# Continuities and Discontinuities in the Human Settlement of the Aquitaine Basin between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP: The Radiocarbon Evidence

Jean-Marc Pétillon, Carolyn Barshay-Szmidt, Véronique Laroulandie, Anthony Sécher, Myriam Boudadi-Maligne, Laurent Brou, Jean-Christophe Castel, François-Xavier Chauvière, Sandrine Costamagno, Sylvain Ducasse, et al.

► To cite this version:

Jean-Marc Pétillon, Carolyn Barshay-Szmidt, Véronique Laroulandie, Anthony Sécher, Myriam Boudadi-Maligne, et al. Continuities and Discontinuities in the Human Settlement of the Aquitaine Basin between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP: The Radiocarbon Evidence. Hiatus, lacunes et absences: identifier et interpréter les vides archéologiques. Actes du 29e Congrès préhistorique de France, 31 mai-4 juin 2021, Toulouse, Session Les espaces vides: preuves d'absences ou absences de preuves ?, Société préhistorique française, pp.47-64, 2024. hal-04536858

HAL Id: hal-04536858

https://hal.science/hal-04536858

Submitted on 10 Apr 2024

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.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Continuities and Discontinuities in the Human Settlement of the Aquitaine Basin between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP: The Radiocarbon Evidence

Jean-Marc Pétillon, Carolyn Barshay-Szmidt, Véronique Laroulandie, Anthony Sécher, Myriam Boudadi-Maligne, Laurent Brou, Jean-Christophe Castel, François-Xavier Chauvière, Sandrine Costamagno, Morgane Grubert, et al.

► To cite this version:

Jean-Marc Pétillon, Carolyn Barshay-Szmidt, Véronique Laroulandie, Anthony Sécher, Myriam Boudadi-Maligne, et al. Continuities and Discontinuities in the Human Settlement of the Aquitaine Basin between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP: The Radiocarbon Evidence. 29e Congrès préhistorique de France, May 2021, Toulouse, France. pp.47-64. hal-04536858

HAL Id: hal-04536858

https://hal.science/hal-04536858v1

Submitted on 10 Apr 2024

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.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Hiatus, lacunes et absences: identifier et interpréter les vides archéologiques
Hiatus, lacuna and absences: identifying and interpreting archaeological gaps
Actes du 29e Congrès préhistorique de France
31 mai-4 juin 2021, Toulouse

Les espaces vides: preuves d'absences ou absences de preuves ?
Session publiée sous la direction de Jean-Marc Pétillon et Jessie Cauliez
Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2023

p. 47-64

# Continuities and Discontinuities in the Human Settlement of the Aquitaine Basin between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP: The Radiocarbon Evidence

## Continuités et discontinuités dans le peuplement humain du Bassin aquitain entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP : les données radiocarbone

Jean-Marc PÉTILLON, Carolyn BARSHAY-SZMIDT, Véronique LAROULANDIE, Anthony SÉCHER, Myriam BOUDADI-MALIGNE, Laurent BROU, Jean-Christophe CASTEL, François-Xavier CHAUVIÈRE, Sandrine COSTAMAGNO, Sylvain DUCASSE, Morgane GRUBERT, Edmée LADIER, Mathieu LANGLAIS, Jean-Baptiste MALLYE, Jérôme PRIMAULT

**Abstract:** Previous studies of Magdalenian ¹⁴C dates (ca. 19.5-13.5 cal. ka BP) in the western Aquitaine basin have found a disparity in continuity of occupation between the northern part of this western basin (Gironde) and the southern part (western Pyrenees), with a lack of occupation in the northern part ca. 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP (corresponding to the Late Middle Magdalenian), interpreted as a local depopulation episode triggered by environmental factors. Here we expand on that research to see whether this pattern holds on a wider geographic scale. We compiled a corpus of 373 ¹⁴C AMS dates from the five sub-regions of the Aquitaine basin. Results confirm that other northern regions (Vienne and Charente) are also virtually devoid of occupation between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP, and that the northeast of the basin (Dordogne and Lot) also shows a decline in the number of occupations at that same period, although we do evoke the possibility that this pattern might be due partly to sampling biases. Our results show that the western Pyrenees pattern of continuous occupation holds true also for the southeastern part of the basin (central Pyrenees). Other areas (Centre east) are more difficult to interpret, largely because of the lack of ¹⁴C data. These findings lead us to reconsider some previously held tenets about the demography of the Aquitaine basin after the LGM: for instance, the role of the basin as a base for post-LGM population movements towards more northern regions of Europe; and the interpretation of some Pyrenean sites as "aggregation sites". We end by proposing some avenues for further testing of these various scenarios.

**Keywords:** Aquitaine, Late Pleniglacial, Late Upper Paleolithic, Magdalenian, radiocarbon, settlement, southwestern France.

**Résumé :** Le Bassin aquitain a fréquemment été caractérisé comme une des régions d'Europe de l'Ouest présentant le peuplement le plus dense et le plus continu pendant et après le Dernier Maximum glaciaire. À l'échelle locale, des contrastes apparaissent cependant. Un projet portant sur le Magdalénien de l'ouest aquitain (projet Magdatis) a ainsi montré l'existence d'un peuplement magdalénien continu dans le piémont des Pyrénées occidentales, tandis que, de l'autre côté du Sable des Landes, les plaines de Gironde montraient
Hiatus, lacunes et absences: identifier et interpréter les vides archéologiques
Hiatus, lacuna and absences: identifying and interpreting archaeological gaps
Actes du 29e Congrès préhistorique de France
31 mai-4 juin 2021, Toulouse

Les espaces vides: preuves d'absences ou absences de preuves ?
Session publiée sous la direction de Jean-Marc Pétillon et Jessie Cauliez
Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2023

p. 47-64

# Continuities and Discontinuities in the Human Settlement of the Aquitaine Basin between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP: The Radiocarbon Evidence

## Continuités et discontinuités dans le peuplement humain du Bassin aquitain entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP : les données radiocarbone

Jean-Marc PÉTILLON, Carolyn BARSHAY-SZMIDT, Véronique LAROULANDIE, Anthony SÉCHER, Myriam BOUDADI-MALIGNE, Laurent BROU, Jean-Christophe CASTEL, François-Xavier CHAUVIÈRE, Sandrine COSTAMAGNO, Sylvain DUCASSE, Morgane GRUBERT, Edmée LADIER, Mathieu LANGLAIS, Jean-Baptiste MALLYE, Jérôme PRIMAULT

**Abstract:** Previous studies of Magdalenian ¹⁴C dates (ca. 19.5-13.5 cal. ka BP) in the western Aquitaine basin have found a disparity in continuity of occupation between the northern part of this western basin (Gironde) and the southern part (western Pyrenees), with a lack of occupation in the northern part ca. 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP (corresponding to the Late Middle Magdalenian), interpreted as a local depopulation episode triggered by environmental factors. Here we expand on that research to see whether this pattern holds on a wider geographic scale. We compiled a corpus of 373 ¹⁴C AMS dates from the five sub-regions of the Aquitaine basin. Results confirm that other northern regions (Vienne and Charente) are also virtually devoid of occupation between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP, and that the northeast of the basin (Dordogne and Lot) also shows a decline in the number of occupations at that same period, although we do evoke the possibility that this pattern might be due partly to sampling biases. Our results show that the western Pyrenees pattern of continuous occupation holds true also for the southeastern part of the basin (central Pyrenees). Other areas (Centre east) are more difficult to interpret, largely because of the lack of ¹⁴C data. These findings lead us to reconsider some previously held tenets about the demography of the Aquitaine basin after the LGM: for instance, the role of the basin as a base for post-LGM population movements towards more northern regions of Europe; and the interpretation of some Pyrenean sites as "aggregation sites". We end by proposing some avenues for further testing of these various scenarios.

**Keywords:** Aquitaine, Late Pleniglacial, Late Upper Paleolithic, Magdalenian, radiocarbon, settlement, southwestern France.

**Résumé** : Le Bassin aquitain a fréquemment été caractérisé comme une des régions d'Europe de l'Ouest présentant le peuplement le plus dense et le plus continu pendant et après le Dernier Maximum glaciaire. À l'échelle locale, des contrastes apparaissent cependant. Un projet portant sur le Magdalénien de l'ouest aquitain (projet Magdatis) a ainsi montré l'existence d'un peuplement magdalénien continu dans le piémont des Pyrénées occidentales, tandis que, de l'autre côté du Sable des Landes, les plaines de Gironde montraient
un hiatus documentaire entre 17,5 cal. ka BP et 15,5 cal. ka BP (Magdalénien moyen récent). Ce hiatus avait été interprété comme un épisode local de dépeuplement lié aux conditions environnementales rigoureuses du HS1a-b. L'objectif de cette étude est de prolonger ce travail en recherchant si un événement similaire peut être observé ailleurs dans le Bassin aquitain, en nous appuyant sur les données radiocarbone. Le Bassin aquitain a été divisé pour cela en cinq sous-régions (nord-ouest : nord de la Gironde, Charente et Vienne ; nord-est : Dordogne et Lot ; centre-est : Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne ; sud-est : Ariège, Haute-Garonne et Hautes-Pyrénées ; sud-ouest : Pyrénées-Atlantiques et sud des Landes). Les limites chronologiques de l'étude ont été fixées à 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP, soit la période s'étendant entre la transition du Magdalénien inférieur au Magdalénien moyen et le début de l'Azilien. Au total, 373 dates ¹⁴C ont été compilées de plusieurs sources (publications, base Banadora, littérature grise avec autorisation des auteurs), en excluant les dates provenant de contextes naturels et les dates non AMS. Des graphiques de dates calibrées ont été réalisés pour chaque sous-région, et des cartes de chaleur des sites magdaléniens dans le Bassin aquitain ont été dressées pour trois intervalles de deux mille ans : 19,5-17,5 cal. ka BP, 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP et 15,5-13,5 cal. ka BP. Ce travail confirme l'extrême rareté des indices de présence humaine dans l'ensemble de la sous-région nord-ouest durant l'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP (trois dates sur trois sites, toutes discutables). Dans la sous-région nord-est, le nombre de sites (et de dates) est nettement réduit pendant ce même intervalle par rapport aux phases précédente et suivante : seulement quatre ensembles archéologiques et une sépulture. Les données de la sous-région centre-est sont difficiles à interpréter par manque de dates ¹⁴C en nombre suffisant. Enfin, le corpus de dates des sous-régions sud-est et sud-ouest confirme la continuité du peuplement magdalénien dans les Pyrénées centrales et occidentales, avec même une surreprésentation de l'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP, qui correspond à la phase d'occupation la plus intensive de plusieurs sites majeurs. Cette image contrastée est peut-être en partie due à des biais de conservation des sites et de fermeture des cavités, ou à un manque de datations pour certaines séquences importantes, en particulier dans le nord-est. Quoi qu'il en soit, ces résultats invitent à nuancer le rôle démographique du Bassin aquitain au Magdalénien : il est devenu possible d'envisager que, pendant une partie de cette période, ce bassin ait pu n'être qu'une marge de peuplement du monde magdalénien. La rareté relative des indices de peuplement humain dans le nord du bassin pendant l'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP pourrait également changer notre interprétation de certains caractères du Magdalénien des Pyrénées à cette période : la fréquence de certains objets spécifiques rares ailleurs dans le bassin, et l'intensité de fréquentation de certains gisements classiquement vus comme des sites d'agréation pourraient ainsi être vues sous un nouvel éclairage. L'approfondissement de cette enquête nécessitera : l'enrichissement du corpus de dates ¹⁴C par AMS pour les régions nord-est et centre-est ; l'extension de la zone d'étude vers l'est (contreforts du Massif central) ; la comparaison avec les réseaux de circulation de matières premières, lithiques en particulier ; la comparaison avec les dates provenant de séquences naturelles dans la même région ; et une mise en parallèle plus fine des fluctuations de peuplement avec les changements environnementaux.

**Mots-clés** : Aquitaine, Magdalénien, Paléolithique supérieur récent, peuplement, Pléniglaciaire récent, radiocarbone, sud-ouest de la France.

Stretching over ca. 80,000 km² between the Armorican massif, the Massif central, the Pyrenees and the Atlantic, the Aquitaine basin is one of the two major sedimentary basins in France. Variously referred to as “southwestern France”, “Aquitaine”, or “the French part of the Franco-Cantabrian region”, it was repeatedly characterized as one of the most densely and continuously populated areas in Western Europe during and after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; e.g. Bocquet-Appel et al., 2005; French and Collins, 2015). This is due to its large number of Magdalenian sites, which yield a rich and seemingly continuous record of radiocarbon dates between ca. 21 and 14 cal. ka BP. In this perspective, after acting as a population refugium during the LGM, the Aquitaine basin would have played an important role in the subsequent resettlement of more northerly parts of Europe (e.g. Kretschmer, 2015; Maier, 2017).

However, a closer look at a more local scale reveals a more contrasted picture, suggesting that the intensity and continuity of human occupation during the Magdalenian was heterogeneous across the region. A large part of the central Aquitaine basin, corresponding to the Landes sands and extending eastwards into the Garonne valley, appears to have been unattractive to hunter-gatherers during most of the Upper Paleolithic, including the Magdalenian, because of its repulsive environmental con-

ditions (Bruxelles and Jarry, 2011; Bertran et al., 2013 and 2020; Sitzia, 2014; Sitzia et al., 2015). Significant human resettlement in this area occurred only at the end of the Upper Magdalenian and thereafter, during the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic (Belbéc'h and Lenoir, 2011; Gourc et al., 2016; Merlet and Vignaud, this volume).

Similarly, the Magdatis research project, focused on the Magdalenian settlement of the western part of the basin (Pétillon et al., 2016; Laroulandie et al., 2017), showed a contrast between the Gironde plains, to the northwest, and the foothills of the western Pyrenees to the southwest. While the western Pyrenees do yield a continuous record of human occupation during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian, in the Gironde, no sites are documented between ca. 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP, archeologically corresponding to the Late Middle Magdalenian (Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2016). This absence can hardly be interpreted as the consequence of a sampling bias, since material and assemblages from this period were specifically and unsuccessfully sought in the dating program. Furthermore, the beginning of this hiatus corresponds to the onset of the extremely cold phase of HS1a, and its end coincides with the beginning of the warmer HS1c (after Naughton et al., 2016); at that period, in the north of the basin, periglacial features (cryoturbations, polygons) also indicate cooling (Lenoble et al., 2012),
un hiatus documentaire entre 17,5 cal. ka BP et 15,5 cal. ka BP (Magdalénien moyen récent). Ce hiatus avait été interprété comme un épisode local de dépeuplement lié aux conditions environnementales rigoureuses du HS1a-b. L'objectif de cette étude est de prolonger ce travail en recherchant si un événement similaire peut être observé ailleurs dans le Bassin aquitain, en nous appuyant sur les données radiocarbone. Le Bassin aquitain a été divisé pour cela en cinq sous-régions (nord-ouest : nord de la Gironde, Charente et Vienne ; nord-est : Dordogne et Lot ; centre-est : Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne ; sud-est : Ariège, Haute-Garonne et Hautes-Pyrénées ; sud-ouest : Pyrénées-Atlantiques et sud des Landes). Les limites chronologiques de l'étude ont été fixées à 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP, soit la période s'étendant entre la transition du Magdalénien inférieur au Magdalénien moyen et le début de l'Azilien. Au total, 373 dates ¹⁴C ont été compilées de plusieurs sources (publications, base Banadora, littérature grise avec autorisation des auteurs), en excluant les dates provenant de contextes naturels et les dates non AMS. Des graphiques de dates calibrées ont été réalisés pour chaque sous-région, et des cartes de chaleur des sites magdaléniens dans le Bassin aquitain ont été dressées pour trois intervalles de deux mille ans : 19,5-17,5 cal. ka BP, 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP et 15,5-13,5 cal. ka BP. Ce travail confirme l'extrême rareté des indices de présence humaine dans l'ensemble de la sous-région nord-ouest durant l'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP (trois dates sur trois sites, toutes discutables). Dans la sous-région nord-est, le nombre de sites (et de dates) est nettement réduit pendant ce même intervalle par rapport aux phases précédente et suivante : seulement quatre ensembles archéologiques et une sépulture. Les données de la sous-région centre-est sont difficiles à interpréter par manque de dates ¹⁴C en nombre suffisant. Enfin, le corpus de dates des sous-régions sud-est et sud-ouest confirme la continuité du peuplement magdalénien dans les Pyrénées centrales et occidentales, avec même une surreprésentation de l'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP, qui correspond à la phase d'occupation la plus intensive de plusieurs sites majeurs. Cette image contrastée est peut-être en partie due à des biais de conservation des sites et de fermeture des cavités, ou à un manque de datations pour certaines séquences importantes, en particulier dans le nord-est. Quoi qu'il en soit, ces résultats invitent à nuancer le rôle démographique du Bassin aquitain au Magdalénien : il est devenu possible d'envisager que, pendant une partie de cette période, ce bassin ait pu n'être qu'une marge de peuplement du monde magdalénien. La rareté relative des indices de peuplement humain dans le nord du bassin pendant l'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP pourrait également changer notre interprétation de certains caractères du Magdalénien des Pyrénées à cette période : la fréquence de certains objets spécifiques rares ailleurs dans le bassin, et l'intensité de fréquentation de certains gisements classiquement vus comme des sites d'agréation pourraient ainsi être vues sous un nouvel éclairage. L'approfondissement de cette enquête nécessitera : l'enrichissement du corpus de dates ¹⁴C par AMS pour les régions nord-est et centre-est ; l'extension de la zone d'étude vers l'est (contreforts du Massif central) ; la comparaison avec les réseaux de circulation de matières premières, lithiques en particulier ; la comparaison avec les dates provenant de séquences naturelles dans la même région ; et une mise en parallèle plus fine des fluctuations de peuplement avec les changements environnementaux.

