Chap. 24
Faunal remains: taxonomy, taphonomy, archaeological contexts, and animal resources
Les restes fauniques : taxonomie, taphonomie, contextes archéologiques et ressources d’origine animale
p. 431-442
Résumés
The taxonomic and taphonomic analyses of the more than 21,000 animal remains from Klimonas (Cypro-PPNA) provide information on: (i) the limited island biodiversity of Cyprus at that time (only 23 represented vertebrate species) and the beginning of anthropogenic diversification, which resulted in the introduction of three new mammal species during the 10th millennium cal BC (mouse, cat, dog); (ii) the highly selective animal food supply, massively based on the small Cypriot wild boar (93% of the NISP) and characterised by the absence of marine food (taboo?); (iii) the unsuspected capacity of the PPNA subsistence system to adapt to a very particular biodiversity; (iv) the functions of the Communal building (food storage, rituals) and domestic buildings (symbolic deposits); (v) the secondary use of abandoned buildings or earth extraction pits for waste recycling; (vi) the construction techniques of the Communal building; (vii) certain mental or symbolic representations of PPNA villagers; (viii) the taphonomic signature of each of the three excavation sectors, which differ significantly from each other: symbolic deposition and domestic middens in Sector B, more degraded bone assemblages in the building earth materials of the Communal building, secondary deposition of PPNA bones in many Sotira pottery pits in Sector F.
Plus de 21 000 restes d’animaux ont été récoltés dans les trois secteurs du village Cypro-PPNA de Klimonas. Ils décrivent une situation unique par rapport aux sites PPNA du continent, caractérisée par une très faible diversité taxinomique : 3 taxons d’amphibiens, 1 de tortue, 3 de squamates, 14 d’oiseaux et 4 de mammifères. Pour ces derniers, la présence du chien (Canis familiaris), du chat (Felis s. lybica) et de la souris grise (Mus m. domesticus), en plus du petit sanglier chypriote (Sus scrofa circeus), indique que ces trois espèces ont été introduites à Chypre entre 10 500 et 8800 av. n. è., les sangliers représentant 93 % des 6 602 spécimens identifiés. Cette diversité faible et inégale résulte à la fois du premier syndrome d’insularité (faible diversité naturelle) et de la sélection par l’homme d’un petit nombre d’espèces parmi celles qui étaient disponibles, sélection particulièrement bien illustrée par l’absence totale d’animaux d’origine marine (tabou ?). La distribution taxonomique est également inégale selon les différentes zones fonctionnelles du site. Les restes de chiens (et de chats) sont presque exclusivement limités au Bâtiment communautaire, tout comme les rares os humains. La surreprésentation de jeunes sangliers et des dents labiales dans cet édifice peuvent également résulter de pratiques rituelles. Les restes de souris ont également été trouvés pour la majorité dans le Bâtiment communautaire. Les trois secteurs du site se différencient également les uns des autres par leurs caractéristiques taphonomiques. Dans le Secteur B, à l’exception de rares dépôts remarquables ou symboliques, la plupart des assemblages fauniques résulte de l’accumulation de petites quantités de reliefs de repas rejetés dans les bâtiments juste après leur abandon, ou dans de grandes fosses, probablement creusées dans le but premier de collecter de la terre pour la construction. Dans le Bâtiment communautaire, les restes de faune sont plus dégradés car ils proviennent principalement des matériaux de construction extraits des dépôts primaires ou secondaires des zones domestiques. La sous-représentation des extrémités articulaires les plus volumineuses par rapport aux éclats de diaphyse suggère qu’elles ont été éliminées dans le but de rendre le matériau de construction plus homogène. Les assemblages fauniques du Secteur F sont plus érodés. Ils résultent principalement du remplissage des fosses d’extraction datant de la période Sotira, par des dépôts primaires ou secondaires provenant de bâtiments PPNA situés à proximité. Ces analyses nous éclairent sur : (i) la biodiversité insulaire chypriote de cette époque ; (ii) les capacités insoupçonnées du système de subsistance du PPNA à s’adapter à une biodiversité très réduite ; (iii) les fonctions du Bâtiment communautaire (stockage de denrées, rituels) et des bâtiments domestiques (dépôts symboliques) ; (iv) l’utilisation secondaire des bâtiments abandonnés ou des fosses d’extraction de terre pour le recyclage des déchets ; (vi) les techniques de construction du Bâtiment communautaire ; (vii) certaines représentations mentales ou symboliques des villageois de PPNA.
