2010zubrow Unraveling Combined Final

the magdalenian household:
unraveling domesticity
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd i 6/4/10 9:04:51 PM

Series page TK
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd ii 6/4/10 9:04:51 PM

the magdalenian
household:
Unraveling
Domesticity
edited by
Ezra Zubrow,
Françoise Audouze,
and James G. Enloe
s tat e u n i v e r s i t y o f
new york press
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd iii 6/4/10 9:04:51 PM

Published by
State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2010 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever

without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact

State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Production, Eileen Meehan

Marketing, Michael Campochiaro
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The Magdalenian household : unraveling domesticity / Edited by Ezra

Zubrow, Françoise Audouze, and James Enloe.
p. cm.—(The Institute for European and Mediterranean Archaeology
Distinguished Monograph Series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4384-3367-7 (hardcover : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-1-4384-3366-0 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Verberie Site (France)
2. Magdalenian culture—France—Paris Basin.
3. Tools, Prehistoric—France—Paris Basin.
4. Excavations (Archaeology)—France—Paris Basin.
5. Social archaeology—France—Paris Basin.
6. Paris Basin (France)—Antiquities.
I. Zubrow, Ezra B. W. II. Audouze, Françoise. III. Enloe, James G. (James Gordon)
GN772.2.M3.M25 2011
936.4—dc22
2010008241
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd iv 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Contents
Preface ix
Introduction Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe

Domesticity Expressed 1
Part I
Technology and Demography
Chapter One James G. Enloe

Technology and Demographics: An Introduction 11
Chapter Two James G. Enloe and Françoise Audouze

The Magdalenian Site of Verberie
(Le Buisson Campin): An Overview 15
Chapter Three James G. Enloe

Fauna and Site Structure at Verberie:
Implications for Domesticity and Demography 22
Chapter Four Frédéric Janny

Technologie Lithique à Verberie:
Production Domestique et Apprentissage 51
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd v 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

vi Contents
Chapter Five Aline Averbouh

Utilisation et Transformation des Matières Osseuses au
Buisson Campin (Verberie, Oise) 76
Chapter Six Gaëlle Dumarçay and Madeleine Caron (+)

Pincevent and Verberie Rocks and Hearths:
A Tentative Summary/Preliminary Analysis 91
Part II
Social Organization
Chapter Seven Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe

Introduction to Domesticity and Spatial Organization 105
Chapter Eight Ezra Zubrow

Archaeology of Equality: Magdalenian Economy 109
Chapter Nine Dustin Keeler

GIS of Verberie: Spatial Definition of the Habitation Units 131
Chapter Ten Françoise Audouze

Domesticity and Spatial Organization at Verberie 145
Chapter Eleven Pierre Bodu

Espaces et Habitats au Tardiglaciaire dans le Bassin Parisien:
Une Illustration avec les Gisements Magdalenien
de Pincevent et Azilien du Closeau 176
Chapter Twelve Nicole Pigeot

Éléments d’une Organisation Sociale Magdalénienne à
Étiolles Du Savoir-faire au Statut Social des Personnes 198
Chapter Thirteen Marie-Isabelle Cattin

Comparing Social Organizations of Magdalenian
Hunter-Gatherers: A Swiss Example 213
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd vi 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Contents vii
Part III
From Today to Yesterday: Ethnographic Comparisons
Chapter Fourteen Françoise Audouze

Introduction to the Ethnographic Section:
Focusing on Interpreting the Magdalenian Sites of the Paris Basin 225
Chapter Fifteen Lawrence H. Keeley

The Probable Sexual Division of Labor in Magdalenian
Hide Working: Ethnological Evidence 227
Chapter Sixteen Olga Soffer and James M. Adovasio

The Roles of Perishable Technologies in Upper Paleolithic Lives 235
Chapter Seventeen Francine David, Claudine Karlin, and Vladimir D’lachenko

Slaughter and Carcass Processing of Reindeer in Siberia:
Patterns and Distribution of Tasks—Comparisons Between
Prehistoric and Ethnoarchaeological Cases 245
Chapter Eighteen Sylvie Beyries et Veerle Rots

Méthode de Reconstitution des Procédés de Traitement
des Peaux en Préhistoire: Premières Applications Archéologiques 269
Conclusion James G. Enloe, Françoise Audouze, and Ezra Zubrow

Domesticity Re-expressed 283
French-English Index 298
Index 320
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd vii 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd viii 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM
Prefacing the Household
T his book originated with a set of conversations that took place in Paris between
Francoise Audouze and Ezra Zubrow in 2002 when Ezra Zubrow was a visiting fel-
low at CNRS’s Maison Rene Ginouve’ Archéologie and Ethnologie. The many glasses of
wine along the quartier Saint Germain and dinners in Meudon resulted in 2003 with Ezra
Zubrow receiving a grant from NSF for studying “The Origins of Domesticity in the Late
Upper Paleolithic” (0314411). Two years later Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze and James
Enloe received a second NSF/CNRS Grant to have an international conference from the
International—Western Europe Program. The proposal “From Spatial Constraint to Socio-
Economic Organization: The Settlement and Technology of Magdalenian Hunters at Ver-
berie” (0338401) resulted in a conference co-directed by Francoise Audouze, James Enloe,
and Ezra Zubrow at the Chateau de Goutelas at Marcoux near Lyon from Tuesday 10th
May 2005 through Saturday May 14th 2005.
More than twenty scholars from France, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, United States and
Asia were invited. They included the Professors Margaret Conkey (University of California
Berkeley), Patrick Daly (National University of Singapore), James Enloe (University of
Iowa), Lawrence H. Keeley (University of Illinois at Chicago), Olga Soffer (University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Robert Whallon (University of Michigan), Ezra B.W.
Zubrow (University at Buffalo), and Françoise Audouze (Directrice de Recherches CNRS
(UMR 7041) Nanterre), Sylvie Beyries (Chargé de recherche CNRS, CEPAM labora-
tory (UMR 6130), Sophia Antipolis, Valbonne)), Aline Averbouh (Chargé de recherche
CNRS, ESEP laboratory (UMR 6636), Aix-en-Provence), Jean-François Pastre (Chargé
de recherche CNRS, laboratory of applied geology Sysiphe (UMR 7619), Meudon),
Nicole Pigeot (Professeur à l’Université de Paris I (UMR 7041)), Veerle Rots (Post-doc at
the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium), Pierre Bodu (Chargé de Recherche (UMR
7041) Nanterre), Marie-Isabelle Cattin (Archéologue, Laténum museum, Neuchatel,
ix
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd ix 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

x Prefacing the Household
Confédération Helvétique), and Francine David and Claudine Karlin (Ingénieurs de

recherche CNRS, ArScAn laboratory (UMR 7041), Nanterre), Michèle Julien (Directrice
de Recherches CNRS (UMR 7041) Nanterre), and three graduate students Eva Hulse
(University at Buffalo), Dustin Keeler (University at Buffalo) and Frédéric Janny (Graduate
student (UMR7041)).
During the workshop, the focus evolved from the socio-economic constraints toward
the more focused theme of household. Household was found to be a good battlefield for a
friendly confrontation between conceptual American archaeologists and empiricist French
Prehistorians: a priori models versus a posteriori models; simulation and GIS versus tech-
nology and microwear analyses, modeled/ecological ethnoarchaeology versus comparative
ethnoarchaeology focused on reindeer exploitation. As a direct result of the conversations
and debates, Enloe and Audouze have initiated a program of ground penetrating radar to
determine if the previous excavations had essentially capture the entirety of the structured
campsite at Verberie or if another household was present but not yet discovered.
Household is a universal social construct and over the millennia it has taken a variety
of forms and has undergone substantial changes. However, this book is less concerned with
the diversity of the household than with its origin and early forms some twelve thousand
or more years ago. Its goals are not only conceptual but also empirical in that it provides
considerable substantive data and interpretations about the Magdalenian Household and its
thorough transformation at the end of the Tardiglacial.
The conference was a large success. Of course, some invitees were unable to participate
and as the years have progressed some decided not to contribute their papers. The result is
this volume which combines conceptual approaches, empirical results and interpretations
that derive from both approaches.
It could not have been created without the hard work of a variety of people. Most
important is Dustin Keeler. Without his extraordinary contribution of copy editing the
manuscripts and keeping track of the many different versions of each paper, this vol-
ume could not have seen the light of day. In addition, the various reviewers contacted by
the McDonald Institute and the SUNY Press have helped the editors create a better more
integrated volume. Finally, we want to thank Gary Durham, the director of SUNY Press,
and Peter Biehl, the director of the Institute for European and Mediterranean Archaeology
(IEMA) for their help and willingness to see this project through.
The editors want to dedicate this volume to their children and grandchildren.
Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze, James G. Enloe
Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd x 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Introduction
Domesticity Expressed
Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze,

and James G. Enloe
H ome and family are central to the human experience. We know little about the origins
of this basic social organization for humans and the development of what we know
today as domesticity. Domesticity has a very long past but archaeological evidence is missing
for most of the millennia. Archaeological levels in caves represent such complex palimpsests
that they cannot be used to reconstruct the spatial aspect of social life. The few huts in the
Ukrainian plain during the late Middle Palaeolithic, the Pavlovian mammoth “dwellings”
in the Ukrainian plain and in Moravia during the Early Upper Palaeolithic, repeatedly reoc-
cupied, do not let us understand how domestic life was organized.1
It is rightfully in archaeology that we must search for evidence of this; that evidence
must be material in nature. The most evident archaeological remain is the hearth, which
plays a universal role in traditional societies. There are close relationships among household,
home, and hearth. It is so fundamental that in French, the same word foyer (hearth) is used
for speaking about the central domestic fireplace, the household, and the “house as home.”
It is still used in this broad meaning, in particular in the expressions foyer conjugal, a married
couple’s home.
What Is Domesticity?
Domesticity can be defined as the processes that make up the creation and sustaining of
the household. Whether there is an extended or a nuclear family, a household has func-
tional and spatial constraints. It must provide space for sleeping, storage, food preparation,
cooking, and eating, education and play facilities for children, an area for gathering, and
1
An open air settlement under current excavation at Zaraysk, in Russia, may change this situation.
Zubrow_Unraveling_01.indd 1 6/3/10 8:35:14 PM

2 Introduction
everyday craft activities such as making clothing. Spatially, it has contiguity and clearly has
boundaries that separate the areas controlled by one family group from the areas controlled
by another (see Kooyman 2006). Economically, it is both a productive and consuming unit.
Socially the household is a physical representation of related kin. Psychologically a house-
hold enforces solidarity ties and creates the emotional conditions that characterize homes. It
would appear that hearth always plays a central role in households. Another major element
is food: finding from the faunal remains who controls its acquisition, its processing, its
stocking or cooking, and where tells a lot about the gender relations within the household
(Hastorf 1991). Where the cooking takes place: at the main hearth of the domestic space or
at an outside auxiliary hearth, may tell something about the social status of the cook versus
the people sitting around the main hearth.
Domesticity of Hunters-Gatherers
There are several parameters that give mobile hunters and gatherers a modified form of
domesticity: They have a different perception of territory and of household boundaries
than do their later Neolithic descendants. Although the nuclear family is the basic cell, a
household enlarges and restricts its size according to the food resources as is suggested by the
ethnographic structural model of Gearing et al. (1958). This may follow the seasons or the
current availability in food or be dependent upon ritual or other calendars. When a hunter-
gatherer residence is organized within to a logistical system with a base camp, hunting
camps and stands, extraction settlements, etc., only the base camp will express domesticity
since the others will reflect only a segment of the social group, namely, producers (Binford
1980, 2001).
In comparison to sedentary populations, mobile hunters-gatherers have a different
pattern of storage and cleaning in the base camp. Storage is more processed so that it may be
containerized in smaller and lighter packages providing greater ease of transport. In terms of
cleaning, there will be a relation between the duration of the occupation and the intensity of
the cleaning. As noted above, hearths play an important role that is independent of climate.
Whether it is hot, cold, or temperate—most mobile hunter-gatherers will create hearths.
Indeed, each society seems to have a vernacular form of architecture based upon cultural
convention, which provides similar forms, while changes in climate will cause limited varia-
tion around these norms.
The late Magdalenian sites of the Paris Basin offer a unique opportunity for unraveling
domesticity not only because they are very well preserved camps of short duration but also
because the excavation methods have aimed at recovering the spatial information needed.
Among them, Verberie stands out because of the large number of tools. The absence of
patina on flint artifacts allows identification of the function of tools and the material on
which they worked. This is of a great help for identifying tasks and getting more precise
pieces of information on spatial distributions. However, in opposition to Eskimo tool kits,
there are no obvious reasons to believe that tool kits are as strictly engendered in Magdale-
nian societies. For example, when looking at refitted cores at Verberie, we find that different
types of tools can be extracted from a same core: a scraper, a micro-perçoir, and a burin

Introduction 3
come from a core knapped in a simplified way. In another case, a series of four borers come
from the same core. Last, an outstanding knapping sequence results in producing blades
that are kept as blanks for a future use and may be shared among the different members of
the group (Audouze et al. 1981). This does not mean that a division of labor based upon
gender does not exist or that the spatial organization of camps does not reflect it but that it
has to be brought to light by the analysis.
Looking for domesticity implies several investigation steps: defining the domestic space
and its components, identifying specialized activities areas if they exist, then looking for the
agents who have created these areas. Is space divided according to gender? to age classes? Is it
possible to identify children’s activities? We already know that lithic tools do not reflect the
total diversity of activities undertaken at the camps. Which ones can be deduced from other
evidence? Is it possible to identify a division of labor according to gender? Have symbolic
activities left any traces? These are the questions that arise when considering domesticity.
We need to examine both the intra- and the interhousehold spaces (Lawrence
1990: 78). Are there regularities, hierarchies, or other typologies of hearths? This is a dif-
ficult question because of the multifunctionality of hearths. They may be domestic hearths
that are the gathering place of the family or economic hearths that are the focus of spe-
cialized productions. Is the polyvalence of domestic hearths the result of environmental
conditions and thus related to the scarcity of fuel or a social result of the affirmation of
the hearth as a gathering place? One needs to give particular attention to the conceptual
boundaries, their material expressions, to transition spaces and their clearly demarcated or
fuzzy thresholds (Lawrence: 77).
Why Is Domesticity Important?
That is because it is the basic component of society. Although it is possible to have indi-
vidual production and consumption, the household is the place where shared production
and shared consumption originate. And thus it is also the place where redistribution begins.
Furthermore, the household is where multigenerational economic, social, and educational
interactions start. Domesticity started, of course, much earlier but its archaeological traces
are elusive. Because the household is multigenerational, it has a temporal component. That
means individuals relate to both past and future generations. It is the basic cell of tradition
transmission. Therefore in some cases, it reifies style. Conversely, when tradition changes,
we observe that it disrupts society, family organization, and thus households (as we can see
when the Mesolithic occurs). Because the household operates as a place for savings and
investment, it provides and increases resilience to a disruptive environment. When hazards
destroy or partially destroy a household, the domesticity processes allow the family cell
to recombine onto another. Analyzing domesticity and households in prehistoric societies
may be the first step and may be the only path to reconstructing Upper Palaeolithic social
organization.
We don’t really know when family life starts (when both parents remain and look after
their progeny until they are self-sufficient, or when it becomes a multigenerational unit).
Prior to the Gravettian, the material representation of the household has no clear a priori

4 Introduction
spatial organization. The presence of a lithic workshop is not an indication of an organized

space inasmuch as it is an a posteriori result of a technical operation. Such workshops exist
since Acheulean or even earlier. The few Mousterian living floors that could be analyzed do
not show sufficiently organized space to identify domestic characteristics (cf. the Moust-
erian open air sites excavated by C. Farizy at Mauran [1994] and Champlost [1988] or the
Chatelperronian hut dug by Leroi-Gourhan at the grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure).
By the Pavlovian and Gravettian, they begin to have clear household features with
organized spaces as the mammoth dwellings in Moravia and Ukrain or as the semi-excavated
houses of Villerest (Bracco coord. 2005). By the Magdalenian, the Paris Basin offers a series
of sites quite representative of what could be households of the time and the domestic pro-
cesses that created them. In fact, one can show that they are contrasting and a priori alter-
native processes in different contemporaneous sites. Magdalenian is an extensive cultural
tradition that extends from Northwest Spain to the Netherlands and Southern and Central
Germany and Western Switzerland. It replaces Solutrean at the end of the Pleniglacial
period and extends over the cold Early Dryas, the cool temperate Bölling, the colder Middle
Dryas and the beginning of the temperate Alleröd, between the sixteenth millennium and
the thirteenth millennium B.P. The Paris Basin sites belong to the late Magdalenian phase
and date between the end of the fourteenth millennium and the middle of the thirteenth
millennium B.P. (in calibrated 14C dates). These are open air sites mostly located on valley
bottoms that have been very well preserved by gentle floods. Faunal remains, features such
as hearths and spatial organization have been preserved in seven of them. Although the
Magdalenian tradition is localized in time and space and restricted to Western Europe dur-
ing three millennia, it shares similar cultural adaptive traits with many reindeer hunters-
gatherers and more widely with hunters-gathers preying on large herbivorous game in the
tundra, boreal forest, and park grasslands.
Two Complementary Approaches
We develop here two combined approaches: one is based on the analyses of empirical data
that are cross-referenced and spatialized to produce new results. The other is to take from
other fields analogies and methodologies, models and simulations, as well as comparative
data to be used to interpret the archaeological record. We use comparative data for four dif-
ferent studies. One shows how in spite of cultural differences, reindeer butchering always
respects certain rules that derive from the necessity to recover every eatable or usable part of
the animal, to avoid their decay and to ensure their eventual preservation. Second, we exam-
ine cross-cultural regularities in the ethnographic record (such as the comparative study of
hide working by Keeley) and cross-cultural technical regularities that relate gestures to use
wear on hide-working scrapers (see Beyries and Rots this volume). Third, we look at the
comparative impact of textiles technology on society (Soffer).
By examination of faunal and lithic remains and by reconstructing the chaînes
opératoires one is able to identify the production system, including hunting tactics, and
then go on to identifying the actors. More specifically, we can begin by (1) recognizing
which tactics were used to hunt reindeer, and (2) identifying different levels of competence

Introduction 5
among knappers, particularly unskilled knappers lacking know-how and psychomotor

control, thus identifying children. In this way they provide an entry to the Magdalenian
demography.
This book consists of the analyses of five Magdalenian sites, one later Azilian site, a
regional comparison, and a set of comparative specialized technology studies. Together they
represent a new way to consider the processes by which domesticity formed the household
and social and spatial restraints created organized material representations in the prehistoric
record.
This book uses the site of Verberie as a central focus with a series of several nearby sites
and a set of regional comparisons. The advantage of Verberie is the very large database of
tools, lithics, fauna, and micro-wear analyses. The site has been excavated continuously for
26 years under the same director so that there is a rare standardization and consistency in
the data that can be matched by few other Upper Palaeolithic sites. At Verberie new results
on fauna (Enloe this volume), flint tool production, intensive micro-wear analysis, and a
study of hearths give a broader insight on the hunting and processing of game, as well as
on the function of tools and the activities performed at the site (Beyries et al. 2005; Janny
et al. 2007; Averbouh, Janny, Dumarçais, and Caron, this volume). This permits a detailed
spatial analysis (Audouze this volume) using GIS methods (Keeler this volume) and casts
light upon the social organization in Magdalenian settlements.
The group of late Magdalenian sites selected for the spatial analysis of domesticity pres-
ent characteristics that are seldom found in other prehistoric sites. They belong to the same
cultural tradition and share common traits in the procurement and subsistence strategies
as well as in the organization of activities and space. Domestic hearths play a central role in
each of them. They also exhibit an adaptive variability resulting from differences in season-
ality, hunting strategies and game, duration of occupation, and number of households. This
variability may be observed between sites but also between levels within the same site testify-
ing to a local evolution through time. Three of the sites, Verberie, Pincevent, and Etiolles,
are located in the valley bottoms of the Seine and the Oise rivers in the Paris Basin, France.
Two other ones, Champréveyres and Monruz, are located along the lake of Neuchâtel in
western Switzerland. Another site in the bottom of the Seine Valley introduces more time
depth with its Azilian living floors. In spite of some discrepancies in 14C dating (Leesch
and Bullinger 2006) due mostly to the 14C plateau of the thirteenth millennium, they are
all dated within the early and middle Dryas and Bölling (between the fourteenth and thir-
teenth millennium B.P.). A last site, Le Closeau, located in the Seine river valley, belongs
to the following cultural tradition, Azilian, and is dated in the thirteenth millennium. Its
living floors exhibit quite a different spatial organization reflecting another organization of
the domestic and life space.
Several levels of Pincevent and Etiolles have already been published (Leroi-Gourhan
and Brézillon 1966; Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon 1972; Julien 2006; Pigeot 1990, 2004;
Olive 2005) but the recent publication of another level for each of these two sites bring
important new insights (Julien 2006; Bodu et al. 2006; Pigeot 2004) about seasonality, pro-
curement strategy, and activities in relation to the settlement duration. Several remarkable
volumes have been published on Champréveyres (Leesch 1997; Cattin 2002) and the first

6 Introduction
volume on the Magdalenian site of Monruz just appeared in 2006 (Bullinger et al. 2006).
Drawing on these new results the papers in this volume focus on the organization of social
activities.
We begin with a discussion of domesticity and demographics among hunters-gatherers,
followed by a consideration how those might be seen in archaeological spatial patterning.
References
Binford, L. R. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45 (1):4–20.
Binford, L. R. 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference. An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory
Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Set. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Bodu, P., M. Julien, B. Valentin, G. Debout, eds. 2006 Un dernier hiver à Pincevent. Les Magdalé-
niens du niveau IV0. Gallia Préhistoire 48:200–350.
Bracco, J. P. (coordinator) 2005, Projet Collectif de recherche: La Vigne Brun: Étude d’un campement
gravettien de plein air: Rapport d’activité 2005. Lyon/Aix-en-Provence, SRA Rhône-Alpes/
ESEP (UMR 6636).
Bullinger J., D. Leesch, et N. Plumettaz 2006 Le site magdalénien de Monruz, I. Premiers éléments pour
l’analyse d’un habitat de plein air, p. 218. Service et musée cantonal d’archéologie (Archéologie
neuchâteloise, 33) Neuchâtel.
Cattin, M. I. 2002 Hauterive-Champréveyres, 13. Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de
Neuchâtel: exploitation du silex (secteur 1), 2 vols. Service et Musée cantonal d’archéologie
(Archéologie neuchâteloise, 26) Neuchâtel.
Farizy, C. 1988 Présentation du matériel lithique provenant du gisement moustérien de Champlost
(Yonne) et hypothèses de fonctionnement du site. Cultures et industries lithiques en milieu loes-
sique, Revue Archéologique de Picardie 1–2:141–148.
Farizy C., F. David, J. Jaubert et al. 1994 Hommes et bisons du Paléolithique moyen à Mauran
(Haute-Garonne). XXXe supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. C.N.R.S. éd., Paris.
Gearing, F., et al. 1958 The Structural Poses of 18th Century Cherokee Villages. American Anthro-
pologist 60 (6):1148–1157.
Hastorf, C. 1991 Gender, Space and Food. In Engendering Archaeology, by J. M. Gero and M. Conkey,
pp. 132–159. Blackwell, Oxford.
Julien, M. 2003 A Magdalenian Base Camp at Pincevent (France). In Perceived Landscapes and Built
Environments. The Cultural Geography of Late Palaeolithic Eurasia, S. A. Vasil’ev, O. Soffer,
J. Kozlowski, editors, pp. 105–111. Actes du XIVe Congrès UISPP, Université de Liège,
Belgique (2–8 septembre 2001). BAR International Series 1122.
Kooyman, B. 2006 Boundary Theory as a Means to Understanding Social Space in Archaeological
Sites. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 25 (2006):424–435.
Lawrence, R. G. 1990 Public Collective and Private Space: A Study of Urban Housing in Switzer-
land. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. An Interdisciplinary Cross Study, S. Kent,
editor, pp. 73–91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Introduction 7
Leesch, D. 1997 Hauterive-Champréveyres, 10. Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de

Neuchâtel,: cadre chronologique et culturel, mobilier et structures, analyse spatiale (secteur 1).
Musée cantonal d’Archéologie (Archéologie neuchâteloise, 19), Neuchâtel.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and M. Brézillon 1966 L’Habitation magdalénienne n°1 de Pincevent près
Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire IX, 263–371.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and M. Brézillon 1972 Fouilles de Pincevent. Essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un
habitat magdalénien, 2 vol. VIIè suppl. à Gallia Préhistoire. Éd. du CNRS, Paris.
Olive, M. 2005 La perception du temps dans les sites magdaléniens de plein air du Bassin parisien.
Du temps d’une occupation au temps des occupations. L’exemple du site d’Étiolles. Bulletin de
la Société Préhistorique Française 102 (4):763–770.
Pigeot, N. 1990 Technical and Social Actors. Flint Knapping Specialists and Apprentices at Magdale-
nian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9 (1):126–141.
Pigeot, N. (editor) 2004 Les derniers Magdaléniens d’Étiolles: perspectives culturelles et paléohistoriques
(l’unité d’habitation Q31). XXXVIIe supplément à Gallia Préhistoire.

PART I
Technology and Demography

Chapter One
Technology and Demographics
An Introduction
James G. Enloe
From Excavations to Demographics
T he primary question addressed in this volume involves domestic organization in the

Magdalenian of the Paris Basin. This comprises fundamental ideas about human soci-
ety, how people relate to one another in economic, social, and personal ways. It implies
demography, the make-up of the social group, and how we might see this from the archaeo-
logical record. Much of our knowledge about the organization of Paleolithic hunters’ camp-
sites has come from Leroi-Gourhan’s innovative excavation, recording, and interpretation
techniques. He was able to demonstrate clearly from the extraordinarily well-preserved
remains of several occupation levels at Pincevent that robust patterning could be read from
the distribution of heterogeneous classes of artifacts and features on large-scale surfaces.
The integration of the numerous classes of data was the tool for moving from mere descrip-
tion to a structural understanding of the interrelationships among various patterns extant
in those distributions, the basis for inferences about the social and economic relationships
among the prehistoric occupants of those campsites. The large surface excavated on the level
IV-20 at Pincevent yielded multiple redundantly organized clusters of features and artifacts
that are quite plausibly interpreted as domestic households for the social group inhabit-
ing the site. Further analyses of the spatial distributions of refitted flint, fire-cracked rock,
and bones have confirmed the contemporaneity and integrated nature of those households
(Bodu et Julien 1987; Julien et al. 1992; Enloe and David 1989, 1992).
His successes at this led to emulation of his techniques for excavation and recording
and of his conventions for interpretation. While the former has helped increase our resolu-
tion of the patterning potentially present on occupation surfaces, the latter has often led to
normative inferences about the nature of archaeological sites. This can lead to a tendency to
11

12 Technology and Demography
replicate interpretations of the kinds of domestic units seen at Pincevent—“discovering” the

same Magdalenian social structure at other sites. This presumes that all sites were residential
and that the demography of the social groups was essentially the same at all Magdalenian
sites: adult males and females accompanied by juveniles and infants of both sexes. Another
perspective suggests that demography, and consequent social and economic organization,
might vary among sites as a function of the organization of labor for procuring, processing,
and consuming resources across a larger landscape.
This has been one of the primary objectives of the excavation and analysis of Verberie.
This Magdalenian site shares may aspects with the better-known excavation at Pincevent—
dating, typology, technology, and faunal remains, among many others. It was excavated
with essentially the same techniques and perspectives, and provides a suitably comparable
dataset for posing many of the same interpretive questions as were posed and answered at
Pincevent. One of the most vibrant debates among the excavators and analysts centers on
the question of demography at Verberie. Was this site occupied by a population of family
groups, including males and females of all ages, as appears to be the case at Pincevent, or
was it occupied by some subset of that population, engaged in specialized tasks involving
acquisition of resources to the main consumer group elsewhere?
Hunters and Gatherers on the Landscape
When Lewis Binford (1980) proposed his famous models to characterize the mobility of
hunter/gatherer groups, he was less concerned with an exhaustive description of subsistence
organization than with the implications of variability in mobility, which might result in dif-
ferent kinds of sites in the archaeological record. He proposed that subsistence organization
ranged from foraging to logistical collecting as a function of the structure of resource avail-
ability in the environment. In the case of foragers, where resources are more or less ubiq-
uitously and unpredictably dispersed throughout the environment, hunters and gatherers
“mapped on” to resources across the landscape by means of residential mobility, moving the
entire social group of producers and consumers from resource depleted areas to places where
the entire range of necessary resources would be available for acquisition within a short daily
foraging radius, in essence moving consumers to resources for immediate consumption
(Testart 1982; Woodburn 1968). Differential success among members of foraging groups
could be resolved by a variety of risk sharing behavior (Wiessner 1980, 1982), most notably
food sharing. In this case, the entire demographic group repositions itself repeatedly on the
landscape, creating a dispersed pattern of very similar sites.
In the case of logistical collectors, hunters and gatherers, key resources are more
restricted geographically and temporally. In particular, strongly seasonal environments dictate
relatively narrow windows of opportunity for resources necessary for survival. Often, key
resources conflict at the time of their availability and are spatially distant from one another.
In these cases, logistical mobility of task-specific parties within the social groups serves the
function of acquiring one major resource and transporting it to the locus of another vital
resource, where the consumers are residentially located. Firewood and water may constitute
geographically localized resources to which consumers are tethered, since transporting their

Technology and Demographics 13
bulk across the landscape is not practical, while wild game may be predictably available in
other locales. These nutritionally dense latter resources may be logistically acquired and
transported to the residential sites, effectively moving resources to consumers for delayed
consumption. This would lead to the creation of at least two types of sites: residential sites
with the entire demography of the social group, and logistical acquisition sites occupied by
a subset of that social group.
While this model has been utilized or criticized as being overly polarized or dichoto-
mous, it was never proposed as a binary model with two categories into which all pres-
ent or past hunter/gatherers could be slotted, Binford’s original article (1980) argued for
a spectrum of behavior, ranging between the two theoretical poles of foraging and colle-
cting. Kelly’s work (1983, 1995) demonstrates how residential mobility can be shown to
be dynamically variable according to such environmental factors as effective temperature,
primary biomass, and precipitation.
What that seminal article was really about was the nature of the archaeological
record and how that might provide clues to the structure of social and economic organi-
zation of prehistoric hunters and gatherers. Idealized foragers move across the landscape,
occupying and using their short-term residential campsites in repetitive and redundant
ways. They forage for the resources in the immediate vicinity, returning them to camp
for distribution and consumption every day, until the resources within a daily foraging
radius are depleted or until the return rate drops below that which they might expect
for an unexploited neighboring area. At that point, they may be expected to move their
residence at least twice the distance of the daily foraging radius, so that there would be
no overlap of the areas being exploited. The content and structure of the short-term resi-
dential sites would not be significantly different from one camp to another, since each is
a result of the accumulation of remains of local opportunistic acquisition and immediate
consumption among the social group. Duration and amounts of accumulation would be
functions of resource density in the area, perhaps increasing the size of the social group
and the diameter of archaeologically visible remains (Yellen 1977a), but the structure
and configuration should remain basically the same, redundant residential sites dispersed
across the landscape.
In contrast, the archaeological record of logistical collectors reflects the creation of more
different kinds of behaviors across the landscape. Residential sites may be more substantial,
occupied for longer durations, reflecting the dependence upon bulk resources acquired dur-
ing the short seasonal window of opportunity for delayed consumption through periods of
resource scarcity. Other archaeological sites are created by the logistical tasks that are geo-
graphically separated from the residential sites. More prominent acquisition events create
distinct hunting sites, with their own signature patterns of content and configuration. Con-
figurations may be created by the specific tasks performed at those sites for the acquisition
and initial processing for transport of resources back to the primary residential site of the
group. As sites created by longer duration occupation for more than a short daily foraging
loop, they may have some of the configurational aspects of the residential sites. Needs for
shelter, eating, and sleeping remain. But since the demographic make-up of the occupants
is a subset of the eventual consumption group, their internal organization may differ from

that of the entire social group, and may be expressed by a different configuration of remains
in the archaeological record.
Our ability to recognize the character of the site’s occupants’ labor and social organi-
zation would enable us to understand how an archaeological culture was organized by resi-
dential or logistical mobility across the landscape, and how any given site might act as a
component of the group’s year-round adaptive pattern, such as those modeled by Binford’s
foraging to logistical collecting scheme. What is it about Verberie that can give information
about the demographics—what groups were present, how was labor organized, what is the
relationship of the site to regional settlement patterns? One clue is in the faunal assemblage.
The content and configuration of the remains of the prey can give us some good ideas about
how the site of Verberie was integrated into the labor organization of the social groups that
included the Magdalenian occupants of this site and others in the Paris Basin.
References
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.
Bodu, P., and M. Julien 1987 La vie des Magdaléniens à Pincevent. In Aperçu sur l’Actualité de la
Recherche Préhistorique en Ile-de-France, pp. 11–22. Direction des Antiquités Préhistoriques,
Paris.
Enloe, J. G., et F. David 1989 Le remontage des os par individus: le partage du renne chez les
Magdaléniens de Pincevent (La Grande Paroisse, Seine-et-Marne). Bulletin de la Société Préhis-
torique Française 86 (9):275–281.
Julien, M., C. Karlin, and B. Valentin 1992 Déchets de silex, déchets de pierres chauffées. De l’intérêt
des remontages à Pincevent (France). In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting
Studies in Archaeology, J. L. Hofman and J.G. Enloe, editors. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 578.
Kelly R. 1983 Hunters-Gatherers Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:277–306.
Kelly R. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Testart, Alain 1982 The Significance of Food Storage among Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns,
Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropolog, 23 (5):523–530.
Wiessner, P. 1980 Risk, Reciprocity, and Social Influences on !Kung San Economics. In Politics and
History in Band Societies, E. Leacock and R. Lee, editors, pp. 61–84. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Wiessner, P. 1982 Beyond Willow smoke and Dogs’ Tails: A Comment on Binford’s Analysis of
Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47(1):171–178.
Woodburn, J. 1968 An Introduction to Hadza Ecology. In Man the Hunter, R. B. Lee and I. DeVore,
editors, pp. 49–55. Aldine, New York.
Yellen, J. E. 1977 Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains: Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen. In
Experimental Archeology, D. Ingersoll, J. E. Yellen, and W. Macdonald, editors, pp. 271–331.
Columbia University Press, New York.

Chapter Two
The Magdalenian Site of Verberie

(Le Buisson Campin)
An Overview
James G. Enloe and Françoise Audouze
Calib 4 and 2
S everal chapters in this volume focus on the Magdalenian site of Verberie because the
successive living floors yielded by this open-air site are particularly adapted to question
domesticity in Upper Palaeolithic settlements. Both the excellent preservation of lithic and
organic remains, and of the spatial organization, as well as the questioning and approaches
developed for its analysis make its archaeological levels excellent research grounds for unrav-
eling domesticity. The following paragraphs give an overview of the site stratigraphy and
organization in order to avoid repetitions in the seven chapters concerned with Verberie in
this volume.
Verberie (Audouze et al. 1981; Audouze 1987, 1988a, 1988b; Audouze and Enloe
1991; Enloe and Audouze 1997; Enloe 1997, 1998) is a late Magdalenian open air site, located
approximately 60 km north of Paris. It consists of well-preserved hearths and associated
debris, particularly reindeer bones, and was occupied between 12,950 and 12,300BP/Cal bc
15,700 and 13,900 years ago (Audouze and Enloe 1996). This corresponds to the thirteenth
millennium 14C plateau and places the Verberie levels at the end of the Early Dryas, during
the beginning of the Bölling, or during the short Dryas II episode (Table 1).
Reindeer were the primary prey of the prehistoric hunters who occupied this site, com-
prising more than 95% of the animal bones present. Preliminary spatial analysis (Audouze
1988) and stone tool microwear analysis (Keeley 1981) suggest that Verberie may have been
characterized by substantial primary butchering. Reindeer body part representation also
suggests that this site was a kill site from which food was transported. Numerous intact ver-
tebral columns have been found at Verberie, while those elements are almost absent at the
similarly dated site of Pincevent (David 1972; Enloe 1991, 1994, this volume).
15

Table 1
Radiocarbon Dates Calibrated by Calib 4 at2 Standard Deviations
Cal BC Date (2 sigmas) Laboratory
BP Date Sample Reference and Analysis Reference
12 430 ± 120 VBC 86.202.II-1.M5.146 14070 < > 14972 Gif A95453
12 950 ± 130 VBC 93.202.II-2.Q4.152 14933 < > 15768 Gif A95454
12 520 ± 120 VBC 93.202.II-3.J4.247 14158 < > 15069 Gif A99106
12 300 ± 120 VBC 99.202.II-3.M8.537 13906 < > 14844 Gif A99421
Source: Stuiver M. & Reimer P. J. 1993, Radiocarbon, 35, 215–230.
Horizontal Units: Sectors in the Field
The field of le Buisson Campin was subdivided into 400 m2 sectors, which were sequen-
tially numbered from the survey boundary marker in the southwest corner of the field (see
fig. 1). These are 20 by 20 meter squares, aligned with the forest/field boundary on the
south side. Each sector is internally subdivided into a Cartesian metric grid, originating
in the southwest corner. This grid is labeled with letters A-T on the X axis, from west to
east, and with numbers 1–20 on the Y axis, from south to north. The grid square labels
constitute the identification of each square within the sector. Each sector will have the same
suite of square names, from A1 to T20, with the square designation preceded by the sector
number, for example, 202 M9. The archaeological locations discussed herein straddle the
boundary between sectors 201 to the south and 202 to the north.
Vertical Units: Stratigraphic Control
The stratigraphy of VBC is both simple and complex. Simply stated, the uppermost level is
dark brown soil, deposited and developed during Holocene temperate climatic conditions.
It is the plow zone of local farming from the Neolithic, Iron Age (see post hole patterns to
the right of Sector 202 in fig. 1), Gallo-Roman, Medieval to modern times. This brown
soil unit is designated by Roman numeral I (fig. 2). Archaeological materials from all of the
previously mentioned periods, plus the Upper Paleolithic, are found out of primary context
within this stratigraphic unit.
The second level consists of yellowish Pleistocene sands, deposited by over-bank flood-
ing of the Oise. This contains the Magdalenian occupation levels. It is designated by Roman
numeral II. Previously, this sediment unit was probably structured by thin, alternating levels
of finer and coarser sediments, much like those at Pincevent. However, since it is close to the
modern surface which has been plowed for millennia, it has suffered some disturbance, pri-
marily in the form of earthworm bioturbation, which has essentially removed all of the fine
sediments, leaving only the relatively coarser sands. The former fine stratigraphic separation

The Magdalenian Site of Verberie (Le Buisson Campin) 17
115 N
114
L
’O
113 is
e
112
RIVECOUR
111 T
VERBERIE
110
109
108
107
106
105
212 221
104 202
211
103
201 210 219
102
20m 209
101
208
100 116 132 147 161 174 186
197 207 210 224 231
238 246 253 260 266
272 277 283 288
Boine
NIVF AU O LA CROIX
Secteur 202 SAINT OUEN
0 100
figure 1 Verberie sectors grid; location of Sectors 201 and 202. / Plan des secteurs de
Verberie; localisation des secteurs 201 et 202.
figure 2 Geological couches and archaeological levels. / Couches géologiques et niveaux

archéologiques.

has been reduced to homogeneous sands. It is only by following the continuity of artifac-
tual material across space that we are able to separate several occupation surfaces within
this practically homogeneous sediment. These can be seen in sections and back plots of
elevations as lenses of material within II. A systematic refitting of flint cores and of cracked
heated stones has later provided useful added information for completing the discrimi-
nation between the archaeological levels and identifying their stratigraphic limits.
Living Floors: Occupation Levels
The importance of the site of Verberie lies foremost in the in situ preservation spatial
structure—the organization of the campsite in the various kinds of artifactual remains,
including hearths, fire-cracked rock, lithic tools and manufacturing debris, and faunal
material. These remains are spatially organized around and between the hearths, with such
structures as dumps (concentrations with a very high density of refuse of all categories of
artifacts, including tools), artifacts scatters of different kinds (low density) composed of flint
flakes, burned stones and bones, or empty zones such as butchering areas or the interiors of
shelters or tents. Flint concentrations include flint workshops and flint refuse areas. Activity
areas are low-density concentrations with a high percentage of tools.
After 26 excavation seasons, eight Magdalenian living floors have been exposed and
recorded. Not all were discovered at the same time, which has resulted in a somewhat
inconsistent level designation scheme within geomorphological layer II. The uppermost
occupation, designated II-1, is the most recent campsite, and has been excavated over the
largest surface area, approximately 400 square meters. After several years of excavation, it
was determined that there were other, earlier occupations underneath. These were desig-
nated II-2 and II-3. Subsequently, other occupation levels were discerned between II-2 and
II-3. These were labeled II-21 and II-22. Below level II-3 are levels II-4, II-5, and II-6. The
earliest occupation level determined so far is labeled II-6. The deepest occupations have
been excavated in an area of only 40 square meters.
The spatial results presented in this volume are mostly concerned with the upper level
(Audouze et al. 1981, Audouze 1987). Six out of the eight levels are organized around one
or two hearths, around which most of the activities took place. Hearths are named after
the grid square in which they were first located. Hearths were not discovered in the areas
excavated in levels II-2 and II-21, though a large number of heated stones are scattered in
the dump, so the spatial organizations of those levels are only known from the large hetero-
geneous dumps of bones, flints, and stones occupying the center of the excavated area.
Level II-1
The upper level, II-1, is organized around two hearths that are 8 meters apart: hearth D1
and hearth M20. They are surrounded by an activity area with a very large number of
tools (drop zone). In between them, a very largest dump H-I/18–19 includes refuse from
both hearth but mostly from hearth D1. Between this dump and hearth M20 activity area,
a nearly empty space is located in J-K/18–20 and H-J-K-L/2–4. The zooarchaeological

analysis indicates that it is a butchering activity area (see Enloe this volume; Audouze 1988,
1996). Two other dumps are located in B-C/17–18, related to hearth D1 and O-P/17–19
related to hearth M20. Three flint workshops are located in E-F/20-1 near by hearth D1,
in P/3-4 north of hearth M20 and in the empty space in I1 between the H19 dump and
hearth M20. Using Leroi-Gourhan’s model, west of hearth D1 and east of hearth M20,
two empty spaces can be interpreted as tent areas (or shelters of some sort) (Audouze1988).
In E/F3-G2/1/20/19-F19/ED19, north, southeast of hearth D1 and in L2/1-KL20/L19/
M18, northwest, west, and southwest of hearth M20, two arc-shaped areas with a low den-
sity concentration of artifacts with numerous blades and tools, can be considered either as
toss zones or as important activity areas. A part of one of them in F19 includes many tools
and can be considered both as an activity area and a low density dump for activities taking
place nearby in the hearth periphery (E/19–20 and F1).
The two hearths and their surroundings appear as two symmetric units facing each
other. Each one includes a hearth, activity areas, a dump to the south and a dump to the
east for hearth D1, to the south for the hearth M20, and an empty space to the west for one
and to the east for the other one. However, the D1 unit seems to have been occupied longer
or more intensively than the M20 unit: it includes more than 78% of all the tools and used
blades while only fewer than 20% were found in the M20 unit.
Levels II-2, II-21, and II-22
No hearth was found in the next two levels II-2 and II-21, but only a huge dump where
reindeer bones are particularly numerous. They are bordered on one or two sides by flint
workshops and a butchering activity area (see J. G. Enloe this volume). The next level,
II-22, has a hearth, L8, with no drop zone but with a denser ring of remains designing an
irregular circle, three meters in diameter. The inner space is nearly empty apart from the
hearth and an ash refuse area in L8. A dense scatter of refuse extends toward the east in
L-O/4–6. Two butchering activity areas with reindeer vertebrae in connection are found on
the western and southeastern limits of the excavated area of II-22. Along the western one a
small flint workshop was used to produce bladelets.
Lower Levels II-3 to II-6
Two hearths have been successively used in level II-3 and II-4 (known from an excavated
area of 48 square meters). In II-3, it is surrounded by a very dense toss zone that extends
toward the southeast into a dense scatter of refuse down to another hearth O5-6 covered
with stones and deprived of tools in its periphery. Toward the west, it extends down to a
small hearth and an adjacent small pit full of big fragments of unburned bones. A butcher-
ing activity area with reindeer vertebrae in connection extends between the two hearths. As
in II-1, in II-4, an adjacent empty space borders hearth L7. The presence of a rather pre-
cious material (five manufactured ivory sticks deposited together) may indicate the presence
of a shelter. The toss zone takes an irregular shape on both side of the empty space. On the
other side, a nearly empty butchering activity area with reindeer vertebrae in connection,

stretches out as far as hearth O5–6. Four meters to the north, there is an extremely dense
dump of stones and flint covering three square meters in J-L/13, bordered by a scatter of
bones in J-K/12 and L/12–13.
Levels II-5 and II-6
These levels have only been excavated on 40 square meters but what remains from them
covers 28 square meters. Level II-5 includes a circular flint workshop for producing micro-
blades and bladelets in J11 and a bone dump in K-L/1–13. Level II-6 includes a hearth in
J/9–10 and a scatter of bones in K11.
Seven chapters are concerned with the Verberie site. Four are concerned with all the
levels: Enloe’s chapter on faunal remains, Averbouh’s chapter on antler and ivory imple-
ments and manufacturing, Janny’s chapter on lithics, and Dustin Keeler on the application
of GIS on the Verberie levels. One focuses on technical comparisons for one tool type: the
comparative use wear of scrapers at Verberie and among different contemporary groups
according to their way of working hide (Beyries and Rots). Dumarçais’ chapter compares
the hearths and their contents at Verberie and at Pincevent. Audouze’s chapter on spatial
analysis focuses on level II-1, that is the most completely recovered living floor, to search for
the social organization and for domesticity. She draws inferences from the results obtained
by the other authors and looks for their projection and distribution on the level II-1 space
and its social meaning.
References Cited
Audouze, F. 1987 The Paris Basin in Magdalenian Times. In Old World Pleistocene—Regional
Tendencies, Olga Soffer, editor. Plenum, New York.
Audouze, F. 1988a Des modèles et des faits: les modèles de A. Leroi-Gourhan et de L. Binford
confrontés aux résultats. Bull. de la Société Préhistorique Française 85:343–352.
Audouze, F. 1988b Les activités de boucherie à Verberie (Oise). In Technologie Préhistorique,
pp. 97–111. Notes et Monographies Techniques n°25. CNRS édition, Paris.
Audouze, F. 1996 Les lieux de découpe des rennes à Verberie—stratégies d’acquisition et de transfor-
mation alimentaire chez les Magdaléniens du bassin Parisien. Archéologia 216:12–17.
Audouze, F., D. Cahen, L. R. Keeley, and B. Schmider 1981Le site magdalénien du Buisson Campin
à Verberie (Oise). Gallia Préhistoire 24(1):99–l43.
Audouze, F., and J. G. Enloe 1996 High Resolution Archaeology at Verberie: Limits and Interpre-
tations. World Archaeology 29 (2):195–207.
Audouze, F., and J. G. Enloe 1991 Subsistence Strategies and Economy in the Magdalenian of the
Paris Basin. In The Late Glacial of Northwest Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental
Change at the End of the Ice Age, R. N. E. Barton, A. J. Roberts, and D. A. Roe, editors,
pp. 63–71. British Archaeology Research Reports 77, Oxford.
Enloe, J. G. 1991 Subsistence Organization in the Upper Paleolithic: Carcass Refitting and Food
Sharing at Pincevent. PhD Dissertation, University of New Mexico.
Enloe, J. G. 1994 Le problème du partage du gibier et l’organisation sociale des chasseurs préhisto-
riques. Annales de la Fondation Fyssen 9:9–20.

Enloe, J. G. 1997 Seasonality and Age Structure in Remains of Rangifer Tarandus: Magdalenian
Hunting Strategy at Verberie. Anthropozoologica 25–26:95–102.
Enloe, J. G. 1998 Fonction des sites et chasse spécialisée: Variation régionale pendant la période
magdalénienne. In Économie Prehistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique,
J. P. Brugal, L. Meignen, et M. Pathou-Mathis, editors, pp. 363–372. Éditions APDCA,
Sophia Antipolis.
Enloe, J. G., and F. Audouze 1997 Le rôle de l’environnement dans la vie des chasseurs magdaléniens
du Bassin parisien. In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Ouest, J. P. Fagnart and A. Thevenin,
editors, pp. 177–186. Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris.
David, F. 1972 Témoins osseux, In Fouilles de Pincevent. Essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un habitat
magdalénien (la section 36), by A. Leroi-Gourhan and M. Brézillon, 2 vol., pp. 295–327.
CNRS (Gallia Préhistoire supplement 7), Paris.
Keeley, L. R. 1981 Premiers résultats de l’analyse des micro-traces d’utilisation de quelques objets.
In Le site magdalénien du Buisson Campin à Verberie (Oise), by F. Audouze, D. Cahen,
B. Schmider, and L. Keeley, pp. 137–141. Gallia Préhistoire 24(1):137–141.

Chapter Three
Fauna and Site Structure at Verberie
Implications for Domesticity

and Demography
James G. Enloe
Introduction: Reindeer Hunting at Verberie
T he content and configuration of faunal remains have been noted as having more directly
readable information about the organization of direct subsistence activities activity,
and significant implications for the demography and social organization for performing
those tasks. This chapter shall focus on that relationship, keeping in mind, however, that
the integration with other classes of data is necessary for the full picture of who occupied
Verberie and what they did.
Verberie, as part of the Magdalenian, is closely associated with reindeer hunting.
Lartet and Christy originally characterized the Magdalenian as the Age of the Reindeer,
although that perception has been strongly challenged by recent research (Fontana 1998,
1999, 2000). Nonetheless, the faunal remains are overwhelmingly dominated by this single
species at Verberie. Clearly the occupation at Verberie had a lot to do with the exploitation
of reindeer. An understanding of their adaptive stance in exploiting reindeer has a lot to offer
in searching for information about social organization and demography. As another simi-
larly dated Magdalenian site in the Paris Basin with excellent faunal preservation, Pincevent
offers comparisons and contrasts with Verberie that may help us understand the kinds of
activities that took place at both sites and their implications for regional adaptations. Several
questions can be posed in pursuit of understanding potential similarities and differences at
these and other sites in the Paris Basin. What is the nature of subsistence and mobility of the
Magdalenian hunters of the Paris Basin and how is that related to targeting reindeer? What
were the potentially different roles of the various sites and how might that reflect differences
in demography and labor organization?
22

Fauna and Site Structure at Verberie 23
Verberie: The Faunal Spectrum
The faunal material at Verberie is dominated by a single species, reindeer (Rangifer taran-
dus), with overwhelming proportions both in number of specimens and in numbers of
individuals (Table 1), as is the case for most levels of Pincevent. The second most frequent
species is arctic ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus), found in almost all levels. Numbers
of individuals and skeletal part frequencies suggest that this species was hunted in place at
Verberie, perhaps as additional provisions for hunters awaiting arrival of the migrating rein-
deer. Importantly, at least three vertebrae carried clearly identifiable stone tool cut marks,
indicating butchering of game, rather than natural deaths of this species in burrows after the
human occupation of the site.
Other species that have been identified include horse (Equus caballus), arctic fox
(Alopex lagopus), mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), water vole (Apodemus flavicollis),
yellow-necked mouse (Arvicola terrestris), pied lemming (Dicrostonyx torquatus), narrow-
skulled vole (Stenocranius gregalis), grass frog (Rana temporaris), willow ptarmigan (Lagopus
lagopus), duck (Anatinae sp.), and goose (Anserinae sp.) Most of these species are consistent
with a cold climatic regime occupied by reindeer, particularly the Dicrostonyx and Stenoc-
ranius which have extremely cold associations along the Arctic coast of modern Siberia and
Alaska. While late Pleistocene environments have no exact modern analogs (Guthrie 1990),
the ecological principles that constitute the adaptive niche of reindeer were doubtless in
operation at the time of the occupation of Verberie. Rigorous, cold, highly seasonal condi-
tions would have resulted in relatively low animal biomass over large territories, and few
species or individuals available as prey during the winter. In such situations, reindeer offer
the opportunity to be treated as a strategic resource, with potential for relatively large-scale
acquisition and subsequent storage.
Table 1
Taxonomic Representation for all Levels
at Verberie / Représentation des espèces
pour tous les niveaux de Verberie
Species NISP MNI
Reindeer 16525 130

Horse 64 2
Ground Squirrel 577 23
Rodent 12 6
Bird 65 7
Fox 9 2
Mammoth 2 1
Frog 10 4

Reindeer: Seasonality and Prey Demography
Regardless of the variety of faunal species present, reindeer are overwhelming in numbers
of specimens and in numbers of individuals. Overall, the multiple occupation levels have
yielded more than 16,000 specimens identified as reindeer, comprised of at least 130 indi-
viduals. Detailed information on the representation of various body parts for level II-1 are
presented in Table 2. In level II-1, at least 40 individuals were killed and butchered. This
sample will be used for the discussion of exploitation of this species, as it has the largest area
excavated and the most complete analysis at present.
Table 2
Verberie, le Buisson Campin, Level II-1, Skeletal Element
Representation / Niveau II-1, représentation des éléments du
squelette
Element NISP MNE MNE MNE MNE MNI MAU MAU

Left Right Unsided %
Antler 22 1 0 0 1 1 0.5 1.33
Cranium 64 19 9 10 0 10 9.5 25.3
Maxillary Teeth 290 60 28 31 1 31 30 80
Deciduous 22 11 5 6 0 6 5.5 -
Premolar 102 39 20 19 3 20 21 -
Molar 136 60 28 31 1 31 30 -
Hyoid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mandible 123 28 12 16 0 16 14 37.3
Vertebrae 404 196 - - - 14 14 37.3
Atlas 22 13 - - - 13 13 34.6
Axis 22 14 - - - 14 14 37.3
Cervical 81 36 - - - 8 7.2 19.2
Thoracic 143 90 - - - 7 6.42 17.1
Lumbar 42 23 - - - 5 4.2 11.2
Sacrum 23 12 - - - 9 9 24
Caudal 0 0 - - - 0 0 0
Ribs 433 83 17 38 28 6 5.43 14.48
Sternum 23 5 - - - 5 5 13.33
Scapula 67 30 21 9 0 21 15 40
Humerus 219 - - - - - - -
proximal - 27 19 9 0 19 13.5 36

Table 2 (Continued)
distal - 45 23 22 0 23 22.5 60
Radius 334 - - - - - - -
proximal - 65 33 32 2 33 32.5 86.67
distal - 44 27 17 0 27 22 58.67
Ulna 32 19 11 8 0 11 9.5 25.33
Carpals 28 11 6 5 0 6 5.5 14.67
Scaphoid 6 6 6 0 0 6 3 8
Semilunate 5 5 4 1 0 4 2.5 6.67
Pyramidal 3 3 2 1 0 2 1.5 4
Capetatotrapezoid 8 8 3 5 0 5 4 10.67
Unciform 6 6 2 4 0 4 3 8
Pisiform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Metacarpal 358 - - - - - - -
proximal - 75 36 39 0 39 37.5 100
distal - 75 34 40 1 40 37.5 100
Os coxae 121 36 15 18 3 18 18 48
Femur 64 - - - - - - -
proximal - 5 3 1 1 3 2.5 6.67
distal - 12 6 5 1 6 6 16
Patella 11 11 0 1 10 6 5.5 14.67
Tibia 274 - - - - - - -
proximal - 39 20 19 0 20 19.5 52
distal - 38 18 20 0 20 19 50.67
Tarsals 81 17 9 8 0 9 8.5 22.67
Malleolus 12 12 4 8 0 8 6 16
Astragalus 21 21 10 11 0 10 10.5 28
Calcaneum 31 15 7 8 0 8 7.5 20
Naviculocuboid 8 8 5 3 0 5 4 10.67
Major Cuneiform 6 6 4 2 0 4 3 8
Minor Cuneiform 3 3 0 3 0 3 1.5 4
Metatarsal 212 - - - - - - -
proximal - 38 26 12 0 26 19 50.67
distal - 34 19 14 1 19 17 45.33
(Continued )

Table 2
Representation / Niveau II-1, représentation des éléments du
squelette (Continued)
Metapodial 57 - - - - - - -
Phalanges 782 - - - - - - -
Phalanx I 310 136 68 68 1 18 17.25 46
Phalanx II 208 116 75 41 0 19 14.5 38.67
Phalanx III 59 24 24 0 6 6 16 48
Sesamoids 38 - - - - - - -
proximal 19 19 0 0 19 3 2.375 6.33
distal 19 0 0 19 3 2.375 6.33 19
Resid. Metapodials 54 38 0 0 38 5 4.75 12.67
Residual Phalanges 168 - - - - - -
Res Phal I 97 52 0 0 52 7 6.5 17.33
Res Phal II 102 54 0 0 54 7 6.75 18
Res Phal III 96 56 0 0 56 7 7 18.67
Unidentified 1889 - - - - - - -
Clearly, resource acquisition focused heavily and strategically on reindeer. A number

of interrelated factors are of concern with such specialization on a single species (Enloe
1998, 1999, 2003a). The most important of these is seasonality. Drucker (2005) found d
13C values for reindeer of the Magdalenian sites of the Paris Basin consistent with modern
tundra caribou with substantial migratory behavior. With long-range migratory behavior,
the availability of this species as prey is dependent upon geographic position of the hunters
within the migratory range of the reindeer (Burch 1972; Spiess 1979; Enloe 1999).
The density of reindeer herds varies directly with their seasonal and geographic posi-
tion (Kelsall 1957, 1968; Pruitt 1960; Hemming 1971, 1975; Parker 1972; Miller 1974,
1976; Spiess 1979). During the winter, small bands of females and young and small bands
of males are widely dispersed in search of sparse, poor-quality forage. Hunters located in the
winter territory of reindeer can neither predict nor count upon the time or place for find-
ing animals. The most efficient tactic to ensure encounter with prey is to disperse hunters
widely in order to cover the maximum amount of territory and increase the probability of
encounter. Similarly, during the summer, those sex-differentiated bands are dispersed across
arguably richer forage ranges, but their availability still depends on opportunistic encoun-
ter (Stardom 1975; Skogland 1975, 1980; Skoog 1968). In both of these seasons, small
numbers or individual animals are killed for immediate consumption and shared among

successful and unsuccessful hunters and their families. These are the tactics that can fulfill a
foraging mode of subsistence mobility.
In contrast to the dispersion of bands over a wide territory, the scattered bands of
reindeer coalesce during the fall migration, facilitating the rutting season. For hunting
groups located along the migration routes between the summer and winter ranges, this
offers a sumptuous opportunity for a predictably large prey population at a known time
and place, prey that has been richly nourished on the high-quality summer forage. Further,
during the rut, individual animals are desensitized to the presence of large numbers of
other individuals around them (compared to summer and winter bands) and are consider-
ably less wary and more approachable by human hunters. As they are on their way out of
the region for the winter, they offer the last abundant resources in an area that will have
very little to offer for the following winter months. Such a resource is quite suitable for
logistical exploitation, for acquisition of a large quantity of food for storage. Thus, our
ability to understand the potential role that reindeer played in Magdalenian subsistence
and economy at Verberie and at other Magdalenian sites in the Paris Basin depends upon
our ability to determine the seasonality of reindeer kills.
Birth and development are highly synchronized as a major adaptive factor for this
species. Adaptive advantage accrues for individuals born late enough to avoid the last win-
ter storm but early enough to maximize growth from rich summer forage so as to acquire
sufficient fat reserves to survive the following winter. In modern populations, 95% of the
calves are born within a two week period. Tooth eruption periods are short and synchronous
during the first two years. The most accurate determination of seasonality comes from the
wear on the deciduous dentition and the eruption of the first two permanent molars. By the
third year, the third molars are erupting and deciduous teeth are being replaced by perma-
nent premolars, but the timing of their eruption is less precise and may vary by as much as
a year between individuals.
There are two groups of sub-adult individuals in the dental material of Verberie
level II-1. In the first, wear patterns from calves of the year are consistent with those
known from four-month-old individuals. The crowns are high and sharp, and the first
permanent molars are just erupting. In the second, deciduous teeth are quite worn, with
crowns significantly reduced, first permanent molars are fully erupted and in occlusion
and wear, and second permanent molars are just erupting, consistent with those known
from their second year. Measurements of crown heights of the crown heights of the D4,
the fourth deciduous premolar, indicate a clear pattern of limited seasonality (fig. 1).
Year-round acquisition would result in essentially equal frequencies across the range of
heights. Peaks and absences result from restricted seasonality of acquisition. This pat-
tern is consistent with modern individuals of the fourth and sixteenth month, two birth
cohorts killed four months after calving, during the autumn migration (David and Enloe
1992; Enloe 1997). This is the season when the reindeer are at their best nutritional
quality and are predictably available in large quantities, just prior to their leaving the
region for the winter.
While deciduous dentition offers fine-grained resolution for seasonality and age
of the youngest individuals, determination of ages beyond the first two years is more

figure 1 Crown heights of D4 juvenile dentition. Note peaks at 5-6 mm and 10-11 mm,
corresponding to second and first year birth cohorts. / Hauteurs de la couronne de den-
tition juvénile D4. Noter les pics à 5-6 mm et 10-11 mm, correspondant aux cohortes
de la première et de la deuxième année.
problematic. Rates of wear may be quite variable among and within populations. Since subjec-
tive wear-stage methods lack an epistemological control basis, researchers have tried to develop
more objective methods for determining age profiles. Tooth wear is not linear, since rates of wear
on small points of unworn crowns are greater than those on the larger area of more flattened
worn crowns. Therefore, linear measurements of crown heights yield distorted population pro-
files. Quadratic equations account for nonlinear changes in wear rates (Klein et al. 1983) and
have been derived from known age Rangifer populations (Pike-Tay et al. 2000). While such
samples have a good general control basis, there are problems in specific applicability (Enloe
and Turner 2006). When applied to the crown height measurements from Verberie, the Pike-
Tay et al. formulae yield too many young, particularly in conflict with the deciduous eruption
and wear stages, which are considered more reliable. Initial unworn crown heights may vary
significantly between populations, but adjusted formulae for Verberie original crown heights
yield too many old individuals. Additionally, formulae for individual teeth are highly vari-
able, yielding contradictory results for age determinations within the dental series of a single
individual.
The best apparent compromise is the use adjusted formulae on second and third
molars, incorporating the eruption and wear of stages of the young individuals (Enloe and

figure 2 Age classes derived from modified quadratic equations of crown heights. /
Classes d’âge dérivées des équations quadratiques modifiées de hauteurs de la couronne.
Turner 2006), from which a mortality profile (fig. 2) was derived. This includes the high-
est proportions of individual at the youngest end of the scale, except for distinct under-
representation of the fawns of the first year cohort, who may be largely missing because of
preservation problems. Frequency of individuals in successive age classes diminishes with
increasing age, with the exception of the middle of the scale, where individuals of the sixth
and seventh year cohorts are almost absent. Older individuals are more present, but becom-
ing less frequent with increasing age.
In order to evaluate this mortality profile, it was compared with the profile of classes
of age reported (Skoog 1968) for the Nelchina herd (fig. 3), based on a sample of 1,000
living individuals during the autumn migration. The proportions are apparently different,
particularly for the younger and older age classes. The differences are statistically significant,
c² = 29.0212, df = 5, p < 0.001**. This is a somewhat surprising result, as many previous
studies have identified Upper Paleolithic hunters as having focused on prime age individu-
als (Stiner 1990). These results appear to resemble what has been identified as an attritional
pattern, focused on those individuals less wary or less able to escape, frequently found as
prey of other large carnivores.
Rangifer exhibits moderate sexual dimorphism in the size of adult males and females.
It is the only cervid species in which both the males and females carry antlers. Those antlers,
however, are significantly different in size and are carried in different schedules through the
year. As a very low-density element, very few specimens of antler were preserved at Verbe-
rie to give an idea of the proportions of males and females in the assemblage of level II-1.
Osteometrics of the post-cranial elements provide a much larger sample for determination.
In comparison with skeletal measurements from a known sex control sample (Enloe 1991),

figure 3 Comparison of proportions of age classes of Verberie (black bars) with those
of a living population (grey bars). / Comparaison des proportions des classes d’âge de
Verberie (barres noires) avec celles d’une population vivante (barres grises).
measurements from the proximal radius, distal tibia, and proximal and distal metacar-
pal were chosen as most clearly discerning between males and females on bivariate plots.
While those specimens at the smaller end of the scale may include sub-adult males and
females, who have not completed their growth, as well as adult females, the proportion of
males at the larger side are surely underrepresented. Even those conservative estimates yield
more than 50% in each case (Table 3), significantly above the proportion of males present
in a modern migrating herd at the same time of the year as the Verberie kill seasonality.
Combined with the proportionally overrepresented second and third year cohorts, this may
represent selection of young males as a preferential target. These offer advantages in acces-
sibility, quantity and quality. They would represent an inexperienced age group which may
lack sufficient wariness to avoid hunters. They would have relatively large body size, a more
substantial quantity of food. As young males, they would be subdominant to the older bulls
for access to potential mates, and would not participate in competition and reproductive
activities during the rut, which takes place at the same time as the fall migration. Thus, they
would be spared the depletion of fat reserves and loss of as much as 20% of body weight that
characterize the dominant males during the rut, and would offer a superior quality as well as
quantity as prey. Thus, seasonality determinations and the demographic profile of targeted
individuals lend weight to a model of logistical acquisition of reindeer at Verberie.

Table 3
Proportions of Adult Rangifer Males in Selected
Skeletal Elements in Level II-1 at Verberie, Compared
to Modern Observation of Nelchina Herd /
Pourcentage des rennes mâles adultes dans le niveau
II-1 par comparaison avec des observations récentes
sur le troupeau de Nelchina
Element N % Male
Proximal Radius 55 62%
Distal Tibia 15 50%
Proximal Metacarpal 13 54%
Distal Metacarpal 46 51%
1
Nelchina Herd 1000 35-40%
1
From Skoog 1968.
Body Part Representation: Taphonomy and Nutritional Utility
Nutritional utility has been suggested (Binford 1978a) as providing the rationale for
decisions for butchering, transport, and consumption of the various anatomical carcass
segments of larger bodied prey, but this perspective has been challenged for taphonomic
reasons (Lyman 1985, 1993, 1994; Marean et al. 1991, 1997). Prior to evaluation of
choices made by Magdalenians for the reindeer carcasses acquired during the fall hunt,
a taphonomic assessment of preservation is in order. It has been long suggested (Brain
1969, 1981; Binford and Bertram 1977; Binford 1981) that bone density is a primary
determinant of survival throughout the entire set of biological, geological, chemical, and
physical taphonomic agents that may have operated to distort or change the nature of
the faunal assemblage from the death assemblage to the assemblage analyzed by the zoo-
archaeologist. The robust similarities of the end products, regardless of the independent
taphonomic agents, have led analysts to consider that such equifinality depends less on
the agents attacking the bones than on structural characteristic of the bones themselves,
in particular the differential densities not only of different skeletal elements but of vari-
ous portions of those elements. These range from the dense, thick cortical walls of mid-
diaphysis shafts (Marean and Kim 1998) to the thin-walled, spongy epiphyseal ends at
the articular surfaces. This density has been measured by a variety of techniques, from
immersion (Binford and Bertram 1977) to photon densitometry (Lyman 1994) and
computed tomography (Lam et al. 1999). The computed tomography technique offers
the distinct advantage of accounting for empty medullar cavity space in computing
density for the areas of bones surrounding them, and probably offers the most accurate
means of assessing density for studies of bone preservation. Lam et al.’s (1999) figures for
density of 36 scan sites on Rangifer skeletal elements were compared to % survivorship,

the proportion of elements preserved divided by the number of those elements origi-
nally present in the minimum number of individuals (MNI) for the level II-1 assem-
blage (Table 4, fig. 4). These analyses (Enloe 2004) indicate a very poor correlation
between proportional survivorship of the archaeological elements and their density (r² =
0.02176). This suggests that the various taphonomic agencies which result in assemblage
equifinality via density-mediated attrition were not the primary determinants of skeletal
element representation on level II1 of Verberie, and that the content of the faunal assem-
blage can be reliably used to make inferences about human behavior at the site.
Table 4
Preservation / Verberie, le Buisson Campin, Conservation
différentielle des éléments du squelette
Element MNE MNI CT Density1 % Survivorship
Cranium 19 10 1.29 47.5

Mandible 28 16 1.07 35
Atlas 13 13 0.49 32.5
Axis 14 14 0.62 35
Cervical 36 8 0.45 18
Thoracic 90 7 0.38 16.07
Lumbar 23 5 0.45 8.2
Sacrum 12 9 0.37 30
Ribs 83 15 0.47 7.41
Sternum 5 5 - 12.5
Scapula 30 21 1.01 37.5
Humerus proximal 27 19 1.12 33.75
Humerus distal 45 23 0.48 56.25
Radius proximal 65 33 1.08 81.25
Radius distal 44 27 0.49 55
Ulna 19 11 0.84 23.75
Carpals 11 6 0.69 13.75
Metacarpal proximal 75 39 0.92 93.75
Metacarpal distal 75 40 0.68 93.75
Os coxae 36 18 0.64 45
Femur proximal 5 3 0.74 6.25
Femur distal 12 6 0.61 15
Patella 11 6 0.57 13.75
Tibia proximal 39 20 1.13 48.75
Tibia distal 38 20 0.73 47.5
Tarsals 17 9 0.68 -
Malleolus 12 8 - 15

Table 4 (Continued)
Element MNE MNI CT Density1 % Survivorship
Astragalus 21 10 0.63 26.25

Calcaneum 15 8 0.66 18.75
Naviculocuboid 8 5 0.55 10
Cuneiform 6 4 0.71 7.5
Metatarsal proximal 38 26 0.90 48.75
Metatarsal distal 34 19 0.59 47.5
Phalanx I 136 18 0.71 42.5
Phalanx II 116 19 0.61 36.25
Phalanx III 48 6 0.48 15
1
From Lam, et al., 1999:351–353 (Table 1).
figure 4 Relative survivorship of skeletal elements compared to bone density

of equivalent elements from modern control specimens measured by computed
tomography, indicating a very poor correlation to density mediated attrition. / Survie
relative des éléments squelettiques par comparaison avec la densité osseuse mesurée par
tomographie des éléments équivalents de spécimens de contrôle modernes; elle indique
une corrélation très faible avec la densité caractéristique de l’attrition.

Having dealt with the possibility of preservational bias in the skeletal element represen-
tation, we can now proceed to address questions about human behavior and choices based on
nutritional utility. The presence of numerous intact vertebral columns at Verberie, in contrast
to their near absence at Pincevent, led to the suggestion that Verberie was a place of initial
acquisition and butchering, with the abandonment of low nutritional utility body parts at or
near the kill site. A fuller examination of the proportional representation of all of the skeletal
elements for level II-1 (Table 2) compares the % survivorship with Binford’s (1978a) Modified
General Utility Index (MGUI), a comprehensive index of combined meat, marrow, and bone
grease nutritional utility. This analysis yields a reverse utility curve (fig. 5), in which skeletal
elements with low nutritional utility (e.g., vertebrae, metacarpals, and phalanges) are very well
represented and those with high nutritional utility (e.g., sternum, femur, and ribs) are poorly
represented. This pattern is consistent with abandonment of low utility elements at the kill
figure 5 Relative survival of skeletal elements compared to Modified General Utility

Index (Binford 1978a) for modern control specimens. High proportion of low nutritional
utility elements and low proportion of high nutritional utility elements indicates a reverse
utility curve of elements abandoned at a kill location. / Survie relative des éléments
squelettiques comparée à l’indice utilitaire général modifié (MGUI) (Binford 1978a)
pour des spécimens de contrôle moderne. Une forte proportion d’éléments de faible
utilité nutritionnelle et une faible proportion d’éléments de haute utilité nutritionnelle
indiquent une courbe utilitaire inverse d’éléments abandonnés à l’endroit d’abattage.

or initial butchery site and transport of high utility elements away to a consumption loca-
tion. This contrast is quite marked in comparing element representation at Verberie to that at
Pincevent. Those elements that are virtually absent at Pincevent, in particular the vertebrae,
are much more highly represented at Verberie; high value femora are underrepresented at
Verberie, and have among the highest representation at Pincevent. While the two assemblages
share many attributes, these extremes in presence/absence according to nutritional utility sug-
gest somewhat of a complementary nature. The representation pattern at Verberie suggests a
“transported from” assemblage, while that at Pincevent suggests more of a “transported to”
assemblage. This difference is consistent with a logistical collecting model, with different kinds
of assemblage contents at sites fulfilling different roles in seasonal or residential mobility.
Butchering Patterns
Treatment of carcasses may also reflect different stages of processing consistent with move-
ment of resources across the landscape, and may help us identify site roles in a foraging to
logistical collecting continuum. We would expect the full panoply of indications of carcass
processing at a foragers’ residential site, with everything from kill and initial butchery, final
butchery for distribution among consumers, and cooking preparation. This spectrum may
be more segmented in a logistical system, with discrete activities spatially separated at differ-
ent sites on the landscape. The presence and location of cut marks may help us identify how
much of that spectrum was present at a given site. At Verberie, few cut marks are visible, due
to high rates of vermiculation, or root etching, on the surfaces of otherwise well-preserved
bones. Surface damage destroyed or obscured most cut mark information that might have
been expected. Cut marks were clearly identified on a relatively few specimens, four radii
(fig. 6), two humeri and one tibia (fig. 7), and all were placed in locations in or adjacent
to articulations. This pattern is consistent with primary dismemberment of carcasses, in
preparation for transport to another location.
Another indication of stages of butchering can be seen in the in situ articulations of car-
cass portions discovered during the excavation. Notable among them are the aforementioned
vertebral columns, ranging from four to ten vertebrae each, but there were also numerous
examples of articulated distal radii and carpals, distal tibia and tarsals, and phalanges and ses-
amoids, essentially wrists, ankles, and feet that were chopped off as discarded units without
having been internally disarticulated. Again, this low nutritional utility culling is consistent
with reduction of weight from more valuable pieces that were to be carried elsewhere.
There are, however, some indications of carcass processing for consumption rather than
transport. Numerous skeletal elements have distinct breakage patterns for the extraction of
marrow. Among those elements with low general utility, metacarpals and metatarsals have the
first and third greatest representation of all skeletal elements. This low nutritional value, reflect-
ing the lack of meat on them, is similar to that of vertebrae and phalanges, but the metacarpals
and metatarsals are particularly valuable for their marrow content, which includes caloric rich
fats. These are elements that are frequently reported in the ethnographic literature as being
consumed by hunters at the acquisition location, rather than being transported back to a loca-
tion for sharing with other consumers. At Verberie, these elements are systematically broken
for marrow extraction and then abandoned with the other low-utility elements at the site.

12.51 M7.71 M5.495 H20.50
figure 6 Disarticulation cutmark locations on proximal radius specimens from

Verberie. / Emplacements des traces de découpe de désarticulation sur des radiocubitus
proximauxde Verberie.
L5.316 L5.271 G3.6
figure 7 Disarticulation cutmark locations on humerus and tibia specimens from

Verberie. / Emplacements des traces de découpe de désarticulation sur des humérus et
des tibias de Verberie.

Site Formation and Site Structure: Taphonomy
In order to use site structure, the spatial patterning of features and artifactual material, as
a means of diagnosis of site function and labor organization, it must first be demonstrated
that the configuration is indeed a function of human behavioral organization. A growing
body of knowledge about the complexities of site formation processes argues that natural
processes that might affect the spatial organization must be discounted before that pattern-
ing can be ascribed to human behavior. In an alluvial depositional situation, such as that
of the over-bank flooding that preserved the fauna at Verberie, water flow may winnow or
sort the contents of the assemblage, either removing or bringing in the smallest and lightest
particles as a function of their mass versus the water flow (Hanson 1980). Since a wide range
of artifactual particle sizes of both flint and bone are intimately associated on the occupation
surfaces, this was not deemed a significant problem.
Another indicator of significant water flow and its potential for removing or distorting
the spatial distribution of artifactual material can be seen in the orientation of elongated
objects. Such objects tend to align themselves parallel or perpendicular to the direction of
the flow. Clustering or dispersion of orientation axes can be observed on a rose diagram.
When water flow is not sufficiently strong to disturb the spatial patterning, orientations
are distributed in a randomly dispersed fashion; when water flow has perturbed the dis-
tribution, the orientations cluster at right angles to each other. Orientation of elongated
objects was measured by recording three-dimensional coordinates of the end points of such
objects, using an electronic total theodolite, beginning in 1991. A limited sample of 227
elongated objects was recorded from 34 m² in level II-1 (fig. 8). They were subjected to
two-dimensional orientation analysis, using the Rose version 7 program (RockWare, 1995).
The resulting rose diagram shows a substantially dispersed pattern of orientation. A larger
sample of 525 elongated items from 66 m² from level II-2 (fig. 9) yields an even more
robust pattern. The patterns of orientation can be statistically evaluated by eigenvectors,
indicating the axes of maximum clustering in the data (Benn 1994:910), and eigenvalues,
indicating the degree of clustering around three mutually orthogonal eigenvectors. Roughly
equal eigenvalues for the first two eigenvectors indicate orientations that are randomly ori-
ented (McPherron 2005:1007). Both levels II-1 and II-2 have roughly equivalent first and
second eigenvalues (Table 5), calculated with StereoWin Version 1.2 (Allmendinger 2002),
indicating random orientations and no determination of orientation or spatial arrangement
by fluvial action (Enloe 2006). This supports the idea that water flow did not significantly
disturb the content or spatial configuration of the artifacts on the occupation surfaces, and
thus the spatial patterning can be confidently assigned to the organization of activities by the
human occupants of the site.
The Organization of the Campsite: Butchering Areas
For primary butchering activities, two factors can be used to examine site structure: configura-
tion and content. Configuration is the spatial array of items on the occupation surface. Leroi-
Gourhan had developed models of configuration for identifying complex, polyvalent activity
areas around the major domestic hearths at Pincevent. Differential deposits of varying densities

figure 8 Orientation analysis of elongated objects from level II-1 of Verberie. / Analyse
de l’orientation des artefacts longs du niveau II-1 de Verberie.
characterize the organization of material on the occupational surface of level II-1 at Verberie.
There are materials adjacent to and around the hearths at D1 and M20. Between these hearths
is a major concentration of multiple types of debris covering approximately nine square meters.
This includes substantial quantities of fire-cracked rock, flint fragments, and reindeer bone.
Artifact density of thousands of pieces per square meter strongly suggests that this accumula-
tion represents the major trash dump for the occupation of the site on level II-1.
Other artifactual debris is dispersed more sparsely beyond the hearths and dump,
but still suggests patterned deposition that may be interpretable in terms of the organiza-
tion of labor on the surface of the campsite. Audouze (1988) long ago noticed areas of

figure 9 Orientation analysis of elongated objects from level II-2 of Verberie. / Analyse
de l’orientation des artifacts longs du niveau II-2 de Verberie.
sparse artifactual remains that resembled the spatial patterning in the ethnoarchaeological
observations by Binford (1983). Initial butchering of carcasses is an encumbering and messy
process, not one that is likely to occur in the polyvalent activity areas adjacent to the pri-
mary hearths. It requires extensive space and is inconsistent with other activities. Binford
reported that the process of butchering by the Nunamiut resulted in the discard of low food
utility carcass elements around the carcass as it was butchered on its skin. When the high-
utility elements were removed for consumption or storage, a relatively empty circular area
remained free of bones where the skin had covered the ground. Several similarly configured
areas of empty space surrounded by reindeer skeletal elements are located to the north of the

Table 5
Statistical Measures of the Clustering of the Horizontal Orientation
of Elongated Objects on Two Occupation Surfaces at Verberie /
Mesures statistiques du regroupement des orientations horizontales
des vestiges longs au sein de deux sols d’occupation de Verberie
Level II-1 II-2
N 227 525
Mean Vector 321.5 337.7
Mean Vector Length 0.6289 0.6513
Eigenvector 1 279.2 308.5
Eigenvalue 1 0.5072 0.5135
Eigenvalue 2 0.4926 0.4863
Eigenvalue 3 1.3802 1.2129
hearths and dump (fig. 10). By analogy to the Nunamiut sites, Audouze interpreted these as
butchering circles. Subsequent excavation to deeper, earlier occupation surfaces at Verberie
has yielded similar configurational patterns. On level II-3, the circular area devoid of bone
debris contained a concentration of unretouched flint blades in its center, similar in aspect
to those bearing meat polish on their edges and found adjacent to empty circles on level II-1.
This would be consistent with redundant initial butchering activities at multiple occupa-
tions of Verberie, reinforcing its identity as a hunting camp.
We can evaluate the idea that the spatial patterning in such circular distributions
should be interpreted as butchering areas by examining the content of these configurational
patterns by comparing the skeletal elements present or absent in and around the butchering
circles to those in the large trash dump around square H19 (fig. 11). Skeletal element con-
tent was observed for the sparser distribution of bones around the three butchering circles
and compared to that of the squares containing the dump concentration, and a statistical
analysis was performed. There are highly significant difference in proportions of elements
represented in the two areas (c² = 40.387, df = 25, p = 0.027**). Phalanges, ribs, and
cranial elements are the most abundant in both areas, but only ribs, tarsals, and thoracic
vertebrae showed statistically significant differences between the two areas. Ribs, repre-
sented by the countable landmarks or their heads and necks at their articulation with the
thoracic vertebrae, are significantly overrepresented in the butchering area (c² = 10.180,
df = 1, p = 0.001**), as are tarsals (c² = 8.444, df = 1, p = 0.020**) and thoracic vertebrae
(c² = 5.582, df = 1, p = 0.018**). These are low nutritional utility elements that were dis-
carded in the initial butchering of reindeer carcasses. They have no marrow cavities, and once
the meat had been stripped off the exterior of these elements, they were discarded in place
with no further processing. This difference in the content of the two areas is consistent with
the configurationally identified pattern of butchering areas for the initial dismemberment of

figure 10 Butchering circles matching the spatial configurations of Binford’s Nunamiut

butchering areas at Nunavik. / Aires circulaires de boucherie correspondant aux
configurations spatiales des zones de dépeçage observées par Binford chez les Nunamiut
au Nunavik.
carcasses immediately after the kill. It is also consistent with the evidence from the cut mark
locations and the patterns of small, low-utility element articulations removed from larger
elements that were transported away from the initial butchering site.
Refitting and Food Sharing
Another aspect of spatial organization that can be examined for inferences about the
demographics and organization of labor at the campsite involves the spatial distribution
of skeletal elements that have been identified as having come from individual reindeer
carcasses. Refitting of carcass portions has been used to investigate carcass processing and
food sharing patterns at level IV-20 of Pincevent. The distribution of portions of reindeer
carcasses among at least five domestic hearths at the residential site of Pincevent clearly
shows that food sharing was taking place at the point of consumption. The hearths are
dispersed over a large campsite area, of which more than 4,500 m² of contemporaneous
space have been exposed. A combination of mechanical refits of broken bones, bilat-
eral parings, and articulations of adjacent elements was used to identify elements having
been derived from single individuals (Enloe 1991; Enloe and David 1989, 1992). Spatial
patterning of those refits revealed extensive dispersion of meat-bearing elements among

figure 11 Areas selected for statistical test of difference in skeletal element representa-
tion, level II-1. / Zones sélectionnées pour un test statistique de représentation différen-
tielle des éléments squelettiques, niveau II-1.
numerous hearth-centered domestic household units separated by up to 63 meters (Enloe

1992). Individual carcasses are partitioned and portions are asymmetrically distributed
among household units. These are not universally distributed, but appear to cohere with
a pattern as illustrated by Yellen (1977a:287) for multistage sharing among !Kung, where
producers give some food to their closest kin, most often parents or in-laws, who are in
turn expected to give to other kin who did not receive directly. We might think of this
as a “convection cell” because the proceeds of the hunt move up a generation in the kin-
ship before moving laterally and back down. In most cases, this down-the-line structure
distributes something to virtually everyone in the residential camp. The distribution at
Pincevent IV-20 yields a pattern consistent with food sharing between members of an
economically and socially integrated community of multiple domestic or family units
(Enloe and David 1989, 1992; Enloe 2003). This is the spatial pattern we might expect
at a consumption location, to which food resources have been transported from the kill
and initial butchering location in a logistically organized mobility system.
The same analyses were performed on the faunal assemblage for level II-1 of Ver-
berie, but the results indicated a substantially different pattern of distribution. Forelimb
refits include bilaterally paired distal humeri and proximal radii and paired and articulated
humeri and radii, representing the same carcass portions that were widely shared among
households at Pincevent. Their spatial distribution at Verberie demonstrates a markedly

different pattern (fig. 12). The meat-bearing elements do not show individual carcasses
partitioned between hearths, but rather a concentration of refits essentially in the H19
dump area between hearths D1 and M20. This suggests that carcasses were not segmented
and dispersed among different consumers at household hearths, a pattern frequently seen
at consumption locations among modern hunter-gatherers (e.g., Yellen 1977) and inferred
for Pincevent. Instead, the pattern at Verberie may indicate more corporate processing of
carcasses from the butchering circle north of the hearths to the dump south of the hearths.
It must be taken into consideration that a much smaller surface area of this site has been
exposed than is the case at Pincevent (ca. 400 m² versus 4,500 m²). Nonetheless, substantial
portions of the forelimbs of a considerable number of individuals have been refitted. Within
the MNI of 33 for the upper forelimbs (humerus and radius), 61 specimens could be refitted
for 12 individual carcasses (5.08 specimens/individual). This can be compared to Pincevent,
with an MNI of 41 for the same elements; refits represented 118 specimens for 24 individuals
(4.91 specimens/individual). Thus, even more refitting elements per individual were found
figure 12 Refits of meat-bearing forelimb bones overlain on density of bone remains,

level II-1. / Remontages de segments des os charnus de la patte avant projetés sur un plan
de densité des restes osseux, niveau II-1.

at Verberie. Calculation of the maximum dispersion of the more complete individual carcass
portions yields a mean maximum distance of just over four meters between the farthest
separated elements of any of the 12 most completely refitted carcass portions. This can be
compared with a mean distance between similar refits at Pincevent more on the order of
20 meters. The great distance between the two sites is not merely a function of the area
excavated at each. While these are spread over an area more than 10 times larger than the
area of Verberie, which has half as many individuals. The dispersion of individuals at Verbe-
rie is much more concentrated, irrespective of area excavated or total number of individu-
als. The much shorter distance between fragments of refitted individuals reflects this same
concentration.
This translates into a very different scheme of distribution at Verberie for the upper
forelimb elements, which were the most widely dispersed or shared portions of carcasses
at Pincevent. At Verberie, the most securely refitted carcasses are principally clustered in
a single large midden, located between the two major hearths. This common dump for
the two hearths may suggest meals taken communally, that sharing was taking place at
the level of consumption, rather than at the level of distribution of portions of carcasses
to different consumer groups. If that is the case, then the hearths at Verberie do not rep-
resent the same kind of domestic units that they do at Pincevent. The major hearths may
be related to different functions rather than different residence groups (Binford 1978b;
Jarvenpa and Brumbach 1983); they may not play the same roles as hearths in residential
base camps. This is very important for understanding differences in the overall spatial
organization of the prehistoric occupation, with significant implications for identification
of the functional role of the entire site as well as for the demography and labor organiza-
tion of its inhabitants.
Implications for Demography
The targeting of reindeer as a key prey species for subsistence has major implications
for the organization of labor, mobility, and residential demography. Given the seasonality
of the occupation at Verberie, reindeer appear to have been exploited strategically, as a key
resource for delayed consumption (Woodburn 1982; Testart 1988). Rigorous climatic con-
ditions indicated by the faunal spectrum suggest limited prey encounters outside of specific
predictable windows of opportunity during the fall migration, necessitating maximization
of substantial prey for storage. Skeletal element representation is not seriously biased by
taphonomic processes, and indicates a reverse utility curve of low nutritional value body
parts abandoned at the locus of initial butchering. Cut marks, although sparse due to high
proportions of root etching of the bone surfaces in otherwise well preserved specimens, and
partial articulations are consistent with initial butchering at or very near the kill site. While
the mortality profile suggests an attritional pattern dominated by younger and older indi-
viduals, there appears to be some targeting of prereproductive or subdominant males. Those
are the individuals who would maintain the largest body mass without having depleted
their fat reserves since they would not have participated significantly in competitive and
reproductive activities during the rut. This offers precisely the nature of food resource to be
exploited within a system of logistical collecting.

