<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>

Fig. 1 – Chronological and climatic context of the study (green shading) including the Younger Dryas (dark green shading). GI – Greenland Interstadial; GS – Greenland Stadials (graph modified after: Philippsen et al., 2019).

Fig. 1 – Cadre chronologique et climatique de l'étude (vert clair). Le Dryas récent est en vert foncé. GI – Greenland Interstadial; GS – Greenland Stadials (graphique modifié d'après Philippsen et al., 2019).

Abb. 1 – Chronologischer und klimatischer Kontext der Fallstudie (farblich markierter Bereich), einschließlich der Jüngeren Dryas (dunkle Schattierung). GI – Grönland-Interstadial; GS – Grönland-Stadial (Abbildung verändert nach: Philippsen et al., 2019).

INTRODUCTION

PAN-EUROPEAN studies on demographic developments during the Final Palaeolithic are scarce. This is different for the preceding Magdalenian period, associated with the repopulation of northern central Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Different approaches to trace demographic developments independently predict a considerable increase of the Pan-European population density for the Magdalenian (~19 to 14 ky cal. BP, see fig. 1; Bocquet-Appel et al., 2005; Kretschmer, 2015; Tallavaara et al., 2015; Maier et al., 2016). Mean density estimates are modelled as increasing by a factor of 0.25 (Tallavaara et al., 2015), 2 (Schmidt et al., 2021; after: Kretschmer, 2015; Maier, 2015, 2017; Maier et al., 2016) or even 3 (Bocquet-Appel et al., 2005) between the LGM (here ~20 ky cal. BP) and Late Magdalenian (~14 ky cal. BP). However, even within the Magdalenian, this general trend becomes more variable if either higher temporal resolution is applied (Tallavaara et al., 2015), or smaller spatial scales, including relative proxies on demographic developments, are considered (French and Collins, 2015; Kretschmer, 2015). This methodological problem of scales in demographic research has been subject to debate (Schlummer et al., 2014; Zimmermann et al., 2020; Zimmermann, in press; Schmidt et al., 2021) and shows how decisive this factor is for palaeodemographic research.

While the material culture of the later Magdalenian phases is characterised by a rather homogenous appearance across the subcontinent – concerning technologies, artistic expressions, subsistence and mobility behaviour – clear cultural changes and regional trajectories become apparent during the interchanging warm and cold phases of the Greenland Interstadial (GI) 1e-a and during the

cold Greenland Stadial (GS) 1 (fig. 1). The Final Palaeolithic marks the emergence of clear regional technological solutions and styles, as well as distinct settlement patterns and economic adaptations. The apparent variability and regional diversity make it difficult to establish chronocultural sequences, especially at larger spatial scales (Fagnart, 1997; Baales et al., 2002; Baales, 2014; Kegler, 2007; Holzkämper et al., 2013; Sobkowiak-Tabaka and Winkler, 2017; Grimm, 2019; Grimm et al., 2020). This difficulty is also enhanced by political borders, large regions with few directly dated assemblages, and abundant palimpsest assemblages from surface collections and open air sites. The robustness of techno-typological markers, their timing, and even the order of succeeding phases are currently under discussion (Reynolds and Riede, 2019; Sauer and Riede, 2019; contributions in Grimm et al., 2020; as well as contributions this volume). In addition, recent genetic studies suggest a regional population breakdown and an east-to-west repopulation scenario for Europe, roughly covering the period from 14 to 8 ky cal BP, with a likely source area in south-eastern Europe (Fu et al., 2016; Posth et al., 2016; Reich, 2018, fig. 13.5).

The only available Pan-European demographic study for the Final Palaeolithic models an initial decrease and subsequent increase in population density (Tallavaara et al., 2015). Further data from methodologically distinct regional studies are available. For a sub-region of south-western France high resolution proxies such as radiocarbon data and site counts indicate a general decrease (French and Collins, 2015). For northern Italy, the same proxies have been collated, however, synchronous changes in human mobility patterns are discussed as causing changes in proxies of site frequencies and dates, not necessarily demography (Naudi-not et al., 2014). Initial results of a study for Denmark and its immediate surrounds, including southern Scandinavia
<table><thead><tr><td>Site</td><td>Country</td><td>Number of source-to-site datasets</td><td>km² of RM-polygon</td><td>Included (0 = no; 1 = yes)</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ruien 'Rosalinde'</td><td>Belgium</td><td>4</td><td>7,563</td><td>1</td><td>Crombe et al., 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Eindegoorheide 1</td><td>Belgium</td><td>2</td><td>2,751</td><td>1</td><td>Verbeek, 1997</td></tr><tr><td>Tongeren-Plinius</td><td>Belgium</td><td>9</td><td>2,671</td><td>1</td><td>Dijkstra et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Kopačina Cave</td><td>Croatia</td><td>4</td><td>13,918</td><td>0</td><td>Vukosavljević et al., 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Les Chaloignes</td><td>France</td><td>2</td><td>173</td><td>0</td><td>Marchand et al., 2011</td></tr><tr><td>La Grotte-Abri de Troubat/Moulin</td><td>France</td><td>2</td><td>2,522</td><td>1</td><td>after: Barbaza, 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Port-de-Penne</td><td>France</td><td>4</td><td>1,894</td><td>1</td><td>Langlais et al., 2014</td></tr><tr><td>La Borie del Rey</td><td>France</td><td>4</td><td>1,982</td><td>1</td><td>Langlais et al., 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Mas d'Azil</td><td>France</td><td>9</td><td>40,448</td><td>1</td><td>Kegler, 2007</td></tr><tr><td>L'Abri Rhodes II</td><td>France</td><td>2</td><td>12,789</td><td>1</td><td>Fat Cheung et al., 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Le Grotte Abri de Peyrazet</td><td>France</td><td>1</td><td>1,237</td><td>0</td><td>Langlais and Laroulandie, 2009</td></tr><tr><td>Champ Chalatras</td><td>France</td><td>2</td><td>1,524</td><td>1</td><td>Pasty et al., 2002</td></tr><tr><td>Blot</td><td>France</td><td>1</td><td>475</td><td>0</td><td>Surmely et al., 2009</td></tr><tr><td>Grotte Béraud</td><td>France</td><td>6</td><td>28,674</td><td>1</td><td>Surmely et al., 2009</td></tr><tr><td>Abri des Douattes, Est</td><td>France</td><td>2</td><td>689</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Abri nord de Bavans</td><td>France</td><td>2</td><td>997</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Gahlen-Schermbeck</td><td>Germany</td><td>1</td><td>323</td><td>0</td><td>Richter, 1981</td></tr><tr><td>Wesseling-Eichholz</td><td>Germany</td><td>4</td><td>1,100</td><td>1</td><td>Parow-Souchon and Heinen, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Altenrath-Ziegenberg</td><td>Germany</td><td>2</td><td>5,711</td><td>1</td><td>Street, 1998</td></tr><tr><td>Bad Breisig</td><td>Germany</td><td>3</td><td>8,708</td><td>1</td><td>Grimm, 2004</td></tr><tr><td>Andernach-Martinsberg</td><td>Germany</td><td>3</td><td>10,789</td><td>1</td><td>Street, 1998</td></tr><tr><td>Gönnersdorf</td><td>Germany</td><td>2</td><td>4,960</td><td>1</td><td>Baales, 2005</td></tr><tr><td>Kettig</td><td>Germany</td><td>4</td><td>5,220</td><td>1</td><td>Baales, 2001</td></tr><tr><td>Niederbieber</td><td>Germany</td><td>5</td><td>13,925</td><td>1</td><td>Gelhausen, 2007; Baales, 2005</td></tr><tr><td>Urbar (20)</td><td>Germany</td><td>3</td><td>853</td><td>1</td><td>Baales et al., 1996</td></tr><tr><td>Rüsselsheim 122 (A, B)</td><td>Germany</td><td>3</td><td>5,897</td><td>1</td><td>Loew, 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Bad Buchau-Kappel</td><td>Germany</td><td>3</td><td>3,056</td><td>1</td><td>Jochim et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Sattenbeuren-Kieswerk</td><td>Germany</td><td>1</td><td>876</td><td>0</td><td>Kind, 1995</td></tr><tr><td>Helga-Abri</td><td>Germany</td><td>5</td><td>10,312</td><td>1</td><td>Hess, 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Geldrop 3-4</td><td>Netherlands</td><td>1</td><td>797</td><td>0</td><td>Deeben, 1999</td></tr><tr><td>Heythuysen-De Fransman</td><td>Netherlands</td><td>4</td><td>5,118</td><td>1</td><td>Stoop, 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Horn-Haelen</td><td>Netherlands</td><td>5</td><td>3,910</td><td>1</td><td>Stoop, 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Dzierżysław</td><td>Poland</td><td>1</td><td>1,302</td><td>0</td><td>Trabska et al., 2008</td></tr><tr><td>Tarnowa 1</td><td>Poland</td><td>1</td><td>975</td><td>0</td><td>Sulgostowska, 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Janów 21</td><td>Poland</td><td>1</td><td>976</td><td>0</td><td>Plaza et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Rzuchów 24</td><td>Poland</td><td>1</td><td>963</td><td>0</td><td>Plaza et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Chełmno 4</td><td>Poland</td><td>2</td><td>963</td><td>1</td><td>Plaza et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Cichmiana 2</td><td>Poland</td><td>3</td><td>7,924</td><td>1</td><td>Plaza et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Kraków-Bieżanów</td><td>Poland</td><td>2</td><td>2,129</td><td>1</td><td>Stefański and Wilczyński, 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Całowanie</td><td>Poland</td><td>1</td><td>605</td><td>0</td><td>Sulgostowska, 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Berniollo</td><td>Spain</td><td>2</td><td>587</td><td>1</td><td>Berganza, 2005</td></tr><tr><td>Urratxa III</td><td>Spain</td><td>2</td><td>2,479</td><td>1</td><td>Berganza, 2005</td></tr><tr><td>Forcas I</td><td>Spain</td><td>2</td><td>755</td><td>1</td><td>Sánchez de la Torre, 2014</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Site</td><td>Country</td><td>Number of source-to-site datasets</td><td>km² of RM-polygon</td><td>Included (0=no; 1=yes)</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Grotte du Bichon</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>2</td><td>361</td><td>0</td><td>Chauvière et al., 2008</td></tr><tr><td>Monruz (Neuchâtel)</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>5</td><td>5,025</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Champréveyres</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>7</td><td>5,025</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Neumühle, Abri</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>7</td><td>3,110</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Lengbau-Chlini Ey</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>15</td><td>8,937</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Abri Wachtfels</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>15</td><td>6,455</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Birseck-Ermitage</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>5</td><td>2,352</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Geispel</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>11</td><td>3,351</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Fürsteiner</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>7</td><td>13,905</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Wauwil-Sandmatt 25</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>6</td><td>2,814</td><td>1</td><td>Nielsen, 1999</td></tr><tr><td>Gunzwil-Beromünster</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>5</td><td>1,523</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Grindel I / II / VI</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>5</td><td>2,687</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Cham-Grindel III</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>8</td><td>5,876</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Langrüti</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>12</td><td>10,310</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Altwasser-Höhle 1</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>5</td><td>10,944</td><td>1</td><td>Affolter, 2015</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Tableau 1** – Assemblages comportant des informations sur la circulation des matières premières (RM) depuis les gîtes d'approvisionnements jusqu'aux sites ; données collectées d'après la bibliographie (Schmidt, 2019). Pour l'application du protocole de Cologne, la superficie des polygones (km²) autour des sources et des sites sont calculées. Les sites en dehors du Total Area of Calculation poséant une seule source d'approvisionnement ou avec des polygones avec des surfaces inférieures à 500 km² n'ont pas été intégrés.

**Tabelle 1** – Inventare mit Informationen zum Transport des lithischen Rohmaterials (RM) vom Materialaufschluss zur Fundstelle; die Daten wurden aus der Literatur zusammengestellt (Schmidt, 2019). Für das Kölner Protokoll werden Flächenwerte (km²) mithilfe von Polygonen um Aufschlüsse und Fundorte errechnet. Fundstellen außerhalb der TAC, mit nur einer Aufschluss-Fundort-Distanz oder mit einer Polygonfläche <500 km², werden im Folgenden nicht berücksichtigt.

(Lundström and Riede, 2019; Lundström et al., 2021), indicates a population growth from the Final Palaeolithic to the early Holocene Mesolithic.

This paper attempts to estimate both a Pan-European population density and regional population sizes using the challenging dataset with the described inherent problem of highly variable and diverse cultural developments and chronological and techno-typological classifications. Specific methodological constraints that thus emerged from the data during the application of the Cologne Protocol (Zimmermann et al., 2009; Schmidt et al., 2021) will be detailed in the discussion.

## MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on archaeological site-distribution and raw material acquisition were collated for the period from roughly 14,000 to 11,600 years cal. BP (fig. 1). The period corresponds to the Late Glacial which is refined for northern Europe GI 1 phases c-a – comprising GI 1c3 and GI 1c1, GI 1a (cf. Litt et al., 2001), interrupted by colder events (GI1d, GI 1c2, GI 1b) – and followed by the cold GS 1, also known as the Younger Dryas (YD), dating from 12,700 to 11,600 years cal. BP. The eruption of the Laacher See Volcano around 13,000 years ago af-

fected large areas of northern Europe (Baales et al., 2002; Reinig et al., 2020) and was probably responsible for larger-scale cultural developments at the interface of the two periods (Riede, 2008; see also Weber et al., 2011).

The current database comprises 1,120 sites located across Europe (fig. 2; Schmidt and Zimmermann, 2020), however, an updated version with regionally revised data will be available soon (Schmidt et al. in prep.). The sites are either directly dated or typologically assigned to the Final Palaeolithic. Of these sites, 1,054 are located within the ‘Total Area of Calculation’ (TAC, see fig. 2), an area defined as potentially inhabitable and excluding under-researched areas and areas of disputed evidence. As such, the TAC covers 2.6 million km² of western and central Europe, including southern England and northern Italy. Glaciated areas are excluded. Other regions, such as southern Italy, the Balkans and north-eastern and eastern Europe were not considered during the final analysis. Accessibility of quantitative and qualitative comparable data on sites and assemblages were found uneven here, making it difficult to integrate the areas. However, chronometrically dated evidence is becoming increasingly available from these regions, providing promising research conditions for the future.

Data on raw material transport were recorded from the literature for 58 assemblages encompassing 240 individual source-to-site distances (table 1; Schmidt, 2019).
<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 2** – Distribution of Final Palaeolithic sites and raw material transport distances (data available online at: Schmidt, 2019; Schmidt and Zimmermann, 2020) considered in this study. Reconstructions of ice sheets, river channels, and coastline (> 45°N) correspond to conditions of Greenland Stadial 1 (GS 1), i.e. Younger Dryas (Grimm, 2019, and references therein).

**Fig. 2** – Distribution des sites du Paléolithique final et distances de la circulation des matières premières (données disponibles en ligne à: Schmidt, 2019; Schmidt et Zimmermann, 2020) considérées dans cette étude. La reconstitution des inlandsis, des chenaux et des côtes (supérieurs à 45°N) correspond aux conditions du Greenland Stadial 1 (GS 1), c.-à-d. du Dryas récent (Grimm, 2019 et références y figurant).

**Abb. 2** – Verteilung der spätpaläolithischen Fundstellen und der Transportdistanzen von lithischem Rohmaterial (Daten sind online verfügbar unter: Schmidt 2019; Schmidt und Zimmermann, 2020), die in dieser Studie verwendet wurden. Die Darstellung der Verläufe von Inlandeisflächen, Flussläufen und Küstenlinien (> 45°N) entsprechen den rekonstruierten Bedingungen während des Grönland-Stadials 1 (GS 1), i.e. der Jüngeren Dryas (Grimm, 2019 und Referenzen dort).
We exclude raw materials documented by single pieces, and only considered raw materials representing at least 1% of an assemblage. For each site and each assemblage, we then determined the raw material polygon by constructing a convex hull around the site and its raw material sources. Around the archaeological site, an additional buffer of 5 km radius representing a local procurement radius was added. Finally, for the calculation of population densities, we used data from 45 of the raw material polygons, excluding all polygons which only comprised a single source-to-site distance, as well as polygons which were smaller than 500 km², since they turned out to be exceptional outliers among the overall polygon sizes.

To determine the population estimates, we use the Cologne Protocol, developed and applied to Neolithic case studies (Zimmermann et al., 2009; Wendt et al., 2010; Wendt and Zimmermann, 2015) as well as adjusted to hunter-gatherer contexts (Kretschmer, 2015; Schmidt et al., 2021) and applied to a continuous series of Upper Palaeolithic periods, i.e. the Aurignacian (Schmidt and Zimmermann, 2019), Gravettian (Maier and Zimmermann, 2017), the Last Glacial Maximum (Maier et al., 2016), and Magdalenian (Kretschmer, 2015). For an overview on the results of the demographic estimates for the European Upper Palaeolithic, the reader is referred to the paper by Schmidt et al. (2021). This geostatistical upscaling procedure (for details see: ibid.) identifies the radius of the Largest Empty Circle (LEC) which is located between each group of three nearest sites. The LEC radius values serve as a distance measure for site density and are interpolated using ordinary Kriging. By identifying a plateau or peak in the areal increase of the interpolated LEC radius values, we determine areas of similar site density (or smallest LEC-radii, respectively). The delimiting Isoline of this area is termed the Optimally Describing Isoline (ODI). Since the curve of areal increase can show several peaks, we also consider the percentage of sites enclosed by the ODI (see also Broich and Peters, 2020: p. 15-17). Previous research has shown that the ODI should cover at least 70% of sites (Zimmermann et al., 2009). The area enclosed by the ODI is called the Core Area. Core Areas comprise areas where a certain distance between sites is not exceeded, and they are interpreted to describe most likely continuously and intensively occupied areas. In this study we used MapInfo V8.5 to conduct the geostatistical procedure. To allow comparison with previous work, we used the same projection (WGS 84/UTM zone 32N, see Kretschmer, 2015).

To derive absolute numbers of people, we divide the square kilometres of each Core Area by the quartiles (Q1, Q2, Q3) of the raw material polygon areas (see table 2). These polygons are considered indicative of the mobility range of hunter-gatherer groups, thus reflecting a potential area of land-tenure. Their size thus determines the number of groups that lived within a Core Area. Since data on raw material provenience are not available for all regions, we had to extrapolate polygon sizes into adjacent regions (cf. Maier et al., 2016). The results are then multiplied by an average group size, derived from

ethno-historic cases selected based on economic considerations (see Kretschmer, 2015). This average size, termed GROUP 2 according to Binford (2001), is considered to represent a hunter-gatherer group size which fuses during the course of a year and accounts in this sample for 43 persons per Group (Schmidt et al., 2021).

The density of persons within the Core Areas is given per 100 km² (table 2). To calculate the subcontinental density, we divide the estimated number of persons by the TAC of 2.6 million km² (fig. 2), consequently resulting in a lower density at this scale.

## RESULTS

The Optimally Describing Isoline (ODI) for the site distributions of the Final Palaeolithic (fig. 3) is identified by the geostatistical approach of the Cologne Protocol at the Largest Empty Circle (LEC) radius of 32 km (fig. 4). The Core Areas as enclosed by the ODI sum up to 600,150 km² within the TAC. These Core Areas capture 87% of the sites (915 out of 1,054).

The total population estimate for the Final Palaeolithic comprises 6,600 people, with minima and maxima of 3,100 to 10,900 (table 2). Population density differs between Core Areas, with the lowest density of 0.83 persons per 100 km² being in the northern regions (Great Britain, Benelux, Denmark, Poland) and a highest value in southwestern Europe at 1.91 persons per 100 km². For the TAC, we derive an estimate of just 0.25 persons per 100 km², and minima and maxima of 0.12 to 0.42 persons per 100 km², respectively.

## DISCUSSION

The results for the Final Palaeolithic presented in this study can be directly compared to results produced using the same approach for earlier periods at a European scale (fig. 5, diagram; Kretschmer, 2015 and 2019). While Kretschmer noted a clear continuous increase in population size and density throughout the Magdalenian – with maximum estimates for Core Areas of the Late Magdalenian (see fig. 5, map) – our estimates for population size and density at the European scale suggest stability from the Late Magdalenian to Final Palaeolithic, with a slight tendency to decrease (fig. 5, diagram, and table 3). This tendency is not pronounced and remains within the uncertainty range of the estimates. However, we suspect that this stability is spurious and caused by three factors which, if better controlled, would most likely reveal a different result: population size and density are more likely to have declined after the Late Magdalenian. Firstly, as outlined at the beginning, the Final Palaeolithic comprises phases of distinct climatic, environmental and cultural change. Regional population displacement or extinction, changes of mobility and subsistence strategies, have taken place during this period,
<table><thead><tr><th>Core Areas</th><th>Optimal isolines (km²)</th><th>Q</th><th>Catchment area (Q1,2,3)</th><th>n</th><th>Number of groups</th><th>Number of persons</th><th>Pop. density Core Areas (P/100 km²)</th><th>Pop. density TAC (2.6 M km², P/100 km²)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">United Kingdom *</td><td>50869</td><td>Q1</td><td>2671</td><td rowspan="17">17</td><td>19.0</td><td>810</td><td>1.591</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>50869</td><td>Q2</td><td>5118</td><td>9.9</td><td>422</td><td>0.830</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>50869</td><td>Q3</td><td>7563</td><td>6.7</td><td>286</td><td>0.562</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Denmark *</td><td>44530</td><td>Q1</td><td>2671</td><td rowspan="17">18</td><td>16.7</td><td>709</td><td>1.591</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>44530</td><td>Q2</td><td>5118</td><td>8.7</td><td>370</td><td>0.830</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>44530</td><td>Q3</td><td>7563</td><td>5.9</td><td>250</td><td>0.562</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Poland, N-Germany *</td><td>154216</td><td>Q1</td><td>2671</td><td rowspan="17">19</td><td>57.7</td><td>2454</td><td>1.591</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>154216</td><td>Q2</td><td>5118</td><td>30.1</td><td>1281</td><td>0.830</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>154216</td><td>Q3</td><td>7563</td><td>20.4</td><td>867</td><td>0.562</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Benelux</td><td>133480</td><td>Q1</td><td>2671</td><td rowspan="17">20</td><td>50.0</td><td>2124</td><td>1.591</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>133480</td><td>Q2</td><td>5118</td><td>26.1</td><td>1108</td><td>0.830</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>133480</td><td>Q3</td><td>7563</td><td>17.6</td><td>750</td><td>0.562</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">S-Germany</td><td>38417</td><td>Q1</td><td>2719</td><td rowspan="17">21</td><td>14.1</td><td>601</td><td>1.563</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>38417</td><td>Q2</td><td>4188</td><td>9.2</td><td>390</td><td>1.015</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>38417</td><td>Q3</td><td>8317</td><td>4.6</td><td>196</td><td>0.511</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Swiss</td><td>23381</td><td>Q1</td><td>2719</td><td rowspan="17">22</td><td>8.6</td><td>366</td><td>1.563</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23381</td><td>Q2</td><td>4188</td><td>5.6</td><td>237</td><td>1.015</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>23381</td><td>Q3</td><td>8317</td><td>2.8</td><td>119</td><td>0.511</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Italy (North) *</td><td>19082</td><td>Q1</td><td>2719</td><td rowspan="17">23</td><td>7.0</td><td>298</td><td>1.563</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19082</td><td>Q2</td><td>4188</td><td>4.6</td><td>194</td><td>1.015</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>19082</td><td>Q3</td><td>8317</td><td>2.3</td><td>98</td><td>0.511</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">S-France *</td><td>93283</td><td>Q1</td><td>1617</td><td rowspan="17">24</td><td>57.7</td><td>2452</td><td>2.629</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>93283</td><td>Q2</td><td>2231</td><td>41.8</td><td>1777</td><td>1.905</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>93283</td><td>Q3</td><td>10222</td><td>9.1</td><td>388</td><td>0.416</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">N-Spain</td><td>27626</td><td>Q1</td><td>1617</td><td rowspan="17">25</td><td>17.1</td><td>726</td><td>2.629</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>27626</td><td>Q2</td><td>2231</td><td>12.4</td><td>526</td><td>1.905</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>27626</td><td>Q3</td><td>10222</td><td>2.7</td><td>115</td><td>0.416</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">C-Portugal</td><td>4572</td><td>Q1</td><td>1617</td><td rowspan="17">26</td><td>2.8</td><td>120</td><td>2.629</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4572</td><td>Q2</td><td>2231</td><td>2.0</td><td>87</td><td>1.905</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4572</td><td>Q3</td><td>10222</td><td>0.4</td><td>19</td><td>0.416</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">E-Spain *</td><td>10693</td><td>Q1</td><td>1617</td><td rowspan="17">27</td><td>6.6</td><td>281</td><td>2.629</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10693</td><td>Q2</td><td>2231</td><td>4.8</td><td>204</td><td>1.905</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10693</td><td>Q3</td><td>10222</td><td>1.0</td><td>44</td><td>0.416</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Sum Core Area</td><td rowspan="3">600148</td><td>Q1</td><td></td><td rowspan="3">45</td><td>257</td><td>10941</td><td>1.823</td><td>0.42</td></tr><tr><td>Q2</td><td></td><td>155</td><td>6596</td><td>1.099</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Q3</td><td></td><td>74</td><td>3132</td><td>0.522</td><td>0.12</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table 2** – Regional population estimates derived for the Final Palaeolithic. Mean (Q2), maximum (Q1) and minimum (Q3) estimates are provided for each region. The number of available Catchment areas (n) is given for entire areas into which values were transferred (indicated by shading). * = instances where several small Optimally Describing Isolines were summed into larger regions (see fig. 3).