**Mots-clés** : Aquitaine, Magdalénien, Paléolithique supérieur récent, peuplement, Pléniglaciaire récent, radiocarbone, sud-ouest de la France.

Stretching over ca. 80,000 km² between the Armorican massif, the Massif central, the Pyrenees and the Atlantic, the Aquitaine basin is one of the two major sedimentary basins in France. Variously referred to as “southwestern France”, “Aquitaine”, or “the French part of the Franco-Cantabrian region”, it was repeatedly characterized as one of the most densely and continuously populated areas in Western Europe during and after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; e.g. Bocquet-Appel et al., 2005; French and Collins, 2015). This is due to its large number of Magdalenian sites, which yield a rich and seemingly continuous record of radiocarbon dates between ca. 21 and 14 cal. ka BP. In this perspective, after acting as a population refugium during the LGM, the Aquitaine basin would have played an important role in the subsequent resettlement of more northerly parts of Europe (e.g. Kretschmer, 2015; Maier, 2017).

However, a closer look at a more local scale reveals a more contrasted picture, suggesting that the intensity and continuity of human occupation during the Magdalénian was heterogeneous across the region. A large part of the central Aquitaine basin, corresponding to the Landes sands and extending eastwards into the Garonne valley, appears to have been unattractive to hunter-gatherers during most of the Upper Paleolithic, including the Magdalénian, because of its repulsive environmental con-

ditions (Bruxelles and Jarry, 2011; Bertran et al., 2013 and 2020; Sitzia, 2014; Sitzia et al., 2015). Significant human resettlement in this area occurred only at the end of the Upper Magdalenian and thereafter, during the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic (Belbéc'h and Lenoir, 2011; Gourc et al., 2016; Merlet and Vignaud, this volume).

Similarly, the Magdatis research project, focused on the Magdalenian settlement of the western part of the basin (Pétillon et al., 2016; Laroulandie et al., 2017), showed a contrast between the Gironde plains, to the northwest, and the foothills of the western Pyrenees to the southwest. While the western Pyrenees do yield a continuous record of human occupation during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian, in the Gironde, no sites are documented between ca. 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP, archeologically corresponding to the Late Middle Magdalenian (Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2016). This absence can hardly be interpreted as the consequence of a sampling bias, since material and assemblages from this period were specifically and unsuccessfully sought in the dating program. Furthermore, the beginning of this hiatus corresponds to the onset of the extremely cold phase of HS1a, and its end coincides with the beginning of the warmer HS1c (after Naughton et al., 2016); at that period, in the north of the basin, periglacial features (cryoturbations, polygons) also indicate cooling (Lenoble et al., 2012),
even if they do not mark the formation of a true permafrost (Andrieux et al., 2016). The Gironde hiatus was thus interpreted as a local depopulation episode triggered by environmental factors: at that period, this territory, which was then mostly a cold steppe environment exposed to intense North Atlantic westerlies, would have been too inhospitable to host human occupations or at least human occupations significant enough to be archeologically identified.

The aim of the present study is to bring this research one step further by investigating if a similar depopulation episode can be evidenced in others parts of the Aquitaine basin during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian, based on radiocarbon data. Assessing if the pattern observed in

the Gironde was a very local phenomenon, or affected a larger part of the basin, is indeed necessary for a finer understanding of the role of this region as a population base after the LGM.

# 1. MATERIAL

Our study area encompasses the whole geographic region of the Aquitaine basin, but it was necessary to split it into sub-regions for a more precise geographic approach. Five divisions were distinguished inside the basin (table 1, fig. 1):

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** – Sites included in the study, with color code for the five sub-regions distinguished inside the Aquitaine basin (Map A. Sécher). The Landes sands appear in yellow. Site numbers as in table 1.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 1** – Sites inclus dans l'étude, avec code couleurs pour les cinq sous-régions distinguées à l'intérieur du Bassin aquitain (carte A. Sécher). La zone du sable des Landes est figurée en jaune. Voir le tableau 1 pour les numéros des sites.</caption>
even if they do not mark the formation of a true permafrost (Andrieux et al., 2016). The Gironde hiatus was thus interpreted as a local depopulation episode triggered by environmental factors: at that period, this territory, which was then mostly a cold steppe environment exposed to intense North Atlantic westerlies, would have been too inhospitable to host human occupations or at least human occupations significant enough to be archeologically identified.

The aim of the present study is to bring this research one step further by investigating if a similar depopulation episode can be evidenced in others parts of the Aquitaine basin during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian, based on radiocarbon data. Assessing if the pattern observed in

the Gironde was a very local phenomenon, or affected a larger part of the basin, is indeed necessary for a finer understanding of the role of this region as a population base after the LGM.

# 1. MATERIAL

Our study area encompasses the whole geographic region of the Aquitaine basin, but it was necessary to split it into sub-regions for a more precise geographic approach. Five divisions were distinguished inside the basin (table 1, fig. 1):

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** – Sites included in the study, with color code for the five sub-regions distinguished inside the Aquitaine basin (Map A. Sécher). The Landes sands appear in yellow. Site numbers as in table 1.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 1** – Sites inclus dans l'étude, avec code couleurs pour les cinq sous-régions distinguées à l'intérieur du Bassin aquitain (carte A. Sécher). La zone du sable des Landes est figurée en jaune. Voir le tableau 1 pour les numéros des sites.</caption>
- northwest: the northern part of the Gironde and the *départements* of Charente and Vienne;

- northeast: *départements* of Dordogne and Lot;

- centre east: *départements* of Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne and Lot-et-Garonne;

- southeast: *départements* of Ariège, Haute-Garonne and Hautes-Pyrénées;

- southwest: *département* of Pyrénées-Atlantiques and southern part of the Landes.

These sub-regions correspond to administrative territorial divisions and, broadly, to comparably-sized concentrations of sites, as well as to “fieldwork areas” of specific researchers and teams. Even though they could of course have been framed slightly differently, these five

<table><thead><tr><th>Nbr</th><th>site</th><th>commune</th><th>dept</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Roc-aux-Sorciers</td><td>Angles-sur-l'Anglin</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Taillis des Coteaux</td><td>Antigny</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Marche</td><td>Lussac-les-Châteaux</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Réseau Guy-Martin</td><td>Lussac-les-Châteaux</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Bois Ragot</td><td>Gouex</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Rente d'Ortre et Bois du Breuil</td><td>Graves-Saint-Amant</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Le Roc de Sers</td><td>Sers</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>La Chaire-à-Calvin</td><td>Mouthiers-sur-Boëme</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Pont d'Ambon</td><td>Bourdeilles</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Rochereil</td><td>Grand-Brassac</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Combe-Saunière I</td><td>Sarliac-sur-l'Isle</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Raymonden</td><td>Chancelade</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Fées</td><td>Prignac-et-Marcamps</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Roc-de-Marcamps</td><td>Prignac-et-Marcamps</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Roc-de-Marcamps 2</td><td>Prignac-et-Marcamps</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Saint-Germain-la-Rivière</td><td>Saint-Germain-la-Rivière</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Gabillou</td><td>Sourzac</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Labattut</td><td>Sergeac</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Faurélie 2</td><td>Mauzens-et-Miremont</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Laugerie-Haute</td><td>Les Eyzies</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Laugerie-Basse</td><td>Les Eyzies</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Cap-Blanc</td><td>Marquay</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Combarelles 1</td><td>Les Eyzies</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Peyrazet</td><td>Creysse</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Moulin du Roc</td><td>Saint-Chamassy</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Vilazette</td><td>Creysse</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Combe-Cullier</td><td>Lacave</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Gare de Couze</td><td>Lalinde</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Morin</td><td>Pessac-sur-Dordogne</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Moulin-Neuf</td><td>Saint-Quentin-de-Baron</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Murat</td><td>Rocamadour</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Piage</td><td>Fajoles</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Faustin</td><td>Cessac</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>Pégourié</td><td>Caniac-du-Causse</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Peyrugues</td><td>Orniac</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Petit Cloup Barrat</td><td>Cabrerets</td><td>46</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 1 – List of sites as on fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3 and fig. 4.</caption><thead><tr><th>Nbr</th><th>site</th><th>commune</th><th>dept</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>37</td><td>Cassegros</td><td>Trentels</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Fontalès</td><td>Saint-Antonin-Noble-Val</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Pénovaire</td><td>Penne</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Courbet</td><td>Penne</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>Magdeleine-la-Plaine</td><td>Penne</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Montastruc</td><td>Bruniquel</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Gandil</td><td>Bruniquel</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Lafaye</td><td>Bruniquel</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Plantade</td><td>Bruniquel</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Dufaure</td><td>Sorde-l'Abbaye</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Bourrouilla</td><td>Arancou</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Isturitz</td><td>Saint-Martin-d'Arberoue</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Harpons</td><td>Lespugue</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Rideaux</td><td>Lespugue</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>Harregi</td><td>Aussurucq</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Orkatzeko</td><td>Lecumberry</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Etxeberri</td><td>Camou-Cihigue</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>Laa 2</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Bignalats</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>Poeymaü</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Malarode</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>Marsoulas</td><td>Marsoulas</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Tastet</td><td>Sainte-Colome</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>Espalungue</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Saint-Michel</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>Mas d'Azil</td><td>Mas d'Azil</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>Portel</td><td>Loubens</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>Labastide</td><td>Labastide</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>Enlène</td><td>Montesquieu-Avantès</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Tuc d'Audoubert</td><td>Montesquieu-Avantès</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>Trois-Frères</td><td>Montesquieu-Avantès</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>Troubat</td><td>Troubat</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Bédeilhac</td><td>Bédeilhac-et-Aynat</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Rhodes 2</td><td>Arignac</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>Niaux</td><td>Niaux</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>Vache</td><td>Alliat</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Duruthy</td><td>Sorde-l'Abbaye</td><td>40</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Tabl. 1 – Liste des sites sur les fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3 et fig. 4.</caption>
- northwest: the northern part of the Gironde and the *départements* of Charente and Vienne;

- northeast: *départements* of Dordogne and Lot;

- centre east: *départements* of Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne and Lot-et-Garonne;

- southeast: *départements* of Ariège, Haute-Garonne and Hautes-Pyrénées;

- southwest: *département* of Pyrénées-Atlantiques and southern part of the Landes.

These sub-regions correspond to administrative territorial divisions and, broadly, to comparably-sized concentrations of sites, as well as to “fieldwork areas” of specific researchers and teams. Even though they could of course have been framed slightly differently, these five

<table><thead><tr><th>Nbr</th><th>site</th><th>commune</th><th>dept</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Roc-aux-Sorciers</td><td>Angles-sur-l'Anglin</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Taillis des Coteaux</td><td>Antigny</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Marche</td><td>Lussac-les-Châteaux</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Réseau Guy-Martin</td><td>Lussac-les-Châteaux</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Bois Ragot</td><td>Gouex</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Rente d'Ortre et Bois du Breuil</td><td>Graves-Saint-Amant</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Le Roc de Sers</td><td>Sers</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>La Chaire-à-Calvin</td><td>Mouthiers-sur-Boëme</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Pont d'Ambon</td><td>Bourdeilles</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Rochereil</td><td>Grand-Brassac</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Combe-Saunière I</td><td>Sarliac-sur-l'Isle</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Raymonden</td><td>Chancelade</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Fées</td><td>Prignac-et-Marcamps</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Roc-de-Marcamps</td><td>Prignac-et-Marcamps</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Roc-de-Marcamps 2</td><td>Prignac-et-Marcamps</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Saint-Germain-la-Rivière</td><td>Saint-Germain-la-Rivière</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Gabillou</td><td>Sourzac</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Labattut</td><td>Sergeac</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Faurélie 2</td><td>Mauzens-et-Miremont</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Laugerie-Haute</td><td>Les Eyzies</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Laugerie-Basse</td><td>Les Eyzies</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Cap-Blanc</td><td>Marquay</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Combarelles 1</td><td>Les Eyzies</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Peyrazet</td><td>Creysse</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Moulin du Roc</td><td>Saint-Chamassy</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Vilazette</td><td>Creysse</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Combe-Cullier</td><td>Lacave</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Gare de Couze</td><td>Lalinde</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Morin</td><td>Pessac-sur-Dordogne</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Moulin-Neuf</td><td>Saint-Quentin-de-Baron</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Murat</td><td>Rocamadour</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Piage</td><td>Fajoles</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Faustin</td><td>Cessac</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>Pégourié</td><td>Caniac-du-Causse</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Peyrugues</td><td>Orniac</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Petit Cloup Barrat</td><td>Cabrerets</td><td>46</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 1 – List of sites as on fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3 and fig. 4.</caption><thead><tr><th>Nbr</th><th>site</th><th>commune</th><th>dept</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>37</td><td>Cassegros</td><td>Trentels</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Fontalès</td><td>Saint-Antonin-Noble-Val</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Pénovaire</td><td>Penne</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Courbet</td><td>Penne</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>Magdeleine-la-Plaine</td><td>Penne</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Montastruc</td><td>Bruniquel</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Gandil</td><td>Bruniquel</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Lafaye</td><td>Bruniquel</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Plantade</td><td>Bruniquel</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Dufaure</td><td>Sorde-l'Abbaye</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Bourrouilla</td><td>Arancou</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Isturitz</td><td>Saint-Martin-d'Arberoue</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Harpons</td><td>Lespugue</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Rideaux</td><td>Lespugue</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>Harregi</td><td>Aussurucq</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Orkatzeko</td><td>Lecumberry</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Etxeberri</td><td>Camou-Cihigue</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>Laa 2</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Bignalats</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>Poeymaü</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Malarode</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>Marsoulas</td><td>Marsoulas</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Tastet</td><td>Sainte-Colome</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>Espalungue</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Saint-Michel</td><td>Arudy</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>Mas d'Azil</td><td>Mas d'Azil</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>Portel</td><td>Loubens</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>Labastide</td><td>Labastide</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>Enlène</td><td>Montesquieu-Avantès</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Tuc d'Audoubert</td><td>Montesquieu-Avantès</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>Trois-Frères</td><td>Montesquieu-Avantès</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>Troubat</td><td>Troubat</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Bédeilhac</td><td>Bédeilhac-et-Aynat</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Rhodes 2</td><td>Arignac</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>Niaux</td><td>Niaux</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>Vache</td><td>Alliat</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Duruthy</td><td>Sorde-l'Abbaye</td><td>40</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Tabl. 1 – Liste des sites sur les fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3 et fig. 4.</caption>
divisions provide an efficient framework for the presentation and discussion of the results, as a complement to the vision given by the chronological heat maps (see below).

The geographic distribution of the sites (fig. 1) highlights the wide empty space represented by the Landes sands (yellow area on figure 1) and the Garonne valley to the east of the Landes. This gap is accentuated by the fact that our map is restricted to those sites that were ¹⁴C-dated by AMS (see below). But it nonetheless corresponds to a true scarcity of Upper Paleolithic sites in that area, despite the important activity of preventive archeology in recent years, and despite the existence of sedimentary deposits that could have yielded assemblages from this period. As was briefly mentioned above, in the Landes sands, this situation is most likely due to the presence of a cold sandy desert that had a repulsive effect on human settlement during most of the Upper Paleolithic (Bertran et al., 2013 and 2020; Sitzia, 2014; Sitzia et al., 2015). The situation is similar along the alluvial corridor of the Garonne valley, where powerful west-east winds probably created inhospitable conditions for both large fauna and human groups (Bruxelles and Jarry, 2011).