Taphonomic analyses of the content of the faunal assemblage and of the spatial distri-
bution indicate little reason to suspect major bias in the patterning found at Verberie. There
is the evident and ethnoarchaeological support for interpreting the configuration of both
content and spatial pattering of areas of the site as butchering areas, for initial carcass pro-
cessing prior to transport to a presumed residential consumption site located elsewhere. The
patterning observed in the carcass refitting and its spatial distribution suggests corporate
carcass processing in a central area, rather than distribution and household partitioning for
consumption in family groups. This suggest a distinctly different organization of labor at
the butchering site of Verberie, one in which a task group of more or less similar individuals
worked as a unified group for processing carcasses for transport to another location for con-
sumption, rather than one with segmentary consumption units who partitioned carcasses
for distribution among them.
Carcasses were not systematically portioned out between different consumption
locations. The kinds of reciprocal or donor-recipient relationships seen at Pincevent are
not evident in the spatial distribution of reindeer carcasses at Verberie. This suggests that
the demography of the occupants at Verberie did not correspond to that which would be
expected of a residential camp, which would include adult men and women, with juveniles
and infants, in short, all members of the society assembled at one place. The occupation at
Verberie may have been composed of a limited subset of the society, a specific task group
such as a hunting party occupying a short-term camp away from the residential base in
order to procure a crucial food resource to be subsequently transported for consumption at
the longer-term residential camp. One conclusion that could be drawn is that entire fami-
lies, the expected consumption group, may not have been present at the campsite. Such a
pattern would be consistent with logistical acquisition of a key resource at a critical time and
place, in contrast to residential consumption at a site such as Pincevent IV-20.
In the larger picture, the results of this analysis focus on the contrast in the patterns
of distribution of meat among the respective hearths at Verberie and Pincevent, and do not
take into account the totality of the analyses of other classes of data at Verberie. The argu-
ments by other authors in this volume (particularly Janny, concerning the varying levels of
technical competence in flint knapping, and Audouze, concerning spatial differentiation
of tasks and activities) suggest the presence of women and children in the demography of
the occupation of this level. The implications for the meat-sharing argument hold if the
two main hearths, D1 and M20, are not equivalent household units such as those seen
at Pincevent, but rather are complementary domestic and technical areas. If, as suggested
by Audouze (this volume), the occupation of Verberie represents residential mobility by a
single nuclear family, we would not expect an elaborate carcass sharing pattern, and it would
be more appropriate to employ the other analyses to determine demography and the role
of the site in regional mobility. The other important possibility is that our excavations have
selectively discovered only a partial sample of potential multiple household domestic units,
precluding demonstration of food sharing among them. This would not explain the concen-
tration of refitted elements in the relatively constrained space of the excavations at Verberie.
The discovery and demonstration of contemporaneity of other organized domestic units
would advance our evaluation of our debates about the structure, demography, and seasonal
and geographic role of the occupation of level II-1.

Acknowledgments
I would like to express my appreciation to the following colleagues, without whom this work
would not have been possible: Clare Tolmie, University of Iowa, for identification of the
skeletal elements of the ground squirrels; Anastasia Markova, Russian Academy of Sciences,
for identification of the other microfauna; John Cordell, Office of the State Archaeologist,
Iowa, for the identification of the bird species; Adrian Lister, University College London,
for AMS dating and stable isotope analysis of the mammoth bone; Ariane Burke, Université
de Montréal, for sectioning and analysis of horse teeth; J. Alan Holman, Michigan State
University, for identification of the frogs; Shannon McPherron, Max Planck Institute, for
advice on the orientation analysis; Jessica White and Grant McCall, University of Iowa,
and Matthew Bonan, Tim Spier, and Michael Romano, Department of Biological Sciences,
Western Illinois University, for assistance in the statistical analysis of the contents of the
butchering and dump areas.
References Cited
Audouze, F. 1988 Les activités de boucherie à Verberie (Oise). In Technologie Préhistorique, J. Tixier,
editor, pp. 97–111. Notes et Monographies Techniques No. 25. Éditions du CNRS, Paris.
Audouze, F., and J. G. Enloe 1997 High Resolution Archaeology at Verberie: Limits and
Interpretations. World Archaeology 29:195–207.
Beaver, J. E. 2004 Identifying Necessity and Sufficiency Relationships in Skeletal-Part
Representation Using Fuzzy-Set Theory. American Antiquity 69:131–140.
Behrensmeyer, A. K., and A. P. Hill (editors) 1980 Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and
Paleoecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Binford, L. R. 1978a Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1978b Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo
Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43:330–361.
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.
Binford, L. R. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1984 Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R., and J. B. Bertram 1977 Bone Frequencies—And Attritional Processes. In For Theory
Building in Archaeology, L. R. Binford, editor, pp. 77–153. Academic Press, New York.
Brain, C. K. 1969 The Contribution of Namib Desert Hottentots to an Understanding of Australo-
pithecine Bone Accumulations. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station 39:13–22.
Bodu, P., and M. Julien 1987 La vie des Magdaléniens à Pincevent. In Aperçu sur l’Actualité de la Recher-
che Préhistorique en Ile-de-France, pp. 11–22. Direction des Antiquités Préhistoriques, Paris.
Brain, C. K. 1981 The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Burch, E. S., Jr. 1972 The Caribou/Wild Reindeer as a Human Resource. American Antiquity
37(3):339–368.

David, F., and J. G. Enloe 1992 Chasse saisonnière des Magdaléniens du bassin parisien. Bulletin et
Mémoire de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 4:167–174.
Drucker, D. 2005 Ecologie des rennes chassé par les hommes préhistoriques : que peuvent dire les
isotopes du carbone? Annales de la Fondation Fyssen 20:90–97.
Enloe, J. G. 1992 Le partage de la nourriture à partir des témoins archéologiques: Une application
ethnoarchéologique. In Ethnoarchéologie: Justification, Problèmes, Limites, A. Gallay, F. Audouze,
and V. Roux, editors, pp. 307–323. Centre de Recherches Archéologiques du CNRS, Éditions
APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.
Enloe, J. G. 1997 Seasonality and Age Structure in Remains of Rangifer Tarandus: Magdalenian
Hunting Strategy at Verberie. Anthropozoologica 25–26:95–102.
Enloe, J. G. 1998 Fonction des sites et chasse spécialisée: Variation régionale pendant la période
magdalénienne. In Économie Préhistorique: Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique,
J. P. Brugal, L. Meignen, et M. Pathou-Mathis, editors, pp. 363–372. Éditions APDCA,
Sophia Antipolis.
Enloe, J. G. 1999 Hunting Specialization: Single-Species Focus and Human Adaptation. In Le
Bison: Gibier et Moyen de Subsistance des Hommes du Paléolithique aux Paléoindiens des Grandes
Plaines, J. P Brugal, F. David, J. Enloe, and J. Jaubert, editors, pp. 501–509. Editions APDCA,
Antibes.
Enloe, J. G. 2003a Acquisition and Processing of Reindeer in the Paris Basin. In Zooarchaeological
Insights into Magdalenian Lifeways, S. Costamagno and V. Laroulandie, editors, pp. 23–31.
British Archaeological Reports International Series 1144.
Enloe, J. G. 2003b Food Sharing Past and Present: Archaeological Evidence for Economic and Social
Interaction. Before Farming: the archaeology and anthropology of hunter-gatherers 2003/1 (1):1–23.
Enloe, J. G. 2004 Equifinality, Assemblage Integrity, and Behavioral Inferences at Verberie. Journal
of Taphonomy 2(3):147–165.
Enloe, J. G. 2006 Geological Processes and Site Structure: Assessing Integrity at a Late Paleolithic
Open-Air Site. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 21(6):14–23.
Enloe, J. G., and F. Audouze 1997 Le rôle de l’environnement dans la vie des chasseurs magdaléniens
du Bassin parisien. In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Ouest, J. P. Fagnart, and A. Thevenin,
editors, pp. 177–186. Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris.
Enloe, J. G., and F. David 1989 Le remontage des os par individus: le partage du renne chez les
Magdaléniens de Pincevent (La Grande Paroisse, Seine-et-Marne). Bulletin de la Société Préhis-
torique Française 86(9):275–281.
Enloe, J. G., and F. David 1992 Food Sharing in the Paleolithic: Carcass Refitting at Pincevent.
In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, J. L. Hofman and
J. G. Enloe, editors, pp. 296–315. British Archaeological Reports International Series 578.
Enloe, J. G., and E. Turner 2006 Methodological Problems and Biases in Age Determinations:
A View from the Magdalenian. In Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones:
9 th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002, D. Ruscillo, editor, pp. 129–146. Oxbow Press, Oxford.
Fontana, L. 1998 Mobilité et subsistance au Magdalénien dans le Languedoc occidental et le Roussillon.
è
Thèse de III cycle, Université de Paris I.
Fontana, L. 1999 Mobilité et subsistance au Magdalénien dans le Bassin de l’Aude, Bulletin de la
Société Préhistorique Française 96(2):1–16.

Fontana, L. 2000 La chasse au Renne au Paléolithique supérieur dans le Sud-Ouest de la France :

nouvelles hypothèses de travail. Paléo 12:141–164.
Gamble, C. 1991 An Introduction to the Living Spaces of Mobile Peoples. In Ethnoarchaeological
Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies, C. Gamble and
W. Boismier, editors, pp. 1–23. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Guthrie, R. D. 1990). Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe: The Study of Blue Babe. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hemming, J. E. 1971 The Distribution and Movement Patterns of the Caribou in Alaska. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Technical Bulletin No. 1.
Hemming, J. E. 1975 Population Growth and Movement Patterns of the Nelchina Caribou Herd.
Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Special Report No. 1:162–169.
Ioannidou, E. 2003 Taphonomy of Animal Bones: Species, Age, and Breed Variability of Sheep,
Cattle, and Pig Bone Density. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:355–365.
Jarvenpa, R., and H. J. Brumbach 1983 Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on an Athapaskan Moose
Kill. Arctic 36(2):174–184.
Julien, M., C. Karlin, and B. Valentin 1992 Déchets de silex, déchets de pierres chauffées. De l’intérêt
des remontages à Pincevent (France). In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting
Studies in Archaeology, J. L. Hofman and J. G. Enloe, editors. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 578.
Kelsall, J. P. 1957 Continued Barren-Ground Caribou Studies. Canadian Wildlife Service, Wildlife
Management Bulletin Series 1:12.
Kelsall, J. P. 1968 The Migratory Barren-Ground Caribou of Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service
Monograph 3.
Klein, R. G., K. Allwarden, and C. Wolf 1983 The Calculation and Interpretation of Ungulate Age
Profiles from Dental Crown Heights. In Hunter-gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European
Perspective, G. Bailey, editor, pp. 47–58. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lam, Y. M., X. Chen, C. W. Marean, and C. J. Frey 1998 Bone Density and Long Bone
Representation in Archaeological Faunas: Comparing Results from CT and Photon
Densitometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:559–570.
Lam, Y. M., X. Chen, and O. M. Pearson 1999 Intertaxonomic Variability in Patterns of Bone
Density and the Differential Representation of Bovid, Cervid, and Equid Elements in the
Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 64:343–362.
Leroi-Gourhan, Arlette, and André Leroi-Gourhan 1964 Chronologie des grottes d’Arcy-sur-Cure
(Yonne). Gallia Préhistoire VII:1–64.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and M. Brézillon 1966 L’habitation magdalénienne no. 1 de Pincevent près
Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire IX(2):263–385.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and M. Brézillon 1972 Fouilles de Pincevent: Essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un
e
habitat magdalénien (la Section 36). VII Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire.
Lyman, R. L. 1984 Bone Density and Differential Survivorship of Fossil Classes. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 3:259–299.
Lyman, R. L. 1985 Bone Frequencies, Differential Transport, In Situ Destruction, and the MGUI.
Journal of Archaeological Science 12:221–236.

Lyman, R. L. 1993 Density-Mediated Attrition of Bone Assemblages: New Insights. In From Bones
to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal
Remains, Hudson, editor, pp. 324–341. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper No. 21.
Lyman, R. L. 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Maurean, C. W., and L. M. Spencer 1991 Impact of Carnivore Ravaging on Zooarchaeological
Measure of Element Abundance. American Antiquity 56:645–658.
Marean, C. W., and C. J. Frey 1997 Animal Bones from Caves to Cities: Reverse Utility Curves as
Methodological Artifacts. American Antiquity 62(4):698–711.
Marean, C. W., and S. Y. Kim 1998 Mousterian Large-Mammal Remains from Kobeh Cave:
Behavioral Implications for Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. Current Anthropology
39:S79–113.
Miller, F. L. 1974 Biology of the Kaminuriak Population of Barren-ground Caribou, Part 2.
Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series 31.
Miller, F. L. 1976 Biology of the Kaminuriak Population of Barren-Ground Caribou, Part 3.
Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series 36.
O’Connell, J. F. 1987 Alyawara Site Structure and Its Archaeological Implications. American
Antiquity 52:74–108.
Parker, G. R. 1972 Biology of the Kaminuriak Population of Barren-ground Caribou. Canadian
Wildlife Service Report Series Number 20.
Pike-Tay, A., C. A. Morcomb, and M. O’Farrell 2000 Reconsidering the Quadratic Crown Height
Method of Age Estimation for Rangifer from Archaeological Sites. Archaeozoologica XI:145–174.
Pruitt, W. O. 1960 Behavior of the Barren-Ground Caribou. Biological Papers of the University of
Alaska No. 3:1–43.
Schiffer, M. B. 1983 Toward the Identification of Site Formation Processes. American Antiquity
48:675–706.
Spiess, A. E. 1979 Reindeer and Caribou Hunters: An Archaeological Study. Academic Press, New York.
Skogland, T. 1975 Range and Food Selectivity by Wild Reindeer in Southern Norway. Biological
Papers of the University of Alaska, Special Report No. 1:342–354.
Skogland, T. 1980 Comparative Summer Feeding Strategies of Arctic and Alpine Rangifer. Journal of
Animal Ecology 49:81–98.
Skoog, R. O. 1968 Ecology of the Caribou in Alaska. Doctoral dissertation, University of California.
Stardom, R. R. P. 1975 Woodland Caribou and Snow Conditions in Southeast Manitoba. Biological
Papers of the University of Alaska, Special Report No. 1:324–334.
Stiner, M. C. 1990 The Use of Mortality Patterns in Archaeological Studies of Hominid Predatory
Adaptations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:305–351.
Testart, A. 1982 The Significance of Food Storage among Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns,
Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23(5):523–530.
Testart, A. 1988 Some Major Problems in the Social Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Current
Anthropology 29(1):1–31.
Wiessner, P. 1980 Risk, Reciprocity, and Social Influences on !Kung San Economics. In Politics and
History in Band Societies, E. Leacock and R. Lee, editors, pp. 61–84. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

Wiessner, P. 1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: A Comment on Binford’s Analysis of
Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47(1):171–178.
Weinstock, J. 2000 Osteometry as a Source of Refined Demographic Information: Sex Ratios
of Reindeer, Hunting Strategies, and Herd Control in the Late Glacial Site of Stellmoor,
Northern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:1187–1195.
Woodburn, J. 1968 An Introduction to Hadza Ecology. In Man the Hunter, R. B. Lee and I. DeVore,
editors, pp. 49–55. Aldine, New York.
Woodburn, J. 1982 Egalitarian Societies. Man 17:431–451.
Yellen, J. E. 1977 Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains: Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen. In
Experimental Archeology, D. Ingersoll, J. E. Yellen, and W. Macdonald, editors, pp. 271–331.

Chapter Four
Technologie Lithique à Verberie
Production Domestique et Apprentissage
Frédéric Janny
Abstract The technological analysis of the flint knapping at Verberie indi-

cates the presence of two operational knapping schemes: one is dedicated to
producing blades and the other one to producing bladelets either on lamellar cores or
on laminar cores during or at the end of the extraction process. The blades operational
sequence is processed from two opposed striking platforms with one front crest and one
or two back crests when the knapping is made by a highly skilled knapper. A prepara-
tion stage with a hard stone hammer is followed by one or several blade extraction
stages performed by tangential percussion with a soft organic hammer, after one or in
between several core rejuvenation stages. Flint refitting evidences unskilled knapping
performed at a late stage on several cores as well as unproductive knapping on new
blocks. They can be attributed to young people at the beginning or in the course of
their training.
The lithic assemblage is typical of the late Magdalenian. The calibration of tools
through retouch makes up for the variability observed in the raw materials selection
and the technical heterogeneity of the blanks, particularly for the burins that share
common physical and mechanical properties. The microwear analysis proves that
many regular raw or retouched blades were use for butchering or for cutting or scrap-
ing hide. Backed bladelets were exclusively used in projectile technology, inserted on
bone or wooden points. Their delineation, their proportions, and their retouch vary
according to different sub-types. Looking at the raw materials and blanks selection for
tools, and the subsequent tools calibration, one can conclude that the Magdalenians
that occupied the Verberie camps followed strict norms but adapted them in a very
pragmatic way.
51

Résumé L’analyse du débitage du silex à Verberie montre l’existence de deux

schémas opératoires de débitage, l’un consacré au débitage des lames et l’autre
au débitage des lamelles soit sur des nucleus à lamelles soit en en cours ou en fin de
débitage laminaire. La chaîne opératoire de débitage des lames se fait à partir de
deux plans de frappe opposés, avec la création d’une crête avant et d’une crête arrière,
voire de deux, dans le cas des débitages très soignés ; Au stade de préparation souvent
effectué à la pierre dure succède une phase de plein débitage effectuée au percuteur
organique par percussion tangentielle directe suivie d’une ou plusieurs phases de réfec-
tion du plan de frappe et de la surface d’enlèvement. Les remontages de blocs de silex
mettent en évidence l’existence de reprises maladroites de blocs bien taillés ou de
débitages totalement improductifs qui peuvent être attribués à de jeunes individus en
début ou en cours d’apprentissage.
L’outillage est typique du Magdalénien supérieur. La variabilité qu’on observe
dans la sélection des matières premières et l’hétérogénéité des supports est compensée
par une calibration des outils, notamment des burins dont l’homogénéité s’exprime
en termes de propriétés physiques et mécaniques. L’analyse tracéologique a montré
que de très nombreuses lames régulières brutes ou retouchées ont été utilisées pour la
boucherie ou pour le travail de la peau. Les lamelles à dos ont exclusivement servi
d’armatures de projectile notamment sur les pointes en os. Leurs délinéation, leurs
proportions et leur retouche varient et se rapportent à différents sous-types. La sélec-
tion des matières premières et des supports pour l’outillage montre que les Magdalé-
niens de Verberie avait un comportement à la fois normé et pragmatique dans leur
usage du lithique.
Introduction
A u terme de vingt-cinq années de fouilles minutieuses au Buisson Campin,1 sept à

huit niveaux d’occupations magdaléniennes successives ont été découverts (Audouze
2006). Datés du Bölling (entre 14000 et 12000 BP cal) l’industrie lithique est attribuable
au Magdalénien final. À l’instar des autres sites magdaléniens du Bassin parisien, le débitage
est effectué selon un mode de production laminaire et lamellaire afin de fournir quantité de
supports allongés pour l’outillage. Ce dernier, également dans la lignée magdalénienne se
compose de lamelles à bord abattu, de burins, de perçoirs, de becs, et de grattoirs,2 auxquels
s’associe l’outillage non retouché.
L’étude des débitages et de l’outillage a mis en évidence, au sein des productions lith-
iques, une série de différences ayant trait tant aux objectifs poursuivis qu’à leur réalisation et
à leur utilisation. C’est cette variabilité au sein de l’industrie lithique que nous allons tenter
d’expliciter, du moins en partie. Nous constaterons que les dites variabilités s’expliquent
UMR7041 ArScAn—Université de Paris X, Nanterre, France.

1
Le site fut découvert en 1975 par Bernard Lambot. Les fouilles débutées dès 1976 par Françoise Audouze se
sont achevées en 2002.
2
Voir fig. 1: l’outillage du niveau II-1.

Technologie Lithique à Verberie 53
tant par l’intervention de différents individus au cours de la production de supports, que par
le mode de sélection de ces derniers ou encore par l’utilisation différentielle de l’outillage.
Nous constaterons que les dites variabilités s’expliquent tant par l’intervention de différents
individus au cours de la production de supports, que par le mode de sélection de ces derniers
ou encore par l’utilisation différentielle de l’outillage. Nous tenterons ainsi de montrer que
le campement du Buisson Campin n’est pas seulement un site de production lithique et de
consommation, il est également un lieu d’échange et de transmission des connaissances et
des savoir-faire au sein de l’unité domestique.
Les Matières Premières
Variabilité et Sélection
L’identification géologique des matières premières a été effectuée par M. Mauger au cours
d’une étude sur les matériaux siliceux utilisés au Paléolithique en Ile-de-France. Au sein du
niveau d’occupation magdalénien le plus récent du Buisson Campin, deux types de silex
secondaires ont été principalement débités. Il s’agit de silex de la craie campanienne et
santonienne (Mauger 1985 et 1994:87–88), tous deux présents sur les rives de l’Oise en
situation secondaire. C’est vraisemblablement dans ce contexte que les blocs de silex bruts
ont été récoltés au vu de l’aspect érodé et lessivé du cortex. Ces deux matériaux diffèrent
quelque peu d’un point de vue qualitatif; le silex campanien présente un caractère plus
vitreux, une pâte plus fine, fortement siliceuse, comparativement au silex santonien qui est
plus “sec” ou plus tenace. En revanche, les inclusions susceptibles de gêner le débitage ou
le façonnage sont équitablement présentes dans chaque type de silex. D’un point de vue
volumétrique, les blocs de silex santonien sont plus importants (jusqu’à 32 cm) que les blocs
campaniens (inférieurs à 17 cm).
À ces deux matériaux, qui constituent 90% du silex débité du niveau II-1, s’ajoutent
quelques matières premières en quantité largement plus minime. Il s’agit d’une part d’un
silex local du campanien inférieur qui se caractérise par des nuances rouges dans la pâte; ce
matériau de même texture que le campanien “classique” a été retrouvé en position primaire
à une centaine de mètres du site. D’autre part quelques matières premières allochtones
ont été identifiées. Un bloc de silex brun clair et beige sous cortex d’origine tertiaire a été
débité. Il est de bonne qualité en dépit d’un cortex épais mais fortement siliceux. Les gîtes
se situeraient soit à une vingtaine soit à une cinquantaine de kilomètres au sud de Verberie
selon qu’il s’agit d’un silex ludien ou bartonien. On constate également la présence d’un
silex blond et d’un autre brun-orangé, de très bonne qualité, uniquement sous la forme
d’outils ou d’éclats de réfection d’outils (chutes de burins), dont les produits n’ont donc
pas été débités sur place. Enfin on note la présence de quelques produits débités en grès
quartzite.
On constate une certaine rigidité des principes régissant la taille durant le débitage
quelle que soit la qualité du matériau exploité. Ainsi, les débitages laminaires ou lamellaires
sont effectués indifféremment sur des matériaux plus ou moins siliceux (ou vitreux) et plus
ou moins inclusifs. Si un élément vient à gêner le bon déroulement du débitage, le tailleur

le contourne ou le corrige, selon ses compétences. La sélection des blocs de matière première
semble avoir été effectuée davantage par rapport au volume qu’au regard des nuances quali-
tatives de la pâte. Par ailleurs, le procédé de préparation au débitage laminaire en éperon et
la technique de percussion tendre qui le justifie sont indifféremment employés pour tous les
matériaux y compris lors du débitage de l’arénite silicifiée et cela en dépit de l’inadéquation
entre matériau et technique de taille.
Il ne semble donc pas y avoir de prédétermination concernant la qualité de la matière
première pour le débitage. Les méthodes et techniques de taille semblent exploitées quelle
que soit l’origine géologique du matériau. Quant aux critères magdaléniens concernant
l’adéquation entre matière première, support et outil efficace, ils semblent se signaler plus en
aval de la chaîne opératoire de fabrication (voir infra).
Le(s) Débitages(s), Productivité, Variabilité des Méthodes, et des Acteurs
Avant d’aborder l’étude de l’outillage il convient de dresser un aperçu des différentes modal-
ités du débitage au Buisson Campin, afin d’expliciter les principaux schémas opératoires
qui y sont représentés et leurs variantes. Il existe en effet une certaine variabilité qualitative
des supports à partir desquels les outils ont été façonnés et cette variabilité s’exprime notam-
ment par l’utilisation de produits lithiques provenant de différents types de production ou
de différentes séquences d’une même chaîne opératoire.
La lecture technologique ainsi que l’étude des remontages3 permettent de reconstituer
le schéma opératoire conceptuel des tailleurs de Verberie (Pelegrin 1995). Au sein de la
couche II-1, 164 blocs de silex ont fait l’objet d’une percussion intentionnelle. Parmi ces
blocs “débités,” nous distinguons d’une part les blocs qui se sont révélés productifs, c’est-à-
dire dont le débitage a fourni au moins un support destiné à l’outillage retouché ou utilisé
brut de taille, et des blocs non-productifs (Tableau 1). La présence et la nature de ces derni-
ers nous informent de la présence sur le site de “tailleurs” possédants des niveaux de compé-
tence moindre. Cette variabilité des acteurs est susceptible d’expliciter en partie la relative
variabilité des débitages productifs.
Parmi les débitages productifs, on observe une certaine variabilité du schéma opéra-
toire. Le débitage à Verberie est effectué selon un mode d’exploitation laminaire (et lamel-
laire), afin d’obtenir des supports allongés utilisés brut ou retouchés, comme c’est le cas
dans l’intégralité des sites magdaléniens. Toutefois ces débitages s’échelonnent entre deux
pôles. Les différences entre ceux-ci ont trait tant à la mise en forme qu’à la conduite du
plein débitage et avec comme conséquence majeure une certaine variabilité des produits
laminaires.
L’archétype du débitage laminaire, dans son exécution la plus complexe, est décrit dès
1981 par D. Cahen (fig. 1):
• mise en place d’une crête antérieure et d’une crête postérieure ou postéro-latérale,
partielles ou totales, par percussion directe minérale (tendre et/ou dure) bifaciale;
3
Quarante-quatre nucléus ou blocs débités ont fait l’objet de remontage (Cahen 1984; Janny en cours).

Table 1
Knapping Levels of Competence in the Upper Archaeological Level Ii.1
Zubrow_Unraveling_05.indd 55
Knapping Percussion Negative Traces Results and Supposed
Type II.1 Type on Core Consequences Number Authors
Autonomous hard mineral hammer “massacre”, numerous traces of no flake removal except with 8 very young individuals
unproductive impact, crushing, chance without psycho-motor
knapping control
hard mineral hammer no hierarchical organization a few hinged fakes resulting 8 beginner (young or…)
between striking platform a wasted burin core
and flaked surface
soft mineral hammer correct preparation of crest and a few “blades” but 12 level of apprenticeship
striking platform unexploitable for blank
soft mineral/organic very careful (excessive) very low production or none 2 skilled demonstration by an
hammer preparation and maintenance accomplished knapper
on a too small block
Secondary hard mineral hammer “massacre”, numerous traces of no flake removal 10 very young individuals
unproductive impact, crushing, without psycho-motor
knapping control
soft mineral hammer lack of maintenance, acquired a broken hinged blade 1 level of apprenticeship with
knowledge but lack of lake of experience
know-how
Productive soft mineral/organic careful preparation and series of exploitable blades 121 skilled knapping with few
knapping hammer maintenance errors
Outstanding soft mineral/organic perfect anticipation of technical large number of long blades 2 highly skilled knapping,
knapping hammer difficulties, very careful expert
preparation and maintenance
Total 164
6/3/10 4:46:59 PM
figure 1 Débitage élaboré d’un nucleus à deux plans d’enlèvements de lames et deux
plans de ravivage des plans de frappe. La crête avant et la crête arrière sont visibles sur le
bloc remonté, mais seule la crête arrière est encore visible sur le nucleus. On voit sur le
nucleus (à gauche) les négatifs de lames du plein débitage qui n’ont pu être remontées et
(à droite) des lames appartenant à la mise en forme sur le bloc remonté. / Highly skilled
knapping of a core with two opposed striking platforms for extracting blades and two
opposed surfaces for rejuvenating the longitudinal convexity. The front crest and the
back crest are visible on the refitted block (on the right), but only the back crest on the
core (on the left). One can see on the refitted block (on the right) blades belonging to
the shaping out phase and the negatives of blades extracted during the main production
phase on the core (on the left) (dessins / drawings Y. Baele).

• mise en place de deux plans de frappe opposés hiérarchisés, par percussion directe
minérale (tendre et/ou dure), l’un destiné au plein débitage et le second à la réfec-
tion de la surface de débitage et au contrôle de la carène;4
• plein débitage effectué à la percussion directe tangentielle organique,5 avec prépa-
ration de la surface d’impact en éperon ou par un procédé d’aménagement de la
corniche aux dépens de la surface de débitage.
Les produits issus de ce type de débitage sont de grande taille (jusqu’à 19 cm pour les
premières lames, semi-corticales, à crête ou sous-crête), mais peu nombreux par bloc débité;
en effet, la technique de débitage au percuteur organique et son corollaire, l’aménagement
en éperon, impliquent un ravivage important du plan de frappe et par-là une diminution
rapide de la longueur potentielle des produits à venir.
Ce qui caractérise cette modalité du schéma opératoire est avant tout la mise en place
d’une seconde crête. Cette démarche est quasi exclusivement associée au débitage des grandes
et moyennes lames (8 à 19 cm), au percuteur organique.6 Cette seconde crête participe
d’une part au contrôle du cintre et/ou d’autre part à la bonne exécution des ravivages du
ou des plans de frappe. Toutefois, il convient de remarquer que dans plusieurs cas (40%), si
le tailleur s’est donné la peine de mettre en place une seconde crête, celle-ci n’a tenu aucun
rôle dans le déroulement du débitage.7 La raison de cet aménagement pourrait être un
meilleur maintien du bloc dans la main. Toutefois on peut y voir le poids de la tradition,
d’une “manière de faire et de voir” avec une image volumétrique précise (Pélegrin 1995)
ou “une préférence excessive” (Valentin 1995)—que les débitages soient le fait d’un tailleur
expérimenté, agissant par automatisme, ou d’un tailleur en cours d’apprentissage qui se
serait investi dans une mise en forme complexe, sans que celle-ci soit pleinement nécessaire
au bon déroulement de son projet de taille.
La seconde option de débitage constitue une variante moins complexe de la première,
la seule différence étant l’absence d’une deuxième crête (fig. 2). Cette absence a pour con-
séquence l’émergence plus rapide de problèmes au cours du débitage, telle que la diffi-
culté de maintenir un cintre et/ou un angle plan de frappe/surface de débitage favorable
au détachement des lames de plein débitage. Cette économie lors de la mise en forme se
solde systématiquement, et plus ou moins rapidement (selon la morphologie initiale du
bloc et l’attention qu’a pris le tailleur à recintrer le nucléus par des lames de flanc), par un
réfléchissement lors de l’extraction des lames.
4
Une inversion des rôles respectifs des deux plans de frappe au cours du débitage est avéré dans quelques cas,
ainsi qu’une inversion entre plan de frappe et surface de débitage (ces cas concernant indifféremment les divers
types de débitage, laminaire et lamellaire, à la percussion organique et minérale, avec ou sans crête postérieure).
5
Identification par les stigmates caractéristiques de cette technique: pas de bulbe, présence d’une lèvre, signe d’un
arrachement, produits relativement arqués, ondes peu marquées.
6
L’exception est un petit nucléus à lamelle débité à la pierre tendre, qui pourrait constituer une récupération d’un
débitage laminaire à la percussion organique, sans que l’on puisse l’affirmer, en l’absence de remontage.
7
Les négatifs des éclats ayant participé à la mise en place de la crête ne recoupent ni les négatifs des plans de
frappe ni ceux des produits laminaires.

figure 2 Débitage simplifié à un seul plan de frappe. a : grattoir ; b : burin ; c : micro-

perçoir sur lamelle intercalée au cours du débitage laminaire. / Simplified knapping with
one striking platform. a: end scraper; b: burin; c: micro-perçoir on a bladelet extracted
during the laminar extraction phase (dessin / drawing Y. Baele).
Enfin la troisième option correspond à un plein débitage, effectué à la percussion

directe minérale tendre.8 La démarche est la suivante:
• mise en place d’une crête partielle d’entame ou initialisation du débitage par lame
d’entame corticale (dans ce cas une crête peut éventuellement être mise en place au
cours du débitage, mais ceci n’a rien de systématique);
8
Identification d’après les stigmates caractéristiques de cette technique: point d’impact (sommet du cône incipi-
ent) bulbe diffus, talon linéaire ou punctiforme, ondes marquées et lancettes fréquemment observables sur la
face inférieure des produits, plus grande rectitude du profil des produits.

figure 3 Débitage simplifié à un plan de frappe : le nucleus comporte deux plans de

frappe successifs indépendants. La reprise malhabile à la pierre dure a abouti à quelques
éclats laminaires réfléchis qui ont entraîné l’abandon du nucleus – a: premier plan de
frappe; b: deuxième plan de frappe; les flèches indiquent des enlèvements réfléchis. Sim-
plified knapping with one striking platform: the core exhibits two independent succes-
sive striking platforms. An unskilled secondary knapping with a stone hammer resulted
in a few hinged laminar flakes or flakes that led to discarding the core (dessin / drawing
Y. Baele).
• mise en place d’un ou deux plans de frappe hiérarchisés;

• plein débitage avec un percuteur minéral tendre, préparation du point d’impact par une
abrasion très fine à partir du plan de frappe (lisse) donnant au talon un aspect “douci.”
Nous n’avons pu distinguer parmi les blocs ne présentant pas de deuxième crête la
proportion de ceux où le débitage est effectué à la percussion organique et la proportion
de ceux où il est effectué au percuteur minéral. En effet, une bonne partie de ces nucléus a
fait l’objet d’une reprise “défigurante” au percuteur minéral (dure et/ou tendre), sans projet
raisonnablement productif (participation de jeunes ou de néophytes) (fig. 3). Toutefois,
comme nous le confirme l’analyse de l’outillage, le débitage à la pierre tendre, loin d’être une
initiative marginale constitue le mode de production d’une partie conséquente des supports
d’outils (à titre indicatif 213 lamelles à dos sur les 214 ont été façonnées à partir de supports
débités à la pierre).
De ce type de débitage résultent des produits de profil plus rectiligne, de section
généralement moins épaisse que les produits débités au percuteur organique, mais égale-
ment des longueurs de lame moins importantes (11 cm pour les plus grandes et exception-
nellement pour deux lames semi-corticales 12.3 cm et 13.1 cm). La chaîne opératoire de
production lamellaire est quasi exclusivement associée à ce type de débitage par percussion
minérale, que celui-ci soit effectué à la suite d’un débitage laminaire, sur bloc autonome, sur
éclat ou au cours du débitage des lames (lamelles intercalées, Alix et al. 1995).

Les caractéristiques de cette modalité de débitage sont l’ouverture de la surface de

débitage par une lame d’entame corticale, l’absence fréquente d’un second plan de frappe et
bien évidemment l’emploi de la percussion minérale tendre pour le plein débitage. À l’instar
de la production à la percussion organique, la production de lames et lamelles à la pierre
tendre met en évidence des niveaux de compétences différents, entre des débitages très bien
menés. Ils se caractérisent pour les premiers par une préparation au détachement soignée, une
exécution du détachement des lames bien mené, une bonne appréciation des moments où le
ravivage est nécessaire, un arrêt opportun du débitage lorsqu’une “réparation” s’avère trop coû-
teuse par rapport au potentiel productif restant. Des débitages de qualité inférieure présentent
un écrasement de la corniche, et un réfléchissement dû à une percussion trop rentrante…
Ainsi, s’il n’existe pas d’association stricte entre modalités de débitage et matières
premières, les blocs volumétriquement importants étant moins fréquents parmi les silex
campaniens, les débitages complexes effectués à la percussion organique ont majoritaire-
ment été effectués sur les silex santoniens. Par ailleurs combinée à l’évaluation des volumes,
l’appréciation qualitative des matériaux de la part des magdaléniens de Verberie (voir infra)
aura pour conséquence une proportion plus importante de silex santoniens parmi l’outillage
“robuste” (becs et burins) et en corollaire une plus grande proportion des silex campaniens
parmi l’outillage plus léger (lamelles à dos), mais ceci sans aucune exclusivité.
Débitages Improductifs: D’Autres Tailleurs
L’étude des remontages nous a donc permis de mettre en évidence les différentes étapes du
débitage et de percevoir la “bonne manière de faire” quant à l’obtention des supports exploi-
tés pour l’outillage, depuis la sélection des blocs de matière première jusqu’à l’abandon du
nucléus à un stade où ce dernier ne correspond plus aux objectifs de production. C’est
notamment par comparaison avec ces normes de la production lithique au Buisson Campin
que des débitages non-productifs ont été reconnus et diagnostiqués comme le fait de tail-
leurs inexpérimentés. Plusieurs critères ont permis d’identifier des niveaux de compétences
différents: le choix du bloc à débiter en terme de qualité de la matière première et de vol-
ume, la maîtrise du geste de percussion lancée, la localisation de l’impact, et enfin le projet
sous-jacent au débitage ainsi que la méthode mise en œuvre pour tenter finaliser ce projet.
Parmi les blocs improductifs, on distingue différentes intentions et probablement dif-
férents acteurs. Quelques-uns ne portent les stigmates que d’un ou deux enlèvements et
peuvent êtres interprétés comme ayant fait l’objet d’un test qualitatif de la matière première.
Or, si ces tests sont susceptibles d’être le fait de tailleurs confirmés ou du moins ayant une
bonne perception de la qualité de la matière première, ils restent minoritaires. Pour d’autres,
on remarque la répétition de coups portés à la percussion directe minérale, selon un schéma
opératoire aléatoire. On peut supposer que celui-ci est le fait de jeunes personnes9 n’ayant
9
Un autre élément susceptible de corroborer la présence de jeune(s) personne(s) est l’observation de nombreux
points d’impact sur la surface (pas uniquement au niveau du ou des plan(s) de frappe) de quelques nucléus
repris “sauvagement” à la pierre dure, ainsi que sur une corne de silex, dont le volume était d’ailleurs inapte à
un débitage magdalénien.

aucune connaissance des principes régissant la taille du silex (non-respect des convexités et
des angles, impacts répétés au centre du bloc, etc.). En revanche, concernant les blocs ébau-
chés ayant fait l’objet d’un début de mise en forme (plan de frappe et/ou crête) voire d’une
amorce de débitage de produits laminaires ou lamellaires corticaux, il semble qu’ils soient
le fruit de tailleurs ne possédant pas une pleine maîtrise de la taille, que ce soit en raison
d’une mauvaise appréciation du matériau, une mauvaise maîtrise des gestes ou encore une
mauvaise planification du projet de taille.
Sur les 164 blocs débités du dernier niveau d’occupation du Buisson Campin, 41
s’avère improductifs, au sens ou aucun support exploitable n’a été extrait, qu’ils soient ou
non à tendance laminaire. Deux cas de figure ont été distingués concernant la sélection des
blocs: des reprises de nucléi issus de débitages productifs antérieurs (11 cas) et des débitages
originaux (ou autonome) sur blocs bruts (30 cas). La différence a son importance car le fait
de partir d’un bloc brut sous-entend que le tailleur est livré à lui-même, sans avoir la possi-
bilité de profiter du volume déjà mis en forme et de suivre les arêtes formées par les négatifs
des lames antérieurement débitées à partir de plan de frappe déjà mis en place. Le choix d’un
bloc brut concède donc au tailleur une certaine forme d’autonomie. Il faut d’ailleurs remar-
quer que la reprise d’un nucléus est a priori une entreprise vouée à l’échec, celui-ci constitu-
ant un rejet, la plupart du temps dû à une détérioration du plan de frappe ou du plan de
débitage dont la réfection, quand elle peut être envisagée, ne peut être effectué qu’au prix
d’un sacrifice du volume débitable. Cette reprise requiert un bon niveau de compétence.
Au sein des reprises de nucléi on distingue trois cas de figure.10
Il s’agit tout d’abords de nucléus repris au percuteur minéral dur à partir du ou des plans
de frappe, mais sans que les multiples percussions n’aient donné lieu à un détachement d’éclat
(cinq cas). Ces nucléus présentent donc des “étoilures,” de multiples traces d’impacts circulaires
représentant le sommet du cône incipient. Plusieurs éléments nous incitent à penser qu’il pour-
rait s’agir de tentatives de la part de jeunes enfants. Ce sont le fait qu’il n’y ait pas détachement
d’éclats, malgré l’emploi du percuteur minéral, que les impacts soient localisés uniquement sur
le ou les plans de frappe précédemment mis en place, sans autre tentative de débitage, ajouté
à une localisation plus ou moins précise des dits impacts sur les plans de frappe ainsi qu’un
certain acharnement dans la démarche. Ceux-ci seraient venus “singer” le geste d’un adulte sans
avoir réellement conscience des règles qui régissent la taille des matériaux siliceux et n’ayant
vraisemblablement pas la force physique de provoquer le détachement, même réfléchi, d’un
éclat (le manque de précision dans la localisation des impacts peut à ce stade être interprété
comme dû à l’oscillation d’un percuteur minéral d’un certain poids dans une main d’enfant).
Le second cas de figure se rapproche du premier à cette différence près que les impacts
répétés, avec un peu plus de précision le long des bords du plan de frappe, ont occasionné
quelques détachements hasardeux d’éclats systématiquement réfléchis (cinq cas). Comme
précédemment la reprise s’effectue uniquement à partir du ou des plans de frappe, en
quelques coups (quatre à six enlèvements) le front de taille est condamné. Il semble qu’il
s’agisse là encore de l’œuvre de jeunes enfants, le détachement étant franchement hasardeux
et les éclats produits assimilables à des cassons.
10
Dans le tableau n°1 les deux premier cas ont été regroupés par commodité sous la mention “massacre.”

Le dernier cas de reprise concerne un nucléus à lame qui a subi une deuxième tentative
de production laminaire, mais malhabile. Le tailleur a envisagé un nettoyage de la surface
de débitage par un enlèvement transversal à partir d’une arête latérale, puis le détachement
d’un éclat laminaire à partir du plan de frappe et enfin effectué trois enlèvements tabulaires
dans un souci de réfection du plan de frappe. De toute évidence le tailleur possède une cer-
taine connaissance de la méthode de taille usitée à Verberie par ses pairs. Toutefois c’est dans
l’exécution du projet que le tailleur doit être considéré comme amateur. En effet, le manque
de préparation est criant, la “lame” ne pouvait être autre que réfléchie, les enlèvements
tabulaires étaient moins indispensables que l’entretien des convexités du volume (fig. 3). Il
pourrait s’agir là de l’œuvre d’un jeune ou d’un moins jeune ayant une connaissance de la
taille due à l’observation du travail des tailleurs expérimentés, mais n’ayant lui-même que
peu de pratique, un manque d’entraînement en quelque sorte.
Ainsi, à une exception près les reprises de nucléus semblent constituer le fait de jeunes
voire très jeunes enfants.
Trente blocs ont été débités de manière autonome, sans que le débitage n’aboutisse à
la production de supports utilisables. Un point rassemble ces différents débitages, il s’agit
de la médiocrité des blocs sélectionnés: soit la qualité de la matière est en cause (diaclase,
inclusion, qualité de la pâte…), soit les volumes sont inadéquats pour un débitage productif
(la mise en forme, parfois extrêmement délicate à effectuer, réduirai le bloc de façon radi-
cale). Au-delà de la caractéristique commune de ces débitages, d’être effectuée à partir de
blocs de mauvaise qualité, on note une gradation dans les compétences et les connaissances
mises en œuvre. Nous avons distingué trois cas de figure: le premier concerne des blocs très
“diaclasés,” qui ont été percutés en suivant les dièdres formés par les arêtes naturelles ou de
manière aléatoire (huit cas). La percussion au percuteur minéral dur ne correspond à aucune
méthode définie et peut être qualifiée d’aléatoire. Les enlèvements produits sont irréguliers
(tors, réfléchis, nombreux accidents de Siret), voire absents. Cette “production” pourrait être
le fait de jeunes inexpérimentés qui font leur première arme, qui taille dans le simple but de
percuter, acquerrant ainsi un certain savoir-faire moteur dans le maniement du percuteur.
On note dans deux cas la présence d’impacts répétés tels qu’ils ont été observés sur les nucléi
repris, ce qui tend à conforter l’hypothèse de jeunes tailleurs.
Le second cas de figure correspond à des blocs débités suivant un concept laminaire,
mais dont les règles et les enjeux semblent encore imprécis et incomplets pour le ou les
tailleurs (20 cas). On constate une hiérarchisation entre le plan de frappe et la surface
de débitage, quelques tentatives de mise en place de crête, ainsi qu’un souci occasionnel
d’entretien des corniches, par grattage. Le ou les tailleurs pèchent essentiellement dans le
manque d’investissement dans la mise en forme du bloc, la préparation au détachement et
l’entretien des surfaces et des convexités. On pourrait qualifier ces tailleurs de peu soigneux
et qu’une certaine paresse plus qu’une méconnaissance des règles empêche de faire aboutir
leur projet. Il pourrait s’agir d’apprentis auxquels toutes les règles de la taille ont dû être
expliquées ou qui ont des facultés d’observation et d’analyse suffisantes pour tirer un ensei-
gnement de l’observation des tailleurs expérimentés, mais qui manquent d’expérience et
qui n’appliquent pas de manière systématique les dites règles, d’où l’échec du débitage en
termes de production. On note que, pour certains blocs, le projet du tailleur se limite à la

mise en place d’une crête régulière ou la mise en place d’un plan de frappe, et l’on pourrait
considérer ces débitages comme des exercices. On peut par ailleurs distinguer ces débitages
en deux sous-catégories, selon que le concept laminaire apparaît acquis, au-delà de la hiér-
archisation du plan de frappe par rapport à la surface de débitage. L’intégration de ce con-
cept s’accompagne de l’utilisation d’un percuteur minéral tendre (Tableau 1).
Enfin le dernier cas de débitage non-productif concerne deux blocs qui ont été mis
en forme de manière extrêmement soignée, mais dont la dimension des volumes à débiter
interdisait quasiment dès le départ un débitage productif. Il est certain que ces débitages
sont le fait d’un tailleur expérimenté, comme en témoigne la régularité des enlèvements et
la qualité de l’exécution, mais également part l’application fidèle de la méthode de débitage
laminaire usitée à Verberie. Concernant ces deux débitages, le contraste entre les connais-
sances et les compétences mises en jeu d’une part et l’absence de production effective prévis-
ible d’autre part, fait envisager un exercice de démonstration, pourquoi pas à destination des
tailleurs novices que nous évoquions précédemment.
Ainsi, qu’ils constituent des reprises ou qu’ils soient autonomes, les débitages non-
productifs représentent pour moitié l’activité de jeunes voire de très jeunes enfants, dépour-
vus de contrôle psychomoteur, du moins pour la taille, et pour moitié d’apprentis ou de
débutants moins jeunes. La notion d’apprentissage est en outre soulignée par la présence
de probables démonstrations de taille. Le campement du Buisson Campin ne constitue
pas seulement un site de production lithique et de consommation, il représente également
un lieu d’échange et de transmission des connaissances et des savoir-faire, permettant ainsi
d’assurer la relève à venir des artisans tailleurs.
Par ailleurs, l’étude de ces productions ingrates nous permet d’ouvrir un volet sur la
composition du ou des groupes ayant fréquenté le Buisson Campin. Il s’agirait donc de
groupes familiaux, composés d’individus des deux sexes de plusieurs classes d’âge, jeunes
enfants, jeunes adultes, et adultes. En outre la reconnaissance sur le site d’une intense activité
artisanale concernant le travail des matières osseuses ainsi que le travail des peaux (Audouze
et al. 1981; Rots 2002; Beyries et al. 2005) corrobore l’hypothèse d’un groupe familial et
non l’unique présence de “chasseurs tailleurs” adultes de sexe masculin.
Les niveaux inférieurs de Verberie ont également livré des débitages improductifs.
Quoique les surfaces conservées et fouillées ne soient pas identiques, loin de là, entre les
différents niveaux, on observe une certaine régularité dans la répartition des débitages pro-
ductifs et non-productifs (Tableau 2). La présence de jeunes “tailleur” est avérée dans des
proportions variables pour toutes les couches à l’exception des deux plus anciennes, II-5 et
II-6. Cette absence peut être due à la faiblesse des effectifs.
L’Outillage
L’industrie lithique est typique du Magdalénien du Bassin Parisien. Les outils sont façonné
sur des lames et des lamelles. Alors que chez les premières, les talons en éperon caractéris-
tiques du débitage au percuteur tendre dominent (<50%) suivies par les talons lisses (≥30%
environ) et les talons facettés plats (≥20%), les talons lisses dominent à plus de 80% pour
les lamelles (fig. 4a). L’outillage se compose de lamelles à dos, de burins, de perçoirs, de grat-

Table 2
Niveaux de Compétence Pour Chaque Niveau Archéologique
Knapping Levels of Competence per Archaeological Level
Débitage Débutant
Débitage très élaboré Débitage Débitage Jeune ou Apprenti
Productif Highly Simplifié Improductif Tailleur Beginner or
Productive Skilled Skilled Unproductive Young Apprentice
Knapping Knapping Knapping Knapping “Knapper” (Young) Total
II.1 123 2 121 41 (25%) 18 (10%) 23 (14,02%) 164

II.2 13 3 10 5 (28%) 1 (5%) 4 (22,2%) 18
II.21 13 0 13 11 (33%) 3 (12%) 8 (33,3) 24
II.22 8 0 8 6 (42%) 2 (14%) 4 (28,57) 14
II.3 15 9 6 12 (44%) 1 (4%) 11 (40,74) 27
II.4 8 2 6 5 (38%) 1 (8%) 4 (30,76) 13
II.5 9 1 8 2 (18%) 0 2 (18,18) 11
toirs auxquels s’ajoutent quelques lames tronquées et quelques outils composites (fig. 5). Un
certain nombre de lames ont été utilisées brutes, 83 d’entre elles portent des micro-traces
d’utilisation qui ont pu être identifiées. Parmi les lames retouchées sur un ou deux bords, 85
portent également des micro-traces d’utilisation. La sélection des supports varie en fonction
de la morphologie recherchée (fig. 4b): les produits de plein débitage dominent pour tous
les types mais on constate une plus grande proportion de produits de plein débitage de flanc
pour les becs et les composites pour lesquels on a recherché l’alliance de la longueur et de la
robustesse que pour les autres catégories. Les perçoirs sont les seuls à comporter des produits
de fin de débitage en raison de leur taille souvent réduite (fig. 6). Bien qu’en quantité mod-
este, des produits de mise en forme ont parfois été utilisés, surtout pour les grattoirs (un peu
plus de 10%). Quelques produits de réaménagement ont également été utilisés. Les lamelles à
dos ont été façonnés sur des lamelles ou des micro-lames, tantôt à partir de nucleus à lamelles,
tantôt en débitage intercalé sur des nucleus à lames lorsqu’une arête s’y prêtait (fig. 2c).
L’outillage a fait l’objet d’une première étude (Schmider 1981) qui a mis en évidence
sa parenté avec l’outillage d’un autre site du Bassin Parisien, Marsangy dans l’Yonne, en rai-
son de la présence, à côté des perçoirs, de robustes becs apparentés aux langborers nordiques
(Schmider 1988).
Les Burins: Une Variabilité Illusoire ou Variabilité et Fonction
Le niveau II-1 compte quelques 123 burins. Une première constatation s’impose au premier
regard: il existe une variabilité indéniable des matières premières exploitées, dont les origines
géologiques sont différentes (fig. 7a). Le silex de la craie santonienne est majoritaire à 76%,
mais non exclusif. On constate également, après remontage, que les supports des burins

figure 4 (a) Répartition des types de talons pour les lames et les lamelles / Distribution
of butt types on blades and bladelets. (b) - Pourcentage des catégories de supports par
types d’outil / Blanks categories per tool types (%).
proviennent d’au moins une trentaine de blocs différents. D’autre part, on observe neuf types
de supports différents, correspondant à autant de stades de la chaîne opératoire de débitage.
Si l’on compte 50% de lames de plein débitage, l’autre moitié des burins est façonnée à

figure 5 Tableau des effectifs d’outils / Number of tools per types.
partir de lames à crêtes, d’éclats, de produits d’entretien du nucléus, voire même un frag-
ment de nucléus (fig. 4b). Enfin, 71% des supports ont été débités au percuteur minéral,
le tiers restant au percuteur organique. Ce fait illustre d’ailleurs on ne peut plus clairement
que cette technique de débitage, loin d’être un exercice de style ou d’apprentissage, fait par-
tie intégrante du système de production lithique du Magdalénien du Buisson Campin. Par
ailleurs, on observe qu’il n’existe pas d’association entre la sélection des matières premières
et la sélection des supports. Ces quelques constatations nous conduisent à considérer qu’il
n’existe pas de prédétermination des supports des futurs burins au cours du débitage, donc
en amont de la chaîne opératoire de fabrication, tant en termes de matière première que de
support technologique. Toutefois, si l’on considère une observation empirique des matières
premières, on remarque qu’indépendamment de leur origine géologique, les matériaux
sélectionnés ont des qualités très similaires. Les silex santoniens adoptés pour la fabrication
des burins sont parmi les moins tenaces et de même, ou par opposition, les silex campaniens
sélectionnés figurent parmi les moins “vitreux.”
Par ailleurs, l’observation du rapport entre largeur et épaisseur des supports met
en évidence une certaine homogénéité du calibre. Ces caractéristiques morphométriques
sont relativement identiques quelle que soit la nature des supports en termes de matière
première et de position dans la chaîne opératoire. L’unique exception est un burin très
robuste façonné à partir d’un fragment de nucléus diaclasé. Ainsi en dépit des disparités
entre les blocs débités (origine géologique, volume, etc.) et d’une certaine hétérogénéité
technologique des supports (position dans la chaîne opératoire, mode de percussion), les
caractéristiques physiques et morphométriques des burins révèlent une véritable homogé-
néité fonctionnelle de ce type d’outillage. S’il n’y a pas de prédétermination des supports
au cours du débitage, il y a en revanche une sélection après débitage selon une appréciation
empirique des qualités des supports, en termes de matière et de calibre. Par ailleurs, l’étude
tracéologique de l’outillage de Verberie menée par Sylvie Beyries11 a mis en évidence que
11
En cours.

figure 6 Outils : 1 et 2: burins dièdres; 3: burin sur troncature; 4 et 5 perçoirs; 6: bec; 7:

troncature transverse; 8 et 9: grattoirs en bout de lame. / Tools: 1 and 2: dihedral burins;
3: burin on truncation; 4 and 5: perçoirs; 6: bec; 7: truncated blade; 8 and 9: end scrap-
ers (drawings Y. Baele).

figure 7 Matières premières: a) burins; b) grattoirs. / Raw materials: a) burins; b) end

scrapers.
quelques burins constituent un recyclage d’outils, un travail de peau sèche a été diagnostiqué
comme antérieur à l’exploitation du support en tant que burin. La variabilité géologique
et technologique des supports des burins est donc la conséquence d’un mode de sélection
original et ne correspond pas à une variabilité fonctionnelle de ce type d’outillage.
S’agissant des parties actives des burins, on constate une relative variabilité mor-
phologique, qui affecte principalement l’orientation du biseau par rapport à l’axe du support.
Ce type d’outillage est majoritairement représenté par les burins dièdres d’axe et déjetés avec
70% de burins dièdres d’axe et 10% de burins dièdres déjetés auxquels s’ajoutent quelques
types marginaux (fig. 6-1, 2, et 3). L’étude tracéologique révèle que plus de 80% des burins
ont eu pour fonctions le rainurage et le raclage des matières dures animales. Le caractère
déjeté des burins dièdres peut éventuellement être interprété comme dû aux ravivages suc-
cessifs, plus ou moins bien réalisés. En revanche, il apparaît que parmi les burins d’angle
et les burins simples déjetés, trois cas ne peuvent être considérés comme burins en tant
qu’outil. En effet deux d’entre constituent un aménagement en vue d’un emmanchement
et le troisième ne présente aucune trace d’utilisation. On peut envisager l’hypothèse qu’à
certains types marginaux pourraient correspondre des fonctions marginales, lesquelles sem-
blent d’ailleurs susceptibles d’être étrangères à la notion de burin en tant qu’outil.
Ainsi en dépit d’une apparente variabilité géologique, technologique, ou mor-
phologique, les burins représentent une catégorie d’outils très homogène en termes de pro-
priétés physiques et mécaniques, destinée à une fonction précise quasi-exclusive: le travail
des matières dures animales selon deux modalités, le raclage et le rainurage. Hormis les
quelques burins qui n’en seraient pas en tant que tels, la variabilité de cet outillage s’explique
principalement par l’absence de prédétermination des supports au cours du débitage et par
un mode de sélection de ceux-ci en aval voire par recyclage.
Becs, Perçoirs, et Grattoirs
Becs, perçoirs, et grattoirs ont fait l’objet d’articles récents (Beyries et al. 2005; Beyries et
Rots ce volume; Rots 2002, 2005; Audouze et Beyries à paraître) dont les résultats sont
rappelés ici pour mémoire. Les becs, les perçoirs, et les micro-perçoirs constituent avec
quelques burins l’outillage perforant pour lequel il existe une production et une utilisation

différentielles (Beyries et al. 2005). Les supports de becs sont majoritairement des lames
obtenues soit lors de la mise en forme des nucleus (lames à crête, lames sous crête, et lames
corticales) soit durant le plein débitage (fig. 4b). Les premières sont les plus longues, de
9 à 15 cm, et sont larges, robustes, et arquées. Elles ont été recherchées pour leur solidité,
avec une épaisseur tournant autour de 1.5 cm et ont été obtenues sur du silex santonien
(fig. 8a). Les secondes, plus courtes, plus étroites, rectilignes, et de moindre épaisseur (autour
de 0.7 cm) proviennent tant du silex santonien que du silex campanien. La plus grande
résistance du silex santonien est illustré par le fait que 30% seulement des becs et perçoirs
entiers mais 95% des becs et perçoirs cassés sont en silex campanien. Le bec est toujours
réalisé sur l’extrémité la plus épaisse, distale dans la majorité des cas, mais aussi proximale
(fig. 6-6). Lorsque l’épaisseur est constante, le bec est double (les trois exemplaires répertoriés
sont tous en silex santonien). Les perçoirs sont souvent de plus petit module et faits sur des
lamelles qui dominent largement dans leurs supports—notamment pour les micro-perçoirs
(fig. 6-4 et 6-5). Ils se partagent à égalité entre silex campanien et silex santonien
(fig. 8b). L’étude technologique et fonctionnelle a montré que, tandis que les becs et les
perçoirs façonnés sur supports minces et étroits en silex campanien plus cassant avaient été
utilisés pour percer, les becs et les perçoirs façonnés à partir de lames robustes en silex san-
tonien plus résistant avaient été utilisés pour l’alésage (Beyries et al. 2005). Dans ce dernier
cas, les zones d’usure ne se situent pas à la pointe mais un peu plus bas là ou le diamètre du
rostre est plus large. Nous assistons donc à un phénomène de variabilité fonctionnelle ainsi
qu’à une “micro-économie des matières premières,” chaque matériau correspondant à une
utilisation particulière (Perlès 1991).
Les Grattoirs
Les grattoirs sont des grattoirs en bout de lames dont les supports proviennent en grande
majorité du plein débitage et sont pourvus d’un talon en éperon obtenu au percuteur orga-
nique (Rots 2001:550).On trouve également quelques supports de plein débitage de flanc
figure 8 Matières premières: a) becs; b) perçoirs. / Raw materials: a) becs; b) perçoirs.

ainsi que quelques produits sur lames à crête ou sous crête obtenues durant la mise en
forme des nucleus (fig. 4b). Les supports en silex santonien dominent largement (66%)
(fig. 7b). Leurs dimensions sont en moyenne inférieures à celles des becs et des burins
(Audouze et al. 1988). Un certain nombre de grattoirs portent des retouches sur les deux
bords depuis le talon jusqu’à la moitié ou les deux tiers de leur hauteur, qui donnent à
la lame une forme sub-triangulaire ou sub-trapézoïdale en forme de pseudo-soie, et qui
s’accompagnent en général de micro-traces d’emmanchement sur les bords et sur le dos (fig.
6-9). Trente-trois pour cent des grattoirs du niveau II-1 portent des traces d’emmanchement
mais sans doute étaient-ils plus nombreux à être emmanchés puisqu’un manche bien fixé
ne laisse pas forcément de traces (Rots 2000, 2005; Beyries et Rots ce volume). La largeur
du front varie de 2.5 cm à 1. 5 cm (fig. 6-8). Les grattoirs ont été dédiés au raclage des
peaux. Les cinq spécialistes qui ont étudiés les micro-traces de diverses séries de grattoirs
de Verberie ont distingué du raclage sur peau fraîche, souvent exécuté avec un grattoir à
front légèrement denticulé, sur peau sèche ou humidifiée et sur peau mouillée avec une
prédominance à Verberie de travail sur peau sèche. V. Rots a regroupé les retouches des
fronts de grattoirs en quatre groupes qui lui paraissent relever de facteurs de variation indi-
viduelle, par comparaison avec les retouches créées par différents expérimentateurs (Rots
2001:551). Elle a identifié sur l’un d’entre eux les traces d’un ravivage malhabile qui a con-
duit à l’abandon immédiat du grattoir devenu inutilisable. Ce grattoir, bien qu’aménagé sur
un support atypique puisqu’il s’agissait d’une lame corticale, avait d’abord fait l’objet d’un
aménagement soigné et était emmanché. Il est probable que ce grattoir faisait partie d’un
apprentissage s’adressant à un(e) débutant(e) et que le ravivage maladroit est à mettre
en rapport avec les débitages improductifs et les débitages de démonstration décrits plus hauts
(Rots 2005:71).
Quant aux lames à troncature (fig. 4b et 6-7), elles ne constituent pas un groupe fonc-
tionnel d’outils tout comme à Champréveyres (Plisson et Vaughan in Cattin 2002:95–97)
ou Pincevent (Plisson 1985). Elles ont principalement servi de substituts à des becs et à des
grattoirs. Elles sont en petit nombre à Verberie (moins de vingt).
À côté des outils retouchés, il existe un grand nombre de lames retouchées et de lames
brutes dont 85 lames brutes et 83 retouchées sur un ou deux bords qui portent des traces
d’utilisation (Fig. 10). Elles proviennent aussi bien de la séquence de préparation du nucleus
que de la séquence laminaire (fig. 4a). Toutefois les lames issues du débitage préparatoire
sont larges et robustes, assez arquées, et conservent souvent des surfaces corticales impor-
tantes (Cahen in Audouze et al. 1981:129). Un certain nombre d’entre elles ont servi à
couper de la viande et à racler et couper les peaux (cf. Beyries et Rots ce volume; cf. Audouze
ce volume; Keeley 1981:183–185).
Les Lamelles à Bord Abattu: Une Variabilité Chrono-Culturelle?
Les lamelles à dos sont à Verberie les objets retouchés les plus nombreux. Les études tra-
céologiques ont montré qu’elles n’avaient pas servi d’outils mais toutes d’armatures de pro-
jectiles pour les armes de jet, pointes en os montées sur des javelots. Contrairement aux
outils du fond commun pour lesquels le silex santonien domine, plus des deux tiers d’entre

elles ont été faites sur du silex campanien (fig. 9b). Leurs supports sont des lamelles ou des
micro-lames (fig. 4b) surtout produites à partir de nucleus à lamelles mais aussi à partir de
nucleus en fin de séquence et parfois même entre deux extractions de lames lorsque la mor-
phologie du nucleus s’y prête.
figure 9 Matières premières: a) lames retouchées et/ou utilisées; b) lamelles à dos. / Raw
materials: a) retouched and/or used blades; b) backed bladelets.
figure 10 Lames retouchées et/ou utilisées. / Retouched and/or used blades (dessins /
drawings Y. Baele).

Elles se répartissent en plusieurs sous-types comme à Pincevent mais présentent

une variabilité au cours des occupations successives qui diffère de l’évolution identifiée à
Pincevent. En conclusion de son étude des lamelles à “bord abattu” du niveau II-1 de Ver-
berie, Grégory Debout avait suggéré que les niveaux inférieurs de Verberie pourraient corro-
borer l’hypothèse d’une évolution stylistique de ce type d’outillage du magdalénien final. Il
s’appuyait notamment sur les observations faites à Pincevent, par Boris Valentin et mettant
en évidence une évolution entre les niveaux d’occupation successifs de Pincevent (Debout
2001, 2003; Valentin 1995). B. Valentin a identifié trois sous-types répartis chacun en
deux variantes qui se différencient par leur largeur, leur épaisseur, un profil rectiligne ou
torse, et une retouche directe, inverse ou croisée. Le niveau IV-20 de Pincevent a en effet
livré une série d’armatures, d’épaisseur constamment fine (2 à 3 mm) mais de largeur vari-
able (4 à 8 mm et jusqu’à 12 mm). Vingt à quarante pour cent d’entre elles présentent une
retouche inverse, dont l’objectif a pu être de rectifier la courbure du support: le type 2A.
D’autre part, dans les niveaux I-40, IV-30 ainsi que dans l’habitat n°1 de Pincevent et au
sein du niveau II-1 de Verberie, ont été identifiées des armatures dont les caractéristiques
sont une épaisseur fine, de 2 à 3 mm, et une largeur inférieure, de 4 à 6 mm. Un grand
nombre d’entre elles sont arquées voire torses, mais aucune retouche inverse n’est venue
corriger cette difformité. Un “bordage” par retouche directe est venu appuyer une rectitude
de la délinéation et non du profil: le type 2B. Enfin un troisième type: 2C, qui constitue
en fait l’association de deux sous-type, d’une part un modèle massif, 2C1, avec une épais-
seur comprise entre 3 et 6 mm pour une largeur de 6 à 10 mm, avec une retouche croisée la
plupart du temps, voire une troncature; d’autre part, un type 2C2 étroit.
S’agissant de Verberie, outre le niveau II-1, nous nous sommes intéressés aux trois
occupations les plus anciennes: II-4, II-5, II-6.12 Le niveau II-4 apparaît comme comparable
au niveau IV-20 de Pincevent; les armatures ont une épaisseur de 1 à 2 mm pour une largeur
de 4 à 10 mm et la retouche est inverse pour près d’un quart des cas, affectant majoritaire-
ment le bord gauche. Il s’agirait donc du type 2A. Concernant le niveau II-5, les arma-
tures y sont comparables à celles du niveau II-1 de Verberie ou à celles de l’habitat n°1
de Pincevent, c’est-à-dire avec une épaisseur de 1 à 2 mm et une largeur de 4 à 7 mm. La
retouche est toujours directe et affecte majoritairement le bord droit. La moitié de ces arma-
tures sont arquées et torses mais jamais rectifiées, soit le type 2B. Enfin le niveau II-6 a livré
quelques armatures comparables à celles du niveau IV-20 de Pincevent, d’un type massif,
2A, présentant une retouche inverse pour quarante pour cent (Fig. 11).
Il semble donc que la typo-choronologie élaborée à Pincevent ne soit pas applicable
entre les différentes occupations du Buisson Campin. L’étude révèle des “aller et retour”
entre les types 2A et 2B au fur et à mesure des successives occupations du site, qu’il est délicat
d’interpréter en terme chrono-culturel. La variabilité technologique et morphologique des
lamelles à bord abattu à Verberie peut éventuellement être interprétée en terme d’individu,
chaque artisan ayant une certaine marge dans la façon de faire. Toutefois, la présence des
12
Les niveaux intermédiaires II-2, II-21, II-22, et II-3 posent encore quelques problèmes de remontages “inter
couches” ne permettant pas une stricte individualisation de ceux-ci et donc n’autorisant pas encore l’élaboration
d’hypothèse diachroniques.

figure 11 Lamelles à dos. / Backed bladelets (dessins / drawings Ph. Alix).
mêmes sous-types à Pincevent et Verberie va à l’encontre de manifestations idiosyncrasiques

et il pourrait alors s’agir de différences liées aux armes de chasse elles-mêmes et au mode de
montage des armatures sur leur fût comme Boris Valentin le suggère (Christensen et Valentin
2004:156–157). Par ailleurs on peut envisager une fréquentation du Buisson Campin plus
“serrée” dans le temps que cela n’a pu être le cas à Pincevent. En effet, au Buisson Campin,
la durée d’occupation de chaque niveau ainsi qu’une durée moindre écoulé entre chaque
fréquentation du site induit une lecture moins franche des éventuelles variations chrono-
stylistiques. L’hypothèse retenue concernant la variabilité des lamelles à bord abattu de
Verberie demeure donc actuellement celle d’une manière de faire ou un comportement
propre à chaque individu.
Conclusion
Les variabilités au sein de l’industrie lithique, qu’elles soient d’ordre géologique, technique, ou
morphologique, doivent être considérées avec circonspection. En effet, au Buisson Campin,
les burins qui de prime abord montrent des différences minéralogiques ou technologiques

s’avèrent constituer un outillage très homogène après un examen morphométrique et

tracéologique. Les différences mises en évidence au cours de l’étude semblent n’avoir eu
aucune importance pour leurs concepteurs et utilisateurs magdaléniens. En revanche
l’explication de cette variabilité révèle un mode de sélection original des supports des burins
et plus généralement des outils (Plisson et Vaughan in Cattin 2002:95–97). Par ailleurs
l’étude de la variabilité des débitages ébauche une idée de la composition du ou des groupes
humains ayant fréquenté le site. La mise en évidence de la norme de production permet
de diagnostiquer des débitages défectueux, dont certains sont totalement improductifs.
Ces derniers nous renseignent sur la présence de jeunes individus, et par conséquent sur la
présence d’une cellule familiale, ainsi que sur la pratique de l’apprentissage de la taille par la
démonstration du maître puis l’exercice de l’élève. La sélection des matières premières et des
supports pour l’outillage montre que les Magdaléniens de Verberie semblent avoir adopté
un comportement à la fois normé et pragmatique dans leur usage du lithique.
References Cited
Alix P., J. Pelegrin, and H. Deloge 1995 Un débitage original de lamelles par pression au Magdalénien
du Rocher-De-La-Caille. Paléo 7:187–199.
Audouze, F. 2006 Essai de modélisation du cycle annuel de nomadisation des magdaléniens du
Bassin parisien. Bull. SPF 103(4):683–694.
Audouze F., C. Karlin, D. Cahen, D. de Croisset, P. Coudret, M. Larriere, P. Masson, M. Mauger,
M. Olive, J. Pelegrin, N. Pigeot, B. Schmider, and Y. Taborin 1988 Taille du silex et finalité
du débitage dans le magdalénien du Bassin Parisien. In De la Loire à l’Oder, Les civilisations
du Paléolithique final dans le nord-ouest européen (Actes du Colloque de Liège décembre 1985),
Marcel Otte, editor, pp. 55–84. Archaeopress, Oxford (BAR 444-i).
Audouze, F., and S. Beyries 2007 Chasseurs d’hier et d’aujourd’hui. In Les civilisations d’hier et
d’aujourd’hui. Approches ethnohistoriques, archéologiques, et anthropologiques, by S. Beyries, and
É. V. Vat. XXVIIe Rencontres d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, 2007:185–208.
Audouze F., D. Cahen, H.-L. Keeley, and B. Schmider 1981 Le site Magdalénien du “Buisson
Campin” à Verberie (Oise). Gallia Préhistoire 24(1):99–143.
Audouze, F., and D. Cahen 1984 L’occupation Magdalénienne de Verberie et sa chronologie. In
Jungpaläolitische Siedlungstrukturen in Europa, H. Berke, J. Hahn, and C.-J. Kind, editors>
Actes du colloque de Reisenburg/Günzburg, 8 au 14 Mai 1983. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte
6:143–159.
Beyries, S. 1997 Ethnoarchéologie: un mode d’expérimentation. Préhistoire Anthropologie
Médirerrannéennes 6:185–198.
Beyries, S., F. Janny, and F. Audouze 2005 Débitage, matière première, et utilisations des becs sur le
site de Verberie “Le Buisson Campin” (Oise) dans le Nord de la France. Revue Archéologique de
Picardie n° spécial 22 (Amiens/Compiègne):15–24.
Christensen, M., and B. Valentin 2004 Armatures de projectiles et outils, de la production à l’abandon.
In Les derniers Magdaléniens d’Etiolles, N. Pigeot, editor, pp. 106–160. CNRS, Paris (XXXVIIe
supplément à Gallia Préhistoire).

Debout, G. 2001 Les lamelles à dos et la production de leurs supports sur le niveau supérieur du
site magdalénien de Verberie (Oise). Une variation technique parmi les industries lithiques
magdaléniennes du Bassin Parisien. Mémoire de DEA de l’Université de Paris I.
Debout, G. 2003 Les microlithes du Magdalénien supérieur dans le Bassin parisien: une diversité
inattendue. In Les pointes à cran dans les industries lithiques au Paléolithique supérieur récent,
de l’oscillation de Lascaux à l’oscillation de Bölling, actes de la Table ronde de Montauban (avril
2002), E. Ladier, editor, pp. 91–99. (Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, supplément n°6).
Janny, F., S. Beyries, and F. Audouze 2003 Raw Material, Blanks Management and Use at the Magdale-
nian Site of Verberie-Le Buisson Campin in Northern France. 9th Annual Meeting of the Euro-
pean Association of Archaeology, St Petersburg, 10–14 september 2003, volume of abstracts.
Keeley, L. 1981 Premiers résultats de l’analyse des micro-traces d’utilisation de quelques objets. In Le
site Magdalénien du “Buisson Campin” à Verberie (Oise), by F. Audouze, D. Cahen, L. Keeley,
and B. Schmider. Gallia Préhistoire 24(1):99–141.
Lambot, B. 1975 Fouille d’un habitat de plein air du Paléolithique Supérieur à Verberie (Oise). Revue
Archéologique de Picardie 6 (Amiens/Compiègne):20–26.
Mauger, M. 1994 L’approvisionnement en matériaux siliceux au Paléolithique Supérieur. In
Environnement et habitats magdaléniens dans le centre du Bassin Parisien, Y. Taborin, editor,
pp. 78–93. Ed. de la MSH, Paris.
Pelegrin, J. 1995 Technologie lithique: le Châtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de la Côte
(Dordogne). Cahiers du Quaternaire 20. CNRS, Paris.
Perles, C. 1991 Économie des matières premières et économie du débitage: deux conceptions
opposées? In 25 ans d’études technologiques en préhistoire, Bilan et perspectives. Actes des XIe
Rencontres Internationales d’Antibes d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, pp. 35–46.
Plisson, H. 1985 Étude fonctionnelle des outillages lithiques par l’analyse des micro-usures: recherche
méthodologique et archéologique. Thèse de troisième cycle, université de Paris I.
Plisson, H., and P. Vaughan 2002 Tracéologie. In Hauterive-Champréveyres 13. Un campement
magdalénien au bord du lac de Neuchâtel: exploitation du silex (secteur 1), by M.-I. Cattin,
pp. 90–105. Neuchâtel, Service d’archéologie neuchâteloise (Archéologie neuchâteloise 26,
2 vol.).
Rots, V. 2002 Hafting Traces on Flint Tools, Possibilities and Limitations of Macro and Microscopic
Approaches. Thèse de doctorat de l’Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgique.
Rots, V. 2005 Wear Traces and the Interpretation of Stone Tools, Journal of Field Archaeology
30(1):61–72.
Valentin, B. 1995 Les groupes humains et leurs traditions au Tardiglaciaire dans le Bassin Parisien;
apports de la technologie lithique comparée. Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université de Paris I.

Chapter Five
Utilisation et Transformation des Matières Osseuses

au Buisson Campin (Verberie, Oise)
Aline Averbouh
Abstract Using and manufacturing bone antler and ivory at Verberie Six
of the eight levels of the Magdalenian site of Verberie have yielded bone, antler and
mammoth ivory remains. Manufactured objects include bone points, needles and a
bâton percé plus six ivory sticks. Two antlers found in dumps wear the negative result-
ing from extracting one long baguette. Ivory flakes and «blades» are found in various
levels. Several of them come from a section of fossil ivory tusk found in level II-2. By
analyzing the macrowear traces it is possible to relate these objects to several activities:
mostly hunting for which bone points were manufactured, but also sewing (needles),
transforming fibers or weaving (bâton percé) and ivory manufacturing (sticks).
Résumé Utilisation et transformation des matières osseuses au Buisson

Campin (Verberie, Oise) Six des huit niveaux du site magdalénien de Verberie
ont livré des objets finis et des déchets de transformation de matières osseuses (os, bois
de renne et ivoire de mammouth). Les objets manufacturés incluent des sagaies, des
aiguilles, un bâton percé et des bâtonnets en ivoire. Deux bois de renne ont servi de
matrices d’extraction de baguettes. Des éclats et des «lames» d’ivoire ont été retrouvées
dans tous les niveaux. Plusieurs d’entre eux proviennent d’un tronçon de défense de
mammouth trouvé dans la couche II.2. Les traces d’utilisation conduisent à identi-
fier plusieurs activités dans lesquelles sont impliqués ces objets: la chasse surtout avec
les sagaies mais aussi le travail des matières souples: couture pour les aiguilles, (filage
pour le bâton percé?) et manufacture d’objets en ivoire (bâtonnets).
76

Utilisation et Transformation des Matières Osseuses 77
Introduction
C erner la nature du site, débattre de l’organisation sociale des groupes qui y ont vécu
et discuter de son intégration au “schéma” magdalénien du Bassin parisien conduit à
s’interroger sur la nature domestique ou spécialisée du campement. Résoudre cette question
passe en partie par la prise en compte de l’abondance et de la variété des vestiges qui dif-
fèrent selon la durée d’occupation et la diversité des activités pratiquées. Quelles informa-
tions fournit sur ces deux points l’industrie en matières osseuses de Verberie?
Abondance et variété des vestiges
Tous niveaux d’occupation confondus, la série de Verberie compte une cinquantaine

d’éléments dont le tiers est représenté par des objets finis et le reste, par des déchets de
transformation des blocs exploités. Cette série est importante pour le Bassin Parisien car
Verberie est, après Pincevent, le site le plus richement pourvu, mais elle occupe une place
marginale par rapport aux autres catégories de vestiges présents (restes fauniques, indus-
trie lithique). Les conditions de conservation offertes aux matières organiques par ce site
de plein air ont pu conduire à la disparition de certains témoins. Il n’empêche: la présence
affirmée des vestiges fauniques dans la plupart des niveaux identifiés conduit à penser que la
conservation des vestiges en matières organiques s’est faite à proportion de leur importance
numérique d’origine. En revanche, la série joue un rôle certainement plus important d’un
point de vue palethnologique par la variété des vestiges qui la composent (différentes catégo-
ries déclinées en plusieurs types impliqués dans des activités distinctes).
Les objets finis
Les pointes de projectile (fig. 1): Six pièces peuvent être intégrées à ce groupe. Toutes sont
en bois de renne (S201–II-1–F19–327/S201–II-1–B17–51/S202–II-21–J3–7 raccordant
avec II-21–J4.146–147/S202–II-22–M7–436 raccordant avec S202–II-21–P4–240) à
l’exception d’une pointe en ivoire (S202–II-2–N6–38).
L’aménagement de la partie proximale est majoritairement à biseau bifacial (quatre
pièces sur six). Une seule pièce est entière (F19–327; fig. 1a). D’une longueur totale de
120 mm pour un diamètre (à section circulaire) de la partie mésiale de 11 mm, elle présente
sur chaque face une rainure débutant à 44 mm de l’extrémité proximale pour s’étendre sur
le fût (dans un cas sur 70 mm, dans l’autre sur 72 mm) jusqu’à l’extrémité distale. Une autre
pièce à biseau bifacial, connue par sa partie mésio-proximale (J3–7-J4.146–147) présente
une rainure sur sa face inférieure (communication J.-M. Pétillon). La troisième, connue
par sa partie proximale (B17–51), n’a conservé aucun élément permettant d’identifier la
présence de rainures sur le fût. En outre, l’une d’elles (fig. 1b) présente un fût de sec-
tion quadrangulaire plus communément observé sur les baguettes demi-ronde. Ces deux
dernières possèdent toutefois des caractéristiques métriques (largeur/épaisseur maximales et
longueur/largeur des biseaux) proches de celles de la pièce entière (Tableau 1).

figure 1 Pointes de projectile. a: armature entière à rainure (S201-F19-327), bois de renne,

vues face supérieure et latérale G. b: armature à biseau bifacial (partie mésio-proximale,
S202-J3-7), bois de renne, vues en déroulé à partir de la face supérieure. c: armature à
biseau bifacial (partie mésio-proximale, S202-N6-38), ivoire, vues en déroulé à partir de
la face supérieure. / Bone points. a: complete bone point with groove (S201-F19-327),
reindeer antler, views of the superior and left side; b: bone point with a bifacial bevel
(middle-proximal part, S202-J3-7), reindeer antler, four sides views starting with the supe-
rior side. c: Ivory bone point with bifacial bevel (middle-proximal part, S202-N6-38),
four sides views starting with the upper side (photos S. Oboukoff ).

