Circulation of whale-bone artifacts in the northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic

Author's personal copy

Circulation of whale-bone artifacts in the northern Pyrenees duringthe late Upper Paleolithic

Jean-Marc PétillonCNRS, Laboratoire TRACES, Université Toulouse 2, Maison de la Recherche, 5 allées A. Machado, F-31058 Toulouse, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 28 February 2013Accepted 3 June 2013Available online 5 October 2013

Keywords:Circulation networkCoastal resourcesMagdalenianOsseous technology

a b s t r a c t

The importance of coastal resources in the late Upper Paleolithic of western Europe has been reevaluatedin recent years thanks to a growing body of new archeological evidence, including the identification ofmore than 50 implements made of whale bone in the Magdalenian level of the Isturitz cave (westernPyrenees). In the present study, the assemblages of osseous industry from 23 Magdalenian sites and siteclusters in the northern Pyrenees were investigated, systematically searching for whale-bone imple-ments. The objective of this research was to determine if, and how, tools and weapons of coastal originwere circulated beyond Isturitz into the inland, and if similar implements existed on the eastern,Mediterranean side of the Pyrenees. A total of 109 whale-bone artifacts, mostly projectile heads of largedimensions, were identified in 11 sites. Their geographic distribution shows that whale bone in thePyrenean Magdalenian is exclusively of Atlantic origin, and that objects made of this material weretransported along the Pyrenees up to the central part of the range at travel distances of at least 350 kmfrom the seashore. This phenomenon seems to have taken place during the second half of the MiddleMagdalenian and the first half of the Late Magdalenian, ca. 17,500e15,000 cal BP (calibrated years beforepresent). The existence of a durable, extended coastal-inland interaction network including the circu-lation of regular tools is thus demonstrated. Additionally, differences between the whale-bone projectileheads of the Middle Magdalenian and those of the Late Magdalenian document an evolutionary processin the design of hunting weapons.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

In recent years, new archeological evidence has led to a reap-praisal of the role of coastal resources among Upper Paleolithichunter-gatherers in southwest Europe. Several lines of evidencesuggest that economic adaptations to the seashore, both nutritionaland technical, existed at least since the late Upper Paleolithic in theIberian Peninsula. These adaptations include use of sea birds, seafish and crustaceans as food, at least since the Magdalenian(Álvarez Fernández, 2011); regular consumption of marine mol-lusks since the early Upper Paleolithic (Álvarez Fernández, 2007,2010) or even earlier (Cortés-Sánchez et al., 2008; Fa, 2008;Colonese et al., 2011); occasional scavenging of stranded whales(Corchón et al., 2008; Álvarez Fernández et al., 2013); and possiblecollection of drifted pumice on the seashore for the manufacture ofpolishers (Dachary et al., 2012). As suggested by several studies(Poplin, 1983; Cleyet-Merle and Madelaine, 1995; Erlandson, 2001;

Serangeli, 2003; Bailey and Flemming, 2008; Bicho and Haws,2008), the low visibility of these coastal adaptations in thearcheological record is likely due to the steep rise in sea level thatstarted after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), accelerateddramatically at the onset of the Bølling period (Deschamps et al.,2012) and flooded the Paleolithic coastline.

However, the nature and amount of interaction between thesecoastal economic traits and more inland occupations remain anopen question. In the current state of our knowledge, in the UpperPaleolithic record, the only items of marine origin with a widecirculation into the inland are personal ornaments: carved and/orpierced sea-mammal teeth are known from several Magdaleniansites in southwest France and Cantabrian Spain (Serangeli, 2003;Corchón et al., 2008); pierced Atlantic and Mediterranean shellswere transported at sites several hundreds of kilometers from theseashore since the early Upper Paleolithic (e.g., Taborin, 1993;Álvarez Fernández, 2006). Depictions of marine animals, mostlyseals and cetaceans, are also found in a number of Magdaleniansites up to the German Central Rhineland (Serangeli, 2003; Bosinskiand Bosinski, 2009). The nature of this evidence seems to indicateE-mail address: [email protected].

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jhevol

0047-2484/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.006

Journal of Human Evolution 65 (2013) 525e543


that echoes of the ‘coastal lifestyle’ into the far inland were limitedto the symbolic domain (circulation of ornaments and figures) anddid not include transportation of tools.

Whale-bone objects, however, are an exception to the latterrestriction. In the Middle and Late Magdalenian layers of Isturitz(Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France), more than 50 artifacts made ofwhale bone were identified (Pétillon, 2008; two whale-bone arti-facts are also reported from the Gravettian layers of the same site,but this identification was contradicted by physical-chemicalanalysis of one of the objects; Goutas, 2008; Müller and Reiche,2011). Their presence shows that bone material was collectedfrom large cetaceans, probably from whales stranded on theAtlantic seashore, and was then worked into projectile points andforeshafts and transported over 50e60 km to the Isturitz site. Therecent identification of a fragmentary whale-bone foreshaft inAndernach, German Central Rhineland, demonstrates that this typeof artifact can also be used as a proxy for long range coastal-inlandcirculation networks (Langley and Street, 2013). But this data alonedid not allow a precise characterization of the whale-bone circu-lation network, its extent, duration and form (i.e., nature andvariability of items involved, types of transactions implied, etc.).Clearly, a more detailed view of this network within the generalframework of Upper Paleolithic coastal-inland interactions requiresdata from more sites than just Isturitz and Andernach.

With this perspective in mind, a research program took place inthe course of four years (end of 2008ebeginning of 2013) on theMagdalenian sites of the northern Pyrenees. Following the initialidentification of whale-bone implements in Isturitz at the westernend of the Pyrenean range (Pétillon, 2008), an extensive search wasmade among assemblages of osseous industry in the rest of thechain, systematically looking for other whale-bone objects. Partialindications of the results of this study appeared in several recentpublications (Müller and Reiche, 2011; Langlais et al., 2012; Langleyand Street, 2013), but the complete results are presented and dis-cussed here.

Context

The Pyrenean chain stretches some 400 km from east to westbetween the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The axial zone of

crystalline massifs has a mean height of approximately 2000 m andreaches maximum heights over 3300 m. It is preceded to the northby long folds of limestone massifs (Northern Pyrenean Zone andPre-Pyrenees) divided by a series of deep south-north valleys,where the majority of Paleolithic sites have been sought and found(Bahn, 1984; Clottes, 2003).

For the earliest stages of theMagdalenian culture, contemporarywith the second half of the LGM (Langlais, 2010), evidence of hu-man presence in the northern Pyrenees is scarce (Clottes, 1989,2003) and limited to a few sites north of the range (e.g., Scilles inLespugue: Langlais et al., 2010; maybe Lassac: Pétillon and Ducasse,2012). This archeological gap might be due either to the inhospi-tality of the Pyrenean region during the LGM, this period beingmarked by the maximum extension of the mountain glaciers, or tointensive post-LGM erosion processes that destroyed LGM sites.

In any case, after the LGM, the northern Pyrenees were inten-sively occupied by Late Glacial hunter-gatherers, i.e., the Middleand Late Magdalenian culture (the middle phase is dated ca.18,500e16,500 cal BP (calibrated years before present), contem-porary with the He1/Oldest Dryas, and the late phase is dated ca.16,500e14,000 cal BP, contemporary with the end of the He1 andthe GIS-1e/Bølling: Langlais, 2010). About 100 sites from this periodare known in the Pyrenees (Sacchi, 1986; Omnès, 1987; Clottes,1989, 2003; Dachary, 2006), the overwhelming majority beingcave and rockshelter occupations (Fig. 1). Test-pitting campaigns invalley bottoms and surface surveys, both practiced in the Pyreneessince the 1970s and largely unsuccessful, tend to show that thisunderrepresentation of open-air sites is not a mere sampling biasbut might actually reflect a preferred location of Magdaleniansettlements in caves and rockshelters (Clottes, 2004). Except thesites located at the western, and lower, extremity of the chain(Fig. 1: 1e3), Magdalenian sites mostly occupy the 300e700 maltitude range. The settlements are (pluri)seasonal occupations,with hunting activities usually oriented primarily towards reindeeror ibex, and secondarily towards horse, red deer and bovines. Anincrease in the hunting of small game, especially birds, is witnessedin the Late Magdalenian (e.g., Costamagno, 2003; Costamagno andMateos Cachorro, 2007; Costamagno et al., 2008). Some of thesesites yielded extremely rich and diverse assemblages of faunal re-mains, lithic and osseous industry and portable art, while being

Figure 1. Magdalenian sites and clusters of sites in the northern Pyrenees. The area investigated appears in more contrasted tones, and the white lines indicate the limits betweenthe western, central and eastern zones. The ‘�100 m’ limit shows the location of the Paleolithic seashore approximately 100 m below present sea level. Black dots: sites withpreserved osseous industry included in this study (numbers as in Table 1); gray dots: sites with preserved osseous industry, not included in this study; white dots: sites withoutpreserved osseous industry. Pyrenees topographic and hydrographic map by Eric Gaba (Wikimedia Commons user: Sting). Europe map by Wikimedia Commons user San Jose. Sitesafter Sacchi (1986); Omnès (1987); Clottes (1989, 2004); Dachary (2006); completed with numbers 8 and 9.

J.-M. Pétillon / Journal of Human Evolution 65 (2013) 525e543526


closely associated with nearby concentrations of parietal art.Following the hypothesis made by M.W. Conkey (1980) for Alta-mira, some authors interpreted these exceptional sites as aggre-gation sites, i.e., “meeting-places, ritual foci and socio-economiccentres not only for local groups but also for a far wider area” (Bahn,1984: 334), where different groups living along the Pyrenean rangewould gather periodically.

This short description hints at the three reasons for which thePyrenean Magdalenian was selected as study area in this research.First, the high number of sites with well-preserved osseous in-dustry (Fig. 1) and the richness of their collections allowed a largesample size, thus increasing the potential for discovering whale-bone artifacts. Second, it had long been remarked that certaintypes of Magdalenian osseous items with very specific character-istics were found in nearly identical specimens in several sitesalong the Pyrenees. Sculptured antler spearthrowers, antler half-round rods (baguettes demi-rondes) with specific decoration pat-terns, pierced bone cutouts (contours découpés) of horse-headsmade from hyoid bones, pierced bone discs (rondelles) extractedfrom scapulas, fork-based antler projectile points: these are some

examples of particular implements found widespread over hun-dreds of kilometers, from thewestern Pyrenees to the eastern (or, atleast, to the central) part of the range, indicating movement and/orcontact between these areas (Bellier, 1984; Buisson et al., 1996;Cattelain, 2005; Pétillon, 2006; Fritz et al., 2007; Dachary, 2009;etc.). Since a concentration of whale-bone artifacts had beenidentified in Isturitz, at the Atlantic extremity of the chain (Pétillon,2008), it was hypothesized that whale-bone objects might havespread into the inland by following the same circulation networksas other items in the osseous industry. In short, the PyreneanMagdalenian looked like a promising case.

Finally, the Pyrenees was also chosen because, except for thesouthern part of the Iberian Peninsula, the Pyrenean isthmus is theplace in Europe where the Atlantic and the Mediterranean are theclosest from each other. Investigating the northern Pyrenean rangewas thus a way to draw a line between the two, encompassing in asingle study both Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts and the ter-ritory in-between. The objective, inspired by studies of marine shellornaments (e.g., Taborin, 1993; Álvarez Fernández, 2006), was todetermine if Magdalenian groups on the Mediterranean side had

Table 1Collections of Magdalenian osseous industry from the northern Pyrenees investigated in this study. #: site number as in Fig. 1. Dept.: département (Pyr.-Atl.: Pyrénées-Atlantiques; H.-Pyr.: Hautes-Pyrénées; H.-Gar.: Haute-Garonne). Conservation places: CDAH, Centre Départemental Archéologique d’Hasparren; CDP, Centre Départemental duPatrimoine (abbaye d’Arthous); DAC, Dépôt Archéologique de Carcassonne; LPP, Laboratoire de Préhistoire de Pujol; MAN, Musée d’Archéologie Nationale (Saint-Germain-en-Laye); MANar, Musée Archéologique de Narbonne; MDW,Musée Despiau-Wlérick (Mont-de-Marsan); MH, Musée de l’Homme (Paris); MHNT, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle deToulouse; ML, Musée de Lespugue; MM, Musée de Montmaurin; MNP, Musée National de Préhistoire (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac); MPMA, Musée de Préhistoire du Mas d’Azil; MSG,Musée de Saint-Gaudens. Magdalenian phases: M, Middle; L, Late.