**Tableau 2** – Estimation régionale de la population pour le Paléolithique final. Des estimations moyenne (Q2), maximale (Q1) et minimale (Q3) sont fournies pour chaque région. Le nombre de sources d'approvisionnement (n) est donné pour des zones entières dans lesquelles des valeurs ont été transférées (indiqué en dégradé). * = instances dans lesquelles plusieurs petits ODI ont été additionnés en zones plus larges (voir la fig. 3).

**Tabelle 2** – Regionale Populationsschätzungen für das Spätpaläolithikum. Mittelwert (Q2), maximale (Q1) und minimale (Q3) Schätzwerte sind für jede Region angegeben. Die Anzahl der berücksichtigten Rohmaterialeinzugsgebiete (Catchment areas, n) wird für die gesamte Region angegeben, für welche die Flächenwerte übernommen wurden (durch graue Schattierung angezeigt). * = Fälle, in denen mehrere kleine ODIs zu einer Fläche addiert wurden (see fig. 3).
<figure><img src="image_113.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** – Modelled Core Areas for the Final Palaeolithic of western and central Europe. The Optimally Describing Isoline was identified at a 32 km radius of the Largest Empty Circle (fig. 4). For a legend on the map see fig. 2.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 3** – Zones centrales modélisées pour le Paléolithique final d'Europe centrale et de l'ouest. La Optimally Describing Isoline est localisée dans un rayon de 32 km du Largest Empty Circle (fig. 4). Pour une légende de la carte, voir la fig. 2.</caption>

<caption>**Abb. 3** – Modellierte Kernregionen für das west- und zentraleuropäische Spätpaläolithikum. Die Optimally Describing Isoline (ODI) wurde bei einem Radius von 32 km des Largest Empty Circle festgelegt (Abb. 4). Für die Legende der Hintergrundkarte siehe Abb. 2.</caption>

especially in central and northern-central Europe, where the Younger Dryas resulted in clear changes in vegetation and the availability of prey animals (Philippsen et al., 2019). However, given the chronological resolution of the data in the present study, we are currently unable to pinpoint regions in which these diachronic internal changes affected human populations. This is still in the process of

evaluation and discussion. A previous application of the Cologne Protocol on demographic developments during the Gravettian demonstrated, that increased temporal resolution allowed to trace regional population breakdowns (Maier and Zimmermann, 2017), which had not been detected by other approaches using lower temporal resolution (Bocquet-Appel et al., 2005).
<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

Fig. 4 – Increase of area enclosed by the isolines. The Optimally Describing Isoline is identified at the peak of the areal increase, at a Largest Empty Circle of 32 km. This considers 85% of the sites.

Fig. 4 – Croissance de la superficie entourée par les contours. La Optimally Describing Isoline est localisée au sommet de la croissance de superficie, à un Largest Empty Circle de 32 km. 85 % des sites sont pris en compte.

Abb. 4 – Flächenzunahme innerhalb der Isolinien. Die Optimally Describing Isoline wird anhand des maximalen Flächenzuwachses bei 32 km Radius des Largest Empty Circle festgelegt. 85% der Fundstellen liegen innerhalb dieser ODI.

As such, the modelled Core Areas in this study very likely cover many regions which were not inhabited continuously, but did see occupation only during specific phases of the Final Palaeolithic. A consideration of these gaps at a higher temporal resolution would thus result in a smaller population estimate. Lower temporal resolution in this case results, in turn, in an overestimate of the size of the Core Areas and thus of the population.

The second point relates to the observation that, although mean population density at the Total Area of Calculation (TAC) scale remains fairly stable, mean population density within Core Areas becomes significantly lower for the Final Palaeolithic (table 3). During the calculation procedure of the Cologne Protocol, the density estimate within Core Areas is strongly related to the size of the regionally observed raw-material polygons: large polygons will result in low densities, while small polygons will provide higher densities (see Schmidt et al., 2021: Sup Mat). Thus, differences or changes in the mobility and provisioning strategies of hunter-gatherers are likely responsible for the differences in population density estimates between Core Areas, as well as between periods.

In the present case, i.e. the comparison between Late Magdalenian and Final Palaeolithic, it is noteworthy that overall regional differences in raw-material polygon-size are quite constant across periods: during both periods polygons are highly variable in south-westernmost Europe, but on average the smallest, while in regions further north and east the average raw-material polygon-size is far larger (table 1). For the Final Palaeolithic, Quartiles on the regional raw-material polygon-sizes are provided in table 2 (‘Catchment Area’). The observed

patterns relate partly to regional characteristics in the distribution of raw material sources, but it should be noted that it is not a continuous pattern throughout the Upper Palaeolithic, and first comparisons indicate that regional mean polygon sizes do vary with time.

So why does the overall population size remain fairly constant, although the mean population density within Core Areas declines dramatically? There are two mechanisms at work. On the one hand, the overall size of the Core Areas during the Final Palaeolithic nearly doubles (table 3). On the other hand, this enormous expansion is counterweighted by the population density values related to this areal increase. The overall Core Area size with high density estimates in south-western Europe actually remains stable, although in some instances, as in Iberia, single Core Areas reduce in size or even disappear. On the northern plains of central Europe, a clear expansion of Core Areas can be noted, as in the modern Benelux region, northern Germany and Poland. These regions are characterised by the lowest densities and contribute less to the overall population size than other areas. Therefore, regional gain or loss of some Core Areas here does not make a difference in terms of absolute population numbers. As a consequence, mean population density estimates can decrease significantly at the scale of Core Areas, while at a Pan-European scale the overall increase of the size of Core Areas and specific patterns of distribution of population density finally determines the effects on absolute numbers. This observation underlines the importance of defining meaningful scales during investigations.

With regard to the areal increase of Core Areas and the distribution of regional population densities, we expect
<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 5** – Superimposition of modelled Core Areas for the Late Magdalenian (blue lines; after Kretschmer, 2015) and the Final Palaeolithic (green shaded areas, this study). The diagram (bottom right) shows the population density estimates (person per 100 km²) for all phases of the Magdalenian (after Kretschmer, 2015: fig. 13,4–13,6) and this study (green). Horizontal bars represent the median of the estimate, vertical bars the maximum and minimum range (Q1 and Q3).

**Fig. 5** – Superposition des zones centrales modélisées pour le Magdalénien supérieur (lignes bleues ; d'après Kretschmer, 2015) et le Paléolithique final (zones ombrées en vert, cette étude). Le diagramme (en bas à droite) montre les estimations de la densité de population (personne pour 100 km²) pour toutes les phases du Magdalénien (d'après Kretschmer, 2015 : fig. 13,4-13,6) et cette étude (en vert). Les barres horizontales représentent la médiane de l'estimation, les barres verticales la fourchette maximale et minimale (Q1 et Q3).

**Abb. 5** – Modellierte Kernregionen des Späten Magdaleniens (blaue Linien; nach: Kretschmer, 2015) und des Spätpaläolithiums (grün schattierte Flächen, diese Studie). Das Diagramm (rechts unten) zeigt die Populationsdichteschätzungen (Personen pro 100 km²) für alle Phasen des Magdalenien (nach Kretschmer, 2015: Abb. 13,4–13,6) und dieser Studie (grün). Horizontale Balken repräsentieren den Mittelwert der Schätzung, vertikale Balken das Maximum und Minimum (Q1 und Q3).
<table><caption>**Table 3** – Population estimates for the Final Palaeolithic (this study) and the Late Magdalenian (after Kretschmer, 2015: fig. 13,4–13,6).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Core Areas<br>(in TAC,<br>km²)</th><th></th><th>Number of<br>persons</th><th>Pop. density<br>Core Areas<br>(P/100 km²)</th><th>Pop. density<br>TAC<br>(P/100 km²)</th><th>TAC size</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Final Palaeolithic</td><td rowspan="3">600,100<br>(ODI =<br>32km)</td><td>Max</td><td>10,941</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.42</td><td rowspan="3">2.6 M<br>km²</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>6,596</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Min</td><td>3,132</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Late Magdalenian<br>(16.5-14.0 cal. BP)</td><td rowspan="3">321,000<br>(ODI =<br>27km)</td><td>Max</td><td>10,200</td><td>3.0</td><td>0.44</td><td rowspan="3">2.3 M<br>km²</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>7,300</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Min</td><td>4,500</td><td>1.5</td><td>0.20</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Tableau 3** – Estimation de la population pour le Paléolithique final (cette étude) et le Magdalénien supérieur (d’après Kretschmer, 2015: fig. 13,4–13,6).

**Tabelle 3** – Populationsschätzungen für das Spätpaläolithikum (diese Studie) und das Späte Magdalenien (nach Kretschmer, 2015: Abb. 13,4–13,6).

that clarification of the chronocultural system for the Final Palaeolithic in Iberia, whose various regional complexes may be an artefact of the data (Soto et al., 2015), and new studies on raw-material provisioning will reduce the currently high estimates for this area. Also, improved chronological resolution might reveal temporally constrained, regional occupation hiatuses, as indicated by radiocarbon data (Bicho et al., 2011: fig. 2). These will likely lead to reduced population estimates for the Final Palaeolithic in these areas which currently produce the highest values.

As a final point of this discussion, we consider available predictions from regional studies. As outlined in the introduction, comprehensive regional population histories are still rare for the Final Palaeolithic, although new results from further research are likely to change the picture soon. To demonstrate the benefits of combining regional studies with the scalable results of the Pan-European approach of the Cologne Protocol, we take the well-founded, multiproxy-study of the Vezère region in south-western France as a comparative example (French, 2015; French and Collins, 2015). The study traced several proxies for relative demographic development through time, including the binned and corrected numbers of sites and the summed probability distributions of radiocarbon data. Both proxies show that during the Magdalenian regional population proxies did not follow the same gradual increase as predicted at the continental scale (Kretschmer, 2015 and 2019). If we now turn to the regional Core Areas of south-western France, we see that the independent proxy of areal size of the modelled Core Areas follows the same trend as the summed probability distribution, supporting the irregular regional signal. Differently, for the Final Palaeolithic, the areal size of Core Areas does increase, while both proxies used by Jennifer French (2015) clearly support a demographic decline during the period, returning to such low relative frequencies and numbers as those documented for the Last Glacial Maximum and Early Magdalenian. A possible reason why this trend is not reflected in Core Area

size might relate to a different pattern of site-distribution in the present dataset on the Final Palaeolithic, which is characterised by larger distances between sites, i.e. a wider scattering within Core Areas, as compared to the Late Magdalenian. This does hint to different mobility patterns of human groups, as do the above mentioned differences in raw material provisioning distances indicate. This tendency is especially present in the northern areas of the study, and might cause Core Areas in south-western France to become enlarged – even though the relative site counts suggest a regional decrease in site numbers. The role of mobility-patterns for site-distribution and site-frequency seems to play an important factor here, as noted in similar demographic contexts (e.g. Naudinot et al., 2014, Kretschmer et al., 2016). So as stated before, we expect that the high estimates for these regions are overestimations caused by the current approach.

In conclusion, we expect that our data have resulted in an overestimate of the European population during the Final Palaeolithic, and especially for the period of the Younger Dryas. During the latter phase, contractions of Core Areas and populations, migrations, and regional population breakdowns can be expected, as discussed for Iberia and Great Britain and maybe the Benelux region (but see Crombé et al., 2014). The magnitude of these processes is hardly to predict at a continental scale, since regional settlement histories still require further investigation. This holds also true for possible population increases in areas of more suitable preconditions, as people might have encountered in northern-central and -eastern Europe. However, due to the overall low densities during all the Upper Palaeolithic the deviation of future improved estimations will be quite limited. Within the frame to estimate population densities and sizes for the Final Palaeolithic at a continental scale we have identified three main factors that should be methodologically considered when better data are available. Future research should aim to increase the temporal resolution of the Final Palaeolithic data, better control factors of internal diachronic changes in evidence of human presence, and further compare and
synthesize results on population dynamics across scales and proxies (see Schmidt et al. in prep.). In the search for adequate scales to trace population dynamics during the Final Palaeolithic and similar settings, the here presented Pan-European estimates serve as a basis for future studies.

