# Socio-Economic Dynamics of Magdalenian Hunter-Gatherers: Functional Perspective

Eugénie Gauvrit Roux

► To cite this version:

Eugénie Gauvrit Roux. Socio-Economic Dynamics of Magdalenian Hunter-Gatherers: Functional Perspective. PLoS ONE, 2022, 17 (10), pp.e0274819. 10.1371/journal.pone.0274819. hal-03800534

HAL Id: hal-03800534

https://hal.science/hal-03800534

Submitted on 13 Mar 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Socio-economic dynamics of Magdalenian hunter-gatherers: Functional perspective

Eugénie Gauvrit Roux¹,²*

1 ArchaeoZOOlogy in Siberia and Central Asia, CNRS ZOOSCAN IRL 2013, International Research Laboratory, Novosibirsk, Russia, 2 Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS UMR 7264 CEPAM, Nice, France

* eugenie.gauvrit.roux@gmail.com

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

The beginning of the Middle Magdalenian is marked by an increase in the density and geographic extension of evidences of human occupation across western Europe. The Early Middle Magdalenian (19,5–17,5 ka cal. BP) thereby extends from Poland to Spain, and the sharing of the flint-knapping concepts and the circulation of raw materials show the existence of networks active over this wide area. In parallel, part of the production of art, ornaments, microliths, bone industry, and the proportions of hunted ungulates vary regionally and allow to identify distinct technical traditions. Departing from a palethnographic approach at a regional scale, this paper aims at participating in renewing our understanding of the mechanisms of regionalisation during the period, and among past societies of hunter-gatherers. The reflection is based on the techno-functional analysis of stone tools from two cave sites of west-central France that are at the heart of the definition of two technical traditions: La Marche (Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles points) and the Blanchard cave (Magdalenian with navettes). Inter-site comparisons of the functioning and management of stone tools, and of subsistence strategies show the sharing of techno-economical norms, expressing the adhesion to a wider community of practice. The long-term occupation of at least part of the caves and the high density of sites in the Vienne, the Creuse, the Gartempe, and the Charente Valleys, indicate the strong regional implantation of human societies. This strong territoriality (effective and symbolic) is likely a major factor to understand the specificity of the EMM expressions in the area, as well as the sharing, in the same economic territory, of technical norms and of part of the system of symbolic representation.

## 1. Introduction

The beginning of the Middle Magdalenian is marked by an increase in the density and geographic extension of the evidences of human occupation across western Europe. The archaeological sites attributed to the Early Middle Magdalenian (EMM, 19,5–17,5 ka cal. BP) [1–3] are known from Poland to Spain. The EMM develops during the first cold and humid phase of the Heinrich 1 event (H1) [4], and during this period, flint and shells circulated over long distances, as well as the blade and bladelet débitage concepts [1, 3, 5–8]. The similarity of part of the lithic industries attests of a unity over this wide area allowed by the existence of tight networks of circulation of ideas, people, or goods, that were active on a wide scale. In parallel, part

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Gauvrit Roux E (2022) Socio-economic dynamics of Magdalenian hunter-gatherers: Functional perspective. PLoS ONE 17(10): e0274819. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819

**Editor:** Peter F. Biehl, University at Buffalo - The State University of New York, UNITED STATES

**Received:** December 7, 2021

**Accepted:** September 6, 2022

**Published:** October 5, 2022

**Copyright:** © 2022 Eugénie Gauvrit Roux. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the manuscript, its [Supporting information](#) files, and in a PhD thesis that can be found here: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03018902/document.

**Funding:** All the fundings or sources of support received are the following: - PhD grant from the Université Côte d'Azur - postdoctoral research grant from the Fyssen Foundation - CEPAM CNRS UMR 7264 laboratory - ZOOSCAN CNRS IRL 2013 laboratory. There was no additional external funding received for this study.
**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

of the production of art, ornaments, microliths, bone industry, and the proportions of hunted ungulates vary regionally.

West-central France plays a specific role in the expression of the EMM variability. The regional historiography and the richness of art, ornaments, lithic, and osseous material have allowed to recognise early two Magdalenian traditions in west-central France, which were at least partially contemporaneous during the first phase of the H1 event: the Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles points (MLA), first identified at La Marche and the Roc-aux-Sorciers in eastern Vienne [9], and the Magdalenian with Navettes (MN), characterised in particular from the assemblage of the Blanchard cave and the Grand Abri at La Garenne in Indre [10]. The MLA of west-central France is mostly defined by the eponymous short single-bevelled osseous projectile points, the engraving of human realistic profiles on limestone, ivory beads named stomach beads, perforated and notched hyoid bones, and engraved horse incisors. The MN owes its name to the navettes, which are antler bifid artefacts, often found associated with long double-bevelled osseous projectile points, schematised human figures, and phalliform pieces [3, 6, 8–18]. In spite of differences in systems of symbolic representation and weaponry, the MLA and the MN shared an economic territory and both produced truncated backed pieces, which are abundant in the sites of the region and rare elsewhere [1, 3, 6, 19].

Based on a palethnographic approach at a regional scale, this article aims at participating in renewing our understanding of the mechanisms of regionalisation of the expressions of the EMM. The reflection is based on the techno-functional analysis of the stone tools from two cave sites of west-central France that are at the heart of the definition of two technical traditions: La Marche (MLA) and the Blanchard cave (MN). This paper examines and compares, on the intra- and inter-site scales, the functioning and management of stone tools, the subsistence strategies, and the function of the sites. These elements, combined with multiproxy regional data from faunal remains, art, ornaments, and raw material circulation, allow to reconsider the techno-economical dynamics at the EMM in west-central France, and transform our way to conceive the EMM traditions.

## 2. Regional setting

West-central France is composed of wide and open valleys with low elevation reliefs, and of diverse karstic networks that were occupied by prehistoric societies. The region yields a series of EMM cave or rock shelter sites located in the valleys of the Vienne (La Marche, the Réseau Guy-Martin, the Fadets, the Terriers), the Gartempe (the Taillis-des-Coteaux, the Piscine, and the Roc-aux-Sorciers, which includes the Bourdois rock shelter and the Taillebourg cave), the Creuse (the caves of La Garenne, which include the Blanchard cave and the Grand Abri), and the Charente (the Puits du Chaffaud, the Paignon rock shelter at Montmorillon, the Placard, the Roc-de-Sers) (Fig 1). The paleoenvironmental data from the marine [4, 20, 21], glacial [22], and regional continental records [23–28] indicate that the period was marked by cold and relatively wet conditions, and by a landscape dominated by taxa of the cold steppe. Major hunted fauna include ungulates of cold open landscapes such as reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), horse (Equus caballus), bison and aurochs (Bovinae), and saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) [25, 28–30]. Major plant taxa include grasses (Poaceae), mugworts (Artemisia), asters (Asteraceae) and heaths (Ericaceae). As during the Last Glacial Maximum, tree taxa–comprising pine (Pinus), juniper (Juniperus), birch (Betula), willow (Salix), and oak (Quercus)–were typically rare in western Europe and the landscapes were open [10, 21, 23, 26]. The anthracological data are scarce for the EMM and the flora associations remain mostly known through palynological data. Ongoing anthracological analysis at the Bouyssonie cave in Corrèze should bring new elements to discuss paleoecology in western France during the Late Glacial [31].
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Early Middle Magdalenian cave or rock shelter sites of west-central France. Basemap: Natural Earth, QGis software.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g001

The EMM traditions of west-central France are mostly defined by the art, ornaments, and osseous productions, which are particularly abundant (e.g., hundreds of engraved limestone slabs at La Marche) or imposing (e.g., monumental sculpted frieze of the Roc-aux-Sorciers). Most research focused on these productions, leading to a reduced interest in the lithic industry [32], which is besides widely considered as part of a common background of the Middle Magdalenian.

The geographical distribution of the art, ornaments, and osseous productions characteris-
ing the MLA and the MN shows their high concentration in west-central France, in particular
at La Marche and the Roc-aux-Sorciers, and at the Blanchard cave and the Grand Abri at La
Garenne, as shown on Fig 2 [2, 3, 16, 33, 34]. It also reveals that the influence of these two tra-
ditions extends from Spain to Poland, and is centered on west-central France, south-western
France, and north-western Spain:

**2.1. The Magdalenian with Lussac-Angles points**

The MLA is mainly defined by the eponymous short, single-bevelled, grooved antler projectile
points that have a lanceolate shape and are found from the Yonne department in France to
northern Spain (Figs 2 and 3) [2, 3, 9, 34]. La Marche and the neighbouring Roc-aux-Sorciers
are the reference sites of the MLA. These sites are about 40 km apart and provide more than
half of the known European specimens of Lussac-Angles points. Except from a few Pyrenean
sites, these points specimens are generally found isolated outside of the east of the Vienne
department (Fig 2) [2, 34, 35].

The engraving or sculpting of realistic human faces and bodies on cave walls or slabs also
plays an essential part in the regional expression of the EMM (Fig 2) [15–17, 36, 37]. This
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 2.** Distribution of the elements characterising the tradition with Lussac-Angles points (red) and the tradition with navettes (blue).
1-Mascycka. 2-The Grappin cave. 3-Trilobite. 4-La Garenne (Blanchard cave, Grand Abri). 5-Roc-aux-Sorciers (Taillebourg cave, Bourdois rock shelter). 6-Taillis-des-Coteaux. 7-La Piscine. 8-La Marche. 9-Réseau Guy-Martin. 10-Les Fadets. 11-Le Chaffaud. 12-Le Placard. 13-Montgaudier. 14-Chaire-à-Calvin. 15-Roc-de-Sers. 16-La Peyzie. 17-The Fées cave. 18-Roc-de-Marcamps. 19-Saint-Germain-la-Rivière. 20-Laugerie-Haute. 21-Laugerie-Basse. 22-La Madeleine. 23-La Croze-à-Gontran. 24-Esclauzure. 25-Combe-Cuiller. 26-The Roussignol cave. 27-Pégourié. 28-Sainte-Eulalie. 29-Les Cambous. 30-Plantade. 31-The Gazel cave. 32-Canecaude I. 33-Enlène. 34-Marsoulas. 35-Les Sciles. 36-The Moulin cave. 37-Les Espélugues. 38-Espalungue. 39-Isturitz. 40-Brassempouy. 41-Harregi. 42-Abauntz. 43-El Mirón. 44-Tito Bustillo. 45-La Güelga. Credits for the picture of realistic human figure from the Roc-aux-Sorciers: O. Fuentes, MC-CNP. Basemap: Natural Earth, QGis software.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g002

theme is most abundant at La Marche which yields 110 engravings of human figures [37] and at the Roc-aux-Sorciers, which yields 21 engraved figures [16]. Though anecdotal, the theme is also found in several other EMM sites: the Fadets, the Réseau Guy-Martin, the Chaffaud, and, 400 km away, in Marsoulas. The art production is furthermore rich with numerous animal representations which were sculpted and painted or engraved. The diversified bestiary notably includes bison, ibex, horses, and reindeers [14, 15, 38, 39].

The horse incisors engraved with geometrical patterns often accompany the Lussac-Angles points in west-central France. La Marche yields the largest quantity, with about 100 engraved teeth; the Roc-aux-Sorciers yields nearly 30 pieces, and isolated specimens are found in Vienne and Charentes sites including the Fadets, the Chaffaud, Montgaudier [3, 40–44]. Other ornament productions are found in association with the Lussac-Angles points: the ivory beads (or
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 3.** Typical osseous artefacts of the tradition with navettes (A, B) and with Lussac-Angles (C). A-Navette from the Blanchard cave n°2010.1.106, layer B4, credits: A. Dessolier, Musée d'Argentomagus. B-Double-bevelled point from the Roc-de-Marcamps, Maziaud collection, credits: Pétillon, 2016. C-Lussac-Angles point from La Marche, credits: J. Airvaux.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g003

stomach beads) are specific to the sites of eastern Vienne, and the pierced and notched hyoid bones are found from the Saône-et-Loire in France to the Asturias in Spain [8, 15].

## 2.2. The Magdalenian with navettes

The Blanchard cave is a reference site of the Magdalenian with navettes, which are antler bifid pieces often interpreted as tools hafts, and named by analogy with shuttles of textile workers (Figs 2 and 3) [10, 17, 34, 45]. They are found from Poland to the Gironde department in France. The Grand Abri and the Blanchard cave on the hillside of La Garenne yield over half of the European specimens, with nearly 90 fragmented or whole navettes [3, 10, 33, 39, 46].

Long double-bevelled grooved osseous points with a quadrangular section are often associated with the navettes assemblages. Their geographical distribution is similar to the navettes, and the caves of La Garenne also yield most of the European specimens [2, 3, 10, 46] (Figs 2 and 3).

