HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN MAGDALENIAN WESTERN EUROPE BY REBECCA HELENA SCHWENDLER B.A., Anthropology, Tufts University, 1993 M.A., Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 1997 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Anthropology The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico December 2004 ©2004, Rebecca Helena Schwendler iii DEDICATION To my parents, Barbara D. and William T. Schwendler, Jr., thank you for your constant and loving support. Your belief in the enjoyment, importance, and power of education has helped me to become the person I am today. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completing this dissertation would have been exponentially more difficult without the help of many committee members, department staff, colleagues, friends, family members, and funding organizations. My first thanks go to my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Lawrence G. Straus, for his unwaivering faith in me. He provided me with ideas for a fascinating dissertation topic, indispensable research materials, constructive criticisms, near-instantaneous proof readings, and instructive excavation opportunities. Dr. Jim Boone offered valuable insights into various evolutionary theories, assisted me with practical ways of testing and supporting my ideas, and acted as a sounding board for my initial and refined interpretations. Dr. Chip Wills taught me an invaluable lesson about intellectual self-confidence at the beginning of my graduate school career, and gave me intellectual challenges and motivational support. Dr. Polly Wiessner provided inspiration and highly constructive evaluations of my work, as she graciously stepped in as my outside committee member exactly when I needed her. Erika Gerety expertly handled the paperwork, took care of myriad problems, and helped me keep track of all of my deadlines and forms. Her calmness and organization made the final months of the process go remarkably smoothly. Many different people assisted me in my research travels around Western Europe and truly enriched those experiences. When I traveled in Spain, my friend Natalia Suárez Ruida and her family were kind enough to feed, house, and entertain me for a week outside Madrid. Dra. Carmen Cacho of the Museo Arqueológico Nacional in Madrid inadvertently supported my convictions about the size and scope of my dissertation, and v her assistant Ruth was very kind and helpful. Dra. Begoña Sanchez Chillon at the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Madrid impressed me with her openness and willingness to assist to me, and she helped to make my research there very pleasant. Dra. Soledad Corchón Rodríguez of the Universidad de Salamanca embodied friendliness itself. She took time out of her busy schedule to show and talk to me (very patiently!) about many artifacts from Las Caldas that her students were analyzing and drawing, and she generously provided me with a very thick stack of reprints and photocopies which I put to good use when I returned to Albuquerque. Dra. Amparo Lopez Ortiz at the Museo Regional de Prehistoria y Arqueología in Santander also willingly did all she could to smooth the way for me. In Switzerland, I had the great pleasure of staying with my mother’s cousin Pius Deiss and his wonderful, generous, and fun family. Pius accompanied me on my data collection and site visitation trips and was a chauffeur, translator, and inquisitive coresearcher. Dr. Markus Höneisen at the Museum zu Allerheiligen in Schaffhausen kindly gave me some books that have proved very useful. In Neuchâtel, Dr. Denise Leesch of the Service Cantonal d’Archéologie was extremely amiable, interesting, and candid. After an entire day of sightseeing with us and showing us materials from Champrévèyres and Monruz, she made sure I got on the correct train home. Her assistants and colleagues also were generous with their time, talking with me about faunal remains and lithics. In Germany, I had a great time excavating and working with Dr. Nicholas Conard, Maria Malina, Andrew Kandel, and the rest of the Geißenklösterle and Hohle Fels crew from Tübingen and elsewhere. When I conducted research at Schloß Monrepos near Neuwied, Martina Sensburg, Dr. Elaine Turner, and Dr. Martin Street went far beyond vi the call of duty to assist me. With their help, I had a very privileged research experience. Back in Tübingen, I had some fascinating conversations with Dr. Harald Floss, who also generously provided me with many reprints of his excellent work. The many people with whom I stayed and worked in France made that research trip truly wonderful. Madame Corpet in St-Germain-en-Laye was a kind, generous, interesting, and educational host. At the Musée des Antiquités Nationales (MAN) in StGermain-en-Laye, Jacqueline Léopold-Kérymél, Catherine Schwab, and Marie-Sylvie Largueze were extremely helpful, patient, and fun—even when I returned and we had to climb the stairs to Salle Piette one…more…time. I am indebted to them for letting me have unlimited access to many of the most interesting and famous pieces of Magdalenian mobile art. While at the MAN, I also had the good fortune to meet Jan Kegler, who generously loaned me his digital camera. Other researchers with whom I had invaluable conversations were Dr. Carole Fritz and Morgane Maudet. Dr. Jehanne Féblot-Augustins at Nanterre Université kindly set aside a few productive hours to talk with me, and shared her knowledge, opinions, contacts, and food. At the Musée de l’Homme, Marie Perpère helped me make the most of my short visit. In Toulouse, the Galinier family graciously included me in their lives for an entire week. I think my French comprehension skills improved dramatically from exposure to their Toulousian accents! At the Ministère de la Culture in Toulouse, Cristina San Juan-Foucher’s selfless assistance was absolutely invaluable. She worked some small miracles and put me in touch with exactly the right people, for which I am forever grateful. Guillaume Fleury devoted a day and a half of his time and upper body strength to helping me find what I needed in the temporary reserves of the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle. His assistance enabled me to stick to my very tight vii schedule, and to have fun while doing so. Anne Blanquer-Maumont also located indispensable research materials for me. Warm thanks go to Yanik Le Guillou of the Ministère de la Culture for his time, assistance, patience, hospitality, and friendship. I am forever thankful that he shared his abundant knowledge of the Pyrenees with me, while he showed me several Magdalenian sites and their environs and gave me inspiration for future work. The time I spent around Foix was the most enjoyable and memorable of my trip. Mr. Pascal Alard was kind enough to lock me in the Musée du Mas d’Azil for a few very productive hours, then drive me back to Foix and give me free entrée to the château. Count Robert Bégouën was a very gracious host, opening his private museum, the Musée Bégouën, for research, and opening his kitchen for a delicious lunch of rabbit. In Les Eyzies, I had a good conversation with Christine Desdemaines-Hugons about her fascinating research on Magdalenian decorated bone tools. Then I spent a nice couple of days at the Musée d’Aquitaine in Bordeaux, where Sigolene Loizeau was very friendly, helpful, and unwittingly inspirational. My lunch and further discussions with Marian Vanhaeren and Francesco d’Errico at the Institut du Quaternaire in Talence were pleasantly candid and highly informative. Many people in Albuquerque have given me the friendship, encouragement, advice, and alcohol I needed to complete my dissertation. Dr. Marsha Ogilvie is a true inspiration, as well as a great and constant friend. She gave me invaluable and often humorous advice about surviving a dissertation, and was always there to encourage, commiserate, and rejoice with me. Dr. Gordon Rakita generously offered his humor, support, statistical and practical advice, and various beverages, regardless of the short notice I gave him and the hours I took him away from his wonderful family. Oskar “Mr. viii PowerPoint” Burger is a good friend and a real lifesaver, as he provided his knowledge, time, and equipment to help me prepare the figures included here. While not directly involved with my research or writing, my good friends Shoshana Handel, Kathy Helton, and Courtney Porreca gave me much support and provided many fun diversions. In addition, some wonderful co-workers—especially John Roney and Gretchen Obenauf— at the Albuquerque Bureau of Land Management gave me much unwitting support during the difficult last three years of my doctoral journey. Brian Lloyd flatteringly expressed an interest in my research early on, and became a huge fan whose friendship and love now carry me through both good and challenging times. Last, but not least, I send a big thank you to my family. Because of my parents, I periodically re-evaluated my progress, goals, and purpose in getting a Ph.D. They consistently encouraged and praised me, even though they didn’t (and still don’t!) understand all I was doing. Without their constant support and reality checks, I could not have finished this dissertation. I also thank my grandfather Gottlieb Deiss for his interest, and my brother Tad for his encouragement. Finally, my dog Max always reminded me to not take life too seriously, and to spend some time outside every day! Several funding organizations provided indispensable monetary support and reduced the time I needed to complete my dissertation. Most significantly, the UNM Latin American and Iberian Institute awarded me a PhD Fellowship two different years. The UNM Office of Graduate Studies awarded me several Research, Project, and Travel Grants, while the UNM Graduate and Professional Student Association awarded me several Student Research Allocations Committee grants, and the UNM Department of Anthropology awarded me several small grants during my graduate career at UNM. ix HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN MAGDALENIAN WESTERN EUROPE BY REBECCA HELENA SCHWENDLER ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Anthropology The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico December 2004 HUNTER-GATHERER SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN MAGDALENIAN WESTERN EUROPE by Rebecca Helena Schwendler B.A., Anthropology, Tufts University, 1993 M.A., Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 1997 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 2004 ABSTRACT This study uses the circulation of exotic lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects to investigate the nature and extent of hunter-gatherer social interactions across six countries in Western Europe during the Late Glacial Magdalenian period (ca. 17,000-11,000 uncalibrated BP). Specifically, it evaluates whether population density, represented by site density, was correlated with intensity of visual display and use of individual versus group signaling. The study is informed by a combination of theoretical perspectives, including “social identification via comparison” and “costly signaling”, as well as by ethnographic data on hunter-gatherer object circulation and visual display. Included are 509 sites located in Cantabrian Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Sites are assigned to one of three Magdalenian phases—Lower (ca. 17,000-14,500 BP), Middle (ca. 14,500-13,000 BP), or Upper (ca. 13,000-11,000 BP). Microsoft Access and Manifold Geographic Information System 5.0 xi are used to organize and display the relevant data, and to create maps showing the distribution of sites, raw material sources, and artifacts. It was expected that regions with low population density would have low levels of visual signaling, with an emphasis on individual displays, while regions with high population density would demonstrate high levels of visual signaling, and an emphasis on group displays. Different kinds of analyses are performed on each of the object categories, for each Magdalenian phase, with the results examined individually and collectively. Expectations for the relationship between population density and visual display are inconsistently met, so it is suggested that time since colonization, more than population density alone, may influence object circulation and visual signaling. Accordingly, a three-phase model for the use of visual display is offered. Based on the model and on current interpretations of variability in degree of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism, it is suggested that the Magdalenian of Western Europe was a mix of societies that 1) enforced social equality, 2) allowed for achieved inequality, or 3) developed institutionalized social hierarchy. In conclusion, future avenues of investigation are suggested for studying the relationships among length of habitation, population density, resource structure, and use of object circulation and visual display. xii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xviii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... xxiv CHAPTER 1: Introduction ..............................................................................................1 Prior Work on Magdalenian Object Circulation and Social Interactions .......................4 Magdalenian Research Emphasizing Social Landscapes ..........................................5 Magdalenian Studies at Large Geographic Scales....................................................8 New Directions .............................................................................................................11 Large Geographic Area and Multiple Lines of Evidence ........................................11 Visual Signaling in Relation to Degree of Hunter-Gatherer Social Equality .........12 Theoretical Perspectives ..........................................................................................13 Chapter Summaries .......................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 2: Theoretical Background ........................................................................17 Introduction ...................................................................................................................17 Variability in Hunter-Gatherer Social Organization and Equality ...............................19 Qualities That May Be Signaled ...................................................................................21 Social Bonds and Relationships ...............................................................................21 Connections to the Spirit World ...............................................................................22 Individual Beauty, Personality, and Skills ...............................................................22 Group Membership ..................................................................................................23 Achieved Status ........................................................................................................23 Ascribed Status.........................................................................................................24 Explanations for Visual Signaling ................................................................................25 Identification Via Comparison.................................................................................25 Costly Signaling .......................................................................................................28 Terms ............................................................................................................................31 Prestige ....................................................................................................................31 Status ........................................................................................................................32 Predictions for Objects Used Under Different Social Conditions ................................33 Factors Affecting Individual and Group Interactions .............................................33 Summary .......................................................................................................................35 CHAPTER 3: Ethnographic and Archaeological Examples of Visual Displays .......37 Introduction ...................................................................................................................37 Examples of Circulated Objects and Visual Displays ..................................................38 Lithic Raw Materials................................................................................................38 Items of Personal Ornamentation ............................................................................39 Portable Decorated Objects ....................................................................................40 Some Factors Affecting Object Exchange and Visual Display ....................................41 Population Density and Population Size .................................................................41 Resource Structure and Human Spacing .................................................................43 Degree of Social Competition and Inequality..........................................................44 Ethnographic Examples Demonstrating Intensity of Visual Signaling .......................46 Population Density and Audience Size ....................................................................46 Examples of Low Population Density and Little Visual Signaling ....................46 xiii Examples of High Population Density and Intense Visual Signaling.................47 Examples of Aggregation and Intense Visual Signaling ....................................48 Resource Structure and Human Spacing .................................................................50 Examples of Homogeneous Resources, Dispersed Populations, and Low Levels of Diverse Visual Displays .................................................................................51 Examples of Heterogeneous Resources, Dense Populations, and High Levels of Similar Visual Displays ......................................................................................54 Degree of Social Inequality .....................................................................................55 Examples of Limited Social Differentiation and Few Visual Displays ..............56 Examples of Marked Social Differentiation and Many Visual Displays ............57 Ethnographic Examples of Individual Versus Group Visual Displays .........................58 Examples of Individual Visual Displays ..................................................................59 Examples of Group Visual Displays ........................................................................62 An Example of Situation-Specific Change From Individual to Group Signaling ....63 Archaeological Interpretations of Changes in Visual Displays ....................................63 Intensity of Visual Display .......................................................................................64 Visual Displays Related to Social Competition .......................................................65 Individual Versus Group Visual Displays................................................................66 Summary .......................................................................................................................67 CHAPTER 4: Magdalenian Chronology and Environment .......................................69 Introduction ...................................................................................................................69 Chronology ...................................................................................................................70 Climate ..........................................................................................................................74 Geography .....................................................................................................................79 Environmental Conditions and Human Distributions ...................................................81 Cantabrian Spain .....................................................................................................81 France ......................................................................................................................86 Pyrenees ..............................................................................................................86 Southwestern France ...........................................................................................91 West-Central France ...........................................................................................95 Massif Central .....................................................................................................97 Eastern France ...................................................................................................100 Paris Basin ........................................................................................................104 Switzerland.............................................................................................................106 Germany .................................................................................................................110 Southwestern Germany .....................................................................................111 Central Germany ...............................................................................................114 Belgium ..................................................................................................................119 The Netherlands .....................................................................................................123 Summary .....................................................................................................................125 CHAPTER 5: Data and Methods ................................................................................127 Introduction .................................................................................................................127 Data Set .......................................................................................................................127 Lithic Raw Materials..............................................................................................131 Terms ................................................................................................................131 Data Collection and Coding ..............................................................................132 xiv Caveats ..............................................................................................................133 Methods of Interpretation .................................................................................134 Items of Personal Ornamentation ..........................................................................135 Description ........................................................................................................135 Data Collection and Coding ..............................................................................136 Caveats ..............................................................................................................138 Methods of Interpretation .................................................................................138 Portable Decorated Objects ..................................................................................138 Description ........................................................................................................138 Data Collection and Coding ..............................................................................140 Caveats ..............................................................................................................141 Methods of Interpretation .................................................................................141 Archaeological Expectations for Visual Displays ......................................................142 Low Population Density.........................................................................................142 High Population Density........................................................................................143 Effects of Range Size and Competition ..................................................................144 Methods of Data Collection and Categorization.........................................................145 Publications ...........................................................................................................145 Museum Collections ...............................................................................................146 Chronological Attributions ....................................................................................147 Population Density.................................................................................................150 Methods of Data Organization and Display................................................................151 Microsoft Access ....................................................................................................151 Manifold GIS 5.0....................................................................................................152 Analyses ......................................................................................................................153 Lithic Raw Materials..............................................................................................153 Raw Material Sources and Connections to Sites ..............................................154 Lithic Raw Material Units ................................................................................156 Distribution of Specific Materials .....................................................................157 Items of Personal Ornamentation ..........................................................................157 Raw Material Sources and Connections to Sites ..............................................157 Intensity and Kind of Visual Signaling .............................................................159 Distribution of Groups of Similar Items ...........................................................161 Portable Decorated Objects ..................................................................................162 Distribution of Groups of Similar Objects ........................................................162 Combinations of Object Categories .......................................................................163 CHAPTER 6: Results and Evaluation of Expectations .............................................165 Introduction .................................................................................................................165 Site Density .................................................................................................................165 Population Density ......................................................................................................171 Lithic Raw Materials...................................................................................................173 Lithic Raw Material Connections and Units .........................................................173 Caveats ..............................................................................................................174 Lower Magdalenian ..........................................................................................174 Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................176 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................176 xv Patterns of Land Use .............................................................................................178 Lithic Raw Material Units ................................................................................178 Dispersion of Specific Lithic Raw Materials ....................................................180 Differential Acquisition of Materials .....................................................................189 Trends in the Use of Lithic Raw Materials .......................................................192 Summary for Results of Lithic Raw Material Analyses .........................................198 Items of Personal Ornamentation................................................................................198 Connections Between Sites and Sources of Personal Ornamentation ...................200 Lower Magdalenian ..........................................................................................200 Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................202 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................206 Intensity of Visual Display and Population Density ..............................................210 Lower Magdalenian ..........................................................................................210 Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................220 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................230 Trends in Intensity of Visual Display ...............................................................240 Distributions of Groups of Similar Objects ...........................................................242 Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................242 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................263 Middle and Upper Magdalenian .......................................................................270 Trends in the Distribution of Groups of Similar Items of Personal Ornamentation.................................................................................................281 Summary for Results of Personal Ornamentation Analyses ..................................282 Portable Decorated Objects.........................................................................................284 Distributions of Groups of Similar Objects ...........................................................284 Lower Magdalenian ..........................................................................................284 Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................293 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................336 Summary for Results of Portable Decorated Object Analyses ..............................365 Summary .....................................................................................................................369 CHAPTER 7: Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................370 Introduction .................................................................................................................370 Factors Affecting Social Organization and Visual Signaling .....................................371 Recent Colonization ...............................................................................................371 Resource Structure and Regional Settlement Pattern............................................373 Social Interactions Among Regions............................................................................375 Lower Magdalenian ...............................................................................................375 Middle Magdalenian ..............................................................................................376 Upper Magdalenian ...............................................................................................377 Social Organization Within Regions ..........................................................................379 Cantabrian Spain ...................................................................................................379 Lower Magdalenian ..........................................................................................382 Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................383 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................385 Southwestern France .............................................................................................386 Pyrenees .................................................................................................................389 xvi Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................389 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................392 Other Regions in France........................................................................................393 Switzerland.............................................................................................................395 Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................395 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................396 Southwestern Germany ..........................................................................................397 Lower and Middle Magdalenian .......................................................................397 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................398 West-Central Germany ..........................................................................................398 East-Central Germany ...........................................................................................401 Middle Magdalenian .........................................................................................401 Upper Magdalenian ...........................................................................................402 Belgium ..................................................................................................................402 Phases of Visual Display ............................................................................................403 Phase One—Initial (Re-)Population ......................................................................404 Phase Two—Substantial (Re-)Population .............................................................404 Phase Three—Established Population ..................................................................405 Avenues for Future Investigation................................................................................406 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................408 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................410 APPENDIX A: Occupation Lists.................................................................................411 APPENDIX B: Lithic Raw Material Data ..................................................................418 APPENDIX C: Personal Ornamentation Data ..........................................................458 APPENDIX D: Portable Decorated Object Data.......................................................568 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................581 xvii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Western European countries whose Magdalenian sites are included in this study ..................................................................................................................2 Figure 4.1. Regions of Western Europe discussed in this study .......................................80 Figure 4.2. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Cantabrian Spain ........................82 Figure 4.3. Geography, hydrology, and topography of the French Pyrenees ...................87 Figure 4.4. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Southwestern France ..................92 Figure 4.5. Geography, hydrology, and topography of West-Central France ..................96 Figure 4.6. Geography, hydrology, and topography of the Massif Central region of France..............................................................................................................98 Figure 4.7. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Southeastern France (Languedoc) ..................................................................................................101 Figure 4.8. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Northeastern France (Rhône/Saône rivers) ....................................................................................102 Figure 4.9. Geography, hydrology, and topography of the Paris Basin in France..........105 Figure 4.10. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Switzerland ............................107 Figure 4.11. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Southwestern Germany ..........112 Figure 4.12. Geography, hydrology, and topography of West-Central Germany (Central Rhineland) .....................................................................................115 Figure 4.13. Geography, hydrology, and topography of East-Central Germany (Saale/Elbe rivers) .......................................................................................116 Figure 4.14. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Belgium ..................................120 Figure 4.15. Geography, hydrology, and topography of the Netherlands ......................124 Figure 5.1. Distribution of Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian sites in countries included in this study ....................................................................................128 Figure 5.2. Distribution of Middle Magdalenian sites in countries included in this study ..............................................................................................................129 Figure 5.3. Distribution of Upper Magdalenian sites in countries included in this study ..............................................................................................................130 Figure 5.4. Distribution of lithic raw material source areas included in this study ........155 Figure 5.5. Distribution of personal ornamentation material source areas included in this study ..............................................................................................................158 Figure 6.1. Site densities (# of sites within a 50 km radius) during the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian ......................................................................168 Figure 6.2. Site densities (# of sites within a 50 km radius) during the Middle Magdalenian ..................................................................................................169 Figure 6.3. Site densities (# of sites within a 50 km radius) during the Upper Magdalenian ..................................................................................................170 Figure 6.4. Lithic raw material connections and units for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian sites included in this study .......................................................175 Figure 6.5. Lithic raw material connections and units for Middle Magdalenian sites included in this study ....................................................................................177 xviii Figure 6.6. Lithic raw material connections and units for Upper Magdalenian sites included in this study ....................................................................................179 Figure 6.7. Distribution of Kimmeridgian chert during the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian........................................................................................181 Figure 6.8. Distribution of jaspoid chert during the Badegoulian and the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian ......................................................................183 Figure 6.9. Distribution of Chalosse/Audignon Maastrichtian flint during the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian ...........................................................184 Figure 6.10. Distribution of Périgord area Senonian chert during the Badegoulian and Lower, Middle, and Upper Magd. ..............................................................186 Figure 6.11. Distribution of chalcedonic chert during the Badegoulian and Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian ................................................................187 Figure 6.12. Connections between sites and personal ornamentation raw material source areas for the Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian ...................................201 Figure 6.13. Connections between sites and personal ornamentation raw material source areas for the Middle Magdalenian ..............................................................203 Figure 6.14. Connections between sites and personal ornamentation raw material source areas for the Upper Magdalenian ................................................................207 Figure 6.15. Ratios of total items of personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites ................................................211 Figure 6.16. Ratios of easy-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites ................................................214 Figure 6.17. Ratios of moderately difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites ..............................216 Figure 6.18. Ratios of difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites ................................................217 Figure 6.19. Ratios of natural items of personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites ................................................218 Figure 6.20. Ratios of created items of personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites ................................................219 Figure 6.21. Ratios of total items of personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites........................................................................................221 Figure 6.22. Ratios of easy-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites........................................................................................223 Figure 6.23. Ratios of moderately difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites .........................................................225 Figure 6.24. Ratios of difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites ...........................................................................226 Figure 6.25. Ratios of natural items of personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites........................................................................................228 Figure 6.26. Ratios of created items of personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites........................................................................................229 Figure 6.27. Ratios of total items of personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites........................................................................................231 Figure 6.28. Ratios of easy-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites........................................................................................234 xix Figure 6.29. Ratios of moderately difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites ..........................................................235 Figure 6.30. Ratios of difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites.............................................................................236 Figure 6.31. Ratios of natural items of personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites........................................................................................238 Figure 6.32. Ratios of created items of personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites........................................................................................239 Figure 6.33. Example of a Middle Magdalenian bison head contour découpé ..............243 Figure 6.34. Examples of Middle Magdalenian deer hind head contours découpés ......244 Figure 6.35. Examples of Middle Magdalenian ibex and chamois head contours découpés......................................................................................................245 Figure 6.36. Examples of Middle Magdalenian horse head contours découpés from sites in the French Pyrenees ................................................................................246 Figure 6.37. Examples of Middle Magdalenian horse head contours découpés from sites outside the French Pyrenees........................................................................247 Figure 6.38. Distribution of bison head, deer head, and caprid head contours découpés during the Middle Magdalenian ..................................................................249 Figure 6.39. Middle Magdalenian necklace from Labastide with eighteen chamois and one bison head contours découpés..............................................................250 Figure 6.40. Distribution of horse head contours découpés during the Middle Magdalenian ................................................................................................252 Figure 6.41. Middle Magdalenian horse and bovid incisors engraved with geometricshape grids ..................................................................................................255 Figure 6.42. Distribution of animal incisors engraved with geometric-shape grids during the Middle Magdalenian .............................................................................257 Figure 6.43. Examples of Middle Magdalenian perforated hyoid bones engraved with many edge lines...........................................................................................258 Figure 6.44. Distribution of hyoid bones engraved with many edge lines during the Middle Magdalenian ...................................................................................259 Figure 6.45. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “Marsoulas type” engraved bone pendants and “polishers” (lissoirs) .............................................................261 Figure 6.46. Distribution of “Marsoulas type” engraved bone pendants and polishers during the Middle Magdalenian ..................................................................262 Figure 6.47. Examples of Upper Magdalenian discoidal jet and lignite beads...............264 Figure 6.48. Distribution of discoidal jet and lignite beads during the Upper Magdalenian ................................................................................................265 Figure 6.49. Examples of Upper Magdalenian jet “Venus” pendants and figurines ......268 Figure 6.50. Distribution of jet “Venus” pendants and figurines during the Upper Magdalenian ................................................................................................269 Figure 6.51. Examples of Middle Magdalenian perforated disks ...................................271 Figure 6.52. Examples of Middle Magdalenian cervid scapulae with disks fully or partially extracted........................................................................................272 Figure 6.53. Examples of Upper Magdalenian perforated disks ....................................273 Figure 6.54. Distribution of disks and scapulae with disk cut-outs during the Middle Magdalenian ................................................................................................274 xx Figure 6.55. Distribution of disks during the Upper Magdalenian .................................276 Figure 6.56. Examples of Middle and Upper Magdalenian fossil sea urchin spine-shaped pendants ......................................................................................................279 Figure 6.57. Distribution of sea urchin spine pendants during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian ................................................................................................280 Figure 6.58. Examples of Lower Magdalenian scapulae engraved with red deer hinds from Cantabrian Spain ................................................................................286 Figure 6.59. Examples of Lower Magdalenian scapulae engraved with red deer hinds and a bison from Cantabrian Spain ....................................................................287 Figure 6.60. Distribution of scapulae engraved with red deer hinds and bison during the Lower Magdalenian ....................................................................................288 Figure 6.61. Examples of Lower Magdalenian and other Magdalenian tectiform signs ...........................................................................................................290 Figure 6.62. Distribution of tectiform signs and pseudoexcisa lines during the Badegoulian, Lower, and other Magdalenian .............................................291 Figure 6.63. Examples of Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian objects with pseudoexcisa lines .......................................................................................292 Figure 6.64. Examples of Middle Magdalenian objects with “net” motifs ....................295 Figure 6.65. Distribution of “net” motif and “plant frond” motif during the Middle Magdalenian ................................................................................................296 Figure 6.66. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “plant frond” motifs on semi-round section antler rods .......................................................................................297 Figure 6.67. Examples of Middle Magdalenian engraved “side lines with medial zigzags” motifs on “polishers” (lissoirs) ....................................................298 Figure 6.68. Distribution of engraved “side lines with medial zigzags” motif during the Middle Magdalenian ...................................................................................299 Figure 6.69. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “eye” motifs ..........................................................................................................301 Figure 6.70. Distribution of semi-round section rods with “eye” and “sun ray” motifs during the Middle Magdalenian ..................................................................302 Figure 6.71. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “sun ray” motifs ..........................................................................................................303 Figure 6.72. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “spiral” motifs ..........................................................................................................304 Figure 6.73. Distribution of semi- and round section rods with “spiral” motif during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian .................................................................305 Figure 6.74. Comparison of the semi-round section rod from Poggenwisch (Hamburgian of N Germany, contemporaneous with the Upper Magdalenian) with Middle Magdalenian examples from Isturitz and Espalungue/Arudy (Pyrenees)...307 Figure 6.75. Examples of Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian “diamond with center line” motifs .......................................................................................308 Figure 6.76. Distribution of “diamond with center line” motif during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian .....................................................................................309 Figure 6.77. Examples of Middle Magdalenian (MM) and unspecified Magdalenian sculpted “ears of wheat” .............................................................................311 xxi Figure 6.78. Distribution of sculpted “ears of wheat” during the Middle Magdalenian ................................................................................................312 Figure 6.79. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with deeply engraved “side curves” ...............................................................................313 Figure 6.80. Distribution of semi-round section rods with deeply engraved “side curves” during the Middle Magdalenian ..................................................................315 Figure 6.81. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “bird head” perforated bâtons .............316 Figure 6.82. Distribution of “bird head” perforated bâtons during the Middle Magdalenian ................................................................................................317 Figure 6.83. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “bison in profile” motif .......................318 Figure 6.84. Distribution of “bison in profile” motif during the Middle Magdalenian ..319 Figure 6.85. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “fawn and bird” spearthrowers ...........320 Figure 6.86. Examples of possible Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian referents to “fawn and bird” spearthrowers ...............................................................321 Figure 6.87. Distribution of fawn spearthrowers and elements during the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian ....................................................................323 Figure 6.88. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “circles in triangular brackets” motifs ..........................................................................................................325 Figure 6.89. Distribution of “circles in triangular brackets”, “train track line”, and “horizontal woman” motifs during the Middle Magd.................................326 Figure 6.90. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “train track line” motifs ......................327 Figure 6.91. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “horizontal woman” motifs .................328 Figure 6.92. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with raised side protuberances ..............................................................................................329 Figure 6.93. Distribution of semi-round section rods with raised side protuberances during the Middle Magdalenian ..................................................................331 Figure 6.94. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with raised central line decorations ...............................................................................332 Figure 6.95. Distribution of semi-round section rods with raised central line decorations during the Middle Magdalenian ..............................................333 Figure 6.96. Examples of Middle Magdalenian horse head spearthrowers and similarly shaped deer head spearthrowers..................................................................334 Figure 6.97. Distribution of horse head, deer head, and ibex head spearthrowers during the Middle Magdalenian .............................................................................335 Figure 6.98. Upper Magdalenian perforated bâtons engraved with red deer stags ........337 Figure 6.99. Distribution of perforated bâtons engraved with red deer stags and with hinds during the Upper Magdalenian ..........................................................338 Figure 6.100. Upper Magdalenian perforated bâtons engraved with red deer hinds ......339 Figure 6.101. Examples of Upper Magdalenian stylized, frontal-view ibex motif ........341 Figure 6.102. Distribution of stylized, frontal-view ibex motif during the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian ..................................................................342 Figure 6.103. Examples of Upper Magdalenian stylized, frontal-view cervid motif .....343 Figure 6.104. Distribution of stylized, frontal-view cervid motif during the Upper Magdalenian ..............................................................................................344 Figure 6.105. Examples of Upper Magdalenian (UM) and unspecified Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “side step” decorations ..............................346 xxii Figure 6.106. Distribution of semi-round section rods with “side step” decorations during the Upper Magdalenian .............................................................................347 Figure 6.107. Examples of Upper Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “side step” decorations and design above ...................................................................349 Figure 6.108. Distribution of semi-round section rods with “side step” decorations and design above during the Upper Magd. ......................................................350 Figure 6.109. Examples of Upper Magdalenian semi-round section rods with twisting line decorations .........................................................................................351 Figure 6.110. Distribution of semi-round section rods with twisting lines during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian ...............................................................352 Figure 6.111. Examples of Upper Magdalenian horses with exaggerated heads motif ..353 Figure 6.112. Distribution of horses with exaggerated heads motif during the Upper Magdalenian ..............................................................................................354 Figure 6.113. Examples of Upper Magdalenian antler rods carved in twisting, threedimensional ways ......................................................................................356 Figure 6.114. Distribution of antler rods carved in twisting, three-dimensional ways during the Upper Magdalenian .................................................................357 Figure 6.115. Examples of Upper Magdalenian complex in-filling of animal images...358 Figure 6.116. Distribution of complex in-filling of animal images during the Upper Magdalenian ..............................................................................................359 Figure 6.117. Examples of Upper Magdalenian stylized female engravings .................360 Figure 6.118. Distribution of stylized female engravings during the Upper Magdalenian ..............................................................................................361 Figure 6.119. Examples of Upper Magdalenian non-jet stylized female figurines ........363 Figure 6.120. Distribution of non-jet stylized female figurines during the Upper Magdalenian ..............................................................................................364 Figure 6.121. Upper Magdalenian stone plaquettes with similarly rendered aurochs and bison ..........................................................................................................366 Figure 6.122. Distribution of stone plaquettes with similarly engraved aurochs and bison during the Upper Magdalenian .................................................................367 Figure 7.1. Distribution of Middle and Upper Magdalenian caches discussed in the text.................................................................................................................380 Figure 7.2. Distribution of Lower and Upper Magdalenian burials with grave goods discussed in the text ......................................................................................381 xxiii LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1. Classic Palynological Phases During the Magdalenian ...................................76 Table 6.1. Total Numbers of Sites and Average Site Densities Within Regions for the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian ...........................................................166 Table 6.2. Total Numbers of Sites and Average Site Densities Within Regions for the Middle Magdalenian ......................................................................................166 Table 6.3. Total Numbers of Sites and Average Site Densities Within Regions for the Upper Magdalenian ........................................................................................167 Table 6.4. Results of Lithic Raw Material Analyses for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Units ..........................................................................................190 Table 6.5. Results of Lithic Raw Material Analyses for Middle Magdalenian Units ....190 Table 6.6. Results of Lithic Raw Material Analyses for Upper Magdalenian Units ......191 Table A.1. Lower Magdalenian Occupations in Cantabrian Spain Included in This Study .............................................................................................................412 Table A.2. Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Occupations in France Included in This Study .............................................................................................................412 Table A.3. Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Occupations in Switzerland Included in This Study .....................................................................................................412 Table A.4. Lower Magdalenian Occupations in Germany Included in This Study........412 Table A.5. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in Cantabrian Spain Included in This Study .............................................................................................................413 Table A.6. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in France Included in This Study...........413 Table A.7. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in Switzerland Included in This Study ..414 Table A.8. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in Germany Included in This Study.......414 Table A.9. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in Belgium Included in This Study ........414 Table A.10. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in Cantabrian Spain Included in This Study ...........................................................................................................414 Table A.11. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in France Included in This Study ..........415 Table A.12. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in Switzerland Included in This Study ..416 Table A.13. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in Germany Included in This Study ......417 Table A.14. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in Belgium Included in This Study .......417 Table A.15. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in the Netherlands Included in This Study ...........................................................................................................417 Table B.1. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for Spanish Sites .......................................419 Table B.2. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for French Sites ........................................419 Table B.3. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for German, Swiss, and Dutch Sites .........421 Table B.4. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for Belgian Sites .......................................422 Table B.5. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Cantabrian Spain .......................................................424 Table B.6. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Lower Magd and Badegoulian (BD) Lithic Raw Material Units in France ....................................................425 Table B.7. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Unit in Germany ........................................................................................................425 xxiv Table B.8. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Cantabrian Spain ......................................................426 Table B.9. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in France .......................................................................427 Table B.10. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit in Switzerland ..............................................................430 Table B.11. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit in Germany...................................................................430 Table B.12. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Cantabrian Spain ....................................................431 Table B.13. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in France .....................................................................433 Table B.14. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit in Switzerland ..............................................................437 Table B.15. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Germany .................................................................438 Table B.16. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit in S Belgium/N France.................................................444 Table B.17. Lower Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Cantabrian Spain .......446 Table B.18. Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian (BD) Lithic Raw Material Units for Southwestern France ...................................................................................447 Table B.19. Lower Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for Southwestern Germany ......................................................................................................447 Table B.20. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Cantabrian Spain ......448 Table B.22. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Southwestern France..........................................................................................................449 Table B.23. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for the Massif Central......449 Table B.24. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for Switzerland ................450 Table B.25. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for East-Central Germany ......................................................................................................450 Table B.26. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Cantabrian Spain .......451 Table B.27. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for the Pyrenees ...............452 Table B.28. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for Southwestern France ...453 Table B.29. Upper Magd. LRM Unit for the Massif Central .........................................454 Table B.30. Upper Magdalenian LRM Unit for the Paris Basin ....................................454 Table B.31. Upper Magd. LRM Unit for Switzerland ....................................................455 Table B.32. Upper Magd. LRM Unit for S Belgium/N France ......................................455 Table B.33. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for Southwestern Germany ......................................................................................................456 Table B.34. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Central Germany .......457 Table C.1. Correspondence Between General Terms and Fictive Numbers of Objects Used for Analyses .........................................................................................459 Table C.2. Codes for Common Personal Ornamentation Materials ...............................459 Table C.3. Personal Ornamentation Materials and Codes Specific to French Sites .......461 Table C.4. Personal Ornamentation Materials and Codes Specific to German and Swiss Sites ...............................................................................................................462 xxv Table C.5. Personal Ornamentation Materials and Codes Specific to Belgian Sites ......462 Table C.6. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Sites in Cantabrian Spain ...........................................................................................464 Table C.7. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Sites in France..........................................................................466 Table C.8. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Sites in Switzerland .................................................................469 Table C.9. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Sites in Germany ........................................................................................................470 Table C.10. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in Cantabrian Spain .........................................................................................471 Table C.11. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in France..........................................................................................................474 Table C.12. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in Switzerland .................................................................................................492 Table C.13. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in Germany ......................................................................................................494 Table C.14. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in Belgium .......................................................................................................494 Table C.15. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in Cantabrian Spain .........................................................................................495 Table C.16. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in France.........................................................................................................498 Table C.17. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in Switzerland .................................................................................................516 Table C.18. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in Germany ......................................................................................................520 Table C.19. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in Belgium .......................................................................................................528 Table C.20. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in the Netherlands ...........................................................................................533 Table C.21. Temporally Unprovenienced Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Sites in France .............................................................................................534 Table C.22. Data for Ratios of Personal Ornamentation to Site Density for Lower Magd. and Badegoulian Occupations.....................................................................540 Table C.23. Data for Ratios of Personal Ornamentation to Site Density for Middle Magdalenian Occupations ...........................................................................543 Table C.24. Data for Ratios of Personal Ornamentation to Site Density for Upper Magdalenian Occupations ...........................................................................548 Table C.25. Groups of Similar Items of Personal Ornamentation from Middle Magdalenian Occupations ...........................................................................562 Table C.26. Groups of Similar Items of Personal Ornamentation from Upper Magdalenian Occupations ...........................................................................564 Table C.27. Groups of Similar Items of Personal Ornamentation from Occupations of Different Magdalenian Phases ....................................................................565 xxvi Table C.28. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Burials in France..........................................................................................................567 Table C.29. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Burials in France and Germany ...................................................................................567 Table D.1. Portable Decorated Object Material Codes...................................................569 Table D.2. Portable Decorated Object Form Codes .......................................................569 Table D.3. Portable Decorated Object Motif Codes .......................................................569 Table D.4. Portable Decorated Object Style Codes ........................................................570 Table D.5. Groups of Similar Portable Decorated Objects from Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Occupations .............................................................................571 Table D.6. Groups of Similar Portable Decorated Objects from Middle Magdalenian Occupations...................................................................................................572 Table D.7. Groups of Similar Portable Decorated Objects from Upper Magdalenian Occupations...................................................................................................577 xxvii CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Research Context The lives of Ice Age European hunter-gatherers were radically different from ours today. However, despite the differences in detail, those groups had to solve the same kinds of problems that people all over the world—both past and present—must solve, such as getting enough to eat, finding mates, maintaining ties even with unpleasant relatives, dealing with strangers, and solving social, economic, and political problems. Modern studies of forager social dynamics and social networks are numerous, and many now highlight the incredible variability that is subsumed under the term “huntergatherer”. The overarching aim of this study is to contribute to our knowledge of prehistoric hunter-gatherer social interactions, and to challenge other archaeologists to expand their views of what we can learn about prehistoric forager social organization. Modern hunter-gatherer societies are characterized by different degrees of social equality, as well as by significant variations in population density, resource structure, social interaction, and visual display. We can assume that prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies in Western Europe also were characterized by variations in those realms, and may, in many ways, have been unlike any forager societies known today. I suggest that we can increase our knowledge of the full range of variability in prehistoric hunter-gatherer social interaction and organization by investigating relationships among social and environmental conditions, on the one hand, and archaeological patterns in exotic and decorated objects, on the other. Accordingly, this study investigates the nature and extent of hunter-gatherer social interactions across six countries in Western Europe (Figure 1.1) during the Late 1 Spain France Sea 200 km (1Housley et al. 1997) countries included in this study Mediterranean Switzerland Germany Figure 1.1. Western European countries whose Magdalenian sites are included in this study. approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP1 Atlantic Ocean N Belgium Netherlands Glacial Magdalenian period (ca. 17-11,000 BP). The Magdalenian culture of Western Europe is known by a rich archaeological record of tools, ornaments, portable and rock art, and faunal remains. I include 509 sites from Cantabrian Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and I evaluate whether population density, as represented by site density, was correlated with intensity of visual display and the use of individual versus group signaling. Evidence comes from the differential circulation of exotic lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects among those sites. I assign site occupations to Lower (ca. 17,000-14,500 BP), Middle (ca. 14,50013,000 BP), and Upper (ca. 13,000-11,000 BP) Magdalenian phases, using radiocarbon dates and traditional temporal attributions. That allows me to look for changes in visual displays within regions over time, as well as between regions at the same time. I organize and display spatial data on 1) raw material source areas; 2) distributions of sites, lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects; and 3) stylistic connections among the artifacts, in a Manifold 5.0 Geographic Information System. The Magdalenian context allows for a comparison of archaeological patterning in those visual signals over space and time, between continuously inhabited refugium regions in southwestern Europe, and newly re-populated regions further to the north. Based on ethnographic and archaeological studies, I expect a low level of visual signaling in regions with low population density, because people living in small groups often address intra-group problems via consensus or dispersion, and they emphasize social equality and discourage showing off using large numbers of visual displays. Under low population density, I also expect more exotic objects, more small-scale displays of 3 individual social bonds, and evidence for open social networks (e.g., Madden 1983; Wiessner 1982b), as people maintained long-distance, inter-personal social ties to ensure access to sufficient resources and mates. In contrast, I expect more intense signaling in regions with high population density, because people living in large groups often visually accentuate social divisions to facilitate decision-making and interactions with unfamiliar individuals. In some cases, recognized leaders or ritual specialists may preside over intra- and inter-group social negotiations involving differential displays of status, power, and/or knowledge (e.g., Wiessner 2002b). I also expect more group visual displays and evidence for closed social networks (e.g., Jochim 1983; Madden 1983; but see Wiessner 1984, 1990 for an opposing view), as people used common objects and decorations to reinforce their group cohesion and to differentiate themselves from other groups competing for the same resources. Prior Work on Magdalenian Object Circulation and Social Interactions Because there are long-standing local, regional, and national traditions in the excavation, study, and interpretation of Magdalenian sites, information on the period historically has been regionalized. In addition, the large geographic extent, numerous languages, and significant environmental variability found within Western Europe have discouraged large-scale studies of Magdalenian archaeology. However, in the last two decades, many researchers in continental Europe, Britain, and America have started approaching the Magdalenian record from the perspective of the social landscape and a realistic prehistoric scale of interaction that crosscuts modern political boundaries. In 4 addition, they have incorporated multiple lines of artifactual evidence into their investigations. In the 1980’s and early 1990’s, many studies evaluated archaeological patterns of object circulation in terms of population density, social competition, and differential access to social information. Beginning in the mid-1990’s, many other researchers focused on documenting Magdalenian object circulation at appropriately large geographic scales. My dissertation builds upon all of those studies by testing ideas about specific elements of the social landscape, using evidence for the circulation of multiple kinds of artifacts at a geographic scale that includes numerous independent and overlapping social networks. Magdalenian Research Emphasizing Social Landscapes In 1982, Paul Bahn was one of the first archaeologists to use the circulation of lithic raw materials, fossils, living marine shells, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects to discuss social connections within the Pyrenees and between the Pyrenees and other regions of France. He also discussed the possible roles that materially rich sites played in social interactions, arguing that the caves of Le Mas d’Azil and Isturitz in the central and western Pyrenees, respectively, were “super-aggregation” sites (Bahn 1982:263). In summary, he suggested that the proliferation of art production and object circulation in the Pyrenees might have been linked to increased social tension and competition. People could have used exotic and decorated objects to reinforce both intra- and inter-group bonds, thereby mitigating social stresses and fostering socially beneficial conformity and cooperation. This idea that variations in intensity of visual 5 display can be indicators of different social conditions and strategies shapes my interpretations of Magdalenian social interactions. Like Bahn, Jochim (1983) argued that the production and circulation of visual displays during the Magdalenian represented social responses to processes of population concentration and competition. Specifically, he suggested that there were open social networks where the distribution of decorated objects was relatively continuous or clinal, and more closed networks where object distributions were relatively discontinuous and clumped. Implicit in these suggestions is the notion that hunter-gatherers use decorated objects as extensions or representations of their social interactions. While Jochim emphasized changes in decorated object distributions and social networks over time, his approach is applicable spatially, as well. I draw upon these ideas for developing my expectations about the uses of visual displays in different social contexts. Davidson (1989) also noted that, while hunter-gatherers use some visual displays to indicate open communication among groups, they use others to differentiate between groups. In addition, he discussed variation in decorated object distributions in terms of social competition, suggesting that distinct concentrations of specific kinds of art, such as engraved stone plaquettes, might have resulted from the control of information by spatially discrete social hierarchies. As such, he argued that people actively embedded a diversity of social meanings in different visual displays. In this, he was one of the first to emphasize that Magdalenian-age people might have purposefully used art to shape and maintain their social organization. My study also employs the idea that concentrations of visual displays, and particularly those that are cached, may indicate the presence of some kind of institutionalized inequality. 6 Gamble (1991) argued that archaeologists must analyze distributions of decorated objects and styles within their respective social and ecological contexts. Like Davidson, he suggested that Magdalenian-age people used object styles as elements of their social negotiations. Accordingly, the density and specific forms of decorated objects should have varied across the landscape, because people in different overlapping social networks had different levels of access to certain kinds of information and knowledge. For example, people living in continuously occupied southwestern regions were working from long-standing and continuous artistic traditions and knowledge bases. In contrast, people slowly re-colonizing vacant or sparsely populated northern areas after the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 22-18,000 BP) were creating new artistic traditions, while at the same time calling upon cultural memories. I expand upon some of Gamble’s ideas by suggesting that people in overlapping interaction networks may have used the same kinds of objects, such as animal head contours découpés (cut-outs of flat bones), in different ways, according to their specific social strategies and symbolic frameworks. In 1996, Buisson et al. presented an analysis of object decorations and distributions that is highly appropriate for investigating Magdalenian social interactions. They used factor analysis to look for site- and region-specific design characteristics in horse head contours découpés from twelve sites in Cantabria, the Pyrenees, and the Dordogne. Because they found no distinct design groups, they concluded that there must have been widespread contacts and long distance stylistic diffusions among those regions. I use similar analytical methods to investigate patterns in unusual items of personal ornamentation, though I interpret my findings in terms of people’s active appropriations of objects, rather than passive stylistic diffusions. 7 Rensink’s (1993) study of object circulation across the loess landscapes of Northwestern Europe was reminiscent of Bahn’s (1982) earlier work in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France. In fact, Rensink emphasized the commonalities between the two regions in the circulation of lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects. He argued that, rather than being merely insurance against northern ecological uncertainty, the social networks represented by those objects were extended versions of networks originally operating in the refugium of Southwestern France. As such, they were suggestive of social processes inherent in the lives of Magdalenian-age hunter-gatherers, not limited to certain environments or subsistence patterns. The real differences among regions lay in the geographic scales of social networks, and the specific forms of the circulated objects. I agree that social networks were endemic to Magdalenian life, but my own study suggests that there were fundamental differences in the networks operating in southwestern versus northern regions of Western Europe. Magdalenian Studies at Large Geographic Scales Whether coincidental or not, many studies subsequent to Rensink’s focused more on the distances over which Magdalenian-age people circulated objects, than on the social contexts in which they did so. The new studies were important because they crossed modern political and traditional research boundaries, and showed that Magdalenian-age people maintained overlapping interaction networks over very large distances. The papers described below generally followed that trend toward tracing the 8 circulation of one or more kinds of objects over many hundreds of kilometers and of addressing Magdalenian interactions over extensive geographic areas. Taborin (1993) and Féblot-Augustins (1997) presented remarkably exhaustive, indispensable studies of the source areas and distributions of marine and fossil shells, and lithic raw materials, respectively, that Paleolithic people circulated around Europe. Their maps and discussions indicated that investigating human and object movements over many hundreds of kilometers, rather than just within topographic regions, is vital for getting a true picture of the reach of Magdalenian interaction spheres. I draw heavily upon their data in my own research. In a different kind of study, Housley et al. (1997) presented extensive radiocarbon evidence for the sequence and timing of the Late Glacial re-colonization of northwestern Europe. In combination with the dates, they used evidence for the circulation of minerals and for the production of portable decorated objects to create a two-stage model for the re-colonization. They suggested that it was a dynamic process, internally driven by the social lives of the hunter-gatherers involved. Likewise, I suggest that different stages in regional re-population were correlated with different uses of visual displays. In addition, social circumstances and population shifts in one region affected and were affected by circumstances in other regions, so that to create an informed picture of social interactions in one region, we must examine circulation networks across Western Europe. Jochim et al. (1999) also addressed re-colonization, specifically of Southern Germany, and illustrated the inter-relatedness of different regions using styles of decorated objects. They argued that widespread similarities indicate people’s active uses of style to mediate interaction across great distances, in contrast to a passive use of style 9 in which decorations diverge as populations spread out. I have been inspired by the authors’ emphasis on active uses of style, and by their suggestion that future research should investigate the specific patterns of material similarities and differences across Western Europe, in an attempt to define more precisely the nature of different Magdalenian social strategies. Floss (2000) and Alvarez Fernández (2001) both discussed the likely use of the long Rhine-Rhône corridor as a natural transportation route and path of social interaction and object circulation. While Alvarez Fernández focused exclusively on the distribution of marine shells at sites along the corridor, Floss included lithic raw materials, marine and fossil shells, and amber. Eriksen (2002) presented a similar study of the circulation of lithic raw materials, fossils, jet, and marine shells along the Jurassic limestone formation that runs through Northwestern Switzerland and Southwestern Germany. I incorporated their data and maps of source areas into my own study. The last three papers documented long-distance transports of functionally, and perhaps symbolically, diverse objects across regions characterized by variable topography and cultural affiliation. I argue that people living at great distances from raw material source areas may have assigned greater value to those materials and objects than did people living close to the sources, precisely because the distant objects were difficult to acquire and came from regions potentially unknown to the people who used them (e.g., Helms 1988). Accordingly, I attempt to interpret object distributions within topographic and spatial, as well as social, contexts. 10 New Directions The above-cited researchers, and many others, laid the groundwork for a picture of diverse social interactions across a large geographic area of Western Europe during the Magdalenian. Now it is possible and appropriate to synthesize their data and approaches to test ideas about variability in the social landscape. We have the tools—including artifact inventories, Geographic Information Systems, computer memory capabilities, and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dates—that allow us to build and manipulate large databases of information on the spatio-temporal distributions of Magdalenian artifacts. As a result, we can compare results from small- and large-scale studies, to improve our models of Magdalenian lifeways, specifically, and prehistoric hunter-gatherer social organization, generally. Below, I outline the directions I take in that regard. Large Geographic Area and Multiple Lines of Evidence I believe that research into long-distance social interactions must examine the circulation of multiple categories of objects, used for different activities, over the geographic scale at which they were circulated. Because interpretations of prehistoric behaviors are limited by the artifacts recovered, the use of multiple lines of evidence helps to build a more complete picture of social interactions than does the study of one kind of artifact alone. In addition, because Magdalenian-age people probably used different categories of exotic and decorated objects in different social contexts, their combination should provide a more well-rounded picture of social interactions than would any single category. 11 Accordingly, in this study, I use evidence for the circulation of three general object categories—lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects—across time and space to discuss the relationship between population density and visual signaling, on the one hand, and the nature and extent of Magdalenian social networks, on the other. My use of data on multiple kinds of objects from Magdalenian sites located across six countries is probably the largest study of its kind so far. The advantage of its size is that I can compare the archaeological signatures of multiple independent and overlapping social networks, to identify both common and dissimilar factors that influenced their character and contents. Visual Signaling in Relation to Degree of Hunter-Gatherer Social Equality Anthropologists are increasingly recognizing and discussing variations in the degree to which different hunter-gatherer societies are characterized by social equality (e.g., Boehm 1999; Flanagan 1989; Trigger 1990; Wiessner 2002b). All egalitarian societies initially provide equal opportunities to their members, in terms of rights to resources and social positions (Fried 1960; Wiessner 2004). However, differences arise in terms of achieved status, or the degree of inequality that individuals are allowed to attain over their lifetimes (Wiessner 2004). In part, the differences are related to population density and resource structure because those provide variable social and economic opportunities and necessitate different kinds of organization and decisionmaking (e.g., Hayden 1994; Owens and Hayden 1997). In this study, I attempt to interpret spatial and temporal differences in the circulation of Magdalenian-age objects within the context of variations in hunter-gatherer 12 social structure. In particular, I emphasize the relationships among population density, degree of social equality, intensity of visual signaling, and prevalence of individual versus group displays. Identifying concentrations of individual-, as well as group-, visual displays is a departure from the work of most other Magdalenian researchers who emphasize only group-level similarities in object forms and decorative styles. However, Magdalenian personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects are characterized by variability, and standardization of decorative characteristics is the exception, rather than the rule. This implies that, in many regions, individuals had ample opportunities for making decorative choices, at least within broad cultural and material norms (e.g., DesdemainesHugon 1999). Thus, I feel that our interpretations of spatial differences in the kind and number of exotic and decorated objects can benefit greatly from an approach that includes ideas about why people might have been able to create variable, individual displays at certain times and places. Theoretical Perspectives Many Magdalenian researchers—especially in the U.S. and U.K.—explain object circulation and decoration as mechanisms for 1) building social networks for acquiring mates; 2) maintaining social insurance for times of need, caused by climatic fluctuations, resource unpredictability, and/or low population densities; 3) performing rituals and reinforcing group cohesion; and 4) exchanging information (e.g., Conkey 1984, 1985; Gamble 1983; Mellars 1985; Pfeiffer 1982; Whallon 1989). In addition, some researchers have suggested that Magdalenian groups producing abundant art in 13 Southwestern France, in particular, were socially “complex” in response to a rich resource base (e.g., Hayden 1994; Jochim 1983, 1987; Mellars 1985). I take these ideas one step further, by systematically examining the potential relationships among population density, resource structure, intensity and kind of object circulation and visual display, and social structure across Western Europe. My premise that style is signaling comes from the classic works of Wiessner (1983), Sackett (1982), and Wobst (1977), but I focus on the social psychology theory of “identification via comparison” (e.g., Wiessner 1989, 1990, 1997) to explain the mechanisms behind individual versus group signaling. In addition, I use the biologybased theory of “costly signaling” (e.g., Boone 2000; Zahavi and Zahavi 1997) to explain the role of one kind of signaling in the creation and perpetuation of social inequality. Using those theoretical perspectives, in combination with ethnographic studies, I create expectations for how different numbers and kinds of Magdalenian objects and decorations may relate to specific kinds of social structure. I develop my theoretical background and its application to the Magdalenian in the next chapter. Chapter Summaries Chapter 2 provides the theoretical background for this study. The first section presents the idea that hunter-gatherer societies are characterized by various degrees of egalitarianism, often as a result of differences in population density and resource structure. The second section describes some different qualities that people can signal through visual displays. The third section presents some theoretical explanations for 14 visual signaling and defines some relevant terms. Included are social psychology-derived “identification via comparison” (e.g., Wiessner 1989, 1990, 1997), which pertains to signaling individual versus group identity, and biology-derived “costly signaling” (Boone 2000; Zahavi and Zahavi 1997), which is related to competition for social status and prestige. The final section makes some predictions for the use of different visual displays under certain social and environmental conditions. Chapter 3 provides numerous examples of the circulation of objects and the use of visual displays by hunter-gatherers, as known from both ethnographic and archaeological contexts. In particular, it addresses the effects of various inter-related social and environmental conditions on hunter-gatherers’ object exchanges and displays. The chapter highlights differences in visual signaling under conditions of low versus high population density, everyday versus aggregation or ritual contexts, dispersed versus clumped resources, widely spaced versus closely spaced settlement, and social equality versus social inequality. Examples come largely from hunter-gatherer groups in the Arctic, Australia, and California. The final section of the chapter presents some archaeological examples of temporal changes in prehistoric visual displays, to illustrate how some archaeologists have inferred variations in social behavior from changes in circulated and decorated objects. Chapter 4 discusses the Magdalenian culture-historical period (ca. 17-11,000 BP) in Western Europe. It begins with an explanation of the chronology of the Magdalenian, then outlines the broad climatic changes that occurred over the course of its roughly six millennia. The rest of the chapter consists of descriptions of topography, resource 15 structure, and human settlement patterns and activities in each of the geographic regions included. Chapter 5 describes the different classes of data included in this study, namely lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects. It also outlines some archaeological expectations for the uses of those visual displays, under low versus high population density. Next, it describes the methods used to collect and categorize the data, and the tools used to organize and display them. Finally, it discusses the analyses that were performed on each of the three object categories. Chapter 6 presents the results of the analyses for each object category, and interprets them in terms of the archaeological expectations that were laid out in the previous chapter. Chapter 7 discusses those findings, and offers some alternative explanations for the archaeological patterns since they do not consistently fulfill expectations. It also provides some additional archaeological evidence to support the alternative explanations. Finally, it summarizes the study, discusses its significance, and offers suggestions for future investigations into the uses of visual displays by prehistoric hunter-gatherers. 16 CHAPTER 2: Theoretical Background Introduction All humans interact on many social levels--as individuals, members of families, inhabitants of geographic areas, and participants in broader cultures. Within all of those social contexts, people negotiate for economic, political, ritual, and other roles. They also negotiate for access to resources, prestige, leadership positions, and mates (Hayden 1994). While hunter-gatherer societies are considered egalitarian, members of those societies recognize one another’s individual personalities, skills, and social roles, as well as differences among kin groups (e.g., Binford 1978; Boehm 1999; Chagnon 1997; Feinman 1995; Guemple 1971; Massola 1971; Plomley 1977; Ray 1961, 1977; Spencer 1971; Tonkinson 1991; Wiessner 1984, 1997). However, in strictly egalitarian societies, people’s individual identities and accomplishments generally are subordinated to their memberships in various corporate groups, in the interest of maintaining cooperation, pooling risk, and increasing chances of successful resource acquisition (e.g., Boehm 2000; Wiessner 1982a, 1982b, 2004). Still, in some situations, and in egalitarian societies that allow for achieved status, people may have opportunities to differentiate themselves from one another, and to compete for their own positions and resources (e.g., Wiessner 2004). Egalitarian and differentiated visual displays, and individual and group assertions of identity, often involve different kinds of behaviors and material objects (e.g., Hodder 1979; Wiessner 1983, 1989; Wilmsen 1973). 17 The forms of those behaviors and objects are constrained by cultural traditions, historical developments, and various leveling mechanisms, but in egalitarian societies that allow for some achieved inequality, individuals and groups can manipulate them to create, reinforce, or change social organization (e.g., Dobres and Hoffman 1994; Wiessner 1984). “The potential to give material culture an active role in symbolizing solidarity or opposition within and between groups or their individual members may [be] a principal reason underlying decisions of whether or not to obtain or manufacture items of a particular material or stylistic form” (Odess 1998:418). The appearance of overt individual and/or group visual displays generally is associated with marked changes in population density, resource abundance, and level of social and/or economic risk (e.g., Hayden 1994; Wiessner 1984, 1997, 2004). In this study, I examine the following three issues: 1) why exotic lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects were circulated and concentrated in specific ways at certain times; 2) why sites in some regions contain large numbers of similar objects, while sites in other regions contain largely dissimilar ones; and 3) why specific object forms and motifs were either geographically restricted or widespread at different times. I suggest that we can begin to explain these patterns by examining 1) the variability in degree of equality that is present in huntergatherer societies; 2) the kinds of information that hunter-gatherers transmit through circulated and decorated objects; and 3) the effect that social and environmental factors have on the use of visual expressions. 18 Variability in Hunter-Gatherer Social Organization and Equality Anthropologists recognize that the term “hunter-gatherer” subsumes much variability in population size and density, resource structure, mobility, and social and economic complexity (e.g., Binford 1980, 2001; Burch and Ellanna 1994; Feinman 1995; Kelly 1983, 1995; Owens and Hayden 1997; Price and Brown 1985; Speth 1990; Wiessner 2002b). In this study, though, I am most concerned with variability in the extent to which individuals and sub-groups advertise their economic resources and social identities, since those directly affect the intensity and form of the visual displays they use. Hunter-gatherer societies are “egalitarian” in that their members are born with relatively equal access to food resources, mates, and social- and decision-making roles (Fried 1960; Wiessner 2004). Some egalitarian societies strictly enforce economic and social equality, such that individual differences are consistently subordinated in the interest of group cooperation and the reduction of economic variance. That kind of social organization is particularly common in small groups that have high mobility and little potential for surplus production (Wiessner 2004). Such societies may allow for minimal technological or artistic innovations because individuals are prevented from advertising and capitalizing on their skills. However, other egalitarian societies allow for varying degrees of achieved inequality, such that some individuals are afforded higher status than others, either temporarily or over the long term, because of their capabilities and the benefits they provide to their social groups (e.g., Wiessner 1998b, 2002b). In those cases, individuals can draw attention to their skills and resources, and they may use “costly”, aggrandizing 19 displays to compete for higher social standing (e.g., Boone 2000; Hayden 1994). As such, egalitarian societies that allow for achieved inequality may be characterized by large-scale technological and artistic innovations and ostentatious visual displays, as all members of society use them to compete with one another. Achieved social inequality often is present in groups that have opportunities for surplus production, such as from mass hunting of migratory species, or that trade for goods essential to the social system (Hayden 1994, 1998; Wiessner 2004). However, because social competition among all individuals of a society can eventually tear the group apart, hunter-gatherer societies that allow for achieved inequality may eventually develop institutionalized hierarchy with ascribed status. For example, a group living in a resource-rich environment that supports “runaway” competition may develop a heterarchical structure, organized according to differences in age, sex, and social role, so that only members of the same class compete with one another (Clark and Blake 1994; Ehrenreich et al. 1995; McIntosh 1999; Wiessner 2004). Such complex hunter-gatherer societies have recently been termed “transegalitarian” since they are neither strictly egalitarian nor politically stratified, and are intermediate between generalized hunter-gatherers and chiefdoms (Hayden 1995; Owens and Hayden 1997). Standardization of social ranking may markedly decrease the level of individual and group visual signaling since there is no longer a constant struggle for power (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004), though members of specific social categories may use distinctive visual displays to reinforce their collective social standing. At the same time, people may emphasize cosmologically based ritual and iconography to maintain group 20 cohesion and to facilitate interactions among sub-groups (e.g., Conkey 1985; Mellars 1985; Potter 2000; Wiessner 2004). Qualities That May Be Signaled There have been numerous debates about the kinds of information with which object forms and decorations are imbued (e.g., Conkey and Hastorf 1990; Sackett 1982; Wiessner 1983; Wobst 1977). What seems to emerge from those debates, and from ethnographic studies, is that visual signaling through objects and decorations can be active or passive, purposeful or coincidental, and unifying or divisize, depending on the object, decoration, and social situation. In addition, single objects may carry multiple kinds of information, either simultaneously or at different times. In this section, I describe some of the different qualities that hunter-gatherers signal through circulated materials and decorated objects. Social Bonds and Relationships Many of the objects that hunter-gatherers circulate—particularly through gift exchange—signal bonds between people, and the specific forms and decorations of the objects may be less important than the actions of giving and receiving. In fact, gift exchange may be responsible for the circulation of a majority of exotic and decorative objects (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). The number of objects and the frequency of exchange may reinforce the strength of the relationship (e.g., Wiessner 1982b). The circulation of materials and objects to signal social bonds is particularly common in 21 hunter-gatherer societies in which people are geographically dispersed and must maintain long-distance social ties to mediate risk (e.g., Gould and Saggers 1985; Lourandos 1997; Wiessner 1982a, 1982b). Hence, a far-flung network of circulated materials and objects may simply indicate widespread inter-personal bonds. Connections to the Spirit World Hunter-gatherers may also use objects to signal their connections to the spirit world, either individually through small offerings, or collectively through group rituals (e.g., Eliade 1964; Freeman and González Echegaray 1981/82; Hayden 2003; Munn 1973; Tonkinson 1991; Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). In the former case, a few objects may be left in areas removed from living quarters (e.g., Bégouën and Clottes 1981; Gould 1969; Tonkinson 1991). In the latter case, signaling may occur on a much larger scale, in the form of rock art, symbols carved onto objects, or sanctuaries (e.g., Freeman and González Echegaray 1981/82; Lourandos 1985; Tonkinson 1991). Large-scale ritual signaling may occur most frequently in egalitarian societies characterized by achieved social inequality, because they require mechanisms for maintaining overall group cohesion despite intra-group competition. Individual Beauty, Personality, and Skills In hunter-gatherer societies in which individuals have opportunities to use personalized visual displays, materials and objects may signal artistic skills, personality traits, personal taste, or beauty (e.g., Gergen 1971; Ray 1961; Turner 1894, cited in Karklins 1992; Wiessner 1997). Because such displays are individual-specific, they may 22 be highly variable. Alternatively, they may follow general cultural guidelines, in terms of the kinds of materials or decorations available for use. Depending on cultural traditions, personal signaling may involve small numbers of objects (e.g., Tonkinson 1991) or large numbers of objects (e.g., Wiessner 1982b). Group Membership Hunter-gatherers may also signal group memberships through the use of common materials and object forms and decorations. That signaling can be active if people choose to use the same items, particularly to demonstrate their collective identity vis à vis that of others (e.g., Andrews 1994; Wiessner 1983). Alternatively, the signaling can be passive if it is a product of the education of subsequent generations in cultural traditions and rules for object creation (e.g., Sackett 1982). Group membership can be signaled at different social levels, from intra-societal age- and gender-groups to pan-regional cultural groups, depending on environmental conditions and social goals (e.g., N.C. David 1973; Davis and Prescott 1992; Gubser 1965; Tonkinson 1991). Achieved Status Hunter-gatherers in societies that allow for social inequality may signal achieved status, awarded to them because of their above-average personal qualities, skills, or accomplishments, their management or acquisition of differential resources, or their substantial contributions to society. It is generally leaders who organize group subsistence activities, warfare, and peace efforts, and shamans or religious leaders, who are awarded with higher social standing (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). In societies with 23 many available resources, though, another means of earning achieved status is demonstrating the ability to give away or waste large amounts of vital resources (e.g., Boone 2000; Zahavi and Zahavi 1997). Those costly signals show the amount of resources that certain individuals can expend in non-survival tasks, and demonstrate how effective those individuals will be as allies and mates (Zahavi and Zahavi 1997). Competing for achieved status therefore often involves extravagant displays of exotic and/or expensive items, and the individual control of resources (e.g., Boone 2000). The latter may be seen in the form of caches and materially rich burials (e.g., Karklins 1992; Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). Ascribed Status In transegalitarian societies characterized by institutionalized hierarchy, different materials and object forms and decorations may signal ascribed status. Hence, people of the same genders, age grades, or social roles may use the same visual displays as means of reinforcing both intra-group cohesion and inter-group distinction (e.g., Karklins 1992; Morice 1895 cited in Karklins 1992). The signaling of ascribed status may lead to the appearance of multiple groups of similar objects within one particular geographic region, with or without the kind of evidence for differential control of objects that is seen with achieved status. 