**Acknowledgements:** This research was conducted at the University of Cologne and was funded by the German Research Foundation – Project-ID 57444011 – SFB 806 ‘Our Way to Europe’. We thank the editors for inviting us to contribute to this special issue. For providing georeferenced

data from partly unpublished sources, access to literature, and for discussions, we are grateful to Sonja Grimm (Grimm, 2019), Andreas Maier, Felix Riede (unpublished data), Florian Sauer (Sauer, 2018), Iwona Sobkowiak-Tabaka (Sobkowiak-Tabaka, 2017), and Katja Winkler (Winkler, 2020). We also thank Andrea Darida, Martin Müller, and Nina Avci for assistance in compiling the databases, and Nina Avci for editing of the manuscript. Dr. Jayson Orthon corrected the English of the manuscript, and Dr. Renate Heckendorf translated the French Abstract. Two reviewers provided helpful comments which improved the text. All mistakes are our own. Maps and geostatistical calculations were produced (IS) using MapInfo 8.5 and ArcGis 10.6.

## BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

AFFOLTER J. (2015) – Herkunft der Silexrohstoffe, in J. Sedlmeier, *Die letzten Wildbeuter der Eiszeit. Neue Forschungen zum Spätpaläolithikum im Kanton Basel-Landschaft*, Basel, Schwabe Verlag, 300 p.

BAALES M. (2001) – From Lithics to Spatial and Social Organization: Interpreting the Lithic Distribution and Raw Material Composition at the Final Palaeolithic Site of Kettig (Central Rhineland, Germany), *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 28, p. 127-141. Available from: doi: 10.1006/jasc.1999.0545, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com.

BAALES M. (2005) - *Archäologie des Eiszeitalters - Frühe Menschen an Mittelrhein und Mosel*, Koblenz, Archäologische Denkmalpflege des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege Rheinland Pfalz (Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel, 16), 173 p.

BAALES M. (2014) – Jäger und Sammler am Ende der letzten Kaltzeit in Mitteleuropa. Ein Überblick zum aktuellen Forschungsstand, in LVR-Landesmuseum Bonn (ed.), *Eiszeitjäger. Leben im Paradies?: Europa vor 15 000 Jahren*, Mainz, Nünnerich-Asmus Verlag, p. 44-61.

BAALES M., MEWIS S. U., STREET M. (1996) – Der Federmesser-Fundplatz Urbar bei Koblenz, *Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz*, 43, p. 241-279.

BAALES M., JÖRIS O., STREET M., BITTMANN F., WENIGER B., WIETHOLD J. (2002) – Impact of the late glacial eruption of the Laacher See volcano, Central Rhineland, Germany, *Quaternary Research*, 58, p. 273-288. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1006/qres.2002.2379.

BARBAZA M. (2011) – Environmental changes and cultural dynamics along the northern slope of the Pyrenees during the Younger Dryas, *Quaternary International*, 242, p. 313-327. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.03.012.

BERGANZA E. (2005) – El tránsito del tardigracial al Holoceno en el País Vasco, *Munibe*, 57, 2, p. 249-258.

BICHO N., HAWS J., ALMEIDA F. (2011) – Hunter-gatherer adaptations and the Younger Dryas in central and southern Portugal, *Quaternary International*, 242, 2, p. 336-347.

BINFORD L. R. (2001) – *Constructing Frames of Reference. An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Hunter-Gatherer and Environmental Data Sets*, Berkeley, University of California Press, 583 p.

BOCQUET-APPEL J.-P., DEMARS P.-Y., NOIRET L., DOBROWSKY D. (2005) – Estimates of Upper Palaeolithic meta-population size in Europe from archaeological data, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 32, p. 1656-68. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.05.006.avril 2004), Paris, CTHS (Documents préhistoriques, 21), p. 211-225.

BROICH M., PETERS R. (2020) – Script and example application to model ‘Core-Areas’ (Optimally Describing Isolines) using R, Online repository (https://github.com/C-C-A-A/CologneProtocol-R).

CHAUVÈRIE F.-X., AFFOLTER J., EGLOFF M. (2008) – La grotte du Bichon : un site préhistorique des montagnes neuchâteloises. Hauterive, Office et musée cantonal d’archéologie de Neuchâtel, *Archéologie neuchâteloise*, 42, 164 p.

CROMBÉ P., SERGANT J., VERBRUGGE A., DE GRAEVE A., CHERRETTÉ B., MIKKELSEN J., CNUDDE V., DE KOCK T., HUISMANN H. D. J., VAN OS B. J. H., VAN STRYDONCK M., BOUDIN M. (2014) – A sealed flint knapping site from the Younger Dryas in the Scheldt valley (Belgium): Bridging the gap in human occupation at the Pleistocene–Holocene transition in W Europe, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 50, p. 420-439. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.07.021.

DEEBEN J. (1999) – De laatpaleolithische en mesolithische sites bij Geldrop (N. Br.). Deel 5, *Archeologie*, 9, p. 3-35.

DIJKSTRA P., BINK M., DE BIE M., VYNCKIER G., VAN RECHEM H., DYSELINCK T. (2006) – Laatpaleolithische vindplaatsen op het Plinius-terrein bij Tongeren (prov. Limburg), *Notae Praehistoricae*, 26, p. 109-124.

FAGNART J.-P. (1997) – *La fin de temps glaciaires dans le nord de la France. Approches archéologique et environnementale des occupations humaines du Tardiglaciaire*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire, 24), 270 p.

FAT CHEUNG C., CHEVALLIER A., BONNET-JACQUEMENT P., LANGLAIS M., FERRIÉ J.-G., COSTAMAGNO S., KUNTZ D., LAROULANDIE V., MALLYE J.-B., VALDEYRON N., BALLISTA S. (2014) – Comparaison des séquences aziliennes entre Dordogne et Pyrénées: état des travaux en cours, in M. Langlais, N. Naudinot and M. Peresani (eds.), *Les groupes culturels de la transition Pléistocène-Holocène entre Atlan-tique et Adriatique*, Actes de la séance de la Société pré-historique française de Bordeaux, 24-25 mai 2012, Paris,
Société préhistorique française (Séances de la Société pré-historique française, 3), p. 17-44.

FRENCH J. C. (2015) – Demography and the Palaeolithic Archaeological Record, *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, 23, 1, p. 150-99. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-014-9237-4.

FRENCH J. C., COLLINS C. (2015) – Upper Palaeolithic population histories of Southwestern France: a comparison of the demographic signatures of $^{14}$C date distributions and archaeological site counts, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 55, p. 122-34. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.01.001.

FU Q., POSTH C., HAJDINJAK M., PETR M., MALLICK S., FERNANDES D., FURTWÄNGLER A., HAAK W., MEYER M., MITTNIK A., NICKEL B., PELTZER A., ROHLAND N., SLON V., TALAMO S., LAZARIDIS I., LIPSON M., MATHIESON I., SCHIFFELS S., SKOGLUND P., DEREVIANKO A. P., DROZDOV N., SLAVINSKY V., TSYBANKOV A., CREMONESI R. G., MALLEGNI F., GÉLY B., VACCA E., MORALES M. R. G., STRAUS L. G., NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH C., TESCHLER-NICOLA M., CONSTANTIN S., MOLDOVAN O. T., BENAZZI S., PERESANI M., COPPOLA D., LARI M., RICCI S., RONCHITELLI A. (2016) – The genetic history of Ice Age Europe, *Nature*, 534, 7606, p. 200-205.

GELHAUSEN F. (2007) – Verteilungsmuster ausgewählter Fundkonzentrationen des Allerødzeitlichen Fundplatzes Niederbiber, Stadt Neuwied (Rheinland-Pfalz) – Grabungen 1996-1999, *Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums*, 54, p. 1-23.

GRIMM S. B. (2004) – Ein spätallerødzeitliche Fundplatz bei Bad Breisig, Kreis Ahrweiler, *Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel*, 9, p. 11-32.

GRIMM S. B. (2019) – *Resilience and Reorganisation of Social Systems during the Weichselian Lateglacial in North-West Europe. An Evaluation of the Archaeological, Climatic, and Environmental Record*, Mainz, Schnell & Steiner, Monographs of the RGZM, 128, 672 p.

GRIMM S. B., WEBER M.-J., MEVEL L., SOBKOVIAK-TABAKA I., Eds. (2020) – *From the Atlantic to Beyond the Bug River. Finding and Defining the Federmesser-Gruppen / Azilian*, Proceedings of Session A5b (Commission »The Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia«) of the XVIIIth UISPP Congress, Burgos, September 2014. Heidelberg, Propylaeum, 150 p.

HESS T. (2014) – Spätglaziale Steinartefakte aus dem Helga-Abri im Achtal, *Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte*, 23, p. 37-56.

HOLZKÄMPER J., MAIER A., RICHTER J. (2013) – ‘Dark Ages’ illuminated – Rietberg and related assemblages possibly reducing the hiatus between the Upper and Late Palaeolithic in Westphalia, *Quartär*, 60, p. 115-136.

JOCHIM M. A., KIND C.-J., KLEINMANN A., MERKT J., STEPHAN E. (2015) – Eine spätpaläolithische Fundstelle am Ufer des Federsees: Bad Buchau – Kappel, Flurstück Gemeindebeunden, *Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg*, 35, p. 37-13.

KEGLER J. (2007) – *Das Azilien von Mas d’Azil. Der chronologische und kulturelle Kontext der Rückenspitzengruppen in Südwesteuropa*, PhD-dissertation, Universität zu Köln, 374 p. Available from: http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/id/eprint/4231.

KIND C.-J. (1995) – Sattenbeuren – Kieswerk, ein spätpaläolithischer Uferrandlagerplatz am Federsee, *Fundberichte Baden-Württemberg*, 20, 1995, p. 159-194.

KRETSCHMER I. (2015) – *Demographische Untersuchungen zu Bevölkerungsdichten, Mobilität und Landnutzungsmustern im späten Jungpaläolithikum*, Rhaden, Verlag Marie Leidorf, Kölner Studien zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, 6, 368 p.

KRETSCHMER I. (2019) – Demographic studies of hunters and gatherers in the European Late Upper Palaeolithic, in B. V. Eriksen, E. Rensik and S. Harris (eds.), *The Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia*, Proceedings of the Amersfoort, Schleswig and Burgos UISPP Commission Meetings (2019), Kiel, Steve-Holger Ludwig, Schriften des Museums für Archäologie Schloss Gottorf – Ergänzungsreihe, 13, p. 231-245.

KRETSCHMER I., MAIER A., SCHMIDT I. (2016) – Probleme und mögliche Lösungen bei der Schätzung von Bevölkerungsdichten im Paläolithikum, in T. Kerig, K. Nowak and G. Roth (eds.), *Alles was zählt... Festschrift für Andreas Zimmermann*, Bonn, Habelt, p. 47-58.

LANGLAIS M., LAROULANDIE V. (2009) – Les fouilles de la grotte-abri de Peyrazet (Creysse, Lot): nouvelles données pour le Tardiglaciaire quercinois, *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 106, 1, p. 150-152.

LANGLAIS M., DETRAIN L., FERRIÉ J.-G., MALLYE J.-B., MARQUEBIELLE B., RIGAUD S., TURQ A., BONNET-JACQUEMENT P., BOUDADI-MALIGNE M., CAUX S., FAT CHEUNG C., NAUDINOT N., MORALA A., VALDEYRON N., CHAUVIÉRE F.-X. (2014) – Réévaluation des gisements de La Borie del Rey et de Port-de-Penne : nouvelles perspectives pour la transition Pléistocène-Holocène dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, in M. Langlais, N. Naudinot and M. Peresani (eds.), *Les groupes culturels de la transition Pléistocène-Holocène entre Atlantique et Adriatique*, Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Bordeaux, 24-25 mai 2012, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 3), p. 83-128.

LITT T., BRAUER A., GOSLAR T., MERKT J., BALAGA K., MÜLLER H., RALSKA-JASIEWICZOWA M., STEBICH M., NEGENDANK J.F.W. (2001) – Correlation and synchronisation of Late glacial continental sequences in northern central Europe based on annually laminated lacustrine sediments, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 20, p. 1233-1249. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(00)00149-9.

LOEW S. (2006) – *Rüsselsheim 122 und die Federmessergruppen am Unteren Main*, PhD dissertation, Universität zu Köln, 193 p.

LUNDSTRÖM V., RIEDE F. (2019) – A spatially explicit model of Final Palaeolithic population densities for southern Scandinavia in the period between 14,000 and 12,700 cal BP, *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 26, p. 1-10. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas-rep.2019.101886.

LUNDSTRÖM V., PETERS R., RIEDE F. (2021) – Demographic estimates from the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic boundary in Scandinavia: Comparative benchmarks and novel insights, *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B*, 376, 20200037. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0037.
MAIER A. (2015) – *The Central European Magdalenian. Spatial diversity and regional variability*, Dordrecht, Springer, 483 p.