# Zone Dept. Site Collection Conservation Layers Mag. phase

1 West Pyr.-Atl. Isturitz Passemard, Saint-Périer MAN I/F1, II/E, SI/Eu M & LMascaraux MHNT e M & LNormand CDAH GD-C2 M

2 West Landes Sorde: Duruthy Arambourou CDP 3 & 4 M & LSorde: Dufaure Straus CDP 4 & 5 M & LSorde: Grand Pastou Arambourou CDP e M (& L?)

3 West Landes Pape Piette MAN e M (& L?)Dubalen, Laporterie MDW e M (& L?)

4 West Pyr.-Atl. Arudy: Bignalats Marsan, Laplace MNP jsb, njsb, nsbh (cbgni) L (& M?)Arudy: Espalungue Piette MAN e M & LArudy: Laa 2 Dumontier, Normand, Pétillon CDAH US 4003-4012 M & LArudy: Poeymaü Laplace MNP BI LArudy: Saint-Michel Mascaraux MAN e M & LArudy: Sainte-Colome Pétillon CDAH US 205 þ disturbed L

5 West H.-Pyr. Espélugues Nelli MAN e M & LRégnault, Martin, Garrigou MHNT e M & L

6 West H.-Pyr. Aurensan Mascaraux MAN e M & L7 Centre H.-Pyr. Lortet Piette MAN e M & L8 Centre H.-Gar. Gourdan Piette MAN, MHNT e M & L9 Centre H.-Gar. Lespugue: Bœufs Saint-Périer MAN, ML, MM Single layer M

Lespugue: Gouërris Saint-Périer MAN, MM C MLespugue: Harpons Saint-Périer MAN, ML, MM, MSG A, B, C M & LLespugue: Petit Abri Saint-Périer MAN Single layer LLespugue: Vierge Saint-Périer MAN, MM Single layer L

10 Centre H.-Gar. Montconfort Darbas MHNT e M11 Centre H.-Gar. Marsoulas Régnault MHNT e M12 Centre Ariège Montfort Régnault, Miquel MHNT e M & L13 Centre Ariège Volp: Enlène Bégouën LPP all M

Volp: Tuc d’Audoubert Bégouën MH single layer M14 Centre Ariège Mas d’Azil Piette, Breuil MAN e M & L

Péquart, Ladévèze, Alteirac MPMA e M & LRégnault MHNT e M & L

15 Centre Ariège Massat Régnault, Lartet MHNT e M & L16 Centre Ariège Bédeilhac Jauze, Mandement MAN e M & L17 Centre Ariège Vache Robert MAN 1, 2, 3, 4 L18 East Aude Cauna de Belvis Sacchi, Nouvian DAC C1eC4 L19 East Aude Œil Sacchi DAC Disturbed L20 East Aude Canecaude 1 Sacchi DAC II M21 East Aude Gazel Sacchi, Nouvian DAC C7, C7bis, plj M22 East Aude Bize: Grande Grotte Héléna, Tavoso MANar 5 (Hél.); PL, FC (Tav.) M & L

Bize: Petite Grotte Héléna MANar 2 & 3 M & L23 East Aude Crouzade Genson, Héléna MANar 5 (Héléna) M & L

J.-M. Pétillon / Journal of Human Evolution 65 (2013) 525e543 527


produced a whale-bone technology similar to that identified on theAtlantic side in Isturitz, and if products of this technology had beentransported into the inland.

Material and methods

Given the large number of sites with osseous industry, the verylong excavation history of many of them (prehistoric research in thenorthern Pyrenees began ca. 150 years ago), and the resultingdispersal of the archeological material in dozens of museums andcollections, an exhaustive survey was considered impossible. Asampling strategy was thus established. Following a classic east-west division of the northern Pyrenees, the study area was splitinto three zones (Fig. 1):

- Western zone: Adour drainage basin;- Central zone: Garonne drainage basin;- Eastern zone: Mediterranean drainage basin.

The western and eastern zones are the closest to the potentialsources of whale-bone raw material on the Atlantic and Mediter-ranean seashores. Assessing and quantifying the presence ofwhale-bone objects in these areas was therefore considered a pri-ority: these two zones were thus investigated with a view toexhaustiveness. The central zone, on the other hand, has thehighest number of sites and the most dispersed collections, whichprevented a comprehensive study. In this zone, priority was givento the largest sites that yielded the most abundant collections ofosseous industry, ignoring smaller assemblages in which the po-tential for discovering whale-bone artifacts was considered lower.

All in all, this study encompassed 42 distinct collections from 23sites or site clusters (Table 1; the term ‘site cluster’ is used here todescribe a concentration of closely related Magdalenian sites in thesame locality, within a few kilometers from each other or less; thereare four such cases in our study area: the three Magdalenianrockshelter sites from the Sorde-l’Abbaye cliff, the six caves androckshelters occupied during the Magdalenian around the smallArudy basin, the five caves and rockshelters with Magdalenianmaterial spaced along ca. 2 km in the gorges of the Save in Les-pugue, and the three caves with parietal art on the Volp river inMontesquieu-Avantès). All of the assemblages studied are fromsheltered sites (caves and rockshelters) since there are no open-airsites with preserved osseous industry in the area. The sites inves-tigated vary greatly in size, from very large multi-stratified cavessuch as Isturitz to small shelters with a single Magdalenian layersuch as Bœufs in Lespugue.

In the western zone, all known and available collections ofMagdalenian osseous industry were investigated except theassemblage from Bourrouilla (Arancou, Landes; currently understudy by F.-X. Chauvière within the excavation program directed byM. Dachary: Dachary et al., 2008), the assemblage from Bois-du-Cantet (Espèche, Hautes-Pyrénées), and one part of the muchdispersed collections from Espélugues (Lourdes, Hautes-Pyrénées:Omnès, 1980). In the eastern zone, the survey was also exhaustivewith the exception of one part of the collections from Bize. In thecentral zone, only 11 sites or site clusters were totally or partiallyinvestigated out of the 20 known to have yielded Magdalenianosseous industry. This sample, however, includes the largest as-semblages known from this zone (Lortet, Gourdan, the Lespugueand Volp clusters, Mas d’Azil and La Vache), ensuring an acceptablerepresentativeness.

Although all artifacts were examined first-hand by the author,this study also benefited from unpublished information kindlyprovided by students and colleagues. The whale-bone artifacts inthe Dubalen and Laporterie collections from Brassempouy were

identified by A. Lefebvre (2012), the whale-bone artifacts fromDuruthy were identified by F.-X. Chauvière and M. Dachary (M.Dachary, Personal communication 2012), the whale-bone artifactsfrom Saint-Michel cave in Arudy were identified by Pujol (2009),and the study of the assemblage fromAurensan cavewas facilitatedby previous work from Baumann (2006e2007).

The site from which the artifacts originated could not bedetermined with absolute certainty in six instances: six whale-bone objects presumably from Mas d’Azil (4), Brassempouy (1)and Espélugues (1), all housed at the Musée d’Archéologie Natio-nale (MAN). Indeed, in the collections of the MAN, although mostobjects are marked with a museum number allowing their attri-bution to a given site, a few artifacts are not marked this way andcould only be attributed according to the tray they were stored in(i.e., all whale-bone objects found in the Mas d’Azil trays wereconsidered as coming from this site, even those that were notindividually marked).

The chronological attribution of the artifacts is based on strat-igraphic position, except in two cases where this attribution wasmodified: in Isturitz, it was considered plausible that all foreshaftsmade of whale bone actually come from the Late Magdalenianperiod, although some of them were recorded as coming from theMiddle Magdalenian layer (details of the demonstration in Pétillon,2004, 2008); in Tuc d’Audoubert, although the whale-bone fore-shaft was found in a Middle Magdalenian context (Pétillon andCattelain, 2004; Bégouën et al., 2009), its typology and associa-tion with an antler fork-based point suggest an attribution to thebeginning of the Late Magdalenian (Szmidt et al., 2009). In siteswhere no stratigraphic information was available, a generic attri-bution to the ‘Middle or Late Magdalenian’ was usually possiblebecause these two periods were the only ones identified in thearcheological material, or at least the ones representing the over-whelming majority of the osseous industry. Only the Grotte duPape in Brassempouy was a more complex chronological case,because this cave has been occupied in the Châtelperronian,Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean and Middle (and probably Late)Magdalenian (Delporte, 1967, 1980; Henry-Gambier et al., 2004),and the whale-bone objects from this site are deprived of strati-graphical context. However, all of these objects are from thenineteenth century excavations made by Dubalen, Piette andLaporterie, and in the osseous industry of these collections, theMagdalenian is the culture most abundantly represented(Delporte, 1967; Merlet, 1990; Lefebvre, 2012). Therefore a (Middleand/or Late) Magdalenian age can reasonably be assumed for thewhale-bone artifacts.

The criteria used to identify whale-bone implements were thesame as those used previously (Pétillon, 2008). The distinctivecharacteristics of cetacean bones are that they generally have nomedullary cavity and, although surrounded by a cortical shell, aremostly composed of cancellous tissue (Felts and Spurrell, 1965;Buffrénil and Schoevaert, 1988; Campbell-Malone, 2007). Thisstructure is interpreted as a specific adaptation to buoyancy in deepwater (Taylor, 2000; Ricqlès and Buffrénil, 2001; Gray et al., 2007).Therefore, artifacts made of cetacean bone have specific features(Margaris, 2006): their section shows a structure intermediatebetween that of compact and cancellous bone, with compact boneenclosing relatively sparse trabeculae (Pétillon, 2008). The struc-ture of the material is homogenous: with few exceptions, thetrabeculae are rather evenly distributed and they never indicate a‘spongy’ side or end opposed to a ‘compact’ one; they can be seenon all sides of the objects and across their entire length (Pétillon,2008). These features are never present on other osseous mate-rials such as antler, bones of large and small land mammals, orivory. Although the characteristics described here apply to all ce-taceans, the large dimensions of the Magdalenian artifacts (see



below) allow us to rule out the use of bones from small cetaceanspecies in the dolphin/porpoise size range; hence the use of theterm ‘whale bone’ (‘whale’ being understood as a generic commonname for medium and large cetacean species).

During identification of the whale-bone artifacts, two levels ofconfidence were distinguished (Table 2). The nature of the materialwas considered ‘certain’ in most cases, but only ‘likely’ for someartifacts, either because of taphonomic problems (too fragmented,with concretions, altered surface, section not observable, etc.) orbecause of slightly unusual structural features.

All whale-bone artifacts were described (including typologicaland technological identification), measured (length, maximumwidth and maximum thickness, to the nearest tenth of a milli-meter), recorded on a database and photographed.

Results

In Isturitz, the study of two new collections (Mascaraux andNormand excavations) led to the discovery of six more whale-boneartifacts, bringing the total to 63 for this site. Outside Isturitz, 46whale-bone artifacts were identified from ten sites or site clusters(Table 2).

Geographic distribution

The geographic distribution of the whale-bone implements isclearly unbalanced in favor of the western zone (Fig. 2). This zoneyielded 75% of the whale-bone objects (n ¼ 82), with 58% forIsturitz alone. Five of the six sites and site clusters investigated inthis area (i.e., 83%) yielded whale-bone objects. Apart from Isturitz,the number of such objects per site is between two and eight. In thecentral zone (27 objects, or 25%), whale-bone objects were found inonly six of the 11 sites and site clusters investigated (i.e., 55%). Thenumber of such objects per site is usually only between one andthree. The only exception is Mas d’Azil, in which 16 whale-boneobjects were found, making it the second most important assem-blage after Isturitz. This situation will be discussed below. Finally,the six sites from the eastern zone were found to be entirely devoidof whale-bone objects.

If the six artifacts with uncertain site attribution and the 26artifacts identified as only ‘likely’made of whale bone (Table 2) areruled out of the sample, the remaining assemblage includes only 77specimens but the contrast in geographic distribution is notsignificantly modified (77% in the western zone, including 64% forIsturitz alone, and 23% in the central zone). The west-east contrastcannot be linked to a difference in site density, since the number ofsites or site clusters investigated is identical in the western zone(n ¼ 6) and in the eastern zone (n ¼ 6).