The chronological scope of the study was set to cover the period from the end of the LGM (as per Clark et al., 2009; MARGO project members, 2009) to the end of the GIS-1c; that is, between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP. In terms of archeological cultures, this time frame includes the transition between the Lower and Middle Magdalenian, the Middle Magdalenian (19.5 cal. ka BP-16 cal. ka BP), the Upper Magdalenian (16.5 cal. ka BP-14 cal. ka BP) and the beginning of the Azilian (14.5 cal. ka BP-13.5 cal. ka BP; for chronological boundaries see Langlais et al., 2016; Sécher et al., 2018; Fat Cheung and Langlais, 2020; Langlais, 2020).

Radiocarbon dates were used as a proxy for human occupation, relying on the fact that this region was the subject of numerous dating programs in the last decades. Published dates were collected from the literature. Unpublished dates were collected from one public database (Banadora: https://www.arar.mom.fr/banadora/) and from grey literature (unpublished PhDs, research reports and excavation reports). In the latter case, either they were from our own research, or they were cited only with explicit permission from the authors of the work (see acknowledgements).

In this study, radiocarbon dates obtained from archaeological contexts are assumed in a first approach to be indicators of human presence at a given site, at a given time period in calendar years. They are not used as evidence for the presence of a particular culture, or Magdalenian phase, etc. without prior examination of their archeological context. In other words, we do not infer the presence of Middle Magdalenian at a site only from the fact that this site yielded ¹⁴C dates contemporary with the Middle Magdalenian.

Samples from non anthropic contexts (natural traps, etc.) were excluded. Dates done with the classic method (beta counting) were excluded as well: only the AMS dates were taken into account. Arguments for this latter choice

have been given elsewhere (Ducasse et al., 2014, 2019 and 2020; Ducasse and Langlais, 2019): in short, while both methods are equally reliable *per se*, beta-counting dates were often done on bulk bone samples, increasing the probability of stratigraphic mixing; and many of these classic dates were done at a time when pretreatment methods were less efficient at removing contaminants, thus carrying a higher risk of age rejuvenation. Furthermore, omitting these classic dates does not remove a lot of chronological information: the standard deviation (SD) of these dates is generally higher than that of AMS dates, resulting in less precise temporal resolution, so consequently less suitable to the detection of chronological hiatuses; and the number of classic dates is today largely exceeded by the number of AMS measurements available (for example, in the Pyrenean part of our study area: southeast and southwest sub-regions, 164 AMS dates with a mean SD of ± 78 were included in our study; while only 64 classic dates with a mean SD of ± 218 were found in the literature).

A total of 373 AMS radiocarbon dates were included in the study (Supplementary Information 1 and 2). Since precise information on the pretreatment method is rarely provided, we assumed all these AMS dates to be methodologically comparable, except specific cases (see below). Of these 373 dates, 96% (n = 357) were made on bone, tooth or antler; 4% (n = 15) on charcoal; and one date is mentioned as made on humus (table 2). Eleven dating laboratories are involved, the three major players being Oxford (n = 128, or 34%), the group composed of the Lyon, Saclay and Gif-sur-Yvette facilities (together n = 123, or 33%) and Poznan (n = 56, or 15%). A quarter

<table><caption>**Table 2** – Radiocarbon dates included in the study: laboratory codes and nature of samples.

**Tabl. 2** – Dates radiocarbone incluses dans cette étude : codes laboratoire et nature des échantillons.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Osseous</th><th>Charcoal</th><th>Humus</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GifA</td><td>39</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>SacA</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Lyon</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Lyon(SacA)</td><td>63</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>GifA(SacA)</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>OxA</td><td>112</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>Lyon(OxA)</td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Poz</td><td>55</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Lyon(Poz)</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Beta</td><td>32</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>GrA</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Wk</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Col & Kn</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Erl</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>AA</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>357</td><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>373</td></tr></tbody></table>
divisions provide an efficient framework for the presentation and discussion of the results, as a complement to the vision given by the chronological heat maps (see below).

The geographic distribution of the sites (fig. 1) highlights the wide empty space represented by the Landes sands (yellow area on figure 1) and the Garonne valley to the east of the Landes. This gap is accentuated by the fact that our map is restricted to those sites that were ¹⁴C-dated by AMS (see below). But it nonetheless corresponds to a true scarcity of Upper Paleolithic sites in that area, despite the important activity of preventive archeology in recent years, and despite the existence of sedimentary deposits that could have yielded assemblages from this period. As was briefly mentioned above, in the Landes sands, this situation is most likely due to the presence of a cold sandy desert that had a repulsive effect on human settlement during most of the Upper Paleolithic (Bertran et al., 2013 and 2020; Sitzia, 2014; Sitzia et al., 2015). The situation is similar along the alluvial corridor of the Garonne valley, where powerful west-east winds probably created inhospitable conditions for both large fauna and human groups (Bruxelles and Jarry, 2011).

The chronological scope of the study was set to cover the period from the end of the LGM (as per Clark et al., 2009; MARGO project members, 2009) to the end of the GIS-1c; that is, between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP. In terms of archeological cultures, this time frame includes the transition between the Lower and Middle Magdalenian, the Middle Magdalenian (19.5 cal. ka BP-16 cal. ka BP), the Upper Magdalenian (16.5 cal. ka BP-14 cal. ka BP) and the beginning of the Azilian (14.5 cal. ka BP-13.5 cal. ka BP; for chronological boundaries see Langlais et al., 2016; Sécher et al., 2018; Fat Cheung and Langlais, 2020; Langlais, 2020).

Radiocarbon dates were used as a proxy for human occupation, relying on the fact that this region was the subject of numerous dating programs in the last decades. Published dates were collected from the literature. Unpublished dates were collected from one public database (Banadora: https://www.arar.mom.fr/banadora/) and from grey literature (unpublished PhDs, research reports and excavation reports). In the latter case, either they were from our own research, or they were cited only with explicit permission from the authors of the work (see acknowledgements).

In this study, radiocarbon dates obtained from archaeological contexts are assumed in a first approach to be indicators of human presence at a given site, at a given time period in calendar years. They are not used as evidence for the presence of a particular culture, or Magdalenian phase, etc. without prior examination of their archeological context. In other words, we do not infer the presence of Middle Magdalenian at a site only from the fact that this site yielded ¹⁴C dates contemporary with the Middle Magdalenian.

Samples from non anthropic contexts (natural traps, etc.) were excluded. Dates done with the classic method (beta counting) were excluded as well: only the AMS dates were taken into account. Arguments for this latter choice

have been given elsewhere (Ducasse et al., 2014, 2019 and 2020; Ducasse and Langlais, 2019): in short, while both methods are equally reliable *per se*, beta-counting dates were often done on bulk bone samples, increasing the probability of stratigraphic mixing; and many of these classic dates were done at a time when pretreatment methods were less efficient at removing contaminants, thus carrying a higher risk of age rejuvenation. Furthermore, omitting these classic dates does not remove a lot of chronological information: the standard deviation (SD) of these dates is generally higher than that of AMS dates, resulting in less precise temporal resolution, so consequently less suitable to the detection of chronological hiatuses; and the number of classic dates is today largely exceeded by the number of AMS measurements available (for example, in the Pyrenean part of our study area: southeast and southwest sub-regions, 164 AMS dates with a mean SD of ± 78 were included in our study; while only 64 classic dates with a mean SD of ± 218 were found in the literature).

A total of 373 AMS radiocarbon dates were included in the study (Supplementary Information 1 and 2). Since precise information on the pretreatment method is rarely provided, we assumed all these AMS dates to be methodologically comparable, except specific cases (see below). Of these 373 dates, 96% (n = 357) were made on bone, tooth or antler; 4% (n = 15) on charcoal; and one date is mentioned as made on humus (table 2). Eleven dating laboratories are involved, the three major players being Oxford (n = 128, or 34%), the group composed of the Lyon, Saclay and Gif-sur-Yvette facilities (together n = 123, or 33%) and Poznan (n = 56, or 15%). A quarter

<table><caption>**Table 2** – Radiocarbon dates included in the study: laboratory codes and nature of samples.

**Tabl. 2** – Dates radiocarbone incluses dans cette étude : codes laboratoire et nature des échantillons.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Osseous</th><th>Charcoal</th><th>Humus</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GifA</td><td>39</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>SacA</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Lyon</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Lyon(SacA)</td><td>63</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>GifA(SacA)</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>OxA</td><td>112</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>Lyon(OxA)</td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Poz</td><td>55</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Lyon(Poz)</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Beta</td><td>32</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>GrA</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Wk</td><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Col & Kn</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Erl</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>AA</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>357</td><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>373</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3** – Radiocarbon dates included in the study: distribution according to sub-region and bibliographic status.
**Tabl. 3** – Dates radiocarbone incluses dans cette étude : distribution selon leur sous-région et leur statut bibliographique.</caption><thead><tr><td>Sub-region</td><td>Départements</td><td>Sites dated</td><td>Dates previously published</td><td>Dates from grey literature</td><td>Total number of dates</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Northwest</td><td>Gironde (north), Charente, Vienne</td><td>15</td><td>68</td><td>21</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td>Dordogne, Lot</td><td>21</td><td>78</td><td>17</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Centre east</td><td>Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne</td><td>9</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>Ariège, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrénées</td><td>14</td><td>63</td><td>15</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Landes (south)</td><td>14</td><td>60</td><td>26</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>73</td><td>281</td><td>92</td><td>373</td></tr></tbody></table>

of these dates (24.7%) were previously available only on Banadora or in grey literature (table 3). In each of the five sub-regions, the number of dated sites is between 9 and 21, and the number of dates is between 78 and 95, with the exception of the central-eastern area, which is less well documented (see discussion below).

Selecting only the AMS radiocarbon dates means that a number of Magdalenian sites are excluded from the sample, either because they were only dated with the classic method, or because they were not dated at all, for lack of dating program or for lack of datable material (i.e. most open-air sites). As a consequence, certain phenomena are not visible on our maps, such as the resettlement of one part of the Landes area in the Upper Magdalenian, only evidenced by open-air sites without $^{14}$C dates (Belbéoc’h and Lenoir, 2011; Gourc et al., 2016; Merlet and Vignaud, this volume; and see above). We are aware of these biases, but this methodological choice was precisely made to avoid mixing radiometric chronology with cultural attribution made on technotypological grounds, the correlation of the two being a work in itself, beyond the scope of this article. Some of these undated sites, though, will be referred to in the discussion.

## 2. METHODS

We plotted the dates of each region (without modeling them), from youngest (at the top) to oldest (at the bottom) to see visually whether we could see any gaps in presence. Plots (see figures below) show calibrated dates, with 95.4% confidence intervals (2 sigma); these were calculated using OxCal 4.4.4 (Bronk-Ramsey, 2009), which is based on the IntCal20 curve (Reimer et al., 2020).

There are five plots, one for each of the five regions outlined above. In those cases where a sample was dated twice (this is usually done as part of standard laboratory

protocol), we used the R Combine function in OxCal to get an average date and used that in the graphs. The sample identifier on the left-hand column is the lab code. Further details about any sample can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

The three maps (see figures below) were designed using QGIS (open-source GIS software) and are based on the cartographic work of one of us (Sécher, 2017). The topographic background was made using radar data from the SRTM mission (NASA joint program; Farr et al., 2007). Paleo-coastal and paleo-river data were derived from public databases (Verheul et al., 2015; Zickel et al., 2016).

These maps aim to report the density of $^{14}$C-dated Magdalenian sites for each of the three selected 2000-year phases: 19.5-17.5 (Early Middle Magdalenian, or EMM, and transition to the Late Middle Magdalenian), 17.5-15.5 (Late Middle Magdalenian, or LMM, and transition to the Upper Magdalenian) and 15.5-13.5 ky cal. BP (Early Upper Magdalenian, or EUM; Late Upper Magdalenian, or LUM; and transition to the Azilian). The heat map is an interesting visual solution that allows us to understand the spatial distribution of the $^{14}$C-dated sites and their concentration (hot spots).

We created the density raster (i.e. heat map) from a vector layer of input points using core density estimation. We have taken care to consider that a site is equal to a single point, regardless of the number of known dates.

The density is therefore calculated from the number of points at a given location. A large number of points grouped together gives higher values: the hot spots. The main parameter for obtaining the heat map is the search radius, defined as the distance around a point from which the influence of a point will be zero. Larger values result in greater smoothness, but smaller values show finer details and variations in point density. A value of 0.75° of arc, in the WGS84 coordinate system (epsg:4326), is the most suitable for our study scale. The other parameters are those used by default by QGIS (v. 3.24.2).
<table><caption>**Table 3** – Radiocarbon dates included in the study: distribution according to sub-region and bibliographic status.
**Tabl. 3** – Dates radiocarbone incluses dans cette étude : distribution selon leur sous-région et leur statut bibliographique.</caption><thead><tr><td>Sub-region</td><td>Départements</td><td>Sites dated</td><td>Dates previously published</td><td>Dates from grey literature</td><td>Total number of dates</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Northwest</td><td>Gironde (north), Charente, Vienne</td><td>15</td><td>68</td><td>21</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td>Dordogne, Lot</td><td>21</td><td>78</td><td>17</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Centre east</td><td>Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne</td><td>9</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>Ariège, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrénées</td><td>14</td><td>63</td><td>15</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Landes (south)</td><td>14</td><td>60</td><td>26</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>73</td><td>281</td><td>92</td><td>373</td></tr></tbody></table>

of these dates (24.7%) were previously available only on Banadora or in grey literature (table 3). In each of the five sub-regions, the number of dated sites is between 9 and 21, and the number of dates is between 78 and 95, with the exception of the central-eastern area, which is less well documented (see discussion below).

Selecting only the AMS radiocarbon dates means that a number of Magdalenian sites are excluded from the sample, either because they were only dated with the classic method, or because they were not dated at all, for lack of dating program or for lack of datable material (i.e. most open-air sites). As a consequence, certain phenomena are not visible on our maps, such as the resettlement of one part of the Landes area in the Upper Magdalenian, only evidenced by open-air sites without $^{14}$C dates (Belbéoc’h and Lenoir, 2011; Gourc et al., 2016; Merlet and Vignaud, this volume; and see above). We are aware of these biases, but this methodological choice was precisely made to avoid mixing radiometric chronology with cultural attribution made on technotypological grounds, the correlation of the two being a work in itself, beyond the scope of this article. Some of these undated sites, though, will be referred to in the discussion.

## 2. METHODS

We plotted the dates of each region (without modeling them), from youngest (at the top) to oldest (at the bottom) to see visually whether we could see any gaps in presence. Plots (see figures below) show calibrated dates, with 95.4% confidence intervals (2 sigma); these were calculated using OxCal 4.4.4 (Bronk-Ramsey, 2009), which is based on the IntCal20 curve (Reimer et al., 2020).

There are five plots, one for each of the five regions outlined above. In those cases where a sample was dated twice (this is usually done as part of standard laboratory

protocol), we used the R_Combine function in OxCal to get an average date and used that in the graphs. The sample identifier on the left-hand column is the lab code. Further details about any sample can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

The three maps (see figures below) were designed using QGIS (open-source GIS software) and are based on the cartographic work of one of us (Sécher, 2017). The topographic background was made using radar data from the SRTM mission (NASA joint program; Farr et al., 2007). Paleo-coastal and paleo-river data were derived from public databases (Verheul et al., 2015; Zickel et al., 2016).

These maps aim to report the density of $^{14}$C-dated Magdalenian sites for each of the three selected 2000-year phases: 19.5-17.5 (Early Middle Magdalenian, or EMM, and transition to the Late Middle Magdalenian), 17.5-15.5 (Late Middle Magdalenian, or LMM, and transition to the Upper Magdalenian) and 15.5-13.5 ky cal. BP (Early Upper Magdalenian, or EUM; Late Upper Magdalenian, or LUM; and transition to the Azilian). The heat map is an interesting visual solution that allows us to understand the spatial distribution of the $^{14}$C-dated sites and their concentration (hot spots).

We created the density raster (i.e. heat map) from a vector layer of input points using core density estimation. We have taken care to consider that a site is equal to a single point, regardless of the number of known dates.

The density is therefore calculated from the number of points at a given location. A large number of points grouped together gives higher values: the hot spots. The main parameter for obtaining the heat map is the search radius, defined as the distance around a point from which the influence of a point will be zero. Larger values result in greater smoothness, but smaller values show finer details and variations in point density. A value of 0.75° of arc, in the WGS84 coordinate system (epsg:4326), is the most suitable for our study scale. The other parameters are those used by default by QGIS (v. 3.24.2).
For information purposes, we then added to the map
the number of dates obtained for each site. The more
dates a site has, the larger the point size will be.

