<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 10** – Distribution of sites with half-round rods with small nodular projections (Leesch et al., 2019).

**Fig. 10** – Répartition des sites avec des baguettes demi-rondes ornées de tubercules rectangulaires (Leesch et al., 2019).

**Abb. 10** – Verbreitung der Halbrundstäbe mit plastischen Höckerchen (Leesch et al., 2019).

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 11** – Isturitz (F). Half-round rod with small nodular projections (Feruglio, 1992).

**Fig. 11** – Isturitz (F). Baguette demi-ronde ornée de tubercules rectangulaires (Feruglio, 1992).

**Abb. 11** – Isturitz (F). Halbrundstab mit plastischen Höckerchen (Feruglio, 1992).

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 12** – 1: Kesslerloch. Fragment of a bone disk with branch-like decoration (Merk, 1875); 2: Le Mas d'Azil (F). Fragment of a bone disk with branch-like decoration (Bellier et al., 1991).

**Fig. 12** – 1: Kesslerloch. Fragment d'une rondelle en os ornée d'un signe ramiform (Merk, 1875); 2: Le Mas d'Azil (F). Fragment d'une rondelle en os ornée d'un signe ramiform (Bellier et al., 1991).

**Abb. 12** – 1: Kesslerloch. Fragment eines Rondells aus Knochen mit zweigartiger Verzierung (Merk, 1875); 2: Le Mas d'Azil (F). Fragment eines Rondells aus Knochen mit zweigartiger Verzierung (Bellier et al., 1991).
<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 13 – 1: Kesslerloch. Lignite plaquette with a very detailed horse’s head engraved on each side (Merk, 1875); 2: Petersfels (D). Lignite plaquette with an engraving of a complete horse (Mauser, 1970).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 13 – 1: Kesslerloch. Plaquette en lignite avec une tête gravée très detaillée sur chaque face (Merk, 1875) ; 2 : Petersfels (D). Plaquette en lignite avec une gravure d'un cheval complet (Mauser, 1970).</caption>

<caption>Abb. 13 – 1: Kesslerloch. Gagatplättchen mit beidseitiger detaillierter Pferdekopfgravierung (Merk, 1875); 2: Petersfels (D). Gagatplättchen mit vollständiger Pferdegravierung (Mauser, 1970).</caption>

These are a half-round rod with small nodular projections (fig. 15), a spindle-shaped sculpture, and a perforated fragment of a lignite disk. In 1973, Worm (1980) found a fragmented lignite pendant and an ivory pendant with geometric decoration (fig. 16, n° 2) in the excavation spoil. The ivory pendant has parallels with pendants of a similar shape made of ivory and lignite, but without decoration, from the Kesslerloch (fig. 16, n°s 3-10) and with one specimen from Le Mas d'Azil (fig. 16, n° 1). They are interpreted by Bosinski as imitations of fossil sea-urchin spines. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that in both areas (Canton Schaffhausen and the region of Le Mas d'Azil) fossil sea-urchin spines can be found in the limestone layers (Bosinski, 1980).

## Abri Schweizersbild

The Abri (rock shelter) Schweizersbild (fig. 1, n° 2), also in the canton of Schaffhausen, was discovered in 1891 and excavated by J. Nüesch between 1891 and 1893 (Nüesch, 1902). More recent investigations were carried out by Höheisen and Peyer (1994). The presence of notched, backed points among the stone artefacts indicates that the settlement dates from the Late Magdalenian period. Compared with the Kesslerloch, the portable art objects from the Abri Schweizersbild are not as numerous and more schematic (Bosinski, 1982; Braun, 2006 and 2019; Höheisen and Peyer, 1994; Nüesch, 1902).

Two horses are engraved, one following the other, in the middle of the shaft of an almost complete perforated

baton (fig. 17). The end of the shaft has V-shaped symbols and there are deeply engraved lines around the hole. Another perforated baton, only very fragmentarily preserved, is also decorated with a horse, but only the lower part of the body survives. A fragment of reindeer antler, probably part of a perforated baton, is engraved with a pointed oval with internal hatching (Bosinski, 1982; Höheisen and Peyer, 1994; here: fig. 18, n° 1). This motif is very similar to possible depictions of fish on a reindeer antler beam from Petersfels (Braun, 2006 and 2019; Mauser, 1970; here fig. 18, n° 3). In their publication, Breuil and Saint-Périer (1927) mentioned the object from the Abri Schweizersbild among the representations of fish in Ice Age art and compared it with depictions from south-west France. A good parallel is an engraving on a fragment of reindeer antler from Le Placard in Charente (Chauvet, 1910; here fig. 18, n° 2). It can also be compared to recognisable figures of fish from the Abri de La Madeleine in Dordogne in south-west France (fig. 18, n° 4).

A limestone plaquette engraved on both sides is the only one of its kind and therefore of great importance for Swiss Magdalenian portable art (fig. 19). One side shows five superimposed depictions of animals, three of which can be recognized as horses from their manes, and a number of indefinable lines (fig. 19, n° 1). The other side is also engraved with animals, which are interpreted as hinds (fig. 19, n° 2). According to Bosinski (1982), Braun (2006 and 2019) and Maier (2015), another fine engraving could possibly be a representation of a woman of the Gönnersdorf-Lalinde type.
<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

Fig. 14 – Kesslerloch. 1-5: Various symbols on projectile points (drawings B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993a); 6: Fragment of a double-rowed harpoon with a ribbon-like decoration engraved on both sides (drawing B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993b); 7: Fragment of a perforated baton with a ribbon-like decoration engraved on both sides (drawing B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993b).

Fig. 14 – Kesslerloch. 1-5: Signes divers sur des pointes de sagaie (dessins B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993a); 6: Fragment d'un harpon à deux rangs de barbelures avec une décoration gravée en forme de ligature sur les deux faces (dessin B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993b); 7: Fragment d'un bâton percé avec une décoration gravée en forme de ligature sur les deux faces (dessin B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993b).

Abb. 14 – Kesslerloch. 1-5: Verschiedene Zeichen auf Geschossspitzen (Zeichnungen B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993a); 6: Fragment einer zweireihigen Harpune mit einer bandartigen Verzierung auf beiden Seiten (Zeichnung B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993b); 7: Fragment eines Lochstabs mit einer bandartigen Verzierung auf beiden Seiten (Zeichnung B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993b).

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

Fig. 15 – Freudenthalhöhle. Half-round rod with small nodular projections (Bosinski, 1982).

Fig. 15 – Freudenthalhöhle. Baguette demi-ronde ornée de tubercules rec-
tangulaires (Bosinski, 1982).

Abb. 15 – Freudenthalhöhle. Halbrundstab mit plastischen Höckerchen (Bosinski, 1982).
<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

Fig. 16 – Pendants probablemente decorados with imitations of fossil sea-urchin spines. 1: Le Mas d'Azil (F); 2: Freudenthalhöhle; 3-10: Kesslerloch (Bosinski, 1980).

Fig. 16 – Pendentifs montrant probablement des imitations de piquants d’oursins fossiles. 1 : Le Mas d’Azil (F) ; 2 : Freudenthalhöhle ; 3-10 : Kesslerloch (Bosinski, 1980).

Abb. 16 – Anhänger, welche eventuell fossile Seeigelstacheln imitieren. 1: Le Mas d'Azil (F); 2: Freudenthalhöhle; 3-10: Kesslerloch (Bosinski, 1980).

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

Fig. 17 – Abri Schweizersbild. Decorated perforated baton (drawing B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen and Peyer, 1994).

Fig. 17 – Abri Schweizersbild. Bâton percé décoré (dessin B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen et Peyer, 1994).

Abb. 17 – Abri Schweizersbild. Verzierter Lochstab (Zeichnung B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen und Peyer, 1994).
<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 18** – 1: Abri Schweizersbild. Fragment of a perforated baton with an engraving of a pointed oval with internal hatching (drawing B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen and Peyer, 1994); 2: Le Placard (F). Fragment of reindeer antler with an engraving of a pointed oval with internal hatching (Chauvet, 1910); 3: Petersfels (D). Possible depictions of fish on a reindeer antler beam (Mauser, 1970); 4: Abri de La Madeleine (F). Representations of fish (Capitan and Peyrony, 1928).

**Fig. 18** – 1: Abri Schweizersbild. Fragment d'un bâton percé avec la gravure en forme de fuseau dont l'intérieur est hachuré de traits obliques (dessin B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen et Peyer, 1994); 2: Le Placard (F). Fragment de bois de renne avec la gravure en forme de fuseau dont l'intérieur est hachuré de traits obliques (Chauvet, 1910); 3: Peterfels (D). Figures possibles de poissons sur bois de renne (Mauser, 1970); 4: Abri de La Madeleine (F). Représentations des poissons (Capitan et Peyrony, 1928).

**Abb. 18** – 1: Abri Schweizersbild. Lochstabfragment mit Gravierung eines Spitzovals mit schräger Innenschraffierung (Zeichnung B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen und Peyer, 1994); 2: Le Placard (F). Rentiergeweiħfragment mit ähnlicher Gravierung wie beim Fund aus dem Abri Schweizersbild mit schrägen Strichen im Inneren (Chauvet, 1910); 3: Petersfels (D). Rentiergeweiħstange mit möglichen Fischgravierungen (Mauser, 1970); 4: Abri de La Madeleine (F). Fischdarstellungen (Capitan und Peyrony, 1928).

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 19** – Abri Schweizersbild. Limestone plaquette engraved on both sides (drawing B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen and Peyer, 1994). 1: Engraved lines and indecipherable lines; 2: Engraved does and a potential female representation of the Gönnersdorf-Lalinde type.

**Fig. 19** – Abri Schweizersbild. Plaquette en calcaire gravée sur les deux faces (dessin B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen et Peyer, 1994). 1: Chevaux gravés et des lignes non déchiffrables; 2: Biches gravées et une représentation probable d'une femme du type Gönnersdorf-Lalinde.

**Abb. 19** – Abri Schweizersbild. Beidseitig graviertes Kalksteinplättchen (Zeichnung B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen et Peyer, 1994). 1: Gravierte Pferde und nicht entzifferbare Linien; 2: Gravierte Hirschkühe und eine mögliche Frauendarstellung vom Typ Gönnersdorf-Lalinde.
In 1954, W. Mamber found a piece of lignite in the old excavation spoil (fig. 20, n° 5). It is referred to as a female figurine, even more stylized than similar specimens from Petersfels (see below), which are also made of lignite. The breasts and legs are indicated by two incised notches (Höneisen, 1993a; Höheisen and Peyer, 1994; Mauser, 1970; Peters, 1930; Schmid, 1975).

As at the Kesslerloch site, a number of bone and antler fragments with non-figurative engravings were also discovered at the Abri Schweizersbild (Höneisen and Peyer, 1994).

## Rislisberghöhle

After schoolchildren had found the first stone tools in the Rislisberghöhle cave at Oensingen (fig. 1, n° 25), Canton Solothurn, in the southern part of the Jura mountains, the site was excavated by the Archaeological Service of the Canton of Solothurn in 1971 and 1973. Numerous stone artefacts were discovered, as well as tools made of organic material and three fireplaces (Barr, 1977). The finds date from the Late Magdalenian (Barr, 1977; Leesch and Müller, 2012).

Although only a few portable art objects were found, one of them is of great importance. Next to a hearth, a fragment of a scapula was discovered with an engraving of the head and neck of an ibex (Barr, 1977; here: fig. 21).

It is so far the only recognisable Magdalenian engraving of an ibex to have been found in Switzerland.

Fragments of five flat bone plates were found, all with engraved decorations and with approximately parallel lines running along one side. Two of them could be joined together. They probably served as pendants, because one of them shows a perforation at one end (Leesch and Müller, 2012; Leesch et al., 2019).

The forearm bone of a raven was also found, with several short, engraved lines at the points where the feathers would have grown (Leesch and Müller, 2012; Leesch et al., 2019).

## Monruz

This very important open-air site, with well-preserved Late Magdalenian settlement remains, is well-known (fig. 1, n° 35). It was discovered in 1989 during the construction of the A5 motorway near the town of Neuchâtel, not far from the shores of Lake Neuchâtel. It was excavated between 1989 and 1992 by the Archaeological Service of Canton Neuchâtel (Affolter et al., 1994; Bullinger et al., 2006). Three stylized female figurines made of lignite were found (fig. 20, n°s 2-4), two of them complete. Perforated holes in their upper section indicate that they were pendants. Figurines from Petersfels (fig. 20, n° 1 and fig. 22, n°s 1-11)

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 20** – Stylized female figurines in lignite. 1 and 6: Peterfels (D); 2-4: Monruz; 5: Abri Schweizersbild; 7: Moosbühl (drawings B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993a).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 20** – Statuettes féminines stylisées en lignite. 1 et 6 : Peterfels (D) ; 2-4 : Monruz ; 5 : Abri Schweizersbild ; 7 : Moosbühl (dessins B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993a).</caption>

<caption>**Abb. 20** – Stilisierte Frauenstatuetten aus Gagat. 1 und 6: Petersfels (D); 2-4: Monruz; 5: Abri Schweizersbild; 7: Moosbühl (Zeichnungen B. Scheffold, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen, in Höheisen, 1993a).</caption>
are almost identical in form and material. Non-figurative lignite pendants from Monruz also have great similarities with examples from Petersfels (Affolter et al., 1994; Bullinger, 2006; Egloff, 1999).

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the same group of people settled in Monruz and Petersfels. The stylized design of the female figurines resembles that of other Late Magdalenian female representations from elsewhere in Europe (Bosinski, 2011; Braun, 2006 and 2019; Höck, 1993; Höheisen, 1993a). A similar figurine made of ivory was found in the Pekárna cave in Moravia (Valoch, 2001; here fig. 22, n° 12).

## Moosbühl

This open-air site at Moosseedorf in the Bernese Central Plateau was discovered in 1860 (fig. 1, n°. 33). Along with Monruz and Hauterive-Champréveyres in the canton of Neuchâtel, it is one of the most important Magdalenian open-air sites in Switzerland.

Only one portable art object is known from Moosbühl: a sculpture made of lignite, interpreted as a stylized female figurine (fig. 20, n° 7). The representation is even more abstract than that of the figurines from Monruz, the Abri Schweizersbild and Petersfels, however, with the upper and lower parts of the body simply separated by a notch (Höneisen, 1993a; Schwab, 1985). Schwab (1985) considers the possibility that the figurine may represent a beetle, like the lignite figurines from Kleine Scheuer

and Petersfels. In this case, it can also be compared to the figurine from the Grotte du Trilobite in Arcy-sur-Cure in Yonne, which is interpreted as a beetle, carved from the same material and attributed to the Magdalenian (Baffier and Girard, 1998). There are, indeed, certain similarities between the two objects (Braun, 2019). Beads made of lignite from the Moosbühl site have parallels with beads from Monruz and Petersfels.

## Hollenberghöhle 3

The Hollenberghöhle 3 cave site is located in Arlesheim (fig. 1, n° 14) in the canton of Baselland and was discovered in 1950 by M. Herkert and A. Schwabe. Excavations were carried out by the discoverers, then by R. Bay in 1952, and finally by J. Sedlmeier in 1977. Stone tools, projectile points, shells, a large number of unworked fragments of reindeer antler, and pigments including hematite and other iron oxides were found. The finds date from the Late Magdalenian (Bay, 1953; Sedlmeier, 1982).

In the context of this article, four undecorated, perforated disks are worth mentioning: a complete lignite disk, and a stone disk and two bone disks that are only preserved as fragments. The lignite and bone disks have parallels from Kesslerloch, Abri Schweizersbild, Freudenthalhöhle and Petersfels (fig. 23). Stone disks are also known from the important Late Magdalenian site of Gönnersdorf in Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany (Bosinski, 1976/77).

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 21 – Rislisberghöhle. Front quarters of an ibex engraved on a shoulder blade (photo Kantonsarchäologie Solothurn).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 21 – Rislisberghöhle. Partie gravée d’un avant-train d’un bouquetin sur omoplate (photo Kantonsarchäologie Solothurn).</caption>

<caption>Abb. 21 – Rislisberghöhle. Gravierter Vorderkörper eines Steinbocks auf einem Schulterblattknochen (Foto Kantonsarchäologie Solothurn).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 22 – 1-11: Petersfels (D). Stylized female figurines made of lignite (Mauser, 1970); 12: Pekárna (PL). Stylized female figurine in ivory (Valoch, 2001).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 22 – 1-11 : Petersfels (D). Statuettes féminines stylisées en lignite (Mauser, 1970) ; 12 : Statuette féminine stylisée en ivoire (Valoch, 2001).</caption>

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 23 – Distribution of sites with lignite discs (Leesch et al., 2019).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 23 – Répartition des sites avec des rondelles en lignite (Leesch et al., 2019).</caption>

<caption>Abb. 23 – Verbreitung der Rondelle aus Gagat (Leesch et al., 2019).</caption>
An object made of lignite from Hollenberghöhle 3 is somewhat controversial. According to Bay (1953), it is a fragment of a stylized female figurine, similar to those from Petersfels. Sedlmeier (1982), however, rejects this interpretation. Braun (2006 and 2019) considers it to be a semi-finished female figurine that was broken during fabrication (fig. 24). A baton made of lignite was also found (Bay, 1953; Sedlmeier, 1982). It has no parallels, however, and its exact function is unclear.

## Kohlerhöhle

In the area of the Birs Valley, between Basel and Delémont, there are numerous Palaeolithic cave and rock-shelter sites. Most of them were discovered and excavated at the end of the 19th and in the first half of the 20th century (Braun, 2015; Sarasin, 1918; Sedlmeier, 1990).

The Kohlerhöhle site is located in the Kaltbrunnen Valley in the municipality of Brislach, Canton Baselland (fig. 1, n° 17). In the same valley are the Palaeolithic sites of Heidenküche (fig. 1, n° 19) and Kastelhöhle (fig. 1, n° 20), both in the municipality of Himmelried, Canton Solothurn.

The Palaeolithic Kohlerhöhle site was discovered by H. Kohler in 1934 and was excavated under his direction between 1934 and 1938, in collaboration with C. Lüdin and E. Kräuliger. Of particular importance is the upper layer, which belongs to the Late Magdalenian (Sedlmeier, 1993).

The finds include a perforated bone fragment, a complete perforated hyoid bone (stylohyoid) of an aurochs, and a hyoid bone of a horse, also perforated, fractured in the area of the hyoid bone branch (fig. 25). According to Sedlmeier (1993), the purpose of these objects is unclear, but to Braun (2019), the perforated horse hyoid bone, in particular, suggests a possible semi-finished *contour découpé*. *Contours découpés* are well known from Middle Magdalenian sites along the French Pyrenees and often represent horse's heads (Buisson et al., 1996). Saint-Périer (1930) provides a good illustration of the production process of a *contour découpé* of a horse's head, also

made of the hyoid bone of a horse, based on finds from the Isturitz cave in Pyrénées-Atlantiques (fig. 26).

## PORTABLE ART OF THE FINAL PALAEO-LITHIC IN SWITZERLAND

Portable art from the Final Palaeolithic is so far only documented at one site in Switzerland. This is the semi-cave at Birseck-Ermitage (fig. 1, n° 13), a site in Canton Baselland not far from the Hollenberghöhle 3 site at Arlesheim.

F. Sartorius-Preiswerk discovered the prehistoric site in 1910 during a test excavation lasting only a few days. It was fully excavated in the same year and again in a short excavation, in 1914, under the direction of F. Sarasin. The finds are attributed to the Magdalenian, the Azilian and the Neolithic. Separate Magdalenian and Azilian layers could not be distinguished, however, by the differences in the fauna or the art objects (Sarasin, 1918).

The finds include 292 limestone pebbles. Some are flat and others are elongated. These pebbles have red stripes painted on one side, and in some cases on both sides (fig. 27), while others are completely red (Braun, 2007 and 2019; Sarasin, 1918; Sedlmeier, 2015). According to Sarasin (1918), most of them were found in a nest-like arrangement. Aware of their importance, he compared them (1913 and 1918) with the Azilian pebbles, also painted with red pigments, from Piette's excavations in Le Mas d'Azil and presented them (1913) at the 14th International Congress of Anthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology in Geneva in 1912, where they aroused great interest among researchers. In contrast to the finds from Le Mas d'Azil, the pebbles from Birseck-Ermitage do not have red dot motifs. Birseck-Ermitage was the first site outside France where red-painted pebbles from the Azilian were found and it is still the most northerly known so far (Couraud, 1985). As such, and given the large number of pebbles found here, it is of great international importance.

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 24 – Hollenberghöhle 3. Possible semi-finished female figurine carved in lignite (Sedlmeier, 1982).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 24 – Hollenberghöhle 3. Ebauche probable d'une statuette féminine en lignite (Sedlmeier, 1982).</caption>

<caption>Abb. 24 – Hollenberghöhle 3. Mögliches Halbfabrikat einer Frauenstatuette aus Gagat (Sedlmeier, 1982).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

Fig. 25 – Kohlerhöhle. Fractured, perforated stylohyoid bone of a horse. Semi-finished *contour découpé*? (photo and © A. Fischer, Archäologie und Museum Baselland).

Fig. 25 – Kohlerhöhle. Stylohyoid fracturé et perforé de cheval. Ebauche d'un contour découpé ? (photo et © A. Fischer, Archäologie und Museum Baselland).

Abb. 25 – Kohlerhöhle. Fragmentiertes und durchbohrtes Zungenbein (Stylohyoid) vom Wildpferd. Halbfabrikat eines contour découpé? (Foto und © A. Fischer, Archäologie und Museum Baselland).

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>

Fig. 26 – Illustration of the production process of a *contour découpé* based on finds from the Isturitz cave, after Saint-Périer (1930).

Fig. 26 – Illustration du processus de fabrication d’un contour découpé à partir de trouvailles de la grotte d’Isturitz selon Saint-Périer (1930).

Abb. 26 – Herstellungsprozess eines contour découpé anhand der Funde von Isturitz nach Saint-Périer (1930).

Sedlmeier (2015) assembled some of the broken painted pebbles and discovered that many of them had been broken after they were painted. While Sara-sin (1918) assumed that the pebbles came from the nearby river Birs, microscopic examinations by J. Affolter showed that they came from a cave in the Jura region. This determination is based on the slight cal-cite coating of a large number of the pebbles, caused by the gentle circulation of water that occurs in caves (Sedlmeier, 2015).

