Content uploaded by Edgard Camarós
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Edgard Camarós on Oct 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications
concerning the study of Neanderthal behavior
E. Camar
os
a
,
b
,
*
, M. Cueto
c
, L. Teira
d
, Susanne C. Münzel
e
, F. Plassard
f
, P. Arias
d
,
F. Rivals
a
,
b
,
g
a
IPHES, Institut Catal
a de Paleoecologia Humana i Evoluci
o Social, C/Marcel.lí domingo s/n, Campus Sescelades URV (Edifici W), 43007, Tarragona, Spain
b
Area de Prehist
oria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Avda. de Catalunya, 35, 43002, Tarragona, Spain
c
Laboratori d'Arqueozoologia, Universitat Aut
onoma de Barcelona, Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres, 08193, Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vall
es, Spain
d
Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehist
oricas de Cantabria (IIIPC), Universidad de Cantabria (UC), Avda de los Castros s/n, Edificio
Interfacultativo, 39005, Santander, Spain
e
Institut für Naturwissenschaftliche Arch€
aologie (INA), Universit€
at Tübingen, Rümelinstrasse 23, 72070, Tübingen, Germany
f
UMR 5199 PACEA-Pr
ehistoire, Pal
eoenvironnement, Patrimoine, Universit
e Bordeaux 1, 33000, Bordeaux, France
g
ICREA (Instituci
o Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats), Barcelona, Spain
article info
Article history:
Available online xxx
Keywords:
Neanderthals
Bears
Interaction
Pleistocene
Behavior
abstract
The evidence of modern and complex behavior is a key debate in human evolution. Neanderthals have
been excluded from this debate from many years, until new insight have provided a new conception of
the Neanderthal behavior. Nevertheless, although archaeological data of complex and modern behavior
has been inferred, this is not a generalized scenario in Middle Paleolithic sites. In the present paper, we
point taphonomical issues as the responsible for this misconservation of cognitive markers. Furthermore,
we highlight the action of ursids as one of the agents that has most modified the archaeological record.
Nevertheless, bears not just erase behavioral evidences, their action may also generate material realities
that can be misinterpreted by archaeologist as Neanderthal behavioral markers. In the present paper we
analyze issues related to organized use of space and symbolic behavior such as inhumation practices and
graphical expression. We approach this issue from a multidisciplinary research based mainly in
actualistic, experimental, paleontological and ethological observations.
©2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Modern and complex behavior has been discussed widely in the
scientific literature. The “package”related to modernity and
complexity includes evidence associated with technological, social,
and cognitive innovations in relation to hunting methods and diet,
hafting procedures, and heat treatment, among others (see
McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Villa and Roebroeks, 2014). All these
are key cognitive markers that allow differentiation of modern
humans from archaic hominins (Marean et al., 2007; Conard, 2010).
Conventional explanations relate all these innovations as evidence
of the modernity and complexity usually assigned to Homo sapiens
(Li et al., 2014).
For many years, Neanderthals have been excluded from the
debate related to the display of modern behavior (D'Errico, 2003).
Nevertheless, recent research has provided evidence of archaeo-
logical data indicating complex Neanderthal behavior and modern
cognition (summarized in Villa and Roebroeks, 2014). This evidence
points towards a new conception of Neanderthal behavior, related
to new insights associated with symbolic issues (e.g., Zilh~
ao et al.,
2010; Morin and Laroulandie, 2012; Roebroeks et al., 2012;
Peresani et al., 2013), subsistence strategies (e.g., Scott, 1980;
Blasco et al., 2014; Ruf
a et al., 2014; Yravedra et al., 2014;
Fiorenza et al., 2015), intra-site spatial organization patterns (e.g.,
Chac
on et al., 2012) and technological innovations (e.g., Soressi
et al., 2013; Yravedra and Uzquiano, 2013; Abrams et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, despite all this behavioral evidence, the debate on
Neanderthal cognitive and behavioral evolution remains largely
unresolved (Taborin, 1998; White, 2002; Higham et al., 2010).
Some archaeological data do support Neanderthal behavioral
modernity, but the number of examples is not large, and they are
considered by many as exceptions or acculturation evidence
*Corresponding author. IPHES, Institut Catal
a de Paleoecologia Humana i
Evoluci
o Social, C/Marcel.lí domingo s/n, Campus Sescelades URV (Edifici W),
43007, Tarragona, Spain.
E-mail address: ecamaros@iphes.cat (E. Camar
os).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
1040-6182/©2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e10
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
(Mellars, 1999, 2005). Nevertheless, we believe this is an issue
related to taphonomic damage and post-depositional site preser-
vation. Preservation has been pointed out previously as a key factor
in structuring the present state of knowledge on cultural
complexity and innovation (Langley et al., 2011).
Among all agents that may have changed archaeological site
preservation (e.g., water, weathering, sedimentation, etc.) (e.g.,
Barbetti, 1986; Mallol et al., 2007), carnivores can be acknowledged
as one of the most active (Binford et al., 1988; Lindly, 1988; Lyman,
1994). Their modification actions can be contextualized in the
alternate use of caves by both agents (hominins and carnivores) for
development of different activities (Straus, 1982; Blasco, 1997;
Stiner, 2002; Enloe, 2012; Yravedra and Cobo, 2015). Modification
may be related to bone damage and spatial modifications (Camar
os
et al., 2013a; Arilla et al., 2014) that render palimpsests difficult to
study (Egeland et al., 2004;; Baena et al., 2012 vs.; Yravedra and
G
omez-Castanedo, 2014). Among all carnivores that may have
been responsible for such damage, ursids can be identified as ani-
mals that developed a close interaction with Neanderthals (e.g.,
Est
evez, 2004; see; Rosell et al., 2012a).
Bears developed direct interactions with Neanderthals, as
confirmed by evidence that they, together with other carnivores
(Blasco et al., 2010; P
erez Ripoll et al., 2010), were hunted (Auguste,
1995; David, 1997) for meat and fur (Tillet, 2002) and for other
resources (e.g., Abrams et al., 2014). Bears also presumably insti-
gated attacks on Neanderthals, in the context of constant pressures
arising from sharing the same ecosystem (Camar
os et al., 2015). In
this sense, the alternate occupation of the same caves is one of the
most common forms of indirect interaction between Neanderthals
and bears (Viranta and Grandal d'Anglade, 2012).