The engravings of schematic human representations on osseous material are associated with the navettes in several sites. These representations are found in 12 sites from the Jura to the Haute-Garonne departments, where they are always few, with 10 engraved pieces or less per site (Fig 2) [3, 10, 15, 16, 46, 47]. Contrary to the MLA, the art of the MN is schematic or
abstract, it is rarely on mineral but rather on osseous materials, notably reindeer antler; the blanks can be osseous artefacts such as chisels or navettes [16, 48, 49]. The phalliform pieces are frequently associated with the navettes, the double-bevelled points and the schematic human faces. They are partial schematised human representations frequently realised on perforated batons made of reindeer antler. They are found from the Doubs to the Pyrénées-Atalantes departments and are generally isolated in the sites; La Garenne and the Roc-de-Marcamps are the only sites yielding about 10 specimens each [3, 10, 46].

**3. The corpus of sites**

The concentration of the classic markers of the MLA and the MN at La Marche and the Blanchard cave confers to these sites a privileged role to understand the mechanisms of diversification of the EMM expressions. The sites are 60 km away and set in similar environments: they are small limestone caves exposed to the south and dominate a watercourse from a low hillside.

The Blanchard cave was discovered in 1956 and excavated until 1976 [50, 51], evidencing a stratified site whose layers are all associated with the EMM. It is composed of six main layers (B2, B3, B4, B4+B5, B5, and B6), which all yield navettes [10, 52]. The Bayesian modelling of the ages of the earliest layers of the Blanchard cave (B4 to B6) dates their occupation from circa 18,6 to 18,1 cal. ka BP [53]; the youngest layers B3 and B2 are not dated yet, but are attributed to the EMM by relative dating.

La Marche was excavated discontinuously from 1937 to 1957 [40, 54], and the excavated material was screened between 1988 and 1993 [55]. The site yields one single and rich EMM layer. It is composed of a palimpsest of occupations, and its thickness varies between 15 and 30 cm. The Bayesian modelling of the dates of this layer shows that the occupations occurred between circa 18,2 and 17,3 cal. ka BP [56–58].

The faunal assemblages of both sites are particularly rich, with over 10000 remains at La Marche, and 31702 remains counted at the Blanchard cave in the layers B3, B4 (back of the cave), B5 (back of the cave), and B6 [25]. The bones are highly fragmented and, in both sites, the exploited fauna is diversified and focused on the hunt of horses and reindeers. At the Blanchard cave, the secondary taxa include wolf (*Canis lupus*), saiga antelope, hare (*Lepus sp*.), ibex (*Capra ibex*), bison or aurochs, fox (*Vulpes sp./Alopex sp*.), chamois (*Rupicapra rupicapra*), bear (*Ursus arctos*), boar (*Sus scrofa*), and mustelids (*Mustelidae*). At La Marche, the secondary taxa include bovines (*Bovidae sp*.), saiga antelope, cave bear (*Ursus spelaeous*), badger (*Meles meles*), red deer (*Cervus elaphus*) and wolf (*Canis lupus*) [54]. The revision of the faunal assemblage of La Marche is ongoing and should bring new elements regarding the acquisition and exploitation of fauna and the taphonomy of the site [59].

The lithic assemblage of the Blanchard cave is composed of 11735 artefacts (counts P. Paillet, unpublished), and La Marche yields over 10000 artefacts (counts J.-M. Leuvrey, unpublished). In both sites the exploited flints mainly come from the allochthonous sources of the Upper Turonian of the Grand-Pressigny region and from the Lower Turonian of the Indre and Cher Valleys. The exploitation of local flints (Bathonian/Bajocian) is marginal. The anecdotic presence of extra-regional flints from the Aquitaine Basin should be noted: grain de mil from Charente-Maritime in the assemblage of La Marche and of the Blanchard cave, and Senonian from Dor-dogne and Charente in the assemblage of the Blanchard cave (Primault, pers. com.) [60].

**4. Methods**

The analysis of the archaeological material includes two parts: the technological analysis of lithic assemblages, which aims at reconstructing the methods, objectives, and economy of
tools production [61–63], and the use-wear analysis, which examines the functioning, design, and economy of stone tools, and past techniques or processes involved in tools use [64, 65]. The combined techno-functional approach applied to the lithic assemblages allows a systemic restitution of technic behaviours and economic objectives, and enables detailed comprehension of prehistoric techno-economy. This method is therefore particularly adapted to address the question of variability of industries, and allows to renew the dynamics of reflection regarding societal trajectories and interrelation between human behaviours and environments.

The methods of the technological analysis were applied to part of the lithic assemblage of each site, including 5568 pieces from La Marche (collection of the Musée Sainte-Croix, Poitiers, France) (S1 Table), and 1406 pieces from layers B3, B4, B5, and B6 of the Blanchard cave (collection of the Musée d’Argentomagus, Saint-Marcel, France) [66, 67] (S2 Table). Previous works complete the analysis of the production process in this last cave [52, 68, 69].

The macroscopic sampling for the use-wear analysis aimed at selecting a wide diversity of pieces with potential use damages (fractures, scars, rounding, shine and polish, striations, residues). The selection includes 404 tools from La Marche, and 351 pieces from the Blanchard cave. The sample was analysed using the classic methods of use-wear analysis combining micro- and macroscopic optical observation of the surface of lithic artefacts (from the naked eye to × 200), examining relations between damages due to use, manufacture, and post-depositional alteration (Fig 4). After a preliminary observation with a binocular, the artefacts without residues were softly cleaned with soap under running water, and locally with alcohol to remove sediment, dust, and handling grease from the surfaces.

The observation of the archaeological material was paired with experimentations of production, use, and alteration of backed bladelets [70], experimentations of bison, cow, and roe deer hide working (S. Beyries org., unpublished), and with more specific tests focused on mineral [66], vegetal (Fig 5), shell, bone and teeth working, extraction of reindeer antler using incision, grooving, sawing and percussion (Fig 6), blind-tests, and with the observation of the large experimental reference collection of the CEPAM laboratory in Nice, regarding notably hide working traces (Fig 7).

# 5. Techno-economic role of La Marche and the Blanchard cave

## 5.1. Blades and bladelets production

The débitage aimed at obtaining standardised blades and bladelets produced with a soft hammer direct percussion, probably organic: blanks typically have a punctiform butt with an abraded and slightly scarred overhang, a diffuse bulb, an impact point which is rarely visible, a small lip can generally be observed on the lower face, and the flaked surface of cores is slightly careenated [71].

Dimensions of smallest blades and largest bladelets overlap (S1 Fig), and the numerous unretouched blanks whose dimensions are intermediary between blades and bladelets might suggest the continuous exploitation of blade cores to produce bladelets. Blades and bladelets however appear to have been mostly produced according to distinct schemes: blades were produced from blocks following a unipolar flaking and a semi-rotating rhythm, and bladelet production was carried out from blocks, flakes, and probably truncated blades at La Marche [19, 72], following a unipolar preferential flaking or a unipolar flaking and a rotating, semi-rotating, frontal, and probably facial structure (Fig 8). Blade and bladelet production therefore appear mostly dissociated. The size limit between retouched blades and retouched bladelets can be set between 10–11 mm width and 4–5 thickness at the Blanchard cave, and between 12–13 mm width and 6–7 mm thickness at La Marche. Bladelets are slightly bigger at La Marche than at the Blanchard cave, possibly due to distinct excavating methods. The
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 4.** Examples of post-depositional alteration on the archaeological material. A, B-Striated bright spot on a bladelet from the Blanchard cave, layer B5, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019. C-Marginal non-striated bright spots on the distal edge of an endscraper from the Blanchard cave, layer B3. D-Marginal non-striated bright spots on the distal edge of an endscraper from the Blanchard cave, layer B4/B5. E, F-Rounding and bright spot on the ridge of a burin from La Marche, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019. G-Marginal white patina on the edge of an endscraper from La Marche. H-Fresh scars interrupting white patina on the lateral edge of a burin from La Marche.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g004
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 5.** Experimental vegetal working traces on flint. A, B-Cutting nettle, 10 mn. C, D-Sawing fresh chestnut tree, 10 mn. E, F-Sawing fresh lime tree, 10 mn.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g005

retouched bladelets are on average 7.1 mm wide (standard deviation 1.5 mm) and 2.8 mm thick (standard deviation 0.9 mm) at the first site, and 5.1 mm wide (standard deviation 1.2 mm) and 2.3 mm thick (standard deviation 0.7 mm) at the second site. Blades are robust, being on average 25.7 mm wide (standard deviation 7.6 mm) and 8.4 mm thick (standard
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 6.** Experimental bone and antler working traces on flint. A-Scraping fresh bone, 180 mn. B-Sawing moisturised antler, 15 mn. C, D-Sawing dry bone, 10 mn. E, F-Sawing dry antler, 10 mn.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g006

deviation 3.6 mm) at La Marche, and 21 mm wide (standard deviation 6.2 mm) and 6.4 mm thick (standard deviation 2.6 mm) at the Blanchard cave for the tools without modification of the lateral edge. The blank elongation is not pronounced and blades rarely exceed 80 mm long since most of them are broken (77% at the Blanchard cave and 83% at La Marche), tools are often shaped on one or both extremities, and the successive sharpening aiming at improving efficiency of the working edge during use necessarily caused length reduction of the tool (see
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 7.** Experimental hide working traces on flint. A, B-Cutting dry hide soaked in water, 30 mn. C, D-Scraping ochred dry hide with punctual moisturising, 30-40 mn. E, F- Scraping dry hide, 30-40 mn.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g007

below). Blades and bladelets were shaped into distinct tool types intended for different activity spheres. The bladelets were transformed into backed bladelets, very rarely into microperforators, and the equipment on blade is dominated by end scrapers, burins, beaks and perforators, truncated blades, and blades with lateral retouch [66, 67].
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 8. Bladelet cores from La Marche.** A, B, D-Prismatic cores on block. C-Core on cortical flake. E-Pyramidal core on block recycled to strike and abrade hard materials. F-Percussion wears on core n°E. G-Abrasion wears on core n°E, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g008

No autonomous production of flakes is recognised, and these blanks are only rarely retouched. The production wastes of the bladelet knapping process are numerous in both caves, suggesting that the production occurred at the sites. On the reverse, the scarcity of blade cores, crested blades, and rejuvenation flakes, tends to indicate a segmentation in time and space of the blade production, with the introduction of knapped blanks, or even retouched blades, at the sites.
## 5.2. Use and management of blades

In both sites, the stone tools were used to perform a wide diversity of activities related to acquiring and transforming animal, vegetal, and mineral resources (Figs 9–13, Table 1). The blades and the bladelets were used for distinct spheres of activity: the backed bladelets were employed in the hunting activity (see below) and the blades were involved in the domestic and artistic spheres [66, 67, 70, 73].

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig 9. General *chaîne opératoire* from production to discard of blades and bladelets evidenced at La Marche and the Blanchard cave.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g009
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 10. Used burins and spalls.** A-Double burin on retouched blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B4. B-Burin on retouched and truncated blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B4. C-Burin on retouched blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B3. D-Large burin spall cutting through a distal endscraper from the Blanchard cave, layer B3. E-Burin on blade from La Marche. F-Microperforator on burin spall from La Marche. G, H-Wears of scraping an abrasive mineral with the distal burin facet of tool n'A, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019. I, J-Rounding of sawing a semi-hard abrasive material, interrupted by direct removals on the lateral edge of tool n'B. K, L-Scars due to sawing a semi-hard material with the lateral edge of tool n'C. M, N-Wears of grooving an osseous material with the burin bevel of tool n'E, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g010

The blades are highly valued items that have long use cycles and are, as often during the Upper Palaeolithic, a reserve of raw material and useful cutting edges [74, 75]. The strategies employed to prolong the life of tools or edges are varied:

The shaping of double and composite tools is relatively frequent as it concerns 9% of the tools on blade at the Blanchard cave, and 16% at La Marche. These tools can associate on one blank an endscraper, a burin, a beak, or a truncation (Figs 10 and 11). Double burins and endscraper-burins are the most frequent association; in this last case, the chronology of retouch
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 11. Used endscrapers.** A-Endscraper on retouched blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B4. B-Endscraper on retouched blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B4/B5. C-Endscraper on blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B4/B5. D-Double endscraper on blade from La Marche. E-Endscraper-burin from La Marche. F, G-Rounding, shine, striations and polish of dry hide scraping on the distal end of tool n'A, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019. H-Rounding and striations due to dry hide scraping on the proximal end of tool n'C. I-Profile view of the fracture edge of tool n'C showing rounding due to scraping of a semi-hard abrasive material. J-Probable wood sawing micro-wears on the lateral edge of tool n'D. K-Dry hide scraping micro-wears on the proximal end of tool n'D. L-Hide rounding interrupted by direct sharpening retouch on the distal end of tool n'E. M-Abrupt edge caused by successive sharpenings of the distal end of tool n'E.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g011

removals and the interruption of use-wears on the endscrapers by negatives of burin spalls show that the burin is typically shaped after the shaping and use of the endscraper. This recurrent chronology suggests that the activity performed with endscrapers had a specific technical value. The frequent association of tools on the extremities of blades likely aimed at taking advantage of blades length and had an economical value.

