The Ficoncella research program, under the supervision of the Italian heritage (Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l'Area Metropolitana di Roma la Provincia di Viterbo e l'Etruria Meridionale) was supported by the Latium region (L42) and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Civitavecchia (Cariciv). For logistic and administrative support, we thank the Municipality, the Museum “Klitsche de La Grange” and the Protezione Civile of Allumiere (RM, Italy). The authors are grateful to the two reviewers for their suggestions.
1The site of Ficoncella (Tarquinia, Latium, Central Italy) is located on the left slope of the Mignone river valley and consists of an alluvial sedimentological context where animal bones and lithic remains dating to the Lower Palaeolithic were found (fig. 1). After its discovery by local amateurs, which recovered one elephant scapula in a reworked area and one elephant right tusk, the site was stratigraphically excavated for the first time in 2010 (Aureli et al., 2012) and fieldwork was carried out over the following years until 2015. Part of an elephant carcass (skull with tusks, one innominate, and some vertebrae) was discovered in an excavated area of about 10 square meters, associated with remains related to other taxa and lithic implements (fig. 2). The presence of two volcanic layers, together with other geological evidence, dated the site to between ca. 500-490 ka (Aureli et al., 2015). The presence of Hominin activities is attested by 496 lithic implements, including 332 very small flakes (< 5 mm). No bifaces or other large cutting tools were found in the excavated area. Thanks to technological and techno-functional analysis we determined two distinct reduction sequences (Aureli et al., 2016). The first one concerns large limestone pebbles. It consists in the production of medium/large flakes to obtain robust and long (40-60 mm) cutting-edges on elongated, convergent or backed flakes. The second reduction sequence is performed on small flint pebbles, in order to obtain “small-tools” with several cutting-edges (spine or trihedral, mini-rostrum, etc.). The small flakes coming from this reduction sequence (retouch and notches flakes) are as well used on several work material (Aureli et al., 2015).
2Depositional setting is related to the filling of an ancient small valley tributary of the one of the Mignone river. The part of stratigraphic sequence where animal remains and lithics were deposited looks to be related to more palustrine conditions, in a broader floodplain context generally characterized by the alternation of flood events with sub aerial exposures during dry periods.
3The types of interactions between hominins and elephant carcasses during the Lower Palaeolithic are still a pivotal topic. The presence of lithic industries alongside elephant bones has been recorded in several sites across Italy and, more generally, in Eurasia and Africa (for Italy : Piperno & Tagliacozzo, 2001 ; Boschian & Saccà, 2010, 2015 ; Anzidei et al., 2012). In spite of evidence of butchering activities and the exploitation of elephant bones for tool production at some sites (e.g. Saccà, 2012 ; Santucci et al., 2016), at other sites the relationship between Hominins and proboscideans is ambiguous due to the geological context and to the fact that the Hominin processing of elephant carcasses only rarely leaves traces on bone surfaces (Haynes, 1991).
4After preliminary analyses, the formation processes of the Ficoncella site seemed to be similar to a snapshot, showing that the faunal remains were buried not long after the animal's death. In a previous study, apart from the elephant carcass, the remains of other taxa were considered to have other origins (for instance, reworking of older sediments) and some bone remains appeared to have been scavenged by carnivores (probably hyenas, since a coprolite was found at the site). No direct evidence of carcass exploitation by Hominins, such as cut marks or percussion marks, was found at all (Aureli et al., 2015).
5The aim of this paper is to present new zooarchaeological and taphonomic data from the site of Ficoncella. This new analysis will contribute to improving our interpretation of site formation processes, and will shed light on the spectrum of Hominin activities related to the exploitation of faunal resources.
Fig.1: Geographic position of the site
6A total of 364 faunal remains, deriving from all the fieldwork conducted at the site were analyzed for this paper. The studied sample is from a 10 m2 excavated area, which may only represent a small part of the total site extension. As the stratigraphic position of some specimens recovered by local amateurs is not known, and the deposit was partially reworked by a present-day porcupine den, only remains discovered in a clear stratigraphic context are presented here (among excluded specimens there are one elephant rib and one elephant scapula). The present paper does not deal with the micromammals, herpetofauna (six specimens), and bird remains (one specimen). Only the megafauna and macromammal remains will be considered here. Specimens were identified using the osteological reference collection of the University of Siena; if no clear identification was possible, they were ascribed to more general anatomical and taxonomic categories (e.g. diaphysis, cancellous bone, medium-sized ungulate, etc.). The maximum size of each specimen was measured in mm. When possible, the weathering stages were measured (Behrensmeyer, 1978).