In the present paper, we examine different perspectives to show
how bears may have served as taphonomic agents in the study of
Neanderthal behavior. Specifically, we analyze issues related to the
organized use of space and symbolic behaviors such as inhumation
practices and graphical expression. Taphonomic experiments and
archaeopaleonthological analyses related to bears are developed to
provide a proof-of-concept of the degree of complexity of the
interaction that occurred between hominins and carnivores during
the Pleistocene and the implications it has concerning the study of
Neanderthal behavior.
2. Materials and methods
A multidisciplinary approach based on homininecarnivore
interaction has been used in the present paper. In this sense,
experimentation and archaeopaleontological and ethological ap-
proaches have been developed in order to provide new insight into
the study of Neanderthal behavior through the relationship Nean-
derthals had with bears.
To do so, several experiments have been developed with extant
bears (Ursus arctos) in the Nature Park of Cab
arceno (Cantabria,
Spain). This is an excellent context for developing experiments, due
to the Park's policy of interfering as little as possible with animals
that live in a semi-free state of liberty. In this sense, animals pre-
serve their natural instincts in a perfect context for scientific
observation. Experiments were developed following a methodol-
ogy we used previously (Camar
os et al., 2013b), which consisted of
the performance of an experimental scenario inside the bears'
enclosure. Places with no slope were preferentially selected. The
spatial distribution of the bears' actions is then registered with
photogrammetric techniques using targets measured with Total
Station software (Leica TCRM1205) that linked them to a provi-
sional local system. The aim of this is to control all spatial changes
due to the animals' actions. One of the experiments required spe-
cific particularities, and an excavation machine was used to
excavate in the soil (see Supplementary Material Fig. S1). Other
methodological particulars of each experiment are described in
Section 3.1.
Archaeological sites were also studied. The selected sites were
those that presented traces of ursid action according to our needs
(e.g., bear scratches and bear beds) and that displayed an
outstanding state of preservation. We analyzed the archae-
opaleontological contexts of Rouffignac (France) and La Garma
(Spain). At both sites, we measured the length, breadth, and depth
of the bear beds present (see Supplementary Material Fig. S2). We
also analyzed other bear traces, such as scratches on the walls and
soil, using scanning technology.
Our results, both experimental and paleontological, were
compared with recently published research related to the study of
modern and complex Neanderthal behavior. In this sense, sites such
as La Chapelle-aux-Saints (France) and Gorham's Cave (Gibraltar)
are cited and discussed.
3. Results
3.1. Erased behavior
The identification of structured and specialized spaces in the
archaeological record reveals modern and complex behavior
(Lombarde, 2012). Nevertheless, identification of original hominin
spatial distributions is not always possible, due to taphonomic
processes. Post-depositional processes, such as sediment move-
ment or water action, among others (Goldberg and MacPhail,
2006), are responsible for the destruction of the original spatial
connection between archaeological artifacts. Previous experiments
that we developed also pointed to large carnivores as taphonomic
agents capable of erasing specific spatial distributions that would
reveal modern and complex behaviors to archaeologists (Camar
os
et al., 2013a).
An experimental series, previously developed with bears, hy-
enas, lions, and wolves, consisted of generation of an experimental
hearth and hearth-related assemblage. Although all carnivore
species interacted with the combustion structure and modified it,
bears were the ones that most changed the original spatial distri-
bution (Camar
os et al., 2013a). The resulting spatial distribution
revealed complete destruction of the initial experimental scenario.
These results motivated the experiments presented here, with the
aim of extending our knowledge of how bears have acted as
taphonomic agents of spatial modification in the past.
The first experimental scenario consisted of the investigation of
a spatial distribution, which revealed several aspects associated
with the display of modern and complex behavior. The specialized
spatial organization was composed of a unique experimental sce-
nario, with areas linked to specific activities, such as a knapping
area, a butchering area, a hearth and hearth-related assemblage
zone, and a wood storage area (Figs. 1 and 2). This scenario was
based on some of the best-known Neanderthal sites with a complex
spatial distribution that revealed modern behavior (see Henry et al.,
2004; Jaubert and Delagnes, 2007).
The results were clear and significant. Bears highly modified the
experimental scenario, interacting with all areas constructed in a
time lapse of four hours. During this period, a total of 10 bears
modified the original structure, although the first four bears
(males) were responsible for most of the spatial damage (Fig. 1). All
items that composed each area were moved from their original
positions, following a general radial pattern (Fig. 2).
Concerning the knapping area, the lithic “arch”disposition,
composed of flint flakes and microflakes emulating the spatial
result of knapping, was erased. The new spatial disposition gener-
ated a complete different shape (Fig. 2). The butchering area,
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e102
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
consisting of fresh cattle bones and used lithic flakes, was also
modified. Bones are the items that were distributed in a bigger
spatial range, with distances between 1.58 m and 28.94 m,
following a radial pattern. The wood storage area was highly
modified, as wood sticks were not just spatially dislocated, but also
broken as a result of biting and manipulation of these items. Sticks
were distributed basically to the south and none of them main-
tained their original length. Finally, the hearth and hearth-related
assemblage zone were also modified. The area was composed of a
stone hearth, with charcoal and ashes inside, and burned bones
around the combustion structure. The spatial distribution gener-
ated by bears differed slightly from the one observed in previous
experiments (Camar
os et al., 2013a), as dispersion was not strictly
radial and new stone associations were generated and a linear as-
sociation of the five stones was generated south of the original
position. Furthermore, a new cluster of charcoal and ashes was
displayed 50 cm from the initial location.
Overall, the spatial distribution of the experimental scenario by
bears resulted in a clear mixture of items belonging to different
areas, which complicates the inference of the original specialized
spatial distribution. Nevertheless, bears are also capable of
destroying other spatial distributions that are important in the
study of modern and complex behavior, such as burials.
As part of our experimental series on how bears modify spaces,
we carried out an experiment with the aim of studying how ursids
interact with a structured burial (Fig. 3). A burial pit was excavated
50 cm deep inside the bears' enclosure and seven slate stones with
pebbles around them were deposited at the base (Fig. 3a). After-
wards, red deer (Cervus elaphus) remains (basically internal organs)
were deposited over the stones and the experimental burial pit was
covered and compacted with an excavator machine (a detailed
figure of the process can be found as Supplementary Material
Fig. S1).