24 Explanations for Visual Signaling There is a large body of literature that tries to explain how, why, and when humans use object exchange and visual display to signal different relationships, identities, and status positions (e.g., Conkey 1980, 1984, 1985; Conkey and Hastorf 1990; Gamble 1983; Madden 1983; Wiessner 1983, 1984, 1994, 1998a; Wilmsen 1973; Wobst 1974, 1977). I am concerned with two theories that explain how individuals relate to one another, using material objects. First, I discuss social psychology’s theory that social “identification via comparison” constitutes the underlying behavioral basis for style in material culture and makes it effective for socially informative visual displays (e.g., Wiessner 1989, 1990, 1997). Second, I present the biology-derived theory of “costly signaling” to explain how people may use visual displays to compete for social positions in societies that allow for achieved social inequality. To connect those theoretical approaches to real-world behaviors, I also outline Wobst’s (1977) predictions for the kinds of objects that most effectively signal individual and group identities in various contexts. Additionally, I draw from Wiessner (1997), Hodder (1979), Wilmsen (1973), and Madden (1983) to identify some factors that can affect social networks and signaling. Identification Via Comparison I rely heavily on Wiessner’s discussion (e.g., 1989, 1990, 1997), derived from the social psychology literature, of style as a material manifestation of the universal cognitive process of social identification via comparison. Wiessner defines “style” variably, as “a 25 form of non-verbal communication through doing something in a certain way that communicates information about relative identity” (Wiessner 1990:107), and “variation in material culture that is…attributed meaning” (Wiessner 1997:160). Rather than use the term “style”, however, I use the term “visual display” to refer to whole objects and/or decorations that people can use to actively or passively communicate various social qualities. In that way, I can discuss exotic materials and undecorated items of personal ornamentation, such as animal teeth and marine and fossil shells, as well as elaborately manufactured and decorated items such as contours découpés (cut-outs of thin bones) and carved spearthrowers. The phrase “social identification via comparison” (e.g., Wiessner 1989, 1990, 1997) refers to the way in which individuals define themselves in the contexts of others. We view ourselves and others, and we fill social, political, economic, religious, and other roles, based on our relative physical and mental characteristics, as well as on our kinship and other connections (e.g., Wiessner 1990). Likewise, we may purposely form groups of similar or complementary people, depending on the situation. When people create material culture, they use the same technique of comparison. They evaluate existing forms, decorations, and colors, and decide whether to replicate, modify, or invent their own objects and visual qualities (Wiessner 1997). The association of certain individuals or groups with particular objects and/or designs frequently influences people’s decisions about which of those directions to take (Wiessner 1990). Decisions can vary widely, even between teachers and students, depending on whether the individuals want or do not want to ally themselves with their mentors and families (e.g., DeBoer 1990; Forge 1967; Ray 1961). People also can use specific visual displays 26 to accentuate positive physical and mental characteristics, kin and social connections, and historical associations with objects or parts of the landscape (e.g., Gergen 1971; Gould and Saggers 1985; Karklins 1992; Oakes and Riewe 1995, 1998; Wiessner 1997). The theory of “identification via comparison” assumes that the relative ways in which people create and use visual displays mirror the ways in which they compare themselves with others. As such, “…style is a form of non-verbal communication through doing something in a certain way that communicates information about relative identity” (Wiessner 1990:107). Hence, by knowing something about the ways in which visual displays relate to one another, we can know something about the ways in which the people who make and use those objects relate to one another. Accordingly, we should be able to infer differences in individual and group social dynamics from spatial and temporal variations in archaeological patterns of visual displays (e.g., Hodder 1979; Macdonald 1990; Wiessner 1989, 1997). Specifically, diachronic increases or decreases in the amount of variability seen in certain visual displays present in a geographic area point to changes in proportions of individual versus group expression. Innovation and increased variability in visual displays over time likely denote increasingly acknowledged personal differentiation. In contrast, increased homogeneity and widespread distribution of specific motifs within an area probably denote assertions of group solidarity (Wiessner 1997). Wiessner (1989, 1997) cautions that we must account for other influences on visual displays, however. For example, spatial and temporal variations can be caused by changes in how people use specific objects, making them more or less subject to stylistic and social comparison (Plog 1990; Wiessner 1989). Accordingly, she suggests that we 27 must distinguish between decorated objects that appear to have social meaning and those that appear to lack it, before looking at changes in visual displays over time (Wiessner 1997). That is because artifacts that lack much social meaning are more likely to change through “drift” (Neiman 1995) than through active social transmission. I suggest, however, that rather than try to determine at the outset which archaeological visual displays had or did not have social meaning, archaeologists must make those interpretations after the fact, based on their distributions and on supporting archaeological evidence. Costly Signaling “Costly signaling” is “fundamentally a social strategic phenomenon that occurs when individuals in a population are dependent upon each other for the purpose of pursuing fitness-related goals, such as mating, cooperating, and competing for resources” (Boone 2000:86). In those situations, deciding which individuals to mate, cooperate, and ally with may be difficult, and mistakes in choice can be costly in terms of time, energy, resources, and genetic fitness. The sending and receiving of signals about individual talents, access to resources, and social power represent evolved efficiency in social interactions, in that they allow individuals to expend no more energy than necessary to determine the actual physical and social fitness of those they encounter (Boone 2000). Humans can use specific selection criteria, including visual displays, to amass honest information about specific characteristics of other individuals, and thereby rank them in relation to one another and determine their desirability as mates, food providers, informants, and leaders (Buss 1999; Zahavi and Zahavi 1997). It is the presence, at any 28 given time, of individual variations within common behaviors, appearances, and creations that leads to the continuous evolution of visual expressions through individual selection (e.g., Miller 2000). The displays send “honest” messages about the individuals’ resource reserves as long as those individuals of higher underlying quality (i.e., in terms of health, resources, social connections, etc.) pay lower marginal costs per incremental unit of display than those of lower quality (Boone 2000). Individuals with little available energy (or few resources) can afford to send only small displays, and whatever displays they do send represent a relatively large portion of their available energy. However, individuals with much available energy (or many resources) can afford to put on extravagant displays because they have more resources to begin with and because, relatively speaking, the energy they spend on them represents a fairly small percentage of their available resources (Boone 2000). Those who waste more are afforded higher status because “by wasting one proves conclusively that one has enough assets to waste and more” (Zahavi and Zahavi 1997:229). Ethnographic studies of several hunter-gatherer groups propose that those individuals who present the most ostentatious or largest or most elaborate displays are evolutionarily those most frequently selected as mates, allies, and cultural innovators (e.g., Bliege Bird and Smith in press; Bliege Bird et al. 2001; Blurton Jones et al. 1997; Hawkes and Bliege Bird 2002; Hill and Hurtado 1996; Holmberg 1969; Kaplan and Hill 1985). Those individuals are selected because they are known to have the highest underlying fitness and most social connections and resources, and because the information they display causes other individuals (“receivers”) to behave in ways that 29 benefit them. For example, receivers might not challenge the sender for leadership or mates because they have learned that the sender is braver, healthier, and stronger and will out-compete them anyway. Alternatively, receivers might choose the sender as an ally or mate because the sender has resources, information, or social connections that are complementary and beneficial to their own. Costly displays therefore benefit both senders and receivers (Boone 2000; Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Zahavi and Zahavi 1997). Examples of energetically “wasteful” visual displays include exotic or rare objects that are difficult, dangerous, or time-consuming to acquire; and elaborately decorated utilitarian items that require much time and skill to make. Those displays expose individuals to unknown and potentially dangerous people and landscapes, and require time and energy that could be put into manufacturing tools and acquiring food. By showing that they have the time, resources, and abilities to acquire and/or make such objects, people show others that they are economically and socially “secure” (e.g., Boone 2000). Likewise, when people in a society allow individuals to acquire, keep, and display such objects, they acknowledge that those individuals have personal, social, or economic qualities that are beneficial to other members of the society and that make them stand out (Bourdieu 1977; Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989). In addition to genetic fitness and personal skills, altruistic behaviors such as sharing food, resolving conflicts, and defending others provide concrete benefits to many people, and can be the basis for high status afforded to an individual by his or her society (e.g., Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Smith and Bliege Bird 2000). They also demonstrate the amount of resources that certain individuals can expend in non-survival tasks, and demonstrate how effective those individuals will be as allies and mates (Zahavi and 30 Zahavi 1997). Additionally, they provide social benefits by reducing intra-group aggression and maintaining complementary social relationships (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989). Archaeologically, it is impossible to determine exactly how “costly” certain objects were to acquire or make. However, we can identify the relative importance of visual displays at certain places and times, by assuming that more exotic, unusual, or technologically complex objects, and large numbers of similar objects, were more “costly” to acquire than were common, local, and simply made ones. Terms In my interpretations of Magdalenian object circulation and visual display, I use the terms “prestige” and “status”. Both refer to qualities afforded to people of high relative rank, and I use them when discussing the circulation of exotic raw materials and the creation of items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects. Prestige One way of expressing the value of other individuals is ascribing them prestige, generally in reaction to their demonstration of certain physical or behavioral characteristics. In this dissertation, I refer to prestige as respect accorded an individual by others. It reflects the degree of an individual’s dominance, or social quality, as recognized by others in the group (e.g., Henrich and Gil-White 2001; Zahavi and Zahavi 1997). This means that prestige is something that resides in people’s perceptions of an individual, rather than being something imposed by the individual. Prestige has real 31 evolutionary and social value because it can reduce competition between individuals by clarifying a “pecking order”. It affords dominant individuals easier access to resources and social connections and allows lower-ranking individuals to put their energy into food production and reproduction, rather than constant social competition (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Zahavi and Zahavi 1997). Status I refer to status as the relative position of an individual in a group. Status is predicated upon a combination of biological and social factors, including kinship, individual ability, social connections, and prestige. An individual cannot change his or her social status simply by signaling, since he or she is ascribed it by others (Boone 2000). As such, visual displays are honest material indicators of both an individual’s social connections and access to resources, and a group’s acceptance and confirmation of the individual’s position and prestige (Boone 2000; Bourdieu 1977). The ethnographic record is replete with examples of certain individuals wearing or using specific material objects as symbols of the status their societies have conferred on them (e.g., Erlandson 1994; Henrich and Gil-White 2001; Morice 1895, Murray 1910, and Turner 1894, cited in Karklins 1992). Prestige and high status often are related to the possession of exotic objects or the demonstration of skills in creating material objects (e.g., Helms 1988, 1991, 1993; Wiessner 1984). That is because the acquisition or creation of those objects requires above-average or unique underlying physical, mental, or social qualities in the individual (Boone 2000). 32 Predictions for Objects Used Under Different Social Conditions In his seminal paper, Wobst (1977) outlined some interrelated predictions for the kinds of objects that can effectively signal individual and group identities. First, those objects that are most visible, and that are seen by the largest number of people, such as clothing, headdresses, and ceremonial adornments, should carry the most information about group membership. Objects that are rarely or never seen by people outside a household or local group, such as underwear, bedding, and tools used by individuals in solitary tasks, should carry little or no information about social group affiliation. Rather, they should distinguish individuals from one another. As such, their stylistic details should vary widely, both within and across group social boundaries, with no clear spatial clustering. Second, the social information contained in visual displays depends on the geographic distance at which the visual displays can be seen. While visual displays that are distinguishable only at close range can effectively signal individuals’ positions within their local groups, others that are more visible at a distance are useful for signaling individuals’ memberships in larger social groups. Accordingly, those displays that are visible from some distance will have a relatively more extensive geographic distribution than those that must be viewed at close range (Wobst 1977). Factors Affecting Individual and Group Interactions It is important to interpret patterns of visual display in the contexts of population density, social stress, resource structure, and geographic distance, as all of those can 33 affect social dynamics and the balance of individual and group signaling (Wiessner 1997; Hodder 1979; Wilmsen 1973; Wobst 1977; Madden 1983). For example, people might create more individual displays when they have opportunities for personal gain due to resource abundance, when there is increased inter-individual competition for resources, or when there is a breakdown in the social order. People might be more likely to create group displays when there is much inter-group competition for resources due to population pressure or economic stress (Hodder 1979; Wiessner 1997). Wobst (1977) predicted that individuals should use fewer visual displays when they interact in small social networks, and more visual displays when they participate in large social networks. In other words, the degree of visual display should be related to the frequency of encounters with socially distant or unknown individuals. He also predicted that people living in areas in which there is much inter-group competition for resources and space should frequently use visual displays to distinguish between groups. Accordingly, the largest number of visual displays should appear in areas characterized by the most inter-group competition. In contrast, there should be fewer visual displays in areas inhabited by relatively stable, homogeneous populations with established territories and use rights (Wobst 1977). Wilmsen (1973) provided ethnographic evidence (e.g., Burch 1972; Helm 1965, 1968; Lee 1971; Marshall 1960; Steward 1938) that another factor affecting the extent and exclusiveness of social networks is food resource structure. Spatially stable resources, such as plants, shellfish, and herbivores that live in small groups within restricted ranges, can form the cores of small, bounded territories because small numbers of individuals can effectively harvest and control them. In contrast, spatially shifting 34 resources such as bison, horse, and reindeer are more likely to be at the heart of large, loosely defined territories because large numbers of people generally are necessary for acquiring them, and because people who depend on mobile, widely ranging game cannot be territorially restricted. Hence, contrasting resource structures can provide different opportunities for individual and group signaling, and different archaeological patterns of visual motifs (Wilmsen 1973). Madden (1983) created three models of different social network systems, which vary according to population density and distance among groups. First, at very low population densities, local groups must interact over large distances within relatively open and undifferentiated social networks. They cannot afford to signal membership in closed systems, so specific visual displays are not spatially clustered. Second, when groups become very widely separated, due to their progressive movements across the landscape, people may eventually choose not to expend energy on continuing to maintain social ties between them. At that point, visual displays formerly common to those groups may diverge passively. Third, when there are small distances between groups, and much overlapping of exploitation ranges and competition for resources, people may use distinctive visual displays to signal inter-group divisions. Summary In this chapter I have presented some theories and models for the circulation of raw materials and objects by hunter-gatherers. Those lead to predictions about archaeological patterns of visual display, according to population density and resource 35 structure. In the next chapter, I present some ethnographic examples of the uses of object exchange and visual display, in different social and environmental contexts, to establish real-world guidelines for my expectations about Magdalenian behavior. 36 CHAPTER 3: Ethnographic and Archaeological Examples of Visual Displays Introduction Much ethnographic evidence suggests that population density, on the one hand, and the frequency and kind of object exchange and visual display, on the other, are interrelated (e.g., B.L. Clark 1977; Fredrickson 1974; Lourandos 1985, 1997; Rick and Jackson 1992; Tonkinson 1991). Factors affecting population density include population size, topography, resource structure, economic strategy, and resource predictability (e.g., Mellars 1985; Tonkinson 1991). In turn, markedly low and high population density can lead to social stress, human movement, and variations in social network size. Those conditions can result in temporary and/or long-term situations in which societies find it advantageous to allow certain of their members to have and to display material correlates of differentiated social positions (e.g., Boehm 1999; Johnson 1982; Mellars 1985). Hence, population density and related social and environmental factors can affect the intensity of visual signaling and the relative proportion of individual versus group displays. In this chapter, I describe some different kinds of visual displays used by huntergatherers—to signal relationships between people, landscapes, and the cosmos; to advertise achieved or ascribed status; and to assert individual and group identity. I also discuss some ethnographic trends in the relationships among population density, resource structure, and social differentiation, on the one hand, and the intensity of visual signaling and the use of individual versus group displays, on the other. Finally, I provide a few 37 examples of how researchers have used those relationships to interpret archaeological changes in visual displays. Researchers frequently look to proto-historic and historic hunter-gatherers of Arctic and Subarctic North America for ideas about classic Magdalenian lifeways, given some commonalities in terms of cold climate and key food resources, such as reindeer (e.g., Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000; Bordes 1968; Gordon 1988; Nougier 1959; Rozoy 1989). Accordingly, I focus on those groups. In addition, because my expectations for Magdalenian social interactions are related to population density and rate of human encounter, I include some Australian Aboriginal groups of various population densities, and for comparison, coastal California groups with high population densities. At the same time, I provide a few examples from horticultural groups, to demonstrate human commonalities in patterns of visual display. Examples of Circulated Objects and Visual Displays Lithic Raw Materials Some hunter-gatherer groups select certain rare or exotic lithic raw materials for a variety of non-functional reasons, including visual effect, novelty, and connection with a sacred part of the landscape. The latter activity is common in egalitarian societies with enforced egalitarianism, such as those in low population density regions of Australia (e.g., Gould 1980; Gould and Saggers 1985). Geographically separated people who can claim spiritual or kinship association with the same distant locations may be able to maintain social bonds that are useful as insurance in times of need, and possession of 38 exotic materials from those locations may reinforce social ties (e.g., Silberbauer 1994). Accordingly, the circulation of small amounts of exotic lithic raw materials can be informative about small-scale social and symbolic bonds among humans, and between them and specific geographic locations. In contrast, the circulation of large amounts of exotic lithic raw materials, particularly when functionally comparable ones are available, may indicate their use as prestige goods by egalitarian societies that allow for achieved inequality (e.g., Hughes 1978; McBryde 1984). For example, the Yurok, Karok, Hupa, Wiyot, and Tolowa Indians of Northwestern California appear to have preferred exotic obsidians over locally available cherts, both because of their mechanical properties and because of their rarity. The exotic obsidians were integral parts of large-scale, hierarchical systems of wealth and ceremony in which Northwestern California groups participated (Hughes 1978). Items of Personal Ornamentation Members of most hunter-gatherer societies use at least some personal ornamentation, including jewelry, hair arranging, clothing, body painting, piercing, and/or tattooing (e.g., Hughes 1978; Oakes and Riewe 1998; Plomley 1977; Ritchie 1975). Archaeologically preserved materials include perforated animal and human bones, teeth, antler, and ivory, as well as historic trade items such as metal and glass (e.g., B.L. Clark 1977; Karklins 1992; Morice 1895, Murray 1910, and Turner 1894, cited in Karklins 1992; Ray 1961; Ritchie 1975; Schledermann 1975). Different colors, materials, arrangements, or combinations of objects may signify personal characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, social role, hunting prowess, economic or political 39 status, or spiritual power, as well as membership in various social groups (e.g., Morice 1895; Oakes and Riewe 1995, 1998; Ritchie 1975; Turner 1894; Weyer 1932). In egalitarian societies with enforced equality, use of personal ornamentation may be minimal or widespread. However, people generally discourage showing off, such as through the use of vastly different numbers of personal objects (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). In egalitarian societies characterized by achieved inequality, certain individuals may be allowed to wear markedly different numbers of items, or qualitatively superior items, in recognition of their skills and contributions to society (e.g., Wiessner 2002b). In transegalitarian societies with institutionalized social hierarchy, intra-group differences may be more clearly advertised, according to age grade, gender, or social role (Ehrenreich et al. 1995; Wiessner 2002b). For example, in the heterarchical Kutchin society in Canada and Alaska, men and women proudly wore nasal septum ornaments after they reached a particular age (Karklins 1992). In all cases, though, standard forms of personal ornamentation can demonstrate and reinforce group solidarity, despite subtle variations due to individual interpretations (e.g., Saitoti 1988; Wiessner 1989). Portable Decorated Objects Hunter-gatherers often incorporate artistic elements into everyday objects (e.g., D.W. Clark 1991; Ray 1977). Decorated tools include shaft straighteners; bone, antler, and ivory spearpoints; and needles and needle cases (e.g., D.W. Clark 1991; Ritchie 1975). Other portable objects include carved figures, religious paraphernalia, and message-relaying items (e.g., Gould 1969; Ray 1977). 40 In all kinds of egalitarian societies, decorations can convey information such as individual or group ownership, connections among people, hunting magic, artistic skill, spiritual protection and power, and practical knowledge (e.g., Gould 1969; Munn 1973; Oakes and Riewe 1998; Ray 1977; Wiessner 1983). For example, men in southeastern Australia carve message sticks with notches and other decorations signifying the sender, receiver, and message (Massola 1971). However, the use of certain forms of decorated objects, such as ritual paraphernalia, may be restricted to specialists in egalitarian societies that allow for some social inequality (e.g., Davidson 1989; Lourandos 1985). Some Factors Affecting Object Exchange and Visual Display Population Density and Population Size Population density can be described as the number of people consistently living in a specific geographic region. In other words, it describes a relationship between population size and land area. In Paleolithic Western Europe, at least, population density was largely a factor of topography and resource structure (e.g., Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000; Mellars 1985; Straus 1991a, 2000; Straus et al. 2000). Population size also is related to topography and resource structure, but it measures absolute numbers of people, rather than human spacing. Low population density and/or size lead to limited and unpredicted encounters among people, and fewer people who can create and pass on lasting traditions in material culture (e.g., Shennan 2001). They also mean a smaller audience, whose members know 41 one another intimately and may not need, want, or benefit from ostentatious and differentiating visual displays (e.g., Wiessner pers. comm. 2004; Wobst 1974). In contrast, high population density and/or size lead to frequent and predicted interactions among people, and more people who can create, obtain, and exchange objects, make innovations, and participate in ceremonies and competitions (e.g., Shennan 2001). They also result in a larger audience, which necessitates more ostentatious visual displays to effectively communicate individual and group information (e.g., Wobst 1974). Extremely high population density and very large population size are uncommon among historical hunter-gatherers, with the exception of some groups that were reliant on coastal resources (e.g., coastal California) and some modern groups that have been relocated to towns (e.g., !Kung San) (Erlandson 1994; Wiessner 1997). Some Magdalenian hunter-gatherer population densities and sizes may have been relatively greater than modern ones, though, particularly in areas of rich and concentrated resources such as Southwestern France (e.g., Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000; Mellars 1985) and Cantabrian Spain (e.g., Straus 1992a, 1992b; Straus and Winegardner 2000). In contrast to high, sustained population density, the periodic, seasonal, or activity-specific aggregation of hundreds of people was and is common in huntergatherer societies. Aggregations allow people to exchange materials, food, stories, information, ideas, and technology, to find mates, and to accomplish large-scale tasks. Aggregations also provide a social setting in which individuals learn diverse interpersonal skills and cultural norms for social interactions (e.g., Adams 1971). In some ways, they can be considered temporary situations of high population density and size, because many related and unrelated people live and work in close proximity for days or 42 weeks at a time and must negotiate with others for specific resources and mates (e.g., Burch, Jr. and Correll 1971). Resource Structure and Human Spacing Environmental conditions and associated resource structure can markedly affect the degree and frequency of object exchange and visual display, largely because they influence people’s movements around the landscape, population size, density, and spacing. For one thing, resource structure provides differential opportunities for interindividual and inter-group encounters, assistance, competition, and economic success. For another thing, settlements and populations generally are densest and, therefore, social boundaries and complexity greatest, in areas that are the richest in food resources (e.g., Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000; Erlandson 1994; Lourandos 1997; Schalk 1981; Tonkinson 1991; Weyer 1932). When population density is low and economic risk is high, people tend to pool resources to reduce variance and minimize competition, at least to some degree (Speth 1990; Wiessner 2004). Alternatively, when resources are abundant and assured within a society, people may relax egalitarian measures and allow for differential accumulation of resources, as long as the group continues to benefit (e.g., Wiessner 2002b, 2004). For example, historically there were significant regional variations in Aboriginal population size and density, social organization, competition, hierarchy, and boundary maintenance, according to different ecozones. In general, there were fewer social levels and less competition and boundary maintenance in arid areas with dispersed, unpredictable resources and low human population densities, such as the Western Desert. 43 In that region, there were no “cult lodges” for collective ritual meetings, and the linking of a social group to a particular animal, plant, or other entity was not important. Instead, totemic associations most significantly linked individuals to the spirit realm (Lourandos 1977, 1997; Tonkinson 1991). However, there was more social competition and boundary maintenance in wet areas with abundant and predictable (i.e., less mobile) resources and high population densities, such as Victoria, Arnhem Land, and western Cape York. In Arnhem Land and western Cape York, in particular, competition was sometimes emphasized on two levels—individually, among senior males, and collectively, among corporate groups such as clans. The latter jealously guarded ritual prerogatives and ritual property that constituted title to land, and inflicted grave punishment for offenses involving them (Davis and Prescott 1992; Lourandos 1977; Tonkinson 1991). The degree of boundary maintenance and the use of cross-cutting alliances varied during the year, though, depending on the seasonal abundance of resources and the corresponding spacing of human groups (Wills 1980). Degree of Social Competition and Inequality In addition to population density and distribution, social regulations about the acquisition and display of objects affect the intensity and nature of visual signaling by hunter-gatherers (e.g., Boehm 1999; Bourdieu 1977; Wiessner 1984, 1989, 1997). There appears to be a (complex) relationship among population density, resource structure, social competition, and the use of visual displays to complement social differentiation (e.g., Johnson 1982; Kosse 1990). 44 People in low population density groups, in particular, often make decisions through group consensus, and enforce social equality to reduce intra-group competition and, thereby, to mitigate social and economic risk. If populations and resources are dispersed, people may exchange items of personal ornamentation widely, as part of a social system designed to reinforce personal ties and reduce intra- and inter-group variance. If populations and resources are located fairly close to one another, people may circulate items less widely (Wiessner 2004, pers. comm. 2004). However, during conditions of short-term uncertainty, such as result from population movements, resource unavailability, or the pursuit of dangerous group activities, a strictly egalitarian society might temporarily allow one or more people to use distinctive visual displays indicative of their particular contributions to the group (e.g., Gubser 1965; Lourandos 1985; Oakes and Riewe 1998; Ritchie 1975; Wiessner 2004). In contrast, high population density groups often require more levels of organization for making decisions and obtaining resources (e.g., Johnson 1982; Kosse 1990; Wiessner 2002b, 2004). As such, they may allow for more achieved inequality than do low population density groups. Leaders, or certain age-, sex-, or task-related subgroups that provide benefits to the larger society, may be rewarded with tokens of their roles, in the form of markedly larger numbers or more expensive items of personal ornamentation. If competition and social inequality become too great, a formerly egalitarian society may develop institutionalized hierarchy, whereby the standardization of social roles reduces intra-group friction and reinforces group cohesion (e.g., Wiessner 2002b, pers. comm. 2004). Visual signaling within the society may be reduced significantly as 45 the number of people involved in social competition decreases. However, the group may still use visual displays of their collective identities and economic resources in interactions with other groups (e.g., Wiessner 1989). Ethnographic Examples Demonstrating Intensity of Visual Signaling For this study, intensity of visual signaling is the number of objects people use to communicate information about individual and group connections and identities, in relation to settlement density. Ethnographically, intensity of visual signaling appears to be correlated with population density and audience size, resource structure and human spacing, and degree of social inequality allowed in a society. Population Density and Audience Size When population density is low and audience size is small, people can rely on personal knowledge and limited numbers of visual displays to signal individual identities. However, when population density is high and audience size is large, and includes unfamiliar or foreign individuals, people must use larger numbers and more distinctive displays to differentiate themselves, both as individuals and as members of specific social groups (e.g., Grafen 1990; Kosse 1990; Wobst 1974). Examples of Low Population Density and Little Visual Signaling A small, isolated group of Sadlermiut Inuit living on Southampton and Coats Islands, to the north of Hudson Bay, at the end of the 19th century, were viewed with 46 disrespect by other, more numerous, Inuit because of their lack of trade goods, ornamentation, and well-made tools (Rowley 1994). Mardu hunter-gatherers, living at low population density in the northern Western Desert of Australia, wear very few personal adornments in everyday contexts. Women may wear small gum-tree nut decorations in the front of their hair, and men sometimes wear pubic pendants of pearlshell. It is only when they are engaged in ritual activities that they wear larger numbers of personal ornaments (Tonkinson 1991). Likewise, dispersed Tasmanian hunter-gatherers living at low population densities (Lourandos 1985) historically used minimal personal ornamentation. Women wore necklaces of small shells or necklets of furred skin, while men wore loops of twisted sinews loaded with ocher, and sometimes a pendant in the form of a dead friend’s jawbone (Plomley 1977). Examples of High Population Density and Intense Visual Signaling In Southeastern Australia, an area with rich resources and relatively high population densities, both sexes historically wore numerous kinds of personal adornments. Those included headbands of netted string; nose ornaments of kangaroo leg bone pieces, sticks of wood, or a few feathers; necklaces of human teeth fastened with vegetal gum to a collar made of strips of kangaroo skin; and cut reeds, snake vertebrae, or quandong nuts threaded onto fiber string. In addition, Aborigines in the region decorated most of their weapons with traditional patterns of herring-bone, concentric squares, rhomboids, diamonds, chevrons, and meanders (Massola 1971). 47 California coastal Indians historically had some of the densest populations known for hunter-gatherers, and they used large numbers of visual displays in the form of wellmade and decorated tools and ritual objects (Erlandson 1994). At the time of European contact, California contained some evidence for geographic differences in social complexity and intensity of visual display—particularly in the form of trade goods such as beads—from the arid and relatively less populous Great Basin west to the resourcerich and populous coast (Erlandson 1994; Fredrickson 1974). Examples of Aggregation and Intense Visual Signaling Human aggregations can represent temporary conditions of high population density, even among hunter-gatherers who live at low population densities for most of the year. As such, evidence from seasonal or special occasion aggregations helps to illustrate the relationship between population density and intensity of visual signaling. Many hunter-gatherer societies distinguish between the clothing, ornamentation, and tools used in everyday life, and those used on special occasions, such as large-scale hunts, parties, dances, weddings, political meetings, religious ceremonies, and initiations (e.g., Forge 1967; Gubser 1965; Oakes and Riewe 1998; Strathern and Strathern 1971; Tonkinson 1991). For example, everyday footwear used by the Even of Siberia often has less elaborate beadwork than that worn on special occasions, and it features only straight lines of decoration (Oakes and Riewe 1998). A widespread practice among northern Alaskan Eskimo groups and Siberian indigenous groups is to wear newly made clothing for ceremonial purposes (Oakes and Riewe 1998; Ray 1977). Gubser (1965) reports that Nunamiut and Point Barrow Eskimos had a huge joint feast before 1900, at which they 48 danced together, showing off their fanciest clothing and exchanging gifts (Gubser 1965). Likewise, historic Carrier Indians in central British Columbia generally wore very few personal adornments, but on ceremonial occasions when large numbers of people came together, they wore complicated and elaborate clothing decorated largely with dentalium shells (Morice 1895, cited in Karklins 1992). In such public contexts, everyone carefully observes and comments upon the relative physical appearances, clothing, and ornaments of different individuals (Gubser 1965). During inter-group ceremonies, Walbiri dancers in the Western Desert of Australia carry, among other things, decorated oval objects or poles of mulga wood and painted shields. Neither kind of object is preserved beyond the ceremony for which it is created (Munn 1973). Important Tiwi men on the Melville and Bathurst Islands off northern Australia carry huge, heavy, painted spears when they attend gatherings because those spears are symbols of their acknowledged wealth and status (Hart and Pilling 1979). These ethnographic examples suggest that archaeological interpretations of intensity of visual display must incorporate evidence for the spatial and temporal extent of population density. However, all things being equal, small numbers of visual displays in the archaeological record should indicate low population density and small audience size. Large numbers of visual displays, particularly in conjunction with evidence for differential possession of them (e.g., caches and burials), should indicate high population density and large audience size. Prehistoric aggregation sites may also demonstrate intense visual signaling, while other sites in the same region contain only limited evidence for it. Accordingly, it can be expected that most sites in regions with high 49 population densities demonstrate high levels of visual signaling, and differentiated visual signaling, while most sites in regions with low population densities contain low levels of visual signaling, or at least undifferentiated displays. Resource Structure and Human Spacing When resources are highly mobile, homogeneous, or spatially restricted, people must periodically move long distances, use multiple logistical camps, trade with distant people, and/or seasonally aggregate to harvest food resources (e.g., Binford 1978, 1980; Burch, Jr. and Correll 1971; Damas 1971; Gubser 1965). Many dispersed people also spend much time visiting relatives and sacred areas of the landscape, in part to maintain social ties and access rights upon which they can call in times of need (e.g., Chagnon 1997; D.W. Clark 1991; Gubser 1965; Jarvenpa 2004; Weyer 1932; Wiessner 1997). Those activities often engender long distance circulations of small amounts of diverse raw materials, and other individually important visual displays. Accordingly, all things being equal, small numbers of diverse circulated objects and visual displays in the archaeological record should be correlated with the use of highly mobile, unpredictable, and/or spatially restricted resources. In contrast, when resources are abundant, heterogeneous, and widespread, large numbers of people can satisfy most or all of their economic needs within relatively short distances (e.g., Erlandson 1994; Lourandos 1997; Straus 1990/91). In those cases, people are not so dependent on individual long-distance social ties and access to foreign resources. Rather, they may use their collective power to obtain large numbers of the same materials, and other groups of similar visual displays, as elements of economically 50 based social competition. Those activities can result in circulations of relatively large amounts of similar materials and objects from the same source areas. All things being equal, then, the presence of large amounts of certain raw materials and group-based visual displays in the archaeological record should be correlated with a reliance on predictable, heterogeneous, and spatially dispersed resources. Examples of Homogeneous Resources, Dispersed Populations, and Low Levels of Diverse Visual Displays Rather than using the closest available raw materials, or those available within regularly traveled areas, people living in dispersed populations frequently choose specific non-local materials over others, even if the materials are functionally equivalent. In some cases, people may even pretend that local materials are not available to them, so that they must maintain trade relations with other groups (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). Acquiring and circulating exotic materials can help dispersed people to maintain social ties and access to resources upon which they can depend in times of need (e.g., Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Gould 1980; Tonkinson 1991; Wiessner 1982b). For example, Eskimos of the Mackenzie region of Alaska historically traveled 200 miles above the head of the Delta, into hostile Indian country, to get stone for their weapons (Stefansson 1914 in Weyer 1932). The Arvilingjuarmiut of the Canadian Arctic, between Lord Mayor’s Bay and Committee Bay, directly collected a yellow flint from near Backs River, about 300 km away. They also acquired soapstone for lamps and cooking pots from the interior south of Pelly Bay, about 200 km away. In a different 51 direction, they found iron pyrites near the sea west of Lord Mayor’s Bay, perhaps 100 km from their core territory (Weyer 1932). Dispersed Australian Aborigines use small numbers of special objects and visual displays to reinforce their connections with sacred ancestors and landscapes from the Dreaming. For example, the most sacred and dangerous objects for the low density Mardu of the northern Western Desert are stones of varying size and shape that are revered as metamorphosed parts of the bodies of ancestral beings or as objects owned by them. Those few, unique objects are the collective property of estate-group men, who occasionally pass some of them to other estate-groups (Tonkinson 1991). Australian Aboriginal groups living at low population densities also collect and circulate some raw materials to emphasize sacred connections between small kin groups and specific parts of the landscape (Gould 1980; Gould and Saggers 1985). In the Western Desert and the Lake Eyre Basin, Aborigines historically circulated stone via complex kinship networks. In the Western Desert, men also obtained stone by traveling up to hundreds of kilometers to the source, using kinship ties for food, shelter, and assistance along the way. At a later time, the men’s female siblings bequeathed the valuable stones to their daughters (Lourandos 1997). In Africa, !Kung hunter-gatherers traditionally lived on the edge of the Kalahari Desert where important resources are distributed irregularly and are concentrated only in certain places. As one way of compensating for that resource structure, !Kung exchanged diverse goods and maintained distant social ties through hxaro trading networks that stretched over vast regions (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989). There is some evidence that the geographic reach of the networks has been correlated with local resource availability 52 (Wiessner 1994). In contrast to the !Kung, the !Ko live in the central Kalahari Desert, where plants and game are uniformly distributed. Accordingly, their alliances were traditionally limited in space (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989). In societies in which some social inequality is permitted, exotic materials often are linked to higher status (e.g., Helms 1988, 1991; Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). Certain materials may be considered more prestigious or effective than others because of their location in hostile territory, or their sacred associations (e.g., Helms 1988, 1993; McBryde 1984; Massola 1971; Stefansson 1914, cited in Weyer 1932). For example, inhabitants of parts of the North American Subarctic traded for scarce items that served as status symbols, such as dentalium shells from Vancouver Island (D.W. Clark 1991). In Australia, there is much evidence that individuals who acquired highly valued raw materials from great distances were respected, particularly if they had to enter the territories of mistrusted or feared alien groups to get those materials (McBryde 1984). However, even indirectly acquiring special materials through trade had its social benefits, since certain materials, fashioned by specific tribes, were regarded as more effective than those from other areas (e.g., Massola 1971; McBryde 1984). For example, magic rock crystals could be found in many places, but those originally traded by the tribe inhabiting the headwaters of the Murray River were considered more powerful than those obtained elsewhere. Similarly, red ocher obtained from another tribe was always considered stronger than that obtained from within a group’s own territory (Massola 1971). 53 Examples of Heterogeneous Resources, Dense Populations, and High Levels of Similar Visual Displays When there are diverse and abundant resources in relatively small areas, many people can live in close proximity to one another. However, they benefit from carving out group niches to ensure equal access to those resources. One way to do that is to use intense visual displays to advertise membership in groups that have rights to certain resources and parts of the landscape. For example, in humid and coastal zones of Australia, Aborigines mark boundaries between their territories using both oral traditions, songs, and ceremonies, and abundant symbolism such as body painting, bark painting and ground designs (Davis and Prescott 1992). In northern Australia, distinctive prehistoric and protohistoric regional rock art styles may have been connected with more closed social networks, and the exclusive identification of specific groups with specific geographic areas (Lourandos 1997). Another way to ensure group access to resources is to advertise collective economic power, such as through the control or acquisition of large amounts of certain materials (e.g., Erlandson 1994; McBryde 1984). For example, people living at high population densities can use visual displays of lithic raw materials and elaborately decorated crafts to reinforce their collective economic control (e.g., Hughes 1978; Lourandos 1997; McBryde 1984). In densely populated southeastern Australia, various groups protohistorically and historically circulated large numbers of greenstone axes as prestige tools. The greenstone traditionally was traded at specific places on the landscape, where large numbers of people met for such purposes. Different tribes controlled different quarries, so the acquisition of large amounts of certain materials 54 indicated good social relations with certain economically prestigious tribes (McBryde 1978, 1984). Degree of Social Inequality People living in egalitarian societies with enforced social equality discourage individuals from showing off through ostentatious visual displays. Individuals may use various personally significant items, and items appropriate to their various activities, but differences in personalities and skills are not correlated with marked differences in amounts of materials (e.g., Boehm 1999; Wiessner 2002a). The only people who may use distinguishing visual displays, particularly on special and dangerous occasions, are those who provide leadership or spiritual guidance to the community (e.g., Oakes and Riewe 1998; Ritchie 1975). In contrast, individuals or classes of people who provide benefits to the group in societies characterized by achieved social inequality often are allowed to amass and use larger numbers of visual displays, or consistently different kinds of visual displays, than those afforded less prestige (e.g., Bourdieu 1977; Erlandson 1994; Morice 1895, cited in Karklins 1992). For example, as mentioned above, multiple groups in the densely inhabited region of Southeastern Australia historically participated in large-scale trading networks for Kulin greenstone, for axes. The fact that the sizes of the raw materials and axes did not diminish with distance from the source points to the greenstone’s high value. In addition, production and circulation of the greenstone involved social hierarchies based on kinship ties, and included “owners”, “workers/managers”, and “specialist craftsmen” (McBryde 1984:272). 55 All things being equal, then, small numbers of visual displays, or numerically undifferentiated displays, in the archaeological record should indicate societies characterized by enforced egalitarianism. Large numbers of visual displays, or numerically differentiated displays, should indicate social competition and the presence of achieved social inequality. Examples of Limited Social Differentiation and Few Visual Displays In egalitarian societies with enforced equality, people may evaluate one another based on social, rather than material, characteristics. In those cases, visual displays have little meaning. For the Mardu of the northern Western Desert of Australia, the few hair ornaments worn by women and pubic pendants worn by men suffice as visual complements to people’s genders. Because Mardu assess an individual’s worth by his or her willingness to follow the Dreaming design, creativity and intensity of visual display are socially irrelevant and undesirable (Tonkinson 1991). In egalitarian societies that allow for achieved inequality, visual displays may signal or accentuate various personal and social characteristics, such as beauty, age, gender, and social role. For example, Eskimo whaling captains historically wore singular badges of their high status office, in the form of distinguishing hats with ivory ornaments attached to their crests (Ritchie 1975). Siberian Evenki shamans and those of the Amur region historically attached some wooden and metal images of unique spirit protectors, such as tigers, fish, and humanoid figures, to their clothing (Oakes and Riewe 1998). 56 Examples of Marked Social Differentiation and Many Visual Displays In egalitarian societies with marked social competition, and in transegalitarian heterarchical societies, visual displays can demonstrate people’s unequal access to economic resources. For the Babine, a Carrier sub-group involved in early trade with Europeans in central British Columbia, different kinds of earrings were indicators of rank, gender, and social role; men of nobility frequently wore expensive silver earrings, while men of lesser distinction had to wear earrings of less desirable materials, and women were restricted to abalone shell ear pendants. In contrast, people who possessed shamanic powers could wear large necklaces containing many dentalium shells (Morice 1895, cited in Karklins 1992). The fur-trading Micmac of eastern Canada equated large earlobe holes in men and women with beauty because they allowed for the wearing of large, expensive earrings (Karklins 1992). For the Kutchin of northwestern North America, Russian trade beads were evidence for economic stability, as well as beauty enhancers. Men, especially those who were not excellent hunters, needed large numbers of beads to offer to prospective wives. A man could not become a chief until he had accumulated “200 skins worth of beads” (Murray 1910:86, cited in Karklins 1992), and leaders in general needed to have particularly large numbers of trade items or special materials to show that they had the personal and economic resources necessary to fulfill their positions (Karklins 1992). High population density California coastal Indian societies were characterized by institutionalized hierarchy, based in large part upon the control of economic resources such as trade goods (Erlandson 1994). For those California groups, beautifully wrought tools and ritual objects suggested affluence and the ability to support economic 57 specialization, and individuals could accumulate lasting wealth and status (Erlandson 1994). Many California Indian societies were stratified, with individuals classed as “elite”, “bureaucrats”, “religious functionaries”, “commoners”, “poor”, “slaves”, or “drifters” (Moratto 1984:5). The general populace attributed much prestige to craft specialists such as expert traders, basket weavers, and bead makers (Moratto 1984). Numerous historical tribes in northwestern California emphasized wealth and elaborate ceremonies, and obsidian was one of many expensive and/or rare items traded. The distance involved in obtaining large obsidian blades—up to an incredible 30 inches long—added to their value. Ceremonial obsidian bifaces were considered so prestigious that they were passed from father to son and were retained as heirlooms. Their owners usually concealed them from day to day, and then ostentatiously displayed them during public dances to advertise their wealth (Hughes 1978). Ethnographic Examples of Individual Versus Group Visual Displays The emphasizing of individual versus group visual displays appears to be correlated with population density, as well as with opportunity for social competition. When population density is low, mobility is high, and inter-group competition is minimal or inconsistent, visual displays that distinguish one group from another may be unimportant or undesirable. However, people may be allowed to decorate tools in unique ways, or collect and exchange various items that communicate individual identities and social bonds (e.g., Gubser 1965; Ray 1961, 1977; Tonkinson 1991). Gift exchange of personally significant items is a common way for people at low population densities to 58 circulate small amounts of diverse materials over sometimes large distances (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). Hence, there may be marked variation in visual display if different people make, use, and exchange objects that are personally significant, such as talismans, unusual raw materials, and unique decorations. In contrast, high regional population density and low mobility often are correlated with inter-group competition for resources. In those situations, people often use visual displays that are relatively uniform and striking, and that distinguish them from members of competing social and cultural groups (e.g., Wiessner 1989). That can result in multiple kinds of similar visual displays, particularly at borders between societies (e.g., Wiessner 1989). Accordingly, all things being equal, variation in small-scale archaeological visual displays should indicate the assertion of individual identities. Large-scale similarity in archaeological visual displays should indicate the assertion of group memberships. Examples of Individual Visual Displays Hunters frequently wear amulets to protect themselves and to communicate with their individual totem spirits. For many north Alaskan groups, portable decorated objects traditionally included hunting talismans, shamans’ totems or tools, figures to commemorate certain events, charms that were passed down over the generations, and personal amulets (Ray 1977). Siberian Yupik hunters carried personalized protective bundles, containing ivory or wooden carvings of whales, seals, bears, foxes, and dogs, in their walrus skin boats. In addition, they spoke to their individual helping spirits by carving artistic images of them on their tools and weapons (Oakes and Riewe 1998). 59 In the northern Western Desert of Australia, all initiated Mardu males and many women have their own personal bundles of special objects that they usually carry with them on their yearly rounds. Non-secret objects include hair-string bands, pearlshell pendants, bird-feather bundles, eaglehawk down, ocher, spinifex gum, and small stone knives used in ritual operations. Magic objects include polished stones, small bullroarers, and sometimes love-magic charms. Occasionally men hide specific ritual objects at particular locations, retrieving them only when they need them. Men frequently discover new objects and receive others through exchange, so when men of multiple bands encounter one another, they often display, contemplate, and talk about the unique objects that each possesses (Tonkinson 1991). Sorcerers in the Gibson Desert of western Australia also carry kits containing personal magical objects, such as bits of pearl shell, quartz crystals, tektites, and man-made items such as old eyeglass lenses somehow acquired from White men (Gould 1969). Walbiri Aborigines in the Western Desert of Australia occasionally paint unique designs on boards for individual protection (Munn 1973). Men in the sparsely populated Gibson Desert in western Australia carve a variety of incised designs into their spearthrowers, usually to represent a series of named water sources, and sometimes other landmarks, along the track of a mythical totemic ancestor (Gould 1969). Hence, the designs are visual displays of the individuals’ relationships to sacred parts of the landscape, as well as mnemonic devices for recalling sacred traditions in their correct sequences (Gould 1969). Some hunters also wear items of personal ornamentation to increase and/or to demonstrate their personal success. Weyer (1932) reported that Eskimos in general, 60 living at relatively low population densities, historically used fetishes and amulets derived from animals, with the desire to acquire the admirable qualities possessed by those animals. In addition, they valued articles that had belonged to or had been in contact with fortunate hunters, in the hopes that they would have similar success (Weyer 1932). Siberian Yupik women help their men to have successful hunts by communicating with the spirits of the animals through, among other things, their elaborately decorated clothing (Oakes and Riewe 1998). Aboriginal hunters in southeastern Australia historically decorated their spearthrowers with designs that had the magical power to enable them to throw their spears accurately. Likewise, the designs men put on their clubs, such as totemic animals and spirit ancestors, were meant to render their clubs deadly (Massola 1971). Walbiri Aborigines in the Western Desert of Australia also use some designs on tools for hunting, to aid in catching game (Munn 1973). Northern Alaskan hunters historically carved ivory tallies with lines or pictures of animals to show their hunting successes, and they carved images of particularly good or memorable hunting trips or other important events on ivory (Ray 1977). For the Montagnais-Naskapi of Quebec and Labrador, successful hunters advertised their skills by wearing remnants of the dangerous animals they killed. The amulets also were tallies of the wealth that the hunters acquired through trading the pelts of those animals (Turner 1894, cited in Karklins 1992). 61 Examples of Group Visual Displays Visual displays used in contexts of high population density and aggregations frequently include group-specific decorations and similar objects. For example, men in densely populated southeastern Australia ornament most of their weapons with patterns of herringbone, concentric squares, rhomboids, diamonds, chevrons, and meanders that are traditional to different regions (Massola 1971). To distinguish themselves and their sub-territory from others in Central Australia, the Watarrka historically identified strongly with a very specific symbol of a native cat. They put the symbol in a number of locations along the Dreaming track and used it in various aspects of their lives (Davis and Prescott 1992). Because they represent temporary conditions of high population density, aggregations often feature group assertions of identity vis à vis other groups. For example, during intervalley exchange and feast dances, when large numbers of people come together, Eipo swidden horticulturalists in New Guinea use similar, valuable personal ornaments such as bird-of-paradise feathers, cassowary feathers, and nassa shell headbands, to demonstrate their groups’ wealth and strength (Wiessner 1989). Likewise, throughout Australia, different tribes and lineages demonstrate the corporateness of their groups and their territorial responsibilities through the specific ritual emblems and paraphernalia they reveal to initiates in the course of ceremonies (Davis and Prescott 1992). 62 An Example of Situation-Specific Change From Individual to Group Signaling Like aggregations, large-scale cooperative hunting events by multiple groups represent temporary situations of high population density. Weapon decorations used by prehistoric and historic Alaskan Eskimos for individually obtained versus collectively killed sea mammals provide an example of how people may change their visual displays in accordance with such spatially and temporally restricted changes in population density. Traditionally, Eskimos frequently marked certain kinds of hunting implements with diverse arrow-type signs signifying ownership. The signs appeared almost exclusively on hunting weapons of the kind that remained embedded in the bodies of the animals, such as whale harpoons, some walrus harpoons, sealskin buoys attached to harpoons, lance heads used for killing sea mammals, sea otter arrows, and detachable arrowheads. It appears that the type of animal hunted largely determined whether the ownership mark pertained to an individual, a boat’s crew, a family, a house group, or a village. Diverse marks appeared on arrows used for animals that could be killed by one or a few hunters, such as caribou, sea otter, small animals, and birds. In contrast, many whale harpoons bore the same property mark, suggesting that the marks communicated village or community ownership in contexts where several villages came together seasonally to hunt whales (Weyer 1932). Archaeological Interpretations of Changes in Visual Displays In the previous sections, I provided ethnographic examples of the relationship between population density and degree of social inequality, on the one hand, and people’s 63 uses of visual displays, on the other. Below, I present a few archaeological case studies in which researchers used temporal variations in visual displays, together with evidence for population density and economic strategy, to infer changes in social interactions. Intensity of Visual Display An example of the effect of changing resource structure and human spacing on intensity of visual display comes from the North American Arctic Thule Eskimos and their descendants, the Caribou Eskimos (B.L. Clark 1977). During the Classic Thule phase (AD 900-1200), people practiced economic specialization in the form of intensive exploitation of whales. People lived semi-sedentary lives, staying in permanent whalebone houses in the winter, and expended much effort in carefully making and often decorating their various tools. They also seem to have used a large number of personal ornaments, such as perforated teeth, ivory and bone beads, ivory pendants, and slate pendants, and they made beautiful gaming figures. In contrast, during the following Modified Thule (AD 1200-1610) and Historic Thule (AD 1610-1775) phases, people diversified their resource activities by hunting caribou, seals, walrus, and some whales, and by fishing. They also lived more nomadic lives, spent less time making and decorating tools, and used fewer items of personal ornamentation. During the Caribou Eskimo period, people returned to economic specialization, first by hunting caribou, and then by trapping intensively for commercial reasons. They also lived in more permanent settlements. However, in contrast with people of the 64 Classic Thule phase, they made simple, undecorated tools and virtually no art (B.L. Clark 1977). While B.L. Clark (1977) and McGhee (1974, cited in B.L. Clark 1977) use the lack of artistic evidence to propose that there is no simple correlation between the degree of artistic productivity and the nature of economic and settlement patterns, I suggest that differences in the latter are related to social competition through object exchange and visual display. Clark does not mention whether Caribou Eskimos substituted European goods and/or money for formerly handcrafted items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects, but I would guess that was the case. Economic specialization, combined with high population density and opportunities for differential success, provides a context for social competition and hierarchy. Those are mirrored and enhanced by intensive object exchange, personal ornamentation, tool decoration, and art production (e.g., Erlandson 1994; Wiessner 1984, 1997). Visual Displays Related to Social Competition Lourandos (1985) provides an example of the effects of population density and social competition on visual displays in Australia. Over approximately 4,000 years before European contact, Aboriginal populations steadily increased throughout the ecologically diverse mainland. Lourandos suggests that population increases were concomitant with increased sedentism and associated changes in settlement patterns and population density. At the same time, people expanded their ranges of resource activities, participated in more frequent and extensive ceremonial and trade networks, and developed new lithic types and a new rock art style. 65 For Lourandos (1985), the increasingly intensive exchange networks suggest a greater degree of individual and group competition for prestige through visual displays of non-local objects. The changes in art styles suggest a change in social structure, from a two-tiered system of those who controlled esoteric knowledge versus the general populace, to a multi-tiered system in which many more people used art to communicate ideas on both esoteric and secular levels. Individual Versus Group Visual Displays Rick and Jackson (1992) provide an example of the effects of population density on the prevalence of individual versus group visual displays in prehistoric inland California. During the Upper Archaic (beginning before ca. 2400 BP), when population densities were relatively low and most groups probably did not defend specific territories, individuals and family groups carried out most long-distance exchanges by periodically moving to the villages of their trading partners. Those small-scale visits engendered individual and familial variability in the objects traded. However, in the later “Emergent” period (beginning ca. AD 500), with greater population densities and more circumscribed sociopolitical groups actually defending specific territories, individual trading forays became dangerous. As a result, individual interactions largely gave way to formal inter-societal political and economic relationships, conducted principally through political and ceremonial leaders. Hence, with denser populations, exchanges became more difficult and more homogeneous because of social barriers and group boundaries. In addition, the rise of craft specialists led to more intra-group standardization of visual displays (Rick and Jackson 1992). 66 Summary From the preceding evidence, it is clear that hunter-gatherers collect and exchange raw materials, wear items of personal ornamentation, and create portable decorated objects for a wide variety of reasons and in diverse contexts. However, some patterns in the uses of visual displays do emerge. First, at low population densities, and in their daily lives, people often use small numbers of diverse, individualistic displays to demonstrate their unique qualities, skills, and connections. That can lead to much variation in visual display within and between regions. In contrast, at high population densities, or during aggregations, people often use large numbers of highly visible displays to demonstrate intra-group commonalities and inter-group differences. That phenomenon can lead to the creation and/or deposition of clusters of similar forms of visual displays. If multiple groups are present at an aggregation site, each may leave a different group of similar objects (e.g., Conkey 1980). Second, when resources are dispersed and groups are highly mobile, people often use visual displays to emphasize their similarities with and individual connections to distant kin and special parts of the landscape. That can lead to widespread distributions of small numbers of particular materials and decorations. In contrast, when resources are more predictable and groups are less mobile, people frequently use visual displays to signal collective intra-group access to valuable resources. That can lead to temporally and spatially consistent circulations of large numbers of specific materials and objects. Third, when egalitarian social measures are enforced, people are strongly discouraged from using markedly different kinds and amounts of visual displays. That 67 generally results in a low overall use of visual displays, or at least numerically undifferentiated displays. In contrast, when egalitarian measures are relaxed, people can amass vastly different kinds and amounts of visual displays. That often leads to a dramatic increase in overall intensity of visual display, and numerically differentiated visual displays. Fourth, members of societies that are characterized by low population density, unpredictable resources, and little inter-group competition may use predominantly individual visual displays of social and cosmological bonds, with few or no overt group displays. That can result in great variation in visual display. In contrast, members of societies characterized by high population density, predictable resources, and frequent inter-group competition often emphasize group displays, to distinguish themselves from other groups. That can lead to the deposition of common forms of visual displays. Similar behavior may occur during aggregations, even if the people involved usually live at low population densities. Archaeologically, then, aggregations may also result in concentrations of large numbers of multiple kinds of similar objects, each associated with a different group. Still, the above trends in behavior vary along a continuum, as governed by combinations of social, environmental, and historical conditions. In the next chapter, I describe the spatial and temporal differences in population density, topography, and resource structure in Western Europe during the Magdalenian (ca. 17-11,000 BP). I predict that those diverse conditions led to variations in intensity of visual display and in the preponderance of individual versus group visual displays. 68 CHAPTER 4: Magdalenian Chronology and Environment Introduction The Magdalenian (ca. 17,000-11,000 BP)1 is one of the best-dated and most intensively investigated culture-stratigraphic divisions of the Upper Paleolithic (ca. 40,000-10,000 BP) in Western Europe. Common cultural elements included a blade- and bladelet-based lithic technology; an abundant and diverse osseous industry; items of personal ornamentation such as perforated animal teeth, bones, marine and fossil shells, and minerals; and a great variety of portable decorated objects and cave and rock art depicting naturalistic and schematic animals, humans, plants, and geometric designs. At their maximum archaeologically recognized extent, Magdalenian materials were distributed from Portugal to southern Poland, and from the western Mediterranean to the still-dry North Sea (e.g., Kozlowski 1989; Straus 2000; Svoboda 2000). Other contemporary cultures “related” to the classic Magdalenian are found in Portugal, Mediterranean Spain, Italy, England, Poland, and the Czech Republic, but they are not included in this study. The Magdalenian was characterized by continuous occupation of southwestern regions, as well as substantial human population expansion, and the re-colonization of northern and upland areas of Western Europe. People widely shared raw materials, items ________________________ 1 All dates are given in uncalibrated radiocarbon years. Calendrical ages in the Magdalenian time range are approximately 1,000 to 1,500 years older. 69 of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated object forms and motifs, despite diverse topography, resource structure, population density, and social organization. Some researchers (e.g., Enloe 2000a; Jochim 1983; Mellars 1985) argue that socially complex hunter-gatherers occupied resource-rich areas of Southwestern France, in particular. The contrasts in social organization between those groups, and perhaps more egalitarian groups in areas that featured less predictable resources, probably resulted in different spatial and temporal trends in the archaeological patterning of visual displays. The Magdalenian provides an excellent opportunity to investigate prehistoric hunter-gatherer social interactions across space and time, as there are hundreds of known archaeological sites, abundant radiocarbon dates, many well-documented raw material source locations, and numerous studies of decorated objects. In this chapter, I outline the chronology and climate of the Magdalenian. Then I discuss topography, resource structure, and human population distribution in the many naturally and culturally defined regions of Western Europe included in this study. Chronology First recognized and defined as a result of Lartet and Christy’s work at La Madeleine, France, in 1863 (Laville et al. 1980), the Magdalenian eventually was divided into seven culture historical divisions, designated by Roman numerals (Charles 1996). Henri Breuil (1912), principally, and later Denise de Sonneville-Bordes (1966), defined those divisions mainly in the Périgord region of Southwestern France, based on lithic and 70 bone tool “diagnostics”. Because the entire French Magdalenian sequence is not found in any one site, Breuil used two Périgord sites in combination to define it. Deposits at Laugerie-Haute Est were the basis for the “Lower Magdalenian” stages I-III, while those at La Madeleine were the basis for the “Upper Magdalenian” stages IV-VI and the Azilian “Epi-Magdalenian” stage (Capitan and Peyrony 1928; Gamble 1986). Magdalenian 0 (subsequently added) and Magdalenian I assemblages often are referred to as “Badegoulian,” after the site of Badegoule, where a somewhat distinctive cultural unit first was distinguished (e.g., Allain and Fritsch 1967; Laville et al. 1980; de Sonneville-Bordes 1966). Characterized by an abundance of lithic flakes and “raclettes”, Badegoulian assemblages seem to exhibit a real typological discontinuity with those of later Magdalenian phases (de Sonneville-Bordes 1989; González Echegaray 1996; White 1987). While the preceding Upper Paleolithic culture historical divisions were based mainly on lithic “fossil directors”, most of the Magdalenian stages were defined and identified largely according to osseous artifacts, i.e., those made of bone, antler, and ivory. That is because, according to seminal researchers (Bordes 1958; de SonnevilleBordes 1966), osseous tools changed over time, while Magdalenian lithic assemblages from stages II to VI contained tools of homogeneous types and proportions, at least in the Périgord. Exceptions were a few diagnostic types that emerged at the end of the sequence (e.g., star-shaped micro-perforators, Lacan burins, stemmed and shouldered points). Rather than dramatic changes in form, temporal trends in Magdalenian lithics were toward an economization in the use of raw materials—demonstrated by increasing 71 percentages of small, often backed, bladelets and other microliths—plus some “specialized” regional weapon types (Gamble 1986). However, further research has demonstrated considerable inter-assemblage variation in tool proportions that does not pattern temporally (e.g., Laville et al. 1980; White 1982, 1985). In addition, radiocarbon dates are sometimes similar for “early” and “late” Magdalenian lithic assemblages, such as at the site of Le Flageolet (Rigaud 1979). This suggests that lithic industries actually overlapped substantially in composition (Straus 1992a). Lower Magdalenian assemblages (ca. 17,000-14,500 BP) generally contain a variety of osseous forms, including distinctive spear or javelin points and “wands” (Laville et al. 1980). Middle Magdalenian assemblages (ca. 14,500-13,000 BP) often contain proto-harpoons and a quantity of other time-sensitive osseous artifacts, including perforated and decorated contours découpés (cut-outs of thin bone) (e.g., Clottes 1989; González Sainz 1989; Utrilla 1982). Upper Magdalenian assemblages (after ca. 13,000 BP) normatively are defined by the presence of “true” (i.e., markedly barbed) roundsection antler harpoons. Breuil (1912) originally postulated that the true harpoons followed an orderly succession of sub-types over time (Laville et al. 1980), but they actually are somewhat temporally overlapping in both Cantabria and Gascony. In those regions, “Lower/Middle Magdalenian” assemblages lack such fossil directors. Assemblages dating from 13,000 up to ca. 12,000 BP universally are attributed to the Upper Magdalenian. However, beginning around the onset of the Allerød, ca. 11,800 BP, the divisions of material culture become more complex. Assemblages that date to Allerød times and the succeeding Dryas III (ca. 10,800-10,200 BP) have been labeled either “Final Magdalenian” or “Azilian”. Some individual assemblages have been 72 assigned to both units, at different times, when they lack either harpoons or secondary fossil directors such as portable decorated objects, or painted or engraved cobbles, respectively (Straus 1991a). The increased material complexity might reflect 1) an even greater degree of “ethnic” variability among roughly contemporaneous assemblages than previously, and/or 2) a greater diversity of site types or functions, even if the site locations remained approximately the same. In different ways, many researchers (e.g., Bahn 1983a; Clottes 1989; González Echegaray et al. 1963; Laville et al. 1980; de Sonneville-Bordes 1966; Straus 1992a) have challenged Breuil’s original subdivision scheme and its applicability in areas outside of the Périgord. While the Périgord sequence has been applied to virtually every part of Western Europe, more recent research has shown that each region had its own distinctive characteristics and series of technological and artistic developments (e.g., Bahn 1983a; Gamble 1986; Laville et al. 1980; Straus 1992a). As a result, temporal transitions among early (Lower), middle, and late (Upper) Magdalenian occupations vary according to region and researcher. For example, some assemblages labeled “Upper Magdalenian” in the Cantabrian region date back as far as 14,000 and even 15,000 BP (e.g., Tito Bustillo). In Gascony, they can date in excess of 13,000 BP (e.g., Espèche and Espélugues). Accordingly, Straus divides the Cantabrian Magdalenian into two essentially temporal phases: Early (17-13,000 BP) and Late (13-11,000 BP). Sites dating to the early phase generally lack true harpoons, while those dating to the late phase often contain them (Straus 1991a). However, some researchers are beginning to define a Cantabrian “Middle Magdalenian”, based on the presence of a few distinctive forms of decorated objects that are present in 73 sites in the French Pyrenees during that time (e.g., I. Barandiarán 1988; Corchón 1997, 2000; Utrilla 1987). Tito Bustillo in Cantabrian Spain is an example of such a site. While it contains “true” harpoons and should, therefore, be termed “Upper Magdalenian”, it also contains multiple examples of “Middle Magdalenian” Pyrenees type decorated objects. Additionally, it has yielded many radiocarbon dates in the range of ca. 13,000-15,000 radiocarbon years BP (Djindjian 2000; Moure Romanillo 1997; Straus 1992a). I acknowledge the discrepancies among “fossil director” artifacts, and the possible effects of a 14C dating plateau, but for the purposes of this study, I consider its Magdalenian levels to date to the “Middle” phase. To mitigate the effects of such regionally disparate terminology, I use as many radiocarbon dates taken on individual, humanly modified objects as possible. In combination with traditional cultural phase attributions, I use them to assign different site levels to one of three cross-regional temporal phases—Lower Magdalenian (ca. 17,00014,500 BP), Middle Magdalenian (ca. 14,500-13,000 BP), or Upper Magdalenian (ca. 13,000-11,000 BP). Climate There are several traditionally recognized palynological phases within the span of the Magdalenian, though the presence and timing of those phases vary somewhat by location. More recent research, especially when compared with studies of seabed cores, has questioned the existence of some of the phases (e.g., Angles, Prebølling, Dryas II). 74 In addition, it has suggested that Magdalenian climates were characterized by much fluctuation in humidity and temperature, even within specific phases, and particularly during Bølling and Allerød (e.g., Leesch 1993a; Sánchez Goñi 1996). As such, I present the approximate temporal attributions of classic regional palynological phases in Table 4.1, with the disclaimer that their existence and timing is controversial. Climatologically, the Magdalenian occurred during the Würm Tardiglacial, which began after the Last Glacial Maximum ca. 18,000 BP, and ended with the temporarily cold conditions of Dryas III ca. 10,800 BP (Straus 1991a). The Tardiglacial has been divided into six main climatic phases—Lascaux, Dryas I, Bølling, Dryas II, Allerød, and Dryas III. While they were alternating periods of warmer/more humid and colder/drier climates, they represented a gradual overall rise in global temperatures, culminating in the generally warm, humid Holocene (Antoine 1997; Eriksen 2000; Rensink 1993; Straus 2000; Thévenin 2000). The Lascaux oscillation was a period of climatic amelioration, with increased humidity and a brief, limited growth of woodlands. Dryas I marked a return to cold conditions, with decreased humidity, albeit punctuated by short, warmer phases (Straus 1992a, 1992b). The Bølling was again more temperate and humid, while the locally variable Dryas II was another brief, unevenly represented return to colder conditions. The subsequent Allerød saw significant humidity, warming, and reforestation (Straus 1997a). Together, the Bølling and Allerød often are considered to be the Late Glacial Interstadial, as they were characterized by the development of climatic conditions approaching those of an interglacial, including considerable reforestation at lower 75 Table 4.1. Classic Palynological Phases During the Magdalenian "?" signifies questionable existence N Spain/Pyrenees SW France S Germany/N Switzerland N France/Belgium Netherlands Straus 1991a, 1990/91 Leroi-G & R-M 1977 Eriksen 2000 Antoine 1997; Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 17000+ Lascaux Dryas Ia Lascaux Lascaux Dryas I 16,000 Angles (?) Angles (?) 15,000 Dryas Ib Dryas I Dryas Ia Prebølling (?) Prebølling (?) Prebølling (?) Dryas Ib 14,000 Dryas Ic Bølling 13,000 Bølling Bølling Bølling Bølling Dryas II (?) Dryas II (?) 12,000 Dryas II (?) Older Dryas Allerød Allerød Allerød Allerød Allerød 11,000 Dryas III Dryas III Dryas III Dryas III Dryas III 10,000 Preboreal Preboreal Preboreal Preboreal latitudes (Cordy 1991; Straus 1996). The Dryas III “cold snap” was marked by a definite retreat of arboreal vegetation and an increase in such periglacial geomorphological processes as frost-weathering in caves (Straus 1991a). According to ocean- and ice-core evidence, that Heinrich event occurred within the course of only a few human generations (Bard et al. 1990). Changing climatic conditions led to diachronic variations in flora and fauna and, undoubtedly, influenced human technology, mobility, and population density. However, researchers have identified few, if any, direct links between specific Tardiglacial climatic changes and changes in Magdalenian technology and culture. One possible exception is a link between climatic amelioration after Dryas Ia (ca. 14,700 BP) and the rapid recolonization of northwestern Europe. However, the apparent existence of that link depends on how the sites’ radiocarbon dates are used, manipulated, and calibrated (Blockley et al. 2000). Therefore, only generalized correlations between Magdalenian culture and climatic phases currently are possible. The “Lower Magdalenian” corresponded generally with Lascaux (in Southwestern France) and Dryas Ia-b (in France and Spain), featuring low ocean levels, generally very open environments, and cold conditions only slightly ameliorated from Late Glacial Maximum conditions (Pokines 2000). However, there were brief episodes of more moderate climate and somewhat expanded thickets, especially in sheltered interior valleys (Straus 1990/91). People lived predominantly at lower latitudes and elevations, namely in Portugal, Cantabrian Spain, and southern France (Demars 1996; Straus et al. 2000), though some Badegoulian sites were located in the Massif Central in east-central France (e.g., Sacchi 1986). 77 Humans had virtually abandoned the more mountainous and northern areas of the Pyrenees, northern France, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium by the beginning of the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 22-17,000 BP), and northwestern Europe was largely unoccupied until just before Bølling (Housley et al. 1997; Street 2000). Thus, while there are a few Badegoulian sites in the southern part of the Paris Basin (e.g., Demars 1996; Schmider 1989), Magdalenian stages I-III are absent in the Pyrenees (Clottes 1989; Gamble 1986). Likewise, the archaeological records of Germany (e.g., Gamble 1986), Switzerland (e.g., Le Tensorer 1998), and Belgium (e.g., Dewez 1992) contain no solid evidence for the preceding Solutrean or for the Lower Magdalenian (Bordes 1968; Street 2000). The “Middle Magdalenian” corresponded generally with Pre-Bølling and Dryas Ic (Straus 2000). The somewhat ameliorated climate, among other factors, allowed humans to begin to re-colonize those areas of relatively high elevation and latitude ca. 14-13,000 BP. Particularly striking was the rapid re-population of the Pyrenees, whose Middle Magdalenian occupation levels contain some of the most abundant decorated objects known from that time (e.g., Thiault and Roy 1996). Various researchers have postulated different models for the timing and routes of northern re-colonization (e.g., Blockley et al. 2000; Housley et al. 1997; Teheux 1997), but the models generally suggest that human groups steadily fanned out from southwestern and low altitude areas—particularly the Périgord in Southwestern France— into northern and higher altitude areas. People took up to one thousand years to substantially re-colonize the Paris Basin, Belgium, and the Netherlands (Housley et al. 1997). 78 The “Upper Magdalenian” corresponded generally with Bølling, Dryas II, Allerød, and sometimes Dryas III (Straus 1991a). Climatic conditions during that part of the Magdalenian generally were conducive to the expansion of woods and the proliferation of small-herd and forest-dwelling animals such as red deer, roe deer, and wild boar. In addition, there were many specialized high mountain caprid hunting sites in the Cantabrian Cordillera, Pyrenees, Massif Central, and Alps, demonstrating that humans were expanding their ranges of direct influence (Straus 1987). More archaeological sites date to this time period than to either of the previous two, presumably due to increases in population density, changes in economic strategy, biases in preservation, or a combination thereof (Demars 1996; Straus et al. 2000). Geography The Western European countries featured in this study are Spain (504,782 km2; 194,897 mi2), France (543,965 km2; 210,026 mi2), Switzerland (41,288 km2; 15,941 mi2), Germany (357,046 km2; 137,857 mi2), Belgium (30,518 km2; 11,783 mi2), and the Netherlands (41,499 km2; 16,023 mi2)3 (Figure 4.1). While Magdalenian or similar materials have been found further west, north, and east, I include only these core countries in order to arbitrarily limit the size of my study. Their Magdalenian records generally have been studied the longest, and there are many environmental and cultural connections among them. For Spain, I include only the north Atlantic and Pyrenees regions, and not Mediterranean and central Spain, because of the latter’s different climates and their locations on the geographic periphery of the Magdalenian world. 79 Netherlands Belgium Paris Basin N Atlantic Ocean EC Germany WC Germany SW Germany NE WC France SW France Massif Central Switzerland France SE France Cantabrian Spain Pyrenees Mediterranean Sea approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP1 200 km countries whose Magdalenian sites are included in this study Figure 4.1. Regions of Western European discussed in this study. (1Housley et al. 1997) There are few or no known Magdalenian sites from the small principalities of Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg, so I will not discuss those countries separately. The large countries, located between 36° and 53° N latitude, represent a combined area of approximately 1,519,098 km2 (586,527 mi2) (National Geographic Society 1999). Cross-cutting modern political boundaries are many topographically defined regions. Palynological, sedimentological, and paleontological evidence suggests that climate, flora, and fauna during the Magdalenian were spatially diverse and diachronically variable, albeit with overall Late Glacial characteristics. Accordingly, hunter-gatherers used different subsistence strategies and settlement patterns (Housley et al. 1997). In the following sections, I describe the topography and Magdalenian flora and fauna for each country. As part of the latter, I discuss briefly how specific environmental conditions affected human population density, economic structure, and human spacing. Environmental Conditions and Human Distributions Cantabrian Spain Cantabrian Spain is that part of northern Atlantic Spain that extends from central Asturias to the western end of the Pyrenees (Figure 4.2). It consists of a narrow coastal strip, with five to twelve additional kilometers of exposed continental shelf during the Magdalenian (Straus 1986, 1991a). The Cantabrian Cordillera starts low at the eastern end of Cantabria and rises to the west in Santander and Asturias. There a separate chain, the Picos de Europa, extends northward to within 25 kilometers of the present-day shore 81 Bay of Biscay N Asturias Cantabria Basque Country 50 km rivers contour lines coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 4.2. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Cantabrian Spain. and reaches 2,650 meters in altitude (Straus 1992b). Like the Pyrenees, the Cantabrian Cordillera and Picos de Europa bore major mountain glaciers, especially before the Last Glacial Maximum ca. 18,000 BP. By Magdalenian times, their extents were greatly diminished (Straus 1992b). Over the last glacial-interglacial cycle, vegetation cover varied from open, virtually treeless heath- and grasslands, to increasingly extensive stands of trees (Straus et al. 2002). The Cantabrian coastal strip is traversed by numerous, short, mountain rivers that provided access from the Bay of Biscay to the uplands, and to a diversity of marine, riverine, and terrestrial resources in a relatively confined area (e.g., Mellars 1985; Straus 1986). The littoral was rich in marine fish, mollusks, and crustaceans, and salmon and trout thrived in the rivers under glacial conditions (Straus et al. 2002). Decreasing sizes of mollusks in late Magdalenian shell middens (e.g., La Riera, El Juyo, Altamira) suggest some degree of human dependence on shellfish that resulted in over-exploitation (Straus 1991a). However, Magdalenian people specialized in hunting red deer and ibex, supplemented by chamois, horses and bovines (aurochs or bison, depending on conditions), and small numbers of reindeer during the coldest periods (Straus 1990/91). With the increase in temperate woodlands during the late Magdalenian, they hunted larger numbers of roe deer and boar (Straus 1991a; Straus et al. 2002). In addition, some late Magdalenian sites contain aquatic and terrestrial bird remains (e.g., La Riera, Urtiaga, Ekain, Aitzbitarte), though whether they were used primarily as food or as sources of feathers for ornament, arrow fletching, or clothing is unclear (Straus 1991a). 83 Magdalenian sites are distributed linearly along the coastal strip, with some sites located up the short montane river valleys. Virtually all known Magdalenian sites are in caves and rockshelters, often overlooking major rivers or their tributaries (Straus 1990/91). Large residential sites usually are located in the coastal plain, while smaller, specialized sites are scattered both there and in the uplands, in significantly different ecozones (Straus 1986). Particularly rich habitation sites that may have been aggregation locations (e.g., Las Caldas, Altamira, El Castillo, El Mirón, the Tito Bustillo/La Lloseta complex, the La Riera/Cueto de la Mina complex, and the El Pendo/El Juyo complex) are spaced fairly evenly, and by the Upper Magdalenian, there were four distinct clusters of sites—two in Asturias, and one each in Cantabria and Guipúzcoa (Straus et al. 2000). The wide distribution of tool stone, the low mobility of the prey species, and the high relief and closely spaced ecological zones in Cantabrian Spain probably allowed humans to satisfy their basic economic needs within relatively restricted areas, without the need for strictly seasonal altitudinal transhumance. Indeed, distances between most major coastal sites and interior sites rarely exceed 30 kilometers, and movements of people between the two major habitats must have been very frequent. While some sites contain only Upper Magdalenian or more recent deposits, many have remains from several Magdalenian phases. That fact suggests that there were no clear shifts in Cantabrian settlement patterns during the Magdalenian (Straus 1990/91). Furthermore, periodically re-used rock art sanctuaries generally accompanied major living sites, either in another part of the same cave (e.g., Altamira, El Castillo, Ekain, La Garma, Tito Bustillo, Santimamiñe), in one or more nearby caves (e.g., El Mirón and Cullalvera), or both (Straus 1986). That suggests that areas around the 84 residential sites were important social or ritual locations over many generations. The discontinuous distribution of coastal sites and art sanctuaries suggests that there were both favored living sectors and intervening areas that were less intensively used for habitation or regular exploitation. While absolute human numbers might have been low, there seem to have been relatively high population densities or concentrations along the coast throughout the Magdalenian (Mellars 1985; Straus 1977, 1986; Straus and Clark 1986; Straus et al. 2000; Straus et al. 2002). Since high resource density with predictability would favor stable territorial systems (Butzer 1986), the empty areas might have been deliberate buffer zones (Straus 1986), at least by the end of the Magdalenian when human population densities were the greatest. Despite the fact that Magdalenian people could have acquired all of their lithic raw materials and foods within restricted areas, various activities might have put them in contact with individuals outside those areas. Sites in Cantabria and eastern Asturias contain evidence that generally female-led red deer herds (e.g., El Juyo, La Paloma, Tito Bustillo, La Riera, El Cierro, Altamira, El Castillo, Urtiaga, and Ekain) and ibex (e.g., Collubil, El Rascaño, El Salitre, Bolinkoba, Erralla, Ermittia, and Ekain) were taken in mass drives or surrounds that may have encouraged the cooperation of multiple residential groups (Altuna 1972; Clark and Straus 1983; Klein et al. 1981; Straus 1986, 1990/91). In addition, foraging parties that traveled to various resource loci (e.g., for shellfish or nuts) might have encountered one another and thereby served as collectors of information on the current locations and status of groups of red deer (Straus 1986). Those encounters also would have provided opportunities for displaying new 85 technologies or visual expressions as means of choosing and securing future resourcegathering allies and mates (e.g., Wilmsen 1973). France The following, topographically diverse, geographic regions of France that were inhabited during the Magdalenian are discussed below: the Pyrenees, Southwestern France, West-Central France, the Massif Central, Eastern France, and the Paris Basin (Figure 4.1). Magdalenian people left few or no traces in Brittany, which contains no flint sources, and in Lorraine, which contains only sources of mediocre quality flint. They also appear to have avoided significant settlement in Champagne, which has some flint, but contains few or no rockshelters, and has little ecological diversity and poor soils (Rozoy 1998). Still, there is always the possibility that sites in those areas have been eroded or covered by fluviatile or loess sediments (Rensink 1993). Pyrenees The French Pyrenees region includes the Pyrenees mountain chain; the parallel foothill ranges north of the main cordillera; the vast low plains in Gascony, Roussillon and the upper Garonne and Aude basins; and the plateaus (e.g., Lannemezan) adjacent to the central mountain ranges (Straus 1992b) (Figure 4.3). Mountain rivers drain to either the Atlantic (west of Andorra) or the Mediterranean (east of Andorra). The plains are drained largely by the Garonne and Adour river systems (Straus 1991a). The PyrénéesOrientales département is within the Mediterranean geographic sphere, but its Magdalenian fauna, technology, and art suggest that its inhabitants had strong ties to the 86 Atlantic Ocean Gascony Aude River Pyrenees N Andorra Rousillon Med. Sea 50 km rivers contour lines coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 4.3. Geography, hydrology, and topography of the French Pyrenees. central and western Pyrenees (Bahn 1982, 1983a, 1983b; Clottes 1976, 1989; Straus 1990/91). The rugged, glaciated, and steppic mountains were bordered on the north by some mosaic parkland vegetation, with patchy reforestation by the end of the Magdalenian. At the very beginning of the Tardiglacial (ca. 16-14,000 BP), the low plains consisted of open grasslands with virtually no arboreal vegetation. Saiga antelope were present throughout Aquitaine, especially during the Lower and Middle Magdalenian, under cold, dry, steppe conditions (Delpech 1983). The lowlands were well suited for grazing by herds of reindeer, bison, and horse (Clottes 1989; Straus 1990/91,1992b). However, after 14,000 BP, arboreal pollen percentages increased relatively steadily. Deciduous trees (e.g., birch, hazel, oak) made their appearances in subsequent warm periods. Humid Allerød (ca. 12-11,000 BP) environments included mixed, open woodlands with extensive prairies (Straus 1992b). Numbers of bison and horses declined in the last centuries of the glacial period (Straus 1990/91), but reindeer survived along the northern edge of the Pyrenees through Allerød and beyond (Arambourou 1978; Straus 1995). As in Cantabrian Spain, archaeological evidence suggests that subsistence practices followed a trend toward diversification, albeit with situational specialization in reindeer hunting along the western and central Pyrenees (e.g., Isturitz, Duruthy, Dufaure, Gourdan, La Tourasse, La Vache (Salle Garrigou and Salle Monique)), and willow grouse and ibex hunting in winter in the high mountains (e.g., Les Eglises, Bédeilhac (Gallerie Vidal), and Belvis), especially during the Upper Magdalenian (Bahn 1983a; Pailhaugue 1996; Straus 1990/91, 1991a, 1992b, 1995). 88 Other less common food animals included horse, bovines, chamois (in woodlands and thickets, especially in rugged terrain), saiga antelope, red deer, roe deer, and boar (Pailhaugue 1996; Straus 1990/91). In Dryas II and Allerød (ca. 12,400-10,800 BP), salmon and some other fish represented a common and dispersed food source as they migrated up spawning rivers and streams (e.g., salmon at Duruthy, Dufaure, Les Eglises; pike at Dufaure, etc.) (Sieveking 1976; Straus 1991a; but see Bahn 1983a for an alternate view). Bird remains also are more frequent, though never abundant, in later Magdalenian sites (e.g., Isturitz, Duruthy, Dufaure, Espèche, La Vache, Les Eglises, Rhodes II ) (Clottes 1989; Pokines 2000; Straus 1990/91, 1991a, 1992b), and cold species such as ptarmigan and willow grouse are common in sites of the high Pyrenees (Straus 1991a). Some sites also contain tool evidence for plant processing (e.g., La Madeleine), especially in woody lowlands during the Allerød (Petraglia and Potts 1992; Straus 1992b). There are no Badegoulian or Early Magdalenian sites in the Pyrenees. As such, the earliest known sites are assigned to the Middle Magdalenian (III-IV), which saw a sudden explosion of human occupation dating to between 14,500 and 13,000 BP (Bahn 1983a; Clottes 1989). Sites assumed to be residential camps generally are located along the northern flanks of the mountains, in the foothills, and where rivers break through into the lowlands. The latter area features the richest sites, which contain abundant portable and parietal art (Arambourou 1978; Bahn 1983a; Straus 1995). Many fewer and smaller sites, assumed to be specialized hunting camps, are located in high mountain valleys to the south (Clottes 1976). 89 As in Cantabria, there is no evidence for dramatic changes in settlement patterns during the later Magdalenian. The main difference between distributions of Middle and Upper Magdalenian sites is a slight increase in the number of high-mountain ones during the Upper Magdalenian, as glaciers retreated toward the Pyrenees crestline (e.g., La Vache, Les Eglises, Massat, Niaux) (Straus 1990/91). Various researchers have suggested that human groups in the Pyrenees practiced both seasonal residential altitudinal “transhumance”, following reindeer over moderate distances, as well as logistical mobility to exploit ibex, ptarmigan, salmon, and other resources (e.g., Arambourou 1978; Bahn 1983a; Clottes 1989; Delpech 1983; Sieveking 1976; Simonnet 1996; Straus 1990/91, 1991a, 1995, 1997a). As indicated by various non-local flints, these movements would have taken them from the plains and foothills that lie north of the Pyrenees, into the mountains to the south. Lowland sites generally were used for cold season occupations, while mountain sites were used most frequently for either summer residence or specialized hunting and fishing in late fall and winter (Clottes 1989; Straus 1990/91). Lowland sites with faunal evidence of winter occupations include Duruthy, Dufaure, Le Grand Pastou, Le Petit Pastou, Gourdan, Lespugue, and Espèche, although there are some indications for nonwinter occupations at Le Mas d’Azil and Espélugues (Arambourou 1978; Straus 1991a, 1995). Upland sites used during warm seasons included Espalungue, Espélugues, Lortet, Gourdan, La Vache. Isturitz, in the edge of the Basque foothills, was used during warm seasons and possibly also during the winter (Straus 1997a). There is a distinct linear pattern of Magdalenian sites along the Pyrenees, separated from the sites of the Gironde, Dordogne, and Lot by a relatively empty strip. 90 Humans from all across the Pyrenees must have been in fairly regular contact with one another, given their relative geographic isolation and their common reliance on mobile reindeer (e.g., Bahn 1983a; Clottes 1989; Pokines 2000). This contact, which might have included aggregations at sites such as Le Mas d’Azil and Isturitz (Bahn 1983b), would have allowed them to exchange mates, raw materials, decorated objects, and information about resource locations and conditions (Straus 1990/91). The regional settlement pattern, combined with distinctive mobile and cave art, and evidence that Pyrenees reindeer herds conducted their full annual migrations within the Pyrenees (e.g., Delpech 1989; Straus 1990/91), suggests that the Pyrenees region constituted a culturally recognizable, but not isolated, culture area during the Magdalenian (e.g., Straus 1990/91). Abundant evidence for the circulation of raw materials and decorated objects between the Pyrenees and other regions demonstrates that people in the Pyrenees participated in long-distance social networks, despite their economic independence (e.g., Féblot-Augustins 1997; Thiault and Roy 1996). Southwestern France Southwestern France (or the Aquitaine Basin) includes the Garonne, Dordogne, and Vézère river valleys, its heart being the Périgord region (Figure 4.4). It is a generally karstic area etched by rivers into a mosaic of low limestone plateaus. The work of Laville and others has suggested a series of progressive Tardiglacial climatic oscillations from generally cold and dry steppe-like conditions to relatively temperate, humid, and more wooded parkland conditions (Laville et al. 1980). 91 Dordogne River Péri gord N Atlantic Ocean Tarn River 50 km rivers contour lines coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 4.4. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Southwestern France. Faunal assemblages often contain large numbers of one or more of six game animals—reindeer, horse, ibex, bovines, red deer, and saiga antelope. Some large archaeological sites (e.g., Duruthy, Arancou) also contain abundant evidence for fish utilization (Jochim et al. 1999). While reindeer dominated faunal assemblages throughout most of the Magdalenian (Peterkin 2000), some Badegoulian and Middle Magdalenian assemblages contain abundant horse and even saiga antelope remains (Julien 1981; Lenoir 2000; White 1987). The end of the Magdalenian saw increasing localized specializations in reindeer and ibex hunting (Straus 1991a), as well as increases in fish exploitation (Mellars 1985). Large reindeer herds must have been present within the major river valleys of the western foothill zone from at least late autumn until early spring (Mellars 1985). They generally would have migrated altitudinally from those low-lying areas in winter to upland areas of the Massif Central in summer, along an east-west line (e.g., Demars 1998a; Mellars 1985). However, the maximum distance of migration might have been no more than 80-100 km (Bouchud 1966, cited in Mellars 1985). That would have meant that the herds were rarely far from the main areas of human occupation (Mellars 1985), although humans appear to have concentrated their reindeer hunting during spring migrations and winter (Jochim et al. 1999). Given their proximity to diverse food resources during all seasons, humans apparently did not use distinct seasonal rounds (Jochim et al. 1999). Nor did they need to go outside the region for subsistence reasons (Gordon 1988; Koetje 2000). Southwestern France was occupied during the whole Badegoulian and Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian sequence (e.g., Lenoir 2000). Archaeological sites from 93 all Magdalenian phases vary considerably in size, from less than fifty square meters (50 m2) to more than fifteen hundred square meters (1500 m2) (Boyle 2000; White 1987). Most large sites are located at fords in major rivers, probably to take advantage of migrating reindeer herds, but small sites are distributed more widely (Koetje 2000; White 1987). Because Southwestern France remained un-glaciated, and contained abundant shelter and diverse lithic raw materials, flora, and fauna, people always occupied it more intensively than the northern and alpine areas of France (Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000; White 1987). Together with the coastal regions of Iberia, it was a true “refugium” for both humans and animals around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 18,000 BP). As such, it contained by far the highest population density in Western Europe throughout the Magdalenian, particularly by the end of that period (Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000; Jochim 1987; Otte 1988; Rozoy 1989; Straus 1991c). Still, there is some evidence for variability in human settlement pattern and economic strategy. First, while numerous sites are assigned to Magdalenian III, many fewer are assigned to Magdalenian IV. White (1987) suggests that humans might have temporarily shifted their settlement focus from Southwestern France to the Pyrenees, as supported by evidence for contacts between the two areas during that time, and the explosion of sites in the latter region. The uncharacteristic dominance of horse, rather than reindeer, in Magdalenian IV faunal assemblages from Pyrenees sites suggests that economic factors were interrelated with social ones. Second, during the Upper Magdalenian, there was a dramatic increase in the number of archaeological sites (Demars 1996; Rozoy 1989). In particular, the number of 94 relatively small sites increased, and the number of very large sites decreased (Boyle 2000). Together, four large Upper Magdalenian sites (La Madeleine, Laugerie-Basse, Limeuil, Abri Morin) contain the majority of portable decorated objects in the Dordogne region, suggesting that they were special aggregation sites (White 1987), if not long-term residential or ceremonial centers. White (1987) surmises that the increase in the number of small sites might have been linked to a greater use of logistical economic organization, among other things, rather than simply to an increase in population density. Still, during Magdalenian VI, humans expanded into the valleys of the Gironde and the Lot, and further into the Massif Central, indicating a reaction to increasing population densities in core areas, or the necessity of expanding annual ranges to maintain access to adequate resources (White 1987). Some researchers (e.g., Audouze 1989; Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000; Dolukhanov 1979) also suggest that Southwestern France may have been the starting point for re-colonization movements into northwestern Europe, via northern and northeastern France, particularly during warm parts of the Middle and Upper Magdalenian. West-Central France West-Central France includes the Poitou-Charentes region in the Vienne and Charente departments (Figure 4.5). Topographically, it consists of the Rochefoucauld karstic area in the south, and the Vienne and Creuse rivers and their tributaries to the north. Over the course of the Magdalenian, people in the region relied decreasingly on 95 Creuse River Poitou-Charentes N N Rochefoucauld Atlantic Ocean 50 km rivers contour lines coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 4.5. Geography, hydrology, and topography of West-Central France. saiga antelope and reindeer, and increasingly on red deer and roe deer (Dujardin and Pinçon 2000). The region contains a few Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites (e.g., Abri Ragout, Le Placard, Les Terriers), but most human occupation seems to date to the Middle and Upper Magdalenian, with greater numbers of sites during the latter phase (Dujardin and Pinçon 2000). The Middle Magdalenian site of La Marche contains an unusually large concentration of engraved plaquettes, and has affinities in personal ornamentation with the nearby cave art site of Le Roc-aux-Sorciers (e.g., Bahn and Vertut 1988; Dujardin and Pinçon 2000; Pales and Tassin de Saint Péreuse 1969, 1976). A few sites (e.g., Roc-aux-Sorciers and Saint-Remy-sur-Creuse) contain marine and fossil shells from areas to the west (Dewez 1987; Taborin 1992), but otherwise, the sites of the region demonstrate strong internal technological cohesion and few external contacts (Dujardin and Pinçon 2000). Massif Central The Massif Central is an area of volcanic, subalpine mountains, high plateaus, and deep valleys, located in the Auvergne region of south-central France (Figure 4.6). During the Tardiglacial, it blocked substantial snow and ice from covering areas to the west and south, thereby leaving relatively clear the north-south trending river corridors that were amenable to animal and human movements. High elevations in the mountain chain became de-glaciated during the Bølling (ca. 13,000 BP), at which time the two major rivers in the region, the Loire and the Allier, began to dramatically downcut their channels. Major volcanic eruptions occurred during the Badegoulian and the late Upper 97 N 50 km rivers contour lines Figure 4.6. Geography, hydrology, and topography of the Massif Central region of France. Magdalenian, probably causing some disruption of animal and human movements (Raynal and Daugas 1989; Surmely 2000). Archaeological deposits in the region date to the Badegoulian, the Middle Magdalenian, and the Upper Magdalenian (Fontana 2000). During the Badegoulian, sites were located in or near the major river valleys. However, by the late Upper Magdalenian, sites were located not only in the large valleys, particularly at confluences, but also in secondary valleys, with a few sites at up to 1,200 meters in elevation (Daugas and Raynal 1979; Raynal and Daugas 1989). Some of the large valley sites (e.g., Durif à Enval, Le Rond-du-Barry) contain many items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects, while the smaller, perhaps specialized activity, sites contain only a few decorated objects (Raynal and Daugas 1989). Faunal records in the two main river valleys differ consistently. Magdalenian-age people seem preferentially to have hunted migrating reindeer in the spring and fall in the Allier valley, and horse, reindeer, and ibex in the summer in the Loire valley. In addition, they did some marmot trapping and fishing in both (Raynal and Daugas 1989). However, no sites demonstrate clearly specialized hunting of one particular species (Surmely 2000). Magdalenian-age people may have lived in the region year-round, by taking advantage of the seasonal complementarity of the two valleys, the migrations of reindeer and horses up and down the corridors, and the different ecozones of the valleys and foothills (Fontana 1998; Surmely 2000). There is evidence for increasing site density, and possibly for increasing use of lithic raw materials from closer sources, over time (Surmely 2000). 