Texte intégral
Introduction
1During the last 20 years, numerous PPNA faunal assemblages have been studied in southeast Anatolia, in the Upper and Middle Euphrates Valley and surrounding areas, and in the Middle and Southern Levant. In spite of wide variability, all the archaeozoological studies point to subsistence based on hunting ungulates: equids (Equus hemionus, Equus caballus), aurochs (Bos primigenius), gazelles (Gazella subgutturosa), mouflon (Ovis gmelini), bezoar goats (Capra aegagrus) and deer (Cervus elaphus, Dama d. mesopotamica, Capreolus capreolus; Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006, Hongo et al. 2009, Starkovich and Steiner 2009, Conolly et al. 2011, Peters et al. 2014, etc.). The only domesticated animals were dogs (Larson et al. 2012), even though some premise of wild boar management is suggested in the Tigris Valley (Redding et al. 1998) and attested by the introduction of Suidae to Cyprus as early as 10,500 cal BC (Vigne et al. 2009). Besides large mammals, PPNA continental assemblages also highlighted the importance of the seasonal trapping and collecting of a wide diversity of small vertebrates (lagomorphs, water birds, tortoises, frogs and fish) in the continuity of the Natufian and Khiamian broad-spectrum economy, as a sustainable adaptation to the sedentary way of life of part of the society (Gourichon 2004, Gourichon and Helmer 2008). In short, while pre-domestic agriculture began in the PPNA, c. 9500 cal BC, animal domestication followed by husbandry only started during the Early PPNB, c. 8500 cal BC. Everywhere in Southwest Asia, PPNA villagers were hunter-farmers.
2Klimonas provides the first opportunity to investigate how this PPNA subsistence strategy adapted to a new territory with very different natural resources. We know that Cyprus was never bridged to the continent (Vigne et al. 2014). As such, the Late Glacial vertebrate fauna of the island was marked by insularity syndromes. There were only four endemic mammal species: dwarf hippos (Hippopotamus minor) and elephants (Elephas cypriotes), genet (Genetta plesictoides) and Cypriot mice (Mus cypriacus; Simmons 1999, Cucchi et al. 2006). We also know that the first two species had become extinct by the end of the Late Glacial (Zazzo et al. 2015). Epipaleolithic people introduced the wild boar to Cyprus shortly after that (ca. 10,500 cal BC), which rapidly decreased in size and probably proliferated as the only large game species on the island (Vigne et al. 2009). We also know that this small Cypriot wild boar was still the main game for Shillourokambos hunter-farmers at the beginning of the PPNB (ca. 8500 cal BC), but that recently domesticated goats and cattle had been introduced to the island, together with domestic mice (Mus. m. domesticus) and cats (Felis s. lybica; Vigne et al. 2011c). Was wild boar still the only game on the island during the occupation of Klimonas, c. 8800 cal BC? How did Klimonas PPNA villagers adapt their broad-spectrum strategies to this new situation? Was the density of wild boar sufficient to support a specialized exploitation strategy, or did villagers have to supplement their diet by the intensive exploitation of small game or marine resources? Had they already imported mice, cats or even early domesticated ungulates? Was the genet still living on the island?
3In this chapter, we will address these questions by analysing the numerous animal remains found at Klimonas during the 2009–2016 excavation seasons. Taxonomic and taphonomic investigations also aim to contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics and functionalities of the different archaeological features evidenced during the excavation.
1. Taxonomic diversity and distribution
1.1. Material, identification, inventories and counts
4This report concerns the totality of the faunal remains collected during the 2009 test excavation season and during the 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016 excavation seasons. The majority of the PPN sediments excavated in 2011–12, and all the sediments excavated in 2014–2016, were wet-sieved with a mesh of 5 mm or less. In addition, subsamples of sediments from the richest faunal units were wet-sieved using a 2 mm mesh (with 10% sieved through a 1 mm mesh). This represented 300 litres in 2011, 800 litres in 2012, 1200 litres in 2014, 300 litres in 2015 and 4000 litres in 2016, i.e., a total of 6600 litres of sediment. The sieve refuse was then sorted under a magnification lens or a stereomicroscope.
5All the contexts for the three sectors (Central, B and F) were studied, with the exception of the colluvial surface stratigraphic units. Mammal remains were identified using the reference collection from the Amathous house at the French School at Athens. The “reptiles” (chelonians and squamates) and bird remains were identified by Salvador Bailon and Lionel Gourichon (chap. 25 and 26) respectively. In this chapter, only the overall counts for each of these groups are presented. Counts of freshwater crab (Potamon sp.) fragments of propodytes and dactylopodytes were also included in the faunal counts (see listing and measurements in appendix 24-1). As all the marine molluscs were collected in the form of dead animal shells, either on the foreshore or in palaeontological deposits (chap. 19), they were not taken into consideration in this chapter. The terrestrial molluscs were all collected by flotation or by fine-mesh sieving but had not yet been studied at the time of writing.
6All the large mammal specimens represent the small Cypriot wild boar (Sus scrofa circeus). Very few ruminant (fallow deer, Caprini) specimens have been found and only in a limited number of contexts (chap. 4), often accompanied by pottery sherds, indicating that these contexts were disturbed during the Sotira phase of the site. They represent five out of 2361 identified specimens (0.2%) in the Communal building (only in the upper levels and Sotira pits), five out of 3872 specimens (0.12%) in Sector B, and 6 out of 357 specimens (1.7%) in the more disturbed Sector F. These have been excluded from the counts presented here.