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

MAIER A., LEHMKUHL F., LUDWIG P., MELLES M., SCHMIDT I., SHAO Y., ZEEDEN C., ZIMMERMANN A. (2016) – Demographic estimates of hunter-gatherers during the Last Glacial Maximum in Europe against the background of palaeoenvironmental data, *Quaternary International*, 425, p. 49-61. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.04.009.

MAIER A., ZIMMERMANN A. (2017) – Populations headed south? The Gravettian from a palaeodemographic point of view, *Antiquity*, 91, 357, p. 573-588. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.37.

MARCHAND G., NAUDINOT N., PHILIBERT S., SICARD S. (2011) – Hunting for Camps at an Azilian Site in Western, in F. Bon, S. Costamagno and N. Valdeyron (eds.), *Hunting Camps in Prehistory. Current Archaeological Approaches, Proceedings of the International Symposium, University Toulouse II – Le Mirail*, P@lethnology, 3, p. 267-290.

NAUDINOT N., TOMASSO A., TOZZI C., PERESANI M. (2014) – Changes in mobility patterns as a factor of ¹⁴C date density variation in the Late Epigravettian of Northern Italy and Southeastern France. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 52, p. 578-590.

NIELSEN E. H. (1999) – Wauwil 25-Sandmatt. Eine spät-paläolithische Fundstelle im Wauwilermoos, Luzern, Kantsarchäologie, *Archäologische Schriften Luzern*, 8, 83 p.

PASTY J.-F., ALIX PH., BALLUT C., GRIGGO C., MURAT R. (2002) – Le gisement épipaléolithique à pointes de Malaurie de Champ-Chalatras (Les Martres d’Artière, Puy-de-Dôme), *Paléo*, 14, p. 101-176.

PAROW-SUCHON H., HEINEN, M. (2017) – Rohmaterialökonomie und Mobilität im rheinischen Allerød, *Quartär*, 64, 157-177.

PHILLIPSEN B., IVANOVAITE L., MAKHOTKA K., SAUER F., RIEDE F., OLSEN J. (2019) – Eight new late Pleistocene/Early Holocene AMS dates from the southeastern Baltic, *Radiocarbon*, 61, 2, p. 1-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.153.

PŁAZA D. K., KITTEL P., PETERA-ZGANIACZ J., DZIEDUSZYN-SKA D. A., TWARDY J. (2015) – Late Palaeolithic settlement pattern in palaeogeographical context of the river valleys in the Koło Basin (Central Poland), *Quaternary International*, 370, p. 40-54.

POSTH C., RENAUD G., MITTNIK A., DRUCKER D. G., ROUGIER H., CUPILLARD CH., VALENTIN F., THEVENET C., FURTWÄNGLER A., WISSING CH., FRANCKEN M., MALINA M., BOLUS M., LARI M., GOGLI E., CAPECCHI G., CREVECOEUR I., BEAUVAL C., FLAS D., GERMONPRÉ M., VAN DER PLICHT J., COTTIAUX J. R., GÉLY B., RONCHITELLE A., WEHRBERGER K., GRIGORESCU D., SVOBODA J., SEMAL P., CARAMELLI D., BOCHERENS H., HARVATI K., CONARD N., HAAK W., POWELL A., KRAUSE J. (2016) – Pleistocene mitochondrial genomes suggest a single major dispersal

of non-Africans and a Late Glacial population turnover in Europe, *Current Biology*, 26, p. 1-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.01.037.

REICH D. (2018) – *Who we are and how we got here. The ancient DNA revolution and the new science of the human past*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 335 p.

REINIG F., CHERUBINI P., ENGELS S., ESPER J., GUIDO-BALDI G., JÖRIS O., LANE C., NIEVERGELT D., OPPENHEIMER C., PARK C., PFANZ H., RIEDE F., SCHMINCKE H. U., STREET M., WACKER L., BÜNTGEN U. (2020) – Towards a dendrochronologically refined date of the Laacher See eruption around 13,000 years ago, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 229, p. 106-128. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.106128.

REYNOLDS N., RIEDE F. (2019) – House of cards: cultural taxonomy and the study of the European Upper Palaeolithic, *Antiquity*, 93, p. 1350-1358.

RICHTER J. (1981) – Der spätpaläolithische Fundplatz bei Gahlen, Ldkr. Dinslaken, *Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt*, 11, p. 181-187.

RIEDE F. (2008) – The Laacher See-eruption (12,920 BP) and material culture change at the end of the Allerød in Northern Europe, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 35, 3, p. 591-599. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.05.007.

SÁNCHEZ DE LA TORRE M. (2014) – Detecting human mobility in the Pyrenees through the analysis of chert tools during the Upper Palaeolithic, *Journal of Lithic Studies*, 1, 1, p. 263-279.

SAUER F. (2018) – *Late Palaeolithic Land Use Patterns in Bavaria*. PhD-dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 304 p. Available from: urn:nbn:de:bvb:29-opus4-92875.

SAUER F., RIEDE F. (2019) – A Critical Reassessment of Cultural Taxonomies in the Central European Late Palaeolithic, *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, 26, p. 155-184.

SCHLUMMER M., HOFFMANN TH., DIKAU R., EICKMEIER M., FISCHER P., GERLACH R., HOLZKÄMPER J., KALIS A. J., KRETSCHMER I., LAUER F., MAIER A., MEESENBURG J., MEUERS-BALKE J., MÜNCH U., PÄTZOLD ST., STEININGER F., STOBBE A., ZIMMERMANN A. (2014) – From point to area: Upscaling approaches for Late Quaternary archaeological and environmental data, *Earth-Science Reviews*, 131, p. 22-48.

SCHMIDT I. (2019) – CRC806-E1 Raw-material-polygons. Database on the Late Palaeolithic of Europe V2019-05-08. CRC806-Database, University of Cologne, DOI: 10.5880/SFB806.48.

SCHMIDT I., ZIMMERMANN A. (2019) – Population dynamics and socio-spatial organization of the Aurignacian: Scalable quantitative demographic data for western and central Europe, *PLOS ONE*, 14, 2, 1-20 p. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211562.

SCHMIDT I., ZIMMERMANN A. (2020) – CRC806-E1 Database on Final Palaeolithic Sites of Europe V2020-08-20. CRC806-Database, University of Cologne. DOI: 10.5880/SFB 806.51.
SCHMIDT I, GEHLEN B., WINKLER K., ARRIZABALAGA A., ARTS N., BICHO N., CROMBÉ Ph., CULAKOVA K., GRIMM S., LANGLAIS M., MEVEL L., NAUDINOT N., NIEKUS M., PERESANI M., RIEDE F., SAUER F., SCHÖN W., SOBKOWIAK-TABAKA I., VANDENDRIESSCHE H., WEBER M., ZANDER A., ZDENĚKA N., ZIMMERMANN A., MAIER A. (in prep.) – Demographic estimates for hunter-gatherer societies during the Final Palaeolithic in Europe: Mapping and evaluating population dynamics during Greenland Interstadial 1c-a (Allerød) and Greenland Stadial 1 (Younger Dryas).

SCHMIDT I., HILPERT J., KRETSCHMER I., PETERS R., BROICH M., SCHIESBERG S., VOGELS O., WENDT K. P., ZIMMERMANN A., MAIER A. (2021) – Approaching Prehistoric Demography: Proxies, Scales and Scope of the Cologne Protocol in European contexts, *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B*, 376, 20190714. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0714.

SOBKOWIAK-TABAKA I. (2017) - *Rozwój społeczności Federmesser na Nizinie Środkowoeuropejskiej (The development of the Federmesser culture on the North European Plain)*, Warszawa, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 400 p.

SOBKOWIAK-TABAKA I., WINKLER K. (2017) – The Ahrensburgian and the Swiderian in the area around the middle Oder River: reflections on similarities and differences, *Quartär*, 64, p. 217-240. Available from: doi: 10.7485/QU64_10.

SOTO A., ALDAY A., MONTES L., UTRILLA P., PERALES U., DOMINGO R. (2015) – Epipalaeolithic assemblages in the Western Ebro Basin (Spain): The difficult identification of cultural entities, *Quaternary International*, 364, p. 144-152. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.041.

STΕΦΑΝΣΚΙ D., WILCZYŃSKI J. (2012) – Extralocal raw materials in the Swiderian culture: case study of Kraków-Bieżanów sites, *Anthropologie*, 4, p. 427-442.

STOOP D. D. L. (2014) - *Federmesser mobility patterns in the Western Meuse area, Limburg, the Netherlands: the case studies of Horn-Haelen and Heythuysen-de Fransman I, MA-Thesis*, University of Leiden, 145 p.

STREET M. (1998) – The archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition in the Northern Rhineland, Germany, *Quaternary International*, 49/50, p. 45-67.

SULGOSTOWSKA Z. (2006) – Final Palaeolithic Societies’ Mobility in Poland as Seen from the Distribution of Flints, *Archaeologia Baltica*, 7, p. 36-42.

SURMELY P. F., VIRMONT J., QUINQUETON A. (2009) – *Le gisement épipaléolithique ancien de la grotte Béraud à Saint-Privat-d’Allier (Haute-Loire, France)*, hal-00350923.

TALLAVAARA M., LUOTO M., KORHONEN N., JÄRVINEN H., SEPPÄ H. (2015) – Human population dynamics in Europe over the Last Glacial Maximum. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 112, 27, p. 8232-7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503784112.

TRABSKA J., WALANUS A., CIESIELCZUK J., SAMEK L., DUTKIEWICZ E. (2008) – Ferruginous Raw Material Sources for Palaeolithic in Poland (Central Europe) – Provisional Studies: Occurrence, Lithostratigraphy and Application, 9th International Conference on NDT of Art, (Jerusalem, Israel, 2008), Jerusalem, p. 1-7. Available from: www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?MainSource=65.

VERBEEK C. (1997) – Epipaleolithische en Mesolithische sites in het ‘Ruilverkavelingsblok Weelde’ (prov. Antwerpen), *Notae Praehistoricae*, 17, p. 81-84.

VUKOSAVLJEVIĆ N., PERHOĆ Z., ČEČUK B., KARAVANIĆ I. (2011) – Late Glacial knapped stone industry of Kopačina Cave, *Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku (Journal of Dalmatian Archaeology and History)*, 104, p. 7-54.

WEBER M.-J., GRIMM S. B., BAALES M. (2011) – Between warm and cold: Impact of the Younger Dryas on human behavior in Central Europe, *Quaternary International*, 242, 2, p. 277-301. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.002.

WENDT K. P., ZIMMERMANN A. (2015/2019) – Landschaftsarchäologie IV. Ein Modell zur Rekonstruktion von Landwirtschaftssystemen am Beispiel der Linearbandkeramik und der späten vorindustriellen Neuzeit, *Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission*, 96, p. 9-218.

WENDT K. P., HILPERT J., ZIMMERMANN A. (2010) – Landschaftsarchäologie III. Untersuchungen zur Bevölkerungsdichte der vorrömischen Eisenzeit, der Merowingerzeit und der späten vorindustriellen Neuzeit an Mittel- und Niederrhein, *Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission*, 9, p. 221-338.

WINKLER K. (2020) – *Ahrensburgien und Swiderien im mittleren Oderraum. Technologische und typologische Untersuchungen an Silexartefakten der Jüngeren Dryaszeit*, Kiel, Wachholtz Verlag, Untersuchungen und Materialien zur Steinzeit in Schleswig-Holstein und im Ostseeraum, 11, 496 p.

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

ZIMMERMANN A. (in press) – Population Dynamics and Quality of Life - the perspective of Millennia and Centuries.

ZIMMERMANN A., HILPERT J., WENDT K. P. (2009) – Estimates of population density for selected periods between the Neolithic and AD 1800, *Human Biology*, 81, 2-3, p. 357-380, available from: https://doi.org/10.3378/027.081.0313.