3. RESULTS

In the northwestern part of the basin, the distribution of the radiocarbon dates confirms the extreme scarcity of anthropic evidence for the period between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP (table 4; fig. 2 to fig. 5). The preceding period, between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 17.5 cal. ka BP, is documented by 51 dates from 11 sites; and the following

one, between 15.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP, yielded
35 dates from six sites. In-between, only three dates, from
three different sites, are currently known; and each of
them is questionable. The youngest of these three dates
(from Morin BI, Gironde: OxA-19699, 13065 ± 60 BP,
15861-15421 cal. BP at 2σ) actually slightly overlaps the
lower limit of the 15.5-13.5 time slice so it is not clearly
in the 17.5-15.5 ka cal. BP time slice; the three other sam-
ples from the same BI layer produced slightly younger
dates, thus more clearly belonging in that younger
time slice (Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2016; Mallye et al.,
2018). The second of these three dates (from the sin-
gle layer of Réseau Guy-Martin, Vienne: Beta-359094,
13560 ± 50 BP, 16554-16199 cal. BP at 2σ) is not consis-

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Fig. 2 – Density raster (heat map) of the Aquitaine basin reporting the density of Magdalenian sites AMS-dated between 19.5 and 17.5 cal. ka BP; see explanations in text (map A. Sécher).

Fig. 2 – Matrice de densité (carte de chaleur) du Bassin aquitain montrant la densité des sites magdaléniens datés par AMS entre 19,5 et 17,5 cal. ka BP ; voir explications dans le texte (carte A. Sécher).
For information purposes, we then added to the map
the number of dates obtained for each site. The more
dates a site has, the larger the point size will be.

3. RESULTS

In the northwestern part of the basin, the distribution of the radiocarbon dates confirms the extreme scarcity of anthropic evidence for the period between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP (table 4; fig. 2 to fig. 5). The preceding period, between 19.5 cal. ka BP and 17.5 cal. ka BP, is documented by 51 dates from 11 sites; and the following

one, between 15.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP, yielded
35 dates from six sites. In-between, only three dates, from
three different sites, are currently known; and each of
them is questionable. The youngest of these three dates
(from Morin BI, Gironde: OxA-19699, 13065 ± 60 BP,
15861-15421 cal. BP at 2σ) actually slightly overlaps the
lower limit of the 15.5-13.5 time slice so it is not clearly
in the 17.5-15.5 ka cal. BP time slice; the three other sam-
ples from the same BI layer produced slightly younger
dates, thus more clearly belonging in that younger
time slice (Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2016; Mallye et al.,
2018). The second of these three dates (from the sin-
gle layer of Réseau Guy-Martin, Vienne: Beta-359094,
13560 ± 50 BP, 16554-16199 cal. BP at 2σ) is not consis-

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2 – Density raster (heat map) of the Aquitaine basin reporting the density of Magdalenian sites AMS-dated between 19.5 and 17.5 cal. ka BP; see explanations in text (map A. Sécher).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 2 – Matrice de densité (carte de chaleur) du Bassin aquitain montrant la densité des sites magdaléniens datés par AMS entre 19,5 et 17,5 cal. ka BP ; voir explications dans le texte (carte A. Sécher).</caption>
<table><caption>Table 4 – Distribution of the radiocarbon dates according to sub-region and chronological phase.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">19.5-17.5 cal ka BP</th><th colspan="2">17.5-15.5 cal ka BP</th><th colspan="2">15.5-13.5 cal ka BP</th><th rowspan="2">Total number of dates</th></tr><tr><th>Sites</th><th>Dates</th><th>Sites</th><th>Dates</th><th>Sites</th><th>Dates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Northwest</td><td>11</td><td>51</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>35</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td>12</td><td>43</td><td>6</td><td>15</td><td>11</td><td>37</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Centre east</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>4</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>58</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>5</td><td>18</td><td>12</td><td>48</td><td>8</td><td>20</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>129</td><td>38</td><td>139</td><td>36</td><td>105</td><td>373</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Tabl. 4 – Distribution des dates radiocarbone selon leur sous-région et leur phase chronologique.</figcaption></figure>

Fig. 3 – Density raster (heat map) of the Aquitaine basin reporting the density of Magdalenian sites AMS-dated between 17.5 and 15.5 cal. ka BP; see explanations in text (map A. Sécher).

Fig. 3 – Matrice de densité (carte de chaleur) du Bassin aquitain montrant la densité des sites magdaléniens datés par AMS entre 17,5 et 15,5 cal. ka BP; voir explications dans le texte (carte A. Sécher).
<table><caption>Table 4 – Distribution of the radiocarbon dates according to sub-region and chronological phase.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">19.5-17.5 cal ka BP</th><th colspan="2">17.5-15.5 cal ka BP</th><th colspan="2">15.5-13.5 cal ka BP</th><th rowspan="2">Total number of dates</th></tr><tr><th>Sites</th><th>Dates</th><th>Sites</th><th>Dates</th><th>Sites</th><th>Dates</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Northwest</td><td>11</td><td>51</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>35</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td>12</td><td>43</td><td>6</td><td>15</td><td>11</td><td>37</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Centre east</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>4</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>58</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>5</td><td>18</td><td>12</td><td>48</td><td>8</td><td>20</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>129</td><td>38</td><td>139</td><td>36</td><td>105</td><td>373</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3 – Density raster (heat map) of the Aquitaine basin reporting the density of Magdalenian sites AMS-dated between 17.5 and 15.5 cal. ka BP; see explanations in text (map A. Sécher).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 3 – Matrice de densité (carte de chaleur) du Bassin aquitain montrant la densité des sites magdaléniens datés par AMS entre 17,5 et 15,5 cal. ka BP; voir explications dans le texte (carte A. Sécher).</caption>
tent with the four other dates from the same layer, which are all older than ca. 18 cal. ka BP (Brou et al., 2013). The third date (from Roc-aux-Sorciers RSB4, Vienne: GifA-14192, 13720 ± 140 BP, 17035-16224 cal. BP at 2σ) is coherent with the stratigraphic order, but contradictory with the Upper Magdalenian attribution of the material found in the same RSB4 layer (Iakovleva and Pinçon, 1997).

Two other sub-regions of the basin show a less clear-cut picture. In the northeastern sub-region (table 4; fig. 2 to fig. 4 and fig. 6), the numbers of dates and sites are similar in the period from 19.5 cal. ka BP to 17.5 cal. ka BP (43 dates from 12 sites) and in the period between 15.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP (37 dates from

11 sites). These figures are, however, ca. two times lower in the period from 17.5 cal. ka BP to 15.5 cal. ka BP, with only 15 dates from six sites. Among these 15 dates, the three done on reindeer bones from the Guichard excavations at Laugerie-Haute Est, Dordogne (OxA-759, 14320 ± 180 BP; OxA-761, 14320 ± 180 BP; OxA-762, 14100 ± 180 BP), cannot be accepted unquestionably and might be “too young”. They were made in the 1980s (Gowlett et al., 1986), in the “early days” of AMS dating, at a time when pretreatment methods were less efficient against contaminations. Also, they are not very consistent with their archeological context: the samples come from layers attributed by Peyrony to the “Magdalénien II” and “Magdalénien III”, which today would be considered as

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** – Density raster (heat map) of the Aquitaine basin reporting the density of Magdalenian sites AMS-dated between 15.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP; see explanations in text (map A. Sécher).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 4** – Matrice de densité (carte de chaleur) du Bassin aquitain montrant la densité des sites magdaléniens datés par AMS entre 15,5 et 13,5 cal. ka BP ; voir explications dans le texte (carte A. Sécher).</caption>
tent with the four other dates from the same layer, which are all older than ca. 18 cal. ka BP (Brou et al., 2013). The third date (from Roc-aux-Sorciers RSB4, Vienne: GifA-14192, 13720 ± 140 BP, 17035-16224 cal. BP at 2σ) is coherent with the stratigraphic order, but contradictory with the Upper Magdalenian attribution of the material found in the same RSB4 layer (Iakovleva and Pinçon, 1997).

Two other sub-regions of the basin show a less clear-cut picture. In the northeastern sub-region (table 4; fig. 2 to fig. 4 and fig. 6), the numbers of dates and sites are similar in the period from 19.5 cal. ka BP to 17.5 cal. ka BP (43 dates from 12 sites) and in the period between 15.5 cal. ka BP and 13.5 cal. ka BP (37 dates from

11 sites). These figures are, however, ca. two times lower in the period from 17.5 cal. ka BP to 15.5 cal. ka BP, with only 15 dates from six sites. Among these 15 dates, the three done on reindeer bones from the Guichard excavations at Laugerie-Haute Est, Dordogne (OxA-759, 14320 ± 180 BP; OxA-761, 14320 ± 180 BP; OxA-762, 14100 ± 180 BP), cannot be accepted unquestionably and might be “too young”. They were made in the 1980s (Gowlett et al., 1986), in the “early days” of AMS dating, at a time when pretreatment methods were less efficient against contaminations. Also, they are not very consistent with their archeological context: the samples come from layers attributed by Peyrony to the “Magdalénien II” and “Magdalénien III”, which today would be considered as

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** – Density raster (heat map) of the Aquitaine basin reporting the density of Magdalenian sites AMS-dated between 15.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP; see explanations in text (map A. Sécher).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 4** – Matrice de densité (carte de chaleur) du Bassin aquitain montrant la densité des sites magdaléniens datés par AMS entre 15,5 et 13,5 cal. ka BP ; voir explications dans le texte (carte A. Sécher).</caption>
OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 5** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the northwestern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Gironde, Charente, Vienne) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.

**Fig. 5** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région nord-ouest du Bassin aquitain (Gironde, Charente et Vienne) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal ka BP (graphique : C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gras ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.

OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 6** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the northeastern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Dordogne, Lot) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.

**Fig. 6** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région nord-est du Bassin aquitain (Dordogne et Lot) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP (graphique C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gras ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.
OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 5** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the northwestern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Gironde, Charente, Vienne) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.

**Fig. 5** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région nord-ouest du Bassin aquitain (Gironde, Charente et Vienne) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal ka BP (graphique : C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gras ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.

**Fig. 6** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the northeastern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Dordogne, Lot) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.

**Fig. 6** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région nord-est du Bassin aquitain (Dordogne et Lot) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP (graphique C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gras ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.
EMM and earlier phases, with radiocarbon dates expected to be at least as old as 18 cal. ka BP according to the current consensus chronology (see references above). Apart from this dubious case, four archeological assemblages and one burial are evidence of human presence in the northeast of the Aquitaine basin between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP:

- The “archeostratigraphical unit 2” (UA2) of Combe-Cullier, Lot, attributed to the LMM (Lyon-18136[SacA-61714], 13310 ± 60 BP; Lyon-15369[SacA-53654], 13740 ± 60 BP; Sécher et al., 2018; Grubert, 2021).

- Layer 3 of Les Peyrugues, Lot, attributed to the Middle Magdalenian (Lyon-3599[SacA-5537], 13700 ± 60 BP; Lyon-3600[SacA-5538], 13960 ± 100 BP; Allard, 1992; Langlais, 2010; Langlais et al., 2017; Sécher, 2017).

- One part of the stratigraphy of Abri des Marseilles at Laugerie-Basse, Dordogne (layer 12 to layer 15a after the stratigraphy by A. Roussot: Cosgrove et al., 2015), with six dates: Wk-12447, 13977 ± 32 BP; Wk-12449, 13987 ± 37 BP; Wk-12458, 13020 ± 29 BP; Wk-12459, 14031 ± 37 BP; Wk-12460, 13977 ± 32 BP; Wk-42671, 13921 ± 31 BP.

- The open-air site of Vilazette, Dordogne, level C, attributed to the Middle Magdalenian, shows the characteristics of a “blade production site” close to high-quality outcrops of Bergerac flint (GifA-94591, 13680 ± 120 BP; Boëda and Henry, 1994; Boëda et al., 1997; Henry, 1998; Langlais, 2018); it is now considered as LMM on the basis of the type of blade production (Langlais, 2020).

- The child burial of Labattut, Dordogne, directly radiocarbon-dated, appears chronologically isolated in the local archeological context of the Vallon de Castelmerle (GrA-47274, 13740 ± 60 BP; Henry-Gambier et al., 2019).

Owing to the history of research (less activity in AMS dating programs in recent years), the central-eastern zone is less documented, with only 25 dates, that is, three-four times less ¹⁴C measurements than the other sub-regions (table 4; fig. 2 to fig. 4 and fig. 7). The distribution of these 25 dates across the three time slices does not show any major contrast, and suggests a relative continuity of the human settlement. But the visual examination of the plot shows another earlier gap, between ca. 18 cal. ka BP and 17 cal. ka BP (fig. 7). However, given the small number of AMS dates available for this sub-region, we cannot exclude the possibility that this distribution gap is the result of sampling choices, in other terms, a research bias.

Finally, in the southern part of the basin, the 164 dates from the southeast and southwest sub-regions confirm the continuity of the human settlement on the northern side of the Pyrenees (table 4; fig. 2 to fig. 4 and fig. 8-9). Here, the period between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP is even overrepresented, with 106 dates from 22 sites (while the preceding period yielded only 29 dates from nine sites, and the following one, 29 dates from 15 sites).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the central-eastern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 7** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région centre-est du Bassin aquitain (Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP (graphique C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gras ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.</caption>

It corresponds to the most intensive occupation phase of several major Magdalenian sites, or clusters of sites, in the northern Pyrenees: notably, Isturitz, Mas d'Azil (Pallier et al., this volume), the three Volp caves (Enlène, Trois-Frères and Tuc d'Audoubert) and the cluster of sites around Arudy (Espalungue, Laa 2, Malarode, Poeymaü, Saint-Michel and Tastet).

## 4. DISCUSSION

As mentioned above, in the Gironde area, the absence of anthropic assemblages between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP had been interpreted as a local depopulation episode triggered by environmental factors (the onset of the HS1a cold phase: Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2016; Naughton et al., 2016; Pétillon et al., 2016; Laroulandie et al., 2017). Our results show that this scarcity of anthropic evidence extends to the rest of the northwestern Aquitaine basin, including the Charente and Vienne areas, suggesting the same environmental explanation. Furthermore, in the Charente and Vienne areas such as in Gironde, none among the undated sites yielded material that could be unequivocally attributed to the 17.5 and 15.5 cal. ka BP time period on techno-typological
EMM and earlier phases, with radiocarbon dates expected to be at least as old as 18 cal. ka BP according to the current consensus chronology (see references above). Apart from this dubious case, four archeological assemblages and one burial are evidence of human presence in the northeast of the Aquitaine basin between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP:

- The “archeostratigraphical unit 2” (UA2) of Combe-Cullier, Lot, attributed to the LMM (Lyon-18136[SacA-61714], 13310 ± 60 BP; Lyon-15369[SacA-53654], 13740 ± 60 BP; Sécher et al., 2018; Grubert, 2021).

- Layer 3 of Les Peyrugues, Lot, attributed to the Middle Magdalenian (Lyon-3599[SacA-5537], 13700 ± 60 BP; Lyon-3600[SacA-5538], 13960 ± 100 BP; Allard, 1992; Langlais, 2010; Langlais et al., 2017; Sécher, 2017).

- One part of the stratigraphy of Abri des Marseilles at Laugerie-Basse, Dordogne (layer 12 to layer 15a after the stratigraphy by A. Roussot: Cosgrove et al., 2015), with six dates: Wk-12447, 13977 ± 32 BP; Wk-12449, 13987 ± 37 BP; Wk-12458, 13020 ± 29 BP; Wk-12459, 14031 ± 37 BP; Wk-12460, 13977 ± 32 BP; Wk-42671, 13921 ± 31 BP.

- The open-air site of Vilazette, Dordogne, level C, attributed to the Middle Magdalenian, shows the characteristics of a “blade production site” close to high-quality outcrops of Bergerac flint (GifA-94591, 13680 ± 120 BP; Boëda and Henry, 1994; Boëda et al., 1997; Henry, 1998; Langlais, 2018); it is now considered as LMM on the basis of the type of blade production (Langlais, 2020).

- The child burial of Labattut, Dordogne, directly radiocarbon-dated, appears chronologically isolated in the local archeological context of the Vallon de Castelmerle (GrA-47274, 13740 ± 60 BP; Henry-Gambier et al., 2019).