99 However, no winter sites have been identified, which suggests that people may actually have abandoned the area during that season and traveled northwest with reindeer herds. If people acquired their non-local tool stone directly (e.g., Féblot-Augustins 1997), such seasonal human migrations would explain how it is that nearly all sites in the region contain large proportions of a distinctive blond chert originating from Touraine, approximately 200 to 300 kilometers to the west-northwest (Fontana 1998; Surmely 2000; Surmely et al. 1998). However, there currently is not enough supporting evidence to determine whether people collected that lithic raw material directly, or acquired it through down-the-line exchange (Fontana 1998; Surmely 2000). Eastern France For the purposes of this study, sites located in Eastern France can be divided into a southern cluster and a geographically extensive northern cluster. The area of the southern cluster is Languedoc, which is bounded by the Rhône River on the east, by the Mediterranean Sea on the south, and by the Massif Central on the northwest (Figure 4.7). Topographically, it includes karstic coastal plains, vast plateaus, and river valleys (Bazile and Monnet-Bazile 2000). The area of the northern cluster includes the Rhône and Saône river valleys, which run north-south and are bordered by the northern Alps, including the Chartreuse and the Vercors massifs (Bintz 2000; Thévenin 2000) (Figure 4.8). Recent discoveries and re-analyses of sites point to a minimal human presence in Languedoc during the Badegoulian (e.g., Camparnaud) and the early Middle Magdalenian (e.g., Le Figuier, La Salpêtrière), with many more sites dating to the Upper Magdalenian. During those phases, the region’s climate generally ameliorated, from 100 rivers contour lines coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) N 50 km Aude River Mediterranean Sea Figure 4.7. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Southeastern France (Languedoc). rivers contour lines N Italy 50 km Figure 4.8. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Northeastern France (Rhône/Saône rivers). colder continental conditions towards the warmer Mediterranean conditions known today. Accordingly, birch declined while various oak species and ilex increased over time. Simultaneously, equids and ibex decreased in number while reindeer increased (Bazile and Monnet-Bazile 2000). However, ca. 12,400 BP, reindeer populations seem to have migrated north and were largely replaced by red deer (Thévenin 2000). Still, for much of the Magdalenian, Languedoc was characterized by a mix of wet- and dry-climate fauna, such as reindeer and saiga antelope, respectively (Bazile and Monnet-Bazile 2000). Sites in the Rhône-Saône area date from the early Middle Magdalenian through the Upper Magdalenian, from ca. 15,000 to 12,000 BP, corresponding largely to the second half of Dryas I and Bølling (Pion 2000). A cluster of Middle Magdalenian sites was located in the area of the upper Saône (e.g., Farincourt, Grotte de Rigney), but those were replaced by many more sites located further south during the Upper Magdalenian (Desbrosse 1976a, 1976b). People in the region seem to have relied largely on the mediocre lithic raw materials that are found in the local northern Alps, with some acquisition of better materials from a radius of approximately fifty kilometers (e.g., at la Passagère) (Bintz 2000). The long Saône and Rhône river valleys appear to have served as major avenues for human movement (Thévenin 2000), as well as for the circulation of Mediterranean shells from the sea north to Switzerland and the Swabian Jura in Southwestern Germany, particularly during the Upper Magdalenian (Alvarez Fernández 2001, 2002; Bazile and Monnet-Bazile 2000; Eriksen 2002; Pion 2000; Taborin 1992). However, aside from those items of personal ornamentation, there is little or no evidence for circulations of materials between the two areas, or between them and other regions. 103 Paris Basin The Paris Basin in north-central France is a sedimentary basin surrounded by low hills or plateaus (Figure 4.9). Even though the basin is crossed by many east-west flowing rivers, it offered relatively less variety in resources and few protected habitation sites compared to the montane, coastal regions to the south (Roblin-Jouve 1994; Rozoy 1998). However, lithic raw materials are abundant in the surrounding footslopes, and fossil shells are found in the underlying Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary marine deposits (Koetje 2000; Mauger 1994; Rensink 1993; Taborin 1994). During Dryas I (ca. 15,000-13,200 BP), the basin’s largely herbaceous vegetation was supplanted by open birch forest, and also with an expansion of juniper and wormwood. During Bølling, Dryas II, and Allerød (ca. 13,200-10,800 BP), pine became abundant, while birch, wormwood, and juniper decreased substantially (Leroyer 1994; Rensink 1993). Because the Paris Basin region remained uninhabitable steppe tundra until well into the Magdalenian, most radiocarbon dates for human settlement fall within the Bølling, Dryas II, and Allerød oscillations (Fagnart and Coudret 2000; Straus 1992b). The only exceptions are a few Badegoulian sites (Audouze 1989). Researchers traditionally suggest that the Paris Basin was colonized by people expanding out from Aquitaine (Enloe 2000b). While some Upper Magdalenian sites contain the remains of a great variety of animals, frequently dominated by horse (e.g., Etiolles, Marsangy, Ville-Saint-Jacques), others contain predominantly reindeer remains (e.g., Pincevent, Verberie) (Audouze and Enloe 1991; Enloe 2000b; Rensink 1993). Less frequently represented fauna include 104 rivers contour lines Paris N 50 km Figure 4.9. Geography, hydrology, and topography of the Paris Basin in France. mammoth, hare, various birds, and arctic fox (Enloe 2000b). Unlike in Southwestern France, humans in the Paris Basin exploited reindeer largely in the fall, with relatively fewer people moving longer distances (Enloe 2000a; Orliac 1994). That implies a much lower density, but more mobile, population in the Paris Basin than in Cantabria, the Pyrenees, or Aquitaine. While some researchers (e.g., Schmider 1987; Taborin 1994) argue or imply that the Paris Basin sites represent an autonomous human group, others (e.g., Enloe 2000b; Rozoy 1989) suggest that they are merely fragments of a complete subsistence system. The latter is based on archaeological evidence for only specific seasonal occupations and specialized sites, such as short-term hunting stations (e.g. Étiolles, Pincevent) and/or places for lithic raw material acquisition (e.g., Marsangy, Verberie, Ville-Saint-Jacques) (Audouze 1994; Coudret et al. 1994; David and Orliac 1994; Degros et al. 1994; Enloe 2000b; Schmider 1994). Complementary larger residential sites or other seasonal sites might have been located hundreds of kilometers outside the basin, in regions to the northeast (e.g., Audouze 1987; Koetje 2000; Straus and Otte 1995). For example, Rozoy (1989) suggests that the same group of people used the Upper Magdalenian sites of the Paris Basin and those of the Lesse Valley in Belgium. That idea is based on the fact that many Belgian sites contain numerous fossil shells whose origins appear to be the Paris Basin (e.g., Dewez 1987; Lozouet and Gautier 1997; Otte 1994; Otte and Straus 1997). Switzerland Switzerland (Figure 4.10) encompasses a geologically complex area, with three different east-west topographic regions—the crescent-shaped upland Jura in the north 106 Schaffhausen Germany Liechtenstein Austria France Geneva N Italy 50 km rivers Figure 4.10. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Switzerland. contour lines (from Geneva to Schaffhausen), the lake-filled Mittelland (middle country) in the center, and the pre-Alps and Alps in the south (Le Tensorer 1998). The Jura contains abundant lithic raw materials and minerals, as well as shelter. From ca. 14,000 to 11,000 BP, it was characterized by changes from steppe tundra to park-tundra to steppe, with dense willow brush in the valleys towards the end of that time (Eriksen 2000). The Mittelland contains diverse lake and terrestrial resources, but few good lithic raw materials. During cold periods it was characterized by arctic or subarctic tundra (Eriksen 2000; Leesch 2000). The pre-Alps and Alps were glaciated well into the Magdalenian, though several warm episodes (ca. 16,000; 14,500; 12,600; and after 10,000 BP) reduced the large glaciers to their current extent (Gamble 1986; Le Tensorer 1998). Harsh alpine conditions followed the retreat of the glaciers, with tundra and regular seasonal deposition of loess in the lakes until ca. 14,500 BP. After that, vegetation increased and erosion decreased. With the Allerød, beginning after ca. 12,000 BP, there was a rapid increase in pine (Le Tensorer 1998). Reindeer dominate virtually every faunal assemblage, followed by horse, until the very end of the Magdalenian (Gamble 1986; Leesch 1993c; Morel et al. 1998; Weniger 1987). Many sites are located in passes at intercept points near reindeer grazing grounds (Gamble 1986; Weniger 1987). However, the use of reindeer or horse at a particular site seems to have been related more to the biozone in which the site was located, than to any scheduled seasonal use of the area (Leesch 1993c). Other Magdalenian food animals included ibex, bovines, mammoth, various hares, ptarmigans, and marmots (Leesch 1993c; Morel et al. 1998; Le Tensorer 1998; Weniger 1989). Shortly after ca. 11,000 BP, when the Laacher See volcano in the Eifel area of Southwestern Germany erupted, 108 reindeer disappeared from lowland Switzerland, to be supplanted by forest-dwelling species such as red deer, roe deer, and wild boar (Le Tensorer 1998; Straus 1990/91). Various researchers (e.g., Bullinger 2000; Leesch 1993a; Le Tensorer 1998) have proposed different temporal and technological divisions for Magdalenian sites in Switzerland, with little consensus. In part, that is because a paucity of 14C dates, and three 14C plateaus at ca. 12,700 BP, 10,000 BP, and 9,500 BP, create real difficulties for determining temporal attributions and the contemporaneity of sites (Leesch 2000). Still, there seems to be agreement that there were minimal incursions of people into northwestern and northern Switzerland during the Lower Magdalenian (or perhaps Badegoulian) and the Middle Magdalenian, but a dramatic increase in habitation starting at the beginning of the Upper Magdalenian. In particular, people moved further south into lacustrine areas, and into upland zones in the Jura. Most sites are in the latter area, though some large residential sites (e.g., Monruz) are in the Mittelland and a few small extraction sites are in the pre-Alps (e.g., Sihlsee-Nord) (Leesch 1993a; Le Tensorer 1998). However, the preponderance of sites known in the Jura may, in part, be a function of archaeological research biases (Leesch 1993b). Based partly on palynological data, researchers (e.g., Féblot-Augustins 1997; Leesch 1993a) attribute many of the Swiss sites (e.g., Kesslerloch, Freudenthal, Champréveyres, Eremitage, Monruz, Moosbühl) to a time ca. 13,000 BP. For the purposes of this study, that is the arbitrary boundary between the Middle and Upper Magdalenian. As a result, I have assigned specific site levels to one or the other phase, based on traditional associations of tool forms, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects. 109 Magdalenian groups seem to have crossed regularly between the Swiss and German Juras via the Rhine and Rhône corridors (Le Tensorer 1998). Some Swiss sites (e.g., Kesslerloch, Hollenberg-Höhle) contain lithic tools and decorated objects with strong affinities to those of Southwestern France, and some contain items of personal ornamentation crafted from the same materials and in the same styles as those found in Southwestern and Central German sites (e.g., Monruz, Moosbühl) (e.g., Affolter et al. 1994; Höneisen 1993b; Le Tensorer 1998). It seems that Magdalenian-age people using sites in Switzerland had technological and artistic ties to multiple regions, in both subsistence and non-subsistence contexts. Germany Researchers normally discuss the Southwestern (Baden-Württemberg and southern Bavaria) and Central areas of Germany separately because they are divergent in terms of topography and human settlement pattern (Figure 4.1). Northern Germany contained the technologically different Hamburgian Culture, which was generally contemporary with the later Upper Magdalenian in Western Europe and the Creswellian in England (G. Bosinski 1978, 1988; Otte 2000). Because only one relevant Magdalenian-style artifact—the curvilinear-motif carved antler rod from Poggenwisch— comes from the plains of northern Germany, I will not discuss that region separately here. 110 Southwestern Germany Like Switzerland, Southwestern Germany is topographically complex. It includes the Black Forest piedmont, and basins and lowlands intersected by the mountains of the Swabian Jura/Alb (Eriksen 2000; Weniger 1987) (Figure 4.11). The plateaus and basins and lowlands feature many rivers that feed the Danube and Rhine, while the uplands are karstic and contain little above-ground water (Eriksen 2000; Weniger 1989). During the early Magdalenian, the plateaus generally were covered in steppe tundra, park-tundra, and steppe, while the valleys contained dense willow brush. The lowlands were characterized more by arctic or subarctic tundra (Eriksen 2000). Deglaciation occurred rapidly, beginning ca. 17,000-16,000 BP, and elevated portions of the Black Forest were completely de-glaciated by ca. 14,500 BP, well before Bølling (Eriksen 2000). By Middle Magdalenian times, Southwestern Germany was covered by diverse grasslands, and in the later Allerød, it slowly was transformed into a pine/birch woodland (Weniger 1987). The rich, herbaceous grasslands supported reindeer, horse, mammoth, woolly rhino, bison, red deer, ibex, chamois, and musk ox. Predators included cave lion, cave hyena, and wolf. However, only reindeer and horse dominated the archeo-faunal assemblages, and as the grasslands dwindled, archaic faunal elements such as mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, cave lion, and cave hyena slowly disappeared (Jochim 1998; Jochim et al. 1999; Weniger 1989). During the warm Allerød, some reindeer remained in upland areas of the Swabian Jura (Straus 1990/91). Researchers divide sites in Southwestern Germany, most of which are located in caves, into the categories of large, medium, and small, based on their lithic types and 111 Czech Rep. N Austria Switzerland 50 km rivers contour lines Figure 4.11. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Southwestern Germany. numbers, seasonality, and areal extent. Large sites are located in lowland areas, frequently near rivers, while medium sites are found in lowlands and uplands, and small sites are most common in mountainous areas (Eriksen 2000; Weniger 1987). Seasonality data suggest that large sites generally were occupied during the autumn and winter, probably for communal reindeer and/or horse hunting. In contrast, Magdalenian-age people used medium and small sites predominantly during the spring and summer. That suggests seasonal migrations between lowland and upland areas in accordance with the movement and availability of at least reindeer and horses (Leesch 1993c; Weniger 1987). Accordingly, Weniger (1989) postulates that human groups might regularly have moved over distances of 150 to 200 kilometers. Jochim et al. (1999) suggest that population aggregations were possible only with the abundance of reindeer during their fall migrations. The fact that only the large sites and a few of the medium-sized ones contain mobile art and items of personal ornamentation (Weniger 1989) supports that suggestion. Hence, human populations may have been dispersed during much of the year, but people may have encountered one another periodically as they exploited the same material sources. The Swabian Jura features abundant lithic raw materials, and deposits containing various fossils and jet that people transported and used as items of personal ornamentation (Albrecht et al. 1977; Alvarez Fernández 1999a; Burkert and Floss in press; Eriksen 2002; Féblot-Augustins 1997). Sites usually contain lithic raw materials originally from within twenty kilometers, although most sites also contain a small amount of material from at least 100 kilometers away, generally from within the Jura (Burkert and Floss in press; Weniger 1989). However, people frequently circulated fossils over 113 longer distances than the lithic raw materials. In particular, they acquired them from outside the region, such as from the Mainz Basin of central Germany and from the Paris Basin (Féblot-Augustins 1997; Weniger 1989). Atlantic and Mediterranean shells came from still further afield (Alvarez Fernández 2001; Féblot-Augustins 1997). Central Germany Central Germany, including the Central Rhineland in the west (Figure 4.12) and the Saale and Elbe River valleys in the east (Figure 4.13), includes both upland (e.g., Eifel, Westerwald; Harz, Thuringian Forest) and lowland (e.g., Neuwied Basin) areas (Baales and Street 1996; Weniger 1989). Upland areas separate the Rhine and the Saale river valleys, and during the Magdalenian, the result was an eastern and a western concentration of sites, separated by a zone that apparently was uninhabited by humans (e.g., Weniger 1989). The Neuwied Basin, home to the famous aggregation sites of Gönnersdorf and Andernach, is a fifteen by thirty kilometer sedimentary basin containing fluviatile, aeolian, and pumic deposits. When the Laacher See volcano last erupted ca. 11,000 radiocarbon years BP, at the end of the Allerød interstadial, it covered the Neuwied Basin landscape with thick layers of ash and both preserved and hid its archaeological sites (Baales and Street 1996; Rensink 1993). Central Germany was drier and more continental than Southwestern Germany, and by the Middle Magdalenian its lowlands were covered by diverse grasslands. Those supported horse, reindeer, bovines, and saiga antelope, with horses dominating faunal assemblages (G. Bosinski 1988; Feustel 1979; Weniger 1987, 1989). Other fauna included mammoth, chamois, red deer, arctic fox, and various birds and fish (Baales and 114 Netherlands Belgium Neuwied Basin Mainz Basin Luxembourg N 50 km rivers contour lines Figure 4.12. Geography, hydrology, and topography of West-Central Germany (Central Rhineland). Poland Czech N Republic 50 km rivers contour lines Figure 4.13. Geography, hydrology, and topography of East-Central Germany (Saale/Elbe rivers). Street 1996; Bosinski 1988). Additionally, several sites (e.g., Kniegrotte, Teufelsbrücke, Oelknitz, Oberkassel, Andernach) contain the remains of dogs or domesticated wolves (Feustel 1979; Weniger 1989). Floral evidence from Gönnersdorf suggests that, during Bølling, high terraces were characterized by steppe-like vegetation, with herbs and juniper bushes. South-facing slopes near the major rivers contained gallery forests with pines. Then, in Dryas II, wormwood increased in abundance while alder, birch, and hazel declined (Rensink 1993). The later Allerød saw the Neuwied Basin slowly transformed into a pine/birch forest landscape (Weniger 1987). Researchers divide sites in Central Germany, most of which are open air sites, into the categories of large, medium, and small, based on their numbers of lithic tools. Large winter aggregation sites are found in the valleys of the Rhine and the Saale, arguably corresponding with the locations of river crossings by migrating reindeer and horses (Bosinski 1988; Weniger 1987). In contrast, small sites contain evidence for summer use, and more than half of them are located within twenty kilometers of larger ones. Medium-size sites contain evidence for occupation during various seasons. Many sites also are located in the mountainous region on the southern rim of the North European Plateau. Unlike in Southwestern Germany, all three site sizes are found in the same areas (Weniger 1987, 1989). This suggests that humans did not shift their residences in any defined seasonal patterns. Weniger (1987) suggests that this is because humans in Central Germany relied on horses, which are mobile but do not have regular seasonal migrations in the way that reindeer do. Group territories in the loess steppe river valleys probably were extensive, comprising areas more than one hundred kilometers in diameter (Bosinski 1988). Factors 117 contributing to the large territories probably included unpredictability and mobility of animal resources, and uneven distributions of raw material sources. However, rather than practicing high residential mobility, people seem to have inhabited village-like settlements with substantial houses, which were the centers of catchment areas that they exploited logistically (Binford 1980; Bosinski 1988; Floss 1994, 2002). Lithic raw materials (e.g., Stapert and Terberger 1991) and animal themes in engraved slate plaquettes (Rensink 1993) suggest that different groups used the same settlements at different times, and they inhabited the settlements repeatedly and for long periods of time (Bosinski 1988). Hence, while overall population densities in Central Germany probably were low, many humans may have been concentrated at a few sites at any one time. There are no geological deposits containing good quality flint in the Central Rhineland, so people used alternative local materials, such as siliceous slate (Kieselschiefer), Tertiary quartzite, chalcedony, quartz, lydite, and jasper (Baales 1997; Floss 1991; Rensink 1993). Many of the flints recovered from large sites of Central Germany come from the Meuse basin of Belgium to the west (Féblot-Augustins 1997). Large quantities of Baltic moraine flints from the north, and Cretaceous flint from the Aachen-Maas area of the Dutch-Belgian Meuse River valley to the northwest, also are found in Central German sites; both are present in large amounts at Gönnersdorf and Andernach (Baales and Street 1996; Féblot-Augustins 1997; Floss 1991; Floss and Terberger 1986; Weniger 1989). Other lithic raw materials, fossil shells, minerals, and portable art forms and motifs suggest close ties among Central and Southwestern German sites and Swiss sites. Even if the inhabitants of those areas maintained distinct settlement patterns, they 118 encountered one another frequently enough to transmit materials and artistic conventions. At the extreme, shells and portable decorated objects found in sites such as Gönnersdorf and Andernach in the Middle Rhine Valley suggest contacts with the Mediterranean world over 800 km to the south (Alvarez Fernández 2001; G. Bosinski 1982; Floss 2000; Weniger 1987, 1989). In contrast, sites in the East-Central Germany cluster contain some lithic forms and some non-local raw materials from further east, including the Czech Republic and Poland (Féblot-Augustins 1997; Feustel 1979). Very limited numbers of fossil shells originate from the Mainz Basin, to the southwest (Eriksen 2002). Hence, while human groups inhabiting eastern and western parts of Central Germany had similar lifeways, they seem to have participated in very different social networks. Belgium Belgium (Figure 4.14) can be divided topographically into the upland ArdennoRhenish Massif in the south, and the North European Plain in the north. The former extends into Central Germany and is characterized by high plateaus, steep valley slopes, and relatively small, narrow valley floors (Rozoy 1998). The component rocks include quartzites, sandstones, slates, and chalk limestones (Rensink 1993). The portion of the North European Plain that lies in Belgium is covered with sand and loess and is drained by the Meuse, Rhine, and Scheldt rivers, and some of their tributaries (Rensink 2000; Rozoy 1998; Straus 1997b). Belgium was characterized by arctic steppe/tundra with many grasses and some willow and birch ca. 14,000 BP (Rozoy 1998). However, during Bølling it contained 119 North Sea Netherlands Germany (Dry) Scheldt River Maastricht Aachen Luxembourg N France 50 km rivers Figure 4.14. Geography, hydrology, and topography of Belgium. contour lines localized woods or thickets in the upland valleys; trees included willow, birch, and pine, and possibly alder, oak, hazel, maple, and beech (Emery-Barbier 1997; Rensink 1993; Rozoy 1998; Straus 1997b). Horses were the dominant food animals, followed by bovines, with fewer examples of reindeer, wild boar, saiga antelope, musk ox, moose, ibex, chamois, hare, fox, and possibly red deer and roe deer (Rensink 1993). The complex topography of the upland areas allowed for many different biotopes within a relatively small area. During Dryas III, the cold steppes and large numbers of reindeer returned (Rozoy 1998; Straus and Otte 1995). Hence, throughout the later Magdalenian, Belgium provided a unique mix of cold steppe/tundra fauna and more temperate fauna. During the Lower Magdalenian, humans may have used Belgium sporadically, for short summer visits to collect lithic raw materials. They regularly used the area beginning only ca. 13,000 BP, at the earliest, for both specialized and unspecialized hunting and flint acquisition (Straus and Otte 1995). The southern upland area contains most of the known Belgian cave sites, including those of the Lesse Valley in the west (e.g., Trou de Chaleux, Trou du Frontal, Trou Magrite, Trou des Nutons, Trou da Somme) (Rensink 1993). It currently appears that the northern lowland area contains only open-air quarry workshops (Orp, Kanne), in Middle Belgium. In between the southern and northern areas, on the edge of the uplands, lies the intermediate site of Bois Laiterie Cave (Otte and Straus 1997). At least some of the locations seem to have been chosen primarily for monitoring game, as they are situated on plateau edges above stream valleys, rather than close to water (Rensink 2000). Local lithic raw materials dominate at all of the sites, which is not surprising given their proximity to flint sources (Rensink 1993). Still, sites typically also contain 121 significant amounts of non-local materials (De Bie and Vermeersch 1998; Rozoy 1998), particularly from northern and northeastern France, such as in the area of Roc-la-Tour (Dewez 1987; Otte 1994; Rozoy 1988; Straus 1997b). An abundance of non-local fossils at several sites indicates visits to or contacts with the Paris Basin (Rensink 1993; Rensink et al. 1991; Straus 1997b). Based on the circulation of lithic raw materials, it appears that Magdalenian-age people using the West-Central German sites of Gönnersdorf and Andernach had direct or down-the-line connections with sources of Maastrichtian flint from sources located near the cities of Aachen and Maastricht (Féblot-Augustins 1997). In contrast, people using sites of the Belgian uplands used sources of Maastrichtian flint that are located in middle Belgium (Dewez 1987; Rensink 1993; Rozoy 1998; Straus 1997b; Teheux 1994). That may represent evidence for human territory boundaries. However, researchers currently do not agree on the exact nature of the human recolonization and use of Belgium; it is not clear whether people inhabited Belgium yearround, came up from the Paris Basin during warm seasons, or spent part of their time in the Rhine valley (De Bie and Vermeersch 1998; Street 2000; Teheux 1997). The first hypothesis appears most likely, based on faunal evidence and the presence of base camps, limited-use sites, and lithic raw material extraction sites all within Belgium. People probably over-wintered in the Lesse Valley caves and moved north onto the plateaus during warmer months (Miller et al. 1998; Rozoy 1989; Straus and Otte 1995). 122 The Netherlands The Netherlands (Figure 4.15) is located on the North European Plain, and was ecologically very similar to northern lowland Belgium during the Magdalenian. At the time of initial human re-colonization in their southernmost regions ca. 12,600 BP (Housley et al. 1997), it was characterized by a wormwood-steppe with sparse trees. With continued warming, though, trees expanded into river valleys to form open gallery forests, and upland areas developed into park landscapes. Horses were the dominant food resources (Rensink 1993). Only a small number of sites currently are known, all of which are open-air and are located on or near the edges of the loess-mantled plateaus of extreme southeastern Netherlands (e.g., Sweikhuizen-Groene Paal, Sweikuizen-Koolweg, Mesch, Eyserheide). The discovery of more sites in the Netherlands probably is hampered by the thick loess deposits covering them, as well as by significant past erosion (Rensink 2000). However, nearby sites are known from the eastern Flanders area of Belgium (e.g., Kanne) (Vermeersch et al. 1984; Vermeersch et al. 1985) and from the region of Aachen in WestCentral Germany (e.g., Alsdorf, Beeck) (Rensink 2000). All of the known Dutch sites are located either at or very near to high quality sources of Maastrichtian flint (Vermeersch et al. 1985), though Sweikhuizen-Groene Paal also has yielded some materials from the Neuwied Basin area, more than 100 kilometers to the southeast in West-Central Germany (Féblot-Augustins 1997). That evidence, plus the circulation of lithic raw materials from the Netherlands and Aachen to the Neuwied Basin (Féblot-Augustins 1997), suggests that people using sites in both areas may have been members of the same group (Rensink 1997, 2000). 123 rivers contour lines North Sea (Dry) N Rhine River Germany 50 km Belgium Maastricht Figure 4.15. Geography, hydrology, and topography of the Netherlands. Aachen Summary The variation in climate, topography, vegetation, and fauna across Western Europe during the Magdalenian provided different possibilities for human settlement at different latitudes, elevations, and times. Archaeological evidence suggests a predominance of diversified subsistence (e.g., red deer, ibex, reindeer, other ungulates, birds, fish, shellfish) in Southwestern Europe, and generally more specialized reindeer and/or horse hunting in northern regions. At the same time, topographic differences and variations in the availability of raw materials and shelter allowed for pockets of higher population density in some areas, and necessitated greater human mobility in others. For example, montane regions generally contained a greater diversity of resources and more shelter within a small area than did regions characterized by plains and plateaus. Hence, while human populations could be larger, dispersed, and relatively stable in the former regions, they tended to be smaller, seasonally concentrated, and highly mobile in the latter. With a few exceptions, the result was general contrasts in human settlement pattern, population density, and mobility, between the richer “refugia” areas of Southwestern France and Cantabrian Spain, and the more inhospitable northern plains and plateaus that were re-colonized only after ca. 14 kya (Housley et al. 1997; Jochim 1987; Straus 1991c, 2000). In the next chapter, I discuss the data set of lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects that I include in my study of Magdalenian social interactions. Then, I outline my expectations for object circulation and visual display under different conditions of population density, resource structure, and human 125 mobility. Finally, I describe the methods I used to evaluate those expectations for the regions of Western Europe discussed in this chapter. 126 CHAPTER 5: Data and Methods Introduction The data included in this dissertation come from a variety of sources, including 1) publications in English, French, Spanish, and German; 2) my own collections research in Spanish, Swiss, German, and French museums; 3) direct communication with other researchers; and 4) fieldwork I conducted in Spain and Germany. In this chapter, I describe my data set and methods of data collection, coding, and chronological attribution. I then present my general expectations for object circulation and visual display according to population density and related conditions during the Magdalenian. Finally, I outline my methods of data organization and analysis, which primarily involved Microsoft Access and a Manifold Geographic Information System 5.0. Data Set This study includes the locations and chronological attributions of 647 occupations from 509 sites in Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands (Figures 5.1-5.3 and Tables A.1-A.15 in Appendix A). They are not all of the Magdalenian sites known from the above six countries, but they represent the majority of sites for which there is published information. While I was unable to collect data on all three categories of objects—lithic raw materials, items of personal 127 N 200 km approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Lower Magdalenian Badegoulian Figure 5.1. Distribution of Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian sites in countries included in this study. N 200 km approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 5.2. Distribution of Middle Magdalenian sites in countries included in this study. N 200 km approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 5.3. Distribution of Upper Magdalenian sites in countries included in this study. ornamentation, and portable decorated objects—for each one of the sites and/or occupations, I include all of them to provide spatial contexts for my examination of population density, object circulation, and visual display. I derived the data on lithic raw materials almost exclusively from the extant literature and from direct communication with researchers. In contrast, I collected the data on items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects from both publications and first-hand studies of objects in museums. The aim of the latter was to evaluate previous researchers’ claims of stylistic similarities, and to personally view and record a wider range of objects than just those particularly outstanding examples discussed most frequently in the literature. In the following sections, I discuss more fully the categories of objects, their Magdalenian-age uses, and their implications for my analyses. Lithic Raw Materials Terms For the sake of standardization, I refer to specific lithic raw materials recovered from sites as “local”, “non-local”, or “exotic”, depending on the distances to their probable source areas. “Local” signifies up to fifty kilometers away; “non-local” signifies from fifty-one to one hundred kilometers away; and “exotic” refers to sources more than one hundred kilometers away. I was concerned largely with materials that are called “non-local” or “exotic”, so I generally did not include materials that are reported simply as “local”, with no indication of their actual source area. The exception is 131 Cantabrian Spain, where virtually all of the lithic raw materials currently are assumed to be “local”. Data Collection and Coding Relevant information on lithic raw materials included source area attributions for each kind of material, and numbers of pieces, total weights, and kinds of artifacts represented by each material in a site assemblage, when available. Most researchers report only numbers of pieces or approximate amounts, such as “some” or “a majority”, so I was unable to use raw material weights for analyses. Instead, I used the presence of specific materials as my baseline, and percentages or numbers of objects where possible. In some cases I was able to record the kinds of artifacts that are represented by each material. That became important for interpreting why and how certain exotic materials were circulated over hundreds of kilometers. I relied heavily on Féblot-Augustins (1997) for information on French, German, and Swiss lithic raw materials and source areas, on Rensink (1993) for information on Dutch materials, and on a variety of sources for information on Belgian and Spanish materials (e.g., Dewez 1987; Létocart 1970; Rensink 1993; Straus 1997b; Teheux 1994; Vermeersch et al. 1984; Vermeersch et al. 1985; Vermeersch et al. 1987; and Altuna 1986; Arias Cabal 1990; González Morales and Díaz Casado 2000; González Sainz 1989; Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980; Sarabia Rogina 1990; Soler et al. 1990; Straus 1990/91; Straus and Clark 1986, respectively). I assigned each of the material types and their sources a unique numerical code for entry into my Microsoft (MS) Access database and Geographic Information System 132 (GIS). The materials and their codes are listed in Tables B.1-B.4 in Appendix B. In total, I was able to collect information on at least the presence and likely source locations of lithic raw materials from 12 of 84 sites in Spain (14%), 75 of 675 sites in France (11%), 7 of 32 sites in Switzerland (22%), 30 of 87 sites in Germany (33%), 10 of 22 sites in Belgium (45%), and 3 of 5 sites in the Netherlands (60%). That resulted in the representation of 14 occupations for the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian, 33 occupations for the Middle Magdalenian, and 111 occupations for the Upper Magdalenian. Lithic raw material data collected for all of those occupations are presented in Tables B.5-B.16 in Appendix B. Caveats The difficulty in connecting archaeological distributions of lithic raw materials to their real-life use patterns have been discussed extensively (e.g., Eriksen 2002; Gould 1980; Gould and Saggers 1985; Hofman 1991; Meltzer 1989; Weniger 1991, cited in Eriksen 2002). Besides the issues of expedient versus curated tool use and frequency of material depletion and re-tooling events, there are many factors that confound our interpretations of archaeological distributions. Humans can collect raw materials from archaeologically known or unknown, primary or secondary, sources. They can use materials that have been collected and cached by other known or unknown groups. They also can exchange raw materials, blanks, or finished products with other people. Through one or more of those activities, then, humans can circulate lithic raw materials over anywhere from a few meters to many hundreds of kilometers. 133 Methods of Interpretation Rather than address all of these issues for the Magdalenian, I use the simplified view that the source areas of lithic raw materials predominantly found at a site indicate the consistent raw material “catchment areas” used by the inhabitants of the site. As such, I consider lithic raw materials to be baseline indicators of the areas and distances to which people regularly had access, for satisfying their technological needs (e.g., McBryde 1984). Small amounts of raw materials from significantly greater distances or different directions might indicate material exchanges between groups, or particularly long journeys made by a few individuals. Such materials might have been assigned greater cultural value than more locally available materials, assuming they were functionally equivalent (e.g., Hughes 1978). Consistently large amounts of raw materials from sources located hundreds of kilometers from a site might suggest atypical patterns of human mobility, or regularized exchange (e.g., McBryde 1984). Hunter-gatherer range size is affected by a combination of environmental, topographic, subsistence, social, and other unknown factors. However, based on readings in the anthropological literature (e.g., Binford 1978; Gould and Saggers 1985; LeTourneau 2000; Odess 1998; Weniger 1989), and considering the topography and subsistence practices of Magdalenian hunter-gatherers, I suggest that a 100 kilometer radius is a fair estimate of the area in which people regularly traveled from individual sites, particularly in central and northern France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Inhabitants of Cantabrian Spain and montane parts of Southwestern France may have used smaller catchment areas, given their denser populations, higher 134 and more heterogeneous relief, and diverse but easily accessible subsistence resources (e.g., Butzer 1986; Mellars 1985; Straus 1986). However, rather than using that arbitrary distance to define areas of regular use, I drew boundaries for “lithic units” around spatially distinct clusters of sites that contain lithic raw materials from similar or reciprocal areas. In that way, patterns of consistent source use and exotic material acquisition became apparent. The identification of lithic units was a starting point for determining whether Magdalenian people circulated items and/or styles of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects during their technology-related rounds, or in altogether different contexts of interactions. Items of Personal Ornamentation Description By “items of personal ornamentation”, I mean relatively small, lightweight, perforated or otherwise suspendable, objects that could have been worn as necklaces, earrings, bracelets, hairpieces, etc., or sewn onto clothing or bags, or hung from weapons, tools, and living structures. For the Magdalenian, those items include animal teeth, various fossils, marine shells, unmodified and modified bones, antler, ivory, and stones, and elaborately carved and engraved items, such as bone and stone disks, and cut-outs of flat bones, termed contours découpés. In addition, I include in this category fossils and materials that are not perforated, but that may have been brought back to sites as curiosities or carried in amulets, such as chunks of minerals, crystals, fossils, and amber. In most cases, so-called items of personal ornamentation are found individually, or scattered across living surfaces. Relatively few sites (e.g., El Juyo, El Pendo, El 135 Rascaño, Tito Bustillo [Cantabrian Spain]; Duruthy, Labastide [Pyrenees]; Badegoule [SW France]; Andernach, Gönnersdorf [WC Germany]; Goyet [S Belgium]) contain clusters of items that appear to have been elements of singular necklaces or caches. Four sites (Duruthy [Pyrenees]; La Madeleine, Saint-Germain-la-Rivière [SW France]; Oberkassel [WC Germany]) have Magdalenian-age burials that contained anywhere from a few to hundreds of items of personal ornamentation. I did not include burial goods in analyses of items from living floors because of their unique contexts. Instead, I discuss them separately in Chapter 7. I refer to items of personal ornamentation as visual displays, since people can use them to visually communicate information about various individual and group characteristics. A general assumption in Paleolithic archaeology is that such visible, portable, non-utilitarian objects provide evidence for both social networks and cultural divisions (e.g., Moure Romanillo 1983; Weniger 1989). Weniger (1991, cited in Eriksen 2002) suggests that tracing the origins of such objects and comparing their decorations provides a more complete picture of human mobility and social networks, than does looking at lithic raw materials. Data Collection and Coding Relevant information on items of personal ornamentation included material and source if appropriate (e.g., for marine shells, fossils, and minerals); form (e.g., tooth, bead, pendant); decoration if present (e.g., for disks and contours découpés); and number of each kind of item. Because many researchers use terms such as “some” or “teeth” or “present” rather than specific numbers of objects in their publications, I consistently 136 substituted specific numbers for those terms. That undoubtedly resulted in the underrepresentation of certain objects in certain sites. However, it was the only way in which I could include as many sites and objects as possible in my quantitative analyses. The terms and their equivalent numbers are listed in Table C.1 in Appendix C. Information came from a large number of publications and from sketches, notes, and photographs I took while studying museum collections. I assigned unique numerical codes to each of the common forms that appeared in sites from multiple countries, such as perforated animal teeth, shells, and beads. I also assigned separate codes to materials and objects unique to specific countries. The items and their codes are listed in Tables C.2-C.5 in Appendix C. In total, I was able to gather information on items of personal ornamentation for 36 of 84 sites in Spain (43%), 121 of 675 sites in France (18%), 16 of 32 sites in Switzerland (50%), 29 of 87 sites in Germany (33%), and 10 of 22 sites in Belgium (45%). That resulted in the representation of 18 occupations for the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian, 78 occupations for the Middle Magdalenian, and 166 occupations for the Upper Magdalenian. There appear to be no items of personal ornamentation known from the 5 sites I included from the Netherlands. Personal ornamentation data collected for all occupations are presented in Tables C.6C.20 in Appendix C. For 16 sites in France, anywhere from one to approximately 144 items of personal ornamentation are described in the literature but cannot be assigned to a specific phase of the Magdalenian because of their origins in mixed archaeological deposits and/or discovery during early and unsystematic excavations. Personal ornamentation data collected for those sites are presented in Table C.21 in Appendix C. 137 Caveats The distributions of items of personal ornamentation are confounded by at least as many factors as are those of lithic raw materials. They may be broken and discarded during manufacture (e.g., disks), lost singly or in groups (e.g., beads), or buried or ceremoniously disposed of (e.g., contours découpés). Depending on conditions of preservation, the objects recovered may represent all or only a small portion of the total number of objects originally deposited. Also, because they may be kept longer than utilitarian items, and may be passed more frequently from generation to generation or among kin or trading partners, they may be recovered many kilometers and years away from where and when they were made. Methods of Interpretation Because I cannot address all of the above-mentioned issues in this study, I use the simplified view that 1) numbers of items are proxies for intensity of visual signaling; 2) different items may have had different social significance because of their sources and qualities; 3) distributions of specific forms of personal ornamentation indicate the greater or lesser extent of various social networks; and 4) variation in forms suggests individual signaling while repetition in forms suggests group signaling. Portable Decorated Objects Description Because the term “mobile art” has many Western cultural connotations (Conkey 1987), I instead use the term “portable decorated objects” to refer to unsuspended, 138 engraved and/or carved items. For the Magdalenian, those include 1) decorated tools, such as spearthrowers, possible shaft straighteners (bâtons de commandements), harpoons, and bone and antler spear points and chisels; 2) decorated objects of unknown use, such as carved antler rods (baguettes rondes and demi-rondes); and 3) decorated, presumably “non-utilitarian” items, such as figurines, engraved bone and antler fragments, and engraved stones. Some objects, such as the tools, probably were curated, transported, and eventually deposited over relatively large areas in the course of hunting expeditions and residential moves. Because of their size and weight, others, such as stone plaquettes, probably were deposited in the sites in which they were made. Their fine-lined decorations may have been seen only by people using those sites, or even only by the artists themselves. Magdalenian portable decorated objects demonstrate great variability in form, decorative motif, and style of rendering. Decorative motifs include herbivores, carnivores, fish, birds, plants, humans, insects, animal-human hybrids, and geometric designs. The styles of those motifs can be naturalistic or stylistic, detailed or simple. Specific traits such as heads, eyes, lips, or hair can be exaggerated, omitted, or distinctively rendered, in diverse combinations. Yet, within the variation in form, motif, and style, there are some commonalities, both within and among sites and regions (e.g., Bosinski and Schiller 1998; Jochim et al. 1999; Sieveking 1991; Thiault and Roy 1996). Objects decorated with simple geometric forms such as parallel lines and chevrons are more numerous than those with pictorial or complex geometric designs. However, some studies of the former have shown that defining and extracting prehistoric cultural meaning from design elements is difficult. Plus, they may represent convergence 139 in decorations, and they may be culturally insignificant (e.g., Conkey 1980; Desdemaines-Hugons 1999; Price 2000). Therefore, I include only those objects that have pictorial decorations or distinctive and complicated geometric ones. Various researchers have argued that there is clear and abundant evidence for localized artistic traditions within the Magdalenian, and that those traditions may have been used for some kind of intra-regional communication or symboling (e.g., Conkey 1980, 1985; Gamble 1986, 1991). Yet, at the same time, examples of traditions that are concentrated in specific regions sometimes appear in areas quite distant from their sources, suggesting long-distance social networks and trading partnerships (e.g., G. Bosinski 1982; Buisson et al. 1996; Housley et al. 1997; Jochim et al. 1999; Otte 1992; Rensink 1993; Sieveking 1991). As with items of personal ornamentation, I refer to portable decorated objects as visual displays because they potentially can communicate information about ownership, role, status, individual or group identity, alliance, and other social characteristics. Data Collection and Coding Relevant information for portable decorated objects included material, form, decorative motif, distinctive style if present, and number of objects. Within each of those four categories, I assigned each variation a unique code. The same object could have more than one motif code and style code if it featured multiple decorations. Material, form, motif, and style variations and their associated codes are listed in Tables D.1-D.4 in Appendix D. 140 Rather than incorporate every portable decorated object into my database and analysis, however, I chose to include only those objects and decorations that other researchers and/or I identified as being strongly similar to others. That enabled me to track possible exchanges of objects and ideas about visual displays among sites and regions. In total, I recorded the distributions of 35 groups of similar forms and/or motifs, from Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian sites in Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, and/or Belgium. There are no known portable decorated objects from the 5 sites I included from the Netherlands. Caveats As with objects of personal ornamentation, many things can affect archaeological distributions of portable decorated objects, including breakage and discard during manufacture or use, curation over generations, exchange, and ritual disposal. In addition, Magdalenian portable decorated objects appear to have been used for a wide variety of activities, from hunting to entertaining to ritual activity. As such, their different distributions may have resulted from multiple kinds of social interactions and may have been affected by very different pre- and post-depositional processes. Methods of Interpretation Despite the above issues, archaeological patterns of portable decorated object distributions can be informative about the prevalence of individual versus group signaling and about the nature and extent of social interactions. I suggest that marked variation in portable decorated object forms points to an allowance for individual creativity and 141 identity. In contrast, a replication of portable decorated object forms implies their use as signifiers of group identity, alliance, or relatedness. At the same time, stylistic variation within those common forms demonstrates people’s individual interpretations of normative cultural styles (e.g., Wiessner 1997). Commonalities in combinations of object forms, motifs, and styles may suggest exchanges of actual artifacts. However, similarities in motif and/or style across different forms of portable decorated objects may indicate a sharing of cosmological or aesthetic ideas, rather than exchanges of objects themselves. Archaeological Expectations for Visual Display Because Magdalenian Western Europe was characterized by spatial and temporal variation in population density, raw material availability, and resource structure, predictions for the uses of different visual expressions should ideally be based on regionand time-specific local conditions. However, rather than make predictions for each specific region during each Magdalenian phase, I outline some general expectations based on differences in population density and related factors. Low Population Density Under low population density, I expect to see small numbers of circulated objects and visual displays and, hence, a low level of visual signaling. I also expect to see an emphasis on low-intensity individual displays of identity, travel, and social connections, as individuals negotiate within and among groups, without emphasizing group social 142 barriers. Very small numbers of objects, or at least numerically undifferentiated numbers of objects, should be the result of small numbers of people not having the need or resources to strongly advertise intra- or inter-group social divisions. Accordingly, in regions that contain few, dispersed archaeological sites— suggesting low population density—I expect to see 1) small numbers but diverse forms of exotic lithic raw materials and personal ornamentation, and especially items that are moderate to difficult to obtain; and 2) diverse portable decorated object motifs and styles, with few identical decorations. Overall, I expect low rates of visual signaling, and a preponderance of individual signaling, in regions with low population density. High Population Density Under relatively higher population density, I expect to see exponentially more circulated objects and visual displays and, hence, a relatively higher level of visual signaling. In particular, I expect to see evidence for the differential control of visual displays, such as in caches and burials. I also expect an emphasis on group displays, especially at social boundaries where there is increased inter-group competition. At the same time, there should be some variations on common forms, as individuals negotiate with one another within groups (e.g., Wiessner 1997). Accordingly, I expect to see 1) relatively less variety in forms of personal ornamentation, but relatively many examples of each form within individual sites; 2) similar forms of highly modified (e.g., carved and engraved) personal ornamentation; and 3) common motifs and styles in portable decorated objects. The last should be particularly evident on objects that will be seen by members of other groups, such as 143 curated osseous tools and items that are costly to acquire or make, in terms of time or materials. Overall, I expect relatively high rates of visual signaling, and an emphasis on group signaling, in regions characterized by relatively high population density. Effects of Range Size and Competition Grafen (1990) predicts that where there is more intense signaling, group size is probably larger, and/or the amount of social competition within groups is greater. By extension, as the size of a catchment area or a social network increases, signaling intensity should also increase in order to more clearly distinguish one group from another, and to reach a larger audience. That could have occurred at specific times and places during the Magdalenian if groups had to increase their ranges in response to environmental degradation or human population pressure, in order to maintain their access to sufficient resources (e.g., Whallon 1989). It also could have occurred as smaller groups split off from larger ones and colonized new areas while maintaining social ties with original populations and regions (e.g., Gamble 1983). Increases in signaling intensity also could have occurred if groups relaxed their egalitarian controls (Boehm 1999) and allowed individuals or lineages to amass differential amounts of symbolic or social capital in hierarchical or heterarchical societies (Bourdieu 1977; Wiessner 2004). People might have encouraged social competition when they had consistent access to a particularly rich resource base, and the management of resources by certain individuals or sub-groups benefited the larger group (e.g., Wiessner 1997, 2002b, 2004). Alternatively, Magdalenian-age people might have supported temporary social inequality when they were particularly stressed, due to 144 unfamiliar, unpredictable or limited resources or movement into new areas. In those cases, they might have benefited from strong leadership and/or organized protection from other groups (e.g., Wiessner 2004). Hence, while intensity and kind of visual signaling should vary most closely with population density, special situations of population movement or extreme resource abundance or social stress might also have markedly affected archaeological patterns of visual signaling. Methods of Data Collection and Categorization In accordance with the above expectations, I performed various analyses to identify sites and areas that contain relatively less and relatively more intense visual signaling, and differential emphases on individual- versus group-type signaling. Then I used additional data on site density, topography, raw material distribution, and food resource structure to evaluate my expectations. For example, I looked at the numbers and kinds of visual displays to identify areas in which, according to my expectations, population densities should have been high. Then I looked at the other evidence to see if population densities did appear to be high, or if there were other factors that might have contributed to the intensity and form of signaling. In this section, I describe the ways in which I collected and analyzed my data. Publications I extracted data on site locations and chronological attributions, and on all three categories of objects, from available publications in English, French, Spanish, and 145 German. In order to create site distribution maps in the Geographic Information System (GIS), I had to determine the longitude and latitude for each site. That I did by visually matching the GIS maps with maps shown in publications, putting the cursor at the approximate site location, recording the longitude and latitude, and entering them into a Microsoft (MS) Access database. For the artifacts found within those sites, I recorded the numbers and kinds of objects and the potential similarities among them that the authors reported. To represent material source areas in the GIS, I again paired up the GIS and the published maps and used my computer mouse to approximately re-create the areas shown or described in the publications. Museum Collections Another major source of data on items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects was my direct study of artifacts in museums. During three different trips to Europe, I gathered information and/or studied collections at the Museo Arqueológico Nacional and the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Madrid (Spain), the Universidad de Salamanca (Spain), the Museo Arqueológico in Oviedo (Spain), the Museo Regional de Prehistoria y Arqueología in Santander (Spain), the Museum zu Allerheiligen in Schaffhausen (Swizerland), the Service Cantonal d’Archéologie in Neuchâtel (Switzerland), Schloß Monrepos near Neuwied (Germany), the Universität Tübingen (Germany), the Musée des Antiquités Nationales in St-Germain-en-Laye (France), the Musée de l’Homme in Paris (France), the Service Régional de l’Archéologie in Toulouse (France), the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle in Toulouse (France), the Musée du Mas d’Azil in Le Mas d’Azil (France), the Musée Bégouën in 146 Montesquieu-Avantès (France), the Musée National de Préhistoire in Les Eyzies (France), the Musée d’Aquitaine in Bordeaux (France), and the Institut du Quaternaire in Talence (France). Data collection in museums involved measuring, weighing, sketching, taking descriptive notes on, and, when permitted, photographing objects. Chronological Attributions I assigned the artifacts and the occupations from which they originated to three different time periods, based on radiocarbon dates and temporal attributions given by other researchers. Following Corchón (e.g., 1995, 1997, 1999), González Sainz (1989), and others, those time periods are 1) the Lower Magdalenian (LM) dating to ca.17,00014,500 BP; 2) the Middle Magdalenian (MM) dating to ca.14,500-13,000 BP; and 3) the Upper/Final Magdalenian (UM) dating to ca.13,000-11,000 BP. Those phases correspond roughly to early Dryas I, late Dryas I, and the Late Glacial Interstadial, respectively (Antoine 1997; Eriksen 2000; Leroi-Gourhan and Renault-Miskovsky 1977; Rensink 1993; Straus 1991a, 1990/91). In addition, some early Magdalenian sites, especially in Southwestern France, are attributed to the Badegoulian, ca. 18,000-16,500 BP (e.g., Fontana 2000). Because they are considered to be somewhat contemporaneous with, though culturally different from, Lower Magdalenian sites (e.g., de Sonneville-Bordes 1989; González Echegaray 1996; White 1987), I include many of them in my study. I differentiate them from Lower Magdalenian sites, but I include them in maps and analyses of the latter to provide more complete pictures of site distributions during the early Magdalenian time period, sensu lato. 147 Many of the 509 sites included in this study contain multiple occupation levels, often dating to two or three different Magdalenian phases. When chronological dates for a particular occupation level straddled my temporal boundaries, I assigned the occupation to one or the other period based on the artifact forms that were present. That was a biased, but necessary and traditional, action that occurred most frequently with Swiss sites and with Kniegrotte in East-Central Germany. For numerous Swiss sites, Leesch (e.g., 1993a, 2000) has argued that traditional temporal attributions and limited numbers of radiocarbon dates are at odds with palynological data (Street 2000). As such, many of the sites (e.g., Champréveyres, Eremitage, Freudenthal, Heidenküche, Hollenberg-Höhle III, Kesslerloch, Monruz, Moosbühl, Sälihöhle Oben, Winznau-Käsloch, Winznau-Köpfli) fall at the boundary between the “Middle” and “Upper” Magdalenian. Of those sites, I attributed Freudenthal and Kesslerloch to both the Middle and Upper Magdalenian because each contains objects traditionally associated with both phases (e.g., Le Tensorer 1998). All of the others I attributed to the Upper Magdalenian because they appear to contain objects traditionally thought to be more associated with that phase (e.g., Bullinger 2000; Bullinger et al. 1997; Street 2000). In the case of Kniegrotte, nine radiocarbon dates on humanly modified animal bones range from 13,090 ±130 BP to 14,470 ±140 BP, with most around 13,150 ±130 BP (Hedges et al. 1998). While some researchers (e.g., Hedges et al. 1998; Street 2000) suggest that those dates point to an Upper Magdalenian occupation, they fall within the Middle Magdalenian date range used in this study. In addition, various artifact forms (e.g., lithic triangles; short, double-bevelled and grooved antler points) are characteristic 148 of a chronologically older Middle Magdalenian (Hedges et al. 1998). Accordingly, I attributed Kniegrotte to both the Middle and Upper Magdalenian, but included all of its lithic raw materials and perforated and/or decorated objects in my Middle Magdalenian analyses. In some cases, due to multiple human occupations, 14C plateaus, inter-level sample mixing, lab error, etc. (e.g., Andernach, Enlène, Etiolles, Gönnersdorf, Isturitz, Pincevent, Tito Bustillo, La Vache), sites contain multiple levels or occupations that fall within the same Magdalenian phase. For those, I included the different levels and occupations as separate entities where possible, but combined all of their artifacts into a general site category when necessary. In still other cases (e.g., Cap Blanc, Freudenthal, La Garenne, Gourdan, Kesslerloch, Laugerie-Basse, Laugerie-Haute Est, Marcamps, Le Mas d’Azil, Montastruc, Le Placard), sites have multiple occupations that can be assigned to different Magdalenian phases. However, because of the way the sites were excavated or the objects reported, it is impossible to assign each specific artifact to one or another phase. For those sites, I included only the artifacts that could be assigned to single Magdalenian phases in my general analyses. However, because many of the sites are materially rich, I also performed some separate preliminary analyses on them. For example, to determine whether their numbers of unprovenienced artifacts significantly affected my calculation of intensity of visual display, I performed multiple versions of the same analyses. If certain sites had both Middle and Upper Magdalenian occupations, I first added all of their unprovenienced artifacts to my analyses of Middle Magdalenian visual displays. Then I added all of their 149 unprovenienced artifacts to my analyses of Upper Magdalenian visual displays. My results suggested that, even if all of a site’s unprovenienced artifacts dated to one particular Magdalenian phase, the added numbers did not dramatically change my calculation of intensity of visual display for that site. Therefore, I did not include the unprovenienced artifacts in the final analyses presented here. Exceptions were Freudenthal and Kesslerloch in Switzerland. Because many of their objects traditionally are associated with either the Middle or the Upper Magdalenian, I attributed them and related objects to one or the other phase. I generally assigned “non-diagnostic” artifacts to Middle Magdalenian occupations because both sites contain abundant cold-loving fauna, possibly suggesting more intensive early habitation (Leesch 1993a; Street 2000), and because Kesslerloch’s apparently Middle Magdalenian deposits are considerably thicker than its Upper Magdalenian ones (c. 200 cm versus 70 cm [Eriksen 1991]). Population Density For the purposes of this study, I consider population density to be a function of site density and number within a geographic region. That approach is biased by spatial and temporal differences in economic organization and land use (e.g., Binford 1980), as well as by investigative intensity and topography (e.g., Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000). Still, for this study, it provides an adequate measure of the relative intensity of human use of specific areas of the landscape during different Magdalenian phases. To arrive at a quantitative measure of site density, I first grouped sites according to their geographic locations. Geographic regions were defined by both natural 150 topography (e.g., river systems, mountain chains) and human settlement patterns (e.g., empty spaces between site clusters). Then I counted the total number of sites located within a fifty kilometer radius of each site and averaged those numbers to arrive at a mean site density per region. I also created size-scaled site distribution maps in the GIS to represent the number of sites located within a fifty kilometer radius of each site. I qualitatively compared regional population densities, as derived from site densities, by looking at a variety of factors in combination. Those included mean regional site density, total number of sites located in the region, spatial distribution of those sites (e.g., clumped or dispersed), evidence for their short- or long-term occupations (e.g., numbers of hearths, evidence for living structures, numbers and kinds of artifacts), and sizes and possible uses of sites. When I began my analysis of population density, I assumed that newly re-populated northern regions of Western Europe would have lower densities than continuously inhabited and resource-rich southwestern regions. Methods of Data Organization and Display Microsoft Access Having coded each of the lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and selected portable decorated objects, I entered the codes, numbers or relative amounts of items, and comments into various tables that were linked to site names and locations within an MS Access database. Then I performed queries within MS Access to create tables of site occupations that contained the specific kinds or combinations of artifacts in which I was interested. Examples of queries included 1) Lower Magdalenian sites 151 containing engraved red deer scapulae; 2) Middle Magdalenian sites containing perforated bone, ivory, or stone disks; and 3) Upper Magdalenian sites containing Bergerac flint. Manifold GIS 5.0 Manifold GIS 5.0 is an MS Windows-based Geographic Information System (GIS) that can store and display large amounts of spatial information, together with nonspatial metadata. I selected Manifold GIS 5.0 because, when I began my research, it was the one GIS system I could find that came with highly detailed maps of Europe. To create the GIS used in this study, I extracted layers with country boundaries, hydrology, and topography from a data disk I purchased from Manifold. I projected those base map layers into Lambert Conformal Conic, in order to have a relatively accurate visual and metric representation of the shapes and sizes of the countries in my study area. A conformal map is one in which sizes, angles, and distances of geographic features are correctly depicted at relatively small scales, such as the European continent, albeit with slight distortion away from the map’s center point (Snyder and Voxland 1989). Lambert Conformal Conic is appropriate for areas with relatively large horizontal extents across similar latitudes, but relatively small vertical extents, such as Western Europe, because it projects areas in relation to the central latitude of the map (Snyder 1987). To the base map, I added my own layers representing early Magdalenian coastlines (Housley et al. 1997), and source areas for lithic raw materials, shells, fossils, minerals, and other materials. After performing queries in MS Access, I imported the 152 tables into the GIS and used the site longitudes and latitudes to create layers showing the distributions of sites and specific kinds of objects. Then I drew lines between sites and sources of raw materials, and boundaries around variously determined site clusters. Each of the three Magdalenian phases has its own separate layers pertaining to the distributions of lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects. Analyses I analyzed each of the three object categories—lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects—separately, and then scrutinized my findings in relation to those of the other categories. That allowed me to perform different analyses that were specifically appropriate to each object category, while also integrating the various results. Lithic Raw Materials Analyses of lithic raw materials were designed to identify areas from which people regularly acquired their tool stone. As such, they served as baseline indicators of the extent and direction of regular, technologically necessitated human movements in different regions of Western Europe. However, I do not suggest that the geographically distinct site clusters I defined using the distributions of lithic raw materials represent territories of specific groups. Rather, they are simply one indicator of the lithic raw material “catchment areas” that people in those regions used. 153 Raw Material Sources and Connections to Sites First I digitized known and likely lithic raw material source areas in Manifold 5.0 (Figure 5.4). I interpolated the locations of those source areas from publications by other researchers, who frequently represented sources as points on a map, or simply mentioned their locations in a text. For consistency, I generally drew those sources as rough, angular circles approximately 5 kilometers in diameter. When researchers presented maps showing actual source areas, I attempted to reproduce those as accurately as possible. However, any errors in size, shape, and exact location for any sources are my own. I was more concerned with representing sources of sites’ non-local and exotic lithic raw materials than local ones, so my representation of the latter is likely to be incomplete. For each of the three Magdalenian phases, I drew lines between each of the sites that contained a specific raw material, and the closest or most convenient source location for that material. The latter was conditioned by topography and river courses, in that sometimes the most convenient location was farther away than the closest one, but was on the same river drainage or in the same topographic zone as the site. My connections between sites and sources also were guided by the distances reported by other researchers (e.g., Féblot-Augustins 1997; Floss and Burkert in press). By creating separate layers for Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian sites and source locations, I could look at changes in the dispersion of specific lithic raw materials over time. Clearly, straight lines are not representative of the paths people would have taken across the Western European landscape. However, showing potentially more realistic movements down river valleys and across mountain passes was not within the scope of this study. Straight lines also make it appear that all materials were acquired directly. 154 Agde stone chalcedony chert/flint radiolarite, lydite jasper limestone various materials opal quartz quartzite red cornelian rock crystal sandstone silicified tuff silicified wood N 200 km concentrated outcrops general areas of flint occurrence approx. coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 5.4. Distribution of lithic raw material source areas included in this study. However, that is not my contention. I use straight lines to visually depict differences in the distances from which certain materials in different sites originally came, by whatever means. As such, the distances covered by the lines give an indication of the perhaps maximum extents of social networks by which certain materials were circulated across Western Europe. Lithic Raw Material Units Based on the connections between sites and sources, I defined the limits of spatially discrete site clusters, which I term “lithic raw material units”. The general characteristics I used for defining units were the following: 1) sites located in fairly close proximity to one another contain materials from the same source(s); 2) sites for which I have no information on lithic raw materials are located amongst, or in the same river valley as, those containing materials from the same source; and/or 3) sites contain materials from sources close to other sites, which contain materials from sources close to the first group of sites. For each different unit, I recorded the maximum distance between sites, and the maximum distance between a site and lithic raw material source. I also recorded the number and percentage of local, non-local, and exotic materials found within each region. Because many of the lithic raw material units did not contain examples of all three distance categories, I was unable to use Chi-Square Tests to determine if there were more or fewer local, non-local, or exotic types than would be expected due to chance alone. Instead, I qualitatively compared the proportions of local, non-local, and exotic types with the locations of lithic raw material sources, to see if the proportions could be 156 explained by the availability of raw materials. For example, if sites in a specific region contained mostly exotic lithic raw materials, I determined whether that stemmed from a lack of closer lithic source areas, or was the result of people’s choosing exotic over local materials. Distribution of Specific Materials Finally, I looked at the spatial distributions of eleven lithic raw materials that each were used during different Magdalenian phases. I performed queries in MS Access and then imported them into the GIS, to create maps showing those distributions. That enabled me to see if the different materials were circulated over lesser or greater distances at different times, and to see if their circulations correlated with those of specific items of personal ornamentation or portable decorated objects. Items of Personal Ornamentation Analyses of items of personal ornamentation were designed to identify patterns in intensity and kind of visual signaling, recognizable cultural differences between different areas, and reaches of social networks. Raw Material Sources and Connections to Sites As with the lithic raw materials, I first digitized known and probable sources of materials such as minerals, crystals, jet, amber, fossils, and shells, which were perforated and/or collected as items of personal ornamentation (Figure 5.5). Again, for each of the three Magdalenian phases, I drew lines between each of the sites that contained a specific 157 amber approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) black lead fossil shell jet/lignite marine shell various materials oolite other fossils psammite 2 pyrite 3 sandstone schist, slate serpentine, steatite 1 Pliocene shell1 N 200 km 1 4 2 Eocene shell1 (Lutetian, Auversian) 3 Eocene shell1 4 1 (Paris Basin) 4 Miocene shell1 4 4 (1Taborin 1992) Figure 5.5. Distribution of personal ornamentation material source areas included in this study. material, and the closest one or two source locations for that material. The caveats I mentioned for drawing straight lines between sites and lithic raw material sources also apply to items of personal ornamentation. Again, by creating separate layers for Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian sites and source locations, I could look at temporal changes in the distances and directions from which people acquired raw materials for their items of personal ornamentation. Intensity and Kind of Visual Signaling For the second stage of analysis, I included all sites, both with and without evidence for personal ornamentation. The purpose was to identify spatial and temporal concentrations of visual displays, and particularly those that might indicate a build-up over time of individual- versus group-type signaling. In addition to determining total numbers of items for each site, I categorized each item in terms of two distinct qualities—ease of obtainment and degree of modification. In terms of ease of obtainment, the items are made of materials that range from 1) easy to obtain, such as teeth and bones from food animals, and locally available shells, fossils, or minerals (from <50 kilometers away); 2) somewhat difficult to obtain, such as teeth and bones from carnivores and other non-food animals, and non-locally available materials (from 50 to 100 kilometers away); to 3) very difficult to obtain, such as extremely rare animal remains or other materials that are unusual or exotic (from >100 kilometers away). In terms of degree of modification, the items are either 1) “natural”, meaning unmodified except for a perforation or suspension groove or simple engraved lines (e.g., 159 perforated animal tooth, bone splinter, crystal, or mineral chunk); or 2) “created”, meaning extracted from a larger piece of material, and/or carved or engraved with complex naturalistic or geometric designs (e.g., bone disk, pictorially decorated bone tube, or jet bead). First I calculated the total number of items of personal ornamentation for each occupation for which I was able to collect information. After classifying each object, I also compiled total numbers for each ease of obtainment and degree of modification category for each site occupation. When alternate sources for materials were given, I listed them in each of the appropriate data table columns, with the notation “alt” (alternate) following their numbers. However, I consistently counted those objects as coming from the “easier” or “closer” source. Next, in order to establish a link between intensity of signaling through personal ornamentation, and population density, I created site-specific intensity ratios by dividing the number of items found at a site by the number of sites located within a 50 kilometer radius. I calculated those ratios for total numbers of items of personal ornamentation, as well as for items represented by each ease of obtainment category and each degree of modification category. I suggest that comparing intensity ratios across sites and regions is more informative about intensity of visual signaling than is comparing actual numbers of objects. Numbers are biased by site sizes and do not indicate the relationship between use of visual display and population and audience size. In contrast, ratios indicate whether, as expected, people living at high population densities used exponentially more visual displays, in relation to population and audience size, than people living at low population densities. 160 After calculating the ratios, I used them to create spatial distribution maps on which size-scaled symbols represent each site’s intensity of visual signaling in relation to density of surrounding population. Once again, I created different distribution maps for the three different Magdalenian phases. Those allowed me to visually identify regional and temporal trends in intensity of visual display, and concentrations of specific ease of obtainment and degree of modification categories of items. Distribution of Groups of Similar Items For the third stage of analysis, I identified the spatial distributions of 11 specific kinds of personal ornamentation, whose inter-site similarities have been noted by other researchers and myself. No groups of similar perforated objects have been identified in the literature for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian sites, so all of the examples come from Middle and Upper Magdalenian occupations. Items include contours découpés (animal head-shaped cut-outs of flat bones), perforated and engraved teeth, perforated disks, carved and/or engraved pendants, and beads. I used those distributions to identify temporal phases and regions in which created and replicated objects, indicative of group signaling, were common. I also used them to look for more circumscribed versus more open dispersions of specific objects and designs. I included an object in this part of my study, and its site in my GIS distribution maps, if I could verify the object’s similarity in form, motif, and/or style to one or more other objects, according to the following criteria: 1) the object is described in detail in the literature; 2) the object is shown in a photograph or drawing in the literature; 3) the object’s similarity to others is described in the literature; or 4) I saw the object or an exact 161 replica first-hand in a museum; and 5) the object can be assigned, with more or less certainty, to the same Magdalenian phase as the other objects that reportedly are similar to it. The last criterion excludes items that are similar in form, but appear to come from very different temporal contexts (e.g., contour découpé herbivore bodies at Kesslerloch (Middle Magdalenian) and Oberkassel (Upper Magdalenian) (Rensink 1993). However, there are a few exceptions to my guidelines. For example, perforated disks and sea urchin spine pendants are found in both Middle and Upper Magdalenian contexts, and a few contours découpés (e.g., horse heads at Saint Michel/Arudy and Tito Bustillo, and an ibex head at Tito Bustillo) are attributed to the Middle Magdalenian based on their highly distinctive and otherwise temporally bounded forms, rather than on undisputed archaeological proveniences. Portable Decorated Objects Analyses of portable decorated objects were intended to identify the maximum and the more regular reaches of social networks, to identify concentrations of replicated group-type visual displays, and to distinguish between the spread of objects and the sharing of aesthetic ideas. Distribution of Groups of Similar Objects First I used the GIS to display Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian distributions of 34 kinds of decorated objects or motifs that have been deemed highly similar to one another, either by other researchers or by myself. Objects include 162 engraved and/or carved bones and stone plaquettes, and carved antler rods, shaft straighteners (bâtons de commandement), spearthrowers, and figurines. Motifs include detailed red deer, tectiform signs, three-dimensional carved lines, nets, plant fronds, parallel and zigzag lines, “eyes”, spirals, “sun rays”, diamonds with central lines, curved side lines, bison in profile, circles within triangular shaped brackets, “train track” lines, horizontal “crawling” women, side protruberances, raised central lines, red deer stags, red deer hinds, frontal-view stylized ibex and cervids, carved “steps” with and without associated designs, twisting lines, horses with exaggerated heads, highly detailed herbivores, and stylized females. I used the same criteria for including portable decorated objects and motifs in similar groups as I did for items of personal ornamentation. When examining the portable decorated object distributions, I looked for the following things: 1) whether specific objects and/or motifs were distributed widely and evenly, or clustered tightly, with a few or no distant outliers; 2) whether whole object forms, or only motifs, were dispersed widely; 3) whether there were correlations between the kinds of objects (e.g., tools or items of unknown function) and/or motifs (e.g., specifically detailed or very stylized) and their degree of dispersal; and 4) whether there were spatial and temporal differences in the above conditions. Combinations of Object Categories After performing analyses on each of the individual object categories, I compared my results among them. That included identifying similarities and differences in the general distances and directions that the three kinds of objects were circulated, and 163 identifying any direct links in their distributions. It also involved identifying sites and regions with high versus low concentrations of exotic objects, and high versus low concentrations of similar objects. Finally, it involved identifying relations among objects commonly found in areas with relatively few, dispersed sites (suggesting low population density), and those with relatively many, clustered sites (suggesting high population density). In the next chapter, I describe and interpret the findings of my various analyses and discuss whether they met my expectations or not. 164 CHAPTER 6: Results and Evaluation of Expectations Introduction In this chapter, I describe the results of my analyses and use them to evaluate the expectations presented in the previous chapter. Specifically, I address whether the Magdalenian evidence supports my idea that the nature and intensity of hunter-gatherer visual signaling is related to population density. Evidence that people living at relatively low population densities 1) circulated small numbers of objects and emphasized very exotic materials, and 2) used diverse forms of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects, would support my expectations. To the contrary, evidence that people living at relatively high population densities 1) circulated large numbers of objects and emphasized local materials, and 2) created groups of similar items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects, would support my expectations. Site Density Numbers of sites and average site densities for each geographic region, per time period, are provided in Tables 6.1 to 6.3. Numbers of sites located within a 50 kilometer radius of each site are presented graphically in Figures 6.1 to 6.3. Site densities increased during the Magdalenian for all regions of Western Europe except the French and Spanish Pyrenees. In the latter case, the total number of sites increased, but the average number of sites located within a 50 kilometer radius of each site decreased because the sites 165 Table 6.1. Total Numbers of Sites and Average Site Densities Within Regions for the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian. Region # of Sites Mean SW France 32 7.8 Cantabrian Spain 21 5.6 E Pyrenees/Mediterranean 5 4.2 WC France 6 3.7 Massif Central 7 3.3 Spanish Pyrenees 1 2 Paris Basin 2 2 SE France 1 1 NE France 2 1 Switzerland 1 1 SW Germany 2 1 mean = average # of sites w/n a 50 km radius of each site in a region # of sites = total # of sites within a specific region Table 6.2. Total Numbers of Sites and Average Site Densities Within Regions for the Middle Magdalenian. Region # of Sites Mean SW France 44 15.9 C Pyrenees 28 9 Cantabrian Spain 19 5.7 WC France 11 5.7 NE France 13 5.6 E Pyrenees/Mediterranean 5 4.2 Spanish Pyrenees 3 4 Massif Central 5 3 NE Switzerland 3 3 NW Switzerland 2 2.5 EC Germany 2 2 SE France 3 1.7 SW Germany 2 1.5 WC Germany 1 1 Belgium 1 1 mean = average # of sites w/n a 50 km radius of each site in a region # of sites = total # of sites within a specific region Table 6.3. Total Numbers of Sites and Average Site Densities Within Regions for the Upper Magdalenian. Region SW France SW Germany NW Switzerland Massif Central S Belgium/N France Cantabrian Spain NW Germany/N Belgium/Netherlands NE Switzerland EC Germany NE France Paris Basin E Pyrenees/Mediterranean WC France C Pyrenees Spanish Pyrenees SE France WC Germany # of Sites Mean 72 30 51 20.4 24 19.8 24 13.6 20 13.4 41 12.1 11 11 5 10.2 24 9.2 32 9.1 25 8.7 10 7.4 14 6.6 23 6.4 7 3.6 10 3.4 5 3.4 Other Switzerland 1 2 Other France 7 1.6 Other Germany 2 1 mean = average # of sites w/n a 50 km radius of each site in a region # of sites = total # of sites within a specific region italics = sites that do not fit geographically into any of the other defined regions Lower Magdalenian Badegoulian Range: 1 to 12 sites within a 50 km radius N 200 km approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 6.1. Site densities (# of sites within a 50 km radius) during the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian. Range: 1 to 28 sites within a 50 km radius N 200 km approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 6.2. Site densities (# of sites within a 50 km radius) during the Middle Magdalenian. Range: 1 to 45 sites within a 50 km radius N 200 km approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 6.3. Site densities (# of sites within a 50 km radius) during the Upper Magdalenian. became dispersed across the region, farther from sites in the French Pyrenees. Otherwise, the nearly ubiquitous increase in site densities fits with the picture of generally increasing human populations over the course of the Magdalenian. Still, long-term habitation was not always correlated with high site density. Of the two continuously inhabited regions, Southwestern France did exhibit by far the highest average site density in Western Europe during each Magdalenian phase. However, while Cantabrian Spain had the second highest average site density during the Lower Magdalenian, it had the third highest average site density during the Middle Magdalenian, and only the sixth highest average site density during the Upper Magdalenian. The next-longest and most intensely inhabited region, the French Pyrenees, had the second highest average site density during the Middle Magdalenian, but only the fourteenth highest site density during the Upper Magdalenian. Population Density I suggest that, for most regions of Magdalenian Western Europe, relative site density is a rough indicator of relative population density (but not population size), even if they do not measure the same things (e.g., Jochim 1987). While there may be a few exceptions (e.g., Spanish Pyrenees, Northeastern France, the Netherlands) or differences in patterns of site use (e.g., Southwestern versus Central Germany), most regions contain evidence for a variety of site sizes and types, including so-called base camps and specialized hunting or resource extraction sites. This suggests that, at the large spatial 171 and temporal scales employed here, average rates and patterns of site creation and use probably were similar across most regions. Hence, regions with relatively higher site densities probably were used relatively more intensively and/or were inhabited by people living and moving in closer proximity to one another than regions with relatively lower site densities. Those conditions would have led to relatively frequent and predicted encounters with other people in higher site density areas, and relatively infrequent and unpredicted encounters in lower site density areas. The region of West-Central Germany provides an exception to the presumed correspondence between site density and population density. While site density is extremely low (an average of 3.4 sites within a 50 kilometer radius of each site), two of the region’s five currently known and reported-on sites—Gönnersdorf and Andernach were arguably aggregation sites, or at least sites with repeated and intensive use. If they were aggregation sites, then their region’s low site density is not in accordance with the sites’ temporary conditions of high population density. Still, I argue that, for the purposes of this study, relative population density is suggested by relative site density. As such, the dichotomy between high population density in southwestern regions and low population density in northern regions of Western Europe existed only during the Lower and Middle Magdalenian. During the Upper Magdalenian, the newly re-populated northern regions were characterized by some of the highest site densities. That may have been because human groups could expand rapidly in uninhabited areas, intensively utilizing unclaimed territories and reaching relatively dense population levels in a few hundred, or certainly a couple thousand, years. 172 However, the nature of site and population density in southwestern versus northern regions was somewhat different. By the Upper Magdalenian, inhabited portions of southwestern regions were located relatively close to one another, while many of those in northern regions seem to have been separated by large open spaces. The dispersed concentrations of sites in newly populated regions may have made those areas very socially dynamic, as rapidly increasing numbers of people negotiated with one another to establish effective social organization within individual regions and created social networks that linked different regions. Lithic Raw Materials Analyses of lithic raw material circulation were designed to create a baseline picture of the areas from which people in specific parts of Western Europe obtained their raw materials. I use the term “lithic raw material unit” to refer to a group of sites that appears to have been related in terms of both materials and geographic location. The analyses of lithic raw material circulation also allowed me to look for changes in land use over time, and to differentiate between materials that probably were obtained directly, and those that more likely were acquired through down-the-line exchanges. Lithic Raw Material Connections and Units As derived from the available literature, straight-line connections between sites and lithic raw material source areas for the Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian are 173 represented in Figures 6.4-6.6. Data on lithic raw materials and distances to sources are presented in Tables B.5 to B.16 in Appendix B. Caveats For all time periods, my definition of lithic raw material units was hindered by an incomplete data set. I was unable to collect information on materials and sources for many of the sites included in this study, and the data I was able to collect were biased by incomplete raw material identification, sourcing, and publication. I was conservative in my inclusion of sites in specific Middle and Upper Magdalenian lithic raw material units, so only those sites that are fairly tightly clustered are shown as part of a unit. Because I was unable to gather information on lithic raw materials and sources for certain large regions of Western Europe (e.g., West-Central France, Eastern France), I could not define lithic units for them. However, I do incorporate those regions into analyses of distributions of items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects. Lower Magdalenian Based on connections between Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian sites and their lithic raw material source areas, as well as on the spatially distinct clusters of sites in Cantabrian Spain, I defined seven Lower Magdalenian/Badegoulian lithic raw material units—four in Cantabrian Spain, two in Southwestern France, and one in Southwestern Germany (Figure 6.4 and Tables B.17-B.19 in Appendix B). The region of Southwestern Germany contains only one site—Munzingen— which is controversially assigned to at least the Lower and Upper, and possibly also the 174 Agde stone approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) chalcedony chert/flint radiolarite, lydite jasper limestone various materials opal quartz quartzite red cornelian rock crystal N sandstone silicified tuff silicified wood 200 km concentrated outcrop areas general areas of flint occurrence Lower Magdalenian Badegoulian lithic raw material connection lithic raw material unit Figure 6.4. Lithic raw material connections and units for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian sites included in this study. Middle Magdalenian, based on a large series of radiocarbon dates (Alvarez Fernández 2001; Djindjian 2000; Street 2000; Weniger 1989). When presenting information on lithic raw materials recovered from the site, Féblot-Augustins (1997) does not specify Magdalenian phases for them. As a result, I include Munzingen’s lithic raw material connections in both the Lower and the Upper Magdalenian. However, I discuss those connections only for the Lower Magdalenian. I do not include Munzingen in the Upper Magdalenian lithic raw material unit for Southwestern Germany because it is on a different river system and in a different topographic zone, and it contains only local materials. Middle Magdalenian Based on connections between Middle Magdalenian sites and their lithic raw material source areas, and on the spatially distinct clusters of sites in Cantabrian Spain, I defined eleven Middle Magdalenian lithic raw material units—four in Cantabrian Spain, one in the Pyrenees, three in Southwestern France, one in the Massif Central, one in Switzerland, and one in East-Central Germany (Figure 6.5 and Tables B.20-B.25 in Appendix B). Upper Magdalenian Using lines drawn between Upper Magdalenian sites and their lithic raw material source areas, and the spatially distinct clusters of sites in Cantabrian Spain, I defined fifteen Upper Magdalenian lithic raw material units—four in Cantabrian Spain, three in the Pyrenees, one in Southwestern France, one in the Massif Central, one in the Paris 176 Agde stone chalcedony chert/flint radiolarite, lydite jasper limestone various materials opal quartz quartzite red cornelian rock crystal N sandstone silicified tuff silicified wood 200 km concentrated outcrop areas general areas of flint occurrence lithic raw material connection lithic raw material unit approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 6.5. Lithic raw material connections and units for Middle Magdalenian sites included in this study. Basin, one in Switzerland, one in Southwestern Germany, one in East-Central Germany, one in West-Central Germany and the Netherlands, and one in southern Belgium (Figure 6.6 and Tables B.26-B.34 in Appendix B). Patterns of Land Use Based on available evidence, the Magdalenian of Western Europe was characterized by increasing numbers of geographically distinct tool stone acquisition areas over time. That increase resulted largely from temporal and spatial expansions of people into more regions, particularly in the north. As discussed in the following section, the only noticeable changes in lithic raw material units come from the Pyrenees and Southwestern France. However, those probably stem from inconsistencies in the data I was able to collect, rather than from dramatic changes in human behavior. Lithic Raw Material Units During the Middle Magdalenian, there were three geographically distinct clusters of sites in the Pyrenees—one in the Western Pyrenees (e.g., Arancou, Brassempouy, Duruthy, Dufaure, Isturitz, Grand Pastou), one in the Central Pyrenees, and one in the Eastern Pyrenees/Mediterranean (e.g., Grande and Petite Grottes de Bize, Canecaude, La Crouzade, Grotte Gazel). Upper Magdalenian lithic raw material data allowed me to define separate lithic raw material units for each of those areas, but the lack of data for Middle Magdalenian sites in the Western and Eastern Pyrenees precluded me from doing so for that Magdalenian phase. Accordingly, I defined only one Middle Magdalenian lithic raw material unit, for the Central Pyrenees. Hence, the change from one Middle 178 Agde stone chalcedony chert/flint radiolarite, lydite jasper limestone various materials opal quartz quartzite red cornelian rock crystal sandstone N silicified tuff silicified wood concentrated 200 km outcrop areas general areas of flint occurrence lithic raw mat. connection lithic raw mat. unit approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 6.6. Lithic raw material connections and units for Upper Magdalenian sites included in this study. Magdalenian lithic raw material unit to three Upper Magdalenian ones is more a factor of the available data, than of changes in patterns of raw material acquisition. For Southwestern France, two Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian units were replaced by three Middle Magdalenian units, which were replaced by one Upper Magdalenian unit. Contrary to the Pyrenees example, those differences were caused by the presence of information on lithic raw materials in one far-western site for both the Lower and Middle Magdalenian (St-Germain-la-Rivière and Beauregard, respectively), and the lack of similar information for the Upper Magdalenian. Dispersion of Specific Lithic Raw Materials Of the eleven specific lithic raw materials whose distribution patterns I examined in detail, six (Paris Basin area Senonian chert, Chateaumeillant chert, gray Périgord chert, Upper Cretaceous blond chert, Bergerac flint, and Turonian [Fumelois] chert) demonstrate few or no spatial differences over time. However, five (Kimmeridgian chert, jaspoid chert, Chalosse/Audignon Maastrichtian flint, Périgord area Senonian chert, and chalcedonic chert) do display somewhat different patterns of dispersion, as seen in the maximum distances and directions they were circulated (Figures 6.7-6.11). While Kimmeridgian chert is found in Switzerland, the other four lithic raw material types are found in Southwestern France and the Pyrenees. Kimmeridgian Chert During the Middle Magdalenian, Kimmeridgian chert is restricted to Kesslerloch, in Northeastern Switzerland (Figure 6.7). During the Upper Magdalenian, it is found in 180 Germany Austria France Switzerland N Italy 50 km MM sites UM sites Kimmeridgian chert source MM sites with Kimm. chert UM sites with Kimm. chert Figure 6.7. Distribution of Kimmeridgian chert during the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian. the same area, at Petersfels and Schweizersbild in Southwestern Germany and Northeastern Switzerland. However, it is also found at Moosbühl and Monruz in Northwestern Switzerland, at distances of approximately 70 and 105 kilometers, respectively, from a source in the region of Olten. Those differences in distance and direction may, in part, be due to the dramatic increase in the number and distribution of sites in Switzerland from the Middle to the Upper Magdalenian. Jaspoid Chert During the Badegoulian and the Upper Magdalenian, jaspoid chert is found in sites located only in Southwestern France, at a maximum of approximately 75 kilometers from the source (Cassegros and Fontarnaud, respectively) (Figure 6.8). However, during the Middle Magdalenian, aside from being found at a site in Southwestern France (Puy de Lacan), it also is found in a site in the Pyrenees (Enlène-Salle du Fond), at a distance of approximately 200 kilometers from its likely source. Chalosse/Audignon Maastrichtian Flint During the Middle Magdalenian, Chalosse/Audignon Maastrichtian flint from the southern Landes region is found in both Southwestern France (Beauregard) at a distance of approximately 90 kilometers from the source, and in the Pyrenees (Labastide, EnlèneSalle du Fond) at distances of 125 and 190 kilometers, respectively (Figure 6.9). During the Upper Magdalenian, it is restricted to the Pyrenees (Moulin à Troubat, Massat, La Vache-Salles Garrigou and Monique), at somewhat greater distances of approximately 125, 215, and 225 kilometers, respectively. 182 Badegoulian sites Southwestern France LM sites Atlantic MM sites Ocean UM sites approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housely et al. 1997) Pyrenees Mediterranean N 50 km Sea jaspoid chert source Bad. site with jaspoid chert MM sites with jaspoid chert UM sites with jaspoid chert Figure 6.8. Distribution of jaspoid chert during the Badegoulian and the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian. MM sites Southwestern France UM sites approximate Atlantic coastline at Ocean ca. 13,000 BP (Housely et al. Chalosse Audignon 1997) N Pyrenees Medit. 50 km Sea Maastrichtian chert source MM sites with Maastrichtian chert UM sites with Maastrichtian chert Figure 6.9. Distribution of Chalosse/Audignon Maastrichtian flint during the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian. Périgord Area Senonian Chert During the Badegoulian, Lower Magdalenian, and Middle Magdalenian, Senonian chert originating in the Périgord is restricted to sites in Southwestern France (La Croixde-Fer, Cassegros; La Bergerie; Roc Saint Cirq, Puy de Lacan, Crabillat, Bellet, Thevenard, Laugerie-Haute Est), at a maximum distance of approximately 25 kilometers from a source (Figure 6.10). However, during the Upper Magdalenian, Senonian chert is found in a site further to the northeast (Monceaux-la-Virole) at a distance of approximately 70 kilometers, and at one site in the Pyrenees (Moulin à Troubat), at a distance of approximately 165 kilometers. Chalcedonic Chert During the Badegoulian, Lower Magdalenian, and Middle Magdalenian, chalcedonic chert is found only in sites in Southwestern France (Fuega, La Croix-de-Fer, Guillassou, Cassegros; La Bergerie; Plateau Parrain, Le Mas-de-Sourzac, Thévenard, Abzac, Solvieux-Sud, Roc Saint Cirq, Laugerie-Haute Est, Puy de Lacan, Bellet, Crabillat), located at a maximum of approximately 35 kilometers from a source (Figure 6.11). It is distributed somewhat more widely during the Upper Magdalenian (Le Martinet, Longueroche, Villepin, Limeuil, Le Roc Allan), when it is found in sites located further northeast (Monceaux-la-Virole) and west (Fontarnaud), at distances of approximately 110 and 70 kilometers, respectively, from the source. 