7As the wild boar is the only large mammal species in the PPN deposits, it is likely that all rib diaphysis sections and flakes or splinters from long bone shafts belong to this species. In order to avoid circular reasoning, however, we restricted identification to the genus level for specimens presenting undisputable morphological criteria of the Sus genus. Rib sections, diaphyseal shards and a small number of other fragments with insufficient diagnostic characters (for criteria, see Vigne 2021b), were attributed to the broad category of “large mammals” (GM). Nevertheless, we included them in the identified specimens for estimating the proportion of unidentified remains. As a consequence, in spite of high fragmentation, the proportion of unidentified specimens is rather low across all contexts. This reflects the fact that identification was easier than in other archaeological sites as taxonomic diversity was limited to only one ungulate taxon.
8Due to differential bone fragmentation in the numerous and diverse contexts and because the largest bones were more or less systematically eliminated from building earth material (see below: taphonomy), it did not make sense to systematically estimate the Minimum number of Animal Units (MAU) for all the contexts. On the other hand, manganese impregnations and, moreover, secondary carbonation in and on the bones precluded assessing the relative frequency of anatomical parts on the basis of bone weight, as was successfully carried out for Shillourokambos (Vigne 2011b). Consequently, we limited the study of anatomic parts to the NISP of nine large categories: head, labial teeth, cheek teeth, vertebrae, ribs, anterior limbs, posterior limbs, metapodials and phalanges. These counts are presented in this chapter. Their quantitative study is mostly restricted to a comparison between the contexts, with no reference to the natural distribution of anatomic units in the skeleton. However, we did process an MAU estimation for a restricted number of large or specific assemblages (see below).
9The detailed inventories and counts for the taxa and for the nine anatomic categories are given:
- in appendix 24-2 for the Central Sector,
- in appendices 24-3 (listing of the identified specimens), 24-4 and 24-5 (counts of principal assemblages) for Sector B;
- in appendix 24-6 (counts of all the other units of Building B800) for Sector F.
10The statistical tests and factorial analyses were processed with Past v3.20 (Hammer et al. 2001). The p-values are all Monte Carlo probabilities. The pairwise tests were corrected according to Bonferroni (Rice 1988). Contributions to the Chi² were estimated on the basis of residue absolute values.
1.2. Taxonomic diversity
11There were no fish at all in the non-disturbed deposits. However, two large isolated vertebrae of dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus) were found. The first was in a pit excavated in the fill of Sector B, at the top of the stone accumulation against which the wall of Building B10 (St 6780) was built. The pit was contaminated by the numerous overlapping Sotira pits in this area (chap. 4). The second was in a superficial pit (St 6) excavated during the Pottery Neolithic in SU 10.8 of the Communal building, in the most eroded southern part. Additionally, 69 grouper bones were found in a Sotira pit excavated in the entrance wall of the intermediate phase of the Communal building (St 152, G36), together with fallow deer bones, a picrolite bead and a large pottery sherd, the latter dating the whole deposit to the 5th millennium Sotira phase (chap. 4; appendix 4-7). Consequently, in spite of intensive fine-mesh sieving, no fish remains were found in a secure PPNA context at Klimonas, nor any shellfish or marine turtles, and the only crustacean remains were the claws of freshwater crabs (Potamon sp.).
12Toads are represented by only three specimens from the Central Sector (chap. 25).
13Ten chelonian specimens were equally distributed between the Central and B Sectors, suggesting a land tortoise (Testudo sp.; chap. 25). Contrary to indications in preliminary archaeozoological studies (i.e., Vigne et al. 2012, 2017b), there was no evidence of freshwater turtles.
14Lizards are represented by 13 specimens, all belonging to skinks (Eumeces sp.). All the snake specimens are related to the blunt-nosed viper (Macrovipera lebetina; N = 28), except three Colubridae vertebrae (chap. 25).
15The 74 identified bird bones (out of 259 bird bones, chap. 26) represent 14 different taxa. Nine or 10 of these are water or marsh birds (ducks, geese, western marsh-harrier, and maybe short-eared owl). The great bustard (Otis tarda) is the best represented taxon with 14 specimens.
16For mammals, the wild boar is overwhelmingly dominant, representing 93% of the total faunal assemblage (tab. 24-1, 24-2). There were only four other mammal species: dog (Canis familiaris, chap. 27), cat (Felis silvestris cf. lybica) and mice, the latter being represented by the grey mouse (M. musculus domesticus; chap. 28), although the presence of the Cypriot mouse (M. cypriotes) cannot be excluded.
17Altogether, taxonomic diversity is very low, with only one amphibian, three squamates, one tortoise, 14 birds and four mammal taxa, i.e., a total of 23 species, plus the freshwater crab. This results from the isolation of Cyprus at that time, but also from the strict dietary selection of the Klimonas villagers, clearly shown by the total absence of marine species.