Furthermore, this contrast does not seem to be a bias due tosample size, i.e., to the relative abundance of osseous industry ateach site. On this point, no systematic calculations can be madebecause detailed counts of the osseous industry, including the totalnumber of worked osseous items, are missing in many sites. In-dications, however, can be drawn from those few sites where moreprecise information is available (Table 3). In the western zone, inthe two sites where the percentage could be calculated, whale-bone objects represent around 1% of the total osseous industry(1.27% in Isturitz and 0.90% in Saint-Michel, Arudy); while in thecentral zone, the highest percentage (calculated for Mas d’Azil onone part of the collections only) is 0.28%. It is even lower in La Vache(0.06%). In Enlène (one of the Volp caves in Montesquieu-Avantès),no whale-bone objects were found despite the presence of a verylarge collection of osseous industry: the 794 specimens mentionedin Table 3 include only the antler industry from one of the twochambers (the Salle du Fond) occupied during the Middle Magda-lenian (no precise counts have been published either for the boneindustry of the Salle du Fond or for the whole osseous industry ofthe second chamber, the Salle des Morts). The same is true for theeastern zone: not a single whale-bone object was found in Gazelcave although the Middle Magdalenian layers of this site yielded anextremely rich assemblage of nearly 1000 worked osseous items.The absence of whale-bone objects in these sites rich in osseousindustry is particularly striking.

In the central zone, the fact that only a sample of the availablecollections was studied (as opposed to the nearly exhaustive studyof the western zone) means that the number of whale-bone objectsin this area is probably underestimated. However, given that, asmentioned before, the largest assemblages of osseous industry

Table 2Number of whale-bone artifacts identified. #: site number as in Fig. 1. Magdalenian phases: M, Middle; L, Late. NWBA: number of whale-bone artifacts; numbers in squarebrackets refer to specimens whose identification as whale-bone is likely but not certain (see details in text).

# Zone Site Main references on site Collection Layer or sector Mag. phase NWBA

1 West Isturitz Passemard, 1924, 1944 Passemard, Saint-Périer I/F1 L 8 [þ2]Saint-Périer, 1930, 1936 Passemard, Saint-Périer II/E M 26 [þ10]

Saint-Périer Refit. I/F1 þ II/E ? 1Passemard, Saint-Périer SI/Eu M 9 [þ1]Mascaraux e M & L 1Normand GD-C2 M 4 [þ1]

2 West Sorde: Duruthy Arambourou, 1978 Arambourou 3 L 1 [þ1]4 M 0 [þ1]

3 West Pape Delporte, 1967 Piette e M (& L?) 2 [þ1]Dubalen, Laporterie e M (& L?) 3 [þ2]

4 West Arudy: Espalungue Piette, 1907 Piette e M & L 3 [þ1]Arudy: Saint-Michel Mascaraux, 1910 Mascaraux e M & L 1 [þ1]

5 West Espélugues Omnès, 1980 Nelli e M & L 27 Centre Lortet Piette, 1907 Piette e M & L 18 Centre Gourdan Virmont and Pinçon, 1987 Piette e M & L 2 [þ1]9 Centre Lespugue: Harpons Saint-Périer, 1920 Saint-Périer A L 2

C M 113 Centre Volp: Tuc d’Audoubert Bégouën et al., 2009 Bégouën Balcon 1 M 0 [þ1]14 Centre Mas d’Azil Péquart and Péquart, 1960e1963 Piette, Breuil e M & L 9 [þ2]

Péquart Galerie des silex M & L 3Régnault e M & L 1 [þ1]

17 Centre Vache Clottes and Delporte, 2003 Robert 1, 3 and 4 L 3Total 83 [þ26]



from this zone have nonetheless been studied, it is unlikely that theinclusion of smaller assemblages would significantly change, orreverse, the extremely unbalanced figures of the western andcentral zones. In any case, enlarging the sample from the centralpart of the chain would not change the fact that the Ariège region(including the caves of Mas d’Azil and La Vache) is the easterndistribution limit of the whale-bone industry: all Magdalenianosseous assemblages east of this region were unsuccessfullyinvestigated.

The parsimonious hypothesis to explain this unbalancedgeographic distribution is that the zone where whale-bone objectsare overrepresented is closer to the production region. Therefore,this evidence conclusively supports the hypothesis that whale-bone in the Pyrenean Magdalenian is exclusively of Atlanticorigin: the whale-bone objects are overrepresented in Pyreneansites closer to the Atlantic seashore. They were transported up tothe central Pyrenees (Ariège) but not beyond, and no symmetricalinput came from the Mediterranean side.

Chronological distribution

Whale-bone artifacts were found in Middle as well as LateMagdalenian layers (Table 2). Although in several sites the twoMagdalenian phases cannot be distinguished, this chronologicaldata nevertheless shows that, in both Middle and Late Magdale-nian, whale-bone implements were present from the westernPyrenees (Sorde, Isturitz, Grotte du Pape) to the eastern limit of thedistribution area in the central part of the range (Mas d’Azil, Les-pugue, La Vache). In other words, there is no evidence to supportthe idea that the geographic distribution of whale-bone industrymight have been different in the two phases: no process of pro-gressive expansion (or restriction) of whale-bone diffusion overtime is documented.

A total of 56 radiocarbon dates are available from the Magda-lenian layers of the 11 sites in which whale-bone objects werefound. Twenty-nine of these dates are not considered here becausethey have no archeological association with the whale-bone

Figure 2. Distribution of whale-bone artifacts in the Magdalenian sites of the northern Pyrenees (numbers as in Tables 1 and 2). The area investigated appears in more contrastedtones, and the white lines indicate the limits between the western, central and eastern zones. The ‘�100 m’ limit shows the location of the Paleolithic seashore approximately 100 mbelow present sea level. White discs: presence of whale-bone artifacts (the area of the disc is proportional to the number of artifacts); black X: whale-bone artifacts absent. Pyreneestopographic and hydrographic map by Eric Gaba (Wikimedia Commons user: Sting). Europe map by Wikimedia Commons user San Jose. Sites after Sacchi (1986); Omnès (1987);Clottes (1989, 2004); Dachary (2006); completed with numbers 8 and 9.

Table 3Percentage of whale-bone artifacts in the osseous industry. n oss. ind.: number of artifacts in the assemblage of osseous industry; includes all bone, antler and ivory pieces withtraces of working (manufacturing waste, blanks, preforms and finished objects); (a): antler assemblage only; (b) only antler assemblage and bone finished objects (bonemanufacturing waste not counted). NWBA: number of whale-bone artifacts. %WBA: percentage of whale-bone artifacts in osseous industry.

# Zone Site Collection Layers or sector n oss. ind. Reference NWBA %WBA

1 West Isturitz Passemard F1 672 Mujika Alustiza, 1991 5E 1275 Mujika Alustiza, 1991 23Eu 151 Mujika Alustiza, 1991 1

Saint-Périer I 652 Mujika Alustiza, 1991 6II 1662 Mujika Alustiza, 1991 13SI 382 Mujika Alustiza, 1991 9

Mascaraux e 31 Personal observation 1Normand GD-C2 126 Personal observation 5Total 4951 63 1.27

4 West Arudy: Saint-Michel Mascaraux e 221 Pujol, 2009 2 0.9013 Centre Volp: Enlène Bégouën Salle du fond 794 (a) Averbouh et al., 1999 0 0.0014 Centre Mas d’Azil Péquart Galerie des silex 1606 Personal observation 3

Régnault e 192 Personal observation 2Total 1798 5 0.28

17 Centre Vache Robert 1, 2, 3, 4 4721 (b) Averbouh, 2000; Julien, 2004 3 0.0621 East Gazel Sacchi C7, C7bis, plj 963 Personal observation 0 0.00



artifacts (i.e., the Magdalenian layer dated, or the sector of the cavein which the sample was taken, did not yield any whale-bone ob-ject). Two more dates from Late Magdalenian layers were excludedbecause they are obviously too recent for the Late Magdalenian andlikely reflect contamination from overlying Azilian occupations(top of layer 3 from Duruthy in Sorde, Lye858: 11,150 � 220 BP; LaVache, Cole336c: 11,650 � 200 BP). The 25 remaining dates areshown in Table 4.

Isturitz layer II/E yielded a very dispersed series of dates rangingfrom 15,130 � 110 BP to 12,245 � 60 BP. It is unlikely, however, thatthe oldest of these dates is contemporary with the whale-boneimplements. Indeed, the artifact sampled for this date is a Lussac-Angles point, a specific type of simple-beveled antler point, char-acteristic of the earliest stages of the Middle Magdalenian (Pinçon,1988; Dujardin and Pinçon, 2000; Szmidt et al., 2009; Pétillon andAverbouh, 2013), and absent from all other Middle Magdaleniansites that yielded whale-bone objects in the Pyrenees. Given theancient age of the excavations in Isturitz, the most likely hypothesisis that an ‘early Middle Magdalenian’ layer existed in this site butthat, during the excavation, this layer was not stratigraphicallyseparated from the later Middle Magdalenian occupations thatyielded the whale-bone implements. Symmetrically, the youngestdate of layer II/E is not compatible with the attribution of this layerto the Middle Magdalenian and very probably indicates the pres-ence of intrusive artifacts from later periods.

If these two dates from Isturitz II/E are excluded, the 23 othersbuild a coherent series, spanning the millennia from ca. 17,500 toca. 15,000 cal BP (Fig. 3). According to this evidence, the periodduring which whale-bone objects were circulated in the northernPyrenees does not encompass the whole Middle and Late Magda-lenian (ca. 18,500e14,000 cal BP) but rather the second half of theMiddle Magdalenian and the first half of the Late Magdalenian, ca.17,500e15,000 cal BP. Within the Magdatis research project, a newseries of radiocarbon dates are currently in progress in sites of thewestern zone (Sorde and Arudy clusters, Isturitz). Their resultsmight refine this chronology in the near future.

Direct radiocarbon dating of the whale-bone objects has not yetbeen undertaken because, as a marine material, whale bone is

subject to a marine reservoir effect. Furthermore, the whale bonesused as raw material might have been stranded on the seashore fora long time before being picked up and worked into artifacts. Thecombination of these two factors might result in radiocarbon agessignificantly older than the date of artifact manufacture. A specificdating protocol must therefore be devised to address the problemsassociated with this material before any attempt at direct radio-carbon dating can be made (for discussion of similar problems seee.g., Nelson and McGhee, 2002; Friesen and Arnold, 2008;Marchand et al., 2009).

Typology and technology

Projectile points (Figs. 4 and 5) are by far the most frequent typeof artifacts in the whale-bone assemblage (Tables 5e7), includingone point fragment recycled as a pendant (Fig. 5: 4) and four wasteproducts with traces of transversal sectioning by scraping, resultingfrom the reworking of damaged points (Fig. 5: 6; pointes à baseraccourcie: Chauvière and Rigaud, 2005, 2008). The points usuallyshow a simple, blunt base, with an oval cross-section (Table 8;Fig. 5: 5). The base is often scored with oblique striations (Fig. 4;Fig. 5: 1; this feature is usually considered as a hafting aid: Allainand Rigaud, 1986, 1989; Julien, 1999; Weniger, 2000). These fea-tures suggest the hafting of the points by insertion into a socket atthe distal end of a projectile shaft. Deep longitudinal grooves areoften present on both sides of the mesial part (Figs. 4 and 5: 1e2and 4e5), and they are interpreted as a housing for lithic inserts(Allain and Rigaud, 1986; Houmard, 2003; Houmard and Jacquot,2009; Bosinski, 2010; Pétillon et al., 2011). Like all types of arti-facts in this assemblage, the points are highly fragmented, a situ-ation related to both post-depositional processes and breakageduring use (Fig. 4: detail c). This makes their metric study difficult.Twelve fragments have lengths between 100 mm and 140 mm,indicating that the complete implements were above this sizerange. In two cases, the length of the complete point can be esti-mated ca. 160e180 mm. Three point fragments even have lengthsbetween ca. 190 and 350 mm, showing the existence of someextremely long projectile tips (Figs. 4 and 6: 1). These lengths as

Table 4Radiocarbon dates associated with the whale-bone artifacts. Magdalenian phases: M, Middle; L, Late.