185 Badegoulian sites LM sites MM sites Atlantic Southwestern France Ocean UM sites approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housely et al. 1997) Senonian chert source Pyrenees Medit. N Bad. site with Senonian chert 50 km LM site with Senonian chert Sea MM sites with Senonian chert UM sites with Senonian chert Figure 6.10. Distribution of Périgord area Senonian chert during the Badegoulian and Lower, Middle, and Upper Magd. Badegoulian sites LM sites MM sites Atlantic Southwestern France Ocean UM sites approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housely et al. 1997) chalcedonic chert source Pyrenees Medit. Sea N Bad. site with chalced. chert 50 km LM site with chalced. chert MM sites with chalced. chert UM sites with chalced. chert Figure 6.11. Distribution of chalcedonic chert during the Badegoulian and Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian. Trends in the Distributions of Specific Lithic Raw Materials Of the five different lithic raw material types, four (Kimmeridgian chert, Chalosse/Audignon Maastrichtian flint, Périgord area Senonian chert, chalcedonic chert) appear to have been circulated over greater distances during the Upper Magdalenian than during any other Magdalenian phase. Only one (jaspoid chert) seems to have been circulated over the greatest distances during the Middle Magdalenian. This suggests that, within the combined regions of the Pyrenees and Southwestern France, networks for circulating certain lithic raw materials may have been the most extensive and open during the Upper Magdalenian. At the same time, two lithic raw material types (jaspoid chert, Chalosse/Audignon Maastrichtian flint) were more divergently dispersed during the Middle Magdalenian than during any other Magdalenian phase. Two other types (Kimmeridgian chert, Périgord area Senonian chert) were more divergently dispersed during the Upper Magdalenian. However, because Kimmeridgian chert was recovered from only one Middle Magdalenian site, its pattern of dispersal automatically is different during the Upper Magdalenian. Moderate changes in lithic raw material dispersal patterns in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France suggest that there may have been some modifications in lithic raw material circulation networks over time. However, the changes were relatively smallscale, since they all occurred within the combined area of those two regions. In all other regions of Western Europe, the locations and extents of lithic raw material units generally remained remarkably similar over the course of the Magdalenian. This suggests that, once established, land-use patterns varied little. Hence, any inter-regional changes in the 188 circulation of other, non-tool, items probably were due to changes in social interactions, rather than to marked changes in land-use. Differential Acquisition of Materials To evaluate my expectations for the circulation of local, non-local, and exotic materials under conditions of low versus high population density, I compared the distances from which lithic raw materials in different regions originated. Within lithic raw material units, I recorded the maximum distance between a site and its known lithic raw material source, and the maximum distance between sites. In most cases, I used a meter-based measuring tool in the GIS to determine straight-line distances. While people do not usually travel across the landscape in exactly straight lines, the scope of this study did not allow me to use least-resistance pathways as a better alternative. In a few cases (e.g., Andernach, Kniegrotte, Wildweiberlei, Chaleux) where I did not know the exact lithic raw material source locations, I used distances presented by other researchers. For each unit, I also calculated the average distance between sites and lithic raw material sources. Distances of less than 5 kilometers between a site and its material source were not included. Distances were rounded to the nearest 5 kilometers. When sources were described as “local”, suggesting within 10-20 kilometers, but with no information given about their actual locations (e.g., most of Cantabrian Spain), I did not include them in the calculation of means. Data on the maximum distances between sites, and between a site and its lithic raw material source area, for each region, are presented in Tables 6.4 to 6.6. 189 Table 6.4. Results of Lithic Raw Material Analyses for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Units. Max. Site-Site (km) Max. Site-Source (km) # L Mat.s # NL Mat.s # E Mat.s % L Mat.s % NL Mat.s % E Mat.s WW N SPAIN 20 -7 0 0 100 0 0 W N SPAIN 30 -2 0 0 100 0 0 C N SPAIN 55 -5 0 0 100 0 0 E N SPAIN 85 40 5 0 0 100 0 0 NW SW FRANCE 20 10 3 0 0 100 0 0 190 75 6 SW FRANCE 3 0 66.7 33.3 0 SW GERMANY -30 3 0 0 100 0 0 distances rounded to the nearest 5 km L = local NL = non-local E = exotic distances are within individual units numbers are derived from data collected for this study and do not represent all materials (especially local ones) known from sites in units Table 6.5. Results of Lithic Raw Material Analyses for Middle Magdalenian Units. Max. Site-Site (km) Max. Site-Source (km) # L Mat.s # NL Mat.s # E Mat.s % L Mat.s % NL Mat.s % E Mat.s WW N SPAIN 25 -8 0 0 100 0 0 W N SPAIN 40 -9 0 0 100 0 0 C N SPAIN 60 20 4 0 0 100 0 0 E N SPAIN 90 90 0 1 0 0 100 0 C PYRENEES 115 265 3 1 12 18.8 6.3 75 SW SW FRANCE -90 0 1 0 0 100 0 NW SW FRANCE 5 15 6 0 0 100 0 0 SW FRANCE 75 75 31 6 0 83.8 16.2 0 MASSIF CENTRAL 55 380 0 0 7 0 0 100 SWITZERLAND 5 95 1 1 0 50 50 0 EC GERMANY 15 140 5 0 1 83.3 0 16.7 distances rounded to the nearest 5 km L = local NL = non-local E = exotic distances are within individual units numbers are derived from data collected for this study and do not represent all materials (especially local ones) known from sites in units Table 6.6. Results of Lithic Raw Material Analyses for Upper Magdalenian Units. Max. Site-Site (km) Max. Site-Source (km) # L Mat.s # NL Mat.s # E Mat.s % L Mat.s % NL Mat.s % E Mat.s WW N SPAIN 10 -10 0 0 100 0 0 W N SPAIN 30 -11 0 0 100 0 0 C N SPAIN 60 40 20 0 0 100 0 0 E N SPAIN 95 -5 0 0 100 0 0 W PYRENEES 30 40 7 0 0 100 0 0 C PYRENEES 140 235 6 3 20 20.7 10.3 69 E PYRENEES/MED. 40 30 2 0 0 100 0 0 SW FRANCE 190 120 23 6 2 74.2 19.4 6.5 MASSIF CENTRAL 105 275 0 0 14 0 0 100 PARIS BASIN 225 145 19 9 3 61.3 29 9.7 SWITZERLAND 85 145 17 4 7 60.7 17.9 21.4 SW GERMANY 275 265 56 9 13 71.8 11.5 16.7 EC GERMANY 155 700 8 0 2 80 0 20 WC G/BELG/NETH 180 300 31 23 29 37.3 27.7 34.9 BELG/N FR 110 475 29 15 5 59.2 30.6 10.2 distances rounded to the nearest 5 km L = local NL = non-local E = exotic distances are within individual units numbers are derived from data collected for this study and do not represent all materials (especially local ones) known from sites in units Trends in the Use of Lithic Raw Materials I expected to see diverse exotic lithic raw materials in regions with relatively low population densities, as people participated in far-reaching social networks to reduce risk. In contrast, I expected to see few or no highly exotic materials, but high percentages of local and non-local ones, in regions with relatively high population densities, as people relied less on extensive social networks and more on local alliances. However, the data I collected demonstrated inconsistent relationships between population density and the use of exotic lithic raw materials. In addition, the differential use of local, non-local, and exotic lithic raw materials seems to have been largely spatial in nature, rather than temporal, even when there were changes in population density within the same region over time. Sites from all Magdalenian phases in Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France, and from the Upper Magdalenian in the Paris Basin, contain only materials from sources located within the same region as the site, and generally from much fewer than 150 kilometers away. It is only during the Upper Magdalenian that materials from greater than 100 kilometers away are represented in one of those areas (6.5% in Southwestern France), but they, too, originate from within the region. That pattern is expected for Southwestern France, which had the highest site density throughout the Magdalenian, and is acceptable for Cantabrian Spain, which demonstrated moderate site density throughout the Magdalenian. However, the lack of exotic lithic raw materials in sites of the Paris Basin is unexpected, given the region’s comparatively lower site density and its possibly ephemeral occupation (Enloe 2000b; Rozoy 1989). 192 In contrast, at least some Middle and Upper Magdalenian sites in the central Pyrenees, the Massif Central, Switzerland, Southwestern Germany, West- and EastCentral Germany, and Belgium contain materials from outside their regions, from distances between 140 and 700 kilometers, minimally. With the exception of the Massif Central and Switzerland, the exotic materials cannot be explained simply by a lack of suitable local materials. However, those regions were characterized by diverse site densities and by differences in relative amounts of exotic lithic raw materials. Several Middle and Upper Magdalenian sites in the central Pyrenees contain relatively large amounts of multiple kinds of materials from Southwestern France and from sources close to the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea (Lacombe 1998; Simonnet 1996). The fact that at least six Middle Magdalenian sites in the Pyrenees (Bédeilhac, Enlène-Salle du Fond, Labastide, Le Mas d’Azil, Le Portel, Le Tuc d’Audoubert) contain one or more unbroken 15 centimeter-long blades of high-quality Bergerac flint (Bahn 1982) suggests that the acquisition of materials from Southwestern France satisfied more than just technological needs. Specifically, the relatively large quantity of exotic materials and the remarkably large size of the Bergerac blades provide evidence that people in the Pyrenees used lithic raw materials from Southwestern France in some kind of prestige system. However, the absence of Pyrenees (or any other) lithic materials in sites in Southwestern France suggests that the latter region had a different kind of social system, in which prestige was not related to the acquisition of exotic materials. Based on the data I collected, the percentage of exotic materials in Pyrenees sites decreased slightly from the Middle Magdalenian (75%) to the Upper Magdalenian (69%). 193 In contrast, there were small increases in the percentages of local (18.8% to 20.7%) and non-local (6.3% to 10.3%) materials. Those changes may indicate a trend toward the use of closer material sources over time, and a lessening of the intensity of competition in the prestige-based social system. However, the consistently high proportions of exotic materials are unexpected for the Middle Magdalenian, in particular, when the central Pyrenees had the second highest site density in Western Europe. Many of the lithic raw materials found in Upper Magdalenian sites in Southwestern Germany originate from over 100 kilometers away, though most come from sources within the Swabian Jura. Still, at least one site (Buttentalhöhle) contains chalcedony from a distance of 175 kilometers, in the direction of West-Central Germany (Burkert and Floss in press). In addition, some sites (e.g., Hohle Fels Schelklingen, Brillenhöhle) contain rock crystal and/or Kleinkems jasper from the border of Germany and France, approximately 175 kilometers away (Burkert and Floss in press, Floss 2000). Petersfels also contains a tiny amount of Regensburg Cretaceous chert from at least 230 kilometers to the east in the Swabian Jura (Féblot-Augustins 1997). The fact that Southwestern Germany had the second highest site density in Western Europe during the Upper Magdalenian makes its pattern of diverse exotic lithic raw materials unexpected. While Upper Magdalenian sites in West-Central Germany contain mostly lithics from that region, they also contain cherts from glacial end moraines located more than 100 kilometers to the north, and Kleinkems jasper (300 km), Main River gravels (200 km), Kieseloolith brown chert (up to 170 km), and chalcedony (up to 120 km) from the region and/or direction of Southwestern Germany (Burkert and Floss in press; FéblotAugustins 1997; Rensink 1993). The presence of diverse exotic lithic raw materials in 194 sites of West-Central Germany is expected, given the region’s very low site density. However, the fact that most of those exotic materials are present in very large numbers suggests that they may have been acquired through regularized trade and population movement, rather than through individual-based risk reducing social networks. Sites in East-Central Germany are located at or close to moraine deposits of numerous lithic raw materials. Despite that, the Middle Magdalenian site of Kniegrotte contains some Beçov quartzite (140 km) from the Czech Republic. For the Upper Magdalenian, the site of Groitzsch also contains some Beçov quartzite (120 km), and Oelknitz contains a very small amount of Swiecechow chert originating from a source located at least 700 kilometers away in Poland. East-Central Germany’s pattern is more in keeping with my expectations, given that it was characterized by small to moderate population densities. Sites in Belgium and northern France (Roc-la-Tour) contain many local materials, but some sites (e.g., Bois Laiterie, Chaleux, Trou du Frontal) also contain a few different kinds of materials that may have originated from the Paris Basin region and beyond. Those include fine-grained quartzite (160 km), Grand Pressigny beige chert (475 km), and Paris Basin area Senonian chert (150 km). Similar to the relationship between sites of the Pyrenees and Southwestern France, the Belgian sites contain materials from the Paris Basin, but Paris Basin sites contain no materials from Belgium. However, unlike the Pyrenees sites, the Belgian sites contain only small amounts of exotic lithic raw materials, and no evidence for unusual, prestige forms. That suggests that people in Belgium did not have a comparable prestige-based system. Still, the presence of diverse 195 exotic materials is unexpected, given the region’s fairly high site density and good quality raw material sources. In contrast to the cases discussed above, the presence of substantial quantities of highly exotic lithic raw materials in sites in the Massif Central region is, in part, a function of raw material availability; the region contains only small amounts of chert, all of mediocre quality (Fontana 1998; Surmely 2002). Accordingly, virtually all Middle and Upper Magdalenian sites in the region contain significant portions of materials acquired from sources at distances of 100 to 275 kilometers to the northwest and northnorthwest. However, numerous lithic materials, including the very high-quality Bergerac flint, were available at lesser or equal distances in Southwestern France—albeit on different river systems (i.e., the Corrèze, Dordogne, and Lot, versus the Allier and Loire in the Massif Central). Hence, while people had to acquire high-quality materials from outside the region, they did not necessarily have to acquire them from more than 200 kilometers away, to the northwest. The fact that many of the Massif Central materials come from unusually large distances has engendered much unresolved discussion about the nature of people’s seasonal rounds in that area (e.g., Fontana 1998; Surmely 2000). Surmely (2000) suggests that there is some evidence for an increasing emphasis on closer material sources over time, but even those are more than 100 kilometers from most sites in the region. What is clear from the lithic raw material evidence is that people using sites in the Massif Central and in Southwestern France maintained distinct toolstone acquisition areas. That occurred despite their relatively close proximity and the fact that people from 196 southwestern areas could possibly have followed reindeer herds into the Massif Central during summer months (e.g., Demars 1998a; Mellars 1985). The presence of substantial amounts of exotic lithic raw materials in sites in Switzerland is also, in part, a function of raw material availability. The region’s few high-quality lithic raw material source areas are located in the far southwest and north of the country, relative to the Magdalenian sites (e.g., Leesch 1997; Morel et al. 1998). Not surprisingly, then, many sites contain materials from more than 100 kilometers away, from Eastern France and far northern Switzerland. Still, in at least some cases, non-local or exotic materials from greater distances are found in larger quantities than are non-local or exotic materials from lesser distances (Cattin 2000). If those materials were acquired directly, that phenomenon might be related, in part, to the specific routes people took across the landscape during their seasonal rounds. However, it also leaves open the possibility that people preferred materials from great distances to those available from closer sources, perhaps because of their symbolic or prestige value (e.g., Gould and Saggers 1985; Helms 1988). The regions discussed above were characterized by spatially and temporally diverse site density. However, the regions whose sites contain exotic lithic raw materials generally have one characteristic in common. With the exception of the Massif Central, and the Upper Magdalenian Pyrenees, all of the regions were newly re-populated. Hence, it appears that recent population, or a combination of that and relatively high population density, may have driven the circulation of highly exotic materials. I discuss that idea further in the next chapter. 197 Summary for Results of Lithic Raw Material Analyses None of the lithic raw material analyses provide robust evidence for major changes in the acquisition and/or circulation of lithic raw materials over time during the Magdalenian in Western Europe. Instead, they point to the fairly consistent use of certain source areas in specific regions or combinations of regions (e.g., the Pyrenees and Southwestern France). That implies that changes in the circulation of other items, and differential uses of visual displays, were predicated on factors besides changes in tool stone acquisition areas. For one thing, there seems to have been some correlation between recent population and use of exotic lithic raw materials, albeit with regional differences in the amounts of exotic materials circulated. The same pattern is seen with items of personal ornamentation whose materials can be sourced. Items of Personal Ornamentation Analyses of items of personal ornamentation were designed to identify patterns in the circulation of raw materials, and connections among specific regions, particularly in comparison with the movement of lithic raw materials. They also were used to measure the amount of visual signaling in different regions, in order to evaluate expectations for the relationship between population density and intensity of visual signaling. First I drew straight lines between each site and its source(s) of material(s) for personal ornamentation to get an idea of the possible maximum reaches of different circulation networks. In conjunction with that information, I then used the categories of “easy-to-obtain”, “moderately difficult-to-obtain”, and “difficult-to-obtain” to compare 198 the preponderance of local, non-local, and exotic materials, respectively, for each region. That allowed me to evaluate my expectations for the use of more exotic items in low population density areas, and fewer exotic items in high population density areas. The category of “moderately difficult-to-obtain” also included perforated carnivore teeth that probably were available locally, but might have been more difficult and dangerous to acquire than local shells and teeth from food animals. Next I compared numbers of “natural” versus “created” objects to evaluate my expectations for 1) relatively little time-investment in visual signaling in low population density areas, and 2) relatively much time-investment in visual signaling—particularly of group membership—in high population density areas. The production of “created” items of personal ornamentation that are extracted and/or carved out of larger pieces of material requires more time, energy, and skill than does the perforation or simple engraving of “natural” items of personal ornamentation (e.g., Helms 1993). As such, the presence of a relatively large number of created objects suggests a comparatively high investment in visual signaling. Then I examined the distribution of groups of similar created items of personal ornamentation to evaluate my expectations for low rates of group signaling in low population density areas, and high rates of group signaling in high population density areas. I also used their distributions to identify artistic relationships among different regions. The creation and circulation of similar objects should stem from adherence to specific cultural aesthetic norms, and/or people’s tendency to demonstrate group solidarity and social connections. Hence, regions that contain relatively large numbers of similar objects can be argued to demonstrate relatively high levels of group visual 199 signaling. Different regions that contain similar object forms and decorations probably were linked via human movements or social networks. Connections Between Sites and Sources of Personal Ornamentation Straight-line connections between sites and sources of raw material for personal ornamentation for Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian sites are represented in Figures 6.12 to 6.14. Data on raw materials used for personal ornamentation and distances from sites to sources are found in Tables C.6 to C.21 in Appendix C. Lower Magdalenian Information for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites is limited, but raw materials for items of personal ornamentation come largely from within the topographic regions in which the sites are located (Figure 6.12). Sites in Southwestern France contain both Atlantic and fossil shells, while sites in Eastern France and Southwestern Germany have yielded only fossil shells—all acquired from no more than about 200 kilometers away. This largely intra-regional pattern of material acquisition is similar to that seen for lithic raw materials during the Lower Magdalenian, suggesting that people generally acquired their items of personal ornamentation from their regular catchment areas. While the two sites in Southwestern Germany (Munzingen and Hohle Fels) contain some extra-regional fossil shells (approximately 3 and 8, respectively) from the Mainz Basin in West-Central Germany, no Lower Magdalenian sites have so far been reported in the latter region. Hence, it appears that early pioneers in Germany moved over relatively large distances and collected some exotic materials along the way, rather 200 amber black lead fossil shell jet/lignite marine shell various materials oolite other fossils 2 psammite 3 pyrite sandstone 1 schist, slate serpentine, steatite N 4 1 Pliocene shell1 2 Eocene shell1 200 km (Lutetian, Auversian) 4 3 Eocene shell1 (Paris Basin) 1 4 4 4 4 Miocene shell1 (1Taborin 1992) Figure 6.12. Connections ( and Lower Magdalenian. Lower Magdalenian Badegoulian Approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) ) between sites and personal ornamentation raw material source areas for the Badegoulian than acquiring them through participation in long-distance networks. That pattern does not fit my expectations for visual signaling at low population density. I expected to see a few extremely exotic materials advertising people’s far-reaching social connections and knowledge of distant inhabited places—both of which are important forms of social insurance for people living at low population densities. The exceptions to the Lower Magdalenian pattern of intra-regional raw material acquisition are a few Mediterranean shells (Homalopoma sanguineum, Glycymeris bimaculata poli, Pecten sp.) recovered from El Mirón and El Castillo, and possibly from Altamira (without specific provenience) in Cantabrian Spain. The distance of nearly 600 kilometers between source and sites is particularly notable, given the lack of currently known sites in the intervening Central Pyrenees. While Cantabrian Spain had the second highest site density during the Lower Magdalenian, that number (an average of 5.6 sites within a 50 kilometer radius of each site) is low compared with many of the site densities seen in the Middle and Upper Magdalenian (e.g., an average of 9 to 30 sites). Hence, the few highly exotic materials are not completely unexpected. Cantabrian Spain was relatively isolated geographically, so the acquisition of rare, exotic materials that symbolized distant connections and knowledge may have been socially valuable. Middle Magdalenian Middle Magdalenian circulation patterns of raw materials for items of personal ornamentation occur on a larger geographic scale and involve larger numbers of objects than those of the Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian (Figure 6.13). Still, in southwestern regions, they again mirror patterns of lithic raw material acquisition. The 202 amber black lead fossil shell jet/lignite marine shell various materials oolite other fossils 2 psammite pyrite 3 sandstone 1 schist, slate serpentine, steatite 1 Pliocene shell1 N 4 2 Eocene shell1 (Lutetian, Auversian) 200 km 4 3 Eocene shell1 1 (Paris Basin) 4 4 Miocene shell1 4 4 (1Taborin 1992) connection Approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 6.13. Connections between sites and personal ornamentation raw material source areas for the Middle Magdalenian. Pyrenees and Southwestern France form one very large region for the circulation of Atlantic and Mediterranean shells and some fossil shells, with no acquisition of materials from outside those areas. Cantabrian Spain is characterized almost completely by the use of local materials. As in the Lower Magdalenian, the focus for fossil shells in northern parts of Western Europe remains the Mainz Basin, with examples from 250 kilometers away or less appearing in sites in Switzerland (Kesslerloch and Freudenthal) and EastCentral Germany (Kniegrotte). Exceptions to the trend toward intra-regional material circulation during the Middle Magdalenian come from one site in Cantabrian Spain (Tito Bustillo), one site in Southeastern France (La Salpetrière), and two sites in Switzerland (Birseck-Ermitage and Kesslerloch). However, the larger number of sites in Western Europe during the Middle Magdalenian increases the possibility that those materials from exceptional distances were traded down-the-line, rather than acquired directly. Tito Bustillo has yielded at least eight Homalopoma sanguineum Mediterranean shells (Alvarez Fernández 2002; Moure and Cano 1976), more than 650 kilometers from their source, although they probably were passed from person to person along sites in the Pyrenees. La Salpetrière contained one Nucella lapillus Atlantic shell (Alvarez Fernández 2001) that could have been traded the more than 450 kilometers across Southwestern France or the Pyrenees. Birseck Ermitage and Kesslerloch have yielded a few Mediterranean shells (e.g., Glycymeris) (Féblot-Augustins 1997; Floss 2000) that could have been circulated among sites located on the Rhône and Rhine rivers, ending up more than 500 kilometers from their source, although no Mediterranean shells have been reported for geographically intermediate sites in Northeastern France. Finally, Birseck 204 Ermitage also contained a few fossil Turritella shells (Eriksen 2002) that likely came from the Paris Basin, approximately 350 kilometers away. No Middle Magdalenian sites are currently known from the Paris Basin, but some sites in Northeastern France are geographically intermediate, albeit without evidence for Paris Basin fossil shells. The example of East-Central Germany during the Middle Magdalenian is similar to that of Southwestern Germany during the Lower Magdalenian. Fossil shells in the former region come from the Mainz Basin, approximately 250 kilometers away, and possibly from the Swabian Jura, approximately 100 kilometers away. No sites have been reported for areas in-between, suggesting that people in East-Central Germany moved over fairly large distances and acquired their materials directly. Again, under conditions of low population density, I expected a few examples of very exotic materials, originating from other inhabited regions. Otherwise, Middle Magdalenian patterns in the circulation of materials for personal ornamentation generally fit my expectations for lower versus higher population density. Southeastern France and Northwestern and Northeastern Switzerland had some of the lowest site densities in the Middle Magdalenian (an average of 1.7, 3 and 2.5 sites within a 50 kilometer radius of each site, respectively), and those are the regions that contain examples of highly exotic materials (with the exception of Tito Bustillo in Cantabria). Southwestern France, the Pyrenees, Cantabrian Spain, and West-Central France had the highest site densities (though still moderate) in the Middle Magdalenian (15.9, 9, 5.7, 5.7, respectively), and all (but eight) of their materials originated within their own region or an adjacent one. In addition, Atlantic and/or Mediterranean shells were 205 common in sites in Southwestern France, the Pyrenees, and Cantabrian Spain, suggesting their widespread use as personal ornamentation, and their possible role in group signaling. All of this evidence suggests that common, shared items were more socially important than highly exotic ones in regions with relatively high population densities. Upper Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian circulations of raw materials for personal ornamentation are characterized by strict intra-regional movements of items in Cantabrian Spain, and in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France, but by both intra- and inter-regional movements in most other regions (Figure 6.14). In the three southwestern regions, this pattern is again consistent with that for lithic raw materials, suggesting that people acquired both kinds of materials within their regular catchment areas or interaction spheres. The one exception comes from El Horno, in Cantabrian Spain, which contains at least one Homalopoma sanguineum shell from the Mediterranean. During the Upper Magdalenian, Southwestern France and Cantabrian Spain had very high (an average of 30 sites within a 50 kilometer radius of each site) and fairly high (an average of 12.1 sites within a 50 kilometer radius) site densities, respectively, so their continued intra-regional acquisition of materials fits my expectations for high population density. On the other hand, the Pyrenees region had a much lower site density during the Upper Magdalenian (6.4). In its case, a long-standing tradition of interactions with Southwestern France and Cantabrian Spain may have motivated people to continue their patterns of material acquisition, despite apparent drops in site density and population density. 206 amber black lead fossil shell jet/lignite marine shell various materials oolite other fossils 2 psammite 3 pyrite sandstone 1 schist, slate serpentine, steatite N 1 Pliocene shell1 2 Eocene shell1 4 4 200 km (Lutetian, Auversian) 1 4 3 Eocene shell1 (Paris Basin) 4 4 Miocene shell1 (1Taborin 1992) connection 4 Approximate coastline at ca. 13,000 BP (Housley et al. 1997) Figure 6.14. Connections between sites and personal ornamentation raw material source areas for the Upper Magdalenian. Patterns of material acquisition in northern regions differ from those in southwestern ones. While most materials for personal ornamentation do originate within regions, several sites in different areas (e.g., Champrévèyres, Kohlerhöhle, Moosbühl, Rislisberghöhle, and Veyrier in Switzerland; Gnirshöhle, Hohle Fels Schelklingen, Munzingen, and Petersfels in Southwestern Germany; Andernach and Gönnersdorf in West-Central Germany; and Bois Laiterie in Belgium) also contain at least a few examples of highly exotic materials. Particularly notable are some Atlantic and/or Mediterranean shells recovered from Andernach and Gönnersdorf in West-Central Germany, and from Munzingen, Gnirshöhle, and Hohle Fels Schelklingen in Southwestern Germany, at distances of up to 800 kilometers from their sources. While the Mediterranean shells could have been passed up the relatively densely populated Rhine-Rhône corridor (e.g., Alvarez Fernández 2001; Floss 2000), the circulation of Atlantic shells is harder to explain, given the paucity of evidence for them in sites in the geographically intermediate regions of the Massif Central and Northeastern France. On the other hand, their reported presence in two Paris Basin sites (Etiolles and Grotte du Trilobite) (Alvarez Fernández 2001; Taborin 1992) suggests a possible route of circulation. Still, their ultimate deposition at such great distances from their sources suggests that people inhabiting northern regions of Western Europe valued highly exotic materials, and purposely acquired them. Another kind of extremely rare and exotic material is Baltic amber, recovered from the two sites of Champrévèyres and Moosbühl in Northwestern Switzerland (Leesch 1997). The deposition of a few pieces more than 800 kilometers from their source is remarkable and particularly difficult to explain, given the lack of evidence for Baltic 208 amber in any Magdalenian sites in intervening regions. The existence of such exotic amber, despite the presence of more local sources (Beck 1997), reinforces the idea that it had special significance and was acquired intentionally. The fairly substantial numbers of various highly exotic materials found in sites in northern regions of Western Europe do not fit my expectations, given that Southwestern Germany, Northwestern Switzerland, and Belgium had some of the highest site densities known during the Upper Magdalenian (20.4, 19.8, and 13.4, respectively). I would have expected to see an emphasis on more easily obtainable objects, and very few or no examples of highly exotic ones, if population density was the sole influence on material circulation for visual display. On the other hand, there are only a handful of sites currently known in West-Central Germany, resulting in a very low site density of 3.4. Hence, the presence of highly exotic materials in that region is more in-line with my expectations. It is notable that this pattern of material acquisition in northern regions is similar to that for lithic raw materials, in that there were also some highly exotic lithic raw materials found in northern regions with high site densities. The exotic lithic materials are found in some, but not all, of the same sites as the exotic personal ornamentation materials. Again, the evidence suggests that factors besides site and population density may have affected people’s choices of materials for personal ornamentation. The fact that all of the regions were substantially re-populated only during the Upper Magdalenian leaves open the possibility that the social situation surrounding re-colonization influenced people’s visual displays at least as much as did site or population density. I discuss that idea further in the next chapter. 209 Intensity of Visual Display and Population Density Total numbers of items of personal ornamentation, and their classifications in terms of ease of obtainment and degree of modification, are presented in Tables C.6-C.21 in Appendix C. Ratios of numbers of items within a site to number of sites within a 50 kilometer radius are presented in Tables C.22-C.24 in Appendix C. Lower Magdalenian Total Objects When the ratios of total numbers of Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian items to number of sites within a 50 kilometer radius are mapped as size-scaled circles in the GIS (Figure 6.15), it becomes evident that single sites with particularly large object-to-site ratios are located in Cantabrian Spain (Urtiaga) and Southwestern Germany (Hohle Fels Schelklingen). In other words, visual signaling was most intense at those two sites, relative to site density. Two sites in Southwestern France (Cuzoul de Vers and Badegoule) have large numbers of items of personal ornamentation (166 and 45, respectively), but their location within 50 kilometers of many other sites results in only medium-sized object-to-site ratios. Somewhat smaller ratios are seen in Cantabrian Spain and Northeastern France. Those findings do not clearly match my expectations for low signaling in areas of low population density versus intense signaling in areas of high population density. Because people living at lower population densities, as in Southwestern Germany, have smaller, more familiar audiences, they should be able to use fewer and less ostentatious 210 ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Hohle Fels Schelklingen Range: 0.1 to 28 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) Badegoule 200 km Cuzoul de Vers Urtiaga Figure 6.15. Ratios of total items of personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites. visual displays to communicate identity and difference (e.g., Wobst 1977). People living in small hunter-gatherer communities also generally emphasize social equality, making the acquisition of differentially large numbers of items of personal ornamentation unlikely (e.g., Boehm 1999). Therefore, the large object-to-site ratio at Hohle Fels Schelklingen contradicts my expectations. At the same time, there is no evidence for differential control of the items of personal ornamentation, as would be suggested by their concentration in necklaces, caches or burials. Hence, the large number of objects might have resulted from the use of personal ornamentation by all or most people at the site, rather than from the control of those objects by one or a few people. In contrast, people living at higher population densities, as in Southwestern France, may need larger numbers and more ostentatious forms of personal ornamentation to communicate identity and to differentiate among larger, perhaps unfamiliar, audiences (e.g., Wobst 1977). In addition, larger numbers of people may simply create more traffic in items of personal ornamentation. Likewise, if people encounter one another frequently as they move around a landscape, there may be uniformly high levels of visual signaling across sites. At times, people living at high population density may also allow for achieved social inequality, and certain members of society may use quantitatively or qualitatively different items of personal ornamentation than the rest of the group (e.g., Erlandson 1994; Wiessner 2004). The fact that only two (Badegoulian) sites in Southwestern France (Badegoule, Cuzoul de Vers) demonstrate medium-sized object-to-site ratios contradicts my expectations. In addition, the relatively large object-to-site ratio seen at Cuzoul de Vers 212 is, in part, a result of my lumping items of personal ornamentation from approximately 25 different Badegoulian levels. When considering only Magdalenian occupations, then, Southwestern France clearly contradicts my expectations. However, when including the two rich Badegoulian sites, there is one piece of evidence appropriate to social organization under high population density. Twenty-six of Badegoule’s 45 items of personal ornamentation reportedly are from a single necklace (curated and labeled in the Musée des Antiquites Nationales), suggesting the differential control of objects by a single person. Cantabrian Spain had the second highest site density (though still only moderate) for the Lower Magdalenian (an average of 5.6 sites within a 50 kilometer radius of each site), so its relatively high level of visual display is not completely unexpected. In addition, the fact that several sites in Cantabrian Spain have above average object-to-site ratios suggests that the use of personal ornamentation was relatively common throughout the region during the Lower Magdalenian, albeit with a dramatic concentration at one site (Urtiaga). The above-average intensity of visual signaling across the region may have been the result of easy access to marine shells used for personal ornamentation. Still, the very large number of perforated shells at Urtiaga suggests marked social inequality and unusually great control of visual display. Ease of Obtainment Ratios for easy-to-obtain objects to sites have a distribution similar to the one just described (Figure 6.16), with the largest ratios being seen in Cantabrian Spain (Urtiaga) and Hohle Fels Schelklingen (Southwestern Germany). Ratios for moderately difficult- 213 ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Hohle Fels Schelklingen Range: 0 to 20.6 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Urtiaga Figure 6.16. Ratios of easy-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites. to-obtain objects to sites are very small across all of Western Europe (Figure 6.17). Medium-range ratios of difficult-to-obtain objects to sites are found in Southwestern Germany (Hohle Fels, Munzingen) and in Northeastern France (Grotte Grappin, Farincourt III) (Figure 6.18). All of the difficult-to-obtain objects in Southwestern German sites are fossil shells from the Mainz Basin, despite the fact that many fossil shells are available locally in the Swabian Jura of Southwestern Germany. Difficult-toobtain objects in sites from Northeastern France are one Mediterranean or Atlantic shell and a few jet and ivory beads. Across the rest of Western Europe, ratios of difficult-toobtain objects to sites have values of less than one. The fact that the slightly larger than average ratios for difficult-to-obtain objects occur in regions with very low population densities provides some support for my expectations. Degree of Modification Distributions of ratios of natural objects to sites are very similar to those for total objects and easy-to-obtain objects, with the largest ratios of objects-to-sites seen in single sites in Cantabrian Spain (Urtiaga) and Southwestern Germany (Hohle Fels Schelklingen) (Figure 6.19). Ratios of created objects to sites are low across all of Western Europe during the Lower Magdalenian (Figure 6.20). One slightly larger than average ratio is found at Grotte Grappin, in Northeastern France, which contains some bone, ivory, and jet beads. The emphasis on natural items in areas with moderate and low population densities fits with my expectations for little investment in group signaling in such areas. However, I expected higher ratios in Southwestern France, given its higher population density and the potential advantage of distinguishing among social groups. 215 ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 1.8 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.17. Ratios of moderately difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites. ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 8 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.18. Ratios of difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magd. sites. ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Hohle Fels Schelklingen Range: 0 to 28 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Cuzoul de Vers Urtiaga Figure 6.19. Ratios of natural items of personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites. ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 5 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation Grotte Grappin found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.20. Ratios of created items of personal ornamentation to site density for Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian sites. Middle Magdalenian Total Objects When the ratios of total numbers of Middle Magdalenian objects to sites are mapped (Figure 6.21), the highest ratios are seen in the western Pyrenees (Isturitz) and in East-Central Germany (Kniegrotte), with medium-sized ratios in Cantabrian Spain (Tito Bustillo), the Central and Eastern Pyrenees (Enlène, Le Mas d’Azil, Grotte Gazel), and Southwestern France (Lafaye). The highest Middle Magdalenian ratios are much greater than any Lower Magdalenian ratios, suggesting that people in some areas may have been signaling much more intensely than they had been during the Lower Magdalenian. In addition, people in more regions invested in visual displays than during the Lower Magdalenian. That may have been the result of increased social competition, given somewhat higher population densities, and/or the movement of people into more geographically intermediate areas, such as the Pyrenees. The large number of objects and object forms, and high object-tosite ratios in the Pyrenees, in particular, provide evidence that societies in that region were characterized by more social competition and inequality than were those in any other area. As with the Lower Magdalenian, the Middle Magdalenian ratios do not clearly fit my expectations for visual displays under low and high population density. East-Central Germany had a very low site density (2 sites located within a 50 kilometer radius of each site), but the site with the second highest object-to-site ratio (Kniegrotte). I expected to see very low levels of visual display in regions with very low population densities. In 220 Kniegrotte ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 65 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Isturitz Figure 6.21. Ratios of total items of personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites. contrast, Southwestern France again had the highest site density (15.9), but its sites demonstrate only small to moderate ratios of personal ornamentation to surrounding sites. That result is also the opposite of what I expected. However, given that the central Pyrenees had the second highest site density (9), its high levels of visual displays do more closely fit my expectations. It is notable that sites in Cantabrian Spain, which again had a moderate site density (an average of 5.7 sites within 50 kilometers of each site), have generally lower object-to-site ratios than they did during the Lower Magdalenian. That suggests a regional decrease over time in the emphasis on visual display, and possibly a decrease in social differentiation as signaled by personal ornamentation. Another striking thing is that the newly re-populated regions of the Pyrenees and East-Central Germany demonstrate the two highest object-to-site ratios, even though their site densities are vastly different (9 and 2, respectively). Again, that suggests that factors inherent in the re-colonization of regions may have affected rates of visual display even more than population density alone. Ease of Obtainment As during the Lower Magdalenian, the distribution of ratios of easy-to-obtain objects to sites is almost identical to that for total numbers of objects, with one exception (Figure 6.22). While Kniegrotte in East-Central Germany has the second highest ratio of total objects to sites, it has a very low ratio of easy-to-obtain objects to sites. This suggests that easily acquired items of personal ornamentation held little or no social significance in that low population density region. 222 ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 54.3 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Isturitz Figure 6.22. Ratios of easy-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites. Ratios of moderately difficult-to-obtain objects to sites are small across Western Europe, with some slightly larger than average examples in the Pyrenees, Eastern Pyrenees/Mediterranean, Southwestern France, and Southeastern France (Figure 6.23). Most of the moderately difficult-to-obtain items of personal ornamentation recovered from Grotte Gazel in the Eastern Pyrenees/Mediterranean region, and from Canecaude I in Southeastern France, are perforated Mediterranean shells. In the Pyrenees, Southwestern France, and East-Central Germany, they are perforated carnivore teeth. By far the largest ratio of difficult-to-obtain objects to sites is seen at Kniegrotte, in East-Central Germany (Figure 6.24). As discussed previously, its 67 fossil shells come from the Mainz Basin, located in the neighboring region of West-Central Germany, despite the fact that some kinds of fossil shells are available more locally in the Swabian Jura of Southwestern Germany. Kniegrotte’s very high ratio of difficult-to-obtain objects to surrounding sites suggests that people in East-Central Germany placed great social significance on exotic items, perhaps because they were more difficult to obtain and/or they demonstrated knowledge of distant places (e.g., Helms 1988, 1991). The large number (93) of difficult-to-obtain objects might have been the result of the use of personal ornamentation by many different people at the site. Alternatively, it might be evidence that people allowed for inequality of outcome, perhaps to reward individuals’ strong leadership or beneficial skills in a newly re-colonized region characterized by both social and economic risk. The large investment in difficult-to-obtain objects in East-Central Germany, with its very low site density (2), fits my expectations. I predicted similar rates of difficult-toobtain objects-to-sites in the other low population density regions, including the Massif 224 ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 11 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.23. Ratios of moderately difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites. Kniegrotte ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 42 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.24. Ratios of difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites. Central, Switzerland, Southeastern France, Southwestern Germany, West-Central Germany, and Belgium, so their very low rates of signaling do not follow my expectations. In contrast, the small numbers of difficult-to-obtain objects in the high to moderate population density regions of Southwestern France, the Pyrenees, Cantabrian Spain, West-Central France, and Northeastern France do follow my expectations. Degree of Modification Ratios of natural objects to sites are distributed in virtually the same way as ratios of total objects to sites, with the largest ratios being seen in the Pyrenees (Isturitz) and East-Central Germany (Kniegrotte), and medium-range ratios in Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, Eastern Pyrenees/Mediterranean, Southwestern France, and Switzerland (Figure 6.25). No Middle Magdalenian region displays an overwhelming emphasis on created items of personal ornamentation (Figure 6.26). However, some medium-range ratios of created objects to sites are found in the Pyrenees (e.g., Isturitz, Le Mas d’Azil), the Eastern Pyrenees/Mediterranean (Grotte Gazel), and East-Central Germany (Kniegrotte). The ratios are generally much higher than those seen in the Lower Magdalenian, suggesting that the purposeful creation and use of items of personal ornamentation increased over time, with its pinnacle in the Middle Magdalenian Pyrenees. One factor contributing to the Pyrenees’ intense visual signaling may have been that region’s location between the continuously and relatively densely inhabited regions of Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France. Human groups living in socially dynamic and/or economically marginal areas located between well-established populations often 227 Kniegrotte ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 47.9 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Isturitz Figure 6.25. Ratios of natural items of personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites. ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 17.1 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.26. Ratios of created items of personal ornamentation to site density for Middle Magdalenian sites. use the most numerous and ostentatious visual displays, as means of maintaining access to and competing for necessary social and economic resources (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). The medium-range ratio at Kniegrotte is difficult to explain, given East-Central Germany’s apparently very low population density, and few opportunities for intra-group differentiation or inter-group interactions. Hence, that region does not fit my expectations. Likewise, the somewhat larger than average object-to-site ratios in Switzerland are surprising. The generally low ratios of created objects to sites in the heart of Southwestern France are also unexpected, given that the region had the highest site density during the Middle Magdalenian. However, the Pyrenees evidence does more clearly support my expectations. The region had the second highest site density, and it contains the highest created object-to-site ratio and the largest number of medium-range ratios. Upper Magdalenian Total Objects When ratios of total Upper Magdalenian objects to sites are mapped (Figure 6.27), the highest ratios by far are seen in a few sites in West-Central Germany (Andernach and Gönnersdorf) and Southwestern Germany (Petersfels). Medium-range ratios are found on the southern edge of Southwestern France, and in Switzerland, Belgium, and the Paris Basin. The generally low ratios of total objects-to-sites across Western Europe during the Upper Magdalenian suggest that items of personal ornamentation were not in common 230 Gönnersdorf ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 74.3 Petersfels (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.27. Ratios of total items of personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites. use as large-scale visual displays, except in some newly populated northern regions (and the outskirts of Southwestern France). The generally very low levels of visual signaling in Southwestern France are unexpected, given that it retained the highest site density of any region during the Upper Magdalenian. Contrariwise, I did not expect to see such a high level of signaling in West-Central Germany, since the region has a very low site density (an average of 3.4 sites within a 50 kilometer radius of each site). However, Gönnersdorf’s and Andernach’s possible roles as aggregation sites undoubtedly contributed to their high ratios of total objects-to-sites, by concentrating people, personal ornamentation, and opportunities for social negotiation and competition. The moderate to high level of visual signaling at Petersfels, in Southwestern Germany, does fit my expectations, given that its region had the second highest site density during the Upper Magdalenian. In addition, both Southwestern Germany and Switzerland contain multiple sites with above-average object-to-site ratios, suggesting that items of personal ornamentation were in fairly regular use across those regions. As seen in the Lower and Middle Magdalenian, though, the characteristic common to all but one of the regions (Southwestern France) with moderate to high object-to-site ratios was not high population density, but recent re-population. That suggests that activities connected with the colonization of areas, such as organizing population movements and hunts for unpredictably migrating animals, as well as maintaining long-distance social connections to mitigate social and economic risk, may have encouraged social competition and the use of personal ornamentation. 232 Ease of Obtainment Ratios of easy-to-obtain objects to sites are distributed almost identically to those for total objects, with by far the largest occurring at Gönnersdorf, followed by Andernach, in West-Central Germany, and by Petersfels, in Southwestern Germany (Figure 6.28). Medium-range ratios are seen in the Pyrenees, Southwestern France, Belgium, and the Paris Basin. As in the Lower and Middle Magdalenian, ratios of moderately difficult-to-obtain objects to sites are low across Western Europe (Figure 6.29). A medium-range ratio occurs at Gönnersdorf in West-Central Germany because it contains a relatively large number (minimally 34) of perforated fox teeth. No one site has a particularly high ratio of difficult-to-obtain objects to sites (Figure 6.30). However, medium-range ratios are seen in Switzerland, Southwestern Germany, West-Central Germany, and Belgium, despite the fact that the four regions have very different site densities (an average of 3.4 sites within a 50 kilometer radius in West-Central Germany to an average of 20.4 sites in Southwestern Germany). A largerthan-average object-to-site density in West-Central Germany is expected for a region with low population density since difficult-to-obtain objects can signal vital long-distance social connections in areas characterized by social and economic risk. However, similar ratios in the high site density regions are unexpected. While most of the difficult-to-obtain objects recovered from West-Central Germany are Mediterranean shells, most of those found in sites in the other regions are fossil shells from the Paris Basin. The fact that West-Central German sites contain different objects than those from the other regions suggests that people using the former sites either participated in different social networks, or assigned social significance to 233 Gönnersdorf and Andernach ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 58.3 (ratio = # of items of Petersfels personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.28. Ratios of easy-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites. ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 9 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.29. Ratios of moderately difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites. ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 13.8 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.30. Ratios of difficult-to-obtain personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites. different kinds of objects. Still, once again, the common characteristic among the four regions is their recent substantial re-population. Degree of Modification The distribution of ratios of natural objects to sites is again very similar to that for total objects, with the largest ratios being found in Southwestern Germany (Petersfels) and West-Central Germany (Andernach and Gönnersdorf) (Figure 6.31). Medium-range ratios are seen on the southern edge of Southwestern France, and in Switzerland, Belgium, and the Paris Basin. The high ratio of natural objects to sites in West-Central Germany fits my expectations, since site density in that region is low and people would not necessarily need to invest in creating objects to signal group memberships. In contrast, the high ratio of natural objects-to-sites in Southwestern Germany does not fit my expectations. I would expect that people living under conditions of high population density would invest more heavily in creating items of personal ornamentation to purposely signal group memberships. By far the largest ratio of created objects-to-sites appears at Gönnersdorf in WestCentral Germany, while sites in other regions demonstrate only small ratios (Figure 6.32). Most of the created objects are in the form of stone disks (minimally 112) and lignite beads (minimally 55). The deposition of a substantial number of created objects of personal ornamentation in a single site, in a region with low site density, does not fit my expectations. Once again, the very high object-to-site ratio suggests that Gönnersdorf’s role as an aggregation site might have created a forum for intense social competition and visual display. 237 Andernach and Gönnersdorf ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 38.3 Petersfels (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.31. Ratios of natural items of personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites. Gönnersdorf ratio of <1 ratio of 1 or > Range: 0 to 42.8 (ratio = # of items of personal ornamentation found within a site to # of sites located N within a 50 km radius of that site) 200 km Figure 6.32. Ratios of created items of personal ornamentation to site density for Upper Magdalenian sites. The very low ratios of created objects-to-sites in Southwestern France, Southwestern Germany, and Switzerland, in particular, are also surprising, given the regions’ high site densities. The evidence suggests that people in areas of high population density either did not make personal ornamentation to signal group membership, or they used materials that did not preserve in the archaeological record. The evidence also suggests that the use of natural versus created items of personal ornamentation might have been unrelated to site and population density. Trends in Intensity of Visual Display Looking at the different ratios of personal ornamentation to number of sites over space and time, it is possible to identify some trends. First, with regard to total numbers of items, sites with the highest ratios generally occur in geographically isolated areas and in newly re-populated areas. For the Lower Magdalenian, those regions are Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern Germany. For the Middle Magdalenian, they are the Pyrenees and East-Central Germany. For the Upper Magdalenian, they are Southwestern Germany, West-Central Germany, Belgium, and the Paris Basin. Based on the available evidence for items of personal ornamentation, then, it appears that there were different geographic “hotbeds” of visual signaling during the course of the Magdalenian. Most were not the regions that have abundant cave art and are considered to form the heart of the Magdalenian world—i.e., Southwestern France and Cantabrian Spain. Second, sites that have high ratios of total items to sites also often have high ratios of easy-to-obtain objects to sites. In the absence of similarly large ratios of difficult-toobtain objects to sites, that suggests an intra-regional focus or basis for visual signaling. 240 It also might suggest a strong identification with the local landscape, and/or social territory boundary maintenance. Based on the available evidence, that scenario is seen in Cantabrian Spain during the Lower and Middle Magdalenian, in the Pyrenees during the Middle Magdalenian, and in the Paris Basin during the Upper Magdalenian. The opposite condition, of relatively high ratios of difficult-to-obtain objects to sites, in relation to easy-to-obtain objects to sites, might suggest that visual signaling was, in part, based on inter-regional, long-distance acquisition of rare and exotic objects. That scenario is seen in Southwestern Germany in the Lower Magdalenian, in East-Central Germany during the Middle Magdalenian, and in Central France, Switzerland, and Belgium during the Upper Magdalenian. Third, sites that have high ratios of total objects to sites always also have high ratios of natural objects to sites. Because ratios of created objects to sites do not co-vary in the same way, they should be more informative about differential creation and use of personal ornamentation. Low ratios of created objects to sites might indicate a low investment in group signaling. In contrast, relatively high ratios of created objects to sites might indicate the intentional use of personal ornamentation to signal group and/or cultural identity. Sites and regions demonstrating the latter include Badegoule in Southwestern France and Grotte Grappin in Northeastern France during the Lower Magdalenian; the Pyrenees and East-Central Germany during the Middle Magdalenian; and Gönnersdorf in West-Central Germany during the Upper Magdalenian. The lack of relatively large ratios of created objects to sites in densely to moderately populated regions, such as Southwestern France and Cantabrian Spain, does not fit with the expectation that people use personal ornamentation to differentiate 241 themselves under conditions of high population density and frequent social encounters. Instead, it suggests that people in those regions may have used alternate methods of integrating and differentiating large numbers of people, and negotiating for social and economic resources. Distributions of Groups of Similar Objects I was not able to identify any groups of similar items of personal ornamentation from Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian contexts. That suggests a low investment in group signaling through personal ornamentation, and infrequent sharing of aesthetic ideas among regions. One potential reason is very low rates of interaction among regions. Middle Magdalenian The seven groups of similar items of personal ornamentation from purely Middle Magdalenian contexts that I included in this study are listed in Table C.25 in Appendix C. Contours Découpés Contours découpés are two-dimensional cut-outs of flat bone (generally horse hyoids), usually made in the shape of animal heads, and engraved accordingly. Most are perforated through the nose or cheek, though some are unperforated. Sites in the Pyrenees contain the largest numbers of contours découpés, including heads of bison, deer, ibex, chamois, and especially horse (Figures 6.33-6.37), but some examples come from elsewhere in France and from the western and central sectors of Cantabrian Spain 242 Labastide (Pyrenees) (Bellier 1984) Figure 6.33. Example of a Middle Magdalenian bison head contour découpé. Le Tuc d’Audoubert (Pyrenees) Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) (Bellier 1984) (Thiault and Roy 1996) La Viña (Cantabrian Spain) El Juyo (Cantabrian Spain) (Fortea Pérez 1983) (Thiault and Roy 1996) Figure 6.34. Examples of Middle Magdalenian deer hind head contours découpés. Gourdan (Pyrenees) (Bellier 1984) Labastide (Pyrenees) (Bellier 1984) Saint-Marcel (WC France) Tito Bustillo (Cantabrian Spain) (Bellier 1984) (Corchón 1986) Figure 6.35. Examples of Middle Magdalenian ibex and chamois head contours découpés. Enlène (Bellier 1984) Les Trois Frères (Bellier 1984) Le Mas d’Azil (Bellier 1984) Brassempouy (Bellier 1991b) Le Tuc d’Audoubert (Bellier 1984) Grotte Gazel Isturitz Saint-Michel/Arudy (Bellier 1991b) (Bellier 1991b) (Bellier 1991b) Figure 6.36. Examples of Middle Magdalenian horse head contours découpés from sites in the French Pyrenees. La Viña (Cantabrian Spain) Las Caldas (Cantabrian Spain) (Corchón 1986) (Corchón 1995) Laugerie-Basse (SW France) (Bellier 1984) La Crouzade (E Pyrenees/Mediterranean) (Sacchi 1986) Montastruc (SW France) (Sieveking 1987) Figure 6.37. Examples of Middle Magdalenian horse head contours découpés from sites outside the French Pyrenees. (i.e., Asturias and Cantabria). Figure 6.38 shows the distribution of bison, deer, and caprid head contours découpés. Bison heads (Figure 6.33) have the smallest distribution, being found in only two sites (Labastide and Le Mas d’Azil) in the central Pyrenees. Within the Pyrenees, deer heads (Figure 6.34) have a tighter spatial distribution, being restricted to the region of Ariège, at Le Tuc d’Audoubert and Le Mas d’Azil. The two examples recovered from sites in Cantabrian Spain (La Viña and El Juyo) are somewhat different in form than those found in the Pyrenees, suggesting either interpretation of the Pyrenees form, or independent invention. Based on the fact that “Pyrenees style” caprid and horse head contours découpés also are found in Tito Bustillo and La Viña, respectively, I suggest that the former explanation is more likely. Caprid head contours découpés (Figure 6.35) have the widest distribution of the first three forms, as they are found in two sites in the Pyrenees (Labastide and Gourdan), one in West-Central France (La Garenne), and two in Cantabrian Spain (Tito Bustillo and La Garma). It is important to note that Labastide contained 18 virtually identical chamois head contours découpés and one bison head contour découpé (Figure 6.39), all probably originally together on a single necklace that was cached in a corner of the cave. That large number contrasts markedly with the two items from Gourdan and the one each from La Garenne, Tito Bustillo, and La Garma. The Labastide group appears to have been made as a set, which probably was owned and/or worn by one person or by members of just one lineage. As such, the few distantly dispersed examples might be indicative of direct or down-the-line social connections with that one particular individual or lineage. 248 bison deer caprid Bison Range: N 1-2 Deer Range: 1-4 200 km Caprid Range: 1-18 (# of contours découpés per site) Labastide Figure 6.38. Distribution of bison head, deer head, and caprid head contours découpés during the Middle Magdalenian. 5cm (Thiault and Roy 1996) Figure 6.39. Middle Magdalenian necklace from Labastide with eighteen chamois and one bison head contours découpés. Figure 6.40 shows the extensive distribution of horse head contours découpés (Figures 6.36 and 6.37), which have been recovered from at least 22 Middle Magdalenian sites in France and Cantabrian Spain. The objects are found across the Pyrenees, and in Southwestern France, West-Central France, and western Cantabrian Spain (Asturias). The cluster in the last area is notable, given the absence of any examples in sites further east in Cantabria or in the Spanish Basque provinces. Particularly large numbers of horse heads have been found at Isturitz in the western-most Pyrenees (minimally 19), and in the Volp cave system of Enlène, Les Trois Frères, and Le Tuc d’Audoubert (minimally 19) and nearby Le Mas d’Azil (minimally 22) in the central Pyrenees. In a 1996 paper, Buisson et al. used factor analysis to look for site- and regionspecific design characteristics in horse head contours découpés from twelve sites in Cantabria, the Pyrenees, and the Dordogne. Because they found no distinct design groups, they concluded that there must have been widespread contacts and long distance stylistic diffusions among those regions. I suggest that those distinctive, created forms of personal ornamentation may have been symbols of membership in Pyrenees social groups and/or direct alliances with people in the Pyrenees. The vast majority of examples of horse head contours découpés come from sites in the Pyrenees, and none are known from the Lower or Upper Magdalenian, suggesting that production and use were centered in that region during the Middle Magdalenian. The objects’ presence along the whole length of the Pyrenees demonstrates that many or most residents of the region made and/or used them, making them common symbols of “Pyrenees culture”. Whether they were dispersed outside the region after aggregations (Buisson et al. 1996), traded directly or down-the-line for other items such as lithic raw 251 Range: 1-22 (# of contours N découpés per site) 200 km Isturitz Enlène Mas d’Azil Figure 6.40. Distribution of horse head contours découpés during the Middle Magdalenian. materials, or produced independently is unclear. However, the abundant evidence for the reciprocal circulation of materials and decorated objects among southwestern regions likely indicates the existence of multi-regional social alliances. People outside the Pyrenees would have known that the horse head contours découpés had their symbolic, if not actual, origins in the Pyrenees, so possession of them would have demonstrated connections with, emulation of, or at least familiarity with Pyrenees culture. Specifically, the horse head contours découpés may have been associated with high-status individuals outside the Pyrenees. The fact that Middle Magdalenian sites in the Pyrenees show the highest combined level of visual signaling suggests that the region was very socially dynamic during that period, and was characterized by social competition and differentiation. Hence, possession of quintessential Pyrenees style objects might have been connected with social competition outside the region, as well. For example, Tito Bustillo in western Cantabrian Spain (Asturias) contains a cache of four horse head contours découpés (de Balbín Behrmann et al. 2003). That provides some evidence for differential possession, or at least ritual control, of the contours découpés and, hence, some inequality of outcome in Cantabrian society. La Viña, also in Asturias, contains two Pyrenees style horse head contours découpés, and one deer head contour découpé of a related, but not identical, style. Again, that suggests a legitimate link with the Pyrenees, albeit possibly also with local imitation of a Pyrenees form. Caprid head contours découpés provide some additional support for the idea that the contour découpé form was connected with high status people outside the Pyrenees. They appear in two forms—ibex and chamois—but there are very few examples of them, and the non-Pyrenees examples are found far from that region. Their great distance 253 suggests that there was something particularly significant about the caprid form. In addition, two of the sites with caprid contours découpés—Tito Bustillo (Cantabria) and La Garenne (West-Central France)—also contain horse contours découpés. In contrast, the fact that bison head contours découpés are limited to the Pyrenees suggests that they may have been the product of a very localized and perhaps personal tradition. The different distributions of the four forms of contours découpés suggest that each type might have been used in a different context and different interactions. The small numbers of bison, deer, and caprid head contours découpés suggest that they were used by small numbers of people in the Pyrenees, who passed some of them to their trading partners or kin outside the region. In contrast, the ubiquitous distribution of horse heads suggests that they were common symbolic “currency” in the Pyrenees and in interactions conducted with people outside that region. Their large numbers fit with my expectations for common, created forms of personal ornamentation in regions with high population density, such as the Pyrenees. Incisors with Grids Evidence for a local, inter-site connection between La Marche and Roc-auxSorciers in West-Central France exists in the form of unperforated horse and bovid incisors engraved on their posterior sides with dense grid motifs (Allard and Gruet 1976) (Figure 6.41). Although they are distinctively similar, the items also display noticeable differences. While the seven horse incisors found at La Marche feature grid-filled triangles, the one bovid tooth at Roc-aux-Sorciers is decorated with a grid-filled square. 254 La Marche (WC France) Roc-aux-Sorciers (WC France) (Musée des Antiquités Nationales) (Musée des Antiquités Nationales) (photo L. Hamon) (photo L. Hamon) Figure 6.41. Middle Magdalenian horse and bovid incisors engraved with geometric-shape grids. The connection between La Marche and Roc-aux-Sorciers is supported by the presence of stone plaquettes engraved with human heads at both sites. However, La Marche contains more than sixty plaquettes with human images, while Roc-aux-Sorciers contains only two (Bahn and Vertut 1988). It is interesting to note that La Marche also contains the larger number of engraved teeth, suggesting that they somehow may have been related to the production of the engraved plaquettes. Animal teeth engraved with those distinctive grid designs are unique to La Marche and Roc-aux-Sorciers (Figure 6.42), suggesting small-scale, personal, and contemporaneous connections between the two sites. Hyoid Pendants with Edge Lines Perforated horse hyoid bones engraved with many lines on their edges (Figure 6.43) are disbursed widely, and virtually equidistantly, during the Middle Magdalenian (Figure 6.44). They are found in western Cantabrian Spain (Tito Bustillo, La Güelga), in the Basque country of eastern Cantabrian Spain (Abauntz), Southwestern France (Laugerie-Basse), the Massif Central region (Le Bay), and Central France (La Marche). It is notable that none are reported from the central Pyrenees, despite the fact that the region contains many other kinds of items of personal ornamentation dating to the Middle Magdalenian. Of the sites in which they are found, Tito Bustillo, Laugerie-Basse, and La Marche are materially rich and undoubtedly were aggregation sites. In addition, La Güelga is located less than 15 kilometers from Tito Bustillo. Abauntz and Le Bay do not possess the same kind of distinguishing characteristic, although Abauntz appears to have 256 Range: 1-7 (# of teeth N engraved La Marche with grids) 200 km Figure 6.42. Distribution of animal incisors engraved with geometric-shape grids during the Middle Magdalenian. Laugerie Basse (SW France) (Taborin 1991) La Güelga (Cantabrian Spain) Tito Bustillo (Cantabrian Spain) (Menéndez 2003) (Menéndez 2003) Figure 6.43. Examples of Middle Magdalenian perforated hyoid bones engraved with many edge lines. Range: 1-2 (# of hyoid bones with edge N lines per site) 200 km Figure 6.44. Distribution of hyoid bones engraved with many edge lines during the Middle Magdalenian. many technological (e.g., flints), artistic (e.g., portable art decorations), and faunal (e.g., saiga antelope remains) connections with sites of the western French Pyrenees (Utrilla and Mazo 1996b). It is possible that hyoid pendants with edge lines were some kind of indicators of high social rank or regional authority, since three come from rich, geographically dispersed, sites and one comes from a neighboring site. However, there is no other supporting evidence for that idea. “Marsoulas Type” Pendants Four sites in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France have yielded bone pendants or spatulae that have arguably similar kinds and patterns of geometric motifs (Figure 6.45). The largest number is found at Marsoulas, with one or more examples each at Enlène, Laugerie-Basse, and Laugerie-Haute (Figure 6.46). None of the objects are decorated identically, but I would argue that their combinations of motifs (e.g., “v” shapes, “X” shapes, “Y” shapes, pointy in-filled ovals, and short parallel lines) are similar and distinctive enough to be considered a decorative group. Rather than being unambiguous indicators of group membership, however, their design variations suggest that they may have been the result of loose artistic ideas shared among a relatively small number of people. 260 Laugerie-Basse (SW France) Marsoulas (Pyrenees) (Taborin 1991) (Chollot 1980) Marsoulas (Pyrenees) (Musée d’Aquitaine) (Déchelette 1908) Laugerie-Haute (SW France) Enlène (Pyrenees) (Musée d’Aquitaine) (Musée Bégouën) Figure 6.45. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “Marsoulas type” engraved bone pendants and “polishers” (lissoirs). Range: 1-7 (# of “Marsoulas N type” decorated objects per site) 200 km Marsoulas Figure 6.46. Distribution of “Marsoulas type” engraved bone pendants and polishers during the Middle Magdalenian. Upper Magdalenian The two groups of similar items of personal ornamentation from purely Upper Magdalenian contexts that I included in this study are listed in Table C.26 in Appendix C. Discoidal Beads Discoidal beads made of jet or lignite (Figure 6.47) are known from at least ten Upper Magdalenian sites in Southwestern France, Switzerland, Southwestern Germany, and the Paris Basin (Figure 6.48). The largest numbers are found in the very materially rich sites of Gönnersdorf (Concentration I) in West-Central Germany (19) and Petersfels in Southwestern Germany (13) (Alvarez Fernández 1999a, 1999b), followed by another fairly rich site—Moosbühl in Northwestern Switzerland (5). All of the beads at Moosbühl are made of non-local (though unsourced) materials (Affolter et al. 1994), suggesting that the material or the beads were imported from elsewhere, possibly Southwestern Germany (Schwab 1985). Other sites contain only one or two examples each. Discoidal beads are not the only form of jet and lignite beads known from the Upper Magdalenian. For example, Gönnersdorf also contains biconic, cylindrical, truncated conic, tear-shaped, rectangular, and intermediate form beads (Alvarez Fernández 1999b). However, discoidal beads seem to have had the most extensive geographic distribution. Therefore, I include them here to discuss the possible maximum reach of Upper Magdalenian social networks involving beads. The concentration of discoidal beads in Southwestern Germany and Switzerland provides evidence that they had their most widespread significance there. Several of the 263 1cm Fontalès (SW France) (Ladier and Welté 1994/5) Figure 6.47. Examples of Upper Magdalenian discoidal jet and lignite beads. Courbet (SW France) (Ladier and Welté 1994/5) Gönnersdorf Range: 1-19 Petersfels (# of discoidal beads per site) N 200 km Figure 6.48. Distribution of discoidal jet and lignite beads during the Upper Magdalenian. same sites also contain jet “Venus” pendants and figurines (see below), which are restricted to those two regions, suggesting that the two kinds of ornaments may have been linked. At the same time, Gönnersdorf also contains evidence for the manufacture of discoidal beads, apparently of local lignite (Alvarez Fernandez 1999a, 1999b). Some of the beads from the southern two regions are larger than those from Gönnersdorf, suggesting that the forms were related, but that the beads were not necessarily exchanged among the three regions. The large number of discoidal beads from Concentration I at Gönnersdorf in West-Central Germany does not fit my expectations for visual signaling under low population density. However, it is consistent with the overall richness of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects at the site. Other evidence for the circulation of lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects demonstrates multi-faceted connections between Gönnersdorf and Southwestern Germany. In multiple cases (e.g., disks, stylized female engravings, and non-jet stylized female figurines), Gönnersdorf and sites in Southwestern Germany share decorated objects, but Gönnersdorf contains the largest number of them, even though it is located nearly 300 kilometers away. This suggests that the people who created Gönnersdorf’s Concentrations I and III, in particular, emphasized visual display more than did people in Southwestern Germany. If the visual displays were not linked to frequent human encounters, they may have been connected with one or more high status leaders whose services were particularly valuable in a northern “frontier” area characterized by high social and economic risk. 266 No jet or lignite sources are known from the Paris Basin, so Pincevent’s two examples likely originated from further east. People in Switzerland and Southwestern Germany acquired fossils from the Paris Basin, while people at Gönnersdorf acquired Atlantic shells, so the beads could have been passed on during either of those direct or down-the-line exchanges. In contrast, the two discoidal beads known from Courbet and Fontalès in Southwestern France appear to have been made of local materials (Alvarez Fernández 1999a), suggesting either independent invention or local copying of beads from further north. Both sites contain stylized female engravings and non-jet stylized female figurines, which were common in Southwestern Germany and West-Central Germany, suggesting that the beads probably were copies, rather than independent inventions. Jet “Venus” Pendants/Figurines In the group of “Venus” pendants and/or figurines made of jet and lignite (Figure 6.49), I include both perforated and unperforated objects because many of the unperforated ones have possible suspension grooves, and because their sizes and forms are similar to those of the perforated ones. Sites containing those pendants and figurines are limited to Switzerland and extreme Southwestern Germany (Figure 6.50). Petersfels in Southwestern Germany contains at least eleven, while the other sites contain from approximately one to three. Their restriction to Switzerland and Southwestern Germany suggests that they were a localized tradition, with little or no significance for people living outside those two regions. As such, they may have been made and/or used by people who did not have 267 Petersfels (SW Germany) Petersfels (SW Germany) (Höneisen 1993b) (Höneisen 1993b) Schweizersbild (NE Switzerland) Monruz (NW Switzerland) Moosbühl (NW Switzerland) (Höneisen 1993b) (Höneisen 1993b) (Höneisen 1993b) Figure 6.49. Examples of Upper Magdalenian jet “Venus” pendants and figurines. Range: 1-10 (# of “Venus” pendants Petersfels and figurines per site) N 200 km Figure 6.50. Distribution of jet “Venus” pendants and figurines during the Upper Magdalenian. wide-reaching social connections. Alternatively, they might have been used and controlled by members of secret or restricted social groups, who did not allow the objects to be exported or copied. Most or all of the sites that contain jet “Venus” figurines also contain waste fragments of jet and lignite, so each example may have been made within the site in which it was found, again suggesting a socially controlled tradition. Middle and Upper Magdalenian In addition to items of personal ornamentation assigned to only the Middle or the Upper Magdalenian, I examined the distribution of two kinds of objects that appear in both temporal contexts. The objects are listed in Table C.27 in Appendix C. Perforated Disks Disks range from about 20 to 100 mm in diameter, with most being between 30 and 50 mm. Most are perforated, but even some finished ones are not. Likewise, a large number are engraved with designs on their edges and/or in their centers, but many are undecorated. In southwestern regions, they usually are cut out of cervid scapulae (Figure 6.51). That is supported by the fact that four sites in the Pyrenees also contain scapulae from which disks have been extracted (Figure 6.52). In contrast, disks in northern regions more frequently are carved out of stone or, occasionally, ivory (Figure 6.53). Disks are found in at least twenty-two Middle Magdalenian occupations and nine Upper Magdalenian occupations. They appear in large numbers during the Middle Magdalenian, but are restricted to sites in Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, Southwestern France, and Switzerland (Figure 6.54). The fact that disks are found in the largest 270 Le Portel (Pyrenees) (Sieveking 1971) Laugerie-Basse (SW France) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Sieveking 1971) (Bellier et al. 1991) (bone) (bone) (sandstone) Lourdes (Pyrenees) Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) (Sieveking 1971) (Sieveking 1971) (Sieveking 1971) (bone) (bone) (bone) Figure 6.51. Examples of Middle Magdalenian perforated disks. Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Bellier et al. 1991) Saint-Michel/Arudy (Pyrenees) (Bellier et al. 1991) Figure 6.52. Examples of Middle Magdalenian cervid scapulae with disks fully or partially extracted. Gönnersdorf (WC Germany) Petersfels (SW Germany) (G. Bosinski 1981a) (Sieveking 1971) (slate) (ivory) Gönnersdorf (WC Germany) (G. Bosinski 1981a) (slate) La Tuilière (SW France) Chaleux (Belgium) (Sieveking 1971) (Bellier et al. 1999) (bone) Figure 6.53. Examples of Upper Magdalenian perforated disks. (ivory) Disk Range: 1-53 (# of disks per site) # of Scapulae: 1 per site N sites with scapulae 200200 kmkm sites with disks Isturitz Enlène Mas d’Azil Figure 6.54. Distribution of disks and scapulae with disk cut-outs during the Middle Magdalenian. numbers in the Pyrenees suggests that their production and use were most socially significant there (Schwendler in press). Many fewer disks have been recovered from Upper Magdalenian contexts, albeit from more geographically dispersed regions, including the Pyrenees, Southwestern France, Switzerland, Southwestern and West-Central Germany, and Belgium (Figure 6.55). There appear to have been three dispersed groups—one in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France, one in Switzerland and Southwestern Germany, and one in WestCentral Germany and Belgium. The largest number of Upper Magdalenian disks has been recovered from Gönnersdorf, in West-Central Germany, suggesting that people at the site may have responded to social issues in a way similar to that seen in the Pyrenees during the Middle Magdalenian. In a forthcoming paper (Schwendler in press), I present my findings from a stylistic analysis of 215 disks and disk fragments. In that study, I used Chi-Square Tests to compare the geographic distributions of five categories of edge decorations and four categories of center decorations. I suggested that, if decorations differed significantly within and/or between regions, people may have purposely used disks to advertise group memberships. Motifs were shared across Western Europe during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian, but my analyses demonstrate that there were some region- and site-specific emphases on certain kinds of decorations. In comparing large assemblages of disks from the major Middle Magdalenian sites of Isturitz, Le Mas d’Azil, and Enlène in the Pyrenees, I found that Le Mas d’Azil disks have more edge decorations than expected. However, overall, Middle Magdalenian occupants of the Pyrenees freely and widely 275 Gönnersdorf Range: 1-22 (# of disks per site) N 200 km Figure 6.55. Distribution of disks during the Upper Magdalenian. exchanged disks and/or ideas about disk decorations, with minimal intra-regional differences. The paucity of clear intra-regional decorative divisions contradicts my prediction for high levels of inter-group display in regions with high population densities. In contrast, there may have been some group display at a larger geographic scale. When disks or the ideas for disks were taken outside the Pyrenees, people in different regions emphasized certain decorations over others. For example, in comparing disks from all sites in the Pyrenees with those from other regions, I found that the Pyrenees disks have fewer center decorations than expected. In contrast, disks from Montastruc, located on the southeastern edge of Southwestern France, have more radial center decorations than expected, while disks from Laugerie-Basse, in the heart of Southwestern France, have more figurative center decorations that expected. Hence, during the Middle Magdalenian, people in regions outside the Pyrenees may have used disks as visual indicators of their distinct Magdalenian sub-cultures, or of their connections with specific people in the Pyrenees. The small number of disks recovered from sites outside the Pyrenees provides evidence that disks were traded as curiosities or collected as “souvenirs” of visits to the Pyrenees, and were circulated in the course of small-scale inter-regional social interactions. The large number of disks from the Upper Magdalenian site of Gönnersdorf (particularly Concentrations I and III) in West-Central Germany indicates a resurgence in the use of disks for visual signaling, albeit using local materials and decorations. In addition to disks, the large number of lignite beads, perforated animal teeth, and Mediterranean shells at Gönnersdorf provide evidence that it was a site in which visual display, and perhaps social competition or hierarchy, were important. 277 As such, the presence of a few disks in Switzerland, Southwestern Germany, and Belgium—all areas with other ties to West-Central Germany—may have been related to individuals’ social connections with people from West-Central Germany. In particular, people outside that region may have desired items that were associated with high-status individuals at Gönnersdorf. However, as during the Middle Magdalenian, people in different regions may have used different decorations as some form of group signaling. For example, Upper Magdalenian disks from Gönnersdorf have more concentric circle center decorations than expected, while the three Upper Magdalenian disks from Petersfels, in Southwestern Germany, all feature radial center decorations. The small number of disks recovered from five Upper Magdalenian sites in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France suggest that disks no longer held the same widespread significance as they had in the Middle Magdalenian. Only two of the eight disks have decorations, and they are not “classic” Middle Magdalenian ones, suggesting that it was only the disk form itself that retained some minimal importance, perhaps because of its former significance. Sea Urchin Spine Pendants Other items of personal ornamentation found in both Middle and Upper Magdalenian contexts in the Pyrenees (Le Mas d’Azil), Northeastern Switzerland (Freudenthal, Kesslerloch), and West-Central Germany (Gönnersdorf) are sea urchin spine-shaped pendants, made of ivory and lignite (Figure 6.56). Two Upper Madalenian sites in Northeastern Swizerland (Schweizersbild) and southern Belgium (Bois Laiterie) 278 Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) Freudenthal (NE Switzerland) Kesslerloch (NE Switzerland) Gönnersdorf (WC Germany) “Middle Magdalenian” “Middle Magdalenian” “Middle Magdalenian” “Upper Magdalenian” (H. Bosinski 1980) (H. Bosinski 1980) (H. Bosinski 1980) (Alvarez Fernández 1999a) Figure 6.56. Examples of Middle and Upper Magdalenian fossil sea urchin spine-shaped pendants. M/UM Pendant Range: 1-8 (# of sea urchin spine pendants per site) # of UM Pendants: 1 per site UM Fossil Spine Range: exact #s not reported Freudenthal Middle/Upper Magd. N (pendant) Upper Magd. 200 km (pendant) Upper Magd. (real spine) Figure 6.57. Distribution of sea urchin spine pendants during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian. Kesslerloch also contain real fossil sea urchin spines, probably collected locally (Le Tensorer 1998; Straus and Martinez 1997). Sea urchin pendants and fossil spines are uncommon and are dispersed widely— in the Pyrenees and Switzerland during the Middle Magdalenian, and in Switzerland, West-Central Germany, and Belgium during the Upper Magdalenian (Figure 6.57). This suggests that they may have been individual visual displays, circulated via people’s longdistance, personal social networks, rather than being indicators of group memberships. Middle Magdalenian occupations at Le Mas d’Azil, in the Pyrenees, and at Kesslerloch, in Northeastern Switzerland, share other decorated objects as well, including semi-round section antler rods with lateral protruberances and with raised central lines, and horse head spearthrowers. Most examples of those three kinds of portable decorated objects are found in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France, with Kesslerloch being a geographic outlier. In contrast, Le Mas d’Azil is a geographic outlier for sea urchin spine pendants. Hence, the different objects may have moved in opposite directions during interactions or down-the-line exchanges between individuals in the Pyrenees and Switzerland. Trends in the Distribution of Groups of Similar Items of Personal Ornamentation The region containing the largest number of groups of similar items of personal ornamentation is the Pyrenees during the Middle Magdalenian. This suggests that people in the region at that time invested most heavily in creating objects that could have signaled various group memberships, particularly vis à vis those of other regions. At the same time, the cache of caprid head contours découpés at Labastide and the abundance of 281 similar objects at Isturitz, Enlène, and Le Mas d’Azil, in particular, provide evidence that Pyrenees society also was characterized by social differentiation and competition. The fact that many of the Pyrenees style objects appear in much smaller numbers in other regions, and sometimes are cached, suggests that at least some aspects of Pyrenees society and culture were coveted, or at least admired to the extent of emulation. During the Upper Magdalenian, groups of similar items of personal ornamentation are found largely in northern regions of Western Europe. In particular, some groups are found in Switzerland/Southwestern Germany, and in West-Central Germany at Gönnersdorf. However, there is no one center from which multiple groups were exported, as from the Pyrenees during the Middle Magdalenian. This suggests that group visual displays were important in Upper Magdalenian northern regions, but perhaps held more intra-regional than inter-regional significance. The three regions discussed above—the Pyrenees, Switzerland, and West-Central Germany—had vastly different site densities, ranging from 3.4 (Upper Magdalenian West-Central Germany) to 19.8 (Upper Magdalenian Northwestern Switzerland). However, the characteristic common to all of the regions was that they had been repopulated during the Magdalenian phases in which they displayed concentrations of groups of similar items of personal ornamentation. Summary for Results of Personal Ornamentation Analyses Analyses of the production and circulation of items of personal ornamentation consistently show that people using sites in northern areas, including Switzerland, Southwestern Germany, West- and East-Central Germany, and Belgium, acquired and 282 circulated objects originating from greater distances than did people using sites in southwestern regions, including Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France. That was despite the fact that objects commonly used for personal ornamentation in northern areas (e.g., fossil shells and other fossils) often were available at equal or lesser distances than were objects used in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France (e.g., marine shells). At the same time, intensity of visual display (quantified as ratios of numbers of items of personal ornamentation to site density) generally is greater in newly re-populated areas (e.g., Middle Magdalenian Pyrenees; Upper Magdalenian Paris Basin, Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium) than in continuously populated areas (e.g., Cantabrian Spain, Southwestern France). Because most of the newly re-populated areas were characterized by high site density, their high rates of visual display do fit my expectations. However, the very low level of visual display relative to site density in Southwestern France is striking, given that the region maintained the highest known site density during all three Magdalenian phases. This suggests that, rather than mere site density, it was a combination of site density and recent re-population that provided the right social conditions for intense visual display. Finally, most groups of similar items of personal ornamentation were circulated within either southwestern or northern areas of Western Europe, rather than across the whole western continent. Contours découpés, hyoid bone pendants incised with lines along their edges, “Marsoulas type” pendants, and Middle Magdalenian disks are confined almost exclusively to sites in Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France. With a few exceptions, discoidal beads, jet “Venus” pendants/figurines, and sea 283 urchin spine pendants are found in sites in Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and the Paris Basin. Only two groups of similar objects—disks and sea urchin spine pendants—are found in both the southwestern and northern sections of Western Europe. That suggests that similar items of personal ornamentation generally had meaning or use only in single regions or in neighboring ones. Presumably that was because interactions that might have featured visual signaling of group or cultural memberships were spatially limited. The same trend holds true for most portable decorated objects, with two exceptions— highly stylized female engravings and non-jet female figurines. Portable Decorated Objects Analyses of portable decorated objects were designed to identify patterns in the circulation of aesthetic forms and ideas among regions. In particular, they were used to locate concentrations of group visual displays and to make inferences about the nature and extent of human interactions in specific areas at certain times. All analyses involved creating distribution maps of sites containing similar objects. Distributions of Groups of Similar Objects Lower Magdalenian For the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian, I examined the distribution of three groups of similar motifs and/or portable decorated object forms—scapulae engraved with distinctively rendered red deer (and two bison), tectiform signs, and “pseudoexcisa” lines 284 (Table D.5 in Appendix D). The latter two motifs are found on tools, including wands (varillas), antler spearpoints (sagaies), and a chisel, as well as on a semi-round section antler rod of unknown use. Engraved Scapulae Red deer scapulae engraved with distinctive and often densely shaded red deer or bison figures (Figures 6.58 and 6.59) appear to have been decorative, rather than technologically functional. They have been found only in sites in Cantabrian Spain (Altamira, El Rascaño, El Juyo, El Mirón, and El Cierro), with the largest number (c. 30) at El Castillo (Figure 6.60). All of the sites but El Cierro (Asturias) are located in Cantabria province. Similar engraved images occur in rupestral cave art in El Castillo, Altamira, Llonín, Peña de Candamo, and perhaps other nearby caves (e.g., Apellaniz 1982; I. Barandiarán 1996; Corchón 1997), suggesting that the images had special regional significance. This evidence for the localized production of numerous decorated objects and similar cave art suggests that there were some social differences across the region during that time period, and perhaps some control of aesthetic ideas by certain groups. The use of distinctive portable decorated objects fits with the moderately to highly intense use of personal ornamentation during the same phase. Taken together, the evidence suggests that societies in Lower Magdalenian Cantabrian Spain allowed for some social inequality, at the scale of both individuals and corporate groups. 285 El Castillo (Almagro Basch 1976) Altamira (Almagro Basch 1976) Figure 6.58. Examples of Lower Magdalenian scapulae engraved with red deer hinds from Cantabrian Spain. El Cierro (red deer hind) El Juyo (red deer hind) (Corchón 1986) (Corchón 1986) El Rascaño (bison) (Corchón 1986) Figure 6.59. Examples of Lower Magdalenian scapulae engraved with red deer hinds and a bison from Cantabrian Spain. Red Deer Range: 1-33 (# of scapulae engraved with red deer hinds per site) # of Bison: N 1 200 km red deer hind El Castillo bison Figure 6.60. Distribution of scapulae engraved with red deer hinds and bison during the Lower Magdalenian. Tectiform Signs Tectiform signs included in this study consist of flat-sided diamond shapes with a few interior lines, with some tending towards more linear, ladder shapes with multiple interior lines (Figure 6.61). Most of the published artifacts with similar tectiform signs have been recovered from Lower Magdalenian sites in Cantabrian Spain, but two examples come from sites in Central France (Le Chaffaud and Le Placard) (Figure 6.62). Antler spearpoints (sagaies) and wands (varillas) seem to be the only kinds of portable decorated objects engraved with tectiform signs, suggesting that there was a relationship between the tools and the motif. “Pseudoexcisa” Lines So-called “pseudoexcisa” lines are depressed, step-like, and generally sinuous lines carved most frequently into antler spearpoints (sagaies) (Figure 6.63). Most are found on objects recovered from Badegoulian sites in Southwestern France, but one example comes from a Solutrean or Lower Magdalenian occupation at Aitzbitarte IV in the Spanish Basque country, and one comes from Llonín in western Cantabria, a site whose other decorated objects are more typical of the Middle Magdalenian (Corchón 1997; Fortea Pérez et al. 1995) (Figure 6.62). The distributions of portable decorated objects with tectiform signs and pseudoexcisa lines provide evidence for some interactions between Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France during the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian. The fact that the decorations occur almost exclusively on tools suggests that the social interactions in 289 Altamira (Cantabrian Spain) El Juyo (Cantabrian Spain) El Cierro (Cantabrian Spain) (Magdalenian III-IV) (Magdalenian III) (Magdalenian inicial) (Corchón 1986) (Corchón 1986) (Corchón 1986) El Castillo (Cantabrian Spain) Grotte des Harpons/Lespugue (Pyrenees) (Lower Magdalenian) (Magdalenian) (Corchón 1986) (Corchón 1986) Le Chaffaud (WC France) Le Placard (WC France) (Magdalenian inferior) (Magdalenian III) (Corchón 1986) (Corchón 1986) Figure 6.61. Examples of Lower Magdalenian and other Magdalenian tectiform signs. Tectiform Range: 1-2 (# of objects with tectiform signs per site) Pseudoexcisa N Line Range: 1-3 (# of objects with 200 km pseudoexcisa lines per site) tectiform sign (mostly LM) pseudoexcisa line (mostly Badegoulian) possible MM pseudoexcisa line Figure 6.62. Distribution of tectiform signs and pseudoexcisa lines during the Badegoulian, Lower, and other Magdalenian. Badegoule (SW France) Le Placard (WC France) Laugerie-Haute (SW France) Aitzbitarte IV (Cantabrian Spain) (Badegoulian) (Badegoulian/Lower Magd.) (Badegoulian/Lower Magd.) (Solutrean/Lower Magdalenian) (Chollot 1980) (Chollot 1980) (Utrilla 1986) Figure 6.63. Examples of Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian objects with pseudoexcisa lines. (Utrilla 1986) which they were involved may have included movements and meetings of hunting parties, or long-distance partnerships among hunters. This limited evidence for interregional decorative similarities is in sharp contrast to the abundant evidence for visual displays (i.e., items of personal ornamentation and engraved red deer scapulae) within Cantabrian Spain. As such, it suggests that social negotiations and competition occurred largely within Cantabria during the early part of the Magdalenian. By extension, it appears that people in Southwestern France also were more concerned with intra-regional signaling than with inter-regional interactions. However, there are many fewer reported visual displays from sites in Southwestern France than from those in Cantabrian Spain, and I could identify no groups of similar portable decorated objects in Southwestern France during the Badegoulian or Lower Magdalenian. That suggests that Southwestern France was characterized by social conditions that allowed for artistic inventiveness by individuals, rather than encouraged group visual display and the replication of group-specific artistic traditions. Middle Magdalenian For the Middle Magdalenian, I looked at the distribution of eighteen groups of similar motifs or portable decorated objects themselves (Table D.6 in Appendix D). Most of those objects are found in sites in the Pyrenees, with some examples in Cantabrian Spain, Southwestern France, and Switzerland. Each group is geographically distributed in one of five ways, and I discuss the objects based on those distributions, moving from west to east. 293 Cantabrian Spain and the Pyrenees Two groups of motifs engraved on portable decorated objects are found only in sites in Cantabrian Spain and the Pyrenees. A tight net motif (Figure 6.64) is engraved on a slate plaquette, a spatula, and a bone recovered from two sites in Cantabrian Spain (La Paloma and Cueto de la Mina), and one site in the Pyrenees (Marsoulas) (Figure 6.65). Geometric motifs that look like plant fronds made of multiple, parallel, curved lines (Figure 6.66) are found on semi-round section antler rods at Hornos de la Peña in Cantabrian Spain, and at Isturitz and Espélugues in the Pyrenees (Figure 6.65). The net motif has a wider geographic distribution and appears to have been appropriate for a range of objects. In contrast, the plant frond motif has a narrower geographic range and is limited to semi-round section antler rods whose actual uses are unknown (Mons 1980-81). The distributions of the two motifs suggest that people living in Cantabrian Spain and the Pyrenees during the Middle Magdalenian shared some decorative ideas and perhaps exchanged some decorated objects themselves in small numbers. The Pyrenees Four groups of motifs that are engraved and/or carved onto portable decorated objects are found only in the Pyrenees and immediately adjacent areas. The motif of parallel side lines with medial zigzag lines in-between them (Figure 6.67) is engraved on flat bone polishers (lissoirs) at three sites in the Pyrenees (Isturitz, Duruthy, and Brassempouy), and at the site of Grotte Gazel, located on the far edge of the Aude River plain to the north of the Pyrenees (Figure 6.68). 294 Cueto de la Mina (Cantabrian Spain) (Corchón 1986) La Paloma (Cantabrian Spain) (Corchón 1986) Figure 6.64. Examples of Middle Magdalenian objects with “net” motifs. Net Range: 1-2 (# of objects with “net” motif per site) Plant Frond N Range: 1-2 (# of objects 200 km with “plant frond” motif per site) “net” motif “plant frond” motif Figure 6.65. Distribution of “net” motif and “plant frond” motif during the Middle Magdalenian. Hornos de la Peña (Cantabrian Spain) (Corchón 1986) Isturitz (Pyrenees) Lourdes (Pyrenees) (Thiault and Roy 1996) (Chollot 1980) Figure 6.66. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “plant frond” motifs on semi-round section antler rods. Duruthy (Pyrenees) (Bahn 1982) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Bahn 1982) Grotte Gazel (E Pyrenees/Medit.) (Thiault and Roy 1996) Figure 6.67. Examples of Middle Magdalenian engraved “side lines with medial zigzags” motifs on “polishers” (lissoirs). Range: 1-3 (# of objects w/ “side lines with medial zigzags” motif N per site) 200 km Figure 6.68. Distribution of engraved “side lines with medial zigzags” motif during the Middle Magdalenian. The other three groups (“eye”, “spiral”, and “sun ray” motifs) are carved into semi-round and round section antler rods of unknown use (Mons 1980-81). In some cases, two of the motifs are carved onto the same objects. While “eye” motifs (Figure 6.69) are found on semi-round section rods from only two sites in the western Pyrenees (Isturitz, Espalungue/Arudy) (Figure 6.70), “sun ray” motifs (Figure 6.71) are found on semi-round section rods from four sites in the western and central Pyrenees (Isturitz, Espalungue/Arudy, Espélugues, and Grotte des Harpons/Lespugues) (Figure 6.70). “Spiral” motifs (Figure 6.72) are the most dispersed, being found on semi-round and round section rods from eight sites in the Pyrenees and possibly from the later Hamburgian site of Poggenwisch, in far northern Germany (G. Bosinski 1978) (Figure 6.73). The fact that “eye”, “sun ray”, and “spiral” motifs appear only on semi-round and round section rods and are confined exclusively (or nearly so) to the Pyrenees suggests that they were elements restricted to a particular class of objects. It appears that objects with those motifs either held importance only within Pyrenees societies or were guarded by certain individuals or groups within that region, perhaps because of some ritual or status associations. The neatness and skill with which the motifs were carved vary considerably, but many of the examples represent highly accomplished craftsmanship. That contributes to the possibility that at least some were made by specialized artists and/or were associated with prestigious individuals (e.g., Bahn 1982). The angular, open motifs on the Poggenwisch semi-round section rod are vaguely reminiscent of angular spirals found on a few semi-round section baguettes from Isturitz, in the western Pyrenees (Thiault and Roy 1996). More striking is the similarity between 300 Isturitz (Pyrenees) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Thiault and Roy 1996) (Thiault and Roy 1996) Figure 6.69. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “eye” motifs. Espalungue/Arudy (Pyrenees) (Thiault and Roy 1996) “Eye” Range: 2-6 (# of rods with “eye” motif per site) “Sun Ray” Range: N 1-2 (# of rods with “sun 200 km ray” motif per site) Isturitz “eye” motif “sun ray” motif Figure 6.70. Distribution of semi-round section rods with “eye” and “sun ray” motifs during the Middle Magdalenian. Isturitz (Pyrenees) Lespugue (Pyrenees) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Espalungue/Arudy (Pyrenees) Figure 6.71. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “sun ray” motifs ( (Thiault & Roy 1996) ). Isturitz (Pyrenees) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Espélugues/Lourdes (Pyrenees) Figure 6.72. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “spiral” motifs. (Thiault & Roy 1996) Range: 1-10 (# of rods with spiral motif per site) N Middle Magd. 200 km “Upper Magd.” Isturitz Espélugues Figure 6.73. Distribution of semi- and round section rods with “spiral” motif during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian. what appears to be a three-dimensional carved fox head on the “distal” end of the Poggenwisch rod, and that carved onto the end of a spearthrower from Espalungue/Arudy in the west-central Pyrenees (G. Bosinski 1978) (Figure 6.74). While the Poggenwisch rod comes from a deposit that may be contemporaneous with the Upper, rather than the Middle, Magdalenian (ca. 1500 years later), its combination of two unusual and distinctive Pyrenees style decorations suggests that the rod was made by someone who had seen the Pyrenees artifacts first-hand or worked with someone who had. The apparently late timing of the object’s deposit in Poggenwisch may have been the result of long-term curation, if it was an object of great ritual and/or historical significance. The four objects and motifs described above have a fairly wide distribution across the Pyrenees, yet few, if any, examples are seen outside the region. That evidence supports the idea that the Pyrenees, perhaps more than any other region during the Middle Magdalenian, was characterized by strong regional group identity and by the control of certain artistic traditions and possibly ritual knowledge. Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France Two groups of similar motifs and objects are found in sites in Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France. The motif of a diamond with a line down the center (Figure 6.75), found on a variety of tools including sagaies, spatulas, and semiround section rods, has a very wide geographic distribution, appearing in six sites in Cantabrian Spain, three sites in the Pyrenees, and two sites in Southwestern France (Figure 6.76). However, one of the examples from Cantabria—on a sagaie from El Pendo—appears to be from an Upper Magdalenian context, though the dating is vague. 306 Poggenwisch spirals Isturitz spirals Poggenwisch “fox head” Espalungue/Arudy “fox head” (G. Bosinski 1978) (G. Bosinski 1978) (G. Bosinski 1978) (G. Bosinski 1978) Figure 6.74. Comparison of the semi-round section rod from Poggenwisch (Hamburgian of N Germany, contemporaneous with the Upper Magdalenian) with Middle Magdalenian examples from Isturitz and Espalungue/Arudy (Pyrenees). Ermittia (Cantabrian Spain) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996b) Cueto de la Mina Santimamiñe Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Cantabrian Spain) (Cantabrian Spain) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996b) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996b) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996b) (UM) (MM) (MM) El Pendo (Cantabrian Spain) (Corchón 1986) (MM) Figure 6.75. Examples of Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian “diamond with center line” motifs. (MM/UM) Range: 1-2 (# of objects with “diamond with center line” motif per site) N 200 km Middle Magd. Upper Magd. Figure 6.76. Distribution of “diamond with center line” motif during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian. Four sites contain examples of highly sculpted “ears of wheat” (Figure 6.77), though they are geographically dispersed. One is in Cantabrian Spain (Coimbre), while two are in the Pyrenees (Espélugues, Grotte des Harpons/Lespugue), and one is in Tarnet-Garonne (Bruniquel), near the southeastern edge of the region of Southwestern France (Figure 6.78). The fact that the motifs are distributed much more widely than the sculpted objects suggests that people in Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France shared decorative ideas more than they exchanged decorated objects themselves. Rather than being indicators of regional groups, per se, the diamond motifs probably were nonspecific aesthetic elements of a broad southwestern Magdalenian culture. That is supported by the fact that they appear on a range of objects, including tools and nontools, rather than being confined to a specific form. It is also supported by the circulation of Atlantic and Mediterranean shells across the same geographic area. The Pyrenees and Southwestern France or West-Central France Seven groups of similar motifs and portable decorated objects are restricted to sites in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France. In all of the cases with more than two or three examples, though, the objects are much more abundant in the Pyrenees than in Southwestern France. That suggests that the objects were made and used most frequently in the former region, and the decorations or objects themselves exported to neighboring areas. Semi-round section antler rods engraved with deep “side curves” (Figure 6.79) have been found in one site in the Spanish Pyrenees (Abauntz), in five sites in the French 310 Lourdes (Pyrenees) Coimbre (Cantabrian Spain) (Chollot 1980) (Museo Arqueológico, Oviedo) (MM) (Magdalenian) Figure 6.77. Examples of Middle Magdalenian (MM) and unspecified Magdalenian sculpted “ears of wheat”. Range: 1-2 (# of sculpted “ears of N wheat” per site) 200 km Figure 6.78. Distribution of sculpted “ears of wheat” during the Middle Magdalenian. Abauntz (Spanish Pyrenees) Lortet (Pyrenees) St Michel/Arudy (Pyrenees) (Utrilla & Mazo 1992) (Chollot 1964) (Mascaraux 1910) Isturitz (Pyrenees) Gourdan (Pyrenees) (Utrilla & Mazo 1992) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Figure 6.79. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with deeply engraved “side curves”. Pyrenees, and in the Aveyron River valley at the southeastern edge of Southwestern France (Courbet) (Figure 6.80). The objects are of unknown use (Mons 1980-81), but are of the same general form as the semi-round section rods mentioned previously. “Bird head” perforated batôns, like other carved antler batôns, probably were used as shaft straighteners (e.g., Haynes and Hemmings 1968; Peltier 1992) (Figure 6.81). Examples of this particular form are found largely in the Pyrenees (Figure 6.82), with one miniature “toy-like” example from a temporally unspecific context at the site of Le Placard in the Charente, in West-Central France. The non-functional nature of that example suggests that it may have represented a “symbolic” connection between an individual using Le Placard and someone in the Pyrenees. Five Middle Magdalenian sites contain highly detailed, carved and engraved images of bison in profile (Figure 6.83). Four (Isturitz, Le Grand Pastou, Espélugues, and Enlène) are located in the Pyrenees, while one (Courbet) is located in the Aveyron River valley at the southeastern edge of Southwestern France (Figure 6.84). The great similarities in detail and orientation of the bison provide evidence that the object from Courbet was either a direct copy of one from the Pyrenees, or was made by someone in the Pyrenees. Five examples of very similar, distinctively odd “fawn and bird/turd” spearthrowers (Figure 6.85) are known (from Le Mas d’Azil, Bédeilhac, Labastide, SaintMichel/Arudy, and Isturitz), as well as several objects that could be fragments or references to them (Figure 6.86). In the latter group are broken spearthrowers with herbivore feet in the same position as those of the fawns (Saint-Michel/Arudy, Grotte Gazel, Plantade); a broken herbivore body with shape and decoration similar to the fawns 314 Range: 1-3 (# of rods with “side N curves” per site) 200 km Figure 6.80. Distribution of semi-round section rods with deeply engraved “side curves” during the Middle Magdalenian. Isturitz (Pyrenees) Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) Espalungue/Arudy (Pyrenees) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Chollot 1964) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Figure 6.81. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “bird head” perforated bâtons. Range: 1-2 (# of “bird N head” bâtons per site) 200 km Figure 6.82. Distribution of “bird-head” perforated bâtons during the Middle Magdalenian. Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Isturitz (Pyrenees) Enlène (Pyrenees) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Courbet (SW France) (Cartailhac 1903) Figure 6.83. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “bison in profile” motif. Range: 1-8 (# of objects with bison N in profile per site) 200 km Isturitz Figure 6.84. Distribution of “bison in profile” motif during the Middle Magdalenian. Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) St Michel/Arudy (Pyrenees) Bédeilhac (Pyrenees) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Labastide (Pyrenees) St Michel/Arudy (Pyrenees) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Figure 6.85. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “fawn and bird” spearthrowers. Laugerie-Haute (SW France) (White 1992) (MM) St Michel/Arudy (Pyrenees) Grotte Gazel (E Pyrenees/Medit.) Abri Plantade (SW France) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Sacchi 1986) (Welté 2000) (MM) (MM) (UM) Figure 6.86. Examples of possible Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian referents to “fawn and bird” spearthrowers. (Le Mas d’Azil); “toy-like” or functional spearthrowers with the “bird/turd” shape seen on the rump of the fawns (Saint-Michel/Arudy, Laugerie-Basse or Laugerie-Haute); and a separate “bird/turd” shaped object (Gourdan). All of the “classic forms” are restricted to the Pyrenees, but objects that seem to be fragments of or referents to the classic forms are located in both the Pyrenees (Le Mas d’Azil, Saint-Michel/Arudy, Gourdan, Grotte Gazel) and Southwestern France (Plantade, Laugerie-Basse or Laugerie-Haute) (Figure 6.87). The spearthrower from Plantade, with only feet remaining, appears to come from an Upper Magdalenian context. The complete example from Le Mas d’Azil is the most detailed and well-made fawn spearthrower and was found at the entrance of a small nook in the Galerie des Silex. The example reportedly from Bédeilhac was found in a narrow, sloping passage near a living area, and that from Labastide was found in a sanctuary. Their delicate forms and depositional contexts suggest that they probably were not functional spearthrowers, and that they were considered to be special objects (Clottes 2001). Some researchers (e.g., Bahn and Vertut 1988; Robert et al. 1953) argue that the classic fawn spearthrowers provide evidence for a Pyrenees “school” of artists, but Clottes (2001) suggests, instead, that the objects were products of a Pyrenees-wide myth or historic legend about the unlikely event of a juvenile fawn giving birth. Regardless of the actual scenario, the prevalence of these very unusual, distinctive, and well-made objects in the Pyrenees lends credence to the idea that people in that region participated in rich visual traditions specific to their area. Some of the visual displays were shared with people in other regions, but Pyrenees societies seem to have retained a fairly high degree of control over them. 322 Fawn Spearthrower Range: 1-3 (# of fawn spearthrowers per site) N Fawn Element Range: 1-2 200 km (# of elements or references per site) MM fawn spearthrower MM possible fawn element/ reference Upper Magd. fawn element/reference Figure 6.87. Distribution of fawn spearthrowers and elements during the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian. Three other motifs are reported from only two or three sites each. Geometric motifs consisting of circles within triangular brackets (Figure 6.88) are found engraved on bones from Gourdan in the Pyrenees, and from Bruniquel in the Aveyron River valley, on the southeastern edge of Southwestern France (Figure 6.89). “Train track” lines, consisting of long lines crossed by many parallel short lines, and arranged in curvilinear or “Y” shapes (Figure 6.90), have been found at three Middle Magdalenian sites. Two (Isturitz, Lortet) are in the Pyrenees, while one (Grotte des Fées) is in Southwestern France (Figure 6.89). The very distinctive motif of one or more “horizontal women” wearing bracelets and necklaces and perhaps crawling (Figure 6.91) appears on engraved bones at Isturitz, in the Pyrenees, and at Laugerie-Basse, in Southwestern France (Figure 6.89). These numerically limited examples of decorative similarities between the Pyrenees and Southwestern France may be the result of personal, rather than group, connections between the two regions. If the decorations were common to groups, one might expect to find more numerous examples within close proximity of one another. Instead, it is interesting to note that the elaborate and distinctive “horizontal women”, for example, are found in two of the richest base camps or aggregation sites known, possibly suggesting links between people with particularly important social roles. Cantabrian Spain, Pyrenees, Southwestern France, and Switzerland Three groups of similar decorated objects are found in sites in the three southwestern regions, as well as in one or two sites in Northeastern Switzerland. Raised side protuberances on semi-round section antler rods (Figure 6.92) are found in fifteen 324 Gourdan (Pyrenees) Bruniquel (SW France) (Bahn 1982) (Bahn 1982) Figure 6.88. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “circles in triangular brackets” motifs. # of Objects with Circles in Brackets: 2 per site Train Track Line Range: 1-3 objects per site N # of Objects With 200 km Horizontal Women: 1 per site “circles in triangular brackets” motif “train track line” motif “horizontal woman” motif Figure 6.89. Distribution of “circles in brackets”, “train track line”, and “horizontal woman” motifs during the Middle Magd. Lortet (Pyrenees) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Chollot 1964) (Sauvet 1987) Lortet (Pyrenees) (Chollot 1964) Figure 6.90. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “train track line” motifs. Laugerie-Basse (SW France) (Duhard 1996) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (Pales & Tassin de St Péreuse 1976) Figure 6.91. Examples of Middle Magdalenian “horizontal woman” motifs. Santimamiñe (Cantabrian Spain) (Corchón 1986) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (G. Bosinski 1987) Gourdan (Pyrenees) Grotte Gazel Kesslerloch (Switzerland) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (E Pyrenees/Medit.) (Höneisen 1993a) (Sacchi 1986) Figure 6.92. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with raised side protuberances. sites in Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, Southwestern France, and Switzerland (Figure 6.93). Raised central line motifs on semi-round section rods (Figure 9.94) are dispersed even more widely, being found in one site in the Spanish Pyrenees (Abauntz), two sites in the Pyrenees (Isturitz, Le Mas d’Azil), two sites in Southwestern France (Laugerie-Basse, Grotte de l’Eglise), one site in Central France (Saint-Marcel), and one site in Switzerland (Kesslerloch) (Figure 6.95). Three-dimensional horse head spearthrowers (Figure 6.96) have been recovered from sites across the Pyrenees and up into Southwestern France, as well as in Switzerland (Kesslerloch) (Figure 6.97). Despite Kesslerloch’s location more than 650 kilometers away (“as the crow files”) from any of the other sites, it contains the largest number of horse head spearthrowers (7). Three other sites in the Pyrenees (Le Mas d’Azil) and Southwestern France (Laugerie-Basse, Montastruc) contain spearthrowers carved into deer or ibex heads, in a manner very similar to that of the horse heads. The fact that the spearthrowers, in particular, were shared among three regions suggests that those areas may have been linked by connections among hunters. If semiround section rods were hafting elements (Mons 1980-81), their presence in Swiss sites lends further support to that idea. However, the absence of any of those objects in geographically intermediate sites in Northeastern France and Northwestern Switzerland is peculiar. One explanation, based on Kesslerloch’s rich record of artifacts and faunal remains (e.g., Schmid 1984), may be that the site was a regional aggregation center to which people brought foreign objects to display to others. Alternatively, the presence of Pyrenees and Southwestern France style objects at Kesslerloch might point to the existence of exclusive long-distance social ties between people in those different 330 Range: 1-14 (# of rods with side N protuberances per site) 200 km Gourdan Mas d’Azil Figure 6.93. Distribution of semi-round section rods with raised side protuberances during the Middle Magdalenian. Abauntz (Spanish Pyrenees) Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996b) (Chollot 1964) Isturitz (Pyrenees) Kesslerloch (Switzerland) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996b) (Bandi 1947) Figure 6.94. Examples of Middle Magdalenian semi-round section rods with raised central line decorations. Laugerie-Basse (SW France) (Chollot 1964) Range: 1-10 (# of rods N with central lines per site) 200 km Mas d’Azil Figure 6.95. Distribution of semi-round section rods with raised central line decorations during the Middle Magdalenian. Kesslerloch (Switzerland) Montastruc (SW France) (Bandi et al. 1977) (Sieveking 1987) Isturitz (Pyrenees) (G. Bosinski 1987) Courbet (SW France) Gourdan (Pyrenees) (G. Bosinski 1987) (G. Bosinski 1987) La Crouzade Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) (E Pyrenees/Medit.) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Sacchi 1986) Figure 6.96. Examples of Middle Magdalenian horse head spearthrowers and similarly shaped deer head spearthrowers. Horse Range: 1-7 (# of horse head spearthrowers per site Kesslerloch # of Deer: 1 per site # of Ibex: N 1 per site horse head spearthrower 200 km Courbet deer head spearthrower ibex head spearthrower Figure 6.97. Distribution of horse head, deer head, and ibex head spearthrowers during the Middle Magdalenian. locations. On the other hand, 14C dates suggest that Kesslerloch was inhabited slightly later than sites with horse head spearthrowers in southwestern regions. That leaves open the possibility that people who established geographically outlying settlements in northern areas carried horse head spearthrowers—or at least the idea—with them. Upper Magdalenian For the Upper Magdalenian, I examined the distribution of thirteen groups of similar motifs and/or portable decorated objects across Western Europe (Table D.7 in Appendix D). The overall distributions of objects are similar to those seen in the Middle Magdalenian, albeit with more shared motifs in Cantabrian Spain, and with some shared motifs and objects in newly re-populated northern areas. Again, I discuss the different groups according to similarities in their patterns of distribution. Cantabrian Spain Two pairs of very similar objects are found in four sites in central Cantabrian Spain (Cantabria), with paired items located approximate fifteen and thirty-five kilometers from one another. Perforated antler bâtons, each similarly engraved with a red deer stag with its head down (Figure 6.98), are found in El Castillo and Cualventi (Figure 6.99). Perforated bâtons similarly engraved with one or more red deer hinds with tiny line facial shading (Figure 6.100) are found in El Pendo and El Valle (Figure 6.99). These tightly clustered pairs of elaborately decorated objects, all dated to the Final Magdalenian, point to movements of individuals between sites or to ties between individuals using those sites. Their small numbers and complex decorations suggest that, 336 El Castillo (Cantabrian Spain) (Corchón 1986) Cualventi (Cantabrian Spain) (García-Gelabert 2000) Figure 6.98. Upper Magdalenian perforated bâtons engraved with red deer stags. # of Bâtons with Stags: 1 per site N # of Bâtons with Hinds: 1 per site 200 km red deer stag motif red deer hind motif Figure 6.99. Distribution of perforated bâtons engraved with red deer stags and with hinds during the Upper Magdalenian. El Pendo (Cantabrian Spain) (I. Barandiarán 1984) El Valle (Cantabrian Spain) (Cheynier & González Echegaray 1964) Figure 6. 100. Upper Magdalenian perforated bâtons engraved with red deer hinds. within Upper Magdalenian Cantabrian Spain, specific portable decorated objects may have signaled exclusive inter-personal social links. In contrast, stylized motifs that appear on various object forms may have signaled more generalized and fluid social networks. Several examples of those are discussed below. Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France Two related motifs—stylized frontal-view ibex and stylized frontal-view cervids—are engraved onto many different kinds of objects that have been recovered from sites across Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France (Corchón 1986; Thiault and Roy 1996). Stylized frontal-view ibex (Figure 6.101) are known from at least fourteen sites in Cantabrian Spain, four sites in the Pyrenees, and two sites in Southwestern France (Figure 6.102). Frontal-view stylized cervids (Figure 6.103) occur less frequently, but in a more even distribution across regions, as they appear in six sites in Cantabrian Spain, four sites in the Pyrenees, and four sites in Southwestern France (Figure 6.104). It is perhaps not surprising that stylized frontal-view caprid motifs appear most frequently in sites in the mountainous regions of Cantabrian Spain and the Pyrenees, where caprids were abundant. However, the relationship between frontal-view cervid motifs and sites in mountainous areas is less clear, since cervids generally live in areas of less relief, albeit sometimes in lowlands that are adjacent to uplands (e.g., Cantabrian Spain). It seems that the two motifs may have been more closely related to one another than to their topographic settings. In addition, the occurrence of both motifs on a variety of objects suggests that they were products of widely shared aesthetic or other ideas, 340 Aitzbitarte IV Sofoxó El Pendo (Cantabrian Spain) (Cantabrian Spain) (Cantabrian Spain) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Massat (Pyrenees) La Madeleine (SW France) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) Cueto de la Mina La Paloma Urtiaga La Vache (Pyrenees) (Cantabrian Spain) (Cantabrian Spain) (Cantabrian Spain) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Figure 6.101. Examples of Upper Magdalenian stylized, frontal-view ibex motif. # of MM? Objects with Ibex: 5 UM Ibex Range: N 1-9 (# of objects with frontalview ibex 200 km per site) El Pendo Llonín La Vache possibly Middle Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian Figure 6.102. Distribution of stylized, frontal-view ibex motif during the Middle (MM) and Upper (UM) Magdalenian. La Chora (Cantabrian Spain) Gourdan (Pyrenees) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) El Pendo (Cantabrian Spain) Lortet (Pyrenees) Teyjat (WC France) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) (Utrilla & Mazo 1996a) Figure 6.103. Examples of Upper Magdalenian stylized, frontal-view cervid motif. Range: 1-3 (# of objects with frontal- N view cervids per site 200 km Figure 6.104. Distribution of stylized, frontal-view cervid motif during the Upper Magdalenian. rather than distinctive and standard forms of group signaling. Their presence in some sites in Southwestern France provides evidence for continued connections among all three regions. Together with the ubiquitously low levels of personal ornamentation relative to site density, the above evidence suggests that people in Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France no longer used personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects to emphasize inter-group differences or to advertise intra-group social positions. Instead of the exportation of multiple, distinctive Pyrenees forms, the Upper Magdalenian saw a wide sharing of decorative motifs, with fewer clear artistic distinctions among regions, aside from the total number of examples found in each region. These trends may point to a relaxation of group boundaries and an easing of intergroup tension, with a concomitant emphasis on inter-group cooperation and shared identity. The dramatic decrease in visual signaling in the Pyrenees from the Middle to the Upper Magdalenian may suggest that a period of marked population movement and social competition characterized by social hierarchy gave way to a period of in-place population growth characterized by leveling mechanisms emphasizing broad social commonalities. The Pyrenees and Southwestern France Four motifs that appear most frequently on semi-round section antler rods and sagaies are restricted to sites in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France. Semi-round section rods with cut-out “side steps” (Figure 6.105) have been recovered from four sites in the Pyrenees and five sites in Southwestern France (Figure 6.106). However, the 345 Gourdan (Pyrenees) Lortet (Pyrenees) Fontarnaud (SW France) (Crémades 1996) (Crémades 1996) (Roussot & Ferrier 1971) (UM) (Magdalenian) (UM) Courbet (SW France) (Cartailhac 1903) (UM) Figure 6.105. Examples of Upper (UM) and unspecified Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “side step” decorations. Range: 1-7 (# of objects with “side N step” motif per site 200 km La Vache Figure 6.106. Distribution of semi-round section rods with “side step” decorations during the Upper Magdalenian. example from Lortet, in the Pyrenees, can be assigned only to the Magdalenian sensu lato, precluding a definite temporal attribution. A second, related, motif is a combination of two parallel, cut out lines of “side steps” and a design above them (Figure 6.107). That motif combination is found on objects from three sites in the Pyrenees and four sites in Southwestern France (Figure 6.108). A third motif, consisting of wide, carved-out, undulating and twisted lines (Figure 6.109) is found on semi-round section antler rods that have been recovered from two sites in the Pyrenees and three sites in Southwestern France (Figure 6.110). The fourth motif—horses with exaggeratedly large heads (Figure 6.111)—is observed almost exclusively in Southwestern France, with three examples also coming from one site in the Pyrenees (La Vache) (Figure 6.112). Those examples are identical to one from La Madeleine, in Southwestern France, suggesting exchanges of objects or direct copying of them, rather than independent invention. The fact that multiple kinds of similar objects and decorations were shared between the Pyrenees and Southwestern France provides evidence that the basic interregional connections first seen in the Middle Magdalenian continued into the Upper Magdalenian. That is corroborated by evidence for similar connections in lithic raw materials and similar circulations of marine shells. However, Pyrenees style artifacts no longer predominate in the Upper Magdalenian. In fact, the example of the exaggerated horse head motif shows the opposite trend—a decoration endemic to Southwestern France that was exported to the Pyrenees. The other two motifs are distributed evenly between the two regions. The temporal change from a dominance of Pyrenees visual displays to a more even inter-regional balance, or perhaps an emphasis on displays from 348 Gourdan (Pyrenees) La Vache (Pyrenees) Courbet (SW France) Teyjat (WC France) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Thiault & Roy 1996) (Sieveking 1987) (Chollot 1980) Figure 6.107. Examples of Upper Magdalenian semi-round section rods with “side step” decorations and design above. # of MM? Rods with “Side Step” Motif and Design: 1 per site UM Range: N 1-2 (# of rods with “side step” motif 200 km and design per site) possibly Middle Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian Figure 6.108. Distribution of semi-round section rods with “side step” decorations and design above during the Upper Magd. Courbet (SW France) (Cartailhac 1903) La Madeleine (SW France) La Vache (Pyrenees) (Chollot 1980) (Thiault & Roy 1996) Figure 6.109. Examples of Upper Magdalenian semi-round section rods with twisting line decorations. Range: 1-3 (# of rods N with twisting lines per site) 200 km possibly Middle Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian Figure 6.110. Distribution of semi-round section rods with twisting lines during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian. La Madeleine (SW France) Limeuil (SW France) (Sieveking 1987) (Apellaniz 1987) Le Souci (SW France) Jolivet (SW France) (Apellaniz 1987) (Bouyssonie 1930) Abri Morin (SW France) Le Mas d’Azil (Pyrenees) (Apellaniz 1987) (Apellaniz 1987) Figure 6.111. Examples of Upper Magdalenian horses with exaggerated heads motif. Range: 1-10 (# of objects with horses N with exaggerated heads per site) 200 km Le Souci La Madeleine Figure 6.112. Distribution of horses with exaggerated heads motif during the Upper Magdalenian. Southwestern France, again suggests that the nature of social relations between the two areas shifted over time, despite the continuity of connections. Southwestern France One group of objects and one group of motifs are restricted to sites in Southwestern France and the Aveyron River plain to the southeast. The similar objects are deeply carved antler rods that appear to be made of twisted strands of rope (Figure 6.113). They have been recovered from three sites—Abri Morin, La Madeleine, and Montastruc (Figure 6.114). The similar motifs are complex in-fillings of engraved bovids and equids (Figure 6.115), found in three very late Magdalenian sites in Southwestern France—Abri Morin, Pont d’Ambon, and Borie del Rey (Figure 6.116). These similar objects and motifs that are known only from Southwestern France lend support to the above idea that there was a slight shift towards intra-regional visual displays in Southwestern France during the Upper Magdalenian, rather than just the borrowing or sharing of decorations from other regions. Southwestern and Northern Regions of Western Europe Two motifs are distributed across sites located in both southwestern and northern parts of Western Europe. The first motif, stylized engraved females (Figure 6.117), is found on stones, bones, shells, and cave walls in sites in the Pyrenees, Southwestern France, Central France, Switzerland, Southwestern Germany, West- and East-Central Germany, and Belgium (Figure 6.118). However, the images are concentrated in WestCentral Germany, with approximately 300 known from Gönnersdorf and 20 recovered 355 La Madeleine (SW France) (Musée des Antiquités Nationales) Montastruc (SW France) Abri Morín (SW France) (Sieveking 1987) (Musée d’Aquitaine) Figure 6.113. Examples of Upper Magdalenian antler rods carved in twisting, three-dimensional ways. Range: 1-2 (# of twisting, N 3-d rods per site) 200 km Figure 6.114. Distribution of antler rods carved in twisting, three-dimensional ways during the Upper Magdalenian. Abri Morin (SW France) Borie del Rey (SW France) (Deffarge et al. 1975) (Deffarge et al. 1975) Pont d’Ambon (SW France) (Roussot 1987) Figure 6.115. Examples of Upper Magdalenian complex in-filling of animal images. # of Images With complex In-filling N Per site: 1 200 km Figure 6.116. Distribution of complex in-filling of animal images during the Upper Magdalenian. Gönnersdorf (WC Germany) (Weniger 1989) Petersfels (SW Germany) Chaleux (Belgium) (Weniger 1989) (Dewez 1987) Andernach (WC Germany) Hohlenstein-Ederheim (Weniger 1989) (SW Germany) (Weniger 1989) Gare de Couze (SW France) La Roche à Lalinde Fronsac (SW France) Les Combarelles (SW France) (Fritz et al. 1996) (SW France) (Fritz et al. 1996) (Fritz et al. 1996) Figure 6.117. Examples of Upper Magdalenian stylized female engravings. Gourdan (Pyrenees) (Fritz et al. 1996) (Fritz et al. 1996) Gönnersdorf Range: 1-400 (# of stylized female engravings per site) N 200 km Figure 6.118. Distribution of stylized female engravings during the Upper Magdalenian. from Andernach (G. Bosinski 1991). Geographically, there are two main clusters—one in southwestern regions and one in northern regions. Still, some images known from opposite ends of Western Europe demonstrate strong similarities, and there are at least as many variations within regions (or sites) as between them. Therefore, the images are considered to come from a single population, rather than being independent inventions (e.g., G. Bosinski 1981a). The second motif, non-jet stylized female figurines made of bone, antler, ivory, and stone (Figure 6.119), are more concentrated in northern regions, being found in Southwestern France, the Massif Central, Southwestern Germany, and West- and EastCentral Germany (Figure 6.120). This distribution contrasts with that of the stylized female pendants and figurines that are made of jet and are smaller, of a different shape, and concentrated in Switzerland (Figure 6.49). However, like the stylized female engravings, the non-jet figurines in northern and southwestern regions display enough similarities that they can be considered part of the same decorative tradition (Alvarez Fernandez 1999a; G. Bosinski 1991). The extensive geographic distribution of stylized female engravings and figurines provides support for the notion of a large Upper Magdalenian “world”, united by commonalities in diverse forms of material culture, and by the sharing of general aesthetic traditions. More importantly, it suggests that Upper Magdalenian networks of social interaction reached across both continually inhabited and newly re-populated regions. While the latter areas generally were characterized by higher levels of visual display relative to site density, they contain few or no examples of similar groups of objects—aside from these stylized female engravings and figurines. That suggests that 362 Gönnersdorf Oelknitz (WC Germany) (EC Germany) (Weniger 1989) (Weniger 1989) Courbet (SW France) (Alvarez Fernáandez 1999a) Petersfels Bärenkeller (SW Germany) (EC Germany) (G. Bosinski 1981b) (Weniger 1989) Andernach Nebra (WC Germany) (EC Germany) (Weniger 1989) (Weniger 1989) Figure 6.119. Examples of Upper Magdalenian non-jet stylized female figurines. Fontalès (SW France) (Alvarez Fernández 1999a) Gönnersdorf Andernach Range: 1-14 (# of non-jet stylized female figurines per site) N 200 km Figure 6.120. Distribution of non-jet stylized female figurines during the Upper Magdalenian. people in newly re-populated areas may have emphasized visual displays in the form of items of personal ornamentation over those in the form of portable decorated objects. Belgium and Northern France One example of an intra-regional pair of related objects is two stone plaquettes engraved with very similarly rendered bovines (Figure 6.121), found at Roc-la-Tour in far northern France and at Chaleux in southern Belgium (Figure 6.122). They provide an Upper Magdalenian example of the probably contemporaneous connections between relatively nearby sites, which stemmed from either the same individual using both sites and creating both images, or from a gifting relationship between two individuals at different sites. Summary for Results of Portable Decorated Object Analyses Comparisons of the distributions of different kinds of portable decorated objects during the Lower, Middle, and Upper Magdalenian provide some evidence for the nature of social contacts within and between regions. Different regions had their own traditions in motifs and decorated object forms, such as the “shaded” red deer engraved on scapulae in Lower Magdalenian Cantabrian Spain; “spirals”, “eyes,” and “sunrays” carved on antler rods in the Middle Magdalenian Pyrenees; bâtons engraved with specific motifs in Upper Magdalenian Cantabrian Spain; highly carved, twisting baguettes and animals with complex in-filling in Upper Magdalenian Southwestern France; and distinctively drawn bovines in Upper Magdalenian Belgium. 365 Roc-la-Tour (N France) (Rozoy 1994) Chaleux (S Belgium) (Otte 1994) Figure 6. 121. Upper Magdalenian stone plaquettes with similarly rendered aurochs and bison. # of Stone Plaquettes: 1 per site N 200 km Figure 6.122. Distribution of stone plaquettes with similarly engraved aurochs and bison during the Upper Magdalenian. However, in addition to motifs and objects exclusive to single regions, there are many examples of decorative traditions that were shared among two or three neighboring regions. Most evident are the numerous similarities in motifs and objects found in Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and/or Southwestern France during all phases of the Magdalenian. The fact that similarities occur in both motifs and whole object forms suggests that there was a circulation of ideas and objects, and possibly also people, among the three regions. At the same time, there is evidence for changes in the nature of social relations within and among regions over time. For example, Cantabrian Spain’s change from an exclusive group of similar portable decorated objects and cave art in the Lower Magdalenian to multiple inter-regionally shared motifs in the Middle Magdalenian suggests that people switched from emphasizing intra-regional social competition to forming inter-regional social connections. The Pyrenees region demonstrates a similar change from the Middle to the Upper Magdalenian, with its dramatic reduction in unique visual signaling and its new emphasis on motifs common to multiple southwestern regions. When looking at similarities in portable decorated objects between southwestern and northern regions, two trends appear. One is that many of the portable decorated objects recovered from Middle and Upper Magdalenian sites in Switzerland that have similarities with those from southwestern sites are tools. This suggests that relations among people in the three southwestern regions and Switzerland may originally have been related to hunting, or to movements of hunters from the southwest to the north. In contrast, similarities in portable decorated objects (and cave wall engravings) that appear 368 over even larger distances come only in the form of “non-functional” objects—stylized female engravings and figurines. That suggests that there was a geographically extensive sharing of aesthetic or cosmological ideas during the Upper Magdalenian, some of whose origins perhaps lay in West-Central Germany. Summary Analyses of the circulation of materials and the use of visual displays in Magdalenian Western Europe support the notion of an extensive “Magdalenian world” held together by multiple, overlapping social networks that shared materials, objects, and/or aesthetic ideas. However, that world was characterized by spatial and temporal variation in raw material acquisition, production of personal ornamentation, intensity of visual display, and sharing of specific decorative motifs and objects. Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France appear to have formed one large geographic sphere of consistent and fairly exclusive interaction. However, newly re-populated areas further north generally were characterized by more wide-reaching and extra-regional interactions. In the next chapter, I discuss the implications of my findings, particularly in terms of our current understanding of variations in hunter-gatherer egalitarianism. 369 CHAPTER 7: Discussion and Conclusions Introduction In this study, I set out to test the idea that intensity and kind of hunter-gatherer visual signaling during the Magdalenian were correlated with site density and, by extension, with population density. Visual signals included exotic lithic raw materials, fossils, and minerals, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects. I expected to see lower rates of visual display in areas with lower population densities, and a preponderance of low-level signaling of individual bonds. In contrast, I expected to see higher rates of visual display in areas with higher population densities, and a preponderance of large-scale group signaling in the context of inter-group competition for resources. However, as discussed in the previous chapter, my expectations were only inconsistently met. Not surprisingly, there is not a one-to-one correlation between intensity and kind of visual signaling, on the one hand, and population density, on the other. Therefore, in this chapter I take a closer look at the actual spatial and temporal variations in signaling that existed during the Magdalenian, and I interpret them in terms of the nature and degree of hunter-gatherer social inequality that they may represent. Based on my findings, it appears that length of habitation in a region, even more so than population density, greatly influenced Magdalenian-age people’s social organization and intensity and kind of visual signaling. I argue that this is because the process of colonization involved a suite of social and economic conditions that made achieved 370 inequality and differential visual display both possible and beneficial to the groups involved. In conjunction with colonization, resource structure and associated regional settlement patterns provided for different economic and social opportunities in different regions. Building upon those ideas, I discuss social interactions among different Magdalenian regions, and offer interpretations of social organization within individual regions. As corroborating evidence for my interpretations, I describe some object caches and human burials. My interpretations then lead me to construct a preliminary model for three phases in visual signaling, as related to length and degree of regional occupation. I also suggest some other kinds of evidence that might support versus refute my arguments. Finally, I conclude with a statement of the implications of my study for our understanding of the range of variability in prehistoric hunter-gatherer social organization. Factors Affecting Social Organization and Visual Signaling Recent Colonization The coarse temporal scale used in this study—with site occupations assigned to only three Magdalenian phases, each at least 1,500 years long—does not allow for a detailed examination of the specific timing of regional colonizations or re-populations and the exact chronological relationships and contemporaneity among sites. Accordingly, the term “recent” refers to re-population or colonization within the previous 371 1,000 years or so and is indicative of relatively long-term rather than very short-term events. I suggest that it was the social and economic uncertainty involved in re-populating regions that led Magdalenian-age people to use high levels of portable visual displays relative to site density. Social conditions specific to newly re-populated areas, at least early on, may have included fluctuating, rather than established, inter- and intra-regional alliances; relative geographic isolation; and small potential mating pools. Economic uncertainty could have stemmed from dramatically fluctuating climates (especially between 13-11 kya) producing unpredictable distributions of fauna and flora. As a result, there may have been initial unfamiliarity with the mosaics of temperate- and cold-adapted species present in some northern regions, unpredictable changes in animal migration routes across unknown portions of landscapes, and unresolved connections between specific groups and resource areas. Given such social and economic uncertainty, colonizing groups may have benefited from the decision-making and leadership of one or a few individuals. Huntergatherers tend to relax their egalitarian social measures during times of marked social and economic risk, because hierarchy dominated by socially approved leaders can facilitate decision-making and the fulfillment of necessary duties under stressful conditions (e.g., Wiessner 1998b). Thus, a stressed society may award a few people with higher status— for their skills in leadership, decision-making, negotiation, hunting, scouting, ritual, etc.—under particularly risky conditions (e.g., Wiessner 2004). Such individuals may have been honored with larger numbers of commonly used visual displays, which would have lent support to their socially recognized positions of 372 authority, while reinforcing group unity. That could have resulted in archaeological evidence for more intense visual displays, particularly at aggregation sites where leaders met to represent their own societies and to facilitate inter-group decision-making. Resource Structure and Regional Settlement Pattern Another factor that potentially affected the intensity of region- and site-specific Magdalenian visual displays was regional settlement pattern, which is related to resource structure. Abundant and heterogeneous resources were available within short distances of all sites in the continuously occupied regions of Cantabrian Spain, Southwestern France (e.g., Straus 1991b), and the Massif Central (Fontana 1998; Surmely 2000). The re-populated regions of the Pyrenees and Southwestern Germany also feature uplands in relatively close proximity to lowlands, and evidence for seasonal use of both by Magdalenian-age people (e.g., Bahn 1983a; Clottes 1989; Eriksen 2000; Leesch 1993c; Sieveking 1976; Straus 1990/91, 1995; Weniger 1987, 1989). Settlement patterns in environmentally heterogeneous, high-relief regions generally were characterized by base camps located in lowlands and river valleys, and by small, specialized extraction sites often located in neighboring upland areas (e.g., Bahn 1983a; Clottes 1989; Fontana 1998; Surmely 2000; Weniger 1989). If people regularly used different areas and sites, they may have had frequent interactions with other people. In addition, the rich resource base may have allowed for differential accumulation of food resources. Depending on other social conditions, the predictable rates of human encounter and the abundant resources could have provided many contexts for visual 373 display and social competition. That might have resulted in relatively even rates of visual signaling at different sites across the region. In contrast, several re-populated northern regions, including West-Central Germany, East-Central Germany, southern Belgium, and the Paris Basin, contained a narrow range of clumped and/or highly mobile food resources. In those areas, there tend to be a few large aggregation sites and/or extended use sites (e.g., Les Fées and Grotte du Trilobite in the Paris Basin [Schmider and Valentin 1997]; Gönnersdorf and Andernach in West-Central Germany; Bad Frankenhausen, Nebra, and Oelknitz in East-Central Germany [Weniger 1989]; Chaleux in Belgium [Otte 1994]) and many more smaller sites, perhaps occupied by dispersed family units during much of the year. If people often were spread across the landscape, and came together only during times of resource abundance (e.g., fall reindeer migrations), their use of intense visual displays may have been geographically restricted. In other words, they may have used large numbers of items of personal ornamentation at aggregation sites where there were large audiences and economic opportunities for competition, but few or no items in regular, dispersed sites where audiences were small and possibilities for differential economic success were few. That might account for the unexpectedly high levels of signaling in one or two sites in low site density regions (e.g., Kniegrotte in Middle Magdalenian East-Central Germany; Gönnersdorf and Andernach in Upper Magdalenian West-Central Germany). 374 Social Interactions Among Regions Lower Magdalenian During the Lower Magdalenian, human populations were concentrated in the continuously inhabited regions of Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France. Evidence for the local acquisition of lithic raw materials in those two regions creates a picture of two isolated populations, meeting their technological needs in generally separate areas. The same conclusion can be drawn from evidence for the circulation of items of personal ornamentation, particularly marine and fossil shells. Two decorative motifs used largely on tools provide the only (limited) evidence for social interactions between Cantabria and Southwestern France. Their presence in both regions suggests that people may occasionally have moved, or shared or traded objects, between the two areas. However, those activities occurred on a very small scale. All together, I suggest that people in Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France during the Badegoulian and Lower Magdalenian engaged in intra-regional, inter-personal social negotiations more frequently than inter-regional, inter-group interactions. Human populations were scattered only very lightly, and perhaps ephemerally, across regions further north, including parts of France, Switzerland, and Southwestern Germany. There is no evidence for the sharing of lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, or portable decorated object forms or motifs among any of the regions. From that, I conclude that people emphasized intra-regional interactions to the exclusion of inter-regional ones. One possible reason for that was the fact that very small numbers of people were spread over very great geographic distances, and maintaining long- 375 distance interactions was too difficult or costly (e.g., Madden 1983). Social hierarchies associated with the differential control of objects were unlikely to form in such sparsely distributed and highly mobile populations (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). Middle Magdalenian By Middle Magdalenian times, human populations had spread into the Pyrenees, increased in Cantabrian Spain and southern France, and made initial forays into more areas further north, including West- and East-Central Germany and possibly Belgium. Middle Magdalenian sites contain much more evidence for inter-regional social interactions than do Lower Magdalenian ones. Most notably, Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France appear to have formed a large, multi-regional “social network system” (Madden 1983) characterized by the circulation of lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated objects and motifs. The Pyrenees and Southwestern France had particularly close and varied ties with one another (e.g., Koetje 2000; Straus 1991a), including exchanges of what appear to have been prestige goods (e.g., Bergerac flint blades from Southwestern France; perforated contours découpés from the Pyrenees). The “sudden” flurry of inter-regional activity coincided with the re-population of the Pyrenees and the doubling of site density in Southwestern France, suggesting that a combination of population movement and population increase created social conditions conducive to both intra-regional competition and inter-regional interaction. I discuss those specific regional social conditions in the next section. 376 Switzerland, Southwestern Germany, East-Central Germany, and perhaps Eastern France may have formed a very loose social network system, characterized by the shared use of specific raw material sources (e.g., Mediterranean Sea, Mainz Basin), rather than by formalized social interactions. Other regions with pioneer settlements, including West-Central Germany and Belgium, demonstrate no inter-regional links of any kind. Thus, given their low levels of human occupation, northern regions were again characterized by a paucity of inter-regional interactions. One exception to the pattern of loosely defined networks in northern areas is the site of Kesslerloch, in Northeastern Switzerland, which contains multiple examples of portable decorated objects very similar to those found in sites in Southwestern France, the Pyrenees, and even Cantabrian Spain. The close similarities suggest that people using Kesslerloch had direct ties to people in at least one of the other regions—probably the Pyrenees via the Rhône-Rhine river corridor—and indirect ties to the others. However, the fact that the ties are limited to a few kinds of portable decorated objects suggests that inter-regional connections were small-scale, and perhaps individual-based. Upper Magdalenian By Upper Magdalenian times, human populations had increased even further in most previously inhabited regions, and had substantially expanded into others, so that site density across Western Europe was relatively high, though geographically uneven. Upper Magdalenian sites contain evidence for many inter-regional interactions, albeit at different scales in different parts of Western Europe. The social network system centered on Cantabrian Spain, the Pyrenees, and Southwestern France continued during the Upper 377 Magdalenian, with many circulated lithic raw materials and marine shells, and multiple examples of shared portable decorated object motifs. The movement of all three object categories within the three southwestern regions suggests that interactions occurred in diverse contexts, from technological to hunting to magico-religious settings. In contrast to the geographically demarcated social networks in southwestern regions, those operating in northern regions generally were extensive and varied. Some regions (e.g., Southwestern and West-Central Germany; Belgium and the Paris Basin) were linked by the circulation and/or extraction of lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and/or portable decorated objects. However, other regions were linked by the circulation of only one category of objects. For example, sites along the Rhône-Rhine corridor in Eastern France, Switzerland, and Southwestern Germany had singular, longdistance ties through their circulation of Mediterranean shells (Alvarez Fernández 2001; Floss 2000). At the same time, a few items of personal ornamentation (discoidal lignite beads and disks), and portable decorated objects (non-jet female figurines) and motifs (stylized female engravings) were shared across Western Europe. That suggests that, despite the general separation of social networks in southwestern and northern portions of Western Europe, people managed to pass a limited number of objects and/or ideas across the entire western Magdalenian world. 378 Social Organization Within Regions In this section, I include some discussion of caches and burials to support my interpretations of regional social organization. By “cache”, I mean an object or a group of very similar objects, found in a place separated from an apparent living floor, such as a pit or a small cave chamber. Caches provide some evidence for the differential acquisition and control of specific resources, by either individuals or small groups. Locations of caches discussed below are shown in Figure 7.1. Very few human burials with clearly associated grave goods are known from Magdalenian contexts, probably because of a combination of poor preservation and offsite burial (or non-burial) practices (e.g., Gambier 1996). Still, those that are known provide some interesting contrasts to evidence for the use of items of personal ornamentation in life. Data on items of personal ornamentation recovered from burial contexts are presented in Tables C.28 and C.29 in Appendix C. Locations of the burials are shown in Figure 7.2. Cantabrian Spain The continuously occupied region of Cantabrian Spain was characterized by clear changes in visual display and, arguably, social organization during the course of the Magdalenian. Based on the criteria used in this study, the region was characterized by moderate to low levels of visual signaling during the Lower and Middle Magdalenian, and very low levels during the Upper Magdalenian. That overall pattern in portable visual display is unexpected, given the region’s moderate to relatively high site density 379 Gönnersdorf Goyet Chaleux Middle Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian Andernach N 200 km El Juyo Tito Bustillo El Rascaño Labastide Figure 7.1. Distribution of Middle and Upper Magdalenian caches discussed in the text. Oberkassel Lower Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian N 200 km St-Germainla-Rivière La Madeleine Duruthy Figure 7.2. Distribution of Lower and Upper Magdalenian burials with grave goods discussed in the text. throughout the Magdalenian. I argue that some societies in Lower Magdalenian Cantabrian Spain (e.g., in the Spanish Basque and Santander provinces) were characterized by social differentiation and emergent hierarchy, suggesting a “complex” social structure (see also Mellars 1985). By the Upper Magdalenian, societies in Cantabrian Spain (and southwestern Europe generally) may have been characterized by institutionalized hierarchy, reinforced through shared inter-regional art and ideology. Cave art in southwestern regions may provide corroborating evidence for such change, in that there appears to have been a trend from localized artistic traditions in the Lower Magdalenian to more geographically widespread themes by the Upper Magdalenian (Straus pers. comm. 2004). Lower Magdalenian Lower Magdalenian sites contain the most evidence for achieved, and perhaps ascribed, inequality, in the form of site-specific concentrations of Atlantic shells, difficult-to-acquire Mediterranean shells, and regionally restricted engraved red deer scapulae and near-identical cave art. First, the site of Urtiaga in the Spanish Basque province contains over 100 perforated Atlantic shells (Corchón 1986), more than four times the number reported for any other site. While Atlantic shells were easily accessible from all Cantabrian sites, their concentration in one location provides evidence for the differential use of personal ornamentation, perhaps by a recognized leader in the area. Second, the acquisition of a few different Mediterranean shells may have been a form of costly signaling, in that it probably required travel, resourcefulness, and extensive social connections to acquire objects originating almost 600 kilometers away, 382 at the eastern end of the apparently uninhabited Pyrenees chain. It is possible that people in Cantabrian Spain acquired the shells through down-the-line trade with people in Southwestern France, though evidence for that currently is lacking. The fact that the shells appear only in three of the major sites in Santander province that also contain elaborately engraved red deer scapulae (Altamira, El Castillo, El Mirón) suggests that the shells were regarded as special objects. As such, they may have been associated with high-status individuals or ritual specialists using those sites. Third, red deer scapulae engraved most frequently with red deer hinds are restricted to six cave sites in Santander province, some of which also contain nearly identical wall art (e.g., Corchón 1997). In particular, the site of El Castillo has yielded 30 or more such engraved scapulae, at least six times as many as are reported from any of the other sites. The regional restriction of “non-functional”, decorated objects and their concentration in one site provide strong evidence for the control of objects and/or information, such as by ritual specialists and specialized artists (e.g., Davidson 1989; Jochim 1987). Those groups often are elements of heterarchical societies, in which certain classes of people are ascribed higher social status than others (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). Hence, the concentration of engraved red deer scapulae provides the most likely evidence for ascribed inequality in Lower Magdalenian Cantabrian Spain. Middle Magdalenian Middle Magdalenian sites in Cantabrian Spain contain fewer exotic items and feature fewer portable visual displays than Lower Magdalenian ones, despite the fact that the region’s site density remained virtually the same. I suggest that is because the re- 383 population of the Pyrenees during Middle Magdalenian times affected social dynamics and visual signaling throughout the southwestern portion of Western Europe. Societies in Middle Magdalenian Cantabrian Spain were still characterized by achieved inequality, but social competition became based on the acquisition and emulation of distinctive Pyrenees style decorated objects, rather than uniquely Cantabrian ones. Evidence for the above comes from the presence of Pyrenees style contours découpés, some of which were cached, in Cantabrian sites. The large site of Tito Bustillo (Asturias) contained a cache of four horse head contours découpés, found covered with a thin layer of red ocher in a shallow pit in the Galería Larga, a side chamber away from the main living floor in the cave (de Balbín Behrmann et al. 2003). The fact that Tito Bustillo is located more than 300 kilometers from the major site of Isturitz, in the western Pyrenees, may have added symbolic significance to the objects (e.g., Helms 1991). Alternatively, they may have demonstrated a prestigious link between the person who owned them, and someone living in the Pyrenees. The presence of other indisputably Pyrenees style objects in Cantabrian Spain (e.g., an ibex head contour découpé also from Tito Bustillo; an ibex head contour découpé from La Garma; two horse head contours découpés at La Viña and a fragment of one at Las Caldas; one bone disk each at Llonín and La Viña) suggests that there were multiple connections between people in Cantabrian Spain and people in the Pyrenees. An “imitation” red deer hind contour découpé also was recovered from the “sanctuary” at El Juyo (Santander province). Rather than being made on a horse hyoid bone, it was made on a rib fragment, and rather than being completely cut out to the shape of the head and ears, it was carved in only a very generalized head shape (Freeman and Echegaray 1982). 384 As such, it suggests a more tenuous link with the Pyrenees, as might have arisen if a local artist tried to emulate the contour découpé form. However, the fact that it was deposited in the sanctuary, which was a complexly built area that appears to have been intentionally distinct and different from the living area (Freeman and Echegaray 1981/82), provides evidence that the deer head also was considered to be a special object, worthy of a position in a ritual place. Upper Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian sites in Cantabrian Spain contain little evidence for achieved inequality in the form of differential acquisition of exotic raw materials and items of personal ornamentation. One example of a small cluster of personal adornments, perhaps from a necklace or piece of clothing, comes from El Rascaño in Cantabria province. A one-meter square area in the rear of the cave contained nine perforated (including five incised) red deer canines (Straus 1992a, pers. comm. 2004). However, the widespread use of two portable decorated object motifs (i.e., stylized frontal-view ibex and cervid heads) suggests that, more than competing within their own region, people in Cantabrian Spain emphasized common ties with people in the Pyrenees and Southwestern France. That evidence in itself might suggest a reduction in social competition and hierarchy. However, as many researchers (e.g., Conkey 1985; Jochim 1983; Mellars 1985; Straus 1992a) have argued, the combination of resource abundance, population size, site size, material richness, and abundance of cave art in Cantabrian Spain point to social complexity. 385 Hence, I suggest that the change from intra-regional differentiation in signaling to inter-regional sharing of artistic motifs involved not a decrease in the degree of social inequality, but an “institutionalization” of social difference. Runaway competition within a society that allows for achieved inequality can tear that society apart. However, the institutionalization of ascribed status, and/or the formation of a heterarchy of power based on the relative ranking of certain age- and gender-based groups, can promote group cohesion by reducing competition. Group ritual and cosmology often help to reinforce the complementarity of the different intra-societal divisions (e.g., Wiessner 2002b, 2004, pers. comm. 2004). For example, in Cantabrian Spain, the production of certain kinds of cave art and the use of widely shared aesthetic norms may have helped people to maintain cooperation in the face of increasing social complexity, particularly since southwestern regions were intensively inhabited and dispersion of dissident individuals or groups was difficult. Southwestern France The continuously occupied region of Southwestern France demonstrates a consistently moderate to low intensity of visual signaling in living contexts throughout the Magdalenian, albeit with some increased regionalization in portable decorated object forms and motifs in the Upper Magdalenian. The modest level of portable visual displays is unexpected, given that the region exhibited the highest site density in Western Europe during all three Magdalenian phases. Only a couple of Badegoulian sites in the Périgord and a few Middle and Upper Magdalenian sites in the region of Tarn-et-Garonne contain evidence for moderately intense visual displays of personal ornamentation. 386 However, even more so than Cantabrian Spain, Southwestern France contains a suite of evidence for social complexity (e.g., Conkey 1985; Enloe 2000; Jochim 1983, 1987; Mellars 1985). Hence, I suggest that it was characterized by incipient, and later institutionalized, social hierarchy. That picture is supported by two rich burials—one of a woman in the Lower Magdalenian, and one of a child in the Upper Magdalenian—that suggest ascribed social status derived from some kind of heterarchy, or hereditary ranking system. The burial of a twenty- to thirty-year old woman, discovered at Saint-Germain-laRivière in Gironde in Southwestern France in the 1930s, is tentatively assigned to the “Magdalenian III” phase, corresponding with the late Lower Magdalenian or early Middle Magdalenian. However, two radiocarbon dates for early Magdalenian levels at the site are in the mid-15,000s BP (Djindjian 2000), making the burial Lower Magdalenian in terms of my phase attributions. The skeleton was covered in red ocher, and was decorated with a sort of “plaque” of small juxtaposed shells that possibly were originally sewn onto a piece of clothing. The species and origins of the shells are unclear, since they were extremely friable and poorly preserved. In addition to the shells, there were seventy perforated red deer canines, approximately twenty of which are engraved with lines and dots. The teeth appear to have been elements of one or more necklaces (Bahn and Vertut 1988; CleyetMerle 1995a; display text in the Musée National de Préhistoire des Eyzies). The presence of a large number of decorative items in a female burial may provide evidence for some kind of hereditary ranking system in which certain women, as well as men, could have social prestige, based on their lineage. Alternatively, the 387 richness of the burial could stem from the woman’s role as some kind of leader or ritual specialist, in a society that recognized achieved status. The fact that it is the only known Lower Magdalenian burial, and it has abundant grave goods, suggests that it was unusual. The burial of a five- to seven- year old child was recovered from a heavily ocherstained natural or artificial cavity at La Madeleine, in Southwestern France, in 1926 (Cleyet-Merle 1995b; Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2000, 2001). A 14C AMS date obtained for the skeleton is very young (10,190 ± 100 BP), but the associated grave goods are in line with those found at late Magdalenian living sites, so Vanhaeren and d’Errico (2001) suggest that the burial should be attributed to the late Upper Magdalenian, despite its original assignment to the Middle Magdalenian (Magdalenian IV) (Cleyet-Merle 1995b). The skeleton was decorated around the head, neck, elbows, wrists, knees, and ankles with an extraordinary number of grave goods, particularly perforated marine shells (display text in the Musée National de Préhistoire des Eyzies; Cleyet-Merle 1995b; Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2000, 2001). In addition to two perforated red deer canines and one perforated fox tooth, there were 1275 Dentalium shells, 99 Neritina shells, 25 Turritella shells, and 13 Cyclope shells directly associated with the burial. In addition, the size and/or presence of ocher on 77 Neritina shells, 17 Turritella shells, 11 Cyclope shells, one Glycymeris shell, one perforated lagomorph phalanx, one naturally perforated lagomorph humerus, and one fish vertebra, allows for their attribution to the burial, as well (Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2001). Based on analyses of the shell sizes, Vanhaeren and d’Errico (2000, 2001) have concluded that statistically smaller than average shells were chosen specifically and/or modified for the burial. That evidence has led them to argue that children in some Upper 388 Magdalenian societies may have been considered parts of a distinct social group that used appropriately sized adornments. The fact that the child was buried with a very large number of ornaments suggests that he or she may have been afforded much prestige in a heterarchical society characterized by a hereditary ranking system, since the child probably could not have earned such high status in its short lifetime (Vanhaeren and d’Errico 2000, 2001). Pyrenees In contrast with the continuously inhabited regions of Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France, the region of the Pyrenees demonstrated a virtual explosion of portable visual displays during its re-population in the Middle Magdalenian. However, by the Upper Magdalenian, after the region had been substantially populated for at least 1,000 years, intensity of visual signaling was greatly reduced. I argue that Middle Magdalenian societies were characterized by marked social competition, perhaps as part of an emergent hierarchy. By Upper Magdalenian times, institutional hierarchies may have reduced earlier runaway social competition, as also suggested for Southwestern France and Cantabrian Spain. Middle Magdalenian Distinctive objects (e.g., perforated disks and contours découpés, engraved antler bâtons) were common along the Pyrenees during the Middle Magdalenian, suggesting group signaling of a strong regional identity and perhaps cosmology. For example, horse head contours découpés are found along the length of the Pyrenees, and a horse 389 “sanctuary” was discovered at Duruthy in the western Pyrenees. Among other things, it contained a “box” formed by horse mandibles and skulls, a large sandstone statue of a kneeling horse, a horse head in ivory, and a perforated limestone horse head pendant (Arambourou 1962, 1978; Bahn and Vertut 1988; Laurent 1978). The widespread distribution of horse images and Duruthy’s evidence for horse-centered ritual suggest that people living in the Pyrenees had strong regional cultural affinity with the horse. At the same time, though, evidence for social inequality in the Pyrenees appears in the acquisition of high quality lithic raw materials, the differential manufacture and caching of items of personal ornamentation, and the possible specialization of a few individuals in the production of elaborate portable decorated objects. Hence, within the Pyrenees, numbers of distinctively Pyrenees-style objects may have indicated the differential control of various resources by small numbers of people. Six sites in the central Pyrenees (Bédeilhac, Enlène, Labastide, Le Mas d’Azil, Le Portel, Le Tuc d’Audoubert) have yielded from one to five 15 centimeter long blades of Bergerac flint originating in the Périgord region of Southwestern France (Bahn 1982). The fact that some of the blades were found together within sites (Straus 1991a) lends further support to the idea that they were elements of social competition and economic differentiation (e.g., Hughes 1978). They probably also indicate exclusive or prestigious social connections between small numbers of people in the Pyrenees and groups living near the source of Bergerac flint in Southwestern France. Other evidence for social inequality comes from within the Pyrenees. The site of Labastide in the central Pyrenees contained an apparent necklace made of eighteen virtually identical chamois head contours découpés and one bison head contour découpé, 390 cached in a corner of the cave (Bahn and Vertut 1988; Thiault and Roy 1996) (Figure 6.39). The fact that chamois head contours découpés are unknown outside of Labastide suggests that the individual who owned the necklace had a distinctive social role and was afforded prestige. Some other large Pyrenees sites (e.g., Isturitz, Le Mas d’Azil, Enlène) contain particularly large numbers of perforated disks, horse head contours découpés, intricately carved antler rods, personal adornments, and marine shells, as well as extremely large numbers of lithics and faunal remains. Because of their incredible richness, as well as their wall art, many researchers consider them to be aggregation sites (e.g., Bahn 1982; Clottes 1989; Conkey 1992). While their large numbers of decorated objects may simply be the result of large numbers of people using them, they demonstrate that decorated objects were integral parts of people’s social interactions. People may have advertised their personal skills and competed on some level through their individual production of similar objects, while affirming that they were members in a larger “Pyrenees culture”. At one extreme, some researchers (e.g., Bahn 1982; Clottes 2001; Jochim 1987) have suggested that the incredible precision with which some of the spiral motif antler rods and the “fawn and bird/turd” spearthrowers are carved indicates the work of specialist artists and art “schools”. Ethnographic evidence suggests that, in societies in which achieved inequality is allowed, gifted artists often are afforded much social prestige (e.g., Helms 1993; Ray 1961). Likewise, in heterarchical societies, specialized artists often are ascribed higher social status than other classes of people (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). The fact that spiral motif antler rods and “true” fawn spearthrowers are unknown outside the Pyrenees (with the possible exception of a carved rod in the 391 Hamburgian site of Poggenwisch in far northern Germany) provides additional evidence that the manufacture and use of special objects was socially restricted (e.g., Davidson 1989). The high level of visual display throughout the Middle Magdalenian Pyrenees points to widespread social competition and achieved inequality, but the specialization and restriction of certain high quality decorated objects suggests that some Pyrenees societies may have become heterarchical, and were based on ascribed social positions. Upper Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian-age people in the Pyrenees continued to participate in a social network incorporating Southwestern France and Cantabrian Spain, sharing lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated object forms and motifs. Still, like those other two regions, the Pyrenees contained very low levels of portable (versus wall art) displays. That is perhaps expected, given that the region saw a marked decrease in site density from the Middle to the Upper Magdalenian. However, I would argue that the drop in visual signaling was indicative of a change from widespread social competition involving most members of society, to regulated social hierarchy that included institutionalized positions of authority and ascribed social status for different classes of people. Establishing such a heterarchy of power may have helped people in the Pyrenees to foster intra-regional social stability, as well as to maintain long-term economic and social relations with groups in other regions of southwestern Europe (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004). Some evidence for the continuity of social differentiation, despite a drop in portable visual signaling in Upper Magdalenian living contexts, comes from two burials 392 at Duruthy, in the western Pyrenees. The remains of what might have been a man and a woman (represented by very incomplete skeletons) were found in Upper Magdalenian levels at Duruthy in the Pyrenees in 1874 and 1963, respectively (Arambourou 1978; Straus pers. comm. 2004). Dispersed in close proximity to (but perhaps not clearly associated with) the burials were at least forty bear canines and three lion canines, most of which were perforated and engraved with lines and geometric designs (Gambier 1996; Ladier and Welté 1995). The collection and burial of a large number of decorated teeth from two kinds of dangerous carnivores may have been a form of costly signaling, perhaps to advertise the bravery of the buried individual(s) or the resources available to the family of the deceased. As I suggested for Southwestern France, such rich burial accoutrements, particularly if associated with the “female” skeleton, may point to ascribed social status in a heterarchical society. Other Regions in France The paucity of evidence for raw material circulation and decorative object production in other regions of France, including West-Central France, the Massif Central, Southeastern and Northeastern France, and the Paris Basin, generally precludes me from making well-founded interpretations of their social organization. Evidence for high mobility but almost no portable visual displays in the Massif Central may suggest “simple” societies characterized by enforced egalitarianism. The other regions contain limited evidence for visual signaling, and perhaps occasional achieved inequality without social complexity. 393 The Middle Magdalenian site of La Marche in West-Central France contains hundreds of engraved stone plaquettes, as well as a handful of engraved horse teeth. However, the general lack of visual displays in nearby sites suggests that people living in the region generally emphasized social equality. Human images on the plaquettes at La Marche seem to depict individuals, and the images may have been created by a small number of artists over a very short period of time, perhaps during one or more special aggregations. While people may have recognized the artists’ skill, there is little material evidence (aside from the engraved horse teeth) that they were afforded differential social status. Some researchers (e.g., Enloe 2000b; Rozoy 1989) have argued that Upper Magdalenian sites in the Paris Basin represent only part of a complete subsistence system. High mobility and low population may have necessitated an egalitarian society that enforced equality as a means of mitigating economic and social risk. The small number of items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects recovered from Paris Basin sites support that idea. Most of the items of personal ornamentation are fossil shells that people could have obtained locally while on subsistence rounds. A few sites (e.g., Etiolles, Lagopède, Pincevent) have yielded ten or more items, and Etiolles contains some Atlantic shells, suggesting that low-level achieved inequality and longdistance gift exchanges, may occasionally have existed. Many Upper Magdalenian sites in Southeastern and Northeastern France contain small numbers of Mediterranean shells that appear to have been traded up the Rhône and Rhine river valleys (Alvarez Fernandez 2001; Floss 2000), suggesting active participation in a geographically extensive social network. However, none of the sites contains 394 evidence for vastly different numbers or control of the shells, suggesting that equality was enforced. Switzerland There appear to have been a few pioneer settlements in Switzerland during the Lower and Middle Magdalenian, probably originating in France (Le Tensorer 1998), with the region substantially re-populated by Upper Magdalenian times. Sites dating to the Middle and Upper Magdalenian consistently contain evidence for the operation of longdistance social networks. However, evidence for the circulation of decorative objects suggests that, while Middle Magdalenian societies may have been characterized by achieved inequality, Upper Magdalenian ones emphasized group unity, and perhaps strict egalitarianism. Middle Magdalenian The handful of sites in Switzerland that can be assigned to the Middle Magdalenian appear to be unusual for pioneering sites in their possession of exotic personal ornamentation materials (e.g., Paris Basin fossil shells, Mediterranean shells) and decorated objects (e.g., disks, sea urchin spine pendants, two forms of semi-round section rods, horse head spearthrowers) similar to those from other regions. Kesslerloch is the most notable of the early sites, since it contains all of those things except Paris Basin fossil shells. I would argue that the presence of portable decorated objects nearly identical to ones from southwestern regions is evidence that early pioneers in Switzerland originated 395 in Southwestern France and/or the Pyrenees. The acquisition of materials from sparsely inhabited regions (Paris Basin, Southeastern France, Mainz Basin) together with the concentration of portable decorated objects in Kesslerloch (particularly horse head spearthrowers) provide evidence for achieved inequality, despite low population density. If groups of people originating from the two incipiently hierarchical southwestern regions moved into Switzerland, they may have retained their traditions of individual social competition in their new areas, while mitigating their social risk by maintaining longdistance group ties with their areas of origin. Upper Magdalenian By Upper Magdalenian times, almost half of the sites in Switzerland demonstrate moderate to large numbers of items of personal ornamentation, many of which are fossil shells from the Mainz Basin. In addition, six sites contain small, stylized “Venus” pendants and/or figurines in jet. The only site outside Switzerland to contain those is the rich site of Petersfels, in nearby Southwestern Germany. In contrast, no sites in Switzerland have so far yielded non-jet stylized female figurines, which are common in Central and Southwestern Germany, and only Schweizersbild contains a stylized female engraving comparable to the ones that are widespread in Germany and France. The common use of Mainz Basin fossil shells and the use of a distinctive form of stylized female representation suggests that Upper Magdalenian societies in Switzerland may have emphasized group identity and unity, which may or may not have been based on strict egalitarianism. A few sites do contain materials originating from great distances, such as Baltic amber in Champrévèyres and Moosbühl, Paris Basin fossil shells 396 in Kastelhöhle-Nord and Rislisberghöhle, and Mediterranean shells in Kohlerhöhle and Veyrier. However, the very small quantities of those materials are more indicative of the signaling of individual social ties than of social competition. Hence, societies in Switzerland appear to have gone from emphasizing social competition and achieved status to emphasizing social equality and group membership and cooperation. Southwestern Germany A few sites in Southwestern Germany seem to date to the Middle and even Lower Magdalenian, but the region was substantially re-populated only in the Upper Magdalenian. While early sites demonstrate no clear inequality of outcome, Upper Magdalenian sites may provide evidence for social competition in aggregation contexts. Lower and Middle Magdalenian Evidence for the circulation of lithic and personal ornamentation raw materials during the Lower and Middle Magdalenian demonstrates that people in the region were isolated, apparently without ties to other inhabited areas. While the Lower Magdalenian site of Hohle Fels Schelklingen contains a large number of Mainz Basin fossil shells, it does not contain evidence for their differential control, in the form of caches. Hence, it appears that Lower and Middle Magdalenian groups may have emphasized social equality. Alternatively, ephemeral achieved status may have been awarded to one or more successful leaders at Hohle Fels, whose services were particularly beneficial to the larger social group. 397 Upper Magdalenian By Upper Magdalenian times, Southwestern Germany contained the second highest regional site density in Western Europe, and moderate to high levels of visual signaling. The circulation of lithic and personal ornamentation raw materials along the Swabian Jura suggests that, as in the Pyrenees, people were connected via a strong regional interaction network. In addition, they had some ties to people in Switzerland and West-Central Germany, as seen in the circulation of raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and portable decorated object forms and motifs. However, with the exception of the extraordinarily rich site of Petersfels, which contains hundreds of perforated animal teeth and Mainz Basin fossil shells, as well as some Atlantic and Mediterranean shells, the region contains little evidence for social differentiation. Given the presence of both Swiss- and West-Central German-style items of personal ornamentation (stylized “Venus” pendants/figurines in jet; discoidal jet and lignite beads; disks; stylized non-jet female figurines) and West-Central German-type stylized female engravings, Petersfels may have been an aggregation site for people originating in different regions of Germany. Hence, visual display and social competition may have been condoned only during gatherings of large numbers of unrelated people. West-Central Germany West-Central Germany may have had a few pioneering sites during the Middle Magdalenian (e.g., Oberkassel), but clear evidence for its re-population comes only from a handful of currently known Upper Magdalenian sites. Despite its low site density in the 398 latter period, it contains evidence for achieved inequality at aggregation sites, in the form of multiple object caches at Andernach and Gönnersdorf. The Upper Magdalenian deposit referred to as Concentration II (possibly a summer occupation [Street 1997]) at Andernach contained a pit cache of 46 perforated Homalopoma sanguineum and 1 perforated Cyclope neritea, all Mediterranean shells originating from a distance of approximately 800 kilometers from the Middle Rhineland (Alvarez Fernández 2001; Floss 1994; Street 1997). While many Upper Magdalenian sites in Eastern France contain small numbers of Mediterranean shells that were passed up the Rhône-Rhine corridor (Alvarez Fernández 2001; Floss 2000), Andernach contains by far the largest number. Its concentration of shells furthest from their source provides evidence for the control of the items’ circulation and suggests social or economic differentiation. Mediterranean shells have not been found in any other living areas in Andernach, reinforcing the idea that one or more of the people who created Concentration II had economic or social power. Directly across the Rhine from Andernach, Gönnersdorf’s Pit 19 in Concentration I (interpreted as a winter habitation with semi-permanent dwellings [Street 1997, 2000]) contained a cache of thirty-eight finished lignite beads of various forms, along with a few perforated red deer canines and one perforated fox canine (Alvarez Fernández 1999a). The presence of a large number of created items, cached together in one pit, suggests that people using Concentration I had some kind of control over the production and/or use of items of personal ornamentation. If the objects recovered from the pit were elements of a single necklace (G. Bosinski 1988), the person who owned the necklace must have been afforded unusual prestige in a society that allowed for social inequality. 399 In addition to the caches, Andernach and Gönnersdorf together have yielded hundreds of other items of personal ornamentation and portable decorated objects. They both appear to have been venues for social differentiation, perhaps contemporaneously, and perhaps by multiple groups of people. In contrast, other sites known from WestCentral Germany contain very low levels of visual display, with the exception of some exotic lithic raw materials in Wildscheuer and Wildweiberlei (Burkert and Floss in press; Féblot-Augustins 1997). As with Petersfels, it is possible that social competition was encouraged only during aggregations of large people who ordinarily were geographically dispersed. Again, that contrasts with the pattern of more widespread differentiation seen in the Pyrenees. The one burial known from West-Central Germany also contrasts with those known from Lower and Upper Magdalenian Southwestern France and Upper Magdalenian Pyrenees. A combined burial of an approximately 50-year old man, a young woman, and a domesticated dog was found in the site of Oberkassel, in WestCentral Germany, in 1914 (Street 2000). The double human burial contained an herbivore body contour découpé, somewhat similar to the Pyrenees-style contours découpés, so researchers initially assigned it to the Middle Magdalenian (Alvarez Fernández 1999a; G. Bosinski 1982). However, several 14C dates taken on the human and dog skeletons themselves range from 11,570 ±100 to 12,270 ±100 BP, suggesting an Upper Magdalenian attribution, despite chemical modification of the bones (Street 2000). In addition to the contour découpé, the burial contained a perforated bâton carved with an animal head, one carnivore tooth, one perforated red deer canine, one small flint artifact, some bear teeth, and an unperforated, but hematite-stained bear baculum (penis bone) 400 with cut marks (Street 2000). The small number of objects placed in the Oberkassel burial further supports the idea that societies in West-Central Germany, and the adjacent regions of northern Belgium and the Netherlands, may have been characterized by social equality in all but aggregation contexts. East-Central Germany Like other regions of Germany, East-Central Germany may have contained a few pioneer sites during the Middle Magdalenian, before being re-populated in Upper Magdalenian times. While site density was much higher in the latter period, the Middle Magdalenian site of Kniegrotte contains slightly more evidence for social inequality than do the region’s Upper Magdalenian sites. Middle Magdalenian Evidence for the circulation of lithic and personal ornamentation materials suggests that, as in Southwestern Germany, early pioneers in East-Central Germany were isolated. Like the Lower Magdalenian site of Hohle Fels in Southwestern Germany, Kniegrotte in East-Central Germany contained a large number of perforated Mainz Basin fossil shells. In addition, it contained numerous fragments of hematite and non-local jet, as well as finished hematite pendants and jet beads, a couple perforated animal teeth, and a moderate amount of exotic quartzite. While there is no clear evidence for differential use or control of those objects, the large number of diverse items of personal ornamentation suggests that people at Kniegrotte allowed for some achieved inequality, perhaps awarding effective leaders with tokens of their social contributions. 401 Upper Magdalenian By Upper Magdalenian times, site density in East-Central Germany had risen to a moderate level, but no sites provide evidence for intense visual display. Groitzsch and Oelknitz each contain a tiny amount of an exotic lithic raw material, suggesting that people acquired those materials via far-reaching individual social networks. In combination, the archaeological evidence suggests that Upper Magdalenian societies in East-Central Germany were characterized by strictly enforced social equality, with risk perhaps mitigated by far-reaching individual social networks. Belgium Southern Belgium (Wallonia and Brabant) may also have contained a pioneer site during the Middle Magdalenian (Trou des Blaireaux), but it was substantially repopulated only during Upper Magdalenian times, after ca. 12,500 BP, and was then characterized by relatively high site density. Evidence for the circulation of lithic and personal ornamentation raw materials suggests that Upper Magdalenian Belgian societies may have allowed some social inequality. People appear to have obtained some lithic raw materials and fairly large numbers of diverse fossils from the Paris Basin region, without exchanging any Belgian materials in return. Evidence suggesting social competition and achieved inequality comes from particularly large quantities of Belgian minerals and Paris Basin fossil shells at Chaleux, and from two or three necklaces at Goyet. While many Upper Magdalenian sites in southern Belgium have yielded at least ten fossil shells each, Chaleux contained 402 minimally 67, as well as substantial amounts of fluorine and oligiste. In addition, it has yielded the only perforated disk known from Belgium. However, even more indicative of differential economic or social control are the two (and possibly three) necklaces recovered from Goyet, likely assignable to the Magdalenian. One necklace consists of 180 Paris Basin fossil shells, while another is made of twenty-eight animal teeth and bones (Dewez 1987). A possible third necklace consists of twelve incised young bovid incisors and a cervid canine (Lejeune 1987). The caches of large amounts of materials at Chaleux, the differential control of items of personal ornamentation at Goyet, and the common acquisition of exotic lithic raw materials and fossils from the Paris Basin provide possible evidence for achieved inequality in Upper Magdalenian societies in southern Belgium. Phases of Visual Display The idea that intensity of visual display in the Magdalenian was greatly affected by the length of time over which a particular region had been inhabited leads to a preliminary, three-phase model for the use of visual displays by prehistoric huntergatherers. The three phases may not have represented a linear progression, due to differences in the rapidity of colonization, and the occurrence of climatic fluctuations and/or population crashes. 403 Phase One—Initial (Re-)Population In the first phase, when population densities were very low and people made brief incursions into areas or established a few outlying camps, they may have enforced social equality to mitigate social and economic risk stemming from low population density and unfamiliar resources. Hence, people may have used personal ornamentation consisting of local materials, with little investment in maintaining costly long-distance social connections. Recognized leaders and hunters may have been allowed to use displays of their skills, but social inequalities were de-emphasized in the interest of vital group cooperation. That pattern is seen in Lower Magdalenian Southwestern Germany and Middle Magdalenian East-Central Germany. Phase Two—Substantial (Re-)Population In the second phase, when people had recently substantially re-populated specific areas, they may have invested in establishing and maintaining long-distance social ties, and they may have allowed for some achieved inequality, particularly in regards to exotic materials and portable decorative items. The exotic materials may have advertised the extensive social networks that people were establishing, their knowledge of distant places and peoples, and their abilities to amass difficult-to-obtain items and information. Higher population density and increased access to exotic items probably engendered social competition and the establishment of social hierarchies and resource rights. That pattern is seen in Lower Magdalenian Cantabrian Spain (not a newly re-populated region), the Middle Magdalenian Pyrenees, and Upper Magdalenian Southwestern Germany, WestCentral Germany, and Belgium. 404 Phase Three—Established Population In the third phase, when populations were well established in specific regions, people may have created institutionalized social hierarchies and pan-regional rituals to reduce competition, as groups became territorially more circumscribed. In part, that may have been connected with the formation of larger social units, given that populations were geographically stable. As a result, people may have turned to a more landscapebased system of visual display that connected certain groups to specific areas, rather than (or in addition to) a system of portable visual displays. For the Magdalenian, cave and open air art may have served such a purpose. In addition to some localized cave art motifs, there does appear to have been an increase in pan-regional art styles in southwestern regions of Western Europe in the Upper Magdalenian (Straus pers. comm. 2004). The pattern described above is seen in the continuously inhabited regions of Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France, as well as nearby in the Pyrenees. The fact that large numbers of caves were decorated during the initial period of re-occupation of the Pyrenees is at odds with this three-phase model, but it may stem from the region’s location between Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France. It must have been colonized by people from one or both of those regions who brought their traditions of cave painting with them. Still, the three-phase model might explain, in part, why the newly re-populated region of Southwestern Germany, with its abundant limestone caves, contains only minimal evidence for wall art (but see Conard and Uerpmann 2000). 405 Avenues for Future Investigation This study is meant to be a large-scale, broad-brush contribution to our understanding of Magdalenian social organization and interaction. By looking at trends in object circulation over thousands of years and much of Western Europe, I was able to interpret how behaviors in single regions affected and were affected by activities in others. I also was able to compare social organization within regions with similar environmental conditions and site densities, to determine whether people in similar situations consistently behaved in common ways. However, the spatial and temporal coarseness; the inaccuracies created by old temporal attributions and still insufficient 14C dates; and the impossibility of including every known and relevant artifact, make this study a starting point, rather than a definitive work. Accordingly, I suggest that future investigations into Magdalenian social interaction and organization temporarily return to a smaller geographic and temporal scale, and include some specific kinds of information. First, more detailed examinations of site use and site contemporaneity within regions would help to create a clearer picture of temporal changes in inter-regional interactions and intra-regional organization. For example, evidence for the use of small numbers of similar visual displays early in regional re-population, and for the use of larger numbers of differential displays late in re-population, would support my contention that substantial colonization generally involves increased social competition. Second, a detailed study of the kinds and frequencies of different items of personal ornamentation present within individual regions over time would help to 406 elucidate changes in signaling variability versus standardization, and the prevalence of individual versus group displays. For example, evidence for decreased richness in kinds of personal ornamentation within a region over time might suggest increased standardization of visual signaling, tighter social controls, and more group signaling. Evidence for decreased evenness might suggest more allowance of achieved inequality and more social competition. Changes in the kinds of personal adornments used within a region as a whole, or used in different sites within a region, might suggest the development of a pan-regional identity, or of sub-cultural or heterarchical divisions, respectively (e.g., Schwendler 2002). Third, closer investigation into the contexts and combinations in which artifacts are found in situ would be useful for identifying more cases of differential control of objects. For example, the differential distribution of certain kinds of lithic raw materials, items of personal ornamentation, and/or portable decorated objects at different structures or hearths might provide evidence for social or cultural divisions. Two sites for which that already has been done effectively are Andernach and Gönnersdorf in West-Central Germany (e.g., Alvarez Fernandez 1999a; Floss 1994; Rensink 1993; Stapert and Terberger 1991; Street 1997). Fourth, documentation of more Magdalenian caching behaviors, burials, and group rituals would provide additional evidence for social organization within regions. For example, large communal pits containing raw materials and/or finished goods might suggest group ownership of visual displays, and enforced social equality. On the other hand, small pits associated with individual structures might indicate differential control of visual displays, and social inequality. The finding of rich burials in the Massif Central or 407 the Paris Basin would refute my assertion that each of those regions was characterized by strict egalitarianism. In addition, investigation of the use of visual display in other colonization contexts might improve interpretations of the effects of colonization and resource structure on Magdalenian visual display. For example, finding evidence for temporal changes in degree of social competition, kind of social organization, and extent of object circulation over the course of the colonization of Polynesia (Wiessner pers. comm. 2004) would support my idea that colonization involves special social and economic circumstances and risks, to which humans have distinctive, but predictable, responses. Conclusion Magdalenian social organization and interaction undoubtedly were affected by myriad social, environmental, and ideological factors. This study demonstrates that regional colonization, even more than population density, affected the ways in which Magdalenian-age hunter-gatherers used visual displays, structured their societies, and interacted with others. The open spaces, unclaimed resources, and necessity for good leadership that are elements of the colonization process may have engendered more social competition and inequality in Magdalenian-age groups than is known for many historic hunter-gatherers who are geographically circumscribed. This study also provides evidence for much variation in Magdalenian societies, despite their sharing of some common technologies and artistic traditions. Evidence for different degrees of egalitarianism in regions having similar site densities and resource 408 structures demonstrates that different groups of people solved social and economic problems in different ways. At the same time, variation in resource abundance and in ties to established interaction networks allowed for different kinds and degrees of social competition in newly re-populated regions. It is clear that the Magdalenian “huntergatherer” lifestyle was one of great possibility and variability. 409 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Occupation Lists........................................................................................411 Lithic Raw Material Data ..........................................................................418 Personal Ornamentation Data ....................................................................458 Portable Decorated Object Data ................................................................568 410 APPENDIX A: Occupation Lists 411 Table A.1. Lower Magdalenian Occupations in Cantabrian Spain Included in This Study. Abauntz Altamira Balmori Las Caldas El Castillo El Cierro Cova Rosa Cueto de la Mina La Cuevona Ekain Entrefoces Ermittia Erralla La Garma El Juyo La Lloseta El Mirón La Paloma El Rascaño La Riera Santimamiñe Urtiaga Table A.2. Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Occupations in France Included in This Study. Auzary-Thônes Badegoule (BD) Ballancourt-sur-Essonne (BD) Beauregard (BD) La Bergerie Birac III (BD) Grande Grotte de Bize/Tournal Petite Grotte de Bize Le Blot (BD) Bois-des-Beauregards (BD) Les Braugnes (BD) Le Breuil (BD) Bruniquel/Abris du Château Cabrerets (BD) Camparnaud (BD) Casevert à Rauzan (BD) Cassegros (BD) Chabasse à Vic-le-Comte BD = Badegoulian La Chaire à Calvin Grotte de Cottier (BD) La Croix-de-Fer (BD) Le Cuzoul (BD) Farincourt III Feuga (BD) Abri Gandil Grotte Grappin Guillassou (BD) Abri Houleau (BD) Lachaud (BD) Lascaux Lassac (BD) Laugerie-Haute Est Layrac (BD) Marcamps Maubin (BD) Grand Abri de Mazérat (BD) Montgaudier Le Pech de la Boissière (BD) Pégourie (BD) Le Piage (BD) Le Placard (LM) and (BD) Abri Plantade Pourquey (BD) Abri Ragout (BD) Raymonden-Chancelade (BD) Rec del Penjat La Rivière (BD) Grotte Roffat (BD) Le Rond du Barry (BD) Saint-Germain-la-Rivière Sainte Eulalie Sire à Mirefleurs (BD) Solvieux-Sud (BD) Les Terriers Table A.3. Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Occupations in Switzerland Included in This Study. Kastelhöhle-Nord (BD) BD = Badegoulian Table A.4. Lower Magdalenian Occupations in Germany Included in This Study. Hohle Fels Schelklingen Munzingen Table A.5. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in Cantabrian Spain Included in This Study. Abauntz Aitzbitarte IV Altamira Berroberría Bolinkoba Las Caldas Cualventi Cueto de la Mina Entrefoces Ermittia Forcas a Graus La Garma La Güelga Hornos de la Peña El Juyo Llonín El Mirón La Paloma La Pasiega El Pendo Tito Bustillo 1a Tito Bustillo 1b, 1a-1b Tito Bustillo 1c La Viña Table A.6. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in France Included in This Study. Abzac Arancou Aurensan Auzary-Thônes Grotte de la Baume Noire Le Bay Beauregard Bédeilhac Bellet Bèze Grande Grotte de Bize/Tournal Petite Grotte de Bize Le Blot Le Bois du Roc Brassempouy Bruniquel/Abris du Château La Caillade Canecaude I Cap Blanc Le Cerisier Chaffaud Chancelade/Raymonden La Colombière Abri du Colonel Martin Les Combarelles Combe-Cullier Coucoulu Courbet Crabillat La Crouzade La Croze Dufaure Durif à Enval Duruthy Grotte de l'Eglise Enlène Salle du Fond Enlène Salle des Morts Erberua Esclauzur Espalungue/Arudy Grotte des Espèche Espélugues/Lourdes Fadets Farincourt I and II Grotte des Fées Le Figuier Fissure de la Guillotine Flageolet II Fongaban La Fru Gabillou Abri Gandil La Garenne/Saint-Marcel Grand Pastou Grotte Gazel Gourdan Grotte de la Grande Baume Grotte Grappin Abri Houleau Isturitz Grand Salle II Isturitz Grand Salle E Isturitz Grand Salle Ea Isturitz Salle de St. Martin SI Isturitz Salle de St. Martin Ew Jaurais Jean-Blancs E and W Labastide Abri Lafaye Laugerie-Basse Laugerie-Haute Est Grotte des Boeufs/Lespuques Grotte des Harpons/Lespugues Lortet La Lustre La Madeleine Malarode I and II Marcamps La Marche Marsoulas Le Martinet Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas-de-Sourzac Monconfort Montastruc Montgaudier Moulin-Neuf à Espiet La Mouthe La Piscine Le Placard Abri Plantade Plateau Parrain Le Portel Grotte du Putois Puy de Lacan Rainaudes Grotte Rey Richard Grotte de Rigney Roc-aux-Sorciers Roc Saint Cirq Grotte Roffat Saint Michel/Arudy Sainte-Colombe Sainte Eulalie La Salpetrière Solvieux-Sud Station En Terredey Les Terriers Thévenard Les Trois Frères Le Tuc d'Audoubert La Tuilerie La Tuilière Abri Vidon à Juillac Table A.7. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in Switzerland Included in This Study. Birseck-Ermitage Freudenthal (Rosenhalde) Kastelhöhle-Nord Kesslerloch Schweizersbild Table A.8. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in Germany Included in This Study. Hohle Fels Schelklingen Kniegrotte Munzingen Oberkassel Teufelsbrücke Table A.9. Middle Magdalenian Occupations in Belgium Included in This Study. Trou des Blaireaux/Vaucelles Table A.10. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in Cantabrian Spain Included in This Study. Abittaga Aitzbitarte IV Alaiz Atxeta Cueva de Los Azules La Bauma de la Peixera d'Alfes Berroberría Las Caldas Camargo El Castillo Chaves La Chora Collubil Cova Rosa Cualventi Cueto de la Mina Cueva de Bricia Cueva Morín Cueva Oscura de Ania Ekain Ermittia Erralla Forcas a Graus La Fragua La Garma Goikolau El Horno El Juyo Lezetxiki El Linar Lumentxa El Mirón El Otero La Paloma El Pendo El Perro La Pila Portugain El Rascaño La Riera Santimamiñe Silibranka Sofoxó Sovilla Torre Urtiaga El Valle Zatoya Table A.11. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in France Included in This Study. Abzac l'Aragnon Arancou Auvours Ballancourt-sur-Essonne Grotte de la Balme Balme de Glos Grotte de Bange Barbey/Le Chemin de Montereau Baring Battants à Blassac Baume d'Oullins Baume-Loire Bavans Le Bay Bégrolles Bellefont-Belcier Belloy-sur-Somme Béraud à Saint-Privat-d'Allier Bisqueytan à Saint-Quentin-de-Baron Grande Grotte de Bize/Tournal Petite Grotte de Bize Blanzat Abri de Bobache Bois-des-Beauregards Le Bois du Roc Bois-Ragot La Bonne-Femme Bonnières-sur-Seine Borie-del-Rey Bouliac Bout du Monde Broissia Bruniquel/Abris du Château Abri de Cabones Abri du Calvaire Abri de Campalou Cap Blanc La Caune de Belvis Le Cavalier Cazelles Cepoy Chabasse à Vic-le-Comte Grottes du Chaffaud Chaintreauville La Chaire à Calvin Chancelade/Raymonden Grotte de Chaumois-Boivin La Chenelaz Grotte de l'Ermitage Espélugues/Lourdes Etiolles A17 Etiolles U5 Etiolles W11 Etrembière Grotte des Eyzies Fadets Faurelie II Abri Faustin à Cessac Les Fées Le Figuier Fontalès Fontanet Font-Brunel Fontarnaud Fontlaurier Fourneau du Diable Fronsac La Fru Abri Gandil La Gare de Conduché La Gare de Couze La Garenne/Saint-Marcel Abri Gay Grotte Gazel Gevillat à Parentignat Gourdan Le Grand Canton Grand-Moulin à Lugasson Grand Pastou Grande Baille La Grèze Gros-Monts I Grotte XVI Guitard Hallines Grotte du Harpon Les Hoteaux Isturitz Grande Salle I Jardel II Jean-Pierre 1 and 2 Grottes Jolivet La Jouanne Abri Lafaye Abri du Lagopède Laugerie-Basse Grotte des Harpons/Lespugues Lestruque Grotte de l'Oeil Grotte de la Passagère Abri Pataud Abri des Pêcheurs Petit Pastou Peyrat Peyrille Pierre-Châtel/Grotte des Romains Piganeau Pincevent Habitation 1 Pincevent Section 36 Pique à Daignac Pis de la Vache La Piscine Le Placard La Plaisance Abri Plantade Poeymaü Pont d'Ambon Pont-de-Longues Pouzet Abri de Pugieu La Raillarde Rainaudes Reignac Rhodes II Richard Rinxent La Rivière de Tulle Roc à Saint-Sulpice Le Roc Allan Roc-aux-Sorciers Roc de Barbeau Grotte de la Roche La Roche à Lalinde Abri de Rochedane Rocher de la Peine Rochereil Roc-la-Tour Abri du Rond Le Rond du Barry Roquefure Saint-Germain-la-Rivière Saint-Just-des-Marais Saint Michel/Arudy Saint-Mihiel Abri de Saint Myon Saint-Remy-sur-Creuse Sainte Eulalie Table A.11. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in France Included in This Study Continued. Cheylat à Chalinargues Chez-Galou Chinchon Le Closeau Colombe Colombier La Colombière Abri du Colonel Martin Les Combarelles Combe-Cullier La Combette Combrai Les Conques Corent Grotte de Cottier Coudes Courbet La Crouzade Culhat à Joze Abri des Douattes Dufaure Durif à Enval Duruthy Les Eglises Enval II Limeuil Liveyre Longueroche Lortet Loubressac Lumigny La Madeleine Maison Blanche Marcamps La Marmotte Marsangy Le Martinet Le Mas d'Azil Massat Maurens Monceaux-la-Virole Monconfort Montastruc Montgaudier Morín à Pessac-sur-Dordogne Moulin à Troubat-en-Barousse Moulin-Neuf à Espiet La Mouthe Murat à Rocamadour Neschers La Salpetrière Sarliève à Aubière Sire à Mirefleurs Soubeyras Le Souci Taï Les Tarterets Tatevin à Chanteuges La Teulera/Tuilerie Teyjat Abri de Thoys La Tourasse Grotte du Trilobite Le Trou Souffleur La Tuilière Tureau des Gardes Usine Henry La Vache Salle Garrigou La Vache Salle Monique Valojouix Verberie La Vignette Villepin Ville-Saint-Jacques Table A.12. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in Switzerland Included in This Study. Bruderholz Brügglihöhle Büttenloch Champréveyres Chesselgraben Eremitage (Rheinfelden) Freudenthal/Rosenhalde Hard I Heidenküche Hintere Burg Hollenberg-Höhle 3 Kastelhöhle-Nord Kesslerloch Kohlerhöhle Liesberg Monruz Moosbühl Mühleloch Reiden-Stumpen Rislisberghöhle Sälihöhle Oben Schweizersbild Sihlsee-Nord Thierstein Trimbach Untere Bsetzi Veyrier Vorder Eichen Wauwilermoos-Kottwil Winznau-Käsloch Winznau-Köpfli Table A.13. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in Germany Included in This Study. Ahlendorf Aichbühl Alsdorf Andernach Concentration I Andernach Concentration II Andernach Concentration III Annakapellenhöhle Aschersleben Bad Frankenhausen Barbing Bärenfelsgrotte/Spitalfels Bärenkeller/Königsee-Garsitz Beeck Bernlochhöhle Bildstockfels Bocksteinhöhle/Torle Brillenhöhle Burghöhle Dietfurt Burkhardtshöhle Buttentalhöhle Etzdorf Dietfurt Felsställe Fohlenhaus Friedensdorf Fußgönheim II Galgenberg Gera-Binsenacker Gnirshöhle Gönnersdorf Concentration I Gönnersdorf Concentration II Gönnersdorf Concentration III Gönnersdorf Concentration IV Groitzsch A1/A2 Nord Groitzsch C1 West Groitzsch C3/D Nord Groitzsch D1/B Nord Große Öfnet Haldensteinhöhle Halle-Galgenberg Helga-Abri Herwartstein Hohle Fels Schelklingen Hohlefels bei Hütten Hohlenstein Bärenhöhle Hohlenstein Ederheim Hohlenstein-Stadel Hummelshain Ilsenhöhle Kahla-Lobschutz Kamphausen Kastlhänghöhle Kaufertsberg Klausenhöhlen Kleine Ofnet Kleine Scheuer Rosenstein Klingenfels-Abri Kniegrotte Kohltalhöhle Lausnitz Malerfels Munzingen Napoleonskopf/Niedernau Nebra Nikolaushöhle Oberkassel Oelknitz Petersfels Probstfels Randecker Maar Ranis Herdloch Rennerfels Saaleck Saalfeld Schmiechenfels Schuntershöhle Schussenquelle Sirgenstein Sirgenstein Sudwand Spitalhöhle/Höhlen am Bruckersberg Spitzbubenhöhle Steinberg Steinbergwand Straßberger Grotte Teufelsbrücke Teufelsküchen Vogelherd Wildscheuer V Wildweiberlei Zigeunerfels Zinkenberg Table A.14. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in Belgium Included in This Study. Trou Abri Trou des Blaireaux/Vaucelles Bois Laiterie Trou du Burnot Chaleux Grotte de Chauveau Coléoptère Trou du Curé Fonds-de-Forêt Trou du Frontal Ginette Goyet Kanne Trou Magrite Trou des Nutons à Furfooz Obourg-St. Macaire Orp East and West Trou de l'Ossuaire Trou du Pionnier Trou da Somme Grotte de Sy Verlaine Trou Walou Table A.15. Upper Magdalenian Occupations in the Netherlands Included in This Study. Eyserheide Mesch Sweikhuizen-Groene Paal Sweikhuizen-Koolweg Sweikhuizen-Oude Stort APPENDIX B: Lithic Raw Material Data 418 Table B.1. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for Spanish Sites. 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 unsourced chert fine grained black chert (Plentzia limestone formation) Pendueles chert (from sponge spicules) (Llanes) reddish chert "de radiolarios" chert quarry at Pedernales beach coastal chert ("Flysch") Sonabia chert 441 quartzite 442 Lower Ordovician quarztite 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 limestone quartz quartz crystal/rock crystal arenite ophite radiolarite/"griotte" schist lutite 481 red Triassic sandstone 482 sandstone Table B.2. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for French Sites. 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 black chert blond-beige Lower Campanian chert blond-ocher Campanian chert Campanian chert dark brown Senonian chert gray-pink Senonian chert gray zoned Santonian chert light brown-gray chert opaque chert southern Senonian chert (especially blond) Upper Bartonian chert gray-black Montereau Lower Campanian chert yellow jasper-like chert (unknown provenience) Bartonian violacé chert marbled chert brown-red chert with oogones (Nanteuil) black Campanian chert brown/brown-gray Campanian chert blond chert from Champigny area northern Senonian chert (especially brown-black) Bidache chert (Pyrenees) Tercis chert (Pyrenees) Pouillon chert (Pyrenees) Stampian chert jaspoid chert chalcedonic chert Jurassic chert Table B.2. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for French Sites Continued. 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 241 242 243 244 beige Mussidan chert Gavaudun chert (Coniacian) spangled Mussidan chert Turonian chert (Fumelois) Dogger chert Bergerac chert Turonian chert (Charente) Belvés chert (Campanian) tertiary chert de l'Est Haut-Agenais Santonian chert with under-cortical red Haute-Saône tertiary chert Comte d'Auvergne Cenozoic chert Chalosse/Audignon Maastrichtian flint Tertiary chert (chalcedonic and charophytes) (local Pyrenees) Flysch chert (local Pyrenees) Charophytes (eastern Pyrenees) Verdier chert (chalcedonic, brecciated) (Tertiary lakes) Upper Cretaceous blond chert (very vague area) Grand-Pressigny chert Chateaumeillant chert Bagnères-de-Bigorre chert St Palais chert gray Périgord chert (Senonian) Montgaillard-Hibarette chert Courensan chert Fumel chert Cenne-Monestiés chert ocher yellow jaspoid chert gray chert (Sigean) quartzite gray quartzite Compiègne area quartzite Pyrenees quartzite 251 Paleozoic jasper 252 Figeac olive jasper 253 Hettangian jasper 261 262 263 264 265 siliceous "accidents" within the St-Ouen limestone (Middle Bartonian) silexoides within the calcareous zone of Champigny (Upper Bartonian-Ludian) quartz rock crystal Agde polishing stone 270 chalcedony 280 silicified sandstone 281 Corrèze sandstone 282 lustrous sandstone Table B.3. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for German, Swiss, and Dutch Sites 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 Bavarian/Abensberg tabular chert (Franconian Alb) chalcedonous chert Kimmeridgian (Malm) chert Meuse terrace chert/western European feuerstein Regensburg Cretaceous chert Rijckholt chert Senono-turonian chert (Geneva) Simpelveld chert Kieseloolith brown flint (Mainz Basin) Erratic Baltic chert (Saale)/Baltic feuerstein yellowish oolitic chert Erratic Baltic chert (Elster) lacustrine chert (Geneva) brown chert Kreidefeuerstein Tertiary chert (Randecker Maar) Main gravel chert lacustrine chert (Yverdon or Burgey region) Hauterivian chert Eocene chert Dogger chert Olten (Kimmeridgian) chert southern flint (Bellegarde-Seyssel) Bulle area chert Aachen black Orsbach flint Swieciechow chert 321 322 323 324 331 332 333 hornstone Keuper hornstein Muschelkalk hornstone Bohnerzhornstein (Swabian Alb) jasper Bavarian jasper Kleinkems jasper (Black Forest jasper)/Bohnerzjaspis 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 quartzite Ardennes quartzite Devonian quartzite Paleozoic quartzite soft water quartzite Becov quartzite large grain quartzite (Czech Republic) Cretaceous quartzite (Franconian Alb) 351 chalcedony 352 Bad Godesberg chalcedony 361 362 363 364 chaille hornstein/Jurassic chaille/Jurassic chert lydienne quartz Table B.3. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for German, Swiss, and Dutch Sites Cont. 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 radiolarite red cornelian silicified tuff silicified wood opal kieselschiefer quartz rock crystal fluvioglacial gravel, including radiolarite, quartzite, and quartz Kieselschiefer Table B.4. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for Belgian Sites. 102 103 104 105 106 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 126 Doische-Agimont chert Basse Lesse and Dinant chert Champagne/Paris Basin translucent blond chert Champagne/Paris Basin pyromaque chert (silex brun foncé) Charleville-Mezières Tertiary flint Grand-Pressigny beige chert Hesbaye Plateau Cretaceous flint (with flints of Mehaigne Valley near Huccorgne) Lonzé chert Meuse Basin Cretaceous flint Mons Tertiary flint Obourg flint Ottignies Tertiary flint Spiennes flint (gray with some banding) Thudinie flint matte black flint (from Bois Laiterie area limestone) Vesdre River chert cobbles Haine Basin (Mons) Cretaceous flint Hainaut Basin light gray granular chert Tournais carboniferous chert Hainaut Basin gray chert with fossils Paris Basin beige-veined cream flint Meuse River gravel flints and quarries 141 medium grained quartzite near Bois Laiterie (tan-brown) 142 fine grained Paris Basin quartzite (many colors) 143 Wommersom quartzite 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 Agimont oolitic limestone Basse Lesse and Dinant black limestone Basse Lesse and Dinant quartz Basse Lesse and Dinant phtanite Basse Lesse and Dinant rolled pebbles Brussels silicified wood Champagne/Paris Basin silicified oolite Champagne/Paris Basin silicified wood Charleville-Mezieres silicified wood Ciply tuff/yellowish limestone Quartz crystal (in Bois Laiterie area limestone) Ottignies phtanite Bois Laiterie area limestone and riverbeds Table B.4. Lithic Raw Materials and Codes for Belgian Sites Continued. 174 Charleville-Mézières silicified limestone 175 Dinant lydite 180 Brussels sandstone 181 Wommersom sandstone Table B.5. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Cantabrian Spain. WW N SPAIN Site Id Sp-11a Sp-27a Sp-27a Sp-27a Sp-46a Sp-46a Sp-46a W N SPAIN Site Id Sp-54a Sp-54a C N SPAIN Site Id Sp-13a Sp-13a Sp-13a Sp-44a Sp-44a E N SPAIN Site Id Sp-26a Sp-29a Sp-29a Sp-29a Sp-29a Site Name Las Caldas Entrefoces Entrefoces Entrefoces La Paloma La Paloma La Paloma # of LRM's Site Name La Riera La Riera # of LRM's Site Name El Castillo El Castillo El Castillo El Mirón El Mirón # of LRM's Site Name Ekain Erralla Erralla Erralla Erralla # of LRM's km Count % by # Estimate L abundance L 143 73.3 majority L 48 24.6 one quarter L 4 2.1 tiny L 1354 L 1578 L 7 L L = "local" Form Comments References Corchón 1992 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 7 LRM Code 441 401 441 462 401 441 462 Mean km Count % by # Estimate L 8340 74.2 L 2785 24.8 L L = "local" Form Comments References Straus and Clark 1986 Straus and Clark 1986 2 LRM Code 401 442 Mean km Count % by # Estimate L 89.5 most L 9.6 some L 6.5 little L common L common L L = "local" Form Comments References Sarabia 1990 Sarabia 1990 Sarabia 1990 Straus et al. 2002 Straus et al. 2002 5 LRM Code 401 461 441 441 468 Mean km 20 20 20 20 40 24 Form Comments 20 km to source 20 km radius 20 km radius 20 km radius References González Sainz 1989 Altuna 1986 Altuna 1986 Altuna 1986 Straus 1990/91 5 LRM Code 481 465 482 401 406 Mean Count % by # Estimate unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified Table B.6. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Lower Magd and Badegoulian (BD) Lithic Raw Material Units in France. NW SW FRANCE Site Id Site Name F-69 La Croix-de-Fer (BD) F-69 F-87 La Croix-de-Fer (BD) Guillassou (BD) # of LRM's 3 SW FRANCE Site Id Site Name F-47 F-47 F-47 F-61 F-61 F-61 F-75 F-75 La Bergerie La Bergerie La Bergerie Cassegros (BD) Cassegros (BD) Cassegros (BD) Feuga (BD) Feuga (BD) F-143a Saint-Germain-la-Rivière # of LRM's 8 LRM Code 206 km 5 227 227 Mean 10 5 6.7 LRM Code km 228 227 206 227 206 226 227 234 5 30 45 VL 10 75 30 55 Count % by # Estimate 50 1 7 5 Count % by # Estimate majority 2 unspecified 149 200 50 28 38 9.4 unspecified 2 234 60 Mean 38.8 VL = "very local" unspecified Form Comments ~15 km N ~10 km S, 20 km N local References Gaussen 1980 Form Comments References Gaussen 1980 Gaussen 1980 15 km E, 18 km N 35 km W 60 km WNW very local 15 km N 80 km NE 40 km NE? 60 km N Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 60 km E Demars 1998b Table B.7. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Germany. SW GERMANY Site Id Site Name G-56c Munzingen G-56c Munzingen G-56c Munzingen # of LRM's 3 LRM Code km 362 10 369 15 333 30 Mean 18.3 Count % by # Estimate majority tiny amt unspec. Form Comments 20 km radius 25 km S 30 km References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Floss 2000 Table B.8. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Cantabrian Spain. WW N SPAIN Site Id Site Name Sp-11b Las Caldas Sp-27b Entrefoces Sp-27b Entrefoces Sp-27b Entrefoces Sp-46b La Paloma Sp-46b La Paloma Sp-46b La Paloma Sp-64 La Viña # of LRM's W N SPAIN Site Id Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60b Sp-60b Sp-60b Sp-60c Sp-60c Sp-60c C N SPAIN Site Id Sp-44b Sp-50a Sp-50a Sp-50a LRM 401 401 441 462 401 441 462 401 8 Mean Site Name Tito Bustillo 1a Tito Bustillo 1a Tito Bustillo 1a Tito Bustillo 1b, a-b Tito Bustillo 1b, a-b Tito Bustillo 1b, a-b Tito Bustillo 1c Tito Bustillo 1c Tito Bustillo 1c LRM 401 441 462 401 441 462 401 441 462 # of LRM's Mean 9 Site Name El Mirón El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo # of LRM's LRM 402 401 441 465 1 Mean km Count % by # Estimate L unspecified L 213 80.4 majority L 51 19.2 common L 1 0.4 tiny L 1046 L 357 L 11 L dominant Form large cores Comments cores for blades and bladelets References Corchón 1992 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Fortea Pérez 1981 L L = "local" km Count % by # L L L L L L L L L Estimate Form half half tiny just over half just under half tiny almost half half tiny Comments References Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980 Comments References Straus et al. 2002 Sarabia 1990;Gonz. S 1989 Sarabia 1990;Gonz. S 1989 Sarabia 1990;Gonz. S 1989 L L = "local" km Count % by # Estimate 45 many L 98.4 L 1.2 L 0.4 45 L = "local" Form E N SPAIN Site Id Sp-1b Site Name Abauntz # of LRM's LRM 406 1 Mean km Count % by # Estimate 90 unspecified Form Comments References Straus 1990/91 90 Table B.9. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in France. C PYRENEES Site Id Site Name F-2 Aurensan F-3 Bédeilhac F-8a Enlène Salle du Fond F-8a Enlène Salle du Fond F-8a Enlène Salle du Fond F-8a Enlène Salle du Fond F-8a Enlène Salle du Fond LRM 2411 234 2403 2404 2402 232 2413 km Count % by # Estimate VL chert 230 1 VL 1244 80 1 190 35 180 189 220 2019 Form 3 15cm blades 250 km NNW "300 km N" polishing stone Mediterannean coast ~40 km WNW ~130 km NW Lacombe 1998;Bahn 1982 Lacombe 1998 Bahn 1982 Simonnet 1996 Simonnet 1996 chert chert 5 15cm blades ~200 km N ~215 km N polishing stone just N of Périgord Simonnet 1996;Bahn 1982 Simonnet 1996 Bahn 1982 chert chert 4 15cm blades ~210 km NNW ~220 km NNW 15cm blade 15 cm blade Péq. & P. 1960;Bahn 1982 Péquart and Péquart 1960 Bahn 1982 Bahn 1982 F-8a F-8a F-14 F-19 F-19 Enlène Salle du Fond Enlène Salle du Fond Gourdan Labastide Labastide 234 226 265 2414 2402 205 200 220 35 125 F-19 F-19 F-20c Labastide Labastide Gr. des Boeufs/Lesp. 234 2413 281 200 210 265 F-24a F-24a F-30 F-39 Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Portel Le Tuc d'Audoubert 234 2413 234 234 210 215 210 210 # of LRM's 17 1314 16 1 chert chert 1 1 1 Mean 188.5 VL = "very local" Comments very local 15cm blade very local ~80 km W ~200 km WNW ~200 km NNW ~250 km NNW References Delporte 1974a Bahn 1982 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 SW SW FRANCE Site Id Site Name F-44b Beauregard # of LRM's LRM 2402 km Count % by # Estimate 90 8.3 1 Mean NW SW FRANCE Site Id Site Name F-108 Le Mas-de-Sourzac F-125 Plateau Parrain F-125 Plateau Parrain F-125 Plateau Parrain F-144b Solvieux-Sud F-144b Solvieux-Sud LRM 227 229 231 227 231 227 km Count % by # 10 VL VL 15 VL 15 Mean 13.3 VL = "very local" # of LRM's SW FRANCE Site Id F-41a F-41a F-41a F-46 F-46 F-46 F-46 F-46 F-46 F-68 F-68 F-68 F-68 F-92 F-92 F-99b F-99b F-99b 3 Site Name Abzac Abzac Abzac Bellet Bellet Bellet Bellet Bellet Bellet Crabillat Crabillat Crabillat Crabillat Jean-Blancs E and W Jean-Blancs E and W Laugerie-Haute Est Laugerie-Haute Est Laugerie-Haute Est LRM 2413 227 234 233 234 206 253 227 232 206 227 234 253 234 232 206 227 234 Form Comments 95 km SSW References Lenoir et al. 1997 Form Comments local "ribboned"; local local 15km NE or river bank local local References Gaussen 1980 Gaussen 1980 Gaussen 1980 Gaussen 1980 Gaussen 1980 Gaussen 1980 Form Comments very local 15 km SSW 30 km W 10 km S 80 km W 30km SW, 60km WSW 20 km SE 45 km SSW 75 km S very local 18 km SSW 35 km W "55km E"(other 8 km NW 40 km S very local 15 km SSW 30 km W References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 90 Estimate unspecified unspecified unspecified few unspecified very few km Count % by # Estimate VL 52 10 1 25 7 5 0.2 70 30 20 82.5 15 2.2 35 2.4 70 1 0.1 10 605 15 1 30 71 30 1 15 few 30 1 VL 598 85.6 15 8 1.2 25 82 11.9 F-99b F-99b F-129 F-129 F-129 F-129 F-129 F-129 F-138 F-138 F-138 F-138 F-138 F-147 F-147 F-147 F-147 F-147 F-147 Laugerie-Haute Est Laugerie-Haute Est Puy de Lacan Puy de Lacan Puy de Lacan Puy de Lacan Puy de Lacan Puy de Lacan Roc Saint Cirq Roc Saint Cirq Roc Saint Cirq Roc Saint Cirq Roc Saint Cirq Thévenard Thévenard Thévenard Thévenard Thévenard Thévenard # of LRM's 34 MASSIF CENTRAL Site Id Site Name F-235b Auzary-Thônes F-235b Auzary-Thônes F-238a Le Bay F-238a Le Bay F-242b Le Blot F-242b Le Blot F-242b Le Blot # of LRM's 7 253 232 234 206 253 227 226 232 206 227 234 253 232 233 234 206 253 277 232 35 35 75 20 15 35 40 70 VL 10 25 35 35 5 75 20 15 35 70 2 1 61 0.3 0.2 5.3 78 3 0.9 1 330 21 71 1 5 93 0.1 76.7 4.9 16.5 0.2 1.2 0.1 9.5 69 3 3 5.3 0.3 Mean 29.7 VL = "very local" LRM 211 2407 2410 2407 2407 2409 2410 km Count % by # 280 220 115 205 260 380 170 Mean 232.9 Estimate unspecified unspecified little some some little little Form "60km E"(other 50 km S 80 km W 30km SW, 60km WSW 20 km SE 45 km SSW 45 km SSW 75 km S very local 10 km SSW 30 km W "60km E"(other 45 km S 10 km S 80 km W 30km SW, 60km WSW 20 km SE 45 km SSW 75 km S Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Comments 250 km NNE (Paris B.) 220 NW 115 km NNW 200 km NW 260 km NW 380 km NW 175 km NNW References Surmely et al. 1998 Fontana 1998 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Table B.10. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit in Switzerland. SWITZERLAND Site Id Site Name Sw-14a Kesslerloch Sw-14a Kesslerloch # of LRM's LRM 304 365 2 Mean km Count % by # Estimate 5 99 95 1 Form cortical Comments area of 20 km radius unspecified source References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Hahn 2002 50 Table B.11. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit in Germany. EC GERMANY Site Id Site Name G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte # of LRM's 6 LRM 313 346 321 373 364 365 km Count % by # Estimate 35 13626 98.2 140 36 0.3 20 74 0.5 30 53 0.4 30 3 0.02 30 2 0.01 Mean 47.5 Form Comments 30 km N maybe 140 km ESE maybe 20 km NW maybe 30 km radius maybe 30 km radius maybe 30 km radius References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Höck 1998 Höck 1998 Höck 1998 Höck 1998 Table B.12. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Cantabrian Spain. WW N SPAIN Site Id Site Name Sp-11c Las Caldas Sp-11c Las Caldas Sp-11c Las Caldas Sp-11c Las Caldas Sp-46c La Paloma Sp-46c La Paloma Sp-46c La Paloma Sp-46c La Paloma Sp-58 Sofoxó Sp-58 Sofoxó # of LRM's 10 LRM 401 441 462 463 401 441 462 482 401 441 Mean km W N SPAIN Site Id Site Name Sp-21c Cueto de la Mina Sp-21c Cueto de la Mina Sp-21c Cueto de la Mina Sp-6 Cueva de los Azules Sp-18 Collubil Sp-18 Collubil Sp-18 Collubil Sp-10 Cueva de Bricia Sp-10 Cueva de Bricia Sp-54b La Riera Sp-54b La Riera # of LRM's 11 LRM 401 441 463 404 441 463 401 401 441 401 442 Mean km Count % by # L L L L L 321 L 52 L 21 L 2 L 63 L 36.8 L L = "local" Estimate Form unspecified small nodule unspecified unspecified unspecified Count % by # L 155 81.2 L 34 17.8 L 2 1 L L 120 74.1 L 0.6 L 25.3 L 8 L 15 L L L L = "local" Estimate majority common tiny present most tiny 1/4 Comments References Corchón 1992 Corchón 1992 Corchón 1992 Corchón 1992 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 Comments References González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 Straus and Clark 1986 Straus and Clark 1986 over half 1/3 majority 1/4 Form C N SPAIN Site Id Sp-14 Sp-14 Sp-14 Sp-30 Sp-39 Sp-44c Sp-22 Sp-22 Sp-22 Sp-22 Sp-22 Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-51 Sp-53b Sp-53b Sp-53b Sp-63 Sp-63 E N SPAIN Site Id Sp-2 Sp-3b Sp-3b Sp-3b Sp-26b Site Name La Chora La Chora La Chora La Fragua El Linar El Mirón Cueva Morín Cueva Morín Cueva Morín Cueva Morín Cueva Morín El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Perro El Rascaño El Rascaño El Rascaño El Valle El Valle # of LRM's 3 LRM 401 441 463 402 441 402 401 441 462 465 463 401 441 462 402 401 441 463 401 441 Mean km Count % by # L 864 99 L 6 0.7 L 3 0.3 40 L 20 45 L 91 L 6.6 L 1.2 L 0.5 L 4 1 L L L 35 L L L L 106 L 1 40 L = "local" Site Name Abittaga Aitzbitarte IV Aitzbitarte IV Aitzbitarte IV Ekain # of LRM's 1 LRM 401 401 462 461 406 Mean km Estimate vast major. tiny tiny unspecified common many most little tiny tiny tiny vast major. tiny tiny unspecified vast major. tiny tiny vast major. tiny Form Comments References González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 Straus et al. 2002 González Sainz 1989 Straus et al. 2002 Sarabia 1990 Sarabia 1990 Sarabia 1990 Sarabia 1990 González Sainz 1989 Sarabia 1990; Gonz. S. 1989 Sarabia 1990; Gonz. S. 1989 Sarabia 1990; Gonz. S. 1989 Straus et al. 2002 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 Count % by # Estimate Form L 60 retouch. L 206 L 1 perforator L 1 chopper 5 unspecified 5 L = "local" Comments References González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 González Sainz 1989 Straus 1990/91, 1991b Table B.13. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in France. W PYRENEES Site Id Site Name LRM F-5b Dufaure 270 F-5b Dufaure 222 F-6b Duruthy 222 F-18b Isturitz Grande Salle 222 F-18b Isturitz Grande Salle 2412 F-18b Isturitz Grande Salle 224 F-18b Isturitz Grande Salle 223 # of LRM's 7 Mean km Count % by # 20 2 10 10 20 15 40 40 22.1 C PYRENEES Site Id Site Name F-7 Les Eglises F-25 Massat F-25 Massat F-25 Massat F-25 Massat F-25 Massat F-27 Moulin à Troubat F-27 Moulin à Troubat F-27 Moulin à Troubat F-27 Moulin à Troubat F-27 Moulin à Troubat F-27 Moulin à Troubat F-27 Moulin à Troubat F-32 Rhodes II F-32 Rhodes II F-32 Rhodes II F-32 Rhodes II F-40a La Vache--S.Garrig. km Count % by # 80 230 230 215 100 10 35 649 10 1136 205 713 125 613 165 32 195 10 150 2 10 230 230 80 5 34 LRM 2417 234 2413 2402 2404 2408 2403 2404 2405 2402 206 234 2406 2403 234 2413 2417 2403 Estimate Form cores Comments ~23 km E or closer ~10 km or less SE ~10 km or less SE <50 km <50 km <50 km <50 km References Straus 1991a Straus 1991a Straus 1991a de Saint-Périer 1936 de Saint-Périer 1936 de Saint-Périer 1936 de Saint-Périer 1936 Form Comments 80 km NE ~230 km WNW ~230 km N ~215 km WNW ~100 km W ~12 km NW ~40 km E ~15 km W ~200 km E ~120 km NW ~175 km NNW ~200 km N ~150 km NE Danien; 10 km W 230 km NW 230 km NW 80 km NE 10 km W References Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Lacombe 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 flints flints chert chert chert chert Estimate chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert and more cores F-40a F-40a La Vache--S.Garrig. La Vache--S.Garrig. 2404 2413 110 235 2 and more cores unspecified ~115 km W ~240 km NNW Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 F-40a La Vache--S.Garrig. 234 235 2 and more ~235 km NNW Simonnet 1998 cores F-40a La Vache--S.Garrig. 2406 130 9 and more F-40a F-40a La Vache--S.Garrig. La Vache--S.Garrig. 2402 232 225 195 1 F-40a F-40b F-40b F-40b F-40b La Vache--S.Garrig. La Vache--S.Moniq. La Vache--S.Moniq. La Vache--S.Moniq. La Vache--S.Moniq. # of LRM's 29 2408 10 2413 235 234 235 232 195 2402 225 Mean 149.5 7 cores ~130 km NNE Simonnet 1998 and more core unspecified ~215 km WNW ~200 km NNW Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 and more unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified ~15 km N ~240 km NNW ~235 km NNW ~200 km NNW ~215 km WNW Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 Simonnet 1998 cores tools tools tools tools E PYRENEES/MEDITERRANEAN Site Id Site Name LRM F-176 Fontlaurier 2405 F-35 La Teulera 2419 # of LRM's 1 Mean km Count % by # Estimate VL all 30 much 30 VL = "very local" Form Comments very local 40 km References Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 SW FRANCE Site Id Site Name F-79 Fontarnaud F-79 Fontarnaud F-79 Fontarnaud F-86 Grotte XVI F-88 Guitard F-88 Guitard F-93 Jolivet F-101 Limeuil F-101 Limeuil F-101 Limeuil F-101 Limeuil F-103 Longueroche F-103 Longueroche F-103 Longueroche F-107b Le Martinet F-107b Le Martinet F-107b Le Martinet km Count % by # 70 3 70 2 50 2 35 40 80 55 5 437 56.7 10 29 3.8 15 298 38.7 45 7 0.9 5 281 91.8 15 4 1.3 30 16 5.2 VL 39 VL 40 10 9 Form Comments 80 km E 75 km E 50 km E 60 km W 37 km N 80 km NNW 60 km WSW very local 8 km S 20 km W "70 km E" (other drainage) very local 18 km SSW 35 km W Coniac chert; 1 km 2 km S 15 km SW References Roussot and Ferrier 1971 Roussot and Ferrier 1971 Roussot and Ferrier 1971 Rigaud et al. 2000 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Demars 1998b Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 LRM 227 226 234 234 232 234 234 206 227 234 253 206 227 234 206 232 227 Estimate 1 scraper most unspecified unspecified unspecified F-107b Le Martinet 234 40 F-112 Monceaux-la-Virole 206 70 F-112 Monceaux-la-Virole 234 F-112 Monceaux-la-Virole 253 F-112 F-117 F-136 F-136 F-136 F-136 F-152 F-152 F-152 F-152 Monceaux-la-Virole Abri Pataud Le Roc Allan Le Roc Allan Le Roc Allan Le Roc Allan Villepin Villepin Villepin Villepin # of LRM's 27 227 231 232 206 227 234 206 227 234 253 Mean MASSIF CENTRAL Site Id Site Name F-236 Les Battants F-236 Les Battants F-240 Béraud F-240 Béraud F-241 Blanzat F-241 Blanzat F-245 Le Cavalier F-245 Le Cavalier F-250 Combrai F-250 Combrai F-256 Enval II F-256 Enval II F-267 Pont-de-Longues F-267 Pont-de-Longues # of LRM's 14 8 35 km NW Féblot-Augustins 1997 255 74 80 km SW Féblot-Augustins 1997 120 1 0.3 125 km SW Féblot-Augustins 1997 60 7 2 65 km SW Féblot-Augustins 1997 110 km SW 45 km WNW 2 km S 10 km SE 15 km SW 35 km NW very local 18 km SSW 35 km W "55 km E" (other drainage) Féblot-Augustins 1997 Gaussen 1980 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Comments 250 km NW 175 km NNW 275 km NW 185 km NNW >250 km NNE (Paris B.) 250 km NW 250 km NW 160 km NNW 265 km NW 175 km NNW 210 km NW 120 km NNW 210 km NW 120 km NNW References Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely et al. 1998 Surmely et al. 1998 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 Surmely 2000 110 27 8 45 unspecified VL 27 VL 2 10 6 40 5 5 536 89.8 15 7 1.2 30 50 8.4 30 2 0.3 41.1 VL = "very local" LRM km Count % by # 2407 260 2410 170 2407 270 2410 180 211 275 2407 210 2407 250 2410 165 2407 265 2410 175 2407 210 2410 115 2407 205 2410 115 Mean 204.6 Estimate some little some little unspecified maybe some little some little some little some little Form PARIS BASIN Site Id Site Name F-284a Etiolles U5 F-284b Etiolles W11 F-284b Etiolles W11 F-284b Etiolles W11 F-284b Etiolles W11 F-284c Etiolles A17 F-284c Etiolles A17 F-284c Etiolles A17 F-284c Etiolles A17 F-284c Etiolles A17 F-284c Etiolles A17 F-291 Lagopède F-291 Lagopède F-291 Lagopède F-294 La Marmotte F-294 La Marmotte F-295 Marsangy F-295 Marsangy F-295 Marsangy F-295 Marsangy F-295 Marsangy F-297a Pincevent Hab. 1 F-297a Pincevent Hab. 1 F-297a Pincevent Hab. 1 F-297b Pincevent Sect. 36 F-297b Pincevent Sect. 36 F-304 Verberie F-304 Verberie F-304 Verberie F-304 Verberie F-304 Verberie # of LRM's 26 LRM 203 207 206 209 217 207 209 205 208 204 202 242 "205" "215" "205" "215" 211 242 212 282 2418 215 216 210 215 216 207 218 243 219 216 Mean km Count % by # Estimate Form 30 61 0.3 40 12 0.1 50 2 0.01 55 2 0.01 40 few 40 1 40 1 40 1 80 10 75 1 65 1 30 1 core 85 87 many 145 13 some 85 75 145 25 VL 90 25 tiny 80 1 100 1 100 1 35 43 0.9 50 4 105 tiny 35 183 1.1 50 5 VL majority VL VL VL 100 50 small 64.4 VL = "very local" Comments 35 km SE 40 km SE, 70 km SE 40 km SE, 70 km SE 50 km SE 35 km N 40 km SE, 70 km SE 50 km SE 40 km SE 80 km W 75 km WSW 70 km W 35 km NW 50 km NW 120 km N (Tertiary; Paris 50 km NW (Cretac.;Paris 120 km N (Tertiary; Paris very local 30 km S 80 km N 100 km S (or closer?) 100 km S 45 km N 60 km NW 100 km NW 45 km N 60 km NW 0 km 0 km 0 km 5 km NE 50 km S References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Schmider & Valentin 1997 Schmider & Valentin 1997 Schmider & Valentin 1997 Schmider & Valentin 1997 Schmider & Valentin 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Table B.14. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit in Switzerland. SWITZERLAND Site Id Site Name Sw-4 Büttenloch Sw-4 Büttenloch Sw-4 Büttenloch Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-5 Champrévèyres Sw-7 Eremitage Sw-7 Eremitage Sw-7 Eremitage Sw-7 Eremitage Sw-17 Monruz Sw-17 Monruz Sw-17 Monruz Sw-17 Monruz Sw-18 Moosbühl Sw-18 Moosbühl Sw-18 Moosbühl Sw-18 Moosbühl Sw-18 Moosbühl Sw-18 Moosbühl Sw-23b Schweizersbild # of LRM's 23 LRM 3201 323 333 320 308 3203 320 3202 3201 314 319 3202 3204 323 3201 323 333 320 3203 304 3204 3203 314 3205 304 320 333 304 Mean km Count % by # Estimate VL 75 67 10 36 32.7 50 1 0.9 VL 2253 40.1 130 1098 19.5 70 994 17.7 10 162 2.9 20 147 2.6 100 81 1.4 120 20 0.4 30 14 0.3 20 9 0.2 135 2 0.04 VL 222 57.8 10 10 2.6 VL 127 33.1 15 2 0.5 VL 60 75 22 105 2 125 10 45 unspecified 145 26 50 10 70 6 30 5 60 23 20 100 62.8 VL = "very local" Form Comments area of 2 km W area of 16 km E 0 or 4 km W 130 km WSW 80 km NE 20 km SE 20 or 30 km N 80 or 125 km NE 130 km WSW 15 km W 20 or 60 km NE 40 or 160 km SW area of 0 km area of 10 km SW 2 km S 25 km NW <10 km 80 km NE 80 km NE ? km S 50 km NNE 170 km 70 km 50km or 150 km? 50 km ? km N area of 20 km radius References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 F-A 1997; Cattin 2000 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Affolt. et al. 1994; Floss 2000 Affolt. et al. 1994; Floss 2000 Affolt. et al. 1994; Floss 2000 Affolt. et al. 1994; Floss 2000 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Le Tensorer 1998 Le Tensorer 1998 F-A 1997; Le Tensorer 1998 Le Tensorer 1998 Le Tensorer 1998 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Table B.15. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units in Germany. SW GERMANY Site Id Site Name G-8 Barbing G-15 Brillenhöhle G-15 Brillenhöhle G-15 Brillenhöhle G-15 Brillenhöhle G-15 Brillenhöhle G-15 Brillenhöhle G-15 Brillenhöhle G-15 Brillenhöhle G-17 Burkhardtshöhle G-17 Burkhardtshöhle G-17 Burkhardtshöhle G-17 Burkhardtshöhle G-17 Burkhardtshöhle G-17 Burkhardtshöhle G-18 Buttentalhöhle G-18 Buttentalhöhle G-18 Buttentalhöhle G-18 Buttentalhöhle G-18 Buttentalhöhle G-18 Buttentalhöhle G-21 Felsställe G-21 Felsställe G-21 Felsställe G-21 Felsställe G-21 Felsställe G-28 Gnirshöhle G-28 Gnirshöhle G-34 Helga-Abri G-34 Helga-Abri G-34 Helga-Abri G-34 Helga-Abri G-36 Hohlefels b. Hütten G-37c Hohlefels Schelk. LRM 362 362 324 372 372 317 302 333 316 362 317 324 372 302 302 324 362 372 372 351 302 362 361 324 "372" "372" 321 "372" 362 332 367 365 372 362 km Count % by # Estimate 10 100 VL abundant 10 some 15 common 15 some 15 rare 160 some 180 rare 190 rare 10 abundant VL common 25 rare 35 some 85 rare 170 rare VL abundant 10 common 10 11 10 rare 175 rare 230 rare 15 99 VL tiny amt VL abundant VL 2 VL rare 10 most 10 17 10 majority 135 tiny amt 20 tiny amt 5 11 10 8.1 5 dominant Form no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage Comments 20 km radius 2 km 12 km radiolarite; 12-20 km quartzite; 12-20 km 25 km 160 km 180 km possibly 190 km 1-8 km 6 km 30 km radiolarite; 30 km Jurassic chert; 90 km tabular chert; 175 km 3 km 3-5 km radiolarite; 10 km quartzite; 10 km tabular chert; 240 km various hornstein; 20 km yellow matte chaille; 0 km 0.8 km radiolarite; 2 km quartzite; 2 km also at Petersfels 20 km radius 140 km, E 25 km, N 7 km SW; 30 km NE 5-20 km radius References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Hahn 2002 Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Albrecht et al. 1977 Albrecht et al. 1977 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Hahn 2002 Hahn 2002 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Site Id G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c G-38 G-38 G-38 G-38 G-38 G-38 G-38 G-40 G-40 G-40 G-40 G-40 G-40 G-40 G-46 G-46 G-46 G-49 G-49 G-49 G-49 G-57 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 Site Name Hohlefels Schelk. Hohlefels Schelk. Hohlefels Schelk. Hohlefels Schelk. Hohlefels Schelk. Hohlefels Schelk. Hohlefels Schelk. Hohlefels Schelk. Hohlenstein Bären. Hohlenstein Bären. Hohlenstein Bären. Hohlenstein Bären. Hohlenstein Bären. Hohlenstein Bären. Hohlenstein Bären. Hohlenstein-Stadel Hohlenstein-Stadel Hohlenstein-Stadel Hohlenstein-Stadel Hohlenstein-Stadel Hohlenstein-Stadel Hohlenstein-Stadel Kaufertsberg Kaufertsberg Kaufertsberg Kleine Scheuer R. Kleine Scheuer R. Kleine Scheuer R. Kleine Scheuer R. Napoleonskopf Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels LRM 324 372 372 317 322 302 333 371 362 324 372 372 362 348 302 362 324 372 372 323 322 302 322 332 365 362 322 372 317 323 "372" 304 303 369 306 333 km Count % by # Estimate 10 some 10 31 10 some 20 some 60 some 160 some 180 rare 170 rare 10 abundant VL common 10 13.5 10 rare 55 common 80 rare 130 rare 10 abundant VL common 10 4 10 rare 70 rare 70 rare 45 some 30 majority 65 tiny amt 40 few pieces VL abundant 20 common 45 some 40 some 10 100 10 3 5 94 5 2.7 70 0.5 265 tiny amt 85 unspecified Form little/no deb. no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage no debitage Comments 10 km radiolarite; 10-20 km quartzite; 10-20 km 25 km 70 km tabular chert; 160 km 180 km 180 km 2-7 km 2 km radiolarite; 4 km quartzite; 4 km 40-120 km 80 km 120 km 2-7 km 2 km radiolarite; 4 km quartzite; 4 km 60 km 70 km tabular chert; 40-120 km 20 km radius 70 km, E 1-2 km 25 km radiolarite; 35 km 40 km 20 km radius 1-2 km 1 km 2-3 km 50-80 km, W 230 km, E "60 km" References Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Burk.&F in press; Hahn 2002 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Hahn 2002 Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Floss 2000 Site Id G-63 G-66 G-66 G-66 G-73 G-73 G-73 G-73 Site Name Petersfels Randecker Maar Randecker Maar Randecker Maar Schussenquelle Schussenquelle Schussenquelle Schussenquelle # of LRM's 67 LRM 365 317 362 372 362 372 316 372 Mean km Count % by # Estimate Form 15 2 VL abundant 15 some 40 rare no debitage 30 93.4 20 3.8 130 1.9 20 0.3 54.7 VL = "very local" Comments unspec. loc. in Switzerland 0.3 km 4-5 km radiolarite; 40 km 30 km, N radiolarite possibly quartzite References Hahn 2002 Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Schuler 1989; B & F in press Schuler 1989 Schuler 1989 Schuler 1989 EC GERMANY Site Id Site Name G-7 Bad Frankenhausen G-7 Bad Frankenhausen G-7 Bad Frankenhausen G-7 Bad Frankenhausen G-7 Bad Frankenhausen G-30 Groitzsch G-30 Groitzsch G-62 Oelknitz G-62 Oelknitz G-81b Teufelsbrücke with 3207: # of LRM's 6 # of LRM's 5 without: LRM 313 311 366 344 368 313 346 313 3207 313 Mean Mean km Count % by # Estimate VL majority 40 unspecified VL 2 0.05 10 1 0.03 10 1 0.03 VL 99.9 120 0.1 VL 99.9 700 1 tiny amt 50 unspecified 155 VL = "very local" 46 Comments <5 km 45 km NE 3, 50 km SW 3, 50 km SW 3, 50 km SW <5 km 120 km SE <5 km 700 km E possibly >60 km NE References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Weniger 1989 Comments "30 km W" 80 km N "150 km SE" 0 km 30 km; 4 km? "40 km N(W)"; "120 km" 120 km N 100 km NW 100 km W?; 80 km 110 km NW References Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 F-A 1997; Rensink 1993 Féblot-Augustins 1997 F-A 1997; B & F in press F-A 1997; B & F in press Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 F-A 1997; B & F in press Féblot-Augustins 1997 Form WC GERMANY/N BELGIUM/NETHERLANDS Site Id Site Name LRM km Count % by # Estimate Form G-3 Alsdorf 305 5 unspecified G-3 Alsdorf 311 90 unspecified G-3 Alsdorf 310 170 unspecified G-4 Andernach general 343 VL tiny amount G-4 Andernach general 345 5 16413 67.54 G-4 Andernach general 351 105 710 2.92 G-4 Andernach general 311 120 1279 5.26 G-4 Andernach general 305 95 5367 22 G-4 Andernach general 342 85 524 2.16 G-4 Andernach general 309 110 tiny amount Site Id G-4 G-4a G-4a G-4a G-4a G-4b G-4b G-4b G-4b G-4b G-4b G-4b G-4c G-4c G-4c G-4c G-11 N-1 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29 G-29a G-29a G-29a G-29b Site Name Andernach general Andernach C. I Andernach C. I Andernach C. I Andernach C. I Andernach C. II Andernach C. II Andernach C. II Andernach C. II Andernach C. II Andernach C. II Andernach C. II Andernach C. III Andernach C. III Andernach C. III Andernach C. III Beeck Eyserheide Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf general Gönnersdorf C. I Gönnersdorf C. I Gönnersdorf C. I Gönnersdorf C. II LRM 323 345 351 311 305 305 342 309 311 351 345 310 345 351 311 305 305 309 363 343 371 321 365 331 345 351 311 305 307 309 333 312 342 345 311 305 305 km 65 5 105 120 95 95 85 110 120 105 5 70 5 105 120 95 5 VL VL VL 20 20 20 20 10 110 120 95 120 110 300 70 85 10 120 95 95 Count % by # Estimate rare 80 dominant some some present 78 dominant 21 minimal minimal minimal minimal minimal? 80 dominant some some present most 6 or more 12000 15.8 4 9 4 15539 1200 9093 10443 18150 110 Form no debitage Comments 65 km 30 km; 4 km? rare cores "40 km N(W)"; "120 km" rare cores 120 km N includes cores 100 km NW 100 km NW tools only 100 km W?; 80 km 110 km NW 120 km N "40 km N(W)"; "120 km" 30 km; 4 km? 70 km SE 30 km; 4 km? rare cores "40 km N(W)"; "120 km" rare cores 120 km N includes cores 100 km NW local cores within a few km 0 km 0 km rock crystal; 20 km radius hornstein; 20 km radius 20 km radius 20 km radius 20.5 30 km N/E; 12 km 1.5 "40 km N"; "120 km" 12 120 km N 13.7 100 km NW 23.88 130 km NW tiny amount 110 km NW rare no debitage 300 km S 0.15 70 km SE rare 100 km W; 80 km dominant 30 km N/E; 12 km abundant 120 km N minority 100 km NW dominant 100 km NW References Burkert & Floss in press Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Street 2000 Rensink 1993, 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 F-A 1997; B & F in press F-A 1997; B & F in press Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Floss 1991 Floss 2000 F-A 1997; B & F in press Rensink 1993; B & F in pr Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Site Id G-29b G-29b G-29c G-29c G-29c G-29c G-29c G-29c G-29d G-29d G-29d G-29d G-29d G-29d G-29d G-44 G-44 G-44 B-15 B-15 B-15 N-2 N-3 N-3 N-3 G-84 G-84 G-84 G-84 G-84 G-85 G-85 G-85 G-85 G-85 G-85 Site Name Gönnersdorf C. II Gönnersdorf C. II Gönnersdorf C. III Gönnersdorf C. III Gönnersdorf C. III Gönnersdorf C. III Gönnersdorf C. III Gönnersdorf C. III Gönnersdorf C. IV Gönnersdorf C. IV Gönnersdorf C. IV Gönnersdorf C. IV Gönnersdorf C. IV Gönnersdorf C. IV Gönnersdorf C. IV Kamphausen Kamphausen Kamphausen Kanne Kanne Kanne Mesch Swkh.-Groene Paal Swkh.-Groene Paal Swkh.-Groene Paal Wildscheuer V Wildscheuer V Wildscheuer V Wildscheuer V Wildscheuer V Wildweiberlei Wildweiberlei Wildweiberlei Wildweiberlei Wildweiberlei Wildweiberlei # of LRM's 73 LRM 311 342 345 305 311 310 351 373 345 351 310 342 311 305 373 305 311 3206 126 109 111 309 309 345 363 363 351 305 311 345 363 351 305 311 318 345 Mean km Count % by # Estimate 120 minority 85 some 10 dominant 95 abundant 120 minority 70 unspecified 110 unspecified 5 unspecified 10 188 18 110 198 19 70 88 8.5 85 26 2.5 120 121 11.6 95 63 6.1 5 343 33 20 most 60 some 40 some VL much VL much VL much 10 unspecified 10 1 105 7 120 unspecified VL tiny amount 60 abundant 150 abundant 135 abundant VL some 20 unspecified 55 unspecified 140 unspecified 135 unspecified 200 common VL rare 80.6 VL = "very local" Form Comments 120 km N 100 km W; 80 km 30km NE;12km;early 100 km NW;late 120 km N;early occupation? 70 km SE;early occupation? "40kmN"; "120km"; early? local; late occupation? 30 km NE; 12 km "40 km N"; "120 km" 70 km SE possibly 100 km W 120 km N 100 km NW local local 45 km SW local local local blades, tools 15-20 km pre-core 15-20 km backed blades 110 km SE 110 km SE 0 km 55 km W 160 km NW 140 km NNW 10 km 20 km radius 45 km W 150 km NW 140 km NNW 200 km; inexact location 10 km References Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993; B & F in press Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993; F-A 1997 Rensink 1993 Stapert & T 1991; B & F in pr Stapert & Terberger 1991 Terberger 1991; B&F in press Terberger 1991; B&F in press Terberger 1991 Terberger 1991 Terberger 1991 Terberger 1991 Terberger 1991 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Burkert & Floss in press Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Féblot-Augustins 1997 Burkert & Floss in press Burkert & Floss in press Table B.16. Lithic Raw Material (LRM) Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit in S Belgium/N France. S BELGIUM/N FRANCE Site Id Site Name B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-3 Bois Laiterie B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-6 Chaleux B-8 Coléoptère B-11 Trou du Frontal B-11 Trou du Frontal B-11 Trou du Frontal B-11 Trou du Frontal B-11 Trou du Frontal B-11 Trou du Frontal B-11 Trou du Frontal LRM 102 106 109 116 172 126 114 118 113 141 142 171 104 120 105 118 108 174 164 167 161 165 126 110 117 175 143 118 104 118 108 143 161 174 165 km Count % by # 20 65 25 60 40 60 40 VL 65 VL 160 VL 95 55 95 10 475 50 3 VL 12 95 100 VL 65 30 40 VL 70 45 95 15 475 70 2 10 50 VL Estimate Form unspecified unspecified much unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified most chert most chert unspecified sm proport. some frags some frags some frags unspecified cortical unspecified cortical unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified some most common some unspecified unspecified unspecified cortical Comments alternate to 106 alternate to 102 alternate to 116 and 113 alternate to 109 References Straus 1997b Straus 1997b Straus 1997b Straus 1997b Straus 1997b Straus 1997b "Tertiary of N Belgium" Straus 1997b Straus 1997b alternate to 109 Straus 1997b Straus 1997b Straus 1997b Straus 1997b alternate to 120 Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 alternate to 104 Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 also in 120 area? Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 location? Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 50 km S Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 alt to 161; min 100 km Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 alt to 167;min 100 km;locat? Otte 1994; Dewez 1987 Teheux 1994 Teheux 1994 alt to 117; 25 km N Teheux 1994 alt to 110; 40 km WNW Teheux 1994 local Rensink 1993 70 km N Rensink 1993 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 70 km N Dewez 1987 alt to 174; 10 km SW Teheux 1994 alt to 161 Teheux 1994 local Teheux 1994 Site Id B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-19 B-19 B-19 B-19 B-19 B-19 B-19 B-19 B-19 B-20 B-20 B-21 F-299 F-299 F-299 F-299 B-24 B-24 B-24 B-25 B-25 B-25 Site Name Trou du Frontal Trou du Frontal Trou du Frontal Trou du Frontal Trou des Nutons Trou des Nutons Trou des Nutons Trou des Nutons Trou des Nutons Trou des Nutons Trou des Nutons Trou des Nutons Trou des Nutons Obourg-St. Macaire Obourg-St. Macaire Orp E and W Roc-la-Tour Roc-la-Tour Roc-la-Tour Roc-la-Tour Trou da Somme Trou da Somme Trou da Somme Gr. de Sy Verlaine Gr. de Sy Verlaine Gr. de Sy Verlaine # of LRM's 39 LRM 126 110 117 175 118 104 120 161 174 165 126 110 117 113 181 109 180 181 172 221 174 114 118 118 175 143 Mean km Count % by # Estimate 65 unspecified 30 unspecified 40 unspecified VL unspecified 15 common 95 most 55 most 10 unspecified 50 unspecified 20 unspecified 65 unspecified 30 unspecified 40 unspecified VL unspecified 80 some VL most 105 minority 110 minority 90 minority 150 unspec. 50 #1 common 55 #2 common 10 unspecified 45 most 45 unspecified 60 unspecified 76.4 VL = "very local" Form cortical Comments 65 km NE alt to 117; 30 km NW alt to 110; 40 km WNW local location? location?; alt to 120 location?; alt to 104 alternate to 174; 10 km SW alternate to 161 local 65 km NE alt to 117; 30 km NW alt to 110; 40 km WNW local References Teheux 1994 Teheux 1994 Teheux 1994 Rensink 1993 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Teheux 1994 Teheux 1994 cortical Teheux 1994 cortical Teheux 1994 Teheux 1994 Teheux 1994 Letocart 1970 flakes, blades Letocart 1970 local Rensink 1993 alt. to 181; 90 km N Féblot-Augustins 1997 alt. 180; 110 km N Féblot-Augustins 1997 85 km N (Belgium) Féblot-Augustins 1997 Rozoy 1988 30-40 km SSW Miller et al. 1998 Brabant Plateau Miller et al. 1998 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Rensink 1993 Rensink 1993 for alternates ("alt"), the shorter/shortest distance was used for calculations Table B.17. Lower Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Cantabrian Spain. WW N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-11a Sp-27a Sp-46a Site Name Las Caldas Entrefoces La Paloma C N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-4a Sp-13a Sp-31a Ap-37a Sp-44a Sp-53a Site Name Altamira El Castillo La Garma El Juyo El Mirón El Rascaño W N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-7 Sp-15 Sp-19a Sp-21a Sp-25 Sp-41 Sp-54a Site Name Balmori El Cierro Cova Rosa Cueto de la Mina La Cuevona La Lloseta La Riera E N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-1a Sp-26a Sp-28a Sp-29a Sp-56a Sp-62a Site name Abauntz Ekain Ermittia Erralla Santimamiñe Urtiaga Table B.18. Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian (BD) Lithic Raw Material Units for Southwestern France. SW FRANCE Occupation # F-42 F-44a F-47 F-49 F-54 F-56 F-60 F-61 F-131a F-70 F-75 F-110 F-89a F-95 F-96 F-99a F-106a F-111 F-118 F-119 F-122 F-127 F-143a F-142a Site name Badegoule (BD) Beauregard (BD) La Bergerie Birac III (BD) Les Braugnes (BD) Cabrerets (BD) Casevert à Rauzan (BD) Cassegros (BD) Chancelade/Raymond. (BD) Le Cuzoul (BD) Feuga (BD) Grand Abri de Mazerat (BD) Abri Houleau (BD) Lachaud (BD) Lascaux Laugerie-Haute Est Marcamps Maubin (BD) Le Pech de la Boissière (BD) Pégourié (BD) Le Piage (BD) Pourquey (BD) Saint-Germain-la Rivière Sainte Eulalie NW SW FRANCE Occupation # Site name F-55 Le Breuil (BD) F-69 La Croix-de-Fer (BD) F-87 Guillassou (BD) F-144a Solvieux-Sud (BD) Table B.19. Lower Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for Southwestern Germany. Occupation # Site name G-56a Munzingen Table B.20. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Cantabrian Spain. WW N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-11b Sp-27b Sp-46b Sp-64 Site Name Las Caldas Entrefoces La Paloma La Viña C N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-4b Sp-20a Sp-31b Sp-35 Sp-37b Sp-44b Sp-47 Sp-50a Site Name Altamira Cualventi La Garma Hornos de la Peña El Juyo El Mirón La Pasiega El Pendo W N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-21b Sp-33 Sp-40 Sp-60a Sp-60b Sp-60c Sp-60 Site Name Cueto de la Mina La Güelga Llonín Tito Bustillo 1a Tito Bustillo 1b, 1a-b Tito Bustillo 1c Tito Bustillo general E N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-1b Sp-3a Sp-8a Sp-9 Sp-28b Site name Abauntz Aitzbitarte IV Berroberría Bolinkoba Ermittia Table B.21. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for the Central Pyrenees. Occupation # F-2 F-8a F-8b F-11 F-12a F-14a F-19 F-20c Site name Aurensan Enlène-Salle du Fond Enlène-Salle des Morts Grotte des Espèche Espélugues/Lourdes Gourdan Labastide Grotte des Boeufs/Lespugues Occup # F-20a F-21a F-23 F-24a F-26a F-17 F-37 F-39 Site name Gr. des Harpons/Lespugues Lortet Marsoulas Le Mas d'Azil Monconfort Grotte du Putois Les Trois Frères Le Tuc d'Audoubert Table B.22. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Southwestern France. SW FRANCE Occupation # F-41a F-46 F-59a F-65a F-153a F-66 F-68 F-76 F-92 F-98a F-99b F-105a F-107a F-115a F-129 F-133 F-134a F-138 F-147 F-148a Site name Abzac Bellet Cap Blanc Les Combarelles Combe-Cullier Coucoulu Crabillat Flageolet II Jean-Blancs E & W Laugerie-Basse Laugerie-Haute Est La Madeleine Le Martinet La Mouthe Puy de Lacan Grotte Rey Richard Roc Saint Cirq Thévenard La Tuilière NW SW FRANCE Occup # Site name F-57 La Caillade F-63 Le Cerisier F-80 Gabillou F-108 Le Mas-de-Sourzac F-125 Plateau Parrain F-144b Solvieux-Sud SW SW FRANCE Occup # Site name F-44b Beauregard Table B.23. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for the Massif Central. Occupation # F-235b F-238a F-242b F-255a Site name Auzary-Thônes Le Bay Le Blot Durif à Enval Table B.24. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for Switzerland. Occup # Sw-8a Sw-14a Sw-23a Site name Freudenthal Kesslerloch Schweizersbild Table B.25. Middle Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for East-Central Germany. Occupation # G-51a G-81a Site name Kniegrotte Teufelsbrücke Table B.26. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Cantabrian Spain. WW N SPAIN Occupation # Site name Sp-11c Las Caldas Sp-23 Cueva Oscura de Ania Sp-46c La Paloma Sp-58 Sofoxó C N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-12 Sp-13b Sp-14 Sp-20b Sp-30 Sp-31c Sp-34 Sp-37c Sp-39 Sp-44c Sp-22 Sp-45 Sp-50b Sp-51 Sp-52 Sp-53b Sp-59 Sp-63 Site name Camargo El Castillo La Chora Cualventi La Fragua La Garma El Horno El Juyo El Linar El Mirón Cueva Morín El Otero El Pendo El Perro La Pila El Rascaño Sovilla El Valle W N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-18 Sp-19b Sp-21c Sp-6 Sp-10 Sp-54b Site name Collubil Cova Rosa Cueto de la Mina Cueva de los Azules Cueva de Bricia La Riera E N SPAIN Occupation # Sp-2 Sp-3b Sp-5 Sp-8b Sp-26b Sp-28c Sp-29b Sp-32 Sp-38 Sp-43 Sp-56b Sp-57 Sp-61 Sp-62b Site name Abittaga Aitzbitarte IV Atxeta Berroberría Ekain Ermittia Erralla Goikolau Lezetxiki Lumentxa Santimamiñe Silibranka Torre Urtiaga Table B.27. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for the Pyrenees. W PYRENEES Occupation # Site name F-1b Arancou F-5b Dufaure F-6b Duruthy F-15 Grand Pastou F-18b Isturitz-Grande Salle F-28 Petit Pastou E PYRENEES/MEDITERRANEAN Occupation # Site name F-158 l'Aragnon F-170 Les Conques F-171b La Crouzade F-176 Fontlaurier F-16 Grotte du Harpon F-35 La Teulera/Tuilerie C PYRENEES Occupation # F-7 F-12b F-13 F-14b F-20b F-21b F-24b F-25 F-26b F-27 F-32 F-36 F-40a F-40b F-40 Site name Les Eglises Espélugues/Lourdes Fontanet Gourdan Grotte des Harpons/Lespugues Lortet Le Mas d'Azil Massat Monconfort Moulin à Troubat-en-Barousse Rhodes II La Tourasse La Vache-Salle Garrigou La Vache-Salle Monique La Vache general Table B.28. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for Southwestern France. Occupation # F-41b F-43 F-45 F-50 F-51 F-53 F-59b F-62 F-131c F-64 F-65b F-153b F-73 F-74 F-79 F-82 F-83 F-86 F-72 F-78 F-84 F-88 F-90 F-93 F-98b F-155 F-101 F-102 F-103 Site name Abzac Baring Bellefont-Belcier Bisqueytan à St Quentin de Baron Borie-del-Rey Bout du Monde Cap Blanc Cazelles Chancelade/Raymonden Chez-Galou Les Combarelles Combe-Cullier Faurelie II Abri Faustin à Cessac Fontarnaud Gare de Couze Grand-Moulin à Lugasson Grotte XVI Grotte des Eyzies Font-Brunel La Grèze Guitard Jardel II Jolivet Laugerie-Basse Lestruque Limeuil Liveyre Longueroche Occupation # F-105b F-107b F-109 F-112 F-113 F-114b F-115b F-116 F-117 F-120 F-121 F-124 F-123 F-156 F-128 F-132 F-134b F-135 F-136 F-137 F-139 F-140 F-141 F-157 F-145 F-148b F-149 F-150 F-152 Site name La Madeleine Le Martinet Maurens Monceaux-la-Virole Morin à Pessac Moulin-Neuf à Espiet La Mouthe Murat à Rocamadour Abri Pataud Peyrat Peyrille Piganeau La Pique à Daignac Pis de la Vache Le Pouzet Reignac Richard La Rivière de Tulle Le Roc Allan Roc de Barbeau Roc à Saint-Sulpice La Roche à Lalinde Rocher de la Peine Rochereil Le Souci La Tuilière Usine Henry Valojouix Villepin Table B.29. Upper Magd. LRM Unit for the Massif Central. Table B.30. Upper Magd. LRM Unit for the Paris Basin. Occupation # F-236 F-238b F-240 F-241 F-245 F-246b F-250 F-251 F-253 F-254 F-255b F-256 F-260 F-264 F-267 F-232 F-269 F-271 F-272b F-273 Site name Les Battants à Blassac Le Bay Béraud à Saint-Privat-d'Allier Blanzat Le Cavalier Chabasse à Vic-le-Comte Combrai Corent Coudes Culhat à Joze Durif à Enval Enval II Gevillat à Parentignat Neschers Pont-de-Longues Abri du Rond Abri de Saint Myon Sarlieve à Aubiere Sire à Mirefleurs Tatevin à Chanteuges Occupation # F-276b F-277 F-279b F-280 F-281 F-282 F-283 F-284 F-284c F-284a F-284b F-285 F-286 F-287 F-290 F-291 F-292 F-293 F-294 F-295 F-297 F-297a F-297b F-302 F-288 F-303 F-304 F-305 F-306 Site name Ballancourt-sur-Essonne Barbey Bois-des-Beauregard Bonnières-sur-Seine Cepoy Chaintreauville Le Closeau Etiolles general Etiolles-Habitation A17 Etiolles-Unit U5 Etiolles-Unit W11 Les Fées Le Grand Canton Gros-Monts I La Jouanne Abri du Lagopède Lumigny Maison Blanche La Marmotte Marsangy Pincevent general Pincevent-Habitation 1 Pincevent-Section 36 Les Tarterets Grotte du Trilobite Tureau des Gardes Verberie La Vignette Ville-Saint-Jacques Table B.31. Upper Magd. LRM Unit for Switzerland. Table B.32. Upper Magd. LRM Unit for S Belgium/N France. Occupation # Sw-2 Sw-3 Sw-4 Sw-5 Sw-6 Sw-7 Sw-9 Sw-10 Sw-11 Sw-12 Sw-13c Sw-15 Sw-16 Sw-17 Sw-18 Sw-19 Sw-20 Sw-21 Sw-22 Sw-25 Sw-26 Sw-30 Sw-31 Sw-32 Occupation # B-1 B-3 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-11 B-12 B-13 B-18 B-19 B-20 B-21 F-299 B-25 B-22 B-23 B-24 Site name Bruderholz Brügglihöhle Büttenloch Champrévèyres Chesselgraben Eremitage (Rheinfelden) Hard I Heidenküche Hintere Burg Hollenberg-Höhle 3 Kastelhöhle-Nord Kohlerhöhle Liesberg Monruz Moosbühl Mühleloch Reiden-Stumpen Rislisberghöhle Sälihöhle Oben Thierstein Trimbach Wauwilermoos-Kottwil Winznau-Käsloch Winznau-Köpfli Site name Trou Abri Bois Laiterie Chaleux Grotte de Chauveau Coléoptère Trou du Curé Trou du Frontal Ginette Goyet Trou Magrite Trou des Nutons Obourg St-Macaire Orp E&W Roc-la-Tour Sy Verlaine Trou de l'Ossuaire Trou du Pionnier Trou da Somme Table B.33. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Unit for Southwestern Germany. Occupation # G-2 G-5 G-G-8 G-9 G-12 G-13 G-14 G-15 G-16 G-17 G-18 G-19 G-21 G-22 G-28 G-31 G-32 G-34 G-35 G-36 G-37c G-38 G-39 G-40 Site name Aichbühl Annakapellenhöhle Barbing Bärenfelsgrotte Bernlochhöhle Bildstockfels Bocksteinhöhle/Törle Brillenhöhle Burghöhle Dietfurt Burkhardtshöhle Buttentalhöhle Dietfurt Felsställe Fohlenhaus Gnirshöhle Große Öfnet Haldensteinhöhle Helga-Abri Herwartstein Hohle Fels bei Hütten Hohle Fels Schelklingen Hohlenstein Bärenhöhle Hohlenstein Ederheim Hohlenstein-Stadel Occupation # G-45 G-46 G-47 G-48 G-49 G-50 G-52 G-54 G-57 G-59 G-63 G-65 G-66 G-71 G-72 G-73 G-74 G-75 G-76 G-77 G-80 G-83 G-86 Site name Kastlhänghöhle Kaufertsberg Klausenhöhlen Kleine Öfnet Kleine Scheuer Rosenstein Klingenfels-Abri Kohltalhöhle Malerfels Napoleonskopf Nikolaushöhle Petersfels Probstfels Randecker Maar Schmiechenfels Schuntershöhle Schussenquelle Sirgenstein Sirgenstein Südwand Spitalhöhle Spitzbubenhöhle Strassberger Grotte Vogelherd Zigeunerfels Table B.34. Upper Magdalenian Lithic Raw Material Units for Central Germany. WC GERMANY/N BELGIUM/NETHERLANDS Occupation # Site name G-3 Alsdorf G-4 Andernach general G-4a Andernach-Concentration I G-4b Andernach-Concentration II G-4c Andernach-Concentration III G-11 Beeck N-1 Eyserheide G-25 Galgenberg G-29 Gönnersdorf general G-29a Gönnersdorf-Concentration I G-29b Gönnersdorf-Concentration II G-29c Gönnersdorf-Concentration III G-29d Gönnersdorf-Concentration IV G-44 Kamphausen B-15 Kanne N-2 Mesch G-61b Oberkassel N-3 Sweikhuizen-Groene Paal N-4 Sweikhuizen-Koolweg N-5 Sweikhuizen-Oude Stort G-84 Wildscheuer V G-85 Wildweiberlei EC GERMANY Occupation # G-1 G-6 G-7 G-10 G-20 G-23 G-27 G-30a G-30b G-30c G-30d G-33 G-41 G-42 G-43 G-51b G-53 G-58 G-62 G-67 G-69 G-70 G-81b G-89 Site name Ahlendorf Aschersleben Bad Frankenhausen Bärenkeller/Königsee Garsitz Etzdorf Friedensdorf Gera-Binsenacker Groitzsch-A1/A2 Nord Groitzsch-C1 West Groitzsch-C3/D Nord Groitzsch-D1/B Nord Halle-Galgenberg Hummelshain Ilsenhöhle Kahla-Lobschutz Kniegrotte Lausnitz Nebra Oelknitz Ranis Herdloch Saaleck Saalfeld Teufelsbrücke Zinkenberg APPENDIX C: Personal Ornamentation Data 458 Table C.1. Correspondence Between General Terms and Fictive Numbers of Objects Used for Analyses. Number 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 20 Term present beads/shells/teeth/etc. few some several/multiple many common large quantity Table C.2. Codes for Common Personal Ornamentation Materials. 5000 5001 5002 5003 5004 5005 5006 5007 5008 5009 5010 5011 5012 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 5021 5022 5023 5024 red deer canine red deer incisor or unspecified tooth reindeer canine reindeer incisor or unspecified tooth sawed off reindeer tooth bovid tooth sawed off bovid tooth caprid tooth sawed off caprid tooth equid tooth fox tooth bear tooth sawed off marmot tooth canid tooth unspecified carnivore tooth wild boar tusk whale tooth other tooth unspecified animal tooth imitation tooth shark tooth mandible saiga antelope tooth leporid tooth lion canine 6000 6001 6002 6003 6004 6005 6006 6007 6008 bone bead or tube bone pendant bird bone long bone phalanx, metapodium, calcaneus, epiphysis, unspecified hand or foot bone bone sea urchin spine hyoid bone horse head contour découpé caprid head contour découpé Table C.2. Codes for Common Personal Ornamentation Materials Continued. 6009 6010 6011 6012 6013 6014 6015 6016 6017 6018 6019 6020 6021 deer head contour découpé fish contour découpé bone disk bone insect bone plaquette rib fragment flat bone fragment bone button fish vertebra bison head contour découpé herbivore body contour découpé reindeer head contour découpé indeterminate contour découpé 7000 7001 7002 7003 7004 7005 7006 7007 7008 7009 7010 7011 7012 7013 antler antler pendant antler disk ivory ivory pendant ivory sea urchin spine ivory disk ivory insect antler female figurine carved tooth pendant ivory bead antler bead ivory contour découpé antler contour découpé 8000 8001 8002 8003 8004 8005 8006 8007 8008 8009 8010 8011 8012 8013 8014 8015 8016 8017 8018 8019 stone bead stone pendant perforated quartzite perforated sandstone perforated unspecified stone or cobble perforated unspecified mineral chunk, bead, or pendant stone disk jet or lignite jet or lignite bead jet or lignite button jet or lignite pendant jet or lignite baguette jet or lignite insect jet or lignite sea urchin spine jet or lignite female figurine jet or lignite disk jet or lignite plaquette amber amber bead limonite bead Table C.2. Codes for Common Personal Ornamentation Materials Continued. 8020 8021 8022 8023 "steatite" or serpentine pendant or bead ocher pendant hematite bead or pendant clay bead 9001 9002 9003 9004 9005 9006 9007 9008 9009 9010 9011 9012 9013 Atlantic shell Mediterranean shell shell known from both the Atlantic and Mediterranean fossil shell fossil sea urchin spine ammonite trilobite unspecified fossil freshwater shell belemnite nautilus shell unspecified shell fossil sea urchin Table C.3. Personal Ornamentation Materials and Codes Specific to French Sites. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Paris Basin Eocene fossil shell Loire Basin Miocene fossil shell Sparnacian fossil shell Lutetian or Auversian fossil shell Lutetian fossil shell Miocene fossil shell: Dax (W Pyrenees) or Prades and Sigean (E Pyrenees/Medit.) Pliocene fossil shell Blaye limestone Eocene fossil shell Gan fossil shell Montagne Noire fossil shell Corbières fossil shell Lake Annecy Oligocene fossil shell 2020 2021 2022 2023 Arudy area (Basques Pyrénées) serpentine or steatite black lead from metaliferous area of the Pyrenees azurite steatite 2040 Landes amber 2041 Corrèze sandstone disk Table C.4. Personal Ornamentation Materials and Codes Specific to German and Swiss Sites. 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 Mainz Basin (Sprendlingen) fossil shell fossil dinosaur vertebra Steinheim Basin fossil shell Kirchberger layers fossil shell Paris Basin fossil shell Neuwied Basin fossil (belemnite fragment) Jurassic fossil shell fossil shark tooth 3140 Baltic amber Table C.5. Personal Ornamentation Materials and Codes Specific to Belgian Sites. 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 Courtagnon Tertiary fossil shell Givet fossil shell Grignon Tertiary fossil shell Paris Basin Eocene fossil shell Loire Basin Miocene fossil shell 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 other marine fossil Givet Devonian polypier Jamoigne Devonian nautilus shell Vouzier Cretaceous polypier Gaume pyritized ammonite Lesse Valley nautilus shell 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 unspecified origin fluorine Doische fluorine Givet flourine Philippeville fluorine Ave-et-Auffe region fluorine 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 unspecified origin oligiste Doische oligiste Namur oligiste Philippeville oligiste Ave-et-Auffe region oligiste Basse Lesse and Dinant oligiste 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 unspecified origin pyrite Doische pyrite Mons pyrite Namur pyrite Philippeville pyrite Ave-et-Auffe region pyrite Table C.5. Personal Ornamentation Materials and Codes Specific to Belgian Sites Continued. 1131 Jamoigne jet 1132 jet from northern Lorraine 1133 Basse Lesse and Dinant jet 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 Champagne Tertiary deposit shark teeth and vertebrae Belgian Ardennes Devonian limestone orthoceras Reims oolite Fumay silicified wood Sambre lignite Paris Basin lignite Paris Basin slate Brussels slate Fumay schist Hulsonniaux psammite Basse Lesse and Dinant psammite Fumay slate Table C.6. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Sites in Cantabrian Spain. SPAIN OBTAINMENT Site Id Sp-1a Sp-4a Sp-4a Sp-4a Sp-4a Sp-4a Sp-4a TOTAL Sp-7 Sp-7 Sp-7 Sp-7 TOTAL Sp-11a Sp-13a Sp-13a Sp-13a Sp-13a Sp-13a Site Name Abauntz Altamira Altamira Altamira Altamira Altamira Altamira ALTAMIRA Balmori Balmori Balmori Balmori BALMORI Las Caldas El Castillo El Castillo El Castillo El Castillo El Castillo Code Sp-13a Sp-13a TOTAL Sp-15 Sp-19a Sp-21a Sp-21a Sp-21a Sp-21a Sp-21a Sp-21a TOTAL Sp-25 El Castillo El Castillo CASTILLO El Cierro Cova Rosa C. de la Mina C. de la Mina C. de la Mina C. de la Mina C. de la Mina C. de la Mina LA MINA La Cuevona 9002 5004 5005 5000 5009 6002 9002 6006 8002 8004 5014 9003 5000 5009 5014 8004 5000 5009 8001 5009 5007 5010 6003 9001 9001 9003 km Count Estimate Comments 0 # 2 1 perf,engraved w/ double arrow # 1 # 2 # 3 590 3 *no provenience; Pecten # 4 engraved lines on edges 15 # 1 52 x 11 mm; oval # 1 48 x 27 mm; slatey # 1 *no provenience; groove not perf 5 ? shells 3+? 0 # 2 # 1 incisor # 1 possibly wolf # 1 off-center perforation; 34x22 mm # 1 engraved w/ crossing lines unperforated; 580 1 Glycymeris bimaculata poli # ? teeth 7+? 1 # incisor 1 # cobble; possible pendant # 1 incisor # 1 # ? incisors # 1 splinter 10 1 Turritella 10 1 Littorina 5+? 1 5; 665 Pecten References Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Barandiarán 1996 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Moure 1975 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Alvarez Fern. 2002 Poplin 1983 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Easy 0 2 1 2 3 4 12 1 1 Mod. 0 0 1 ?alt 2+?alt 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 MODIFIC. Diff. Nat. Creat. 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 15 0 1 1 1 ?alt ? ?alt 3+? 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 ? 5+? 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 ? 1 7+? 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5+? 1alt 1 0 0 ? 1 1 1 5 1alt ? 0 Site Id Sp-26a Site Name Ekain Code Sp-27a Sp-28a Sp-29a Sp-31a Sp-37a Sp-41 Sp-41 TOTAL Sp-44a Sp-44a Sp-44a Sp-44a Sp-44a Sp-44a Sp-44a Sp-44a Sp-44a TOTAL Sp-46a Sp-53a Sp-53a Sp-53a Sp-53a Sp-53a Sp-53a Sp-53a TOTAL Sp-54a Sp-56a Sp-62a Sp-62a Sp-62a Sp-62a Sp-62a Entrefoces Ermittia Erralla La Garma El Juyo La Lloseta La Lloseta LLOSETA El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón MIRÓN La Paloma El Rascaño El Rascaño El Rascaño El Rascaño El Rascaño El Rascaño El Rascaño RASCAÑO La Riera Santimamiñe Urtiaga Urtiaga Urtiaga Urtiaga Urtiaga 9001 40 5007 5000 # # 9002 9001 9001 9001 6003 7001 5000 5007 9001 540 25 25 25 # # # # 25 5000 5001 5007 5020 9001 7001 5001 9001 9001 9001 5007 5009 km Count Estimate Comments 0 # # # # 25 # # 10 10 10 # # 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 12 25 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 0 0 92 3 1 1 1 References Trivia González Sainz 1989 incisor Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Homolapoma sanguineum Trivia sp. Ninia reticulata Littorina littorea 7.5x1 mm 27.5 mm long; reworked sagaie Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Dentalium sp . unprepared pendant? 44 mm long; reworked sagaie Littorina obtusata Littorina littorea Patella incisor incisor Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Easy 0 Mod. 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 12 24 0 1 1 1 Diff. Nat. Creat. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6 0 0 92 3 1 1 1 4 1 12 24 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 92 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 Site Id Site Name Sp-62a Urtiaga Sp-62a Urtiaga Sp-62a Urtiaga TOTAL URTIAGA # = not sourceable Code 5018 9001 9001 km Count Estimate Comments # 1 large ruminant incisor 10 3 Turritella 10 1 Nassa reticulata 103 ; = or, from west to east References Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Easy Mod. 1 3 1 103 0 alt = alternate Diff. Nat. Creat. 1 3 1 0 103 0 Table C.7. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Sites in France. FRANCE Site Id F-235a F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 F-42 TOTAL F-276a F-44a Site Name Auzary-Thônes Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule Badegoule BADEGOULE Ballancourt Beauregard F-47 La Bergerie F-47 La Bergerie TOTAL BERGERIE OBTAINMENT Code 2008 9003 9003 5000 9004 9008 5007 5018 5013 5010 5011 8000 5010 5005 5000 5018 6001 8001 km Count Estimate 0 180 1 25; 300 3 25; 300 1 # 2 U 1 U 1 # 3 # 1 # 3 # 1 # 1 # 1 # 1 # 13 # 2 # 1 # 8 # 1 45 0 0 2008 245; 195 5004 # Comments References Roussillon/Rhone V.; Chlamys unperforated; C. vulgatum whole; unperforated; Chlamys ? broken in perforation spiral snaily thing embedded in rock incisors perf started on 2 sides; incisor 1 broken in perforation; canine canine incisor limestone? canine; from "necklace" incisors; from "necklace" from "necklace" small incisor from "necklace" teardrop shape; from "necklace" from "necklace" MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN ? shells 250 km W or 200 km SE ? incisors 2? Féblot-Augus. 1997 Poplin 1983 Easy 0 3alt 1alt 2 1alt 1alt 3 1 Mod. 0 1alt 1alt 3 1 1 1 1 13 2 1 8 1 32+6alt 6+2alt 0 0 MODIFIC. Diff. Nat. Creat. 0 0 0 1 1 3alt 3 1alt 1 2 1alt 1 1alt 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 13 2 1 8 1 1+6alt 36 9 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? 2? 0 Site Id F-49 F-160a F-161a F-242a F-279a F-54 F-55 F-162a F-56 F-163 F-60 F-61 F-246a F-248a F-131a F-252a F-69 Site Name Code Birac III Grd. Gr. de Bize Petit. Gr.de Bize Le Blot Bois-des-Beau. Braugnes Le Breuil Bruniquel/Abris Cabrerets Camparnaud Casevert Cassegros Chabasse Chaire à Calvin Chancelade/R. Cottier Croix-de-Fer km Count Estimate Comments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 References Easy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mod. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diff. Nat. Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5007 # 21 incisors; most broken Le Guillou p.c. 2002 21 21 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5003 # 20 most broken at perforation Le Guillou p.c. 2002 20 20 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5000 # 11 several with ocher Le Guillou p.c. 2002 11 11 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5007 # 25 Rupicapra rupicapra incisors Le Guillou p.c. 2002 25 25 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5007 # 35 capra ibex incisors Le Guillou p.c. 2002 35 35 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5007 # 9 ibex incisors Le Guillou p.c. 2002 9 9 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5018 # 21 Le Guillou p.c. 2002 21 21 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5010 # 17 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 5013 # 4 canines Le Guillou p.c. 2002 17 17 2 wolf incisors; 2 wolf canines Le Guillou p.c. 2002 4 4 Site Id Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments 3 166 small References Le Guillou p.c. 2002 Easy Mod. 3 145 21 F-70 Cuzoul de Vers 6016 TOTAL CUZOUL de V. # F-213a Farincourt III 9003 U 1 perforated; Cardium David & Rich. 1989 F-213a TOTAL F-75 F-177a Farincourt III FARINC. III Feuga Gandil 8001 # 1 2 0 0 perforated; quartzite pebble David & Rich. 1989 F-219a Grappin 7010 U ? beads David & Rich. 1989 F-219a Grappin 6000 # ? beads David & Rich. 1989 ? F-219a Grappin 5018 # ? teeth David & Rich. 1989 ? F-219a TOTAL F-87 F-89a F-95 F-96 F-180 F-99a F-100 F-106a F-111 F-110 F-263a F-118 F-119 F-122 F-266a F-266b F-184a Grappin 8008 GRAPPIN Guillassou Houleau Lachaud Lascaux Lassac Laugerie-H. Est Layrac Marcamps Maubin Mazérat Montgaudier Pech de la B. Pégourie Le Piage Le Placard Le Placard Abri Plantade U Diff. Nat. Creat. 0 163 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ? 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 1 1+3? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perforated; unspecified type David & Rich. 1989 2? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1+2? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-127 Site Id F-130 F-31 F-186 F-187a F-268a Pourquey Site Name Abri Ragout Rec del Penjat La Rivière Grotte Roffat Rond du Barry F-268a Rond du Barry 0 km Count Estimate Comments 0 0 0 0 5000 # 1 perforated Loire Basin or Alps; 9004 305; 220 ? shells Bayania lactea Code TOTAL R. DU BARRY 1+? 0 F-143a St-Germain-la-R 0 F-142a Sainte Eulalie 0 F-272a Sire à Mirefl. 0 F-144a Solvieux-Sud 0 F-274a Les Terriers italics = Badegoulian ; = or, from west to east # = not sourceable U = unknown source References Delporte 1976 0 Easy 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mod. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diff. Nat. Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Delporte 1976 ? 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 alt = alternate MAN = Musée des Antiquites Nationales ? 1+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table C.8. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Sites in Switzerland. SWITZERLAND Site Id Site Name Code km Sw-13a Kastelhöhle-N. italics = Badegoulian OBTAINMENT Count Estimate Comments 0 References Easy 0 Mod. 0 MODIFIC. Diff. Nat. Creat. 0 0 0 Table C.9. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Sites in Germany. GERMANY Site Id G-37a G-37a G-37a G-37a G-37a G-37a G-37a G-37a G-37a Site Name H. Fels Schelk. H. Fels Schelk. H. Fels Schelk. H. Fels Schelk. H. Fels Schelk. H. Fels Schelk. H. Fels Schelk. H. Fels Schelk. H. Fels Schelk. H. F. TOTAL SCHELK. G-56a Munzingen G-56a Munzingen TOTAL MUNZINGEN VL = very local (<5 km) OBTAINMENT Code 3002 3002 3002 3002 3004 3004 3004 3005 3005 km Count Estimate 190 2 190 1 190 3 190 2 30 7 30 1 30 2 VL 4 VL 6 3002 3002 210 210 28 1 2 3 Comments Pirenella plicata; 200 km Polinices achatensis; 200 km Dentalium sp.; 200 km Glycymeris sp.; 200 km Gyraulus trochiformis Gyraulus sulcatus Radix socialis Viviparus suevicus Melanopsis kleini References Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 220 km; Dentalium sp.; L/UM? 220 km; Cyrene sp.; L/UM? Féblot-Augus. 1997 Féblot-Augus. 1997 Easy Mod. 7 1 2 4 6 20 0 0 0 MODIFIC. Diff. Nat. Creat. 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 7 1 2 4 6 8 1 2 3 28 1 2 3 0 0 Table C.10. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in Cantabrian Spain. SPAIN Site Id Sp-1b Sp-1b Sp-1b Sp-1b Sp-1b TOTAL Sp-3a Sp-4b Sp-8a Sp-9 Sp-9 Sp-9 Sp-9 TOTAL Sp-11b Sp-11b Sp-11b Sp-11b Sp-11b Sp-11b Sp-11b TOTAL Sp-20a Sp-21b Sp-21b TOTAL Sp-27b Sp-28b Sp-28b Sp-28b TOTAL Sp-76a Sp-31b OBTAINMENT Site Name Abauntz Abauntz Abauntz Abauntz Abauntz ABAUNTZ Aitzbitarte IV Altamira Berroberría Bolinkoba Bolinkoba Bolinkoba Bolinkoba BOLINK. Las Caldas Las Caldas Las Caldas Las Caldas Las Caldas Las Caldas Las Caldas CALDAS Cualventi C.de la Mina C.de la Mina CdelaMINA Entrefoces Ermittia Ermittia Ermittia ERMITTIA Forcas I La Garma Code 6006 5003 5000 5014 9001 km # # # # 45 6000 9001 5000 6000 # 30 # # 5000 8004 6003 5016 5009 8001 6007 # # # # # # # 5007 5011 5009 6003 5018 6008 # # # # # Count Estimate 1 1 1 2 ? shells 5+? 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 ? incisors 1 1 6+? 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 2 5 0 1 Comments 63 x 29 mm References Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Straus 1990/91 undecorated; round Turritella 2 and 3 short lines Barandiarán 1972 Barandiarán 1972 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 2 lines partial horse; slatey whole; small herbivore sperm whale?; bison with linear motifs deep grooves on 1 side hyoid Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1987 Corchón 1992 Corchón 1987 Corchón 1995 45 x 13 x 6 mm incisors; 2 perf; lines splinter; 38 x 18 mm 1 broken; 1 perforated unperforated Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 González S. 1989 Straus pers. c. 2004 Easy Moderate 1 1 1 2 ? 3+? 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 6 0 1 1 1 ? 1 1 5+? 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 5 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 MODIFIC. Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 1 2 ? 0 5+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 2+? 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 Site Id Sp-33 Sp-35 Site Name La Güelga H.de la Peña Code 6006 9001 km # 25 Sp-37b Sp-40 Sp-44b Sp-44b Sp-44b TOTAL Sp-46b Sp-46b Sp-46b TOTAL Sp-47 Sp-47 Sp-47 Sp-47 TOTAL Sp-50a Sp-60 Sp-60 Sp-60 TOTAL Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60a Sp-60a TOTAL Sp-60b Sp-60b Sp-60b Sp-60b El Juyo Llonín El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón EL MIRÓN La Paloma La Paloma La Paloma PALOMA La Pasiega La Pasiega La Pasiega La Pasiega PASIEGA El Pendo Tito B. gen. Tito B. gen. Tito B. gen. TB GEN. Tito B. 1a Tito B. 1a Tito B. 1a Tito B. 1a Tito B. 1a Tito B. 1a Tito B. 1a Tito B. 1a Tito B. 1a TB 1a TB 1b, 1a-1b TB 1b, 1a-1b TB 1b, 1a-1b TB 1b, 1a-1b 6009 6011 9001 5000 9001 # # 20 # 20 7001 5000 5018 # # # 6001 5019 5018 9001 # # # 20 6006 6008 6007 # # # 6014 # 6014 # 5000 # 5007 # 7008 # 9001 5 9003 5;670 9001 5 9003 5;670 6003 6014 5000 9001 # # # 5 Count Estimate Comments 2 engraved lines on edge 1 Pectunculus glycymeris 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 14 1 16 1 1 12 1 15 0 2 1 4 7 1 2 4 2 1 7 2 1 2 22 1 1 2 3 rib fragment References Menéndez 2003 Moure 1975 Dentalium sp. Freeman&GE 1982 Thiault & R. 1996 Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep susp. groove; engraved 2 w/ lines small herbivore Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 tear; *no provenience red deer canine? in antler unspecified unspecified Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Trivia sp. engraved lines on edge perforated; detailed cached; red ocher Corchón 1986 Moure 1983 Balbín et al. 2003 lines radiating from hole grooves; phallic shape 2 are engraved incisors pendant; 112 x 18 mm Trivia europea Nassa pequena Littorina obtusata Cyclonassa neritea Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Moure & C. 1976 Moure & C. 1976 Moure & C. 1976 Moure & C. 1976 punctations; edge lines 1 is engraved Trivia europea Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Moure & C. 1976 Easy Moderate 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 14 1 16 1 1 12 1 15 0 2 1 4 7 1 2 4 2 1 7 2alt 1 2alt 18+4alt 1 1 2 3 Difficult Natural Creat. 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 14 1 15 0 0 0 0 12 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 4 7 2 4 2 1 2alt 0 2alt 4alt 7 2 1 2 19 1 2 3 3 1 Site Id Site Name Sp-60b TB 1b, 1a-1b Sp-60b TB 1b, 1a-1b TOTAL TB 1b, 1a-1b Sp-60c Tito B. 1c Sp-60c Tito B. 1c Sp-60c Tito B. 1c Sp-60c Tito B. 1c Sp-60c Tito B. 1c Sp-60c Tito B. 1c Sp-60c Tito B. 1c Sp-60c Tito B. 1c TOTAL TB 1c TOTAL TB ALL Sp-64 La Viña Sp-64 La Viña Sp-64 La Viña TOTAL LA VIÑA # = not sourcable Code km 9003 5;670 9001 5 Count Estimate 1 1 9 6001 # 1 5018 # 3 6014 # 3 5000 # 5 9003 5;670 8 9003 5;670 1 9001 5 1 9002 670 8 30 68 6009 # 1 6007 # 2 6011 # 1 4 ; = or, from west to east Comments Nassa pequena Nassa reticulata References Moure & C. 1976 Moure & C. 1976 no figure unperf can.s w/ notches 2 part of same pendant? 3 frags; 1 or 2 engraved Cyclostrema Skeneia Chenopus pes pelicani H. sanguineum ; more? Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Moure & C. 1976 Moure & C. 1976 Moure & C. 1976 Alvarez F. 2002 possible rib fragment hyoid Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Thiault & R. 1996 Easy Moderate 1alt 1 8+1alt 0 1 3 3 5 8alt 1alt 1 13+9alt 0 46+14a 0 1 2 1 4 0 a and alt= alternate Difficult Natural Creat. 1alt 1 1 1alt 8 1 1 3 3 5 8alt 8 1alt 1 1 8 8 8+9alt 26 4 8+14a 53 15 1 2 1 0 0 4 Table C.11. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in France. FRANCE OBTAINMENT Code km Site Id F-41a F-1a F-2 F-2 Site Name Abzac Arancou Aurensan Aurensan F-2 F-2 F-2 TOTAL F-235b F-194 F-238a F-44b F-3 F-3 F-3 F-3 F-3 F-3 F-3 F-3 TOTAL F-46 F-196 Aurensan Aurensan Aurensan AURENSAN Auzary-Th. Baume Noire Le Bay Beauregard Bédeilhac Bédeilhac Bédeilhac Bédeilhac Bédeilhac Bédeilhac Bédeilhac Bédeilhac BÉDEILHAC Bellet Bèze F-160b Gr. Gr. de Bize 5018 # 1 incisor Sacchi 1986 F-160b Gr. Gr. de Bize 9001 355 2 Littorina littorea Sacchi 1986 F-160b Gr. Gr. de Bize 2008 25 ? shells unspecified Taborin 1992 ? ? F-160b Gr. Gr. de Bize 9002 35 ? shells unspecified Taborin 1992 ? ? 6011 5000 # # 150;2 9003 40 2040 135 6002 # 6006 # 5017 7009 6001 6014 9001 9002 6007 8006 # # # # 265 120 # # Count Estimate Comments 0 0 2 5 ? ? 1 8+2? 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 ? ? 3 1 8+2? 0 0 shells amber unspecified Andonin's sea gull shells shells References Delporte 1974a Bahn 1982 Easy Moderate 0 0 0 0 2 5 MODIFIC. Bahn 1982 Bahn 1982 Bahn 1982 marginal incisions Delporte 1974b human canine;w/ head,hair,face 1 perf at each end 1 face w/ parallel lines unspecified unspecified hyoid limestone Bahn & V. 1988 MAN MAN MAN Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 MAN MAN 7 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Difficult Natural Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 ? ? 1 1+2? 0 0 0 0 ? ? 1 6+2? 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? ? 3 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2? 0 0 1 1 ? ? 2+2? 0 0 1 2 2 3 1 6 0 0 Site Id Site Name Code F-160b Gr. Gr. de Bize 9001 F-160b Gr. Gr. de Bize F-160b TOTAL F-161b F-242b F-243a F-4 F-162b F-162b F-162b F-162b TOTAL F-57 F-164 F-164 F-164 F-164 F-164 Gr. Gr. de Bize GG de BIZE Pt. Gr. de Bize Le Blot Bois du Roc Brassempouy Bruniquel/A. Bruniquel/A. Bruniquel/A. Bruniquel/A. BRUNIQUEL La Caillade Canecaude I Canecaude I Canecaude I Canecaude I Canecaude I F-164 F-164 F-164 Canecaude I Canecaude I Canecaude I 9003 5000 6004 310;7 0 # # F-164 F-164 F-164 TOTAL Canecaude I Canecaude I Canecaude I CANEC. I 2008 6006 2011 60 # 5 F-59a F-59a F-59a Cap Blanc Cap Blanc Cap Blanc km 355 355;3 9003 5 355;3 9003 5 5000 # 6007 2008 9001 9002 5004 # 155 240 165 # 5009 # 8008 U 9003 310;7 9003 310;7 9002 70 180;2 2008 60 9001 180 9002 260 Count Estimate Comments References Easy Moderate 1 Nucella lapillus Alvarez F. 2001 1 Littorina obtusata Alvarez F. 2001 1alt Cyclope neritea Alvarez F. 2001 2alt 1+3a+2? 1 0 0 1 2 7+2? 1 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 4? 0 1 1 1 5 4 Sacchi 1986 hyoid shells unspecified shells unspecified shells unspecified incisors ? shells 1 1 ? shells 1 1 16+2? ? shells ? shells ? shells incisor Littorina obtusata Cyclope neritea Homalopoma sanguin. Cyclope neritea, Turbo sanguineus, Nassa reticulata, Dentalium vulgare da Costa phalanx Pectunculus sp,Cypraea pyrum, Nassa reticulata lines engraved on edge unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified Thiault & R. 1996 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Poplin 1983 H. Price 2000 H. Price 2000 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Taborin 1992 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1alt 5alt 4 ?alt Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 1alt 1 2alt 3+3a 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 2 7+2? 1 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? 4? 0 1 3? 0 1 1alt 5alt ?alt 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 4 ? 1 1 ? ? 1 4 5+6a+?a+? 1+6a+?a 1 14+2? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 1 2 Site Id TOTAL F-63 F-247a F-131b F-131b F-131b TOTAL F-207a F-65a Site Name CAP BL. Le Cerisier Chaffaud Chancelade/R. Chancelade/R. Chancelade/R. CHANCEL. Col. Martin Combarelles Code km 6011 2008 9001 # 150 160 6011 # F-153a Combe-Cullier 9001 210 ? shells unspecified Taborin 1992 F-153a TOTAL F-66 F-172a F-68 F-171a F-171a F-171a F-171a TOTAL F-208 F-5a F-255a F-6a F-6a F-6a F-6a F-6a F-6a F-6a TOTAL F-71 F-71 F-71 TOTAL Combe-Cullier COMBE-C. Coucoulu Courbet Crabillat La Crouzade La Crouzade La Crouzade La Crouzade CROUZADE La Croze Dufaure Durif à Enval Duruthy Duruthy Duruthy Duruthy Duruthy Duruthy Duruthy DURUTHY Gr.de l'Eglise Gr.de l'Eglise Gr.de l'Eglise l'EGLISE 9002 240 ? shells 2? 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 ? shells ? teeth 2 1 1 1 1 6+2? 1 1 1 3 unspecified Taborin 1992 6001 6001 6001 6007 9001 5017 5013 5010 6001 8001 8008 5010 6004 6003 # # # # 35 # # # # # ? # # # Count Estimate 3? 0 0 1 ? shells ? shells 1+2? 0 1 Comments References 2 mammoth heads unspecified unspecified Sieveking 1987 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 I. Barandiarán 1968 thin; parallel lines, dots hourglass shape small, flat; level 5 hyoid? unspecified dolphin perf. wolf premolars *or horse tooth; polish *horse head in limest. *jet bead *=from horse "shrine" phalanx?; perforated very tiny; notches Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Taborin 1992 Bahn 1982 Arambourou 1978 Arambourou 1978 Arambourou 1978 Arambourou 1978 Arambourou 1978 Easy Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 ? 2? 0 0 0 ? 2? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2 1 ? 2 1 1 1 2+? MAN MAN MAN 0 0 0 Difficult Natural Creat. 3? 3? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 2? 2? 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1+? 0 3+2? 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 Site Id F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 Site Name Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Code 5005 5007 5011 5010 5007 5000 5018 5013 5009 6001 6001 9001 9002 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 F-8 TOTAL F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. Enlène gen. ENLÈNE G. Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF 2007 2008 6001 6007 7012 6011 5003 5005 5007 5000 5009 5014 5013 5011 5020 8008 8007 9006 9008 6004 6002 km # # # # # # # # # # # 230 155 100;1 40 145 # # U # # # # # # # # # # U U U U # # Count Estimate 4 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 ? shells ? shells ? shells ? shells 1 19 1 53 94+4? 19 14 5 8 4 1 1 5 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 Comments incisors incisor unperf canine;par. lines canine incisor; double perf canid? horse? w/ edge lines ovalish; broken in perf oval;partly sep. perf unspecified unspecified Mitraria cf. dufreni; Melongena cornuta unperf?; vertical lines hyoid incisors incisors incisors canines cave lion canine wolf canine 1 molar; 4 premolars? fossil; local source off-center perforation unperf; Glycymeris? perforated; local source assume local bear? perforated in middle References M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Easy Moderate 4 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 Difficult Natural Creat. 4 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 19 1 53 86 19 14 5 8 4 7 1+4? 1 1 5 3 18+4? 19 14 5 8 4 1 1 5 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 53 76 4 1 1 1 1 1 Site Id F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a F-8a TOTAL F-8b F-8b Site Name Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF Enlène SF ENLÈNE SF Enlène SM Enlène SM Code km 6003 # 6003 # 6001 # 6001 # 5021 # 6000 # 9001 230 9003 230;1 6004 # 6001 # F-8b F-8b F-8b F-8b F-8b F-8b TOTAL TOTAL F-9 F-154 F-10 F-10 F-10 F-10 F-10 TOTAL F-11 F-12a F-12a F-12a F-12a F-12a F-12 Enlène SM Enlène SM Enlène SM Enlène SM Enlène SM Enlène SM ENLÈNE SM ENLÈNE Erberua Esclauzur Espalungue Espalungue Espalungue Espalungue Espalungue ESPALUNG. Gr.des Espèche Espélugues Espélugues Espélugues Espélugues Espélugues Espélugues 9003 9001 6000 6015 9002 8008 5005 5003 9002 9002 5004 6007 6011 6015 9002 6007 6021 8006 5009 5014 # # 230;1 55 230 # # 155 U 280 285 # # # # 255 # # # # # Count Estimate 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 85 5 3 1 1 1 2 1 ? 14+? 193+5? 0 ? ? ? 7 5 1 13+2? 15 3 1 1 1 1 Comments pointy bone; perf bone end; perf wavy edge sep. perf; flat;striations sm animal ½ mandible >2 bird; 1 perf in side Pecten maximus Dentalium perf in mid; 12.4 mm References Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën incisors; 4 perf; lines incisors; 1 unperf Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Trivia sp. ?;double perf Littorina sp. ? small, round flat fragments Homalopoma sang. Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Musée Bégouën Alvarez F. 2002 Alvarez F. 1999a beads shells shells incisors hyoid small; edge lines Homalopoma sanguin. hyoid hyoid horse incisor largish premolar Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Poplin 1983 MAN MAN MAN Alvarez F. 2002 MAN MAN Sieveking 1971 Bahn 1982 MAN Easy Moderate 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 68 5 3 8 Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 9 71 14 5 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11 165 0 0 0 15 0 0 ? 7 5 1 13+? 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 ? ? 3+? 13 1+? 13+5? 102+4? 91+? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ? ? ? 7 5 1 ? 1+2? 12 0 0 0 15 15 3 1 1 1 1 Site Id F-12 F-12 F-12 F-12 TOTAL F-257a F-213b F-213b TOTAL F-85 F-174a F-214 F-76 F-77 F-215a F-80 F-177b Site Name Espélugues Espélugues Espélugues Espélugues ESPÉLUGUE Fadets Farincourt I&II Farincourt I&II FARIN. I & II Gr. des Fées Le Figuier Fissure de la G. Flageolet II Fongaban La Fru Gabillou Abri Gandil Code 5005 5007 2020 2010 km # # 40 30 8001 8008 # U 9002 9002 365 95 9006 F-177b F-177b F-177b F-177b F-177b F-177b F-177b F-177b F-177b F-177b TOTAL F-259a F-259a F-259a TOTAL F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a Abri Gandil Abri Gandil Abri Gandil Abri Gandil Abri Gandil Abri Gandil Abri Gandil Abri Gandil Abri Gandil Abri Gandil A. GANDIL La Garenne La Garenne La Garenne GARENNE Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel 9003 5000 5017 8001 8001 8001 5021 8022 8022 5001 U 240;1 60 # # # # # # U U # 6001 6007 6008 5023 5010 5001 5003 # # # # # # # Count Estimate 1 1 1 ? shells 25+? 0 1 1 2 ? shells ? shells 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 1 1 1 3 18 5 9 3 Comments incisor incisor unperf Pyrénées Atlantiques References MAN MAN Bahn 1982 Bahn 1982 pebble; perforated bead David & R. 1989 David & R. 1989 unspecified unspecified Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Jurassic; prob. local Ladier&W. 1994/5 Naticide Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 beaver incisor rough limestone river rolled; natur. perf river rolled; irregular Ongule ; susp. groove long, pointy pendant pendant; partially perf 1adult, 1 lact.; 2 lines dancing female; lines hyoid whole necklace? teeth cervid teeth Allain 1979 MAN MAN Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Easy Moderate 1 1 1 ? 9+? 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 1 ? 15 19+? 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 ? ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 1 1 1 3 18 1 3 0 0 5 9 3 1 1 2 11 0 18 5 9 3 2 1 1 1 3 Site Id F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a Site Name Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Code km 5011 # 5014 # 5009 # 5019 # 9003 315;6 7011 # 8008 U 6000 # 6004 # 5000 # 9001 315 8010 U 6015 # 9001 315 9003 315;6 9003 315;6 F-178a F-178a F-178a F-178a TOTAL F-14a F-14a F-14a F-14a F-14a TOTAL F-218 F-15a F-219b F-89b F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel Grotte Gazel GR. GAZEL Gourdan Gourdan Gourdan Gourdan Gourdan GOURDAN Grande Baume Grand Pastou Grotte Grappin Abri Houleau Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II 2012 6007 7013 2011 2008 9001 9002 6008 6011 2020 2022 5017 8008 65 # # 5 190 185 200 # # 60 U # U Count Estimate 1 1 1 2 32 22 5 5 4 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 127 ? ? ? 2 3 5+3? 0 0 0 0 ? 1 ? 6 Comments canine wildcat incisor stalactite fragments Littorina obtusata bead production tubular reind. sesamoid bones Neptunea Jeffreysiana scallop shell shape long, flat Littorina littorea Nassa reticulata Natica sp. 1Turritella ,1Ampullina hyoid Ampullina shells shells shells unspecified unspecified unspecified hyoid several teeth small piece seal 3 baskets References Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Price 2000 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 MAN MAN Bahn 1982 de St-Périer 1936 Bahn & V. 1988 MAN Easy Moderate 1 1 1 2 32alt 22 5 4 7 1 2alt 1alt Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 1 2 32alt 32 22 5 5 5 4 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2alt 2 1alt 1 2 1 1 1 75 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 9+35alt 0 0 0 0 0 ? 1 8+35alt ? ? ? 3? 0 0 0 0 ? 6 1 90 ? ? ? 3? 0 0 0 0 ? 1 ? 37 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 6 Site Id F-18a F-18a F-18a Site Name Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II F-18a Isturitz GS II Code km 8018 U;30 6001 # 9001 35 35;35 9003 5 F-18a F-18a Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II 9001 9001 F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Count Estimate 1 1 14 29 54 2 9003 9001 9003 9001 9001 8019 8020 8020 2023 8008 8007 8017 6014 6003 6014 6001 6004 6015 35 35 35;35 55 35 35;35 35 35 U U;60 U;60 U U U U;30 # # # # # # 7001 6004 6004 7001 6015 6004 6015 5021 7001 # # # # # # # # # 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 5 1 1 1 3 7 6 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 Comments broken in perforation broken; ocher 5 unperf; Littorina unperforated fragments; Chlamys islandica 18 unperforated; Littorina obtusata Purpura lapillus References MAN MAN MAN Easy Moderate MAN 29alt MAN MAN 54 2 unperforated; Cardium whole; Nucella lapillus unperf; Scaphellae ? unperf; Pecten maximus unperf; Glycymeris 2 perf on top; polish broken perf; edge lines 2 perf;edge lines 1 side unperf; rect. chunks variable sizes unperf; round chunks 2 brken beads line, bumps, horse head figurative horse? 2 childlike cervids, lines plain; spatulas calcaneus? "bird feet" down length 1 w/ "bird feet" design; sagaie frgs lateral reindeer phalanx lat. reindeer metacarpal andouillers lines, diags; skull frag? metapodial? frag skull? fragment mandible? fragment curves; rod fragment MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN 1alt 1 2alt 6 5 MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 1 14 29alt 29 54 2 1alt 2alt 1 1 2 6 5 1 1 1 3 3 7 6 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 7 6 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Site Id F-18a F-18a Site Name Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Code 6004 6004 km # # F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a F-18a Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS II Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS E Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS Ea F-18a F-18a Isturitz GS Ea Isturitz GS gen 6003 # 6004 # 6016 # 5009 # 5010 # 5000 # 5018 # 5005 # 5003 # 6001 # 7001 # 6004 # 5000 # 5003 # 5005 # 5009 # 5020 U 5010 # 5014 # 6000 # 6003 # 6003 # 6003 # 9001 35 9004 U 5011 # 5018 # 6000 # 9003 35;35 35;35 9003 5 2008 275;3 Count Estimate Comments 1 fragment 1 diag. lines;phalanx frag small herbivore proximal 1 radius frag 1 sm toe/leg bone? 1 5 2 unperf; 2 w/ lat. lines 2 lateral incisions 4 3 broken 5 various; 3 unperf 10 bovid 1 reindeer 1 broken; rectangular 1 side lines; sagaie frag 1 metacarpal 4 2 sm-med incisors 5 1 unperforated 11 1 unperf; incisors 1 3 perfs; fossil 1 1 sm-med carnivore can. 1 basket 1 irregular fragment 1 edge lines 1 2 limpet-like 1 unperf; Campanile ? 2 canines 1 canine 1 with ocher 6 Glycymeris? 2 Chlamys; 4 Chlamys 6 islandica; 3 unperf shells unspecified References MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN Taborin 1992 Easy Moderate 1 1 Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 5 2 4 5 10 1 2 4 2 10 1 1 1 1 4 2 5 11 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 5 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1alt 1 6alt 6alt 1 1alt 1 6alt 6 6alt ? 6 ? Site Id Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments F-18a Isturitz GS gen 6011 # 68 F-18a Isturitz GS gen 2041 335 4 F-18a Isturitz GS gen 6007 # F-18a Isturitz GS gen 6020 # TOTAL F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c F-18c ISTURITZ GS Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI Isturitz SM SI 6004 7001 6003 6000 6004 8000 8021 9001 5010 5018 5013 5007 5005 5000 5003 5009 5014 F-18c Isturitz SM Ew # # # # # 335 # 35 # # # # # # # # # 35;35 9003 5 F-18c Isturitz SM Ew 9001 35 F-18c Isturitz SM Ew 2041 F-18c Isturitz SM Ew 5013 References Easy Moderate Difficult Natural Creat. and more MAN;Barand.1968 possible source Bahn 1982; MAN 19 hyoid MAN 19 19 1 hyoid MAN 1 1 ankh shape doughnut pendant juvenile animal femur epiphyses? lat. reindeer metacarpals yellow sandst.;Corrèze? rectangular; red ocher all w/ ocher; Littorina canines;many brkn perfs very small canine small canid? incisor incisors root lines; 1 unperf broken in perf; re-perf small, rounded 6 unperf; incisors medium-large canines MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN 2alt 1 1 unperf; clam shape unperf frag; Coquille St-Jacques? MAN 1 335 4 Corrèze?; yell. sandst Bahn 1982 # 1 wolf size? MAN 342+4? 1 1 1 2 67 1 1 10 17 1 1 9 17 1 8 12 3 2 68 68 4 255+45a 1 1 1 2 67 4 16+? 30+45a+2? 216+3? 1 130 1 1 2 67 1 1 10 1 1 10 17 1 1 9 17 1 8 12 3 17 1 1 9 17 1 8 12 3 2alt 2 1 4 1 4 1 Site Id Site Name Code km F-18c Isturitz SM Ew 5011 # 3 F-18c Isturitz SM Ew TOTAL IST. SM 5009 # 1 165 TOTAL IST. ALL F-91 Jaurais Count Estimate Comments References unperf canines MAN broken in perf; incisor MAN 511+3? 0 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 F-92 Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W 2007 7003 7010 6004 6003 6001 5018 5007 5001 5000 5015 5009 5013 5010 5020 9010 5005 100;1 70 U U # # # # # # # # # # # U U # F-92 F-92 F-92 TOTAL F-206a F-19 F-19 F-19 F-19 Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W Jean-Bl. E&W JEAN-BL. La Colombière Labastide Labastide Labastide Labastide 5007 5003 5022 # # # 9001 6018 6008 6007 165 # # # ? shells 2 1 2 12 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 5 19 1 1 36 11 1 4 108+? 0 ? shells 1 18 1 Easy Moderate 3 1 132+2a 387+47a 0 rings? broken; small lat. reindeer metacarpal different kinds, sizes small, w/ groove tooth incisor deep lines front edge incisors; 1 lacteal 3 canines, 2 incisors 5 w/ lines; canines unperf; BIG fossil 38mm; belemnite 2 w/ deep lines 4 unperf; 1 w/ beg. of perf; incisors 1 perforated; incisors unspecified hyoid hyoids Féblot-A. 1997 M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine Taborin 1992 M. de l'Homme Bellier 1991a Fritz 1999a Difficult Natural Creat. 3 1 158 7 42+? 35+47a+2? 374+3? 0 0 0 137 0 26 5+2alt ? 2 1 2 12 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 5 19 1 1 36 1 18 1 2 1 2 12 4 11 1 4 78 0 ? 25 0 5+? 0 ? 1 1 2 3 1 4 5 19 1 1 36 11 1 4 104+? 0 ? 4 0 1 18 1 Site Id Site Name TOTAL LABASTIDE Code F-179a Abri Lafaye 9003 F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a F-179a Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye Abri Lafaye 9003 5003 5007 5018 5001 5011 5005 5010 8001 8001 8001 7001 7004 8001 7001 5019 8020 F-179a TOTAL F-98a F-98a Abri Lafaye LAFAYE Laugerie-B. Laugerie-B. 9003 F-98a F-98a F-98a F-98a F-98a F-98a TOTAL F-99b F-20c Laugerie-B. Laugerie-B. Laugerie-B. Laugerie-B. Laugerie-B. Laugerie-B. LAUG.-B. Laugerie-H. E Boeufs/Lesp. 2008 2007 9001 9002 6007 6011 # # 180;2 65 180;1 175 270 # # 6001 9002 # 200 6001 6006 km 240;1 65 240;1 65 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # U U 240;1 65 Count Estimate Comments 20+? 3 References Easy Moderate 20 0 Difficult Natural Creat. ? ? 20 perf fragments; Pecten Ladier&W. 1994/5 3 3 1 55 6 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Dentalium 26 lacteal incisors various incisors, canines canines incisor canine limestone red limestone naturally perf; limest. sagaie frag mam. ivory;susp. groove limestone non-figur. lines; small reindeer incisor in ivory source?; iron-rich Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 1 1 55 6 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 99 1 3 unperf Pecten sp. Ladier&W. 1994/5 ? ? ? ? 3 6 13+4? 1 ? shells shells shells shells shells frag; lines, pointy ovals edge lines; fragment MAN MAN &/OR 2007; unspecified &/OR 2008;unspec.;>18 unspec.; possibly >7 unspec.; possibly >13 hyoid Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992;MAN Taborin 1992;MAN Taborin 1992;MAN MAN, M. de l'H. MAN dots; short parallel lines unspecified M. d'Aquitaine Taborin 1992 55 6 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 8 77 1 3 3 6 13 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 19 5 87 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4? 0 ? 4? 0 ? 12 1 3 3 6 13 1 0 Site Id F-20a F-20a F-20a TOTAL F-21a F-21a F-21a F-21a F-21a TOTAL F-104 F-105a F-105a F-105a F-105a F-105a F-105a F-105a F-105a Site Name Harpons/Lesp. Harpons/Lesp. Harpons/Lesp. HARPONS Lortet Lortet Lortet Lortet Lortet LORTET La Lustre La Madeleine La Madeleine La Madeleine La Madeleine La Madeleine La Madeleine La Madeleine La Madeleine Code 2008 9001 9002 km 190 185 200 2008 9001 6007 6011 6001 210 165 # # # F-105a F-105a F-105a La Madeleine La Madeleine La Madeleine 6001 8001 6001 F-105a F-105a La Madeleine La Madeleine TOTAL F-22 F-106b F-106b F-106b TOTAL F-262 F-262 F-262 MADELEINE Malarode I&II Marcamps Marcamps Marcamps MARCAMPS La Marche La Marche La Marche 6011 # 7010 U 9003 180;2 5018 # 8001 # 5013 # 5010 # 8001 # # # # 180;2 2008 65 9001 180 9001 9002 6007 5009 5018 9012 60 360 # # # U Count Estimate ? shells ? shells ? shells 3? 1 1 1 3 1 7 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 Comments unspecified unspecified unspecified References Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Pecten ? more? Glycymeris ? more? hyoid Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Thiault & R. 1996 MAN Barandiarán 1994 1 Difficult Natural Creat. ? ? ? ? ? ? 3? 3? 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 5 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 wolf & cervid motif Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 2 1 double perf; Trivia 1 canine, 1 incisor broken off; stone wolf canines canine edge notches; schist broken; diag. lines on edge, neck stone; broken double perf; Trivia Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 ? shells ? shells unspecified unspecified Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 15+2? 0 ? shells ? shells 1 1+2? 7 3 2 Easy Moderate 1 3 1 5 0 2 1 1 unperf inc.'s; tri. grids canine; 2 incisors long spiral; whole Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 M. d'Aquitaine MAN MAN MAN 0 0 1 2 1 9 0 unspecified unspecified hyoid 0 1 1 7 2 4 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 2+2? 0 ? 6+2? 0 ? ? ? 2? 2 3 2 1 9 0 1 1 7 Site Id Site Name Code km F-262 F-262 F-262 F-262 F-262 F-262 F-262 F-262 F-262 La Marche La Marche La Marche La Marche La Marche La Marche La Marche La Marche La Marche 5005 6000 5003 6006 5000 5007 5014 5010 9004 # # # # # # # # U TOTAL F-23 F-23 F-23 F-23 F-23 F-23 F-23 F-23 F-23 TOTAL F-107a LA MARCHE Marsoulas Marsoulas Marsoulas Marsoulas Marsoulas Marsoulas Marsoulas Marsoulas Marsoulas MARSOUL. Le Martinet 8001 6001 6003 8010 6001 5000 5010 2008 9002 # # # # # # # 160 170 F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil 5018 5010 5013 5009 6004 6016 5005 5000 5003 5011 5004 6004 # # # # # # # # # # # # Count Estimate Comments sm bovid incisors; 9 1 with lines 1 lines 1 edge; sm. tube 1 front lines 1 lines on all edges 7 3 w/ side lines 2 incisors 2 1 w/ root edge lines 1 root edge lines 1 round 37 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 ? shells ? shells 9+2? 0 4 4 3 12 3 1 10 2 3 1 7 1 compressor spatula; lines, zigzags rounded tip broken off; #99.4.35 separate perf;edge lines 1 sm broken;2 lg whole unspecified unspecified References MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Easy Moderate 9 1 1 1 7 2 M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. 9 1 1 1 1 7 2 2 1 1 3 28 2 1 30 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 1 0 4 4 3 12 3 1 10 2 3 ? ? 1+2? 0 1 1 3 1 ? ? 5+2? 0 4 0 4 4 3 12 3 1 1 7 1 9 1 1 1 1 7 0 2 unperf; molar/ premolar, small incisor canines 2 unperforated; wolf? incisors; lines final phalanges double perf; tiny bone incisors possibly perforated possibly perforated canine; split unperforated; incisors lat. reindeer metacarpal Difficult Natural Creat. 10 2 3 1 7 1 Site Id F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a Site Name Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Code 6001 6003 7001 6014 6003 7001 7001 6015 6002 6003 6003 8021 8001 8001 8001 6000 6000 6017 8018 8008 9001 F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil 9003 5020 9006 9008 6011 8010 F-24a Le Mas d'Azil 8008 F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil 2007 2008 9002 6018 6009 km # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # U U 240 240;1 40 U U U # U U 195;9 0 135 140 # # Count Estimate 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 16 3 3 2 2 1 40 1 4 ? shells ? shells ? shells 1 1 Comments animal leg shape 2 are pointy 1 w/ diagonal lines some parallel lines small scapula fragment 1 w/ par lines short, pointy thin, short ocher yellow stone very thin black stone 4-5 cm red sandstone polish; side groove 2 cm; polished from a large fish broken small pea-grape size Cassis, Pecten, other Trivia europea, Dentalium , other 1 perf; fossil black, white green-gray Right Bank;animal head Gallerie des Silex; 2 basket; 2 cylindrical Rostellaria dentate, Melongena cornuta unspecified unspecified References M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. Md'A;Taborin 1992 M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. M. du Md'A. Md'A;Sievek. 1987 Alvarez F. 1999a Easy Moderate 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Difficult Natural Creat. 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 6 16 16 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 40 1 40 1 Alvarez F. 1999a 4 4 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Alvarez F. 2002 Bellier 1984 Bellier 1984 ? ? ? 1 1 ? ? ? 1 1 Site Id F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a F-24a Site Name Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil Code 6007 8015 7009 9005 6001 TOTAL F-108 F-26a F-181a F-181a TOTAL F-263b F-114a MAS d'AZIL Mas-de-Sourz. Monconfort Montastruc Montastruc MONTASTR. Montgaudier Moulin-Neuf F-115a F-265a F-266c F-184b F-125 F-30 F-30 F-30 F-30 F-30 F-30 F-30 F-30 F-30 F-30 TOTAL F-17 La Mouthe La Piscine Le Placard Abri Plantade Plateau Parrain Le Portel Le Portel Le Portel Le Portel Le Portel Le Portel Le Portel Le Portel Le Portel Le Portel LE PORTEL Gr. du Putois F-17 Gr. du Putois 9003 F-17 Gr. du Putois 5009 6011 6007 2008 6001 6001 6011 6007 8008 9009 5009 5014 9009 5018 5003 9003 km # U U;# U # Count Estimate 22 1 2 1 1 185+3? 0 0 # 6 # 1 7 0 0 185;2 ? shells 60 0 2 # 0 0 # 1 # 2 # 1 U 1 # 1 # 1 # 1 # 1 # 4 # 2 15 185;1 3 185;1 95 1 # 2 Comments hyoid lignite sperm whale;engr. horse collected locally? wolf & cervid motif flat bone fragment References Th.&R. 1996;MAN M. du Md'A. Thiault & R. 1996 H. Bosinski 1980 Barandiarán 1994 Sieveking 1987 Sieveking 1987 Easy Moderate 22 1 1 Difficult Natural Creat. 22 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 136 0 0 6 1 7 0 0 8 0 0 41+3? 0 0 80+3? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 unspecified Taborin 1992 many edge notches Taborin 1991 par lines; 4 rows of dots foyer A foyer A; more? foyer A;brkn;beg perf foyer A; Theodoxia foyer A; incisor foyer B; incisor foyer B; Theodoxia foyer C;diagonal lines foyer C Gailli 1978 Vézian 1954-5 Vézian 1954-5 Vézian 1954-5 Vézian 1954-5 Vézian 1954-5 Vézian 1954-5 Vézian 1954-5 Vézian 1954-5 Vézian 1954-5 base L II; Cyprea ? Ladier&W. 1995 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 2 10 3 base L II; Glycymeris ? >15 yrs and 8-10 yrs; incisors Ladier&W. 1995 1 1 Ladier&W. 1995 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 13 2 1 2 105 0 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 5 Site Id Site Name Code km F-17 TOTAL F-129 F-185a Gr. du Putois PUTOIS Puy de Lacan Rainaudes 6014 # F-133 F-134a F-226 F-226 F-226 TOTAL F-138 F-233a F-233a Grotte Rey Richard Gr. de Rigney Gr. de Rigney Gr. de Rigney RIGNEY Roc Saint Cirq Roc-aux-Sorc. Roc-aux-Sorc. F-233a Roc-aux-Sorc. TOTAL ROC-AUX-S. F-187b Grotte Roffat F-33a F-33a F-33a F-33a F-33a TOTAL F-142b F-142b St Michel/Ar. St Michel/Ar. St Michel/Ar. St Michel/Ar. St Michel/Ar. ST MICHEL Sainte Eulalie Sainte Eulalie TOTAL F-34 F-189a F-144b F-230 F-274b F-147 SAINTE-EUL. Ste-Colombe La Salpetrière Solvieux-Sud Sta. En Terredy Les Terriers Thévenard 9002 20 185;2 2008 60 8012 8001 5000 U # # 9001 5005 170 # 150;3 2007 45 7001 5004 6007 6011 5009 # # # # # 5018 6011 # # 9001 470 Count Estimate Comments "knife" with engraved 1 wild ass; polished 7 0 ? shells unspecified ? shells 0 1 1 ? canines 2+? 0 1 1 1 3 0 Ladier&W. 1995 Taborin 1992 unspecified Taborin 1992 or red deer canine? unspec. source;iron-rich David & R. 1989 David & R. 1989 David & R. 1989 Pecten maximus square grid; incisor MAN MAN Potamides papaverac. Dewez 1987 Easy Moderate Nucella lapillus MAN Poplin 1983 MAN MAN Bahn 1982 Lorblanchet 1976 Lorblanchet 1976 Alvarez F. 2001 Difficult Natural Creat. 1 3 0 ? 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 1 1 ? 0 ? ? 0 0 0 2 0 1 ? ? 0 1 1 1 0 tiny perf "bird" 1 spearthrower ? incisors 1 scapula fragment 3 1 horse incisor 6+? 1 broken in perf; incisor 1 broken in half 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 References 1 ? 1 3 1 6+? 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 ? 0 0 ? 1 1 3 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id Site Name Code km 230;1 9003 55 F-37 Trois Frères F-37 F-37 F-37 F-37 F-37 F-37 F-37 F-37 TOTAL F-39 Trois Frères Trois Frères Trois Frères Trois Frères Trois Frères Trois Frères Trois Frères Trois Frères TROIS FR. Tuc d'Aud. 5011 5014 5005 5003 5013 5018 6007 6011 # # # # # # # # 5018 # F-39 Tuc d'Aud. 5011 # Count Estimate Comments Chapelle de la Lionne; 1 scallop Chapelle de la Lionne; 1 lower 2nd molar 1 canine 2 incisor 1 deer? incisor 5 3 lat. incisors; 2 canines 1 unperf;few lines;canine 1 hyoid 4 17 4 3 from wall niche; ocher ? canines unperforated; canines References Easy Moderate Bégouën & C. 1981 Bégouën & C. 1981 M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme M. de l'Homme Bellier 1984 Musée Bégouën Bégouën & C. 1981 Bégouën & C. 1981 Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 4 13 4 3 1 1 ? F-39 Tuc d'Aud. 6009 # 1 hyoid Thiault & Roy 1996 1 F-39 Tuc d'Aud. 6007 # 1 hyoid Buisson et al. 1996 1 TOTAL TUC d'AUD. 6+? 6 ? 0 F-275 La Tuilerie 0 0 0 0 F-148a La Tuilière 0 0 0 0 F-151 Vidon à Juillac 0 0 0 0 # = not sourceable ; = or, from west to east U = unknown source a and alt = alternate MAN = Musée des Antiquites Nationales M. d'Hist. Nat. = Musée d'Histoire Naturelle (Toulouse) M. du Md'A. = Musée du Mas d'Azil 12 4 1 4 5 ? 4+? 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 Table C.12. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in Switzerland. SWITZERLAND Site Id Sw-1 Sw-1 Sw-1 Sw-1 TOTAL Sw-8a Site Id Sw-8a Sw-8a TOTAL Sw-13b Site Name Birseck-Erm. Birseck-Erm. Birseck-Erm. Birseck-Erm. BIRSECK-E. Freudenthal Site Name Freudenthal Freudenthal FREUDEN. Kastelh.-N. OBTAINMENT Code km 9002 505 8008 153006 355 3008 25;50 3002 Code 5019 5004 220 km U # Count Estimate 1 3 3 ? fossils 7+? 1 Count Estimate ? objects ? teeth 1+2? 0 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 3002 220 ? Sw-14a Kesslerloch 9002 565 ? Sw-14a Kesslerloch 8007 20 ? Sw-14a Kesslerloch 6006 # 1 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 5009 # 3 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 5010 # 1 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 5017 # 1 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 6011 # 2 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 8015 20 1 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 8015 20 1 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 8010 20 2 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 8010 20 1 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 8010 20 1 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 9006 20 3 Sw-14a Kesslerloch 5019 # ? Sw-14a Kesslerloch 6019 # 1 TOTAL KESSLERL. 18+4? Sw-23a Schweizersb. 0 ; = or, from west to east U = unknown source some shells frags objects Comments Glycymeris ; "600 km" smer than Gönnersdorf Turritella sp. various References Floss 2000 Alvarez F. 1999a Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Glycymeris Comments cervid canine,unkn. mat. Eriksen 2002 References Höneisen 1993b Alvarez F. 2001 Easy Moderate 3 ? 3+? 0 Easy Moderate ? ? 2? 0 0 0 Pirenella plicata; Dentalium; others unspecified; "600 km" Féblot-A. 1997 Féblot-A. 1997 Höneisen 1993b engraved on edges Höneisen 1993b incisors Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b unspecified Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b unperf; geometric engr. Höneisen 1993b oval/rectangular Höneisen 1993b pointy; not urchin spine Höneisen 1993b shark tooth shape Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b cervid canine, unkn. mat. Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b # = not sourceable MODIFIC. Difficult Natural Creat. 1 1 3 3 3 ? 4 4+? 3 1 1 Difficult Natural Creat. ? ? 1 1+? ? 0 0 0 ? ? ? 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 ? 1 17+2? 0 ? ? ? 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 2? 0 ? 1 8+3? 10+? 0 0 Table C.13. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in Germany. GERMANY OBTAINMENT Site Id G-37b Site Name Code km H. Fels Schelk. Count Estimate Comments G-51a Kniegrotte 3002 250 66 G-51a Kniegrotte 3002 250 1 G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte G-51a Kniegrotte TOTAL KNIEGR. G-56b Munzingen G-61a Oberkassel G-81a Teufelsbr. U = unknown source 8008 8007 5009 5003 8005 95 95 # # U 7 8 1 1 2 86 0 0 0 References 0 Cyrena convexa; Glycymeris sp. Potamides plicatus galeottii non-local material; basket shape worked pieces incisor incisor hematite; no details Easy Moderate 0 0 Höck 1998 Höck 1998 Höck 1998;Alvarez Fern. 1999a Höck 1998 Höck 1998 Höck 1998 Höck 1998 MODIFIC. Difficult Natural Creat. 0 0 0 66 66 1 1 7 8 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 84 0 0 0 7 8 1 1 2 71 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 # = not sourceable Table C.14. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Middle Magdalenian Sites in Belgium. BELGIUM Site Id B-2a Site Name Code km T. des Blaireux OBTAINMENT Count Estimate Comments 0 References Easy Moderate 0 0 MODIFIC. Difficult Natural Creat. 0 0 0 Table C.15. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in Cantabrian Spain. SPAIN Site Id Sp-2 Sp-3b Sp-3b TOTAL Sp-65 Sp-5 Sp-6 Sp-68 Sp-8b Sp-11c Sp-12 Sp-13b Sp-73 Sp-14 Sp-14 Sp-14 TOTAL Sp-18 Sp-19b Sp-20b Sp-21c Sp-10 Sp-22 Sp-22 Sp-22 Sp-22 TOTAL Sp-23 Sp-23 TOTAL Sp-326b Sp-28c Sp-29b OBTAINMENT Site Name Abittaga Aitzbitarte IV Aitzbitarte IV AITZB. IV Alaiz Atxeta Los Azules Bauma de la P. Berroberría Las Caldas Camargo El Castillo Chaves La Chora La Chora La Chora LA CHORA Collubil Cova Rosa Cualventi C. de la Mina C. de Bricia Cueva Morín Cueva Morín Cueva Morín Cueva Morín C. MORÍN Cueva Oscura Cueva Oscura C. OSCURA Ekain Ermittia Erralla Code km Count Estimate Comments 1 9004 U unspecified 6002 # 1 2 ends retouched 9001 10 1 Littorina obtusata 2 0 1 6014 # notch at 1 end 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6001 # no descriptions 6013 # 2 long lines;tiny side lines 5000 # 3 1 broken 5010 # 2 7 1 8004 # arboriform 2 sides;slate 0 0 4 5000 # 1 w/ short edge lines 0 6001 # 1 indentations both edges 5000 # 4 1 w/ edge incisions 8005 U 1 iron mineral frag 7001 # 1 transformed monobisel 7 5000 # 1 9001 20 1 possible Littorina 2 0 0 0 References González S. 1989 I. Barandiarán 1971 González S. 1989 J. Barandiarán 1961 Utrilla & M. 1996b Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 González S. 1989 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Easy 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 5 1 0 0 4 0 1 4 1 1 7 1 1 2 0 0 0 MODIFIC. Mod. 0 Diff. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nat. Creat. 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 2 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 5 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id Sp-76b Sp-30 Sp-31c Sp-32 Sp-34 Sp-37c Sp-38 Sp-39 Sp-43 Sp-44c Sp-44c Sp-44c TOTAL Site Name Forcas La Fragua La Garma Goikolau El Horno El Juyo Lezetxiki El Linar Lumentxa El Mirón El Mirón El Mirón EL MIRÓN Code km Count 9002 530 8001 9001 9001 5000 # 20 20 # Sp-45 Sp-45 TOTAL Sp-46c Sp-46c El Otero El Otero EL OTERO La Paloma La Paloma 5000 5018 # # 6014 8004 # # Sp-46c TOTAL Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b La Paloma PALOMA El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo 6004 # 6001 5000 5007 9001 5000 5019 5001 5015 5000 5010 9001 9001 9001 6001 # # # 10 # # # # # # 10 10 10 # Estimate Comments 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 14 1 1 18 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 References Homalopoma sanguineum Straus pers. c. 2004 54x15x6mm Trivia sp. Littorina obtusata Corchón 1986 Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep Alvarez F. in prep incisor Corchón 1986; Gonz. E. et al.1963 Gonz. E. et al. 1963 perf 2 ends; paral. lines paral. lines 2 edges; slatey Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 rhomboids, zigzags González Sainz 1989 many signs; sculpted end part of necklace #1 incisor; necklace #1 Trivia europea ; neckl. #1 2 engraved; necklace #2 antler reind. can.; neckl. #2 part of necklace #3 part of necklace #3 part of necklace #3 part of necklace #3 Turritella ; necklace #3 Nassa ; necklace #3 Littorina ; necklace #3 fish, red deer heads Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Easy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 14 1 1 18 1 1 Mod. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diff. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 14 1 1 18 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 Nat. Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 5 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 Site Id Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b Sp-50b TOTAL Sp-51 Site Name El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo El Pendo Pendo EL PENDO El Perro Code km 6001 7001 5015 6004 5000 7001 6001 7001 6001 Count Sp-52 Sp-81 Sp-53b Sp-53b TOTAL La Pila Portugain El Rascaño El Rascaño RASCAÑO 5000 # 5000 9001 # 20 # # # # # # # # # 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 59 0 Estimate Comments reind. front 1/2; lines sculpted;curved;broken unperf;par lines;mes. frag fox; perf both ends 1 0 9 2 11 González Sainz 1989 5 engr. w/ lines; necklace? Sp-54b La Riera 5018 # Sp-54b La Riera TOTAL LA RIERA 9001 VL Sp-56b Santimamiñe 9001 10 1 Littorina obtusata Sp-57 Sp-58 Sp-59 Sp-61 Sp-62b Sp-62b Sp-62b Sp-62b Sp-62b Sp-62b TOTAL 8003 5000 # # same in Azilian level 5000 5010 8007 9001 9001 9001 # # # VL VL VL 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 8 Silibranka Sofoxó Sovilla Torre Urtiaga Urtiaga Urtiaga Urtiaga Urtiaga Urtiaga URTIAGA 4 pisciform?; orig. sagaie sculpted, engr. fish body styl fish, other motifs fish&cervid motif ? shells 4+? References Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 I. Barandiarán 1996 I. Barandiarán 1996 I. Barandiarán 1994 Straus 1992b Corchón 1986 Easy 1 1 Mod. Diff. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 54 0 1 0 9 2 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nat. Creat. 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 50 9 0 0 1 0 9 2 11 0 0 0 unspecified Straus & Clark 1986 4 Trivia europea Straus & Clark 1986 ? 4+? 0 0 ? 4+? 0 González Sainz 1989 1 0 0 1 9 González Sainz 1989 Corchón 1986 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 fragment Turritella Patella Nassa Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 4 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 0 Site Id Site Name Sp-63 El Valle Sp-63 El Valle Sp-63 El Valle TOTAL EL VALLE Sp-84 Zatoya U = unknown source Code km Count Estimate 5000 # ? can.'s 9001 15 ? present 9001 15 ? present 3? 0 # = not sourceable Comments canines Littorina littorea Trivia europea References García-Gelabert Cheynier & GE 1964 Cheynier & GE 1964 Easy ? ? ? 3? 0 Mod. Diff. 0 0 0 0 Nat. Creat. ? ? ? 3? 0 0 0 VL = very local (<5 km) Table C.16. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in France. FRANCE OBTAINMENT Site Id F-41b F-158 F-1b F-234 F-276b Site Name Abzac l'Aragnon Arancou Auvours Ballancourt Code km Count F-192 F-191 F-193 F-277 F-43 F-236 F-159 F-237 F-195 F-238b F-239 F-45 F-278 F-240 F-50 Balme de Glos 9002 La Balme Bange Barbey 9011 Baring Battants Baume d'Oull. Baume-Loire Bavans Le Bay Bégrolles Bellefont-Bel. Belloy-sur-S. Béraud Bisqueytan 215 F-160c Gr. Gr. de Bize 9001 355 Estimate Comments References 0 0 0 0 0 U ? shells 0 0 ? frags 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? shells unspecified Taborin 1992 de Beaune 1999 Sacchi 1986 Easy Mod. MODIFIC. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diff. 0 0 0 0 0 Nat. 0 0 0 0 0 Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? Site Id Site Name Code km F-160c TOTAL F-161c F-241 F-197 F-243b F-279b F-244 F-198 F-280 F-51 F-52 F-53 F-199 F-162c F-162c F-162c F-162c F-162c F-162c Gr. Gr. de Bize G.G. de BIZE P. Gr. de Bize Blanzat Bobache Bois du Roc Bois-des-B. Bois-Ragot Bonne-Femme Bonnières Borie-del-Rey Bouliac Bout du M. Broissia Bruniquel Bruniquel Bruniquel Bruniquel Bruniquel Bruniquel 9002 9001 Count 30 355 5005 # 5004 # 5018 # 5000 # 6002 # 9003 240;165 Estimate Comments 1 1+? 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 2 F-162c Bruniquel 5010 # 2 F-162c Bruniquel 5001 # 1 F-162c Bruniquel 5003 # 8 Homalopoma sanguin. References Alvarez F. 2001 Patella , other Sacchi 1986 incisor tiny small incisor with ocher perf?; unspecified MAN MAN MAN MAN M. d'Hist. Nat. Ladier & W. 1994/5 canines Ladier & W. 1994/5 9001 240 9003 240;165 2 3 Cassis sp. ; unperf frags Pecten sp. ; unperf frags Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 unperf; incisor Ladier & W. 1994/5 9004 U ? shells 2 Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 2 3 2 3 David & Rich. 1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 F-162c Bruniquel F-162c Bruniquel Cabônes 2 1 1+? 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 2 8 2 F-200 ? 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ladier & W. 1994/5 155 Bayania lactea ; Cordaz? Loire? Paris Basin? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nat. Creat. 1 2008 1 28 Diff. 1 F-162c Bruniquel # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 Mod. Ladier & W. 1994/5 Pecten benedictus; Nassa mutabilis F-162c Bruniquel 5007 TOTAL BRUNIQUEL Easy 1 17 2 9 1 28 0 0 0 ? ? 0 Site Id F-201 Site Name Calvaire Code km Count Estimate Comments References F-202 Campalou 5003 # ? incisors Brochier & B. 1973 ? ? F-202 Campalou 5007 # ? incisors Brochier & B. 1973 ? ? F-202 Campalou 5012 # ? incisors F-202 TOTAL F-59b F-165 F-165 F-165 TOTAL F-245 F-62 F-281 F-246b F-247b F-282 F-248b F-131c F-131c F-131c TOTAL F-203 F-204 F-249 F-64 F-167 F-167 TOTAL F-283 F-205 F-168 Campalou CAMPALOU Cap Blanc C. de Belvis C. de Belvis C. de Belvis BELVIS Le Cavalier Cazelles Cepoy Chabasse Chaffaud Chaintreauv. Chaire à Calv. Chancelade/R. Chancelade/R. Chancelade/R. CHANCEL. Chaumois-B. La Chenelaz Cheylat Chez-Galou Chinchon Chinchon CHINCHON Le Closeau Colombe Colombier 9012 U 0 8008 8022 9002 6001 9001 5004 2008 9002 2008 9002 U U 80 # 160 # 10 70 40 95 ? 4? 0 1 1 ? 2+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? 1+2? 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 ? ? Easy Mod. 0 shells shells shells incisors shells shells shells shells perf, not sawed off Brochier & B. 1973 perf; unspecified Brochier & B. 1973 hematite unspecified gorge, bison, 7 people unspecified unspecified e.g., Cyclope neritea unspecified unspecified Taborin 1992 Alvarez F. 2001 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Nat. 0 ? ? 3? 0 Price 2000 Price 2000 Taborin 1992 Gaussen 1977 Taborin 1992 Poplin 1983 Diff. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? 0 ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 ? 0 Creat. 0 ? 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 1+? 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? 4? 0 ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 ? ? 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-206b F-207b F-65b F-153b F-153b F-153b TOTAL F-169 F-250 F-170 F-251 F-252b F-253 F-172b F-172b F-172b F-172b F-172b Site Name Colombière Col. Martin Combarelles Combe-Cull. Combe-Cull. Combe-Cull. COMBE-C. La Combette Combrai Les Conques Corent Gr. de Cottier Coudes Courbet Courbet Courbet Courbet Courbet Code km Count F-172b F-172b F-172b F-172b Courbet Courbet Courbet Courbet 8008 U 6003 # 9003 240;165 9003 240;165 F-172b Courbet 5005 F-172b Courbet 2008 210;230 9001 205 5004 # Estimate 0 0 0 ? shells ? shells ? 3? ? shells 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 Comments References Easy Mod. 0 0 0 Diff. Nat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 2? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 3? ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 unspecified unspecified incisors Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Poplin 1983 unspecified Taborin 1992 juv. cervid lat. metac. approximate # approximate # approximate # Cartailhac 1903 Cartailhac 1903 Cartailhac 1903 Cartailhac 1903 Cartailhac 1903 1 1 8 2 probably discoidal undecipherable lines Dentalium Glycymeris sp. Ladier & W. 1994/5 Cartailhac 1903 Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 # 1 incisor Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 5014 # 1 canine Ladier & W. 1994/5 F-172b Courbet 5009 # 1 incisor Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-172b Courbet 8001 # 1 naturally perf Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-172b Courbet 5000 # 2 basal lines Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-172b Courbet 7004 U 1 batonnette Ladier & W. 1994/5 9002 55 6003 6004 5009 5003 5010 # # # # # ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 2 1 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 Site Id Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments References Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. F-172b Courbet 7001 # 1 squared fragment Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-172b Courbet 7001 # 1 long; retoucher? Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-172b Courbet 6001 # 1 notches; smoothed Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-172b Courbet 6001 # 1 double perf Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-172b Courbet 6004 # 1 lat. reind. metac. frag Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 F-172b Courbet 6001 # 1 spatula Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 F-172b Courbet 6001 # 1 perf irreg bone frag Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 F-172b F-172b F-172b TOTAL F-171b F-171b F-171b F-171b F-171b F-171b F-171b TOTAL F-254 F-210 F-5b F-255b F-6b F-6b F-6b F-6b F-6b 7004 7004 6001 U U # edge grooves bulb end; sep. neck broken perf; thin, oval Ladier & W. 1994/5 Sieveking 1987 Sieveking 1987 9001 5018 6001 7001 6001 2008 9002 370 # # # # VL VL 2 1 1 38 ? shells 8 1 1 1 ? shells ? shells 11+3? 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 unspecified; <6 unspecified polished at suspension polish at perf; cylindrical separate neck unspecified unspecified; <6 Taborin 1992 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Courbet Courbet Courbet COURBET La Crouzade La Crouzade La Crouzade La Crouzade La Crouzade La Crouzade La Crouzade CROUZADE Culhat à Joze Douattes Dufaure Durif à Enval Duruthy Duruthy Duruthy Duruthy Duruthy 5000 6004 7001 6000 8005 # # # # # reind. phalanx;epiphysis broken and perf. sagaie bird bone incomplete perfs Arambourou 1978 Arambourou 1978 Arambourou 1978 Arambourou 1978 Arambourou 1978 1 1 1 2 1 1 21 8 1 1 1 ? ? 11+2? 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 3 14 ? 27 ? 8 2 1 1 11 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? 8+3? 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Site Id F-6b TOTAL F-7 F-256 F-211 F-12b F-284 Site Name Duruthy DURUTHY Les Eglises Enval II l'Ermitage Espélugues Etiolles gen. Code km 5020 F-284 F-284 F-284 F-284 TOTAL F-284c F-284a F-284b F-212 F-212 F-212 F-212 TOTAL F-72 F-72 F-72 F-72 F-72 F-72 F-72 TOTAL F-257b F-73 F-73 TOTAL F-74 F-74 TOTAL F-285 Etiolles gen. Etiolles gen. Etiolles gen. Etiolles gen. ETIOL. GEN. Etiolles A17 Etiolles U5 Etiolles W11 Etrembière Etrembière Etrembière Etrembière ETREMB. Gr.des Eyzies Gr.des Eyzies Gr.des Eyzies Gr.des Eyzies Gr.des Eyzies Gr.des Eyzies Gr.des Eyzies EYZIES Fadets Faurelie II Faurelie II FAURELIE II Faustin à C. Faustin à C. FAUSTIN Les Fées Count ? 5004 9006 9002 # "290" 225 2005 VL 2002 2002 2006 9001 VL VL VL 380 8020 5011 5010 9002 U # # 325 6001 # 6003 # 6003 # 9002 265 2008 180;260 9001 210 6001 # 9001 9002 180 265 9001 5004 90 # Estimate 1 9 ? incisors ? fossils ? shells 0 1 2 1 4 ? 8+? 0 0 0 ? 1 1 ? 2+2? 1 1 1 1 ? ? 1 5+2? 0 ? ? 2? ? ? 2? 0 shells Comments unspecified source References Arambourou 1978 ammonites unspecified Poplin 1983 Fontana 1998 Taborin 1992 Sycum bulbiformis Tympanotonos sp., submargaritaceus Potamides sp. Campanile giganteum unspecified Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Taborin 1992 Easy Mod. 8 ? 0 0 0 1 shells shells shells pendants, beads brown bear incisor canine Glycymeris wolverine, arrow sm animal v skinny styl fem Homalopoma sanguin. unspecified unspecified wolf & cervid motif Pion 2000 Pion 2000 Pion 2000 Pion 2000 Sieveking 1987 Sieveking 1987 Sieveking 1987 Alvarez F. 2001 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Barandiarán 1994 shells shells unspecified unspecified Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 shells inc's unspecified Taborin 1992 Poplin 1983 0 0 0 0 0 Nat. 1 1 0 ? ? 0 2 1 4 8 0 0 0 plural Diff. 0 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 0 ? 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 ? ? 0 2 ? 2? Creat. 1 6 ? ? ? 0 1 2 1 4 ? 8+? 0 0 0 1 1 ? 2+? 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 1 1 1 0 0 0 ? ? 0 1 ? ? 1 ? ? 1+2? 0 ? ? 2? 2+2? 0 ? ? 2? ? ? 2? 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-174b F-174b TOTAL F-175 F-175 Site Name Code km Count Estimate Le Figuier 2008 VL ? shells Le Figuier 9002 90 ? shells LE FIGUIER 2? Fontalès 6010 # 1 Fontalès 6001 # 1 Comments unspecified unspecified References Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 musk ox; pisciform spat. large diag line groups M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. F-175 Fontalès 9013 U 1 central hole F-175 F-175 Fontalès Fontalès 9006 U 9003 245;165 1 11 F-175 Fontalès 9001 245 F-175 F-175 Fontalès Fontalès F-175 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. ? Creat. 0 ? ? 2? Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 Glycymeris sp. Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 11 1 11 1 Pecten maximus frag Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 9001 245 9003 245;165 1 2 Ostrea sp. Naticides Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 2 1 2 Fontalès 5001 # 2 Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-175 Fontalès 5000 # 10 Ladier & W. 1994/5 10 10 F-175 Fontalès 5010 # 2 canines Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-175 Fontalès 5014 # 1 canine Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-175 Fontalès 7001 # 1 paral. lines;sagaie shape Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-175 Fontalès 7001 # 2 diag lines; sagaie shape Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-175 Fontalès 7001 # 1 harpoon frag shape Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-175 Fontalès 6001 # 1 bovid/ibex/m.ox head Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-175 Fontalès 6001 # 1 sep perf; spatula Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-175 Fontalès 9012 U 1 part perf;bivalve shell Ladier & W. 1994/5 ? 1 1 ? ? 1 1 0 1 1 Site Id Site Name Code km Count F-175 Fontalès 8001 # 1 v flat schistic sandst. Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 F-175 Fontalès 6003 # 1 thick Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-175 Fontalès 6015 # 1 scapula fragment Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-175 Fontalès 6003 # 1 thick; part perf Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-175 F-175 Fontalès Fontalès 8010 U 9003 245;165 1 1 "insect/female" Turritella ; unperf Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 F-175 TOTAL F-13 F-79 F-79 F-79 TOTAL F-78 F-176 F-176 F-176 F-176 TOTAL F-258 F-307 F-215b F-177c F-81 F-82 F-259b F-216 F-178b F-260 F-14b Fontalès FONTALÈS Fontanet Fontarnaud Fontarnaud Fontarnaud FONTARN. Font-Brunel Fontlaurier Fontlaurier Fontlaurier Fontlaurier FONTLAUR. Fourneau Fronsac La Fru Abri Gandil G. de Cond. G. de Couze La Garenne Abri Gay Grotte Gazel Gevillat Gourdan 8008 local jet; discoid Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 26 0 U 9004 U 9003 85;320 5004 # 8008 9001 5009 5000 U 360 # # 9001 95 9002 60 Estimate Comments 1 48 0 1 1 ? incisors 2+? 0 1 1 1 1 4 ? shells 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? shells 0 0 unspecified Trivia europaea ? References M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine Poplin 1983 unperf? Pecten max. frag v. corroded; unperf? possibly; unperf? Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 unspecified Taborin 1992 unspecified Taborin 1992 Easy Mod. ? ? 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diff. Nat. Creat. 1 1 3 0 1 1alt 1+1alt 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 1 1 19 0 37 0 1 1 ? 2+? 0 1alt 1alt 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-286 F-286 TOTAL F-15b F-217 F-83 F-84 F-287 F-86 F-88 F-289 F-16 F-220 F-18b F-18b Site Name Code km Count Estimate Grand Canton 9011 U ? frags Grand Canton 2005 30 1 CANTON 1+? Grand Pastou 0 ? shells Grande Baille 9002 300 Grand-Moulin 0 La Grèze 0 Gros-Monts I 0 Grotte XVI 0 Guitard 0 Hallines 0 Gr. du Harpon 0 ? shells Les Hoteaux 9002 275 Isturitz GS I 9003 30;350 4 Isturitz GS I 9003 30;350 1 F-18b F-18b Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I 9003 30;350 9001 30 F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b F-18b TOTAL F-90 F-221 F-221 Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS I Isturitz GS IST. GS Jardel II Jean-P. 1&2 Jean-P. 1&2 9001 30 9001 30 9003 30;350 9001 30 8001 # 8001 # 8001 # 8010 U 5021 # 5021 # 5018 # 5000 # 6011 # 2002 9004 405 U 4 1 8 4 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 47 0 2 ? shells Comments References de Beaune 1999 de Beaune 1999 Easy Mod. unspecified Taborin 1992 unspecified unperf; 2+ Glycymeris unperf; Cardium ? 2 unperf Chlamys ; 2 perf Chlamys islandica unperf; Pecten unperf frags; Coquille St-Jacques 3 unperf; Turritella Sipho 9 unperf; Littorina obtus. nat. perf; #86708 notches; sandstone? 2 conical perfs squarish lignite mandible/cranium frag nat.perf?;mandible? frag broken perf; polish Taborin 1992 MAN MAN ? 1 1+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4alt 1alt MAN MAN 4alt 1 MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN 8 4 1alt 13 1 1 1 Bayania lactea ;Paris B. Rhinoclavis sp. local; unspecified Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Diff. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nat. 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 4alt 1alt 4alt 1alt Creat. ? 1 1+? 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 4 1 4 1 8 4 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 36+10alt 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1+10alt 0 2 42 0 2 ? 3 5 0 Site Id Site Name Code km F-221 F-221 Jean-P. 1&2 Jean-P. 1&2 9004 9004 F-221 Jean-P. 1&2 TOTAL JEAN-P. Count ~80 U 2013 40;140 F-93 F-93 TOTAL F-290 F-179b Jolivet Jolivet JOLIVET La Jouanne Abri Lafaye 9001 6003 195 # F-291 Lagopède 2002 130 F-291 Lagopède 2002 130 F-291 Lagopède 2006 130 F-291 TOTAL F-98b F-20b F-155 F-155 F-155 TOTAL F-101 F-102 F-103 F-103 F-103 TOTAL F-21b F-261 F-292 Lagopède LAGOPÈDE Laugerie-B. Harpons/Lesp. Lestruque Lestruque Lestruque LESTR. Limeuil Liveyre Longueroche Longueroche Longueroche LONGUER. Lortet Loubressac Lumigny 9004 U 9002 265 9002 195 2008 175;265 9001 160 9002 270 6000 # 2008 180;260 9001 175 9002 270 9001 165 Estimate Comments Bayania lactea ; ? shells Cordaz area? ? shells Turritella ;Martinets area? Oligocene Rhine-Alpine species;Lake Annecy or ? common Diablerets massifs? 2+4? Neritina,Cerithium, 33 Nasssa,Dentalium ;neckl. 1 burned 34 0 0 Cromnium parisiensis ; 10 level C; Paris .B Bayania lactea ; level C; 1 Paris B. Granulobium substriatum ; 1 Mid. Lutetian; Houdan References ? 12+? ? ? ? ? ? 3? 1 0 ? ? ? 3? ? 0 0 Schmider & V. 1997 shells shells shells shells shells shells local; unspecified Easy Mod. Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Diff. Nat. ? ? 1 ? ?alt 2+?alt 1 2+4? 0 33 33 0 0 33 1 34 0 0 0 0 0 Schmider & V. 1997 10 10 Schmider & V. 1997 1 1 Schmider & V. 1997 1 1 12 ? ? ? ? ? 3? 0 0 ? ? ? 3? ? 0 0 ? 12+? ? ? ? ? ? 3? 0 0 ? ? ? 3? ? 0 0 Bouyssonie 1930; Taborin 1992 Bouyssonie 1930 unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 tube; 2 horses going L MAN shells shells shells unspecified unspecified unspecified Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 shells unspecified Taborin 1992 ?alt ?+?alt Creat. 1 1 0 0 2? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b Site Name Madeleine Madeleine Madeleine Madeleine Madeleine Madeleine Madeleine Code km Count Estimate Comments 9001 175 1 Pecten frag; level V 9003 175;270 1 Glycymeris frag; level V 9003 175;270 1 Dentalium ; level V 9001 175 1 Turritella ; level V 6001 # 1 centr. groove;lines;level V 5011 # 1 canine; level V 5009 # 1 broken incisor; level V Solutrean point; F-105b Madeleine 8001 # 1 separate neck; level V F-105b Madeleine 8001 # 1 round stone; level V F-105b Madeleine 5010 # 3 broken canines; level V F-105b Madeleine 5000 # 3 level V F-105b Madeleine 9003 175;270 4 Glycymeris ; level VI F-105b Madeleine 9003 175;270 6 Dentalium ; level VI F-105b Madeleine 9001 175 1 Nucella ; level VI F-105b Madeleine 9001 175 1 Cypraea ; level VI F-105b Madeleine 8001 # 2 triangular; round; level VI F-105b Madeleine 9008 U 1 doughnut shape; level VI F-105b Madeleine 6001 # 1 long, narrow; level VI side parallel lines; tube; F-105b Madeleine 6000 # 1 level VI proximal reindeer femur F-105b Madeleine 6004 # 1 epiphysis; level VI distal carnivore F-105b Madeleine 6004 # 1 metapodial; level VI F-105b Madeleine 5013 # 1 canine; level VI F-105b Madeleine 5009 # 3 double perf incisor;level VI F-105b Madeleine 5010 # 6 canines; level VI F-105b Madeleine 5000 # 4 level VI F-105b Madeleine 5020 U 1 unperf fossil; level VI TOTAL MADELEINE 49 F-293 Maison Bl. 0 F-106c Marcamps 2008 95 ? shells unspecified F-106c Marcamps 9001 60 ? shells unspecified Site Id Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments TOTAL MARCAMPS 2? References Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. 1 1 1 1 Creat. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 6 1 1 2 1 3 3 4 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 1 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 Mus.Nat.de la Préh. 1 1 1 3 6 4 18 0 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 References 1 1 3 6 4 1 45 0 ? ? Easy Mod. 0 1 18 0 13 0 ? ? Diff. 2? Nat. 0 2? 4 0 Creat. 0 Site Id Site Name Code km Count F-294 La Marmotte 9004 U ? shells F-295 F-107b F-24b F-24b TOTAL F-25 F-25 Marsangy Le Martinet Le Mas d'Azil Le Mas d'Azil MAS d'AZIL Massat Massat 2005 70 9001 9002 240 140 1 0 ? shells ? shells 2? 2 1 F-25 TOTAL F-109 F-112 F-26b F-26b TOTAL F-181b F-181b TOTAL F-263c F-113 F-113 Massat MASSAT Maurens Monceaux Monconfort Monconfort MONCONF. Montastruc Montastruc MONTASTR. Montgaudier Morín Morín F-113 F-113 F-113 F-113 F-113 F-113 F-113 F-113 F-113 TOTAL F-27 F-114b Morín Morín Morín Morín Morín Morín Morín Morín Morín MORÍN Moulin Moulin-Neuf 9003 255;130 5010 # 7001 # 2008 9001 165 200 9006 9004 U U 5000 5004 # # 5018 # 5010 # 5005 # 5003 # 9003 105;310 8001 # 9003 105;310 6006 # 6011 # 9001 80 Estimate Comments 1 4 0 0 ? shells ? shells 2? 1 2 3 0 18 ? incisors 1 3 1 5 3 1 2 3 1 38+? 0 ? shells References Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. local; unspecified Bayania lactea ; Paris B, Montmirail, Meaux Schmider & V. 1997 ? 0 0 ? 0 Teheux 1994 0 0 1 0 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 0 0 scallop, Dentalium fox? rare red deer?; notches, arrows M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. 1 0 ? ? 2? 2 1 0 0 unspecified unspecified 0 0 ? ? 2? 2 Sieveking 1987 unspecified unspecified Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 small M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Aquitaine Poplin 1983 double perf; outer frag of a big canine canines broken; deep notches tiny Dentalium #88.47.177; triangular 1 unperf; Glycymeris ? 1 w/ a few cut lines unspecified 1 M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine Taborin 1992 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 18 ? 0 1 3 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 3 1 2 3 1 29+? 0 0 4 0 ? 5 0 0 3 0 0 ? ? 2? 1 2 3 0 18 ? 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 3 1 2 3 37+? 0 ? 1 1 0 0 Site Id F-115b F-116 F-116 TOTAL F-264 F-182 F-222 F-222 TOTAL F-117 F-117 F-117 TOTAL F-183 F-28 F-120 F-121 F-223 F-223 F-223 F-223 F-223 F-223 F-223 F-223 F-223 Site Name La Mouthe Murat Murat MURAT Neschers Gr. de l'Oeil Passagère Passagère PASSAGÈRE Abri Pataud Abri Pataud Abri Pataud A. PATAUD Pêcheurs Petit Pastou Peyrat Peyrille P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains Code km Count F-223 F-223 F-223 P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains P.Ch/Romains 2002 2002 9004 F-223 TOTAL F-124 F-297 P.Ch/Romains ROMAINS Piganeau Pincevent 2013 35;140 9002 235 2008 215;225 9003 2008 5004 9001 9002 # 175 270 9002 105 6006 # 8017 # 9002 270 9003 270;530 5004 # 5007 # 5012 # 5000 # 9004 U 2002 380 380 ~80 30 Estimate Comments 0 4 ? 4+? 0 0 3 ? 3+? ? ? ? 3? 1 0 0 0 1 ? 3 3 16 4 2 ? ~20? 1 1 ? shells shells Homalopoma sanguin. unspecified Cyclope neritea unspecified incisors hi prop. unspecified present unspecified Homalopoma sanguin. amber Homalopoma sanguin. Cyclope neritea incisors incisors canines 9 species; 49 total shells Sycum bulbiformis ;Paris B Tympanotonos sp .;Paris B Bayania lactea ; Cordaz? Oligocene Rhine-Alpine species; Lake Annecy or ? common Diablerets massifs? 51+4? 0 25 Crommium willemeti ? References Easy Mod. Diff. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alvarez F. 2002 Taborin 1992 Alvarez F. 2001 Taborin 1992 Poplin 1983 Bahn & V. 1988 Bahn & V. 1988 Alvarez F. 2001 Desbrosse 1976a Desbrosse 1976a Alvarez F. 2002 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Taborin 1992 0 ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? 3 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? 1 0 0 0 ? 3 3 16 4 2 ? 20 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 41+? 0 25 2+? 0 0 4 ? 4+? 0 0 3 ? 3+? ? ? ? 3? 1 0 0 0 1 ? 3 3 16 4 2 ? 20 1 1 1 1 ? ? 8+2? 0 ? 51+4? 0 25 ? Taborin 1992 Rozoy 1994 Nat. 0 4 ? 4+? 0 0 3 Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-297 F-297 F-297 Site Name Pincevent Pincevent Pincevent References Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 F-184c Plantade F-184c Plantade Code km Count Estimate Comments 2002 30 2 Ancillaria buccinoïdes 2002 30 1 Pseudolivella micans 2002 30 1 (Natica)Cepatia cepacaea Turritella Haustator 2002 30 1 oppenheimi 8008 U 2 discoid; non-local lignite 5004 # ? teeth 32+? Turritella Haustator 1 2002 30 oppenheimi 2002 30 1 Crommium willemeti ? Potamides(Exechostoma) 2002 30 1 anglusus 2002 30 1 Athleta elevata/mutata ? 2002 30 1 Batillaria pleurotomoïdes 2002 30 2 Rhinoclavis sp. 6 39+? 0 2008 215;230 ? shells unspecified 9001 210 ? shells unspecified 2? 0 0 0 13 w/ ocher; 2 double 5000 # 16 perf; basal lines 9001 240 1 Petunculus glycimis ;ocher F-297 F-297 F-297 TOTAL Pincevent Pincevent Pincevent PINC. GEN. F-184c Plantade F-184c Plantade 5010 # 9003 240;165 F-184c Plantade 9012 F-184c Plantade F-184c Plantade F-297a Pinc. Hab. 1 F-297b Pinc. Sec. 36 F-297b F-297b F-297b F-297b TOTAL TOTAL F-123 F-156 F-156 TOTAL F-265b F-266d F-296 Pinc. Sec. 36 Pinc. Sec. 36 Pinc. Sec. 36 Pinc. Sec. 36 PINC. S. 36 PINC. ALL Pique à D. Pis de la V. Pis de la V. PIS de la V. La Piscine Le Placard La Plaisance Rozoy 1994 Affolter et al. 1994 Alvarez F. 1999a Easy Mod. Diff. Creat. 2 1 1 1 1 2 ? 30+? 0 2 0 0 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 1 1 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 1 1 1 2 6 37+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 Nat. 2 1 1 2 ? 30+? 1 1 0 2 0 ? ? 2? 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 6 37+? 0 ? ? 2? 0 0 0 1 16 1 2 10 2 16 10 2 2 polished; canines Trivia europaea ;dbl perf Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 U 2 indet. gastropod; bivalve Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 9001 240 9003 240;165 1 1 Turritella communis Cardium exiguum Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 1 1 10 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments Pecten jacobeus frag Pecten sp. Easy Mod. Diff. Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 Nat. Creat. F-184c Plantade F-184c Plantade 9002 165 9003 240;165 F-184c Plantade 5003 # 33 Ladier & W. 1994/5 33 33 F-184c Plantade 5002 # 2 Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-184c Plantade 5001 # 2 1 w/ front edge lines Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-184c Plantade 5007 # 7 incisors Ladier & W. 1994/5 7 7 F-184c Plantade 5005 # 2 incisors Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-184c Plantade 5009 # 2 lacteal incisors Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-184c Plantade 5014 # 1 canine Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-184c Plantade 5018 # 3 1 canine, 2 premolars Ladier & W. 1994/5 3 3 F-184c Plantade 6001 # 1 edge lines Ladier & W. 1994/5 F-184c Plantade 7004 U 1 long basket bead shape Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-184c Plantade 7010 U 1 rod w/ unfinished beads? Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 1 F-184c Plantade 7010 U 5 dental ivory Ladier & W. 1994/5 5 5 F-184c Plantade 5019 U 2 ivory; red deer canines? Ladier & W. 1994/5 2 2 F-184c Plantade 6000 # 1 somewhat cylindrical Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 F-184c Plantade F-184c Plantade 6011 # 9003 240;165 1 1 Ladier & W. 1994/5 Ladier & W. 1994/5 1 unperf Pecten sp . F-184c Plantade 5003 3 Ladier & W. 1994/5 3 # 1 1 References 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Site Id Site Name Code km F-184c TOTAL F-29 F-126 F-267 F-128 F-224 F-224 TOTAL F-225 F-185b F-132 F-132 TOTAL F-32 F-134b F-298 F-135 F-139 F-136 F-137 F-233b F-140 F-227 F-228 F-141 F-157 F-157 TOTAL F-299 F-299 F-299 F-299 TOTAL F-232 F-268b Plantade PLANTADE Poeymaü Pont d'Ambon Pont-de-Long. Pouzet Pugieu Pugieu PUGIEU La Raillarde Rainaudes Reignac Reignac REIGNAC Rhodes II Richard Rinxent Rivière de T. Roc à St-Sulp. Le Roc Allan Roc de Barb. Roc-aux-Sorc. Roche à Lal. Gr. de la Roche A. de Roched. Rocher de la P. Rochereil Rochereil ROCHEREIL Roc-la-Tour Roc-la-Tour Roc-la-Tour Roc-la-Tour ROC-LA-T. Abri du Rond R. du Barry 5009 5000 9012 Count # # U 2008 140 9003 180;265 5018 # 2008 115 2008 9002 140 305 9004 1131 9008 8001 65 50 U 60 9002 170 Estimate Comments incisors; paralell lines 1 on back edges 104 0 0 0 0 1 1 unspecified 2 0 ? shells unspecified 1 Cardium tuberculatum 1 canine; from back dirt 2 ? shells 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? shells unspecified ? shells unspecified 2? ? shells 65 km NW-Charleroi ? beads Belgium; 50 km ESE 3 unspecified 2 schist; 60 km 5+2? 0 ? shells unspecified References Ladier & W. 1994/5 Desbrosse 1976a Desbrosse 1976a Taborin 1992 M. d'Aquitaine M. d'Aquitaine Taborin 1992 Easy Mod. Diff. 1 71 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 0 Féblot-A. 1997 Féblot-A. 1997 Rozoy 1988 Rozoy 1988 0 ? ? 1 1 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? ? ? 0 Taborin 1992 Nat. 3 2 5+? 0 0 0 ? Creat. 1 93 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 ? 1 1 2 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? ? ? 3 2 5+2? 0 ? 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-268b TOTAL F-188 F-33b F-269 F-142c F-143b F-300 F-301 F-270 F-270 TOTAL F-189b F-271 F-272b F-190 F-145 F-145 F-145 TOTAL Site Name R. du Barry ROND DU B. Roquefure Saint Michel St Myon Sainte Eulalie St-Germ.-la-R. Saint-Just Saint-Mihiel St-Remy St-Remy ST-REMY Salpetrière Sarliève Sire à Mirefl. Soubeyras Le Souci Le Souci Le Souci LE SOUCI Code km 5004 F-229 F-302 F-273 Taï Les Tarterets Tatevin 5000 F-35 F-146 F-231 F-36 F-36 TOTAL La Teulera Teyjat Thoys La Tourasse La Tourasse TOURASSE F-288 F-288 TOTAL F-38 Trilobite Trilobite TRILOBITE Tr. Souffleur Count # 9001 70 2008 9001 80 195 9002 55 9008 U 2008 170;265 9001 155 9002 275 # 9003 355;25 5000 9002 8012 9001 # 170 U 440 ? 2? 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 ? ? 2? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? 3? Estimate Comments incisors References Poplin 1983 shells unspecified Taborin 1992 shells shells unspecified unspecified Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 shells unspecified Taborin 1992 fossils shells shells shells unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified Alvarez F. 1999a Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 3 0 0 5 0 0 1 4 at least 5 1 ? shells 1+? 0 Brochier & B. 1973 Cardium tuberculatium, edule; Aporrhais pespelicani Sacchi 1986 e.g., Cardium M. d'Hist. Nat. Taborin 1992 perforated? unspecified Easy Mod. ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diff. Nat. Creat. 0 ? ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 3? ? 2? 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 ? ? 2? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? 3? 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5alt 0 0 1 0 0 0 5alt 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 5 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 1 ? 1+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 Leroi-G. et al. 1976 Taborin 1992 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? 0 1 0 Site Id F-148b F-303 F-149 F-40a F-40a F-40a F-40a F-40a TOTAL F-40b F-40 References Sieveking 1987 Rozoy 1994 F-40 F-40 Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments 1 La Tuilière 6011 # broken; large horses 1 Tureau des G. 2005 30 Bayania lactea ;or 2002? Usine Henry 0 La Vache SG 5018 # 26 or more La Vache SG 9003 260;125 12 unspecified;not marine? La Vache SG 6001 # 1 polish; engr deer; #86666 La Vache SG 6002 # 1 La Vache SG 6010 # 1 #86665;"fish" shape VACHE SG 41 0 La Vache SM La Vache gen. 5010 # 1 Potamides lignitarum ; La Vache gen. 9003 260;125 ? shells estuarine La Vache gen. 6003 # 1 polish; #83641 N27 La Vache gen. 6003 # 1 broken;sm perf;#83640 N48 #83643A67; lateral La Vache gen. 6004 # 1 reindeer metacarpal La Vache gen. 6003 # 1 possible large perf; thin F-40 F-40 F-40 F-40 F-40 F-40 TOTAL TOTAL F-150 F-304 F-304 F-304 F-304 F-304 F-304 F-304 F-304 F-304 La Vache gen. La Vache gen. La Vache gen. La Vache gen. La Vache gen. La Vache gen. VACHE GEN. VACHE ALL Valojouix Verberie Verberie Verberie Verberie Verberie Verberie Verberie Verberie Verberie F-40 F-40 F-40 6003 6003 6003 9002 2008 9001 2005 9004 9004 9004 9004 9004 9004 9004 9004 # # # 125 110 260 VL VL VL VL VL VL VL VL VL 1 1 1 3 ? shells ? shells 11+3? 52+3? 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 #83642 N4; small fragment large, thin, black, v shiny large line pair; side lines Homalopoma sanguin. Bayania lactea ; or 2002? Velates Ancilla buccinoïdes Terebia Mesalia ? Sycum bulbif. solander Glycymeris sp. Turritella Terebellata lamack Welté & R. 1996 Welté & R. 1996 Welté & R. 1996 Welté & R. 1996 Welté & R. 1996 Easy Mod. 1 1 0 26 Diff. 0 0 0 Nat. 0 0 0 12 1 1 1 29 0 M. d'Hist. Nat. 0 1 0 26 12 1 1 0 0 1 12 0 39 0 1 ? ? Taborin 1992 MAN MAN 1 1 1 MAN MAN 1 1 1 1 MAN MAN MAN Alvarez F. 2002 Taborin 1992 Taborin 1992 1 1 1 1 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 Rozoy 1994 7 36 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Creat. 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 ? ? 3+3? 15+3? 0 3 ? ? 8+3? 47+3? 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 0 F-304 Verberie 9004 VL ? frags Crinoïdes Rozoy 1994 F-304 Verberie 5010 # 1 tooth Enloe 2000a TOTAL VERBERIE 10+? F-305 La Vignette 0 F-152 Villepin 0 1 F-306 Ville-Saint-J. 9004 U Dentalium aequicostatum Rozoy 1994 U = unknown source # = not sourceable ; = or, from west to east VL = very local (<5 km) MAN = Musée des Antiquites Nationales M. d'Hist. Nat. = Musée d'Histoire Naturelle (Toulouse) Mus. Nat. de la Préh. = Musée National de la Préhistoire (Les Eyzies) ? 1 9+? 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 a and alt = alternate 0 0 0 0 ? 1 10+? 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Table C.17. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in Switzerland. SWITZERLAND Site Id Sw-2 Sw-3 Sw-4 Sw-5 Sw-5 TOTAL Sw-6 Sw-7 Sw-8b Sw-8b Sw-8b Sw-8b TOTAL Sw-9 Sw-10 Sw-11 Sw-12 Sw-12 Sw-12 Sw-12 Sw-12 Site Name Bruderholz Brügglihöhle Büttenloch Champrév. Champrév. CHAMPRÉV. Chesselgr. Eremitage Freudenthal Freudenthal Freudenthal Freudenthal FREUDENT. Hard I Heidenküche Hintere Burg Hollenb.-H. 3 Hollenb.-H. 3 Hollenb.-H. 3 Hollenb.-H. 3 Hollenb.-H. 3 OBTAINMENT Code km Count 3140 8017 820 U 3002 260 8012 8014 7005 8013 15 15 U 15 8007 8015 8014 5010 8011 20 20 20 # 20 0 0 0 1 14 15 1 0 ? 1 ? ? 1+3? 0 0 0 ? 1 1 1 1 Estimate Comments References Easy Mod. 0 0 0 frag frags 800 km local; Flysch? Leesch 1997 Leesch 1997 Glycymeris Floss 2000 sculpt's Petersfels type many many lg quant. 55 x 10 mm Petersfels type nose ornament? Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Le Tensorer 1998 Höneisen 1993b Weniger 1989 Bay 1953 Weniger 1989 Bay 1953 Bay 1953 14 14 0 0 ? 1 ? ? 1+3? 0 0 0 ? 1 1 Diff. Nat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 ? Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 1 ? ? 1+3? 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 MODIFIC. 1 1 Site Id Site Name Code km Sw-12 Sw-12 TOTAL Sw-13c Sw-13c Sw-13c Sw-13c TOTAL Sw-14b Sw-14b Sw-14b Sw-14b Sw-14b Sw-14b Sw-14b Sw-14b Sw-14b Sw-14b TOTAL G-51b G-51b G-51b TOTAL Sw-15 Sw-15 Sw-15 Hollenb.-H. 3 Hollenb.-H. 3 HOLLEN.-H. Kastelh.-N. Kastelh.-N. Kastelh.-N. Kastelh.-N. KAST.-N. Kesslerloch Kesslerloch Kesslerloch Kesslerloch Kesslerloch Kesslerloch Kesslerloch Kesslerloch Kesslerloch Kesslerloch KESSLER. Kniegrotte Kniegrotte Kniegrotte KNIEGR. Kohlerhöhle Kohlerhöhle Kohlerhöhle 3002 3002 245 245 3002 3002 3002 3006 260 260 260 355 5010 5000 8013 7005 8012 8014 8008 6005 8013 8008 # # 20 U 20 20 20 # 20 20 7004 5010 5000 U # # 9002 8008 5000 505 15 # Sw-15 Sw-15 Sw-15 Sw-15 Sw-15 Sw-15 TOTAL Sw-16 Sw-17 Kohlerhöhle Kohlerhöhle Kohlerhöhle Kohlerhöhle Kohlerhöhle Kohlerhöhle KOHLERH. Liesberg Monruz 3002 3002 3002 3005 5010 5017 255 255 255 260 # # 8007 Count 60 Estimate Comments Tympanotonus 14 margaritaceus ; 250 km 20 Glycymeris ; 250 km 38+? 2 Pirenella plicata ; 250 km 1 Tympanotonus ; 250 km 10 Glycymeris ; 250 km 3 Turritella sp. 16 3 incisor, canine, premolar 5 ? many ? many ? sculpt's ? figures 5 1 3 2 small 19+4? 1 broken; foot shape 5 1 7 1 Homalopoma sanguin. 1 discoid; lger than Gönn. 1 Tympanotonus 1 margaritaceus 19 Pirenella plicata 18 Glycymeris sp. 1 Viviparus suevicus 2 1 caprid? reindeer? 45 0 ? frags waste frags References Easy Mod. Diff. Floss 2000 Floss 2000 3+? 1 0 0 3 Floss 2000 Floss 2000 Floss 2000 Eriksen 2002 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Corchón 1990 Höck 1998 Höck 1998 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Le Tensorer 1998 Le Tensorer 1998 Leesch 1993c 5 ? ? ? ? 5 1 3 2 16+4? 1 Nat. 14 20 34 2 1 10 3 16 3 0 5 3 0 5 0 1 1 1 1 19 18 1 2 1 3 0 14 20 35+? 2 1 10 3 16 3 5 ? ? ? ? 5 1 2 Creat. 2 0 ? 40 0 1 3 2 13 6+4? 1 5 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 19 18 1 2 1 44 0 ? 1 0 Site Id Sw-17 Sw-17 Sw-17 Sw-17 Sw-17 Sw-17 Site Name Monruz Monruz Monruz Monruz Monruz Monruz Sw-17 Monruz Sw-17 Sw-17 TOTAL Sw-18 Monruz Monruz MONRUZ Moosbühl Sw-18 Sw-18 Sw-18 Sw-18 TOTAL Sw-19 Sw-20 Sw-21 Sw-21 Sw-21 Sw-21 Sw-21 Sw-21 Sw-21 TOTAL Sw-22 Sw-23b Sw-23b Sw-23b Moosbühl Moosbühl Moosbühl Moosbühl MOOSBÜHL Mühleloch Reiden-Stump. Rislisbergh. Rislisbergh. Rislisbergh. Rislisbergh. Rislisbergh. Rislisbergh. Rislisbergh. RISLISB. Sälihöhle O. Schweizersb. Schweizersb. Schweizersb. Code km Count Estimate Comments 8014 60 3 Petersfels type 8008 60 2 discoidal 8009 60 3 dbl perf; triang. plaquette 8010 60 1 elongated, pointy 3005 220 12 Viviparus suevicus ;260 km 3005 220 1 Brotia escheri ; 260 km Gyraulus trochiformis ; 3004 280 18 300 km Glycymeris cf. pilosa 3002 305 7 lunulata ; 350 km 5004 # ? teeth 47+2? 3140 810 2 small 8017 8014 8008 8008 Affolter et al. 1994 Alvarez F. 2001 Leesch 1997 Schwab 1985; Leesch 1997 Schwab 1985 Schwab 1985 Schwab 1985 3002 9006 9005 225 15 15 Sw-23b Schweizersb. 5017 # 1 canid? Höneisen & P. 1994 Sw-23b Schweizersb. 8008 15 2 large, angular fragments Höneisen & P. 1994 # 270 270 270 370 270 # small; local; Flysch? extremely stylized beige; probably lignite teeth Pirinella plicata ;250 km Tympanotonus; 250 km Glycymeris ; 250 km Turritella sp. Dentalium sp. ;250 km teeth 7 species; 250 km ammon.s spines fossil Easy Mod. Diff. Alvarez F. 2001 Floss 2000 Floss 2000 Floss 2000 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Le Tensorer 1998 Féblot-A. 1997 Le Tensorer 1998 Le Tensorer 1998 Nat. Creat. 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 Affolter et al. 1994 10 1 3 2 18 0 0 ? 1 6 1 1 1 ? 10+2? 0 14 ? ? 5003 3002 3002 3002 3006 3002 5004 U 30 30 30 References Affolter et al. 1994 Affolter et al. 1994 Affolter et al. 1994 Affolter et al. 1994 Affolter et al. 1994 Affolter et al. 1994 ? ? 10 1 3 2 16 0 0 ? 9+? 12 1 12 1 18 18 7 7 ? 38+2? 2 38 2 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 6 1 1 1 ? 2? 0 0 0 ? ? 1 2 9 10 0 14 12 0 0 ? 1 6 1 1 1 ? 10+2? 0 14 ? ? 1 2 1 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 Site Id Site Name Sw-23b Schweizersb. Sw-23b Schweizersb. Sw-23b Schweizersb. TOTAL SCHWEIZ. Sw-24 Sihlsee-Nord Sw-25 Thierstein Sw-26 Trimbach Sw-27 Untere Bsetzi Sw-28 Veyrier Sw-28 Veyrier Sw-28 Veyrier TOTAL VEYRIER Sw-29 Vorder Eichen Sw-30 Wauwil.-Kott. Sw-31 Winznau-Käs. Sw-31 Winznau-Käs. TOTAL WINZNAU-K. Sw-32 Winznau-Köp. U = unknown source Code km Count Estimate Comments 5010 # 4 3005 75 1 Viviparus suevicus 8008 15 ? beads 1 similar to Gönnersdorf 22+3? 0 0 0 0 5018 # ? teeth 8001 # 1 "plaquette" 9002 330 ? shell(s) unspecified 1+2? ? jewelry "jewelry"; not nec beads 8007 20 0 3002 260 2 Glycymeris sp.; 250 km 3008 VL 2 Ostrea sp. ; Jurassic 4 0 # = not sourceable VL = very local (<5 km) References Alvarez F. 1999a Eriksen 2002 Alvarez F. 1999a Sauter 1973 Sauter 1973 Taborin 1992 Alvarez F. 1999a Floss 2000 Floss 2000 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. 4 1 ? 2+3? 0 0 0 0 ? 1 Creat. 4 1 6 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 1+? ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 22+2? 0 0 0 0 ? 1 ? 1+2? 0 0 2 2 4 0 ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 Table C.18. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in Germany. GERMANY OBTAINMENT Site Id G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4 G-4a Site Name Ahlendorf Aichbühl Alsdorf Andern. gen. Andern. C I Code km Count 5000 # G-4a G-4a G-4a G-4a TOTAL Andern. C I Andern. C I Andern. C I Andern. C I ANDER. C I 3002 5010 8006 5004 60 # # # Estimate Comments 0 0 0 0 2 1 10 5 11 29 1-living surface;1-pit Tympanotonus margaritaceus ; 70 km 9-living surface;1-pit whole,frags,incomplete References Alvarez F. 2001 Floss 1994 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Easy Mod. 0 0 0 0 2 5 11 18 MODIFIC. Diff. 0 0 0 0 Nat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 10 1 10 11 11 24 Creat. 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 Site Id G-4b G-4b G-4b G-4b G-4b G-4b TOTAL G-4c G-4c G-4c G-4c TOTAL TOTAL G-5 G-6 G-7 G-8 G-9 G-10 G-11 G-12 G-13 G-14 G-15 G-16 G-17 G-18 G-19 G-20 G-21 G-21 Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments Andern. C II 9002 810 48 Homalopoma sanguineum ; Andern. C II 9003 785;810 1 Cyclope neritea ; pit 12 Andern. C II 9003 785;810 6 Dentalium dentale ;surface Andern. C II 5010 # 5 3-surface; 2-pits Andern. C II 8006 # 22 whole,frags,incomplete Andern. C II 5004 # 57 ANDER. C II 139 Andern. C III 5010 # 3 1-surface; 2-pits? Andern. C III 8006 # 3 whole,frags,incomplete Andern. C III 5004 # 5 Andern. C III 5006 # 2 ANDER. C III 13 ANDER. ALL 181 1 Annakapell. 8007 15 fragment; not bead Aschersleben 0 Bad Franken. 0 ? artifacts unspecified Barbing 8007 30 Bärenfelsgr. 0 Bärenkeller 0 Beeck 0 Bernlochh. 0 Bildstockfels 0 Bocksteinh. 0 1 Brillenhöhle 5018 # unspecified ? jet Burgh. Diet. 8007 20 not beads ? fossils Burkhardtsh. 9004 U unspecified Buttentalh. 0 Dietfurt 0 Etzdorf 0 Felsställe 3005 VL 43 Viviparus suevicus ;nearby Felsställe 3005 VL 5 Congeria sp. ;nearby Gyraulus trochiformus ; G-21 Felsställe 3004 45 1 Steinheim B. G-21 Felsställe 9006 30 9 perf frags; Schwarzjura G-21 Felsställe 8007 30 47 objects large pieces,splinters;more? TOTAL FELSST. 105 G-22 Fohlenhaus 0 References Alvarez F. 2001 Street 1997 Street 1997 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Eriksen 1991 Weniger 1989 Eriksen 1991 Alvarez F. 1999a Eriksen 1991 Kind 1987 Kind 1987 Kind 1987 Kind 1987 Kind 1987 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. 48 1 6 22 57 79 3 5 2 10 107 1 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? 0 0 0 43 5 1 9 47 105 0 Creat. 5 48 1 6 5 5 3 55 57 117 3 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 10 151 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? 0 0 0 43 5 22 22 3 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 47 105 0 3 30 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id G-23 G-24 G-25 G-27 G-28 G-28 G-28 G-28 G-28 G-28 TOTAL G-29 G-29 G-29 TOTAL Site Name Friedensdorf Fußgönh. II Galgenberg Gera-Binsen. Gnirshöhle Gnirshöhle Gnirshöhle Gnirshöhle Gnirshöhle Gnirshöhle GNIRSH. Gönners. gen. Gönners. gen. Gönners. gen. GÖNN. Code km 8009 8007 9001 9001 3006 3005 7005 7006 7002 Count 15 15 810 810 420 55 U U U Estimate 0 0 0 0 1 ? jet 2 1 2 1 7+? 1 1 1 3 G-29a G-29a G-29a G-29a G-29a G-29a Gönners. C I Gönners. C I Gönners. C I Gönners. C I Gönners. C I Gönners. C I 9002 810 9002 810 9003 785;810 5004 # 8006 # 3007 VL 5 2 <5 6 <17 50 more 35 1 G-29a Gönners. C I 8008 U 54 G-29a G-29a TOTAL G-29b G-29b G-29b G-29b G-29b G-29b TOTAL G-29c G-29c Gönners. C I Gönners. C I GÖNN. C I Gönners. C II Gönners. C II Gönners. C II Gönners. C II Gönners. C II Gönners. C II GÖNN. C II Gönners. C III Gönners. C III 5010 5000 # # 18 6 177 2 5 1 1 11 ? 20+? 1 6 9002 810 9003 785;810 3002 60 8008 U 5010 # 5004 # 9002 810 9003 785;810 <5 <17 Comments more? more? Nucella/Purpura lapillus Astarte montagui Sycum sp. Viviparus suevicus broken perforation mammoth ivory; frag fragment Homalopoma sanguin.; 800 km Dentalium Dentalium vulgare whole,frags,incomplete fragment lignite; surface-8 finished, 4 part; pits-42 finished surface-7 per, 1part; pits-8 perf; 2 part surface-1; pits-5 Dentalium Dentalium vulgare Glycenaeus ; 70 km lignite; unfinished some <5 <17 Dentalium Dentalium vulgare References Albrecht et al. 1977 Albrecht et al. 1977 Albrecht et al. 1977 Albrecht et al. 1977 Albrecht et al. 1977 Eriksen 2002 Alvarez F. 1999a Schloß Monrepos Schloß Monrepos Easy Mod. 0 0 0 0 1 ? 1+? 1 1 1 3 50 35 1 Alvarez F. 1999b 54 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Floss 1994 Alvarez F. 1999b Alvarez F. 1999b Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Nat. 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 5 2 6 5 2 6 50 1 1 1 1 3 35 54 18 13 2 5 1 18 6 88 2 5 1 1 89 1 11 ? 1+? Creat. 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 6 146 0 0 0 0 ? 2 1 2 1 6+? 2 1 2 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999b Alvarez F. 1999b Diff. 0 0 0 0 12 7 1 6 11 ? 19+? 1 6 1 Site Id Site Name Code km G-29c G-29c G-29c G-29c TOTAL Gönners. C III Gönners. C III Gönners. C III Gönners. C III GÖNN. C III 3003 3002 3007 8006 G-29d Gönners. C IV 8006 # 4 G-29d G-29d TOTAL TOTAL G-30 G-30a G-30b G-30c G-30d G-31 G-31 TOTAL G-32 G-33 G-34 G-34 TOTAL G-35 G-37c G-37c Gönners. C IV Gönners. C IV GÖNN. C IV GÖNN. ALL Groitzsch Groit. A1/A2N Groitzsch C1W Groit. C3/D N Groit. D1/B N Große Öfnet Große Öfnet GROßE ÖF. Haldensteinh. Halle-Galgenb. Helga-Abri Helga-Abri HELGA-ABRI Herwartstein Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. 8005 5010 25 # 5018 9004 3002 3002 185 185 1 5 10 293+? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 2 1 G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. 9001 9002 5000 9006 3004 3004 3004 895 680 # 30 30 30 30 8007 9004 Count 100 60 VL # # U 30 U 1 1 1 73 83 Estimate Comments fossil ichthyosaur vert; Luxembourg fossil shark tooth;70 km fossil rhino bone;20 km whole,frags,incomplete whole,frags,incomplete; surface-2; pits-2 hematite; broken; hearth 4; NW surface-2; pits-3 teeth shells jet shells source? not beads source? Pirenella plicata ;200 km Dentalium sp. ;200 km 1 Littorina obtusata ;850 km 2 Cyclope neritea 2 1 unperforated ? ammon.s 4 Gyraulus trochiformis 1 Gyraulus sulcatus 1 Radix socialis References Floss 1994 Floss 1994 Floss 1994 Alvarez F. 1999a Easy Mod. 1 73 74 4 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999b 1 Eriksen 1991 Eriksen 1991 5 229+? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 Féblot-A. 1997 Féblot-A. 1997 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 1999a Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Nat. 1 1 1 1 8 10 73 73 4 1 5 5 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 ? 4 1 1 Creat. 1 1 Alvarez F. 1999b Eriksen 1991 Eriksen 1991 Diff. 5 5 122+? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 2 1 1 2 2 ? 4 1 1 5 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id G-37c G-37c G-37c G-37c TOTAL G-36 G-38 G-39 G-40 G-40 TOTAL G-41 G-42 G-43 G-44 G-45 G-46 G-46 G-46 G-46 TOTAL G-47 G-48 G-49 G-50 G-52 G-54 G-56c G-56c Site Name Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. Hohle Fels S. HOHLE FELS Hohlef. bei H. Hohl. Bärenh. Hohl. Ederh. Hohl.-Stadel Hohl.-Stadel HOHL.-ST. Hummelshain Ilsenhöhle Kahla-Lob. Kamphausen Kastlhängh. Kaufertsberg Kaufertsberg Kaufertsberg Kaufertsberg KAUFERTS. Klausenh. Kleine Ofnet K. Scheuer R. Klingenfels-A. Kohltalhöhle Malerfels Munzingen Munzingen Code km Count Estimate 3005 VL 10 3005 VL 2 3005 VL 1 5004 # ? teeth 27+2? 0 0 2 3002 195 5018 # ? teeth 8007 20 ? artifacts 2? 0 0 0 0 0 5013 # 1 5010 # 14 3002 200 2 8008 20 3 20 0 0 1 8012 VL 0 0 0 3002 195 1 3002 195 2 G-56c G-56c G-56c TOTAL G-57 G-57 G-57 Munzingen Munzingen Munzingen MUNZINGEN Napoleonsk. Napoleonsk. Napoleonsk. 9001 9002 8007 735 565 15 3002 5018 8008 150 # 10 1 1 ? jet 5+? 1 1 8 Comments Viviparus suevicus Brotia escheri Congeria sp. Glycymeris sp. unspecified Cyrene sp. broken References Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Alvarez F. 2001 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 1991 Eriksen 1991 Eriksen 1991 Eriksen 1991 Eriksen 1991 Eriksen 1991 reind botfly?;broken perf Bahn & V. 1988 Dentalium sp. ;220 km Cyrene sp. ;220 km Nucella/purpura lapillus ; 750 km Homalopoma sanguin. not beads Féblot-A. 1997 Féblot-A. 1997 Glycymeris sp. ;180 km more?; unspecified 5 perf; 3 unperf forms Féblot-A. 1997 Eriksen 1991 Wagner 1983 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 1999a Easy Mod. 10 2 1 ? 21+2? 0 0 0 ? ? 2? 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 ? ? 1 8 Diff. Nat. 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 ? 5+? 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creat. 10 2 1 ? 27+2? 0 0 2 ? ? 2? 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 Site Id G-57 G-57 TOTAL G-58 G-59 G-59 TOTAL G-61b G-62 Site Name Napoleonsk. Napoleonsk. NAPOLEON. Nebra Nikolaush. Nikolaush. NIKOLAUS. Oberkassel Oelknitz Code km Count 8010 10 1 9004 U 1 12 ? 9004 U 8008 20 1 9006 20 ? 1+? 0 0 ? 8007 U G-63 G-63 Petersfels Petersfels 3002 3002 220 220 1 98 G-63 Petersfels 3002 220 1 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels 3002 3002 3002 3002 3006 9002 9002 220 220 220 220 420 600 600 2 7 18 28 1 1 1 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 G-63 Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels Petersfels 9002 600 9002 600 9002 600 9001 810 9002 600 9003 810;600 5000 # 6001 # 8012 15 8014 15 9006 15 5020 U 8015 15 8016 15 2 2 10 ? 1 3 200 1 1 14 ? ? 2 ? Estimate Comments oval Pectunculus ;source? molluscs not necessarily fossil discoid ammon.s natural perforations artifacts unspec. Easy Mod. 1 1 11 0 1 ? 1+? 0 0 Diff. Nat. Creat. 1 0 0 1 ? 1 3 ? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 1 98 1 98 Eriksen 2002 1 1 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 2 7 18 28 1 1 1 2 7 18 28 1 1 1 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 2001 Alvarez F. 1999a Le Tensorer 1998 Le Tensorer 1998 Bay 1953 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Sieveking 1971 Alvarez F. 1999a 2 2 10 ? 1 3 2 2 10 ? 1 3 200 Weniger 1989 Eriksen 1991 Eriksen 1991 Weniger 1989 Tympanotonus margarit. ;excavated Glycymeris sp. ;excavated Proadusta meyeri ; screen fill Potamides lamarcki ; screen fill Pirenella plicata ;scr. fill Dentalium sp. ;screen fill Glycymeris sp. ;screen fill Bayania sp. Pirenella plicata ;excav. Pleurotoma sp.;excav. Trochus obliquatus ; excavated Cytherea sp. ;excavated Glycymeris sp. ;excavated unspecified Homalopoma sanguin. ; Cyclope neritea more 7 horse heads ammon.s teeth fossils; source? plaq.s References Alvarez F. 1999a Wagner 1983 200 1 1 14 ? ? 2 ? 9 0 1 1 0 ? 1 1 14 ? ? 2 ? Site Id G-63 Site Name Petersfels Code km Count Estimate Comments 8009 15 ? buttons 5cylindrical; 1biconic; G-63 Petersfels 8008 15 ? beads 13 discoidal; 4 tear G-63 Petersfels 5010 # 10 mostly canines;1 premolar Brotia escheri ; excav.-1; G-63 Petersfels 3005 55 9 screen fill & excav.-8 Gryphaea sp. ; excav.G-63 Petersfels 3008 15 7 4;screen fill & excav.-3 G-63 Petersfels 3008 15 1 Ostrea sp. ; Jurassic form. G-63 Petersfels 3004 120 1 Gyraulus trochiformis G-63 Petersfels 3005 55 34 Viviparus suevicus G-63 Petersfels 5004 # 200 many more? G-63 Petersfels 7006 U 1 G-63 Petersfels 5006 # 1 G-63 Petersfels 5007 # 5 G-63 Petersfels 5012 # 1 TOTAL PETERSF. 664+6? ? fossils G-65 Probstfels 9004 U G-66 Randecker M. 0 G-67 Ranis Herdl. 0 G-68 Rennerfels 0 G-69 Saaleck 0 G-70 Saalfeld 0 G-71 Schmiech. 0 G-72 Schuntersh. 0 1 fossil G-73 Schussenq. 9004 U not nec. shell; non-local 1 G-74 Sirgenstein 5018 # unspecified G-75 Sirgenstein S. 0 G-76 Spitalhöhle 0 G-77 Spitzbubenh. 0 G-78 Steinberg 0 G-79 Steinbergwand 0 G-80 Straßberger Gr. 0 G-81b Teufelsbr. 8008 U 5 1 cylindrical; non-local G-81b Teufelsbr. 5010 # 6 G-81b Teufelsbr. 3002 230 2 Potamides lamarcki References Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Easy Mod. Eriksen 1991 Schuler 1989 Eriksen 1991 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Eriksen 2002 Nat. Creat. ? ? Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Eriksen 2002 Alvarez F. 1999a Sieveking 1971 Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Alvarez F. 1999a Diff. ? ? 10 10 9 9 7 1 1 34 200 1 1 5 433+5? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 2 7 1 1 34 200 1 1 5 1 645+3? 19+3? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 2 Site Id Site Name G-81b Teufelsbr. G-81b Teufelsbr. TOTAL TEUFELSBR. G-82 Teufelsküch. G-83 Vogelherd G-84 Wildsch. V G-84 Wildsch. V TOTAL WILDSCH. V G-85 Wildweiberlei G-86 Zigeunerfels G-89 Zinkenberg # = not sourceable Code km Count Estimate Comments References 3002 230 3 Pirenella plicata Eriksen 2002 3002 230 3 Glycymeris sp. Eriksen 2002 19 0 0 5000 # 1 broken in perforation Alvarez F. 2001 5010 # 1 broken in perforation Alvarez F. 2001 2 0 ? jet 8007 20 not bead Eriksen 1991 0 ; = or, from west to east U = unknown source VL = very local (<5 km) Easy Mod. 0 0 0 1 1 0 ? 0 Diff. Nat. 6 0 0 3 3 13 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creat. 3 3 14 0 0 1 1 2 0 ? 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table C.19. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in Belgium. BELGIUM OBTAINMENT Site Id B-1 B-2 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 Site Name Trou Abri Blaireaux Bois Laiterie Bois Laiterie Bois Laiterie Bois Laiterie Code km Count Estimate 0 0 ? corals ? spines ? pyrite 1 1010 9005 1120 8003 U U U U B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-3 TOTAL B-5 B-6 B-6 B-6 Bois Laiterie Bois Laiterie Bois Laiterie Bois Laiterie Bois Laiterie Bois Laiterie BOIS LAIT. Burnot Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux 1005 1005 1005 1005 1006 1122 120 120 120 120 330 65 1010 1010 1005 U U 115 4 1 1 1 1 4 frags 13+3? 0 1 3 frags ? <64 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 115 115 115 115 115 ? ? ? ? ? B-6 Chaleux 1005 115 ? <64 B-6 Chaleux 1005 115 ? <64 B-6 Chaleux 1005 115 ? <64 B-6 B-6 Chaleux Chaleux 1005 1005 115 115 ? <64 ? <64 <64 <64 <64 <64 <64 Comments sponge, coral local? local? sagaie sharpener?net wt? Bayania lactea ; 1 frag; 1 unperf Sigmesalia sp. Glycymeris pulvinata ;frag Campanile giganteum Terebralia bidentata or further away? References Straus & Mart. 1997 Straus & Mart. 1997 Straus & Mart. 1997 Straus & Mart. 1997 Easy Mod. 0 0 ? ? ? 1 Lozouet & G. 1997 Lozouet & G. 1997 Lozouet & G. 1997 Lozouet & G. 1997 Lozouet & G. 1997 Lozouet & G. 1997 Diff. 0 0 Nat. 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? 4 1 1 1 1 4 12+3? 0 1 3 ? Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Dewez 1987 ? ? Dewez 1987 ? ? Dewez 1987 ? ? Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 ? ? ? ? Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Creat. 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 1+3? 0 perf Cretaceous sponge sponge frags;unmod. Bayania lactea ;or local? Glycymeris pulvinata ; or local? Natica sp. ; or local? Ancillaria dubia ;or local? Bayania sp. ;or local? Dentalium sp. ;or local? Cerithium crenatulatum ; or local? Turitella adulterata ; or local? Turitella cfr Solanderi; or local? Turitella cfr Vandini; or local? Cypraea media ;or local? MODIFIC. 4 4 0 1 3 8 0 1 0 Site Id Site Name Code km Count B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux 1005 1140 1013 1011 115 135 90 10 ? 4 5 3 B-6 B-6 Chaleux Chaleux 1012 1131 65 65 1 ? B-6 Chaleux 1103 10 9 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux 1103 1112 1112 1142 8009 10 25 25 120 U B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 B-6 TOTAL B-7 Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux Chaleux CHALEUX Chauveau 1123 1143 7006 6011 6002 5010 5011 5009 6003 9011 25 30 U # # # # # # U B-8 B-8 B-8 B-8 B-8 B-8 Coléoptère Coléoptère Coléoptère Coléoptère Coléoptère Coléoptère 1112 6012 7007 9011 1005 1005 50 # U U 160 160 Estimate Comments Hipponyx cornucopiae ; <64 or local? teeth, vertebra polypiers shells and polypiers engraved acephalic female; Paris Basin? several alternate is 1132; frags worked; 1 small disk; alt's are 1102,1104,1105 ? >1 kilo 40 frags 8 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 9 1 1 1 1 98+14? 0 violet,pale gr;alt's 1102,4,5 unworked;alt's 1111,3,4 worked;alt's 1111,3,4 ferrous oolite semi-circular bead;2 perfs sperkise pyrite; alt's nodules are 1121,1124,1125 frags undecorated supposed elephant long bone, epiphysis 20 1 1 1 ? some ? some 3 perfs fossil shell References Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Easy Mod. 1alt ? Dewez 1987 9 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 ? 40 8 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 ? 4 5 3 1alt 1 ? 9 ? 40 8 1 1alt Creat. ? 4 5 1 1alt 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 9 1 1 1 1alt 1alt 1 19+3a+? 6+2a+12? 78+14? 0 0 0 9 1 1 1 70+1a+? 0 <4 cm;alt's 1111,1113,1114 crysallis/insect;2 perfs coléoptère incised lines on superior Lyria harpula Turitella sp. Nat. 3 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Diff. 20alt 1 20alt 20 0 20 1 1 ? ? 1 1 1 ? ? B-8 B-8 B-8 B-8 TOTAL B-9 B-10 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 B-11 TOTAL B-12 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 B-13 TOTAL Coléoptère Coléoptère Coléoptère Coléoptère COLÉOPT. Trou du Curé Fonds-de-F. Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal Frontal FRONTAL Ginette Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet Goyet GOYET 1005 1005 1005 1005 1141 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1144 1132 1103 1149 1112 5011 5013 5010 5000 5005 5009 6001 1112 1011 9011 1005 1005 1005 9004 160 160 160 160 45 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 40 90 10 VL 30 # # # # # # # 5 35 U 130 130 130 U ? ? ? ? 23+6? 0 0 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 21 5 ? 1 46+? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 ? 1 1 1 ? 180 1 187+8? some some some some blocks sm frags Bayania lactea Natica willemeti Sygmesalia intermedia Glycymeris symetricus Turitella intermedia Melania lactea Pleurotoma filosa Natica wilemeti Cerithium echinoides Glycymeris pulvinata Dentalium indeterminate sheet lignite;alt 1145 white, violet;alt's 1102,4,5 some sm frag unspec. unspec. unspec. unspec. unspec. unspec. many frag some unworked;alt's 1111,3,4 Magdalenian? Magdalenian? Magdalenian? Magd?;1 from necklace? incis;Magd?;from neckl.? incis;Magd?;from neckl.? bovid incis;2 from necklace bits; alt's 1111,3,4 Magdalenian? undecorated Glycymeris Dentalium silicified Turitella ?;neckl. Potamides papaveraceus ; Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 1+20alt 0 0 3 20alt 0 0 ? ? ? ? 2+6? 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2alt 2alt 21 5 ? 1 9+2a+? 0 21 0 ? ? ? 14+2alt 0 ? ? ? 3 ? 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1alt 4+4? ? ? ? ? 21+6? 0 0 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 21 5 ? 1 46+? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1alt 1 ? 180 1 1a+3? 182+1a+? ? 1 1 1 ? 180 1 184+8? 3 Site Id B-15 B-18 Site Name Kanne Trou Magrite Code km Count 1103 10 B-18 B-18 Trou Magrite Trou Magrite 1005 1005 115 115 B-18 B-18 TOTAL B-19 B-19 B-19 B-19 B-19 TOTAL B-20 B-21 B-22 B-23 Site Id B-24 B-24 B-24 B-24 TOTAL B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 B-25 Trou Magrite Trou Magrite T. MAGRITE Nutons Nutons Nutons Nutons Nutons NUTONS Obourg-St.M. Orp E & W l'Ossuaire Pionnier Site Name da Somme da Somme da Somme da Somme DA SOMME Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine Sy Verlaine 1005 1005 115 115 1111 1005 6003 1149 9011 15 115 # VL U Code km 1150 VL 1111 10 1005 110 9011 U 9011 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 6004 5000 U 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 # # Estimate Comments 0 1 frag violet; alt's 1102,4,5 Magd.?;Sycostoma 4 pirus; Lutetian 2 Magd.?;Sycostoma bulbus Magd.?;Trivia bouryi ; 1 Bartonian 1 Magd.?;Bayania lactea 9 1 frag alt's 1112,3,4 1 Turritella imbricataria 1 tibia fragment ? some 1 undecorated 4+? 0 0 0 0 Count Estimate Comments 12 slabs; few modified 12 some ocher;alt's 1112,3,4 1 Glycymeris sp. 1 undec;only 1 in limest 26 3 all decorated 3 Melanopsis buccinoides 4 Sigmesalia regularis 2 Gravesicerithium gravesi 1 Tympanotonos conoidens 1 Turritella terebellata 1 Sycostoma bulbus 1 Cryptochorda stromboides 1 Hipponix cornucopiae 1 V. campanile sp. (?) 1 phalanx 1 References Easy Mod. 0 1 Dewez 1987 Diff. 0 Nat. 0 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 4 2 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 1 1 8 1 1 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Lejeune 1987 Lejeune 1987 Straus pers. c. 2001 1 1 ? 2+? 0 0 0 0 References Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Easy 1alt 1alt 1alt 1+1alt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mod. Diff. 12 12 24 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 0 1 1 1alt 1alt 3alt 1 1alt 1+1alt 3alt 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Creat. 0 9 0 1 1 1 ? 1 4+? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nat. Creat. 12 12 1 1 26 0 3 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Site Id Site Name B-25 Sy Verlaine B-25 Sy Verlaine B-25 Sy Verlaine B-25 Sy Verlaine B-25 Sy Verlaine B-25 Sy Verlaine TOTAL SY VERL. B-26 Trou Walou U = unknown source Code km Count Estimate Comments 5005 # 1 5009 # 3 incisors; 2 adult; 1 lact. 5017 # 2 incisors 1149 40 ? plaq.s alternate is 1150 1103 55 1 violet 1114 40 5 frags alt's 1111,1112,1113 32+? 1 9011 U undecorated # = not sourceable VL = very local (<5 km) References Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Dewez 1987 Straus pers. c. 2001 Easy Mod. Diff. 1 3 2 ? 1 5 8+? 6+3alt 0 1alt a and alt = alternate 15+3alt 1alt Nat. 1 3 2 ? 1 5 32+? 1 Creat. 0 0 Table C.20. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Sites in the Netherlands. NETHERLANDS Site Id N-1 N-2 N-3 N-4 N-5 Site Name Eyserheide Mesch Sw.-Gr. Paal Sw.-Koolweg Sw.-Oude St. OBTAINMENT Code km Count Estimate Comments 0 0 0 0 0 References Easy Mod. 0 0 0 0 0 MODIFIC. Diff. 0 0 0 0 0 Nat. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creat. 0 0 0 0 0 Table C.21. Temporally Unprovenienced Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Sites in France. FRANCE OBTAINMENT Site Id F-162 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 F-59 TOTAL F-247 Site Name Code km Count Estimate Bruniquel (M,UM) 8023 # 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 5014 # 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 5000 # 2 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 5010 # 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 5013 # 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 6000 # 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 6004 # 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 6006 # 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 5009 # 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 2008 180;26 ? shells Cap Blanc (M,UM) 9001 180 ? shells Cap Blanc (M,UM) 9002 260 ? shells Cap Blanc (M,UM) 2007 190;26 1 Cap Blanc (M,UM) 7007 # 1 CAP BLANC 11+3? 1 Chaffaud (M,UM) 6002 # F-12 Espélugues (M,UM) 6010 # F-12 TOTAL F-259 F-259 F-259 Espélugues (M,UM) ESPÉLUGUES Garenne (M,UM) Garenne (M,UM) Garenne (M,UM) # 9001 9002 6001 F-259 Garenne (M,UM) 6001 F-259 F-259 TOTAL F-14 F-14 Garenne (M,UM) Garenne (M,UM) LA GARENNE Gourdan (M,UM) Gourdan (M,UM) 6003 210 405 # # 190;25 2007 0 5004 # 7001 5010 # # 1 Comments bear?lion?; beg perf; broken broken in perf canine; parallel lines round,flat;parallel lines dots perf 1 side;reind 2nd phalanx large perf; fragment old incisor ;broken; groove Oursiu, Pleurotomaria+ Pectunculus sp ; Cassis sp.+ unspecified unperf; Cypraea undecorated tube salmon contour découpé; letter opener shape #55375; thick; edge grooves; fish decoration 1 2 ? ¾ of sh unspecified ? ¼ of sh e.g., Smaragdia viridissima 1 oval; broken; running deer? 3 concentric circles; 1 crescents; oval Cypraea (bernaya) brochii ; 1 Aquitaine?; 250 km ? incisors 3+3? 1 2 sets of 3 vertical lines 1 References Bahn 1982 M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine Easy 1 Mod. MODIF. Diff. 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Barandiarán 1971 6 1 MAN 1 MAN 1 2 3 0 ? ? ? 1 1 2+3? 0 Nat. Creat. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? ? ? 1 1 9+3? 2 1 0 1 0 0 ? ? 0 ? ? 1 2 Allain 1989 Allain 1989 MAN 1 1 MAN 1 1 Taborin 1992 Poplin 1983 M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. 1 ? 2+? 1 0 1 1+2? 1 ? 1+3? 1 2 1 Site Id Site Name Code F-14 F-14 F-14 TOTAL F-18 F-18 Gourdan (M,UM) Gourdan (M,UM) Gourdan (M,UM) GOURDAN Isturitz (M,UM) Isturitz (M,UM) 5018 6010 8023 F-18 TOTAL F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 Isturitz (M,UM) ISTURITZ Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) 9003 9001 9001 6001 8001 5014 5018 6004 6004 8001 8020 8001 8001 5000 5005 5010 5007 6003 5011 7001 6001 5019 8008 8000 6004 6003 5019 6001 8020 2006 km Count Estimate Comments unperf incisors; lines; dots; # 5 diagonals # 2 perf fishtails # 1 10 35 1 whole Turritella 35 47 unperf? Littorina ; ocher Potamides papaveraceus ; 35;355 ? shells estuarine 48+? # 1 very flat; broken # 1 long, narrow; polish; schist? # 2 canine # 22 7 canines;2 incisors;13 mixed # 4 phalanges; perf 1 side; bear? # 1 naturally perf;broken humerus # 6 #54044; slate U 1 #54044; green stone # 1 limestone # 1 sandstone # 25 3 with lines # 14 incisors; 1 with lines # 22 canines; premolar; 2 w/ lines # 2 incisors # 1 caterpillar shaped;carved, perf # 1 broken canine; groove in root # 4 pointy sagaie frags # 1 distal edge broken # 1 stone bovid incisor; beg. perf U 1 basket # 1 broken in 1/2 # 1 phalanx?; groove in middle # 1 small femoral head # 1 lignite; reddeer canine shape # 1 rectangular U 1 oval; light green stone 415 1 Venericardia imbricola References Easy MAN SP MAN SP Bahn 1982 5 2 1 9 1 47 MAN MAN Taborin 1992 M. d'Hist. Nat. M.d'Aquitaine MAN; M.de l'H. MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN; M.de l'H. MAN; M.de l'H. MAN; M.de l'H. MAN; M.de l'H. MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN ?alt 48+?a 1 1 9 Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. 5 1 0 6 1 47 0 ?alt ?alt ? 48+? 2 13 4 2 1 4 0 1 1 2 22 4 1 1 6 1 1 1 25 14 6 1 1 1 25 14 22 2 22 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Site Id F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 F-98 TOTAL Site Name Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) Laugerie-B (M,UM) LAUGERIE-B Code km Count Estimate 2007 180;19 11 6014 # 2 6004 # 1 5019 # 2 5003 # 2 5009 # 3 8001 # 2 8001 # 1 7007 U 1 144 F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 9001 F-99 175 180;19 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 2007 0 ? shells F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 2009 120 F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 5003 # ? incisors F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 8001 # 2 F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 8001 # F-99 F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 6000 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 6004 F-99 F-99 Comments cowrie shell ; Aquitaine 1 broken perf; parallel lines metacarpal; perf in middle bone; reddeer canine shape incisors very small stone; 1 round; back ¾ bison?horse? Magd? References MAN MAN MAN MAN M.de l'Homme M.de l'Homme MAN Taborin 1987 Bahn & B. 1987 Easy Mod. Diff. 11 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 86 42 1 16 Nat. Creat. 11 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 117 27 Féblot-A. 1997 ? ? ? shells unspecified; "200kmW" unspecified;"130 km WSW or 150 km SW" Féblot-A. 1997 ? ? ? shells unspecified Féblot-A. 1997 ? ? Poplin 1983 ? ? rough limestone M.d'Aquitaine 2 2 1 flat, polish; broken in perf M.d'Aquitaine 1 # # 1 2 round; black reindeer phalanges;perf 1 side M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine 1 2 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 8001 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 5013 # # 4 1 Leysalle collection; stones M.d'Aquitaine Leysalle collection;wolf canine M.d'Aquitaine 4 F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 5000 # 3 Leysalle collection M.d'Aquitaine 3 F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 5010 # 4 Leysalle collection; canine M.d'Aquitaine F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 5018 # 2 Leysalle collection M.d'Aquitaine F-99 Laugerie-H (L,MM) 6012 TOTAL Laugerie-H E # 1 21+4? sesamoid bone Bahn & B. 1987 1 1 2 4 1 3 4 2 1 16+? 1 4 2 5 1 3? 15+4? 6 Site Id F-20 F-105 F-105 TOTAL F-106 F-106 F-106 Site Name Lespugues (M,UM) Madeleine (M,UM) Madeleine (M,UM) MADELEINE Marcam. (L,M,UM) Marcam. (L,M,UM) Marcam. (L,M,UM) Marcamps F-106 (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) Marcamps F-106 (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) F-106 Marcam. (L,M,UM) TOTAL MARCAMPS Code 2021 5000 5004 9011 6014 5020 6014 6001 5003 5000 5005 9003 9003 9003 9003 9001 9001 9003 9003 9003 9003 9003 9001 9003 2007 9001 2007 6003 6001 6006 5011 5004 km Count Estimate Comments ? unspec. 50km S 50 # 50 more # ? incisors 50+? U 1 whole; used as fat lamp? # 1 plain # 2 Stampien very flat; 3 diamonds; par # 1 diagonal lines # 1 broken double perf; lines # 3 tiny; unperforated # 1 # 2 lateral milk incisors 60;360 3 Turritella various sp. 60;360 5 Cardium various sp. 60;360 3 Semicassas saburons 60;360 1 Oliva exotique 60 1 Levicardium orassum 60 11 Pectunculus glycerides 60;360 1 Raia? elavata 60;360 1 Apphoracs pespelicani 60;360 63 Dentalium various sp. 60;360 1 Sipho jeffreyai 60;360 1 Chlamys opercularis 60 4 Pecten famile 60;360 3 Arcularia gibboaula 100;35 2 Picta ferussol ; Aquitaine 60 1 Nassa reticulata 100;35 Pipenulla incoustaus ?; 0 2 Aquitaine # 1 shaped splinter; sep. neck # 1 rounded; broken # 1 2 curving parallel lines # 1 male Ursus arctos LL canine # ? incisors 119+? References Bahn 1982 Bahn & V. 1988 Poplin 1983 de Beaune 1999 M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine M.d'Aquitaine Poplin 1983 Easy ? 50 ? 50+? Mod. 0 Diff. 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 Nat. Creat. ? 0 50 ? 50+? 0 1 1 2 1 1 3alt 5alt 3alt 1alt 1 11 1alt 1alt 63alt 1alt 1alt 4 3alt 3alt 5alt 3alt 1alt 1alt 1alt 63alt 1alt 1alt 3alt 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 5 3 1 1 11 1 1 63 1 1 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 ? ? 12+? 18+82a 7+82a 116+? 1 3 Site Id Site Name Code F-24 F-24 F-24 Mas d'Azil (M,UM) 6002 Mas d'Azil (M,UM) 5004 Mas d'Azil (M,UM) 5005 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 F-24 TOTAL F-181 F-181 F-181 Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) Mas d'Azil (M,UM) MAS d'AZIL Montastruc (M,UM) Montastruc (M,UM) Montastruc (M,UM) F-181 Montastruc (M,UM) 6004 F-181 Montastruc (M,UM) 6003 F-181 F-181 Montastruc (M,UM) 8001 Montastruc (M,UM) 8001 F-181 Montastruc (M,UM) 6010 F-181 Montastruc (M,UM) 8001 6004 5018 9001 5000 5007 5010 5005 8001 6004 5018 6001 6010 6004 6003 9002 5004 8023 9003 5003 5002 km Count Estimate Comments short retouched tube; lines # 1 at ends # ? incisors # 3 incisors; 1 broken; 1 part perf phalanges; perf 1 side; perf # 2 2 ends # 3 1 canine; 2 incisors; broken 240 1 Pecten maximus # 3 # 8 incisors; 3 unperforated # 2 canines; premolar; 2 w/ lines # 3 incisors # 1 very smooth stone celt shape # 4 phalanges (bear?) # 2 large incisors; lines front, side # 1 fat; round; separate perf # 1 narrow fishtail; perf gone # 1 bulbous # 7 smoothed; 5 are pointy 140 27 Homalopoma sanguineum # ? teeth # 1 71+2? 235;16 1 Pecten # 2 # 1 lateral reindeer metacarpal; # 1 reindeer head small proximal frag; fish tail # 1 striations large oval stone; some # 1 diagonal lines # 1 oval; broken; edge notches fishtail not orig shape?; # 1 broken perf long; partial perfs; notches; # 1 lines References Easy Barandiarán 1971 Poplin 1983 M. d'Hist. Nat. 1 ? 3 M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. M. d'Hist. Nat. MAN SP MAN SP MAN SP MAN SP MAN SP MAN SP MAN SP Alvarez F. 2002 Alvarez F. 1999a Bahn 1982 2 2 Mod. Diff. 1 ? 3 1 1 3 8 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 8 2 3 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 27 ? 1 36+2? Nat. Creat. 7 7 27 ? 1 5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 2 1 28 66+2? 1 1 2 1 Ladier&W. 1994/5 1 1 Ladier&W. 1994/5 1 1 Ladier&W. 1994/5 Ladier&W. 1994/5 1 1 1 1 Sieveking 1987 1 1 Sieveking 1987 1 1 Site Id Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments References Easy Mod. Diff. small, elongated; broken; F-181 Montastruc (M,UM) 8001 # 1 notches; lines Sieveking 1987 1 TOTAL MONTASTRUC 11 10 0 1 F-266 Placard (L,M,UM) 8000 # 4 sandstone? MAN 4 F-266 Placard (L,M,UM) 5005 # 5 incisors MAN 5 1 perf; 1 polished bone or F-266 Placard (L,M,UM) 5000 # 2 tooth with lines MAN 2 F-266 Placard (L,M,UM) 5019 # 1 bone?; red deer canine shape MAN 1 F-266 Placard (L,M,UM) 6000 # 1 overlapping mtn designs MAN 1 Campanile auversensis; Paris F-266 Placard (L,M,UM) 2003 225 1 B., Bretagne, or Loire B. Taborin 1992 1 TOTAL PLACARD 14 13 0 1 ? beads F-184 Plantade (L,M,UM) 8020 U Cartailhac 1903 ? 0 0 # = not sourceable ; = or, from west to east U = unknown source a and alt = alternate LM = Lower Magdalenian MM = Middle Magdalenian UM = Upper Magdalenian MAN = Musée des Antiquites Nationales M. d'Hist. Nat. = Museum d'Histoire Naturelle (Toulouse) MAN SP = Musée des Antiquites Nationales Salle Piette M. de l'H. = Musée de l'Homme Nat. Creat. 6 4 5 1 5 2 1 1 1 12 0 2 ? Table C.22. Data for Ratios of Personal Ornamentation to Site Density for Lower Magd. and Badegoulian Occupations. Site Id Sp-1a Sp-4a F-235a F-42 F-276a Sp-7 F-44a F-47 F-49 F-160a F-161a F-242a F-279a F-54 F-55 F-162a F-56 Sp-11a F-163 F-60 F-61 Sp-13a F-246a F-248a F-131a Sp-15 F-252a Sp-19a F-69 Sp-21a Sp-25 F-70 Sp-26a Sp-27a Site Name Abauntz Altamira Auzary-Thônes Badegoule Ballancourt-sur-Essonne Balmori Beauregard La Bergerie Birac III Grande Grotte de Bize Petite Grotte de Bize Le Blot Bois-des-Beauregards Les Braugnes Le Breuil Bruniquel/Abris du Château Cabrerets Las Caldas Camparnaud Casevert à Rauzan Cassegros El Castillo Chabasse La Chaire à Calvin Chancelade/Raymonden El Cierro Grotte de Cottier Cova Rosa La Croix-de-Fer Cueto de la Mina La Cuevona Le Cuzoul de Vers Ekain Entrefoces Raw #'s of Items of Personal Orn. and Sites Ratios of #'s of Items to #'s of Sites w/n 50 km Radius Total Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. # Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 12 0 3 15 0 5 3 2.4 0 0.6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 38 6 1 36 9 8 5.6 4.8 0.8 0.1 4.5 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 5 0 7 0.7 0.6 0.1 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 2 4 0 8 0.5 0.3 0 0.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7 1 1 9 0 6 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 7 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 7 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 7 0 7 1 0.7 0.3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 7 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 166 145 21 0 163 3 12 13.8 12.1 1.8 0 13.6 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 Site Id Sp-28a Sp-29a F-213a F-75 F-177a Sp-31a F-219a F-87 G-37a F-89a Sp-37a Sw-13a F-95 F-96 F-180 F-99a F-99 F-100 Sp-41 F-106a F-106 F-111 F-110 Sp-44a F-263a G-56a Sp-46a F-118 F-119 F-122 F-266a F-266b F-266 F-184a F-184 F-127 Site Name Ermittia Erralla Farincourt III Feuga Gandil La Garma Grotte Grappin Guillassou Hohle Fels Schelklingen Abri Houleau El Juyo Kastelhöhle-Nord Lachaud Lascaux Lassac Laugerie-Haute E L-H including unprov. Layrac La Lloseta Marcamps Marcamps including unprov. Maubin Grand Abri de Mazérat El Mirón Montgaudier Munzingen La Paloma Le Pech de la Boissière Pégourié Le Piage Le Placard (LM) Le Placard (Badegoulian) Placard including unprov. Plantade Plantade including unprov. Pourquey Total 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 3 0 121 0 0 25 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 Easy 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 3 0 14 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 2 0 Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. # Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 1 7 4 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 28 0 1 28 20 0 8 28 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 23 6 12 2.4 1.5 0.4 0.5 1.9 0.5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 7 118 3 6 20.2 2.3 16.7 1.2 19.7 0.5 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 1 5 5 4.8 0 0.2 4.8 0.2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 2 4 3.5 3.3 0 0.3 3 0.5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id Site Name Total Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. # Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S F-130 Abri Ragout 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sp-53a El Rascaño 7 6 1 0 6 1 6 1.2 1 0.2 0 1 0.2 F-31 Rec del Penjat 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sp-54a La Riera 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-186 La Rivière 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-187a Grotte Roffat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-268a Le Rond du Barry 3 1 0 2 3 0 3 1 0.3 0 0.7 1 0 F-143a Saint-Germain-la-Rivière 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-142a Sainte Eulalie 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sp-56a Santimamiñe 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-272a Sire à Mirefleurs 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-144a Solvieux-Sud 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 F-274a Les Terriers 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sp-62a Urtiaga 103 103 0 0 103 0 5 20.6 20.6 0 0 20.6 0 italics = includes both provenienced and unprovenienced objects Mod. = moderately difficult to acquire; Diff. = difficult to acquire; Nat. = natural (minimally modified); Creat. = created (substantially modified) Table C.23. Data for Ratios of Personal Ornamentation to Site Density for Middle Magdalenian Occupations. Site Id Sp-1b F-41a Sp-3a Sp-4b F-1a F-2 F-235b F-194 F-238a F-44b F-3 F-46 Sp-8a F-196 Sw-1 F-160b F-161b F-242b F-243a Sp-9 F-4 F-162b F-162 F-57 Sp-11b F-164 F-59a F-59a F-63 F-247a F-247 Site Name Abauntz Abzac Aitzbitarte IV Altamira Arancou Aurensan Auzary-Thônes Grotte de la Baume Noire Le Bay Beauregard Bédeilhac Bellet Berroberría Bèze Birseck-Ermitage Grande Grotte de Bize Petite Grotte de Bize Le Blot Le Bois du Roc Bolinkoba Brassempouy Bruniquel/Abris du Château Bruniquel including unprov. La Caillade Las Caldas Canecaude I Cap Blanc Cap Blanc including unprov. Le Cerisier Grotte du Chaffaud Chaffaud including unprov. Raw #'s of Items of Personal Orn. and Sites Ratios of #'s of Items to #'s of Sites w/n 50 km Radius Total Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 7 5 2 0 7 0 5 1.4 1 0.4 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 0 5 10 2 13 0.9 0.5 0 0.4 0.8 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 1 4 6 6 6 2 1.2 0.2 0.7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 4 6 3 3 3 1.7 0 1.3 2 1 11 8 0 3 11 0 5 2.2 1.6 0 0.6 2.2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 4 2 2 3 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 8 2 0 6 8 0 6 1.3 0.3 0 1 1.3 0 9 3 0 6 8 1 6 1.5 0.5 0 1 1.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 0 1 4 4 4 2 1.8 0 0.3 1 1 20 4 15 1 18 2 4 5 1 3.8 0.3 4.5 0.5 6 0 0 6 6 0 22 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 23 6 3 14 21 2 22 1 0.3 0.1 0.6 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 7 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 Site Id F-131b F-206a F-207a F-65a F-153a F-66 F-172a F-68 F-171a F-208 Sp-20a Sp-21b F-5a F-255a F-6a F-71 F-8 Sp-27b F-9 Sp-28b F-154 F-10 F-11 F-12a F-12 F-257a F-213b F-85 F-174a F-214 F-76 F-77 Sp-76a Site Name Chancelade/Raymonden La Colombière Abri du Colonel Martin Les Combarelles Combe-Cullier Coucoulu Courbet Crabillat La Crouzade La Croze Cualventi Cueto de la Mina Dufaure Durif à Enval Duruthy Grotte de l'Eglise Enlène all Entrefoces Erberua Ermittia Esclauzur Espalungue/Arudy Grotte des Espèche Espélugues/Lourdes Espélugues including unprov. Fadets Farincourt I and II Grotte des Fées Le Figuier Fissure de la Guillotine Flageolet II Fongaban Forcas à Graus Total Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 5 1 0 4 4 1 21 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 22 0.04 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 4 0 0 4 4 0 21 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 3 1.3 1.3 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 3 3 7 3 7 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 1 0.4 3 2 1 0 3 0 18 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0 203 165 15 23 110 93 12 16.9 13.8 1.3 1.9 9.2 7.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 3 1.7 1.7 0 0 1.7 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 5 0.4 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 17 15 0 2 5 12 6 2.8 2.5 0 0.3 0.8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 11 1 15 21 6 9 3 1.2 0.1 1.7 2.3 0.7 29 13 1 15 23 6 9 3.2 1.4 0.1 1.7 2.6 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 7 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 2 0 0 2 2 0 8 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id Sw-8a F-215a F-80 F-177b F-259a F-259a Sp-31b F-178a F-14a F-14a F-15a F-218 F-219b Sp-33 G-37b Sp-35 F-89b F-18a F-18a F-91 F-92 Sp-37b Sw-13b Sw-14a G-51a F-19 F-179a F-98a F-98a F-99b F-99b F-20c F-20a Site Name Freudenthal La Fru Gabillou Gandil La Garenne/St-Marcel Garenne including unprov. La Garma Grotte Gazel Gourdan Gourdan including unprov. Grand Pastou Grotte de la Grande Baume Grotte Grappin La Güelga Hohle Fels Schelklingen Hornos de la Peña Abri Houleau Isturitz all Isturitz including unprov. Jaurais Jean-Blancs E & W El Juyo Kastelhöhle-Nord Kesslerloch Kniegrotte Labastide Lafaye Laugerie-Basse L-B including unprov. Laugerie-Haute E L-H including unprov. Grotte des Boeufs/Lespugues Grotte des Harpons/Lespug. Total Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 5 4 0 1 3 2 3 1.7 1.3 0 0.3 1 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 9 1 3 11 2 6 2.2 1.5 0.2 0.5 1.8 0.3 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 16 7 0 9 11 5 3 5.3 2.3 0 3 3.7 1.7 1 0 0 0 0 1 8 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 127 75 44 8 90 37 4 31.8 18.8 11 2 22.5 9.3 11 5 0 6 6 5 13 0.8 0.4 0 0.5 0.5 0.4 21 14 1 6 12 9 13 1.6 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 5 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 8 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 520 434 47 39 383 137 8 65 54.3 5.9 4.9 47.9 17.1 570 484 47 39 433 137 8 71.3 60.5 5.9 4.9 54.1 17.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 78 25 7 106 4 23 4.8 3.4 1.1 0.3 4.6 0.2 1 1 0 0 0 1 8 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 21 1 6 16 12 3 9.3 7 0.3 2 5.3 4 93 4 5 84 77 16 2 46.5 2 2.5 42 38.5 8 22 20 0 2 2 20 10 2.2 2 0 0.2 0.2 2 99 77 3 19 87 12 6 16.5 12.8 0.5 3.2 14.5 2 53 13 0 40 40 13 28 1.9 0.5 0 1.4 1.4 0.5 197 99 42 56 157 40 28 7 3.5 1.5 2 5.6 1.4 1 1 0 0 0 1 28 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 0.04 30 19 5 6 23 7 28 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.3 2 0 0 2 2 0 13 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 13 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 Site Id F-20 Sp-40 F-21a F-104 F-105a F-105a F-22 F-106b F-106b F-262 F-23 F-107a F-24a F-24a F-108 Sp-44b F-26a F-181a F-181a F-263b F-114a F-115a G-56b G-61a Sp-46b Sp-47 Sp-50a F-265a F-266c F-266c F-184b F-184 F-125 Site Name Lespugues including unprov. Llonín Lortet La Lustre La Madeleine Madeleine including unprov. Malarode I and II Marcamps Marcamps including unprov. La Marche Marsoulas Le Martinet Le Mas d'Azil M d'A including unprov. Le Mas-de-Sourzac El Mirón Monconfort Montastruc Montastruc including unprov. Montgaudier Moulin-Neuf à Espiet La Mouthe Munzingen Oberkassel La Paloma La Pasiega El Pendo La Piscine Le Placard Placard including unprov. Plantade Plantade including unprov. Plateau Parrain Total Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 10 2 0 8 10 0 13 0.8 0.2 0 0.6 0.8 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 6 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 7 5 0 2 2 5 11 0.6 0.5 0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 9 4 6 10 9 24 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 71 61 4 6 62 9 24 3 2.5 0.2 0.3 2.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 2 4 1 8 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 126 15 102 9 122 4 8 15.8 1.9 12.8 1.1 15.3 0.5 37 30 4 3 28 9 7 5.3 4.3 0.6 0.4 4 1.3 13 7 1 5 9 4 12 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 136 8 50 89 105 8 24.3 17 1 6.3 11.1 13.1 269 176 15 78 159 110 8 33.6 22 1.9 9.8 19.9 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 6 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 7 6 1.2 1.2 0 0 0 1.2 18 17 0 1 6 12 6 3 2.8 0 0.2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 24 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 0 0 15 1 4 4 4 0 0 3.8 0.3 15 15 0 0 13 2 8 1.9 1.9 0 0 1.6 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 4 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 16 15 0 1 12 4 4 4 3.8 0 0.3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id Site Name Total Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S F-30 Le Portel 15 13 1 1 10 5 7 2.1 1.9 0.1 0.1 1.4 F-17 Grotte du Putois 7 3 0 4 6 1 13 0.5 0.2 0 0.3 0.5 F-129 Puy de Lacan 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 F-185a Rainaudes 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 F-133 Grotte Rey 2 0 0 2 2 0 22 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 F-134a Richard 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 F-226 Grotte de Rigney 4 2 0 2 2 2 7 0.6 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 F-233a Roc aux Sorciers 3 1 0 2 2 1 7 0.4 0.1 0 0.3 0.3 F-138 Roc Saint Cirq 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 F-187b Grotte Roffat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 F-33a Saint Michel/Arudy 8 8 0 0 2 6 6 1.3 1.3 0 0 0.3 F-34 Sainte-Colombe 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 F-142b Sainte Eulalie 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0.5 F-189a La Salpetrière 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 Sw-23a Schweizersbild 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 F-144b Solvieux-Sud 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 F-230 Station En Terredey 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 F-274b Les Terriers 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 G-81a Teufelsbrücke 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 F-147 Thévenard 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Sp-60 Tito Bustillo all 68 60 0 8 53 15 4 17 15 0 2 13.3 F-37 Les Trois Frères 17 13 3 1 12 5 12 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.1 1 B-2a Trou des Blaireaux 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 F-39 Le Tuc d'Audoubert 8 6 2 0 6 2 12 0.7 0.5 0.2 0 0.5 F-275 La Tuilerie 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 F-148a La Tuilière 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 F-151 Abri Vidon à Juillac 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 Sp-64 La Viña 4 4 0 0 0 4 6 0.7 0.7 0 0 0 italics = includes both provenienced and unprovenienced objects Mod. = moderately difficult to acquire; Diff. = difficult to acquire; Nat. = natural (minimally modified); Creat. = created (substantially modified) 0.7 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 0 0 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0.4 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.7 Table C.24. Data for Ratios of Personal Ornamentation to Site Density for Upper Magdalenian Occupations. Site Id Sp-2 F-41b G-1 G-2 Sp-3b Sp-65 G-3 G-4 G-5 F-158 F-1b G-6 Sp-5 F-234 G-7 F-276b F-191 F-192 F-193 F-277 G-8 G-9 G-10 F-43 F-236 Sp-68 F-237 F-159 F-195 F-238b G-11 Site Name Abittaga Abzac Ahlendorf Aichbühl Aitzbitarte IV Alaiz Alsdorf Andernach all Annakapellenhöhle l'Aragnon Arancou Aschersleben Atxeta Auvours Bad Frankenhausen Ballancourt Grotte de la Balme Balme de Glos Grotte de Bange Barbey Barbing Bärenfelsgrotte Bärenkeller Barbing Les Battants Bauma de la Peixera Baume-Loire Baume d'Oullins Bavans Le Bay Beeck Raw #'s of Items of Personal Orn. and Sites Ratios of #'s of Items to #'s of Sites w/n 50 km Radius Total Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 1 1 0 0 1 0 11 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 10 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 107 19 55 151 30 4 45.3 26.8 4.8 13.8 37.8 7.5 1 1 0 0 1 0 26 0.04 0.04 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 11 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 11 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 10 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 4 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-239 F-45 F-278 F-240 G-12 Sp-8b G-13 F-50 F-160c F-161c F-241 F-197 G-14 F-279b B-3 F-244 F-243b F-198 F-280 F-51 F-52 F-53 G-15 F-199 Sw-2 Sw-3 F-162c F-162 G-16 G-17 Sw-4 G-18 F-200 Site Name Bégrolles Bellefont-Belcier Belloy-sur-Somme Béraud à St-Privat-d'Allier Bernlochhöhle Berroberría Bildstockfels Bisqueytan Grande Grotte de Bize Petite Grotte de Bize Blanzat Abri de Bobache Bocksteinhöhle Bois-des-Beauregards Bois Laiterie Bois-Ragot Le Bois du Roc La Bonne-Femme Bonnières Borie-del-Rey Bouliac Bout du Monde Brillenhöhle Broissia Bruderholz Brügglihöhle Bruniquel/Abris du Chateau Bruniquel including unprov. Burghöhle Dietfurt Burkhardtshöhle Büttenloch Buttentalhöhle Abri de Cabônes Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 29 2 2 0 0 2 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 7 0.4 0.1 0 0.3 0.4 0 0 0 2 2 0 7 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 8 18 1 17 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 29 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 9 28 0 8 3.5 2.1 0.3 1.1 3.5 0 18 2 9 28 1 8 3.6 2.3 0.3 1.1 3.5 0.1 2 0 0 2 0 20 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 2 0 0 2 0 26 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 Site Id Sp-11c F-201 Sp-12 F-202 F-59b F-59b Sp-13b F-165 F-245 F-62 F-281 F-246b F-247b F-247 F-282 F-248b B-6 Sw-5 F-131c F-203 B-7 Sp-73 F-204 Sw-6 F-249 F-64 F-167 Sp-14 F-283 B-8 Sp-18 F-205 F-168 Site Name Las Caldas Abri du Calvaire Camargo Abri de Campalou Cap Blanc CB including unprov. El Castillo La Caune de Belvis Le Cavalier Cazelles Cepoy Chabasse Grotte du Chaffaud Chaffaud including unprov. Chaintreauville La Chaire à Calvin Chaleux Champrévèyres Chancelade/Raymonden Grotte de Chaumois-Boivin Grotte de Chauveau Chaves La Chenelaz Chesselgraben Cheylat Chez-Galou Chinchon La Chora Le Closeau Coléoptère Collubil Colombe Colombier Total 0 0 0 8 0 17 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 187 15 5 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 7 0 47 1 2 2 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 8 0 8 1 0.8 0.3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 8 15 2 44 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 8 0.5 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 26 70 167 20 17 11 5.4 1.5 4.1 9.8 1.2 14 0 1 15 0 4 3.8 3.5 0 0.3 3.8 0 3 0 2 4 1 38 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 22 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0 0.8 0 5 2 0 7 0 16 0.4 0.3 0.1 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 26 45 2 18 2.6 1.2 0 1.4 2.5 0.1 1 0 0 1 0 6 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 2 0 0 2 0 9 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 Site Id F-206b F-207b F-65b F-153b F-169 F-250 F-170 F-251 F-252b F-253 F-172b Sp-19b F-171b Sp-20b Sp-21c Sp-10 Sp-6 Sp-22 Sp-23 F-254 G-19 F-210 F-5b F-255b F-6b F-7 Sp-26b F-256 Sw-7 F-211 Sp-28c Sp-29b F-12b Site Name La Colombière Abri du Colonel Martin Les Combarelles Combe-Cullier La Combette Combrai Les Conques Corent Grotte de Cottier Coudes Courbet Cova Rosa La Crouzade Cualventi Cueto de la Mina Cueva de Bricia Cueva de Los Azules Cueva Morín Cueva Oscura de Ania Culhat à Joze Dietfurt Abri des Douattes Dufaure Durif à Enval Duruthy Les Eglises Ekain Enval II Eremitage Grotte de l'Ermitage Ermittia Erralla Espélugues/Lourdes Total 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 17 0 4 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 0 40 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 3 14 27 11 8 4.8 2.6 0.4 1.8 3.4 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 2 14 3 8 2.1 1.9 0 0.3 1.8 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 6 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 5 2 18 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.3 0.1 2 0 0 2 0 4 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 6 3 7 1.3 1.1 0 0.1 0.9 0.4 2 0 0 2 0 7 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 14 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 13 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-12 F-284 F-212 G-20 N-1 F-72 F-257b F-73 F-74 F-285 G-21 F-174b G-22 B-10 F-175 F-13 F-79 F-78 F-176 Sp-76b F-258 Sp-30 Sw-b G-23 F-307 F-215b G-24 G-25 F-177c F-81 F-82 F-259b F-259b Site Name Espélugues including unprov. Etiolles all Etrembière Etzdorf Eyserheide Grotte des Eyzies Fadets Faurélie II Abri Faustin à Cessac Les Fées Felsställe Le Figuier Fohlenhaus Fonds-de-Forêt Fontalès Fontanet Fontarnaud Font-Brunel Fontlaurier Forcas à Graus Fourneau du Diable La Fragua Freudenthal Friedensdorf Fronsac La Fru Fußgönheim II Galgenberg Gandil La Gare de Conduché Gare de Couze La Garenne/St-Marcel Garenne including unprov. Total 2 10 8 0 0 9 0 4 4 0 105 4 0 0 48 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 2 0 0 2 0 5 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.4 0 8 0 2 10 0 9 1.1 0.9 0 0.2 1.1 0 0 2 6 4 4 4 2 0 0.5 1.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 6 3 44 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 45 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 2 2 0 4 0 15 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 105 0 24 4.4 4.4 0 0 4.4 0 2 2 0 4 0 4 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 3 19 37 12 8 6 3.4 0.4 2.4 4.6 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 15 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 1 9 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 7 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 17 11 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 11 2 3 4.3 1.3 0 3 3.7 0.7 Site Id Sp-31c F-178b F-216 G-27 F-260 B-12 G-28 Sp-32 G-29 F-14b F-14b B-13 F-286 F-83 F-15b F-217 F-84 G-30a G-30b G-30c G-30d F-287 G-31 F-86 F-88 G-32 G-33 F-289 Sw-9 F-16 Sw-10 G-34 G-35 Site Name La Garma Grotte Gazel Abri Gay Gera-Binsenacker Gevillat Ginette Gnirshöhle Goikolau Gönnersdorf all Gourdan Gourdan including unprov. Goyet Le Grand Canton Grand-Moulin à Lugasson Grand Pastou Grande Baille La Grèze Groitzsch-A1/A2 N Groitzsch-C1 W Groitzsch-C3/D N Groitzsch-D1/B N Gros-Monts I Grosse Öfnet Grotte XVI Guitard Haldensteinhöhle Halle-Galgenberg Hallines Hard I Grotte du Harpon Heidenküche Helga-Abri Herwartstein Total 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 297 0 10 210 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 0.4 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 8 1 18 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 36 28 126 171 4 74.3 58.3 9 7 31.5 42.8 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 6 4 6 1.7 1.5 0.2 0 1 0.7 17 7 186 207 3 17 12.4 1 0.4 10.9 12.2 0.2 3 0 0 3 0 11 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 12 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 17 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 29 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id Sw-11 G-37c G-36 G-38 G-39 G-40 Sw-12 Sp-34 F-220 G-41 G-42 F-18b Site Name Hintere Burg Hohle Fels Schelklingen Hohlefels bei Hütten Hohlenstein Bärenhöhle Hohlenstein Ederheim Hohlenstein-Stadel Hollenberg-Höhle 3 El Horno Les Hoteaux Hummelshain Ilsenhöhle Isturitz-Grande Salle Total 0 31 0 0 2 4 58 1 2 0 0 47 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 6 31 0 28 1.1 0.9 0 0.2 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 16 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 4 0 0 4 0 26 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 23 1 34 75 3 23 2.5 1 0.04 1.5 3.3 0.1 0 0 1 1 0 16 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 2 2 0 14 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 11 42 5 9 5.2 5.1 0 1.2 4.7 0.6 F-18b F-90 F-221 F-93 F-290 Sp-37c G-43 G-44 B-15 Sw-13c G-45 G-46 Sw-14b G-47 G-48 G-49 G-50 G-51b Sw-15 G-52 Isturitz-GS including unprov. Jardel II Grottes Jean-Pierre 1 and 2 Jolivet La Jouanne El Juyo Kahla-Löbschütz Kamphausen Kanne Kastelhöhle-Nord Kastlhänghöhle Kaufertsberg Kesslerloch Klausenhöhlen Kleine Öfnet Kleine Scheuer Rosenstein Klingenfels-Abri Kniegrotte Kohlerhöhle Kohltalhöhle 97 0 10 34 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 20 37 0 0 1 0 7 45 0 96 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 34 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 11 0 2 33 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 92 0 10 34 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 17 13 0 0 0 0 6 44 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 24 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 9 43 12 36 8 18 14 8 12 22 4 16 12 4 16 20 24 13 22 26 10.8 0 0.8 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 1.3 3.1 0 0 0.1 0 0.5 2 0 10.7 0 0.3 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 2.8 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 0 1.2 0 0.2 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 10.2 0 0.8 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 0 0 0.5 2 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 2 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 Site Id F-179b F-98b F-98b G-53 F-20b F-20 F-291 F-155 Sp-38 Sw-16 F-101 Sp-39 F-102 F-103 F-21b F-261 Sp-43 F-292 F-105b F-105b F-293 G-54 F-106c F-106c F-294 F-295 F-107b F-24b F-24b F-25 F-109 N-2 Sp-44c Site Name Lafaye Laugerie-Basse L-B including unprov. Lausnitz Grotte des Harpons/Lespug. Lespugues including unprov. Abri du Lagopède Lestruque Lezetxiki Liesberg Limeuil El Linar Liveyre Longueroche Lortet Loubressac Lumentxa Lumigny La Madeleine Madeleine including unprov. Maison Blanche Malerfels Marcamps Marcamps including unprov. La Marmotte Marsangy Le Martinet Mas d'Azil M d'A including unprov. Massat Maurens Mesch El Mirón Total 0 2 146 7 2 4 14 6 0 0 1 0 0 6 2 0 1 0 49 101 0 0 4 125 2 1 0 4 79 4 0 0 5 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 44 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 86 42 18 119 27 44 3.3 2 1 0.4 2.7 0.6 6 1 0 1 0 12 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 2 2 0 6 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 2 0 2 4 0 6 0.7 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 0 2 0 12 14 0 4 3.5 0.5 0 3 3.5 0 0 0 6 6 0 41 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 43 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 45 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 2 2 0 6 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 12 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 13 18 45 4 44 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 1 0.1 70 13 18 97 4 44 2.3 1.6 0.3 0.4 2.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 14 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 14 104 7 122 3 14 8.9 1 7.4 0.5 8.7 0.2 2 0 0 2 0 4 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 8 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 40 7 32 74 5 8 9.9 5 0.9 4 9.3 0.6 0 1 3 3 1 7 0.6 0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 16 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 Site Id F-112 F-26b Sw-17 F-181b F-181b F-263c Sw-18 F-113 F-27 F-114b F-115b Sw-19 G-56c F-116 G-57 G-58 F-264 G-59 G-61b B-20 F-182 G-62 B-21 Sp-45 Sp-46c F-222 F-117 F-183 Sp-50b Sp-51 G-63 F-28 F-120 Site Name Monceaux-la-Virole Monconfort Monruz Montastruc Montastruc including unprov. Montgaudier Moosbühl Morin à Pessac Moulin à Troubat Moulin-Neuf La Mouthe Mühleloch Munzingen Murat à Rocamadour Napoleonskopf Nebra Neschers Nikolaushöhle Oberkassel Obourg-St Macaire Grotte de l'Oeil Oelknitz Orp E & W El Otero La Paloma Grotte de la Passagère Abri Pataud Abri des Pêcheurs El Pendo El Perro Petersfels Petit Pastou Peyrat Total 0 4 51 3 14 0 18 40 0 2 0 0 7 6 12 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 5 10 1 59 0 676 0 0 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 7 0.6 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 2 11 38 42 9 4 12.8 0.5 2.8 9.5 10.5 2.3 3 0 0 3 0 8 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.4 0 13 0 1 9 5 8 1.8 1.6 0 0.1 1.1 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 12 12 6 14 1.3 0.4 0 0.9 0.9 0.4 31 4 5 39 1 19 2.1 1.6 0.2 0.3 2.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 15 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 7 0 5 1.4 0.4 0 1 1.4 0 0 0 6 6 0 39 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 11 0 1 3 9 13 0.9 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.7 0 0 2 2 0 8 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 27 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 15 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 16 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 3 0 0 3 0 4 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.8 0 0 2 3 5 0 10 0.5 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 2 0 8 10 0 44 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 54 5 0 50 9 18 3.3 3 0.3 0 2.8 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 443 54 179 651 25 17 39.8 26.1 3.2 10.5 38.3 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Id F-121 F-223 F-124 Sp-52 F-297 F-123 F-156 F-265b F-266d F-266d F-296 F-184c F-184 F-29 F-126 F-267 Sp-81 F-128 G-65 F-224 F-225 F-185b G-66 G-67 Sp-53b Sw-20 F-132 G-68 F-32 F-134b Sp-54b F-298 Sw-21 Site Name Peyrille Pierre Châtel/Gr. des Romains Piganeau La Pila Pincevent all La Pique à Daignac Pis de la Vache La Piscine Le Placard Placard including unprov. La Plaisance Plantade Plantade including unprov. Poeymaü Pont d'Ambon Pont-de-Longues l'abri de Portugain Le Pouzet Probstfels Abri de Pugieu La Raillarde Rainaudes Randecker Maar Ranis Herdloch El Rascaño Reiden-Stumpen Reignac Rennerfels Rhodes II Richard La Riera Rinxent Rislisberghöhle Total 0 83 0 1 41 0 4 0 0 14 0 104 106 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 11 0 1 0 2 0 6 0 14 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 20 20 83 0 13 6.4 3.3 1.5 1.5 6.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 18 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 39 0 2 39 2 14 2.9 2.8 0 0.1 2.8 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 39 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 12 2 8 1.8 1.6 0 0.1 1.5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 14 19 93 11 8 13 8.9 1.8 2.4 11.6 1.4 73 14 19 93 13 8 13.3 9.1 1.8 2.4 11.6 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 20 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 1 0 1 2 0 14 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 18 0.6 0.6 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 44 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 7 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 6 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 14 0 22 0.6 0.2 0 0.5 0.6 0 Site Id F-135 F-136 F-137 F-139 F-233b F-299 F-227 F-140 F-228 F-141 F-157 F-232 F-268b F-188 G-69 G-70 F-33b F-142c F-143b F-300 F-301 F-269 F-270 Sw-22 F-189b Sp-56b F-271 G-71 G-72 G-73 Sw-23b Sw-24 Sp-57 Site Name La Rivière de Tulle Le Roc Allan Roc de Barbeau Roc à St-Sulpice Roc aux Sorciers Roc-la-Tour Grotte de la Roche La Roche à Lalinde Abri de Rochedane Rocher de la Peine Rochereil Abri du Rond Le Rond du Barry Roquefure Saaleck Saalfeld Saint Michel/Arudy Sainte Eulalie St-Germain-la-Rivière St-Just-des-Marais Saint-Mihiel Abri de Saint Myon St-Remy-sur-Creuse Salihöhle Oben La Salpetrière Santimamiñe Sarlieve à Aubiere Schmiechenfels Schuntershöhle Schussenquelle Schweizersbild Sihlsee-Nord Silibranka Total 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 28 0 1 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 9 0 6 1.5 0.3 1.2 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 37 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 8 0.5 0.3 0 0.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 15 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 11 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 20 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 8 6 14 26 2 10 2.8 0.8 0.6 1.4 2.6 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 11 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 Site Id F-272b G-74 G-75 Sp-58 F-190 F-145 Sp-59 G-76 G-77 G-78 G-79 G-80 N-3 N-4 N-5 B-25 F-229 F-302 F-273 G-81b G-82 F-35 F-146 Sw-25 F-231 Sp-61 F-36 F-288 Sw-26 B-1 B-2b B-9 B-11 Site Name Sire à Mirefleurs Sirgenstein Sirgenstein Südwand Sofoxó Soubeyras Le Souci Sovilla Spitalhöhle Spitzbubenhöhle Steinberg Steinbergwand Strassberger Grotte Sweikhuizen-Groene Paal Sweikhuizen-Koolweg Sweikhuizen-Oude Stort Sy Verlaine Taï Les Tarterêts Tatevin à Chanteuges Teufelsbrücke Teufelsküchen La Teulera Teyjat Thierstein Abri de Thoys Torre La Tourasse Grotte du Trilobite Trimbach Trou Abri Trou des Blaireaux Trou du Curé Trou du Frontal Total 0 1 0 1 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 3 0 0 19 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 50 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 29 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 6 6 0 39 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 15 34 0 18 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.9 0 3 0 0 3 0 8 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 14 5 11 1.7 0 0.5 1.2 1.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 8 0.6 0.6 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 0 5 1 0.2 0 0.8 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 4 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 21 14 50 0 17 2.9 0.9 1.2 0.8 2.9 0 Site Id B-18 B-19 B-22 B-23 B-24 F-38 B-26 F-148b F-303 Sw-27 Sp-62b F-149 F-40a Sp-63 F-150 F-304 Sw-28 F-305 F-306 F-152 G-83 Sw-29 Sw-30 G-84 G-85 Sw-31 Sw-32 Sp-84 G-86 G-89 Site Name Trou Magrite Trou des Nutons Trou de l'Ossuaire Trou du Pionnier Trou da Somme Le Trou Souffleur Trou Walou La Tuilière Tureau des Gardes Untere Bsetzi Urtiaga Usine Henry La Vache all El Valle Valojouix Verberie Veyrier La Vignette Ville-St-Jacques Villepin Vogelherd Vorder Eichen Wauwilermoos-Kottwil Wildscheuer V Wildweiberlei Winznau-Käsloch Winznau-Köpfli Zatoya Zigeunerfels Zinkenberg Total 9 8 0 0 26 0 1 1 1 0 8 0 58 4 0 12 5 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. #Sites Tot/#S Easy/#S Mod/#S Diff/#S Nat/#S Creat/#S 1 0 8 9 0 17 0.5 0.1 0 0.5 0.5 0 6 1 1 8 0 17 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 1 26 0 15 1.7 1.6 0.1 0.1 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 1 0 0 0 1 43 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0.02 1 0 0 1 0 11 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 8 0 14 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 21 53 5 7 8.3 5.1 0.1 3 7.6 0.7 4 0 0 4 0 15 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 12 0 1 12 11 1 0 12 0 3 0 2 5 0 4 1.3 0.8 0 0.5 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 14 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 11 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 21 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 19 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table C.25. Groups of Similar Items of Personal Ornamentation from Middle Magdalenian Occupations. Object/Design Site contour découpé-bison head Labastide contour découpé-bison head Le Mas d'Azil Medium hyoid hyoid contour découpé-deer head contour découpé-deer head contour découpé-deer head contour découpé-deer head Tuc d'Audoubert Le Mas d'Azil El Juyo La Viña hyoid hyoid bone bone contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé-horse head contour découpé style horses contour déc.-chamois head contour découpé-ibex head contour découpé-caprid head contour découpé-ibex head Brassempouy Laugerie-Basse Bédeilhac Le Mas d'Azil Enlène/TF/Td'A Isturitz Labastide Lortet Espélugues Gazel Le Portel Espalunge/Arudy Roc de Marcamps St Michel/Arudy Tuc d'Audoubert Les Trois Frères La Viña Las Caldas La Crouzade Montastruc La Garenne Tito Bustillo Le Mas d'Azil Labastide Gourdan La Garenne Tito Bustillo hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid; ivory hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid antler?; hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid scapula frag hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid? bone ? hyoid long bone hyoid hyoid hyoid antler Min. # Date 1 MM 1 MM 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 22 19 19 1 1 3 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 18 2 1 1 Comments MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM Magd. MM MM MM MM MM MM MM? "MM" MM MM MM MM "MM" Source Bellier 1991b; Mde l'H; Fritz 1999a Bellier 1984 Bellier 1984 Thiault & Roy 1996 Corchón 1986 Fortea Pérez 1983 from Grotte du Pape Bellier 1991a; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bellier 1991b; MAN Bellier 1984; MAN; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bellier 1984; MAN; MduMd'A; Th&R 1996 from the Volp complex Bellier 1984; M.de l'H; M.Bég.; Th&R 1996 Bellier 1984; MAN; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bellier 1984; Fritz 1999a Bellier 1984; MAN; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bellier 1984; MAN; Thiault & Roy 1996 Sacchi 1986, 1987; Th&R 1996; Price 2000 Clottes 1976; Thiault & Roy 1996 MAN; Bellier 1984; Thiault & Roy 1996 engraved lines; perforated? Musée d'Aquitaine the most detailed example MAN; Bellier 1984; Thiault & Roy 1996 Buisson et al.1996; Bellier 1984; Bég. 1926 Bellier 1984 Th & R 1996; Corchón 1986; Fortea P. 1983 front 1/2 only; unperforated Corchón 1995 muzzle only; unusual nostrils Sacchi 1986 Sieveking 1987 MAN cheek lines, mouth de Balbín Behrmann et al. 2003 2 ½ heads engraved on bone MAN necklace "hidden" in corner Bellier 1991b; Fritz 1999a; Bahn & V. 1988 both unperforated MAN; Bellier 1984; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bellier 1991b, 1984; MAN Moure 1983; Th & R 1996; Corchón 1986 Object/Design contour découpé-ibex head Site La Garma Medium hyoid Min. # Date 1 MM geometric grid on incisor geometric grid on incisor La Marche Roc aux Sorciers incisor incisor 7 MM 1 MM hyoid with edge lines hyoid with edge lines hyoid with edge lines hyoid with edge lines hyoid with edge lines hyoid with edge lines Laugerie-Basse Tito Bustillo La Güelga La Marche Le Bay Abauntz hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid hyoid 1 2 2 1 1 1 MM "MM" MM MM MM "MM" Comments recently discovered Source Straus pers. comm. 2004 all triangles; horse incisor square; bovid incisor MAN MAN Taborin 1991 Corchón 1986; Menéndez 2003 Menéndez 2003 MAN Delporte 1974b Utrilla & Mazo 1996b Marsoulas style decoration Marsoulas bone 7 MM Clottes 1976; MAN; Md'HistN Marsoulas style decoration Laugerie-Basse bone 2 MM Taborin 1991,1987; Bahn 1982 Marsoulas style decoration Enlène bone 1 MM Musée Bégouën Marsoulas style decoration Laugerie-Haute bone 1 MM Musée d'Aquitaine MM = Middle Magdalenian "MM" = considered to be Middle Magdalenian for this study Magd. = unspecified Magdalenian M. de l'H. = Musée de l'Homme MAN = Musée des Antiquites Nationales MduMd'A = Musée du Mas d'Azil M. Bég. = Musée Bégouën Md'HistN = Museum d'Histoire Naturelle (Toulouse) Table C.26. Groups of Similar Items of Personal Ornamentation from Upper Magdalenian Occupations. Object/Design discoidal bead discoidal bead discoidal bead discoidal bead discoidal bead discoidal bead discoidal bead discoidal bead discoidal bead discoidal bead Site Monruz Pincevent Nikolaushöhle Moosbühl Petersfels Schweizersbild Kohlerhöhle Fontalès Courbet Gönnersdorf Medium Min. # Date jet 2 UM jet 2 UM jet 1 UM jet, lignite 5 UM jet 13 UM jet 1 UM jet 1 UM lignite 1 UM lignite 1 UM lignite 19 UM Comments Source Alv F. 1999a; Affolter et al. 1994 non-local material Alv F. 1999a; Affolter et al. 1994 Eriksen 1991;Peters 1936;AlvF.1999a non-local mat. (SW Ger?); lger than Gönn. Affolter et al. 1994 some larger than those at Gönnersdorf Alvarez Fernández 1999a Alvarez Fernández 1999a larger than those at Gönnersdorf Alvarez Fernández 1999a Alv F. 1999a; Ladier & Welté 1994/5 Alv F. 1999a; Ladier & Welté 1994/5 Alvarez Fernández 1999b Venus pendant/figurine-jet Petersfels jet 11 UM some perforated, some unperforated Venus pendant/figurine-jet Monruz jet 3 UM perforated Venus pendant/figurine-jet Moosbühl jet 1 UM unperforated Venus pendant/figurine-jet Hollenberg-Höhle 3 jet 1 UM lower 1/2 only; no perforation left Venus pendant/figurine-jet Schweizersbild jet 1 "UM" rectangular; unperforated Venus pendant/figurine-jet Kesslerloch jet 2 "UM" Venus pendant/figurine-jet Freudenthal jet 1 "UM" UM = Upper Magdalenian "UM" = considered to be Upper Magdalenian for this study Alv F. 1999a; Bos. 1991; Eriks. 