Immediately after the team abandoned the zone where the
burial pit was located, a male bear started an inspection of the area
(Fig. 3b). Bears interacted with the experimental scenario for two
hours, and they dug, attracted by the animal remains. Observation
after the bears' intervention showed the bears to be highly capable
of modifying a burial pit (Fig. 3aeb). The rectangular burial shape
was changed and the new limits of the pit contained scratches on
the vertical walls (Fig. 3d). Even the internal stone disposition was
changed and the original disposition was completely modified
(Fig. 3c) (more images of the resulting experimental scene can be
found as Supplementary Material Fig. S2). Only the slate stones
designated as one and two (Fig. 3a) were located inside the pit; all
other stone elements from the base were found outside, at dis-
tances between 1.15 m and 10.10 m away (Fig. S2). Some of these
stone plaques were broken and fragmented into many pieces and
presented evidence of clear notches and scores (Fig. 4).
3.2. Emulated behavior
Bear action in relation to the study of human behavior is not
restricted only to destruction of archaeological evidence. These
animals may also generate evidence that emulates hominin
behavior. The first case presented here is related to the study of
inhumations, and the second one with graphical expression. Both
cases presented are crucial when discussing modern and complex
Neanderthal behavior.
La Chapelle-aux-Saints (France) is one of the classic archaeo-
logical sites with evidence of a probable Neanderthal inhumation,
as claimed by Bouyssonie et al. (1908) during the first decade of the
twentieth century. Recently, due to current excavation work, new
evidence has been published that supports the interpretation of an
intentional burial at the site (Rendu et al., 2014). The paper presents
excellent research where an old problem is approached from a
Fig. 1. Different images taken during the experiment with bears in Cab
arceno (Spain): a) Male bears interacting with the combustion structure and the butchering area; b) Male
bear modifying the hearth and c) Spatial distribution of stones from the hearth (highlighted) and wood storage area during the experiment.
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e10 3
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
well-planned, multidisciplinary archaeological strategy to finally
provide evidence supporting the presence of a Neanderthal burial
at the Bouffia Bonneval in La Chapelle-aux-Saints. The research is
opportune because it provides results that can be added to the new
conception of Neanderthals in current science, a viewpoint that
reflects a complex and modern behavior.
Nevertheless, the conclusions by Rendu et al. (2014) regarding
the Bouffia Bonneval context as an intentional burial have been
criticized by Dibble et al. (2014), with strong arguments. Therefore,
a debate is emerging in relation with the interpretation of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints archaeological context. Thus, a new look at the
evidence is needed, from a perspective that takes into account
homininecarnivore interactions, as this would provide an alter-
native and much more complex vision to the debate.
We measured a total of 66 bear beds from Rouffignac (France)
(N ¼59) and La Garma (Spain) (N ¼7) and compared these to
published measurements of the burial pit from La Chapelle-aux-
Saint by Rendu et al. (2014) and Bouyssonie et al. (1908) (see
Supplementary Material Fig. S3). In addition, we compared brown
bear bed measurements provided by Fosse et al. (2004) from
Arriutort and Zazpigagna (France) (Fig. 5). Our observations indi-
cate that the pit morphologically resembles a cave bear bed.
As shown in Fig. 5, the burial pit from La Chapelle-aux-Saints
provided by Rendu et al. (2014) matches in size the
Fig. 2. Experimental scenario with four specialized areas with its spatial distribution before and after the bears action (highlighted).
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e104
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
Fig. 3. Brown bears destroying evidences of experimental intentional inhumations: a) Experimental structured inhumation (without the flesh on it); b) Bear approaching the
covered experimental inhumation; c and d) Experimental inhumation modified by bears (it is possible to appreciate how stones 1 and 2 have been moved in image c compared to
image a).
Fig. 4. Slate stones from the base of the burial pit with carnivore damage: a) Fragmentation of stones; b) Scores on Stone 1 and ced) Notches on Stones 2 and 3 (scale in b, c and d is
5 cm).
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e10 5
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
measurements for a cave bear (Ursus spealaeus) bed. This included
not only the transverse and longitudinal profiles, but also its depth.
Despite inhumations, one of the clearest pieces of evidence for
modern and complex behavior is the capacity for the production of
graphical expression (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000), traditionally
associated with Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH). Neverthe-
less, recent research has confirmed that Neanderthals had the ca-
pacity for such production, as seen in Gorham's Cave (Gibraltar)
(Rodríguez-Vidal et al., 2014), where an abstract pattern, engraved
into the bedrock dated between 38.5 and 30.5 cal kyr BP, has been
identified. In this sense, an old paradigm has been overcome, and
the interpretation and publication of new evidence is anticipated
based on this new discovery. Nevertheless, archaeologists must be
aware that bears may again generate similar confusing traces.
Bear behavior inside caves usually leaves its traces as scars in the
cave. These scratches, due to the bears' actions of clawing the walls,
are preserved and can also be associated with rock art due to the
alternate use of caves (Bocherens et al., 2006). The morphology and
spatial distribution of these phenomena need analysis, as they can
be similar to the ones produced by hominins when developing
graphical expression in caves.
In this sense, we have analyzed different archaeopaleontological
contexts with clear evidence of bear behavior inside caves. We have
studied the Lower Gallery of La Garma (Spain) and Rouffignac
(France). Both are well-known sites that preserve exceptional ma-
terial evidence of both hominin and bear behavior. Our main goal
has been to observe the variability among bear scratches in order to
achieve preliminary characterization, for later comparison of them
with abstract pattern engravings, particularly with the ones found
in Gorham's Cave (Gibraltar) (Fig. 6jek) (Rodríguez-Vidal et al.,
2014).
Similarities between the bear scratches and the abstract pattern
engraved in Gorham's cave are evident. First, observation is
possible of how bears are able to produce permanent scratches on
karstic cave walls, defining patterns of parallel lines (Fig. 6aeg) and
even superposed ones (Fig. 6def). Furthermore, ursid marks also
display a pointed start and a pointed or fringed end (Fig. 6aei), as
described by Rodríguez-Vidal et al. (2014) for the Neanderthal
engraving (Fig. 6jek). Overall, bear scratches may also produce
associations of parallel scratches (engraved lines), which can
generate a non-intentional abstract pattern similar to that inten-
tionally created by hominins.