ZIMMERMANN A., SCHARL S., SCHMIDT I. (2020) – Demographic Transitions – Cycles and Mobility in the Neolithic of Western Germany, in T. Lachenal, R. Roure and O. Lemercier (eds.), *Demography and Migration – Population trajectories from the Neolithic to the Iron Age*, Proceedings of the XVIII UISPP World Congress (Paris, 2018), Paris, Archaeopress (Volume 5: Sessions XXXII-2 and XXXIV-8), p. 86-97.
**Isabell SCHMIDT**

Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology
CRC 806 ‘Our Way to Europe’
University of Cologne
Bernhard-Feilchenfeld-Straße 11
50969 Cologne
mail: isabell.schmidt@uni-koeln.de

**Birgit GEHLEN**

Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology
CRC 806 ‘Our Way to Europe’
University of Cologne
Bernhard-Feilchenfeld-Straße 11
50969 Cologne
mail: bgehlen.archgraph@gmx.de

**Andreas ZIMMERMANN**

Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology
CRC 806 ‘Our Way to Europe’
University of Cologne
Bernhard-Feilchenfeld-Straße 11
50969 Cologne
mail: a.zimmermann@uni-koeln.de
<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_117.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. 239-245

www.prehistoire.org

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

‘Social’, ‘cultural’, ‘boundaries’, ‘mobility of ideas’, etc.:
Some thoughts on these notions in relation to late Palaeo-
lithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers

« Social », « culturel », « frontières », « mobilité des idées », etc. :
quelques réflexions sur ces notions quand il s'agit des
chasseurs-cueilleurs de la fin de la Préhistoire

„Sozial“, „kulturell“, „Grenzen“, „Mobilität von Ideen“, usw.:
Einige Gedanken zu diesen Begriffen in Bezug auf spätpaläo-
lithische und mesolithische Jäger und Sammler

Boris VALENTIN

**Abstract:** This article begins by considering some very common notions in prehistoric archaeology. In this respect, it questions what current approaches and sources allow to describe and what their limits designate as inexpressible, momentary or definitive. The challenge is to establish an adequate, operative vocabulary. On the other hand, insisting at all costs on using sociological approaches can weaken this ambition, which requires highly meticulous prior palaeoethnographical studies. The fading of the meaning is, however, inevitable when discussing prehistoric ‘cultures’, and therefore the notion of ‘traditions’ is to be preferred to refer to the fragments or remains of these cultures, for which precise distribution ranges are difficult to identify. At the same time, it seems that the notion of ‘cultural currents’ is very well adapted to expressing the fluidity with which practices spread among mobile hunter-gatherers, who, according to contemporary analogues, have a reputation of social flexibility. Some reflections follow on what the impressive transmission of ideas in Europe during the late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic may reveal, focusing in particular on the fluctuating intensity of contact between the Magdalenian and late Azilian.

**Keywords:** Epistemology, Palaeosociology, Magdalenian, Azilian.

Résumé : Cet article s’intéresse d’abord à quelques notions d’usage très courant en archéologie préhistorique. Il s’interroge à ce propos sur ce que nos démarches et nos sources d’aujourd’hui rendent étudiable et donc dicible et sur ce que leurs limites désignent comme part d’ineffable, momentanée ou définitive. L’enjeu scientifique – et pédagogique – est de disposer d’un vocabulaire efficacement opératoire, c’est-à-dire désignant des réalités tangibles. *A contrario* prétendre à tout bout de champs pratiquer des approches
sociologiques risque d'affadir l'ambition qui nécessite, au préalable, des études palethnographiques très méticuleuses, donc sur des
habitats bien conservés, ce qui exige par conséquent du temps pour l'analyse. Il convient aussi d'admettre que, même dans ces condi-
tions optimales, ce ne sont que des bribes de sociologie préhistorique que l'on peut saisir ainsi et que nous manquons encore de moyens
pour inscrire ces bribes dans des théories générales. L'affadissement est en revanche inévitable quand il est question de « cultures »
préhistoriques : pour des raisons évidentes de conservation, le peu qui en subsiste est amputé de nombreuses dimensions idéelles
(langues, mythes, etc.) auxquelles font fréquemment référence les anthropologues de l'actuel et qui restent inaccessibles aux préhis-
toriens. De plus, ces entités qu'il leur est très délicat de cerner sont impossibles à délimiter pour les préhistoriens. Avec les quelques
siècles d'imprécisions du radiocarbone, comment prétendre y parvenir alors que nous nous intéressons en plus à des sociétés de
chasseurs-cueilleurs mobiles réputées, d'après les analogues actuels, pour leur grande flexibilité sociale et leurs fréquents épisodes
de dispersion ? Pour désigner ce que nous appréhendons véritablement, et dont les limites restent donc très imprécises, nous préfé-
rons par conséquent la notion de « tradition » – technique ou symbolique – pour désigner les fragments de cultures préhistoriques
qui ont été conservés mais dont le mode initial d'assemblage nous échappe. Quant à la notion de « courant culturel », elle nous paraît
très bien adaptée pour exprimer la fluidité avec laquelle les traditions observées dans différents domaines ont pu éventuellement se
combiner, parfois sur de très vastes espaces géographiques. Quelques réflexions suivent sur ce que pourrait révéler l'ampleur de
certains courants qui ont relayé en Europe durant le Paléolithique récent et le Mésolithique d'importants flux d'information sur des
distances considérables. Quand les flux concernent des idées techniques un peu compliquées, il nous semble que leur propagation
requérait nécessairement des moments de démonstration et d'apprentissage et, au préalable, des efforts de conviction ainsi qu'un
effet de séduction. Autrement dit, les durées nécessaires à ces échanges de bons procédés – à un de véritable prosélytisme quand
il s'agit de symboles – furent plus ou moins longues selon la complexité des idées en question, ce qui nous donne quelques idées
sur l'intensité des contacts nécessaires. Ceux-ci pouvaient se produire par exemple à la faveur des résidences post-maritales dont
les règles sont très flexibles chez les chasseurs-cueilleurs mobiles. On applique ensuite brièvement ce raisonnement liant difficulté
des idées et niveau d'interaction aux débuts du Tardiglaciaire : durant le XIIe millénaire avant notre ère, le contenu des courants
culturels constituant la phase récente de l'Azilien paraît refléter une baisse d'intensité dans ces interactions par contraste avec celles
qui accompagnaient nécessairement la diffusion des idées difficiles du Magdalénien et même de celles qui marquent les commence-
ments de l'Azilien. À propos du Magdalénien, on souligne que les observations le concernant étayent une corrélation proposée par
certains chercheurs, sur la base de comparaisons avec l'actuel, entre paysages arides, ou à fort contrastes saisonniers, et phénomènes
d'homogénéisation culturelle voire linguistique.

Mots-clés : Épistémologie, Paléosociologie, Magdalénien, Azilien.

Zusammenfassung: Dieser Artikel beginnt mit der Betrachtung einiger sehr verbreiteter Begriffe der prähistorischen Archäologie. In diesem Zusammenhang wird in Frage gestellt, welche Beschreibungen aktuelle Ansätze und Quellen zulassen und was deren Grenzen als unaussprechlich, vorübergehend oder endgültig bezeichnen. Die Herausforderung besteht darin, ein adäquates und operatives Vokabular zu etablieren. Andererseits kann das Bestehen auf soziologischen Ansätzen um jeden Preis diesen Anspruch, der äußerst sorgfältige paläoethnographische Vorstudien erfordert, schwächen. Ein Verblassen der Bedeutung ist dagegen unvermeidlich, wenn von prähistorischen „Kulturen“ die Rede ist. Daher ist der Begriff „Traditionen“ in Bezug auf die Fragmente oder Überreste dieser Kulturen zu bevorzugen, für die genaue Verbreitungsgebiete schwierig zu identifizieren sind. Gleichzeitig scheint aber der Begriff der „kulturellen Strömungen“ sehr gut geeignet zu sein, um die fließende Verbreitung von Praktiken bei mobilen Jägern und Sammlern auszudrücken, welche, ausgehend von heutigen Analogien, im Ruf sozialer Flexibilität stehen. Es folgen einige Überlegungen darüber, was die beeindruckende Weitergabe von Ideen in Europa während des Spätpaläolithikums und Mesolithikums offenbaren könnte. Im Einzelnen liegt der Fokus dabei auf der fluktuierenden Intensität des Kontaktes im Zeitraum zwischen Magdalénien und spätem Azilien.

Schlüsselwörter: Epistemologie, Paläosozialologie, Magdalénien, Azilien.

PART of my work involves teaching, and I am some-
times also called upon to address the general public.
It seems to me that such tasks require to carefully consid-
er the terms used. This is particularly important at a time
when the use of certain words are tainted with political
intentions. Fortunately, however, this critical appraisal
of the vocabulary used has become commonplace in the
social sciences since the 1970s.

Adopting such a perspective is by no means a mat-
ter of promoting a so-called ‘politically correct’ lan-
guage, but rather of attempting, where possible, to use
a pedagogically correct one. For example, by using ‘late
Palaeolithic’ rather than ‘upper Palaeolithic’, thus no
longer confusing history and geology, it seems to me
that I achieved greater clarity with my newer students.

I also gained time, no longer having to add that the per-
sistent use of the adjective ‘upper’ (translated in French
as *supérieur* [superior]) clearly does not denote a value
judgment (see also Jaubert, 2003).

These pedagogically correct terms can also become
scientifically correct ones when they constitute effec-
tive tools for designating tangible realities. I will restrict
my remarks in the following lines to what I know of the
realities of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. In this
context, I propose that we question the adequacy of some
very familiar terms, such as ‘social’ and ‘cultural’. Once, I
myself often used them spontaneously before questioning
the deeper meaning that lies behind these commonplace
notions in the context of our studies, given our sources and
scales of observation (Valentin, 2008).
SOCIAL FACTS OR ‘L’INACCESSIBLE
ÉTOILE’ (1)

Let us begin with the adjective and noun ‘social’ and
related words ('society', 'sociology', etc.). Many of
us have been influenced in this regard, directly or indi-
rectly, by the work carried out at the Magdalenian site
of Étiolles and the ambition behind this research (see in
particular Pigeot, 1987; Olive, 1988; Pigeot (ed.), 2004).
Nicole Pigeot defined this ambition as:

'seeing in each piece of evidence, although unique, the ma-
ifestation of a "total social fact", the magnificent founding
notion of our disciplines' (2) (Pigeot (ed.), op. cit., p. 178).

This definition was the subject of much debate bet-
ween us because I reminded her of the original quotation
by Marcel Mauss for whom

'total social facts' are those which 'in some cases set in
motion the whole of society and its institutions (potlatch,
clashing clans, tribes visiting one another, etc.) and in other
cases only a very large number of institutions [...] . All these
phenomena are at once legal, economic, religious, and even
aesthetic and morphological' (3) (Mauss, 2012).

This definition implies that in adapting to prehistoric
reality, the ambition described above is necessarily limi-
ted. Therefore, I find it difficult to sustain and am of the
opinion that a simple, careful description of the technical
facts, as found in most prehistoric studies today, is not yet
enough to take us very far down this path.

For this reason, I consider it fundamental to adopt
the most refined palaeoethnographical approach, when-
ever possible. This can be found only in monographs
on the best-preserved habitats (as a recent example, see
the series on Champréveyres and Monruz, initiated by
Leesch, 1997). Such volumes take considerable time to
compile (in an age in which we are unfortunately under
too much pressure to produce short-term publications).
However, it must be admitted that even in these metic-
ulously produced monographs we only perceive frag-
ments of sociology since even in the best-studied cases
the archaeological ‘totality’ we are referring to is very
different to that which an observer of contemporary facts
has access to.

With regard to ‘total social facts’, this time in the
strongest Maussian sense of the term, I am nonetheless
convinced that some of the lithic artefacts we now handle
contributed to them. I am thinking, for example, of cer-
tain explicitly ostensible manifestations, such as the very
long Magdalenian blades found at Étiolles (Olive et al.,
2005), or the ‘fine’ Belloisian blades that were frequently
transported from one site to another (Biard and Valentin,
2019). I am referring even more so to artefacts that were
not only ostensible but probably also ostentatious, such as
the large Solutrean leaf-shaped knives (Pelegrin, 2013).

However, it seems to me that we still lack a good theory
for interpreting these facts, particularly the specialization
required for the manufacturing of some of these artefacts
(Valentin and Bon, 2012), at a time when the talent involved
in some artistic creations is readily discussed (Guy, 2017).
More broadly, we lack, if not a general sociological the-
ory on hunter-gatherers (see in particular Testart, 2012), at
least ways of correctly analysing our archaeological data in
a way that lends itself to sociological interpretations of this
kind. Jean-Marc Pétillon and I recently observed this while
seeking to verify the validity of the sociological model pro-
posed by Alain Testart with regard to the changes accom-
panying the late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe
(Valentin and Pétillon, 2018).

In short, it seems to me that palaeosociology is a
very difficult art in a field where much advancement
remains yet to be made, through an increase in studies
on well-preserved prehistoric sites as well as a redoubled
effort to interpret results. In other words, it is less a matter
of actual achievements already at hand than an exciting
research programme for the years to come – provided
that we allow ourselves the palaeoethnographical means,
which also implies the time necessary for this task.