Table 1
Dimensions des pointes d’os (B=biseau) / Dimensions of bone points
(B=bevel)
Pièce entière Biseau
N° pièce Longeur largeur épaisseur Longueur largeur Longueur largeur
totale max fût max fût B.face sup max B.face inf max
B.face sup B.face inf
S201-F19-327 120 11 11 27 8,5 25 8

S202-P4-240 71/c 11 8,5/c 17/c 9 Abs Abs
S202-M7-436 58/c 10 5 Abs Abs Abs Abs
S201-B17-51 72/c 14 10 25 13 31 12
S202-J3-7 82/c 14 11 27 8,5 10/c 7
S202-N6-38 70/c 18 17 - - - -
En revanche, la pointe en ivoire (fig. 1c) également à biseau bifacial, se distingue des
précédentes armatures par sa massivité: la partie distale, absente, justifie la faible longueur
mais la largeur (18 mm) et l’épaisseur (17 mm) maximales du fût (prises au-dessus du biseau)
sont nettement supérieures à celles des autres pièces. A cela s’ajoute la particularité du biseau
de la partie proximale: court et profond sur la face supérieure où il est arrêté par un entaillage
grossier et irrégulier, il est en revanche beaucoup plus régulier et étendu sur la face inférieure,
lui donnant ainsi l’aspect d’un biseau bifacial déséquilibré. L‘étude fonctionnelle à venir per-
mettra de mieux cerner l’intention qui existe derrière cet aménagement peu commun et aidera
à situer l’objet dans son histoire (en cours de façonnage ou abandonné après utilisation?).
Les deux dernières pointes posent question quant à leur aménagement proximal en
raison de leur état de conservation. Sur l’une (S202–P4–240), on peut observer, sur la face
conservée de la partie proximale, un biseau morphométriquement semblable à ceux des autres
pièces de la série; elle pourrait alors se rapprocher du type à biseau bifacial. Aucune identific-
ation ne peut être faite sur l’autre (S202–M7–436), constituée de la seule partie mésiale.
Le bâton percé (fig. 2): De type à une branche (S202–II-22–L7–449), il présente
deux cassures: l’une à l’extrémité du fût; l’autre à l’extrémité de la branche. La cassure de
l’extrémité du fût s’étend principalement sur une face (fig. 2a); l’autre face montre, en
dépit d’un état de surface moyen, un possible pan vestigiel perpendiculaire à la surface du
fût dont la régularité évoque la gorge que l’on obtient par un tronçonnage minutieux en
l’occurrence par rainurage bifacial comme les magdaléniens aiment à l’appliquer au bois de
cervidé. Si cette observation est prochainement avérée par une observation macroscopique,
elle signifierait que le bâton percé est pratiquement entier et présente une longueur actu-
elle (150 mm) proche de celle d’origine. Cette dimension, associée aux autres mesures
(v. Tableau 2), attribue à ce bâton percé un module relativement petit, similaire à celui des
autres exemplaires connus dans le Bassin parisien, provenant tous du site de Pincevent.

figure 2 Bâton percé (S202-1122-L7-449), a et b: face supérieure, vue générale et vue

de détail de la perforation; c et d : face inférieure, vue générale et vue de détail de la
perforation. / Pierced baton (S202-1122-L7-449), a and b: superior side, complete and
detail of perforation; c and d: lower side, complete and detail of perforation (photos
S. Oboukoff ).
Table 2
Dimensions du Bâton percé / dimensions du bâton percé
Pièce entière fût partie distale
N° pièce Longueur largeur épaisseur largeur max épaisseur largeur hauteur
totale max fût max fût partie distale max partie perforation perforation
distale
S202-L7-449 150/c 18 17 26 20 17 16
Les aiguilles à chas (fig. 3): Quatre éléments en os appartiennent à ce groupe (S201–
II-1–K18.65/S202–II-22–K6.74/S202–II-3–L5.977/S202–II.22–K4.183). Une pièce est
entière (K18.65; fig. 3a), les autres correspondent respectivement à une partie distale, une
partie mésiale, et une partie proximale. Aucun recollage n’a pu être réalisé entre ces pièces
toutes de même module. Hormis l’appartenance à des exemplaires différents, ceci peut aussi
trouver son origine dans l’altération de la matière organique (donc des pans de cassure) ou
dans la disparition de courts segments d’une même pièce. Cela posé, la portion conservée
de la pièce sur partie distale s’étend suffisamment vers sa partie mésiale pour éliminer tout
ajustement potentiel avec le fragment mésial conservé. Partant, on peut comptabiliser au
minimum deux voire trois aiguilles au total.
Un élément atypique appointé (S202–II-2–H1.96) en bois de renne (fig. 4) complète
la série des objets finis. Correspondant à une large baguette (largeur maximale 18 mm pour
une épaisseur de 7.5 mm) dédoublée par un rainurage longitudinal sur sa portion mésiale,
il présente également une extrémité appointée (fig. 4a et b). D’une longueur totale de
138 mm, une largeur maximale de 18 mm et une épaisseur totale de 7 mm (dont 2/3 mm
de tissu compact), cet objet possède une section rectangulaire aplatie.

figure 3 Aiguilles à chas. a : vue d’ensemble de la série; b: vue détaillée des chas, usure
et reprise après cassure (à droite); c: polissoir en grès fin. / Needles. a: all the needles;
b: blow up of eyes, usewear and repair after a break (to the right); c: fine-grained sand-
stone polishing stone (photos S. Oboukoff ).
figure 4 Elément appointé atypique H1-96 (niveau II-2). a: vue générale face supérieure;
b: vue générale face inférieure; c: vue du profil de la zone débitée par rainurage longitudinal;
d: détail de l’extrémité appointée, face inférieure. / Atypical pointed element H1-96
(level II-2). a: complete upper side; b: complete lower side; c: profile of the area sawn by
lengthwise grooving; d: detail of pointed tip, lower side (photos S. Oboukoff ).
Il a été entièrement façonné d’abord par un raclage grossier (certaines stries longi-
tudinales profondes sont encore visibles sur la face supérieure) permettant de mettre en
place la forme et les volumes principaux; la partie distale a ensuite été reprise et appoin-
tée par un raclage grossier multifacial, possiblement réalisé avec un flanc de burin comme

pourrait en témoigner le type de facettage de l’extrémité. Enfin, la finition a consisté en une

régularisation totale des surfaces par une abrasion fine (l’abrasif utilisé n’a pas été identifié).
Le pan de rainure localisé au centre de la face supérieure témoigne par son incidence abrupte
d’un rainurage également abrupt. La réalisation de ce rainurage semble bien avoir participé
à l’extraction d’une baguette. En témoigne la zone d’arrachement en escalier jouxtant et
perpendiculaire au pan de rainure, produite par le détachement final de l’extrémité de la
baguette par flexion bifaciale. La présence de pans de fracture marginaux bordant le fond du
pan de rainure renforce cette hypothèse (fig. 4c).
Une première observation de la superposition des stigmates de fabrication et d’utilisation
permet d’avancer que cet objet appointé a été utilisé avant de subir ce débitage (fig. 4d). Cela
signifierait que du statut d’outil, il est passé à celui de bloc secondaire qui a conduit à la
production d’un support de type “baguette en tasseau” d’une longueur minimale de 65 mm
pour une largeur et une épaisseur d’environ 5 mm chacune. Dans cet ordre d’idée, la partie
mésiale restante pouvait donner lieu à l’extraction d’une seconde baguette de même mor-
phométrie.
Les bâtonnets (fig. 7a): Huit pièces en ivoire présentent globalement une forme de
“bâtonnet” par leur contour rectangulaire, leur profil rectiligne et leur section rectangulaire,
voire quadrangulaire pour certains exemplaires proches de la forme d’une “bûchette”
(S202–K8–228/S202–M8–730/S201–M8–728/S202–M8–727/S202–M8–729/
S202–M10–168/S202–B15–173/S202–N7–446). Ils portent tous des stigmates tech-
niques (généralement de raclage voire d’abrasion) qui témoignent de leur mise en forme;
leur étude prochaine permettra d’affiner ces observations. La plupart sont cassés, soit
dans la longueur soit dans la largeur ou encore dans l’épaisseur mais leurs dimensions,
même sur cassure (v. Tableau 3), permettent de les rapprocher de la seule pièce entière
(fig. 7b) et donne son homogénéité à cet ensemble. Comme l’analyse technique, l’analyse
Table 3
Dimensions des bâtonnets / Dimensions of ivory sticks
Pièce entière
N° Pièce Longeur totale largeur max fût épaisseur max fût
S202-M8-729 45 9 5,5
S202-K8-228 60 4,5/c 5/c
S202-M8-727 61/c 8 3,5/c
S201-M8-718 38/c 8,5 7/c
S202-M8-130 58/c 8,5 6
S202-M10-168 52/c 8 -
S203-B15-173 50/c 10 -
S202-N7-446 35/c 10 -

fonctionnelle reste à faire pour intégrer correcte-

ment ces objets à la chaîne techno-économique de
transformation: sont-ce des blocs secondaires pour
la production de perles? des supports en cours de
façonnage? des objets finis utilisés et abandon-
nés? La présence de probables traces d’utilisation
plaide davantage en faveur d’une appartenance à
l’équipement (cf. §2).
Les déchets de transformation
Matrices d’extraction (fig. 5): Deux matrices en bois

de renne ont été décomptées. De type “en arc,” elles
témoignent de l’extraction d’une unique et longue
baguette provenant de la face antérieure du bois (en
position anatomique) (fig. 6).
L’une (S202–II-22–N5–1442) a été écrasée
par le poids des sédiments. Issue d’un bois de renne,
gauche peut-être, et de gros module, elle est con-
stituée de l’ensemble de la perche (portions A, B, figure 5 Matrices d’extraction. a:
et C); les parties basilaires et l’empaumure en sont L2-148 (niveau II-21), vues générales
absentes. Selon l’organisation des pans de rainures faces supérieure et inférieure; b: S202-
restant après l’extraction réalisée selon le procédé N5-1442 (niveau II-3), vues générales
commun du double rainurage (ou rainurage lon- faces supérieure et inférieure; vue
gitudinal parallèle), on peut estimer que le support détaillée face antérieure débitée. /
Extraction matrices. a: L2-148 (level
extrait a pu avoir une longueur supérieure ou égale à II-21) upper and lower sides; b:
450 mm. De section plano-convexe à pans obliques S202-N5-1442 (level II-3), upper and
rentrants, comme en témoigne l’incidence abrupte lower sides; detail of the worked front
des pans de rainures par rapport au plan de débitage side (photos S. Oboukoff).
figure 6 Reconstitution schématique des objectifs du débitage par extraction, appliquée

au bois de renne de gros module. / Reconstructed scheme of the extraction process
applied to a large reindeer antler (DAO D. Molez).

figure 7 Matériel en ivoire. a: série de bâtonnets, en partant de la gauche: M8-718,

M8-719, M8-130, M8-727, K8-228 tous du niveau II-4 et tous fragmentaires, sauf
M8-727; b: bâtonnet entier M8-727, vues extrémité distale usée, face latérale gauche,
face inférieure ocrée et face latérale droite; c: fragment de tronçon entaillé H20-38, niveau
II-21; d: fragment de tronçon et de “lames” issus du délitage naturel de l’ivoire. / Ivory
pieces. a: series of sticks, from the left: M8-718, M8-719, M8-130, M8-727, K8-228, all
in level II-4 and all fragmented except M8-277; complete stick M8-277, worn distal end,
left side, ochred lower side and right side; c: notched fragment of ivory H20-38, level II-21;
d: fragment of an ivory section and “blades” coming from the ivory natural cleaving.

(face antérieure du bois), cette baguette devait avoir une largeur maximale de 17 mm (face
supérieure) et minimale de 8 mm (face inférieure correspondant au tissu spongieux interne).
Son épaisseur maximale a pu atteindre 8 mm ou plus dont 6 mm de tissu compact.
La deuxième matrice (S202–II-2–L2–148) présente une fracture longitudinale le long
de la rainure interne (gauche en regardant la pièce face à soi en position anatomique). Issue
d’un bois de renne droit de gros module, elle a conduit à l’extraction d’une longue baguette
d’environ 500 mm dont les bords ont été délimités par un rainurage mordant largement
sur les faces adjacentes de la perche; de ce fait, ce rainurage plus oblique, presque rasant par
rapport au plan de débitage, a dessiné une section grossièrement plano-convexe. La largeur
maximale, prise à partir de la face supérieure, peut être estimée à 28 mm; la largeur mini-
male prise à partir de la face inférieure (correspondant au tissu spongieux interne du bois)
à 17 mm. L ‘épaisseur totale de la baguette a pu atteindre 10 mm dont 6 à 8 mm de tissu
compact selon la portion considérée (provenant de la perche C ou A).
Éclats, tronçons, et “lames” en ivoire (fig. 7c et d): Une cinquantaine de fragments et
déchets variés en ivoire de mammouth ont été décomptés. Près de la moitié d’entre eux
présentent des stigmates de travail et appartiennent à des types variés allant de l’éclat (issus
d’une percussion diffuse), aux grands morceaux et tronçons (issus d’un détachement par
entaillage). Leurs dimensions sont également très variables puisqu’elles sont de l’ordre de la
dizaine de millimètres pour certains éclats à près de 200 mm de longueur pour certains tron-
çons. Quelques “lames” raclées complètent cet ensemble; néanmoins, le statut de ces grands
fragments fins et rectangulaires (support? déchets?) et l’origine naturelle ou anthropique
de leur production reste à déterminer. Enfin, le reste de la série est constitué de fragments
de lecture difficile, mais semble-il vierges de tout stigmate anthropique, qui pourraient
être issus du seul délitage du fragment de défense présent sur le site. L’étude prochaine cet
ensemble en ivoire permettra de les associer ou non à une chaîne opératoire.
Diversité des activités recensées
Objets finis et déchets renvoient à diverses activités d’acquisition et de transformation.

Certaines d’entre elles ont pu jouer un rôle prépondérant pendant l’installation des groupes
comme les activités cynégétiques auxquelles se rapportent vraisemblablement les pointes de pro-
jectile. D’autres ont pu être plus marginales si l’on se fonde sur le faible nombre de témoins
directs qu’elles ont générés, telles les aiguilles et la pratique de la couture. D’autres encore restent
à identifier comme celles qui ont présidé à l’utilisation du bâton percé et des bâtonnets d’ivoire.
Des activités liées à la chasse
La majorité des pointes de projectile proviennent des niveaux II-1 et 2. L’étude fonction-
nelle en cours (op. cit.) permettra de mieux cerner l’origine et la nature des fractures que
portent la plupart des pointes tant sur le fût (partie mésiale) que sur les extrémités (distale et
proximale). Elle autorisera également une appréhension plus fine de l’usure potentielle que
montrent les extrémités distales et ouvrira vers une connaissance plus acérée de la fonction et

du fonctionnement de ces pointes. Dans l’état actuel des observations, on peut avancer que,
à l’exception possible de la pointe massive en ivoire, la forme et les modules des pointes sont
globalement compatibles avec un lanceur de type “propulseur.” Elles auraient donc armé
des sagaies potentiellement utilisées dans le cadre de chasses au renne ce qui concorde avec
le nombre important de vestiges fauniques attribuables à cet animal.
Des activités liées au travail des matières osseuses
Deux matières osseuses ont été travaillées pendant les occupations: le bois de renne et
l’ivoire.
Le débitage du bois de renne: La présence des matrices (en II-2 et II-22) et celle de la
pointe devenue matrice secondaire (en II-21) attestent de la conduite de trois débitages par
extraction à l’objectif commun: produire un support en forme de baguette. Dans les deux
premiers cas, les types et les modules des baguettes débitées ainsi que les caractéristiques
morphométriques des bois utilisés concordent avec les principaux types de pointes de pro-
jectile présentes sur le site. On peut donc raisonnablement avancer que ces débitages ont été
conduits dans cet objectif final d’autant que de tels débitages ont été identifiés dans d’autres
sites du Bassin parisien (notamment Pincevent). Au total six pointes ont pu être produites:
la subdivision en trois de chacune des longues baguettes permettant d’obtenir les supports
adéquats (fig. 6). En outre, elles ont vraisemblablement été pour la plupart—sinon toutes—
emportées hors du campement. En effet, à un fragment proximal près, aucune pointe n’est
présente dans les niveaux concernés et de fait, un fort déséquilibre existe entre le nombre de
mm de baguettes débités et de baguettes présentes sous forme d’objets finis. Ainsi, dans le
niveau II-3, 450 mm de baguette débitée s’opposent à 0 mm sous forme d’objet et dans le
niveau II-21, 500 mm de baguette débitée s’opposent aux 60 mm de baguette sous forme de
pointe de projectile (fragment proximal).
À l’inverse, la majorité des pointes de projectile abandonnées appartiennent à deux
niveaux où seul un petit débitage secondaire conduit sur la pointe a été réalisé. Dans ces
niveau II-1 et 2, près de 312 mm de longueur de baguette sont présents sous forme d’objets
finis (quatre pointes sur baguettes) pour 10 mm de baguette débitée. De plus, les dimen-
sions de la petite baguette extraite (lg 6, ép. max. 5) ne concordent pas avec celles des pointes
présentes. Rien ne permet à ce jour d’affirmer que ce débitage visait la production d’une
armature mais si tel est le cas, celle-ci a été de module réduit.
L’acquisition des bois débités pose également question. Par leur structure et leurs
dimensions, les perches des matrices proviennent de bois de gros module, au développe-
ment achevé, attribuables à des individus mâles adultes. L’absence des parties basilaires ne
permet pas de savoir s’il s’agit de bois de chute ou de massacre ce qui étend potentiellement
leur acquisition à une fourchette comprise entre la fin de l’été et le début de l’hiver (selon
Bouchud 1966). Le mauvais état de surface des matrices ne permet plus d’identifier la
présence de traces parasites autres que celles des végétaux et de déterminer si les bois ont
été ou non débités peu de temps après leur collecte. De ce fait, il est difficile de savoir si
celle-ci a été contemporaine de chacune des occupations concernées. Dans l’affirmative, on
peut penser que les bois ont été préparés hors de la zone d’habitation (lieu de ramassage

pour un bois de chute, d’abattage pour un massacre) au vu de l’absence des autres parties des
bois (andouillers, empaumure, épois). Dans la négative, on peut supposer que les groupes
sont arrivés au Buisson Campin avec ces blocs de réserve constitués antérieurement dans un
autre campement.
Le débitage de l’ivoire: Révélée par la présence des déchets, cette activité a essentiel-
lement été conduite dans les niveaux II-1et II-2, sans doute sur une portion de défense
de mammouth dont subsiste un tronçon d’une quinzaine de centimètres de long en état
de desquamation. L’étude préliminaire du matériel a permis d’identifier des procédés de
tronçonnage, de mise en forme, de régularisation de surface impliquant diverses techniques
communément employées au Magdalénien: percussion tranchante, percussion diffuse,
raclage, abrasion, polissage. Mais l’essentiel reste à accomplir car si la présence en nombre
des bâtonnets encourage à les associer aux déchets présents, force est de constater que si ce
lien existe, il n’est que d’ordre technologique et pas d’ordre temporel. En effet, aucun vestige
en ivoire, travaillé ou non, n’est présent dans le niveau II-4 dont proviennent les bâtonnets.
En outre, si certaines pièces (“lames”) renvoient au débitage par extraction qui a pu régir la
production de bâtonnets, d’autres (tronçons et pointe de projectile) renvoient à un débitage
par segmentation. Du reste, la plupart proviennent des niveaux II-1et II-2 d’où est égale-
ment issue la pointe. Seule l’étude complète permettra d’identifier les schémas opératoires et
les objectifs poursuivis par les groupes qui ont travaillé cette matière au Buisson Campin.
Des activités liées au travail de matières souples
La couture: Avec un ou deux exemplaires dans chacun des niveaux concernés (II-1, II-22,
II-3), les aiguilles renvoient vraisemblablement à une activité marginale, voire occasionnelle.
Elles ont néanmoins connu une utilisation assez exhaustive avant d’être abandonnées à
Verberie: usure forte des chas, fragmentation importante, reprise. La seule pièce entière mon-
tre une réfection de sa partie proximale, un second chas ayant été aménagé probablement
après la cassure du premier dont subsiste la lèvre inférieure partiellement régularisée (fig. 3b).
La découverte d’un petit polissoir en grès dans le niveau II-22 (S202–II.22-N8–187)
concorde avec ce constat: il présente des sillons dont la création est compatible avec le
frottement du fût d’une aiguille, et a pu participer à des opérations de remise en forme
et de régularisation de surface finale, nécessaires dans le cadre d’une réfection. Il a égale-
ment pu être impliqué dans le façonnage de pièces neuves, mais, dans ce cas, les supports
ont été produits hors du Buisson Campin comme l’atteste l’absence totale des déchets de
débitage caractéristiques. Les groupes qui ont fréquenté ce site auraient donc apporté des
aiguilles sous leur forme usuelle ou en devenir, les auraient utilisées et, à l’exception de
l’aiguille entière, auraient abandonné les fragments inutilisables. Une première observation
des traces et fractures d’utilisation confirme leur implication dans des travaux de couture
(lustré des lèvres des perforations, fracture en sifflet des fûts, micro-ébréchures distales,
etc.); une analyse d’ordre microscopique devrait permettre de mieux cerner la nature du
lien et de la (ou les) matière cousue.
La fonction du bâton percé reste à déterminer, mais les premières observations mac-
roscopiques de la perforation tendent à l’associer à un travail de matières souples. En effet,

en dépit d’une surface très altérée et d’une lecture des stigmates rendue complexe, la forme
et l’étendue de l’usure probable de la lèvre intérieure et le lustré intense marquant le front
de la partie distale (autrement dit la couronne du bois) militent en faveur du passage répété
d’un lien ou d’une corde en matières souples.
Des activités à identifier
…nécessitant l’usage des bâtonnets: La présence de résidus d’ocre sur le fût, associée au poli
et à l’usure intense que montrent les extrémités de certaines pièces, notamment la pièce
entière, ont contribué à leur attribuer un statut d’outil. Une analyse micro-tracéologique
doit être conduite et enrichie de tests expérimentaux pour parvenir à déterminer leur fonc-
tion, à ce jour inexpliquée. Il est, dans cette optique, intéressant de noter que les six pièces
du niveau 4 proviennent d’un petit dépôt comprenant également un ou deux coquillages et
un petit galet, localisé en arrière du foyer de ce niveau au centre d’une zone vide qui pourrait
correspondre à un abri couvert (comm. personnelle de F. Audouze).
Organisation sociale, nature du site, et industrie osseuse
Les données recueillies à ce jour sur l’industrie en matières osseuses ne permettent pas
d’évoquer raisonnablement l’organisation spatiale et économique des groupes qui ont vécu
au Buisson Campin. Il en va de même pour la nature du site, difficile à cerner sous le seul
éclairage de quelques pièces, témoins d’activités bien distinctes dans leur nature comme
dans leur durée potentielle et par surcroît, réparties sur différents niveaux. Certes, la fabrica-
tion de pointes de projectile se rapproche davantage de l’idée d’un camp de chasse, tant dans
l’optique d’une production à usage immédiat que pour un usage différé; cette hypothèse est
soutenue par l’arrivée de blocs déjà préparés sur le site (cf. supra). Cette activité ne concerne
que deux niveaux; les autres niveaux se distinguent soit par l’utilisation contemporaine de
pointes de projectile et d’autres catégories d’objets, soit par la production de bâtonnets en
ivoire qui, pour l’instant, ne semblent pas a priori avoir de liens directs avec une activité
cynégétique. En fait, une certaine hétérogénéité marque les niveaux du strict point de vue
de la composition de leur industrie osseuse. Doit-on y voir le résultat d’occupations de
nature différentes (halte/campement, spécialisé/domestique, etc.)? Lesquelles pourraient
alors témoigner soit de passages répétés d’un même groupe à différents moments de son
cycle annuel, soit de l’arrivée de groupes distincts, dans une optique alors variable selon la
saison et leur organisation socio-économique propre?
On le voit: de telles questions ne peuvent trouver réponse sans croiser l’ensemble des
informations disponibles pour retracer l’histoire de ces occupations. Il nous est donc difficile
d’y répondre seule. Toutefois, pour marcher dans cette direction, nous proposons en guise
de conclusion de dresser, un bref récapitulatif des évènements dont témoigne l’industrie
osseuse dans chaque niveau.
Ainsi, dans les niveaux II-1 et II-2, l’abandon de plusieurs armatures de sagaie,
généralement cassées, témoigne indirectement de la pratique de la chasse, vraisemblable-
ment au renne si l’on s’en rapporte aux vestiges fauniques présents. Une portion de défense

de mammouth, rapportée au campement, a été en partie débitée; il est possible que la pointe
grossière en ivoire ait été fabriquée à cette occasion. L’abandon (ou la perte) d’une aiguille à
chas en état de fonctionnement peut renvoyer à un épisode de couture marginal. Au moins
un bâtonnet en ivoire a été utilisé puis abandonné.
Dans le niveau II-2, le débitage d’un bois de renne a permis de fabriquer au plus trois
pointes de projectile, emportées hors du campement. De l’ivoire a également été travaillé.
Seule une pointe fabriquée dans cette matière renvoie à une activité cynégétique.
Dans le niveau II-22, le bâton percé arrivé sous cette forme et déjà usé est abandonné
après une dernière utilisation au Buisson Campin (ou ailleurs?). La présence d’une pointe
de projectile renvoie à la pratique de la chasse, possiblement contemporaine de l’occupation.
Les deux fragments d’aiguilles à chas abandonnés hors d’usage témoignent d’épisodes de
couture occasionnels. Un polissoir a peut-être été utilisé à Verberie mais plus sûrement
auparavant dans d’autres lieux (au vu de la profondeur des sillons) pour fabriquer ou repren-
dre certaines pièces. Au moins un bâtonnet en ivoire a été utilisé puis abandonné.
Dans le niveau II-3, trois pointes de projectile en bois de renne, au plus, ont été fabri-
quées puis emportées hors du campement. Dans le cadre d’activité de couture, une aiguille
a été cassée et abandonnée.
Dans le niveau II-4, plusieurs bâtonnets d’ivoire ont été utilisés puis abandonnés
ensemble à proximité du foyer.
S’il est délicat au terme de ce rapide tour d’horizon de reconnaître la nature des occu-
pations qui se sont succédées au Buisson Campin, deux constats néanmoins s’imposent:
• La présence récurrente des vestiges de l’industrie osseuse dans les niveaux du

Buisson Campin atteste de l’intégration régulière des pièces de l’équipement en
matières osseuses aux activités qui se sont déroulées pendant les occupations;
• La forte homogénéité technologique (extraction en arc) et typologique (types et
module des pointes et bâtons percés) unit l’ensemble de Verberie aux autres sites du
Bassin parisien: Etiolles (Essonne) et Pincevent (Seine et Marne).
Du point de vue de son industrie osseuse, le site du Buisson Campin s’intègre donc au
“schéma” de production et d’utilisation des équipements en matières osseuses qui tend à se
dessiner actuellement pour le Magdalénien du Bassin parisien.
References Cited
Averbouh, A. 2000 Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implications palethnologiques. L’exemple
des chaînes d’exploitation du bois de cervidé chez les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées. Thèse de doctorat,
Université de Paris 1.
Averbouh, A. 2002 Analyse du travail des matières osseuses à Verberie (Buisson Campin, Oise).
In Rapport de fouille triennal 2000–02—Verberie (le Buisson Campin) Oise, F. Audouze et
J. G. Enloe, editors.
Averbouh, A. 2003 Le travail du bois de renne chez les groupes magdaléniens du Bassin Parisien.
In Rapport du P.C.R. “Habitats et peuplements tardiglaciaires dans le Bassin Parisien,” Région
Centre-Nord.

Averbouh, A. 2006 Le travail des matières osseuses: une activité marginale des occupants de l’unité
T 125. In Un dernier hiver à Pincevent: les Magdaléniens du niveau IV0, P. Bodu, M. Julien,
B. Valentin, G. Debout et al., editors. Gallia Préhistoire 48:83–89.
Averbouh, A., and M. Julien 2004 L’armement magdalénien en matière osseuse du Bassin parisien.
Rapport du P.C.R. “Habitats et peuplements tardiglaciaires dans le Bassin Parisien,” Région
Centre-Nord.
Averbouh, A. and M. Christensen 2005 Les vestiges en bois de cervidé des occupations magdalé-
niennes d’Etiolles (Essonne). Rapport de fouille campagne 2005, M. Olive, N. Pigeot, and
Y. Taborin, editors.
Bouchud, J. 1966 Essai sur le renne et la climatologie du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur. Périgueux.
Christensen, M. 1999 Technologie de l’ivoire au Paléolithique supérieur. Caractérisation physico-
chimique du matériau et analyse fonctionnelle d’outils de transformation. BAR International Series
751, Oxford.
Lompré, A. 2003 Une nouvelle étude techno-fonctionnelle appliquée à un ensemble magdalénien
de bâtons percés. In Transformation et Utilisation des matières dures animales—Actualités des
Recherches universitaires en France 2000–04, A. Averbouh and M. Christensen, editors. PAM
12:147–163.

Chapter Six
Pincevent and Verberie Rocks and Hearths
A Tentative Summary/Preliminary Analysis
Gaëlle Dumarçay and Madeleine Caron (+)
Abstract The analysis of heated rocks at Pincevent and Verberie informs

us about their provenience, their morphology, their use in hearths and discard.
Sandstone blocks are predominant at Pincevent, along with granite, limestone and
millstone are collected on the river bank at Pincevent. Hundred kilos of them were
collected further away from the site at Verberie, and most of them are limestone. The
sharp broken edges and the strong color alteration indicate temperatures varying from
300° to 650° for the limestone blocks and from 300° to 700° for sandstone blocks.
Large Blocks and slates were selected for hearths, and at Pincevent for seats. They
were used to create an edge or for lining the basin according to the hearth destination
or state of use. Several hearths went through rejuvenation (several occurrences for
T112 at Pincevent, at least one for D1 at Verberie). Others containing small-sized
stones may have been used for stone-boiling.
L’analyse des pierres chauffées donne des informations sur leur provenance, leur
morphologie, leur utilisation dans les foyers et leur rejet. Les blocs de grès dominent à
Pincevent et sont ramassés, comme les blocs de granite, de calciare et de meulière, sur les
rives de la Seine à Pincevent. Des centaines de kilos de blocs calcaire pour la plupart ont
été récoltés plus loin du site à Verberie, Les bords cassés aigus et la forte altération colorée
indiquent des temperatures allant de 300 à 600 degrés pour les calcaires et de 300 à 760
degrés pour les grès. De grands blocs et des dalles ont été choisies pour les foyers, et pour
des sieges à Pincevent. Ils servaient pour la bordure des foyers ou pour en tapisser le fond
selon la destination et l’usure du foyer. Plusieurs foyers ont été refaits (plusieurs fois pour
le foyer T112 à Pincevent et au moins une fois pour le foyer D1 à Verberie). D’autres
foyers remplis de petites pierres ont pu servir à bouillir à l’aide de pierres chauffées.
91

A s is often the case for the open air Paleolithic sites of the Paris Basin, at Pincevent Level
IV-0 and Verberie Level II-1 heated rocks represent a large part of the remains discov-
ered. Whether they were found alone or within fire structures, meaning “any kind of group
of artifacts wearing evidence of fire damage” (Leroi-Gourhan 1973), these rocks testify to
varied daily technical activities. So, studying this rocky mass makes it possible to look for
the intentions and behaviors linked to its use in heating activities and consequently the eco-
nomic, social, and paleoenvironmental implications linked to its acquisition and its use.
To this end, studying how the rocks meant to be heated were supplied seems to be
a relevant approach in order to try and emphasize the issues linked to intentions prior to
supplying the rocks and how the volume of rocks brought back was managed. Indeed, we
will first focus on the amount of raw material supply in order to learn about the origin, the
distance, the accessibility, and the abundance of resources, as well as the nature, the quality
and the morphology of the raw material. Then we shall try to find how this rocky mass was
managed between the moment it was used and when it was thrown out.
In order to deal with these issues, we will mainly use the data from Pincevent Level IV-0
and Verberie Level II-1, which are being studied for a doctoral thesis. They will be accompanied
by comparisons with the heated rocks of Pincevent Habitation No. 1, studied by B.Valentin,
section 36 of Pincevent Level IV-20, studied by M. Julien, and section 46 of Pincevent Level
IV-20 that I previously studied for a DEA, which are more ancient levels than Level IV-0.
Raw Materials: Origin, Variability, and Arrangement
The rolled aspect of most of Pincevent rocks leads us to think that the Magdalenians got
their rocks from the banks of the Seine. The river Yonne might have brought some non local
raw materials such as granite, microgranite, perhaps shale, shale sandstone, and ferruginous
sandstone from Morvan. A few blocks of millstone and limestone with less polished cracks
are likely to come from local outcrops. Sandstone, especially Fontainebleau sandstone,
seems to be prevailing on all the levels of Pincevent: it does not seem that the raw materials
were selected; the proportions of rocks apparently correspond to the local geological pro-
file (Julien 1972; Valentin 1987). The general profile of distribution of the raw materials
concerning the uncut rocks of unit T125 of Pincevent Level IV-0 shows a predominance of
sandstone which represents 47.33% of the corpus, followed by limestone (32.82%), then
millstone (8.56%). The other raw materials that are on the site within fire structures are
more exceptional and only represent 4.43% of those rocks. The proportions of rocks of this
level also correspond to the geological profile (fig. 1).
Although the materials seem to have been removed from within the local geological
spectrum in a homogeneous way, a few diachronic variabilities can nevertheless be observed
if one compares the percentages of materials from one level to another. Thus, Habitation
No. 1 as a whole shows a percentage of sandstone, all types taken into account, higher than
70%. This raw material only represents 58.6% of the corpus of section 36 of Level IV-20,
41.57% of the corpus of section 46 of the Level IV-20 and, as has already been mentioned,
47.33% for unit T125 of Level IV-0 (Julien, 1972; Valentin, 1987; Dumarçay, 2002;
March et al. 2004). Limestone, which represents 1.8% of the corpus of section 36, only

Pincevent and Verberie Rocks and Hearths 93
figure 1 Pincevent: Raw materials. / Matières premières.
constitutes 30% of the materials of unit T125, and on the same level granite is scarce—less
than 1%—whereas it represented 11.92% of the rocks of section 46 (fig. 2). On the whole,
and judging by the data available, this pattern is also to be found as regards masses.
Some variability can also be observed from a spatial standpoint. Pincevent IV-0, for
example, is characterized by a basin-shaped hearth, edged and lined with stones, and the
stones rejected from the hearth have been discarded in two dumps. It has been noticed that
if Fontainebleau sandstone is predominantly represented in masses in all cases, a differential
choice seems to have been made according to the clusters of remains (fig. 3). Indeed, apart
from sandstone, millstone and limestone are the most currently used stones in hearth T125,
limestone and shale sandstone are prevailing in the northern area, and shale sandstone and
millstone are the most numerous in the southeastern area (March et al. 2004). Thus, accord-
ing to the cluster, it appears that some of these raw materials have been favored at least at
one moment of the occupation, before the abandonment stage. It would be interesting to
go over the data of section 36 again to see if we can observe a variability in the various raw

figure 2 Pincevent: Raw materials per layers. / Matières premières par niveaux
archéologiques.
figure 3 Pincevent: Raw materials weight in percentage. / Poids des matières premières
en pourcentage.

materials according to mass (which is more representative than quantity) and according to
the various clusters of remains that can be observed. We can also mention the case of hearth
Y 127 of section 44, included in Level IV-0 although it has never been established whether
it was strictly contemporary with unit T125. This time, it is a small basin-shaped hearth
with an edge; both in terms of quantity as well as mass, millstone is the best represented
raw material (38.9%), followed by shale sandstone (31.59%), limestone (23.19%), and
Fontainebleau sandstone (6.23%) to the exclusion of any other type of rocks.
As far Verberie Level II-1 is concerned, if the materials used seem to be local, a study
of the regional geological profile seems to show that the access to raw materials was far more
distant than in the case of Pincevent, at least three kilometers, except for the banks of the
river Oise. In the present state of our research, much based on M. Caron’s work, limestone
is prevailing as a whole, but here again a close observation according to the areas of dis-
tribution of the remains shows that this is not the case in every area in Level II-1 (fig. 4).
Indeed, if hearth M20 is characterized by a better representation of limestone than of the
other materials (73.4%), hearth D1 is composed of 64.29% sandstone, and the intermedi-
ate dump H18 shows an average 47% of each of these raw materials. It is the same weight
(fig. 5). This distance to the resources, which seems farther than for Pincevent, raises a ques-
tion: How were the rocks carried over a middle distance, all the more so as the volume of
initial blocks of raw materials was rather high?
These few nonexhaustive examples taken from the site of Pincevent and Verberie
allow us at first to see that the Magdalenians had a rather broad petrographic spectrum in
the course of their various occupations. If the question of a similar access to materials while
they were stocking up with rocks arises, this is not the only reason that explains the vary-
ing proportions of raw materials according to the clusters. We rather think it may be due
to good geologic knowledge, experience, and intuitive knowledge of the physical proper-
ties of rocks as well as their calorific capacity or their conductivity. For instance, sandstone
stones heat more quickly as well (Lucquin 2000; Dumarçay 2001), which may account for
figure 4 Verberie: Raw materials. / Matières premières.

figure 5 Verberie: Raw material weight in percentage. From top to bottom: hearth D1,
hearth M20, dump H19. / Poids des matières premières en pourcentage. De haut en bas:
foyer D1, foyer M20, dépotoir H19.
choosing raw materials related to the nature of the technical activities—culinary or not—
during which the rocks were exposed to fire once or more often: for example, keeping the
most heat-resistant rocks for activities requiring them. We can begin to detect in time and
space a relative change in the way the rocks intended to be heated were used; and thus,
before that, the ways supplies of rocks were acquired.
From Rocks to Hearths
During the excavations of those sites, the state of desertion shows, more often than not,
sharply broken up rocks particularly well illustrated by fragments between 0 and 5 cm or
5 and 10 cm in length. Such breaking up under the effect of heat is often coupled with
strong alteration of colors of varying type according to the nature of the raw materials. This

can be observed by making comparisons with experimental corpuses, with heating tempera-
tures between 300°C and 650/700°C for limestone and 300°C and 700°C for sandstone
(March et Soler Mayor 1999; Dumarçay 2001, 2002; March et al. 2004).
The knowledge of the initial morphologies of the blocks subjected to heating results
either from a relative module continuity of some rocks, which can be observed notably in
the case of edge rejuvenation, or refitting. As a result, the profiles wanted were either blocks
of 10 to 40 cm in length or slabs of 20 to 90 cm in length. Thus, large volumes were cho-
sen to make heating places (fig. 6). They could also be used as seats, heating devices, or for
craftsman’s activities (e.g., making pigments, etc.).
M. Julien’s work on the rocks and hearths of Pincevent Level IV-20 (Julien 1972,
1984, 1988) made it possible to set up a typology of hearths “ based upon the particu-
lar morphology of every hearth structure and the nature and density of related artifacts”
(Valentin 1987). Though hearth T125 of Pincevent Level IV-0 contains lots of rocks, it is
undoubtedly related to the category of stone-lined hearths. It is also the case with hearth
Y127 of Level IV-0 (March et al. 2004) and Verberie D1 Hearth (Audouze 1978; Julien
1988). As for Verberie M20 hearth, it is related to the category of hearths with no obvious
edge and a concentration of stones inside the heating area. In the case of this hearth, we
have small-size and rather scattered rocks (Audouze 1984; Julien 1988). The average sizes of
theirs basins vary between 30 to 90 cm and they are 10 to 30 cm deep.
The first results of the study of hearth T125 of Level IV-0 of Pincevent show that it
has gone through a series of complex stories still difficult to individualize. Yet, it is already
possible to see that it was rejuvenated several times. Several stages have been detected
figure 6 Verberie: Refitted fragments of a sandstone block found in hearth D1 and

dump H19. / Remontage des fragments d’un bloc de grès venant du foyer D1 et du
dépotoir H19 (photo F. Audouze).

characterized by successive deposits of rocks and another remains such as flint debris, burnt
or not. On the other hand, some rocks belonging to rejuvenating hearth operations are
interstratified with clusters of flint resulting from knapping activities. Studying the hearths’
profiles allowed us to observe different levels of soil altered by heating, blackened or red-
dened; they testify to a series of periods of activity (March et al. 2004). We have spotted an
estimated 10 rejuvenating operations (fig. 7).
Hearth Y127 of Level IV-0 section 44 of Pincevent is characterized by the presence of large
rocks partly broken or nearly intact that make up a rather clear-cut edge. Such slight breaking
up together with the slight oxidation of the rocks is suggestive of a rather later stage of hearth.
Its last period of use was rather short, though it had first gone through several rejuvenations.
The morphology of hearth D1 of Verberie Level II-1 is much more structured than
that of T125, since its edge was rejuvenated with whole stone blocks shortly before it was
abandoned. Furthermore, it was probably cleaned out so as to empty its basin up. The
changes make it difficult to know anything about its previous periods of activity. However,
the refitting work carried out by M. Caron between hearth D1 and the dump area H18
suggests at least one period of activity preceding the short use of the refitted stones found
thrown out in H18 (fig. 8).
As for Hearth M20, it shows a more diffuse aspect than hearth D1. It is composed of
rocks of small modules, very much oxydized, and of very much altered sediment (fig. 9). It
suggests that it was used intensively several times. As the refits of this level have not been
completed yet, we cannot say for sure that the hearth is related to the dump area H18.
Nevertheless, judging from the different proportions of the various materials between the
two hearths and the mixed situation observed in H18, it seems attractive to think that this
dump area is common to both hearths as H19 is common to both hearths for flint debris
(Audouze, this volume). To what extent remains to be seen.
figure 7 Pincevent IV-0: Hearth T125. / Foyer T125 (photo P. Bodu).

figure 8 Rejuvenated hearth D1 in Verberie level II-1 / Foyer D1rénové, niveau II-1 de
Verberie (photo F. Audouze).
figure 9 Final stage of hearth M20 in Verberie level II-1 / Foyer M20 en état final,
niveau II-1 de Verberie (photo F. Audouze).
Stemming from these observations, we can see that there was no interest in control-
ling through time the size of the rocks used to build hearths. Rather, blocks and slabs
were used thoroughly, no matter whether they were intact or not. The use of whole new
blocks or slabs seems to have occurred only when most of the rocks of a hearth could not

be used anymore. This is what the sandstone blocks lining the T125 hearth of Pincevent
Level IV-0 and of the D1 hearth of the Verberie Level II-1 suggest. Both hearths were
rejuvenated with whole new stone blocks and slabs. These two cases might correspond to
a new use independent of the previous ways of operating. Using the same rocks as long
as they could heat might have been linked to the intention to limit the duration of work
and the cost of getting new stones supplies. And then, it was perhaps possible to com-
bine the acquisition of rocks with that of other raw materials, mineral or animal, in an
opportunistic way and within the limits of their needs. At the same time, the huge initial
quantities that were brought back to camp constituted a potential stock of raw material.
This is illustrated by a refit made by M. Julien, which shows how a block of granite was
used in hearth T112, thrown out, and used again in hearth L115 (Julien 1972). Raw
material management was all the more necessary if the distances to resources were not all
short, as the case might have been at Verberie. In no case have we been able to observe
an accumulation of non-heated rocks that might suggest the possible storage of materials
intended to be heated. But the absence of such rocks might as well show a strict anticipa-
tion of needs in relation to a scheduled date of departure, at least toward the end of an
occupation.
It is also interesting to underline that some small-sized stones may have been used
within a context of stone boiling in order to allow the extraction of marrow from horse
bones, thus giving them a new functionality. Indeed, unlike reindeer bones, which have a
large medullary cavity from which the marrow can be removed by crushing, horse bones are
spongy, and using this technique of cooking by stone-heated water might make it possible
to get a meat stock (March and Soler Mayor 1999; Enloe 2000). If scarce rocks are char-
acterized by a crumbly nature, which is one of the parameters that can be observed in the
rocks used within the context of the stone boiling (Dumarçay et al. in press), it is too early
to assert this hypothesis.
As far as the functions of hearths are concerned, the variety of the remains related
to them suggests that they were relatively polyvalent and linked up to culinary as well
as more technical activities, which is not uncommon with Magdalenian settlements. The
coexistence of “domestic” hearths related to various activities and of “satellite” hearths with
more specialized functions has nevertheless been observed on Pincevent Level IV-20 (Julien
1984). But for the time being one has to be cautious.
The Management of the Quantity and Volume of Stones After Use
Getting supplies of rocks intended to be heated also means managing them once they
are out of use. The number of rocks strongly varies from one level to next at Pincevent
as well as at Verberie, even if we take into consideration the surfaces of the various levels.
The greatest density to a square meter is to be found on Pincevent Level IV-0: 900 kg
of rocks for 220 m², which is 100 kg more than for Level IV-20, the surface of which
is twenty times larger. If getting supplies of rocks for heating depends on the activities
they are meant for, this may vary according to the camp’s duration. This seems to be the

case with Level IV-0 of Pincevent (Bodu et al. 2004). Indeed, whereas the earlier levels
stand out in that they were occupied in the fall, the main characteristic feature of Level
IV-0 is that it was occupied from fall to the beginning of spring, as is shown by the
seasonality indexes stemming from the study of the horse remains (Bignon et al. 2004).
And if this level has the greatest density of rocks per square meter, it also has the greatest
number of rocks per level. This may also modify the discarding process (Valentin 1987;
Julien 1988).
Various discarding processes can be observed at Pincevent and Verberie. In the first
case, one or several dumps exist for evacuating rocks and burning waste, more or less
far away from the hearth. This is the case with the domestic hearths in Pincevent Level
IV-20, in Pincevent Level IV-0 and in Verberie hearth D1. The distances between the
hearths and the emptying and discarding areas may vary: two meters between the Hearth
D1 and the main discarding area H18 at Verberie, as well as between T125 hearth of
Pincevent Level IV-0 and the southeastern discarding area. The distance reaches three or
four meters between hearth T125 and the northern discarding area. It can even stretch
between fpur and seven meters on Pincevent Level IV-20 (Julien 1988). In the second
case, which is mainly characteristic of “Habitation No. 1,” it did not seem fit to evacu-
ate the waste out of the activity area, maybe owing to a shorter stay (Valentin 1987;
Julien 1988). Eventually, the last pattern is the scattering of heated stones without a
delimited discarding area. It is the case for satellite hearths of Level IV-20 at Pincevent,
hearth Y127 of section 44 at Pincevent, and maybe of hearth M20, though the refitting
there is still under way. In the case of Level IV-0 at Pincevent, a sorting of the remains
based on the quantity of the rocks can be observed, but what it means remains to be
defined.
Conclusion
In this brief summary of the Pincevent and Verberie heated rocks and hearths, we have
considered to what extent studying the way supplies were acquired could give us informa-
tion or, at least, working hypotheses about the Magdalenians’ daily life, both as regards
the adaptation of man to his environment and the organization and management of the
materials collected, in space as well as in time. Thus, it turns out that the Magdalenians in
Pincevent and Verberie had a good knowledge of the local geological resources from which
they could get supplies of rocks. It seems that two criteria prevailed: the nature of the mate-
rials, which is probably linked to some of their physical-chemical properties; and their sizes.
Throughout the periods of occupation, the campsite was constantly looked after, activity
areas were cleaned out and waste discarded. Such constant management of the settlement—
especially of heated rocks—seems to have conserved materials, working time, and potential
labor. Its extent also probably depended on how long the sites were occupied. Of course,
this approach is not enough by itself, and it requires resorting to other supplementary
approaches and methods such as physical-chemical studies and a closer examination of
thermal alteration of rocks.

References
Audouze, F. 1978 Rapport de fouilles, Verberie, (Oise), Le buisson Campin.
Audouze, F. 1984 Rapport de fouilles, Verberie, (Oise), Le buisson Campin.
Bodu, P., et al. 2004 Fouille programmée du site de Pincevent (La Grande Paroisse/Seine et Marne).
Rapport final.
Dumarçay, G. 2001 Etude méthodologique des roches chauffées: approche classique, pétrologique et
archéométrique des roches du gisement magdalénien final d’Etigny-le-Brassot. Mémoire de mai-
trise, Université de Paris I.
Dumarçay, G. 2002 Modes de fonctionnement et détermination des températures: essai d’application de la
thermoluminescence à la reconstitution de l’histoire thermique des grès de deux foyers magdaléniens
de Pincevent. Mémoire de D.E.A., Université de Rennes I.
Dumarçay, G., et al. Forthcoming Cooking and Firing, an Experimental Approach by S.E.M.
on Hot Stone (Sandstone). In International Congress “Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later:
Functional studies and the Russian legacy (poster session), Verona, 2005.
Enloe, J. G. 2000 La chasse au cheval dans le Bassin parisien. La recherche 332 (juin).
Julien, M. 1972 Témoins relatifs au feu. In Fouilles de Pincevent. Essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un
habitat magdalénien. Gallia Préhistoire, by A. Leroi-Gourhan and M. Brézillon, pp. 279–294.
Paris.
Julien, M. 1984 L’usage du feu à Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne, France). In Structures d’habitat du
Paléolithique supérieur en Europe, Berke, Hahn, and Kind, editors, pp. 161–168. Institute fur
Urgeschichte, Tübingen.
Julien, M. 1988 Organisation de l’espace et fonction des habitats magdaléniens du Bassin Parisien.
Actes du colloque international U.I.S.P.P.: Les civilisations du Paléolithique final de la Loire à
l’Oder (Liège, décembre 1985).
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1973 Structures de combustion et structures d’excavation. Séminaire sur les
structures d’habitat: Témoins de combustion. Collège de France, Ethnologie préhistorique.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and M. Brezillon 1972 Fouilles de Pincevent: essai d’analyse ethnographique d’un
habitat magdalénien (la section 36). VIIè supplément à Gallia Préhistoire.
Lucquin, A. 2000 Les techniques de cuissons préhistoriques: approche métodologique via l’exemple du
bouilli par pierres chauffées. Mémoire de maitrise, Université de Paris I.
March and Soler Mayor 1999 La structure n°1: de la fouille à la recherche. In Occupations du
Paléolithique supérieur dans le sud-est du Bassin parisien, M. Julien and J.-L. Rieu, editors,
pp. 102–125. DAF 78.
March et al. 2004 Les activités réalisées en lien avec l’utilisation du feu, de la micro-histoire à l’analyse
des comportements. In Fouille programmée du site de Pincevent (La Grande Paroisse/Seine et
Marne), by P. Bodu et al. Rapport final.
Valentin, B. 1987 Natures et fonctions des foyers de l’habitation n°1 à Pincevent. Mémoire de maîtrise
de l’Université de Paris I.

PART II
Social Organization

Chapter Seven
Introduction to Domesticity and Spatial Organization
Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze,

and James G. Enloe
A System of Activities in a System of Settings
S patial organization is an essential entry to domesticity in hunter-gatherers’ camps since

there are no buildings to materialize the family social organization. The concepts devel-
oped by Amos Rapoport (1978; 1990:11–13; 1999) are particularly adapted to our goal.
He defines the inhabited spatial environment as organized by a system of activities in a
system of settings that are in turn organized by fixed-feature elements (building, wall,
floors), semi-fixed-feature elements (“furnishings” of all sorts) and non-fixed-feature ele-
ments (people and their activities and behaviors). A setting is for him “a milieu which
defines a situation, reminds occupants of the appropriate rules and hence of the ongoing
behavior appropriate to the situation defined by the setting, thereby making co-action
possible.” Much of this can be applied to hunter-gatherers’ camps as much as to vernacular
architecture and villages or to contemporary towns.
Archaeology can answer most of the questions raised within this frame: “What are
the activities performed? How are they carried out? How are they combined? What is their
meaning?…What is the nature of the different settings? How are they used and by whom?
Who is included or excluded? What are the ongoing uses, behaviors, and activities? What
is the nature of the boundaries (closed, semi-permeable, permeable, open)? What is the
sequence of settings? What is the extent of relation…to the home range, areas known,
areas used, or areas avoided?” (Rapoport 1990:11, 14). But it cannot answer them in the
same order as in an Environment-Behavior approach. There is no other way for prehistoric
archaeology than to start from material remains and to reconstruct step by step the techni-
cal productions sequences from procurement to consumption, use and discard, then the
105

106 Social Organization
subsistence system (and when art is present the symbolic system) and the underlying ide-
ational schemes in order to get to the people and their social organization.
Spaces Organized by Uses
In built dwellings, architecture predates use and a house fixes strict limits to the domestic
space. A Paleolithic camp in the open, on the contrary, does not have clear limits between
a domestic space and the outside since it is usually not limited to a covered enclosed area
(when it exists) and since it is only indicated by a decrease of the domestic character of space
toward its limits and by the decreasing density of artifacts or tools.1 Domesticity imposes its
imprint on this kind of space through the inhabitant’s activities, moves, interactions, and
cleaning, day after day until repeated domestic actions create specific features that differen-
tiate a domestic space from its surroundings. As Amos Rapoport (1978:154) stresses it, such
camps are inhabited by small homogenous groups that “are able to operate in an informal
mode relying on shared values, unwritten rules, symbols, non verbal communication and
norms.
Though it is not possible to reconstruct every activity performed by a hunter-gatherers
group, particularly those practiced out of the settlement if they do not let traces of some
sort within it, there is enough information for sketching the activities system, for identify-
ing some of the settings and mapping them onto the settlement’s living floor. Microwear
analysis gives illuminating information on tools use and functioning as well as on the raw
material transformed. It even allows to reintroduce an activity such as plants gathering and
processing. Discarded flint barbs, bone points, and faunal remains of game inform about
hunting, bringing back into the picture out-of-site activities that are essential within the
subsistence system.
Most fixed-features elements known in architectures do not exist in hunter-gatherers’
camps or do not leave archaeological traces (tents) but several elements impose constraints
on circulation and use of space. An essential fixed-feature element exists: the domestic hearth
is central in the organization of domestic space. It is the focus of all the activities that do not
require too much space or have to be performed away from sparks. Other elements can be
or become fixed features. A tent, if it exists, represents a fixed-feature element that has clear
boundaries until it is dismantled. It modifies circulation by imposing a physical boundary
and implies a different behavior inside than outside. There will be a need for cleaning this
restricted space and evacuating the debris. L. R. Binford has modeled this behavior charac-
terized by the absence of debris inside the tent space and the presence of a door dump near
the entrance (1983:149–159). Dumps become fixed-feature elements as soon as their pile of
debris includes sharp-edged flint flakes, which preclude stepping on them. Flint workshops
become dumps once the flint knapping is over. The dumps’ limits are fuzzy because the
discarding process goes on during the whole occupation and because they keep “attracting”
new rubbish. All are areas to bypass.
1
As in the interpretive model of multiple semi-concentric rings of decreasing density that Leroi-Gourhan
proposed for the Section 36 at Pincevent (Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon 1972:247–253).

Introduction to Domesticity and Spatial Organization 107
Magdalenian Uses of Space
Several activities can be identified from combining the results of the technological analy-
sis of lithic and bone tools production, the zooarchaeological analysis, the microwear and
functional analysis. One is the flint knapping and flint and bone tools manufacturing that
requires both a space for knapping and transforming blanks into flint tools or for manu-
facturing bone and antler handles, instruments, and points for atlatl darts, and a place to
discard the waste. The corresponding settings are a working area delineated by a drop zone
near the hearth because some of the operations require heat for adhesive, one or several flint
workshops and dumps. Another activity is posterior to hunting and includes butchering the
carcass, processing the parts, cooking and eating, curing some of them. The corresponding
settings have been modeled by Binford (1978:120–124). They include a more or less cir-
cular open space of the game size on which the carcass is laid to be butchered, spaces used
for filleting meat parts and cracking bones for extracting marrow, and their corresponding
dumps or bones scatters. Cooking is performed on a hearth and eating usually takes place
around it. Drying racks, meat caches, and storage complete the set of semi-fixed-feature
elements related to the food procurement, transformation, and consumption activity. Hide
working indicated by scrapers and blades used on hide requires as a setting a space away
from the fire and deprived of flint debris that could damage the skins. It can either take
the dimensions of the skin or a much smaller area if the hide is worked at an oblique angle
along the pole of a tent or extended on legs (Beyries this volume). It becomes possible to
identify the domestic space by analyzing the way these activities and their different settings
are combined in space and to delimitate three concentric spaces: an inner domestic space
that includes the hearth, and the activity setting around it, along with a tent if it exists, an
outer domestic space that surrounds it where activities and settings requiring more space
are located, and the outside non-domestic space. Norms and rules can be inferred from
the configuration and the combination in space of these different activities and settings,
and their mutual relations. Circulation of people and objects shapes the settlement
space and the domestic space but it can be directly recovered only for objects. Getting
at last to the people cannot be achieved without introducing modeled ethnographic analo-
gies. Applying them becomes more difficult as one gets away from the technical and mate-
rial realm where actions and results are related by a technical logic and can be replicated. If
ornaments and pieces of portable art are randomly scattered, discarded, or absent, there is
no direct or indirect access to symbolic activities. Similarly, some of the elements related to
the activities described supra may be absent from the archaeological record.
Binford (1983:144) prefers to speak of life spaces that apply to all sorts of camps
whether or not they involve households. And obviously a first question for us to ask when
analyzing domesticity in space is whether the prehistoric settlements we want to study are
residential camps or not, and if yes, consisting of how many households. Domestic hearths,
which differ from specialized hearths by their multifunctional vicinity and cooking activi-
ties, are the best indicators for this.
The group of late Magdalenian sites that have been selected for the spatial analysis of
domesticity presents characteristics that are seldom found in prehistoric sites. They are open

air sites composed of superimposed living floors of short duration where the palimpsest
effect is minimized. Gentle floods that covered them with silt have preserved fixed features
such as hearths, and stone blocks used as seats, but also the faunal remains and more gener-
ally the organization of space. In several of them flint tools are deprived of patina and the
type of action and the material on which they worked can be identified. The faunal remains
inform about the seasonality, the game and the hunting strategy. Large exposures (from 100
to 4,500 m2 have been excavated) reach the outskirts of the settlements. Careful exposure
of each living floor and mapping of every artifact in it give the means to analyze the life
space and the domestic space within it. As said earlier, a special focus is set on the Verberie
site where new results on fauna (Enloe this volume), on the function and functioning of
tools (Beyries et al. 2005; Janny et al. 2007; Averbouh and Janny this volume), on hearths
(Dumarçais this volume) permits a spatial analysis (Audouze this volume) supported by a
GIS (Keeler this volume).
The chapters on the other sites question the organization of life space and domestic
space using the results of the recent monographs. P. Bodu analyzes the transformation of
the organization of space in relation with the changes that affect climate, fauna and hunting
strategies from the late Magdalenian times to the Azilian times.
References Cited
Beyries S., F. Janny, and F. Audouze 2005 Débitage, matière première et utilisations des becs sur
le site de Verberie-le Buisson Campin dans le Nord de la France. In Hommages à Claudine
Pommepuy, Revue archéologique de Picardie, numéro spécial 22, G. Auxiette and F. Malrain,
editors:15–24.
Binford, L. R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past, Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson,
New York.
Janny F., F. Audouze, and S. Beyries 2007 Les burins du niveau supérieur du site de verberie-le
buisson campin (Oise). De la gestion des supports a l’utilisation des outils: un pragmatisme
bien tempéré. In Burins préhistoriques, formes, fonctions, fonctionnement, actes de la Table-
Ronde d’Aix-en-Provence 2-4 mars 2003, J.-P. Bracco, M. de Araujo Igreja, and F. Lebrun-
Ricalens, editors, pp. 255–275. Édition du Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art, Luxembourg
(Archéologiques 2).
habitat magdalénien, éd. du CNRS, Paris, 2 vol. (VIIè suppl. à Gallia Préhistoire).
Rapoport, A. 1978 Nomadism as a Man-Environment System. Environment and Behavior 10(2):
215–246.
Rapoport, A. 1990 Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. In Domestic Architecture and the Use
of Space, by S. Kent, pp. 9–20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rapoport, A. 1999 Archaeological Inferences and Environment-Behavior Studies. In Habitat et
Société, actes des XIXe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, F. Breamer,
S. Cleuziou, and A. Coudart, editors, pp. 13–25. 22–24 octobre 1998, Antibes. Éditions
APDCA.

Chapter Eight
Archaeology of Equality
Magdalenian Economy
Ezra Zubrow
Abstract This chapter considers what equality means and what it took to
create equality in the past. It examines a variety of related topics:
• the history of equality in archaeology (social differentiation precedes institutional-
ization of inequality and hierarchies may exist in egalitarian context),
• what is equality,
• the issue of sameness,
• lateral and vertical equality, and
• the theory of equality including equal treatment, outcome opportunity, resources,
and welfare models.
After considering ethnographic examples of equality, a testable theory and
model for equality in a Magdalenian domestic economy is developed. Simulating
over extended time periods the two different “sharing and resharing” patterns exhib-
ited at different Magdalenian sites (linear at Verberie and star shaped at Pincevent),
it is shown that one creates inequality and the other equality. Thus, as far back as
the Magdalenian, basic answers to questions of social ngovernance already were dif-
ferentiated in a simplified form. Should a society guarantee the equality of conditions
and resources or the equality of opportunity? The resulting decisions made during the
late Paleolithic (approximately15,000 BP) made an important difference and they
still make the difference.
109

Ce chapitre examine ce qu’implique l’égalité et comment elle a pu être mise

en œuvre dans le passé, et ce à partir d’un certain nombre de thèmes en relation
les uns avec les autres:
• l’histoire de l’égalité en archéologie (la différentiation sociale précède
l’institutionnalisation de l’inégalité, et des hiérarchies peuvent avoir existé en con-
texte égalitaire),
• qu’est-ce que l’égalité,
• la question de l’identique,
• l’égalité latérale et verticale, et
• la théorie de l’égalité notamment le traitement égalitaire, les résultats, les opportuni-
tés, les ressources, et les modèles de bien-être (prospérité?).
Après avoir présenté des exemples ethnographiques de situations égalitaires, une
théorie et un modèle de l’égalité susceptibles d’être appliqués à l’économie domestique
magdalénienne sont développés – la simulation sur la durée de deux différents proces-
sus de partage et re-partage rencontrés dans des sites magdaléniens (linéaire à Verbe-
rie, en étoile à Pincevent) permet de montrer comment l’un crée l’égalité et l’autre
l’inégalité. Ainsi, à une période aussi ancienne que le Magdalénien, on trouve déjà
sous une forme simplifiée une différentiation dans les solutions apportées aux ques-
tions de gouvernance sociale. Une société doit-elle garantir l’égalité de condition et de
ressources ou l’égalité des chances? Les décisions qui découlaient de ce choix au Paléo-
lithique supérieur (autour de 15 000 BP) faisaient la différence et la font toujours.
I’m just average, common, too,

I’m just like him, the same as you.
I’m everybody’s brother and son,
I ain’t no different than anyone.
Ain’t no use to talk to me,
It’s just the same as talking to you.
—Bob Dylan, 1964
Introduction
T his chapter has an unusual rationale and a long genesis. Over the last several decades
I have had an ancillary career in labor—first as a member, then as vice president and
finally a year ago as the elected president of the Buffalo Center Chapter of the United
University Professions. It is the largest chapter of the largest higher education union in the
United States. The university is a “union shop,” which means that unlike a “closed shop”
where you must belong to the union prior to being employed, in a “union shop” you must
join the union after you are employed.1 The task of being a labor union president is not
1
A few people, “fee payers,” actually refuse to join the union but they also must pay the union dues since they
receive all the negotiated benefits that the union provides its members.

Archaeology of Equality 111
easy given the political and economic climate of the United States. It is not helped by the
general lack of recognition by academics that they are employees. However, as the sole rec-
ognized bargaining unit for the employees one must negotiate fair compensation, liveable
retirement, and health benefits, as well as dealing with individual and group grievances. It
resulted in my reconsidering many aspects of society.
Secondarily, as an outgrowth of my work on Geographic Information Science I am
researching the geography of social policy regarding heritage,2 disability,3 and literacy.4 Heri-
tage, of course, includes the past broadly defined and thus, the long archaeological past is
central. Disability and literacy concern some of the most marginalized of the marginalized
people. They are doubly marginalized. One may be discriminated against by race or eco-
nomic class and then be discriminated against by disability or lack of literacy. For example,
being a poor, black, illiterate, person with a disability is even more marginalized than being
poor and a member of a racial minority. I began to reflect on the “economic and human
rights” that led me in turn to considerations of what equality means and what it took to
create equality in the past. It is a good, worthwhile, and important question. My answer is
just a prolegomena.
History of Equality in Archaeology
There is a considerable literature on equality in the political, social, economic, philosophical,

and even mathematical domains. There is a remarkable ignoring of the subject by archaeolo-
gists. Perhaps the single most important insight from a review of the literature was the dis-
covery of the almost complete lack of interest by archaeologists and the very few publications
on prehistoric equality. To be fair, there has been considerable discussion regarding the rise
of inequality in the guise of the origin of tribes, chiefdoms, and the state. But, the contrast-
ing interests in the “origin or maintenance of equality” do not exist. Whether this is because
equality is more difficult to observe, because it does not occur prehistorically or because
there is simply a lack of interest by archaeologists cannot be discerned. If there is a lack of
interest from the archaeological community in equality, it is interesting to speculate why.
Perhaps one reason has been the traditional “upper class,” elite nature of the participants.
In any case, the history of inequality has been far more prevalent in the study of
archaeology.
The studies on the rise of chiefdoms (Smith 1992; Colten 1993; Knight and
Steponaitis 1998; Milner 1998) and rise of the state are numerous both in the New
2
Ezra Zubrow, Conflict, Heritage, and Place: Problems of Cultural Ownership in the Era of Globalization. Man
and Development XXIV(4):229–250.
3
Marcia Rioux, Ezra Zubrow, Mary Bunch, and Wendy Miller, The Atlas of Literacy and Disability (Toronto:
The Abilities Foundation, 2003); Ezra Zubrow, with Marcia Rioux, Developing GIS of Literacy and Disability.
ArcNEWS, April 2005, 18; Ezra Zubrow, with Marcia Rioux, Adele Furrie, Wendy Miller, and Mary Bunch,
Barriers and Accommodations: Applying the Human Rights Model of Disability to HALS. Abilities
Magazine 53 (Winter 2002):56–57.
4
Ezra Zubrow, with Marcia Rioux, Adele Furrie, Wendy Miller, and Mary Bunch, On the Map: The Geography
of Literacy and Disability. Abilities Magazine 52 (Fall 2002):17–18.

(Marcus 1976; Fox 1987; Malpass 1993; Santley and Hirth 1993; Coe 1994; Tooker
1994; Nichols and Charlton 1997; Aoyama 1999; Shook, Love et al. 2002; Sabloff 2003;
Watanabe and Fischer 2004) and Old World (Snodgrass 1977; Barnes 1988; Arnold and
Gibson 1995; Ausenda and Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress 1995;
Fritz and Davies 1996; Aufrecht, Mirau et al. 1997; Potts 1999; Barnes 2001; Brown and
Farr 2001).
One exception to this surfeit of inequality is the classic study of “The Archaeology
of Equality and Inequality,” by Robert Paynter of the University of Massachusetts (Paynter
1989), which was expanded into a book by McGuire and Paynter (McGuire and Paynter
1991). However, even they emphasize inequality over equality. For them the fundamental
issues to raise are: Is inequality complexity? What are the critiques of complexity? How do
information theory, agency, and world systems inform inequality? What are the roles of
monopolization, totalities, and resistance in the creation of inequality?
They conclude:
• Social differentiation precedes institutionalization of inequality;
• Hierarchies exist in egalitarian context;
• Neither evolutionary energistics (Sahlins, Service et al. 1960; White 1969; White
and Dillingham 1973; White 1975) nor the neo-evolutionary model from simple
to complex work either theoretically or empirically;
• Complexity is not a good measure for ordering sociocultural variation;
• Monopolization rather than centralization is a basis for understanding cultural
change (380)
What Is Equality?
One might begin by saying that equality is easy. One knows what equality is and one
recognizes it without a formal definition. However, there is considerable debate about
what equality actually is. One might begin with suggesting that two objects are equal if
and only if the two phenomena are precisely the same in every way. However, this is an
oversimplification.
There are mathematical definitions of equality. These can be grouped into definitions
regarding quantity as in sets5and definitions regarding relationships.6
More relevant to this study are the broader definitions of equality. In fact, some have-
claimed that the word has such broad meaning that it is meaningless (Fitzjames Stephen 1873)
5
“Two sets A and B are defined to be equal when they have precisely the same elements, that is, if every element
of A is an element of B and every element of B is an element of A. (See axiom of extensionality.) Thus a set is
completely determined by its elements; the description is immaterial. For example, the set with elements 2, 3,
and 5 is equal to the set of all prime numbers less than 6. If A and B are equal, then this is denoted symbolically
as A = B (as usual).” *
6
“Definition (equality of binary relation):
Two binary relations R1 ⊆ A1 × A2 and R2 ⊆ B1 × B2 are equal if and only if A1 = B1, A2 = B2, and R1 = R2 as a set.
For example, let R1 = {<1, 2>, <2, 2>} ⊆ {1, 2} × {1, 2}, and R2 = {<a, b>, <b, b>} ⊆ {a, b} × {a, b}. Then
R1 = R2 if and only if a = 1 and b = 2.**

but that is clearly not the case as women and men have fought battles and revolutions
as well as frequently given up their lives over this term. There is a broader related con-
cept: it is equivalence. Equivalence takes place when one constructs an equivalence rela-
tion between two elements—one may be substituted for the other. One may substitute
one equal phenomenon for another, but one may also substitute a nonequal, nonidentical
phenomenon for another. This substitution of non-equals also would be an equivalence
relationship.
The Issue of Sameness
Equality has meant “identity,” “similarity,” and “sameness.” Does equal mean the same? If
two objects are the same, they are equal in size, shape, etc. They are not similar but exactly
equivalent.
On the other hand, two objects may be equal in that they are similar on one set of
criteria but different on another. It is important to differentiate that sometimes the word
equality is used in very different meanings. Sometimes, it is meant to be exactly equal and
equal in all attributes. Sometimes, it is used to mean more or less the same or equivalent.
And sometimes, it is used to mean two or more things that are not identical but used to be,
are about to be, or should be the same. Although the above is referenced for phenomena,
each of these meanings may be applied to relationships.
To put it mildly, this is confusing.
For example, we give two people equal portions of food. They are given neither the
same portion nor identical portions. Two recipes call for equal amounts of sugar and flour.
It is a calling for an equivalency—not the same weight, for what is required is a level cup of
sugar and a level cup of flour. Two suits are equally expensive. But one costs $350 the other
$360. One equalizes the tension on the cello strings, meaning to make the tension similar
in the future. The cello strings do not have equal tension now.
Yet, the idea of equality is one of the seminal ideas of political, social, economic,
and religious history. It goes back a long time in textual writings. The concept of Maat in
pharaonic Egypt—the weighing of the hearts of the dead for their deeds against the Shu
feather of goodness in the Hall of Two Truths—becomes part of pharaonic law inasmuch
as the laws and rules are to apply to all members of the society (eighteenth dynasty).
It provides a social agreement about equal process and treatment representing an early
form of social equality. Similarly in early Aramaic and Hebrew writings of approximately
1000BC there was the Book of the Covenant outlining the social contract between God
and his people. “God governed through his law which was binding on all and thus a
moral guarantee of equal justice. It is obvious that men are born with different capacities
and talents, but such inequalities have no particular relevance in God’s concerns with
his creatures. In relation to God all men are equal, possessing no rights but only duties”
(Abernethy 1959:15). On the other hand, the Code of Hammurabi also from the eigh-
teenth century BC recognized but explicitly rejected the concept of “equality before the
law,” pointing out the difference between punishments for nobility and for commoners
(Code of Hammurabi 196–201).

Lateral and Vertical Equality
Equality needs to be examined in relationship to the organization of the categories of the

population. Lateral equality treats all members of a category (or level) equally but not neces-
sarily across categories (levels). Perhaps, it is easiest to understand with a modern example.
Since all are familiar with taxes, consider the following. If we have a progressive income
tax all families whose income is between $20,000 and $30,000 are taxed at 4% while all
families whose income is between $70,000 and $80,000 are taxed at 7%. Members of each
income category are treated equally but the two income levels are not treated equally in
lateral equality.
On the other hand, vertical equality treats each of hierarchically ranked groups equally.
So, in our taxation example, whether you made between $20,000 and $30,000 or between
$70,000 and $80,000 all are taxed at 5%.
Theory of Equality
There are at least five models of equality that are based upon different theoretical under-
pinnings. They are the equal treatment model (equal treatment for equals and differential
treatment for unequals), the equality of outcome model, the equality of opportunity model,
the equality of resources model, and the equality of welfare model.
Equal Treatment Model
The equality of treatment model is concerned with how an individual relates to another
individual, group of individuals, or an institution such as a government. It claims that all
persons will be treated the same by the person or organization of concern. Conceptions
of fairness are hewn to by all the parties because there is no preference—neither provided
nor received. Since all receive the same treatment there is a type of blind equality. All are
expected to have the same baseline abilities—to be able to walk, swim, hunt, or fish. Those
who are treated equally but are unable to do the task at hand have not been handicapped
because they were treated equally.
Equal Outcome Model
An equal outcome model7 suggests that what is important is not the initial conditions but
that the results will be equal. Derived from egalitarianism, it’s the ends and not the means
that provide equality. If all individuals were the same and had the same means, resources,
and opportunities, then by definition they would have the same equality of outcome. How-
ever, it is assumed that individuals are variable and have variable opportunities. Often, this
is because they cannot control their circumstances. Different preferences might impact the
outcome. What is desired is that although they come from different initial places, using
7
It is sometimes called the equality of condition.

different means, they will have equal outcomes (Nilsson 2005). In short, it reduces the
differences among households and individuals across time (Wikipedia 2007).
Equal Opportunity Model
The basis for this model is deceptively simple. It is that each person should have equal rights
to opportunities for developing their own talents and that there should be equal rewards
for equal performances. The opportunity referred to is “the opportunity to try” not “the
opportunity to succeed.”
Some issues include:
• Assuming the prior acceptance of a social order of value (therefore inherently con-
servative);
• Recognizing the production of a divided and hierarchical society with individual-
ism as the reigning organizing principle;
• Accepting that not all talents are equally valued by society;
• Recognizing that over time this model will increase inequality;
• Recognizing that following meritocracy will create greater degrees of inequality;
• Implying equality in and before the law, meaning that no member of community
may be denied conditions necessary for participation in the common life.
Equality of Resources Model
The equality of resources model suggests that people are treated as equals when no further
transfers of resources will make them more equal. It is an individual right not a group right.
One question that becomes immediately important is whether there is a difference between
private and public resources. In other words, is the equality of privately held resources dif-
ferent than the equality of publicly held resources? The answer seems to be that there are
significant differences.
A simple mechanical division of resources does not work, even though that is what is
thought for most prehistoric societies. A mechanical division does not usually work for it does
not survive the envy test. Namely, I envy someone else’s resources or a different set of resources
than I received. The envy test states that no division of resources is equal if, once the division
is complete, any person would prefer someone else’s bundle of resources, goods, and services.
The market is critical to understanding the equality of resources model. On one hand,
one needs the market to recognize one’s position. On the other hand, it is an opponent to
the equality of resources, for each individual or group of individuals enters the market try-
ing to maximize their position, frequently but not always at the expense of others.
Equality of Welfare Model
The equality of welfare is divided into two separate theories. They are the equality of success
and the equality of enjoyment. The former means that all are equally successful. The latter
suggests that all get equal but not necessarily the same enjoyment out of life. For this theory,

people need to make decisions independent of the information relevant to what others have
or want. For either theory, the goal is the utilitarian principle that average welfare should
be as great as possible. However, there might be limits. In other words, equality means that
you can have the greatest average welfare as long as it does not trample on the fair share of
others.
The question of the judge is important. Consider two prehistoric reindeer herders who
have the same resources, same status, same access to religion, etc. One is a malcontent—
never happy; the other a contented optimist. An external person—the judge—would say
they are equal, but not the two in the example. So who should be the judge of equality—in
the context of archaeology? It will usually be the outside analyst; the archaeologist. Simi-
larly, consider the case of changing or expensive tastes. One has a group of reindeer hunters
and they are equal in both kinds of welfare. However, one reindeer hunter develops more
expensive tastes and therefore for him or her to receive equal success or enjoyment he or
she needs more of the resources. If equality of welfare is the theory that one wishes to use,
how does one justify providing resources for those with disabilities. Is this the beginning of
inequality?
The Ethnography
Prehistorically, ethnographically, and presently there have been reindeer hunters and hus-
bandry societies in Northern Scandinavia, Northern Russia, and Northern North America.
Hunting reindeer was important prehistorically and historically. In the Old World it was
gradually replaced by reindeer husbandry. Hunting was either individual or collective and
used spears as well as bows and arrows. Collective hunting took place in the autumn and
included driving herds of animals into lines of pits, using fences or wavers to direct the herd.
People also took advantage of hunting from boats at river or sea crossings. According to
Valentina Gorbacheva of the Russian Museum of Ethnography, these “hunting techniques
described above were retained by the Chukchis and Yukaghirs until the middle of the nine-
teenth century, by the Dolgans and Nenets until the beginning of the twentieth century,
and by the Nganasans until the 1950s.”
In Finland, the Skolt Sami and Inari Sami have been well studied. (Zackrisson 2000;
Carpelan, Ingold, Pelto, Engelstad et al.; Ingold 1976; Ingold 1980; Ingold 1986; Ingold
1986; Ingold 1996; Lee and Daly 1999; Ingold 2000; Anderson and Nuttall 2004; Coleman
and Collins 2006). There are historical documents dating from as early as the seventeenth
century (Tengengren 1952). The groups are good examples of the “structural pose” concept
of Fredrick Gearing: fissioning, integrating, and moving through differing settlements season-
ally (generalizing because there are differences among the Skolt, Inari, Forest, Sompio, and
Enontekio Sami). Every siida had a winter village where the Sami lived from approximately
December to early April. Then they moved to the rivers, lakes, and to the coast to fish, follow-
ing the timetable of the spawning pike, grayling, perch, char, and whitefish, which they dried
for winter. In the summertime, fish were salted and eaten. First they lived in a summer camp
and then split up into family camps where they fished on family lakes. Later in the autumn
they collected berries, among which were the remarkable cloudberries. When the lakes froze

as autumn changed to winter, they hunted wild reindeer, fowl birds, and fur animals such as
beaver. They hunted wild reindeer with spears, bows and arrows, pits, and fences. Pit lines
and fence arms were very long—some more than 10 kilometers. Then they returned to the
winter camp. The winter camp moved at intervals of 20–30 years. The annual cycle involved
a movement of as much as 100 kilometers. However, more frequent was a range of 65. A fam-
ily usually butchered from as few as eight to as many as 40 reindeer per year.
One may compare Sami to the northern Eskimos/Inuits/Indians of North America who
hunted two species of caribou. There are the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)
and tundra caribou (Rangifer taranddus groenlandicus), the former with longer annual cycles
than the latter. They wander long distances in the spring from south to north, and from
north to south in the autumn. They have been hunted since prehistoric times, with the
tradition continuing into ethnographic present by Chipewyan, Yellowknife, Athapaskan,
Tanana, Mountain Eskimo, Copper Eskimo, and Caribou Eskimo. Chipewyans lived in
large regional bands for the spring and autumn caribou hunt but separated into smaller local
bands for winter and summer. These local bands exploited narrow, well-defined territories
and were based on consanguinity and affinity. (Helm 1958; McNeish 1973; Helm 1976;
Ingold 1976; Ingold 1980; Ingold 1986; Ingold 1986; Bicchieri 1988; Helm and Indiana
University American Indian Studies Research Institute 1994; Ingold 1996; Lee and Daly
1999; Helm, Carterette et al. 2000; Ingold 2000; Anderson and Nuttall 2004; Coleman
and Collins 2006; Gardner and Smith 1824; Balikci, Mary-Rousselière et al. 1967; Smith
1970; Smith 1975; Balikci, Mary-Rousselière et al. 1990; Smith 1991; Smith, Grebmeier
et al. 1995; Smith and McCarter 1997). They hunted Caribou, elk, and other large mammals
as well as taking an important part of their subsistence from water—sea, river, and lakes.
The distances between camps during the annual cycle varied by tribe and region. The North
American experience differs from the European experience because there appears to be less
following of the reindeer herd. More accurately, it can be said that if caribou herds wandered
through a tribe’s area, they were hunted as much as possible. But if there were other sources
of livelihood they would have been used.
The Model
It is the contention that equality and inequality began to diverge in societies during the
upper Paleolithic. Furthermore, the cause is related not to the nature of production but
to the nature of distribution of resources. In particular, this study will focus on European
reindeer hunters. There are two late Upper Paleolithic hunters’ campsites, the Magdalenian
sites of Pincevent and Verberie, in the Paris Basin of northern France. These were both
short-term seasonal campsites, targeting the fall reindeer migration as a source for stored
food to be consumed through the winter. Pincevent was a residential campsite with mul-
tiple contemporaneous domestic households that were part of a single social group. Enloe
and Francine David of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique have determined
butchering patterns and seasonality of reindeer kills. They demonstrate through refits of
skeletal elements from the same carcass that food sharing was an important economic and
social phenomenon among the prehistoric occupants of this site. Verberie is another late

Magdalenian site where Enloe and Audouze demonstrate a different pattern of sharing the
carcass portions with a different spatial configuration than Pincevent (Leroi-Gourhan and
Brâezillon 1972; Moss 1983; Simek 1984; Lang 1992; Gaucher and Baffier 1996).
Let us assume a two-product economy, one based upon gathered food and hunted
reindeer. This is an oversimplification of the real prehistoric economies, which probably
were three- to ten-product economies (reindeer, other mammals, fish, gathered plants).
However, whatever the number of products they were far simpler than peasant economies
with fifty or more products.
Fig. 1 graphs the relationship if the total production is limited to a total of 20 units.
So any combination of reindeer and plants will produce an equal 20 units of subsistence
food. If one subsists off 15 units of reindeer then one may only produce 5 units of gathered
plants. Conversely, one may produce 15 units of gathered plants and 5 units of reindeer. The
only place where there is equal production of both reindeer and plants is at 10 units of each.
However, anywhere along this line in fig. 1 the village will produce the same amount of sub-
sistence. Fig. 2 shows how over time, three years, a prehistoric band might choose different
combinations. In this case whatever subsistence pattern is chosen, the total production for
the band is the same and a degree of stability and equality is maintained.
Fig. 3 shows unequal production of reindeer and plants. The economy of the band
will produce different total amounts of subsistence goods depending upon which—reindeer
or plants—they choose. The limit is not a constant. If the village chooses 5 units of plants
then one produces 18 units of reindeer for a total of 23, while if one chooses 17 units of
plants, one produces 3 units of plants for a total of 20 plants.
Similarly, as one moves through time not only is the combination of production
changing but the total amount of production is also changing (fig. 4).
One may compare an unequal to equal strategy as in fig. 5.
Equal production of reindeer vs plants

25
20
Reindeer
15
10
0
0 10 20 30
Plants
figure 1 An equal production two product economy. / Une production égale dans une
économie à deux produits.

production of reindeer
production of reindeer vs plants
Equal production of reindeer vs plants
vs plants
25
20
Reindeer
15
10
5
10 20 30
0 10 20 30 Plants
0 10 20 30 Plants 149
Plants 149
15000
figure 2 Differential choices of product mixes over time with the same total production. /
Choix différentiels de combinaisons de produits pour une production totale identique
au cours du temps.
Unequal production of reindeer and plants

25
20
Reindeer
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Plants
figure 3 Unequal production of a two product economy. / Production inégale à deux

produits.

