TABLE 1. Conversion of occlusal relief (OR) and cusp shape (CS) into a mesowear score depending on the method. ScoreA: extended mesowear (refined categories for CS and OR) giving scores between 1 and 17, based on the work of Winkler and Kaiser (2011); ScoreB: conversion of the classic original scoring from Fortelius and Solounias (2000) as proposed by (Rivals et al., 2007) into a score ranging from 0 to 3; Ruler: mesowear ruler developed by Mihlbachler et al. (2011), giving scores from 0 to 6.
Occlusal relief | Cusp shape | Score A | Score B | Ruler |
High-high | Sharp | 1 | - | - |
High | Sharp | 2 | 0 | 0 |
High-low | Sharp | 3 | - | - |
High-high | Round-sharp | 4 | - | - |
High | Round-sharp | 5 | - | 1 |
High-low | Round-sharp | 6 | - | - |
High-high | Round | 7 | - | - |
High | Round | 8 | 1 | 2 |
High-low | Round | 9 | - | - |
High | Round-round | 10 | - | - |
High-low | Round-round | 11 | - | 3 |
Low | Sharp | 12 | - | - |
Low | Round-sharp | 13 | - | - |
Low | Round | 14 | 2 | 4 |
Low | Round-round | 15 | - | 5 |
High-low | Blunt | 16 | - | - |
Low | Blunt | 17 | 3 | 6 |
TABLE 2. Median, mean, and standard deviation of the mean of DMTA parameters by species, type of preparation and facet. lepLsar: anisotropy, Asfc: complexity, FTfv: fine textural-fill volume, HAsfc: heterogeneity of the complexity (whether it is HAsfc9 or HAsfc81). Gr: grinding facet; Sh: shearing facet.
Species | B. brachypus | Pr. douvillei | Pl. mirallesi | H. beonense | |||||||||||||||||
Prep. | Hand | Sand | Hand | Sand | Hand | Sand | Hand | Sand | |||||||||||||
Facet | Gr | Sh | Gr | Sh | Gr | Sh | Gr | Sh | Gr | Sh | Gr | Sh | Gr | Sh | Gr | Sh | |||||
N | 7 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 15 | 4 | 13 | 8 | 14 | 12 | 19 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||||
Asfc | Median | 1.20 | 0.72 | 2.72 | 0.63 | 1.24 | 0.77 | 2.00 | 1.96 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 2.23 | 1.31 | 0.76 | 0.92 | 0.73 | 1.47 | ||||
Mean | 1.50 | 0.92 | 3.36 | 0.71 | 1.50 | 1.03 | 3.67 | 2.00 | 1.27 | 1.02 | 2.20 | 1.38 | 1.69 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 1.47 | |||||
SD | 0.73 | 0.65 | 2.94 | 0.22 | 1.00 | 0.52 | 3.27 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.67 | 1.07 | 0.53 | 1.89 | 0.31 | 0.01 | NA | |||||
epLsar (*10-3) |
Median | 1.70 | 1.83 | 1.90 | 2.96 | 2.60 | 2.53 | 2.32 | 1.94 | 2.46 | 5.60 | 2.39 | 2.06 | 3.01 | 3.33 | 1.46 | 1.33 | ||||
Mean | 2.56 | 1.98 | 1.87 | 3.58 | 2.81 | 2.41 | 2.30 | 2.39 | 3.36 | 5.70 | 2.43 | 2.23 | 2.95 | 3.67 | 1.46 | 1.33 | |||||
SD | 1.58 | 0.44 | 0.78 | 3.01 | 1.68 | 1.34 | 1.79 | 1.74 | 2.14 | 2.21 | 1.06 | 1.09 | 0.93 | 2.02 | 0.12 | NA | |||||
FTfv (*104) |
Median | 4.76 | 1.98 | 6.58 | 2.38 | 5.39 | 2.66 | 4.27 | 4.29 | 4.05 | 2.34 | 5.27 | 3.13 | 3.73 | 4.23 | 2.65 | 2.76 | ||||
Mean | 4.78 | 1.63 | 5.94 | 2.54 | 5.21 | 3.85 | 4.80 | 3.99 | 4.20 | 2.35 | 5.31 | 2.97 | 4.22 | 4.50 | 2.65 | 2.76 | |||||
SD | 1.10 | 0.96 | 1.99 | 0.89 | 2.50 | 2.57 | 2.14 | 1.67 | 1.99 | 1.34 | 1.97 | 0.61 | 1.57 | 0.73 | 0.31 | NA | |||||
HAfsc9 | Median | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 0.32 | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.18 | ||||
Mean | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.32 | 0.18 | 0.34 | 0.58 | 0.26 | 0.19 | 0.39 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.25 | 0.18 | |||||
SD | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.58 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.08 | NA | |||||
HAfsc81 | Median | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.69 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.37 | 0.70 | 0.78 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.72 | 0.59 | 0.45 | 0.53 | 0.46 | 0.76 | ||||
Mean | 0.61 | 0.51 | 0.68 | 0.51 | 0.66 | 0.39 | 0.72 | 1.30 | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.76 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.46 | 0.76 | |||||
SD | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.26 | 0.10 | 0.26 | 1.40 | 0.20 | 0.17 | 0.30 | 0.14 | 0.36 | 0.14 | 0.05 | NA |
TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics (sample size, median, mean, standard deviation of the mean) of mesowear score by species and method. ScoreA: extended mesowear giving scores between 1 and 17, based on the work of Winkler and Kaiser (2011); ScoreB: conversion of the classic original scoring from Fortelius and Solounias (2000) as proposed by Rivals et al. (2007) into a score ranging from 0 to 3; Ruler: mesowear ruler developed by Mihlbachler et al. (2011), giving score from 0 to 6. Only one tooth per specimen was considered.