1.3. Global taxonomic distribution for the three sectors
18The dominance of the wild boar varies from 91% in Sector B, to 100% in Sector F, to 94% in the Central Sector (tab. 24-2). This slight variation is due to the relatively higher abundance of birds in Sector B and to the absence of small vertebrates in Sector F, where taphonomic conditions precluded their preservation (see below).
19Conversely, there are highly significant differences in the relative proportions of the large taxonomic categories of small vertebrates between the Central and B Sectors (Chi², df = 3, p < 0.0001). Fig. 24-1 indicates that mice and dogs are massively concentrated in the Communal building St 10. For mice, this has been interpreted as a consequence of the accumulation of crops in this building (chap. 28). For dogs, this may result from a special symbolic status after death (chap. 27). It should be noticed that the only cat bone was also found in the Communal building (chap. 28).
1.4. Distribution of the different anatomic unit frequencies of the wild boar
20The distribution of the different anatomic unit frequencies has been estimated for the totality of the contexts of Sectors B (N = 2404) and F (N = 196); for the Central Sector, only a sub-sample (NISP = 973) has been processed. The distribution difference between the three sectors is highly significant (global Chi², df = 16, p < 0.0001). As can be seen in fig. 24-2, this is primarily due to the excessive abundance of labial teeth in the Communal building (28% versus 13 and 9% for Sectors B and F, respectively), and secondarily to the over-representation of limb bones (anterior and posterior: 23% of the Chi² contributions) in Sector F. In this respect, the rather well-balanced distribution in Sector B appears as an average reference for the site, with both the Central and F Sectors presenting noticeable anomalies.
21Together with a series of more detailed taphonomic observations (see below), the predominance of limb long bones in Building B800 (Sector F) can be interpreted as the consequence of marked differential degradation of the material. The more resistant long bone shafts were preserved to the detriment of the cancellous bone of the articular extremities and the axial skeleton, including skulls. The abundance of incisors and canines in the Communal building is a strange and unusual pattern, already suspected in the preliminary study of the fauna (Vigne et al. 2012). It can be compared with the symbolic deposit, in the base of some building walls in B Sector B, of the anterior parts of mandibles and maxillae broken at the level of the first molars. This will be discussed in more detail in chap. 31.
1.5. Conclusions
22The abundant faunal remains collected in the three sectors at Klimonas indicate a very unusual diet, massively dominated by wild boar, with a small number of freshwater birds and the great bustard. This is principally due, of course, to the very poor insular biodiversity of Cyprus at that time, when the small Cypriot boar was the only large mammal species on the island. However, it also reflects a very selective strategy, totally excluding all marine food, both fish and shellfish, and may also have included some other putative food resources. The rare mice, cats and dogs were concentrated in the Communal building, probably due to the preferential accumulation of crops in this special place, for mice, and to specific processing after death, for dogs (and cats?). The highly symbolic activities that took place in the Communal building are also evidenced by the overabundance of wild boar labial teeth, probably related to ritual behaviour, further -investigated in chap. 31. Sector F also presents some anomalies in terms of the distribution of wild boar anatomic categories, mainly resulting from more marked taphonomic deterioration.
2. Taphonomic diversity and organization of the main faunal assemblages
2.1. Method
23The taphonomic analysis aimed to separate primary deposits from reworked faunal assemblages. Some of the latter had been reworked several times during the history of the site, due to their inclusion in earthen building materials, or in colluvial or fill sediments, some of which at least partly derived from the demolition of building walls. Therefore, the analysis mainly consisted in quantifying fragmentation and describing breakage patterns (either on fresh or dry bones). The following criteria were used, inspired by those applied to Shillourokambos (Vigne 2011b):
- Unidentified%: rate of unidentified remains, estimated with reference to the total number of vertebrate specimens, including ribs and diaphyseal flakes and splinters. This variable reflects the overall state of fragmentation. It is easier to ascertain this rate for Klimonas than for any other site as it is partly biased by the differential identification between a large variety of species. This variable measures the abundance of large bone fragments ranging in size from several millimetres to several centimetres, and the overall degree of pre- and post-depositional -fragmentation;
- Unfragmented%: rate of unfragmented specimens, including phalanges and metapodials, estimated with reference to the total number of specimens attributed to the wild boar (in the strictest sense, i.e., without diaphysis splinters and rib sections); sub-complete specimens, with moderate damage, were considered as “unfragmented”; this criterion expresses the overall degree of pre- and post-depositional fragmentation; it complements the previous one by focusing on the few remains that have undergone very little fragmentation, and characterizes either intentional symbolic deposits or primary food refuse that was not secondarily fragmented;
- Diaphysis flake%: rate of long bone diaphyses (estimated in relation to the total number of identified large mammal specimens, including ribs). All the long bone diaphyses were fractured to extract the marrow. The high values of this variable reflect the succession of several phases of pre- (trampling) or post-depositional fracturing;
