Based on previous works by M. Julien (1982) and G.C. Weniger (1995), this paper presents some preliminary hypotheses on the possible functions of the osseous barbed points from the Upper Magdalenian (ca. 13 500-12 000 cal BC). Taking as a starting point the statement that their appearance and development coincide with an increased interest in small animal hunting (fish, birds, lagomorphs), we attempted to correlate the relative abundance of barbed points with the representation of small game, but the data from our test area (Northern Pyrenees) did not provide conclusive results. A survey of the barbed points of Northern American hunter-gatherers known by ethnography shows a clear functional trend: “simple” barbed points are mostly used for fowling, for hunting big and small land game, and for war; while “true” harpoons are mostly used for fishing and hunting sea mammals and aquatic mammals. However, when based on a rigorous operational definition of harpoons, the morphology of the Magdalenian barbed points appears not to allow their positive classification as harpoon heads. Thus, their function remains largely undetermined. We therefore suggest several possible directions for future research on this topic.
To cite this article
Pétillon J.-M., 2009 – What are these Barbs for? Preliminary Study on the Function of the Upper Magdalenian Barbed Weapon Tips, in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 66-97.
The objective of this paper is to present certain characteristics of Hamburgian shouldered points that can be compared with Magdalenian lithic points. The collections studied are those of Poggenwisch and Teltwisch 1. The blanks of these points are narrow and thin blades with a relatively rectilinear profile. One question that is raised is whether they originate in part from a specific schema opératoire (operational scheme) employed with the objective of obtaining these blanks, which seem to have been detached using a soft stone hammer. Despite some common characteristics, I observed a difference in the degree of standardisation between the two collections studied. The microburin technique was used during the shaping of the blanks into points. The basal modifications are highly variable, which has not yet been explained. One of the causes could be related to the hafting method, for which I propose an alternative that takes into account the profile of the points, as well as the lack of wood in the environment.
To cite this article
Weber M.-J., 2009 – Fabrication and Use of Hamburgian Shouldered Points: New Data from Poggenwisch and Teltwisch 1 (Ahrensbourg Valley, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany), in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 98-132.
In this paper, we question the significance of “Alpine” research on the Neolithic, applying both a theoretical and practical approach based on the example of the Maurienne valley (Savoie). The adjective “Alpine”, accompanied by that of “Neolithic”, might have only a geographic sense. We nonetheless believe that it makes an implicit reference to the “Alpine economy”, a concept developed by geographers to describe a modern economic system concentrated on the raising of bovids for the production of cheese. Though comparisons between the modern era and the Neolithic are dangerous, the concept of mobility seems to be a common point and a corollary of that of identity. The necessity of a regional approach led us to conduct research in the high Maurienne, an east-west axial valley on the internal Alps. An ancient, relatively abundant documentation and fieldwork conducted by several volunteer archaeologists shows several occupation points in this territory between 500 and 1500 m in altitude, with a few points as high as 2200 m. The first dated occupations are attributed to the Vasi a Bocca Quadrata culture (2nd half of the Vth millennium BC), but it is not until the Final Neolithic that two excavated sites give insight into the settlement patterns. Information concerning the resources exploited by human groups is rich in this case and reveals regional markers. Therefore, rather than think of an Alpine Neolithic, we prefer to speak of a Neolithic occupation in the Alps.
To cite this article
THIRAULT É., 2009 – Issues and Perspectives of the Alpine Neolithic: the Case of the Maurienne (Savoie – France), P@lethnology, Varia, 398-414.
In this paper, I present interpretations of the stigmata of fabrication (observation of retouch methods) and use (observation of impact traces and hafting glue residues) of microliths and hyper-microliths (arrowheads) of the Middle Mesolithic Sauveterrian period. Based on the first results obtained from the sites of Grande Rivoire, Pas de la Charmate (Vercors, Isère) and Sinard (Trièves, Isère), a reconstruction of the hafting modes of these tools is proposed. The results of a first experimental test are also presented.
To cite this article
Chesnaux L., 2009 – Sauveterrian Microliths: Evidence of the Hunting Weapons of the last Hunter-gatherers of the Northern Alps, in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 133-146.
We present an analysis of Sauveterrian microlithic backed points from sites located in the Trentino region of the north-eastern Italian Alps: Pradestel, Lago delle Buse & Colbricon. Experimental arrows were produced, hafted and shot into an animal target. The results of this study indicate that these points may have been “ineffective” for the hunting of medium to large-sized prey, such as ibex, red deer, bear, or wild boar. We propose that Sauveterrian microliths can rather be correlated with the hunting of small forest prey such as roe deer, marmot and other animals with thick fur. An alternative hypothesis for the hunting of large game is also proposed.
To cite this article
Grimaldi S., 2009 – Experimental Observations of Early Mesolithic Points in North-East Italy, in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 147-160.