The nearest sites to Birseck-Ermitage with Azilian red painted pebbles are the Abri Rochedane in Doubs

(fig. 28) and the Abri Gay in Ain, south-west of Geneva (fig. 29). At both these sites, as at Birseck-Ermitage, the painting was applied in stripes, but in the case of Abri Rochedane, it was also applied in dots (Couraud, 1985; Couraud and Desbrosse, 1981/82; David et al., 1998; Floss et al., 2009). Another red-painted pebble was found at the Kleine Scheuer site in the Lone valley in Baden-Württemberg (fig. 30). This flat pebble is 9.5 cm long and 5.5 cm wide and the red paint is applied in four double rows of small dots. It is unclear whether it dates from the Magdalenian or the Late Palaeolithic (Conard and Floss, 2001; Floss et al., 2009; Hahn et al., 1985).
<figure><img src="image_79.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 27 – Birseck-Ermitage. Red painted pebbles dating from the Azilian (Sarasin, 1918).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 27 – Birseck-Ermitage. Galets peints en rouge de l’Azilien (Sarasin, 1918).</caption>

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 28 – Abri Rochedane (F). Red painted pebbles from the Azilian (Collection Musées de Montbéliard. Photo DR).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 28 – Abri Rochedane (F). Galets peints en rouge de l’Azilien (Collection Musées de Montbéliard. Photo DR).</caption>

<caption>Abb. 28 – Abri Rochedane (F). Rot bemalte Gerölle aus dem Azilien (Collection Musées de Montbéliard. Foto DR).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_81.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 29 – Abri Gay (F). Red painted pebbles from the Azilian (Courraud and Desbrosse, 1981/82).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 29 – Abri Gay (F). Galets peints en rouge de l'Azilien (Courraud et Desbrosse, 1981/82).</caption>

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 30 – Kleine Scheuer (D). Red painted pebble from the Magdalenian or Late Palaeolithic (Conard and Floss, 2001).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 30 – Kleine Scheuer (D). Galet peint en rouge du Magdalénien ou de l'Épipaléolithique (Conard et Floss, 2001).</caption>

<caption>Abb. 30 – Kleine Scheuer (D). Rot bemaltes Geröll aus dem Magdalénien oder Spätpaläolithikum (Conard und Floss, 2001).</caption>

## CONCLUSION

Only seven of the approximately fifty Magdalenian sites known in Switzerland yielded portable art objects (table 1). The best-known Swiss site with portable art is the Kesslerloch.

Swiss Magdalenian portable art can be divided into two groups: engravings and figural sculptures. Some of the objects are decorated with symbols or animal figures. Engravings are found mostly on reindeer antler, but also on bone, stone, and lignite. Most are on utilitarian objects, such as perforated batons, spear points and other tools. In addition to figurative motifs, such as animals and a possible animal-human representation, they consist mainly of symbols and other ornamental patterns. The term 'figural sculptures' is used to describe utilitarian objects with sculpted features, such as spear-thrower ends decorated with horse's heads, so-called 'spindle-shaped' sculptures, and very stylized female figurines. Apart from a musk-ox head from the Kesslerloch cave, no recognisably animal sculptures have so far been found in Switzerland. Figural sculptures are less frequent than engravings.

Numerous works of portable art in Switzerland are similar to portable art from south-west France and the

French Pyrenees; for instance, sculptured spear-throwers and decorated half-round rods with small nodular projections.

The similarities are so remarkable that the question arises whether the ideas for the objects and motifs spread over long distances through cultural exchange or through the migration of groups of people. In the latter case, isotopic studies of human skeletons would be informative. So far, however, only very few Magdalenian skeletal remains have been found in Switzerland that could answer this question.

Some objects, on the other hand, have characteristics which are typical of Swiss and South German portable art, for instance, the use of lignite for female figurines and discs.

The only Swiss site of the Late Palaeolithic with portable art is the semi-cave at Birseck-Ermitage (table 1). Numerous pebbles with red stripes painted on one side, and in some cases both sides, were found in an Azilian layer. Similar pebbles have been found at other Azilian sites, for example, in the French Pyrenees. The nearest sites with Azilian red-painted pebbles are the Abri Rochedane and the Abri Gay, south-west of Geneva, in the French departments of Doubs and Ain, respectively, and possibly the Kleine Scheuer site in the Lone valley in Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Kesslerloch*</th><th>Freudenthalh.</th><th>Schweizersbild</th><th>Rislisbergh.</th><th>Monruz</th><th>Moosbühl</th><th>Hollenbergh. 3</th><th>Kohlerhöhle</th><th>Birseck-Ermitage</th><th>TOTAL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Magdalenian portable art:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Engraved perforated batons</td><td>30</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Sculptured spear throwers</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Decorated half round rods</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Decorated and undecorated discs</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Spindle-shaped sculptures</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Engravings on bone / antler</td><td>30</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Engraved stone plaquettes</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Engraved lignite plaquettes</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Engraved projectile points / harpoons</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Engraved pendants</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Female figurines in jet</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Animal sculptures in antler</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Animal sculptures in lignite</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Contours découpés (?)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Late Palaeolithic portable art:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Painted pebbles</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>133</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>109</td><td>4</td><td>16</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>133</td><td>133</td></tr></tbody></table>

* = approximate number

<caption>**Table 1** Number of different types of portable art at Swiss Magdalenian and Late Palaeolithic sites.</caption>

<caption>**Tableau 1** – Nombre de différents types d'art mobilier sur des sites suisses du Magdalénien et du Paléolithique final.</caption>

<caption>**Tabelle 1** – Anzahl verschiedener Kleinkunsttypen auf Schweizer Fundstellen des Magdaléniens und Spätpaläolithikums.</caption>
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

AFFOLTER J., CATTIN M.-I., LEESCH D., MOREL P., PLUMETTAZ N., THEW N., WENDLING G. (1994) – Monruz – Une nouvelle station magdalénienne au bord du lac de Neuchâtel, *Archéologie Suisse*, 17, 3, p. 94-104.

BAFFIER D., GIRARD M. (1998) – *Les cavernes d'Arcy-sur-Cure*, Paris, Maison des roches, 120 p.

BANDI H.-G. (1968) – Eiszeitkunst und Zoologie, *Anthropos*, 63, p. 22-32.

BANDI H.-G., DELPORTE H. (1984) – Propulseurs décorés en France et en Suisse, in *Eléments de Pré- et Protohistoire européenne. Hommages à Jacques-Pierre Millotte*, Paris, Les Belles Lettres (Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besançon, Série archéologie, 32), p. 203-211.

BÉGOUEN H., BREUIL H. (1958) – *Les cavernes du Volp. Trois-Frères – Tuc d'Audoubert à Montesquieu-Avantès* (Ariège), Paris, Arts et Métiers Graphiques, 124 p.

BARR J. H. (1977) – Die Rislisberghöhle – Ein neuer Magdalénien-Fundplatz im Schweizer Jura, *Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt*, 7, p. 85-87.

BAY R. (1953) – Die Magdalénienstation am Hollenberg bei Arlesheim (Kanton Baselland), *Tätigkeitsberichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Baselland*, 19, p. 164-178.

BELLIER C., BOTT S., CATTELAIN P. (1991) – 5.1. Fiche Rondelles, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), *Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier IV : Objets de parure*, Aix-en-Provence, Publications de l'Université de Provence, p. 1-25.

BOSINSKI G. (1978) – Eine zusammengesetzte Magdalénien-Geschossspitze aus der Höhle im Freudenthal, Kanton Schaffhausen (Schweiz), *Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt*, 8, p. 87-89.

BOSINSKI G. (1982) – *Die Kunst der Eiszeit in Deutschland und der Schweiz*, Bonn, Habelt, 92 p.

BOSINSKI G. (2011) – *Femmes sans tête. Une icône culturelle dans l'Europe de la fin de l'époque glaciaire*, Paris, Errance, 228 p.

BOSINSKI H. (1976/77) – Die Rondelle des Magdalénien-Fundplatzes Gönnersdorf – Ein Arbeitsbericht, *Quartär*, 27, p. 153-160.

BOSINSKI H. (1980) – Nachbildungen von Seeigel und Seeigelstacheln im Magdalénien, *Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt*, 10, p. 11-16.

BRAUN I. M. (2006) – Art mobilier magdalénien en Suisse, *Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés*, 55, p. 25-44.

BRAUN I. M. (2007) – Rätselhaftes Rot – Die Arlesheimer Kiesel, in A. Schmid and A. Brust (eds.), *Rot – Wenn Farbe zur Täterin wird*, Basel, Christoph Merian Verlag und Museum der Kulturen, p. 75-77.

BRAUN I. M. (2012) – Künstlerische Zeugnisse aus der Altsteinzeit in Mitteldeutschland, *Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt*, 6, p. 263–276.

BRAUN I. M. (2015) – Von Jägern und Sammlern zu den ersten Ackerbauern – Urgeschichte des Laufentals. Der lange

Weg zum anatomisch modernen Menschen, *Museumsheft Laufental*, 28, p. 8–12.

BRAUN I. M. (2016) – The Musk ox (Ovibos moschatus) in the European Upper Palaeolithic portable art, in J.-J. Cleyet-Merle, J.-M. Geneste and E. Man-Estier (eds.), *L'art au quotidien – Objets ornés du Paléolithique supérieur*, Actes du colloque international (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, 2014), Les-Eyzies-de-Tayac-Sireuil, Musée national de la préhistoire (Paléo, special issue 2016), p. 285-299.

BRAUN I. M. (2018) – Upper Palaeolithic portable art objects in Central Germany and supra-regional parallels, *Paléo*, 29, p. 55-74.

BRAUN I. M. (2019) – Ausgewählte Beispiele der Kleinkunst des Spätglazials aus der Schweiz und überregionale Palalelen, in H. Floss (ed.), *Das Magdalénien im Südwesten Deutschlands, im Elsass und in der Schweiz, Tübingen, Kerns (Tübingen Publications in Prehistory)*, p. 277-296.

BREUIL H., SAINT-PÉRIER, DE R. (1927) – *Les poissons, les batraciens et les reptiles dans l'art quaternaire*, Paris, Masson et Cie (Archives de Paléontologie Humaine, Mémoire, 2), 165 p.

BULLINGER J. (2006) – Le jais, in J. Bullinger, D. Leesch and N. Plumettaz, *Le site magdalénien de Monruz. Premiers éléments pour l'analyse d'un habitat de plein air*, Neuchâtel, Service et Musée cantonal d'archéologie (Archéologie neuchâteloise, 33), p. 158-165.

BUISSON D., FRITZ C., KANDEL D., PINÇON G., SAUVET G., TOSELLO G. (1996) – Les contours découpés de têtes de chevaux et leur contribution à la connaissance du Magdalénien moyen, *Antiquités Nationales*, 28, p. 99-128.

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

CARTAILHAC E. (1903) – Les stations de Bruniquel sur les bords de l'Aveyron, *L'Anthropologie*, 14, p. 129-150 and p. 295-315.

CATTELAIN P. (2005) – Propulseurs magdaléniens : marqueurs culturels régionaux ? in V. Dujardin (ed.), *Industrie osseuse et parures du Solutréen au Magdalénien en Europe* (Angoulême, 2003), Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire, 39), p. 301-317.

CHAUVET G. (1910) – Os ivoires et bois de renne ouvrés de la Charente. Hypothèses paléthnographiques, Angoulême, E. Constantin (*Bulletin de la Société archéologique et historique de la Charente*, excerpt), p. 1-184.

CONARD N. J., FLOSS H. (2001) – *Neue Eiszeit-Kunstwerke von der Schwäbischen Alb, Begleitheft zur Sonderausstellung im Schloßmuseum Hohentübingen (16. Februar 2001 bis 1. Juli 2001)*, Blaubeuren, Urgeschichtliches Museum (Museumsheft, 4), 38 p.

COURAUD C. (1985) – *L'art azilien : Origine – survivance*, Paris, CNRS (Gallia Préhistoire, supplement 20), 175 p.

COURAUD C., DESBROSSE R. (1981/82) – Galets aziliens de l'Abri Gay à Poncin (Ain), *L'Anthropologie*, 85/86, p. 582-594.
CROTTI P. (1993) – Spätpaläolithikum und Mesolithikum in der Schweiz: die letzten Jäger, in J.-M. Le Tensorer and U. Niffeler (eds.), *SPM I – Die Schweiz vom Paläolithikum bis zum frühen Mittelalter. Band 1: Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum*, Basel, Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, p. 203-240.

DAVID S., D'ERRICO F., THÉVENIN A. (1998) – L'art mobilier de Ranchot (Jura) et de Rochedane (Doubs), in C. Cupillard and A. Richard (eds.), *Les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs du massif jurassien et de ses marges (13 000-5500 avant Jésus-Christ)*, Lons-le-Saunier, Centre Jurassien du Patrimoine, p. 192-200.

DINGFELDER J. H. (1961) – Oedemagena tarandi als bemer-
kenswerte Darstellung einer Insektenlarve aus dem Jungpa-
läolithikum, *Quartär*, 13, p. 91-92.

EGLOFF M. (1999) – Les figures féminines magdaléniennes de Neuchâtel, *Helvetia Archaeologica*, 117, p. 2-9.

FERUGLIO V. (1992) – 2.1. Fiche Baguettes demi-rondes, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), *Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier V : Bâtons percés, Baguettes, Aix-en-Provence, Publications de l'Université de Provence, p. 71-83*.

FEUSTEL R. (1980) – *Magdalénienstation Teufelsbrücke. I: Archäologischer Teil*, Weimar, Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Thüringens (Weimarer Monographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 3), 129 p.

FLOSS H., SEDLMEIER J., THÉVENIN A. (2009) – Bemalte Steine. Die Kunst des Azilien, in *Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg und Abteilung Ältere Urgeschichte und Quartärökologie der Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen* (eds.), *Eiszeit. Kunst und Kultur, Begleitband zur Großen Landesausstellung im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart* (18. September 2009 bis 10. Januar 2010), Ostfildern, Thorbecke, p. 312-316.

GARROD D. A. E. (1955) – Paleolithic Spear-Throwers, *Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society*, 21, p. 21-35.

GUYAN W. U. (1944) – Eine Speerschleuder vom Kesslerloch, *Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte*, 6, p. 75-84.

HAHN J., MÜLLER-BECK H., TAUTE W. (1985) – *Eiszeithöhlen im Lonetal*, Stuttgart, Konrad Theiss (Führer zu archäologischen Denkmälern in Baden-Württemberg, 3), 197 p.

HEIERLI J. (1907) – *Das Kesslerloch bei Thaingen, Zürich, Zürcher und Furrer (Neue Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 43)*, 214 p.

HÖCK C. (1993) – Die Frauenstatuetten von Gönnersdorf und Andernach, *Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 40*, 1, p. 253-316.

HÖNEISEN M. (1985) – Neu ergänzte Lochstäbe aus dem Kesslerloch bei Thayngen (Kanton Schaffhausen, Schweiz), *Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt*, 15, p. 411-416.

HÖNEISEN M. (1993a) – 4.7. Die Kunst des Jungpaläolithikums der Schweiz, in J.-M. Le Tensorer and U. Niffeler (eds.), *SPM I – Die Schweiz vom Paläolithikum bis zum frühen Mittelalter. Band 1: Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum*, Basel, Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, p. 187-199.

HÖNEISEN M. (1993b) – 4.5. Technologie und Verarbeitung von Geweih, Knochen und Elfenbein, in J.-M. Le Tensorer and U. Niffeler (eds.), *SPM I – Die Schweiz vom Paläolithikum bis zum frühen Mittelalter. Band 1: Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum*, Basel, Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, p. 173-181.

HÖNEISEN M., LEESCH D., LE TENSORER J.-M. (1993) – 4. Das späte Jungpaläolithikum, in J.-M. Le Tensorer and U. Niffeler (eds.), *SPM I – Die Schweiz vom Paläolithikum bis zum frühen Mittelalter. Band 1: Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum*, Basel, Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, p. 153-202.

HÖNEISEN M., PEYER S. (1994) – *Schweizersbild – ein Jägerlager der Späteiszeit, Schaffhausen, Kantonsarchäologie Schaffhausen (Schaffhauser Archäologie, 2)*, 236 p.

KARSTEN H. (1874) – Studie der Urgeschichte des Menschen in einer Höhle des Schaffhauser Jura, *Mitteilungen der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zürich*, 18, 6, p. 137-162.

LEESCH D., MÜLLER W. (2012) – Neue Erkenntnisse zur Lebensweise in der späten Eiszeit aus dem Käsloch, der Kastelhöhle und der Rislisberghöhle, *Jahrbuch Archäologie und Denkmalpflege im Kanton Solothurn*, 17, p. 41-51.

LEESCH D., BULLINGER J., MÜLLER W. (2019) – *Vivre en Suisse il y a 15 000 ans – Le Magdalénien*, Bâle, Archéologie Suisse, 175 p.

MAIER A. (2015) – The Central European Magdalenian. Regional Diversity and Internal Variability, Heidelberg, New York, London, Springer, 455 p.

MAUSER P. F. (1970) – *Die jungpaläolithische Höhlenstation Petersfels im Hegau (Gemarkung Bittelbrunn, Landkreis Konstanz)*, Freiburg, Staatliches Amt für Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Badische Fundberichte, Sonderheft 13), 127 p., 114 pl.

MERK K. (1875) – Der Höhlenfund im Kesslerloch, *Mitteilungen der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft Zürich*, 19, 1, p. 1-44.

MÜLLER E. (1989) – Eine altsteinzeitliche Steinbockgravierung aus dem Kesslerloch bei Thayngen, *Helvetia Archaeologica*, 80, p. 118-122.

NÜESCH J. (1902) – *Das Schweizersbild, eine Niederlassung aus paläolithischer und neolithischer Zeit, Zürich, Zürcher und Furrer (Neue Denkschriften der Allgemeinen Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für die gesamten Naturwissenschaften, 35)*, 367 p.

NÜESCH J. (1904) – *Das Kesslerloch, eine Höhle aus paläolithischer Zeit. Neue Grabungen und Funde, Zürich, Zürcher und Furrer (Neue Denkschriften der Allgemeinen Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für die gesamten Naturwissenschaften, 39)*, 128 p.

PETERS E. (1930) – *Die altsteinzeitliche Kulturstätte Petersfels, Augsburg, Filser, 75 p.*

SAINT-PÉRIER, DE R. (1930) – *La grotte d'Isturitz I – Le Magdalénien de la Salle de Saint-Martin, Paris, Masson et Cie* (Archives de Paléontologie Humaine, Mémoire, 7), 123 p.

SARASIN F. (1913) – Les galets coloriés de la grotte de Birseck près Bâle, in W. Deonna (ed.), *Congrès international d'Anthropologie et d'Archéologie préhistoriques. Compte rendu de la XIVe session (Genève, 1912)*, Genève, Imprimerie Albert Kündig, p. 566-571.
SARASIN F. (1918) – Die steinzeitlichen Stationen des Birstales zwischen Basel und Delsberg, *Neue Denkschriften der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft*, 54, 2, p. 79-290.

SCHMID E. (1975) – Neue Objekte der altsteinzeitlichen Kunst, *Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel*, 86, p. 343-347.

SCHWAB H. (1985) – Gagat und Bernstein auf dem Rentierjägerhalt Moosbühl bei Moosseedorf (Kt. Bern), *Jahrbuch des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern*, 63/64, p. 259-263.

SEDLMEIER J. (1982) – *Die Hollenberg-Höhle 3. Eine Magdalé-nien-Fundstelle bei Arlesheim, Kanton Basel-Landschaft, Derendingen-Solothurn, Habegger (Basler Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 8)*, 101 p.

SEDLMEIER J. (1990) – *Urgeschichte des Laufentals – Auf den Spuren steinzeitlicher Jäger und Sammler*, Laufen, Laufen-taler Museum (Laufentaler Museumsheft), 40 p.

SEDLMEIER J. (1993) – Altsteinzeitliche Funde aus der Kohlerhöhle im Laufental, *Archäologie der Schweiz*, 16, 2, p. 40-45.

SEDLMEIER J. (2015) – *Die letzten Wildbeuter der Eiszeit – Neue Forschungen zum Spätpaläolithikum im Kanton Basel-Landschaft, Basel, Schwabe (Schriften zur Archäologie Baselland, 51)*, 300 p.

STODIEK U. (1993) – *Zur Technologie der jungpaläolithischen Speerschleuder – Eine Studie auf der Basis archäologischer, ethnologischer und experimenteller Erkenntnisse, Tübingen, Archaeologica Venatoria (Tübinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte, 9)*, 276 p.

VALOCH K. (2001) – Das Magdalénien in Mähren – 130 Jahre Forschung, *Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz*, 48, 1, p. 103-159.

WORM H. (1980) – Zwei Anhänger aus der Höhle im Freudenthal, Kanton Schaffhausen (Schweiz), *Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt*, 10, p. 9-10.

Ingmar M. BRAUN
Wyhlenweg 4, CH-4126 Bettingen
ingmarbraun@gmx.ch
www.palaeolithikum.com
<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

En Mouvement / On the Move / In Bewegung

Mobilités des hommes, des objets et des idées pendant le Paléolithique supérieur européen

Mobility of people, objects and ideas during the European Upper Palaeolithic

Mobilität von Menschen, Objekten und Ideen im europäischen Jungpaläolithikum

Actes de la séance commune de la Société préhistorique française et la
Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft à Strasbourg (16 - 17 mai 2019)

Textes publiés sous la direction de
Ludovic MEVEL, Mara-Julia WEBER et Andreas MAIER

Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2021

(Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 17), p. 149-171

www.prehistoire.org

ISSN : 2263-3847 – ISBN : 2-913745-86-5 (en ligne)

Some weapons to take away: The spread of decorated projectile points across Magdalenian societies

Des armes à emporter : La diffusion des armatures décorées dans les sociétés magdaléniennes

Waffen zum Mitnehmen: Die Verbreitung von dekorierten Projektilköpfen in Magdalénien-Gesellschaften

Claire LUCAS

**Abstract:** This paper presents a consideration on the spread of decorated weapon tips across Magdalenian societies. Based on a comprehensive review of the ten types of decorations identified on weapon tips from south-western France, the comparative analysis of their distribution shows their value to document both short and long distances relationships, depending on the types of decorated weapons. The distribution maps indeed highlight widespread cultural markers, such as the points and half-round rods with protuberances, coexisting with local and interregional types, the diffusion areas of which partly overlap. Some types with only limited distribution suggest local identities, especially in the cases of the points and half-round rods decorated with spirals and circles from the western Pyrenean Middle Magdalenian and the points and large bevelled rods with macrocephalic horses or fish-shaped patterns from the Upper Magdalenian of Dordogne. While the Pyrenean area retains the main sets for the decorated weapons from the Middle Magdalenian and therefore appears to have had a significant influence during this period, the decorated weapons from the Upper Magdalenian seem to originate from different areas. They tend to be essentially concentrated in different areas (Capra in frontal view along the Cantabrian coast, macrocephalic horses and fish-shaped patterns in Dordogne), supporting higher regional disparities. Furthermore, reduced evidence for links with the Cantabrian coast during the Upper Magdalenian also supports an evolution of the exchange networks in the course of the Magdalenian.