# Site Layers or sector Mag. phase Lab code BP date Sample dated Method Reference

1 Isturitz I/F1 L OxA-19834 12,860 � 55 Antler: fork-based point AMS Szmidt et al., 2009I/F1 L OxA-19833 13,095 � 55 Antler: barbed point AMS Szmidt et al., 2009I/F1 L OxA-19835 13,455 � 55 Antler: fork-based point AMS Szmidt et al., 2009II/E M OxA-19837 12,245 � 60 Antler: spearthrower AMS Szmidt et al., 2009II/E M GrA-45329 13,035 � 45 Human frontal bone AMS Henry-Gambier et al., 2013II/E M OxA-19838 13,605 � 65 antler: half-round rod AMS Szmidt et al., 2009II/E M GrA-45328 14,750 � 50 Human parietal bone AMS Henry-Gambier et al., 2013II/E M OxA-19836 15,130 � 110 Antler: Lussac-Angles point AMS Szmidt et al., 2009SI/Eu M OxA-19830 13,910 � 70 Worked scapula AMS Szmidt et al., 2009SI/Eu M OxA-19832 14,075 � 60 Antler: half-round rod AMS Szmidt et al., 2009SI/Eu M OxA-19831 14,110 � 60 Antler: point AMS Szmidt et al., 2009GD-C2 M OxA-26679 13,980 � 65 Reindeer tibia AMS UnpublishedGD-C2 M OxA-X-2503-23 14,005 � 65 Horse femur AMS Unpublished

2 Duruthy 4 top M Ly-859 13,510 � 220 Bone (?) b count Évin, 19784 base M Ly-860 13,840 � 210 Bone (?) b count Évin, 1978

13 Volp: Tuc d’Aud. Balcon 1 M GifA-102391 13,600 � 110 Burned bone AMS Bégouën et al., 1999Balcon 1 M Poz-8335 13,840 � 80 Reindeer rib AMS Bégouën et al., 1999

14 Mas d’Azil Gal. des silex M Gif-5680 13,200 � 100 Bone b count Delibrias et al., 1987Gal. des silex M Gif-5679 13,400 � 1000 Bone b count Delibrias et al., 1987

17 Vache 2 L Gro-2025 12,540 � 105 Charcoal b count Clottes and Delporte, 20032 L Gif-7603 12,800 � 140 Bone b count Clottes and Delporte, 20034 L Gro-2026 12,850 � 60 Charcoal b count Clottes and Delporte, 2003I/269/-109 L GifA-95478 13,490 � 120 Bone AMS Clottes and Delporte, 2003VI/71/-115.6 L GifA-95480 13,650 � 130 Bone AMS Clottes and Delporte, 2003VI/71/-59.5 L GifA-95479 13,770 � 140 Bone AMS Clottes and Delporte, 2003



well as thewidth and thickness of the points (Table 7) are above thecaliber of points used to tip light projectiles such as arrows. Instead,they indicate that the whale-bone points were mounted on heavierprojectiles, such as spears projectedwith a spearthrower (Cattelain,1997; Pétillon et al., 2011). The whale-bone points were found onlyin Middle Magdalenian layers and in indiscriminate ‘Middle and/orLate Magdalenian’ assemblages.

Foreshafts (Fig. 6: 2e3; Fig. 7) are the second best representedcategory, including three fragments with traces of transversalsectioning by scraping, likely resulting from the reworking ofdamaged foreshafts (in the same way as pointes à base raccourcie).The proximal parts are double-beveled (Table 9), indicating thehafting of the foreshaft in a V-shaped housing at the distal ex-tremity of the projectile shaft (Fig. 6: 3; Fig. 7: 1e2 and 5). The distal

Vac 2 Gro2025

Vac 2 Gif7603

Vac 4 Gro2026

Ist I/F1 OxA19834

Ist II/E GrA45329

Ist I/F1 OxA19833

Mas sil Gif5680

Mas sil Gif5679

Ist I/F1 OxA19835

Vac I/269/-109 GifA95478

Dur 4top Ly859

Tuc balc1 GifA102391

Ist II/E OxA19838

Vac VI/71/-115.6 GifA95480

Vac VI/71/-59.5 GifA95479

Dur 4base Ly860

Tuc balc1 Poz8335

Ist SI/Ew OxA19830

Ist GD-C2 OxA26679

Ist GD-C2 OxAX250323

Ist SI/Ew OxA19832

Ist SI/Ew OxA19831

Ist II/E GrA45328

14000150001600017000180001900020000

Calibrated date (calBP)

Figure 3. Calibrated radiocarbon dates associated with the whale-bone artifacts. Dates OxA-19836 and OxA-19837 shown in Table 4 were excluded (see details in text). Calibration:OxCal v4.1.7. (Bronk Ramsey, 2011); IntCal09 dataset (Reimer et al., 2009); two sigma range.



parts are either fork-shaped or double-beveled, in which case theplanes of the bevel are always very concave (Fig. 6: 2; Fig. 7: 1e4).Morphometric study coupled with experimental replication anduse of similar antler foreshafts have shown that this distal end isdesigned to be interlocked with the forked base of an antler pro-jectile point (Pétillon and Cattelain, 2004; Pétillon, 2006). Theoriginal length of the three almost complete foreshafts can beestimated ca. 160e180 mm, however, the presence of three longerfragments (Table 7; Fig. 6: 2e3) indicates that some foreshaftsoriginally had much larger dimensions. Here again, these lengths,as well as the width and thickness of the foreshafts (Table 7),indicate hafting on spear-sized projectiles. Foreshafts were found inboth Middle and Late Magdalenian contexts, but, as mentionedabove and as detailed elsewhere (Pétillon, 2004, 2007, 2008;Szmidt et al., 2009), the functional association of these foreshafts

with fork-based points likely indicates a Late Magdalenian age forall of them.

Nine whale-bone artifacts display features indicating their useas wedges (Fig. 8): a straight proximal end with traces of per-cussion (crushing, chipping), and/or a blunt or beveled active endwith traces of compression and crushing. Six of them have di-mensions compatible with those of the whale-bone points andforeshafts (Fig. 8: 1e3; Table 7: width: 12e16 mm; thickness:10e14 mm). Some of them show features typical of projectilepoints, such as longitudinal grooves and basal oblique striations(Fig. 8: 2e3). They are very probably recyclings of foreshaftfragments and point fragments rather than the result of a specificproduction sequence (Pétillon, 2008). However, the two otherspecimens are wider than points and foreshafts (Fig. 8: 4;width � thickness: 19 � 13 mm and 22 � 12 mm), and thus must

Figure 4. Espélugues: mesio-proximal fragment of whale-bone point with blunt base and bilateral grooves. a: detail of the oblique striations on the base; b: detail of the aspect ofthe material; c: detail of the distal bending fracture and the fine oblique striations on the bottom of the groove.



have been originally manufactured as wedges rather than recy-cled from other types of implements. Among the 21 fragments ofwhale-bone objects whose typology could not be determined(Table 5), at least five pieces might come from such ‘original’

wedges, given their large width (18e27 mm) and thickness (12e20 mm; e.g., Fig. 9: 2).

Other types of whale-bone objects include two fragments ofhalf-round rods (baguettes demi-rondes) described and illustrated

Figure 5. Whale-bone points. 1: Saint-Michel (Arudy), mesio-proximal fragment of point with blunt base and bilateral grooves. 2: Lortet, mesial fragment of point with bilateralgrooves. 3: Mas d’Azil, mesial fragment with oblique striations of both sides, and detail of these striations. 4: Isturitz layer II/E, distal fragment recycled as pendant. 5: Isturitz layerSI/Eu, proximal fragment of point with blunt base and bilateral grooves. 6: Mas d’Azil, pointed waste product (pointe à base raccourcie) with detail of the sectioning traces.



in Pétillon (2008), and one unidentified, perforated, kidney-shapedartifact from Espélugues (Fig. 9: 1).

No whale-bone manufacturing waste was identified. Theassemblage is almost exclusively composed of finished implements,along with a few waste products resulting from the reworking,maintenance and repair of projectile tips. Since most of the col-lections that yielded whale-bone artifacts are from ancient exca-vations (from the 1870s to the 1930s), a sampling bias might besuspected: the collection strategies of bone industry during exca-vation were then oriented towards fully worked, curated objects,and often disregarded the less spectacular waste products. How-ever, fragments of bones from large cetaceans with traces of blankextraction are unlikely to have gone unnoticed even in those times(if only for their dimensions). Thus, it is unlikely thatmanufacturing waste was originally present and that a samplingbias alone caused its total disappearance from the assemblagesinvestigated. Furthermore, in the sites that yielded whale-boneartifacts, no unmodified cetacean bones are reported among thefaunal assemblages although zooarcheological data, or at the veryleast a list of identified species, is available in all cases (Mascaraux,1910; Saint-Périer, 1920, 1930, 1936; Delpech, 1978; Bahn, 1984;Patou, 1984; Pailhaugue, 2003; Pétillon, 2006; Bégouën et al.,2009). Therefore, in the specific case of whale-bone, the absenceof manufacturing waste and of unworked cetacean bones mostlikely indicates that artifact manufacture took place in undeter-mined locations at the western end of the Pyrenees (probably closeto the seashore, in areas now flooded) and that only the finishedimplements were transported into the inland. The only possible

exception is one artifact fromMas d’Azil (Fig. 9: 3). This fragment isthe blunt extremity of a wide and thick object (18 � 16 mm) thatshows the beginning of three deep parallel longitudinal grooves.The aim of this multiple grooving was apparently to longitudinallydivide the object into three smaller splinters of ca. 5, 5 and 15 mminwidth. This artifact might be considered as the possible fragmentof a whale-bone blank: a block of material extracted from awhale’sbone and transported in preformed shape before being furtherreduced into one or several finished objects (a similar technicalbehavior has been suggested for reindeer antler in the PyreneanMagdalenian: Pétillon, 2006).

Discussion

The evidence presented in this article shows that whale-boneobjects manufactured on the Atlantic seashore were transportedin the northern Pyrenees during one part of the Magdalenian alonga west-to-east circulation network. The extent of this network canbe estimated at over 300 km: the orthodromic distance between LaVache in Ariège (easternmost site in the sample) and the currentAtlantic seashore is 270 km, but the minimum travel distance usingthe modern road network is 60 km longer, and the seashore waslikely 10e15 km west of its present position in Magdalenian times(Deserces, 1978; Thibault, 1979). Therefore, transport distances ofca. 350 km for whale-bone objects found in Ariège can be consid-ered a minimum.

In an Upper Paleolithic context, these distances are not excep-tionally long compared to the wide diffusion of some flint types(e.g., Simonnet, 1996; Langlais, 2010) or marine shells (Taborin,1993; Álvarez Fernández, 2006). Furthermore, as mentionedearlier in this article, the existence of movements and/or contactsalong the western and central Pyrenees during the Magdalenianhas long been demonstrated through the widespread occurrence ofspecific objects in the osseous industry. However, the usual repre-sentation of these osseous objects in space is not a dynamicdiffusionmap but a static distributionmap, which does not indicatethe direction and distance of the supposed movements (e.g.,Pinçon, 1988; Buisson et al., 1996; Cattelain, 2005; Pétillon, 2006;

Table 5Typological and chronological distribution of the whale-bone artifacts. Magdalenianphases: M, Middle; L, Late. (a): Middle Magdalenian context but probably LateMagdalenian age (see details in text).

Magdalenian phase

M L M and/or L Total

Projectile points 41 0 11 52Foreshafts 11 (a) 9 2 22Wedges 4 4 1 9Half-round rods 2 0 0 2Other 2 0 1 3Unidentified rod fragments 10 4 7 21Total 70 17 22 109

Table 6State of fragmentation of the most common types of whale-bone artifacts.

Complete/almost

complete

Fragmentary Fragmentrecycled aspendant

Waste productwith transv.sectioning

Total

Projectilepoints

0 47 1 4 52

Foreshafts 3 16 0 3 22Wedges 2 7 0 0 9

Table 7Dimensions of the most common types of whale-bone artifacts (in millimeters). The four fragments of projectile points with length under 30 mm (three distal and one mesialfragments) were excluded from the calculation of mean width and thickness.