7Almost all of the 364 faunal remains are fragmented and most of them are smaller than 30 mm. They belong to at least four taxa (Palaeoloxodon antiquus, Equidae, Dama sp. and Capreolus sp.) and to an estimated Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) of five, since the fallow deer specimens can be attributed to one adult (fused proximal tibia) and to one juvenile (milk teeth) individual (tab. 1). Most of the specimens are unidentified due to fragmentation, but a number of them are unidentified skull fragments and flat bones probably linked to the alteration of the elephant skull (tab.°1). The animal remains are concentrated around the skull and near the apex of the left tusk (fig.°2).
8The Palaeoloxodon skull is incomplete, and comprises the occipital area, the left zygomatic and the maxilla, whilst the right zygomatic bone is not present. The braincase is missing and fragments of the premaxillary bones were found near the skull. Tusks were found still in the alveoli. Most of the specimens found around the skull were near the left zygomatic bone (fig.°2). The fallow deer and equid remains come from this area together with some cervid and small- to medium-sized ungulate remains. In particular, one proximal fallow deer metacarpus was found with the plesiometacarpal bones still in anatomical connection. Two complete Palaeoloxodon cervical vertebrae, together with the axis, two caudal vertebrae and a fragment of the innominate were found near the apex of the left tusk. The caudal vertebrae were still connected to each other. In the same area, one roe deer distal metapodial, some cervid remains and a Hyaenid coprolite were also found.
9Considering the preservation of bone surfaces, specimens near the left zygomatic bone are virtually not weathered (only 7.5 % of the remains, with stage 1), whilst they are more weathered in the other areas (around the skull/right side - stage 1 : 10.2 %, stage 2 : 1.3 %; around the skull/occipital area - stage 1 : 15.8 %; near the apex of the left tusk - stage 1 : 21.8 %, stage 2 : 3.8 %).
10A medium-sized ungulate diaphysis fragment shows an impact notch with the flake still attached to the bone. Four cone flakes (as described by Johnson 1985, fig. 5.15A) from intentionally fractured megafauna skeletal elements were also found at the site. In addition, five other conchoid flakes present atypical morpho-technical features of bone breakage for marrow exploitation (fig. 3). The size of the cone flakes ranges from 25 to 64 mm, whilst the five conchoid flakes reach a size of 43 and 72 mm respectively (tab. 2).
Tab. 1: Taxa found at the site, skeletal element representation (NISP) and Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI).
Megafauna: specimens probably belonging to Palaeoloxodon; Small-sized ungulates: specimens belonging to individuals similar in size to a roe deer; Medium-sized ungulates: specimen belonging individuals similar in size to a fallow deer/small red deer.
Fig. 2: Plan of the excavated area
Fig. 3: Three bone flakes found at site.
(A) Cone flake (ID 199). (B) Cone flake (ID 142). (C) Conchoidal flake showing different characteristics, such as for instance a clear bulb and negatives on the dorsal side (ID 89). Scale bar: 2 cm.
Tab. 2: Size (maximum size in the three dimensions) and characteristics of the bone flakes found at site.
11The weathering data indicate a rather rapid burial, of only a few years (Haynes & Klimowicz, 2015), as stage 1 is the most represented stage, and stages 3 to 5 are absent. This is also confirmed by the two Palaeoloxodon still articulated caudal vertebrae (Whit & Diedrich, 2012 ; Haynes & Klimowicz, 2015).