**Keywords:** Magdalenian, Portable art, Osseous industry, Weapon tip, Engraving, Spread.

**Résumé :** Les armes, ayant connu une diffusion particulièrement dynamique dans de nombreuses sociétés de par le monde, font partie des objets qui ont généralement une place importante dans les réseaux d'échanges. En complément de la forme et de la manufacture des armes, leurs décors sont étroitement liés aux pratiques esthétiques et symboliques de certaines populations et, par conséquent, susceptibles d'apporter un éclairage original sur les relations entretenues par les occupants de différents sites et de différentes zones géographiques. Cet article propose une réflexion sur la diffusion des armatures décorées à travers les sociétés magdaléniennes. Nous y présentons les caractéristiques des dix types de décors identifiés sur les armatures avérées (pointes de sagaie) et présumées (baguettes demi-rondes, grandes pointes et grandes pièces biseautées) du Magdalénien moyen et supérieur du sud-ouest de la France. L'analyse comparative des cartes de répartition montre leur valeur pour documenter des relations à courtes et longues distances, selon les types d'armatures décorées. Elle fait en effet ressortir de véritables marqueurs culturels à large diffusion, tels que les pointes et baguettes demi-rondes à
tubérosités, qui coexistent avec des types d'armatures ornées moins répandus, diffusés à des échelles locales ou inter-régionales dont les aires de répartition se superposent partiellement. Tandis que les décors inter-régionaux indiquent des relations plus ou moins soutenues entre différentes zones, les types d'armatures ornées à diffusion plus limitée suggèrent des identités locales. C'est notamment le cas des pointes et baguettes demi-rondes à décor spiralés du Magdalénien moyen des Pyrénées occidentales et des pointes et grandes pièces biseautées à chevaux macrocéphales ou motifs pisciformes du Magdalénien supérieur de Dordogne.

Cette étude suggère une évolution des réseaux d'échanges au cours du Magdalénien. Alors que l'aire pyrénéenne retient les séries les plus importantes pour les types d'armatures décorées du Magdalénien moyen et paraît donc avoir exercé une large influence à cette période, les décors du Magdalénien supérieur semblent provenir des différentes zones. Une tendance à la concentration de certains types de décors dans certaines zones (Caprinés en vue frontale sur la côte cantabriques, chevaux macrocéphales et motifs pisciformes en Dordogne) conduit à envisager des disparités régionales plus marquées au Magdalénien supérieur. Les relations entre le sud-ouest de la France et la côte cantabrique semblent en outre s'estomper à cette période si l'on en juge par la plus faible présence des décors partagés par rapport au Magdalénien moyen.

**Mots-clés** : Magdalénien, Art mobilier, Industrie osseuse, Armature, Gravure, Diffusion.

**Zusammenfassung:** Dieser Aufsatz präsentiert Überlegungen zur Verteilung dekorierter Waffenköpfe in Magdalénien-Gesellschaften. Eine umfassende Begutachtung identifizierte zehn Dekorationstypen bei Waffenköpfen aus Südwest-Frankreich. Eine vergleichende Analyse ihrer Verbreitung zeigt ihren Wert bei der Dokumentation von Beziehungen über kurze und lange Distanzen, abhängig vom Typus der verzierten Waffen. Die Verbreitungskarten machen weit verbreitete kulturelle Marker sichtbar, wie beispielsweise die Spitzen und Halbrundstäbe mit Noppenverzierung, die mit lokalen und interregionalen Typen koexistieren und deren Verbreitungsgebiete sich teilweise überlappen. Einige Typen verzierter Waffen mit begrenzter Verbreitung deuten lokale Identitäten an. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Spitzen und Halbrundstäbe mit Spiral- und Kreisornamentik des Mittleren Magdalénien der westlichen Pyrenäen sowie die Spitzen und Stäbe mit abgeschrägter Basis mit makrozaphalen Pferden oder fischförmigen Mustern des Späten Magdalénien der Dordogne. Während die dekorierten Waffen des Mittleren Magdalénien hauptsächlich aus den Pyrenäen stammen und daher einen signifikanten Einfluss dieser Region während dieser Zeit nahelegen, scheinen die dekorierten Waffen des Späten Magdalénien aus verschiedenen Bereichen zu stammen. Sie tendieren dazu, sich im Wesentlichen in verschiedenen Bereichen zu konzentrieren (Capra in Frontalansicht entlang der kantabrischen Küste, makrozephale Pferde und fischförmige Muster in der Dordogne), was die Interpretation höherer regionaler Unterschiede unterstützt. Außerdem wird auch die Interpretation einer Evolution der Austauschnetzwerke im Verlauf des Magdalénien durch den verringerten Nachweis von Beziehungen mit der kantabrischen Küste während des Späten Magdalénien gestützt.

**Schlüsselwörter:** Magdalénien, Mobile Kunst, Knochenindustrie, Waffenspitze, Gravierung, Verbreitung.

## INTRODUCTION

WEAPONS in general have been subjected to a particularly dynamic spread in numerous societies across the world. They stand amongst the most emblematic objects playing a significant role in exchange networks, and their diffusion areas happen to expand over long distances that may even extend beyond the cultural (and linguistic) territory of a given population (Boas, 1899; Wiessner, 1983; Bush, 1985; Lemonnier, 1987; Bosc-Zanardo et al., 2009). In addition to the shape and manufacture of the weapons, their decorations reflect the aesthetic and symbolic behaviours of each population and can, therefore, highlight relationships maintained by occupants of different sites and distinct geographic areas. Within the ethnographic record, decorations on projectile points are generally rare; the shafts and foreshafts present most of the paintings, engravings, and occasionally sculptures, as well as some patterns created by ligatures, feathers and other additional materials. With only the projectile tips and few foreshafts made of lithic and osseous materials being preserved in Magdalenian settlements, we are deprived of significant parts of the composite weapons (Bertrand, 1999; Pétillon, 2006). However, numerous Magdalenian osseous points, half-round rods and barbed points show decorative and/or symbolic patterns (e.g. Baulois, 1980; Julien, 1982; Feruglio, 1992; Lucas,

2014a), suggesting an original development of decorations on projectile tips in these societies. The decorations are mainly performed by engraving, with occasional embossed designs; and some rare remnants of colourants at the bottom of incisions, including alternating red and black pigments, indicate the deliberate colouration of some engravings (Buisson et al., 2003; Lucas, 2014b).

## CORPUS AND METHODS

The following synthesis on the spread of decorated weapons is based on collections from south-western France directly studied by the author as part of a PhD (Lucas, 2014a) and post-doctoral research, including over 600 pieces from 11 sites (Espalungue, Saint-Michel, Isturitz, Duruthy, Grand Pastou, Dufaure, Brassempouy, Courbet, Montastruc, La Madeleine, and Laugerie-Basse). Building up from there, an extensive literature review has been conducted in order to record pieces showing similar decorations across Europe. As ever, the bibliographic data remains incomplete, with some site's collections more exhaustively published than others, and should be regarded as a state of research likely to be augmented by future publications and discoveries. Moreover, critical decisions have been made for the selection of the objects regarded as weapon tips and the types of
decorations presented in this paper, as well as for the
quantitative basis of their diffusion analysis.

Weapon tips

The corpus retains widely recognised projectile points
as well as presumed ones, i.e. objects for which use as
part of weapons is not as well ascertained yet (fig. 1).
Palaeolithic osseous projectile points are defined as
elongated objects with a penetrating distal tip, usually
pointed, a shaft without clear angle change, and a base
shaped in different ways for their hafting (Delporte et
al., 1988; Bertrand, 1999; Pétillon, 2006). Their use as a
projectile can be confirmed by characteristic impact dam-
ages, such as distal crushing, distal splitting, and distal
bevelled breaks, reproduced during experimental shoot-
ing sessions (notably Pétillon et al., 2016). Such charac-
teristic use-wear and use-breaks have been documented
on Magdalenian bevel-based points, fork-based points
and point-based or thin-based points (Pétillon, 2006),
including some decorated ones (Lucas, 2014a; here: fig.
1.1). In addition, the specific shape and functional fea-
tures of Magdalenian barbed points or harpoons reason-
ably place them within the scope of weaponry (Julien,
1982; Pétillon, 2009; Ickerodt, 2013; here: fig. 1.2), and
their use and recuperation patterns are consistent with this
function (Langley, 2014 and 2015). However, many dec-
orations appear on large points, half-round rods, and large
bevelled rods, for which a function as projectile tips has
been less well demonstrated so far:

– While the dimensions of the better characterised projectile points range from 7-12 mm in maximal width and 6-9 mm in maximal thickness (Bertrand, 1999), some fragments of points are significantly larger (up to 20 mm in width and thickness; fig. 1.4). Some of these large points show ancient bevelled breaks on the mid-section (Lucas, 2014a), possibly resulting from a violent use even if such breaks on the mesial part cannot be regarded as diagnostic of a use as projectile in the actual state of the experimental record.

– Half-round rods (fig. 1.3) are elongated osseous arte-
facts with a semi-circular cross-section, usually showing
a convex upper face and a flat lower face which is often
engraved with adherence striations (Feruglio, 1992). Alto-
gether, their assembly with a twin half-round rod, their
ends fitting within the range of proximal and distal ends
documented on projectile points, their similar longitudi-
nal grooves and decorations, and the presence of numer-
ous ancient bevelled breaks on the mid-sections support
an interpretation as weapon tips (Feruglio, 1992; Feruglio
and Buisson, 1999; Lucas, 2014a; Langley et al., 2015;
Feruglio and Averbouh, 2016). Nevertheless, this hypothe-
sis would benefit from testing through advanced functional
analyses, especially as some half-round rods may have
been parts of foreshafts instead of projectile points.

– ‘Large bevelled rods’ as a term refers here to a fairly
homogeneous category of antler objects normally show-
ing a particularly thick (>10 mm) sub-square cross-section
with one end shaped into a double bevel (fig. 1.5). As the

opposite end often presents clear compression and flaking
due to percussion, these objects have been regarded either
as chisels, or wedges (Deffarge et al., 1977; Allain and
Rigaud, 1986; Pétillon, 2006), or as large points reused as
chisels after breakage (Saint-Périer, 1936; Sacchi, 1990).
In most cases, the engraved decoration is truncated and
overlapped by the percussion damage at the straight end
(Lucas, 2012 and 2014a). The engravings must therefore
have extended beyond the current proximal end of the
chisel, which occasionally shows evidence of a bevelled
break. In addition, several pieces present parallel lines
roughly engraved on the bevelled end that are similar to
the adherence striations documented on numerous projec-
tile points, as well as partly converging edges reminiscent
of some rare pointed examples (ibid.). Furthermore, large
bevelled rods have been engraved on their lateral faces
with decorations similar to those on Upper Magdalenian
points. The evidence suggests these were initially large
decorated points, before being reused as chisels following
a break.

These are some of the most frequently engraved
objects. Large pieces are over-represented amongst the
decorated points (Lucas, 2014a), 40 to 60% of the half-
round rods are decorated (Feruglio and Averbouh, 2016),
and first assessments suggest over 60% of the large bev-
elled rods are decorated (Lucas, 2014a). This may be in
accordance with the larger investment dedicated to their
production. The latter, as remarkable presumed weapons,
are therefore integrated to the present study.

Types of decorations

Functional features and decorations do not neces-
sarily spread along the same paths, as the practicalities
of the former are irrelevant to the diffusion of decora-
tions. Engravings possibly designed for improving the
manufacturing process, the assembly, or the efficiency
of the weapons, rather than for decorative or symbolic
purposes, have therefore been excluded from the study.
For instance, this paper does not take into account the
deep, straight, longitudinal grooves (including those
with thin curved incisions at the bottom of the groove)
engraved on projectile points and half-round rods, even
when their functional role for the insertion of bladelets
or poison remains hypothetical. Many engraved barbed
points are not treated here either, due to the difficulties
in distinguishing potential functional adjustments from
decorations on this type of object (Julien, 1982 and
1999). A number of engravings on Magdalenian barbed
points underline the shape of the object, such as the arcs
engraved on the barbs and various incisions on the shaft,
which may or may not be related to the making and use
of the barbed points. Further research will be necessary
in order to determine their role before we can put forward
additional types of decorations on barbed points.

For the purpose of this paper, the corpus only retains
weapons with well-defined types of decorations that stand
out because they are based on complex analogies clearly
indicating contacts beyond any possible coincidence.
<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 1** – The types of weapon tips. 1: Double bevel-based point from Courbet engraved with a criss-cross pattern (BM Palart.497); 2: Barbed point from Courbet engraved with arcs and convergent dashes (BM 1864,1226.1483); 3: Fragment of half-round rod from Isturitz with arcs and ‘trefoils’ (MAN 77159 B6); 4: Fragment of large point from Isturitz with a lateral zigzag, intermediate dots and a longitudinal line (MAN Ist II 1933); 5: Large bevelled rod from La Madeleine with macrocephalic horses (BM Palart.339). Photographs: C. Lucas.

**Fig. 1** – Les types d’armatures décorées : 1 : Pointe à biseau double du Courbet gravée d’un quadrillage (BM Palart.497) ; 2 : Pointe barbelée du Courbet gravée d’arcs de cercle et de tirets convergents (BM 1864,1226.1483) ; 3 : Fragment de baguette demi-ronde à arcs et « trèfles » d’Isturitz (MAN 77159 B6) ; 4 : Fragment de grande pointe à zigzag latéral d’Isturitz (MAN Ist II 1933) ; 5 : Grande baguette biseautée à chevaux macrocéphales de La Madeleine (BM Palart.339). Clichés : C. Lucas.

**Abb. 1** – Typen von Waffenköpfen. 1: Spitze mit doppelt abgeschrägter Basis von Courbet mit Kreuzmuster-Gravur (BM Palart.497); 2: Widerhakenspitzen von Courbet mit gravierten Bögen und konvergenten Strichen (BM 1864,1226.1483); 3: Fragment eines Halbrundstabs aus Isturitz mit Bögen und „Kleeblättern“ (MAN 77159 B6); 4: Fragment einer großen Spitze aus Isturitz mit lateralem Zickzack, unterbrochen von Punkten und einem Strich in Längsrichtung (MAN Ist II 1933); 5: Großer abgeschrägter Stab aus La Madeleine mit makrozephalen Pferden (BM Palart.339). Fotographien: C. Lucas.
As highlighted in previous studies, such analogies must integrate a set of characteristics including different types of features:

‘L’analogie devra porter non sur un caractère isolé, mais sur un ensemble de caractéristiques appartenant à des domaines différents (thématique, conventions formelles, technique, choix du support, fonction, etc.)’ (Sauvet et al., 2008, p. 74).

While the presence of similar patterns is an essential starting point, the types of decoration are further characterised by their location on comparable areas of the objects, their organisation, their regular associations with other signs or figures, and their distinctive technical and stylistic features. In particular, the decorations based on universal, basic patterns (e.g. parallel dashes, zigzags, sinuous lines, chevrons) are only included when several peculiarities can be put forward. Aside from the ten standardised types of decorations presented hereafter, Magdalenian art on weapons further includes a great variety of decorations not treated in this paper.

## Quantities and diffusion analysis

Once the types are defined, any reflection on spread mechanisms relies on quantities (e.g. Fritz et al., 2007; Sauvet et al., 2008; Rivero, 2010; Bourdier, 2012; Fuentes et al., 2019; Man-Estier and Paillet, 2019). The highest quantities of typical decorated objects highlight the sites with larger productions and may be indicative of source areas. Furthermore, the quantities of comparable objects or concepts in other areas feed into the discussion about the nature and intensity of the maintained relationships.

Unfortunately, most Magdalenian projectile tips made of osseous materials are found in a fragmented state, notably due to use and post-depositional breaks, leading to considerable quantitative issues (Lucas, 2014a). The number of documented pieces, usually including few complete objects and many fragments of various sizes, may actually differ significantly from the original number of objects, also depending on object sub-types (raw material, shape and dimensions, use) and archaeological deposits (post-depositional processes). Previous assessments indicated larger differences in this regard for thin and elongated artefacts, for which the number of pieces will have been considerably higher than the recorded minimum number of objects. This is notably the case for some half-round rods and long points, mainly represented by relatively short fragments compared to the length of the rare complete objects (ibid.). Comparing numbers of pieces, which remains the only quantity available in most cases, is therefore inevitably biased, especially when considering distinct sub-types of weapon tips from different sites.

Consequently, fine statistical analyses are not suitable for this data, and conclusions should not be drawn from small quantitative differences. For this reason only three broad ranges have been distinguished on the maps presented in this paper: >30 published pieces (largest outstanding sets), 10-30 published pieces (substantial sets),

and <10 published pieces (small sets). Although the divisions in between these three ranges are arbitrary, they emphasize the renowned major sites, such as Isturitz or Le Mas d'Azil caves.

## Chrono-cultural framework

A remarkable increase in decorations on weapon tips occurred during the Middle and Upper Magdalenian as part of the general increase of portable art on lasting materials and cave art that is a core feature of this period (Sacchi, 2003; Fritz, 2010). Recent research on the Magdalenian from south-western France has established a finer division of the Middle and Upper Magdalenian where each of these phases is divided into two sub-phases (e.g. Langlais et al., 2012 and 2016; Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2016). In this model, the Early Middle Magdalenian (~19,000-17,500 cal. BP) is characterised by the presence of truncated and scalene backed bladelets in high proportions, deep scaled retouch on blade edges, Lussac-Angles points and *navettes*, and notably includes sculpted rock-shelters and primary burials. Then, the Late Middle Magdalenian (~18,000-16,000 cal. BP) is marked by the development of half-round rods and narrow backed bladelets produced on flake edges, also including the first barbed points and a wealth of portable and cave art. The Early Upper Magdalenian (~16,500-15,000 cal. BP) is characterised by numerous fork-based points and long points on small blades, associated with pointed truncated backed bladelets and scalene triangles. In continuity, the Late Upper Magdalenian (~15,500-14,000 cal. BP) is notably distinguished by the full development of barbed points and new types of lithic points including foliate (Laugerie-Basse type) and tanged (Teyjat type) points.

Although different chrono-cultural subdivisions are in use in other areas, such as Cantabrian Spain (Straus and Langlais, 2020) or Central Europe (Maier et al., 2020), this paper refers to the phasing for south-western France when applicable. A fine chronological attribution is not always possible, as many of the objects presented hereafter come from early excavations with poor stratigraphic resolution, and very few decorated pieces have been directly dated. In this context, the chronological attribution of each type of decorated weapon tips is primarily based on the most reliable archaeological layers, which have been selected when recent analyses and dating support a relative homogeneity of their assemblages.

## DECORATED WEAPON TIPS FROM THE MIDDLE MAGDALENIAN

In south-western France, there are five established types of decorations on weapon tips attributed to the Middle Magdalenian. The weapon decorations with protuberances, with spirals and circles, with converging curves, with arcs and ‘trefoils’, and with complex diamond signs have spread over different areas, varying from a local sector
(extending over <200 km) to a widely extended zone
across Europe (~1,500 km long).

## Points and half-round rods with rows of trapezoidal protuberances

The main type of decoration on weapon tips from south-western France is constituted of trapezoidal (or triangular) protuberances organised in longitudinal rows generally edged by longitudinal lines (fig. 2A). The protuberances, first sketched by preparatory oblique incisions, are outlined in relief by localised scraping of intermediary areas and on some pieces by the longitudinal grooves immediately adjacent on their edge (Rivero, 2010; Feruglio and Averbouh, 2016). While this pattern is rarely found on other objects, rows of trapezoidal protuberances appear on a number of points and half-round rods of highly variable size (5 to 20 mm in width and 5 to 15 mm in thickness), mainly showing pointed or thinned bases designed for insertion in a hollowed hafting mechanism (Lucas, 2014a).

At least five complete (or almost complete) examples of points with protuberances are known at Laugerie-Basse (MAN 48637B, MAN 48637C, MAN 48637D, and MAN 53971; Chollot-Varagnac, 1980) and Isturitz (refitting MAN Ist II 1934 / MAN Ist Ea 1914 77159 A8; Lucas, 2014a), with lengths varying from 96 to 220 mm. On these objects and many other fragments of points, there is a single, central row of protuberances, more or less clearly outlined, and often edged on each side by one or two longitudinal lines that happen to curve outwards at one end of the decoration (fig. 2A.3). On points, they are rarely associated with other geometric patterns, including zigzags, sinuous lines, chevrons, and parallel lines, whereas the half-round rods tend to show more associations. Three half-round rods with protuberances from Laugerie-Basse (MNP 1992-13-7; Cleyet-Merle et al., 2014, and BM Palart.209; fig. 2A.1) and La Madeleine (MAN 54479; Chollot-Varagnac, 1980) still retain the full decoration and measure 135 to 206 mm in length, although the actual ends of the rod are missing on the longest piece. Half-round rods generally present two symmetrically reversed rows of protuberances, often well outlined and edged on each side by one to three longitudinal lines, which are sometimes interrupted by double or triple converging dashes. In several cases, one end of the decoration is covered by longitudinal parallel lines, and other geometric patterns are regularly inserted in various locations, notably including zigzags, sinuous lines, chevrons, converging dashes and parallel dashes (fig. 2B). Due to these richer associations and the extra-care in the making of the protuberances, the decoration generally appears more elaborate on half-round rods than on points.

With over 250 pieces documented on 35 sites (Saint-Périer, 1936; Chollot-Varagnac, 1980; Feruglio, 1987; Sacchi, 1990; Braun, 2005; Rivero, 2010; Lucas, 2014a; Feruglio and Averbouh, 2016; Pfeifer, 2017; Fuentes et al., 2019; fig. 2C), the decoration with protuberances is largely predominant on Magdalenian weapon tips. This decoration occurs widely in a zone that

extends ~1,500 km, from Cova Oscura de Ania, in Asturias (Spain), to Kesslerloch, in Thayngen (Switzerland). Two points with protuberances are even documented further away, at Balcarka and Pekárna, in the Moravian karst in the Czech Republic (Pfeifer, 2017). The largest sets come from Isturitz (127 pieces; Lucas, 2014a) and Le Mas d'Azil (at least 39 published pieces; Chollot-Varagnac, 1980) in the Pyrenean area. Other substantial sets at Duruthy, Les Espélugues, and Enlène also support a Pyrenean origin. Nevertheless, the collections from Laugerie-Basse (with at least 23 pieces) are only partly published and might form another large set in Dordogne. Numerous pieces from south-western France come from archaeological layers attributed to the Late Middle Magdalenian (e.g. Isturitz layer SI/Eω, Duruthy layer 4, Enlène layer 3, Gazel layer 7). Moreover, the direct radiocarbon dating of a fragment of a half-round rod with protuberances from Isturitz has given an age of 13,605 ± 65 BP (Szmidt et al., 2009), placing it in the Late Middle Magdalenian occupations. While the decreasing number of pieces clearly support a diffusion of the weapon tips with protuberances to the east, the age of the easternmost examples remains unsure as they come from archaeological layers attributed to the Upper Magdalenian before evidence of an earlier reoccupation of Central Europe was put forward (Maier, 2015; Maier et al., 2020).

## Points and half-round rods covered with spirals and circles

Other types of decorations on weapon tips are much more localised, in particular the famous spirals, circles and other rounded patterns (Feruglio and Buisson, 1996; Rivero, 2010; Fuentes et al., 2019; fig. 3A). This type of decoration is deeply engraved on wide (>12 mm) points and half-round rods, mostly with bevelled bases, while such rounded patterns are extremely rare on other objects (Lucas, 2014a).