Changing unequal production over time

Earlier unequal production of More recent unequal production of More recent production of
reindeer and plants reindeer vs plants reindeer vs plants
25
20
25
20
15 20
15
Reindeer
Reindeer
15
Reindeer
10
10
10
5
5 5
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Plants Plants Food
figure 4 Differential choices of product mixes over time with changing total production. /
Choix différentiels de combinaison de produits pour une production inégale au cours du
temps.
Unequal and equal production of reindeer vs plants
20 Variable
Equal
Unequal
15
Reindeer
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Plants
figure 5 Unequal and equal production. / Production égale et inégale.
Growth in the economy may take place in that one moves from a total of 20 units
of production to 30 units of production. There may still be an equal production model in
that any combination along the new line will produce 30 units. In the case of fig. 6, the
economy is shifting from hunting and gathering to more hunting, while the Paytner model
is indicated by fig. 7.

A critical question is how food is

Growth under equal production shared among households. There is con-
shifting toward animals siderable ethnographic evidence.8 When
Enloe, David, and Audouze look at butch-
ering patterns, they show two distinct pat-
b terns of food sharing. They actually refitted
Reindeer
bone fragments from the separate areas that

surround the different firepits that I am call-
ing households. Pincevent (Leroi-Gourhan
a
and Brézillon 1972; Moss 1983; Simek
1984; Lang 1992; Gaucher and Baffier
1996) showed a pattern where the animal
Plants was butchered in a common area and each
household took parts of the animal. The
household then returned for more as nec-
figure 6 A growing economy shifting toward essary or as new animals were brought in.
hunting. / Une économie en croissance où la The result of each household sampling the
chasse devient prédominante. common central resource is termed the star
pattern (fig. 8) At Verberie, the pattern is
that food was shared from one household
Growth under equal production to another in a linear or circular pattern
shifting towards plants (paytner (fig. 9). For example, one might have the
model) haunch of a reindeer. One household would
take a piece and then the remainder would
go to the next household who would take a
piece and then the remainder would go to
Reindeer
the next household until the leg was con-

sumed. The result would be broken pieces
a of the same reindeer sequentially found in
each household area.
b
So one needs to build into our model
what the relationship is between goods that
Plants are shared and those that are not. In fig. 10,
there is growth under unequal conditions
but more importantly the amount of shared
figure 7 A growing economy shifting toward goods increases significantly. Because the
gathering. / Une économie en croissance où la shared goods are increasing relative to the
cueillette devient prédominante. private goods, there needs to be a greater
8
In the article Food Sharing Among Ache Foragers: Tests of Explanatory Hypotheses (and Comments and
Reply), five hypotheses were tested: (1) kin-based sharing; (2) tolerated theft; (3) temporal reciprocity; (4) coop-
erative acquisition; and (5) conservation of resources (Kaplan et al.). Tolerated theft and temporal reciprocity
are the most important.

figure 8 Pincevent Food Sharing or Star Pattern. / Le partage de la nourriture à

Pincevent ou le modèle en étoile.
degree of interdependence. One could determine the changing ratio of shared to private
goods for every new unit of production. Of course, one could see all the previous possi-
bilities—equal and unequal production, growth to a new, richer household or increasing
poverty, shifting toward plants or shifting toward reindeer.
The assumption of the two-product economy is limited. Clearly, there are multiple
products that may be grouped into a variety of categories. Perhaps the Magdalenian is best
known for the world-famous caves such as Lascaux in France and Altimira in Spain with
their extensive walls of fine art and varied forms of mobillary art in stone and bone. Some
explanations have been either innatist or functionalist. For example, art is a coping mecha-
nism contributing to introspection, reflection, and the interpretation of reality (Young
1982). Turning to economics, Williams has suggested there is an “articulation between the
art and the social relations of production” (Lewis-Williams 1983), and others suggest that it
corresponds to economic surplus. There appears to be a dependence of artistic creativitiy on
economic capacity—namely, economic growth or dominance is associated with the increas-
ing development of artistic creativity, and economic decline correlates with periods of artistic
starvation (Kavolis 1964). A certain amount of economic surplus appears to be necessary for
both the creation and disposal of art. For even the preceding Aurignacian art, Tattersall has
suggested that “societies concerned must have been running considerable economic surpluses

figure 9 Verberie Food Sharing or Linear Pattern. / Le partage de la nourriture à

Verberie ou le modèle linéaire.
to have allowed the disposal in this

Change independent to interdependent
households under conditions of growth
way of objects that were so valuable
and non equality of results in terms of the time taken to make
them” (Tattersall 1998).
The model is able to show
Shared goods
b these changes. fig. 11 shows the

increase in art relative to food as
a society becomes richer. This
a example is from societies that have
unequal production. One could as
Private goods well model it with equal produc-
tion. There is also a shift toward
the increasing importance of art,
figure 10 Independent changing to interdependent as the graph shows approximately
households under conditions of growth resulting in non- 3:1 food to art ratio in the poorer
equality. / Groupes familiaux passant d’indépendants à society and almost a 1:1 food to art
interdépendants en phase de croissance aboutissant à de ratio in the wealthier society.
l’inégalité.

Poorer to richer society

25
Variable
Poorer
20 Richer
15
Art
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Food
figure 11 Societies moving from Poorer to Richer. / Sociétés évoluant de plus pauvres
à plus riches.
The Simulation
The two types of food distribution, the linear and star patterns, have been simulated using
four households, each sharing food for a thousand occurrences. It is easiest to understand
the simulation by imagining one is living in a Magdalenian household. One might discover
that a reindeer or another animal is killed intermittently—sometimes it might be one day,
sometimes it might be a week or two. Sometimes there will be more than one animal killed.
For this model, the exact time and the exact number of animals killed will be irrelevant
since the model makes the assumption that the household will be involved in 1,000 food
sharing distributions and these will take place sequentially. Each could be one animal or
many animals.
In the star pattern simulation there are 100 kilograms of meat brought to the central
distribution area, probably located somewhat centrally between the firepits of the house-
holds. Reindeer are approximately 185 to 220 cm long and 82 to 120 cm to the shoulder;
males weigh 70 to 150 kg and females 40 to 100 kg (Walker 2005). Approximately 10% or
10 kilograms will be taken by each household. One does not really know how much will
be borrowed each time—so in order to add more realistic variation, a random function
is included that allows the first household to take any amount less 30 kg each time. The
results may be seen in fig. 12. Four households labeled star household 0, star household 1,
star household 2, and star household 3 are shown on the y axis. The amount each house-

Simulation of star sharing pincevent

Matrix plot of star share 0, 1,2,3... vs time
share 3 share 2 share 1 share 0

Star 20
10
0
20
Star
10
0
20
Star
10
0
20
Star
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time
figure 12 Simulation of Star Share Food Sharing with 0, 1, 2, and 3 Households

(Pincevent). / Simulation du partage de nourriture selon le modèle en étoile (Pincevent)
avec 0, 1, 2, et 3 groupes familiaux (Pincevent).
hold takes is represented by a dot. This will be our baseline. As one can see, the pattern is
random but consistently equal, averaging approximately 10 kilograms overall. The average
is the blue line in each panel of the graph. Sometimes they take more, sometimes less,
but overall it is clear that there is a consistently random pattern in which each household
gets more or less on a particular day but that over the thousand days they are each getting
about the same, namely 15 kilograms. This Pincevent pattern becomes the baseline for
comparison.
In the linear pattern simulation there are the same 100 kilograms of meat brought to
the settlement. In this pattern, the first household, number 0, takes approximately 10 kg.
This also of course is sometimes higher and sometimes lower depending upon the particu-
lar situation and this is also modeled by a random factor as in the star share pattern. In
fact, household 0 is very similar in both cases. In the Verberie or linear pattern the second
household is given approximately 20% of the meat that comes to household 0. Of course,
it also varies and may be up to 99% of household’s 0’s amount. This redistribution is also
modeled to incorporate the variability with a randomizing equation. As one may see, the
pattern for household 1 is on the average the receipt of considerably fewer resources than
household 0 (fig. 13). This is not always the case, because sometimes they have as much or
as little as household 0. The same relationship exists between household 1 and household 2,
with similar results. It is repeated again between household 2 and household 3. So one can
tell that the sharing pattern at Pincevent leads to inequality of resources.

Simulation of linear sharing verberie

Matrix plot of linear share 0, 1,2,3... vs time
share 3 share 2 share 1 share 0

Linear Linear Linear Linear 20
10
0
20
10
0
20
10
20 0
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time
figure 13 Simulation of Linear Share Food Sharing with 0, 1, 2, and 3 Households

(Verberie) / Simulation du partage de nourriture selon le modèle linéaire avec 0, 1, 2,
et 3 groupes familiaux (Verberie).
Conclusions
As far as one may tell, the prehistoric dwellers in the Paris Basin had over time an equality of
opportunity. There is nothing inherent in the data to suggest that one group had an ability
to range farther than another. Nor anything to suggest that one group had more advanced
technology than another. This does not mean that they had equality of success. One rec-
ognizes the acceptance of a social order of value and that these prehistoric reindeer hunters
were inherently conservative, living the same annual cycle year after year. The resharing and
redistribution of food is the product of a divided but not initially hierarchical society. If the
community follows the star system equality will continue. On the other hand, there will be
an increase in inequality if the redistribution pattern is the linear shared system.
The two systems have a very different underlying operation. In the linear system the
decision to share is dependent upon the donor household being willing to share with the
receiving household. In the star system, this system of dependence does not exist. The abil-
ity to go to the common pool is equal.
At Pincevent there is the equality of resources. It is clear that no further transfer of
resources will make the households more equal. At Verberie there is the equality of oppor-
tunity. Over time, either other ways of transferring resources will occur or hierarchy will
develop. In both cases, growth will occur and shared goods will increase relative to private
goods. In the case of Pincevent the amount of shared goods is considerably more than the
case of Verberie. One might expect in the case of Verberie or a society similar to Verberie

a shifting of some households to more diverse and varied economies. The expectation would
be toward a greater than two-product economy. One might expect them to shift more
toward plants and other forms of production as described above.
Shared goods are increasing relative to the private goods, there needs to be a greater
degree of interdependence. One could determine the changing ratio of shared to private
goods for every new unit of production. Of course, one could see that there are all the
previous possibilities—equal and unequal production, growth to a new richer household or
increasing poverty, shifting toward plants or shifting toward reindeer.
It would appear that as far back as the Magdalenian, a basic question of social gover-
nance had already begun to be differentiated in a simplified form. Should a society guaran-
tee the equality of conditions and resources or the equality of opportunity? The resulting
decision made and still makes all the difference.
References Cited
Anderson, D. G., and M. Nuttall 2004 Cultivating Arctic Landscapes: Knowing and Managing Ani-
mals in the Circumpolar North. Berghahn Books, New York.
Aoyama, K. 1999 Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange, and Craft Specialization: Chipped Stone
Evidence from the Copán Valley and the La Entrada Region, Honduras [Estado, urbanismo, inter-
cambio, y especialización artesanal entre los mayas antiguos: evidencia de lítica menor del Valle de
Copán y la región de La Entrada, Honduras]. University of Pittsburgh Dept. of Anthropology,
Pittsburgh.
Arnold, B., and D. B. Gibson 1995 Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State: The Evolution of Complex Social
Systems in Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.
Aufrecht, W. E., N. A. Mirau et al. 1997 Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete. Sheffield
Academic Press, Sheffield.
Ausenda, G., and Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress 1995 After Empire: Towards
an Ethnology of Europe’s Barbarians. Boydell Press; Center for Interdisciplinary Research on
Social Stress, Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK; Rochester; San Marino (R.S.M.).
Balikci, A., G. Mary-Rousselière et al. 1967 At the Spring Sea Ice Camp. Education Development
Center, Newton, Massachusetts.
Balikci, A., G. Mary-Rousselière et al. 1990 At the Winter Sea Ice Camp. Education Development
Center, Newton, Massachusetts.
Barnes, G. L. 1988 Protohistoric Yamato: Archaeology of the First Japanese State. Published jointly by
the University of Michigan Center for Japanese Studies and the Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Barnes, G. L. 2001 State Formation in Korea: Historical and Archaelogical Perspectives. Curzon, Rich-
mond, Surrey.
Bicchieri, M. G. 1988 Hunters and Gatherers Today: A Socioeconomic Study of Eleven Such Cultures in
the Twentieth Century. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.
Brown, M., and C. A. Farr 2001 Mercia, an Anglo Saxon Kingdom in Europe. Leicester University
Press, London; New York.
Coe, M. D. 1994 Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Coleman, S., and P. Collins 2006 Locating the Field: Space, Place, and Context in Anthropology. Berg,
Oxford; New York.
Colten, R. H. 1993 Prehistoric Subsistence, Specialization, and Economy in a Southern California
Chiefdom. UCLA, Los Angeles.
Dylan, B. 1964 I Shall Be Free No.10. Another Side of Bob Dylan. Columbia Records.
Fox, J. W. 1987 Maya Postclassic State Formation: Segmentary Lineage Migration in Advancing Fron-
tiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Fritz, V., and P. R. Davies 1996 The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. Sheffield Academic Press,
Sheffield, UK.
Gardner, W. R., and C. Smith 1824 Chart Illustrative of the Voyages and Travels of Captains Ross, Parry,
and Franklin. C. Smith, London.
Gaucher, G., and D. Baffier 1996 Fouilles de Pincevent. II, Le site et ses occupations récentes:
l’environnement tardi et post glaciaire et les témoins postérieurs au Magdalénien. Société Préhisto-
rique Française, Paris.
Helm, J. 1958 The Lynx Point People: A Northern Athabascan band.
Helm, J. 1976 The Indians of the Subarctic: A Critical Bibliography. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Helm, J., T. S. Carterette et al. 2000 The People of Denendeh: Ethnohistory of the Indians of Canada’s
Northwest Territories. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Helm, J., and Indiana University. American Indian Studies Research Institute 1994 Prophecy and
Power among the Dogrib Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Ingold, T. 1976 The Skolt Lapps Today. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Ingold, T. 1980 Hunters, Pastoralists, and Ranchers: Reindeer Economies and Their Transformations.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Ingold, T. 1986 The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations. Manchester
University Press, Manchester.
Ingold, T. 1986 Evolution and Social Life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Ingold, T. 1996 Key Debates in Anthropology. Routledge, New York.
Ingold, T. 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill. Routledge,
London; New York.
Kavolis, V. 1964 Economic Correlates of Artistic Creativity. The American Journal of Sociology
70(3):332–341.
Knight, V. J., and V. P. Steponaitis 1998 Archaeology of the Moundville Chiefdom. Smithsonian Insti-
tution Press, Washington, DC.
Lang, S. A. 1992 An Investigation of Image Processing Techniques at Pincevent Habitation no. 1, a Late
Magdalenian Site in Northern France. Arizona State University, Tempe.
Lee, R. B., and R. H. Daly 1999 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and M. N. Brézillon 1972 Fouilles de Pincevent, essai d’analyse ethnographique
d’un habitat magdalénien. (La section 36). Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1983 The Rock Art of Southern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;
New York.
Malpass, M. A. 1993 Provincial Inca: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Assessment of the Impact of the
Inca State. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Marcus, J. 1976 Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands: An Epigraphic Approach to Territorial
Organization. Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C.
McGuire, R. H. and R. Paynter 1991 The Archaeology of Inequality. B. Blackwell, Oxford; Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
McNeish, J. H. 1973 Subarctic Athapaskan Bibliography, 1973. Dept. of Anthropology, University of
Iowa, Iowa City.
Milner, G. R. 1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Moss, E. H. 1983 The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements: Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon, Two Case
Studies from the French Final Paleolithic. B.A.R., Oxford.
Nichols, D. L., and T. H. Charlton 1997 The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Paynter, R. 1989 The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality. Annual Review of Anthropology
18:369–399.
Potts, D. T. 1999 The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Sabloff, J. A. 2003 Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State: Advancing Maya Archaeology.
School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Sahlins, M. D., E. R. Service et al. 1960 Evolution and Culture. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
Santley, R. S., and K. G. Hirth 1993 Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of the
Household, Compound, and Residence. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Shook, E. M., M. Love et al. 2002 Incidents of Archaeology in Central America and Yucatán: Essays in
Honor of Edwin M. Shook. University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland.
Simek, J. F. 1984 K-Means Approach to the Analysis of Spatial Structure in Upper Paleolithic Habitation
Sites: Le Flageolet I and Pincevent Section 36. B.A.R., Oxford.
Smith, A. B. 1992 Pastoralism in Africa: Origins and Development Ecology. Ohio University Press;
Witwatersrand Press, London, Athens, Johannesburg, Christopher Hurst.
Smith, C. C. Arctic Explorations in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.
Smith, E. A. 1991 Inujjuamiut Foraging Strategies: Evolutionary Ecology of an Arctic Hunting Economy.
Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Smith, E. A., and J. McCarter 1997 Contested Arctic: Indigenous Peoples, Industrial States, and the Circum-
polar Environment. Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies Center at the Henry M.
Jackson School of International Studies in association with University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Smith, E. M. 1970 Arctic Bibliography. Canadian Library Association, Ottawa.
Smith, P. C. 1975 Arctic Victory: The story of convoy PQ 18. Kimber, London.
Smith, W. O., J. M. Grebmeier et al. 1995 Arctic Oceanography: Marginal Ice Zones and Continental
Shelves. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.
Snodgrass, A. M. 1977 Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State: An Inaugural Lecture. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Tattersall, I. 1998 Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness. Harcourt Brace, New York.
Tooker, E. 1994 Lewis H. Morgan on Iroquois Material Culture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Walker, M. 2005 “Reindeer” Worlddeer 2007, http://www.worlddeer.org/reindeer.html.

Watanabe, J. M., and E. F. Fischer 2004 Pluralizing Ethnography: Comparison and Representation in
Maya Cultures, Histories, and Identities. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
White, L. A. 1969 The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization. Farrar Straus and Giroux,
New York.
White, L. A. 1975 The Concept of Cultural Systems: A Key to Understanding Tribes and Nations.
White, L. A., and B. Dillingham 1973 The Concept of Culture. Burgess, Minneapolis.
Wikipedia 2007 “Equality of Outcome” Retrieved 28 Jan. 2007, from http://www.answers.com/topic/
equality-of-outcome.
Young, D. E. 1982 Aesthetic Response as Coping Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective Studies
in Art Education 24(1):5–15.
*Equality of Naïve Sets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_set_theory#Sets.2C_membership_and_
equality.
**Equality of Binary Relationships. http://www.cs.odu.edu/~jzhu/courses/content/relation/equality/
equality.html.
Code of Hammurabi. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/
hammurabi.html.
Valentina Gorbacheva Russian Museum of Ethnography. http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/
changing/.

Chapter Nine
GIS of Verberie
Spatial Definition of the Habitation Units
Dustin Keeler*
Abstract This chapter is an example of the use of GIS to define the spatial
structure at the site of Verberie. The definition of the spatial structure involves the
division of the occupation surface into individual habitation units, specialized activ-
ity areas and refuse dumps. This is followed by a detailed examination of the local
spatial structures such as the small-scale activity areas. These local areas may then be
temporally related using artifact refitting data.
Résumé Ce chapitre montre comment on peut utiliser un SIG pour analyser

la structure spatiale du site de Verberie. Il s’agit d’abord d’individualiser au sein
du sol d’occupation des unités d’habitation, des aires d’activité spécialisées et des dépo-
toirs. On passe ensuite à l’examen détaillé à plus petite échelle des structures spatiales
locales telles que les aires d’activité de faible superficie. Ces aires locales peuvent ensuite
être inscrites dans une succession temporelle grâce aux remontages de silex et d’os.
I n this chapter I will be discussing an approach that begins with small-scale intrasite stud-
ies that can be linked together to create site occupation models. Specifically, this chapter
explores the utility of GIS techniques in visualizing spatial data at these various scales. The
spatial structure of a Paleolithic site must be understood at various levels, ranging from the
most constrained areas, the individual zones of activity, to the site as a whole. Hearth-focused
*
I would like to thank the following people for their help and support: Françoise Audouze and J. G. Enloe for
allowing me access to the data from Verberie and for her help in understanding the site; Frederic Janny for the
use of his lithic refitting data; and Ezra Zubrow for his work in the creation of the GIS of Verberie.
131

sites are often complex and contain many identifiable features as well as distinctive global
and local spatial patterning (Koetje,1994). The data used in this analysis comes from the
Paris Basin site of Verberie, a late Upper Paleolithic reindeer hunting campsite contain-
ing clear activity areas, habitation units, and overall site structure in several well-preserved
occupation layers. Much spatial analysis of Paleolithic sites occurs at the global level. That
is, they examine the sites as a whole, utilizing entire data sets or variable distribution over an
entire site, to identify and describe global patterns that are the result of socially constrained
behaviors performed by the occupants of the site. To identify the local areas that make up
the global pattern of the site it is first necessary to perform global analyses that identify
patterns at multiple levels, activity areas, habitation units and specialized activity areas, and
overall site level. It is then possible to gain a better understanding of the individual activities
themselves through more detailed localized analysis. Smaller units of analysis can be useful
in revealing more of the vertical and horizontal variation within occupation surfaces (Koetji
1991). Examination of this vertical variation can be used to identify the temporal character-
istics of the site through individual phases in the occupation.
Verberie is a late Upper Paleolithic site located in the Paris Basin with several well-preserved
occupation surfaces. While the spatial configuration of the artifacts within the surfaces has
been preserved, stratigraphic bedding of the sediments has been eradicated, leaving it difficult
to distinguish between the various occupations, which are sometimes only centimeters apart
(Audouze and Enloe 1997). The data that will be examined in this paper come from the most
extensively excavated level of Verberie, II1, which has been evaluated several times and found
to represent an undisturbed occupation surface. For the purposes of spatial analysis, Verberie is
considered to be one of the best data sets available to archaeologists (Ammerman 1992).
Artifact Locational Analysis
Visual inspection of the artifact point data for level II-1 categorized by artifact material
shows fairly clear clustering in certain areas of the site, such as around the hearth and in
the dump areas. Differential clustering patterns are also observable between the two main
artifact material types, flint and bone. Creating Kernel Density Estimates from the artifact
point data it is possible to clarify the patterns of clustering. If multiple bandwidths are used
for the Kernel Density Estimates it is possible to recognize patterns at various levels, ranging
from the global to the local. Global patterns clearly differentiate the individual areas of the
sites, including the hearth units and dumps. Local patterning identifies individual activity
areas within these larger globally defined units.
Patterning may look clear when observing a simple map of the artifact point data but
there are many complexities within the different classes of artifacts and tools and in the relations
between them that may only be fully understood through the application of methods to more
clearly visualize the data. Given the large amount of artifacts at Verberie, a powerful technique
was necessary to analyze the data set. Simpler methods of density analysis such as density shad-
ing or density contours are not sufficient to handle tens of thousands of points within such a
small area and analyses using quadrat data from square meters or quarter meters fail to reveal
the localized patterning at a site of this small size. Various methods of spatial analysis have been

GIS of Verberie 133
applied to Paleolithic sites of this type, revealing much about the spatial organization of these
sites, but there will always be room for progress in the field of spatial analysis. It is possible to
discern many different patterns in the distribution of artifacts across space from the same data set
depending on the methods utilized and the scale of analysis (Enloe, David, and Hare 1994).
Global Analysis—Identification of the Domestic Units
Smoothing is a technique for removing variability from a data set, thus making the under-
lying structure and trends more apparent. This study uses kernel density estimation1 as an
analytical technique that emphasizes either local or global structure, depending upon the set
parameters. More specifically, kernel density estimation is a method by which the smoothed
value at any point is estimated. The estimated value is calculated by using a weighted average
based on the values of all other points. The kernel is a probability function that calculates
the weights at each point. The bandwidth is the width of the area from which the points are
taken to calculate the estimated weight at each point. This is more or less the equivalent of
the “bin” width in a histogram. The degree of smoothing can be controlled by changing the
value of the bandwidth, which can be set to reflect different scales of interest. The result is a
spatially smooth estimate of the intensity of events over a study area (Bailey 1994:27).
Kernel density estimation is preferable to spatial cluster analysis because it reveals
pattern more clearly, produces smoother surfaces, and allows tuning of the density through
changing the bandwidth (Wheatley and Gillings 2002:186). Although it can be used to
examine structure at different levels of resolution, this study is concerned with identifying
the highly localized surface that reflects smaller clusters of points. The specific merits of
kernel density estimates are that they represent the real structure of clusters through con-
touring, rather than the spherical clusters produced by k-means cluster analysis. They can
aid in the determination of the number of clusters through the examination of contours at
different levels of inclusion as a means of looking for structure at different scales of spatial
resolution (Baxter, Beardah, and Wright 1997). Kernel density estimation can be thought
of as a type of exploratory data analysis (EDA). EDA is a set of techniques used to visualize
data and reveal unanticipated patterns (Carr 1991:226).
Once the spatial integrity of the material within the occupation surfaces has been
judged to be accurate it is possible to begin the examination of division of space within the
site. Spatial order within a site can be examined in multiple stages ranging in scales of resolu-
tion from largest to the smallest (Simek 1987). The density of all artifacts in level II-1 with a
2 m bandwidth (fig. 1), created using kernel density estimates, is an example of visualization
at the global scale, meaning that it takes into account the site as a whole, estimating the
density at one point based on the locations of all artifacts within an occupation surface. It
clearly displays clustering around D1 hearth, in the main dump, and in areas around the
M20 hearth. The density of all artifacts with a .75 m bandwidth (fig. 2) shows more local
1 n x − X y −Y
1
The KDE is calculated by fˆ (x, y)= ∑ K h i , h i where h1 and h2 are the window-widths in the X
nh1h2 i=1 1 2
and Y directions.

figure 1 II-1 artifact global kernel density. / Estimation par le noyau de la densité
globale des vestiges du II-1.
figure 2 II-1 artifact local kernel density. / Densité locale des vestiges du II-1.

GIS of Verberie 135
figure 3 Flint kernel density. / Densité des vestiges en silex.
clustering patterns, including several individual clusters around the D1 hearth. The density
of the flint artifacts from the same level (fig. 3) is very similar to that of all the artifacts taken
together due to the fact that the majority of the artifacts at the site are lithics.
A density map of the faunal material (fig. 4) reveals more about the overall site structure
since the flint material tends to be more tightly clustered in specific knapping areas and the
distribution of the faunal material reflects a range of activities. It is more widely and evenly
distributed, mainly around the hearths and in the dump areas. Through use-wear analysis
the area north of the D1 hearth periphery can be identified as a secondary butchering area,
while an area northwest and west of the hearth D1 periphery can be considered as a low-
density hide scraping zone (Keeley 1991:261–263) (Symens 1986). Several other activities
took place immediately around the hearth, including bone working.
A global analysis of all the material from level II-1 is used to identify the larger spatial
structures within the occupation surface that represent the individual areas, which include
the domestic hearth units and the dumping areas. Through this type of analysis we can
begin to recognize where the boundaries between these individual spatial units may be.
It is possible to draw boundaries (fig. 5) based on the contours of the global scale
analysis and our previous understanding of the hearth areas, which extend some distance
behind the hearths to incorporate the hypothetical locations of living structures. The
individual areas that I have defined conform to the actual distribution of the artifacts by
including all of the material that may have been associated with the domestic units and

figure 4 Bone kernel density. / Densité des vestiges d’os.
figure 5 Local areas. / Zones locales de forte densité.

GIS of Verberie 137
extend beyond the hearths to include the largely empty areas where the tents may have been
located. These boundaries would not have been so well defined during the occupation of the
site since there are no clear limits between the individual spatial units but they are created so
that these spatial units may be examined individually under local scales of analysis.
Local Analysis—Examination of the Individual Areas
Once the individual spatial units have been identified it is possible to examine them sepa-
rately. This is accomplished in a local scale kernel density estimates analysis taking into
account only the artifact location data within each of these individual spatial units. Fig. 6
shows an example of the local kernel density estimates for all the material types for each of
individual units that I have defined.
The local density clusters of flint (fig. 7) around the D1 hearth clearly display the indi-
vidual knapping locations directly adjacent to the hearth. Hearth-related assemblages are a
basic feature in the spatial behavior of modern and prehistoric hunter-gatherers and knap-
ping activities are invariably linked to hearths (Vaquero and Pasto 2001). It is also possible
to distinguish cluster locations in dump areas away from the hearth that could represent
door dumps adjacent to the living structure.
The local density map of the faunal material (fig. 8) around the D1 hearth displays a
more complicated spatial pattern, reflecting the range of activities that result in the refuse of
faunal material. This pattern is also indicative of the differential disposal of faunal material.
For instance, the distribution of material from the hearth to the main dump area represents
the tossing of the waste in that direction. It is also possible to recognize differential clustering
of flint and bone within the dumps themselves based on the local density analysis. The flint
figure 6 Local kernel densities by area. / Densités locales par aires.

figure 7 Local flint kernel densities by area. / Densités locales des vestiges en silex par
aires prédéfinies.
figure 8 Local bone kernel densities by area. / Densités locales des vestiges osseux par
aires prédéfinies.
seems to be more tightly constrained in the center of the dumps while the bone is more
widely distributed throughout the dumps. This may reflect differential dumping practices
for the different material types. While many prehistoric cultures tend to be casual in their
discard of bone materials as opposed to other kinds of refuse, the dumping patterns may

GIS of Verberie 139
reflect some type of size sorting as well (Stevenson 1991:292, 292–293). This size sorting is
seen more clearly with the flint material that is tightly clustered in the main dump, indicat-
ing that the pieces that were large enough to have been gathered from around the hearth
were then deposited at distinct periods within the dump.
Examining the local density distribution around the M20 hearth we see patterns simi-
lar to those that are seen around the D1 hearth. The flint is constrained in areas around
the hearth and in door dumps. There are differences, however, in that the clustering of flint
around the hearth is less distinct, indicating that the knapping activity was not as intensive
and was probably the result of tool production and use. The faunal material is more widely
distributed and shows dispersion toward the main dump areas, which again represents the
tossing of waste material.
It is also possible to perform local density analysis on materials outside of the main
occupation and refuse areas of the site. This will give us a better understanding of the spe-
cial activity areas that contain many fewer artifacts and are thus underrepresented when
performing a global analysis of the site. A local density map of the flint (fig. 9) shows
that there is very little flint knapping activity outside of the domestic areas and dumps.
Other than the flint knapping workshop of an exotic brown and beige flint in square J1,
the flint clustering is probably a result of the production and maintenance of tools used
in butchering and other specialized activities. A local density map of the faunal material
figure 9 Local flint kernel densities outside defined areas. / Densités locales des vestiges
en silex à l’extérieur des zones prédéfinies.

figure 10 Local bone kernel densities outside defined areas. / Densités locales des
vestiges osseux à l’extérieur des zones prédéfinies.
(fig. 10) shows clustering adjacent to the south domestic area and the northern dump. This
clustering is probably the result of the specialized butchering activities that took place in
these open areas.
Lithic Refitting Analysis
While refitting data are usually used to correct for post-depositional disturbances within
occupation surfaces (Villa 1982), they may also be useful in the examination of movement
around a site. It is through the examination of this type of data that we begin to explore the
temporal scale of prehistoric occupations. As yet, this approach is merely exploratory and
will require a formalized framework if we are to achieve significant results.
The refitting data consist of not only the connections between the individual artifacts,
but also much more detailed data on the refit artifacts and the also the pieces that are missing
from the refits. The artifacts that can be directly linked to other artifacts have been ordered
in the series of removal from the core. There are also artifacts that cannot be linked directly
to other artifacts but are known to belong to the same block based on the consistency of the
flint material. A number of sequences have been created for each of the refit blocks, that is,
a series of steps involved in the knapping processes of the individual blocks. These sequences
can include such things as the initial shaping of the core, creation of a striking platform for

GIS of Verberie 141
the production of the blades, or the actual blade production. The individual artifacts were
then assigned to the sequence they belong to in the knapping process if enough was known
about them to do so. The sequences of the knapping process are known for some refits bet-
ter than others, but there is generally enough known about each refit to assign at least half
of the artifacts to a sequence.
In addition to the known artifacts, we also have data about the artifacts missing from
the refits. These artifacts are missing either because they were removed from the site or were
simply not yet identified in the excavated materials. In any case, we have a good idea about
how many artifacts are missing from each refit, what those artifacts were, such as flakes,
blades, or bladelets, and to which sequence they belong to in the knapping process.
Looking at one of the largest lithic refits for which we have data, associated with the
level II-1 of Verberie, we can make some more concrete observations about the use of the
site as revealed from the examination of the refit data. This refit covers a fairly large area of
the site (fig. 11), concentrated in several locations. Most of the knapping activity associated
with this refit did not take place in the primary knapping areas of the occupation (fig. 12),
which occur mainly around the hearth areas. The sequence data gives us additional informa-
tion on the areas of activity for this specific refit.
This also gives us a better idea of the time progression of the knapping, and the use
of area through time. One of the first sequences is the creation of a ridge and blank pro-
duction, constrained in a very small area, less than a meter. The next sequence, production
from the striking platform, is centered in the same location but covers an area of about
figure 11 Core L3 refit. / Remontage du nucleus L3.

figure 12 L3 refit over II.1 flint density map. / Remontage du nucleus L3 sur la carte
de densité des vestiges de silex.
four square meters. Activity in a latter sequence is centered at another location adjacent
to others. This gives us a good idea about the temporal use of the site, which will be even
better understood when we can more clearly associate the refit artifacts to clusters of other
artifacts. It is also useful to overlay these individual sequence areas over the artifact density
maps to look for associations between the individual sequences and the artifact clusters.
The production of blanks is the most important because this sequence refers to the cre-
ation of blades which were then modified into tools or used as is in certain activities. The
later sequence seems to be more clearly associated with the cluster of bones than the other
sequences (fig. 13).
The lithic refit data also display connections between the individual areas as well as
activities constrained within these areas. When displayed with global density maps they
show the relationships between the individual areas, including the movement of individuals
over time between areas of a site, and when displayed with the local density maps of the
individual spatial units they give a clear idea of the use of space within these areas. These
associations can be discovered through use-wear analysis of refit artifacts or the refitting
of tools in the sequence that can be associated with particular activities and therefore the
clusters of material that are the products of these activities. The incorporation of data of
this type into spatial studies represents a promising step toward the future when it will be
possible to more accurately explore the temporal scale in archaeological sites.

GIS of Verberie 143
figure 13 L3 refit over II.1 bone density map. / Remontage du nucleus L3 sur la carte
de densité des vestiges osseux.
Conclusion
The end result of the spatial definition of the domestic units at Verberie is the creation of
a spatiotemporal model of the site. The analysis of the nature and organization of the indi-
vidual activities performed within the site is the first step in such an approach. From there it
is possible examine the larger level of the spatial organization of camps through the creation
of site models. The comparison of the site models developed for various sites can lead to a
better understanding of individual site function.
References Cited
Audouze, F., and J. G. Enloe 1997 High Resolution Archaeology at Verberie: Limits and Interpreta-
tions. World Archaeology 29(2):195–207.
Ammerman, A. J. 1992 Taking Stock of Quantitative Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology
21:231–255.
Bailey, T. C. 1994 A Review of Statistical Spatial Analysis in Geographic Information Systems. In
Spatial Analysis and GIS, S. Fotheringham, S. and P. Rogerson, editors, pp. 11–44. Taylor and
Francis, London.
Baxter, M. J., C. C. Beardah, and R. V. S Wright 1997 Some Archaeological Applications of Kernel
Density Estimates. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:347–354.

Carr, C. 1991 Left in the Dust: Contextual Information in Model-Focused Archaeology. In The
Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, editors,
pp. 221–256. Plenum Press, New York.
Enloe, J. G., F. David, and T. S. Hare 1994 Patterns of Faunal Processing at Section 27 of
Pincevent: The Use of Spatial Analysis and Ethnoarchaeological Data in the Interpretation of
Archaeological Site Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:105–124.
Keeley, L. H. 1991 Tool Use and Spatial Patterning; Complications and Solutions. In The Interpre-
tation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, editors, pp. 257–268.
Plenum Press, New York.
Koetje, T. A. 1991 Simulated Archaeological Levels and the Analysis of Le Flageolet II, the Dordogne,
France. Journal of Field Archaeology 18(2):187–198.
Koetje, T. A. 1994 Intrasite Spatial Structure in the European Upper Paleolithic: Evidence and
Patterning from the SW of France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:161–169.
Simek, J. F. 1987 Spatial Order and Behavioral Change in French Paleolithic. Antiquity 61:25–40.
Stevenson, M. G. 1991 Beyond the Formation of Hearth-Associated Artifact Assemblages. In
The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, editors,
pp. 269–299. Plenum Press, New York.
Symens, N. 1986 A Functional Analysis of Selected Stone Artifacts from the Magdalenian Site at
Verberie, France. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:213–222.
Vaquero, M., and I. Pastó 2001 The Definition of Spatial Units in Middle Palaeolithic Sites: The
Hearth-Related Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(11):1209–1220.
Villa, P. 1982 Conjoinable Pieces and Site Formation Processes. American Antiquity 47(2):276–290.
Wheatly, D., and M. Gillings 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Application
of GIS. Taylor and Francis, New York.

Chapter Ten
Domesticity and Spatial Organization at Verberie
Françoise Audouze
I t is by identifying a set of activities in a set of spaces that one gets access to hunter-
gatherers domesticity, as argued in the introduction. The previous chapters on Verbe-
rie in this volume answer decisive questions about the organization of several activities:
hunting, animal food consuming and curing, and the places where they were performed
(J. G. Enloe), the organization of flint knapping and lithic tools production, the flint work-
shops and refuse areas and their makers (F. Janny), and the manufacture of antler and ivory
implements (A. Averbouh). D. Keeler gives an overview of the Verberie spatial organization
using the GIS methods. The following chapter, which focuses on the spatial organization of
the upper level, combines their results to apply them to the set of spaces that make up the
domestic space. It introduces a diachronic dimension to the activities, made possible by the
flint refits of F. Janny and the stones block refits of M. Caron. It uses a microwear database
of flint tools and artifacts that inform us about the actions performed and the raw materi-
als on which they worked. This database includes the results achieved by L. H. Keeley on
1, 200 artifacts plus the results more recently obtained by Valérie Beugnier, Sylvie Beyries,
and Veerle Rots on scrapers, becs, and burins. It allows reconstruction of a system of activi-
ties, components of which are plotted on the set of spaces that compose the upper level
living floor. Intrinsic results are then combined with information derived from comparative
research (Binford 1978, 1983, 2001; Keeley this volume; David and Karlin this volume;
I warmly thank J. Sackett for correcting the first version of this manuscript and J. G. Enloe for correcting and
suggesting improvements to the final version. I am also grateful to Sylvie Beyries, Francine David, Claudine
Karlin, and Frederic Janny for graciously answering the countless questions that I asked them during the writing
of this paper. I am also in debt to L. R. Keeley, whose microwear analysis and comparative studies have been cru-
cial for understanding the spatial and social organization at Verberie. P. Bodu deserves special thanks for refitting
the allochtonous flint core as well as Maurice Hardy for turning drawings and photographs into illustrations.
145
Zubrow_Unraveling_11.indd 145 6/4/10 3:20:04 AM

Beyries and Rots this volume) in order to illuminate the nature of the social organization of
the group that settled at Verberie, the characteristics of domesticity there, and its relation
to the household.
A Hunting Camp or a Residential Camp? Both
Research done by J. G. Enloe (2001, 2004, 2005, and this volume; David and Enloe 1995)
demonstrates that the Verberie camps were inhabited in the fall and dedicated to reindeer
hunting. At the same time, F. Janny (this volume) proves the presence of inexperienced
knappers who had not yet mastered the necessary know-how and psychomotor control,
that is, preadolescent children. I assume that the presence of children implies the presence
of women. If so, the spatial organization of the latest and best-preserved camp (Level II-1,
under scrutiny here) should exhibit the combined characteristics of a hunting camp and a
residential camp with a domestic space (Audouze 2006, 2007). The camping pattern should
then “reflect…the organization of the task force and the organization of the consumption
unit” (Binford 1991: 128).
Domestic Space Versus an Outer Space
At Verberie as in other hunter-gatherers camps, we have to define the criteria that permit
us to find the limits of the domestic space. Relying on the density of remains is only a par-
tial answer, because a few peripheral flint workshops create high-density pockets. Cooking
refuse is another criterion but difficult to distinguish from faunal remains resulting from
butchering. The decisive criterion here is the tool density, which very clearly separates a
domestic space from an outer space where the percentage of tools compared to refuse is
much lower. In Verberie upper level II-1 (fig. 1a), there is a striking contrast between the
areas surrounding the two hearths (from A17/3 to J17/3 and from K17/5 to S17/5) and the
area that extends beyond (see the introductory chapter on Verberie for a spatial overview).
The first ones include more than 97% of the tools and used blades on 107 square meters,
and I interpret them as an inner domestic space where most of the daily tasks were per-
formed, while the remaining 132 square meters include less than 2% and make up an outer
space, dedicated to butchering, marrow extraction, and some of the knapping activities.
The domestic space is composed of two units that differ in several aspects (fig. 1b).
The D1 domestic unit (66 m2) is wider than the M20 unit (41 m2). Eighty percent of the
tools have been found in the D1 unit and only 20% in the M20 unit (see Janny chapter for
details). They are both organized around a hearth and limited by domestic dumps. Hearth
M20 is a worn hearth with its basin lined with cracked heated stones, some of them coming
from a dismantled edge. Hearth D1 is in a rejuvenated state, with a new edge of big stone
blocks, and its basin is nearly empty (fig. 2a and b). A small stone fragment refitting with
a series of cracked elements found in dump H19 demonstrates this rejuvenation. We argue
that the D1 unit was created before the M20 unit because its hearth needed rejuvenation,
because the larger number of tolls found there is an indicator of a longer duration, and
because the M20 unit was partly set up on the former butchering activity area. But there

figure 1 (a) Map of the II-1 level at the Magdalenian site of Verberie (Buisson Campin)
in Picardy (Northern France). / Plan du niveau II-1 du site magdalénien de Verberie
(Buisson Campin en Picardie (Nord de la France). (b) The II-1 level domestic space. /
L’espace domestique du niveau II-1.
are several arguments in favor of a partial contemporaneousness. No stone was borrowed

from one hearth and used in the other one, as is usual in Upper Paleolithic settlements
(Julien 1984). Several refits between burin spalls and their burin, between blades and flakes,
create connections between the two hearths. A few bone refits also link the two units. And it
is only at a stage posterior to the M20 setting that an exotic core already knapped elsewhere

figure 2 Verberie II-1 level: a - hearth D1; b - hearth M20. / Verberie niveau II-Ia:
a - foyer D1; b - foyer M20 (photos F. Audouze).
was knapped in the space between the two units.1 A few blades made of this beige and
brown flint were found on the D1 unit side and a series of small flakes were recovered at the
top of the H19 dump, while most of the tools and debris from this nodule were scattered
1
Pierre Bodu, who refitted this core, identified this unusual knapping sequence performed in at least two stages,
from three different striking platforms, one of which took place before the flint block was brought to Verberie.
The raw material has most probably a southeastern provenance, around 60 miles away.

in the M20 unit. The much lower density of artifacts in the M20 unit is an indication that
it lasted for a shorter time. The two units are separated by a nearly empty space, which was
used at the beginning of the occupation as a butchering area.
The presence of two units immediately raises the issue of whether there were one or
two households and who the occupants were in each case: men on one side and women on
the other? Adults versus young men? Elders joining the group after the end of the hunting
and butchering? A mix of every category? There is no easy way to answer these questions. In
order to answer this question as much as possible, we choose first to look for the diachronic
succession of activities, then to look for activities defined by preferential associations of
tools in these units, then to look for the locations where these tools were used in opposition
to their discard location, and last, to see if the use of these tools could be attributed to a
gender.
An Intrasite Chronology for Defining the Internal

Relations within the Domestic Space
Micro-stratigraphy and refits introduce a diachronic perspective and allow the identifica-
tion of four phases in the occupation, among which its beginning and end are easiest to
recognize. Operational sequences also introduce some ordering of the technical operations,
since they are constrained by prerequisites. Upon arrival, stones and fuel had to be col-
lected, the D1 hearth had to be dug and set up, and flint nodules had to be collected before
flint knapping could take place around hearth D1. D. Cahen’s refitting (Audouze et al
1981:124–136) indicates that the refuse from these knapping operations was discarded
into the dumps HI18/19 and BC17/18. The longest and more robust blanks produced
went as unretouched blades to be used into the butchering activity area and were later left
on its margins or retouched into tools. The butchering area came into use after these knap-
ping operations had produced, among others, the multiple backed bladelets needed for the
reindeer hunting and the knives for butchering and meat processing. Other blades were
retouched into tools and scattered either around hearth D1 or moved to the arc-shaped
vicinity, with movement back and forth between the two areas. Several were later discarded
into the dumps. At least 40 reindeer,(see Enloe this volume), killed in a short span of time,
were brought back and the carcasses were dismembered in the butchering area adjacent
to the D1 units (convergent arguments indicate that the M20 hearth did not exist at this
time). Filleting probably occurred around EFG2/3 and in G17/18. Extracting the mar-
row took place north and west of the butchering activity area, where scatters of small bone
fragments have been recovered, and in G17/19 where piles of fragmented bones have also
been recovered. Curing the meat for preservation followed, though we have not been able
to recover the spots where it was done. At some point, the M20 unit and hearth were set
up, infringing on the eastern part of the butchering activity area. A few tools and blades
were exchanged and rejuvenated between the two units. A workshop was set up in P2/3
and a southern dump was created in OP17/18. Other small knapping spots were created
in QR2 and R1/20. Another flint workshop, characterized by a large scatter of flint debris
in LM4/5, was also set up outside the domestic space, and most of the flint debris around

hearth M20 is related to these workshops. Two knapping operations took place at the end
of the occupation. An exotic flint core that was first knapped elsewhere, was introduced
in the camp at some point and knapped in J1, within the limits of the former butchering
activity area, which indicates that its knapping occurred later in time than the butchering
activity. Its tools are found in J1, and around hearth M20 in L2, and L19. A blade went to
the P1 square meter beyond the D1 unit, and a flake was left on the border of hearth D1.
Several pieces of flint debris were discarded into a small dump in LM18 and on top of the
HI18/19 dump (the latter deposit proves that the knapping took place at the end of the
occupation). The other knapping, performed by the best knapper in the camp, occurred on
the edge of hearth D1 in EF1/20. Two very sophisticated operational sequences resulted
in the production of long blades only known by their negatives. The refuse, contrary to all
other knapping operations, was not discarded in nearby dumps but left at the spot. A similar
absence of good quality blades has been noted in the other Magdalenian sites in the Paris
Basin and we can assume that they were likely carried away as a provisional tool kit when
the Magdalenians left. They are the symmetrical counterpart of tools and bladelets made
of exotic flint introduced on arrival at the camp (Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon 1972:93).
Tools in both domestic units were in use until the end, since they were mostly found on the
upper part of the level.
Looking at the System of Spaces at a Finer Level:

The Working Posts
In the introduction on Verberie, the overall spatial organization was defined as composed of
the hearths and several meaningful clusters and scatters of artifacts that indicate the hearths’
immediate peripheries, as well as the dumps, the flint workshops, the butchering activity
area, the nearly empty spaces west of hearth D1 and east of hearth M20, the clusters of arti-
facts located along the arc-shaped vicinity of hearth D1, and the low-density areas.
In the process of refining our perception of the Verberie set of spaces, we can identify
working posts. We assume that a working post is a more or less empty space, where someone
could sit or squat, surrounded by small debris resulting from cooking or technical activities.
Like any apt craftsmen, Magdalenians did not sit on piles of debris but, while working,
dropped the debris in front of them or by their sides (Binford 1983:149–156). As a con-
sequence, working posts are empty ovals delineated by a curved line or a small arc-shaped
concentration of small debris corresponding to a front drop zone (fig. 3). The features form-
ing the immediate periphery of hearth D1 are particularly informative: four such working
posts can be identified around hearth D1. They are delineated by contiguous elongated
curved linear concentrations of small debris corresponding to the front drop zones of empty
spaces related to squatting or seated bodies facing the hearth. Two are very clearly visible:
D1-West, located to the west of hearth D1, has a more or less north-south drop zone with
an indentation in the middle that suggests the negative of a squatting adult body facing the
hearth toward the east, with the predominant wind at his back. The working post D20-
South is adjacent to D1-West: the concentration of debris of its drop zone extends from
the western corner to the eastern corner of the D20 square meter. It is characterized by

figure 3 Working posts around hearth D1. / Positions de travail autour du foyer D1.
the scarcity of tools and broken tools in its toss zone. The two other working posts are less
obvious, probably because they were shifted over time. One is located in the northern cor-
ner of E1: E1-North. The delineating debris line is first oriented west-east, joining D1-West
at the junction of D1/D2 and extending to the corner of E1/E2 square meters. Then the
position was probably moved away from the hearth, and it is characterized by a second line
of debris farther away from the hearth: E1-Northwest, where tools are numerous. It affords
open access to the hearth, which was probably a cook’s place in E1-Northeast, because it
marks an indentation in the bone distribution, with small bone fragments numerous on
both sides. It is also from there that the hearth was cleaned and rejuvenated, as indicated by
the asymmetric slope of the hearth’s bottom. The working post D1-West also includes bone
chips, but they may relate to craft activities, given the very high number of tools and tool
tips. The fourth working post E20-South-East is at the rear of a low-density line of debris
extending from the junction with the end of the debris line defining D20-South to the
workshop/dump EF/1-20. It may have lasted less than the other ones, indicated by the low
density of debris and the lack of tools in the curved line of debris in front of it. It was most
likely replaced by a new position in the empty space in E19 around which many tools are
scattered, spreading in the southeastern half of E20, the northwest part of F19, and D19.
The orientation of the person who worked there probably changed several times, with a
main drop zone in F19 and another side drop zone in D19. We have no clue concerning the
function of the center of EF1/20 before it was turned into a flint workshop and a dump but

it is located downwind from the hearth, a position usually not favored by hunter-gatherers.
There is no curved line of debris along the hearth and nearly all the tools are located within
and on the top of the knapping refuse cluster.
The arc-shaped scatter of artifacts that extends northwest, north, and east of hearth
D1 cannot be considered as only a “toss zone” (Binford 1978:153–158): the hearth periph-
ery was repeatedly carefully cleaned, with large debris discarded into dumps HI18/19 and
C17/18. Moreover, the area is mostly composed of tools, blades, and blanks with very little
debris, and it exhibits a differential spatial distribution of tools and used blades. Broken becs
and perçoirs are more numerous in its northern part (FG1/2/3) than complete becs and
perçoirs. However, a line of discarded cores located at the outside border of the arc-shaped
area in G18 to G1 is the result of tossing actions. Crossed refits of burins and burin spalls,
and of blades and tools, link this arc-shaped area with the hearth periphery. Working posts
D1-West and E1-North relate to the north and northwestern part of the arc-shaped area in
C1, E2/3, and D3 and the workshop/dump E/20 relates to the southeastern area in G20.
Though it lasted less time, the spatial structure of the M20 unit is less clear, because
it is organized in a different way. On one side, it is a mirror image of the D1 unit because
of the two dumps’ locations: the P2/3 workshop turned into a dump to the north and the
dump OP17/18 to the east enclosing an empty space. But there is no arc-shaped area and
the hearth is surrounded by only one wide circular ring of tools and small debris, two meters
wide, with two denser areas in MN1/N20 on the northern side and in L19/LM20 on the
southern side across the hearth. No clear working post can be identified. However the dif-
ferential distribution of tool categories clearly speaks of definite areas with particular tasks.
Uses and Tasks as a Pathway to People in Action
In order to proceed in identifying the relations between activities and spaces, typological
categories of tools have to be related to one or several tasks. While the large number of
microwear and functional analyses performed on the Verberie tools permit this identifica-
tion, they also introduce warnings because they prove some interchangeability between tools
of different types.2 Larry Keeley (1981, 1987, 1991) did a thorough microwear analysis
for more than 1,000 flint pieces. Several other colleagues3 (Beugnier and Beyries 1999;
Beyries et al. 2005; Janny et al. 2007; Rots 2002 and 2005) later performed more analyses,
bringing the total to around 1,200 pieces (some of them have been analyzed twice). This
gives a significant sample for evaluating the relation between types and their functions.
L. H Keeley’s sample comes from the only part of the level already dug when he analyzed
2
Tools evolve through rejuvenation. When a tool is transformed by its rejuvenation from a bec into a burin or
into a truncation, it may retain the previous use. Unretouched blades that were used as butchering knives or
knives for scraping or cutting hide can become borers, scrapers, truncated blades, or burins.
3
Nicole Symens (1982, 1986), Sylvie Beyries (et al. 2005), Valérie Beugnier, and Veerle Rots (2005) have stud-
ied series going from 100 to 20 tools. N. Symens reanalyzed some of L. H. Keeley’s tools and added a series of
blades, while S. Beyries concentrated on burins, becs, and perçoirs, and V. Beugnier and V. Rots on scrapers
and hafting.

Table 1
Actions per Tools Types (A Tool may have been Used for Two or More
Actions)/Actions exécutés par types d’outils (un outil peut avor
exécuté plusieurs types d’action)
it—the D1 unit. The samples analyzed by the four others include tools and blades from the
other unit and permit a global view of the level.
At Verberie, most tools are not patinated. Many of them wear striae and micropo-
lishes and microwear, and macro-traces can be clearly identified. The results are numer-
ous enough to inform us about actions and materials. Most tool categories have several
uses but there is always a widely predominant one related to a particular material. Other
uses and materials are limited in number (Table 1). The Verberie tool kit was dedicated
first to processing bone and antler (≤ 60%), then meat and hide (≤ 20% each). When
tools worked on a second material, it was nearly always with the blade edge, and though
it is difficult to prove, it often relates to the use of the blank before it was retouched
into a tool. Three main tasks canbe inferred from the tools’ uses: weaponry retooling4
(Keeley 1987:89), butchering carcasses and meat processing, and hide working (fig. 4).
Burins, Backed Bladelets, Bone Points, and Weaponry Retooling
Burins played a crucial role in weaponry retooling. Ninety-two percent of the 131 burins
worked only on bone or antler; they grooved with the bevel point or with the bevel and
scraped with the bevel or the bevel edge. One finds traces of this work at Verberie on a
few large reindeer antlers from which baguettes were extracted by grooving. The burins
were used for extracting baguettes, by grooving two parallel grooves on the antlers, and
for scraping and shaping the baguettes into bone points. They also were useful in creat-
ing the lateral grooves on the bone points into which the backed bladelets were inserted
4
The word retooling was introduced by L. Keeley to designate the operations conducted for “re-arming a hafted
tool with a new stone tool” (Keeley 1987:89).

figure 4 Table of uses and worked matters. / Tableau des types d’utilisation et des
matériaux travaillés.
and fixed with an adhesive. They may have also been used to take the backed bladelets off
the bone points. Boring or perforating bone or antler was very secondary (< 9%). When
cutting (two occurrences) or scraping (one occurrence) hide took place, it was the blank
edge (previously used as a blade) that was concerned and not the bevel area. Around 40%
of the burins analyzed exhibit definite or probable hafting traces. They needed constant
resharpening, and burin spalls are the most numerous artifacts.
Hunters had to repair or renew their weaponry after every hunting party, a task that
included: manufacturing new bone points (sagaies); acquiring new wooden javelin shafts, if
necessary; removing the damaged backed bladelets from the lateral grooves on the sagaies;
knapping and retouching new ones and inserting them; repairing the leather parts of their
equipment. There is only one bone point (sagaie) in Verberie upper level. It is made of rein-
deer antler and its presence in the camp can be explained by the fact that it was discarded
after its point was broken.5 Backed bladelets at Verberie only exhibit traces of impact and/
or meat polish. They have only been used in projectile technology, inserted on bone or
ivory points set on wooden javelins. They were brought back as inserts on bone points to be
replaced. They were produced in numbers since they had to be calibrated and their middle
segment was often the only useful part. The other parts were immediately abandoned at
the manufacturing spot because of their small size. No wonder then that backed bladelets
and backed bladelets fragments were the most numerous retouched artifacts after the burin
5
The five other bone points found in the other levels are all broken.

spalls in the camp. Heat may have been needed for softening the adhesive that fixed the
backed bladelets to the bone points’ lateral grooves. Thus, a part of the weaponry retooling
had to be performed around the hearth, and we can expect to find these three categories of
artifacts (backed bladelets, burins, and burin spalls) in numbers near the hearths.
Raw Blades, Retouched Blades, and Reindeer Butchering
The second main activity was reindeer butchering. Not all raw blades show microwear
polishes but a large number of the regular ones with parallel edges were found bearing meat
micropolish invisible to the human eye. They fulfilled a specific function, since around
75% of them are knives: 62% cut meat and the more robust ones made on thick and long
blades or laminar flakes were used for butchering the carcasses (as will be seen from their
distribution). Retouched blades, including backed blades are mostly knives as well (> 78%);
but only half of them were used to cut meat (≤ 46%). Robust and long raw blades were used
for dismembering and quartering the reindeer carcasses. Some of them bear traces of hide
and bone along with the meat polish. Smaller ones were used for filleting or for everyday
consumption and can be found near the hearth or away from the butchering activity area.
A few retouched tools, mostly becs, also bear meat-cutting microtraces on their edges. In
several cases this is the only identifiable use, providing more evidence for a posterior trans-
formation of blades used for cutting meat.
Marrow extraction, inferred from the reindeer diaphyses fragments cracked and
scattered all over the site, has to be added to the inferred game processing activity. The
numerous heated and cracked stones discarded from the hearth may have been used as
anvils or hammers.
End scrapers, Raw Blades, Retouched Blades, and Hide Working
The third identified activity is hide working with end scrapers and blades (25% raw blades
and 40% retouched blades). End scrapers are less numerous than burins and very special-
ized. All the scrapers that exhibit a micropolish (23 out of the 53) worked on hide, plus one
that worked on hide and ochre. They scraped fresh (21.8%) or moistened hide (8.7%), but
mostly scraped dry hide at the end of the hide processing (69.5%).6 Four more end scrapers
associated in a composite tool with a burin or a bec that worked on bone or antler (three
occurrences out of 27) scraped bone, and one associated with a truncation scraped plants.
Two-fifths of them wear hafting traces or probable hafting traces, while these traces are
much less common on other types of tools except burins. These hafting traces are mainly
bone polish but a few hide polish traces indicate the use of leather for a strap or for an inter-
mediate piece between the scraper and the haft.
Nineteen raw blades cut, scraped hide, or shaved/depilated the skin hair (13% of
all raw blades with microwear). Though more precise information only exists in a small
6
There is no difference in the spatial distribution of end scrapers according to the kind of hide working (whether
fresh, moistened, or dry).

number of them, they seem to have been used at the beginning of the process, cutting fresh
hide, shaving, and cutting wet hide. Fourteen out of the 37 retouched blades also worked
on hide. They did not shave but they cut dry or fresh hide and scraped wet or fresh hide. In
the long process that transforms reindeer skins into tents, hide cloths, or equipment such
as ropes or strings, the hides needed to be stretched during the drying stage. This required
empty areas outside the domestic space unless the hide was stretched along the poles of a
tent, or on a wooden frame (Beyries and Rots in press and this volume). Another activity
may be related to hide (or to vegetal textile?): an ivory needle attests to sewing; its wear
indicates repeated use, maybe in previous camps (Averbouh this volume). New needles may
have been manufactured during this occupation. In a lower level, a small sandstone polisher
was found with grooves adapted to the needle’s size.
Uses Related to Unidentified Tasks
Woodworking seems to have been unimportant at Verberie and is mostly indicated, in a

rather puzzling way, by boring and perforating tools: seven becs and bec tips, one perçoir,
one micro-perçoir, one burin-bec. More logically, a notched flake scraped wood and a core
wearing chopping striae was probably related to woodworking (Keeley 1987).
Gathering plants did not always require tools but knives and scrapers may have been
useful for cutting them or for extracting fibers. Tools wearing plant polish include four
raw blades wearing microtraces of having cut or whittled soft plants, a flake that also whit-
tled plants, a backed blade, a scraper-truncated blade, and a bec that scraped soft plants
(N. Symens 1982:42–43). One can consider that some fiber weaving existed, though the
only potential proof comes from a lower level: a bâton percé that shows three shallow parallel
grooves that were probably created by tightened strings rubbing the internal lower edge of
the hole (Averbouh this volume). The needles found in various levels testify to sewing.
Around 90% of the perçoirs’ and micro-perçoirs’ points perforated bone or antler,
while nearly 80% of the becs made with thicker and more robust blades enlarged holes
by boring bone or antler with the wider parts of their points (Keeley, in Audouze et al.
1981:139–140; Beyries et al. 2005:21–23). For these three types, the second function was
perforating or boring wood (12%). Because several blades had already been used for cut-
ting meat (seven) or hide (one) before being retouched, several becs exhibit meat cutting
microtraces.7 Hafting was not common for these tools at Verberie. While it is commonly
thought that micro-perçoirs had to be hafted, only one of the micro-perçoirs analyzed for
microwear was found to be hand-held, and only one micro-perçoir out of six wore hafting
traces. Handheld traces were also found on three becs and one perçoir. These are the most
common hand-held tools at Verberie, as numerous as the four becs and perçoirs probably
hafted. A few medium or distal raw blade fragments that refit with becs or truncations also
worked on bone or antler (N. Symens 1982:77). Two of their most likely functions were
manufacturing bâtons percés and emptying long bone shafts, since V. Rots demonstrated
7
For example, the bec tip B4.11 refits with a meat cutting medium blade B4.1, which refits with a meat cutting
proximal blade E2.45.

that bone shafts were the usual hafts for end scrapers (Rots 2002:554–597). But there is
certainly more about them that we cannot decipher at present.
Truncated blades are in limited number at Verberie. They mirror other tools because
they have varying functions similar to end scrapers in some examples (two scraping on
hide), to borers in others (four perforating bone), but three scraped bone or antler and two
worked on plants. As for becs, three were used to cut meat before being retouched into
truncated blades. However, they are not multifunctional, and meat cutting seems to have
been part of their former “life” before they were retouched.
Many stages of the tasks revealed by the tools’ uses and functions remain unknown,
and we can only hypothesize about some of them thanks to ethnoarchaeological compari-
sons (Beyries and Rots this volume; David and Karlin this volume; Keeley this volume).
Moreover, we have to acknowledge that probably a majority of tasks remain beyond our
reach, material ones but even more the tasks related to social and symbolic activities that are
not embedded in material activities.
Tool Types Patterning as a Reflection of Task Location
Tool types distribution patterning is a clue for confirming the relevance of their supposed
association with tasks. In order to recover these tool spatial distributions, we must first
introduce a distinction between tools discarded in dumps, left at the curing/retooling spot,
or left in an activity area. Dumps concentrate most of the discarded tools but are of no inter-
est for identifying activity areas and will not be mentioned any more in this section. They
are characterized by a very high density of every category of artifacts and debris, flint, stones,
and bones, along with a very low percentage of tools. These tools represent less than 2.8%
of the total debris in the HI18/19 dump. In comparison, tools represent more than 6% of
all artifacts and debris in the hearth periphery, and more than 8% in a few activity areas
such as FG2/3.
The high density of tool tips broken during use and found outside dumps is likely to
be a better indicator of work at the spot than complete tools. However, the burin tips that
are encountered in numbers only in dumps do not confirm this hypothesis. Places where
particular tools could not be used also have to be identified: for example, end scrapers can-
not function in the hearth vicinity because of sparks that might have damaged the skins. If
they are found close to the hearth, then, they are there either as reserves for later use or to
be taken off the hafts, since at least half of them were hafted (Rots 2005). Backed bladelets,
which could only be used away from the camp as part of the weaponry, are also there for
retooling.
The II-1 level was used long enough to create a palimpsest of activities. Thus, we can-
not expect to find superimposed tools clusters with the same contours from one type to the
next. On the contrary, we can expect them to have various distribution areas overlapping
one another, with more complicated overlapping in the D1 unit than in the M20 because
of its longer duration.
As a whole, tools are mostly concentrated in the vicinity of the two hearths and in
the central dump HI/19 with a decreasing density outward. But as soon as every type is

considered, differences come out. They fall into three categories. Some of them are clustered
around the hearths: these are the backed bladelets, the burins, and the numerous burin
spalls. In the second category, the borers, the perçoirs, and the micro-perçoirs are clustered
near hearth M20 and scattered mostly along the arc-shaped area located on the eastern side
of the D1 unit. The last group of tools exhibits a more complex distribution. Complete end
scrapers are found away from the hearths and in places of low density, while end scrapers
tips or broken distal parts, too short and out of use, are found around hearth D1. Blades
used as meat knives or for working hides, and long blades used as butchering knives, exhibit
the same kind of mixed distribution.
Weaponry Retooling: A Central Activity
Associated with weaponry retooling, burins, but even more, burin spalls and backed
bladelets8 have a very similar spatial distribution centered on hearths (fig. 5). The association
of backed bladelets with hearths is so strong that there are fewer than 30 backed bladelets
scattered in the areas beyond the hearths’ periphery and fewer than 10 beyond a line AS/5.9
In the D1 unit, they are concentrated around the hearth, with the highest concentration in
the curvilinear drop zones in front of the D1-West and the E1-North working posts, then
around the E19 working post. These tools were manufactured, and used in the D1-West
working post and, for several of them, rejuvenated at that spot. The same can be said for the
working post E1-North, though to a lesser extent. But there are no burins in the drop line
of debris of the D20-South working post. The density is also high in the HI18/19, C17/18
dumps and the flint workshop/dump EF1/20. The burin distribution in the working post
E20-South/E19 differs from the two other distributions by virtue of the presence of nine
burins in DE/19, which can be considered as either a reserve or a lateral drop zone for the
E19 working post. In G1 a small cluster of long burins that wear hafting traces, with very
few burin spalls and only one burin tip, may indicate either a small activity area, or the place
where their hafts were removed, since four of them wear hafting traces.10
Refits of burins spalls on burins performed by D. Cahen (in Audouze et al. 1981:
129–133) inform about tool movement around the hearth D1 unit. Four patterns stand out.
The most numerous refits occur around the hearth at a working post or between working
8
The number of tools of every type may vary from one author to the next on two grounds: ambiguous pieces
that can be categorized in one or another type (such as a burin or bec with a burin spall, bec or truncation, bec
or scraper). The second variation in the scores is related to pieces with an approximative localization that are of
no use for a spatial analysis. 129 burins, 54 burin tips, more than 500 burin spall, and 180 backed bladelets are
included in the analysis here.
9
The association of backed bladelets with hearths has long been recognized in Upper Palaeolithic sites (Leroi-
Gourhan and Brézillon 1972:129; Debout and Bodu in Bodu et al. 2006:124; Pigeot et al. 2004:199–200;
Leesch 1997:80–81).
10
The bone preservation is so good at Verberie that it is impossible to think that the bone or antler hafts
indicated by the microwear traces might have disappeared because of taphonomic processes The Magdalenians
took away with them the hafts, more precious than the lithic tools because of the longer time needed for manu-
facturing them.

figure 5 Density maps of burins, burin spalls and backed bladelets. / Plans de densité
des burins, chutes de burin et lamelles à dos (map/plan M. Hardy).
posts. The second pattern is concerned with several burins rejuvenated at the working posts
D1-West, E1-North, and D2O-South, where the spalls remained while the tools themselves
were moved to the neighboring square meters in E2, E3, and D3. The opposite situation
also exists, with rejuvenation made in E2, C1, C20, and G20, and burins brought back into
D1 and the dump part of EF20. The refits concerning burins found in F19 indicate that
they were rejuvenated at the spot, confirming this place as an intense activity area. Burins in
G1 are related to local burin spalls or spalls in G17 and G20.
Nearly one-half of the burins have certain or most probable hafting traces. One would
expect a different distribution for them, since they were removed from hafts at some point,
but this is only the case in D19 and G1 with their small clusters of hafted burins that do

not overlap with burin spalls. Several of them refit with burin spalls found in EF/19. These
burins are not significantly longer than the burins found in D1 but they are mostly com-
plete. There are always fewer hafts than tools because manufacturing them was much more
time consuming (Keeley 1982). We can assume that these hafts were taken away when the
Magdalenians departed, since none of them have been found in spite of the excellent pres-
ervation of bones at Verberie.
Bone points are the third component in the weaponry retooling, but only one bone
point (with a broken tip) was found at Verberie in the upper level. It comes from F19, on
the border of the lateral drop zone of the E19 working post. The scarcity of bone points is
not surprising, since bone points were solid and could be used several times. Given the time
needed to manufacture them, they were precious objects and were taken away at departure
time as long as they were operational.
Though working posts cannot be detected in the M20 unit, burin spalls and backed
bladelets have a complementary distribution centered on the hearth: the backed bladelets
are located on the northern side of hearth M20 and have their highest density in N1 and its
margins in N20 and M1. The burin spalls have their highest density in N20 and extend into
N1, but are also present in L20 and in its northeastern margin in M20. Burins are scarce
around this hearth but refits of burin spalls on burins indicate the movement of burins
between the two units.
The weaponry retooling takes us back to an essential off-site activity: hunting. The
bones scattered all over the site clearly indicate interception hunting during the reindeer
fall migration, but other game was hunted: a horse, various birds, and ground squirrels
(see Enloe this volume). The latter is of particular interest because it is a game that is
typically hunted with clubs or nets and could be hunted by women or children.
Blades Cutting Meat and the Butchering Activity Area
Microwear analysis was performed only on raw and retouched blades from the D1 unit.
However, a brief examination of the blades found in the M20 unit showed that no blades
were obvious candidates for use as meat knives, either because of an unsuitable edge angle
or because of their irregular shape. This is consistent with the fact that the M20 unit
was settled after the butchering, and probably the meat processing, had been completed.
Blades used in cutting meat are scattered over the D1 unit but they are few in the area
dense in burins and backed bladelets south of the D1 hearth. They are concentrated
in the arc-shaped area north of hearth D1 (particularly in EF2/3, F20, G20/2/3). This
concentration increases when only blades longer than 8 cm are considered, since nearly
all are included in the square meters mentioned above that are on the margin of the
butchering activity area, while the smaller ones are mostly located around hearth D1
(fig. 6). As indicated above, these blades were produced on local flint nodules knapped
around hearth D1. They were used in the butchering activity area then in a filleting area,
characterized by the high bone density spots in F3, G2, and G3/4. They were left there
afterward, except when they were broken and retouched into tools or taken elsewhere for
later consumption use.

Cooking Hearths, Heated Stones, and Bones
Cooking can be inferred from examination of the hearths, due to the large number of
heated stones discarded in dumps, and from the bone remains, and particularly the few
burnt bone fragments found in the hearths. Cooking may have taken place anywhere
around the hearths, but the hearth rejuvenation took place from an E1-Northeast posi-
tion adjacent to the working post E1-North and it is bordered by the largest of the two
high bone density spots around hearth D1. Thus, we can assume that some cooking was
performed from there with the bulk of meat knives not far away behind. Some processing
and cooking may have taken place at the D1-West working post but its bone fragments
and chips could as well be refuse from manufacturing activities. Another possible position
is the D1-South working post across the hearth; its front drop zone is deprived of burin
spalls and backed bladelets, and it marks an indentation in the more bone-dense zone
around the hearth.
Craft activities are likely the cause for the high bone density spot southwest of hearth
M20 in KL20 because it corresponds to the cluster of broken becs and perçoirs that perfo-
rated bone or antler. However, the M20 hearth basin holds a few burnt bone fragments and
figure 6 Distribution of meat knives. / Plan de répartition des couteaux à viande.

figure 7 Distribution of end scrapers and blades cutting or scraping hide. / Plan de
répartition des grattoirs et des lames ayant coupé ou gratter de la peau.
a thin section made in its profile showed partially charred microscopic bone chips (Wattez
1994:125–126). So some cooking took place in the hearth. Other high bone density areas
are dumps.
Hide Working: A Peripheral Activity
The third group of tools comprises the end scrapers and blades for working on hides. As the
meat knives, blades for working hides have only been identified in the D1 domestic unit,
but scrapers from the M20 domestic unit have recently been analyzed (Rots 2002, 2005;
Beyries and Rots 2002, this volume) and give a good idea of the overall distribution (fig. 7).
Usable end scrapers are not clustered but scattered around the two hearths at distances of
one to 3 meters away from them.11 One finds them in the northern and western half of the
D1 domestic unit, and even farther in B6 and FG5. The latter area (B-G/3-6) is deprived of
debris and may have been a hide working area as well as the empty area at the rear of both
hearths (in A-C/19-3 and OPQ/20-2). The tools may have been brought back from this
area closer to the hearth but in an outer ring, not commonly in the close periphery. Outside
the dumps, end scrapers’ tips and broken end scrapers are located in hearth D1 periphery.
11
There is no difference in the spatial distribution of end scrapers according to the kind of hide working (whether
fresh, moistened, or dry).

They all are useless, even the complete one in E1 that was ruined by a failed attempt at
rejuvenation (Rots 2002: 554). Thus, rejuvenation rather than hafting or de-hafting may
have been the reason for bringing back these scrapers to the hearth periphery, since only one
of the hafted scrapers was found there. Blades working on hide cut, shaved, or scraped. Hide
scraping blades have the same distribution as end scrapers outside the hearth D1 periphery,
but they are mostly in the western part of the domestic space, while hide cutting blades are
mostly scattered in the eastern half and are more present in the area of high burin spalls
density. Hide cutting blades may have been used, among other things, for cutting long strips
of hide in order to make strings or ropes, and this latter task may have been males’ work as
much as females’ work.
A Localized Intense and Puzzling Perforating Operation: The Becs,

Perçoirs, and Micro-Perçoirs Distribution
Becs, perçoirs, and micro-perçoirs exhibit similar distributions (fig. 8). This is not sur-
prising since they have a complementary function (perforating, then boring holes). But
it discriminates them both from tools that worked hide and from the weaponry retooling
activity. The becs and perçoirs distribution overlaps with the burins and backed bladelets
distribution on the D1 unit side in two dense clusters, in front of the D1-West working
position and in F19, in front of the E19 working position, where refuse from bone and/
or antler working seems to have been particularly intensive. They may have been part
of the weaponry retooling in this area, along with the five perçoirs and the four micro-
perçoirs found in the square meter F19, used as a lateral drop zone by the working post
figure 8 Density map of becs and perçoirs. / Plan de densité des becs et des perçoirs
(map/plan D. Keeler/M. Hardy).

E19. The other becs, perçoirs, and micro-perçoirs are scattered in the dumps HI18/19
and BC17/19, and along the eastern part of the arc-shaped area, plus in one small cluster
in EF2.
On the M20 unit side, the distribution is extremely concentrated on a quadrant of
hearth M20’s periphery, in LM 20. This last cluster appears to be mostly composed of
tips, implying that intensive bone/antler working took place here or immediately nearby
since the tips remained at the spot. It also is the only area around hearth M20 where bone
fragments have been recorded, and where backed bladelets and burin spalls are scarce.
It obviously represents one of the two different tasks performed on opposite sides of the
hearth. Manufacturing hafts from bone shafts may have been this location’s function, since
there was a need for a good number of hafts, given the large number of tools wearing hafting
traces12 and given the varied tools’ width in spite of a perceived trend for tools calibration
(see Janny this volume). At least one-third of all tools wear hafting traces in Verberie. The
few burins present in this area may have completed the task by scraping the bone shafts’
interiors to widen the sockets.
Engendering Tools and Tasks
Bringing in Theories and Comparative Ethnography
If we want to find out where men, women, and children were pursuing their activities, we
must build hypotheses about a division of labor and a differential use of space. Engendering
tasks and tools presents various difficulties: we have no direct information about the sexual
division of labor in the Magdalenian societies and we are obliged to rely on models derived
from social anthropology. Two theories are in opposition. According to M.-A. Dobres, it
may be possible to identify gender division of labor and render women visible if gender is
recognized as one of the social processes that shaped the technology, which may be identi-
fied in the patterning of activity areas within sites (Dobres 1995). An alternate theory is that
highly egalitarian groups, as we believe the occupants of Verberie were, would leave behind
a lack of evidence of gender differentiation, and that a division of labor would not be seen
archaeologically (Kent 1998: 39). The second theory initially seems to prevail in Verberie
where we find, from the flint blocks refitting, that cores were sometimes used to produce a
series of tools of a same type (three borers coming from one core), sometimes to produce
tools belonging to different types (a borer and a micro-perçoir from a core knapped in an
expedient way), and where the tools distributions overlap one another.
However, we have good reason to assume that some division of labor took place. Forty
reindeer were killed within a few days and butchering them had to be completed in a short
span of time in order to be able to use all the reindeer parts and materials in good condition
12
L. H. Keeley recorded in his database hafting traces (sure or probable) on one-third of the tools in his sample
but when he included the snapped tools tips, it amounted to more than 55% (1987). Sylvie Beyries for the becs
and Veerle Rots and Valérie Beugnier for the scrapers find a higher score of hafting traces (Beyries et al. 2005;
Rots 2005). Bone or antler hafts were a common part of the craft instruments.