- Cylinder%: rate of long bone diaphyseal cylinders, estimated with reference to the total number of identified large mammal specimens, excluding rib diaphysis sections (not considered as diaphyseal cylinders). Cylinders are diaphyses with no primary intentional fracturing but with no articular extremities, consisting of spongy bone, due to gnawing by carnivores or biochemical attacks. This variable aims to identify the possible activity of dogs on bones discarded in the village, before burial;
- Extremities/Diaphyses%: rate of long bone articular extremities, with reference to the number of diaphyses; it is estimated by calculating the total of either proximal or distal extremities, divided by the sum of proximal or distal extremities plus the fragments of all large mammal diaphyses (splinters and cylinders), excluding ribs; the two articular ends of complete long bones are also included in the count. This variable completes the preceding one;
- Spiral/Transv. fracture %: rate of spiral fractures (i.e., made on fresh bone) compared to transverse fractures (or “stepped”, made on dry bone) for diaphyseal splinters (fig. 24-3), cylinders and distal and proximal extremities. When a specimen presented both spiral and transverse breaks, only the latter were counted. The criteria for attribution to spiral or transverse are those of Behrensmeyer (1975). This variable completes the long bone diaphysis rate and highlights the rate of breakage after the primary deposit; breaks made during excavation were ignored;
- Biochemical attack%: frequency of biochemical attack marks due to soil roots and microorganisms and the degree of intensity of these attacks. The estimate concerns all elements of identified large mammal specimens (including diaphyseal flakes and ribs), except teeth. Specimens covered with abundant carbonated crust (Central Sector) were excluded from the count. The degree of attack depends on the surface of the specimen affected by biochemical marks: degree 1 for an area of less than one-third, degree 2 for between one-third and two-thirds, degree 3 for more than two-thirds. This variable is intended to quantify post-depositional deterioration in the soil; high values characterize evolutions on clay substrates, and deposits in carbonate formations tend to bear higher concentrations of carbonate crusts than those that have just undergone ablations of biochemical material;
- Burn mark%: rate of burnt bones, combining slight burns (brown bones, often difficult to differentiate from moderate manganese impregnations), carbonizations (black bone, easily recognizable), always very dominant; calcinations (white or light grey bone; rare) and turquoise bone (bone calcined after post-depositional recrystallization: no more than a dozen cases on the entire site). This variable is estimated on the total number of vertebrate remains, including indeterminate ones; for highly concreted sets (sector St 10), this rate may be slightly underestimated, as slight burns can be masked or difficult to detect;
- Tooth mark%: rate of tooth or gnawing marks, estimated on the total of identified remains, excluding teeth; the characteristic marks of rodent gnawing (chap. 28) are not included in this count, which aims to clarify the possible impact of dogs on pre-depositional degradation. Digestion marks have also been counted but not used in this chapter (see chap. 27).
2.2. Categorization of the faunal assemblages
24The 12 taphonomic parameters were quantified for all assemblages with more than 20 NISP. Altogether, they represent about half of the total NISP of the site (49% for Sector B) and cover the nine types of deposits characterized during the excavation (tab. 24-3). In the Communal building of the Central Sector, they are: Embankment (Emb), Earth screed (Sc) and Stony floors (Stf). In the other buildings (Sectors B and F), they are: Demolition (Dm), Primary (F1) or Secondary (F2) fills (F), Rubbish pits (Pt), Foundation trenches of the peripheral walls (Tr) and Earth walls or benches (W).
25They represent a total of 18 groups, distributed as follows:
- For the Central Sector, from the base to the top: the primary fill of the first building phase of the Communal building (St 10-B1-F1 = US 10.10), the embankment to level the second phase of the Communal building (St 10-B1-Emb = US 10.3), the earth screed of the second building phase (St 10-B2-Sc = US 10.6), the stony floor of the building’s third phase (St 10-B3-Stf = US 10.5). Unfortunately, the faunal set from the earth screed of the latter was too scant for quantitative characterization;
- For Sector B: the demolition of Building B08 (B08-Dm), the fills of Buildings B08 (primary and secondary: B08-F1 and B08-F2), B09 (B09-F) and B10 (B10-F); and the three components of the large rubbish pit excavated in the fills of Buildings B12-B26-B27 (6012-Pt, 6038-Pt, 6039-Pt). In addition, we also considered four smaller assemblages representing the final fill of B07 (B07-F), the foundation trench (B17-Tr) and the fill (B17-F) of B17, the earth wall of B26 (B26-W) and the foundation trench of B27 (B27-Tr);
- For Sector F; the earth wall (B800-W) and the fills (B800-F) of Building St 800.
2.2.1. Taphonomic descriptions and analyses
26The raw data for each of the 30 individual samples in these 18 groups are presented in appendices 24-7, 24-8 and 24-9. The graphic representation of the corresponding taphonomic profiles (in logarithmic values and without tooth marks) can be found in appendices 24-10 and 24-11. Bone attributes (colour, state of preservation, carbonated crusts, manganese impregnations) are qualitatively described in appendix 24-12, where quantitative profiles, statistic comparisons and the reason why some of them have been grouped (or not) into larger entities are also presented. Burn marks are more specifically analysed in chap. 29. Tooth marks are discussed in chap. 27 and 28.