When comparing space between parallel “lines,”we can also
observe how similar this interspace can be in both different re-
alities (Fig. 7). Gorham's engraving certainly contains parallel in-
ternal microstriation in each section; nevertheless, this
microtopography may not always be preserved due to taphonomic
processes occurring in karstic systems, such as water action
(Goldberg and MacPhail, 2006).
4. Discussion
The interaction between hominins and carnivores during hu-
man evolution has influenced human behavior in many ways
(Stiner, 2012). Since Homo added meat to his diet and entered the
predatory guild 2e3 millions years ago (Isaac and Crader, 1981;
Domínduez-Rodrigo et al., 2012), carnivores played an important
role during the Pleistocene concerning hominin evolution (Rosell
et al., 2012b), in what can be seen as a co-evolutionary process
(Brantingham, 1998).
Neanderthals were also subjected to interaction with large
carnivores. Compared to other hominins, they developed a close
relationship with bears (Est
evez, 2004). Their interaction with
bears and other carnivores was defined by their hunting activities
(e.g., David, 1997; Tillet, 2002; Blasco et al., 2010; P
erez Ripoll et al.,
2010), as the same prey was shared in a common ecosystem
(Beauval et al., 2005) and both carnivores and Neanderthals alter-
nately occupied the same caves (Blasco, 1997; Skinner, 2012;
Yravedra and Cobo, 2015). This alternate use of caves to develop
different activities by both agents is one of the most common
homininecarnivore interactions occurring during the Paleolithic
(Straus, 1982; Blasco and Rosell, 20 09). As our research has shown,
this has implications concerning the study of modern and complex
Neanderthal behavior, as previously discussed, for example, with
the case of the Divje Babe I flute (D'Errico et al., 1998).
The experiments presented here show how extant bears are
capable of destroying spatial connections and structured space
(Camar
os et al., 2013a). These experiments showing how ursids
modify a space with defined areas now indicate that bears can erase
all evidence of a specialized space. In this sense, our results are
useful as positive analogical observations for understanding what
could have happened to hominin-abandoned spaces, in a context of
alternate use of caves. The original organized use of space was
probably modified by bears, as one of the most common carnivores
Fig. 5. Cave and brown bear bed measurements compared with the burial pit from Bouffia Bonneval at La Chapelle-aux-Saints (measurements inferred from Rendu et al. (2014),
Figs. 1 and 2; and Bouyssonie et al., 1908).
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e106
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
present in archaeological sites, especially in Neanderthal occupa-
tion layers (Stiner, 2002). The mixture of areas observable as a
result of the experiment (Fig. 2), and the impossibility of recog-
nizing specialized spatial distributions, must make us think of the
consequences this could have had during the Paleolithic.
In addition, if we consider the results of the second experiment
with bears, we must discuss the possibility that carnivores were
also responsible for burial site destruction. In this sense, carnivore
modification of intentional inhumations, by attraction to the smell
of corpses, may be the reason why so little evidence exists of
Neanderthal burials, and why burial capacities have been denied
for the Neanderthals (e.g., Gargett, 1989), as a trait indicating no
presence of modernity and complexity in their behavior. Carnivore
destruction of Neanderthal burials has been previously hypothe-
sized (Gargett, 1999), and probable related evidence of carnivore
damage to hominin fossils has been identified (Diedrich, 2014).
Bear destruction, as a taphonomic agent of Neanderthal evi-
dence of complex and modern behavior, may be the reason why
AMH sites seem to display a level of complex organization that
cannot be found in the Middle Paleolithic. According to several
Fig. 6. Aeg) Structured light scanned bear scratches from La Garma (Spain) viewed with different light filters; aec) Scratches made on the ground (soil); def) Crossed parallel
scratches made on the karstic cave wall; g) Parallel scratches made on the karstic cave wall; h) Associated bear scratches on the soil near the cave wall in Rouffignac (France) and i)
selected scratches and measurements taken to compare with jek) neanderthal engraving from Gorham's Cave (Gibraltar) and measurements taken (jek modified after Rodríguez-
Vidal et al., 2014).
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e10 7
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
authors (e.g., Stringer and Gamble, 1993; see; Villa and Roebroeks,
2014), these sites held a) numerous well defined structures, b)
hearths, and c) differential use of habitation space (summarized in
Wolpoff and Caspari, 1996). Carnivore modification may then be the
reason why some Neanderthal sites display a simple spatial orga-
nization that does not differ from that of non-human carnivores
(Pettitt, 1997), although we have consistent evidence of structured
use of domestic space (e.g., Henry, 1998; Vallverdú et al., 2010;
Chac
on et al., 2012; Villa and Roebroeks, 2014).
However, the action of bears is notonly restricted to destruction
of spaces. On the contrary, their activity inside caves may generate
modification that, like destruction, can influence behavioral
archaeological interpretations. This could be the case for the
Neanderthal burial site at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. As we have
previously indicated, the interaction between Neanderthals and
carnivores was quite complex during the Middle Paleolithic. At La
Chapelle-aux-Saints, this complexity could be the basis for a diffi-
cult interpretation of the Neanderthal inhumation, but also a good
alternative viewpoint for contributing to the debate in order to
discuss the intentional burial at the site.
The identification of Neanderthal burials is not common,
although several examples of such phenomena exist (see Gargett,
1989, 1999). The inference of intentional burials is essential when
discussing aspects related to modern and complex patterned
behavior in Neanderthals. For the excavation team at La Chapelle-
aux-Saints, the attribution of an anthropic origin to the burial pit
seems essential for accepting an intentional Neanderthal burial at
Bouffia Bonneval. Therefore, after a logical and solid interpretation,
Rendu et al. (2014: 83) rejected the hypothesis of an endokarstic
origin of the burial depression. Nevertheless, a brown or cave bear
origin was also rejected because:
1) Bear beds have a different morphology, according to Fosse et al.
(2004) and Hellgren and Vaughan (1989),
2) Ursid faunal remains are quasi absent, and
3) The shallow depth and relatively small opening of the burial
depression makes it unlikely to have been used for bear
hibernation.
