4.3 Article

Early evidence for bear exploitation during MIS 9 from the site of Schoningen 12 (Germany)

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 177, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103294

关键词

Skinning; Lower Paleolithic; Late Middle Pleistocene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A cutmarked bear metatarsal and phalanx from German open-air sites provide early evidence for the exploitation of bear skins during the interglacial optimum of MIS 9. This finding suggests bear hunting and primary access to bear skins shortly after the animal's death. The delicate cutmarks found on the specimens indicate similarities in butchery patterns to bears from other Paleolithic sites.
A cutmarked bear metatarsal and phalanx from the German open-air sites of Schoeuroningen 12 II-1 and 12 B, respectively, correlated with the interglacial optimum of MIS 9 (ca. 320 ka), provide early evidence for the exploitation of bear skins. Archaeological sites with evidence of bear exploitation from the Lower Paleolithic are rare, with only Boxgrove (United Kingdom) and Bilzingsleben (Germany) yielding cut-marked bear bones indicating skinning. We interpret these finds as evidence for bear hunting and pri-mary access since bear skins are best extracted shortly after the animal's death. The very thin cutmarks found on the Schoeuroningen specimens indicate delicate butchering and show similarities in butchery patterns to bears from other Paleolithic sites. The Eurasian Lower Paleolithic record does not show any evidence for the exploitation of bear meat; only Middle Paleolithic sites, such as Biache-Saint-Vaast (France; ca. 175 ka) and Taubach (Germany; ca. 120 ka), yield evidence for the exploitation of both skin and meat from bear carcasses. Bear skins have high insulating properties and might have played a role in the adaptations of Middle Pleistocene hominins to the cold and harsh winter conditions of Northwestern Europe.(c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据