The most complete point with this type of decoration, recently discovered at Ezkutza cave (Azpeitia, Spain), has a single bevelled base and measures 215 mm in length while the distal tip is missing (Barandiarán et al., 2019). On this example and other fragments of points (fig. 3A.3), the rounded patterns tend to be organised in two close rows, covering most of the upper and lateral faces but leaving a thin strip along the middle of the upper face. They are mainly constituted of circles inserted in ovate and fusiform shapes, notably associated with spirals, circles with inner arcs and radiating lines, sinuous lines, or parallel lines. The rare entire half-round rods with spirals and circles do not show a pointed distal end, but it appears to have been reshaped after engraving, like on the longest examples from Isturitz and Lespugue. The one from Isturitz (MAN 86729; fig. 3A.1) has a laterally bevelled base and measures ~190 mm in length to the opposite straight end, on which a striated concavity partly obliterates the decoration of the upper face. A similar concave end can be observed on the example from Lespugue, likewise ~190 mm long, which has a thinned base (Saint-Périer, 1929).
<figure><img src="image_86.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** – Points and half-round rods with trapezoidal protuberances. A) Examples of half-round rods with protuberances from Laugerie-Basse (1: BM Palart.209; photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum) and Isturitz (2: MAN refitting Ist II 1931 / Ist II 1934; photograph: C. Lucas) and point with protuberances from Isturitz (3: MAN Ist II 1934; photograph: C. Lucas); B) Associations identified on the points (top) and half-round rods (bottom) with protuberances from the western Pyrenees (Lucas, 2014a); C) Distribution map.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 2** – Pointes et baguettes demi-rondes à tubérosités. A) Exemples de baguettes demi-rondes à tubérosités de Laugerie-Basse (1 : BM Palart.209 ; cliché : © Trustees of the British Museum) et d'Isturitz (2 : MAN raccord Ist II 1931 / Ist II 1934 ; cliché : C. Lucas) et de pointe à tubérosités d'Isturitz (3 : MAN Ist II 1934 ; cliché : C. Lucas) ; B) Associations répertoriées sur les pointes (en haut) et les baguettes demi-rondes (en bas) à tubérosités des Pyrénées occidentales (Lucas, 2014a) ; C) Carte de répartition.</caption>

**Abb. 2** – Spitzen und Halbrundstäbe mit trapezoidalen Noppen. A) Beispiele von Halbrundstäben mit Noppen aus Laugerie-Basse (1: BM Palart.209; Fotographie: © Trustees of the British Museum) und Isturitz (2: MAN refitting Ist II 1931 / Ist II 1934; Fotographie: C. Lucas) sowie von Spitzen mit Noppen aus Isturitz (3: MAN Ist II 1934; Fotographie: C. Lucas); B) An den Spitzen (oben) und Halbrundstäben (unten) mit Noppen aus den westlichen Pyrenäen identifizierte Assoziationen (Lucas, 2014a); C) Verbreitungskarte.
<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 3** – Localised decorations from the Middle Magdalenian. A) Distribution of the points and half-round rods with spirals and circles. Examples of half-round rods (1: MAN 86729; 2: MAN 86731) and point (3: MAN Ist II 1935) from Isturitz (photographs: C. Lucas); B) Distribution of the half-round rods with clusters of curves. Examples from Isturitz (1: MAN 84751; 2: MAN Ist II 1934; photographs: C. Lucas).

**Fig. 3** – Décors locaux du Magdalénien moyen. A) Répartition des pointes et baguettes demi-rondes à spirales et cercles. Exemples de baguettes demi-rondes (1 : MAN 86729 ; 2 : MAN 86731) et de pointe (3 : MAN Ist II 1935) d'Isturitz (clichés : C. Lucas) ; B) Répartition des baguettes demi-rondes à faisceaux de courbes. Exemples d'Isturitz (1 : MAN 84751 ; 2 : MAN Ist II 1934 ; clichés : C. Lucas).

**Abb. 3** – Verbreitung der Dekorationen des Mittleren Magdalénien. A) Verteilung der Spitzen und Halbrundstäbe mit Spiralen und Kreisen. Beispiele für Halbrundstäbe (1: MAN 86729; 2: MAN 86731) und Spitzen (3: MAN Ist II 1935) aus Isturitz (Fotographien: C. Lucas); B) Verteilung der Halbrundstäbe mit Kurvenbündeln. Beispiele aus Isturitz (1: MAN 84751; 2: MAN Ist II 1934; Fotographien: C. Lucas).
Like most half-round rods with spirals and circles, these pieces show particularly wide grooves leaving thin sculpted reliefs on the upper face. The resulting decoration is rather indivisible, being formed of a covering framework of spirals and meanders enfolding the associated concentric circles, circles with inner arcs and radiating lines, sinuous lines, etc. Due to these intricate patterns and their making, the decoration with spirals and circles also appears more elaborate on half-round rods than on points.

Despite an early identification and outstanding characteristics (Saint-Périer, 1929), this type of decorated weapon tip is only attested in the western part of the Pyrenean area so far. The one large set comes from Isturitz layers SI, II and E (31 pieces) while a few strikingly similar examples are documented at Ezkuzta, Arancou, Espalungue, Les Espélugues, and Lespugue (Saint-Périer, 1929 and 1936; Feruglio and Buisson, 1996; Chauchat, 1999; Rivero, 2010; Lucas, 2014a; Fuentes et al., 2019; Barandiarán et al., 2019). In addition, the rounded pattern deeply engraved on a fragment of a half-round rod from Hornos de la Peña in Cantabria (Spain), is morphologically and technically quite similar and therefore possibly derives from the decoration with spirals and circles (Saint-Périer, 1929; Feruglio, 1998; Rivero, 2010). It is however inserted into a different, perhaps figurative, decoration with deep curved lines and more superficial parallel dashes. The other pieces still fit within a local area extending over less than 200 km in each direction and are therefore characteristic of the western Pyrenean area, where two fragments of points are documented in a layer attributed to the Late Middle Magdalenian (Isturitz layer SI/Εω). While most of the examples come from more heterogeneous Middle Magdalenian layers, their grouping in Isturitz layer II and at the entrance of Lespugue cave, as suggested by René de Saint-Périer (Saint-Périer, 1929 and 1936), supports a short chronological span of their use.

## Half-round rods with clusters of curves

Another ‘western’ decoration from the Middle Magdalenian consists of clusters of curves diverging from an original line. This peculiar pattern is only known on 11 pieces, which are all fragments of half-round rods (Saint-Périer, 1936; Sauvet et al., 2008; Rivero, 2010; Lucas, 2014a; Barandiarán et al., 2019; fig. 3B). The almost complete example from Ezkutza measures 181 mm in length and both of its ends seem pointed or thinned (Barandiarán et al., 2019), while other pointed fragments are documented at Isturitz (fig. 3B.1) and Cueto de la Mina. The engraved clusters of curves cover large parts of the upper face, where they appear variously associated with interlocked chevrons (Ezkutza), lateral notches (Duruthy), or an indeterminate pattern with protuberances and engraved ocular shapes possibly forming a cervid head (Isturitz; fig. 3B.1). Even if the clusters of curves are well-identifiable, they remain so rare that their absence cannot be regarded as significant, while there are only six pieces at Isturitz and one or two pieces on the other sites, namely Duruthy, Les Espélugues, Ezkutza, Hornos de la Peña, and Cueto de la

Mina. They are thus documented in the western Pyrenees and also further west on the Cantabrian coast. Their attribution to the Late Middle Magdalenian is notably supported by the example from Duruthy layer 4.

## Half-round rods with arcs and ‘trefoils’

The dynamism of exchanges along the Pyreneo-Cantabrian axis is also attested by a decoration associating arcs with small signs formed of three converging dashes that are usually named ‘trefoils’ (Saint-Périer, 1936; Feruglio, 1987 and 1992; Lucas, 2014a). This type of decoration occurs on narrow half-round rods with thinned or pointed ends and standardised dimensions, normally ranging between 10 and 13 mm wide and 5 to 7 mm thick. They are not small but instead particularly elongated as attested by the most complete examples, such as the entire object constituted of two half-round rods found still joined in Isturitz cave and measuring ~370 mm in length (MAN 74879; Passemand, 1916; fig. 4A). Each half-round rod is engraved with two symmetrical rows of arcs and ‘trefoils’ opening toward the edges, where they face the similar patterns of the twin half-round rod in order to form lateral patterns (fig. 4B). On the middle part of the decoration, the arcs tend to dominate, they are sometimes doubled or completed by inner parallel dashes, and associated with transversal dashes, ‘trefoils’ or sets of dashes, and ‘trefoils’ regularly inserted into the main sequence of arcs. At the ends, the composition usually starts or ends with a sequence of ‘trefoils’, now and then associated with transversal and oblique dashes, while the other end may show more opened arcs that are shorter than the middle ones.

Half-round rods with arcs and ‘trefoils’ are documented on 16 sites, from Valdavara, in Galicia, to Boran Gran, in the Eastern Pyrenees, with northern examples at Courbet cave, in the Aveyron valley (Saint-Périer, 1936; Chollot-Varagnac, 1980; Feruglio, 1987 and 1992; Rivero, 2010; Lucas, 2014a; Sauvet, 2019; fig. 4C). The largest set comes from Isturitz (41 pieces) and there is another significant set at the Mas d’Azil (at least 14 published pieces) confirming their Pyrenean origin, while only a few pieces are known from the other sites. The attribution of this specific decoration to the Middle Magdalenian is notably supported by the large number of pieces in Isturitz layer II/E and one example excavated more recently from the Middle Magdalenian layer of Abauntz (Utrilla and Mazo, 1996). Nevertheless, it has been suggested that this type of decoration may have survived and evolved toward shorter arcs during the transition to the Upper Magdalenian (Feruglio and Averbouh, 2016).

## Points and half-round rods with complex diamond signs

In addition, several fragments of points and half-round rods are engraved with complex diamond signs constituted of two overlapping diamonds followed by two converging dashes at each end (Sauvet, 1990; fig. 5). This peculiar pattern has been mainly identified on fragments
<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 4** – Half-round rods with arcs and ‘trefoils’. A) Complete object constituted of two half-round rods found still joined in Isturitz cave (MAN 74879; drawing: C. Lucas); B) Associations identified on the half-round rods with arcs and ‘trefoils’ from the western Pyrenees (Lucas, 2014a); C) Distribution map.

**Fig. 4** – Baguettes demi-rondes à arcs et « trèfles ». A) Objet entier constitué de deux baguettes demi-rondes accolées d'Isturitz (MAN 74879 ; relevé : C. Lucas) ; B) Associations répertoriées sur les baguettes demi-rondes à arcs et « trèfles » des Pyrénées occidentales (Lucas, 2014a) ; C) Carte de répartition.

Abb. 4 – Halbrundstäbe mit Bögen und „Kleeblättern“. A) Komplettes Objekt bestehend aus zwei Halbrundstäben, die in der Isturitz-Höhle noch im Verbund gefunden wurden (MAN 74879; Zeichnung: C. Lucas); B) Identifizierte Assoziationen an den Halbrundstäben mit Bögen und „Kleeblättern“ von den westlichen Pyrenäen (Lucas, 2014a); C) Verteilungskarte.
of points and half-round rods, however, the small number of pieces documented so far does not allow a general characterisation of the objects and their decoration. Amongst the longest examples, two fragments of a large half-round rod from Courbet (BM Palart.464 and 465; fig. 5) show the repetition of complex diamond signs, widely spaced-out and associated with intermediary patterns formed of crossed curving lines. The few weapon tips with complex diamond signs occur in the central Pyrenees (Lespugue, Gourdan, Lortet, Mas d'Azil), in the Aveyron valley (Courbet), and in Dordogne (La Madeleine; see Breuil, 1913; Chollot-Varagnac, 1980; Sauvet, 1990). Moreover, identical complex diamonds signs are engraved on a rib bone from Laugerie-Basse, where they are also widely spaced-out (Chollot-Varagnac, 1980). As all these pieces were found during early excavations, their preliminary attribution to the Middle Magdalenian (Breuil, 1913) has yet to be confirmed.

## DECORATED WEAPON TIPS FROM THE UPPER MAGDALENIAN

The Upper Magdalenian of south-western France is marked by the additional presence of large bevelled rods and barbed points, as well as by numerous engravings

positioned on the lateral faces of points instead of on their upper face (Saint-Périer, 1936; Sacchi, 1990; Lucas, 2014b). The decorations with lateral zigzags, with *Capra* in frontal view, with macrocephalic horses, and with fish-shaped patterns comply with this lateral position, while another type of decoration, with notched grooves, ovate reliefs and braided patterns, is closely associated with the half-round rods. These five types of decorations have spread over distinct areas, partly overlapping, and varying from a rather local sector (~200 km) to extended zones covering large parts of south-western France and sometimes stretching out to the Cantabrian coast.

## Points and large bevelled rods with lateral zigzags

The lateral zigzags deeply engraved on points and large bevelled rods (fig. 6A) can be regarded as a type of decoration based on complex analogy due to the peculiarity of both their position on the lateral faces and their engraving technique. The engraving of wide (usually ~3-4 mm in width) and deep grooves with a flared cross-section, without leaving clear lips at the surface of the object, may have been designed for the insertion of coloured mixtures, as some pieces from La Vache and Isturitz still retain remnants of alternating red and black pigments at the bottom of these grooves (Buisson et al., 2003; Lucas, 2014b).

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** – Distribution of the points and half-round rods with complex diamond signs. Examples of half-round rods showing complex diamond signs associated with crossed curving lines from Courbet (1: BM Palart.465; 2: BM Palart.464; photographs: C. Lucas).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 5** – Répartition des pointes et baguettes demi-rondes à signes losangiques complexes. Exemples de baguettes demi-rondes du Courbet présentant des signes losangiques complexes associés avec des lignes courbes croisées (1 : BM Palart.465 ; 2 : BM Palart.464 ; clichés : C. Lucas).</caption>

<caption>**Abb. 5** – Verteilung der Spitzen und Halbrundstäbe mit komplexen Diamant-Symbolen. Beispiele von Halbrundstäben aus Courbet zeigen komplexe Diamant-Symbole in Verbindung mit sich kreuzenden Kurvenlinien (1: BM Palart.465; 2: BM Palart.464; Fotographien: C. Lucas).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 6** – Upper Magdalenian decorations indicating contacts with the Cantabrian coast. A) Distribution of the points and large bevelled rods with lateral zigzags. Examples of point (1: MAN Ist II 1933) and large bevelled rods (2: MAN Ist I 1934; 3: MAN 86499) from Isturitz (photographs: C. Lucas); B) Distribution of the points and large bevelled rods with Capra in frontal view. Example of large bevelled rod from Tito Bustillo (photographs: O. Rivero; Rivero et al., 2014).

**Fig. 6** – Décors du Magdalénien supérieur indiquant des contacts avec la côte cantabrique. A) Répartition des pointes et grandes baguettes biseautées à zigzag latéral. Exemples de pointe (1 : MAN Ist II 1933) et de grandes baguettes biseautées (2 : MAN Ist I 1934 ; 3 : MAN 86499) d'Isturitz (clichés : C. Lucas). B) Répartition des pointes et grandes baguettes biseautées à caprinés en vue frontale. Exemple de grande baguette biseautée de Tito Bustillo (clichés : O. Rivero ; Rivero et al., 2014).

**Abb. 6** – Dekorationen des Späten Magdalénien, die Kontakte zur kantabrischen Küste belegen. A) Verteilung von Spitzen und großen abgeschrägten Stäben mit lateralen Zickzack-Muster. Beispiel einer Spitze (1: MAN Ist II 1933) und große abgeschrägte Stäbe (2: MAN Ist I 1934; 3: MAN 86499) aus Isturitz (Fotographie: C. Lucas); B) Verteilung der Spitzen und großen abgeschrägten Stäbe mit Capra in Frontalansicht. Beispiel eines großen abgeschrägten Stabes aus Tito Bustillo (Fotographien: O. Rivero; Rivero et al., 2014).
The lateral zigzags made of such grooves mainly occur on thick pieces (>10 mm) with a double bevelled base, especially the large bevelled rods and a few points (Lucas, 2014a). If the large bevelled rods are indeed recycled broken points, there are very few, if any, complete objects, at least in their originally intended shape. Amongst the longest pieces, a 185 mm long fragment from Isturitz (MAN Ist II 1933; fig. 6A.1) combines the thick sub-square crosssection that is typical of the large bevelled rods with a pointed end. The longitudinal zigzags have been engraved on one or both lateral faces, sometimes ending with a long curve on the bevelled end (fig. 6A.3). In several cases, they are associated with longitudinal lines, transversal dashes, sinuous lines, oblique parallel lines, intermediary dots, ovate shapes, crosses, or various other patterns.

Identified at 24 sites, the points and large bevelled rods with lateral zigzags are largely spread in the Aquitaine basin and on the Cantabrian coast (Breuil and Saint-Périer, 1927; Saint-Périer, 1936; Deffarge et al., 1977; Chollot-Varagnac, 1980; Corchón Rodríguez, 1986; Sieveking, 1987; Sacchi, 1990; Clottes and Delporte, 2003; Lucas, 2012 and 2014a). In addition, an eastern example recently found at Les Douattes, in Haute-Savoie, suggests they may have spread as far as the Alps (Malgarini and Lucas, 2015). There are at least two significant sets at Isturitz (18 pieces), in the western Pyrenees, and at La Madeleine (at least 13 published pieces), in Dordogne, and their source area is unknown yet. When their stratigraphic position is reliable, the points and large bevelled rods with lateral zigzags occur in Upper Magdalenian layers (e.g. Morin layers BI and AIV, La Vache layers 1 to 4, Les Eglises layer 8, Duruthy layer 3, Grand Pastou recent excavation; see Deffarge et al., 1977; Clottes, 1983; Sacchi, 1990; Clottes and Delporte, 2003; Dachary et al., 2020). Their existence during the Middle Magdalenian is therefore uncertain, even unlikely, but they already appear in the Early Upper Magdalenian together with fork-based points (Isturitz layer I/F1).

## Points and large bevelled rods with *Capra* in frontal view

On the lateral faces of the same types of objects (points and large bevelled rods), there are also schematic representations of *Capra* depicted in frontal (or dorsal) view with a rather triangular head on top of which sit double oblique lines marking the ears and horns (Corchón Rodríguez, 1986; González-Sainz, 1989; Utrilla, 1990; Fano Martínez et al., 2005; Sauvet et al., 2008; Rivero et al., 2014; fig. 6B). The representations are often completed by a schematic depiction of the body, which may be sketched by a single sinuous line, by two lines and transversal dashes, or a bit more detailed and partly turned in profile (Corchón Rodríguez, 1986). Identical depictions of *Capra* in frontal view appear on the base of a few barbed points (Julien, 1982), as well as on other objects (including perforated batons, ribs, and pressure flakers; González-Sainz, 1989; Rivero et al., 2014), and on cave walls (González-Sainz, 1993). On weapon tips, there are

either single *Capra* depictions (such as on the complete barbed point from Rochereil; Julien, 1982, p. 111) or several of them, usually placed above each other on the lateral faces of large bevelled rods. They do not show recurrent associations with other animal depictions but can be surrounded by various linear geometric patterns.

Weapon tips with *Capra* in frontal view are documented mainly on the Cantabrian coast – at La Paloma, Sofoxó, Tito Bustillo, El Pendo, La Chora, El Valle, El Horno and Ekain –, in the central Pyrenees – at Gourdan, Lortet and La Vache – and, to a lesser extent, in Dordogne and Lot – two barbed points from Rochereil and Reilhac – (Corchón Rodríguez, 1986; González-Sainz, 1989; Utrilla, 1990; González-Sainz, 1993; Barandiarán, 1996; Clottes and Delporte, 2003; Fano Martínez et al., 2005; Sauvet et al., 2008; Rivero et al., 2014; here fig. 6B). While none of these sites provides a large set of weapon tips with *Capra*, the high concentration of depictions of *Capra* in frontal view (including those on other objects and cave walls) on the northern coast of Spain supports a Cantabrian origin (Corchón Rodríguez, 1986; Sauvet et al., 2008; Rivero et al., 2014). There is also a significant concentration of these figures in the central Pyrenees, becoming less numerous to the north (ibid.). The better characterised depictions of *Capra* in frontal view are attributed to the Upper Magdalenian, and the direct radio-carbon dating of a perforated baton with two *Capra* heads from El Pendo has given an age of 13,050 ±150 BP that is consistent with this chronology (Barandiarán, 1988; Utrilla, 1990; Fano Martínez et al., 2005; Sauvet et al., 2008). Like the decoration with lateral zigzags, the depictions of *Capra* in frontal view show maintained relationships between the Cantabrian coast and south-western France, which are not currently attested by the other decorations on weapons of the Upper Magdalenian.

## Points and large bevelled rods with macrocephalic horses

Another decoration, still on the lateral faces of points and large bevelled rods, consists of rows of horses showing a peculiar, homogeneous style, termed ‘macrocephalic’ due to their excessively large heads measuring a quarter to a third of their body length (Apellaniz, 1990; Man-Estier and Paillet, 2014 and 2019; fig. 7A). These horses normally appear to be galloping thanks to the oblique position of their unfinished limbs, which seem to project them forward, and their long raised tail extending diagonally (Cook, 2013). In some cases, stallions can be identified as their sex is indicated, while other figures without sexual attributes could be mares, but both stallions and potential mares tend to present a rounded belly. Internal details suggestive of the coat, the musculature and even the skeleton have been variously engraved. On the head, the ears are rarely depicted, whereas the eye, usually large and ovate, the mouth, the nostril, and the zygomatic line are depicted (Apellaniz, 1990). The style is moreover characterised by the angular shapes of the horse drawings, formed of a succession of light curves and pronounced angles.
<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 7** – Localised decorations from the Upper Magdalenian. A) Distribution of the points and large bevelled rods with macrocephalic horses. Example of large bevelled rod from La Madeleine (BM Palart.339; photographs: C. Lucas); B) Distribution of the points and large bevelled rods with fish-shaped patterns. Examples of large bevelled rods from La Madeleine (1: BM Palart.356; photographs: C. Lucas) and Montastruc (2: BM Palart.572; photographs: C. Lucas).

**Fig. 7** – Décors locaux du Magdalénien supérieur. A) Répartition des pointes et grandes baguettes biseautées à chevaux macrocéphales. Exemple de grande baguette biseautée de La Madeleine (BM Palart.339 ; clichés : C. Lucas) ; B) Répartition des pointes et grandes baguettes biseautées à motifs pisciformes. Exemples de grandes baguettes biseautées de La Madeleine (1 : BM Palart.356 ; clichés : C. Lucas) et Montastruc (2 : BM Palart.572 ; clichés : C. Lucas).

**Abb. 7** – Verbreitung der Dekorationen des Späten Magdalénien. A) Verteilung der Spitzen und großen abgeschrägten Stäbe mit makrozephalen Pferden. Beispiel eines großen abgeschrägten Stabes aus La Madeleine (BM Palart.339; Fotographien: C. Lucas); B) Verteilung der Spitzen und großen abgeschrägten Stäbe mit fischförmigem Muster. Beispiel eines großen abgeschrägten Stabes aus La Madeleine (1: BM Palart.356; Fotographien: C. Lucas) und Montastruc (2: BM Palart.572; Fotographien: C. Lucas).
They are outlined in relief by deep dissymmetrical incisions and/or scraping of the surrounding surface, while incisions of variable depths and profiles have been used for the treatment of the different internal details. These macrocephalic horses are normally depicted in rows where several individuals follow each other without associations with other animal species, except some cases of juxtaposition with fish.