Nonetheless, all these arguments for rejecting an ursid origin of
the burial pit can be rebutted. First, concerning the different
morphology between the pit and bear beds, this comparison is
made only by providing bed measurement for brown bear (U.arc-
tos)(Fosse et al., 2004) and black bear (U.americanus)(Hellgren and
Vaughan, 1989). When comparing it with the cave bear (U.spelaeus)
bed dimensions that we measured from Rouffignac (France), the
distinction is no longer as clear (Fig. 5) and the pit is revealed to be
similar to hibernation nests of this species. This interpretation may
differ when taking into account the measurements of transverse
and longitudinal profiles provided by Bouyssonie et al. (1908). The
measurements and shapes described from the burial pits during the
first excavations do not overlap with cave or brown bear bed
measurements (Figs. S2 and 5).
Moreover, despite the statement that ursid remains are quasi
absent (Rendu et al., 2014: 83), the presence of bear remains is a
fact, although identification of the ursid species is difficult. How-
ever, due to the chronological and geographical attribution of
Bouffia Bonneval, the most probable ursid is the cave bear. Rendu
et al. (2014: 83) also argue that the burial context, due to its
shallow depth and open conditions, is not a good place for bear
hibernation, although U.americanus, for example, is well known to
use a wide range of hibernation den types (Hellgren and Vaughan,
1989; Hayes and Pelton, 1994) and remains of the Pleistocene U.
spelaeus have been found in rock shelters (e.g. Dimitrijevi
c, 1991).
Therefore, and considering our results, we suggest that the
burial pit from La Chapelle-aux-Saints is in fact a cave bear bed and
not a brown bear bed as was suggested by Dibble et al. (2014: 3),
based on the measurements provided by Fosse et al. (2004) and
Stiner et al. (1996). Nevertheless, the fact that the pit could be
interpreted as a bear bed does not mean that Bouffia Bonneval is
not an intentional burial. Actually, evidence has been presented for
the re-use of bear beds as inhumation bases during the Upper
Paleolithic in La Grotte de Cussac (France) (Aujoulat et al., 2001).
This would reveal Neanderthal recycling activities in the context of
an alternate use of caves with carnivores and a much more complex
homininecarnivore relationship during the Middle Paleolithic.
Finally, our research goes further, by relating bear activity that
may be confused with intentional Neanderthal actions. In this
sense, we have provided the example of how similar an abstract
patterned engraving, in this case the one from Gorham's cave
(Rodríguez-Vidal et al., 2014), can appear to a bear's scratches.
Furthermore, this is not the only case of similar graphical expres-
sion, since another has been reported in the Upper Paleolithic that
also resembles ursid scratches (e.g., Cueva de Ardales in Spain, see
Ramos et al., 2014). Therefore and taking in account that new evi-
dence provide arguments to accept a Neanderthal capacity for
graphical production, we should confirm first that what we face in
the archaeological record is not the result of bear activity.
Fig. 7. Measurements of the spaces between “lines”from Gorham's Cave engraving (red squares) and Rouffignac's bear scratches (blue circles) from Fig. 6. Means with maximum
and minimum sizes are also provided (b and d). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e108
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
Bears occupied caves alternately with Neanderthals in many
regions of Europe, and their activity can be associated with
archaeological remains and contexts. Our research provides strong
evidence for a need for caution when interpreting Neanderthal
modern and complex behavior, especially in those archaeological
sites where a clear carnivore presence is observed. There is no
doubt that Neanderthals possessed such behavior (Villa and
Roebroeks, 2014). Nevertheless, Pleistocene Nean-
derthalecarnivore interactions (in this case, with bears) are a much
more complex issue than previously thought, and therefore we
must learn how this may had affected our own behavioral
interpretations.
5. Conclusions
No evidence exists for a superiority complex of Modern Humans
over Neanderthals (Villa and Roebroeks, 2014), as evidence reveals
that Neanderthals displayed a complete “package”of behavioral
modernity and complexity (e.g., Henry et al., 2004; Chac
on et al.,
2012; Rodríguez-Vidal et al., 2014). Nevertheless, our research
proves that bears, one of the most common carnivores in archae-
ological sites (e.g., Stiner, 2002; Viranta and Grandal d'Anglade,
2012; Arilla et al., 2014), can generate confusion when approach-
ing behavioral issues.
On the one hand, bear actions can erase hominin spatial dis-
tributions and spatial structurations, such as specialized use of
spaces or burial contexts. On the other hand, bears can also
generate structures or materiality that can be confused with
hominin ones, such as burial pits or abstract pattern engravings. In
this sense, the present paper shows how bear actions can serve as a
taphonomic confusion factor when approaching the study of
Neanderthal behavioral modernity and complexity. This is espe-
cially the case when analyzing issues related with symbolic
behavior such as inhumation practices, the display of graphical
expression, and the organized use of space.
Future research will have to face analysis related to the transfer
of the resulting knowledge of experimentation to archaeological
research that display Neanderthalecarnivore interactions. Future
research needs to continue the characterization of materialized
actions of bears (and other carnivores) in caves, in order to provide
data that aim to differentiate between carnivore activity and
hominin intentional actions.
In conclusion, our research verifies how complex the interaction
between hominins and carnivores could have been during the
Pleistocene, and the important consequences it may have con-
cerning the study of Neanderthal modern and complex behavior.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank help received by Parque de la Naturaleza
de Cab
arceno (Cantabria) and CANTUR, S.A. to develop our experi-
ments in Cab
arceno. This research was carried under an IPHES and
IIIPC/UC project supported by the Government of Cantabria and by
two research projects founded by Ministerio de Economía y Com-
petitividad (HAR2010-19957/HIST and HAR2013-48784-C3-1-P)
and Ag
encia de Gesti
od’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (AGAUR 2014-
SGR-900 and 2014/100573). E. Camar
os is beneficiary of a FI/AGAUR
(DGR2013) grant of the Catalan Government.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027.
References
Abrams, G., Bello, S., Modica, K., Pirson, S., Bonjean, D., 2014. When Neanderthals
used cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) remains: bones retouchers from unit 5 of
Scladina Cave (Belgium). Quaternary International 326e327, 274e287.