Sharpening consists in rejuvenating the worn-out working edge by the same retouch technique used to shape it, in order to maintain its efficacy without changing tool. It is evidenced
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 12. Used beaks and perforators.** A-Microperforator from the Blanchard cave, layer B5. B-Double beak from La Marche. C-Microperforator from La Marche. D, E-Wears and residues on the distal point of tool n'A due to perforating a colouring mineral with particularly thick abrasive particles, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019. F-Scars due to perforating a hard material with the tip of tool n'C. G-Rounding and scars due to perforating a semi-hard abrasive material on the proximal tip of tool n'B.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g012

on endscrapers, burins, and lateral edges, where the most recent retouch removals (scars or
spalls) occasionally cut through use-wears (Fig 11). The successive sharpenings of an edge nec-
essarily provokes length reduction of the tool, and can cause modification of the edge angle
(e.g., from semi-abrupt to abrupt), and of the edge delineation (e.g., from convex to rectilinear)
[61, 67, 73, 74, 76–78].

Recycling can take many forms (i.e., reuse, reshaping) and refers to a change of the initially intended function of the tool; it can involve a modification of the tool’s shape [66, 74, 75]. Recycling concerns in particular endscrapers, whose distal end was first used to scrape hide, and then occasionally used to strike a hard material before discard (12% of the distal ends at La Marche and 17% at the Blanchard cave). The second use deeply modified the shape of the edge by causing crushing and large overlapped scars on both faces of the working edge. This chronology supports the abovementioned idea that the task performed with the extremity of endscrapers had a specific technical value, because the activities damaging the working edge (i.e., burin shaping, hard material percussion) always come last, before discard [66, 67, 73].

Reuse refers to the secondary use of an edge [75], and does not imply a modification of its
shape. While the recycling corresponds to the rerouting of tools from their initial technical
purpose (e.g., endscrapers are specialised in hide scraping, and rerouted to strike a hard mate-
rial), the reuse can be part of the technical purpose for which the tool or the edge was intended
(e.g., lateral edges of blades are multipurpose, and their reuse can be interpreted as part of
their intended functional flexibility). Reuse is identified with certainty on the lateral edge of
less than 5 blades per site, although it may concern a larger number of tools that cannot be rec-
ognised because of the complex overlapping of traces on the edges, often resulting in charac-
terising mixed motions (i.e., cutting *and* scraping), and because of the post-depositional
alteration of micro-wears, which restricts the interpretation to classes of hardness of worked
materials.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 13.** Diversity of zones used on unretouched blades. A-Mesial fragment of blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B4. B-Broken blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B3. C-Broken blade from the Blanchard cave, layer B4. D-Broken blade from La Marche. E, F-Traces of mineral scraping on the ridge of tool n°A, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019. G, H-Perforating traces on the proximal end of tool n°B. I, J-Perforating traces on the distal end of tool n°C.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g013
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Synthesis of the functional data for la Marche and the Blanchard cave in number of tools. S/SA: soft or soft abrasive worked material, SH/SHA: semi-hard or semi-hard abrasive worked materials. H/HA: hard or hard abrasive. Including double tools and tools on truncated, retouched or thinned and truncated blade. All the levels of the Blanchard cave are presented together because of the high similarity of results between them.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Blank</th><th rowspan="2">Type</th><th rowspan="2">Nb analysed</th><th colspan="7">Blanchard cave</th><th colspan="7">La Marche</th></tr><tr><th>Projectile</th><th>Hide</th><th>Butchery</th><th>Osseous material</th><th>Vegetal</th><th>Mineral</th><th>S/ SA</th><th>SH/ SHA</th><th>H/ HA</th><th>Nb analysed</th><th>Projectile</th><th>Hide</th><th>Butchery</th><th>Osseous material</th><th>Vegetal</th><th>Mineral</th><th>S/ SA</th><th>SH/ SHA</th><th>H/ HA</th><th>Undet.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Burin spall</td><td></td><td>6</td><td></td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>12</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Flake</td><td>Burin</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Burin-pièce esquillée</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Endscraper</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bladelet core</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pièce esquillée</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Undet.</td><td>Pièce esquillée</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Backed piece</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Blade</td><td>Pièce esquillée</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beak*</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Beak-burin</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Burin*</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>6</td><td>50</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Burin-pièce esquillée</td><td>3</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Endscraper*</td><td>59</td><td></td><td>46</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>75</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Endscraper-beak</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Retouched and/or truncated</td><td>Endscraper-burin</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>23</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retouched and/or truncated</td><td>4</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pièce esquillée</td><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bladelet</td><td>Unretouched</td><td>11</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Backed bladelet</td><td>173</td><td></td><td>104</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>181</td><td>126</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Microperforator</td><td>Microperforator</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Microperforator on backed or truncated bladelet</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unretouched</td><td>8</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bladelet core</td><td></td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>351</td><td>104</td><td>80</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>19</td><td>42</td><td>46</td><td>404</td><td>126</td><td>90</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>22</td><td>7</td><td>21</td><td>38</td><td>44</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.1001
Multiple uses refer to the utilisation of several zones of a tool; these zones include in both sites the extremity tools, lateral edges, fracture corners, unretouched distal ends, and more rarely butts or dorsal ridges. Multiple uses are common on blades (circa 43% of the used blades at La Marche and the Blanchard cave), revealing that the strategies employed to optimise the length of use of blades were fully integrated into mental and technical schemes [66, 67] (Figs 10 and 11, S3 and S4 Tables).

Magdalenian blades are frequently fractured [76, 79–82], and several elements suggest that at least part of them were broken intentionally, especially end scrapers: the high rate of broken end scrapers (90% at the Blanchard cave and 87% at La Marche), the preferential location of breakages on the proximal end (76% at the Blanchard cave and 72% at La Marche), and the presence of some rare impact points on the edge of the breakages. Intentional fracturing can be related to economic purposes (breakage allows to multiply the number of extremities on which tools could potentially be shaped), or to ergonomic requirements (breakage allows to reduce the slight curvature of the profile of blades and facilitates their insertion into a haft). Analysis of the chronology of retouch and use-wears in relation to fractures reveals that broken blades typically have the following history: first, the long lateral edges were used, or retouched and used, then the blank was fractured, later a tool was shaped on an extremity of the blank; this tool was then used, often sharpened in the case of burins and end scrapers, and end scrapers were occasionally recycled before being ultimately discarded.

These data show that blades were highly valued items with long biographies. The allochtho-
nous flint procurement strategies may have encouraged both the segmentation of the process
of production of blades, and their intensive use in order to reduce the economic cost of trans-
porting blocks or blanks from the Grand Pressigny flint sources. This can participate in
explaining why blades had a specific socio-economic status among the toolkit. For instance,
blades management strategies are not recognised on microliths whose management differs,
possibly due to the reduced cost of transporting smaller and lighter tools and cores, and to the
ergonomic constraints of hunting weapons.

**5.3. Projectile designs**

The backed bladelets, which are occasionally truncated or appointed, show exclusively impact
damages due to their use as projectile inserts (lateral impact scars, microscopic linear impact
traces, and burin-like, bending, spin-off impact fractures) [70, 83–85] (Fig 14, S5–S8 Tables).
The near systematic fracturing of these microliths after the abrupt and rectilinear retouch of
the back, the snap morphology of most fractures, and the scarcity of proximal fragments sug-
gest their intentional breakage to obtain thin tools that have a straight and regular profile with
parallel lateral edges.

Several elements suggest that the backed bladelets were hafted to projectile points, and that at least part of them were positioned laterally (i.e., microliths distant from the impact point) with their back fixed to the projectile. At both sites the lateral impact scars are abundant, a feature which is experimentally specific to lateral inserts, since the slashing/tearing edge of lateral lithic inserts seemingly absorbs most of the constraints of the impact [70, 84]. The orientation of the impact damages suggests that the impact forces stroke the inserts parallelly to their length: the impact striations are parallel to the back, the impact fractures are oblique or parallel to it, and the lateral impact scars are oblique to it. The occasional presence of residues on the back and on the surfaces near the back of part of the microliths suggest that the back was fixed to the projectile point [66, 70]. In addition, both Magdalenian examples of composite points from the Blanchard cave and Pincevent [86, 87] show that the microliths or fragments of microliths were positioned laterally in the grooves of osseous points.
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 14. Impacted backed bladelets.** A-Truncated simple backed bladelet from the Blanchard cave, layer B2. B-Double backed bladelet from the Blanchard cave, layer B4. C-Truncated double backed bladelet from the Blanchard cave, layer B3. D-Simple backed bladelet from the Blanchard cave, layer B5. E, G-Simple backed bladelet from La Marche. F, H-Truncated simple backed bladelet from La Marche. I-Burin-like spin-off fracture on tool n°A. J-Burin-like spin-off fracture on tool n°B. K-Facial spin-off fracture on tool n°C. L-Large isolated impact scar on tool n°D, credits: Gauvrit Roux, 2019. M-Large overlapped impact scars on tool n°E. N-Twisted bending fracture on tool n°F. O-Burin-like fracture on tool n°G. P-Oblique bending fracture interrupted by a snap fracture on tool n° H.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.g014
Despite an apparent similarity of the functioning of microliths, the patterns of impact frac-
tures differ deeply between sites (S5-S8 Tables): at La Marche, the bending and burin-like
fractures are the most common impact breakages (94% of the tools with impact fractures),
whereas, at the Blanchard cave, the spin-off fractures dominate (56%). These differences could
be related to distinct hafting modalities and match the inter-site variations of the main mor-
phologies of osseous projectile points [2, 9, 10]: the short single-bevelled Lussac-Angles points,
and the long double-bevelled points from La Garenne allow the hafting of a different number
of lateral inserts [70].

**5.4. Subsistence strategies based on the exploitation of animal resources**

The vestiges of the hunting activity, which include the faunal remains and “the instruments of predation[, ] are of a disconcerting profusion during [all] the Upper Paleolithic” [88]. The hunting activity is therefore particularly visible compared to other crafts for which few data are available, such as tools used to manufacture ornaments or to work vegetal materials.

The exploitation of animal resources appears to have had a dominating role in the economy
of both the analysed sites: first, the faunal remains, the osseous tools and the discards of the
osseous production (bone, teeth, antler, shells) are abundant, and, second, the flint tools were
mostly used to acquire and process the faunal resources (Table 1): the backed bladelets are the
most numerous tools and were most likely used to acquire animal resources. Numerous tools
on blades were used to process these resources for alimentary or technical purposes. The best-
represented activities identified on the blades are hence related to hide working (respectively
35% and 33% of the pieces with use-wears from La Marche and the Blanchard cave). The sec-
ond best represented worked materials are the undetermined hard materials (respectively 13%
and 15% at La Marche and the Blanchard cave), which likely include osseous materials. Osse-
ous material working is under-represented on the flint tools from both sites (about 1% in the
two caves), whereas the bone industry is abundant. In addition, at La Garenne, at least part of
the manufacturing wears on the antler artefacts are due to burin bevels [89]. The osseous mate-
rial working is probably undetectable because of micro-wear alteration, as in other Magdale-
nian contexts [80, 90]. Certain operations such as butchery are also highly under-represented
on flint tools (about 1% in the two sites); these traces are only identified on unretouched lateral
edges. Several factors can contribute to explaining the rarity of butchery wears: sampling strat-
egies (few unretouched artefacts analysed), intensive use of blades (use-wears may have been
removed when lateral edges were retouched), short-duration uses of the edges (they generate
tenuous traces that do not allow to determine the worked material) [65, 66, 91–93], taphon-
omy bias (mechanical and chemical alteration), or segmentation of the butchering process
(realisation of some operations outside the caves). Notwithstanding the scarcity of butchery
traces on stone tools, the richness of the faunal assemblages and the analysis of the traces on
bones show that animal processing had an important role at the sites. Several butchering oper-
ations are indeed evidenced on the reindeer, horse, bovines, ibex, saiga antelope, chamois,
wolf, fox, and hare remains from the Blanchard cave. These operations include skinning,
defleshing, disarticulating, bone scraping, and bone fracturing, operations which aimed at
extracting a wide range of materials used for alimentary, technical, or symbolic purposes: the
meat, the fat, the marrow, the tongue, the hide, the tendons, the horns, the horsehair, the ant-
lers. Part of the butchering activity likely took place on the kill site, since the skeletal-parts
representation indicates that certain species (reindeer, horse, bovines, ibex) were brought to
the site in fleshy quarters [25].