Owing to the history of research (less activity in AMS dating programs in recent years), the central-eastern zone is less documented, with only 25 dates, that is, three-four times less ¹⁴C measurements than the other sub-regions (table 4; fig. 2 to fig. 4 and fig. 7). The distribution of these 25 dates across the three time slices does not show any major contrast, and suggests a relative continuity of the human settlement. But the visual examination of the plot shows another earlier gap, between ca. 18 cal. ka BP and 17 cal. ka BP (fig. 7). However, given the small number of AMS dates available for this sub-region, we cannot exclude the possibility that this distribution gap is the result of sampling choices, in other terms, a research bias.

Finally, in the southern part of the basin, the 164 dates from the southeast and southwest sub-regions confirm the continuity of the human settlement on the northern side of the Pyrenees (table 4; fig. 2 to fig. 4 and fig. 8-9). Here, the period between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP is even overrepresented, with 106 dates from 22 sites (while the preceding period yielded only 29 dates from nine sites, and the following one, 29 dates from 15 sites).

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the central-eastern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 7** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région centre-est du Bassin aquitain (Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP (graphique C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gras ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.</caption>

It corresponds to the most intensive occupation phase of several major Magdalenian sites, or clusters of sites, in the northern Pyrenees: notably, Isturitz, Mas d'Azil (Pallier et al., this volume), the three Volp caves (Enlène, Trois-Frères and Tuc d'Audoubert) and the cluster of sites around Arudy (Espalungue, Laa 2, Malarode, Poeymaü, Saint-Michel and Tastet).

## 4. DISCUSSION

As mentioned above, in the Gironde area, the absence of anthropic assemblages between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP had been interpreted as a local depopulation episode triggered by environmental factors (the onset of the HS1a cold phase: Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2016; Naughton et al., 2016; Pétillon et al., 2016; Laroulandie et al., 2017). Our results show that this scarcity of anthropic evidence extends to the rest of the northwestern Aquitaine basin, including the Charente and Vienne areas, suggesting the same environmental explanation. Furthermore, in the Charente and Vienne areas such as in Gironde, none among the undated sites yielded material that could be unequivocally attributed to the 17.5 and 15.5 cal. ka BP time period on techno-typological
OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 8** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the southeastern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Ariège, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrénées) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.

**Fig. 8** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région sud-est du Bassin aquitain (Ariège, Haute-Garonne et Hautes-Pyrénées) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP (graphique C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gris ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.

OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 9** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the southwestern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Landes) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.

**Fig. 9** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région sud-ouest du Bassin aquitain (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Landes) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP (graphique C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gris ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.
OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 8** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the southeastern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Ariège, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrénées) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.

**Fig. 8** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région sud-est du Bassin aquitain (Ariège, Haute-Garonne et Hautes-Pyrénées) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP (graphique C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gris ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.

OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 9** – Calibration plot of all AMS radiocarbon dates for the southwestern sub-region of the Aquitaine basin (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Landes) for the period between 19.5 and 13.5 cal. ka BP (plot C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne and V. Laroulandie). The 17.5-15.5 cal. ka BP interval is highlighted in light grey and the dates falling in that interval are in bold; see discussion in text. On each line, the first two digits are the site number as in table 1.

**Fig. 9** – Graphique des dates 14C AMS calibrées de la sous-région sud-ouest du Bassin aquitain (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Landes) pour la période entre 19,5 cal. ka BP et 13,5 cal. ka BP (graphique C. Barshay-Szmidt, M. Boudadi-Maligne et V. Laroulandie). L'intervalle 17,5-15,5 cal. ka BP est surligné en gris clair et les dates tombant dans cet intervalle sont en gris ; voir discussion dans le texte. Sur chaque ligne, les deux premiers chiffres correspondent au numéro de site dans le tableau 1.
grounds, and that could thus have contributed to “filling
the gap”. However, biases affecting the archeological
record must be taken into account. In the northern part
of the Gironde, a large part of the archeological record
is made of poorly dated open-air sites, often known only
from surface finds; and the characteristics of the local
Asteria limestone favored the collapse of many caves
and rockshelters and the activity of quarries. These two
features might result in the invisibilization of one part
of the Paleolithic chronology in this area (M. Lenoir,
pers. comm.; S. Ducasse, pers. obs.). In the Vienne and
Charente, the end of the EMM is marked by an episode
of collapse of many cave entrances (Le Fillâtre, 2013).
The shelters previously occupied might thus no longer
have been accessible, and the occupations immediately
following the EMM in this region might have moved to
other locations yet undiscovered.

The radiocarbon evidence also suggests that, between
17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP, the northeastern part
of the basin, although not deserted, was much less densely
settled than in the preceding and following phases, possi-
bly owing to the same environmental reasons. Here again,
however, sampling biases must be considered: in the Dor-
dogne and the Lot, several major stratigraphic sequences
from the Magdalenian lack AMS radiocarbon dates and
could therefore not be included in this study, although
some of them yielded industries reminiscent of the LMM.
Among others, this is the case of the lower layers from
the eponymous site, La Madeleine (Capitan and Peyrony,
1928; Bouvier, 1977; collective, 2014); and the assem-
blage from layer IX in Le Flageolet II (Rigaud, 1970
and 1979; Cazals, 2005, p. 305; Langlais, 2010; Pétillon
et al., 2020), although among the undated sites, the num-
ber of possible LMM assemblages remains small, espe-
cially compared to the large number of undated Upper
Magdalenian sites in this area (e.g. for the Lot: Lorblan-
chet, 1972).

Strictly speaking, because of these biases, it is diffi-
cult to assert the existence of a population decrease in
the whole northern half of the Aquitaine basin between
17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP. However, and sym-
metrically, it is no longer possible to affirm that, during
these two millennia, the northern Aquitaine basin could
have acted as a base for population movements towards
more northern regions: in the current state of data, only
a small number of sites yield evidence of human pres-
ence in this area during this phase. This result questions
our perception of the demographic role of the Aquitaine
basin in the course of the Magdalenian: it is now possi-
ble to consider that, during one part of the Magdalenian,
between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP, correspond-
ing to the Late Middle Magdalenian and the transition to
the Upper Magdalenian, northern Aquitaine might have
been only a demographic margin of the Magdalenian
world. In this perspective, this result further questions the
validity of the “population refugium” model applied to
Aquitaine during the LGM; a model which was already
needing re-evaluation given the persistence of anthropic
sites in northern France during the LGM (e.g. Bodu et al.,

2014; Bignon-Lau et al., 2019; Connet et al., 2019; Mon-
toya et al., 2019).

The relative scarcity of human evidence in the north-
ern basin between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP
also changes our perception of certain features of the
Magdalenian from the southern part, i.e. the Pyrenean
foothills. During this phase, assemblages from the Pyre-
nean sub-region often include specific elements in their
bone and antler industries, such as bone cutouts (*contours
découpés*) or antler fork-based points, which are rarer in
assemblages from northern Aquitaine. This quantitative
contrast had been interpreted in terms of differences in
group identity between the two areas (e.g. Pétillon, 2006;
Cattelain and Bellier, 2014). However, our results suggest
that this contrast might simply reflect the relative density
of human settlement at that period, a density that appears
higher in the Pyrenees in the current state of data.

Similarly, the intensive occupation of some Pyrenean
sites at this period had been considered as the result of a
specific mobility pattern: an alternation between disper-
sion and aggregation phases, with the “large” sites such
as Gourdan, Lortet or La Vache representing the aggre-
gation sites, while Isturitz, Le Mas d’Azil and maybe
Enlène would stand out as “super-aggregation sites”
(Bahn, 1984; Clottes, 1989). In light of our results, the
emergence of these “super-sites” should also be consid-
ered at the scale of the whole Aquitaine basin, as one of
the changes affecting the organization of the human set-
tlement in this region after ca. 17.5 cal. ka BP. The partic-
ular intensity of occupation of some Pyrenean sites at this
period might be correlated with the coeval lesser intensity
in the north of the basin, and might thus reflect a reorgani-
zation of population distribution inside the basin in favor
of the southern areas. Here again, no assertive conclu-
sion can be drawn, but the findings of the present study at
least reopen the question of the validity of the concept of
aggregation site as applied to the Pyrenean Magdalenian.

5. PROSPECTS

The distribution of the 373 AMS dates from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian of the Aquitaine basin reveals a consistent geographic and chronological pattern; but its interpretation is hampered by gaps in the data. In order to test the hypotheses raised in this study, as mentioned above, it is necessary to AMS-date the putative LMM/EUM assemblages from Dordogne. The number of AMS measurements for the central-eastern part of the basin should also be at least doubled, and the number of dated sites should be increased as much as possible, in order to raise this sub-region to the same level of information as the others. A detailed comparison between our results and the data from the Massif central, east of the Aquitaine basin (e.g. Angevin and Surmely, 2013; Raynal et al., 2014; Langlais et al., 2019), would also be important to assess if a similar north-south pattern can be identified in this region as well.
grounds, and that could thus have contributed to “filling
the gap”. However, biases affecting the archeological
record must be taken into account. In the northern part
of the Gironde, a large part of the archeological record
is made of poorly dated open-air sites, often known only
from surface finds; and the characteristics of the local
Asteria limestone favored the collapse of many caves
and rockshelters and the activity of quarries. These two
features might result in the invisibilization of one part
of the Paleolithic chronology in this area (M. Lenoir,
pers. comm.; S. Ducasse, pers. obs.). In the Vienne and
Charente, the end of the EMM is marked by an episode
of collapse of many cave entrances (Le Fillâtre, 2013).
The shelters previously occupied might thus no longer
have been accessible, and the occupations immediately
following the EMM in this region might have moved to
other locations yet undiscovered.

The radiocarbon evidence also suggests that, between
17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP, the northeastern part
of the basin, although not deserted, was much less densely
settled than in the preceding and following phases, possi-
bly owing to the same environmental reasons. Here again,
however, sampling biases must be considered: in the Dor-
dogne and the Lot, several major stratigraphic sequences
from the Magdalenian lack AMS radiocarbon dates and
could therefore not be included in this study, although
some of them yielded industries reminiscent of the LMM.
Among others, this is the case of the lower layers from
the eponymous site, La Madeleine (Capitan and Peyrony,
1928; Bouvier, 1977; collective, 2014); and the assem-
blage from layer IX in Le Flageolet II (Rigaud, 1970
and 1979; Cazals, 2005, p. 305; Langlais, 2010; Pétillon
et al., 2020), although among the undated sites, the num-
ber of possible LMM assemblages remains small, espe-
cially compared to the large number of undated Upper
Magdalenian sites in this area (e.g. for the Lot: Lorblan-
chet, 1972).

Strictly speaking, because of these biases, it is diffi-
cult to assert the existence of a population decrease in
the whole northern half of the Aquitaine basin between
17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP. However, and sym-
metrically, it is no longer possible to affirm that, during
these two millennia, the northern Aquitaine basin could
have acted as a base for population movements towards
more northern regions: in the current state of data, only
a small number of sites yield evidence of human pres-
ence in this area during this phase. This result questions
our perception of the demographic role of the Aquitaine
basin in the course of the Magdalenian: it is now possi-
ble to consider that, during one part of the Magdalenian,
between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP, correspond-
ing to the Late Middle Magdalenian and the transition to
the Upper Magdalenian, northern Aquitaine might have
been only a demographic margin of the Magdalenian
world. In this perspective, this result further questions the
validity of the “population refugium” model applied to
Aquitaine during the LGM; a model which was already
needing re-evaluation given the persistence of anthropic
sites in northern France during the LGM (e.g. Bodu et al.,

2014; Bignon-Lau et al., 2019; Connet et al., 2019; Mon-
toya et al., 2019).

The relative scarcity of human evidence in the north-
ern basin between 17.5 cal. ka BP and 15.5 cal. ka BP
also changes our perception of certain features of the
Magdalenian from the southern part, i.e. the Pyrenean
foothills. During this phase, assemblages from the Pyre-
nean sub-region often include specific elements in their
bone and antler industries, such as bone cutouts (*contours
découpés*) or antler fork-based points, which are rarer in
assemblages from northern Aquitaine. This quantitative
contrast had been interpreted in terms of differences in
group identity between the two areas (e.g. Pétillon, 2006;
Cattelain and Bellier, 2014). However, our results suggest
that this contrast might simply reflect the relative density
of human settlement at that period, a density that appears
higher in the Pyrenees in the current state of data.

Similarly, the intensive occupation of some Pyrenean
sites at this period had been considered as the result of a
specific mobility pattern: an alternation between disper-
sion and aggregation phases, with the “large” sites such
as Gourdan, Lortet or La Vache representing the aggre-
gation sites, while Isturitz, Le Mas d’Azil and maybe
Enlène would stand out as “super-aggregation sites”
(Bahn, 1984; Clottes, 1989). In light of our results, the
emergence of these “super-sites” should also be consid-
ered at the scale of the whole Aquitaine basin, as one of
the changes affecting the organization of the human set-
tlement in this region after ca. 17.5 cal. ka BP. The partic-
ular intensity of occupation of some Pyrenean sites at this
period might be correlated with the coeval lesser intensity
in the north of the basin, and might thus reflect a reorgani-
zation of population distribution inside the basin in favor
of the southern areas. Here again, no assertive conclu-
sion can be drawn, but the findings of the present study at
least reopen the question of the validity of the concept of
aggregation site as applied to the Pyrenean Magdalenian.

5. PROSPECTS

The distribution of the 373 AMS dates from the Middle and Upper Magdalenian of the Aquitaine basin reveals a consistent geographic and chronological pattern; but its interpretation is hampered by gaps in the data. In order to test the hypotheses raised in this study, as mentioned above, it is necessary to AMS-date the putative LMM/EUM assemblages from Dordogne. The number of AMS measurements for the central-eastern part of the basin should also be at least doubled, and the number of dated sites should be increased as much as possible, in order to raise this sub-region to the same level of information as the others. A detailed comparison between our results and the data from the Massif central, east of the Aquitaine basin (e.g. Angevin and Surmely, 2013; Raynal et al., 2014; Langlais et al., 2019), would also be important to assess if a similar north-south pattern can be identified in this region as well.
Finally, while this study focused on the AMS radiocar-
bon dates from anthropic sites, a comparison with other
human and natural proxies remains necessary. The cir-
culation of lithic raw materials during the 17.5-15.5 cal.
ka BP interval might show evidence of the human fre-
quentation of certain areas, at least for flint provisioning,
even if these areas did not yield any site dated in that
interval. Correlating the chronology of anthropic sites
with that of well-dated natural faunal assemblages is nec-
essary to assess the presence and nature of animal popula-
tions at times when the evidence for human frequentation
is scarce in the area (e.g. Castel et al., 2008 and 2012). As
well, detailed parallels between archeological and paleo-
environmental data must be carried on, in order to specify
which environmental constraints might have biased the
archeological record or impacted human settlement.

**Acknowledgements:** Our warmest thanks and deepest gratitude to all the colleagues who made this study possible by giving us permission to use their unpublished radiocarbon dates: for Cassegros, J.-M. Le Tensorer, who excavated the site in the 1970s-1980s, and O. Ferullo; for Laugerie-Basse, J.-P. Chaudelle and R. Cosgrove; for Le Mas d'Azil, L.-A. Lelouvier, F. Bon, L. Bruxelles, M. Jarry and C. Pallier (and see Pallier et al., this volume); for Le Piage, J.-G. Bordes, F. Le Brun-Ricalens and É. Tartar; for Vilazette, É. Boëda. Many thanks to H. Valladas for providing information on the dates from Le Roc-aux-Sorciers. Sincere thanks are extended to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that helped improving the manuscript. The dates from our own unpublished research reports were done over the years as part of different projects funded by the French Ministry of Culture and the TRACES research unit.

DONNÉES SUPPLÉMENTAIRES

Jean-Marc Pétillon *et al.* (2023), Dates radiocarbone par AMS de 19.5 à 13.5 cal ka BP pour le bassin Aquitain :
https://nakala.fr/10.34847/nkl.538f2a9q
Finally, while this study focused on the AMS radiocar-
bon dates from anthropic sites, a comparison with other
human and natural proxies remains necessary. The cir-
culation of lithic raw materials during the 17.5-15.5 cal.
ka BP interval might show evidence of the human fre-
quentation of certain areas, at least for flint provisioning,
even if these areas did not yield any site dated in that
interval. Correlating the chronology of anthropic sites
with that of well-dated natural faunal assemblages is nec-
essary to assess the presence and nature of animal popula-
tions at times when the evidence for human frequentation
is scarce in the area (e.g. Castel et al., 2008 and 2012). As
well, detailed parallels between archeological and paleo-
environmental data must be carried on, in order to specify
which environmental constraints might have biased the
archeological record or impacted human settlement.