(as exemplified by present-day examples from Siberia—see David and Karlin this volume).
Bringing back the carcasses, removing their skin, dismembering them, processing blood
and offal, filleting the meat, drying part of it, cracking the long bones to extract marrow,
hide working, and manufacturing bone tools and weapons represented a lot of work for
a small group. The taboo banning women from using perforating weapons may also have
played a part in the sexual division of labor. The social anthropologist Alain Testart (1982,
1986) has convincingly demonstrated that most societies of hunters-gatherers banned
women, not from hunting, but from using weapons that shed blood, in order to avoid the
proximity of two symbolically dangerous bloods: the game blood and the menstruation
blood.13 Testart proposes a scale of decreasing symbolic danger from hunting with points to
butchering the carcasses, processing the animals’ pieces, hide working, cooking, and curing
the meat. I consider that in the Verberie case, the processing of a large number of carcasses
imposed some time pressure and a distribution of tasks. Thus, economic constraints and
the symbolic exclusion could lead toward the same type of solution. I have no way to know
where the divide between men’s and women’s tasks lies along the continuum of Testart’s
model, and I do not know who was butchering the carcasses, but I can safely assume that
while men undoubtedly took care of the killing and of the retooling of their own weaponry,
women performed the other extreme of the continuum: hide working and processing for
storage. This is supported by comparative analyses (see Keeley this volume; Waguespack
2005). We can associate specific tools and weapons with these activities: reindeer killing
implies bone points and burins to manufacture them, and backed bladelets inserted on
the bone point sides, while hide working was practiced with end scrapers and blades that
were used for cutting, scraping, or graining hide. This distribution by gender was certainly
not absolute: men probably needed some of the hide working tools to prepare or repair the
leather parts of their hunting equipment. And burins were also probably useful in a few
women’s tasks.
Butchering, filleting, and cooking are in the middle of the continuum of Testart’s
model and their distribution between men and women is both dependent upon group-
specific norms and on the press of time allotted to these tasks (Testart 1986; Binford 2001).
Cooking was an everyday repeated occupation assigned to women when they were present
in camp. It could even have been entrusted to an elder woman. Filleting took place after the
bowels and blood had been removed and the reindeer carcass had been cut into quarters or
pieces, and was a preparatory stage for cooking or drying meat. This task was most likely
assigned to women. The question remains unsolved regarding butchering the carcasses, but
with a preference to assume that men dismembered and quartered the carcasses. Depending
13
This is particularly noticeable in many sub-historic or historic ethnic groups of the higher latitudes (see refer-
ences quoted by Testart; see David and Karlin this volume). While this blood ideology leads to the exclusion of
women from some categories of hunting, “it is the organization of the economy that accounts for the level of
exclusion: where gathering is important, women are excluded from hunting and game butchering; and the ban
on women hunting is complete (as in the Kung! groups) or nearly complete. Where hunting is a major resource
as in Northern altitudes, women participate in hunting in their way (driving, beating, tracking animals, hunting
with nets and clubs) and in all or part of the game processing” (Testart 1986:46–48). But there are exceptions
such as modern Evenks whose females dismember the carcasses (Lavriller 2005).

on outside temperature, marrow extraction may have been a task to complete in a short time
before the marrow spoiled. The whole group may have cracked bones in the extended area
north and northwest of the two units, where broken diaphyses fragments are particularly
numerous (FM/4–7).
The number of activities performed in the camp, the rejuvenation of hearth D1, the
setting up of a second unit, the dry hide working, all these facts point toward an occupation
of some duration—several weeks rather than several days. D. Keeler’s chapter shows that
these two units were symmetric mirror units. Each has a nearly empty space symmetrically
located at the rear of hearths D1 and M20 (TABC/19-2 and OPQ/19-2). One is bordered
on the hearthside by a semicircle of remains ending in BC2/3 and BC17/18 in the D1
unit. The other is completely enclosed by the M20 hearth periphery, the P2/3 workshop,
the OP127/18 dump, and in the rear by three small workshops in Q2, R2, and R1. Were
they tent spaces? Pincevent section 36’s model (Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon 1972:254)
converges with Binford’s model (1983:175) in interpreting the larger space at the rear of
hearth D1 as a tent or shelter space with a hearth set up outside a short distance away.
A tent or a shelter could also have covered the smaller space at the rear of hearth M20, but
this mirror disposition is very unusual and unlikely. The M20 unit with its later setting up,
the becs and perçoirs cluster that implies a specialized activity, was likely a satellite of the
domestic unit D20, in which craft activities and some domestic activities were also
performed. Satellite hearths and units are present at Pincevent and Etiolles (Olive 1992;
Julien 2003). End scrapers are the only tools found in these two spaces, with four short meat
knives. This accords with the scraping process described by Beyries and Rots (this volume),
which required very little space and may have been practiced inside.
From Principles to Observed Facts: An Attenuated

Gender Division of Space
The Verberie Upper Level: A One Household Camp. We can assume the presence of women
at Verberie by comparison and from the presence of young. But the inference can also be
drawn from two series of archaeological data: hide working with tools knapped at the spot,
that is, tools that cannot originate from and have been in use in a previous camp; pres-
ence of unskilled knapping productions by children (see Janny this volume). The ground
squirrels hunted with club or net may be another indirect proof. Similarly, reindeer hunt-
ing, highly skilled flint knapping, along with normalized backed bladelets and weaponry
retooling, implies the presence of several men. Women, men, and children make a domestic
group belonging to at least a cooperative society, but more likely to one household, given
the short distance between the two hearths and the interconnections between the two units
(Whitelaw 1991). The hearths are so close together that, whether the second unit M20 is a
second domestic hearth for kin recently arrived,14 an annex or, less likely, a replacement for
14
A possible arrival of newcomers can be hypothesized from the exotic core knapped in J1, in the former
butchering activity area.

the first unit, we can assume that this domestic group was made up of a single nuclear or
slightly extended family corresponding to a household.
A Gender Division of Space. We can support the hypothesis of a gender division of labor
because of the intensive labor required to stalk, hunt, and process a minimum number of
40 reindeer. We can then look for a gender division of space. It is far from being obvious.
All tools categories are present everywhere in the domestic space of the two hearths units,
although in different proportions. We can thus infer that every adult had access to every
part of the domestic space for working, particularly around the hearths. However, the over-
lapping of tools clusters is only partial: if we dismiss the tools discarded in dumps (HI19,
BC17/18, and EF1/20), we observe a strong preference for weaponry retooling immediately
around hearth D1 and on its southeastern side, while end scrapers and blades working on
hide tend to be scattered on the northwestern part of the unit at some distance from the
hearth (fig. 9). Several of them are located within the weaponry retooling area but more
than half of them are useless end scraper tips. Around hearth M20’s side, men occupied
the hearth periphery and more intensively the northern and eastern parts of the hearth
periphery, while the women occupied a second concentric ring, as end scrapers are the only
tools within the empty space at the rear of hearth M20 (OPQ/1/20).
We have previously inferred a division of labor, based on backed bladelets and burins
for men on one side and hide scraping tools for women on the other. In the domestic space
of the Verberie upper level, this division was expressed by a preferential position of men
immediately around the hearths, and in a working area to the east and the south of hearth
D1 (DEF19), while women may have had cooking position(s) around the hearth but were
partly set back and extended their working areas in an outer ring.
Assigning Gender to Working Posts. We can now connect the results regarding tasks and
working posts. The D1-West working post is a key position where the most intensive
figure 9 Genders in space: an hypothesis. / Répartition spatiale des genres: une

hypothèse.

knapping took place, performed by the best knapper of the group. He not only knapped
and retouched tools for himself but produced high quality blanks, particularly the series of
blanks coming from the two very elaborate cores with four striking platforms, first knapped
in EF1/20 and then brought back in D1. These blanks are missing, taken away when the
group departed. D1-West was first dedicated to knapping, then to manufacturing flint,
bone tools, and weapons, or repairing them. Some food consumption may have occurred
as well. The E1-North post went through the same stages, from knapping to manufac-
turing, but with less intensity, before moving slightly away from the hearth to become
the E1-Northwest post where perforators were in use along with the burins and backed
bladelets. This post was moved back from the hearth, probably to leave a clean space for a
cooking position, surrounded by a few male tools but mostly by a few (mostly worn-out)
end scrapers and blades for cutting meat or working on hides. The opposite position in
D20-South, though delineated by some knapping debris, has no tools in its drop zone apart
from four backed bladelets, although there are two end scrapers and five blades for working
on hides not far away behind and on the sides. It could also have been a female working
post, maybe also for cooking since the squatting area is clean of debris. In both cases, the
woman had to work on hide farther away from the hearth. Another argument in favor of
this interpretation is the amount of bone chips and debris around these two segments of
the hearth periphery.
Thanks to the flint core refitting we can bring the children on the scene: the cores
resulting from inexperienced flint knapping, whether made on already knapped cores or new
nodules (Janny this volume) can be classified as belonging to two different levels: beginners
and apprentices. If we plot them on the II-1 level map, we find that nearly all of them are
away from the hearths, but there is a difference between the distribution of the beginners’
cores and the apprentices’ cores. All but two of the first ones are in the domestic space, as
if children were asked to practice away from the intensive activity areas but not too far (for
safety reasons?). On the contrary, the majority of the “apprentices’” cores are farther away
from the hearths and away from the domestic space (see Janny this volume).
As a whole, the domestic space in the two units of the upper level camp of Verberie
can be defined as highly structured by domestic activities and cleaning processes, and mod-
erately gendered. Everybody had access to the hearth at one time or another, but men seem
to have had a privileged access to its immediate periphery, for knapping and retooling.
Discussion
Assigning gender preference to domestic space proves to be far from easy. Models and com-
parisons with reindeer hunters-herders societies have helped in interpreting the data but the
interpretation reaches different degrees of certainty according to the topics considered.
Several educated choices have been made concerning the domestic nature of several
dumps, a gender-assigned space, and the presence of tents or shelters. Four dumps have
been included in the domestic space (HI18/19, C17/18, OP17/18, P2/3), while others
and the butchering area were excluded. This was based upon the percentage of tools, much
lower in the outer dumps and the butchering area (LM4/5/6). Besides, in many cases, the

first butchering operations started at the kill site and were performed away from the resi-
dential camp.
Assigning gender in the domestic space rests upon the contrast between the distribu-
tion of burins and backed bladelets on one side, and on the less numerous end scrapers and
blades on the other. This quantitative imbalance renders their distribution more delicate to
interpret. However, comparative ethnographic examples collected by L. H. Keeley, clearly
point toward reindeer hide working by women. S. Beyries15 notes that only hides of very
large mammals such as elk or musk oxen are processed by men in the Northwest. Beyond
this fact, some uncertainty remains, particularly about the first butchering operations. In
most ethnographic examples of reindeer hunters, men proceeded with the first butchering
and dismembered the reindeer carcasses (Testart 1986; David and Karlin this volume). After
the completion of the first butchering, women performed the filleting and the processing
and curing operations (Testart 1986; David and Karlin this volume). This might explain the
differential distribution between the long meat knives and the shorter ones used for process-
ing meat and consuming it.
Most Siberian groups reserve the primary butchering and the carcass quartering to
men (David and Karlin this volume). Even the Evenks, who let women slaughter rein-
deer, set restrictions since only nonreproductive women can perform the operation (Lavril-
lier 2005:219, 270; David and Karlin this volume). Binford reaches the same conclusion
by using another approach and considering the procurement optimization. “When a
resource must be obtained in large quantities within a comparatively short period of time,
considerable processing of the products for both storage and consumption will frequently
be required. In such circumstances, the division of labor will be between males, who are
primarily involved in procurement, and females, who are primarily involved in process-
ing….The labor of males and females…will be directed to different tasks associated with
the procurement of the same species” (Binford 2001, proposition 8.09:303). Thus, we are
entitled to infer a gendered division of labor at Verberie, since hunting during the reindeer
fall migration was an essential source of later subsistence, clothing, and cover. Testart (1982;
1986:45) indicates that task intensification may introduce a shift in the division of labor
balance. This finds confirmation in Alaska, where Nunamiut men generally perform the
primary butchering, but during the fall migration may be so busy with the collective hunt-
ing in the mountains that women come along and carry the carcasses back to the hunting
camp and participate in the butchering. These may be modern exceptions resulting from
time pressure and changes in the residence and mobility patterns, along with a weakening
of traditional taboos. However, comparative studies indicate a strong trend relative to house
building, leather working, and burden carrying whenever the meat dependence increases
(Waguespack 2005:671–673).
N. Pigeot (this volume) claims to see female participation in flint production, evi-
denced by simplified but still experienced knapping, as opposed to more elaborately prod-
ucts made by men. This is corroborated by comparative studies indicating that “among
people that still manufacture chipped stone tools or recently did, women are or were actively
15
Beyries, personal communication.

involved in stone-tool production” (Waguespack 2005: 674). At Verberie, apart from begin-
ners, D. Cahen (in Audouze et al. 1981:129) and F. Janny (this volume) recognize two
categories of knappers: a few very good ones, with the highest standards, and the regular
ones whose products are simple but efficient and yield tools. Could women be the authors
of these products? At present there is no way to find out since burins, becs, and scrapers can
be produced from the same core.
The scattered spatial patterning of the end scrapers finds its equivalents at Pincevent
in the Paris Basin and at Champréveyres in western Switzerland. In the latter, a spring and
fall camp dedicated to horse and reindeer hunting, end scrapers are not found immediately
around the hearths but more commonly two meters away or even farther, while burins,
backed bladelets, and burin spalls are concentrated on the edges of the hearths (Leesch
1997:87). In Level IV-20 of Pincevent, a reindeer hunting camp very similar to Verberie,
the tools present the same contrasting distribution between burins, backed bladelets, and
end scrapers in the V105 domestic unit; the end scrapers are scattered at some distance from
the hearth. More interestingly, in the T111 domestic unit, they are closer to the hearth,
but mainly inside the space that Leroi-Gourhan interpreted as a tent (Leroi-Gourhan and
Brézillon 1972:137–139), as in the M20 domestic unit at Verberie. In both cases, they are
near the entrance of the tent, in the light area of the domestic space that the Nunamiut
characterize as the “women’s side” (Binford 1983:180). These similarities strengthen our
interpretation.
The borers tips, borers, and perçoirs from LM20 seem to correspond to only one tech-
nical task, because of their concentration in a very restricted area. One wonders what this
operation was that resulted in so many breaks. Only a few bâtons percés, which could be used
several times, were needed at a time, whether to straighten antler baguettes to make javelin
points or for stretching or tightening threads for weaving. Given the varied width of hafted
tools, a large number of antler or bone hafts were needed and taken away when the group
left the camp. Borers and perçoirs were used for making these hafts. But this does not give us
a clue about who was using these tools since the tools that were usually hafted were used by
both males (burins) and females (end scrapers). Around M20 hearth, men mostly did their
weaponry retooling on the northern side of the hearth. The activity, requiring the use and
breakage of more than twenty of these boring tools, took place across the hearth and was
dedicated to producing hafts for both males and females. Apart from this spatial opposition,
there is presently no other argument to decide who was working there.
The position of the two units in respect to one another raises a puzzling problem:
according to Leroi-Gourhan’s model, and considering the similarity in the overall distribution
of remains, we could interpret the two empty spaces at the rear of the hearths as rest areas
covered by a tent or a shelter. This is consistent with the pattern of summer settlements with
an outside hearth for cooking and various activities in front of the tent. However, tents are
always oriented in the same direction among all hunters-gatherers of the high latitudes. The
only exceptions are pairs of tents connected by a covered corridor in winter. This cannot be the
case here since they are eight meters apart and separated by a big dump and the two hearths. In
any case, the proximity of the two units indicates that related people used them. It could have
been a cooperative group or a kin group (Whitelaw 1991:151–155). But the second unit was

Domesticity and Spatial Organization at Verberie 17 1
set up after the reindeer hunting and main butchering activities were completed, and it over-
laps the area dedicated to the butchering. Moreover, the distance between the two hearths and
between the two units is so small that the probability is higher that the M20 unit was an annex
rather than another domestic unit. There is a higher probability that the inhabitants of the D1
domestic unit would have moved from time to time to perform their craft activities similar to
the activities pursued in the D1 unit, including hide working, which is costly in time, rather
than allowed kin to settle so close. Moreover, the hearth M20 lacks repeated cooking activities
(Binford 1991:28–89).16 However, another scenario could envision the arrival of kin, with
women and children, who might have obtained food from the stored meat. Another good
knapper in the incoming group could have brought the exotic core and knapped it in between
the two units. In any case, these two domestic units formed only one residential unit.
The upper level did not yield any other residential units in the excavated area. But the
distance range between residential units at Pincevent IV-20 varies from eight to 63 meters.
Only two of them could have fit into the excavated area at Verberie (400 m2). Thus, other
residential units may have existed at Verberie. Another occupation site, mostly destroyed
by a quarry and ploughing, was uncovered 100 m away from the D1-M20 residential unit
(Lambot 1976). It could not be related to any level from the excavated area but indicates
that the Magdalenian settlement might have been much larger than what remains today.
Nevertheless, the absence of game sharing, demonstrated by Enloe (this volume), proves
that the D1-M20 unit was autonomous in its food policy and kept the reindeer carcasses
for its group. If there were several residential units in the level II-1 camp, they were inde-
pendent “co-consuming” units/households even if they participated in a collective way in
the reindeer hunting (Binford 1991:117).
Conclusion
In summarizing this spatial organization, we can say that in the Verberie residential hunting
camp, a main domestic unit (D1) was set up at the beginning of the occupation and later was
supplemented by a smaller unit—maybe an annex (M20)—in which some similar activities
were performed (except butchering and cooking) and which lasted a shorter time. The two
domestic spaces included a tent or shelter of some sort, and the area surrounding the hearth
periphery was accessible to all inhabitants of the group; men had a privileged access to the
hearth either because of their social status or because of technical operations requiring heat.
Women probably worked on hides away from the hearths and brought their tools back to the
outer ring located in the arc-shaped area. They probably also worked in the tents or shelters
at the rear of the hearths. The arc-shaped area was a major working area related both to the
hearth D1 periphery and to the now empty spaces where reindeer had been processed. It was
occupied by men and women but with a tendency to separate female from male locations—
females being more on the northwest side and males more on the eastern side.
16
The replacement of one unit by the other is a hypothesis that meets several objections: there was no borrowing
of stones between the two hearths, as is common in a case of sequential occupation, there were exchanges and
rejuvenation of tools between the two units, and the western unit remained in use until the group’s departure.

At Verberie, neither Susan Kent’s hypothesis nor Marcia Ann Dobres’s hypothesis
applies in a completely satisfactory way: it is true that the technology of the lithic produc-
tion is undifferentiated, as Susan Kent maintains, for egalitarian societies such as hunters-
gatherers. But Testart’s model, Binford’s arguments, and the spatial distribution support
the hypothesis that weaponry technology and hide working technology were differentiated
according to gender. More differentiation certainly existed than we can prove. Besides, we
are entitled to disprove Paola Tabet’s assertion that women’s tools were cruder than men’s
tools (Tabet 1979, 1998:21), or at least to point out one exception. Even if tools such as end
scrapers or blades used as knives adhered to more or less the same morphology during the
whole Upper Paleolithic, while weaponry kept changing, one can accept Leroi-Gourhan’s
proposition that tools do not evolve much once they have found their functional balance
(Leroi-Gourhan 1993:302–309), in the case of scrapers, as soon as they were made of blades.
Moreover, this apparent simplicity is denied at Verberie, where S. Beyries and V. Rots prove
that end scrapers are hafted in a complex way, unknown until then (see this volume).
Whatever the limits of the interpretation of the Verberie camp imposed by the data and
the models, at the end of these multidisciplinary studies Magdalenian domesticity appears
to reflect both the same adaptive flexibility to the ecological and local context and the gen-
eral regularities that characterize all mobile hunters-collectors. While the Pincevent hunting
camp in the IV-2 level encompassed at least four households and is probably representative
of the regular aggregated phase of related residential units (Julien 2003), the Verberie II-1
hunting camp represents an autonomous residential unit (family household or cooperative
group). It was either part of a larger, scattered camp or an isolated unit during a dispersed
phase in the annual mobility cycle of a larger social group.
References Cited
Audouze, F. 2006 Essai de modélisation du cycle annuel de nomadisation des Magdaléniens du
Bassin parisien. Bull. de la S.P.F. 103 (4):683–694.
Audouze, F. 2007 Mobilité résidentielle et stratégie de subsistance dans le Magdalénien du Bassin
Parisien. Mobilités, immobilismes. Imitation, transfert, et refus d’emprunt , actes du colloque de la
Maison René Ginouvè (8-9 juin 2006):27–44.
Audouze, F., D. Cahen, B. Schmider, and L. Keeley 1981 Le site magdalénien du Buisson Campin à
Verberie (Oise). Gallia Préhistoire 24(1):99–143.
Beugnier, V., and S. Beyries 1999 Analyse fonctionnelle du matériel lithique. In Verberie—Le
Buisson Campin—Rapport de Fouilles programmées pluriannuel, 1997–1999, by F. Audouze and
J. G. Enloe, pp. 25–27.
Beyries, S., F. Janny, and F. Audouze 2005 Débitage, matière première et utilisations des becs sur le
site de Verberie-le Buisson Campin dans le Nord de la France. In Hommages à Claudine Pom-
mepuy, Revue archéologique de Picardie, numéro spécial 22, G. Auxiette and F. Malrain, editors,
pp. 15–24.
Beyries, S., S. A. Vasil’ev, F. David, C. Karlin, V. I. Diachenko, and Y. V. Chesnokov
2002 Tentative Reconstruction of Prehistoric Skin Processing. Archaeology, Ethnology and
Anthropology of Eurasia 2(10):79–86.

Beyries S., and V. Rots Forthcoming The Contribution of Ethnoarchaeological Macro- and
Microscopic Wear Traces to the Understanding of Archaeological Hide Working Process. In
“Prehistoric Technology” 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and Russian Legacy, L. Longo and
N. Skakun, editors. Vérone.
Binford, L. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past, Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson,
New York.
Binford, L. R. 1991 When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going; Nunamiut Local groups,
Camping Patterns, and Economic Organisation. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile
Campsites. Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies, C. S Gamble and W. A. Boismier,
editors, pp. 25–137. International Monographs in Prehistory—Ethnoarchaeological Series I,
Ann Arbor.
Binford L.R. 2001 Constructing Frames of References. An Analytical Method for Archaeological
Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Bodu, P. 1993 Analyse typo-technologique du matériel lithique de quelques unités du site magdalénien de
Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne). Applications spatiales, économiques et sociales. Thèse de l’Université
de Paris I.
Bodu, P., M. Julien, B. Valentin, G. Debout (editors) 2006 Un dernier hiver à Pincevent:
les Magdaléniens du niveau IV0 (Pincevent, La Grande Paroisse, Seine-et-Marne). Gallia
Préhistoire 48:1–189.
Cahen, D. 1981 Premiers résultats de l’étude par remontages. In Le site magdalénien du Buisson
Campin à Verberie (Oise), by F. Audouze, D. Cahen, B. Schmider, and L. Keeley. Gallia
Préhistoire 24(1):123–137.
David, F., and J. G. Enloe 1995 Rangifer Herd Behavior: Seasonality of Hunting in the Magdalenian
of the Paris Basin. In Caribou and Reindeer Hunters of the Northern Hemisphere, L. J. Jackson
and P. Thacker, editors, pp. 47–63. Avebury Press.
Debout, G., and P. Bodu 2006 La place du silex dans l’Unité T125. Gallia Préhistoire, 48:116–131.
Dobres, M.-A. 1995 Gender and Prehistoric Technology: On the Social Agency of Technical Strate-
gies. World Archaeology 27(1):25–49.
Enloe, J. G. 2001 Seasonality, Strategy, and Site Function: Reindeer Hunting at Verberie. Journal of
Human Evolution 40(3):A7–8.
Enloe, J. G. 2004 Taphonomy and Site Structure of a Late Pleistocene Open-Air Site. In Processual
Archaeology: Exploring Analytical Strategies, Frames of Reference and Culture Process, A. Johnson,
editor, pp. 84–113. Greenwood Press, Westport.
Enloe, J. G. 2005 Equifinality, Assemblage Integrity, and Behavioral Inferences at Verberie. Journal
of Taphonomy 2(3):147–165.
Janny, F., F. Audouze, S. Beyries, and D. Keeler 2007 Les burins du niveau supérieur du site de
verberie—le buisson campin (Oise). De la gestion des supports a l’utilisation des outils: un
pragmatisme bien tempéré. In Burins préhistoriques, formes, fonctions, fonctionnement, actes
de la Table-Ronde d’Aix-en-Provence 2–4 mars 2003, J.-P. Bracco, M. de Araujo Igreja, and
F. Lebrun-Ricalens,editors, pp. 255–275. Édition du Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art,
Luxembourg (Archéologiques 2).

Julien, M. 1984 L’usage du feu à Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne, France). Jungpaläolitische Siedlungsstruk-

turen in Europa/Upper Paleolithic Settlement Patterns in Europa, Kolloquium 8-14 mai 1983.
Reisenburg/Günzburg. Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen.
Julien, M. 2002 A Magdalenian Base Camp at Picevent (France). In Perceived Landscapes and Buiilt
Environments: The Cultural Geography of Late Paleolithic Eurasia, Actes du XIVème congrès de
l4UISPP, Liège, 2–8 septembre 2001, S. A. Vasil’ev, O. Soffer, and J. Kozlowski, editors,
pp. 105–111. Archaeopress (BAR International Series, 1122), Oxford.
Keeley, L. 1981 Premiers résultats de l’analyse des micro-traces d’utilisation de quelques objets.
In Le site magdalénien du Buisson Campin à Verberie (Oise), by F. Audouze, D. Cahen,
B. Schmider, and L. Keeley. Gallia Préhistoire 24(1):137–141.
Keeley, L. H. 1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity
47:798–809.
Keeley, L. 1987 Hafting and “Retooling” at Verberie. In La main et l’outil, table ronde CNRS, tenue
à Lyon du 26 au 29 novembre 1984, D. Stordeur, editor, pp. 89–96. G.S. Maison de l’Orient,
Lyon.
Keeley, L. 1991 Tool Use and Spatial patterning. Complications and Solutions. In E. M.
Kent, S. 1998. Gender in African Prehistory. Altamira Press, Blue Ridge Summit.
Lambot, B. 1976 Découverte d’un important site de plein air du Paléolithique supérieur à Verberie
(Oise). Cahiers archéologiques de Picardie 13:15–27.
Lavriller, A. 2005 Nomadismes et adaptations sédentaires chez les Evenks de Sibérie soviétique: jouer
pour vivre avec ou sans chamane. Thèse pour obtenir le grade de docteur de l’Ecole Pratique des
Hautes Etudes en Anthropologie.
Leesch, D. 1997 Hauterive Champréveyres, 10. Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de Neuchâtel:
cadre chronologique et culturel, mobilier et structures, analyse spatiale (secteur 1). Musée cantonal
d’Archéologie (Archéologie neuchâteloise, 19), Neuchâtel.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993 Gesture and Speech. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
habitat magdalénien (VIIè suppl. à Gallia Préhistoire). 2 vol. Éditions du CNRS, Paris.
Olive, M. 1992 En marge des unités d’habitation d’Etiolles: les foyers d’activités satellites. Gallia
Préhistoire 34:85-40.
Pigeot, N., et al. 2004 Les derniers Magdaléniens d’Etiolles—Perspectives culturelles et paléohistoriques
(l’unité d’habitation Q31). (XXXVIIth supplement to Gallia Préhistoire). Paris.
Rots, V. 2002 Hafting Traces on Flint Tools. Possibilities and Limitations of Macro- and Microscopic
Approaches, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.
Rots, V. 2005 Wear Traces and the Interpretation of Stone Tools. Journal of Field Archaeology
30(1):61–72.
Symens, N. 1982 Gebruikssporenanalyse op artefacten van de Magdaleniannenederzetting te Verberie.
Thèse dactylograpohiée, Université Catholique de Louvain.
Tabet, P. 1979 Les mains, les outils, les armes. l’Homme IX(3–4):5–61.
Tabet, P. 1998 La Construction sociale de l’inégalité des sexes. Des outils et des corps. L’Harmattan
(Bibliothèque du féminisme), Paris-Montréal.

Testart, A. 1982 The Significance of Food Storage among Hunters and Gatherers; Residence Patterns,
Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23(5):523–535.
Testart, A. 1986 Essai sur les fondements de la division sexuelle du travail chez les chasseurs-cueilleurs.
Editions de l’EHESS, Paris.
Waguespack, N. M. 2005 The Organization of Male and Female Labor in Foraging Societies:
Implications for Earely Palaeoindian Archaeology. American Anthropologist 107(4):666–676.
Wattez, J. 1994 Micromorphologie des foyers d’Etiolles, de Pincevent et de Verberie. In Environne-
ments et habitats dans le centre du Bassin parisien, Y. Taborin, editor, pp. 120–128. Éditions de
la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (Documents d’Archéologie Française n°43), Paris.
Whitelaw, T. 1991 Some Dimensions of Variability in the Social Organisation of Community Space
Among Foragers. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites, by C. S. Gamble and
W. A. Boismier, pp. 139–188. International Monographies in Prehistory, AnnArbor.

Chapter Eleven
Espaces et Habitats au Tardiglaciaire

dans le Bassin Parisien
Une Illustration avec les Gisements Magdalenien

de Pincevent et Azilien du Closeau
Pierre Bodu
Abstract Spaces and Settlements in the Paris Basin During the Tardiglacial:
An Illustration Dased on the Magdalenian Site of Picevent and the Azilian site
of Le Closeau Our knowledge of the Magdalenian settlements in the Paris Basin is
based on about fifteen sites, some of them excavated more than forty years ago. Long
ago, a distinction was proposed between domestic units and areas with more special-
ized activities. Lithics refitting and bones refitting now allow upgrading the discus-
sion at the whole campsite level. And it is only recently that this approach could be
applied to the few azilian sites known in the center and the south of the Paris Basin,
because very few of them had yielded real living floors suited for a spatial analysis. A
comparative analysis indicates undeniable similarities in the way to use space of the
last Magdalenians and the first Azilians. One can clearly observe a break with the
groups of the later Azilian.
Introduction
D epuis le début des années 90, un nouvel axe de recherche concerne les groupes
du Tardiglaciaire immédiatement postérieurs au Magdalénien, les Aziliens et leurs
successeurs qui ont occupé le paysage entre la fin du Bölling et le début du Préboréal
(Valentin 1995).
La découverte du gisement du Closeau (Rueil-Malmaison, Hauts-de-Seine) en 1994
(Bodu 1998, 2000) a nettement contribué à faire évoluer notre connaissance de ces dernières
populations du Paléolithique. La fouille, durant près de trois années, de plus de 29,000 m2
de ce gisement azilien et “belloisien,” à occupations multiples et où la faune est en partie
conservée, nous offre l’opportunité de discuter notamment des modalités d’occupation de
176

Espaces et Habitats au Tardiglaciaire dans le Bassin Parisien 177
l’espace durant l’Azilien, de travailler sur les notions d’habitat afférentes à chacune de ces
grandes entités chrono-culturelles.
L’occupation des Espaces au Magdalénien

Final: l’exemple de Pincevent
Au niveau de la vaste région qui nous intéresse, soit un peu plus d’une centaine de milliers de
km2, les gisements magdaléniens se caractérisent par une fréquence des occupations, sous la
forme de palimpsestes, comme cela semble être le cas sur les gisements de Marolles-sur-Seine
(Alix et al. 1993; Julien et Rieu 1999), ou de Ville-St-Jacques en Seine-et-Marne, ou en tant que
différents niveaux d’occupation clairement séparés par les lits d’inondation comme c’est le cas
à Etiolles (Pigeot 1987; Olive 1988; Valentin et Pigeot 2000) ou Pincevent (Bodu et al. 2006),
et, dans une moindre mesure, à Verberie (Olive et al. 2000). Dans tous les cas, il semble y avoir
eu une réoccupation des mêmes endroits, des mêmes espaces, des mêmes territoires de chasse
selon un rythme qui parfois nous échappe. Ainsi à Pincevent, on peut établir que les groupes,
peut-être le même, se sont succédé pendant près de 100 ans revenant inondation après inonda-
tion occuper le même lieu. Cela est si vrai que dans de nombreux cas les structures d’habitat sont
superposées en stratigraphie directement les unes au dessus des autres. Dans leur cycle saison-
nier, les chasseurs ont ainsi régulièrement occupé un même espace du territoire de nomadisme à
une saison qui s’apparente, généralement, à la fin de l’été et au début de l’automne (excepté pour
les sites de Marolles qui semblent avoir été occupés sur une plus longue durée pendant l’année,
et le niveau IV-0 de Pincevent fréquenté à différentes saisons (Bodu et al. 2006).
Il semble que cette rémanence démarque le Magdalénien des groupes immédiatement
postérieurs, les groupes aziliens qui bien que moins connus dans la région, ne semblent
jamais avoir occupé de façon aussi répétitive les mêmes lieux. Quelle est l’origine de cette
différence flagrante? Elle est sans doute multiple. D’une part, les éléments de comparaison
sont déséquilibrés entre le Magdalénien et l’Azilien et autant les sites magdaléniens (en
particulier à occupations multiples) sont nombreux dans le sud et le centre du B. P., autant
les gisements aziliens “fouillés” sont peu fréquents (fig. 1). Il est donc délicat d’ériger en
règle une comparaison qui ne prend en compte qu’un petit nombre de sites d’un côté et un
nombre de sites beaucoup plus important de l’autre.
Les gisements magdaléniens du Bassin parisien sont environ une trentaine aujourd’hui
alors que les sites aziliens ne dépassent pas la dizaine (fig. 1). En outre ces derniers, en dehors
de l’exemple du Closeau (Rueil-malmaison), ne sont jamais à occupations multiples. Le plus
souvent les informations ne proviennent que de ramassages de surface ou de sites fouillés sur des
surfaces restreintes. Cette différence dans l’intensité d’occupation d’un même lieu peut tenir à
une gestion du territoire totalement différente entre les groupes magdaléniens et les ensembles
aziliens, liée peut-être à un type de gibier au comportement différent: les rennes, gibier de
prédilection pour les Magdaléniens ont coutume d’emprunter année après année à peu près les
mêmes axes migratoires entraînant dans leurs déplacements répétés les Magdaléniens. Il n’en est
apparemment pas de même pour les groupes aziliens dont les plus anciens représentants (Azilien
ancien) chassaient le cheval et le cerf, des espèces au comportement migratoire beaucoup moins
marqué voire inexistant (Bignon 2003).

figure 1 Principaux sites magdaléniens et aziliens du Bassin parisien. / Main Magdalenian

and Azilian sites in the Paris Basin (DAO/CAD: Danièle Molez).
De la même façon, à surface égale, on observe rarement une densité de matériel compa-
rable à celle des gisements magdaléniens dans les ensembles aziliens. Différentes raisons peuvent
expliquer cette moindre densité d’artefacts dans les sites aziliens: faiblesse de la préparation des
blocs de silex qui entraîne une moindre production de déchets, donc des densités de vestiges
moins importantes, l’existence d’éléments organiques qui ont partiellement remplacé le silex
dans l’outillage et qui en disparaissant donnent une impression de moindre densité de vestiges.
Des multiples explications envisageables, la plus séduisante est celle d’une autre gestion des ter-
ritoires fréquentés par les aziliens sans doute liée à l’approvisionnement en matières premières et
en ressources carnées et végétales. Nous supposons depuis assez longtemps que les magdaléniens
de Pincevent (Ploux 1989), mais aussi ceux d’Etiolles (Pigeot 1987) et de Verberie (Audouze

2006:688) sont venus en groupe familial dans ces campements de plein air parce qu’il nous a été
possible d’identifier la présence de tailleurs inexpérimentés dans ces trois gisements et que ces
débutants sont considérés comme des juvéniles. Qui dit enfants dit femmes, et il est possible que
ces vastes campements aient rassemblé l’ensemble de la communauté. La diversité des tâches à
effectuer dans le site d’abattage massif d’automne de Pincevent rendait sans doute nécessaire la
participation des différents membres du groupe à ce moment, mais on ignore si cette composi-
tion n’était pas semblable durant le reste de l’année. La taille des groupes aziliens est plus délicate
à cerner pour les raisons que nous avons évoquées auparavant. Depuis la découverte du Closeau,
une réflexion approfondie a néanmoins été menée sur la composition sociale des groupes qui
ont fréquenté les occupations de l’Azilien ancien. À l’heure actuelle, nous admettons plus volon-
tiers que des occupants des deux grosses unités de ce niveau correspondent à des chasseurs, qui
seraient revenus à différentes reprises pendant l’année lors de missions cynégétiques destinées à
alimenter un campement éloigné plus pérenne (Bodu, Debout, Bignon 2006).
L’analyse de l’espace magdalénien concerne donc des territoires, des campements
mais aussi des unités d’habitat composées notamment de postes d’activité (Bodu 1991).
Prenons ces quatre ordres de grandeur à l’envers afin de voir comment se structure l’habitat
au Magdalénien dans le Bassin parisien et pour voir comment il s’intègre dans un cycle de
nomadisme complexe impliquant une véritable gestion du territoire.
Le dénominateur commun à l’ensemble des gisements que nous fouillons est le matériel
lithique taillé ou non et l’autre caractère commun est sans doute le bon état de préservation
de ces gisements. L’impression la plus commune lorsque l’on fouille à Pincevent ou Etiolles,
c’est que les surfaces ont été abandonnées la veille par les magdaléniens tant les sols occupés
semblent peu perturbés. C’est souvent le cas et mais parfois, les sols ne sont que le résultat
de l’accumulation de plusieurs occupations. Les travaux de nos collègues faunistes (Enloe,
David 1989; Bignon 2003) mais aussi ceux des géomorphologues ou micromorphologues
notamment nous amènent à pondérer nos interprétations sur les modalités d’occupation d’un
habitat, lorsqu’ils nous démontrent que l’unité étudiée renferme les vestiges de deux saisons
de chasse bien différentes ou lorsque à l’intérieur d’un foyer on peut discerner des phases
d’interruption d’utilisation de la structure entre deux moments de combustion. Il n’en reste
pas moins que dans la plupart des sites magdaléniens du Bassin parisien l’idée de travailler sur
l’habitat n’est pas absurde d’autant plus si les différentes occupations d’une même unité n’ont
pas modifié l’aspect général de l’habitat en question, ce qui est souvent le cas.
Sur le site azilien du Closeau, nous avons choisi d’utiliser le terme Locus pour carac-
tériser les concentrations de matériel lithique et/ou osseux en ne voulant pas présager de
l’homogénéité des ensembles que nous individualisions, ni de leur fonction.
L’unité d’occupation est un terme également neutre qui pourrait s’apparenter à celui
de locus en ne présageant pas de la fonction de l’espace occupé. Il s’en distingue cepen-
dant part le fait qu’il concerne (ou est sensé concerner) une occupation de l’espace syn-
chrone, un moment (quel que soit sa durée) de vie dans un site, qui accumule différents
témoins d’activités. Deux termes complémentaires permettent de souligner sa complexité;
celui d’unité domestique qui caractérise des aires marquées par de nombreuses activités,
diversifiées, une assez lourde organisation de l’espace avec hiérarchisation des postes et
activités culinaires; et celui d’unité annexe dont la durée d’utilisation semble plus courte si

l’on en juge par la quantité faible à moyenne de matériel retrouvé et la relativement faible
hiérarchisation de l’espace, et parfois, par le caractère spécifique des activités menées
autour d’un pôle central souvent représenté par le foyer.
Ce sont donc le plus souvent les matériaux lithiques qui nous permettent de définir
l’organisation de l’espace, la fonction ou en tout cas une partie de la fonction de l’espace occupé
(Julien et al. 1988). Certes les structures de combustion sont le plus souvent le pôle central
d’une unité d’occupation et il est impératif d’en déterminer le rôle pour aller plus avant dans
l’interprétation de l’unité analysée (vidange/foyer). Cependant, si l’on replace le matériel lith-
ique en tant qu’élément d’une chaîne opératoire, il est à l’évidence le plus à même de dynamiser
les espaces occupés, et ce grâce à la méthode des remontages qui, en agençant les produits d’un
même débitage entre eux, permet de suivre le déroulement d’un schéma opératoire et d’en voir
le comportement spatial. Dans le Magdalénien du Bassin parisien, et notamment à Pincevent,
l’espace habité faute de traces évidentes de superstructures (il faut comprendre par là des rési-
dus de trous de poteaux, de pierres de calage, etc.) est reconstruit le plus souvent à partir de ces
activités du lithique, parfois même ce sont celles-ci qui permettent de discuter des modalités de
protection ou d’absence d’éléments de protection de certaines unités (Julien et al. 1987).
L’exemple de Pincevent
Découvert en 1964, le gisement magdalénien de Pincevent, localisé à 80 km au sud-est de

Paris, est fouillé chaque année depuis près de 40 ans (Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon 1966,
1972; Bodu et al. 2006). Le site, localisé en plaine d’inondation sur les bords de la Seine,
semble avoir été choisi par les Magdaléniens, il y a près de 14,000 ans, lors de campements
saisonniers pour une chasse sélective du renne. Vers la fin du Bölling, les magdaléniens sont
revenus au moins à 15 reprises et ces passages répétés d’été et d’automne ont été soigneuse-
ment fossilisés par les limons de débordement du fleuve. Parmi ces 15 niveaux d’occupation,
l’un plus particulièrement, celui que nous appelons le IV-20, a été fouillé sur une vaste
surface (4,500 m2) ce qui en fait à l’heure actuelle le plus vaste campement magdalénien
connu en Europe (Bodu 1994, 1996). Situées sur un même dépôt limoneux, une quinzaine
de structure d’habitat forment la trame de ce vaste campement (fig. 2). Quelques foyers
plus éphémères, aux densités de vestiges moins importantes, sont associés aux gros foyers
d’habitat longtemps utilisés, souvent réaménagés et entourés d’artefacts nombreux et diversi-
fiés. La “pauvreté” des premières s’explique par le caractère éphémère des activités qui se sont
développées dans ces unités, dépendantes, comme l’ont montré les remontages, d’unités plus
pérennes. À Pincevent, l’un des principaux intérêts des remontages est d’avoir démontré que
l’ensemble de ces structures étaient contemporaines alors que leur localisation sur un même
lit d’inondation le laissait présager sans en être véritablement la démonstration (fig. 2).
On sait qu’à Pincevent le modèle théorique du Pr. A. Leroi-Gourhan s’inspirait d’exemples
ethnographiques (Julien et al. 1987). Il n’est cependant pas impossible que les différentes uni-
tés de Pincevent n’aient pas toutes connu le même type de protection, pour peu qu’elles en
aient connu une: au nord d’un foyer, une limite nette convexe des artefacts laissait penser avant
remontage, qu’il avait existé une superstructure du type tente au-dessus ou légèrement décalée du
foyer. En tissant des liens “permanents” entre une zone qui aurait été alors intérieure et une zone

figure 2 Plan des remontages du matériel lithique du niveau IV20 de Pincevent. /

Map of the lithics refits in Pincevent level IV20 (DAO/CAD: Danièle Molez).
extérieure, les remontages montrent que l’hypothèse de la tente n’est pas valide pour cette unité
particulière (fig. 3). L’hypothèse qui convient le mieux pour cet exemple est la présence d’une
ou plusieurs peaux directement posées sur le sol et dont le négatif est encore visible après leur
destruction ou leur enlèvement par les Magdaléniens. Sinon, comment expliquer la multiplicité
de ces circulations alors qu’une paroi dressée les aurait largement compromises?
L’étape ultérieure d’analyse spatiale consiste à expliquer ces déplacements. À Pincevent,
les remontages, et partant les liaisons spatiales qu’ils créent, témoignent du déplacement de
tailleurs durant l’activité de taille. Dans certain cas, il a été possible de démontrer qu’un bloc
avait été taillé à différents endroits par un même tailleur (fig. 4). Dans d’autres, la péjoration
du débitage entre une première exploitation et une seconde, traduit vraisemblablement la
réutilisation d’un nucléus bien exploité par un débutant, un apprenti.
À une échelle plus importante, on peut suivre le déplacement des artefacts lithiques au
sein d’une partie du campement. La mise en évidence de circulation de lames, de lamelles
beaucoup plus exceptionnellement d’éclats entre différentes unités proches dans l’espace

figure 3 L’unité G121 de Pincevent - niveau IV20: l’intensité des circulations des tail-
leurs rend peu probable l’existence d’une paroi au nord du foyer. / Pincevent unit G121
in level IV20: the intensity of knappers moves makes the existence of a tent wall north
of the hearth higly unlikely (DAO/CAD: Danièle Molez).
soulève différentes questions en fonction de la nature des objets qui ont circulé, de leur quan-
tité et de l’existence ou non d’une double circulation. Il a été clairement démontré (Bodu
1994, 1996) que des unités annexes “spécialisées” dans la production laminaire de qualité,
avaient pour vocation première l’approvisionnement en supports normés d’unités domes-
tiques, le plus souvent assez proches dans l’espace, l’éloignement du pôle central d’activité
pouvant être motivé par le besoin de ne pas encombrer cet endroit par des déchets de la taille
(fig. 5). Parfois la qualité de la production est à ce point appréciée qu’elle a été largement
diffusée dans l’ensemble du campement. On peut penser, sans pouvoir le démontrer, que
les meilleurs tailleurs sont investis d’un rôle important qui les conduit à approvisionner les

figure 4 L’unité G121 de Pincevent - niveau IV20: les mouvements des tailleurs dans
l’habitat. / Pincevent Unit G121 - level IV20: the knappers moves inside the domestic
space (DAO/CAD: Danièle Molez).
membres du groupe en très bonnes lames, peut-être pour les travaux qui demandent le plus
de qualité de tranchant et de régularité. Il n’est pas étonnant ce faisant que certains des meil-
leurs débitages n’aient pu être totalement remontés, les plus belles lames qui font défaut ayant
peut-être été emportées hors du site, pour des expéditions de chasse ou à la fin du séjour.
C’est à partir de l’ensemble des liaisons de silex (mais aussi de faune et de pierres
brûlées) que nous passons de l’histoire individuelle d’une activité à la vie du groupe dans
le campement. Dans la mesure où les circulations bi-directionnelles de produits lithiques

figure 5 L’unité L130 de Pincevent - niveau IV20: une unité productrice de supports
laminaires qui diffuse des lames dans le campement. / Pincevent unit L130 - level IV20:
a unit producing blades that are exported in other parts of the camp (DAO/CAD:
Danièle Molez).
sont multiples et variées à l’intérieur du campement IV-20, on peut considérer enfin que
l’ensemble des unités découvertes sur le même lit d’inondation sont contemporaines
(fig. 2). De l’habitat unique et isolé, on passe ainsi à la véritable démonstration de l’existence
d’un campement. Dans le niveau IV-20 de Pincevent, les remontages de silex, de pierres mais
aussi d’os sont multiples et ils témoignent tous d’une étroite symbiose entre l’ensemble des
unités, traduisant sans doute des relations de voisinage, de parenté, de complémentarité.
Enfin, une échelle d’analyse spatiale plus large nous intéresse désormais même si nous
sommes conscient des difficultés que son approche suscite. Il s’agit de l’échelle territoriale.
De la même façon que les Magdaléniens de Pincevent sont arrivés sur le site avec des sup-
ports prêts à être utilisés, ils ont emporté avec eux, vers leur prochain campement quelques
lames et lamelles retouchées ou non provenant de Pincevent.
Espace et Habitat à L’azilien
Quelques résultats obtenus en grande partie sur le gisement azilien du Closeau nous permettent
de présenter certaines modalités d’occupation de l’espace à travers le Tardiglaciaire. Jusqu’à
présent l’analyse spatiale, le travail sur l’organisation, la structuration des espaces de vie ont
essentiellement servi une analyse intrinsèque des gisements concernés et l’on s’est peu posé la

question de l’utilisation du spatial comme élément discriminant entre entités chronologiques

pour ne pas dire culturelles. A t-on les moyens de discerner des pratiques spatiales différentes
entre le Magdalénien et l’Azilien ou le Belloisien? Peut-on faire de ces habitudes d’installation
des fossiles directeurs au même titre que le sont les procédés de débitage, la panoplie d’outillage
osseux ou lithique (Bodu 2004)? Les exemples qui suivent nous montrent qu’il faut être très
prudent et que l’on ne peut guère comparer aisément des espaces magdaléniens et des espaces
aziliens quelle que soit l’échelle d’observation utilisée et ce d’une part parce que nos connais-
sances sur l’organisation de l’habitat entre Magdalénien et Azilien ne sont pas équivalentes et
d’autre part parce qu’au sein même de ces deux entités chrono-culturelles apparaissent de fortes
divergences dans la manière de concevoir son habitat. Les cercles de pierres d’Etiolles, attribué
au Magdalénien final n’ont pas d’équivalent à Pincevent et sans doute se rapprochent t-ils plus
de l’organisation des unités découvertes sur le niveau azilien ancien du Closeau (fig. 6).
figure 6 Plans de l’unité W11 d’Etiolles (Julien et al. 1988) et de l’Unité 46 du niveau
inférieur du Closeau. / Maps of Unit W11 at Étiolles (Julien et al. 1988) and of Unit 46
in Le Closeau lower level (DAO/CAD: Nathalie Gomes, Iliana Pasquier).

La découverte du Closeau (Rueil-Malmaison) à moins de 10 km à l’ouest de Paris

en 1994 a radicalement changé notre connaissance des groupes aziliens tant au plan syn-
chronique que diachronique (fig. 7). Le gisement a été découvert lors de surveillances
archéologiques précédant la construction d’une autoroute en octobre 1994. Six tranches de
travaux menées entre cette date et la dernière campagne de fouille en juin 2000, ont permis
de réaliser la fouille extensive du plus vaste gisement azilien actuellement connu sur près de
29000 m2. À l’issue de ces fouilles, ce sont 84 locus qui ont été découverts: 60 concernent
l’Azilien et 24 sont rattachés à l’occupation belloisienne plus tardive (Bodu 2000).
figure 7 Plan des locus des différents niveaux aziliens du Closeau. / Map of Le Closeau
loci, all levels superimposed (DAO/CAD: Nathalie Gomes, Iliana Pasquier).

Le gisement se trouve en bord de Seine, dans et sur les bords d’un ancien chenal
sans doute inactif ou très peu actif au moins à partir de la fin du Dryas ancien. L’ensemble
attribué au Belloisien est situé en bas du versant abrupt des coteaux qui dominent la vallée,
non loin des affleurements de matière première, les différents niveaux d’occupation aziliens
sont essentiellement concentrés dans l’ancien chenal de la Seine, seuls quelques locus occu-
pant l’ancien versant du lit mineur du fleuve. Au Closeau quatre moment d’évolution de
l’Azilien ont été fossilisés dans le chenal (fig. 7) en dessous et dans la partie sommitale d’un
sable gris pédogénéïsé attribué à l’Alleröd.
Le niveau le plus ancien est rapporté par des datations mais aussi par sa position
stratigraphique au Bölling. Deux ensembles de dates sont discernables: l’un est proche de
12000BP (12050 + −100BP, 12090 + −90BP); l’autre oscille entre 12200 et de 12400BP
(12350 + −60, 12360 + −60, 12423 + −67BP, 12248 + −66BP).
Un second niveau que nous avons qualifié de niveau intermédiaire est rattaché
à un Azilien moyen ou classique par des datations indirectes. Des structures de combus-
tion naturelles (traces d’incendies) datent ce niveau partiellement brûlé par des incend-
ies vieux d’au moins 11200BP. Par le style du débitage ainsi que par l’outillage, ce niveau
azilien diffère nettement du plus ancien et il se rapprocherait plutôt de la phase ancienne
(début Alleröd) rencontrée par Jean-Pierre Fagnart dans les gisements du nord de la France
(Fagnart 1997; Fagnart et Coudret 2000). Dans la mesure où ce niveau a été rencontré
presque exclusivement à un endroit du site où la stratigraphie a été malmenée, nous n’avons
aucune indication sur sa position stratigraphique par rapport au sable de l’Alleröd. Au
Closeau, ce niveau est le troisième en nombre de locus (13).
Un troisième niveau est, quant à lui, bien scellé dans la partie supérieure des sables
pédogénéisés de l’Alleröd. Les rares dates obtenues sur os placent cet ensemble à la fin de
l’Alleröd aux environs de 10800 ans BP (Bodu 1998, 2000). Une autre phase d’incendies
naturels a également affecté ce niveau. La datation des charbons de bois provenant de
ces structures de combustion naturelle confirme la date de l’Alleröd final. Ce niveau est
caractérisé par un débitage particulièrement expédient (peu de lames, surtout des éclats
laminaires) ayant donné lieu à la fabrication d’un outillage pauvre numériquement et
typologiquement. Il s’agit de grattoirs courts accompagnés de monopointes de facture
médiocre. Il est intéressant de signaler que ce niveau est le plus représenté au Closeau en
nombre de locus (27).
Un quatrième moment d’évolution de l’Azilien a été découvert au Closeau. Il occupe
une position stratigraphique quasiment similaire à celle du niveau supérieur, c’est à dire le
sommet des sables de l’Alleröd. Ce niveau, peu représenté quantitativement, présente en
revanche des caractères typologiques particuliers, notamment la présence de pointes à base
tronquée et à dos rectiligne, dites pointes de Malaurie. Des datations réalisées sur charbons
de bois provenant très vraisemblablement d’incendies naturels et qui ont affecté certains
silex taillés font remonter ce niveau à au moins 10800–10700BP c’est à dire à la fin de
l’Alleröd confirmant l’observation de sa position stratigraphique.
En ce qui concerne le gisement belloisien du closeau, on a donc noté qu’il était
spatialement distinct des occupations aziliennes. Aucune datation n’a été obtenue dans
la mesure où les éléments organiques n’ont pas été conservés. Ce sont plutôt le style du
débitage, l’outillage et le faciès économique identifié qui ont prudemment permis de

rapprocher cet ensemble des ensembles “belloisiens” connus dans la région. Ce niveau
se marque en effet par de grandes nappes de vestiges qui évoquent des séjours répétés du
lieu pour une activité de taille prépondérante liée à l’emport des supports laminaires de
premier choix. A contrario, les outils sont rares et ils évoquent des rapprochements avec
l’outillage retrouvé dans certains gisements belloisiens du centre de la France (Muides-sur-
Loire) (Bodu et. 1997).
L’analyse Spatiale du Closeau Révèle des

Différences Entre Niveaux
Le niveau inférieur du Closeau est donc daté des environs de 12000 à 12400BP (Bodu
1998). En termes de chronologie absolue, ces dates sont à rapprocher des dates obtenues sur
un bon nombre de gisements du Magdalénien final du Bassin parisien (Pincevent, Etiolles,
Verberie, Marsangy) (Valentin et Pigeot 2000) même si l’existence du plateau radiocarbone
ne nous permet pas d’estimer la relation temporelle entretenue par ces groupes. Au Closeau,
la faune chassée rappelle la prédominance d’un climat plus tempéré que durant le Magdalé-
nien (Bignon 2003). Le cheval dominant est accompagné du cerf qui représente une part
non négligeable dans le cortège faunique mais aussi du sanglier. Aucune trace du renne qui
est l’animal dominant voire exclusif dans la plupart des assemblages fauniques magdaléniens.
Le style du débitage reste encore très laminaire, mais la pierre tendre a remplacé le percuteur
tendre organique utilisé par les Magdaléniens. L’outillage est essentiellement sur lame et les
grattoirs encore allongés côtoient quelques burins et un très grand nombre de lames aux
bords retouchés qui nous semblent très caractéristiques de cette période (Bodu 1998). Au
sein des armatures, aucune lamelle à dos n’est observée. Seules existent des bipointes effilées
aux deux extrémités (fig. 8) (Bodu 1998, 2000). En dehors de ces quelques points de dif-
férence ou de ressemblance avec le Magdalénien, on pressent dans l’organisation spatiale
une continuité évidente entre le Magdalénien et l’Azilien ancien et ceci tant au niveau du
campement qu’en ce qui concerne l’organisation individuelle de chaque unité d’occupation
(Bodu 1998). En quelques mots, le comportement spatial des Aziliens anciens est plus de
type paléolithique supérieur que mésolithique.
Au sein du campement, les sites magdaléniens régionaux montrent une bonne complé-
mentarité entre des unités fortement structurées, à forte densité de vestiges, à activités diversifiées
et des structures moins pérennes, plus légères, moins denses en vestiges et à activités plus ciblées.
Face à de véritables unités d’habitation, on a affaire à des unités annexes ou à vocation technique.
Il semble qu’au Closeau, on ait retrouvé ce modèle d’installation sur le niveau azilien ancien
(fig. 9) (Bodu 1998, 2000). Parallèlement aux deux plus grands locus du site qui contien-
nent quelques milliers d’artefacts lithiques (2500 environ chacun), de très nombreux débris
osseux, des outils diversifiés, on rencontre quatre unités à activité beaucoup plus réduite ou
plus ciblée si l’on en juge par la quantité de vestiges abandonnés, l’outillage réduit et une
présence médiocre de faune voire pas de faune du tout. Au sein de ces petites unités, on a
souvent effectué des opérations de débitage dont les produits laminaires sont venus enrichir
les grands locus comme le prouvent quelques premiers remontages (fig. 9). On a donc

figure 8 Panoplie lithique du niveau azilien ancien du Closeau; 1-3: grattoirs; 4-8:
pointes à dos; 9-11: burins; 12-15: lames retouchées. / Lithic assemblage from Le
Closeau Early Azilian level; 1-3: end scrapers; 4-8: backed points; 9-11: retouched blades
(dessins/drawings: Philippe Alix).

figure 9 Plan du campement du niveau azilien ancien du Closeau avec remontages. /

Map of the camp in Le Closeau lower level with lithics refits (DAO/CAD: Grégory
Debout).
l‘impression que l’organisation globale des campements magdaléniens et celle des ensembles
aziliens est relativement semblable.
Une seconde échelle d’observation spatiale permet de confirmer la filiation que nous
pressentons entre le Magdalénien final et l’Azilien ancien (Bodu 1998). La mise en parallèle
du plan du locus W11 d’Etiolles et de celui du locus 46 du Closeau montre une claire simili-
tude dans le traitement de l’espace extérieur et de l’espace intérieur de l’unité, un même
comportement vis à vis de la délimitation de l’espace intérieur (fig. 6). On est ainsi étonné
par la convergence des dimensions de l’espace “fermé.” En ce qui concerne l’organisation de
l’espace, on constate dans les deux grandes unités du niveau azilien ancien, une organisation
centripète des vestiges autour d’une structure de combustion. Foyer du Closeau qui est, en
son état d’abandon, peu ou pas organisé alors que les foyers magdaléniens qui équipent les
grandes unités d’habitation le sont (fig. 6). Au Closeau, les foyers sont simples, sans appa-
reillage pierreux. Les feux ont vraisemblablement été allumés directement sur le sol. Des
foyers aussi peu complexes sont connus dans le Magdalénien final du Bassin parisien, mais
il est rare voire exceptionnel qu’ils se trouvent au centre des grandes unités d’habitation.
Quoi qu’il en soit dans les deux exemples qui nous intéressent ici, les vestiges sont organisés
autour de ces foyers avec une répartition non aléatoire des catégories d’outils et des restes

fauniques. C’est donc bien une organisation “magdalénienne” que l’on pressent dans ce
niveau de l’Azilien ancien au Closeau.
En revanche, les groupes plus récents ont laissé des espaces apparemment moins
structurés. Nous ne savons pas parfaitement interpréter cette différence mais il n’est pas
impossible que, dans le cas du Closeau et pour ce qui concerne le niveau intermédiaire, des
problèmes taphonomiques soient à l’origine de cette apparente désorganisation ou moindre
organisation (Bodu 1998). Ce niveau présente ainsi des densités d’occupation assez impor-
tantes de l’ordre de quelques milliers de pièces pour les plus denses (5,000 pièces pour le
locus 19) parmi lesquelles l’outillage peut représenter près de 6 à 7% mais parfois seulement
2%. Les surfaces d’occupation se présentent néanmoins comme de vastes nappes de vestiges
indifférenciés que seuls des analyses de répartitions différentielles permettent d’organiser
(fig. 10). On n’en retire pas l’image évidente d’une structure organisée qu’offrent dès le pre-
mier abord les occupations de l’Azilien ancien. Ici pas de foyer central apparent, quelques
taches périphériques de combustion parfois associées aux concentrations de l’outillage, par-
fois pas. Il n’existe pour ce niveau, contrairement au niveau plus ancien, aucune organisa-
tion d’un espace intérieur suggérée par des couronnes de vestiges, des cercles de pierres.
Cette relative absence d’organisation n’est qu’apparente. La mise sur plan des différentes
catégories d’outils montre des localisations spatiales particulières et ce à tel point que l’on
peut rencontrer un type d’outil particulier dans un seul des locus du niveau intermédiaire.
figure 10 Plan d’un locus du niveau intermédiaire du Closeau. / Map of a locus in Le

Closeau middle level (DAO/CAD: Nathalie Gomes, Iliana Pasquier).

C’est le cas de becs épais qui n’ont été rencontrés que dans un locus (le 20) sur les 13 recen-
sés dans le chenal.
Dans le niveau azilien le plus récent du Closeau, daté des environs de 10800 avant le
présent et qui a livré le plus de locus (27 locus au total), l’organisation interne de chaque
locus semble encore moins marquée que ce qui a été décrit pour le niveau intermédiaire. Les
densités sont le plus souvent faibles il est vrai mais, lorsque l’on a affaire à de fortes concen-
trations (locus 9: 2,500 pièces minimum), l’espace semble tout aussi peu structuré (fig. 11).
figure 11 Plan d’un locus du niveau supérieur du Closeau. Map of locus in Le Closeau
upper level (DAO/CAD: Nathalie Gomes, Iliana Pasquier).

Les structures de combustion sont en périphérie des aires d’activité, nucléus et outils sont
répartis dans l’ensemble de la nappe de vestiges sans concentrations différenciées, on n’observe
aucune structuration de l’espace ou des structures de combustion par des pierres (Kildea
1996). L’étude de l’ensemble des concentrations du niveau supérieur a montré que l’outillage
était particulièrement monotone dominé par les pointes à dos et les grattoirs (fig. 12). Il est
fréquent que ces derniers outils soient en faible nombre dans les locus plus souvent dominés
figure 12 Panoplie lithique du niveau azilien récent du Closeau; 1-8: pointes à dos
entières et fragmentées; 9-12: grattoirs. / Lithic assemblage of Le Closeau late Azilian
level; 1-8: complete and fragmented backed points; 9-10: end scrapers (dessins/drawings:
Philippe Alix).

par les pointes mais, dans un ou deux cas, les grattoirs sont largement majoritaires évoquant
le déroulement privilégié d’activités de traitement des peaux dans ces locus. De la même
façon, l’observation des séquences techniques dans chacun des locus a montré que certains
d’entre eux n’ont accueilli que des opérations préliminaires de taille du silex, alors que d’autres
accueillent l’ensemble des opérations liées au débitage et à la production et à l’utilisation des
supports. Le manque de remontages nous interdit d’en dire plus pour le moment, mais on
ne peut exclure qu’il existe une certaine complémentarité entre certains de ces locus sans que
l’on puisse cependant utiliser les termes d’unité d’habitation et d’unité annexe au même titre
que ce qui est fait pour le Magdalénien ou l’Azilien ancien. Enfin l’absence de certains sup-
ports dans des remontages réalisés à l’intérieur des locus ainsi que la faible densité générale
des occupations liée à la monotonie de l’outillage nous amène à nous poser la question de
l’existence d’une différence de conception entre les campements magdaléniens et aziliens
anciens et ceux des ensembles aziliens plus récents. Nous nous demandons si les activités
(aussi diverses soient-elles) ne sont pas beaucoup plus découpées dans l’espace au cours de
l’Azilien récent qu’elles ne le sont durant le Magdalénien final ou l’Azilien ancien, rappelant
un peu ce que nous avons d’ores et déjà proposé pour le Belloisien (Bodu et al. 1997; Fagnart
et Coudret 2000). Ainsi un campement de l’Azilien récent pourrait s’étendre sur plusieurs
dizaines de milliers de m2, alors que cette maille de relation entre unités aurait été plus
resserrée dans le cas du Magdalénien ou de l’Azilien ancien à moins que la fréquentation du
territoire à l’Azilien récent soit encore plus morcelée. Ce ne sont que des hypothèses
de travail, qui demandent bien évidemment à être confrontées à de futures données de
terrain.
L’ensemble belloisien du Closeau semble être au même titre que d’autres gisements
belloisiens, un cas d’école pour la démonstration de ce fort découpage des activités dans
l’espace à l’extrême fin du Tardiglaciaire. En effet depuis les fouilles de Jean-Pierre Fagnart
à Belloy-sur-Somme notamment (Fagnart 1997), puis les fouilles que nous avons menées
conjointement avec Boris Valentin à Donnemarie-Dontilly en Seine-et-Marne (Bodu et al.
1997), il est possible de dire que le ou les groupes qui sont à l’origine de cette entité fonc-
tionnelle ont fortement séquencé l’activité qui tournait autour du silex. Sur les gisements
belloisiens, les déchets de cette production sont ultra-majoritaires et seule la présence de
rares outils parmi lesquels les grattoirs sont dominants nous empêche d’utiliser uniquement
le terme d’atelier. Au Closeau comme dans l’ensemble de ces gisements, les outils dépassent
rarement les 2% et les manques dans les remontages ainsi que l’absence de produit lami-
naire de premier choix montrent clairement que l’on a presque uniquement taillé sur ces
sites pour utiliser les supports en d’autres sites. C’est un peu là la caricature d’une gestion
fortement rationalisée de l’espace mais aussi des ressources et sans doute n’en est-ce là que
l’aspect le plus apparent.
On le voit bien pour le moment notre compréhension des structures d’habitat en
est dans sa phase documentaire et sans doute ne sommes-nous pas suffisamment avancés
pour faire de l’habitat un fossile directeur, chono-culturellement discriminant à l’intérieur
du Paléolithique supérieur. Sans doute cela sera-t-il très difficile, voire impossible, eu égard
aux risques d’une certaine monotonie dans les agencements spatiaux des sapiens sapiens
du Paléolithique. La distribution centripète des vestiges n’est-elle pas un fait de nature?

L’organisation des activités autours d’un pôle central n’est-elle pas également de l’ordre de
l’anatomique? Dès lors les différences que l’on observe dans l’“habitat,” au sens large, des
chasseurs du Pleistocène supérieur, ne seraient-elles pas à mettre sur le compte des dif-
férentes fonctions de site, des saisons d’occupation, des disponibilités locales en matériaux
de “construction”? On ne peut cependant écarter l’idée que des traditions “culturelles,” ou
des groupes également leurs habitudes dans leur façon d’occuper l’espace. Mais la monot-
onie apparente des activités techniques menées durant tout le Paléolithique (taille du silex,
chasse, façonnage de l’industrie osseuse, traitement du gibier, etc.) peut avoir des répercus-
sions récurrentes sur l’organisation de l’espace dans le campement, alors qu’elle concernera
moins la gestion des territoires.
Notre degré de réflexion en ce qui concerne les espaces au Tardiglaciaire dans le Bassin
parisien, n’en est qu’à ses début (Bodu 2004). Nous sommes certes plus à l’aise pour parler à
l’échelle de l’unité ou du campement. Nous manquons de recul et de données pour discuter
en termes de territoire. Nous pressentons simplement pour le moment que cette gestion des
habitats mais aussi des territoires a largement évolué entre le Magdalénien et le Belloisien.
Les réponses à cette évolution, à ces différences, sont sans doute multiples et elles feront
encore l’objet de débats nourris dans le futur.
References Cited
Alix, P., A. Averbouh, L. Binter, P. Bodu, A. Boguszewski, C. Cochin, V. Deloze, P. Gouge, V. Krier, C.
Leroyer, D. Mordant, M. Philippe, J.-L. Rieu, P. Rodriguez, et B. Valentin 1993 Nouvelles recher-
ches sur le peuplement magdalénien de l’interfluve Seine-Yonne: Le Grand Canton et Le Tureau
des Gardes à Marolles-sur-Seine (Seine-et-Marne). Bulletin de la.Soc. Préhist. Fr. 90(3):196–218.
Bignon, O. 2003 Diversité et exploitation des équidés au Tardiglaciaire en Europe occidentale—
Implications pour les stratégies de subsistance et les modes de vie au Magdalénien et à l’Azilien
ancien du Bassin parisien. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Nanterre-Paris X.
Bodu, P. 1991 Pincevent, site magdalénien. In Les premiers chasseurs dans la vallée de la Seine.
Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 164:60–67.
Bodu P. 1994 Analyse typo-technologique du matériel lithique de quelques unités du site magdalénien
de Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne): applications spatiales, économiques et sociales. Thèse de nouveau
Doctorat, Université de Paris I.
Bodu P. 1996 Les chasseurs magdaléniens de Pincevent; quelques aspects de leurs comportements.
Lithic Technology 21(1):48–70.
Bodu P. 1998 Magdalenians-Early Azilians in the Centre of the Paris Basin: A filiation? The Example
of Le Closeau (Rueil-Malmaison, France). In The Organization of Lithic Technology in Late
Glacial and Early Postglacial of Europe, S. Miliken, editor, pp. 131–147. British Archaeological
Reports (BAR), International Series, 700, Oxford.
Bodu P. 2000 Que sont devenus les Magdaléniens du Bassin parisien? Quelques éléments de
réponse sur le gisement azilien du Closeau (Rueil-Malmaison, France). In L’Europe centrale et
septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire. Confrontation des modèles régionaux de peuplement, B. Valentin,
P. Bodu, and M. Christensen, editors, pp. 315–339. Éd. de l’APRAIF, Mémoire du Musée de
Préhistoire d’Ile de France, Nemours.

Bodu, P. 2004 Paléolithique supérieur et habitat. Réflexions sur un fossile-directeur potentiel. In

La Préhistoire en France, 100 ans de découvertes. Société Préhistorique Française; Dossiers
d’Archéologie 296 (septembre 2004):14–24.
Bodu, P., Debout, and O. Bignon 2006 Unités domestiques et unités annexes dans l’Azilien ancien
du Closeau (Hauts-de-Seine): quelle complémentarité? Variabilité des habitats tardiglaciaires
dans le Bassin parisien et ses alentours: quelles significations? Table-ronde organisée dans le cadre
du PCR “ Habitats et peuplements tardiglaciaires du Bassin parisien.” Déc 2005, Paris I.
Bulletin de la.Soc. Préhist. Fr. 103, n°4:711–728.
Bodu, P., A. Hantaï, and B. Valentin 1997 La “Long Blade Technology” au sud du Bassin parisien:
découvertes récentes. In Le Tardiglaciaire en Europe du Nord-Oues, J.-P. Fagnart and A. Thévenin,
editors, pp. 211–222. Actes du 119è Congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques,
Pré- et Protohistoire, Amiens 1994. Éd. du C.T.H.S, Paris.
Bodu, P., M. Julien, B. Valentin, and G. Debout, éds. 2006 Un dernier hiver à Pincevent. Les
Magdaléniens du niveau IV0. Gallia Préhistoire 48:1–180.
Enloe, J. G., and F. David 1989 Le remontage des os par individus: le partage du renne chez
les Magdaléniens de Pincevent (La Grande Paroisse, Seine et Marne). Bull. de la S.P.F.
86(9):275–281.
Fagnart, J.-P. 1997 La fin des temps glaciaires dans le nord de la France—Approches archéologique et
environnementale des occupations humaines du Tardiglaciaire. Mémoires de la Société Préhisto-
rique Française 24 (1997).
Fagnart, J.-P., and P. Coudret 2000 Le Tardiglaciaire dans le Nord de la France. In L’Europe centrale et
septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire. Confrontation des modèles régionaux de peuplement, B. Valentin,
P. Bodu, and M. Christensen, editors, pp. 111–128. Éd. de l’APRAIF, Mémoire du Musée de
Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France, Nemours.
Julien, M., avec la collaboration de F. Audouze, D. Baffier, P. Bodu, P. Coudret, F. David, G. Gaucher,
C. Karlin, M. Larrière, P. Masson, M. Olive, C. M. Orliac, N. Pigeot, J.-L. Rieu, B. Schmider,
and Y. Taborin 1988 Organisation de l’espace et fonction des habitats magdaléniens du Bassin
parisien. De la Loire à l’Oder. Actes du Colloque de Liège I (décembre 1985) B.A.R International
Series 444 (i) (1988):81–123.
Julien, M., C. Karlin, and P. Bodu 1987 Pincevent: où en est le modèle théorique aujourd’hui? Bull.
Soc. Préhist. Fr, Hommage de la S.P.F à André Leroi-Gourhan 84(10–12):335–362.
Julien, M., and J.-L. Rieu, éds. 1999 Occupations du Paléolithique supérieur dans le sud-est du
Bassin parisien. Documents d’Archéologie Française 78. MSH, Paris.
Kildea, F. 1996 Etude du matériel lithique du niveau récent du site à Federmesser du site du Closeau, à
Rueil-Malmaison (Hauts-de-Seine)—Approche technologique, typologique et spatiale de six unités
d’occupation. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Paris I.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and M. Brézillon 1966 L’habitation magdalénienne n°1 de Pincevent près
Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire 9(2):263–385.
habitat magdalénien (la section 36., VIIe supplément à Gallia Préhistoire).
Olive, M. 1988 Une habitation magdalénienne d’Etiolles: l’unité P15. Mémoires de la Société Préhis-
torique Française 20.

Olive, M., F. Audouze, and M. Julien 2000 Nouvelles données concernant les campements magdalé-
niens du Bassin parisien. In L’Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire. Confronta-
tion des modèles régionaux de peuplement, B. Valentin, P. Bodu, and M. Christensen, editors,
pp. 289–304. Éd. de l’APRAIF, Mémoire du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France, Nemours.
Pigeot, N. 1987 Magdalénien d’Etiolles, Economie de débitage et organisation sociale (l’unité d’habitation
U5). XVe supplément à Gallia Préhistoire, Paris.
Ploux, S. 1989 Approche archéologique de la variabilité des comportements techniques individuels: les
tailleurs de l’unité 27-M89 de Pincevent. Thèse de doctorat, Univ. Paris-X.
Valentin, B. 1995 Les groupes humains et leurs traditions au tardiglaciaire dans le Bassin parisien. Apports
de la technologie comparée. Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université de Paris I.
Valentin, B., and B. Pigeot 2000 Éléments pour une chronologie des occupations magdaléniennes
dans le Bassin parisien. In L’Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire. Confronta-
tion des modèles régionaux de peuplement, B. Valentin, P. Bodu, and M. Christensen, editors,
pp. 129–138. Éd. de l’APRAIF, Mémoire du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France,
Nemours.

Chapter Twelve
Éléments d’une Organisation Sociale

Magdalénienne à Étiolles Du Savoir-faire
au Statut Social des Personnes
Nicole Pigeot
Abstract Elements of a Magdalenian Social Organization at Etiolles: From

the Know-How to the Social Status of People. The social interpretation of the
group living at Étiolle is based on two levels of analysis of flint knapping: first, the
identification of immature flint knapping competences (of children and teenagers)
contrasting with mature competences of adults by economic, technical, and cognitive
criteria in applying the Magdalenian norms for laminar productions; second, the
identification of various competences that are not related to maturity or immaturity.
A very sophisticated knapping versus a simplified but efficient knapping that produce
many blanks. Thus there are two categories of adults. The first ones get the longest and
the most difficult flint blocks; the other ones get smaller ones that they correctly knap
to produce smaller series of shorter blades. One also finds this categorization in the
spatial organization in the U-5 occupation as well as in the later Q-31 occupation,
where youngsters are relegated in the periphery of the occupation.
In the first hypothesis, the Étiolles knappers are men, women, and children;
the women knap cores with lesser potential for getting some of the blanks they need.
In another hypothesis, knapping is exclusively a male activity, and the simplified
knapping could be performed by young males, for example. The weakening of the
knapping norms must not be interpreted as a sign of a linear evolution but as an
indication of recurring cyclic changes during the Upper Paleolithic.
Introduction
L ’organisation sociale d’un groupe de chasseurs-cueilleurs paléolithiques, tels les Magdalé-

niens d’Étiolles (Essonne, France), semble de prime abord assez peu accessible. Certes,
198

Éléments d’une Organisation Sociale 199
mais outre que l’on peut déjà dessiner à grands traits le cadre interprétatif par analogie
actualiste, celui d’une société nomade et présumée égalitaire, les recherches de ces dernières
décennies ont néanmoins développé des approches méthodologiques aptes à saisir au moins
des éléments de cette organisation. Mieux, nous proposons, dans ce chapitre, de montrer
que cette restriction autorise pourtant une interprétation moins élémentaire qu’il n’y paraît.
Nous nous appuierons sur l’idée que l’organisation d’une société n’est pas structurée par une
somme d’éléments constitutifs mais par un système d’éléments. Ainsi, un élément de carac-
térisation comme l’activité de fabrication des outils ou armes en pierre n’est ni isolé ni auto-
nome dans le groupe social en question. En d’autres termes, selon le concept de “fait social
total” de Mauss, on peut considérer qu’un fait technique, à lui seul, est traversé par la société
dans son ensemble: il en est l’émanation et, en retour, il en reflète l’organisation. Ainsi,
l’approche sociologique d’un système technique renvoie d’une certaine façon au système
social, sinon dans son ensemble, du moins dans une partie de sa structure idéologique.
Avant d’appréhender les prémices de cette structure idéologique à travers l’activité
technique de la taille, il faut d’abord passer par un examen des traces qu’ont ou n’ont pas
laissées les divers acteurs sociaux qui composaient le groupe.
Préambule Sur la Composition Du Groupe Social
Hommes ou femmes, enfants, adolescents, adultes ou vieillard, chasseur, chef, “guéris-

seur” ou “chaman”…toutes ces catégories et d’autres existaient peu ou prou et ont forcé-
ment participé à créer les traces archéologiques que nous devons interpréter. Or, lorsqu’on
s’interroge sur la composition des groupes sociaux du Paléolithique supérieur, il est difficile,
pourtant, de s’extraire des stéréotypes de l’ethnologie et des grands universaux des sociétés de
chasseurs-cueilleurs (“les hommes chassent, les femmes cueillent, les enfants jouent et appren-
nent…”). La plupart des témoins archéologiques sont peu prolixes sur cette question. Or,
les traces que les gens nous laissent sont ceux de leurs actes, où se jouent leurs compétences
et leurs performances. C’est donc d’abord par le déchiffrement de leurs savoirs et de leurs
pratiques que l’on pourra tirer des implications sur le statut des personnes en question.
Des Pratiques Techniques Différenciées
En fait, si l’on met à part les distinctions de traitement des individus dans les sépultures,
les seuls témoins vraiment objectifs reposent sur l’existence de savoir-faire différenciés.
N’importe quelle pratique technique se prêterait à une telle analyse, mais les recherches
relevant de ces problématiques sont actuellement fort inégales. On hésite, par exemple, à
identifier les maladresses graphiques dans le domaine artistique, craignant d’y confondre des
raisons de style et d’inexpérience. La même prudence a d’ailleurs accompagné les premières
identifications des jeunes dans le domaine de la technologie lithique, risquant là de prendre
pour de la maladresse un simple manque de soin ou d’ambition lors de productions rapides
ou opportunistes (Pigeot 1987a, 1988, 1990; Karlin et al. 1993). L’hypothèse a pu néan-
moins être posée à Étiolles, dans le contexte de l’habitation U5 (Pigeot 1987a), grâce à la
difficulté particulière que représentait la taille des rognons de silex locaux aux dimensions

exceptionnelles et le choix, culturel, d’en extraire des séries de longues lames, à la manière
magdalénienne. Lorsque les techniques en jeu sont très exigeantes, ce qui est le cas des
débitages laminaires magdaléniens, réclamant du soin et une stratégie élaborée, l’exécution
permet de déceler facilement les erreurs d’appréciation ou de geste (fig. 1). À l’inverse,
figure 1 Des matériaux siliceux aux dimensions exceptionnelles. / Exceptionnally large

blocks of lithic raw materials.

le choix d’une application technique peu ambitieuse nivelle les pratiques. Une exécution
volontairement simplifiée peut alors occulter l’inexpérience du tailleur.
À Étiolles, l’exploitation des matières premières locales (la moyenne dimensionnelle
des nucléus est d’environ 30 cm) a entraîné l’élaboration d’une stratégie de taille ambitieuse
et difficile. En conséquence, la lecture d’une hiérarchie qualitative des opérations de taille a
pu être reconnue, et inférée la présence sur ces lieux d’habitation de personnes aux compé-
tences inégales (Pigeot 2004).
La Variété des Savoir-faire: Principe de Diagnose
La reconnaissance d’un savoir-faire défaillant ou médiocre requiert une extrême prudence.

Pour démêler les actes qui concernent aussi bien la négligence délibérée et circonstanciée
que la défaillance cognitive due à une technique immature, il faut absolument s’appuyer sur
l’étude globale de toutes les manifestations techniques. La démarche consiste à concevoir
d’abord le modèle “normé,” celui du schème technique traditionnel, transmis, connu et
appliqué par les meilleurs. Ce n’est que par rapport à lui que peut se mesurer la distance
qui le sépare de réalisations moins conformes, soit pour des questions de moindre soin, soit
pour des questions de moindre expérience.
Un Référent: Le Débitage Laminaire Elaboré
La norme du débitage laminaire est structurée autour d’un concept volumétrique et

opératoire intégrant le choix et le contrôle du carénage et de ses contraintes, ainsi que
d’une certaine méthode de percussion. Sans rentrer dans le détail (voir Pigeot 2004a), le
débitage laminaire d’Étiolles est conforme au modèle magdalénien, sinon que s’y sura-
joute un ensemble de solutions techniques destinées à palier les grandes difficultés inhér-
entes à celle des matières premières (fig. 2). Comme on le sait, la difficulté d’un débitage
laminaire est liée directement, d’abord à la longueur des produits extraits, et ensuite
au choix d’une certaine productivité. Ainsi, extraire une très longue lame (supérieure à
20 cm, comme ici) est nettement plus difficile qu’une plus petite lame; une fois ce choix
fait, c’est l’extraction en série de ces longues lames qui pose les vrais problèmes. En
quelques mots, le principe est qu’il valait mieux éviter un accident possible que d’avoir
à le réparer une fois advenu. Étant donné la nécessaire dimension des produits de réfec-
tion et la force à mettre en jeu pour leur détachement, et donc tout à la fois le risque
d’approximation de ce genre de geste et les trop forts stigmates générés, il était préférable
de ne pas devoir en arriver là trop souvent. Or, dans l’extraction en série, les situations
évoluent inévitablement et les conditions volumétriques minimales du nucléus ont ten-
dance à s’altérer, soit du côté des angles, soit des courbures, soit des surfaces. Le débitage
magdalénien d’Étiolles est donc caractérisé par une très forte anticipation et l’élaboration
d’un schème technique particulièrement rigoureux. L’application de ce débitage impli-
quait donc la longue acquisition d’un savoir complexe car devant prévoir et gérer de
nombreuses interactions techniques, d’un savoir faire moteur très exigeant, et (surtout?)
d’un soin très attentif.

figure 2 Le schème de débitage magdalénien d’Étiolles. / The core reduction scheme

at Étiolles.
Technique Élaborée versus Inexpérimentée
Afin d’illustrer le propos, nous présenterons un nucléus laminaire de l’unité U5 (Pigeot 1987a)
qui a été exploité par deux mains successives d’inégale compétence. Il éclaire très nettement
la distance qui sépare ces deux pratiques selon leur degré de maturité ou d’immaturité.
Un Débitage Élaboré
À Étiolles, sortir des lames, en série, de 20 à 40 cm relève donc d’un savoir-faire très perfor-
mant, comme le montre le début de ce débitage. Il présente tous les paramètres optimisés
d’une taille experte et soignée (fig. 3): d’abord une préparation fidèle au concept volumé-
trique (une table carénée, un plan de frappe unique et très oblique, un dos opérationnel,
des flancs réguliers et aux bonnes courbures—cintre et carène); ensuite, un maintien de ces
conditions pendant l’exploitation (maintien du carénage, envahissement symétrique des
flancs et donc maintien des courbures, entretien de l’obliquité du plan de frappe); enfin,
une bonne production, tant en qualité (longueur) qu’en quantité (productivité). Les facultés
d’anticipation sont fortes, du long terme au cours terme, ce dernier aspect étant notable à
travers l’abandon précoce de l’exploitation, sans être marqué d’aucune insistance inutile ni
baisse de soin (ce qui, on va le voir, est un critère distinctif important).

figure 3 Un débitage élaboré. / A sophisticated core reduction sequence.