At La Marche and La Garenne, the flint tools used to saw, scrape, or perforate wood repre-
sent respectively 6% and 2% of the artefacts with use-wears (tools on blade, unretouched
blades, and burin spalls; Table 1), whereas the tools used to acquire or process animal
resources total 61% of the assemblages, despite the abovementioned under-representation of
butchery and osseous materials traces on stone tools. More generally, the available extensive
traceological analyses of West European Upper Palaeolithic assemblages show that the tools
related to vegetal-working are particularly rare [66, 74, 80, 94–98], and for all the period, the
wood or fibre artefacts are scarce [99–102]. Specific Upper Palaeolithic stone tools could have
been dedicated to vegetal working, such as the Noailles burins [103, 104]; functional interpre-
tations regarding these tools however vary considerably from site to site [105–109] probably
due to the poor development of traces, and their technical purpose thus remains highly prob-
lematic. The gap of data regarding vegetal working may correspond to conservation issues
with, besides the degradation of vegetal remains, the differential alteration of micro-wears of
vegetal on stone tools [80]. In addition, the macro-wears of wood rarely allow to identify this
worked material because the rounding and the striations it causes are often tenuous. On the
reverse, contact materials such as dry hide or mineral may, to a certain extent, be identified
through macroscopic attributes even when the polish is altered. Further methodological devel-
opments are necessary to better understand the taphonomic processes at stake in the differen-
tial alteration of vegetal polishes on stone tools. The taphonomic aspects may not entirely
explain the near-absence of use-wears of vegetal for tens of thousands of years in highly diverse
sedimentary contexts [110, 111]. The scarcity of direct and indirect evidences of plants pro-
cessing may also indicate that flint tools were rarely involved in working these materials; the
use of manual strength or of tools made of perishable matter can be hypothesised [66]. The
Upper Palaeolithic yields an abundant bone and antler industry and one may wonder to which
extent the richness of these osseous assemblages can be related to the rarity of wood tools and
woodworking traces [110]. Conversely, woodworking with flint tools rises after the Magdale-
nian period, during the Holocene climate warming [92, 95] and matches an impoverishment
of the osseous industry.

Pending the development of functional analyses on large and well-preserved Upper Palaeo-
lithic assemblages, the place of the vegetal in the economy remains widely inaccessible. The
under-representation of remains and use-wears of vegetal cannot, however, be considered as
an indicator of the role of this material in the Palaeolithic economy as it is essential in compos-
ite tools manufacturing: projectile shafts, scrapers or knife hafts potentially made of wood, and
certain fibres may have been used to ligature lithic inserts. To the richness of osseous points,
lithic projectile inserts, scrapers, and cutting blades must have corresponded a high quantity of
vegetal shafts and hafts, or even foreshafts and links, of which no evidence is preserved.

Because of the perishable nature of certain archaeological materials, it is not possible to
appreciate the relative importance of vegetal and animal resources in the subsistence strategies.
It is clear that the exploitation of animal resources has a considerable role in the Magdalenian
economy and that numerous ramified *chaînes opératoires* stem from it, such as projectile
manufacturing, hunting, butchery, hide, antler, bone, or tendon working. Defining the techni-
cal parameters that take part in fauna exploitation thus takes on a privileged interest to better
understand the Palaeolithic techno-economical and societal dynamics.

**5.5. Approaching the function of the sites**

Defining the functioning of archaeological tools provides access to the activities represented at a site, and to certain steps of technical processes. By replacing these elements into their system and linking them to the other categories of productions, it is possible to approach the economic function of a site on the condition of considering coherent levels of human occupation. The archaeological contexts considered here are palimpsests composed of successive
undifferentiated occupations, as often in Palaeolithic cave occupations. The palethnographic interpretations that can be reached are therefore limited.

Several elements however suggest that both caves were mostly occupied for relatively long periods of time, although it is impossible to establish the precise timing of occupation. This can reflect several site functions which cannot be precisely determined due to taphonomic issues and early excavations: base camp, residential site, and aggregation site [112-116].

The archaeological assemblages are particularly substantial, with tens of thousands of knapped flint artefacts, colouring fragments and faunal remains. The portable art and the ornament elements are amongst the richest of the regional EMM and of the EMM in general [3, 8, 15, 16, 36-38, 55]. The antler or bone finished products are abundant in both sites and are, like the portable art and the ornaments, among the richest of the period [3, 9, 10]. The sole quantity of archaeological material does not allow to determine site function, in particular in the limited space of caves where “the repetition [of the] installations in a context of slow sedi-mentary covering can produce a misleading effect of abundance of remains” [115]. However, the assemblages considered are not only rich, they are also diversified and the osseous and lithic productions show the realisation of numerous steps of the *chaînes opératoires*: manufacturing, use, resharpening, repairing, recycling, until the discard of tools (see above, Fig 2). For instance, the osseous industry from the Blanchard cave shows several steps of manufacturing of projectile points, from the extraction of the rods (waste products, blank drafts), to the repairing of some objects [117-121]. The *chaînes opératoires* are segmented at different levels according to the economic activity or category of product that is considered (e.g., blades mainly produced outside the caves vs bladelets produced at the sites). Nonetheless, the acquisition step of the raw materials (flint, shells, fauna, colourant, and, at La Marche, lime-stone slabs) is systematically absent [8, 25, 37, 60, 122, 123]. In this way, the hunting weaponry damaged during the acquisition of faunal resources was likely brought back to the sites to be repaired in anticipation of new hunting expeditions.

The stone tools are typologically varied and were used for a wide range of activities related to the hunting, domestic, and artistic spheres. The blades were intended for domestic and artistic activities and the bladelets were dedicated to the hunt. The flint tools were mostly used to acquire or transform the animal resources in both sites. The endscrapers used for hide working are abundant and were used for several steps of hide processing [66, 73]. They corre-spond to standardised processes that can be relatively long to set up (e.g., drying thick hides), reinforcing the idea of prolonged occupations of the sites. In parallel, few flint tools show traces of mineral engraving. The two caves appear to have been living spaces where numerous activities took place besides the production of portable and cave art: production of bladelets, manufacturing and repairing of hunting weapons with replacements of the broken inserts, butchering, processing of hides that were dry, moistened, with additive, or with abrasive, manufacturing of ornaments made of shells, and of elements originating from the hunt such as teeth and hyoid bones. . .

Seasonality data support the hypothesis of prolonged occupations of the sites and of the region: the killing seasons of reindeers and horses cover several months in both sites (Table 2) [25, 54]. A prolonged occupation of the neighbouring Roc-aux-Sorciers has previously been proposed for the EMM layers, based on the quantity and the diversity of artefacts, and the seasonality data [15, 28]. This is supported by the wide range of activities performed at the site [74, 124].

At the Blanchard cave, the killing season is often restricted to the bad season and the beginning of the good season (layers B4-C1 and B5-C2), as generally observed at the Grand Abri (assemblage B). This type of occupation during the bad season is reminiscent of the meridional sites of the Middle Magdalenian of the Montagne Noire, assimilated to winter residential sites:
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Seasonality data for the Early Middle Magdalenian sites of west-central France. Black dots: certain; Empty dots: uncertain. Data after Bayle et al. (2009), P. and J. Bouchud in Pradel (1958), Valensi (2010), Valensi and Boulbes (2018).</caption><thead><tr><th>Site</th><th>Cave</th><th>Level</th><th>Species</th><th>Jan.</th><th>Feb.</th><th>March</th><th>April</th><th>May</th><th>June</th><th>July</th><th>Aug.</th><th>Sept.</th><th>Oct.</th><th>Nov.</th><th>Dec.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">La Garenne</td><td rowspan="2">Grand Abri</td><td>Ens. B</td><td>Reindeer</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Horse</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Blanchard cave</td><td>B3</td><td>Reindeer</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Horse</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td>B4-C1</td><td>Reindeer</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Horse</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">La Marche</td><td rowspan="2">3</td><td>B5-C2</td><td>Reindeer</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Reindeer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Roc-aux Sorciers</td><td>D</td><td>Reindeer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Horse</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Taillebourg cave</td><td rowspan="2">E</td><td>C</td><td>Reindeer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Horse</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">D</td><td>Reindeer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td>Horse</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Saïga</td><td></td><td>Bison</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274819.t002
the Gazel cave in Sallèles-Cabardès, Cancaude in Villardonnel, Bize in Bize-Minervois, the Crouzade in Gruissan [125, 126]. The occupation of the Roc-aux-Sorciers was occasionally limited to the good season (the layer E of the Taillebourg cave and the layer C of the Bourdois rock shelter), indicating a seasonality of occupation almost reversed from what is observed in most layers of the Blanchard cave, and therefore potentially different mobility systems or site functions.

The killing seasons represent almost all the periods of the year at the Blanchard cave (layer B3), at La Marche, and the Roc-aux-Sorciers (the layer D of the Taillebourg cave and the layer D of the Bourdois rock shelter) [28, 127]. This could suggest that the occupation of these sites was not only seasonal; however, the killing seasons probably cover several occupation episodes because of the palimpsest effect.

Considered together, the seasonality data available for three EMM sites of west-central France show that human groups (and probably certain ungulates herds) were present all year long in the Vienne, the Creuse, and the Gartempe Valleys. This evidences a strong regional implantation of human societies and participates in explaining the specificity of the EMM in west-central France.

**6. Regional socio-economic interactions**

Apart from the recent discovery of the open-air site of the Route de la Roche in Solutré [128], the totality of the EMM sites is in caves or rock shelters. In the cavities of west-central France, as well as in numerous contexts of southwestern of France, the blade-knapping generally occurred outside the sites, the bladelets were produced at the sites, and both blank types were mostly made of good quality allochthonous flints. This is notably the case at La Marche (Pri-mault, com. pers.), the Blanchard cave [60], and the Taillis-des-Coteaux [129], where most exploited flints come from the Upper Turonian of the Grand-Pressigny region, and the Lower Turonian of the Indre and Cher Valleys. This suggests an interdependency between the cave and rock shelter sites (whose occupation was seemingly prolonged, where the acquisition step of flint is absent, and where by-products of the blade production are rare) with the numerous open-air sites located on the Grand Pressigny flint deposits, which are suspected to have been sites dedicated to flint-knapping [130–132]. These evidences of Magdalenian presence cannot, however, be precisely dated, because the sites are rarely stratified, the retouched tools are rare, there is no bone industry, and no faunal remains. The development of thematic surveys paired with the multidisciplinary study of the assemblages will therefore be necessary to better under-stand the functioning of the sites in a regional network and their economic complementarity.

The strong similarity of circulation networks of allochthonous raw materials (flint and shells) of the MLA and MN sites [5, 8, 60, 122, 133] indicates the sharing of an economic terri-tory where diverse forms of social and economic interactions may have taken place, through the circulation of goods, people, or ideas. The good quality flints from the south of the Paris Basin (i.e., Grand Pressigny flints) were systematically and abundantly exploited during the EMM in west-central France. These raw materials also circulated on long distances towards the south [1, 134] and the Massif Central [7]. This large-scale diffusion necessarily led to new inter-regional socio-economical interactions.

These interactions may have 1/participated in reinforcing the unity of the EMM as part of an economic cooperation that generated social links over a wide area [135], or 2/favoured the differentiation of social units who affirmed their identity facing neighbouring groups, notably in relation with a competition for the use of a same economic territory [136].

The abundance, the diversity, and the specificity of the markers of the MLA and of the MN in west-central France indeed suggest that the region was a crossroads where certain
differences between technical traditions were exacerbated. This exacerbation of differences by means of “productions with an ostentatious character” [137], which include art, ornaments, and probably projectile design, could then be related to mechanisms of territorial affirmation [15].