Number of specimens Width(mean � SD)

Thickness(mean � SD)

Length of complete/almostcomplete specimens

Length of the threelongest fragments

Fragments Complete/almostcomplete

Projectile points 52 0 11.4 � 2.9 9.7 � 2.6 NA 190.5; 275.0; 352.0Foreshafts 19 3 11.7 � 2.2 10.7 � 1.7 144.7; 171.0; 171.5 182.5; 250.0; 344.0Wedges 7 2 15.8 � 3.2 12.4 � 1.2 127.2; 161.0 121.1; 128.6; 148.9

Table 8Descriptive features of the whale-bone projectile points.

Number of specimens

Proximal partSimple blunt base without oblique striations 7Simple blunt base with oblique striations 6Double beveled? 1Missing 38Total 52Mesial partNo longitudinal grooves 26Longitudinal grooves on left and right sides 24Longitudinal groove on upper side 2Total 52



Fritz et al., 2007; Dachary, 2009; etc.). The reason is that, even inthose few favorable cases where technological analysis candemonstrate that an osseous object has not been manufactured inthe site, the origin of its raw material and its place of manufactureare normally identified only as ‘off-site’ and cannot be traced to aspecific region (Averbouh, 2005), thus precluding the identificationof true production areas. The whale-bone diffusion network rep-resents a fortunate exception: it is the first time in the EuropeanUpper Paleolithic that osseous objects in the strict sense of the term(i.e., excluding shells) can be used as proxies for long-distancetravel and/or exchange from an identified (although now sub-merged) production region. Furthermore, the period when thisnetwork was active seems to correspond with a general increase in

coastal-inland interactions: in the European Upper Paleolithic,most occurrences of worked sea-mammal teeth and depictions ofmarine animals at inland sites are also dated from the Middle andLate Magdalenian (see review in Serangeli, 2003; Bosinski andBosinski, 2009).

A second important point is that, even though whale-bone ob-jects never represent more than a very small fraction of the totalosseous industry, the production of whale-bone artifacts on theAtlantic side was consistent and abundant enough to regularlysupply a network of ‘recipient sites’ during a long period. This isdifferent from the situation described in Andernach-Martinsbergwhere the presence of objects from coastal origin might be linkedto more discrete events, maybe even to the presence of a single

Figure 6. Three of the longest whale-bone implements in the assemblage. 1: Espalungue (Arudy), mesial fragment of point with bilateral grooves. 2: Tuc d’Audoubert (Volp), mesio-distal fragment of foreshaft with forked distal end and bilateral decoration; a: detail of the distal end (the extremities of the two fork tines are broken); b: detail of the bilateraldecoration. 3: Isturitz layer II/E, mesio-proximal fragment of foreshaft with double-beveled end.



individual (Langley and Street, 2013). Thus the diffusion networkidentified here fully confirms, on a larger scale, the statement madeabout the Isturitz whale-bone assemblage (Pétillon, 2008): theseartifacts represent an industry in the whole sense of the term, that

is, a technical tradition consistent through time and implying thetransmission of specific knowledge. The typology and technology ofthewhale-bone artifacts fits well within thewider osseous industryof the Pyrenean Magdalenian: this is shown by the fact that, as will

Figure 7. Whale-bone foreshafts. 1: Isturitz layer I/F1, almost complete foreshaft with double-beveled proximal end and forked distal end. 2: Harpons (Lespugue) layer A, almostcomplete foreshaft with double-beveled proximal and distal ends; the bent profile of the artifact is due to restoration with glue. 3: Gourdan, mesio-distal fragment of foreshaft withforked distal end; 4: Isturitz layer I/F1, mesio-distal fragment of foreshaft with forked distal end; 5: Isturitz layer II/E, mesio-proximal fragment of foreshaft with double-beveledproximal end and two longitudinal incisions on one side.



be detailed below, the Pyrenean collections yielded numerousantler artifacts typologically similar to the whale-bone objects (i.e.,blunt-based points with longitudinal grooves and forked/beveledforeshafts). The basic techniques used to work antler and whale-bone in the Magdalenian are the same: scraping and grooving.However, even if direct evidence is lacking, we can speculate thatthe whale-bone industry may have involved specific skills for thecollecting of the material (a ‘whale-bone hunt’ that might havebeen in some respects analogous to the antler ‘shed hunt’ describedbyMason, 2008), for the selection of the most appropriate parts forartifact manufacture, and perhaps specific reduction techniquesand/or tools adapted to the larger size of the bone blocks.

With one uncertain exception (a possible blank in Mas d’Azil),whale bone was transported only in the form of finished objects,chiefly projectile heads. It is not known whether the points andforeshafts were carried away from the seashore as spares (i.e.,unhafted) or as parts mounted on complete projectiles. In any case,in the end these objects were undoubtedly put into use: many ofthem display bending fractures compatible with their use as pro-jectile tips (review in Pétillon, 2006, 2013) and several wasteproducts likely resulting from the reworking of damaged imple-ments have been found. Therefore, even if, in inland sites, a certainvalue might have been attached to these objects because of theirrare raw material, they were not purely symbolic items but alsofunctional weapons. In this perspective, this study demonstratesthat coastal-inland interactions in the Magdalenian were notlimited to the symbolic domain but also included the circulation ofregular tools.

Inside this network, the distribution map (Fig. 2) emphasizesthe particular status of Mas d’Azil. Besides Isturitz, Mas d’Azil is byfar the site that yielded the most whale-bone objects, especiallycompared with the other sites from the central part of the Pyr-enean range. The large number of whale-bone objects in Isturitzcan be considered as resulting from the combination of a very largesample size (Table 3) and the site’s proximity to the supposedproduction zones. But in Mas d’Azil, i.e., several hundreds of ki-lometers from the seashore, the high number of whale-bone ob-jects might be seen as an argument for the identification of thiscave as an aggregation site, gathering groups from distant regionsduring particular social events, resulting in an unusually highfrequency of ‘exotic’ objects; an hypothesis also supported by thesite’s large size, with its “immense concentrations of tool pro-duction and artistic activity”, and its distinct stylistic diversity inportable art (Bahn, 1984: 334). However, even though the numberof whale-bone objects in Mas d’Azil is high, their frequency in theosseous industry is very low (Table 3: 0.28% for the Péquart andRégnault collections; 4.5 times less than in Isturitz). Therefore, wecannot rule out the possibility that the outstanding position of Masd’Azil on the whale-bone distribution map is merely a bias due tosample size. In other words, the high number of whale-bone ob-jects in Mas d’Azil might not indicate closer relations with the

Atlantic seashore, but might only be due to the very intensiveoccupation of this site by central Pyrenean groups and theresulting accumulation of enormous amounts of osseous industry.In order to settle the question, a more precise count of the Piettecollection (that yielded the majority of the whale-bone imple-ments) is needed to estimate the percentage of whale-bone ob-jects for the whole Mas d’Azil assemblage. Enlarging the number ofassemblages studied in the central part of the Pyrenean rangewould also provide more comprehensive regional comparisondata, and clarify the status of the Mas d’Azil whale-bone assem-blage in its regional context. Until then, conclusions on this pointmust be reserved.

The lack of evidence of whale-bone working on the Mediter-ranean seashore during the Magdalenian is another unexpectedresult of this study. That Magdalenian groups regularly frequentedthe Mediterranean coast is shown by the common occurrence ofMediterranean shells among Magdalenian personal ornaments(Taborin, 1993). Furthermore, Magdalenian groups from theAtlantic and Mediterranean sides shared a common repertoire ofosseous industry and bone working techniques (e.g., compare, forthe Atlantic side: González Sainz, 1989; Bonnissent and Chauvière,1999; Chauvière, 2006; Pétillon, 2006; Corchón Rodríguez andGarrido Pimentel, 2007; for the Mediterranean side: Sacchi,1986; Braem, 2003; Rémy, 2007; Tejero and Fullola, 2008;Román and Villaverde, 2012). Therefore, one would have ex-pected groups frequenting the Mediterranean coast to exploit thebones of stranded whales in a similar way as their Atlanticcounterparts; but this is apparently not the case. A possibleexplanation for this technical contrast could be a difference inwhale-bone availability. Indeed, apart from the whale-bone im-plements, the presence of large cetaceans in the Gulf of Biscay(Atlantic) in the Upper Paleolithic is documented by several faunalremains and artistic depictions found in sites close to the Atlanticseashore: spermwhale teeth in El Castillo and Las Caldas, bones oflarge cetaceans in Santa Catalina, a fragment of whale barnacle inLas Caldas, and representations of large whales in Las Caldas, TitoBustillo and Bourrouilla (Poplin, 1983; Fritz and Roussot, 1999;Serangeli, 2003; Corchón et al., 2008; Álvarez Fernández, 2011).Similar evidence from the central Pyrenees, i.e., the sperm whaletooth from Mas d’Azil and the whale engraving from La Vache(Poplin, 1983; Feruglio, 2004), can relate to either Atlantic orMediterranean specimens. On the western Mediterranean side,however, Upper Paleolithic evidence of large cetaceans is so farlacking, with the single exception of the whale barnacles found inthe Upper Magdalenian levels of Nerja cave, indicating the scav-enging of at least one whale stranded in the Alboran Sea near thestrait of Gibraltar (Álvarez-Fernández et al., 2013). In historicaltimes, the seasonal abundance of the North Atlantic right whale(Eubalaena glacialis) near the coast of the Gulf of Biscay is clearlyascertained: intensive whaling at short distance from the shoreand scavenging of stranded whales are amply documented in theBasque ports since at least the twelfth century. These activitieswere so productive that they were a linchpin of the Basque coastaleconomy until hunting pressure caused the whales to almosttotally disappear from the coast in the fifteenth century(Goyheneche, 1984). Conversely, no whaling economy is docu-mented historically in the Mediterranean basin, and large ceta-ceans seem to have always been quite rare in that area. Cetaceanstrandings on the French and Spanish Mediterranean coast be-tween 1977 and 1987 include 79% of dolphins, 10% of small whales(5e6 m) and only 11% of larger species (over 6 m: Duguy et al.,1988). Unless the situation was extremely different in the UpperPaleolithic, this evidence suggests that the largest whale species,representing the most abundant supply of bone and the best po-tential source of bone material (especially for the manufacture of

Table 9Descriptive features of the whale-bone foreshafts.

Number of specimens

Proximal partDouble beveled 11Missing 11Total 22Distal partForked 10Double beveled 4Missing 8Total 22



long implements such as projectile points), were much lessfrequently encountered on the Mediterranean coast than on theAtlantic one. This might explain why technical adaptations towhale-bone exploitation remained undeveloped in this area.

Finally, this study allowed us to confirm and better characterizea technological evolution initially documented on the Isturitz ma-terial (Pétillon, 2008): a change in the design of whale-bone pro-jectile tips between the Middle Magdalenian and the Late

Figure 8. Whale-bone wedges, shownwith distal end pointing downwards. 1: Isturitz layer I/F1, complete wedge (recycled from foreshaft fragment?). 2: Isturitz layer SI/Eu, mesio-distal fragment of wedge with bilateral grooves and crudely shaped distal end (recycled from projectile point?). 3: Mas d’Azil, almost complete wedge with longitudinal groove onone side and oblique striations on another (recycled from projectile point?); a: detail of the groove; b: detail of the striations. 4: La Vache layer 4, distal fragment of wedge; c: detailof the compressed distal end and transversal crushing marks.