IMMERSED IN THE CULTURAL FACTS

There remains the cultural dimension of the prehis-
toric facts we are continuously immersed in and the
somewhat exhilarating sensation that can arise from this –
and perhaps mislead us about the nature of what we are
looking at. We are immersed in cultural facts, that much
is clear, but that does not mean that we are yet able to
precisely establish the identities prehistoric groups them-
selves derived from this material. This does not in any
way mean that we have nothing to say on the matter –
quite the contrary – but it requires us once again to weigh
up our words, especially at a time when some people
are striving to reinforce these identities (archaeologists
having been invited several times in the past to sustain
ethnicist fictions, see for example Olivier, 2012). Let us
therefore be careful not to lapse into fiction about prehis-
toric ‘cultures’ and what remains of them. And let us first
consider what lies behind this fetish word ‘culture’ which
I rarely ever use. In fact, it does not seem very opera-
tive to me, whereas I never hesitate to use the adjective
‘cultural’ on the other hand, because it goes without
saying that we are constantly confronted with facts of this
kind – like all primatologists, and many specialists of the
animal kingdom (see for example Laland, 2008).

In one of our dictionaries (Leroi-Gourhan (dir.), 1988),
Yvette Taborin and Stéphanie Thiébault define the Mag-
dalenian as ‘a prestigious culture’ while Michel Orliac
describes the Azilian as ‘a Mesolithic (or Epipalaeolithic)
culture’. If we then consult the article on ‘Culture’ in the
same dictionary however, Jean Leclerc and Jacques Tarrête
state that
‘by borrowing this term from social anthropologists, prehistorians have had to significantly modify its content [...] It goes without saying that by identifying a culture from a collection of partial and fragmented elements, prehistorians must relinquish any notion of revealing the internal coherence and unity of this potential culture’ (4).

The contrast between enthusiastic spontaneity when it comes to defining terms such as ‘Magdalenian’ and ‘Azilian’ and the rigour of this epistemological injunction reflects a play of tension that is extremely common in prehistoric studies. For this reason, the word ‘culture’ seems highly inadequate to me because it is so greatly diminished by the adjective ‘archaeological’, that is to say, reduced of many ideological dimensions that are inaccessible to prehistorians. I therefore prefer the notion of ‘cultural tradition’ for designating a system of choice and rules in the fields of activity concerned – whether technical or symbolic – which are archaeologically accessible to us. It is clear that these systems of choice that I refer to as ‘cultural traditions’ implicitly reflected value systems, and that these traditions therefore formed part of a culture in the full sense of the term. But it is equally clear that there was not necessarily a perfect correspondence between a prehistoric tradition and a culture (also defined by its language, myths and so forth; in short by a whole framework that has since disintegrated). In other words, some of the traditions we identify, in terms of stone knapping, for example, may have been shared by several different prehistoric cultures, while, in parallel, some cultures may have simultaneously adopted several different traditions. Furthermore, no absolute congruence is expected between a tradition in one sphere of activity – stone knapping, for example – and that in another sphere, for example bone working, adornment, or other symbols. This is already fully recognized, for, with regard to modern-day societies, anthropology has abandoned all fixed and monolithic conceptions of cultures. We are also increasingly aware of this in terms of the periods that concern us here thanks to an increasing accuracy in datings (see Naudinot et al., 2018; pending publications on the engravings discovered in Angoulême in an Azilian context).

Thus, in choosing the term ‘traditions’ to designate the fragments of cultures we are studying, the initial construction of which is not clear to us, I have found a notion which no longer requires me to make continual excuses regarding its use, because it seems of appropriate scale for the sources concerned. It is also of appropriate scale for our perception of time, because the other major problem lies therein: how, with two to five centuries residual imprecision in radiocarbon dating, can we ‘group together a set of significant disparities for which experience has proven that the limits approximately coincide’ (5) as Claude Lévi-Strauss (1958, p. 325) invited us to do in order to define a culture – who, like many anthropologists, was not very comfortable in carrying out the exercise. What boundaries, even those that approximately coincide, can we claim to perceive in prehistory, given the extent to which these boundaries can be hazy even

among modern-day societies? Most of the time of course, it is a matter of gradual and continuous variations that can rapidly fluctuate over time, these boundaries indeed being the result of frequent renegotiations, reminding us of the great quote by André Leroi-Gourhan:

‘ethnicity [...] is not so much a past as a future’ (6)
(Leroi-Gourhan, 1973, p. 308).

So, if even modern-day boundaries are so hazy and changeable, we can imagine that this kind of geometry is particularly difficult to grasp for those of us studying nomadic societies known for their great social flexibility, particularly when we are approaching them through long units of time, artificially frozen by at least two centuries of imprecision.

In summary, the essence of my discomfort with the notion of culture in prehistory probably lies in the area of this question of limits, or boundaries. Whether we like it or not, the use of ‘culture’ is still sometimes highly charged with an essentialist vision that Gustaf Kossinna helped to popularize in archaeology. It is therefore a potentially dangerous vision (which currently sharply contrasts with that of many anthropologists), accompanied by a false hope of establishing borders, obscuring a fluidity that is both synchronic and diachronic. This illusory hope can still be detected on a few maps in general literature, which, while useful in establishing the distribution of technical ideas within a few centuries, inaccurately present themselves as population maps. The other reason for my discomfort is that a prehistorian’s use of the notion of culture is highly dependent on technical facts, masking all fluidity under the reification of certain contrasts which the prehistoric ethnicities did not necessarily consider at all symbolic of their identity or of that of other groups.

## IDEAS DO NOT HAVE WINGS OF THEIR OWN

I even wonder if we do not still invest a little too much effort into studying these local particularities, which, moreover, are so difficult to identify. For there have also been some impressive phenomena of cultural homogenization across a large part of Europe since at least the beginning of the late Palaeolithic which deserve more attention. These are ‘globalization’ phenomena, a rather anachronistic term that I risk using here in order to stir my readers. To describe the result of these phenomena, I rather like the notion of ‘currents’, as used by André Leroi-Gourhan (1983, p. 114), with all the fluidity it implies: the term seems to me to be ideally adapted for describing the spreading, of varying intensity and geometry, of practices and therefore ideas (7). Let us take the example of the Magdalenian: there are several currents, both symbolic and technical, which coincide in various ways, but not systematically (see for example the absence of harpoons, or the extreme rarity of art objects in the
Magdalenian in the Paris Basin: Valentin, 2011). When they coincide, these currents signal specific moments and areas of ideological unity at a very large scale (see, for example, the Magdalenian ‘schematic female figures’ in the form of engravings and statuettes from the Aquitaine to the Czech Republic). And let us note in passing that the intensity of certain phenomena of this kind only heightens the difficulty we have in grasping the more restricted characteristics, in other words, in establishing geographical limits around the cultural facts.

My research has made me very sensitive to these phenomena of technical, and even symbolic, globalization, which become perceptible as soon as we attempt to make long-distance comparisons. I am convinced that the existence of such vast currents, which transcend and blur any local particularities, reflects a fundamental aspect of the social forms of the late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Furthermore, this aspect seems to me insufficiently discussed and studied, doubtlessly because of the major efforts invested – although currently somewhat unproductive (see above) – in seeking to identify what divided these prehistoric societies (i.e. their particularities), while neglecting what sometimes powerfully connected them.

On many occasions, these societies have been capable of sharing a significant flow of information over considerable distances. Let us also add that, despite the many historical contrasts, one cannot help but be struck by the very long-term stability of certain elements: those at the basis of the multi-centennial coherence of the technical traditions in question. What is perhaps even more impressive is the multi-millennial duration of certain values structuring the symbolic systems of the late European Palaeolithic (see the limited range of shells used for adornment for example, or note, in terms of art, the perpetuation if not of all the themes represented, at least of those not represented, etc.). Clearly, this perpetuation of values shows that the transmission of information has always been significant despite any likely fluctuations in intensity.

So, let us think for a moment about the way this information may have spread, period by period. For the moment, this crucial aspect has been approached essentially in terms of symbols and adornment, the circulation of which at times indicates vast networks of contact and probably exchange.

But what remains to be determined is the intensity of these contacts – in short, if they were other than brief and sporadic, and what kind of cohesion they reflected. In terms of the transfer of somewhat complex technical ideas (which are therefore not simply a matter of technical convergence sensu André Leroi-Gourhan), it seems to me that their propagation necessarily required episodes of demonstration and learning, and, prior to this, being attracted to these ideas and convinced of their value. In other words, the time required for these exchanges of best practices would have varied in length depending on the difficulty of the ideas in question, which gives us some idea of the intensity of contact needed. The same applies to the sharing of symbols, which sometimes went hand in hand with efforts related to a real proselytism.

In my opinion, this provides us with some very general information about the prehistoric sociologies in question. Flexibility is known to be one of the fundamental characteristics of the sociology of such mobile hunter-gatherers, resulting in a well-known succession of fusion and fission episodes. As we know, these episodes reflect various economic, political, matrimonial and ceremonial demands, which went more or less hand in hand. It is interesting to note, in terms of one aspect of the question of how such techniques – in some cases related to weaponry – actually spread, that a broad study has reviewed the dominant ideas about post-marital forms of residency and found them to be much less virilocal than previously thought:

> ‘Most hunter gatherers are multi-residential; in certain camps the couples live with the wife’s parents, at other times with the husband’s parents, and sometimes with neither of them’ (Marlowe, 2005, p. 60).

As a result, these studies of modern populations allow us to envisage the frequent movement of individuals among prehistoric hunter-gatherers of both genders. And if these days, prehistorians frequently evoke ‘the mobility of ideas’ (including in the title of the round table that preceded this article), it is an indirect way of referring to the mobility of prehistoric hunter-gatherers themselves, since ideas could not have travelled on their own.

## CONTACTS OF VARYING INTENSITY

This frequent mobility of individuals might explain the continuous spreading of practices during the late Magdalenian, following the initial large-scale population movements during the expansion of the Magdalenian currents (see in particular Grimm and Weber, 2008). The rather abrupt abandonment of several Magdalenian ideas in favour of new practices introduced by the ‘Azilian’ currents might also have happened in a context of contact through limited but frequent movement during the 13th millennium cal. BC (see in particular Valentin, 2008; Grimm, 2019). Following the wide adoption of these new ideas however, rapid imitations could have been enough to explain the apparent uniformity in the highly-simplified techniques that were predominant in the 12th millennium cal. BC (see, in particular, Valentin, op. cit.; Grimm, op. cit.; Naudinot et al., 2019). For example, perhaps it was just the idea that flint could be knapped without looking for many blades that was passed from one group to another during the late Azilian, at a time when tools were only briefly used in comparison with the Magdalenian. And this decreased interest in blades may even have spontaneously developed in different places, connected to major changes in economic organization. The hypothesis of less intense contact during the late Azilian is confirmed by bibliographic research on the circulation of raw materials (Valentin, op. cit., p. 77–82) at a time when there were
also slightly more marked regional differences with regard to the few bone artefacts and symbolic practices observed.

It is clearly not insignificant however, that this possible reduction in social interactions took place in parallel with major transformations in the natural environment between the 13th and 11th millennia cal. BC in a well-known context of increased plant cover and faunal changes. At the same time, the observation of more intense contact during the Magdalenian supports a correlation proposed by some researchers based on modern day comparisons between arid landscapes or landscapes with strong seasonal contrasts and phenomena of cultural and even linguistic homogenization among hunter-gatherers. This correlation is

‘attributed to the greater environmental risk that characterizes these [...] regions, within which human groups have had to develop long-distance social relationships in order to ensure, through appropriate strategies (diversification of the resources used, storage, mobility, and exchange), their means of subsistence throughout the year’ (8) (d’Errico et al., 2006, p. 269).

According to these authors, this same correlation might explain the apparent correspondence in the late Palaeolithic between the coldest phases, the repeated Heinrich events, which each led to a vast expansion of the steppe landscapes, and the start of each major technical – and possibly symbolic – currents at a European scale. As such, the correlation between the last Heinrich event (HE 1) and the vast initial spread of the Magdalenian currents is highly striking. For the late Palaeolithic, this environmental avenue deserves to be carefully explored, bearing in mind that very subtle dynamics (seasonal variability and concentration of resources, predictability of their possible movements and therefore their availability, etc.) may have played a role in addition to the simple alternation between increasing and decreasing plant cover. In this respect, it is necessary to pay equally close attention to other vast cultural currents (the ‘Sauveterrian’, for example) that spread after the start of the Holocene, this time in a context of a very significant reforestation and an attenuation of the climate oscillations.

**Acknowledgements:** Many thanks to our two reviewers, Shumon T. Hussain and Denise Leesch, for their pertinent suggestions, including bibliographical ones. Thanks also to Sarita Mardon for the English translation of the original text. We are equally grateful to Gundula Lidke for stylistic and formal editing of the revised English manuscript.

## NOTES

(1) ‘L’inaccessible étoile’ is a metaphor from a well-known song by Jaques Brel. Nicole Pigeot often liked to use this homage to the French singer to reflect both the extent and difficulty of the palaeosociological ambition of which she was the main proponent. It is to her that I dedicate this fragment of a discussion that I would very much have liked to continue further.

(2) « voir en chaque témoin, même unique, la manifestation d’un « fait social total », magnifique notion fondatrice de nos disciplines » (Pigeot (ed.), 2004, p. 178), author’s translation.