This suggests that the MLA and the MN are cultural units whose territory is identifiable. However, the methodological tools available do not allow to affirm it because the EMM traditions are still widely defined from specific objects acting as index fossils. This approach is a common and useful basis for reflection on the Prehistoric chronological frame, but it can be problematic for several aspects: first, the markers that are used do not reflect technical systems as a whole since they are chosen among diversified material productions that are partly similar between sites. Then, part of the markers is found isolated in the sites outside west-central France and their place in the techno-economic, social, and symbolic systems cannot be the same as when they dominate the osseous, lithic, art, or ornamental assemblages (Fig 1). Besides, certain assemblages of the Gironde (rock shelter 1 at Moulin-Neuf) and of the Massif Central (e.g., Le Rocher de la Caille, Enval, Le Rond du Barry) do not yield any classic markers, which underlines the necessity of using other methodological tools to grasp the diversity of the regional expressions of the EMM [134, 137]. Last, all the markers do not have the same geographical distribution (Fig 1) [3, 46]: part of the elements characterising the MLA and the MN are specific to west-central France, such as the horse teeth engraved with geometrical patterns, which are associated with the MLA [41, 133]. Other productions are found far beyond western France but are concentrated in the sites of west-central France, such as the Lussac-Angles points or the Navettes (Fig 1). What criteria should then be used to identify a tradition and its cultural territory? Choosing some criteria and extracting them from the technic and symbolic system to which they belong would be meaningless. In addition, the geographical distribution of one or several objects does not necessarily reflect a cultural territory [138, 139], since “the types of [objects] have no demonstrable relation with social units aware of their identity” [140]. However, it is precisely the awareness and the affirmation of belonging to a cultural unit that allows to define this unit [138], and it is not possible to reach this emic conception because of the very nature of the archaeological material.

The cultural dimension of the MLA and the MN remains therefore out of reach, and their territory cannot be delimited. It is however possible to enhance the reflection on the socio-economic processes at stake if these units are considered as traditions defined as “system[s] of choices and prescriptions in the technic and symbolic activities which are accessible in archaeology” [137], where techniques thus carry information on social interactions.

The differences between the EMM technical traditions are often stressed. Nevertheless, in every technic and artistic field, there are strong similarities which are the expression of a community of practice, and attest of marked interactions between the MLA and the MN. The unity of part of the material production over a large area furthermore links these regional dynamics to the whole of the wide territory of extension of the EMM.

The ornamental productions [8, 133], the osseous industry [2, 141], and the artworks [15, 16, 39, 142] attest both of technic or symbolic systems partially differing between the MLA and the MN, and of a regional or even inter-regional unity. For instance, the representation of human faces is a recurring theme in the EMM of west-central France, whereas it is almost absent outside the region, and is particularly rare in all the European Palaeolithic art. This theme unites the traditions of west-central France and contributes to the regional specificity. In parallel, the style (i.e., realistic or schematic), and the blanks (i.e., rock or osseous material) of the human representations participate in distinguishing the MLA from the MN [142, 143]. Besides, certain art productions show the existence of permeability and mutual influences
between traditions. This is the case of horse representations at the Taillis-des-Coteaux, whose
style is intermediary between the tradition with navettes and with Lussac-Angles points [39].

The lithic sub-system contributes to evidencing the strong interactions that existed between the EMM traditions. The methods and techniques used to produce the standardised blades and bladelets are common to west-central and southwestern France, and to certain assemblages of the Massif Central. They are marked by a highly normative blade production and the polymorphism of the production processes of bladelets [7]. The blades were detached from large flaking surfaces, the rhythm was unipolar and the progression semi-rotating, with a transversal management of angles and convexities, and the bladelets were produced on prismatic or pyramidal cores with a unipolar or unipolar preferential rhythm, the progression on the large flaking surface was rotating or semi-rotating on blocs, or on the slice of thick flakes, plus possibly on the upper face of blades at La Marche [1, 3, 6, 7, 19, 46, 124, 129, 137, 144].

The comparison of the functioning of the stone tools from La Marche and the Blanchard cave also shows significant similarities in tools management, worked materials, and technical gestures. This is the expression of strong technic norms, part of which are common to many Upper Paleolithic sites of western Europe, such as the intensive use of blades which are the object of several cycles of use and sharpening.

The typology of the microliths could however mark inter-regional differences: the scalene bladelets are specific to southwestern France and northern Spain, and truncated backed bladelets are systematically found in the assemblages of west-central France, both in MLA and MN contexts [1, 3, 6, 46, 144]. Certain backed bladelets with an oblique truncation of west-central France could be assimilated to the scalene morphotype because of the open angulation formed by the intersection of the truncation and the back, although the preferential lateralisation of the back is absent. This is the case at La Marche, at the Roc-aux-Sorciers [124], at the Fadets, or at Montgaudier, Paignon rock shelter [19], and it may be related to borrowing or imitation phenomenon. These typological differences cannot be fully understood without a functional approach considering that similar shapes of tools may be associated with different functions, and reversely [145]. The scalene bladelets have not yet been examined with the traceology methods and their functioning thus remains unknown. The development of such studies is crucial to understand the technical purposes underlying the diversification of microlithisms during the Magdalenian.

Besides inter-regional typological variations of microliths, techno-functional data allow to evidence functioning differences between two sites of west-central France yielding truncated backed bladelets; these differences are probably correlated to distinct projectile designs, and to variations of the morphology of the osseous points. Further studies are necessary to examine if the correlation between the morphology of the typical MLA and MN osseous points and the patterns of impact fractures of backed bladelets is found in other EMM contexts. Preliminary comparisons suggest that the use of distinct projectile designs in west-central France is not cor- related to differences of environment or hunted ungulates [25, 54], but could be part of the assemblage of ostentatious productions (art, ornaments) distinguishing the two technical traditions.

**7. Conclusions**

During the EMM, west-central France is a crossroads of at least two technical traditions which mutually influenced one another in many fields: art, ornaments, osseous industry, probably subsistence strategies, and the procurement, production, use, and management of stone tools. We argue that the marked regional implantation of human groups in the Vienne, the Creuse, and the Gartempe Valleys is likely a major factor to understand the specificity of the EMM
expressions in the area, as well as the sharing, in the same economic territory, of technical
norms and of part of the system of symbolic representation. This strong territoriality (effective
and symbolic) is evidenced through the high density of cave and rock shelter sites (although
this is probably partly an effect of the state of the archaeological research), which were likely
long-term occupations (at least several months a year with recurrent occupations), and where
a wide range of activities took place, related to the domestic, artistic, and hunting spheres. This
implies that the ungulate herds were present for long periods every year, or that there were
strategies to conserve meats, such as drying or freezing, of which we have no evidence. All the
codes are not shared in the regional space, and traditions are distinguished through ostenta-
tious productions including art, ornaments, and the design of hunting weapons, which proba-
bly "crystallise mechanisms of otherness and identity" [143].

The circulation networks of the raw materials from the south of the Paris Basin to the Aqui-
taine Basin and the Massif Central, the sharing of the blade and bladelet débitage concepts, and
the possible circulation of certain isolated objects to the south such as Lussac-Angles points,
indicate the interconnection of west-central France with other regions. The circulation net-
works of flints and shells extend far to the east until Poland [146], showing the wide extension
of the communication web across Europe.

Many aspects should be further explored to understand more precisely the regional and
inter-regional dynamics, regarding in particular technical transfers (sharing or not of designs
and techniques of use of stone tools), subsistence strategies (techniques and tools used in
acquiring and processing animal and vegetal resources in relation with environments), and the
functioning of sites in their regional network. The development of network analysis [3, 147,  
148] and niche modelling [149] paired with extensive techno-functional analysis of reliable and  
well-preserved assemblages will be crucial to gain a fuller comprehension of the socio-economic  
organisation and spatial structuration of Magdalenian hunter-gatherer nomadic societies.

**Supporting information**

S1 Fig. Distribution of the width and thickness of retouched blades, retouched bladelets and unretouched blanks at La Marche and the Blanchard cave.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Typological composition of the corpus included in the technological analysis of the lithic assemblage of La Marche.

(PDF)

S2 Table. Typological composition of the corpus included in the technological analysis of the lithic assemblage of the Blanchard cave.

(PDF)

S3 Table. Number of used areas (UA) per tool at La Marche. Without backed bladelets.
Modified after Gauvrit Roux (2019).

(PDF)

S4 Table. Number of used areas (UA) per tool at the Blanchard cave. Without backed bladelets. Modified after Gauvrit Roux (2019).

(PDF)

S5 Table. Condition of the proximal edge of backed bladelets at the Blanchard cave. Modified after Gauvrit Roux (2019).

(PDF)
**S6 Table. Condition of the distal edge of backed bladelets at the Blanchard cave.** Modified after Gauvrit Roux (2019).
(PDF)

**S7 Table. Condition of the proximal edge of backed bladelets at La Marche.** Modified after Gauvrit Roux (2019).
(PDF)

**S8 Table. Condition of the distal edge of backed bladelets at La Marche.** Modified after Gauvrit Roux (2019).
(PDF)

**Acknowledgments**

I wish to express my thanks to Sylvie Beyries and Jean-Marc Pétillon for commenting on a preliminary version of this article. I also thank the Musée Sainte-Croix of Poitiers, the Musée d'Argentomagus in Saint-Marcel, and the Musée de la Sabline in Lussac-les-Châteaux for facilitating the access to the archaeological material. I am grateful to Jean Airvaux, Arnaud Dessolier, Oscar Fuentes, and Jean-Marc Pétillon for accepting to reproduce here their pictures of archaeological artefacts. I finally address my thanks the two anonymous reviewers for their comments which helped to improve the manuscript.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Data curation:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Formal analysis:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Funding acquisition:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Investigation:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Methodology:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Project administration:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Resources:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Software:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Supervision:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Validation:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Visualization:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Writing – original draft:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**Writing – review & editing:** Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.

**References**

1. Langlais M, Sécher A, Caux S, Delvigne V, Gourc L, Normand C, et al. Lithic Tool Kits: A Metronome of the Evolution of the Magdalenian in Southwest France (19,000–14,000 cal BP). Quaternary International. 2016; 414:92–107. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.069

2. Pétillon JM. Technological Evolution of Hunting Implements Among Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers: Osseous Projectile Points in the Middle and Upper Magdalenian (19–14 ka cal BP). Quaternary International. 2016; 414:108–34. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.063
3. Sécher A. Traditions techniques et paléogéographie du Magdalénien moyen ancien dans le Sud-Ouest de la France (19000–17500 cal. BP). Des groupes humains à plusieurs visages? PhD Thesis, Université de Bordeaux. 2017. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01717255/

4. Stanford JD, Rohling EJ, Bacon S, Roberts AP, Grousset FE, Bolshaw M. A New Concept for the Paleoceanographic Evolution of Heinrich event 1 in the North Atlantic. Quaternary Science Reviews. 2011; 30(9):1047-66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.02.003

5. Granger JM, Airvaux J. Nouveaux éléments sur la parure du Magdalénien moyen de la Grotte de la Marche (Lussac-les-Châteaux, Vienne): Les coquillages. Bulletin Préhistorique du Sud-Ouest. 2010; 18(2):123-39.

6. Langlais. Dynamiques culturelles des sociétés magdaléniennes dans leurs cadres environnementaux. Enquête sur 7000 ans d'évolution de leurs industries lithiques entre Rhône et Ébre. PhD Thesis, Université de Toulouse II and Universitat de Barcelona. 2007. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03097690

7. Angevin R. Magdalenian Societies in the Massif Central (France): Paleohistorical Perspectives on the Long-Term (16.5–11.5 ka BP). Quaternary International. 2012; 272(Supplement C):166-75. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.04.013

8. Peschaux C. La parure des sociétés durant le Dernier Maximum Glaciaire. Évolution des pratiques et traditions ornementales entre la fin du Solutréen, le Badegoulian, le début du Magdalénien dans les Bassins parisien, ligérien et aquitain. PhD Thesis, Université de Paris I. 2017.

9. Pinçon G. Fiche sagaies de Lussac-Angles. In: Delporte H, Hahn J, Mons L, editors. Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique Cahier I: sagaies. PUP. Aix-en-Provence; 1988. p. 1-7.

10. Allain J, Desbrosse R, Kozłowski JK, Rigaud A, Jeannet M, Leroi-Gourhan A. Le Magdalénien à navettes. Gallia Préhistoire. 1985; 28(1):37-124.

11. Kozłowski JK. Sur la contemporanéité des différents faciès du Magdalénien. Jahrbuch des Bernischen Historischen Museums. 1984;63-64:211-6.

12. Dujardin V Pinçon G. Le Magdalénien dans la Vienne et la Charente. In: Pion G. (dir.), Le Paléolithique supérieur récent: nouvelles données sur le peuplement et l'environnement. Actes de la table ronde de Chambéry: Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique française, 28: 213-222; 2000.

13. Bertrand A, Dujardin V, Pinçon G. Les répartitions d'éléments clés de l'industrie en matière dure animale au cours du Magdalénien moyen en Europe et leur signification. In: Desbrosse R., et Thévenin A. (Eds.), Préhistoire de l'Europe: des origines à l'Âge du Bronze, Actes du 125e congrès des sociétés historiques et scientifiques. Lille: CTHS; 2003. pp. 247-269.