Un Débitage Maladroit
Le nucléus abandonné par le précédent tailleur mesure encore 20 cm et il est en très bon état
(fig. 4). La reprise de la taille est pourtant marquée de nombreux défauts qui vont transformer
rapidement ce bon matériau en un nucléus altéré et presque épuisé. On observe que les paramètres
figure 4 Un débitage inexpérimenté (reprise du nucléus de la fig. 3). / An unskilled core

reduction sequence (re-knapping of core in figure 3).

cognitifs de l’adulte (soin, connaissances, qualité d’anticipation, compétence motrice, optimi-

sation de la gestion du nucléus et de la production des outils laminaires) sont ici malmenés à
divers degrés. Les réfections du plan de frappe interviennent mal à propos et raccourcissent
considérablement le bloc sans raison; les détachements laminaires sont peu nombreux, quoique
assez réguliers, s’appuyant sur les nervures précédentes; enfin, l’abandon du nucléus est précédé
d’une série de percussions, sans succès, qui achèvent d’abîmer l’angle de frappe.
Les Critères de Diagnose
La comparaison terme à terme de ces deux types d’opération permet d’identifier les critères
mobilisables dans une tentative de diagnose entre pratiques matures et immatures. Il s’agit
de critères d’ordre (au sens strict) économique, technique et cognitif.
Les critères économiques sont les plus évidents: gestion de la longueur du nucléus (entre
fort et faible raccourcissement, utile ou inutile); productivité laminaire (entre forte—ici,
une trentaine de bonnes lames—et faible—quatre lames); productivité utilitaire (entre
forte—plus de 50% de supports sélectionnés—et inexistante—aucune sélection de sup-
ports). Quant à la qualité du produit, il ne s’agirait ici que de longueur et non de régularité
(on a vu pourquoi), mais ce critère de longueur n’est pas totalement discriminant car des
lames de longueur moyenne, voire petite, peuvent également être débitées à l’occasion par
les meilleurs tailleurs.
Les critères techniques sont d’autant mieux décelables avec des remontages. Des pro-
cédés connus mais dont l’intérêt est mal compris, intervenant à contre-temps (comme ici
les réfections de plan de frappe) sont des critères explicites. Un usage différent de percuteur,
plus dur et/ou rentrant, est aussi une marque d’inexpérience dans le contexte d’Étiolles où
les grandes lames sont toujours extraites au percuteur tendre organique.
Les critères cognitifs (stricto sensu) relèvent des capacités d’anticipation. Si l’anticipation
à long terme est grosso modo connue et appliquée car elle se réduit ici à sa plus simple
(et facile) expression (l’alternance table frontale/plan de frappe, détachement des lames/des
éclats de réfection du plan), il n’en est pas de même de l’anticipation à moyen terme (notion
de tactique), et surtout à court terme (savoir s’arrêter).
La Composition Du Groupe: Plusieurs Catégories de Jeunes Tailleurs
Cette grille de lecture permet de diagnostiquer des opérations qui s’éloignent, au moins sur
un critère, de la chaîne idéale définie selon l’excellence des débitages élaborés. À Étiolles,
l’analyse a montré une diversité des témoignages défectueux dont la logique est celle d’une
acquisition graduelle des savoir-faire. En considérant la difficulté particulière des débitages
laminaires d’Étiolles, la complexité du schème technique et la gamme des progrès à accom-
plir, il est probable que l’apprentissage dut occuper une fonction importante des nécessités
sociales, et se dérouler dans le long terme. Dans l’unité U5 (Pigeot 1987a), par exemple,
l’initiation est rigoureuse dans sa gradation, et laisse présumer plusieurs catégories de jeunes,
entre le (ou les?) tailleur novice (enfant?), le tailleur moyen (adolescent?) et le tailleur assez
avancé sans posséder néanmoins l’expérience achevée des tailleurs les plus confirmés (jeune

adulte?). Dans l’unité Q31 (Pigeot 2004), l’apprentissage est plus souple, plus flou, mais
les opérations défectueuses sont nombreuses et variées et permettent, là aussi, d’envisager la
présence sur le campement de plusieurs jeunes, dont des enfants.
Technique Élaborée versus Simplifiée
Parmi les personnes qui taillaient, à Étiolles, il en est qui ont laissé des traces assez particu-
lières: ni “maîtres” ni novices, leurs productions de lames ne sont pas négligeables dans les
économies générales du débitage et leur technicité n’est pas maladroite. Ces opérations sont
parfois ambiguës, mais leur spécificité est indiscutable. À la suite d’autres travaux (Cahen,
Karlin et al. 1980), nous les avons dénommées “simplifiées” en opposition aux débitages
“élaborés.” Le cas du nucléus N396 de l’unité U5 est exemplaire (fig. 5). C’est un bloc
beaucoup plus petit dont on a extrait assez facilement une courte série de sept produits
laminaires, dont la majorité a été sélectionnée. La technique, très simplifiée, empêche de
jauger le potentiel du tailleur, mais cette production est bien venue, conforme aux canons
volumétriques et opératoires en vigueur à Étiolles et elle peut correspondre à un objectif
restreint mais réussi. Ce qui est néanmoins notable est le manque de soin dans l’entretien,
notamment du plan de frappe. Accepter une telle perte d’obliquité sans réagir, se contenter
de raviver le simple bord du plan, voici une attitude inconcevable chez les bons tailleurs des
débitages élaborés. Toutefois, cette négligence n’est pas dangereuse, et l’on peut considérer
qu’il suffira au tailleur qui reprendrait ce nucléus d’ajuster facilement l’obliquité par des
percussions à l’arrière. Ici, cette opération n’a pas été jugée nécessaire car le débitage est
abandonné.
La Composition Du Groupe: Plusieurs Catégories de Tailleurs Adultes
La fonction des débitages simplifiés n’est donc pas un simple entraînement à la taille: ceux-ci
sont productifs et les lames ont largement servi. Ils ont donc participé à l’économie globale,
et parfois fortement, comme dans l’unité Q31 où ils ont même fourni autant de supports
que les débitages élaborés (Pigeot 2004a). Il ne s’agit pas d’une production supplétive mais
d’une participation à part entière aux besoins en outils.
Mais qui donc réalisaient ces débitages simplifiés? En U5, ces opérations témoi-
gnaient d’un bon savoir-faire et l’on ne pouvait écarter l’hypothèse que ce soit les mêmes
tailleurs que ceux des débitages élaborés, pratiquant seulement pour leur compte per-
sonnel des nucléus au moins bon potentiel. Ce gradient, vocation communautaire ver-
sus personnelle, était conforme à l’ensemble des données techniques et économiques,
mais l’hypothèse qu’il se soit agit de tailleurs plus “quelconques” restait aussi très plau-
sible. Toutefois, l’étude de l’unité Q31, tout en confirmant l’existence de cette catégorie
d’exploitation simplifiée, a démontré qu’elle n’avait pu être le fait de tailleurs chevronnés.
Ici, ces débitages, quoique productifs et utiles aux besoins utilitaires, se démarquait par
un savoir-faire beaucoup plus approximatif qu’en U5. Dans ces deux unités d’habitation,
deux types d’adultes recourraient donc au débitage. Les uns, à qui l’on confiait les blocs de
silex les plus grands et les plus difficiles, avaient été formés à la pratique d’une technique

figure 5 Un débitage simplifié. / A simplified core reduction sequence.
très exigeante; ils pouvaient alors devenir des tailleurs très performants aptes à obtenir les
grandes séries de longues lames voulues par la tradition magdalénienne. Les autres avaient
accès à des nucléus plus petits, qu’ils avaient néanmoins appris à débiter correctement, afin
d’en sortir de petites séries de lames évidemment plus courtes, pour un usage sans doute
plus personnel et occasionnel.

L’espace Social des Savoir-faire
À Étiolles, l’analyse de l’espace d’habitation apporte une contribution cruciale à une problé-
matique d’ordre sociologique. Aussi bien en U5 qu’en Q31, l’espace social est clairement
structuré par l’activité de débitage selon les trois catégories de tailleurs que nous venons de
définir, confirmant d’ailleurs leur spécificité technique et économique. Il est d’abord inté-
ressant de constater que dans les deux unités on retrouve la même distinction spatiale des
divers acteurs sociaux, voire une même logique où les plus jeunes sont relégués en périphé-
rie des lieux investis par les adultes (Olive, Audouze, and Julien 2000; Olive and Mor-
genstern 2004; Audouze 2006; Olive and Valentin 2006; Pigeot 1987b; Taborin 1994;
etc.). Cependant, l’organisation des lieux de taille n’est pas analogue, mais l’organisation
de l’espace construit non plus. En U5, la structuration concentrique des activités et des
tailleurs fait clairement écho à la lourde structure circulaire de l’habitation (fig. 6). En Q31
l’interprétation des contours de la tente est plus subtile et une grande partie des opérations
de débitage se faisaient à l’extérieur (fig. 7). Difficile, donc, de tirer des inférences sur la
hiérarchie des tâches de production des lames à partir d’une structuration possiblement liée
à des différences de fonction ou de saison de l’occupation (Julien 2006).
figure 6 La hiérarchie sociale de l’espace domestique de l’unité U5. / Social hierarchy

in the domestic space of the U5 unit.

figure 7 La hiérarchie sociale de l’espace domestique de l’unité Q31. / Social hierarchy

in the domestic space of the Q31 unit.
Conclusion
À Étiolles, l’interprétation sociale du groupe se fonde donc sur deux niveaux d’analyse:
• La reconnaissance des compétences immatures (celles des enfants et des jeunes ado-
lescents) par rapport aux compétences matures (celles, donc, des adultes). Ce sont
donc les lois ontogéniques de la maturation de l’individu qui interviennent dans la
réalisation des performances techniques observées;
• La reconnaissance d’une variété de compétences que l’on ne peut pas forcément
mettre sur le compte de l’immaturité. Il s’agit donc ici d’une variation sur les com-
pétences des adultes et de leur statut social: on retrouve là des individus différem-
ment investis par la société.

Les deux unités d’habitation que nous avons évoquées sont des habitations d’assez
longue durée où la présence des jeunes a donc été démontrée par les restes de leurs pra-
tiques de taille. La présence des femmes est donc pratiquement certaine, à moins d’imaginer
une organisation sociale complètement différente de toutes celles que l’on connaît par
l’ethnologie, l’histoire ou la sociologie. Les grands universaux sociaux d’Homo sapiens mon-
trent que la famille, stricto sensu, ne se sépare qu’en certaines occasions, par exemple lors
d’expéditions spécialisées dans l’acquisition de ressources particulières. De grands campe-
ments de longue durée, marquées d’activités polyvalentes et où les jeunes étaient présents,
comme ici, réunissait forcément la cellule familiale, même restreinte. Ainsi, l’idée que les
femmes, présentes sur les lieux, aient pu débiter des nucléus au moindre potentiel pour se
fournir quelques uns des supports laminaires dont elles avaient besoin est une hypothèse
acceptable. Face au témoignage d’une véritable division du travail sur le plan de la fabrica-
tion des outils en pierre taillée, il nous a semblé que l’hypothèse la plus plausible était d’en
inférer la marque d’une division sexuelle des tâches.
C’est un premier élément de réflexion sur l’organisation sociale des Magdaléniens
d’Étiolles, mais, quoi qu’il en soit, aussi bien en U5 qu’en Q31, l’exploitation du silex révèle
bel et bien une structuration des tâches selon trois catégories de tailleurs qui se distinguent
par la qualité de leur pratique, par leur rôle dans l’économie générale du débitage, et par
les endroits de l’habitation qui leur étaient plus ou moins dévolus. Des jeunes, des hommes
et des femmes, on vient de l’évoquer, est la meilleure hypothèse, mais ce n’est pas la seule.
N’oublions pas que, selon la théorie de A. Testart (1985), la taille serait plutôt l’apanage
des hommes, excluant de fait que les femmes aient pu être les auteurs des débitages sim-
plifiés. Ceux-ci pourraient être l’œuvre de tailleurs moins performants, de jeunes adultes,
par exemple. Mais ce qui est intéressant de constater, c’est la partition constante des com-
portements liés à cette gradation en trois catégories. C’est la cohérence de cette hiérarchie
qui est, en quelque sorte, la marque sociale des Magdaléniens du Bassin parisien, et c’est sa
rigueur qui nous permet d’en déceler, paradoxalement, son relâchement quand il se produit
(Pigeot 2004b, 2006). Le précepte défini en U5, “n’importe qui ne faisait pas n’importe
quoi n’importe où,” est toujours valable en Q31. Toutefois, dans cette dernière occupation,
plus récente, on y observe un relâchement des comportements face à des règles qui, aupara-
vant, étaient rigoureusement suivies. Or, il s’agit bien d’un relâchement assez généralisé,
concernant presque tous les aspects liés à l’exploitation des ressources siliceuses (sur le plan
technique, économique et spatial): une sélection des matériaux siliceux moins exigeante
(plus petits, plus irréguliers); un moindre soin que celui auparavant requis pour débiter les
nucléus; des erreurs techniques, même dans les bons débitages; un recours plus important
aux opérations simplifiées; un apprentissage à la taille moins cohérent dans sa progression
cognitive; une gestion de l’espace un peu plus libre, etc.
Derrière l’apparente stabilité de la formule sociale, se dessine un affaiblissement des
normes constituées et transmises par les derniers Magdaléniens. Il semble s’agir du début d’un
processus qui va s’accentuer avec la culture azilienne qui suit cette époque (Valentin 1995; Val-
entin et al. 2000; Pigeot and Valentin 2003; Olive @ Valentin 2006). Ainsi, en un peu moins
d’un millénaire, la société magdalénienne et ses valeurs culturelles ont commencé à changer,
s’inscrivant très bien dans le mouvement évolutif et les grandes mutations qui marquent le

Tardiglaciaire. Nous ne voyons pas ce phénomène comme évolutionniste et linéaire mais

comme le moment d’un cycle processuel, car bientôt, les groupes humains réinvestiront dans
le débitage laminaire (épisode belloisien de la fin du Tardiglaciaire) et recréeront des normes
à nouveau très exigeantes. Nous ne voyons pas non plus ces changements comme une simple
modification partielle de la société sur ses seules traditions de fabrication des outils en silex.
Il est vrai que la taille de la pierre semble perdre un peu de son importance structurante, c’est
ce qui se voit; il est possible que l’exigence des valeurs sociales se soient déplacées sur un autre
champ. Nous pensons néanmoins que c’est en termes de cohésion sociale qu’il faille interpré-
ter ces cycles où, à des périodes de rigidité des pratiques et des valeurs, succèdent des périodes
de relâchement de ces mêmes façons de faire et de penser (Pigeot 2006).
Nous pensons que toute la société magdalénienne du Tardiglaciaire résonnait de ten-
sions intérieures, et que les transformations dans l’organisation sociale de la taille n’étaient
qu’un aspect, révélateur car le plus visible, de ces mutations en germe, mais qu’elles doivent
témoigner d’un changement de grande ampleur qui traverse la société dans son ensemble
(dans la subsistance, dans les méthodes cynégétiques, dans les manifestations graphiques
et symboliques, dans la simplification des chaînes de production des supports—intégrées, et
non disjointes, dans l’apprentissage, dans la fermeté des règles d’occupation de l’espace, etc.).
Ce cycle paraît récurrent pendant le Paléolithique supérieur et doit traduire un mécanisme
universel de l’évolution des sociétés et de leur structure idéologique, qu’il sera intéressant de
mieux déchiffrer.
References Cited
Audouze, F. 2006 Essai de modélisation du cycle annuel de nomadisation des Madaléniens du
Bassin parisien. In Variabilité des habitats tardiglaciaires dans le Bassin parisien et ses alentours:
quelles significations?, M. Olive and B. Valentin editors, Bull. de la Société préhistorique française
103(4):683–695.
Julien M. 2006 À la recherche des campements d’hiver dans le Magdalénien du Bassin parisien. In
Variabilité des habitats tardiglaciaires dans le Bassin parisien et ses alentours: quelles significations?,
M. Olive and B. Valentin, editors. Bull. de la Société préhistorique française 103(4):695–711.
Cahen, D., C. Karlin, L. H. Keeley, F. Van Notten 1980 Méthode d’analyse technique, spatiale et
fonctionnelle d’ensembles lithiques. Helinium XX:209–259.
Karlin, C., P. Bodu, N. Pigeot, and S. Ploux 1993 Some Socio-Economic Aspects of the Process
among Groups of Hunter-Gatherers of the Paris Basin Area. In The Use of Tools by Humans and
Non-human Primates, A. Berthelet and J. Chavaillon, editors, pp. 318–340. Symposium of the
Fyssen Fondation (25–29 Nov. 1988, Versailles), Oxford.
Olive, M., F. Audouze, and M. Julien 2000 Nouvelles données concernant les campements magdalé-
niens du Bassin parisien. In L’Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire, B. Valentin,
P. Bodu, and M. Christensen, editors, pp. 289–304. Actes de la Table-ronde internationale de
Nemours (14-16 mai 1997) Éd. APRAIF 7, Nemours.
Olive, M., and M. Morgenstern 2004 L‘organisation de l’espace habité. In Les derniers Magdaléniens
d’Étiolles. Perspectives culturelles et paléohistoriques (l’unité d’habitation Q31), N. Pigeot, editor,
pp. 181–220. XXXVIIè supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. Éd. du CNRS, Paris.

Olive, M., and N. Pigeot 1992 Les tailleurs de silex magdaléniens d’Étiollles: vers l’identification
d’une organisation sociale complexe. In La pierre préhistorique, M. Menu and P. Walter, edi-
tors, pp. 173–185. Séminaire du Laboratoire de Recherche des Musées de France (13–14
décembre 1990).
Olive, M., and B. Valentin 2006 Avant-propos. Variabilité des habitats tardiglaciaires: perspectives
palethnologiques et paléohistoriques. In Variabilité des habitats tardiglaciaires dans le Bassin
parisien et ses alentours: quelles significations?, M. Olive M.and B. Valentin, editors. Bull. de la
Société préhistorique française 103(4):667–671.
Pigeot, N. 1987a Magdaléniens d’Étiollles: économie de débitage et organisation sociale. XXVe suppl. à
Gallia Préhistoire. CNRS, Paris.
Pigeot, N. 1987b Eléments d’un modèle d’habitation magdalénienne (Étiollles). Bulletin de la Société
préhistorique française, Études et Travaux 84(10–12):358–363. Hommage de la Société préhis-
torique française à A. Leroi-Gourhan.
Pigeot, N. 1988 Apprendre à débiter des lames: un cas d’éducation technique chez des Magdalé-
niens d’Étiollles. In Technologie préhistorique, J. Tixier, editor, pp. 63–70. Notes et monographies
techniques 25. CNRS.
Pigeot, N. 1990 Technical and Social Actors in Prehistory: Flintknapping Specialists and Apprentices
at Magdalenian Étiollles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9(1 special: Technology in the
Humanities), Cambridge:126–141.
Pigeot, N., ed. 2004 Les derniers Magdaléniens d’Étiolles: perspectives culturelles et paléohistoriques
(l’unité d’habitation Q31). XXXVIIè supplément à Gallia Préhistoire.
Pigeot, N. 2004a Le débitage laminaire et lamellaire: options techniques, finalités économiques et
sociales. In Gallia Préhistoire XXXVII supplément, N. Pigeot, editor, pp. 65–106. CNRS,
Paris.
Pigeot, N. 2004b L’apport de Q31 dans l’élaboration de modèles culturels: de la palethnologie à
la paléohistoire. In Gallia Préhistoire XXXVII supplément, N. Pigeot, editor, pp. 255–266.
CNRS, Paris.
Pigeot, N. 2005 Les valeurs sociales ont varié au cours du Magdalénien. La Recherche, actualités,
entretien février 2005.
Pigeot, N., and B. Valentin 2003 Les chronologies de la préhistoire dans le bassin parisien au
Tardiglaciaire: acquis récents, questions et bilan. Colloque du Centre européen de Ravello
(co-organisatrice): “Les chronologies en Préhistoire.”
Taborin, Y., ed. 1994 Environnements et habitats magdaléniens: le centre du Bassin parisien. Éd. De la
Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Documents d’Archéologie française, Paris.
Valentin, B. 1995 Les groupes humains et leurs traditions au Tardiglaciaire dans le Bassin parisien:
apports de la technologie lithique comparée. Thèse de Doctorat, univ. de Paris 1.
Valentin, B., P. Bodu, and M. Christensen, eds. 2000 L’Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire.
Actes de la table-ronde internationale de Nemours (14-16 mai 1997) 7. Éd. APRAIF, Nemours.

Chapter Thirteen
Comparing Social Organizations of Magdalenian

Hunter-Gatherers
A Swiss Example
Marie-Isabelle Cattin
W ho were the Magdalenians who repeatedly came and lived at the sites of Cham-
préveyres and Monruz? How many were they, how were they organized, how many
times did they settle on the shore of Neuchâtel Lake? It is hard to answer these questions,
but a few clues suggest partial answers.
The sites of Champréveyres and Monruz were discovered by chance on the A5 free-
way route. Rescue excavations took place between 1984 and 1986 for Champréveyres and
between 1989 and 1992 for Monruz (Moulin 1991; Affolter et al. 1994; Leesch 1997;
Morel and Müller 1997; Cattin 2002; Leesch et al. 2004; Bullinger et al. 2006; Plumettaz
2007). They are located in an indubitably favorable place for hunting, because of its par-
ticular layout on the Northern bank of Neuchâtel Lake, in western Switzerland, near the
first foothills of the Jura Mountains. At this place, a morainic barrier separated a little lake
from the large one (fig. 1) and provided an attractive stretch of quiet water for the game.
Streams came down the hillsides. There probably was plenty of wood, particularly the creep-
ing willow wood used as fuel for fire. In the site vicinity, the open landscape was deprived
of trees; herbaceous plants prevailed in the pollen spectrum, followed by creeping willows
and dwarf birches. The fauna was also characteristic of open landscapes. Horse prevailed,
followed by reindeer and several species of smaller size. The average temperature did not
pass 9° Celsius in summer (19° today) and could get as low as -25° in winter (0° today)
(Coope and Elias 2004).
The two camps are one kilometer apart; a refit between flint blades from each site
links them together (Cattin 1992, Cattin 2002:339–341). We were able to prove that these
blades belong to a group of around a dozen blades, coming from different cores, knapped at
Monruz, while most of them were used at Champréveyres. We feel that the two places were
simultaneously occupied and that the second site was only a part of a very large camp that
213

figure 1 The Magdalenian camps of Champréveyres and Monruz were set up on the
bank of a small lake, separated from the big lake by a moraine barrier. / Les campements
de Champréveyres et Monruz étaient installés sur la rive d’un petit lac, séparé du grand
par une barrière de moraine.
occupied a large part of the shore. However, we should also consider the possibility that the
people from the first camp moved to a new activity area, maybe characterized by a horse kill
site (Müller et al. 2006). Can we really consider the two camps as functionally equivalent?
Are they only the consequence of a migration from one place to the other? Several elements
indicate similar activities, but others point to a few differences (Table 1).
The activities evidenced by the tool assemblages and the camp features suggest that
not all activities performed at the two sites were identical or as intensively practiced, even if
in both cases most activities were related to hunting and carcass processing. The period and
the duration of the occupation were probably different as well. It is possible to infer, from
the age of the hunted animals at the time of death, a spring seasonal occupation for both
sites, but there also was a fall seasonal occupation at Champréveyres.
It is surprising to observe in each site such a similarity in features and artifacts through-
out the different occupations. For instance, how could one explain that no basin-shaped
hearth was ever built at Champréveyres during one season or the other? How are we to explain
that there was no change in the proportions within the tools assemblages through time, in
relation to the intensity of a given activity or the manufacturing of a set of particular tools.
(For example, the abundance of micro-perçoirs at Monruz seems to be constant in all occupa-
tions.) Thus, it is quite possible that the people kept a memory of the place and of what could
be done there. They would have come back year after year to perform the same activities. In a

Comparing Social Organizations of Magdalenian 215
Table 1
Comparing Activities Evidenced at Champréveyres and Monruz /
Tableau comparatif des activités mises en évidence
à Champréveyres et Monruz
Monruz Champréveyres Comments
Flat and basin-shaped hearths Flat hearths Basin-shaped hearths may

imply a longer duration of
occupation and heating for
habitations
Production of flint tools and Production of flint and bone The tools bear witness
bone tools (needles, sagaies, tools (needles and sagaies) to performed activities.
harpoons); more more end scrapers than in The large amount of
micropiercers than in Monruz ornaments made at Monruz
Champréveyres explains the presence of
numerous micropiercers.
It seems that a lot of hide
working took place at
Champréveyres
Plentiful knapping aiming to Plentiful knapping mostly At Monruz, multiple activities
producing as much blades aiming at producing backed seem to be performed apart
as bladelets (44963 flint bladelets and butchering from hunting and
pieces including 1385 tools, knives (5858 flint pieces, processing killed animals,
1794 burin spalls and 178 including 591 tools, 488 while at Champréveyres, the
cores.) burin spalls and 67 cores.) latter activities prevail
Large an small game Large and small game hunting Hunting large preys is usually
hunting (50 horses, (21 horses, 7 reindeers, considered as a male hunting
9 reindeer, 4 ibex, 1 bison, 2 ibex, 1 bison, 16 marmots, while small game hunting
7 hares, 17 marmots, 1 polar around 20 hares, 2 polar could be women and
fox, 25 spermophilus, foxes, 19 birds). children hunting. If this is
17 birds.) such a case, both camps are
occupied by complete groups
Fishing (17 fish) Fishing (20 fish) and egg A mostly meat diet is made up
collecting with fishing products
Jet and shell ornaments Unimportant ornaments The making of ornaments
manufacturing manufacturing could indicate a longer
duration of occupation and/
or symbolic activities
way similar to the Tsataans from Mongolia, the Magdalenians may have left on the spot poles
or other superstructures for setting up their tents. Such a behavior could have made it easier
to locate the previous camp. In this case, reusing the same hearths becomes obvious, but it
resulted in activities overlapping in such a way that they are more difficult to decipher.

The spatial distribution, however, allows us to build a relative chronology of activities

even when a micro-stratigraphy cannot be achieved. At Champréveyres, the area between
hearths K22 and G19 was used for numerous overlapping activities (flint knapping, butch-
ering, retooling bone points, reindeer antler working, sewing). Considering the knapping
stations, the earliest activities look more scattered while later ones form well-delimited con-
centrations. An evaluation of the duration and of the succession of these activities can be
inferred from their goals. For example, retooling the bone points implies a sequence of
operations to be performed in a short time, from knapping bladelets, retouching them, tak-
ing off the damaged armatures, reinserting new backed bladelets on the bone points, and
leaving the discarded projectiles and the useless bladelets at the spot. Conversely, operations
that included producing blades and retouching them into tools are not as evident. While
the process often was similar, we also observe that laminar production could have been
processed in several stages and moments, meaning a preparation stage in a given spot and
the blade production stage somewhere else, later or even in another camp.
Another way of differentiating activities and, more precisely, identifying the knapping
posts is to map the lithic artifacts per raw material. The Champréveyres and Monruz camp-
sites are characterized by the use of flint raw materials partly coming from faraway deposits
originating in completely opposite directions (fig. 2). The season of occupation of hearths
is another criterion. Champréveyres includes areas where activities related to one season
seem to be exclusive of the activities of the other season, and other areas where they overlap
(fig. 3). It is possible to establish a rule: if more than two cores were knapped near a hearth,
then they were associated with both seasons of occupation and the raw materials came
from the two opposite directions. Only hearths surrounded by few artifacts can be associ-
ated exclusively with one season. In using only this last criterion, it is possible to associate
the northern flint (from the Olten and Soleure region in Switzerland) with spring, while the
southern flint (from the Bellegarde-Seyssel region, Ain, France) is associated with fall. The
Monruz site was occupied exclusively in spring; however, southern flint is present, though
proportionally less (30%) than northern flint (70%).1 This means that flint supplying was
not exclusively dependent upon the season. Nevertheless, let us consider this last hypothesis
and compare it with a few examples:
• The conjoining of two blades coming from each site links a definite springtime
hearth at Champréveyres to one of the spring occupations of Monruz, and these
blades are made with a northern flint. In a similar way, all the blades that could help
establish links between the two sites were made with northern flint.
• At Monruz, raw materials other than flint are part of the correlation “northern
materials/spring occupation.” The jet ornaments similar to the Petersfels orna-
ments (Schwäbische Alb, Germany) and fossil shells from the Mainz Basin and the
Upper Danube illustrate this correlation.
1
At Champréveyres, this proportion between northern flint (53%) and southern flint (47%) is more or less
equivalent.

Rhine Valley
Upper Danube
Petersfels
Swabian Jura
er
Riv
ubs
Do
r Olten Region
ive
rR
Aa
ChamprÈveyres
Monruz
in
ha
C
ra
Ju
Bellegarde-Seyssel
Region
ey
all
eV
N
on
Flint sources
Rh
0 100 km
figure 2 The petrographic analyses permitted identification of the varied flint deposits
from which the flint exploited at Champréveyres and Monruz come. These deposits are
located along the Jura mountain range to the north and to the south of the camps. / Les
analyses pétrographiques permettent d’identifier les différents gîtes d’où vient le silex
exploité à Champréveyres et Monruz. Ces gîtes se trouvent le long de la chaîne du Jura
au nord et au sud des campements.
• Upon examination of the percentage of tools per raw material, it turns out that
burins, splintered pieces, and composite tools (mostly scrapers-burins) are more
numerous among the northern flint pieces (27%) than among the southern ones
(15%, fig. 4). The activities that required using these tools were related to antler
working and needle manufacturing. However, the kill seasons hardly confirm that
a larger number of reindeer were associated with spring.
• The percentages of Monruz tools exhibit a similar trend for this group of tools
(burins, splintered pieces and scrapers-burins), which amount to 21% of the north-
ern flint assemblage and 12% of the southern flint assemblage (the latter includes
four times fewer tools than the former). Since all the activities at Monruz were
related to the spring season, the north/south dichotomy does not exist there. But
the importance of antler working could result from the fact that female reindeer
shed their antlers in spring and that these antlers were collected and processed (see
for example Müller 2004:107).

Spring activities R Autumn activities R
Q Q
P P
O O
N N
M M
L L
K K
I I
H H
G G
F F
E E
D D
C C
B B
A A
Flint debitage Z Flint debitage Z

Butchering game Butchering game
Hearth X Hearth X
Related Hearthes Related Hearthes
N
N
0 1m W 0 1m W
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
figure 3 At Champréveyres, ascribing activity areas and hearths to one of the two seasons
of occupation illustrates their overlap. This suggests a reoccupation of the same features
but also the existence of areas exclusively dedicated to one season. / À Champréveyres,
la répartiton des aires d’activités et des foyers à l’une ou l’autre des saisons d’occupation
illustre le recouvrement des unes par les autres. Ceci suggère une réoccupation des mêmes
structures mais aussi l’existence d’aires d’activité exclusivement liées à une saison
• The correlation “northern flint, burins, and spring” is also very clear in Cham-
préveyres sector 2 (50 m away from the main sector), where the assemblage is mostly
composed of northern flint, in which burins are dominant (25%) and where the
season of occupation was spring.
• At Champréveyres and Monruz, located at mid-distance between two areas of good
quality flint deposits, the procurement seems to be related to season and this cor-
relation cannot be dismissed without considering it.
The range of recorded activities (knapping, butchering, hide working, needle manu-
facturing and sewing, antler working, weaponry retooling, and ornament manufacturing)
indicates repeated occupations by a family group. The game corroborates this hypothesis,
in particular if we assume that hunting small mammals was performed by women and chil-
dren. The presence of the latter is confirmed by certain characteristics in the flint knapping.
Typically unskilled and unproductive knapping can be observed. The following defects,
when they are found together in a refitted flint core, are characteristics of child knapping:
striking too far away from the edge of the striking platform, resulting in circular marks on
the latter; repeatedly producing useless hinged flakes; lack of preparation and maintenance
of the striking platform and of the removal surfaces; use of a stone hammer. At Cham-
préveyres, only one core (out of more than 70) gives evidence of an apprentice’s work.
This knapper had mastered some strokes that permitted him to repair his mistakes but, in
insisting on striking too far away from the edge of the striking platform, he was prevented

figure 4 Proportions of tools at Champréveyres and Monruz according to a bipartite

distribution of raw material according to their provenience (north or south). / Pourcent-
age des outils de Champréveyres et Monruz selon une répartition bipartite en fonction
de leur origine (nord ou sud).
from getting a series of useful flakes. Some knapping parameters were acquired while other
ones were not gotten yet. This observation leads us to identify an apprentice rather than a
beginner (Cattin 2004a:74–75).
In contrast, a beginner’s production could be observed at Monruz (Cattin 2004b:197).
A core exhibits several circular marks on its striking platform, the front line of this platform
appears deeply notched, and the resulting flakes are all hinged. In an earlier stage, this
core showed a rather careful knapping that produced small blades, some of which were
retouched into tools. Thus, the last knapping stage noticeably contrasts with the previous
stages. An experienced knapper wishing to get more blanks would have never persisted in
such a way. The probability is much higher that a more or less exhausted core was taken over
by a child who tried to imitate the adult who had just given it away. These two examples
look like the work of different individuals, but there also is evidence of the transmission of
technical know-how illustrated by two stone blocks (quartzite and serpentine) at Monruz.
These two blocks were certainly selected because their natural morphology was similar to
shaped-out flint nodules: they are elongated, one pyramidal and the other tetrahedral. Their
tops are large surfaces that are usable and were used as striking platforms. Their shape would

allow one to start the knapping process by removing a blade along a ridge and to slightly
extend the blade extraction to the sides of the core. Looking at these unproductive cores,
we get the feeling that an experienced knapper was explaining to his pupil(s) how to select
a flint block with the required morphological qualities, how to install a striking platform,
how to use a natural ridge or how to create one for starting removing a series of blades,
and how to organize the knapping process in order to maintain the core’s longitudinal and
lateral convexities. These elements lead us to identify a knapping lesson (Plumettaz and
Cattin 2006).
So knapping permits us to identify several levels of technical competence among
knappers, probably related to their age and to the learning level. From then on, we can
assume that the group was composed of individuals of all ages (children, youngsters, adults).
If the presence of children is indubitably attested, then the group was also composed of
women and men. But it is more difficult to identify women’s or men’s tasks. Of course,
ethnographic analogies lead us to credit women with hide scraping or sewing and men with
weaponry maintenance, but who manufactured needles and ornaments and who knapped?
Concerning the last point, we know that the scrapers were most probably rejuvenated by
their male or female users, since the retouch flakes are found where the hide scraping took
place. This hypothesis find an ethnographic analogy, in particular among the Tchouktches
of Siberia where the women who do the hide working manufacture and retouch the stone
scrapers they use (Beyries et al. 2001; Beyries 2002).
At the two camps, activities were centered around the hearths. But was there a spatial
organization according to the individuals, their gender, or their competence, as was clearly
demonstrated at Etiolles (Pigeot 1987:91–117)? Comparing the area of the so-called female
and male activities shows that they are superimposed even if they were not performed at the
same time. In a similar way, the unskilled knapping sequences and the knapping lesson are
localized on posts occupied by experienced knappers, which leads us to reject the hypothesis
of a spatial organization set up according to a hierarchy of levels of competence. Rather, the
location of an activity more or less close to the hearth depended more upon its need for
a source of heat, or conversely upon a bulky material. So bladelet producing and backed
bladelet manufacturing took place very close to the hearth while preshaping the laminar
nodules and, sometimes, blade knapping were located farther away (0.5 to 1.5 m from the
hearth); using scrapers was also performed away from the hearth. This was also observed
in other Magdalenian camps (see for example, Leroi-Gourhan 1972; Bodu 1993:347–350;
Olive 1997; Olive and Morgenstern 2004).
Thus, the superimposition and the diversity of the working areas do not allow us
to demonstrate activities associated to a given season, even if we suspect that there was a
relation between the amount of antler working and a possible gathering of female rein-
deer antlers that are shed in spring. In both sites, there is no evidence of spatial organiza-
tion based on technical competence and/or gender. Experienced knappers and beginners
occupied the same working posts. Finally, tasks supposedly male and those supposedly
female are all found to have been performed around the same fire features. Hearths were
the centers of the occupation, polarizing all activities, and around which the whole group
gathered.

References Cited
Affolter, J., M.-I. Cattin, D. Leesch, P. Morel, P. Nicole, N. Thew, and G. Wendling 1994 Monruz,
une nouvelle station magdalénienne sur les rives du lac de Neuchâtel. Archéologie Suisse 17(3):
94–104.
Bullinger J., D. Leesch, and N. Plumettaz 2006 Le site magdalénien de Monruz, 1. Premiers éléments
pour l’analyse d’un habitat de plein air. Service et musée cantonal d’archéologie (Archéologie
neuchâteloise 33), Neuchâtel.
Cattin, M.-I. 2002 Hauterive-Champréveyres, 13: Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de
Neuchâtel: exploitation du silex (secteur 1). Service et Musée cantonal d’archéologie (Archéologie
Leesch, D. 1997 Hauterive-Champréveyres, 10. Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de Neuchâtel.
Cadre chronologique et culturel, mobilier et structures, analyse spatiale (secteur 1). Musée cantonal
d’archéologie (Archéologie neuchâteloise 19), Neuchâtel.
Leesch, D., M.-I. Cattin, and W. Müller 2004 Hauterive-Champréveyres et Neuchâtel-Monruz.
Témoins d’implantations magdaléniennes et aziliennes sur la rive nord du lac de Neuchâtel. Service
et musée cantonal d’archéologie (Archéologie neuchâteloise 31), Neuchâtel.
Morel, P., and W. Müller 1997 Hauterive-Champréveyres 11. Un campement magdalénien au bord du
lac de Neuchâtel. Etude archéozoologique (secteur 1). Musée cantonal d’archéologie (Archéologie
Moulin, B. 1991 Hauterive-Champréveyres 3. La dynamique sédimentaire et lacustre durant le Tardigla-
ciaire et le Postglaciaire. Editions du Ruau (Archéologie neuchâteloise 9), Saint-Blaise.
Müller, W., D. Leesch, J. Bullinger, M.-I. Cattin, and N. Plumettaz 2006 Chasse, habitats et rythmes
de déplacements: réflexions à partir des campements magdaléniens de Champréveyres et
Monruz (Neuchâtel, Suisse). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 103–104:741–752.
Plumettaz, N. 2007 Le site magdalénien de Monruz, 2. Etude des foyers à partir de l’analyse des pierres
et de leurs remontages. Office et musée cantonal d’archéologie (Archéologie neuchâteloise),
Neuchâtel.
Plumettaz, N., and M.-I. Cattin 2006 Les galets taillés. In Le site magdalénien de Monruz, 1. Premiers
éléments pour l’analyse d’un habitat de plein air, J. Bullinger et al., editors, pp. 101–105. Service
et musée cantonal d’archéologie (Archéologie neuchâteloise 33), Neuchâtel.

PART III
From Today to Yesterday: Ethnographic Comparisons

Chapter Fourteen
Introduction to the Ethnographic Section
Focusing on Interpreting the

Magdalenian Sites of the Paris Basin
Françoise Audouze
T his short introduction only intends to locate the four chapters in this section within the
context of this volume. All four have been selected to help interpret the Magdalenian
sites of the Paris Basin. Although empirical analysis and knapping experimentations provide
extensive proof of the presence of children and adolescents in these sites, we do not have
any empirical proof of the presence of women at Verberie based on the archaeological data.
The hypothesis can be supported by the spatial separation between the hide working tools
and the weaponry retooling tools.
In his ethnographic comparative analysis of hide working, L. R. Keeley searches for con-
sistent factors, which might establish the gender of the people that depilated, scraped, and cut
reindeer hides, that accord with hide uses among various other societies of hunters-gatherers
and help support the assumption that women engaged in these activities at Verberie and
Pincevent. Working from a very different perspective, S. Beyries and V. Rots analyze gestures,
hafting types, and tools wear in present-day observations made among several ethnic groups
still working hide with stone tools, among them Chouchkis from Kamchatka and Athapas-
kans from British Columbia. Regressive comparisons made between microwear stigmata
observed on a few Verberie tools and eight diagnostic cases permit us to draw conclusions
about the modalities of hide working at Verberie. These authors evidence a two-pieces type
of hafting previously unknown in the Upper Palaeolithic.
O. Soffer’s chapter reminds us of a hidden side of the Upper Paleolithic activities that
involves textile work and basketry. Her description of fiber working and weaving strikes a
chord with Averbouh’s paper, which informs us of the presence of a bâton percé in Verberie
level II-22, with three parallel grooves that could well have been imprinted on the edge of
the hole by tight threads or cords. F. David and C. Karlin’s chapter is a fresh account of
225

226 From Today to Yesterday: Ethnographic Comparisons
recent ethnoarchaeological inquiries among various Siberian populations. A zooarchaolo-

gist and a lithic technology specialist, the authors participated in a reindeer herd migration
and observed, for several weeks and at different seasons, the activities of Dolgans, Yakouts,
Koriaks, and Chouchkis herders-hunters. They focused on activities related to reindeer hunt-
ing, butchering, processing, curing, and consumption, keeping in mind questions directly
derived from their extensive experience at the Magdalenian site of Pincevent. They present
an analysis of the variability in the process of butchering reindeers according to the wild or
domestic state of the animal, and the ethnic tradition, and the symbolic and religious beliefs
of the herders-hunters. Taboos still respected or abandoned when time pressure occurs give
an insight of the way the material and the immaterial are interwoven in the most practical
tasks related to reindeer hunting and consuming. They bring a level of detail that gives flesh
to the theoretical models used in this volume.

Chapter Fifteen
The Probable Sexual Division of Labor in

Magdalenian Hide Working
Ethnological Evidence
Lawrence H. Keeley
O ne of the most interesting discussions at the Goutelas Conference concerned the

sexual division of labor in hide working. The issue can be reduced to the question of
whether one can infer that women did the hide working during the Paris Basin Magdale-
nian or that it is impossible to make any such inference. That hide working took place on a
site is signaled by the presence of used endscrapers recovered in situ, as microwear analysis
has determined from numerous sites in many places and time periods that typical endscrap-
ers had almost always been used for scraping hides. The association of endscrapers and hide
working is especially strong for the Paris Basin Magdalenian because many independent
microwear analyses by independent researchers on samples of endscrapers from several sites
have found the characteristic polish created by scraping hide on the retouched bits of this
tool type (Keeley 1981, 1988, 1991; Symens 1998; Beugnier 2000; Beyries et al. 2005;
Rots 2002, 2005; Moss, Plisson, Christensen, and Valentin 2004). Alas, no method has yet
been developed that allows direct inference of the sex of a stone tool’s user. (The “sexing”
of human blood residues on a tool may be accomplished in the future. However, if a tool
is made by one sex for use by the other, as was the case with the Ingalik of Alaska where
women’s awls, skin scrapers, and ulus [women’s knives] are made by the men [Osgood
1970:61–64, 78–81, 89], then the blood may not be from the user but the maker.) Thus,
the only possible source of indirect inference regarding this issue remains ethnographic
analogy, which is the basis of this chapter.
Despite its obvious difficulty, this issue is a very important one. Besides offering
insights into prehistoric social mores, the symbolic facets of material culture, and perhaps
gender dynamics (see below, however), it lies at the heart of more prosaic aspects of prehis-
toric archaeology, especially of hunter-gatherers. For almost 40 years, archaeologists have
been concerned with reconstructing the annual movements, land-use modalities, and site
227

functions of particular prehistoric foragers. Determining who was in occupation at particular

sites is important to the above questions. Were all members of a social group, women, men,
the children, and the elderly, present or was only some subset at a site? Indeed, some fine
work by several French colleagues attempted to isolate the flintknapping debris of children/
beginners at several Magdalenian sites (Pigeot, Janny this volume). The precise issue in
question here is: Were several of these sites single-purpose hunting camps/stations or were
they band camps? If a good proportion of the occupants were women and children then the
latter inference is most probable.
Gender versus Sexual Roles
This chapter is not a contribution to the archaeology of gender for several reasons. Gender
is difficult to define even among living people. In my community (Oak Park, IL), which
indeed prides itself on its tolerance and diversity, I count a minimum of six genders, with
possibly two or three more. (For example, are heterosexual male transvestites who patronize
our local transvestite dress shop a separate gender or just guys with somewhat unusual taste
in clothes?) While I judge that there is considerable evidence that gender has a biological
base even among our incredibly behaviorally-plastic species, it often is mutable, “negotiable”
and can change in an individual’s lifetime. Gender is usually expressed by means of the
material culture, and sex roles attributed to the postadolescent sexes by the traditions and
modes of a particular “culture” and social group. Because sex roles and the sexual divisions
of labor represent common collective behaviors and often endure for generations, they are
far more archaeologically visible than gender, which is a characteristic of individuals.
A story that illustrates all of these points, which took place among the Klamath tribe
of southern Oregon in first third of the nineteenth century (Spier 1930:52–53; see also
the many index references to Leleks in Spier 1930:336 or Lileks in Stern 1965:346–347).
An older teenage boy named Leleks had for several years lived as a young woman (i.e., a
berdache), wore women’s clothes and did women’s work. One day as he was asleep under a
tree, a bow and arrow (men’s tools) was laid along one side of him and a canoe punt pole
(a women’s tool) on his other side. Then a number of watchers shouted. Leleks grabbed the
bow and jumped up. Realizing he had chosen the man’s tool, he immediately ran off to a
nearby mountain for a vision quest. When he returned, he abandoned his old gender and
began to dress and live as a man. He went on to become the first and last head chief of all the
Klamaths, married seven wives (the largest number known of the Contact period Klamath)
and fathered children. (In some versions of this story that I heard in the late 1960s, admit-
tedly unreliable because they were filtered through the memories of three or four later gen-
erations, the punt pole was instead a digging stick [even more a women’s tool] and the
awakening shout was an alarm that the camp was being attacked.) The bow was symbolic of
men because it was used in men’s work, hunting and warfare, while the punt pole symbol-
ized women because punting canoes in swamps to gather water lily seeds was women’s work.
Were it not for the customary and then common Klamath sexual division of labor and the
tools associated with it, this story of gender would have had no meaning to past or present
Klamaths, and to non-Klamaths ignorant of these facts, nonsense.

The Probable Sexual Division of Labor in Magdalenian Hide Working 229
Cross-Cultural Studies of Sexual Divisions of Labor
Anthropologists and other interested social scientists have attempted several cross-cultural
statistical studies of sexual divisions of labor. There is a tendency among many who have
referred to these studies (as opposed to those who have done them) to see those tasks assigned
to heterosexual adults by known peoples as rigidly differentiated and the statistical codes
assigned as exact reflections. If universal or almost so, they are taken as “givens” because of
the different physiologies of the sexes; or if variable between societies, as cultural traditions
based upon the interaction of human physiology and different societies’ particular circum-
stances and economies. However interpreted, there are some issues that are relevant to using
such studies to address any “sexed” activity.
In consulting Murdock and Prevost’s (1973:209) cross-cultural study of the divi-
sion of labor by sex, based upon a worldwide sample of 185 ethnographically known
societies, I found that the preparation of skins was a “swing activity.” By this they
meant that such activities are “assigned predominantly to males in some regions but
predominantly to females in others.” For skin working, they found that this was pre-
dominantly a male task in Africa (when done at all), commonly done by men in the
Circum-Mediterranean/Europe and in East Eurasia but commonly done by women in
the Americas. Of the factors they suggest or isolate, both hypothesized and formally
derived by factor analysis, that appear to play a role in whether any particular task is
assigned to one of the sexes, a few may be relevant regarding hide working. Indeed, they
note (211) that neither of the factors that they label “Factor A: Masculine Advantage”
or “Factor B: Feminine Advantage” can be useful in understanding the swing activities.
Both their informal and formal analyses suggest that the degree of sedentism, occupa-
tional specialization, and the subsistence economy play key roles (216) in explaining
the swing activities.
Several general statistical surveys of North American Indians indicate another factor
that may be disguised in Murdock and Prevost’s study. Jorgensen (1980:151) notes in his
study of western Indians that males did the hide working in the Southwest, Great Basin,
and California, less so on the Northwest Coast. He associates this pattern with “the modest
importance that hide working assumed in these societies” because “when large hides were
plentiful and used for clothing” women dominated hide working. In Driver and Massey’s
(1957:343–345) and Driver and Coffin’s (1975:51) studies of all of native North America,
they note only a close correlation between the importance of hunting and hide dressing by
women. As Tables 1–3 indicate, Jorgensen’s observation applies more generally in North
America and the relationship between the importance of hide in groups’ material cultures
and female hide dressing is very strong. These tables indicate that if hide was used exten-
sively in clothing or as a house covering, then it is almost certain that women will do the
hide dressing.
This single exception is probably miscoded in Driver and Coffin (1975:107, “Nh 17
Western Apache,” col. 131 = ‘A’ [i.e., men]) because the Handbook of North American
Indians (1983, Vol. 10:469–70) indicates that, among the Western Apache, women were the
hide workers.

Table 1
Hide Clothing vs. Sexual Division of Labor in Hide Dressing
among North American Indians / Répartition de la fabrication des
vêtements en peaux en fonction de la division sexuelle du travail
dans la préparation des peaux chez les Indiens d’Amérique du Nord
Hide Working by Sex
Men Only or Women Only

Principally Both Sexes or Principally
Hide dominant 1* 3 75
Clothing % 1% 4% 95%
Other materials 57 31 42
Domestic clothing % 44% 24% 32%
Source: Driver and Coffin 1975, pp. 67–108, Columns 108 and 131.
Table 2
Hide House Covering vs. Sexual Division of Labor in Hide
Dressingamong North American Indians / Couverture de
l’habitation en peau en fonction de la division sexuelle du travail
dans la préparation des peaux chez les Indiens d’Amérique du Nord
Hide Working by Sex

House Cover 1* 5 92
Hide or % −1% −5% −94%
Hide/thatch 55 32 25
Other materials % −49% −29% −22%
See note in Table 1.

Source: Driver and Coffin 1975: pp. 67–108, Columns 97 and 131.
A clearer picture of how these factors might influence what sex (if any) is assigned
hide working can be obtained by consulting Murdock’s (1967:62–123, column 46)
Ethnographic Atlas. We find in Africa hide working is unimportant in most societies and,
where of any significance, was mostly done by male craft specialists (of the 58 societies coded
for this variable, in 14% women predominate, in 38% men predominate, and in 48% male
craft specialists do this work). The few African groups whose women were the hide workers

Table 3
Importance of Hide in Material Culture vs. Sexual Division of
Labor in Hide Dressing among North American Indians / Importance
de la peau dans la culture matérielle en fonction de la division
sexuelle du travail dans la préparation des peaux chez les Indiens
d’Amérique du Nord
Hide Working by Sex

Hide important 1* 5 88
% −1% 5% −94%
Hide less or 57 29 29
Unimportant % −50% −25% −25%
See note in Table 1.

Source: Driver and Coffin 1975: pp. 67–108, Columns 97 and 108 combined vs. 131.
shared some characteristics: (1) the climate requires warm clothing because of altitude or (at
night) because of low humidity; (2) because of the subsistence pattern, hides were plentiful
but other materials were rare or expensive. The Turkana and Jie of northwest Kenya and
adjoining Uganda, the Nama of Namibia, and the Ahoggaren Tuareg of the Saharan Hoggar
Massif were transhumant pastoralists in mountainous regions. The Jie wore hide clothing and
the Ahoggaren, unlike their Bedouin neighbors, covered their tents with tanned hides (Gul-
liver 1965; Murdock 1959). The Dorobo of the mountains of western Kenya were “forest
specialists” or a hunting-gathering (low) caste who supplied nearby farmers with meat, hides,
and honey in exchange for agricultural products and iron. In other regions of the world, we
find the supply and especially the demand for hide an essential factor in this issue.
Among the hunting and reindeer herding peoples of Eastern Siberia, women did
the hide working. Other Eurasian examples were the Lapps of northern Scandinavia, who
shared a similar environment and basic economy with the Siberians, the transhumant agri-
pastoral Hazara of Afghanistan, and the pastoral Kalmyk Mongols of the eastern Caucasus.
In Eurasia and North Africa, the men who do hide work were almost always either craft
specialists or members of a low caste that is assigned tasks disdained by higher classes or,
more rarely, lived in societies in which other fabrics (wool, linen, etc.) were readily avail-
able. As expected, women predominate in this task among the foragers of cold temperate
and sub-antarctic South America (Yaghan, Tehuelche, etc.). In the Gran Chaco (a hybrid
Spanish-Quechua term meaning “Great Hunting”), women were the hide workers among
the hunting-gathering tribes, both the “foot Indians” such as the Matuco and Choroti, as
well as those that adopted the horse such as the Abipon. This region is arid, except near riv-
ers during their seasonal floods, with very hot summers but cool winters (10–15ºC). These

foragers used skins far more than most South American tribes, especially for cloaks and
skirts (HSAI Vol. I, 1946:291–292). Murdock (1967:124) codes two Chaco groups (Terena
and Caduveo) as having men hide workers—both were fisher-agriculturalists raising cotton
and, thus, had little need for hides.
Worldwide, where dressed hides were in high demand but where it was a domestic pro-
duction (especially, no hide working craft specialists), almost always women performed this
vital task. In the ethnographic record, this demand was highest in societies that used finished
hides for clothing, footwear, blankets and floor covers, and house coverings but had no (or
poor) access to alternative materials. Such societies usually lived in periodically cold climates,
whether in higher latitudes with cold winters or in arid regions in the mid-latitudes with cold
nights. In the last few thousand years, the use of woolen, linen, and cotton fabrics derived from
domesticated animals and plants has probably replaced hides in the material cultures of many
mid-latitude societies that were heavily dependant on the domestic mode of production.
Where fresh hides were readily available because hunted and domestic animals were
economically important, women were usually the hide workers.
Implications for Magdalenians
At Verberie, the Magdalenians killed in a short time a minimum of 40 reindeers in the upper
level (II-1) (Enloe this volume). The carcasses were butchered and processed on the spot.
The presence of a few fawns slightly reduces the number of hides that could have been used
for tent covers but the potential number of hides for clothing remained high. A total of
77 scrapers were analyzed: 48 by L. Keeley (1981, 1989) and 46 more by V. Beugnier and
V. Rots (2000, 2004) but only 37 belonged to level II-1. More than 96% had worked on hide
and nearly one-third of them were hafted. The numerous scrapers and blades bearing hide
polish, many of them made with local flint, give evidence of local fresh and dry hide working
(Table 4). Though some fiber working took place at Verberie, it remained of little importance,
given the very small number of artifacts bearing plant polish (four blades, two flakes, one
truncation, and one bec, used for cutting, scraping, or whittling plants (Keeley 1987).1 One
may add to the latter, as an instrument used for fiber working, the only pierced baton found
in level II-22, which exhibits stigmata and a glossy surface in the perforation that may indi-
cate the repeated passing through of a string or a strap (Averbouh this volume). In any case,
hide was the dominant material used for clothing and housing. Moreover, the distribution
of scrapers and blades working on hide in the domestic space is quite different from the dis-
tribution of burins and backed bladelets (Audouze this volume). Given these arguments, the
coming winter (Enloe this volume) at the time of occupation, the number of fresh hides avail-
able, and the essential part that hide played in clothing and housing in Magdalenian times, we
have a good number of reasons to argue that, as in most populations where these factors play
a crucial role, women were present at Verberie and were doing most of the hide working.
1
At Lascaux, Abbé Glory found a piece of cordage (Allain and Leroi-Gourhan, Arlette 1979); textiles imprints
are well known in Moravian Upper Paleolithic sites. Also in France, Cheynier found imprints of textile on a few
flints from the Solutrean level of Badegoule (see Soffer and Adovasio this volume).

Table 4
Comparison Between Activities Related to Hide and to Vegetal
Fibers in the Sample of 1200 Flint Artefacts (including tools,
tool spalls, blades and chips) among Which more than 400
wore Microwear Polishes; all Coming from Verberie level II-1 /
Comparaison entre les activités liées à la peau et celles liées aux
fibres végétales au sein d’un échantillon de 1200 pièces de silex
(incluant des outils, des chutes d’outils, des lames et des esquilles)
et dont plus de 400 portaient des micro-polis d’utilisation; tous
issus du niveau II-1 de Verberie
Bec & Retouched
Activity Truncation Scrapers Blades Raw Blades Total
Plant work 1 1 1 4 7
Fresh hide work 5 4 5 14
Wet/moistened hide work 2 3 3 8
Dry hide work 13 4 1 18
Total 47
Source: From Keeley 1989, Beyries et Beugnier 2000, Beyries et al. 2005, Rots 2005, Janny et al. 2007.
References Cited
Allain, J., and A. Leroi-Gourhan 1979 Lascaux inconnu. (Gallia Préhistoire. Suppl. XII). Éd. du
CNRS, Paris.
Beyries, S., and V. Beugnier 2000 Analyse fonctionnelle du matériel lithique. In Verberie-Le Buisson
Campin, 1997–1999, by F. Audouze, J. G. Enloe et al., pp. 25–27. Unpublished excavation
report.
Beyries, S., F. Janny, F. Audouze 2005 Débitage, matière première et utilisations des bacs sur l site
de Verberie “Le Buisson Campin” (Oise) dans le Nord de la France. Revue Archéologique de
Picardie n°spécial 22:15–24.
Christensen, M., and B. Valentin 2004 Armatures de projectiles et outils, de la production à
l’abandon. In Les derniers Magdaléniens d’Etiolles, N. Pigeot, editor, pp. 106–160. (XXXVIIe
supplément à Gallia Préhistoire), CNRS, Paris.
Janny, F., F. Audouze, S. Beyries, and D. Keeler 2007 Les burins du niveau supérieur du site de
Verberie—le buisson campin (Oise). De la gestion des supports a l’utilisation des outils: un
pragmatisme bien tempéré. In Burins préhistoriques, formes, fonctions, fonctionnement, actes de la
Table-Ronde d’Aix-en-Provence 2–4 mars 2003, J.-P. Bracco, M. de Araujo Igreja, and F. Lebrun-
Ricalens. Édition du Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art, Luxembourg (Archéologiques 2).
Keeley, L. H. 1981 Premiers résultats de l’analyse des micro-traces d’utilisation de quelques objets.
In Le site magdalénien du Buisson Campin à Verberie (Oise), F. Audouze, D. Cahen,
B. Schmider, and L. Keeley, editors. Gallia Préhistoire 24(1):137–141.

Keeley, L. H. 1987 Hafting and “Retooling” at Verberie. In La Main et l’outil, table ronde CNRS,
tenue à Lyon du 26 au 29 novembre 1984, D. Stordeur, editor, pp. 89–96. Éd. de la Maison de
l’Orient, Lyon.
Keeley, L. H. 1988 Lithic Economy, Style, and Use. Comparison of Three Late Magdalenian Sites.
Lithic Technology 1:19–25.
Keeley, L. H. 1991 Tool Use and Spatial Patterning. Complications and Solutions. In The Interpre-
tation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, editors, pp. 257–268.
Plenum, New York.
Moss, E. 1983 The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements—Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon: Two
Case Studies from the French Final Palaeolithic. BAR, IS, 177, Oxford.
Moss, E., and M. Newcomer 1982 Reconstruction of Tool Use at Pincevent: Microwear and Experi-
ment. Studia Praehistoirica Belgica 2:77–87.
Plisson, H. 1986 Etude fonctionnelle d’outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l’analyse des micro-usures:
recherche méthodologique et archéologique. Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences Humaines, Université
de Paris I.
Plisson, H. 1989 L’emmanchement dans l’habitation n°1 de Pincevent. In La Main et l’Outil, man-
ches et emmanchements préhistoriques, D. Stordeur, editor, pp. 75–88. Maison de l’Orient/de
Boccard, Lyon/Paris.
Rots V. 2002 Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: Possibilities and Limitations of Macro- and Microscopic
Approaches. PhD Dissertaton, Katholieke universiteit Leuven, Leuven.
Rots V. 2005 Wear Traces and the Interpretations of Stone Tools. Journal of Field Archaeology
30(1):71–73.

Chapter Sixteen
The Roles of Perishable Technologies in

Upper Paleolithic Lives
Olga Soffer and James M. Adovasio
Introduction
W hile it is clear that Upper Paleolithic lives were lived by a diverse set of actors doing a
great variety of things, our past research has privileged just one segment of people—
namely, prime age males. It has also focused on a finite set of activities performed by this
minority—specifically killing and processing animals, preferably large in size. This focus
has impacted not only what archaeological materials were studied but also the methods
used to recover them. At the beginning of Paleolithic research the focus was on implements
made of stone subsequently augmented by antler, ivory, and bone (Sackett 2000 with refer-
ences). The advent of ecological concerns resulted in faunal remains receiving attention as
well (Trigger l989 with references). It also resulted in multidisciplinary focus on recovering
information about past environments. While scholars working on these reconstructions
refined their research methodologies so as to offer more reliable ones, their archaeological
colleagues continued, by and large, to remain oblivious to the fact that the plant kingdom
was likely far more than just a proscenium for Paleolithic life. Admittedly, there was a hand-
ful of exceptions—such as Cheynier (1967), Lacorre (l960), and Chauvet (cited in Bahn
2001)—who postulated that plant-based technologies were likely important in the Upper
Paleolithic. Since they were considered “amateurs,” however, their findings were either
ignored or dismissed outright (Bahn l985, 2001, both with references).
This privileging of Paleolithic durables—specifically of stone—is at odds with the
ethnographic record, which universally documents that it is the more perishable plant-based
technologies that form the bulk of hunter-gatherer material culture—even in arctic and
subarctic environments (see Soffer et al. 2001 with references). The same has been noted by
archaeologists working at sites with ideal preservation (e.g., permafrost, dry caves, wet sites).
235

They have documented that artifacts made of plant remains—cordage, nets, baskets, cloth,
footwear, etc.—outnumber those made of stone by a factor of 20:l (for specifics see Soffer
et al. 2001 with references). The discrepancy between the ethnographic reality, the archaeo-
logical record from well-preserved sites, and our Upper Paleolithic inventories, warns us
that we are envisioning Paleolithic life in highly biased ways, ones based on considerably less
than 10% of what was actually made and used. The plethora of plant-based items, which
likely existed, and our failure to recover such items, strongly biases our understanding of
Paleolithic life, especially its domestic components. This is because plant-based inventories
are cross-culturally associated with women and, by extension, with children and older indi-
viduals (for a discussion see Soffer et al. 2001 with references).
Simply put, then, by looking only at stone tools we focus on male technologies—
especially those used by prime aged males—and ignore tools and implements used by the
rest of the people, those making up the “invisible majority” during the Paleolithic (Adovasio
et al. 1998, l999; Soffer et al. 2000a, 2001; both with references).
Paleolithic Perishables
Recovering Direct Evidence
Information about how plants and plant products were used is abysmally poor prior to the early
Holocene (Owen 2005 with references). While preservation biases clearly do work against the
recovery of perishables, it is equally true that the recovery techniques used in Paleolithic research
almost guarantee not finding them. Specifically, we note that although Paleolithic archaeologists
routinely wet or dry screen their sediments, few, if any, use flotation. Since remains of plants
and plant products are far more friable than other organics, and because they preserve best in a
charred state, dry or wet screening, no matter how fine the mesh, is simply too rough a proce-
dure, which destroys the burned remains. The only way to recover them—something routinely
done in contract archaeology as well as by specialists working in later time periods—is through
flotation. This need not involve complex equipment or machinery or even electricity—a tub of
water, a spoon, and an embroidery hoop strung with bits of hosiery will do (fig. 1). Using such
simple methods we recovered a charred cordage fragment from a hearth at Mezhirich, dating to
some 15,000 years ago, for example (Adovasio et al. l998, l999).
Similar finds are known from other parts of Paleolithic Europe also. One of the first
was a piece of cordage discovered at Lascaux by Abbé Glory (1959). Although the original
rope fragment he found did not survive, our examination of both its positive and negative
casts confirms the use of a six-ply rope at least 15,000 years ago (Soffer et al. 2000b with
references). This fragment was not an isolated phenomenon in France. Cheynier (1967), for
example, published, albeit in an anecdotal fashion, a textile impression from the Solutrean
level at Badegoule. Our cursory examination of Cheynier’s collections revealed actual burned
fragments of highly friable textile fabric adhering to pieces of flint (Soffer et al. 2000b).
Flotation of a hearth at Dolni Vestonice II, dating to some 26,000BP, permitted Mason
and her colleagues to recover remains of what they identified as fleshy tap root (Compositae)
likely used as soft weaning foods (Mason et al. l994).

figure 1 “Low Tech” flotation at Mezhirich, 1993. / Flottation simplifiée à Mezhirich,

1993 (photo O. Soffer).
Cordage and other plant products have been documented at Ohalo II in Israel, and
dated to some 19,300 (Nadel et al. l994). Moving even farther back in time, Prince (2000)
reported finding plant fibers that may represent cordage remnants on a Middle Paleolithic
stone tool fragment from La Grotte du Portel. Similarly, Wadley (2005) reports the likely
use of cordage at an MSA site in South Africa. Both clearly point to a great antiquity for
perishable technologies.
Recognizing Indirect Evidence
Indirect evidence that plants were used to make perishable items is far more extensive, and
includes the textile impressions, the tools used to weave, make baskets, and fabricate nets,
and iconographic images of these technologies.
Textile Impressions. Our research has shown that textile and cordage technologies existed
in Europe by at least ca. 28,000BP (Adovasio et al. 1998, 1999; Soffer et al. 2001, both
with references) (fig. 2). We initially identified them on impressed fragments of fired clay
recovered from the Gravettian sites in Moravia, dates 28,000–23,000BP. Subsequent work
has shown that impressions are present at two Gravettian sites in Russia (Kostenkí I-2 and
Zaraisk) as well as at the Magdalenian site of Gönnersdorf in Germany (Soffer et al. 2000b
with references).

figure 2 Impressed netting from the site of Zaraisk (#124 Zae-98 153): left - positive
cast of impression on side A (photo A. Soffer); right - photomicrograph of the positive
cast of impression A (photo J.M. Adovasio); below - schematic diagram of the netting
observed on the specimen / Impression de filet provenant du site de Zaraisk (#124
Zae-98 153): à gauche - impression positive du côté A (photo A. Soffer); à droite -
microphotographie du moulage positif (photo J.M. Adovasio); en dessous - diagramme
schématique du filet observé sur le spécimen.
These perishable technologies existed beyond Europe, as well. For example, ceramic
fragments from the first true pottery, dating to ca. 13,500BP, recovered from the Russian
Far East, bear textile impressions (Hyland et al. 2001). Similar evidence also exists in the
New World, where perishable fiber artifacts have been recovered from Pleistocene-age sites
in both of the Americas (Adovasio et al. l999 with references).
The Diversity in Textiles. The impressions show that a wide range of items was made dur-
ing the Upper Paleolithic (Adovasio et al. 1998, 1999; Soffer et al. 2001). The inventory
includes cordage, knotted netting, plaited wicker-style basketry, as well as a wide variety
of non-heddle, loom-woven textiles. A number of these items show intentional structural
decoration as well as conjoining of two pieces of fabric by a whipping stitch to produce
a seam. All of these impressions reflect technologically well-made items. The typological
heterogeneity coupled with the general regularity and narrow gauge of the elements used
indicate a high level of standardization and preceding development, both for these speci-
mens and for the fiber industry at large. Several impressions of knotted cordage are also
present. Ethnographically and archaeologically known knotted cordage usually represent
fragments of netting and we assume that the Upper Paleolithic specimens we have identified
do likewise.

What Was Made. As we have noted elsewhere, since the studied impressions are highly
fragmentary, it is not possible to specify the original form or size of any of the items
(Adovasio et al. 1998, 1999; Soffer et al. 2000a,b, 2001). We know that both woven
textiles and plaited baskets and/or mats are present. The wide range of gauges and weaves
suggest mats, perhaps wall hangings, blankets, and bags, as well as a wide array of apparel.
The narrow gauge of some of these pieces argues for fine, woven clothing, while the iden-
tification of whipping stitch seams indicate the sewing of more complex pieces such as
clothing and bags.
Raw Materials. Our research has shown that these perishables were clearly made of plant
rather than animal fibers (Adovasio et al. l998, l999). Pollen analyses from the sites indicate
the presence of a number of suitable plants including fibrous bark of alder (Alnus sp.) and
yew (Taxus sp.) as well as milkweed (Asclepias sp.) and nettle (Urtica sp). All of these have
well-documented ethnographic and prehistoric uses as perishable production media. Thus,
although at present we are uncertain what specific fibers were woven because we have no
original specimens on hand, many species were available for such use.
The Pertinent Tools. Another indirect source of evidence for the widespread production
of textiles in the Upper Paleolithic comes from the specialized tools associated with these
technologies. Using ethnographic inference, as well as analogies of form, a number of schol-
ars have argued that some bone and ivory implements, such as awls and hooks, were used
to produce textiles (see discussion in Soffer 2004 with references). The most dramatic of
these claims, advanced by Heite (l998) and Lacorre (l960), suggested that the perforated
“batons de commandement” may have been used to spin cordage—a conclusion reached on
the basis of independent ethnographic evidence. We have augmented this list by arguing
that such enigmatic objects as the “rondelles” found across Europe or the Predmosti or Abri
Blanchard “spear heads,” as well as the engraved “pendant” from Kniegerotte were also likely
associated with textile production (Soffer et al. 2001 with references).
We have also noted that the evidence for textile production appears at the same time
as do the tools commonly used to transform textiles into more complex constructions such
as clothing or bags. Specifically, eyed needles become widespread across Eurasia at the same
time that we see evidence for textile production, and attest to extensive sewing and the
likely construction of tailored clothing. Although the larger needles, such as the one from
Predmosti (Klima l990:fig. 28), may have been used to make nets, their much smaller
ivory equivalents point to sewing and possibly to embroidery—something also previously
hypothesized by Cheynier (l967).
Edge Wear. Since arguments about tool use based either on cultural logic or on formal
analogies can only come to suggestive rather than empirically demonstrated conclusions,
we next turned our attention to identifying diagnostic edge wear on tools used in textile
production (Soffer 2004). Studies of the pertinent ethnographic collections curated at a
number of museums revealed the presence of highly specific and diagnostic stigmata that
resulted from the use of wood and bone tools to weave textiles, plait baskets, and loop nets

figure 3 Close up of wear on the front and back of the Navaho batten, Illinois State
Museum. / Traces d’usure sur l’avant et le dos d’un battant Navajo, Illinois State Museum
(photo G. Andrashko).
(fig. 3). The presence of analogous wear on Upper Paleolithic implements permitted us
to identify a number of net spacers or a gauge used to make nets as well as weaving sticks
or battens in the inventories of such sites as Dolni Vestonice I, Pavlov I, Predmosti, and
Avdeevo (fig. 4). As we have reported elsewhere, similar objects are quite frequent in the
organic inventories from other European Upper Paleolithic sites as well (Soffer et al. 2001;
Soffer 2004, both with references).
In short, our indirect evidence for plant-based perishable technology includes not
only the impressions of the pieces made but also the tools used to make them.
The “Venus” Dressed. Our next source of indirect information about Upper Paleolithic
textiles comes from iconography—from the garments shown on the “Venus” figurines. We
have discussed this evidence at length elsewhere and only summarize it here (Soffer et al.
2000a; Soffer et al. 2001). Specifically, our studies of the female images dating between
28,000–21,000PB have shown that a number of them are depicted wearing woven clothing
made of plant fibers. This “Venus wear” includes headwear, belts, and bandeaux, and its
representation is so precise as to show the fine details of the production sequence used to
make the garments (fig. 5).
We have noted that these “dressed Venuses” have been found across Europe, that the
clothing worn varies west to east in a patterned manner, and that all the clad figurines show
that their makers devoted as much attention to the detailing of the clothing as they did to

figure 4 Fragment of a batten, Kostenki IV, no. 6194/2019, Museum of Anthropology and
Ethnography, St. Petersburg, Russia. / Fragment de battant, Kostenki IV, no. 6194/2019,
Musée d’Anthropologie et d’Ethnographie, St Petersbourg, Russie (photo O. Soffer).
figure 5 The “dressed Venus” from Kostenki IV, ivory, front and back. / La “Venus
habillée” de Kostenki IV, de face et de dos (photo O. Soffer).
the depiction of the figurines’ primary and secondary sexual characteristics (fig. 6). This
led us to conclude that: (1) the weaving and basket making skills were socially important
enough to be made permanent in ivory and stone; (2) these depictions underscored the
social importance of these perishable technologies; and (3) the depicted fine details suggest

figure 6 “Basket hat” carved on the head fragment of a “Venus” figurine, Kostenki
I, marl, left profile, top. / “chapeau en vannerie” gravé sur la tête d’une “Vénus” (frag-
ment), Kostenki I, marne, profil gauche et sommet de la tête (photo O. Soffer).
that the makers of the figurines were either the same individuals who made the textile items
or that the figurine makers were clearly instructed by those who did.
Textiles and Paleolithic Lives
The presence of diverse and sophisticated plant-based perishable technologies across Eurasia
revises our current understanding of Upper Paleolithic life in a number of significant ways.
These, as we have discussed in detail in a number of our recent publications, include the
following observations (Adovasio et al. 1999; Soffer et al. 2001, both with references).
First, the evidence for nets clearly impacts our reconstructions of subsistence practices,
because net making implies that net hunting was likely part and parcel of the food quest.
We have argued that ethnographic data suggest that this way of hunting land animals often
involved the participation of entire communities and that the faunal remains from the
Moravian sites are congruent with hypothesized communal hunts. Thus, the evidence for
nets reveals one of the ways that the women, the children, and elderly contributed to food
acquisition. This, in turn, provides us with our first glimpses of what the heretofore unseen
majority of people may have been doing on a regular basis.
Second, the existence of perishable technologies across Upper Paleolithic Europe,
combined with the iconographic evidence associating these technologies with women, per-
mits us to begin thinking about gender, agency, labor, and the value placed on that labor.
Specifically, as we have discussed in detail elsewhere (Soffer et al. 2000a, 2000b, 2001),
there are strong reasons for associating weaving and basket making with some Upper Paleo-
lithic women. This affords us another glimpse at women’s work in the deep past.
Furthermore, in light of cross-cultural ethnographic evidence, we underscore that
the sites with evidence for textile production ipso facto were domestic settings—i.e., base
camps—occupied by both hunters and weavers as well as by their progeny.
Moreover, the fact that perishable weaving and plaiting skills were apparently impor-
tant enough to be immortalized in durable media has led us to argue that such iconographic
transformations suggest that the women who wove the textiles and made the baskets may

have held positions of marked status in their societies or that at least their skills did. At the
same time, the fineness of some of the produced textiles may be signaling an intensifica-
tion of women’s labor and concomitant social tensions—something also suggested by the
evidence for communal hunting.
Some Conclusions and Suggestions
We conclude the following about Upper Paleolithic lives, domestic and otherwise:
1. Very diverse plant-based perishable technologies were produced in Eurasia by at
least 27,000BP. This textile inventory sheds light on women’s involvement in sub-
sistence practices, on women’s work, and on the likely importance assigned to the
productive skills of women.
2. Such new insights into the heretofore unseen shows that a focus on plants and their
products permits us to diversify the kinds of people we envision in the past. It is
the plants that not only bring us face to face with the women and the children of
the past, but also permit us to get beyond a focus on male hunting—a perennial
research obsession for the last 150 years.
3. Plant products also give us rare glimpses of children in the past. The recovery of
likely baby foods—or at least soft foods useful to the very old and very young
alike—permits us to consider how such foods may have been prepared, as well as
how cooking was done in general.
4. Diversifying our ideas about hunting to include communal endeavors foregrounds
windfall surpluses of game that such hunting produces. This is in accord with our
interpretations of some Central European Gravettian sites as aggregation base
camps where large numbers of people came together seasonally.
5. Simply put, it is clear that looking beyond Solutrean bifaces and Magdalenian har-
poons and diversifying our past actors opens up a new multifaceted past for our
consideration. This diversity, both in actors and actions, can be seen most clearly in
domestic rather than other contexts.
We close by underscoring that much of the perishable evidence we have discussed
could not have been obtained without special recovery techniques such as flotation. Fur-
thermore, most of it could not have been recognized without training in analytical methods
traditionally consigned to later time periods—for instance, what prehistoric textiles look
like archaeological contexts. These two realities urge us not only to keep an open mind
about what the archaeological record may contain, but also to be ready to recognize the
unexpected. Clearly, the record contains far more than we are trained to recognize at any
one moment in time. This is our failing and one that should frame all of our research. The
data on hand obviously tell us not only that life in the past was not lived by stone alone,
and challenge us to question received wisdoms about what was or was not present in the
past, but also to hone our skills to learn more about the past than the received wisdom of
our predecessors.

References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., O. Soffer, D. C. Hyland, B. Klíma, and J. Svoboda l998 Perishable Technologies and
the Genesis of the Eastern Gravettian. Anthropologie (Brno) XXXVI(1-2):43–68.
Adovasio, J. M., O. Soffer, D. C. Hyland, B. Klíma, and J. Svoboda 1999 Textil, Kosakarstvi a Site v
Mladém Paleolitu Moravy. Archeologické rozhledy LI.:58–94.
Arnoux, R. 2001 Palaeolithic Weaving—A Contribution from Chauvet. Antiquity 75:271–272.
Bahn, P. G. l985 Utilisation des ressources végétales dans le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique des
Pyrénées Françaises. In Homentage al Dr. Josep Ma. Coromines. Quaderns des Centre d ‘Estudis
Comarcals, de Banyoles, Vol. 1:203–212.
Cheynier, A. 1967 Comment Vivait l’Homme des Cavernes. Paris.
Glory, Abbé l959 Débris de corde paleólithique à la Grotte de Lascaux. Mémoires de la Société Préhis-
torique Française 5:135–169.
Heite, L. l998 Spear Straightener or Spinning Tool? Mammoth Trumpet 13(3):18–19.
Hyland, D. C., Zhushchikhovskaya, V. E. Medvedev, A. P. Derevianko, and A. V. Tabarev 2002 Pleis-
tocene Textiles in the Russian Far East: Impressions from Some of the World’s Oldest Pottery.
Anthropologie (Brno) XL:l–10.
Klíma, B. l990) Lovci mamutu z Predmostí. Academia, Praha.
Lacorre, F. l960 La Gravette. Impremerie Barneoud S. A. Laval, Paris.
Mason, S. L. R., J. G. Hather, and G. C. Hillman l994 Preliminary Investigation of the Plant Macro-
remains from Dolní Vestonice II, and Its Implications for the Role of Plant Foods in Palaeoli-
thic and Mesolithic Europe. Antiquity 68:48–57.
Nadel, D., A. Danin, E. Werker, T. Schick, M. E. Kislev, and K. Stewart l994. 19,000-Year-Old
Twisted Fibers from Ohalo II. Current Anthropology 35:451–457.
Owen, L. R. 2005 Distorting the Past: Gender and the Division of Labor in the European Upper Paleo-
lithic. Tübingen Publications in Prehistory and Kerns Verlag, Tübingen.
Prince, G. 2000 Note sur le présence de fibres d’origine végétal sur un outil du Paléolithique moyen
provenent de la grotte du Portel ouest, commune de Laubens (Ariège, France). Mémoires de la
Société Préhistorique Française 97:479–480.
Sackett, J. 2000 Human Antiquity and the Old Stone Age: The Nineteenth Century Background to
Paleoanthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology 9:37–49.
Soffer, O. 2000 Gravettian Technologies in Social Contexts. In Hunters of the Golden Age, W. Roe-
broeks, M. Mussi, and J. Svoboda, editors, pp. 59–75. The University of Leiden Press, Leiden.
Soffer, O. 2004 Recovering Perishable Technologies through Usewear on Tools: Preliminary Evi-
dence for Upper Paleolithic Weaving and Net Making. Current Anthropology 45:407–418.
Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio, and D. C. Hyland 2000 The “Venus” Figurines: Textiles, Basketry, Gen-
der, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 41:511–537.
Soffer, O., J. M. Adovosio, J. Illingsworth, Kh. A. Amirkhanov, M. Street, and N. D. Praslov 2000b.
Paleolithic Perishables Made Permanent. Antiquity 74:812–821.
Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio, and D. C. Hyland 2001 Perishable Technologies and Invisible People:
Nets, Baskets, and “Venus” wear ca. 26,000 B. P. In Enduring Records, B. Purdy, editor,
pp. 233–245. Oxbow, Oxford.
Trigger, B. G. l989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wadley, L. 2005 Putting Ochre to the Test: Replication Studies of Adhesives That May Have Been
Used for Hafting Tools in the Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution 49:587–601.

Chapter Seventeen
Slaughter and Carcass Processing of

Reindeer in Siberia
Patterns and Distribution of Tasks—Comparisons Between

Prehistoric and Ethnoarchaeological Cases
Francine David, Claudine Karlin,
and Vladimir D’lachenko
Introduction
Archaeological Data
V erberie and Pincevent are reindeer kill sites, for hunts during the autumn migrations.
Installed along the river banks, Magdalenian nomads went there 12,000 years ago to
encounter wild herds migrating toward warmer regions for the winter. Joined by this com-
mon thread, they present nonetheless variations in the representation of different categories
of bones: the presence of ribs and numerous vertebrae at Verberie, which are almost absent
at Pincevent. Further, within the same site, variations exist in the composition of faunal
remains among the domestic units, such as the particular abundance of metacarpals at unit
27-M89 on level IV-20 at Pincevent. Doubtless, scientific logic permits certain hypotheses
to be advanced in such cases: the presence of all of the elements of the skeleton could signify
whole carcass transport, but could one conclude from that the proximity of the kill site?
Such would be the case for Verberie, but not at Pincevent. In fact, much of the activity
centered around the carcass remains unknown and even unimaginable if one has never seen
a nomadic hunter dealing with his prey, even if such activities were evidently extremely
structured at Magdalenian kill sites.
Ethnoarchaeological Inquiry Among Reindeer Exploiters
It also seemed interesting to us to see how current populations live on reindeer, whether
wild or domesticated, in order to have the best possible approach in formulating inter-
pretive hypotheses in our roles as archaeologists. We therefore left for various regions of
245

the Siberian north to enlarge the field of our experience and our capacity for formulating
hypotheses, and to compile a catalogue of behavioral observations to compare with our
archaeological data.1
We made several expeditions among populations of Tongouze (Dolgans, Evenks,
and Evenes) and Koriak (Kamchatka) origins (fig. 1). Visiting during different seasons, we
observed the complexity of relations between man and reindeer, which provided, and still
do to a large degree, subsistence to the populations of the north of Siberia: food, clothing,
and shelter.
• In the tundra, with the Dolgans of the Taimyr (Lake Labaz) and of the Khatanga
District (Sopotchnoe and Popigai), reindeer herders who also hunt to fill out their
subsistence needs, we observed the beginning of the fall migration of the wild
herds, and that of spring;
• In the taiga, with the Evenks of the south of Yakutsk (Iengra region), who hunted
wild reindeer in the mountains during the winter, we used domesticated reindeer
for transportation;
• We lived during the winter, spring, and autumn in the tundra-taiga with the Kori-
aks of Kamchatka Rayon (Atchaivaiam), semi-sedentary, whose herds practice tran-
shumance from the mountains to the sea with their herders;
• In the high tundra in summer, with the Evenes of Yakutsk (Ioutchouguei District),
who descend into the taiga valley during the winter, we accompanied reindeer
herders who had become wild sheep hunters because of the lack of wild reindeer,
no longer present in the region;
• For this article, we have supplemented our data with certain information drawn
from the literature concerning the Nganassans of the Taimyr and the Nentsi of
Ienissei, both of Samoyed origin.
Consumption of Reindeer
We have chosen to present here our observations of different ways to kill a reindeer and to
process the carcass, whether wild or domesticated, hunted or simply caught, transported
over a great distance or not, acquired singly or in mass, cooperatively acquired or not. We
evoke the places where the different phases of the chaîne operatoire take place, as well as the
actors who undertake them. These matters have been undertaken essentially to aid in under-
standing the organization of Magdalenian autumn campsites, such as Verberie or Pincevent,
that were entirely devoted to reindeer kills.
This appropriation of animal materials will serve two large axes of activities.
The first is the technical axis: it comprises, essentially, the treatment of skins, an activ-
ity still practiced; reindeer hide is a supple material whose thermal qualities are excellent,
1
The funds for these field inquiries were provided by the French Institute for Polar Research and Technology
(today Paul Emile Victor Institute), the French Ministry of Foreign Office, the CNRS. We thank the Russian
Ethnographic Museum of Saint Petersburg for providing an efficient logistical help. Thanks also to Youry Ches-
nokov for his invaluable help.