In Nubia, lunates (circle segments) are one of the most characteristic tools from the beginning of the Holocene to the end of proto-history, or even later. According to some interpretations, they are generally considered as being arrowhead or sickle blades. Taking into account archaeological examples, very diverse in their context and dating, the present article tries to summarize our knowledge on the question of their function. While previous studies have essentially taken into account the existence of traces or organic residues (gloss or polish, hafting glue, handle or shaft) and less often the context of discovery (tips driven into human bones or embedded in skeletons), they have not, on the other hand, considered the question of impact fractures and the dimensions of lunates. By collecting all these observations, it is possible to differentiate small sized lunates having mainly been used as projectile tips or barbs and bigger pieces meant to fit knives for cutting vegetal materials or sickles. We can however not exclude other uses for some of the lunates, as it is possible that pieces of medium dimensions could have had a functioned as arrowheads or sickle blades. Finally, we can observe a tendency through time toward a reduction in size of the lunates and a greater standardization of the pieces intended to be used as projectiles.
To cite this article
Honegger M., 2009 – Lunate Microliths in the Holocene Industries of Nubia: Multifunctional Tools, Sickle Blades or Weapon Elements?, in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 161-173.
DIn the context of ongoing, multidisciplinary by the ANR project “GUEROPE” (“War and Violence in the first societies of Europe, an integrated approach”, directed by L. Baray) and a doctoral thesis in progress, I present a study of weaponry, and particularly projectiles, used in interhuman violence. The study and resulting discussion are based on archaeological remains from the end of the Neolithic in France. Certain research procedures and preliminary results are presented in advance of an exhaustive publication in the future.
To cite this article
Dias-Meirinho M.-H., 2009 – On the Notion of War Weaponry in the Neolithic, in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 174-182.
The site of Tercis, in the Adour Basin, contains several distinct artefact concentrations. It consists of a vast openair knapping workshop where the production of lithic weapon tips in Tercis flint was a significant activity. Some of the lithic concentrations can be attributed to the Gravettian culture. However, the degree of technical investment varies from assemblage to assemblage, contrasting this probable cultural unity. This paper presents a study of the apprenticeship process revealed by these assemblages in order to stress the high degree of technical investment devoted to projectile tips, and consequently, their significant role in the evolution of lithic production systems.
To cite this article
Simonet A., 2009 – A Gravettian Knapping Workshop at Tercis (Landes): a Probable Case of Apprenticeship in the Fabrication of Lithic Weapon Tips, in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 183-210.
The most recent research on Magdalenian lithic and bone projectiles allows us to make comparisons between large territories and in this way to confront the regional typological synthesis on which our thinking is based. A comparative study of several lithic assemblages between the Rhone and the Ebro Rivers, and the definition of standard point manufacturing technologies raise many questions concerning the identity of the Late Glacial (Tardiglacial) Magdalenian. This study is part of a doctoral thesis being currently being realized in collaboration with the universities of Toulouse-Le Mirail (TRACES) and Barcelona (SERP). In this article, we present our first results as food for thought in the characterization of the Magdalenian in Southern France and Northern Spain. Recognized over a large territory, the Lower Magdalenian is very different from the Magdalenian of later phases (Middle and Upper Magdalenian) due to the existence of large backed bladelets and micro-bladelets, sometimes associated with shouldered points on blades. The later Magdalenian is characterized by specific lithic point morphotypes. By integrating this data with the raw material circulation, we raise the question of the chronological, territorial and techno-economical identities of the Magdalenian between the Rhone and Ebro Rivers.
To cite this article
Langlais M., 2009 – Chronology and Territories in the Magdalenian between the Rhône and Ebro rivers: the Exemple of Lithics Points, in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 211-240.
In recent years, new data on the Late Glacial period in western France have allowed us to develop a model of chronocultural evolution based on comparative lithic technology and lithic hunting weapon elements. This period can be divided in to four main phases: Early Azilian, Late Azilian, Final Azilian and Auvours-type industries. Though it presents some particularities, the western Late Glacial appears very similar to that which is well documented neighbouring regions. After a succinct presentation of these cultures, this article will focus on the lithic reduction sequences for the fabrication of weapon elements in order to identify and explain possible variations in the treatment of projectile points between the groups studied. This heterogeneity appears to be linked to a difference in approaches to raw materials and volumetric conceptions between the Late Azilian and Auvours-type industries rather than to a change in the status of weapon elements, which remain central to the production objectives.
To cite this article
Naudinot N., 2009 – Lithic Weapon Elements in Western France (Brittany and Pays de la Loire) during the Late Glacial Period: a Proposed Chrono-cultural Organization and Reduction Sequence, in Pétillon J.-M., Dias-Meirinho M.-H., Cattelain P., Honegger M., Normand C., Valdeyron N., Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of session C83, XVth UISPP World Congress, Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006, P@lethnology, 1, 241-268.
Download