Rows of macrocephalic horses have been documented on at least 43 pieces, which are mostly large bevelled rods and points (32 pieces), but this type of decoration is not specific to weapon tips as it appears on a significant number of perforated batons (10 pieces; see Man-Estier and Paillet, 2014). The only complete point with macrocephalic horses from Laugerie-Basse (MAN 53916) has a double bevelled base, is ~300 mm long and displays a total of 14 horses, distributed on both lateral faces and not associated with any other figures. The other pieces rarely show associations, one exception being a fish-shaped pattern on a large bevelled rod from la Madeleine (BM Palart.336; Sieveking, 1987).

Weapon tips with rows of macrocephalic horses are mainly documented in Dordogne and Gironde, where all the perforated batons with this decoration come from (Apellaniz, 1990; Tosello, 2003; Sauvet et al., 2008; Man-Estier and Paillet, 2014 and 2019). The main set is the one from La Madeleine (at least 12 published pieces), while smaller sets are found at Morin, Le Soucy, Laugerie-Basse, Raymonden, and Rochereil. Further south, a couple of comparable examples are documented at Montastruc (BM Palart.570; Sieveking, 1987) and Fontalès (MHNMON 865-706; Ladier, 2016). These two examples from the Aveyron valley show strikingly similar features to the macrocephalic horses (e.g. oblique position of limbs and tail, zygomatic line on the face, outline in light relief) despite their smaller heads. In addition, a bird bone tube engraved with a row of horses from Le Mas d'Azil (MAN 49164), in the central Pyrenees, has been regarded as potentially derivative from the macrocephalic horses presented above, due to the clearly disproportionate heads of the engraved horses, which do not meet all the other stylistic features, notably presenting more rounded outlines (Man-Estier and Paillet, 2019). Considering only the most characteristic examples, the rows of macrocephalic horses remain a rather local decoration, originating from Dordogne/Gironde, with limited spread into the Aveyron valley, that is to say over ~200 km. They are found in Upper Magdalenian layers (e.g. La Madeleine layer F, Morin layers BI, AIV, AIII and AII; Man-Estier and Paillet, 2014 and 2019).

## Points and large bevelled rods with fish-shaped patterns

The fourth type of decoration observed on the lateral faces of points and large bevelled rods presents fish-shaped patterns (fig. 7B). Several processes of schema-tisation of fish are known in the Upper Magdalenian art (Breuil and Saint-Périer, 1927), the main one notably leading to ovate and fusiform patterns, often filled with

parallel dashes and interlocked chevrons, as clearly illustrated on a long bevelled piece from Petersfels (Mauser, 1970). While the ovate and fusiform patterns are widely distributed and often difficult to identify as fish (instead of geometric signs), the fish-shaped patterns retained here follow a different, original set of conventions. These schematic depictions of fish are usually readily identifiable thanks to their almost rectangular (or trapezoidal) body filled with a set of transversal dashes backing onto a light curve, which underlines the upper outline, and their caudal appendage (Breuil and Saint-Périer, 1927; Man-Estier and Paillet, 2014). In some cases, the caudal fin follows a small, angular anal fin, is filled with interlocked chevrons and has a flared end with five or six rays (ibid.). However, numerous schematic examples only show a relatively thin and pointed caudal appendage, and those without any caudal fin remain difficult to identify as fish-shaped patterns. The most characteristic examples are often outlined in relief by deep dissymmetrical incisions and/or scraping of the surrounding surface, and the internal parallel dashes are normally formed of short, deep and wide incisions.

Such fish-shaped patterns are mainly engraved on points and large bevelled rods (27 pieces / 30 at La Madeleine; Man-Estier and Paillet, 2014) and rarely on other objects, although they appear occasionally on perforated batons. They happen to be organised in simple rows, following each other in the same direction, in opposite directions (head to head – fin to fin), or even interlocked in opposite directions (fig. 7B.1). There is no complete example of a point with this decoration, but their association with other motifs seems rare despite a case of association with a macrocephalic horse (BM Palart.336) and another with a zigzag (BM. Palart.352), both from La Madeleine. The points and large bevelled rods with these fish-shaped patterns are essentially documented in Dordogne, where the main set comes from La Madeleine (at least 27 published pieces), and small sets have been identified at several sites, namely Laugerie-Basse, Les Eyzies, Le Soucy, Raymonden, and Limeuil (Saint-Périer, 1927; Man-Estier and Paillet, 2014). Further south, the presence of only three pieces with identical fish-shaped patterns at Montastruc (BM Palart.572-574; Sieveking, 1987; fig. 7B.2), in the Aveyron valley, indicates a rather local distribution, which is strikingly similar to that of the depictions of macrocephalic horses. In addition to their association with macrocephalic horses, the presence of fish-shaped patterns at sites that do not appear to have been occupied before the Upper Magdalenian (e.g. Le Soucy and Limeuil) supports their attribution to this phase.

## Half-round rods with notched grooves, ovate reliefs and braided patterns

The dominant decoration on half-round rods from the Upper Magdalenian is constituted of pairs of notched grooves, which are made of small consecutive notches delineating a central relief (Feruglio, 2003; Feruglio and Averbouh, 2016; fig. 8). Some variations are perceptible in the decorations with notched grooves, but they are
nonetheless regularly associated with incised curved lines and two distinctive patterns appearing in light relief due to dissymmetrical incisions. Firstly, small ovate reliefs, usually organised in rows, are associated with notched grooves on at least four pieces from La Vache (Clottes and Delporte, 2003), two pieces from La Madeleine (Capitan and Peyrony, 1928), one piece from Gourdan (Piette, 1907; fig. 8.2) and one piece from Montastruc (BM Palart.613; Sieveking, 1987). Secondly, twisted braided patterns are associated with notched grooves on at least five pieces from La Vache (Clottes and Delporte, 2003) and two pieces from La Madeleine (Braem, 2008; Feruglio and Averbouh, 2016). Rarely found in clearly different contexts, these two patterns can therefore be regarded as usually constitutive of the decoration with notched grooves. While the notched grooves normally appear on the central part of the composition, the braided patterns (and associated curves) tend to be localised toward the ends, and the ovate reliefs appear either at the ends or in the middle, in between pairs of notched grooves (Feruglio, 2003). The three patterns can be seen together on a long fragment from La Vache (MAN 83641-L40), but the braided pattern is not represented on the almost complete half-round rod with notched grooves and ovate reliefs from La Vache (refitting MAN 83642-L18 / MAN 83643-L18 / MAN 86790), which measures

282 mm in length (Clottes and Delporte, 2003). Most of the fragments only show limited portions of the decoration with notched grooves, whereas various associations with other geometric patterns and animal depictions can also be observed.

The main set of half-round rods with notched grooves documented so far is the one from La Vache (at least 22 pieces with notched grooves and 6 additional fragments showing ovate reliefs or braided patterns; Clottes and Delporte, 2003). A few pieces with pairs of notched grooves are known from 12 other sites, at Urtiaga, Lortet, Gourdan, Le Mas d'Azil, Bédeilhac, Les Églises, Montastruc, Courbet, Laugerie-Basse, La Madeleine, Teyjat, and Fontarnaud (Cartailhac, 1903; Piette, 1907; Capitan and Peyrony, 1928; Beltrán et al., 1967; Leroi-Gourhan, 1971; Chollot-Varagnac, 1980; Sieveking, 1987; González Sainz, 1989; Sacchi, 1990; Feruglio, 2003). In addition, small fragments of half-round rods with braided patterns or small ovate reliefs that might have been part of a comparable decoration are also present at Les Espélugues and Longeroche (Chollot-Varagnac, 1980; Man-Estier, 2017). Currently, specimens with this type of decoration appear more numerous in the central Pyrenees, which is the probable source area from where they would have spread to the Aveyron valley, Dordogne, and Gironde, while there is a western example at Urtiaga, in

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8** – Distribution of the half-round rods with notched grooves, ovate reliefs and braided patterns. Examples of half-round rods showing notched grooves (1) and notched grooves associated with ovate reliefs and curves (2) from Gourdan (drawings: Piette, 1907).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 8** – Répartition des baguettes demi-rondes à rainures crantées, reliefs ovalaires et motifs tressés. Exemples de baguettes demi-rondes présentant des rainures crantées (1) et des rainures crantées associées à des reliefs ovalaires et des lignes courbes (2) de Gourdan (relevés : Piette, 1907).</caption>

<caption>**Abb. 8** – Verteilung der Halbrundstäbe mit eingekerbten Rillen, eiförmigen Reliefs und geflochtenen Mustern. Beispiele für Halbrundstäbe mit eingekerbten Rillen (1) und eingekerbten Rillen in Verbindung mit eiförmigen Reliefs und Kurven (2) aus Gourdan (Zeichnungen aus Piette, 1907).</caption>
Guipúzcoa (Spain). These data already indicate a rather large spread across south-western France, and additional examples might come to light in the future. They are found in Upper Magdalenian layers (e.g. La Vache layers 1 to 4, Les Eglises layer 4).

## DISCUSSION

The distribution maps of these ten types of decorated weapons show some shared artistic concepts over long distances, while others appear much more limited in space. Their distribution areas only partly overlap, giving a complex picture, for which interpretation is not straightforward (fig. 9). Nonetheless, some general remarks can be formulated and contrasted with data coming from analysis of other proxies.

### Middle Magdalenian movement

During the Late Middle Magdalenian, numerous points and half-round rods with rows of protuberances appear as an emblematic feature of the Pyrenean material culture. They may have spread from the Pyrenean area, which exhibits the majority of the examples, westward along the Cantabrian coast and north toward the Aveyron valley and Dordogne, and east toward to the Rhone valley, and then along the north side of the Alps until Moravia, to cover a broad area extending over 1,500 km. Due to the similarity of their technical and stylistic treatment as well as the graphic associations with peculiar signs throughout the whole area of distribution, they have been regarded as an ethnic marker indicating the cultural identity shared by several human groups (Fegulio and Averbouh, 2016; Fuentes et al., 2019). The weapon tips with protuberances seem to show a large expansion of Late Middle Magdalenian Pyrenean traditions and/or their extended zone of influence, probably witnessing an early incursion into Central Europe before the Upper Magdalenian. Their distribution area is almost identical to the one of the perforated disks engraved with radiating decorations, which are found as far east as Krizova cave (Fuentes et al., 2019), while further artistic similarities between south-western France and Moravia (Czech Republic) are attested by the presence of comparable decorated spatulas made of horse mandibles in Gazel and Pekárna caves (Pétillon and Sacchi, 2013). Even if they are not known in Moravia nor on the northern coast of Spain, the spear-throwers sculpted with horses seem to have followed the same north-eastern diffusion route to Kesslerloch (Switzerland) and even further north to Teufelsbrücke (Germany; see Welté, 2000; Cattelain, 2005).

Within these large networks, evidence of relationships along the Pyrenean and Cantabrian mountains is particularly numerous. Concerning the decorated weapons, a clear example is the distribution of the half-round rods with arcs and ‘trefoils’, essentially Pyrenean items, along the north coast of Spain, while their spread northwards

seems limited to a few examples at Courbet cave in the Aveyron valley. Less noticeable, the half-round rods with clusters of curves also attest to contacts between the western Pyrenees and the Cantabrian coast. The dynamics of the moves and exchanges along this Pyreneo-Cantabrian axis are further emphasised by the numerous artistic concepts shared by the inhabitants of both areas, notably including statuettes with hollowed eyes designed for inserting stones, spear-throwers sculpted with ibex, fish-shaped spatulas, sculpted bison limbs, or ‘claviform’ signs in cave art (Fritz et al., 2007; Sauvet et al., 2008; Rivero, 2010; Sauvet, 2019). Moreover, several marine species’ teeth, bones and depictions have spread along the same axis from the Atlantic coast to the central Pyrenees (Pétillon, 2017), while artefacts made of Chalosse flint are also found in significant quantities in the central Pyrenees and on some sites of the Cantabrian coast (Lacombe, 2005; Corchón Rodríguez et al., 2009; Chalard et al., 2010).

In this context, the western Pyrenean area might have played a significant relay role, considering its intermediary location and the large amount of artistic production in Isturitz cave (Rivero, 2010). Interestingly, the spread of the weapon tips covered with spirals and circles seems restricted to this area, extending over a distance of less than 200 km. Because of the remarkable technical and stylistic innovations of this decoration, they have been regarded as the possible work of itinerant artist(s) moving across the area (Feruglio and Buisson, 1996). Be that as it may, they support the existence of a local identity that could fit with a moving territory by its size and the potential complementarity of the available resources from mountain, plain, and littoral environments. Nevertheless, this is the only type showing such a limited distribution, and the existence of a western Pyrenean territory is otherwise only supported by a generally higher resemblance of the whole archaeological assemblages in this area (Dachary, 2009).

Perpendicularly to the Pyreneo-Cantabrian axis, north-south circulations are also attested during the Late Middle Magdalenian by several types of flint imported from over 200 km away (e.g. Bergerac flint, ‘grain de mil’ flint from Charentes) and regularly found in the form of tool blanks at sites along the Pyrenean foothills (Langlais et al., 2016). Although weapon tips with protuberances are well represented at Laugerie-Basse and present at La Madeleine, in Dordogne, a lack of sites with occupations from the Late Middle Magdalenian in the northernmost part of Aquitaine has been stressed by recent studies and interpreted as possibly witnessing a population gap (Barshay-Szmidt et al., 2016). This might explain the limited spread of Late Middle Magdalenian decorations toward the north.

### Upper Magdalenian movement

During the Upper Magdalenian, the existence of extended networks across Europe is still attested, notably by the wide distribution of the schematic feminine figures of this period and some Atlantic shells, but evidence for contacts with the Cantabrian area seems to fade out (Fritz et al., 2007; Sauvet et al., 2008; Sauvet, 2019).
<figure><img src="image_93.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9 – Synoptic distribution maps comparing the spread of decorated weapon tips in the Middle and Upper Magdalenian.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Fig. 9 – *Cartes de répartition synthétiques comparant la diffusion des armatures décorées au Magdalénien moyen et supérieur.*</caption>

<caption>Abb. 9 – *Verteilungskarte mit Vergleich der Verbreitung der dekorierten Waffenspitzen während des Mittleren und Späten Magdalénien.*</caption>

Maintained relationships with the Cantabrian coast are nonetheless still attested by the weapon tips with lateral zigzags, widely spread in the Aquitaine basin and on the Cantabrian coast, and the depictions of *Capra* in frontal view. The latter, probably originating from the Cantabrian area, mainly spread along the Pyreneo-cantabrian axis to the central Pyrenees, another mountain-

ous area where ibex were hunted (Langlais et al., 2012), while they tend to become less numerous and less characteristic to the north of Aquitaine. Even if their chronological attribution remains unsure, both of these decorations (lateral zigzags and *Capra* in frontal view) seem to appear in the Early Upper Magdalenian or during the transition between the Middle and Upper Magdalenian.
It is also the case of the undecorated fork-based points, the distribution of which similarly attests contacts between the Pyrenean area (where most of the examples come from) and the northern coast of Spain (Basque Country, Asturias) as well as the north of Aquitaine during the Early Upper Magdalenian (Pétillon, 2006).

However, the dominant decoration type on the half-round rods from the Upper Magdalenian of south-western France, the one with notched grooves, ovate reliefs and braided patterns, is currently not known on the Cantabrian coast. Predominantly represented in the central Pyrenees, this type seem to have spread mainly to the north, to the Aveyron valley and the north of Aquitaine, whereas its westward diffusion seems limited to one example in Urtiaga so far, thus contrasting with the spread of the Middle Magdalenian Pyrenean decorations.

In this context, a local identity seems to stand out in Dordogne, where most of the representations of macrocephalic horses and fish-shaped patterns come from. These two elaborate decorations are represented on the same types of objects (essentially large bevelled rods and perforated batons), where they are sometimes associated, and have strikingly similar distribution areas, focused in Dordogne (and Gironde for the macrocephalic horses) with a limited spread to the Aveyron valley. Another original feature of the Upper Magdalenian art of Dordogne is visible in the occasional tracing of a ground line below the feet of the animal depictions (Tosello, 2003; Fritz et al., 2007). To the south, the Aveyron valley may have played a pivotal role in the relationships between Dordogne and Pyrenees, as it appears to retain artistic concepts from both areas. Indeed, the schematic feminine figures, macrocephalic horses and fish-shaped patterns found in the Aveyron valley suggest Dordogne influences, while the half-round rods with notched grooves and ovate reliefs, the saiga antelope depictions (Cook and Lucas, 2018) and higher resemblances in the various decorations on weapon tips support significant Pyrenean influences at the same time.

## CONCLUSION

The spread of decorated projectile tips across Magdalenian societies documents both short and long distance relationships, depending on the types of decorated weapons. The distribution maps indeed highlight widespread cultural markers (such as the weapon tips with protuberances) coexisting with possible local markers (weapon tips with spirals and circles, with macrocephalic horses, and with fish-shaped patterns) as well as interregional types, for which distribution areas only partly overlap. Consequently, they can bring precious clues to discuss local identities, exchanges networks, and cultural expansions. However, they do not give any simple answer to outline territories and understand mobility. In the future, we may still find some pieces outside of the current distribution areas; the hypotheses built from the spread of decorated weapons must then be regarded as working hypotheses that need to be tested in the light of other proxies in order to be validated.

In the meantime, the distribution of decorated weapons suggests significant changes throughout the Magdalenian period. During the Middle Magdalenian, the main types of decorated weapons identified in south-western France are particularly abundant in the Pyrenean area, which appears to maintain strong links with the Cantabrian coast via the western Pyrenees, while the dominant weapons with protuberances have widely spread to Central Europe. By contrast, some decorated weapons from the Upper Magdalenian tend to be essentially concentrated in different areas (macrocephalic horses and fish-shaped patterns in Dordogne, *Capra* in frontal view in Cantabria), supporting higher regional disparities across the Franco-Cantabrian area.

*Acknowledgements:* I would like to thank the organizers of the Conference ‘On The Move’ for their invitation encouraging me to put together this comprehensive paper and Rob Davis for his review of the English language.

## BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

ALLAIN J., RIGAUD A. (1986) – Décors et fonction : quelques exemples tirés du Magdalénien, *L'Anthropologie* (Paris), 90, 4, p. 713-738.

APELLANIZ J.-M. (1990) – Modèle d’analyse d’une école dans l’iconographie mobilière paléolithique : l’école des chevaux hypertrophiés de La Madeleine, in J. Clottes (ed.), *L’art des objets au Paléolithique*, Clamecy, Éditions du Musistère de la Culture, 2, p. 105-137.

BAULOIS A. (1980) – Les sagaies décorées du Paléolithique supérieur dans la zone franco-cantabrique, *Préhistoire ariégeoise*, 35, p. 125-128.

BARANDIARÁN I. (1988) – Datation C14 de l’art mobilier magdalénien cantabrique, *Préhistoire ariégeoise*, 43, p. 63-84.

BARANDIARÁN I. (1996) – Art mobilier cantabrique : styles et techniques, in Collective, *L’art préhistorique des Pyrénées*, Paris, Réunion des Musées nationaux, p. 88-120.

BARANDIARÁN I., CAVA A., ARRIZABALAGA A., IRIARTE-CHIAPUSSO M.-J. (2019) – Las varillas decoradas magdalenienses de Ezkutza (País Vasco), *Munibe*, 70, p. 35-63.

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 focus AMS ¹⁴C dating of the Middle and Upper Magdalenian of the western Aquitaine/Pyrenean region of France (ca. 19-14 ka cal BP): Proposing a new model for its chronological phases and for the timing of occupation, *Quaternary International*, 414, p. 62-91.
BELTRÁN A., ROBERT R., GAILLI R. (1967) – *La cueva de Bédeilhac*, Zaragoza, Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Facultad de Filosofia y Letras (Monografias arqueologicas, 2), 144 p.

BERTRAND A. (1999) – *Les armatures de sagaies magdaléniennes en matières dures animales dans les Pyrénées, Oxford, B.A.R. Publishing (B.A.R. International Series, 773), 138 p., 59 pl.*

BOAS F. (1899) – *Property marks of Alaskan Esquimo, American Anthropologist*, 1, 4, p. 601-613.

BOSC-ZANARDO B., BON F., FAUVELLE-AYMAR F.-X. (2009) – Les flèches Bushmen dans le ciel changeant de leur histoire récente. Regards croisés des sources historiques, ethnographiques et archéologiques, in J.-M. Pétillon, M.-H. Dias-Meirinho, P. Cattelain, M. Honegger, C. Normand and N. Valdeyron (eds.), *Recherches sur les armatures de projetile du Paléolithique supérieur au Néolithique, Proceedings of session C83, XVth World Congress UISPP (Lisbon, 2006) = P@lethnologie*, 1, p. 352-372.

BOURDIER C. (2012) – *Rock sculpture and symbolic geography in the Middle Magdalenian, in J. Clottes (ed.), Pleistocene art of the world, Actes du Congrès IFRAO (Tarascon-sur-Ariège, 2010)*, Tarascon-sur-Ariège (Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, special issue 65-66), p. 397-414.

BRAEM L. (2008) – *Approche typo-technique des ensembles osseux de Laugerie-Basse et de La Madeleine. La production des équipements osseux en bois de cervidé au Magdaléen moyen et récent en Périgord*, unpublished PhD thesis, Université de Provence I, 413 p.

BRAUN I. (2005) – *Die Kunst des schweizerischen Jungpaläolithikums (Magdalénien), Helvetia Archaeologica*, 141/142, p. 41-65.

BREUIL H. (1913) – *Les subdivisions du Paléolithique supérieur et leur signification, in W. Deonna (ed.), Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistoriques, Compte rendu de la XIVème session*, Genève, p. 165-238.

BREUIL H., SAINT-PÉRIER DE R. (1927) – *Les poissons, les bactériens et les reptiles dans l’art quaternaire*, Paris, Masson (Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, 2), 169 p.

BUISSON D., MENU M., PINÇON G., WALTER P. (2003) – Les objets colorés du Paléolithique supérieur, in J. Clottes and H. Delporte (eds.), *La grotte de La Vache (Ariège)*, Paris, R.M.N., vol. 2, p. 45-49.

BUSH T. (1985) – *Form and Decoration of Arrows from the Highlands of Papua New Guinea, Records of the Australian Museum*, 37, 5, p. 255-293.

CAPITAN L., PEYRONY D. (1928) – *La Madeleine : son gisement, son industrie, ses oeuvres d’art*, Paris, Librairie Émile Nourry, 125 p., 19 pl.

CARTAILHAC E. (1903) – *Les stations de Bruniquel sur les bords de l’Aveyron, L’Anthropologie (Paris)*, 14, p. 129-150; 295-315.

CATTELAIN P. (2005) – *Propulseurs magdaléniens : marqueurs culturels régionaux?, in V. Dujardin (ed.), *Industrie osseuse et parures du Solutréen au Magdalénien en Europe*, Paris, Société Préhistorique Française (Mémoire, 39), p. 301-317.