Slaughter and Carcass Processing of Reindeer in Siberia 247
figure 1 Carte des lieux d’enquêtes / Map of places where ethnographic inquiries took
place. 1: Dolganes du Lac Labaz et Popigaï (Taïmyr). 2: Evenks près Iengra (Yakoutie).
3: Evènes près Ioutchougeï (Yakoutie). 4: Koriaks (Achaïvaïam, Kamtchatka).

used for covering mobile habitation structures, bedding, and clothing (David et al. 1998;
Beyries and Karlin 2002; Beyries 2001). We investigate the acquisition of this raw material,
but we do not deal with work concerning the quality of the skin.
The second axis is alimentary: all of the reindeer is consumed. Before beginning, in
order to provide a framework that shows the part reindeer plays in traditional nutrition,
we propose a table of consumption of an Evene for one year, around 1950, derived from
information furnished by Nikolaev (1964).
One can see that the group of modest means consumed less than the others: it pos-
sessed few or no domestic reindeer and therefore could not eat much, being afoot and
unable to hunt or fish over long distances. The group of modest means resembles hunter/
fisher folk. It consumed barely more reindeer than the less well off: the animals they pos-
sessed provided for their transportation, and allowed them to concentrate on the acquisi-
tion of food by hunting or fishing. Hunting permitted them to have an amount meat in
their diet—wild reindeer—almost equal to that of the richer group. In addition, fish made
up a dietary proportion almost as large as that of hunted prey. This fact made those with
average resources the greatest consumers of animal protein. The group with greater means,
who consumed less game and fish than the group with average means, depended essentially
on their domestic herds for meat and dairy products. It was the presence, among others,
of flour, and thus bread, that made the greatest difference between them and the group of
moderate means.
It must be noted, in addition to this table, that there is a symbolic value in food: the
reindeer is still today a food with added symbolic value; if fish is quantitatively important,
it is accorded little symbolic value. It is in this matter that the richer groups mark their
elevated status.
Group with Group with Group with

Modest Resources Average Resources Large Resources
Wild animals and birds 67.3 kg 126.5 kg 66.6 kg

Domesticated reindeer 48.4 kg + organs 50.3 kg + organs 116.9 kg + organs
Total meat + organs 124.5 kg 187.6 kg 202.8 kg
Fish 67.2 kg 108.9 kg 36.4 kg
Total meat products 191.7 kg 296.5 kg 239.2 kg
Butter and dairy products 9.3 kg 17.6 kg 39.8 kg
Total animal proteins 201 kg 314.1 kg 279 kg
Flour 11.9 kg 14.6 kg 28.3 kg
Inner bark of larch tree 0.4 kg 0.5 kg 0.5 kg
(added to soup with or
in place of flour)
Salt 0.2 kg 0.4 kg 0.4 kg
Vodka 4 bottles/30 people 0.3 bottles/person

Slaughter
Acquisition of a reindeer for slaughter is always undertaken by the men, whether it is hunted
or raised. In the literature, we have found only one citation of slaughter by women in cases
of absence of men or when the women were not fecund, among the Evenks of Yakutsk
(Lavrillier 2005:219, 270).
Acquisition of Wild Reindeer
Following the development of herding, hunting continued to be practiced whenever pos-

sible, primarily to reduce predation on the domestic herd, but also because the act of hunt-
ing was valued, doubtless because it was a form of combat, which emphasized the capacity
of the hunter to seize the opportunity presented by a prey that “offered itself ” to him. But,
say the Evenks, “You must not believe that meat is easily taken; it is costly. How much we
must march, search, run, sweat, freeze, miss the target! It’s not every day that we succeed; it
is not easy to get meat!” (Lavrillier 2005:224).
Individual Hunting
Individual hunting is possible all year long: winter or summer, some reindeer are dispersed
in small bands and certain individuals are solitary. Different methods were still practiced in
the recent past, and some are still utilized these days (Chesnokov et al. 1966; D’iatchenko
et al. 2004). These depend on an approach to the animal through mimicking its appearance
or using a decoy, or some combination of the two. Whatever the case, the hunter must be
patient and silent, stalking or awaiting the approach of the prey. It is said that a good hunter,
knowing how to take advantage of weather conditions, can get within 20 or 30 m. If the
arrow or the spear require a certain proximity between the hunter and his prey, such silent
weapons do not scare off a missed target, as would a rifle (Rasmussen 1994).
The only ways to hunt are, then, stalking or tracking, on the tundra and in the
taiga. Reindeer move in well-defined directions: looking for a safe and tranquil place for
rest or pasture, they move into the wind, going up slopes or following visible landmarks
(a riverbed or a path trampled by other reindeer, for example). The hunter’s strategy for
planning his route takes this behavior into account. In springtime, dressed in dark colors to
melt into the shadows of the emerging vegetation, he crawls on the ground up to a conve-
nient distance for shooting. In wintertime, he creeps behind a white screen which he pushes
before him (fig. 2). He chooses a dark day, when the noise of the wind covers the sound of
his steps or creeping, and when the falling or blowing snow keeps the prey from seeing the
hunter clearly. In winter, the hunter can also chase the prey in a sled.
Also in winter, he can resort to the use of two trained decoy reindeer, browsing on a
long leash while the hunter hides behind one of them. The two lures advance peacefully
toward the wild reindeer, adopting some of their postures and behaviors. The latter identify
the decoys as belonging to their group and let them approach, facilitating the advance of
the hunter. In autumn, the hunter can also use a domesticated male with lassos around

figure 2 Le chasseur, à plat ventre dans la neige, pousse devant lui un écran blanc monté
sur patin et perforé en son milieu pour voir et passer le fusil / The hunter, on his belly in the
snow, pushes in front of him a screen on skates with a hole in the middle to see ahead and
aim his gun (Dolgane, région de Popigaï / Dolgans, Popigai region) (photo Ethno-renne).
its antlers. Released toward a wild group, this male provokes the anger of a rutting male
who locks antlers with the interloper, and is enmeshed in the ropes; the hunter can then
approach to shoot it or kill it with a knife.
In addition to these methods, we think it is necessary to note the ingenuity of the
hunter in finding the best way to approach closest to his prey, utilizing his experience of
the ethology of hunted species, which allows him to predict the behavior of his quarry.
Doubtless, this is an important part of the elementary rules of hunting, but these observa-
tions give us a certain amount of information about the behavior of the two antagonists,
which are the same today as they were 12,000 years ago. These hunting methods leave no
trace that could be used to decipher archaeological patterning.
Collective Hunting
The wild herds migrate in autumn, at the moment of the first cold temperatures, the males
in front at the beginning, and then, after the mating period, the females leading. During
the spring migration, it is the females who make the first moves toward the calving grounds.
During a seasonal migration, collective hunting is practiced. It is during this period that
the possibility to amass large quantities of animal materials is greatest. The autumn migra-
tion, in particular yields the best meat. All summer the animal builds up its fat reserves,
which will be necessary to survive the meager rations of winter; already during the rut, the
males lose a significant part of this fat reserve. The fall hunt is generally done in a collective
manner, its objective a mass kill to acquire a surplus for the coming months.

The collective hunt, which implies a gathering of people, is an important social

moment. We have seen, among the Dolgans of Khatanga District, a small familial gather-
ing, where in-laws and cousins came on snowmobiles from almost 200 km away to partici-
pate in a hunt during the spring migration and benefited from the hospitality of our host
and took away game in exchange for other foods and services. It is reasonable to assume that
12,000 years ago the autumn migration hunt was the occasion of a gathering of households
who united their efforts to acquire sufficient stores of reserves, which each group, dispersing
on their own paths, could consume according to their needs.
The reindeer follow the same migratory path each year, until the day they disappear
and find another path, although we don’t know the exact reasons for the change (Vrangel
1948; D’iatchenko and David 2000; Cskonka 1991). The recurrence of these routes is,
however, the norm; the meeting of humans and the migrating herds is predictable, inas-
much as the signal for beginning the migration is given by perceptible climatic events, fore-
shadowing the coming winter. This is why it is not surprising to us that the Magdalenians
could regularly encounter their prey, and their numerous returns to the same place reveal
a satisfactory strategic choice, well adapted, founded on a knowledge of the herd, perhaps
scouted by several hunters.
The most common practice in autumn, while the lakes and rivers are still unfrozen,
consists of shooting the prey while it is crossing the water (D’iatchenko and David 2000).
The traditional routes followed by the reindeer herds are cut by numerous watercourses,
which the herds do not hesitate to cross. They generally choose places with weak current,
where there are sandy banks. They cross the river, we are told, on windy days when it is cold,
but do not cross in darkness. Waiting on the banks, the hunters shoot the animals as they
come out of the water, or they approach in a boat, shooting them in the water. Formerly,
a pike was used to dispatch the prey, according to a document from the archives from the
beginning of the twentieth century (Russian Ethnographic Museum).
When it concerns a lake that the herd could go around, a group of reindeer is driven
toward the lake between two lines of cairns that form a funnel of scarecrows planted in the
ground, adorned with ptarmigan wings (fig. 3). Women and children often make up part of
the drive line, adding their noisy presence. The hunters are hidden behind an earthen bank,
some before the crossing, others on the other side of the water. On open ground, the same
principle is used for a net hunt. A group of reindeer is driven between two converging lines,
toward a net where the hunters are waiting. These two practices are described by Popov
(1966) in his work on the Nganassanes, but appear to have been largely practiced in all of
the arctic regions (Rasmussen 1994).
Following the same principle, in October when the descending herd passes from the
tundra to the forested tundra, the Toungouzes construct a long, zigzag hedge which is not
easily distinguished in the forest, leaving open transverse passages every 50 or 100 m, across
which cords are placed. During the migration, the reindeer, using the openings to go back
into the taiga, trip the cords, which fire crossbows. The traps are visited every day or two.
One can imagine that in ancient times, lacking crossbows, the hunters would hide behind the
hedges near the openings, shooting when the reindeer emerged (D’iatchenko et al. 2004).
It can be seen that these systems of collective hunts are completely compatible with
Magdalenian equipment. Fall kill sites, such as Verberie or Pincevent, are situated along

figure 3 Chasse au renne sauvage près de la rivière Bol'shaya (hiver 1938). Le troupeau
sauvage est poussé dans un piège en entonnoir au bout duquel l'attendent les chasseurs
embusqués (Nganassanes, Taïmyr, d'après Popov, 1966). / Wild reindeer hunting near
the Bol'shaya river (winter 1938). The wild herd is driven into a funneling trap at the
end of which hunters ambushed are waiting (photo Ethno-renne).
the migration routes, in immediate proximity to a watercourse, where those streams seem
to have been divided in multiple channels. All of this can lead one to think that the hunt
must have taken place either in the water or, more probably, as the animals climbed out of
the river. It is more difficult to demonstrate evidence of drive lines toward the hunters wait-
ing in ambush, but the possibility is there. It could be a matter of human chains, women
and children, who would have left no trace, or even cairns of stone, of which no evidence
remains today.
We must recall that big game hunting seems for a certain number of groups to be an
exclusively masculine practice. To our questions today, responses made reference to a divi-
sion of tasks, which sufficiently occupied the women at the habitation campsite. This is an
undeniable reality. But the rigor of the division suggests to us that symbolic reasons have
established it, tying the men to the wild space and constraining the women to the domes-
tic space, authorizing the men to let the blood flow, excluding the possibility of contact
between blood of the animal and that of the woman (Testart 1982). And still, that exclusion
is more complex than it seems. For example, the Evenks believe that making something
bleed implies a counterpart and that if a woman were the agent it would put her children at
risk. It seems that it is a matter of “an incompatibility between the domestic sphere which
must create and conserve human life and the wild sphere which must take animal life.
Thus, a non-reproductive woman could very well, among the Evenks, kill deer and bear”
(Lavrillier 2005). If one judges that, according to A. Testart, the near-universality of such an
interdiction exists, one is tempted to think that the Magdalenians followed it as well. But
this is only one way to see things, and A. Lavrillier counsels prudence. One might think
that women and children could at least participate as beaters, if that method was used, a
hypothesis that would support the proximity between the camp site and the kill site, which

seems to be the case at Pincevent and Verberie, even if we do not have skeletal elements in
connection with the former site.
Slaughter of Domesticated Reindeer
If the path of the wild reindeer determines their place of death, it is men who decide the
place of slaughter for domesticated reindeer. The herd is brought near the campsite. The
animal to be killed is very precisely chosen, whether from a herd is a hundred or a thousand
head, caught with a lasso and pulled forcefully near the habitations or, during the summer
months, near a water source, the two places not being mutually exclusive.
The manner of slaughter evidently differs from that of the hunt; while hunting, death
is most often inflicted at a certain distance (a thrown spear or shot); domesticated animals
are dispatched by more direct contact. Methods vary according to the culture:
Among the Samoyeds, the Nentsis strangle the animal by means of a lasso placed
around the neck and pulled by two persons, while the Nganassanes do the same thing, but
first pass the lasso around the muzzle and then around the neck.
Among the populations of Toungouze origin, the Dolgans stab the summit of the
cranium with a knife, between the atlas and the occipital, then slice the carotid to recover
the blood immediately. The Evenes, after stabbing the same spot, cut the tendons between
the atlas and occipital, and put a piece of wood in the wound to avoid hemorrhaging. It is
necessary to wait several minutes for the reindeer to quit moving; the meat will be better
with its blood. The Evenks stun the beast with a blow from the back of a hatchet, then slice
the carotid with a knife to recover the blood.
Among the Koriaks, the animal is stabbed with a lance or knife directly in the heart,
which does not always work at the first blow because the animal struggles desperately in its
lasso (fig. 4). They wait for the animal to fall forward, aided by the man holding the lasso;
it would be bad luck if it fell on its side.
Slaughtering is almost always done by two men, one who holds the animal, and one
who kills it. The women watch and comment, but do not interfere. The argument of “too
much work at the house” does not hold since the women are present. One could suggest
that they are not strong enough to hold the struggling reindeer, but they could give the
mortal blow. It is as plausible that this interdiction involves the same symbolic characteristic
as does hunting, emphasizing the danger of contact between animal blood and menstrual
blood, or the giving/counterpart represented by a potential exchange of blood/child. One
can see the importance of blood, carefully recovered, in contrast with the blood of the wild
reindeer which is never consumed.
Skinning
Preliminaries to Exploitation
When certain carcass portions need to be washed, particularly the viscera, the animal can be
transported near to the water to be killed and butchered. In the winter, however, proximity

figure 4 Abattage d’un renne domestique d’un coup de lance dans le cœur (Koriak,
Atchavaïam, Kamtchatka). / Slaughtering a domestic reindeer with a spear blow in the
heart (photo Ethno-renne).
to water is not possible, since all watercourses are frozen. Rinsing can be accomplished at the
campsite, where a kettle will suffice, accompanied by use of snow. The Koriaks clean certain
parts, such as the organs, with the blood retained in a carcass half or in a basin.
Once the animal has been brought in, in the majority of cases, it is placed on its left
side. Among the Koriaks, because of the lateral wound, it is placed on its right side, to avoid
losing more blood. Its head, traditionally turned toward the east, is inverted and the extrem-
ities of the antlers are stuck into the ground to hold the carcass in place (fig. 5). During a
traditional Koriak slaughter, the man who stabs the animal with a spear takes some blood
from the wound in his cupped hands and throws it toward the east. Then, before anything
else is done, the animal is sprinkled with water from the head to the back.
Certain morsels can be removed before the processing the carcass; for example, in July,
the Evenks cut 15–20 cm of the superior extremity of a female’s right antler and offer it to
guests, who eat the skin and the still soft antler, sometimes lightly grilled.
Climatic conditions play a determining role in the sequencing of operations. Eight
months out of the year, everything must be done rapidly, before the animal freezes. At the
kill site, only the minimum of skinning and cutting will be done. If the carcass must be
transported far, large portions may be detached, or, if hunting must continue, the butcher-
ing will be delayed, since it is easier to carry a whole carcass on a sled than to attach several
pieces. When the time comes for the initial butchering, the carcass, or a part of it, depending

figure 5 Pour fixer la carcasse, la tête est renversée et les bois piqués dans le sol. /
The carcass is held fast by pulling the head back and driving the antlers to the ground
(Koriak, Atchavaïam, Kamtchatka) (photo Ethno-renne).
on the available space, will be placed in a corner of the house to thaw and be cut up. In some
cases, butchering of frozen meat will be roughed out with a hatchet. At the campsite, for a
domesticated reindeer, the entire sequence will be rapidly carried out, requesting when pos-
sible collaborative efforts to accomplish this quickly. Then the portions are left to freeze to
be stored. In the summer, the time invested in the operation may be interrupted for atmo-
spheric reasons. Pieces are hung on tripods out of reach of the dogs; they may also be dried.
Our estimates of the time for cutting up an entire reindeer average around 20 minutes, to
accomplish the transition from an entire animal to relatively manageable pieces.
Skinning
Whatever the eventual destination of a slaughtered reindeer, whether it is to be eaten imme-

diately or at the campsite, or to be transported to the sovkoze, the first task consists of skin-
ning the animal. This is most often performed by the men, but in some groups, when the
slaughter takes place close to the campsite, it is undertaken by the women, which is the case
for the Koriaks and some Evenks.
One may observe a certain number of variations in this phase, according to the cultural
habits of the different groups, and as a function of conditions governing the order of the oper-
ations. In the most elaborate variant, the skin will be cut in a manner that allows the entire
skin, including the head and legs, to be laid out flat. In more rapid cases, such as a collective

hunt with an eye toward a distant transport or when low temperatures will result in a quick
freeze, the head is cut off first, then the four legs are disarticulated above the metapodial.
The trunk is processed immediately, while it is still warm. The other five pieces can be pro-
cessed later, or frozen and put into storage. It is sufficient to keep them inside the habitation
structure, close to a heat source, depending on their volume, to bring them to a temperature
suitable for further processing. Between these two extremes, a certain number of variants are
possible as a function of available time for completing the process and recovering the skin.
Removing the Skin
Among the Toungouzes. The animal is placed on its left side; the Evenes begin by making a
circular incision at the humerus/radius articulation of the right forelimb; then, beginning in
back of the hoof, they cut upward to this circular incision. If there are two skinners, the sec-
ond partner makes a circular incision at the femur/tibia articulation and the same cut from
the back of the hoof up to the articulation incision. The distal portion of the limb is sepa-
rated at this level and removed with the entire skin of the limb. This skin is designated in all
of Siberia by the Russian term kamous. The women, who are not otherwise involved in the
skinning, take these portions of the limbs at this point and skin them later. This portion of
the skin serves essentially for making boots, because of its strength and impermeability, and
because “putting my feet in the boots of reindeer, I can go where it goes,” says the nomad.
Keeping the animal on its back, one makes a circular incision around the neck, and
then cuts from the middle of the belly to the throat and again from the belly to the anus.
Generally, the Dolgans and Evenks start from the anus and cut up to the neck, sometimes
even up to the incisors, and from each side of the anus toward the articulations of the hind
limbs. With the animal on its side, the skin is removed by hand up to the vertebral column,
the rest of the forelimb having been passed through the hole made by the circular inci-
sion around the humerus. The carcass is then turned over, on branches in the summer or
on snow in winter to keep it clean, and the same operation is carried out for the left side.
The head is then detached, but skinned later in the tent, when the brains are eaten. Its
skin, like that of the kamous, is particularly desirable for its durability and impermeability.
This method is the most common among the populations of Tongouze origins. There are,
however, several variants: for example, certain Dolgans sometimes begin with the ventral
incision before removing the kamous. They slit the skin between the ear and the antler, then
pass under the eye to descend next under the chin, having cut the tip of the ear, because,
according to our informant, the skin is thus easier to detach and the animal will not hear it.
This latter method is similar to that of the Koriaks.
Among the Koriaks. After collective kills among the Koriaks, the skin of the head is
removed with that of the body and the kamous remains integrated with the skin of the
body. An incision starts from the intermaxillary down to the anus, then perpendicularly
from back of the hooves up to the sternum on the forelimbs and the anus on the hind
limbs. The kamous are detached up to the height of the shoulder or the thigh by two per-
sons, one pulling on the leg, the other on the skin in the opposite direction (fig. 6 and 7).

figure 6 Enlèvement de la peau au poing. La peau des pattes est enlevée indépendam-
ment. / Skinning with the fist. The skin of the legs is removed separately (Dolgane, lac
Labaz, Taïmyr).
The skin of the head is cut as mentioned above and removed with that of the body, even
if it will be later separated. The strength of this skin permits the fabrication of soles, tunic
collars, which do not become frosted with breath when turned up, and caps. Skinning can
also be done later. According to circumstances, different procedures can be put in place.
Once the head is separated at the beginning of the sequence, the lower jaw is detached to
free up the tongue, the prized piece always offered to honored guests. The antlers are gen-
erally cut up or abandoned, either sawn at the crown if one wants to take the head away
and treat it later, or by smashing open the top of the skull with an axe if one wants to take
out the brains immediately. If the head is not separated from the body, once the skin has
been taken off, the cranium can be removed to extract the brains, leaving in place the lower
jaw, the tongue, and the cheeks, which will be removed when they are wanted. We have
also observed a mass kill where the head was given to the Koriak women who undertook
its butchering: once the kamous and the skin of the body had been taken away by the
sovkhoze, the head was returned for butchering. In that case, it is also possible that only
the upper part of the head would be butchered, the lower jaw and tongue already having
been removed.
It is said that the skin of a female reindeer is more fragile than that of a male and is
more easily torn.

figure 7 Dépouillement chez les Koriaks. Après une incision faite sur la partie postérieure
de la patte, la peau est tirée vers le corps pour être enlevée en un seul tenant. / Skinning
among the Koriaks. Following an incision on the rear part of the leg, the skin is pulled
towards the body to be removed all in one piece (Atchavaïam, Kamtchtka).
Not a Skin, but Different Parts of the Skin
One observes that after the skinning is finished, no matter which procedure had been
chosen, two ensembles are identified: one includes the limbs and the head, the other includes
the body. Even if the skin was removed as a single piece (fig. 7), the two will be quickly separated.
This is doubtless done for practical reasons, for example, to remove encumbering protuberances,
but also because they are destined for different futures, with different treatments and uses.
One might suppose that the Magdalenians could have utilized these different modali-
ties of skinning according to circumstances, whole hide or head and/or limbs separated.
This could also imply the double circuit of the main skin and that of the extremities. The
kamous are used throughout Siberia for making boots, certainly for technical reasons, but
also accompanied by a strong symbolic value. This is emphasized among the Dolgans in the
fabrication of the sole by assembling several pieces of fur corresponding to the bottom of
the foot, which again reinforces the assimilation of human foot with reindeer foot; it takes
56 atas (fig. 8) to make the soles of a pair of boots, from the four feet of 14 reindeer (David
et al. 1998). The technical reasons seem strong enough to hypothesize the same utilization
among the Magdalenians; one might further imagine that the wish for assimilation between

figure 8 Dessous de pied, ata en dolgane. 25 ata de renne sont nécessaires pour confec-
tionner une semelle/sole of foot, ata in Dolgan. / Manufacturing one boot sole requires
25 reindeer ata (photo Ethno-renne).
man and animal could also be a supplemental element, but that remains a hypothesis, and
we still need to find a way to test it.
Skinning, Work for Men and/or Women?
Only the Koriak women enter into contact with the animal after it has been killed
to take responsibility for skinning, in which the men can also participate. For all the other
groups, women participate only later. The symbolic aspect seems to rest on the logical expla-
nation that they have enough domestic work to do, even though the Koriak women do not
have less to do at home than the other women. It is often the case that the Koriak women
observe the slaughter, waiting for the moment when it is possible to take care of their parts
of the tasks. This Koriak exception is all the more interesting as the Koriaks are one of the
peoples most attached to their traditions, in contrast to other groups more susceptible to
mixing traditions. It seems reasonable to us to suppose that the symbolic aspect was very
strong 12,000 years ago. It is more challenging to imagine the forms such customs might
take: Would they exclude women from this part of the treatment, during which the reindeer
passes from the state of a living animal to that of a carcass, or would the symbolic relation-
ship, otherwise expressed, allow them to undertake the skinning?
The Organs
The skinned animal is placed on its back. The butcher removes the sex organs, which are
set aside with the organs among certain groups, and then cuts the skin of the belly from
the anus to the sternum. The flank can also be opened with the knife, along the last left
rib, from the sternum to the vertebral column, to facilitate the easy removal of the entrails.
According to the different groups, the carcass rests on the left or right side.

The Viscera and Organs
The enormous pouch of the belly emerges first, then the viscera are taken out after libera-
tion from the rectum. These parts are emptied of their contents, undigested food or fecal
materiel, and washed in the river or in the snow. Among the Toungouzes, when the head has
not been detached during the skinning, it is then separated to extract the trachea, esopha-
gus, and tongue more easily. If the blood was not saved at the moment of slaughter when
cutting the carotid artery (as did the Dolgans and Evenks), the Evenes empty the carcass
now with a utensil, formerly fashioned from five or six six ribs cupped into a spoon shape.
This will be used to make blood sausage. The organs are removed: the liver, sliced with three
or four knife strokes, and the kidneys, organs that can be eaten immediately, raw. After
those come the heart and lungs.
Among the Koriaks, the stomach contents are deposited as an offering, with the ant-
lers placed on it oriented toward the east. After the viscera are washed, they are placed on the
snow or on the turned skin. When a Koriak family butchers an animal, after the viscera have
been removed, a slice on the left side permits easier access to the organs, which are washed
in the blood accumulating in the right half of the carcass. For transporting the blood, the
Koriaks pour it into the stomach, closed by means of a pointed stick or a cord, a practice
cited by other groups. It is placed on the ground, and the liquid-filled stomach flattens out
and freezes in the easily transported form of a cake. Here the blood is consumed in soup, or
curdled into yaranga by adding cleaned hooves, phalanges, nose, and ears to the stomach;
this bitter dish is said to be rich in vitamins.
The Tendons
Finally, before cutting the carcass into quarters, all the nomads take off the tendons of the
legs and vertebral column. In the majority of cases, these tendons, which will serve to make
thread, are extracted little by little during the butchering. The Evenes cut the two ends of
the tendon with a knife then attach a string to one to pull it away from the carcass. The
Dolgans take off the posterior tendons of the sectioned feet with their teeth; the hunter says
that biting the extremities gives him the running speed of the reindeer. All keep the hard
part attached to the calcaneum to make thread. After drying, this piece is defibered, then
various numbers of fibers are twisted according to the size of the thread desired.
Quartering the Carcass (Fig. 10)
We have seen that the head and limbs may or may not be removed before beginning the
butchering of the trunk. The head can be put aside entire or the lower jaw can be separated
from it, remaining attached to the body.
The fat that covers the carcass is removed. Then the quartering begins.
The Dolgans, like the Evenes, remove the shoulder of the right forelimb, then the
rest of the right hind limb (thigh and calf ). The left flank is opened and the sternum is cut
from the interior with the costal cartilage, which leaves knife cut marks on the bone. Among

the Evenks, the number of ribs kept together is two groups of seven left ribs and three plus
eleven right ribs. This ensemble is ready to be distributed.
The Koriaks begin by cutting off the legs, already skinned, before eviscerating. Then,
they remove the shoulder and the thigh before recovering the organs. Next they extract the
filet with the tendons, and finally the ribs and pelvis, starting with a knife incision along
the vertebral column then finished by pulling by hand. Once the blood has been collected,
the carcass is wiped and turned over. The operations progress in the same order for the sec-
ond half: fat, filet, tendons, thigh, and haunch, as well as the ensemble of ribs, flexed and
broken off at the same time. The vertebral column is also broken by bending between the
lumbar and dorsal vertebrae. The pelvis is separated from the column and cut in two. The
vertebrae are cut into packets (fig. 9).
When a Koriak mass butchering is intended for the sovkhoze for commercial sale, per-
formed in −40° weather, once the carcass is liberated of the organs and the limbs are removed,
the rest is kept as it is, quickly frozen for good conservation and easily transported.
figure 9 Enlèvement des côtes (Evenkes, Yakoutie). / Removal of ribs (Evenks, Yakutia).

figure 10 Dessin schématique de la découpe d’un renne chez les Dolganes. / Schematic
drawing of Dolgans reindeer butchering cuts.
Once the large pieces have been obtained, a second round of butchering can be prac-
ticed to determine the smaller pieces that will be cut again to sized to be cooked by the
women, most often boiled.
It can be seen that for the most part the butchering operation of a carcass is relatively
similar from one group to another. Nonetheless, when the sequences have been observed
and ordered, the variations become apparent, first in the nature of the pieces identified by
a removal sequence, and then in the order of these sequences. In effect, the nature of the
associated parts in a butchering sub-operation varies, grouping different anatomical parts in
different cases. Thus, the number of ribs in each “package” is particularly sensitive to varia-
tions; two packages of seven for the right and for the left, or twelve plus two ribs, or three
plus eleven from one side, or the entire rib slab. Besides, the order of the stages in the chaîne
opératoire may fluctuate. Certain variations between groups reveal their cultural habits, such
as the manner of killing or the positioning of the corpse on its left or right side. Within a
group, the context of the slaughter and its goal play an important role in the choice of the
butchering pattern, such as the separation or not of the head at the beginning of the opera-
tion, whether it is a mass kill or a single family’s kill. Finally, in winter and in summer, the
treatment of an animal is rapidly done and takes barely more than a half-hour.
Archaeologically, it does not seem possible to distinguish among the different possible
sequences of the operation, nor the grouping of the anatomical parts removed, because the
butchering marks that the archaeologist can sometimes see on the bones correspond not

only to the initial butchering, but also to subsequent butchering episodes, both domestic
and culinary. We know that at Pincevent and Verberie the climate was not a pressing factor
since they were fall camps; the group present at these places for the hunt was able to do so
without that urgency, although there may have been other pressing matters.
In the case of an animal killed for individual consumption, two people may suffice for
the slaughter, skinning, and initial butchering. In the case of a mass kill, the work becomes col-
lective. It is still men’s work in the groups where there is a strict taboo to keep the women away.
Such is the case among the Dolgans and Ngnassanes, where the ensemble of the work of skin-
ning and butchering is done by the men, except for the cleaning of the entrails, which is left to
the women. In other groups, women participate in the chaîne opératoire at different moments
as a function of the established rules. Evene women can, after the men have removed the hide,
cut the limbs, and then remove the kamous at home. Evenk women can carry back to the
campsite and butcher a hunted reindeer, left by the men after having been skinned and eviscer-
ated at the kill site. Among the Koriaks, if the men do the killing, after chasing and lassoing
chosen animals, all of the operations of treating the carcass fall to the women, who largely have
their hands in the blood, without necessarily excluding the collaboration of men.
The first question we can ask ourselves is whether the Magdalenians practiced certain
operations at the site of the kill, such as the evisceration, which must be done rather rapidly;
in the case of a kill in the water, they could easily have washed the viscera, carrying back at
least a partially emptied carcass. Perhaps they took the opportunity to eat some fat and organs
immediately. Would they have begun the butchering, only bringing back certain parts? Or
would they have carried back the entire animal on their shoulders, preferring to do all the
butchering at the campsite? Or, like the Evenks, leave their prey on the spot, and have the
women carry it back? Or, again, would they have perhaps carried back whole those animals
destined for immediate consumption by the family, while others were cut into pieces at the
kill site, bringing back only the pieces that would be put into storage for later consumption.
If all of the operations were performed at the campsite, the treatment of a carcass
implies enough open space to permit several types of operations.
First of these would be turning the animal over, working on one side, then on the
other, as proposed by Binford (1978) in his research on the Nunamiut. It is entirely possible
that at Pincevent and Verberie the skinned animal could have been placed on a bed of clean
branches if snow was not already present. According to Binford, cited by F. Audouze (995),
“no matter the geographic zone or culture to which the hunter belongs, the fact that he is
standing around an herbivore that he has killed determines a circular zone of the dimension
of the herbivore, which will remain empty at the end of the operation and around which
there will be an accumulation of immediately rejected parts. For the Nunamiut, these are
the stomach contents (which leave no archaeological trace), the vertebral column and the
antlers” (Audouze 1995). At Verberie, certain empty spaces have been interpreted this way,
because of the presence of articulated vertebral columns, presumed to have been abandoned
at the initial butchering episode. Nothing similar has been observed at Pincevent; either
the butchering spaces were farther from the habitations or the vertebrae were otherwise
consumed. Besides, it seems to us unlikely that such spaces would have been encumbered
by bones, since in light of our Siberian experiences, all of the reindeer is taken away and

nothing is left in place. Finally, in the mass kills, which was the case at our two Magdalenian
sites, butchering is the occasion of collective and collaborative work; thus, several people
should be working around the herbivore.
It is also necessary to measure the space necessary for the cleaning of the viscera and
organs. We know that, formerly, the stomach contents were appreciated because they repre-
sented the only vegetal foods available during the long Siberian winter. We do not know if
they were also eaten in autumn, when people had free access to vegetation. In any case, we
cannot know if the Magdalenians present at our sites in autumn, doubtless not a period of
scarcity, did or did not eat that part. If it was not eaten, it would represent a fairly massive,
mushy reject which could spread out over a square meter for a single animal. This should
not be found in a zone where it would be stepped in, as much for practical as for symbolic
reasons, nor should it be far from the butchering zone, since moving the large, floppy stom-
ach would be difficult.
There would also need to be a place to lay out the butchered parcels. This space could
be, at a minimum in autumn, the size of the skin of the butchered animal. Spreading the
parts out would put the pieces in sight of everyone, preceding their distribution. Such
spaces are not difficult to find close to a tent, out of the principal axes of circulation.
Finally, did the women participate in the butchering activities? It is impossible, given
the present state of our knowledge, to determine. If we follow the theories of A. Testart
(1982), and it is true that many Siberian groups practice this taboo, we would say no, because
of impure blood or of the gift/counterpart principle. But the Evenks and Koriaks have shown
us that the rules are nuanced among the cultural groups, even if they are very respectful of
their traditions, and even if reasons cannot be found in their environmental context.
Sharing
Once the animal has been cut into pieces, whether wild or domesticated, it is always shared.
This practice seems almost universal; the methods of doing this, very strict within each
group, are quite varied from one group to another, mirrors of the societies that elaborated
them. Since sharing is frequently difficult to observe, we present here that which has been
described by certain authors.
Among the Evenks, a hunted animal does not belong to the hunter who killed it,
but must obligatorily be given to another. This tradition is called “nimat” in Evenk: “good,
equitable accomplishment of nimat depends on good relations among the men” (Lavrillier
2004:253). Nikoul’chin (1939) described a similar example: a solitary hunter skins the
animal he just killed, eviscerates on the spats, then puts the skin back over it, held in place
by stones or branches; he covers all of it with snow to maximize protection from predators
and to slow down its freezing. After his return to the campsite, he informs another hunter
of its location, making a gift of it. If several hunters participate in the hunt, it is a collective
decision to designate to whom the killed animal will belong. That person will generally send
his wife, aided by members of her family, to bring back the animal. The recipient is obliged
to divide the meat into equal parts among all who live in the camp, not favoring anyone.
According to Rastvetaiev (1933), any animal that can be eaten and of which the skin is

used (e.g., reindeer, moose, bear, sheep) evokes nimat. Currently, for A. Lavrillier (2005),
among the Evenks of the Amour region, “[t]he parts which belong to the hunter are the
hide (body and limbs), the head, the consumable vital organs, the marrow of the foot bones,
the first four ribs from the neck and the last three before the tail, and the parts that can-
not be shared,” to which are added the neck, considered to be tough meat, and the tail, for
the opposite reason, which is a good piece. One adds, “There is only one and it cannot be
divided equally.” Ritual reasons can be added to this. Only moose skins are cut into pieces
and distributed, because they are so large.
The practice of nimat depends on neither age, social status, nor family ties. In other
times, sharing was done among hunters, but did not exclude the family of an absent hunter,
or a family without someone of hunting age. When hunters from another clan are invited,
they are the ones who benefit from the nimat. The necessary condition for being integrated
in this sharing circuit is to live in the same campsite, or to be present in the campsite at the
time of the hunt.
Nikoul’chin (1939) shows us that the entire camp, including the women, decides
upon the sharing of the game: of three reindeer that had been brought back to camp, the
hunter who had killed two of them (Prokopi) got the fattest one, and the hunter who killed
only one (Andrei) and the beater (Aleksei) each got one. The men then distributed the
quarters in the following manner:
Prokopi gave Andrei part of the fat, the head, the front part of the breast, one hind
limb, half of the liver as well as half of the ribs, the chest (sternum plus intercostal cartilage),
and the hindquarters. Then he gave Aleksei some fat, the other half of the liver, a shoulder,
the meat along the vertebrae, and the shin.
Andrei gave Prokopi some fat, the head, front part of the breast, one hind limb, half
of the liver, as well as half of the ribs, the chest, and the hindquarters. Then he gave Aleksei
some fat, the other hind limb, the other half of the liver, as well as the other half of the ribs,
the chest, and the hindquarters.
Finally, Aleksei gave Prokopi some fat, the head, the front part of the breast, one hind
limb, half of the liver, as well as the other half of the ribs, the chest, and the hindquarters.
He gave Andrei some fat, the other hind limb, the other half of the liver, the ribs, the chest,
and the hindquarters.
One sees that the reciprocity of the gift exchange is complex, and that everyone who
helps in one way or another receives a part, not necessarily the same. At the end of this
distribution, each of the three reindeer was shared among three families, and each distribu-
tor received pieces from his partners that were largely identical to those he gave them. This
exchange of goods is an important element of social ties. It is obvious that to eat both hind
limbs of one’s own reindeer or to eat one hind limb given by each of two of his partners has
the same nutritional value but an extremely different value in terms of social cohesion.
The practice of sharing existed in the Magdalenian, as Enloe (1991) showed. Circula-
tion of limbs was demonstrated, because those anatomic parts were the most easily identi-
fied from this perspective. It is impossible, given the state of the remains, to find bilateral
pairs of ribs or to reconstruct a vertebral column. That said, we proposed some hypotheses
about the places and manner in which the Magdalenians butchered their prey. It seems to

us that one must add the possibility of distribution of pieces of the same animal among all
the different individuals who participated in each stage of the process: killing, transport,
butchering, sharing, cooking, consumption, a circulation that must be read at a real level as
well as a symbolic one.
It is possible that sharing, men’s business, aided by women who participate in the dis-
cussion, marks the most distant boundary from the kill, beyond which the women take pos-
session of the meat and can process it. Before that, the animal is in the group and passes from
hand to hand as a function of social ties. After the sharing distribution, it enters the domestic
sphere, where the women rule. This collective possession could be marked at the area where
the butchering took place, which did not occur in the domestic space around the habitation
unit, a space with only virtual limits, but just beyond it, in the communal zones.
It is necessary to recall that not everyone ate everything, particularly the women and
children. It is probable that taboos existed also in the Paleolithic. These are important ele-
ments of the culture of reindeer people, because they demonstrate the adage that says, “Tell
me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are,” a reflection of the profound symbiosis
that exists between man and animal (Fischler 2001).
Conclusion
We have seen how variable the modes of butchery are, first from one group to another; it is
possible that the Magdalenians of Verberie and Pincevent did not have the same practices.
Unfortunately, the state of preservation of the faunal assemblages does not allow real compar-
isons. However, variability also exists within a single group as a function of multiple factors.
One can suppose that when butchering occurred at Pincevent or Verberie, a certain number
of conditions were identical throughout the occupation. Nevertheless, it is possible that varia-
tions were caused by differing goals, immediate or delayed consumption, for example. Above
all, our main handicap is that we only have the remains of the debris from consumption,
passed through different stages of butchering: initial butchering, butchering for sharing, and
butchering for cooking. One can surely imagine that, if anatomical connections are found,
they are the vestiges of butchering not followed by consumption of cooked food.
As for knowing how men and women divided labor among themselves, there is no evi-
dence to help us. Having shown flint knapping by young apprentices at Pincevent, we have
excluded the hypothesis of a men’s hunting camp. This seems to reinforce the large scale
of the occupation at Pincevent, which also suggests a concentration of family households.
We propose that there were therefore women at Pincevent. Their presence implies shared
work. We wonder if, rather than speaking of exclusion, we should approach the question in
terms of complementarity. In this chain of acquisition of reindeer, it is necessary that each
finds his or her place. One could then think that whenever the animal passes from mas-
culine hands to feminine hands, it is to be considered as a moment of equilibrium which
permits each to have not only their correct share of the work but also their proper place in
the social group. Doubtless, this equilibrium is repeated throughout the ensemble of the
system. At Pincevent, however, we can think that all of the life of the group revolved around
the acquisition and treatment of reindeer. We know that more than 70 reindeer were killed

then processed in the portion of the campsite that we have excavated. Perhaps hide working
and preparing of meat for immediate consumption and for storage by the women were large
enough parts of the process to leave the slaughter and initial butchering in the hands of the
men. Perhaps it means that, if Koriak women undertake the butchering, it is because they
are sedentary and therefore remain distant from the reindeer; butchering would allow them,
perhaps brutally, take back possession of the animal.
References Cited
Audouze, F. 1995 Les lieux de découpe des rennes à Verberie; Stratégies d’acquisition et de trans-
formation alimentaire chez les Magdaléniens du Bassin parisien. In Revivre le passé grâce à
l’archéologie. Dossiers d’Archéologie 216:12–17.
Audouze, F., and J. G. Enloe 1991 Subsistence Strategies and Economy in the Magdalenian of the
Paris Basin, France. In The Late Glacial in North-West Europe: Human Adaptation and Environ-
mental Change at the End of the Pleistocene, N. Barton, A. J. Roberts, and D. A. Roe, editors,
pp. 63–71. (CBA Research Report 77) Council for British Archaeology, London.
Beyries S. 2002 Du travail du cuir chez les Tchouktches et les Athyapaskans. In Le travail du cuir de
la préhistoire à nos jour, Actes des Rencontres 18–20 oct. 2001, F. Audoin-Rouzeau and S. Beyries,
editors, pp. 142–158.
Beyries, S., and C. Karlin 2002 Dans la peau de mon renne, un artisanat du cuir.
Binford, L. 1978 Nunamiut Etnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Chesnokov Y. V., F. David, V. I. D’iatchenko, and C. Karlin 1996 Les Dolganes de la rivière Popigaï
(Taïmyr de l’est, Russie): des nomades et des rennes. Anthropozoologica 23:29–50.
Csonka, Y. 1991 Les Ahiarmiut (1920–1950) dans la perspective de l’histoire de Inuits caribous. Thèse
présentée à la Faculté des Sciences sociales, Département d’Anthropologie, Université de Laval,
Québec.
David, F., V. I. D’iatchenko, C. Karlin, and Y. Tchesnokov 1998 Du traitement des peaux en Sibérie
Film video 28 mn, IFRTP, Brest, (Beyries et Karlin réalis.) 2002 and Anthropologica, 2008,
43(1), h.t.: Dolganes et autres nomades du nord. Boréales 74–77:111–137.
D’iatchenko, V. I., F. David, and C. Karlin 2004 Man and Wild Reindeer in the Tundra and Forest
Tundra in the North Central Siberia. Behaviour During Hunting. WEN, Viennese Ethnomedicine
Newsletter I(2):8–10, 17–21.
D’iatchenko V. I., and F. David 2000 La traversée des rivières—un épisode de la chasse au renne en
Sibérie. Boréales 78/81:5–20.
Fischler, C. 2001 L’Homnivore. Poche Odile Jacob.
Gourina, N. N. 1997 The History of the Culture of the Kola Peninsula Ancient Population (en Russe).
Russian Academy of Sciences, the Institute of the Material Culture History (Archeological
studies 38), Saint Petersbourg.
Krupnik, I. 1993 Arctic Adaptations. Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern Eurasia. Marcia
Levenson, editor and translator. The University Press of New England, Hanover and London.
Lavriller, A. 2005 Nomadismes et adaptations sédentaires chez les Evenks de Sibérie soviétique: jouer
pour vivre avec ou sans chamane. Thèse pour obtenir le grade de docteur de l’Ecole Pratique des
Hautes Etudes en Anthropologie.

habitat magdalénien (la section 36), 2 vol (VIIe suppl. à Gallia Préhistoire). CNRS, Paris.
Nikolaev, S. I. 1964 Eveny i Evenki Yougo-vostotchnoï Yakoutii. Yakoutskoe Kijnoe izdatel’stvo, Yakoutsk.
Nikoul’chin, N. P. 1939 Pervoboltnye proizvodstvennye ob’edineniia i sotsialistitcheskoe stroitel’stvo y
Evenkov. Leningrad.
Popov, A. A. 1966 The Nganasan. The Material Culture of the Tavgi Samoyeds. E. K. Kistinen, translator.
Indiana University Research Center for Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Bloomington.
Plumet, P. 2004 Peuples du Grand Nord II. Vers l’“Esquimau”. Du mammouth à la baleine. Éd. Errance,
Paris.
Rasmussen, K. 1994 Du Groenland au Pacifique, deux ans d’intimité avec des tribus d’esquimaux incon-
nus. Éditions du CTHS.
Rastsvetaev, M. K. 1933 Toungousy Mamyal’skogo roda. Leningrad.
Rigaud, J. Ph. 1978 Contribution de l’analyse de la fragmentation osseuse à une étude du comportement
de l’homme préhistorique. Communication au Collège de France, Séminaire de la chaire de
Préhistoire, le 26 janvier.
Testart, A. 1982 Les chasseurs-cueilleurs ou l’origine des inégalités. Société d’Ethnographie, Paris.
Vrangel, F. P. 1948 Poutchestvie po servernim Sibiri i Ledovitamumorin, soverchennoe v.1820, 1821,
1822, 1854 godakh rod natchal’stvom flota kitenanta F. P. Vrangelya. Moskva, Leningrad.

Chapter Eighteen
Méthode de Reconstitution des Procédés de

Traitement des Peaux en Préhistoire
Premières Applications Archéologiques
Sylvie Beyries and Veerle Rots
Abstract From Hide Working Ethnoarchaeological Cases to MAcro- and

Microwear Analysis: First Applications to the Magdalenian Site of Verberie.
Following a successful experiment demonstrating how hafting could influence the
way a tool worked, a method was developed for analyzing hide working. The goal
was to identify the types of haft used and the hide positions during the processing,
using a detailed analysis of the microwear traces on the working edge and on the tool’s
surface. Precise observations were performed on eight groups (Siberian Tchoukches,
Athakaspans of British Columbia, Ethiopian Konso and Gamo) that still work dry
or slightly humid hide with stone tools. A microwear characterization could be built
according to the gesture, the tool position and hafting presence or absence. The crite-
ria used are the microwear location, their extension and intensity, the condition and
the width of the active working edge, and the hide state (humid or dry). Eight dif-
ferent cases could be identified and are displayed in a comparative table. In applying
a regressive mode of reasoning based on the criteria defined in the comparative table,
it could be proved that the processes used at Verberie did not required a structure to
keep the hide stretched, and that there were light procedures that did not clutter the
activity areas and resulted in light loads to carry away.
Introduction
E n 1941, dans la première édition de L’Homme et la Matière, A. Leroi-Gourhan (1971)

a démontré qu’un outil ne pouvait être appréhendé exclusivement à travers sa partie
active. La majorité des outils n’acquièrent toute leur efficacité que par leur insertion dans
269

un manche. En 1957, en posant les fondements de la tracéologie, S. A. Semenov (Semenov

1964), à la suite de nombreuses expérimentations, confortait cette idée. En 1987, la con-
férence organisée par D. Stordeur (Stordeur 1987), “La main et l’outi: manches et emman-
chements préhistoriques,” avait pour but de montrer que l’outil et son manche devaient être
appréhendés comme un tout. Les présentations mirent clairement en évidence qu’un outil
ne pouvait donc être dissocié de son manche. Sa conception “était étroitement liée à la
préhension et aux gestes à effectuer”; il s’agissait d’un système. La difficulté consistait à
comprendre les relations existant entre les différents éléments de ce système.
Pour tenter de réduire le problème, en 1990 F. Collin et P. Jardon mirent en place une
expérimentation où 360 grattoirs furent utilisés pour travailler des peaux. Les manches dans
lesquels étaient insérés ces grattoirs avaient des morphologies variées et étaient utilisés par
différentes personnes. L’objectif de ce travail était “d’évaluer la variabilité des paramètres
qui peuvent intervenir dans un geste techniques précis et leurs répercussions pour le dével-
oppement des traces d’usures produites par une matière spécifique sur les grattoirs” (Collin
and Jardon-Ginder 1993). Les résultats de cette expérimentation imposant une logistique
importante furent limités. Une des principales conclusions indiquait que la difficulté
d’interprétation des gestes techniques venait de la quantité de variables à appréhender en
particulier les facteurs individuels et la position de la peau durant son traitement.
Plus récemment, Veerle Rots montra qu’en se fondant sur un travail expérimental
systématique et avec une méthodologie adaptée, il était possible de déterminer à partir de la
combinaison des traces macro- et microscopiques réparties sur la surface d’un outil s’il avait
été emmanché et dans quels matériaux: bois, os, cuir, liens… (Rots 2002a, 2002b, 2002c,
2003, 2004; Rots and Vermeersch 2004). L’article qui suit s’attache à démontrer pourquoi
le choix d’un manche influence le mode de fonctionnement d’un outil. Nous identifierons
également le rôle des autres variables à prendre en compte.
Pour étayer cette étude, nous prendrons l’exemple du travail du cuir traité avec des
grattoirs en pierre. Les exemples exposés seront choisis parmi des groupes travaillant encore
aujourd’hui la peau avec des tranchants de pierre. Il s’agit d’observations effectuées, en
Colombie Britannique (Canada) (Beyries 1997, 1999), en Sibérie (nord du Kamchatka)
(Beyries 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003; Beyries et al. 2002, 2001) et en Éthiopie (Rots forthcom-
ing; Rots and Williamson 2004).
Cadre de la Recherche
Dans tous les cas, il s’agira d’outils à tranchant de pierre ayant travaillé la peau sèche où
très légèrement humide. Nous montrerons comment, à partir d’une étude précise: les traces
fonctionnelles laissées sur les tranchants des grattoirs, il est possible d’accéder à la fois à la
reconstitution complète de l’outil, à son mode de fonctionnement, au mode de fixation de
la peau lors de son traitement et à la position de l’artisan pendant son travail.
Pour l’Extrême-Orient sibérien les observations ont été effectuées chez les Tchouk-
tches, il s’agit d’outils servant à l’écharnage de peaux de renne sèches posées sur une planche.
Le tranchant est inséré en force dans une cavité creusée perpendiculairement au centre d’un
manche transversal.

Méthode de Reconstitution des Procédés 27 1
Pour la Colombie Britannique, le terrain a été réalisé avec des Athapascans. D’une
part, les grattoirs sont utilisés pour le nettoyage des peaux, dans ce cas, la taille et le poids des
outils varient en fonction de l’épaisseur de la peau travaillée. D’autre part, ils sont utilisés
pour l’assouplissement des peaux épaisses. Dans tous les cas, la peau est tendue sur un cadre
et le tranchant de pierre est fixé par un lien sur un manche coudé.
Pour l’Éthiopie, il s’agit de deux groupes localisés dans la partie méridionale du
pays. Les Konso travaillent la peau sèche, posée au sol ou suspendue de façon oblique.
Le tranchant de pierre est inséré dans une cavité creusée dans le manche, puis stabilisés
avec des résines. Dans le cas des Gamo, la peau est travaillée humide, suspendue ou ten-
due sur un cadre. Dans un cas, l’outil est d’un type comparable à celui des Konso, dans
l’autre cas, le tranchant est inséré à l’extrémité d’un manche droit fendu et maintenu
par un lien.
Présentation des Données
Afin d’identifier les paramètres pertinents, nous allons pour chacun des huit exemples
analyser le fonctionnement de l’outil.
figure 1 Tchouktche: Manche transversal, sans mastic, sans liens – Peau sur une planche –
Écharnage de peaux sèches. / Chouchkis: Transversal handle, no mastic, no bindings – Dry
hide defleshing.

Description des Conditions de Mise en Œuvre d L’outil. La peau est posée sur une planche de
bois et l’artisan travaille assis derière cette planche. Le tranchant actif de l’outil est inséré en force
au centre d’un manche transversal rectiligne tenu à chacune de ses extrémités. La Taille et le
poids des outils sont proportionnels à l’epaisseur de la peau à traiter; ils varient de 400 à 700 g.
L’outil est posé sur la peau. Durant son fonctionnement, il est tenu symétriquement
à chacune de ses extrémités. L’outil parfaitement centré est posé sur le haut de la peau et
poussé vers le bas. L’angle de travail est très fermé (20°). Ces grattoirs se passent de généra-
tion en génération et sont très rarement affûtés (Beyries 2002, 2004).
Table 1
Organisation des Usures sur les Tranchants
Position du tranchant sur la peau Traces observées sur le tranchant

Tranchant centré sur la peau Traces d’usure centrées sur la patrie active
Angle de travail fermé (20°) Traces très développées sur la face inférieure
Rares affûtages Tranchants très émoussés
Description des Conditions de Mise en Œvre de L’outil. La peau, de grande dimension, est
tendue sur un cadre de 3.50 m de large. La peau n’est travaillée qu’une fois parfaitement
figure 2 Athapaskan: Manche coudé, lourd, avec liens – Peau sur un cadre – Épilation
de peaux sèches épaisses. / Athapaskan: Bent handle, heavy, with bindings – Hide on a
frame – Hair removal (thick hide).

Méthode de Reconstitution des Procédés 273
sèche, c’est-à-dire extrêmement résistante. L’artisan travaille assis sure la peau. L’outil qu’il
va utiliser pour épiler et amincir la peau est un grattoir inséré dans un manche coudé, le tout
stabilisé par un lien. La peau est épaisse; aussi l’outil mis en œuvre est-il lourd. Le front de
grattoir peut avoir 5 cm de large et le poids du manche peut dépasser 500 g.
L’artisan travaille assis ou à genoux sur la peau ce qui permet de porter tout le poids du
corps sur l’extrémité active de l’outil. Aisni, c’est le centre du tranchant qui est en contact
perpendiculaire avec le peau.
Afin d’avoir toujours un maximum d’efficacité, l’outil est très régulièrement affluté.
Table 2
Tranchant centré sur la peau Traces d’usure centrées sur la patrie active
Angle de travail ouvert (90 à 100°) Traces d’usure visible sur le fil du tranchant et
en faible extension sur la face supérieure
Affûtages fréquents Tranchants peu émoussés
Description des Conditions de Mise en Œuvre de L’outil. Pour assouplir les peaux très épaisses, il
est nécessaire de les tendre dans un cadre. L’artisan travaille debout face à la peau. L’une des mains
figure 3 Athapaskan: Manche coudé, lourd avec liens – Peau sur un cadre – Assouplissement
(peau épaisse). / Athapaskan: bent handle, heavy, with bindings – Hide on a frame –
Softening (thick hide).

est située près de tranchant, et donne la force au geste, l’autre, posée sur le manche lui donne sa
direction. Le déplacement de l’outil va du haut vers le bas sur la peau. Lors du contact entre le
tranchant et la peau, l’outil quitte son axe et percute la peau latéralement. Le contact s’effectuera
sur le côté gauche si la main gauche donne la force et du côté droit dans le cas contraire.
Pour l’assouplissement, le but n’est pas de retirer de la matière mais de casser les fibres
afin de rendre la peau plus souple. Un tranchant trop aiguisé risquerait de déchirer la peau.
Aussi, le tranchant du grattoir n’est jamais affûté.
Table 3

Tranchant décentré sur la peau Traces d’usure décentrées sur la partie active
Rares affûtages Tranchants très émoussés
Description des Conditions de Mise en Œuvre de L’outil. Les peaux d’épaisseur moyenne,
comme celles du cerf ou du chevreuil, sont tendues sur des cadres légers: 1m de large sur
figure 4 Athapaskan: Manche coudé léger, avec liens – Peau sur un cadre – Épilation
(peau fine). / Athapaskan: Bent handle, light, with bindings – Hair removal (thin hide).

environ 1.70 m de hauteur. Comme pour les grandes peaux, le travail est effectué sur une
peau très sèche. Le grattoir est inséré dans un manche coudé, le tout stabilisé par un lien.
Le front de grattoir est large d’environ 3.5 cm et le poids du manche ne dépasse pas 350 g.
Cet outil est destiné à retirer de la matière il doit donc être tranchant; il est donc affûté très
régulièrement.
Table 4

Description des Conditions de Mise en Œuvre de L’outil (Brandt 1996; Brandt and Weed-
man 2002). La peau est toujours légèrement mouillée. Elle est posée à même le sol afin que
figure 5 Konso: Manche droit, coude factuel avec mastic (résine) – Peau au sol –
Écharnage. / Konso: Straight handle, but factual bend with mastic (resin) – Hide on the
ground – Defleshing.

l’artisan puisse travailler à genoux. Le grattoir est inséré de façon latéro-distale un manche
droit dont la longueur ne dépasse pas 25 cm. Les grattoirs sont de faible dimension 1.5
à 2.5 cm.
Après avoir posé l’outil perpendiculairement sur la peau, l’artisan le tire vers lui. Une
de ses mains est posée sur l’extrémité du manche dans laquelle est inséré le grattoir; il exerce
une pression sur le tranchant tout en le poussant vers lui. L’autre main, posée sur l’autre par-
tie du manche accompagne le geste. Pour les extrémités, l’outil peut-être retourné. L’artisan
travaille alors en poussant l’outil.
Dès qu’ils perdent de leur efficacité, les outils sont affûté jusqu’à exhaustion; ils sont
alors échangés contre d’autres. C’est en série que les grattoirs sont affûtés et emmanchés.
Table 5

Tranchant centré sur la peau Traces d’usure centrées sur la partie active
Angle de travail ouvert (90 à 100°) Traces d’usure visible sur le fil du tranchant et en
faible extension sur la face supérieure
figure 6 Konso: Manche droit, coude factuel avec mastic – peau adossée sur un mur –
écharnage. / Konso: Straight handle, but factual bend with mastic (resin) – Hide laid against
a wall – Defleshing.

Description des Conditions de Mise en Œuvre de L’outil. Les outils utilisés ont les mêmes
caractéristiques que ceux précédemment décrits. La peau repose en partie sur le sol et en
partie contre un mur. L’artisan est assis sur la peau et travaille sur la partie de la peau adossée,
en oblique, sur le mur. Avec le pied, il exerce une pression sur la peau afin qu’elle soit à un
niveau correcte de tension. La préhension de l’outil est la même que celle observée pour le
travail des peaux fines des Athapascans, mais avec les mains beaucoup plus rapprochées. Le
geste est une légère percussion lancée avec un va-et-vient du grattoir de différentes intensi-
tés. Le contact entre le tranchant et la peau est très légèrement décentré. Pour les extrémités,
l’outil est tourné et tenu avec une main sur la partie distale en poussant. L’autre main, exerce
une contre pression sous la peau.
Là aussi, les outils sont fréquemment affûtés et échangés dès qu’ils perdent de leur
efficacité et affûtés en série.
Table 6

Tranchant très légèrement décentré Traces d’usure très légèrement décentrées
figure 7 Gamo: Manche droit, coude factuel avec mastic (résine) – Peau suspendue –
Écharnage. / Gamo: Straight handle, factual bend with mastic (resin) – Hanging
hide – Defleshing.

Description des Conditions de Mise en Œuvre de L’outil. La peau est suspendue par l’une
de ses extrémités. L’autre extrémité est accrochée au pied de l’artisan. La peau est travaillée
humide. L’artisan est placé face à la peau. Deux grattoirs sont emmanchés dans un manche
double droit, perpendiculairement sur la partie distale d’un manche droit et maintenu par
une résine. Le grattoir mesure environ 2.5 cm de large. L’outil est lourd, environ 500 g. Le
geste est une percussion lancée avec force et direction séparées. Au moment où le tranchant
du grattoir percute la peau, l’artisan tire vers lui; le pied retenant la corde afin de mettre la
peau sous tension. Ces grattoirs sont très souvent affûtés.
Table 7

Angle de travail ouvert (90 à 100°) Traces d’usure visible sur le fil du tranchant et en
faible extension sur la face supérieure
figure 8 Gamo : Manche droit avec des liens – Peau suspendue – Écharnage. / Gamo:
Straight handle with bindings – Hanging hide – Defleshing.

Description des Conditions de Mise en Œuvre de L’outil. La peau tendue dans un cadre est
travaillée humide. Le grattoir est inséré à l’extrémité d’un manche tubulaire fendu. Comme
aucune résine n’est utilisée pour maintenir le grattoir, c’est un lien qui le stabilise une fois
inséré (Brandt 1996; Gallagher 1977). Le grattoir mesure environ 2.5 cm de large et la lon-
gueur du manche peu varier entre 30 et 45 cm (Weedman 2000).
L’artisan est debout face au cadre posé perpendiculairement au sol. L’outil est tenu
avec une seule main, le geste est une percussion lancée linéaire. Au moment du contact,
l’angle entre le tranchant et la peau est proche de 150°.
Comme précédemment, dès qu’ils perdent de leur efficacité, les outils sont échangés
contre d’autres. C’est en série que les grattoirs seront ensuite affûtés.
Table 8

Tranchant centré à légèrement décentré Traces d’usure centrées à très légèrement décentrées
Angle de travail très ouvert (150°) Traces très développées sur la face supérieure
Analyse Comparative
L’ensemble de ces observations peut être synthétisées dans le tableau suivant.
Localisation des traces Extension des traces État du tranchant Largeur du État de la peau
tranchant
centrée peu décentrée face sup. face inf. face sup. émoussé Peu émoussé étroit large sèche humide
décentrée limitée
1 x x x x x x x
2 x x x x x
3 x x x x x
4 x x x x x
5 x x x x x
6 x x x x x
7 x x x x x
8 x x x x x x
1
—Tchouktche: Manche transversal, sans mastic, sans liens—Peau sur une planche—Écharnage
2
—Athapaskan: Manche coudé, lourd, avec liens—Peau sur un cadre—Épilation (peau épaisse)
3
—Athapaskan: Manche coudé léger, avec liens—Peau sur un cadre—Épilation (peau fine)
4
—Athapaskan: Manche coudé, léger, avec liens— Peau sur un cadre—Assouplissement (peau épaisse)
5
—Konso: Manche droit, coude factuel avec mastic (résine)—Peau adossée sur un mur—Écharnage
6
—Konso: Manche droit, coude factuel avec mastic (résine)—Peau au sol—Écharnage
7
—Gamo: Manche droit, coude factuel avec mastic (résine)—Peau suspendue verticalement—Écharnage
8
—Gamo: Manche droit avec des liens—Peau sur cadre—Écharnage

Une analyse des cinq variables prises en compte dans ce tableau montre des nettes dif-
férences entre chacune des situations exposées. Une analyse fine des traces d’usure peut donc
permettre d’appréhender la position de la peau au moment de sont traitement, la position
de l’artisan pendant le travail et le type de manche utilisé.
Si on examine les différentes situations exposée, on peut constater que les procédés
1 et 8 sont très identifiables sur le seul critère d’extension de la trace d’utilisation. En effet,
le premier exemple (Tchouktches) est le seul où l’angle de travail est extrêmement fermé et
où les traces fonctionnelles sont très étendues sur la face inférieure du tranchant. Le cas 8
(Gamo—manche rectiligne) est le seul exemple où l’angle de travail est très ouvert aussi, les
traces sont particulièrement développées sur la face supérieure du tranchant.
Les six autres situations ont toutes une usure faiblement développée sur la face
supérieure. C’est donc à partir d’autres critères qu’il faut les différencier. Le cas 4
(Athapaskan—Assouplissement) est le seul où l’outil est dédié à un assouplissement; c’est
donc sur l’intensité de l’émoussé qu’il est possible de le distinguer des autres cas.
Les cinq situations restantes ont toutes un tranchant peu émoussé. Les éventualités 2
(Athapaskan—Épilation—peau épaisse), et 6 (Konso—Écharnage d’une peau posée au sol )
sont les deux seuls à avoir une usure centrée. Ce caractère les singularise des trois autres.
Pour l’exemple 2, il s’agit du travail de peaux épaisses; l’outil doit donc être lourd et le grat-
toir de taille importante (environ 5 cm de large). Pour le modèle 6, le manche est court et le
grattoir de petite taille (1.5 à 2.5 cm). Il est donc possible de différencier ces deux procédés
sur la taille des grattoirs.
Restent les modalités 3 (Athapaskan—Épilation de peaux fines), 5 (Konso—Peau adossée
sur un mur—Écharnage) et 7 (Gamo—Écharnage d’une peau suspendue). Contrairement aux
modèles 3 et 7 où le dé-centrement des usures est très marqué en raison de la violence du
geste effectué, sur le procédé 5 les traces ne sont que très légèrement décentrées du tranchant
du grattoir.
Restent les procédés 3 et 7 pour lesquels l’organisation des usures sur les tranchants et
l’intensité des émoussés sont strictement les mêmes. La seule façon de différencier ces pro-
cédés consiste à déterminer l’état de la peau au moment de son traitement; si la peau est tra-
vaillée sèche, elle est probablement traitée tendue sur un cadre (3). Si les traces d’utilisation
indiquent un travail de peau humide, alors la peau a probablement été suspendue verticale-
ment dans un scénario où l’artisan ajuste la tension de la peau au moment où le tranchant
percute (7). Il est parfaitement possible en observant les polis d’utilisation de déterminer l’état
de la peau au moment de son traitement. Le réfléchissement du poli, l’émoussé, la quantité et
la morphologie des stries ne sont pas les mêmes. Le travail de la peau sèche donnera un poli
mat, associé avec un émoussé et une composante abrasive importante alors que le travail de la
peau humide donnera un poli plus réfléchissant et moins marqué par les stries.
Conclusion
Les données présentées ici ne prétendent pas être exhaustives. Elles devront être enrichies
par l’observation de situations artisanales nouvelles. En outre, il est aussi possible d’affiner
les critères de détermination en ajoutant des paramètres comme des données relatives à la
morphologie des tranchants ou la délinéation des faces inférieures.

Cette étude présente l’avantage d’avoir été réalisée dans un contexte expérimental
exceptionnel puisque toutes les utilisations d’outil ont été effectuées par de réels artisans
(Beyries 1993). Les outils ont donc toujours été utilisés très efficacement avec de véritables
savoir-faire. C’est sans aucun doute pour cette raison qu’il a été possible d’aboutir à des
résultats d’une telle finesse. Aussi, si l’on veut conserver une telle précision il faut se garder
d’ajouter à ce tableau des situations supposées existées ou réalisées par des non-spécialistes
dans le cadre d’expérimentations classiques. Celles-ci devront faire l’objet d’un nouveau
tableau permettant d’établir des conclusions situées à un autre niveau d’interprétation.
Ce travail de hiérarchisation des paramètres permet une modélisation des résultats
transférable sur des ensembles archéologiques. De cette manière, il est possible d’obtenir
des données concernant les processus du travail des peaux, inaccessible par d’autres moyens.
Ainsi, on peut aller bien au-delà de la mise en évidence d’emmanchements (Rots 2002c,
2003, 2004) en resituant les outils dans un contexte fonctionnel global. Seule cette perspec-
tive peut permettre d’atteindre les organisations socio-économiques des groupes.
References Cited
Beyries, S. 1993 Expérimentation archéologique et savoir-faire traditionnel: l’exemple de la découpe
d’un cervidé. Techniques et Culture 22:53–79.
Beyries, S. 1997 Ethnoarchéologie: un mode d’expérimentation. Préhistoire Anthropologie
Médirerrannéennes 6:185–198.
Beyries, S. 1999 Ethnoarchaeology: A Method of Experimentation. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte
14:75–88.
Beyries, S. 2002 Le travail du cuir chez les Tchouktches et les Athapaskans: implications
ethno-archéologiques. In Le travail du cuir de la préhistoire à nos jours, S. Beyries and
F. Audouin-Rouzeau, editors, pp. 143–159. XXIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et
d’histoire d’Antibes, APDCA, Antibes.
Beyries, S. 2003 Ethno-archéologie du travail du cuir: l’exemple de la Colombie-Britannique. In Mil
anos de trabajo del cuero, R. Cordoba de le Llave, editor, pp. 443–462. Sociedad Espanola de
Historia de las Ciencas y de las Tecnocas, Universidad de Cordoba, Cordou.
Beyries, S. 2004 Vivre du renne: de la Sibérie contemporaine à l’Europe Paléolithique. In L’archéologie
française à l’étranger, J.-F. Jarrige, editor. ECR, Paris.
Beyries, S., S. A. Vasil’ev, F. David, C. Karlin, V. I. D’iatchenko, and Y. V. Chesnoko 2002 Tenta-
tive Reconstruction of Prehistoric Skin Processing. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of
Eurasia 2(10):79–86.
Beyries, S., S. Vasil’ev, C. Karlin, Y. V. Tchesnokov, F. David, and V. I. D’iatchenko 2001 Ui1, a Palae-
olithic Site in Siberia: An Ethno-Archaeological Approach. In Ethno-Archaeology and Its Trans-
fers, S. Beyries, and P. Pétrequin, editors, pp. 9–22. BAR, International series 983, Oxford.
Brandt, S. A. 1996 The Ethnoarchaeology of Flaked Stone Tools Use in Southern Ethiopia. In Aspect
of African Archaeology, G. Pwiti and R. Soper, editors, pp. 733–738. University of Zimbabwe,
Harare.
Brandt, S. A., and K. J. Weedman 2002 The Ethnoarchaeology of Hide Working and Stone Tool Use
in Konso, Southern Ethiopia. In Le travail du cuir de la préhistoire à nos jours, S. Beyries and
F. Audouin-Rouzeau, editors, pp. 113–142. XXIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et

Brandt, S. A., and K. J. Weedman (forthcoming) The Ethnoarchaeoloy of Hide Working and Flaked
Stone Tool Use in Southern Ethiopia. In Ethiopia in Broader Pespective. 13th International
Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Kyoto, Japan, December 1997.
Clark, J. D., and H. Kurashina 1981 A Study of the Work of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia and Its
Relevance for Archaeological Interpretation. In Modern Material Culture, R. A. Gould and
M. B. Schiffer, editors, pp. 303–321. Academic Press, New York.
Collin, F., and P. Jardon-Ginder 1993 Travail de la peau avec des grattoirs emmanchés. Réflexions
sur les bases expérimentales et ethnographiques. In Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés, P. C.
Anderson, S. Beyries, O. M. and H. Plisson, editors. CRA du CNRS, Université de Liège,
(ERAUL; 50), actes du colloque international de Liège, 8–9–10 décembre 1990, Liège.
Gallagher, J. P. 1974 The Preparation of Hides with Stone Tools in South Central Ethiopia. Journal
of Ethiopian studies 12(30):177–182.
Gallagher, J. P. 1977 Contemporary Stone Tools in Ethiopia: Implications for Archaeology. Journal
of Field Archaeology 4:407–414.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1971 L’homme et la matière. Albin Michel, editor. Sciences d’aujourd’hui, Saint
Amand.
Rots, V. 2002a Are Tangs Morphological Adaptations in View of Hafting? Macro- and Microscopic
Wear Analysis on a Selection of Tanged Burins from Maisières-Canal. Notae Praehistoricae
114:61–69.
Rots, V. 2002b Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: Possibilites and Limitations of Macro- and Microscopic
Approaches. PhD Thesis. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Rots, V. 2003 Towards an Understanding of Hafting: The Macro- and Microscopic Evidence. Antiq-
uity 77(298):805–815.
Rots, V. 2004 Prehensile Wear on Flint Tools. Lithic Technology 29(1):7–32.
Rots, V. (forthcoming) Use-wear and Hafting Traces in Perspective: The Contribution of Ethno-
graphic Evidence. In The Konso of Southern Ethiopia., K. Weedman and S. Brandt, editors.
Rots, V., and P.-M. Vermeersch 2004 Experimental Characterisation of Microscopic Hafting Traces
and Its Application to Archaeological Lithic Assemblages. In Lithics in Action, E. A. Walker,
F. Wenban-Smith, and F. Healy, editors, pp. 156–168. vol. Oxbow. Lithic Studies Society
Occasional Paper 8, Oxford.
Rots, V., and B. Williamson 2004 Microwear and Residue Analysis in Perspective: The Contribution
of Ethnoarchaeological Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1287–1299.
Semenov, S. 1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artifacts from
Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Moonrakerpress ed. Adams and Mackay, London: Cory.
Stordeur, D., editor 1987 La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. G. S. Maison
de l’Orient ed. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient n°15, Lyon.
Weedman, K. 2000 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Stone Scrapers among the Gamo People of Southern
Ethiopia. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
Weedman, K. 2002a An Ethnoarcaeology Study of Stone-Tool Variability among the Gamo Hide-
workers of Southern Ethiopia. In Le travail du cuir de la préhistoire à nos jours, F. Audoin-
Roseau and S. Beyries, pp. 131–142, editors. XXIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et
Weedman, K. 2002b On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone
Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 67(4):731–744.

Conclusion
Domesticity Re-expressed
James G. Enloe, Françoise

Audouze, and Ezra Zubrow
T his volume has incorporated ideas and analyses from numerous sources, at a variety
of scales, which are both broadly viewed and narrowly focused. We have called upon
researchers of demography and social organization on a global scale (Zubrow), ethnoar-
chaeologists of modern hunter-gatherers (Beyries and Rots, David, Karlin and D’iachenko,
Keeley), those interested in Paleolithic hunters and gatherers (Soffer and Adovasio), spe-
cialists in the Magdalenian of western Europe (Cattin), of the Paris Basin (Bodu, Pigeot),
and specific analyses of material from Verberie (Audouze, Averbouh, Dumarçay and Caron,
Enloe, Janny, Keeler). The reflexivity of these perspectives involves bouncing back and forth
between the present and the past, understanding the material correlates and their organiza-
tions for a variety of subsistence and technical activities that form a major portion of the
kinds of remains that can be observed in the archaeological record. These have allowed us to
understand better the significance of the specific studies of material from Verberie and their
potential to expand a more general understanding of the organization of domesticity in the
Magdalenian as well as in other hunter-gatherer societies.
About Theories and Methods
This chapter commences with a consideration of Verberie itself and how the analyses of the
site have contributed toward evaluation of domesticity there. That perspective is expanded,
first to other Magdalenian sites in the Paris Basin, then to the Magdalenian outside this
particular region, and to other prehistoric hunter-gatherers. We have focused on technol-
ogy, space, and social organization as those means for exploring domesticity. While social
organization may be viewed as strictly cultural, the result of a unique history combining
a number of different influences and accommodations, nonetheless, the structure of social
283

284 Conclusion
organization must also be viewed in a general way as largely a consequence of the organiza-
tion of labor. This latter perspective is the only thing that allows an approach to prehistoric
archaeological social organization. We cannot use the idea of the direct historical approach
(Hodder 1991; Leone 1986) as the sole justifiable use of analogy. The Magdalenian past
is too distant, and no link to a modern cultural group can be demonstrated. We must be
able to apply analogical reasoning based on more generalizable principles. Those include
a number of technological processes for which modern observations can be made on the
utensils, the actions, and the spatial context in which they operate. Building these kinds of
methodology is exactly the sort of middle range research advocated by Binford (1977) for an
accurate reading of the archaeological record. In good archaeological contexts of geological
preservation and finely focused recovery and recording techniques, we can examine those
aspects for which ethnoarchaeological observations help us understand the social organiza-
tion that is not directly observable in archaeological sites.
Domesticity is such an issue. It must be inferred from observations of the archaeologi-
cal record; that inference must be enlightened by observations of modern people and their
activities and of the material correlates of those activities. Technology that is well preserved
in the archaeological record for the Paleolithic includes the production and use of stone
tools; these are used to obtain and process the carcasses of hunted game. The bones of the
latter are also occasionally well preserved in the archaeological record; this is one of the
primary interests in the excavation of Verberie. That game represents both nutritional and
technological resources. We can understand nutritional aspects from modern observations
and experimentation; we can see the operation of the social and technological processes of
butchering, storing, cooking, and sharing in ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observa-
tions. The addition of the spatial dimension gives us perhaps the best way of moving from
the simple hardware of technology to its social context. Technology includes its implemen-
tation in space by individuals and groups. Examination of the spatial dimension gives a win-
dow on the interactions of multiple actors, using the same space for different technological
activities or using complementary areas for those differentiated activities.
Different methods and techniques were used to produce the results on which we base
our interpretations. Several are well known, such as microwear analysis, flint and bone
refitting, and experimental reproduction. Keeler’s chapter brings a new approach to the
Magdalenian of the Paris Basin with a GIS intra-site analysis of the Verberie site. Using high
resolution spatial data (Audouze and Enloe 1997), it sets successive archaeological levels,
features, and flint and bone refits in three-dimensional space, and projects them on various
density maps. It confirms or brings into doubt various interstratifications, which has helped
correct the stratigraphy. It reveals clearly a smaller and less dense mirror unit M20 facing
the D1 unit on level II-1 at Verberie. While this is an excellent test for the coherence of
the artificially discriminated levels, the GIS procedures benefits from the contributions of
other approaches to determine the chronology of occupation and deposition within each
level. In the end, it provides quantitative data to combine with data from other approaches
for the paleoanthropological interpretation. For instance, once the high density concentra-
tions of material (Keeler, this volume) are temporarily eliminated from the analysis, we
can clearly see the difference between low density accumulations and truly empty spaces.

