late pleistocene population interaction in western europe

Layers Poorly
Preserved
Damaged Slightly
Damaged
176
Intact Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Evol Auri (3) 23 8.4 173 63.1 76 27.7 2 0.7 274 99.9
Evol Auri (4) 49 8.3 367 62.5 170 29.0 1 0.2 587 100.0
Auri I (5) 35 2.1 729 43.0 913 53.8 19 1.1 1696 100.0
Auri 0? (6) 7 1.9 167 46.3 186 51.5 1 0.3 361 100.0
low dens (7) 1 2.1 29 61.7 17 36.2 0 0.0 47 100.0
Châtel (8) 38 6.7 317 55.9 206 36.3 6 1.1 567 100.0
Châtel? (9) 11 5.0 86 39.4 115 52.8 6 2.8 218 100.0
Moust (10) 7 1.5 186 39.9 269 57.7 4 0.9 466 100.0
Total 171 4.1 2054 48.7 1953 46.3 39 0.9 4216 100.0
Table 24. Saint-Césaire. Degree of surface preservation by level for a sample consisting
mostly of long bones.
No obvious patterning between levels can be perceived, although surfaces tend to
show a lower degree of preservation in the Châtelperronian and the Evolved Aurignacian
EJM and EJJ assemblages. As we will see, these differences in surface preservation can
be attributed to the combination of two factors: spatial distribution of the remains and
root etching. This is because at Saint-Césaire, surface preservation decreases generally
with distance from the cliff (Table 25). The pattern is, however, not as clear in the bottom
of the sequence, that is, from the Denticulate Mousterian to the Châtelperronian, due to
small sample size. The same trend can be detected, however, when these last levels are
combined (Figure 22).