27The different degrees of biochemical attacks and the rate of tooth marks were often so insignificant that they were excluded from graphic analysis. Therefore, only eight taphonomic criteria are presented in the graphic representation for the 18 main faunal assemblages (fig. 24-4). The profiles vary from sub-convex and sub-regular octagons (B08, fig. 24-4, B), with more or less balanced scores for all criteria, to elongated octagons (B Sector, small samples, fig. 24-4, E), with lower scores for burn marks and biochemical attacks (on the left side of the octagons). Variations are also visible in the balance between unfragmented, diaphyseal flakes, cylinders and articular extremities, on the right side of the octagons, generally shown by a protruding beak in the polygon for flakes and extremities. However, due to logarithmic representation, these graphs do not provide an account of differences for the higher percentages, such as unidentified and spiral/transversal breaks.
28As the taphonomic profiles are a quantitative estimation of a series of eight main criteria/variables for 18 groups (individuals), variability patterns can be investigated with Principal Component Analysis (PCA; appendix 24-13). This revealed that none of the eight variables is redundant in relation to any of the others (no significant pairwise statistic correlation). A total of 47% of the variation (first component) can be explained by strong differences in the degree of biochemical attack (78% of contributions), as opposed to the secondary breakage of bones (-39%). Additionally, 25% of the variation (second component) is again due to the opposition between corrosion (53% of -contribution) and the abundance of diaphyseal flakes (64.5%), which also indicates the level of taphonomic degradation. The third component totals 13% of the rest of the variability; it results from the balance between the high rates of unidentified (63%) and spiral breaks (-64%). The PCA, therefore, gives a good image of the different levels and modes of the faunal assemblages’ taphonomic evolution.
29The position of the different assemblages in this organization is also informative. In the F1xF2 scatter plot, which represents 62% of the variability (fig. 24-5), the three sectors of Klimonas are plotted in three well-separated areas, without any overlap. In addition, they plot along a gradient of increasing degradation, from Sector B to the Communal building (St 10) and to the fills and building earth of B800 building in Sector F. The correlations between taphonomic criteria and assemblages suggest that each of the three zones evolved following a specific taphonomic regime:
- The 12 bone sets from Sector B are correlated with high rates of unfragmented bones and articular extremities, and low rates of secondary fragmentation (spiral/transversal break). The assemblages from the foundation trenches (in blue: B-27-Tr, B17-Tr), the earth wall (B26-W) and the products of their demolition (B26-W) are plotted at the extremity of the gradient, while the assemblages from the rubbish pit (in purple: 6012-Pt, 6038-Pt, 6039-Pt) plot slightly further along the gradient, and the position of the fills (in green: B08-F1/F2, B09-F, B10-F) indicates that they underwent more intense degradation. B07-F is an exception, suggesting that this was a rubbish pit rather than a primary fill. It should be noted that the nature of the different building substrata (either marl or carbonated havara) did not affect the taphonomic pattern, except for the carbonated crust, which we did not include in our list of criteria (but see appendix 24-11);
- The four bone assemblages from the Communal building show a different taphonomic pattern. The first trend is the high rate of diaphyseal flakes, indicating that building materials were cleared of their most voluminous bones (extremities, complete bones) before being incorporated in the building, embankment or stony floor. The second trend is the very low rate of biochemical attacks, probably due to their deeper position in the soil in the buildings of Sectors B and F, and protection against bioturbations by the dense and thick levels of earth screeds in the second and third building phases;
- Building B800 is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation (many unidentified, low rate of spiral breaks, intense post-depositional corrosion), which is also present, to a lesser degree, in the fill from nearby buildings. This taphonomic pattern probably results from a particular soil context, different from the two other sectors, with thin and very active pedologic processes on partly decarbonated colluvial sediments.
2.3. Conclusion
30The taphonomic analyses successfully evidenced clear contrasts in the evolution pattern of faunal remains from the three excavated sectors and the different types of deposits.
31The numerous small samples in a large number of stratigraphic units or structures constitute the “background noise” of the site and cannot be used for quantitative taphonomic analyses. However, the 18 largest assemblages result from food refuse accumulations (diaphysis splinters and flakes; separate articular extremities; tooth rows, etc.) in some large rubbish pits (building earth extraction?), such as B07-F, excavated in the fills of B12-26-27, or in some of the abandoned houses (B08, B09, B10), just after abandonment or during the early phases of refilling. This process is well documented in Sector B, where these deposits were generally well preserved, with rather low post-depositional attacks, either from dogs (low rate of gnawing marks and cylinders) or from roots or soil microorganisms (moderate biochemical attacks). Only one assemblage (B08-Dm) shows a high rate of burnt bones, possibly due to a house fire.
