culated tools - though with much less use of typical Levallois techniques than at Vaufrey. Despite de Lumley's tendency to describe the industry as 'Late Acheulian', the main occupation level documented in layer 5 did not produce any trace of characteristic hand axes. The associated faunal assemblage is dominated by remains of red deer, ibex and fallow deer with more sporadic remains of chamois, horse and bovids. From studies of the age distribution of ibex teeth, de Lumley estimates that occupation in this level was concentrated primarily during the full winter months, between mid-November and mid-April.
De Lumley's very full publication of the material from level 5 provides information on the distribution of most of the major categories of both lithic and faunal material, with a series of detailed distribution plans (de Lumley et al. 1969). Despite the inevitable problem of occupational palimpsests, the distributions reveal a number of sharply defined patterns, in certain respects strongly reminiscent of those documented in the Grotte Vaufrey:
1. The most striking feature of the distributions (as at the Grotte Vaufrey) is the concentration of archaeological material within a relatively small and sharply defined area of the cave. As at Vaufrey, the material is con
centrated mainly along the south wall and occupies about 35 square metres - similar to that documented in the Vaufrey excavations (Figs 9.12-9.15). The conclusion seems inescapable that this particular activity area must have been the product of a very small social group, probably no more than five to ten individuals - possibly smaller if repeated, superimposed episodes of activity on the same spot are taken into account.
2. Evidence is present for two separate hearth areas, both located close to the south wall of the cave, approximately 3 metres apart (Fig. 9.13). As at Vaufrey, no evidence for deliberate construction of the hearths was detected, but the sharp localization of both charcoal fragments and general ashy zones can be used to pinpoint their location. From the lack of evidence for heavy burning immediately below the hearths, de Lumley suggests that the fires lit there were probably short-lived and rarely reached high temperatures.
3. Two features of the archaeological material seem to show a particularly close association with the areas immediately adjacent to the north and west of the hearths: the distribution of flint tools and flaking debris (Fig. 9.12) and small splinters of heavily fragmented bones (Fig. 9.14). Both would appear
Was this article helpful?