Magdalenian. In the Pyrenean Middle Magdalenian, ‘stand-alone’whale-bone points armed with lithic inserts were used besidesimilar (and, in the inland sites considered here, much morenumerous) points made of reindeer antler. In the LateMagdalenian,thesewhale-bone points disappear but are replaced bywhale-boneforeshafts, tipped with fork-based points always made of reindeerantler, the two components forming a composite projectile headthat combined both osseous materials (even though, in this caseagain, similar foreshafts made of reindeer antler are also docu-mented and, in the sites studied here, largely outnumber theirwhale-bone counterparts). This evolution might be interpretedusing the analytical approach employed by Margaris (2013),through a comparison of the dimensional and mechanical

properties of whale bone and antler. Compared with antlers or tothe bones of most land mammals, whale bones provide a good dealof material allowing the manufacture of larger tools more easily(Betts, 2007): in the Magdalenian case, long implements (length ofmore than 150e200 mm) with a diameter above ca. 10 mm(Table 7). These dimensions are not beyond the possibilities ofreindeer antler, but require a strict selection of the raw material:the exclusive use of antlers at the upper end of the size range, withthe longest beam and the thickest compact tissue (Averbouh,2000). Conversely, it has long been remarked that, among theosseous materials available to the European Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, antler was the best suited for the manufacture of pro-jectile points because of its superior toughness (i.e., mechanical

Figure 9. Other types of whale-bone artifacts. 1: Espélugues, unidentified artifact. 2: La Vache layers 3 and 4, mesial fragment of unidentified artifact. 3: Mas d’Azil, possiblefragment of blank.



resistance to fracture), especially compared with ivory and land-mammal bone (Albrecht, 1977; Currey, 1979; MacGregor andCurrey, 1983; Margaris, 2009). The properties of whale-bone inthis respect are still poorly known, despite preliminary studies(Scheinsohn and Ferretti, 1995), and direct mechanical comparisonwith antler has not yet been undertaken; but the existing datasuggests that, because of its specific porous structure, whale bonemight be second best (after antler, but before ivory and land-mammal bone) as far as toughness is concerned (Margaris, 2013).In sum, when evaluating the suitability of osseous materials for themanufacture of projectile tips, whale bone seems to rank first forsize potential but second for fracture resistance, while antler showsthe reverse situation. Therefore, the evolution in projectile designbetween the Middle Magdalenian and the Late Magdalenian mightbe understood as an attempt at combining the advantages of thetwo materials, at the cost of increasing the complexity of projectileconstruction: the larger dimensions of thewhale bones allowed themanufacture of longer and thicker foreshafts, while the superiortoughness of reindeer antler allowed the manufacture of moreresistant tips.

Incidentally, this hypothesis would provide an explanation forthe lower number of whale-bone foreshafts in our samplecompared with the number of points (Table 5). This discrepancymight not be due to the fact that the whale-bone circulationnetwork was less active in the Late Magdalenian than in the MiddleMagdalenian, but rather to the fact that whale-bone foreshafts,protected from direct impacts by their antler tips, had a longer use-life and needed less frequent repair and replacement than ‘stand-alone’ points (Langley and Street, 2013).

The results of this study add to a rapidly growing body ofmultidisciplinary evidence showing the important role of coastalresources among hunter-gatherers of the Late Upper Paleolithic inwestern Europe. The systematic search of whale-bone implementsin theMagdalenian assemblages of the northern Pyrenees providedinvaluable information on technological adaptations to coastalbone resources. These adaptations appear specific to the Atlanticseashore (at least in the current state of the data) and hint at a‘coastal lifestyle’ that would otherwise be extremely difficult toobserve archeologically. Additionally, although they are limited innumber and appear as ‘rare’ resources in inland assemblages, thewhale-bone implements also document the nature, extent anddynamics of coastal-inland circulation networks, as well as evolu-tionary processes in the design of hunting weapons.

Acknowledgments

Preliminary results of this study were presented in September2011 at the HOMER international conference in Vannes. I wouldlike to thank the organizers of the conference, particularly M.-Y.Daire, for welcoming this presentation, and conference partici-pants for their cogent comments (especially A. Fischer, L. Lespezand J. Mulville). Over the years, F. Bon, A. Burke, R. Campbell-Malone, F.-X. Chauvière, M. Christensen, M. Dachary, N. Goutas,A. Lefebvre, A.V. Margaris, K. Müller, C. Normand, F. Poplin, É. Pujol,I. Reiche, D. Sacchi and C. San Juan-Foucher offered thought-provoking discussions and information on whale-bone issues. Allerrors of course remain my own. S. Costamagno, M. Langlais, V.Laroulandie, the JHE associate editor and two anonymous re-viewers made shrewd comments on the manuscript. I also wish tothank the curators, excavation directors, persons in charge of thecollections and persons who facilitated access to the material inany way: C. Normand at the Centre Départemental Archéologiqued’Hasparren, S. Tersen and D. Haro-Gabay at the Centre Départe-mental du Patrimoine e Abbaye d’Arthous, D. Sacchi at the DépôtArchéologique de Carcassonne, R. Bégouën at the Laboratoire de

Préhistoire de Pujol, C. Schwab and M.-S. Larguèze at the Muséed’Archéologie Nationale, B. Ducourau and J. Guilaine at the MuséeArchéologique de Narbonne, L. Ducamp and C. Richard at theMusée Despiau-Wlérick, O. Romain at the Musée de l’Homme, N.Rouquerol at the Musée d’Aurignac, T. Miro at the Musée deMontmaurin, M.-L. Pellan at the Musée de Saint-Gaudens, G. Fleuryat the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, J.-J. Cleyet-Merleand P. Jacquement at the Musée National de Préhistoire, P. Alardand C. Fritz at the Musée de Préhistoire du Mas d’Azil. This workwas supported by the ‘Grotte du Mas d’Azil’ research project (resp.C. Fritz) and the MAGDATIS research project (ANR 2011 BSH3 0005,resp. J.-M. Pétillon).

References

Albrecht, G., 1977. Testing of materials as used for bone points in the UpperPalaeolithic. In: Camps-Fabrer, H. (Ed.), Méthodologie Appliquée à l’Industrie del’Os Préhistorique. CNRS, Paris, pp. 119e124.

Allain, J., Rigaud, A., 1986. Décor et fonction: quelques exemples tirés du Magda-lénien. L’Anthropologie 90, 713e738.

Allain, J., Rigaud, A., 1989. Colles et mastics au Magdalénien. In: Olive, M., Taborin, Y.(Eds.), Nature et Fonction des Foyers Préhistoriques. APRAIF, Nemours, pp. 221e223.

Álvarez Fernández, E., 2006. Los objetos de adorno-colgantes del Paleolítico supe-rior y del Mesolítico en la Cornisa Cantábrica y en el Valle del Ebro: una visióneuropea. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidad de Salamanca.

Álvarez Fernández, E., 2007. La explotación de los moluscos marinos en la CornisaCantábrica durante el Gravetiense: primeros datos de los niveles E y F de LaGarma A (Omoño, Cantabria). Zephyrus 60, 43e58.

Álvarez Fernández, E., 2010. Una de cal y otra de arena: primeras evidencias deexplotación de moluscos marinos en la Península Ibérica. Férvedes 6, 95e103.

Álvarez Fernández, E., 2011. Humans and marine resource interaction reappraised:Archaeofauna remains during the late Pleistocene and Holocene in CantabrianSpain. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 30, 327e343.

Álvarez-Fernández, E., Carriol, R.-P., Jordá, J.F., Aura, J.E., Avezuela, B., Badal, E.,Carrión, Y., García-Guinea, J., Maestro, A., Morales, J.V., Perez, G., Perez-Ripoll, M., Rodrigo, M.J., Scarff, J.E., Villalba, M.P., Wood, R., 2013. Occurrence ofwhale barnacles in Nerja Cave (Málaga, Southern Spain): indirect evidence ofwhale consumption by humans in the Upper Magdalenian. Quatern. Int. (inpress).

Arambourou, R., 1978. Le Gisement Préhistorique de Duruthy à Sorde-l’Abbaye(Landes). Société Préhistorique Française, Paris.

Averbouh, A., 2000. Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implicationspalethnologiques: l’exemple des chaînes d’exploitation du bois de cervidé chezles Magdaléniens des Pyrénées. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Paris 1.

Averbouh, A., 2005. Collecte du bois de renne et territoire d’exploitation chez lesgroupes magdaléniens des Pyrénées ariégeoises. In: Vialou, D., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Comportements des Hommes du Palé-olithique Moyen et Supérieur en Europe: Territoires et Milieux. Université deLiège/ERAUL 111, Liège, pp. 59e70.

Averbouh, A., Bégouën, R., Clottes, J., 1999. Technique et économie du travail du boisde cervidé chez les Magdaléniens d’Enlène (Montesquieu-Avantès, Ariège): versl’identification d’un cycle saisonnier de production? In: Julien, M., Averbouh, A.,Ramseyer, D. (Eds.), Préhistoire d’Os: Recueil d’Études sur l’Industrie OsseusePréhistorique Offert à Henriette Camps-Fabrer. Publications de l’Université deProvence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 289e318.

Bahn, P.G., 1984. Pyrenean Prehistory. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.Bailey, G.N., Flemming, N.C., 2008. Archaeology of the continental shelf: marine

resources, submerged landscapes and underwater archaeology. Quatern. Sci.Rev. 27, 2153e2165.

Baumann, M., 2006e2007. L’industrie en matières dures animales du sitemagdalénien d’Aurensan (Bagnères-de-Bigorre, Hautes-Pyrénées). Antiq. Natl.38, 21e40.

Bégouën, R., Fritz, C., Tosello, G., Clottes, J., Pastoors, A., Faist, F., Bourges, F., Fosse, P.,Lacombe, S., Langlais, M., 2009. Le Sanctuaire Secret des Bisons: il y a 14000 Ansdans la Caverne du Tuc d’Audoubert. Somogy/Association Louis Bégouën, Paris.

Bellier, C., 1984. Contribution à l’étude de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique: lescontours découpés du type ‘têtes d’herbivores’. Bull. Soc. R. Belge Anthropol.Préhist 95, 21e34.

Betts, M.W., 2007. The Mackenzie Inuit whale bone industry: raw material, toolmanufacture, scheduling, and trade. Arctic 60, 129e144.

Bicho, N., Haws, J., 2008. At the land’s end: marine resources and the importance offluctuations in the coastline in the prehistoric hunter-gatherer economy ofPortugal. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 27, 2166e2175.

Bonnissent, D., Chauvière, F.-X., 1999. L’industrie sur matières dures animales. GalliaPréhist. 41, 36e53.

Bosinski, G., 2010. The hafting of backed bladelets in the Late Magdalenian. In:Burdukiewicz, J.M., Cyrek, K., Dyczek, P., Szymczak, K. (Eds.), Understanding thePast: Papers Offered to Stefan K. Kos1owski. University of Warsaw, Warsaw,pp. 55e58.



Bosinski, G., Bosinski, H., 2009. Seals from the Magdalenian site of Gönnersdorf(Rhineland, Germany). In: Bahn, P.G. (Ed.), An Enquiring Mind. Studies in Honorof Alexander Marshack. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 39e50.

Braem, L., 2003. Les industries osseuses du Paléolithique supérieur récent du sud-est de la France: essai d’une caractérisation typo-technologique. Préhist.Anthropol. Méditerranéennes 12, 103e113.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2011. OxCal 4.1. http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal.Buffrénil, V., de Schoevaert, D., 1988. On how the periosteal bone of the delphinid

humerus becomes cancellous: ontogeny of a histological specialization.J. Morphol. 198, 149e164.

Buisson, D., Fritz, C., Kandel, D., Pinçon, G., Sauvet, G., Tosello, G., 1996. Analyseformelle des contours découpés de têtes de chevaux: implications arché-ologiques. In: Delporte, H., Clottes, J. (Eds.), Pyrénées Préhistoriques, Arts etSociétés. CTHS, Paris, pp. 327e340.

Campbell-Malone, R., 2007. Biomechanics of North Atlantic right whale: Mandib-ular fracture as a fatal endpoint for blunt vessel-whale collision modeling. Ph.D.Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole OceanographicInstitution.

Cattelain, P., 1997. Hunting during the Upper Paleolithic: bow, spearthrower, orboth? In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York,pp. 213e240.

Cattelain, P., 2005. Propulseurs magdaléniens: marqueurs culturels régionaux? In:Dujardin, V. (Ed.), Industrie Osseuse et Parures du Solutréen au Magdalénien enEurope. Société préhistorique française, Paris, pp. 301e317.

Chauvière, F.-X., 2006. L’animal, ressource technique pour les Magdaléniens de lafalaise du Pastou. In: Dachary, M. (Ed.), Les Magdaléniens à Duruthy. Centredépartemental du patrimoine, Hastingues, pp. 60e66.