Arilla, M., Rosell, J., Blasco, R., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T.R., 2014. The
“Bear”essentials: actualistic research on Ursus arctos arctos in the Spanish
Pyrenees and its implications for paleontology and archaeology. PLoS One 9 (7),
e102457.
Auguste, P., 1995. Chasse et charognage au Pal
eolithique Moyen: l’apport du gise-
ment de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais). Bulletin de la Socie
́
te
́
Pre
́
historique
Française 92 (2), 155e167.
Aujoulat, N., Geneste, J.M., Archambeau, C., Delluc, M., Duday, H., Gambier, D., 2001.
La grotte orn
ee de Cussac (Dordogne). Observations liminaires. Paleo 13, 9e18.
Barbetti, M., 1986. Traces of fire in the archaeological record, before one million
years ago? Journal of Human Evolution 15, 771e781.
Beauval, C., Maureille, B., Lacrampe-Cuyaub
ere, F., Serre, D., Peressinotto, D.,
Bordes, J.G., Cochard, D., Couchoud, I., Dubrasquet, D., Laroulandie, V.,
Lenoble, A., Mallye, J.B., Pasty, S., Primault, J., Rohland, N., P€
a€
abo, S., Trinkaus, E.,
2005. A late Neandertal femur from Les Rochers-de Villeneuve, France. PNAS
102 (20), 7086e7090.
Baena, J., Carri
on, E., Cuartero, F., Fluck, H., 2012. A chronicle of crisis: the Late
Mousterian in northern Iberia (Cueva del Esquilleu, Cantabria, Spain). Quater-
nary International 247, 199e211.
Binford, L.R., Mills, M.G.L., Stone, N.M., 1988. Hyena scavenging behavior and its
implications for interpretation of faunal assemblages from FLK22 (the Zinj
floor) at Olduvai Gorge. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7, 99e135.
Blasco, M.F., 1997. Cave site of Gabasa in the Spenish Pyrinees. Journal of Anthro-
pological Research 53, 177e218.
Blasco, R., Rosell, J., 2009. Who was first? An experimental application of carnivore
and hominid overlapping marks at the Pleistocene archaeological sites. Palevol
8, 579e592.
Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2010. The
hunted hunter: the capture of a lion (Panthera leo fossilis) at the Gran Dolina
site, Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (8),
2051e2060.
Blasco, R., Finlayson, C., Rosell, J., S
anchez Marco, A., Finlayson, S., Finlayson, G.,
Negro, J.J., Giles Pacheco, F., Rodríguez Vidal, J., 2014. The earliest pigeon fan-
ciers. Scientific Reports 4 (5971), 1e7.
Bocherens, H., Drucker, D.G., Billiou, D., Geneste, J.-M., van der Plicht, J., 2006. Bears
and humans in Chauvet Cave (Vallon-Pont-d'Arc, Ard
eche, France): insights
from stable isotopes and radiocarbon dating of bone collagen. Journal of Human
Evolution 50 (3), 370e376.
Bouyssonie, A., Bouyssonie, J., Bardon, L., 1908. D
ecouverte d’un squelette humain
moust
erien
a la bouffia de La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corr
eze). Anthropologie 19,
513e518.
Brantingham, P., 1998. Hominin-carnivore coevolution and invasion of the Preda-
tory Guild. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 327e353.
Camar
os, E., Cueto, M., Teira, L.C., Tapia, J., Cubas, M., Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Rivals, F.,
2013a. Large carnivores as taphonomic agents of space modification: an
experimental approach with archaeological implications. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 40, 1361e1368.
Camar
os, E., Cueto, M., Teira, L.C., Tapia, J., Cubas, M., Rivals, F., 2013b. Aproximaci
on
experimental a la modificaci
on de hogares por parte de carnívoros durante el
Pleistoceno. Metodología y primeros resultados. S
erie Monogr
afica del MAC 25
(2), 417e424.
Camar
os, E., Cueto, M., Lorenzo, C., Villaverde, V., Rivals, F., 2015. Large carnivore
attacks on hominins during the Pleistocene: a forensic approach with a Ne-
anderthals example. Archaeological and Anthropological Science. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-015-0248-1.
Conard, N.J., 2010. Cultural modernity: consensus or conundrum? PNAS 107,
7621e7622.
Chac
on, M.G., Vaquero, M., Carbonell, E., 2012. The Neanderthal home: spatial and
social behaviours. Quaternary International 247, 1e9.
David, F., 1997. Les ours du Ch^
atelperronien de la Grotte du Renne a Arcy-sur-Cure
(Yonne). In: Tillet, T.H., Binford, L.R. (Eds.), L'Ours et l’Homme. Eraul, Liege,
pp. 185e192.
Domínduez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T., Díez Martín, F., Mabulla, A., Musiba, C.,
Trancho, G., Baquedano, E., Bunn, H., Barboni, D., Santonja, M., Uribelarrea, D.,
Ashley, G., Martínez-
Avila, MªS., Barba, R., Gidna, A., Yravedra, J., Arriaza, C.,
2012. Earliest Porotic Hyperostosis on a 1.5 million-year-old Hominin, Olduvai
Gorge, Tanzania. PLoS ONE 7 (10), 46414.
D'Errico, F., 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of
behavioral modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, 188e202.
D'Errico, F., Villa, P., Pinto Llona, A.C., Ruiz Idarra, R., 1998. A Middle Palaeolithic
origin of music? Using cave-bear bone accumulations to assess the Divje Babe I
bone “flute”. Antiquity 72 (275), 65e79.
Dibble, H., Aldeias, V., Goldberg, P., McPherron, S.P., Sandgathe, D., Steele, T.E., 2014.
A critical look at evidence from La Chapelle-aux-Saints supporting an inten-
tional Neandertal burial. Journal of Archaeological Science 53, 649e657.
Diedrich, C., 2014. Ice Age spotted hyenas as Neanderthal exhumers and scavengers
in Europe. Chronicles of Science 1, 1e34.
Dimitrijevi
c, V., 1991. Quaternary mammals of the Smolu
cka cave in Southwest
Serbia. Paleontologia Jugoslavica 41, 1e88.