12The light weathering and the presence of fallow deer bones still in anatomic position, together with the high number of refits of lithic implements (36 pieces) concentrated near the left side of the skull (fig.°2), indicate that this part of site may have been covered earlier than the others and that it was only slightly or not at all reworked. Articulated vertebrae also indicate a transport along a short distance, thus confirming that the elephant remains were found more or less where the individual died. With the exception of a number of fragments originating from the alteration of the skull, all Palaeoloxodon remains considered here (vertebrae and innominate) were found in an area between the two tusks. At the moment it is difficult to state if these specimens were protected by the tusks, whilst other parts of the carcass were scattered by water across the floodplain. The dispersal of elephant bones highlights the difference between Ficoncella and other sites where elephant carcasses were found still, or at least partially articulated, as for instance the area of La Polledrara (Italy) studied by Santucci et al. (2016). The situation found at Ficoncella looks to resemble an area of Castel di Guido (Italy, Boschian & Saccà, 2010) where a cluster of elephant bones in sub anatomical position was detected and where tusks probably played a role in the dispersion of specimens. Skeletal parts scattered across short distances were found in several sites, such as for instance Barogali (Republic of Djibouti, Berthelet & Chavaillon, 2001), Ambrona (Spain, Villa et al., 2005) or Nadung’a 4 (Kenya, Delagnes et al. 2006).
13New data presented in this paper may indicate that the elephant carcass was scattered and modified both by carnivores and Hominins. On the one hand, a coprolite and skull fragment with crenulated edges were found at the site (Aureli et al., 2015), whereas on the other hand, impact flakes from megafauna bones may point to direct evidence of elephant carcass exploitation. As for the Hominin modification of the elephant carcass, bone flakes may indicate the intentional breakage of skeletal elements for various purposes (marrow extraction? Bone tool production?). Although fractured elephant bones are considered by some authors to result from non-anthropogenic processes (trampling by other elephants, carnivore-induced modifications), the flakes found at Ficoncella do not correspond to those of natural origin (Haynes, 1988). Even if the investigated area is to date unfortunately still very small, its intriguing to note that fragment of elephant long bones, most probably the blanks where those bone flakes come from, were not found. It may testify a transport of elephant long bones, perhaps as fragments, to other areas of the site or to other sites, or that the bones flakes were produced elsewhere and introduced in this area of the site. The data presented here confirm that the occurrence of other taxa (at least a medium-sized ungulate) should not be considered to be originated from the reworking of older sediments as previously hypothesized (Aureli et al., 2015), since traces of intentional bones breakage were observed and modifications related to transport by water were not detected. These taxa cannot be considered as “background fauna”, as happened in other sites (for instance Nadung’a 4, Delagnes et al. 2006). Consequently, Ficoncella cannot be considered a single carcass site. At the moment, due to the small excavated area and the scarcity of data, it is difficult to know if individuals belonging to other taxa died at site due to natural factors or if their carcasses where brought there by Hominins.
14These results provide a broader view of the activities carried out at the site. The initial interpretation, considering the site as a short occupation linked to the exploitation of a single carcass, now needs to be updated. Our results stimulate us to examine more in depth the role played by Hominins on the elephant carcass, but also on the other taxa. In addition, lithic implements, mainly of very small dimensions, point to different activities and varied worked materials, but are not clearly related to bone breakage due to their size. The preliminary use-wear analysis indicates that some active tool edges were used to cut materials of medium hardness, and thus butchery activities related to skinning or meat exploitation may have taken place at the site (Aureli et al., 2016). The variety of activities is also testified by the lithic assemblage. Indeed, the technological and raw material unit analysis shows that several pebbles, recovered in the surrounding area, were introduced and worked at the site. Further studies will focus more on taphonomy using cutting-edge methods (i.e. 3D microscopy of bone surface modifications – see for instance Duches et al. 2016), and on combining taphonomy and zooarchaeological data with those from other disciplines (use-wear, sedimentology, fabric analysis, etc.) in order to shed more light on site history and function. In conclusion, we can state that some data are compatible with an opportunistic interest of Hominins for a naturally dead elephant carcass (it is still not clear if it happened for feeding purposes of for exploiting raw materials), but the presence of other taxa, as well as results from lithic studies show us a more complex site function.
SACCA D. 2012 - Taphonomy of Palaeoloxodon antiquus at Castel di Guido (Rome, Italy): Proboscidean carcass exploitation in the Lower Palaeolithic, Quaternary Quaternary International, 276-277, 27-41.