14. Bourdier C. Le Magdalénien moyen en Poitou-Charentes. Une expression symbolique propre. In: Buisson-Catil J, Primault J, editors. Préhistoire entre Vienne et Charente Hommes et Sociétés du Paléolithique. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises, mémoire 38; 2010. p. 363-382.

15. Bourdier C. Paléogéographie symbolique au Magdalénien moyen. Apport de l'étude des productions graphiques pariétales des abris occupés et sculptés de l'Ouest français. (Roc-aux-Sorciers, Chaire-à-Calvin, Reverdit, Cap-Blanc). PhD Thesis, Université de Bordeaux I. 2010. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01141191/

16. Fuentes O. La forme humaine dans l'art magdalénien et ses enjeux. Approche des structures élémentaires de notre image et son incidence dans l'univers symbolique et social des groupes paléolithiques. PhD Thesis, Université de Paris I. 2013. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01337663

17. Bourdier C, Lenoir M, Malgarini R, Mevel L, Paillet P, Pinçon G. Trente ans après Allain et al., 1985, que sont devenus les gisements de référence? In: Bourdier C, Chehmana L, Malgarini R, Poltowicz-Bobak M, editors. L'essor du Magdalénien: aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles: actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Besançon, 17-19 octobre 2013. Paris: Société préhistorique française, Séances de la Société préhistorique française; 8; 2017. pp. 33-54. http://www.prehistoire.org/515_p_48610/acces-libre-sEance-8-l-essor-du-magdalenien-aspects-culturels-symboliques-et-techniques-des-facies-a-navettes-et-a-lussac-angles.html

18. Langlais M, Pétillon JM, Sécher A. Les débuts du Magdalénien moyen dans le Sud-Ouest français. Témoignages croisés des équipements lithiques et osseux. In: Bourdier C, Chehmana L, Malgarini R, Poltowicz-Bobak M, editors. L'essor du Magdalénien: aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles: actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Besançon, 17-19 octobre 2013. Paris: Société préhistorique française, Séances de la Société préhistorique française; 8; 2017. pp. 209-34. http://www.prehistoire.org/515_p_48610/acces-libre-sEance-8-l-essor-du-magdalenien-aspects-culturels-symboliques-et-techniques-des-facies-a-navettes-et-a-lussac-angles.html

19. Airvaux J, Primault J, Brou L. Les outils sur lames tronquées et amincies du Magdalénien moyen de Lussac-Angles. Bulletin Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest. 2012; 20(2):143-78.
20. Grousset F. Les changements abrupts du climat depuis 60 000 ans. Quaternaire. 2001; 12(4):203-11.

21. Naughton F, Goñi MFS, Rodrigues T, Salgueiro E, Costas S, Desprat S, et al. Climate Variability across the Last Deglaciation in NW Iberia and its Margin. Quaternary International. 2016; 414:9-22.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.073

22. Rasmussen SO, Bigler M, Blockley SP, Blunier T, Buchardt SL, Clausen HB, et al. A Stratigraphic Framework for Abrupt Climatic Changes during the Last Glacial Period based on Three Synchronized Greenland Ice-Core Records: Refining and Extending the INTIMATE Event Stratigraphy. Quaternary Science Reviews. 2014; 106:14-28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.09.007

23. Arl Leroi-Gourhan, Chaline J. Le paysage au temps des graveurs de la grotte de la Marche (avec une analyse zoologique par J. Chaline). Estudios dedicados al Profesor Dr Luis Pericot, Universidad de Barcelona, Instituto de Arqueología y Prehistoria. 1973;101-8.

24. Marquet JC. Un aperçu sur les rongeurs du site de « la Garenne » (Grand Abri) à Saint-Marcel (Indre).
In: Despriée J, Rigaud A, Vialou D, Gageonnet R, editors. Le Paléolithique de la vallée moyenne de la Creuse Le Coteau de « la Garenne »: Grand Abri et Grotte Blanchard, Saint-Marcel (Indre) Projet Collectif de Recherches, études 1999-2001. Bulletin de l'Association pour la sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2003. p. 37-46.

25. Bayle G, Crépin L, David F. Évolution des comportements de subsistance des magdaléniens « à navettes » du Centre de la France. In: Despriée J, Tymula S, Rigaud A, editors. Actes du colloque d'Argenton-sur-Creuse, 7-9 octobre 2004. Bulletin de l'Association pour la sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 65-99.

26. Renault-Miskowsky J, Fellag H. Palynologie du Grand-Abri dans le Coteau de « la Garenne »: résultats paléoenvironnementaux et paléoclimatiques. In: Données récentes sur le Magdalénien de « La Garenne » (Saint-Marcel, Indre). Bulletin de l'Association pour la Sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 55-64.

27. Bozet E, Miskovsky JC. Nouvelles données sur l'évolution paléoclimatique de l'époque magdalénienne, d'après l'étude lithostratigraphique du Roc-aux-Sorciers (Angles-sur-l'Anglin, Vienne, France).
Comptes Rendus Palevol. 2010; 9(3):127-40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2010.03.003

28. Valensi P, Boulbes N. The Magdalenian Fauna from Roc-aux-Sorciers, a Sculpted Rock Shelter (Vienne, France). Main Archaeozoological Results. Quaternaire Revue de l'Association française pour l'étude du Quaternaire. 2018;(vol. 29/1):75-80.

29. Delpech F. Biomasse d'Ongulés au Paléolithique et inférences sur la démographie/Ungulate Biomass During the Paleolithic Period and Inferences Concerning Human Demography. Paléo, Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique. 1999; 11(1):19-42.

30. Costamagno S, Barshay-Szmidt C, Kuntz D, Laroulandie V, Pétillon JM, Boudadi-Maligne M, et al. Reexamining the Timing of Reindeer Disappearance in Southwestern France in the Larger Context of Late Glacial Faunal Turnover. Quaternary International. 2016; 414:34-61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.103

31. Henry A, Liard A. Bouyssonie: Nouvelles données anthracologiques. In: Pesesse D, editor. Grotte Bouyssonie, Brive-la-Gaillarde, Corrèze Rapport d'analyse concernant la partie ancienne de la séquence Aurignacien—Gravettien. Rapport d'analyses 2019–2020. 2020. p. 17-31.

32. Plisson H. La fonction des outils de silex dans les grottes ornées paléolithiques. In: Congrès du centenaire: Un siècle de construction du discours scientifique en Préhistoire Vol 3 «. Aux conceptions d'aujourd'hui », J Evin (dir). Société Préhistorique Française. Paris; 2007. p. 125-32.

33. Kozłowski SK, Terberger T, Bobak D, Orschiedt J, Poltowicz-Bobak M. Eastern Borders of the Magdalénian 'à navettes'. Maszycka cave in Lesser Poland (southern Poland). In: Actes de la séance de la Société Préhistorique Française, Besançon, 17–19 octobre 2013. Société Préhistorique française; 2017. p. 187-205. http://www.prehistoire.org/offres/file inline_src/515/515_pj_290317_112419.pdf

34. Paillet P, Pinçon G, Bourdier C. Historique des recherches sur les faciès à Lussac-Angles et à navettes. In: Bourdier C, Chehmana L, Malgarini R, Poltowicz-Bobak M, editors. L'essor du Magdalénien: aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles: actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Besançon, 17–19 octobre 2013. Paris: Société préhistorique française, Séances de la Société préhistorique française; 8; 2017. pp. 19-32. http://www.prehistoire.org/515_p_48610/acces-libre-sEance-8-l-essor-du-magdalénien-aspects-culturels-symboles-et-techniques-des-facies-a-navettes-et-a-lussac-angles.html

35. Delage C. De la « Pointe de sagaie » à la « culture de Lussac-Angles », il n'y a plus qu'un pas. Argumentaire. SERPE. 2012; 62:23-48.

36. Pales L, Tassin de Saint Péreuse M. Les Gravures de la Marche. II-Les humains. Paris: Ed. Ophrys; 1976. 178 p.
37. Mélard N. Les pierres gravées du Magdalénien moyen à la Marche (Lussac-les-Châteaux, Vienne)—Réalisation, fonctions et interprétations. PhD Thesis, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 2006. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02343321/

38. Pales L, Tassin de Saint Péreuse M. Les Gravures de la Marche. Bordeaux, France: Impr. Delmas; 1969. 136 p.

39. Bourdier C, Bosselin B, Gaussein P, Paillet P, Pinçon G. Regards croisés sur la représentation animalièr des faciès du Magdalénien moyen à pointes de Lussac-Angles et à navettes. Choix thématiques et formels. In: Bourdier C, Chehmana L, Malgarini R, Poltowicz-Bobak M, editors. L'essor du Magdalénien: aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles: actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française. Séances de la Société préhistorique française; 8; 2017. pp. 103-17. http://www.prehistoire.org/515_p_48610/acces-libre-sEance-8-l-essor-du-magdalénien-aspects-culturels-symboles-et-techniques-des-facies-a-navettes-et-a-lussac-angles.html

40. Péricard L, Lwoff S. La Marche, commune de Lussac-les-Châteaux (Vienne): Premier atelier de Magdalénien III à dalles gravées mobiles (campagne de fouilles 1937-1938). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 1940; 37(7):155-80.

41. Dujardin V, Pincon G. Le Magdalénien dans la Vienne et la Charente. In: Pion G, editor. Tale Ronde de Chambéry, 12-13 mars 1999. Mémoires de la Société préhistorique française; 2000. p. 213-22.

42. Mazière G, Buret C. Les incisives gravées de la Marche (Lussac-les-Châteaux, Vienne). Collection Péricard, Musée Sainte-Croix, Poitiers. In: Buisson-Catil J, Primault J, editors. Préhistoire entre Vienne et Charente Hommes et Sociétés du Paléolithique. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises, mémoire 38; 2010. p. 397-406.

43. Airvaux J. Les incisives de chevaux gravées du Magdalénien moyen de Lussac-Angles. Bulletin Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest. 2011; 19(2):137-95.

44. Beyries S, Bignon O, Jacomet S, Mazière G. Engraved Horse Incisors during the Middle Magdalenian (France). In: Marreiros J, Bicho N, Gibaja Bao J, editors. International Conference on Use-Wear Analysis: AWRANA 2012. 2012. Poster.

45. Allain J. Contribution à l'étude des techniques magdaléniennes. Les Navettes. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 1957; 54(3):216-22.

46. Sécher A. Les débuts du Magdalénien moyen dans le Sud-Ouest de la France: essai d'approche paléogéographique des traditions culturelles. In: Langlais M, Straus LG, editors. Session XVII-2 du XVIIIe Congrès de l'UISPP, Paris, 6 juin 2018. Actes de la séance de la Société Préhistorique Française; vol. 15. Paris: Société Préhistorique française. 2020. p. 41-64. http://www.prehistoire.org/offres/doc inline _src/515/SE9ance%2B15%2BBD-corr.pdf

47. Allain J, Trotignon F. La place des figurations humaines dans le Magdalénien «à navettes». In: L'Homme, hier et aujourd'hui Recueil d'études en hommage à André Leroi-Gourhan. Cujas. Paris; 1973. p. 235-40.

48. Fuentes O. L'Homme schématisé: L'apport des représentations humaines à la caractérisation du Magdalénien « à navettes ». In: Despriée J, Tymula S, editors. Données récentes sur le Magdalénien de « La Garenne » (Saint-Marcel, Indre). Bulletin de l'Association pour la Sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 166-80.

49. Paillet P. L'art mobilier sur supports lithique de « la Garenne » (Saint-Marcel, Indre). In: Despriée J, Tymula S, editors. Données récentes sur le Magdalénien de « La Garenne » (Saint-Marcel, Indre). Bulletin de l'Association pour la Sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 181-200.

50. Allain J. Nouvelles découvertes dans le gisement magdalénien de la Garenne (com. de St-Marcel, Indre). Note préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 1957; 54(3):223-7.

51. Allain J. Grotte Blanchard. In: Leroi-Gourhan A, editor. L'Art des cavernes: Atlas des grottes ornées paléolithiques françaises. Paris: La Documentation Française; 1984. p. 27-30.

52. Jacquot E. À la recherche de l'identité culturelle des magdaléniens de la grotte Blanchard à la Garenne (Indre). Étude technologique des microlithes. M.Sc. Thesis, Université de Paris I. 2002.

53. Despriée J, Tymula S, Renault-Miskowsky J. Chronologie absolue des sites magdaléniens du Coteau de « la Garenne » à Saint-Marcel (Indre). In: Despriée J, Tymula S, Rigaud A, editors. Actes du colloque d'Argenton-sur-Creuse, 7-9 octobre 2004. Bulletin de l'Association pour la sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 53-4.