CHALARD P., BON F., BRUXELLES L., DUCASSE S., TEYSSANDIER N., RENARD C., GARDERE P., GUILLERMIN P., LACOMBE S., LANGLAIS M., MENSAN R., NORMAND C., SIMONNET R., TARRIÑO A. (2010) – *Chalosse Type Flint: Exploitation and Distribution of a Lithologic Tracer during the Upper Palaeolithic, Southern France, in A. Burke, D. Field and M. Brewer-Laporta (eds.), Ancient Mines and Quarries: A Trans-Atlantic Perspective*, Oxford, Oxbow Books, p. 13-22.

CHAUCHAT C. (dir.) (1999) – *L’habitat magdalénien de la grotte du Bourrouilla à Arancou (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), Gallia Préhistoire*, 41, p. 1-151.

CHOLLOT-VARAGNAC M. (1980) – *Les origines du graphisme symbolique. Essai d’analyse des écritures primitives en Préhistoire*, Paris, Fondation Singer-Polignac, 476 p.

CLEYET-MERLE J.-J., GENESTE J.-M., BONNET-JACQUEMENT P., MAN-ESTIER E., MERLIN-LANGLADE V. (2014) – *Grands sites d’art magdalénien : La Madeleine et Laugerie-Basse il y a 15 000 ans*, Paris, R.M.N., 128 p.

CLOTTES J. (1983) – *La caverne des Églises à Ussat (Ariège) : Fouilles 1964-1967, Préhistoire ariégeoise*, 38, p. 23-81.

CLOTTES J., DELPORTE H. (2003) – *La grotte de La Vache (Ariège)*, Paris, C.T.H.S., t. 1 : 407 p., t. 2 : 464 p.

COOK J. (2013) – *Ice Age Art: arrival of the modern mind*, London, The British Museum Press, 288 p.

COOK J., LUCAS C. (2018) – *L’Antilope Saïga, une espèce qui peuplait autrefois l’Europe occidentale, in P. Cattelain, M. Gillard and A. Smolderen (eds.), Disparus ? Les mamifères au temps de Cro-Magnon en Europe*, Treignes, C.E.D.A.R.C., p. 245-258.

CORCHÓN RODRÍGUEZ S. (1986) – *El arte mueble paleolítico cantábrico: contexto y análisis interno*, Madrid, Ministerio de Cultura (Monografias de Altamira, 16), 482 p.

CORCHÓN RODRÍGUEZ M. S., MARTÍNEZ J., TARRIÑO VINAGRE A. (2009) – *Mobilité, territoires et relations culturelles au début du Magdalénien moyen cantabrique : nouvelles perspectives, in F. Djindjian and L. Oosterbeek (eds.), Espaces symboliques dans l’art préhistorique*, Oxford, Archaeopress (B.A.R. International Series, 1938), p. 217-230.

DACHARY M. (2009) – *Les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées occidentales. Réflexions sur l’exploitation d’un territoire, in F. Djindjian and L. Oosterbeek (eds.), Espaces symboliques dans l’art préhistorique*, Oxford, Archaeopress (B.A.R. International Series, 1999), p. 39-45.

DACHARY M., MERLET J.-C., PLASSARD F., CHAUVÈRE F.-X., AJAS A., BIROUSTE C., CHEVALLIER A., EASTHAM A., FERRIER C., LAROULANDIE V., MISTROT V. (2020) – *Le Magdalénien supérieur du sud de l’Aquitaine. Réflexions à partir des archéoséquences de la grotte du Bourrouilla (Arancou, Pyrénées-Atlantiques) et de l’abri du Grand Pastou (Sorde-l’Abbaye, Landes), in L. G. Straus and M. Langlais (eds.), Magdalenian chrono-stratigraphic correlations and cultural connexion between Cantabrian Spain and Southwest France... and beyond*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Séances, 15), p. 65-88.

DEFFARGE R., LAURENT P., SONNEVILLE-BORDES D. (1977) – *Sagaies et ciseaux du Magdalénien supérieur du Morin, Gironde. Un essai de définition, in H. Camps-Farber (ed.), Méthodologie appliquée à l’industrie de l’os préhistorique,*
Paris, C.N.R.S. (Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S., 568), p. 99-110.

DELPORTE H., HAHN J., MONS L., PINÇON G., SONNEVILLE-Bordes D. (1988) – *Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique, cahier I. Sagaies*, Aix-en-Provence, Publications de l'Université de Provence.

FANO MARTÍNEZ M. A., D'ERRICO F., VANHAEREN M. (2005) – Magdalenian bone industry from El Horno cave (Ramales, Cantabria, Spain), in V. Dujardin (ed.), *Industrie osseuse et parures du Solutréen au Magdalénien en Europe*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire, 34), p. 177-196.

FERUGLIO V. (1987) – *Les baguettes demi-rondes d'Enlène (Montesquieu-Avantès, Ariège)*, unpublished master thesis, Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 141 p.

FERUGLIO V. (1992) – Fiche baguettes demi-rondes, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), *Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique, Cahier V : Bâtons percés, baguettes*, Treignes, C.E.D.A.R.C., p. 71-83.

FERUGLIO V. (1998) – Les baguettes demi-rondes de l’Espagne cantabrique et leur comparaison avec les Pyrénées françaises, *Art et Société dans le Magdalénien pyrénéen*, rapport triennal 1996-98, p. 187-196.

FERUGLIO V. (2003) – Les baguettes demi-rondes, in J. Clottes and H. Delporte (eds.), *La grotte de La Vache (Ariège)*, Paris, C.T.H.S., t. 1, p. 275-284.

FERUGLIO V., AVERBOUH A. (2016) – Identification d’un marqueur identitaire des groupes du Magdalénien par l’approche technologique, thématique et chronologique : l’exemple des baguettes demi-rondes à tubérosités, in J.-J. Cleyet-Merle, J.-M. Geneste and E. Man-Estier (eds.), *L’art au quotidien. Objets ornés du Paléolithique supérieur, Actes du colloque international (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, 2014)*, Les Eyzies de Tayac-Sireuil, Musée national de la préhistoire (*Paleo*, special issue 2016), p. 199-215.

FERUGLIO V., BUISSON D. (1996) – Les baguettes demi-rondes à volutes, in Collective, *L'art préhistorique des Pyrénées*, Paris, R.M.N., p. 220.

FERUGLIO V., BUISSON D. (1999) – Accolements de pièces à section demi-ronde, in M. Julien (ed.), *Préhistoire d'os. Recueil d'études sur l'industrie osseuse préhistorique offert à Henriette Camps-Fabrer, Aix-en-Provence, Publications de l'Université de Provence*, p. 143-149.

FRITZ C. (2010) – Le Magdalénien, in J. Clottes (ed.), *La France préhistorique. Un essai d'histoire*, Lonrai, Gallimard, p. 202-228.

FRITZ C., TOSELLO G., SAUVET G. (2007) – Groupes ethniques, territoires, échanges : la « notion de frontière » dans l’art magdalénien, in N. Cazals, J. González Urquijo and X. Terradas (eds.), *Frontières naturelles et frontières culturelles dans les Pyrénées préhistoriques*, Santander, Publican ediciones (Monografías del IIIPC), p. 164-181.

FUENTES O., LUCAS C., ROBERT E. (2019) – An approach to Palaeolithic networks: The question of symbolic territories and their interpretation through Magdalenian art, *Quaternary International*, 503, p. 233-247.

GONZÁLEZ-SAINZ C. (1989) – *El Magdaleniense Superior-Final de la region cantábrica*, Santander, Universidad de Cantabria, 318 p.

GONZÁLEZ-SAINZ C. (1993) – En torno a los paralelos entre el arte mobiliar y rupestre, *Veleia*, 10, p. 39-56.

ICKERODT U. F. (2013) – Barbed points through time – A hunting weapon between ethno-archaeological argumentation and functional analysis, in O. Grimm and U. Schmölcke (eds.), *Hunting in northern Europe until 1500 AD. Old traditions and regional developments, continental sources and continental influences*, Neumünster, Wachholtz, p. 113-145.

JULIEN M. (1982) – *Les harpons magdaléniens*, Paris, C.N.R.S. (Supplément à Gallia préhistoire, 17), 239 p.

JULIEN M. (1999) – Une tendance créatrice au Magdalénien : à propos de stries d’adhérence sur quelques harpons, in Collective, *Préhistoire d’os. Recueil d’études sur l’industrie osseuse préhistorique offert à Henriette Camps-Fabrer, Aix-en-Provence, Publications de l’Université de Provence*, p.133-142.

LACOMBE S. (2005) – Territoires d’approvisionnement en matières premières lithiques au Tardiglaciaire. Remarques à propos de quelques ensembles pyrénéens, in J. Jaubert and M. Barbaza (eds.), *Territoires, déplacements, mobilité, échanges durant la Préhistoire. Terres et hommes du sud (126ème congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Toulouse, 2001)*, Paris, C.T.H.S., p. 329-353.

LADIER E. (2016) – Objets inédits ou peu connus de Brunikul et leur place dans l’art mobilier magdalénien de la vallée de l’Aveyron, in J.-J. Cleyet-Merle, J.-M. Geneste and E. Man-Estier (eds.), *L’art au quotidien – Objets ornés du Paléolithique supérieur, Actes du colloque international (Les Eyzies de Tayac, 2014)*, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac-Sireuil, Musée national de la préhistoire (*Paleo*, special issue 2016), p. 485-504.

LANGLAIS M., COSTAMAGNO S., LAROULANDIE V., PÉTILLON J.-M., DISCAMPS E., MALLYE J.-B., COCHARD D., KUNTZ D. (2012) – The evolution of Magdalenian societies in South-West France between 18,000 and 14,000 cal BP: Changing environments, changing tool kits, *Quaternary International*, 272-273, p. 138-149.

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.

LANGLEY M. C. (2014) – Magdalenian antler projectile point design: Determining original form for uni- and bilaterally barbed points, *Journal of Archaeological Sciences*, 44, p. 104-116.

LANGLEY M. C. (2015) – Investigating maintenance and discard behaviours for osseous projectile points: A Middle to Late Magdalenian (c. 19,000-14,000 cal. BP) example, *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, 40, p. 340-360.

LANGLEY M. C., AUGIER D., DELAGE C., PAUTHIER A. (2015) – A Magdalenian decorated baguette demi-ronde from Grotte de l’Abbé (Charente, France), *Comptes Rendus Palevol*, 14, p. 321-330.

LEMONNIER P. (1987) – Le sens des flèches. Culture matérielle et identité ethnique chez les Anga de Nouvelle-Guinée, in B. Koechlin, J. M. C. Sigaut and G. Toffin (eds.), *De la voûte au terroir, du jardin au foyer*, Paris, Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, p. 573-595.
LEROI-GOURHAN A. (1971) – Préhistoire de l'Art Occidental, Paris, Mazenod, 502 p.

LUCAS C. (2012) – Les décors géométriques du Magdalénien supérieur de la grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) : Une place à part dans l'équipement ?, in J. Clottes (ed.), *Pleistocene art of the world*, Actes du Congrès IFRAO (Tarascon-sur-Ariège, 2010), Tarascon-sur-Ariège (Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées*, special issue 65-66), p. 1501-1521.

LUCAS C. (2014a) – Messages codés des chasseurs magdaléniens. Approche technologique et structurale des objets ornés de compositions géométriques par les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées nord-occidentales (16.500-12.000 ans cal. B. C.), unpublished PhD thesis, Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 348 p, 217 pl.

LUCAS C. (2014b) – Tipo-cronología de las composiciones geométricas magdalenienses del Pirineo noroccidental, in M. A. Medina-Alcaide, A. J. Romero-Alonso, R. M. Ruiz-Márquez and J. L. Sanchidrián Torti (eds.), *Sobre rocas y huesos: las sociedades prehistóricas y sus manifestaciones plásticas*, Universidad de Córdoba, U.C.O. Press, p. 130-151.

MAIER A. (2015) – *The Central European Magdalenian. Regional Diversity and Internal Variability*, New York, Springer, 455 p.

MAIER A., LIEBERMANN C., PFEIFER S. J. (2020) – Beyond the Alps and Tatra Mountains – the 20-14 ka Repopulation of the Northern Mid-latitudes as Inferred from Palimpsests Deciphered with Keys from Western and Central Europe, *Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology*, 3, p. 398-452.

MALGARINI R., LUCAS C. (2015) – L’industrie osseuse de la campagne 2015, in L. Mevel (dir.), *Les occupations magdaléniennes et aziliennes de l’abri des Douattes (Musièges, Haute-Savoie) : Rapport de fouilles programmées 2015*, unpublished excavation report, p. 46-53.

MAN-ESTIER E. (2017) – Une tête de renne inédite provenant du Magdalénien de Longueroche (Plazac, Dordogne, France), An unpublished reindeer head from the Magdalenian of Longueroche, *Paléo*, 28, p. 251-255.

MAN-ESTIER E., PAILLET P. (2014) – Regards croisés sur l’art magdalénien de deux grands sites, in Collective, *Grands sites d’art magdalénien. La Madeleine et Laugerie-Basse, il y a 15 000 ans*, Paris, R.M.N., p. 62-67.

MAN-ESTIER E., PAILLET P. (2019) – See how they fly! Some considerations on symbolic transfers and territories at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic, *Quaternary International*, 503, p. 248-253.

MAUSER P. F. (1970) – *Die jungpaläolithische Höhlenstation Petersfels im Hegau (Gemarkung Bittelbrunn, Landkreis Konstanz)*, Freiburg, Staatliches Amt für Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Badische Fundberichte, Sonderheft 13), 127 p., 114 pl.

PASSEMAR D. (1916) – Sur les baguettes demi-rondes, *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 13, p. 301-307.

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-Atlantiques)*, Treignes, C.E.D.A.R.C. (Artefacts, 10), 302 p.

PÉTILLON J.-M. (2009) – Des barbelures pour quoi faire ? Réflexion préliminaire sur la fonction des pointes barbelées du Magdalénien supérieur, in J.-M. Pétillon, M.-H. Dias-Meirinho, P. Cattelain, M. Honegger, C. Normand and N. Valdeyron (eds.), *Projectile weapon elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic*, Proceedings of session C83, XVth World Congress UISPP (Lisbon, 2006) = *P@lethnology*, 1, p.69-102.

PÉTILLON J.-M. (2017) – Vivre au bord du golfe de Gascogne au Paléolithique supérieur récent : vers un nouveau paradigme, in C. Dupond and G. Marchand (eds.), *Archéologie des chasseurs-cueilleurs maritimes : de la fonction des habitats à l'organisation de l'espace littoral*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Séances, 6), p. 23-36.

PÉTILLON J.-M., PLISSON H., CATTELAIN P. (2016) – Thirty Years of Experimental Research on the Breakage Patterns of Stone Age Osseous Points. Overview, Methodological Problems and Current Perspectives, in R. Iovita and K. Sano (eds.), *Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry*, Dordrecht, Springer (Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series), p. 47-63.

PÉTILLON J.-M., SACCHI D. (2013) – Deux spatules du type Pekárna dans la grotte Gazel (Sallèles-Cabardès, Aude, France), in M. de la Rasilla Vives (ed.), *F. Javier Fortea Perez, Universitatis Ovetentis Magister : estudios en home-naje*, Oviedo, Universidad de Oviedo, p. 305-315.

PFEIFER S. J. (2017) – Ornamented osseous projectile point from the Balcarka and Pekárna caves: evidences of direct interrelations between two Magdalenian sites in the Moravian karst (Czech Republic), *Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt*, 47, 2, p. 141-151.

PIETTE E. (1907) – *L'Art pendant l'Age du Renne*, Paris, Masson et Cie, 112 p., 100 pl.

RIVERO O. (2010) – *La movilidad de los grupos humanos en el Magdaleniense Medio cántabro-pirenaico: Una visión a través del arte*, unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad de Salamanca, vol. 1: 662 p, vol. 2: 714 p.

RIVERO O., FANO M. A., GARATE D. (2014) – Relationships between recent Magdalenian societies in Cantabrian Spain, through the technical and formal analysis of frontal representations of Ibex, in M. Otte (ed.), *Modes de contacts et de déplacements au Paléolithique eurasiatique*, Liège, ERAUL, p. 589-600.

SACCHI D. (1990) – Bases objectives de la chronologie de l’art mobilier paléolithique dans les Pyrénées septentrionales, in J. Clottes (ed.), *L’art des objets au Paléolithique*, Clamecy, Éditions du Ministère de la Culture, 1, p. 13-29.

SACCHI D. (2003) – *Le Magdalénien : Apogée de l'art quaternaire*, Paris, La Maison des Roches, 126 p.

SAINT-PÉRIER DE R. (1929) – Les baguettes sculptées dans l’art paléolithique, *L’Anthropologie* (Paris), 39, p. 43-64.

SAINT-PÉRIER DE R. (1936) – *La grotte d'Isturitz. II – Le Magdalénien de la Grande Salle*, Paris, Masson et Cie (Archives de l'I.P.H., 7), 123 p., 12 pl.

SAUVET G. (1990) – Les signes dans l’art mobilier, in J. Clottes (ed.), *L’art des objets au Paléolithique*, Clamecy, Éditions du Ministère de la Culture, 2, p. 83-99.
SAUVET G. (2019) – The lifeworld of hunter-gatherers and the concepts of territory, *Quaternary International*, 503, p. 191-199.

SAUVET G., FORTEA J., FRITZ C., TOSELLO G. (2008) – Echanges culturels entre groupes humains paléolithiques entre 20.000 et 12.000 BP, *Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées*, 63, p. 73-92.

SIEVEKING A. (1987) – *A Catalogue of Palaeolithic Art in the British Museum*, London, British Museum Publications, 115 p., 131 pl.

STRAUS L. G., LANGLAIS M. (2020) – *Magdalenian chrono-stratigraphic correlations and cultural connexion between Can tabrian Spain and Southwest France... and beyond*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Séances, 15), 393 p.

SZMIDT C., PÉTILLON J.-M., CATTELAIN P., NORMAND C., SCHWAB C. (2009) – Premières dates radiocarbone pour le Magdalénien d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 106, 3, p. 588-592.

TOSELLO G. (2003) – *Pierres gravées du Périgord magdalé-nien : Art, symboles, territoires*, Paris, C.N.R.S. (Supplé-ment à Gallia préhistoire, 36), 577 p.

UTRILLA P. (1990) – Bases objectives de la chronologie de l’art mobilier paléolithique sur la côte cantabrique, in J. Clottes (ed.), *L’art des objets au Paléolithique*, Clamecy, Éditions du Ministère de la Culture, 1, p. 87-99.

UTRILLA P., MAZO C. (1996) – Le Paléolithique supérieur dans le versant sud des Pyrénées. Communications et influences avec le monde pyrénéen français, in H. Delporte and J. Clottes (eds.), *Pyrénées préhistoriques. Arts et sociétés*, Paris, C.T.H.S., p. 243-262.

WELTÉ A.-C. (2000) – Le Magdalénien supérieur et les propul-seurs dans la vallée de l’Aveyron : révision chronologique, in G. Pion (ed.), *Le Paléolithique supérieur récent : nou-velles données sur le peuplement et l’environnement*, actes de la table ronde (Chambéry, 1999), Paris, Société préhisto-rique française (Mémoire, 28), p. 201-212.

WIESSNER P. (1983) – Style and social information in Kalaharin San projectile points, *American Antiquity*, 48, p. 253-276.

Claire LUCAS
British Museum, Department of Britain,
Europe and Prehistory
Franks House, 56 Orsman Road,
London N1 5QJ
CLucas@britishmuseum.org
<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>

En Mouvement / On the Move / In Bewegung

Mobilités des hommes, des objets et des idées pendant le Paléolithique supérieur européen

Mobility of people, objects and ideas during the European Upper Palaeolithic

Mobilität von Menschen, Objekten und Ideen im europäischen Jungpaläolithikum

Actes de la séance commune de la Société préhistorique française et la
Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft à Strasbourg (16 - 17 mai 2019)

Textes publiés sous la direction de
Ludovic MEVEL, Mara-Julia WEBER et Andreas MAIER

Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2021

(Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 17), p. 173-194

www.prehistoire.org

ISSN : 2263-3847 – ISBN : 2-913745-86-5 (en ligne)

Back to the wall: an approach to the reuse of symbolic
underground spaces during the Late Upper Palaeolithic
on the Bay of Biscay seaboard

Retour aux parois : une approche de la réutilisation d'espaces souterrains symboliques au Paléolithique supérieur tardif sur le versant du golfe de Gascogne

Zurück zur Wand: Eine Annäherung an die wiederholte Nutzung
symbolischer unterirdischer Räume während des späten
Jungpaläolithikums an der Küste des Golfs von Biskaya

Diego GARATE, Olivia RIVERO, Iñaki INTXAURBE and Lucía M. DÍAZ-GONZÁLEZ

<footnote>**Abstract:** The symbolic use of the underground landscape is one of the most relevant aspects of the behaviour of Upper Palaeolithic societies in Europe. Currently available archaeological data clearly indicate the development of symbolic activities inside the caves from the Aurignacian, with Chauvet as the best example. This symbolic use became generalized until its most widespread levels at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic period, during the Middle Magdalenian. Besides, some of these caves were used during several periods in the Upper Palaeolithic. At the same time, even though the presence of graphic palimpsests was noted from the beginning of research in cave art, the recurrent use of caves for symbolic purposes, basically parietal art, in different periods during the Upper Palaeolithic has received the most interest only after the introduction of ¹⁴C-AMS analyses of charcoal paintings. Thus, until now, the reuse of caves for symbolic purposes, especially rock art, has scarcely been studied. The main goal of the present study is therefore to construct a preliminary overview of the phenomenon in order to establish differences and/or similarities in the reutilisation patterns. The methodology to identify the reuse of caves art in the area of study has been based on the critical re-evaluation of existing information. Previous studies have been partial, mostly because they were restricted to specific geographical areas. In this way, a recurrence has been observed in the use of these symbolic spaces which is especially striking in the central/western Cantabrian region, during the whole period, in a way that is not detected in other regions. This is a very significant observation because it is evidence for a shared form of behaviour regarding graphic codes in human groups that followed one another over time and are archaeologically represented by very different technocomplexes.</footnote>

<footnote>**Keywords:** Cave art, Symbolism, Re-use, Europe, Magdalenian.</footnote>
**Résumé** : L'appropriation symbolique des paysages souterrains est l'un des comportements les plus marquants de l'Homo sapiens pendant le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. L'incursion à l'intérieur des grottes à des fins symboliques semble être lié à de rares actes funéraires des populations néandertaliennes et des certaines activités ponctuelles comme celles documentées dans la grotte de Bruniquel. Les données archéologiques actuellement disponibles indiquent clairement le développement d'activités symboliques à l'intérieur des grottes depuis l'époque aurignacienne, avec la grotte Chauvet comme meilleur exemple. Ce processus se généralisera jusqu'à atteindre son paroxysme vers la fin du Paléolithique supérieur, au cours du Magdalénien moyen. Dans certaines régions, les grottes demeurent la principale source d'information pour appréhender l'organisation des sociétés paléolithiques en raison des problèmes de conservation des habitats de plein air. Elles ont en effet été occupées, voire habitées, et utilisées pour différentes fonctions selon des chronologies plus ou moins longues. D'ailleurs, certaines d'entre elles ont été occupées pendant plusieurs périodes, continues ou non, pendant le Paléolithique supérieur. C'est la raison pour laquelle certains spécialistes ont proposé l'idée que certains de ces sites aient eu le statut de « sites d'agrégations », comme l'illustre le cas de la grotte d'Altamira. Cette même idée a également été évoquée sous le nom de « super sites » pour certaines grottes pyrénéennes comme Isturitz ou le Mas d'Azil. Si la présence de palimpseste graphique dans l'art rupestre a été mise en évidence depuis les prémices des recherches dans ces contextes, l'utilisation récurrente de grottes à des fins symboliques et artistique a été véritablement démontrée avec le développement des analyses ¹⁴C-AMS sur les peintures réalisées au fusain. Pourtant, jusqu'à présent, la réappropriation de grottes à des fins symboliques n'a guère été un véritable objet d'étude. Seules les grottes de Cantabrie occidentale et centrale ont été évaluées de manière conjointe dans cette perspective, alors que dans d'autres secteurs elles ont été considérées individuellement. Récemment, à travers nos recherches dans l'est de la Cantabrie et dans les Pyrénées occidentales, nous avons détecté l'existence de trois sites qui présentaient des récurrences graphiques : les sites d'Aitzbitarte IV et d'Aitzbitarte V, étaient des ensembles d'art rupestre inconnus. Erberua était pour sa part déjà connu, mais nos travaux ont permis la réinterprétation de certaines gravures.