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e10 9
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
Egeland, C.P., Pickering, T.R., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Brain, C.K., 2004. Disen-
tangling Early Stone Age palimpsests: determining the functional indepen-
dence of hominid- and carnivore-derived portions of archaeofaunas. Journal of
Human Evolution 47 (5), 343e357.
Enloe, J.G., 2012. Neanderthals, Bears and Hyenas, oh my! Competition for exclusive
use of space. Journal of Taphonomy 10 (3e4), 193e195.
Est
evez, J., 2004. Vanishing carnivores: what can the disappearance of large car-
nivores tell us about the Neanderthal world? International Journal of Osteo-
archaeology 14, 190e200.
Fiorenza, L., Benazzi, S., Henry, A.G., Salazar-García, D.C., Blasco, R., Picin, A.,
Wroe, S., Kullmer, O., 2015. To meat or not to meat? New perspectives on
Neanderthal ecology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 156, 43e71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22659.
Fosse, P., Besson, J.P., Laborde, H., Thomas-Cantie, F., Cazenave, G., Delmasure, M.C.,
Leveque, T., Laudet, F., Quiles, J., 2004. Denning behaviour of “modern”brown
bear (Ursus arctos, L.) in caves: biological and paleontological considerations
from French Pyrenean sites. Cahiers Scientifiques Mus
ee d'Histoire Naturelle de
Lyon 2, 171e18 2.
Gargett, R.H., 1989. Grave shortcomings: the evidence for Neandertal burial. Current
Anthropology 30, 157e190.
Gargett, R.H., 1999. Middle Paleolithic burial is not a dead issue: the view from
Qafzeh, Saint-C
e
́
saire, Kebara, Amud and Dederiyeh. Journal of Human Evolu-
tion 37, 27e90.
Goldberg, P., MacPhail, R.I., 2006. Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Black-
well Publishing, Oxford.
Hayes, S.G., Pelton, M.R., 1994. Habitat characteristics of female black bear dens in
northwestern Arkansas. International Conference on Bear Research and Man-
agement 9, 411e418.
Hellgren, E.C., Vaughan, M.R., 1989. Denning ecology of black bears in a South-
eastern Wetland. Journal of Wildlife Management 35, 347e353.
Henry, D., 1998. Intrasite spatial patterns and behavioral modernity indications
from the Late Levantine Mousterian rockshelter of Tor Faraj, Southern Jordan.
In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans
in Western Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 127e142.
Henry, D., Hietala, H., Rosen, A., Demidenko, Y., Usik, V., Amargan, T., 2004. Human
behavioral organization in the Middle Paleolithic: where Neanderthals
different? American Anthropologist 106 (1), 17e31.
Higham, T., Jacobi, R., Julien, M., David, F., Basell, L., 2010. Chronology of the Grotte
du Renne (France) and implications for the context of ornaments and human
remains within the Ch^
atelperronian. PNAS 107, 20234e20239.
Isaac, G.L., Crader, D., 1981. To what extent were early hominids carnivorous? An
archaeological perspective. In: Harding, R.S.O., Teleki, G. (Eds.), Omnivorous
Primates: Gathering and Hunting in Human Evolution. Columbia University
Press, New York, pp. 37e
103.
Jaubert, J., Delagnes, A., 2007. De l'espace parcouru a l'espace habit
e au Paleo-
lithique moyen. In: Vandermeersch, B., Maureille, B. (Eds.), Les Neandertaliens.
Biologie et cultures. Editions du CTHS, Paris, pp. 263e281.
Langley, M.C., Clarkson, C., Ulm, S., 2011. From small holes to grand narratives: the
impact of taphonomy and sample size on the modernity debate in Australia and
New Guinea. Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2), 197e208.
Li, F., Chen, F., Gao, X., 2014. “Modern behaviors”of ancient populations at Shui-
donggou Locality 2 and their implications. Quaternary International 347 (9),
66e73.
Lindly, J.,1988. Hominid and Carnivore activityat Middle and Upper Paleolithic cave
sites in eastern Spain. Munibe 40, 45e70.
Lombarde, M., 2012. Thinking through the Middle Stone Age of sub-Saharan Africa.
Quaternary International 270, 140e155.
Lyman, R.L., 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mallol, C., Marlowe, F., Wood, B., Porter, C., 2007. Earth, wind and fire: ethno-
archaeological signals of Hadza fires. Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (12),
2035e2052.
Marean, C.W., Bar-Matthews, M., Bernatchez, J., Fisher, E., Goldberg, P., 2007. Early
human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle
Pleistocene. Nature 449, 905e908.
McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of
the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39,
453e563.
Mellars, P., 1999. Ch^
atelperronian chronology and the case for Neandertal/modern
human “acculturation”in Western Europe. Current Anthropology 40 (3),
341e350.
Mellars, P.A., 2005. The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the
origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology 14,
12e27.
Morin, E., Laroulandie, V., 2012. Presumed symbolic use of diurnal raptors by Ne-
anderthals. PLoS One 7 (3), e32856.
Peresani, M., Vanhaeren, M., Quaggiotto, E., Queffelec, A., d’Errico, F., 2013. An
ochred fossil marine shell from the Mousterian of Fumane Cave. PLoS One 8 (7),
e68572.
P
erez Ripoll, M., Morales P
erez, J.V., Sanchis Serra, A., Aura Tortosa, E., Sarri
on
Monta~
nana, I., 2010. Presence of the genus Cuon in upper Pleistocene and initial
Holocene sites of the Iberian Peninsula: new remains identified in archaeo-
logical contexts of the Mediterranean region. Journal of Archaeological Science
37, 437e450.
Pettitt, P.B., 1997. High resolution Neanderthals? Interpreting middle Palaeolithic
intrasite spatial data. World Archaeology 29, 208e224.
Ramos, J., Weninger, G.-C., Cantalejo, P., Espejo, MªM. (Eds.), 2014. Cueva de Ardales.
Intervenciones arqueol
ogicas 2011e2014 (Pinsapar, M
alaga).
Rendu, W., Beauval, C., Crevecoeur, I., Bayle, P., Balzeau, A., Bismuth, T.,
Bourguignon, L., Delfour, G., Faivre, J.-P., Lacrampe-Cuyaub
ere, F., Tavormina, C.,
Todisco, D., Turq, A., Maureille, B., 2014. Evidence supporting an intentional
Neandertal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. PNAS 111, 81e86.