54. Pradel L. La grotte magdalénienne de la Marche, commune de Lussac-les-Châteaux (Vienne). Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française. 1958; 5:170-91.

55. Airvaux J. L'art préhistorique du Poitou-Charentes. Sculptures et gravures des temps glaciaires. Paris: La maison des Roches; 2001. 223 p.
56. Pradel L. Datations par le radiocarbone du Magdalénien III de la Marche, commune de Lussac-les-Châteaux (Vienne). L'Anthropologie. 1980; 84(2):307-8.

57. Brou L, Primault J, Airvaux J. Projet collectif de Recherche. Chronologie absolue du Magdalénien en Poitou-Charentes. Ministère de la Culture, Préfecture de Région, Direction régionale des Affaires Culturelles, Service Régional de l'Archéologie, Région Poitou-Charentes; 2013 p. 48.

58. Barshay-Szmidt C, Costamagno S, Henry-Gambier D, Laroulandie V, Pétillon JM, Boudadi-Maligne M, et al. New Extensive Focused AMS 14C Dating of the Middle and Upper Magdalenian of the Western Aquitaine/Pyrenean Region of France (ca. 19-14 ka cal BP): Proposing a New Model for its Chronological Phases and for the Timing of Occupation. Quaternary International. 2016; 414(Supplement C):62-91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.073

59. Garcia G, Fournel M, Daver G, Guy F, Leuvrey JM, Magniez C, et al. Nouvelles données paléontologiques de la grotte de la Marche (Pléistocène supérieur, Lussac-les-Châteaux, Vienne). BMSAP. 2017; 30:S1-S8.

60. Aubry T. L'approvisionnement en matières premières lithiques sur le site de « la Garenne » Saint-Marcel (Indre). In: Despriée J, Rigaud A, Vialou D, Gageonnet R, editors. Le Paléolithique de la vallée moyenne de la Creuse Le Coteau de « la Garenne »: Grand Abri et Grotte Blanchard, Saint-Marcel (Indre), Projet Collectif de Recherches, études 1999-2001. Bulletin de l'Association pour la sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2003. p. 37-46.

61. Tixier J, Inizan ML, Roche H, Dauvois M. Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée 1. Terminologie et technologie. Cercle de recherches et d'études préhistoriques. Valbonne: Association pour la promotion et la diffusion des connaissances archéologiques; 1980. 120 p.

62. Inizan ML, Reduron-Ballinger M, Roche H, Tixier J. Technologie de la pierre taillée. Meudon, Cercle de Recherches et d'Études Préhistoriques. Université de Paris X Nanterre: CNRS; 1995. 199 p. (Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée).

63. Tixier J, editor. Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée 2. Économie du débitage laminaire: technologie et expérimentation. In: IIIe table ronde de technologie lithique, Meudon-Bellevue, octobre 1982. Antibes: Cercle de recherches et d'études préhistoriques; 1984. p. 165.

64. Semenov SA. Prehistoric Technology, an Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Bath: Adams and Dart. Bath; 1964. 211 p.

65. Ibáñez Estévez JJ, González Urquijo JE. Metodología de análisis funcional de instrumentos tallados en sílex. Universidad de Deusto; 1994. 302 p.

66. Gauvrit Roux E. Comportements techniques au Magdalénien moyen ancien. Approche techno-fonctionnelle de l'industrie lithique de deux gisements du Centre-Ouest de la France: la Marche (Vienne) et la Garenne (Indre). PhD Thesis, Université Côte d'Azur. 2019. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03018902

67. Gauvrit Roux E, Beyries S. Approche des comportements techniques au Magdalénien moyen ancien dans le Centre-Ouest de la France. L'industrie lithique de la Marche (Vienne) et de la grotte Blanchard à la Garenne (Indre). In: Langlais M, Straus LG, editors. Session XVII-2 du XVIIIe Congrès de l'UISPP, Paris, 6 juin 2018. Actes de la séance de la Société Préhistorique Française; vol. 15. Paris: Société Préhistorique française. 2020. p. 377-409. http://www.prehistoire.org/offres/doc inline_src/515/SE9ance%2B15%2BBD-corr.pdf

68. Taylor A. Analyse de deux séries lithiques appartenant au Magdalénien moyen à navettes. Les secteurs intérieurs de la grotte Blanchard à la Garenne (Indre), couches C1 et C2-C5. M.Sc. Thesis, Université d'Aix-Marseille 1. 2003.

69. Jacquot E, Taylor A. Technologie des microlithes de la Grotte Blanchard « à La Garenne ». In: Despriée J, Tymula S, editors. Données récentes sur le Magdalénien de « La Garenne » (Saint-Marcel, Indre). Bulletin de l'Association pour la Sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 113-24.

70. Gauvrit Roux E, Cattin MI, Yahemdi I, Beyries S. Reconstructing Magdalenian Hunting Equipment through Experimentation and Functional Analysis of Backed Bladelets. Quaternary International. 2020;(554):107-27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.06.038

71. Pelegrin J. Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: critères de diagnose et quelques réflexions. In: Valentin B., Bodu P., editors, L'Europe Centrale et Septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire Confrontation des modèles régionaux. Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d'Ile-de-France; 2000. p. 73-86.

72. Alix P, Pelegrin J, Deloge H. Un débitage original de lamelles par pression au Magdalénien du Rocher-de-la-Caille (Loire, France). Paléo, Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique. 1995; 7(1):187-99.

73. Gauvrit Roux E, Beyries S. Travail de la peau au Magdalénien moyen: analyse techno-fonctionnelle des grattoirs de la Marche (Lussac-les-Châteaux, Vienne). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 2018; 115(4):647-75.
74. Beyries S, Cattin MI. Resharpening and Recycling: Different Conceptions of the Magdalenian Tools. Quaternary International. 2014; 361:260-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.07.042

75. Jacquier J, Naudinot N. Socio-Economic Significance of Stone Tools Recycling, Reuse and Maintenance at the End of the Lateglacial in Northwestern France. Quaternary International. 2015; 361:269-87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.09.051

76. Rigaud A. Analyse typologique et technologique des grattoirs magdaléniens de la Garenne à Saint-Marcel (Indre). Gallia Préhistoire. 1977; 20(1):1-43.

77. Vaughan PC. The Burin-Blow Technique: Creator or Eliminator? Journal of Field Archaeology. 1985; 12(4):488-96.

78. Jardón Giner P, Sacchi D. Traces d'usage et indices de réaffûtages et d'emmanchements sur des grattoirs magdaléniens de la grotte Gazel à Sallèles-Cabardes (Aude-France). L'Anthropologie. 1994; 98(2):427-46.

79. Leroi-Gourhan A, Brézillon M. L'habitation magdalénienne n'1 de Pincevent près de Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire. 1966; 9(2):263-385.

80. Plisson H. Étude fonctionnelle d'outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l'analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique et archéologique. PhD Thesis, Université de Paris I. 1985.

81. Cattin MI. Hauterive-Champréveyres 13. Tome 1, Un campement magdalénien au bord du lac de Neuchâtel: exploitation du silex (secteur 1). Service et musée cantonal d'archéologie. Neuchâtel; 2002. 261 p. (Archéologie neuchâteloise; vol. 13).

82. Gosselin R. La transition Magdalénien/Azilien, observée à travers la fonction des grattoirs du Bois-Ragot. In: Chollet A Dujardin, V, editors. La grotte du Bois-Ragot à Gouex (Vienne) Magdalénien et Azilien. Essais sur les hommes et leur environnement. Société Préhistorique Française. Mémoire XXXVIII. 2005. p. 191-219. https://www.prehistoire.org/offres/file inline_src/515/515_pj_090119_120008.pdf

83. Fischer A, Hansen PV, Rasmussen P. Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile Points: Experimental Results and Prehistoric Examples. Journal of Danish Archaeology. 1984; 3(1):19-46.

84. Chesnaux L. Réflexion sur le microlithisme en France au cours du premier Mésolithique, Xe-VIIe millénaires avant J.-C. Approches technologique, expérimentale et fonctionnelle. PhD Thesis, Université de Paris I. 2014. https://hal.inria.fr/tel-02134837v1

85. Coppe J, Rots V. Focus on the Target. The Importance of a Transparent Fracture Terminology for Understanding Projectile Points and Projecting Modes. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2017; 12:109-23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.010

86. Allain J. A propos d'un bois de renne gravé magdalénien de la Garenne (Commune de St-Marcel, Indre). Art pariétal et art mobilier. Revue archéologique du Centre de la France. 1968; 7(2):155-66.

87. Leroi-Gourhan A. Une tête de sagaie à armature de lamelles de silex à Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 1983; 80(5):154-6.

88. Erikson P, Sidéra I, Vila E. Introduction. In: Sidéra I, Vila E, Erikson P, editors. La chasse Pratiques sociales et symboliques. De Boccard. Paris: Maison René-Ginouvès, Archéologie et Ethnologie; 2007. p. IX-XIII. (Colloques de la Maison René-Ginouvès).

89. Rigaud A. La technologie du burin appliquée au matériel osseux de la Garenne (Indre). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 1972; 69(4):104-8.

90. Plisson H. Un burin ne sert pas à buriner mais en burinant. In: de Araujo Igreja M, Bracco JP, Le Brun-Ricalens F, editors. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale d'Aix-en-Provence, 3-5 March 2003. ArchéoLogiques; 2006. p. 23-34.

91. Bamforth DB, Burns GR, Woodman C. Ambiguous Use Traces and Blind Test Results: New Data. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1990; 17:413-30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(90)90006-Q

92. Guéret C. L'outillage du Premier Mésolithique dans le Nord de la France et en Belgique. Éclairages fonctionnels. PhD Thesis, Université de Paris I. 2013. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02121644

93. Klaric L, Lev S, Giria Y, Polanská M. «Couteaux de Kostienki et lames aménagées par technique de Kostienki»: retour sur un malentendu historique. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 2015; 112(3):421-74.

94. Moss EH. The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements. Pincevent and Pont d'Ambon: Two Case Studies from the French Final Palaeolithic. BAR International Series. Vol. 177. Oxford; 1983. 249 p.

95. Jacquier J. Approche fonctionnelle de l'outillage lithique à l'aube de l'Holocène dans le nord-ouest de la France. PhD Thesis, Université de Rennes I. 2015. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01925668
96. Clemente Conte I, Díaz VG, i Mitjà AV. Análisis funcional de los restos líticos tallados de la cueva de Praileaitz I (Deba, Gipuzkoa). Munibe Monographs: Anthropology and Archaeology Series. 2017; (1):399-409.

97. Jacquier J. Analyse fonctionnelle de l'équipement lithique. In: Le Solutréen de la vallée de l'Erve (Mayenne) Dix ans de recherche dans la grotte Rochefort. Société Préhistorique Française. Paris; 2020. p. 132-48. (Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique française).

98. Baillet M. Éclairage de la tracéologie lithique sur le système techno-économique nomade châtelperronien. PhD Thesis, Université de Bordeaux I. 2017. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01941401

99. Glory A. Débris de corde paléolithique à la grotte de Lascaux. Mémoires de la Société préhistorique française. 1959; 5:135-69.

100. Rosendahl G, Beinhauer KW, Löscher M, Kreipl K, Walter R, Rosendahl W. Le plus vieil arc du monde? Une pièce intéressante en provenance de Mannheim, Allemagne. L'Anthropologie. 2006; 110 (3):371-82.

101. Bencomo Viala M, Jardón Giner P, Sirvent Cañada LM, Hortelano Piqueras L. Understanding wood-working in Paleolithic times by means of use-wear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2020; 29:102119. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102119

102. Haneca K, Deforce K, van der Laan J, Nicolaij S, Lange S. WOODAN: An Online Database of Archaeological Wooden Objects. Veget Hist Archaeobot. 2022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-022-00868-z

103. Aranguren B, Revedin A. Interprétation fonctionnelle d'un site gravettien à burins de Noailles. L'Anthropologie. 1 oct 2001; 105(4):533-45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-5521(01)80051-0

104. Aranguren B, Revedin A. Un accompagmemto di 30 000 anni fa a Bilancino (Mugello, Firenze). Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protoitoria. Florence, Italy; 2008. 283 p.

105. Kildea F, Lang L, Souffi B, Sellami F, Holzem N, Dumarçay G, et al. « La Croix de Bagneux » à Mareuil-sur-Cher (Loir-et-Cher), un site paléolithique à occupations multiples dans la vallée du Cher. INRAP, Rapport final d'opération de fouille archéologique. Vol. 1. 2008. 645 p.