**Acknowledgements:** Our warmest thanks and deepest gratitude to all the colleagues who made this study possible by giving us permission to use their unpublished radiocarbon dates: for Cassegros, J.-M. Le Tensorer, who excavated the site in the 1970s-1980s, and O. Ferullo; for Laugerie-Basse, J.-P. Chaudelle and R. Cosgrove; for Le Mas d'Azil, L.-A. Lelouvier, F. Bon, L. Bruxelles, M. Jarry and C. Pallier (and see Pallier et al., this volume); for Le Piage, J.-G. Bordes, F. Le Brun-Ricalens and É. Tartar; for Vilazette, É. Boëda. Many thanks to H. Valladas for providing information on the dates from Le Roc-aux-Sorciers. Sincere thanks are extended to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that helped improving the manuscript. The dates from our own unpublished research reports were done over the years as part of different projects funded by the French Ministry of Culture and the TRACES research unit.

DONNÉES SUPPLÉMENTAIRES

Jean-Marc Pétillon *et al.* (2023), Dates radiocarbone par AMS de 19.5 à 13.5 cal ka BP pour le bassin Aquitain :
https://nakala.fr/10.34847/nkl.538f2a9q
**Jean-Marc PÉTILLON**

CNRS, UMR 5608 TRACES, université
Toulouse Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France
jean-marc.petillon@cnrs.fr

**Carolyn BARSHAY-SZMIDT**

Penn Museum (University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology),
Philadelphia, USA
Archaeology Centre, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada
c.szmidt@utoronto.ca

**Véronique LAROULANDIE**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
veronique.laroulandie@u-bordeaux.fr

**Anthony SÉCHER**

asecher.pro@orange.fr

**Myriam BOUDADI-MALIGNÉ**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
myriam.boudadi-maligne@cnrs.fr

**Laurent BROU**

Centre national de recherche archéologique,
service d'Archéologie préhistorique, Musée
national d'histoire et d'art du Grand-Duché de
Luxembourg, Bertrange, Luxembourg
laurent.brou@cnra.etat.lu

**Jean-Christophe CASTEL**

Muséum d'histoire naturelle, Secteur vertébrés,
archéozoologie, Geneva, Switzerland
Jean-Christophe.Castel@ville-ge.ch

**François-Xavier CHAUVIÈRE**

Office du Patrimoine et de l'Archéologie du
canton de Neuchâtel, section Archéologie
Laténium, Hauterive, Switzerland
Francois-xavier.chauviere@ne.ch

**Sandrine COSTAMAGNO**

CNRS, UMR 5608 TRACES, université
Toulouse Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France
costamag@univ-tlse2.fr

**Sylvain DUCASSE**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
sylvain.ducasse@cnrs.fr

**Morgane GRUBERT**

Université Toulouse Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse,
France
UMR 5608 TRACES
morgane.hudson@hotmail.fr

**Edmée LADIER**

Conservateur en chef honoraire du patrimoine,
Montauban, France
UMR 5608 TRACES
ladier.edmee@orange.fr

**Mathieu LANGLAIS**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
mathieu.langlais@cnrs.fr

**Jean-Baptiste MALLYE**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
jean-baptiste.mallye@u-bordeaux.fr

**Jérôme PRIMAULT**

DRAC Nouvelle-Aquitaine, SRA, Poitiers,
France
jerome.primault@culture.gouv.fr
**Jean-Marc PÉTILLON**

CNRS, UMR 5608 TRACES, université
Toulouse Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France
jean-marc.petillon@cnrs.fr

**Carolyn BARSHAY-SZMIDT**

Penn Museum (University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology),
Philadelphia, USA
Archaeology Centre, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada
c.szmidt@utoronto.ca

**Véronique LAROULANDIE**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
veronique.laroulandie@u-bordeaux.fr

**Anthony SÉCHER**

asecher.pro@orange.fr

**Myriam BOUDADI-MALIGNÉ**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
myriam.boudadi-maligne@cnrs.fr

**Laurent BROU**

Centre national de recherche archéologique,
service d'Archéologie préhistorique, Musée
national d'histoire et d'art du Grand-Duché de
Luxembourg, Bertrange, Luxembourg
laurent.brou@cnra.etat.lu

**Jean-Christophe CASTEL**

Muséum d'histoire naturelle, Secteur vertébrés,
archéozoologie, Geneva, Switzerland
Jean-Christophe.Castel@ville-ge.ch

**François-Xavier CHAUVIÈRE**

Office du Patrimoine et de l'Archéologie du
canton de Neuchâtel, section Archéologie
Laténium, Hauterive, Switzerland
Francois-xavier.chauviere@ne.ch

**Sandrine COSTAMAGNO**

CNRS, UMR 5608 TRACES, université
Toulouse Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse, France
costamag@univ-tlse2.fr

**Sylvain DUCASSE**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
sylvain.ducasse@cnrs.fr

**Morgane GRUBERT**

Université Toulouse Jean-Jaurès, Toulouse,
France
UMR 5608 TRACES
morgane.hudson@hotmail.fr

**Edmée LADIER**

Conservateur en chef honoraire du patrimoine,
Montauban, France
UMR 5608 TRACES
ladier.edmee@orange.fr

**Mathieu LANGLAIS**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
mathieu.langlais@cnrs.fr

**Jean-Baptiste MALLYE**

CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, université de
Bordeaux, Pessac, France
jean-baptiste.mallye@u-bordeaux.fr

**Jérôme PRIMAULT**

DRAC Nouvelle-Aquitaine, SRA, Poitiers,
France
jerome.primault@culture.gouv.fr
REFERENCES

ALLARD M. (1992) – Les Magdaléniens de l'abri des Peyrugues à Orniac (Lot), leur culture et leurs relations avec le milieu, in J.-P. Rigaud, H. Laville and B. Vandermeersch (eds.), *Le peuplement magdalénien. Paléogéographie physique et humaine*, Paris, éditions du CTHS, p. 377-385.

ANDRIEUX É., BERTRAN P., SAITO K. (2016) – Spatial analysis of the French Pleistocene permafrost by a GIS database, *Permafrost and Periglacial Processes*, 27, 1, p. 17-30.

ANGEVIN R., SURMELY F. (2013) – Le Magdalénien moyen et la trajectoire historique des sociétés du 16e millénaire av. J.-C. en France centrale, *Comptes rendus Palevol*, 12, 1, p. 57-68.

BAHN P. G. (1984) – *Pyrenean Prehistory: A Palaeoeconomic Survey of the French Sites*, Warminster, Aris & Phillips, 511 p.

BARSHAY-SZMIDT C., COSTAMAGNO S., HENRY-GAMBIER D., LAROULANDIE V., PÉTILLON J.-M., BOUDADI-MALIGNE M., KUNTZ D., LANGLAIS M., MALLYE J.-B. (2016) – New Extensive Focused AMS 14C Dating of the Middle and Upper Magdalenian of the Western Aquitaine/Pyrenean Region of France (ca. 19-14 Ky cal BP). Proposing a New Model for Its Chronological Phases and for the Timing of Occupation, *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 62-91.

BELBÉOC'H G., LENOIR M. (2011) – Le Paléolithique supérieur et l'Épipaléolithique dans la partie nord des Landes de Gascogne (secteur d'Hostens), in J.-C. Merlet and J.-P. Bost (eds.), *De la lagune à l'airial : le peuplement de la Grande Lande*, Bordeaux, Fédération Aquitania, p. 61-76.

BERTRAN P., SITZIA L., BANKS W. E., BATEMAN M. D., DEMARS P.-Y., HERNANDEZ M., LENOIR M., MERCIER N., PRODEO F. (2013) – The Landes de Gascogne (Southwest France): Periglacial Desert and Cultural Frontier during the Palaeolithic, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 40, p. 2274-2285.

BERTRAN P., ANDRIEUX É., BATEMAN M. D., FUCHS M., KLINGE M., MAREMBERT F. (2020) – Mapping and Chronology of Coverlands and Dunes from the Aquitaine Basin, Southwest France, *Aeolian Research*, 47, 100628.

BIGNON-LAU O., BAYLE G., BÉMILLI C., BODU P., HINGUANT S., MONTOYA C. (2019) – Des nouvelles du front ? Les sociétés humaines du Dernier Maximum glaciaire dans le Bassein parisien face aux dynamiques spatiales des peuplements paléoécologiques, in C. Montoya, J.-P. Fagnart and J.-L. Locht (eds.), *Préhistoire de l'Europe du Nord-Ouest: mobilités, climats et identités culturelles*, actes du 28e Congrès préhistorique de France (Amiens, 30 mai-4 juin 2016), Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 185-205.

BOCQUET-APPEL J.-P., DEMARS P.-Y., NOIRET L., DOBROWSKY D. (2005) – Estimates of Upper Palaeolithic Meta-Population Size in Europe from Archaeological Data, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 32, p. 1656-1668.

BODU P., DUMARÇAY G., NATON H.-G. (2014) – Un nouveau gisement solutréen en Île-de-France, le site des Bossats à Ormesson (Seine-et-Marne), *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 111, 2, p. 225-254.

BOÈDA É., HENRY S. (1994) – Creysse, Villazetta, in *Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1993*, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, service régional de l'Archéologie, p. 26-27.

BOÈDA É., HENRY S., MARTINEAU R. (1997) – Creysse, Villazette, in *Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1996*, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, service régional de l'Archéologie, p. 27-28.

BOUVIER J.-M. (1977) – *Un gisement préhistorique : la Madeleine*, numéro spécial du Bulletin de l'association pour le gisement préhistorique de La Madeleine, Périgueux, Fanlac, 86 p.

BRONK RAMSEY C. (2009) – Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates, *Radiocarbon*, 51, 1, p. 337-360.

BROU L., PRIMAULT J., AIRVAUX J. (2013) – *Chronologie absolue du Magdalénien en Poitou-Charentes. Projet Collectif de Recherche annuel, rapport final 2013*, unpublished report, Service régional d'archéologie de Poitou-Charentes, Poitiers, 20 p.

BRUXELLES L., JARRY M. (2011) – Climatic Conditions, Settlement Patterns and Cultures in the Paleolithic: The Example of the Garonne Valley (southwest France), *Journal of Human Evolution*, 61, p. 538-548.

CAPITAN L., PEYRONY D. (1928) – *La Madeleine, son gisement, son industrie, ses œuvres d'art*, Paris, Nourry (Publications de l'Institut international d'anthropologie, 2), 125 p.

CASTEL J.-C., COUMONT M.-P., BRUGAL J.-P., LAROULANDIE V., CAMUS H., CHAUVIÈRE F.-X., COCHARD D., GUADELLI J.-L., KUNTZ D., MARTIN H., MOURRE V. (2008) – La fin du Paléolithique supérieur en Quercy : l’apport de l’Igue du Gral (Sauliac-sur-Célé, Lot), in J. Jaubert, J.-G. Bordes and I. Ortega (eds.), *Les sociétés du Paléolithique dans un grand sud-ouest de la France : nouveaux gisements, nouveaux résultats, nouvelles méthodes*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoires, 47), p. 335-353.

CASTEL J.-C., BOUDADI-MALIGNE M., KUNTZ D., CAMUS H., LAROULANDIE V. (2012) – L’Igue du Pras de Marrou (Durbans, Lot) : un piège naturel de l’extrême fin du Pléistocène, *Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest*, 20, 2, p. 125-142.

CATTELAIN P., BELLIER C. (2014) – Objets décorés pris sur stylolhoideum, in L. Mons, S. Péan and R. Pigeaud (eds.), *Matières d'art : représentations préhistoriques et supports osseux, relations et contraintes*, Paris, Errance (Commission de nomenclature sur l'industrie de l'os préhistorique, cahier 13), p. 91-104.

CAZALS N. (2005) – Le début du Magdalénien de part et d'autre des Pyrénées. Quelques réflexions au travers des techniques de taille et des modes d'exploitation des ressources, in J. Jaubert and M. Barbaza (eds.), *Territoires, déplacements, mobilité, échanges durant la Préhistoire. Terres et hommes du sud*, Paris, éditions du CTHS (Actes des congrès nationaux des sociétés historiques et scientifiques), p. 295-309.

CLARK P. U., DYKE A. S., SHAKUN J. D., CARLSON A. E., CLARK J., WOHLFARTH B., MITROVICA J. X., HOSTETLER S. W., MCCABE A. M. (2009) – The Last Glacial Maximum, *Science*, 325, 5941, p. 710-714.

CLOTTES J. (1989) – Le Magdalénien des Pyrénées, in J.-P. Rigaud (ed.), *Le Magdalénien en Europe : la structuration du Magdalénien*, Liège, Université de Liège (ERAUL, 38), p. 281-360.
REFERENCES

ALLARD M. (1992) – Les Magdaléniens de l'abri des Peyrugues à Orniac (Lot), leur culture et leurs relations avec le milieu, in J.-P. Rigaud, H. Laville and B. Vandermeersch (eds.), *Le peuplement magdalénien. Paléogéographie physique et humaine*, Paris, éditions du CTHS, p. 377-385.

ANDRIEUX É., BERTRAN P., SAITO K. (2016) – Spatial analysis of the French Pleistocene permafrost by a GIS database, *Permafrost and Periglacial Processes*, 27, 1, p. 17-30.

ANGEVIN R., SURMELY F. (2013) – Le Magdalénien moyen et la trajectoire historique des sociétés du 16e millénaire av. J.-C. en France centrale, *Comptes rendus Palevol*, 12, 1, p. 57-68.

BAHN P. G. (1984) – *Pyrenean Prehistory: A Palaeoeconomic Survey of the French Sites*, Warminster, Aris & Phillips, 511 p.

BARSHAY-SZMIDT C., COSTAMAGNO S., HENRY-GAMBIER D., LAROULANDIE V., PÉTILLON J.-M., BOUDADI-MALIGNE M., KUNTZ D., LANGLAIS M., MALLYE J.-B. (2016) – New Extensive Focused AMS 14C Dating of the Middle and Upper Magdalenian of the Western Aquitaine/Pyrenean Region of France (ca. 19-14 Ky cal BP). Proposing a New Model for Its Chronological Phases and for the Timing of Occupation, *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 62-91.

BELBÉOC'H G., LENOIR M. (2011) – Le Paléolithique supérieur et l'Épipaléolithique dans la partie nord des Landes de Gascogne (secteur d'Hostens), in J.-C. Merlet and J.-P. Bost (eds.), *De la lagune à l'airial : le peuplement de la Grande Lande*, Bordeaux, Fédération Aquitania, p. 61-76.

BERTRAN P., SITZIA L., BANKS W. E., BATEMAN M. D., DEMARS P.-Y., HERNANDEZ M., LENOIR M., MERCIER N., PRODEO F. (2013) – The Landes de Gascogne (Southwest France): Periglacial Desert and Cultural Frontier during the Palaeolithic, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 40, p. 2274-2285.

BERTRAN P., ANDRIEUX É., BATEMAN M. D., FUCHS M., KLINGE M., MAREMBERT F. (2020) – Mapping and Chronology of Coverlands and Dunes from the Aquitaine Basin, Southwest France, *Aeolian Research*, 47, 100628.

BIGNON-LAU O., BAYLE G., BÉMILLI C., BODU P., HINGUANT S., MONTOYA C. (2019) – Des nouvelles du front ? Les sociétés humaines du Dernier Maximum glaciaire dans le Bassein parisien face aux dynamiques spatiales des peuplements paléoécologiques, in C. Montoya, J.-P. Fagnart and J.-L. Locht (eds.), *Préhistoire de l'Europe du Nord-Ouest: mobilités, climats et identités culturelles*, actes du 28e Congrès préhistorique de France (Amiens, 30 mai-4 juin 2016), Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 185-205.

BOCQUET-APPEL J.-P., DEMARS P.-Y., NOIRET L., DOBROWSKY D. (2005) – Estimates of Upper Palaeolithic Meta-Population Size in Europe from Archaeological Data, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 32, p. 1656-1668.

BODU P., DUMARÇAY G., NATON H.-G. (2014) – Un nouveau gisement solutréen en Île-de-France, le site des Bossats à Ormesson (Seine-et-Marne), *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 111, 2, p. 225-254.

BOÈDA É., HENRY S. (1994) – Creysse, Villazetta, in *Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1993*, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, service régional de l'Archéologie, p. 26-27.

BOÈDA É., HENRY S., MARTINEAU R. (1997) – Creysse, Villazette, in *Bilan scientifique de la région Aquitaine 1996*, Bordeaux, DRAC Aquitaine, service régional de l'Archéologie, p. 27-28.