32Several important sets of animal bones and teeth were found in building materials, i.e., the walls and the basal trench of the B Sector buildings and, of course, the different architectural components of the Communal building (walls, benches, embankment, stony soils or earth screeds). These assemblages clearly derive from the extraction of earth from the above-mentioned primary deposits (refuse pits, building fill or demolition). However, they differ from the latter by a greater degree of taphonomic evolution due to their secondary (and sometimes tertiary) reworking. They are characterized in particular by the virtual absence of voluminous bone fragments (notably articular extremities), eliminated in order to homogenize construction materials. The consequence of this process, already detected by Mylona et al. (2017; see also chap. 11) during the micromorphological study of the building earth of the Communal building, is a marked predominance of long bone diaphysis splinters and flakes in relation to complete bones or articular extremities, together with a rather good state of preservation due to a short taphonomic process. The small amount of animal bones collected in the earth floor of the third building phase of the Communal building highlights a situation where the process of bone elimination from building earth was pushed to extremes.
33Although bone elements from the building earth of Sector B are often small, they show a different pattern, more similar to those of the primary deposits than to the building materials of the Communal building. Does this mean that the earth of the Communal building was more carefully sorted than that of other buildings? As we will see in chap. 31, this situation seems to result from the abundance of symbolic deposits of generally complete animal bones (or meat joints) in the wall foundation trenches and bases of these domestic buildings.
34The bone assemblages from Sector F (Building B800) present a very different pattern. They resulted from the possible elimination of animal bones from the building earth of the wall and benches, a complex pre-depositional process for the bones of the building fill (refilling of the Sotira pits with PPN material from the primary or secondary fills extracted from the nearby PPN structures) and a much more intense post-depositional evolution, due to thin, active but partly decarbonated soils. This probably explains why faunal remains are less abundant in this building than in those of the Central and B Sectors.
3. General conclusion
35The more than 21,000 animal bones collected in the three sectors of the PPNA village of Klimonas denote a very unusual taxonomic situation compared to the numerous faunal assemblages of the continental PPNA. It is characterized by low taxon diversity for all vertebrates: only three amphibians, one tortoise, three squamates, 14 birds and four mammal species. For the latter, aside from the small Cypriot wild boar introduced during the 11th millennium (Sus scrofa circeus), the presence of dogs (Canis familiaris), cats (Felis s. lybica) and the grey mouse (Mus m. domesticus) indicates that these three species were introduced to Cyprus between 10,500 cal BC (Aetokremnos; Simons 1999, Vigne et al. 2014) and 8800 cal BC (Klimonas). Conversely, the domestic goats and cattle present in the earliest levels of Shillourokambos are missing at Klimonas, confirming that they were introduced to Cyprus between 8800 and 8500–8400 cal BC, shortly after they were domesticated on the continent (Vigne et al. 2011c).
36In addition to this low diversity, the quantitative distribution of taxa in the faunal remains of Klimonas is disparate, with hunted wild boars representing 93% of the 6602 identified specimens. The much smaller quantity of faunal remains studied by P. Croft from the contemporaneous site of Ayia Varvara-Asprokremnos describes exactly the same situation (Manning et al. 2010). This low and uneven diversity results both from the first syndrome of insularity (low natural diversity) and from the drastic selection of island biodiversity by humans, particularly visible in the total absence of fish (and any other marine animal). With reference to the questions mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, we can conclude that, because of the island context, the Cypro-PPNA villagers were forced to drastically change their traditional Natufian-PPNA broad-spectrum strategy into a very specialized one, almost exclusively focused on wild boar hunting. Small vertebrates are probably under-evaluated because of the differential preservation of small bones with regard to those of the wild boar, but even so, they were rarely exploited. This situation may be partly due to a sort of taboo, at least for marine resources. Nonetheless, it suggests that wild boar resources were sufficiently abundant to support the subsistence of villagers, estimated at around a dozen people per household (Vigne et al. 2017b). Unsurprisingly, this attests to very high wild boar density, as is usually the case in islands were ungulates have no competitors and no predators other than small human groups.
37Taxonomic distribution is also irregular in the different functional areas of the site. Dog (and cat) remains were almost exclusively found in the Communal building (see interpretation in chap. 27). The over-representation of labial teeth here may result from ritual practices involving specific sacrifices or meals and the use of symbolic objects comprising wild boar tusks and incisors (chap. 31). Mice remains were also much more frequent in the Communal building, suggesting that the main cereal stocks were kept there rather in domestic areas (chap. 28).
38The three main sectors of the site also show taphonomic differences. In Sector B, with the exception of the rare remarkable/symbolic deposits at the base of walls, most of the well-preserved faunal assemblages resulted from the accumulation of small quantities of food refuse in the buildings just after their abandonment, or in large pits probably excavated for building earth. Faunal remains are more eroded in the Communal building because they mostly derived from the earth extracted from primary deposits of domestic areas, for constructing walls, benches, embankments or the stony or packed earth floors in the Communal building. The under-representation of the largest articular extremities, in comparison to diaphyseal flakes, in building materials suggests that they were eliminated to homogenize the earth. On the other hand, the faunal assemblages from Sector F mostly resulted from the refilling of earth extraction pits excavated during the 5th millennium Sotira phase of site occupation, with primary or secondary deposits from nearby PPNA buildings. They are therefore more eroded or disturbed than the faunal assemblages in the Central or B Sectors.
