually proceeds at the rather more stately pace of 6–13 cm per year. It is, however, more prolonged and is the period during which most height is gained. The importance of genetic factors is well illustrated by the fact that tall parents tend to have tall children, and short parents, short children.

The majority of bones in the skeleton first appear in the fetus as cartilage models that calcify and ossify. The exceptions to this are the bones of the cranial vault and the clavicles, the primordal of which are formed by mesenchymal cells. Long bones grow in length at the growth plates situated at the junction of the shaft (diaphysis) and the ends of the bone (the epiphyses). Circumferential growth is achieved by the laying down of bone beneath the periosteum which covers the entire outer surface of all bones except that covered by articular cartilage. Bone is also laid down under the endosteum, which lines the inner surface of the bones. The entire process from cartilage formation, calcification, mineralisation, joint formation and remodelling is controlled by a plethora of genetic and molecular systems which are still by no means completely understood.

TYPES OF BONE

Macroscopically, two types of bone can be distinguished in the skeleton, dense cortical (or compact) bone, such as forms the shaft of the femur and the humerus, for example, and cancellous (or spongy) bone, which occupies inter alia the ends of the long bones and the vertebral bodies. Cancellous bone is formed from trabeculae, bars and plates of bone arranged in a honeycomb manner which convey considerable strength to the region of the bone containing them, but also provides a huge surface area for metabolic reactions.

The joint diseases can be simply divided into those in which the major feature is the proliferation of new bone and those in which the loss of bone is the most striking feature; the latter are collectively known as the erosive arthropathies. A simplified family tree of the joint diseases showing those that are most likely to be found in the skeleton is shown in Figure 4.1.

Osteoarthritis is the archetypal proliferative joint disease but there are many different erosive joint diseases, including an erosive form of OA. However, only a small number of the erosive arthropathies are likely to be encountered during the examination of a skeletal assemblage and it is these that will be discussed here. The most characteristic of the erosive joint diseases is rheumatoid arthritis.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is generally considered to have first appeared in the clinical literature in the MD thesis of the French physician Augustin Jacob Landré-Beauvais (1772–1840). The thesis described the clinical findings in a group of nine patients whom Landré-Beauvais attended at the Salpêtrière hospital in Paris. The signs and symptoms differed in a number of ways from those found in other forms of gout, the rubric under which the joint diseases were all included at the time. It was more common in women, involved many joints from the onset and ran a chronic course. Landré-Beauvais was certain that he had discovered a new form of joint disease, which he called primary asthenic gout (goutte asthénique primitive).

BONE FORMING AND BONE FORMERS

Within any skeletal assemblage there seems to be a proportion who apparently had a tendency to ossify soft tissues, especially the entheses, that is, the point at which tendons insert into bone, probably in response to minimal repetitive trauma. The result is the production of bony spurs at these points, which are referred to as enthesophytes. We alluded to these individuals as bone formers but our original definition was later modified by Rogers and her colleagues. Rogers and colleagues examined the sites of a series of entheses in the skeleton (fourteen in total) to see which showed the presence of an enthesophyte. The total number of enthesophytes was then divided by the number of sites examined and if the score was equal to, or greater than 0.3, that was considered evidence of bone forming. Bone formers are probably more likely than others to produce heterotopic ossification and to calcify or ossify costal cartilages, the thyroid cartilage and other soft tissues. It is not certain what proportion of the population are bone formers but it may be up to a fifth. There are several skeletal diseases in which bone forming is a feature – some joint diseases, some infections and Paget's disease, for example – and it is likely that the production of bone in these conditions will be particularly exuberant if the individual is also a bone former.

I entered palaeopathology via a very circuitous route, having previously had a background in anatomy, toxicology and epidemiology, although an interest in pathology was always present, having been greatly stimulated by the subject during my time as a medical student. My first hands-on experience with bones, however, was in collecting specimens for lead analysis when I was working at the University of Birmingham. We undertook the analysis of many hundreds of specimens until it became clear that the variation in lead levels that we were finding owed much more to contamination from the soil than to exposure during life, and I formed the view that it would be more profitable to see what information could be obtained from the bones themselves. When I moved to London to work at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), I became very active in examining skeletal assemblages and some mummified material, and I had the good fortune to become acquainted with Don Brothwell at the Institute of Archaeology, which was just a few minutes walk around the corner from the LSHTM. He not only kindly gave me a corner of a desk, but invited me to take part in the teaching of the undergraduates and post-graduates at the Institute. I have had the great pleasure of teaching at the Institute now for many years, and this book is based very largely on the course of lectures in palaeopathology that I give to those taking the master's courses.