BOUVIER J.-M. (1977) – *Un gisement préhistorique : la Madeleine*, numéro spécial du Bulletin de l'association pour le gisement préhistorique de La Madeleine, Périgueux, Fanlac, 86 p.

BRONK RAMSEY C. (2009) – Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates, *Radiocarbon*, 51, 1, p. 337-360.

BROU L., PRIMAULT J., AIRVAUX J. (2013) – *Chronologie absolue du Magdalénien en Poitou-Charentes. Projet Collectif de Recherche annuel, rapport final 2013*, unpublished report, Service régional d'archéologie de Poitou-Charentes, Poitiers, 20 p.

BRUXELLES L., JARRY M. (2011) – Climatic Conditions, Settlement Patterns and Cultures in the Paleolithic: The Example of the Garonne Valley (southwest France), *Journal of Human Evolution*, 61, p. 538-548.

CAPITAN L., PEYRONY D. (1928) – *La Madeleine, son gisement, son industrie, ses œuvres d'art*, Paris, Nourry (Publications de l'Institut international d'anthropologie, 2), 125 p.

CASTEL J.-C., COUMONT M.-P., BRUGAL J.-P., LAROULANDIE V., CAMUS H., CHAUVIÈRE F.-X., COCHARD D., GUADELLI J.-L., KUNTZ D., MARTIN H., MOURRE V. (2008) – La fin du Paléolithique supérieur en Quercy : l’apport de l’Igue du Gral (Sauliac-sur-Célé, Lot), in J. Jaubert, J.-G. Bordes and I. Ortega (eds.), *Les sociétés du Paléolithique dans un grand sud-ouest de la France : nouveaux gisements, nouveaux résultats, nouvelles méthodes*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoires, 47), p. 335-353.

CASTEL J.-C., BOUDADI-MALIGNE M., KUNTZ D., CAMUS H., LAROULANDIE V. (2012) – L’Igue du Pras de Marrou (Durbans, Lot) : un piège naturel de l’extrême fin du Pléistocène, *Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest*, 20, 2, p. 125-142.

CATTELAIN P., BELLIER C. (2014) – Objets décorés pris sur stylolhoideum, in L. Mons, S. Péan and R. Pigeaud (eds.), *Matières d'art : représentations préhistoriques et supports osseux, relations et contraintes*, Paris, Errance (Commission de nomenclature sur l'industrie de l'os préhistorique, cahier 13), p. 91-104.

CAZALS N. (2005) – Le début du Magdalénien de part et d'autre des Pyrénées. Quelques réflexions au travers des techniques de taille et des modes d'exploitation des ressources, in J. Jaubert and M. Barbaza (eds.), *Territoires, déplacements, mobilité, échanges durant la Préhistoire. Terres et hommes du sud*, Paris, éditions du CTHS (Actes des congrès nationaux des sociétés historiques et scientifiques), p. 295-309.

CLARK P. U., DYKE A. S., SHAKUN J. D., CARLSON A. E., CLARK J., WOHLFARTH B., MITROVICA J. X., HOSTETLER S. W., MCCABE A. M. (2009) – The Last Glacial Maximum, *Science*, 325, 5941, p. 710-714.

CLOTTES J. (1989) – Le Magdalénien des Pyrénées, in J.-P. Rigaud (ed.), *Le Magdalénien en Europe : la structuration du Magdalénien*, Liège, Université de Liège (ERAUL, 38), p. 281-360.
COLLECTIVE (2014) – *Grands sites d'art magdalénien : La Madeleine et Laugerie-Basse il y a 15000 ans*, Paris, éditions de la RMN, 127 p.

CONNET N., BÈMILLI C., CHAUSSÉ C., CLAUD E., DAYET L., VANHAEREN M. (2019) – Par un début de printemps du Dernier Maximum glaciaire, le site du Chemin de l'Évangile 3, à Gron (Yonne, France), in C. Montoya, J.-P. Fagnart and J.-L. Locht (eds.), *Préhistoire de l'Europe du Nord-Ouest : mobilité, climats et entités culturelles*, actes du 28e Congrès préhistorique de France (Amiens, 30 mai-4 juin 2016), Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 165-184.

COSGROVE R. CHADELLE J.-P., O'FARRELL M. (2015) – *Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne, Laugerie-Basse, abri des Marseilles : rapport de sondage*, unpublished report, Bordeaux, SRA Nouvelle-Aquitaine, 43 p.

DUCASSE S., LANGLAIS M. (2019) – Twenty Years on, a New Date with Lascaux: Reassessing the Chronology of the Cave's Paleolithic Occupations through New 14C AMS Dating, *Paleo*, 30, 1, p. 130-147.

DUCASSE S., PÉTILLON J.-M., RENARD C. (2014) – Le cadre radio-métrique de la séquence solutréo-badegoulienne du Cuzoul de Vers (Lot) : lecture critique et compléments, *Paléo*, 25, p. 37-58.

DUCASSE S., PÉTILLON J.-M., CHAUVIÈRE F.-X., LACRAMPE-CUYAUBÈRE F., MUTH X. (2019) – From Presumption to Demonstration: Archaeological Recontextualization and First Direct 14C Dating of “Pseudo-Excise” Decorated Antler Point from France (Pégourié Cave, Lot). Implications on the Understanding of Southwestern Europe Cultural Geography during the Last Glacial Maximum, *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 23, p. 592-616.

DUCASSE S., PÉTILLON J.-M., AUBRY T., CHAUVIÈRE F.-X., CASTEL J.-C., DETRAIN L., LANGLAIS M., MORALA A., BANKS W.E., LENOBLE A. (2020) – The Abri Casserole (Dordogne, France): Reassessing the 14C Chronology of a Key Upper Paleolithic Sequence in Southwestern France, *Radiocarbon*, 62, 5, p. 1237-1260.

FARR T. G., ROSEN P. A., CARO E., CRIPPEN R., DUREN R., HENSLLEY S., KOBRICK M., PALLER M., RODRIGUEZ E., ROTH L., SEAL D., SHAFFER S., SHIMADA J., UMLAND J., WERNER M., OSKIN M., BURBANK D., ALSDORF D. (2007) – The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, *Reviews of Geophysics*, 45, 2, p. 1-33.

FAT CHEUNG C., LANGLAIS M. (2020) – El Paleolítico final en el sudoeste francés, de los Pirineos al Atlántico, in D. Roman Monroig, P. García-Argüelles i Andreu and J. M. Fullola i Pericot (eds.), *Las facies microlaminares del final del Paleolítico en el Mediterráneo ibérico y el valle del Ebro*, Barcelona, SERP, p. 11-37.

FRENCH J. C., COLLINS C. (2015) – Upper Palaeolithic Popula-
tion Histories of Southwestern France: A Comparison of
the Demographic Signatures of 14C Date Distributions and
Archaeological Site Counts, *Journal of Archaeological
Science*, 55, p. 122-134.

GOURC L., LANGLAIS M., SITZIA L., CAUX S., BELBEOC'H G.,
LENOIR M. (2016) – La Honteyre (Le Tuzan, Gironde) : une
occupation de chasseurs-collecteurs magdaléniens en
contexte de désert sableux, *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 113, 4, p. 713-735.

GOWLETT J. A. J., HEDGES R. E. M., LAW I. A., PERRY C. (1986) – Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 4, *Archaeometry*, 28, 2, p. 206-221.

GRUBERT M. (2021) – *Le Magdalénien moyen et supérieur aux contreforts du Massif Central : essai de synthèse à partir des industries lithiques des gisements de la vallée de l'Aveyron (Lafaye, Pénouaire, Montastruc, Fontalès) et étude comparée avec un gisement de la vallée de la Dordogne (Combe Cullier)*, thèse de doctorat, université Toulouse 2, Toulouse, 332 p.

HENRY S. (1998) – *Une industrie lithique du Paléolithique supérieur en Bergeracois. Approche techno-économique de l'assemblage Cb du gisement de Villazette (Creysse, Dordogne)*, mémoire de DEA, université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, 86 p.

HENRY-GAMBIER D., ROCHER P., DRUCKER D. (2019) – Étude et description de la sépulture de l'enfant de l'abri Labattut (vallon de Castelmerle, Sergeac, Dordogne, France), *Paléo*, 30, 1, p. 170-203.

IAKOVLEVA L, PINÇON G. (1997) – *La frise sculptée du Roc-aux-Sorciers*, Paris, éditions du CTHS (Documents préhistoriques, 9), 168 p.

KRETSCHMER I. (2015) – Demographic Studies of Hunters and Gatherers in the European Late Upper Palaeolithic, in B. V. Eriksen, E. Rensink and S. Harris (eds.), *The Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia*, Kiel, Ludwig, p. 231-245.

LANGLAIS M. (2010) – *Les sociétés magdaléniennes de l'isthme pyrénéen*, Paris, CTHS (Documents préhistoriques, 26), 337 p.

LANGLAIS M. (2018) – From the Social Composition of a Camp-
site to Magdalenian Cultural Reproduction: Studying Tech-
nical Expertise at Verberie (Oise, France) to Better Unders-
tand Sites in the Aquitaine Basin, in L. Klaric (ed.), *The
Prehistoric Apprentice. Investigating Apprenticeship and
Expertise in Prehistoric Technologies*, Proceedings of the
workshop of Campagne 2013, Brno, The Czech Academy
of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, p. 251-273.

LANGLAIS M. (2020) – *Une anthologie du Paléolithique récent-final en France méridionale (21-11 ka cal BP)*, mémoire d'habilitation à diriger des recherches, université de Bordeaux, Talence, 299 p.

LANGLAIS M., SÉCHER A., CAUX S., DELVIGNE V., GOURC L., NORMAND C., SÁNCHEZ DE LA TORRE M. (2016) – Lithic Tool Kits: A Metronome of the Evolution of the Magdalenian in Southwest France (19,000-14,000 cal BP), *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 92-107.

LANGLAIS M., PÉTILLON J.-M., SÉCHER A. (2017) – Les débuts du Magdalénien moyen dans le Sud-Ouest français. Témoignages croisés des équipements lithiques et osseux, in C. Bourdier, L. Chehmana, R. Malgarini and M. Połtowicz-Bobak (eds.), *L'essor du Magdalénien : aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 8), p. 209-234.

LANGLAIS M., DELVIGNE V., JACQUIER J., LENOBLE A., BEAUVAL C., PESCHAUX C., ORTEGA FERNANDEZ A. M., LESVIGNES É., LACRAMPE-CUYAUBÈRE F., BISMUTH T., PESESSE D. (2019) – Une nouvelle archéo-séquence pour le Magdalénien en Cor-
COLLECTIVE (2014) – *Grands sites d'art magdalénien : La Madeleine et Laugerie-Basse il y a 15000 ans*, Paris, éditions de la RMN, 127 p.

CONNET N., BÈMILLI C., CHAUSSÉ C., CLAUD E., DAYET L., VANHAEREN M. (2019) – Par un début de printemps du Dernier Maximum glaciaire, le site du Chemin de l'Évangile 3, à Gron (Yonne, France), in C. Montoya, J.-P. Fagnart and J.-L. Locht (eds.), *Préhistoire de l'Europe du Nord-Ouest : mobilité, climats et entités culturelles*, actes du 28e Congrès préhistorique de France (Amiens, 30 mai-4 juin 2016), Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 165-184.

COSGROVE R. CHADELLE J.-P., O'FARRELL M. (2015) – *Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne, Laugerie-Basse, abri des Marseilles : rapport de sondage*, unpublished report, Bordeaux, SRA Nouvelle-Aquitaine, 43 p.

DUCASSE S., LANGLAIS M. (2019) – Twenty Years on, a New Date with Lascaux: Reassessing the Chronology of the Cave's Paleolithic Occupations through New 14C AMS Dating, *Paleo*, 30, 1, p. 130-147.

DUCASSE S., PÉTILLON J.-M., RENARD C. (2014) – Le cadre radio-métrique de la séquence solutréo-badegoulienne du Cuzoul de Vers (Lot) : lecture critique et compléments, *Paléo*, 25, p. 37-58.

DUCASSE S., PÉTILLON J.-M., CHAUVIÈRE F.-X., LACRAMPE-CUYAUBÈRE F., MUTH X. (2019) – From Presumption to Demonstration: Archaeological Recontextualization and First Direct 14C Dating of “Pseudo-Excise” Decorated Antler Point from France (Pégourié Cave, Lot). Implications on the Understanding of Southwestern Europe Cultural Geography during the Last Glacial Maximum, *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 23, p. 592-616.

DUCASSE S., PÉTILLON J.-M., AUBRY T., CHAUVIÈRE F.-X., CASTEL J.-C., DETRAIN L., LANGLAIS M., MORALA A., BANKS W.E., LENOBLE A. (2020) – The Abri Casserole (Dordogne, France): Reassessing the 14C Chronology of a Key Upper Paleolithic Sequence in Southwestern France, *Radiocarbon*, 62, 5, p. 1237-1260.

FARR T. G., ROSEN P. A., CARO E., CRIPPEN R., DUREN R., HENSLLEY S., KOBRICK M., PALLER M., RODRIGUEZ E., ROTH L., SEAL D., SHAFFER S., SHIMADA J., UMLAND J., WERNER M., OSKIN M., BURBANK D., ALSDORF D. (2007) – The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, *Reviews of Geophysics*, 45, 2, p. 1-33.

FAT CHEUNG C., LANGLAIS M. (2020) – El Paleolítico final en el sudoeste francés, de los Pirineos al Atlántico, in D. Roman Monroig, P. García-Argüelles i Andreu and J. M. Fullola i Pericot (eds.), *Las facies microlaminares del final del Paleolítico en el Mediterráneo ibérico y el valle del Ebro*, Barcelona, SERP, p. 11-37.

FRENCH J. C., COLLINS C. (2015) – Upper Palaeolithic Popula-
tion Histories of Southwestern France: A Comparison of
the Demographic Signatures of 14C Date Distributions and
Archaeological Site Counts, *Journal of Archaeological
Science*, 55, p. 122-134.

GOURC L., LANGLAIS M., SITZIA L., CAUX S., BELBEOC'H G.,
LENOIR M. (2016) – La Honteyre (Le Tuzan, Gironde) : une
occupation de chasseurs-collecteurs magdaléniens en
contexte de désert sableux, *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 113, 4, p. 713-735.

GOWLETT J. A. J., HEDGES R. E. M., LAW I. A., PERRY C. (1986) – Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 4, *Archaeometry*, 28, 2, p. 206-221.

GRUBERT M. (2021) – *Le Magdalénien moyen et supérieur aux contreforts du Massif Central : essai de synthèse à partir des industries lithiques des gisements de la vallée de l'Aveyron (Lafaye, Pénouaire, Montastruc, Fontalès) et étude comparée avec un gisement de la vallée de la Dordogne (Combe Cullier)*, thèse de doctorat, université Toulouse 2, Toulouse, 332 p.

HENRY S. (1998) – *Une industrie lithique du Paléolithique supérieur en Bergeracois. Approche techno-économique de l'assemblage Cb du gisement de Villazette (Creysse, Dordogne)*, mémoire de DEA, université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, 86 p.

HENRY-GAMBIER D., ROCHER P., DRUCKER D. (2019) – Étude et description de la sépulture de l'enfant de l'abri Labattut (vallon de Castelmerle, Sergeac, Dordogne, France), *Paléo*, 30, 1, p. 170-203.

IAKOVLEVA L, PINÇON G. (1997) – *La frise sculptée du Roc-aux-Sorciers*, Paris, éditions du CTHS (Documents préhistoriques, 9), 168 p.

KRETSCHMER I. (2015) – Demographic Studies of Hunters and Gatherers in the European Late Upper Palaeolithic, in B. V. Eriksen, E. Rensink and S. Harris (eds.), *The Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia*, Kiel, Ludwig, p. 231-245.

LANGLAIS M. (2010) – *Les sociétés magdaléniennes de l'isthme pyrénéen*, Paris, CTHS (Documents préhistoriques, 26), 337 p.

LANGLAIS M. (2018) – From the Social Composition of a Camp-
site to Magdalenian Cultural Reproduction: Studying Tech-
nical Expertise at Verberie (Oise, France) to Better Unders-
tand Sites in the Aquitaine Basin, in L. Klaric (ed.), *The
Prehistoric Apprentice. Investigating Apprenticeship and
Expertise in Prehistoric Technologies*, Proceedings of the
workshop of Campagne 2013, Brno, The Czech Academy
of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, p. 251-273.