Annexe
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A01, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.d018s25t
List (A) and measurements (B) of the dactylopidites and propodites of freshwater crabs (Potamon sp.) found at Klimonas • Liste (A) et mesures (B) des dactylopidites et propodites de crabes d’eau douce (Potamon sp.) trouvés à Klimonas
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A02, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.b08aun2y
Taxonomic and anatomic distribution of the animal skeletal parts in the different stratigraphic units and structures of the Central Sector of Klimonas • Distribution taxonomique et anatomique des parties squelettiques des animaux dans les différentes unités stratigraphiques et structures du Secteur central de Klimonas
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A03, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.cc3ea3d0
List of the archaeozoological remains found in the B Sector of Klimonas • Liste des vestiges archéozoologiques trouvés dans le Secteur B de Klimonas
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A04, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.3f819793
Taxonomic and anatomic distribution of the animal skeletal parts in the principal faunal assemblages of the B Sector of Klimonas (1/2) • Distribution taxonomique et anatomique des parties squelettiques des animaux dans les principaux assemblages faunistiques du Secteur B de Klimonas (1/2)
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A05, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.1682x6gy
Taxonomic and anatomic distribution of the animal skeletal parts in the principal faunal assemblages of the B Sector of Klimonas (2/2) • Distribution taxinomique et anatomique des parties squelettiques dans les principaux assemblages fauniques du Secteur B de Klimonas (2/2)
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A06, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.1dedkw3t
Taxonomic and anatomic distribution of the animal skeletal parts in the different faunal assemblages of the F Sector of Klimonas • Distribution taxonomique et anatomique des parties squelettiques dans les différents assemblages fauniques du Secteur F de Klimonas
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A07, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.0dbcy9b2
Estimation of the 13 taphonomic indices for the main faunal assemblages of the Communal building of the Central Sector of Klimonas • Estimation des 13 indices taphonomiques pour les principaux assemblages fauniques du Bâtiment communautaire du Secteur central de Klimonas
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A08, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.edaa7szy
Estimation of the 13 taphonomic indices for the main faunal assemblages of the buildings B08 and B09 of the B Sector of Klimonas • Estimation des 13 indices taphonomiques pour les principaux assemblages fauniques des bâtiments B08 et B09 du Secteur B de Klimonas
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A09, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.c4f59n83
Estimation of the 13 taphonomic indices for the main faunal assemblages of the buildings B07, B10, B17, B26 and B27 of the B Sector, and for the building B800 (St 800) of the F Sector of Klimonas • Estimation des 13 indices taphonomiques pour les principaux assemblages fauniques des bâtiments B07, B10, B17, B26 et B27 du Secteur B, et pour le bâtiment B800 (St 800) du Secteur F de Klimonas
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A10, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.a247abo4
Graphic representation of 8 of the 13 taphonomic indices for the main faunal assemblages of the Communal building of the Central Sector of Klimonas and of Buildings B08 and B09 of the Sector B • Représentation graphique de 8 des 13 indices taphonomiques des principaux assemblages fauniques du Bâtiment communautaire du Secteur central de Klimonas et des bâtiments B08 et B09 du Secteur B
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A11, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.28f6a24d
Graphic representation of 8 of the 13 taphonomic indices for the main faunal assemblages of the B and F Sectors • Représentation graphique de 8 des 13 indices taphonomiques des principaux assemblages fauniques des Secteurs B et F
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A12, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.63d2e5bk
Taphonomic description of the main faunal assemblages from Klimonas, comparisons and grouping • Description taphonomique des principaux assemblages fauniques de Klimonas, comparaisons et regroupements
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
KLIMONAS-Ch24-A13, https://doi.org/10.34847/nkl.a8ac7hu8
Results of the First Principal componant analysis (PCA1), with all the 8 taphnomic criteria, and all the 18 samples of Klimonas (PAST) • Résultats de la première analyse en composantes principales (PCA1), avec les 8 critères taphnomiques et les 18 échantillons de Klimonas (PAST)
Jean-Denis VIGNE (CNRS)
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Les allées sépulcrales du Bassin parisien à la fin du Néolithique
L’exemple de La Chaussée-Tirancourt
Arnaud Blin
2018
Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France
Laure Salanova et Yaramila Tcheremissinoff (dir.)
2011
La grotte-abri de Peyrazet (Creysse, Lot, France) au Magdalénien
Originalité fonctionnelle d’un habitat des derniers chasseurs de rennes du Quercy
Mathieu Langlais et Véronique Laroulandie (dir.)
2021
Klimonas
An Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village in Cyprus
Jean-Denis Vigne, François Briois et Jean Guilaine (dir.)
2024