(3) « les faits sociaux (...) mettent en branle dans certains cas la totalité de la société et de ses institutions (potlatch, clans affrontés, tribus se visitant, etc.) et dans d'autres cas, seulement un très grand nombre d'institutions (...). Tous ces phénomènes sont à la fois juridiques, économiques, religieux, et même esthétiques, morphologiques, etc. » (Mauss, 2012), author's translation.

(4) « en empruntant ce terme aux ethnologues, les préhistoriens ont dû en modifier sensiblement le contenu (...) Il va de soi qu’en reconnaissant ainsi une culture dans l’assemblage d’éléments partiels et disparates, les préhistoriens doivent renoncer à faire apparaître ce qui faisait l’unité et la cohérence interne de cette culture éventuelle » (Leroi-Gourhan [dir.], 1988, p. 295), author’s translation.

(5) « regrouper un ensemble d’écarts significatifs dont l’expérience prouve que les limites coïncident approximativement » (Lévi-Strauss, 1958, p. 325).

(6) « l’ethnie (...) est moins un passé qu’un devenir » (Leroi-Gourhan, 1973, p. 308), author’s translation.

(7) At the suggestion of one of the reviewers, I would like to point out that the notion of ‘currents’ is close to that of ‘civilization’. I hesitate to use the latter as it is highly equivocal because of possibly persistent linear evolutionary connotations. Moreover, its use in the sense of vast cultural entities presents, at another scale, the same problems of demarcation as the use of ‘culture’. My use of ‘currents’ is also close to that of ‘techno-complex’, but the latter one – aside from the fact that it is not very attractive – is somewhat reducing since it does not take into account the circulation of symbols.

(8) « attribué(e) au plus fort risque écologique qui caractérise ces (...) régions, au sein desquelles les groupes humains doivent développer des liens sociaux à forte distance leur permettant d’assurer par des stratégies adaptées (diversification des ressources exploitées, stockage, mobilité, échange) leurs moyens de subsistance au cours de l’année » (d’Errico et al., 2006, p. 269), author’s translation.

## BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

BIARD M., VALENTIN B. (2019) – ‘Belloisian’ know-how: clarification on the aims and methods of flint knapping around 11,600 cal. BP in the Paris Basin, in J.-P. Fagnart, L. Mevel, B. Valentin and M.-J. Weber (dir.), *L’Europe du Nord-Ouest autour de 10 000 BP (11 600 cal. BP) : quels changements ?* Actes de la 3e session du XXVIIe Congrès préhistorique de France (Amiens, 30 mai-4 juin 2016), Paris, Société préhistorique française, p. 303-315.

D’ERRICO F., SANCHEZ GOÑI M. F., VANHAEREN M. (2006) – L’impact de la variabilité climatique rapide des OIS 3-2, in E. Bard (dir.), *L’homme face au climat*, Paris, Odile Jacob, p. 265-282.

GRIMM S. B., WEBER M.-J. (2008) – The chronological framework of the Hamburgian in the light of old and new ¹⁴C dates, *Quartär*, 55, 17-40.
GRIMM S. B. (2019) – *Resilience and Reorganisation of Social Systems during the Weichselian Lateglacial in North-West Europe. An evaluation of the archaeological, climatic, and environmental record*, Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, 660 p.

GUY E. (2017) – *Ce que l'art préhistorique dit de nos origines*, Paris, Flammarion, 352 p.

JAUBERT J. (2003) – Les archéologues travaillant sur des périodes antérieures au Paléolithique supérieur appartiennent-ils à une espèce (ou sous-espèce) différente ?, in A. Averbouh, P. Bodu, P. Chambon, F. David, D. Jagu, C. Karlin, P. Soulier and S. Thiebault (eds.), *Sens dessus dessous. La recherche du sens en Préhistoire*, Recueil de textes offerts à Jean Leclerc et Claude Masset, *Revue archéologique de Picardie*, n° spécial 21, p. 69-74.

LALAND K. N. (2008) – *Animal Cultures, Current Biology*, 18, 9, p. 366-370.

LEESCH D. (1997) – *Hauterive-Champréveyres, 10. Un campe-ment magdalénien au bord du lac de Neuchâtel. Contexte, vestiges, activités*, Neuchâtel, Musée cantonal d'archéologie (Archeéologie neuchâteloise, 19), 270 p.

LEROI-GOURHAN A. (1973) – *Milieu et techniques*, Paris, A.-M. Métailié, 475 p.

LEROI-GOURHAN A. (1983) – *Les chasseurs de la Préhistoire*, Paris, Albin Michel (Sciences d'aujourd'hui), 156 p.

LEROI-GOURHAN A. (dir.) (1988) – *Dictionnaire de la Préhis-toire*, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1222 p.

LÉVI-STRAUSS C. (1958) – *Anthropologie structurale*, Paris, Pocket, 480 p.

MARLOWE F. W. (2005) – Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolu-tion, *Evolutionary Anthropology*, 14, p. 54-67.

MAUSS M. (2012) – *Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques*, Paris, Presses Uni-versitaires de France, 252 p.

NAUDINOT N., BOURDIER C., LAFORGE M., PARIS C., BELLOT-GURLET L. (2018) – Divergence in the evolution of Paleolithic symbolic and technological systems: The shin-ing bull and engraved tablets of Rocher de l'Impératrice, *PLOS ONE*, 13(9).

NAUDINOT N., FAGNART J.-P., LANGLAIS M., MEVEL L., VALENTIN B., (2019) – Les dernières sociétés du Tardiglaciaire et des tout débuts de l'Holocène en France. Bilan d'une trentaine d'an-nées de recherche, *Gallia-Préhistoire*, 59, p. 5-45.

OLIVIER L. (2012) – *Nos ancêtres les Germains. Les archéologues au service du nazisme*, Paris, Tallandier, 314 p.

OLIVE M. (1988) – *Une habitation magdalénienne d’Étiolles : l’unité P15*, Paris, Société préhistorique française (Mémoire XX), 2 vol., 175 p.

OLIVE M., PIGEOT N., TABORIN Y., YVON J.-M. (2005) – Toujours plus longue, une lame à crête exceptionnelle à Étiolles (Essonne), in G. Auxiette and F. Malrain (eds.), *Hommages à Claudine Pommepuy, Revue archéologique de Picardie*, n° spécial 22, p. 25-28.

PELEGRIN J. (2013) – Les grandes feuilles de laurier et autres objets particuliers du Solutréen : une valeur de signe, in Société d'Études et de Recherches Archéologiques sur le Paléolithique de la Vallée de la Claise (éd.), *Le Solutréen. 40 ans après Smith '66*, Tours, Archéa – FERACF (supplément à la Revue archéologique du Centre de la France, 47), p. 143-164.

PIGEOT N. (1987) – *Magdaléniens d'Étiolles, économie de débitage et organisation sociale (l'unité d'habitation U5)*, Paris, CNRS Éditions (Supplément à Gallia préhistoire, XV), 168 p.

PIGEOT N. (dir.) (2004) – *Les derniers Magdaléniens d'Étiolles. Perspectives culturelles et paléohistoriques*, Paris, CNRS Éditions (Supplément à Gallia préhistoire, XXXVII), 351 p.

TESTART A. (2012) – *Avant l'histoire. L'évolution des sociétés de Lascaux à Carnac*, Paris, Gallimard (Bibliothèque des Sciences Humaines), 560 p.

VALENTIN B. (2008) – *Jalons pour une paléohistoire des derniers chasseurs (XIVe-VIe millénaire avant J.-C.)*, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne (Cahiers archéologiques de Paris 1, 1), 325 p.

VALENTIN B. (2011) – Quand les courants magdaléniens traversaient l'Europe, in *Mille et une femmes de la fin des temps glaciaires*, Paris, Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, p. 31-46.

VALENTIN B., BON F. (2012) – De la complexité des sociétés paléolithiques, in S. de Beaune and H.-P. Francfort (dir.), *L'archéologie à découvert. Hommes, objets, espaces et tem-poralités*, Paris, CNRS Éditions, p. 176-183.

VALENTIN B., PÉTILLON J.-M. (2018) – Autour de Lascaux : dialogue avec Alain Testart, in D. Karadimas, V. Lécrivain and S. Rostain (dir.), *De l'ethnologie à la préhistoire*, Paris, L'Herne (Cahiers d'Anthropologie sociale, 16), p. 107-120.

Boris VALENTIN
Université Paris 1, UMR 7041 - ArScAn
21 allée de l'Université
92023 Nanterre cedex
valentin@univ-paris1.fr
La Société préhistorique française et la Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft, jumelées depuis 2012, ont organisé leur première séance commune les 16 et 17 mai 2019 dans les locaux de la Maison Interuniversitaire des Sciences de l'Homme - Alsace (MISHA, UMR 7044, Archimède) à Strasbourg. Cette séance avait pour sujet l'évolution des réseaux sociaux mis en évidence à partir des mouvements de populations, d'objets et d'idées depuis le Dernier Maximum Glaciaire jusqu'au début de l'Holocène. L'analyse de ces réseaux qui est nécessairement une analyse des limites de ces mouvements peut être déterminée à partir de différentes données archéologiques : circulations des matières premières lithiques et des éléments de parures, des convergences formelles dans les pratiques artistiques ou plus largement dans l'analyse fine des comportements techniques. La diversité des enregistrements depuis la seconde moitié du Paléolithique récent jusqu'au début du Mésolithique permet de mettre en évidence des relations à différentes échelles spatiales et de discuter leur signification selon les trois aspects de territorialité, des réseaux sociaux et des dynamiques de colonisation. Cette rencontre avait pour but d'initier une discussion sur ces thématiques entre des préhistorien.es conduisant leurs recherches sur des contextes géographiques, chrono-culturels et environnementaux différents.

The Société préhistorique française and the Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft, twinned since 2012, organised their first joint session on 16 and 17 May 2019 in the Maison Interuniversitaire des Sciences de l'Homme - Alsace (MISHA, UMR 7044, Archimède) in Strasbourg. The topic of this session was the evolution of the social networks highlighted from the movements of populations, objects and ideas from the Last Glacial Maximum to the beginning of the Holocene. The analysis of these networks, which is necessarily an analysis of the limits of these movements, can be determined on the basis of various archaeological data: circulations of lithic raw materials and elements of adornment, formal convergences in artistic practices or, more broadly, in the detailed analysis of technological behaviour. The diversity of records from the second half of the Upper Palaeolithic to the beginning of the Mesolithic makes it possible to highlight relationships at different spatial scales and to discuss their significance according to the three aspects of territoriality, social networks and colonisation dynamics. The aim of this meeting was to initiate a discussion on these themes between prehistorians conducting their research in different geographical, chrono-cultural and environmental contexts.

Die Société préhistorique française und die Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft, die seit 2012 Partnerorganisationen sind, haben am 16. und 17. Mai 2019 ihre erste gemeinsame Tagung in der Maison Interuniversitaire des Sciences de l'Homme - Alsace (MISHA, UMR 7044, Archimède) in Straßburg durchgeführt. Thema der Tagung war die Evolution sozialer Netzwerke, wie sie durch die Bewegung von Menschen, Objekten und Ideen zwischen dem Letzten Glazialen Maximum und dem Holozän fassbar wird. Die Analyse dieser Netzwerke, die notwendigerweise auch immer eine Analyse der Grenzen dieser Bewegungen darstellt, kann unter Berücksichtigung verschiedenster archäologischer Daten erfolgen: Transport lithischer Rohmaterialien und Schmuckgegenstände, formale Konvergenzen in der künstlerischen Praxis oder, genereller, durch die detaillierte Analyse technologischen Verhaltens. Die Diversität der Befunde während der zweiten Hälfte des Jungpaläolithikums bis zum Beginn des Mesolithikums erlaubt es, Beziehungen auf verschiedenen räumlichen Skalen zu beleuchten und ihre Bedeutung in Bezug auf die drei Aspekte Territorialität, soziale Netzwerke und Besiedlungsdynamiken zu diskutieren. Ziel des Treffens war es, eine Diskussion über diese Themen zwischen Forschenden anzustoßen, die zu verschiedenen geographischen, chrono-kulturellen und ökologischen Kontexten arbeiten.

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

ZBSA

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>

UFG
INSTITUT FÜR
UR- UND FRÜHGESCHICHTE ERLANGEN

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /></figure>

ciera
CENTRE INTERDISCIPLINARIE
D'ETUDES ET DE RECHERCHES
SUR L'ALLEMAGNE

<figure><img src="image_121.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_123.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /></figure>

CNL
CENTRE NATIONAL DU LIVRE

Cet exemplaire ne peut pas être vendu

Les « Séances de la Société préhistorique française » sont des publications en ligne disponibles sur :

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /></figure>