LANGLAIS M. (2020) – *Une anthologie du Paléolithique récent-final en France méridionale (21-11 ka cal BP)*, mémoire d'habilitation à diriger des recherches, université de Bordeaux, Talence, 299 p.

LANGLAIS M., SÉCHER A., CAUX S., DELVIGNE V., GOURC L., NORMAND C., SÁNCHEZ DE LA TORRE M. (2016) – Lithic Tool Kits: A Metronome of the Evolution of the Magdalenian in Southwest France (19,000-14,000 cal BP), *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 92-107.

LANGLAIS M., PÉTILLON J.-M., SÉCHER A. (2017) – Les débuts du Magdalénien moyen dans le Sud-Ouest français. Témoignages croisés des équipements lithiques et osseux, in C. Bourdier, L. Chehmana, R. Malgarini and M. Połtowicz-Bobak (eds.), *L'essor du Magdalénien : aspects culturels, symboliques et techniques des faciès à navettes et à Lussac-Angles*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 8), p. 209-234.

LANGLAIS M., DELVIGNE V., JACQUIER J., LENOBLE A., BEAUVAL C., PESCHAUX C., ORTEGA FERNANDEZ A. M., LESVIGNES É., LACRAMPE-CUYAUBÈRE F., BISMUTH T., PESESSE D. (2019) – Une nouvelle archéo-séquence pour le Magdalénien en Cor-
rèze. Focus sur le Magdalénien moyen ancien de la grotte Bouyssonie (Brive-la-Gaillarde, Corrèze, France), *Paléo*, 30, 1, p. 204-229.

LAROULANDIE V., COSTAMAGNO S., LANGLAIS M., PÉTILLON J.-M. (2017) – L’œuf ou la poule ? Retour sur le projet Magdatis « Le Magdalénien de la façade atlantique face aux changements environnementaux », *Quaternaire*, 28, 2, p. 277-283.

LE FILLÂTRE V. (2013) – Géologie de la grotte, in J. Primault (ed.), *La grotte du Taillis des Coteaux, Antigny (Vienne). Rapport intermédiaire de la fouille programmée plurianuelle 2012-2014*, unpublished report, Service régional de l'archéologie de la région Poitou-Charentes, Poitiers, p. 30-129.

LENOBLE A., BERTRAN P., MERCIER N., SITZIA L. (2012) – Le site du lac Bleu et la question de l’extension du pergélisol en France au Pléistocène supérieur, in P. Bertran and A. Lenoble (eds.), *Quaternaire continental d’Aquitaine : un point sur les travaux récents*, guide de l’excursion AFEQ-ASF 2012, p. 109-121, https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00711165

LORBLANCHET M. (1972) – Aperçu sur le Magdalénien moyen et supérieur du Haut-Quercy, in *Congrès préhistorique de France. Compte rendu de la 49e session (Auvergne, 1969)*, Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 256-283.

MAIER A. (2017) – Population and settlement dynamics from the Gravettian to the Magdalenian, *Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte*, 26, p. 83-101.

MALLYE J.-B., KUNTZ D., LANGLAIS M., BOUDADI-MALIGNE M., BARSHAY-SZMIDT C., COSTAMAGNO S., PÉTILLON J.-M., GOU-RICHON L., LAROULANDIE V. (2018) – Trente ans après, que reste-t-il du modèle d’azilianisation proposé au Morin par F. Bordes et D. de Sonneville-Bordes ?, in A. Aver-bouh, P. Bonnet-Jacquement and J.-J. Cleyet-Merle (eds.), *L’Aquitaine à la fin des temps glaciaires. Les sociétés de la transition du Paléolithique final au début du Mésolithique dans l’espace nord-aquitain*, les Eyzies-de-Tayac, SAMRA (Paléo, numéro spécial), p. 155-168.

MARGO Project Members (2009) – Constraints on the Magnitude and Patterns of Ocean Cooling at the Last Glacial Maximum, *Nature Geoscience*, 2, p. 127-132.

MONTOYA C., AVERBOUH A., BIGNON-LAU O., DUMARÇAY G., GOUTAS N., PASQUINI A., PESCHAUX C., RASSAT S. (2019) – Le « Colombier » à Chézy-sur-Marne (Aisne, France) : analyses préliminaires d’un site inédit du Dernier Maximum glaciaire, in C. Montoya, J.-P. Fagnart and J.-L. Locht (eds.), *Préhistoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest : mobilités, climats et identités culturelles*, actes du 28e Congrès préhistorique de France (Amiens, 30 mai-4 juin 2016), Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 141-163.

NAUGHTON F., SANCHEZ GOÑI M. F., RODRIGUES T., SALGUEIRO E., COSTAS S., DESPRAT S., DUPRAT J., MICHEL E., ROSSIGNOL L., ZARAGOSI S., VOELKER A. H. L., ABRANTES F. (2016) – Climate Variability across the Last Deglaciation in NW Iberia and Its Margin, *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 9-22.

PÉTILLON J.-M. (2006) – *Des Magdaléniens en armes. Technologie des armatures de projectile en bois de cervidé du Magdalénien supérieur de la grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlan-tiques)*, Treignes, CEDARC (Artefacts, 10), 302 p.

PÉTILLON J.-M., LAROULANDIE V., COSTAMAGNO S., LANGLAIS M. (2016) – Testing Environmental Determinants in the Cultural

Evolution of Hunter-Gatherers: A Three-Year Multidisciplinary Project on the Occupation of the Western Aquitaine Basin during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian (19-14 kyr cal BP). Guest editorial, *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 1-8.

PÉTILLON J.-M., SACCHI D., CATTELAIN P. (2020) – Un propulseur androgyne magdalénien dans la grotte Gazel (Sallèles-Carbonès, Aude). Comparaisons et commentaires, *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 117, 3, p. 391-407.

RAYNAL J.-P., LAFARGE A., RÉMY D., DELVIGNE V., GUADELLI J.-L., COSTAMAGNO S., LE GALL O., DAUJEARD C., VIVENT D., FERNANDES P., LE CORRE-LE BEUX M., VERNET G., BAZILE F., LEFÉVRE D. (2014) – Datations SMA et nouveaux regards sur l’archéo-séquence du Rond-du-Barry (Polignac, Haute-Loire), *Comptes rendus Palevol*, 13, 7, p. 623-636.

REIMER P. J., AUSTIN W. E. N., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BLACKWELL P. G., BRONK RAMSEY C., BUTZIN M., CHENG H., EDWARDS R. L., FRIEDRICH M., GROOTES P. M., GUILDERSON T. P., HAJDAS I., HEATON T. J., HOGG A. G., HUGHEN K. A., KROMER B., MANNING S. W., MUSCHELER R., PALMER J. G., PEARSON C., VAN DER PLICHT J., REIMER R. W., RICHARDS D. A., SCOTT E. M., SOUTHON J. R., TURNEY C. S. M., WACKER L., ADOLPH F., BÜNTGEN U., CAPANO M., FAHRNI S. M., FOGTMANN-SCHULZ A., FRIEDRICH R., KÖHLER P., KUDSK S., MIYAKE F., OLSEN J., REINIG F., SAKAMOTO M., SOOKDEO A., TALAMO S. (2020) – The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0-55 cal kBP), *Radiocarbon*, 62, 4, p. 725-757.

RIGAUD J.-P. (1970) – Étude préliminaire des industries magdaléniennes de l'abri du Flageolet II, commune de Bézenac (Dordogne), *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 67 (Études et Travaux), 2), p. 456-474.

RIGAUD J.-P. (1979) – À propos des industries magdaléniennes du Flageolet, in D. de Sonneville-Bordes (ed.), *La fin des temps glaciaires en Europe : chronostratigraphie et éco-logie des cultures du Paléolithique final*, actes de colloque (Talence, 24-28 mai 1977), Paris, CNRS, p. 467-469.

SÉCHER A. (2017) – *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 ? thèse de doctorat, université de Bordeaux, Talence.

SÉCHER A., CAUX S., LANGLAIS M. (2018) – Traditions techniques du Magdalénien moyen ancien. Apport de la série lithique de Combe-Cullier, Lacave, Lot, France (couches 11 à 13), *Paléo*, 29, p. 201-221.

SITZIA L. (2014) – *Chronostratigraphie et distribution spatiale des dépôts éoliens quaternaires du bassin Aquitain*, thèse de doctorat, université de Bordeaux, Talence.

SITZIA L., BERTRAN P., BAHAIN J.-J., BATEMAN M. D., HERNANDEZ M., GARON H., DE LAFONTAINE G., MERCIER N., LEROYER C., QUEFFELEC A., VOINCHET P. (2015) – The Quaternary coversands of southwest France, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 124, p. 84-105.

VERHEUL J., ZICKEL M., BECKER D., WILLMES C. (2015) – *LGM Major Inland Waters of Europe-GIS Dataset*, https://dx.doi.org/10.5880/SFB806.14

ZICKEL M., BECKER D., VERHEUL J., YASA YENER, WILLMES C. (2016) – *Paleocoastlines GIS dataset*, CRC806-Database, https://dx.doi.org/10.5880/SFB806.20
rèze. Focus sur le Magdalénien moyen ancien de la grotte Bouyssonie (Brive-la-Gaillarde, Corrèze, France), *Paléo*, 30, 1, p. 204-229.

LAROULANDIE V., COSTAMAGNO S., LANGLAIS M., PÉTILLON J.-M. (2017) – L’œuf ou la poule ? Retour sur le projet Magdatis « Le Magdalénien de la façade atlantique face aux changements environnementaux », *Quaternaire*, 28, 2, p. 277-283.

LE FILLÂTRE V. (2013) – Géologie de la grotte, in J. Primault (ed.), *La grotte du Taillis des Coteaux, Antigny (Vienne). Rapport intermédiaire de la fouille programmée plurianuelle 2012-2014*, unpublished report, Service régional de l'archéologie de la région Poitou-Charentes, Poitiers, p. 30-129.

LENOBLE A., BERTRAN P., MERCIER N., SITZIA L. (2012) – Le site du lac Bleu et la question de l’extension du pergélisol en France au Pléistocène supérieur, in P. Bertran and A. Lenoble (eds.), *Quaternaire continental d’Aquitaine : un point sur les travaux récents*, guide de l’excursion AFEQ-ASF 2012, p. 109-121, https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00711165

LORBLANCHET M. (1972) – Aperçu sur le Magdalénien moyen et supérieur du Haut-Quercy, in *Congrès préhistorique de France. Compte rendu de la 49e session (Auvergne, 1969)*, Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 256-283.

MAIER A. (2017) – Population and settlement dynamics from the Gravettian to the Magdalenian, *Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte*, 26, p. 83-101.

MALLYE J.-B., KUNTZ D., LANGLAIS M., BOUDADI-MALIGNE M., BARSHAY-SZMIDT C., COSTAMAGNO S., PÉTILLON J.-M., GOU-RICHON L., LAROULANDIE V. (2018) – Trente ans après, que reste-t-il du modèle d’azilianisation proposé au Morin par F. Bordes et D. de Sonneville-Bordes ?, in A. Aver-bouh, P. Bonnet-Jacquement and J.-J. Cleyet-Merle (eds.), *L’Aquitaine à la fin des temps glaciaires. Les sociétés de la transition du Paléolithique final au début du Mésolithique dans l’espace nord-aquitain*, les Eyzies-de-Tayac, SAMRA (Paléo, numéro spécial), p. 155-168.

MARGO Project Members (2009) – Constraints on the Magnitude and Patterns of Ocean Cooling at the Last Glacial Maximum, *Nature Geoscience*, 2, p. 127-132.

MONTOYA C., AVERBOUH A., BIGNON-LAU O., DUMARÇAY G., GOUTAS N., PASQUINI A., PESCHAUX C., RASSAT S. (2019) – Le « Colombier » à Chézy-sur-Marne (Aisne, France) : analyses préliminaires d’un site inédit du Dernier Maximum glaciaire, in C. Montoya, J.-P. Fagnart and J.-L. Locht (eds.), *Préhistoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest : mobilités, climats et identités culturelles*, actes du 28e Congrès préhistorique de France (Amiens, 30 mai-4 juin 2016), Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 141-163.

NAUGHTON F., SANCHEZ GOÑI M. F., RODRIGUES T., SALGUEIRO E., COSTAS S., DESPRAT S., DUPRAT J., MICHEL E., ROSSIGNOL L., ZARAGOSI S., VOELKER A. H. L., ABRANTES F. (2016) – Climate Variability across the Last Deglaciation in NW Iberia and Its Margin, *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 9-22.

PÉTILLON J.-M. (2006) – *Des Magdaléniens en armes. Technologie des armatures de projectile en bois de cervidé du Magdalénien supérieur de la grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlan-tiques)*, Treignes, CEDARC (Artefacts, 10), 302 p.

PÉTILLON J.-M., LAROULANDIE V., COSTAMAGNO S., LANGLAIS M. (2016) – Testing Environmental Determinants in the Cultural

Evolution of Hunter-Gatherers: A Three-Year Multidisciplinary Project on the Occupation of the Western Aquitaine Basin during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian (19-14 kyr cal BP). Guest editorial, *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 1-8.

PÉTILLON J.-M., SACCHI D., CATTELAIN P. (2020) – Un propulseur androgyne magdalénien dans la grotte Gazel (Sallèles-Carbonès, Aude). Comparaisons et commentaires, *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 117, 3, p. 391-407.

RAYNAL J.-P., LAFARGE A., RÉMY D., DELVIGNE V., GUADELLI J.-L., COSTAMAGNO S., LE GALL O., DAUJEARD C., VIVENT D., FERNANDES P., LE CORRE-LE BEUX M., VERNET G., BAZILE F., LEFÉVRE D. (2014) – Datations SMA et nouveaux regards sur l’archéo-séquence du Rond-du-Barry (Polignac, Haute-Loire), *Comptes rendus Palevol*, 13, 7, p. 623-636.

REIMER P. J., AUSTIN W. E. N., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BLACKWELL P. G., BRONK RAMSEY C., BUTZIN M., CHENG H., EDWARDS R. L., FRIEDRICH M., GROOTES P. M., GUILDERSON T. P., HAJDAS I., HEATON T. J., HOGG A. G., HUGHEN K. A., KROMER B., MANNING S. W., MUSCHELER R., PALMER J. G., PEARSON C., VAN DER PLICHT J., REIMER R. W., RICHARDS D. A., SCOTT E. M., SOUTHON J. R., TURNEY C. S. M., WACKER L., ADOLPH F., BÜNTGEN U., CAPANO M., FAHRNI S. M., FOGTMANN-SCHULZ A., FRIEDRICH R., KÖHLER P., KUDSK S., MIYAKE F., OLSEN J., REINIG F., SAKAMOTO M., SOOKDEO A., TALAMO S. (2020) – The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0-55 cal kBP), *Radiocarbon*, 62, 4, p. 725-757.

RIGAUD J.-P. (1970) – Étude préliminaire des industries magdaléniennes de l'abri du Flageolet II, commune de Bézenac (Dordogne), *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 67 (Études et Travaux), 2), p. 456-474.

RIGAUD J.-P. (1979) – À propos des industries magdaléniennes du Flageolet, in D. de Sonneville-Bordes (ed.), *La fin des temps glaciaires en Europe : chronostratigraphie et éco-logie des cultures du Paléolithique final*, actes de colloque (Talence, 24-28 mai 1977), Paris, CNRS, p. 467-469.

SÉCHER A. (2017) – *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 ? thèse de doctorat, université de Bordeaux, Talence.

SÉCHER A., CAUX S., LANGLAIS M. (2018) – Traditions techniques du Magdalénien moyen ancien. Apport de la série lithique de Combe-Cullier, Lacave, Lot, France (couches 11 à 13), *Paléo*, 29, p. 201-221.

SITZIA L. (2014) – *Chronostratigraphie et distribution spatiale des dépôts éoliens quaternaires du bassin Aquitain*, thèse de doctorat, université de Bordeaux, Talence.

SITZIA L., BERTRAN P., BAHAIN J.-J., BATEMAN M. D., HERNANDEZ M., GARON H., DE LAFONTAINE G., MERCIER N., LEROYER C., QUEFFELEC A., VOINCHET P. (2015) – The Quaternary coversands of southwest France, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 124, p. 84-105.

VERHEUL J., ZICKEL M., BECKER D., WILLMES C. (2015) – *LGM Major Inland Waters of Europe-GIS Dataset*, https://dx.doi.org/10.5880/SFB806.14

ZICKEL M., BECKER D., VERHEUL J., YASA YENER, WILLMES C. (2016) – *Paleocoastlines GIS dataset*, CRC806-Database, https://dx.doi.org/10.5880/SFB806.20