Chauvière, F.-X., Rigaud, A., 2005. Les ‘sagaies’ à ‘base raccourcie’ ou les avatars de latypologie: du technique au ‘non fonctionnel’ dans le Magdalénien à navettes dela Garenne (Saint-Marcel, Indre). In: Dujardin, V. (Ed.), Industrie Osseuse etParures du Solutréen au Magdalénien en Europe. Société préhistorique fran-çaise, Paris, pp. 233e242.

Chauvière, F.-X., Rigaud, A., 2008. Le travail du bois de renne à la Garenne (Saint-Marcel, Indre): entre conceptions préhistoriennes et techniques magdalé-niennes ou comment séparer ébauches et déchets des pointes vraies? Préhist.Sud-Ouest. 16, 173e183.

Cleyet-Merle, J.J., Madelaine, S., 1995. Inland evidence of human sea coast exploi-tation in Palaeolithic France. In: Fischer, A. (Ed.), Man and Sea in the Mesolithic:Coastal Settlement above and below Present Sea Level. Oxbow Books, Oxford,pp. 303e308.

Clottes, J., 1989. Le Magdalénien des Pyrénées. In: Rigaud, J.-P. (Ed.), Le Magdalénienen Europe: la Structuration du Magdalénien. Université de Liège/ERAUL 38,Liège, pp. 281e360.

Clottes, J., 2003. Contexte géographique et archéologique. In: Clottes, J., Delporte, H.(Eds.), La Grotte de La Vache (Ariège), 1: Les Occupations du Magdalénien.CTHS-RMN, Paris, pp. 12e28.

Clottes, J., 2004. Du nouveau à Niaux. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Ariège-Pyrénées 59, 109e116.

Clottes, J., Delporte, H., 2003. La Grotte de La Vache (Ariège). CTHS-RMN, Paris.Colonese, A.C., Mannino, M.A., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., Fa, D.A., Finlayson, J.C.,

Lubell, D., Stiner, M.C., 2011. Marine mollusc exploitation in Mediterraneanprehistory: an overview. Quatern. Int. 239, 86e103.

Conkey, M.W., 1980. The identification of prehistoric hunter-gatherer aggregationsites: the case of Altamira. Curr. Anthropol. 21, 609e630.

Corchón Rodríguez, M.S., Garrido Pimentel, D., 2007. Labores de mantenimiento yuso identificadas en las agujas de la cueva de Las Caldas (Asturias, España).Zephyrus 60, 79e97.

Corchón, M.S., Mateos, A., Álvarez Fernández, E., Peñalver, E., Delclòs, X., Made, J.van der, 2008. Ressources complémentaires et mobilité dans le Magdaléniencantabrique. Nouvelles données sur les mammifères marins, les crustacés, lesmollusques et les roches organogènes de la Grotte de Las Caldas (Asturies,Espagne). L’Anthropologie 112, 284e327.

Cortés-Sánchez, M., Morales-Muñiz, A., Simón-Vallejo, M.D., Bergadà-Zapata, M.M.,Delgado-Huertas, A., López-García, P., López-Sáez, J.A., Lozano-Francisco, M.C.,Riquelme-Cantal, J.A., Roselló-Izquierdo, E., Sánchez-Marco, A., Vera-Peláez, J.L.,2008. Palaeoenvironmental and cultural dynamics of the coast of Málaga(Andalusia, Spain) during the Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene. Quatern.Sci. Rev. 27, 2176e2193.

Costamagno, S., 2003. Exploitation des ongulés au Magdalénien dans le Sud de laFrance. In: Costamagno, S., Laroulandie, V. (Eds.), Mode de Vie au Magdalénien:Apports de l’Archéozoologie. Archaeopress/BAR International Series 1144, Ox-ford, pp. 73e88.

Costamagno, S., Mateos Cachorro, A., 2007. Milieu animal de part et d’autre de lachaîne pyrénéenne: implications sur les modes de subsistance au Magdalénien.In: Cazals, N., González Urquijo, J., Terradas, X. (Eds.), Frontières Naturelles etFrontières Culturelles dans les Pyrénées Préhistoriques. Museo de Cataluña,Barcelone, pp. 51e73.

Costamagno, S., Cochard, D., Ferrié, J.-G., Laroulandie, V., Barbaza, M., Cazals, N.,Langlais, M., Valdeyron, N., Dachary, M., Galop, D., Martin, H., Philibert, S., 2008.Nouveaux milieux, nouveaux gibiers, nouveaux chasseurs? Évolution des pra-tiques cynégétiques dans les Pyrénées du Tardiglaciaire au début du Post-glaciaire. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr. 105, 17e27.

Currey, J.D., 1979. Mechanical properties of bone tissues with greatly differingfunctions. J. Biomech. 12, 313e319.

Dachary, M., 2006. Les Gisements de la falaise du Pastou: contexte scientifique etarchéologique des découvertes. In: Dachary, M. (Ed.), Les Magdaléniens àDuruthy. Centre Départemental du Patrimoine, Hastingues, pp. 8e18.

Dachary, M., 2009. Les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées occidentales: réflexions surl’exploitation d’un territoire. In: Djindjian, F., Oosterbeek, L. (Eds.), SymbolicSpaces in Prehistoric Art: Territories, Travels and Site Locations. Archaeopress/BAR International Series 1999, Oxford, pp. 39e45.

Dachary, M., Chauvière, F.-X., Costamagno, S., Daulny, L., Eastham, A., Ferrier, C.,Fritz, C., 2008. La grotte Bourrouilla à Arancou (Pyrénées-Atlantiques): uneséquence clef de la fin du Magdalénien pyrénéo-cantabrique. In: Jaubert, J.,Bordes, J.-G., Ortega, I. (Eds.), Les Sociétés du Paléolithique dans un Grand Sud-Ouest de la France: Nouveaux Gisements, Nouveaux Résultats, NouvellesMéthodes. Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, pp. 355e370.

Dachary, M., Deniel, C., Plassard, F., Boivin, P., Devidal, J.-L., 2012. Analyse texturaleet géochimique d’un polissoir à rainures du gisement magdalénien de Duruthy(Sorde, Landes, France). Paléo 23, 315e322.

Delibrias, G., Guillier, M.-T., Évin, J., Chevallier, J., 1987. Sommaire des datations 14Cconcernant la préhistoire en France, 3: dates effectuées de 1979 à fin 1984. Bull.Soc. Préhist. Fr. 84, 207e224.

Delpech, F., 1978. Les faunes magdaléniennes et aziliennes du gisement de Duruthy,à Sorde l’Abbaye (Landes). In: Arambourou, R. (Ed.), 1978, Le Gisement Pré-historique de Duruthy à Sorde-l’Abbaye (Landes). Société Préhistorique Fran-çaise, Paris, pp. 110e116.

Delporte, H., 1967. Brassempouy: ses industries d’après la collection Piette. Zeph-yrus 18, 5e41.

Delporte, H., 1980. Brassempouy, la Grotte du Pape, Station Préhistorique: il y a20000 Ans, l’Art. Association Culturelle de Contis, Lit-et-Mixe.

Deschamps, P., Durand, N., Bard, É., Hamelin, B., Camoin, G., Thomas, A.L.,Henderson, G.M., Okuno, J., Yokoyama, Y., 2012. Ice-sheet collapse and sea-levelrise at the Bølling warming 14,600 years ago. Nature 483, 559e564.

Deserces, R., 1978. Le Quaternaire récent de la basse vallée de l’Adour et de sesdépendances marines. Bull. de la Société des Sci. Lettres Arts de Bayonne 134,35e70.

Duguy, R., Aguilar, A., Casinos, A., Grau, E., Raga, J.A., 1988. Étude comparative deséchouages de cétacés sur les côtes méditerranéennes de France et d’Espagne.Miscellania Zoologica 12, 339e345.

Dujardin, V., Pinçon, G., 2000. Le Magdalénien dans la Vienne et la Charente. In:Pion, G. (Ed.), Le Paléolithique Supérieur Récent: Nouvelles Données sur lePeuplement et l’Environnement. Société préhistorique française, Paris, pp. 213e222.

Erlandson, J.M., 2001. The archaeology of aquatic adaptations: paradigms for a newmillenium. J. Archaeol. Res. 9, 287e350.

Évin, J., 1978. Fiches de résultats d’échantillons soumis au datage par le radio-carbone. In: Arambourou, R. (Ed.), Le Gisement Préhistorique de Duruthy àSorde-l’Abbaye (Landes). Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, p. 127.

Fa, D.A., 2008. Effects of tidal amplitude on intertidal resource availability anddispersal pressure in prehistoric human coastal populations: theMediterranean-Atlantic transition. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 27, 2194e2209.

Felts, W.J.L., Spurrell, F.A., 1965. Structural orientation and density in cetacean hu-meri. Am. J. Anat. 116, 171e203.

Feruglio, V., 2004. Baguette demi-ronde MAN 86793. In: Clottes, J., Delporte, H.(Eds.), La Grotte de La Vache (Ariège), 2: L’Art Mobilier. CTHS-RMN, Paris,pp. 246e247.

Friesen, T.M., Arnold, C.D., 2008. The timing of the Thule migration: new dates fromthe western Canadian Arctic. Am. Antiq. 73, 527e538.

Fritz, C., Roussot, A., 1999. L’art mobilier. Gallia Préhist. 41, 54e97.Fritz, C., Tosello, G., Sauvet, G., 2007. Groupes ethniques, territoires, échanges: la

notion de frontière dans l’art magdalénien. In: Cazals, N., González Urquijo, J.,Terradas, X. (Eds.), Frontières Naturelles et Frontières Culturelles dans les Pyr-énées Préhistoriques. Museo de Cataluña, Barcelone, pp. 165e181.

González Sainz, C., 1989. El Magdaleniense Superior-Final de la Región Cantabrica.Ediciones Tantin, Santander.

Goutas, N., 2008. Les pointes d’Isturitz sont-elles toutes des pointes de projectile?Gallia Préhist. 50, 45e101.

Goyheneche, E., 1984. La pêche à la baleine. Cuader. Sec. Hist.eGeo. 2, 7e24.Gray, N.M., Kainec, K., Madar, S., Tomko, L., Wolfe, S., 2007. Sink or swim? Bone

density as a mechanism for buoyancy control in early Cetaceans. Anat. Rec. 290,638e653.

Henry-Gambier, D., Bon, F., Gardère, P., Letourneux, C., Mensan, R., Potin, Y., 2004.Nouvelles données sur la séquence culturelle du site de Brassempouy (Landes).Archéol. Pyrénées Occident. Land. 23, 145e156.

Henry-Gambier, D., Normand, C., Pétillon, J.-M., 2013. Datation radiocarbone directeet attribution culturelle des vestiges humains paléolithiques de la grotte d’Is-turitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr. (in press).

Houmard, C., 2003. Réflexions sur les têtes de projectiles rainurées d’après l’étudedu site de La Garenne (Indre). Préhist. Anthropol. Méditerranéennes 12, 165e172.

Houmard, C., Jacquot, É., 2009. Des têtes de projectile composites à ‘La Garenne’. In:Despriée, J., Tymula, S., Rigaud, A. (Eds.), Données Récentes sur le Magdaléniende ‘La Garenne’ (Saint-Marcel, Indre) et la Place du Magdalénien ‘à Navettes’ enEurope, Archéologie du val de Creuse en Berry, Bulletin de l’ASSAAM SpecialIssue, Argenton-sur-Creuse, pp. 137e150.

Julien, M., 1999. Une tendance créatrice au Magdalénien: à propos de stries d’ad-hérence sur quelques harpons. In: Julien, M., Averbouh, A., Ramseyer, D. (Eds.),



Préhistoire d’Os: Recueil d’Études sur l’Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique Offert àHenriette Camps-Fabrer. Publications de l’Université de Provence, Aix-en-Pro-vence, pp. 133e142.

Julien, M., 2004. Synthèse sur l’industrie en matières dures animales. In: Clottes, J.,Delporte, H. (Eds.), La Grotte de La Vache (Ariège), 1: Les Occupations duMagdalénien. CTHS-RMN, Paris, pp. 363e366.

Langlais, M., 2010. Les Sociétés Magdaléniennes de l’Isthme Pyrénéen. CTHS, Paris.Langlais, M., Pétillon, J.-M., de Beaune, S.A., Cattelain, P., Chauvière, F.-X.,

Letourneux,C., Szmidt, C., Bellier, C., Beukens, R.,David, F., 2010.Uneoccupationdela fin du dernier maximum glaciaire dans les Pyrénées: le Magdalénien inférieurde la grotte des Scilles (Lespugue, Haute-Garonne). Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr.107, 5e51.