En raison de ces nouveaux indices et dans le but de parvenir à avoir une vision d'ensemble de ce comportement culturel à la fin du Paléolithique supérieur, nous avons répétorié et caractérisé tous les sites d'art rupestre qui présentait une réutilisation des parois en réalisant une réévaluation critique des informations publiées et la discussion de modèles pour le bassin versant du golfe de Gascogne. L'objectif principal de la présente étude était de proposer un premier aperçu de ces phénomènes et de trouver des différences et/ou des similitudes dans les schémas de réappropriation des parois. Au final, nous avons observé une récurrence de ces espaces symboliques qui est particulièrement frappante dans la région de Cantabrie centrale/occidentale, pendant tout le Paléolithique supérieur. Ces résultats permettent de mettre en évidence un comportement partagé pour des codes graphiques par des groupes humains qui se succèdent dans le temps, en transcendant les technocomplexes auxquelles ils appartiennent.

L'enquête actuelle s'est limitée à un sujet principal – la distribution géographique et spatiale – et reste préliminaire en raison de notre objectif principal qui était d'obtenir une vue d'ensemble à l'échelle de l'Europe occidentale. Dans tous les cas, des analyses plus approfondies devront être effectuées pour préciser les interactions entre les différentes phases de décors, pour définir les schémas de construction graphique de l'ensemble et bien sûr, pour expliquer les différences mises en évidence.

**Mots-clés** : Grotte ornée, Symbolisme, Réutilisation, Europe, Magdalénien.

**Zusammenfassung:** Die symbolische Nutzung unterirdischer Landschaften ist einer der relevantesten Verhaltensaspekte jungpaläolithischer Gesellschaften in Europa. Die zurzeit verfügbaren archäologischen Daten zeigen deutlich die Entwicklung symbolischer Aktivitäten in Höhlen seit dem Aurignacien, mit der Chauvet-Höhle als bestem Beispiel. Diese Art der symbolischen Nutzung erfuhr immer weitere Verbreitung bis zu ihrem Höhepunkt gegen Ende des Jungpaläolithikums, während des Mittleren Magdalénien. Außerdem wurden einige dieser Höhlen zu mehreren Zeitpunkten während des Jungpaläolithikums genutzt. Wiegleich Palimpseste bei Höhlenkunst von Beginn der Untersuchungen an beschrieben wurden, wuchs das Interesse an der wiederholten Nutzung von Höhlen für symbolische Zwecke, hauptsächlich an Wandkunst, zu verschiedenen jungpaläolithischen Epochen erst nach der Einführung von ¹⁴C-AMS-Analysen an Holzkohle-Zeichnungen. Bislang wurde die Wiederverwendung von Höhlen zu symbolischen Zwecken, insbesondere Felskunst, kaum untersucht. Das Ziel dieser Studie ist es daher, einen vorläufigen Überblick über das Phänomen zu geben, um Unterschiede und/oder Gemeinsamkeiten in den Wiederverwendungsmustern herausstellen zu können. Die Methode zur Erkennung der Wiederverwendung von Höhlenkunst im Untersuchungsgebiet basiert auf der kritischen Neubewertung der vorhandenen Informationen. Bisherige Studien betrachteten meist nur einen spezifischen geographischen Raum und waren daher partieller Natur. Auf diese Weise konnte eine wiederholte Nutzung symbolischer Plätze festgestellt werden, die sich in einer besonders hohen Intensität während des gesamten Untersuchungszeitraumes in der zentralen/westlichen kantabrischen Region abzeichnet, wie sie in keiner anderen Region erkannt wurde. Dies ist eine signifikante Beobachtung, da sie beweist, dass zeitlich aufeinanderfolgende Menschengruppen, die archäologisch durch sehr unterschiedliche Technokomplexe repräsentiert sind, eine geteilte Art des Verhaltens in Bezug auf graphische Kodierung hatten.

**Schlüsselwörter:** Höhlenkunst, Symbolismus, Wiederholte Nutzung, Europa, Magdalénien.
INTRODUCTION

THE SYMBOLIC appropriation of the subterranean landscape is one of the most significant aspects of Homo sapiens behaviour among Upper Palaeolithic societies in Europe. Several authors have claimed that it is one of the distinctive features of ‘modern behaviour’ in those human groups (Mithen, 1996; Mellars, 2004; Zilhão, 2007). In fact, it is considered a milestone for humankind, and a large number of these sites, especially in Spain and France, have been designated World Heritage by UNESCO.

Earlier incursions inside caves for symbolic purposes seem to be represented by a few Neanderthal burials (Pettitt, 2002) and some occasional and indeterminate activities only in Bruniquel Cave (Jaubert et al., 2016).

Recent Uranium-series dating results of calcite crusts in spatial relationship with rock art have been published for the Spanish caves of Ardales, Maltravieso and La Pasiega (Hoffmann et al., 2018a), and these coincide with a Neanderthal occupation of the territory. However, several specialists doubted the results (Pearce and Bonneau, 2018; Aubert et al., 2018a; Slimak et al., 2018; White et al., 2019), which has motivated an interesting discussion (Hoffmann et al., 2018b, 2018c and 2019). In previous chronologies, such other evidence as the ‘votive’ hand-axe from the Sima de los Huesos (Pit of the Bones) at Atapuerca has been proposed for archaic Neanderthals (Arsuaga et al., 2014), although the intentionality of this deposit has not been confirmed yet (Aranburu et al., 2017).

In contrast, currently available archaeological data clearly indicate the development of symbolic activities inside caves from the Upper Palaeolithic Aurignacian onwards (Clottes [ed.], 2001; Pike et al., 2012), even taking into account all the limitations concerning the input of this kind of evidence in the construction of cultural taxonomy (Reynolds and Riede, 2019). This behaviour then became increasingly common until reaching its greatest development – in terms of quantity – at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic, in the Middle Magdalenian (Clottes, 2012a). The cave of Chauvet (Ardèche, France) has contributed to this early art with a dozen of direct and more than a hundred of indirect datings obtained by different methods (Quiles et al., 2016), indicating human activities during the Aurignacian and also the Gravettian. Although some researchers question the validity of the radiometric datings and the claims for a stylistic comparison and evaluation of palaeontological and stratigraphic evidence (Züchner, 1996; Pettitt, 2008; Pettitt et al., 2009; Combier and Jouve, 2014; Pettitt and Bahn, 2015), all doubts have been countered with stylistic comparisons (e.g. Tosello and Fritz, 2005; Sauvet et al., 2008), or by geomorphological insights, because the entrance of Chauvet started collapsing since 29 ka until the total sealing of the cave 21 ka ago (Sadier et al., 2012). There is a similar situation concerning the half-dozen U/Th Aurignacian dates obtained in Castillo, Altamira, and Tito Bustillo (Pike et al., 2012), which were also criticized by some specialists

(Bednarik, 2012; Clottes, 2012b; Pons-Branchu et al., 2014; Sauvet et al., 2017) but defended by the initial researchers (Pike et al., 2017).

In fact, caves are the main source of information for the reconstruction of Palaeolithic societies because of preservation conditions and because they were inhabited and used under different functional aspects (Utrilla, 1994; Olive, 2004). Some of these caves were occupied, continuously or not, during several periods during the Upper Palaeolithic. Consequently, some specialists have proposed the idea of ‘aggregation sites’ for those caves where the archaeological record is extremely rich for one or several periods. First applied to Altamira Cave (Cantabria, Spain; Conkey, 1980 and 1992), the idea has also been posited under the term of ‘super sites’ for some Pyrenean caves, like Isturitz (Pyrénées Atlantiques, France) or Mas d’Azil (Ariège, France; Bahn, 1982). This idea has been developed mostly in the Cantabrian region by analyzing the social geographies of Palaeolithic groups (Moure, 1994; Utrilla, 1994; Utrilla and Martínez-Bea, 2008; De La Rasilla and Duarte, 2018), although a reinterpretation has been proposed for Isturitz (Rivero, 2014).

While the presence of graphic palimpsests in cave art was noted from the beginning of research (e.g. Alcalde del Río et al., 1911), the recurrent use of caves for symbolic purposes, basically parietal art, in different periods throughout the Upper Palaeolithic is an aspect that has been addressed in most detail only after the introduction of ¹⁴C-AMS analyses of charcoal paintings (Valladas et al., 2013). There is a supposed long tradition of decorated caves based on the radiocarbon dates for sites like Cougnac (Lot, France) and Cosquer (Bouches du Rhône, France; Lorblanchet, 1994a; Valladas et al., 2017), the suggested repainting on the same wall at Niaux (Ariège, France; Clottes et al., 1992), or even retouching the same figures at Castillo (Cantabria, Spain; Valladas et al., 2001) again during the Magdalenian. However, the validity of most of these dates was later criticized because of possible contamination processes during sampling and analysis (Sauvet, 2004). On the other hand, the wall-stratigraphic superimpositions of figures in different styles have also been used to demonstrate spatial recurrence of symbolic activities inside the caves. In the Cantabrian region this phenomenon was observed especially in Altamira and Castillo caves from the first moments of research (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911), and the figures were attributed first to the Early Upper Palaeolithic (i.e. Gravettian), to its middle phases (i.e. Solutrean and Lower Magdalenian) and finally to the Middle Magdalenian (Moure, 1994). The same idea has been applied to a large number of caves, including Peña Candamo, Llonín, Tito Bustillo, Pasiega, and La Garma, within a more extended chronology (González-Sainz, 2004). At the same time, a model of human use of the interior of the caves was proposed for the western Cantabrian sites of Llonín, Tito Bustillo, Lloseta, and Buxu (Fortea, 2007). These caves were apparently explored and decorated in all their sectors during the Gravettian, and then the main walls were decorated again in the Magdalenian, superimposing
the ‘new’ figures on the ‘older’ ones, creating a complex palimpsest. This model has also been applied for the central Cantabrian caves of Altamira, Pasiega, Castillo, and La Garma (Corchón et al., 2012). Such recurrent graphic activities have been assessed for just a few caves in the Pyrenees: Trois Frères, and Le Portel (Clottes, 1989; Jaubert, 2008), while this phenomenon seems to be even scarcer in the Dordogne, where it is basically limited to La Mouthe (Breuil, 1952), and Font-de-Gaume (Plassard, 2006). Incursions into the caves for other kinds of symbolic activities, like burials or object deposits (Medina-Alcaide et al., 2018), seem to have been more infrequent and so far no evidence of recurrence has been detected.

More recently, during our research survey in the eastern Cantabrian region and the western Pyrenees, graphic recurrence during the Upper Palaeolithic has been detected at three sites (Garate, 2018). In the cases of Aitzbitarte IV (Garate et al., 2020a) and Aitzbitarte V (Garate et al., 2020b) these are previously unknown rock art ensembles, while in the case of Erberua some of the already known engravings were reinterpreted (Garate et al., 2020c). These results are especially interesting because they connect the Cantabrian and Pyrenean regions, also in view of this specific phenomenon of the reutilization of cave sectors for graphic activities.

Thus, until now, the re-appropriation of caves for symbolic purposes, especially in reference to rock art, has been studied very little. Only the western and central Cantabrian caves have been considered as a whole in this sense, while only individual ones in other regions have been examined. In fact, the reuse of caves with symbolic purposes can be related to the addition of new figures after earlier one(s), on the same or other panels, in a short or long chronological dimension (Lorblanchet, 1994a). In the first case, reuse is very difficult to detect due to the low resolution of the dating methods, only the parietal stratigraphy allows us to assess – indirectly – the time scale. In the second case, the criteria are more numerous, especially ¹⁴C and U/Th analysis, parietal stratigraphy and stylistic comparison are to be mentioned.

As a consequence of new evidence and the lack of an overview about this cultural behaviour involving the Middle/Upper Magdalenian reuse of caves decorated in previous phases, all the cave art sites in the Bay of Biscay with recurrent decoration through time have been identified and defined in this study in order to seek different or similar patterns.

## MATERIALS AND METHODS

The area of study has been restricted to the Bay of Biscay seaboard, this is to say, to all the river basins that discharge into the Atlantic along the Cantabrian and the Landes coastlines (from the River Nalón in Asturias, northern Spain, to the Loire in Brittany, western France). This is the classical area for Palaeolithic cave art studies, including the regions of the Cantabrian Mountains, the

Pyrenees, the Quercy, the Perigord, the Charente, and the Loire. It is here where the continuous symbolic use of caves during the Upper Palaeolithic was more common, albeit not exclusive, or where it has been especially highlighted by research.

The methodology developed to identify the re-appropriation of cave art in the selected area has been based on the critical re-examination of the existing information. The reappraisal of all the Late Upper Palaeolithic decorated ensembles starting with the literature has enabled a global view for the mentioned area (table 1). Only caves reused during the Middle/Upper Magdalenian, with previous decoration phases dated to the Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, and/or Lower Magdalenian, were selected. In the case of the Lower Magdalenian, there are some sites where the differentiation between one and another technocomplex is so difficult (e.g. Altamira, Marsoulas, Roc-aux-Sorciers, Cap Blanc, etc.) that they have to be considered with caution. Recurrences between Middle and Upper Magdalenian technocomplexes have been excluded because of the difficulty in detecting differences (Rivero and Sauvet, 2014), likewise recurrences between Early Upper Palaeolithic phases because that is not the objective of the study.

The attribution to different phases referred to in the literature is sometimes not well argued, and such sites have been discarded from our analysis as explained below (e.g., Lascaux, Pech Merle, Covarón, El Bosque, Urdiales, Cullalvera, Lloseta, and Coimbre). In contrast, some cases that have never been cited in this regard before (Bernifal, Combarelles I, Bourgnetou, and Erberua) and our new discoveries (Aitzbitarte IV and V) have been included, as mentioned above.

At Lascaux Cave (Dordogne, France) some specialists distinguish several rock art phases, including a final one in the Middle Magdalenian (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965; Lorblanchet, 1994a), based on the presence of claviforms, some frontal-view animals and the multiplication of the legs of some horses. However, all these seem to be compatible with immediately previous decoration phases during the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian. Likewise, in the cave of Pech Merle (Quercy, France) three rock art phases were identified originally, including one of the middle Magdalenian (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965), but later this opinion was substituted by a more homogeneous interpretation of the record (Lorblanchet, 2010), discarding any Magdalenian phases. Other sites, like Covarón (Asturias, Spain), display deeply engraved lines at the outside of the cave which are attributed to the Early Upper Palaeolithic, and red signs and black animals in the inner galleries, dated to the Upper Magdalenian. The diachronic interpretation of these two types of figures (Arias and Pérez-Suárez, 1993) may not be totally justified since this same combination appears in other nearby ensembles, like El Bosque, which are considered synchronic (Ruiz-Redondo and Garate, 2015), even though they are located in completely different contexts, with the deep spindle-shaped lines in the outer part of the caves and Middle/Upper Magdalenian figures in the deep sectors.
<table><thead><tr><th>Cave</th><th>Province, Country</th><th>Occupation phases</th><th>Decoration phases</th><th>Recurrent art references</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Peña Candamo</td><td rowspan="5">Asturias, Spain</td><td rowspan="5">Unknown</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td rowspan="5">Fortea, 2000a; Corchón et al., 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Gravettian</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean*</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Tito Bustillo</td><td rowspan="5">Asturias, Spain</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td rowspan="5">Moure, 1994; Fortea, 2007; De Balbín Behrmann et al., 2016; Pike et al., 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td>Gravettian</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Solutrean*</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td>Lower Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Buxu</td><td rowspan="4">Asturias, Spain</td><td>Solutrean</td><td>Gravettian*</td><td rowspan="4">Sauvet, 2015; Menéndez (ed.), 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td>Solutrean</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Lower Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Llonín</td><td rowspan="5">Asturias, Spain</td><td>Gravettian</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="5">Fortea et al., 2004</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean</td><td>Solutrean</td></tr><tr><td>Badegoulian*</td><td>Lower Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Pindal*</td><td rowspan="4">Asturias, Spain</td><td rowspan="4">Unknown</td><td>Gravettian*</td><td>Alcalde del Rio et al., 1911; Breuil, 1952; Jordá and Berenguer, 1954; Jordá, 1976; Fortea, 1992 and 2000b; González-Echegaray and González-Sainz, 1994</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td>González-Sainz, 2005a</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Post-Palaeolithic*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Altamira</td><td rowspan="6">Cantabria, Spain</td><td>Gravettian</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td rowspan="6">Breuil and Obermaier, 1935; Pike et al., 2012; De Las Heras et al., 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean</td><td>Gravettian</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td>Solutrean</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Lower Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Hornos de la Peña</td><td rowspan="5">Cantabria, Spain</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td>Aurignacian*</td><td rowspan="5">Alcalde del Rio et al., 1911; Rivero and Garate, 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean</td><td>Gravettian</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td>Lower Magdalenian*</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian*</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Pasiega A/B</td><td rowspan="4">Cantabria, Spain</td><td>Solutrean*</td><td>Gravettian</td><td>Breuil et al., 1913; De Balbín Behrmann and González-Sainz, 1993</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian*</td><td>Solutrean</td><td>Garate et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Pasiega C/D</td><td rowspan="5">Cantabria, Spain</td><td rowspan="5">Unknown</td><td>Mousterian*</td><td>Breuil et al., 1913; Moure and González-Sainz, 2000; González-Sainz, 2005b; Hoffmann et al., 2018a</td></tr><tr><td>Gravettian</td><td>Solutrean</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Castillo</td><td rowspan="6">Cantabria, Spain</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td>Alcalde del Rio et al., 1911; Moure and González-Sainz, 2000</td></tr><tr><td>Gravettian</td><td>Gravettian</td><td>González-Sainz, 2005b; Pike et al., 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean</td><td>Solutrean</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Badegoulian*</td><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Post-Palaeolithic</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Cave</th><th>Province, Country</th><th>Occupation phases</th><th>Decoration phases</th><th>Recurrent art references</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Garma, La</td><td rowspan="3">Cantabria, Spain</td><td rowspan="3">Middle Magdalenian</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="3">González-Sainz, 2003</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Salitre</td><td rowspan="2">Cantabria, Spain</td><td rowspan="2">Uncertain</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="2">Alcalde del Rio et al., 1911; Salazar et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Aitzbitarte IV*</td><td rowspan="4">Basque Country, Spain</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td>Gravettian*</td><td rowspan="4">Garate et al., 2020a</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Badegoulian*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Aitzbitarte V</td><td rowspan="2">Basque Country, Spain</td><td rowspan="2">Unknown</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="2">Garate et al., 2020c</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Erberua</td><td rowspan="3">Pyrénées Atlantiques, France</td><td rowspan="3">Unknown</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="3">Garate et al., 2020b</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian*</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Gargas Supérieur</td><td rowspan="2">Hautes Pyrénées, France</td><td rowspan="2">Unknown</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="2">Tosello et al., 2005</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Tibiran</td><td rowspan="2">Hautes Pyrénées, France</td><td rowspan="2">Unknown</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="2">Leroi-Gourhan, 1965</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Mas d'Azil, Le*</td><td rowspan="6">Ariège, France</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td>Gravettian*</td><td rowspan="6">Le Guillou, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Gravettian</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean</td><td>Upper Magdalenian*</td></tr><tr><td>Badegoulian*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Trois Frères, Les</td><td rowspan="4">Ariège, France</td><td>Badegoulian*</td><td></td><td rowspan="4">Bégouën and Breuil, 1958; Jaubert, 2008</td></tr><tr><td>Lower Magdalenian</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(Enlène)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Portel, Le</td><td rowspan="3">Ariège, France</td><td>Gravettian</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="3">Jaubert, 2008</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td>Middle Magdalenian*</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Pergouset</td><td rowspan="2">Lot, France</td><td rowspan="2">Aurignacian</td><td>Gravettian*</td><td rowspan="2">Garate et al., 2020b</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bourgnetou*</td><td rowspan="2">Lot, France</td><td rowspan="2">Unknown</td><td>Gravettian*</td><td rowspan="2">Lorblanchet, 1971</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mouthe, La</td><td rowspan="3">Dordogne, France</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="3">Breuil, 1952</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean</td><td>Solutrean</td></tr><tr><td>Magdalenian</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Font-de-Gaume</td><td rowspan="4">Dordogne, France</td><td>Aurignacian</td><td>Gravettian*</td><td rowspan="4">Capitan et al., 1924; Plassard, 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Solutrean</td><td>Solutrean*</td></tr><tr><td>Magdalenian</td><td>Lower Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Combarelles I*</td><td rowspan="4">Dordogne, France</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td>Aurignacian*</td><td rowspan="4">Capitan et al., 1924</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian</td><td>Lower Magdalenian*</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Upper Magdalenian</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bernifal*</td><td rowspan="2">Dordogne, France</td><td rowspan="2">Upper Magdalenian*</td><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td rowspan="2">Plassard, 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Upper Magdalenian*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Margot</td><td rowspan="2">Mayenne, France</td><td rowspan="2">Unknown</td><td>Gravettian</td><td rowspan="2">Pigeaud et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Magdalenian</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 1 – Decorated caves with graphical recurrence during the Upper Palaeolithic in the Bay of Biscay (* see discussion of attribution).

Tableau 1 – Grottes ornées avec une récurrence graphique au Paléolithique supérieur dans le golfe de Gascogne (* pour les attributions discutées).

Tabelle 1 – Bilderhöhlen mit wiederholt auftretender graphischer Nutzung während des Jungpaläolithikums im Golf von Biskaya (*siehe Diskussion der chronologischen Zuschreibung).
In the caves of Urdiales and Cullalvera (Cantabria, Spain) the situation is very similar; at first, several phases of decoration across the Upper Palaeolithic were described, motivated by the presence of red animal figures near the current entrances (Montes et al., 2005; Díaz Casado and Astorqui, 2012), but subsequent studies argue for a more synchronic interpretation (Ruiz-Redondo, 2014) dated to the Middle/Upper Magdalenian. In Lloseta (Asturias, Spain), where an important pre-Magdalenian rock art ensemble is known, some diffuse remains of three doubtful black animals have been assigned to the Magdalenian (De Balbín Behrmann et al., 2005). However, it is difficult to assess this attribution because of their bad preservation. Finally, in the case of Coimbre, at least two decoration phases have been proposed, one of them previous to the Middle Magdalenian because of the presence of different engraving techniques (García-Díez et al., 2017). It is difficult to confirm this appreciation, because the stylistic conventions in all the figures can be attributed to the Magdalenian, despite the different techniques used.

No diachronicity in the decoration phases has ever been clearly identified at Bernifal and Combarelles I. In the former case, motivated by the presence of the hand negatives, a decorative phase previous to the Middle Magdalenian has been discussed (Plassard, 2005), but this idea was discarded later because of a supposed relation between the handprints and a Magdalenian sketch of a mammoth. In the latter cave, the first research attributed a first decoration phase consisting of undefined black paintings to the Aurignacian (Capitan et al., 1924), but this appreciation does not appear in later studies (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965; Barrière, 1997). In both cases, there are hand stencils (at least two in Bernifal and one in Combarelles I). The same situation is detected in the case of Bourgnetou (Lorblanchet, 1971), with a reindeer stylistically attributed without any doubt to the middle Magdalenian, as in the case of St. Eulalie (Lorblanchet, 2010), and a red handprint on another wall. The antiquity of this second depiction has been discussed, and it has been varyingly considered from being a fake to a possible pre-Magdalenian representation (Lorblanchet, 1971). In absence of more consistent arguments (like morphotypes of previous chronologies in animal figures, or parietal strata), the presence of hand stencils or prints, usually attributed to early phases of the Upper Palaeolithic (Jaubert, 2008; Feruglio et al., 2011; Floss and Ostheider, 2013) – or even the earliest (Pettitt et al., 2015; García-Diez et al., 2015) –, should be taken with caution in these cases, because Magdalenian artists are potential authors of them, as at Bedeilhac, where two hand prints are attributed to the Magdalenian (Sauvet, 2007). In any case, in Bernifal there may be some other archaic figures, like the horses No. 54 and No. 76 in the inventory of Plassard (2005), or the black disc cloud (close to the hand stencils and in the same colour), usually attributed to early Upper Palaeolithic phases, as in Combe-Negre (Feruglio et al., 2007),

or Pech-Merle, Les Fieux, Cougnac, Les Merveilles, Rocaudour, le Moulin de Laguenay, and le Travers de Janoye (Lorblanchet, 2010). Also, the ‘relationship’ of the hand stencils with the Magdalenian mammoth, proposed by F. Plassard (2005), should be revised to verify if there is any kind of superposition.

A critical evaluation of the existing literature about the selected sites requires a classification of the different chronological data available. This information can be related to ¹⁴C-AMS direct dating results of the black paintings (Peña Candamo, Tito Bustillo, Buxu, Llonín, Pindal, Altamira, Pasiega C/D, Castillo, La Garma, Le Portel), to U/Th indirect dating of calcite crust (Castillo, Tito Bustillo, Altamira, Pasiega C), to parietal stratigraphy between figures in different styles (Peña Candamo, Tito Bustillo, Llonín, Altamira, Pasiega A-B, Pasiega C/D, Castillo), or to stylistic features (all sites).

Concerning the caves retained for this study of repeatedly used sites on the Bay of Biscay seaboard, it is necessary to differentiate the reliability of the chronological information. Some sites provide meaningful chronological data (¹⁴C, U/Th, parietal stratigraphy, and stylistic comparison) to support the idea of different phases of decoration. This is the case for Peña Candamo, Tito Bustillo, Llonín, Altamira, Castillo, and Pasiega C/D, where all the types of chronological data are available. On other occasions, stylistic analyses provide sufficient arguments to propose diachronic symbolic activities inside caves like El Buxu, Hornos de la Peña, Pasiega A/B, Salitre, Aitzbitarte V, Erberua, Gargas Supérieur, Tibiran, Les Trois Frères, Le Portel, and La Mouthe. Finally, there is another group of caves where, although a diachronic interpretation seems reliable, the stylistic resolution is not precise enough to affirm it without any kind of doubt,e.g. at El Pindal, Font de Gaume, Combarelles I, Bernifal, and especially Aitzbitarte IV, Le Mas d'Azil, Pergouset, and Bourgnetou.

The final total of 27 caves (6 of them doubtful) are distributed in different regions around the Bay of Biscay. The reutilisation of these caves as symbolic spaces may have been quantitatively and qualitatively different in each region. In order to examine this aspect in greater depth below, the phenomena will be compared in terms of their spatial distribution, insertion in previously decorated caves, and magnitude compared to the rest of Later Upper Palaeolithic cave art.

## RESULTS

The area of the rivers that flow into the Bay of Biscay constitute a very wide geographical space which encompasses very diverse landscapes. In relation to these and the distribution of Palaeolithic parietal art, five areas have been differentiated that correspond, to a large extent, with those contemplated in historiography since the beginning of research (fig. 1).
<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 1** – Location of cave art sites with Middle/Upper Magdalenian (black) and also previous decorative phases (white) in the Bay of Biscay watershed: 1) Candamo; 2) Tito Bustillo; 3) El Buxu; 4) Llonín; 5) El Pindal; 6) Altamira; 7) Hornos de la Peña; 8) La Pasiega; 9) El Castillo; 10) El Salitre; 11) La Garma; 12) Aitzbitarte IV; 13) Aitzbitarte V; 14) Erberua; 15) Gargas Supérieur; 16) Tibiran; 17) Trois Frères; 18) Mas d'Azil; 19) Le Portel; 20) Pergouset; 21) Bourgnetou; 22) La Mouthe; 23) Bernifal; 24) Font-de-Gaume; 25) Les Combarelles; 26) Margot.

**Fig. 1** – Localisation des sites d'art rupestre avec phases du Magdalénien moyen / supérieur (noir) et aussi avec des phases antérieures (blanc) dans le bassin versant du golfe de Gascogne : 1) Candamo ; 2) Tito Bustillo ; 3) El Buxu ; 4) Llonín ; 5) El Pindal ; 6) Altamira ; 7) Hornos de la Peña ; 8) La Pasiega ; 9) El Castillo ; 10) El Salitre ; 11) La Garma ; 12) Aitzbitarte IV ; 13) Aitzbitarte V ; 14) Erberua ; 15) Gargas Supérieur ; 16) Tibiran ; 17) Trois Frères ; 18) Mas d'Azil ; 19) Le Portel ; 20) Pergouset ; 21) Bourgnetou ; 22) La Mouthe ; 23) Bernifal ; 24) Font-de-Gaume ; 25) Les Combarelles ; 26) Margot.

**Abb. 1** – Lage der Höhlenkunst-Fundstellen des Mittleren/Späten Magdalénien (schwarz) und vorheriger künstlerischer Phasen (weiß) an der Küste des Golfs von Biskaya: 1) Candamo; 2) Tito Bustillo; 3) El Buxu; 4) Llonín; 5) El Pindal; 6) Altamira; 7) Hornos de la Peña; 8) La Pasiega; 9) El Castillo; 10) El Salitre; 11) La Garma; 12) Aitzbitarte IV; 13) Aitzbitarte V; 14) Erberua; 15) Gargas Supérieur; 16) Tibiran; 17) Trois Frères; 18) Mas d'Azil; 19) Le Portel; 20) Pergouset; 21) Bourgnetou; 22) La Mouthe; 23) Bernifal; 24) Font-de-Gaume; 25) Les Combarelles; 26) Margot.

## Cantabrian region

The Cantabrian coast represents the area with the highest density of caves decorated during the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. For the Middle/Upper Magdalenian a total of 40 caves have been counted, and 14 of these also display previous phases of decoration (one cave doubtful), while there are c. 130 sites with decoration from previous phases only. That is, fewer than two-thirds of the caves were decorated ex novo in the region during the Magdalenian. In fact, for the Late Upper Palaeolithic, there is a very marked polarization

between the central/western and eastern cave art ensembles, with the two sectors separated by a 'cave art void' of 200 kilometres, between the Asón and Oka basins. In the first sector, between the rivers Nalón and Asón, the percentage of reused caves rises to 41%. This concentration coincides with the distribution of the striated hinds of the Cantabrian lower Magdalenian (Rivero et al., 2019). For the second sector, we can only certify the symbolic reuse of the underground space in the case of Aitzbitarte V, and perhaps also Aitzbitarte IV, while the remaining nine cases can just be attributed to later phases of the Magdalenian.
At the same time, these caves were reutilised in different ways as regards the distribution of the recent cave art phases (figs. 2 and 3). For example, there is a group of caves in the central/western sector (Peña Candamo, Llonín, Tito Bustillo, Altamira, and El Castillo) where the previous cave art phases are distributed through most of the topographical units in the caves, but the same caves also possess a main panel each with an accumulation of tens of figures, where several phases are represented one on top of the other, including Middle/Upper Magdalenian art. It is here where the reutilisation concept makes perfect sense. Other minor

sectors were also decorated in this period, but not in the same density as in the previous periods. In some other cases (Pasiega A/B, Pasiega C/D, La Garma, El Buxu, Hornos de la Peña) there is also a superimposition of phases in the same panels in several sectors of the caves, but without there being a main panel as in the previously mentioned group of caves. A third type of distribution (Salitre, Aitzbitarte IV, Aitzbitarte V) is characterized by the lack of parietal stratigraphy of the different phases. This is to say, the Magdalenian cave art is located in parts of the cave that were not selected by the artists who decorated it in previous phases.

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** – Topographic plans of caves in the western Cantabrian Region, where deep zones were reused for decoration with rock art during the Middle/Upper Magdalenian: Peña Candamo (Corchón et al., 2012); El Pindal (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911); El Buxu (Menéndez [ed.], 2016); Tito Bustillo (De Balbín Behrmann et al., 2002); Llonín (Berenguer, 1994).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 2** – Plans des grottes de l'ouest de la Cantabrie, avec réutilisation des zones profondes identifiées pour le Magdalénien moyen / supérieur : Peña Candamo (Corchón et al., 2012) ; El Pindal (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911) ; El Buxu (Menéndez, 2016) ; Tito Bustillo (De Balbín Behrmann et al., 2002) ; Llonín (Berenguer, 1994).</caption>

<caption>**Abb. 2** – Topographische Pläne der Höhlen in der westlichen kantabrischen Region, in denen Bereiche tief im Inneren zur Dekoration mit Felskunst während des Späten Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden: Peña Candamo (Corchón et al., 2012); El Pindal (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911); El Buxu (Menéndez, 2016); Tito Bustillo (De Balbín Behrmann et al., 2002); Llonín (Berenguer, 1994).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_98.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** – Topographic plans of caves in the central/east Cantabrian Region, where deep zones were reused for decoration with rock art during the Middle/Upper Magdalenian: Altamira (Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira); El Castillo (Groenen et al., 2012); Hornos de la Peña, La Pasiega (Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gob. de Cantabria); El Salitre (Salazar et al., 2019); La Garma (González Sainz, 2003); Aitzbitarte IV and V (Garate et al., 2020a and 2020c).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 3** – Plans des grottes du centre et de l'est de la Cantabrie avec réutilisation des zones profondes identifiées pour le Magdalénien moyen / supérieur : Altamira (Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira) ; El Castillo (Groenen et al., 2012) ; Hornos de la Peña, La Pasiega (Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gob. de Cantabria) ; El Salitre (Salazar et al., 2019) ; La Garma (González Sainz, 2003) ; Aitzbitarte IV et V (Garate et al., 2020a et 2020c).</caption>

<caption>**Abb. 3** – Topographische Pläne der Höhlen in der zentralen/östlichen kantabrischen Region, in denen Bereiche tief im Inneren für Felskunst während des Späten Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden: Altamira (Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira); El Castillo (Groenen et al., 2012); Hornos de la Peña, La Pasiega (Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gob. de Cantabria); El Salitre (Salazar et al., 2019); La Garma (González Sainz, 2003); Aitzbitarte IV and V (Garate et al., 2020a and 2020c).</caption>

The case of Pindal is more complicated. Since its discovery, the decorative ensemble in the cave has been assumed to be diachronic by most authors (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911; Breuil, 1952; Jordá and Berenguer, 1954; Jordá, 1976; Fortea, 1992 and 2000b; González-Echegaray and González-Sainz, 1994; González-Sainz, 2005a) because

of the presence of different topics, including mammoths, and stylistic features (different colours, different types of traces, techniques, etc.). But it has also been considered synchronic by a few other researchers (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965; Pumarejo, 1989; De Balbín Behrmann et al., 1999) because of the topographic structure of the ensemble,
which is typical of French recent Magdalenian sites. In our opinion, both possibilities are well argued. Some animals may display some stylistic features of archaic phases, e.g., the mammoths with a single leg per pair and an arched belly; or horses with a double mane, typical of the Solutrean and older phases, but also of the upper Magdalenian (Sauvet and Rivero, 2016). However, contrary to other reutilisations in the Cantabrian region (e.g. Peña Candamo, Altamira, Llonín, etc.), where all the phases are represented in the same place, creating large palimpsests, in Pindal all the figures are distributed more neatly, each in their own panels. These assessments have been made before (González-Pumariega, 2011). It should also be noted that red paintings (generally assumed to belong to earlier phases) are superimposed on recent Magdalenian engravings, but that there are also cases in which the opposite occurs. In any case, the type of mammoth figure found here is always related to archaic phases.

## Pyrenees

The Pyrenean Mountains have a lower number of rock art sites, and these are mostly concentrated in the central area, Ariège, while towards the Bay of Biscay coast they become more infrequent and dispersed. In the eastern area a few minor caves are situated near basins of rivers flowing into the Mediterranean Sea; they have been excluded from our study.

The pattern for parietal art activity during the Upper Palaeolithic is totally different concerning the sites along the Pyrenean river basins discharging into the Bay of Biscay. Caves with pre-Magdalenian decoration phases only are very scarce (n = 3), while most of the ensembles are dated to the Late Upper Palaeolithic (n = 21), or contain decorations from several phases (n = 6).

Except for Erberua, all the caves with several decoration phases are located in the area of the Ariège, creating a gap of 200 kilometres between the Cantabrian region and the Pyrenean area, in a similar way as previously noted for the eastern Cantabrian region. In fact, Erberua and Alkerdi 2 are the only pre-Magdalenian caves in the western Pyrenees. Once again, different patterns are observed in the symbolic re-utilisation of the caves (fig. 4). In Erberua and Les Trois Frères there are Gravettian engravings and hand stencils in different sectors, in an arrangement and style similar to Gargas, but in smaller numbers. Both caves also contain large ensembles corresponding to the Middle/Upper Magdalenian, most of them juxtaposed or even quite distant from the previous parietal art representations. Only in the galerie aurignacienne in Les Trois Frères there are two black Magdalenian bisons and few engravings of horses covering the Gravettian panels. On the other hand, Gargas Supérieur and Tibiran are two small caves near Gargas, and both of them possess modest ensembles with pre-Magdalenian and Magdalenian cave art. The representations of the two phases are close to one another inside these caves, but in different panels. In the case of Le Portel and Mas d'Azil, the main ensembles were produced in Magdalenian times. Depending on

stylistic features, some of the animals depicted in the former cave could be attributed to the Gravettian, but they are usually located in isolated panels. However, there is a horse with dotted hindquarters in the panel of the main composition of Upper Magdalenian horses in the galérie Régnault. In Mas d'Azil, an isolated space in the galérie Breuil contains a group of red paintings different from the rest of the art in the cave, which can be stylistically attributed to pre-Magdalenian phases. Nonetheless, it is difficult to maintain this attribution, because the stylistic impressions may be due to bad preservation: a horse displays 'M'-shaped quartering, a typical convention of recent Magdalenian phases.

## Charente/Dordogne/Lot

This area is a composite of three different regions, next to each other, with a continuous distribution of cave art. For this reason they are considered together here. This is one of the most important concentrations of caves with Upper Palaeolithic art, after the Cantabrian region, and separated from that region and the Pyrenees by the plain of the Landes. Caves with several decoration phases are known in Dordogne and Lot (fig. 5), but not in Charente.

In Lot, 21 sites with pre-Magdalenian rock art are known, with some particular sites where different decoration phases have been proposed, but always in periods before the recent Magdalenian: Pech-Merle (Lorblanchet et al., 1995), Marcenac (Lorblanchet, 1989), although considered later by J. Jaubert (2008) to be a synchronous Gravettian ensemble, Les Escabasses (Lorblanchet, 1965), and Cougnac (Valladas et al., 1993; Lorblanchet, 1994b). Nine Magdalenian ensembles are also known: Pestillac, Bigourdane, Carriot, Christian, Ste. Eulalie, Lagrave, and Mazet, with two possible cases of reuse of underground sites. The first one (Pergouset) is located in the Lot basin and was considered a synchronic ensemble (Lorblanchet, 2001), despite the presence of some animal depictions, with a morphology different from that used during the Magdalenian, which are classified as 'monsters' (Lorblanchet and Sieveking, 1997), in a particular deep sector - Salle IV - and with a contextual dating of charcoal to the late Aurignacian (Lorblanchet, 2001). Recently, these 'monsters' have been thought to be possibly 'Gravettian' because of their similarity with a morphotype defined in caves like Cussac, Gargas, or Aitzbitarte III, V and IX (Garate et al., 2020b). But the contextual dating of charcoal, too old for this technocomplex, means this attribution must be taken with caution. The other cave, Bourgnetou, is located in the Dordogne basin; there, diachronic ensembles appear isolated along the main gallery, with a recent Magdalenian engraving of a reindeer in the deepest zone (Lorblanchet, 1971).

In Dordogne, 71 sites are known with rock art previous to the recent Magdalenian, and seven recent Magdalenian sites. Only in four cases (Font-de-Gaume, Combarelles I, La Mouthe, Bernifal) the underground space might have been reused, and two of these (Combarelles I, Bernifal) are to be considered quite uncertain
<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** – Topographic plans of caves in the Pyrenees, where deep zones were reused for decoration with rock art during the Middle/Upper Magdalenian: Gargas Supérieur (Barrière, 1984a); Mas-d'Azil (Alteirac and Vialou, 1984); Trois Frères (Bégouën and Clottes, 1984); Erberua (Larribau, 2013); Tibiran (Clot, 1984); Le Portel (Dauvois and Vézian, 1984).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 4** – Plans des grottes des Pyrénées, avec réutilisation des zones profondes identifiées pour le Magdalénien moyen / supérieur : Gargas supérieur (Barrière, 1984a) ; Mas-d'Azil (Alteirac et Vialou, 1984) ; Trois Frères (Bégouën et Clottes, 1984) ; Erberua (Larribau, 2013) ; Tibiran (Clot, 1984) ; Le Portel (Dauvois et Vézian, 1984).</caption>

<caption>**Abb. 4** – Topographische Pläne der Höhlen in den Pyrenäen, in denen Bereiche tief im Inneren für Felskunst während des Späten Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden: Gargas Supérieur (Barrière, 1984a); Mas-d'Azil (Alteirac and Vialou, 1984); Trois Frères (Bégouën and Clottes, 1984); Erberua (Larribau, 2013); Tibiran (Clot, 1984); Le Portel (Dauvois and Vézian, 1984).</caption>

because of the small number of motifs attributable to older phases. In all cases, there are no major differences in the distribution of the motifs belonging to the two phases, because those undoubtedly attributed to the Magdalenian, which are much more numerous, occupy a large part of the previously decorated sectors. However, unlike the ensembles in the Cantabrian region, for example, large palimpsests are not observed here, with the exception perhaps of Font-de-Gaume, where there are possibly different phases represented on the same walls of the main gallery, but in a less remarkable way.

In Charente, five sites are known with rock art attributable to phases earlier than the recent Magdalenian, and four Magdalenian ensembles have been documented, without any reuse of underground spaces decorated in earlier phases.

## Vienne

Four sites with Palaeolithic rock art are known in Vienne. Only one of them has pre-Magdalenian rock art, and the others are attributable to recent Magdalenian phases. The reuse of caves is unknown in this region, and it is therefore part of a large gap of at least 400 km without reused caves between Loire and Dordogne.

## Loire

Only two sites with Palaeolithic rock art are known in this region. One of them, Mayenne-Sciences, has synchronic decoration, undoubtedly attributable to a Gravettian phase (Pigeaud et al., 2003, 2010). The other one, Margot, has two diachronic decoration phases: one consisting of
<figure><img src="image_100.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** – Topographic plans of caves in Dordogne and Quercy, where deep zones were reused for decoration with rock art during the Middle/Upper Magdalenian: Bernifal cave (Plassard, 2005); La Mouthe (Aujoulat and Geneste, 1984); Combarelles (Barrière, 1984b); Font-de-Gaume (Roussot, 1984); Pergouset (Lorblanchet, 1984); Bourgnetou (Lorblanchet, 1971).</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 5** – Plans des grottes de Dordogne et du Quercy, avec réutilisation des zones profondes identifiées pour le Magdalénien moyen / supérieur : Bernifal cave (Plassard, 2005) ; La Mouthe (Aujoulat et Geneste, 1984) ; Combarelles (Barrière, 1984b) ; Font-de-Gaume (Roussot, 1984) ; Pergouset (Lorblanchet, 1984) ; Bourgnetou (Lorblanchet, 1971).</caption>

<caption>**Abb. 5** – Topographische Pläne der Höhlen in den Regionen Dordogne und Quercy, in denen Bereiche tief im Inneren für Felskunst während des Späten Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden: Bernifal cave (Plassard, 2005); La Mouthe (Aujoulat and Geneste, 1984); Combarelles (Barrière, 1984b); Font-de-Gaume (Roussot, 1984); Pergouset (Lorblanchet, 1984); Bourgnetou (Lorblanchet, 1971).</caption>

hand stencils, oval signs and animals (megaloceros and bears), attributable to the Gravettian with similarities to Mayenne-Sciences, and the other one attributable to the Upper Magdalenian, stylistically comparable to northern Magdalenian ensembles (e.g. Gönnersdorf-Andernach; Pigeaud et al., 2006). A (third) Solutrean phase with par- allels in the nearby Rochefort site (Hinguant and Biard, 2009) has also been proposed (Pigeaud et al., 2012). The Upper Magdalenian artists used the same galleries that had been decorated in previous phases but there are no large palimpsests like in the Cantabrian Region (fig. 6).

DISCUSSION

The results of this diachronic approach to cave art indi- cate that the reuse of underground spaces for symbo- lic purposes during the Upper Palaeolithic shows a very different distribution and characteristics around the Bay of Biscay seaboard (fig. 7).

Most of the reused caves are situated in the Can- tabrian region. This might be related to more continuous graphical activities during the whole Upper Palaeolithic