B. brachypus | Pr. douvillei | Pl. mirallesi | H. beonense | ||||||||||
ScoreA | ScoreB | Ruler | ScoreA | ScoreB | Ruler | ScoreA | ScoreB | Ruler | ScoreA | ScoreB | Ruler | ||
All Teeth | |||||||||||||
N | 2 | 2 | 2 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 13 | 13 | 13 | |
Median | 10.5 | 2 | 3.5 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 2 | |
Mean | 10.5 | 2 | 3.5 | 7.42 | 0.90 | 1.90 | 7.61 | 0.98 | 2 | 7.19 | 0.77 | 1.77 | |
SD | 6.36 | 1.41 | 2.12 | 3.69 | 0.83 | 1.54 | 3.93 | 0.81 | 1.50 | 2.63 | 0.44 | 0.83 | |
Deciduous only |
|||||||||||||
N | / | / | / | 7 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Median | / | / | / | 8 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 1 | |
Mean | / | / | / | 7.71 | 0.71 | 1.71 | 6.67 | 0.67 | 1.22 | 6.33 | 0.67 | 1.33 | |
SD | / | / | / | 3.55 | 0.76 | 1.50 | 2.18 | 0.5 | 0.67 | 4.62 | 0.58 | 1.53 | |
Permanent only |
|||||||||||||
N | 2 | 2 | 2 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
Median | 10.5 | 2 | 3.5 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 2 | |
Mean | 10.5 | 2 | 3.5 | 7.44 | 0.93 | 2 | 7.98 | 1.10 | 2.25 | 7.39 | 0.78 | 1.89 | |
SD | 6.36 | 1.41 | 2.12 | 3.94 | 0.87 | 1.62 | 4.32 | 0.86 | 1.62 | 2.15 | 0.44 | 0.60 |
TABLE 4. Minimum number of individuals (NI) at Béon 1 by species based on teeth. Corrected MNI based on dental eruption incompatibilities (e.g., no m3/M3 in wear associated with deciduous teeth but d1/D1) as proposed by Hullot and Antoine (2020).
MNI | Tooth | Corrected MNI |
Teeth | |
B. brachypus | 3 | left m3 | 3 | left m3 |
Pr. douvillei | 7 | right M2 | 12 | right M2 + left D4 |
Pl. mirallesi | 8 | left p4 | 9 | left P4 + left d2 |
H. beonense | 3 | left m1 | 3 | left m1 |
Total | 21 | 27 |
TABLE 5. Hypoplasia (all type) and LEH prevalence by species and tooth type.
Number of teeth | All types of hypoplasia | LEH only | ||||||||||||||
Milk | Permanent | All | Milk | Permanent | All | |||||||||||
Milk | Permanent | N | % | N | % | % total | N | % | N | % | % total | % of hypoplastic teeth |
||||
B. brachypus | 1 | 45 | 1 | 100.00 | 12 | 26.67 | 28.26 | 1 | 100.00 | 5 | 11.11 | 13.04 | 46.15 | |||
Pr. douvillei | 90 | 264 | 21 | 23.33 | 72 | 27.27 | 26.27 | 12 | 13.33 | 36 | 13.64 | 13.56 | 51.61 | |||
Pl. mirallesi | 76 | 264 | 12 | 15.79 | 86 | 32.58 | 28.82 | 11 | 14.47 | 43 | 16.29 | 15.88 | 55.10 | |||
H. beonense | 30 | 62 | 1 | 3.33 | 11 | 17.74 | 13.04 | 1 | 3.33 | 5 | 8.06 | 6.52 | 50.00 | |||
Total | 197 | 635 | 35 | 17.77 | 181 | 28.50 | 4.21 | 25 | 12.69 | 89 | 14.02 | 13.70 | 52.78 |
TABLE 6. Summary of microwear pattern by species and DMTA parameter. epLsar: anisotropy; Asfc: complexity; FTfv: fine textural fill volume; HAsfc: heterogeneity of the complexity (9 and 81 cells).
epLsar | Asfc | FTfv | HAsfc9 | HAsfc81 | |
B. brachypus | Low | Low-Moderate | Low-High | Moderate | Moderate |
Pr. douvillei | Moderate | Low-Moderate | Moderate-High | Low-Moderate | Low-Moderate |
Pl. mirallesi | Moderate-High | Low | Low-Moderate | Low | Low |
H. beonense | Moderate | Low-Moderate | Moderate-High | Moderate | Moderate |
C. simum | High | Low - Moderate | High | Low | Low |
D. sumatrensis | High | Low | Low | Low | Low |
D. bicornis | Low | Moderate - High | Moderate | Moderate-High | Moderate-High |
R. sondaicus | Low | High | High | High | High |
R. unicornis | Moderate | High | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |