scholarly journals Evidence of the use of soft footwear in the Gravettian cave of Cussac (Dordogne, France)

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lysianna Ledoux ◽  
Gilles Berillon ◽  
Nathalie Fourment ◽  
Xavier Muth ◽  
Jacques Jaubert

AbstractHumans appear to have regularly worn footwear since at least the Early Upper Palaeolithic. However, due to the perishable nature of footwear, the archaeological record of its presence during the Pleistocene is poor. While footwear would have played an essential role in protecting the foot, it could also have been used as ornamentation and/or as a social marker. Footprints may provide the most relevant insight regarding the origin and function of footwear. Here we report the discovery of footprints in Cussac Cave (southwest France) at 28–31 ka cal BP and the results of a multi-focal approach, including experimentation, that demonstrate that Gravettian people most likely wore footwear while moving through the cave. These singular footprints would constitute one of the oldest cases of indirect evidence for this unusual practice in decorated Palaeolithic caves and reinforce the exceptional nature of Cussac already attested by the presence of monumental engravings and funerary deposits.

2014 ◽  
Vol 155 (26) ◽  
pp. 1011-1018 ◽  
Author(s):  
György Végvári ◽  
Edina Vidéki

Plants seem to be rather defenceless, they are unable to do motion, have no nervous system or immune system unlike animals. Besides this, plants do have hormones, though these substances are produced not in glands. In view of their complexity they lagged behind animals, however, plant organisms show large scale integration in their structure and function. In higher plants, such as in animals, the intercellular communication is fulfilled through chemical messengers. These specific compounds in plants are called phytohormones, or in a wide sense, bioregulators. Even a small quantity of these endogenous organic compounds are able to regulate the operation, growth and development of higher plants, and keep the connection between cells, tissues and synergy beween organs. Since they do not have nervous and immume systems, phytohormones play essential role in plants’ life. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(26), 1011–1018.


2020 ◽  
Vol 118 (3) ◽  
pp. 258a
Author(s):  
Laszlo Csernoch ◽  
Mónika Gönczi ◽  
Zsolt Ráduly ◽  
László Szabó ◽  
Nóra Dobrosi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 103050
Author(s):  
Saman Heydari-Guran ◽  
Katerina Douka ◽  
Thomas Higham ◽  
Susanne C. Münzel ◽  
Katleen Deckers ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Dinnis ◽  
A. Bessudnov ◽  
N. Reynolds ◽  
T. Devièse ◽  
A. Dudin ◽  
...  

AbstractThe Streletskian is central to understanding the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic on the East European Plain. Early Streletskian assemblages are frequently seen as marking the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) anthropological transition, as well as the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic archaeological transition. The age of key Streletskian assemblages, however, remains unclear, and there are outstanding questions over how they relate to Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic facies. The three oldest Streletskian layers—Kostenki 1 Layer V, Kostenki 6 and Kostenki 12 Layer III—were excavated by A. N. Rogachev in the mid-20th century. Here, we re-examine these layers in light of problems noted during Rogachev’s campaigns and later excavations. Layer V in the northern part of Kostenki 1 is the most likely assemblage to be unmixed. A new radiocarbon date of 35,100 ± 500 BP (OxA- X-2717-21) for this assemblage agrees with Rogachev’s stratigraphic interpretation and contradicts later claims of a younger age. More ancient radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 1 Layer V are from areas lacking diagnostic Streletskian points. The Kostenki 6 assemblage’s stratigraphic context is extremely poor, but new radiocarbon dates are consistent with Rogachev’s view that the archaeological material was deposited prior to the CI tephra (i.e. >34.3 ka BP). Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Kostenki 12 Layer III contains material of different ages. Despite some uncertainty over the precise relationship between the dated sample and diagnostic lithic material, Kostenki 1 Layer V (North) therefore currently provides the best age estimate for an early Streletskian context. This age is younger than fully Upper Palaeolithic assemblages elsewhere at Kostenki. Other “Streletskian” assemblages and Streletskian points from younger contexts at Kostenki are briefly reviewed, with possible explanations for their chronostratigraphic distribution considered. We caution that the cultural taxon Streletskian should not be applied to assemblages based simply on the presence of bifacially worked artefacts.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. e0212992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Dupays ◽  
Norma Towers ◽  
Sophie Wood ◽  
Anna David ◽  
Daniel J. Stuckey ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document