Langlais, M., Costamagno, S., Laroulandie, V., Pétillon, J.-M., Discamps, E., Mallye, J.-B., Cochard, D., Kuntz, D., 2012. The evolution of Magdalenian societies inSouth-West France between 18,000 and 14,000 cal BP: changing environments,changing tool kits. Quatern. Int. 272e273, 138e149.

Langley, M.C., Street, M., 2013. Inland e coastal networks during the Late UpperPalaeolithic: provisioning with marine resources at the Late Magdalenian site ofAndernach-Martinsberg, German Central Rhineland. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 457e465.

Lefebvre, A., 2012. Brassempouy (Landes, France): l’Industrie Osseuse des Collec-tions de Laporterie et Dubalen Conservée au Musée Despiau-Wlérick de Mont-de-Marsan et à la Maison de la Dame à Brassempouy. Unpublished Report.

MacGregor, A.G., Currey, J.D., 1983. Mechanical properties as conditioning factors inthe bone and antler industry of the 3rd to the 13th century AD. J. Archaeol. Sci.10, 71e77.

Marchand, G., Dupont, C., Oberlin, C., Delque-Kolic, E., 2009. Entre ‘effet réservoir’ et‘effet de plateau’: la difficile datation du Mésolithique de Bretagne. In:Crombé, P., Van Strydonck, M., Sergant, J., Boudin, M., Bats, M. (Eds.), Chro-nology and Evolution within the Mesolithic of North-West Europe. CambridgeScholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 297e324.

Margaris, A.V., 2006. Alutiiq engineering: the mechanics and design of skeletaltechnologies in Alaska’s Kodiak Archipelago. Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofArizona.

Margaris, A.V., 2009. The mechanical properties of marine and terrestrial skeletalmaterials: implications for the organization of forager technologies. Ethno-archaeology 1, 163e183.

Margaris, A.V., 2013. Reconsidering raw material selection: skeletal technologiesand design for durability in subarctic Alaska. J. Archaeol. Method Th.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-012-9168-x.

Mascaraux, F., 1910. La grotte Saint-Michel d’Arudy, Basses-Pyrénées: fouilles dansune station magdalénienne. Rev. École Anthropol. Paris 20, 357e378.

Mason, C., 2008. Secrets of the shed masters. Outdoor Life 215, 36e40.Merlet, J.-C., 1990. Brassempouy: la collection de Laporterie au Musée de Dax. Bull.

Soc. Préhist. Fr. 87, 201e205.Mujika Alustiza, J.A., 1991. La industria ósea del Paleolítico superior y Epipaleolítico

del Pirineo occidental. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidad de Deusto.Müller, K., Reiche, I., 2011. Differentiation of archaeological ivory and bone materials

by micro-PIXE/PIGE with emphasis on two Upper Palaeolithic key sites: AbriPataud and Isturitz, France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 3234e3243.

Nelson, D.E., McGhee, R., 2002. Aberrant radiocarbon dates on an Inuit arrowhead.Arctic 55, 345e347.

Omnès, J. (Ed.), 1980. Le Gisement Préhistorique des Espélugues à Lourdes, Hautes-Pyrénées: Essai d’Inventaire des Fouilles Anciennes. CARST, Tarbes.

Omnès, J., 1987. Préhistoire des Hautes-Pyrénées. Association Guillaume Mauran,Tarbes.

Pailhaugue, N., 2003. La faune de la salle Monique. In: Clottes, J., Delporte, H. (Eds.),La Grotte de La Vache (Ariège), 1: Les Occupations du Magdalénien. CTHS-RMN,Paris, pp. 73e139.

Passemard, E., 1924. Les Stations Paléolithiques du Pays Basque et leurs Relationsavec les Terrasses d’Alluvions. Bodiou, Bayonne.

Passemard, E., 1944. La caverne d’Isturitz en Pays Basque. Préhistoire 9, 7e95.Patou, M., 1984. La faune de la Galerie Rive Droite du Mas d’Azil (Ariège): données

paléoclimatiques et paléthnographiques. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr. 81, 311e319.Péquart, S.-J., Péquart, M., 1960e1963. La grotte du Mas-d’Azil (Ariège): une nou-

velle galerie magdalénienne. Annls. Paléont. (Vert.), 46, 125e194; 47, 155e250;48, 195e286; 49, 1e97.

Pétillon, J.-M., 2004. Lecture critique de la stratigraphie magdalénienne de laGrande Salle d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Antiq. Natl. 36, 105e131.

Pétillon, J.-M., 2006. Des Magdaléniens en Armes: Technologie des Armatures deProjectile en Bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien Supérieur de la Grotte d’Isturitz(Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Cedarc, Treignes.

Pétillon, J.-M., 2007. Les pointes à base fourchue de la zone pyrénéo-cantabrique:un objet à la charnière entre Magdalénien moyen et Magdalénien supérieur?In: Cazals, N., González Urquijo, J., Terradas, X. (Eds.), Frontières Naturelles etFrontières Culturelles dans les Pyrénées Préhistoriques. Museo de Cataluña,Barcelone, pp. 245e264.

Pétillon, J.-M., 2008. First evidence of a whale-bone industry in the western Eu-ropean Upper Paleolithic: Magdalenian artifacts from Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France). J. Hum. Evol. 54, 720e726.

Pétillon, J.-M., Averbouh, A., 2013. L’industrie osseuse du Solutréen au Magdalénienmoyen dans le Bassin parisien. In: Bodu, P., Chehmana, L., Klaric, L., Mevel, L.,Soriano, S., Teyssandier, N. (Eds.), Le Paléolithique Supérieur Ancien de l’Europedu Nord-ouest: Réflexions et Synthèses à Partir d’un Projet Collectif deRecherche sur le Centre et le Sud du Bassin Parisien. Société préhistoriquefrançaise, Paris (in press).

Pétillon, J.-M., Cattelain, P., 2004. Nouvel examen de l’armature composite mag-dalénienne du Tuc d’Audoubert (Montesquieu-Avantès, Ariège). Bull. Soc. Pré-hist. Fr. 101, 45e53.

Pétillon, J.-M., Ducasse, S., 2012. From flakes to grooves: a technical shift in ant-lerworking during the Last Glacial Maximum in southwest France. J. Hum. Evol.62, 435e465.

Pétillon, J.-M., Bignon, O., Bodu, P., Cattelain, P., Debout, G., Langlais, M.,Laroulandie, V., Plisson, H., Valentin, B., 2011. Hard core and cutting edge:experimental manufacture and use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips.J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1266e1283.

Pétillon, J.-M., Plisson, H., Cattelain, P., 2013. Thirty years of experimental researchon the breakage patterns of Stone Age osseous points: overview, methodo-logical problems and current perspectives. In: Iovita, R., Sano, K. (Eds.), Multi-disciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry. Springer,Heidelberg (in press).

Piette, É., 1907. L’Art Pendant l’Âge du Renne. Masson, Paris.Pinçon, G., 1988. Fiche sagaie de Lussac-Angles. In: Camps-Fabrer, H. (Ed.), Fiches

Typologiques de l’Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique, Cahier I: Sagaies. Universitéde Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 1e7.

Poplin, F., 1983. La dent de Cachalot sculptée du Mas d’Azil, avec remarques surles autres restes de cétacés de la Préhistoire française. In: Poplin, F. (Ed.), LaFaune et l’Homme Préhistoriques. Société préhistorique française, Paris,pp. 81e94.

Pujol, E., 2009. L’exploitation des matières osseuses chez les Magdaléniens de Saint-Michel d’Arudy (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Master’s Thesis, Université Paris 1.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., BronkRamsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M.,Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F.,Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A.,Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., Plicht, J. van der, Weyhenmeyer, C.E.,2009. Intcal09 and marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0e50,000years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51, 1111e1150.

Rémy, D., 2007. L’industrie osseuse magdalénienne de la Salpêtrière (Gard):approche typologique et techno-économique. Master’s Thesis, UniversitéMontpellier 3.

Ricqlès, A., Buffrénil, V. de, 2001. Bone histology, heterochronies and the return oftetrapods to life in water: where are we? In: Mazin, J.M., Buffrénil, V. de (Eds.),Secondary Adaptation of Tetrapods to Life in Water. Friedrich Pfeil Verlag,München, pp. 289e310.

Román, D., Villaverde, V., 2012. The Magdalenian harpoons from the Iberian Med-iterranean, based on pieces from Cova de les Cendres (Teulada-Moraira,Valencian region). Quatern. Int. 272e273, 33e41.

Sacchi, D., 1986. Le Paléolithique Supérieur du Languedoc Occidental et du Rous-sillon. CNRS/Gallia Préhistoire Supplément 21, Paris.

Saint-Périer, R. de, 1920. La Grotte des Harpons à Lespugne (Haute-Garonne).L’Anthropologie 30, 210e234.

Saint-Périer, R. de, 1930. La Grotte d’Isturitz 1: le Magdalénien de la Salle de Saint-Martin. In: Arch. Inst. Paléontol. Humaine, vol. 7. Masson, Paris.

Saint-Périer, R. de, 1936. La Grotte d’Isturitz 2: le Magdalénien de la Grande Salle. In:Arch. Inst. Paléontol. Humaine, vol. 17. Masson, Paris.

Scheinsohn, V., Ferretti, J.L., 1995. The mechanical properties of bone materials inrelation to the design and function of prehistoric tools from Tierra del Fuego,Argentina. J. Archaeol. Sci. 22, 711e717.

Serangeli, J., 2003. La zone côtière et son rôle dans les comportements alimentairesdes chasseurs-cueilleurs du Paléolithique supérieur. In: Patou-Mathis, M.,Bocherens, H. (Eds.), Le Rôle de l’Environnement dans les Comportements desChasseurs-cueilleurs Préhistoriques. Archaeopress/BAR International Series1105, Oxford, pp. 67e82.

Simonnet, R., 1996. Approvisionnement en silex au Paléolithique supérieur:déplacements et caractéristiques physionomiques des paysages, l’exemple desPyrénées centrales. In: Delporte, H., Clottes, J. (Eds.), Pyrénées Préhistoriques:Arts et Sociétés. CTHS, Paris, pp. 117e128.

Szmidt, C., Pétillon, J.-M., Cattelain, P., Normand, C., Schwab, C., 2009. Premièresdates radiocarbone pour le Magdalénien d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Bull.Soc. Préhist. Fr. 106, 588e592.

Taborin, Y., 1993. La Parure en Coquillage au Paléolithique. CNRS/Gallia PréhistoireSupplément 29, Paris.

Taylor, M.A., 2000. Functional significance of bone ballast in the evolution ofbuoyancy control strategies by aquatic tetrapods. Hist. Biol. 14, 15e31.

Tejero, J.M., Fullola, J.M., 2008. L’exploitation non alimentaire des ressources ani-males pendant le Magdalénien au Nord-Est de la péninsule Ibérique. L’exemplede la grotte du Parco (Alòs de Balaguer, Lleida, Espagne). L’Anthropologie 112,328e345.

Thibault, C., 1979. L’évolution géologique de l’Aquitaine méridionale à la fin destemps glaciaires. In: de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (Ed.), La Fin des Temps Glaciairesen Europe: Chronostratigraphie et Écologie des Cultures du Paléolithique Final.CNRS, Paris, pp. 143e150.

Virmont, J., Pinçon, G., 1987. Le gisement de la grotte de l’Éléphant à Gourdan-Polignan. In: Delporte, H. (Ed.), Edouard Piette, Histoire de l’Art Primitif. Picard,Paris, pp. 259e266.

Weniger, G.C., 2000. Magdalenian barbed points: harpoons, spears and arrowheads.In: Bellier, C., Cattelain, P., Otte, M. (Eds.), La Chasse dans la Préhistoire. SociétéRoyale Belge d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire/Université de Liège. Service dePréhistoire/CEDARC, Bruxelles, pp. 79e87.


Date post:	08-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	univ-tlse2
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Circulation of whale-bone artifacts in the northern Pyrenees during the Late Upper Paleolithic

Documents