106. Kildea F, Lang L. Le Gravettien de la vallée du Cher: le site de la Croix-de-Bagneux à Mareuil-sur-Cher (Loir-et-Cher, France). In: Goutas N, Klaric L, Pesesse D, Guillermin P, editors. Table ronde sur le Gravettien en France et dans les pays limitrophes. Paris, France: Société préhistorique française; 2010. p. 273-90. (Mémoire de la Société préhistorique française; vol. 52).

107. Calvo A, Perales U, García-Rojas M, Normand C, Arrizabalaga A. Just before sewing needles. A functional hypothesis for Gravettian Noailles-type burins from Isturitz cave (Basque Country, southwestern France). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2019; 25:420-32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.04.022

108. Gauvrit Roux E. Analyse fonctionnelle des burins de Noailles de la nappe 4. In: Pesesse D, editor. Grotte Bouyssonie (Brive-la-Gaillarde, Corrèze), Rapport d'analyse concernant la partie ancienne de la séquence, Aurignacien-Gravettien Rapport d'analyses 2019-2020. Ministère de la Culture, DRAC Nouvelle Aquitaine. 2020. p. 54-62.

109. Santaniello F, Grimaldi S. A techno-functional interpretation of the Noailles burins from the Riparo Mochi (Balzi Rossi, Italy). Quaternary International. 2021;587-588:75-85. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.07.001

110. Beyries S, Hayden B. L'importance du travail du bois en Préhistoire. In: Anderson PC, Beyries S, Otte M, Plisson H, editors. Traces et fonctions: les gestes retrouvés, Liège: ERAUL, 1993. pp. 283-285.

111. Claud É, Thiébaut C, Costamagno S, Deschamps M, Soulier MC, Brenet M, et al. Les pratiques mises en œuvre par les Néandertaliens lors de l'acquisition et l'exploitation des ressources végétales et animales et la fonction des sites étudiés: synthèse et discussion. Palethnologie Archéologie et sciences humaines. 2019;(10). Available from: http://journals.openedition.org/palethnologie/4170

112. Binford LR. Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity. 1978; 43(3):330-61.

113. Binford LR. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity. 1980; 45(1):4-20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/279653

114. Conkey MW, Beltrán A, Clark GA, Echegaray JG, Guenther MG, Hahn J, et al. The Identification of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Aggregation Sites: The Case of Altamira [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology. 1980; 21(5):609-30. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2741828

115. Fougère F. Pour une modélisation du cycle annuel de nomadisation des chasseurs-cueilleurs: données ethnographiques et conditions d'applications archéologiques. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 2011; 108(2):201-20.

116. Beyries S. Différents systèmes de mobilité et d'exploitation du territoire chez les chasseurs-cueilleurs. In: Nicoud É, Beyries S, org. Systèmes de mobilités à la Préhistoire. Nice; 2020. Oral communication.
117. Houmard C. Les têtes de projectiles rainurées du site de la Garenne (Indre). Etudes typo-technologiques et fonctionnelles. M.Sc. Thesis, Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne; 2003.

118. Houmard C. Réflexions sur les têtes de projectiles rainurées d'après l'étude du site de la Garenne (Indre). Préhistoire Méditerranéennes. 2003; 12:165-72.

119. Chauvière FX, Rigaud A. Le travail du bois de renne à la Garenne (Saint-Marcel, Indre, France): entre conceptions préhistoriques et techniques magdalénienne ou comment séparer ébauches et déchets des pointes vraies? Bulletin Préhistorique du Sud-Ouest. 2008; 16(2):173-83.

120. Chauvière FX, Rigaud A. Le travail du bois de renne à « la Garenne »: entre conceptions préhistoriques et techniques magdaléniennes ou comment séparer ébauches et déchets des pointes « vraies »? In: Despriée J, Tymula S, Rigaud A, editors. Données récentes sur le Magdalénien de « La Garenne » (Saint-Marcel, Indre). Bulletin de l'Association pour la Sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 125-36.

121. Rigaud A. Les avatars d'une pointe de « 13 ». En hommage à Jacques Allain. Bulletin de l'Association pour la sauvegarde du site d'Argentomagus et Amis du musée. 2009; 4:41-2.

122. Taborin Y, Tymula S. Les coquillages des magdaléniens de « la Garenne » à Saint-Marcel (Indre). In: Despriée J, Tymula S, editors. Données récentes sur le Magdalénien de « La Garenne » (Saint-Marcel, Indre). Bulletin de l'Association pour la Sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 201-6.

123. Jézéquel P, Bény C, Delorme V, Jean-Prost V, Cottier R, Breton J, et al. Analyse, caractérisation minérale et origine des colorants des grottes de « la Garenne » (Vallée moyenne de la Creuse, Indre). In: Despriée J, Tymula S, editors. Données récentes sur le Magdalénien de « La Garenne » (Saint-Marcel, Indre). Bulletin de l'Association pour la Sauvegarde du site archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée; 2009. p. 157-65.

124. Chehmana L, Beyries S. L'industrie lithique du Roc-aux-Sorciers (collection Rousseau). In: Buisson-Catil J, Primault J, editors. Préhistoire entre Vienne et Charente Hommes et Sociétés du Paléolithique. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises, mémoire 38; 2010. p. 453-60.

125. Fontana L. Mobilité et subsistance au Magdalénien dans le Bassin de l'Aude. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française. 1999; 96(2):175-90.

126. Fontana L. Territoires, mobilité et échanges au Magdalénien dans l'Aude et le Massif central (France): approche comparative, modélisation et perspectives. Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques. 2005;355-70.

127. Valensi P. La faune à travers la collection Saint-Mathurin [Internet]. 2010. http://www.catalogue-roc-aux-sorciers.fr/html/12/collection/add_7.html

128. Lajoux JB, Malgarini R, Bemilli C, Bayle G. Retour à Solutré. Route de la Roche: fouille préventive d'un gisement de plein air magdalénien. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 2016; 113 (4):824-8.

129. Primault J. La grotte du Taillis-des-Coteaux à Antigny (Vienne). In: Buisson-Catil J, Primault J, editors. Préhistoire entre Vienne et Charente Hommes et Sociétés du Paléolithique. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises, mémoire 38; 2010. p. 271-93.

130. Foucher P, San Juan C. Les Genêts (Leigné-les-Bois, Vienne), atelier de taille magdalénien dans son contexte régional. Revue archéologique du Centre de la France. 1991; 30(1):7-29.

131. Foucher P, San Juan C. L'atelier de taille paléolithique des Marineaux (Leigné-les-Bois, Vienne) et le problème d'attribution chronologique des sites de plein air du Bassin de la Creuse. Paléo. 1994; 6.

132. Foucher P, San-Juan C, Chambord E. Le site de Verlet (La Roche-Posay, Vienne) et les ateliers du Paléolithique supérieur de la rive gauche de la Creuse. Paléo. 1996; 8(1):299-321.

133. Peschaux C, Chauvière FX, Tymula S. La parure de la Garenne (Saint-Marcel, Indre) et les traditions de l'ornementation corporelle du début du Magdalénien moyen. In: Bourdier C, Chehmana L, Malgarini R, Poltowicz-Bobak M, editors. L'essor du Magdalénien: aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles: actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Besançon, 17-19 octobre 2013. Paris: Société préhistorique française, Séances de la Société préhistorique française; 8; 2017. pp. 73-85. http://www.prehistoire.org/515_p_48610/acces-libre-sEance-8-l-essor-du-magdalénien-aspects-culturels-symboliques-et-techniques-des-facies-a-navettes-et-a-lussac-angles.html

134. Sécher A, Caux S. Technologie lithique et circulation des matières premières au Magdalénien moyen ancien L'exemple de Moulin-Neuf (Saint-Quentin-de-Baron, Gironde). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 2017; 114(2):295-314.

135. Valentin B. Jalons pour une paléohistoire des derniers chasseurs (XIe-Vle millénaire avant J.-C.). Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne; 2008. (Cahiers archéologiques de Paris 1).
136. Hodder I. Symbols in Action. Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge-London-New York-New Rochelle-Melbourne-Sydney: New Studies in Archaeology; 1982. 244 p.

137. Angevin R. Participation et résistances au modèle socioculturel magdalénien dans le Massif central: aspects des constructions identitaires en marge des technocomplexes «Lussac-Angles» et «à navettes». In: Bourdier C, Chehmana L, Malgarini R, Połtowicz-Bobak M, editors. L'essor du Magdalénien: aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles: actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Besançon, 17-19 octobre 2013. Paris: Société préhistorique française, Séances de la Société préhistorique française; 8; 2017. pp. 249-60. http://www.prehistoire.org/515_p_48610/acces-libre-sEance-8-l-essor-du-magdalenien-aspects-culturels-symboliques-et-techniques-des-facies-a-navettes-et-a-lussac-angles.html

138. Cleuziou S. Des objets, des archéologues et des sauvages: vers une archéologie anthropologique? Raison présente. 1984; 69(1):77-101.

139. Cleuziou S. Introduction: La culture matérielle est-elle soluble dans l'Espace? In: Dhennequin L, Gernez G, Giraud J, editors. Objets et symboles: De la culture matérielle à l'espace culturel. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne; 2009. p. 9-23.

140. Clark GA, Lindly JM. On Paradigmatic Biases and Paleolithic Research Traditions. Current Anthropology. 1991; 32(5):577-87. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2743689

141. Malgarini R, Mevel L, Béréiziat G, Bodu P, Cupillard C, Debout G, et al. Les faciès du Magdalénien moyen dans l'Est de la France: confrontation et discussion des industries osseuses et lithiques. In: Bourdier C, Chehmana L, Malgarini R, Połtowicz-Bobak M, editors. L'essor du Magdalénien: aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles: actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Besançon, 17-19 octobre 2013. Paris: Société préhistorique française, Séances de la Société préhistorique française; 8; 2017. pp. 139-156. http://www.prehistoire.org/515_p_48610/acces-libre-sEance-8-l-essor-du-magdalenien-aspects-culturels-symboliques-et-techniques-des-facies-a-navettes-et-a-lussac-angles.html.

142. Fuentes O. Les représentations humaines au Magdalénien en Poitou-Charentes. In: Buisson-Catil J, Primault J, editors. Préhistoire entre Vienne et Charente Hommes et Sociétés du Paléolithique. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises, mémoire 38; 2010. p. 383-96.

143. Fuentes O, Lucas C, Robert E. An Approach to Palaeolithic networks: The Question of Symbolic Territories and their Interpretation through Magdalenian Art. Quaternary International. 2017; 503:233-47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.12.017

144. Langlais M. Une anthologie du Paléolithique récent-final en France méridionale (21-11 Ka cal BP). Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université de Bordeaux 1, France. 2020.

145. Sigaut F. Un couteau ne sert pas à couper, mais en coupant. Structure, fonctionnement et fonction dans l'analyse des objets. In: 25 ans d'études technologiques en Préhistoire: Bilan et perspective. Antibes, France: ERA 28 du CRA, APDCA; 1991. p. 20-34.

146. Maier A. Expansion or Communication? The Phenomenon of the Magdalenian à navettes from a Central European Point of View. In: Bourdier C, Chehmana L, Malgarini R, Połtowicz-Bobak M, editors. L'essor du Magdalénien: aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles: actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Besançon, 17-19 octobre 2013. Paris: Société préhistorique française, Séances de la Société préhistorique française; 8; 2017. pp. 175-86. http://www.prehistoire.org/515_p_48610/acces-libre-sEance-8-l-essor-du-magdaleien-aspects-culturels-symboliques-et-techniques-des-facies-a-navettes-et-a-lussac-angles.html

147. Brughmans T. Thinking Through Networks: A Review of Formal Network Methods in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2013; 20(4):623-62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-012-9133-8

148. Delvigne V, Lafarge A, Fernandes P, Pesesse D, Angevin R, Bindon P, et al. Quels territoires en préhistoire? Une analyse par réseaux de lieux pour penser l'espace au Paléolithique supérieur. In: Mevel L, Weber M-J, Maier A, editors. Actes de la séance de la Société Préhistorique Française et la Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft, Strasbourg, 16-17 mai 2019. Paris, France: Société Préhistorique française; 2021. p. 27-69. (Séances de la Société préhistorique française; vol. 17). http://www.prehistoire.org/offres/doc inline_src/515/SPF_all_papers_new.pdf

149. Banks WE. The Application of Ecological Niche Modeling Methods to Archaeological Data in order to Examine Culture-Environment Relationships and Cultural Trajectories. Quaternaire Revue de l'Association française pour l'étude du Quaternaire. 29 mai 2017; (vol. 28/2):271-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4000/quaternaire.7966