2002 Affolter et al. 1994 Höneisen and Peyer 1994 Bay 1953 Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Höneisen 1993b Table C.27. Groups of Similar Items of Personal Ornamentation from Occupations of Different Magdalenian Phases. Object/Design disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk disk Site Aurensan Enlène Espalungue/Arudy Gourdan Isturitz Lortet Le Mas d'Azil Le Portel Saint-Michel/Arudy Les Trois Frères Les Combarelles Laugerie-Basse La Madeleine Montastruc Chancelade Saint Eulalie Kesslerloch Llonín La Viña Lourdes Bédeilhac Medium bone bone bone bone bone; sandstone bone bone; lignite bone bone bone bone bone bone bone bone bone bone bone bone stone limestone disk scapula disk scapula disk scapula disk scapula Saint-Michel/Arudy Le Mas d'Azil Enlène Isturitz scapula scapula scapula scapula disk disk disk disk La Tuilière Chaleux Duruthy Isturitz bone bone; ivory bone bone Min. # 2 53 5 3 35; 4 3 40; 1 2 3 4 1 6 3 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Date MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM Comments Source Delporte 1974a Musée de l'Homme; Musée Bégouën; MAN MAN MAN Sievek.1971; MAN; de St-Perier1936; Passem.1944 MAN MAN; M. du Md'A; Péquart & Péquart 1962 Sieveking 1971 MAN; Chollot 1980 Musée Bégouën Barandiarán 1968 Barand.1968; Sieveking1971; MAN; Leroi-G. 1965 Capitan & Peyrony 1928; Bouvier 1987 Sieveking 1971, 1987 Bellier et al. 1999 Lorblanchet 1976 Merk 1876; Sieveking 1971 Thiault & Roy 1996 Fortea Pérez et al. 1987 Sieveking 1971 MAN 1 1 1 1 MM MM MM MM Bellier et al. 1991; Chollot 1964 Bégouën et al. 1988-89 Bégouën et al. 1988-89 Bégouën et al. 1988-89; Bellier et al. 1991 1 1; 1 2 3 UM UM UM UM Sieveking 1987 Lejeune 1987; Bellier et al. 1999 Barandiarán 1968 MAN Object/Design disk disk disk disk disk Site Le Morin Abri Plantade Gönnersdorf Hollenberg-Höhle 3 Petersfels Medium Min. # Date bone 1 UM bone 1 UM slate; antler; ivory 21; 1 UM lignite 1 UM lignite; ivory 2; 1 UM sea urchin spine pendant sea urchin spine pendant sea urchin spine pendant Le Mas d'Azil Freudenthal Kesslerloch mammoth ivory 1 M/UM mam. ivory; lignite many M/UM mam. ivory; lignite 1; 7 M/UM Comments Source Musée d'Aquitaine Ladier & Welté 1994/95 H. Bosinski 1977; G. Bosinski 1981a Bay 1953 Sieveking 1971 H. Bosinski 1980 H. Bosinski 1980 H. Bosinski 1980 sea urchin spine pendant Gönnersdorf ivory 1 UM Concentration III Alvarez Fernández 1999a sea urchin spine pendant Schweizersbild real ? UM Le Tensorer 1998 sea urchin spine pendant Bois Laiterie real ? UM collected locally? Straus & Martinez 1997 UM = Upper Magdalenian M/UM = either Middle or Upper Magdalenian (unknown) MAN = Musée des Antiquites Nationales M. du Md'A = Musée du Mas d'Azil Table C.28. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Lower Magdalenian Burials in France. OBTAINMENT MODIFIC. Site Id F-143a F-143a TOTAL Site Name Code km Count Estimate Comments References Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. St-Germ.-la-R. 5000 # 70 20 w/ lines;1-3 necklaces? Bahn & V. 1988 70 70 St-Germ.-la-R. 9003 70;345 ? many unspecified Ladier & W. 1995 ? ? ST-G BURIAL 70+? 70 ? 0 70+? 0 Table C.29. Personal Ornamentation Data Collected for Upper Magdalenian Burials in France and Germany. OBTAINMENT MODIFIC. Site Id F-6b F-6b F-6b TOTAL F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b F-105b TOTAL G-61b G-61b G-61b G-61b TOTAL Site Name Code km Count Estimate Duruthy 5011 # 40 Duruthy 5024 # 3 Duruthy 6011 # 2 DURUTHY 45 La Madeleine 9003 175;270 1275 La Madeleine 9001 175 176 La Madeleine 9001 175 42 La Madeleine 9003 175;270 24 La Madeleine 9003 175;270 1 La Madeleine 5000 # 2 La Madeleine 5010 # 1 La Madeleine 6004 # 1 La Madeleine 6003 # 1 La Madeleine 6017 # 1 MADELEINE 1524 Oberkassel 5001 # 1 Oberkassel 5011 # ? teeth Oberkassel 6019 # 1 Oberkassel 5014 # 1 OBERKASS. 2+? Comments burial 3; most perf & engr. burial 3; perf & engr. burial Dentalium Neritina Turritella Cyclope Glycymeris lagomorph lagomorph; naturally perf naturally perforated stuck to skeleton unperforated in burial in burial References Easy Mod. Diff. Nat. Creat. Ladier & W. 1995 40 40 Ladier & W. 1995 3 3 Barandiarán 1968 2 2 2 43 0 43 2 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1275 1275 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 176 176 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 42 42 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 24 24 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 1 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 2 2 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 1 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 1 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 1 Vanh. & d'E. 2001 1 1 5 1 1518 1524 0 Street 2000 1 1 Street 2000 ? ? Rensink 1993 1 1 Street 2000 1 1 2 ? 0 1+? 1 APPENDIX D: Portable Decorated Object Data 568 Table D.1. Portable Decorated Object Material Codes. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 99 chert sandstone slate psammite bone ivory lignite schist antler jet nautilus shell unspecified stone fired clay unspecified cobble limestone unknown Table D.2. Portable Decorated Object Form Codes. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 bâton de commandement contour découpé disk figurine plaquette rod or baguette sagaie spatula spearthrower naturally shaped long bone, antler, or shell round or semi-round section antler rod Table D.3. Portable Decorated Object Motif Codes. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 bird fish geometric anthropomorph unspecified caprid mammoth stylized frontal view cervid head red deer reindeer stylized frontal view ibex head zigzags random lines parallel lines bovine horse Table D.3. Portable Decorated Object Motif Codes Continued. 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 99 hybrid animal hybrid human and animal insect bear sign (e.g., claviform, tectiform) "Venus" (figurine) woolly rhinoceros ibex female chamois whale seal salmonid raised side protruberances musk ox vegetal unknown Table D.4. Portable Decorated Object Style Codes. 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 99 body shading facial shading superimposed lines crouching exaggerated eye exaggerated antlers unique/one-of-a-kind acephalic paw, hoof, or foot only arrows 3-dimensional unknown Table D.5. Groups of Similar Portable Decorated Objects from Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian Occupations. Object/Design Site Medium Cantabrian Spain scapula with red deer scapula with red deer scapula with red deer scapula with red deer scapula with red deer scapula with bison scapula with red deer Altamira El Castillo El Cierro El Juyo El Mirón El Rascaño El Pendo scapula scapula scapula scapula scapula scapula scapula Cantabrian Spain and Southwestern France tectiform sign Altamira tectiform sign El Cierro tectiform sign El Castillo tectiform sign Le Placard tectiform sign Le Chaffaud tectiform sign El Juyo varilla varilla varilla sagaie unknown sagaie Min. # Date 5 30 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Comments Source LM LM LM LM LM Magd. Thiault & Roy 1996; Corchón 1986 Thiault & Roy 1996; Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Straus pers. comm. 2004 Thiault & Roy 1996; Corchón 1986 Gonzalez Morales & Straus 2009 Mag III-IV Mag inicial LM Mag III Mag infer. Mag III Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 "pseudoexcisa" lines Le Placard sagaie 3 BD/LM Utrilla 1986, 1987; Chauvet 1910 "pseudoexcisa" lines Pégourié sagaie 1 BD Utrilla 1986, 1987 "pseudoexcisa" lines Laugerie-Haute sagaie 1 BD/LM Utrilla 1986, 1987 "pseudoexcisa" lines Badegoule chisel 1 BD Utrilla 1986, 1987 "pseudoexcisa" lines Aitzbitarte IV semi-rd rod 1 Solut./LM Thiault & Roy 1996; Corchón 1986 "pseudoexcisa" lines Llonín varilla/sagaie 1 MM? level III Fortea Pérez et al. 1995 LM = Lower Magdalenian Magd. = unspecified Magdalenian Magd. infer. = Cantabrian inferior Magdalenian BD = Badegoulian Solut. = Solutrean MM? = possibly Middle Magdalenian Table D.6. Groups of Similar Portable Decorated Objects from Middle Magdalenian Occupations. Object/Design Site Cantabrian Spain, Pyrenees "net" motif La Paloma "net" motif Cueto de la M. "net" motif Marsoulas "plant frond" motifs "plant frond" motifs "plant frond" motifs Medium slate plaq. spatula bone Espélugues semi-rd rod Isturitz semi-rd rod Hornos de la P. semi-rd rod Min. # Date Comments Source 2 MM 1 MM 1 MM Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 M. d'Hist. Nat. 2 MM 2 MM 1 "MM" Chollot 1980; MAN Passemard 1944; Thiault & Roy 1996 Santander; Thiault & Roy 1996; Corchón 1986 Bahn 1982; Sacchi 1987; Utrilla & M. 1996b Bahn 1982; Sacchi 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bahn 1982; Thiault & Roy 1996 Sacchi 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 Pyrenees side lines & medial zigzags Duruthy side lines & medial zigzags Isturitz side lines & medial zigzags Brassempouy side lines & medial zigzags Gazel bone lissoir antler lissoir bone lissoir bone 3 2 1 1 semi-rd rod: "eye" semi-rd rod: "eye" Isturitz Espalungue/A. antler antler 6 MM 2 MM G. Bosinski 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 MAN semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: "sun ray" "sun ray" "sun ray" "sun ray" Espalungue/A. Isturitz Harpons/Lesp. Espélugues antler antler antler antler 1 2 1 1 MM MM MM MM MAN MAN MAN MAN semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: semi-rd rod: "spiral" "spiral" "spiral" "spiral" "spiral" "spiral" "spiral" Espélugues Espalungue/A. Isturitz Harpons/Lesp. Duruthy Le Mas d'Azil Poggenwisch antler antler antler antler antler antler antler 10 5 10 1 1 1 1 MM MM also round section rods MM also round section rods MM MM MM M/UM Bahn 1982; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bahn 1982; Thiault & Roy 1996 G. Bosinski 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 Clottes 1976; MAN; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bahn 1982; Arambourou 1978 G. Bosinski 1987; Chollot 1964 G. Bosinski 1981b, 1987 MM MM MM MM Object/Design semi-rd rod: "spiral" Site Arancou Medium antler Min. # Date 1 MM Comments Source Straus 1993 Cantabrian Spain, Pyrenees, Southwestern France diamond w/ center lines Abauntz bone?antler? diamond w/ center lines Ermittia sagaie diamond w/ center lines Cueto de la M. sagaie , baton diamond w/ center lines La Paloma sagaie bone, sagaie diamond w/ center lines Santimamiñe diamond w/ center lines Isturitz 1/2 bag. diamond w/ center lines Marsoulas spatula diamond w/ center lines Espélugues 1/2 bag. diamond w/ center lines La Madeleine 1/2 bag. diamond w/ center lines Lafaye bone pt diamond w/ center lines El Pendo sagaie 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM UM Utrilla & Mazo 1996b Utrilla & Mazo 1996b; Corchón 1986 Utrilla & Mazo 1996b; Corchón 1986 Utrilla & Mazo 1996b; Corchón 1986 Utrilla & Mazo 1996b; Corchón 1986 Utrilla & Mazo 1996b; MAN MAN MAN MAN Cartailhac 1903 Corchón 1986 sculpted "ears of wheat" sculpted "ears of wheat" sculpted "ears of wheat" sculpted "ears of wheat" 2 1 1 1 MM MM MM Magd. Bahn 1982; MAN Bahn 1982 Bahn 1982 Oviedo Pyrenees, Southwestern France or West-Central France semi-rd rod: "side curves" Isturitz antler semi-rd rod: "side curves" Le Mas d'Azil antler semi-rd rod: "side curves" Gourdan antler semi-rd rod: "side curves" Lortet antler semi-rd rod: "side curves" Saint-Michel/A. antler semi-rd rod: "side curves" Courbet antler semi-rd rod: "side curves" Abauntz antler 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MAN; Utrilla & Mazo 1992 Musée du Mas d'Azil; Chollot 1964 Thiault & Roy 1996 Chollot 1964 Mascaraux 1910 Carthailac 1903 Utrilla & Mazo 1992 "bird head" perf bâton "bird head" perf bâton "bird head" perf bâton 1 MM 1 MM 2 MM Espélugues Harpons/Lesp. Bruniquel Coimbre Isturitz Espalungue/A. Le Mas d'Azil antler? antler? antler? antler? antler antler antler Thiault & Roy 1996 Thiault & Roy 1996 Chollot 1964 Object/Design "bird head" perf bâton "bird head" perf bâton Site Le Placard Tuc d'Audoub. Medium antler antler Min. # Date Comments 1 Magd. tiny version 1 MM bison in profile bison in profile bison in profile bison in profile bison in profile Isturitz Enlène Courbet Espélugues Grand Pastou perf bâton stone, bâton antler ? antler? 8 2 1 1 1 MM MM MM MM MM fawn spearthrower fawn spearthrower fawn spearthrower fawn spearthrower fawn spearthrower Bédeilhac Labastide Mas d'Azil St Michel/A. Isturitz antler antler antler antler antler 1 1 1 3 1 MM MM MM MM MM or from Mas d'Azil? Bahn 1982; Clottes 2001; Thiault & Roy 1996 Clottes 2001; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bahn 1982; Clottes 2001; Th. & R. 1996; MAN SP Bahn 1982; Clottes 2001; Chollot 1980; Th.&R. 1996 Bahn 1982; Chollot 1980; Thiault & Roy 1996 fawn spearthr. element fawn spearthr. element fawn spearthr. element fawn spearthr. element fawn spearthr. element fawn spearthr. element Gourdan St Michel/A. Mas d'Azil Laugerie-Haute Gazel Plantade antler antler antler antler antler antler 1 2 1 1 1 1 MM MM MM MM MM UM separate bird/turd/larva 1tiny bird spearthr;1feet no hook or perforation bird/turd hook only feet, on spearthrower feet, on spearthrower MAN SP Thiault & Roy 1996; MAN SP MAN SP White 1992 Sacchi 1986 Welté 2000 circles in triang. brackets circles in triang. brackets Gourdan Bruniquel bone bone 2 MM 2 MM Bahn 1982; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bahn 1982 "train track" lines "train track" lines "train track" lines Gr. des Fees Isturitz Lortet bone bone bone 2 MM 1 MM? 3 MM? Musée d'Aquitaine Sauvet 1987 Sauvet 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996; Chollot 1964 "horizontal" woman "horizontal" woman Isturitz Laugerie-B bone bone 2 MM 1 MM? carved; partly 3-d pendant, lissoir , frag Source MAN Bégouën 1926 Conkey 1987; Bahn 1982; Thiault & Roy 1996 Conkey1987; Thiault & R.1996; Begouën et al.1984/85 Carthailac 1903 MAN Arambourou 1976; Bahn & Vertut 1988 Pales & Tassin de Saint Péreuse 1976 Duhard 1996 Object/Design Site Medium Min. # Date Comments Source Cantabrian Spain, Pyrenees, Southwestern France, Switzerland semi-rd rod:side protuber. Aurensan antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Le Mas d'Azil antler 14 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Gourdan antler 6 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Santimamiñe varilla 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Freudenthal antler >1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Kesslerloch antler 2 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Campalou antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Gazel antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. La Crouzade antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Enlène antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Laugerie-B antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Isturitz antler 4 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Brassempouy antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Espalunge/A. antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Espélugues antler 1 semi-rd rod:side protuber. Bédeilhac antler 1 MM MM MM MM MM MM UM? MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM semi-rd rd:raised cent. line semi-rd rd:raised cent. line semi-rd rd:raised cent. line semi-rd rd:raised cent. line semi-rd rd:raised cent. line semi-rd rd:raised cent. line semi-rd rd:raised cent. line Kesslerloch Le Mas d'Azil Laugerie-B Saint-Marcel Abauntz Isturitz Gr. de l'Eglise antler antler antler antler antler antler antler 1 10 3 1 1 1 1 MM MM Magd. MM? MM ~identical to Isturitz MM ~identical to Abauntz Magd. Bandi 1947 Chollot 1964 Chollot 1964 MAN Utrilla & Mazo 1996b Utrilla & Mazo 1996b MAN horse head spearthrower horse head spearthrower horse head spearthrower horse head spearthrower horse head spearthrower Kesslerloch Isturitz Gourdan Le Placard Courbet antler antler antler antler antler 7 1 4 1 5 MM MM MM MM MM Höneis.1993b;Bosinski 1987;Bandi1984;Le Tens.1998 Bosinski 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 Bosinski 1987; MAN Cartailhac 1903 Bosinski 1987; Sieveking 1987; Cartailhac 1903 connecting design Delporte 1974a; Bosinski 1987 Musée du Mas d'Azil; Chollot 1964 Thiault & Roy 1996; Chollot 1964 Corchón 1986 Leesch 1993a; Höneisen 1993b Leesch 1993a; Höneisen 1993b; Le Tensorer 1998 Brochier & Brochier 1973 Sacchi 1986 Sacchi 1986 Musée Bégouën MNP G. Bosinski 1987 G. Bosinski 1987 G. Bosinski 1987 G. Bosinski 1987 G. Bosinski 1987 Object/Design Site Medium Min. # Date Comments Source horse head spearthrower Lafaye antler 1 MM Cartailhac 1903; Welté 2000 horse head spearthrower La Madeleine antler 1 MM Bosinski 1987 horse head spearthrower La Crouzade antler 1 MM Sacchi 1986 horse head spearthrower Gazel antler 1 MM Price 2000; Thiault & Roy 1996 horse head spear. shape Montastruc antler 2 MM horse & deer heads Sieveking 1987 horse head spear. shape Mas d'Azil antler 1 MM red deer head Bosinski 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 horse head spear. shape Laugerie-Basse antler 1 MM? ibex head Bosinski 1987; MNP semi-rd rod = semi-round section antler rod MM = Middle Magdalenian "MM" = considered Middle Magdalenian for this study M/UM = either Middle or Upper Magdalenian UM = Upper Magdalenian Magd. = unspecified Magdalenian M. d'Hist. Nat. = Museum d'Histoire Naturelle (Toulouse) MAN = Musée des Antiquites Nationales Santander = Museo Regional de Prehistoria y Arqueológico (Santander) Oviedo = Museo Archeológico (Oviedo) MAN SP = Musée des Antiquites Nationales, Salle Piette MNP = Musée National de Préhistoire (Les Eyzies de Tayac) Table D.7. Groups of Similar Portable Decorated Objects from Upper Magdalenian Occupations. Object/Design Site Medium Cantabrian Spain bâton w/ red deer stag bâton w/ red deer stag El Castillo Cualventi bâton bâton 1 UM 1 UM Thiault & Roy 1996; Corchón 1986 García-Gelabert 2000; Gonzalez Sainz 1989 bâton w/ red deer hind bâton w/ red deer hind El Pendo El Valle bâton bâton 1 UM 1 UM Corchón 1986 Corchón 1986 Cantabrian Spain/Pyrenees/Southwestern France frontal-view stylized ibex El Pendo various frontal-view stylized ibex Urtiaga frontal-view stylized ibex La Paloma bone frontal-view stylized ibex Cueva Morín frontal-view stylized ibex C. de la Mina frontal-view stylized ibex Aitzbitarte frontal-view stylized ibex Sofoxó frontal-view stylized ibex El Valle chisel frontal-view stylized ibex Ekain frontal-view stylized ibex Torre frontal-view stylized ibex Otero frontal-view stylized ibex Montgaudier antler bâton frontal-view stylized ibex La Vache frontal-view stylized ibex Tito Bustillo frontal-view stylized ibex Belvis bone frontal-view stylized ibex Abauntz frontal-view stylized ibex Massat frontal-view stylized ibex Llonín frontal-view stylized ibex Gourdan frontal-view stylized ibex La Madeleine Min. # Date 9 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 3 1 3 2 5 2 1 UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM MM? UM? UM? Comments Source Utrilla 1987;Thiault & Roy 1996;Utrilla & M. 1996a Utrilla 1987;Thiault & Roy 1996;Utrilla & M. 1996a Utrilla 1987;Thiault & Roy 1996;Utrilla & M. 1996a Utrilla 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 Utrilla 1987;Thiault & Roy 1996;Utrilla & M. 1996a Utrilla 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 Utrilla 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 Utrilla 1987; Thiault & Roy 1996 Utrilla 1987; Utrilla & Mazo 1996a ~same as Gourdan Utrilla 1987;Thiault & Roy 1996;Utrilla & M. 1996a Utrilla 1987; Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Marshack 1970 Fritz 1997; Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Thiault & Roy 1996 Thiault & Roy 1996 Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Utrilla & Mazo 1996a ~same as Torre Utrilla & Mazo 1996a; Chollot 1964 "cervid",but looks caprid Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Object/Design Site frontal-view stylized cervid Laugerie-B. frontal-view stylized cervid Teyjat frontal-view stylized cervid El Pendo frontal-view stylized cervid La Chora frontal-view stylized cervid Abauntz frontal-view stylized cervid Limeuil frontal-view stylized cervid Gourdan frontal-view stylized cervid El Valle frontal-view stylized cervid La Madeleine frontal-view stylized cervid Le Mas d'Azil frontal-view stylized cervid Lortet frontal-view stylized cervid La Vache frontal-view stylized cervid Cueva Morín Pyrenees/Southwestern France semi-rd rod: "side steps" Gourdan semi-rd rod: "side steps" Laugerie-B. semi-rd rod: "side steps" La Madeleine semi-rd rod: "side steps" Les Eglises semi-rd rod: "side steps" Fontarnaud semi-rd rod: "side steps" Teyjat semi-rd rod: "side steps" La Vache semi-rd rod: "side steps" Lortet semi-rd rod: "side steps" Courbet "side steps" and design "side steps" and design "side steps" and design "side steps" and design "side steps" and design "side steps" and design "side steps" and design Teyjat Laugerie-B. Le Mas d'Azil Gourdan La Vache Courbet Montastruc Medium antler bone bone sagaie pendant antler antler antler antler antler antler antler antler antler semi-rd rod Min. # Date 1 UM? 3 UM 1 UM 1 UM 1 UM 2 UM 2 UM? 1 UM 1 UM? 1 UM? 1 UM? 1 UM? 1 UM Comments full body full body; 1 profile head cartoonish,w/ shading also body full body unusual style; shading 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 4 UM UM? UM UM UM UM UM Magd "UM" triangular 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 UM M/UM? M/UM? ant UM UM frog/anthropomorph legs UM M/UM? 1 side of rod only Source Sieveking 1987 MAN; Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Thiault & Roy 1996; Utrilla & Mazo 1996a I. Barandiarán 1972; Corchón 1986 Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Utrilla & Mazo 1996a; Chollot 1964 Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Utrilla & Mazo 1996a; Chollot 1964 Utrilla & Mazo 1996a Corchón 1986 Bosinski 1987; Crémades 1996 Bosinski 1987; Musée de l'Homme Bosinski 1987; MAN; MNP Clottes 1976 Musée d'Aquitaine; Roussot & Ferrier 1971 MAN MAN Chollot 1964; Crémades 1993 Cartailhac 1903 Marshack 1971; Chollot 1980 Marshack 1971 Marshack 1971 Marshack 1971; Thiault & Roy 1996 Marshack 1971; Thiault & Roy 1996 Sieveking 1987; Marshack 1971 Sieveking 1987 Object/Design semi-rd rod:twisting lines semi-rd rod:twisting lines semi-rd rod:twisting lines semi-rd rod:twisting lines semi-rd rod:twisting lines Site Laugerie-B. Lourdes La Madeleine La Vache Courbet Medium antler antler antler antler antler big-headed horse big-headed horse big-headed horse big-headed horse big-headed horse big-headed horse big-headed horse big-headed horse big-headed horse big-headed horse La Madeleine Le Souci sagaies, rod Chancelade/R. Laugerie-B. sagaie Abri Morín Le Mas d'Azil Limeuil Les Eyzies Gare de Cond. Jolivet antler rod Southwestern France carved, twisting 3-d rod carved, twisting 3-d rod carved, twisting 3-d rod Montastruc La Madeleine Le Morín antler antler antler 1 "UM" 1 UM 2 UM Sieveking 1987 MAN MAN complex in-filling complex in-filling complex in-filling Abri Morín Pont d'Ambon Borie del Rey bone bone bone 1 UM 1 UM 1 UM Fritz 1997, 1999b Roussot 1987 Roussot 1987 Southwestern and Northeastern Regions of Western Europe stylized female engraving Gönnersdorf slate stylized female engraving Andernach slate stylized female engraving Petersfels slate? stylized female engraving Hohlenstein Ed. limest plaq. stylized female engraving Teufelsbrücke cobble Min. # Date Comments Source 1 M/UM? Musée de l'Homme 1 M/UM? MAN 1 UM identical to La Vache MAN 3 UM identical to La Madeleine MAN 1 "UM" Cartailhac 1903 10 5 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 400 1 1 3 1 UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM Apellániz 1987; Sieveking 1987 Apellániz 1987 Apellániz 1987 Apellániz 1987 Apellániz 1987; Deffarge et al. 1975 Apellániz 1987 Apellániz 1987 Sieveking 1987 Lorblanchet & Welté 1987 Bouyssonie 1930 Bosinski 1981a;Bos. & Fischer 1974;Weniger 1989 G. Bosinski 1994; Weniger 1989 Weniger 1989 Weniger 1989;Bosinski 1991;Narr 1965;Alaux 1972 Weniger 1989 Object/Design stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving stylized female engraving Site Felsställe Schweizersbild Gare de Couze La Roche à L. Saalfeld Fronsac Abri Faustin Fontalès Courbet Chaleux Combarelles Murat à Roc. La Garenne Gourdan Medium limestone stone stone block stone plaq. slate? limestone? bone limestone? limestone? nautilus sh. ? cobble bone pend. parietal Min. # Date 1 UM 1 UM 1 UM 3 UM 1 UM 1 UM 1 UM 3 UM 1 UM 1 UM 2 UM 1 UM 1 "UM" 1 "UM" stylized female figurine stylized female figurine stylized female figurine stylized female figurine stylized female figurine stylized female figurine stylized female figurine stylized female figurine stylized female figurine stylized female figurine Petersfels Gönnersdorf Andernach Nebra Oelknitz Hohlenstein-St. Königsee Courbet Fontalès Durif à Enval antler 2 UM ivry;antler;stne 9; 2; 3 UM ivory; antler 12 UM ivory? 3 UM ivory; stone 2; 3 UM ivory 1 UM ivory? 1 UM red sandstone 1 MM stone plaq. 2 UM stone? 1 UM Comments lines down legs from natural cave cavity Source Weniger 1989 Weniger 1989 G. Bosinski 1981a; Narr 1965; Fritz et al. 1996 Narr 1965; Delluc & Delluc 1992; Fritz et al.1996 G. Bosinski 1991 G. Bosinski 1991; Fritz et al. 1996 G. Bosinski 1991 G. Bosinski 1991; Alaux 1972 G. Bosinski 1991; Alaux 1972 G. Bosinski 1991 G. Bosinski 1991; Otte 1992; Fritz et al. 1996 Otte 1992; G. Bosinski 1991 Allain 1979 Fritz et al. 1996 G. Bosinski 1981b; Alvarez Fernández 1999a Weniger1989;Monrepos;Bosin.1987;Alv.F.1999a Weniger 1989; G.Bosinski 1987,1991; Alv.F. 1999a Weniger 1989; Alvarez Fernández 1999a Weniger 1989;Bosinski 1991;Alvarez Fern. 1999a Wagner 1984; Alvarez Fernández 1999a Weniger 1989; Alvarez Fernández 1999a Ladier 1992; Alvarez Fernández 1999a G. Bosinski 1991; Alvarez Fernández 1999a Delporte 1976 Belgium/Northern France plaquette w/ bovine Chaleux psammite 1 UM aurochs Dewez 1987 plaquette w/ bovine Roc-la-Tour schist/psam. 1 UM bison Dewez 1987 semi-rd rod = semi-round section antler rod UM = Upper Magdalenian MM = Middle Magdalenian Magd = unspecified Magdalenian "UM" = considered Upper Magdalenian for this study M/UM = either Middle or Upper Magdalenian MAN = Musée des Antiquites Nationales MNP = Musée National de Préhistoire Monrepos = Schloß Monrepos REFERENCES CITED Adams, C. 1971 Flexibility in Canadian Eskimo Social Forms and Behavior: A Situational and Transactional Appraisal. In Alliance in Eskimo Society, edited by L. Guemple, pp. 916. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, 1971, Supplement, Seattle. Affolter, J., M-I. Cattin, D. Leesch, P. Morel, N. Plumettaz, N. Thew, and G. Wendling 1994 Monruz—Une Nouvelle Station Magdalénienne au Bord du Lac de Neuchâtel. Archéologie Suisse 17(3):94-104 Alaux, J-F. 1972 Gravure Féminine sur Plaquette Calcaire, du Magdalénien Supérieur de la Grotte du Courbet (Commune de Penne-Tarn). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française Tome 69, CRSM 4:109-112. Albrecht, G., D. Drautz, and J. Kind 1977 Eine Station des Magdalénien in der Gnirshöhle bei Engen-Bittelbrunn im Hegau. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 7(3):161-179. Allain, J. 1979 A Propos d’Une Pendeloque à Décor Anthropomorphe de la Garenne, Commune de Saint-Marcel (Indre). Extrait de L’Indre et Son Passé. Bulletin du Groupe d’Histoire et d’Archeologie de Buzançais No. 11:9-13. Allain, J. and R. Fritsch 1967 Le Badegoulien de l’Abri Fritsch aux Roches de Pouligny-Saint-Pierre (Indre). BSPF 64:83-94. Allard, M. and M. Gruet 1976 Les Civilizations du Paléolithique Supérieur dans les Pays de la Loire. In La Préhistoire Française, edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 1305-1310. CNRS, Paris. Almagro Basch, M. 1976 Los Omoplatos Decorados de la Cueva de “El Castillo”. Puente Viesgo (Santander). Trabajos de Prehistoria 33:9-112. Altuna, J. 1972 Fauna de Mamíferos de los Yacimientos Prehistóricos de Guipúzcoa. Munibe 24:1-464. 1986 The Magdalenian Site of Erralla Cave (Cestona, Euzkadi, Spain). Old World Archaeology Newsletter 10(3):24-26. 581 Alvarez Fernández, E. 1999a Arte Mueble Renano: Gönnersdorf y Andernach-Martinsberg-2, Neuwied, Alemania. Unpublished Tesina, Universidad de Salamanca. 1999b Las Perlas de Madera Fósil del Terciario y de los Objetos de Adorno-Colgantes Sobre Dientes de Zorro y Ciervo del Magdaleniense de Gönnersdorf y AndernachMartinsberg-2 (Neuwied, Rheinland Pfalz, Alemania). Zephyrus 52:79-106. 2001 L’Axe Rhin-Rhöne au Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: l’Exemple des Mollusques Utilizes Comme Objets de Parure. L’Anthropologie 105:547-564. 2002 Perforated Homalopoma sanguineum from Tito Bustillo (Asturias): Mobility of Magdalenian Groups in Northern Spain. Antiquity 76:641-646. in preparation Los Objetos de Adorno-Colgantes del Paleolítico Superior y del Mesolítico en la Cornisa Cantábrica y en el Valle del Ebro: Una Vision Europea. Unpublished Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Salamanca. Andrews, E.F. 1994 Territoriality and Land Use Among the Akulmiut of Western Alaska. In Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research, edited by E.S. Burch, Jr. and L J. Ellanna, pp. 6593. Antoine, P. 1997 Évolution Tardiglaciaire et Début Holocène de la Moyenne Vallée de la Somme (France). In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Ouest, edited by J-P. Fagnart and A. Thévenin, pp. 13-26. CTHS, Paris. Apellaniz, J.M. 1982 El Arte Prehistórico del País Vasco y Sus Vecinos. Desclée de Brouwer, Bilbao. 1987 Modèle d’Analyse d’Une École dans l’Iconographie Mobilière Paléolithique: l’École des Graveurs de Chevaux Hypertrophies de la Madeleine. In L’Art des Objets au Paléolithique t. 2, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 105-138. Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine, Paris. Arambourou, R. 1962 Sculptures Magdaléniennes Découvertes à la Grotte Duruthy, Sorde-l’Abbaye. L’Anthropologie 66:457-468. 1976 Les Civilizations du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Sud-Ouest (Landes). In La Préhistoire Française, edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 1243-1251. CNRS, Paris. 1978 Le Gisement Préhistorique de Duruthy à Sorde-l’Abbaye. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 13, Paris. Arias Cabal, P. 1990 Utilisation Différentielle des Variétés de Silex au Chalcolithique dans les Asturies Orientales. In Le Silex de Sa Genèse à l’Outil, edited by M-R. Séronie-Vivien and M. Lenoir, pp. 449-452. Cahiers du Quaternaire n°17, Actes du V° Colloque International sur le Silex. CNRS, Paris. 582 Audouze, F. 1987 The Paris Basin in Magdalenian times. In Pleistocene Old World, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 183-200. Plenum Press, New York. 1989 L’Occupation Magdalénienne du Bassin Parisien. In Le Peuplement Magdalénien: Paléogéographie Physique et Humaine, pp. 345-356. CTHS, Paris. 1994 Verberie. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 167-172. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. Audouze, F. and J.G. Enloe 1991 Subsistence Strategies and Economy in the Magdalenian of the Paris Basin. In The Late Glacial of Northwest Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene, edited by R.N.E. Barton, A.J. Roberts, and D.A. Roe, pp. 63-71. BAR 77. Baales, M. 1997 Kettig (Neuwied Basin, Central Rhine Valley, Germany): A Federmessergrüppen Site Yielding Organic Artifacts. In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Ouest, edited by J-P. Fagnart and A. Thévenin, pp. 579-588. CTHS, Paris. Baales, M. and M. Street 1996 Hunter-Gatherer Behavior in a Changing Late Glacial landscape: Allerød Archaeology in the Central Rhineland, Germany. Journal of Anthropological Research 52:281-316. Bahn, P.G. 1982 Inter-Site and Inter-Regional Links During the Upper Palaeolithic: The Pyrenean Evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1:247-268. 1983a Pyrenean Prehistory: A Palaeoeconomic Survey of the French Sites. Aris and Phillips Ltd., Warminster. 1983b Late Pleistocene Economies of the French Pyrenees. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 168-186. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bahn, P.G. and R.K. Butlin 1987 Les Insects dans l’Art Paléolithique: Quelques Observations Nouvelles sur la Sauterelle d’Enlène (Ariège). In L’Art des Objets au Paléolithique t. 1, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 247-253. Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine. Bahn, P.G. and J. Vertut 1988 Images of the Ice Age. Bellew Publishing Co., Ltd., London. Balbín Behrmann, R. de, J.J. Alcolea González, M.A. González Pereda 2003 El Macizo de Ardines, un Lugar Mayor del Arte Paleolítico Europeo. In El Arte Prehistórico Desde los Inicios del Siglo XXI, pp. 91-151. Primer Symposium Internacional de Arte Prehistórico de Ribadesella. Asociación Cultural Amigos de 583 Ribadesella. Bandi, H-G. 1947 Die Schweiz zur Rentierzeit, Kulturgeschichte der Rentierjäger am Ende der Eiszeit. Verlag Huber & Co., Frauenfeld. 1984 Die Kleinkunst aus dem Kesslerloch. In Die Kultur der Eiszeitjäger aus dem Kesslerloch, edited by H-G. Bandi, J. Bürgi, K. Gerhardt, H. Müller-Beck, and E. Schmid, pp. 82-88. Seekreis Verlag Konstanz. Bandi, H-G., J. Bürgi, K. Gerhardt, H. Müller-Beck, and E. Schmid 1977 Die Kultur der Eiszeitjäger aus dem Kesslerloch. Seekreis Verlag Konstanz. Barandiarán, I. 1968 Rodetes Paleolíticos de Hueso. Ampurias XXX:1-37. 1971 Hueso con Grabados Paleolíticos en Torre. Munibe 23:37-69. 1972 Arte Mueble de Paleolítico Cantábrico. Monografías Arquelógicas 14, Zaragoza. 1984 Utilización del Espacio y Proceso Gráfico en el Arte Mueble Paleolítico. In Francisco Jordá Oblata, Scripta Praehistorica, pp. 113-161. Salamanca. 1988 Datation 14C de l’Art Mobilier Magdalénien Cantabrique. Préhistoire Ariégoise XLIII:63-84. 1994 El Lobo Feroz: La Vacuidad de un Cuento Magdaleniense. Veleia 11:7-37. 1996 El Arte Mobiliar del Hombre Fósil Cantábrico. In “El Hombre Fósil” 80 Años Después, edited by A. Moure Romanillo, pp. 345-369. Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander. Barandiarán, J.M. de 1961 Excavaciones en Atxeta. Diputación Provincial de Vizcaya, Bilbao. Bard, E., B. Hamelin, R. Fairbanks, and A. Zindler 1990 Calibration of the 14C Time Scale Over the Past 30,000 Years Using Mass Spectrometric U-Th Ages from Barbados Corals. Nature 345:405-410. Bay, R. 1953 Die Magdalénienstation am Hollenberg bei Arlesheim (Kanton Baselland). Tätigkeitsberichte der Naturforschende Gesellschaft Baselland 19:164-178. Bazile, F. and C. Monnet-Bazile 2000 Le Magdalénien et l’Après-Magdalénien en Languedoc Oriental. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 127-145. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. de Beaune, S.A. 1999 Les Fragments de Nautiles Fossils Ramassés par les Magdaléniens. In Occupations du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Sud-Est du Bassin Parisien, edited by 584 M. Julien and J-L. Rieu, pp. 42-44. Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. Beck, C.W. 1997 Détermination de la Provenance des Resins Fossiles par l’Analyse Spectrale en Infrarouge. In Hauterive-Champréveyres: Un Campement Magdalénien au Bord du Lac de Neuchâtel, by D. Leesch, pp. 105-107. Archéologie Neuchâteloise 19. Musée Cantonal d’Archéologie, Neuchâtel. Bégouën, R. 1926 L’Art Mobilier dans la Caverne du Tuc d’Audoubert (Ariège). Jahrbuch für Préhistorische und Ethnographische Kunst 15:219-228. Bégouën, R. and J. Clottes 1981 Apports Mobiliers dans les Caverns du Volp (Enlène, Les Trois-Reères, Le Tuc d’Audoubert). In Altamira Symposium, edited by M. Almagro, pp. 157-188. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid. Bégouën, R., F. Briois, J. Clottes, and C. Servelle 1984/85 Art Mobilier sur Support Lithique d’Enlène (Montesquieu-Avantès, Ariège). Ars Praehistorica t. III/IV:25-80. Bégouën, R., J. Clottes, J-P. Giraud, and F. Rouzaud 1988-89 La Rondelle au Bison d’Enlène (Montesquieu-Avantès, Ariège). Zephyrus XLI-XLII:19-25. Bellier, C. 1984 Contribution à l’Étude de l’Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique: Les Contours Découpés du Type “Têtes d’Herbivores”. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belgique Anthrop. Préhist. 95:21-34. 1991a Fiche Generale Contours Découpés. In Fiches Typologiques de l’Industrie Osseuse Prehistorique, Paleolithique Superieur : Aurignacien Gravettien Magdalenien, Cahier IV : Objets de Parure, edited by H. Camps-Fabrer, pp. 1-8. Commission de Nomenclature sur l’Industrie de l’Os Préhistorique, Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Université de Provence, Provence. 1991b Fiche Contours Découpés du Type “Têtes d’Herbivore”. In Fiches Typologiques de l’Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique, Paléolithique Supérieur : Aurignacien Gravettien Magdalénien, Cahier IV : Objets de Parure, edited by H. Camps-Fabrer, pp. 1-12. Commission de Nomenclature sur l’Industrie de l’Os Préhistorique, Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Université de Provence, Provence. Bellier, C., S. Bott, P. Cattelain, C. Fritz, and I. Jadin 1999 La Tondelle au Mammouth de Chaleux. In Préhistoire d’Os, edited by H. Camps-Fabrer, pp. 97-121. Publications de l’Université de Provence. 585 Bellier, C., S. Bott, P. Cattelain 1991 Fiche Rondelles. In Fiches Typologiques de l’Industrie Osseuse Prehistorique, Paleolithique Superieur : Aurignacien Gravettien Magdalenien, Cahier IV : Objets de Parure, edited by H. Camps-Fabrer, pp. 1-25. Commission de Nomenclature sur l’Industrie de l’Os Préhistorique, Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Université de Provence, Provence. De Bie, M. and P.M. Vermeersch 1998 Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Benelux. In As the World Warmed, edited by B. Eriksen and L.G. Straus, pp. 29-43. Binford, L. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarcheology. Academic Press, New York. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20. 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bintz, P. 2000 Origine et Circulation des Matières Premières Siliceuses dans les Alpes du Nord: Exemple de Trois Sites du Paléolithique Final. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 261270. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Bliege Bird, R. and E.A. Smith in press Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital. Current Anthropology 46(2). Bliege Bird, R., E.A. Smith, and D.W. Bird 2001 The Hunting Handicap: Costly Signaling in Human Foraging Strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Online, pp. 1-18. http://www.springerlink.com. Blockley, S.P.E., R.E. Donahue, and A.M. Pollard 2000 Radiocarbon Calibration and Late Glacial Occupations in Northwest Europe. Antiquity 74:112-121. Blurton Jones, N.G., K. Hawkes, J.F. O’Connell 1997 Why do Hadza Children Forage? In Uniting Psychology and Biology: Integrative Perspectives on Human Development, edited by N. Segal, G.E. Weisfeld, and C.C. Weisfeld, pp. 279-313. American Psychological Assoc., Washington, D.C. Bocquet-Appel, J-P and P-Y. Demars. 2000 Population Kinetics in the Upper Palaeolithic in Western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:551-570. 586 Boehm, C. 1999 Hierarchy in the Forest. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 2000 Forager Hierarchies, Innate Dispositions, and the Behavioral Reconstruction of Prehistory. In Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono?, edited by M.W. Diehl, pp. 31-58. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 27. Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University. Boone, J. 2000 Status Signaling, Social Power, and Lineage Survival. In Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono?, edited by M.W. Diehl, pp. 84-110. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 27. Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University. Bordes, F. 1958 Nouvelles Fouilles à Laugerie-Haute—Prémiers Resultats. L’Anthropologie 60:205-244. 1968 The Old Stone Age. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Bosinski, G. 1978 Der Poggenwischstab. Bonner Jahrbücher 178:83-92. 1981a Gönnersdorf: Eiszeitjäger am Mittelrhein. Rhenania-Verlag GMBH, Koblenz. 1981b Eiszeitliche Kunst in Deutschland und der Schweiz. Rheinland-Verlag GmbH, Köln. 1982 Die Kunst der Eiszeit in Deutschland und in der Schweiz. Habelt, Bonn. 1987 Die große Zeit der Eiszeitjäger. Sonderdruck aus Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums 34. Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Mainz. 1988 Upper and Final Paleolithic Settlement Patterns in the Rhineland, West Germany. In Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H.L. Dibble and A. Montet-White, pp. 375-386. University Museum, Philadelphia. 1991 The Representation of Female Figures in the Rhineland Magdalenian. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, part I, pp. 51-64. 1994 Die Gravierungen des Magdalénien-Fundplatzes Andernach-Martinsberg. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 41, Mainz. Bosinski, H. 1977 Die Rondelle des Magdalénien-Fundplatzes Gönnersdorf. Quartär 27/28:153160. 1980 Nachbildungen von Seeigel und Seeigelstacheln im Magdalénien. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 10:11-16. Bosinski, G. and G. Fischer 1974 Die Menschendarstellungen von Gönnersdorf der Ausgrabung von 1968. Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, Wiesbaden. 587 Bosinski, G. and P. Schiller 1998 Représentations Féminines dans la Grotte du Planchard (Vallon Pont d’Arc, Ardèche) et les Figures Féminines du Type Gönnersdorf dans l’Art Parietal. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées LIII:99-140. Bouchud, J. 1966 Essai sur le Renne et la Climatologie du Paléolithique Moyen et Supérieur. Magne, Périgueux. Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice, translated by R. Nice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bouvier, J-M. 1987 Bases Objectives de la Chronologie de l’Art Mobilier Paléolithique en Gironde, Périgord et Charente. In L’Art des Objets au Paléolithique t. 1, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 65-75. Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine. Bouyssonie, J. 1930 L’Abri Magdalenien de Jolivet. Revue Anthropologique Oct.-Déc., pp. 81-99. Boyle, K.V. 2000 Inter-Regional Similarities in Resource Exploitation Strategies: The Late Magdalenian in the Vézère Valley. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Eruope, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, pp. 47-59. BAR-S 896. Breuil, H. 1912 Les Subdivisions du Paléolithique Supérieur et Leur Signification. Comptes Rendus de 14e Congrès International d’Antropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique, pp. 165-238. Geneve. Brochier, J-E. and J-L. Brochier 1973 L’Art Mobilier de Deux Nouveaux Gisements Magdaléniens à Saint-Nazaire-enRoyans (Drôme). Études Préhistoriques 4/mars:1-12. Buisson, D., C. Fritz, D. Kandel, G. Pinçon, G. Sauvet, and G. Tosello 1996 Analyse Formelle des Contours Découpés de Têtes de Chevaux : Implications Archéologiques. In Pyrénées Préhistoriques, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 327-340. CTHS, Paris. Bullinger, J. 2000 L’Industrie Lithique du Site Magdalénien de Monruz (Neuchâtel, Suisse) et les Ensembles Contemporains de l’Arc Jurassien. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Récent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, ed. by G. Pion, pp. 177-184. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte 588 Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Bullinger, J., M. Lämmli, et C. Leuzinger-Piccand 1997 Le Site Magdalénien de Plein Air de Moosbühl: Nouveaux Éléments de Datation et Essai d’Interprétation des Données Spatiales. Annuaire de la Société Suisse de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie 80:7-26. Burch, E.S., Jr. 1972 The Caribou/Wild Reindeer as a Human Resource. American Antiquity 37:339368. Burch, E.S., Jr. and T.C. Correll 1971 Alliance and Conflict: Inter-Regional Relations in Northern Alaska. In Alliance in Eskimo Society, edited by L. Guemple, pp. 17-39. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, 1971, Supplement, Seattle. Burch, E.S., Jr. and L.J. Ellanna 1994 Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research. Berg Publishers, Oxford. Burkert, W. and H. Floss in press Lithic Exploitation Areas in the Upper Paleolithic of West and Southwest Germany—a Comparative Study. Abstracts, VIII Flint Symposium, Bochum,13-17 September 1999. Deutsches Bergbaumuseum, Bochum. Buss, D.M. 1999 Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Butzer, K.W. 1986 Paleolithic Adaptations and Settlement in Cantabrian Spain. In Advances in World Archaeology Vol. 5, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp. 201-252. Academic Press, New York. Capitan, L. and D. Peyrony 1928 La Madeleine. Publications de l’Institut International d’Anthropologie, No. 2, Paris. Cartailhac, E. 1903 Les Stations de Bruniquel sur les Bords de L’Aveyron. L’Anthropologie XIV:129-150 and 295-315. Cattin, M-I. 2000 Production Lamellaire et Gestion des Nucléus au Magdalénien Récent. Les Exemples des Sites de Champréveyres et Monruz (Canton de Neuchâtel, Suisse). In L’Europe Centrale et Septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile de France 7:305-313. 589 Chagnon, N.A. 1997 Yanomamö. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX. Charles, R. 1996 Back into the North: The Radiocarbon Evidence for the Human Recolonisation of the North-Western Ardennes after the Last Glacial Maximum. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62:1-17. Chauvet, G. 1910 Os Ivoires et Bois de Renne Ouvrés de la Charente. Extrait du Bulletin de la Société Archéologique et Historique de la Charente. Cheynier, A. and J. González Echegaray 1964 La Grotte de Valle. Diputación Provincial de Barcelona Instituto de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Monografías X:327-345. Chollot, M. 1964 Collection Piette: Art Mobilier Préhistorique. Éditions des Musées Nationaux, Paris. 1980 Les Origines du Graphisme Symbolique. Éditions de la Fondation SingerPolignac. Clark, B.L. 1977 The Development of Caribou Eskimo Culture. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 59, Ottawa. Clark, D.W. 1991 Western Subarctic Prehistory. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. Clark, J.E. and M. Blake 1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E.M. Brumfiel and J.W. Fox, pp. 17-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clark, G.A. and L.G. Straus 1983 Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations in Cantabrian Spain. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 131-147. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cleyet-Merle, J-J. 1995a Saint-Germain-La-Rivière (Gironde). In Les Bijoux de la Préhistoire t. II: Parure des Morts, Parure des Vivants, edited by E. Ladier and A-C. Welté, pp. 20-21. Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, Toulouse. 1995b Abri de la Madeleine (Tursac, Dordogne). In Les Bijoux de la Préhistoire t. II: Parure des Morts, Parure des Vivants, edited by E. Ladier and A-C. Welté, p. 23. 590 Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, Toulouse. Clottes, J. 1976 Les Civilizations du Paléolithique Supérieur dans les Pyrénées. In La Préhistoire Française, edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 1214-1231. CNRS, Paris. 1989 Le Magdalénien des Pyrénées. In Le Magdalénien en Europe, edited by J. Rigaud, pp. 281-357. ERAUL 38. 2001 Le Thème Mythique du Faon à l’Oiseau dans le Magdalénien Pyrénéen. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées LVI:53-62. Conard, N.J. and H-P. Uerpmann 2000 New Evidence for Paleolithic Rock Painting in Central Europe. Current Anthropology 41(5):853-856. Conkey, M.W. 1980 The Identification of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Aggregation: The Case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21:609-30. 1984 To Find Ourselves: Art and Social Geography of Prehistoric Hunter Gatherers. In Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies, edited by C. Schrire, pp. 253-76. Academic Press, New York. 1985 Ritual Communication, Social Elaboration, and the Variable Trajectories of Palaeolithic Material Culture. In Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, pp. 299-323. Academic Press, Orlando. 1987 New Approaches in the Search for Meaning? A Review of Research in “Paleolithic Art”. Journal of Field Archaeology 14(4):413-430. 1992 Les Sites d’Agrégation et la Répartition de l’Art Mobilier, Ou: Y a-t-il des Sites d’Agrégation Magdaléniens? In Le Peuplement Magdalénien, edited by J-P. Rigaud, H. Laville and B. Vandermeersch, pp. 19-25. CTHS, Paris. Conkey, M.W. and C.A. Hastorf, editors 1990 The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Corchón, M.S. 1986 El Arte Mueble Paleolítico Cantábrico: Contexto y Análisis Interno. Centro de Investigacion y Museo de Altamira, Monografias No. 16, Madrid. 1987 Los Relieves en el Arte Mueble Paleolítico Cantábrico. Ars Praehistorica V-VI, 1986-1987, pp. 31-48. 1990 Iconografía de las Representaciones Antropomorfas Paleolíticas: A Propósito de la “Venus” Magdaleniense de Las Caldas (Asturias). Zephyrus XLIII:17-37. 1992 Representación de Fauna Fría en el Arte Mueble de la Cueva de Las Caldas (Asturias, España). Significación e Implicaciones en el Arte Parietal. Zephyrus XLIVXLV:35-64. 1995 La Cueva de Las Caldas (Priorio, Oviedo) III. Resultados Preliminares de las Excavaciones (Campañas 1991-1994). Excavaciones Archaeologicas en Asturias III:45-59. 591 1997 La Corniche Cantabrique Entre 15,000 et 13,000 ans BP: La Perspective Donnée par l’Art Mobilier. L’Anthropologie 101(1):114-143. 1999 La Cueva de Las Caldas (Priorio, Oviedo) IV. Excavaciones 1995-1998. Excavaciones Arqueologicas en Asturias IV:43-57. 2000 Novedades en el Arte Mueble Magdaleniense del Occidente de Asturias. In Paleolítico da Península Ibérica vol. 2, edited by V. Oliveira Jorge, pp. 493-513. ADECAP, Porto. Cordy, Jean-Marie 1991 Resultats Preliminaires de l’Analyse des Micromammiferes de la Grotte Walou (Trooz). Notae Praehistoricae n°10:15-19 Coudret, P., M. Larriere-Cabiran, M. Olive, N. Pigeot, Y. Taborin 1994 Étiolles. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 132-146. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. Crémades, M. 1996 L’Art Mobilier Pyrénéen: Analogies Technologiques et Relations Inter-Sites. In Pyrénées Préhistoriques Arts et Sociétés, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 367379. CTHS, Paris. Damas, D. 1971 The Structure of Central Eskimo Associations. In Alliance in Eskimo Society, edited by L. Guemple, pp. 40-55. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, 1971, Supplement, Seattle. Daugas, J-P. and J-P. Raynal 1979 Remarques sur le Milieu Physique et le Peuplement Humain en Auvergne à la Fin des Temps Glaciaires. In La Fin des Temps Glaciaires en Europe, edited by D. de Sonneville-Bordes, pp. 545-562. CNRS 271, Paris. David, N.C. 1973 On Upper Palaeolithic Society, Ecology, and Technological Change: the Noaillian Case. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 277303. Gerald Duckworth & Co., Ltd., London. David, F. and M. Orliac 1994 Pincevent. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 154-166. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. David, S. and H. Richard 1989 Les Cultures du Tardiglaciaire dans le Nord-Est de la France. In Le Magdalenien en Europe, edited by J-Ph. Rigaud, pp. 101-153. ERAUL 38, Liège. 592 Davidson, I. 1989 Freedom of Information: Aspects of Art and Society in Western Europe during the Last Ice Age. In Animals into Art, edited by H. Morphy, pp. 440-456. Unwin Hyman, London. Davis, S.L. and J.R.V. Prescott 1992 Aboriginal Frontiers and Boundaries in Australia. Melbourne University Press. DeBoer, W.R. 1990 Interaction, Imitation, and Communication as Expressed in Style: the Ucayali Experience. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M.W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 82-104. Déchelette, J. 1908 Manuel d’Archéologie Préhistorique Celtique et Gallo-Romaine 1: Archéologie Préhistorique. Librairie Alphonse Picard et Fils, Paris. Deffarge, R., P. Laurent, and D. de Sonneville-Bordes 1975 Art Mobilier du Magdalénien Supérieur de l’Abri Morin à Pessac-sur-Dordogne (Gironde). Gallia Préhistoire 18(1):1-64. Degros, J., B. Schmider, and B. Valentin 1994 Ville-Saint-Jacques: Le Tilloy. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 176-178. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. Delluc, B. and G. Delluc 1992 Les Figures Feminines Schematiques de la Roche de Lalinde et de la Gare de Couze (Lalinde, Dordogne). Les Cahiers de la Vallée de la Couze Bulletin Annuel 4:41-56. Delpech, F. 1983 Les Faunes du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. CNRS, Paris. 1989 L’Environnement Animal des Magdaléniens. In Le Magdalénien en Europe. La Structuration du Magdalénien. Actes du colloque de Mayence 1987. ERAUL 38:530. Delporte, H. 1974a Le Magdalénien de la Grotte d’Aurensan, à Bagnères-de-Bigorre (HautesPyrénées). Antiquités Nationales 6:10-25. 1974b Les Martres-de-Veyres, Le Bay. Gallia Préhistoire XVII(2):612-615. 1975 Les Œuvres d’Art Magdaléniennes de la Grotte de la Vache (Ariège). Revue du Louvre et des Musées de France 25:123-130. 1976 Les Civilizations du Paléolithique Supérieur en Auvergne. In La Préhistoire Française, edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 1297-1304. CNRS, Paris. 593 Demars, P-Y. 1996 Demographie et Occupation de l’Espace au Paléolithique Supérieur et au Mesolithique en France. Préhistoire Européenne 8:3-26. 1998a Les Rapports de l’Homme et du Milieu dans le Nord de l’Aquitaine au Paléolithique Supérieur l’Implantation des Habitats. Bulletin Préhistoire du SudOuest, Nouvelles Études 5-1998-1:13-30. 1998b La Circulation du Silex au Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Nord de l’Aquitaine. Extrait du Bulletin de la Société Scientifique, Historique et Archéologique de la Corrèze t. CXX:121-131. Desbrosse, R. 1976a Les Civilisations du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Jura Méridional et dans les Alpes du Nord. In La Préhistoire Française, edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 1196-1213. CNRS, Paris. 1976b Les Civilizations du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Jura et en Franche-Comté. In La Préhistoire Française, edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 1348-1357. CNRS, Paris. Desdemaines-Hugon, C. 1999 Art et Fonction au Magdalenien: Les Decors et Biseaux des Ciseaux du Magdalenien Superieur de Trois Sites in Aquitaine: La Madeleine (Dordogne), Le Morin (Gironde), et Rochereil (Dordogne). Comparaisons et Correlations. Extrait du Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l’Ariège LIV:141-219. Dewez, M. 1987 Le Paléolithique Supérieur Récent dans les Grottes de Belgique. Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve. 1992 Le Magdalénien en Belgique, Origine et Filiation. In Le Peuplement Magdalénien: Paléogéographie Physique et Humaine, pp. 205-10. CTHS, Paris. Djindjian, F. 2000 Identité, Chronologie et Territories du Magdalénien en Europe Occidentale: Questions Posées. In Le Paléolithique supérieur récent, edited by G. Pion, pp. 95-112. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Dobres, M.A. and C.R. Hoffman 1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(3):211-258. Dolukhanov, M. 1979 Evolution des Systèmes Éco-Sociaux en Europe Durant le Pléistocène Recent et le Début de l’Holocène. In La Fin des Temps Glaciaires en Europe: Chronostratigraphie et Écologie des Cultures du Paléolithique Final, edited by D. de Sonneville-Bordes, pp. 869-876. CNRS 271, Paris. 594 Duhard, J-P. 1996 Réalisme de l’Image Masculine Paléolithique. Jérôme Millon, Grenoble, France. Dujardin, V. and G. Pinçon 2000 Le Magdalénien dans la Vienne et la Charente. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 213-222. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Ehrenreich, R.M., C.L., Crumley, and J.E. Levy, editors 1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1989 Human Ethology. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Eliade, M. 1964 Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Emery-Barbier, A. 1997 Analyse Palynologique de la Grotte du Bois Laiterie. In La Grotte du Bois Laiterie, edited by M. Otte and L.G. Straus, pp. 141-142. ERAUL 80, Liège. Enloe, J.G. 2000a Readaptation: Changes in Magdalenian Subsistence and Social Organization. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, pp. 115-120. BAR-S 896. 2000b Le Magdalénien du Bassin Parisien au Tardiglaciaire: La Chasse aux Rennes Comparée à Celle d’Autres Espèces. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Récent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, ed. by G. Pion, pp. 39-45. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Eriksen, B.V. 1991 Change and Continuity in a Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Society. Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria. Institut für Urgeschichte der Universität Tübingen. 2000 Les Derniers Temps du Paléolithique: l’Homme et l’Environnement au Tardiglaciaire en Allemagne du Sud-Ouest et au Nord-Ouest de la Suisse. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile de France 7:223-238. 2002 Fossil Mollusks and Lithic Raw Materials in Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Find Contexts—a Compliment to Lithic Studies. In Lithic Raw Material Economies in Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Europe, edited by L.E. Fisher and B.V. Eriksen, pp. 27-52. BAR-S 1093. 595 Erlandson, J.M. 1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. Fagnart, J.-P. and P. Coudret 2000 Données Récentes sur le Tardiglaciaire du Bassin de la Somme. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 113-126. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Féblot-Augustins, J. 1997 La Circulation des Matières Premières au Paléolithique, Vols. 1 & 2. ERAUL 75, Liège. Feinman, G. 1995 The Emergence of Inequality: A Focus on Strategies and Processes. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman, pp. 255279. Plenum Press, New York. Feustel, R. 1979 Le Magdalénien Final en Thuringe (R.D.A.). In La Fin des Temps Glaciaires en Europe, edited by D. de Sonneville-Bordes, pp. 877-887. CNRS, Paris. Flanagan, J.G. 1989 Hierarchy in Simple “Egalitarian” Societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 18:245-266. Floss, H. 1991 Raw Material Procurement in the Palaeolithic of Western Germany. In VI International Flint Symposium, edited by M.A. Bustillo and A. Ramos-Millan, pp. 224-225. Instituto Tecnológico GeoMinero de España. 1994 Rohmaterialversorgung im Paläolithikum des Mittelrheingebietes. Monographie RGZM 21. 2000 Le Couloir Rhine-Saône-Rhône: Axe de Communication au Tardiglaciare? In Les Derniers Chasseurs-Cueilleurs d’Europe Occidentale (13.000-5.500 av. J.C.), edited by A. Richard, C. Cupillard, H. Richard, and A. Thevenin, pp. 313-321. Actes du Colloque International de Besançon, 23-25 octobre 1998 (Doubs, France). Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises (Annales Littéraires, 699; Série “Environnement, Sociétés et Archéologie 1”), Besançon. 2002 Climate and Raw Material Behavior: A Case Study from Late Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Middle Rhine Area of Germany. In Lithic Raw Material Economies in Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Europe, edited by L.E. Fisher and B.V. Eriksen, pp. 79-88. BAR-S 1093. 596 Floss, H. and T. Terberger 1986 Das Magdalénien von Andernach: Ausgewählte Beispiele von Zusammensetzungen der Steinartefakte. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 16:245250. Fontana, L. 1998 Mobilité et Subsistance au Magdalénien Supérieur et Final en Auvergne. In Économie Préhistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique. XVIIIe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes Éditions APDCA, Sophia Antipolis. 2000 Stratégies de Subsistance au Badegoulien et au Magdalénien en Auvergne: Nouvelles Données. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 59-66. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Forge, J.A.W. 1967 The Abelam Artist. In Social Organization: Essays Presented to Raymond Firth, edited by M. Freedman, pp. 65-84. Cass, London. Fortea Pérez, J. 1981 Investigaciones en la Cuenca Media del Nalón Asturias (España). Zephyrus XXXII-XXXIII:5-16. 1983 Perfiles Recortados del Nalón Médio. In Homenaje al Prof. Martin Almagro Basch, vol. 1:343-353. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid. Fortea Pérez, J., M.S. Corchón, M. González Morales, A. Rodríguez Asensio, M. Hoyos, H. Laville, J. Fernández Tresguerres 1987 Trabajos Recientes en los Valles del Nalón y del Sella. Colloque International d’Art Mobilier Paléolithique. Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication. Fortea Pérez, J., M. de la Rasilla Vives, and V. Rodríguez Otero 1995 La Cueva de Llonin (Llonin, Peñamellera Alta). Campañas de 1991 a 1994. In Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias 1991-94, pp. 33-43. Principado de Asturias, Oviedo. Fredrickson, D.A. 1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. The Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41-53. Freeman, L.G. and J. González Echegaray 1981/82 El Juyo: A 14,000-year-old Sanctuary from Northern Spain. History of Religions 21:1-19. 1982 Magdalenian Mobile Art from El Juyo. Ars Praehistorica 1:161-167. 2001 La Grotte d’Altamira. Éditions du Seuil, Paris. 597 Fried, M. 1960 The Evolution of Social Stratification and the State. In Culture in History, edited by S. Diamond, pp. 713-731. Columbia University Press, New York. Fritz, C. 1997 Vers une Reconstitution des Procédés Artistiques Magdaléniens: Contribution de l’Analyse Microscopique dans le Domaine de l’Art Mobilier. Trabajos de Prehistoria 54(2):43-59. 1999a La Gravure dans l’Art Mobilier Magdalénien, du Geste à la Representation. Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. 1999b Towards the Reconstruction of Magdalenian Artistic Techniques: The Contribution of Microscopic Analysis of Mobiliary Art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(2):189-208. Fritz, C., G. Tosello, and G. Pinçon 1996 Les Gravures Parietales de la Grotte de Gourdan (Gourdan-Polignan, HauteGaronne). In Pyrénées Préhistoriques, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 327-340. CTHS, Paris. Gailli, R. 1978 L’Aventure de l’Os Dans la Préhistoire. Éditions France-Empire, Paris. Gambier, D. 1996 Les Pratiques Funéraires au Magdalénien dans les Pyrénées Françaises. In Pyrénées Préhistoriques arts et sociétés, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 263277. CTHS, Paris. Gamble, C. 1983 Culture and Society in the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G.N. Bailey, pp. 201-211. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1986 The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1991 The Social Context for European Palaeolithic Art. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, part 1:3-15. W.S. Maney and Son Ltd., Leeds. 1993 People on the Move: Interpretations of Regional Variation in Palaeolithic Europe. In Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe, edited by J.C. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov, pp. 37-55. Avebury, Brookfield, Vermont. García-Gelabert, M.P. 2000 Excavación de la Cueva del Valle (Rasines). In Actuaciones Arqueológicas en Cantabria 1984-1999, edited by R. Ontañón Peredo, pp. 315-317. Gobierno de Cantabria, Santander. 598 Gaussen, J. 1977 Le Peuplement Magdalénien dans la Vallée de l’Isle (secteur Mussidan-St.Astier). In La Fin des Temps Glaciaires en Europe. CNRS 271:425-433. 1980 Le Paléolithique Supérieur de Plein Air en Périgord. XIVe Supplement à Gallia Préhistoire. CNRS, Paris. Gergen, K. 1971 The Concept of Self. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. González Echegaray, J. 1996 Le Magdalénien Inférieur Cantabrique et ses Relations avec Celui du Périgord. In Pyrénées Préhistoriques Arts et Sociétés, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 279282. CTHS, Paris. González Echegaray, J., M. García Guinea, A. Begines, and B. Madariaga. 1963 Cueva del la Chora. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 26, Madrid. González Morales, M.R. and Y. Díaz Casado 2000 La Prehistoria de las Marismas: Excavaciones Arqueológicas en los Abrigos de la Peña del Perro (Santoña). In Actuaciones Arqueológicas en Cantabria 1984-1999, edited by R. Ontañón Peredo, pp. 93-96. Gobierno de Cantabria, Santander. González Sainz, C. 1989 El Magdaleniense Superior—Final de la Región Cantábrica. Tantín, Santander. Gordon, B. 1988 Of Men and Reindeer Herds in French Magdalenian Prehistory. BAR-S 390, Oxford. Gould, R.A. 1969 Yiwara: Foragers of the Australian Desert. Charles Scribners’ Sons, New York. 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gould, R.A. and S. Saggers 1985 Lithic Procurement in Central Australia: A Closer Look at Binford’s Idea of Embeddedness in Archaeology. American Antiquity 50(1):117-136. Grafen, A. 1990 Biological Signals as Handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:517-546. Gubser, N.J. 1965 The Nunamiut Eskimos: Hunters of Caribou. Yale University Press, New Haven. Guemple, L. 1971 Kinship and Alliance in Belcher Island Eskimo Society. In Alliance in Eskimo Society, edited by L. Guemple, pp. 56-78. Proceedings of the American Ethnological 599 Society, 1971, Supplement, Seattle. Hahn, J. 2002 Mobility and Lithic Economy at the Buttental Site: A Case Study. In Lithic Raw Material Economies in Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Europe, edited by L.E. Fisher and B.V. Eriksen, pp. 19-25. BAR-S 1093. Hart, C.W.M. and A.R. Pilling 1979 The Tiwi of North Australia. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Hawkes, K. and R. Bliege Bird 2002 Showing Off, Handicap Signaling, and the Evolution of Men’s Work. Evolutionary Anthropology 11:58-67. Hayden, B. 1994 Competition, Labor, and Complex Hunter-Gatherers. In Key Issues in HunterGatherer Research, edited by E.S. Burch, Jr. and L.J. Ellanna, pp. 223-239. 1995 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T.D. Price and G. Feinman, pp. 15-85. Plenum Press, New York. 1998 Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(1):1-55. 2003 Shamans, Sorcerers, and Saints. Smithsonian Books, Washington. Haynes, C.V. and E.T. Hemmings 1968 Mammoth-Bone Shaft Wrench from Murray Springs, Arizona. Science 159(3811):186-187. Hedges, R.E.M., P.B. Pettitt, C. Bronk Ramsey, G.J. Van Klinken 1998 Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry datelist 25. Archaeometry 40(1):227-239. Helm, J. 1965 Bilaterality in the Sio-Territorial Organization of the Arctic Drainage Dene. Ethnology 4:361-385. 1968 The Nature of Dogrib Socioterritorial Groups. In Man the Hunter, edited by R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 118-125. Aldine, Chicago. Helms, M. 1988 Ulysses’ Sail. An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1991 Esoteric Knowledge, Geographical Distance, and the Elaboration of Leadership Status. In Profiles in Cultural Evolution, edited by A.T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 333-350. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan No. 85. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power. U. of Texas Press, Austin. 600 Henrich, J. and F.J. Gil-White 2001 The Evolution of Prestige: Freely Conferred Deference as a Mechanism for Enhancing the Benefits of Cultural Transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22:165-196. Hill, K. and A.M. Hurtado 1996 Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Höck, C. 1998 Das Magdalénien der Kniegrotte. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftichen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln. Hodder, I. 1979 Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture. American Antiquity 44:446454. Hofman, J.L. 1991 Folsom Land Use: Projectile Point Variability as a Key to Mobility. In Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. Holen, pp. 335-355. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, Lawrence, Kansas. Holmberg, A.R. 1969 Nomads of the Long Bow: the Siriono of Eastern Bolivia. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Höneisen, M. 1993a Technologie du Bois de Cervidé, de l’Os et de l’Ivoire. In La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age 1. Paléolithique et Mésolithique, pp. 173-181. Société Suisse de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie, Bâle. 1993b L’Art du Paléolithique Supérieur en Suisse. In La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age 1. Paléolithique et Mésolithique, pp. 187-198. Société Suisse de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie, Bâle. Höneisen, M. and S. Peyer 1994 Schweizersbild—ein Jägerlager der Späteiszeit. Schaffhauser Archäologie 2. Housley, R.A., C.S. Gamble, M. Street, and P. Pettitt 1997 Radiocarbon Evidence for the Lateglacial Human Recolonisation of Northern Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63:25-54. 601 Hoyos Gómez, M., M.I. Martínez Navarrete, T. Chapa Brunet, P. Castaños, and F.B. Sanchíz 1980 La Cueva de La Paloma. Excavaciones Arqueologicas en España 116, Madrid. Hughes, R.E. 1978 Aspects of Prehistoric Wiyot Exchange and Social Ranking. The Journal of California Anthropology 5(1):53-66. Jarvenpa, R. 2004 Silot’ine: An Insurance Perspective on Northern Dene Kinship Networks in Recent History. Journal of Anthropological Research 60(2):153-178. Jochim, M. 1983 Palaeolithic Cave Art in Ecological Perspective. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, p. 212-219. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1987 Late Pleistocene Refugia in Europe. In The Pleistocene Old World, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 317-331. Plenum Press, New York. 1998 A Hunter-Gatherer Landscape: Southwest Germany in the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Plenum Press, New York. Jochim, M., C. Herhahn, and H. Starr 1999 The Magdalenian Colonization of Southern Germany. American Anthropologist 101:129-142. Johnson, G.A. 1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M.J. Rowlands, and B.A. Segraves, pp. 389-421. Academic Press, New York. Julien, M. 1981 Les Harpons Magdaléniens. XVIIth Supplement to Gallia Préhistoire. CNRS, Paris. Kaplan, H. and K. Hill 1985 Hunting Ability and Reproductive Success Among Male Ache Foragers: Preliminary Results. Current Anthropology 26:131-133. Karklins, K. 1992 Trade Ornament Usage Among the Native Peoples of Canada: A Source Book. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. Kelly, R.L. 1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:277-306. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 602 Kind, C-J. 1987 Das Felsställe: Eine Jungpaläolithische-Frühmesolithische Abri-Station bei Ehingen-Mühlen, Alb-Donau-Kreis; Die Grabungen 1975-1980. Konrad Theiss (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 23). Klein, G., C. Wolf, L. Freeman, and K. Allwarden 1981 The Use of Dental Crown Heights for Constructing Age Profiles of Red Deer and Similar Species in Archaeological Samples. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:1-31. Koetje, T.A. 2000 Settling Down or Moving Around? The Development of Regional Traditions during the European Magdalenian. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, pp. 109-113. BAR-S 896. Kosse, K. 1990 Group Size and Societal Complexity: Thresholds in the Long-Term Memory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:275-303. Kozlowski, J.K. 1989 Le Magdalenien en Pologne. In Le Magdalénien en Europe, edited by J. Rigaud, pp. 31-37. ERAUL 38. Lacombe, S. 1998 Stratégies d’Approvisionnement en Silex au Tardiglaciaire. L’Exemple des Pyrénées Centrals Françaises. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l’Ariège LIII:223-266. Ladier, E. 1992 La Vénus du Courbet. L’Anthropologie 96(2-3):349-356. Ladier, E. and C. Welté 1994/1995 Bijoux de la Préhistoire: La Parure Magdalénienne dans la Vallée de l’Aveyron. Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Montauban, Montauban. 1995 Les Bijoux de la Préhistoire t. II: Parure des Morts, Parure des Vivants. Museum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, Toulouse. Laurent, P. 1978 Œuvres d’Art du Magdalénien IV de la Grotte Duruthy à Sorde-l’Abbaye (Landes). In Le Gisement Préhistorique de Duruthy à Sorde-l’Abbaye, edited by R. Arambourou, pp. 116-126. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 13, Paris. Laville, H., J-Ph. Rigaud, and J. Sackett 1980 Rock Shelters of the Périgord. Academic Press, New York. 603 Lee, R.B. 1971 Bushman Land Ownership. Paper Read at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New York. 1979 The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leesch, D. 1993a Cadre Chronologique et Faciès Industriels. In La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’Aube du Moyen-Age 1. Paléolithique et Mésolithique, pp. 153-164. Société Suisse de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie, Bâle. 1993b L’Habitat. In La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’Aube du Moyen-Age 1. Paléolithique et Mésolithique, pp. 166-169. Société Suisse de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie, Bâle. 1993c Economie. In La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’Aube du Moyen-Age 1. Paléolithique et Mésolithique, pp. 182-186. Société Suisse de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie, Bâle. 1997 Hauterive-Champréveyres: Un Campement Magdalénien au Bord du Lac de Neuchâtel. Archéologie Neuchâteloise 19. Musée Cantonal d’Archéologie, Neuchâtel. 2000 Le Tardiglaciare en Suisse: Corrélation des Données Paléoenvironnementales et Archéologiques. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile de France 7:217-221. Lejeune, M. 1987 L’Art Mobilier Paléolithique et Mésolithique en Belgique. Artefacts 4. Editions du Centre d’Etudes et de Documentation Archéologiques, Treignes-Viroinval, Belgique. Lenoir, M. 2000 La Fin des Temps Glaciaires dans les Basses Vallées de la Dordogne et de la Garonne. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 147-164. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Lenoir, M., J. Obry, and M-R. Séronie-Vivien 1997 Occurrence of Allochtonous Flint in an Upper-Paleolithic Site near Bordeaux. In Siliceous Rocks and Culture, edited by A. Ramos Millán and M.A. Bustillo, pp. 385390. Monográfica y Archeología. Universidad de Granada. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1965 Préhistoire de l’Art Occidental. Éditions d’Art Lucien Mazenod, Paris. Leroi-Gourhan, A. and J. Renault-Miskovsky 1977 La Palynologie Appliquée à l’Archéologie: Methods et Limites. In Approche Ecologique de l’Homme Fossile, edited by H. Laville and J. Renault-Miskovsky, pp. 35-49 and fig. 1-6. Supplément Bulletin ACEQ 47, Paris. 604 Leroi-Gourhan, A., M. Brézillon, and B. Schmider 1976 Les Civilizations du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Center et le Sud-Est du Bassin Parisien. In La Préhistoire française, edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 1321-1338. CNRS, Paris. Leroyer, C. 1994 Le Paysage Vegetal au Tardiglaciaire: Apport de la Palynologie. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 59-64. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. Létocart, L. 1970 Un Gisement du Paléolithique Final à Obourg St. Macaire. In Frühe Menschheit und Umwelt 1:352-361. LeTourneau, P.D. 2000 Direct or Indirect?: Investigating Folsom Toolstone Procurement. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Lorblanchet, M. 1976 Les Civilizations du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Haut Quercy. In La Préhistoire Française: Les Civilizations Paléolithiques et Mésolithiques de la France. Tome I, edited by H. de Lumley, pp. 1189-1195. CNRS, Paris. Lorblanchet, M. and A-C. Welté 1987 L’Art Mobilier Paléolithique du Quercy: Chronologie et Thèmes. In L’Art des Objets au Paléolithique t. 1, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 31-64. Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine, Paris. Lourandos, H. 1977 Aboriginal Spatial Organization and Population: South Western Victoria Reconsidered. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania XII(3): 202-225. 1985 Intensification and Australian Prehistory. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, pp. 385-423. Academic Press, Orlando. 1997 Continent of Hunter-Gatherers. Cambridge University Press. Lozouet, P. and A. Gautier 1997 Coquillages Fossiles et Restes de “Briquet” dans la Grotte du Bois Laiterie. In La Grotte du Bois Laiterie, edited by M. Otte and L. G. Straus, pp. 319-324. ERAUL 80, Liège. Macdonald, W.K. 1990 Investigating Style: An Exploratory Analysis of Some Plains Burials. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M.W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 52-60. 605 Madden, M. 1983 Social Network Systems Amongst Hunter-Gatherers Considered Within Southern Norway. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 191200. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Marshack, A. 1970 Le Bâton de Commandement de Montgaudier (Charente). Réexamen au Microscope et Interpretation Nouvelle. L’Anthropologie 74(5-6):321-352. 1971 Upper Palaeolithic Engraved Pieces in the British Museum. In Prehistoric and Roman Studies, edited by G. de G. Sieveking, pp. 137-145. University Press, Oxford. Marshall, L. 1960 !Kung Bushman Bands. Africa 30:325-355. Mascaraux, F. 1910 La Grotte Saint-Michel d’Arudy. Revue de l’École d’Anthropologie t.XX:357378. Massola, A. 1971 The Aborigines of South-Eastern Australia As They Were. Heinemann, Melbourne. Mauger, M. 1994 L’Approvisionnement en Matériaux Siliceux au Paléolithique Supérieur. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 78-93. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. McBryde, I. 1978 Wil-im-ee Moor-ring: Or,Where do Axes Come From? Mankind 11(3):354-382. 1984 Kulin Greenstone Quarries: The Social Contexts of Production and Distribution for the Mt. William Site. World Archaeology 16(2):267-285. McGhee, R. 1974 Artistic Productivity and Technological Change in the Eskimo Cultural Tradition. Symposium on Primitive Art and Technology, University of Calgary. McIntosh, S.K. 1999 Pathways to Complexity: An African Perspective. In Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa, edited by S.K. McIntosh, pp. 1-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mellars, P.A. 1985 The Ecological Basis of Social Complexity in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern France. In Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, pp. 271-297. Academic Press, Orlando. 606 Meltzer, D.J. 1989 Was Stone Exchanged Among Eastern North American Paleoindians? In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.J. Ellis and J.C. Lothrop, pp. 11-39. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Menéndez, M. 2003 Arte Prehistórico y Territorialidad en la Cuenca Media del Sella. In El Arte Prehistórico Desde Los Inicios Del Siglo XXI, pp. 185-199. Primer Symposium Internacional de Arte Prehistórico de Ribadesella. Asociación Cultural Amigos de Ribadesella. Merk, C. 1876 Excavations at the Kesslerloch Near Thayngen Switzerland. Longmans, Green, and Co., London. Miller, G.F. 2000 The Mating Mind. Doubleday, NY. Miller, R., M. Otte, J-M. Léotard, I. López Bayón, P. Lacroix and V. Ancion 1998 Trou Da Somme: Excavation Report 1998. Notae Praehistoricae 18:51-63. Mons, L. 1980-81 Les Baguettes Demi-Rondes du Paléolithique Supérieur Occidental: Analyse et Réflexions. Antiquités Nationales 12/13:7-19. Moratto, M.J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Morel, Ph., D. Leesch, M-I. Cattin 1998 Le Problème des Réserves de Nourriture Carnée: Quelques Observations à Propos du Site Magdalénien d’Hauterive-Champréveyres (Canton de Neuchâtel, Suisse). In Économie Préhistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique, pp. 425-431. XVIIIe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes. Éditions APDCA, Sophia Antipolis. Morice, A.G. 1895 Notes: Archaeological, Industrial and Sociological, on the Western Dénés. Transactions of the Canadian Institute, Session 1892-93, Vol 4, No. 7. Toronto. Moure Romanillo, J.A. 1975 Excavaciones en la Cueva de “Tito Bustillo” (Asturias) (Campañas de 1972 y 1974). Instituto de Estudios Asturianos, Oviedo. 1983 Escultura Magdaleniense Descubierta en la Cueva de Tito Bustillo. Ars Praehistorica 11:169-176. 1997 Dataciones AMS de la Cueva de Tito Bustillo (Asturias). Trabajos de Prehistoria 54(2):135-142. 607 Moure Romanillo, J.A. and M. Cano Herrera 1976 Excavaciones en la Cueva de “Tito Bustillo” (Asturias) (Campañas de 1975). Instituto de Estudios Asturianos, Oviedo. Munn, N.D. 1973 Walbiri Iconography. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Murray, A.H. 1910 Journal of the Yukon, 1847-48, edited by L.J. Burpee. National Archives of Canada, Publication No. 4, Ottawa. Narr, K.J. 1965 Die Altsteinzeitfunde aus dem Hohlenstein bei Nördlingen. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 30:1-9. National Geographic Society 1999 National Geographic Atlas of the World, Seventh Edition. National Geographic, Washington, D.C. Neiman, F. 1995 Stylistic Variation in an Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Inter Assemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60:7-36. Nougier, L.R. 1959 Géographie Humaine Préhistoire. Gallimard, Paris. Oakes, J. and R. Riewe 1995 Our Boots: An Inuit Women’s Art. Thames and Hudson, New York. 1998 Spirit of Siberia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Odess, D. 1998 The Archaeology of Interaction: Views from Artifact Style and Material Exchange in Dorset Society. American Antiquity 63(3):417-435. Orliac, M. 1994 Le Climat de Pincevent: Données Issues de l’Observation des Sediments. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 36-38. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. Otte, M. 1988 Processus de Diffusion à Long Terme au Magdalénien. Colloque de Chancelade 10-15 Oct. 1988, pp. 399-416. 1992 Processus de Diffusion à Long Terme au Magdalénien. In Le Peuplement Magdalénien, pp. 399-416. CTHS, Paris. 1994 Le Magdalénien du Trou de Chaleux (Hulsonniaux—Belgique). ERAUL 60, 608 Liège. 2000 L’Adaptation aux Plaines du Nord au Paléolithique Final. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 89-93. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Otte, M. and L.G. Straus, editors 1997 La Grotte du Bois Laiterie. ERAUL 80, Liège. Owens, D. and B. Hayden 1997 Prehistoric Rites of Passage: A Comparative Study of Transegalitarian HunterGatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:121-161. Pailhaugue, N. 1996 Faune et Saisons de Chasse de la Salle Monique Grotte de la Vache (Alliat, Ariège). In Pyrénées Préhistoriques Arts et Sociétés, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 173-191. CTHS, Paris. Pales, L. and M. Tassin de Saint Péreuse 1969 Les Gravures de la Marche. Tome I Félins et ours. Delmas, Paris. 1976 Les Gravures de la Marche. Tome II Les humains. Ophrys, Paris. Passemard, E. 1944 La Caverne d’Isturitz en Pays Basque. Préhistoire IX:7-95, plates I-LXIV. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Peltier, A. 1992 Fiche Générale Bâtons Percés. In Fiches Typologiques de l’Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique, Cahier V. Editions du CEDARC, Treignes. Péquart, M. and S-J. Péquart 1960 Grotte du Mas d’Azil (Ariège): Une Nouvelle Galerie Magdalénienne. Annales de Paléontologie t. XLVI:157-166. 1962 Grotte du Mas d’Azil (Ariège): Une Nouvelle Galerie Magdalénienne. Annales de Paléontologie t. XLVIII:167-256. Peters, E. 1936 Die Altsteinzeitliche Kulturen von Veringenstadt (Hohenzollern). Praehistorische Zeitschrift 27:173-195. Peterkin, G.L. 2000 Specialized Final Magdalenian Hunting Technology in Southwest France. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, pp. 121-131. BAR-S 896. 609 Petraglia, M.D. and R.B. Potts 1992 Deux “Mortiers” du Paléolithique Supérieur de la Madeleine, Dordogne, France. L’Anthropologie 96(1):209-212. Pfeiffer, J.E. 1982 The Creative Explosion: An Enquiry into the Origins of Art and Religion. Harper and Row, New York. Pion, G. 2000 Le Magdalénien des Deux Savoie et du Jura Méridional. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 147-164. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Plog, S. 1990 Sociopolitical Implications of Stylistic Variation in the American Southwest. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M.W. Conkey and C.A. Hastorf, pp. 6172. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Plomley, N.J.B. 1977 The Tasmanian Aborigines. Published in Association with the Adult Education Division, Tasmania. Launceton, Australia. Pokines, J.T. 2000 Late Upper Paleolithic Environments, Subsistence, and Zoogeography in Cantabrian Spain. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, pp. 61-74. BAR-S 896. Poplin, F. 1983 Incisives de Renne Sciées du Magdalénien d’Europe Occidentale. Mémoires de la Societé Préhistorique Française t. 16, pp. 55-67. Plomley, N.J.B. 1977 The Tasmanian Aborigines. Launceston, Tasmania. Potter, J.M. 2000 Ritual, Power, and Social Differentiation in Small-Scale Societies. In Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono?, edited by M.W. Diehl, pp. 295-316. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 27, Southern Illinois University. Price, H.A. 2000 Variability and Context of Magdalenian Visual Imagery, Western LanguedocRoussillon, France. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Petersen and H.A. Price, pp. 75-91. BAR-S 896. 610 Price, T. and J. Brown, editors 1985 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. Academic Press, New York. Ray, D.J. 1961 Artists of the Tundra and the Sea. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 1977 Eskimo Art. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Raynal, J.-P. and J.-P. Daugas 1989 L’Homme et les Volcans: Occupation de l’Espace Regional à la Fin des Temps Glaciaires dans le Massif Central Français. In Le Peuplement Magdalénien: Paléogéographie Physique et Humaine, pp. 111-120. CTHS, Paris. Rensink, E. 1993 Moving into the North: Magdalenian Occupation and Exploitation of the Loess Landscapes of Northwestern Europe. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universiteit Leiden. 1997 Loess Sediments and Magdalenian Campsites in the Southern Netherlands. A Pilot Study on Preservation and Site Location. In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Ouest, edited by J-P. Fagnart and A. Thévenin, pp. 397-408. CTHS, Paris. 2000 Regional-Scale Variation and the Magdalenian Record of Northwestern Europe. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, pp. 133-146. BAR-S 896. Rensink, E., J. Kolen, and A. Spieksma 1991 Patterns of Raw Material Distribution in the Upper Pleistocene of Northwestern and Central Europe. In Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric HunterGatherers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. Holen, pp. 141-60. University of Kansas Printing Service, Lawrence. Rick, J.W. and T.L. Jackson 1992 A Funny Thing Happened on the Way from the Quarry…Analysis of the Great Blades Cache of Northern California. In Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Distribution in California Prehistory, edited by J.E. Arnold, pp. 5-65. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 2. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Rigaud, J-Ph. 1979 À Propos des Industries Magdaléniennes du Flageolet. In La Fin des Temps Glaciaires en Europe, edited by D. de Sonneville-Bordes, pp. 467-469. CNRS 271, Paris. Rigaud, J-Ph., J.F. Simek, and M.A. Hays 2000 The Magdalenian of Grotte XVI (Dordogne, France) and Regional Approaches to Magdalenian Settlement and Economy. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, pp. 9-23. BAR-S 896. 611 Ritchie, C.I.A. 1975 The Eskimo and His Art. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Robert, M.R., M.G. Malvesin-Fabre, and M.L-R. Nougier 1953 Sur l’Existence Possible d’Une École d’Art dans le Magdalénien Pyrénéen. Bulletin Archaéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques p. 187193 Roblin-Jouve, A. 1994 Le Milieu Physique. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 12-35. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. Roussot, A. 1987 Art Mobilier et Parietal du Périgord et de la Gironde: Comparaisons Stylistiques. In L’Art des Objets au Paléolithique t. 1, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 189-205. Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine. Roussot, A. and J. Ferrier 1971 La Grotte de Fontarnaud Commune de Lugasson (Gironde). Extrait du BSPF 68:505-520. Rowley, S. 1994 The Sadlermiut: Mysterious or Misunderstood? In Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr., edited by D. Morrison and J-L. Pilon, pp. 361-384. Rozoy, J-G. 1988 Le Magdalénien Supérieur de Roc-la-Tour 1 dans le Contexte Franco-BelgoRhénan. In De la Loire à l’Oder, edited by M. Otte, pp. 137-156. BAR S-444, Liège. 1989 Roc-la-Tour et la Démographie du Magdalénien. In Le Magdalénien en Europe, edited by J. Rigaud, pp. 81-97. ERAUL 38. 1994 Séjours d’Été en Ardenne des Magdaléniens du Bassin Parisien. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur de l’Est de la France: de l’Aurignacien à l’Ahrensbourgien. Mémoires de la Societé Archéologique Champenoise 13:139-156. 1998 The (Re-) Population of Northern France Between 13,000 and 8,000 BP. In As the World Warmed, edited by B. Eriksen and L.G. Straus, pp. 69-86. Sacchi, D. 1986 Le Paléolithique Supérieur du Languedoc Occidental et du Roussillon. XXIe Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. CNRS, Paris. 1987 Bases Objectives de la Chronologie de l’Art Mobilier Paléolithique dans les Pyrénées Septentrionales. In L’Art des Objets au Paléolithique Vol. 1, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 13-29. Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine. Ministère de la Culture, Paris. 612 Sackett, J. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:59-112. Saint-Perier, R.S. de 1936 La Grotte d’Isturitz, I. Le Magdalénian de la Salle de Saint-Martin. Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Mémoire No. 7. Masson, Paris. Saitoti, T.O. 1988 Maasai. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York. Sánchez Goñi, M.F. 1996 Les Changements Climatiques du Paléolithique Superieur. Enquête sur le Rapport Entre Paléoclimatologie et Préhistoire. Zephyrus XLIX:3-36. Sarabia Rogina, P.M. 1990 L’Utilisation du Silex dans les Industries du Paléolithique de Cantabria. In Le Silex de Sa Genèse à l’Outil, edited by M.-R. Séronie-Vivien and M. Lenoir, pp. 443447. Cahiers du Quaternaire n°17, Actes du V° Colloque International sur le Silex. CNRS, Paris. Sauter, M.-R. 1973 Les Magdaléniens de Veyrier. Helvetia Archaeologie 14:48-50. Sauvet, G. 1987 Les Signes dans l’Art Mobilier. In L’Art des Objets au Paléolithique Vol. 2, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 83-99. Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine. Ministère de la Culture, Paris. Schalk, R.F. 1981 Land Use and Organizational Complexity Among Foragers of Northwestern North America. In Affluent Foragers, edited by S. Koyama and D.H. Thomas, pp. 5375. Senri Ethnological Studies 9. Schledermann, P. 1975 Thule Eskimo Prehistory of Cumberland Sound, Baffin Island, Canada. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 38, Ottawa. Schmid, E. 1984 Die Umwelt der Jäger vom Kesslerloch. In Die Kultur der Eiszeitjäger aus dem Kesslerloch, edited by H-G. Bandi, J. Bürgi, K. Gerhardt, H. Müller-Beck, and E. Schmid, pp. 56-62. Seekreis Verlag Konstanz. Schmider, Béatrice 1987 Environment and Culture in the Seine Basin During the Late Glacial Period. Prace Komisje Archeologicgrej 5. Wroclaw, Osslineum. 613 1989 Le Magdalénien dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien: Les Gisements, l’Industrie Lithique. In Le Magdalénien en Europe: La Structuration du Magdalénien, edited by J-Ph. Rigaud, pp. 219-37. Liege. 1994 Marsangy. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 147-153. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. Schmider, B. and B. Valentin 1997 L’Abri du Lagopède et la Grotte de la Marmotte (Yonne), Deux Haltes Magdaléniennes sur les Bords de la Cure: Stratégie d’Approvisionnement et Fonction des Sites. In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Ouest, edited by J-P. Fagnart and A. Thévenin, pp. 199-209. CTHS, Paris. Schuler, A. 1989 Das Magdalénien der Schussenquelle: Die Steinartefakte der Grabung von Oskar Fraas (1866). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 19:11-22. Schwab, H. 1985 Gagat und Bernstein auf dem Rentierjägerhalt Moosbühl bei Moosseedorf (Kanton Bern). Jahrbuch des Bernischen Historischen Museums 63-64:259-262. Schwendler, R.H. in press Magdalenian Perforated Disks in Geographic and Social Contexts. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française. 2002 Hunter-Gatherer Social Dynamics in Cantabrian Spain and the Greater Magdalenian World. Paper Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Shennan, S. 2001 Demography and Cultural Innovation: A Model and its Implications for the Emergence of Modern Human Culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11(1):516. Sieveking, A. 1971 Palaeolithic Decorated Bone Discs. In Prehistoric and Roman Studies, edited by G. de G. Sieveking, pp. 206-229, plates LXXIV-LXXXIII. Trustees of the British Museum. 1976 Settlement Patterns of the Later Magdalenian in the Central Pyrenees. In Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, edited by G. de G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth, and K.E. Wilson, pp. 583-603. Duckworth, London. 1987 A Catalogue of Palaeolithic Art in the British Museum. British Museum Publications, London. 1991 Palaeolithic Art and Archaeology: The Mobiliary Evidence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, Part I:33-50. 614 Silberbauer, G.B. 1994 A Sense of Place. In Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research, edited by E.S. Burch, Jr. and L J. Ellanna, pp. 119-143. Berg, Oxford. Simonnet, R. 1996 Approvisionnement en Silex au Paléolithique Supérieur; Déplacements et Caractéristiques Physionomiques des Paysages, l’Exemple des Pyrénées Centrales. In Pyrénées Préhistoriques Arts et Sociétés, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 327340. CTHS, Paris. 1998 Le Silex et la Fin du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Basin de Tarascon-surAriège. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l’Ariège LIII:181-222. Smith, E.A. and R.L. Bliege Bird 2000 Turtle Hunting and Tombstone Opening: Public Generosity as Costly Signaling. Evolution and Human Behavior 21:245-261. Snyder, J.P. 1987 Map Projections—a Working Manual. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1395. Washington, D.C. Snyder, J.P. and P.M. Voxland 1989 An Album of Map Projections. Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Denver. Soler, N., X. Terradas, J. Maroto, and C. Plana 1990 Le Silex et les Autres Matieres Premieres au Paleolithique Moyen et Supérieur, au Nord-Est de la Catalogne. In Le Silex de Sa Genèse à l’Outil, edited by M.-R. SéronieVivien and M. Lenoir, pp. 453-460. Cahiers du Quaternaire n°17, Actes du V° Colloque International sur le Silex. CNRS, Paris. de Sonneville-Bordes, Denise 1966 L’Évolution du Paléolithique Supérieur en Europe Occidentale et sa Signification. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 63:3-33. 1989 Chronostratigraphie du Magdalenien dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. In Le Magdalénien en Europe, edited by J. Rigaud, pp. 477-479. ERAUL 38. Spencer, R.F. 1971 The Social Composition of the Northern Alaskan Whaling Crew. In Alliance in Eskimo Society, edited by L. Guemple, pp. 110-120. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, 1971, Supplement, Seattle. Speth, J.D. 1990 Seasonality, Resource Stress, and Food Sharing in So-Called “Egalitarian” Foraging Societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:148-188. 615 Stapert, D. and T. Terberger 1991 Gönnersdorf Concentration III: Investigating the Possibility of Multiple Occupations. Palaeohistoria 31:59-95. Stefansson, V. 1914 The Stefansson-Anderson Arctic Expedition of the American Museum: Preliminary Ethnological Report. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History XIV Pt. 1. Steward, J.H. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. Strathern, A. and M. Strathern 1971 Self-Decoration in Mount Hagen. Duckworth, London. Straus, L.G. 1977 Of Deerslayers and Mountain Men: Paleolithic Faunal Exploitation in Cantabrian Spain. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L.R. Binford, pp. 41-47. Academic Press, New york. 1986 Late Würm Adaptive Systems in Cantabrian Spain: The Case of Eastern Asturias. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:330-368. 1987 Upper Paleolithic Ibex Hunting in Southwest Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 14:163-178. 1990/91 An Essay at Synthesis: Tardiglacial Adaptive Systems in the VascoCantabrian and Pyrenean Regions of Southwestern Europe. Kobie XIX:9-22. 1991a Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic Adaptations in Cantabrian Spain and Pyrenean France. Journal of World Prehistory 5(1):83-104. 1991b Southwestern Europe at the Last Glacial Maximum. Current Anthropology 32(2):189-199. 1991c Human Geography of the Late Upper Paleolithic in Western Europe: Present State of the Question. Journal of Anthropological Research 47(2):259-278. 1992a Iberia Before the Iberians. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1992b To Change or Not to Change: The Late and Postglacial in Southwest Europe. Quaternaria Nova II:161-85. 1993 Le Territoire des Pyrénées Occidentales au Pléni- et Tardiglaciaire. In Pyrénées Préhistoriques Arts et Sociétés, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 103116. CTHS, Paris. 1995 Les Derniers Chasseurs de Renne du Monde Pyrénéen: l’Abri Dufaure, un Gisement Tardiglaciaire en Gascogne. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 22, Paris. 1996 The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Southwest Europe. In Humans at the End of the Ice Age, edited by L.G. Straus, B.V. Eriksen, J.M. Erlandson, and D.R. Yesner, pp. 83-99. 1997a Late Glacial Reindeer Hunters Along the French Pyrenees. In Caribou and Reindeer Hunters of the Northern Hemisphere, edited by L.J. Jackson and P.T. 616 Thacker, pp. 165-84. Avebury, Brookfield. 1997b Synthesis: Bois Laiterie’s Place in the Stone Age Prehistory of Belgium. In La Grotte du Bois Laiterie, edited by M. Otte and L.G. Straus, pp. 369-84. ERAUL 80, Liège. 2000 Coming Out From the Cold: Western Europe in Dryas I and Beyond. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, pp. 191-203. BAR-S 896. Straus, L.G. and G.A. Clark 1986 La Riera Cave: Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer adaptations in Northern Spain. Anthropological Research Papers 36. Straus, L.G. and A. Martinez 1997 Site Formation/Disturbance Processes, Spatial Distributions, Site Structure and Activity Areas. In La Grotte du Bois Laiterie, edited by M. Otte and L. G. Straus, pp. 65-112. ERAUL 80, Liège. Straus, L.G. and M. Otte 1995 Stone Age Wallonia (Southern Belgium). Current Anthropology 36(5):851-854. Straus, L.G. and A.C. Winegardner 2000 The Upper Paleolithic Settlement of Spain. Paleolítico da Península Ibérica. ADECAP II:443-456. Straus, L.G., N. Bicho, and A.C. Winegardner 2000 The Upper Palaeolithic Settlement of Iberia: First-Generation Maps. Antiquity 74:553-566. Straus, L.G., M.R. González Morales, M.A. Fano Martínez, and M.P. García-Gelabert 2002 Last Glacial Human Settlement in Eastern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Journal of Archeological Science 29:1403-1414. Street, M. 1997 Faunal Succession and Human Subsistence in the Northern Rhineland 13,0009,000 BP. In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Ouest, edited by J-P Fagnart and A. Thévenin, pp. 545-567. CTHS, Paris. 2000 Aspects of Late Upper Palaeolithic Settlement and Chronology in Northern Central Europe. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile de France 7:55-71. Surmely, F. 2000 Le Peuplement Magdalénien de l’Auvergne. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: nouvelles données sur le peuplement et l’environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 165-175. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. 617 Surmely, F., P. Barrier, J.-P. Bracco, N. Charly, and R. Liabeuf 1998 Caractérisation des Silex par l’Analyse des Microfaciès et Application au Peuplement Préhistorique de l’Auvergne (France). Sciences de la terre et des planètes 326:595-601. Svoboda, J. 2000 The Eastern Magdalenian: Hunters, Landscapes, and Caves. In Regional Approaches to Adaptation in Late Pleistocene Western Europe, edited by G.L. Peterkin and H.A. Price, p. 179-189. BAR-S 896. Taborin, Y. 1987 Le Décor des Objets de Parure. In L’Art des Objets au Paléolithique t. 2, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 19-37. Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine. 1991 Fiche Pendeloques. In Fiches Typologiques de l’Industrie Osseuse Prehistorique, Paleolithique Superieur: Aurignacien Gravettien Magdalenien, Cahier IV: Objets de Parure, edited by H. Camps-Fabrer, pp. 1-6. Commission de Nomenclature sur l’Industrie de l’Os Préhistorique, Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Université de Provence, Provence. 1992 Les Espaces d’Acheminement de Certains Coquillages Magdaléniens. In Le Peuplement Magdalénien, edited by J-P. Rigaud, H. Laville and B. Vandermeersch, pp. 417-429. CTHS, Paris. 1993 La Parure en Coquillage au Paléolithique. CNRS, Paris. 1994 Les Coquillages Marins. In Environnements et Habitats Magdaléniens dans le Centre du Bassin Parisien, edited by Y. Taborin, pp. 70-77. Documents d’Archéologie Française 43, Paris. Teheux, E. 1994 Le Magdalénien de la Vallée de la Lesse. Unpublished Thèse de Licence, Université de Liège. 1997 Approche Écologique, Économique et Sociale du Magdalénien de la Vallée de la Lesse (Belgique). In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Ouest, edited by J-P. Fagnart and A. Thévenin, pp. 367-380. CTHS, Paris. Le Tensorer, J-M. 1998 Le Paléolithique en Suisse. Série “Préhistoire d’Europe” No. 5. Éditions Jérôme Millon, Grenoble, France. Terberger, T. 1991 Die Siedlungsbefunde des Magdalénien-Fundplatzes Gönnersdorf Konzentration III und IV. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der MathematischNaturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Köln. Thévenin, A. 2000 Géographie et Cultures au Tardiglaciaire. L’Impact de l’Axe Rhône-Saône. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Recent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 67-80. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 618 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Thiault, M-H. and J-B. Roy 1996 L’Art Préhistorique des Pyrénées. Editions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris. Tonkinson, R. 1991 The Mardu Aborigines. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., Fort Worth. Trigger, B.G. 1990 Maintaining Economic Equality in Opposition to Complexity: An Iroquoian Case Study. In The Evolution of Political Systems, edited by S. Upham, pp. 119-145. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Turner, L.M. 1894 Ethnology of the Ungava District, Hudson Bay Territory. 11th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1889-90, pp. 159-350. Washington. Utrilla, P. 1982 El Magdaleniense Inferior y Medio en la Costa Cantábrica. Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Monografías 4, Santander. 1986 La Varilla “Pseudoexcisa” de Aitzbitarte IV y sus Paralelos Franceses. In Estudios en Homenaje al Dr. Antonio Beltran Martinez, pp. 205-225. Universidad de Zaragoza. 1987 Bases Objectives de la Chronologie de l’Art Mobilier Paléolithique sur la Côte Cantabrique. In L’Art des Objets au Paleolithique t. 1, edited by J. Clottes, pp. 87-97. Ministère de la Culture, Paris. Utrilla, P. and C. Mazo 1992 Occupation de l’Espace dans la Grotte d’Abauntz (Espagne). In Le Peuplement Magdalénien, edited by J-P. Rigaud, H. Laville and B. Vandermeersch, pp. 365-376. CTHS, Paris. 1996a Arte Mueble Sobre Soporte Lítico de la Cueva de Abauntz. Complutum Extra 6(I):41-62. 1996b Le Paléolithique Supérieur dans le Versant Sud des Pyrénées. Communications et Influences avec le Monde Pyrénéen Français. In Pyrénées Préhistoriques Arts et Sociétés, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 243-262. CTHS, Paris. Vanhaeren, M. and F. d’Errico 2000 Childhood in the Epi-Palaeolithic. What do Personal Ornaments Associated with Burials Tell Us? Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe. Stockholm, September 2000. 2001 La Parure de l’Enfant de la Madeleine (fouilles Peyrony). Un Nouveau Regard sur l’Enfance au Paléolithique Supérieur. Paleo 13:201-240. 619 Vermeersch, P., R. Lauwers, H. Van de Heyning, and P. Vynchkier 1984 A Magdalenian Open Air Site at Orp, Belgium. In Jüngpaläolithische Siedlungsstrukturen in Europa, edited by H. Berke, J. Hahn, and C-J. Kind, pp. 195207. Archaeologica Venatoria. Institut für Urgeschichte der Universität Tübingen, Tübingen. Vermeersch, P., R. Lauwers, and P. Van Peer 1985 Un Site Magdalénien à Kanne. Archaeologia Belgica 1, pp. 17-54. Vermeersch, P., N. Symens, J. Vynckier, G. Gijselings, and R. Lauwers 1987 Orp, Site Magdalénien de Plein Air. Archaeologia Belgia 3, pp. 7-56. Vézian, J. 1954-5 Les Foyers Magdaléniens de la Grotte du Portel (Ariège). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l’Ariège IX-X:13-32. Wagner, E. 1983 Das Eiszeitjägerlager am Napoleonskopf im Katzenbachtal (Rottenburg-Weiler). In Tübingen und das Obere Gäu, pp. 210-216. Theiss. 1984 Eine Frauenstatuette aus Elfenbein vom Hohlenstein-Stadel im Lonetal, Gemeinde Asselfingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 14:357-360. Welté, A-C. 2000 Le Magdalénien Supérieur et les Propulseurs dans la Vallée de l’Aveyron: Revision Chronologique. In Le Paléolithique Supérieur Récent: Nouvelles Données sur le Peuplement et l’Environnement, edited by G. Pion, pp. 201-212. Actes de la Table Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 28, Paris. Welté, A-C. and R. Robert 1996 Observations de Quelques Objets Graves de la Grotte de La Vache (Ariège). In Pyrénées Préhistoriques, edited by H. Delporte and J. Clottes, pp. 353-365. CTHS, Paris. Weniger, G-C. 1982 Wildbeuter und Ihre Umwelt. Archaeologica Venatoria Band 5. Institut für Urgeschichte der Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 1987 Magdalenian Settlement Pattern and Subsistence in Central Europe: The Southwestern and Central German Cases. In Pleistocene Old World, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 201-215. Plenum Press, New York. 1989 The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe: Settlement Pattern and Regionality. Journal of World Prehistory 3(3):323-372. 1991 Überlegungen zur Mobilität Jägerischer Gruppen im Jungpaläolithikum. Saeculum 42(1):82-103. 620 Weyer, E.M., Jr. 1932 The Eskimos. Yale University Press, New Haven. Whallon, R. 1989 Elements of Cultural Change in the Later Palaeolithic. In The Human Revolution, edited by P. Mellars and C. Stringer, pp. 433-454. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. White, R. 1982 Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic Transition. Current Anthropology 23:169-192. 1985 Upper Paleolithic Land-Use in the Périgord: A Topographic Approach to Subsistence and Settlement. BAR S-253, Oxford. 1987 Glimpses of Long-Term Shifts in Late Paleolithic Land Use in the Périgord. In Pleistocene Old World, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 263-277. Plenum Press, New York. 1992 A Spearthrower Fragment from Laugerie-Haute, Commune des Eyzies (Dordogne). In French Paleolithic Collections in the Logan Museum of Anthropology, edited by R. White and L.B. Breitborde, pp. 259-276. Logan Museum Bulletin (new series) Vol. I(2). Wiessner, P. 1982a Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: A Comment on Binford’s Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47(1):171-178. 1982b Risk, Reciprocity and Social Influences on !Kung San Economics. In Politics and History in Band Societies, edited by E. Leacock and R. Lee, pp. 61-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):253-276. 1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study Among the Kalahari San. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:190-234. 1989 Style and Changing Relations Between the Individual and Society. In The Meanings of Things, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 56-63. Unwin Hyman, London. 1990 Is There a Unity to Style? In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M.W. Conkey and C.A. Hastorf, pp. 105-121. 1994 The Pathways of the Past: !Kung San Hxaro Exchange and History. In Überlebensstrategien in Afrika, edited by M. Bollig and F. Klees, pp. 101-124. Heinrich-Barth-Institüt, Köln. 1997 Seeking Guidelines Through an Evolutionary Approach: Style Revisited Among the !Kung San (Ju/’hoansi) of the 1990s. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archeological Explanation, edited by C.M. Barton and G.A. Clark, pp. 157-176. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 7. 1998a On Network Analysis: The Potential for Understanding (and Misunderstanding) !Kung Hxaro. Current Anthropology 39(4):514-519. 1998b On Emergency Decisions, Egalitarianism, and Group Selection. Current Anthropology 39(3):356-358. 2002a Hunting, Healing, and Hxaro Exchange. A Long-Term Perspective on !Kung 621 (Ju/’hoansi) Large-Game Hunting. Evolution and Human Behavior 23:407-436. 2002b The Vines of Complexity. Current Anthropology 43(2):233-269. 2004 Thoughts on Egalitarian Societies. Paper Presented at the Workshop on Inequality, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, July 2004. Wills, W.H. 1980 Ethnographic Observation and Archaeological Interpretation: The Wikmunkan of Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 5(1-2):78-99. Wilmsen, E. 1973 Interaction, Spacing Behavior, and the Organization of Hunting Bands. Journal of Anthropological Research 29:1-31. Wobst, H.M. 1974 Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 39:147-178. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C.E. Cleland. Anthropology Papers 61:317-42. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Zahavi, A. and A. Zahavi 1997 The Handicap Principle. Oxford University Press, New York. 622