Conclusion 285
This perspective allows us to recognize the character and configuration of the bone assem-
blage surrounding the primary butchering area that was identified (Audouze 1988) using
Binford’s (1981:169–171) model.
Ethnoarchaeology: The Source of Social Information
Ethnoarchaeology is the key methodological ingredient for moving from the material to
the social, the integrative matrix of domesticity. It gives this added dimension, which goes
far beyond our replicative experimentations of such things as flint knapping to recreate
sequences of tool production or experimental butchering with stone tools to see wear pat-
terns on the tools or cut marks on the bones. Several of the chapters begin with ethnoar-
chaeological observations, and then consider how those lessons could be applied to the
archaeological case at Verberie.
The ethnoarchaeological contribution of David, Karlin, and D’iachenko gives invalu-
able detail on modern exploitation of reindeer in hunting and herding societies. On a tech-
nical level, it shows the range of variability in the details of the sequence of butchering
reindeer among the various Siberian groups (observations of Dolgans, Evenks, Evenes, and
Koriaks, plus a review of the literature for the Nganassan and Nentsi), while it supports in
general the spatial details and procedures of Binford’s (1978b) Nunamiut butchering mod-
els, emphasizing basic biomechanical constraints for skinning and dismembering a carcass.
There are generalized statements about how each cultural group processes reindeer, includ-
ing differences within the same group for hunted and domesticated reindeer, but there are
also detailed descriptions of individual actions, showing the situational constraints and how
they affected what actually happened.
But further, it contributes precious information concerning the roles of men and
women, providing the social site of the technical procedures. These are also variable in two
dimensions. First, there are those that are dictated by the norms of the various groups, often
phrased in symbolic or spiritual terms, but which have very practical consequences in the
mind of the people. Second, there are those that are situational, according to the availability
of labor, other tasks to be performed, etc., which may yield considerable variability in the
application of cultural rules or norms.
Keeley’s chapter cites primarily surveys of ethnographic literature in a comparative
search for patterning in gender roles for a particular activity, hide working. Rather than
merely citing examples of variability, he connects their environmental or economic context
to invoke arguments about under what conditions we should expect this to be men’s or
women’s work.
Domesticity at Verberie
What can we say about domesticity at Verberie? Clearly, the primary hearth D1 was the
central focus of many if not most of the activities at the site. Dumarçay and Caron’s chap-
ter emphasizes the importance of the management of raw materials for the construction
and maintenance of the hearths at Pincevent and Verberie and the integration of that

286 Conclusion
management with a substantial variety of uses in and around the central hearth. The highest
densities of tools are located adjacent to this hearth, suggesting a concentration of activities
there. The centrality of the constructed hearth is the demonstration of its quotidian place in
such activities as cooking or tool preparation and repair, the panoply of various activities that
may represent its innate domesticity. It is this character that stymied many early attempts
at spatial analysis of archaeological sites, particularly open-air sites of hunter-gatherers. The
search for isolated, pristine activity areas, each defined as a spatial area where a unique activ-
ity took place indicated by the presence of specific tools, led first to substantial frustration
and then to increasing sophistication as researchers realized the need for an understanding
of site formation processes (Schiffer 1972, 1983). This latter development progressed in
parallel to increasing awareness of taphonomic effects on the preservation of faunal materi-
als (Brain 1969, 1981; Binford 1981). Instead a search for isomorphic tool/activity spaces,
this more nuanced view incorporated the idea that some spaces might be appropriate for
single activities, but that others were the scenes of many activities. Such polyvalent activity
areas require maintenance and scheduling. It is more profitable to think of a set of activities
in a set of spaces. Conceptually we can define those central places, used to a certain degree
by adult males and females for numerous basic daily tasks, as the domestic spaces. Can we
distinguish between domestic space and outer (technological) space at Verberie? Certainly
there were other areas of activity, dictated by the spatial needs of certain technical proce-
dures. The initial butchering areas indicate spatially extensive and messy activities, incom-
patible with the multiple needs of space adjacent to the main hearth. Probably some of the
hide scraping activities indicated by the dispersed distribution of endscrapers required larger
spaces dedicated to that singular task. Other hide scraping appears to have been located
closer to the hearth.
Centrality of the domestic space does not necessarily mean that activities were equally
distributed around this hearth. There is marked asymmetry of the depositions of artifacts
around the hearth, very much as can be seen at level IV-20 at Pincevent in the spatial mod-
els for Section 36 (Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon 1972) or the faunal patterning seen for
Section 27 (Enloe et al. 1994). This asymmetry can be governed by such factors as wind
direction or the presence of a shelter (Binford 1978a; Enloe 1983). All of the demonstrably
contemporaneous domestic units at Pincevent not only share the same general modular
structure of cleaned or empty space and tool use on one side of the primary hearth and
dumped or tossed trash on the other site, but they also share the orientation of the axis from
where people placed themselves and performed activities to trash deposition in areas where
people would not be going. This axis probably represents the predominant wind direction
during the period of occupation, roughly west to east. Rarely would one position oneself
in the smoke from the fire; activities most often would take place upwind of the hearth as
would space for sleeping in a shelter, while the downwind direction correlates with trash
deposition. This pattern can be seen at Verberie II-1 on the alignment of the clearly visible
work stations (Audouze this volume) to the east of hearth D1 with the very substantial trash
dump centered on and around H19 to the west of the hearth.
In addition, if we consider that the demography included infants, juveniles, and ado-
lescents in addition to adult males and females, play and education were certainly important

Conclusion 287
parts of social activity and organization and required appropriate space. That space would
depend to some degree on the age and independence of the children. Younger children
would have needed to be under the eyes of their mothers, thus kept in close proximity to
central domestic space; older children and adolescents would have had greater responsibility
and freedom. This may be indicated by the location of flint cores worked by young debu-
tants, which are spatially distant, but not too far from the domestic hearth.
The asymmetry can be extended to more external areas, outside of the central domes-
tic space. Some of these activities may have taken place elsewhere, particularly when food
preparation was taking place at the hearth. This may account for the construction and use
of a secondary hearth at M20, which has a more restricted number and diversity of tools,
and very little faunal material around it. This does not appear to be where daily cooking
took place. Its utilization was surely of shorter duration, having been established after the
initial D1 hearth and the butchering areas were established, but possibly also more punctu-
ated; certain activities involving burins, becs, and endscrapers may have been performed at
M20 when there were scheduling conflicts for use of the space at D1, for instance, cooking.
Quite probably, both of these aspects played a role in the structural differences between the
two hearths. In particular, burin and endscraper hafting activities performed with becs and
perçoirs appear to represent retooling at or near the end of the occupation of level II-1, in
preparation for the next residential move.
The reconstruction of the different flint blades and tool production sequences (chaînes
opératoires) is instrumental in relating spaces, activities, and people. At Verberie, as at Etiolles,
Pincevent, Champréveyres, Monruz, or le Closeau, this has been the key for understanding
the technical logic, the goals of the knapping activities, and the levels of competence of dif-
ferent knappers, the intra-site chronology, and the links that relate the different spaces of the
settlement. Except for le Closeau, all the other sites have yielded indications of training of
unskilled knappers, and even of adults’ teaching them with demonstrative exemplary knap-
ping. At Pincevent, the links brought to light by the flint and bone refits among the units of
level IV-20 have permitted discrimination between “domestic hearths,” where households
gathered for eating, working, and discussing, and auxiliary hearths with more or less special-
ized activities. These have additionally indicated different relations between the domestic
units according to special proximity and the frequency of exchanges; these probably have
to do with kin proximity (Binford 1991; Whitelaw 1989, 1991; Enloe 1992, 2003, 2004).
At Verberie, the differences between the two domestic spaces are less marked than at
Pincevent between residential and annex units, since the same activities occurred around
the two hearths, apart from cooking. The site’s function as a hunting camp close to the kill
location is demonstrated by all the low utility parts brought back to camp, while they are
missing at Pincevent (Enloe this volume). At the same time, local consumption, predomi-
nant dry hide processing, and the presence of children are arguments in favor of a residential
setting (Audouze 2006). The spatial projection of activities supports evidence for a moder-
ately gendered domestic space. However, several uncertainties remain: Was the M20 unit
an independent domestic unit, an annex created by the D1 unit inhabitants or an annex
created for kin/members of the same family group? The first hypothesis can be rejected but
it cannot be decided between the last two because of the allochtonous flint block that is so

288 Conclusion
much part of the forming of the M20 domestic space and implies the arrival or the return
of an adult hunter/knapper (Audouze this volume). Another uncertainty rests upon the
discordance between the seeming or real isolation of the domestic unit at Verberie and the
strong relations between four residential units at Pincevent IV-20. But even if one or several
missing residential units existed at some distance from the D1 unit at Verberie, there were
not sharing game after the kill.
The Region: Magdalenian of the Paris Basin
How can we use our conclusions about the domestic organization of space at Verberie to
address questions of variation among the Magdalenian sites in the Paris Basin and else-
where? We have focused on Verberie as an example of a Magdalenian occupation in the
Paris Basin. By extension, the analyses and investigation of domesticity there throws light
on the other Magdalenian sites, showing similarities due to the kinds of activities that com-
monly took place as part of their adaptation to the Pleistocene environment, and showing
differences, which may be due to slightly differing roles of those sites with varying suites of
resources available according to their seasonality or geographic location.
Not all sites in the Paris Basin are the same. While they share significant typological
and technological attributes in the fabrication of flint and bone tools, there are subtle dif-
ferences in the choices of which tools were made on what kinds of blanks. The best blades
at Verberie, the longest and most robust, were used to make becs. At Pincevent those tools
were made on medium and small blades, or even on flakes, while the best blades were
reserved for endscrapers. Emily Moss’s (1983) microwear study demonstrated the use of
at least some backed bladelets as cutting tools at Pincevent, while those at Verberie appear
to have been exclusively dedicated to projectile darts. Can we use variation in typologi-
cal diversity in the stone tool assemblages as indicators of demography and domesticity,
or could it have to do with other kinds of variation, such as adaptation to environmental
changes or different ecological niches?
Some of the substantial variability in late Magdalenian occupations in the Paris Basin
appears to be chronological. The radiocarbon plateau precludes too fine a precision for
absolute dates in this time period, but the earliest levels at Etiolles appear to have been
occupied earlier than Pincevent or Verberie. Pincevent exhibits a certain stratigraphic depth
between the Magdalenian occupations of levels IV-40 and IV-0, with apparently substantial
shifts in geological deposition regimes oscillating between silts and sands. We do not really
know how long a time that represents, but it is estimated to be on the order of a century.
The probably shorter occupation history of the levels at Verberie seems to fit within the time
span represented at Pincevent.
The latest Magdalenian level at Pincevent (IV-0) was inhabited for a much longer
period than the other levels (from the end of autumn, throughout the whole winter, and
perhaps extending into the spring), and yielded a completely different spatial organization
(Bodu et al. 2006). A large central hearth occupies the middle of a large habitation. The
outer domestic space is reduced to a radius of less than 13m, including an outside hearth,
several flint workshops, and polyvalent activity areas. The variety and duration of activities

Conclusion 289
indicated by the high rate of transformation of blades into tools (13% of the flint), the
worn-out working edges of the tools, and the numerous shell ornaments (in production or
finished) testify to conditions and activities that were not practiced during the fall occupa-
tions of other levels (Julien 2006a, b; Vanhaeren 2006).
Level IV-0 at Pincevent (Bodu et al. 2006), Grand Canton (Julien et Rieu 1999), and
Tureau des Gardes (Lang, Bémilli, and Caspar 1998) at Marolles share certain aspects and
may date slightly later than the occupations discussed at Verberie and IV-20 at Pincevent.
They exhibit a greatly augmented presence of horse, equaling or exceeding the number of
individual reindeer, and certainly representing greater quantities of meat. This is accompa-
nied by significant differences in the lithic tool assemblages. At Marolles, the production of
transformation tools (burins, becs, perçoirs, and grattoirs) dominates the lithic assemblage,
while that of backed bladelets is limited and opportunistic (Julien and Bémilli 1999:3).
Does this have more implications for demographic proportions at the site (regional role
of site—logistical versus residential) or for the kinds of activities taking place according to
resource availability in the environment, as we might expect in the case of foraging residen-
tial mobility?
Notably present in level IV-0 (and in stark contrast to level IV-20) at Pincevent (Bodu
et al. 2006) and also present in both sites at Marolles (Julien and Bémilli 1999) are large
quantities of fire-cracked rock. The extreme fragmentation and total oxidation of these
rocks at Pincevent IV-0 suggest high temperatures for long periods of time (March et al.
2006). These may imply a different technique for processing carcasses when the species
balance shifted from reindeer to horse. Bridault’s (1996) determination of seasonality of
mid March to mid May for reindeer at Tureau des Gardes would be consistent with a dif-
ferent pattern of exploitation of that species than at Pincevent IV-20 or Verberie. Julien and
Bémilli (1999) raised the question as to whether the variation between Pincevent IV-20 and
the Marolles sites in faunal spectra and artifact remains is a consequence of climatic evolu-
tion and changes in resources during the Tardiglacial or of other factors. Julien, Bridault,
and Valentin (1999:158) suggest it is a consequence of simple seasonal variation in resource
acquisition among contemporaneous groups in the Paris Basin.
In light of the clear similarities between Pincevent IV-0 and the sites at Marolles and
the fact that IV-0 stratigraphically postdates IV-20, it is possible that seasonal differences
in faunal exploitation could be a consequence of climatic changes in the Tardiglacial. Thus,
Grand Canton and Tureau des Gardes are chronologically later than Pincevent IV-20 and
Verberie. The presence of two sizes of horse among the remains at Marolles suggests to
Eisenmann and Argobast (1997:697) an element of climatic instability and change, con-
sistent with a terminal Tardiglacial environment. These later sites represent evolution in
terms of changes in adaptation to differences in the structure of resource availability in the
region. As the biogeographic zones shifted north during climatic ameliorations, reindeer
would no longer represent a potential mass resource for migration interception and storage,
resulting in the necessity to change the way in which faunal species were exploited in the
Paris Basin. This might also be seen in differences in lithic artifacts at these sites. Quantita-
tive and qualitative differences in armaments may represent changes in the labor costs of
greater investment in processing necessary for exploitation of horses. Without the necessity

290 Conclusion
to hunt reindeer during the fall migration, there would be less emphasis on specific hunting
implements. We can see a reduction in the backed bladelet components of barbed bone
points relative to an increase in transformation tools. This is due to decreases in the number
of individual prey animals killed for a similar quantity of food, and to broader orientation
toward classic large blade production with diverse potential implement production. This
may also reflect the wider array of technological activities associated with hunting (Julien
and Bémilli 1999) that may have taken place at these sites.
Beyond the Magdalenian of the Paris Basin
Next, how can we further extend our perspective beyond the Magdalenian of the Paris Basin?
Cattin’s chapter invokes very similar methodologically constructed arguments for examining
Swiss Magdalenian sites. She uses techniques for identifying technical competence, placed
within the sites’ spatial organization of correlation among flint material sources, tool types,
and seasonality to demonstrate a very similar heterogeneity of space use to that of Verberie.
She does not see hierarchical prioritization of access to near-hearth space that Pigeot posits
for Etiolles, nor does she see separation of space use for gender or age differences. Leesch
(1997:87) observes, however, that scrapers are on average dispersed slightly farther away
from the hearth than are burins, backed bladelets, or knapping debris.
Another aspect of expansion beyond the Magdalenian of the Paris Basin is found in
Bodu’s chapter. As we consider a later period, the end of the Bölling and Allerød, changes
in climate, vegetation, and game lead progressively to profound changes in hunting strat-
egy, hunting equipment, knapping techniques, and even settlement spatial organization.
In spite of such fundamental changes, Bodu’s work at le Closeau shows a resilience of the
spatial organization during the early Azilian, retaining much of the patterning seen in the
late Magdalenian. The hunting strategy and tactics have changed, since they are aimed at
dispersed, nonmigratory animal species living under the cover of increased forest vegetation,
such as deer and boar. Knapping techniques have evolved; soft stone hammer has replaced
organic soft hammer (antler) in the production of bi-pointed projectile points instead of
bone points with backed bladelets as lateral barbs. At le Closeau, Magdalenian spatial orga-
nization somehow persists, still characterized by main domestic units with auxiliary loci.
Although the usual budgetary and time constraints of a contract excavation precluded suf-
ficient flint refitting to demonstrate it, the early Azilian spatial structure may reflect the
presence of a household where scrapers are present. In the later Azilian and Belloisian occu-
pations at le Closeau, no clear patterning exists to identify partitioning of domestic space.
The lack of faunal remains in most Allerød and Holocene sites complicates this problem,
since flint knapping is the overwhelming activity represented in the artifact concentrations
of the later occupation levels at le Closeau. The scarcity of retouched tools leaves little indi-
cation of the activities performed there. This change in the organization of living space must
be correlated with a deep transformation in social organization and the division of labor, but
how are we to account for it?
As an answer to this question, Soffer and Adavasio remind us of the importance of
techniques and activities to which we remain archaeologically blind and, most of the time,

Conclusion 291
oblivious. Their observations on clay impressions of fibers and textiles and their comparative
work on bone tools used in weaving activities support Averbouh’s hypothesis that the only
pierced baton found at Verberie was used for processing fibers. Similarly, Keeley’s paper
brings support to Audouze’s hypothesis of a gendered division of labor at Verberie in which
females performed the hide processing.
Gender
Gender is among the slipperiest slopes of interpretation for prehistoric archaeology (Dobres
2000; Owen 2006; Adovasio et al. 2007). In modern society, gender is a socially constructed
identity and appropriate roles for males and females vary enormously. While it is extremely
important to avoid the pitfall of merely replicating our own society in assigning gendered
roles in the past, there do appear to be some very common areas of regularity. Here, we
may turn to ethnography and ethnoarchaeology to explore where the boundaries between
regularities and variability can be found.
Keely’s chapter mounts an argument for the identification of gender through the
presence of women’s tools, specifically hide scrapers. He cites cross-cultural ethnographic
studies to explore in which groups and under what conditions hide working was a male
or female activity. He concludes that in situations of high demand and domestic produc-
tion of hides, this work falls to the women. The large quantities of reindeer killed and of
endscrapers in the lithic assemblage at Verberie thus imply a significant presence of women
at the site.
While we may rightfully remain leery of assigning specific gender roles in our archaeo-
logical cases, we also have to consider our being able to see whether the demography is com-
plete or selective, whether men or women or both were present. This, too, is not without
danger. That having been said, one implacable argument has been offered by several authors
in this volume. Audouze, Bodu, Cattin, Janny, and Pigeot all invoke the unskilled breakage
of flint blocks as evidence for knappers at the very debut of their learning, certainly young
children. If there are young children, there must have been mothers, and thus domestic
demography. Audouze and Cattin both also invoke the presence of small game as probably
appropriate prey for women and/or children. Pigeot further attributes medium quality flint
knapping as the realm of women’s tool making, while the large blades were produced only
by men.
David, Karlin, and D’iachenko’s chapter emphasizes the frequently rigid gendered
division of labor among a number of ethnic groups over far-flung geographic regions. They
also remind us that the sequence from killing through butchery to consumption is a multi-
stage and deeply socially embedded process, changing hands at various points from gender
to gender and generation to generation, so that particular portions of butchering and shar-
ing are not exclusively masculine or feminine. Perhaps, archaeologically, the more of this
sequence we can see, the more of the whole society is involved, invoking the presence of
men, women, and children.
Engendering the use space remains very marked among certain modern hunter-gatherers
(e.g., Inuit), but there appears to be less strictly coded or more flexible norms, perhaps

292 Conclusion
related to technology, among Magdalenian hunter-gatherers (e.g., Champréveyres,

Monruz, Pincevent, Verberie). Etiolles may represent an exception to this flexibility
(Pigeot this volume) with a more rigid hierarchy for access to privileged space adjacent to
the central hearths, reserved for the (presumably male) best flint knappers. This may be a
function of the regional role of Etiolles as a point of acquisition of large quantities of very
high quality technological raw material, large nodules of excellent flint that have yielded
blades up to 60cm in length, rather than the acquisition of food resources, the reindeer
that characterizes Pincevent and Verberie or the horse that characterizes Champréveyres
and Monruz. It may be that we simply lack the methodological means for recognizing
access priority among hunters (again presuming masculinity), while the differing levels of
technical ability make such priority more visible at Etiolles and to a lesser degree at Verbe-
rie. Continuing our presumptions of gender roles in identifiable tasks, Averbouh’s analyses
of osseous materials indicate a primacy of hunting weaponry (male), but one that is con-
sistently allied through the Verberie occupation levels with fabrication and utilization of
cordage and sewing (female). Additionally, ivory was worked into both weaponry and into
smaller fabricated units of indistinguishable function, perhaps elements of personal adorn-
ment. Beyries and Rots’s microwear analyses at Verberie indicate substantial hide scraping
(presumably by women) in addition to fabrication of burin and scraper hafts by employing
becs and burins for hollowing out long bone diaphyses. If burins and scrapers are indica-
tive of male and female activities, respectively, it is much less clear which gender would
have been responsible for manufacture of the hafts for those tools (or even fabrication of
the tools used to make the hafts). Spatially, this activity occurred in close proximity to
hearth M20, presumably a technological annex or satellite hearth that was used for activi-
ties when the main domestic hearth D1 was otherwise occupied by more exigent tasks.
Elders
While we have considered age differences within our discussion of demography, it has been
mainly about children. What about the older generation? They certainly made up an impor-
tant component of the demography, fulfilling significant roles within their society. We may
assume that such members of society have already demonstrated the competence in tech-
nical matters, have already substantially contributed to the survival of the group by direct
acquisition or processing of resources. While they may have disengaged to some degree from
direct productivity, they nonetheless continue to play valuable roles. Elders are the reposi-
tory of traditional knowledge, keeping alive necessary knowledge to deal with circumstances
beyond the common daily occurrences (Adovasio et al. 2007:164). They can also assume
childcare tasks to free up primary producers for tasks more closely aligned with basic subsis-
tence tasks (O’Connell et al. 1999).
The problem of their archaeological visibility remains. We cannot use the criteria of
technical savoir-faire or gendered tasks to distinguish their presence at Verberie. Their pres-
ence, however, might be discerned with other data at level IV-20 at Pincevent. While there
are a number of redundant modules of spatial organization of various classes of materials
that have been identified as domestic households, they are not all the same. The spatial

Conclusion 293
structures are indeed redundant, but the contents are not necessarily the same. Some of
the domestic units may be interpreted as primary acquirers of hunted game because of the
quantity and quality of reindeer carcass segments. Two domestic units, V105 and T112, are
closely allied in space and quantity of remains. They exhibit the most intense evidence of
food acquisition and sharing (Enloe 1991, 1992, 2003, 2004) as the two closest households.
Unit M89 is similar in structure and quantity of faunal remains (Enloe et al. 1994) and is
probably also a primary producer. These three units are characterized by large quantities of
reindeer carcasses; they have the meatier upper portions of fore and hind limbs; and they
exhibit exclusive possession of the fat-rich marrow elements, which were not shared between
domestic units. They are, arguably, the donors in food redistribution schemes. In contrast,
unit E74 in Section 18 is fully involved in the network of distributed reindeer carcasses,
but the quantity and quality of their share is substantially reduced. Instead of the meatier
upper limb segments, they have the intermediate, lower meat value pieces; they also have
none of the calorie-rich marrow bones (Enloe 2003). This may be the demographic profile
of recipients rather than donors, nonproducers who received sustenance from more active
producers, perhaps corresponding to widows or other elders. We do not have an analogous
data set for recognizing the presence of elders at Verberie, whether that is a function of
its being a gender-specific task group, a cooperative task group, or a single family group
(Enloe, this volume). This portion of the demography remains, unfortunately, archaeologi-
cally invisible.
Social Status and Inequality
Zubrow raises two crucial problems of sharing and of the factors maintaining equality or
resulting in inequality. It was Enloe’s (1991) pioneering work that demonstrated the exis-
tence of game sharing in Upper Paleolithic sites. It is more difficult to demonstrate defini-
tively the absence of food sharing. Polly Wiessner has modeled differential site structure
among hunter-gatherers for sharing versus nonsharing groups (Yellen 1977). Jean Hudson
(1990) developed a statistical test to evaluate the degree of carcass sharing among ethno-
archaeologically observed hunter-gatherers, but when this was applied to archaeological
materials at Pincevent, the results were contradictory to the osteological refitting results
(Enloe 2004). Zubrow’s chapter tackles another dimension of the problem—not the syn-
chronic aspect of sharing problematized by the previously mentioned researchers, but rather
“la courte durée.” His demographic modeling shows that it is only when households have
free access to collective results of the hunt (the star model) that they can maintain equality
among them. In contrast, his down-the-line model results in increasing material differentia-
tion among households, perhaps illustrated at Pincevent, where two household units were
more successful than others and accumulated the largest number of remains of all sorts. If
this model is applied at Verberie, assuming that the D1-M20 was not the only domestic unit
settled during the II-1 fall hunting season and that cooperative hunting for the migration
interception implies members of more than one household, there is no evidence of sharing
between households. The family or cooperative group that inhabited the II-1 domestic unit
kept its game for themselves. If there was any sharing, it occurred within the household or

294 Conclusion
cooperative unit after the filleting and meat processing, and did not leave any archaeological
trace except a more or less equal number of left and right reindeer bones.
Zubrow’s interest in equality and inequality raises the interesting question about the
social status of people in the Magdalenian of the Paris Basin. Did the highly skilled and
competent knappers present at Etiolles or at Verberie, who enjoyed a preferential place
around domestic hearths, occupy a superior position in the household social organization?
If that is so, it can bee seen at Verberie that, even if tools used by females tend to be in an
outer ring, this does not preclude them from having occupied one, or maybe two, sitting
positions around hearth D1. They were not obliged to cook on an auxiliary hearth. If an
annex was set up a few meters away from the main hearth, where males performed retooling
of weaponry, females again had access to that hearth for certain activities. At Etiolles, the
taphonomic disappearance of bones prohibits us from knowing directly where cooking was
performed, but Pigeot proposes that the simplified flint knapping production was performed
by females, since they occupy areas distinct from the best knappers’ central positions.
Final Thoughts
As Valentin stressed recently in his habilitation dissertation (2007), prehistorians have

access either to “la longue durée” of accumulated deposits or to the very short time of an
occupation. The intermediate time or historical time during which families, households,
or cooperative groups evolved, enlarged, contracted, recombined, or disappeared are most
of the time out of archaeological reach. Even at Etiolles, Pincevent or Verberie, where the
archaeological levels represent successive occupations, the time span is too long to allow us
to observe the evolution through several years of the same people. The reoccupation of the
same spots in the landscape and a similar use of domestic space indicate that they belonged
to the same group, but we do not know how many generations separate the first ones from
the next. We perceive variability that may be related to anything from individual prefer-
ences to changes in climate or faunal species, but we are often unable to decide which was
in operation. Zubrow launches a challenge that remains to be taken up.
Nevertheless, the Magdalenian and Azilian sites of the Paris Basin and western Swit-
zerland illustrate a Magdalenian domesticity that was at the same time stable and flexible,
resilient, and adaptive, where the division of labor took place within an active cooperation
of everyone. Though the absence of pack animals makes a foraging residential mobility more
likely than a logistical one, with household producers and consumers moving together from
one camp to the next (Audouze 2006), Magdalenians and Azilians seem to have enjoyed an
easier life during the cold temperate and cold phases of the Tardiglacial than their remote
successors during the warmer periods of the Allerød and early Holocene. The much larger
number of Magdalenian sites all over Europe indicates that whatever form of exchanges and
sharing they had, the bulk of them were successful and their households grew larger. With
the temperate climate and the forestation of the landscape, site size reduced as a function of
smaller social groups, perhaps single families instead of multiple households.

Conclusion 295
References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., O. Sofer, and J. Page 2007 The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in
Prehistory. Smithsonian Books, New York.
Audouze, F. 1988 Les activités de boucherie à Verberie (Oise). Technologie Préhistorique, J. Tixier,
editor. Notes et Monographies Techniques 25:97–111. Éditions du CNRS, Paris.
Audouze, F. 2006 Essai de modélisation du cycle annuel de nomadisation des Magdaléniens du
Bassin parisien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 103(4):683–694.
Audouze, F., and J. G. Enloe 1997 High Resolution Archaeology at Verberie: Limits and Interpreta-
tions. World Archaeology 29 (2):195–207.
Bémilli, C. 1998 Synthèse: les restes de faune. In Marolles-sur-Seine: Le Tureau des Gardes
(Seine-et-Marne): Vestiges d’implantations du Paléolithic supérieur: by Lang, Bémilli, and Caspar,
pp. 86–90. AFAN, Service Régional d’Archéologie d’Ile-de-France.
Binford, L. R. 1978a Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo
Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43:330–361.
Binford, L. R. 1978b Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.
Bodu, P., M. Julien, B. Valentin, and G. Debout, eds 2006 Un dernier hiver à Pincevent. Les Magdalé-
niens du niveau IV0. Gallia Préhistoire 48:1–180.
Brain, C. K. 1969 The Contribution of Namib Desert Hottentots to an Understanding of
Australopithecine Bone Accumulations. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station
39:13–22.
Brain, C. K. 1981 The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bridault, A. 1996 Le problème de l’exploitation du gibier au Tureau des Gardes (Marolles-sur-Seine,
Seine-et-Marne). In Paléolithique supérieur et Epipaléolithique dans le Nord-Est de la France,
Actes de la Table Ronde de Dijon, 7–8 octobre 1995, Y. Pautrat, editor, pp. 141–151. Cahiers
Archéologiques de Bourgogne No. 6.
Dobres, M. A. 2000 Technology and Social Agency. Blackwell, Oxford.
Eisenmann, V., and R. M. Argobast 1997 Le cheval néolithique de Chalain. In Littoraux Néolithiques
de Clairvaux-les-Lac et de Chalain (Jura), Vol 2, P. Pétrequin, editor. Editions de la Maison des
Sciences de l’Homme, Paris.
Enloe, J. G. 1983 Site Structure: A Methodological Approach to Analysis. Haliksa’i: UNM Contribu-
tions to Anthropology 2:28–39.
Enloe, J. G. 1991 Subsistence Organization in the Upper Paleolithic: Carcass Refitting and Food Sharing
at Pincevent. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico. University Microfilms Interna-
tional No. 9208123, Ann Arbor.
Enloe, J. G. 1992 Le partage de la nourriture à partir des témoins archéologiques: Une application
ethnoarchéologique. In Ethnoarchéologie: Justification, Problèmes, Limites, A. Gallay, F. Audouze,
and V. Roux, editors, pp. 307–323. Centre de Recherches Archéologiques du CNRS, Éditions
APDCA, Juan-les-Pins.
Enloe, J. G. 2003 Food Sharing Past and Present: Archaeological Evidence for Economic and Social
Interaction. Before Farming: The Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers 1(1):1–23.

296 Conclusion
Enloe, J. G. 2004 Hunter/Gatherer Food Sharing: Ideology and Ecology. In Hunters and Gatherers in
Theory and Archaeological Research, G. Crothers, editor, pp. 211–240. Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 31. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Enloe, J. G., F. David, and T. S. Hare
1994 Patterns of Faunal Processing at Section 27 of Pincevent: The Use of Spatial Analysis
and Ethnoarchaeological Data in the Interpretation of Archaeological Site Structure. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 13:105–124.
Hodder, Ian 1991 Postprocessual Archaeology and the Current Debate. In: Processual and Postproces-
sual Archaeologies, R. W. Preucel, editor, pp. 30–41. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Occasional Paper No. 10. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Hudson, J. 1990 Identifying Food Sharing Archaeologically: An Ethnoarchaeological Study among the
Aka. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies,
Fairbanks, Alaska, May 31, 1990.
Julien, M. 2006a À la recherche des campements d’hiver dans le Magdalénien du Bassin parisien,
Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 103(4):695–709.
Julien, M. 2006b Les Magaléniens d’hiver et les Magdaléniens d’automne. In Un dernier hiver à
Pincevent: Les Magdaléniens du niveau IV0. Gallia Préhistoire 48:149–154.
Julien, M., and C. Bémilli 1999 Occupations préhistorique dans le centre du Bassin parisien au
Tardiglaciaire: spectres fauniques et activités. Paper presented at symposium Le Tardiglaci-
aire en France septentrionale : climats, environnements et peuplements. Synthèse et perspectives.
Meudon, 20 janvier, 1999.
Julien, M., A. Bridault, and B. Valentin 1999 Conclusion générales. In Occupations du Paléolithique
supérieur dans le sud-est du Bassin parisien, M. Julien and J. L. Rieu, editors. Documents
d’Archéologie Française 78, Paris.
Julien, M., and J. L. Rieu, eds. 1999 Occupations du Paléolithique supérieur dans le sud-est du Bassin
parisien. Documents d’Archéologie Française 78, Paris.
Lang, L., C. Bémilli, and J. P. Caspar 1998 Marolles-sur-Seine: Le Tureau des Gardes (Seine-et-Marne):
Vestiges d’implantations du Paléolithique supérieur. AFAN, Service Régional d’Archéologie d’Ile-
de-France.
Leesch, D. 1997 Hauterive Champréveyres, 10. Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de Neuchâtel:
cadre chronologique et culturel, mobilier et structures, analyse spatiale (secteur 1). Archéologie
neuchâteloise, 19. Musée cantonal d’Archéologie, Neuchâtel.
Leone, Mark P. 1986) Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology. In American Archaeology Past
and Future, D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, editors, pp. 415–438. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.
habitat magdalénien (la Section 36). VIIe Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. C.N.R.S., Paris.
March, R. J., G. Dumarçay, A. Lucquin, and D. Joly 2006 Les activités liées a l’utilisation du
feu. In Un dernier hiver à Pincevent, M. Julien, B. Valentin, and G. Debout, editors. Les
Magdaléniens du niveau IV0. Gallia Préhistoire 48:89–108.
Moss, E. H 1983 The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements, Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon: Two
Case Studies from the French Final Paleolithic. BAR International Series 177.

Conclusion 297
O’Connell, James, Kristen Hawkes, and N. G. Blurton Jones 1999 Grandmothering and the
Evolution of Homo Erectus. Journal of Human Evolution 36:461–485.
Owen, L. R. 2006 Distorting the Past: Gender and the Division of Labor in the European Upper
Paleolithic. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen.
Schiffer, M. B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity
3:156–165.
Schiffer, M. B. 1983 Toward the Identification of Site Formation Processes. American Antiquity
48:675–706.
Valentin, B. 2006 De l’Oise à la Vienne en passsant par le Jourdain. Jalons pour une paléohistoire des
derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs. Unpublished Habilitation Dissertation, Université de Paris I.
Vanhaeren 2006 La parure: du lieu de production au lieu d’abandon. In Un dernier hiver à Pincevent:
Les Magdaléniens du niveau IV0, P. Bodu, M. Julien, B. Valentin, and G. Debout, editors.
Gallia Préhistoire 48: 132–134.
Yellen, J. E. 1977 Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains: Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen.
In Experimental Archeology, D. Ingersoll, J.E. Yellen, and W. Macdonald, editors, pp. 271–331.

French-English Index
English Français English Français Page Numbers

Entrées
Headwords Principales Sub-entries Sous-entrées
13 13
C C 26
14 14 14
C C C plateau plateau du 4–5, 15
Carbone14
activity, activities activité, activités activity area aire d’activité 2–3, 5–6, 18–19, 22, 30,
35, 37, 39–40, 44–45,
63, 76–77, 85–89,
92, 96–98, 100–101,
105–107, 131–132,
135, 137, 139–146,
149–152, 155–158,
160–163, 165–167,
169, 171–172, 176,
179–183, 188, 193–
195, 198–199, 208,
210, 214–218, 220,
225–226, 229, 233,
235, 245–246, 264,
269, 283–292, 294
activity, activities activité, activités manufacturing aire d’activité 0
area artisanale
adaptation adaptation adaptive d’adaptation 22, 101, 288–289
adhesive adhésif 107, 155
age âge age class(s) classe(s) d’âge 3, 29
aggregation regroupement aggregated phase de 243
phase regroupement
analogy analogie 4, 40, 107, 199, 220,
227, 239, 274
analysis analyse microwear analyse 15, 51, 106, 145, 152,
analysis tracéologique 161, 227, 269, 284
analysis analyse orientation analyse de 37–39
analysis fabrique
analysis analyse spatial analysis analyse spatiale 5, 15, 20, 107–108,
132–133, 158, 176,
181, 184, 188, 286
animal animal pack animal animal de bât 294
298


Entrées
antler bois de cervidé reindeer antler bois de renne 20, 24, 29, 76–89, 83,
107, 145, 153–157,
162–164, 171,
216–220, 235, 250,
254, 256–257, 260,
263, 290
anvil enclume 155
area, areas aire, areas arc-shaped area aire en arc de 19, 152, 158, 164, 172
cercle
area, areas aire, areas arc-shaped concentration en 150
concentration arc de cercle
ash refuse area vidange de 19, 40
cendres
attritional par décroissance attritional courbe de 29, 44
(profile or naturelle profile mortalité
mortality) naturelle
Azilian Azilien Azilians Aziliens 5, 108, 176–194, 210,
290, 294
bag, bags sac, sacs 239
baguette baguette 76–77, 80, 82–83,
85–86, 154, 171
band groupe group groupe 26, 29, 63, 70, 74, 77,
85, 87–88, 117–118,
125, 132, 176–77, 179,
183, 186, 188, 191,
194–195, 198–199,
205, 209, 211, 228,
249, 270–271, 280
bark écorce 239, 248
basket panier basketry vannerie 225, 236, 241–242
bâton percé bâton percé batons de bâtons percés 76, 79–80, 85, 87, 89,
commandement 156, 225
bedding couchage 132, 248
blade lame laminar laminaire 3, 19, 40, 51–74, 107,
141–142, 146–150,
152–172, 181, 184,
187–189, 198, 200–
202, 205–208, 213,
215–220, 232–233,
287–292
(Continued )

300 French-English Index

Entrées
blade lame micro-blade micro-lame 20, 64, 71
blade lame raw blade lame brute 52, 64, 70, 155, 157,
233
blade lame retouched or lame retouchée 19, 51, 71, 146, 149,
used blade ou utilisée 152, 153, 155, 156,
161, 189, 219, 233
bladelets lamelles bladelet lamellaire 19–20, 51–74, 84,
141, 150, 154–155,
158–160, 172,
181, 184, 188, 194
205–206, 210–211,
215–216, 220, 232,
288–290
blank support 3, 51–55, 59–62,
64, 66, 68–74,
82–83, 85–87,
108, 141–142, 149,
152–153, 155, 168,
182, 184, 188, 194,
198, 205–206,
210–211, 288
blood sang 165–166, 227,
253–254, 260–261,
263–264
boiling bouillir 91, 99
bone os bone chips esquilles d’os 11, 15, 18–20, 31,
33–35, 37–41, 43–44,
46, 51, 76–90, 100,
106–107, 121–122,
132, 135–138, 140,
142–142, 147, 149,
151, 153–157, 160,
162–166, 171, 176,
188, 215–216, 235,
239, 245, 260,
262–263, 265,
284–285, 287–288,
290–294
bone os bone fragments fragments 121, 149, 151, 155,
osseux 162, 164, 166


Entrées
bone os bone material, matières 63, 76–89, 138
bone materials osseuses
bone point pointe en os sagaie sagaie 76, 78–79, 86, 88,
106, 154–155, 160,
166, 215–216, 290
bone, antler & matières dures 19–20, 68, 76, 78, 82,
ivory animales 84, 145, 155–156,
235, 239, 241, 292
boring, bore aléser borer alésoir 155–157, 163, 171
boundaries limites, limit limite 2–3, 105–106, 135,
frontières 137, 291
butchering boucherie butchered découpé 4, 15, 18–19, 23, 31,
34–35, 37, 39–46,
51–52, 107, 117, 121,
135, 139–140, 146,
149–150, 152–153,
155, 158, 161–162,
165–167, 169–170,
172, 215–216,
218, 226, 254–255,
260–264, 266–267,
284–287, 291
butchering boucherie butchery boucherie, 155, 165, 285
découpe
butchering boucherie butchering activité de 19, 146, 149, 150,
activity boucherie/ 155, 161, 162, 167
découpe
butchering boucherie initial dépeçage 39–42, 44, 254, 263,
butchering 266–267, 286
butchering boucherie morsels morceaux 254
butchering boucherie body part, parts partie, parties 15, 24, 31, 34, 44
butchering boucherie portion, partie, parties 31, 35, 40–45, 80,
portions 113, 118, 254–256,
267, 291, 293
butchering boucherie quartering découper en 155, 189, 260
quartiers
butchering boucherie filleting découper en 149, 166
lanière
(Continued )


Entrées
calf, calves petit, poulain calving mise bas 27
etc.
camp camp, campsite camp, 11, 13, 18, 37–38,
campement campement 41, 45, 53, 63, 77,
86–89, 101, 117,
132, 176, 179–184,
188, 190, 194–195,
206, 210, 214,
216–217, 246,
253–255, 263–267
camp camp, base camp camp de base 2, 44, 242–243
campement
camp camp, hunting camp camp de chasse 1, 40, 88, 137, 146,
campement 170, 172, 228, 266,
287
camp camp, open air site(s) site(s) de plein air 1, 4, 15, 77, 92, 179,
campement 286
camp camp, residential camp campement 13, 42, 45, 107, 17,
campement résidentiel 146, 169
camp camp, summer camp campement d’été 116
campement
carcass, carcasses carcasse, carcass elements éléments 39
carcasses ou parties
squelettiques
carcass, carcasses carcasse, dismembering dépecer/ 155, 165, 285
carcasses démembrer
carcass, carcasses carcasse, quartering découper en 155, 189, 260
carcasses quartiers
cooking cuire : cuisiner cook cuisinier(ère) 1–2, 35, 100, 107,
146, 150, 162,
165–166, 168,
171–172, 243, 266,
284, 286–287, 294
chalk craie 53, 64
chiefdom chefferie 111
choice : choices choix, sélection 3, 34, 60–61, 93, 110,
119–120, 169, 188,
194, 200–201, 251,
262, 270, 288
cleaning nettoyage cleaning opérations de 2, 62, 106, 169,
processes nettoyage 263–264, 271


Entrées
climate climat climatic conditions 2, 16, 23, 44, 108,
conditions climatiques 231–232, 251, 254,
263, 289–290, 294
clothing vêtements cloth, clothes vêtements 2, 170, 229–232,
239–240, 246, 248
competence compétence ability aptitude 4, 5, 45, 51, 54,
56, 59–64, 167,
198–199, 201–202,
204–205, 209, 218,
220, 241–243, 287,
290–291, 294
competence compétence competence niveau de 5, 51, 56, 59, 167,
level : level of compétence 204, 218, 241–243
competence
competence compétence skill compétences 158, 164, 169
concentration concentration cluster concentration 11, 18–19, 37–38,
40, 43–45, 93, 95,
97–98, 132–133,
135, 137, 139–140,
142, 150, 152,
158–164, 170, 179,
191–193, 216, 266,
284, 286, 290
concentration concentration clustering concentration 18, 19, 38, 40, 43, 97,
150, 179, 191–193,
216, 284, 290
scatter zone de vestiges 18–20, 27, 97, 101,
dispersés 107, 148–152, 155,
158, 160–164, 167,
170, 172, 216
configuration configuration configurational organisationnel, 13–14, 22, 37, 40–41,
structurel 45, 107, 118, 132,
285
consumption consommation consuming consommer 3, 12–13, 26, 31,
35, 39, 41–45, 53,
63, 105, 107, 146,
155, 162, 168,
170, 226, 246,
248, 263, 266–267,
287, 291
(Continued )


Entrées
consumption consommation consumer, consommateur(s) 45, 146
consomming
consumption consommation consumption unité/ 45, 146
unit(s) groupe(s) des
consommateurs
consumption consommation donors pourvoyeurs 293
consumption consommation delayed consommation 13, 44, 266
consumption différée
consumption consommation immediate consommation 12–13, 26, 263, 267
consumption immédiate
cooperation coopération collaboration collaboration 263, 294
cooperation coopération cooperative groupe de travail 121, 161, 171, 172,
group 246, 293, 294
cooperation coopération cooperatively collectif, 116, 170, 172, 228,
collective 250, 251, 255, 256,
263, 264, 266, 293
cooperation coopération domestic organisation 11, 288
organization domestique
cordage cordages rope cordee 156, 163, 232,
236–239, 250, 292
core nucleus 2–3, 18, 51–52,
54–55, 57, 59–62,
64, 66, 69–71,
140–143, 145, 150,
152, 156, 165,
167–171, 181, 193,
198, 201–207, 210,
213, 215–216,
218–220, 241, 287
culinary activité 96, 100, 263
culinaire :
cuisson,
culling sélectionner 35
curing traiter/traitement meat curing traitement de la 32, 77, 79, 107, 145,
conserver/ viande pour 149, 157, 165, 226,
conservation conservation 261, 269–270, 272,
280
cut marks traces de 23, 35–36, 44, 260,
découpe 285


Entrées
cutting coupe découpe meat cutting découpe de la 36, 265
viande
cycle cycle annual cycle, cycle annuel 88, 117, 126, 172,
annual round 177, 179, 211
dating daté(s) de date(s) : date(s) 5, 12, 46, 116, 187,
236, 238, 240
death mort 23, 29, 31, 54, 253–254
debitage débitage elaborated débitage élaboré 52–74, 180–181, 183,
debitage 185, 194, 200–208,
210–211
debitage débitage simplified débitage 206
debitage simplifié
debris déchets, vestiges debris : déchets : déchets 15, 18, 38, 40, 98,
archéologiques manufacturing de fabrication 106–107, 148–152,
hors outils debris 157, 159, 162, 168,
188, 228, 266, 290
demography démographie demographics données 5, 11–13, 22, 24,
démographiques 44–45, 283, 286,
288, 291–293
density densité Kernel densité estimation de la 13, 18, 26, 29, 31–33,
estimate, densité par le 38, 43, 97, 100–101,
estimation noyau 106, 132–139,
142–143, 151,
157–160, 162–164,
178, 180, 188,
191–192, 284
discarding jeter, rejeter discarded jeté(s) 35, 39–40, 59, 91,
93, 101, 105–107,
138, 149–150, 152,
155, 157, 162, 167,
216
dismembering dépecer/ quartering découper en 155, 165, 285
démembrer quartiers
distal distal 25, 30–33, 35, 42, 69,
77, 79–81, 84–85,
87–88, 157–158,
256, 276–278
(Continued )


Entrées
distribution distribution 2–3, 11, 13,
20, 35, 37, 40–42,
44–45, 65, 92, 95,
117, 124, 126,
132–135, 137,
139, 151–152,
155–166, 169–172,
194, 216, 219, 232,
245, 254, 265–266,
286, 293
domesticity vie de famille domestic domestique/relatif 1–3, 5–6, 20, 22,
à l’habitation ou 105–107, 145–146,
à ses occupants 172, 283–286, 288,
294
domesticity vie de famille domestic space espace
domestique
drop zone drop zone front drop zone drop zone avant 18–19, 107, 150–151,
159–160, 162, 164,
168
dump dépotoir discard location lieu de rejet 18–20, 38, 40,
43–44, 46, 76,
93, 95–98, 101,
106–107, 131–133,
135, 137–140,
146, 148–152,
157–160, 162,
164, 166–167,
169, 171, 286
dump dépotoir waste déchets/rejets 101, 107, 137, 139
dump dépotoir refuse déchets, rejets 18, 19, 131, 137,
138, 139, 145, 146,
149, 150, 152, 162,
163
durables produits 235
durables
duration durée 2, 5, 13, 73, 77, 88,
100, 108, 110, 146,
158, 166, 177, 179,
210, 214–216,
287–288, 293–294


Entrées
economic économique economic organisation 2–3, 11–14, 42, 57,
organization économique 69, 83, 88, 92,
110–111, 113,
117–118, 121–122,
126, 165, 187, 195,
198, 205–206, 208,
210, 229, 232, 281,
285
economy économie two products économie fondée 27, 109, 118–122,
economy sur 2 produits 126, 165, 292, 231
egalitarian égalitaire 109–110, 112, 114,
165, 172, 199
elite élite 111
equality égalité égalitarian égalitaire 69, 109–137,
293–294
ethnoarchaeology ethnoarchéologie ethnoarchaeo- ethnoar- 39, 45, 157, 226, 245,
logical chéologique 269, 283–285, 291,
293
ethnography ethnographie ethnographic ethnographique 2, 4, 35, 107, 109–
110, 116–117, 121,
165, 169, 180, 220,
225, 227, 229–230,
232, 235–236,
238–239, 241–242,
244, 268, 284–285,
291
excavations fouilles excavate fouiller 2, 10–12, 8, 45, 40,
52, 55, 63, 96,
176–177, 179–180,
186, 194, 213, 284,
290
experiment expérience(s) experimental expérimental 88, 97, 225, 269–271,
284–285
experiment expérience experimentation expérimentation 225, 270, 281, 284
exploitation exploitation 22, 24, 27, 54,
68, 181, 201–202,
206, 210, 254, 285,
289
(Continued )


Entrées
family famille family group groupe familial 1–3, 12, 27, 42, 45,
63, 74, 105, 114,
116–117, 123, 125,
167, 172, 179, 210,
218, 251, 260, 262–
266, 287, 293–294
family famille kin parents, parenté 2, 42, 121, 167, 171,
287
fat graisse grease graisse 27, 30, 35, 44, 250,
260–261, 263, 265,
293
fauna faune species espèce (s) 2, 4–5, 12, 14, 18, 20,
22–46, 77, 86, 88,
106, 108, 135, 137,
139, 146, 176, 179,
183, 188, 191, 213,
235, 242, 245, 266,
286–287, 289–290,
293–294
fauna faune faunal faunique 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 18, 20,
assemblage 22–50, 106, 108,
135, 137, 139, 146,
213, 235, 242, 245,
266, 286, 287, 289,
290, 293, 294
fauna faune faunal spectrum spectre faunique 23, 34, 35
fauna faune arctic fox, polar renard polaire 23, 215
fox
fauna faune artic ground spermophile 23, 215
squirrel
fauna faune birds oiseaux 23, 117, 160, 215, 248
fauna faune duck canard 23
fauna faune goose oies 23
fauna faune grass frog grenouille rousse 23
fauna faune horse, horses cheval, chevaux 23, 46, 100, 101 160,
170, 213–215, 231,
289, 292
fauna faune mammoth mammouth 1, 4, 23, 76, 85, 87, 89
fauna faune narrow-skulled campagnol 23
vole grégaire


Entrées
fauna faune pied lemming lemming à collier 23
fauna faune reindeer renne, rennes 4, 15, 19, 22–41, 45,
46, 78, 83, 100,
116–122, 124, 126,
132, 146, 149,
154,–156, 160,
165–172, 213,
215, –217, 220,
225, 226, 231, 232,
245–267, 285, 289,
290–294
fauna faune caribou caribou 26, 117
fauna faune kamous kamous 256–258, 263
fauna faune water vole mulot à collier 23
fauve
fauna faune willow lagopède des 23
ptarmigan saules
fauna faune yellow-necked campagnol 23
mouse terrrestre
fawn, fawns faon, faons 29, 232
feature élément 4, 11, 37, 105–108,
structurel 132, 137, 150, 214,
218, 220, 284
figurines statuettes Venus Venus 240–242
fireplace structure de 190
combustion
fishing pêche 215, 248
flake éclat 53, 57, 59, 61–62, 66,
76, 85, 181, 187, 205
flint silex exotic allochtone 18, 51–52, 54, 60, 64,
66, 69–71, 74, 106,
131, 135, 138–139,
142, 178, 183–184,
187, 194–195, 206,
210–211, 217, 233
flint silex flint nodule bloc/nodule de 148, 149, 162, 168,
silex 219, 220, 292
flint silex toolkit, tool kit “trousse” d’outils 2, 150, 153
(Continued )


Entrées
flint silex Bartonian Bartonien, 53
bartonien
flint silex Campanian Campanien, 53, 60, 66, 69, 71
campanien
flint silex Santonian Santonien, 53, 60, 64, 66, 69, 70
santonien :
flint workshop atelier de taille workshop E20 atelier de taille 4, 18–20, 106–197,
E20 139, 145–146,
149–152, 159, 166,
194, 288
food nourriture food sharing partage de la 1–2, 12, 15, 27, 30,
nourriture 39, 41–42, 44–45,
107, 113, 117–118,
120–126, 145, 168,
171–172, 236,
242–243, 246, 248,
251, 260, 265–266,
287, 290, 292–293
forage fourrage forage fourrage 26–27
foragers foragers 11–14, 27, 35, 121,
228, 231–232, 289,
294
foraging foraging foraging system foraging system
fuel combustible 3, 149, 213
game gibier(s) herbivorous gibier herbivore 4–5, 13, 23, 106–108,
game 155, 160–161, 165,
171, 177, 195, 213,
215, 218, 243, 248,
251, 253, 265
gatherers collecteurs collecting collecter 2, 4, 6, 12–14, 43,
105–106, 137,
145–146, 152, 165,
171–172, 213, 225,
227, 235, 284, 286,
291–293
gender genre engendering, attribuer à un 2–3, 149, 165–172,
gendered, genre, sexué 220, 225, 227, 242,
engendered 285, 287, 290–293
gesture geste 4, 60–61, 00–201,
269–270, 274,
276–280


Entrées
GIS SIG Geographic Système 5, 20, 108, 111,
Information d’information 131–144, 145, 284
System géographique
grooving, groove, rainurage, groove rainure 68, 77–83, 85,
grooved rainurer, a 154–157, 225
rainuré
group groupe domestic group : voir groupe 1–3, 12, 27, 42, 45,
see family familial 63, 74, 105, 114,
group 116–117, 123, 125,
167, 172, 179, 210,
218, 251, 260, 262–
266, 287, 293–294
habitation habitation habitation structure 86, 92, 131–132, 188,
structure d’habitat 190, 194, 199, 201,
206, 208, 210, 215,
230, 248, 253, 256,
263, 266, 268
habitation habitation tent tente 18, 106, 137, 156,
169, 171, 172, 215,
231
habitation habitation shelter abri 13, 18, 19, 166,
169–172, 246, 286
hafting emmanchement haft manche 68, 70, 152–153,
155–160, 163–164,
171–172, 225, 232,
269–270, 276, 278,
281, 292
hafting emmanchement handle manche 68, 70, 107, 152,
156–164, 2 25,
269–281
hearth, hearths foyer, foyers basin-shaped foyer en cuvette 1–5, 15, 18–20, 37–45,
hearth 88–89, 91–102,
107–108, 131–133,
135, 137, 139, 141,
146–152, 155,
158–164, 166–172,
179–182, 214–216,
218, 220, 236,
285–288, 290, 294
(Continued )


Entrées
hearth, hearths foyer, foyers hearth voisinage 107, 149, 150, 158
immediate immédiat
vicinity du foyer
hearth, hearths foyer, foyers hearth periphery périphérie du 19, 135, 150, 152,
foyer 158, 162–164,
166–169, 172, 198
heat chaleur heating chauffage 18, 91–102, 107, 133,
146, 155, 162, 172,
215, 220, 256
herd troupeau band harde 26, 29–31, 116–117,
(of animals) 226, 245–246,
248–253
herders éleveurs husbandry élevage 116, 169, 226, 231,
246, 249, 285
herding élevage, élever 231, 249, 285
hide peau 14, 30, 51–52, 63,
68, 70, 107, 135,
152–153, 155–158,
162–163, 165–169,
171–172, 181,
194, 215, 218, 220,
225, 227–233, 246,
251, 257–258, 263,
265, 267, 269–282,
285–287, 291–292
hide peau dry hide peau sèche 68, 70, 156, 166, 232,
233, 270, 271, 287
hide peau fresh hide peau fraîche 70
hide peau moistered hide peau humide 280
hide peau wet hide peau mouillée 70
hierarchical hiérarchique, 3, 55, 57, 59, 62–63,
hiérarchisé 109–110, 112, 114–
115, 126, 179–180,
201, 208–210, 220,
281, 290, 292
household maison, dwelling habitation, 1–4, 11, 13, 42–45,
maisonnée, résidence 107, 115, 117, 121–
cellule 127, 146, 149, 167,
familiale 170, 172, 251, 266,
287, 290, 292–294


Entrées
household maison, home maison, chez soi
maisonnée,
cellule familiale
hunter, hunters chasseurs hunters-gatherers; chasseurs- 2, 4, 6, 12–14, 43,
hunters/ collecteurs, 105–106, 137,
gatherers chasseurs- 145–146, 152, 165,
cueilleurs 171–172, 213, 225,
227, 235, 284, 286,
291–293
hunting chasse hunts chasses 2, 4–5, 13, 22, 27,
40, 45–46, 73, 76,
85–86, 88–89,
106–108, 120–121,
132, 145–146, 149,
155, 160, 166–167,
170–172, 177,
179–180, 183, 188,
195, 198, 213–215,
218, 226, 228–229,
231, 242–243,
248–250, 252–254,
265–266, 285, 287,
290, 292–293
hunting chasse beating, beaters rabattre, rabat, 165
rabatteurs
hunting chasse interception interception 160, 289
hunting chasse stalking poursuite, 249
poursuivre
hunting chasse tracking traquer, traque 165, 249
individual, individu, agent agent, acteur 3, 52–53, 55, 63, 70,
individuals individus 72–74, 86, 111,
114–116, 183, 199,
209, 219–220, 228,
236, 242, 249, 263,
266, 284–285, 294
inequality inégalité 109–130, 293–294
infants nouveaux-nés 12, 45, 286
ivory ivoire 19–20, 76, 78, 82, 84,
145, 155–156, 235,
239, 241, 292
(Continued )


Entrées
jet jais 215–216
juvenile jeune 12, 45, 52, 59–64, 74,
179, 199, 205–206,
208–210, 286
kill abattage killing :killed abattre, tuer: 15, 24, 26–27, 30,
tué(s) 34–35, 41–42, 87,
117, 124, 149, 165–
167, 169, 179, 214,
217, 232, 245–246,
250–251, 253–254,
256–257, 259, 262,
272–276, 287–288,
290–291, 294
kill abattage kill site(s) lieu(x) d’abattage 15, 34, 44, 169, 244,
245, 253, 254, 263
knapping tailler apprentices apprentis 3, 5, 45, 51–76, 98,
106–107, 135, 137,
139–141, 145–150,
152, 15, 162, 165,
167–171, 179,
181–183, 187–188,
198–199, 201–202,
210–211, 213,
215–216, 2180220,
225, 228, 266, 271,
285, 287–288,
290–292, 294
knapping tailler beginners débutants 63, 168–170, 179,
220, 228, 287
knapping tailler knapper, tailleur, tailleurs 5, 51, 55, 146, 150,
knappers 168, 170, 182, 183,
198, 218–220, 287,
288, 291, 292, 294
knapping tailler knapping spot lieu de taille 149
knapping tailler unexperienced inexpérimenté 30, 60, 62, 146, 168,
(knapper, (tailleur, taille) 179, 202, 204
knapping)
knapping tailler unskilled tailleur (taille) 5, 51, 59, 167, 204,
knapper, malhabile 218, 220, 287, 291
(knapping)


Entrées
knapping tailler secondary reprise (de taille) 52, 59, 61, 62, 81, 204
knapping (by
another hand)
knife, knives couteau, meat knives : couteaux à viande : 149, 152, 155–156,
couteaux blades cutting lames à couper la 158, 161–162, 169,
meat viande 172, 215, 227, 239,
250, 253–254,
259–260
know-how savoir-faire 53, 62–63, 198–199,
201–203, 205–206,
208, 281, 292
labor travail division of labor répartition du 3, 12, 38, 41, 44–45,
travail 165, 170, 227–244,
284, 290–291, 294
labor travail gender division division sexuelle 3, 165, 167, 170,
of labor du travail 227–231, 266, 290,
291, 294
labor travail labor organisation du 12, 14, 22, 37, 38, 41,
organization travail 44, 45, 284
landscape paysage 12–14, 35, 176, 213,
294
leather cuir, peau 155–156, 166, 170, 270
level, levels niveau, niveaux layer couche, niveau 1, 4–5, 11, 15–20,
23–24, 26–27, 29,
31–32, 34, 37–45,
52–54, 60–61,
63–64, 70, 72–73,
76–77, 81, 83–89,
92–94, 95, 97, 98,
100–101, 113, 132–
133, 135, 141, 143,
145–148, 150, 153,
155–158, 160, 165,
167–172, 176–177,
179–193, 198, 209,
220, 225–226,
232–233, 236, 238,
245, 277, 281, 284,
286–290, 292, 294
(Continued )


Entrées
lithic lithique lithic assemblage spectre d’outils 3–5, 15, 18, 20,
51–54, 57, 60, 63,
66, 73–74, 77, 107,
131, 135, 140–142,
145, 160, 172, 176,
179–183, 188–190,
193, 195, 200, 209
lithic lithique lithic industry industrie lithique 52, 63, 73, 77
living floor(s) sol(s) d’habitat 18
logistical logistique logistical system système 2, 12–14, 27, 30, 35,
logistique 42, 44–45, 246, 289,
294
Magdalenian Magdalénien Magdalenians Magdaléniens
map plan 27, 53, 132, 135,
137, 139, 142–143,
147, 157, 159, 164,
168, 181, 185–186,
190–192, 216, 247,
284
marrow moelle marrow extraction de la 34–35, 40, 100, 107,
extraction moelle 146, 149, 155,
165–166, 265, 293
mat, mats natte 239
matrix : matrices mâtrice : 76, 83, 85–86, 125,
matrices 285
meat viande meat processing traitement de la 34–35, 40–41, 43,
viander 70, 100, 107, 124,
126, 149, 153, 155,
157–158, 161–162,
165–166, 168–171,
215, 231, 248–250,
254–255, 264–267,
289, 293–294
microwear microtraces : microwear analyse 15, 51–52, 66, 68, 70,
micro- analysis tracéologique 74, 88, 106–107,
stigmates, 145, 152–153, 155–
usures 157, 160–161, 225,
227, 233, 269–280,
284, 288, 292


Entrées
migration migration migrating durant la 23, 26–27, 29–30, 44,
migration 117, 160, 170, 177,
214, 226, 245–246,
250–251, 253,
289–290, 293
mobility mobilité, mobile mobile 12–14, 22, 27, 35, 42,
nomadisation 44–45, 170, 172,
289, 294
mobility mobilité, residential mobilté 12, 13, 35, 45, 289,
nomadisation mobility résidentielle 294
model modèle modelling modélisation, 2, 4, 12–14, 19, 39,
modéliser 35, 37, 72, 106–107,
109–112, 114–115,
117, 120–126, 131,
143, 165–166, 169,
171–172, 180, 188,
201, 211, 226,
280–281, 285–286,
293
molar, molars molaires premolar, prémolaire, 24, 27–28
premolars prémolaires
mortality mortalité mortality profile courbe de 29, 44, 244, 254
mortalité
needle aiguille eyed needle aiguille à chat 76, 80–81, 85, 87,
89, 156–157, 215,
217–218, 220,
239
net filet 161, 165, 167,
236–240, 242, 251
nutrition nutrition nutritional nutritif 13, 27, 31, 34–35, 40,
44, 122, 248, 265,
284
occupants occupants 11, 13–14, 37, 45,
105, 117, 132,
149, 165, 179,
187, 228
(Continued )


Entrées
occupation occupation, occupation unit unité 2, 3, 11, 13, 16, 18,
campement d’occupation 24, 37–42, 44, 45,
51–53, 61, 63, 72,
77, 86, 88–101,
105–107, 116,
117, 131–133, 135,
137, 139–141, 143,
146, 149, 150, 155,
156, 158, 166–172,
176, 177, 179–184,
186–191, 194, 195,
198, 206, 208, 210,
213–218, 220, 228,
229, 242, 243, 246,
254, 255, 263–267,
287, 288, 290, 292,
294
occupation occupation, 11, 16, 18, 24, 37,
campement 38, 40, 45, 52, 53,
61, 72, 77, 86, 89,
100, 106, 131,
132–141, 149, 150,
156, 166–172, 176,
177–179–184,
186–188, 191, 194,
195, 198, 208, 210,
214, 216, 218, 220,
229, 242, 243, 246,
253–255, 264–267,
287–290, 292, 294
occupation occupation, seasonal occupation 214
campement occupation saisonnière
operational chaîne production chaîne opératoire 52, 54, 59, 65, 66, 85,
sequence opératoire sequence, 180, 216, 240, 246,
sequence of 262, 268, 287
operations
opportunistic opportuniste 13, 26, 100, 199, 289
ornament parure 107, 215, 216, 218,
220, 289, 297, 310
path route, itinéraire 3, 27, 152, 249, 251,
253


Entrées
pattern pattern spatial configuration 6, 37, 39, 40, 41, 132,
patterning : spatiale 170
spatial pattern
pattern pattern breakage fracturation(s) 35
pattern(s) caractéristique(s)
people gens man, men Homme, 48, 49, 105–107,
hommes 110, 111, 113, 114,
116, 128, 129, 131,
152, 170, 171, 198,
214, 224, 228, 229,
231, 235, 236, 242–
244, 248, 251, 259,
263, 264, 266, 282,
284–287, 294
people gens male mâle, masculin 101, 149, 166–172,
198, 220, 225, 227–
232, 249, 253–255,
259, 263–267, 283,
291, 295
people gens woman : women femme, femmes 45, 146, 149, 161,
165–172, 198, 210,
215, 218, 220, 225,
228–232, 236, 242,
243, 249, 251,
253, 254, 256, 257,
259, 266, 262, 263,
264–267, 285, 291,
292, 295
people gens female : female femme : feminin, 179, 199, 210, 229,
266, 291
people gens adults adultes 12, 27, 29–31, 61, 63,
86, 149, 150, 167,
198, 199, 205, 206,
208, 209, 210, 219,
220, 229, 286–288
people gens sub-adults sub-adultes 27, 30
people gens adolescent adolescent 146, 199, 205, 209,
225, 228, 286, 287
(Continued )


Entrées
people gens child, children enfant, enfants 1, 3, 5, 45, 61–63,
146, 161, 167–169,
171, 198, 199,
205–206, 209, 215,
218, 220, 225, 228,
236, 243, 253, 266,
287, 291, 292
people gens elder, elders les personnes 149, 166, 228, 242,
âgées, les vieux 292, 293
people gens infants nouveaux-nés 12, 45, 286
percussion percussion direct percussion percussion directe 51, 52, 54, 55, 57–60,
62, 63, 85, 87, 201,
277–279
percussion percussion hammer percuteur 51, 52, 55, 57, 59–63,
66, 69, 188, 205,
218, 290
percussion percussion hard stone percuteur en 51, 52, 59
hammer pierre dure
percussion percussion soft hammer percuteur 52, 57
en matière
organique
percussion percussion soft stone percuteur en 57, 59, 60, 290
hammer pierre tendre
perforating percer piercing percer 80, 87, 232
perishables produits 243
périssables
piece, pieces pièce, pièces 35, 38, 77, 79, 80,
82, 84, 87–89, 107,
121, 139, 140, 150,
151, 152, 158, 165,
166, 191, 192, 215,
217, 225, 233, 236,
238–240, 254, 255,
256, 258, 262–266,
293
plant, plants plante, plantes vegetals plantes 106, 118–127, 156,
157, 213, 232, 233,
235–243
plant, plants plante, plantes whittling/ couper, tailler au 232, 233, 235–240,
whittled couteau 242, 243


Entrées
Pleistocene Pléistocène late Pleistocene Pleistocene final 16, 20, 23, 195, 238,
288
population population population sous-population,
subset, subset partie de la
of population population
position position, 151, 152, 162, 163,
localisation 167, 168, 187, 269,
280, 286
post poste, position knapping post poste de taille 150–152, 159–164,
168, 179, 216, 220
preservation conservation 4, 15, 18, 21, 29, 31,
32, 77, 79, 121, 149,
160, 179, 235, 236,
261, 266, 284, 286
prey proie(s) 14, 15, 23, 24, 26, 27,
29–31, 44, 245, 248,
249, 250, 251, 263,
265, 290, 291
process processus processing traitement, traiter 2, 5, 12, 13, 35, 39,
40, 41, 43, 45, 51,
93, 101, 106, 107,
113, 114, 149, 150,
153, 155, 156, 161,
162, 165–167, 169,
170, 211, 214–216,
220, 226, 235, 245,
246, 254, 256, 266,
267, 269, 284, 291,
292
process processus technical process processus 2, 5, 12, 35, 39, 40,
technique 41, 43, 45, 51, 93,
101, 106, 107, 113,
141, 149, 150, 153,
155, 156, 161, 162,
165–170, 211, 216,
220, 226, 235, 245,
246, 254, 256, 266,
267, 269, 284, 291,
292, 294
(Continued )


Entrées
procurement acquisition procuring acquisition, 2, 5, 12, 13, 23, 26,
acquérir 27, 30, 34, 35, 45,
86, 92, 100, 105,
107, 121, 121, 169,
170, 201, 218, 242,
249, 266, 289, 292,
293
procurement acquisition producing produire 2, 5, 12, 13, 23, 26,
27, 30, 34, 35, 45,
86, 92, 100, 107,
121, 169, 170, 218,
242, 248, 249, 266,
289, 292, 293
producer, producteur, unproductive improductif 51, 52, 55, 60–64, 70,
producers producteurs 74, 218, 220
producer, producteur, non-producers/ non-producteurs/ 2, 12, 42, 45, 264,
producers producteurs recipients récipiendaires 293, 292, 293, 293,
294
production production productive productif 2–5, 12, 13, 23, 26,
27, 30, 34, 35, 45,
51–64, 82, 83–89,
92, 100, 105, 107,
115, 117–127, 139,
141, 142, 145, 150,
167, 169, 170, 172,
182, 194, 198, 199,
201, 205, 216, 218,
219, 232, 233, 239,
240, 242, 243, 249,
266, 284, 285, 289,
290, 292, 293
production production production système,de 4, 66
system production
production production productivity productivité 54, 201, 202, 205,
292
projectile projectile bone point sagaie 51, 76, 77, 78, 79, 85,
86, 88, 106, 154,
155, 160, 166, 215,
216, 288, 290
projectile projectile projectile point armature/pointe 52, 70, 77, 78, 85–89,
de projectile 155, 216, 288, 290


Entrées
raw material matière première raw matters matières 51–54, 60, 62–64, 68,
premières, 69, 71, 74, 92–96,
matériaux 100, 106, 145, 148,
178, 187, 200, 201,
216, 217, 219, 233,
239, 248, 285, 292
refitting remonter refit remontage 42, 43, 52, 54, 57, 60,
64, 72, 97, 131, 141,
142, 143, 149, 180,
181, 184, 188, 190,
194, 205
region région regional regional 5, 14, 22, 27, 45, 95,
117, 177, 188, 216,
229, 231, 232, 245,
246, 250, 251, 265,
283, 288, 289, 291,
292
rejuvenation ravivage 51, 56, 57, 60, 68, 70,
97, 98, 146, 152,
160, 162, 163, 166,
171
rejuvenation réfection rejuvenating raviver 52, 53, 57, 61, 62, 87,
201, 205
secondary reprise 51, 52, 59, 61–63, 81,
knapping (by 87, 179, 180, 204
another hand)
resharpening raviver 56, 57, 60, 68, 70, 155
residence résidence residential résidentiel 2, 12–14, 35, 41, 42,
44, 45, 117, 146,
170, 171, 172, 287,
288, 289, 289, 294
residence résidence residential unit unité résidentielle 170, 171, 172, 288
resource(s) ressource(s) 2, 12, 13, 23, 26, 27,
35, 42, 44, 45, 92,
95, 100, 101, 109,
110, 114–118, 121,
126, 127, 165, 170,
178, 194, 210, 248,
288, 289, 292
(Continued )


Entrées
retouch retouche 40, 51, 52, 54, 64,
70, 71, 72, 149,
152–157, 161, 162,
168, 184, 188, 190,
216, 219, 220, 227,
233, 290
rondelles rondelles 239
rut rut rutting en période de rut 27, 30, 44, 250
sameness similitude 109, 113
scatter zone de vestiges 18, 19, 20, 97, 107,
dispersés 149, 150–152
scraping, raclage, racler, shave/shaving/ dépiler 51, 135, 152,
scrape(d) raclait depilate 154–157, 163, 165,
166–168, 220, 225,
227, 232, 286, 292
season saisonnalité seasonality, saisonnalité, 2, 5, 12, 13, 18, 23,
seasonal saisonnier 24, 26, 27, 30, 35,
44, 101, 108, 116,
117, 214, 216, 217,
218, 220, 226, 231,
246, 250, 288, 289,
290, 293
season saisonnalité Autumn automne 27, 29, 116, 117,
177, 180, 245, 246,
249, 250, 251, 264,
288
season saisonnalité Fall automne 27, 30, 31, 44, 101,
117, 146, 160, 170,
214, 216, 243, 246,
251, 263, 289, 290,
291, 293
season saisonnalité Spring printemps 101, 117, 170, 214,
216, 217, 218, 220,
246, 249, 250, 251,
288
season saisonnalité Summer été 26, 27, 116, 117, 171,
177, 180, 213, 231,
246, 249, 251, 253,
255, 256, 262


Entrées
season saisonnalité Winter hiver 23, 26, 27, 86, 90,
116, 117, 171, 213,
231, 232, 245, 249,
250, 251, 252, 254,
256, 262, 264, 288
settings espaces, lieux 105, 106, 107, 242
settlement campement/ 1, 2, 5, 14, 15, 100,
habitat/village 101, 106–108, 116,
126, 147, 171, 176,
287, 105, 116, 118
sewing couture stitch, stitches points, couture 76, 156, 157, 216,
218, 220, 239, 292,
238, 239
sex sexe 12, 26, 63, 165, 210,
227–231, 241, 259
sharing partager, partage food sharing partage de la 12, 35, 41, 42, 44, 45,
nourriture 109, 110, 117, 118,
121–126, 171, 264,
265, 266, 284, 291,
293, 294
silt silt alluvial : alluvial : alluvions 37, 108, 288
alluvions
site site archaeological gisement 11, 13, 142, 284, 286
site archéologique
site site open air site site de plein air 4, 15, 77, 286
skeletal part, partie du skeletal : skeletal du squelette : 31, 33, 34, 35, 39–41,
skeletal parts squelette, elements éléments du 46, 117, 253
parties du squelette
squelette
skeletal part, partie du head tête 40, 242, 253–258,
skeletal parts squelette, 260, 262, 265
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du organs organes 248, 254, 259–261,
parties du
squelette
(Continued )


Entrées
skeletal part, partie du skull : cranial crâne : éléments 23, 257
skeletal parts squelette, elements crâniens
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du brain cerveau 31, 256, 257, 286
skeletal parts squelette,
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du tongue langue 257, 260
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du diaphysis, diaphyse, 31, 155, 166, 292
skeletal parts squelette, diaphyses diaphyses
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du épiphysis, épiphyse, 31, 155, 166, 292
skeletal parts squelette, épiphyses épiphysis
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du distal (bone distal (fragment 25, 26, 30–33, 35,
skeletal parts squelette, fragment) osseux) 42, 69, 77, 79, 80,
parties du 81, 84, 85, 85,
squelette 87, 88, 157, 256,
276–278
skeletal part, partie du proximal proximal 24–26, 30–33, 36, 42,
skeletal parts squelette, 72, 77–80, 85–87
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du forelimb(s) fore membre(s) 42, 43, 44, 256, 260
skeletal parts squelette, limb(s) antérieur(s)
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du hind limb(s) membre(s) 256, 260, 265, 293
skeletal parts squelette, postérieur(s)
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du carpal, carpals carpe, carpes 25, 32, 35
parties du
squelette


Entrées
skeletal part, partie du femur, femora fémur, fémurs 25, 32, 34, 35, 256
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du humerus, humerus 24, 32, 36, 43, 256
skeletal parts squelette, humerii
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du limb, limbs patte, pattes 256, 258, 260, 263,
skeletal parts squelette, 265, 293
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du metacarpal métacarpe 30–32, 34, 35, 245
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du metatarsal métatarse 25, 33, 35
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du phalanges phalanges 26, 34, 35, 40, 260
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du radius, radii radius 12, 13, 25, 30–32, 36,
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du rib, ribs côte, côtes 24, 32, 34, 40, 245,
skeletal parts squelette, 259–262, 265
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du sesamoids sésamoïdes 26, 35
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du skull crâne 23, 257
parties du
squelette
(Continued )


Entrées
skeletal part, partie du sternum sternum 256, 259, 260, 265
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du tarsal, tarsals tarse, tarses 25, 32, 35, 40
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du tibia, tibias tibia, tibias 25, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36,
skeletal parts squelette, 256
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du vertebrae : vertèbres : 15, 19, 23, 24, 34, 35,
skeletal parts squelette, vertebral colonne 40, 245, 256, 259,
parties du column vertébrale 260, 261, 263, 265
squelette
skeletal part, partie du tendons tendons 253, 260, 261
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du entrails entrailles 259, 263
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du stomach estomac 260, 263, 264
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du viscera viscères 254, 260
parties du
squelette
skeletal part, partie du eviscerate éviscérer 261, 263, 264
parties du
squelette
skinning dépouiller 254–260, 263
slaughter abattage, abattre 34, 87, 169, 179,
245, 249, 253–255,
259, 260, 262, 263,
267


Entrées
social social, sociale, egalitarian society société(s) 1, 2, 3, 14, 20, 22,
sociaux (ies) égalitaire(s) 104–106, 108, 198,
213, 283, 284, 290,
294
social social, sociale, social activities activités sociales 6
sociaux
social social, sociale, social différenciation 109, 110, 112
sociaux differentiation sociale
social social, sociale, social group groupe social, 2, 11–14, 117, 172,
sociaux groupes sociaux 199, 228, 266, 294
social social, sociale, social organisation 1, 3, 5, 20, 22,
sociaux organization sociale 104–106, 108, 198,
213, 283, 284, 290,
294
social social, sociale, social status statut social 2, 116, 172, 198, 243,
sociaux 248, 265, 293, 294
space espace empty space espace vide 18, 19, 39, 149–152,
166, 167, 171, 172,
263, 284, 286
space espace high density espace 1–5, 18–20, 24, 31,
space densément 41, 45, 106–108,
occupé 133, 142, 145–152,
156, 163, 165– 171,
176, 177, 179–185,
190–195, 208–211,
232, 253, 254,
263, 266, 283, 284,
286–288, 290–294
space espace low density space espace faiblement 2, 3, 106–108, 145–
domestic space occupé 147, 149, 156, 163,
167, 169, 170, 172,
183, 208, 209, 232,
253, 266, 286–288,
290, 294
space espace spatial organisation 1–5, 14, 20, 22, 104,
organization spatiale 106, 108, 198, 213,
283, 284, 290, 294
spear lance javelin javelot 70, 116, 117, 155, 171,
239, 249, 252–254
(Continued )


Entrées
specimens spécimens 23, 24, 29, 30, 33–36,
43, 44, 238, 239
stage stade, phase extraction main plein débitage 51, 52, 54, 56–58, 60,
stage(s) 64, 65, 69
stage stade, phase preparation stage préparation 51, 52, 54, 56–58, 60,
62, 178, 202, 216
stage stade, phase production stage stade, phase de 216
production
stick bâtonnet 19, 76, 82, 84, 85,
87–89, 228, 240,
260
stone pierre heated stone pierre chauffée 18, 91, 101, 146, 162
stone pierre rocks pierres 91, 92, 93, 95–101,
180, 183–185, 191,
193, 289
stone pierre fire-cracked rocks pierres morcelées 11, 18, 38, 146, 155,
au feu 289
stone pierre slab dalle 91, 97, 99, 100
stone pierre stone block bloc de pierre 91, 97, 98, 100, 108,
146, 219
stone pierre limestone calcaire 91–93, 95, 97
stone pierre millstone meulière 91–93, 95
stone pierre shale sandstone grès schisteux 92, 93, 95
stone pierre sandstone grès 81, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97,
100, 156
space espace spatial organisation 1–5, 14, 20, 22, 104,
organization spatiale 106, 108, 198, 213,
283, 284, 290, 294
spear lance javelin javelot 70, 116, 117, 155,
171, 239, 249,
252–254
specimens spécimens 23, 24, 29, 30, 33–36,
43, 44, 238, 239
stage stade, phase extraction main plein débitage 51, 52, 54, 56–58, 60,
stage(s) 64, 65, 69
stage stade, phase preparation stage préparation 51, 52, 54, 56–58, 60,
62, 178, 202, 216
stage stade, phase production stage stade, phase de 216
production


Entrées
stick bâtonnet 19, 76, 82, 84, 85,
87–89, 228, 240, 260
stone pierre heated stone pierre chauffée 18, 91, 101, 146, 162
stone pierre rocks pierres 91, 92, 93, 95–101,
180, 183–185, 191,
193, 289
stone pierre fire-cracked pierres morcelées 11, 18, 38, 146, 155,
rocks au feu 289
stone pierre slab dalle 91, 97, 99, 100
stone pierre stone block bloc de pierre 91, 97, 98, 100, 108,
146, 219
stone pierre limestone calcaire 91–93, 95, 97
stone pierre millstone meulière 91–93, 95
stone pierre shale sandstone grès schisteux 92, 93, 95
stone pierre sandstone grès 81, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97,
100, 156
storage stockage storing stocker, faire des 1, 2, 23, 27, 39, 44,
provisions 95, 100, 107, 117,
166, 170, 171, 251,
255, 256, 263, 267
storage stockage store, stores réserves 27, 30, 44, 158, 250,
reserves 251
stratigraphy : stratigraphie : microstratig- microstratig- 149, 216
stratigraphic stratigraphique raphy raphie
subsistence subsistance 5, 12, 22, 27, 44, 106,
117, 118, 211, 229,
231, 242, 243, 246,
283
supply provision, supplying approvisionner, 92, 192, 216, 231
approvisionner approvision-
nement
symbolic activity activité symbolic activités 3, 106, 107, 157
symbolique activities symboliques
system système 2, 4, 35, 42, 44, 66,
105, 106, 112, 126,
145, 150, 199, 251,
266, 270
taiga taïga 246, 249, 251
(Continued )


Entrées
taphonomy taphonomie taphonomic taphonomique 31, 32, 37, 44, 45,
160, 191, 286, 294
task tâche specialized task(s) tâches 2, 12, 13, 22, 45, 110,
spécialisée(s) 114, 146, 152, 153,
155–157, 163–166,
168, 170, 220, 226,
229, 231, 232, 245,
253, 255, 259, 285,
286, 292, 293
task tâche logistical task(s) tâches logistiques 13
task tâche task force sous-groupe de 146
producteurs,
groupe de
travail
technique, technique, technical technique(s) 14, 17, 21, 22, 30, 41,
technique techniques 55, 56, 58, 61, 64,
65, 67, 68, 76, 83,
85, 92, 97, 102, 106,
110, 112, 115, 117,
126, 138, 141–143,
159, 160, 180, 182,
184, 198, 204,
205, 207, 208–212,
215, 216, 218–222,
229, 230, 246, 253,
256, 268, 280, 291,
293–297
technique, technique, technical skill technicité 216
technique techniques
technique, technique, technology : technologie : 14, 15, 19, 21, 30, 56,
techniques techniques technological technologique 61, 64, 76, 78, 79,
82, 83, 85, 97, 99,
100, 112, 117, 136,
154, 165, 175, 182–
184, 205–207, 209,
222, 236, 244–254,
256, 292–294, 296,
298
temperature temperature effective température 23
temperature : effective : TE
ET


Entrées
territory : territoire, 12, 33, 36, 37, 127,
territories territoires 138, 187–189, 204,
205
textile textile fiber, fibers fibre, matières 86, 97, 98, 166, 235,
souples 242, 246–249, 252,
253
textile textile thread fil 255, 270
textile textile weaving tisser, tissage 86, 166, 181, 235,
250–252, 254
time temps temporal, dans la 13, 131, 142, 150, 152
tempoorality diachronie,
temporalité
tool, tools outil, outils implement instrument 2, 3, 5 ,18, 19, 51–54,
59–68, 66, 70, 72,
75, 106–108, 132,
139, 142, 145, 146,
148–172, 175, 185,
187, 188–194, 199,
205, 206, 210, 211,
214–217, 219, 225,
228, 233, 236, 237,
239, 240, 269–281,
282, 294
tool, tools outil, outils lithic tools outils lithiques 13, 28, 155, 170
tool, tools outil, outils stone tools outils lithiques 85, 180, 185, 235,
244, 246, 279, 291,
292, 294, 295
tool, tools outil, outils backed bladelet lamelle à dos 51, 52, 59, 60, 63, 64,
70, 71, 73, 149, 154,
155, 158, 159–164,
166–170, 215, 216,
232, 288, 289, 290
tool, tools outil, outils borer : bec bec 52, 60, 64, 67–70,
145, 152, 155–158,
161, 163, 164, 166,
170, 171, 192, 287,
288, 289, 292
(Continued )


Entrées
tool, tools outil, outils burin burin 61–63, 65, 68, 70,
73–78, 80, 83, 84,
91, 118, 155, 157,
162, 164–166,
168–174, 176–181,
184, 198, 199, 225,
227, 228, 242, 243,
292, 297
tool, tools outil, outils composite tool outil composite 166, 227
tool, tools outil, outils end scraper grattoir en bout 68, 77, 78, 166–168,
de lame 172, 173, 176–182,
199, 203, 225
tool, tools outil, outils perçoir perçoir 12, 68, 166, 167,
175
tool, tools outil, outils micro-perçoir micro-perçoir 12, 68, 166, 167,
175
tool, tools outil, outils truncated blade troncature, lames 77, 80, 82, 166
tronquée
tool, tools outil, outils tools fabrication 18, 20, 76, 107, 155,
manufacturing d’outils 160, 164, 165, 168,
187, 199, 210, 211,
214, 217, 218, 220,
230, 257, –259, 288,
292
tool, tools outil, outils unretouched non retouché 50, 62, 159, 162
tooth, teeth dent, dents tooth eruption éruption dentaire 37
tooth, teeth dent, dents crown couronne dentaire 37–39, 58, 59, 267
tooth, teeth dent, dents dental material, séries dentaires 37, 38
dental series
tooth, teeth dent, dents dentition dentition 37, 38
tooth, teeth dent, dents molar, molars molaires 34, 37, 38
tooth, teeth dent, dents premolar, prémolaire, 34, 37
premolars prémolaires
toss zone toss zone aire de tossing rejeter, jeter 19, 29, 137, 139, 147,
rejet 149, 151, 152, 161,
162, 286
transport transport transported : transporté : 12, 22, 23, 25, 41, 45,
transportation moyen de 51, 52, 55, 58, 255,
transport 256, 258, 264–266,
270, 271, 276


Entrées
types types category, catégorie, 23, 28, 73–75, 78, 87,
categories catégories 98, 107, 124, 132,
159, 162, 163, 165,
167, 168, 175, 177,
180, 200, 201, 208,
209, 215, 216, 218,
220, 255
unit unité domestic unit unité domestique 12, 42, 44, 45, 53, 133,
135, 143, 146–153,
158–176, 179, 203,
245, 284, 286, 288,
290, 292, 293
unit unité domestic unit, unité d’habitation 131, 132, 179–195,
habitation unit 202, 205, 206, 209,
266, 276, 284
unit unité domestic unit unité domestique 29, 156, 158–160,
D1: D1 unit D1: unité D1 162, 163, 168–171,
173, 176, 181, 294,
297, 298
unit unité domestic unit unité domestique 29, 156, 159, 162,
M20 : D1 unit M20 : unité 170, 171, 174, 176,
M20 181, 182, 297
unit unité domestic unit unité domestique 180
T111 T111
unit unité domestic unit unité domestique 180, 303
V105 V105
unit unité domestic unit U5 habitation U5 207, 209, 212, 215,
: U5 : U5 216, 218, 220
unit unité {domestic unit} Q31 (unité 17, 185, 216, 218–222
Q31 d’habitation)
utility utilité high food utility forte utilité
nutritionnelle
utility utilité low food utility utilité faible 39
nutritionnelle
water eau flood inondation 16, 177, 188, 184
weaponry réparation des 153–155, 157, 158,
retooling armes 160, 163, 164, 167,
169, 171, 216, 218,
225, 287, 294
(Continued )


Entrées
wear usure edge wear usure du bord
wear usure microwear microtraces, 25, 61, 116, 117, 155,
microstigmates 162, 163, 165–167,
170, 171, 235, 237,
243, 244, 279, 292,
294, 298, 302
wood bois creeping willow saule rampant 243
wood bois dwarf birch bouleau nain 223
working post poste de travail working position position de travail 150, 151–152, 159,
160, 163, 164, 168,
220
working post poste de travail working station poste de travail 286
zooarchaeology archéozoologie zooarchaeological archéozoologique 28, 57, 59, 117, 231

2010zubrow Unraveling Combined Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010zubrow Unraveling Combined Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

the magdalenian household:

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd i 6/4/10 9:04:51 PM

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd ii 6/4/10 9:04:51 PM

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd iii 6/4/10 9:04:51 PM

© 2010 State University of New York

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever

For information, contact

Production, Eileen Meehan

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Magdalenian household : unraveling domesticity / Edited by Ezra

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd iv 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Introduction Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe

Chapter One James G. Enloe

Chapter Two James G. Enloe and Françoise Audouze

Chapter Three James G. Enloe

Chapter Four Frédéric Janny

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd v 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Chapter Five Aline Averbouh

Chapter Six Gaëlle Dumarçay and Madeleine Caron (+)

Chapter Seven Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe

Chapter Eight Ezra Zubrow

Chapter Nine Dustin Keeler

Chapter Ten Françoise Audouze

Chapter Eleven Pierre Bodu

Chapter Twelve Nicole Pigeot

Chapter Thirteen Marie-Isabelle Cattin

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd vi 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Chapter Fourteen Françoise Audouze

Chapter Fifteen Lawrence H. Keeley

Chapter Sixteen Olga Soffer and James M. Adovasio

Chapter Seventeen Francine David, Claudine Karlin, and Vladimir D’lachenko

Chapter Eighteen Sylvie Beyries et Veerle Rots

Conclusion James G. Enloe, Françoise Audouze, and Ezra Zubrow

French-English Index 298

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd vii 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd ix 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Confédération Helvétique), and Francine David and Claudine Karlin (Ingénieurs de

Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze, James G. Enloe

Zubrow_Unraveling_00.indd x 6/4/10 9:04:52 PM

Ezra Zubrow, Françoise Audouze,

Zubrow_Unraveling_01.indd 1 6/3/10 8:35:14 PM

Zubrow_Unraveling_01.indd 2 6/3/10 8:35:14 PM

Why Is Domesticity Important?

Zubrow_Unraveling_01.indd 3 6/3/10 8:35:14 PM

spatial organization. The presence of a lithic workshop is not an indication of an organized

Two Complementary Approaches

Zubrow_Unraveling_01.indd 4 6/3/10 8:35:14 PM

among knappers, particularly unskilled knappers lacking know-how and psychomotor

Zubrow_Unraveling_01.indd 5 6/3/10 8:35:14 PM

Zubrow_Unraveling_01.indd 6 6/3/10 8:35:14 PM

Leesch, D. 1997 Hauterive-Champréveyres, 10. Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de

Zubrow_Unraveling_01.indd 7 6/3/10 8:35:14 PM

Technology and Demography

Zubrow_Unraveling_02.indd 9 6/3/10 4:00:12 PM

Technology and Demographics

From Excavations to Demographics

T he primary question addressed in this volume involves domestic organization in the

Zubrow_Unraveling_02.indd 11 6/3/10 4:00:14 PM

replicate interpretations of the kinds of domestic units seen at Pincevent—“discovering” the

Hunters and Gatherers on the Landscape