Rodríguez-Vidal, J., d’Errico, F.,Giles, F., Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Jennings, R., Queffelec, A.,
Finlayson, G., Fa, D., Guti
errez L
opez, J.M., Carri
on, J.S., Negro, J.J., Finlayson, S.,
C
aceres, L.M., Bernal, M.A., Fern
andez, S., Finlayson, C., 2014. A rock engraving
made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar. PNAS 111 (37), 13301e13306.
Roebroeks, W., Sier, M., Kellberg Nielsen, T., De Loecker, D., Pares, J.M., 2012. Use of
red ochre by early Neandertals. PNAS 109, 1889e1894.
Hominid-carnivore interactions during the Pleistocene. In: Rosell, J., Baquedano, E.,
Blasco, R., Camar
os, E. (Eds.), Journal of Taphonomy 10, 3e4.
Rosell, J., Baquedano, E., Blasco, R., Camar
os, E., 2012b. New insights on hominid-
carnivore interactions during the Pleistocene. Journal of Taphonomy 10 (3e4),
125e128.
Ruf
a, A., Blasco, R., Rivals, F., Rosell, J., 2014. Leporids as a potential resource for
predators (hominins, mammalian carnivores, raptors): an example of mixed
contribution from level III of Teixoneres Cave (MIS 3, Barcelona, Spain).
Comptes Rendus Palevol 13 (8), 665e680.
Scott, K., 1980. Two hunting episodes of Middle Paleolithic age at la Cotte de Saint-
Brelade, Jersey (Chanel Islands). World Archaeology 12, 137e152.
Skinner, P.J., 2012. Relational cohesion in palaeolithic Europe: hominin-cave Bear
interactions in Moravia and Silesia, Czech Republic, during OIS3. In: British
Archaeological Reports International Series 2379, Oxford.
Soressi, M., McPherron, S., Lenoir, M., Dogand
zic, T., Goldberg, P., 2013. Neandertals
made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. PNAS 110, 14186e14190.
Stiner, M.C., 2002. Reconstitution de la pal
eo
ecologie des ours des cavernes
a partir
de leurs squelettes. In: Tillet, T., Binford, L.R. (Eds.), L'Ours et l’Homme. Etudes et
Recherches Archa
eologiques de l’Universit
edeLi
ege, Li
ege, pp. 103e116.
Stiner, M.C., 2012. Competition theory and the case for pleistocene hominin-
carnivore co-evolution. Journal of Taphonomy 10 (3e4), 129e145.
Stiner, M.C., Arsebük, C., Howell, F.C., 1996. Cave bears and Paleolithic artifacts in
YarimburgazCave, Turkey: dissecting a palimpsest. Geoarchaeology 11, 279e328.
Straus, L.G., 1982. Carnivores and cave sites in Cantabrian Spain. Journal of
Anthropological Research 38, 75e96.
Stringer, C., Gamble, C., 1993. In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and Hudson,
New York.
Taborin, Y., 1998. Comment to d’Errico F, Zilh~
ao J, Julien M, Baffier D, Pelegrin J,
Neandertal acculturation in Western Europe? A critical review of the evidence
and its interpretation. Current Anthropology 39, 28e29.
Tillet, T., 2002. Les grottes l
̀
ours et occupations n
eandertaliennes dans l’arc Alpin et
Jurassien. In: Tillet, T., Binford, L.R. (Eds.), L'Ours et l’Homme. Eraul, Li
ege,
pp. 167e184.
Vallverdú, J., Vaquero, M., C
aceres, I., Allu
e, E., Rosell, J., Saladi
e, P., Chac
on, G.,
Oll
e, A., Canals, A., Sala, R., Courty, M.A., Carbonell, E., 2010. Sleeping activity
area within the site structure of Archaic human groups evidence from Abric
Romani level N combustion activity areas. Current Anthropology 51, 137e145.
Villa, P., Roebroeks, W., 2014. Neandertal demise: an archaeological analysis of the
modern human superiority complex. PLoS ONE 9 (4), e96424.
Viranta, S., Grandal d'Anglade, A., 2012. Late Pleistocene large mammal paleo-
communities: a comparative study between localities with brown bear (Ursus
arctos), cave bear (U. spelaeus) and Mousterian lithic assemblage. Journal of
Taphonomy 10 (3e4), 265e276.
White, R., 2002. Observations technologiques sur les objets de parure. In:
Schmider, B. (Ed.), L'Aurignacien de la grotte du Renne. Les fouilles d’Andr
e
Leroi-Gourhan
a Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). CNRS, Paris, pp. 257e266.
Wolpoff, M.H., Caspari, R., 1996. Why aren't Neandertals modern humans? In:
Piperno, M., Bar-Yosef, O., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (Eds.), The Origin of Modern Man.
A.B.A.C.O, Forli, pp. 133e156.
Yravedra, J., Uzquiano, P., 2013. Burnt bone assemblages from El Esquilleu cave
(Cantabria, Northern Spain): deliberate use for fuel or systematic disposal of
organic waste? Quaternary Science Reviews 68, 175e190.
Yravedra, J., G
omez-Castanedo, A., 2014. Taphonomic implications for the late
Mousterian of south-West Europe at Esquilleu cave (Spain). Qutaernary Inter-
national 337 (9), 225e236.
Yravedra, J., G
omez-Castanedo, A., Aramendi, J., Baena, J., 2014. Specialised hunting
of Iberian ibex during Neanderthal occupation at El Esquilleu Cave, northern
Spain. Antiquity 88, 1035e1049 .
Yravedra, J., Cobo, L., 2015. Neanderthal exploitation of ibex and chamois in
Souhwetern Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 78, 12e32.
Zilh~
ao, J., Davis, S.J.M., Duarte, C., Soares, A.M.M., Steier, P., 2010. Pego do Diabo
(Loures, Portugal): dating the emergence of anatomical modernity in West-
ernmost Eurasia. PLoS One 5 (1), 8880.
E. Camar
os et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e1010
Please cite this article in press as: Camar
os, E., et al., Bears in the scene: Pleistocene complex interactions with implications concerning the study
of Neanderthal behavior, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.027
